José Augusto Berrocal1, R Helen Zha1, Bas F M de Waal1, Jody A M Lugger1, Martin Lutz2, E W Meijer1. 1. Institute for Complex Molecular Systems and Laboratory of Macromolecular and Organic Chemistry, Eindhoven University of Technology , 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 2. Crystal and Structural Chemistry, Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research, Utrecht University , 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Block molecules belong to a rapidly growing research field in materials chemistry in which discrete macromolecular architectures bridge the gap between block copolymers (BCP) and liquid crystals (LCs). The merging of characteristics from both BCP and LCs is expected to result in exciting breakthroughs, such as the discovery of unexpected morphologies or significant shrinking of domain spacings in materials that possess the high definition of organic molecules and the processability of polymers. Here we report the bulk self-assembly of two families of monodisperse block molecules comprised of naphthalenediimides (NDIs) and oligodimethylsiloxanes (ODMS). These materials are characterized by waxy texture, strong long-range order, and very low mobility, typical properties of conformationally disordered crystals. Our investigation unambiguously reveals that thermodynamic immiscibility and crystallization direct the self-assembly of ODMS-based block molecules. We show that a synergy of high incompatibility between the blocks and crystallization of the NDIs causes nanophase separation, giving access to hexagonally packed columnar (Colh) and lamellar (LAM) morphologies with sub-10 nm periodicities. The domain spacings can be tuned by mixing molecules with different ODMS lengths and the same number of NDIs, introducing an additional layer of control. X-ray scattering experiments reveal macrophase separation whenever this constitutional bias is not observed. Finally, we highlight our "ingredient approach" to obtain perfect order in sub-10 nm structured materials with a simple strategy built on a crystalline "hard" moiety and an incompatible "soft" ODMS partner. Following this simple rule, our recipe can be extended to a number of systems.
Block molecules belong to a rapidly growing research field in materials chemistry in which discrete macromoleculararchitectures bridge the gap between block copolymers (BCP) and liquid crystals (LCs). The merging of characteristics from both BCP and LCs is expected to result in exciting breakthroughs, such as the discovery of unexpected morphologies or significant shrinking of domain spacings in materials that possess the high definition of organic molecules and the processability of polymers. Here we report the bulk self-assembly of two families of monodisperse block molecules comprised of naphthalenediimides (NDIs) and oligodimethylsiloxanes (ODMS). These materials are characterized by waxy texture, strong long-range order, and very low mobility, typical properties of conformationally disordered crystals. Our investigation unambiguously reveals that thermodynamic immiscibility and crystallization direct the self-assembly of ODMS-based block molecules. We show that a synergy of high incompatibility between the blocks and crystallization of the NDIs causes nanophase separation, giving access to hexagonally packed columnar (Colh) and lamellar (LAM) morphologies with sub-10 nm periodicities. The domain spacings can be tuned by mixing molecules with different ODMS lengths and the same number of NDIs, introducing an additional layer of control. X-ray scattering experiments reveal macrophase separation whenever this constitutional bias is not observed. Finally, we highlight our "ingredient approach" to obtain perfect order in sub-10 nm structured materials with a simple strategy built on a crystalline "hard" moiety and an incompatible "soft" ODMS partner. Following this simple rule, our recipe can be extended to a number of systems.
The establishment
of molecular
self-assembly as a discrete field at the interface between chemistry
and materials science[1] continues to push
the forefront of technology[2] and creates
exciting challenges in molecular synthesis.[3−5] One of the most
important goals in this field is to control the nanoscopic structure
of materials through a bottom-up approach,[1,3] ultimately
leading to the miniaturization of domain spacings (L0). Achievement of this fundamental objective is expected
to lead to outstanding technological breakthroughs, such as the constancy
in pursuing Moore’s Law[6,7]—currently in
a critical scenario—or the generation of a class of materials
with exciting properties. In these respects, the recent discovery
of block molecules[8−10] has emerged as a frontier in the chemistry of materials.
In block molecules well-established concepts from block copolymers
(BCPs)[11−14] and liquid crystals (LCs)[15,16] are merged and chemically
translated into perfectly defined macromoleculararchitectures comprised
of two or more heterogeneous components.[8,10] The strength
of this combination is the opportunity to improve the characteristics
of both BCPs and LCs by minimizing L0 by
up to 1–2 nm, discovering unexpected morphologies, and blending
the versatility of mechanical properties/processability of polymers
with the high definition of discrete organic molecules. Consequently,
many research groups have started to explore these monodisperse macromoleculararchitectures at the interface between BCPs and LCs, stimulating a
discussion in the scientific community that will certainly be witnessed
by a number of publications in the upcoming future. It is implicit
that the fundamental understanding of the self-assembly of block molecules
is necessary to fully exploit their potential for applications.The nanophase separation of block copolymers has been extensively
studied both experimentally[17,18] and theoretically[19−21] and the morphologies generated have been rationalized in terms of
volume fraction (f), degree of polymerization (N), and incompatibility between the blocks (χ) as
a result of the interplay between enthalpic and entropic forces to
minimize interfacial energy. Domain spacings that scale proportionally
to χ1/6N2/3 are achieved in the strong
segregation regime. The conclusion that high χ/low NBCPs may represent a solution to smaller feature sizes (<10 nm)
is logical and has been underlined in a recent perspective.[22] A plausible strategy to achieve ordered structure
formation with lower N is the use of polydimethylsiloxane
(PDMS),[23,24] because of its high χ value and etch
contrast with a variety of organic components.[25] Recently, we have shown that very small features can be
obtained with dimethylsiloxane-lactic acid diblock co-oligomers,[26] while perfect dispersity helped to push the
boundaries of phase separation to L0 as
small as 6.8 nm.[27]Further lowering
of the molar mass of the self-assembling architecture
brings us to the fields of liquid crystals (LCs)[28,15] plastic crystals (PCs)[29−31] and conformationally disordered
crystals (CDCs).[32,33] In contrast to BCPs, no phase
separation is mandatory in LCs, PCs and CDCs, since molecular shape
and directionality of intermolecular interactions between crystalline
moieties determine the type of morphology regardless of molecular
composition. For example, discotic LCs most often assume columnar
morphologies,[34,35] whereas calamitic LCs give rise
to nematic or smectic phases,[28] with sizes
in the range of few nanometers (matching with molecular size).[36] The major differences between LCs and PCs/CDCs
consist in long-range order and flowing ability, with PCs/CDCs being
significantly more ordered as a consequence of lower mobility. Although
many books and reviews have been dedicated to PCs and CDCs,[29−33] the scientific community is still waiting for an official definition
of both types of materials from the International Union of Pure and
Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). This contrasts starkly with the state of
the art in the field of LCs, for which a convention has been reached.[37]As previously stated, block molecules[8−10] merge the discrete design
of LCs/PCs/CDCs with the high incompatibility/heterogeneity of BCP.
These architectures are based on a rod–coil motif, where “hard”
aromatic blocks are connected to “soft”, flexible chains.
They are inspired by rod–coil block copolymers[38−40] and represent a significant step toward the “miniaturization”
of molecular design and L0 thanks to the
difference in stiffness between the blocks. The first examples were
based on well-defined oligo(ethylene glycol) derivatives, exploiting
an amphiphilic design that allowed for self-assembly in water or organic
solvents.[9] Very few systems exploring alternatives
to oligo(ethylene glycol) chains have been reported since then.[41−45] Recent progress in the synthesis of discrete oligodimethylsiloxanes
(ODMS) in our group[46,27] has led to the generation of
block molecules without the constriction of amphiphilicity. These
structures are fully hydrophobic and, like BCPs, do not require a
solvent as a driving force for aggregation and interface minimization,
as recently shown with UreidoPyrimidinone (UPy) end-capped ODMS.[46] While the UPy-based ODMS follow a BCP-like self-assembly
behavior, the benzyl-protected derivatives always exhibit a lamellar
organization regardless of molecular composition.[46] It was hypothesized that crystallization of the benzyl-protected
UPy moiety in the UPy-ODMS conjugates was the reason for the generation
of the lamellar morphologies. If such hypothesis was confirmed, these
lamellararchitectures could be defined as exfoliated crystalline
layers.In this paper we report the self-assembly in bulk of
two families
of discrete block molecules consisting of ODMS functionalized with
naphthalenediimides (NDIs),[47] crystalline
aromatic moieties.[48] The combination of
NDIs and siloxanes in discrete systems has already been investigated
by others,[49−51] but none of these studies pushed the boundaries of
molecular definition to an intermediate regime between small molecules
and polymeric systems. The fully extended chemical structures of monodisperse Si15-NDI-Si15 and NDI-Si16-NDI are shown in Chart as examples. A more compact and general representation
of Si-NDI/NDI-Si (family 1) and NDI/NDI-Si-NDI/NDI (family
2), series of compounds in which one and two NDIs (NDI and NDI, respectively) are
coupled to three different lengths of perfectly defined ODMS, namely Si7, Si15, and Si23 for family
1, and Si8, Si16, and Si24 for family 2, is reported in Figure . Compared to our previous ODMS-based systems,[52,27,46] we introduce modularity in the
chemical design of the crystalline block. This choice finally unravels
the driving forces controlling the self-assembly of the block molecules
and highlights the occurrence of crystallization of the hard block,
a process that was only hypothesized in one[46] of the previous ODMS-based systems.[27,52]
Chart 1
Pictorial
Representations and Fully Extended Chemical Structures
of Si15-NDI-Si15 and NDI-Si16-NDI
Figure 1
Chemical structures and pictorial representations of synthesized
NDIs and families of NDI-ODMS conjugates.
Chemical structures and pictorial representations of synthesized
NDIs and families of NDI-ODMS conjugates.We find that the block molecules possess characteristics
similar
to those of conformationally disordered crystals[59] and self-assemble into sub-10 nm periodic morphologies
caused by a synergy between NDI crystallization and phase separation.
Our claims are supported by a number of experimental evidence that
consistently point to the formation of perfectly crystallized NDI
domains in the bulk of the NDI-ODMS conjugates, furnishing a general
understanding of the self-assembly of ODMS-based block molecules.
We unambiguously confirm the occurrence of crystallization in the
NDI-ODMS conjugates with a number of mixing experiments, in which
the periodicities of the nanostructures obtained can be easily tuned
by mixing block molecules with the exact same number of NDIs in the
hard block but different lengths of ODMS in the soft block. Macrophase
separation occurs whenever this constitutional bias is not respected.
Results
and Discussion
Synthesis
The synthesis of all NDIs
and NDI-ODMS conjugates
was performed starting from commercially available chemicals and the
discrete ODMS, which were prepared in a stepwise fashion previously
published.[27,46] The preparation of NDI-Si24-NDI is here shown as example (Scheme ), while all synthetic procedures and molecular
characterization of compounds are fully described in Supporting Information (SI). Naphthalenemonoimides (NMIs) 6 and 7 were obtained in high yields (68%) from
commercially available 1,4,5,8-naphthalene tetracarboxylic dianhydride
(NDA), n-decylamine and 10-undecen-1-amine[53]via optimization of a previously
reported microwave assisted protocol.[54] Microwave assisted condensation of 7 with N-(tert-Butoxycarbonyl)-1,3-diaminopropane afforded 8 in excellent yields (95%). Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)-induced
Boc group removal from 8, followed by microwave reaction
with 6 in the presence of excess triethylamine yielded 4 (90% yield), in which two NDIsare connected via a three methylene linker. Finally, Pt-catalyzed hydrosilylation
between 4 and H-Si24-H at 70 °C in
toluene afforded monodisperse NDI-Si24-NDI in very low yields
(3%), probably due to the low solubility of 4 in the
reaction medium that facilitated the occurrence of well-known side
processes of hydrosilylations.[55]
Scheme 1
Synthetic
Route for the Preparation of NDI-Si24-NDI
Thermal Behavior and Morphology of the Materials
While
NDIs 1–4 (Figure ) are crystalline solids and the ODMS are
liquid,[27,46] all NDI-ODMS conjugates show a waxy consistency.
This simple textural observation clearly suggests that the intermolecular
interactions of the crystalline “hard” NDI block prevail
over the “soft” and liquid nature of the ODMS. Further
indications of these interactions were obtained when the thermal behavior
of reference NDIs 1–4 and NDI-ODMS
conjugates was studied with Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)
(Table , Figures S88–S98). The high degree of crystallinity
of 1 and 2 is documented by the sharp transitions
with typical enthalpic variations associated with melting/crystallization
processes[56] (ΔH1 and ΔH2, respectively)
upon heating and cooling (Table ). As expected, very similar values are obtained for 1 and 2. The introduction of the second NDI unit
in 3 and 4, instead, results in the absence
of phase transitions upon heating the samples up to 250 °C, which
highlights a remarkable increase in thermal stability (Table ).
Table 1
Transition
Temperatures and Associated
Enthalpic Variations of Reference Compounds 1–4 and NDI-ODMS Conjugates Obtained with DSC Measurementsa
compound
T1b (°C)
ΔH1 (kJ/mol)
T2c (°C)
ΔH2 (kJ/mol)
1
150.4
21.5
143.4
22.8
2
155.8
20.5
140.2
20.9
3
n.o.
–
n.o.
–
4
n.o.
–
n.o.
–
Si7-NDI-Si7
45.4
9.5
37.7
21.5
Si7-NDI2-Si7
211.3
32.1
205.5
33.4
Si15-NDI-Si15
28.1
19.8
22.4
16.2
Si15-NDI2-Si15
190.9
23.9
185.7
33.9
Si23-NDI-Si23
17.8
9.8
13.0
7.8
Si23-NDI2-Si23
180
21.8
166.8
22.2
NDI-Si8-NDI
143.6
26.5
130
26.2
NDI2-Si8-NDI2
n.o.
–
n.o.
–
NDI-Si16-NDI
114.4
25.4
103.5
36.1
NDI2-Si16-NDI2
n.o.
–
n.o.
–
NDI-Si24-NDI
116.8
44
116.67
55.2
NDI2-Si24-NDI2
n.o.
–
n.o.
–
All DSC data were
collected during
the second heating and cooling run.
T1 is
the transition temperature measured during heating.
T2 is
the transition temperature measured during cooling. Heating and cooling
rate was 10 °C/min n.o. = not observed.
All DSC data were
collected during
the second heating and cooling run.T1 is
the transition temperature measured during heating.T2 is
the transition temperature measured during cooling. Heating and cooling
rate was 10 °C/min n.o. = not observed.The presence of the ODMS chains in the NDI-ODMS block
molecules
lowers the transition temperatures (T1 and T2 upon heating and cooling, respectively)
of the reference NDIs, while enthalpic energy is generally preserved.
The lower T1/T2 values can be explained with an increasing presence of the liquid-like
block in the moleculararchitecture. The functionalization with the
ODMS allows to measure thermal transitions of block molecules comprising
two NDIs in total, such as Si-NDI-Si and NDI-Si-NDI conjugates (Figure and Table ). Featureless DSC traces are
found with NDI-Si-NDI block molecules (Table ). Enthalpic variations above or in the range
of 15–20 kJ/mol, typical for crystallization upon cooling,[56] are consistently observed for ΔH2 values in Table . Such consistency suggests the occurrence
of NDI melting/crystallization processes within the NDI-ODMS conjugates.
Interestingly, the highest enthalpic energies upon cooling are measured
with block-molecules comprised of two NDIs in total.
Figure 2
DSC traces (exo up) of
(a) Si7-NDI-Si7 and (b) NDI-Si8-NDI with transition
temperatures measured upon heating and cooling (T1 and T2, respectively). The
inset in (a) is a magnification of the two transitions of Si7-NDI-Si7 in the 200–220
°C range.
DSC traces (exo up) of
(a) Si7-NDI-Si7 and (b) NDI-Si8-NDI with transition
temperatures measured upon heating and cooling (T1 and T2, respectively). The
inset in (a) is a magnification of the two transitions of Si7-NDI-Si7 in the 200–220
°C range.The crystallinity of
reference compounds and NDIs within the block
molecules was also strongly suggested by Polarized Optical Microscopy
(POM). Under crossed polarizers, upon cooling from the isotropic melt
at a rate of 10 °C/min, birefringent, nonflowing textures were
observed for 1 and 3 (in agreement with
DSC measurements, melting of 3 was observed around 340
°C with POM) (Figure S99). Similarly,
the block molecules showed birefringent, nonflowing textures, indicating
long-range order. The block molecules of family 1 always
gave high-contrast, granular textures as shown in the POM micrograph
of Si15-NDI-Si15 in Figure a (other POM micrographs in Figure S99). The compounds of family 2 showed
low-contrast, undefined, birefrigent textures in most cases (Figure S99), with the only exception of NDI-Si8-NDI, for which spherulitic textures were observed
as a consequence of the very high crystallinity of this compound (Figure b). The low birefringence
of almost all compounds of family 2 was most likely due
to homeotropic alignment, instead. In conclusion, the birefringence
of the block molecules is in agreement with the crystallization/melting
processes suggested by DSC, and can be explained by the optical anisotropy
arising from periodic crystalline domains (NDI block) of one refractive
index nanophase separating from a matrix of a second refractive index
(ODMS block).
Figure 3
POM micrographs, under crossed polarizers, obtained upon
slow cooling
from the isotropic melt of (a) Si15-NDI-Si15 and (b) NDI-Si8-NDI showing granular and spherulitic textures, respectively.
MAXS profiles of (c) Si15-NDI-Si15 and (d) NDI-Si8-NDI showing indexed reflections of Colh and LAM morphologies,
respectively. Intensity is given in arbitraty units.
POM micrographs, under crossed polarizers, obtained upon
slow cooling
from the isotropic melt of (a) Si15-NDI-Si15 and (b) NDI-Si8-NDI showing granular and spherulitic textures, respectively.
MAXS profiles of (c) Si15-NDI-Si15 and (d) NDI-Si8-NDI showing indexed reflections of Colh and LAM morphologies,
respectively. Intensity is given in arbitraty units.To gain further insights into the long-range order
of both families
of block molecules, Medium Angle X-ray Scattering (MAXS) experiments
were carried out. The block molecules were spread on mica substrates
and annealed by slow cooling from isotropic melt. For samples with
no thermal transitions by DSC, the mica samples were annealed at 300
°C for 30 min prior to measurement. Morphologies and domain spacings
(L0) of all NDI-ODMS conjugates are summarized
in Table and Table S1 (MAXS profiles at SI pages S102–S113), with L0 being the lattice parameter(s) of morphologies with hexagonal (Colh) and columnar oblique (Colob) packing, and the
bilayer thickness in lamellar morphologies (LAM). MAXS profiles of Si15-NDI-Si15 and NDI-Si8-NDIare shown as examples
in Figure c and 3d, respectively. Scattering patterns characterized
by a number of sharp Bragg peaks were recorded for both series of
conjugates, confirming the long-range order visualized with POM. Conjugates
of family 1 always gave clear scattering patterns indicating
Colh columnar morphologies, with the only exception of Si7-NDI-Si7 and Si23-NDI-Si23 that self-assemble
into Colob morphologies. The block molecules of family
2 showed typical reflections of a lamellar organization (LAM),
instead, which is in agreement with the benzyl-protected UPy-ODMS
system.[46]
Table 2
Domain
Spacings (L0) and Phase Characterizations
of NDI-ODMS Conjugates
of Family 1 and 2
compound
L0 (nm)a
phase
Si7-NDI-Si7
9.3 (A), 2.9 (B), 86.9° (γ)
Colob
Si7-NDI2-Si7
6.1
Colh
Si15-NDI-Si15
6.5
Colh
Si15-NDI2-Si15
7.4
Colh
Si23-NDI-Si23
7.8 (A), 6.8 (B), 80° (γ)
Colobb
Si23-NDI2-Si23
8.8
Colh
NDI-Si8-NDI
4.4
LAM
NDI2-Si8-NDI2
5.2
LAM
NDI-Si16-NDI
5.7
LAM
NDI2-Si16-NDI2
6.3
LAMc
NDI-Si24-NDI
6.9
LAMc
NDI2-Si24-NDI2
7.2
LAMc
L0 is
the lattice parameter(s) in Colh and Colob and
the bilayer thickness in LAM.
Measured at 5 °C.
Samples annealed for 30 min at 300
°C.
L0 is
the lattice parameter(s) in Colh and Colob and
the bilayer thickness in LAM.Measured at 5 °C.Samples annealed for 30 min at 300
°C.The structural
variations throughout both families of conjugates
result in two persistent trends, regardless of moleculararchitecture:
the extension of the NDI block by one unit increases L0 by approximately 0.7–0.9 nm, while the addition
of 8 ODMS units increases L0 by approximately
1.1–1.3 nm (Table and Table S1). The same increase
in L0 of approximately 1.3 nm was also
observed in the LAM morphologies of benzyl protected UPy-ODMS block
molecules upon extending the siloxane block by 8 repeating units.[46] The consistency of generated morphologies within
the same moleculararchitecture, combined to the approximately linear
variations of L0 upon structural changes
completely rule out a block copolymeric self-assembly behavior for
both family 1 and family 2. They highly
support a conformationally disordered crystalline self-assembly,[29−33] where domain spacing scales linearly with molecular size and intermolecular
interactions govern the self-assembly process. As such, BCP theory[19−21] cannot be used to rationalize/predict the morphologies into which
the NDI-ODMS conjugates self-assemble, because they are controlled
by the strength and directionality of intermolecular interactions
between crystalline moieties rather than minimization of interfacial
energy at a given volume fraction. The absence of mobility and the
strong long-range order witnessed by the numerous sharp reflections
in the MAXS profiles agree with the definition of the NDI-ODMS conjugates
as conformationally disordered crystals, rather than liquid crystals.Once established the influence of moleculararchitecture on the
bulk morphologies, we investigated the packing of the NDIs within
the NDI-ODMS block molecules. For this purpose X-ray quality crystals
of 5 (synthesis in SI) were
obtained from slow vapor diffusion of hexane (antisolvent) into a
1,2-dichloroethane solution. The compound crystallizes in an orthorhombic
lattice with eight molecules in the unit cell. By π–π
stacking the molecules are arranged in a cofacial, twisted fashion
(Figure a and 4b; SI pages S115–S116). The preorganization of 5 in the crystal for the formation
of emissive aggregated species is evident. Hence, upon excitation
(λexc= 365 nm) 5 shows the typical blue-green
luminescence (Figure c; Figures S115–S116) of NDIs observed
in other bulk systems.[57] The same luminescence
is observed on drop cast films of 5: a broad, structureless
emission band centered at 490 nm (blue-green) is visible in the fluorescence
spectrum (Figure g).
A very similar luminescence is observed with Si15-NDI-Si15 (Figure d and 4h; Figure S116) and Si15-NDI-Si15 (Figure S115), suggesting somewhat similar interactions
between NDI units in the columnar morphologies of family 1, despite some clear differences in the UV–vis spectra (Figures S121–S123). The luminescence of Si15-NDI-Si15 and Si15-NDI-Si15 contrasts starkly with that of NDI-Si8-NDI (Figure e and 4i) and NDI-Si8-NDI (Figure S120), characterized by two resolved vibronic bands
centered at 460 and 490 nm like reference NDIs 1 (Figure f and 4j) and 3 (Figure S119). The emission spectra of such compounds are the mirror images of
their absorption (Figures S117–S120). This suggests no interactions between the transition dipole moments
of the NDIs of family 2, which ultimately results in
monomeric emissions.[47]
Figure 4
(a) View of the unit
cell of 5 along the a-axis. (b) Packing
of 5 in the crystal viewed along
the b-axis. Displacement ellipsoids are drawn at
the 50% probability level. Carbon atoms are depicted in gray, oxygen
atoms in red and nitrogen atoms in violet. Hydrogen atoms are omitted
for clarity. Fluorescence microscopy micrographs of (c) crystals of 5, (d) Si15-NDI-Si15, (e) NDI-Si8-NDI, and (f) 1 (artificial colors; excitation range 340–380
nm, scale bars 100 μm). Normalized fluorescence spectra of drop
cast films on glass of (g) 5, (h) Si15-NDI-Si15, (i) NDI-Si8-NDI, and (j) 1 upon 365 nm
excitation. MAXS profiles of mixing experiments showing indexed Colh reflection of (k) 1:1 Si15-NDI-Si15 and Si23-NDI-Si23 mixture and (l) 1:1 Si23-NDI-Si23 and Si15-NDI-Si15 mixture (black labels for Si23-NDI-Si23, red labels for Si15-NDI-Si15). Intensity is given in arbitrary units.
(a) View of the unit
cell of 5 along the a-axis. (b) Packing
of 5 in the crystal viewed along
the b-axis. Displacement ellipsoids are drawn at
the 50% probability level. Carbon atoms are depicted in gray, oxygen
atoms in red and nitrogen atoms in violet. Hydrogen atoms are omitted
for clarity. Fluorescence microscopy micrographs of (c) crystals of 5, (d) Si15-NDI-Si15, (e) NDI-Si8-NDI, and (f) 1 (artificial colors; excitation range 340–380
nm, scale bars 100 μm). Normalized fluorescence spectra of drop
cast films on glass of (g) 5, (h) Si15-NDI-Si15, (i) NDI-Si8-NDI, and (j) 1 upon 365 nm
excitation. MAXS profiles of mixing experiments showing indexed Colh reflection of (k) 1:1 Si15-NDI-Si15 and Si23-NDI-Si23 mixture and (l) 1:1 Si23-NDI-Si23 and Si15-NDI-Si15 mixture (black labels for Si23-NDI-Si23, red labels for Si15-NDI-Si15). Intensity is given in arbitrary units.The macroscopic and microscopic observations of the waxy
block
molecules are in line with their definition as conformationally disordered
crystals. Both families of compounds present a “conformationally
disordered” character thanks to the ODMS that impart disorder
through their conformational flexibility, while the intermolecular
interactions between NDI cores impose order and select the morphology
through a crystallization process. As such, severe rules control the
packing of the NDIs, and consequently the long-range order of the
conjugates. This molecular picture is also suggested by a number of
mixing experiments carried out (Table and Figure k and 4l). Block molecules were mixed
in different molar ratios and by varying the length of the ODMS and
NDI blocks individually or simultaneously. Birefringence of the mixed
samples was always observed with POM, indicating long-range order
also in this case (Figure S124).
Table 3
NDI-ODMS Mixing Experiments with Molar
Ratios (nA:nB), Observed Morphologies (Phase) and Related Domain Spacings (L0)
compound
A
compound
B
nA:nB
phase(s)
L0 (nm)a
Si15-NDI2-Si15
Si23-NDI2-Si23
1:1
Colh
7.9
Si15-NDI-Si15
Si15-NDI2-Si15
1:1
2 Colh lattices
6.5, 7.6b
Si23-NDI2-Si23
Si15-NDI-Si15
1:1
2 Colh lattices
8.6, 6.5b
NDI-Si8-NDI
NDI2-Si24-NDI2
1:1
2 LAM lattices
4.4,
7.4b
Si15-NDI-Si15
NDI-Si24-NDI
1:1
LAM
6.8
Si15-NDI-Si15
NDI-Si24-NDI
1:4
LAM
6.6
Si15-NDI-Si15
NDI-Si24-NDI
4:1
Colh and LAMb
6.5, 6.9b
L0 is
the lattice parameter in Colh and the bilayer thickness
in LAM.
First and second
value/abbreviation
refers to compound A and B, respectively.
L0 is
the lattice parameter in Colh and the bilayer thickness
in LAM.First and second
value/abbreviation
refers to compound A and B, respectively.The key parameter in the long-range order of the block
molecules
is the number of NDI units in the hard block, as revealed by the MAXS
patterns (Figure k
and 4l; Figures S125–S131). New lattices with intermediate domain spacings are generated when
compounds with the same number of aromatic cores in the hard block
but different ODMS lengths are mixed, thus giving the opportunity
to easily tune the periodicity (Table and Figure k). Surprisingly enough, this effect is also observed when
molecules of different families are mixed. Such experiments also highlighted
a composition dependent preference for the LAM morphology (Figures S129–S131). In stark contrast,
macrophase separation is observed any time the packing rule of the
number of NDIs is not respected, with the MAXS profiles showing reflections
of two self-sorting lattices (Figure l). These results highlight the synergy between thermodynamic
incompatibility and crystallization in directing the self-assembly
of the block molecules. In the absence of crystallization, the NDI
blocks of NDI-ODMS conjugates with different number of NDIs would
simply collapse and merge due to immiscibility with the ODMS block.
This phenomenon has never been observed with the previously reported
ODMS-based block molecules, either because no modularity was explored
in the design of the crystalline block[46,52] or the system
simply followed BCP theory.[27]Finally,
we highlight the use of DSC as an additional technique
to infer the outcome of the mixing experiments in which moleculararchitecture is preserved: one transition only, occurring at an intermediate
temperature between those of the individual compounds, is measured
upon heating and cooling in this case (Figure S132).
Hypothetical Packing Models
By merging
all the information
presented so far we can hypothesize packing models for both columnar
and lamellar morphologies (Figure a and 5b). Phase separation
between alkyl chains and ODMS is assumed for both architectures and
it is corroborated by previous literature for even lower molar mass
systems.[58] Only packing models for Colh and LAM morphologies will be described here, while that of
the two Colob molecules can be found in SI (Figure S100 and S104). The volumes
of the unit cells of the columnar morphologies were defined from the
exact 2D-morphologies obtained from the MAXS profiles and the inter
disc spacing of 0.42 nm (third dimension of the unit cell) consistently
observed in the Wide Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS) measurements of
the block molecules of family 1 (WAXS profiles at SI pages S102–S113 and unit cell determination
at SI page S131). In addition to the highly
ordered nanostructure morphology observed in MAXS, the presence of
an inter disc spacing peak in the WAXS profiles of the NDI-ODMS conjugates
of family 1 confirms that the center of mass of these
block molecules lies on crystalline lattices. The number of molecules
per unit cell was calculated by comparing the volume of the unit cell
with the molecular volume of the block molecules, which was estimated
from density considerations and molar mass values (SI page S131). In the lamellar morphologies, the unit cell
is represented by a single molecule due to the layered structure.
Figure 5
Hypothetical
packing models of (a) Colh and (b) LAM
morphologies. Respective domain spacings (L0) are also shown.
Hypothetical
packing models of (a) Colh and (b) LAM
morphologies. Respective domain spacings (L0) are also shown.According to the combination
of MAXS and WAXS the number of molecules
to accommodate in the unit cell of the Colh morphologies
is four. The high resemblance of the fluorescence signatures of the
block molecules of family 1 and 5 supports
very similar, cofacial π–π stacking interactions
between the NDIs. Hence, it is very likely that the stacking of the
NDIs in the Colh morphologies occurs with a fixed angle
like in the crystals of 5, in which columns of infinite
length are obtained with this structural requisite (Figure b). An indirect proof of this
conclusion derives from the fact that random stacking angles would
result in a unit cell composed of only one molecule, rather than four.
Positioning the molecules into the unit cell leads to many possibilities
and we speculate that the conjugates of family 1 are
arranged with a molecule in each vertex of the 2D hexagonal lattice
of length L0. Intermolecular interactions
(π–π stacking) between NDIs bring to the formation
of the columnar structures, while the ODMS fill the volume between
the columns. Finally, the approximate increase of 1.1–1.3 nm
in L0 upon extending the ODMS of 8 units
in both family 1 and family 2 highly supports
the interdigitation between the siloxane block. Such extension consists
in 16 units overall in family 1 and 8 in family
2 and it would result in a double increase of L0 in family 1 in the absence of interdigitation.
A pictorial representation of the packing model of the Colh morphologies is shown in Figure a.The packing model of the LAM morphologies
of family 2 is schematically depicted in Figure b. The monomeric emission recorded
for this series
of block molecules suggests no interactions between the aromatic clouds
of the NDIs as already reported for slipped stacks of NDIs in bulk.[48] This allows us to focus on the cross section
of the lamellar structure, in which the NDIsare parallel to each
other, in line with the anisotropy observed with POM. The previously
discussed constant increase of L0 on structural
variations highly supports end-group interdigitation also for the
LAM morphologies. A non interdigitated packing model may also be hypothesized,
but it would result in a double increase of L0 upon extending the NDI block by one unit (Figure S133). Furthermore, interdigitation allows the presence
of a number of different conformations of the molecules, including
plausible bent architectures necessarily absent in the noninterdigitated
packing model.
Conclusions
In conclusion, we have
reported the self-assembly behavior in bulk
of two families of block molecules consisting of naphthalenediimides
and oligodimethylsiloxanes. We show that a synergy of thermodynamic
incompatibility between NDIs and ODMS and crystallization of the NDIs
causes the moieties to nanophase separate in bulk, giving access to
two distinct morphologies with sub-10 nm periodicities and a conformationally
disordered crystalline self-assembly behavior. The high crystallinity
of the NDI cores in the block molecules is indicated by their fluorescence
signatures and the intensity of the transitions measured with DSC.
An unambiguous indication of the pivotal role played by the crystallization
process was obtained from the mixing experiments, in which packing
constraints only allow efficient mixing of block molecules with the
same number of NDI units. The periodicity of the new lattices can
be finely tuned by simply observing this structural constraint. Macrophase
separation is observed whenever such consitutional bias is not respected.Our ODMS-based conformationally disordered crystals possess strong
long-range order, couple two moieties with high etch contrast and
do not easily undergo structural rearrangements thanks to their low
mobility, a problem often encountered with liquid crystals. In this
sense, ODMS-based conformationally disordered crystals match all the
requisites of high χ/low Nblock copolymers,
with the additional advantage of the high definition of small organic
molecules. Analogously to χ, N and f in block copolymers, molecular design, molecular size
and mixing compounds allow morphology selection and fine-tuning of
the periodicity in conformationally disordered crystals. We are currently
exploring the functionalization of surfaces with our NDI-ODMS conjugates
and their structural analogues, and results will be reported in due
time. As a final remark, we speculate that ODMS functionalization
of flat, crystalline organic moieties may represent a plausible strategy
for the obtainment of crystalline sheets.
Materials
and Methods
Unless stated otherwise, all reagents and chemicals
were obtained
from commercial sources (TCI Chemicals and Sigma-Aldrich) at the highest
purity available and used without further purification. Pt-catalyst
HS 432 used in hydrosilylations was purchased from Umicore. All solvents
were of AR quality and purchased from Biosolve. Flash chromatography
was performed on a Grace Reveleris flash chromatography system using
Reveleris Silica Flash Cartridges. Reactions were followed by thin-layer
chromatography (precoated 0.25 mm, 60-F254 silica gel plates from
Merck).Samples for polarized optical microscopy and fluorescence
microscopy
imaging were deposited on glass coverslips, heated up above the isotropic
melt and slowly cooled down (10 °C/min) prior to measure.Solution UV–vis measurements were performed using quartz
cuvettes with 1 cm optical path.Samples for MAXS and WAXS were
mounted on V1 grade mica sheets
5–7 μm thick. The mica plates were deposited on glass
coverslips, heated up above the isotropic melt and slowly cooled down
(10 °C/min) until the observation of birefrigence with POM. Samples
of those compounds that do not possess thermal transitions up to 250
°C were prepared by deposition of the glass coverslips on hot
plates at 300 °C for 30 min prior to measure.Glass substrates
for UV–vis and Fluorescence measurements
of drop cast films were prepared by 10 min sonication in AR grade
acetone, SodiumDodecylSulfate (SDS) solution in Milli-Q water and,
finally, AR grade i-propanol. 5 × 10–3 M CHCl3 solutions of the desired molecules were then
drop cast on such cleaned and dried glass substrates. The solvent
was removed and the drop cast films were annealed by heating up above
the isotropic melt and slowly cooling down (10 °C/min).X-ray quality crystals of 5 were obtained by slow
diffusion of hexane (antisolvent) into a saturated solution of 5 in 1,2-dichloroethane. The saturated 1,2-dichloroethane
solution was prepared by trying to dissolve 30 mg of 5 in 2 mL of solvent and subsequently filtering off the undissolved
particles with a 0.2 μm Whatman Anatop 10 filter.Mixing
experiments were carried out by combining solutions of molecules
separately dissolved in CHCl3, allowing samples to dry
overnight, and annealing them by slow cooling from the isotopropic
melt.
Authors: Toby D M Bell; Sheshanath V Bhosale; Craig M Forsyth; David Hayne; Kenneth P Ghiggino; James A Hutchison; Chintan H Jani; Steven J Langford; Marcia A-P Lee; Clint P Woodward Journal: Chem Commun (Camb) Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Byron D Gates; Qiaobing Xu; Michael Stewart; Declan Ryan; C Grant Willson; George M Whitesides Journal: Chem Rev Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 60.622
Authors: Vincent S D Voet; Teresa E Pick; Sang-Min Park; Manuel Moritz; Aaron T Hammack; Jeffrey J Urban; D Frank Ogletree; Deirdre L Olynick; Brett A Helms Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Brigitte A G Lamers; Robert Graf; Bas F M de Waal; Ghislaine Vantomme; Anja R A Palmans; E W Meijer Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Brigitte A G Lamers; Martin H C van Son; Freek V de Graaf; Bart W L van den Bersselaar; Bas F M de Waal; Kazuki Komatsu; Hiroshi Sato; Takuzo Aida; José Augusto Berrocal; Anja R A Palmans; Ghislaine Vantomme; Stefan C J Meskers; E W Meijer Journal: Mater Horiz Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 13.266
Authors: José Augusto Berrocal; Joan Teyssandier; Olga J G M Goor; Steven De Feyter; E W Meijer Journal: Chem Mater Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 9.811
Authors: José Augusto Berrocal; G Henrieke Heideman; Bas F M de Waal; Mihaela Enache; Remco W A Havenith; Meike Stöhr; E W Meijer; Ben L Feringa Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 15.419