Surfactants concentration measurement

Fig. 8 Zeta potential of flat photoresist layers processed with various exposure doses 0% squares), 79% circles), 100% triangles), 104% diamonds) of the threshold dose as a function of the surfactant concentration measured in 10 5 M KCl.The arrows mark the points of zero charge (pzc) for various exposure doses, the dashed line the concentration ceff...

Structure of the surface layer to be determined. Preliminary analysis shows that at the highest surfactant concentration measured (2.3 x lO M) the structure corresponds to layers of polymer with surfactant attached (either in monomeric or micellar form), ordered parallel to the interface. 

Surfactant concentration measurements The surfactant concentration in the effluent stream was measured by the two-phase titration method according to Reid et al. (17). 

Spectra scans were taken with a Varian Superscan III in the range of 380-200 nm and the peak heights at 208 nm and 236 nm were measured to determine surfactant concentrations. New calibration curves were prepared for each experiment and each analysis was repeated three times. It is estimated that the average error in the surfactant concentration measurements was between 1-2%. 

Fig, 7. Uncertainty in surface excess determination caused by 3% error in surfactant concentration measurements. 

The concentration at which micellization commences is called the critical micelle concentration, erne. Any experimental teclmique sensitive to a solution property modified by micellization or sensitive to some probe (molecule or ion) property modified by micellization is generally adequate to quantitatively estimate the onset of micellization. The detennination of erne is usually done by plotting the experimentally measured property or response as a hmction of the logarithm of the surfactant concentration. The intersection of asymptotes fitted to the experimental data or as a breakpoint in the experimental data denotes the erne. A partial listing of experimental... 

Furthermore, in a series of polyoxyethylene nonylphenol nonionic surfactants, the value of varied linearly with the HLB number of the surfactant. The value of K2 varied linearly with the log of the interfacial tension measured at the surfactant concentration that gives 90% soil removal. Carrying the correlations still further, it was found that from the detergency equation of a single surfactant with three different polar sods, was a function of the sod s dipole moment and a function of the sod s surface tension (81). 

If the coupling component is not ionic, however, more dramatic effects occur, as found by Hashida et al. (1979) and by Tentorio et al. (1985). Hashida used N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)aniline, while Tentorio and coworkers took 1-naphthylamine and l-amino-2-methylnaphthalene as coupling components. With cationic arenediazo-nium salts and addition of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), rate increases up to 1100-fold were measured in cases where the surfactant concentration was higher than the critical micelle concentration (cmc). Under the same conditions the reaction... 

Turbidity measurements were determined using the dipping probe colorimeter. The light frequency was 650 nm. Deionized water transmittance was set at 90. The surfactant test solutions were stirred ( — 3500 rpm) and maintained at 75°C. Active surfactant concentration was 0.1% wt. Solution volume was 100 cm1. A 26.5% CaCU (95,699 ppm CaJ+) solution was added via syringe in 0,10 ml increments to the lower portion of the surfactant solution. 

Tests were performed at 75°C using a University of Texas Model 500 spinning drop tensiometer. Active surfactant concentration in the aqueous phase prior to oil addition was 0.50% wt. The Kem River crude oil was from the Patricia Lease. The pH of the deionized water surfactant solutions was 8. The pH of the aqueous NaCl surfactant solutions was 9.5 unless otherwise noted. values represent the average deviation of two or three measurements at different times (0.75-1 h apart). D.I., deionized. 

Also, other dependent variables associated with CO2-foam mobility measurements, such as surfactant concentrations and C02 foam fractions have been investigated as well. The surfactants incorporated in this experiment were carefully chosen from the information obtained during the surfactant screening test which was developed in the laboratory. In addition to the mobility measurements, the dynamic adsorption experiment was performed with Baker dolomite. The amount of surfactant adsorbed per gram of rock and the chromatographic time delay factor were studied as a function of surfactant concentration at different flow rates. 

In this section the laboratory measurements of CC -foam mobility are presented along with the description of the experimental procedure, the apparatus, and the evaluation of the mobility. The mobility results are shown in the order of the effects of surfactant concentration, CC -foam fraction, and rock permeability. The preparation of the surfactant solution is briefly mentioned in the Effect of Surfactant Concentrations section. A zwitteronic surfactant Varion CAS (ZS) from Sherex (23) and an anionic surfactant Enordet X2001 (AEGS) from Shell were used for this experimental study. 

The Effect of Surfactant Concentrations, The effect of surfactant concentrations on CC -foam mobility is plotted on a log-log scale in Figure 3. The presented data points are the average mobility values obtained from a superficial velocity range of 2-10 ft/day, with the CC -foam fraction was kept constant around 80%. With Berea sandstone, ZS and AEGS surfactants were used. The measured average permeability of the Berea sandstone with 1% brine was 305 md. With Baker dolomite, AEGS was used to make comparison with Berea sandstone. The permeability of the Baker dolomite was 6.09 md measured with 1% brine solution. 

Experiment C is designed to yield information on the amount of the surfactant that is actually adsorbed on the rock. This experiment measures the variation of surfactant concentration at the outlet of the core, after injection of a "slug of surfactant. The surfactant concentration in the brine depends on the position along the core and on time. The experiment is dynamic because the changing, but near equilibrium level of the adsorbed surfactant at any point along the rock sample is a function of the concentration in the solution at that point. This is described by the adsorption isotherm from a plot of M, the mass of surfactant adsorbed per gram of rock vs. Concentration. 

In the future, monitoring of surface tension could be an attractive option for measuring surfactant concentration. Automatic dosing systems could also be introduced for a controlled supply of concentrated detergents. 

The partition coefficient is determined by measuring the surfactant concentration in the dissolved and particulate phases when the steady state has been reached. The separation of the two phases is performed by either filtration or centrifugation. There have been many studies to characterise the sorption of surfactants onto minerals and textiles [8,25,26], but relatively few have characterised sorption into environmental compartments [2,3,15,17,19,20,27,28], particularly for marine environments [14]. 

Critical Micelle Concentration (cmc) is the surfactant concentration below which the formation of reverse micelles does not occur, while the number of surfactant molecules per micelle is referred to as the aggregation number, n. The cmc is obtained through physical measurements, and varies from 0.1-1.0 mmol dm in water or the nonpolar solvents. 

---