In this work, we study a symmetric blend of two linear
polymers
containing associating functional groups, which upon association form
supramolecular copolymers with linear or nonlinear architectures.
We use a coarse-grained (CG) model where each polymer backbone is
represented as a chain of isotropically interacting unassociating
and associating CG beads, with each CG bead representing a Kuhn segment.
We first use polymer reference interaction site model (PRISM) theory
to map out the blend phase behavior (i.e., two-phase, disordered/disordered
microphase, or microphase-separated morphologies) as a function of
association strengths (i.e., pair-wise attraction strength between
associating CG beads) and polymer segregation strengths (i.e., effective
interactions between unassociating CG beads). PRISM theory provides
the liquid-state structure and length scales of concentration fluctuations
but does not converge to a numerical solution when the blend undergoes
microphase separation at high association strengths. At those higher
association strengths where PRISM theory fails to converge, we perform
molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to obtain the microphase domain
sizes and information about the molecular packing around associating
beads. We conduct this combined PRISM theory–MD simulation
study for varying placements and compositions of associating beads
(i.e., end versus center placement of one associating bead per chain
and random versus regular placement of multiple associating beads
along chains). We find similar trends in concentration fluctuation
length scales and microphase-separated domain sizes in these blends
with associating groups interacting via isotropic attraction to those
interacting with directional attraction. Our past work focused on
the directional attraction between associating groups had established
that disordered microphase domain sizes are linked to the dispersity
in arm length and branching in the associated copolymer architectures,
which are affected by the placement and composition of associating
groups along the polymer chains; these results are also seen with
isotropic interactions. The one key difference between the directional
association and isotropic association is that the former enforces
a “monovalent” (one–one) interaction between
associating groups, while isotropic association leads to multivalency
(multiple beads associating together). This difference in the valency
of associating groups does not change the dispersity in arm length
in the associated copolymer between directional versus isotropic nature
of association; however, isotropic interactions lead to larger dispersity
in branching than directional interactions. The larger dispersity
in branching leads to morphological differences in particular for
the end associating polymer blends that upon association form miktoarm
stars with isotropic association and linear diblocks with directional
association. Despite these differences in dispersity in branching
arising from the nature of association, we find the same trends, namely...