4.6 Article

Micellization of dissymmetric cationic gemini surfactants and their interaction with Dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine vesicles

期刊

LANGMUIR
卷 23, 期 23, 页码 11458-11464

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/la701493s

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The micellization process of a series of dissymmetric cationic gemini surfactants [CmH2m+1(CH3)(2)N(CH2)(6)N(CH3)(2)C6H13 ]Br-2 (designated as m-6-6 with m = 12,14, and 16) and their interaction with dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine (DMPC) vesicles have been investigated. In the micellization process of these gemini surfactants themselves, critical micelle concentration (cmc), micelle ionization degree, and enthalpies of micellization (Delta H-mic) were determined, from which Gibbs free energies of micellization (Delta G(mic) and entropy of micellization (Delta S-mic) were derived. These properties were found to be influenced significantly by the dissymmetry in the surfactant structures. The phase diagrams for the solubilization of DMPC vesicles by the gemini surfactants were constructed from calorimetric results combining with the results of turbidity and dynamic light scattering. The effective surfactant to lipid ratios in the mixed aggregates at saturation (R-e(sol)) and solubilization (R-e(sat)) were derived. For the solubilization of DMPC vesicles, symmetric 12-6-12 is more effective than corresponding single-chain surfactant DTAB, whereas the dissymmetric m-6-6 series are more effective than symmetric 12-6-12, and 16-6-6 is the most effective. The chain length mismatch between DMPC and the gemini surfactants may be responsible for the different R-e values. The transfer enthalpy per mole of surfactant within the coexistence range may be associated with the total hydrophobicity of the alkyl chains of gemini surfactants. The transfer enthalpies of surfactant from micelles to bilayers are always endothermic due to the dehydration of headgroups and the disordering of lipid acyl chain packing during the vesicle solubilization.

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