Lecture Notes in Physics Monographs
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-48696-8_9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reflectivity of Liquid Surfaces and Interfaces

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
82
0
12

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(94 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
82
0
12
Order By: Relevance
“…n s (z) is the distribution of surface excess ions (decaying to zero away from the surface), and n b is the bulk ionic concentration. E(z) is the electric field at depth z. t(α i ) and D(α i ) are electric field amplitude transmission coefficient at an air/water interface 27,37 and X-ray penetration depth normal to the surface, 38 respectively. For a bare surface solution, the fluorescence intensity, denoted as I b , has a contribution only from the bulk, and this expression is employed to model the fluorescence intensity from the FeCl 3 solution of bare surface.…”
Section: ■ Experimental Detailsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…n s (z) is the distribution of surface excess ions (decaying to zero away from the surface), and n b is the bulk ionic concentration. E(z) is the electric field at depth z. t(α i ) and D(α i ) are electric field amplitude transmission coefficient at an air/water interface 27,37 and X-ray penetration depth normal to the surface, 38 respectively. For a bare surface solution, the fluorescence intensity, denoted as I b , has a contribution only from the bulk, and this expression is employed to model the fluorescence intensity from the FeCl 3 solution of bare surface.…”
Section: ■ Experimental Detailsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another discernible point observed for DPPS (Figure 4(b)) is the narrow interfacial widths both at the headgroup/tail interface and the air/tail interface; the fitting results give the interfacial width of 3.8 ± 1.1 and 4.0 ± 1.2Å, whereas that of DPPC was 6.7 ± 2.0 and 6.0 ± 1.8Å respectively. On the basis of the fact that DPPS molecules pack more densely as shown in the isotherm, we speculate that the headgroup of DPPS molecule induces tighter molecular packing, which damps the capillary fluctuation effectively [22]. The detailed fitting parameters are listed in Table 1.…”
Section: X-ray Reflectivity Of Phospholipid Monolayers On Pbsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…19) Because the "Q z value of the type-A sample was larger than that of the type-B sample, the thickness of the SiO 2 layer in the type-A sample was determined to be lower than that of the SiO 2 layer in the type-B sample. The critical wave vector for the total external reflection (Q c ), which is defined as Q c = 4(³μ) 1/2 (μ represents the SLD), 20) was observed around Q z = 0.01 (¡…”
Section: Neutron Reflectivity Analysis Of Sio 2 (Phps)/simentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was concluded that this change in the μ value reflected the change in the density of SiO 2 because no unreacted PHPS molecules remained in the SiO 2 (PHPS) layer. The μ value is defined as μ = μ SiO2 ·N A · i b i /M, 20) where μ SiO2 , N A , b i , and M are the density of SiO 2 , Avogadro's number, the coherent scattering length of the element, and the molecular weight, respectively. Thus, assuming that the dominant component of the SiO 2 (PHPS) layer was SiO 2 , the μ SiO2 values of the SiO 2 (PHPS) layers were estimated to be 1.33 (type-A) and 1.45 (type-B), as shown in Table 1.…”
Section: ¹1mentioning
confidence: 99%