Poly(dimethylsiloxane)‐poly(ethylene oxide)‐heparin block copolymers III: Surface and bulk compositional differences

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Previously observed bioactivity of poly(dimethylsiloxane)‐poly(ethyelene oxide)‐heparin (PDMS‐PEO‐Hep) triblock copolymers has prompted studies of the surface and bulk character of this copolymer using angular‐dependent electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis (ADESCA), static secondary mass spectroscopy (SIMS), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Because the low‐energy PDMS phase dominates surfaces of this copolymer when solvent cast under air or vacuum conditions, attempts were made to explain surface restructuring and rearrangements induced in hydrated or aqueous environments that permit surface accessibility and bioactivity of heparin moieties. Based on comparisons with PDMS, PEO, and heparin homopolymers, PEO/heparin blends, and an unheparinized PDMS‐PEO diblock copolymer, PDMS‐PEO‐heparin demonstrates both phase‐mixed and phase‐separated regions in DSC analysis. During annealing cycles above the Tg values of the copolymer constituents, phase‐mixed regions become increasingly phase separated and PEO enriched. TGA analysis confirmed the presence of block copolymer constituents and presented evidence of intermolecular segmental interactions, hence phase‐mixing in the copolymers. ADESCA analysis indicates that the outer 5 Å of both the PDMS‐PEO and PDMS‐PEO‐Hep copolymers is essentially pure PDMS. However, significant amounts of PEO are detected 5 to 20 Å below the surface. Static SIMS also detects the presence of PDMS at the surfaces of the PDMS‐PEO and PDMS‐PEO‐Hep copolymers. Compositional models based on ADESCA, SIMS, and DSC data are presented for desiccated and hydrated copolymer surfaces.