4.6 Article

Bis-cationic ionic liquid crystals

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY C
卷 2, 期 3, 页码 458-473

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c3tc31368a

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Science Foundation DFG through the priority program 1191
  2. DFG Cluster of Excellence RESOLV
  3. DESY [I-20100011, I-20110158]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of bis-cationic imidazolium-based compounds are reported, where two imidazoliumhead groups are bridged by different types of spacers: a saturated C-6 hydrocarbon spacer (type A), an ether bridge (type B), a benzylic spacer (type C) and a 2-butyne spacer (type D). The effect on mesophase formation of (1) the type of spacer, (2) the alkyl side chain length, and (3) the nature of the anion was investigated. The structural flexibility of the spacers seems to be responsible for the temperature range over which mesophases could be observed. Compared to types A, C, and D, the liquid crystalline state in type B is reached at much lower temperature and extends over a broader temperature range. As type B showed the best mesophase properties, we also combined the [B-C12] (bis(n-alkyl)-1,1-(oxydi-2,1-ethane-diyl) bis-imidazolium) cation with other anions such as ClO4-, BF4-, PF6- and the large, weakly coordinating anion bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl) amide, NTf2-. For compounds [B-C-12][BF4](2) and [B-C-12][ClO4](2), with an anion of Td symmetry, a rare higher order smectic T phase could be observed, which transited into a smectic A phase during heating. Unexpectedly, mesophase formation was found for compound [B-C-12][NTf2] 2, which has not previously been observed for compounds with mono-cationic structures paired with this anion. In addition the rheological behavior of the bromide ILCs was investigated. The viscosities of all ILCs depend on the shear rate applied to the sample when the salt is in its mesophase. The viscosity increases drastically following the shear rate decrease, and non-Newtonian viscosity behavior is displayed by the mesophase.

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