4.7 Article

Polymer film synthesis from an aqueous latex of polymerization-induced self-assembly (PISA) derived nanofibers

期刊

EUROPEAN POLYMER JOURNAL
卷 193, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2023.112118

关键词

Polymerization -induced self -assembly; Wormlike micelles; Low glass transition temperature; Films; Mechanical properties

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polymerization-induced self-assembly (PISA) was used to synthesize spheres and worms comprising poly(n-butyl acrylate) as core-forming block. The nanoparticle morphology was dependent on the system pH, with spheres formed at natural pH and worms formed at pH 5. Films prepared from these nanoparticles demonstrated that the initial morphology significantly influenced the mechanical properties, with worm films showing higher tensile strength and strain at break compared to sphere films.
Polymerization-induced self-assembly (PISA) derived spheres and worms (fibers) comprising poly(n-butyl acrylate) as core-forming block (Tg approximate to-49 degrees C) were synthesized using a poly(acrylic acid-stat-poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether acrylate) macroRAFT agent. The nanoparticle morphology varied depending on the pH of the system, i.e. spheres at natural pH (approximate to 2.5) and worms at pH 5. The core-sections of the particles (both spheres and worms) were crosslinked using ethylene glycol diacrylate. Films were prepared from the synthesized aqueous latexes via simple drop casting in the absence of volatile organic compounds. The influence of the original nanoparticle morphology on the mechanical properties of the films was subsequently explored - worm film displayed 1670 % higher tensile strength and 1290 % higher strain at break compared to sphere film. These results demonstrate that film properties can be significantly influenced by the original nanoparticle morphology, despite the nanoparticles comprising very similar polymer chains in terms of composition and molecular weight distribution.

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

4.7
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