| Literature DB >> 36043086 |
Romario Lobban1, Ankan Biswas1, Kevin J Ruiz-Márquez2, Leon M Bellan1,3.
Abstract
Much work has been done on the use of heating to trigger reactions via the temperature-dependent removal of a barrier or constraint separating reagents. Far less work, however, has been done on the use of cooling to achieve a similar goal. Numerous applications, such as those involving components or materials susceptible to persistent low temperatures and cases in which energy for heating is not available, would benefit from this inverse approach. Hence, in this study we explore whether physically crosslinked hydrogels can be reliably used as thermoresponsive constraints that allow reagents to react only upon cooling. We achieve this by loading reagents into adjacent blocks of thermoresponsive hydrogel and showing that these reagents can only react with each other after the temperature of the hydrogel falls below its lower critical solution temperature (LCST). Above the LCST, the reagents remain sequestered in separate gels and no reaction occurs; this "OFF" state is stable for extended periods. When the system is allowed to cool, the hydrogels liquify and flow into each other, allowing mixing of the embedded reagents ("ON" state). We tune the hydrogels' LCSTs using NaCl, quantify the NaCl's tuning effect using rheometry, and determine that reactions are triggered reproducibly at temperatures similar to the tuned LCSTs. We also demonstrate generalizability of the concept by exploring situations involving radically different reaction types. This concept therefore constitutes a new approach to autonomous material behavior based on cooling. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36043086 PMCID: PMC9361303 DOI: 10.1039/d2ra02938c
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Fig. 1Schematic showing cooling-induced gel-to-sol transition resulting in flow and subsequent mixing and reaction.
Fig. 3Cooling triggering of chemical reactions. (a) Device used for cooling-triggered reaction experiments. (b) Stereoscope images of a loaded device before (left) and after (right) a cooling-triggered phenolphthalein–NaOH reaction. (c) Coloration and temperature vs. time for a 2% NaCl phenolphthalein–NaOH reaction (left) and a 0% NaCl HRP–TMB reaction (right). (d) Triggering temperature vs. NaCl concentration for phenolphthalein–NaOH reactions (left) and HRP–TMB reactions (right). N = 4 for all formulations. Average triggering temperature for each formulation is represented by a black square. All data points and averages are to the nearest whole number.
Fig. 2Example of rheometric temperature ramp data. Variation in storage and loss moduli (top) and tan δ (bottom) are shown. The gel point is eventually reached as temperature is increased, while the solution point is eventually reached as temperature is decreased.
Experimentally determined gel and solution points of selected formulations. On top, HRP–laden formulations with different salt contents are compared. Below, formulations containing different payloads are compared. All gel and solution points have error of ±1 °C
| Formulation | Solution point (°C) | Gel point (°C) |
|---|---|---|
| HRP–laden (0% NaCl) | 36 | 55 |
| HRP–laden (2% NaCl) | 27 | 46 |
| HRP–laden (3% NaCl) | 20 | 40 |
| TMB–laden (0% NaCl) | 35 | 53 |
| Phenolphthalein–laden (0% NaCl) | 33 | 51 |
| NaOH–laden (0% NaCl) | 27 | 49 |
Fig. 4Average triggering temperatures compared to solution points of HRP–laden methylcellulose.