4.5 Article

Effect of Ionic Strength on Surface-Selective Patch Binding-Induced Phase Separation and Coacervation in Similarly Charged Gelatin-Agar Molecular Systems

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 114, 期 37, 页码 12027-12035

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp105431t

关键词

-

资金

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coacervate is defined as a polymer-rich dense phase, which remains in thermodynamic equilibrium with its low concentrated phase called the supernatant. The effect of ionic strength (I = 0-0.1 M NaCl) on the mechanism of surface patch binding-induced protein-polysaccharide interaction leading to complex coacervation, between agar (a polyanionic polysaccharide) and gelatin B (a polyampholyte protein), both having similar net charge, at a particular mixing ratio, [gelatin]/[agar] = 1, was studied at various temperatures (20-40 degrees C). The coacervation transition was probed by turbidity and zeta-potential measurements. The intermolecular association had the signature of surface-selective binding, and a model calculation could explain the potential energy of interactions operative in such processes. The thermo-mechanical features of the coacervates were found to be strongly dependent on ionic strength, which has been interpreted as originating from formation of salt-bridges between the biopolymers. The microstructure of the coacervate materials was analyzed using rheology and small angle neutron scattering (SANS) techniques, which probed the heterogeneity prevailing in the system that had characteristic length in the range 1.3-2.0 nm, and the same data yielded the correlation length of concentration fluctuations, which was estimated to lay in the range 2.4-4 nm. It is concluded that the coacervation transition driven by surface-selective binding is not influenced by the ionic strength of the solution, but the mobile ions participate in the structural organization of the interacting polyions in the coacervate.

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