Summary: A novel computational strategy is described for the simulation of star polymerisations, allowing for the computation of full molecular weight distributions (MWDs). Whilst the strategy is applicable to a broad range of techniques for the synthesis of star polymers, the focus of the current study is the simulation of MWDs arising from a reversible addition fragmentation chain transfer (RAFT), R‐group approach star polymerisation. In this synthetic methodology, the arms of the star grow from a central, polyfunctional moiety, which is formed initially as the refragmenting R‐group of a polyfunctional RAFT agent. This synthetic methodology produces polymers with complex MWDs and the current simulation strategy is able to account for the features of such complex MWDs. The strategy involves a kinetic model which describes the reactions of a single arm of a star, the kinetics of which are implemented and simulated using the PREDICI® program package. The MWDs resulting from this simulation of single arms are then processed with an algorithm we describe, to generate a full MWD of stars. The algorithm is applicable to stars with an arbitrary number of arms. The kinetic model and subsequent algorithmic processing techniques are described in detail. A simulation has been parameterised using rate coefficients and densities for a 2,2′‐azoisobutyronitrile (AIBN) initiated, bulk polymerisation of styrene at 60 °C. A number of kinetic parameters have been varied over large ranges. Conversion normalised simulations were performed, leading to information regarding star arm length, polydispersity index ( PDI ) and the fraction of living arms. These screening processes provided a rigorous test for the kinetic model and also insight into the conditions, which lead to optimal star formation. Finally, full MWDs are simulated for several RAFT agent/initiator ratios as well as for stars with a varying number of arms. Full MWDs from a star with 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 arms. image Full MWDs from a star with 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 arms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chaffey-Millar et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: