Polymer brushes via surface-initiated polymerizations

Edmondson, Steve; Osborne, Vicky L.; Huck, Wilhelm T. S.

doi:10.1039/b210143m

Cited by 1,287 publications

(1,143 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,135

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally, there are two ways to anchor polymer chains to the surfaces: by physical adsorption (physisorption) or covalent binding. Covalent attachment improves some disadvantages of physisorption, such as the low thermal and solvent stability obtained with the latter [33][34][35] . The fabrication of polymer brushes can be achieved by the "grafting from" approach, which comprises the addition of a polymerization initiator onto the solid surface followed by the synthesis of polymer chains in situ on the solid substrate 31,34 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antibacterial Properties of hLf1–11 Peptide onto Titanium Surfaces: A Comparison Study Between Silanization and Surface Initiated Polymerization

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental implant failure can be associated to infections which develop into periimplantitis. In order to reduce biofilm formation, several strategies focusing on the use of antimicrobial peptides (AMP) have been studied. To covalently immobilize these molecules onto metallic substrates several techniques have been developed, including silanization and polymer brush prepared by surface-initiated atom transfer radical polymerization (ATRP), with varied peptide binding yield and antibacterial performance. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficiency of these methods to immobilize the lactoferrin-derived hLf1-11 antibacterial peptide onto titanium, and evaluate their antibacterial activity in vitro.Smooth titanium samples were coated with hLf1-11 peptide under three different conditions: silanization with APTES, and polymer brush based coatings with two different silanes. Peptide presence was determined by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and the mechanical stability of the coatings was studied under ultrasonication. The LDH assays confirmed that HFFs viability and proliferation were no affected by the treatments. The in vitro antibacterial properties of the modified surfaces were tested with two oral strains (Streptococcus sanguinis and Lactobacillus salivarius) showing an outstanding reduction. A higher decrease in bacterial attachment was noticed when samples were modified by ATRP methods compared to silanization. This effect is likely due to the capacity to immobilize more peptide on the surfaces using polymer brushes and the non-fouling nature of polymer PDMA segment.3

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antibacterial Properties of hLf1–11 Peptide onto Titanium Surfaces: A Comparison Study Between Silanization and Surface Initiated Polymerization

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Very often they are responsive to external and/or environmental stimuli, such as electric fields [6,7], temperature [5,8], pH [9,10], and salt [11,12]. In recent years, polymer brushes have been shown to be a useful class of materials for many medical and biological applications [13,14]. For example, custom synthetic polymers have great potential in drug delivery and molecular recognition [15], and tethering polymer chains onto surfaces can effectively reduce friction [16,17], and control adhesion [18][19][20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The comb, composed of a hydrophobic poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) backbone with responsive poly[2-(dimethyl amino)ethyl methacrylate)] (PDMAEMA) side-chains, is self assembled into a brush conformation via the Langmuir-Schaefer (LS) method and deposited onto hydrophobized silicon surfaces. A homogeneous PDMAEMA brush is grafted from silicon surfaces using atom transfer radical polymerization (ATRP) [13]. For convenience, the comb refers to the polymer prepared by Ôgrafting-toÕ method, whilst brush refers to those prepared by the Ôgrafting-fromÕ method, even though both methods do, in fact, produce brush surfaces.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of the molar mass of surface-grafted weak polyelectrolyte brushes using force spectroscopy

Al-Baradi

Tomlinson

Zhang³

et al. 2015

Polymer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The molar mass and dispersity of a polycation, poly[2-(dimethyl amino)ethyl methacrylate)] (PDMAEMA) grafted from a poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) backbone, was measured by single-molecule force spectroscopy (SMFS) and shown to be consistent with results from gel permeation chromatography for the same comb polymer in aqueous solution. Comparison was then made between the comb polymer and PDMAEMA brushes that were grown from the substrate, as a function of the pH and ionic strength of the surrounding medium, and the limits of reliable characterization of the polymers are determined. A large discrepancy was observed between the responses of the comb and brush layer at low pH when the PDMAEMA molecules are extended from the supporting substrate. Here it is believed that the atomic force microscope (AFM) tip can penetrate the comb layer and selectively desorb side-chains of the comb. In the case of the well solvated PDMAEMA brushes at high pH, the tip preferentially selects larger chains, resulting in an over-estimate of the brush molar mass. The addition of salt also influenced the molar mass obtained by this technique. It is believed that salted brushes did not adhere well to the AFM tip, with subsequent desorption resulting in an underestimate of the molar mass. However, SMFS was shown to be capable of demonstrating the effect of salt on brush conformation, with greater swelling after the addition of a small amount of NaCl, but a significant decrease when 100 mM is added.

show abstract

“…Previous works using polymer brushes for surface modifications required direct chemical reaction on the substrates, which were difficult to clean and could contaminate other functional parts on the substrate. 31 In addition, it is difficult to directly functionalize nonreactive polymer substrates, such as PTFE and PET, because of the lack of effective anchoring groups. These challenges can be readily overcome by transferring pre-made functional polymer@graphene 2D objects onto desirable substrates.…”

Section: Polymer@graphene 2d Objects T Gao Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

Transferable, transparent and functional polymer@graphene 2D objects

Gao

Liu

et al. 2014

NPG Asia Mater

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compared with inorganic two-dimensional (2D) materials, such as graphene and transition metal dichalcogenides, organic 2D materials are believed to possess more interesting chemical and biological properties for certain applications, such as separation membranes, smart surfaces, sensors, catalysis and drug delivery. However, the study of organic 2D materials is largely hindered because of the lack of effective methods to produce them. This paper presents a new type of organic 2D material, namely 'polymer@graphene 2D objects', that can be synthesized via a simple and scalable chemistry. Polymer@graphene 2D objects are made of functional polymer brushes that tether one end of the polymer chain on the surface of graphene sheets via non-covalent p-p stacking interactions. These materials are transparent, freestanding, lightweight, flexible, transferable to various substrates with good stability and are patternable into different structures. Their functionality can be tailored by changing the polymer brushes that are immobilized. In this paper, we demonstrate the applications of these 2D objects in the smart control of surface wettability and DNA biosensors. INTRODUCTION Two-dimensional (2D) inorganic materials including graphene 1-3 and various transition metal dichalcogenides 4-6 have received tremendous attention in the past decade because of their unique properties and wide applications in optics and electronics. These remarkable phenomena have recently attracted research interest in 2D organic materials, including 2D polymers 7-10 and quasi-2D polymers. [11][12][13][14][15] The focus has mainly been on their chemical and biological properties and their applications as separation membranes, smart surfaces and sensors, and for catalysis and drug delivery. However, the 2D polymers reported to date are only limited to very specific building blocks and microscale sizes because of the lack of robust methods to produce them. On the other hand, the preparation of quasi-2D polymers either requires the undesirable crosslinking of the materials, using expensive and opaque novel metal supports, or high-energy electron beams. 16,17 Therefore, the investigation of the fundamental properties as well as practical applications of these organic 2D materials have remained largely hindered.In this paper, we report the development of a new type of functional organic 2D material, namely 'polymer@graphene 2D objects' , which are prepared in a cost-effective and high-throughput manner. Polymer@graphene 2D objects are made of functional

show abstract

Polymer brushes via surface-initiated polymerizations

Cited by 1,287 publications

References 36 publications

Antibacterial Properties of hLf1–11 Peptide onto Titanium Surfaces: A Comparison Study Between Silanization and Surface Initiated Polymerization

Antibacterial Properties of hLf1–11 Peptide onto Titanium Surfaces: A Comparison Study Between Silanization and Surface Initiated Polymerization

Determination of the molar mass of surface-grafted weak polyelectrolyte brushes using force spectroscopy

Transferable, transparent and functional polymer@graphene 2D objects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About