Aqueous and Non‐Aqueous Synthesis of 2‐(Dimethylamino)ethyl Methacrylate (Co)Polymers by Solution Radical Polymerization: Modeling and Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The radical polymerization kinetics of 2‐(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA) is explored in dimethyl sulfoxide, ethanol (EtOH), ethanol‐water (EtOH/H 2 O), and water. In situ nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy is used to study both solvolysis and polymerization kinetics. Hydrolysis of nonionized DMAEMA occurs in H 2 O and ethanolysis in EtOH/H 2 O mixtures to form both methacrylic acid (MAA) and ethyl methacrylate (EMA), with the presence of water increasing the rate of ethanolysis in the mixed solvent. Although some solvolysis occurred in EtOH and EtOH/H 2 O containing 25 wt.% H 2 O, the rates are sufficiently low that essentially poly(DMAEMA) homopolymer is synthesized, unlike the DMAEMA/MAA copolymer formed in water and the DMAEMA/MAA/EMA terpolymer formed in water‐rich EtOH/H 2 O. A model is constructed to represent the polymerization of nonionized DMAEMA in solution, with the experimental results used to estimate key rate coefficients. The model predictions show good agreement with the experimental data on monomer conversion, average molar masses, and molar mass distributions. Similarly, the rate coefficients for polymerization of ionized DMAEMA are estimated based on experiments conducted in water at pH 1 and 4. The understanding gained from these studies is combined into a comprehensive mechanistic model to describe the polymerization of partially‐ionized DMAEMA in the presence of hydrolysis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".