Surfactants atomic composition

Without the colloid present (i.e., electrodeposition from pure aqueous media), a Pt-rich catalyst was formed, typically only on the outer surface of the three-dimensional support, without significant penetration into the matrix. For codeposition throughout the thickness of the support of binary and ternary catalyst formulations, with atomic compositions relevant to fuel cell application, the presence of the colloidal system was essential. The mechanism of action for the surfactant or water-in-oil microemulsion is believed to be related to selective blocking of the surface, creating a high-Pt electrocrystallization overpotential, thereby lowering the Pt electrodeposition rate relative to the alloying elements (e.g., Ru, Mo, or Sn). 

Figure 4.11 Plot of the approximate compositions for which surfactant/water mixtures can form monolayers versus the surfactant parameter of the surfactant. This plot is for chain lengths of 14A, which corresponds to hydrocarbons made up of about 12 carbon atoms. The notation for various mesophases is as follows Vi, V2 are bicontinuous cubic phases (the former containing two interpenetrating hydrophobic diain networks in a polar continuum, the latter polar networks in a hydrophobic continuum). Hi and H2 denote normal and reversed hexagonal phases. La denotes the lamellar phase, and Li and L2 denote isotropic micellar and reversed micellar phases (made up of spherical micelles).

For the post-functionalized materials, the silanols present within the channels provide a suitable anchoring site for chemical attachment. Although the wall composition contains random interatomic bond angles and atomic location, there exists an uncharacteristically large and uniform density of silanol groups (other than the silanols that exist due to incomplete condensation) within the channels due to surfactant packing requirements. NMR studies showed that up to 40% of the silicon atoms located on the surface of the walls could be associated with hydroxyls [62],... 

Different variables may have an impact on mean size and size distribution of the particles. A priori, the parameters used in the process, such as temperature and speed of the cooling air, atomization pressure, flow of the feeding mixture in the atomizer, and type and diameter of the atomizing nozzle direetly influence the size of the particles. Lipid composition of the carrier matrix (which affects its viscosity), the presence and type of the surfactant in the mixture of active principle and... 

However, more details would be desirable. It is possible to express the architecture of an amphiphilic molecule by the number of units in the molecular chain. For instance, would denote the number of CH2 atoms, and AI7J would denote the number of ethylene oxide units in so-called Brij surfactants (see Fig. 2f). It is then possible to relate the size of the pores to the molecular architecture of the template molecules for a row of compositions (see Fig. 2g). Interestingly, the pore size depends on the size of both blocks. Classically (Fig. 3b), a microphase separation of the hydrophilic parts and hydrophobic parts into separate domains is expected. In this case, the pore-size dependence on both molecular parts is impossible. A "one-phase" scenario as depicted in Fig. 3a can also be excluded due to many reasons, which will not be further discussed here. ... 

---