2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2011.06.026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adsorption of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide and/or cetyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride on partly covered hanging mercury drop electrode

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 41 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The nature of neither the inorganic nor the organic adsorbate layer is readily evident in this region of the isotherms but the low coverage of bromide implies a disordered, gaslike state. Avranas and co-workers have previously described the adsorption of quaternary ammonium bromide surfactants on mercury electrodes and reported that short-chained species do not form condensed layers which is consistent with the low-coverage OTA + isotherms reported in this study. Interestingly, when the surface excess of bromide exceeds 7 × 10 –10 moles cm –2 (corresponding to approximately 1/3 of a monolayer), the amount of cationic surfactant at the interface begins to decrease but does not fall to zero as might be expected for a cation at a highly positive charged surface.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The nature of neither the inorganic nor the organic adsorbate layer is readily evident in this region of the isotherms but the low coverage of bromide implies a disordered, gaslike state. Avranas and co-workers have previously described the adsorption of quaternary ammonium bromide surfactants on mercury electrodes and reported that short-chained species do not form condensed layers which is consistent with the low-coverage OTA + isotherms reported in this study. Interestingly, when the surface excess of bromide exceeds 7 × 10 –10 moles cm –2 (corresponding to approximately 1/3 of a monolayer), the amount of cationic surfactant at the interface begins to decrease but does not fall to zero as might be expected for a cation at a highly positive charged surface.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%