Static and dynamic light-scattering studies on micellar solutions of alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chlorides

Gracia, C.A; Gómez-Barreiro, S.; González‐Pérez, Alfredo; Nimo, J; Rodríguez, Jorge

doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2004.04.002

Cited by 48 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The cmc in 0.1 M KCl was measured and found to be 1.5 × 10 −4 M, again in agreement with the value of 1.4 × 10 −4 M reported for CDBACl in 0.1 M NaCl in [30]. The aggregation number is 26 in water and 83 in 0.05 M NaCl [31]. The values of cmc decrease and the aggregation number increases when the concentration of NaCl grows.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 87%

“…The critical micellar concentration of CDBACl in water was found to be 5 × 10 −4 M, determined by surface tension measurements with the ring method, using a Krüss K 10 digital tensiometer at 25 • C, in good agreement with the value reported in the literature [31]. The cmc in 0.1 M KCl was measured and found to be 1.5 × 10 −4 M, again in agreement with the value of 1.4 × 10 −4 M reported for CDBACl in 0.1 M NaCl in [30].…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 86%

“…The micellar properties of CDBACl as well alkyldimethylbezylammonium surfactants differ markedly from CTAB and other alkyltrimethylammonium surfactants due to the presence of a bulky phenylene substituent at the ionogenic headgroup [31,34]. Previous data indicate that introduction of this substituent results in an approximately twofold decrease in the value of the cmc and a substantial increase in the degree of ionization of the micelles [32].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The aggregation of CDBACl together with other alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chlorides in water and in electrolytes had been studied in [31][32][33]. They found that the micellar properties of these surfactants differed markedly from those of the parent alkyltrimethylammonium surfactants [34].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

On the adsorption of cetyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride at the mercury/electrolyte solution interface

Avranas¹,

Sedláčková²,

Malasidou³

2005

Journal of Colloid and Interface Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On the adsorption of cetyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride at the mercury/electrolyte solution interface

Avranas¹,

Sedláčková²,

Malasidou³

2005

Journal of Colloid and Interface Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The CMC of SDS in 10 mM and 100 mM NaCl aqueous solutions were measured to be 0.98 mM and 0.87 mM, respectively, whereas CMC of CTAC in 10 mM and 100 mM NaCl aqueous solutions were 0.15 mM and 0.12 mM, respectively. Addition of electrolyte to an aqueous solution is known to decrease the critical micelle concentration of cationic and anionic surfactants [9,10].…”

Section: Surfactant Solutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adsorption of Aroma Chemicals on Cotton Fabric in Different Aqueous Environments

Obendorf

Liu

Tan

et al. 2008

J Surfact & Detergents

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surfactants enhance adsorption of an aroma chemical on cotton fiber. Strong hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions between surfactant and fiber substrate result in higher adsorption of surfactant/aroma chemical aggregates than for the aroma chemical alone, with higher adsorption for cationic systems than for anionic systems. Adsorption is attributed to solution physical entrapment, hydrophobic interaction, dispersion forces, and interaction with surfactant molecules adsorbed on fiber. Log P and water solubility are important factors in aroma chemical adsorption. Hydrophobicity increased selective partitioning of aroma chemicals on the fiber surface particularly in the presence of surfactants. Statistical analyses indicate some evidence of polar-polar interaction between aroma chemicals and cellulose. With no surfactant, more adsorption is often observed in systems with a higher concentration of NaCl. The screening effect of electrolytes increases with the electrolyte reducing the energy of the liquid-solid interface. Lower interfacial energy results in increased adsorption of an aroma chemical on the fiber surfaces. Electrolyte screening affects aroma chemical adsorption most for anionic surfactant systems. Increase in the concentration of the electrolyte increases the screening effect that reduces the repulsive forces between the anionic molecules and weakly electronegative cotton fiber surfaces. In a cationic system, the screening effect of the electrolyte reduces adsorption of aroma chemicals with increased electrolyte concentration, due to the screening-reducing attraction between cationic surfactant molecules and the fiber surface. Chemical functionality shows a significant effect (alkanol C ketone C aldehyde [ ester) on adsorption. Adsorption increased with increasing molecule ovality. Statistical analyses indicate that molecular shape within a chemical class of compounds influences adsorption of the aroma chemical.

show abstract

Dynamic Light Scattering

Eiser

2013

Multi Length‐Scale Characterisation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Static and dynamic light-scattering studies on micellar solutions of alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chlorides

Cited by 48 publications

References 26 publications

On the adsorption of cetyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride at the mercury/electrolyte solution interface

On the adsorption of cetyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride at the mercury/electrolyte solution interface

Adsorption of Aroma Chemicals on Cotton Fabric in Different Aqueous Environments

Dynamic Light Scattering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About