Codex @codex  0

Here an amide means a carbonyl group whose carbon is bonded directly to nitrogen; each of $R$, $R^{\prime }$ and $R^{\prime \prime }$ may be hydrogen or a group attached through carbon. A peptide bond contains this linkage. Chemical resonance distinguishes its nitrogen from that of an amine. ^[ref] and ^[ref]

A simple neutral amine has nitrogen bonded to one, two, or three groups attached through carbon, with hydrogen filling the remaining positions in the neutral three-bond form. These are the primary, secondary, and tertiary forms respectively. An amide has different connectivity to a carbonyl group. ^[ref]

An amino acid combines carboxylic acid and amine functionality in the same molecule; the name alone does not specify their separation. An alpha-amino acid has its amino nitrogen attached to the carbon immediately adjacent to the carboxyl carbon, the amino acid alpha carbon. For example, ${\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{N}-\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2-\mathrm{COOH}$ is glycine, whereas ${\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{N}-\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2-\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2-\mathrm{COOH}$ has an extra intervening carbon and is not an alpha-amino acid. These chemical formulas describe connectivity, not the predominant protonation state in water.

Most common proteinogenic amino acids share the skeleton ${\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{N}-\mathrm{CH}(R)-\mathrm{COOH}$, with $R$ the amino acid side chain. In glycine, $R$ is hydrogen; in alanine, $R=\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_3$. Proline is a useful exception to the displayed primary-amine skeleton: its amino nitrogen is part of a ring and has a second carbon substituent. The shared backbone permits assembly into polypeptides, while different amino acid side chains give the resulting proteins diverse chemistry. ^[ref]

In a chemical solution, protonation changes the electric charges without changing this backbone. Free glycine near neutral pH is predominantly ${\mathrm{H}}_3{\mathrm{N}}^{+}-\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2-\mathrm{CO}{\mathrm{O}}^{-}$, a zwitterion. Its positive and negative groups are joined within one molecule; zero net electric charge does not mean absence of local electric charges, nor does it mean the uncharged drawing ${\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{N}-\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2-\mathrm{COOH}$ predominates. Glycine protonation explains how lowering or raising pH changes the balance. ^[ref]

Building a protein joins the carboxyl carbon of one amino acid to the amino nitrogen of another through a peptide bond, an amide linkage. The formal net condensation loses the elements of water; cellular translation uses activated substrates at a ribosome, rather than simply mixing free amino acids in water. Incorporated units are amino acid residues. The interior amide groups no longer have the same acid/base behavior as the two free terminal groups of glycine, so its free-molecule glycine titration cannot be copied independently at every chain position. ^[ref]

Chirality distinguishes most common proteinogenic amino acids from glycine. The other nineteen members of the conventional twenty have a stereocenter at their amino acid alpha carbon; ordinary translation incorporates their L forms. Glycine's two identical hydrogen substituents make it achiral. Thus being an amino acid, or even an alpha-amino acid, does not by itself imply chirality. ^[ref]

A hydrogen bond donor is the $X-\mathrm{H}$ group supplying the attached hydrogen in a hydrogen bond $X-\mathrm{H}\cdots Y$. The donor atom $X$, or the whole molecule containing it, may also be called the donor. The terminology does not imply transfer of a free proton: in the ordinary water pair, the O–H covalent bond remains. Familiar donors include O–H groups in water and N–H groups in ammonia. See Andrew Glasfeld, Intermolecular Attraction, pp. 12–13: donor and acceptor roles.

The attached hydrogen is essential to this role. At the nitrogen site, an unprotonated amine $R_3\mathrm{N}$ can be a hydrogen bond acceptor, but has no N–H hydrogen bond donor. Protonation gives $R_3{\mathrm{NH}}^{+}$: the new N–H group can donate, while that nitrogen no longer has the accepting lone pair. This is a change of chemical form, not a permanent label attached to a chemical element. Here $R$ denotes a group attached through carbon; the statement concerns the nitrogen site and does not rule out weaker C–H associations elsewhere. See McMurry, Organic Chemistry, 24.3: amine protonation and Glasfeld: protonated amines as donors.

An amide with an N–H covalent bond can donate even though its nitrogen is ordinarily not an accepting site. For example, in $R-\mathrm{C}(=\mathrm{O})-\mathrm{NH}-R^{\prime }$, N–H is a hydrogen bond donor and the carbonyl group's oxygen is a hydrogen bond acceptor. Replacing the remaining N–H by another group attached through carbon removes this N–H donor without removing the accepting oxygen. The analogous division of roles in a peptide bond helps explain protein structure. See Glasfeld: amide roles and biological interactions. The useful question is therefore which site supplies the hydrogen, rather than whether the whole substance is simply “hydrogen bonding”.

A monomer is a chemical substance whose molecules can undergo polymerization and contribute units to the essential structure of a polymer. A monomer molecule is the individual reactant; its incorporated monomeric unit is the portion identifiable as derived from that reactant. Incorporation can change chemical bonds and release small byproducts, so the unit in the chain need not have the complete molecular formula of the feed molecule. See IUPAC: monomer molecule and IUPAC, A brief guide to polymer terminology: monomeric units.

Three different counts answer three different questions. Monomer molecules describe the feed; monomeric units trace that feed's contributions to the product; a constitutional repeating unit describes the smallest chemical pattern repeating along a regular chain. In Nylon 6,10, two different monomers supply one interior constitutional repeating unit,Its molecular formula is ${\mathrm{C}}_{16}{\mathrm{H}}_{30}{\mathrm{N}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2$. The diamine feed is ${\mathrm{C}}_6{\mathrm{H}}_{16}{\mathrm{N}}_2$, and the diacid-chloride feed is ${\mathrm{C}}_{10}{\mathrm{H}}_{16}\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{l}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2$; subtracting two $\mathrm{HCl}$ gives the interior-repeat budget. For a finite linear chain made from $n$ of each reactant, there are $2n-1$ joining connections, hence $2n-1$ formal $\mathrm{HCl}$ eliminations, rather than $2n$. One amine end and one acid-chloride end remain in that ideal unmodified chain. This is a stoichiometry check on the depicted reaction, not a claim that the washed experimental thread retains those ends. The reacting end-group chemistry is documented in Hammond, lecture 5, p. 4; the specified Nylon 6,10 reactant pair is reported in Polymer Day, nylon demonstration.

Ethene shows the reverse counting mismatch. One $\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2=\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2$ monomer molecule contributes a two-carbon $-\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2-\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2-$ monomeric unit to ideal linear polyethylene, without a small byproduct in that growth step. But the smallest constitutional repeating unit of its uniform backbone is just $-\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2-$: a chain containing $m$ incorporated ethene monomeric units contains $2m$ such interior one-carbon repeats. End groups are additional bookkeeping. The frequently drawn $[-\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2-\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2-{]}_m$ is useful for tracing the feed, although it is not the smallest constitutional repeat. The minimum-pattern definition is given in IUPAC: constitutional repeating unit; the ethene growth chemistry is described by ^[ref].

A segment of a freely jointed chain or Gaussian chain instead belongs to a statistical model. It can represent many chemical bonds and several constitutional repeating units; its length and the segment count are chosen to describe chain conformation at the intended scale. The three-repeats-per-segment drawing in Figure "From two liquid layers to a Nylon 6,10 thread: monomers, a constitutional repeating unit, and statistical segments" is a deliberately arbitrary coarse-graining example, not a measured Kuhn length. Always state the counting convention before substituting a segment count for a degree of polymerization. This separation lets chemistry track which chemical atoms entered the material while statistical models track how the material bends and extends.

Polymerization converts a monomer, or a mixture of monomers, into a polymer: repeated chemical reactions establish a connected molecular chain or network. The central question is how connections form, not merely whether a material becomes solid. Joining small molecules can produce a thread that can be handled, while the individual molecules remain invisible. See IUPAC, Basic Definitions of Terms Relating to Polymers, definition 2.2.

In step-growth polymerization, complementary reactive groups on monomers and on shorter or longer chains can react with one another. A two-unit chain can join a three-unit chain to make a five-unit chain; growth does not require a specially active end to add only free monomers. An example is the Nylon 6,10 reaction of ${\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{N}(\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2{)}_6\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{H}}_2$ with $\mathrm{ClC}(=\mathrm{O})(\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2{)}_8\mathrm{C}(=\mathrm{O})\mathrm{Cl}$: each amine end can form an amide connection with an acid-chloride end, with formal elimination of $\mathrm{HCl}$. Both reactants have two suitable ends, allowing repeated joining. See Paula Hammond, MIT 10.569 lecture 2: step-growth joining and Hammond, lecture 5, p. 4: acid chloride–amine reaction.

In chain-growth polymerization, a monomer reacts with an active site on a growing chain, and the growth step regenerates an active site. Schematically, $P_j^{\ast }+M⟶P_{j+1}^{\ast }$, where $j$ counts incorporated monomeric units and the star denotes reactivity rather than a particular electric charge. Ethene forming polyethylene is an example: the double chemical bond is converted into single chemical bonds as the carbon backbone grows. Initiation creates the active chains; subsequent reactions can deactivate them or transfer reactivity to another molecule. See IUPAC: chain polymerization and John McMurry, Organic Chemistry, 31.1: chain growth. Whether growth is stepwise or carried by an active site is a different question from whether small byproducts are released: chain-growth polymerization can also release them.

A motivating experiment: drawing nylon from a liquid interface. Feldwinn's UCSB demonstration places $25\mathrm{mL}$ of an aqueous chemical solution of hexamethylenediamine, ${\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{N}(\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2{)}_6\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{H}}_2$, in a $100\mathrm{mL}$ beaker, then gently adds $25\mathrm{mL}$ of sebacoyl chloride, $\mathrm{ClC}(=\mathrm{O})(\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2{)}_8\mathrm{C}(=\mathrm{O})\mathrm{Cl}$, in an organic solvent. The procedure specifies hexane; other parts of that handout list cyclohexane. The layers remain separate. The instructor catches material at their interface with tweezers and winds it slowly onto a glass rod; the handout reports continued spooling of Nylon 6,10. It specifies freshly prepared acid-chloride chemical solution and washing the thread before touching it. These are observations and conditions of a supervised laboratory demonstration, not measurements of chain lengths. See Feldwinn, UCSB Demonstration Library, Demo 044, pp. 1–3.

The mechanistic interpretation is that the monomers encounter one another near the interface, where amide connections produce the film; withdrawing it exposes a region where more material can form. An authored research demonstration independently reports a rapidly formed interfacial film collapsing into a thread on withdrawal, using cyclohexane and an aqueous chemical solution containing potassium hydroxide. See Polymer Day: Outreach Experiments for High School Students, Journal of Chemical Education (2017), nylon demonstration. This is the striking observation: a thread much longer than the beaker can emerge because material is continually supplied to the formation region, rather than because a pre-existing thread was hidden in the liquid.

Useful proposed controls, not results reported in those demonstrations, omit one monomer at a time while retaining the same solvents, liquid amounts, and pulling procedure. The prediction is loss of a renewable drawable Nylon 6,10 film; merely finding cloudiness would not establish polymerization, since other chemical reactions, including acid-chloride hydrolysis, can occur. See McMurry, 21.4: competing acid-chloride hydrolysis. Stopping and restarting withdrawal would probe renewal at the interface. Even successful drawing does not measure the degree of polymerization, establish a chain-length probability distribution, or prove the entire growth mechanism. Chemical identification and a molecular-size measurement would be needed for those stronger conclusions. These controls and limits are inferences from the setup, not invented experimental data.

Why almost complete reaction matters in step growth. For ideal linear step-growth polymerization, assume exactly two reactive groups per starting molecule, equal numbers of complementary groups, only joining of different chains, no rings, no branching, and no loss of chain material. Let $N_0$ count starting monomer molecules, including both reactant species, and let $p$ be the fraction of either type of reactive group consumed. There are initially $N_0$ groups of each type, so $p{N}_0$ connections reduce the number of chain-bearing molecules to $N=N_0(1-p)$; the count excludes small byproducts but includes unreacted monomers. The number-average degree of polymerization, measured in monomeric units, is thereforeThus $p=0.90$, $0.99$, and $0.999$ give $X_n=10$, $100$, and $1000$. Losing the last fraction of unreacted groups matters enormously. See Hammond, lecture 3: balanced step-growth conversion. This counts residues of both feed species; a Nylon 6,10 interior constitutional repeating unit contains two such monomeric units.

For an $AA+BB$ feed with $A_0\le B_0$ initial reactive-group counts, put $r=A_0/B_0$ and now let $p$ denote the fraction of the limiting $A$ groups consumed. Under the same linear, no-ring assumptions, $N_0=(A_0+B_0)/2$ and $N=N_0-p{A}_0$, givingFor $r=0.98$, even complete consumption of $A$ gives $X_n=(1.98)/(0.02)=99$. Stoichiometry controls chain length as well as yield. See Hammond, lecture 2, pp. 2–3: stoichiometric imbalance. The liquid-interface demonstration is not a homogeneous, balanced reactor, so its thread length cannot be inserted into this formula as a molecular chain length.

A contrasting chain count. In ideal living polymerization, assume no chain termination or irreversible chain transfer, all chains initiated before the counted growth, one chain per effective initiator, a fixed chain count $C$, and every consumed monomer molecule incorporated into those chains. If $M_0$ is the initial number of feed monomer molecules and $q$ their incorporated fraction, conservation gives $X_n=q{M}_0/C=qR$ in monomeric units, excluding initiator fragments. For $R=200$, incorporating half the feed gives $X_n=100$. If initiation consumes one monomer molecule per chain, the fixed-chain interval starts at $q=1/R$, rather than $q=0$. See Hammond, lecture 21, p. 1: ideal living-chain count. The mean does not imply identical chain lengths. Living polymerization does not require reversible loss of monomers; the defining absence of chain termination and irreversible chain transfer is explained in Devon Shipp, IUPAC Polymer Education workshop, Radical Polymerizations II, slide 50. Ordinary chain-growth polymerization with new chains, termination, or transfer need not follow the straight line.

The useful connection is between local chemistry and a macroscopic material: selecting reactive ends and their proportions controls connectivity, while the resulting polymer's conformation is a separate problem described by models such as the freely jointed chain or Gaussian chain. Formation of chemical bonds, the count of monomeric units, and the count of statistical segments must be kept distinct.