4.7 Article

Poly(ethylene oxide) Is Positively Charged in Aqueous Solutions

期刊

GELS
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/gels8040213

关键词

polyethylene oxide; charged; single molecule fluorescence; cations

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21833012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study provides single molecular evidence of cation binding to poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) chains in aqueous solutions. The results show that the PEO chains are positively charged due to the binding of cations, and the addition of salt further increases the charging extent. The charging causes the chains to expand and increasing salt concentration leads to chain shrinkage, exhibiting a polyelectrolyte-like behavior.
There have been controversies about the binding of cations to poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) chains in aqueous solutions. In the current study, single molecular evidence of charging PEO chains by cation binding in aqueous solutions is provided. From the adoption of the photon-counting histogram method, it is discovered that the local pH value at the vicinity of the PEO chain is higher than the bulk solution, showing that the PEO chain is positively charged. Such a situation exists with and without the presence of salt (NaCl) in the solution, presumably due to the binding of cations, such as hydronium and sodium ions. Single molecular electrophoresis experiments using fluorescence correlation spectroscopy demonstrate that the PEO chains are weakly charged with a charging extent of similar to 5%. In comparison to the salt-free condition, the addition of external salt (NaCl) at moderate concentrations further charges the chain. The charging causes the PEO chains to expand and a further increase in the salt concentration causes the chain to shrink, exhibiting a polyelectrolyte-like behavior, demonstrated by the hydrodynamic radii of a single PEO chain. The effect of ion identity is discovered with alkali cations, with the order of the charging capacity of Li+ < Na+ < Cs+ < K+.

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