4.7 Article

Interrelations between charging, structure and electrokinetics of nanometric polyelectrolyte films

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 362, 期 2, 页码 439-449

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2011.06.063

关键词

Soft surface electrokinetics; Polyelectrolyte layers; Interfacial charge formation; Streaming current; Surface conductivity

资金

  1. french program [ANR-07-JCJC-0024-01 PHYSCHEMBACT]
  2. European Union [244405, FP7/2007-2013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Streaming current, surface conductivity and swelling data of poly(acrylic acid) (PM) and poly(ethylene imine) (PEI) thin films are analyzed on the basis of the theory for diffuse soft interfaces (J.F.L. Duval, R. Zimmermann, A.L. Cordeiro, N. Rein, C. Werner, Langmuir 25 (2009)10691). Focus is put on ways to unravel the electroosmotic and migration contributions of the measured surface conductivity, which is crucial for appropriate electrokinetic analysis of films carrying high densities of dissociable groups. Results demonstrate that the osmotically-driven swelling of the PAA films with increasing pH is accompanied by an increase in diffuseness for the interphasial polymer segment density distribution. This heterogeneity is particularly marked at low ionic strength with a non-monotonous dependence of the streaming current on pH and the presence of a maximum at pH similar to 6.5. The analysis of the PEI films evidences heterogeneous swelling with lowering pH, i.e. upon protonation of the amine groups. The characteristic decay length in the interphasial PEI segment density distribution is found to be nearly independent of the pH, which is in line with the moderate swelling determined by ellipsometry. A critical discussion is given on the strengths and limitations of electrokinetics/surface conductivity for quantifying the coupled electrohydrodynamic and structural properties of moderately to highly swollen polyelectrolyte thin films. (C) 2011 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