28.02.2013 Views

Handbook of Solvents - George Wypych - ChemTech - Ventech!

Handbook of Solvents - George Wypych - ChemTech - Ventech!

Handbook of Solvents - George Wypych - ChemTech - Ventech!

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

13.2 Solvent effects on free radical polymerization 787<br />

As an example, the system STY with maleic anhydride (MAH) has been perhaps the<br />

most widely studied EDA system and yet there is still uncertainty concerning the role <strong>of</strong> the<br />

EDA complex in its propagation mechanism. Early studies 82,83 concluded that its behavior<br />

was best modelled by a penultimate model, despite the spectroscopic evidence for EDA<br />

complexes in this system. Later Tsuchida et al. 84,85 fitted an MCP model, based on the evidence<br />

that the rate went through a maximum at 1:1 feed ratio in benzene or CCl4 but in<br />

strong donor solvents no such maximum occurred and instead the rate increased with the<br />

content <strong>of</strong> MAH in the feed. They argued that maximum in rate at 1:1 feed ratios was due to<br />

the fact that propagation occurred via the complex, which had a maximum concentration at<br />

this point. In strong donor solvents, the maximum rate moved to higher concentrations <strong>of</strong><br />

MAH due to competition between the donor and STY for complexation with the MAH.<br />

However, a few years later, Dodgson and Ebdon 86,87 conducted an extensive study <strong>of</strong><br />

STY-MAH in various solvents and discounted the MCP model on the basis <strong>of</strong> an absence <strong>of</strong><br />

a dilution effect with the inert solvent MEK. In an MCP model a dilution effect would be expected<br />

due to the decrease in the relative concentration <strong>of</strong> the comonomer complex and the<br />

enhanced participation <strong>of</strong> the free monomer. 88 Later, Farmer et al. 89 reanalyzed this data and<br />

concluded that the composition data was consistent with both models and suggested sequence<br />

distribution may provide the answer. They also pointed out that there was a small dilution<br />

effect in MEK -greater than that predicted by the penultimate model and less than that<br />

predicted by the MCP model. Hill et al. 90 has suggested that interpretation <strong>of</strong> the effect <strong>of</strong><br />

solvents is complicated by the fact that no solvent is truly inert, hence such results such be<br />

treated with caution. More recently Sanayei et al. 91 have performed a pulsed-laser polymerization<br />

study on STY-MAH copolymerization in butanone and acetonitrile. They concluded<br />

that whilst the complex participation model described the copolymer composition it failed<br />

to predict the average kp data. Consequently the best description <strong>of</strong> this copolymerization<br />

was given by the penultimate unit model.<br />

There have been many other systems for which the MCP model has been proposed as<br />

an alternative to the penultimate unit model. For instance, Litt and Seiner used the MCP<br />

model to describe the composition <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> systems, including MAH with<br />

1-diphenylethylene, β-cyanacrolein with styrene, 92<br />

and vinyl acetate with<br />

dichlorotetrafluoroacetone and with hexafluoroacetone. 80 An MCP model has also been<br />

suggested for the system STY-SO 2. 39,83,93-95 In this system, the composition changes with dilution<br />

or with solvent changes, strongly alternating behavior is observed across a range <strong>of</strong><br />

feed ratios, and one <strong>of</strong> the comonomers (SO 2) does not undergo homopolymerization.<br />

However, while the MCP model appears to be appropriate for some systems, in other<br />

strongly alternating copolymerizations it is clearly not appropriate. For instance, there are<br />

many strongly alternating copolymerizations for which there is no evidence <strong>of</strong> complex formation.<br />

36,39,88,96 Even when complex formation is known to occur, results cannot always be<br />

explained by the MCP model. For instance, measurements <strong>of</strong> sequence distribution data revealed<br />

that, while both the MCP and penultimate model could provide an adequate description<br />

<strong>of</strong> the composition <strong>of</strong> STY with acrylonitrile (AN), only the penultimate model could<br />

account for the sequence distribution data for this system. 97 As will be seen shortly, there is<br />

evidence that in some systems the heat <strong>of</strong> propagation would be sufficient to dissociate the<br />

EDA complex and hence it could not add to the monomer as unit. In this case an MCD<br />

model would be more appropriate. Thus, it might be concluded that the MCP, MCD and the<br />

penultimate models are needed to describe the behavior <strong>of</strong> strongly alternating systems, and

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!