An Interaction of Anionic- and Cationic-Rich Mixed Surfactants in Aqueous Medium through Physicochemical Properties at Three Different Temperatures

Sachin, K. M.; Karpe, Sameer A.; Singh, Man; Bhattarai, Ajaya

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4594062

Journal of Chemistry

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2018 | Article ID 4594062 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4594062

An Interaction of Anionic- and Cationic-Rich Mixed Surfactants in Aqueous Medium through Physicochemical Properties at Three Different Temperatures

K. M. Sachin,¹Sameer A. Karpe,¹Man Singh,¹and Ajaya Bhattarai^1,2

Academic Editor: Tomokazu Yoshimura

Received05 Apr 2018

Revised19 Aug 2018

Accepted02 Sept 2018

Published02 Dec 2018

Abstract

The mixed micellization of aqueous binary mixtures of DTAB-rich and SDS-rich surfactants, comprising sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and dodecyltrimethylammonium bromide (DTAB) is studied in aqueous solution by using the physicochemical properties (PCPs) at three different temperatures (T = 293.15, 298.15, and 303.15 K) and . The DTAB concentration is varied from 0.0001 to 0.03 M/mol·L⁻¹ in the ∼0.01 M/mol·L⁻¹ SDS solution, while the concentration of SDS is varied from 0.001 to 0.015 M/mol·L⁻¹ in the ∼0.005 M/mol·L⁻¹ DTAB. The stable formulations have been obtained by employing the DTAB-rich and SDS-rich surfactants solutions in 3 : 1 ratio. Therefore, different phases and aggregated states formed in the ternary combinations of DTAB/SDS/H₂O have been identified and described. The calculated PCPs have been utilized for determining the nature of the solute-solvent interaction (S_LS₀I). With increasing surfactants concentration, the polarisation of the solution also increases along with an increase in relative viscosity (), viscous relaxation time (), and surface excess concentration (). However, the surface area of the molecule (), hydrodynamic volume (), and hydrodynamic radius () decrease along with an increase in surfactants concentration.

1. Introduction

The role of mixed surfactants is very crucial in our daily life. It has widespread applications in the various households and industrial processes such as usages in the chemical purification, targeted drug delivery, synthesis of advanced nanomaterials [1–4], cosmetics, wastewater treatment, food industries, detergency, and oil recovery enhancement [5–8].

With the advantages of high biodegradability, greater surface activity, high biocompatibility, and application in various separation techniques, utilization in drug formulation and related biomedical applications makes the studies of the mixed surfactant system inevitable [9]. Due to the opposite charge, the surfactant induces several remarkable properties. However, cationic and anionic mixed surfactants in an aqueous medium show numerous noble features that arise from the strong electrostatic interactions between the oppositely charged head groups [10]. It has been already reported that several types of the binary surfactant systems, cationic and anionic, show the strongest synergisms in the formation of mixed micelle and surface tension reduction of the solution [11].

The PCPs of surfactants, such as critical micellar concentration (CMC), the degree of ionization, and thermodynamics of micellization depend on the nature of the hydrophobic tail, hydrophilic head group, and the counterion species [12]. Mixed surfactants are also used in a personal cleaning product, laundry aids, shampoo, fabric softeners, and solubilizers for water-insoluble or sparingly soluble bioinspired molecules like polyphenolic compound, ionic liquid, and anticorrosive agents for steel and plastics and used as a catalyst for some industrially significant reactions, flotation collectors for mineral ores, and leveling agents for improving the dyeing processes [13–17]. Because it has an amphiphilic nature, the study of the interaction of mixed surfactants in an aqueous medium helps to decode functional and diverse information about the system and assist in harnessing their potential in technical applications [18–20].

Hence, the ternary system (DTAB/SDS/H₂O) can demonstrate arrays of self-assembled microstructures, viz, micelles, vesicles, planar bilayers, and bicontinuous structures. Earlier studies have been focused mostly on two critical facts which influence the interaction activities: (a) the type of the interactions involved during the formation of the micelles (b) and the resultant structure of the formed aggregates [21]. The SDS and DTAB surfactants (Figure 1) actively interact with each other due to opposite charge species. However, above the CMC, surfactants form aggregates into the micelle [22]. Maiti et al. [23] have been investigated on oppositely charged single-tailed surfactants that could associate through electrostatic, ion-dipole, and van der Waals force attraction under specific conditions. Thus, the various aggregated microstructures (micelles, vesicles, and lamellar phases) of catanionic surfactants have attracted the attention of researchers for their multifaceted potential application in the field of drug delivery and nanoparticle synthesis. The structure of the surfactants plays an essential role in their aggregation behavior. The critical packing parameters infer the type of possible assemblies in the solution. Due to these potentials, the mixed surfactants solution has remarkable properties such as lower surface tension with higher surface activities and critical aggregation concentrations (CACs) which are essential for detergency and pharmaceutical applications [24, 25]. The cationic surfactants can form many supramolecular structures, at the specific mole ratios and concentrations; they have formed a remarkable micelles structure [26, 27] and vesicles [28, 29]. Bakshi et al. studied single and mixed micellization of surfactants by using conductivity, turbidity, and NMR measurements [30, 31]. Therefore, anionic and cationic mixed surfactants can form a numerous type of aggregated microstructures like lamellar phases, vesicles, spheres, precipitates, and rod shape structures [32, 33]. Moreover, mixing of surfactants is also used in drug formulation, lowering the Krafft temperature, and with increasing the cloud point [34], and some studies have been reported on the electrical conductance of cationic and anionic mixed surfactants [35]. Recently, many researchers have been focused on the aggregation and micelles formation process in the aqueous and mixed solvent system [36, 37]. Earlier researchers have been focused mostly on spectroscopic and thermodynamic studies of single and mixed surfactants through UV-visible, CMC, CAC, entropy, enthalpy, Gibbs free energy, micelle ionization degree, Krafft temperature, dissociation constant, and the pre-slope and post-slope values of single and mixed surfactants in an aqueous medium and mixed solvent system at different temperatures [38–45].

(a)

(b)

There is a little work on PCPs of SDS-rich and DTAB-rich mixed surfactants in an aqueous medium at T = 293.15, 298.15, and 303.15 K [46]. In this research article, we are studying the various PCPs, which include relative viscosity, viscous relaxation time, acoustic impedance, hydrodynamic volume, hydrodynamic radius, intrinsic viscosity, friccohesity shift coefficient, surface excess concentration, and area of a molecule of the SDS-rich and DTAB-rich mixed surfactants in an aqueous medium at three different temperatures (T = 293.15, 298.15, and 303.15 K) at 0.1 MPa. This type of study on the mixed surfactant system could assist in harnessing their potential in the household and industrial applications.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

All chemicals were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich, and their details are given in Table 1. Dodecyltrimethylammonium bromide and sodium dodecyl sulfate surfactants were stored in the P₂O₅-filled vacuum desiccator due to their hygroscopic nature.

2.2. Solution Preparation

All solutions, water + SDS (aq-SDS) and water + DTAB (aq-DTAB), were prepared separately by dissolving 0.005 M/mol·L⁻¹ and 0.01 M/mol·L⁻¹ of DTAB and SDS surfactants separately into Milli-Q water and used as a stock solution. The 0.005 M/mol·L⁻¹ DTAB and 0.01 M/mol·L⁻¹ SDS solutions were used as a solvent for 0.000096 to 0.012 M/mol·L⁻¹SDS and 0.000864 to 0.00504 M/mol·L⁻¹ DTAB, respectively. These solutions were kept for ∼10 min sonication at 30 MHz for better homogenization. All solutions were prepared at the temperature 298.15 K and pressure 0.1 MPa using Milli-Q water at pH 7 and conductivity 0.71 μS·cm⁻¹. For weighing, Mettler Toledo NewClassic MS was used with <±0.1·10⁻⁶ kg repeatability. To avoid evaporation and contamination, all solutions were kept in an airtight volumetric flask at the temperature of 298.15 K.

Anton Paar DSA 5000M density meter was used for measurements of their densities () and sound velocity () data with ±5·10⁻⁶ g·cm⁻³ uncertainty, and the temperature was controlled by a built-in Peltier (PT100) device with ±1.10⁻³ K accuracy. Repeatability of the instrument corresponds to precision in and data with 1.10⁻³ kg·m⁻³ and 0.10 m·s⁻¹, respectively.

The instrument was calibrated with Milli-Q water at the temperature of 298.15 K, while aq-NaCl (1 M/mol·kg⁻¹) and 10% aq-DMSO were also used to check the performance of the instrument, and the values were in agreement with the literature within the experimental uncertainties (Table S1) [47, 48]. Reported densities were an average of three repeated measurements with ±3.10⁻⁶ g·cm⁻³ repeatability. and at 3 MHz frequency of uncertainties were ±5 × 10⁻³ kg m³ and ±0.5 m·s⁻¹, respectively. All experiments were carried out at the three different temperatures (T = 293.15, 298.15, and 303.15 K) with ±0.01 K accuracy [49]. Sound velocity work based on oscillation periods of quartz U-tube with air, solvent, and solutions [50]. After each measurement, the tube was cleaned with acetone and dried by passing dried through the U-tube by using an air pump. A process of drying continued till a constant oscillation period for air was obtained and noted as an initial calibration. Viscosity, surface tension, and friccohesity data were measured by Borosil Mansingh Survismeter [51] (Cal no. 06070582/1.01/C-0395, NPL, India) through viscous flow time (VFT) and pendant drop number (PDN) methods, respectively. Lauda Alpha RA 8 thermostat was used for controlling the temperature with ±0.05 K accuracy. After attaining a thermal equilibrium, the VFT was recorded by using an electronic timer with ±0.01 s accuracy, while the PDN counted with an electronic counter. The Survismeter was washed with Milli-Q water, followed by acetone, and absolutely dried before measurements and 5, 10, 15, and 20% (w/w) aq-DMSO (AR grade, Rankem) solutions were used to check the performance of the Survismeter, and the values are in obedience to that of the literature values, given in Table S2 (supplementary material) [48, 52, 53]. The reported surface tension and viscosities are an average of three repeated measurements with ±2 × 10⁻⁶ kg·m⁻¹·s⁻¹ and ±0.03 mN·m⁻¹ uncertainties, respectively.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Viscometric Study

Viscosity () values of SDS-rich and DTAB-rich mixed surfactants were measured at the three different temperatures (T = 293.15, 298.15, and 303.15 K) and at 0.1 MPa, and the same data are summarized in Table 2. Viscosity is a flowing, transporting property of the liquid mixture, and it is affected by molecular orientation and the nature of interaction ability of the solute and solvent interaction. And viscosity also gives the information about the interaction affinity of ionic species with the solvent system [54]. Table 2 shows that the aq-DTAB shows a higher value than aq-SDS (Table S3). It indicates that the DTAB and SDS have the same hydrophobic part, except by only the head part (hydrophilic part). Due to the addition of DTAB into the aqueous system, the hydrophobic portion could be disrupted by the hydrogen bonding (HB) of the solvent system. Probably, it could also repel the solvent molecules to the surface site.

It could induce the weak CF with decreases in the surface tension () value. DTAB has three methyl (-CH₃) groups in its head part which could also be developed by higher hydrophobicity; with stronger hydrophobic interaction, the value decreases with an increase in the value. Generally, surfactants have a structure-breaking nature tendency of the solvent molecules which is present at the surface and strong electrostatic interaction with an increase in the value. On increasing the concentration of surfactants, the value increases with stronger IMF. SDS shows weaker hydrophobicity than DTAB because SDS has oxygen atoms in its head part. So, it could show weak hydrophobic interaction, and the values decrease. Thus, the aq-DTAB shows the highest value with stronger van der Waals interactions and inducing stronger IMI affinities with solvent molecules. So, the DTAB shows lower values as the aq-DTAB could induce much solvent engagement. Addition of DTAB into the aq-SDS solution could form micelles at the air-liquid interfaces (ALIs). This study could be used for the preparation of drug formulation in the aqueous medium.

Table 2 shows increasing SDS and DTAB concentration due to stronger hydrophobic-hydrophobic interactions (HbHbI), stronger London dispersive force (LDF), and intermolecular force (IMF); then, the viscosity is increased. With increasing surfactants concentration, the population of the surface charges is increased in the solution, which could be induced by stronger interaction. The viscosity infers linkages of DTAB-rich and SDS-rich with a solvent system to determine fluid dynamics within the capillary with uniform water supply, contrary to static data like density. With increasing temperature, the kinetic energy increases as well as oscillation (rotational, vibrational, and transition) could be developed which shows weaker IMF and electrostatic interaction; then, the viscosity is decreased. The measurement of data has been carried out in accordance with relative viscosity () as in [27]:where and are the viscosity of the solvent and solution, respectively. The value has been summarized in Table 2. The behavior of versus of SDS-rich and DTAB-rich is qualitatively the same as commonly observed in surfactant solutions [55, 56].

The values of DTAB and SDS with the solvent systems follow the order: SDS > DTAB. This order inferred that the interaction affinity of the SDS molecule is stronger as compared to DTAB. However, SDS and DTAB both have the same tail part but different head groups. SDS contains oxygen atoms in its head part while -CH₃ groups in the DTAB could disrupt the HB of the solvent system, and DTAB could develop stronger ion-hydrophobic interaction (IH_bI). Due to the inclusion of 0.000864 to 0.00504 M/mol·L⁻¹ DTAB into aq-SDS solution, the value is more increased. It depicted that DTAB shows stronger hydrophobic interaction and maximum solvent molecules could repel with increase in the micelles formation rate. Similarly, 0.000096 to 0.012 M/mol·L⁻¹ SDS was added into aq-DTAB. Hence, increasing rate of the value decreases than the aq-DTAB system while decrement is higher compared to the DTAB-rich solution. Therefore, SDS shows the stronger ion-hydrophilic interaction (IHI) with a solvent system. On increasing the concentration of DTAB and SDS, the value increases at a certain concentration, and after that, the value decreases and further significantly increases. It indicates that, on increasing the concentration of surfactants, the micellization and aggregation processes could be occurred.

In our study, the trends of SDS-rich and DTAB-rich surfactants do not follow the regular trend. It means that the surfactant has a long alkyl chain (AC) which could trapped the air bubble, and so the graph trend of SDS-rich and DTAB-rich surfactants are obtained in the zic-zac order.

Chakraborty et al. [57] have reported that DTAB shows more interaction affinity towards the protein. The protein also has both hydrophilic and hydrophobic domains with the polar peptide bond in its molecular structure, due to stronger IH_bI dominant over IHI with increases in the value. And the similar reason may be possible in the value of the DTAB-rich mixed surfactant system. The values have been further used to calculate viscous relaxation time () using the following equation [58]:where is the density of the solution (Table S4), is the viscosity of the solution (Table S3), and is the sound velocity (Table S5) used for measurement.

The values are summarized in Table 3 and represented in Figures 2 and 3. The value is depending on the concentration, and interaction affinity of the solute with the solvent systems and temperature may be related to the structural relaxation processes occurring due to the rearrangement and reorientation of the molecules [59].

With an increase in the temperature, the value decreases with the increasing KE and weakening of electrostatic and binding forces. The value order of solvent is SDS > DTAB. This value order is also supported for and data. It infers that the SDS strongly interacts with the solvent medium by multiple intermolecular interactions (MIMI), and due to the strong interaction between solute and solvent, the solution could slowly pass through the capillary with an increase in the value. By increasing the concentrations of DTAB and SDS, the value increases with the weakening of CF and stronger electrostatic interaction, IMF, van der Waal forces. An inclusion of SDS into the aqueous system, the value is increased, while with DTAB, the value slightly decreases due to the stronger IHI domination over IH_bI. On increasing 0.000096 to 0.0012 M/mol·L⁻¹SDS, the value drastically increased with higher polarization, strong compactness, and the mobility of the micelles could be decreased. Similarly, with DTAB 0.000864 to 0.00504 M/mol·L⁻¹ into aq-SDS, the value is less increased compared to the DTAB-rich surfactant solution. It infers that, due to the stronger IHI, the flow rate of the solution is decreased with increase in the value, while with DTAB-rich surfactant solution, because of stronger IH_bI and with the weakening of CF, the solution quickly passes and the value is decreased.

3.2. Acoustic Impedance (Z)

Initially, an inclusion of DTAB into the aqueous system, the acoustic impedance () value decreases, while with SDS, the value is increased. Furthermore, on increasing the concentration of SDS and DTAB, the value (Table 4) increases. To measure a sound velocity, which is generated by the vibration due to S_LS_OI, the value was calculated by using the following equation:where is the density and is the sound velocity () of the solution.

The value infers an increase in the value at a fixed composition and temperature. However, on increasing the temperature, the value is increased. It indicates that the property is directly proportional to the value (Table S5) because of the heat which is a kind of KE.

On increasing the temperature, the molecules could gain energy which could induce rotational, electronic, transformational, and vibrational transitions and because of these transitions, the sound waves could travel quickly and the value is increased. The value (Figures 4 and 5) of the solvent systems follows the order: SDS > DTAB. The value also supported the , , and data. This order reflected that aq-SDS shows the higher value than aq-DTAB. SDS has a higher hydrophilic nature and stronger interaction abilities with an increase in the compactness of the solution. Thus, the aq-DTAB shows the higher hydrophobic nature which could induce stronger IH_bI repelling the solvent molecules to the surface site and weakening the CFs with decreases in the value and with stronger IMI, the compactness and internal pressure (IP) increases, so the value is increased. All parameters are supporting each other on the basis of these interlink (coordinative) properties.

On increasing 0.000096 to 0.012 M/mol·L⁻¹ SDS and 0.000864 to 0.00504 M/mol·L⁻¹ DTAB concentration with aq-DTAB and aq-SDS, respectively, the Z value increases. However, in the case of DTAB-rich surfactant, the increasing rate of the Z value is higher than the SDS-rich surfactant at the three different temperatures (T = 293.15, 298.15, and 303.15 K).

Both surfactants have the same hydrophobicity spacer (tail region) except the hydrophilic spacer (head region). The higher value of aq-SDS infers that the aq-SDS could strongly interact by stronger IHI and ion-dipole interaction (IDI) forms small size micelles of the aq-SDS solution while with aq-DTAB, by stronger IH_bI forms large size micelles with weaker compactness in the solution, and the value is decreased. However, with increasing SDS concentration, the Z value increases with stronger IHI dominant over IH_bI and stronger electrostatic, van der Waals interaction with higher compactness occurring in the solution. For the DTAB-rich system, the Z value decreases with stronger IH_bI dominant over IHI.

3.3. Surface Property

The DTAB-rich and SDS-rich systems have been applied in several technological applications because of the formation of micelles during the aggregation method under certain functioning conditions. Several physical properties of surfactants have been reported in the literature because of their ability of characterizing different physical properties that have been analysed in the literature and due to their ability of describing the aggregation processes by using electrical conductivity() and surface tension () values [30, 31].

Table S6 shows that the value of SDS-rich and DTAB-rich decreases with increases in surfactants concentration in an aqueous system at the three different temperatures (T = 293.15, 298.15, and 303.15 K). It is evident from Table S6 that the value initially decreases with increasing concentration of SDS and then reaches a minimum. It indicates that micelles could form and the concentration of the break point is CMC, whereas for DTAB-rich, the surface tension reduced by adsorption of the surfactant at the interface, and a sigmoidal curve between surface tension () and log (surfactant) is produced by the distinct break after which the value remains almost unchanged. Due to the presence of DTAB and SDS, surfactants produce a decrease in the value. Nevertheless, this decrease in surface tension reaches a constant value at a certain surfactant concentration. It depicted that the surface tension is a physical property influenced by the aggregation phenomenon due to a change in the surface concentration of the surfactant. Due to this reason, the surface tension has been used to determine the colloidal dynamics of numerous systems [60]. Thus, the aggregation process creates the concentration of SDS and DTAB remains constant due to the addition of different surfactants that are engaged in the formation of micelles. However, it could not effect on the surfactant concentration in the free liquid surface. Hence, the surface tensions remain with a constant value.

3.4. Interfacial Behavior

The packing symmetry of the solvent spread monolayer of the ion-pair amphiphiles at the air-water interface depends on the stoichiometry and the magnitude of the charged head groups and the symmetry and the dissymmetry in the precursors’ hydrophobic spear (the alkyl chain). The alkyl chains packed them in a way to maximize their van der Waals interaction, LDF, and electrostatic interaction in the bulk site. However, molecular packing at the air-water interfaces (AWI) to be more compact results in the lower molecular lift-off area [61].

The surface excess concentration () and the minimum surface area of the molecule () are two important parameters which determine the adsorption behavior and packing density of the micelles at the air/water interface [60, 62]. is the concentration difference between the interface and a virtual interface in the interior of the volume phase, while describes the minimum area of the amphiphile molecules at the surfactant-saturated monolayer at the air/solution interface [58, 60].

A reverse result is observed with . The solvent system follows the order: aq-SDS > aq-DTAB and aq-DTAB > aq-SDS, the surface excess concentration and area of molecules, respectively. The very low and the high values for pure aq-SDS suggest that it is a poor self-assembly behavior presumably owing to the planar head group which could not provide an appropriate packing at the interface. The sudden change in the interfacial parameters by adding DTAB may presumably be connected to the efficient self-assembly behavior of DTAB, which favors the self-assembly process even at this low doping. With further increases in the concentration of DTAB and SDS in the aq-SDS and aq-DTAB, respectively, the total increased indicating an antagonistic effect by the doping of aq-SDS in the DTAB system in this concentration range. A reverse effect is observed for the value (in this concentration range) which is decreased with the increase in the concentration of DTAB. The increase in and decrease in with an increase in the DTAB content indicate that the packing density of surfactant molecules at the interface decreases with an increase in the SDS content. The surface excess concentration () value for 0.000096 to 0.012 M/mol·L⁻¹ SDS and 0.000864 to 0.00504 M/mol·L⁻¹ DTAB in aq-DTAB and aq-SDS solution is summarized in Table 5, and the area of molecules () is calculated according to the following Gibbs adsorption equation [63], given in Table 6:where is the Avogadro number, is the surface excess concentration, is area of molecules, is the gas constant, T is the temperature in Kelvin, is the difference in the surface tension value, and is the surfactant concentration. For calculation, the 0.012 M/mol·L⁻¹ and 0.00504 M/mol·L⁻¹ as the limiting SDS and DTAB concentration is written in equation (4) contrary to CMC reported [64]. Furthermore, is calculated, and surface pressure () is noted as follows:

An inclusion of SDS into the water, the value (Figures 6 and 7) is more increased. It indicates that the SDS has oxygen atoms in the head part which is small in size. So, the maximum number of SDS molecules could go to the surface site. Similarly, an addition of DTAB into the aqueous system, the value is decreased than the aq-SDS system. It indicates that the larger size of DTAB has three -CH₃ groups in its structure which could induce a hindrance for a move to the surface site. So, the less number of DTAB molecules could move to the surface, and the value decreases. On increasing the concentration from 0.000096 to 0.012 M/mol·L⁻¹ SDS and 0.000864 to 0.00504 M/mol·L⁻¹ DTAB, the maximum surfactant molecules move to the surface site with surfactant molecules occupying a less area with stronger H_bH_bI and stronger LDF due to a more considerable difference in the chemical potential of the surface and in the bulk phase. Due to the stronger LDF occurrence with stronger BF and stronger IMF, is decreased. On increasing the temperature, expands due to increased KE and weakening of BF. Due to the increase in the temperature, value decreases with increasing area of molecules with the weakening of BF and IMI, and the least number of surfactant molecules could go to the surface with the increased value (Figures 8 and 9).

3.5. Friccohesity Shift Coefficient (FSC)

Friccohesity predicts working or functional ability of solution where the residual molecular forces remain in a reversible mode. Fundamentally, the ability of the medium or the solvent and the constituent molecules to promote the S_LS₀I rather than self-binding individually is a fundamental need for sparing the molecular surface area. The disruption of the self-binding state could be attained by the weakening of the CF on increasing friccohesity attracting other molecules like drugs or others for binding. The self-binding state could have stronger homomolecular potential noted as an antidispersion activity. Hence, the potentializing homomolecular intramolecular potential to trap other molecules is an essential need to weaken CF and to develop intermolecular or the heteromolecular forces to get stuck to the solution. The shear stress and strains lead to velocity gradients and interlayer distance. The interlayer distance directly reflects the strength of the IMF when the solute molecules could align along with line subjected to the interlayer thickness. The intermolecular strength is determined with HB and also the weakening of the solvent structures and tends to form a structure with the solute. It becomes an urgent need that the status of CF and IMF is measured simultaneously which is rightly and logically determined by friccohesity data.

The measurements deal with intra- and intermolecular networking of electronic forces materialized through electrostatic forces, and (Table S6) tracks damages of IMF or the molecular forces working within the similar molecules through HB and another interaction mechanism. The molecular forces have two separate domains where one of them remains operational at the surface, causing a continuous thin film where even air could not enter. Therefore, an aqueous electrolyte or surfactants in aqueous solutions even on shaking do not develop bubble. So, such engineering is confined to the surface force which is tracked by the surface tension. Another interaction between the two forces remains defunct because the force factors counterbalance the linear elements of molecular interactions. The data have higher resolution and reproducibility and illustrate the interfaces of CFs and frictional forces (FFs) where these forces are the core theories of and measurements, respectively. Therefore, of DTAB-rich and SDS-rich is given Table S7 and is calculated by using the following Man singh equation [51]:where , , , and and , , , and are viscosity, surface tension, viscous flow time, and pendant drop numbers of the solvent and solution, respectively.

The friccohesity shift coefficient () is calculated by using the following equation:.where is the friccohesity shift coefficient, is the friccohesity, and is the surface tension of the solution.

The solvent systems follow the order in the aqueous medium: SDS > DTAB. This order infers that the value increased the aq-SDS (Table 7) than aq-DTAB due to SDS which could develop weak CFs with stronger FFs and IMF; the value decreases with the higher value. While with aq-DTAB, the value is decreased. The value of aq-DTAB is more decreased than aq-SDS solutions because both surfactants have the same tail part, except the only head part, and so the stronger IH_bI and weak CFs with stronger FFs. On increasing 0.000096 to 0.012 M/mol·L⁻¹ SDS and 0.000864 to 0.00504 M/mol·L⁻¹ DTAB concentration, the value increases due to stronger IMI with the weakening of CFs.

This parameter reveals the mechanism of S_LS₀I and S_LS_LI of surfactants [65]. Such parameters determined a critical and comparative study of (Figures 10 and 11) and friccohesity of the SDS-rich and DTAB-rich surfactant solution summarized in Table S7. It also infers the efficacy of interacting activity of SDS and DTAB with the solvent system, its fluidity and absorptivity. We obtained a conversion relation between and , and the aq-DTAB shows higher and lower compared to the aq-SDS solution due to stronger hydrophobic interaction. The value is increased because of the interaction with dissimilar molecules. Due to the inclusion of SDS and DTAB in aq-DTAB and aq-SDS solution, the friccohesity shift coefficient decreases with stronger FFs and weak CFs. On increasing the concentration of surfactants, the value is decreased. On increasing the temperature, the value is decreased due to the weakening of FF, electrostatic interaction, IDI, and binding forces.

3.6. Hydrodynamic Volume (V_h)

Hydrodynamic values are a significant factor in determining a magnitude to the volume change of the hydrated molecules with increasing solute concentration. On increasing the temperature, the SDS-rich and DTAB-rich have negative V_h values which decrease as the size of the KE increases. The V_h values in this study (Table 8) shows negative at the temperatures T = 298.15 and 303.15 K. Thus, the sign of the V_h values reflects the nature of the S_LS₀I; then, we can conclude that, at different temperatures (T = 298.15 and 303.15 K), the DTAB-rich and SDS-rich mixed surfactants have structure-making effects on water, whereas temperature 293.15 K in this study shows structure-breaking effects [66].

The hydrodynamic volume () reflected the S_LS₀I and solute-solute interaction (S_LS_LI). is calculated with the following equation and summarized in Table 9:where is the fractional volume (Table 8), is a molar mass of the solute, is the Avogadro number, and is the concentration.

Fractional volume () is calculated by the following equation:where r is the particles size, N_A is Avogadro’s number, and c is the solute concentration.

The values for solvent follow the order: SDS > DTAB. This order indicates that the interaction activity of SDS with H⁺ ions of solvent molecules is stronger than DTAB because SDS could be strongly towards H⁺ ions of water by the O⁻ ion which is present at the head region in the SDS. So, the interaction affinity of SDS with H⁺ ions is higher, while with DTAB is the lower because DTAB has -CH₃ groups in its head region, which could repel the water molecules. Thus, the value of DTAB is lesser than SDS in an aqueous medium. An inclusion of SDS into aq-DTAB, the value drastically increased due to a higher concentration of SDS, it has more O⁻ ions which could show the stronger interaction affinity with the IHI domain over IH_bI, and SDS could form a more hydrogen sphere compared to the DTAB, while with DTAB into aq-SDS solution, the value is decreased as compared to SDS-rich surfactants. It depicted that the stronger hydrophobic interaction and DTAB could show weak interaction ability with water molecules with decreases the value. On increasing the surfactants concentration, the values decrease with stronger S_LS_LI and weaker S_LS₀I. On increasing the temperature, the value increases due to the weakening of electrostatic interaction and binding forces.

3.7. Hydrodynamic Radius ()

Hydrodynamic radius () depicts the basic activities of solute and solvent interaction. So, micelles of SDS and DTAB with solvent systems could change in along with other amphiphilic solutes which could reflect various modes of interactions. Hydrophobicity and structural constituents of surfactants could develop stronger molecular networking with an effect of the solvent cage, and is calculated using the following equation (Table 10):where κ is the Boltzmann constant, is the diffusion coefficient of the medium, and the value is as DTAB > SDS in the aqueous medium. Due to the inclusion of DTAB in the aqueous system, the value is increased while with SDS, the value decreases. It indicates that the DTAB having -CH₃ groups could be repelled by the solvent molecules, so the size of the radius is increased, while SDS contains hydrophilic atoms in its head part which could strongly interact, so the value of hydrodynamic radius is decreased. Due to the addition of SDS into the aq-DTAB solution, the value is decreased and with DTAB in the aq-SDS, the value is also decreased. It depicted that the dominance of IHI over IH_bI. On increasing the concentration of 0.000096 to 0.012 M/mol·L⁻¹ SDS and 0.000864 to 0.00504 M/mol·L⁻¹ DTAB into aq-DTAB and aq-SDS solution, the value decreases due to the stronger IMI, electrostatic interaction, van der Waals interactions, and IDI. On increasing the temperature, the values are increased due to the weakening of BFs and IMF with increased kinetic expansion. Their values depict a solvent entangling around the surfactants that affect a mutual contact of solvent molecules.

3.8. Viscosity B-Coefficient ()

Viscosity B-coefficient () of SDS-rich and DTAB-rich is calculated by using the following Jones-Dole equation:

is obtained from versus .where is the intrinsic viscosity, is the relative viscosity; is the molarity; is the viscosity -coefficient, and are Falkenhagen’s coefficients. illustrates S_LS_LI, while illustrates S_LS₀I [54, 66] at the three different temperatures (T = 293.15, 298.15, and 303.15 K), respectively. The positive values depict stronger S_LS₀I with stronger IMF (Table 11). The higher and positive values for SDS-rich and DTAB-rich describe stronger IHI, IDI, and IMI. The value predicts solute solvation and their effect on the structure of solvent in the vicinity of the solute molecule having either negative or positive magnitude. The coefficient measures structural modifications induced by S_LS_OI. Thus, Table 11 reveals that DTAB has higher positive values at T = 293.15 K compared to SDS. Initially, surfactants in water could repel out the hydrophobic part of the surfactants to surface which results in a decrease of at the surface. Furthermore, the inclusion of SDS and DTAB to aq-DTAB and aq-SDS, the hydrophilic part accommodates in the bulk solution instead of the surface because surfactants being hydrophobic could not go to the surface site which is already occupied by the hydrophobic region of the SDS and DTAB. So, hydrophobicity increases in the bulk solution. Also, this mechanism leads to a stable formulation out of such solution mixtures. Thus, the DTAB-rich at T = 298.15 K could be induced hydrophobicity to a maximum extent and behaves as a structure maker at this temperature because -CH₃ could be heat sensitive. Positive value supports the structure, making tendency of SDS-rich and DTAB- rich at the three different temperatures (T = 293.15, 298.15, and 303.15 K).

The stronger H_bHI is decreased the value with a tendency to behave as a structural breaker [54]. The surfactants induced stronger hydrophilic and hydrophobic interactions with the water system. The values reflect the structure, making or breaking effects noted as . It indicates an ability of a solute to interact with the medium via the IMF and HB.

4. Conclusion

In this study, the relative viscosity, viscous relaxation time, and acoustic impedance values increase with increasing of concentration of the surfactants due to stronger ion-hydrophobic interaction with the weakening of cohesive forces with stronger frictional forces. By the addition of SDS and DTAB into water, the surface tension value decreases while the viscosity and friccohesity value increase due to weakening of cohesive forces and stronger intermolecular forces. These properties are correlated to each other. Mixed surfactants form self-assembly which could be applicable in the industry, pharmaceuticals, and drug formulation. Therefore, friccohesity determined the surface and bulk properties of the solution. With increasing concentration of the surfactant, surface excess concentration values are increased with stronger hydrophobicity pushing larger DTAB and SDS amount to the surface with more Brownian motion and stronger LDF. A less volume because of stronger H_bH_bI, bringing together the stronger LDF, and stronger LDF causes stronger binding forces have produced a greater internal pressure and lower surface area. On increasing the temperature, the area of the molecule increases because of weak intermolecular interaction and bond forces. SDS and DTAB mixed surfactant could be applicable in industrial and pharmaceutical for the formation of the drug, drug delivery, drug loading, enhanced solubility, and dispersion of drug. We have calculated the surface and bulk properties of the mixed surfactant which can be used in these applications.

Data Availability

The authors share the data underlying the findings of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

Ajaya Bhattarai is thankful to The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS), Italy, for providing funds to work in the Department of Chemical Sciences, Central University of Gujarat, Gandhinagar (India).

Supplementary Materials

Table S1 compares the measured densities values at ±5·10⁻⁶ g·cm⁻³ uncertainty by controlling the temperature by the help of the Peltier (PT100) device in ±1·10⁻³ K accuracy obtained from the Anton Paar DSA 5000M density meter with the literature values. Repeatability of the instrument corresponds to precision in and with 1.10⁻³ kg·m⁻³ and 0.10 m·s⁻¹, respectively, in 1.0 M/mol·kg⁻¹ sodium chloride and 10% (w/w) DMSO in aqueous solutions and were used for instrument calibration at T = 298.15 K. Table S2 compares the experimental data of surface tension and viscosity which were measured by Borosil Mansingh Survismeter through the viscous flow time (VFT) and pendant drop number (PDN) methods, respectively, with the literature values in 5, 10, 15, and 20% (w/w) aq-DMSO. Viscosity and surface tension both have been an average of three replicate measurements with ±2 × 10⁻⁶ kg·m⁻¹·s⁻¹ and ±0.03 mN·m⁻¹ uncertainties, respectively. There is also the difference in density measured with the Anton Paar DSA 5000M density meter with the literature values for 5, 10, 15, and 20% (w/w) aq-DMSO. Table S3 compares the experimental data of viscosity at three different temperatures (293.15, 298.15, and 303.15 K) which were measured by Borosil Mansingh Survismeter. In all investigated concentrations of SDS-rich and DTAB-rich surfactants in the aqueous medium, there is an increase of viscosity from 293.15 K to 298.15 K, whereas in the case of DTAB-rich, there is a decrease in viscosity in all investigated concentrations from 298.15 K to 303.15 K. But there is not a regular pattern of viscosity change for SDS-rich in the increment of the temperature from 298.15 K to 303.15 K. Table S4 confers the density value is higher in the aq-DTAB solution which is used as a stock solution for SDS-rich surfactant solution. However, due to addition of SDS in the aqueous DTAB solution, the value decreases. It depicted that the SDS and DTAB both have a same hydrophobic tail part, except the head part (counterpart). DTAB has three methyl (-CH₃) which could develop stronger hydrophobic interaction with the weakening of CF and stronger intermolecular interaction with the increase in the value. Due to addition of SDS into aq-DTAB, the value is decreased. It indicates that the SDS is less hydrophobic compared to DTAB, so it could induce less weak CFs than DTAB. With increasing the concentration of SDS, the value increases due to stronger van der Waals interaction, electrostatic interaction, and intermolecular interaction. But at the particular concentration, the value drastically decreased. However, at the particular concentration, the density value drastically decreased; it means that the concentration leading to CMC generates maximum assembly in a particular shape which is influenced by the nature of the surfactant and surrounding environment. The similar kind of trend is observed in the case of DTAB-rich surfactant. With increasing the temperature, the value decreases due to increase in KE with weakening of binding forces (BF) and electrostatic interaction. Table S5 compares the sound velocity of the DTAB-rich surfactant and SDS-rich surfactant solutions. The sound velocities of the solvent follow the order: aq-SDS > aq-DTAB. The order indicates that the number of interacting molecules per unit volume increases, and the molecules become tightly packed in the presence of SDS, resulting in faster sound wave propagation. The values were observed to increase with increasing temperature. This suggests that the molecules upon gaining the KE oscillate very strongly, weakening the S₀S₀I. The sound velocity is increased with increasing DTAB and SDS concentration and temperature. With increasing the surfactant concentration, the IMF strengthens, and the hydrophilic sites of DTAB and SDS become closer to greater KE transfer, thereby increasing with higher density. On increasing the temperature, the interacting groups of DTAB and SDS with a solvent system obtain more energy with greater vibration, causing faster sound wave circulation. This subsequently increases the while decreasing the values (Table 2). The slopes for is steeper than those for (Tables S4 and S5) which mutually supports the first order of interaction with increasing surfactants concentration. Table S6 compares the surface tension data and the value of aq-DTAB is lower than the SDS-rich surfactant because of the weakening of CFs with stronger ion-hydrophobic interaction. The surface tension () or surface activities define the involvement of solvent with surfactants activities where the CFs or surface energy of the solvent decreases to interact with SDS and DTAB. Stronger surfactants-solvent interactions reflect weaker CFs with disruption of the HB network with lower values and vice versa. The hydrophobic alkyl chain of the surfactants accumulates on the solvent surface, thereby decreasing the value. However, the aq-SDS value is lower than aq-DTAB due to stronger hydrophobic-hydrophobic interaction. With increasing the concentration of the surfactants, the value decreases with disruption of HB with weakening of CFs of the solution. Table S7 compares the data of friccohesity of SDS-rich and DTAB-rich surfactant solution at three different temperatures. In all investigated concentrations of DTAB-rich surfactants in the aqueous medium, there is increase of friccohesity from 293.15 K to 298.15 K, whereas in the case of 0.003264 mol·L⁻¹, there is decrease in friccohesity. It is found that there is decrease in friccohesity from 298.15 K to 303.15 K in all investigated concentrations of DTAB-rich surfactants in the aqueous medium, while in the concentration 0.01 mol·L⁻¹, there is an opposite trend. But there is not a regular pattern of friccohesity change for SDS-rich in the increment of temperature from 293.15 K to 303.15 K. (Supplementary Materials)

References

X. Xu, P. Chow, C. Quek, H. Hng, and L. Gan, “Nanoparticles of polystyrene latexes by semicontinuous microemulsion polymerization using mixed surfactants,” Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 235–240, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Li, K. Ma, R. K. Thomas, and J. Penfold, “Analysis of the asymmetric synergy in the adsorption of zwitterionic−ionic surfactant mixtures at the air−water interface below and above the critical micelle concentration,” Journal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 120, no. 15, pp. 3677–369, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Moroi, Micelles: Theoretical and Applied Aspects, Springer Science+Business Media, New York, NY, USA, 1992.
A. Pal and A. Pillania, “Thermodynamic and aggregation properties of aqueous dodecyltrimethylammonium bromide in the presence of hydrophilic ionic liquid 1,2-dimethyl-3-octylimidazolium chloride,” Journal of Molecular Liquids, vol. 212, pp. 818–824, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Wang, Y. Li, and Y. Li, “Interaction between cationic and anionic surfactants: detergency and foaming properties of mixed systems,” Journal of Surfactants and Detergents, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 881–888, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Sharma and S. Chauhan, “Effect of biologically active amino acids on the surface activity and micellar properties of industrially important ionic surfactants,” Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, vol. 453, pp. 78–85, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Rosen and J. T. Kunjappu, Surfactants and Interfacial Phenomenon, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012.
A. K. Tiwari and S. K. Saha, “Study on mixed micelles cationic gemini surfactants having hydroxyl groups in the spacers with conventional cationic surfactants: effects of spacer and hydrocarbon tail length,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 52, no. 17, pp. 5895–5905, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. Masafumi, A. Hiroshi, K. Nana, Y. Takumi, T. Junzo, and K. Tsuyoshi, “Synthesis of high surface area hydroxyapatite nanoparticles by mixed surfactant-mediated approach,” Langmuir, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 4724–4728, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. E. Kadi, F. Martins, D. Clausse, and P. C. Schulz, “Critical micelle concentrations of aqueous hexadecytrimethylammonium bromide-sodium oleate mixtures,” Colloid and Polymer Science, vol. 281, no. 4, pp. 353–362, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Sohrabi, H. Gharibi, B. Tajik, S. Javadian, and M. Hashemianzadeh, “Molecular interactions of cationic and anionic surfactants in mixed monolayers and aggregates,” Journal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 112, no. 47, pp. 14869–14876, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Mata, D. Varade, and P. Bahadur, “Aggregation behavior of quaternary salt based cationic surfactants,” Thermochemica Acta, vol. 428, no. 1-2, pp. 147–155, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. F. Tadros, Applied Surfactants: Principles and Applications, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2005.
S. B. Sulthana, P. V. C. Rao, S. G. T. Bhat, T. Y. Nakano, G. Sugihara, and A. K. Rakshit, “Solution properties of nonionic surfactants and their mixtures: polyoxyethylene (10) alkyl ether CnE10 and MEGA-10,” Langmiur, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 980–987, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Fauser, M. Uhlig, R. Miller, and R. von Klitzing, “Surface adsorption of oppositely charged SDS:C12TAB mixtures and the relation to foam film formation and stability,” Journal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 119, no. 40, pp. 12877–12886, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Akba, A. Elimenli, and M. Boz, “Aggregation and thermodynamic properties of some cationic gemini surfactants,” Journal of Surfactants and Detergents, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 33–40, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Arriaga, D. Varade, D. Carriere, W. Drenckhan, and D. Langevin, “Adsorption, organization, and rheology of catanionic layers at the air/water interface,” Langmuir, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 3214–3222, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Norvaisas, V. Petrauskas, and D. Matulis, “Thermodynamics of cationic and anionic surfactant interaction,” Journal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 116, no. 7, pp. 2138–2144, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Cudina, K. Karljikivic-Rajic, and I. Ruvarac-Bugarcic, “Interaction of hydrochlorothiazide with cationic surfactant micelles of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide,” Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, vol. 256, no. 2-3, pp. 225–232, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ali, S. Uzair, N. A. Malik, and M. Ali, “Study of interaction between cationic surfactants and cresol red dye by electrical conductivity and spectroscopic methods,” Journal of Molecular Liquids, vol. 196, pp. 395–403, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Mahta, S. Chaudhary, and K. K. Bhasin, “Self-assembly of cetylpyridinium chloride in water-DMF Binary mixtures. a spectroscopic and physicochemical approach,” Journal of Colloid Interfaces Science, vol. 321, no. 2, pp. 426–433, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bhattarai, K. Pathak, and B. Dev, “Cationic and anionic surfactants interaction in pure water and methanol-water mixed solvent media,” Journal of Molecular Liquids, vol. 229, pp. 153–160, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Maiti, S. C. Bhattacharya, S. P. Moulik, and A. K. Panda, “Physicochemical studies on ion-pair amphiphiles: solution and interfacial behaviour of systems derived from sodium dodecylsulfate and n-alkyltrimethylammonium bromide homologues,” Journal of Chemical Sciences, vol. 122, no. 6, pp. 867–879, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Stocco, D. Carriere, M. Cottat, and D. Langevin, “Interfacial behavior of catanionic surfactants,” Langmuir, vol. 26, no. 13, pp. 10663–10669, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. G. Cui and J. P. Canselier, “Interfacial and aggregation properties of some anionic/cationic surfactant binary systems II. Mixed micelle formation and surface tension reduction effectiveness,” Colloid and Polymer Science, vol. 279, no. 3, pp. 259–267, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Kume, M. Gallotti, and G. Nunes, “Review on anionic/cationic surfactant mixtures,” Journal of Surfactants and Detergents, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Sharma and S. Chauhan, “Apparent molar volume, compressibility and viscometric studies of sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate (SDBS) and dodecyltrimethylammonium bromide (DTAB) in aqueous amino acid solutions: a thermo-acoustic approach,” Thermochimica Acta, vol. 578, pp. 15–27, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Segota and D. Tezak, “Spontaneous formation of vesicles,” Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 121, no. 1–3, pp. 51–75, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bahramian, R. K. Thomas, and J. Penfold, “The adsorption behavior of ionic surfactants and their mixtures with nonionic polymers and with polyelectrolytes of opposite charge at the air−water interface,” Journal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 118, no. 10, pp. 2769–2783, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. S. Bakshi and I. Kaur, “Benzylic and pyridinium head groups controlled surfactant-polymer aggregates of mixed cationic micelles and anionic polyelectrolytes,” Colloid and Polymer Science, vol. 282, no. 5, pp. 476–485, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. S. Bakshi and S. Sachar, “Surfactant polymer interactions between strongly interacting cationic surfactants and anionic polyelectrolytes from conductivity and turbidity measurements,” Colloid and Polymer Science, vol. 282, no. 9, pp. 993–999, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. K. Panda, F. Possmayer, N. O. Petersen, K. Nag, and S. P. Moulik, “Physico-chemical studies on mixed oppositely charged surfactants: their uses in the preparation of surfactant ion selective membrane and monolayer behavior at the air water interface,” Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, vol. 264, no. 1–3, pp. 106–113, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Xu, P. X. Li, K. Ma, R. K. Thomas, J. Penfold, and J. R. Lu, “Limitations in the application of the Gibbs equation to anionic surfactants at the air−water surface: sodium dodecylsulfate and sodium dodecylmonooxyethylenesulfate above and below the CMC,” Langmuir, vol. 29, no. 30, pp. 9324–9334, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Guo, Z. Liu, S. Yang, and C. Sun, “The feasibility of enhanced soil washing of p-nitrochlorobenzene (pNCB) with SDBS/Tween80 mixed surfactants,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 170, no. 2-3, pp. 1236–1241, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. M. Devinsky and F. I. Lacko, “Critical micelle concentration, ionization degree and micellisation energy of cationic dimeric (gemini) surfactants in aqueous solution and in mixed micelles with anionic surfactant,” Acta Facultatis Pharmaceuticae Universitatis Comenianae, vol. 50, pp. 119–131, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
D. G. mez-Dıaz, J. M. Navaza, and B. Sanjurjo, “Density, kinematic viscosity, speed of sound, and surface tension of hexyl, octyl, and decyl trimethyl ammonium bromide aqueous solutions,” Journal of Chemical Engineering Data, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 889–891, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
T. P. Niraula, S. K. Chatterjee, and A. Bhattarai, “Micellization of sodium dodecyl sulphate in presence and absence of alkali metal halides at different temperatures in water and methanol-water mixtures,” Journal of Molecular Liquids, vol. 250, pp. 287–294, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. X. Xiao and Y. X. Bao, “An unusual variation of surface tension with concentration of mixed cationic–anionic surfactants,” Chinese Journal of Chemistry, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 73–75, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Rodriguez, E. Clavero, and D. Laria, “Computer simulations of catanionic surfactants adsorbed at air/water interfaces,” Journal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 109, no. 51, pp. 24427–24433, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. P. Niraula, S. K. Shah, S. K. Chatterjee, and A. Bhattarai, “Effect of methanol on the surface tension and viscosity of sodiumdodecyl sulfate (SDS) in aqueous medium at 298.15–323.15 K,” Karbala International Journal of Modern Science, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 26–34, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bhattarai, “Studies of the micellization of cationic–anionic surfactant systems in water and methanol–water mixed solvents,” Journal of Solution Chemistry, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 2090–2105, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Shah, S. K. Chatterjee, and A. Bhattarai, “The effect of methanol on the micellar properties of dodecyltrimethylammonium bromide (DTAB) in aqueous medium at different temperatures,” Journal of Surfactants and Detergents, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 201–207, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Shah, S. K. Chatterjee, and A. Bhattarai, “Micellization of cationic surfactants in alcohol—water mixed solvent media,” Journal of Molecular Liquids, vol. 222, pp. 906–914, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bhattarai, S. K. Chatterjee, and T. P. Niraula, “Effects of concentration, temperature and solvent composition on density and apparent molar volume of the binary mixtures of cationic–anionic surfactants in methanol–water mixed solvent media,” SpringerPlus, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 280, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bhattarai, A. K. Yadav, S. K. Sah, and A. Deo, “Influence of methanol and dimethyl sulfoxide and temperature on the micellization of cetylpyridinium chloride,” Journal of Molecular Liquids, vol. 242, pp. 831–837, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. M. Sachin, S. Karpe, M. Singh, and A. Bhattarai, “Physicochemical properties of dodecyltrimethylammounium bromide (DTAB) and sodiumdodecyl sulphate (SDS) rich surfactants in aqueous medium, at T = 293.15, 298.15, and 303.15 K,” Macromolecular Symposia, vol. 379, no. 1, Article ID 1700034, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. K. Ameta, M. Singh, and R. K. Kale, “Comparative study of density, sound velocity and refractive index for (water + alkali metal) phosphates aqueous systems at T = (298.15, 303.15, and 308.15) K,” Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics, vol. 60, pp. 159–168, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. G. Lebel and D. A. I. Goring, “Density, viscosity, refractive index, and hygroscopicity of mixtures of water and dimethyl sulfoxide,” Journal of Chemical Engineering Data, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 100-101, 1962.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Ryshetti, A. Gupta, S. J. Tangeda, and R. L. Gardas, “Acoustic and volumetric properties of betaine hydrochloride drug in aqueous D (+)-glucose and sucrose solutions,” Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics, vol. 77, pp. 123–130, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Pal, H. Kumar, S. Sharma, R. Maan, and H. K. Sharma, “Characterization and adsorption studies of Cocos nucifera L. activated carbon for the removal of methylene blue from aqueous solutions,” Journal of Chemical Engineering Data, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1424–1429, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Singh, “Survismeter—Type I and II for surface tension, viscosity measurements of liquids for academic, and research and development studies,” Journal of Biochemistry Biophysics, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 151–161, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Naseem, A. Jamal, and A. Jamal, “Influence of sodium acetate on the volumetric behavior of binary mixtures of DMSO and water at 298.15 to 313.15 K,” Journal of Molecular Liquids, vol. 181, pp. 68–76, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. J. Cheong and P. W. Carr, “The surface tension of mixtures of methanol, acetonitrile, tetrahydrofuran, isopropanol, tertiary butanol and dimethyl-sulfoxide with water at 25°C,” Journal Liquid Chromatography, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 561–581, 1987.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. M. Sachin, A. Chandra, and M. Singh, “Nanodispersion of flavonoids in aqueous DMSO-BSA catalysed by cationic surfactants of variable alkyl chain at T = 298.15 to 308.15 K,” Journal of Molecular Liquids, vol. 246, pp. 379–395, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Singh, S. Chauhan, and K. Sharma, “Surface tension, viscosity, and refractive index of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) in aqueous solution containing poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG), poly(vinyl pyrrolidone) (PVP), and their blends,” Journal of Chemical Engineering Data, vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 1955–1964, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. George, S. M. Nair, and L. Sreejith, “Interactions of sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate and sodium dodecyl sulfate with gelatin: a comparison,” Journal of Surfactants and Detergents, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 29–32, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Chakraborty, I. Chakraborty, S. P. Moulik, and S. Ghosh, “Physicochemical and conformational studies on BSA-surfactant interaction in aqueous medium,” Langmuir, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 3062–3074, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Chauhan, V. Sharma, and K. Sharma, “Maltodextrin-SDS interactions: volumetric, viscometric and surface tension study,” Fluid Phase Equilib, vol. 354, pp. 236–244, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. S. Aswale, S. R. Aswale, and R. S. Hajare, “Adiabatic compressibility, intermolecular free length and acoustic relaxation time of aqueous antibiotic cefotaxime sodium,” Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 4, pp. 2671–2677, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Gutie ´rrez-Pichel, S. Barbosa, P. Taboada, and V. Mosquera, “Surface properties of some amphiphilic antidepressant drugs in different aqueous media,” Progress in Colloid and Polymer Science, vol. 281, no. 6, pp. 575–579, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Alami, G. Beinert, P. Marie, and R. Zana, “Alkanediyl-.alpha, omega. bis(dimethylalkylammonium bromide) surfactants behavior at the air-water interface,” Langmiur, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1465–1467, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Chakraborty, S. Ghosh, and S. P. Moulik, “Micellization and related behavior of binary and ternary surfactant mixtures in aqueous medium: cetylpyridiniumchloride(CPC), cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB), and polyoxyethylene (10) cetyl ether (Brij-56) derived system,” Journal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 109, no. 31, pp. 14813–14823, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. K. Chattoraj and K. S. Birdi, “Adsorption and the Gibbs Surface Excess,” Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA, 1984.
View at: Google Scholar
R. K. Ameta, M. Singh, and R. K. Kale, “Synthesis and structure-activity relationship of benzylamine supported platinum (IV) complexes,” New Journal of Chemistry, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1501–1508, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. L. Chavez and G. G. Birch, “The hydrostatic and hydrodynamic volumes of polyols in aqueous solutions and their sweet taste,” Chemical Senses, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 149–161, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Bai and G. B. Yan, “Viscosity B-coefficients and activation parameters for viscous flow of a solution of heptanedioic acid in aqueous sucrose solution,” Carbohydrate Research, vol. 338, no. 23, pp. 2921–2927, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2018 K. M. Sachin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

4683

Downloads

1175

Citations

Journal of Chemistry

An Interaction of Anionic- and Cationic-Rich Mixed Surfactants in Aqueous Medium through Physicochemical Properties at Three Different Temperatures

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

2.2. Solution Preparation

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Viscometric Study

3.2. Acoustic Impedance (Z)

3.3. Surface Property

3.4. Interfacial Behavior

3.5. Friccohesity Shift Coefficient (FSC)

3.6. Hydrodynamic Volume (Vh)

3.7. Hydrodynamic Radius ()

3.8. Viscosity B-Coefficient ()

4. Conclusion

Data Availability

Conflicts of Interest

Acknowledgments

Supplementary Materials

References

Copyright

3.6. Hydrodynamic Volume (V_h)