Influence of Solution pH on the Nanostructure of Adsorption Layer of Selected Ionic Polyamino Acids and Their Copolymers at the Solid-Liquid Interface

Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Physics book series (SPPHY, volume 195)


Polymers adsorption at the solid–liquid interface is a very sophisticated process depending on various factors, but at the same time this phenomenon finds numerous applications in many industrial branches as well as in human activities (Wiśniewska et al. React Funct Polym 72:791–798, 2012). The interactions between the adsorbent and the particular copolymer blocks are decisive for macromolecular substance binding on the solid particles surface. The structure of the polymer adsorption layer formed at the solid–liquid interface also depends on the forces present between the segments belonging to different macromolecules. As a result, complex aggregates may be formed on the solid surface (Louget et al. J Colloid Interface Sci 359:413–422, 2011). Additionally, the key role in the ionic copolymers adsorption phenomena is played by the solution pH, which affects the binding mechanism (Hoogeveen et al. Faraday Discuss 98:161–172, 1994).

The solution pH impact on the adsorption process of the block copolymers on the colloidal silica surface was investigated. All polymeric chains consist of the poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) fragment and the suitable ionic polyamino acid segment (poly-L-lysine or poly-L-aspartic acid). Despite different polymer chain structures, the analyzed substances are characterized by similar molecular weight.


  1. 1.
    Wiśniewska M, Chibowski S, Urban T (2012) Effect of the type of polymer functional groups on the structure of its film formed on the alumina surface – suspension stability. React Funct Polym 72:791–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Louget S, Kumar AC, Sigaud G, Duguet E, Lecommandoux S, Schatz C (2011) A physico-chemical investigation of poly(ethylene oxide)-block-poly(L-lysine) copolymer adsorption onto silica nanoparticles. J Colloid Interface Sci 359:413–422ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoogeveen NG, Stuart MAC, Fleer GJ (1994) Adsorption of charged block copolymers with two adsorbing blocks. Faraday Discuss 98:161–172ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaplain V, Janex ML, Lafuma F, Graillat C, Audebert R (1995) Coupling between polymer adsorption and colloidal particle aggregation. Colloid Polym Sci 273:984–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tiraferri A, Borkovec M (2015) Probing effects of polymer adsorption in colloidal particle suspensions by light scattering as relevant for the aquatic environment: an overview. Sci Total Environ 535:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chibowski S (1996) Investigation of the mechanism of polymer adsorption on a metal oxide/water solution interface. Adsorpt Sci Technol 14:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grządka E (2013) Influence of surfactants on the adsorption and elektrokinetic properties of the system: guar gum/manganese dioxide. Cellulose 20:1313–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moody G (1992) The use of polyacrylamides in mineral processing. Min Eng 5:479–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liufu S, Xiao H, Li Y (2005) Adsorption of poly(acrylic acid) onto the surface of titanium dioxide and the colloidal stability of aqueous suspension. J Colloid Interface Sci 281:155–163ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang X, Lee BI, Mann L (2002) Dispersion of barium titanate with polyaspartic acid in aqueous media. Colloids Surf A 202:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Katsnelson BA, Privalova LI, Sutunkova MP, Gurvich VB, Loginova NV, Minigalieva IA, Kireyeva EP, Shur VY, Shishkina EV, Beikin YB, Makeyev OH, Valamina IE (2015) Some inferences from in vivo experiments with metal and metal oxide nanoparticles: the pulmonary phagocytosis response, subchronic systemic toxicity and genotoxicity, regulatory proposals, searching for bioprotectors (a self-overview). Int J Nanomedicine 10:3013–3029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Premanathan M, Karthikeyan K, Jeyasubramanian K, Manivannan G (2011) Selective toxicity of ZnO nanoparticles toward gram-positive bacteria and cancer cells by apoptosis through lipid peroxidatioy. Nanomedicine 7:184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar N, Ravikumar MNV, Domb AJ (2001) Biodegradable block copolymers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 53:23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumagai M, Imai Y, Nakamura T, Yamasaki Y, Sekino M, Ueno S, Hanaoka K, Kikuchi K, Nagano T, Kaneko E, Shimokado K, Kataoka K (2007) Iron hydroxide nanoparticles coated with poly(ethylene glycol)-poly(aspartic acid) block copolymer as novel magnetic resonance contrast agents for in vivo imaging. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 56:74–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boyer C, Whittaker MR, Bulmus V, Liu J, Davis TP (2010) The design and utility of polymer-stabilized iron-oxide nanoparticles for nanomedicine applications. NPG Asia Mater 2:23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Estelrich J, Escribano E, Queralt J, Busquets MA (2015) Iron oxide nanoparticles for magnetically–guided and magnetically–responsive drug delivery. Int J Mol Sci 16:8070–8101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yang HM, Park CW, Ahn T, Jung B, Seo BK, Park JH, Kim JD (2013) A direct surface modification of iron oxide nanoparticles with various poly(amino acid)s for use as magnetic resonance probes. J Colloid Interface Sci 391:158–167ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Obst M, Steinbüchel A (2004) Microbial degradation of poly(amino acid)s. Biomacromolecules 5:1166–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kunioka M (2004) Biodegradable water absorbent synthesized from bacterial poly(amino acid)s. Macromol Biosci 4:324–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Studenovská H, Vodicka P, Proks V, Hlucilová J, Motlík J, Rypácek F (2010) Synthetic poly(amino acid) hydrogels with incorporated cell-adhesion peptides for tissue engineering. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 4:454–463Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yan L, Jiang D (2015) Study of bone-like hydroxyapatite/polyamino acid composite materials for their biological properties and effects on the reconstruction of long bone defects. Drug Des Devel Ther 9:6497–6508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Osada K, Christie RJ, Kataoka K (2009) Polymeric micelles from poly(ethylene glycol)–poly(amino acid) block copolymer for drug and gene delivery. J R Soc Interface 6:S325–S339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ostolska I, Wiśniewska M (2015) The impact of polymer structure on the adsorption of ionic polyamino acid homopolymers and their diblock copolymers on colloidal chromium(III) oxide. RSC Adv 5:28505–28514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Song Z, Deng P, Teng F, Zhou F, Zhu W, Feng R (2016) Development on PEG-modified poly (amino acid) copolymeric micelles for delivery of anticancer drug. Anticancer Agents Med Chem. doi: 10.2174/1871520616666160817110753 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wiśniewska M, Szewczuk-Karpisz K (2012) Removal possibilities of colloidal chromium (III) oxide from water using polyacrylic acid. Environ Sci Pollut R 20:3657–3669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ostolska I, Wiśniewska M (2014) Comparison of the influence of polyaspartic acid and polylysine functional groups on the adsorption at the Cr2O3—aqueous polymer solution interface. Appl Surf Sci 311:734–739ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Janusz W (1999) Electrical double layer at metal oxide-electrolyte interface in “interfacial forces and fields theory and applications”. M. Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiochemistry and Colloids Chemistry, Faculty of ChemistryMaria Curie-Sklodowska UniversityLublinPoland
  2. 2.Department of Analytical Chemistry and Instrumental Analysis, Faculty of ChemistryMaria Curie-Sklodowska UniversityLublinPoland

Personalised recommendations