Orthogonal solvents processing

For a solution-processed active interface, in which either the gate dielectric material is deposited from solution on to a solution-processible semiconducting material or vice versa, it is critical to avoid dissolution or swelling effects during deposition of the upper layer, which can lead to interfacial mixing and increased interface roughness. The preferred approach to achieve this is to choose orthogonal solvents for the deposition of the multilayer structure [23]. 

IR, Raman and related phenomena) to describe with a static approach the salient aspects of phenomena, which are essentially of a dynamical nature [1], This regime was later shown to be essential for a correct description of the photophysical phenomena. It introduces in the QM formalism aspects that are not present in the standard formulation, particularly, that the excited states activated by the excitation process are not orthogonal to the fundamental one (a similar effect is present in the emission process). The orthogonality among states is a basic tenet of the standard formulation, and the selection rules are based on this property. The description obtained with this model is more realistic than the standard one, when the chromophore is immersed into a responsive medium. Discrete solvent simulation methods could hardly describe these effects. 

The general SPP scale of solvent dipolarity/polarizability and the specific SB and SA scales of solvent HBA basicity and HBD acidity, respectively, are orthogonal to one another and they can be used in the correlation analysis of solvent effects in single- or, in combination with the others, in two- or three-parameter correlation equations, depending on the solvent-influenced process under consideration see also Section 7.7. Examples of the correlation analysis of a variety of other solvent-dependent processes by means of SPP, SB, and SA values, including those used for the introduction of other solvent polarity parameters, can be found in references [335-337, 340-342]. In particular, comparisons with Kamlet and Taft s n scale [340] and Winstein and Grunwald s Y scale [341] have been made. 

For the clearance of enveloped and non-enveloped viruses, today s requirements ask for an orthogonal combination of methods that are based on the different physical principles of removal and inactivation, and are complementary to each other [165]. Virus filtration and solvent/de-tergent treatment are state of the art for removal and inactivation [166, 167]. Partitioning steps are considered less robust, as they are somewhat influenced by the actual process conditions. In any case, scaled-down models must be designed... 

---