4.5 Article

Structural Relationships in 2,3-Bis-n-decyloxyanthracene and 12-Hydroxystearic Acid Molecular Gels and Aerogels Processed in Supercritical CO2

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 114, 期 35, 页码 11409-11419

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp104818x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Indo-French Center for the Promotion of Advanced Scientific Research (IFCPAR) [3605-2]
  2. CNRS
  3. French Ministry of Education and Research
  4. Region Aquitaine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Supercritical carbon dioxide is used to prepare aerogels of two reference molecular organogelators, 2,3-bis-n-decyloxyanthracene (DDOA) (luminescent molecule) and 12-hydroxystearic acid (HSA). Electron microscopy reveals the fibrillar morphology of the aggregates generated by the protocol. SAXS and SANS measurements show that DDOA aerogels are crystalline materials exhibiting three morphs: (1) arrangements of the crystalline solid (2D p6m), (2) a second hexagonal morph slightly more compact, and (3) a packing specific of the fibers in the gel. Aggregates specific of the aerogel (volume fraction being typically phi approximate to 0.60) are developed over larger distances (similar to 1000 angstrom) and bear fewer defaults and residual strains than aggregates in the crystalline and gel phases. Porod, Scherrer and Debye-Bueche analyses of the scattering data have been performed. The first five diffraction peaks show small variations in position and intensity assigned to the variation of the number of fibers and their degree of vicinity within hexagonal bundles of the related SAFIN according to the Oster model. Conclusions are supported by the guidelines offered by the analysis of the situation in HSA aerogels for which the diffraction pattern can be described by two coexisting lamellar-like arrangements. The porosity of the aerogel, as measured by its specific surface extracted from the scattering invariant analysis, is only 1.8 times less than that of the swollen gel and is characteristic of a very porous material.

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

4.5
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