Comparison of Novel 1,1-Diphenylethylene Alternating Copolymer and Polystyrene Based Anion Exchange Membranes

Abstract

This research investigates 1,1-diphenylethylene as a monomer in polymeric ion exchange membranes through the synthesis of a novel alternating copolymer functionalized for ion transport and analysis of mechanical and conductive properties. This will further the development of cost effective and high-performance ion exchange membranes, enabling energy systems that employ ion-transporting membranes, like fuel cells and electrolyzers, to become more economically viable, which in turn would lead to cleaner and more sustainable energy production.The goal of the project is to develop an understanding of chemical structure-physical property relationships to make self-assembling ion-conducting channels in ionomers which have physical properties that prevent the excess swelling that leads to the mechanical failure of membranes. In this vein, anion exchange membranes (AEMs) based on 1,1-diphenylethylene were synthesized and their ion conducting properties and physical state were characterized. Poly(1,1-diphenylethylene-alt-butadiene) alternating copolymer was synthesized via anionic polymerization, then selectively hydrogenated to eliminate double bonds in the polymer backbone. The pendant aromatic rings of the selectively hydrogenated poly(1,1-diphenylethylene-alt-butadiene) were then subjected to quantitatively controlled functionalized by super acid catalyzed Friedel-Crafts bromoalkylation, then aminated with trimethylamine. AEMs spanning a wide range of ion exchange capacities (IECs), 0.39-1.99 milliequiv./gram (meq./g), were made. Conductivity increased with IEC and temperature. Polystyrene based AEMs of similar IECs, 0.38-2.14 meq/g, were synthesized as a standard to compare the 1,1-diphenylethylene based copolymers. The 1,1-diphenylethylene based copolymers had favorable conductivities compared to polystyrene membranes of similar IEC. The glass transition temperature, water uptake, and dimensional swelling were investigated to explain the difference in conductivities between the two species. Figure 1