Professional Documents
Culture Documents
We investigate a new molecular architecture in which water-soluble dendrimers are grafted onto a linear
polymer for application to polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells (PEMFC). Using full-atomistic molecular
dynamics simulations, we examined the nanophase segregation and transport properties in hydrated membranes
with this new architecture. In order to determine how the nature of the linear polymer backbone might affect
membrane properties, we considered three different types of linear polymers, poly(epichlorohydrin) (PECH),
polystyrene (PS), and poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE), each in combination with the second-generation sulfonic
polyaryl ether dendrimer to form PECH-D2, PS-D2, and PTFE-D2. Our simulations show that the extent of
nanophase segregation in the membrane increases in the order of PECH-D2 (∼20 Å) < PS-D2 (∼35 Å) <
PTFE-D2 (∼40 Å) at the same water content, which can be compared to ∼30-50 Å for Nafion and ∼30 Å
for Dendrion at the same water content. We find that the structure and dynamics of the water molecules and
transport of protons are strongly affected by the extent of nanophase segregation and water content of the
membrane. As the nanophase-segregation scale increases, the structure in water phase, the water dynamics,
and the proton transport approach those in bulk water. On the basis of the predicted proton and water transport
rates, we expect that the PTFE-D2 may have a performance comparable with Nafion and Dendrion.
Figure 2. Full-atomistic models of the second-generation polyaryl ether dendrimer-grafted polymers. The number of dendrimers per chain is the
same for all cases, and the values in the parentheses denote the equivalent weight for each polymer. The conformations in the right-hand side are
equilibrated ones from their hydrated membranes.
Figure 3. Nanophase-segregated structures of the hydrated dendrimer-grafted copolymer membrane with 20 wt % water content predicted from
the simulations at 353.15 K. Blue components denote dendrimer, green balls denote the sulfur atoms, and red balls denote the oxygen atoms of
water molecules. For clarity, the backbone polymer chains are not shown.
( )
in Figure 5. Here, we see that the PECH-D2 (Figure 5a) and
nB the PS-D2 (Figure 5b) have more intra-dendrimer contributions
4πr2 dr for a S-S distance < 5 Å than PTFE-D2 (Figure 5c).
gA-B(r) )
( )
(2) From this decomposition of FgS-S(r) in Figure 5, we found
NB
that the dominant correlation distance between sulfonate groups
V is nearly the same for both inter-dendrimer and intra-dendrimer,
indicating that the dendrimers are in sufficiently close contact
where nB is the number of B particles located at the distance r with each other and that the sulfonic acid distributions are
in a shell of thickness dr from particle A, NB is the number of uniform. We expect that this characteristic would help the
B particles in the system, and V is the total volume of the system. membrane retain a continuous hydrophilic water phase in the
This pair correlation analysis (Figure 4) shows maxima of nanophase-segregated morphology providing efficient proton-
gS-S ) 4.7 Å for 10 wt % H2O and gS-S ) 4.9 Å for 20 wt % transfer rates. To clarify this point, Figure 6 shows connections
H2O for PECH-D2 and gS-S ) 4.7 Å for 10 wt % H2O and between sulfur atoms of sulfonate groups within a 7 Å distance
gS-S ) 4.9 Å for 20 wt % H2O for PS-D2 with similar of each other. This shows a well-interconnected sulfur network
Water-Soluble Dendrimer-Grafted Polymer Membranes J. Phys. Chem. C, Vol. 111, No. 6, 2007 2763
Figure 5. Decomposition of the pair correlation function of the acid group. “Inter Dendrimer” denotes the contribution from the pair of sulfonic
acid groups belonging to different dendrimers whereas “Intra Dendrimer” denotes that from the pair of sulfonic acid groups belonging to the same
dendrimer.
for all cases, indicating that dendrimers contact each other to are most important to the fuel cell performance since the proton
form a percolated structure. transfer occurs through the water phase. Extensive studies on
Figure 5 shows that FgS-S(r) is not significantly affected by the proton transfer in water53-62 and in polymer electrolyte
the water content. Thus, increasing the water content by 100% membranes3,55-57,63-65 have led to the general consensus that
increases the average S-S distance by 4% (∼0.2-0.3 Å). As the proton diffusion rate in bulk water is approximately four to
discussed previously,11 we believe that this insensitivity of eight times larger than in the hydrated membrane. As sum-
FgS-S(r) to the water content results from the structural marized by Kreuer55,57 and by Paddison,3 this is attributed to
characteristics of the dendrimer in which the terminal sulfonate the bulk water having a well-organized and compact hydrogen
groups are locally concentrated through covalent connectivity bonding network that aids efficient proton hopping. In contrast,
in a well-defined structure. We consider this to be a positive the hydrated membranes have a reduced hydrogen bond
aspect in retaining a constant structure during the fuel cell connectivity. Specifically, Paul and Paddison described this
operation which may undergo a significant fluctuation in water aspect from the viewpoint of dielectric saturation of water by
content. analyzing the restricted dynamics of water’s dipole moment in
3.3. Structure of the Water in the Membrane. The the vicinity of anionic groups through their molecular statistical
characteristics of the water phase in the hydrated membrane mechanical model.66
2764 J. Phys. Chem. C, Vol. 111, No. 6, 2007 Jang and Goddard
Figure 6. Distribution of sulfurs in sulfonic acids with 20 wt % of water content. The bonds are generated between sulfur atoms within 7 Å.
S(q) ) 〈 ∑r ∑r exp(iq‚rij)(ξiξj - 〈ξ〉2)〉/L3 (3) At 20 wt % water content, the structure factor analysis in
Figure 9 leads to a maximum intensity at ∼0.20 Å-1 for PECH-
i j
D2, corresponding to the characteristic dimension of ∼20 Å;
where the angular bracket denotes a thermal statistical average, ∼0.18 Å-1 for PS-D2, corresponding to the characteristic
ξi represents a local density contrast, (φAj - φBj), q is the dimension of ∼35 Å; and ∼0.15 Å-1 for PTFE-D2, correspond-
scattering vector, and rij is the vector between the site i and the ing to the characteristic dimension of ∼40 Å. In addition, the
site j. This analysis has been used successfully to investigate intensity of these peaks (indicating the density contrast between
the phase segregation in our previous studies on the hydrated hydrophobic domain and water domain) increases in the order
membrane for the Nafion12 and the Dendrion.11 The SAXS of PECH-D2 < PS-D2 < PTFE-D2. From these observations,
experiments measure the electron density contrast while SANS we conclude that the dimensions of the nanophase segregation
experiments measure deuterium density contrast. For our is in the order of PECH-D2 < PS-D2 < PTFE-D2. This result
analysis, we assigned an artificial density contrast. The local from structure factor analysis is very consistent with the analyses
density variables are as follows: φAj is equal to 1 if the site j (Figures 3, 7, and 8) in previous sections: a more hydrophobic
is occupied by a hydrophilic entity such as water or an acid backbone polymer leads to a larger extent of nanophase
group and is equal to 0 otherwise, and φBj is equal to 1 if the segregation in the membrane, making the structure in the water
site is occupied by hydrophobic entities such as the PTFE phase closer to that in the bulk water.
backbone and is equal to 0 otherwise. 3.5. Diffusion of Water in the Membrane. Most critical to
The quantity S(q) is spherically averaged as follows: the performance of PEMFC is the proton conductivity (which
we want to be large) and the water diffusion. The proton
S(q) ) ∑
|q|
S(q)/∑1
|q|
(4) conductivity is especially dependent on the rotational dynamics
of water molecules to facilitate a continuously evolving proton
hopping. Although the role of water rotation in the hydrated
with q ) (2π/L)n, where n ) 1, 2, 3, ... and denotes that, for a membrane is essential for a fundamental understanding of proton
given n, a spherical shell is taken as n - 1/2 e qL/2π e n + conduction, it has been little analyzed. Probably, this is due to
1/2. the lack of experimental tools capable of directly measuring
Our previous studies for the hydrated Nafion membrane12 led this phenomenon in the membrane. Here, we analyze the
to a characteristic dimension of nanophase segregation of ∼30 rotational water dynamics in the hydrated dendrimer-grafted
Å for a dispersed monomeric sequence and ∼50 Å for a blocky polymer membrane and compare it with the values computed
monomeric sequence. Similar studies for the hydrated PTFE and measured for bulk water.
Dendrion membrane11 led to a characteristic dimension of ∼30 A second important feature of water dynamics in the hydrated
Å. membrane is the translational diffusion coefficient. If the
For the hydrated dendrimer-grafted polymer membranes, we membrane possesses a high electro-osmotic drag coefficient, it
found the structure factor profiles as a function of scattering may be necessary to have a high translational diffusion value
vector, q, shown in Figure 9. These structure factor profiles for water to regulate a uniform water distribution by concentra-
were calculated for the large system consisting of 24 polymer tion-gradient-driven drift toward the anode. Inversely, we expect
chains as mentioned in section 2. This is because the small that the electro-osmotic drag of water by the protons would be
system consisting of three polymer chains would not allow the difficult in an environment having low translational mobility
structural development of the phase segregation beyond its of water. An example is the ice near the melting point where
system size (∼36-40 Å corresponding to q ) ∼0.15-0.17 the translational diffusion of water is strongly restricted while
Å-1). the rotational degree of freedom is active.
2766 J. Phys. Chem. C, Vol. 111, No. 6, 2007 Jang and Goddard
Previously,11,12 we showed that the membrane transport TABLE 3: Rotational Diffusion Coefficients (DR) of Water
properties depend on the extent of nanophase segregation from the MD Simulationsa
between the hydrophilic and the hydrophobic phase, in agree- system DR (×1011/s)
ment with experimental observations.2,6,57,69 For PEMFC ap- T ) 298.15 K T ) 353.15 K
plications, we want to minimize water mobility in order to
bulk water 3.25 ( 0.24d 7.05 ( 0.42d
reduce the electro-osmotic drag of water as protons are (exptl 2.2)b
transported from anode to cathode. Otherwise, the membrane
PECH-D2 10 wt % 2.66 ( 0.31
near the anode can become too dry while the membrane near water content
the cathode floods, producing uneven and unpredictable changes 20 wt % 3.58 ( 0.33
in the conductivity of the membrane during operation of the water content
cell. Thus, we prefer that water in the membrane have a bulk- PS-D2 10 wt % 4.44 ( 0.32
water-like water phase that percolates throughout the membrane water content
20 wt % 5.70 ( 0.33
to aid proton transport while simultaneously minimizing trans- water content
lational transport. In this section, we analyze water dynamics
PTFE-D2 10 wt % 4.70 ( 0.30
from the 5 ns NPT MD simulation in terms of the rotational water content
and translational diffusion. 20 wt % 6.10 ( 0.31
3.5.1. Rotational Diffusions. To determine the rotational water content
dynamics of water, we calculated the rotational diffusion Nafion dispersed 20 wt % 7.42 ( 0.54c,d
coefficient (DR) as70 DR ) 1.1 water
content
blocky 20 wt % 6.23 ( 0.53c,d
kTS(0) DR ) 0.1 water
DR ) (5) content
12N
sulfonic 10 wt % 7.49 ( 0.45d
where k is the Boltzmann constant, T is absolute temperature, dendrion water content
and N is the number of water molecules. S(0) in eq 5 is the a
This is expected to correlate with proton transport rates. b Reference
rotational density of states at zero frequency 71. Reference 12. d Reference 11.
c
S(υ)]υ)0 )
2
lim
kT τ-∞
∫-ττCR(t)e-i2πυt dt]υ)0 (6) for each backbone polymer: the larger the scale of the
nanophase segregation, the closer the structure in the water phase
approaches that in bulk water, and thereby the closer the water
Here, CR(t) is the autocorrelation function of angular velocity
rotation in the water phase of the membrane approaches that in
ωCM
ij (t) of water molecule i bulk water. This result is consistent with our previous discus-
3 n 3 sions in sections 3.3 and 3.4.
CR(t) ) ∑
j)1
cRj(t) ) ∑ ∑
i)1 j)1
〈ωCM
ij (t)ωij
CM
(0)〉 (7) On the other hand, in comparison with our previous results
from Nafion (DR ) ∼6.2-7.4 × 1011/s)12 and Dendrion (DR )
7.5 × 1011/s)11 (Table 3), only the PTFE-D2 membrane with
This analysis allows us to evaluate the rotational diffusion of 20 wt % of water content shows a comparable value, DR )
water molecules in this dendrimer-grafted polymer membrane. 6.10 × 1011/s. The other five cases have smaller values. As
As summarized in Table 3, the calculated rotational diffusion discussed in section 3.3, we believe that this is due to the smaller
rate (DR) for bulk water of (3.25 ( 0.24) × 1011/s is comparable equivalent weight of dendrimer-grafted polymers. The increased
to the experimental value71 of 2.2 × 1011/s at the same concentration of sulfonic acid groups in the water phase perturbs
temperature of 298.15 K. For the higher temperature of 353.15 the structure of the water phase, making it different from bulk
K, we predict that the DR value of bulk water increases by a water. The consequence is that the water rotation decreases, in
factor of 2.2 (to 7.05 ( 0.42 × 1011/s; we have not found consistency with the studies by Paddison and co-workers.66,72,73
experimental data at this higher temperature). 3.5.2. Translational Diffusions. This analysis of the transla-
Table 3 shows that the DR of water in the dendrimer-grafted tional diffusion of water finds the same trend as observed in
polymer membrane increases with increasing water content for previous sections: the higher the water content in the membrane,
all cases in this study. As discussed in section 3.3, the water the closer the translational diffusion of water to that of bulk
phase in the hydrated membrane is associated with the strong water. The translational diffusion coefficients (DT) of water are
acid groups of dendrimers to solvate, and the rotation of water obtained using 〈(r(t) - r(0))2〉 ) 6DTt with the linear part of
molecules that solvate the strong acid groups should be restricted the mean-square displacement (MSD), as in our previous
because of the charge-dipole interaction between strong acid studies.11,12 These values are summarized in Table 4 which
groups and solvating water molecules. Considering that the shows that, for all cases, the DT value of water increases with
system with higher water content has more water molecules increasing water content. The calculated values in bulk water
not involved directly in solvating strong acid groups in are DT ) (2.69 ( 0.04) × 10-5 cm2/s at 298.15 K and (5.98 (
comparison to that with lower water content, we find it 0.07) × 10-5 cm2/s at 353.15 K, which agrees reasonably well
reasonable that the system with a higher water content has a with the experimental values (DT ) 2.30 × 10-5 cm2/s at 298.15
larger value of DR than that with lower water content. Moreover, K and 6.48 × 10-5 cm2/s at 353.15 K).74-76
this explanation also implies that as the water content increases, We find that for the same water content DT increases in the
the structure in the water phase approaches that in bulk water order of PECH-D2 < PS-D2 < PTFE-D2 which is the same
since the portion of solvating water decreases in that water trend as the scale of nanophase segregation, which is also
phase. consistent with the results in the previous sections.
We find that the DR of water increases in the order of PECH- In addition, we compare the DT value of water in the
D2 < PS-D2 < PTFE-D2 at the same water content. We dendrimer-grafted polymer membrane with those in the Nafion
attribute this result to the difference in the nanophase segregation and the Dendrion membrane. All of the membranes simulated
Water-Soluble Dendrimer-Grafted Polymer Membranes J. Phys. Chem. C, Vol. 111, No. 6, 2007 2767
TABLE 4: Translational Diffusion Coefficients (DT) of diffusion coefficient of protons in an arbitrary membrane
Water from the MD Simulations channel using their nonequilibrium statistical mechanical
system DT (×105 cm2/s) framework.79-82
T ) 298.15 K T ) 353.15 K Instead, we employ a simple and efficient method based on
transition state theory (TST) to estimate the contribution from
bulk water 2.69 ( 0.04 5.98 ( 0.07
(exptl 2.30)a (exptl 6.48)a the proton hopping mechanism to proton diffusion. The QM
hopping method has been successful in investigating the proton
PECH-D2 10 wt % 0.05 ( 0.03
water content hopping in the Dendrion membrane.11
20 wt % 0.23 ( 0.04 To calculate the hopping diffusion in the membrane, we first
water content parametrized the rate constant for the transfer of a proton from
PS-D2 10 wt % 0.10 ( 0.04 the protonated water (hydronium) to the neutral carrier as a
water content function of the intermolecular oxygen in donor distance and
20 wt % 0.43 ( 0.04
water content oxygen in acceptor distance (Figure 13a in ref 11) using the
following equation83,84
PTFE-D2 10 wt % 0.16 ( 0.04
( )
water content
20 wt % 0.57 ( 0.04 kBT Eij(r) - 1/2hω(r)
water content kij(r) ) κ(T,r) exp - (8)
h RT
Nafion DR ) 1.1 20 wt % 1.43 ( 0.07b
water (1.25)c
content where κ(T,r) and ω(r) are the tunneling factor and the frequency
DR ) 0.1 20 wt % 1.62 ( 0.05b for zero point energy correction (given in refs 83 and 84),
water (1.25)c respectively, and E(r) is the energy barrier for the proton to be
content
transferred from donor to acceptor in the water medium while
sulfonic 10 wt % 0.37 ( 0.06b,d they are at a distance of r. We calculated this proton hopping
dendrion water content
energy barrier for fixed distances between donor and acceptor
a References 74-76. b Reference 12. c Reference 88. d Reference 11. oxygen in oxygen using QM (B3LYP with the 6-311G** basis
set) to obtain the energy change as a function of the distance
between the proton and the donor oxygen. Then, we used the
in this study have a smaller DT than Nafion and Dendrion at
Poisson-Boltzmann self-consistent reaction field model85,86 for
the same water content, which suggests that they may have
the solvent effect correction along the reaction path and
reduced the electro-osmotic drag coefficient. As discussed in
recalculated the energy barrier.
our previous study on the hydrated Dendrion membrane,11 the
Given eq 8, we use the distances between all of the pairs of
inner structure of hydrophilic dendrimer architecture may work
donors and acceptors from the equilibrium MD trajectory to
efficiently in reducing the translational mobility of water while
calculate the hopping diffusion coefficient as follows:
retaining the level of its rotational mobility.
In summary, on the basis of the observation that the trans- N M
1
lational mobility of water in these dendrimer-grafted polymer
membranes is at most ∼40% of that in the Nafion, we expect
Dhopping )
6Nt
∫0
tf∞
∑∑kijrij2Pij dt (9)
i j
that the electro-osmotic dragging would be less in this new
membrane. where N is the number of protons and Pij is the probability with
which a proton can jump from hydronium i to water j defined
4. Proton Transport as Pij ) kij/∑M j kij. Here, rij is the distance between all of the
In these membranes, protons are transported through two pairs of donors and acceptors measured from the equilibrium
different mechanisms: (i) the diffusion of protonated water MD trajectory.
molecules (vehicular diffusion) and (ii) the hopping of the proton Table 5 summarizes the proton diffusion coefficients predicted
along sequences of water molecules (Grothuss diffusion). for all of the dendrimer-grafted polymer membranes. We see
We calculate vehicular diffusion directly from the MD using here that (i) both Dvehicular and Dhopping increase with increasing
water content and (ii) the diffusion coefficient increases in the
Dvehicular ) 〈(r(t) - r(0))2〉/6t order of PECH-D2 < PS-D2 < PTFE-D2 at the same water
content.
However, the proton hopping involves forming and breaking These observations are completely consistent with the above
covalent bonds as a proton moves from one hydronium molecule analyses on the structure and dynamics of water in the water
to a neighboring water molecule. To study this Grothuss phase, suggesting that the water in the membrane approaches
diffusion of protons in water, one must use a method of that in bulk water as the nanophase segregation proceeds.
calculating forces that allows bonds to be formed and broken. Particularly, the proton diffusion coefficient predicted for
This has been done using forces from quantum mechanics PTFE-D2 (0.69 × 10-5 cm2/s) is comparable with that predicted
(QM),58,59 but such QM-MD is limited to ∼200 atoms, too for Dendrion (0.52 × 10-5 cm2/s) and for Nafion (∼0.6-0.7
few for our studies of a hydrated membrane. An alternative is × 10-5 cm2/s). This latter value is in good agreement with the
to use the ReaxFF, which leads to the same potential barriers experimental values (∼0.5-0.7 × 10-5 cm2/s from Zawodzinski
for proton hopping as the QM. This is feasible for systems of et al.87 and Kreuer,56 Table 4). Considering that PTFE-D2 has
1000 to 10 000 atoms per cell considered here, but we have the same backbone polymer as Nafion and Dendrion, we find
not parametrized ReaxFF yet for sulfonic and Teflon systems. this result on proton transport confirms the importance of the
An alternative approach is the multistate empirical valence bond structure in the water phase of the membrane and the relationship
(MS-EVB) model developed by Voth and co-workers and between the nanophase segregation and the structure and
applied to the proton transport in hydrated membranes.50,77,78 dynamics in the water phase. Here, it should be noted that we
Another approach has been used by Paddison et al. for the self- used an ad hoc assumption of Dtotal ) Dvehicular + Dhopping to
2768 J. Phys. Chem. C, Vol. 111, No. 6, 2007 Jang and Goddard
predict the overall proton diffusion coefficient (Dtotal). Although < PTFE-D2 (∼40 Å) which can be compared to ∼30-50 Å
this assumption has not yet been thoroughly validated, we for Nafion and ∼30 Å for Dendrion.
believe that the order of the proton diffusion coefficient (PECH- We suggest that the structure of the water phase and the
D2 < PS-D2 < PTFE-D2) should be reasonable in our systems structure factor analysis can be understood in terms of the
in which the hopping mechanism is much more dominant in hydrophilicity (or hydrophobicity) of the backbone polymer:
comparison to the vehicular mechanism. We leave the evalu- as the hydrophobicity of the backbone increases, the corre-
ation/refinement of this assumption to future work. sponding membrane develops more nanophase segregation
accompanied with a more bulk-water-like structure.
5. Summary Calculating the rotational diffusion coefficient (DR) and the
This study introduced the concept of a dendrimer-grafted translational diffusion coefficient (DT) from the MD trajectory
polymer using precisely defined water-soluble dendritic archi- files, we found that the values of these diffusion coefficients
tecture (sulfonic polyaryl ether dendrimer) in a copolymer with increase with increasing water content and increase in the order
a linear polymer backbone for applications such as PEMFC. In of PECH-D2 < PS-D2 < PTFE-D2 at the same water content,
order to investigate the effect of the backbone polymer on the indicating that the water dynamics in the hydrated membrane
properties suitable for PEMFC such as nanophase segregation is strongly coupled with the structures in water phase.
and transport, we grafted the second-generation sulfonic polyaryl We estimated the proton diffusion according to its mecha-
ether dendrimers onto three different types of linear backbone nism: vehicular and hopping. For both mechanisms, the values
polymers, for example, PECH, PS, and PTFE, for the prepara- of the proton diffusion coefficients increase with increasing
tion of three different types of dendrimer-grafted polymers such water content and increase in the order of PECH-D2 < PS-D2
as PECH-D2, PS-D2, and PTFE-D2. < PTFE-D2, which also shows the dependency of proton
We found that, in all of these cases, the equilibrium systems transport on the structures in the water phase as observed in
exhibit nanophase segregation in which a water phase is formed the water dynamics.
and associated with the hydrophilic dendrimers. Analyzing the On the basis of the observations from our simulations, we
pair correlation of sulfur-sulfur in sulfonic acid groups of expect that the PTFE-D2 dendrimer-grafted polymer membrane
dendrimers, we found that, in the nanophase-segregated struc- may have a comparable performance to Nafion and Dendrion
tures, the dendrimers contact each other through the membrane, membranes in a PEMFC.
helping the formation of a continuous and percolated water
phase. Acknowledgment. We thank Dr. Suhas Niyogi and Dr.
We also found out that the water coordination number for Deborah Myers of the Argonne National Laboratory and Dr.
water molecules in the water phase increases with increasing Gerald Voecks and Dr. Boris Merinov for many helpful
water content for all cases. In addition, at the same water discussions. Partial support for this project was provided by
content, the water coordination number increases in the order DOE (DE-FG01-04ER04-20) and NSF (CTS-0548774). The
of PECH-D2 < PS-D2 < PTFE-D2, indicating that the facilities of the Materials and Process Simulation Center used
similarity of the water structure to the bulk water is also in the for these studies are supported by DURIP-ARO and DURIP-
order of PECH-D2 < PS-D2 < PTFE-D2. ONR, and other support for the MSC comes from MURI-ARO,
The extent of nanophase segregation in the new copolymer MURI-ONR, DOE, ONR, NSF-CSEM, NIH, General Motors,
membrane was evaluated quantitatively by analyzing structure Chevron-Texaco, Seiko-Epson, Beckman Institute, and Asahi
factor profiles, S(q), as a function of scattering vector (q) for Kasei.
the membranes with 20 wt % of water content. By determining
the characteristic dimension and density contrast in the mem- References and Notes
brane, we found that the extent of nanophase segregation (1) Carrette, L.; Friedrich, K. A.; Stimming, U. ChemPhysChem 2000,
increases in the order of PECH-D2 (∼20 Å) < PS-D2 (∼35 Å) 1, 162-193.
Water-Soluble Dendrimer-Grafted Polymer Membranes J. Phys. Chem. C, Vol. 111, No. 6, 2007 2769
(2) Kreuer, K. D. J. Membr. Sci. 2001, 185, 29-39. (46) Din, X.-D.; Michaelides, E. E. AIChE J. 1998, 44, 35-47.
(3) Paddison, S. J. Annu. ReV. Mater. Res. 2003, 33, 289-319. (47) Vishnyakov, A.; Neimark, A. V. J. Phys. Chem. B 2001, 105,
(4) Li, Q.; He, R.; Jensen, J. O.; Bjerrum, N. J. Chem. Mater. 2003, 9586-9594.
15, 4896-4915. (48) Jinnouchi, R.; Okazaki, K. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2003, 150, E66-
(5) Maurits, K. A.; Moore, R. B. Chem. ReV. 2004, 104, 4535-4585. E73.
(6) Hickner, M. A.; Pivovar, B. S. Fuel Cells (Weinheim, Ger.) 2005, (49) Paddison, S. J.; Elliott, J. A. J. Phys. Chem. A 2005, 109, 7583-
5, 213-229. 7593.
(7) Yeager, H. L.; Steck, A. Anal. Chem. 1979, 51, 862-865. (50) Petersen, M. K.; Wang, F.; Blake, N. P.; Metiu, H.; Voth, G. A. J.
(8) Yeo, S. C.; Eisenberg, A. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1977, 21, 875-898. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 3727-3730.
(9) Eisenberg, A.; King, M. In Polymer Physics; Stein, R. S., Ed.; (51) Blake, N. P.; Petersen, M. K.; Voth, G. A.; Metiu, H. J. Phys. Chem.
Academic Press: New York, 1977. B 2005, 109, 24244-24253.
(10) Scibona, G.; Fabiani, C.; Scuppa, B. J. Membr. Sci. 1983, 16, 37- (52) Hawker, C. J.; Wooley, K. L.; Frechet, J. M. J. J. Chem. Soc.,
50. Perkin Trans. 1 1993, 1287-1297.
(11) Jang, S. S.; Lin, S.-T.; Cagin, T.; Molinero, V.; Goddard, W. A., (53) Agmon, N. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1995, 244, 456-462.
III. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 10154-10167. (54) Agmon, N.; Goldberg, S. Y.; Huppert, D. J. Mol. Liq. 1995, 64,
(12) Jang, S. S.; Molinero, V.; Cagin, T.; Goddard, W. A., III. J. Phys. 161-195.
Chem. B 2004, 108, 3149-3157. (55) Kreuer, K. D. Chem. Mater. 1996, 8, 610-641.
(13) Mayo, S. L.; Olafson, B. D.; Goddard, W. A., III. J. Phys. Chem. (56) Kreuer, K. D. Solid State Ionics 1997, 97, 1-15.
1990, 94, 8897-8909.
(57) Kreuer, K. D. Solid State Ionics 2000, 136-137, 149-160.
(14) Elliott, J. A.; Hanna, S.; Elliott, A. M. S.; Cooley, G. E. Phys.
Chem. Chem. Phys. 1999, 1, 4855-4863. (58) Tuckerman, M.; Laasonen, K.; Sprik, M.; Parrinello, M. J. Chem.
(15) Vishnyakov, A.; Neimark, A. V. J. Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104, Phys. 1995, 103, 150-161.
4471-4478. (59) Tuckerman, M.; Laasonen, K.; Sprik, M.; Parrinello, M. J. Phys.
(16) Vishnyakov, A.; Neimark, A. V. J. Phys. Chem. B 2001, 105, Chem. 1995, 99, 5749-5752.
7830-7834. (60) Tuckerman, M. E.; Marx, D.; Klein, M. L.; Parrinello, M. Science
(17) Li, T.; Wlaschin, A.; Balbuena, P. B. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2001, 1997, 275, 817-820.
40, 4789-4800. (61) Marx, D.; Tuckerman, M. E.; Hutter, J.; Parrinello, M. Nature 1999,
(18) Jang, S. S.; Blanco, M.; Goddard, W. A., III; Caldwell, G.; Ross, 397, 601-604.
R. B. Macromolecules 2003, 36, 5331-5341. (62) Marx, D.; Tuckerman, M. E.; Parrinello, M. J. Phys.: Condens.
(19) Levitt, M.; Hirshberg, M.; Sharon, R.; Laidig, K. E.; Daggett, V. Matter 2000, 12, A153-A159.
J. Phys. Chem. B 1997, 101, 5051-5061. (63) Verbrugge, M. W.; Hill, R. F. J. Electrochem. Soc. 1990, 137, 893-
(20) Rappe, A. K.; Goddard, W. A., III. J. Phys. Chem. 1991, 95, 3358- 899.
3363. (64) Verbrugge, M. W.; Hill, R. F. J. Electrochem. Soc. 1990, 137,
(21) Hockney, R. W.; Eastwood, J. W. Computer simulation using 3770-3777.
particles; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1981. (65) Zawodzinski, T. A.; Neeman, M.; Sillerud, L. O.; Gottesfeld, S. J.
(22) Plimpton, S. J. J. Comput. Phys. 1995, 117, 1-19. Phys. Chem. 1991, 95, 6040-6044.
(23) Plimpton, S. J.; Pollock, R.; Stevens, M. Presented at the Eighth (66) Paul, R.; Paddison, S. J. J. Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 13231-
SIAM Conference on Parallel Processing for Scientific Computing, Min- 13241.
neapolis, MN, 1997. (67) Soper, A. K.; Phillips, M. G. Chem. Phys. 1986, 107, 47-60.
(24) Jang, S. S.; Lin, S.-T.; Maiti, P. K.; Blanco, M.; Goddard, W. A., (68) Farid, A. S. Plast., Rubber Compos. 1999, 28, 346-356.
III; Shuler, P.; Tang, Y. J. Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 12130-12140. (69) Schuster, M.; Kreuer, K. D.; Maier, J. Proceedings of the 14th
(25) Swope, W. C.; Andersen, H. C.; Berens, P. H.; Wilson, K. R. J. International Conference on Solid State Ionics, Monterey, CA, 2003; p 395.
Chem. Phys. 1982, 76, 637-649. (70) McQuarrie, A. A. Statistical Mechanics; Harper & Row: New
(26) Laporta, M.; Pegoraro, M.; Zanderighi, L. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. York, 1976.
1999, 1, 4619-4628. (71) Pal, S. K.; Peon, J.; Bagchi, B.; Zewail, A. H. J. Phys. Chem. B
(27) Cerius2 Modeling EnVironment, Release 4.0; Accelrys Inc.: San 2002, 106, 12376-12395.
Diego, CA, 1999. (72) Paddison, S. J.; Reagor, D. W.; Zawodzinski, T. A. J. Electroanal.
(28) Nose, S. J. Chem. Phys. 1984, 81, 511-519. Chem. 1998, 459, 91-97.
(29) Eisenberg, A. Macromolecules 1970, 3, 147-154. (73) Paddison, S. J.; Bender, G.; Kreuer, K. D.; Nicoloso, N.; Zawodz-
(30) Falk, M. Can. J. Chem. 1980, 58, 1495-1501. inski, T. A. J. New Mater. Electrochem. Syst. 2000, 3, 291-300.
(31) Duplessix, R.; Escoubes, M.; Rodmacq, B.; Volino, F.; Roche, E.; (74) Mills, R. J. Phys. Chem. 1973, 77, 685-688.
Eisenberg, A.; Peneri, M. Water in Polymer; American Chemical Soceity: (75) Krynicki, K.; Green, C. D.; Sawyer, D. W. Discuss. Faraday Soc.
Washington, D.C., 1980. 1978, 66, 199-208.
(32) Rodmacq, B.; Coey, J. M.; Escoubes, M.; Roche, E.; Duplessix, (76) Price, W. S.; Ide, H.; Arata, Y. J. Phys. Chem. A 1999, 103, 448-
R.; Eisenberg, A.; Pineri, M. In Water in Polymers; Rowland, S. P., Ed.; 450.
American Chemical Soceity: Washington, DC, 1980. (77) Schmitt, U. W.; Voth, G. A. J. Phys. Chem. B 1998, 102, 5547-
(33) Gierke, T. D.; Munn, G. E.; Wilson, F. C. J. Polym. Sci., Polym. 5551.
Phys. Ed. 1981, 19, 1687-1704.
(78) Schmitt, U. W.; Voth, G. A. J. Chem. Phys. 1999, 111, 9361-
(34) Hsu, W. Y.; Gierke, T. D. J. Membr. Sci. 1983, 13, 307-326.
9381.
(35) Yeager, H. L.; Steck, A. J. Electrochem. Soc. 1981, 128, 1880-
1884. (79) Paddison, S. J.; Paul, R.; Zawodzinski, T. A. J. Electrochem. Soc.
(36) Verbrugge, M. W.; Hill, R. F. J. Electrochem. Soc. 1990, 137, 886- 2000, 147, 617-626.
893. (80) Paddison, S. J.; Paul, R.; Zawodzinski, T. A. J. Chem. Phys. 2001,
(37) Gebel, G. Polymer 2000, 41, 5829-5838. 115, 7753-7761.
(38) James, P. J.; Elliott, J. A.; McMaster, T. J.; Miles, J. M. J. Mater. (81) Paddison, S. J.; Paul, R.; Kreuer, K.-D. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.
Sci. 2000, 35, 5111-5119. 2002, 4, 1151-1157.
(39) James, P. J.; McMaster, T. J.; Newton, J. M.; Miles, M. J. Polymer (82) Paddison, S. J.; Paul, R. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2002, 4, 1158-
2000, 41, 4223-4231. 1163.
(40) Haubold, H.-G.; Vad, T.; Jungbluth, H.; Hiller, P. Electrochim. Acta (83) Lill, M. A.; Helms, V. J. Chem. Phys. 2001, 114, 1125-1132.
2001, 46, 1559-1563. (84) Lill, M. A.; Helms, V. J. Chem. Phys. 2001, 115, 7985-7992.
(41) Rollet, A.-L.; Gebel, G.; Simonin, J.-P.; Turq, P. J. Polym. Sci., (85) Greeley, B. H.; Russo, T. V.; Mainz, D. T.; Friesner, R. A.;
Part B: Polym. Phys. 2001, 39, 548-558. Langlois, J. M.; Goddard, W. A., III; Donnelly, R. E.; Ringnalda, M. N. J.
(42) Rollet, A.-L.; Diat, O.; Gebel, G. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, Chem. Phys. 1994, 101, 4028-4041.
3033-3036. (86) Marten, B.; Kim, K.; Cortis, C.; Friesner, R. A.; Murphy, R. B.;
(43) Young, S. K.; Trevino, S. F.; Tan, N. C. B. J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Ringnalda, M. N.; Sitkoff, D.; Honig, B. J. Phys. Chem. 1996, 100, 11775-
Polym. Phys. 2002, 40, 387-400. 11788.
(44) Tovbin, Y. K.; Dyakov, Y. A.; Vasutkin, N. F. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. (87) Zawodzinski, T. A.; Springer, T. E.; Davey, J.; Jestel, R.; Lopez,
(Engl. Transl.) 1993, 67, 2122-2125. C.; Valerio, J.; Gottesfeld, S. Electrochim. Acta 1995, 40, 297-302.
(45) Dyakov, Y. A.; Tovbin, Y. K. Russ. Chem. Bull. 1995, 44, 1233- (88) Okada, T.; Xie, G.; Meeg, M. Electrochim. Acta 1998, 14, 2141-
1236. 2155.