Progress in Organic Coatings 43 (2001) 56–63

Design of pigment dispersants for high-solids paint systems

H.J.W. van den Haak∗ , L.L.M. Krutzer
Akzo Nobel, Coatings Research Arnhem, P.O. Box 9300, 6800 SB Arnhem, The Netherlands
Received 8 August 2001

Abstract
The development of pigment dispersants, either for waterborne or for high-solids paints, requires three things: the selection of an
anchoring group, the selection of a soluble tail and the choice of a suitable architecture, which connects anchoring groups to soluble tails.
For the selection of an anchoring group, we measured the adsorption of model compounds to pigments. This gives us the free energy of
adsorption, which is a measure for the affinity of the anchoring for a given pigment. It allows a simple and relatively rapid prescreening of
anchoring groups without the necessity of preparing polymers and testing them in paint formulations.
Suitable soluble groups must have good compatibility with the binder and solvent of the paint system. Mapping the area of solubility
as a function of solubility parameters is a simple but powerful tool to judge the suitability of pigment dispersants soluble tails for a paint
system.
More quantitative information is obtained from the intrinsic viscosity of the soluble tail polymers. Good results have been obtained with
soluble tails with an intrinsic viscosity of about 10 ml/g. © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Pigment dispersant; High-solids; Free energy of adsorption; Solubility parameters

1. Introduction form a steric barrier against flocculation of the pigment

Ecological pressure and legislation in many countries
force the paint industry to reduce the level of volatile or-
ganic solvents in modern paint systems. Both waterborne
and high-solids solventborne binders are used to comply
with these demands. The use of such binder systems consid-
erably complicates the pigmentation of the paint. In many
cases, the binder of the paint system cannot be used as the
stabilizing resin for the pigment, as was done in traditional
solventborne low-solids paints and the use of special addi-
tives, required to allow the dispersion of pigments in such
paint systems, is well-known.
In principle, the development of such pigment dispersants
requires three steps:
1. The selection of an anchoring group, i.e. a group having
affinity for the surface of the pigment to be dispersed.
Preferably, the anchoring group should have affinity for a
broad range of pigments, in order to make the dispersant
as universal as possible.
2. The selection of a soluble tail. The tails build a shell of
dissolved polymer around the pigment particle and thus
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: henk.vandenhaak@akzonobel.com
(H.J.W. van den Haak).
particles. Compatibility with the broadest possible range
of binders and solvents improves the universal character
of the dispersant.
3. The selection of a suitable architecture, which connects
one or more anchoring groups to one or more soluble
tails.
Of course it is possible to select the optimum building
blocks for a dispersant for a given system by preparing sev-
eral pigment dispersants with different anchoring groups,
tails and architectures and measuring their activities as
pigment dispersants in a paint system. This is a very time
consuming procedure, however. Moreover, it is not always
possible to keep everything constant and change only one
thing, e.g. the anchoring group. Comparison of several
anchoring groups in dispersants based, e.g. on an acrylic
backbone would require monomers bearing these anchor-
ing groups, which of course are not always available. Even
if they are available, they will probably have different
copolymerization parameters and thus result in different
backbones, which makes a direct comparison difficult. If
a dispersant fails in a given system, it is not always clear
why it fails: insufficient anchoring, insufficient stabilization
or some other cause. Therefore, a more effective method
for the selection of anchoring group and soluble tails would
allow a more focused development of pigment dispersants.

0300-9440/01/$ – see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 0 0 - 9 4 4 0 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 2 1 9 - 3
 H.J.W. van den Haak, L.L.M. Krutzer / Progress in Organic Coatings 43 (2001) 56–63
In this paper, methods are presented for a direct compari-
son of different anchoring groups using model compounds,
and for a direct comparison of soluble tails. Both methods
do not require the preparation of pigment dispersants and
their evaluation in paint systems. The selection of anchor-
ing groups has been described elsewhere [1], but is included
briefly here for the sake of completeness.
2. Selection of anchoring groups
For the comparison of the anchoring properties of func-
tional groups, we studied a series of model compounds con-
sisting of the anchoring group X, connected to an ethyl
group. So ethanol was used to test the anchoring proper-
ties of the OH-group, propionic acid to test the anchor-
ing of the carboxylic-acid group, etc. Almost all of the
model compounds were simple, readily available chemi-
cals.
2.1. A model for adsorption
If a solution of a model compound M in a solvent S is
brought into contact with a surface, e.g. a pigment surface
P, both solvent and model compound will adsorb onto this
surface and compete for the available anchoring sites in the
surface. Moreover, the molecules of the model compound
will be solvated and partly remain so after adsorption.
After some time, two equilibria will develop, the first (1)
accounting for the adsorption of the model compound to
the pigment surface, the second (2) for the solvating of the
adsorbed model compound
M + PS
PM + S (1)
PM + nS
PMSn (2)
where PS and PM and PMSn are the solvent, the model
compound and the solvated model compound, respectively,
each adsorbed to the pigment surface P. These equilibria
are described by the equilibrium constants Kads and Ksolv ,
with
([PM] + [PMSn ])[S]
Kads = (3)
[PS][M]
[PMSn ]
Ksolv = (4)
[PM][S]n
It is assumed that the whole pigment surface is covered
either with solvent or with (solvated) model compound, so
that
[PS] + [PM] + [PMSn ] = [Psat ] (5)
The values of Kads and Ksolv will of course depend on the na-
ture of both the anchoring group, the solvent and the pigment
surface. If solvatation of the adsorbed model compound is
disregarded, i.e. if Ksolv and PMSn are assumed to be zero,
57
combination of Eqs. (3) and (5) and elimination of [PS] re-
sults in the well-known equation for the Langmuir isotherm
[PM] Kads [M]
=Θ= (6)
[Psat ] Kads [M] + [S]
or
Θ 1
[M] = [S] (7)
1 − Θ Kads
with [PM] is the actual concentration of the model com-
pound at the pigment surface; [Psat ] the maximum concentra-
tion of the model compound at the pigment surface, i.e. the
concentration at full monolayer adsorption. [PM] and [Psat ]
may be expressed either in mol/g, mol/m2 , or as a mole frac-
tion. As they always appear as a quotient, their dimensions
may be chosen, as long they are the same; Θ the coverage of
the pigment surface, i.e. the fraction of the available anchor
sites occupied by the model compound (0 ≤ Θ ≤ 1); Kads
the equilibrium constant of adsorption for equilibrium (1);
Ksolv the equilibrium constant of solvation for equilibrium
(2); [M] the mole fraction of the model compound in the
solution; [S] the mole fraction of the solvent in the solution.
In principle Kads and [Psat ] can be determined by prepar-
ing a series of model-compound solutions of known initial
mole fractions [M0 ], adding a known amount of the pig-
ment and measuring the mole fraction of model compound
again after the equilibrium has been reached [2]. [PM] is
then calculated from the decrease in mole fraction [M] =
[M0 ] − [M] and the amount of pigment. The series of [PM]-
and [M]-values thus obtained are fitted to the Langmuir
equation (6), resulting into [Psat ] and Kads . However, we
could improve our results considerably by accounting for
the fact that when a molecule of the model compound is
adsorbed, a number of solvating solvent molecules will be
adsorbed as well, i.e. by also taking the equilibrium (2) into
account. As both model compound and solvent molecules
are withdrawn from the liquid phase, the concentration of
the model compound changes in a much more complicated
way than described above. It is even possible, that when
much more solvent than model compound is adsorbed, the
mole fraction of the model compound increases and a neg-
ative apparent adsorption is found.
Of course this does not mean that each adsorbed molecule
of the model compound forms a well-defined complex with
n molecules of the solvent. The model is only used to ac-
count for the fact that, apart from the model compound, a
considerable amount of solvent is adsorbed as well. Similar
models, using e.g. a Freundlich-type function for the coad-
sorption of solvent, have been used by other authors [3–6].
From Eqs. (3)–(5) expressions can be derived for the
decrease of the mole fraction of the model compound on
addition of pigment, and for [PM], [PMSn ], [S] and [M] as
a function of Kads , Ksolv , n and the adsorption capacity A,
respectively. The latter is defined as the maximum number
of moles that can be adsorbed per gram of pigment. Kads ,
Ksolv , n and A are obtained from a curve fitting procedure
on the adsorption isotherm of [M] against [M].
58 H.J.W. van den Haak, L.L.M. Krutzer / Progress in Organic Coatings 43 (2001) 56–63

Table 1
Adsorption parameters for model compounds C2 H5 –X to pigments or fillers
Pigment or filler Anchoring group X R2 A (mmol/g) Kads Gads (kJ/mol) Ksolv n (mol)

Transparent iron oxidea Carboxylic acid, pH 3 0.9166 0.25 1164 −17.3 2.8 2.55E4
Carboxylic acid, pH 9 0.9973 3.6 11.8 −6.1 1.4 1400
Sulfonic acid, pH 2 0.9340 1.5 64.4 −10.2 4.3 2.1E4
Sulfonic acid, pH 7 0.9979 1.2 6.8 −4.7 0.97 2.5E4
Sulfonic acid, pH 9 0.9923 1.2 3.15 −2.8 1.7 4.8E3
4-Phenylol 0.9972 0.1 148 −12.2 3.1 1.08E4
Amino acid, pH 7 0.9754 1.5 48.9 −9.5 2.1 1800
Amino acid, pH 9 0.9856 0.24 158 −12.4 9.9 162
Amino 0.3694 0.36 18.1 −7.1 11.6 1960
Diethylamino 0.6032 4.8 1.13 −0.3 6.8E3 3730
2-Pyridyl 0.5070 0.12 63.3 −10.2 3.0 8300
2-Pyrazinyl 0.0667 0.016 224 −13.3 1010 5400
Amide 0.8876 1.8 18.7 −7.2 3.1E3 3070
Acetyl, pH 7 0.9842 0.079 857 −16.7 1.7 888
Acetyl, pH 9 0.9901 0.18 248 −13.5 1.2 663
Methyl ester 0.9513 0.76 163 −12.5 1.2E3 1400
–OC2 H4 OC2 H4 OH 0.1299 0.0010 1E4 −22.6 1E4 4E4
–OC2 H4 OH, pH 7 0.5971 0.0013 1.1E4 −22.8 1E3 980
–OC2 H4 OH, pH 9 0.2679 3.9E5 5.4E3 −21.1 2E7 4.1E4
Carbon blackb 4-Phenylol 0.9752 0.519 8.04E4 −27.7 – –
2-Pyridyl 0.9797 0.245 4.1E4 −26.0 – –
4-Pyridyl 0.9327 0.276 5.15E4 −26.6 – –
Phthalo-cyaninec 2-Pyridyl 1.000 0.126 7.51E3 −21.9 1.05 1.3E4
4-Pyridyl 1.000 0.26 4.15E3 −20.4 1.64 7.7E3
Aluminum oxided 4-Phenylol 0.2360 0.506 62.4 −10.7 6.16 5.8E3
a Sicotrans Red L2816 ex BASF.
b Farbruß 200 ex Degussa.
c Heliogen Blue L7101F ex BASF.
d Ex Acros.

2.2. Application of the model
Adsorption measurements for a series of pigment-
anchoring group combinations are given in Table 1. In this
section, we work out the adsorption of the carboxylic-acid
group and the amide group (i.e. the model compounds
propionic acid and propionamide, respectively) to the
transparent iron oxide pigment Sicotrans Red L 2816, to
demonstrate which information can be obtained from the
parameters Kads , Ksolv , n and A and how it can be used. In
the next section, we will give an overview of the results
of all pigment-anchoring group combinations that we have
tested.
In Fig. 1, the measured and the calculated apparent ad-
sorption (both expressed as [M]) as a function of the mole
fraction [M] of the model compound in the liquid phase are
shown for propionic acid and propionamide, respectively. A
good to fair correlation (R 2 = 0.997 and 0.888) between
measured and calculated values was found.
The figure clearly shows the effect of the coadsorption of
water: a Langmuir isotherm alone (or a Freundlich isotherm)
could never account for the concave curve, as was found
for propionic acid, or the apparently negative adsorption for
propionamide. The coadsorption of water causes a dip in
the apparent adsorption of propionic acid and even causes a
negative apparent adsorption for propionamide.
2.3. The adsorption capacity A
An adsorption capacity A of 3.56 mmol/g was found
for the combination propionic acid/iron oxide. For propi-
onamide 1.78 mmol/g was found. This corresponds to 0.07
and 0.14 nm2 per molecule or an average distance of 2.8
and 4 Å between neighboring molecules. These distances
are in fair agreement with the size of anchoring groups as
estimated from bond lengths. The difference between pro-
pionic acid and propionamide might be caused by different
degrees of solvation of the model compounds.
The adsorption capacity may be used to estimate how
much of a dispersant can be used to fully cover a given
amount of pigment. However, the results must be interpreted
with some care. The estimation of the maximum adsorp-
tion capacity is based on an enormous extrapolation, as for
both anchoring groups mentioned here at the highest mea-
sured concentration a coverage of only 2% was attained. For
other model compounds coverages as high as 80% have been
measured, which of course results in a much more reliable
measurement of A.
 H.J.W. van den Haak, L.L.M. Krutzer / Progress in Organic Coatings 43 (2001) 56–63 59

Fig. 1. The measured (•) and calculated (drawn line) apparent adsorption of propionic acid (above) and propionamide on iron oxide as a function of
their mole fractions in the liquid phase, using the adsorption parameters as given in Table 1.

2.4. The strength of adsorption
The equilibrium constant Kads gives an impression of the
strength of the adsorption of an anchoring group to a pig-
ment surface. A higher value of Kads means that the anchor-
ing group has a higher tendency to adhere to the pigment
surface. From Kads the free energy of adsorption Gads can
be calculated with formula (8):
Gads = −RT ln Kads
where R is the gas constant, 8.314 J K−1 mol−1 , and T the
absolute temperature, 295 K, in our experiments.
Gads values of −6.1 and −7.2 kJ/mol were found for
propionic acid and propionamide, respectively. A more
negative Gads indicates a stronger interaction between the
pigment and the anchoring group. Once Kads is known, (6)
can be used to plot a Langmuir isotherm (the real adsorbed
amount or the degree of coverage θ as a function of the
mole fraction in the liquid phase, see Fig. 2).
The free energy of adsorption Gads may also be used to
select adhesion-promoting functional groups for coatings.
2.5. Discussion
(8)
In Table 1, overview of the results for several pigment/
anchoring group combinations is given. A good correlation
between predicted and measured adsorption was found in
most cases. The poor correlation for the adsorption of the
amino and diethylamino group on iron oxide is probably
caused by the low affinity and the resulting small change
60 H.J.W. van den Haak, L.L.M. Krutzer / Progress in Organic Coatings 43 (2001) 56–63
Fig. 2. Real adsorption of propionic acid and propionamide on iron oxide,
as calculated from the data in Table 1.
in concentration during the measurement of the adsorp-
tion. The data for the aromatic amines 2-ethylpyridine
and 2-ethylpyrazine suggest a stronger interaction with
this pigment. Due to the poor correlation, these data
should be interpreted with care, however. A strong inter-
action is found for the pyridyl group and carbon black
and the organic pigment phthalocyanine blue. The amino
group is a well-known anchoring group for carbon black
[7].
In spite of the poor correlation, the glycol ethers (model
compounds ethyl glycol and ethyl diglycol) show surprising
consistencies: a very strong adsorption (high Kads ) of a very
low amount of model compound (low A). Due to the very
low level of the adsorption the concentration measurements
become less reliable, with a bad correlation as a result and
the results should be interpreted with care. The low adsorp-
tion capacity of these groups make them useless as anchor-
ing groups in waterborne systems.
Much better results are obtained for iron oxide with the
carboxylic-acid group, which is of course a well-known an-
choring group in many dispersants, and with the (weakly)
acidic phenylol group. The effectiveness decreases, how-
ever, at high pH values. The anchoring properties of
the amino-acid group (model compound 2-aminobutyric
acid) persist, even at high pH values. Surprisingly the
sulfonic-acid group, which is known to be a very strong
solubilizing group, is a very poor anchoring group, unless
it is used at low pH values.
Both the acetyl group and the ester group seem to be
effective anchoring groups in water. This may be due to their
low solubility in water. Measurements in solvents other than
water might show a very different adsorption pattern.
3. Selection of soluble tails
Soluble tails are connected to the dispersed pigment
through the anchoring groups and thus build a dilute pro-
tective shell around the particles. This prevents them from
approaching each other too closely and flocculating. Of
course this can only happen if the tails are well soluble in
the medium and the selection of appropriate soluble tails
is an important step in the development of a pigment dis-
persant.
We investigated in two ways whether solubility parame-
ters of free soluble tails could predict their suitability in a
pigment dispersant. They are based on solubility plots and on
intrinsic viscosities, respectively. Together with the method
for the selection of anchoring groups as described in Section
2 they should form a sort of toolbox for the development of
pigment dispersants. A rapid prescreening of building blocks
would then be possible without the need for the preparation
of a complete pigment dispersant and evaluation of it in a
series of paint systems. Although testing of the dispersant
in a paint system remains necessary, a lot of time could be
saved by this procedure. This can reduce the time and effort
required for the development of a paint system.
3.1. Solubility plots
The easiest and most obvious way to judge the suitability
of a polymer as a soluble tail in a pigment dispersant is to
test its solubility in a practical quantity (e.g. 10% (w/w)) in
a series of solvents with a broad range of solubility param-
eters. Mapping the solubility as a function of the most im-
portant Hansen or Hoy parameters δ H and δ P gives a clear
picture about the paint systems in which a given tail may be
used. In Fig. 3, we did this for two different polymers, fre-
quently used as soluble tails in pigment dispersants: polyhy-
droxystearic acid and polycaprolactone. Both polymers have
a fairly broad solubility, as long as not too much hydrogen
bonding is involved. Their solubility areas strongly overlap.
Polyhydroxystearic acid tails are widely used, for in-
stance, in apolar paints for decorative applications [8]. This
polymer is easily prepared from relatively inexpensive raw
materials and is well soluble in the solvents used for such
systems, like white spirit. As it is fully built-up from fatty
acids, it is very compatible with long-oil alkyd binders.
For more polar systems, as used in car-refinish or indus-
trial applications, very often polymers based on polycapro-
lactone are applied [9–11]. This polymer has good solubility
in the stronger solvents used in these applications. The crys-
tallinity of this polymer, which seriously distracts from its
applicability, can be dealt with by building-in other hydroxy
acids or lactones like valerolactone [12].
Polyhydroxystearic acid is more suited for less polar sol-
vents like butyl acetate, whereas polycaprolactone is better
suited for the more polar ones like N-methyl-pyrrolidone.
3.2. Intrinsic viscosity
The method described above is relatively simple and
straightforward but the information obtained is only qualita-
tive (soluble/insoluble) and the 10% solubility used here is
rather arbitrary. More detailed information on the solubility
of a stabilizing tail polymer can be obtained by measuring
its intrinsic viscosity [η] in a series of solvents. The intrinsic
 H.J.W. van den Haak, L.L.M. Krutzer / Progress in Organic Coatings 43 (2001) 56–63
Fig. 3. Solubility plots (10% (w/w)) of polyhydroxystearic acid and polycaprolactone as a function of solubility parameters δ H and δ P . The positions of
the polymers (see Table 2) are shown as well (◦).
viscosity is defined as


ηsolution − ηsolvent 1
[η] = lim × (9)
C→0 ηsolvent C
where ηsolvent and ηsolution are the viscosities of the solvent
and the polymer solution, respectively, and C the concentra-
tion (in g/ml) of the polymer solution. It can be measured
relatively easily by measuring the viscosities of a series of
solutions of different concentrations and extrapolating to
zero concentration. As the measurements are carried out at
low concentrations, solvents can be used well outside the
10% solubility range shown in Fig. 3.
The intrinsic viscosity is a measure for the volume oc-
cupied per unit mass by the solvated polymer at infinite di-
lution. It can give a good impression about how effectively
a given amount of soluble tail polymer will build a shell
around a pigment particle. If a polymer has a large hydro-
dynamic volume in a solvent, it will protrude far into the
medium, rather than lie flat on the pigment surface. If two
pigment particles approach each other, their solvated shells
will start to overlap at the expense of the degree of solva-
tion, which will force the particles away from each other.
Of course this repulsion will be stronger if the solvation of
the stabilizing tails is better.
The intrinsic viscosity was measured in a series of sol-
vents. It was then plotted, not as a function of the solubility
parameters as done in Fig. 3, but for the sake of simplic-
ity, as a function of the distance ∆ (∆ = ((δP,T − δP,S )2 +
61
(δH,T − δH,S )2 + (δD,T − δD,S )2 )1/2 ) in solubility parameter
space between the soluble tail and the solvent, which can
be calculated as shown in Fig. 4. This has been done be-
fore [13,14] for polymers, but as far as we know it has not
been used to judge the suitability of soluble tails as building
blocks for pigment dispersants. In most cases, the solubil-
ity parameters of the polymer are known, or can easily be
estimated with a suitable computer program (see Table 2).
We measured intrinsic viscosities in different solvents of
polyhydroxystearic acid tails (molecular weight = 1800,
PHSA1800) and of polycaprolactone tails with molecu-
lar weights of 1100 and 2000, respectively (PCL1100 and
PCL2000) as is shown in Fig. 5.
There is a good correlation between the intrinsic viscosity
[η] and the distance in solubility space ∆ or the low molec-
ular weight polycaprolactone tails PCL1100, the correlation
for the higher molecular weight polycaprolactone PCL2000
and polyhydroxystearic acid PHSA1800 is fair. The intrin-
sic viscosities are hardly influenced by the type of polymer,
but mainly by their molecular weights, irrespective their
Table 2
Solubility parameters (MPa1/2 ) of polyhydroxystearic acid and polycapro-
lactone
δD δP δH
Polyhydroxystearic acid 17.75 5.70 3.68
Polycaprolactone 16.88 8.90 6.37
62 H.J.W. van den Haak, L.L.M. Krutzer / Progress in Organic Coatings 43 (2001) 56–63

Fig. 4. The distance ∆ between the solubility parameters δ P , δ H and δ D of a soluble tail T and a solvent S.

Fig. 5. The effect of distance ∆ between the solubility parameters δ P , δ H and δ D of a soluble tail T and a solvent S. Shown data are for polycaprolactone
M = 1100 (PCL1100), polycaprolactone M = 2000 (PCL2000) and polyhydroxystearic acid M = 1800 (PHSA1800).

different chemical structures. [η] is known [15] to increase
with the square root of the molecular weight. In solvents
with solubility parameters equal to those of the polymers
(∆ = 0), intrinsic viscosities of approximately 7, 10 and
11 ml/g would be predicted for the three polymers.
As the slopes of the lines in Fig. 5 are relatively small,
the intrinsic viscosities decrease only little if ∆ increases.
Therefore, it is expected that the stabilization of the shell
of polymer around the pigment particles decreases only
slightly in non-optimal solvents, which makes these tails
well suited for this purpose. Far higher slopes have been re-
ported [14] for other polymers, not intended as soluble tails
for pigment dispersants and probably having much higher
molecular weights.
If we assume that a protective shell of 10 nm is required 1
for sufficient stabilization, then the volume of the layer re-
quired for 1 m2 of pigment surface area would be 1 × 10 ×
10−9 m3 = 0.01 ml. In a first approximation, we assume that
this shell consists of solvated polymer. If [η] is the solvated
volume of 1 g of polymer, it can be calculated that about 1.7,
1.0 and 0.91 mg of PCL1100, PHSA1800 and PCL2000,
respectively, would be required to build a sufficiently
1 In D.H. Napper, “Polymeric Stabilization of Colloidal Dispersions”,
Academic Press, London, 1983, p. 7, it is stated that “the range of
significant van der Waals interactions is of order say 5 nm for many
colloidal systems”. However, this range depends strongly on the type of
particles and solvents and the particle diameter.
 H.J.W. van den Haak, L.L.M. Krutzer / Progress in Organic Coatings 43 (2001) 56–63
stabilizing shell around the pigment particles. If we keep in
mind that soluble tails constitute only a part of the pigment
dispersant, this is in good agreement with the rule of thumb
that 1–2 mg of dispersant per square meter of BET surface
is usually required. Of course this is only a rough approxi-
mation. The surface area available to polymeric dispersants
probably is smaller than the BET surface area, which was
measured using the adsorption of nitrogen. Moreover, the
polymer in the shell around pigment particles probably is
packed more densely than described by the intrinsic vis-
cosity. Apparently these two factors compensate each other
fairly well.
Good results have been obtained with dispersants using
these polymers as soluble tails. It is expected that stabilizing
tails with a much lower intrinsic viscosity — either due
to their molecular weight or to their chemical structure —
would require a much higher level of dispersant in order
to generate a stabilizing layer of 10 nm around a pigment
and thus are much less effective building blocks for pigment
dispersants.
4. Conclusions
Methods for the selection of building blocks for pigment
dispersants have been described. This allows a screening
of anchoring groups and soluble tails before preparing a
complete pigment dispersant and testing it in a paint system.
Anchoring groups can easily be selected by measuring the
adsorption of model compounds to pigment surfaces. This
results in the free energy of adsorption, which is a measure
for the strength of adsorption of the anchoring groups to the
pigment surface.
63
Soluble tails can be selected by plotting their solubility
as a function of the most important solubility parameters δ H
and δ P . This gives a good insight in the range of binders and
solvents wherein the soluble tails may be applied.
More quantitative information is obtained from the intrin-
sic viscosity of the soluble tail polymers. Good results have
been obtained with soluble tails with an intrinsic viscosity
of about 10 ml/g.
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to J.W. van de Werken and F.
Dousma for their practical contributions to this work and to
Dr. I. Wagstaff for his valuable comments on the manuscript.
References
[1] H.J.W. van den Haak, M. Schöps, H.-J.P. Adler, C. Fietzek, J.
Montagut, Macromol. Symp. 126 (1997) 253.
[2] M. Schöps, Graduation Thesis, Dresden, 1995.
[3] W. Ostwald, R. de Izaguirre, Kolloid-Zeitschrift 30 (1922) 279.
[4] G. Frey, Doctoral Thesis, Stuttgart, 1988.
[5] G. Frey, L. Dulog, Farbe + Lack 94 (1988) 518.
[6] M. Cremer, Farbe + Lack 99 (1993) 420.
[7] World Patent 93/17 057; E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company.
[8] British Patent 2 001 083; ICI.
[9] European Patent 417 490; Byk-Chemie.
[10] European Patent 154 678; Byk-Chemie.
[11] European Patent 208 041; ICI.
[12] World Patent 98/19 784; Zeneca.
[13] J. Schröder, Progr. Org. Coat. 12 (1984) 339.
[14] J. Schröder, Eur. Coat. J. 5 (1998) 334 or Farbe + Lack 104 (1998)
26.
[15] F. Rodriguez, Principles of Polymer Systems, McGraw-Hill, London.