SUPPORTING INFORMATION Interfacial H-bond dynamics in reverse micelles: the role of surfactant heterogeneity Christopher P. Baryiames, Morgan Teel, and Carlos R. Baiz* University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA; *cbaiz@cm.utexas.edu Number of Pages: 43 Number of Figures: 20 Number of Tables: 6 Table of Contents: S1. SAMPLE PREPARATION Table S1: Average molecular masses for the three surfactant samples S2: FTIR SPECTROSCOPY Figure S1: HB populations vs. temperature for homogeneous micelles. Figure S2: HB populations vs. temperature for intermediate micelles. Figure S3: HB populations vs. temperature for heterogeneous micelles Figure S4: HB populations vs. temperature for 3 FA micelles. Figure S5: Hydrogen bond thermodynamics extracted from temperature-dependent FTIR spectra. Figure S6: Sample fit and second derivate spectra for low temperature heterogeneous micelles. Figure S7: Sample fit and second derivate spectra for high temperature heterogeneous micelles. S3: 2D IR EXPERIMENTS Figure S8: 2D IR spectra of homogeneous micelles at 65°C. Figure S9: 2D IR spectra of intermediate micelles at 65°C. Figure S10: 2D IR spectra of heterogeneous micelles at 65°C. Figure S11: 2D IR spectra of 3 FA micelles at 65°C. Figure S12: CLS decay of a majority-3FA surfactant blend. Figure S13: CLS decay of a modeled 3-peak system with a fixed relaxation time of 1ps. Figure S14: 2D IR spectra of ethyl acetate at 65°C. S4: MICELLE CHARACTERIZATION Table S2: Reverse-micelle diameters and polydispersity index (PDI) measured at 35°C. Table S3: Reverse-micelle diameters and polydispersity index (PDI) measured at 65°C. S5: CHARACTERIZATION OF SURFACTANT HETEROGENEITY Figure S15: Liquid chromatogram showing the distribution of tail lengths from a heterogeneous sample