Is a representative ESA (epoxy styrene acrylate) model compound (C₁₉H₂₂O₅) or oligomeric fragment (e.g., C₅₇H₆₂O₁₅) more appropriate than the PubChem-listed epoxy styrene acrylate (C₁₁H₈O₃) for DFT-based polymer–polymer interaction studies and LAMMPS force-field development of Joncryl® ADR 4368 (molecular weight ≈ 6800 g/mol)?
In my work, Joncryl® ADR 4368 is treated as a random copolymer of styrene, methyl methacrylate, and glycidyl methacrylate, with epoxy functionality responsible for reactions with polyester end groups. Since the exact molecular structure is proprietary, I am using representative ESA models for DFT calculations and subsequent force-field parameterization for LAMMPS.
Specifically, I would like to understand:
-
Whether a polymerized ESA trimer model (C₁₉H₂₂O₅) is sufficient for deriving partial charges and bonded parameters, or
-
Whether a larger oligomeric fragment (e.g., C₅₇H₆₂O₁₅) is preferred to better represent the polymer environment, and
-
Whether modeling epoxy–polyester reactions using a representative ESA trimer interacting with a PLA trimer is considered acceptable practice for DFT-based force-field development, compared to using a single ESA model compound.
I am aiming to ensure that the level of structural simplification used is chemically sound and computationally practical involving polymer–polymer interactions and reactive chain extenders.