Efficiency of a surfactant

The log of the reciprocal of the bulk concentration of surfactant (C in mol/ L) necessary to produce a surface or interfacial pressure of 20 raN/m, log( 1 / On= 20 i e > a 20 mN/m reduction in the surface or interfacial tension, is considered a measure of the efficiency of a surfactant. The effectiveness of surface tension reduction is the maximum effect the surfactant can produce irrespective of concentration, (rccmc = [y]0 - y), where [y]0 is the surface tension of the pure solvent and y is the surface tension of the surfactant solution at its cmc. 

It is well Icnown in emulsion polymerization practice that the efficiency of a surfactant depends on its hydrophilic-lipophilic... 

The efficiency of a surfactant in reducing surface tension can be measured by the same quantity that is used to measure the efficiency of adsorption at the liquid-gas interface (Chapter 2, Section HIE), pC20, the negative log of the bulk phase concentration necessary to reduce the surface tension by 20 dyn/cm (mN m-1). The effectiveness of a surfactant in reducing surface tension can be measured by the amount of reduction, or surface pressure, IIcmc, (= To Ycmc) attained at the critical micelle concentration, since reduction of the tension beyond the CMC is relatively insignificant (Figure 5-3). 

Since surface or interfacial tension reduction depends on the replacement of solvent molecules at the interface by surfactant molecules, the efficiency of a surfactant in reducing surface tension should reflect the concentration of the surfactant at the interface relative to that in the bulk liquid phase. A suitable measure for the efficiency with which a surfactant performs this function would therefore be the ratio of the concentration of surfactant at the surface to that in the bulk liquid phase at equilibrium, both concentrations being expressed in the same units, e.g., [Cj]/Ci, where both concentrations are in moles/liter. 

The analysis given for the surfactant effect on the thinning rate has shown that a flux from inside the emulsion drops is much less effective than the surfactant present in the homogeneous phase. It will be shown below, however, that almost all surfactants are usually soluble in both liquid phases of an emulsion so that obviously the distribution coefficient will be the parameter which controls the efficiency of a surfactant with respect to film thinning. 

With respect to the properties of polar groups, surfactants can be subdivided into ionic (cation- and anion-active, ampholytic, and zwitterionic) and nonionic surfactants. If the effect produced by the polar group of the surfactant molecule is more significant than that of the lipophilic group, this substance is soluble in water. It is less surface active as compared to any substance characterized by an optimum balance between the activities of hydrophilic and lipophilic groups. Similar conclusions can be drawn also with respect to the solubility in oil here, the role of the lipophilic group is determining. Clearly, the efficiency of a surfactant is not determined solely by the amphiphilicity, but depends on the hydrophilic/lipophilic balance (HLB) characteristic for this compound. Therefore, this balance is an important characteristic of both the surfactant and the interface. 

The efficiency of a surfactant in platelet exfoliation and interfacial bonding should be considered as the main criterion for its selection. However, it is advisable to select a surfactant with respect to its thermal stability a well. The number and length of alkyl chains, type of counterion, and class of amine (or ammonium salt) - primary, secondary, or tertiary - were considered important parameters influencing the thermal stability of nanocomposites. 

The efficiency of a surfactant is related to the concentration of the surfactant in its solution phase required to produce a given surface-tension reduction [39]. A mixture is... 

Effects of Surfactants on Solutions. A surfactant changes the properties of a solvent ia which it is dissolved to a much greater extent than is expected from its concentration effects. This marked effect is the result of adsorption at the solution s iaterfaces, orientation of the adsorbed surfactant ions or molecules, micelle formation ia the bulk of the solution, and orientation of the surfactant ions or molecules ia the micelles, which are caused by the amphipathic stmcture of a surfactant molecule. The magnitude of these effects depends to a large extent on the solubiUty balance of the molecule. An efficient surfactant is usually relatively iasoluble as iadividual ions or molecules ia the bulk of a solution, eg, 10 to mol/L. 

Acid flooding can be successful in formations that are dissolvable in the particular acid mixture, thus opening the pores. Hydrochloric acid is common, in a concentration of 6% to 30%, sometimes also with hydrofluoric acid and surfactants added (e.g., isononylphenol) [130,723]. The acidic environment has still another effect on surfactants. It converts the sulfonates into sulfonic acid, which has a lower interfacial tension with oil. Therefore a higher oil forcing-out efficiency than from neutral aqueous solution of sulfonates is obtained. Cyclic injection can be applied [4,494], and sulfuric acid has been described for acid treatment [25,26,1535]. Injecting additional aqueous lignosulfonate increases the efficiency of a sulfuric acid treatment [1798]. 

Solutions to the above problea are required if efficient open tubular colunns are to be prepared. The energy of the saooth glass surface can Sse Increased by roughening or chemical Modification, or the surface tension of the stationary phase can be lowered by the addition of a surfactant. Roughening and/or cheMical modification etre the most widely used techniques for column preparation the addition of a surfactant, although effective, modifies the separation properties of the stationary phase and may also limit the thermal sted>ility of columns prepared with high temperature stable phases. 

An investigation of different organic solvents, buffer, surfactants, and organorhodium compounds established that the catalytic reduction of tetralin using [ Rh(l,5-hexadiene)Cl 2] proceeds with high efficiency at high substrate-to-catalyst ratios. The reaction occurs at r. t. and 1 atm. pressure in a biphasic mixture of hexane and an aqueous buffer containing a low concentration of a surfactant which stabilizes the catalysts.314... 

While the Lewis acid-catalyzed aldol reactions in aqueous solvents described above are catalyzed smoothly by several metal salts, a certain amount of an organic solvent such as THF had still to be combined with water to promote the reactions efficiently. This requirement is probably because most substrates are not soluble in water. To avoid the use of the organic solvents, we have developed a new reaction system in which metal triflates catalyze aldol reactions in water with the aid of a small amount of a surfactant, such as sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS). 

At concentrations above their aqueous solubility, the so-called c.m.c., low-molar-mass biosurfactants form micelles in the aqueous phase. Micelles are spherical or lamellar aggregates with a hydrophobic core and a hydrophilic outer surface. They are capable of solubilising nonpolar chemicals in their hydrophobic interior, and can thereby mobilise separate phase (liquid, solid or sorbed) hydrophobic organic compounds. The characteristics for the efficiency of (bio)surfactants are the extent of the reduction of the surface or interfacial tension, the c.m.c. as a measure of the concentration needed to bring about this reduction, and the molar solubilisation ratio MSR, which is the number of moles of a chemical solubilised per mole of surfactant in the form of micelles [96]. 

In this instance, the standard addition of a surfactant to the real sample is an appropriate alternative, i.e. along with the analysis of the original sample, where a second sample is amended with a known concentration of the pure standard material, preferably at a similar level, and prepared for analysis alongside the authentic sample. Comparison of the analytical results provides information on both the extraction efficiencies and possible ion suppressions in the interface. 

The effect of a surfactant such as do-decylbenzene sulfonate (DBS) has been investigated and the DBS concentration slightly influences the current efficiency [213]. The oxidation of cinnamyl alcohol to cinnamaldehyde with a solid... 

In the separation tests with the use of a UF membrane, the rejection efficiency for the Cjg cationic surfactants was found to be in the range 90-99%, whereas for the C12 surfactants it ranged from 72 to 86%, when the feed concentration of each surfactant was greater than its corresponding CMC value. Therefore, UF rejection efficiency seems to be dependent on the respective hydrated micelle diameter and CMC value. In conclusion, the study showed that for cationic surfactants removal, if the feed concentration of a surfactant is higher than its CMC value, then the UF membrane process is found to be the best. However, if the feed concentration of a surfactant is less than its CMC value, then ion exchange is the best process for its removal. 

Another model compound, the tris(2,2 -bipyridine)ruthenium(II) complex, has prompted considerable interest because its water-splitting photoreactivity has been demonstrated in various types of photochemical systems (77,99,100,101). Memming and Schroppel (102) have attempted to deposit a monolayer of a surfactant Ru(II) complex on a Sn02 OTE. In aqueous solution, an anodic photocurrent attributable to water oxidation by the excited triplet Ru complex was observed. A maximum quantum efficiency of 15% was obtained in alkaline solution. 

System 1. Under ideal conditions the adsorption of a surfactant into the EDL proceeds as described in Chap. 3. The border of efficiency of anionic and cationic surfactants is IP or PZC, as follows from the correlation of e.g. adsorption density, potential and notability are dependent on pH [e.g. 44,129,167,174-176]. The course of such an adsorption is shown in Fig. 15. If H+ or OH" react with the surface of one mineral the released ions or their hydrolytic products can adsorb on unequally charged surface of the other mineral and cause an activated adsorption of the surfactant, or they can inhibit the adsorption, as shown on the schemes ... 

The function of a surfactant depends on its hydrophilicity-lipo-philicity balance (HLB). Efficient emulsification of oil generally requires a low HLB, while the whipping characteristic arises at a larger HLB. This chapter is an attempt to prepare proteinaceous surfactants with different HLBs by the enzymatic attachment of amino acid esters with different lipophilicity. For this purpose L-leucine n-alkyl esters (Leu-OQ), the alkyl chain length, i, varying from 2 to 12, were used. As... 

Shinoda and Kuineda [8] highlighted the effect of temperature on the phase behavior of systems formulated with two surfactants and introduced the concept of the phase inversion temperature (PIT) or the so-called HLB temperature. They described the recommended formulation conditions to produce MEs with surfactant concentration of about 5-10% w/w being (a) the optimum HLB or PIT of a surfactant (b) the optimum mixing ratio of surfactants, that is, the HLB or PIT of the mixture and (c) the optimum temperature for a given nonionic surfactant. They concluded that (a) the closer the HLBs of the two surfactants, the larger the cosolubilization of the two immiscible phases (b) the larger the size of the solubilizer, the more efficient the solubilisation process and (c) mixtures of ionic and nonionic surfactants are more resistant to temperature changes than nonionic surfactants alone. 

---