Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T11:30:10.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - The nature and properties of foaming surfactants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2016

Robert J. Pugh
Affiliation:
Nottingham Trent University
Get access

Summary

Shampoo doesn't have to foam, but we add foaming chemicals because people expect it each time they wash their hair.

Quotescondex.com

The formation of self-assemblies from pre-micellar surfactant species

The adsorption of amphiphilic surfactant molecules at the bubble interface is not the only important phenomenon occurring during foam formation. Another extremely important process also occurs in bulk solution at high surfactant concentrations. This involves a spontaneous self-assembly process in which higher molecular structural aggregates or units of surfactant are formed from lower molecular weight pre-micellar species (monomer, dimer and trimer units). In the simplest case, this corresponds to the formation of a spherical micelle, and the transition concentration (of monomer) at which this occurs is called the “critical micelle concentration” (CMC). Marked changes in foaming behavior, as well as changes in electrical conductivity, surface tension, turbidity and uptake of organic dyes, occur in bulk solution above the CMC, but the molecular concentration of the surfactant in the water remains constant, with the surplus molecules forming additional micelles. Fig. 2.1 depicts the successive steps involved in the growth of the micelle from monomeric species, with monomers initially aggregating to form dimeric and trimeric species. As these complexes grow in size, an increasing proportion of the interface of the added monomer molecules achieves contact with the micellar hydrocarbon segments until the maximum degree of hydrocarbon/hydrocarbon interaction is reached.

For many simple long-chain linear amphiphilic surfactants, this results in the formation of a perfectly spherical complex which produces the maximum surfactant packing density. In this case, the micellar structure is complete, but difficulties may occur with some types of charged surfactants due to the repulsive charge on the head groups, and these interactions must be counterbalanced with the structure, which will result in different types of molecular arrangements within the micelle. A more detailed theoretical examination of the origins of the free energy changes which occur on eliminating the hydrocarbon/water interaction is described in considerable detail in an early classic text The Hydrophobic Effect by Tanford (1).

Several different models have been used to describe the overall process of micellization, and these have been well documented in the literature (2).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

(1) Tanford, C., The Hydrophobic Effect: Formation of Micelles and Biological Membrane, edn, John Wiley, New York, 1980.
(2) Evans, D. Fennel and Wennerstrom, H., The Colloid Domain, Advances in Interfacial Eng Series, VCH Publications, New York, 1994.
(3) Theander, K. and Pugh, R. J., The Influence of pH and Temperature on the Equilibrium and Dynamic Surface Tension of Sodium Oleate, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 239, 209–216, 2001.Google Scholar
(4) Pugh, R. J., The Role of the Solution Chemistry of Dodecylamine and Oleic Acid Collector in the Flotation of Fluorite, Colloids Surf., 18, 19–41, 1986.Google Scholar
(5) Mileva, E. and Exerowa, D., Nanostructures in Foam Films, Curr. Opin.Colloid Sci., 13 (3), 120–127, 2008.Google Scholar
(6) Shinoda, K. and Hutchinson, E., Pseudo-Phase Separation Model for Thermodynamic Calculations on Micellar Solutions, J. Phys. Chem., 66 (4), 577–582, 1962.Google Scholar
(7) Hamley, I. W., Introduction to Soft Matter, John Wiley, New York, 2000.
(8) Adree, H., Hessel, J. F., Krings, P., Meine, G., Middelhauve, B. and Schmid, K., in Alkyl Polyglycosides, Ed. Hill, K., Rybinski, W. von and Stoll, G. VCH Publications, Weinheim, p. 99, 1997.
(9) Ferguson, J., The Use of Chemical Potentials as Indices of Toxicity, Proc. R. Soc., Lond., 127 B, 387–404, 1939 Google Scholar
Morrison, I. D., Ross`s Rule: Sydney Ross and the Phase Diagram, Colloids Surf., A, 118, 187, 192, 1996.Google Scholar
(10) Bikerman, J. J., Foams, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1973.
(11) Becher, P. and Schick, M. J., Nonionic Surfactants, Ed. Schick, M. J., Marcel Dekker, New York, 1987.
(12) Kanicky, J. R. and Shah, D. O., Effect of Degree, Type and Position of Unsaturated Ion on the pK a of Long Chain Fatty Acids, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 256, 201–207, 2002.Google Scholar
(13) Kanicky, J. R., Poniatowski, A. F., Mehta, N. R. and Shah, D. O., Cooperativity Among Molecules at Interfaces in Relation to Various Technological Processes; Effect of Chain Length on the pK a of Fatty Acid Salt Solutions, Langmuir, 16, 172–177, 2000.Google Scholar
(14) Patist, A., Ohn, S., Shiao, S. Y., Ling, T. F., Lee, H. K., Sharma, M. K. and Shah, D. O., Unity in Diversity in Interfacial Phenomena, In Emulsions, Foams and Thin Films, Ed. Mittal, K. L. and Kumar, P., Marcel Dekker, NewYork, Chapter 2, p. 55, 2000.
(15) Dreger, E. E. and Coworkers, Sodium Alcohol Sulphates: Properties Involving Surface Activity, Ind. Eng. Chem., 36, 610–617, 1944.Google Scholar
(16) Badwan, A. A., Cham, T. M., James, K. C. and Pugh, W. J., A Relationship between Foaming and HLB Values, Int. J. Cosmet. Sci., 2, 45–51, 1980.Google Scholar
(17) Patist, A., Kanicky, J. R., Shukla, P. K. and Shah, D. O., Importance of Micellar Kinetics in Relation to Technological Processes, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 245, 1–5, 2002.Google Scholar
(18) Patist, A., Axelberd, T. and Shah, D. O., Effect of Long Chain Alcohols on Micellar Relaxation Time and Foaming Properties of Sodium Dodecyl Sulphate Solution, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 208, 259–265, 1998.Google Scholar
(19) Duer-Auster, N., Eisele, T., Wepf, R., Gunde, R. and Windhab, E. J., Influence of pH on Colloidal Properties and Surface Activity of Polyglycerol Fatty Acid Ester Vesicles, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 327, 446–450, 2008.Google Scholar
(20) Rosen, M. S., Surface and Interfacial Phenomena, edn, John Wiley, New York, 2012.
(21) Pandey, S. and Bagwe, R. P. and Shah, D. O., The Effect of Counterions on Surface and Foaming Properties of Dodecyl Sulphate, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 267, 160–166, 2003.Google Scholar
(22) Slukla, D. and Tyagi, V. K., Cationic Gemini Surfactants: A Review, J. Oleo Sci., 55 (8), 381–390, 2006.Google Scholar
(23) Griffin, W. C., Classification of Surface-Active Agents by HLB, J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem., 1, 311–326, 1949.Google Scholar
(24) Davies, J. T., Factors Determining Emulsion Type: Hydrophilic-Lipophile Balance and Beyond, Colloids Surf., A, 91, 3–24, 1994.Google Scholar
(25) Tan, S. N., Pugh, R. J., Fornasiero, D., Sedev, R. and Ralston, J., Foaming of polypropylene glycols and glycol/MIBC Mixtures, Miner. Eng., 18, 179–188, 2005 Google Scholar
Pugh, R. J., The Physics and Chemistry of Frothers. In Froth Flotation: A Century of Innovation, Ed. Fuerstenau, M. C., Jameson, G. and Yoon, R. H., SME Publications, Englewood, CO, USA, pp. 259–281, 2007.
(26) Zhang, W., Nesset, J. E., Rao, R. and Finch, J. A., Characterizing Frothers through Critical Coalescence Concentration (CCC) Hydrophilic-Lipophilic Balance, Minerals, 2 (3), 208–227, 2012.Google Scholar
(27) Balson, T. G., HLB: Is It a Value Concept or a Curiosity, Industrial Applications of Surfactants 1V, 175–190. In A Guide to the Surfactant World, Ed. Domongo, X., Proa Publications, Barcelona, Spain, 1995.
(28) Nakagaki, M., and Shinoda, K., Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn., 27, 367, 1954
Becher, P. and Schick, M. J., Nonionic Surfactants, Ed. Schick, M. J., Marcel Dekker, New York, 1987.
(29) Gara, M. and Szatlmayer, G., Kolar, Ert. 12, 53, 1970
Becher, P. and Schick, M. J., Nonionic Surfactants, Ed. Schick, M. J., Marcel Dekker, New York, 1987.
(30) Kamath, S., Huppertz, T., Houlihan, A. V. and Deeth, H. C., The Influence of Temperature on the Foaming of Milk, Int. Dairy J., 18, 994–1002, 2008.Google Scholar
(31) Foaming Mad, The Last Word, New Scientist, 3033, August 8, 2015.
(32) Ospanova, Zh. and Coworkers, Effect of Temperature on the Stability of Foams, 6th Int. Workshop on Bubbles and Drop Interfaces, Potsdam, Golm, Germany, July, 2015.
(33) Bikerman, J. J., Measurements of Foaminess, Chapter 3, Foams, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1973.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×