Jess M Clough1, Jasper van der Gucht2, Rint P Sijbesma1. 1. Laboratory of Macromolecular and Organic Chemistry and the Institute for Complex Molecular Systems, Eindhoven University of Technology , P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 2. Laboratory of Physical Chemistry and Soft Matter, Agrotechnology and Food Sciences Group, Wageningen University , PO Box 8038, 6700 EK Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
A chemiluminescent mechanophore, bis(adamantyl-1,2-dioxetane), is used to investigate the covalent bond scission resulting from the sorption of chloroform by glassy poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) networks. Bis(adamantyl)-1,2-dioxetane units incorporated as cross-linkers underwent mechanoluminescent scission, demonstrating that solvent ingress caused covalent bond scission. At higher cross-linking densities, the light emission took the form of hundreds of discrete bursts, widely varying in intensity, with each burst composed of 107-109 photons. Camera imaging indicated a relatively slow propagation of bursts through the material and permitted analysis of the spatial correlation between the discrete bond-breaking events. The implications of these observations for the mechanism of sorption and fracture are discussed.
A chemiluminescent mechanophore, bis(adamantyl-1,2-dioxetane), is used to investigate the covalent bond scission resulting from the sorption of chloroform by glassy poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) networks. Bis(adamantyl)-1,2-dioxetane units incorporated as cross-linkers underwent mechanoluminescent scission, demonstrating that solvent ingress caused covalent bond scission. At higher cross-linking densities, the light emission took the form of hundreds of discrete bursts, widely varying in intensity, with each burst composed of 107-109 photons. Camera imaging indicated a relatively slow propagation of bursts through the material and permitted analysis of the spatial correlation between the discrete bond-breaking events. The implications of these observations for the mechanism of sorption and fracture are discussed.
Many polymers are exposed
to solvent in their end-use applications,
for example, in sealants,[1] coatings,[2] membranes,[3−5] controlled release systems, especially
for pharmaceuticals[6,7] and tissue engineering,[6,8,9] or to generate complex architectures,
as in microlithography.[10−12] The sorption of solute by polymeric
materials encompasses a broad range of physical phenomena, such as
dissolution, diffusion, swelling, and relaxation, with concomitant
stress buildup and deformation or even failure of the polymeric matrix.[13−15] In particular, glassy polymers provide not only entropic resistance
to swelling, as described in Flory–Rehner theory, but also
additional viscous resistance from limited chain mobility.[16−18] In these materials, solvent uptake is controlled by polymer relaxation
processes, giving rise to a sharp diffusion front and a linear relationship
between solvent uptake and time. Such behavior is characteristic of
Case II sorption. The resulting osmotic stresses in these systems
have been predicted to be of the order of 10 MPa or greater:[19,20] the growing swollen part of the polymer matrix exerts tensile stresses
on the unswollen polymer that can even lead to fracture. However,
while much experimental and theoretical study has been devoted to
understanding the physical processes involved in the swelling of polymeric
materials, particularly the sharp solvent front in glassy polymers,[21−28] little is known about the forces experienced by the polymer chains
at the molecular level. A better description of the mechanical effects
at these length scales would permit finer control over polymeric responses
to solvent ingress, for example, to tune the release time of a drug
from a polymeric carrier, to create nanostructures in membranes with
greater accuracy, or to mimic the mechanical response of natural structural
tissues.[29]In the past 10 years,
new approaches to visualizing molecular stress
distributions in polymeric materials have emerged from the field of
polymer mechanochemistry. By directing the large forces that accumulate
along polymer chains, chemists in this area have designed materials
that give productive mechanical responses, such as reporting or repairing
damage that the materials have themselves sustained. To obtain these
properties, functional groups with relatively weak covalent bonds,
or mechanophores, are incorporated in the material, which isomerize
or break selectively when a force is applied.[30−36] Mechanoresponsivity is thereby achieved without significantly compromising
the mechanical integrity of the material.The mechanical response
of polymeric systems to solvent sorption
has received some prior attention in this line of research. The first
studies found no evidence of mechanical activation of covalent mechanophores:
neither scission of disulfide bonds[37] nor
Bergman cyclization of ene–diynes[38] were found to occur in swellingpolymer networks cross-linked with
these mechanophores. The first swelling-induced mechanoresponse was
recorded by the Moore group, from bulk poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)
samples incorporating the mechanofluorochromic spiropyran, which undergoes
an electrocyclic ring-opening to produce the strongly colored and
fluorescent merocyanine under the influence of mechanical force.[39] In this study, Lee et al. found that the fluorescence
intensity of the spiropyran-functionalized PMMA correlated strongly
with the swelling degree of the sample. Most recently, swelling polyelectrolytes
tethered to a surface via a Diels–Alder adduct induced its
retro-cycloaddition, with the resulting polymer detachment followed
in situ by quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) measurements.[40] However, these approaches have significant drawbacks
in monitoring and mapping the stresses brought about by solvent–polymer
interactions. In particular, mechanoactivation of spiropyran gives
an integrated signal in absorption or fluorescence, making it more
difficult to record small changes over time. In addition, the equilibrium
between spiropyran and merocyanine is sensitive to the polarity of
the environment, which can be influenced by the presence of solvent.
QCM meanwhile provides no spatial information.The 1,2-dioxetane
mechanophore is a highly sensitive force probe
for polymeric materials which could overcome these limitations to
provide a more detailed picture of swelling-induced reactivity. When
incorporated covalently within a polymeric material, the four-membered
dioxetane ring cleaves preferentially upon application of stress to
the polymer to give ketones in their excited state, which may then
relax to the ground state with the emission of mechanically induced
chemiluminescence or mechanoluminescence (Figure ).[31,41] As with other “stress
reporters”, dioxetane luminescence reports where a critical
force for decomposition has been exceeded. This mechanophore has been
used to track stress distributions in a diverse selection of polymeric
materials in the solid state, such as linear polymers and acrylate
networks,[31] thermoplastic elastomers,[42] multiple interpenetrating networks,[43] supramolecularly cross-linked networks,[44] and filled elastomers.[45] Mechanoluminescence offers an important advantage over techniques
based on fluorescent mechanophores, namely that the signal is transient
rather than additive, permitting greater spatial and temporal resolution
of covalent bond-breaking events. The absence of an excitation signal,
which is required to visualize the damage with mechanically induced
fluorescence, further boosts the sensitivity of systems based on mechanically
induced chemiluminescence.
Figure 1
Top: thermally induced mechanoluminescence from
bis(adamantyl)-1,2-dioxetane,
first discovered by Wieringa et al.[46] At
200 °C, bis(adamantyl)-1,2-dioxetane has a half-life of approximately
100 s.[47] Bottom: on incorporating in a
polymer, chemiluminescence from bis(adamantyl)-1,2-dioxetane can be
induced mechanically, as first reported by Chen et al.[31]
Top: thermally induced mechanoluminescence from
bis(adamantyl)-1,2-dioxetane,
first discovered by Wieringa et al.[46] At
200 °C, bis(adamantyl)-1,2-dioxetane has a half-life of approximately
100 s.[47] Bottom: on incorporating in a
polymer, chemiluminescence from bis(adamantyl)-1,2-dioxetane can be
induced mechanically, as first reported by Chen et al.[31]In this study, we incorporate bis(adamantyl)-1,2-dioxetane
as a
cross-linker in PMMA and study the covalent bond scission processes
upon solvent ingress by monitoring the mechanoluminescence with either
a photodiode or a sensitive camera. We also investigate the physical
mechanisms leading to solvent swelling-induced covalent bond-breaking
and macroscopic fracture by systematically varying the cross-linking
density and examining the distributions of bond-breaking events in
magnitude and time.
Experimental Details
Materials
Unless otherwise stated, all starting materials
were obtained from commercial suppliers and used without purification.
AIBN was precipitated from methanol and dried under vacuum. Methyl
methacrylate monomer and diacrylate cross-linkers were filtered through
a plug of basic alumina to remove the inhibitors. Dioxetane bis(acrylate)
cross-linker was synthesized as previously reported.[31] Bis(adamantyl)-1,2-dioxetane was also prepared following
a literature procedure.[48] All polymerization
reactions were performed under a nitrogen atmosphere. Thin layer chromatography
(TLC) was conducted on silica gel 60 F254 (Merck, 0.2 mm). Column
chromatography was carried out on silica gel, basic alumina, or neutral
alumina (0.063–0.2 mm). NMR spectra were recorded on a 400
MHz (100 MHz for 13C) Varian Mercury VX spectrometer at
room temperature using residual protonated solvent signals as internal
standards (1H: δ(CDCl3) = 7.26 ppm; 13C: δ(CDCl3) = 77.16 ppm).
Film Preparation
In a typical experiment AIBN (40 mg,
0.244 mmol, 0.0261 equiv), dioxetane cross-linker (12.4 mg, 0.0234
mmol, 0.0025 equiv), diphenylanthracene (10 mg, 0.0302 mmol,
0.00323 equiv), tetra(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (TEGDA) (e.g., 19.1
μL, 0.00701 mmol, 0.0075 equiv for 1%; 121 μL, 0.444 mmol,
0.0475 equiv for 5%), and methyl methacrylate (MMA) (1 mL, 9.35 mmol,
1 equiv) were combined in a vial closed with a septum and flushed
with argon for 3–4 min. Once dissolved, the reaction mixture
was transferred to an unsealed Teflon mold, 2 cm × 4.5 cm ×
5 mm, in an oven under a nitrogen atmosphere and allowed to flush
with nitrogen for several minutes, after which a glass plate was placed
on top of the mold. The reaction mixture was then heated for 6 h at
65 °C. The resulting films were clear, with a slight yellow color
from the cross-linker, and they had a slight blue fluorescence under
ambient light from the DPA.
Gravimetry Experiments
Small pieces
(5 mm × 5
mm × 0.5 mm) were carefully cut from the films and placed in
a small glass vial. Chloroform was added and the vial closed with
a cap. After various time intervals, the sample was carefully taken
out of the solvent with tweezers, solvent from its surface dried lightly
with a tissue and placed in preweighed vial, and the vial closed with
a lid. The weight of the sample was then recorded. The sample was
placed back in the solvent, and the timing of the swelling was resumed.
The samples became fragile with increasing solvent uptake: at higher
cross-linking densities (>4 mol %), the samples fractured in a
few
macroscopic pieces, after which the gravimetric experiment was not
continued; at lower cross-linking densities, macroscopic fracture
did not occur, but the pressure applied with the tweezers sometimes
led to small pieces fracturing off from the side of the sample, leading
to a slight apparent decrease in weight at longer swelling times.
Solvent Swelling Tests with Photodetector
Small pieces
(5 mm × 5 mm × 0.5 mm) were carefully cut from the films
and placed in a small glass vial. The photodiode measurements were
conducted with a Hamamatsu S2281-01 photodiode, photoactive area 100
mm2, spectral response given below. In these experiments,
the glass vial was fixed directly on top of the photodiode with tape
and covered with aluminum foil to exclude light. Solvent was injected
via plastic tubing from a syringe (Figure ). The photocurrent was recorded using an
Agilent semiconductor parameter analyzer (4155 series). Read-out rates
are reported with individual experiments.
Figure 2
Schematic showing
photodetection setup with photodiode.
Schematic showing
photodetection setup with photodiode.The imaging experiments were performed with an Andor iXon
Ultra
888 camera containing an EM-CCD sensor and fitted with a Micro Nikkor
40 mm f/2.8 macro lens that was fixed manually in
its largest aperture (minimum focusing distance 0.185 m). The EM gain
was set to 1000. Frame transfer and cropped sensor modes were used
to increase frame rates. The frame rate settings are reported with
individual experiments. For the intensity analysis, the glass vial
was clamped 10 cm above the top of the lens of the camera so that
the sample vial with a diameter of 1 cm occupied an area of 512 ×
512 pixels in the final images. Solvent was injected; light from the
environment was then excluded. A recording run of 20 000 frames
was started after 5–10 min of swelling (depending on the cross-linking
density), at the start of the period in which the greatest activity
was observed, using the photodiode measurements as a guide to the
timing of the events.To examine spatial localization and fracture
propagation, the sample
was fixated in a homemade cell consisting of a wire ring and cotton
string wound around the ring to make two layered webs. The sample
was placed in between the two layers, and the experiment was conducted
as described above. The fixation was checked before and after recording
mechanoluminescence.
Results
PMMA exhibits a strong response
to swelling in some organic solvents,
in common with other glassy polymers. To examine the swelling properties
of the dioxetane-functionalized PMMA networks (for preparation details,
see Experimental Details section), flat, square
samples (5 mm × 5 mm × 0.5 mm) were allowed to swell in
a selection of solvents for approximately 1 h, with brief intervals
during which the samples were removed from the solvent to be weighed.
The increase in swelling ratio with time in different solvents measured
in this way is plotted in Figure for a sample cross-linked with 1 mol % of tetra(ethylene
glycol) diacrylate; we note that the swelling uptake of samples containing
0.25 mol % dioxetane cross-linker and 0.75 mol % tetra(ethylene glycol)
diacrylate was indistinguishable from the swelling uptake curve shown
in Figure . Polar
protic and apolar solvents, such as water and toluene, respectively,
gave little measurable swelling. In polar aprotic solvents, such as
acetone, ethyl acetate, acetonitrile, and tetrahydrofuran (THF), the
samples took up approximately half their weight in solvent after half
an hour. Chloroform swelled the samples to the greatest extent (even
after accounting for the higher molar mass of the solvent) and also
at the greatest rate, with the sample taking up almost 4 times its
weight in solvent after approximately 10 min. On this basis, most
of the experiments reported here were conducted in chloroform. Samples
of the same size with 20 mol % cross-links took up less than half
their weight in solvent after 5 min before becoming too fragile to
weigh. In contrast to the report of Lee et al.,[39] imbibing chloroform did not cause our 1 mol % samples to
fracture macroscopically, although samples with higher cross-linking
densities (>4 mol %) exhibited damage on the macroscopic level:
these
samples were whitened after drying, possibly from crazing, and many
fractured into a few macroscopic pieces (for photographs of the samples
at different stages of swelling, see Supporting Information). This difference is possibly related to either
the larger size of the samples in the study of Lee et al. (27.5 ×
8 × 0.75 mm), or the differing swelling geometry, both of which
strongly influence the swelling degree and kinetics.
Figure 3
Swelling ratios of cross-linked
poly(methyl methacrylate) films
(5 mm × 5 mm × 0.5 mm), cross-linking density 1 mol % with
cross-linker tetra(ethylene glycol) diacrylate), over time upon penetration
of chloroform (open circle); acetonitrile (filled square); acetone
(open diamond); tetrahydrofuran (filled triangle); toluene (open square).
Standard deviations from three or four separate experiments.
Swelling ratios of cross-linked
poly(methyl methacrylate) films
(5 mm × 5 mm × 0.5 mm), cross-linking density 1 mol % with
cross-linker tetra(ethylene glycol) diacrylate), over time upon penetration
of chloroform (open circle); acetonitrile (filled square); acetone
(open diamond); tetrahydrofuran (filled triangle); toluene (open square).
Standard deviations from three or four separate experiments.Having established which solvents
elicit the greatest osmotic response
from PMMA, we took a sample (dimensions as described above, 5 mm ×
5 mm × 0.5 mm) with a total cross-linking density of 5 mol %,
dioxetane concentration 0.75 mol %, and 0.32 mol % 9,10-diphenylanthracene
(DPA). DPA was added to boost the overall quantum yield, as described
in prior literature.[31,41,45] Injecting chloroform onto the sample in a vial in a darkened room
led to mechanoluminescence visible to the naked eye. “Firework”-like
flashes of light could be observed over several minutes, following
an initial induction time of approximately 4 min and ceasing entirely
after 10 min.To quantify the intensity of the light emission,
we performed the
swelling tests on top of a photodiode as a photodetector (see Experimental Details section). Although the photodiode
provided only a total intensity read-out, it allowed us to efficiently
assess the effect of network characteristics on the solvent-induced
mechanoluminescence. An example of the photocurrent signal that we
obtained in this setup is shown in Figure A. The photodiode measurements confirmed
the observations made by eye regarding the nature of the emission,
namely, that it is composed of discrete, intermittent bursts of light,
which we will also refer to as “events”. The length
of time during which light emission occurs also corresponded well
to the time taken by the sample to reach its maximum swelling ratio,
as determined from the gravimetric tests described above. Otherwise,
the events appear to occur at random time intervals and with random
intensities, within a range of 1–2 orders of magnitude. On
drying and reswelling the samples, no further significant light emission
was observed. Control photodiode measurements with a PMMA network
containing molecularly dissolved bis(adamantyl)-1,2-dioxetane and
9,10-diphenylanthracene gave out no measurable light emission,
demonstrating that the observed activation from covalently incorporated
dioxetanes is genuinely mechanical in nature. Any heat from bond formation
following covalent bond scission or released mechanical potential
energy is therefore insufficient to induce dioxetane scission.
Figure 4
(A) Photocurrent
recorded on swelling PMMA (0.75 mol % dioxetane
cross-linker, 5 mol % total cross-linking density, 0.32 mol % DPA)
with chloroform vs time from injection of solvent (black line); swelling
of control sample containing molecularly dissolved dioxetane and DPA
(red line). Sampling rate 1 Hz; each peak corresponds to one point
at this sampling rate. (B) Photocurrent from one burst, or event,
recorded at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz, each point corresponding to
intensity measured during a 1 ms interval. The oscillations in the
baseline result from electrical interference.
(A) Photocurrent
recorded on swellingPMMA (0.75 mol % dioxetane
cross-linker, 5 mol % total cross-linking density, 0.32 mol % DPA)
with chloroform vs time from injection of solvent (black line); swelling
of control sample containing molecularly dissolved dioxetane and DPA
(red line). Sampling rate 1 Hz; each peak corresponds to one point
at this sampling rate. (B) Photocurrent from one burst, or event,
recorded at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz, each point corresponding to
intensity measured during a 1 ms interval. The oscillations in the
baseline result from electrical interference.At higher read-out rates, it was possible to resolve individual
bursts temporally with the photodiode (Figure B). We were able to determine that the length
of the individual bursts was of the order of a few milliseconds, by
measuring with a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. The time scale of the emission
does not arise from the relaxation of the excited states: the mechanochemically
generated adamantanone transfers its excitation energy via Förster
resonance energy transfer (FRET) to 9,10-diphenylanthracene
acceptors that are incorporated in the network, which relax from their
first singlet excited (S1) state with a lifetime of 7.6
ns in cyclohexane[49] (even in the absence
of FRET, the S1 state of adamantanone has a lifetime of
approximately 9 ns[50]). The time scale of
the bursts, or events, must therefore be a consequence of the bond-breaking
processes. Furthermore, on the basis of the photodiode specifications
(see Supporting Information), the largest
of the bursts was estimated to emit in the order of 7.3 × 108 photons. Camera imaging indicated that the smallest events
distinguishable from the noise were at most 2 orders of magnitude
smaller than the largest events. Given that the efficiency of the
mechanical production of singlet state excited states is 0.9%[41] and the efficiency of singlet–singlet
energy transfer is approximately 80%, based on a previously reported R0 value of 2.3 nm (for excited state acetone
to DPA in a polystyrene film; for further information on the calculation
of FRET efficiency, see Supporting Information),[51] the largest events recorded corresponded
to the breaking of 1.0 × 1011 dioxetane moieties.
The total light emitted in the run shown in Figure a corresponded to the scission of 2.4 ×
1012 dioxetane moieties, or equivalently 1 out of 4.8 ×
105 dioxetane groups incorporated in the sample. These
figures also take into account the light-capture efficiency of the
photodiode, which was calculated as 32% of the mechanoluminescence
emitted from the size of the photoactive area, and the sample-to-sensor
distance (for estimation of detection efficiency of photodiode setup,
see Supporting Information).The
effect of cross-linking density in the PMMA network was then
studied by varying the amount of a nonfunctional cross-linker, which
contains a tetra(ethylene glycol) spacer, while keeping the amount
of dioxetane cross-linker constant (Figure ). A sharp transition in the amount of mechanoluminescence
and number of bursts, or events, was observed on increasing the cross-linking
density. At lower cross-linking densities (1 and 0.5 mol %), events
occurred infrequently and at irregular intervals. At 4–5 mol
% cross-linking density, far more mechanoluminescence was emitted
and a strong temporal clustering of events was evident. Increasing
cross-link density above this threshold led to an increase in the
total amount of light emitted and an increase in the number of events.
An increase in the length of induction time was also observed, which
may be related to both the lower swelling rate at higher cross-linking
densities and to the incorporation of a significant amount of tetra(ethylene
glycol), which would be expected to lower the glass transition temperature
of the network. Incorporating cross-linkers with an octa(ethylene
glycol) spacer gave even longer onset times before significant mechanoluminescence
could be observed, which would also provide support for the influence
of glass transition temperature on the onset time (see Supporting Information). Tripling the % dioxetane
cross-linker incorporated while keeping the total cross-linking density
constant led to an approximate tripling of the intensities of the
events (see Supporting Information).
Figure 5
Effect of variation
in cross-linking density of PMMA on solvent-induced
mechanoluminescence. Swelling with chloroform; 1 Hz photodiode read-out
rate; 0.25 mol % dioxetane cross-linker incorporation (tetra(ethylene
glycol) inactive cross-linker). Total cross-linking densities: 0.5
mol % (red); 1 mol % (green); 5 mol % (dark blue); 10 mol % (light
blue); 20 mol % (pink).
Effect of variation
in cross-linking density of PMMA on solvent-induced
mechanoluminescence. Swelling with chloroform; 1 Hz photodiode read-out
rate; 0.25 mol % dioxetane cross-linker incorporation (tetra(ethylene
glycol) inactive cross-linker). Total cross-linking densities: 0.5
mol % (red); 1 mol % (green); 5 mol % (dark blue); 10 mol % (light
blue); 20 mol % (pink).SwellingPMMA with the other polar aprotic solvents listed
in Figure gave little
or no
mechanoluminescence, comparable with the sporadic emission seen at
low cross-linking densities in chloroform, even at high cross-linking
densities. The swelling in these solvents was therefore not studied
any further. Interestingly, swellingdioxetane cross-linked networks
of poly(ethyl methacrylate) and poly(hexyl methacrylate) gave no measurable
light emission with any of the solvents studied. These materials have
glass transition temperatures (Tg) of
66 and −5 °C, respectively, in comparison with the Tg of PMMA, 125 °C.[52] Even after equilibration with a swelling solvent, swollen PMMA can
remain glassy at 20 °C.[53,54] Glassiness appears
to be a requirement for mechanoluminescence (and, by extension, covalent
bond scission) upon solvent uptake. Furthermore, a sample of high
molecular weight linear PMMA (Mw ∼
100 kDa), containing a single dioxetane group close to the midpoint
of each polymer chain, also gave no light on swelling on chloroform,
the solvent which elicited the greatest response from cross-linked
PMMA. Possibly, the molecular entanglements present at this molecular
weight are insufficiently restrictive of mobility to give rise to
covalent bond scission.Imaging the solvent-induced mechanoluminescence
with a sensitive
camera, containing a charge-coupled device sensor connected to an
electron-multiplying register (EMCCD), gave information on the locations
of the covalent bond scission events, along with enhanced photosensitivity
and temporal resolution. The light from swelling samples was imaged
in a very similar geometry to the photodiode measurements: facing
the slab-shaped sample in the direction of its greatest cross-sectional
area, from the bottom of the vial (see Supporting Information). A macro lens with a short focusing distance was
used to ensure good spatial resolution and to capture the most amount
of light. Examples of the fracture events that could be imaged with
the camera are shown in Figure : a broad range of event sizes and intensities were observed.
MATLAB was used to quantify the event intensities from the movie frames
(for a description of the script, see Supporting Information).
Figure 6
Examples of fracture events; scale bar 1 mm. Swelling
in chloroform,
imaging at 72.6 Hz (exposure time 12.9 ms). Original 16-bit movie
frames are represented in 8 bits for display in this graphic (data
analysis performed on 16-bit data).
Examples of fracture events; scale bar 1 mm. Swelling
in chloroform,
imaging at 72.6 Hz (exposure time 12.9 ms). Original 16-bit movie
frames are represented in 8 bits for display in this graphic (data
analysis performed on 16-bit data).We used this more sensitive technique first to try to discern
any
underlying statistical patterns in the occurrence of solvent-induced
mechanoluminescence events of particular sizes and intensities at
higher cross-linking densities (>4 mol %). It was qualitatively
evident
from the photodiode measurements on these samples that the intensities
of the individual events could not be characterized by a normal distribution:
there are a small number of large events and many more smaller events,
which appear to merge to give a broad hump in intensity. Recording
at higher frame rates (70 Hz) with the camera permitted resolution
of these smaller events. The distribution of the intensities of events
spanned approximately 2 orders of magnitude, limited at low intensities
by experimental noise (Figure ). At intermediate intensities, the distribution approximately
follows a power law, although it should be noted that the range of
this power law extends only over roughly 1 decade in intensities.
Linear regression analysis on a plot of cumulative probability vs
intensity gave an exponent of 0.83 for the middle section of the curve,
marked by the thick black lines in Figure (20 mol %: 0.70 ± 0.08; 10 mol %: 0.90
± 0.06; 4 mol %: 0.89 ± 0.08). There was a lower intensity
cutoff to the apparent power law regime, corresponding to ∼2
× 104 counts in the camera’s intensity units,
which corresponds to approximately 112 photons received on the sensor (see Supporting Information for conversion factor). There was also an upper intensity cutoff
at ∼3 × 105 counts. Events with intensities
in the region of this cutoff were found to give areas in the camera
images of 0.3 mm2. We assume that the thickness of the
sample (0.5 mm) imposes an upper limit on the size of that a rupture
event can have. Lastly, the cross-linker content does not appear to
have a significant influence on the shape of the distribution.
Figure 7
Cumulative
distributions of event intensities from highly cross-linked
samples, where P(X > x) represents the probability that an event X has
an intensity of more than x counts. Total cross-linking
density: (A) 4 mol % (red squares); (B) 10 mol % (black crosses);
(C) 20 mol % (blue open circles). 0.25 mol % dioxetane cross-linker
throughout; tetra(ethylene glycol) inactive cross-linker. Each line
represents a separate swelling run. Thick black lines indicate regime
in which power law exponents were calculated.
Cumulative
distributions of event intensities from highly cross-linked
samples, where P(X > x) represents the probability that an event X has
an intensity of more than x counts. Total cross-linking
density: (A) 4 mol % (red squares); (B) 10 mol % (black crosses);
(C) 20 mol % (blue open circles). 0.25 mol % dioxetane cross-linker
throughout; tetra(ethylene glycol) inactive cross-linker. Each line
represents a separate swelling run. Thick black lines indicate regime
in which power law exponents were calculated.By imaging at a higher frame rate of 503 Hz, we examined
in greater
detail how single fracture events, such as those shown in Figure , propagated through
the material. Most gave out light over one to three frames at this
frame rate, indicating a typical event duration of 2–6 ms,
in agreement with the photodiode measurements at higher sampling rates.
Larger events could be observed to advance through the sample over
many more frames, as in the example depicted in Figure A. This plot shows a single fracture event
lasting 75 ms. The centroid of the activated pixels in each frame
is represented by a dot that is colored according to the sum of the
pixel intensities in that frame. It appears that the tip of the event
moves through the material at a rate of approximately 30 mm s–1. Cracks branch off after ∼20 and 60 ms. While
the applied stress is not controlled externally in our setup, the
observed propagation speed is consistent with rates reported in other
swollen gel systems, including a physically cross-linked gelatin hydrogel,[55] a covalently cross-linked polyacrylamide hydrogel,[56] and dual cross-link poly(vinyl alcohol) hydrogels.[57] The spatial extent of the events in each frame
is indicated in Figure B, which shows the perimeters of the groups of activated pixels over
time. The spatial correlation between different rupture events can
be further quantified by calculating the probability C(r) that the centroids of two randomly chosen events
are separated by a distance smaller than r. This
type of analysis is often performed in geology to analyze the spatial
relationships between earthquakes or rock fractures.[58] In the case of uncorrelated events, a completely random
distribution on the (x, y)-plane
is expected, which would give C(r) ∼ r2. However, for the events
shown in Figure A,
we find an exponent which is much closer to unity (Figure C), which is the value that
would be expected for a crack that appears one-dimensional in the
(x, y)-plane. We note that the mechanoluminescence
most likely originates from a crack plane that extends from the surface
through the thickness of the sample (perpendicular to the (x, y)-plane), which appears as one-dimensional
in our measurements.
Figure 8
Crack propagation through a sample with 4 mol % total
cross-linking
density (0.25 mol % dioxetane), fixated with a homemade cell. Imaging
at 503.4 Hz (exposure time 1.81 ms). (A) Progression of crack front.
Each point represents the centroid of a group of activated pixels
with four or more pixels. Each centroid is colored according to time
and sized according to the summed intensity of the group of pixels.
The projection on the (x, y)-plane
is shown in black. (B) Spatial extent of crack with time. The perimeter
of every group of activated pixels from (A) is colored according to
the time elapsed since crack initiation. (C) The probability C(r) that the distance between a pair of
randomly chosen points in (A) has a value less than r. The slope (red line) is fitted by least-squares regression and
has a value of 1, as expected for a linear feature. Note that the
curve C(r) is quite noisy due to
the limited number of data points.
Crack propagation through a sample with 4 mol % total
cross-linking
density (0.25 mol % dioxetane), fixated with a homemade cell. Imaging
at 503.4 Hz (exposure time 1.81 ms). (A) Progression of crack front.
Each point represents the centroid of a group of activated pixels
with four or more pixels. Each centroid is colored according to time
and sized according to the summed intensity of the group of pixels.
The projection on the (x, y)-plane
is shown in black. (B) Spatial extent of crack with time. The perimeter
of every group of activated pixels from (A) is colored according to
the time elapsed since crack initiation. (C) The probability C(r) that the distance between a pair of
randomly chosen points in (A) has a value less than r. The slope (red line) is fitted by least-squares regression and
has a value of 1, as expected for a linear feature. Note that the
curve C(r) is quite noisy due to
the limited number of data points.The spatial correlation within the propagating fracture event
can
be seen by eye from Figure A, making the result of Figure C rather trivial. However, when investigating the correlation
between different fracture events on longer time scales, the spatial
relationship between separate events is not readily discerned. Figure shows the mechanoluminescence
from 140 separate events recorded during a 3 min time period: the
centroids of activated groups of pixels are shown in Figure A and the perimeters of the
events in Figure B.
The imaging was performed at a slower frame rate (72.6 Hz) to capture
as many events as possible, meaning that each event nearly always
appears in just one frame (in contrast to Figure ). To quantify the correlation between separate
events, we calculated the distance and time interval separating every
pair of event centroids in the experimental series shown in Figure A and then plotted
the cumulative probability C(r)
in the spatial dimensions (x and y), shown in Figure C. A slope of 2 is expected if the fracture events exhibit no spatial
clustering; i.e., they are randomly distributed on the (x, y)-plane. A least-squares fit on the distances
between every pair of events gave a slope of 1.8
over the smallest distances (0.05–0.5 mm, black line); this
value progressively decreased to 1.4 for the largest distances (0.5–5
mm). This indicates that the events are almost randomly distributed
on the (x, y)-plane with respect
to each other, with the number of longer distances limited by the
size of the sample (hence leading to a decrease in slope). If only
the distances between events that occurred less than 5 s apart are
considered (pink line), stronger clustering at the short length scales
can be seen, with shorter distances being significantly more likely
than longer distances. The spatiotemporal clustering becomes progressively
more evident as the time interval between pairs of events is restricted
to 0.5 s (blue line) and 0.05 s (green line). Hence, events that are
closer in time also tend to be closer in space, suggesting that the
formation of a crack in the sample promotes the formation of successive
cracks in its vicinity, possibly by the creation of new surface area
leading to additional solvent sorption.
Figure 9
Swelling of sample with
4 mol % total cross-linking density (0.25
mol % dioxetane), fixated in the vial with a homemade cell (for a
description of the setup, see Supporting Information). Swelling in chloroform, imaging at 72.6 Hz (exposure time 12.9
ms). (A) Stars represent centroids of 140 events and are colored according
to the time elapsed since the beginning of the recording. (B) Perimeters
of the same events plotted in a similar way as (A). (C) Probability, C(r), that two events are within a distance r from one another for all events (black line) and for pairs
of events that occur less than 5 s apart (pink), 0.5 s apart (blue),
and 0.05 s apart (green).
Swelling of sample with
4 mol % total cross-linking density (0.25
mol % dioxetane), fixated in the vial with a homemade cell (for a
description of the setup, see Supporting Information). Swelling in chloroform, imaging at 72.6 Hz (exposure time 12.9
ms). (A) Stars represent centroids of 140 events and are colored according
to the time elapsed since the beginning of the recording. (B) Perimeters
of the same events plotted in a similar way as (A). (C) Probability, C(r), that two events are within a distance r from one another for all events (black line) and for pairs
of events that occur less than 5 s apart (pink), 0.5 s apart (blue),
and 0.05 s apart (green).
Discussion
Solvent-induced mechanoluminescence demonstrated
unambiguously
that osmotic stresses can result in covalent bond scission in cross-linked
PMMA. For significant covalent bond scission to occur, it appeared
to be necessary both that the matrix is glassy and that the network
contains permanent (covalent) cross-links. The solvent front in glassy
polymers is much sharper than the typical Fickian concentration profile
observed in rubbery networks, as a result of the greater conformational
resistance to diffusion posed by the glassy matrix. Covalent bond
scission is most likely initiated by the high stresses at the diffusion
front, predicted to be of the order of 10 MPa.[19,20] Permanent cross-links may increase the likelihood that the network
will deform by covalent bond cleavage, rather than by disruption of
interchain interactions, or disentanglement.[9] Earlier work on the swelling of poly(styrene) networks cross-linked
with divinylbenzene attributed osmotically induced macroscopic fracture
to stresses associated with the sharp diffusion front.[13] There was also a “quiet period”
observed at higher cross-linking densities, preceding the main fracture
events. This may imply that a certain swelling ratio or degree of
plasticization must be reached before covalent bond scission can be
initiated: others have suggested that a degree of plasticization,
which can be described by a Fickian profile, is necessary before a
Case II diffusion front can form in the material.[17,59−61] Higher cross-linking densities may be expected to
slow down the initial plasticization, which would lead to a longer
induction period. We note however that initiation times can be influenced
also by surface effects and sample geometry.At the diffusion
front, the growing swollen part of the network
is under compressive stress from the unswollen material, while at
the same time exerting a tensile stress on the unswollen phase, favoring
crack initiation in the latter. An approximate calibration revealed
that 109–1011 dioxetane bonds undergo
scission in each fracture event. For 1011 dioxetanes to
break, as in the largest single events, a fracture surface of 10–100
mm2 would need to be created (for estimate, see Supporting Information), which is 1–2
orders of magnitude larger than expected on the basis of the size
of our samples and our observations of the swelling process with the
camera. The relatively large numbers of bonds involved therefore suggest
that the bonds do not only break at the crack tip, but in an extended
region around the crack tip. Local plastic deformation in the glassy
phase is most likely to occur via crazing (or cavitation) and the
formation of shear zones.[62] Crazes usually
nucleate from existing flaws in the material and resemble cracks optically,
but in contrast to cracks, crazes remain load-bearing because bundles
of polymers, or fibrils, 5–30 nm in diameter, are drawn out
of the matrix to span the void between the two craze/bulk interfaces
(Figure ).[63] Forming fibrils requires extensive disentanglement
or covalent bond scission, leading to substantial increases (×100)
in fracture toughness;[64,65] then, for a craze to become a
crack, additional disentanglement or scission must occur to break
the fibrils. In simulations, an exponential force distribution was
found in the crazes of a glassy polymer, which would favor covalent
bond scission.[66] Permanent cross-links
make disentanglement more difficult and therefore usually inhibit
crazing, but local reductions in Tg as
a result of solvent sorption can dramatically lower the stress required
for crazing.[67−73] The void channels of existing crazes also provide pathways for the
solvent to reach the highly stressed polymer chains at the tip of
the craze, and the fibrils themselves, being relatively thin, are
readily plasticized, favoring craze (and crack) propagation. A second,
competing mode of local plastic deformation in polymer glasses is
the orientation of short chain segments to form shear deformation
zones, which proceeds without the creation of voids and therefore
does not necessarily require the breakdown of entanglements or bond
scission.[74] The competition between shear
deformation and crazing is strongly dependent on the polymer glass
and the experimental conditions.[75,76] A study of
the sorption of Freon 113 (Cl2FCCClF2) by polystyrene
networks found that solvent diffusion led to the creation of both
shear deformation zones and crazes, with shear deformation favored
at higher cross-linking densities.[62] The
intensity of the mechanoluminescence from our system shows that it
is likely that crazing or cavitation forms at least a part of the
response of PMMA to osmotic stress, as confirmed by the observation
of whitening in the sample following swelling (see Supporting Information), and increasingly so at higher cross-linking
densities.
Figure 10
Schematic showing (A) the structure of a craze formed
under tensile
stress, with aligned polymer chains within the fibrils and microvoids
between the fibrils, and (B) the propagation of a crack by fibril
breakdown.
Schematic showing (A) the structure of a craze formed
under tensile
stress, with aligned polymer chains within the fibrils and microvoids
between the fibrils, and (B) the propagation of a crack by fibril
breakdown.In the highly cross-linked
samples, hundreds of mechanoluminescent
fracture events could be observed, apparently randomly distributed
in time and intensity. The numbers of bonds involved in the individual
fracture events could not be described by a normal distribution, but
instead spanned 2 orders of magnitude, with a high degree of skew
in the distribution toward rupture events involving smaller numbers
of bonds. Similar behavior has been reported in the fracture of other
brittle media, which in some cases was characterized as a power law
distribution[77,78,78,79] and in others as log-normals or stretched
exponentials.[80,81] Fitting a power law to the cumulative
distribution of intensities, an exponent of 0.83 is obtained over
at least 1 decade of intensity, which is similar to the value of 0.8
found for classic stick–slip behavior in, for example, the
distribution of earthquake magnitudes.[82] A power-law relationship can be an expression of scale-free behavior,
i.e., that the fracture events can involve any number of bonds, subject
to cutoffs defined by the physical limits of the system under study.
In our data, there is an upper cutoff (corresponding to an event area
of approximately 0.3 mm2), defined by the dimensions of
the sample being swollen, and a lower cutoff, which originates from
the resolution of the image, since a weak signal in a single pixel
cannot be distinguished from shot noise with similar intensity. A
diverse range of physical interpretations have been proposed for power-law
behavior, but the concept of self-organized criticality (SOC) is perhaps
the most relevant to our system, which has been invoked or referenced
in previous studies on fracture processes.[83,84] SOC describes the ability of some dynamic systems on slow driving
to progress spontaneously toward a critical state, regardless of their
starting state; perturbations lead to sudden avalanches (as opposed
to gradual changes), the magnitudes of which follow a power-law distribution.
Here, slow driving from the moving solvent front leads to avalanches
of bond-breaking. Nevertheless, log-normal and stretched exponential
distributions could also describe the observed skew toward smaller
events. These distributions express mechanisms in which the effects
of independent variables are multiplicative, such as the existing
distribution of defects and the distribution of stresses at the solvent
front. The relatively narrow intensity range of the data makes it
difficult to distinguish between these outwardly similar distributions.Lastly, camera imaging furnished direct spatial information about
the size and length of the fracture events and their position. For
example, clustering at short time and length scales, most likely resulting
from crack or craze propagation, could be seen. We were also able
to estimate fracture propagation rates with this technique, which
were found to be relatively slow for glassy materials. Crack propagation
in PMMA has been reported to proceed at velocities ranging from 10–10 to 100 m s–1,[63] depending on the local stresses at the crack tips, as described
by the stress intensity factor, KI. The
relatively slow propagation rate would suggest that the cracks experience
a stress intensity factor that is less than the critical value required
for fast propagation, KIC.
Conclusions
Mechanoluminescence demonstrated that osmotic pressure applied
to a glassy polymer network led to localized cascades of covalent
bond-breaking, which were probably initiated at a sharp, relaxation-controlled
diffusion front. While it can be seen by eye that some long (∼1
mm) cracks formed at higher cross-linking densities, mechanoluminescence
revealed that a smaller but significant proportion of bonds involved
in fracture were in fact broken in smaller bond-breaking events, with
most lasting a few milliseconds. A calibration allowed us to estimate
that each event involved the scission of 109–1011 dioxetane moieties, suggesting that crack formation initiated
in the glassy, unswollen part of the network, but with significant
localized yielding, such as crazing. The bursts of bond-breaking observed
in our experiments most likely result from the failure of plasticized
fibrils within the crazes. Furthermore, spatial analysis indicated
some spatiotemporal clustering of fractures and, at higher frame rates,
crack/craze propagation within individual fracture events. In comparison
with existing techniques to monitor covalent bond scission in glassy
polymers, such as acoustic emission,[56] mechanoluminescence
offers exciting advantages highlighted by this work, including direct
visualization, temporal resolution, and molecular-level quantification.
We envisage that mechanoluminescence could be fruitfully employed
to study localized fracture events in polymers in a wide range of
loading scenarios.
Authors: Joris Sprakel; Evan Spruijt; Martien A Cohen Stuart; Matthias A J Michels; Jasper van der Gucht Journal: Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys Date: 2009-05-12
Authors: Ashley L Black Ramirez; Zachary S Kean; Joshua A Orlicki; Mangesh Champhekar; Sarah M Elsakr; Wendy E Krause; Stephen L Craig Journal: Nat Chem Date: 2013-08-04 Impact factor: 24.427
Authors: Douglas A Davis; Andrew Hamilton; Jinglei Yang; Lee D Cremar; Dara Van Gough; Stephanie L Potisek; Mitchell T Ong; Paul V Braun; Todd J Martínez; Scott R White; Jeffrey S Moore; Nancy R Sottos Journal: Nature Date: 2009-05-07 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Zachary S Kean; Zhenbin Niu; Gihan B Hewage; Arnold L Rheingold; Stephen L Craig Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2013-08-27 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Ashray V Parameswar; Karan V Dikshit; Sanli Movafaghi; Carson J Bruns; Andrew P Goodwin Journal: ACS Appl Mater Interfaces Date: 2020-12-28 Impact factor: 9.229
Authors: Deniz Yildiz; Christoph Baumann; Annabel Mikosch; Alexander J C Kuehne; Andreas Herrmann; Robert Göstl Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2019-07-19 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Gun Kim; Qiong Wu; James L Chu; Emily J Smith; Michael L Oelze; Jeffrey S Moore; King C Li Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 12.779