Control of particle morphology and film structures of carboxylated poly(methyl methacrylate)/poly (n‐butylacrylate) composite latex particles

Abstract

Particles with a hard core of 66% poly(methyl methacrylate)/34% poly(n‐butyl acrylate) copolymer and a soft shell of pure poly(n‐butyl acrylate) were synthesized via a two‐stage emulsion polymerization process. The particle morphology and the surface structure of the dispersion films were analyzed by atomic force microscopy (AFM). The results, concerning single particle structure and the corresponding films, are correlated to macroscopic properties similar to the minimum expected from the kinetic side. The different morphologies are compared to the findings reported in a previous article, where the corresponding soft‐core/hard‐shell dispersions were analyzed (Kirsch et al. Colloid Surf A 2001, 183–185, 725). The key parameters to tailor the particle morphology are thermodynamic factors, for example: (i) the stage ratio and (ii) the phase compatibility and kinetic factors affecting the polymer chain mobility (e.g., cross‐linking and polymer glass transition temperature). In this work, we used a core material which is in the glassy state at room temperature, however, above the polymer glass temperature (Tg) at polymerization temperature. The diffusion of the second‐stage polymer chains is therefore strongly affected. From this point of view, the major influence for the current system is expected from the kinetic side. The different morphologies of the single particles are discussed qualitatively and the effects of reaction parameters and our results from previous work are compared to the results of computer simulation work and other results. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 91: 2610–2623, 2004

Stress development and film formation in multiphase composite latexes

“…Computer simulation and microscopic results have shown that film formation of composite particles and the properties of resulting films are influenced by parameters like the T g of the soft and hard phases, the volume fraction of the hard phase (hard/soft phase ratio), and the polymer compatibility between the core and shell. 9 When designed correctly, soft-core/hard-shell particles provide greater film hardness in low VOC paints, because the hard shell reduces the amount of the softer core polymer exposed to the surface. The promise of soft-core/hard-shell latex has led to continued interest in these materials, both in terms of the fundamentals of film formation and also in their application as binders in paint formulations.…”

Contact‐Active Antimicrobial Coatings Derived from Aqueous Suspensions

“…To obtain more elastic films, styrene was copolymerized with butyl acrylate (BA), which affords better film formation, owing to the lower glass transition temperature of the resulting PS-co-PBA copolymer. [23] With increasing BA content, the particle size increases from 150 nm for pure PS to 450 nm for PS-co-PBA with 50 wt % PBA. As expected, films derived from the polymer suspensions of PSco-PBA with PS/PBA ratios (w:w) of 70:30 and 60:40 are transparent and more elastic.…”

Core-shell and other multiphase latex particles—confirming their morphologies and relating those to synthesis variables

“…This may be due in part to the use of two different techniques. From the UNH data it is possible to compare the observed volumetric growth ratio ((D f /D i ) 3 , where D f and D i are the final and seed diameters), to the expected value (taking into account the different polymer densities) because measurements for both the seed and composite latices are available. In the case of system 2, the observed ratio (2.13) is close to that expected (2.2).…”