4.8 Review

Recent progress in understanding hydrophobic interactions

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0606422103

关键词

hydrophobic effect; surface forces; patchy bilayers; interfacial slip; capillary bridges

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [RL1 AG032115] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present here a brief review of direct force measurements between hydrophobic surfaces in aqueous solutions. For almost 70 years, researchers have attempted to understand the hydrophobic effect (the low solubility of hydrophobic solutes in water) and the hydrophobic interaction or force (the unusually strong attraction of hydrophobic surfaces and groups in water). After many years of research into how hydrophobic interactions affect the thermodynamic properties of processes such as micelle formation (self-assembly) and protein folding, the results of direct force measurements between macroscopic surfaces began to appear in the 1980s. Reported ranges of the attraction between variously prepared hydrophobic surfaces in water grew from the initially reported value of 80-100 angstrom to values as large as 3,000 . Recent improved surface preparation techniques and the combination of surface force apparatus measurements with atomic force microscopy imaging have made it possible to explain the long-range part of this interaction (at separations > 200 angstrom) that is observed between certain surfaces. We tentatively conclude that only the short-range part of the attraction (< 100 angstrom) represents the true hydrophobic interaction, although a quantitative explanation for this interaction will require additional research. Although our force-measuring technique did not allow collection of reliable data at separations < 10 angstrom, it is clear that some stronger force must act in this regime if the measured interaction energy curve is to extrapolate to the measured adhesion energy as the surface separation approaches zero (i.e., as the surfaces come into molecular contact).

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

4.8
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