4.6 Article

Influence of solvent quality on the growth of polyelectrolyte multilayers

期刊

LANGMUIR
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 829-834

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/la035485u

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of solvent conditions on the growth of polyelectrolyte (PE) multilayer films comprising poly(allylamine hydrochloride) (PAH) and poly(styrenesulfonate sodium salt) (PSS) on planar substrates was investigated by means of surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy (SPRS), quartz crystal microbalance (QCM), and atomic force microscopy techniques. The solvent quality was varied by the addition of ethanol to the PE solutions used for deposition of the layers, thus tuning the relative strength of electrostatic and secondary intermolecular and intramolecular interactions. Experiments were performed with PE solutions both without added electrolyte and containing 0.5 M NaCl. Decreasing the solvent quality (i.e., increasing the amount of ethanol in the adsorption solution) resulted in a marked increase of both the multilayer film thickness and mass loading, as determined from the SPRS spectra and QCM frequency shifts, respectively. With the solution composition approaching the precipitation point, thick PAH/PSS films were formed due to the screening of the electrostatic intra- and interchain repulsions and enhanced hydrophobic interactions between the polyelectrolyte chains. However, the films formed from water/ethanol mixtures remained stable upon subsequent exposure to water or salt-containing solutions: no significant film desorption occurred after up to 24 h of exposure to water or 0.5 M NaCl solutions. In addition, the effect of postdeposition exposure to water/ethanol mixtures was investigated for PE multilayers assembled from aqueous solutions. In this case, the optical thickness of the films was determined during exposure to water/ethanol mixtures, and instead of swelling, the polyelectrolyte films collapse to the surface as a result of the unfavorable segment-solvent interactions.

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