Hannes
Nederstedt
and
Patric
Jannasch
*
Polymer & Materials Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, Lund University, P.O. Box 124, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden. E-mail: patric.jannasch@chem.lu.se
First published on 2nd March 2020
Salt-containing supramolecular assemblies of rigid-rod polymers tethered with flexible ion-solvating side chains represent a synthetic pathway towards thin ion-conducting solid electrolyte membranes with high dimensional stability. In the present work we have synthesized poly(p-phenylene)s (PpPs) carrying di-, tri- and tetra(ethylene oxide) side chains, respectively. p-Dichlorophenyl oligo(ethylene oxide) monomers were polymerized by Ni-mediated Yamamoto polymerization via in situ reduction of Ni(II). This gave PpPs with an average degree of polymerization reaching 60, where each phenylene ring carried one oligo(ethylene oxide) side chain. Results from calorimetry and X-ray scattering measurements clearly showed the formation of molecular composites, i.e., bicontinuous morphologies with mechanically reinforcing layers of the stiff PpP backbones separated by the flexible oligo(ethylene oxide) side chains. This morphology was retained after adding lithium bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide (LiTFSI) to form salt-in-polymer electrolytes, but with an increased distance between adjacent backbones. Furthermore, upon addition of salt the order-to-disorder transition (ODT) region increased from ∼50–170 °C to ∼75–200 °C at [EO]/[Li] = 20. Increasing salt concentrations also revealed a maximum in the ODT enthalpy at [EO]/[Li] = 40. At 80 and 160 °C, the ionic conductivity reached 1.1 × 10−4 and 1.0 × 10−3 S cm−1, respectively. Finally, we demonstrate that ionic conductivity of the polymer electrolytes can be significantly increased by additions of triglyme.
Rigid-rod polymers tethered with short flexible ion-conducting side chains represent an alternative synthetic approach to solid polymer electrolytes combining high ion conductivity and mechanical stability. These kind of “hairy-rod”19,20 polymers typically self-organize into supramolecular assemblies where the rigid-rod polymer backbones stack up to form a hard phase domain in a soft phase domain containing the highly flexible side chains.21,22 Hence, the former materials form “molecular composites” where the stiff stacks of the rigid rod backbones mechanically reinforce the soft side chain phase in a co-continuous arrangement. The phase domains in these polymers are thus characteristically much smaller than in the case of block copolymers. The concept of “molecular composite electrolytes” was originally introduced and demonstrated by Wegner and coworkers who first prepared poly(p-phenylene) (PpP) backbones carrying flexible oligo(ethylene oxide) (EOx) side chains by Suzuki coupling reactions, and then added lithium salt to study their properties as solid polymer electrolytes.19 The electrolytes showed fully amorphous EOx phases with Tg values down to −25 °C, and the phase structure of the molecular composite electrolytes remained stable up to at least 90 °C. Moreover, the conductivity behavior of these materials was found to be similar to that of corresponding electrolytes prepared from amorphous PEO, but the mechanical properties were significantly improved.19 However, the use of two homobifunctional monomers in the Suzuki coupling approach to the polymers resulted in severe limitations in the chain growth, and the degrees of polymerization reached only Xn = 11–17.19 Moreover, every second phenylene ring in the PpP backbone did not carry any EOx side chain which may impede the ion conduction pathway.
The Yamamoto coupling reaction, where two aryl halides are coupled together through the use of a nickel(0) reagent, presents an attractive alternative to the Suzuki coupling approach.23,24 The former reaction is an efficient way to polymerize not only aryl dibromides, but also aryl dichlorides,25,26 which increases the versatility and monomer availability. Moreover, a precise stoichiometric control of the monomers in the polymerizations is not necessary since the Yamamoto reaction occurs via homocoupling. Recently, this reaction has been utilized in polymerizations to prepare proton conducting polymers for use as proton exchange membranes,25–29 as well as lithium ion conducting polymers.30 In the present work, we have employed the Yamamoto homocoupling route for straightforward and efficient polymerizations of 2,5-dichlorophenolic monomers functionalized with di-, tri- or tetra(ethylene glycol), respectively. This provides a molecular design in which every phenylene unit in the PpP backbone carries an EOx side chain to create an even distribution along the backbone. Hence, short side chains (x = 2, 3 or 4) were attached to the PpP backbone to give an EOx content below 75 wt% which will, combined with the even distribution, likely facilitate the formation of morphologies with a continuous phase domain of flexible EOx side chains containing a molecularly ordered and mechanically reinforcing layers of stiff PpP backbones. After additions of lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonimide) (LiTFSI) salt, the resulting solid molecular composite electrolytes were investigated with regard to the ability to form thin electrolyte membranes, thermal transitions and phase behavior, self-assembly and morphology, and ionic conductivity in order to determine important structure–property relationships.
The chemicals listed just below were purified as specified and then stored in an Ar filled glovebox (H2O < 1 ppm, O2 < 60 ppm). Triphenylphosphine (PPh3, Acros Organics, 99%) and 2,2′-bipyridine (bipy, TCI, 99%) were recrystallized twice in ethanol and dried at 80 °C under vacuum.25 Sodium iodide (NaI, Sigma-Aldrich, 99%) was recrystallized twice in water and dried at 120 °C in vacuum.25 Zink powder (Zn, Sigma-Aldrich, 98%, <10 μm) was stirred in acetic acid, washed extensively with diethyl ether, and dried at 40 °C under vacuum.31 Bis(triphenylphosphine)nickel(II) dichloride (Ni(PPh3)2Cl2, Sigma-Aldrich, 98%) was dried under vacuum at 100 °C.25
Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) was performed using a TA instruments Q500 Thermogravimetric Analyzer. Samples were dried at 120 °C for 30 minutes under nitrogen, followed by cooling to 50 °C, and heating to 600 °C at a heating rate of 10 °C min−1. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) was performed on a TA instruments Q2000 calorimeter. Polymer samples were placed in aluminum pans that were subsequently sealed. The measurements started by heating the samples to 200 °C, followed by cooling to −80 °C, an isothermal period of 10 min at this temperature, and finally heating to 200 °C. All heating and cooling rates were 10 °C min−1.
For the ionic conductivity measurements, circular pieces of the electrolyte films with a diameter of 12 mm were cut out in the Ar filled glove box. These were placed between two gold-plated brass coin electrodes (Ø = 15 mm) separated by a Teflon ring spacer with an inner diameter of 12 mm and a thickness of 0.112 mm. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurements were performed using a computer controlled Novocontrol BDC40 high resolution dielectric analyzer equipped with a Novocool cryostat unit. The samples were analyzed in the frequency range 10−1–107 Hz at a 50 mV AC amplitude during heating–cooling-heating cycles between 20 and 160 °C. At 20 °C intervals, the DC conductivity was obtained by extrapolation from the plateau value in a log–log plot of the real part of the complex conductivity as a function of the ac frequency (Fig. S6†).
Wide angle X-ray scattering (WAXS) measurements were performed using a Stoe STADI MP X-ray powder diffractometer under ambient conditions. Measurements were performed over 2θ ranges 1–70° with copper Kα (0.15406 nm) radiation. Samples were prepared in the Ar glove box by placing a piece of the polymer films between two Mylar sheets.
Yamamoto coupling is a nickel-mediated reaction in which Ni(0) is used to couple two aryl halides (ArCl, ArBr, or ArI) to form a carbon–carbon bond. A common reagent for this type of coupling is bis(cyclooctadiene)nickel(0), used in (at least) stoichiometrically equal amounts to the monomer.27,28,34 This reagent is air sensitive and fairly expensive, which impedes scale up of the reaction. In the present work, an alternative method was used in which a small amount of a nickel(II) reagent (i.e., bis(triphenlyphosphine)nickel(II) dichloride) was continuously reduced in situ by zinc metal.23,25,26,35 The reaction mixture was still prepared in a glove box to protect against moisture, since nickel(0) is an efficient reagent for the dehalogenation of aryl halides in presence of hydrogen sources such as water. As suggested by Colon and Kelsey,31 2,2′-bipyridine was added to suppress side reactions that often arise when monomers with electron donating groups are used. Using this method, the polymers in the P(pP-EOx) series were successfully prepared in ∼5 g scale, and in ∼70% isolated yield for (PpP-EO2) and (PpP-EO3). After polymerization, the products were precipitated in diethyl ether to remove the PPh3. Most probably, this procedure also removed some of the low molar mass oligomers formed. Especially sample P(pP-EO4) showed partial solubility in diethyl ether due to the long EO4 side chains, which led to some product loss during the purification and a lower isolated yield (20%).
The molecular structure of the polymers was confirmed by 1H NMR spectroscopy (Fig. 1b). As expected, the 1H NMR signals of the polymers were broadened in comparison to the signals of the corresponding monomer. Due to the conjugated structure the signals arising from the protons at a′–c′ formed one broad signal. The signals from the protons at d and j on the EOx side chains were still clearly distinguished. Furthermore, all the polymer spectra included small signals from the end groups of the PpP backbones at ∼7 ppm.34 The integrals of these end group signals were compared with the integral of signal d′ in each polymer in order to estimate the degree of polymerization (Table 1). Notably, no broad signals were observed between δ 5.40–5.80 ppm, which might indicate the absence of Ni complexes bound to the polymer.17 The molar mass of the P(pP-EOx) samples was determined using a SEC setup fitted with a triple detector system. The results showed that all polymers had a number average degree of polymerization very close to Xn = 60, which was similar to the results obtained from the 1H NMR spectra and corresponded to number average molar masses between Mn = 12 and 17 kg mol−1 (Table 1 and Fig. S3†). In comparison, Wittmeyer et al. reached a degree of polymerization close to 21 in polymerizations of dibromobenzene functionalized with two oligo-EO side chains using an excess of Ni(COD)2.34 The molar mass dispersities of the present polymers were between ĐM = 1.4 and 1.6, which was very narrow compared to previously reported poly(p-phenylene)s.19,29,34 The combination of high Xn and low ĐM values indicates a high level of control in the present polymerizations.
Sample | EOx content (wt%) | Yield (%) | M n (kg mol−1) | Đ M | X n | X n | a | T d 95f (°C) | T g (°C) | ΔHfh (J g−1) | ΔHci (J g−1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a Number average molar mass (SEC). b Molar mass dispersity (SEC). c Number average degree of polymerization from SEC. d Number average degree of polymerization from NMR. e Mark–Houwink exponent (SEC). f Temperature at 5 wt% weight loss (TGA, under N2). g Glass transition temperature (DSC, heating 10 °C min−1). h ODT enthalpy (DSC, heating 10 °C min−1). i DOT enthalpy (DSC, cooling 10 °C min−1). j Low isolated yield due to loss during workup. | |||||||||||
P(pP-EO2) | 61 | 79 | 12 | 1.6 | 61 | 68 | 1.2 | 403 | — | 16 | 14 |
P(pP-EO3) | 68 | 74 | 14 | 1.6 | 60 | 58 | 1.1 | 398 | −48 | 11 | 11 |
P(pP-EO4) | 73 | 20j | 17 | 1.4 | 61 | 68 | 1.4 | 393 | −54 | 14 | 10 |
The intrinsic viscosity ([η]) measured during the SEC analysis, enabled the calculation of the parameters in the Mark–Houwink equation ([η] = K × Ma). As seen in Table 1, the exponent a was above 1 for the P(pP-EOx) samples, which indicated that the polymers attained a stiff or rigid rod conformation, rather than a conventional random coil conformation in chloroform. This was due to the very high chain stiffness of the PpP backbone, which instead induced stiff coil or rigid rod conformations.36,37
Films of the neat P(pP-EOx) samples were cast from THF solutions. P(pP-EO2) exhibited limited solubility in THF, resulting in very brittle films. However, casting P(pP-EO2) from CHCl3 solutions resulted in flexible and self-standing films (Fig. S4†). In contrast, both P(pP-EO3) and P(pP-EO4) formed very soft films regardless of the solvent used. Subsequently, the possibility to cast polymer electrolyte membranes from mixtures of the polymers and LiTFSI salt dissolved in THF was investigated, keeping [EO]/[Li] between 10 and 40. The resulting materials were denoted P(pP-EOx)-y, where y = [EO]/[Li]. Since no solvent was found that fully dissolved both P(pP-EO2) and LiTFSI, no salt-containing membranes could be prepared from this polymer. Consequently, this polymer was not characterized as an electrolyte material. P(pP-EO3) formed self-standing membranes when [EO]/[Li] was between 40 and 20 (Fig. 2); P(pP-EO3)-10 was very brittle. Of the electrolyte films derived from P(pP-EO4), only P(pP-EO4)-10 was self-standing. Lower salt concentrations ([EO]/[Li] > 40) produced membranes that were too soft for handling.
Fig. 3 TGA traces of neat P(pP-EOx) samples under N2 (a) and residual weight percent at 600 °C as a function of PpP content (b). |
Fig. 4 DSC cooling (a) and heating (b) traces of the polymers in the P(pP-EOx) series (exotherm up). Tgs were taken as the inflexion points, marked by ●. The ODT and DOT intervals are marked by ■. |
As can be seen in Fig. 4b, all three P(pP-EOx) samples exhibited endotherms between 75 and 175 °C, which was likely connected with an order-to-disorder transition (ODT) which involved the disruption of the PpP stacks.19,38 The broadness of the transitions may arise from the molar mass dispersity leading to an increase in transition temperature with polymer molar mass.19,38 The onset and end of these transitions were shifted to lower temperatures as the length of the EOx side chain increased. This indicated that the phase structures became less thermally stable with an increase in the length and content of the EOx side chains. The values of the enthalpy of the transitions could not be accurately determined due to the rather unclear onset and end of the transitions. Hence, no clear trends could be discerned. The length of the EOx side chains likely had two effects on the enthalpy of the ODT; one increasing effect due to the lowering of the melt viscosity and one decreasing effect due to the less efficient packing of the PpP when the EOx content increased. Upon cooling, a corresponding exothermic disorder-to-order transition (DOT) was observed for all polymers at approximately the same temperature interval as the ODT transitions (Fig. 4a). This was likely connected with the ordering of the PpP backbone, and the DOT enthalpy was approximately the same as the ODT enthalpy for a given sample (Table 1).
Upon addition of LiTFSI, the Tg increased and continued to increase with increasing salt concentration (Fig. 5a–d and Fig. 6) up to a value of 15 and −11 °C for P(pP-EO3)-10 and P(pP-EO4)-10, respectively. This was due to the increase in the coordination between the EOx units and the lithium ions.38,39 Addition of LiTFSI affected the ODT behavior and, e.g., shifted the transition temperature to higher values (Fig. 5c and d). The onset of ODT increased to ∼80 °C for P(pP-EO3)-y (y = 40–20) and to 50–80 °C for the P(pP-EO4)-y (y = 40–10) electrolyte membranes (Table S1†). Furthermore, the ODT and DOT enthalpies initially increased upon addition of salt. However, further increase in the salt concentration resulted in lower transition enthalpies. The initial increase in the transition temperature and enthalpy may be due to the interactions between the lithium cations and the EOx side chains. This would likely increase the phase separation between the side chains and the PpP backbone and facilitate the stacking of the latter. The reduction of the ODT enthalpy upon further increases in salt concentration could be due to an increase in melt viscosity caused by the Li+–EOx interactions reducing the DOT kinetics. To conclude, addition of LiTFSI had two opposing effects on the transition of the backbone; one effect increasing the ordering due to increased phase separation between the PpP backbone and EOx side chains, and one decreasing effect due the reduced DOT rate caused by increased melt viscosity.
Fig. 8 Schematic representation of the phase structure of P(pP-EOx) (d1 interchain distance, d3 width of PpP backbone, d4 interlayer distance) with the EOx side chains marked as red lines. |
At higher scattering angles (2θ = 21°, d2 = 0.4 nm) all polymers exhibited a broad peak. This type of amorphous halo is commonly observed scattering behavior of polymers, since all polymers exhibit a degree of short range order due to the covalent bonding in the molecule. This maximum was less broad for P(pP-EO2) indicating a higher degree of short-range ordering of the amorphous phase of this polymer, likely due to a lower number of possible conformations that the shorter EO side chains could attain.
At 2θ = 42° (d3 = 0.2 nm) a small peak was observed for all samples. This may correspond to the width of the PpP backbone chain (marked d3 in Fig. 8),40,41 which would further indicate an ordered arrangement of the PpP backbone chain. In comparison, the width of one phenyl ring in a graphene layer has been reported to be 0.25 nm.40
At lower angles (2θ = 18°), a small and broad shoulder was observed prior to the amorphous halo for P(pP-EO2). The shoulder may be related to the distance between two PpP layers, d4 = 0.5 nm. This is in agreement with Wegner et al., who estimated the distance between two neighboring PpP units in a stack to be around 0.53 nm.19
Upon addition of LiTFSI to P(pP-EO3) and P(pP-EO4), the intensity of all the scattering peaks decreased (Fig. 9), indicating less ordered structures in the electrolyte membranes, as compared to the neat polymers. Furthermore, the scattering angle of the low angle maxima decreased [to 2θ = 4.2° for P(pP-EO3) and 2θ = 3.9° for P(pP-EO4)]. This indicated a larger distance between two adjacent PpP stacks (d1 = 2.1 nm and 2.3 nm respectively), and the increase was likely caused by plasticization by the large TFSI anion. At the highest ionic concentration ([EO]/[Li] = 10), the low angle maxima were no longer observed, which might indicate that the ordering of adjacent PpP stacks was lost. Instead, electrolyte membranes exhibited maxima at 15.0° for P(pP-EO3) and 13.9° for P(pP-EO4), which corresponds to d4 = 0.59 and 0.64 nm, respectively. This may be related to the average distance between two PpP layers with TFSI anions incorporated in-between. The incorporation of TFSI anions between PpP layers would introduce defects in the layered structure thereby reducing the ordering.38 This may further explain the decrease in the transition enthalpies with increasing salt concentration, as observed by DSC. The incorporation of TFSI anions between the PpP layers has been suggested to improve the dissociation of the lithium salt and produce more mobile lithium ion speicies.38
Fig. 9 Diffractograms of the electrolyte membranes in the P(pP-EO3)-y (a) and P(pP-EO4)-y (b) series. |
Fig. 10 Arrhenius conductivity plots of the P(pP-EO3) (a) and P(pP-EO4) (b) electrolyte membranes containing LiTFSI (symbols are the measured data points and lines are calculated from the VTF-equation with the parameters shown in Table 2). |
Fig. 11 Ionic conductivity of the P(pP-EO3) (a) and P(pP-EO4) (b) membranes as a function of the ionic content (lines to guide the eye). |
The highest measured ionic conductivities at 20 °C in the series were 4.6 × 10−7 S cm−1 and 1.8 × 10−6 S cm−1 for P(pP-EO3)-30 and P(pP-EO4)-40, respectively. These values may be compared with those reported by Wegner et al. for polymer electrolytes based on LiTFSI and PpP backbone bearing two EO side chains on every second p-phenylene unit.19 At 20 °C, the ionic conductivity of these electrolytes reached values close to the present ones (∼2 × 10−6 S cm−1) with [EO]/[Li] = 25 and a 1:1 ratio of PEO5 and PEO6 side chains. Moreover, the conductivity of P(pP-EO4)-20 was in level with that of a poly(styrene-block-ethylene oxide) (SEO) sample doped with LiTFSI, reaching conductivities between 7 × 10−7 and 4 × 10−6 S cm−1 at 20 °C.42,43
At 80 °C the highest ionic conductivities observed were 5.5 × 10−5 S cm−1 for P(pP-EO3)-30 and 1.1 × 10−4 S cm−1 for P(pP-EO4)-20 (Fig. 10). These values are slightly higher than the ones measured by Wegner et al., reaching 10−4 S cm−1 at 100 °C.19 The conductivity of P(pP-EO4)-20 was also comparable to SEO doped with LiTFSI which have recorded conductivities between 3.5 × 10−4 and 5 × 10−4 S cm−1 at 90 °C.44,45 In another piece of work, Bergfelt et al. prepared triblock copolymers containing a oligo(ethylene oxide) methyl ether methacrylate center block and two benzyl methacrylate end blocks.46 After addition of LiTFSI, the electrolyte with [EO]/[Li] = 8 exhibited the highest ionic conductivity at 80 °C, 2 × 10−4 S cm−1. Moreover, Kuan and coworkers prepared tapered block copolymers of polystyrene and poly(oligo[ethylene oxide] methacrylate) doped with lithium triflate.47 At 80 °C the highest measured ionic conductivity was approximately 7 × 10−5 S cm−1.
In order to elucidate the underlying ion transport mechanism, the ionic conductivities of the present electrolyte membranes were fitted to the Vogel–Tamman–Fulcher (VTF) equation:
(1) |
The parameter T0 is often taken as Tg −50 K. However, apparent trends of the three parameters (Ea, T0, and σ0) can be heavily dependent on fitting method and choice of T0.48 Consequently, in this study T0 was included in the fitting through non-linear regression of the natural logarithm of the VTF equation (eqn (1)). The values of the fitted parameters are shown in Table 2, and conductivities calculated with the VTF-equation are indicated in Fig. 10. The apparent activation energy, Ea, is evaluated from conductivity data and is typically considered to include the activation energy for segmental mobility and ionic dissociation.48 The difference in Ea between the electrolyte membranes had limited statistical significance, but some trends could be discerned. As is typically observed, increasing ion concentration led to an increase in Ea, which is typically due to an increase in the level of coordination between lithium cations and EO impeding chain motions.48 Furthermore, the P(pP-EO4) membranes tended to have a lower Ea than P(pP-EO3), due to the longer and more flexible side chains. The Vogel temperature, T0, can be considered the thermodynamical glass transition temperature (free from kinetic effects) at which the polymer can only adopt one conformation.49–51 Just as in the case of Ea, T0 trended towards higher values with increasing salt concentration, but the differences in T0 were not statistically significant. Since the level of Li+–EO coordination increased with the salt concentration, the number of different conformations that the EO side chains can adopt decreases, causing T0 to increase. This effect was less pronounced in the electrolyte films of P(pP-EO4) due to the more flexible side chains. Furthermore, the difference between T0 and Tg increased with the salt concentration, as has previously been observed.48 For P(pP-EO3)-y (y = 40 and 30) this difference was 35 °C and increased to 48 and 72 °C for P(pP-EO3)-20 and P(pP-EO3)-10, respectively. For P(pP-EO4)-40, Tg − T0 was estimated to be 23 °C and increased to ∼35 °C upon further increase in salt concentration. This indicated that the kinetic effects when measuring the Tg by DSC are larger for the electrolyte membranes with shorter EOx side chains and higher salt concentration.
Polymer | [EO]/[Li] | ln(σ0)a | E a (kJ mol−1) | T 0 (°C) | R 2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
a σ 0 in S cm−1. | |||||
P( p P-EO3) | 40 | −3.3 ± 0.8 | 8.6 ± 1.9 | −71 ± 14 | 0.9994 |
30 | −2.9 ± 1.0 | 8.4 ± 2.2 | −66 ± 17 | 0.9991 | |
20 | −2.9 ± 0.4 | 9.6 ± 0.9 | −69 ± 6 | 0.9999 | |
10 | 0.014 ± 1.0 | 12.3 ± 2.2 | −58 ± 10 | 0.9995 | |
P( p P-EO4) | 40 | −4.1 ± 0.3 | 6.4 ± 0.6 | −64 ± 5 | 0.9999 |
30 | −3.4 ± 0.2 | 7.1 ± 0.5 | −67 ± 5 | 0.9999 | |
20 | −2.8 ± 0.3 | 7.6 ± 0.6 | −64 ± 5 | 0.9999 | |
10 | −1.8 ± 0.6 | 8.3 ± 1.0 | −46 ± 6 | 0.9997 |
Finally in the present study, we plasticized electrolyte membranes based on P(pP-EO3) by additions of triglyme in order to investigate the possibility to increase the ionic conductivity. Hence, P(pP-EO3)-20 containing 5 and 12 wt% triglyme and one membrane of P(pP-EO3)-30 with 10 wt% triglyme were prepared. The resulting membranes exhibited similar physical properties as the non-plasticized film; they were self-standing, flexible, and could be folded without being deformed. As expected, the triglyme additions significantly increased the ionic conductivity (Fig. 12). The increase was higher for P(pP-EO3)-20, most probably due to its higher salt concentration. At 80 °C, the membrane containing 12 wt% triglyme exhibited an ionic conductivity of 1.4 × 10−4 S cm−1 which represented a six-fold increase compared to the conductivity of the non-plasticized membrane.
Fig. 12 Arrhenius conductivity plots of P(pP-EO3)-20 (closed symbols) and P(pP-EO3)-30 membranes (open symbols) containing 0–12 wt% triglyme. |
Footnote |
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available: 13C and HMQC NMR spectra of P(pP-EO3), molar mass distributions of the polymers, additional thermal data for neat polymers and electrolyte membranes, photographs of P(pP-EO2) films, frequency dependence of the ionic conductivity of the P(pP-EO3)-30 membrane. See DOI: 10.1039/d0py00115e |
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2020 |