% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{GarcaPrez:189594,
author = {García-Pérez, Ángela and da Silva, Marcelo A. and
Eriksson, Jonny and González-Gaitano, Gustavo and Valero,
Margarita and Dreiss, Cécile A.},
title = {{R}emarkable {V}iscoelasticity in {M}ixtures of
{C}yclodextrins and {N}onionic {S}urfactants},
journal = {Langmuir},
volume = {30},
number = {39},
issn = {1520-5827},
address = {Washington, DC},
publisher = {ACS Publ.},
reportid = {FZJ-2015-02732},
pages = {11552 - 11562},
year = {2014},
abstract = {We report the effect of native cyclodextrins (α, β, and
γ) and selected derivatives in modulating the self-assembly
of the nonionic surfactant polyoxyethylene cholesteryl ether
(ChEO10) and its mixtures with triethylene glycol
monododecyl ether (C12EO3), which form wormlike micelles.
Cyclodextrins (CDs) generally induce micellar breakup
through a host–guest interaction with surfactants;
instead, we show that a constructive effect, leading to gel
formation, is obtained with specific CDs and that the widely
invoked host–guest interaction may not be the only key to
the association. When added to wormlike micelles of ChEO10
and C12EO3, native β-CD, 2-hydroxyethyl-β-CD (HEBCD), and
a sulfated sodium salt of β-CD (SULFBCD) induce a
substantial increase of the viscoelasticity, while
methylated CDs rupture the micelles, leading to a loss of
the viscosity, and the other CDs studied (native α- and γ-
and hydroxypropylated CDs) show a weak interaction. Most
remarkably, the addition of HEBCD or SULFBCD to pure ChEO10
solutions (which are low-viscosity, Newtonian fluids of
small, ellipsoidal micelles) induces the formation of
transparent gels. The combination of small-angle neutron
scattering, dynamic light scattering, and cryo-TEM reveals
that both CDs drive the elongation of ChEO10 aggregates into
an entangled network of wormlike micelles. 1H NMR and
fluorescence spectroscopy demonstrate the formation of
inclusion complexes between ChEO10 and methylated CDs,
consistent with the demicellization observed. Instead, HEBCD
forms a weak complex with ChEO10, while no complex is
detected with SULFBCD. This shows that inclusion complex
formation is not the determinant event leading to micellar
growth. HEBCD:ChEO10 complex, which coexists with the
aggregated surfactant, could act as a cosurfactant with a
different headgroup area. For SULFBCD, intermolecular
interactions via the external surface of the CD may be more
relevant.},
cin = {JCNS (München) ; Jülich Centre for Neutron Science JCNS
(München) ; JCNS-FRM-II / Neutronenstreuung ; JCNS-1},
ddc = {670},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)JCNS-FRM-II-20110218 /
I:(DE-Juel1)JCNS-1-20110106},
pnm = {54G - JCNS (POF2-54G24)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF2-54G24},
experiment = {EXP:(DE-MLZ)KWS2-20140101},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000343017600008},
pubmed = {pmid:25201697},
doi = {10.1021/la503000z},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/189594},
}