4.2 Article

Design of cationic amphiphiles for generating self-assembled soft nanostructures, micelles and hydrogels

期刊

BULLETIN OF MATERIALS SCIENCE
卷 43, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

INDIAN ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1007/s12034-020-02089-4

关键词

Cationic surfactant; worm-like micelles; hydrogels; viscoelasticity; xerogels; supramolecular interactions

资金

  1. ICMR
  2. Indian Academy of Sciences
  3. Department of Biotechnology-Research associate (DBT-RA) fellowship
  4. inStem, Department of Biotechnology, Govt. of India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Design of amphiphiles to develop robust self-assembled soft nanomaterials, such as micelles and hydrogels is an interesting subject. A series of cationic amphiphilic compounds were synthesized comprising 1-ethoxy (3-pentadecyl) benzene as the hydrophobic tail. The second carbon of ethoxy was linked to quaternary head groups (trimethyl ammonium bromide (PEA), triethyl ammonium bromide (PETE), pyridinium bromide (PEPy),N-methyl morpholino bromide (PENM),N-methyl piperidine bromide (PENP)). Inclusion of benzene ring leads to a significant decrease in critical micellar concentration (CMC) as compared to other cationic surfactants, such as cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB). Interestingly, at higher concentration, these cationic amphiphiles were forming soft hydrogels with critical gelation concentration (CGC) from 3 to 10% (w/v). The small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) analysis of xerogel revealed the formation of self-assembled lamellar patterns of molecules. Further, the morphology of xerogels were also seen under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) which correlates with SAXS data. The SAXS and SEM data confirms the formation of worm-like micellar structures and entangle themselves to form a hydrogel. The cytotoxicity assay was done on HDFA, HeLa and HEK cell lines, haemolysis assay showed better haemocompatibility than CTAB. The synthesized surfactants exhibited up to 3-fold higher solubilization capability against hydrophobic molecules than CTAB.

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

4.2
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