However, recent reports have discussed the fact that MIPs obtained via RDRP have low binding capacities and template binding properties when compared to conventional MIPs. The resulting MIP was ground and sieved, producing bulk polymer particles. The MIP was prepared by mixing all of the components (template, monomer, cross-linker, solvent and initiator), and then bulk polymerization took place. It is fast, simple, and does not require advanced skills or sophisticated instruments. Bulk polymerization is the most popular and universal method for synthesizing MIPs. It can be concluded that the RDRP bulk polymerization process improves the binding properties of MIPs. It has been reported that the method was successfully enhanced, with a higher specific template binding when compared to the ones obtained from the prepared TRP bulk polymerization process. RDRP in the bulk polymerization method for the synthesis MIPs has also been reported in previous literature. TRP allows for limited control over the polymer growth processes and molecular architectures of the polymeric products when it is applied for the synthesis of structurally non-complex polymer architectures, such as linear macromolecules. The preparation of molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) with heterogeneous network structures would greatly affect the internal binding sites, which might be responsible for some of the inherent drawbacks of MIPs, such as the broad binding sites’ heterogeneity, relatively low affinity, and reduced selectivity. However, TRP has little control over the polymer chains and network structures, which provide cross-linked polymer networks with heterogeneous structures. The traditional radical polymerization (TRP) process is a major technique used to prepare MIPs due to the fact that it can be carried out under mild reaction conditions, is tolerant of protonic impurities, including water, and it can be used for a wide range of monomers. The usability of a RAFT agent depends on the monomer used to generate potential MIPs. Rebinding experiments indicate that the RAFT agent increased the binding capacity of RAFT-MIP(MAA-β-CD), but not of RAFT -MIP(HEMA-β-CD), which proves that a RAFT agent does not always improve the recognition affinity and selective adsorption of MIPs. BET results show that the surface area of RAFT-MIP(MAA-β-CD) is higher than MIP(MAA-β-CD), while the RAFT-MIP(HEMA-β-CD) surface area is lower than that of MIP(HEMA-β-CD). Morphology results show that RAFT-MIP(MAA-β-CD) has a slightly spherical feature with a sponge-like form, while RAFT-MIP(HEMA-β-CD) has a compact surface. The results were compared with MIPs synthesized via the traditional radical polymerization (TRP) process, and were represented as MIP(MAA-β-CD) and MIP(HEMA-β-CD). Both RAFT-MIPs were systematically characterized using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM), Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET), and rebinding experimental study. Two types of reversible addition-fragmentation chain transfer molecularly imprinted polymers (RAFT -MIPs) were synthesized using different monomers, which were methacrylic acid functionalized β-cyclodextrin (MAA-β-CD) and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate functionalized β-cyclodextrin (HEMA-β-CD), via reversible addition-fragmentation chain transfer (RAFT) polymerization, and were represented as RAFT-MIP(MAA-β-CD) and RAFT-MIP(HEMA-β-CD), respectively.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |