RAFT Graft Polymerization of 2-(Dimethylaminoethyl) Methacrylate onto Cellulose Fibre
Debashish Roy A , James T. Guthrie A and Sébastien Perrier A BA Department of Colour and Polymer Chemistry, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
B Corresponding author. Email: s.perrier@leeds.ac.uk
Australian Journal of Chemistry 59(10) 737-741 https://doi.org/10.1071/CH06247
Submitted: 14 July 2006 Accepted: 19 September 2006 Published: 30 October 2006
Abstract
Poly(2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate) (PDMAEMA) was grafted from cellulose by reversible addition–fragmentation chain transfer (RAFT) polymerization. The use of a free chain transfer agent in solution allowed for a better control over graft ratio, chain length of grafted polymer, monomer conversion, and homopolymer formation in solution. An increase in polymerization time or degree of polymerization led to an increase in graft ratio, as expected from a living system.
Acknowledgement
D.R. acknowledges the Department of Colour and Polymer Chemistry, the University of Leeds, for financial support. The authors thank Dr Ian Willoughby (Polymer Laboratories) for SEC analyses.
[1]
J. Chiefari,
B. Y. K. Chong,
F. Ercole,
J. Krstina,
J. Jeffery,
T. P. T. Le,
R. T. A. Mayadunne,
G. F. Meijs,
C. L. Moad,
G. Moad,
E. Rizzardo,
S. H. Thang,
Macromolecules 1998, 31, 5559.
| 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 |
