4.7 Article

Polyelectrolyte Chain Structure and Solution Phase Behavior

期刊

MACROMOLECULES
卷 51, 期 5, 页码 1706-1717

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.7b02685

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF-GRFP Grant [DGE-1745301]
  2. Jacobs Institute for Molecular Engineering for Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using a recently developed renormalized Gaussian fluctuation (RGF) field theory that self-consistently accounts for the concentration-dependent coupling between chain structure and electrostatic correlations, we study the phase behavior of polyelectrolyte solutions, with a focus on the effects of added salts and chain structure. For solutions of a single polyelectrolyte species plus salt, the RGF theory predicts the existence of a loop in the phase boundary at Bjerrum lengths (inverse temperature) below (above) the critical value of the salt-free system. This loop behavior can occur at electrostatic interaction strengths l(b)/b at which the loop no longer exists for the TPT-1 theory, and at fixed lb/b the loop can persist for infinitely long chains, in contrast to theories using a fixed-Gaussian structure (fg-RPA). For systems of oppositely charged (but otherwise symmetric) chains, we again find that the fg-RPA greatly overpredicts the driving force for phase separation, especially at higher charge fractions (but still below the critical Manning charge density). In general, stiff chains have a narrower two-phase region than intrinsically flexible chains, although intrinsically flexible chains can still experience a local stiffening which persists in semidilute solution; for higher charge fractions the local stiffening of flexible chains is crucial for reproducing qualitatively correct thermodynamics and phase diagrams. For fully charged flexible chains, we find that phase diagrams are quite similar to those for semiflexible rods and that it is possible to capture the coacervate phase diagrams of the full self-consistent calculations using a constant, renormalized chain stiffness.

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