Angela L Holmberg1, Kaleigh H Reno1, Ngoc A Nguyen1, Richard P Wool1, Thomas H Epps1. 1. Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Center for Composite Materials, and Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Delaware , Newark, Delaware 19716, United States.
Abstract
As viable precursors to a diverse array of macromolecules, biomass-derived compounds must impart wide-ranging and precisely controllable properties to polymers. Herein, we report the synthesis and subsequent reversible addition-fragmentation chain-transfer polymerization of a new monomer, syringyl methacrylate (SM, 2,6-dimethoxyphenyl methacrylate), that can facilitate widespread property manipulations in macromolecules. Homopolymers and heteropolymers synthesized from SM and related monomers have broadly tunable and highly controllable glass transition temperatures ranging from 114 to 205 °C and zero-shear viscosities ranging from ∼0.2 kPa·s to ∼17,000 kPa·s at 220 °C, with consistent thermal stabilities. The tailorability of these properties is facilitated by the controlled polymerization kinetics of SM and the fact that one vs two o-methoxy groups negligibly affect monomer reactivity. Moreover, syringol, the precursor to SM, is an abundant component of depolymerized hardwood (e.g., oak) and graminaceous (e.g., switchgrass) lignins, making SM a potentially sustainable and low-cost candidate for tailoring macromolecular properties.
As viable precursors to a diverse array of macromolecules, biomass-derived compounds must impart wide-ranging and precisely controllable properties to polymers. Herein, we report the synthesis and subsequent reversible addition-fragmentation chain-transfer polymerization of a new monomer, syringyl methacrylate (SM, 2,6-dimethoxyphenyl methacrylate), that can facilitate widespread property manipulations in macromolecules. Homopolymers and heteropolymers synthesized from SM and related monomers have broadly tunable and highly controllable glass transition temperatures ranging from 114 to 205 °C and zero-shear viscosities ranging from ∼0.2 kPa·s to ∼17,000 kPa·s at 220 °C, with consistent thermal stabilities. The tailorability of these properties is facilitated by the controlled polymerization kinetics of SM and the fact that one vs two o-methoxy groups negligibly affect monomer reactivity. Moreover, syringol, the precursor to SM, is an abundant component of depolymerized hardwood (e.g., oak) and graminaceous (e.g., switchgrass) lignins, making SM a potentially sustainable and low-cost candidate for tailoring macromolecular properties.
To address sustainability challenges
associated with petrochemicals, researchers are exploiting a plethora
of renewable chemicals to generate biobased, cost-effective, and thermomechanically
useful macromolecules.[1−11] Lignin is one renewable resource that shows promise as a desirable
alternative to petroleum feedstocks, largely due to its abundance
as a byproduct of pulp and paper refining. Corresponding lignin-based
bio-oils (e.g., the volatile fraction of pyrolyzed lignin) contain
numerous aromatic compounds that structurally mimic common monomers
(e.g., bisphenol A and styrene) for polymer applications.[4−7] The exact structure and composition of a lignin-based bio-oil is
highly variable, depending on the biomass resource (tree, crop residue,
grass, etc.), lignin type (Kraft, Organosolv, etc.), and depolymerization
route (enzymatic, catalytic, etc.), among other factors.[12−17] In general, the native components of all lignin-based bio-oils include
phenols and guaiacols (2-methoxyphenols), whereas the native components
of angiosperm (hardwood—e.g., oak and maple tree) and graminaceous
(grassy—e.g., switchgrass and corn stover) bio-oils also include
syringols (2,6-dimethoxyphenols).[12−14]Biobased compounds
increasingly are being incorporated into thermoplastic
elastomers (TPEs), pressure-sensitive adhesives, composite binders,
and drug delivery vehicles,[7−11] all systems that benefit from macromolecules prepared via controlled
polymerization techniques. The synthesis methods, such as reversible
addition–fragmentation chain-transfer (RAFT), anionic, or atom-transfer
radical polymerization,[18] are desirable
for facilitating the generation of polymers (and block copolymers)
with precise macromolecular characteristics through the control of
kinetic parameters. For RAFT polymerizations, important parameters
include the apparent propagation rate (kp,app, which describes monomer-to-polymer conversion rates) and the apparent
chain-transfer coefficient (Ctr,app, which
describes the consumption rate of chain-transfer agent [CTA] and the
conversion-dependent change in polymer dispersity []). Kinetic parameters that are consistent,
in addition to controllable, also facilitate comparisons of polymer
properties due to the ease with which macromolecules of matching end-groups,
molecular weights, and ’s
can be prepared.For the above applications, properties that
are among the most
indicative of material practicality are the glass transition temperature
(Tg) and the zero-shear viscosity (η0). The Tg indicates the temperature
at which a macromolecule transitions between glassy (solid-like) and
rubbery (liquid-like) behavior, and the η0 describes
how easily a material may deform at a given temperature. Polymers
with a Tg near 100 °C are useful
for boiling-water-stable plastics, and polymers with a Tg well above 100 °C are useful for high-temperature
applications (e.g., machine parts and asphalt components). Ideally,
one could access Tg’s anywhere
from 100 to 200 °C via biobased monomers and controlled polymerizations;
however, a dearth of examples is noted for high molecular weight macromolecules
with Tg’s in the range of ≈135–190
°C,[7] although some polymers come close.[11,19,20] Furthermore, materials with η0’s of ∼10–100 Pa·s (e.g., condiments)
are easily spread and shaped, and those with η0’s
of ∼106–108 Pa·s (e.g., bitumen
for roads) are highly deformation resistant. An ability to choose
between these Tg’s and η0’s in a biobased macromolecule would be ideal for optimizing
processability and mechanical strength in the pursuit of sustainable
macromolecules prepared using controlled means.The major lignin-based
bio-oil components that have been incorporated
into controlled polymerizations are guaiacols with varying p-position R-groups, as shown in Scheme .[21−23] The different functionalities
(e.g., ethyl, methyl, formyl, and hydrogen R-groups) are seen as potential
handles for modulating polymer properties,[21−23] but the resulting
macromolecules have a fairly narrow range of accessible properties.
Specifically, poly(4-ethylguaiacyl methacrylate) (PEM) has the lowest Tg of ≈110 °C and η0 of 7 × 105 Pa·s at 150 °C, while poly(vanillinmethacrylate) (PVM) has the highest Tg of ≈130 °C and η0 of 3 × 107 Pa·s at 150 °C.[23] Although
this range is useful for the fine-tuning of macromolecular properties,
it does not lead to ultimate material versatility.[23]
Scheme 1
Synthesis Scheme, Nomenclature, Mass Compositions,
and Degrees of
Polymerization (n’s) of Lignin-Based Monomers
and Polymers Reported Herein
Herein, a syringol derivative, syringyl methacrylate (SM),
is synthesized
for the first time and incorporated into controlled polymerizations
to greatly expand the window of Tg’s
and η0’s accessible via biobased monomers.
In fact, as shown below, the Tg for PSM
is greater than that reported for almost any other amorphous polymer
lacking cyclic groups in the backbone, yet the monomer is readily
polymerizable, especially in comparison to other high-Tgphenyl methacrylates, such as 2,6-dimethylphenyl methacrylate.
An additional advantage of the syringols in comparison to the guaiacols
is the potential abundance of the former; syringols constitute anywhere
from ∼40 wt % to 90 wt % of
identified monophenolic compounds in fractions of thermally decomposed
hardwood or grassy lignins,[12] and ∼60
wt % of pulpwood worldwide comes from hardwood trees that contain
syringylic components.[24] These characteristics
make syringols ideal biobased precursors to polymers.Furthermore,
heteropolymers (multicomponent polymers) containing
SM segments are prepared in this study to show that properties of
macromolecules can be widely manipulated via SM content, while also
enabling greater usage of bio-oil fractions, consistent with biobased
materials objectives.[11,22,23,25−27] To this end, SM was
incorporated into polymerizations of mixed softwoodlignin-based monomers,
viz., EM, VM, and creosyl methacrylate (CM), in which these components,
the corresponding heteropolymers, and the macromolecules’ weight
compositions are shown in Scheme . Poly(CM-co-EM-co-SM) [P(CES)] and poly(VM-co-EM-co-SM) [P(VES)] have compositions that approximately mimic the compositions
reported for a bio-oil prepared from switchgrass Organosolv lignin[12] [weight-fraction SM (fS) = 0.48 for P(CES) and 0.55 for P(VES)], and poly(EM-co-SM) [P(ES), fS = 0.05] has
a composition that was chosen to show that small amounts of SM can
be incorporated into a polymer and measurably change its properties.SM, PSM, and SM-containing heteropolymers were synthesized successfully
by employing procedures akin to those used for softwoodlignin-based
monomers and polymers[28] (see Scheme and also the Supporting Information). The successful synthesis and isolation
of SM was somewhat unexpected, mainly because syringol tends to favor
conversion to stable phenoxy radicals and colored quinones.[29,30] The success of the SM RAFT polymerizations also was somewhat unexpected
due to the o-methoxy groups; namely, other poly(phenyl
methacrylate) derivatives with bulky o-groups can
be challenging to synthesize due to low ceiling temperatures and polymer
thermal stabilities.[31,32]The polymerization rate
and reactivity of SM are consistent with
the polymerization rate and reactivity of softwood monomers (EM, CM,
VM, and guaiacyl methacrylate [GM]),[22] despite
the hardwood monomer’s second o-position methoxy
group. The kp,app’s, which are
illustrated by the lines in Figure a for polymerizations performed under approximately
identical reaction conditions, are the same at 95% confidence regardless
of SM content and compare favorably to the kp,app’s previously reported for softwood monomers[22] (kp,app = 0.25 ±
0.01 h–1 for PSM-24[33] and 0.23–0.26 h–1 for SM-containing heteropolymers,
vs 0.21–0.29 h–1 for guaiacylic polymers;[22] exact values are listed in Table S2). The compositions of the monomer mixtures and the
cumulative compositions of the heteropolymer chains also do not change
measurably with respect to conversion [x] (see Figure S1), further indicating the similar reactivities
of the hardwood and softwood monomers and the likely random distributions
of monomer segments in each chain. Consequently, syringol and guaiacol
contents in a mixture can be manipulated without harming the predictability
of conversions, monomer distributions, and molecular weight.
Figure 1
(a) Pseudo-first-order
kinetic data, in which x is molar percent conversion
and t is reaction time
shifted by 0.02–0.24 h to a pre-equilibrium time of 0 h. The
lines are the linearized fits used to estimate kp,app [lines for P(ES) and P(CES) are indistinguishable]. (b)
Conversion-dependent molecular weight characteristics ( and normalized degree of polymerization, Xn/Xn,max) of polymers
containing SM units. These data indicate the consistent RAFT polymerization
characteristics of lignin-based polymers regardless of SM content.
(a) Pseudo-first-order
kinetic data, in which x is molar percent conversion
and t is reaction time
shifted by 0.02–0.24 h to a pre-equilibrium time of 0 h. The
lines are the linearized fits used to estimate kp,app [lines for P(ES) and P(CES) are indistinguishable]. (b)
Conversion-dependent molecular weight characteristics ( and normalized degree of polymerization, Xn/Xn,max) of polymers
containing SM units. These data indicate the consistent RAFT polymerization
characteristics of lignin-based polymers regardless of SM content.Control over the RAFT polymerizations
also is consistent between
guaiacylic[22] and syringylic monomers, simplifying
the process of tailoring macromolecular characteristics. First, as
shown by the data in Figure b, the ’s
decrease with respect to increasing x, and the normalized
degrees of polymerization (Xn/Xn,max’s) change linearly with x, indicating that the polymerizations are controlled. Second,
the size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) data are unimodal (see Figure S2), and the ’s of the homopolymers and heteropolymers (1.32–1.74,
see Table S1) are similar to or better
than what was reported for PVMs that were successfully chain-extended
to generate self-assembling block copolymers.[21] Finally, the ’s
and Xn/Xn,max’s for the homopolymers and heteropolymers change with respect
to x in an approximately equivalent manner, albeit
slightly shifted vertically due to differences in polymer solubility.
The consistency of these data was confirmed by estimating the Ctr,app from the heteropolymerizations using
the Mayo equation.[22] The resulting Ctr,app’s for the heteropolymers were
within error of values reported for the polymerizations of GM, EM,
CM, VM, and corresponding mixtures (Ctr,app = 1.4–2.8 for softwood monomers and mixtures[22] vs 2.3–3.0 for SM-containing mixtures, as listed
in Table S2). Additionally, Ctr,app for SM homopolymerizations is approximately the
same as for softwood monomer polymerizations,[34] further supporting that the second o-methoxy group
has a negligible effect on the polymerization behavior of lignin-based
methacrylates.PSM-24 has a high in
part because the reaction mixture gelled. Lower ’s listed in Table S1 have
been achieved by diluting the reaction, reducing the target molecular
weight, changing the solvent, and incorporating softwoodlignin-based
methacrylate monomers. All of these changes contribute to reductions
in solution viscosity and thus .[35,36]The measured Tg’s of the PSM
homopolymers (185–205 °C depending on molecular weight,
see also Table S1) are among the highest
reported for amorphous, linear polymers with aliphatic backbones,
even greater than the Tg’s reported
for poly(2,6-dimethylphenyl methacrylate) (189 °C) and poly(2,6-diisopropylphenyl
methacrylate) (198 °C).[37] A PSM of
infinite molecular weight could have a Tg as high as ≈220 °C, assuming Flory–Fox behavior
when fitting data from Table S1. The Tg of PSM-24 is ≈75 °C higher than
that of PVM and ≈95 °C higher than that of PEM at similar
number-average molecular weight. The differential scanning calorimetry
(DSC) data for PEM and SM-containing polymers are shown in Figure for comparison.
Figure 2
DSC data
and the corresponding measured and calculated (via the
Fox equation) Tg’s as a function
of SM-content, which together show the wide-ranging and predictable Tg’s available through hardwood and softwood
lignin-based methacrylates. DSC data were shifted vertically and normalized
to a slope of zero at T > Tg for clarity. PEM data were reported previously.[23]
DSC data
and the corresponding measured and calculated (via the
Fox equation) Tg’s as a function
of SM-content, which together show the wide-ranging and predictable Tg’s available through hardwood and softwoodlignin-based methacrylates. DSC data were shifted vertically and normalized
to a slope of zero at T > Tg for clarity. PEM data were reported previously.[23]SM segments also can be incorporated into polymers to make
predictable
changes to the Tg based on composition
and the Fox equation.[38] The actual and
calculated Fox-based Tg’s agree
closely, as shown in Figure , in which the black circles (calculated Tg’s) overlay the colored shapes (measured Tg’s). For example, incorporating 5 wt
% of SM segments into PEM raises the Tg by 4 °C (from 110 to 114 °C), the predicted increase.
The heteropolymers with compositions that mimic possible fractions
of bio-oil (fSM = 0.48–0.55) have
similarly predictable, yet high (154 and 159 °C) Tg’s. Furthermore, the onset thermal degradation
temperatures in air (see Table S2 and Figure S3) for PSM (303 ± 5 °C) and the heteropolymers (256–260
°C) are ≈100 °C greater than each of the measured Tg’s; thus, these polymers can be melt
processed without significant thermal degradation.The high Tg of PSM and its effectiveness
for tailoring polymer Tg’s results
more from differences in monomer structure than tacticity. PSM is
somewhat more syndiotactic than the softwoodlignin-based polymers
(see Supporting Information for racemo
diad and syndiotactic triad contents), yet the Tg differential between the hardwood and softwood monomers is
far more significant than the differences reported for other atactic
vs syndiotactic vs isotactic methacrylate polymers. The Tg increase between atactic and syndiotactic poly(methyl
methacrylate) is 10 °C,[39] and the Tg difference between isotactic and syndiotactic
poly(phenyl methacrylate)s and poly(4-methoxyphenyl methacrylate)s
is similarly small.[40] Instead, the factor
contributing most significantly to the Tg likely is the restricted rotational freedom of the side chain around
the phenol–ester linkage, which arises from interactions between
the carbonyl in the ester and bulky o-groups. This
explanation is consistent with the rigidity argument previously applied
to explain Tg differences between poly(phenyl
methacrylates) with varying o-alkyl substituents.[37,41]The η0’s for SM-containing polymers
span
∼5 orders of magnitude and depend largely on the SM content.
This promising range of deformation resistances accessible via lignin-based
monomers is illustrated in Figure a (see also Figures S4 and S5 for related dynamic mechanical analysis data). For example, the
η0 at 220 °C is 17,000 kPa·s for PSM and
significantly less for the SM-containing heteropolymers (0.2–40
kPa·s), as shown in Figure b and listed in Table S2. This window of η0’s is substantial in comparison
to the ∼2 orders of magnitude spanned by the complete range
of guaiacylic methacrylate polymers[23] and
could be wider if higher molecular weight polymers, relative to PSM-24,
were examined. Thus, SM provides a much wider space over which processability
and deformation resistance can be optimized.
Figure 3
Zero-shear viscosities
(a) as a function of temperature and (b)
as a function of SM content, which together show the wide-ranging
η0’s available through hardwood and softwood
LBMs. Data for PEM were reported previously.[23]
Zero-shear viscosities
(a) as a function of temperature and (b)
as a function of SM content, which together show the wide-ranging
η0’s available through hardwood and softwood
LBMs. Data for PEM were reported previously.[23]In summary, no other system of
biobased monomers allows Tg’s from
≈100 °C (ideal for
thermoformable yet boiling-water-stable plastics, such as cups) to
≈200 °C (ideal for heat- and flow-resistant materials,
such as asphalt binders) to be accessed as readily as the lignin-based
monomers presented herein. The measurable changes in Tg and η0 at small SM contents, and the
wide-ranging thermomechanical properties reported for all of these
polymers, indicate that SM could be a powerful add-in monomer for
adjusting material properties. The similar polymerization characteristics
between softwood and hardwood monomers also greatly simplify the task
of predicting a priori macromolecular characteristics
and properties of any heteropolymer containing syringylic segments.
Hence, SM is an extraordinary new biobased monomer for its ability
to significantly raise polymer Tg’s
and deformation resistances at small added contents, so the isolation
of syringol from hardwood or grassy lignin-based bio-oils and its
conversion to SM has the potential to become a worthwhile investment.
Authors: Irina Delidovich; Peter J C Hausoul; Li Deng; Rebecca Pfützenreuter; Marcus Rose; Regina Palkovits Journal: Chem Rev Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 60.622
Authors: Frank S Bates; Marc A Hillmyer; Timothy P Lodge; Christopher M Bates; Kris T Delaney; Glenn H Fredrickson Journal: Science Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Arthur J Ragauskas; Gregg T Beckham; Mary J Biddy; Richard Chandra; Fang Chen; Mark F Davis; Brian H Davison; Richard A Dixon; Paul Gilna; Martin Keller; Paul Langan; Amit K Naskar; Jack N Saddler; Timothy J Tschaplinski; Gerald A Tuskan; Charles E Wyman Journal: Science Date: 2014-05-16 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Robert M O'Dea; Paula A Pranda; Yuqing Luo; Alice Amitrano; Elvis O Ebikade; Eric R Gottlieb; Olumoye Ajao; Marzouk Benali; Dionisios G Vlachos; Marianthi Ierapetritou; Thomas H Epps Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 14.136
Authors: Olivier Bonjour; Hannes Nederstedt; Monica V Arcos-Hernandez; Siim Laanesoo; Lauri Vares; Patric Jannasch Journal: ACS Sustain Chem Eng Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 8.198