Correlation between the fluidity and topology of a sponge phase

Scaling of Structural and Rheological Response of L3 Sponge Phases in the “Sweetened” Cetylpyridinium/Hexanol/Dextrose/Brine System

“…As such, it should therefore be independent of the chemical system and membrane volume fraction. Snabre and Porte 53 and later Gomati et al found values of A of about 3 for CPCl/hexanol in normal brine sponges. The second term takes into account chemical system and membrane volume fraction dependent effects such as the diffusion of surfactant molecules within the membrane and surface area drag as the solvent moves past it.…”

Phase Behavior, Small-Angle Neutron Scattering and Rheology of Ternary Nonionic Surfactant–Oil–Water Systems: A Comparison of Oils

“…Previous work has uncovered an unusual L 3 sponge phase for a number of nonionic systems, eloquently described by Roux et al as “a spongelike random surface of bilayer that divides space into two interpenetrating solvent labyrinths.” These may comprise either surfactant membranes in solvent − (sometimes with cosurfactant , ), or surfactant bilayer swollen by oil and dividing water − (or vice versa , ). Early experiments showed the propensity of the sponge phase to become birefringent under shear conditions, later found to result from local alignment into a lamellar structure. , …”

Swelling of Bicontinuous Cubic Phases in Guerbet Glycolipid: Effects of Additives

“…49,50 As seen from Figure 4C, the slope deduced from the linear fit of the Log−Log curve was close to −1, which suggests a characteristic bilayer structure. 49 As bilayers that are isotropic and have no long-range order have been attributed to either an L 3 phase or a dispersion of lamellar vesicles, 51 the phase is postulated to be an L 3 due to the defined meniscus between the characteristic smooth liquidlike coac-ervate and equilibrium water which suggests a more connected structure. 43 However, additional tests such as high-resolution electron microscopy, conductivity, self-diffusion, and neutron scattering measurements are needed to further confirm the internal structure of the coacervate.…”

“…0.19 Å –1 , with a lattice parameter or cell–cell distance of 33 Å. Although the SAXS pattern of an L 3 phase typically shows a broad peak at low q value of <0.1 Å –1 due to the large pore sizes, ,, several studies have reported an L 3 peak at larger q values of about 0.26 and 0.18 Å –1 . , Nevertheless, since bilayer structures such as L α and L 3 are known to follow a q –2 decay (for point collimation) and a q –1 decay (for line collimation) for q > q max , a Log–Log plot of the scattering profile is used to check the q –1 decaying behavior. , As seen from Figure C, the slope deduced from the linear fit of the Log–Log curve was close to −1, which suggests a characteristic bilayer structure . As bilayers that are isotropic and have no long-range order have been attributed to either an L 3 phase or a dispersion of lamellar vesicles, the phase is postulated to be an L 3 due to the defined meniscus between the characteristic smooth liquidlike coacervate and equilibrium water which suggests a more connected structure .…”

“…0.19 Å −1 , with a lattice parameter or cell−cell distance of 33 Å. Although the SAXS pattern of an L 3 phase typically shows a broad peak at low q value of <0.1 Å −1 due to the large pore sizes, 15,48,49 several studies have reported an L 3 peak at larger q values of about 0.26 and 0.18 Å −1 . 35,44 Nevertheless, since bilayer structures such as L α and L 3 are known to follow a q −2 decay (for point collimation) and a q −1 decay (for line collimation) for q > q max , a Log−Log plot of the scattering profile is used to check the q −1 decaying behavior.…”