Ultrasonic, Rheological and Conductivity Study of the Interaction between Polyacrylic Acid and DTAB Micelles in Aqueous Medium

 

Kiran D. Patil¹, Gunvant H. Sonawane¹, Mahendra S. Borse*²

¹Department of Chemistry, Kisan Arts, Commerce and Science College Parola,

Tal. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon 425111, Maharashtra, India.

²Department of Chemistry, Uttamrao Patil Arts and Science College, Dahivel,

Tal. Sakri, Dist. Dhule 424304, Maharashtra, India.

*Corresponding Author E-mail: kirandpatil22@gmail.com, drgunvantsonawane@gmail.com, mahendraborse@yahoo.com

 

 

 

1.0 INTRODUCTION:

Polymer–surfactant interactions are of great interest because they significantly influence interfacial, rheological, and physicochemical properties of solutions, which plays an important role in different fields ranging from pharmaceuticals and food tech to detergents and water treatment^1–7. Carboxylic polymers such as polyacrylic acid (PAA) interact readily with cationic surfactants like dodecyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (DTAB), where both hydrophobic and electrostatic forces play key roles. In such systems, changes in solution properties (pH, conductivity, viscosity, etc.) reveal the nature and strength of these interactions^8–15.

 

The binding of cationic surfactants to negatively charged polymer chains (or polymers bearing acidic groups) can lead to cooperative adsorption, modification of critical micelle concentration (CMC), and morphological changes in micelles, including transitions in shape and size^16-17. The effects of temperature, polymer concentration, surfactant concentration, ionic strength, and polymer molecular weight have all been shown to modulate these interaction phenomena^18–22. In particular, ultrasonic techniques (ultrasonic velocity, compressibility) combined with density and viscosity measurements provide sensitive probes of molecular interactions, free volume, hydration, and shape transitions in micellar systems^23–31.

 

Despite extensive studies on surfactant–polymer systems, fewer investigations address the combined effects of PAA concentration and temperature on DTAB micellization behavior, especially using ultrasonic interferometry alongside viscosity, density, and conductivity. Understanding how PAA modulates DTAB micelles over a temperature range can provide deeper insight into thermodynamics of micelle formation, shape transitions, counterion binding, and polymer conformation.

 

In this work, we explore the interaction between PAA (MW ~ 50,000) and DTAB in 0.1 M solutions, over a PAA concentration range of 0 to 1 wt/v% (at 0.2% interval and temperatures between 298.15 K and 313.15 K. Using ultrasonic velocity, density, viscosity and conductivity measurements, we analyze acoustic and viscous interaction parameters, determine micelle hydration, shape factor, and assess how PAA influences thermodynamics of micellization and micelle geometry.

 

2.0 EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS AND METHODS:

2.1 Materials:

The Materials used in this experiment are Poly (acrylic acid) (PAA) with an average molecular weight of 50,000, and Dodecyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (DTAB). PAA was obtained from Otto Chemika Bio-chemika-Reagent (Mumbai, India), while DTAB was procured from Sigma-Aldrich (India). Both reagents were of analytical grade and used without further purification. All solutions were prepared using double-distilled deionized water, which served as the solvent medium for maintaining purity and consistency during measurements. Such high-purity materials are typically chosen in physicochemical and acoustic studies to ensure reproducibility and to minimize interference from impurities.

 

 

2.2 Measurement methods

2.2.1 Density two arm capillary pycnometer

 

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a two-arm capillary Pycnometer

 

Density was measured with a two-arm capillary pycnometer. The pycnometer is calibrated by measuring known volumes of pure water at each experimental temperature. In the two-arm capillary design the total height of the liquid columns (h = h₁ + h₂) is recorded (traveling microscope) and a linear calibration of volume vs height is used: (V) = h+c

 

 Where, (V) = volume of liquid in pycnometer (cm³), (h) = h₁+h₂ = total capillary height (cm)

a = slope (cm²) and c = intercept (cm³)

 

obtained from calibration with water we report a = 0.0393 cm² and c = 12.008 cm³). The mass M of the filled pycnometer is measured on an analytical balance and the density is then (ρ) =

 

(Units: (M) in kg, (V) in m³ → (ρ) in kg·m⁻³). Typical accuracy of this approach, when carefully calibrated and temperature-controlled, is on the order of 10⁻³ kg·m⁻³ (we stated ±0.001 kg·m⁻³) ^32-33.

 

2.2.2 Ultrasonic Velocity: Ultrasonic Interferometer:

 

Fig. 2. Experimental Setup for Measurement methods: density (two-arm capillary pycnometer), ultrasonic velocity (2 MHz ultrasonic interferometer), and Viscosity (Ubbelohde viscometer) with thermostatted bath computer for data acquisitions.

Ultrasonic velocity (U) was measured with a fixed-frequency ultrasonic interferometer (2 MHz). The interferometer produces standing waves in the sample cell; maxima in generator current occur when the reflector displacement corresponds to integral multiples of half-wavelengths. The recorded average displacement (L) (from ten maxima) gives the wavelength:

   L

(λ) = –––– (we procedure used n=10 maxima so λ=L/10)

   n

Ultrasonic velocity is obtained by (U) = λ.f

Where, (U) = ultrasonic velocity (m·s⁻¹), (λ) = wavelength (m) and (f) = frequency (Hz; here 2 × 10⁶ Hz). From measured (U) and (ρ) several acoustic parameters are derived:

 

(a) Adiabatic (isentropic) compressibility (β_ad)​

 

(b) Acoustic impedance (Z) (Z) = ρ U

 

(c) Intermolecular free length (L_f) (Jacobson relation)

 

with Jacobson temperature-dependent constant (K_T) = (93.875+0.375 T) ×10⁻⁸ (SI units consistent with the equation)

 

(d) Molar sound velocity (R_M) or (Rao’s molar sound velocity)

 

Where, (M) is the effective molar mass used for the system.

 

(e) Relative association (R_A):

It is used as a qualitative measure of solute-solvent association. It is a ratio of ultrasonic velocity (U) and density (ρ) between solution and solvent; the expression represented as,

 

Where, the (ρ⁰) and (ρ^s) is density of water and solution respectively, similarly for ultrasonic velocity.

 

2.2.3 Viscosity: Ubbelohde Capillary Viscometer and Derived Parameters:

Viscosity of solutions was measured using an Ubbelohde suspended-level capillary viscometer maintained in a thermos tatted bath (±0.2 °C). Raw data are flow times (t) for solvent and solution. From these:

 

Relative viscosity (η_r),   

Specific viscosity (η_sp), 

Reduced viscosity (η_red),  

Where, c is polymer concentration (g·dL⁻¹ or wt/v% units consistent across calculations) ^34-35.

 

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

3.1 Validation with Water: Density, Viscosity, and Ultrasonic Velocity:

The experimental values of density, viscosity, and ultrasonic velocity of double-distilled water at different temperatures show excellent agreement with literature data, confirming the reliability of the employed methods and instruments. At 298.15 K, the measured density (997.2196 kg/m³) closely matches reported values (997.04–997.05 kg/m³) ^37–39, while viscosity (0.8901 mPa·s) is consistent with the literature range (0.8903–0.8920 mPa·s) ^38–40. Similarly, the ultrasonic velocity (1504 m/s) aligns well with reported values of 1497–1504 m/s ^38–40.

 

With increasing temperature, density and viscosity decrease, while ultrasonic velocity increases systematically. For instance, at 313.15 K, density (992.4367 kg/m³) and viscosity (0.6527 mPa·s) agree with literature ^36–38, and ultrasonic velocity rises to 1528 m/s, consistent with reported values (1528–1531 m/s). These results confirm that the calibration of the pycnometer and ultrasonic interferometer was accurate, validating subsequent DTAB–PAA measurements.

Table 1. Temperatures, Density (ρ), Viscosity (η), and Ultrasound Velocity (U) of Double-Distilled Water: Experimental and Literature Values.

Temp.(0K)	Density (ρ) Kgm-3			Viscosity (η) mPas.			Ultrasound velocity(U) ms-1
	Expt.	Lite.	Ref.	Expt.	Lite.	Ref.	Expt.	Lite.	Ref.
298.15	997.2196	997.0400 997.0470 997.0499	[37] [38] [39]	0.890100	0.89030 0.89030 0.89200	[38] [39] [40]	1504	1503 1497 1504	[38] [39] [40]
303.15	995.6202	995.6450 995.6473 995.6450	[36] [38] [39]	0.797200	0.79750 0.79030 0.79400	[38] [39] [40]	1512	1510 1510 1512	[38] [39] [40]
308.15	994.3444	994.0300 994.0300 994.0320	[36] [37] [38]	0.717200	0.71950 0.71680 0.71589	[38] [39] [40]	1520	1521 1520 1518	[38] [39] [40]
313.15	992.4367	992.2158 992.2120 991.9000	[36] [37] [39]	0.652700	0.65010 0.65320 0.65270	[36] [37] [38]	1528	1531 1530 1528	[38] [39] [40]

 

3.2 Density and Viscosity of DTAB–PAA Solutions:

The density and viscosity data of 0.1 M DTAB solutions in the presence of varying concentrations of PAA across 298.15–313.15 K provide insights into solute–solvent and polymer–surfactant interactions. Densities increase with PAA concentration at all studied temperatures, indicating strong DTAB–PAA associations and enhanced structural packing ^41–47. For example, at 298.15 K, density rises from 997.4951 kg·m⁻³ (0% PAA) to 1036.7986 kg·m⁻³ (0.8% PAA).

 

Relative viscosity (ηr) also increases with PAA concentration, particularly at lower temperatures, suggesting enhanced intermolecular association and micelle–polymer complex formation ⁴⁸. Viscous relaxation time (τ) several empirical/semi theoretical relations are used in the literature to estimate relaxation times from viscosity and density data; The viscosity data, in combination with density (ρ) and ultrasonic velocity (U), have also been used to estimate viscous relaxation time (τ), which plays an important role in providing qualitative information regarding the nature and strength of inter-molecular interaction persisting in the liquid mixture ⁴⁹. The viscous relaxation time (τ) is estimated by using the equation ⁵⁰.

 

 

 

Viscous relaxation time (τ) is mostly the structure relaxation process that takes place during the rearrangement of molecules in the system under study. The viscous relaxation time (τ), viscosity and density data for the given surfactant-polymer mixture under study are indexed in Table 2. Also, (τ) obtained from viscous and acoustic dispersion data or from established rheological measurements.

 

 Reduced viscosity ([η]r–1/C) shows strong positive deviations at 298.15 K (1285 cm³·g⁻¹ at 0.2% PAA), indicating polymer expansion and solvation ⁵¹, while some negative values at higher T (e.g., –613 cm³·g⁻¹ at 303.15 K) reflect coil compaction under thermal and surfactant influences ⁵².

 

The viscous relaxation time (τ) complements these findings. At 298.15 K, (τ) is relatively high (5.44 ×10⁻¹⁰ s for pure DTAB), but decreases significantly with temperature, reaching 2.84 ×10⁻¹⁰ s at 0.6% PAA and 313.15 K, indicating enhanced mobility and weakened interactions.

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Effect of PAA concentration and temperature on density (ρ), relative viscosity (ηr), reduced viscosity ([η]r–1/C), and viscous relaxation time (τ) of 0.1 M DTAB solutions.

298.15K					303.15K
Conc. (w/v %)	(ρ) Kg.cm-3	(ηr)	(ηr-1/C) (cm3g-1)	(τ) x10-10 (s)	(ρ) Kg.cm-3	(ηr)	(ηr-1/C) b (cm3g-1)	(τ)c x10-10 (s)
0.0	997.4951	1.056904	0.569045	5.44	997.4886	0.952279	-0.47721	4.04
0.2	1007.3186	1.102804	1285.046	5.30	1007.3054	0.950932	-613.355	3.54
0.4	1013.1513	1.084107	525.6695	4.23	1013.1413	0.975500	-153.122	3.39
0.6	1019.8101	1.107706	448.7729	5.19	1019.8068	0.994773	-21.780	4.13
0.8	1036.7986	1.133258	416.4305	5.40	1036.7884	1.007135	22.29558	3.99
1.0	1025.2231	1.128946	322.3641	5.05	1025.2198	1.008820	22.04907	4.08
308.15K					313.15K
Conc. (w/v %)	(ρ) Kg.cm-3	(ηr)	(ηr-1/C) (cm3g-1)	(τ) x10-10 (s)	(ρ) Kg.cm-3	(ηr)	(ηr-1/C) (cm3g-1)	(τ) x10-10 (s)
0.0	997.4755	1.018094	0.180942	4.06	997.4266	1.084773	0.847726	4.01
0.2	1007.2988	1.007033	87.91769	4.03	1007.2790	1.063445	793.0590	3.83
0.4	1013.1314	1.022015	137.5934	3.60	1013.1214	1.074273	464.2031	3.24
0.6	1019.8001	1.025886	107.8587	3.83	1019.7934	1.077517	322.9867	2.84
0.8	1036.7783	1.113232	353.8507	4.50	1036.7715	1.152200	475.6239	3.80
1.0	1025.2130	1.036643	91.60748	3.68	1025.2063	1.064611	161.5278	3.50

 

 

3.3 Concentration Effects on Relaxation, Conductance, and Relative Association:

Figure 3 shows the influence of PAA concentration on the physicochemical properties of DTAB at 298.15 K. Relative association (R_A) and specific conductance decrease at ≤0.2% PAA, suggesting micelle disruption, but increase beyond 0.4%, indicating cooperative association and formation of compact aggregates ^53–54.

Viscous relaxation time (τ) and relative viscosity (η_r) exhibit similar non-monotonic behavior. Both decrease to minima at ~0.4% PAA, reflecting maximum micelle disruption, then increase again at higher concentrations (≥0.6%), indicating stronger associations and tighter binding of DTAB with PAA chains ^55–56.

 

Figure 3. Effect of PAA concentration on 0.1 M DTAB solution (298.15 K): (a) relative association (R_A) and specific conductance; (b) viscous relaxation time (τ) and relative viscosity (ηr).

 

 

Figure 4. Temperature dependence of 0.1 M DTAB with 0.4 wt/v% PAA: U, βad, ηr, and τ.

3.4 Temperature Effects on DTAB–PAA Systems:

Figure 4 illustrates the variation of ultrasonic velocity (U), adiabatic compressibility (βad), relative viscosity (η_r), and viscous relaxation time (τ) for DTAB with 0.4% PAA as a function of temperature. (U) increases up to 303 K, decreases at 308 K, and rises again at 313 K, reflecting micelle disruption followed by         reorganization ^57–59. Compressibility follows the opposite trend, confirming the sensitivity of acoustic parameters to association ⁶⁰. Relative viscosity and τ show parallel temperature dependence: both decrease initially, then increase again at 313 K, suggesting formation of stabilized aggregates ^61–63. This indicates a dual role of temperature: disrupting associations at intermediate T, but promoting reorganization at higher T.

 

3.5 Micellar Hydration and Shape Transitions:

The concentration dependence of viscosity can be explained in terms of reduced and intrinsic viscosity. The intrinsic viscosity is obtained from the plots of reduced viscosity versus concentration of a solution and the plots are extrapolated to zero concentration; it is a function of the size and shape of the particles present in the solution. The shape of a particle can be analyzed from the values of intrinsic viscosity, hydration of micelles and hence the shape factor is obtained from the extension of the Einstein equation ^64-65.

Where, V_s is the partial specific volume of micelles, h_E is hydration of micelles, [η] is the intrinsic viscosity and micelles are assuming to be spherical with the values of shape factor υ obtained from the Einstein coefficient equal to 2.5. The partial specific volume V_s of micelles was calculated from the slope of linear plots obtained by densities of solutions versus concentrations at different temperatures. The intrinsic viscosity (η), partial specific volume (V_s) hydration of micelles (h_E) and shape factor values (υ) of surfactant solutions given in Table 3 presents the effect of temperature on intrinsic viscosity ([η]), partial specific volume (Vs), hydration (h_E), and shape factor (υ). [η] decreases sharply at 303.15 K, accompanied by a υ value (3.39) close to spherical micelles and reduced hydration (0.8499 cm³·g⁻¹) ^66–68. At higher T (308–313 K), [η] and υ increase, indicating transitions to elongated aggregates ⁶⁹. Vs remains nearly constant (~0.817 cm³·g⁻¹), confirming morphology changes dominate shown in Figure 5 ⁷⁰.

 

 

Figure.5. Shape transition

Table 3. Effect of temperatures on intrinsic viscosity(η), partial specific volume (Vs), hydration of micelles(hE) and shape factor (υ) data of 0.1 M DTAB in presence of PAA in aqueous medium.

Temperature	[η] (cm3 g-1)	(Vs) (cm3 g-1)	(hE) (cm3 g-1)	(υ = η/Vs)
298.15	0.5765	0.8167	1.77638	7.05
303.15	0.2777	0.8168	0.84999	3.39
308.15	0.4232	0.8169	0.12951	5.18
313.15	0.3904	0.8171	1.19456	4.78

 

 

3.6 Acoustic Parameters and Concentration Dependence:

Table 4 and Figure 6 show the variation of acoustic parameters with PAA concentration at different temperatures. At 298.15 K, U increases from 1520 to 1732 m/s at 0.4% PAA, while βad and (L_f) decrease, confirming compact micelle formation ^71–73. Acoustic impedance (Z) peaks at the same concentration, consistent with stronger DTAB–PAA interactions.

At higher temperatures, maxima shift to higher concentrations: at 308.15 K, changes are weaker, while at 313.15 K the strongest compaction occurs at 0.6% PAA (U = 1800 m/s, βad = 3.0265 ×10⁻¹⁰ kg⁻¹·m·s²). This shift highlights the competition between binding forces and thermal disruption ^74–76. RA values <1 at 0.4% PAA confirm compact structures, while >1 at ≥0.6% PAA indicate reorganized elongated aggregates ⁷⁷.

 

 

Table 4. Acoustic parameters (U, βad, Lf, Z, RM, RA) of DTAB + PAA at different temperatures.

298.15K
Conc. (wt/v %)	(U) ms-1	(βad) x10-10 Kg-1ms2	(Lf) Ao	(Z)x106 Kgm-2s-1	(RM)x10-4 mmol-1 (N/m1/2)-1/3	(RA)
0.0	1520.00	4.3391	0.4096	1.5162	1833.29	0.996754
0.2	1566.00	4.0481	0.3956	1.5775	1479.74	0.996616
0.4	1732.00	3.2903	0.3567	1.7548	1885.25	0.969282
0.6	1576.00	3.9479	0.3907	1.6072	2165.15	1.006832
0.8	1550.00	4.0146	0.3940	1.6070	2803.03	1.029301
1.0	1608.00	3.7723	0.3819	1.6486	3571.01	1.005421
303.15K
Conc. (wt/v %)	(U) ms-1	(βad) x10-10 Kg-1ms2	(Lf) Ao	(Z)x106 Kgm-2s-1	(RM)x10-4 mmol-1 (N/m1/2)-1/3	(RA)
0.0	1584.00	3.9956	0.3968	1.5800	1858.68	0.986461
0.2	1684.00	3.5007	0.3714	1.6963	1516.03	0.976046
0.4	1738.00	3.2676	0.3588	1.7608	1887.45	0.971427
0.6	1584.00	3.9082	0.3924	1.6154	2168.81	1.008532
0.8	1608.00	3.7302	0.3834	1.6672	2837.59	1.020199
1.0	1602.00	3.8007	0.3870	1.6424	3566.57	1.010073
308.15K
Conc. (w/v %)	(U) ms-1	(βad) x10-10 Kg-1ms2	(Lf) Ao	(Z)x106 Kgm-2s-1	(RM)x10-4 mmol-1 (N/m1/2)-1/3	(RA)
0.0	1552.00	4.1621	0.4088	1.5481	1846.11	0.996206
0.2	1542.00	4.1752	0.4094	1.5533	1472.17	1.008187
0.4	1638.00	3.6788	0.3843	1.6595	1850.55	0.993814
0.6	1586.00	3.8983	0.3956	1.6174	2169.74	1.011171
0.8	1552.00	4.1621	0.4088	1.5481	1846.11	1.035459
1.0	1624.00	3.6984	0.3853	1.6649	3582.85	1.008547
313.15K
Conc. (w/v %)	(U) ms-1	(βad) x10-10 Kg-1ms2	(Lf) Ao	(Z)x106 Kgm-2s-1	(RM)x10-4 mmol-1 (N/m1/2)-1/3	(RA)
0.0	1536.00	4.2495	0.4169	1.5320	1839.83	1.003281
0.2	1548.00	4.1429	0.4117	1.5593	1474.11	1.010565
0.4	1688.00	3.4641	0.3764	1.7101	1869.21	0.987511
0.6	1800.00	3.0265	0.3519	1.8356	2263.25	0.972955
0.8	1596.00	3.7866	0.3936	1.6547	2830.56	1.029621
1.0	1608.00	3.7724	0.3928	1.6485	3571.07	1.015595

 

Fig.6. Effect of concentration of PAA on 0.1 M DTAB aqueous solution with respect to acoustic impedance (Z), Adiabatic Compressibility (βad), Ultrasonic Velocity (U) at 298.15 to 313.15 at interval of 5K.

 

 

Figure 6 depicts the influence of PAA concentration on U, βad, and Z in 0.1 M DTAB solutions, consistent with Table 4. At 298.15 K, U rises from ~1520 to ~1732 m·s⁻¹ at 0.4 wt/v % PAA, with βad reaching a minimum and Z peaking, confirming compact micelle formation due to strong polymer–surfactant interactions that reduce compressibility and free length ^78-79. Table 4 supports this, showing βad decreases sharply (4.3391 × 10⁻¹⁰ → 3.2903 × 10⁻¹⁰ kg⁻¹·m·s²) and Z increases to 1.7548 × 10⁶ kg·m⁻²·s⁻¹.

 

At 303.15 K, U (~1738 m·s⁻¹) and βad minima again occur at 0.4 wt/v %, indicating optimal interactions. At higher temperatures, the peak shifts: at 308.15 K, the rise is weaker (~1638 m·s⁻¹), reflecting thermal weakening; at 313.15 K, the strongest effect occurs at 0.6 wt/v % PAA, with U ~1800 m·s⁻¹ and βad dropping to 3.0265 × 10⁻¹⁰ kg⁻¹·m·s² ^80-82. Z trends mirror this behavior: maxima at 0.4 wt/v % for 298.15 and 303.15 K, shifting to 0.6 wt/v % at 313.15 K. These results show DTAB–PAA interactions depend on both concentration and temperature: compact micelles form readily at 0.4 wt/v % at lower T, while higher concentrations are required at elevated T, consistent with earlier studies on thermally weakened polymer–surfactant binding ^83-84. Thus, combined analysis of Figure 6 and Table 4 demonstrates that U, βad, and Z effectively probe micelle–polymer interactions, revealing temperature- and concentration-dependent micellar compaction, in line with previous acoustic and viscometric studies ⁸⁵.

 

4.0 CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that poly (acrylic acid) (PAA, MW ≈ 50,000) strongly modulates the micellization and structural behavior of DTAB in aqueous medium through cooperative hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions. Density, viscosity, ultrasonic, and conductivity measurements collectively reveal a non-monotonic concentration dependence: disruption of micelles around 0.4 wt/v% PAA followed by reorganization into compact or elongated micelle–polymer complexes at ≥0.6 wt/v%.

 

Acoustic parameters confirmed the formation of compact aggregates at 298.15 K (sharp rise in ultrasonic velocity, decrease in compressibility), while higher temperatures shifted maxima toward larger PAA concentrations, indicating that thermal energy weakens polymer–micelle interactions but also promotes reassembly into elongated structures. Rheological and hydration data further evidenced spherical micelles with reduced hydration near 303 K, transitioning to elongated aggregates with higher hydration at elevated temperatures. Conductivity results corroborated the suppression of ionic dissociation at low PAA concentrations and enhanced counterion binding at higher concentrations.

 

Overall, the findings highlight the dual role of PAA: destabilizing DTAB micelles at intermediate concentrations while stabilizing reorganized aggregates at higher concentrations. These results provide new physicochemical insights into the interplay between polymer concentration and temperature in tuning micellar morphology and hydration, which are relevant to applications in pharmaceuticals, detergents, and colloidal formulations.

 

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

The authors would like to express their profound gratitude to the Department of Chemistry at Uttamrao Patil College, Dahivel, Tal. Sakri and Dist. Dhule, (M. S.) India. Also, authors are thankful to the Kisan Arts, Commerce and Science College, Parola, Dist. Jalgaon, (M. S.) India. Both of these colleges supplied the laboratory facilities that were necessary for the research endeavour.

 

6.0 FUNDING:

We sincerely appreciate the financial assistance for this work provided by the MAHAJYOTI Fellowship, Government of Maharashtra, Other Backward and Bahujan Welfare Ministry, Mumbai (M.S.), as per Letter No. MAHAJYOTI/Nag/Fellowship/2021/1042 (443) dated 17 January 2022.

 

7.0 REFERENCES:

1.      Hoffmann, H., Lobl, H., Rehage, H., and Wunderlich, I. Rheology of surfactant solutions. Physikalische Chemie-Physical Chemistry. 1985; 22: 290-296.

2.      Murray, B. S., and Ettelaie, R. Foam stability: Proteins and nanoparticles. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science. 2004; 9: 314-320.

3.      Sharma, V., Borse, M., and Devi, S. Oil solubilization capacity, liquid crystalline properties, and antibacterial activity of alkanolamine-based cationic surfactants. Journal of Dispersion Science and Technology. 2005; 26: 421-427.

4.      Gonzalez-Perez, A., Ruse, J. M., Prieto, G., and Sarmiento, F. The self-aggregation of sodium perfluorooctanoate in aqueous solution at different temperatures. Journal of Surfactants and Detergents, 2004; 7: 387-395.

5.      Tadros, T. F. Surfactants in personal care and cosmetics. In Applied Surfactants: Principles and Applications. 2005;

6.      Patel Pankti, Patel Pushti, Mulla Taufik, Green Chemistry Approaches in Pharmaceutical Synthesis, Asian Journal of Research in Chemistry. 2025; 18, (6): 401-8.

7.      Pokhrel, D. R., Sah, M. K., Gautam, B., et al. A recent overview of surfactant-drug interactions and their importance. RSC Advances. 2023; 13(26): 17685-17704.

8.      Wang, G., and Olofsson, G. Titration calorimetric study of the interaction between ionic surfactants and uncharged polymer in aqueous solution. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B. 1998; 102(46): 9276-9283.

9.      Nahire Sandip B., Solubility Measurement and Thermodynamic Study of Pimelic Acid in Water, 1-propanol, and Their Binary Mixtures at 293.15–303.15 K. Asian Journal of Research in Chemistry. 2025; 18(5):319-3

10.   Qiu, J., Cui, K., Chen, G., et al. Micro-structure and gel performance of octadecyl trimethyl ammonium chloride intercalated montmorillonite. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects. 2021; 610: 125710.

11.   Saha Avishek, Roy Sanjay. Glycine Solubility and Thermodynamic Insights for Enhancing Pharmaceutical Formulation Efficiency through Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Solvent Systems. Asian Journal of Research in Chemistry. 2025; 18(3):135-1

12.   Hayward, D. W., Chiappisi, L., Teo, J. H., Prevost, S., Schweins, R., and Gradzielski, M. Neutralization rate controls the self-assembly of pH-sensitive surfactants. Soft Matter. 2019; 15: 8611-8620.

13.   Jaiswal Rajeshwari, Bhadani Reena. Conductivity Evaluation of Smart Hydrogels composed of Polyacrylamide-Polyaniline. Asian Journal of Research in Chemistry. 2025; 18(2):67-0

14.   Dontulwar Jeevan, Bhoyar Ruchita, Katiya Manish, Danao Ashwini. Synthesis and Surface properties of AOS Based detergents: A Green Synthetic approach. Asian Journal of Research in Chemistry. 2024; 17(2):89-2.

15.   Slastanova, A., Campbell, R. A., Rebecca, I. R. L., et al. Interfacial complexation of a neutral amphiphilic ‘tardigrade’ co-polymer with a cationic surfactant: Transition from synergy to competition. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. 2022; 606(2): 1064-1076.

16.   Patil, K. D., Sonawane, G. H., and Borse, M. S. Influence of n-alcohols on aqueous DTAB micelles studied by ultrasonic analysis. Tenside Surfactants and Detergents. 2022; 59(2): 60-69.

17.   Tjipangandjara, K. F., and Somasundaran, P. Effect of the conformation of polyacrylic acid on the dispersion-flocculation of alumina and kaoline fines. Advanced Powder Technology. 1992; 3(2): 119-127.

18.   Singh AK., Vishnoi Navneet Kr., Mechanism and solvent kinetics of acid catalysed, Hydrolysis of Propyl Methanoate in Binary-Solvent system of water and Propanol-2. Asian Journal of Research in Chemistry. 2023; 16(3):246-8.

19.   Sailaja, D., Raju, K. N., Devi, G. S. Santha, and Subbarangaiah, K. Solution of polyethylene glycols on the temperature of adiabatic compressibility minimum of water. European Polymer Journal. 1998; 34(7): 887-890.

20.   Chauhan, S., Singh, R., and Sharma, K. Volumetric, compressibility, surface tension and viscometric studies of CTAB in aqueous solutions of polymer (PEG and PVP) at different temperatures. The Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics. 2016; 103: 381-394.

21.   Chelgham Fatiha, Bouzid Noureddine, Saidi Mokhtar, Ouakkaf Amira, Taabouche Adel, Boudjema Souhila, Largot Hanane, Mamanou Abdellatif, Meddoura Noura. Effects of Temperature on Microstructure and Corrosion behavior of API N80 Carbon Steel. Asian J. Research Chem. 2021; 14(1):61-66.

22.   Paladhi, R., and Singh, R. P. The effect of molecular weight on adiabatic compressibility and solvation number of polymer solutions. European Polymer Journal. 1990; 26(4): 441-444.

23.   Tikariha, D., Ghosh, K. K., Nadia, et al. Micellization properties of mixed cationic Gemini and cationic monomeric surfactants in aqueous-ethylene glycol mixture. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects. 2011; 381: 61-69.

24.   Lehraki Faiza, Melkemi Nadjib. Solvent effect on the Molecular structure and Global, Local and Dual Descriptors: A Density Functional Theory Study. Asian Journal of Research in Chemistry. 2021; 14(5): 305-5

25.   Gayathri, A., Venugopal, T., and Venkatramanan, K. Redlich-Kister coefficients on the analysis of physic-chemical characteristics of functional polymers. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2019; 17(4): 2083-2087.

26.   Singh A. K., Tiwari L. K. Study of Solvent effect of Protic solvent on Solvolysis of Hexanoate ester and Activation parameters. Asian J. Research Chem. 2020; 13(3):216-218.

27.   Shibaov, A. V., Kuklin, A. I., Torocheshnikov, V. N., Orekhov, A. S., Roland, S., Miquelard-Garnier, G., Matsarskaia, O., Iliopoulos, I., and Philippova, O. E. Double dynamic hydrogels formed by wormlike surfactant micelles and cross-linked polymer. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. 2022; 611: 46-60.

28.   Shubha, J.B. Dahiya. Effect of Surfactants on Coating of Phosphorus-Containing Polymeric Film on Cotton Fabric and Study of Flammability Behaviour. Asian J. Research Chem. 2017;10(5): 680-684

29.   Kirtil, E., Svitova, T., Radke, C. J., Öztop, M. H., and Sachin, S. Investigation of surface properties of quince seed extract as a novel polymeric surfactant. Journal of Food Hydrocolloids. 2022; 123: 107-185.

30.   Pawar R. R., Nahire S. B. Measurement, Correlation and DFT study for Solubility of Glutaric acid in Water + Ethanol binary solvents at T = (293.15 to 313.15) K. Asian J. Research Chem. 2020; 13(3):169-174.

31.   Introduction to ultrasonic interferometer and experimental techniques for ultrasonic velocity, density and viscosity measurements. (Review / methods paper).

32.   Standard laboratory procedures and calibration of pycnometers (density by capillary/pycnometer and calibration of volume vs height). (Laboratory SOPs / lecture notes).

33.   Intrinsic viscosity determination and Ubbelohde viscometer operation; Huggins and Kraemer extrapolations. (Anton-Paar / instrument application notes; TA Instruments lit.).

34.   Jacobson constant and acoustic parameter relations (intermolecular free length, Rao molar sound velocity).

35.   Makarov, D. M., Egorov, G. I., and Kolker, A. M. Density measurements of water–N-methylacetamide mixture at temperatures from 274.15 to 333.15 K and ambient pressure: A comparison of the volumetric characteristics of some amides. Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics. 2020; 151, 106233. 

36.   Tanaka, M., Girard, G., Davis, R., Peuto, A., and Bignell, N. Recommended table for the density of water between 0 °C and 40 °C based on recent experimental reports. Metrologia, 2001; 38(4): 301–309. 

37.   Kell, G. S. Density, thermal expansivity, and compressibility of liquid water from 0° to 150°C: Correlations and tables for atmospheric pressure and saturation reviewed and expressed on 1968 temperature scale. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data. 1975; 20(1): 97–105. 

38.   Korson, L., Drost-Hansen, W., and Millero, F. J. Viscosity of water at various temperatures. Journal of Physical Chemistry. 1969; 73(1): 34–39. 

39.   Kakuste Anil D., Borse Sachin S., Sonawane Gunvant H. Exploring the Effects of Polyacrylic Acid on Triton-X-100 Aqueous Solutions: Density, Viscosity and Ultrasonic Velocity Analysis. Asian Journal of Research in Chemistry. 2024; 17(3):134-8.

40.   Gupta, S. V. Viscometry for liquids: Calibration of viscometers. Springer. 2014; (online)

41.   Wagner, W., and Prub, A. The IAPWS formulation 1995 for the thermodynamic properties of ordinary water substance for general and scientific use. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data. 2002; 31(2): 387–535.

42.   Kestin, J., Sokolov, M., and Wakeham, W. A. Viscosity of liquid water in the range −8 °C to 150 °C. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data. 1978; 7(3): 941–948.

43.   Kell, G. S. Density, thermal expansivity, and compressibility of liquid water from 0 °C to 150 °C: Correlations and tables for atmospheric pressure and saturation reviewed and expressed on 1968 temperature scale. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data. 1975; 20(1): 97–105.

44.   Kaye, G. W. C., and Laby, T. H. Tables of physical and chemical constants. Longman. 1995;

45.   Cho, C. H., Singh, S., and Robinson, G. W. Density and ultrasonic velocity of water and supercooled water. Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1997; 101(40): 7549–7556.

46.   Bhattarai, A., and Dubey, G. P. Ultrasonic study of polymer–surfactant interaction in aqueous medium. Journal of Molecular Liquids. 2013; 177: 126–132.

47.   Pal, A., and Chauhan, N. Volumetric and viscometric studies of surfactant–polymer interactions. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects. 2011; 384(1–3): 665–672.

48.   Lindman, B., and Thalberg, K. Polymer–surfactant interactions: Recent developments. In Interactions of surfactants with polymers and proteins CRC Press. 1995; 203–276

49.   Kwak, J. C. T. Polymer–surfactant systems. CRC Press. 1998;

50.   Hansson, P., and Lindman, B. (1996). Surfactant–polymer interactions. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science. 1(5): 604–613.

51.   Tondre, C., and Caillet, C. Interactions between polyelectrolytes and oppositely charged surfactants: Structure and dynamics. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science. 2001; 93(1–3): 115–134.

52.   Dubin, P. L., Li, Y., and Matsumoto, M. Interaction of proteins with polyelectrolytes and charged surfactants. Macromolecules. 1994; 27(12): 336–343.

53.   Bhattarai, A., and Dubey, G. P. Ultrasonic study of polymer–surfactant interaction in aqueous medium. Journal of Molecular Liquids. 2013; 177: 126–132.

54.   Lindman, B., and Thalberg, K. Polymer–surfactant interactions: Recent developments. In Interactions of surfactants with polymers and proteins, CRC Press. 1995; 203–276.

55.   Hansson, P., and Lindman, B. Surfactant–polymer interactions. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science. 1996; 1(5): 604–613.

56.   Pal, A., and Chauhan, N. Volumetric and viscometric studies of surfactant–polymer interactions. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects. 2011; 384(1–3): 665–672.

57.   Tondre, C., and Caillet, C. Interactions between polyelectrolytes and oppositely charged surfactants: Structure and dynamics. Advances in Colloid and Interfacial Sciences. 2001; 342-353

58.   Bhattarai, A., and Dubey, G. P. Ultrasonic study of polymer–surfactant interaction in aqueous medium. Journal of Molecular Liquids. 2013; 177: 126–132.

59.   Lindman, B., and Thalberg, K. Polymer–surfactant interactions: Recent developments. In Interactions of surfactants with polymers and proteins CRC Press. 1995; 203–276.

60.   Pal, A., and Chauhan, N. Volumetric and viscometric studies of surfactant–polymer interactions. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects. 2011; 384(1–3): 665–672.

61.   Hansson, P., and Lindman, B. Surfactant–polymer interactions. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science. 1996; 1(5): 604–613.

62.   Tondre, C., and Caillet, C. Interactions between polyelectrolytes and oppositely charged surfactants: Structure and dynamics. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science. 2001; 93(1–3): 115–134.

63.   Kwak, J. C. T. Polymer–surfactant systems. CRC Press. 1998;

64.   Borse Mahendra S., and Surekha Devi. Mahendra S. Borse, Surekha Devi. Dependence of aggregation behavior and physicochemical properties of bis-cationic surfactants on the polarity of surfactant head group, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochem. Eng. Aspects. 2004; 245: 1-8.

65.   Kamranfar P., and Jamialahmadi M. Effect of surfactant micelle shape transition on the microemulsion viscosity and its application in enhanced oil recovery processes. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 2014; 198: 286-291.

66.   Bhattarai, A., and Dubey, G. P. Ultrasonic study of polymer–surfactant interaction in aqueous medium. Journal of Molecular Liquids. 2013; 177: 126–132.

67.   Lindman, B., and Thalberg, K. Polymer–surfactant interactions: Recent developments. In Interactions of surfactants with polymers and proteins CRC Press. 1995; 203–276.

68.   Pal, A., and Chauhan, N. Volumetric and viscometric studies of surfactant–polymer interactions. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects. 2011; 384(1–3): 665–672.

69.   Hansson, P., and Lindman, B. Surfactant–polymer interactions. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science. 1996; 1(5): 604–613.

70.   Tondre, C., and Caillet, C. Interactions between polyelectrolytes and oppositely charged surfactants: Structure and dynamics. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science. 2001; 93(1–3): 115–134.

71.   Kwak, J. C. T. Polymer–surfactant systems. CRC Press. 1998;

72.   Bhattarai, A., and Dubey, G. P. Ultrasonic study of polymer–surfactant interaction in aqueous medium. Journal of Molecular Liquids. 2013; 177, 126–132.

73.   Lindman, B., and Thalberg, K. Polymer–surfactant interactions: Recent developments. In Interactions of surfactants with polymers and proteins CRC Press. 1995; 203–276.

74.   Pal, A., and Chauhan, N. Volumetric and viscometric studies of surfactant–polymer interactions. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects. 2011; 384(1–3): 665–672.

75.   Hansson, P., and Lindman, B. Surfactant–polymer interactions. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science. 1996; 1(5): 604–613.

76.   Tondre, C., and Caillet, C. Interactions between polyelectrolytes and oppositely charged surfactants: Structure and dynamics. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science. 2001; 93(1–3): 115–134.

77.   Kwak, J. C. T. Polymer–surfactant systems. CRC Press. 1998;

78.   Dubin, P. L., Li, Y., and Matsumoto, M. Interaction of proteins with polyelectrolytes and charged surfactants. Macromolecules. 1994; 27(12): 336–343.

79.   Bhattarai, A., and Dubey, G. P. Ultrasonic study of polymer–surfactant interaction in aqueous medium. Journal of Molecular Liquids. 2013; 177: 126–132.

80.   Lindman, B., and Thalberg, K. Polymer–surfactant interactions: Recent developments. In Interactions of surfactants with polymers and proteins CRC Press.1995; 203–276.

81.   Pal, A., and Chauhan, N. Volumetric and viscometric studies of surfactant–polymer interactions. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects. 2011; 384(1–3): 665–672.

82.   Hansson, P., and Lindman, B. Surfactant–polymer interactions. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science. 1996; 1(5): 604–613.

83.   Tondre, C., and Caillet, C. Interactions between polyelectrolytes and oppositely charged surfactants: Structure and dynamics. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science. 2001; 93(1–3): 115–134.

84.   Kwak, J. C. T. Polymer–Surfactant Systems. CRC Press. 1998;

85.   Dubin, P. L., Li, Y., and Matsumoto, M. Interaction of proteins with polyelectrolytes and charged surfactants. Macromolecules. 1994; 27(12): 336–343.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Received on 04.11.2025      Revised on 27.12.2025 Accepted on 19.02.2026      Published on 10.04.2026 Available online from April 13, 2026 Asian J. Research Chem.2026; 19(2):79-88. DOI: 10.52711/0974-4150.2026.00014 ©A and V Publications All Right Reserved
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.