End-growth/evaporation living polymerization kinetics revisited

Journal of Chemical Physics

Volumn 134, Issue 11, 2011, Pages

  Semenov, A N ^a   Nyrkova, I A ^a  

^a INSTITUT CHARLES SADRON   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGGREGATION NUMBERS; ANALYTICAL RESULTS; CHAIN LENGTH DISTRIBUTION; CHAIN SHORTENING; CHARACTERISTIC TIME; CLOSED SYSTEMS; CONTINUOUS APPROACH; DIMER DISSOCIATION; FAST PROCESS; INTERMEDIATE REGIMES; LIVING POLYMERS; LONG CHAINS; NORMAL MODES; NUMERICAL RESULTS; POLYDISPERSES; POLYDISPERSITY INDICES; POLYMERIZATION KINETICS; POWER-LAW; RELAXATION RATES; SLOW RELAXATIONS; UNIMERS;

CHAIN LENGTH; DIMERS; POLYDISPERSITY; POLYMERS; RELAXATION PROCESSES;

LIVING POLYMERIZATION;

EID: 79953218761     PISSN: 00219606     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.3560661     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. S. C. Greer, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 53, 173 (2002). 10.1146/annurev. physchem.53.082301.111949 (Pubitemid 35336251)
2. P. van der Schoot, in Supramolecular Polymers, 2nd ed., edited by, A. Ciferri, (CRC, Boca Raton, 2005).
3. M. E. Cates and S. M. Fielding, Adv. Phys. 55, 799 (2006); 10.1080/00018730601082029 M. E. Cates and S. J. Candau, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2, 6869 (1990). 10.1088/0953-8984/2/33/001
4. P. J. Flory, Principles of Polymer Chemistry (Cornell University, Ithaca, 1953).
5. F. Oosawa and S. Asakura, Thermodynamics of Polymerization of Protein (Academic, San Diego, 1975).
6. J. N. Israelachvili, Intermolecular and Surface Forces (Academic, New York, 1985).
7. The length of n-chain equals n as it is measured in unimer sizes.
8. C. M. Marques, M. S. Turner, and M. E. Cates, J. Chem. Phys. 99, 7260 (1993). 10.1063/1.465419
9. M. S. Turner, C. Marques, and M. E. Cates, Langmuir 9, 695 (1993). 10.1021/la00027a015
10. T. L. Hill, Linear Aggregation Theory in Cell Biology (Springer, New York, 1987).
11. E. D. Korn, M.-F. Carlier, and D. Pantaloni, Science 238, 638 (1987). 10.1126/science.3672117
12. T. D. Pollard and J. A. Cooper, Ann. Rev. Biochem. 55, 987 (1986). 10.1146/annurev.bi.55.070186.005011
13. A. Desai and T. J. Mitchison, Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 13, 83 (1997). 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.13.1.83 (Pubitemid 28034521)
14. H. Flyvbjerg, T. E. Holy, and S. Leibler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2372 (1994). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.2372
15. H. M. Keizer and R. P. Sijbesma, Chem. Soc. Rev. 34, 226 (2005). 10.1039/b312177c (Pubitemid 40444404)
16. T. K. Attwood, J. E. Lydon, C. Hall, and G. J. Tiddy, Liq. Cryst. 7, 657 (1990). 10.1080/02678299008036749
17. A. Miyake and W. H. Stockmayer, Makromol. Chem. 88, 90 (1965). 10.1002/macp.1965.020880107
18. S. C. Greer, Comput. Mater. Sci. 4, 334 (1995). 10.1016/0927-0256(95) 00032-2
19. C. C. Hawker, Acc. Chem. Res. 30, 373 (1997). 10.1021/ar960248m
20. M. K. Georges, P. Veregin, P. M. Kazmaier, and G. K. Hamer, Macromolecules 26, 2987 (1993). 10.1021/ma00063a054
21. F. Bou, J. P. Ambroise, R. Bellissent, and P. Pfeuty, J. Phys. I (France) 2, 969 (1992).
22. H. Rehage and H. Hoffmann, Mol. Phys. 74, 933 (1991). 10.1080/00268979100102721
23. A. Milchev, Y. Rouault, and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. E 56, 1946 (1997). 10.1103/PhysRevE.56.1946
24. J. L.A. Dubbeldum and P. van der Schoot, J. Chem. Phys. 123, 144912 (2005). 10.1063/1.2038887 (Pubitemid 41476754)
25. B. O'Shaughnessy and D. Vavylonis, Eur. Phys. J. E 12, 481 (2003). 10.1140/epje/e2004-00020-9
26. J. D. Wattis and J. R. King, J. Phys. A 31, 7169 (1998). 10.1088/0305-4470/31/34/018 (Pubitemid 128123791)
27. F. Oosawa, J. Theor. Biol. 27, 69 (1970). 10.1016/0022-5193(70)90129-3
28. V. S. Nanda and S. C. Jain, Eur. Polym. J. 6, 1517 (1970). 10.1016/0014-3057(70)90119-9
29. F. C. Auluck, G. C. Gupta, and V. S. Nanda, Pramana J. Phys. 27, 43 (1986). 10.1007/BF02846327
30. -2.
31. 0 1 in the present case.
32. 1 ≃ 1, but does not affect much the CLD for n 1 (see Sec.).
33. A weaker condition, 1, x, ensures that c(x, ) is just close to c(x); however, this latter condition is not sufficient for the validity of Eq..
34. w/2N-1), respectively, in the present paper.
35. f in the present paper.
36. 22 in the present notations.
37. 1=N2/2 is plotted in Fig. according to Eq. (B4) with (t) defined in Eq.
38. The analytical expression for the mean chain length derived in Ref. is approximate as it is based on the approximate results for the unimer and dimer concentrations, and because indirect processes were neglected there, which is a rather uncontrolled approximation introduced to simplify evaluation of the integrals in Eq. (36) of that paper.
39. 2/2 that must be attributed to the horizontal axis in their Figs. 3 and 5.
40. It is important to ensure that the exact equilibrium distribution is the exact stationary solution of the discretized numerical equations. This feature is not kept with some sophisticated accelerated-stabilized numerical techniques to solve differential equations. The robust numerical scheme we used conserves exactly the total mass M. By contrast, an accelerated technique may lead to a weak drift of M generating a parallel drift of the mean chain length N that can be mistaken for a long-time (power-law) relaxation tail.
41. n(t) for t → using Eq..
42. A. Y. Morozov, R. F. Bruinsma, and J. Rudnick, J. Chem. Phys. 131, 155101 (2009). 10.1063/1.3212694
43. B. O'Shaughnessy and D. Vavylonis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 118301 (2003). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.118301
44. 1 is the rate constant of unimer end-evaporation, t is the real time in our notations.
45. I. A. Nyrkova and A. N. Semenov, Eur. Phys. J. E 24, 167 (2007). 10.1140/epje/i2007-10227-y (Pubitemid 50001313)