Diffusion-Controlled Fluorescence Quenching in Micelles

  • M. Almgren
  • J. Alsins
  • E. Mukhtar
  • J. van Stam
Conference paper

Abstract

The overall decay of fluorescence from an ensemble of small micelles containing fluorescent probes and quenchers is adequately described by a wellknown model due to Infelta et al.(Infelta PP, Grätzel M, Thomas JK (1988) J Phys Chem 78:190). It is determined mainly by the statistics of distribution of the quenchers: in micelles containing quenchers the decay is rapid, whereas the decay from probes excited in micelles without quenchers is slow and equal to that of the unquenched excited state, if no migration occurs.

If the micelles are allowed to grow two important changes occur: the micelle size distribtuion usually becomes polydisperse, and the inherent decay in a micelle with quenchers becomes strongly nonexponential (for growth in one or two dimensions). The Infelta model is not valid under these conditions. For a slight uni-dimensional growth the polydispersity is most important for the characteristics of the observed decay; from measurements with varying quencher concentrations the width of the micelle size distribution can be estimated in addition to the average micele size. In very long micelles quenching will be observed only if the average distance from the excited species to a quencher is much shorter than the length of the micelle. There will be many quenchers in each micelle so that the statistics of distribution is unimportant, and the excited probe and quencher will not explore the full length of the micelle before deactivation; the quenching is then controlled by one-dimensional diffusion in an effectively infinite cylindrical micelle.

Keywords

Surfactant Migration Sodium Chloride Pyrene Photolysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Infelta PP, Grätzel M, Thomas JK (1974) J Phys Chem 78:170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tachiya M (1975) Chem Phys Lett 33:289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van der Auweraer M, Dederen JC, Gelade E, De Schryver F (1981) J Chem Phys 74:1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sano H, Tachiya M (1981) J Chem Phys 75:2870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tachiya M (1987) In:Freeman GR (ed) Kinetics of Nonhomogenous Processes. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halle B, Landgren M, Jönsson B (1988) J Phys France 49:1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van der Auweraer M, De Schryver FC (1987) Chem Phys 107:105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Almgren M, Löfroth J-E (1982) J Chem Phys 76:2734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Warr GG, Grieser F (1986) J Chem Soc, Faraday Trans 1 82:1813Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Almgren M, Alsins J, van Stam J, Mukhtar E (1988) Prog Colloid Polym Sci 76:68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Almgren M, Alsins J, Mukhtar E, van Stam J (1988) J Phys Chem 92:4479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alsins J, Almgren M (in preparation)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Almgren M, Alsins J (1987) Prog Colloid Polym Sci 74:55CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Almgren
    • 1
  • J. Alsins
    • 1
  • E. Mukhtar
    • 1
  • J. van Stam
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physical ChemistryUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations