4.6 Article

Macroporous poly(ionic liquid) and poly(acrylamide) monoliths from CO2-in-water emulsion templates stabilized by sugar-based surfactants

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY A
卷 1, 期 29, 页码 8479-8487

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c3ta11073g

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Liege
  2. French Community of Belgium
  3. Belgian Science Policy in the frame of the Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme [P7/05]
  4. Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique (FRS-FNRS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Highly interconnected poly(acrylamide) (PAM) and poly(vinylimidazolium) (PVIm) porous monoliths were templated by carbon dioxide-in-water (CO2/W) high internal phase emulsions (HIPEs), a toxic-solvent free process. A range of sugar-based fluorinated surfactants prepared by chemoenzymatic synthesis were used as emulsifiers. Both the concentration and the structure of the surfactants, especially the length of their CO2-philic part and of their spacer between the sugar head and the tail, were found to strongly affect the cellular structure and morphology of the PAM polyHIPEs, i.e. the size of pores and cells. A mannose derivative bearing a chain ranging from 6 to 10 perfluorinated carbons and a long spacer emerged as the best stabilizer, leading to a porous monolith with average pores and cell sizes (about 2.6 mu m and 5-10 mu m, respectively) among the lowest reported for polyHIPEs produced from CO2/W emulsions. The same template then served for the preparation of the first macroporous poly(ionic liquid) (PIL) polyHIPE by using 1-vinyl-3-ethylimidazolium bromide as the monomer. Shrinkage of the final material was prevented by adjusting the divinylimidazolium crosslinker content. The resulting low density polyHIPE exhibits small spherical cells (similar to 5 mu m) connected by numerous small pores (similar to 2 mu m), confirming that the CO2/W HIPE templating methodology based on fluorinated glycosurfactants is a technique of choice for the preparation of macroporous PILs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据