Foaming and Foam Stability for Mixed Polymer–Surfactant Solutions: Effects of Surfactant Type and Polymer Charge

Abstract

Solutions of surfactant-polymer mixtures often exhibit different foaming properties, compared to the solutions of the individual components, due to the strong tendency for formation of polymer-surfactant complexes in the bulk and on the surface of the mixed solutions. A generally shared view in the literature is that electrostatic interactions govern the formation of these complexes, for example between anionic surfactants and cationic polymers. In this study we combine foam tests with model experiments to evaluate and explain the effect of several polymer-surfactant mixtures on the foaminess and foam stability of the respective solutions. Anionic, cationic, and nonionic surfactants (SDS, C(12)TAB, and C(12)EO(23)) were studied to clarify the role of surfactant charge. Highly hydrophilic cationic and nonionic polymers (polyvinylamine and polyvinylformamide, respectivey) were chosen to eliminate the (more trivial) effect of direct hydrophobic interactions between the surfactant tails and the hydrophobic regions on the polymer chains. Our experiments showed clearly that the presence of opposite charges is not a necessary condition for boosting the foaminess and foam stability in the surfactant-polymer mixtures studied. Clear foam boosting (synergistic) effects were observed in the mixtures of cationic surfactant and cationic polymer, cationic surfactant and nonionic polymer, and anionic surfactant and nonionic polymer. The mixtures of anionic surfactant and cationic polymer showed improved foam stability, however, the foaminess was strongly reduced, as compared to the surfactant solutions without polymer. No significant synergistic or antagonistic effects were observed for the mixture of nonionic surfactant (with low critical micelle concentration) and nonionic polymer. The results from the model experiments allowed us to explain the observed trends by the different adsorption dynamics and complex formation pattern in the systems studied.

Efficient self-emulsification via cooling-heating cycles

“…for the reverse process), where thin films are formed between two colliding drops or bubbles. Thus, we could ‘borrow' some lead ideas and approaches from previous studies3839404142 to clarify the main factors that control the self-emulsification via Mechanism 1. Unlike aqueous films, which are efficiently stabilized by conventional surfactants or polymers, thin oil films are known to be inherently unstable, due to the lack of electrostatic repulsion and the rather weak steric repulsion between the film surfaces42.…”

Bulk and surface rheology of Aculyn™ 22 and Aculyn™ 33 polymeric solutions and kinetics of foam drainage

“…Foaming properties of nonionic polymer poly(N-vinylformamide) and cationic polymer poly(vinylamine) in mixtures with different surfactants: anionic -sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS), non-ionic -polyoxiethelene-23 dodecyl ether (Brij 35), and cationic -dodecyltrimethylamonium bromide (DTAB) were thoroughly studied in [29]. The foaming properties of most compositions have been explained in [29] considering the polymer surfactant interactions in bulk and at the interfaces.…”

“…The foaming properties of most compositions have been explained in [29] considering the polymer surfactant interactions in bulk and at the interfaces. The most surprising result of this study, which still requires its explanation, is the increased (in comparison to pure surfactant solution) foamability and foam stability of mixture of cationic surfactant and cationic polymer.…”

Systematic Phase Behaviour Study and Foam Stability Analysis for Optimal Alkaline/Surfactant/Foam Enhanced Oil Recovery

“…They stabilised foam by inducing repulsive forces in the lamellae, modifying the viscoelasticity of gasliquid interfaces and reduction of gas-liquid surface tension (Gauchet et al, 2014;Karakashev et al, 2012;Stubenrauch & Klitzing, 2003).This IFT reduction leads to increase of capillary number to improve the sweep efficiency (Kang et al, 2010;Yuqiang et al, 2008). The surface behaviour of the strongly interacting systems depends significantly on the electrolyte concentration, charge density and length of hydrocarbon chain in the surfactants (Campbel et al, 2011;Petkova et al, 2012;Worthen et al, 2013). Recently it was shown that the surface tension behaviour in the foam structures can also be influenced by mechanical agitation of the solutions (Campbell et al, 2011).…”