Fainerman V B, Lucassen-Reynders E H
International Medical Physicochemical Centre and Institute of Technical Ecology, Donetsk, Ukraine.
Adv Colloid Interface Sci. 2002 Feb 25;96(1-3):295-323. doi: 10.1016/s0001-8686(01)00086-0.
Two different approaches have been used in the literature to describe the effects of ionisation of surfactants on the surface pressure, pi. One approach is based on a molecular model for a charged monolayer, in which the mutual repulsion of the long-chain surfactant ions results in an additional surface pressure, piel, calculated with the Gouy-Chapman theory for the formation of a diffuse electric double layer, and with counterion binding in the Stern-Helmholtz layer adjacent to the surfactant monolayer. The other approach regards the surface as a two-dimensional solution defined as a Gibbs dividing surface, which is electroneutral by definition. In this approach, the adsorption of any ion is the sum of its excesses in the monolayer and the electrical double layer; no assumptions are made about the spatial distribution of charges. It has been shown that both models can produce a reasonable description of experimental results obtained for solutions of a single ionic surfactant (RX) with or without inorganic electrolyte (XY). In many cases, measurements of pi vs. mean ionic activity at different salt concentrations (cXY) are found to coincide on a single curve, implying that at given mean ionic activity both adsorption and pi are independent of cXY, i.e. that double-layer contributions to the surface pressure are negligible. In addition, the electroneutral 2-D solution approach has resulted in a simple explanation of several typical features of mixed ionic surfactant solutions, in particular for mixtures of anionic and cationic surfactants. In mixed solutions too, double-layer effects appear to be negligible. We present arguments for such negligibility. One reason is a significant degree of binding between adsorbed surface active ions (R) and counterions (X); another is that for 1:1 electrolytes, the contribution of the diffuse double layer to the adsorption of the combination (RX) vanishes. As a result, it is possible to interpret the same experimental data in terms of both models.
文献中采用了两种不同的方法来描述表面活性剂电离对表面压力π的影响。一种方法基于带电单分子层的分子模型,其中长链表面活性剂离子的相互排斥导致额外的表面压力πel,该压力根据形成扩散双电层的 Gouy-Chapman 理论以及与表面活性剂单分子层相邻的 Stern-Helmholtz 层中的反离子结合来计算。另一种方法将表面视为定义为 Gibbs 分隔表面的二维溶液,根据定义该表面是电中性的。在这种方法中,任何离子的吸附是其在单分子层和双电层中的过量之和;不对电荷的空间分布做任何假设。已经表明,这两种模型都可以对含有或不含有无机电解质(XY)的单一离子表面活性剂(RX)溶液的实验结果给出合理的描述。在许多情况下,发现在不同盐浓度(cXY)下π对平均离子活度的测量结果在一条单一曲线上重合,这意味着在给定的平均离子活度下,吸附和π都与cXY无关,即双电层对表面压力的贡献可以忽略不计。此外,电中性二维溶液方法对混合离子表面活性剂溶液的几个典型特征给出了简单的解释,特别是对于阴离子和阳离子表面活性剂的混合物。在混合溶液中,双电层效应似乎也可以忽略不计。我们给出了这种可忽略性的论据。一个原因是吸附的表面活性离子(R)和反离子(X)之间有显著程度的结合;另一个原因是对于 1:1 电解质,扩散双电层对组合(RX)吸附的贡献消失。因此,可以用这两种模型来解释相同的实验数据。