PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16981740

Polymerizable cationic gemini surfactant.

Abstract

A polymerizable cationic gemini surfactant, [CH(2)=C(CH(3))COO(CH(2))(11)N(+)CH(3))(2)CH(2)](2).2Br(-), 1 has been synthesized and its basic interfacial properties were investigated (in water and in the presence of 0.05 M NaBr). For comparison, the properties of monomeric surfactant corresponding to 1, CH(2)=C(CH(3))COO(CH(2))(11)N(+)(CH(3))(3).Br(-), 2, were also investigated. Parameters studied include cmc (critical micelle concentration), C(20) (required to reduce the surface tension of the solvent by 20 mN/m), gamma(cmc) (the surface tension at the cmc), Gamma(cmc) (the maximum surface excess concentration at the air/water interface), A(min) (the minimum area per surfactant molecule at the air/water interface), and cmc/C(20) ratio (a measure of the tendency to form micelles relative to adsorb at the air/water interface). For the polymerizable gemini surfactant, 1, the methacryloxy groups at the terminal of each hydrophobic group in a molecule have no contact with the air/water interface in the monolayer, whereas for the corresponding monomeric surfactant, 2, the methacryloxy group contacts at the interface forming a looped configuration like a bolaamphiphile. Polymerized micelles of the gemini surfactant are fairly small monodisperse and spherical particles with a mean diameter of 3 nm.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Masahiko Abe, Kazuyuki Tsubone, Takaaki Koike, Koji Tsuchiya, Takahiro Ohkubo, Hideki Sakai. 2006-09-26. Polymerizable cationic gemini surfactant.. https://doi.org/10.1021/la060156y

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗