An investigation of solvolytic reactions and exploration of 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate/methyl acrylate free radical copolymerization kinetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In-situ NMR is used to determine individual monomer conversion profiles and thus comonomer composition drifts vs. overall monomer conversion for the radical copolymerization of 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA) with methyl acrylate (MA) in dimethyl sulfoxide, toluene, ethanol (EtOH), and an ethanol/water mixture containing 75 wt% EtOH. A faster incorporation of DMAEMA was observed in the copolymer compared to MA in all systems, with the data used to estimate reactivity ratios. In addition, the copolymer composition-averaged propagation rate coefficients ( ) were obtained using the pulsed laser polymerization – size exclusion chromatography (PLP-SEC) technique for the system in bulk and in EtOH. While the terminal model provided a good representation of copolymer composition, the penultimate model was needed to represent DMAEMA-MA behavior. When DMAEMA and MA were present in water-rich EtOH/water mixtures, the solvolysis of DMAEMA formed methacrylic acid (MAA) and ethyl methacrylate (EMA), potentially leading to formation of a tetrapolymer. While the kinetics of this more complex system was not studied, it was demonstrated that the influence of monomer solvolysis can be important for DMAEMA copolymerization in aqueous solvent mixtures.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".