4.6 Article

Rheology of α-Gel Formed by Amino Acid-Based Surfactant with Long-Chain Alcohol: Effects of Inorganic Salt Concentration

期刊

LANGMUIR
卷 37, 期 23, 页码 7032-7038

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.1c00626

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing NaCl concentration reduced the spacing of alpha-gel, resulting in decreased viscosity; further increasing NaCl concentration increased domain interactions, leading to increased viscosity.
Mixtures of surfactants, long-chain alcohols, and water sometimes yield lamellar gels with hexagonally packed alkyl chains. This assembly is called alpha-gel or alpha-form hydrated crystal. In this study, we characterized the rheological properties of alpha-gel prepared using disodium N-dodecanoylglutamate (C12Glu-2Na), 1-hexadecanol (Cl6OH), and water at different NaCI concentrations. The alpha-gel structure was assessed using small- and wide-angle X-ray scattering (SWAXS). The SWAXS measurements revealed that an increased NaCl concentration (0-200 mmol dm(-3)) resulted in a decreased d-spacing caused by the screening of electrostatic repulsion between lamellar bilayers. This led to an increased amount of excess water (i.e., the water present between the alpha-gel domains), and hence, the viscosity of the alpha-gel decreased in the range of the NaCl concentration. A further increase in the NaCl concentration (200-1000 mmol dm(-3)) resulted in decreased electrostatic repulsion between the alpha-gel domains and/or an increased number of alpha-gel domains (multilamellar vesicles). These effects increased the domain-to-domain interactions, leading to increased viscosity. Therefore, we concluded that the viscosity of the alpha-gel was controlled by the amount of excess water and the domain-to-domain interactions. Once the network structure collapsed under the strain, it was difficult to recover the original network structure. The low recoverability resulted from increased cohesion between the domains at high NaCl concentrations.

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