4.7 Article

Ring-Opening Polymerization with Lewis Pairs and Subsequent Nucleophilic Substitution: A Promising Strategy to Well-Defined Polyethylene-like Polyesters without Transesterification

期刊

MACROMOLECULES
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 836-845

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.7b02378

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21604061]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin [17JCQNJC02500]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ring-opening polymerization (ROP) of omega-pentadecalactone (PDL) catalyzed by Lewis pairs was thoroughly explored, and a novel approach to well-defined aliphatic long chain polyester with high molecular weight (MW) was developed in the present work. The Zn(C6F5)(2)/1,8-diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene (DBU) Lewis pair was proved to be a promising catalytic system for ROP of PDL, producing cyclic PPDL with high MW (M-w > 100 kg/mol) and relatively low polydispersity index (M-w/M-n = 1.6-1.9). Strikingly, no transesterification occurred in the ROP of PDL by Zn(C6F5)(2)/DBU. The cyclic topology of the polyester could be switched to linear structure in the presence of alcohol. The feeding mode and the structure of alcohol significantly influence the ROP. Compared with mixing alcohol with Zn(C6F5)(2)/DBU at first, adding Ph2CHOH with low nucleophilicity after full monomer conversion could afford linear PPDL without transesterification. It was noted that random chain scission or chain extension was not detected after adding Ph2CHOH. Well-defined block copolymer containing polyethylene-like segment can be easily prepared by sequential addition of PDL and lactide (LA) or caprolactone (CL). Cyclic block copolyesters c-poly(PDL-b-CL) and c-poly(PDL-b-LA) were obtained in the absence of alcohol. The blocky structures can be maintained even when prolonging reaction time after full monomer conversion. Similarly, introducing Ph2CHOH before quenching the polymerization led to well-defined linear block copolyesters l-poly(PDL-b-CL) and l-poly(PDL-b-LA).

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