ampira thesis draft
TRANSCRIPT
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Recently, surfactant-based processes have been widely studied for use in
environmental applications, including surfactant-based separation processes, micellar
enhanced solubilization for enhanced contaminant extraction, and surfactant-modified
materials for treating wastes and for landfill liners or subsurface barriers to reduce
contaminant transport (Harwell and O’ Rear, 1989; Rouse et al., 1996; Sun and Jaffe,
1996; Butler and Hayes, 1998; Sabatini et al., 2000; Cheng and Sabatini, 2001). In all of
these applications, surfactant adsorption onto solid surfaces is of interest. When
undesirable, surfactant adsorption can render a design ineffective and significantly
increase dosage requirements and thus hinder the economics of the system.
Conversely, surfactant aggregates adsorbed at the solid-liquid interface
can act as two-dimensional solvents, and organic solutes can partition into the adsorbed
surfactants. This phenomenon, known as adsolubilization, has been widely studied in
recent years (Harwell and O’ Rear, 1989). Adsolubilization has been used in many
applications such as admicellar-enhanced chromatography (AEC), which is a new fixed-
bed separation process based on using surfactants to induce adsorption of organic solute
from the aqueous stream. Admicellar polymerization is a key process that may be used
to form ultra-thin films on a substrate. Adsolubilization of pharmaceutical products by
2
food-grade surfactants can be applied in pharmaceutical formulations. Other potential
applications include water and soil remediation and surfactant-enhanced oil recovery.
In all of these applications of admicelles, this goal is to maximize surfactant
adsorption on the solid surface while minimizing the amount of surfactant required to
maintain the level of surfactant adsorption. Since the maximum surfactant adsorption
occurs at the surfactant critical micelle concentration (CMC), the goal can be achieved by
minimizing the CMC of the surfactant. Since the CMC of mixed anionic and cationic
surfactants is much lower than otherwise possible, these systems will be evaluated in the
current research.
Mixed anionic and cationic surfactant systems exhibit the greatest synergism
when it comes to reducing the CMC. The CMC of the mixed surfactant systems can be
reduced by as much as two to three orders of magnitude as compared to the single
surfactant system. Despite this exciting potential synergism, the tendency of mixed
anionic and cationic surfactant system to precipitate has limited their use in many
applications. However, a great deal of recent research studies on mixed anionic and
cationic surfactant systems has found ways to mitigate the precipitation potential (Li et
al., 1999; Marques et al., 1993). Previous research demonstrated that mixed anionic and
cationic surfactants having twin-head anionic surfactants and conventional cationic
surfactants were less susceptible to precipitation in solution due to the different structure
of each surfactant (Doan et al., 2002).
The purpose of this research is to maximize surfactant adsorption onto alumina
while minimizing the aqueous surfactant concentration by using mixed anionic and
cationic surfactants. Maximum surfactant adsorption is achieved because mixed anionic
and cationic surfactants increase the adsolubilization capacity of organic solutes of the
mixed adsorbed surfactant aggregates onto alumina. These results can be useful in many
3
fields including surfactant-enhanced contaminant remediation, surfactant modification to
surfaces, nano-templating and surfactant-enhanced oil recovery.
1.2 Objectives
The main objective of this study is to investigate the adsorption characteristics of
mixed anionic and cationic surfactants, twin-head anionic surfactant and conventional
cationic surfactant system, onto positively charged alumina in batch equilibrium
experiments. The electrolyte concentration, solution pH, and temperature are fixed as
constant parameters. The specific objectives of this study are:
1. To investigate how the mole ratio of anionic and cationic surfactants in solution
affects the adsorption of the anionic and cationic surfactants onto alumina.
2. Identify the critical micelle concentrations (CMCs) of mixed anionic and cationic
surfactants onto alumina surface through establishing the point of plateau
adsorption in batch studies.
3. To investigate the solubilization and adsolubilization of organic solutes with
polar and nonpolar organic solutes by mixed anionic and cationic surfactant
system
4
CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL ASPECTS
AND LITERATURE REVIEWS
2.1 Surfactant phenomena
Surfactants, which are commonly known as soaps or detergents, are called
amphiphiles because of their unique and interesting chemical characteristics.
Surfactants are amphiphile molecules because they have both polar, hydrophilic head
groups (water-like) and nonpolar, hydrophobic tail groups (oil-like) in the same molecule.
Because of their amphiphile nature, surfactants will accumulate in interfacial regions (e.g.;
water-oil, water-air, liquid-solid interfaces) and as a consequence will reduce the
interfacial energy (Rosen, 1989). Surfactants are classified according to the nature of the
hydrophilic portion of the molecule: anionic surfactants (negatively charged head
groups), cationic surfactants (positively charged head groups), zwitterionic surfactants
(negatively and positively charged head groups) and nonionic surfactants (non-charged
head groups).
Depending on surfactant concentration in aqueous solution, surfactants are
capable of forming many different types of aggregates. At low concentration, surfactants
exist independent of one another in the solution phase and are called monomers.
Surfactant monomers will aggregate at interfaces that are present in the system. When
the surfactant concentration exceeds a certain level, surfactant monomers self-aggregate
into spherical aggregates known as micelles. In a micelle, the individual monomers are
5
oriented with their hydrophilic head group facing the water or aqueous phase and their
hydrophobic tail group oriented into the interior of the spherical aggregates. Micelles
form when the surfactant concentration first exceeds the critical micelle concentration
(CMC), a value which varies for every surfactant. As additional surfactants are added
above the CMC, the incremental surfactants go to form additional micelles (West and
Harwell, 1992). Figure 2.1 shows the micelle formation of surfactants.
Figure 2. 1 Example of surfactant micellization
When a solid phase is added to the surfactant solution, the surfactants will adsorb
at the solid-liquid interface. At low surfactant concentrations, the surfactant begins to
adsorb and form micelle-like structures called hemimicelles and admicelles, depending
on whether the aggregates have one or two surfactant layers. Once the CMC is reached,
additional surfactants do not increase the amount of adsorbed surfactants, but rather
6
increase the concentration of micelles in aqueous solution. Surfactant micelles, with
hydrophilic head groups (polar moieties) at the exterior and hydrophobic tail groups
(non-polar moieties) in the interior, exhibit certain unique properties. The polar exterior
makes a micelle highly soluble in water, while the non-polar interior provides a
hydrophobic sink for organic compounds, which can effectively increase the solubility of
organic compounds. Therefore the solubility of organic contaminants increases with
increasing micelle concentration in the solution, i.e., adding surfactant above the CMC.
2.2 Mixed anionic and cationic surfactants
Recently there has been a growing interest in research of mixed anionic and
cationic surfactant systems, including the synergistic effects of mixed micelle formation,
microemulsions, solubilization, and precipitation (Rosen et al., 1994; Shiau et al., 1994; Li
et al., 1999; Li and Kunieda, 2000; Doan et al., 2002). Mixed anionic and cationic
surfactant systems have many unique physicochemical properties that arise from the
strong electrostatic interactions between the oppositely charged head groups. Mixed
anionic and cationic surfactants exhibit the largest synergistic effect between surfactants
such as lower CMC and surface tension relative to single surfactant systems (Bergstrom,
2000; Kang et al., 2001; Chen et al., 2002).
2.2.1 Precipitation of mixed anionic and cationic surfactants
While mixtures of anionic and cationic surfactants exhibit the greatest
synergism, their potential to precipitate and form liquid crystal phases has limited
their use (Stellner et al., 1988; Meherteab, 1999). Figure 2.2 shows the
equilibrium present in solution containing anionic and cationic surfactants under
7
conditions where the anionic and cationic surfactant form a precipitate with each
other and micelles are present in solution. The precipitation phenomenon of
mixed anionic and cationic surfactant systems has been studied by Scamehorn
and co-workers (Stellner et al., 1988; Scamehorn and Harwell, 1992). They
evaluated the precipitation phase boundaries of mixed anionic and cationic
surfactants over a wide range of concentrations by considering regular solution
theory and solubility relationships and developed a model to predict their results.
Shiau et al. (1994) considered the effects of sodium chloride (NaCl)
concentration and counterion binding on charged micelles in an effort to predict
precipitation of the anionic surfactants by calcium.
Figure 2. 2 Precipitation of anionic and cationic surfactants (Adapted from Scamehorn and Harwell, 1992)
8
Since anionic and cationic surfactants tend to precipitate, many researcher
have pursued ways of avoiding the precipitation of these mixtures. Li et al.
(2000) investigated the solubilization and phase behavior of microemulsions with
mixtures of anionic and cationic surfactants and alcohols. They found that
alcohol addition was necessary to avoid liquid crystal formation, thereby allowing
formation of middle phase microemulsions. However, alcohol addition is
undesirable in environmental systems and consumer products. Thus recent
research has attempted to find methods capable of forming alcohol-free
microemulsions with mixed anionic and cationic surfactant systems, and
evaluated the use of mixed anionic and cationic surfactants in environmental
applications such as non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) removal in the
subsurface. Doan et al. (2002) investigated the role of surfactant selection in
designing alcohol-free microemulsion using mixed anionic and cationic surfactant
microemulsions. They found that twin-head group anionic surfactants were less
susceptible to precipitation in solution than single head group anionic surfactants
due to increased solubility and steric constraints (as shown in Appendix A).
2.3 Aluminum oxide surface structure
The crystal structure of alpha alumina oxide (Al2O3) is made up of hexagonally
packed oxygen atoms stacked on top of each other in an offset manner, with aluminum
ions packed between the oxygen layers as shown in Figure 2.3. Upon contact with water,
the crystal surface forms a layer of hydroxyl ions by a two-step process involving the
chemical adsorption of a monolayer of water and its dissociation. Since the alumina
surfaces are covered with hydroxyl groups, hydrogen and hydroxyl ions are the potential
determining ions for alumina. There is also a physically adsorbed layer of water
9
molecules on top of the layer of hydroxyl ions. Therefore, the solution pH is critical for
adsorption of ionic surfactants because it controls the charged of the alumina surface.
Figure 2. 3 Schematic of crystal structure and surface layer of alpha aluminum oxide
The pH at which alumina has a net surface charge density of zero is called the
point of zero charge (PZC). At a solution pH below the PZC, the alumina surfaces are
positively charged; on the other hand, the alumina surfaces are negatively charged when
the solution pH is above the PZC. The PZC of aluminum oxide at 25oC has been
reported to be pH 9.1 (Sun and Jaffe, 1996). Alumina has been extensively studied as a
positively charged adsorbent for anionic surfactants and mixed anionic and nonionic
surfactants (Scamehorn et al., 1981; Lopata, 1988) and as a negatively charged adsorbent
for cationic surfactants at solution pH of 10 and ionic strength 0.03 M NaCl (Fan et al.,
1997)
2.4 Adsorption of ionic surfactants onto metal oxide surfaces
The adsorption of surfactants onto a solid interface is of great technological and
scientific interest because of its potential use in commercial applications and
environmental remediation. Examples of such applications are detergency, surfactant-
10
g
ai,bi,i W
)VC(CG
−=
enhanced oil recovery, surfactant-enhanced subsurface remediation, surfactant-based
separation processes, and surfactant-modified materials. In addition, the adsorption
phenomenon is fundamentally important in understanding the solution and interfacial
behavior of surfactants.
Surfactant adsorption onto metal oxide surfaces such as alumina is a complex
process since solutes may adsorbed by ion exchange, ion pairing, and hydrophobic
bonding mechanisms. Adsorption of surfactants onto metal oxide surfaces has been
extensively studied including anionic surfactants onto positively charged surfaces
(Scamehorn et al., 1981; Harwell et al., 1985) and cationic surfactants onto negatively
charged surfaces (Goloub and Koopal, 1997)
The adsorption of surfactants at liquid-solid interfaces is usually characterized by
adsorption isotherms. A plot of surfactant adsorption onto a solid surface versus the
aqueous surfactant concentration at constant temperature is known as an adsorption
isotherm. The surfactant concentration before and after adsorption is quantified to
determine the amount of each species lost by adsorption.
(2.1)
where:
Γi = Adsorption density of surfactant i (mole/g)
V = Volume of sample (liter)
Ci,b = Concentration of surfactant at initial (mole/liter)
Ci,a = Concentration of surfactant at equilibrium (mole/liter)
Wg = Weight of aluminum oxide (g)
Equation 2.1 can be used to calculate the adsorption of the surfactant on the
mineral oxide surface. In this equation, the adsorption of water or salt is assumed to be
11
negligible and the adsorption of the surfactant is assumed to have no effect on solution
density (Lopata, 1988).
The adsorption isotherm of ionic surfactants onto metal oxide surfaces is
typically an S-shaped isotherm (Somasudaran and Fuerstenau, 1966; Scamehorn et al.,
1981). Normally the S-shaped isotherm can be divided into four regions, as shown in
Figure 2.4. The designations for regions I, II and III first appeared in the work of
Somansudaran and Fuerstuenau (1966).
Figure 2. 4 Schematic presentation of typical surfactant adsorption isotherm
Region I corresponds to low surfactant concentration and low surfactant
adsorption. This region is commonly referred to as the Henry's Law region because in
this region, monoisomeric surfactants are generally adsorbed in a linear manner. In the
Henry's Law region, surfactants are adsorbed mainly by ion exchange, with the
12
hydrophilic surfactant head groups adsorbing onto the solid surface. Adsorbed
surfactants in this region are shown as being adsorbed alone and not forming any
surfactant aggregates.
Region II is characterized by a sharply increased isotherm slope relative to the
slope in the Region I, which is a general indication of the onset of cooperative effects
between adsorbed surfactants: as the surface coverage increases due to tail-tail
interactions the tendency of surfactants to adsorb also increases. This increase in slope
indicates the beginning of lateral interactions between surfactant molecules, resulting
from interaction of the hydrophobic chains of oncoming surfactants with those of
previous adsorbed surfactants, and with themselves. This aggregation, which occurs at
concentrations well below the critical micelle concentration (CMC) of the surfactant, are
called admicelles or hemimicelles, depending on whether their structures are formed
as being local bilayers or local monolayers, respectively. The admicelle is considered as a
bilayer with the lower layer of head groups adsorb onto the solid surface and the upper
layer of head groups are facing to the solution. The hemimicelle is considered as a
monolayer with the head group of surfactant adsorbs onto the solid surface while the tail
group contacted with the solution.
Region III is characterized by a decrease in the isotherm slope relative to the
slope in Region II, because adsorption now must overcome electrostatic repulsion
between adjacent ions and the similarly charged solid surface or the beginning of
admicelle formation on lower energy surface patches.
Region IV is the plateau adsorption region for increasing surfactant
concentration. Generally, the equilibrium surfactant concentration at the transition
point from Region III to Region IV is approximately at the CMC of the surfactant. In
some systems, the Region III/Region IV transition point can be reached when the
13
surface of the adsorbent becomes saturated with adsorbed surfactants. For the
adsorption of surfactants from the aqueous solution, this will correspond to bilayer
completion for ionic surfactants adsorbed on oppositely charged surfaces or to
monolayer completion for adsorption on hydrophobic surfaces. The psuedophase
separation model for surfactant adsorption of isomerically pure surfactants is shown in
the work of Harwell (1985).
Recently a new class of surfactants, known as twin-head surfactants (two-head
surfactants with one-tail group) such as sodium hexadecyl diphenyloxide disulfonate.
SHDPDS (as used in this study), have been widely studied for contaminant remediation
(Rouse et al., 1993; Sun and Jaffe, 1996; Carter et al., 1998; Deshpande et al., 2000; Doan
et al., 2002). Neupane and Park (1999) investigated the adsorption of gemini anionic
surfactant, which has two heads and two tails surfactants (dialkylated disulfonated
diphenyloxide, DADS-C12) and conventional anionic surfactants (sodium dodecylbezene
sulfonate, SDDBS) onto positively charged alumina. They found that the adsorption of
gemini surfactants is higher than the conventional surfactants. They also studied in the
partitioning of naphthalene by these surfactants onto the alumina for mobilization of
organic contaminant in subsurface through a batch experiment study.
2.4.1 Parameters affecting surfactant adsorption
The adsorption of surfactants at solid-liquid interfaces is strongly
influenced by a number of parameters: 1) the nature of the structural groups of
the solid surface; 2) the molecular structure of surfactant being adsorbed; and 3)
the environment of the aqueous solution e.g., pH, electrolyte content, and
temperature. Together these parameters determined the mechanism, by which
14
the adsorption occurs, and the efficiency and effectiveness of surfactant
adsorption (Rosen, 1989).
The nature of the structural group of the solid surface (aluminum oxide
was used in this study) has already been mentioned above (Chapter 2.3). The
other parameters that affect surfactant adsorption are equilibrium pH, ionic
strength, and temperature.
2.4.1.1 Equilibrium pH
pH usually causes marked changes in the adsorption of ionic surfactants
onto charged solid surfaces. As the pH of the aqueous solution is lowered, the
alumina surface becomes more positive or less negative because of additional
protons adsorbing from the solution phase. This consequently increases the
adsorption of anionic surfactants and decreases the adsorption of cationic
surfactants (Rosen, 1989). When anionic surfactants adsorb onto alumina, the
equilibrium pH is usually higher than the initial solution pH because the anionic
surfactants exchange the ions with the adsorbed conterions and hydroxyl ions on
the alumina surface. Therefore, the equilibrium pH and the surfactant
adsorption are closely related to surfactant adsorption.
2.4.1.2 Ionic strength
Counter ions that are present in the surfactant solution are also present in
the surfactant admicelles at the solid-liquid interface. Counter ions can affect the
adsorbed surfactant by reducing electrostatic repulsion between ionic surfactant
head groups. When counter ions are present in the system, the admicelles are
formed more easily because of the repulsion between ionic surfactants is lower.
Admicelle patches with the complete bilayer are also capable of forming a larger
15
aggregation number of surfactant molecule. As concentration of counterions in
solution increases, the maximum surfactant adsorption increases.
2.4.1.3 Temperature
Temperature increases generally causes a decrease in the efficiency and
effectiveness of ionic surfactant adsorption. The effect of temperature is
relatively small compared to that of pH. However, a rise in temperature usually
results in an increase in the adsorption of non-ionic surfactants containing a
polyelectrolyte chain as the hydrophobic group.
2.5 Mixed anionic and cationic surfactant adsorption
The solution properties of surfactant mixtures with oppositely charged head
groups usually experiences deviation from ideal mixing (e.g., mixtures of anionic
surfactants). Mixed anionic and cationic surfactant systems are expected to exhibit the
greatest diversion from ideal mixing behavior (Harwell and Scamehorn, 1992). There
have been few studies on the adsorption of mixed anionic and cationic surfactants onto
solid surface (Huang et al., 1989 and Capovilla et al., 1991). The one reason for a small
number of studies of the mixed anionic and cationic surfactants is their tendency to
precipitate.
Huang et al. (1989) studied the adsorption of mixed anionic and cationic
surfactants onto silica gel. They found that the adsorption of cationic surfactants was
enhanced by the amount of anionic surfactants present in the system and the adsorption
of cationic surfactants with addition of anionic surfactants to the system exactly equaled
to adsorbed anionic surfactants. They suggested that each adsorbed surfactant can co-
16
adsorb with a cationic surfactant as an ion-pair onto uncharged silica gel through Van der
Waals interactions.
2.5.1 The effect to micelle formation of surfactant mixtures
The CMC of the single surfactant system is the aqueous surfactant
concentration in equilibrium with the maximum surfactant adsorption. For
mixed surfactant systems, when the surfactant solution is a mixture of surfactant
molecules, the CMC of the mixed surfactants does not correspond to the care of
either individual surfactant component. The CMC of mixed surfactant systems
can be predicted by the pseudophase separation model. If the micelles are
treated as a pseudophase and the formation of mixed micelles is treated with
either ideal solution theory (for surfactant systems with similar head groups) or
non-ideal solution theory (for surfactants with different head groups), the
concentration of the surfactant monomer of different surfactant components can
be predicted as a function of overall surfactant concentration. For a binary
surfactant system at constant weight fraction of surfactant 1 to surfactant 2, and
as the total surfactant concentration increases, the individual surfactant
concentration does not remain constant but changes continuously (Harwell and
Scamehorn, 1992). This is important to the application for surfactant adsorption
of mixed surfactant systems.
Capovilla et al. (1995) investigated the formation of mixed anionic and
cationic surfactant bilayers on laponite clay suspensions through the adsorption
of anionic surfactants by aqueous flocculated suspensions of laponite clay that
had been cationic-exchanged by cationic surfactant. The results from their
experiments showed that anionic surfactants favor tail-tail adsorption through
17
Van der Waals interactions with a monolayer of adsorbed cationic surfactants
onto laponite clay. The schematic representation of anionic and cationic
surfactant bilayers at laponite clay interfaces shows that the lower layer cationic
surfactant head groups adsorb onto the negatively charged clay and the head
group of the upper layer of anionic surfactant is in contact with the solution, as
shown in Appendix A (Figure 1.2). They also found that ionic strength and the
structure of cationic surfactants affect the maximum adsorption and the stability
of mixed surfactant bilayers.
2.6 Solubilization
In pump-and-treat remediation, the amount of groundwater removed from the
subsurface to extract the contaminant depends on the aqueous solubility of the
contaminant. When surfactant is added into the aqueous phase, the organic interior of
micelle acts as an organic pseudophase into which the organic contaminants can be
partitioned. This process is known as solubilization.
In the aqueous system, the extent to which a solute will concentrate in a micelle
can be related to the octanol-water partitioning coefficient (Kow) of the organic solutes
(Edwards et al., 1991). In general, the larger the Kow (hydrophobicity) of an organic
solute the greater the tendency of the compound to concentrate in the micelle. Thus,
micelles in an aqueous solution represent an increased solubiliztion capacity of the
mobile aqueous phase for the organic solute over pure water.
Carter et al. (1998) evaluated various methods of increasing the solubility
enhancement of Dowfax components (alkylated diphenyloxide disulfonate and can be
mono- or disulfonated), such as using a co-surfactant, adding an electrolyte, and forming
18
middle phase microemulsions. The result showed that the surfactant alkyl chain length
increased with increases in the solubility enhancement and the middle- phase
microemulsions greatly increased the solubility enhancement.
2.7 Adsolubilization
Effective utilization of adsorbed surfactant aggregates for processes such as
admicellar polymerization, admicellar chromatography, and ultra thin film formation,
necessitate a more complete understanding of the internal structure and capabilities of
these adsorbed layers.
Figure 2. 5 Phenomena of solubilization and adsolubilization
The hydrophobic core of an admicelle provides an ideal site for solubilizing
organic solutes. This process is known as adsolubilization. Normally, adsolubilization
is the partition of organic solutes into the interior of adsorbed surfactant aggregates.
19
This phenomenon is the surface analog of solubilization, where the adsorbed surfactant
bilayer plays the role of the micelle. The phenomena of solubilization and
adsolubilization are shown in Figure 2.5.
Similar in nature to a micelle, the admicelle is characterized into three-regions.
The outer region has the most polar or ionic nature, which consists of the surfactant
head group. The inner region or the core region is non-polar in nature, which consist of
the hydrocarbon chain of surfactant tail groups. The palisade region is the region
between surfactant head groups and the core region. This region is intermediate in
polarity and consists of the carbon near head groups, and is also characterized by water
molecules that have penetrated the admicelle. The bilayer structure of surfactant is
admicelles shown in Figure 2.6.
Figure 2. 6 The bilayer structure of surfactant admicelles at the solid-liquid interface
Many studies have investigated organic solute partitioning into regions of the
admicelles. O’ Haver et al. (1989) studied the adsolubilization of alkane and alcohol into
surfactant admicelles on alumina surfaces. For alcohol systems, the ratios of alcohol to
surfactant admicelles were very high at low surfactant coverage; the adsolubilization of
20
alcohol increased up to the CMC, and slightly decreased in the plateau adsorption. They
also found that the surfactant adsorption increased with decreasing ratio of alcohol to
surfactant admicelles to a value that similar to the ratio of alcohol to surfactant molecule
in micelles. For alkanes, the adsolubilization into surfactant admicelles was very high. In
addition, surfactant adsorption increased with increasing adsolubilization of alkane.
From this result, they predicted that the adsolubilization of alkane is approximately the
same as the solubilization of alkane into surfactant micelles. This indicated that the
interior of admicelles is similar to the interior of micelles.
Lee et al. (1990) showed that the adsolubilization and solubilization of alkane was
very similar. They explained the result of alcohol adsolubilization by a two-site model.
The model assumed that adsolubilization of a polar solute such as alcohol occurs both in
the palisade region and in the hydrophobic perimeter of disk-like admicelles (which are
not present in surfactant micelle). Since the fraction of adsolubilized alcohols at the
perimeter of admicelles can be significant at low surfactant coverage, the ratios of
adsolubilized alcohols to adsorbed surfactant were very high at low surfactant
adsorption. For adsolubilization of non-polar alcohol, they found that as the surfactant
coverage increased, the availability of the hydrophobic perimeter surface decreased along
with the admicellar partitioning coefficient (Kadm), thereby approaching the micellar
partitioning coefficient (Kmic).
As mentioned, it has been suggested that the admicellar partition coefficient can
be used to elucidate the locus of solubilization in the surfactant micelles (Edwards et al.,
1991; Rouse et al., 1993; Nayyar et al., 1994). Due to the analogy between micelles and
admicelles, the partition coefficient of solubilized micelles can be applied to adsolubilized
admicelles. Through the solubilization and the partition coefficients, the following
trends have been observed: 1) If the solute partitions primarily to the core, the partition
21
coefficient increases with increasing mole fraction of the solute solubilization, 2) If the
solute partitions to the palisade layer, the partition coefficient decreases with increasing
mole fraction of the solute solubilization, and 3) If the solute partition into both the core
and palisade region, the partition coefficient remains relatively constant with the mole
fraction of solute solubilization (Dickson and O’Haver, 2002).
Kitiyanan et al. (1996) investigated adsolubilization of styrene and isoprene by
cationic surfactants onto silica. They calculated the partition coefficient of the organic
solutes into admicelles. The partition coefficient for styrene remained constant with the
increasing mole fraction of styrene, while the partition coefficient for isoprene decreased
with increasing mole fraction of isoprene. They concluded that styrene was partitioned
primarily both into the core and palisade layer of admicelles, and isoprene was
partitioned primarily to the palisade layer.
Additional research investigated the fundamental aspects of adsolubilization for
organic solutes into admicelles (Wu et al., 1987; Esumi, 2001) and adsolubilization of
organic solutes by mixed surfactant systems (Esumi et al. 2000 and 2001). Moreover,
many researchers are interested in the effect of various parameters to maximum
adsolubilization of organic solutes. Factors investigated included the effects of surfactant
concentration, solution pH (Esumi et al., 1996), electrolyte concentration (Pradubmook
et al., 2003), and structure of organic solute (Dickson and O'Haver, 2002). The results of
these research efforts indicate that the amount of adsorbed surfactants can be changed
by controlling both the amount of surfactants present at the solid-liquid interface and the
structure of the adsorbed layer or adsorbent.
22
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Materials
3.1.1 Mixed anionic and cationic surfactants
Figure 3.1 The structures of (a) anionic surfactant - sodium hexadecyl diphenyloxide disulfonate (SHDPDS) and (b) cationic surfactant- dodecyl pyridinium chloride (DPC)
3.1.1.1 Anionic surfactant. Sodium hexadecyl diphenyloxide
disulfonate (SHDPDS), a mixture of single-tailed and double-tailed
diphenyloxide disulfonate (about 3 to 1 mixture), was obtained as Dowfax
8390 (36 % active) from Dow Chemical Company (Midland, MI).
Chemically, this surfactant has two-negatively charged sulfonate groups.
3.1.1.2 Cationic surfactant. Dodecyl pyridinium chloride (DPC) 98%
purity was purchased from Aldrich chemical Co., Inc. (Milwaukee, WI). The
chemical structures of anionic and cationic surfactants are shown in Figure
3.1, and properties of these surfactants are shown in Table 3.1.
23
Table 3.1 Properties of the surfactants
Surfactant Molecular formula M.W. a CMCa(mM)
SHDPDS - 642 6.3
DPC C17H30NCl 283 4.0
a data from Doan et al., 2002
3.1.2 Organic solutes
Styrene and ethylcyclohexane were selected as the organic solutes for
solubilization and adsolubilization studies. Styrene and ethylcyclohexane (99%
purity) were purchased from Fisher Scientific. Properties of the organic solutes
are shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Properties of the organic solute
Organic solute Molecular formula M.W.c Water solubility Kow
Styreneb C8H8 104.15 310 mg/L 2.95
Ethylcyclohexanec C8H16 112.21 - 4.40d b data from http://www.risk.lsd/ornl.gov. cdata from http://www.chemfinder.com. d data from (Gustafson et al., 1997)
3.1.3 Adsorbent
Aluminum oxide or alumina (Al2O3), mesh size 150, was purchased from
Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc. (Milwaukee, WI) and used as received. The surface
area was determined to be 133 m2/g (N2 BET adsorption method). The specific
surface area reported by the manufacturer product was 155 m2/g. The pH of the
point of zero charge (PZC) of alumina is 9.1 (Sun and Jaffe, 1996). Water
suspensions of alumina were weakly acidic (pH of 6.75).
24
3.1.4 Chemicals
All chemicals used were ACS analytical reagent grade and used as
received. All solutions were made with double-distilled water. Plastic and
glassware were rinsed well with double-distilled water three times prior to use.
3.2 Experimental method
This study was divided into three experimental parts: adsorption, solubilization
and adsolubilization. All experiments were conducted as batch experiments at electrolyte
concentration of 0.015M NaCl, equilibrium pH of 6.5-7.5 and temperature of 20 ± 2 °C.
The mixtures of anionic and cationic surfactants were varied in mole fraction to
investigate the synergistic effects of mixed anionic and cationic surfactants. Mole
fractions of SHDPDS and DPC were prepared by adding 3:1, 10:1 and 30:1 SHDPDS
and DPC mole fractions with a constant SHDPDS concentration and varying DPC
concentration. The mixed surfactant ratios were selected based on the precipitation
phase diagram for the SHDPDS and DPC system (Doan et at., 2000; see Appendix A.1).
The ranges of parameters studied are shown in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Range of parameters evaluated in this study.
Parameter Range studied
Anionic surfactant (SHDPDS) 10-5 – 10-1 M
Cationic surfactant (DPC) 10-6 – 10-1 M
AIS:CIS 3:1, 10:1 and 30:1
pH 6.5-7.5
Electrolyte concentration 0.015 M (NaCl)
Temperature 20 ± 2 oC
25
3.2.1 Adsorption study
Adsorption experiments were conducted in 40 ml vials using a constant
volume of 10 ml of mixed anionic and cationic surfactant solution and different
amounts of alumina (based on the estimated adsorption amount of the surfactant
on the alumina). The solution was equilibrated by shaking for at least 48 hours.
After shaking for 12 hours, the pH of the solution was measured and adjusted.
This process was repeated, but with a minimum waiting time of 3 hours, until the
pH of the solution remained constant at the desired level. After equilibration, the
solution was centrifuged to remove the solids. The concentration of anionic and
cationic surfactants in aqueous phase were then measured by Liquid
Chromatography (LC 20, Dionex). The amount of anionic and cationic
surfactant adsorption was calculated by equation 2.1 (also see Appendix 2).
3.2.2 Solubilization study
The extent of organic solute solubilization into surfactant micelles (no
alumina present) was studied for the single surfactants and the three mixtures of
mole fractions for SHDPDS and DPC. The solubilization study was conducted
in 40 ml glass vials with 20 ml of surfactant solution. The excess volume of
organic solute was added to the vials. The vials were equilibrated for 24 hours,
and then the organic solute concentration in aqueous solution was analyzed by
Gas Chromatography (GC3000, Varian).
3.2.3 Adsolubilization study
For adsolubilization studies, the adsorption isotherms were used to
determine an appropriate initial concentration of the mixed surfactant. The
appropriate concentration from adsorption isotherms was one that equilibrated
26
just below the CMC of the surfactant (transition point) to ensure maximum
surfactant coverage without the presence of micelles in the bulk solution.
Adsolubilization experiments were conducted in 40 ml glass vials by
varying organic solute concentration with the appropriate surfactant
concentration and the amount of alumina from the adsorption study. The
solution was shaken for 48 hours and centrifuged to remove alumina. The
surfactant concentration and the organic solute concentration in aqueous
solution were analyzed by LC and GC, respectively.
3.3 Analytical method
Liquid Chromatography (LC20, Dionex) was used to quantify the individual
surfactant components of anionic and cationic mixtures. Analytical methods for
detecting anionic and cationic surfactants followed that use in previous research (Doan et
al., 2002). The anionic surfactant (SHDPDS) was analyzed using the coupling agent
tetrabutyle ammonium hydroxide (25 mN). The natural complex was separated with a
reverse phase column (Dionex-NS1) with an acetronitrile-water mobile phase. The
complex was then eluted from the column and de-coupled by ionic suppression and
finally detected by an electrical conductivity detector (Dionex-CD25).
27
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Adsorption study
The adsorption of single surfactants and three mixture mole fractions of the
mixed SHDPDS and DPC surfactants were studied onto positively charged alumina
using an electrolyte concentration of 0.015 M NaCl, equilibrium pH of 6.5-7.5 and
temperature of 20±2oC. The surfactant adsorption isotherm was plotted on logarithm
scale. The maximum adsorption was calculated as the mean value at the plateau region
of the surfactant adsorption isotherm. Figure 4.1 is an example of such a surfactant
adsorption isotherm.
Since, the maximum adsorption (plateau region) occurs at the CMC of the mixed
surfactant system, the CMC values of the surfactant systems were also determined
through the surfactant adsorption isotherm. The surfactant molecule per area was
calculated assuming that the surfactant molecule had access to the entire alumina surface,
with the specific area of alumina being 133 m2/g (measured by N2/BET adsorption
method). Table 4.1 summaries the experimentally determined CMCs, maximum total
surfactant adsorption (average at the plateau region), and surfactant molecule per surface
area for SHDPDS, DPC, and their mixtures.
28
4.1.1 Adsorption of single surfactant system onto alumina for SHDPDS
and DPC
The adsorption isotherms of single surfactant systems of SHDPDS and
DPC onto positively charged alumina are shown in Figure 4.1. The results show
that the adsorptions of SHDPDS and DPC increase with increasing equilibrium
surfactant concentration. The maximum adsorption of SHDPDS, 2.4 x 10 -4
mole/g (1.09 molecule/nm2), was higher than the maximum adsorption of DPC
3.5 x 10-5 mole/g (0.15 molecule/nm2). The maximum amount of SHDPDS
adsorbed is consistent with the results reported by Sun and Jaffe (1996). Sun and
Jaffe studied the adsorption of Dowfax 8390 (or SHDPDS) onto aluminum
oxide without buffering the pH. They reported that the maximum adsorption of
Dowfax 8390 was 61,000 mg/kg (1.82 x10 -4 mole/g or 0.71 molecule/nm2 ,
calculated with 155 g/m2 for alumina as used in their study).
From Figure 4.1, it can be seen that SHDPDS was highly adsorbed onto
alumina due to the electrostatic attraction between negatively charged SHDPDS
(twin-head anionic surfactant that contains two-negatively charged head group)
and positively charged alumina. On the other hand, the adsorption of DPC was
very low due to the electrostatic repulsion between like charged cationic
surfactant head group and positively charged alumina. Nonetheless, there are
small amounts of DPC adsorbed onto alumina, possibly due to counterions
effect on the adsorption of cationic surfactant onto alumina. The counter ions
(0.015 M NaCl as used in this study) reduced the electrostatic repulsion between
positively charged cationic surfactants and positively charged alumina. Addition
of neutral electrolyte causes a decrease in the adsorption of ionic surfactants onto
oppositely charged adsorbent and an increase in their adsorption onto a similarly
29
charged adsorbent (Rosen, 1989). Alumina surfaces at solution pH of 6.5 -.7.5,
which is two pH units below the PZC of alumina, probably has negative sites for
the adsorbed cationic surfactants.
4.1.2 Adsorption of mixed anionic and cationic surfactant system onto
alumina for SHDPDS and DPC
Adsorption of the three SHDPDS and DPC mole fractions of 3:1, 10:1
and 30:1 were conducted to investigate the synergistic effect of mixed anionic
and cationic surfactant adsorption onto alumina as shown in Figure 4.2 at
electrolyte concentration of 0.015 M NaCl, equilibrium pH of 6-5-7.5, and
temperature of 20± 2oC. The total surfactant adsorption was plotted versus the
total equilibrium concentration for the three mole fractions for SHDPDS and
DPC. The total adsorption of the mixed surfactants increased as the total
surfactant increased in concentration, reaching a maximum adsorption for all
surfactant mixtures. The amount of adsorbed surfactant in the plateau maximum
adsorption region increased with increasing cationic surfactant molar ratio as
shown in Figure 4.3. While the mixed surfactant system of 3:1 SHDPDS:DPC
molar ratio provided the highest amount of adsorbed surfactants onto alumina,
this maximum total surfactant adsorption (3.10 x 10 -4 mole/g for 3:1 SHDPDS:
DPC molar ratio) was only 25% percent higher than the SHDPDS alone (2.4 x
10-4 mole/g). The maximum surfactant adsorption versus anionic/cationic
surfactant molar ratio in the mixed surfactant system are shown in Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4 shows the adsorption of SHDPDS alone and for the three
mixture mole fractions of SHDPDS and DPC onto alumina. The results show
that the adsorption of SHDPDS increased with increasing equilibrium surfactant
concentration. However, the maximum SHDPDS adsorption in the three mixed
30
surfactant systems was virtually the same. Thus, it can be seen that there is no
significant increase in the SHDPDS adsorbed with additional of DPC.
The adsorption of DPC alone and for the three mixture mole fractions of
SHDPDS and DPC are also shown in Figure 4.5. It is interesting to note that at
the same SHDPDS concentration, the DPC adsorption increased as the DPC
mole fraction in the surfactant mixture was increased, and that this increase was
most dramatic for low surfactant concentrations.
From the adsorption of individual anionic and cationic surfactants in the
mixed surfactant system, it can be inferred that the anionic surfactants readily
adsorbed onto alumina due to the electrostatic attraction between two negatively
charged head anionic surfactant. At the same time, it appears that the positively
charged alumina does in fact contain a number of negatively charged sites that
account for the adsorption of cationic surfactants onto the alumina, even at a pH
of 7 which is two pH units below the PZC. Capovila et al. (2000) studied the
formation of mixed anionic and cationic surfactant adsorbed onto laponite clay at
solution pH of 8.5. They found that cationic surfactant head groups adsorbed
onto negatively charged clay and provided hydrophobic layers for adsorbed
hydrophobic tails of anionic surfactants.
4.2 Solubilization study
Before looking at the adsolubilization into adsorbed surfactant, the solubilization
of organic solute into surfactant micelles was investigated to allow a comparison between
the two types of aggregates. The study of the solubilization potentials (ability to enhance
organic solute in solution) of single surfactants and the three mixture mole fractions for
31
SHDPDS and DPC were conducted with styrene and ethylcyclohexane at electrolyte
concentration of 0.015 M NaCl and temperature of 20 ± 2 oC. Solubilization isotherms
were plotted with organic solute solubilization versus aqueous surfactant concentration
in the solution in logarithm scale. The transition point was determined as the CMC of
each surfactant mixtures. Table 4.2 shows the CMC values of single surfactants and the
three surfactant mixture mole fractions (which were determined experimentally from
Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7). It can be seen that the CMC values of each surfactant varied
with presence of the organic solutes. Rosen (1989) reports that surfactant CMC values
are impacted by solubilization of organic solutes could change because the activity of the
surfactant is changed by the introduction of organic solutes.
The micellar partitioning coefficient (Kmic) describes the partitioning of the
various organic solutes into the micelle (Edwards et al., 1991). Kmic is defined as
aq
micmic X
XK = (4.1)
where;
Xmic is the mole fraction of the organic solute in the micelle pseudophase.
Xaq is the mole fraction of the organic solute in the aqueous phase.
The mole fraction are calculated as
)S(S)C(CCC
Xeq0eq0
eq0mic −+−
−=
(4.2)
55.55CC
Xeq
eqaq +
= (4.3)
where:
32
C0 = the concentration of organic solute at initial
Ceq = the concentration of organic solute at equilibrium
S0 = the concentration of surfactant at initial
Seq = the concentration of surfactant at equilibrium
55.55 = represents 1/molar volume for water
The partitioning of organic solutes is described by the molar solubilization ratio
(MSR), which is the slope of the solubilization isotherm beyond the CMC value (see
Figures 4.8 and 4.9). MSR indicates the moles of organic solute in the micelle per moles
of micellar surfactant. Table 4.2 summarizes the molar solubilization ratio and Kmic of
this study. MSR determinations were determined based on straight-line function with r2
regression greater than 0.97. The mole fraction of the organic solute in micelles is related
to MSR by the simple relationship (Rouse et al., 1995).
MSR)(1MSRXmic +
= (4.4)
55.55)/(CCMSR)MSR/(1K
eqeqmic +
+= (4.5)
From MSR values in Figure 4.8 and Figure 4.9, the result shows that the MSR for
both styrene and ethylcyclohexane increased with increasing surfactant concentration.
The order of solubilization potential (MSR) is DPC <SHDPDS< 30:1< 10:1 <3:1
SHDPDS:DPC molar ratio. This trend is observed for the solubilization of both styrene
and ethylcyclohexane by SHDPDS and DPC. The solubilization potential of styrene and
ethylcyclohexane by SHDPDS is greater than DPC. This is likely because the cationic
head group is larger and more electrostatic, producing a less desirable structure for
solubilization.
33
The second trend was observed in the mixed surfactant system. The
solubilization potential increased with increasing a mole ratio of cationic surfactant in the
surfactant mixtures for both styrene and ethylcyclohexane system. As the cationic
surfactant concentration increased, the electrostatic repulsion between anionic surfactant
head group was reduced. Micelles form more easily and the packing density (aggregation
number) increase due to the reduction in electrostatic repulsion between the head groups
reducing the electrical potential in micelles, and providing a more favorable
environmental for the organic solute.
It can be seen that the solubilization potential of ethylcyclohexane is higher than
styrene for the SHDPDS and the three mixtures mole fractions. The MSR value of
ethylcyclohexane is about 3 times that of styrene. The ethylcyclohexane showed much
greater partitioning because the hydrophobicity of ethylcyclohexane (log Kow= 4.40) is
higher than styrene (log Kow = 2.95). Thus, the partitioning of ethylcyclohexane into
hydrophobic site of micelles became more favorable.
4.3 Adsolubilization Studies
The adsolubilization isotherm of styrene and ethylcyclohexane by SHDPDS and
the three mixture feed mole fractions for SHDPDS and DPC onto alumina are shown in
Figure 4.10 and 4.11, respectively at electrolyte concentration of 0.015 M NaCl,
equilibrium pH of 6.5-7.5, and temperature of 20±2 oC. Styrene is a polar organic solute
and ethylcyclohexane is a non-polar organic solute, which is expected to partition into
the palisade region and the core of the admicelles, respectively.
The admicellar partition coefficient (Kadm) is analogous to the micellar partition
coefficient (Nayyar et al., 1994).
34
aq
admadm X
XK = (4.6)
where
Xadm is the mole fraction of organic solute in the admicelle phase
Xaq is the mole fraction of organic solute in the aqueous phase
For this study, Xadm values are calculated as:
( )( ) )S(S)(SCC
CCX
CISf,CISi,AISf,AISi,Sf,Si,
Sf,Si,adm ++++−
−=
S (4.7)
where:
Xadm = Mole fraction of organic solute in admicelle
Ci,S = Initial concentration of organic solute (M)
Cf,S = Final concentration of organic solute (M)
Si,AIS = Initial concentration of anionic surfactant, (M)
Sf,AIS = Final concentration of anionic surfactant, (M)
Si,CIS = Initial concentration of cationic surfactant, (M)
Sf,CIS = Final concentration of cationic surfactant, (M)
4.3.1 Styrene Adsolubilization
The adsolubilization isotherms of styrene by SHDPDS and SHDPDS-
DPC mixtures are shown in Figure 4.10. The results show that the amount of
adsolubilized styrene increased with increasing equilibrium styrene concentration
for all adsolubilization isotherms. As expected, the styrene adsolubilization
reached a maximum as the styrene concentration reaches its water solubility, with
the concentration of surfactant below its CMC. Figure 4.11 also shows the
adsolubilized styrene by the mixed anionic and cationic surfactant system for
different mole fractions of cationic surfactants in the surfactant mixtures. It can
be seen that the styrene admicellar mole fraction becomes less favorable with
increasing the mole fraction of cationic surfactants in the mixtures. As the
35
concentration of cationic surfactant increased, the net electrostatic charge of the
anionic surfactant head group is reduced, which should facilitate the
incorporation of polar organic solute into the palisade region of admicelles. In
the palisade region, the cationic surfactants attach to the adsorbed anionic
surfactants. As a result, the polar organic solute, styrene, which is expected to
adsolubilize into the palisade layer of admicelles, is then squeezed out. The
admicellar partition coefficient (Kadm) values for styrene adsolubilization in
SHDPDS and the three mixture mole fractions as shown in Table 4.2 are
determined by the slope of adsolubilization isotherm (Figure 4.11). In order to
gain insight into locus of adsolubilization of styrene in the mixed surfactant
admicelle, The Xadm/Xaq of styrene (calculated from Equations 4.6 and 4.7) versus
equilibrium styrene concentrations are shown in Figure 4.12. The The Xadm/Xaq
slowly decreases with increasing equilibrium styrene concentration, supporting
that the polar styrene is adsolubilized into the palisade region of the surfactant
admicelles (Nayyar et al., 1994; Dickson and O’Haver, 2002). However, Kitiyanan
et al. (1996) studied the adsolubilization of styrene by a cetyltrimethylammonium
bromide (CTAB) bilayer onto precipitated silica. The results showed that the
styrene adsolubilization constant is unchanged with increasing equilibrium
styrene concentration in the aqueous phase, suggesting that the styrene was
adsolubilized in the both the core and the palisade region of the admicelles.
4.3.2 Ethylcyclohexane Adsolubilization
The adsolubilization isotherms of ethylcyclohexane by SHDPDS and
SHDPDS-DPC mixtures are shown in Figure 4.13. The results show that the
amount of adsolubilized ethylcyclohexane increased with increasing equilibrium
ethylcyclohexane concentration for all adsolubilization isotherms. Figure 4.13
36
also shows the adsolubilized ethylcyclohexane by the mixed anionic and cationic
surfactant system with different mole fractions of cationic surfactant in the
mixtures. It can be seen that the ethylcyclohexane admicellar mole fraction
became more favorable with increases in the mole fraction of cationic surfactants
in the mixtures. However, the adsolubilization of ethylcyclohexane appears to be
independent of the cationic surfactant mole fraction in 30:1 SHDPDS:DPC
molar ratio. The admicellar partition coefficient (Kadm) values for
ethylcyclohexane, as shown in Table 4.2, were determined from slopes in the
adsolubilization isotherm (Figure 4.14). For locus of adsolubilization of
ethylcyclohexane, Figure 4.15 shows Xadm/Xaq of ethylcyclohexane versus
ethylcyclohexane concentration at equilibrium. The Xadm/Xaq of ethylcyclohexane
at low ethylcyclohexane concentration loading increased with increasing
equilibrium ethylcyclohexane concentration and then slowly decreased at the high
concentration. At low ethylcyclohexane concentration suggested that the non-
polar ethylcyclohexane adsolubilized into the core of the admicelles. However, it
is not clear why the Xadm/Xaq ratio decreased at the high ethylcyclohexane
concentration.
From the mixed anionic and cationic surfactant adsorption study, it is
suggested that the adsorbed anionic surfactant molecules lie flat on alumina
surface at a low surfactant concentration, and provided hydrophobic sites, as the
tail group of anionic surfactants facing to aqueous solution. The interactions of
hydrophobic tail groups increase with increasing surface coverage. The
schematic illustration, with mixed anionic and cationic surfactant adsorption and
adsolubilization, helps to explain our results as shown in Figure 4.16. In this
structure, two-negatively charged head groups of anionic surfactant are adsorbed
37
onto the positively charged alumina surface with hydrophobic tail groups facing
into the aqueous phase and leading to anionic and cationic surfactant bilayers. As
cationic surfactant molecules increase, the hydrophobic site in the core region
increases which in turn promotes the adsolubilization of non polar
ethylcyclohexane in the admicelle. When the cationic surfactant present in the
system, it decreases the net charge of the surface, thereby making the core more
hydrophobic and promoting the formation of denser aggregates, both of which
would increase hydrophobic adsolubilization. Thus, increasing cationic
surfactant mole fraction in the mixed anionic and cationic surfactant systems
promotes adsolubilization into the core region and resists the adsolubilization
into the palisade region by changing the nature of the adsorbed surfactant
aggregates.
From the partition coefficient values in the solubilization and
adsolubilization studies, it is observed that the Kmic values for styrene and
ethylcyclohexane in solubilization study are the same order as the corresponding
Kadm values in adsolubilization study, but consistently lower. This could be due
to the higher packing density of the admicelles which are fixed on the solid
surface, than that of the micelles. Recent research study found nearly identical
micellar and admicellar partitioning for organic solutes (Park, and Jaffe, 1993;
Rouse et al., 1993). Park and Jaffe (1993) also found that organic solute
partitioning into micelles/admicelles was proportional to the mass of surfactant
molecules. However, the point to be addressed here is that admicellar
partitioning in adsolubilization can be as attractive as micellar uptake in
solubilization for organic solutes. This phenomenon can be useful in
environmental applications.
38
1.0E-6
1.0E-5
1.0E-4
1.0E-3
1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0
Surfactant equilibrium concentration (M)
Surf
acta
nt a
dsor
ptio
n ( m
ole/
g)
SHDPDS
DPC
Figure 4. 1 The adsorption isotherm of SHDPDS and DPC onto alumina at
electrolyte concentration of 0.015 M NaCl, equilibrium pH of 6.5-7.5 and temperature of
20±2oC.
1.0E-6
1.0E-5
1.0E-4
1.0E-3
1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0
Total surfactant equilibrium concentration (M)
Tot
al s
urfa
ctan
t ads
orpt
ion
(mol
e/g)
SHDPDS
3:1 SHDPDS:DPC
10:1 SHDPDS:DPC
30:1 SHDPDS:DPC
DPC
Figure 4. 2 The single surfactants and three mixture mole fractions for SHDPDS and
DPC adsorption onto alumina at electrolyte concentration of 0.015 M NaCl, equilibrium pH of 6.5-7.5, and temperature of 20±2 oC.
39
DPC
3:1 SHDPDS:DPC
30:1 SHDPDS:DPC
10:1 SHDPDS:DPC
SHDPDS
0.0E+0
5.0E-5
1.0E-4
1.5E-4
2.0E-4
2.5E-4
3.0E-4
3.5E-4
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Cationic/Anionic surfactant mole ratio
Max
imum
sur
fact
ant a
dsor
ptio
n (m
ole/
g)
Anionic rich Cationic richPrec
ipita
tion
boud
ary
ofSH
DPD
S/D
PC
Figure 4. 3 Maximum surfactant adsorption and cationic/anionic surfactant molar ratio
1.0E-6
1.0E-5
1.0E-4
1.0E-3
1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0
SHDPDS equilibrium concentration (M)
SHD
PDS
adso
rptio
n (m
ole/
g)
SHDPDS
3:1 SHDPDS:DPC
10:1 SHDPDS:DPC
30:1 SHDPDS:DPC
Figure 4. 4 SHDPDS adsorption for SHDPDS alone and for three mixture mole fractions of SHDPDS and DPC onto alumina at electrolyte concentration of 0.015 NaCl, equilibrium of pH 6-5-7.5, and temperature of 20±2 oC.
40
1.0E-6
1.0E-5
1.0E-4
1.0E-3
1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0
DPC equilibrium concentration (M)
DPC
ads
orpt
ion
(mol
e/g)
DPC
3:1 SHDPDS:DPC
10:1 SHDPDS:DPC
30:1 SHDPDS:DPC
Figure 4. 5 DPC adsorption for DPC alone and for three mixture mole fractions of SHDPDS and DPC onto alumina at electrolyte concentration of 0.015 M NaCl, equilibrium pH of 6.5-7.5, and temperature of 20±2 oC.
Table 4. 1 Experimentally determined CMCs, the maximum total adsorption, and molecule per area of single surfactants and three mixture mole fractions for SHDPDS and DPC system.
Surfactants Experimentally
determined CMC (mM)
Max. total adsorption
(mmole/g)
Area per molecule (molecule/nm2)
SHDPDS 0.49 0.239 1.09
30:1 DPDS:DPC 0.46 0.252 1.15
10:1 DPDS:DPC 0.43 0.278 1.26
3:1 DPDS:DPC 0.55 0.301 1.36 DPC - 0.031 0.10
41
1.0E-3
1.0E-2
1.0E-1
1.0E+0
1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0
Surfactant concentration (M)
Styr
ene
solu
biliz
atio
n (M
)
SHDPDS
3:1 SHDPDS:DPC
10:1 SHDPDS:DPC
30:1 SHDPDS:DPC
DPC
Figure 4.6 Solubilization isotherm of styrene by single surfactant and three mixture feed mole fractions for SHDPDS and DPC at electrolyte concentration of 0.015 M NaCl
1.0E-4
1.0E-3
1.0E-2
1.0E-1
1.0E+0
1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0
Surfactant concentration (M)
Eth
yl. s
olub
iliza
tion
(M)
SHDPDS
3:1 SHDPDS:DPC
10:1 SHDPDS:DPC
30:1 SHDPDS:DPC
DPC
Figure 4. 7 Solubilization isotherm of ethylcyclohexane by single surfactant and three mixture feed mole fractions for SHDPDS and DPC at electrolyte concentration of 0.015 M NaCl
CMC Slope = MSR
CMC Slope=MSR
42
MSR = 1.4822
MSR= 0.9167x
MSR = 1.3723
MSR = 1.5747
MSR = 0.2192x
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Surfactant concentration (M)
Styr
ene
solu
biliz
atio
n (M
)
SHDPDS3:1 SHDPDS:DPC10:1 SHDPDS:DPC30:1 SHDPDS:DPCDPC
Figure 4. 8 Molar surfactant ratio (MSR) of styrene for single surfactant and three mixture mole fractions for SHDPDS and DPC
MSR = 2.5191
MSR = 2.1742
MSR = 2.3822
MSR = 2.8753
MSR = 0.0729
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Surfactant concentration (M)
Eth
yl. s
olub
iliza
tion
(M)
SHDPDS
3:1 SHDPDS:DPC
10:1 SHDPDS:DPC
30:1 SHDPDS:DPC
DPC
Figure 4. 9 Molar surfactant ratio (MSR) of ethylcyclohexane for single surfactant and mixture feed mole fractions for SHDPDS and DPC
43
Table 4. 2 CMC of surfactant, MSR value from solubilization study, and partitioning values obtained in this study
Surfactant Log Kow CMC Scmc MSR Log Kmic Log Kadm mM mM
Styrene 2.95
SHDPDS 1.00 3.46 0.9154 3.88 4.52
DPDS:DPC 30:1 1.10 3.48 1.3710 3.96 -
DPDS:DPC 10:1 0.90 3.44 1.4822 3.98 4.36
DPDS:DPC 3:1 0.80 3.52 1.5734 3.99 4.37
DPC 4.00 3.17 0.2216 3.50 -
Ethylcyclohexane 4.40
SHDPDS 0.80 1.59 2.1716 4.38 4.92
DPDS:DPC 30:1 0.70 1.56 2.3848 4.51 4.90
DPDS:DPC 10:1 0.60 1.41 2.5191 4.45 4.91
DPDS:DPC 3:1 0.80 1.21 2.8720 4.42 4.91
DPC 2.00 1.06 0.0729 3.55 - Scmc – organic solute concentration at CMC of surfactant
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0 1 2 3 4 5Styrene aqueous mole fraction, Xaq (10-5)
Styr
ene
adm
icel
lar
mol
e fr
actio
n, X
adm
SHDPDS
3:1 SHDPDS
10:1 SHDPDS:DPC
30:1 SHDPDS:DPC
Figure 4. 10 Adsolubilization of styrene by SHDPDS and three mixture mole fractions for SHDPDS and DPC at electrolyte concentration of 0.015 M NaCl, equilibrium pH 6.5-7.5 and temperature of 20±2 oC
44
K = 0.3326 K = 0.2294
K = 0.2341
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00Styrene aqueous mole fraction, X aq (10-5)
Styr
ene
adm
icel
lar m
ole
frac
tion
,Xad
m
S H D P D S
3:1 SHDPDS:DPC
10:1 SHDPDS:DPC
30:1 SHDPDS:DPC
Figure 4. 11 Styrene admicellar partition coefficient (Kadm) by SHDPDS and three mixture mole fractions for SHDPDS and DPC.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025
Styrene equilibrium concentration (M)
Styr
ene
adm
icel
lar
part
ition
coe
ffici
ent,
Kad
m
SHDPDS
3:1 SHDPDS:DPC
10:1 SHDPDS:DPC
30:1 SHDPDS:DPC
Figure 4. 12 Ploted Xadm/Xaq of styrene versus styrene concentration at equilibrium for SHDPDS and three mixture mole fractions for SHDPDS and DPC .
45
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0 1 2 3 4 5Ethylcyclohexene aqueous mole fraction, Xaq (10-5)
Eth
yl. a
dmic
ella
r mol
e fr
actio
n Xad
m
SHDPDS
3:1 SHDPDS:DPC
10:1 SHDPDS:DPC
30:1 SHDPDS:DPC
Figure 4. 13 Adsolubilization of ethylcyclohexane by SHDPDS and three mixture mole fractions for SHDPDS and DPC at electrolyte concentration of 0.015 M NaCl, equilibrium pH of 6.5-7.5 and temperature of 20±2 oC
K = 0.8386
K = 0.8538
K = 0.8144
K= 0.8091
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Ethylcyclohexene aqueous mole fraction, Xaq (10 -5)
Eth
ycyc
lohe
xene
adm
icel
lar
mol
e fr
actio
n, X
adm
SHDPDS
3:1 SHDPDS:DPC
10:1 SHDPDS:DPC
30:1 SHDPDS:DPC
Figure 4. 14 Ethylcyclohexane admicellar partition coefficient (Kadm) for SHDPDS and three mixture mole fractions for SHDPDS and DPC
46
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010
Ethycyclohexene equilibrium concentration (M)
Xad
m/X
aq o
f Eth
ylcy
cloh
exan
e
SHDPDS
3:1 SHDPDS:DPC
10:1 SHDPDS:DPC
30:1 SHDPDS:DPC
Figure 4. 15 Plotted Xadm/Xaq of ethylcyclohexane versus ethylcyclohexane concentration at equilibrium by SHDPDS and for three mixture mole fractions for SHDPDS and DPC
�FRU�UHJLRQ �SOLVDGH�UHJ LRQ
OLTXLGVROLG
��
�FRU�UHJLRQ �SOLVDGH�UHJ LRQ
OLTXLGVROLG
��
Figure 4. 16 Schematic representation of adsolubilization in (a) twin-head anionic surfactant (SHDPDS) and (b) mixed anionic and cationic surfactant (SHDPDS and DPC) aggregates onto positively charge alumina
47
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
AND ENGINNERING SIGNIFICANCE
5.1 Summary
The synergism of the anionic and cationic surfactant system for SHDPDS-DPC
through the adsorption and adsolubilization of styrene and ethylcyclohexane onto
positively charged alumina was studied at different cationic surfactant mole fractions in
the mixed surfactant system at electrolyte concentration of 0.0015 M NaCl, equilibrium
pH of 6.5-7.5 and temperature of 20±2oC. The results showed that the adsorption,
solubilization, and adsolubilization were promoted by the cationic surfactants. The
adsorption of SHDPDS and DPC system showed low synergism due to only the
adsorbed cationic surfactants were enhanced, but there are no significantly different on
the adsorbed anionic surfactants with the additional cationic surfactants. This may be
due to the twin-head structure of the SHDPDS surfactant, which decreases the
synergism in other precipitation tendency but also appears to reduce synergism.
However, the different mole fractions of cationic surfactants in the mixed anionic and
cationic surfactants system had greater impact on solubilization and adsolubilization than
on adsorption. The solubilization capacity of both styrene and ethylcyclohexane
increased with increasing the cationic surfactant mole fraction in the mixed surfactant
system due to reduced electrostatic repulsion between anionic head groups reducing
increased micelle formation. Through the adsorption study there is expected to exist of a
48
maximum form of admicellar aggregates. For the adsolubilization studies, the increasing
cationic surfactant mole fraction in the mixed system increased the adsolubilized
ethylcyclohexane and decreased adsolubilized styrene. From these results, it can be
inferred that the tight packing arrangement of the mixed anionic and cationic surfactant
systems promoted adsolubilized ethylcyclohexane in the core region and resisted the
adsolubilized styrene in the palisade region of the admicelle. The admicellar partition
coefficient data further supported that styrene partitions into the palisade region and
ethylcyclohexane partitions into the core region of admicelles. The admicellar partition
coefficient (Kadm) of the organic solute was of the same order as the corresponding to
micellar partition coefficient (Kmic). As a result, admicellar partitioning can be attractive
as the micellar partitioning and this phenomenon can be use in environmental
applications. Although this mixed anionic and cationic surfactant system demonstrated
low adsorption synergism, it has great potential for enhancing solubilization and
adsolubilization of organic contaminants. Thus, this research provides useful
information for designing surface modification by surfactants to enhanced contaminant
remediation.
5.2 Conclusions
Based on the results of this research, the following conclusions are made.
1. The adsorption of a mixed anionic and cationic surfactant system, SHDPDS
and DPC, onto positively charged alumina showed a slight synergism with
only the adsorption of cationic surfactants increased in the mixed system.
49
2. Increasing the cationic surfactant mole fraction in the mixed system
promoted slight increases in the solubilization capacity of styrene and
ethylcyclohexane
3. Increasing the cationic surfactant mole fraction in the mixed surfactant
system promoted the adsolubilization of non-polar organic solutes in the core
region and resisted the adsolubilization of polar organic solutes in the
palisade region of the admicelles.
4. The admicellar partition coefficient (Kadm) for the adsolubilization process is
comparable to study can be attractive as the micellar partition coefficient
(Kmic) for the solubilization process.
5.3 Engineering significance
Surfactant-modified surfaces can be used in many industrial and commercial
processes and environmental engineering applications. Metal oxide coated with
surfactants appears particularly promising for treatment of groundwater and wastewater
for removal of organic compounds by the adsolubilization process.
In field application for subsurface remediation, surfactant modified surfaces can
be used in landfill liners or subsurface barriers which effectively prevent organic
contaminants from mitigating in groundwater. For wastewater treatment, surfactant
modified surfaces could be used as a strong adsorbent for organic compound removal in
wastewater streams which is known as admicellar-enhanced chromatography.
50
6 7 ( 3
6XUIDFWDQW�OD\HUIRUP HG�RQ�SDFNLQJ
6 7 ( 3
6ROXWH�UHP RYHG�IURPSURFHVV�VWUHDP
E\�DGVROXELOL] DWLRQ
6 7 ( 3
6XUIDFWDQW�OD\HUZLWK�DGVROXELOL] DWH
GHVRUEHG
6XUIDFHDJJUHJDWH
0 RQRPHU $JJUHJDWH�ZLWKDGVROXELOL]DWH
$GVROXELOL]DWH
&RQFHQWUDWHG�SURGXFW�VWUHDP
6XUIDFWDQW�DGGHGWR�VWUHDP
(IIOXHQW�ZDWHU3 URFHVV�VWUHDP
(IIOXHQW�ZDWHU (IIOXHQW�ZDWHU
Figure 5.1 The admicellar-enhanced chromatography processes (adapted from Harwell and O’Rear, 1992)
Admicellar-enhanced chromatography (AEC) utilizes adsorbed surfactant
aggregates on solid surfaces and the phenomenon of adsolubilization. If the aqueous
solution, which contains dissolved organic solute, is contacted with solid containing
adsorbed surfactant aggregates, the solute will tend to adsolubilize into these aggregates,
and a purified water stream then results. The adsorption bed can then be contacted with
a solution of different pH, causing the surfactant to be desorbed along with the organic
solutes, producing a concentrated solution. The bed can be retreated with surfactant and
the process repeated indefinitely. The admicellar-enhanced chromatography process is
shown in Figure 5.1.
51
REFERENCES
1. Bergstrom, M., and (2001). Synergistic Effects in Mixtures of an Anionic and a Cationic
Surfactant. Langmuir, 117, 993. 2. Bitting, D., and Harwell, J. H. (1987). Effects of Counterions on Surfactant Surface
Aggregates at the Alumina/Aqueous Solution Interface. Langmuir, 3, 500. 3. Bohmer, R. M., and Koopal, L. K. (1992). Adsorption of Ionic Surfactants on Variable-
Charge Surfaces. 2. Molecular Architecture and Structure of the Adsorbed Layer. Langmuir, 8, 2660.
4. Butler, E. C., and Hayes, K. F. (1998). Micellar Solubilization of Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
Contaminants By Nonionic Surfactants Mixtures: Effects of Sorption, Partitioning and Mixing. Wat. Res., 32, 1345.
5. Capovilla, L., Labbe, P., Reverdy, and Gilbert. (1991). Formation of Cationic/Anionic
Mixed Surfactant Bilayerson Laponite Clay Suspensions. Langmuir, 7, 2000.
6. Carter, T., Wu, B., Sabatini, D. A. et al. (1998). Increasing the Solubility Enhancement of Anionic Dowfax Surfactants. Separation Science and Technology, 33, 2363.
7. Chen, L., Xiao, J. X., Ruan, K. et al. (2002). Homogeneous Solutions of Equimolar Mixed
Cationic-Anionic Surfactants. Langmuir, 18, 7250. 8. Cheng, H., and Sabatini, D. A. (2001). Reverse-micellar Extraction for Micellar-solubilized
Contaminants and Surfactant Removal. Separation and Purification Technology, 24, 437. 9. Cheng,Hefa, Sabatini, D. A., and Kibbey, T. C. (2001). Solvent Extraction for Separating
Micellar-Solubilized Contaminants and Anionic Surfactants. Environ. Sci. Technol, 25, 2995.
10. Chun, C. L., Lee, J., and Park, J. (2002). Solubilization of PAH Mixtures by Three Different
Anionic Surfactants. Environmental Pollution, 118, 307. 11. Deshpande, S., Wesson, L., Wade, D. et al. (2000). Dowfax Surfactants Components for
Enhancing Component Solubilization. Wat. Res., 34, 1030. 12. Dickson, J., and O'Haver, J. (2002). Adsolubilization of Naphthalene and Naphthol in CTAB
Admicelles. Langmuir, 18, 1917. 13. Doan, T., Acosta, E., Scamehorn, J. F. et al. (2002). Formulating Middle-Phase
Microemulsions Using Mixed Anionic and Cationic Surfactant Systems. Submitted to Journal of Surfactant and Detergents.
14. Dunaway, C. S., Christian, D. D., and Scamehorn, J. F. (1995). Solubilization in Surfactants
Aggregates: 1 Overview and History of the Study of Solubilization. Surfactant Science Series, 3.
15. Edwards, D. A., Luthy, R., and Liu, Z. (1991). Solubilization of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons in Micellar Nonionic Surfactant Solutions. Environ. Sci. Technol., 25, 127.
52
16. Esumi, K., Maedomari, N., and Torigoe, K. (2001). Adsolubilization of 2-Naphthol by Binary
Mixtures of Cationic and Nonionic Surfactants on Silica. Langmuir, 17, 7350. 17. Esumi, K., Maedomari, N., and Torigoe, K. (2000). Mixed Surfactant Adsolubilization of 2-
Naphthol on Alumina. Langmuir, 16, 9217. 18. Esumi, K. (2001). Adsorption and Adsolubilization of Surfactants on Titaniumdioxides with
Functional Groups. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 176, 25.
19. Esumi, K. (2001). Interactions between Surfactants and Particles: Dispersion, Surface
Modification, and Adsolubilization. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 241, 1. 20. Esumi, K., Goino, M., and Koide, Y. (1996). The Effect of Added Salt on Adsorption and
Adsolubilization by a Gemini Surfactants on Silica. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 118, 161.
21. Fan, A., Somasundaran, and Turro, N. J. (1997). Adsorption of Alkyltrimethylammonium
Bromides on Negatively Charged Alumina. Langmuir, 13, 506. 22. Goloub, T. P., and Koopal, L. K. (1997). Adsorption of Cationic Surfactants on Silica.
Comparison of Experiment and Theory. Langmuir, 13, 673. 23. Gustafson, J. B., Tell, J., G., and Orem, D. (1997). Selection of Representative TPH Fractions
Based on Fate and Transport Considerations. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series, 3.
24. Hankins, N. P., O'Haver, J. H., and Harwell, J. H. (1996). Modeling Effects of pH and
Counterions on Surfactant Adsorption at the Oxide/Water Interface. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 35, 2844.
25. Harwell, J. H., Hoskins, J. C., Schechte r, Robert S., and Wade, W. H. (1985).
Pseudophase Separation Model for Surfactant Adsorption: Isomerically Pure Surfactants. Langmuir , 1, 251.
26. Harwell, J. H., Sabatini, D. A., and Knox, R. K. (1999). Surfactants for Ground Water
Remediation. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 151, 255. 27. Harwell, J. H., and Scamehorn, J. F. (1992). Adsorption of Mixed Surfactant System.
Surfactant Science Series, 43, p. 263. 28. Harwell, J., and O'Rear, E. A. (1992). Adsorbed Surfactant Bilayers as Two-Dimensional
Solvents: Admicellar-enhanced Chromatography. Surfactant-Based Separation Processes, Surfactant Science Series, 33, p.155.
29. Huang, Yan, Z., and Gu, T. (1989). Mixed Adsorption of Cationic and Anionic Surfactants
from Aqueous Solution on Silica Gel. Colloids and Surfaces, 36, 353. 30. Kang, K. H., Kim, H. U., Lim, K. H. et al. (2001). Mixed Micellization of Anionic
Ammonium Dodecyl Sulfate and Cationic Octadecyl Trimethyl Ammonium Chloride. Bull. Korean. Chem. Soc., 22, 1009.
31. Kitiyanan, B., O'Haver, J., Harwell, J. et al. (1996). Adsolubilization of Styrene and Isoprene
in Cetyltrimethylammonium Bromide Admicelle on Precipitated Silica. Langmuir, 12, 2162.
53
32. Lai, C. L., O'Rear, Edgar A. et al. (1997). Adsolubilization of Fluorocarbon Alcohols into Perfluoroheptanoate Admicelles Formed on Alumina. Langmuir, 13, 4267.
33. Lee, E. M., and Koopal, L. K. (1996). Adsorption of Cationic and Anionic Surfactants on
Metal Oxide Surfaces: Surface Charge Adjustment and Competition Effects. Journal of Colloid Interface Science, 177, 478.
34. Li, X., and Kunieda, H. (2000). Formation of Cubic-Phase Microemulsions with Anionic and
Cationic Surfactants at Equal Amounts of Oil and Water. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 231, 143.
35. Li, X., Koichi, U., & Hironobu, K. (1999). Solubilization and Phase Behavior of
Microemulsions with Mixed Anionic-Cationic Surfactants and Hexanol. Langmuir, 15, 7973. 36. Lopata, J. J. (1988). A Study of the Adsorption of Binary Anionic Surfactant Mixtures on
Alpha Alumina Oxide. Master Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Oklahoma.
37. Marques, E., Khan, A., Miguel, M. C. et al. (1993). Self-Assembly in Mixtures of a Cationic
and an Anionic Surfactant: The Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate Didodecyldimethylammonium Bromide- Water System. J Phys. Chem., 97, 4729.
38. Mehreteab, A. (1999). Anionic and Cationic Surfactant Mixture. Hand Book of Detergents
Part A: Properties, Surfactant Science Series, 82, p. 133. 39. Nayyar, S. P., Sabatini, D. A., and Harwell, J. H. (1994). Surfactant Adsolubilization and
Modified Admicellar Sorption of Nonpolar, Polar, and Ionizable Organic Contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol., 28, 1874.
40. Neupane, D., and Park, J. (1999). Binding of Dialkylated Disulfonated Diphenyl Oxide
Surfactant onto Alumina in the Aqueous Phase. Chemosphere, 38, 1. 41. Neupane, D., and Park, J. (2000). Partitioning of Naphthalene to Gemini Surfactants-treated
Alumina. Chemosphere, 41, 787. 42. Park, J., and Jaffe, P. R. (1993). Partitioning of Three Nonionic Organic Compounds between
Adsorbed Surfactants, Micelles, and Water. Environ. Sci. Technol., 27, 2559. 43. Pradubmook, T., O'Haver, J. H., Malakul, P. et al. (2003). Effect of pH on Adsolubilization
of Toluene and Acetophenone into Adsorbed Surfactants on Precipitated Silica. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 224, 93.
44. Rosen, M. J. (1989). Surfactant Phenomena. Wiley, Jonh & Sons, Incoperated. 45. Rosen, M., Gao, T., Nakatsuji, Y. et al. (1994). Synergism in Binary Mixtures of Surfactants
12. Mixtures Containing Surfactants with Two Hydrophilic and Two or Three Hydrophobic Groups. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 88, 1.
46. Rouse, J. D., Sabatini, D. A., Deeds, N. E. et al. (1995). Micellar Solubilization of Saturated
Hydrocarbon Concentrations As Evaluated by Semiequilibrium Dialysis. Environ. Sci. Technol., 29, 2484.
47. Rouse, J. D., Sabatini, D. A., and Harwell, J. (1993). Minimizing Surfactant Losses Using
Twin-Head Anionic Surfactants in Subsurface Remediation. Environ. Sci. Technol., 27, 2072.
54
48. Sabatini, D. A., Knox, R. K., Harwell, J. et al. (2000). Integrated Design of Surfactants Enhanced DNAPL Remediation: Efficient Supersolubilization and Gradient Systems. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 45, 99.
49. Salkar, R. A., Mukesh, D., Samant, S. D. et al. (1998). Mechanism of Micelle to Vesicle
Transition in Cationic-Anionic Surfactant Mixtures. Langmuir, 14, 3378. 50. Scamehorn, J. F., and Harwell, J. H. (1989). Surfactants-Based Separation Processes.
Surfactant Science Series, 33, p.155. 51. Scamehorn, J. F., and Harwell, J. H. (1992). Precipitation of Surfactant Mixtures 10.
Precipitation of Surfactant Mixtures. Surfactant Science Series, 283. 52. Scamehorn, J. F., Schechter, R. S., and Wade, W. H. (1981). Adsorption of Surfactant on
Mineral Oxide Surfaces from Aqueous Solutions. . 53. Shiau, B., Harwell, J. H., and Scamehorn, J. F. (1994). Precipitation of Mixtures of Anionic
and Cationic Surfactants III Effect of Added Nonionic Surfactant. Journal of Colloid Interface Science, 167, 332.
54. Sidorova, M. P., Goloub, T. P., Koopal, L. K., and Bijsterbosch, B. H. (1996). Adsorption of
Cationic Surfactants on Silica. Surface Charge Effects. Langmuir, 12, 3188. 55. Somasundaran, P., and Fuerstrnsu, D. W. (1966). Mechanism of Alkyl Sulfonate Adsorption
at the Alumina-Water Interface. Journal of Physical Chemistry, 90. 56. Stellner, K. L., Amante, J. C., Scamehorn, J. F. et al. (1988). Precipitation Phenomena in
Mixtures of Anionic and Cationic Surfactants in Aqueous Solutions. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 123, 186.
57. Sun, S., and Jaffe, P. R. (1996). Sorption of Phenanthrene from Water onto Alumina Coated
with Dianionic Surfactants. Environ. Sci. Technol., 30, 2960. 58. Tan, Y., O'Haver, John H. (2003). Lipophilic Linker Impact on Adsorption of Styrene and
Adsolubilization in Polyethoxylated Octylphenols. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochem. Eng. Aspects, 232, 101.
59. Wagner, J., Chen, H., Brownawell, B. J. et al. (1994). Use of Cationic Surfactants To Modify
Soil Surfaces To Promote Sorption and Retard Migration of Hydrophobic Organic Compounds. Environ. Sci. Technol., 28, 231.
60. West, C. C., and Harwell, J. H. (1992). Surfactants and Subsurface Remediation. Environ. Sci.
Technol., 26, 2324. 61. Wu, J., Harwell, J. H., and O'Rear, A. E. (1987). Two-Dimensional Reaction Solvents:
Surfactant Bilayers in the Formation of Ultrathin Films. Langmuir, 3, 531.