Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The coupling of polymers bearing mutually reactive groups is generally prevented by the low concentration of end‐groups and the immiscibility of the polymers. This can be overcome by an interfacial technique concentrating the reactive groups in the interfacial region. This paper focuses on the effect that an end‐group has on the behaviour of a polymer of opposite philicity at a water‐toluene interface. Measurements of the reduction in interfacial tension promoted by poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) end‐capped by a hydrophobic C10H18 group, and polystyrene (PS) terminated by an ammonium bromide group shed light on the role played by the end‐group in the polymer adsorption. Values of the equilibrium interfacial tension support the conclusion that the adsorption of the hydrophilic polymer (PEO) is largely independent of the C10H18 end‐group whereas the ammonium bromide effectively drives PS to the interfacial region.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paulus et al. (1987) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: