4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Hydrophobicity of counterions as a driving force in the self-assembly process: Dodecyltrimethylammonium chloride and parabens

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2014.02.002

关键词

Alkyl-4-hydroxybenzoate; dodecyltrimethylammonium chloride; electrical conductivity; isothermal titration calorimetry; micelle formation; NMR; paraben; viscosity

资金

  1. Slovenian Research Agency [P1-0201, P1-0230]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The micelle formation of dodecyltrimethylammonium chloride (DTAC) in 0.01 M methyl- and ethyl-4-hydroxybenzoate (MeP and EtP, respectively) sodium salt aqueous solutions has been investigated at several temperatures in the range from 278.15 to 328.15 K by isothermal titration calorimetry, viscosity, electrical conductivity measurements, and NMR spectroscopy. It was found out, that hydrophobic counterion not only lowers the solubility of ionic amphiphile and thus its critical micelle concentration in aqueous solution, but interacts favorably with the surfactant molecules and enables the formation of higher organized structures also. Densely packed elongated micelles of higher aggregation number were found in the EtP sodium salt solution at low temperature, with their highest fraction in the solution at DTAC to EtP concentration ratio of approximately 1:1. The most negative heat capacity change determined for DTAC in presence of EtP can be related to the most pronounced hydrophobic effect due to the additional hydrophobic surface included into the dehydration process upon micellization and closed micelle formation with water molecules mostly excluded from their hydrophobic core. The slightly less hydrophobic MeP did not show such a behavior, although the formation of dynamic mixed micelle structures cannot be excluded for this system also. The role of counterion hydrophobicity as the main driving force for diverse rearrangements in the ionic amphiphile aqueous solutions is discussed. (C) 2014 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

4.6
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