Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ACS AuthorChoice logoLink to ACS AuthorChoice
. 2017 Aug 1;50(16):6108–6116. doi: 10.1021/acs.macromol.7b01005

pH-Responsive Schizophrenic Diblock Copolymers Prepared by Polymerization-Induced Self-Assembly

Sarah L Canning 1, Thomas J Neal 1, Steven P Armes 1,*
PMCID: PMC5577634  PMID: 28867829

Abstract

graphic file with name ma-2017-010055_0005.jpg

Polymerization-induced self-assembly (PISA) is used for the highly convenient and efficient preparation of ampholytic diblock copolymer nanoparticles directly in acidic aqueous solution. Cationic nanoparticles comprising a protonated polyamine stabilizer block and a hydrophobic polyacid core-forming block are formed at pH 2. Micelle inversion occurs at pH 10 to produce anionic nanoparticles with an ionized polyacid stabilizer block and a hydrophobic polyamine core-forming block. Macroscopic precipitation occurs at around pH 6–7, which lies close to the isoelectric point of this ampholytic diblock copolymer. Incorporation of fluorescein and rhodamine dye labels into the acid and amine blocks, respectively, leads to dual-color bifluorescent self-reporting pH-responsive nanoparticles.

Introduction

It is well-known that amphiphilic AB diblock copolymers self-assemble in aqueous solution to form spherical micelles, worm-like micelles, or vesicles.1−4 Stimulus-responsive diblock copolymers have also been well-studied: amphiphilic character can be triggered by a change in pH5−9 or temperature,8−13 which leads to in situ self-assembly. In certain cases both blocks can be stimulus-responsive, which enables two types of micelles to be formed; such copolymers have been described as having “schizophrenic” character.14−19 Literature examples include dual pH-responsive,17,19−31 dual thermoresponsive,32−35 and dual salt-responsive diblock copolymers36 and also various copolymers exhibiting two types of stimulus-responsive behavior (e.g., pH plus temperature,37−45 pH plus salt,46 and CO2 plus temperature47). In each case schizophrenic diblock copolymers were first prepared via solution polymerization and required post-polymerization processing in dilute solution to produce nanoparticles, with protecting group chemistry being required in some cases.17,19,21,24,40 Such copolymers have been evaluated for biomedical applications, such as hemocompatibility,48 protein purification,49 and drug delivery.6,44

Polymerization-induced self-assembly (PISA) offers a robust strategy for the convenient synthesis of well-defined diblock copolymer nanoparticles directly in a wide range of solvents at high solids.50−55 In most cases PISA offers an enhanced reaction rate compared to solution polymerization and hence relatively high final monomer conversions.56,57 In particular, amphiphilic diblock copolymer nanoparticles can be prepared directly in water via reversible addition–fragmentation chain transfer (RAFT) aqueous dispersion polymerization50,52,58−60 or RAFT aqueous emulsion polymerization.52,61−63 RAFT-mediated PISA has been used to prepare thermosensitive diblock copolymer nano-objects.64−66 For poly(glycerol monomethacrylate)–poly(2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate) (PGMA–PHPMA) block copolymer worms synthesized by RAFT aqueous dispersion polymerization, a worm-to-sphere transition can be induced by cooling from 20–25 °C to 5–10 °C.67,68 The same morphological transition has been observed for poly(lauryl methacrylate)–poly(benzyl methacrylate) (PLMA–PBzMA) worms prepared by RAFT dispersion polymerization in n-dodecane, but in this case heating to 90 °C was required to induce the change in morphology.69 Similarly, pH-responsive diblock copolymer nano-objects have been prepared using RAFT aqueous dispersion polymerization. For example, using either a carboxylic acid-functionalized chain transfer agent (CTA)70 or a morpholine-functionalized CTA71 leads to morphological transitions on adjusting the solution pH to either ionize or protonate end-groups located on the terminus of the stabilizer block for otherwise non-ionic diblock copolymers. However, as far as we are aware, ampholytic diblock copolymer nano-objects72 have not yet been prepared by PISA. This omission is perhaps surprising because it is known that such copolymers have potential applications as pigment dispersants,73−75 in addition to biomedical applications such as drug delivery.76

In the present work, PISA is utilized for the synthesis of new pH-responsive ampholytic schizophrenic diblock copolymers (Figure 1a). Unlike previous syntheses of schizophrenic diblock copolymers by solution polymerization, nanoparticles are produced directly in water at high solids. Thus, a poly(2-(diethylamino)ethyl methacrylate) (PDEA88) CTA is chain-extended via RAFT aqueous emulsion copolymerization of benzyl methacrylate (BzMA) and methacrylic acid (MAA) at a pH of 2.5. PDEA is a weak polybase with a pKa of approximately 7.3.77 Therefore, the PDEA block is protonated and acts as a cationic steric stabilizer for the hydrophobic core-forming P(MAA-stat-BzMA) block. On switching the solution pH to pH 10, nanoparticle inversion occurs and the MAA residues become ionized. Thus the initial core-forming block becomes hydrophilic, while the PDEA stabilizer block becomes deprotonated and hence hydrophobic. These new dual pH-responsive sterically stabilized nanoparticles have been characterized using 1H NMR spectroscopy, dynamic light scattering (DLS), aqueous electrophoresis, small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS), and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Moreover, appropriate fluorescent labeling of the copolymer chains leads to the formation of self-reporting nanoparticles that can act as both a colorimetric and a bifluorescent sensor.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Schematic representation of (a) the RAFT aqueous emulsion copolymerization of methacrylic acid and benzyl methacrylate at 70 °C at 15% w/w using a PDEA88 macro-CTA and (b) the schizophrenic micellization behavior of PDEA88-P(MAA-stat-BzMA)y diblock copolymers in aqueous solution.

Experimental Section

Materials

2-(Diethylamino)ethyl methacrylate (DEA; 99%), methacrylic acid (MAA; 99%), and benzyl methacrylate (BzMA; 96%) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (UK) and used without further purification. 2,2′-Azobis(4-cyanovaleric acid) (ACVA; 98%) was purchased from Alfa Aesar (UK) and used as received. α,α′-Azobis(isobutyronitrile) (AIBN) was purchased from Molekula (UK) and used as received. 2-Cyano-2-propyl dithiobenzoate (CPDB; 97%) was purchased from Strem Chemicals (UK) and used without further purification. 2-(Methacryloyloxy)ethyl thiocarbamoyl rhodamine B (RhBMA) was purchased from Polysciences Europe GmbH (Germany) and was used as received. Fluorescein O-methacrylate (FMA, 97%) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (UK) and was used as received. Sodium hydroxide was purchased from VWR (UK). Dimethyl sulfoxide-d6 and chloroform-d were purchased from Goss Scientific Instruments Ltd. (Cheshire, UK). All other solvents were purchased from Fisher Scientific (Loughborough, UK) and used as received. Deionized water was used for all experiments.

Preparation of PDEAx Macro-CTA

CPDB RAFT agent (0.4023 g, 1.817 mmol), DEA (40.000 g, 254.4 mmol), AIBN (0.0995 g, 0.6058 mmol; CPDB/ACVA molar ratio = 3.0), and toluene (27.0012 g, 60% w/w) were weighed into a round-bottom flask and degassed with nitrogen for 30 min. The reaction solution was then placed in an oil bath heated to 70 °C. The polymerization was allowed to proceed for 6.5 h, resulting in a monomer conversion of 63% as determined by 1H NMR. The crude PDEA homopolymer was purified by dialysis against isopropanol (IPA) using a 1000 MWCO dialysis membrane (Spectrum Laboratories Inc.) to give a pure PDEA macro-CTA (<1% monomer remaining) with a mean degree of polymerization calculated to be 88 as determined by 1H NMR in CDCl3. THF GPC analysis indicated an Mn of 11 600 g mol–1 and an Mw/Mn of 1.17 (against a series of near-monodisperse poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) calibration standards).

RAFT Aqueous Emulsion Polymerization of Methacrylic Acid and Benzyl Methacrylate

A typical protocol for the synthesis of PDEA88–P(MAA0.7-st-BzMA0.3)100 diblock copolymer was as follows: PDEA88 macro-CTA (0.1200 g), MAA monomer (0.0505 g, 0.5866 mmol), BzMA (0.0443 g, 0.2514 mmol), ACVA (0.5 mg, 1.676 μmol; CTA/initiator molar ratio = 5.0), and water (1.2198 g, 15% w/w) were weighed into a 25 mL round-bottom flask, and the pH of the reaction solution was adjusted to pH 2.5. The reaction solution was then purged with nitrogen for 30 min and subsequently placed in an oil bath heated to 70 °C. The resulting copolymer was analyzed by THF GPC following methylation with trimethylsilyldiazomethane (Mn = 9600 g mol–1, Mw/Mn = 1.86 vs PMMA standards). 1H NMR spectroscopy analysis of a sample dissolved in DMSO-d6 indicated less than 1% residual monomer. DLS studies of a 0.10% w/w copolymer dispersion at pH 2 indicated an intensity-average particle diameter of 43 nm (DLS polydispersity, PDI = 0.09).

Preparation of PDEAx Macro-CTA Labeled with Rhodamine B Methacrylate

CPDB RAFT agent (0.0141 g, 0.064 mmol), DEA (1.200 g, 7.633 mmol), methacryloxyethyl thiocarbamoyl rhodamine B (0.0261 g, 0.038 16 mmol), AIBN (3.5 mg, 21.203 μmol; CPDB/ACVA molar ratio = 3.0), and toluene (0.8117 g, 60% w/w) were weighed into a round-bottom flask and degassed with nitrogen for 30 min. The reaction solution was then placed in an oil bath heated to 70 °C. The polymerization was allowed to proceed for 6.5 h, resulting in a DEA monomer conversion of 71% and a RhBMA conversion of 74% as determined by 1H NMR. The crude P(DEA-RhBMA) polymer was purified by dialysis against isopropanol (IPA) using a 1000 MWCO dialysis membrane (Spectrum Laboratories Inc.) to give a pure P(DEA-stat-RhBMA) macro-CTA (<1% monomer remaining) with a mean degree of polymerization calculated to be 85 as determined by 1H NMR spectroscopy in CDCl3.

RAFT Aqueous Emulsion Polymerization of Methacrylic Acid and Benzyl Methacrylate with Fluorescein O-Methacrylate Fluorescent Label

P(DEA-stat-RhBMA)85 macro-CTA (0.0800 g), MAA (0.0697 g, 0.8094 mmol), BzMA (0.0611 g, 0.3469 mol), fluorescein O-methacrylate (0.9 mg, 2.3124 μmol), ACVA (0.3 mg, 1.156 μmol; CTA/initiator molar ratio = 5.0), and water (1.1962 g, 15% w/w) were weighed into a 25 mL round-bottom flask, and the pH of the reaction solution was adjusted to pH 2.5. The reaction solution was then purged with nitrogen for 30 min and subsequently placed in an oil bath heated to 70 °C. DLS studies of a 0.10% w/w copolymer dispersion at pH 2 indicated an intensity-average particle diameter of 79 nm (DLS polydispersity, PDI = 0.10).

RAFT Solution Polymerization of Benzyl Methacrylate

A typical protocol for the synthesis of PDEA88–PBzMA300 diblock copolymer was as follows: PDEA88 macro-CTA (0.1501 g), BzMA (0.4802 g, 2.7251 mmol), ACVA (0.5 mg, 1.676 μmol; CTA/initiator molar ratio = 5.0), and THF (0.9462 g, 40% w/w) were weighed into a 25 mL round-bottom flask. The reaction solution was then purged with nitrogen for 30 min and subsequently placed in an oil bath heated to 70 °C. The resulting copolymer was analyzed by THF GPC (Mn = 35 200 g mol–1, Mw/Mn = 1.28 vs PMMA standards). 1H NMR spectroscopy analysis of a sample dissolved in DMSO-d6 indicated a monomer conversion of 74%.

RAFT Solution Polymerization of Methacrylic Acid and Benzyl Methacrylate

A protocol for the synthesis of P(MAA-stat-BzMA)100 diblock copolymer was as follows: MAA (2.00 g, 23.24 mmol), BzMA (1.7550 g, 9.96 mmol), AIBN (10.9 mg, 66 μmol; CTA/initiator molar ratio = 5.0), and DMF (2.0844 g, 50% w/w) were weighed into a 25 mL round-bottom flask. The reaction solution was then purged with nitrogen for 30 min and subsequently placed in an oil bath heated to 60 °C. The resulting copolymer was analyzed by THF GPC (Mn = 12 200 g mol–1, Mw/Mn = 1.19 vs PMMA standards) following exhaustive methylation with trimethylsilyldiazomethane. 1H NMR spectroscopy analysis of a sample dissolved in DMF-d7 indicated a MAA monomer conversion of 93% and a BzMA conversion of 80%.

Copolymer Characterization

1H NMR Spectroscopy

All 1H NMR spectra were recorded using a 400 MHz Bruker Avance-400 spectrometer using dimethyl sulfoxide-d6, dimethylformamide-d7, or deuterated chloroform.

Gel Permeation Chromatography (GPC)

The molecular weights and polydispersities of the PDEA macro-CTA and PDEA–P(MAA-stat-BzMA) diblock copolymers were determined by GPC using THF eluent. The GPC setup consisted of two 5 μm (30 cm) Mixed C columns and a WellChrom K-2301 refractive index detector operating at 950 ± 30 nm. The mobile phase contained 2.0% v/v triethylamine and 0.05% w/v butylhydroxytoluene (BHT) with a toluene flow rate marker, and the flow rate was fixed at 1.0 mL min–1. Copolymer solutions (1.0% w/v) were prepared in THF. A series of ten near-monodisperse poly(methyl methacrylate) standards (Mp values ranging from 1280 to 330 000 g mol–1) were used for calibration. Data were analyzed using Agilent GPC/SEC software version 1.2.

Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS)

The intensity-average hydrodynamic diameter of each batch of spherical diblock copolymer nanoparticles was determined using a Malvern Instruments Zetasizer NanoZS instrument. Aqueous dispersions (0.10% w/w) were analyzed, and data were averaged over three consecutive runs. Measurements were made at 25 °C.

Aqueous Electrophoresis

Zeta potentials were calculated from electrophoretic mobilities using the same Malvern Instruments Zetasizer NanoZS instrument equipped with an autotitrator (MPT-2 multipurpose titrator, Malvern Instruments). Copolymer dispersions were diluted using an aqueous solution of 1 mM KCl to a final concentration of 0.1% w/w solids, and the solution pH was adjusted from 2 to 10 by addition of either dilute NaOH or HCl, as required.

Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)

Copper/palladium TEM grids (Agar Scientific) were coated in-house to yield a thin film of amorphous carbon. The grids were then subjected to a glow discharge for 30 s to create a hydrophilic surface. Individual samples (0.20% w/w aqueous dispersion, 10.0 μL) were adsorbed onto the freshly treated grids for 1 min and then blotted with filter paper to remove excess solution. To stain the colloidal aggregates, uranyl formate (9.0 μL of a 0.75% w/w solution) was absorbed onto the sample-loaded grid for 20 s and then carefully blotted to remove excess stain. The grids were then dried using a vacuum hose. Imaging was performed using a Philips CM100 instrument operating at 100 kV and equipped with a Gatan 1 k CCD camera.

Fluorescence Spectrophotometry

The fluorescence spectra were recorded with a 1.0 cm glass cuvette using a Horiba Scientific Fluoromax-4 spectrofluorometer and Fluoressence V3 software. Samples were diluted to a maximum visible light absorbance of no greater than 0.1 in order to avoid overloading the detector.

Small-Angle X-ray Scattering

SAXS data were collected using a laboratory SAXS insturment (Xeuss 2.0, Xenocs, France) equipped with a liquid gallium MetalJet X-ray source (Excillum, Sweden, wavelength λ = 0.134 nm), with motorized scatterless slits for beam collimation and a Dectris Pilatus 1M pixel detector (sample-to-detector distances 2.5 and 3.8 m). SAXS patterns were recorded over a q range of 0.004 Å–1 < q < 0.24 Å–1, where q = 4π sin θ/λ is the length of the scattering vector and θ is one-half of the scattering angle. A glass capillary of 2 mm diameter was used as a sample holder. Data were reduced using the Foxtrot software package developed by SOLEIL and further analyzed using Irena SAS macros78 for Igor Pro.

Results and Discussion

The PDEA macro-CTA was prepared at 60% w/w by RAFT solution polymerization in toluene at 70 °C (see Figure S1) using 2-cyanopropyl dithiobenzoate (CPDB) as a CTA. A degree of polymerization (DP) of 140 was targeted, and the DEA polymerization was terminated at 63% conversion to preserve RAFT chain-end functionality, yielding a PDEA macro-CTA with a mean DP of 88 as determined by 1H NMR. Analysis by THF GPC (vs poly(methyl methacrylate) standards) indicated an apparent Mn of 11 600 g mol–1 and an Mw/Mn of 1.17, with the latter indicating a well-controlled RAFT polymerization.

This PDEA88 macro-CTA was then chain-extended with a mixture of methacrylic acid (MAA) and benzyl methacrylate (BzMA) at pH 2.5 to form sterically stabilized diblock copolymer nanoparticles (Figure 1a). Unlike a previous study reported by Tam and co-workers,79 30 mol % BzMA comonomer was introduced to confer additional hydrophobic character to the polyacid block to ensure the formation of relatively compact micelles at low pH. Moreover, the additional pendant benzylic groups provided convenient 1H NMR signals to aid subsequent copolymer characterization studies. [NB: The MAA/BzMA statistical (or possibly gradient) copolymer is expected to have a lower pKa than that of PMAA homopolymer,80 for which the pKa is 5.4.79,81,82 This is because ionization of the carboxylic acid groups should be easier for the statistical copolymer.81]

A series of PDEA88–P(MAA-stat-BzMA)y diblock copolymers were synthesized at 15% w/w concentration (Table 1) while targeting core-forming block DPs ranging from 100 to 300, with all such blocks containing 30 mol % BzMA comonomer. Comonomer conversions of more than 97% were obtained within 6 h in all cases, even for the copolymer with the highest P(MAA-stat-BzMA) DP. In principle, methylation of the MAA residues in these diblock copolymers should enable THF GPC analysis. This approach is known to work well for other MAA-based copolymers.83,84 However, in practice using excess trimethylsilyldiazomethane to methylate PDEA88–P(MAA-stat-BzMA)y in THF also caused some unwanted quaternization of the PDEA block.

Table 1. Summary of Monomer Conversions and GPC Molecular Weight Data Obtained for a Series of PDEA88–P(MAA-stat-BzMA)y Diblock Copolymers Synthesized at pH 2.5 via RAFT Aqueous Emulsion Copolymerization of MAA and BzMA at 70 °Ca.

target core DP MAA conv.b (%) BzMA conv.b (%) actual core DPb Mnc (g mol–1) Mw/Mnc
100 >99 99 100 9600 1.86
150 98 99 148 10700 1.78
200 >99 >99 199 13000 1.90
300 99 97 295 16000 1.76
Open in a new tab
a

Conditions: [macro-CTA]:[initiator] molar ratio = 5.0; total solids concentration = 15% w/w.

b

Comonomer conversions determined by 1H NMR studies in DMSO-d6. Mean copolymer DP values were estimated from the overall conversion indicated from the residual vinyl comonomer signals in the 1H NMR spectra because the presence of overlapping aromatic signals precluded end-group analysis.

c

Apparent molecular weight determined by THF GPC (refractive index detector, calibrated with poly(methyl methacrylate) standards) following methylation with excess trimethylsilyldiazomethane

After their methylation, the PDEA88–P(MAA-stat-BzMA)y diblock copolymers exhibited relatively broad molecular weight distributions (MWD) when analyzed by GPC (see Figure S3a). However, control experiments confirmed that low degrees of quaternization were obtained when a near-monodisperse PDEA88 homopolymer was subjected to the same methylation conditions, which led to an apparently broad MWD as a result of column adsorption problems (see Figure S3b,c). Thus, the GPC data obtained for such diblock copolymers are not a true reflection of their real MWDs, which are believed to be significantly narrower.

Unfortunately, attempts to use a stoichiometric quantity of trimethylsilyldiazomethane based on MAA residues only led to incomplete methylation (data not shown). However, chain extension of the PDEA88 macro-CTA using just BzMA produced a relatively low dispersity (Mw/Mn = 1.28) and a relatively high blocking efficiency (Figure S3d). Moreover, THF GPC analysis of a fully methylated P(MAA-stat-BzMA)89 statistical copolymer indicates a narrow MWD (Mw/Mn = 1.19). Thus, similar pseudoliving character is assumed for the PDEA88–P(MAA-stat-BzMA)y diblock copolymers examined in this study.

Dynamic light scattering (DLS) was used to determine the intensity-average diameter of the nanoparticles after dilution to 0.10% w/w at pH 2 (Figure 2a). This technique indicated relatively narrow particle size distributions, with diameters ranging between 37 and 46 nm. A monotonic increase in particle size with increasing core DP was observed, which is typical for PISA formulations.85−87 This can be fitted to a power law of the form d = kNα, where d is the core diameter, N is the mean DP of the core-forming block, and k depends on the Flory–Huggins parameter (see Figure S4).86,88 An α exponent of 0.29 was calculated for this system. Comparison with our previous results for the RAFT aqueous emulsion polymerization of similar monomers86,89 suggests that this size dependence is partly determined by the character of the polyelectrolytic stabilizer block (Figure S4). TEM studies show the presence of spherical nanoparticles (Figure 2a). This is confirmed by fitting the SAXS data to a spherical micelle model (see Figure 2c and Figure S5).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

PDEA88–P(MAA-stat-BzMA)199 diblock copolymer prepared at 15% w/w by RAFT aqueous emulsion copolymerization at 70 °C: (a) TEM image obtained for PDEA-core micelles at pH 2 with inset DLS intensity-average size distributions recorded for 0.1% w/w aqueous dispersions at pH 2 and (b) P(MAA-stat-BzMA)-core micelles at pH 10 with inset DLS intensity-average size distributions recorded for 0.1% w/w aqueous dispersions at pH 10; (c) SAXS curves at pH 2 (red) and pH 10 (blue). Solid lines show fits to the data using a spherical micelle model.

When the pH of the dispersion is increased to pH 10, inverse micellization occurs as the amine group on the PDEA block is now deprotonated and hence uncharged, but the acidic PMAA residues become ionized. As a result, the hydrophobic PDEA block now forms the micelle core, stabilized by the anionic P(MAA-stat-BzMA) block. These micelles were also analyzed by DLS (Figure 2b) and found to be both somewhat larger and more polydisperse than those formed at pH 2. Spherical nanoparticles were observed by TEM (Figure 2b). SAXS studies verified that the nanoparticles were indeed spherical at pH 10, although somewhat polydisperse (Figure 2c and Figure S5).

Dilute aqueous dispersions of PDEA88–P(MAA-stat-BzMA)y were analyzed by DLS (Figure 3a and Figure S6a) and aqueous electrophoresis as a function of pH (Figure 3b and Figure S6b). Relatively small cationic nanoparticles are observed at pH 2 with zeta potentials of approximately +40 mV. The dispersions became much more turbid between pH 6–8, indicating macroscopic flocculation at around the isoelectric point (IEP) (see Figure 3a). Above pH 8, weakly turbid micellar dispersions of highly anionic nanoparticles were obtained, with zeta potentials of approximately −40 mV. The IEP varied with copolymer composition, ranging from pH 7.57 for the shortest P(MAA-stat-BzMA) block (DP 100) to 6.32 for the longest block (DP 295) (Figure S6 and Table S1). Clearly, more asymmetric copolymers exhibit lower IEPs as their PMAA content is increased.90

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

(a) Variation in hydrodynamic diameter as a function of solution pH for a 0.1% w/w aqueous dispersion of a PDEA88–P(MAA-stat-BzMA)199 copolymer (30 mol % BzMA content) at 25 °C, with digital photographs recorded at pH 2, 7, and 10. (b) Zeta potential vs pH curve recorded for a dilute aqueous dispersion of the same copolymer at 25 °C. All DLS data include standard deviations, but some lie within the size of the symbols used for the data points.

Schizophrenic micellization behavior was confirmed by studying the relative solvation of the polyacid and polybase blocks of these ampholytic copolymers using 1H NMR spectroscopy. In DMSO-d6, both the P(MAA-stat-BzMA) and PDEA blocks are well-solvated; hence all the expected signals are observed in the spectra (Figure S7a, peaks A–F correspond to PDEA, G and H are due to PMAA, and J–L are assigned to PBzMA). However, PDEA-core micelles are formed in D2O/NaOD (adjusted to pH 10), so only those NMR signals corresponding to the MAA and BzMA residues are observed (Figure S7b). Conversely, only PDEA signals are visible in a DCl/D2O mixture at pH 2 (Figure S7c), indicating that the polyacid block forms non-solvated micelle cores under these conditions.

We hypothesized that appropriate fluorescent labeling of such schizophrenic ampholytic diblock copolymers should enable their application as colorimetric and/or pH sensors. A rhodamine B label was chosen for the PDEA block. This chromophore, although pH-insensitive, is quenched by the deprotonated tertiary amine moieties in the PDEA block and thus only displays fluorescence below pH 6.91,92 In contrast, fluorescein only displays fluorescence above pH 7 when its carboxylic group becomes ionized;93 thus this chromophore was selected to label the P(MAA-stat-BzMA) block. Aggregation-induced quenching (AIQ)94 most likely occurs for the rhodamine B and fluorescein labels when located within the nanoparticle cores at high and low pH, respectively. Both labels and their derivatives provide high molar extinction coefficients and fluorescence quantum yields and thus have been widely used as fluorescent probes. Dual-labeled copolymers have been developed previously to act as ratiometric pH probes by monitoring the fluorescence emission of two different species.92,95 These two chromophores are also known to be a FRET pair, which can further enhance the efficacy of the pH sensor.92,96

Methacrylate-functional derivatives of these two fluorescent labels were incorporated at relatively low levels during the ampholytic copolymer PISA synthesis in each case (Figure S8). Thus, rhodamine B methacrylate (RhBMA) was statistically copolymerized with DEA to produce a rhodamine B-labeled P(DEA85-stat-RhBMA0.4) macro-CTA. Then fluorescein O-methacrylate (FMA) was added along with MAA and BzMA in the subsequent chain extension under PISA conditions to produce bifluorescent schizophrenic P(DEA85-stat-RhBMA0.4)-P(MAA139-stat-BzMA49-stat-FMA0.4) nanoparticles. Following exhaustive dialysis to remove any unreacted labels, these copolymers were characterized using both visible absorption and fluorescence spectroscopy.

PDEA-core nanoparticles are formed at pH 10, so fluorescence arising from the rhodamine label is largely quenched by the deprotonated tertiary amine groups obtained under these conditions, in addition to any AIQ effect. Since the fluorescein label is located on the P(MAA-stat-BzMA-stat-FMA) stabilizer chains that form the nanoparticle shell under these conditions, the latter chromophore becomes active, and so its fluorescence emission is observed at 509 nm when using an excitation wavelength of 470 nm (Figure 4b). As a result, a dilute aqueous dispersion of such nanoparticles appears yellow-green at pH 10 (see inset, Figure 4b).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

(a) Fluorescence spectra of schizophrenic P(DEA85-stat-RhBMA0.4)–P(MAA139-stat-BzMA49-stat-FMA0.4) micelles recorded at pH 2 showing the excitation and emission of “active” rhodamine B (R) labels (excitation at λem = 595 nm, emission at λex = 525 nm) with an inset digital photograph illustrating the resulting pink coloration; (b) fluorescence spectra recorded at pH 10 showing the excitation and emission of “active” fluorescein (F) labels (excitation at λem = 525 nm, emission at λex = 470 nm) with an inset digital photograph illustrating the resulting yellow-green coloration; and (c) variation in fluorescence intensity ratio, I578/I509, between R and F labels with pH, with inset schematic cartoon showing the switch between anionic micelles at pH 10 containing “active” fluorescein labels and cationic micelles at pH 2 containing “active” rhodamine B labels.

However, the fluorescein label is no longer active when located within the micelle cores at pH 2, whereas the P(DEA-stat-RhBMA)-stabilizer chains become highly fluorescent under such conditions (peak at λem = 578 nm when using λex = 525 nm; Figure 4a). In this case, a bright pink copolymer dispersion is observed (see inset, Figure 4a). The relative fluorescence intensity at the λmax for each label can be calculated, which is denoted as I578/I509 (Figure 4c). This I578/I509 ratio is reduced dramatically from 52.4 to 0.138 as the pH is adjusted from 2 to 10. This corresponds to an 18-fold reduction in the rhodamine B signal and a 28-fold enhancement of the fluorescein signal. In principle, such behavior enables these schizophrenic micelles to act as self-reporting nanoparticles, providing information on their local pH via both colorimetry and fluorescence. This complementary fluorescence behavior also confirms the pH-driven location of each fluorophore within either the anionic (fluorescein) or cationic (rhodamine B) nanoparticle shell, thus providing compelling additional evidence for the schizophrenic nature of these nanoparticles.

Conclusions

In summary, doubly pH-responsive ampholytic diblock copolymer nanoparticles can be conveniently prepared via RAFT-mediated PISA in acidic aqueous media. Such formulations are a substantial improvement on earlier synthetic routes, which typically involve organic solvents and sometimes require protecting group chemistry. Aqueous electrophoresis, DLS and TEM studies confirmed that these diblock copolymers exhibit schizophrenic behavior: they exist in the form of cationic spheres below pH 6 and as anionic spheres above pH 8, with macroscopic flocculation occurring reversibly at intermediate pH. Moreover, inserting an appropriate fluorescent label into each block during the copolymer synthesis produced novel self-reporting nanoparticles that are both colorimetric and bifluorescent via aggregation-induced quenching.

Acknowledgments

The EPSRC is thanked for a Platform grant (EP/J007846). The European Research Council is acknowledged for a five-year Advanced Investigator grant (PISA 320372).

Supporting Information Available

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.7b01005.

  • PDEAx reaction scheme, THF GPC curves, plot of mean particle diameter vs mean DP, further SAXS curves, table of IEP vs core DP, further pH titrations by DLS and aqueous electrophoresis, assigned 1H NMR spectra showing changes in polymer solvation, P(DEA85-stat-RhBMA0.4)–P(MAA139-stat-BzMA49-stat-FMA0.4) reaction scheme (PDF)

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Supplementary Material

ma7b01005_si_001.pdf (580.6KB, pdf)

References

  1. Antonietti M.; Förster S. Vesicles and Liposomes: A Self-Assembly Principle Beyond Lipids. Adv. Mater. 2003, 15, 1323–1333. 10.1002/adma.200300010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Discher D. E.; Eisenberg A. Polymer Vesicles. Science 2002, 297, 967–973. 10.1126/science.1074972. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blanazs A.; Armes S. P.; Ryan A. J. Self-Assembled Block Copolymer Aggregates: From Micelles to Vesicles and their Biological Applications. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2009, 30, 267–277. 10.1002/marc.200800713. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Mai Y. Y.; Eisenberg A. Self-Assembly of Block Copolymers. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012, 41, 5969–5985. 10.1039/c2cs35115c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dai S.; Ravi P.; Tam K. C. pH-Responsive Polymers: Synthesis, Properties and Applications. Soft Matter 2008, 4, 435–449. 10.1039/b714741d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bae Y.; Fukushima S.; Harada A.; Kataoka K. Design of Environment-Sensitive Supramolecular Assemblies for Intracellular Drug Delivery: Polymeric Micelles that are Responsive to Intracellular pH Change. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 4640–4643. 10.1002/anie.200250653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kocak G.; Tuncer C.; Bütün V. pH-Responsive Polymers. Polym. Chem. 2017, 8, 144–176. 10.1039/C6PY01872F. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Wei M.; Gao Y.; Li X.; Serpe M. J. Stimuli-Responsive Polymers and their Applications. Polym. Chem. 2017, 8, 127–143. 10.1039/C6PY01585A. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Moad G. RAFT Polymerization to form Stimuli-Responsive Polymers. Polym. Chem. 2017, 8, 177–219. 10.1039/C6PY01849A. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Pelton R. Temperature-Sensitive Aqueous Microgels. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2000, 85, 1–33. 10.1016/S0001-8686(99)00023-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dimitrov I.; Trzebicka B.; Müller A. H. E.; Dworak A.; Tsvetanov C. B. Thermosensitive Water-Soluble Copolymers with Doubly Responsive Reversibly Interacting Entities. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2007, 32, 1275–1343. 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2007.07.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Strandman S.; Zhu X. X. Thermo-Responsive Block Copolymers with Multiple Phase Transition Temperatures in Aqueous Solutions. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2015, 42, 154–176. 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2014.10.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Roy D.; Brooks W. L. A.; Sumerlin B. S. New Directions in Thermoresponsive Polymers. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42, 7214–7243. 10.1039/c3cs35499g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bütün V.; Billingham N. C.; Armes S. P. Unusual Aggregation Behavior of a Novel Tertiary Amine Methacrylate-Based Diblock Copolymer: Formation of Micelles and Reverse Micelles in Aqueous Solution. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 11818–11819. 10.1021/ja982295a. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Bütün V.; Liu S.; Weaver J. V. M; Bories-Azeau X.; Cai Y.; Armes S. P. A Brief Review of ’Schizophrenic’ Block Copolymers. React. Funct. Polym. 2006, 66 (66), 157–165. 10.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2005.07.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Liu S.; Billingham N. C.; Armes S. P. A Schizophrenic Water-Soluble Diblock Copolymer. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2001, 40, 2328–2331. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Liu S.; Armes S. P. Polymeric Surfactants for the New Millennium: A pH-Responsive, Zwitterionic, Schizophrenic Diblock Copolymer. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2002, 41, 1413–1416. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Roy D.; Cambre J. N.; Sumerlin B. S. Triply-Responsive Boronic Acid Block Copolymers: Solution Self-Assembly Induced by Changes in Temperature, pH, or Sugar Concentration. Chem. Commun. 2009, 7345, 2106–8. 10.1039/b900374f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Rodríguez-Hernández J.; Lecommandoux S. Reversible Inside-Out Micellization of pH-Responsive and Water-Soluble Vesicles based on Polypeptide Diblock Copolymers. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 2026–2027. 10.1021/ja043920g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Vo C.-D.; Armes S. P.; Randall D. P.; Sakai K.; Biggs S. Synthesis of Zwitterionic Diblock Copolymers without Protecting Group Chemistry. Macromolecules 2007, 40, 157–167. 10.1021/ma062648n. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Wang D.; Yin J.; Zhu Z.; Ge Z.; Liu H.; Armes S. P.; Liu S. Micelle Formation and Inversion Kinetics of a Schizophrenic Diblock Copolymer. Macromolecules 2006, 39, 7378–7385. 10.1021/ma061049d. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Cai Y.; Armes S. P. Synthesis of Well-Defined Y-Shaped Zwitterionic Block Copolymers via Atom-Transfer Radical Polymerization. Macromolecules 2005, 38, 271–279. 10.1021/ma048511j. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Bories-Azeau X.; Armes S. P.; Van Den Haak H. J. W. Facile Synthesis of Zwitterionic Diblock Copolymers without Protecting Group Chemistry. Macromolecules 2004, 37, 2348–2352. 10.1021/ma035904u. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Liu S.; Armes S. P. Synthesis and Aqueous Solution Behavior of a pH-Responsive Schizophrenic Diblock Copolymer. Langmuir 2003, 19, 4432–4438. 10.1021/la020951l. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Goloub T.; de Keizer A.; Cohen Stuart M. A. Association Behavior of Ampholytic Diblock Copolymers. Macromolecules 1999, 32, 8441–8446. 10.1021/ma9907441. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gohy J.-F.; Creutz S.; Garcia M.; Mahltig B.; Stamm M.; Jérôme R. Aggregates Formed by Amphoteric Diblock Copolymers in Water. Macromolecules 2000, 33, 6378–6387. 10.1021/ma992016j. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. André X.; Zhang M.; Müller A. H. E. Thermo- and pH-Responsive Micelles of Poly(acrylic acid)-block-Poly(N,N-diethylacrylamide). Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2005, 26, 558–563. 10.1002/marc.200400510. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Mao B. W.; Gan L. H.; Gan Y. Y.; Tam K. C.; Tan O. K. Controlled One-Pot Synthesis of pH-Sensitive Self-Assembled Diblock Copolymers and their Aggregation Behavior. Polymer 2005, 46, 10045–10055. 10.1016/j.polymer.2005.08.048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Agut W.; Brûlet A.; Schatz C.; Taton D.; Lecommandoux S. pH and Temperature Responsive Polymeric Micelles and Polymersomes by Self-Assembly of Poly[2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate]-b-Poly(glutamic acid) Double Hydrophilic Block Copolymers. Langmuir 2010, 26, 10546–10554. 10.1021/la1005693. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Chen L.; Chen T.; Fang W.; Wen Y.; Lin S.; Lin J.; Cai C. Synthesis and pH-Responsive “Schizophrenic” Aggregation of a Linear-Dendron-Like Polyampholyte Based on Oppositely Charged Polypeptides. Biomacromolecules 2013, 14, 4320–4330. 10.1021/bm401215w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhang J.; Xiao Y.; Luo X.; Wen L.; Heise A.; Lang M. Schizophrenic Poly(ε-caprolactone)s: Synthesis, Self-Assembly and Fluorescent Decoration. Polym. Chem. 2017, 8, 3261–3270. 10.1039/C7PY00461C. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Weaver J. V. M; Armes S. P.; Bütün V. Synthesis and Aqueous Solution Properties of a Well-Defined Thermo-Responsive Schizophrenic Diblock Copolymer. Chem. Commun. 2002, 2122–2123. 10.1039/B207251N. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Arotçaréna M.; Heise B.; Ishaya S.; Laschewsky A. Switching the Inside and the Outside of Aggregates of Water-Soluble Block Copolymers with Double Thermoresponsivity. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 3787–3793. 10.1021/ja012167d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Virtanen J.; Arotçaréna M.; Heise B.; Ishaya S.; Laschewsky A.; Tenhu H. Dissolution and Aggregation of a Poly(NIPA-block-sulfobetaine) Copolymer in Water and Saline Aqueous Solutions. Langmuir 2002, 18, 5360–5365. 10.1021/la0118208. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Vishnevetskaya N. S.; Hildebrand V.; Niebuur B.-J.; Grillo I.; Filippov S. K.; Laschewsky A.; Müller-Buschbaum P.; Papadakis C. M. Aggregation Behavior of Doubly Thermoresponsive Polysulfobetaine- b -poly(N -isopropylacrylamide) Diblock Copolymers. Macromolecules 2016, 49, 6655–6668. 10.1021/acs.macromol.6b01186. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Wang D.; Wu T.; Wan X.; Wang X.; Liu S. Purely Salt-Responsive Micelle Formation and Inversion Based on a Novel Schizophrenic Sulfobetaine Block Copolymer: Structure and Kinetics of Micellization. Langmuir 2007, 23, 11866–11874. 10.1021/la702029a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Smith A. E.; Xu X.; Kirkland-York S. E.; Savin D. A.; McCormick C. L. ″Schizophrenic” Self-Assembly of Block Copolymers Synthesized via Aqueous RAFT Polymerization: From Micelles to Vesicles. Macromolecules 2010, 43, 1210–1217. 10.1021/ma902378k. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Ge Z.; Cai Y.; Yin J.; Zhu Z.; Rao J.; Liu S. Synthesis and ’Schizophrenic’ Micellization of Double Hydrophilic AB 4 Miktoarm Star and AB Diblock Copolymers: Structure and Kinetics of Micellization. Langmuir 2007, 23, 1114–1122. 10.1021/la062719b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Jiang X.; Ge Z.; Xu J.; Liu H.; Liu S. Fabrication of Multiresponsive Shell Cross-Linked Micelles Possessing pH-Controllable Core Swellability and Thermo-Tunable Corona Permeability. Biomacromolecules 2007, 8, 3184–3192. 10.1021/bm700743h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Rao J.; Luo Z.; Ge Z.; Liu H.; Liu S. ″Schizophrenic” Micellization Associated with Coil-to-Helix Transitions Based on Polypeptide Hybrid Double Hydrophilic Rod-Coil Diblock Copolymer. Biomacromolecules 2007, 8, 3871–3878. 10.1021/bm700830b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Zhang Y.; Wu T.; Liu S. Micellization Kinetics of a Novel Multi-Responsive Double Hydrophilic Diblock Copolymer Studied by Stopped-Flow pH and Temperature Jump. Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2007, 208, 2492–2501. 10.1002/macp.200700293. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Jiang X.; Zhang G.; Narain R.; Liu S. Fabrication of Two Types of Shell-Cross-Linked Micelles with “Inverted” Structures in Aqueous Solution from Schizophrenic Water-Soluble ABC Triblock Copolymer via Click Chemistry. Langmuir 2009, 25, 2046–2054. 10.1021/la803616d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Chang C.; Wei H.; Feng J.; Wang Z. C.; Wu X. J.; Wu D. Q.; Cheng S. X.; Zhang X. Z.; Zhuo R. X. Temperature and pH Double Responsive Hybrid Cross-Linked Micelles Based on P(NIPAAm-co-MPMA)-b-P(DEA): RAFT Synthesis and “Schizophrenic” Micellization. Macromolecules 2009, 42, 4838–4844. 10.1021/ma900492v. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Bastakoti B. P.; Guragain S.; Nakashima K.; Yamauchi Y. Stimuli-Induced Core – Corona Inversion of Micelle of Poly(acrylic acid)-block-Poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) and its Application in Drug Delivery. Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2015, 216, 287–291. 10.1002/macp.201400440. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Savoji M. T.; Strandman S.; Zhu X. X. Invertible Vesicles and Micelles Formed by Dually-Responsive Diblock Random Copolymers in Aqueous Solutions. Soft Matter 2014, 10, 5886–5893. 10.1039/C4SM01049C. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Bütün V.; Top R. B.; Ufuklar S. Synthesis and Characterization of Novel “Schizophrenic” Water-Soluble Triblock Copolymers and Shell Cross-Linked Micelles. Macromolecules 2006, 39, 1216–1225. 10.1021/ma052052k. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Feng A.; Zhan C.; Yan Q.; Liu B.; Yuan J. A CO2- and Temperature-Switchable “Schizophrenic” Block Copolymer: from Vesicles to Micelles. Chem. Commun. 2014, 50, 8958–8961. 10.1039/C4CC03156C. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Shih Y. J.; Chang Y.; Deratani A.; Quemener D. ″Schizophrenic” Hemocompatible Copolymers via Switchable Thermoresponsive Transition of Nonionic/Zwitterionic Block Self-Assembly in Human Blood. Biomacromolecules 2012, 13, 2849–2858. 10.1021/bm3008764. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Patrickios C. S.; Hertler W. R.; Hatton T. A. Protein Complexation with Acrylic Polyampholytes. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1994, 44, 1031–1039. 10.1002/bit.260440903. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Warren N. J.; Armes S. P. Polymerization-Induced Self-Assembly of Block Copolymer Nano-Objects via RAFT Aqueous Dispersion Polymerization. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 10174–10185. 10.1021/ja502843f. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Derry M. J.; Fielding L. A.; Armes S. P. Polymerization-Induced Self-Assembly of Block Copolymer Nanoparticles via RAFT Non-Aqueous Dispersion Polymerization. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2016, 52, 1–18. 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2015.10.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Canning S. L.; Smith G. N.; Armes S. P. A Critical Appraisal of RAFT-Mediated Polymerization-Induced Self-Assembly. Macromolecules 2016, 49, 1985–2001. 10.1021/acs.macromol.5b02602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Sun J. T.; Hong C. Y.; Pan C. Y. Formation of the Block Copolymer Aggregates via Polymerization-Induced Self-Assembly and Reorganization. Soft Matter 2012, 8, 7753–7767. 10.1039/c2sm25537e. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Charleux B.; Delaittre G.; Rieger J.; D’Agosto F. Polymerization-Induced Self-Assembly: From Soluble Macromolecules to Block Copolymer Nano-Objects in One Step. Macromolecules 2012, 45, 6753–6765. 10.1021/ma300713f. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Rieger J. Guidelines for the Synthesis of Block Copolymer Particles of Various Morphologies by RAFT Dispersion Polymerization. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2015, 36, 1458–1471. 10.1002/marc.201500028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Blanazs A.; Madsen J.; Battaglia G.; Ryan A. J.; Armes S. P. Mechanistic Insights for Block Copolymer Morphologies: How Do Worms Form Vesicles?. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 16581–16587. 10.1021/ja206301a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Chaduc I.; Zhang W.; Rieger J.; Lansalot M.; D’Agosto F.; Charleux B. Amphiphilic Block Copolymers from a Direct and One- Pot RAFT Synthesis in Water. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2011, 32, 1270–1276. 10.1002/marc.201100240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Boissé S.; Rieger J.; Belal K.; Di-Cicco A.; Beaunier P.; Li M. H.; Charleux B. Amphiphilic Block Copolymer Nano-Fibers via RAFT-Mediated Polymerization in Aqueous Dispersed Systems. Chem. Commun. 2010, 46, 1950–1952. 10.1039/b923667h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Zhou W.; Qu Q.; Xu Y.; An Z. Aqueous Polymerization- Induced Self-Assembly for the Synthesis of Ketone-Functionalized Nano-Objects with Low Polydispersity. ACS Macro Lett. 2015, 4, 495–499. 10.1021/acsmacrolett.5b00225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Jiang Y.; Xu N.; Han J.; Yu Q.; Guo L.; Gao P.; Lu X.; Cai Y. The Direct Synthesis of Interface-Decorated Reactive Block Copolymer Nanoparticles via Polymerisation-Induced Self-Assembly. Polym. Chem. 2015, 6, 4955–4965. 10.1039/C5PY00656B. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Zhang X.; Boissé S.; Zhang W.; Beaunier P.; D’Agosto F.; Rieger J.; Charleux B. Well-Defined Amphiphilic Block Copolymers and Nano-objects Formed in Situ via RAFT-Mediated Aqueous Emulsion Polymerization. Macromolecules 2011, 44, 4149–4158. 10.1021/ma2005926. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Ferguson C. J.; Hughes R. J.; Nguyen D.; Pham B. T. T.; Gilbert R. G.; Serelis A. K.; Such C. H.; Hawkett B. S. Ab Initio Emulsion Polymerization by RAFT-Controlled Self-Assembly. Macromolecules 2005, 38, 2191–2204. 10.1021/ma048787r. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Ferguson C. J.; Hughes R. J.; Pham B. T. T.; Hawkett B. S.; Gilbert R. G.; Serelis A. K.; Such C. H. Effective Ab Initio Emulsion Polymerization under RAFT Control. Macromolecules 2002, 35, 9243–9245. 10.1021/ma025626j. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Pei Y.; Lowe A. B.; Roth P. J. Stimulus-Responsive Nanoparticles and Associated (Reversible) Polymorphism via Polymerization Induced Self-assembly (PISA). Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2017, 38, 1600528. 10.1002/marc.201600528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Pei Y.; Thurairajah L.; Sugita O. R.; Lowe A. B. RAFT Dispersion Polymerization in Nonpolar Media: Polymerization of 3-Phenylpropyl Methacrylate in n-Tetradecane with Poly(stearyl methacrylate) Homopolymers as Macro Chain Transfer Agents. Macromolecules 2015, 48, 236–244. 10.1021/ma502230h. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Pei Y.; Dharsana N. C.; Van Hensbergen J. A.; Burford R. P.; Roth P. J.; Lowe A. B. RAFT Dispersion Polymerization of 3-Phenylpropyl Methacrylate with Poly[2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate] Macro-CTAs in Ethanol and Associated Thermoreversible Polymorphism. Soft Matter 2014, 10, 5787–5796. 10.1039/C4SM00729H. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Blanazs A.; Verber R.; Mykhaylyk O. O.; Ryan A. J.; Heath J. Z.; Douglas C. W. I.; Armes S. P. Sterilizable Gels from Thermoresponsive Block Copolymer Worms. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 9741–9748. 10.1021/ja3024059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Verber R.; Blanazs A.; Armes S. P. Rheological Studies of Thermo-Responsive Diblock Copolymer Worm Gels. Soft Matter 2012, 8, 9915–9922. 10.1039/c2sm26156a. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Fielding L. A.; Lane J. A.; Derry M. J.; Mykhaylyk O. O.; Armes S. P. Thermo-Responsive Diblock Copolymer Worm Gels in Non-Polar Solvents. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 5790–5798. 10.1021/ja501756h. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Lovett J. R.; Warren N. J.; Ratcliffe L. P. D.; Kocik M. K.; Armes S. P. pH-Responsive Non-Ionic Diblock Copolymers: Ionization of Carboxylic Acid End-Groups Induces an Order-Order Morphological Transition. Angew. Chem. 2015, 127, 1295–1299. 10.1002/ange.201409799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Penfold N. J. W.; Lovett J. R.; Warren N. J.; Verstraete P.; Smets J.; Armes S. P. pH-Responsive Non-Ionic Diblock Copolymers: Protonation of a Morpholine End-Group Induces an Order–Order Transition. Polym. Chem. 2016, 7, 79–88. 10.1039/C5PY01510C. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Lowe A. B.; Billingham N. C.; Armes S. P. Synthesis and Characterization of Zwitterionic Block Copolymers. Macromolecules 1998, 31, 5991–5998. 10.1021/ma980558f. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Auschra C.; Eckstein E.; Mühlebach A.; Zink M. O.; Rime F. Design of New Pigment Dispersants by Controlled Radical Polymerization. Prog. Org. Coat. 2002, 45, 83–93. 10.1016/S0300-9440(02)00048-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Creutz S.; Jerome R.; Kaptijn G. M. P.; Van Der Werf A. W.; Akkerman J. M. Design of Polymeric Dispersants for Waterborne Coatings. J. Coat. Technol. 1998, 70, 41–46. 10.1007/BF02720518. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Creutz S.; Jérôme R. Effectiveness of Block Copolymers as Stabilizers for Aqueous Titanium Dioxide Dispersions of a High Solid Content. Prog. Org. Coat. 2000, 40, 21–29. 10.1016/S0300-9440(00)00145-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Alarcon C.; Pennadam S.; Alexander C. Stimuli Responsive Polymers for Biomedical Applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2005, 34, 276–285. 10.1039/B406727D. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Bütün V.; Armes S. P.; Billingham N. C. Synthesis and Aqueous Solution Properties of Near-Monodisperse Tertiary Amine Methacrylate Homopolymers and Diblock Copolymers. Polymer 2001, 42, 5993–6008. 10.1016/S0032-3861(01)00066-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Ilavsky J.; Jemian P. R. Irena: Tool Suite for Modeling and Analysis of Small-Angle Scattering. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2009, 42, 347–353. 10.1107/S0021889809002222. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Dai S.; Ravi P.; Tam K. C.; Mao B. W.; Gan L. H. Novel pH-Responsive Amphiphilic Diblock Copolymers with Reversible Micellization Properties. Langmuir 2003, 19, 5175–5177. 10.1021/la0340652. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Yessine M. A.; Lafleur M.; Meier C.; Petereit H. U.; Leroux J. C. Characterization of the Membrane-Destabilizing Properties of Different pH-Sensitive Methacrylic Acid Copolymers. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr. 2003, 1613, 28–38. 10.1016/S0005-2736(03)00137-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Merle Y. Synthetic Polyampholytes. 5. Influence of Nearest-Neighbor Interactions on Potentiometric Curves. J. Phys. Chem. 1987, 91, 3092–3098. 10.1021/j100295a089. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. van Treslong C. J. B. Evaluation of Potentiometric Data of Weak Polyelectrolytes Taking Account of Nearest-Neighbour Interaction. Recl. des Trav. Chim. des Pays-Bas 1978, 97, 13–21. 10.1002/recl.19780970105. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Mykytiuk J.; Armes S. P.; Billingham N. C. Group-Transfer Polymerization of Benzyl Methacrylate: A Convenient Method for Synthesis of Near-Monodisperse Poly(methacrylic acid)s. Polym. Bull. 1992, 29, 139–145. 10.1007/BF00558048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Katchalsky A.; Eisenberg H. Molecular Weight of Polyacrylic and Polymethacrylic Acid. J. Polym. Sci. 1951, 6, 145–154. 10.1002/pol.1951.120060202. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. Sugihara S.; Blanazs A.; Armes S. P.; Ryan A. J.; Lewis A. L. Aqueous Dispersion Polymerization: A New Paradigm for In Situ Block Copolymer Self-Assembly in Concentrated Solution. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 15707–15713. 10.1021/ja205887v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Cunningham V. J.; Alswieleh A. M.; Thompson K. L.; Williams M.; Leggett G. J.; Armes S. P.; Musa O. M. Poly(glycerol monomethacrylate)–Poly(benzyl methacrylate) Diblock Copolymer Nanoparticles via RAFT Emulsion Polymerization: Synthesis, Characterization, and Interfacial Activity. Macromolecules 2014, 47, 5613–5623. 10.1021/ma501140h. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Semsarilar M.; Ladmiral V.; Blanazs A.; Armes S. P. Poly(methacrylic acid)-Based AB and ABC Block Copolymer Nano-Objects Prepared via RAFT Alcoholic Dispersion Polymerization. Polym. Chem. 2014, 5, 3466–3475. 10.1039/C4PY00201F. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  88. Battaglia G.; Ryan A. Bilayers and Interdigitation in Block Copolymer Vesicles. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 8757–8764. 10.1021/ja050742y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Cockram A. A.; Neal T. J.; Derry M. J.; Mykhaylyk O. O.; Williams N. S. J.; Murray M. W.; Emmett S. N.; Armes S. P. Effect of Monomer Solubility on the Evolution of Copolymer Morphology during Polymerization-Induced Self-Assembly in Aqueous Solution. Macromolecules 2017, 50, 796–802. 10.1021/acs.macromol.6b02309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Patrickios C. S. Polypeptide Amino Acid Composition and Isoelectric Point 1. A Closed-Form Approximation. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1995, 175, 256–260. 10.1006/jcis.1995.1454. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Bakkialakshmi S.; Selvarani P.; Chenthamarai S. Fluorescence Quenching of Rhodamine B Base by Two Amines. Spectrochim. Acta, Part A 2013, 105, 557–562. 10.1016/j.saa.2012.11.091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Hu J.; Zhang X.; Wang D.; Hu X.; Liu T.; Zhang G.; Liu S. Ultrasensitive Ratiometric Fluorescent pH and Temperature Probes Constructed from Dye-labeled Thermoresponsive Double Hydrophilic Block Copolymers. J. Mater. Chem. 2011, 21, 19030–19038. 10.1039/c1jm13575a. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  93. Martin M. M.; Lindqvist L. The pH Dependence of Fluorescein Fluorescence. J. Lumin. 1975, 10, 381–390. 10.1016/0022-2313(75)90003-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Binks J. B.Photophysics of Aromatic Molecules; Wiley: London, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  95. Sun H.; Scharff-Poulsen A. M.; Gu H.; Almdal K. Synthesis and Characterization of Ratiometric, pH Sensing Nanoparticles with Covalently Attached Fluorescent Dyes. Chem. Mater. 2006, 18, 3381–3384. 10.1021/cm052750j. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Ma B.; Xu M.; Zeng F.; Huang L.; Wu S. Micelle Nanoparticles for FRET-based Ratiometric Sensing of Mercury Ions in Water, Biological Fluids and Living Cells. Nanotechnology 2011, 22, 065501. 10.1088/0957-4484/22/6/065501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

ma7b01005_si_001.pdf (580.6KB, pdf)

Articles from Macromolecules are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES