4.6 Article

Interfacial H-Bond Dynamics in Reverse Micelles: The Role of Surfactant Heterogeneity

期刊

LANGMUIR
卷 35, 期 35, 页码 11463-11470

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b01693

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Chemical Society Petroleum Research Fund [58968]
  2. Welch Foundation [F-1891]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Characterizing the hydrogen bond structure and dynamics at surfactant interfaces is essential for understanding how microscopic interactions translate to bulk microemulsion properties. Heterogeneous blends containing tens or hundreds of surfactants are common in the industry, but the most fundamental studies have been carried out on micelles composed of a single surfactant species. Therefore, the effect of surfactant heterogeneity on the interfacial structure and dynamics remains poorly understood. Here, we use ultrafast two-dimensional infrared spectroscopy and molecular dynamics simulations to characterize sub-picosecond solvation dynamics as a function of the surfactant composition in similar to 120 nm water-in-oil reverse micelles. We probe the ester carbonyl vibrations of nonionic sorbitan surfactants, which are located precisely at the interface between the polar and nonpolar regions, and as such, report on the interfacial water dynamics. We show a 7% increase in hydrogen bond populations together with a 37% slowdown of interfacial hydrogen bond dynamics in heterogeneous mixtures containing hundreds of species, compared to more uniform compositions. Simulations, which are in semiquantitative agreement with experiments, indicate that structural diversity leads to decreased packing efficiency, which in turn drives water further into the otherwise hydrophobic region. Interestingly, this increase in hydration is accompanied by a slowdown of dynamics, indicating that water molecules solvating surfactants are conformationally constrained. These studies demonstrate that the composition and heterogeneity are key factors in determining interfacial properties.

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

4.6
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