Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Scientific Reports volume 14, Article number: 20351 (2024 ) Cite this article workover fluid additives
In this study, three Gemini cationic surfactants related to thiazol-2-amine with three hydrocarbon chain lengths including 3-hexylthiazol-3-ium (TAC6), 3-dodecylthiazol-3-ium (TAC12) and octadecylthiazol3-ium (TAC18) were prepared. Surfactant structures were confirmed with IR and 1HNMR Spectroscopies. Critical micelle concentrations for all surfactants in 15% DMSO-Water solvent were measured using conductometric, refractometric, and densitometric techniques. Thermodynamics parameters were computed and explained. Also, enhancing properties of all surfactants were indicated under the effect of two concentrations, 0.001 M and 0.01 M, of six inorganic salts including Cl−, Br−, I−, Co+2, Cu+2, and Mn+2 radicals using conductivity and refractive index measurements. All techniques used to measure critical micelles concentration showed a good convergence in measuring CMC values and the behavior of all surfactants in 15% DMSO-water solvent. Increasing the binding constant of the counter ion and association constant reflects the effect of hydrocarbon chain length increment on enhancing micelle formation, where TAC 18 was shown as the lowest CMC in all applied measurements. Modeling the density of all surfactant solutions under study indicates an increase in hydrophobic polarizability with an increase in the molecular weight of the surfactant. Inorganic salts decreased the CMC of all surfactants with the increase in Gibbs free energy of micellization which ensures easier formation of more stable micelles in the presence of a salt solution. The effect of salts on decreasing CMC for all surfactants under study was arranged in the following order: Mn+2 < Cu+2 < Co+2 for cationic radicals and I− < Br− < Cl− for anionic radicals.
Gemini cationic surfactants are essential in many industrial domains1, including the transfer of genetic materials, oil recovery, food processing, antimicrobials, cosmetics, and corrosion inhibitors2,3,4,5,6,7. Turning surfactants into Gemini type enhances their benefits by lowering their critical micelle concentration (CMC)8, increasing their solubility in water, producing unique micelle structures and aggregation behavior, and improving their efficacy in lowering the interfacial tension9. The particular structure of Gemini cationic surfactant is comprised of two hydrophilic heads and two hydrophobic tails that are connected by spacers with different chemical compositions, situated at or near the head group levels10. The chemical structure of Gemini cationic surfactant gained the primary effect influencing surfactant adsorption at the air/water interface and aggregation in aqueous solution. Physicochemical and biological properties can be precisely tailored to suit a variety of applications by altering structural moieties including spacers, head groups, and hydrocarbon chains9,11.
Several techniques were used to measure the CMC of Gemini cationic surfactants including conductivity, surface tension, density, refractive index, viscosity, and spectrophotometric12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20. Thermodynamic properties including; molar volume (Vϕ), polarizability (αD), and ionic association constant (Ka) were used to understand the behavior of solvation and micellization mechanism of surfactants21,22,23. Aggregation properties of surfactants affected by different factors include the nature of surfactants (hydrophobic chain length, and hydrophilic head group area), temperature, solvent, additive, pressure, pH, and ionic strength of surfactant solutions24,25,26,27,28.
The current article aims to synthesize and characterization of three Gemini cationic surfactants related to thizol-3-ium bromide. Accurate determination of their CMC values uses several methods, including conductivity, refractive index, density, and molar volume. Also, the related thermodynamic parameters were indicated and explained. The parameters include; binding constant of counter ions (β), dissociation constant (α), Gibbs free energy of micellization (ΔGmic) and association (ΔGass), molar refraction (Rm), polarizability (αD), electrostriction volume (VE) and Vander Waals volume (Vw). Also, simulating the effect of two concentrations of six different inorganic salts on the properties of these Gemini cationic surfactants. The current work also attempts to investigate changes in the thermodynamics of solvation and micellization of synthesized surfactants into a 15% DMSO-Water solvent under the effect of different salts.
All chemical compounds used in this study were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich, an international company based in the United States, with a high purity grade, eliminating the need for additional purification.; terephthalaldehyde (99%), thiazol-2-amine (99%), bromohexane (98%), bromododecane (97%), bromooctadecane (97%), acetone (99.9%), ethanol (99.9%), dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) (99.9%), sodium chloride (98%), sodium bromide (98%), sodium iodide (98%), cobalt chloride (98%), manganese chloride (98%), copper chloride (98%) and bi-distilled water from our lab (conductivity, κs < 2 µS cm−1).
Terephthalaldehyde (0.1 mol) was refluxed with thazol-2-amine (0.1 mol) for 12 h in the presence of ethanol (100 mL) as a solvent and 0.01% (by weight) of p-toluene sulfonic acid as a dehydrating agent. The reaction mixture was left to cool overnight and then filtered. The products were recrystallized twice from ethanol, washed with water, and dried under vacuum at 60 °C to afford crystals of (1E,1′E)-1,1′-(1,4-phenylene)bis(N-(thiazol-2-yl)methanimine). The product was refluxed with (0.2 mol) of different alky halides (R = C6H13 & C12H25 & C18H37) in acetone for 24 h. The reaction mixture was left to cool overnight and then filtered. The products were recrystallized twice from acetone, washed by water and dried under vacuum at 60 °C to afford crystals of 2,2′-(((1E,1′E)-1,4-phenylenebis(methaneylylidene))bis (azaneylylidene))bis(3-hexylthiazol-3-ium) bromide (TAC 6); 2,2'-(((1E,1'E)-1,4-phenylenebis(methaneylylidene))bis(azaneylylidene))bis(3-dodecyl thiazol-3-ium) bromide (TAC 12); and 2,2′-(((1E,1′E)-1,4-phenylenebis(methaneylylidene)) bis(azaneylylidene))bis(3-octadecylthiazol-3-ium) bromide (TAC 18) as shown in (Scheme 1).
Synthetic route of TAC Gemini cationic surfactants.
The Thermo-Fisher Nicolet iS10 IR spectroscope (United States) was utilized to characterize the synthesized surfactants (TAC 6), (TAC 12), and (TAC 18) within the range 400–4000 cm-1, with a resolution of 4 cm−1 where potassium bromide pellets were combined with all solid surfactants. Based on the synthetic surfactant Structure, certain functional groups were demonstrated by the wavelengths of the peaks. Next, proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-NMR), United States, was used to characterize all surfactants. DMSO was used as a solvent during sample preparation, and a 500 MHz JNM-ECA Series FT-NMR spectrometer was used to capture the results. The structures of the samples were used to express the chemical changes in parts per million.
The chemical structure of the synthesized Gemini cationic surfactants was indicated using 1HNMR spectroscopy and IR spectroscopy.
The structure of TAC 6 surfactant, as an example of newly synthesized surfactants, with different position symbols (a−h) was shown in Structure 1. As shown in (Fig. 1), chemical shifts corresponding to different functional groups were indicated including peaks at 0.84–0.85 (s, 1H, (f) –CH3); 1.22–1.23 (t, 6H, (e) –CH2); 2.49 (d, 4H, (d) –CH2); 3.34–3.40 (s, 2H, (c) -CH2); 9.20 (s, 1H, (b) –N = CH–R); 8.02–8.10 (s, 2H, (a) –CH); 7.29–7.78 (t, 3H, (g) –CH); 3.43–3.99 (s, 1H, (h) –CH–S.
Chemical structure of TAC 6 with numbered at different positions (a–h)
1HNMR spectrum of all surfactants in DMSO solvent.
The IR spectrum of TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 Gemini cationic surfactants is represented in (Fig. 2). All vibration bands as functional groups were represented at the following wavelength where; vibration –CH in benzene ring 2843–2889 cm−1, –CH in methyl group or aliphatic chain at 2917–2933 cm−1, S–CH=C at 3170–3197 cm−1, –CH2 in the aliphatic chain at 3009–3041 cm−1, CH2–CH2 or N–CH= at 1620–1644 cm−1, benzene –CH=N or CH=CH at 1506–1559 cm−1, = C–CH between the benzene ring and thiazole ring at 1411–1427 cm−1, N+–CH = in thiazole ring at 1306–1374 cm−1, CH2 in the aliphatic chain at 722–742 cm−1.
IR spectra for All Gemini cationic surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12 and TAC 18.
Critical micelles concentration values in 15% DMSO-water solvent at 298.15 K for all surfactants under study were measured by several techniques including; conductometric measurement (Fig. 3), refractometric measurement Fig. 4, densitometric measurement (Fig. 5), molar volume (Fig. 6) and surface tension (Fig. 7) where concentration in (mol L−1) plotted against different parameters; specific conductance in (µs/cm), refractive index, density (g/cm3), molar volume (m3/mol) and surface tension (mN/m), of the solution after each addition.
Conductivity vs. molar concentration for all surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12 and TAC 18 in 15% DMSO-water at 298.15 K.
Refractive index vs. molar concentration for all surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 in 15% DMSO-water at 298.15 K.
Densities vs. molar concentration for all surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12 and TAC 18 in 15% DMSO-water at 298.15 K.
Molar Volume vs. molar concentration for all surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 in 15% DMSO-water at 298.15 K.
surface tension vs. molar concentration for all surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 in 15% DMSO-water at 298.15 K.
The CMC values for all surfactants under study; TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 in 15% DMSO-water solvent at 298.15 K estimated from different techniques (conductivity, refractive index, density, and molar volume) were summarized in (Table 1).
The formation of micelles in each surfactant solution was indicated from the sharpening decrement in the rate mobility of monomers and dimers surfactants, which was indicated by a slow increase in the specific conductance after the CMC for all surfactants under study; TAC 6, TAC 12 and TAC 18 as shown in (Fig. 3) which indicate the formation of micelles31,32.
The refractive indices of all surfactants under study; TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 shown in (Fig. 4) indicate a decrease with the increment in concentration of each surfactant. This may be related to the solvation of hydrophobic hydrocarbon chains of all surfactants until they reach their CMC value where dehydration occurs33.
Density is another physical characteristic of surfactant solutions that varies depending on the surfactant aggregation state. Furthermore, the molecular weight of the surfactant and the various hydrophobic solvation grades influence how much the density increases in the dimer state. In particular, as shown in (Fig. 5), the density of a solution of all surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 increased more in the micelle state per unit mass of the surfactant than it did in the dimer state. The decrement in the solvation between all surfactants under study and 15% DMSO-water solvent led to a decrease in the molar volume of the surfactants in the dimer state. The increase in the density through the surfactants in dimer form is due to the increase in molecular weight through surfactants in the following arrangement TAC 18 < TAC 12 < TAC 6 per unit volume34. After critical micelles concentration of all surfactant where dimers left bounded water free through dehydration process12 which led to approximately constant values of the molar volume of all surfactant solutions as shown in (Fig. 6). The high increment in molecular weight of all synthesized surfactants with constant values of molar volume led to a sharp increment in all surfactant densities after CMC35,36.
Surface tension measurement is commonly used to determine the Critical Micelle Concentration (CMC) of surfactants. Gemini cationic surfactants adsorb at the interface between solution and air, forming a monolayer that reduces the cohesive forces among solution molecules37. This adsorption increases until the surfactant concentration reaches CMC, after which micelles begin to form in the solution, reducing their presence at the solution surface as shown in (Fig. 7). However, our study found that surface tension measurement was not effective in determining CMC for all surfactants. This limitation may stem from the solvent composition used to dissolve the examined surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18, which consisted of a 15% DMSO-water mixture38. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), a polar aprotic solvent, is known to potentially inhibit the reduction of surface tension39. It can dissolve non-polar Gemini cationic surfactants, thereby disrupting their micellar structure and reducing their surface activity40. Moreover, DMSO’s high dielectric constant may compete with Gemini cationic surfactants for interface adsorption, further impacting the surface tension reduction process.
Techniques used for all synthesized surfactants under study; TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 indicate the change in properties of all surfactants with increments in surfactant concentration. These techniques were used to observe the solvation mechanism of all synthesized surfactants in 15% DMSO-water solvent. Where critical micelles concentration of all surfactants were measured. There was a good fitting between measuring the CMC of all surfactants with different techniques. All techniques showed good agreement in explaining solvation and micellization of all surfactants through concentration as shown in (Fig. 8).
Comparison between CMC measuring from different techniques.
Estimation of the degree of ionization (α) and the counter ion binding (β) for TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 Gemini cationic surfactants in 15% DMSO-water were measured by plotting molar conductance (^) against concentration as shown in Eq. (1):
where; ^ is the molar conductance of surfactant solution, \({K}_{s}\) the specific conductance of surfactant solutions, and C is a concentration of surfactant solution at different addition to water solvent.
The degree of ionization was calculated from Eq. (2):
where S1 is the slope of the pre-micelle region and S2 is the slope of the post-micelle region.
Counter ion binding was calculated from Eq. (3):
Then Gibbs free energy of micellization for surfactants as in monomers form \({\Delta G}_{mic (monomer)}\) and in dimers form \(\Delta G_{{mic \left( {dimer} \right)}}\) was measure from Eq. (4) and (5).
where R is the universal gas constant and T is the absolute temperature which equals 298.15 K.
Limiting molar conductance of different surfactants was measured from (Eq. 6) where molar conductance was plotted against the square power of concentration of a surfactant solution at the premicellar curve.
By using the data observed from all surfactants under study; TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 then applying Shedlovsky extrapolation as in Eq. (7)
where Ka is the association constant, γi is the activity coefficient estimated from the Debye − Huckel limiting law as modified by Robinson and Stokes and shedlovsky function S(ʑ) can be calculated from Eq. (8).
The association constants for TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 Gemini cationic surfactants were calculated and then the standard Gibbs free energy change of association was calculated for all Gemini cationic surfactants at 298.15 K According to Eq. (9).
The degree of ionization, α, the counter ion binding, β, and the standard free energy of micellization, association constant (Ka), and the standard free energy change of association (ΔGa) and micellization (ΔGmic) for the surfactants understudy in 15% DMSO–water solvent at 298.15 K are presented in (Table 2).
Two different factors affect the formation of micelles of all surfactants under study in a 15% DMSO-water solvent including; electrostatic repulsion of positive head groups which resist the formation of micelles and hydration of hydrocarbon chain which is more effective in the formation of micelles. Water molecules tended to interact with hydrocarbon chains in the surfactant tails and spacers between two head groups of surfactants with van Waals forces41. As summarized in (Table 2), the degree of ionization of counter ions was indicated from the ratio between the slopes after and before CMC of all surfactants42. A decrease in the slope after CMC was indicated due to the formation of micelles as shown in (Fig. 3) and a decrease in free monomers in the solution43. While binding of counter ions indicated more information about the aggregation of surfactants in the micellization process44. The binding constant for counter ions in the stern layer tended to be increased with the increment of hydrocarbon chain length while the spacer was the same for all surfactants. The increase in negative Gibbs free energy of micellization for both monomers and dimers for all surfactants proved the spontaneity of micellization and association processes as hydrocarbon chain length increased with increasing in hydrophobic interaction45,46. The association constant was found to be gradually increasing where TAC 18 acquired the highest value. This confirms the effect of the increase in hydrocarbon chains on the association of surfactants47,48,49.
The density of TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 Gemini cationic surfactants in molar concentration in 15% DMSO-water was measured at 298.15 K. Molar volumes (Vφ) of all synthesized Gemini cationic surfactants under study were then calculated from the following Eq. (10):
where; M is the molecular weight of the surfactant; m is the molar concentration of the surfactant in solution; and ρ and ρ° are the densities of the surfactant solution and 15% DMSO-water solvent, respectively.
The packing density (P); the relation between the van der Waals volume (Vw) and the total molar volume of large molecules was found to have the same value50. so, van der Waals volumes (Vw) of the surfactants can be calculated by using Eq. (11).
While the electrostriction volume which indicates the amount that the pure water solvent compresses can be calculated from Eq. (12)
All calculated data including; electrostriction volume (\({V}_{E}\) ) and Van der Waals volume \({V}_{w}\) of TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 Gemini cationic surfactants in 15% DMSO-water solvent at 298.15 K are shown in Figs. 9–11.
The relationship between molar concentration against Van der Waals Volume (Vw) and electrostriction Volume (VE) for TAC 6 surfactants.
The relationship between molar concentration against Van der Waals Volume (Vw) and electrostriction Volume (VE) for TAC 12 surfactants.
The relationship between molar concentration against Van der Waals Volume (Vw) and electrostriction Volume (VE) for TAC 18 surfactants.
Through explaining the hydrophobic hydration of hydrocarbon chains of all surfactants with surrounding bounded water in the solvent. Which indicated a decrease in interaction between surfactants-solvent51,52,53. The values of van der Waals volume and electrostriction volume were calculated and indicated to decrease with the increment of concentration of all surfactants. Till reaching CMC, where dehydration process occurred and water molecules turned away from surfactant molecules54.
The densities of all newly synthesized Gemini cationic surfactants under study; TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 were calculated at 15% DMSO-water solvent at 298.15 K. From measuring densities of 15% DMSO-water solvent and densities of different additions for all surfactants to 15% DMSO-water solvent, the ratio between densities of 15% DMSO-water and density of solution for different concentrations of all surfactants in the same solvent plotted against different concentrations of all newly surfactants at 298.15 K in molar concentration according to extended Setschenow Eq. (13)
where; \({\rho }^{o}\) is the density of all new surfactants in 15% DMSO-water for all synthesized surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18. (K) is the Setschenow constant which is a measurable parameter for the effect of the concentration of all surfactants on the densities of surfactant solutions as shown in(Fig. 12).
Modeling the effect of densities change with increasing concentration of surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18.
It was found that the Setschenow constant increased but to a negative value which indicates an increase in the density of solution with the addition of different concentrations of different surfactants more rapidly compared with 15% DMSO-water solvent as shown in (Table 3). An increase in Setschenow constant may related to an increase in the molecular weight of all synthesized surfactants under study in the following order: TAC 18 > TAC 12 > TAC 6.
For all Gemini cationic surfactants under study; TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18, the refractive index was indicated at a concentration equal to 1 × 10−4 mol L−1 in 15% DMSO-water solvent at 298.15 K.
Where; molar refraction (Rm) for all surfactants was indicated by using their molar volumes and refractive indices from Eq. (14)
While atomic polarization (\({P}_{A})\) can be computed from Eq. (15)
The polarizability of all surfactants understudies in 15% DMSO-water solvent at 298.15 K was calculated from Eq. (16)
where; where (N) is Avogadro’s number and (\({\alpha }_{D}\) ) is the surfactant's polarizability.
Data summarized in (Table 4) indicate an increase in molar refraction, atomic polarizability, and polarizability at specific concentrations. This may be related to an increase in the hydrophobic solvation for larger surfactants. Where the stronger interaction between surfactants and solvent is indicated in the following arrangement: TAC 18 < TAC 12 < TAC 655.
The CMC values of all surfactants under study were indicated for the ternary system including all synthesized Gemini cationic surfactants under study, different sex inorganic salts, and 15% DMSO-water solvent at 298.15 K. Figures 13–18 indicate the relationship between the concentration of all surfactant solutions with different concentrations of six inorganic salts (0.001 and 0.01 mol L−1) in 15% DMSO-water solvent against solution conductivity. The selection of salt concentrations that were made in the study was based on choosing a single low concentration and a single high concentration of various inorganic salts to demonstrate the extent of their effect on the properties of the aggregation of surfactants under study56,57,58. Critical micelles concentration of all surfactants under study under the effect of salts are summarized in (Table 5).
Conductivity vs. concentration for TAC 6 in 0.001 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.
Conductivity vs. concentration for TAC 6 in 0.01 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.
Conductivity vs. concentration for TAC 12 in 0.001 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.
Conductivity vs. concentration for TAC 12 in 0.01 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.
Conductivity vs. concentration for TAC 18 in 0.001 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.
Conductivity vs. concentration for TAC 18 in 0.01 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.
The presence of different concentrations of six inorganic salts in 15% DMSO-water solvent simulated the salting out of all synthesized surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 in the solvent. This effect works as a catalyst for micelle formation through interaction between hydrocarbon chains attached to all surfactants59.
Where the presence of different six inorganic salts in 15% DMSO-water solvent increases the ionic strength of the surfactant solutions. While the CMC values of all surfactants highly decrease due to a decrease in electrostatic repulsion between intermolecular head groups60. Through studying the effect of counter ions effect on the aggregation of surfactants in the solvent under study, CMC values of all surfactants decreased with an increment of concentration of all six inorganic salts used as summarized in (Table 5).
While simulating the effect of counter ions on increasing the micelles formation of all surfactants, the CMC values of TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 indicated to decrease with the increasing in concentration of counter ion from different halide salts including NaCl, NaBr, NaI, MnCl2, CoCl2, and CuCl2 at a given temperature 298.15 K61 Where the counter ions in these salts influence the balance between positive had groups of the surfactants and their counter ions through the micelles surface. This effect leads to free water bound to head groups of surfactants.
From the indication of the influence of the addition of six different inorganic salts to the surfactant solution, the decrement in the CMC of all surfactants used in this study can be summarized as the following 0.01 mol L−1 of all six salts < 0.001 mol L−1 of the same salts. This indicates the effect of increased concentration of salts on the formation of more stable micelles at low concentrations.
The trends of CMC for all surfactants indicated to be as the following CMC of NaCl < CMC of NaBr < CMC of CoCl2 < CMC of NaI < CMC of CuCl2 < CMC of MnCl2 56. This arrangement may be related to the effect of the radius of each salt on its properties. Where the radius of salts affects the internuclear separation, ionic strength, ionization potential, lattice energy, and solubility of salts in different mediums. The radii in the Angstrom unit for six inorganic salts used in our study were indicated to be as the as the following NaCl = 1.81, NaBr = 1.96, NaI = 2.2, MnCl2 = 0.83, CoCl2 = 0.75 and CuCl2 = 0.7362,63,64.
By simulating the effect of cations of chloride common ion salts on the aggregation of all Gemini cationic surfactants under study, cobalt divalent cations were indicated to have the least effect on reducing CMC for all surfactants. This may be related to the decrease in radius of cobalt divalent ions which make ions much hydrated with solvent molecules through their higher affinity. Increasing the hydration of Co2+ ions leads to a decrease in the solvent molecules required for the hydrophobic hydration of surfactants65.
The CMC of all surfactants under study was indicated with the addition of a specific volume of all surfactants to a specific volume of two different concentrations of six inorganic salts. CMC of all indications was done by using a refractometer to detect the refractive index per each addition of surfactant to different mediums including all six inorganic salts where the refractive index of all surfactants in 0.001 and 0.01 mol L−1 of \(NaI, NaBr, NaCl{, MnCl}_{2}, {CuCl}_{2} and {CoCl}_{2}\) plotted against the concentration of surfactant solution as shown in Figs. 19–24.
Refractive index vs. concentration for (TAC 6) in 0.001 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.
Refractive index vs. concentration for (TAC 6) in 0.01 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.
Refractive index vs. concentration for (TAC 12) in 0.001 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.
Refractive index vs. concentration for (TAC 12) in 0.01 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.
Refractive index vs. concentration for (TAC 18) in 0.001 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.
Refractive index vs. concentration for (TAC 18) in 0.01 mol L-1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.
Refractive index measurement curves, where the refractive index for all surfactants is plotted against the concentration of solution with the addition of all surfactants in solution under different concentrations of inorganic salts.
As mentioned in Table 6, all six inorganic salts appeared to have the same effect on reducing the critical micelle concentration of all Gemini cationic surfactants. This may be related to the condensation of counter ions from different inorganic salts on the head groups of the Gemini cationic surfactant area in the micelles66.
The refractive indices of all surfactant solutions indicated an increase with the addition of different salts which are arranged as follows CMC of NaCl < CMC of NaBr < CMC of CoCl2 < CMC of NaI < CMC of CuCl2 < CMC of MnCl2. The increment in the radius of counter ions condensate on the micelle surface leads to an increase in the size of micelles formed. Where iodide counter ions acquired the largest effect on reducing CMC of all used surfactants. Where the radius of iodide < bromide < chloride26.
While increase in the salt concentration leads to an increase in the condensation of more counter ions on micelle surfaces. This effect is responsible for the decreasing of CMC of all surfactants at 0.01 mol L−1 compared to CMC at 0.001 mol L−1 for the same surfactants27.
Indications of the degree of ionization, and counter ion binding for all Gemini cationic surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 were calculated using the same Eqs. (2)–(3) mentioned before. Then micellization Gibbs free energy was also calculated and compared between all different inorganic salts at two different concentrations 0.001 and 0.01 mol L−1 according to Eq. (4) at 298.15 K. Using all previous calculations also the association constant and Gibbs free energy of association were indicated in Eqs. (7)–(9). All calculations related to conductometric measurement are summarized in(Table 7).
As observed in Table 7 all degrees of ionization of all surfactants in different mediums include two concentrations of six inorganic salts (0.001 and 0.01 mol L−1) observed to increase, respectively, with an increase in the addition of all salts. This effect may be related to an increment in solution ionic strength with an increase in the number of unbounded counter ions67. Increasing salt concentration for all salts directly proportional with ionic strength and therefore increases the degree of ionization of the surfactant solution in the following arrangement 0.01 mol L−1 of different salts < 0.001 mol L−1 of the same salts.
There was a reduction in the magnitude of Gibbs free energy of both micellization and association of all surfactants with the addition of all six inorganic salts as shown in (Table 7). This indication proved a decrease in the amount of energy required to transfer monomers of all surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 from bulk solution to micelles.
Negative values of Gibbs free energy of micellization and association proved an increment in the spontaneous nature of these two processes in the presence of all six inorganic salts. This may be related to the fact that the presence of all six inorganic salts improved the micelles formed in all surfactant solutions and made them more stable68.
The comparison between the effect of two concentrations of different inorganic salts on all surfactants under study indicated by conductivity and refractive index measurements has been referred to in Figs. 25, 26.
Comparison between CMC of different surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 under the effect of different salts at 0.001 mol L−1 using conductivity and refractive index measurement.
Comparison between CMC of different surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 under the effect of different salts at 0.01 mol L−1 using conductivity and refractive index measurement.
This study focused on investigating the micellization behavior of three newly synthesized Gemini cationic surfactants (TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18) in a 15% DMSO-water solvent system at 298.15 K. Some techniques including conductivity, refractive index, density, molar volume, and surface tension measurements were employed to elucidate the thermodynamic parameters during the aggregation process, both in the absence and presence of various concentrations of inorganic salts (NaCl, NaBr, NaI, CoCl2, CuCl2, and MnCl2).
The critical micelle concentration (CMC) values obtained from all techniques showed good agreement and revealed a trend where micellization increased with the hydrocarbon chain length of the surfactants: CMC (TAC 18) < CMC (TAC 12) < CMC (TAC 6) in the 15% DMSO-water solvent at 298.15 K.
The influence of salt addition on the reduction CMC of the surfactants followed the order: NaCl < NaBr < NaI < CoCl2 < CuCl2 < MnCl2. Increasing salt concentration led to enhanced micellization and lower CMC values for all surfactants, with CMC (0.01 mol L−1) being lower than CMC (0.001 mol L−1). Furthermore, the more negative values of Gibbs free energies of association (ΔGass.) and micellization (ΔGmic) in the presence of different salts indicated the spontaneous formation of more stable micelles. The degree of ionization (α) of all surfactants also increased in the presence of salts, confirming the easier formation of micelles at lower concentrations.
Overall, these findings underscore the significant role of solvent composition and salt presence in modulating the aggregation behavior of Gemini cationic surfactants. Such insights are crucial for optimizing surfactant applications in various industrial and technological fields, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and chemical processes.
Raw data were generated at Faculty of Science, Port-Said University, Egypt. Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Prof. Dr. Farid I. El-Dossoki, on request.
Cross, J. Introduction to cationic surfactants. In Catonic Surfactants: Analytical and Biological Evaluation (eds Cross, J. & Singer, E. J.) 2–28 (CRC Press, 2019).
Clamme, J. P., Bernacchi, S., Vuilleumier, C., Duportail, G. & Mély, Y. Gene transfer by cationic surfactants is essentially limited by the trapping of the surfactant/DNA complexes onto the cell membrane: a fluorescence investigation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Biomembr. 1467, 347–361 (2000).
Kamal, M. S. A review of Gemini surfactants: Potential application in enhanced oil recovery. J. Surfact. Deterg. 19, 223–236 (2016).
Dickinson, E. & Miller, R. Food Colloids : Fundamentals of Formulation (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2001).
Shaban, S. M., Elsamad, S. A., Tawfik, S. M., Abdel-Rahman, A. A. H. & Aiad, I. Studying surface and thermodynamic behavior of a new multi-hydroxyl Gemini cationic surfactant and investigating their performance as corrosion inhibitor and biocide. J. Mol. Liq. 316, 113881 (2020).
Abd El-Maksoud, S. A. A., El-Dossoki, F. I. I., Migahed, M. A. A., Gouda, M. M. M. & Elgharkawy, E. S. R. E. S. R. H. New imidazol-1-ium bromide derivative surfactants as corrosion inhibitors for carbon steel in 1 M HCl solutions: Experimental and theoretical studies. J. Bio Tribo Corros. 7, 1–15 (2021).
El-Maksoud, S. A. A. A., El-Dossoki, F. I. I., Migahed, M. A. A. & Gouda, M. M. M. Impact of some novel synthesized cationic surfactants on the corrosion of carbon steel in 1M HCl solutions. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 30, 3845–3858 (2021).
Shukla, D. & Tyagi, V. K. Cationic Gemini surfactants: A review. J. Oleo Sci. 55, 381–390 (2006).
Ahmady, A. R. et al. Cationic Gemini surfactant properties, its potential as a promising bioapplication candidate, and strategies for improving its biocompatibility: A review. Adv. Coll. Interface Sci. 299, 102581 (2022).
Brycki, B. E. et al. Multifunctional Gemini surfactants: Structure, synthesis, properties applications. Appl. Charact. Surfact. https://doi.org/10.5772/INTECHOPEN.68755 (2017).
Mozrzymas, A. On the hydrophobic chains effect on critical micelle concentration of cationic Gemini surfactants using molecular connectivity indices. Monatshefte Fur Chem. 151, 525–531 (2020).
Perinelli, D. R. et al. Surfactant self-assembling and critical micelle concentration: One approach fits all?. Langmuir 36, 5745–5753 (2020).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Tan, C. H., Huang, Z. J. & Huang, X. G. Rapid determination of surfactant critical micelle concentration in aqueous solutions using fiber-optic refractive index sensing. Anal. Biochem. 401, 144–147 (2010).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Trujillo, M. & Schramm, D. M. P. Measuring critical micelle concentration as a function of cavitand additives using surface tension and dye micellization. Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achiev. Progr. 14, 155 (2010).
Haghighi, O. M. et al. Effect of environment-friendly non-ionic surfactant on interfacial tension reduction and wettability alteration Implications for enhanced oil recovery. Energies 13, 2988 (2020).
El-Dossoki, F. I. F. I., Abd El-Maksoud, S. A. E. H. S. A., Migahed, M. A. M. A. & Gouda, M. M. M. M. Micellization and solvation properties of newly synthesized imidazolium- and aminium-based surfactants. ACS Omega 5, 9429–9441 (2020).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Azum, N. & Kumar, D. Kinetic study of the metal-dipeptide complex with ninhydrin facilitated by Gemini (m-s-m) surfactant micelles. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–13 (2020).
Bhattarai, A. et al. Studies of ninhydrin and phenylalanine in cationic dimeric Gemini micellar system: Spectrophotometric and conductometric measurements. Coll. Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 655, 130334 (2022).
Kumar, D. et al. Effect of quaternary ammonium Gemini surfactant solution on the rate constant of the ninhydrin-lysine reaction. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 62, 15897–15906 (2023).
Alghamdi, Y. G., Rub, M. A. & Kumar, D. Influence of twin-headed Gemini micellar system on the study of methionine amino acid with ninhydrin in buffer solution. R. Soc. Open Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.221249 (2023).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Pokhrel, D. R. et al. A recent overview of surfactant–drug interactions and their importance. RSC Adv. 13, 17685–17704 (2023).
Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Zakharova, L. Y. et al. Hydrotropes: Solubilization of nonpolar compounds and modification of surfactant solutions. J. Mol. Liq. 370, 120923 (2023).
Li, J., Du, B., Wang, F., Yao, W. & Yao, S. The effect of nanoparticle surfactant polarization on trapping depth of vegetable insulating oil-based nanofluids. Phys. Lett. A 380, 604–608 (2016).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Mohajeri, E. & Noudeh, G. D. Effect of temperature on the critical micelle concentration and micellization thermodynamic of nonionic surfactants: Polyoxyethylene sorbitan fatty acid esters. J. Chem. 9, 2268–2274 (2012).
Dai, S. & Tam, K. C. Effect of cosolvents on the binding interaction between poly(ethylene oxide) and sodium dodecyl sulfate. J. Phys. Chem. B 110, 20794–20800 (2006).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Miyagishi, S., Okada, K. & Asakawa, T. Salt effect on critical micelle concentrations of nonionic surfactants, N-Acyl-N-methylglucamides (MEGA-n). J. Coll. Interface Sci. 238, 91–95 (2001).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Ren, Z. H. Mechanism of the salt effect on micellization of an aminosulfonate amphoteric surfactant. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 54, 9683–9688 (2015).
Karakashev, S. I. & Smoukov, S. K. CMC prediction for ionic surfactants in pure water and aqueous salt solutions based solely on tabulated molecular parameters. J. Coll. Interface Sci. 501, 142–149 (2017).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Wu, Y. C. et al. A dc method for the absolute determination of conductivities of the primary standard KCl solutions from 0 °C to 50 °C. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 99, 241 (1994).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Dodd, L. E. calibration of abbe refractometer with compensating prisms, to measure refractive index for any wave length. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 2, 466–501 (1931).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Cui, X., Mao, S., Liu, M., Yuan, H. & Du, Y. Mechanism of surfactant micelle formation. Langmuir 24, 10771–10775 (2008).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Bergström, L. M., Tehrani-Bagha, A. & Nagy, G. Growth behavior, geometrical shape, and second CMC of micelles formed by cationic Gemini esterquat surfactants. Langmuir 31, 4644–4653 (2015).
Tao, C. et al. Hydrophobic antireflective coatings with ultralow refractive index synthesized by deposition of methylated hollow silica nanoparticles. Mater. Lett. 183, 374–377 (2016).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Limbu, K., Shah, S. K. & Bhattarai, A. Density and partial molar volume of sodium dodecyl sulfate in presence and absence of sodium sulfate and zinc sulfate in distilled water. BIBECHANA 16, 131–136 (2018).
Firetto, V., Floriane, M. A. & Panagiotopoulos, A. Z. Effect of stiffness on the micellization behavior of model H4T4 surfactant chains. Langmuir 22, 6514–6522 (2006).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Kale, K. M. & Zana, R. Effect of the nature of the counterion on the volume change upon micellization of ionic detergents in aqueous solutions. J. Coll. Interface Sci. 61, 312–322 (1977).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Song, Y. et al. An induction current method for determining the critical micelle concentration and the polarity of surfactants. Coll. Polym. Sci. 293, 1525–1534 (2015).
Liu, K. et al. Effects of conventional surfactants on the activity of designed antimicrobial peptide. Langmuir 36, 3531–3539 (2020).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Golmaghani-Ebrahimi, E., Bagheri, A. & Fazli, M. The influence of temperature on surface concentration and interaction energy between components in binary liquid systems. J. Chem. Thermodyn. 146, 106105 (2020).
Das, S., Mondal, S. & Ghosh, S. Physicochemical studies on the micellization of cationic, anionic, and nonionic surfactants in water-polar organic solvent mixtures. J. Chem. Eng. Data 58, 2586–2595 (2013).
Hoque, M. A., Patoary, M. O. F., Rashid, M. M., Molla, M. R. & Rub, M. A. Physico-chemical investigation of mixed micelle formation between tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide and dodecyltrimethylammonium chloride in water and aqueous solutions of sodium chloride. J. Solut. Chem. 3, 682–703 (2017).
Sayem Alam, M. & Mandal, A. B. The clouding phenomena of mixed surfactant (non-ionic Triton X-114 + cationic Gemini 16–5–16) solutions: Influence of inorganic and organic additives on the cloud point. J. Mol. Liq. 212, 237–244 (2015).
Rub, M. A., Azum, N., Khan, S. B., Khan, F. & Asiri, A. M. Physicochemical properties of amphiphilic drug and anionic surfactant mixtures: Experimental and theoretical approach. J. Dispers. Sci. Technol. 36, 521–531 (2015).
Ao, M. Q., Xu, G. Y., Zhu, Y. Y. & Bai, Y. Synthesis and properties of ionic liquid-type Gemini imidazolium surfactants. J. Coll. Interface Sci. 326, 490–495 (2008).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Akbaş, H., Elemenli, A. & Boz, M. Aggregation and thermodynamic properties of some cationic Gemini surfactants. J. Surfact. Deterg. 15, 33–40 (2012).
Bhardwaj, V., Sharma, P., Chauhan, M. S. & Chauhan, S. Micellization, interaction and thermodynamic study of butylated hydroxyanisole (synthetic antioxidant) and sodium dodecyl sulfate in aqueous-ethanol solution at 25, 30 and 35 °C. J. Saudi Chem. Soc. 20, S109–S114 (2016).
Sharker, K. K., Yusa, S. I. & Phan, C. M. Micellar formation of cationic surfactants. Heliyon 5, e02425 (2019).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Akhter, K. et al. Synthesis and characterization of cationic surfactants and their interactions with drug and metal complexes. Heliyon 5, e01885 (2019).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Mahbub, S., Rub, M. A., Hoque, M. A., Khan, M. A. & Kumar, D. Micellization behavior of cationic and anionic surfactant mixtures at different temperatures: Effect of sodium carbonate and sodium phosphate salts. J. Phys. Org. Chem. 32, e3967 (2019).
Millero, F. Apparent molal expansibilities of some divalent chlorides in aqueous solution at 25. deg. J. Phys. Chem. 72, 4589–4593 (1968).
El-Dossoki, F., Abedelhady, S., Abedalhmeed, M., Abdel-Raouf, M. & Ahmed, A. F. Micellization properties, molal volume and polarizability of newly synthesized Gemini-cationic surfactants. Egypt. J. Chem. 65, 585–599 (2022).
Calderón, S. M. & Prisle, N. L. Composition dependent density of ternary aqueous solutions of ionic surfactants and salts: Capturing the effect of surfactant micellization in atmospheric droplet model solutions. J. Atmos. Chem. 78, 99–123 (2021).
Chauhan, S., Chauhan, M. S., Chauhan, G., Sonika, S. & Jyoti, J. Sound speed and density studies of interactions between cationic surfactants and aqueous gelatin solution. Int. J. Thermophys. 33, 279–288 (2012).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Domínguez-Arca, V., Sabín, J., Taboada, P., García-Río, L. & Prieto, G. Micellization thermodynamic behavior of Gemini cationic surfactants. Modeling its adsorption at air/water interface. J. Mol. Liq. 308, 113100 (2020).
Urbina-Villalba, G., Reif, I., Márquez, M. L. & Rogel, E. Theoretical study on the structure and interfacial areas of nonyl phenol ethoxylated surfactants. Coll. Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 99, 207–220 (1995).
Niraula, T. P., Chatterjee, S. K. & Bhattarai, A. Micellization of sodium dodecyl sulphate in presence and absence of alkali metal halides at different temperatures in water and methanol-water mixtures. J. Mol. Liq. 250, 287–294 (2018).
Rafique, A. S. et al. Micellar structure and transformations in sodium alkylbenzenesulfonate (NaLAS) aqueous solutions: Effects of concentration, temperature, and salt. Soft Matter 16, 7835–7844 (2020).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Aslam, R., Mobin, M., Aslam, J. & Lgaz, H. Sugar based N, N′-didodecyl-N, N′digluconamideethylenediamine Gemini surfactant as corrosion inhibitor for mild steel in 3.5% NaCl solution-effect of synergistic KI additive. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–20 (2018).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Poša, M., Pilipović, A. & Lalić, M. The influence of NaCl on hydrophobicity of selected, pharmacologically active bile acids expressed with chromatographic retention index and critical micellar concentration. Coll. Surfaces B Biointerfaces 81, 336–343 (2010).
Vatanparast, H., Shahabi, F., Bahramian, A., Javadi, A. & Miller, R. The role of electrostatic repulsion on increasing surface activity of anionic surfactants in the presence of hydrophilic silica nanoparticles. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–11 (2018).
Kumar, S. & Parikh, K. Influence of temperature and salt on association and thermodynamic parameters of micellization of a cationic Gemini surfactant. J. Appl. Solut. Chem. Model. 1, 65–73 (2012).
Lundberg, D. The Coordination Chemistry of Solvated Metal Ions in DMPU : A Study of a Space-Demanding Solvent (Acta Univ. Agric, 2006).
Mu, L., Feng, C. & He, H. Topological research on lattice energies for inorganic compounds. MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem. 56, 97–111 (2006).
Ouyang, R. Exploiting ionic radii for rational design of halide perovskites. Chem. Mater. 32, 595–604 (2020).
Derikvand, Z., Rezaei, A., Parsaei, R., Riazi, M. & Torabi, F. A mechanistic experimental study on the combined effect of Mg2+, Ca2+, and SO42− ions and a cationic surfactant in improving the surface properties of oil/water/rock system. Coll. Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 587, 124327 (2020).
Aswal, V. K. & Goyal, P. S. Role of different counterions and size of micelle in concentration dependence micellar structure of ionic surfactants. Chem. Phys. Lett. 368, 59–65 (2003).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Haq, ZU, Rehman, N., Ali, F. & Ullah, H. Effect of electrolyte (NaCl) and temperature on the mechanism of cetyl trimethylammonium bromide micelles. Science Malay. Rev. 46, 733–741 (2017).
Cookey, G. A. & Obunwo, C. C. Effects of sodium bromide salt and temperature on the behaviour of aqueous solution of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide. IOSR J. Appl. Chem. 7, 34–38 (2014).
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). This study was carried out in a research project number 46361/2021 funded by STDF.
Chemistry Department, Faculty of Science, Port-Said University, Port-Said, Egypt
Farid I. El-Dossoki, Mahmoud M. Gouda & Samir Abd El Hady Abd El-Maksoud
Department of Petroleum Applications, Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute (EPRI), Cairo, Egypt
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Farid I. El-Dossoki: contributed to writing and reviewing the manuscript Samir Abd El Hady Abd El-Maksoud: contributed to writing and reviewing the manuscript Mohamed A. Migahed: preparation and characteristics of the studied compounds Mahmoud M. Gouda: The other practical measurements in the manuscript.
Correspondence to Farid I. El-Dossoki.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
El-Dossoki, F.I., Migahed, M.A., Gouda, M.M. et al. Aggregation behavior of newly synthesized Gemini cationic surfactants in absence and in presence of different inorganic salts in 15% DMSO–water solvent. Sci Rep 14, 20351 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69559-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69559-1
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Scientific Reports (Sci Rep) ISSN 2045-2322 (online)
filtration control Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.