## 3 Results and Discussion
### Porosity and Morphology Investigation of Composite Copolymer Beads  
To obtain information regarding the effect of RM on the morphology of the samples, SEM images were recorded at a 50 \(\upmu\)m scale in section and surface views for both reference and composite beads (Figure 4). The micrographs in Figure 4A show that using RM changes the composite beads' surface and inner pore structure. Samples with lower amounts of AA (5% for 1-RM and 10% for 2-RM) in the copolymer matrix present heterogeneous pore structures and large voids (section view-1-RM) and alternating porous and smooth zones (section view 2-RM), probably due to uneven RM distribution in the copolymer matrix (as indicated by FTIR and TGA determinations). The section view of 3-RM reveals an interesting porous structure of the composite, with smaller smooth zones than 2-RM. A different morphology is also noticed between reference samples in the section view (Figure 4A). Therefore, apart from the uneven RM content, the AA content in the beads' formulation also influences the porosity and homogeneity of samples. In this case, the increase in AA content leads to more homogenous pore networks and surfaces as a result of the higher hydrophilicity of the copolymer [72]. When analyzing the surface of beads (Figure 4B), it looks like adding RM negatively contributes to the surface porosity, especially for 2-RM and 3-RM. Thus, the overall morphology assessment indicates that 3-RM presents the most homogenous porous network, but with reduced access to the surface of the bead compared to 1-RM. It can be mentioned that the presence of RM in the pores or on the surface cannot be distinguished due to the presence of small white particles/dots appearing in both types of beads, reference \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample Code** & **Residue at 250 \({}^{\circ}\)C** & **Residue at 500 \({}^{\circ}\)C** & **Residue at 1000 \({}^{\circ}\)C** & **Residue at 1000 \({}^{\circ}\)C** & **R\({}_{\text{D}}\) (\% wt) \({}^{*}\)** & **RM\({}_{\text{Cale}}\)** \\ \hline
1 REF & 55.49 & 39.58 & 0.05 & 0.10 & 0.00 \\
1 RM & 53.69 & 39.79 & 1.73 & 3.23 & 3.42 \\
2 REF & 46.71 & 29.71 & 0.04 & 0.09 & 0.00 \\
2 RM & 47.44 & 32.82 & 1.54 & 3.24 & 3.44 \\
3 REF & 73.94 & 46.92 & 0.03 & 0.04 & 0.00 \\
3 RM & 64.13 & 40.06 & 3.33 & 5.19 & 5.63 \\ RM & 96.27 & 89.04 & 88.11 & 91.53 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \({}^{*}\)R\({}_{\text{D}}\), (%) = (Residue at 1000 \({}^{\circ}\)C/Residue at 250 \({}^{\circ}\)C)-100, ** RM\({}_{\text{Cale}}\), (%) = (R\({}_{\text{D, x-RM}}-R\)\({}_{\text{D, x-RL}}\))/R\({}_{\text{D, RM-100}}\), where x is the sample code, x = 1, 2, 3.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: TGA calculation of RM content in composite beads as a function of the residue at 1000 \({}^{\circ}\)C.  
and RM-based beads, which can also be attributed to insolubilized copolymer particles. Nevertheless, it is essential to point out that for the 3-RM/3-Ref series, the presence of such white dots is very low, indicating a more homogenous dissolution of the copolymer in this case. Further on, SEM results were backed up by nitrogen porosimetry determinations (results summarized in Table 3). Comparing 1-Ref and 1-RM and the following C2-Ref and C2-RM pair, it was noticed that the integration of RM resulted in a significant decrease in both BET surface area and pore surface area, which is in good agreement with SEM results (Figure 4) that revealed that the inner pore structure is affected by the addition of RM. As for pore diameter and volume, the decrease is not significant, but the downward trend is maintained. Figure 4: Micrographs of reference (**top**) and composite beads (**bottom**) taken at 50 \(\upmu\)m scale: (**A**). section view and (**B**). surface view. For the third series of samples (3-Ref and 3-RM), the effect of RM is rather the opposite from the first two series, indicating an increased BET surface area, pore surface area, and pore volume upon the addition of RM.