A donor/acceptor system was designed to measure the bimolecular electron transfer (ET) rate constant from a donor in the aqueous phase to an acceptor anchored to the micellar surface utilizing a simple kinetic formalism. In this system, the donor, Ru(phen)2bps (phen = 1,10-phenanthroline, bps = disulfonated 4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline), possesses an overall zero charge and does not associate with anionic or neutral surfactants, whereas the C7C7V2+ (1,1‘-diheptyl 4,4‘-viologen) acceptor is anchored to the micellar surface through the heptyl chains. In water, the formation of a ground-state aggregate between Ru(phen)2bps and C7C7V2+ results in biexponential decay of the emission of the probe in the presence of quencher. The bimolecular quenching of Ru(phen)2bps by C7C7V2+ takes place with kq = 3.0 × 109 M-1 s-1, in agreement with that measured for the related C1C1V2+ (methyl viologen) 4.8 × 109 M-1 s-1, where no aggregation was observed. Within the Ru(phen)2bps−C7C7V2+ aggregate the excited state of the complex is quenched with a rate of ∼6.3 × 106 s-1. The emission decay of *Ru(phen)2bps remains monoexponential in the presence of anionic SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate) micelles, but becomes biexponential upon addition of C7C7V2+. The short- and long-lifetime components have been interpreted as the reaction of aqueous *Ru(phen)2bps with C7C7V2+ either residing in the aqueous phase or bound to SDS (kq = 8.0 × 107 M-1 s-1). The bimolecular quenching by C7C7V2+ bound to the surface of SDS micelles is ∼ 30 times slower than in water and bound to neutral C12E8 (n-dodecyl octaoxyethylene glycol monoether) micelles (2.6 × 109 M-1 s-1). Several possible explanations for the difference in the observed rates when the acceptor is bound to the SDS micellar surface are provided.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hackett et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: