4.7 Article

Characterization and micellization of rhamnolipidic fractions and crude extracts produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa mutant MIG-N146

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 331, 期 2, 页码 356-363

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2008.11.039

关键词

Rhamnolipids; HPLC-MS; Homologues; Surface property; Micellization behavior

资金

  1. national key project of water pollution control and treatment [2008ZX07211-005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two representative rhamnolipidic fractions, RL-F1 and RL-F2, produced by the P. aeruginosa mutant strain MIG-N146, were separated and chemically characterized by TLC, HPLC-MS, and FTIR. The RL-F1 fraction is predominantly mono-rhamnolipid homologues with a high content of one or two fatty acid moieties. The RL-F2 fraction is mainly composed of di-rhamnosyl moieties with two hydrophobic tails. Micellization behavior was investigated to assess the physicochemical properties of the surfactants, RL-F1, RL-F2, and crude rhamnolipidic extracts. The variations in morphology of micelle formation and growth were examined by dynamic light scattering measurements as a function of surfactant concentration. Critical micelle concentration (CMC), average minimal surface tension (gamma(CMC)), saturated surface excess (Gamma(m)), mean surface area per molecule (S), and adsorption efficiency (pC(20)) were determined from the surface tension profiles and compared for the three surfactant systems. It was found that micelle growth was significantly enhanced by increasing rhamnolipid bulk concentration, which was most probably accompanied with an aggregate shape transition. Well-separated multi- or bi-modal distributions of particle size were observed in RL-F2 and the crude extracts solutions. The results of this study demonstrate that molecular architecture of different surfactant compositions profoundly influences the performance of rhamnolipidic surfactants. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据