4.7 Article

Responsive Pickering Emulsions Stabilized by Frozen Complex Coacervate Core Micelles

期刊

ACS MACRO LETTERS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 20-25

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsmacrolett.1c00647

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union [864982]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) [864982] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Frozen complex coacervate core micelles (C3Ms) are developed as particle stabilizers for Pickering emulsions, with a core of poly-electrolytes and a corona of water-soluble polymer. By controlling mixing parameters and using dynamic light scattering and proton nuclear magnetic resonance experiments, C3Ms can stabilize emulsions in different media and conditions, eventually disassembling at higher salt concentrations.
Frozen complex coacervate core micelles (C3Ms) were developed as a class of particle stabilizers for Pickering emulsions. The C3Ms are composed of a core of electrostatically interacting weak poly-electrolytes, poly(acrylic acid) (pAA) and poly(dimethylaminopropylacrylamide) (pDMAPAA), surrounded by a corona of water-soluble and surface active poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (pNiPAM). Mixing parameters of the two polymer solutions, including pH, mixing method, charge ratio, and salinity of the medium, were carefully controlled, leading to monodisperse, colloidally stable C3Ms. A combination of dynamic light scattering and proton nuclear magnetic resonance experiments showed that the C3Ms gradually disassembled from a dynamically frozen core state in pure water into free polyelectrolyte chains above 0.8 M NaCl. Upon formulation of dodecane-in-water emulsions, the frozen C3Ms adsorb as particles at the droplet interfaces in striking contrast with most of the conventional micelles made of amphiphilic block copolymers which fall apart at the interface. Eventually, increasing the salt concentration of the system triggered disassembly of the C3Ms, which led to emulsion destabilization.

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

4.7
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