Theoretical Approaches on the Synergistic Interaction between Double‐Headed Anionic Amino Acid‐Based Surfactants and Hexadecyltrimethylammonium Bromide

Abstract

Theoretical investigations on the micellization of mixtures of (i) amino acid‐based anionic surfactants [AAS: N‐dodecyl derivatives of aminomalonate, −aspartate, and ‐glutamate] and (ii) hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide (HTAB), were carried out at different mole ratios. Variation in the theoretical values of critical micelle concentration (CMC), mole fraction of surfactants in the micellar phase (X), at the interface (Xσ), interaction parameters at the bulk/interface (βR/βσ), ideality/nonideality of the mixing processes, and activity coefficients (f) were evaluated using Rubingh, Rosen, Motomora, and Sarmoria‐Puvvada‐Blankschtein models. CMC values significantly deviate from the theroretically calculated values, indicating associative interaction. With increasing mole fraction of AAS (αAAS), the magnitude of the (βR/βσ) values gradually decreased, considered to attributable to hydrophobic interactions. With increasing αAAS, the micellar mole fraction of HTAB (X2) decreased insignificantly and X2 values were higher than those compared to AAS for all combinations, due to the dominance of HTAB in micelles. Micellar mole fraction at the ideal state of AAS (X1ideal) differed from micellar mole fraction of AAS (X1), indicating nonideality in the mixed micellization process. Gibbs free energy of micellization ( ∆Gm) values are more negative than the free energy of micellization for ideal mixing (∆Gmideal), indicating the micellization process is spontaneous. With increasing αAAS, the enthalpy of micellization (ΔHm) and entropy of micellization (ΔSm) values gradually increased, which indicates micellization is exothermic. The different physicochemical parameters of the mixed micelles are correlated with the variation in the spacer length between the two carboxylate groups of AAS.

Comparative studies on the aggregate formation of synthesized zwitterionic gemini and monomeric surfactants in the presence of the amphiphilic antipsychotic drug chlorpromazine hydrochloride in aqueous solution: an experimental and theoretical approach

“…Here, X R 1 represents the micellar mole fraction of the drug CPZ in the mixed system of drug-zwitterionic surfactants; cmc 1 is the cmc of the drug CPZ and cmc 2 is the cmc of zwitterionic surfactants (C 12 DmCB and C 14 Ab). Eqn (15) was solved by an iterative process to obtain X R 1 values. These X R 1 values were used to calculate the interaction parameter (b R ).…”

“…8,9 The critical amphiphile concentration mandatory for the commencement of the formation of an aggregated assembly, referred generally to as a micelle, is called the critical micellar concentration (cmc). 10,11 Mixed micellar systems can consist of two or more types of amphiphiles available in the literature [5][6][7][12][13][14][15][16] and belong to any combination of anionic, cationic, nonionic, and zwitterionic surfactants. Mixed surfactant systems almost always show an improvement in interfacial properties (e.g., lower cmc, greater surface activity, etc.)…”

Self-Assembly of Amphiphilic Compounds as a Versatile Tool for Construction of Nanoscale Drug Carriers

“…Dicationic histidine derivatives were documented as promising agents for antibacterial treatment against new generations of microorganisms like methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [ 47 ]. The authors of [ 48 ] investigated the surface-active and micelle-forming properties of three anionic dicarboxylic amino acid-based surfactants in combination with the cationic compound cethyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB). It was shown that maximum number of the cationic surfactant CTAB molecules on the micellar surface leads to the formation of close-packed micellar structures [ 49 ].…”

Interaction of saponification products of Robinia pseudoacacia seed oil with cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide

“…Kang et al studied The surface properties and the microaggregates of a sulfonate gemini surfactant 1,2‐bis( N ‐dodecyl‐ N ‐propane sulfonate sodium)‐ethane (SGS12) and conventional cationic surfactant CTAB mixtures (Kang et al, 2020). Barai et al explored theoretical approaches to the synergistic interaction between hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide (HTAB) and double‐headed anionic amino acid‐based surfactants (Barai et al, 2020). Ren et al probed the interaction behavior between an amphoteric sodium N ‐acyl amino sulfonate based on castor oil (AAS‐CO) and the cationic stearyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (STAB) (Li et al, 2021).…”