English

• The versatile architectures of polymeric materials impart them with highly programming properties, thus enabling their various applications [1–3]. The architectures of polymers include linear, cyclic, hyperbranched, star-shape, and cross-linked structures [4,5], which originate from different connection ways of various polymer segments. Among these architectures, branched polymers, owing to their irregular three-dimensional topology, exhibit unique properties compared to their linear counterparts. These include rheological differences such as reduced chain entanglement, as well as higher solubility, weaker mechanical strength, and distinct self-assembly behaviors [6,7]. Particularly, branched polymers, owing to their ability to stitch domains together by repeatedly crossing the interface between two homopolymers, are effective compatibilizers for promoting the interfacial adhesion between two immiscible polymers, thus enhancing their mechanical performances [8–10]. Therefore, it is important to develop an effective strategy for synthesizing polymers with branched structures to extend the library of branched polymer compatibilizers.

  Traditionally, the well-established strategy for synthesizing branched polymers mainly includes grafting strategies, that is, “grafting to”, “grafting through”, and “grafting from” [11]. However, these strategies often necessitate the pre-synthesis of side- or main-chains, leading to tedious synthetic procedures [12]. Much effort has been devoted to develop facile and efficient synthetic methods to attain branched polymers [13–15]. Two elegant strategies have been established through the: (i) In situ construction of a reactive group end-capped oligomer as a side chain for synthesizing branched polymers [16,17], and (ii) utilization of bifunctional monomers, i.e., monomers containing two reactive groups, as branching point for synthesizing hyperbranched polymers (HBPs) [18–20]. An example of the former is that branched poly(monothiocarbonate) can be accessed from epichlorohydrin and carbonyl sulfide (COS) via the in situ synthesis of poly(monothiocarbonate) oligomer end-capped with an epoxy group, which acts as branching point. The terpolymerization of COS with epichlorohydrin and epoxy at elevated temperature generates branched sulfur-containing polymers [21]. The use of bifunctional monomers for synthesizing HBPs represents a more general method [22–25]. For example, 1,3,4-benzene tricarboxylic anhydride was used as a branching point to produce hyperbranched polyether-b-polycarbonate copolymers [25]. These well-established synthetic methodologies enable the development of functional HBPs from low-cost, readily available monomers, thereby facilitating the high-value utilization of fundamental compounds.

  Epoxides and acrylates are two fundamental chemicals that have been widely used in many areas [26,27], with one of the important applications being to produce polymers [28,29]. In particular, the direct construction of polymeric materials from epoxides and acrylates represents an elegant strategy for attaining functional polymers [30–32]. For example, Wang et al. described an effective strategy for synthesizing block copolymers comprising polyacrylates and epoxide-derived copolymers using switchable polymerization [33,34]. Very recently, we achieved the sequence-controlled copolymerization of epoxides and acrylates using a bimetallic synergistic catalysis strategy [35], by which multiblock copolymers comprising polyester and polyacrylate segments can be synthesized for use as compatibilizers [36]. In addition, hyperbranched poly(glycidyl acrylate), which can be used for enhancing the performance of epoxy thermosets, can be synthesized via a photo-mediated switchable polymerization from epoxide, acrylate, and epoxy-capped acrylate [37]. Nevertheless, the direct synthesis of HBPs comprising polyether and polyacrylate has not yet been achieved. Our previous work indicated that bimetallic synergistic catalysis was capable of facilitating the copolymerization of epoxides and acrylates for synthesizing block copolymers, wherein the homopolymerization of epoxide proceeded first, followed by the homopolymerization of acrylate with the initiation of an alkoxide [35]. We envision that the introduciton of glycidyl acrylate (GA), a bifunctional monomer comprising both epoxy and acrylate groups, into the copolymerization of epoxides and acrylates is viable for synthesizing HBPs. In this procedure, the copolymerization of propylene oxide (PO) and GA proceeded first, forming a polyether with attached acrylate groups (Fig. 1). Then, the copolymerization of the acrylate groups occurred after the epoxide groups were fully consumed with the initiation of alkoxide, generated from the ring-opening polymerization (ROP) of epoxide. Herein, we aimed to synthesize HBPs comprising polyether and polyacrylate through the copolymerization of PO and methyl acrylate (MA) in the presence of GA using a bimetallic catalysis strategy. Varying the GA addition amount enables the production of HBPs with different branching degrees, which can be used as effective compatibilizers for enhancing the mechanical performances of polyether/polyacrylate blends.

  Figure 1

  

  Figure 1.  Proposed strategy for the synthesis of hyperbranched ⁱPPO-b-PMA block copolymer for compatibilizer applications.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  Dinuclear SalenCrCl complex (1) in conjunction with [PPN]Cl (PPN = bis(triphenylphosphine)iminium) was employed to catalyze the copolymerization of PO, GA, and MA with a feed ratio of PO:MA:GA:1:[PPN]Cl = 1000:1000:3:1:2 at 60 ℃. The polymerization proceeded efficiently, as all the monomers were almost fully consumed within 5 h (Table 1, entry 1). Hydrogen nuclear magnetic resonance (¹H NMR) spectroscopy characterization revealed that the resulting copolymer comprised poly(propylene oxide) (PPO) and poly(methyl acrylate) (PMA) segments (Fig. S1 in Supporting information). In addition, the number-average molecular weight (M_n) of the resulting polymer (HBP1) was 19.6 kg/mol with a dispersity (Ð) of 3.21. In contrast, the copolymerization of PO and MA catalyzed by 1/[PPN]Cl yielded the corresponding PPO-b-PMA block copolymer (BCP) with an M_n of 24.3 kg/mol and a narrowed Ð of 1.56 (entry 2). However, the weight-average molecular weight (M_w) of HBP1 was higher than that of BCP (62.9 vs. 37.9 kg/mol), indicating the formation of branched structure of resulting copolymers (Fig. 2a). To verify this hypothesis, detailed comparisons regarding the relationship between M_w and intrinsic viscosity of HBP1 and BCP was conducted using gel permeation chromatography (GPC) equipped with triple detectors, including refractive index, intrinsic viscosity, and two light scattering detectors. According to Mari–Houwink plots recorded by GPC, the Mark–Houwink exponents (α) of HBP1 and BCP were 0.36 and 0.79 (Fig. 2b), respectively, characteristic of a randomly branched and linear polymer. The branched characteristics of HBP1 is further evidenced by the fact that the contraction factor (g′), i.e., the ratio of the intrinsic viscosities of HBP1 and BCP, decreased with increasing M_w. Taken together, these results confirmed that HBP1 possesses a hyperbranched structure.

  Table 1

  

  Table 1.  Copolymerization of PO, MA, and GA mediated by dinuclear Cr-complex.^a

  DownLoad: CSV

  Entry	PO/MA/GA/1/PPNCl	Time (h)	Conv. b (%)			Mn c (kg/mol)	Mw d (kg/mol)	Ð c (Mw/Mn)
  			PO	MA	GA
  1	1000/1000/3/1/2	5	99	99	>99	19.6	62.9	3.21
  2	1000/1000/0/1/2	5	99	98	–	24.3	37.9	1.56
  3	1000/1000/6/1/2	4	99	99	>99	24.8	189.9	7.66
  4	1000/1000/9/1/2	5	99	99	>99	24.4	197.6	8.10
  5	1000/1000/12/1/2	3	99	99	>99	23.1	279.5	12.10
  6 d	1000/1000/15/1/2	3	–	–	–	n.d. e	n.d.	n.d.
  7	4000/4000/24/1/2	12	99	99	98	34.6	151.2	4.37
  8	4000/4000/30/1/2	12	72	90	99	44.8	320.3	7.15
  9 d	4000/4000/40/1/2	12	–	–	–	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.
  10	6000/6000/30/1/2	12	31	77	99	24.6	167.3	6.80
  a Conditions: Reactions were performed in PO (10 mmol) and MA (10 mmol) with the addition of GA (feed ratio as noted) in a 25-mL flask at 60 ℃. Toluene was added as the solvent at a mass ratio of m(toluene): m(PO+GA) = 2:1. b The conversion of monomers and structure of the copolymer were determined using 1H NMR spectroscopy. c Determined by GPC in tetrahydrofuran and calibrated with polystyrene. d The reaction mixture presented as an insoluble solid due to the gelation of the resulting copolymer in the presence of high GA content. e n.d. = Not detected.

  Figure 2

  

  Figure 2.  Comparison between BCP (linear) and HBP1 (branched): (a) GPC traces; (b) Mark–Houwink plots, contraction factor: g’ = [η]_br/[η]_lin (green line). M_n and M_w are given in kg/mol.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  Subsequently, we focused on synthesizing HBPs with different branching degrees by varying the feed ratios of GA. Increasing the GA:1 feed ratio from 3:1 to 6:1, 9:1, and 12:1 resulted in no obvious change in the M_ns (from ~23.1 kg/mol to 24.8 kg/mol) of the resulting copolymers; whereas, Ðs increased from 3.21 to 7.66, 8.10, and 12.10, respectively (entries 3–5, Table 1). Correspondingly, M_ws of the resulting copolymers increased to 189.9, 197.6, and 279.5 kg/mol, respectively, indicating the branched density of the resulting copolymers increased with the GA addition amount. Nevertheless, further improving the GA:1 feed ratio to 15:1 led to the gelation of the resulting copolymers (entry 6). In addition, at the lower catalyst concentration with a feed ratio of PO:MA:GA:1:[PPN]Cl = 4000:4000:24:1:2, the copolymerization decelerated, as it required 12 h to attain PO and MA conversions of 99% and 98%, respectively. Compared with the copolymerization with a feed ratio of PO:GA = 1000:6 (HBP2, entry 3), M_n of the resulting copolymer increased to 34.6 kg/mol, but with a lower Ð of 4.37, indicating a lower M_w (151.2 vs. 189.9 kg/mol) of the resulting copolymer (entry 7, Table 1). This might be attributed to the relatively lower reactivity of GA under a lower catalyst concentration. This hypothesis was further evidenced by the fact that Ð of the copolymer synthesized with a higher GA feed ratio of 4000:4000:30:1:2 was lower than that of HBP2 (7.66 vs. 7.15) (entry 8, Table 1). The decelerated copolymerization led to a decreased PO conversion of 72%, producing branched copolymer with a higher M_w of 320.3 kg/mol. Similarly, the gelation was observed as GA addition was increased to 4000:4000:40:1:2 (entry 9, Table 1). In addition, the copolymerization was also capable of proceeding under lower catalyst loading, affording a lower PO conversion and branched copolymer with decreased M_w (entry 10, Table 1). This can be attributed to the lower transformation efficiency of PO at a lower catalyst concentration.

  To shed more light on how the HBPs were produced, the copolymerization process of PO and MA in the presence of GA was monitored via an intermittent experiment. A series of parallel experiments with a feed ratio of PO:MA:GA:1:[PPN]Cl = 500:500:3:1:2 were performed and quenched at different times, and the reaction mixtures were extracted for ¹H NMR and GPC analyses. Only PO conversion was observed during the initial stage (Fig. 3a). Notably, no signal representing GA was observed (Fig. S2 in Supporting information), which can be attributed to its concentration being too low to be detected during the polymerization process. M_ns of the resulting polymers increased as PO was consumed and reached 19.6 kg/mol with a Ð of 1.78 (Fig. 3b). Then, the transformation of MA occurred after PO was fully consumed. Correspondingly, M_n of resulting copolymer dramatically increased as MA was consumed, together with an increase in Ð, indicating the formation of a branched copolymer.

  Figure 3

  

  Figure 3.  Copolymerization process study: Variation in (a) PO and MA conversion and (b) molecular weights and dispersities with time; Fineman–Ross plot and kinetic parameters for the copolymerization of (c) PO and GA and (d) GA and MA mediated by the 1/PPNCl catalyst system.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  To obtain more structural information on the branched points of the resulting copolymer, the competition rates of the monomer sets PO/GA and GA/MA were explored. The monomer reactivity ratios of PO/GA and GA/MA copolymerizations were established according to the Fineman–Ross equation (Tables S1 and S2 in Supporting information). r_PO and r_GA were determined to be 1.10 and 0.99, respectively, from the copolymerization of PO and GA (Fig. 3c). The higher reactivity of PO compared with that of GA indicates that the PO insertion is more favored, indicating that GA is distributed at the end of polymer mainchain. Similarly, r_GA and r_MA were determined to be 0.85 and 1.15, respectively, from the copolymerization of GA and MA (Fig. 3d), indicating that the insertion of MA was more favored. Consequently, the addition of small amounts of GA (up to 0.12%, in molar ratio) led to the formation of HBPs comprising polyether and polyacrylate segments.

  Accordingly, the HBPs synthesis mechanism is proposed to be as follows. In the copolymerization process, due to the low addition amount of GA, the random copolymerization of PO and GA occurred first, forming polyether segments with acrylate groups distributed at the end of polyether segments (Fig. 4). Then, the propagating species of alkoxylate triggered the copolymerization of MA and acrylate groups appended to the polyether segment. Therefore, HBPs comprising polyether and polyacrylate segments were produced from the copolymerization of PO and MA in the presence of GA, in which GA acted as the branching point.

  Figure 4

  

  Figure 4.  Proposed mechanism for the synthesis of HBPs via the dinuclear Cr-complex-catalyzed copolymerization epoxides and acrylate in the presence of GA.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  In addition, substituting (rac)-PO for optical (S)-PO to copolymerize with MA in the presence of GA (ⁱPO:GA = 1000:6) produced a HBP (ⁱHBP1) with an isotactic PPO (ⁱPPO) segment (Table S3 in Supporting information), of which the isotacticity reached 85% (Fig. S3 in Supporting information). Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) characterization revealed that ⁱHBP1 has a melting temperature (T_m) of 67.5 ℃, ascribed to the ⁱPPO segment, together with two glass transition temperatures (T_gs) of −73.4 and 8.6 ℃ (Fig. S4 in Supporting information) [36,38]. With this HBP in hand, we attempted to extend its application in facilitating the compatibilization of immiscible ⁱPPO/PMA blends, in which ⁱPPO and PMA were synthesized from the respective homopolymerization of (S)-PO and MA, respectively, thereby improving their mechanical properties (Fig. 5a). Initially, the thermal and mechanical performances of ⁱPPO/PMA blends with different ratios were characterized using DSC and universal tensile tests. The ⁱPPO/PMA blend (70:30 wt%, B1) has a T_m and T_g of 67.6 and 18.4 ℃, respectively (Fig. 5b), ascribed to ⁱPPO and PMA. This is in good accordance with the T_m and T_g of isolated PPO and PMA, respectively (Fig. S5 in Supporting information). No difference in T_m and T_g between the blend and isolated ⁱPPO and PMA indicates that B1 has a separated microphase.

  Figure 5

  

  Figure 5.  Preparation and properties characterization of different ⁱPPO /PMA blends: (a) Schematic diagram of preparation of blends containing different HBPs; (b) DSC curves and (c) stress–strain plots of PPO/PMA blends incorporated with different hyperbranched PO/MA copolymers: B1: ⁱPPO/PMA = 70:30 (wt%); B2: B1 + 3 wt% ⁱHBP1; B3: B1 + 3 wt% ⁱBCP; B4: B1 + 3 wt% ⁱHBP2; B5: B1 + 3 wt% ⁱHBP3.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  Tensile text revealed that B1 has an ultimate tensile strength (σ_b) and strain (ε_b) at break of 37.9 MPa and 689%, respectively (Fig. 5c). Subsequently, ⁱHBP1 with a weight content of 3 wt% was added to B1 to improve its mechanical performance (B2). The addition of ⁱHBP1 had no obvious influence on the thermal properties of B2, which exhibited a T_m of 64.9 ℃ and T_gs of −66.7 and 18.1 ℃. However, σ_b and ε_b of B2 were improved to 53.2 MPa and 889%, respectively. After the addition of 3 wt% ⁱPPO-b-PMA block copolymer (ⁱBCP to B1), σ_B and ε_b of B3 were lower than those of B2 (53.2 vs. 43.4 MPa and 889% vs. 761%, respectively). This suggests that the topological structure of the ⁱPPO-b-PMA block copolymer significantly influenced its compatibilization efficiency in enhancing the mechanical performance of the ⁱPPO/PMA blend, with higher branching degrees yielding greater efficiency. To verify this hypothesis, we examined the thermal and mechanical properties of PO/MA blends containing block copolymers with different branching degrees that were synthesized through PO/MA copolymerization in the presence of GA at (S)-PO:GA feed ratios of 1000:12 (ⁱHBP2) and 4000:30 (ⁱHBP3). DCS characterization revealed no obvious change in T_m and T_g of the blends (Fig. 5b). Blends comprising block copolymers with higher branching degrees exhibited enhanced mechanical properties, as σ_bs improved from 37.8 (B1) to 53.5 (B4) and 57.9 MPa (B5), with a corresponding increase in ε_bs from 689% to 981% and 998%, respectively (Fig. 5c). These results revealed that block copolymers with higher branching degrees exhibit higher compatibilization efficiency, with ⁱHBP3 demonstrated to be the most effective compatibilizer.

  Subsequently, the influence of the ⁱHBP3 content on the compatibilization efficiency were explored in detail. ⁱHBP3 incorporation had no significant effect on the thermal properties of the resulting blends. Two glass transitions (from −65.0 ℃ to −64.0 ℃ and from 16.7 ℃ to 18.4 ℃) and a melting peak near 66.0 ℃ were observed from the second-heating DSC curves for blends containing different amounts of ⁱHBP3 (Fig. 6a). Characterizing the blends using dynamic mechanical analyzer (DMA) revealed comparable loss factors (tan δ) for all blends. However, the storage modulus (E’) of the blends increased with a higher ⁱHBP3 content (Fig. 6b). Notably, B5 (B1 containing 3 wt% ⁱHBP3) achieved the highest E’ of 4350 MPa at −75.0 ℃. Reducing the amount of ⁱHBP3 to 1 wt% (B6) reduced the compatibilization efficiency, yielding a σ_b and ε_b of 42.0 MPa and 780%, respectively (Fig. 6c). While incorporating 5 wt% ⁱHBP3 into B1 (B7) enhanced its mechanical properties (σ_b = 54.1 MPa, ε_b = 963%), these values remained lower than those of B5. Collectively, these results indicate that 3 wt% ⁱHBP3 optimally improved the mechanical performance of the ⁱPPO/PMA blend. To elucidate how ⁱHBP3 enhances the mechanical performances of the ⁱPPO/PMA blend, the morphologies of blends containing varying ⁱHBP3 contents were characterized using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). SEM characterization revealed the sea-island structure of the ⁱPPO/PMA blend, indicating that immiscible domains were formed due to the separated microphase of ⁱPPO/PMA (Fig. 6d, B1). In contrast, incorporating hyperbranched ⁱPPO-b-PMA block copolymer improved microphase separation, which was evidenced by the smoother, flatter morphologies observed for the ⁱPPO/PMA blends containing ⁱHBP3. Specifically, the blend with 3 wt% ⁱHBP3 (B5) exhibited the most uniform microphase, which was further supported by AFM imaging (Fig. 6e), highlighting its superior ability to promote microphase fusion. These findings indicate that ⁱHBP3 addition reduces interfacial tension and domain size within the ⁱPPO/PMA blend, thereby enhancing its mechanical performance.

  Figure 6

  

  Figure 6.  Properties of PCP/PMA blends with different amounts of HBPs: (a) DSC curves; (b) storage moduli and tanδ; (c) stress–strain curves; (d) SEM images; and (e) AFM images. B1: ⁱPPO/PMA = 70:30 (wt%); B5: B1 + 3 wt% ⁱHBP3; B6: B1 + 1 wt% ⁱHBP3; B7: B1 + 5 wt% ⁱHBP3.

  DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

  In summary, we have demonstrated an effective strategy for synthesizing HBPs from epoxides and acrylate via bimetallic synergistic catalysis in the presence of GA. This strategy is supported by the monomer reactivity-determined polymerization in the presence of GA, with the random copolymerization of epoxide and GA occurring first. Notably, the branching degree of the resulting HBP can be readily tuned by changing the amount of GA. In addition, the incorporation of HBPs improved the mechanical performances of the blend comprising ⁱPPO and PMA. A detailed investigation of the influence of the topological structure and weight content of HBPs revealed the structure–performance relationship, indicating their excellent potential for use as compatibilizers.

  CRediT authorship contribution statement

  Wei Wang: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Tian-Jun Yue: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis. Xiang-Yu Fu: Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation. Xiao-Hui Guo: Formal analysis, Data curation. Ge-Ge Gu: Software, Data curation. Xiao-Bing Lu: Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition. Wei-Min Ren: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.

  Declaration of competing interest

  The authors declare that they have no known competing interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

  Acknowledgments

  This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 22171037 to W.-M. Ren), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Nos. DUT25RC(3)021, DUT25Z2724, and DUT22LAB609 to T.-J. Yue) and the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2021YFA1501704).

  Supplementary materials

  Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.cclet.2025.112015.

  
  
• 1. [1]

     Y. Gao, D. Zhou, J. Lyu, et al., Nat. Rev. Chem. 4 (2020) 194–212. doi: 10.1038/s41570-020-0170-7

  2. [2]

     G. Polymeropoulos, G. Zapsas, K. Ntetsikas, et al., Macromolecules 50 (2017) 1253–1290. doi: 10.1021/acs.macromol.6b02569

  3. [3]

     Y. Gu, E.A. Alt, H. Wang, X. Li, A.P. Willard, J.A. Johnson, Nature 560 (2018) 65–69. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0339-0

  4. [4]

     T.J. Yue, L.Y. Wang, W.M. Ren, Polym. Chem. 12 (2021) 6650–6666. doi: 10.1039/d1py01065d

  5. [5]

     K. Matyjaszewski, Adv. Mater. 30 (2018) 1706441. doi: 10.1002/adma.201706441

  6. [6]

     W. Wu, R. Tang, Q. Li, Z. Li, Chem. Soc. Rev. 44 (2015) 3997–4022. doi: 10.1039/C4CS00224E

  7. [7]

     M.B. Sims, Polym. Int. 70 (2021) 14–23. doi: 10.1002/pi.6084

  8. [8]

     C.R. López-Barrón, P. Brant, M. Shivokhin, et al., Macromolecules 51 (2018) 5720–5731. doi: 10.1021/acs.macromol.8b00068

  9. [9]

     S.W. Zhou, C. Yu, M. Chen, et al., Smart Mol. 1 (2023) e20220009. doi: 10.1002/smo.20220009

  10. [10]

      Y. Chen, Y. Ding, P. Li, et al., Chin. J. Chem. 43 (2025) 1560–1567. doi: 10.1002/cjoc.202401258

  11. [11]

      R. d’Arcy, J. Burke, N. Tirelli, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 107 (2016) 60–81. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2016.05.005

  12. [12]

      F.L. Hatton, P. Chambon, T.O. McDonald, A. Owen, S.P. Rannard, Chem. Sci. 5 (2014) 1844–1853. doi: 10.1039/C4SC00360H

  13. [13]

      X. Yan, X. Huang, Y. Liu, et al., Chin. Chem. Lett. 35 (2024) 109426. doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2023.109426

  14. [14]

      N. Ren, X. Wang, P. Sun, et al., Prog. Polym. Sci. 166 (2025) 101988–102023. doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2025.101988

  15. [15]

      Z. Li, H. Yong, K. Wang, et al., Chem. Commun. 59 (2023) 4142–4157. doi: 10.1039/d3cc00250k

  16. [16]

      T.J. Yue, W.M. Ren, Y. Liu, Z.Q. Wan, X.B. Lu, Macromolecules 49 (2016) 2971–2976. doi: 10.1021/acs.macromol.6b00272

  17. [17]

      B. Zhang, H. Li, H. Luo, J. Zhao, Eur. Polym. J. 134 (2020) 109820. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2020.109820

  18. [18]

      H. Gao, K. Matyjaszewski, Prog. Polym. Sci. 34 (2009) 317. doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2009.01.001

  19. [19]

      J. Zhang, G. Wang, Sci. China Chem. 58 (2015) 1674–1694. doi: 10.1007/s11426-015-5463-1

  20. [20]

      Y.Y. Cui, Y. Ren, X.X. Liu, Chin. Chem. Lett. 23 (2012) 985–988. doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2012.06.026

  21. [21]

      T.J. Yue, G.A. Bhat, W.J. Zhang, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 59 (2020) 13633–13637. doi: 10.1002/anie.202005806

  22. [22]

      O.B. Penrhyn-Lowe, S. Flynn, S.R. Cassin, et al., Polym. Chem. 12 (2021) 6472–6483. doi: 10.1039/d1py01103k

  23. [23]

      H. Zhao, C. Hu, X. Pang, X. Chen, Smart Mol., 2 (2024) e20240057.

  24. [24]

      H. Gao, Chin. Chem. Lett. 30 (2019) 1996–2002. doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2019.02.002

  25. [25]

      M. Zhao, S. Zhu, G. Zhang, et al., Macromolecules 56 (2023) 2379–2387. doi: 10.1021/acs.macromol.3c00213

  26. [26]

      J. Herzberger, K. Niederer, H. Pohlit, et al., Chem. Rev. 116 (2016) 2170–2243. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00441

  27. [27]

      F. Bernard, G. Eyglunent, V. Daële, A. Mellouki, J. Phys. Chem. A 114 (2010) 8376–8383. doi: 10.1021/jp104451v

  28. [28]

      M.I. Childers, J.M. Longo, N.J. Van Zee, A.M. LaPointe, G.W. Coates, Chem. Rev. 114 (2014) 8129–8152. doi: 10.1021/cr400725x

  29. [29]

      B.K. Christopher, Macromol. Rapid Commun. 30 (2009) 1961–1963. doi: 10.1002/marc.200900676

  30. [30]

      Y. Wang, Y. Zhao, Y. Ye, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 57 (2018) 3593–3597. doi: 10.1002/anie.201710734

  31. [31]

      K. Guo, S. Li, G. Chen, et al., CCS Chem. 4 (2022) 3134–3149. doi: 10.31635/ccschem.021.202101364

  32. [32]

      S. Zhu, Y. Zhao, M. Ni, et al., ACS Macro Lett. 9 (2020) 204–209. doi: 10.1021/acsmacrolett.9b00895

  33. [33]

      Y. Zhao, Y. Wang, X. Zhou, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 58 (2019) 14311–14318. doi: 10.1002/anie.201906140

  34. [34]

      Y. Wang, Y. Zhao, S. Zhu, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 59 (2020), 5988–5994. doi: 10.1002/anie.201914216

  35. [35]

      X.Y. Fu, T.J. Yue, B.H. Ren, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 63 (2024) e202401926. doi: 10.1002/anie.202401926

  36. [36]

      X.Y. Fu, T.J. Yue, X.H. Guo, X.B. Lu, W.M. Ren, Nat. Commun. 16 (2025) 2154. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-57449-7

  37. [37]

      S. Zhu, M. Zhao, H. Zhou, et al., Nat. Commun. 14 (2023) 1622. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-37334-x

  38. [38]

      B.M. Lipinski, L.S. Morris, M.N. Silberstein, G.W. Coates, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 142 (2020) 6800–6806. doi: 10.1021/jacs.0c01768

• 

  Figure 1  Proposed strategy for the synthesis of hyperbranched ⁱPPO-b-PMA block copolymer for compatibilizer applications.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片
  

  Figure 2  Comparison between BCP (linear) and HBP1 (branched): (a) GPC traces; (b) Mark–Houwink plots, contraction factor: g’ = [η]_br/[η]_lin (green line). M_n and M_w are given in kg/mol.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片
  

  Figure 3  Copolymerization process study: Variation in (a) PO and MA conversion and (b) molecular weights and dispersities with time; Fineman–Ross plot and kinetic parameters for the copolymerization of (c) PO and GA and (d) GA and MA mediated by the 1/PPNCl catalyst system.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片
  

  Figure 4  Proposed mechanism for the synthesis of HBPs via the dinuclear Cr-complex-catalyzed copolymerization epoxides and acrylate in the presence of GA.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片
  

  Figure 5  Preparation and properties characterization of different ⁱPPO /PMA blends: (a) Schematic diagram of preparation of blends containing different HBPs; (b) DSC curves and (c) stress–strain plots of PPO/PMA blends incorporated with different hyperbranched PO/MA copolymers: B1: ⁱPPO/PMA = 70:30 (wt%); B2: B1 + 3 wt% ⁱHBP1; B3: B1 + 3 wt% ⁱBCP; B4: B1 + 3 wt% ⁱHBP2; B5: B1 + 3 wt% ⁱHBP3.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片
  

  Figure 6  Properties of PCP/PMA blends with different amounts of HBPs: (a) DSC curves; (b) storage moduli and tanδ; (c) stress–strain curves; (d) SEM images; and (e) AFM images. B1: ⁱPPO/PMA = 70:30 (wt%); B5: B1 + 3 wt% ⁱHBP3; B6: B1 + 1 wt% ⁱHBP3; B7: B1 + 5 wt% ⁱHBP3.

  下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片

  Table 1.  Copolymerization of PO, MA, and GA mediated by dinuclear Cr-complex.^a

  Entry	PO/MA/GA/1/PPNCl	Time (h)	Conv. b (%)			Mn c (kg/mol)	Mw d (kg/mol)	Ð c (Mw/Mn)
  			PO	MA	GA
  1	1000/1000/3/1/2	5	99	99	>99	19.6	62.9	3.21
  2	1000/1000/0/1/2	5	99	98	–	24.3	37.9	1.56
  3	1000/1000/6/1/2	4	99	99	>99	24.8	189.9	7.66
  4	1000/1000/9/1/2	5	99	99	>99	24.4	197.6	8.10
  5	1000/1000/12/1/2	3	99	99	>99	23.1	279.5	12.10
  6 d	1000/1000/15/1/2	3	–	–	–	n.d. e	n.d.	n.d.
  7	4000/4000/24/1/2	12	99	99	98	34.6	151.2	4.37
  8	4000/4000/30/1/2	12	72	90	99	44.8	320.3	7.15
  9 d	4000/4000/40/1/2	12	–	–	–	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.
  10	6000/6000/30/1/2	12	31	77	99	24.6	167.3	6.80
  a Conditions: Reactions were performed in PO (10 mmol) and MA (10 mmol) with the addition of GA (feed ratio as noted) in a 25-mL flask at 60 ℃. Toluene was added as the solvent at a mass ratio of m(toluene): m(PO+GA) = 2:1. b The conversion of monomers and structure of the copolymer were determined using 1H NMR spectroscopy. c Determined by GPC in tetrahydrofuran and calibrated with polystyrene. d The reaction mixture presented as an insoluble solid due to the gelation of the resulting copolymer in the presence of high GA content. e n.d. = Not detected.

  下载: 导出CSV
•