Protected versus unprotected dextran macroinitiators for ATRP synthesis of Dex-g-PMMA

Authors

  • Ludovic Dupayage,

    1. Laboratoire de Chimie Physique Macromoléculaire, UMR 7568 CNRS-Nancy University, ENSIC, BP 20451, 54001 Nancy cedex, France
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Cécile Nouvel,

    Corresponding author
    1. Laboratoire de Chimie Physique Macromoléculaire, UMR 7568 CNRS-Nancy University, ENSIC, BP 20451, 54001 Nancy cedex, France
    • Laboratoire de Chimie Physique Macromoléculaire, UMR 7568 CNRS-Nancy University, ENSIC, BP 20451, 54001 Nancy cedex, France
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Jean-Luc Six

    1. Laboratoire de Chimie Physique Macromoléculaire, UMR 7568 CNRS-Nancy University, ENSIC, BP 20451, 54001 Nancy cedex, France
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

The synthesis of amphiphilic dextran-g-poly(methyl methacrylate) glycopolymers (Dex-g-PMMA) is studied using “grafting from” concept and atom transfer radical polymerization. Two strategies have been examined to control the macromolecular parameters of such glycopolymers. One is involving four steps including a protection/deprotection approach and the second one only two steps. The introduction of initiators group onto a protected acetylated dextran (and directly onto dextran) was achieved resulting in protected DexAcBr (and in unprotected DexBr). These two types of polysaccharidic macroinitiators differ in term of solubility (hydrophilic DexBr vs. hydrophobic DexAcBr) and of position of the initiators groups on the glucosidic units (which are the sites of the future grafts). When evaluated as macroinitiators for ATRP of MMA, control was achieved in both cases but DexBr gave much faster polymerization and lower average grafting efficiency compared with DexAcBr or model initiator. Advantages and drawbacks of both pathways have finally been discussed. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem, 2010

Ancillary