Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Machine Learning for Polymer Chemical Resistance to Organic Solvents

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A 0.91-AUC model predicts polymer resistance to solvents

desk verdict Useful new dataset and a plausible GBDT pipeline for polymer-solvent resistance screening, but the solvent-cluster CV is leaked and the 'key factor' claims are largely self-referential. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05344 v1 pith:D3HFDJ4F submitted 2025-09-02 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Shogo Kunieda , Mitsuru Yambe , Hiromori Murashima , Takeru Nakamura , Toshiaki Shintani , Hitoshi Kamijima , Yoshihiro Hayashi , Yosuke Hanawa
show 1 more author
Ryo Yoshida
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords chemicalresistancepolymer–solventcompatibilitygradientboostingforcefielddescriptorsmoleculardynamicsFlory–Hugginsparametercrystallinitysolventpolarity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that chemical resistance of a polymer–solvent pair can be predicted from a small set of physics-based descriptors without measuring the pair directly. Training a gradient boosting classifier on 2,231 labels drawn from industrial chemical-resistance charts, the model reaches ROC-AUC 0.85 when entire polymers are left out and 0.91 when solvent clusters are left out. The authors argue that polymer crystallinity and density, together with solvent polarity, are the dominant governing factors, and that the Flory–Huggins interaction parameter is informative mainly for semicrystalline polymers, where solvent penetration begins in amorphous regions. If correct, the result gives a screening tool for replacing persistent fluoropolymers and for designing solvent-resistant materials from computed properties alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the joint feature vector: a kernel-mean-embedded histogram of GAFF2 force-field parameters (atomic mass, charge, van der Waals well depth, bond and angle force constants, and similar terms) for both polymer and solvent, augmented with molecular-dynamics-derived polymer properties (density, radius of gyration, heat capacities, dielectric constants), a binary crystallinity label, and the COSMO-RS Flory–Huggins χ parameter. A gradient boosting decision tree maps this vector to P(non-resistant). The claim is that this combination carries the chemistry that solubility-parameter distances miss.

What would settle it

Compile a fresh test set of, say, 200 polymer–solvent pairs absent from the 2,231, measure weight change after standardized two-day immersion at fixed temperature, and compare the model's ROC-AUC against those physical measurements. If the model's discrimination collapses—or if its errors line up with which manufacturer's chart a pair came from—the claimed accuracy was an artifact of label construction rather than chemical resistance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a predictive classification of chemical resistance: a polymer–solvent pair is 'resistant' only if every manufacturer chart labels it under the most stringent criterion, and 'non-resistant' otherwise. Using force-field descriptors of both molecules, equilibrium molecular-dynamics properties of the polymer, a crystallinity label, and a COSMO-RS-based Flory–Huggins χ parameter, a gradient boosting decision tree separates the two classes with ROC-AUC 0.85 by polymer and 0.91 by solvent cluster. The authors further show that the learned model encodes physically expected trends: crystalline and denser polymers are predicted more resistant, polar solvents are

Load-bearing premise

The binary resistance labels are trustworthy: they are assembled from manufacturer charts with different test criteria, and a pair counts as resistant only if every source ranks it under the strictest standard, so 'non-resistant' may partly encode untested pairs or harsher testing rather than true chemical incompatibility.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Chemical resistance can be screened computationally before synthesis: new polymers can be scored against thousands of solvents from molecular-dynamics descriptors alone.
  • The identified factors give design rules: raising crystallinity and density, or introducing polar and rigid repeat units, should improve resistance; solvent selection should favor polar, rigid molecules.
  • χ-based screening is only reliable for semicrystalline polymers; for amorphous or highly crystalline polymers, predictions should rely on other descriptors.
  • The model provides a benchmark for replacing persistent fluoropolymers with degradable alternatives that match resistance profiles.
  • A compact descriptor set makes the model's decisions explainable in terms of physical quantities, linking data-driven predictions to established theory.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The label-construction rule (resistant only if all sources agree) likely makes 'non-resistant' include pairs that were merely untested or tested under harsher conditions; the model's probabilities may therefore be better read as resistance confidence than as physical dissolution propensity. This is my inference, not the paper's.
  • Because the χ parameter failed for amorphous polymers, a natural extension is to add kinetic or swelling-relaxation descriptors (diffusion coefficients, chain-relaxation timescales) for amorphous systems; the paper's two-step picture suggests equilibrium thermodynamics is insufficient there.
  • The same feature stack could be repurposed to predict continuous outcomes—weight change, swelling ratio, or time-to-failure—rather than binary labels, giving a graded resistance scale for engineering design.
  • The crystallinity classifier was trained on only 27 polymers yet applied to 40,971 virtual polymers; the downstream density–resistance heatmaps inherit that small-training uncertainty and should be treated as indicative trends, not absolute predictions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a machine-learning framework to predict the chemical resistance of polymer–solvent pairs. The authors construct a dataset of 2,231 combinations from six manufacturer chemical-resistance charts, binarize the ratings using the most stringent criterion and unanimity across sources, and train a gradient-boosting decision tree on force-field descriptors, MD-derived polymer properties, a crystallinity label, and a COSMO-RS Flory–Huggins χ parameter. They report ROC-AUC values of 0.85 under leave-one-polymer-out cross-validation and 0.91 under leave-one-solvent-cluster-out cross-validation. The trained model is then applied to 40,971 virtual polymers and 9,828 solvents, and feature analyses are used to claim that polymer crystallinity, polymer density, and solvent polarity are key factors governing chemical resistance. The paper also discusses the χ parameter in relation to a two-step dissolution model for semicrystalline polymers.

Significance. If the dataset and labels are trustworthy, the polymer-level LOGOCV AUC of 0.85 would be a useful contribution, and the physically motivated descriptors (force-field kernel mean embeddings, MD properties, COSMO-RS χ) are a positive feature of the work. The paper also makes concrete, falsifiable predictions for a large virtual chemical space, which is valuable for screening. However, the target-label construction is a major source of uncertainty, the solvent-cluster validation scheme is biased by using outcome-derived clusters, and the feature-importance analysis is largely self-referential. The central claims are therefore not yet established at the level claimed in the abstract.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methods, Datasets] The binary label definition is load-bearing: combinations are labeled 0 only if they meet the most stringent resistance criterion within a source, and, when multiple sources rate a pair, only if all sources label it resistant. Manufacturer charts differ in immersion time, evaluation metric (weight change, appearance, mechanical properties), and solvent handling, so this rule conflates 'resistant under the strictest available test and all sources' with 'chemically resistant.' Pairs tested only under mild conditions or rated conditionally by one source are coded as non-resistant. No inter-source reliability analysis, manual audit, or external experimental validation is provided. This affects every reported AUC and every feature-interpretation result. Please provide sensitivity analyses (e.g., alternative rating thresholds, excluding ambiguous ratings, per-source agreement statistics) and s
  2. [Methods, Datasets; Results, Model accuracy (Fig. 3c)] The solvent clusters used for leave-one-cluster-out CV were constructed by sorting the 132 solvents 'based on the proportion of non-resistant entries' and clustering them into ten groups. This uses the target labels to define the validation groups. Under LOGOCV, the held-out cluster is adjacent in label-proportion space to clusters in the training set, so the model can interpolate along the outcome gradient, and the group structure itself encodes outcome information. The reported 0.91 AUC is therefore not a reliable estimate of generalization to new solvent groups. Please re-run the evaluation with clusters defined from solvent features alone, or with random/stratified folds, and report both estimates. The polymer-level LOGOCV (0.85) is not affected by this specific issue.
  3. [Results, Polymer features (Fig. 5a, 5b, 6)] Crystallinity label and MD density are input features of the resistance model. Figure 5a reports the MIC between the model's predicted non-resistance probability and these same input features, and Figure 6 plots the predicted probability against density. A model given a feature will generally have its output correlate with that feature, so these plots demonstrate that the model uses the features, not that crystallinity or density 'govern chemical resistance.' The abstract's physical claim is not supported by this self-referential analysis. Moreover, the 40,971 virtual polymer resistance predictions are never checked against experiments. Please reframe this as model interrogation, provide an ablation (e.g., retraining without crystallinity or density), or validate on independent experimental data.
  4. [Results, Solvent features (Figs. 7–8)] Figures 7 and 8 analyze the model's predicted non-resistance probability for 9,828 solvents against PE. All of these are model outputs, not measurements, and the polarity/rigidity trends are correlations between the model's output and its input descriptors. Without any experimental check or even a baseline comparison to Hansen solubility parameters, the claim that solvent polarity is a key governing factor of chemical resistance is conditional on the model and on the label construction. The 'like dissolves like' observation is consistent with the model being able to read polarity from the force-field descriptors, but it does not independently confirm a physical mechanism.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Descriptors] Typographical and terminology issues: 'F orce field' has a stray space; 'FFKM' is used without definition; 'Kangle' appears both as 'k_angle' and 'Kangle'. Please standardize.
  2. [Results, Model accuracy] Figure 3 caption and in-figure labels are somewhat redundant ('2 class classification LOGOCV AUC score for polymer'). Clarify panel labels to avoid confusion.
  3. [Results, Solvent features] In Figure 7b, the text says nearly all 9,828 solvents are predicted non-resistant, while Figure 8a reports n=558 resistant and n=8,392 non-resistant. Please reconcile these numbers or clarify the threshold used for 'nearly all'.
  4. [Results, Polymer crystallinity] The crystallinity classifier is trained on only 27 polymers and applied to 40,971 virtual polymers. The paper acknowledges this in one sentence, but the subsequent interpretation treats predicted crystallinity as reliable. A more prominent caveat and, if possible, a test on a small independent set of polymers would strengthen the analysis.
  5. [Introduction/Results] No baseline comparison is made to conventional solubility parameters (e.g., HSP distance or a χ-only classifier). Since the introduction motivates the work as going 'beyond conventional solubility models,' at least one simple baseline would help the reader judge the added value of the proposed descriptors.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Solvent-cluster validation and χ-parameter interpretation are partially circular; polymer-level AUC and feature-importance findings retain independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Methods, Datasets (solvent clustering for LOGOCV)]
    "The 132 solvents were sorted based on the proportion of non-resistant entries and clustered into ten groups, which were then used for model validation via leave-one-group-out cross-validation (LOGOCV) as detailed later."

    The validation groups are constructed from the same non-resistance labels the model is trained to predict. In solvent-cluster LOGOCV, a held-out cluster is composed of solvents grouped with training solvents by label proportions, so the split is not label-independent. The reported solvent-level AUC (0.91) is therefore partly an artifact of the clustering construction rather than a fully out-of-sample prediction.

  2. self definitional [Results and Discussion, Solubility parameter (Figure 9b, PE vs 9,828 solvents)]
    "Resistance predictions based on the chemical resistance model are color-coded as green (resistant) and red (non-resistant). When examining the χ parameter distributions by resistance label, polymers with weak or intermediate chemical resistance showed clear separation between resistant and non-resistant cases."

    The 'resistance label' used to stratify χ distributions in Figure 9b is the model's own predicted class, and χ is one of the model's input features. The observed χ separation between predicted resistant and non-resistant groups is therefore a constructed consequence of the model's reliance on χ, not an independent empirical test. The paper's conclusion that 'the χ parameter is a meaningful indicator' thus rests on a self-referential loop: the model output, which is a function of χ, is used to confirm χ's relevance.

full rationale

The paper's central predictive claim has a genuinely independent component: the polymer-level LOGOCV (ROC-AUC 0.85) uses leave-one-polymer-out splits with no label-derived grouping, so that result is not contaminated by the solvent-cluster construction. The feature-importance analysis, in which MICs are computed between the model's predicted probability and its own input features, is a standard form of model interpretability rather than a circular derivation; furthermore, the conclusions about crystallinity, density, and polarity are externally supported by cited dissolution and diffusion studies. However, two steps are partially circular. First, the solvent clusters used for the second headline validation number are generated directly from the non-resistance label proportions, so the solvent-cluster LOGOCV (ROC-AUC 0.91) is evaluated under a split that is not label-independent. Second, the solubility-parameter analysis obtains the 'resistance label' from the model's own predictions, which include χ as an input feature, and then interprets the resulting χ separation as evidence that χ is a meaningful indicator. Both steps reduce, at least in part, to the model's own construction rather than to independent validation. Thus the overall circularity score is 6: partial circularity affecting one of the two headline validation results and part of the interpretability analysis, while the polymer-level prediction and the externally supported feature trends retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model uses no new physical entities. It relies on existing descriptors (GAFF2, COSMO-RS chi, RadonPy MD properties) and a hand-labeled crystallinity flag. The main unstated support is the reliability of the heterogeneous manufacturer-derived labels and the validity of the cross-validation structure, especially the target-based solvent clustering.

free parameters (2)
  • Gradient boosting hyperparameters = not reported
    Model relies on GBDT hyperparameters (tree depth, learning rate, etc.) that are not listed; performance may depend on tuning.
  • Solvent cluster structure (k=10) = 10 clusters defined by target label proportions
    The solvent groups used for LOGOCV were formed by sorting solvents by the proportion of non-resistant entries and clustering into ten groups; this hand-chosen grouping based on the target variable can affect the validity of the cross-validation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Flory-Huggins chi parameter computed via COSMO-RS accurately represents polymer-solvent thermodynamic interactions.
    Used as a key descriptor in the model (Methods, Descriptors).
  • domain assumption GAFF2-based force field descriptors and RadonPy all-atom MD simulations provide reliable physical properties for polymers and solvents.
    All polymer features (density, Rg, heat capacities, etc.) come from RadonPy MD, and force field descriptors from GAFF2; accuracy of MD is assumed (Methods, Descriptors).
  • domain assumption The crystallinity labels assigned to the 27 polymers are correct and generalizable through the crystallinity classifier to 40,971 virtual polymers.
    Crystallinity is the most important feature; the virtual polymer analysis depends on a classifier trained on 27 labels (Results, Polymer crystallinity).
  • domain assumption The merged chemical resistance labels from manufacturer reports are accurate despite heterogeneous evaluation criteria.
    Label construction uses the most stringent criterion and requires all sources to agree for a 0 label, which may encode test severity or missingness (Methods, Datasets).
  • ad hoc to paper In leave-one-group-out cross-validation, the group definitions are not informative about the target labels.
    Solvent clusters were created from the proportion of non-resistant entries in the full data, so this assumption is violated for the solvent-cluster CV (Methods, Datasets).
  • domain assumption The two-step dissolution model (solvent penetration of amorphous regions followed by crystalline breakdown) explains chemical resistance differences.
    Used to interpret chi parameter separation in semicrystalline polymers (Results, Solubility parameter).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Machine Learning for Polymer Chemical Resistance to Organic Solvents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D3HFDJ4F

@misc{pith2026250905344,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Machine Learning for Polymer Chemical Resistance to Organic Solvents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D3HFDJ4F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05344}
}
read the original abstract

Predicting the chemical resistance of polymers to organic solvents is a longstanding challenge in materials science, with significant implications for sustainable materials design and industrial applications. Here, we address the need for interpretable and generalizable frameworks to understand and predict polymer chemical resistance beyond conventional solubility models. We systematically analyze a large dataset of polymer solvent combinations using a data-driven approach. Our study reveals that polymer crystallinity and density, as well as solvent polarity, are key factors governing chemical resistance, and that these trends are consistent with established theoretical models. These findings provide a foundation for rational screening and design of polymer materials with tailored chemical resistance, advancing both fundamental understanding and practical applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05344 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Overview of the chemical resistance dataset. The horizontal axis represents 27 polymers, and the vertical axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Overview of features, model, and target used for predicting polymer chemical resistance. Features include the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Model validation performance and data distribution visualization for the chemical resistance dataset. (a) LOGOCV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Feature importance and property distributions related to polymer crystallinity.(a) Bar chart of the maximal infor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Prediction of chemical resistance and feature importance analysis based on polymer descriptors.(a) Correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Two-dimensional heatmap showing the relationship between polymer density and predicted non-resistance probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Prediction and visualization of chemical resistance descriptors for 9,828 organic solvents against PE. (a) Heatmap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Comparison of data distributions for force field parameters based on predicted non-resistance probabilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Histograms showing the relationship between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Schematic illustration of solvent penetration depending on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. Hansen, The Three Dimensional Solubility Parameter and Solvent Diffusion Coefficient and Their Importance in Surface Coating Formulation (Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1967)

    work page 1967

  2. [2]

    Hansen, Hansen Solubility Parameter: A User’s Handbook, 2nd ed

    C. Hansen, Hansen Solubility Parameter: A User’s Handbook, 2nd ed. (CRC Press, 2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    P. Zhou, J. Yu, K. L. S´ anchez-Rivera, G. W. Huber, and R. C. V. Lehn, Large-scale computational polymer sol- ubility predictions and applications to dissolution-based plastic recycling, Green Chemistry 25, 4402 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    N. A. Peppas, J. Z. Hilt, A. Khademhosseini, and R. Langer, Hydrogels in Biology and Medicine: From Molecular Principles to Bionanotechnology, Advanced Materials 18, 1345 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Q. Zhou, L. Zhang, T. Yang, and H. Wu, Stimuli- responsive polymeric micelles for drug delivery and can- cer therapy, International Journal of Nanomedicine 13, 2921 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    A. Blum, S. A. Balan, M. Scheringer, X. Trier, G. Gold- enman, I. T. Cousins, M. Diamond, T. Fletcher, C. Hig- gins, A. E. Lindeman, G. Peaslee, P. de Voogt, Z. Wang, and R. Weber, The Madrid Statement on Poly- and Per- fluoroalkyl Substances (PF ASs), Environmental Health Perspectives 123, A107 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    J. B. Brown, J. M. Conder, J. A. Arblaster, and C. P. Higgins, Assessing Human Health Risks from Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PF AS)-Impacted Vegetable Consumption: A Tiered Modeling Approach, Environ- mental Science & Technology 54, 15202 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    I. T. Cousins, G. Goldenman, D. Herzke, R. Lohmann, M. Miller, C. A. Ng, S. Patton, M. Scheringer, X. Trier, L. Vierke, Z. Wang, and J. C. DeWitt, The concept of essential use for determining when uses of PF ASs can be phased out, Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 21, 1803 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    J. H. Hildebrand and R. L. Scott, The Solubility of Non- electrolytes, 3rd ed. (Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York, 1950)

    1950

  2. [10]

    P. J. Flory, Thermodynamics of High Polymer Solutions, The Journal of Chemical Physics 10, 51 (1942)

    1942

  3. [11]

    M. L. Huggins, Solutions of Long Chain Compounds, The Journal of Chemical Physics 9, 440 (1941)

    1941

  4. [12]

    C. Kim, A. Chandrasekaran, T. D. Huan, D. Das, and R. Ramprasad, Polymer Genome: A Data-Powered Poly- mer Informatics Platform for Property Predictions, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 122, 17575 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Xu and J

    Q. Xu and J. Jiang, Machine Learning for Polymer Swelling in Liquids, ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2, 3576 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Y. Aoki, S. Wu, T. Tsurimoto, Y. Hayashi, S. Minami, O. Tadamichi, K. Shiratori, and R. Yoshida, Multitask Machine Learning to Predict Polymer–Solvent Miscibil- ity Using Flory–Huggins Interaction Parameters, Macro- molecules 56, 5446 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    J. Yu, C. Zhang, Y. Cheng, Y.-F. Yang, Y.-B. She, F. Liu, W. Su, and A. Su, SolvBERT for solvation free energy and solubility prediction: A demonstration of an NLP model for predicting the properties of molecular com- plexes, Digital Discovery 2, 409 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Kuenneth and R

    C. Kuenneth and R. Ramprasad, polyBERT: A chemical language model to enable fully machine-driven ultrafast polymer informatics, Nature Communications 14, 4099 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Agarwal, A

    S. Agarwal, A. Mahmood, and R. Ramprasad, Polymer Solubility Prediction Using Large Language Models, ACS Materials Letters , 2017 (2025)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Kayo Corporation, Chemical Resistance of Plastics

  11. [19]

    ASOH Co., Ltd., Chemical Resistance Chart

  12. [20]

    PISCO Corporation, Chemical Resistance Data

  13. [21]

    VICI AG International, Chemical resistance PEEK and other polymers

  14. [22]

    Professional Plastics, Chemical Resistance PCTFE

  15. [23]

    Thermo Fisher Scientific, Labware Chemical Resistance Table

  16. [24]

    Hayashi, J

    Y. Hayashi, J. Shiomi, J. Morikawa, and R. Yoshida, RadonPy: Automated physical property calculation us- ing all-atom classical molecular dynamics simulations for polymer informatics, npj Computational Materials 8, 1 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Hansen Solubility Parameters in Practice

  18. [26]

    Kusaba, Y

    M. Kusaba, Y. Hayashi, C. Liu, A. Wakiuchi, and R. Yoshida, Representation of materials by kernel mean embedding, Physical Review B 108, 134107 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    J. Wang, R. M. Wolf, J. W. Caldwell, P. A. Kollman, and D. A. Case, Development and testing of a general amber force field, Journal of Computational Chemistry 25, 1157 (2004)

    2004

  20. [28]

    Muandet, K

    K. Muandet, K. Fukumizu, B. Sriperumbudur, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, Kernel Mean Embedding of Distributions: A Review and Beyond, Foundations and Trends® in Ma- 14 chine Learning 10, 1 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    RadonPy Github site, RadonPy project (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    TURBOMOLE | Program Package for Electronic Struc- ture Calculations, https://www.turbomole.org/

  23. [31]

    KG,, COSMOtherm, Version C3.0, http://www.cosmologic.de

    COSMOlogic GmbH & Co. KG,, COSMOtherm, Version C3.0, http://www.cosmologic.de

  24. [32]

    Pedregosa, F

    F. Pedregosa, F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, G. Varo- quaux, N. Org, A. Gramfort, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, V. Michel, L. Fr, B. Thirion, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, A. T...

  25. [33]

    A. L. Liu, R. Venkatesh, M. McBride, E. Reichmanis, J. C. Meredith, and M. A. Grover, Small Data Machine Learning: Classification and Prediction of Poly(ethylene terephthalate) Stabilizers Using Molecular Descriptors, ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2, 5592 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    D. N. Reshef, Y. A. Reshef, H. K. Finucane, S. R. Grossman, G. McVean, P. J. Turnbaugh, E. S. Lander, M. Mitzenmacher, and P. C. Sabeti, Detecting Novel As- sociations in Large Data Sets, Science 334, 1518 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Luo and J.-U

    C. Luo and J.-U. Sommer, Disentanglement of Lin- ear Polymer Chains Toward Unentangled Crystals, ACS Macro Letters 2, 31 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    C. Luo, M. Kr¨ oger, and J.-U. Sommer, Entanglements and Crystallization of Concentrated Polymer Solutions: Molecular Dynamics Simulations, Macromolecules 49, 9017 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Luo and J.-U

    C. Luo and J.-U. Sommer, Role of Thermal History and Entanglement Related Thickness Selection in Polymer Crystallization, ACS Macro Letters 5, 30 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    H. Xiao, C. Luo, D. Yan, and J.-U. Sommer, Molecu- lar Dynamics Simulation of Crystallization Cyclic Poly- mer Melts As Compared to Their Linear Counterparts, Macromolecules 50, 9796 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Yamamoto, Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Stretch-Induced Crystallization in Polyethylene: Emer- gence of Fiber Structure and Molecular Network, Macro- molecules 52, 1695 (2019)

    T. Yamamoto, Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Stretch-Induced Crystallization in Polyethylene: Emer- gence of Fiber Structure and Molecular Network, Macro- molecules 52, 1695 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Zhang and R

    W. Zhang and R. G. Larson, Direct All-Atom Molecu- lar Dynamics Simulations of the Effects of Short Chain Branching on Polyethylene Oligomer Crystal Nucleation, Macromolecules 51, 4762 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    L¨ utzow, A

    N. L¨ utzow, A. Tihminlioglu, R. P. Danner, J. L. Duda, A. De Haan, G. Warnier, and J. M. Zielinski, Diffusion of toluene and n-heptane in polyethylenes of different crys- tallinity, Polymer 40, 2797 (1999)

    1999

  34. [42]

    Z. Xu, L. Gehui, K. Cao, D. Guo, J. Serrano, A. Esker, and G. Liu, Solvent-Resistant Self-Crosslinked Poly(ether imide), Macromolecules 54, 3405 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Rangou, M

    S. Rangou, M. Appold, B. Lademann, K. Buhr, and V. Filiz, Thermally and Chemically Stable Isoporous Block Copolymer Membranes, ACS Macro Letters 11, 1142 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    X. Ji, Z. Wang, J. Yan, and Z. Wang, Partially bio-based polyimides from isohexide-derived diamines, Polymer 74, 38 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    C. Du, A. Zhang, H. Bai, and L. Li, Robust Microsieves with Excellent Solvent Resistance: Cross-Linkage of Per- forated Polymer Films with Honeycomb Structure, ACS Macro Letters 2, 27 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    M. P. Dugas, S. Zhong, B. Park, J. Jiang, J. A. Ouimet, J. Xu, J. L. Schaefer, and W. A. Phillip, Influence of Sol- vent Affinity on Transport through Cross-Linked Copoly- mer Membranes for Organic Solvent Nanofiltration, ACS Applied Polymer Materials 5, 6781 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    D. T. W. Toolan, A. Isakova, R. Hodgkinson, N. Reeves- McLaren, O. S. Hammond, K. J. Edler, W. H. Briscoe, T. Arnold, T. Gough, P. D. Topham, and J. R. Howse, Insights into the Influence of Solvent Polarity on the Crystallization of Poly(ethylene oxide) Spin-Coated Thin Films ...

    2016

  40. [48]

    M. Lang, R. Scholz, L. L¨ oser, C. Bunk, N. Fribiczer, S. Seiffert, F. B¨ ohme, and K. Saalw¨ achter, Swelling and Residual Bond Orientations of Polymer Model Gels: The Entanglement-Free Limit, Macromolecules 55, 5997 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Navarro, A

    L. Navarro, A. F. Th¨ unemann, and D. Klinger, Solvent Annealing of Striped Ellipsoidal Block Copolymer Parti- cles: Reversible Control over Lamellae Asymmetry, As- pect Ratio, and Particle Surface, ACS Macro Letters 11, 329 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Nezili, A

    Y. Nezili, A. Mdarhri, I. El Aboudi, C. Brosseau, M. Za- ghrioui, A. Ghorbal, D. He, and J. Bai, Solvent polar- ity impacts the sorption kinetics and tensile properties of carbon black filled elastomers, Polymer 264, 125563 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    W. L. Jorgensen, D. S. Maxwell, and J. Tirado-Rives, Development and Testing of the OPLS All-Atom Force Field on Conformational Energetics and Properties of Or- ganic Liquids, Journal of the American Chemical Society 118, 11225 (1996)

    1996

  44. [52]

    Jorge, A

    M. Jorge, A. W. Milne, M. C. Barrera, and J. R. B. Gomes, New Force-Field for Organosilicon Molecules in the Liquid Phase, ACS Physical Chemistry Au 1, 54 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Venezia, A

    E. Venezia, A. Correa, R. Esposito, G. Muna` o, A. D. Nicola, and G. Milano, Molecular Models of Nanoplastics from Semi-Crystalline Polyethylene, Macromolecules 58, 3119 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    Pawlak and A

    A. Pawlak and A. Galeski, Cavitation during Tensile Deformation of Polypropylene, Macromolecules 41, 2839 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    A. C. Puleo, D. R. Paul, and P. K. Wong, Gas sorp- tion and transport in semicrystalline poly(4-methyl-1- pentene), Polymer 30, 1357 (1989)

    1989

  48. [56]

    N. L. Thomas and A. H. Windle, A theory of case II diffusion, Polymer 23, 529 (1982)

    1982

  49. [57]

    N. A. Peppas, J. C. Wu, and E. D. von Meerwall, Mathe- matical Modeling and Experimental Characterization of Polymer Dissolution, Macromolecules 27, 5626 (1994)

    1994

  50. [58]

    Devotta, V

    I. Devotta, V. Premnath, M. V. Badiger, P. R. Rajamo- hanan, S. Ganapathy, and R. A. Mashelkar, On the dy- namics of mobilization in swelling-dissolving polymeric systems, Macromolecules 27, 532 (1994)

    1994

  51. [59]

    Gardeniers, M

    M. Gardeniers, M. Mani, E. de Boer, D. Hermida-Merino, R. Graf, S. Rastogi, and J. A. W. Harings, Hydration, Refinement, and Dissolution of the Crystalline Phase in Polyamide 6 Polymorphs for Ultimate Thermomechani- cal Properties, Macromolecules 55, 5080 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    Ribar, R

    T. Ribar, R. Bhargava, and J. L. Koenig, FT-IR Imaging of Polymer Dissolution by Solvent Mixtures. 1. Solvents, Macromolecules 33, 8842 (2000). 15

    2000

  53. [61]

    A. Keller, A note on single crystals in polymers: Evi- dence for a folded chain configuration, The Philosophical Magazine: A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Applied Physics 2, 1171 (1957)

    1957

  54. [62]

    Kanomi, H

    S. Kanomi, H. Marubayashi, T. Miyata, and H. Jinnai, Reassessing chain tilt in the lamellar crystals of polyethy- lene, Nature Communications 14, 5531 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    Ercken, P

    M. Ercken, P. Adriaensens, G. Reggers, R. Carleer, D. Vanderzande, and J. Gelan, Use of Magnetic Res- onance Imaging To Study Transport of Methanol in Poly(methyl methacrylate) at Variable Temperature, Macromolecules 29, 5671 (1996)

    1996

  56. [64]

    Narasimhan and N

    B. Narasimhan and N. A. Peppas, On the Importance of Chain Reptation in Models of Dissolution of Glassy Polymers, Macromolecules 29, 3283 (1996)

    1996

  57. [65]

    P. Lyu, Z. Ding, M. Doi, and X. Man, A Unified Model for Non-Fickian Diffusion and Anomalous Swelling of Glassy Polymer Gels, ACS Macro Letters 13, 483 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    E. N. Brown and D. M. Dattelbaum, The role of crys- talline phase on fracture and microstructure evolution of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), Polymer 46, 3056 (2005)

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.