Where are the End-Groups in a Hyperbranched Polymer?
Dominik Konkolewicz AA Key Centre for Polymers and Colloids, School of Chemistry, F11, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Email: d.konkolewicz@chem.usyd.edu.au
Australian Journal of Chemistry 62(8) 823-829 https://doi.org/10.1071/CH09091
Submitted: 13 February 2009 Accepted: 27 March 2009 Published: 13 August 2009
Abstract
The location of the end-groups in hyperbranched polymers is modelled by considering two synthetic strategies. The first synthesis is to make linear chains, and then link these chains. The second strategy is to sequentially add multifunctional monomers. The first strategy represents hyperbranched polymers synthesized by living radical methods, whereas the second represents polycondensations at low conversion. The high-conversion case is also considered. The present analysis suggests that sequential addition of monomers places more end-groups at the polymer’s surface than synthesis by linking chains. If the end-groups are catalysts, synthesis by the addition of monomers should give fewer inaccessible catalysts.
Acknowledgements
The author is most grateful to Sébastien Perrier, Angus Gray-Weale, and Ulrich Hall for fruitful discussions. The author is grateful to the Australian Government for an Australian Postgraduate Award scholarship, and the University of Sydney for funding.
[1]
F. Aulenta,
W. Hayes,
S. Rannard,
Eur. Polym. J. 2003, 39, 1741.
| 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 |
