Wetting of Surface Grafted Hydrophilic‐b‐Hydrophobic Block Copolymer Brushes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The wetting of diblock copolymer brushes by water is studied.Th goal of this work is to understand how the thickness of the bottom and top copolymer block affect the wetting behavior, respectively.For the synthesis of diblock copolymer brushes the bottom block, a hydrophilic poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (PHEMA) brush is grafted from a undecyl-trichloro-selfassembled monolayer on silicon wafer.Then the top block, a hydrophobic polystyrene (PS) or poly(2-ethylhexyl methacrylate) (PEtHexMA) is grafted from the PHEMA block.Hereby, a hydrophilic-b-hydrophobic diblock copolymer is obtained.The top copolymer block determines the advancing contact angle of the copolymer brushes in their pristine state.The receding contact angle depends on the thickness of the top and bottom copolymer block.For a top copolymer thickness <30 nm the receding contact angle decreased.An increase in the thickness of the bottom block to 35 nm decreases the receding contact angle as well.By exposing the diblock copolymer brush with a thickness of the top block >30 nm to warm water the wetting properties switch from a hydrophobic to a hydrophilic.The surface switches back to the hydrophobic state by exposing it to toluene and subsequent temperature annealing.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".