Session S67b (Wednesday, 2pm, CHEM 102)

P835: Researchers' perceptions of self-assembly: Reactions to visual representations of self-assembly

Sarah Wood, Thomas Bussey (University of Nevada – Las Vegas, USA), Kent Crippen (University of Florida, USA), Wendy Ho, Cindy Kern, Megan Litster, MaryKay Orgill (University of Nevada – Las Vegas, USA)

There are a variety of processes that have been identified in the literature as being examples of self-assembly (Pelesko, 2007). What makes these processes examples of self-assembly? Are there certain characteristics that distinguish these examples from other non-self-assembly processes? Are some characteristics more important than others? In order to identify the distinguishing characteristics of self-assembly, we analyzed researchers’ responses to visual representations of published examples of self-assembly. These researchers were asked to 1.) determine whether they believed each process  was representative of self-assembly and 2.) provide an explanation/rationale for their answer. In this presentation, we will discuss the primary and secondary characteristics of self-assembly that emerged from the data.


A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.