4.3 Article

Linear aggregation and liquid-crystalline order: comparison of Monte Carlo simulation and analytic theory

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY
卷 20, 期 46, 页码 10366-10383

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c0jm02355h

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF MRSEC [DMR-0820579]
  2. NSF [DMR-0847685]
  3. ICAM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many soft-matter and biophysical systems are composed of monomers that reversibly assemble into rod-like aggregates. The aggregates can then order into liquid-crystal phases if the density is high enough, and liquid-crystal ordering promotes increased growth of aggregates. Systems that display coupled aggregation and liquid-crystal ordering include wormlike micelles, chromonic liquid crystals, DNA and RNA, and protein polymers and fibrils. Coarse-grained molecular models that capture key features of coupled aggregation and liquid-crystal ordering common to many different systems are lacking; in particular, the roles of monomer aspect ratio and aggregate flexibility in controlling the phase behavior are not well understood. Here we study a minimal system of sticky cylinders using Monte Carlo simulations and analytic theory. Cylindrical monomers interact primarily by hard-core interactions but can stack and bind end to end. We present results for several different cylinder aspect ratios and a range of end-to-end binding energies. The phase diagrams are qualitatively similar to those of chromonic liquid crystals, with an isotropic-nematic-columnar triple point. The location of the triple point is sensitive to the monomer aspect ratio. We find that the aggregate persistence length varies with temperature in a way that is controlled by the interaction potential; this suggests that the form of the interaction potential affects the phase behavior of the system. Our analytic theory shows improvement compared to previous theory in quantitatively predicting the I N transition for relatively stiff aggregates, but requires a better treatment of aggregate flexibility.

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

4.3
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