Interaction of Polyacrylamide with Conventional Anionic and Gemini Anionic Surfactants

Niranjan, P. S.; Upadhyay, Santosh Kumar

doi:10.1080/01932690903542982

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…e ratio cmc/pC 20 is an interesting study. Such type of work was observed by Niranjan and Upadhyay in 2010 [78]. e variation in the curves for CTAB increases sharply with the volume fraction of methanol and looks concave for 298.15 to 323.15 K, whereas the variation in the curve for CTAB at 323.15 K with the volume fraction of methanol looks the highest and the lowest at 298.15 K (Figure S6).…”

Section: Correlation Of Cmc/pc 20 With the Volume Fraction Of Methanolsupporting

confidence: 72%

Interfacial and Micellization Behavior of Cetyltrimethylammonium Bromide (CTAB) in Water and Methanol-Water Mixture at 298.15 to 323.15 K

Shah

Bhattarai

2020

Journal of Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The micellization behavior of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) in water , 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 volume fractions of methanol at 298.15, 308.15, 318.15, and 323.15 K were investigated by surface tension measurements. The effect of methanol on values of critical micelle concentration (cmc), free energies of micellization ΔGmo, and surface properties viz. maximum surface excess concentration Γmax, area occupied by per surfactant molecule Amin, surface pressure πcmc, solution surface tension γcmc, solvent surface tension (γo), free energies of adsorption ΔGadso, the efficiency of adsorption (pC20), effective Gibbs free energy ΔGeffo, and free energy of surface at equilibrium (Gmin) were investigated using surface tension values. Other parameters such as the packing parameter (P), aggregation number (N), concentration of surfactant in the bulk phase (C20), relation between Amin and πcmc, and correlation of slopes dγ/d log C, γo/γcmc, Γ/Γmax, cmc/C20, ΔGadso/ΔGmo, and cmc/pC20 with the volume fraction of methanol are calculated and discussed in the light of the experiment done.

show abstract

Section: Correlation Of Cmc/pc 20 With the Volume Fraction Of Methanolsupporting

confidence: 72%

Interfacial and Micellization Behavior of Cetyltrimethylammonium Bromide (CTAB) in Water and Methanol-Water Mixture at 298.15 to 323.15 K

Shah

Bhattarai

2020

Journal of Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…e ratio of CMC to pC 20 ( CMC/pC 20 ) is an interesting study. Such type of work was observed by Niranjan and Upadhyay in 2010 [41]. e variation of the curve for soaps increases sharply for LFBY, NM, OKT, LRL, and LX ( Figure 17) fitting by the polynomial equation of correlation coefficient, r 2 = 1.…”

Section: Correlation Of ( Cmc/pc 20 ) With Soapssupporting

confidence: 64%

Conductivity, Surface Tension, and Comparative Antibacterial Efficacy Study of Different Brands of Soaps of Nepal

Chaudhary

Bhattarai

Guragain

et al. 2020

Journal of Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study aims to evaluate the solution properties and antibacterial efficacy study of five different brands of toilet soaps of Nepal such as Okhati (OKT), Lifebuoy (LFBY), Lux (LX), Liril (LRL), and Chiuree Neem (NM). The evaluation of critical micelle concentration (CMC) and their thermodynamics and surface properties are also reported. This study was further extended to evaluate antibacterial efficacy against three pathogenic bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), Escherichia coli (E. coli), and Proteus vulgaris (P. vulgaris) by disc diffusion technique, and it was done at four different concentrations of soap. The bioactive ingredients present in them provide antibacterial potency to cure various skin problems caused by bacterial pathogens. Similarly, the antibacterial potency of LFBY was found higher than other soaps. Based on these studies, we can simply take LFBY soap at the highest rank in regards to antibacterial sensitivity.

show abstract

“…Other major factors, which are playing an important role, are the length of the surfactant hydrophobic tail [7] and temperature [8]. The interactions of various anionic and cationic surfactants with water soluble polymers have been studied by a number of workers using different techniques [9][10][11]. The anionic surfactants are reported to have strong affinity for these polymers as compared to cationic ones, and this strong affinity has been explained on the basis of electrostatic as well as nonelectrostatic interactions between surfactant and polymer [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Head Groups, Temperature, and Polymer Concentration on Surfactant—Polymer Interactions

Banipal

Kaur

Banipal

et al. 2014

J Surfact & Detergents

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The micellization behaviour of sodium dodecyl sulphate, sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate, hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide, tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide, and cetylpyridinium chloride in water and in aqueous solutions of polyethylene oxide (PEO, molecular weight = 100,000) having concentrations (0.005-0.04 %, w/v) has been studied at different temperatures (288.15-318.15 K) using conductivity, surface tension, and viscosity methods. From conductivity measurements various micellar parameters, like critical micellar concentration (CMC), critical aggregation concentration (CAC), polymer saturation point (PSP), degree of ionization (b), and standard free energy of transfer (DG 0 t ), have been calculated. CAC values have been found to decrease with polymer concentration and increase with temperature. However, the PSP values increase with both polymer concentration and temperature for all surfactants. Similar parameters have also been calculated from surface tension data (CMC r , CAC r , PSP r ) along with other parameters such as maximum surface excess concentration at the air/water interface (C max ), minimum area per molecule (A min ), and packing parameter (p). The CMC r , CAC r , and PSP r values are smaller than the corresponding CMC, CAC, and PSP values, but both show similar behaviour with temperature and concentration of polymer. Various parameters indicate that the presence of the aromatic ring in the head group of surfactant decreases its interaction with PEO, whereas the increased hydrophobicity in the tail leads to stronger interactions with PEO. Viscosity studies further supplement the conclusions drawn from the above results.

show abstract

Interaction of Polyacrylamide with Conventional Anionic and Gemini Anionic Surfactants

Cited by 17 publications

References 20 publications

Interfacial and Micellization Behavior of Cetyltrimethylammonium Bromide (CTAB) in Water and Methanol-Water Mixture at 298.15 to 323.15 K

Interfacial and Micellization Behavior of Cetyltrimethylammonium Bromide (CTAB) in Water and Methanol-Water Mixture at 298.15 to 323.15 K

Conductivity, Surface Tension, and Comparative Antibacterial Efficacy Study of Different Brands of Soaps of Nepal

Effect of Head Groups, Temperature, and Polymer Concentration on Surfactant—Polymer Interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About