Acrylamide‐sodium acrylate copolymers: A comparison between copolymerization and hydrolysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Polyacrylamide‐co‐sodium acrylate has been prepared via copolymerization of acrylamide and acrylic acid, or the hydrolysis of a pre‐formed nonionic polymer. Both macromolecules had a charge of 24 mol% with a molar mass of 25 million g/mol. While one might expect similar performance, the hydrolyzed materials were superior in rheology modification, while the copolymerized samples worked better as flocculants. This hydrolysis reaction is influenced by the dyad sequence and produced a relatively uniform charge distribution along the backbone. These partially hydrolyzed polyelectrolytes had approximately 40% higher solution viscosities compared to the copolymerized samples. The rheological properties were also more tolerant to temperature, electrolytes, and hardness. Such molecules would be expected to perform well as pushing fluids as used in enhanced oil recovery processes. In contrast, when tested on an inorganic sludge, with a high level of polar and soluble hydrophobic molecules, the copolymerized sample provided larger flocs, a clearer filtrate, and faster settling. The hydrolyzed macromolecules essentially functioned only as a coagulant generating pin flocs. Depending on the application, polymer structure can be tuned by the method of synthesis. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report comparing the influence of synthesis method on polyacrylamide solution properties and application performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".