4.7 Article

Influence of membrane organization on the interactions between persistent pollutants and model membranes

期刊

BIOELECTROCHEMISTRY
卷 87, 期 -, 页码 192-198

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2011.11.014

关键词

Perfluorooctanesulphonic acid (PFOS); 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanoloamine (DMPE) menadione; Cyclic voltammetry; Langmuir monolayer

资金

  1. Polish Ministry of Sciences and Higher Education [IP2010 025370]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Langmuir monolayer studies and electrochemical methods were employed to investigate the effect of model membrane organization on the interactions with persistent pollutants such as perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs). 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanoloamine (DMPE) was employed to construct the model lipid membrane and perfluorooctanesulphonic acid (PFOS) was chosen as the representative of perfluorinated pollutants. We demonstrate that perfluorinated compounds penetrate a model membrane only when it is less condensed. Such liquid-expanded phase was achieved by compressing the Langmuir monolayer to lower surface pressures. PFOS incorporation into model DMPE membrane during membrane formation was observed in liquid-expanded region, while at higher surface pressures, in the well-organized monolayer the expulsion of perfluorinated compound occurred as the result of a strong attraction between the DMPE molecules. The DMPE monolayers prepared by the Langmuir-Blodgett/Langmuir-Schaefer method were transferred onto gold electrode under surface pressure of 3 mN/m and 20 mN/m. The model membrane organization depends on surface pressure during transfer and time of exposure to PFOS solution and is shown to affect the electrode accessibility by three electroactive compounds used as the probes of the blocking properties of the monolayer: menadione, potassium ferricyanide and hexaamineruthenium chloride, differing in the properties and kinetics of electron transfer. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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