Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T01:46:26.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surfactant Self-Assemblies Near Contact Lines and their Effect on Wetting by Surfactant Solutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

B. Frank  and
S. Garoff
B. Frank
Affiliation:
Physics Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
S. Garoff
Affiliation:
Physics Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Get access

Abstract

Surfactant self-assembly at the liquid-vapor, solid-liquid, and solid-vapor interfaces controls the wetting behavior of advancing surfactant solutions. While different surfactants exhibit different static and dynamic wetting properties, we show that these behaviors can be understood through an examination of microscopic structures driven by surfactant-surface interactions. We examine surfactant solutions exhibiting complete and partial static wetting as well as spreading by dendritic pattern formation and unsteady, stick-jump behavior. In each case, the observed behavior is related to the structure of the surfactant assemblies in the vicinity of the contact line.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 366: Symposium N – Dynamics in Small Confining Systems , 1994 , 39
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Leger, L. and Joanny, J.F., Rep. Prog. Phys. 55, 431 (1992).Google Scholar
2 Neumann, A.W., in Wetting, Spreading, and Adhesion, edited by Padday, J.F., (Academic Press, New York, 1978), p. 3–35.Google Scholar
3 Johnson, R.E. Jr. and Dettre, R.H. in Wettability, edited by Berg, J.C., (Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, 1993), Chapter 1.Google Scholar
4 Birch, W.R., Knewtson, M.A., Garoff, S., Suter, R.M., and Satija, S., Coll. and Surf. 89, 145 (1994).Google Scholar
5 Birch, W.R., Knewtson, M.A., Garoff, S., Suter, R.M., and Satija, S., “Structure of Precursing Thin Films of an Anionic Surfactant on a Silicon Oxide/Silicon Surface,” Langmuir, in press.Google Scholar
6 Birch, W.R., PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 1993.Google Scholar
7 Blake, T.D., in Wettability, edited by Berg, J.C., (Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, 1993), Chapter 5.Google Scholar
8 Blake, T.D., In Surfactants, edited by Tadros, Th. F., (Academic Press, Inc.: New York, 1984), pp. 231–275.Google Scholar
9 Bose, A., in Wettability, edited by Berg, J.C., (Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, 1993), Chapter 3.Google Scholar
10 Swalen, J.D., et. al., Langmuir, 3, 932 (1987).Google Scholar
11 Ulman, A., Evans, S.D., Shnidman, Y., Sharma, Y., Eilers, J.E., and Chang, J.C., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 113, 1499 (1991).Google Scholar
12 Gaines, G.L., Insoluble Monolayers at Liquid-Gas Interfaces, (Interscience Publishers, New York, 1966).Google Scholar
13 Garoff, S., Thin Solid Films, 152, 49 (1987).Google Scholar
14 Ulman, A., Ultrathin Organic Films, (Academic Press, New York 1991).Google Scholar
15 Troian, S.M., Wu, X.L., , S.A. and Safran, , Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1496 (1989).Google Scholar
16 Troian, S.M., Herbolzheimer, E., , S.A. and Safran, , Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 333 (1990).Google Scholar
17 Elender, G. and Sackmann, E., J. Phys. II France, 4, 455 (1994).Google Scholar
18 Marmur, A. and Lelah, M.D., Chem. Eng. Commun. 13, 133 (1981).Google Scholar
19 Stuart, M.A. Cohen and Cazabat, A.M., Prog. Coll. Poly. Sci. 74, 64 (1987).Google Scholar
20 Princen, H.M., Cazabat, A.M., Stuart, M.A. Cohen, Heslot, F., and Nicolet, S., J. Coll. Interf. Sci. 126, 84 (1988).Google Scholar
21 Hirasaki, G.J., in Interfacial Phenomena in Oil Recovery, edited by Morrow, N.R., (Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 1990).Google Scholar
22 Garoff, S., Sirota, E.B., Sinha, S.K. and Stanley, H.B., J. Chem. Phys. 90, 7505 (1989).Google Scholar
23 Heslot, F., Caxabat, A.M., and Levinson, P., Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1286 (1989).Google Scholar
24 Frank, B. and Garoff, S., “Origins of the Complex Motion of Advancing Surfactant Solutions,” Langmuir, in press.Google Scholar
25 Nadkarni, G. D. and Garoff, S., Langmuir, 10, 1618 (1994).Google Scholar
26 Beysens, D. and Knobler, C.M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1433 (1986).Google Scholar
27 Fritter, D., Knobler, C.M., Roux, D. and Beysens, D., J. Stat. Phys. 52, 1447 (1988).Google Scholar
28 Mullins, W.M. and Averbach, B.L., Surf. Sci. 206, 41 (1988).Google Scholar
29 Vig, J.R., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A. 3, 1027 (1985).Google Scholar
30 The CMC is the concentration at which micelles form in a bulk surfactant solution. CMC's for the surfactants discussed in this work (from ref. 24) are: CTAB∼10-3M; SDS∼8×10-3M; C12E6∼9×10-5M; C12E3∼5.5×10-5M; C12E1∼9×10-5M.Google Scholar
31 Zisman, W.A., Advances in Chemistry, 43, 1 (1964).Google Scholar
32 Rennie, A.R., Lee, E.M., Simister, E. A, and Thomas, R.K., Langmuir, 6 1031 (1990).Google Scholar
33 Bijsterbosch, B.H., J. Coll. Interf. Sci. 47, 186 (1974).Google Scholar
34 The behavior described is for low concentration solutions and produces films about 10Å in thickness. At higher concentrations, a fluid film is pulled with the substrate as it is removed from solution. This film drains slowly, leaving behind a slightly thicker layer (∼16Å) than that left by the rapidly autophobing withdrawal.Google Scholar