ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Phosphonic Acid-Functionalized Diblock Copolymer Nano-Objects via Polymerization-Induced Self-Assembly: Synthesis, Characterization, and Occlusion into Calcite Crystals
My Activity
  • Open Access
Article

Phosphonic Acid-Functionalized Diblock Copolymer Nano-Objects via Polymerization-Induced Self-Assembly: Synthesis, Characterization, and Occlusion into Calcite Crystals
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

View Author Information
Dainton Building, Department of Chemistry, The University of Sheffield, Brook Hill, Sheffield, South Yorkshire S3 7HF, U.K.
School of Chemistry, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K.
*E-mail [email protected] (S.P.A.).
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

Macromolecules

Cite this: Macromolecules 2016, 49, 1, 192–204
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.5b02212
Published December 23, 2015

Copyright © 2015 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under CC-BY.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Dialkylphosphonate-functionalized and phosphonic acid-functionalized macromolecular chain transfer agents (macro-CTAs) are utilized for the reversible addition–fragmentation chain transfer (RAFT) dispersion polymerization of benzyl methacrylate (BzMA) at 20% w/w solids in methanol at 64 °C. Spherical, worm-like, and vesicular nano-objects could each be generated through systematic variation of the mean degree of polymerization of the core-forming PBzMA block when using relatively short macro-CTAs. Construction of detailed phase diagrams is essential for the reproducible targeting of pure copolymer morphologies, which were characterized using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and dynamic light scattering (DLS). For nano-objects prepared using the phosphonic acid-based macro-CTA, transfer from methanol to water leads to the development of anionic surface charge as a result of ionization of the stabilizer chains, but this does not adversely affect the copolymer morphology. Given the well-known strong affinity of phosphonic acid for calcium ions, selected nano-objects were evaluated for their in situ occlusion within growing CaCO3 crystals. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) studies provide compelling evidence for the occlusion of both worm-like and vesicular phosphonic acid-based nano-objects and hence the production of a series of interesting new organic–inorganic nanocomposites.

Copyright © 2015 American Chemical Society

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

It is well-known that phosphorus-based polymers have a wide range of potential applications. They bind metals ions, (1, 2) adsorb strongly onto metal oxide surfaces (3) and biominerals, (4, 5) can serve as proton exchange membrane material, (6) allow the design of halogen-free flame-retardant materials, (7-9) and can exhibit excellent biocompatibility. (10, 11) Literature examples include organophosphorus polymers based on methacrylate-type (12, 13) or acrylamide-type (14) dialkylphosphonates. Anionic polyelectrolytes are also accessible directly either by polymerization of the free acid form of phosphate, (15) phosphonate, (6, 13) or phosphinate (16) monomers or via hydrolysis of dialkylphosphonate polymers. (13, 14) DNA is a particularly important example of a naturally occurring anionic polyphosphate. (17) However, phosphorus-based polymers can also exhibit cationic (e.g., phosphonium-based polymers (18)) or zwitterionic character (e.g., poly(2-(methacryloyloxy)ethyl phosphorylcholine), or PMPC). (19, 20) Both materials are of considerable interest in the field of biomaterials. (21, 22)
Recent progress in the development of controlled/living polymerization methods such as atom transfer radical polymerization (ATRP) (23) and reversible addition–fragmentation transfer (RAFT) polymerization (24) has facilitated the design of a wide range of well-defined controlled-structure polymers. Many examples of well-defined PMPC-based diblock copolymers have been prepared by ATRP (25, 26) and RAFT. (27, 28) Of particular relevance to the present study, (1-ethoxycarbonyl)vinyl dimethylphosphate was homopolymerized via ATRP and also copolymerized using either polystyrene or poly(methyl methacrylate) macroinitiators. (29) While control over the polymerization of this dialkylphosphate monomer was rather poor—incomplete conversions or broad molecular weight distributions (Mw/Mn > 1.60) were obtained depending on the choice of catalyst—subsequent hydrolysis produced the corresponding phosphoric acid-based diblock copolymers. In contrast, RAFT polymerization of either 2-(acryloyloxy)ethyl phosphate or 2-(methacryloyloxy)ethyl phosphate yielded well-defined diblock copolymers when employing 2-(acetoacetoxy)ethyl methacrylate as the second block. (30) Divinyl impurities present in both phosphate monomers limited the molecular weight of the first block to 20 000 g mol–1, otherwise extensive cross-linking was observed.
As far as we are aware, vinylphosphonic acid (VPA) was the first example of a monomer bearing an unprotected phosphonic acid to be polymerized directly via RAFT polymerization. (31) As yet, however, only diblock copolymers with relatively low molecular weights have been obtained using this approach. Considerably higher molecular weights have been reported for the ATRP of 4-vinylbenzyl diethylphosphonate and relatively narrow molecular weight distributions were achieved in this case. (6) Both deprotection (to generate the free phosphonic acid groups) and chain extension (from a polystyrene macroinitiator) were demonstrated for this styrene-type monomer. (32) Similarly, well-defined homopolymers and diblock copolymers were obtained when using 2-(acrylamido)ethyl diethylphosphonate, with subsequent hydrolysis producing the corresponding free phosphonic acid-based polymers. (14)
Another phosphorus-based monomer, methacryloyloxymethyl dimethylphosphonate (MP) has recently become commercially available, but attempts to polymerize this monomer via ATRP have only resulted in rather low conversions and relatively low molecular weights, presumably due to strong copper complexation. (33) Optimizing the ATRP formulation by appropriate selection of the initiator/catalyst system and polymerization temperature was required in order to improve control over the MP polymerization. (34) In this context, RAFT polymerization offers a potentially decisive advantage, since it involves an organosulfur-based chain transfer agent rather than a transition metal catalyst. Moreover, phosphonic acid-based homopolymers were recently prepared directly via RAFT polymerization. (13) In principle, a wide range of functional diblock copolymers incorporating either dialkylphosphonate or phosphonic acid repeat units should be accessible using this approach.
Recently, RAFT polymerization has also been exploited in the context of polymerization-induced self-assembly (PISA), which is a highly efficient and versatile method for directly generating diblock copolymer nano-objects at relatively high solids (up to 50% w/w). (35-38) In such formulations, a soluble macromolecular chain transfer agent is extended with a monomer to form a new block, which becomes increasingly insoluble in the reaction medium. The first soluble block confers steric stabilization, while the growing insoluble block drives in situ self-assembly. Varying the relative block volume fractions while conducting such syntheses at various copolymer concentrations allows predictive phase diagrams to be constructed, which are essential for the reproducible generation of pure phases comprising spherical, worm-like, or vesicular diblock copolymer nanoparticles. (39) This PISA approach has been shown to be generic. Various formulations have been reported in aqueous solution, (40-47) lower alcohols, (48-56)n-alkanes, (57-59) toluene, (60) and solvent mixtures (61, 62) that provide access to not only non-ionic (or zwitterionic) nanoparticles (43, 63-66) but also anionic (67, 68) or cationic nano-objects. (69) All of these aforementioned PISA formulations are based on dispersion polymerization, whereby the core-forming monomer is soluble in the reaction medium. There are also numerous examples of heterogeneous formulations based on aqueous emulsion polymerization. (70-77)
There are very few literature examples of PISA syntheses involving phosphorus-based monomers. Such formulations combine the growing interest in phosphorus-based polymers with straightforward access to a range of diblock copolymer nano-objects without requiring post-polymerization processing. Potential applications include flame-retardant coatings, drug delivery formulations, and biocompatible worm gels for 3D cell growth. In 2011, our group reported aqueous formulations based on a zwitterionic PMPC macromolecular chain transfer agent (macro-CTA) for the preparation of diblock copolymer nano-objects. (43, 66) Very recently, Zhang et al. employed 4-diphenylphosphinostyrene as the core-forming monomer to prepare catalytically-active micellar nanoreactors. (78) However, we are not aware of any examples involving anionic phosphate-based monomers. As mentioned earlier, Monge and co-workers recently reported the RAFT solution polymerization of methacryloyloxymethyl dimethylphosphonate (MP) and methacryloyloxymethylphosphonic acid (MPA), (13) which are of potential interest for biomedical applications. In the present work, we describe the PISA synthesis of dialkylphosphonate- and phosphonic acid-functionalized diblock copolymer nano-objects using these two monomers. A range of nano-objects are prepared using a RAFT alcoholic dispersion polymerization formulation and characterized in terms of their size, morphology, and surface chemistry. Occlusion of selected worm-like and vesicular nanoparticles within growing CaCO3 crystals is also briefly studied as a potential route to novel organic–inorganic nanocomposites.

Experimental Section

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Materials

Methacryloyloxymethyl dimethylphosphonate (MP; Specific Polymers, France), glycerol monomethacrylate (GMA; kindly donated by GEO Specialty Chemicals, Hythe, UK), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (HPMA, Alfa Aesar, 98%), 2,2′-azobis(isobutyronitrile) (AIBN; Molekula, Germany), 4,4′-azobis(4-cyanopentanoic acid) (ACVA; Sigma-Aldrich, ≥98%), 1,3,5-trioxane (Sigma-Aldrich, UK), bromotrimethylsilane (TMSBr; Acros, 98%), CaCl2·2H2O (Sigma-Aldrich), and (NH4)2CO3 (Sigma-Aldrich) were used as received. Benzyl methacrylate (BzMA, 96% purity, Sigma-Aldrich) was passed through a column to remove inhibitor prior to its polymerization. 2-Cyano-2-propyl dithiobenzoate (CPDB; Strem Chemicals, UK) had a CTA efficiency of approximately 80%. This efficiency was taken into account for the RAFT syntheses of the various macro-CTAs. Methanol, ethanol, and DMF were all of solvent grade, while anhydrous dichloromethane (DCM) was used for the hydrolysis experiments. Deuterated NMR solvents (CD3OD and d6-DMSO) were purchased from Cambridge Isotopes Laboratories, Inc.

Synthesis of Poly(methacryloyloxymethyl dimethylphosphonate) [PMP] Macro-CTA

The RAFT polymerization of MP was conducted as reported by Canniccioni et al. (13) using a 25% w/w MP solution in DMF and a CPDB/AIBN molar ratio of 3.0. In a typical protocol, the monomer (22.50 g, 108.1 mmol), CPDB (1.813 g, 4.9 mmol), and AIBN (266.3 mg, 1.6 mmol) were dissolved in 73 mL of DMF in a 250 mL round-bottomed flask. After purging with nitrogen for 20 min, the flask was sealed and placed in a preheated oil bath at 70 °C for 3.5 h, before quenching the reaction by cooling with an ice bath. Samples were taken during the course of polymerization for 1H NMR measurements, and the final conversion was determined to be 65%. The crude PMP was purified via precipitation into excess cold diethyl ether (twice) and finally freeze-dried from aqueous solution overnight. A mean degree of polymerization of 24 (or Mn = 5.2 kg mol−1) was calculated via end-group analysis using 1H NMR spectroscopy by comparing the integrated intensity of the two aromatic protons of the CTA at 7.42–7.56 ppm with the five protons assigned to the methacrylic backbone at 0.2–2.4 ppm. DMF GPC analysis indicated apparent Mn and Mw/Mn values of 5.4 kg mol−1 and 1.20, respectively. Two other PMP macro-CTAs were also prepared with higher target mean degrees of polymerization: DMF GPC indicated a Mn of 7.0 kg mol−1 and Mw/Mn = 1.23 for PMP32 and a Mn of 9.5 kg mol−1 and Mw/Mn = 1.22 for PMP42.

Hydrolysis of Poly(methacryloyloxymethyl dimethylphosphonate) [PMP] Yielding Poly(methacryloxymethylphosphonic acid) [PMPA]

To generate the free phosphonic acid form, PMP was hydrolyzed with trimethylsilyl bromide (TMSBr). (13) In a typical reaction, PMP24 (10.0 g) was dissolved in anhydrous DCM (100 mL), followed by addition of TMSBr (4 equiv per phosphonate group). The reaction mixture was stirred for 3 h at 20 °C, and then the solvent was removed under reduced pressure. The free phosphonic acid homopolymer, PMPA, was generated by addition of methanol (500 mL) followed by stirring for 1 h at 20 °C. After concentration under reduced pressure, the crude polymer was purified via dialysis against water, followed by freeze-drying overnight. Aqueous GPC analysis of the three PMPA homopolymers using 30% methanol cosolvent at pH 9 gave the following data: PMPA24Mn = 10.1 kg mol−1, Mw/Mn = 1.03; PMPA32Mn = 11.1 kg mol−1, Mw/Mn = 1.03; PMPA42Mn = 12.6 kg mol−1, Mw/Mn = 1.05.

Chain Extension Experiments with PMPA Macro-CTAs

Macro-CTAs were chain-extended with glycerol monomethacrylate (GMA) to examine their blocking efficiencies. RAFT solution polymerizations were conducted at 20% w/w solids at 64 °C for 16 h. In a typical protocol, the PMPA24 macro-CTA (140.5 mg, 31.22 μmol), AIBN (1.0 mg, 6.24 μmol, CTA/AIBN molar ratio = 5.0), GMA (1.00 g, 6.24 mmol), and 1,3,5-trioxane (11.3 mg, 124.87 μmol, GMA/1,3,5-trioxane molar ratio = 50) were dissolved in methanol (4.0 mL). The solution was purged with nitrogen for 20 min, and then the sealed vial was placed in a preheated oil bath at 64 °C for 16 h, before quenching the reaction by cooling with an ice bath. Samples were taken during the course of the polymerization for 1H NMR measurements. For the three different blocking experiments, final GMA monomer conversions were determined to lie between 46 and 73%. The resulting PMPA–PGMA diblock copolymers were precipitated twice from cold diethyl ether and freeze-dried from aqueous solution overnight prior to analysis by aqueous GPC (with 30% methanol cosolvent at pH 9): PMPA24–PGMA140Mn= 18.3 kg mol−1, Mw/Mn = 1.05; PMPA32–PGMA146Mn = 20.0 kg mol−1, Mw/Mn = 1.07; PMPA42–PGMA92Mn = 19.5 kg mol−1, Mw/Mn = 1.07.

Diblock Copolymer Synthesis via Alcoholic Dispersion Polymerization

Alcoholic RAFT dispersion polymerizations were conducted with both the dialkylphosphonate (PMP) macro-CTAs as well as the phosphonic acid (PMPA) macro-CTAs at 20% w/w solids under identical conditions. In a typical synthesis targeting a diblock composition of PMPA24–PBzMA300, the protocol was as follows: PMPA macro-CTA (37.5 mg, 8.32 μmol), AIBN (0.30 mg, 1.67 μmol, CTA/AIBN molar ratio = 5.0), and BzMA (440 mg, 2.50 mmol) were weighed into a sample vial and dissolved in pre-degassed methanol (1.91 g). This vial was then sealed with a septum and purged using a gentle nitrogen flow for 10 min while cooling in ice to minimize evaporation. Polymerization was initiated by placing the vial in a preheated oil bath at 64 °C. In order to guarantee a high BzMA conversion, the polymerization was conducted at this temperature for 24 h before quenching by exposure to air. In the case of the alcoholic dispersion polymerization syntheses conducted using the PMP macro-CTAs, the final PMP–PBzMA diblock copolymers were also analyzed using DMF GPC (see Tables 1 and 2 for details).

CaCO3 Precipitation via the Ammonia Diffusion Method (79)

For the crystallization experiments, 50 μL of a 1.0% w/w aqueous copolymer dispersion was diluted with water (2.50 mL) and a 3 mM CaCl2 solution (2.50 mL) in a 30 mL sample vial, giving a final 0.01% w/w copolymer dispersion in a 1.5 mM CaCl2 aqueous solution. A glass slide that had been pre-cleaned with piranha solution was placed on the base of the vial, and then the samples were transferred to a desiccator previously charged with (NH4)2CO3 powder (5.0 g). Crystallization was allowed to proceed for 24 h at 20 °C, and then the glass slides were removed from solution, washed with deionized water and ethanol, and finally air-dried. A second set of crystallization experiments was also conducted using a 0.005% w/w aqueous copolymer dispersion. Control experiments were conducted in the absence of added copolymer.

Characterization

NMR Spectroscopy

1H NMR spectra were recorded in d6-DMSO for PMP, PMPA and their related diblock copolymers using either a 400 or 250 MHz Bruker spectrometer. A spectrum of the PGMA homopolymer was also recorded in CD3OD. 31P NMR spectra for the PMP and PMPA macro-CTAs were recorded in d6-DMSO using a 250 MHz Bruker spectrometer (400 scans).

Gel Permeation Chromatography (GPC)

GPC analyses of PMP and PGMA homopolymers and PMP–PBzMA diblock copolymers were conducted using two Polymer Laboratories PL gel 5 μm mixed C columns and one PL polar gel 5 μm guard column arranged in series and maintained at 60 °C, followed by a Varian 390 LC refractive index detector. The DMF eluent contained 10 mM LiBr, and the flow rate was 1.0 mL min–1. Calibration was achieved using a series of near-mondisperse poly(methyl methacrylate) standards (ranging from 645 to 2.48 × 106 g mol–1). Molecular weight distributions for the PMPA and PMPA–PGMA diblock copolymers were assessed using aqueous GPC, which comprised an Agilent 1260 Infinity setup fitted with two Agilent PS Aquagel-OH 8 μm columns at 35 °C and a refractive index detector. The eluent was a 10 mM NaH2PO4 pH 9 buffer containing 200 mM NaNO3 and 30% methanol at a flow rate of 1.0 mL min–1. Calibration was achieved using a series of near-monodisperse poly(methacrylic acid) standards ranging from 1.27 to 4.83 × 105 g mol–1.

Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) and Zeta Potential Measurements

Intensity-average hydrodynamic diameters of the dispersions were obtained by DLS using a Malvern Zetasizer NanoZS instrument. This instrument detects scattered light at an angle of 173° and was equipped with a 4 mW He–Ne laser operating at 633 nm, an avalanche photodiode detector with high quantum efficiency, and an ALV/LSE-5003 multiple τ digital correlator electronics system. Copolymer dispersions of ∼0.20% w/w solids were analyzed using the cumulants method to obtain the hydrodynamic (z-average) diameter and polydispersity index (PDI). Aqueous electrophoresis studies were performed on 0.01% w/w copolymer dispersions using the same instrument equipped with DTS1070 cells. The solution pH was adjusted by the manual addition of 0.01–1.0 M HCl or NaOH, and the background electrolyte was 1 mM NaCl.

Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)

Copolymer particle morphologies were assessed using a Philips CM 100 instrument operating at 100 kV and equipped with a Gatan 1k CCD camera. For sample preparation, 8 μL of a diluted copolymer dispersion (∼0.20% w/w) was dropped onto a freshly glow-discharged grid, left for 30 s, and then blotted with filter paper to remove excess solution. Subsequently, staining was performed for 30 s using a 8 μL droplet of 0.75% w/v uranyl formate solution, followed by blotting the excess stain and drying with a vacuum hose. TEM grids were prepared by coating copper/palladium TEM grids (Agar Scientific, UK) with a thin film of amorphous carbon.

Optical Microscopy, Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), and Raman Microscopy

The dimensions and morphologies of the CaCO3 (calcite) crystals were assessed using optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. Optical microscopy images of crystals grown on glass slides were recorded using a Motic DMBA 300 digital biological microscope with a built-in camera and analyzed using Motic Images 2.0 ML software. For SEM studies, the glass slides supporting the CaCO3 crystals were mounted on SEM stubs using adhesive pads. Imaging of the uncoated samples was performed using a FEI Nova NanoSEM 450 operating at 2 kV. Cross sections of the CaCO3 crystals were also imaged using SEM to investigate the extent of particle occlusion. Such samples were prepared by placing a clean glass slide on top of the glass slide coated with CaCO3 crystals and pressing down while slightly twisting the upper glass slide. This protocol resulted in fracture of the crystals, hence revealing their interior structure. Characterization of the crystal polymorph was conducted via Raman microscopy studies of individual particles using a Renishaw Raman 200 System microscope operating at a laser wavelength of 785 nm.

Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Scheme 1

Scheme 1. RAFT Solution Polymerization of Methacryloyloxymethyl Dimethylphosphonate (MP) and Subsequent Hydrolysis of the PMP Precursor To Obtain Poly(methacryloyloxymethylphosphonic acid) (PMPA); RAFT Dispersion Polymerization of BzMA in Methanol Using Either the PMP or PMPA Macro-CTA as Steric Stabilizer Produced Spherical, Worm-like, or Vesicular Nano-Objects, Depending on the Precise PISA Formulation

Synthesis of Poly(methacryloyloxymethyl dimethylphosphonate) and Poly(methacryloyloxymethyl phosphonic acid) Macro-CTAs

Methacryloyloxymethyl dimethylphosphonate (MP) was used for the synthesis of the macro-CTA in order to prepare phosphonic acid-stabilized nano-objects via RAFT dispersion polymerization. The RAFT solution polymerization of this commercially available monomer was recently studied using 2-cyano-2-propyl dithiobenzoate as chain transfer agent. (13) The resulting PMP macro-CTA can subsequently be converted into PMPA via ester hydrolysis (see Scheme 1). Three near-monodisperse PMP macro-CTAs with DPs of 24, 32, or 42 were synthesized in DMF at 70 °C. The corresponding DMF GPC traces are shown in Figure 1a; Mw/Mn values were below 1.25 in each case. Subsequent hydrolysis in dichloromethane with trimethylsilyl bromide and methanol yields the corresponding PMPA in its free phosphonic acid form, as indicated by a shift from 21.6 to 14.0 ppm in the 31P spectrum (Figure 1b and Figure S1). Because of unfavorable column interactions during attempted DMF GPC analysis, the PMPA macro CTAs had to be characterized using aqueous GPC (see Figure S2). These analyses indicated relatively low Mw/Mn values (less than 1.05).

Figure 1

Figure 1. (a) DMF gel permeation chromatography traces obtained for the three PMP macro-CTAs used in this study. (b) 31P NMR spectra recorded for the PMP24 macro-CTA before (red spectrum, top) and after hydrolysis (black spectrum, bottom). This indicates complete hydrolysis of the dimethyl ester groups on the PMP precursor to produce a well-defined PMPA macro-CTA.

Polymerization Induced Self-Assembly (PISA) in Aqueous and Alcoholic Media

First, the performance of the PMP macro-CTA as non-ionic stabilizer block for the aqueous dispersion polymerization of HPMA was investigated at pH 5. This facilitates comparison with later experiments conducted with the anionic PMPA macro-CTA, which is singly ionized at this pH. (13) Unfortunately, stable colloidal dispersions could not be obtained when targeting a PHPMA block with a degree of polymerization of 200 at 70 °C using ACVA initiator. This behavior was rather unexpected, as each of the PMP macro-CTAs exhibited excellent water solubility and no LCST-like behavior was observed. PISA syntheses were also attempted at 50 °C using AIBA as a low temperature radical source, (64) but again precipitation was observed. Since we have recently developed various robust PISA formulations based on the RAFT alcoholic dispersion polymerization of BzMA, (49, 50, 55, 56) we switched to using either ethanol or methanol as the continuous phase. However, coagulation was again obtained for the former solvent when targeting DPs of 200. It is perhaps noteworthy that complete dissolution of the steric stabilizer macro-CTA required stirring for around 1 h regardless of its molecular weight, which suggests that ethanol is perhaps a rather marginal solvent for PMP. Consequently, we selected methanol as a more polar solvent, which led to significantly faster PMP dissolution under the same conditions.
For kinetic studies of PISA syntheses conducted in methanol, an initial BzMA polymerization was conducted at 64 °C for 24 h at 20% w/w solids (see Scheme 1) using a PMP24 macro-CTA and targeting a final PBzMA block DP of 300. No precipitation was observed for this formulation, which produced a turbid dispersion. More than 99% conversion was attained after 24 h as judged by 1H NMR studies, with almost complete monomer consumption (>97%) being achieved within 13 h (Figure 2a). Moreover, an enhanced rate of polymerization is only observed relatively late in the polymerization—well after micellar nucleation has occurred (see inset in Figure 2a). This differs markedly from previous observations for similar PISA formulations based on RAFT alcoholic dispersion polymerization, where the increase in the rate of propagation coincides with the onset of micellar nucleation. (50, 80) A tentative explanation for this observation might be the relatively small size of the spherical nanoparticles initially formed during this PISA formulation (Dh < 25 nm, see Table S1). This suggests the presence of rather loose, hydrated aggregates and thus perhaps relatively inefficient initial solubilization of the BzMA monomer within the nascent nuclei. For PISA syntheses conducted under appropriate conditions, the copolymer morphology is known to evolve from spheres to vesicles via various intermediate morphologies, including worms and “jellyfish”. (81) When the vesicle dimension (i.e., mean diameter and/or mean membrane thickness) reaches a certain critical value, these aggregates are able to solubilize BzMA. Thus, a significant increase in the rate of BzMA polymerization occurs at around 6 h, as seen in the third stage in the first-order kinetics plot.
Despite this unusual kinetic behavior, the PISA formulation proved to be both efficient and reasonably well-controlled in terms of both copolymer morphology and molecular weight distribution. DLS studies of aliquots extracted during polymerization indicate that vesicles of around 160 nm are formed within 6 h, which suggests that the observed rate enhancement is associated with this morphology, rather than the initial spherical nuclei (see inset in Figure 2a and Table S1). These vesicles eventually attain a final hydrodynamic diameter of approximately 180 nm. A post mortem TEM image of the final copolymer morphology obtained after 24 h is shown in Figure S3b; the vesicular morphology is confirmed, and the estimated mean vesicle diameter is in reasonably good agreement with the DLS studies. Given the non-ionic nature of the PMP macro-CTA used in this set of experiments, DMF-GPC analysis of the corresponding PMP24–PBzMAx diblock copolymers was possible. Selected chromatograms are plotted in Figure 2b. The unimodal GPC traces are symmetric and show no significant tailing due to prematurely terminated macro-CTA chains, indicating high blocking efficiencies. This is supported by the linear evolution of the number-average molecular weight, Mn, while maintaining relatively narrow molecular weight distributions, with Mw/Mn values typically below 1.16 (Figure S3a and Table S1). These observations are consistent with the anticipated pseudo-living character of this RAFT dispersion polymerization. In addition, a high molecular weight shoulder gradually becomes more prominent above 30% conversion. Similar observations were also reported for another alcoholic PISA formulation utilizing BzMA as the core-forming block. (50)

Figure 2

Figure 2. (a) Kinetic data derived from 1H NMR studies of the RAFT alcoholic dispersion polymerization of BzMA (target DP = 300) at 64 °C using the PMP24 macro-CTA at 20% w/w solids in methanol. The inset shows the evolution of the hydrodynamic diameter Dh and the first-order kinetic plot with respect to monomer. (b) The corresponding DMF GPC traces and the associated Mn and Mw/Mn data obtained for selected copolymers on sampling this formulation, indicating its reasonably good controlled/living character (see Table S1 for a more complete set of GPC data).

Using various PMPx macro-CTAs (x = 24, 32, and 42) and performing all BzMA polymerizations at 20% w/w solids in methanol, we were able to construct a detailed phase diagram by systematically varying the target DP for the core-forming PBzMA block from 50 to 300 (see Figure 3; details of the individual polymerizations are provided in Table 1). The corresponding GPC traces for all of these PMP–PBzMA syntheses are shown in Figure S4 and clearly indicate an evolution of the molecular weight with increasing target PBzMA DP. High blocking efficiencies and relatively low Mw/Mn values were obtained, where these are similar to the data discussed earlier for the kinetic study conducted when targeting PMP24–PBzMA300. However, a relatively low concentration of unreacted macro-CTA can be detected for the PMP42 macro-CTA, which suggests that some degree of premature termination occurred in this particular case. Moreover, the final molecular weight distribution was significantly broader (Mw/Mn = 1.53) for PMP42–PBzMA558 compared to all other polymerizations (Mw/Mn < 1.21). As discussed earlier, a high molecular weight shoulder becomes discernible when targeting PBzMA DPs greater than 100 for all PMP macro-CTAs. In previous studies involving a poly(2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate) core-forming block, a similar shoulder was explained in terms of a relatively low level of dimethacrylate impurity in the monomer, which inevitably leads to light branching when targeting higher DPs. (42) However, this explanation seems to be unlikely for benzyl methacrylate, since there is no reason for such a monomer to contain a dimethacrylate impurity. An alternative explanation may be some degree of termination by combination, which is not unknown for methacrylic monomers. (82)
For all three sets of PMP macro-CTAs the initially formed spheres were relatively small (Dh < 25 nm), as previously observed for a PGMA–PHPMA PISA formulation. (42) Inspecting the phase diagram shown in Figure 3, it is clear that only spherical nanoparticles can be obtained when using the PMP42 macro-CTA. Presumably, this longer block confers additional steric stabilization during the BzMA polymerization and hence prevents sphere–sphere fusion, which is the key first step in the generation of worms and vesicles. Systematically increasing the target PBzMA DP from 50 to 558 leads to a monotonic increase in particle size, with hydrodynamic diameters ranging from 16 to 76 nm, as evidenced by both DLS and TEM (see Table 1 and Figure S5). The larger spheres are believed to be kinetically trapped morphologies. (39)

Figure 3

Figure 3. Phase diagram constructed for PMPx–PBzMAy diblock copolymer nano-objects prepared in methanol at 64 °C at 20% w/w solids. Representative TEM images obtained for the three pure copolymer morphologies: (a) PMP24–PBzMA50 (small spheres), (b) PMP32–PBzMA79 (worms), (c) PMP42–PBzMA300 (large spheres), and (d) PMP24–PBzMA200 (vesicles).

We recently reported similar findings for a PHPMA–PBzMA RAFT alcoholic dispersion polymerization formulation, when employing a PHPMA macro-CTA with a DP of 63. (50) However, using shorter PMP stabilizer blocks (DP = 24 or 32) enables access to higher order morphologies as well as spheres. Such rich phase behavior was also observed by Zehm and co-workers for the PHPMA–PBzMA PISA formulation on reducing the mean DP of the stabilizer block. (50) In the present study, using the PMP24 macro-CTA only enabled access to pure spheres, vesicles, or mixed phases (Figure 3a,d). However, pure worms occupying a very narrow phase region could be obtained when employing the PMP32 macro-CTA (Figure 3b). Representative TEM images obtained for the entire PMP32–PBzMAy series are shown in Figure S6. Increasing y from 48 to 61 led to partial fusion of spherical nanoparticles to form a mixture of spheres and short worms, with the latter having a distinctive “pearl necklace” appearance. Increasing y by a further seven BzMA units produced longer worms, with only a few spheres present. When y = 79, a free-standing gel comprising well-defined worms was obtained. Longer core-forming blocks (89 < y < 135) produced mixed phases, with vesicular phases becoming increasingly common. Finally, a pure vesicular phase was attained for PMP32–PBzMA146 (and higher y values). DLS studies suggest that increasing the DP of the PBzMA core induces some contraction in the mean vesicle dimensions (from Dh = 158 nm for y = 146 to Dh = 136 nm for y = 300). A similar size reduction was observed for the PMP24–PBzMAy series, where y = 100–300, with hydrodynamic diameters decreasing from 352 to 181 nm (see Table 1). This may be caused by thickening of the vesicle membranes exclusively via inward growth. TEM images recorded for the various PMP32–PBzMAy PISA formulations provide some evidence for this hypothesis. For mixed phases consisting of worms and vesicles, the vesicle membrane is clearly visible, and the vesicles are rather polydisperse (see Figure S6; y = 100, 120, and 135). On further increasing y, the vesicles become somewhat less polydisperse, and their associated lumen volumes are reduced (see Figure S6; y = 146, 200, and 300). Minimization of the vesicular interfacial area (and hence free energy) is the driving force for this phenomenon, which was recently described in detail for an aqueous PISA formulation. (83)
Table 1. Summary of Monomer Conversions, Intensity-Average Particle Diameters, and GPC Data Obtained for a Series of Non-Ionic PMPx–PBzMAy Diblock Copolymers Synthesized at 20% w/w Solids via RAFT Alcoholic Dispersion Polymerization of BzMA in Methanol at 64 °C for 24 Hours (S = Spheres, W = Worms, V = Vesicles)
   GPCDLSTEM
target compositionBzMA % convBzMA DPMn [kg mol–1]Mw/MnDh [nm]PDImorphology
PMP24–PBzMA5099509.81.17240.29S
PMP24–PBzMA58995711.01.15350.43S + W
PMP24–PBzMA65>996511.71.158120.99S + W
PMP24–PBzMA72>997212.41.153120.55S + W + V
PMP24–PBzMA80>998013.31.142380.30W + V
PMP24–PBzMA100>9910015.81.143520.12V
PMP24–PBzMA200>9920028.11.112010.20V
PMP24–PBzMA300>9930034.71.211810.07V
PMP32–PBzMA50964810.61.19170.09S
PMP32–PBzMA65946112.01.20290.26S + W
PMP32–PBzMA70976812.61.17840.28S + W
PMP32–PBzMA80997913.71.182490.31W
PMP32–PBzMA90998914.41.194990.47W + V
PMP32–PBzMA100>9910016.01.153560.44W + V
PMP32–PBzMA120>9912019.31.161670.09W + V
PMP32–PBzMA135>9913520.61.181750.17W + V
PMP32–PBzMA1509714622.51.151580.07V
PMP32–PBzMA200>9920027.71.161520.03V
PMP32–PBzMA300>9930039.21.201360.03V
PMP42–PBzMA50>995014.71.18160.16S
PMP42–PBzMA80>998022.71.17230.12S
PMP42–PBzMA100>9910025.91.18270.13S
PMP42–PBzMA2009819644.11.17530.08S
PMP42–PBzMA300>9930063.11.19630.11S
PMP42–PBzMA60093558109.51.53760.06S
On the other hand, it is not understood yet why vesicles of apparently increasing diameter were observed after approximately 6 h during the kinetic studies (inset in Figure 2a).
We then examined the use of anionic PMPA macro-CTAs as putative steric stabilizers for the RAFT aqueous dispersion polymerization of HPMA. According to Semsarilar and co-workers, strong electrostatic repulsion between adjacent polyelectrolytic stabilizer blocks can impede in situ self-assembly during attempted aqueous PISA syntheses. (67-69) We investigated this hypothesis for our system by targeting a HPMA DP of 300; such an asymmetric diblock copolymer might be expected to form vesicles. However, it proved impossible to obtain pure vesicles for various PISA formulations at pH 5, even when utilizing binary mixtures of non-ionic poly(glycerol monomethacrylate) (PGMA45) with an anionic PMPAx macro-CTA in the presence of added salt to screen the unfavorable electrostatics. Table S2 and Figure S7 summarize this series of experiments, for which a detailed protocol is given in the Supporting Information.
In view of these negative results, RAFT alcoholic dispersion polymerization of BzMA was performed in methanol at 20% w/w solids using each of the PMPA macro-CTAs in turn (see Scheme 1). For this series of experiments, it was envisaged that the significantly lower dielectric constant of methanol (ε = 32.6 at 298 K) compared to water (ε = 78.5 at 298 K) (84) might reduce the unfavorable electrostatic repulsive forces and hence facilitate PISA. A PMPA macro-CTA with a mean DP of 24 was chosen for a kinetic study of the dispersion polymerization of BzMA at 64 °C. When targeting a DP of 300 for the PBzMA block, greater than 99% conversion was achieved after 24 h, as judged by 1H NMR (Figure 4a). A significant rate enhancement was observed, again not at the onset of micellar nucleation but instead when spherical micelles first begin to fuse to form higher order morphologies (see inset in Figure 4a). The apparent first-order rate constant, kapp, for this second stage was a little higher when using the anionic PMPA24 stabilizer (kapp = 8.4 × 10–5 s–1) compared to the non-ionic PMP24 macro-CTA (kapp = 5.5 × 10–5 s–1). This suggests higher partitioning of the nonpolar BzMA monomer within the growing micelle cores in the former case. DLS data are shown for all samples in Figure 4a (see inset) and summarized in Table S3. A representative TEM image of the final vesicular morphology is depicted in Figure 4b: the estimated mean vesicle diameter of approximately 510 nm (based on analysis of 80 particles) is in reasonably good agreement with that indicated by DLS, bearing in mind that the latter technique reports a hydrodynamic diameter and is biased toward larger particles. Unfortunately, DMF GPC analysis of the various PMP24–PBzMAy diblock copolymers was not feasible because of unfavorable copolymer–column interactions. Moreover, the hydrophobic character of the PBzMA block precluded aqueous GPC analysis. In view of these problems, chain extension experiments were conducted for each of the three PMPA macro-CTAs in turn using GMA to produce a water-soluble PGMA block, simply in order to assess blocking efficiencies when polymerizing a second methacrylic monomer. Aqueous GPC traces obtained for these PMPAx–PGMAy diblock copolymers are compared to the respective PMPA macro-CTAs in Figure S2. In each case symmetric monomodal curves were obtained, with pronounced shifts to higher molecular weight relative to the original PMPA macro CTA. All three PMPA–PGMA diblock copolymers exhibited relatively narrow molecular weight distributions (Mw/Mn < 1.07). This indicates high blocking efficiencies for the solution polymerization of GMA. Given that the pseudo-living character of RAFT dispersion polymerization is enhanced compared to solution polymerization, (85) at least comparable (and most likely higher) blocking efficiencies are anticipated under the former conditions.

Figure 4

Figure 4. (a) Kinetic data derived from 1H NMR studies of the RAFT alcoholic dispersion polymerization of BzMA (target DP = 300) using an anionic PMPA24 macro-CTA at 20% w/w solids in methanol at 64 °C. The inset shows the evolution of the hydrodynamic diameter Dh and the first-order kinetic plot with respect to monomer concentration. (b) Representative TEM image of the final vesicular morphology obtained after 24 h (>99% conversion).

Using the three PMPA macro-CTAs (DP = 24, 32, or 42) to target a range of core-forming PBzMA blocks enables the construction of a predictive phase diagram (Figure 5). A summary of the individual PISA syntheses conducted at 20% w/w solids in methanol at 64 °C is shown in Table 2. In contrast to the phase diagram for the PMP–PBzMA formulation, nonspherical morphologies can be observed even for the PMPA42 macro-CTA. At first sight, this might seem surprising given the anionic nature of the stabilizer chains, which might be expected to impede fusion of the initial spheres (and indeed hinder PISA itself). (68, 69) However, electrostatic repulsive forces are substantially reduced in methanol compared to aqueous media. This hypothesis is consistent with the results obtained for the corresponding PMPA–PHPMA aqueous PISA formulations (see Table S2), which do not readily provide access to pure copolymer phases even when employing binary mixtures of anionic and non-ionic macro-CTAs. The phase diagram for the PMPAx–PBzMAy formulations shown in Figure 5 contains a relatively broad vesicle phase and a somewhat narrower mixed phase region.
Spheres are accessible up to a target PBzMA DP of 35 (Figure 5b), while pure worms can only be obtained when using the PMPA42 macro-CTA (Figure 5a). Furthermore, the anionic PMPA24–PBzMA300 vesicles shown in Figure 5d (Dh from DLS = 529 nm) are significantly larger than the corresponding non-ionic PMP24–PBzMA300 vesicles (Dh from DLS = 181 nm). In principle, a higher packing parameter might be expected to favor the formation of larger vesicles. (86) This therefore suggests that the hydrodynamic volume occupied by an anionic PMPA24 chain in methanol is less than that of a non-ionic PMP24 chain, indicating reduced solvation of the former stabilizer under these conditions. Similarly, increasing the PMPA stabilizer DP for a given core-forming PBzMA DP reduces the mean vesicle dimensions, presumably because of the larger hydrodynamic volume occupied by the PMPA chains (Figure 5c). The PMPA42–PBzMAy series provides access to all three copolymer morphologies, with representative TEM images being shown in Figure S8. As for the non-ionic PMP–PBzMA formulations, there is an apparent reduction in vesicle dimensions when targeting higher degrees of polymerization of the PBzMA block, and these observations are supported by DLS studies (see corresponding entries in Table 2).

Figure 5

Figure 5. Phase diagram constructed for PMPAx–PBzMAy diblock copolymer nano-objects prepared in methanol at 64 °C at 20% w/w solids. TEM images for pure copolymer morphologies: (a) PMPA42–PBzMA55 (worms), (b) PMPA24–PBzMA35 (spheres), (c) PMPA42–PBzMA300 (small vesicles), and (d) PMPA24–PBzMA300 (large vesicles).

Generation of Organic–Inorganic Hybrid Materials

It is well recognized that naturally occurring biopolymers are intimately involved in the formation of biominerals, (87) where these can not only direct features such as polymorph and morphology but also enhance mechanical properties through occlusion within the crystal lattice. (88, 89) Importantly, this behavior is not restricted to biomacromolecules, and recent work has shown that a range of additives, including submicron latex particles, various anionic diblock copolymer nano-objects, and even small molecules, can become occluded within single crystals of calcite (CaCO3). (90-95, 98) In all cases, successful occlusion is dependent on the additives binding to the surfaces of the growing crystals but remaining dispersed in the crystal growth solution. (93) The PMPA–PBzMA nano-objects synthesized here provide interesting candidates for controlling CaCO3 precipitation.
Table 2. Summary of Monomer Conversions and Intensity-Average Particle Diameters Obtained for a Series of Anionic PMPAx–PBzMAy Diblock Copolymers Conducted at 20% w/w Solids via RAFT Alcoholic Dispersion Polymerization in Methanol at 64 °C for 24 h (S = Spheres, W = Worms, L = Lamellae, and V = Vesicles)
   DLSTEM
target compositionBzMA % convBzMA DPDh [nm]PDImorphology
PMPA24–PBzMA35>9935150.13S
PMPA24–PBzMA459643610.29S + W
PMPA24–PBzMA50>99504210.61S + W + V
PMPA24–PBzMA6094565560.29S + L + V
PMPA24–PBzMA70>99704290.91S + L + V
PMPA24–PBzMA100>991004590.18V
PMPA24–PBzMA200>992004390.14V
PMPA24–PBzMA300>993005290.06V
PMPA32–PBzMA35>9935170.10S
PMPA32–PBzMA429640380.23S + W
PMPA32–PBzMA50>99502270.57S + W
PMPA32–PBzMA56>99565170.68W + L + V
PMPA32–PBzMA7091644050.16W + V
PMPA32–PBzMA72>99723550.24W + V
PMPA32–PBzMA10098983090.23V
PMPA32–PBzMA200>992002820.14V
PMPA32–PBzMA300>993002120.07V
PMPA42–PBzMA359834210.08S
PMPA42–PBzMA5090451740.29W
PMPA42–PBzMA55>99552670.29W
PMPA42–PBzMA7093652480.22W + V
PMPA42–PBzMA72>99722460.21W + V
PMPA42–PBzMA10093931940.16V
PMPA42–PBzMA200>992002640.10V
PMPA42–PBzMA300>993002140.02V
Both phosphate- and phosphonic acid-functionalized surfactants and polymers are well-known to interact strongly with CaCO3 and are widely used as crystal growth inhibitors. (96, 97) The efficiency of occlusion of these additives within calcite was therefore investigated, and the results compared with the corresponding non-ionic PMP–PBzMA nano-objects.

Figure 6

Figure 6. (a) Representative TEM images recorded for non-ionic PMP24–PBzMA300 vesicles and anionic PMPAx–PBzMAy worms and vesicles, obtained via RAFT dispersion polymerization of BzMA at 20% w/w solids in methanol at 64 °C. (b) TEM images for the same copolymer nanoparticles after their transfer from methanol to water via exhaustive dialysis at 20 °C. In all cases the copolymer concentration used to prepare the TEM grids was 0.2% w/w.

The nano-objects were first transferred from the methanol continuous phase to water via dialysis. TEM analysis of selected nano-objects before and after dialysis indicated no adverse effect on the copolymer morphology (Figure 6), where these findings were supported by DLS studies which showed no change in the mean particle diameter before and after dialysis. These observations are consistent with the relatively high Tg of around 55 °C for the core-forming PBzMA block, which suppresses exchange of copolymer chains between kinetically frozen nano-objects.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Aqueous electrophoresis curves and DLS data obtained for PMPAx–PBzMAy worms and vesicles prepared by RAFT alcoholic dispersion polymerization of BzMA in methanol at 20% w/w solids. Measurements were conducted using 0.01% w/v dispersions in the presence of 10 mM NaCl as background electrolyte.

In addition to the successful transfer of vesicles into aqueous media (PMPA32–PBzMA300, PMPA24–PBzMA300, and PMP24–PBzMA300), an aqueous worm dispersion was also obtained after dilution of a methanolic worm gel followed by dialysis (PMPA42–PBzMA45, see Figure 6). Aqueous electrophoresis studies of these anionic nano-objects confirmed highly anionic zeta-potentials of −35 to −45 mV across a wide pH range (see Figure 7). Only in relatively acidic media (pH 2) was a modest reduction in zeta potential observed, as expected for a steric stabilizer based on a strong polyacid such as PMPA. Concomitant DLS studies indicated no significant change in particle dimensions from pH 2 to 10, suggesting that colloidal stability was maintained (see Figure 7).
Occlusion experiments were conducted by precipitating CaCO3 in the presence of non-ionic PMP24–PBzMA300 vesicles and the various anionic PMPAx–PBzMAy nano-objects at pH ≈ 9 via a one-pot protocol using the ammonia diffusion method. (79) All experiments were conducted using a stock solution of 1.5 mM CaCl2 and a copolymer concentration of either 0.010% w/w (Figure 8a) or 0.005% w/w (Figure 8b). All dispersions remained colloidally stable in the presence of the CaCl2 solution, which was added at an initial pH of less than 6. Rhombohedral calcite crystals of 10–15 μm were prepared in control experiments performed in the absence of diblock copolymer nano-objects. Figure S9 shows a typical Raman spectrum recorded for calcite crystals grown under these conditions, with the characteristic calcite bands being observed at 155 and 282 (lattice modes), 710 (ν4), and 1085 cm–11). (93) Formation of calcite in the presence of non-ionic PMP24–PBzMA300 vesicles at both additive concentrations produced crystals with comparable habits and dimensions to those formed in the control experiments. SEM studies confirmed that the crystals were perfect rhombohedra with well-defined edges, with just a few weakly interacting vesicles located on the crystal surface. These findings were not unexpected, since anionic character is believed to be a prerequisite for successful occlusion. Raman microscopy studies of such crystals formed when using 0.010% w/w copolymer confirmed that the polymorph was indeed calcite (Figure S9).
In contrast, the anionic nano-objects had a stronger influence on the morphology and dimensions of the calcite crystals. Well-defined rhombohedral crystals of 15–20 μm were formed in the presence of 0.005% w/w PMPA24–PBzMA300 and PMPA32–PBzMA300 vesicles (DLS studies indicated mean diameters of approximately 520 and 210 nm, respectively).

Figure 8

Figure 8. Optical micrographs and corresponding SEM images obtained for a series of CaCO3 crystals prepared using a 1.5 mM CaCl2 solution and either (a) 0.010% w/w or (b) 0.005% w/w PMPA–PBzMA or PMP–PBzMA diblock copolymer nano-objects. The scale bar corresponds to 20 and 5 μm for the optical micrographs and SEM images, respectively. Optical micrograph and SEM images of the reference calcite crystals precipitated in the absence of diblock copolymer nano-objects are shown at the left-hand side.

At the higher copolymer concentration, 20–25 μm crystals with increasingly rough faces and edge truncations were obtained. Again, Raman studies indicated calcite formation under these conditions (Figure S9). Anionic PMPA42–PBzMA45 worms had an even more pronounced effect, generating a bimodal distribution of small ∼7 μm calcite crystals and larger ∼20 μm polycrystalline vaterite particles at a copolymer concentration of 0.010% w/w, as confirmed by Raman microscopy (see Figure S9). At an additive concentration of 0.050% w/w, copolymer overgrown calcite rhombohedra with somewhat curved edges and roughened faces are produced. This indicates a strong interaction between the anionic nano-objects and the crystal lattice.
The crystals were also fractured to give a rough estimate of the relative degrees of occlusion of these contrasting nano-objects. Figure 9 shows both intact and fractured crystals prepared at the two different additive concentrations. The non-ionic PMP24–PBzMA300 vesicles are not occluded at all, whereas a moderate degree of occlusion can be observed for both PMPA32–PBzMA300 and PMPA24–PBzMA300anionic vesicles. This is particularly interesting for the latter vesicles, which have mean diameters of ∼520 nm and are thus significantly larger than the 200 nm latex particles occluded in earlier work. (95) These vesicles are of potential interest as carriers of functional additives. However, the degree of vesicle occlusion appears to be significantly higher at the periphery of the crystals for both additive concentrations. This may derive from an increase in incorporation efficiency at the lower supersaturation encountered toward the end of the crystallization experiments (79) or could suggest a mass-transport-limited crystallization mechanism in which vesicle diffusion to the surface of the growing calcite crystals limits occlusion. This would again promote occlusion during the later, slower stages of growth. In contrast, the ∼200 nm anionic PMPA32–PBzMA300 vesicles are incorporated to much greater extents at both polymer concentrations. Furthermore, homogeneous occlusion throughout the crystal is observed. This suggests that the incorporation of larger particles may be more dependent on the reaction conditions, and in particular supersaturation, than that of smaller particles. Finally, examination of the distribution of the PMPA42–PBzMA45 worms within the crystals precipitated at the lower polymer concentration showed that they were predominantly located in the outer 1 μm region of the crystal. In contrast, for the small calcite crystals precipitated at the higher additive concentration the worms appear to be occluded rather more homogeneously throughout the crystal.

Figure 9

Figure 9. SEM images obtained for a series of fractured CaCO3 crystals, prepared using a 1.5 mM CaCl2 solution and (a) 0.010% w/w or (b) 0.005% w/w PMPA- or PMP-stabilized PBzMA diblock copolymer nano-objects. The scale bar represents 1.5 μm in all SEM images.

Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

A new PISA formulation has been explored for the generation of both phosphonate- and phosphonic acid-stabilized spheres, worms, and vesicles. More specifically, three poly(methacryloyloxymethyl dimethylphosphonate) [PMP] macro-CTAs with mean degrees of polymerization of 24, 32, and 42 were synthesized via RAFT solution polymerization and converted into the corresponding poly(methacryloxymethyl phosphonic acid) [PMPA] macro-CTAs via ester hydrolysis. Subsequent chain extension with BzMA via RAFT methanolic dispersion polymerization at 20% w/w solids enabled construction of detailed phase diagrams for both types of macro-CTAs. Systematic variation of the target degree of polymerization of the PBzMA block provides access to diblock copolymer spheres, worms, and vesicles, as well as mixed phases. Comparing the performance of the same macro-CTA in its non-ionic and anionic forms allowed the effect of stabilizer charge density on self-assembly in nonaqueous media (i.e., methanol) to be assessed for the first time. GPC studies indicate high blocking efficiencies and low final polydispersities for all non-ionic PMPx–PBzMAy diblock copolymers. However, for the anionic PMPAx macro-CTAs, blocking efficiencies could only be assessed indirectly via chain extension experiments conducted using a water-soluble monomer (glycerol monomethacrylate) as the second block. Transfer of selected diblock copolymer nano-objects from methanol to water via dialysis did not result in any discernible changes in copolymer morphology, as judged by TEM and DLS. Aqueous electrophoresis studies confirmed the highly anionic character of the phosphonic acid-stabilized nano-objects in aqueous media. Examination of both sets of copolymer nano-objects as crystal growth additives showed that anionic worms and vesicles were occluded within calcite crystals during the crsytal growth, while the corresponding non-ionic phosphonate-stabilized vesicles were not. These findings emphasize the importance of appropriate surface chemistry in promoting occlusion of organic nanoparticles within inorganic host crystals.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.5b02212.

  • 31P NMR spectra and GPC data for the three PMPA macro-CTAs, GPC and DLS data for kinetics of dispersion polymerization experiments, GPC data for all PMPx–PBzMAy diblock copolymers, additional TEM images, DLS data for aqueous dispersion polymerizations conducted using binary mixtures of macro-CTAs, and Raman spectra for selected CaCO3 occlusion experiments (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
    • Steven P. Armes - Dainton Building, Department of Chemistry, The University of Sheffield, Brook Hill, Sheffield, South Yorkshire S3 7HF, U.K. Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Andreas Hanisch - Dainton Building, Department of Chemistry, The University of Sheffield, Brook Hill, Sheffield, South Yorkshire S3 7HF, U.K.
    • Pengcheng Yang - Dainton Building, Department of Chemistry, The University of Sheffield, Brook Hill, Sheffield, South Yorkshire S3 7HF, U.K.
    • Alexander N. Kulak - School of Chemistry, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K.
    • Lee A. Fielding - Dainton Building, Department of Chemistry, The University of Sheffield, Brook Hill, Sheffield, South Yorkshire S3 7HF, U.K.
    • Fiona C. Meldrum - School of Chemistry, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K.
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgment

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

EPSRC is acknowledged for postdoctoral support of A.H. (EP/K006290/1) and A.N.K. (EP/K006304/1). The authors thank André H. Gröschel for the preparation of the nano-object illustrations.

Added in Proof

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The following reference has been added by the author. Reference 98 was inserted at galley stage. Y. Ning, L. A. Fielding, T. S. Andrews, D. J. Growney and S. P. Armes Sulfate-based anionic diblock copolymer nanoparticles for efficient occlusion within zinc oxide. Nanoscale, 2015, 7, 6691−6702.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 98 other publications.

  1. 1
    Lupa, L.; Popa, A.; Ilia, G. In Phosphorus-Based Polymers: From Synthesis to Applications; The Royal Society of Chemistry: 2014; pp 225 251.
  2. 2
    Clearfield, A. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 2002, 6, 495 506 DOI: 10.1016/S1359-0286(02)00151-1
  3. 3
    van den Brand, J.; Van Gils, S.; Beentjes, P. C. J.; Terryn, H.; Sivel, V.; de Wit, J. H. W. Prog. Org. Coat. 2004, 51, 339 350 DOI: 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2004.08.005
  4. 4
    Zhang, Q. M.; Serpe, M. J. Macromolecules 2014, 47, 8018 8025 DOI: 10.1021/ma501997x
  5. 5
    Alexandrino, E. M.; Ritz, S.; Marsico, F.; Baier, G.; Mailander, V.; Landfester, K.; Wurm, F. R. J. Mater. Chem. B 2014, 2, 1298 1306 DOI: 10.1039/c3tb21295e
  6. 6
    Brunklaus, G.; Schauff, S.; Markova, D.; Klapper, M.; Müllen, K.; Spiess, H.-W. J. Phys. Chem. B 2009, 113, 6674 6681 DOI: 10.1021/jp901714f
  7. 7
    Quittmann, U.; Lecamp, L.; El Khatib, W.; Youssef, B.; Bunel, C. Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2001, 202, 628 635 DOI: 10.1002/1521-3935(20010301)202:5<628::AID-MACP628>3.0.CO;2-T
  8. 8
    Canadell, J.; Hunt, B. J.; Cook, A. G.; Mantecón, A.; Cádiz, V. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2007, 92, 1482 1490 DOI: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2007.05.017
  9. 9
    Köppl, T.; Brehme, S.; Pospiech, D.; Fischer, O.; Wolff-Fabris, F.; Altstädt, V.; Schartel, B.; Döring, M. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2013, 128, 3315 3324 DOI: 10.1002/app.38520
  10. 10
    Monge, S.; Canniccioni, B.; Graillot, A.; Robin, J.-J. Biomacromolecules 2011, 12, 1973 1982 DOI: 10.1021/bm2004803
  11. 11
    Lin, Z.; Cao, S.; Chen, X.; Wu, W.; Li, J. Biomacromolecules 2013, 14, 2206 2214 DOI: 10.1021/bm4003442
  12. 12
    David, G.; Asri, Z. E.; Rich, S.; Castignolles, P.; Guillaneuf, Y.; Lacroix-Desmazes, P.; Boutevin, B. Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2009, 210, 631 639 DOI: 10.1002/macp.200800540
  13. 13
    Canniccioni, B.; Monge, S.; David, G.; Robin, J.-J. Polym. Chem. 2013, 4, 3676 3685 DOI: 10.1039/c3py00426k
  14. 14
    Graillot, A.; Monge, S.; Faur, C.; Bouyer, D.; Robin, J.-J. Polym. Chem. 2013, 4, 795 803 DOI: 10.1039/C2PY20720F
  15. 15
    Grøndahl, L.; Suzuki, S.; Wentrup-Byrne, E. Chem. Commun. 2008, 3314 3316 DOI: 10.1039/b803223h
  16. 16
    Miyatake, K.; Hay, A. S. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2001, 39, 1854 1859 DOI: 10.1002/pola.1163
  17. 17
    Watson, J. D.; Crick, F. H. C. Nature 1974, 248, 765 765 DOI: 10.1038/248765a0
  18. 18
    Ornelas-Megiatto, C.; Wich, P. R.; Fréchet, J. M. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 1902 1905 DOI: 10.1021/ja207366k
  19. 19
    Uchiyama, T.; Kiritoshi, Y.; Watanabe, J.; Ishihara, K. Biomaterials 2003, 24, 5183 5190 DOI: 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00441-1
  20. 20
    Pegoraro, C.; Cecchin, D.; Gracia, L. S.; Warren, N.; Madsen, J.; Armes, S. P.; Lewis, A.; MacNeil, S.; Battaglia, G. Cancer Lett. 2013, 334, 328 337 DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2013.02.007
  21. 21
    Hemp, S. T.; Smith, A. E.; Bryson, J. M.; Allen, M. H.; Long, T. E. Biomacromolecules 2012, 13, 2439 2445 DOI: 10.1021/bm300689f
  22. 22
    Liu, G.; Jin, Q.; Liu, X.; Lv, L.; Chen, C.; Ji, J. Soft Matter 2011, 7, 662 669 DOI: 10.1039/C0SM00708K
  23. 23
    Matyjaszewski, K. Macromolecules 2012, 45, 4015 4039 DOI: 10.1021/ma3001719
  24. 24
    Moad, G.; Rizzardo, E.; Thang, S. H. Aust. J. Chem. 2012, 65, 985 1076 DOI: 10.1071/CH12295
  25. 25
    Lobb, E. J.; Ma, I.; Billingham, N. C.; Armes, S. P.; Lewis, A. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 7913 7914 DOI: 10.1021/ja003906d
  26. 26
    Madsen, J.; Canton, I.; Warren, N. J.; Themistou, E.; Blanazs, A.; Ustbas, B.; Tian, X.; Pearson, R.; Battaglia, G.; Lewis, A. L.; Armes, S. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 14863 14870 DOI: 10.1021/ja407380t
  27. 27
    Yusa, S.-i.; Fukuda, K.; Yamamoto, T.; Ishihara, K.; Morishima, Y. Biomacromolecules 2005, 6, 663 670 DOI: 10.1021/bm0495553
  28. 28
    Ohno, S.; Hasegawa, S.; Liu, H.; Ishihara, K.; Yusa, S.-i. Polym. J. 2015, 47, 71 DOI: 10.1038/pj.2014.92
  29. 29
    Huang, J.; Matyjaszewski, K. Macromolecules 2005, 38, 3577 3583 DOI: 10.1021/ma047564y
  30. 30
    Suzuki, S.; Whittaker, M. R.; Grøndahl, L.; Monteiro, M. J.; Wentrup-Byrne, E. Biomacromolecules 2006, 7, 3178 3187 DOI: 10.1021/bm060583q
  31. 31
    Blidi, I.; Geagea, R.; Coutelier, O.; Mazieres, S.; Violleau, F.; Destarac, M. Polym. Chem. 2012, 3, 609 612 DOI: 10.1039/c2py00541g
  32. 32
    Markova, D.; Kumar, A.; Klapper, M.; Müllen, K. Polymer 2009, 50, 3411 3421 DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2009.06.011
  33. 33
    David, G.; Negrell, C.; Manseri, A.; Boutevin, B. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2009, 114, 2213 2220 DOI: 10.1002/app.30438
  34. 34
    Mukumoto, K.; Zhong, M.; Matyjaszewski, K. Eur. Polym. J. 2014, 56, 11 16 DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2014.03.029
  35. 35
    Charleux, B.; Delaittre, G.; Rieger, J.; D’Agosto, F. Macromolecules 2012, 45, 6753 6765 DOI: 10.1021/ma300713f
  36. 36
    Warren, N. J.; Armes, S. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 10174 10185 DOI: 10.1021/ja502843f
  37. 37
    Sun, J.-T.; Hong, C.-Y.; Pan, C.-Y. Polym. Chem. 2013, 4, 873 881 DOI: 10.1039/C2PY20612A
  38. 38
    Cunningham, V. J.; Alswieleh, A. M.; Thompson, K. L.; Williams, M.; Leggett, G. J.; Armes, S. P.; Musa, O. M. Macromolecules 2014, 47, 5613 5623 DOI: 10.1021/ma501140h
  39. 39
    Blanazs, A.; Ryan, A. J.; Armes, S. P. Macromolecules 2012, 45, 5099 5107 DOI: 10.1021/ma301059r
  40. 40
    An, Z.; Shi, Q.; Tang, W.; Tsung, C.-K.; Hawker, C. J.; Stucky, G. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 14493 14499 DOI: 10.1021/ja0756974
  41. 41
    Rieger, J.; Grazon, C.; Charleux, B.; Alaimo, D.; Jérôme, C. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2009, 47, 2373 2390 DOI: 10.1002/pola.23329
  42. 42
    Li, Y.; Armes, S. P. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 4042 4046 DOI: 10.1002/anie.201001461
  43. 43
    Sugihara, S.; Blanazs, A.; Armes, S. P.; Ryan, A. J.; Lewis, A. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 15707 15713 DOI: 10.1021/ja205887v
  44. 44
    Liu, G.; Qiu, Q.; Shen, W.; An, Z. Macromolecules 2011, 44, 5237 5245 DOI: 10.1021/ma200984h
  45. 45
    Chambon, P.; Blanazs, A.; Battaglia, G.; Armes, S. P. Macromolecules 2012, 45, 5081 5090 DOI: 10.1021/ma300816m
  46. 46
    Ladmiral, V.; Semsarilar, M.; Canton, I.; Armes, S. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 13574 13581 DOI: 10.1021/ja407033x
  47. 47
    Figg, C. A.; Simula, A.; Gebre, K. A.; Tucker, B. S.; Haddleton, D.; Sumerlin, B. S. Chem. Sci. 2015, 6, 1230 DOI: 10.1039/C4SC03334E
  48. 48
    Wan, W.-M.; Hong, C.-Y.; Pan, C.-Y. Chem. Commun. 2009, 5883 5885 DOI: 10.1039/b912804b
  49. 49
    Semsarilar, M.; Jones, E. R.; Blanazs, A.; Armes, S. P. Adv. Mater. 2012, 24, 3378 3382 DOI: 10.1002/adma.201200925
  50. 50
    Zehm, D.; Ratcliffe, L. P. D.; Armes, S. P. Macromolecules 2013, 46, 128 139 DOI: 10.1021/ma301459y
  51. 51
    Karagoz, B.; Boyer, C.; Davis, T. P. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2014, 35, 417 421 DOI: 10.1002/marc.201300730
  52. 52
    Pei, Y.; Dharsana, N. C.; van Hensbergen, J. A.; Burford, R. P.; Roth, P. J.; Lowe, A. B. Soft Matter 2014, 10, 5787 5796 DOI: 10.1039/C4SM00729H
  53. 53
    Zhang, W.-J.; Hong, C.-Y.; Pan, C.-Y. Macromolecules 2014, 47, 1664 1671 DOI: 10.1021/ma402497y
  54. 54
    Bleach, R.; Karagoz, B.; Prakash, S. M.; Davis, T. P.; Boyer, C. ACS Macro Lett. 2014, 3, 591 596 DOI: 10.1021/mz500195u
  55. 55
    Semsarilar, M.; Ladmiral, V.; Blanazs, A.; Armes, S. P. Polym. Chem. 2014, 5, 3466 3475 DOI: 10.1039/c4py00201f
  56. 56
    Gonzato, C.; Semsarilar, M.; Jones, E. R.; Li, F.; Krooshof, G. J. P.; Wyman, P.; Mykhaylyk, O. O.; Tuinier, R.; Armes, S. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 11100 11106 DOI: 10.1021/ja505406s
  57. 57
    Houillot, L.; Bui, C.; Farcet, C. l.; Moire, C.; Raust, J.-A.; Pasch, H.; Save, M.; Charleux, B. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2010, 2, 434 442 DOI: 10.1021/am900695a
  58. 58
    Deng, Y.; Yang, C.; Yuan, C.; Xu, Y.; Bernard, J.; Dai, L.; Gérard, J.-F. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2013, 51, 4558 4564 DOI: 10.1002/pola.26872
  59. 59
    Fielding, L. A.; Derry, M. J.; Ladmiral, V.; Rosselgong, J.; Rodrigues, A. M.; Ratcliffe, L. P. D.; Sugihara, S.; Armes, S. P. Chem. Sci. 2013, 4, 2081 2087 DOI: 10.1039/c3sc50305d
  60. 60
    Dan, M.; Huo, F.; Zhang, X.; Wang, X.; Zhang, W. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2013, 51, 1573 1584 DOI: 10.1002/pola.26527
  61. 61
    Tan, J.; Rao, X.; Yang, J.; Zeng, Z. Macromolecules 2013, 46, 8441 8448 DOI: 10.1021/ma401909a
  62. 62
    Shi, P.; Li, Q.; He, X.; Li, S.; Sun, P.; Zhang, W. Macromolecules 2014, 47, 7442 7452 DOI: 10.1021/ma501598k
  63. 63
    Huang, C.-Q.; Pan, C.-Y. Polymer 2010, 51, 5115 5121 DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2010.08.056
  64. 64
    Warren, N. J.; Mykhaylyk, O. O.; Mahmood, D.; Ryan, A. J.; Armes, S. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 1023 1033 DOI: 10.1021/ja410593n
  65. 65
    Zhao, W.; Gody, G.; Dong, S.; Zetterlund, P. B.; Perrier, S. Polym. Chem. 2014, 5, 6990 7003 DOI: 10.1039/C4PY00855C
  66. 66
    Sugihara, S.; Armes, S. P.; Blanazs, A.; Lewis, A. L. Soft Matter 2011, 7, 10787 10793 DOI: 10.1039/c1sm06593a
  67. 67
    He, W.-D.; Sun, X.-L.; Wan, W.-M.; Pan, C.-Y. Macromolecules 2011, 44, 3358 3365 DOI: 10.1021/ma2000674
  68. 68
    Semsarilar, M.; Ladmiral, V.; Blanazs, A.; Armes, S. P. Langmuir 2012, 28, 914 922 DOI: 10.1021/la203991y
  69. 69
    Semsarilar, M.; Ladmiral, V.; Blanazs, A.; Armes, S. P. Langmuir 2013, 29, 7416 7424 DOI: 10.1021/la304279y
  70. 70
    Rieger, J.; Stoffelbach, F.; Bui, C.; Alaimo, D.; Jérôme, C.; Charleux, B. Macromolecules 2008, 41, 4065 4068 DOI: 10.1021/ma800544v
  71. 71
    Zhang, W.; D’Agosto, F.; Boyron, O.; Rieger, J.; Charleux, B. Macromolecules 2012, 45, 4075 4084 DOI: 10.1021/ma300596f
  72. 72
    Rieger, J.; Zhang, W.; Stoffelbach, F. O.; Charleux, B. Macromolecules 2010, 43, 6302 6310 DOI: 10.1021/ma1009269
  73. 73
    Zhang, W.; D’Agosto, F.; Dugas, P.-Y.; Rieger, J.; Charleux, B. Polymer 2013, 54, 2011 2019 DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2012.12.028
  74. 74
    Ratcliffe, L. P. D.; Blanazs, A.; Williams, C. N.; Brown, S. L.; Armes, S. P. Polym. Chem. 2014, 5, 3643 3655 DOI: 10.1039/c4py00203b
  75. 75
    Binauld, S.; Delafresnaye, L.; Charleux, B.; D’Agosto, F.; Lansalot, M. Macromolecules 2014, 47, 3461 3472 DOI: 10.1021/ma402549x
  76. 76
    Zhang, X.; Boisson, F.; Colombani, O.; Chassenieux, C.; Charleux, B. Macromolecules 2014, 47, 51 60 DOI: 10.1021/ma402125r
  77. 77
    Carlsson, L.; Fall, A.; Chaduc, I.; Wagberg, L.; Charleux, B.; Malmstrom, E.; D’Agosto, F.; Lansalot, M.; Carlmark, A. Polym. Chem. 2014, 5, 6076 6086 DOI: 10.1039/C4PY00675E
  78. 78
    Zhang, X.; Cardozo, A. F.; Chen, S.; Zhang, W.; Julcour, C.; Lansalot, M.; Blanco, J.-F.; Gayet, F.; Delmas, H.; Charleux, B.; Manoury, E.; D’Agosto, F.; Poli, R. Chem. - Eur. J. 2014, 20, 15505 15517 DOI: 10.1002/chem.201403819
  79. 79
    Ihli, J.; Bots, P.; Kulak, A.; Benning, L. G.; Meldrum, F. C. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2013, 23, 1965 1973 DOI: 10.1002/adfm.201201742
  80. 80
    Jones, E. R.; Semsarilar, M.; Blanazs, A.; Armes, S. P. Macromolecules 2012, 45, 5091 5098 DOI: 10.1021/ma300898e
  81. 81
    Blanazs, A.; Madsen, J.; Battaglia, G.; Ryan, A. J.; Armes, S. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 16581 16587 DOI: 10.1021/ja206301a
  82. 82
    Odian, G. Principles of Polymerization, 4th ed.; Wiley: 2004.
  83. 83
    Warren, N. J.; Mykhaylyk, O. O.; Ryan, A. J.; Williams, M.; Doussineau, T.; Dugourd, P.; Antoine, R.; Portale, G.; Armes, S. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 1929 1937 DOI: 10.1021/ja511423m
  84. 84
    Atkins, P.; De Paula, J. Physical Chemistry; Oxford University Press: 2006.
  85. 85
    Semsarilar, M.; Jones, E. R.; Armes, S. P. Polym. Chem. 2014, 5, 195 203 DOI: 10.1039/C3PY01042B
  86. 86
    Blanazs, A.; Armes, S. P.; Ryan, A. J. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2009, 30, 267 277 DOI: 10.1002/marc.200800713
  87. 87
    Lowenstam, H. A.; Weiner, S. On Biomineralization; Oxford University Press: New York, 1989.
  88. 88
    Meldrum, F. C.; Cölfen, H. Chem. Rev. 2008, 108, 4332 4432 DOI: 10.1021/cr8002856
  89. 89
    Berman, A.; Hanson, J.; Leiserowitz, L.; Koetzle, T. F.; Weiner, S.; Addadi, L. Science 1993, 259, 776 779 DOI: 10.1126/science.259.5096.776
  90. 90
    Kulak, A. N.; Iddon, P.; Li, Y.; Armes, S. P.; Cölfen, H.; Paris, O.; Wilson, R. M.; Meldrum, F. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 3729 3736 DOI: 10.1021/ja067422e
  91. 91
    Kim, Y.-Y.; Ganesan, K.; Yang, P.; Kulak, A. N.; Borukhin, S.; Pechook, S.; Ribeiro, L.; Kröger, R.; Eichhorn, S. J.; Armes, S. P.; Pokroy, B.; Meldrum, F. C. Nat. Mater. 2011, 10, 890 896 DOI: 10.1038/nmat3103
  92. 92
    Kulak, A. N.; Yang, P.; Kim, Y.-Y.; Armes, S. P.; Meldrum, F. C. Chem. Commun. 2014, 50, 67 69 DOI: 10.1039/C3CC47904H
  93. 93
    Kulak, A. N.; Semsarilar, M.; Kim, Y.-Y.; Ihli, J.; Fielding, L. A.; Cespedes, O.; Armes, S. P.; Meldrum, F. C. Chem. Sci. 2014, 5, 738 743 DOI: 10.1039/C3SC52615A
  94. 94
    Borukhin, S.; Bloch, L.; Radlauer, T.; Hill, A. H.; Fitch, A. N.; Pokroy, B. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2012, 22, 4216 4224 DOI: 10.1002/adfm.201201079
  95. 95
    Kim, Y.-Y.; Ribeiro, L.; Maillot, F.; Ward, O.; Eichhorn, S. J.; Meldrum, F. C. Adv. Mater. 2010, 22, 2082 2086 DOI: 10.1002/adma.200903743
  96. 96
    Tomson, M. B. J. Cryst. Growth 1983, 62, 106 112 DOI: 10.1016/0022-0248(83)90013-1
  97. 97
    Ketrane, R.; Saidani, B.; Gil, O.; Leleyter, L.; Baraud, F. Desalination 2009, 249, 1397 1404 DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2009.06.013
  98. 98
    Ning, Y.; Fielding, L. A.; Andrews, T. S.; Growney, D. J.; Armes, S. P. Sulfate-based anionic diblock copolymer nanoparticles for efficient occlusion within zinc oxide Nanoscale 2015, 7, 6691 6702

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 59 publications.

  1. Arad Lang, Iryna Polishchuk, Alexander Katsman, Boaz Pokroy. Effect of Nucleotides on the Phase and Crystal Structure of Synthetic Calcium Carbonate. Crystal Growth & Design 2023, 23 (7) , 5117-5125. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.3c00367
  2. Wangmeng Hou, Jiasheng Wu, Zheqi Li, Zhen Zhang, Yi Shi, Yongming Chen. Efficient Synthesis and PISA Behavior of Molecular Bottlebrush Block Copolymers via a Grafting-From Strategy through RAFT Dispersion Polymerization. Macromolecules 2023, 56 (3) , 824-832. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.2c02233
  3. Ouassef Nahi, Alexander Broad, Alexander N. Kulak, Helen M. Freeman, Shuheng Zhang, Thomas D. Turner, Lucien Roach, Robert Darkins, Ian J. Ford, Fiona C. Meldrum. Positively Charged Additives Facilitate Incorporation in Inorganic Single Crystals. Chemistry of Materials 2022, 34 (11) , 4910-4923. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.2c00097
  4. Jian Sun, Chang Wang, Yu-Lin Hong, Zhi-Wei Tan, Cheng-Mei Liu. Phosphine Oxide-Containing Multifunctional Polymer via RAFT Polymerization and Its High-Density Post-Polymerization Modification in Water. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2021, 3 (6) , 3214-3226. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.1c00403
  5. Yin Ning, Steven P. Armes. Efficient Occlusion of Nanoparticles within Inorganic Single Crystals. Accounts of Chemical Research 2020, 53 (6) , 1176-1186. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.0c00103
  6. Giulia Magnabosco, Iryna Polishchuk, Francesco Palomba, Enrico Rampazzo, Luca Prodi, Joanna Aizenberg, Boaz Pokroy, Giuseppe Falini. Effect of Surface Chemistry on Incorporation of Nanoparticles within Calcite Single Crystals. Crystal Growth & Design 2019, 19 (8) , 4429-4435. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.9b00208
  7. Yin Ning, Lijuan Han, Marcel Douverne, Nicholas J. W. Penfold, Matthew J. Derry, Fiona C. Meldrum, Steven P. Armes. What Dictates the Spatial Distribution of Nanoparticles within Calcite?. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2019, 141 (6) , 2481-2489. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.8b12291
  8. Juliette Lomège, Vincent Lapinte, Claire Negrell, Jean-Jacques Robin, Sylvain Caillol. Fatty Acid-Based Radically Polymerizable Monomers: From Novel Poly(meth)acrylates to Cutting-Edge Properties. Biomacromolecules 2019, 20 (1) , 4-26. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.8b01156
  9. Jianbo Tan, Qin Xu, Yuxuan Zhang, Chundong Huang, Xueliang Li, Jun He, Li Zhang. Room Temperature Synthesis of Self-Assembled AB/B and ABC/BC Blends by Photoinitiated Polymerization-Induced Self-Assembly (Photo-PISA) in Water. Macromolecules 2018, 51 (18) , 7396-7406. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.8b01456
  10. Coit T. Hendley IV, Lee A. Fielding, Elizabeth R. Jones, Anthony J. Ryan, Steven P. Armes, Lara A. Estroff. Mechanistic Insights into Diblock Copolymer Nanoparticle–Crystal Interactions Revealed via in Situ Atomic Force Microscopy. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2018, 140 (25) , 7936-7945. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.8b03828
  11. Yuan Zhang, Guang Han, Mengjiao Cao, Tianying Guo, Wangqing Zhang. Influence of Solvophilic Homopolymers on RAFT Polymerization-Induced Self-Assembly. Macromolecules 2018, 51 (11) , 4397-4406. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.8b00690
  12. Mehran Tehrani, Thusitha Nanda Bandara Etampawala, Mark Dadmun, and Mohammad Abir Hossain . Resolving Hierarchical Structures in Carbon Nanotube Networks Using Small- and Ultrasmall-Angle Neutron Scattering. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2017, 121 (40) , 22442-22451. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b06114
  13. Wei Zhao, Hang T. Ta, Cheng Zhang, and Andrew K. Whittaker . Polymerization-Induced Self-Assembly (PISA) - Control over the Morphology of 19F-Containing Polymeric Nano-objects for Cell Uptake and Tracking. Biomacromolecules 2017, 18 (4) , 1145-1156. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.6b01788
  14. Jianbo Tan, Chundong Huang, Dongdong Liu, Xueliang Li, Jun He, Qin Xu, and Li Zhang . Polymerization-Induced Self-Assembly of Homopolymer and Diblock Copolymer: A Facile Approach for Preparing Polymer Nano-Objects with Higher-Order Morphologies. ACS Macro Letters 2017, 6 (3) , 298-303. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmacrolett.7b00134
  15. Juan Wang, Boxuan Li, Xing Wang, Fei Yang, Hong Shen, and Decheng Wu . Morphological Evolution of Self-Assembled Structures Induced by the Molecular Architecture of Supra-Amphiphiles. Langmuir 2016, 32 (51) , 13706-13715. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b03550
  16. Pengcheng Yang, Oleksandr O. Mykhaylyk, Elizabeth R. Jones, and Steven P. Armes . RAFT Dispersion Alternating Copolymerization of Styrene with N-Phenylmaleimide: Morphology Control and Application as an Aqueous Foam Stabilizer. Macromolecules 2016, 49 (18) , 6731-6742. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.6b01563
  17. Yin Ning, Lee A. Fielding, Liam P. D. Ratcliffe, Yun-Wei Wang, Fiona C. Meldrum, and Steven P. Armes . Occlusion of Sulfate-Based Diblock Copolymer Nanoparticles within Calcite: Effect of Varying the Surface Density of Anionic Stabilizer Chains. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2016, 138 (36) , 11734-11742. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.6b05563
  18. Sarah L. Canning, Gregory N. Smith, and Steven P. Armes . A Critical Appraisal of RAFT-Mediated Polymerization-Induced Self-Assembly. Macromolecules 2016, 49 (6) , 1985-2001. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.5b02602
  19. Yin Ning, Lee A. Fielding, Kay E. B. Doncom, Nicholas J. W. Penfold, Alexander N. Kulak, Hideki Matsuoka, and Steven P. Armes . Incorporating Diblock Copolymer Nanoparticles into Calcite Crystals: Do Anionic Carboxylate Groups Alone Ensure Efficient Occlusion?. ACS Macro Letters 2016, 5 (3) , 311-315. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmacrolett.6b00022
  20. Xuemei Liu, Peng Wang, Mengting Wan, Songjun Li, Yuan Zhang. Preparation and Application of Nitrobenzene-Containing Copolymer Nanoparticles Obtained by RAFT Dispersion Polymerization. Journal of Inorganic and Organometallic Polymers and Materials 2024, 34 (8) , 3647-3659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10904-024-03041-3
  21. Bing Cao, Jian Zhang, Yingfei Ma, Yanan Wang, Yun li, Ruixue Wang, Donghai Cao, Yongzhen Yang, Ruiping Zhang. Dual‐Polymer Functionalized Melanin‐AgNPs Nanocomposite with Hydroxyapatite Binding Ability to Penetrate and Retain in Biofilm Sequentially Treating Periodontitis. Small 2024, https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202400771
  22. Bingfeng Shi, Wanchao Hu, Shiyi Li, Zhinan Xia, Changli Lü. Perovskite photoinitiated RAFT-mediated polymerization-induced self-assembly for organic–inorganic hybrid nanomaterials. Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers 2024, 11 (8) , 2471-2478. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4QI00233D
  23. Jiahao Zhang, Biao Xiong, Ziyu Fu, Yin Ning, Dan Li. Synergistic Effect of Hydroxyl and Carboxyl Groups on Promoting Nanoparticle Occlusion within Calcite. Small 2023, 19 (18) https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202207843
  24. Ruiling Du, Lee A. Fielding. Preparation of polymer nanoparticle-based complex coacervate hydrogels using polymerisation-induced self-assembly derived nanogels. Soft Matter 2023, 19 (11) , 2074-2081. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2SM01534J
  25. Jian Sun, Yu-Lin Hong, Xiu-Qin Fang, Chang Wang, Cheng-Mei Liu. Fluorescent phosphine oxide-containing hyperbranched polyesters: design, synthesis and their application for Fe 3+ detection. Journal of Materials Chemistry C 2023, 11 (5) , 1927-1936. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2TC04608C
  26. Bartosz Marzec, Jessica Walker, Yasmeen Jhons, Fiona C. Meldrum, Michael Shaver, Fabio Nudelman. Micron-sized biogenic and synthetic hollow mineral spheres occlude additives within single crystals. Faraday Discussions 2022, 235 , 536-550. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1FD00095K
  27. Sètuhn Jimaja, Spyridon Varlas, Jeffrey C. Foster, Daniel Taton, Andrew P. Dove, Rachel K. O'Reilly. Stimuli-responsive and core cross-linked micelles developed by NiCCo-PISA of helical poly(aryl isocyanide)s. Polymer Chemistry 2022, 13 (27) , 4047-4053. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2PY00397J
  28. Yin Ning, Steven P. Armes, Dan Li. Polymer‐Inorganic Crystalline Nanocomposite Materials via Nanoparticle Occlusion. Macromolecular Rapid Communications 2022, 43 (14) https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.202100793
  29. Jie Ren, Yujing Liu, Hanying Li. Incorporating polymers within a single‐crystal: From heterogeneous structure to multiple functions. Journal of Polymer Science 2022, 60 (7) , 1151-1173. https://doi.org/10.1002/pol.20210408
  30. Fanny Coumes, François Stoffelbach, Jutta Rieger. Polymerization‐Induced Self‐Assembly: From Macromolecular Engineering Toward Applications. 2022, 1-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527815562.mme0037
  31. Hui Wang, Christophe Fliedel, Eric Manoury, Rinaldo Poli. Core-crosslinked micelles with a poly-anionic poly(styrene sulfonate)-based outer shell made by RAFT polymerization. Polymer 2022, 243 , 124640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2022.124640
  32. Matthew Boon, Franca Jones. Phosphonate inhibitors: Types, solution chemistry, and applications. 2022, 697-722. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822896-8.00018-2
  33. Wen-Li Wang, Ren-Hua Jin. Synthesis and self-assembly of amphiphilic comb-copolymers possessing polyethyleneimine and its derivatives: Site-selective formation of loop-cluster covered vesicles and flower micelles. Polymer 2021, 212 , 123289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2020.123289
  34. Yasemin Samav, Bernice Akpinar, Gökhan Kocak, Vural Bütün. Preparation of Responsive Zwitterionic Diblock Copolymers Containing Phosphate and Phosphonate Groups. Macromolecular Research 2020, 28 (12) , 1134-1141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13233-020-8148-3
  35. Yin Ning, Yide Han, Lijuan Han, Matthew J. Derry, Steven P. Armes. Exerting Spatial Control During Nanoparticle Occlusion within Calcite Crystals. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2020, 59 (41) , 17966-17973. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202007110
  36. Yin Ning, Yide Han, Lijuan Han, Matthew J. Derry, Steven P. Armes. Exerting Spatial Control During Nanoparticle Occlusion within Calcite Crystals. Angewandte Chemie 2020, 132 (41) , 18122-18129. https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.202007110
  37. Arad Lang, Iryna Polishchuk, Eva Seknazi, Jochen Feldmann, Alexander Katsman, Boaz Pokroy. Bioinspired Molecular Bridging in a Hybrid Perovskite Leads to Enhanced Stability and Tunable Properties. Advanced Functional Materials 2020, 30 (42) , 2005136. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202005136
  38. Taeyoon Kim, Joo-Hyun Song, Jong-Ho Back, Bongkuk Seo, Choong-Sun Lim, Hyun-Jong Paik, Wonjoo Lee. Flame Retardant Submicron Particles via Surfactant-Free RAFT Emulsion Polymerization of Styrene Derivatives Containing Phosphorous. Polymers 2020, 12 (6) , 1244. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12061244
  39. Giulia Magnabosco, Hagar Hauzer, Simona Fermani, Matteo Calvaresi, Franco Corticelli, Meganne Christian, Cristiano Albonetti, Vittorio Morandi, Jonathan Erez, Giuseppe Falini. Bionic synthesis of a magnetic calcite skeletal structure through living foraminifera. Materials Horizons 2019, 6 (9) , 1862-1867. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9MH00495E
  40. Lee A. Fielding, Coit T. Hendley IV, Emily Asenath-Smith, Lara A. Estroff, Steven P. Armes. Rationally designed anionic diblock copolymer worm gels are useful model systems for calcite occlusion studies. Polymer Chemistry 2019, 10 (37) , 5131-5141. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9PY00889F
  41. Xiaolong He, Xuefeng Li, Jinfeng Dong. Self-assembly of well-defined amphiphilic poly(N-(2-methacryloylxyethyl)pyrrolidone)- poly(lauryl methacrylate) diblock copolymers in non-polar solvent. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 2019, 577 , 493-499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2019.05.095
  42. Dan Li, Meng Huo, Lei Liu, Min Zeng, Xi Chen, Xiaosong Wang, Jinying Yuan. Overcoming Kinetic Trapping for Morphology Evolution during Polymerization‐Induced Self‐Assembly. Macromolecular Rapid Communications 2019, 40 (16) https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.201900202
  43. Marcel Douverne, Yin Ning, Aikaterini Tatani, Fiona C. Meldrum, Steven P. Armes. How Many Phosphoric Acid Units Are Required to Ensure Uniform Occlusion of Sterically Stabilized Nanoparticles within Calcite?. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2019, 58 (26) , 8692-8697. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201901307
  44. Marcel Douverne, Yin Ning, Aikaterini Tatani, Fiona C. Meldrum, Steven P. Armes. How Many Phosphoric Acid Units Are Required to Ensure Uniform Occlusion of Sterically Stabilized Nanoparticles within Calcite?. Angewandte Chemie 2019, 131 (26) , 8784-8789. https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.201901307
  45. Yin Ning, Lee A. Fielding, John Nutter, Alexander N. Kulak, Fiona C. Meldrum, Steven P. Armes. Spatially Controlled Occlusion of Polymer‐Stabilized Gold Nanoparticles within ZnO. Angewandte Chemie 2019, 131 (13) , 4346-4351. https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.201814492
  46. Yin Ning, Lee A. Fielding, John Nutter, Alexander N. Kulak, Fiona C. Meldrum, Steven P. Armes. Spatially Controlled Occlusion of Polymer‐Stabilized Gold Nanoparticles within ZnO. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2019, 58 (13) , 4302-4307. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201814492
  47. Qinghua Xu, Chun Tian, Lifen Zhang, Zhenping Cheng, Xiulin Zhu. Photo‐Controlled Polymerization‐Induced Self‐Assembly (Photo‐PISA): A Novel Strategy Using In Situ Bromine‐Iodine Transformation Living Radical Polymerization. Macromolecular Rapid Communications 2019, 40 (2) https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.201800327
  48. Jun He, Qin Xu, Jianbo Tan, Li Zhang. Ketone‐Functionalized Polymer Nano‐Objects Prepared via Photoinitiated Polymerization‐Induced Self‐Assembly (Photo‐PISA) Using a Poly(diacetone acrylamide)‐Based Macro‐RAFT Agent. Macromolecular Rapid Communications 2019, 40 (2) https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.201800296
  49. Dao Le, Dominic Keller, Guillaume Delaittre. Reactive and Functional Nanoobjects by Polymerization‐Induced Self‐Assembly. Macromolecular Rapid Communications 2019, 40 (2) https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.201800551
  50. Pallabi Samaddar, Akash Deep, Ki-Hyun Kim. An engineering insight into block copolymer self-assembly: Contemporary application from biomedical research to nanotechnology. Chemical Engineering Journal 2018, 342 , 71-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.01.062
  51. Jianbo Tan, Qin Xu, Xueliang Li, Jun He, Yuxuan Zhang, Xiaocong Dai, Liangliang Yu, Ruiming Zeng, Li Zhang. Enzyme‐PISA: An Efficient Method for Preparing Well‐Defined Polymer Nano‐Objects under Mild Conditions. Macromolecular Rapid Communications 2018, 39 (9) https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.201700871
  52. Jie Ma, Henitsoa M. Andriambololona, Damien Quemener, Mona Semsarilar. Membrane preparation by sequential spray deposition of polymer PISA nanoparticles. Journal of Membrane Science 2018, 548 , 42-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.11.010
  53. Kazuho Nakamura, Taichi Takagishi. Change in Zeta Potential of Calcium Carbonate during Reactive Crystallization. KAGAKU KOGAKU RONBUNSHU 2018, 44 (1) , 29-34. https://doi.org/10.1252/kakoronbunshu.44.29
  54. Jianbo Tan, Dongdong Liu, Chundong Huang, Xueliang Li, Jun He, Qin Xu, Li Zhang. Photoinitiated Polymerization‐Induced Self‐Assembly of Glycidyl Methacrylate for the Synthesis of Epoxy‐Functionalized Block Copolymer Nano‐Objects. Macromolecular Rapid Communications 2017, 38 (15) https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.201700195
  55. Jonathan Yeow, Cyrille Boyer. Photoinitiated Polymerization-Induced Self-Assembly (Photo-PISA): New Insights and Opportunities. Advanced Science 2017, 4 (7) , 1700137. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.201700137
  56. Lewis D. Blackman, Kay E. B. Doncom, Matthew I. Gibson, Rachel K. O'Reilly. Comparison of photo- and thermally initiated polymerization-induced self-assembly: a lack of end group fidelity drives the formation of higher order morphologies. Polymer Chemistry 2017, 8 (18) , 2860-2871. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7PY00407A
  57. Andrew B. Lowe. RAFT alcoholic dispersion polymerization with polymerization-induced self-assembly. Polymer 2016, 106 , 161-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2016.08.082
  58. Ilya Captain, Timothy J. Deming. Methionine sulfoxide and phosphonate containing double hydrophilic block copolypeptides and their mineralization of calcium carbonate. Journal of Polymer Science Part A: Polymer Chemistry 2016, 54 (23) , 3707-3712. https://doi.org/10.1002/pola.28264
  59. Yuming Zhao, Wen Zhu, Ying Wu, Lin Qu, Zhengping Liu, Ke Zhang. An aggregation-induced emission star polymer with pH and metal ion responsive fluorescence. Polymer Chemistry 2016, 7 (42) , 6513-6520. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6PY01488G

Macromolecules

Cite this: Macromolecules 2016, 49, 1, 192–204
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.5b02212
Published December 23, 2015

Copyright © 2015 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under CC-BY.

Article Views

3701

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Scheme 1

    Scheme 1. RAFT Solution Polymerization of Methacryloyloxymethyl Dimethylphosphonate (MP) and Subsequent Hydrolysis of the PMP Precursor To Obtain Poly(methacryloyloxymethylphosphonic acid) (PMPA); RAFT Dispersion Polymerization of BzMA in Methanol Using Either the PMP or PMPA Macro-CTA as Steric Stabilizer Produced Spherical, Worm-like, or Vesicular Nano-Objects, Depending on the Precise PISA Formulation

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. (a) DMF gel permeation chromatography traces obtained for the three PMP macro-CTAs used in this study. (b) 31P NMR spectra recorded for the PMP24 macro-CTA before (red spectrum, top) and after hydrolysis (black spectrum, bottom). This indicates complete hydrolysis of the dimethyl ester groups on the PMP precursor to produce a well-defined PMPA macro-CTA.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. (a) Kinetic data derived from 1H NMR studies of the RAFT alcoholic dispersion polymerization of BzMA (target DP = 300) at 64 °C using the PMP24 macro-CTA at 20% w/w solids in methanol. The inset shows the evolution of the hydrodynamic diameter Dh and the first-order kinetic plot with respect to monomer. (b) The corresponding DMF GPC traces and the associated Mn and Mw/Mn data obtained for selected copolymers on sampling this formulation, indicating its reasonably good controlled/living character (see Table S1 for a more complete set of GPC data).

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Phase diagram constructed for PMPx–PBzMAy diblock copolymer nano-objects prepared in methanol at 64 °C at 20% w/w solids. Representative TEM images obtained for the three pure copolymer morphologies: (a) PMP24–PBzMA50 (small spheres), (b) PMP32–PBzMA79 (worms), (c) PMP42–PBzMA300 (large spheres), and (d) PMP24–PBzMA200 (vesicles).

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. (a) Kinetic data derived from 1H NMR studies of the RAFT alcoholic dispersion polymerization of BzMA (target DP = 300) using an anionic PMPA24 macro-CTA at 20% w/w solids in methanol at 64 °C. The inset shows the evolution of the hydrodynamic diameter Dh and the first-order kinetic plot with respect to monomer concentration. (b) Representative TEM image of the final vesicular morphology obtained after 24 h (>99% conversion).

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Phase diagram constructed for PMPAx–PBzMAy diblock copolymer nano-objects prepared in methanol at 64 °C at 20% w/w solids. TEM images for pure copolymer morphologies: (a) PMPA42–PBzMA55 (worms), (b) PMPA24–PBzMA35 (spheres), (c) PMPA42–PBzMA300 (small vesicles), and (d) PMPA24–PBzMA300 (large vesicles).

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. (a) Representative TEM images recorded for non-ionic PMP24–PBzMA300 vesicles and anionic PMPAx–PBzMAy worms and vesicles, obtained via RAFT dispersion polymerization of BzMA at 20% w/w solids in methanol at 64 °C. (b) TEM images for the same copolymer nanoparticles after their transfer from methanol to water via exhaustive dialysis at 20 °C. In all cases the copolymer concentration used to prepare the TEM grids was 0.2% w/w.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. Aqueous electrophoresis curves and DLS data obtained for PMPAx–PBzMAy worms and vesicles prepared by RAFT alcoholic dispersion polymerization of BzMA in methanol at 20% w/w solids. Measurements were conducted using 0.01% w/v dispersions in the presence of 10 mM NaCl as background electrolyte.

    Figure 8

    Figure 8. Optical micrographs and corresponding SEM images obtained for a series of CaCO3 crystals prepared using a 1.5 mM CaCl2 solution and either (a) 0.010% w/w or (b) 0.005% w/w PMPA–PBzMA or PMP–PBzMA diblock copolymer nano-objects. The scale bar corresponds to 20 and 5 μm for the optical micrographs and SEM images, respectively. Optical micrograph and SEM images of the reference calcite crystals precipitated in the absence of diblock copolymer nano-objects are shown at the left-hand side.

    Figure 9

    Figure 9. SEM images obtained for a series of fractured CaCO3 crystals, prepared using a 1.5 mM CaCl2 solution and (a) 0.010% w/w or (b) 0.005% w/w PMPA- or PMP-stabilized PBzMA diblock copolymer nano-objects. The scale bar represents 1.5 μm in all SEM images.

  • References


    This article references 98 other publications.

    1. 1
      Lupa, L.; Popa, A.; Ilia, G. In Phosphorus-Based Polymers: From Synthesis to Applications; The Royal Society of Chemistry: 2014; pp 225 251.
    2. 2
      Clearfield, A. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 2002, 6, 495 506 DOI: 10.1016/S1359-0286(02)00151-1
    3. 3
      van den Brand, J.; Van Gils, S.; Beentjes, P. C. J.; Terryn, H.; Sivel, V.; de Wit, J. H. W. Prog. Org. Coat. 2004, 51, 339 350 DOI: 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2004.08.005
    4. 4
      Zhang, Q. M.; Serpe, M. J. Macromolecules 2014, 47, 8018 8025 DOI: 10.1021/ma501997x
    5. 5
      Alexandrino, E. M.; Ritz, S.; Marsico, F.; Baier, G.; Mailander, V.; Landfester, K.; Wurm, F. R. J. Mater. Chem. B 2014, 2, 1298 1306 DOI: 10.1039/c3tb21295e
    6. 6
      Brunklaus, G.; Schauff, S.; Markova, D.; Klapper, M.; Müllen, K.; Spiess, H.-W. J. Phys. Chem. B 2009, 113, 6674 6681 DOI: 10.1021/jp901714f
    7. 7
      Quittmann, U.; Lecamp, L.; El Khatib, W.; Youssef, B.; Bunel, C. Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2001, 202, 628 635 DOI: 10.1002/1521-3935(20010301)202:5<628::AID-MACP628>3.0.CO;2-T
    8. 8
      Canadell, J.; Hunt, B. J.; Cook, A. G.; Mantecón, A.; Cádiz, V. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2007, 92, 1482 1490 DOI: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2007.05.017
    9. 9
      Köppl, T.; Brehme, S.; Pospiech, D.; Fischer, O.; Wolff-Fabris, F.; Altstädt, V.; Schartel, B.; Döring, M. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2013, 128, 3315 3324 DOI: 10.1002/app.38520
    10. 10
      Monge, S.; Canniccioni, B.; Graillot, A.; Robin, J.-J. Biomacromolecules 2011, 12, 1973 1982 DOI: 10.1021/bm2004803
    11. 11
      Lin, Z.; Cao, S.; Chen, X.; Wu, W.; Li, J. Biomacromolecules 2013, 14, 2206 2214 DOI: 10.1021/bm4003442
    12. 12
      David, G.; Asri, Z. E.; Rich, S.; Castignolles, P.; Guillaneuf, Y.; Lacroix-Desmazes, P.; Boutevin, B. Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2009, 210, 631 639 DOI: 10.1002/macp.200800540
    13. 13
      Canniccioni, B.; Monge, S.; David, G.; Robin, J.-J. Polym. Chem. 2013, 4, 3676 3685 DOI: 10.1039/c3py00426k
    14. 14
      Graillot, A.; Monge, S.; Faur, C.; Bouyer, D.; Robin, J.-J. Polym. Chem. 2013, 4, 795 803 DOI: 10.1039/C2PY20720F
    15. 15
      Grøndahl, L.; Suzuki, S.; Wentrup-Byrne, E. Chem. Commun. 2008, 3314 3316 DOI: 10.1039/b803223h
    16. 16
      Miyatake, K.; Hay, A. S. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2001, 39, 1854 1859 DOI: 10.1002/pola.1163
    17. 17
      Watson, J. D.; Crick, F. H. C. Nature 1974, 248, 765 765 DOI: 10.1038/248765a0
    18. 18
      Ornelas-Megiatto, C.; Wich, P. R.; Fréchet, J. M. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 1902 1905 DOI: 10.1021/ja207366k
    19. 19
      Uchiyama, T.; Kiritoshi, Y.; Watanabe, J.; Ishihara, K. Biomaterials 2003, 24, 5183 5190 DOI: 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00441-1
    20. 20
      Pegoraro, C.; Cecchin, D.; Gracia, L. S.; Warren, N.; Madsen, J.; Armes, S. P.; Lewis, A.; MacNeil, S.; Battaglia, G. Cancer Lett. 2013, 334, 328 337 DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2013.02.007
    21. 21
      Hemp, S. T.; Smith, A. E.; Bryson, J. M.; Allen, M. H.; Long, T. E. Biomacromolecules 2012, 13, 2439 2445 DOI: 10.1021/bm300689f
    22. 22
      Liu, G.; Jin, Q.; Liu, X.; Lv, L.; Chen, C.; Ji, J. Soft Matter 2011, 7, 662 669 DOI: 10.1039/C0SM00708K
    23. 23
      Matyjaszewski, K. Macromolecules 2012, 45, 4015 4039 DOI: 10.1021/ma3001719
    24. 24
      Moad, G.; Rizzardo, E.; Thang, S. H. Aust. J. Chem. 2012, 65, 985 1076 DOI: 10.1071/CH12295
    25. 25
      Lobb, E. J.; Ma, I.; Billingham, N. C.; Armes, S. P.; Lewis, A. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 7913 7914 DOI: 10.1021/ja003906d
    26. 26
      Madsen, J.; Canton, I.; Warren, N. J.; Themistou, E.; Blanazs, A.; Ustbas, B.; Tian, X.; Pearson, R.; Battaglia, G.; Lewis, A. L.; Armes, S. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 14863 14870 DOI: 10.1021/ja407380t
    27. 27
      Yusa, S.-i.; Fukuda, K.; Yamamoto, T.; Ishihara, K.; Morishima, Y. Biomacromolecules 2005, 6, 663 670 DOI: 10.1021/bm0495553
    28. 28
      Ohno, S.; Hasegawa, S.; Liu, H.; Ishihara, K.; Yusa, S.-i. Polym. J. 2015, 47, 71 DOI: 10.1038/pj.2014.92
    29. 29
      Huang, J.; Matyjaszewski, K. Macromolecules 2005, 38, 3577 3583 DOI: 10.1021/ma047564y
    30. 30
      Suzuki, S.; Whittaker, M. R.; Grøndahl, L.; Monteiro, M. J.; Wentrup-Byrne, E. Biomacromolecules 2006, 7, 3178 3187 DOI: 10.1021/bm060583q
    31. 31
      Blidi, I.; Geagea, R.; Coutelier, O.; Mazieres, S.; Violleau, F.; Destarac, M. Polym. Chem. 2012, 3, 609 612 DOI: 10.1039/c2py00541g
    32. 32
      Markova, D.; Kumar, A.; Klapper, M.; Müllen, K. Polymer 2009, 50, 3411 3421 DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2009.06.011
    33. 33
      David, G.; Negrell, C.; Manseri, A.; Boutevin, B. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2009, 114, 2213 2220 DOI: 10.1002/app.30438
    34. 34
      Mukumoto, K.; Zhong, M.; Matyjaszewski, K. Eur. Polym. J. 2014, 56, 11 16 DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2014.03.029
    35. 35
      Charleux, B.; Delaittre, G.; Rieger, J.; D’Agosto, F. Macromolecules 2012, 45, 6753 6765 DOI: 10.1021/ma300713f
    36. 36
      Warren, N. J.; Armes, S. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 10174 10185 DOI: 10.1021/ja502843f
    37. 37
      Sun, J.-T.; Hong, C.-Y.; Pan, C.-Y. Polym. Chem. 2013, 4, 873 881 DOI: 10.1039/C2PY20612A
    38. 38
      Cunningham, V. J.; Alswieleh, A. M.; Thompson, K. L.; Williams, M.; Leggett, G. J.; Armes, S. P.; Musa, O. M. Macromolecules 2014, 47, 5613 5623 DOI: 10.1021/ma501140h
    39. 39
      Blanazs, A.; Ryan, A. J.; Armes, S. P. Macromolecules 2012, 45, 5099 5107 DOI: 10.1021/ma301059r
    40. 40
      An, Z.; Shi, Q.; Tang, W.; Tsung, C.-K.; Hawker, C. J.; Stucky, G. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 14493 14499 DOI: 10.1021/ja0756974
    41. 41
      Rieger, J.; Grazon, C.; Charleux, B.; Alaimo, D.; Jérôme, C. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2009, 47, 2373 2390 DOI: 10.1002/pola.23329
    42. 42
      Li, Y.; Armes, S. P. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 4042 4046 DOI: 10.1002/anie.201001461
    43. 43
      Sugihara, S.; Blanazs, A.; Armes, S. P.; Ryan, A. J.; Lewis, A. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 15707 15713 DOI: 10.1021/ja205887v
    44. 44
      Liu, G.; Qiu, Q.; Shen, W.; An, Z. Macromolecules 2011, 44, 5237 5245 DOI: 10.1021/ma200984h
    45. 45
      Chambon, P.; Blanazs, A.; Battaglia, G.; Armes, S. P. Macromolecules 2012, 45, 5081 5090 DOI: 10.1021/ma300816m
    46. 46
      Ladmiral, V.; Semsarilar, M.; Canton, I.; Armes, S. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 13574 13581 DOI: 10.1021/ja407033x
    47. 47
      Figg, C. A.; Simula, A.; Gebre, K. A.; Tucker, B. S.; Haddleton, D.; Sumerlin, B. S. Chem. Sci. 2015, 6, 1230 DOI: 10.1039/C4SC03334E
    48. 48
      Wan, W.-M.; Hong, C.-Y.; Pan, C.-Y. Chem. Commun. 2009, 5883 5885 DOI: 10.1039/b912804b
    49. 49
      Semsarilar, M.; Jones, E. R.; Blanazs, A.; Armes, S. P. Adv. Mater. 2012, 24, 3378 3382 DOI: 10.1002/adma.201200925
    50. 50
      Zehm, D.; Ratcliffe, L. P. D.; Armes, S. P. Macromolecules 2013, 46, 128 139 DOI: 10.1021/ma301459y
    51. 51
      Karagoz, B.; Boyer, C.; Davis, T. P. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2014, 35, 417 421 DOI: 10.1002/marc.201300730
    52. 52
      Pei, Y.; Dharsana, N. C.; van Hensbergen, J. A.; Burford, R. P.; Roth, P. J.; Lowe, A. B. Soft Matter 2014, 10, 5787 5796 DOI: 10.1039/C4SM00729H
    53. 53
      Zhang, W.-J.; Hong, C.-Y.; Pan, C.-Y. Macromolecules 2014, 47, 1664 1671 DOI: 10.1021/ma402497y
    54. 54
      Bleach, R.; Karagoz, B.; Prakash, S. M.; Davis, T. P.; Boyer, C. ACS Macro Lett. 2014, 3, 591 596 DOI: 10.1021/mz500195u
    55. 55
      Semsarilar, M.; Ladmiral, V.; Blanazs, A.; Armes, S. P. Polym. Chem. 2014, 5, 3466 3475 DOI: 10.1039/c4py00201f
    56. 56
      Gonzato, C.; Semsarilar, M.; Jones, E. R.; Li, F.; Krooshof, G. J. P.; Wyman, P.; Mykhaylyk, O. O.; Tuinier, R.; Armes, S. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 11100 11106 DOI: 10.1021/ja505406s
    57. 57
      Houillot, L.; Bui, C.; Farcet, C. l.; Moire, C.; Raust, J.-A.; Pasch, H.; Save, M.; Charleux, B. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2010, 2, 434 442 DOI: 10.1021/am900695a
    58. 58
      Deng, Y.; Yang, C.; Yuan, C.; Xu, Y.; Bernard, J.; Dai, L.; Gérard, J.-F. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2013, 51, 4558 4564 DOI: 10.1002/pola.26872
    59. 59
      Fielding, L. A.; Derry, M. J.; Ladmiral, V.; Rosselgong, J.; Rodrigues, A. M.; Ratcliffe, L. P. D.; Sugihara, S.; Armes, S. P. Chem. Sci. 2013, 4, 2081 2087 DOI: 10.1039/c3sc50305d
    60. 60
      Dan, M.; Huo, F.; Zhang, X.; Wang, X.; Zhang, W. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2013, 51, 1573 1584 DOI: 10.1002/pola.26527
    61. 61
      Tan, J.; Rao, X.; Yang, J.; Zeng, Z. Macromolecules 2013, 46, 8441 8448 DOI: 10.1021/ma401909a
    62. 62
      Shi, P.; Li, Q.; He, X.; Li, S.; Sun, P.; Zhang, W. Macromolecules 2014, 47, 7442 7452 DOI: 10.1021/ma501598k
    63. 63
      Huang, C.-Q.; Pan, C.-Y. Polymer 2010, 51, 5115 5121 DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2010.08.056
    64. 64
      Warren, N. J.; Mykhaylyk, O. O.; Mahmood, D.; Ryan, A. J.; Armes, S. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 1023 1033 DOI: 10.1021/ja410593n
    65. 65
      Zhao, W.; Gody, G.; Dong, S.; Zetterlund, P. B.; Perrier, S. Polym. Chem. 2014, 5, 6990 7003 DOI: 10.1039/C4PY00855C
    66. 66
      Sugihara, S.; Armes, S. P.; Blanazs, A.; Lewis, A. L. Soft Matter 2011, 7, 10787 10793 DOI: 10.1039/c1sm06593a
    67. 67
      He, W.-D.; Sun, X.-L.; Wan, W.-M.; Pan, C.-Y. Macromolecules 2011, 44, 3358 3365 DOI: 10.1021/ma2000674
    68. 68
      Semsarilar, M.; Ladmiral, V.; Blanazs, A.; Armes, S. P. Langmuir 2012, 28, 914 922 DOI: 10.1021/la203991y
    69. 69
      Semsarilar, M.; Ladmiral, V.; Blanazs, A.; Armes, S. P. Langmuir 2013, 29, 7416 7424 DOI: 10.1021/la304279y
    70. 70
      Rieger, J.; Stoffelbach, F.; Bui, C.; Alaimo, D.; Jérôme, C.; Charleux, B. Macromolecules 2008, 41, 4065 4068 DOI: 10.1021/ma800544v
    71. 71
      Zhang, W.; D’Agosto, F.; Boyron, O.; Rieger, J.; Charleux, B. Macromolecules 2012, 45, 4075 4084 DOI: 10.1021/ma300596f
    72. 72
      Rieger, J.; Zhang, W.; Stoffelbach, F. O.; Charleux, B. Macromolecules 2010, 43, 6302 6310 DOI: 10.1021/ma1009269
    73. 73
      Zhang, W.; D’Agosto, F.; Dugas, P.-Y.; Rieger, J.; Charleux, B. Polymer 2013, 54, 2011 2019 DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2012.12.028
    74. 74
      Ratcliffe, L. P. D.; Blanazs, A.; Williams, C. N.; Brown, S. L.; Armes, S. P. Polym. Chem. 2014, 5, 3643 3655 DOI: 10.1039/c4py00203b
    75. 75
      Binauld, S.; Delafresnaye, L.; Charleux, B.; D’Agosto, F.; Lansalot, M. Macromolecules 2014, 47, 3461 3472 DOI: 10.1021/ma402549x
    76. 76
      Zhang, X.; Boisson, F.; Colombani, O.; Chassenieux, C.; Charleux, B. Macromolecules 2014, 47, 51 60 DOI: 10.1021/ma402125r
    77. 77
      Carlsson, L.; Fall, A.; Chaduc, I.; Wagberg, L.; Charleux, B.; Malmstrom, E.; D’Agosto, F.; Lansalot, M.; Carlmark, A. Polym. Chem. 2014, 5, 6076 6086 DOI: 10.1039/C4PY00675E
    78. 78
      Zhang, X.; Cardozo, A. F.; Chen, S.; Zhang, W.; Julcour, C.; Lansalot, M.; Blanco, J.-F.; Gayet, F.; Delmas, H.; Charleux, B.; Manoury, E.; D’Agosto, F.; Poli, R. Chem. - Eur. J. 2014, 20, 15505 15517 DOI: 10.1002/chem.201403819
    79. 79
      Ihli, J.; Bots, P.; Kulak, A.; Benning, L. G.; Meldrum, F. C. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2013, 23, 1965 1973 DOI: 10.1002/adfm.201201742
    80. 80
      Jones, E. R.; Semsarilar, M.; Blanazs, A.; Armes, S. P. Macromolecules 2012, 45, 5091 5098 DOI: 10.1021/ma300898e
    81. 81
      Blanazs, A.; Madsen, J.; Battaglia, G.; Ryan, A. J.; Armes, S. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 16581 16587 DOI: 10.1021/ja206301a
    82. 82
      Odian, G. Principles of Polymerization, 4th ed.; Wiley: 2004.
    83. 83
      Warren, N. J.; Mykhaylyk, O. O.; Ryan, A. J.; Williams, M.; Doussineau, T.; Dugourd, P.; Antoine, R.; Portale, G.; Armes, S. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 1929 1937 DOI: 10.1021/ja511423m
    84. 84
      Atkins, P.; De Paula, J. Physical Chemistry; Oxford University Press: 2006.
    85. 85
      Semsarilar, M.; Jones, E. R.; Armes, S. P. Polym. Chem. 2014, 5, 195 203 DOI: 10.1039/C3PY01042B
    86. 86
      Blanazs, A.; Armes, S. P.; Ryan, A. J. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2009, 30, 267 277 DOI: 10.1002/marc.200800713
    87. 87
      Lowenstam, H. A.; Weiner, S. On Biomineralization; Oxford University Press: New York, 1989.
    88. 88
      Meldrum, F. C.; Cölfen, H. Chem. Rev. 2008, 108, 4332 4432 DOI: 10.1021/cr8002856
    89. 89
      Berman, A.; Hanson, J.; Leiserowitz, L.; Koetzle, T. F.; Weiner, S.; Addadi, L. Science 1993, 259, 776 779 DOI: 10.1126/science.259.5096.776
    90. 90
      Kulak, A. N.; Iddon, P.; Li, Y.; Armes, S. P.; Cölfen, H.; Paris, O.; Wilson, R. M.; Meldrum, F. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 3729 3736 DOI: 10.1021/ja067422e
    91. 91
      Kim, Y.-Y.; Ganesan, K.; Yang, P.; Kulak, A. N.; Borukhin, S.; Pechook, S.; Ribeiro, L.; Kröger, R.; Eichhorn, S. J.; Armes, S. P.; Pokroy, B.; Meldrum, F. C. Nat. Mater. 2011, 10, 890 896 DOI: 10.1038/nmat3103
    92. 92
      Kulak, A. N.; Yang, P.; Kim, Y.-Y.; Armes, S. P.; Meldrum, F. C. Chem. Commun. 2014, 50, 67 69 DOI: 10.1039/C3CC47904H
    93. 93
      Kulak, A. N.; Semsarilar, M.; Kim, Y.-Y.; Ihli, J.; Fielding, L. A.; Cespedes, O.; Armes, S. P.; Meldrum, F. C. Chem. Sci. 2014, 5, 738 743 DOI: 10.1039/C3SC52615A
    94. 94
      Borukhin, S.; Bloch, L.; Radlauer, T.; Hill, A. H.; Fitch, A. N.; Pokroy, B. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2012, 22, 4216 4224 DOI: 10.1002/adfm.201201079
    95. 95
      Kim, Y.-Y.; Ribeiro, L.; Maillot, F.; Ward, O.; Eichhorn, S. J.; Meldrum, F. C. Adv. Mater. 2010, 22, 2082 2086 DOI: 10.1002/adma.200903743
    96. 96
      Tomson, M. B. J. Cryst. Growth 1983, 62, 106 112 DOI: 10.1016/0022-0248(83)90013-1
    97. 97
      Ketrane, R.; Saidani, B.; Gil, O.; Leleyter, L.; Baraud, F. Desalination 2009, 249, 1397 1404 DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2009.06.013
    98. 98
      Ning, Y.; Fielding, L. A.; Andrews, T. S.; Growney, D. J.; Armes, S. P. Sulfate-based anionic diblock copolymer nanoparticles for efficient occlusion within zinc oxide Nanoscale 2015, 7, 6691 6702
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.5b02212.

    • 31P NMR spectra and GPC data for the three PMPA macro-CTAs, GPC and DLS data for kinetics of dispersion polymerization experiments, GPC data for all PMPx–PBzMAy diblock copolymers, additional TEM images, DLS data for aqueous dispersion polymerizations conducted using binary mixtures of macro-CTAs, and Raman spectra for selected CaCO3 occlusion experiments (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.