Adam Gooch1, Natasha S Murphy1, Neil H Thomson2, Andrew J Wilson3. 1. School of Chemistry, University of Leeds , Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom. 2. School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leeds , Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom ; Department of Oral Biology, School of Dentistry, University of Leeds , Clarendon Way, Leeds LS2 9LU, United Kingdom ; Astbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology, University of Leeds , Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom. 3. School of Chemistry, University of Leeds , Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom ; Astbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology, University of Leeds , Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Derivatives of thymine have been extensively used to promote supramolecular materials assembly. Such derivatives can be synthetically challenging to access and may be susceptible to degradation. The current article uses a conformer-independent acceptor-donor-acceptor array (ureidopyrimidine) which forms moderate affinity interactions with diamidopyridine derivatives to effect supramolecular blend formation between polystyrene and poly(methyl methacrylate) polymers obtained by RAFT which have been functionalized with the hydrogen bonding motifs.
Derivatives of thymine have been extensively used to promote supramolecular materials assembly. Such derivatives can be synthetically challenging to access and may be susceptible to degradation. The current article uses a conformer-independent acceptor-donor-acceptor array (ureidopyrimidine) which forms moderate affinity interactions with diamidopyridine derivatives to effect supramolecular blend formation between polystyrene and poly(methyl methacrylate)polymers obtained by RAFT which have been functionalized with the hydrogen bonding motifs.
The synthesis of functional
materials using noncovalent chemistry
remains a major focus of supramolecular chemistry.[1,2] Recent
high profile developments include self-healing materials,[3] supramolecular adhesives,[4] and scaffolds for tissue engineering.[5] Alongside these more applied developments, significant effort is
focused on exploring the scope of molecular recognition in fundamental
studies of materials synthesis (e.g., template directed synthesis)[6] and biomimetic processes requiring supramolecular
aggregation (e.g., control of catalyst concentration).[7] Among noncovalent interactions, the use of hydrogen bonding
for supramolecular materials assembly has found widespread use.[8,9] Underpinning the use of hydrogen bonding in supramolecular materials
science[10] is the synthetic availability
of linear arrays of hydrogen bonds.[11,12] A consideration
where linear supramolecular condensation polymers are sought is the
strength of association between supramolecular (macro)monomers,[13] which, in part, represents the stimulus for
ongoing efforts to develop novel H-bonding motifs.[14−19] For side-chain-functionalized[20] and cross-linked
supramolecular polymers,[21−23] however, the requirement for
high affinity is tempered by multivalent effects, and so easy-to-synthesize
systems capable of moderate to high affinity heterodimerization are
attractive. In this context, nucleobases have found widespread use
in supramolecular polymer assembly.[24−28] In particular, the diamidopyridine/diaminotriazine–thymine
dyad (DAP/DAT·T) has been widely employed;[22,29−37] however, multistep syntheses of functionalized thymine derivatives
are sometimes necessary, and these systems can be susceptible to oxidative
degradation. Ureidopyridine derivatives, while synthetically accessible,
exhibit poor association constants toward acceptor–acceptor–donor (AAD) arrays because they preferentially form an intramolecular
hydrogen bond that retards intermolecular interaction.[38,39] Our group introduced the concept of conformer-independent hydrogen
bonding[40] to circumvent this limitation,
reporting on the design and synthesis of ureidoimidazoleDDA arrays
in which the six-membered pyridine ring was switched for a five-membered
imidazole ring.[40−43] Subsequently, we illustrated that this motif could be useful for
self-assembly of polyurethane-based elastomers.[44] In a similar manner, we reasoned that exchange of the pyridine
of the ureidopyridine motif for a pyrimidine would generate a conformer-independent
ADA array and that such a motif may represent an alternative to thymine
derivatives; we previously described triple hydrogen bonded heterocomplex
PUPY·DAP 1·2 for which an association Ka = 56 ± 20 M–1 was measured
(Figure 1a).[45] We
concluded that this moderate binding affinity was appropriate for
side-chain supramolecular applications (Figure 1b), whereby several arrays may be incorporated into each macromonomer.
This article describes incorporation of triple hydrogen bonding arrays
based on model compounds 1 and 2 into monomer
units of methyl methacrylate and styrene. The hydrogen bonding monomers
are subsequently incorporated (at acceptably low stoichiometries)
into macromonomer units using a controlled radical polymerization
approach. The macromonomers are applied in preliminary studies to
investigate the effect of the hydrogen bonding arrays upon miscibility
between incompatible polymers.
Figure 1
The use of hydrogen bonding motifs for
multivalent cross-linking
of macromonomers: (a) the urediopyrimidine·diamidopyridine 1·2 complex and (b) schematic depicting
the assembly of a cross-linked network promoted by heterocomplementary
hydrogen bonding motifs.
The use of hydrogen bonding motifs for
multivalent cross-linking
of macromonomers: (a) the urediopyrimidine·diamidopyridine 1·2 complex and (b) schematic depicting
the assembly of a cross-linked network promoted by heterocomplementary
hydrogen bonding motifs.
Experimental Section
Gel-Permeation Chromatography
(GPC)
Analysis was performed
on a Holland Spark instrument (fitted with a Shimadzu UFLC autosampler
with Polymer Laboratories gel 5 μm mixed C column) with an LC1120
HPLC pump, using a flow rate of 1 mL min–1, at a
column pressure of 6.5–6.8 MPa. Samples were run against PS
and PMMA standard calibration ranges accordingly, with all analyzed
samples displaying retention times within the calibration range. Samples
were prepared in HPLC grade THF at a concentration of 3 mg mL–1. Results were processed using Cirrus GPC/SEC software
(version 3.0). All reported Mn values
are reported in g mol–1 and are rounded to the nearest
100 g mol–1, and Đ values
are reported to the nearest 0.01.
Differential Scanning Calorimetry
(DSC)
Samples were
run on a DSC Q200 V24.9 build 121 instrument and processed with TA
Instruments Universal Analysis 2000 software. TZero pans and lids
were used for all samples. Analysis was performed over a temperature
range of 25–100 °C in a cyclic manner (two cycles per
sample) with an isothermal stage of 5 min. The instrument was modulated
to FE type, with a cell constant of 0.9708 without correction. Sample
film preparation was performed by mixing the required polymers (if
necessary) in equal weight ratios, before dissolving in CHCl3. Solvent was evaporated over a stream of nitrogen for 10 min and
residual solvent was removed under reduced pressure, to provide a
glassy solid which was analyzed directly.
Atomic Force Microscopy
(AFM)
Topographical surface
imaging of the polymer blends produced was carried out under ambient
laboratory conditions using amplitude modulation (AM) feedback control.
Tapping mode AFM was performed on a Multimode 8 platform (Bruker)
using rectangular silicon cantilevers model TESPA (Bruker). These
have a nominal spring constant range of 20–80 N/m, and the
resonant frequency of those used was ∼330 kHz. The free excitation
amplitude was approximately 25 nm, and the imaging set point was kept
to ∼90% or more of the free amplitude. Images were acquired
from 0.5 to 3 μm scan size at sampling of up to 512 × 512
pixels and a line rate of 2 Hz.
Procedure for PS-co-PS-DAP Polymerization
The required amounts of
styrene, S-DAP comonomer (if required),
and cyanomethyldodecyl trithiocarbonate were transferred to an ampule
with stirrer bar under a nitrogen atmosphere. The reaction mixture
was thoroughly degassed by purging with nitrogen for 20 min, followed
by three freeze–pump–thaw cycles. The reaction mixture
was placed into a preheated oil bath at 110 °C and stirred for
16.5 h. After this time, the flask was immediately cooled to 0 °C
to prevent any further polymerization. Precipitation (minimum amount
of THF vs a 100-fold excess of MeOH at 0 °C) twice followed by
removal of residual solvent under reduced pressure provided the title
material as a flocculent colorless solid.
Procedure for PMMA-co-PMMA-UP Polymerization
The required amount of
MMA and MMA-UP comonomer (if required) was
transferred to an ampule with stirrer bar under a nitrogen atmosphere.
A 5 mL stock solution of 4-cyano-4-((dodecylsulfanylthiocarbonyl)sulfanyl)pentanoic
acid and azobutyronitrile (AIBN) dissolved in methyl methacrylate
monomer was also prepared, and the required aliquot of stock solution
was added to the ampule by syringe addition. The reaction mixture
was thoroughly degassed by purging with nitrogen for 20 min, followed
by three freeze–pump–thaw cycles. The reaction mixture
was placed into a preheated oil bath at 90 °C and stirred for
3 h. After this time, the flask was immediately cooled to 0 °C
to prevent any further polymerization. Precipitation (minimum amount
of THF vs 100-fold excess of petroleum ether at 0 °C) twice followed
by removal of residual solvent under reduced pressure provided the
title material as a flocculent colorless powder.
Results and Discussion
In order to test the utility of the ureidopyrimidine motif in supramolecular
materials assembly, we sought a suitable test system. We did not consider
that the ureidopyrimidine/diamidopyridine interaction was of sufficient
affinity to support assembly of linear polymers in dilute solution
and hypothesized that their use in cross-linking would be more plausible;
we identified assembly of a blend as a suitable goal. The formulation
of homogeneous mixtures of immiscible polymers represents an active
area of research in materials science; several groups have reported
methods of covalent modification to polymer structures to overcome
interfacial energies between components and hence reduce the propensity
for immiscibility.[46−50] The use of hydrogen bonding arrays to inhibit phase separation[51] and promote blend formation has been previously
exploited[23,52−65] and is appealing because it provides the possibility to achieve
miscibility on the molecular level even at low temperatures (on account
of the reversible association between hydrogen bonding units). Initially,
we needed to obtain polymerizable monomers functionalized with the
ureidopyrimidine and diamidopyridine motifs. Methacrylate-functionalized
ureidopyrimidine 3 was obtained in one step (Scheme 1a), while styrene-functionalized monomer 6 was similarly obtained in two synthetic steps (Scheme 1b). Subsequent polymerization studies with 6 revealed
the monomer to undergo preferential incorporation in random copolymerizations,
presumably due to the radical stabilization conferred by the conjugated
electron withdrawing carboxamide group. Therefore, we synthesized
monomer 13 (Scheme 1c) using a
slightly longer route, but crucially introducing a spacer so as to
retard this behavior.
Scheme 1
Synthesis of Monomer Building Blocks for
Copolymerization with Methacrylate
Styrene Based Monomers
We then performed several NMR based experiments to illustrate
that
the additional functionalization on the hydrogen bonding motif does
not interfere with molecular recognition. Specifically, 1H NMR experiments at different 3·13 ratios reveal complexation induced shifts in the concentration range
expected (see Supporting Information for
data) while 1H–1H NOESY confirms the
presence of conformer-independent binding (Figure 2). Through-space correlations were observed from Hg to HE and HI, indicating complexation via
the intended heterocomplementary triple array. Correlations from Hj to Hf, and Hh to HD show
the presence of heterodimer association with the methyl functionality
of 3 pointing away from the hydrogen bonding face, while
correlations Hj to HE and Hh to Hf show the methyl pointing in the same orientation as the hydrogen
bonding face. Interestingly, the 1H–1H NOESY data also provided structural information about the conformation
of 13. Correlations from HG to HO and HP along with HF and/or HH (which
could not be distinguished due to overlap of resonances) to HO and HP showed the presence of a folded conformation,
whereby the aryl vinyl styrene moiety of 13 lies adjacent
to the diamidopyridine functionality. This is perhaps favored by π–π
interactions between the styrene phenyl ring and the ortho/para protons of the pyridyl ring.
Figure 2
NMR based evidence for
conformer independent interaction between 3 and 13. (a) Observed through-space correlations
(shown by blue lines) for 3 (green) and 13 (pink) for conformations i and ii. (b) 2D 1H–1H NOESY spectrum (CDCl3, 300 MHz, 20 mM for each
component 3 and 13). Key correlations are
circled in blue.
NMR based evidence for
conformer independent interaction between 3 and 13. (a) Observed through-space correlations
(shown by blue lines) for 3 (green) and 13 (pink) for conformations i and ii. (b) 2D 1H–1H NOESY spectrum (CDCl3, 300 MHz, 20 mM for each
component 3 and 13). Key correlations are
circled in blue.Several studies[21,23,61] have employed radical polymerization
to provide macromonomer components
presenting heterocomplementary hydrogen bonding arrays along polymer
backbones. Such approaches are advantageous in that macromonomers
can be synthesized on scale and also because they allow the possibility
of structural modification of existing monomers to achieve incorporation
of the desired hydrogen bonding arrays. However, kinetic equilibria
of radical processes are often fast and can result in polymerization
occurring in a nonuniform manner, such that inconsistent macromonomer
chain lengths are produced. A consequence of this lack of “control”
upon polymerization is that a degree of ambiguity is introduced when
assigning emergent material properties that arise due to supramolecular
self-assembly (it should also be noted that the manner in which functionalized
monomers are distributed within a chain (e.g., random, block, or sequence
controlled, will also be important). The development of predictable
and highly controlled building block design is crucial for the continued
growth of supramolecular polymers in commercial applications (such
as biomedical applications).[66] Indeed,
some of the earliest work on polymers incorporating hydrogen bonding
motifs employed atom transfer radical polymerization (ATRP) to polymerize
nucleobases.[27,28] We sought therefore to utilize
RAFT[67] to obtain the hydrogen-bond-functionalized
macromonomers. We selected benzyltrithiocarbonate as our chain transfer
agent (CTA) for polystyrene (PS) polymer synthesis based on the literature
precedent,[67] the synthesis of which was
performed according to literature procedures;[68] however, this did not afford good control over polymerization when
copolymerized with 13. We therefore sought an alternative
CTA from commercially available sources. Gratifyingly, we achieved
success in generating PS(co)polymers with CTA 15 giving
good Đ and conversion (Scheme 2), following some optimizations. With these conditions in
hand, we prepared a series of PS(co)polymers 16–19 incorporating various percentages of 13. Using 1H NMR analysis, we observed that comonomer 13 had been successfully incorporated into the macromonomer in a reasonably
predictable manner. This demonstrated comonomer 13 was
compatible for incorporation into PS macromonomers.
Scheme 2
Synthesis of Polymers Using RAFT Polymerization
CTA agent 21 was synthesized for the synthesis of
low molar mass dispersity poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)-based (co)polymers
according to literature procedures.[68] CTA
agent 21 and a commercially available variant 22 were screened with the aim of synthesizing a PMMA standard and a
series of (co)polymersPMMA-co-PMMA-UP incorporating
a variety of stoichiometries of comonomer MMA-UP 3. Azobutyronitrile
(AIBN) was employed as a radical initiator component in all attempts
according to the literature precident.[68] Controlled polymerization was achieved using the synthetic CTA 21 while CTA 22 gave polymers but with poor control
over molecular weight and larger Đs. In a similar
manner to that applied to PS based macromonomers, we observed by 1H NMR that comonomer 3 had been successfully
incorporated into the macromonomer, in good agreement with the stoichiometries
of 3 and 20 charged in the reaction. The
samples and data from both series of monomers are collated in Table 1. Overall Đs of 1.35 or below
were measured for the selected PS and PMMA based macromonomers, suggesting
the applied RAFT approach was successful in achieving controlled polymerization.
Also, both series presented internally consistent molecular weights
with only a narrow distribution of Mn values,
allowing direct comparison of samples from each series without significant
contributions of different molecular weight macromonomers upon self-assembly
behavior.[61] For the current study we did
not further study the monomer sequence distribution and assume a random
distribution of monomers capable of hydrogen bonding within the polymer
chain.
Table 1
Analytical Data on Macromonomers for
Supramolecular Side-Chain Studiesa
polymer
polymer composition
Mn (103)
Đ
yield (%)
theor mol % comonomer
actual mol % comonomer
F
DP
16
PS
22.0
1.26
60
0
0
0
211
17
PS-co-PS-DAP
22.4
1.35
30
0.8
1.1
2.3
199
18
PS-co-PS-DAP
21.0
1.24
75
3.0
3.4
6.7
194
19
PS-co-PS-DAP
21.6
1.30
60
6.0
5.8
10.1
175
23
PMMA
13.6
1.13
60
0
0
0
136
24
PMMA-co-PMMA-UP
10.2
1.24
30
3.0
3.6
3.5
96
25
PMMA-co-PMMA-UP
10.4
1.26
30
6.0
8.8
8.0
91
26
PMMA-co-PMMA-UP
15.1
1.32
25
12.0
14.0
25.0
90
Mn and Đ values were determined
by GPC analysis, while mol
% comonomer was estimated based on relative integration from 1H NMR (CDCl3, 300 MHz). F refers
to the estimated average number of arrays per macromonomer chain based
on Mn and actual mol % comonomer. Degree
of polymerization (DP) refers to the number of (co)monomers in an
average chain, such that DP = Mn/Mw(monomer) and was calculated from relative
mole ratios of monomer/comonomer based on actual mol % values.
Mn and Đ values were determined
by GPC analysis, while mol
% comonomer was estimated based on relative integration from 1H NMR (CDCl3, 300 MHz). F refers
to the estimated average number of arrays per macromonomer chain based
on Mn and actual mol % comonomer. Degree
of polymerization (DP) refers to the number of (co)monomers in an
average chain, such that DP = Mn/Mw(monomer) and was calculated from relative
mole ratios of monomer/comonomer based on actual mol % values.We subsequently performed a series
of preliminary experiments to
study blend formation. A series of polymer films were prepared by
solution casting onto glass surfaces (Figure 3). Films were prepared from 1:1 mixes of macromonomers in CHCl3 solution (20 mg mL–1 of each component).
A sample composed of 19 and 26 was prepared—thus
presenting the highest proportion of heterocomplementary arrays. The
resulting film (Figure 3f) is completely transparent
and homogeneous in appearance. Control samples were composed of mixtures
of 16 with 23, 19 with 23, and 26 with 16. Their appearance
(Figure 3a–c)—in stark contrast
to the sample made using 19 and 26—is
a white, opaque layer which is consistent with immiscibility within
the polymer mixture. This indicates that 19 and 26 form polymer blends due to enhanced affinity between macromonomers
as a result of heterocomplementary association. Also, comparison of
these films indicates that miscibility is not achieved by incorporating
only one of the hydrogen-bond-functionalized macromonomers, suggesting
that association occurs via the intended heterocomplementary arrays.
Further films were prepared from mixtures of 17 with 24 and 18 with 25, respectively,
and therefore present lower fractions of hydrogen bonding components
relative to the film formed using 19 and 26. Interestingly, we observed white, semiopaque patches for these
samples (Figure 3d,e). While these regions
were less prominent than those observed in the controls (Figure 3a–c), they present a markedly different appearance
to the sample composed with 19 and 26. Presumably,
this is due to the reduced number of hydrogen bonding associations
between macromonomers, resulting in incomplete polymer blending. This
is supported by the more pronounced imperfections observed for films
comprising 17 and 24 relative to 18 and 25.
Figure 3
Polymer films prepared from slow drying of CHCl3 solutions
(20 mg mL–1 of each component) on mica surfaces.
Controls include (a) PS 16 and PMMA 23,
(b) PS-co-S-DP 19 and PMMA 23, and (c) PS 16 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26. Heterocomplementary macromonomer mixes are shown of (d)
PS-co-PS-DAP 17 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 24, (e) PS-co-PS-DAP 18 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 25, and
(f) PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26.
Polymer films prepared from slow drying of CHCl3 solutions
(20 mg mL–1 of each component) on mica surfaces.
Controls include (a) PS 16 and PMMA 23,
(b) PS-co-S-DP 19 and PMMA 23, and (c) PS 16 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26. Heterocomplementary macromonomer mixes are shown of (d)
PS-co-PS-DAP 17 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 24, (e) PS-co-PS-DAP 18 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 25, and
(f) PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26.Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) was performed on
films
of macromonomer samples in order to evaluate the effect of side-chain
interactions upon phase transition characteristics (Figure 4). Controls PS 16 and a mixture of
PS 16 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26 both show distinctive transitions at 53 °C, while PMMA 23 alone exhibits no distinctive transitions in the temperature
range measured (measurements were not recorded above 100 °C in
order to avoid thermal radical initiation at higher temperatures—a
property which was not considered in previous studies).[23] This allowed confident assignment of the transition
observed at 53 °C to be due to unassociated PS/PS-co-S-DP macromonomer.
Figure 4
DSC thermograms
of macromonomers: (a) PMMA 23 alone;
(b) PS 16 alone; (c) PS 16 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26; (d) PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and PMMA-co-MMA-UP 26 prior
to film formation; (e) PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26; (f) PS-co-PS-DAP 17 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 24; (g) PS-co-PS-DAP 18 and
PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 25.
For the sample containing both hydrogen-bond-functionalized
macromonomers 19 and 26, the transition
corresponding to unassociated
PS/PS-co-PS-DAP was replaced by a transition at 72
°C. This shows that the physical properties of unassociated PS-co-PS-DAP 26 are no longer observed and suggests
polymer blend formation on a molecular level. Perhaps unsurprisingly,
the DSC thermogram of the same sample prior to film formation (whereby
equal portions of PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and
PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26 were added directly
to the DSC pan without further mixing) shows retention of the transition
at 53 °C, indicating a lack of blend formation when the two components
are not adequately mixed. Retention of the transition at 53 °C
was also observed for mixtures of 17 with 24 (Figure 4f) and 18 with 25 (Figure 4g), indicating incomplete
polymer blending. This is presumably related to the reduced proportion
of hydrogen bonding arrays in the applied macromonomers.DSC thermograms
of macromonomers: (a) PMMA 23 alone;
(b) PS 16 alone; (c) PS 16 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26; (d) PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and PMMA-co-MMA-UP 26 prior
to film formation; (e) PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26; (f) PS-co-PS-DAP 17 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 24; (g) PS-co-PS-DAP 18 and
PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 25.In conclusion, the DSC analysis shows that miscible polymer
blends
are achievable by incorporation of higher mole percentages of triple
hydrogen bonding comonomers (PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26); however,
retention of PS and PMMA characteristics is observed in samples with
lower proportions of hydrogen bonding arrays. Conformation that hydrogen
bonding plays a role in promoting miscibility was obtained from IR
analysis on drop-cast samples of the PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26 blend.
This IR analysis revealed a reduction in frequency (δν
∼ 10 cm–1) for the carbonyl stretch that
we assign to the UP unit (Figure 5). Such changes
were not observed in the IR spectra of control samples PS 16 and PMMA 23 (see Supporting Information). We also attempted to illustrate the role of hydrogen bonding by 1H NMR analysis of the PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26 blend
in chloroform; while further broadening of the 1H resonances
was observed upon mixing, we were not overly surprised to observe
only minimal changes in chemical shift given at a concentration of
20 mg/mL; the overall concentration of H-bonding motif in this experiment
is around 2 μM, which is below the Ka for H-bond mediated dimerization (see Supporting
Information).
Figure 5
IR analysis of polymer blends obtained from drop-casting
a solution
(10 mg/mL CDCl3) of PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26: (a)
PS-co-PS-DAP 19; (b) PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26; (c) PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26.
IR analysis of polymer blends obtained from drop-casting
a solution
(10 mg/mL CDCl3) of PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26: (a)
PS-co-PS-DAP 19; (b) PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26; (c) PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26.Finally, in addition to the DSC
experiments, we performed initial
characterization of the surface topography of the thin films using
AFM. Solutions containing mixtures of samples were drop-cast onto
a mica surface to give a thin film as for the experiments described
above and tapping mode AFM imaging performed. The PS 16 and PMMA 23 sample which is incapable of complementary
hydrogen bonding interactions showed significant height variations
including surface dome-like features indicating phase separation on
the micrometer scale (Figure 6a). Both the
PS-co-PS-DAP 18 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 25 and the PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26 samples
with a higher fraction of H-bonding groups showed lower height variations,
with lower roughness and finer structure on the submicrometer scale
(Figures 6b,c). The rms roughness (Rq) values over a 1 μm2 area for the three
surfaces are (a) 4.43, (b) 2.19, and (c) 0.38 nm. These observations
are consistent with the ability of the hydrogen bonding moieties to
restrict phase separation of the polymers and increase miscibility
with surface roughness decreasing as H-bond content increases.
Figure 6
AFM analysis
of polymer blends: (a) PS 16 and PMMA 23; (b) PS-co-PS-DAP 18 and
PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 25; (c) PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26.
AFM analysis
of polymer blends: (a) PS 16 and PMMA 23; (b) PS-co-PS-DAP 18 and
PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 25; (c) PS-co-PS-DAP 19 and PMMA-co-PMMA-UP 26.
Conclusions
In
summary, we have shown that uriedopyrimidine represents an easily
accessible conformer-independent ADA hydrogen bonding array that is
complementary to the DAD array presented by diamidopyridine derivatives
and that this motif can be readily incorporated into addition polymers
via RAFT yielding PS/PMMA based (co)polymers with low molar mass dispersity
(Đ < 1.40). We have exemplified the utility
of this motif through blend assembly of the resultant supramolecular
macromonomers as shown by film formation, DSC, IR, and AFM analyses.
Polymer blends were obtained for mixtures of PS and PMMA macromonomers
containing higher proportions of hydrogen bonding arrays, while PS
and PMMA in the absence of hydrogen bonding arrays were shown to be
immiscible, thus highlighting a central role of the proportion of
hydrogen bonding motifs in affecting blend formation. The association
constant for the diamidopyridine–uriedopyrimidine dyad is comparable
to that observed for the diamidopyridine–thymine dyad; therefore,
the ease of synthesis of polymerizable uriedopyrimidine renders this
motif a powerful addition to the arsenal of supramolecular synthons
available for polymer materials assembly. Our own future work will
focus on delineating further the role of these motifs in effecting
supramolecular blend formation, further materials characterization,
and the use of these motifs to construct healable and responsive materials.
Authors: Stefano Burattini; Barnaby W Greenland; Daniel Hermida Merino; Wengui Weng; Jonathan Seppala; Howard M Colquhoun; Wayne Hayes; Michael E Mackay; Ian W Hamley; Stuart J Rowan Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Borys Ośmiałowski; Erkki Kolehmainen; Satu Ikonen; Arto Valkonen; Adam Kwiatkowski; Izabela Grela; Esa Haapaniemi Journal: J Org Chem Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 4.354
Authors: Maria L Pellizzaro; Andrea M McGhee; Lisa C Renton; Michael G Nix; Julie Fisher; W Bruce Turnbull; Andrew J Wilson Journal: Chemistry Date: 2011-11-23 Impact factor: 5.236
Authors: Cyrus A Anderson; Amanda R Jones; Ellen M Briggs; Eric J Novitsky; Darrell W Kuykendall; Nancy R Sottos; Steven C Zimmerman Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 15.419