| Literature DB >> 34334816 |
Angelika E Neitzel1,2, Yan N Fang1, Boyuan Yu1, Artem M Rumyantsev1, Juan J de Pablo1,2, Matthew V Tirrell1,2.
Abstract
lass="Chemical">Polyelectrolyte complex coacervates oEntities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34334816 PMCID: PMC8320234 DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.1c00703
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Macromolecules ISSN: 0024-9297 Impact factor: 5.985
Molecular Characteristics of Precursors to Homologous Polyanion/Polycation Pairs
| sample name | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| poly(AGE19- | 10 | 187 | 0.10 | 1.12 |
| poly(AGE55- | 12 | 183 | 0.30 | 1.16 |
| poly(AGE113- | 17 | 209 | 0.54 | 1.20 |
| poly(AGE151- | 20 | 211 | 0.72 | 1.17 |
| poly(AGE209) | 24 | 209 | 1.0 | 1.18 |
Determined from 1H NMR spectroscopy.
Measured by DMF SEC with a refractive index detector.
Scheme 1Synthesis of Homologous, Statistical Copolyanions and Copolycations with f = m/(m + n) [m = o + p for Oxidized (Co)polycations and n = 0 for Fully Charged Polyelectrolytes]
Figure 1Binodal phase diagrams for PECs prepared from polycations used as synthesized [poly(Am)] vs oxidized with 2 equiv of H2O2 relative to thioether moieties [poly(Amox)]. All samples were prepared with CP, = 1 wt %, and error bars present standard deviations between measurements performed in triplicate.
Figure 2Bright field optical microscopy images obtained across indicated charge fractions and sodium chloride salt concentrations. Polymer concentrations were 10 mg/mL for all f values, and samples were analyzed immediately after complexation. Top row scale bar: 250 μm; second to fourth row scale bars: 50 μm.
Figure 3Macroscopically phase-separated samples obtained after centrifugation from oxidized polyelectrolytes with f = 0.30–1.0 (left) and fully charged coacervate obtained without polycation oxidation (right). All samples are at equilibrium as indicated by the presence of two transparent liquid phases.
Figure 4Experimental binodal phase diagrams for PECs with f = 0.30–1.0 and CP, = 10 mg/mL obtained from TGA. The highest CP values correspond to samples prepared at 0 M exogenous [NaCl] and washed twice with acidified water to reduce coacervate salt content. All measurements were performed in triplicate, and error bars represent the standard deviation between samples.
Figure 5Salt partitioning between coacervate and supernatant phases for poly(Amox-stat-EO)/poly(Sulf-stat-EO) with f = 0.54. (A) Binodal phase diagram with tie lines. (B) Salt partitioning coefficient (Cscoac/Cssup) vs exogenous [NaCl]. Error bars indicate the standard deviation between three separate measurements.
Figure 6Salt partitioning coefficient vs exogenous [NaCl] as a function of (A) charge fraction for the oxidized series and (B) polarity of the polycation. Error bars indicate the standard deviation between three separate measurements.
Figure 7Binodal phase diagrams for PECs with f = 0.30–1.0 obtained from Gibbs ensemble simulation. (A) All beads have same LJ interactions, ϵLJ = 0.314kBT. (B) Salt–salt and monomer–monomer interactions are unchanged, ϵLJ = 0.314kBT, while for salt–monomer interactions ϵLJ = 0.471kBT to provide stronger attractions between salt and polymer. Error bars indicate the standard deviation from the block average.
Figure 9(A) Experimental relationship between weight fraction of (co)PE in the coacervate phase (wP,c) at 0 M exogenous NaCl and f. (B) Coacervate density as a function of f as determined by MD simulations using chains with ideally random sequences or sequences adjusted for compositional drift and Đ (experimental sequences). The slopes reported were obtained by fitting the ideally random sequences in the ranges of 0.125 ≤ f ≤ 0.20 and both ideally random and experimental sequences for 0.54 ≤ f ≤ 1.0.
Figure 8Salt partitioning coefficient vs average salt concentration. (A) All beads have the same LJ interactions. (B) Salt–monomer interactions are stronger than salt–salt and monomer–monomer interactions. Error bars indicate the standard deviation.