Functionalization of zwitterionic polymer brushes, do they remain antifouling?

Abstract

Polymer brushes are surface coatings that can be tailored in many ways to suit specific demands including reduction of protein and bacterial fouling of biomaterials. Previously, we reported that antifouling poly (2‐(methacryloxy)ethyl)dimethyl‐3‐sulphopropyl ammonium hydroxide) brushes dramatically reduced formation of bacterial biofilm. We hypothesized that: (1) this brush could be efficiently functionalized with a small molecule (2‐oxo‐2‐[N‐(2,4,6‐trihydroxybenzylidene)‐hydrazino]‐acetamide, ME0163, hydrazone) and that (2) the antifouling property would remain also after functionalization. Diblock co‐polymer brushes of 2‐(methacryloxy)ethyl)dimethyl‐3‐sulphopropyl ammonium hydroxide and poly (glycidyl methacrylate) were formed by surface‐initiated atom transfer radical polymerization (SI‐ATRP), and the ME0163 hydrazone was covalently bound to the surface via a ring‐opening reaction. Functionalization of the surfaces was followed by X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and UV‐Vis spectroscopy. The influence of temperature, reaction time, and reagent concentrations on the immobilization process was investigated. Surfaces with high degree of functionalization could be made in this way. However, the functionalization rendered the surface more hydrophobic, and the antifouling property of the brush was lost, thus, disproving the second of our starting hypotheses but corroborating the first.