| Literature DB >> 31826315 |
Yunhao Du1, Tao Zhang2, Dan Gieseler1, Maximilian Schneider1, Daniel Hafner1, Wenbo Sheng1, Wei Li1, Fred Lange1, Erik Wegener1, Ihsan Amin3, Rainer Jordan1.
Abstract
Poly(2-oxazoline)s (POx) bottle-brush brushes have excellent biocompatible and lubricious properties, which are promising for the functionalization of surfaces for biomedical devices. Herein, a facile synthesis of POx is reported which is based bottle-brush brushes (BBBs) on solid substrates. Initially, backbone brushes of poly(2-isopropenyl-2-oxazoline) (PIPOx) were fabricated via surface initiated Cu0 plate-mediated controlled radical polymerization (SI-Cu0 CRP). Poly(2-methyl-2-oxazoline) (PMeOx) side chains were subsequently grafted from the PIPOx backbone via living cationic ring opening polymerization (LCROP), which result in ≈100 % increase in brush thickness (from 58 to 110 nm). The resultant BBBs shows tunable thickness up to 300 nm and high grafting density (σ) with 0.42 chains nm-2 . The synthetic procedure of POx BBBs can be further simplified by using SI-Cu0 CRP with POx molecular brush as macromonomer (Mn =536 g mol-1 , PDI=1.10), which results in BBBs surface up to 60 nm with well-defined molecular structure. Both procedures are significantly superior to the state-of-art approaches for the synthesis of POx BBBs, which are promising to design bio-functional surfaces.Entities:
Keywords: bio-functional surfaces; bottle-brush brushes; controlled radial polymerization; poly(2-oxazolines); polymer brush
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31826315 PMCID: PMC7064997 DOI: 10.1002/chem.201905326
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chemistry ISSN: 0947-6539 Impact factor: 5.236
Figure 1Schematic illustration of the synthesis of POx BBBs. (a) Conventional two‐step synthesis via SIPGP and SI‐Cu0CRP; (b) Two‐step synthesis via SI‐Cu0CRP and LCROP in this work. R=functional groups of different monomers. R′=terminating reagent for LCROP, N‐tert‐butoxycarbonyl piperazine (N‐Boc‐piperazine). D=distance between copper plate and initiating‐substrate.
Figure 2(a) AFM topographic scans of PIPOx backbone brushes via SI‐Cu0CRP (left), PIPOx‐g‐PMeOx BBBs after LCROP (middle) and swollen PIPOx‐g‐PMeOx BBBs in H2O (right), Rms=surface roughness. (b) Corresponding height profiles taken at scratches of the polymer layer. (c) Thickness column plot of POx brushes from (a). S r=swelling ratio, σ=grafting density.
Figure 3(a) Schematic of thickness variations of PIPOx backbone brushes as a function of SI‐Cu0CRP reaction time. (b) Resultant POx BBBs from (a). (c) Thickness plots of time‐thickness dependency of PIPOx backbones via SI‐Cu0CRP (blue) and resultant PIPOx‐g‐PMeOx BBBs after LCROP (orange).
Figure 4(a) Schematic illustration of the preparation of patterned polymer brushes. Structures can be introduced by UV light through a photo mask by removing uncovered initiator‐SAMs. (b) 3D AFM topographic scan of patterned PIPOx backbone brushes after 1.5 h SI‐Cu0CRP; (c) 3D AFM topographic scan of patterned PIPOx‐g‐PMeOx BBBs after 4 h LCROP. (d) Schematic illustration of coupling of the dansyl chloride with the PIPOx backbones (right) and epifluorescence microscopy image (left) (λ ex=440–470 nm). (e) Schematic illustration of coupling of the Cy5‐NHS‐ester with the PMeOx side chains (right) and epifluorescence microscopy image (left) (λ ex=525–550 nm).
Figure 5POx BBB gradient via two‐step approach: (a) Schematic illustration of the synthesis of PIPOx‐g‐PMeOx BBB gradient via SI‐Cu0CRP and LCROP. (b) Optical image and water contact angle data of resultant PIPOx gradient. (c) Optical image and water contact angle data of resultant POx BBB gradient. (d) Thickness plots of PIPOx backbone gradient as measured by ellipsometry. (e) Thickness plots of the POx BBB gradient as measured by AFM and ellipsometry, respectively.