4.5 Article

Differences in Cationic and Anionic Charge Densities Dictate Zwitterionic Associations and Stimuli Responses

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 118, 期 24, 页码 6956-6962

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp503473u

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CMMI-1301435, CBET-1264477, OCI-1053575]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21376073, 21176065]
  3. University of Washington eScience
  4. Directorate For Engineering
  5. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [1264477] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  7. Directorate For Engineering [1301435] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Zwitterionic materials have shown their excellent performance in many biological and chemical applications. Zwitterionic materials possess moieties that own both cationic and anionic groups. The associations among zwitterionic moieties through electrostatic interactions play an important role in properties of zwitterionic materials. However, the relationship between the molecular structures and associations of zwitterionic moieties are still not well understood. This work compared thermal- and salt-responsive behaviors of sulfobetaine and carboxybetaine polymers by examining their rheological properties as a function of temperature and their hydrodynamic sizes as a function of salt concentration. Results showed that carboxybetaine polymers do not exhibit stimuli responses as expected from the antipolyelectrolyte behavior of zwitterionic polymers as observed in sulfobetaine polymers. We studied and compared the associations among zwitterionic moieties in these two zwitterionic polymers using molecular dynamic simulations. Simulation results show that the charge-density difference between cationic and anionic groups determines the associations among zwitterionic moieties, which are responsible for different stimuli responses of carboxybetaine and sulfobetaine polymers.

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