4.5 Article

Self-aggregation of a cationic-nonionic surfactant mixture in aqueous media: Tensiometric, conductometric, density, light scattering, potentiometric, and fluorometric studies

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 108, 期 34, 页码 12804-12812

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp048294o

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Self-aggregation of tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide (TTAB, [CH3(CH2)(13)N+(CH3)(3)Br-]) and polyoxyethylene 23 lauryl ether (Brij-35, [CH3(CH2)(11)(OCH2CH2)(23)OH]) binary surfactant mixture in aqueous medium was studied using tensiometric, conductometric, density, quasielastic light scattering, potentiometric, and fluorometric measurements. The binary surfactant mixture was studied well above the Krafft temperature, which was evaluated by conductance measurements. Rubingh's nonideal solution theory predicted nonideal mixing and attractive interaction between the constituent surfactants in the mixed micelle. Moreover, attractive interaction between the two surfactants in the mixed micelle is explained by assuming that water acts as a bridge between the hydrophilic polar groups of the surfactant molecules. The chain-chain interaction among the surfactant does not seem to be high in this case. The partial specific volume of pure as well as binary surfactant mixtures was also evaluated, and it was inferred that the mixed micelles are more hydrated compared to individual components. The excess Gibbs free energy of mixing was evaluated, and it indicated relatively more stable mixed micelles for this binary combination. Surface tension measurements indicate an existence of a second state of aggregation for the mixed surfactant system, which is supported by the break in conductance-concentration of surfactant profile. The Krafft temperature of TTAB decreases as the nonionic surfactant content increases in the mixed system. Quasielastic light scattering studies suggest an increase in the hydrodynamic radius of the micelle in the mixed surfactant system.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据