Synthesis and structures of zwitterionic polymers to induce electrostatic interaction with PDMS surface treated by air-plasma

Article abstract of DOI:10.24820/ark.5550190.p010.321

Various zwitterionic polymers, sulfobetaine and phosphoryl choline derivatives were synthesized in order to investigate zwitterionic polymer structures toward surface modification of PDMS, where the adsorption of zwitterionic polymers on polydimethylsiloxane surface treated with air-plasma was induced by the electrostatic interaction,. The electrostatic interaction was evaluated with hydrophilicity. The results suggested that a sulfobetaine polymer with higher molecular weight, lower molecular weight distribution, and shorter alkyl chain afforded high electrostatic interaction. A sulfobetaine polymer bearing phenylazide group showed similar electrostatic interaction with the PDMS surface, and it is a promising material for surface modification ofpolydimethylsiloxane.

Full text of DOI:10.24820/ark.5550190.p010.321

The Free Internet Journal
for Organic Chemistry
Paper
Archive for
Arkivoc 2018, part ii, 330-343
Organic Chemistry
Synthesis and structures of zwitterionic polymers to induce electrostatic
interaction with PDMS surface treated by air-plasma
Mutsuo Tanaka,* Yoshiki Hirata, Takahiro Sawaguchi, and Shigeru Kurosawa*
Health Research Institute, Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), 1-1-1, Higashi, Tsukuba, Ibaraki,
305-8566, Japan
Email: mutsuo-tanaka@aist.go.jp
Dedicated to Professor Kenneth K. Laali on the occasion of his 65th anniversary
Received 08-28-2017
Accepted 01-30-2018
Published on line 03-04-2018
Abstract
Various zwitterionic polymers, sulfobetaine and phosphoryl choline derivatives were synthesized in order to
investigate zwitterionic polymer structures toward surface modification of PDMS, where the adsorption of
zwitterionic polymers on polydimethylsiloxane surface treated with air-plasma was induced by the
electrostatic interaction,. The electrostatic interaction was evaluated with hydrophilicity. The results
suggested that a sulfobetaine polymer with higher molecular weight, lower molecular weight distribution, and
shorter alkyl chain afforded high electrostatic interaction. A sulfobetaine polymer bearing phenylazide group
showed similar electrostatic interaction with the PDMS surface, and it is a promising material for surface
modification ofpolydimethylsiloxane.
Keywords: Surface modification, zwitterionic, polymer, electrostatic, sulfobetaine
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24820/ark.5550190.p010.321
Page 330
©ARKAT USA, Inc

Arkivoc 2018, ii, 330-343
Tanaka, M. et al.
Introduction
Zwitterionic polymers whose monomers have positive and negative charges in the same molecule are well
known as one of biocompatible materials. Among zwitterionic polymers, phosphoryl choline and sulfobetaine
groups are common as functional groups. Those polymers are really attractive as surface modification
materials in biosensor field. The surfaces modified with those polymers show high resistance against non-
specific adsorption of proteins with hydrophilicity,1-5 where these surface properties are highly recommended
to realize high performance for biosensor systems. Therefore, various zwitterionic polymers have been
synthesized and evaluated for that purpose. While zwitterionic polymers are used as coating materials,6-10 it is
reported that interfacial polymerization of zwitterionic monomers by atom transfer radical polymerization
(ATRP) affords a surface modified with polymer brushes to show high resistance against non-specific
adsorption of proteins with hydrophilicity.11-16
On the other hand, the application of micro flow channel for biosensor system has been studied
extensively since micro flow channel has potential to enhance performance of sensors.17-19
Polydimethylsiloxane, PDMS is the most common material to fabricate micro flow channel. However, there is
a critical problem to use PDMS as material for micro flow channel. The surface of polydimethylsiloxane
(PDMS) is strongly hydrophobic to disturb flow of aqueous samples due to the surface tension when the micro
flow channel is narrow. As it is reported that PDMS surface is oxidized by plasma, corona discharge, and UV-
treatment to form a silica-like layer to show hydrophilicity,20-26 many attempts of surface treatments to obtain
hydrophilic PDMS surface were conducted. However, the PDMS surface recovered hydrophobicity soon
because of molecular mobility of PDMS.20-24 Only a few examples of surface modification using interfacial
polymerization are reported to afford hydrophilic PDMS surface without recovering of hydrophobicity.27,28
There are some intriguing reports about coating methods for silica surface, where the coating with
cationic polymers is successful to afford a durable modified surface due to electrostatic interaction29,30
because silica surface is negatively charged.31 In polymer coating, the electrostatic interaction sometimes
plays crucial role to afford a durable modified surface by formation of polyion-complexes.32-34 Furthermore, it
is reported that annealing treatment of coating surface with polymers enhances electrostatic interaction by
structural arrangement of polymers due to their flexibility.35 The surface of PDMS treated by air-plasma is
known to be silica-like, but the molecule at the surface seems to be flexible enough to recover
hydrophobicity.20-24 Therefore, we expected that zwitterionic polymers might have some potential to interact
with the PDMS surface by the electrostatic interaction similar to cationic polymers. The examination revealed
that zwitterionic polymers are adsorbed on the PDMS surface treated with air-plasma to afford hydrophilic
surface.36 In this work, we studied on the relationship between structures of zwitterionic polymers and
electrostatic interaction toward modification of PDMS surface.
Results and Discussion
Zwitterionic polymers synthesized in this work are shown in Scheme 1,. Synthesis procedures are described in
Experimental Section. In cases of sulfobetaine monomers, we adopted amide bond to combine sulfobetaine
moiety with methacryl moiety in molecular design, because amide bond resists non-specific adsorption of
proteins37 and hydrolysis more effectively than ester bond under common conditions.
Page 331
©ARKAT USA, Inc

Arkivoc 2018, ii, 330-343
Tanaka, M. et al.
Scheme 1. Synthesized Zwitterionic Polymers.
In our previous work,36 we found that the adsorption of sulfobetaine and phosphoryl choline polymers
on the PDMS surface treated with air-plasma, afforded hydrophilic PDMS surface. The adsorption of
zwitterionic polymers on the PDMS surface was strong enough to resist ultrasonic cleaning in water. The
hydrophilicity of PDMS surface was kept even after 1 month of the modification, while the PDMS surface only
treated with air-plasma recovered hydrophobicity within four days due to molecular mobility of PDMS as
reported before.20-26 The results suggest that the zwitterionic polymers were adsorbed on the PDMS surface
treated with air-plasma to suppress molecular mobility of PDMS effectively by the electrostatic interaction as
expected. In control experiments, the PDMS surface modified with a monomer solution of C3SB by the same
procedure, recovered hydrophobicity soon. Therefore, it is evident that the adsorption of zwitterionic
polymers on the treated PDMS surface is derived from polymer effect, and the electrostatic interaction is
strong enough to suppress molecular mobility of PDMS leading to a durable hydrophilic surface as illustrated
in Figure 1.
n
zwitterionic polymer
− ＋
OC
NH
＋ −
− ＋
− ＋
＋ −
＋ −
＋ −
Me N+ Me
δ
δ
δ
δ
＋
−
oxidized PDMS surface（silica-like）
-
SO3
zwitterionic polymer
Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of Adsorbed Zwitterionic Polymer.
It is known that molecular mobility depends on temperature and it is enhanced at higher temperature.
Therefore, in order to evaluate strength of the electrostatic interaction, heat treatment was applied to the
PDMS modified with zwitterionic polymers, and the shift in contact angle was examined. The heat treatment
conditions were at 60 ˚C for 12 h and at 100 ˚C for 5 h. The contact angles are summarized in Table 1 with
Page 332
©ARKAT USA, Inc

Arkivoc 2018, ii, 330-343
Tanaka, M. et al.
molecular weight (M.W.) and molecular weight distribution (M.W.D.) for zwitterionic polymers. With
treatment at 60 ˚C for 12 h, the PDMS modified with MPC showed significant increase in contact angle, and
the contact angle of PDMS modified with C6SB increased moderately. However, the PDMS modified with
C2SB and C3SB did not show meaningful shift in contact angle under this condition. The results showed that
the electrostatic interaction with C2SB and C3SB is stronger than that with C6SB and MPC. Then, the PDMS
modified with C2SB and C3SB were exposed a harsher condition, at 100 ˚C for 5h. In Table 1, the contact angle
for C3SB was marginally lower than that for C2SB. Taking the polymer effect into account, this result does not
indicate that C3SB has superior effect to suppress molecular mobility of PDMS by the electrostatic interaction
compared with C2SB because the molecular weight of C3SB is far greater than that of C2SB.
Table 1. Contact angle shift by heat treatment
polymer
r.t., 4days
60 ˚C, 12h
100 ˚C, 5h
M.W.
none
C2SB
12.8±3.4
13.8±1.9
33.4±6.0
17000
C3SB
14.1±6.2
14.6±3.8
25.5±4.8
41000
C6SB
14.0±4.7
32.7±2.7
−
MPC
21.9±6.8
48.0±8.3
−
95.2±0.6
−
−
−
−
19000
8.9
67000
8.8
M.W.D.
12.2
9.3
Subsequently, the influence of the polymer effect on the electrostatic interaction was examined by
using various C2SB and C3SB polymers, being different in molecular weight and molecular weight distribution.
In the polymer synthesis, a common polymerization method using various amount of azobisisobutyronitrile
(AIBN) was employed. In the case of C2SB monomer, there was some difficulty to obtain various polymers
because of high reactivity of the monomer. To the contrary, C3SB monomer afforded various polymers in the
molecular weight distribution, which decreased significantly with the decrease of AIBN amount. However, the
molecular weights for the obtained C3SB polymers were between 30000 ~ 40000 regardless of the AIBN
amount. Attempts to obtain C3SB polymers with higher molecular weight by ATRP were failed. Therefore, we
examined the mechano-chemical reaction with C3SB monomer, in which a radical is formed mechanically to
induce polymerization reaction in solid phase.38,39 The obtained sulfobetaine polymer, C3SB-M had the
highest molecular weight, where the molecular weight was 78000. This result implies that the mechano-
chemical reaction is useful to obtain high molecular weight polymers.
The contact angles for the PDMS, modified with those polymers, were measured after heat treatment
at 100 ˚C for 5 h. The molecular weight and molecular weight distribution for the obtained polymers are
summarized in Table 2 with the contact angles. The contact angles in Table 2 showed that the difference in
both molecular weight and molecular weight distribution influences on the electrostatic interaction
significantly. In Table 2, the contact angle for C3SB-M was the lowest indicating that higher molecular weight
induces strong electrostatic interaction to suppress the molecular mobility of PDMS. On the other hand,
comparison among the C3SB polymers synthesized by AIBN method demonstrated that polymers with
narrower molecular weight distribution is more effective to suppress the molecular mobility of PDMS by the
strong electrostatic interaction because the contact angle decreased with narrower molecular weight
distribution. In addition, the comparison among C2SB-2, C3SB, and C3SB-2 suggested that C2SB could induce
Page 333
©ARKAT USA, Inc

Arkivoc 2018, ii, 330-343
Tanaka, M. et al.
stronger electrostatic interaction than C3SB when molecular weight and molecular weight distribution were
the same. Therefore, the order of effect to suppress the molecular mobility of PDMS by the electrostatic
interaction was C2SB > C3SB > C6SB reflecting to the length of alkyl chains between sulfobetaine and
methacryl groups. These tendencies show that zwitterionic polymers with higher molecular weight, narrower
molecular weight distribution, and shorter alkyl chain are more effective to suppress the molecular mobility of
PDMS being proportional to strength of the electrostatic interaction.
Table 2. Contact angles depending on M.W. and M.W.D.
polymer
M.W.
C2SB
17000
12.2
C2SB-2
22000
10.1
C3SB
41000
9.3
C3SB-2
29000
8.1
C3SB-3
33000
5.8
C3SB-4
38000
4.9
C3SB-M
78000
9.6
M.W.D.
r.t.,
12.8±3.4 9.2±2.6 14.1±6.2 13.7±2.3 10.4±3.3 8.5±2.4
8.0±1.6
4days
100˚C, 5h 33.4±6.0 22.4±2.4 25.5±4.8 22.5±5.3 18.3±6.7 14.6±4.6 14.4±3.8
The polymerization was carried out using C2SB monomer (5mmol) and methanol (45mL) at 60˚C for
12h in the presence of AIBN (0.25 and 0.05 mmol) for C2SB and C2SB-2, respectively. In the case of
C3SB monomer (5mmol), the polymerization was carried out using methanol (30mL) at 60˚C for 12h
in the presence of AIBN (0.25, 0.1, and 0.05 mmol) for C3SB and C3SB-2, C3SB-3, and C3SB-4,
respectively. C3SB-M represents the mechano-chemical polymerization.
Generally, in the surface modification, formation of covalent bond between substrate and the surface
modification material is desirable for robust modification. Therefore, a sulfobetaine copolymer bearing
phenylazide group to form covalent bond by UV light irradiation40,41 was synthesized (Scheme 2). After 4 days
of modification with the copolymer, the contact angle was 14.8˚ in which the copolymer showed similar
electrostatic interaction with the PDMS surface. After UV-light irradiation, the PDMS surface still kept high
hydrophilicity with contact angle 18.2˚ although slight increase was observed. Similarly, in control
experiments using C3SB, UV-light irradiation induced some increase of contact angle. Therefore, the increase
of contact angle was caused by UV light irradiation, but not by covalent formation of the copolymer. The
results imply that zwitterionic copolymer bearing a functional group to form covalent bond is promising
material for surface modification of PDMS.
We also examined the surface roughness of PDMS treated with air-plasma (100W) using atomic force
microscope (AFM) as surface roughness is known to influence significantly the hydrophilicity. The AFM
observation showed that the surface of PDMS became smooth by air-plasma treatment, as the surface
roughness (Ra) of PDMS was decreased from 1.3 nm to 0.4 nm (Figure 2). Therefore, it is obvious that the
hydrophilicity of modified PDMS surface reflects properties of the zwitterionic polymers adsorbed on the
PDMS surface but not surface roughness of PDMS. Furthermore, influence of air-plasma power for surface
treatment on contact angle shift was examined. The surface treatment of PDMS was conducted with100W
and 200W air-plasma power, and the modified PDMS was treated at 100˚C for 5h. The contact angles after 4
days of the modification at room temperature were 14.1±6.2˚ and 9.6±1.0˚ with 100W and 200W air-plasma
power, respectively, showing that hydrophilicity of PDMS surface was enhanced by higher air-plasma power.
Page 334
©ARKAT USA, Inc

Arkivoc 2018, ii, 330-343
Tanaka, M. et al.
After heat treatment, the contact angles shifted to 25.5±4.8˚ and 27.2±7.2˚ for 100W and 200W air-plasma
power, respectively. The shift of contact angle is more noticeable for 200W air-plasma power. The result
implies that the harsher surface treatment with air-plasma afforded more hydrophilic PDMS surface but
durability of the hydrophilic PDMS surface is not always proportional to the hydrophilicity. This tendency is
coincident that the harsher surface treatment not only forms thicker silica-like layer to show hydrophilicity but
also causes degradation of polymer network with formation of mobile species to lead recovery of hydrophobi
city as reported before.20-23
Scheme 2. Synthesis of Zwitterionic Copolymer.
Ra=1.30 nm
Ra=0.64 nm
Ra=0.39 nm
before UV treatment
after UV treatment
after C3SB modification
Figure 2. AFM Imags of PDMS.
Conclusions
It was found that the adsorption of zwitterionic polymers occurs on PDMS surface treated with air-plasma to
suppress molecular mobility of PDMS by the electrostatic interaction, and a sulfobetaine polymer with higher
Page 335
©ARKAT USA, Inc

Arkivoc 2018, ii, 330-343
Tanaka, M. et al.
molecular weight, lower molecular weight distribution, and shorter alkyl chain affords stronger electrostatic
interaction. The PDMS surface modified with sulfobetaine polymers is quite durable to resist ultrasonic
cleaning and keep hydrophilicity even after heat treatment at 100 ˚C for 5 h. Furthermore, a sulfobetaine
copolymer bearing phenylazide group to form covalent bond by UV light irradiation showed similar
electrostatic interaction with the PDMS surface. These findings will pave the way for development of a new
surface modification method for PDMS.
Experimental Section
General. All chemicals were commercially available and used as received without additional purification. MPC
monomer was purchased and used as received. All aqueous solutions were prepared using pure water
obtained from a Millipore system. PDMS used in this work was Silicone Rubber Sheet, AS ONE 1.0t x 30 x
10mm. A plasma device, YHS-R, Sakigake Semiconductor Ltd. was used for surface treatment of PDMS.
Contact angle was measured with a contact angle meter, Smart Contact PRO 100, Excimer Co. Ltd. within 2
min after putting droplet on PDMS.
Surface treatment with air-plasma. Surface of PDMS was treated with air-plasma before surface modification.
The air-plasma irradiation condition was output:100W or 200W, pressure:50 Pa, air flow:100 mL/min,
irradiation period:3 min.
Surface modification and heat treatment of PDMS. After air-plasma treatment, the PDMS was immersed in
water solution of polymers (1mg/mL) for 10 min. The PDMS was rinsed for 1 min under sonication and dried
with nitrogen blowing. The modified PDMS was treated at room temperature for 4 days, 60 ˚C for 12 h, or 100
˚C for 5 h using a dryer.
Surface modification with covalent bond. UV light was irradiated to the modified PDMS surface for 5 min. A
Hg-Xe lamp (200W, Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.) was used for UV light irradiation. After UV light irradiation,
the sample was rinsed for 1 min under sonication and dried with nitrogen blowing.
AFM analysis of PDMS surface. AFM images were collected by NanoScope IIIa Multi- mode AFM (Veeco
Instruments Inc., Santa Barbara, CA) in tapping mode under ambient conditions. Silicon cantilevers with a
nominal resonance frequency of 300~400 kHz, force constant ~120 N/m, tip radius < 10 nm (ppp-NCH-AuD,
Nano World Holding AG, Schaffhausen, Switzerland) were used in the AFM experiments. Images were
analyzed using the software provided by the manufacturer.
Synthesis of C2SB monomer
Synthesis of dimethylaminoethyl methacryl amide. To a three-necked flask, dimethylethylene diamine (1.76
g, 20 mmol), triethylamine (4.04 g, 40 mmol), and THF (200 mL) were put, and the mixture was stirred at 0 ˚C.
To the mixture, a THF solution (20 mL) of methacryloyl chloride (2.61 g, 25 mmol) was added dropwise. The
reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature for 12 h. The reaction mixture was poured to 5wt%
aqueous sodium carbonate, and the product was extracted with chloroform. After the solvent was
Page 336
©ARKAT USA, Inc

Arkivoc 2018, ii, 330-343
Tanaka, M. et al.
evaporated, the obtained crude product was purified with silica-gel column chromatography (eluent;
chloroform:methanol = 100:2 then 100:25 vol.): pale yellow liquid, yield 81%. 1H-NMR (CDCl3, 400 MHz) δ 1.96
(3H, s), 2.26 (6H, s), 2.47 (2H, t, J 6.00 Hz), 3.39 (2H, q, J 5.65 Hz), 5.31 (1H, s), 5.70 (1H, s), 6.54 (1H, s).
Synthesis of C2SB monomer. Dimethylaminoethyl methacryl amide (1.56 g, 10 mmol) and dry acetone (120
mL) were put to a three-necked flask, and the mixture was stirred at room temperature. To the mixture, an
acetone solution (20 mL) of 1,3-propanesultone (1.83 g, 15 mmol) was added, and the mixture was stirred for
48 h at room temperature. The solvent was evaporated, and the obtained solid was rinsed with acetone:
colorless solid (The m.p. was not determined due to polymerization.), yield 78%. 1H-NMR (CD3OD, 400 MHz) δ
1.95 (3H, s), 2.17~2.24 (2H, m), 2.87 (2H, t, J 6.74 Hz), 3.17 (6H, s), 3.47 (2H, t, J 6.90 Hz), 3.54~3.62 (2H, m),
3.70 (2H, t, J 6.82 Hz), 5.45 (1H, s), 5.76 (1H, s); Anal. Calcd. for C11H22N2O4S: C, 47.46; H, 7.97; N, 10.06. Found: C,
46.83; H, 8.00; N,8.93 ; m/z: 279 (M + H+).
Synthesis of C3SB monomer
Synthesis of C3SB monomer. Dimethylaminopropyl methacryl amide (1.70 g, 10 mmol) and dry acetone (120
mL) were put to a three-necked flask, and the mixture was stirred at room temperature. To the mixture, an
acetone solution (20 mL) of 1,3-propanesultone (1.83 g, 15 mmol) was added, and the mixture was stirred for
48 h at room temperature. The solvent was evaporated, and the obtained solid was rinsed with acetone:
colorless solid (The m.p. was not determined due to polymerization.), yield 98%. 1H-NMR (CD3OD, 400 MHz) δ
1.95 (3H, s), 1.98~2.08 (2H, m), 2.14~2.24 (2H, m), 2.87 (2H, t, J 6.72 Hz), 3.10 (6H, s) 3.31~3.56 (6H, m), 5.41
(1H, s), 5.74 (1H, s); Anal. Calcd. for C12H24N2O4S: C, 49.29; H, 8.27; N, 9.58. Found: C, 48.93; H, 8.44; N, 9.28; m/z: 293
(M + H+).
Synthesis of C6SB monomer
Synthesis of dimethylaminohexyl chloride. To a three-necked flask, 6-dimethylamino hexanol (14.5 g, 100
mmol), pyridine (9.50 g, 120 mmol), and benzene (200 mL) were put, and the mixture was stirred at room
temperature. To the mixture, a benzene solution (30 mL) of thionyl chloride (14.3 g, 120 mmol) was added
dropwise, and the reaction mixture was stirred and refluxed for 12 h. The reaction mixture was allowed to
cool at room temperature, and water (10 mL) was added dropwise. The reaction mixture was stirred at room
temperature for 1 h, and poured into 5wt% aqueous sodium carbonate. The organic layer was separated, and
the solvent was evaporated. The product obtained by solvent evaporation was dried under vacuum condition,
and used for the subsequent reaction without purification: pale brown liquid, yield quantitative.
Page 337
©ARKAT USA, Inc

Arkivoc 2018, ii, 330-343
Tanaka, M. et al.
Synthesis of dimethylaminohexyl azide. Crude dimethylaminohexyl chloride (16.4 g, 100 mmol) and DMF (600
mL) were put to a three-necked flask, and the mixture was stirred at room temperature. To the mixture,
sodium azide (13.0 g, 200 mmol) was added, and the mixture was stirred at 80 ˚C for 24 h. The reaction
mixture was allowed to cool at room temperature, and poured to 5wt% aqueous sodium carbonate. The
product was extracted with chloroform. The organic layer was acidified with conc. hydrochloric acid, and
organic solvent was evaporated. To the obtained residue, 5wt% aqueous sodium carbonate was poured, and
the product was extracted with chloroform. The product obtained by solvent evaporation was purified with
silica-gel column chromatography (eluent; chloroform:methanol = 100:1 then 100:10 vol.): pale brown liquid,
yield 53%. 1H-NMR (CDCl3, 400 MHz) δ 1.28~1.66 (8H, m), 2.22 (6H, s), 2.25 (2H, t, J 7.44 Hz), 3.26 (2H, t, J 6.94
Hz).
Synthesis of dimethylaminohexyl amine. To an autoclave, dimethylaminohexyl azide (8.51 g, 50 mmol),
palladium carbon (5wt%, 1.00 g), and ethanol (150 mL) were put, and the autoclave was sealed. Hydrogen
was introduced to the autoclave, and the reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature for 6 h under 8
atm hydrogen atmosphere. The autoclave was depressurized, and the reaction mixture was filtrated to
remove palladium carbon. The product obtained by solvent evaporation was dried under vacuum condition,
1
and used for the subsequent reaction without purification: colorless liquid, yield 90%. H-NMR (CDCl3,
400MHz) 1.28~1.62 (8H, m), 2.27 (6H, s), 2.33 (2H, t, J 7.56 Hz), 2.78 (2H, t, J 7.18 Hz).
Synthesis of dimethylaminohexyl methacryl amide. To a three-necked flask, dimethylaminohexyl amine (2.89
g, 20 mmol), triethylamine (4.04 g, 40 mmol), and THF (200 mL) were put, and the mixture was stirred at 0 ˚C.
To the mixture, a THF solution (20 mL) of methacryloyl chloride (2.61 g, 25 mmol) was added dropwise. The
reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature for 12h. The reaction mixture was poured to 5wt% aqueous
sodium carbonate, and the product was extracted with chloroform. After the solvent was evaporated, the
obtained crude product was purified with silica-gel column chromatography (eluent; chloroform:methanol =
100:5 then 100:25 vol.): pale yellow liquid, yield 94%. 1H-NMR (CDCl3, 400 MHz) δ 1.26~1.59 (8H, m), 1.96 (3H,
s), 2.26 (6H, s), 2.31 (2H, t, J 7.62 Hz), 3.29 (2H, q, J 6.72 Hz), 5.31 (1H, s), 5.67 (1H, s).
Synthesis of C6SB monomer. Dimethylaminohexyl methacryl amide (2.12 g, 10 mmol) and dry acetone (120
mL) were put to a three-necked flask, and the mixture was stirred at room temperature. To the mixture, an
acetone solution (20 mL) of 1,3-propanesultone (1.83 g, 15 mmol) was added, and the mixture was stirred for
48 h at room temperature. The solvent was evaporated, and the obtained solid was rinsed with acetone:
colorless solid (The m.p. was not determined due to polymerization.), yield 52%. 1H-NMR (CD3OD, 400 MHz) δ
1.36~1.83 (8H, m), 1.93 (3H, s), 2.13~2.24 (2H, m), 2.87 (2H, t, J 6.78 Hz), 3.09 (6H, s), 3.21~3.55 (6H, m), 5.35
(1H, s), 5.68 (1H, s); Anal. Calcd. for C15H30N2O4S: C, 53.87; H, 9.04; N, 8.38. Found: C, 53.10; H, 9.03; N, 7.87; m/z: 335
(M + H+).
Polymerization procedures with AIBN. To a flask, monomer (5 mmol), 2,2-azobis-isobutyronitrile (41 mg, 0.25
mmol or 16 mg, 0.1 mmol or 8.2 mg, 0.05 mmol), and solvent (methanol for C2SB (45 mL), C3SB (30 mL), and
C6SB (30mL) monomer, a mixture of THF (30 mL) and methanol (10 mL) for MPC monomer) were put and
degassed. The mixture was warmed and stood at 60 ℃ for 12 h. To the reaction mixture, methanol (30 mL)
was added. The reaction mixture was stood for overnight, and the polymer obtained as precipitate was
collecterd and rinsed with methanol. The yields of polymers were 88, 83, 93, 88, 82, 77, 38%, and quantitative
for C2SB, C2SB-2, C3SB, C3SB-2, C3SB-3, C3SB-4, C6SB, and MPC, respectively. The polymers were colorless
solid. In NMR measurements, peaks derived from monomers were not observed in all polymers.
Polymerization procedures with mechano-chemical reaction. To a jar (1.5 mL, stainless steel), C3SB monomer
(50 mg) was put and degassed. The jar was sealed under nitrogen atmosphere and set on a ball mill, Mixer
Mill MM400, Verder Scientific GmbH & Co. KG. The jar was shaken at 30 Hz for 2h at room temperature. The
Page 338
©ARKAT USA, Inc

Arkivoc 2018, ii, 330-343
Tanaka, M. et al.
jar was open, and the formed polymer was collected and rinsed with methanol. The polymer was colorless
solid with 86% yield. In NMR measurements, peaks derived from monomer were not observed.
Synthesis of copolymer
Synthesis of 4-azidobenzoic acid. To a three-necked flask, 4-aminobenzoic acid (6.86 g, 50 mmol), ethanol
(500 mL), and conc. hydrochloric acid (250 mL) were put, and the mixture was stirred at 0 ˚C. To the mixture,
an aqueous solution (100 mL) of sodium nitrite (5.18 g, 75 mmol) was added dropwise. The reaction mixture
was stirred at 0 ℃ for 1h. This diazonium solution was kept at 0 ℃ for the subsequent reaction.
Sodium azide (32.5 g, 500 mmol), ethanol (250 mL), and water (250 mL) were put into a three-necked flask,
and the mixture was stirred at 0 ℃. To the solution, the prepared diazonium solution was added dropwise,
and the reaction mixture was sirred at room temperature for 24 h. Ethanol was evaporated, and the product
was extracted with chloroform twice. The product obtained by solvent evaporation was dried under vacuum
condition, and used for the subsequent reaction without purification: pale yellow solid, yield quantitative. 1H-
NMR (CD3OD, 400 MHz) δ 7.15 (2H, d, J 8.84 Hz), 8.04 (2H, d, J 8.84 Hz).
Synthesis of 4-azidobenzoyl chloride. To a flask, 4-azidobenzoic acid (3.26g, 20 mmol), oxalic chloride (5.08 g,
40 mmol), and benzene (300 mL) were put, and the mixture was stirred at room temperature. To the solution,
4 drops of DMF was added, and the reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature for 6 h. Benzene and
excess oxalic chloride was evaporated, and the obtained product was dried under vacuum condition, and used
for the subsequent reaction without purification: pale brown liquid, yield quantitative.
Synthesis of monoBoc-piperazine. Piperazine (12.9 g, 150 mmol), sodium hydroxide (1.20 g, 30 mmol), 1,4-
dioxane (75 mL), and water (75 mL) were put into a three-necked flask, and the mixture was stirred at 0 oC. To
the mixture, a dioxane solution (50 mL) of di-t-butyl dicarbonate (6.54 g, 30 mmol) was added dropwise at 0
oC, and the reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature for 12 h. The reaction mixture was poured to
5wt% aqueous sodium carbonate, and the product was extracted with chloroform. The product obtained by
solvent evaporation was dried under vacuum condition, and used for the subsequent reaction without
purification: colorless solid, yield 80%. 1H-NMR (CDCl3, 400 MHz) δ 1.46 (9H, s), 2.81 (4H, t, J 4.96 Hz), 3.39 (4H,
t, J 5.06 Hz).
Page 339
©ARKAT USA, Inc

Arkivoc 2018, ii, 330-343
Tanaka, M. et al.
Synthesis of 4-azidobenzoyl Boc-piperazine amide. To a three-necked flask, crude monoBoc-piperazine (4.95
g, 90%, 24 mmol), triethyl amine (6.06 g, 60 mmol), and THF (300 mL) were put, and the mixture was stirred at
0 ℃. To the mixture, a THF solution (50 mL) of crude 4-azidobenzoyl chloride (3.63 g, 20 mmol) was added
dropwise at 0 ℃, and the reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature for 12 h. THF was evaporated,
and obtained residue was poured to 5wt% aqueous hydrochloric acid, and the product was extracted with
chloroform. The product obtained by solvent evaporation was purified by GPC: pale brown solid, yield 97%.
1H-NMR (CDCl3, 400 MHz) δ 1.47 (9H, s), 3.3~3.7 (8H, broad), 7.07 (2H, d, J 8.56 Hz), 7.42 (2H, d, J 8.60 Hz).
Synthesis of 4-Azidobenzoyl Piperazine Amide. To a flask, 4-azidobenzoyl Boc-piperazine amide (3.31 g, 10
mmol) was put and stirred at 0 ℃. To the flask, torifluoroacetic acid (20 mL) was added slowly at 0 ℃, and
the reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature for 30 min. Trifluoroacetic acid was evaporated, and
obtained residue was poured to 5 wt% aqueous sodium carbonate, and the product was extracted with
chloroform twice. The product obtained by solvent evaporation was dried under vacuum condition, and used
1
for the subsequent reaction without purification: brown solid, yield 90%. H-NMR (CDCl3, 400 MHz) δ 2.4~3.9
(8H, broad), 7.06 (2H, d, J 8.56 Hz), 7.42 (2H, d, J 8.56 Hz).
Synthesis of 6-methacrylamide hexanoic acid. To a three-necked flask, 6-aminohexanoic acid (2.62 g, 20
mmol), sodium hydroxide (800 mg, 20 mmol), 1,4-dioxane (100 mL), and water (100 mL) were put and stirred
at 0 ℃. To the mixture, a dioxane solution (30 mL) of methacryl chloride (3.14 g, 30 mmol) was added
dropwise at 0 ℃, and the reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature for 12 h. The reaction mixture
was poured to 5 wt% aqueous hydrochloric acid, and the product was extracted with chloroform. The product
obtained by solvent evaporation was purified with silica-gel column chromatography (eluent;
1
chloroform:methanol = 100:1 then 100:5 vol.): colorless liquid, yield 71%. H-NMR (CDCl3, 400 MHz) δ
1.35~1.73 (6H, m), 1.96 (3H, s), 2.37 (2H, t, J 7.32 Hz), 3.32 (2H, q, J 6.71 Hz), 5.32 (1H, s), 5.68 (1H, s), 5.89 (1H,
broad).
Synthesis of (6-methacrylamide hexanoic)(4-azidobenzoylamide piperazine) amide. Under nitrogen
atmosphere, 6-methacrylamide hexanoic acid (1.99 g, 10 mmol), 4-azidobenzoyl piperazine amide (2.54 g, 11
mmol), 1-hydroxybenzotriazole (1.62 g, 12 mmol), N,N-diisopropylethylamine (1.55 g, 12 mmol), dry THF (150
mL), and dry DMF (50 mL) were put to a three-necked flask, and the mixture was stirred at 0 ℃. To the
mixture,
a
dry DMF solution (40 mL) of 2-(1H-benzotriazole-1-yl)-1,1,3,3-tetramethyluronium
hexafluorophosphate (4.17 g, 11 mmol) was added dropwise at 0 ℃, and the reaction mixture was stirred at
room temperature for 12 h under nitrogen atmosphere. Organic solvent was evaporated, and the obtained
residue was poured to 5 wt% aqueous hydrochloric acid, and the product was extracted with chloroform. The
product obtained by solvent evaporation was purified with GPC: pale yellow liquid, yield 80%. 1H-NMR (CDCl3,
400 MHz) δ 1.33~1.72 (6H, m), 1.95 (3H, s), 2.36 (2H, t, J 6.98 Hz), 3.31 (2H, q, J 6.65 Hz), 3.3~3.8 (8H, broad),
5.30 (1H, s), 5.68 (1H, s), 6.25 (1H, broad), 7.08 (2H, d, J 8.56 Hz), 7.44 (2H, d, J 8.56 Hz); Anal. Calcd. for
C21H28N6O3: C, 61.15; H, 6.84; N, 20.37. Found: C, 59.17; H, 6.75; N, 18.22; m/z: 413 (M + H+).
Copolymerization procedures. To a flask, C3SB monomer (1.46g, 5 mmol), (6-methacrylamide hexanoic)(4-
azidobenzoylamide piperazine) amide (103 mg, 0.25 mmol), 2,2-azobis-isobutyronitrile (41 mg, 0.25 mmol),
and methanol (30 mL) were put and degassed. The mixture was warmed and stood at 60 ℃ for 1 h. To the
reaction mixture, methanol (30 mL) was added, and the reaction mixture was stood for overnight. The
copolymer obtained as precipitate was collected and rinsed with methanol. The yield of copolymer was 24%
as a colorless solid, and M.W. and M.W.D. were 32000 and 4.1, respectively. In NMR measurements, peaks
derived from monomers were not obserbed.
Procedures for molecular weight determination of polymers. SEC (Size Exclusion Chromatography) method
was applied to molecular weight determination of polymers. SEC columns (Shodex OHpak SB-802.5 HQ and
Page 340
©ARKAT USA, Inc

Arkivoc 2018, ii, 330-343
Tanaka, M. et al.
SB-806M HQ) for water system were used for molecular weight detrermination in the presence of 10 mM
NaCl, and Pullulan (Shodex) was adopted as standard polyer sample to determine molecular weight.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by grants-in-aid from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and
Technology (MEXT) of Japan (No. 25390022 ).
References
1.
2.
3.
Schlenoff, J. B. Langmuir 2014, 30, 9625-9636.
https://doi.org/10.1021/la500057j
Deng, L.; Mrksich, M.; Whitesides, G. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 5136-5137.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ja960461d
Chapman, R. G.; Ostuni, E.; Takayama, S.; Holmlin, R. E.; Yan, L.; Whitesides, G. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2000, 122, 8303-8304.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ja000774f
4.
Ostuni, E.; Chapman, R. G.; Holmlin, R. E.; Takayama, S.; Whitesides, G. M. Langmuir 2001, 17, 5605-
5620.
https://doi.org/10.1021/la010384m
5.
6.
7.
8.
Kane, R. S.; Deschatelets, P.; Whitesides, G. M. Langmuir 2003, 19, 2388-2391.
https://doi.org/10.1021/la020737x
Iwasaki Y.; Ishihara, K. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2005, 381, 534-546.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-004-2805-9
Kuang, J.; Messersmith, P. B. Langmuir 2012, 28, 7258-7266.
https://doi.org/10.1021/la300738e
Li, M.; Neoh, K. G.; Xu, L. Q.; Wang, R.; Kang, E.; Lau, T.; Olszyna, D. P.; Chiong, E. Langmuir 2012, 28,
16408-16422.
https://doi.org/10.1021/la303438t
9.
Ye, S.; Jang, Y.; Yun, Y.; Shankarraman, V.; Woolley, J. R.; Hong, Y.; Gamble, L. J.; Ishihara, K.; Wagner, W.
R. Langmuir 2013, 29, 8320-8327.
https://doi.org/10.1021/la401341y
10. Ren, P.; Yang, H.; Liang, H.; Xu, X.; Wan, L.; Xu, Z. Langmuir 2015, 31, 5851-5858.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.5b00920
11. Wang, T.; Wang, X.; Long, Y.; Liu, G.; Zhang, G. Langmuir 2013, 29, 6588-6596.
https://doi.org/10.1021/la401069y
12. Xiang, T.; Wang, R.; Zhao, W.; Sun, S.; Zhao, C. Langmuir 2014, 30, 5115-5125.
https://doi.org/10.1021/la5001705
13. Yu, B.; Zheng, J.; Chang, Y.; Sin, M.; Chang, C. Higuchi, A.; Sun, Y. Langmuir 2014, 30, 7502-7512.
https://doi.org/10.1021/la500917s
14. Ren, P.; Yang, H.; Liang, H.; Xu, X.; Wan, L.; Xu, Z. Langmuir 2015, 31, 5851-5858.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.5b00920
Page 341
©ARKAT USA, Inc

Arkivoc 2018, ii, 330-343
Tanaka, M. et al.
15. Wang, T.; Kou, R.; Liu, H.; Liu, L.; Zhang, G.; Liu, G. Langmuir 2106, 32, 2698-2707.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b00293
16. Zhang, Z.; Moxey, M.; Alswieleh, A.; Morse, A. J.; Lewis, A. L.; Geoghegan, M.; Leggett, G. J. Langmuir
2016, 32, 5048-5057.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b00763
17. Barbosa, A. I.; Reis, N. M. Analyst 2017, 142, 858-882.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C6AN02445A
18. Dawod, M.; Arvin, N. E.; Kennedy, R. T. Analyst 2017, 142, 1847-1866.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C7AN00198C
19. Ou, G. Z.; Feng, X. J.; Du, W.; Liu, X.; Liu, B. F. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2013, 405, 7907-7918.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-013-6830-4
20. Hillbog, H.; Ankner, J. F.; Gedde, U. W.; Smith, G. D.; Yasuda, H. K.; Wikstöm, K. Polymer 2000, 41, 6851-
6863.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-3861(00)00039-2
21. Kim, J.; Chaudhury, M. K.; Owen, M. J. J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 2000, 226, 231-236.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jcis.2000.6817
22. Kim, J.; Chaudhury, M. K.; Owen, M. J.; Orbeck, T. J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 2001, 244, 200-207.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jcis.2001.7909
23. Hillborg, H.; Tomczak, N.; Olàh, A.; Schönherr, H.; Vancso, G. J. Langmuir 2004, 20, 785-794.
https://doi.org/10.1021/la035552k
24. Eddington, D. T.; Puccinelli, J. P.; Beebe, D. J. Sens. Actuators, B 2006, 114, 170-172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2005.04.037
25. Hillborg, H.; Gedde, U. W. Polymer 1998, 39, 1991-1998.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-3861(97)00484-9
26. Berdichevsky, Y.; Khandurina, J.; Guttman, A.; Lo, Y. -H. Sens. Actuators, B 2004, 97, 402-408.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2003.09.022
27. Hu, S.; Ren, X.; Bachman, M.; Sims, C. E.; Li, G. P.; Allbritton, N. Anal. Chem. 2002, 74, 4117-4123.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ac025700w
28. Yeh, S.; Chen, C.; Chen, W.; Huang, C. Langmuir 2014, 30, 11386-11393.
https://doi.org/10.1021/la502486e
29. Katayama, H.; Ishihama, Y.; Asakawa, N. Anal. Chem. 1998, 70, 2254-2260.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ac9708755
30. Katayama, H.; Ishihama, Y.; Asakawa, N. Anal. Chem. 1998, 70, 5272-5277.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ac980522l
31. Kubiak, K.; Adamczyk, Z.; Wasilewska, M. J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 2015, 457, 378-387.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2015.07.009
32. Kunitake, T.; Tsuge, A.; Nakashima, N. Chem. Lett. 1984, 1783-1786.
https://doi.org/10.1246/cl.1984.1783
33. Shimomura M.; Kunitake, T. Thin Solid Films 1985, 243-248.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-6090(85)90474-2
34. Durán-Álvarez, A.; Maldonado-Domínguez, M.; González-Antonio, O.; Durán-Valencia, C.; Romero-Ávila,
M.; Barragán-Aroche, F.; López-Ramírez, S. Langmuir 2016, 32, 2608-2616.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.5b04151
Page 342
©ARKAT USA, Inc

Arkivoc 2018, ii, 330-343
Tanaka, M. et al.
35. Ge, A. Matsusaki, M.; Qiao, L.; Akashi, M.; Ye, S. Langmuir 2016, 32, 3803-3810.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.5b04765
36. Tanaka M.; Kurosawa, S. J. Oleo Sci. 2017, 66, 699-704.
https://doi.org/10.5650/jos.ess17041
37. Chen, H.; Zhao, C.; Zhang, M.; Chen, Q.; Ma, J.; Zheng, J. Langmuir 2016, 32, 3315-3330.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b00386
38. Kuzuya, M.; Noguchi, A.; Ishikawa, M.; Koide, A.; Sawada, K.; Ito, A.; Noda, N. J. Phys. Chem. 1991, 95,
2398-2403.
https://doi.org/10.1021/j100159a052
39. Kuzuya, M.; Kondo, S.; Noguchi, A. Macromolecules 1991, 24, 4047-4053.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ma00014a013
40. Leyva, E.; Platz, M. S.; Persy, G.; Wirz, J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1986, 108, 3783-3790.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00273a037
41. Tanaka, M.; Sawaguchi, T.; Sato, Y.; Yoshioka, K.; Niwa, O. Langmuir 2011, 27, 170-178.
https://doi.org/10.1021/la1035757
Page 343
©ARKAT USA, Inc