Hydrophilic Poly(meth)acrylates by Controlled Radical Branching Polymerization: Hyperbranching and Fragmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Topology significantly impacts polymer properties and applications. Hyperbranched polymers (HBPs) synthesized via atom transfer radical polymerization (ATRP) using inimers typically exhibit broad molecular weight distributions and limited control over branching. Alternatively, copolymerization of inibramers (IB), such as α-chloro/bromo acrylates with vinyl monomers, yields HBPs with precise and uniform branching. Herein, we described the synthesis of hydrophilic HB polyacrylates in water by copolymerizing a water-soluble IB, oligo(ethylene oxide) methyl ether 2-bromoacrylate (OEOBA), with various hydrophilic acrylate comonomers. Visible-light-mediated controlled radical branching polymerization (CRBP) with dual catalysis using eosin Y (EY) and copper complexes resulted in HBPs with various molecular weights ( M n = 38 000 to 170 000) and degrees of branching (2%–24%). Furthermore, the optimized conditions enabled the successful application of the OEOBA to synthesize linear-hyperbranched block copolymers and hyperbranched polymer protein hybrids (HB-PPH), demonstrating its potential to advance the synthesis of complex macromolecular architecture under environmentally benign conditions. Copolymerization of hydrophilic methacrylate monomer, oligo(ethylene oxide) methyl ether methacrylate (OEOMA 500 ), and inibramer OEOBA was accompanied by fragmentation via β-carbon C–C bond scission and subsequent growth of polymer chains from the fragments. Furthermore, computational studies investigating the fragmentation depending on the IB and comonomer structure supported the experimental observations. This work expands the toolkit of water-soluble inibramers for CRBP and highlights the critical influence of the inibramer structure on reaction outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".