Abstract

AbstractIn this study, the critical micellar concentration (CMC) of anionic, cationic and nonionic surfactants was determined using the UV–Vis spectroscopic method. Sodium lauryl sulfate (SDS) as anionic, hexadecyl‐trimethyl‐ammonium bromide as cationic, tert‐octylphenol ethoxylates TOPEON (with N = 9.5, 7.5 and 35) and lauryl alcohol ethoxylate (23EO) as nonionic surfactants have been used. Concentration of surfactants varies both from below and above the CMC value in the pyrene solution. In addition, the amount of the CMC was determined using the values from the data obtained from the graph of absorbance versus concentration of surfactants. A comparative study was conducted between the results of the present study and the literature which shows a good agreement, in particular for TOPEO9.5 and LAEO23. Furthermore, the CMC value of SDS (as an ionic surfactant) in the presence of nonionic surfactants was also examined. The result reveals that with addition of small amount of nonionic surfactant to the anionic SDS surfactant, a decline in the CMC value of the anionic–nonionic system relative to the CMC of pure anionic surfactant was observed. In addition and for the first time, the effect of UV irradiation on the size of the micelle formations was studied. It was found that UV irradiation causes the formation of smaller micelles which is of prime concern in membrane technology.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.