Talk:Poly(N-isopropylacrylamide)

Quantyield (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

guillom 14:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Review - Mr.Holmium (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Content

The introduction is clear and accessible for non-experts, and covers mostly PNIPA applications. It is the same as the existing page. You can expand it a little by adding a short paragraph about its chemistry (e.g. synthesized by free radical polymerization, etc).

The content of some sections fall short while others justify its length. The history and applications sections cover all the important aspects of PNIPA as far as I can tell. The chemistry of the polymer, though, needs elaboration. For example, in the chemical and physical properties section, you can explain how the "inverse solubility" works (i.e. how it uptake/release water).

The two synthesis sections would be better organized if the preparation of the polymer is presented first rather than second. In the functionalization chemistry you mention the preparation of PNIPA by radical polymerization and do not explain why the initiator (AIBN) is added in the equation. Rather this is mentioned later in the following section.

Important terms are linked to their respective wikipedia pages, although not consistently. The history and chemical and physical properties sections contain terms that can be linked to their wiki pages (e.g. acrylamide).

Examples are plenty and appropriate and illustrate from synthesis to uses of the polymer. The content is not duplicative of existing wikipedia content.

Figures
The figures, photographs, and video are original and of high quality. They are informative and complement the text. The chemical structures are accurate, aligned and easy to read (appropriate size and color coded). It would be more appropriate to move the demo to the chemical and physical properties section and also explain what exactly the picture is. For example, the white solution contains the aggregate dehydrated polymer, etc. Also, the expanded properties table in the introduction is very good.

General

 * LCST abbreviation without reference to full terminology. In other words, the term(s) was not abbreviated prior the use of LCST in the later sections.
 * Coil-globule transition property was mentioned in the introduction but not referred to in any of the sections. This is potentially a good addition to the chem and phys prop section.
 * Typo for "APS". You used "ACS".

Overall presentation
The article is considerably expanded compared to the current page and have a good balance of chemistry and applications. Some sections need a little bit more elaboration, but overall the main points are laid out. The figures are adequate and appropriate. The organization of the page can be optimized by putting the information/figure in the right place. The references are good but most are inaccessible journal articles. This is not necessarily a weak point since most of the information about PNIPA come from these journals.

Response 1
Einsteinatemyhw talk

We addressed the issues with lengths of the sections. The introduction and chemical properties were revamped a lot. We moved the demonstration to the more appropriate section and expanded on the unique solubility characteristics of PNIPA. We added more links throughout the article. We rearranged the synthesis mechanism, we agreed that they were misplaced. We corrected abbreviations and defined terms that we forgot to define in the first draft. Thank you very much for reviewing our page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteinatemyhw (talk • contribs) 10:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Response 2
Thank you very much for reviewing our page. We have fixed the typos as you described. We have also added more publicly assessible citations so that they are not all journals. Most of the information about the polymer comes from journal articles so it is hard to find resources that are readily available to the public. Thank you for you suggestion about moving the LCST figures/video to the different section. We agreed with it and have moved it. We have also tried to link everything possible to existing Wikipedia sites. Again, I appreciate taking your time to review our page.

Quantyield (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Content
While there has been a major expansion of the page as far as content is concerned, some issues need addressed. There is an odd mix of too much explanation and not enough. You use the acronym NIPAM in the beginning without first saying what it is (easily determined from context, but still better to spell it all out at first). Similarly, you begin using LCST without actually tying that acronym to lower critical solution temperature, and your diagrams and explanation of syntheses use various other acronyms such as APS, AIBN, THF, and TMEDA without listing the full names. Chemists consider these relatively simple acronyms, but its best to spell them out at least once for the general Wikipedia audience. On the topic of acronyms, you should be consisted when referring to the name of the polymer. PNIPA, poly(NIPA), and PNIPAm are all used on the page, pick one and change all others to match. Oddly, you explain what homopolymerization, copolymerization, and terpolymerization are when you could just refer people to the main page on polymers and instead concentrate on explaining the syntheses given. For such a well-studied polymer, there was no explanation of why the polymer expels water below its LCST or why it adsorbs water in the first place. Also, you discuss the synthesis of pH sensitive polymer without ever explaining that it is pH sensitive, what behavior it actually demonstrates in response to pH changes, why it demonstrates this behavior, etc. All of this information could easily be put into the Chemical and physical properties section which is currently lacking much information. You also show the synthesis of modified PNIPA before the synthesis of the generic polymer, which is odd. Furthermore, you show many syntheses, but other than the initial section heading, you don’t say anything about the purpose of the various modifications. I’d rework this section to go more in depth as to the purpose of the shown alterations. I feel the applications section is the best section overall, but I feel it could be valuable to show the actual polymers used for different applications if it was not simply just PNIPA. Also, some of the applications, such as the pH-sensitive drug delivery, could use further explanation. Additionally, I think the history is a bit brief and could be slightly expanded to include more recent developments (currently stops 1980s). Additionally, you could use more links to other pages throughout (none at all in the applications section, for example).

Figures
The minimum figure requirement was definitely met. The figures were of decent quality and quite clear. I think the use of color will help most readers to more easily follow the reaction. My main concern here is figure size. I feel it would be best if all of the figures were the same size. Furthermore, many of the figures seem a bit big and unnecessarily spread out. I think they could be condensed and shrunk. If clarity of smaller figures is a concern, I recommend thickening the lines slightly and bolding all text.

Overall
The history is decent, going over the first synthesis and discovery of its properties, but could likely go more in depth and include more recent developments. Thermal sensitivity and pH sensitivity are mentioned, but never fully explained. This page still needs more information with regards to these physical and chemical properties of the polymer, such as what those properties are and how/why they work the way they do. The synthesis sections show procedures for the synthesis of many different PNIPA derivatives, but seem out of order and lack sufficient explanation. I feel the applications section is the best of the page, listing a variety of uses for the polymer, both current and potential, but it could use some expansion as well. Overall, this is a great improvement over the initial page, but it requires significant work before it can be released to the general public.

DGH91 (talk)

Response 1
Einsteinatemyhw talk

We reorganized the article to make the article flow much better. We corrected the abbreviations and defined terms that were ill-defined. We expounded upon LCST. We also were more consistent on naming conventions for the polymer. We also reordered the mechanism in the article to make it more clear. Thank you for the review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteinatemyhw (talk • contribs) 10:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Response 2
Thank you very much for reviewing our page. We have also added more publicly assessible citations so that they are not all journals. Most of the information about the polymer comes from journal articles so it is hard to find resources that are readily available to the public. We have edited the page with consistent use of acronyms of such things like LCST, PNIPA, and have expanded the names of the reagents used. We have also expanded the explanation of the synthesis in addition to the fixing of the synthesis mechanisms. Again, I appreciate taking your time to review our page.

Quantyield (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Instructor Comments
LCST has it's own Wikipedia page and should be linked. In addition, you should add a short description here to introduce the idea. I found it odd that the chain-end functionalized PNIPA were introduced first, and it is not clear (in that section) why you would want to do this. Perhaps it would be better to show this in the context of a specific example (and move to later in the page). I agree with the reviewers that some sections have adequate detail while others are simply just there. Love the photos and the movie - nice touch! UMChemProfessor (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Response 1
Einsteinatemyhw talk

We responded to the reviewers and agreed with their suggestions and we made significant overhauls to the article. Thank you for your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteinatemyhw (talk • contribs) 10:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Response 2
Thank you very much for reviewing our page. We have linked the LCST use in the beginning of the page and have also added a brief description into the phenomenon. Thank you for also letting us use the polymer for the images and video and for the idea of it as well. Again, I appreciate taking your time to review our page.

Quantyield (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian
A few more suggestions here.

strange to have it at the end without explanation.
 * I agree that the Chemical and Physical properties section could use a little more content.
 * Did you mean to add something under Lower Critical Solution Temperature in the last paragraph? It
 * I see you probably have read about uploading videos in Wikipedia since your format is Webm already. If you haven't seen Creation_and_usage_of_media_files yet, please take a look. It may help you adjust the size and location of the video etc. For images, see Picture tutorial.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Response 1
Einsteinatemyhw talk

We expanded the chemical and physical properties section as well as described topics more thoroughly. We also changed how LCST was presented and explained it in more depth as well as link the main article in a more appropriate section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteinatemyhw (talk • contribs) 10:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Response 2
Thank you very much for reviewing our page. We have relocated the LCST images and video to the chemical and physical properties section and have also added a description into what is happening. We also have adjusted the video and image sizes. Again, I appreciate taking your time to review our page.

Quantyield (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)