2013
DOI: 10.1039/c3sm50336d
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quiescent bilayers at the mica–water interface

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

13
65
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(78 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
(139 reference statements)
13
65
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, it has been observed that the values of onset and end of transition from gel L b 0 to liquid disordered L a phase for mica supported DPPC bilayers shifted to slightly lower temperatures in effect of the force exerted by the AFM tip [12]. It has also been observed that aggregate structures of cationic surfactants on mica surfaces reported by AFM imaging are inconsistent with XRR data for the same systems [40], and this was suggested to be due to the perturbing effect of the tapping AFM tip. Based on these considerations we propose that the XRR data reflects the unperturbed bilayer structure, whereas the AFM images report structures that are affected by interactions with the tip, which in our case lowers the gel to liquid disordered transition temperature.…”
Section: Afm Imagingmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Indeed, it has been observed that the values of onset and end of transition from gel L b 0 to liquid disordered L a phase for mica supported DPPC bilayers shifted to slightly lower temperatures in effect of the force exerted by the AFM tip [12]. It has also been observed that aggregate structures of cationic surfactants on mica surfaces reported by AFM imaging are inconsistent with XRR data for the same systems [40], and this was suggested to be due to the perturbing effect of the tapping AFM tip. Based on these considerations we propose that the XRR data reflects the unperturbed bilayer structure, whereas the AFM images report structures that are affected by interactions with the tip, which in our case lowers the gel to liquid disordered transition temperature.…”
Section: Afm Imagingmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Moreover, their radius values are comparable to those obtained from experimental data, 47 and to the expected maximum-extension value for the CTA + ion (ca. 2.30 nm), 20 even when different counterions were employed (i.e., Cl − and Br − ). Despite the suitability of the data, a match between the theoretical and experimental values of the micellar radius cannot be used as the sole criterion to choose the best theoretical model.…”
Section: The Micellar Radius and Counterion Dissociation Degreementioning
confidence: 99%
“…19 Indeed, under the previously mentioned conditions, l max plus the length of the polar group is approximately equal to the radius of the spherical micelles. 20 Particularly, we are interested in studying the surfactant cetyltrimethylammonium bromide, [CH 3 (CH 2 21 has applications in DNA extraction, and is widely used in the synthesis of metallic nanoparticles as a stabilizer and growth-driving agent of nanoparticles. 22,23 Its 1 st and 2 nd CMCs in water are 0.92 mM 24 and 0.27 M, 25 respectively, and its Krafft temperature is 298 K. 26 As expected, the counterions (bromide) are located near the external positively charged border of the CTA + aggregates; however, it is important to mention that many assembly properties, such as the morphology, size, charge, and intra-micellar interactions, depend on the nature of the counterion.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The incident angle q i was varied in the range 0.06-2 for each of the measurements, corresponding to a momentum transfer Q ¼ 4p sin q i /l range of 0.011-0.345Å À1 . The surface scattering data were collected by X-ray reectivity (XRR), [19][20][21]24,25 using an avalanche photodiode detector in the specular reection plane, but at reection angles q f with a small offset Dq ¼ 0.06 (q f ¼ q i AE Dq) to the incident angle (q i ) to minimise the contribution from the silicon substrate. PM samples on solid silicon substrates were mounted inside a small chamber enclosed with Kapton lms, which allowed a constant ow of helium (He) during the measurements to reduce background scattering and sample damage.…”
Section: Materials Sample Preparation and Experimental Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%