Transparent Macroporous Polymer Monoliths

Download Transparent Macroporous Polymer Monoliths

Post on 14-Apr-2017




0 download

Embed Size (px)


  • Transparent Macroporous Polymer Monoliths

    J. H. G. Steinke, I. R. Dunkin, and D. C. Sherrington*

    Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry, University of Strathclyde,Thomas Graham Building, 295 Cathedral Street, Glasgow G1 1XL, Scotland, U.K.

    Received December 19, 1995; Revised Manuscript Received June 12, 1996X

    ABSTRACT: Free-radical polymerization of trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate (TRIM) was carried outin the presence of a variety of porogens at room temperature, yielding transparent (macro)porous polymermonoliths. N2 BET and surface area and Hg intrusion porosimetry data from the resulting polymersshowed a variety of different pore sizes and pore size distributions. In the latter, three distinct maximaat 13, 50-60, and 500 nm were found for small pores (500 nm) did not exhibit any regularity. Variation of initiator concentration, ratio ofmonomer to porogen, polymerization temperature, and cross-linker had no influence in obtainingtransparent monoliths. Correlation of the transparency of the monoliths with the refractive index andsolubility parameter of the corresponding porogens led to threshold values for the refractive index (1.42)above which, and for the total solubility parameter (20 (MPa)1/2) below which, a transparent polymermonolith is generally obtained, if one allows for exceptions. A correlation between pore size distributionand transparency, however, could not be found.


    Thin films,1 liquid crystals,2 multiphase polymercomposites,3 xerogels,4 glass fibers,5 and organic-inorganic glasses6 are prominent examples of polymerswhose potential areas of application (window insula-tion,4 film coatings,1 photo7- and electrochromic8 devices,photo9- and electroluminescent10 displays, LC displays,11and optical sensors12) require materials with highoptical transparency and thus the optical properties ofthese polymers have been studied extensively.In contrast to the wealth of information available on

    optical properties of polymers prepared by the sol-gelprocess,13-15 only little is known about their organiccounterparts, i.e., highly cross-linked polymer networksbased on multifunctional cross-linkers such as divinyl-benzene (DVB) or ethylene dimethacrylate (EDMA).This is somewhat surprising, in particular when

    considering the structural similarites betweenmacroporous polymer networks, e.g., poly(HIPE) on theone hand16 and porous silica on the other.4 In both casesa high degree of control over the pore structure (poresize, pore size distribution, shape of pores, and porevolume) can be achieved. Both types of polymericnetworks suffer from becoming brittle upon drying. Inboth cases this problem is overcome by the right choiceof co-network (IPN).6,17

    Obviously, porous silica networks exhibit higherthermal stability compared to carbon-based polymers.An advantage of porous organic networks on the otherhand is the facile introduction of a wide variety offunctional groups either via suitably chosen co-monomers or via polymer-analogue functionalizationscarried out as a postmodification step. Control of both,pore structure and functionalities within the pores, incombination with optical clarity, could be of interest fora number of reasons. Photochemical reactions takingplace within the pores would present a novel approachof carrying out synthetic transformations in a defined(restricted) reaction space. So far, zeolites, container

    compounds, micelles, and dendrimers have been studiedtoward this goal, none of which offers much flexibilityand control over pore structure and the presence offunctional groups.18 Furthermore, a transparent mono-lith could be used to study the chromatographic proc-ess19 in real time by UV-vis spectroscopy or any otheranalytical technique requiring optically transparentconditions. Up to now, this has only been done eitherindirectly, by using fluorescent dyes as indicators,20 ordirectly by NMR spectroscopy,21 which lacks sensitivityand its time scale is slow compared to optical tech-niques. It is even conceivable to use chemically selectivetransparent monoliths, obtained through molecularimprinting for example, as optical sensors offering allthe advantages associated with optical spectroscopy.22The lack of studies concerned with the optical proper-

    ties of (macro)porous polymer networks and our interestin designing novel optical sensors prepared using theconcept of molecular imprinting led us to investigate thesynthesis of transparent (macro)porous polymer mono-liths in more detail. The results of this study havealready enabled us to synthesize selective, transparentpolymer monoliths. These monoliths have been turnedinto anisotropic networks by performing a photoselectivereaction on the polymer itself. The underlying conceptand the synthesis have been reported elsewhere.22Here we should like to present our efforts in the

    syntheses of transparent polymer monoliths with con-trolled pore structures based on trimethylolpropanetrimethacrylate (TRIM).

    Experimental SectionChemicals. All solvents used in polymerizations were

    purified and dried according to standard procedures. Theywere stored under argon and were kept over dried molecularsieves (4 ). Trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate (TRIM) oftechnical quality (90%) and ethylene dimethacrylate (EDMA,98%), were obtained from Aldrich Chemical Co. Ltd., and eachcompound was fractionally distilled prior to use. Azobis-(isobutyronitrile) (AIBN) and azobis(2,4-dimethylvaleronitrile)(ADVN) were of analytical grade. 2-Acrylamido-2-methylpro-panesulfonic acid (AMPSA, 99%) was obtained from Aldrich,recrystallized twice from a mixture of ethanol and water, anddried over P2O5 under vacuum. Michlers ketone (MK, 98%),supplied by Aldrich Chemical Co. Ltd., was recrystallized twicefrom ethanol/toluene and subsequently at least twice from pureethanol. It was dried over P2O5 under vacuum.

    * To whom correspondence should be addressed. Current address: Melville Laboratory for Polymer Synthesis,

    Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, PembrokeStreet, Cambridge CB2 3RA, UK.

    X Abstract published in Advance ACS Abstracts, July 15, 1996.

    5826 Macromolecules 1996, 29, 5826-5834

    S0024-9297(95)01875-4 CCC: $12.00 1996 American Chemical Society

  • Polymerization. The compositions of the monomer mix-tures are summarized in Tables 1, 3, 5, and 7. Standardcompositions consisted of a monomer to porogen ratio of 30:70 (v/v) and 1 mol % of free-radical initiator (to monomer).The preparation of the polymer monoliths was carried out asfollows. The initiator was weighed into a polymerizationampule. The ampule was evacuated, filled with nitrogen, andsealed before placing it just above the surface of a dry ice/ethanol slush. Cross-linker and monomers were added next,and then the porogen. A stream of dry nitrogen was bubbledthrough the polymerization mixture for 10 min. The ampulewas immersed into the slush, and nitrogen bubbling wasdiscontinued after another 5 min. The polymerization tubewas thereafter immersed in liquid nitrogen. Three freeze-pump-thaw cycles were carried out under vacuum. After thelast cycle, the ampule, which was still under vacuum, wassealed and left to warm to room temperature. The polymer-ization mixture was homogenized and finally polymerized andcured for a specified time and temperature (see Tables 1, 3, 5,and 7).Post-treatment. The polymers were dried inside the

    ampule under reduced pressure at a specified temperature andfor a specified period of time (see Tables 1, 3, 5, and 7). Theywere then ground, and the bed volume of the polymers wasmeasured using calibrated tubes, first in the dry and then inthe swollen state, allowing at lesat 72 h to reach equilibriumconditions with occasional agitation of the gels during thisperiod of time.Texture Determination. The pore structure for a pore

    radius larger than 3 nm was determined by mercury porosim-etry23 using pressure of up to 450 MPa (Micromeritics 9220).A typical pore size distribution profile (for polymer T1) isshown in Figure 1. The surface area was obtained fromadsorption measurements with nitrogen according to the BETmethod (Micromeritics Accusorb 2100E).24 Polymer sampleswere degassed in their sample holders overnight at 60 C.Porosimetry and BET data are summarized in Tables 2, 4, 6,and 8.Texture Calculations. Percentage values of pore size

    contributions for pores smaller than 10 000 nmwere calculatedfrom their corresponding pore volume (excluding any porevolume found for pore sizes greater than 10 000 nm).Transparency Assessment. The optical quality (turbid-

    ity) of polymer monoliths was assessed after polymerizationand curing of the polymer network had taken place. For thispurpose, written text was viewed through the polymer sample(about 1.5 cm diameter). A polymer monolith, through whichprinted letters appeared essentially undistorted and clear wasclassified as transparent. If images became distorted andweaker but were still recognizable when viewed through apolymer, it was then classified as translucent. Polymersamples that did not allow any pattern at all to be discernedwere categorized as opaque. In order to be able to plot physicaldata versus the optical appearance (turbidity) of each polymermonolith, transparent polymers were set arbitrarily to 1,translucent polymers to 0.5, and opaque monoliths were giventhe value 0.Determination of Unreacted Carbon-Carbon Double

    Bonds. The amount of unreacted methacrylate groups was

    determined by solid-state 13C-CP-MAS NMR spectroscopy ona 25 MHz Bruker MSL-100 solid-state spectrometer.25 Thespectra were obtained by using approximately 200 mg ofsample packed in a zirconia rotor, sealed with a KEL-F endcapand spun at ca. 5000 Hz. The recycle delay between each pulsewas 1.5 s and the CP contact time was 1 ms. For all spectrathe chemical shifts were externally referenced to TMS (0