Interpretation of spin relaxation in polyisobutylene in terms of specific motions

Alan A. Jones, Ronald P. Lubianez, Mark A. Hanson, Shelley L. Shostak

Journal of Polymer Science Polymer Physics Edition · 1978 · 19 citations · 29 references

Concepts

Abstract

Abstract Porton and carbon spin‐lattice relaxation times T 1 and nuclear Overhauser enhancements are interpreted in terms of motions likely in linear polyisobutylene. Most of the interpretation is based on relaxation data in the literature, but some additional 1 H and 13 C pulse Fourier transform experiments were conducted to resolve a disagreement in the literature concerning cross relaxation between the two types of protons present in polyisobutylene. Spin relaxation in solution and the bulk is accounted for by three specific motions considered as independent sources of motional modulation of the dipole–dipole interaction. The first motion is overall isotropic rotatory diffusion which has a known dependence on molecular weight, intrinsic viscosity, and solvent viscosity for polymers in solution, and a known dependence on molecular weight and viscosity for bulk polymers. The effects of overall tumbling account for a decrease of T 1 for the methylene and methyl carbons with increasing molecular weight in solution and increase of T 1 of methylene carbons with molecular weight in bulk. The second motion considered is backbone rearrangements caused by the three‐bond jump. This motion dominates relaxation of the methylene carbons either in solution or in the bulk allowing for the determination of the associated correlation time. The correlation time characterizing the occurrence of the three‐bond jump in a 5% (wt/vol) solution in CCI 4 at 45°C is 58 psec, and in the bulk at 45°C it is 11 nsec. The last motion included in the model is methyl‐group rotation about the threefold symmetry axis. The methyl‐group rotational correlation time is 0.20 nsec in a 5% (wt/vol) solution in CCI 4 at 45°C and 0.33 nsec in the bulk at 45°C. The concentration dependence of the backbone motion contrasts strongly with the corresponding dependence of methyl‐group rotation.

References

29