CSIRO Publishing

An international journal for chemical science

Shopping Cart: ( empty )

RESEARCH FRONT

Previous Next Contents Vol 59(10)

Thermolysis of RAFT-Synthesized Poly(Methyl Methacrylate)

Bill Chong ^A , Graeme Moad ^A ^B , Ezio Rizzardo ^A , Melissa Skidmore ^A and San H. Thang ^A

+ Author Affiliations

- Author Affiliations

^A CSIRO Molecular and Health Technologies, Bag 10, Clayton South, VIC 3169, Australia.

^B Corresponding author. Email: graeme.moad@csiro.au

Australian Journal of Chemistry 59(10) 755-762 https://doi.org/10.1071/CH06229
Submitted: 30 June 2006 Accepted: 2 October 2006 Published: 30 October 2006

Abstract

Thermolysis provides a simple and efficient way of eliminating thiocarbonylthio groups from RAFT-synthesized polymers. The course of thermolysis of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) prepared with dithiobenzoate and trithiocarbonate RAFT agents was followed by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), ¹H NMR spectroscopy, and gel permeation chromatography (GPC). The weight loss profile observed depends strongly on the RAFT agent used during polymer synthesis. PMMA with a methyl trithiocarbonate end group undergoes loss of that end group at ~180°C, at least in part, by a mechanism believed to involve homolysis of the C–CS₂SCH₃ bond and subsequent depropagation. In contrast, PMMA with a dithiobenzoate end appears more stable. Only the end group is lost at ~180°C and the dominant mechanism is proposed to be a concerted elimination process analogous to that involved in the Chugaev reaction.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dr Wendy Tian for performing some of the thermogravimetric analyses and to DuPont Performance Coatings for their support of this work.

References

[1] G. Moad, E. Rizzardo, S. H. Thang, Aust. J. Chem. 2005, 58, 379.
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

        | Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |