J Surfact Deterg (2013) 16:621–630

DOI 10.1007/s11743-012-1422-4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Synergistic Effect of Mixed Surfactant Systems on Foam Behavior

and Surface Tension
Achinta Bera • Keka Ojha • Ajay Mandal

Received: 10 January 2012 / Accepted: 5 December 2012 / Published online: 11 January 2013
Ó AOCS 2013

Abstract Foam and surface tension behaviors of different because of their wide applications in industries such as
ionic/nonionic surfactant solutions along with their differ- detergent, fabric softening, analytical chemistry, pharma-
ent combinations have been investigated. Among different ceuticals and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technique
surfactants, sodium dodecyl sulfate showed the highest [1–4]. In the EOR technique, different types of surfactants
foamability over other surfactants. Mixed surfactant sys- have been used to alter the interfacial properties and foam
tems were always found to have higher foamability than behaviors. In some cases, the mixture of surfactants often
the individual surfactant. It was also noticeable that non- has better ability to modify the interfacial properties and to
ionic surfactants show good foamability when they com- generate high foam volume than those of the individual
bine with anionic and cationic surfactants. In the case of interfacially active compounds and also the mixtures are
mixed surfactant systems, nonionic/cationic surfactant advantageous because the purification of a single com-
mixtures showed lower surface tension than nonionic/ pound may be very expensive and difficult [5–9]. The
anionic surfactant mixture due to a synergistic effect. mixture of two different surfactant types exhibit synergism
or cooperative interaction and they can also produce unique
Keywords Surfactant  Mixed surfactants  Surface microstructures like vesicles and rod-like micelles which
tension  Foamability  Foam stability  Synergism are useful in certain applications [10–14]. However, mixed
surfactant systems have the limitation that they form
Abbreviations crystalline precipitates in aqueous solution as a result of the
ST Surface tension coulombic interaction between oppositely charged species
SDS Sodium dodecyl sulfate [15]. The low interfacial tension (IFT) and surface tension
EOR Enhanced oil recovery (ST) in aqueous media at lower surfactant concentration is
IFT Interfacial tension desired so that the surfactant pair can be chosen to exhibit
CTAB Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide synergism. Therefore, in a mixed surfactant system, IFT
CMC Critical micelle concentration and ST are lower than that of IFT and ST of either sur-
HLB Hydrophilic-lipophilic balance factant in the same medium. In the chemically based EOR
technique, surfactants have been considered as important
chemicals for getting better recovery of trapped oil from
Introduction natural oil reservoirs because of their high efficiencies at
reducing oil–water IFT [16–19]. The main purpose of ter-
The foam behavior and interfacial properties of mixed tiary oil recovery by surfactant flooding is to lower the IFT
surfactant systems have been extensively investigated between oil–water systems. Surfactant individually can
lower the IFT between oil and water systems but the degree
of reduction is not significant sometimes for an oil recovery
A. Bera  K. Ojha  A. Mandal (&)
process. So some new mixed surfactant systems have been
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Indian School of Mines,
Dhanbad 826004, India investigated to characterize their efficiencies of surface
e-mail: [email protected] activities. For foam flooding in EOR process foam is

123
622 J Surfact Deterg (2013) 16:621–630

widely used as injected fluid in oil and gas reservoir to surfactants requiring high foaming in the petroleum oil
improve the mobility ration. Therefore, different mixed industry. Critical micelle concentration (CMC), surface
surfactant systems are required to achieve the goal. density and molecular cross-sectional area of the surfac-
From a fundamental point of view, foams are complex, tants were determined to correlate these parameters with
highly nonequilibrium dispersions of gas bubbles in a rel- foaming properties of the surfactants. Surface tensions of
atively small amount of liquid generally containing sur- different surfactants (individual and mixed) in pure water,
factants. Foams can be produced using a number of brine and synthetic brine were measured for verification of
techniques, including shaking, bubbling, bubbling and their surface activities in a different environment.
shaking, bubbling and stirring and a sudden drop in pres-
sure. Due to thermodynamic instability of foams they
undergo a self-destruction process due to liquid drainage, Experimental Section
bubble disproportionation and coalescence (Ostwald rip-
ening) [20–26]. One of the best ways to increase the foam Materials Used
stability is the addition of solid particles, which can irre-
versibly adsorb at the liquid–gas interface and noticeably Different categories of surfactants such as anionic, cationic
increase the interfacial elasticity needed to prevent the film and nonionic surfactants were used for generation of foam
rupture and bubble coalescence. Various surfactants are to study their foaming properties (foamability and foam
used to produce and stabilize the aqueous foams by pre- stability) and to measure surface tensions of all the sur-
venting bubbles in the foams from coalescing. The Gibbs- factants in water, different brines and synthetic brine. The
Marangoni effect is one of the most important factors that anionic surfactant, SDS (with 0.98 % purity) was pur-
control the foaming properties [21, 27–31]. Characteriza- chased from Fisher Scientific, India and the cationic sur-
tion of foam behaviors of surfactants and mixed surfactants factant, CTAB of 98 % pure was procured from Merck,
generally involves the investigation of both foamability India for use in the present study. The polyethoxylated
and foam stability [32, 33]. Surfactants are adsorbed at the nonionic surfactants Brij 30 (abbreviated C12E4), Brij
liquid–gas interface and are responsible for both the foa- S20 (abbreviated C18E20) and Brij 58 (abbreviated
mability and foam stability of the resulting foams. Foam (C16E20) all 99 % pure were purchased from Sigma-
stability depends on both the surfactant concentration and Aldrich, Germany. The properties of the surfactants are
the rate of diffusion at the air–water interface as well as summarized in Table 1. Sodium Chloride (NaCl) was
particle hydrophobicity and size [34–36]. Foam stability used for the preparation of different concentrations of the
refers to the intrinsic resistance of the lamella to a decrease brines. The synthetic brine was prepared in distilled water
in the interfacial area and does not imply its stability in a using different salts (NaCl, 23.54 g/L; KCl, 0.675 g/L;
thermodynamic sense [37]. CaCl2, 0.115 g/L; MgCl2, 5.840 g/L; Na2SO4, 3.840 g/L;
In the present research paper, foaming properties (foa- SrCl2, 0.024 g/L; KBr, 0.110 g/L; NaF, 0.090 g/L; NaHCO3,
mability and foam stability) of five different surfactants 0.200 g/L; H3BO3, 0.030 g/L). All the chemicals used to
(SDS, Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB), and prepare synthetic brine were supplied by Merck Spe-
three ethoxylated alcohols) and mixed surfactants were cialties Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, India. Reverse osmosis water
investigated by standard shaking method for application of from a Millipore water system (Millipore SA, 67120

Table 1 Physicochemical characteristics and adsorption parameters of the surfactants employed in this work at 300 K
Serial Chemical names and category Linear formula and Trade HLB CMC C 9 1010 A
no. molecular weight name value (mmol/L1) (mol/cm2) (Å2/mol)

1. Sodium dodecyl sulfate (anionic) CH3(CH2)11OSO3Na SDS 40.0 8.2 2.223 74.45
M.W. = 288.38
2. Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide CH3(CH2)15N(Br) (CH3)3 CTAB 21.4 0.96 8.438 19.67
(cationic) M.W. = 364.48
3. Polyoxyethylene (4) lauryl ether C12H25(OCH2CH2)4OH Brij30 9.7 0.002 4.156 39.95
(nonionic) M. W. = 362.56
4. Polyoxyethylene (20) stearyl ether C18H37(OCH2CH2)20OH BrijS20 15.3 0.0057 3.281 50.60
(nonionic) M. W. = 1,152
5. Polyoxyethylene (20) cetyl ether C16H33(OCH2CH2)20OH Brij58 16.0 0.0077 2.573 69.53
(nonionic) M. W. = 1,123.52

123
J Surfact Deterg (2013) 16:621–630 623

Molshein, France) was used for preparation of the attain low surface tension in short time when a new
solutions. interface is created. The foamability of different surfactants
(0.5 wt%) in distilled water, 2 wt% NaCl, 4 wt% NaCl and
synthetic brine were studied and the results are summarized
Methods in Fig. 1. From the Fig. 1, it is clear that in all the solutions
SDS has produced higher foam volumes i.e., higher foa-
Determination of Foamability and Foam Stability mability than the other surfactants employed in this work.
The result shows similarity with other research works [38,
For foamability and foam stability tests, 10 ml of different 39]. Generally, foamability is highly influenced by the
solutions of brine and synthetic brine were mixed with accumulation of the foaming agents at the air–water
1 ml of 0.5 wt% solution of different surfactants in test interface to produce foam [40, 41]. It is important to reach
tubes. Then all the test tubes were shaken in a Rotospin the minimal concentration of a surfactant that is required
rotary mixer (Tarsons Products Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, India) at for the formation of a saturated monolayer at the bubble
a fixed speed of 50 RPM for 6 h. Changes in foam volume surface. The equilibrium adsorption of surfactant at the air–
and evolution of foam structure were followed by visual water interface may be calculated with help of measured
observation at different interval of time and the foam surface tension isotherm using Gibbs surface adsorption
volume was plotted as a function of time to observe the equation as follows:
foam stability. Initial foam volumes were taken for the  
1 dc
determination of the foamability of the surfactants. All C¼ ð1Þ
RT d ln C
possible mechanical vibrations were avoided during foam
stability measurements. Ensuring all the measurement where C is the surface density (mmol/cm2); R is the uni-
conditions remained identical, brine concentration and versal gas constant (8.314 J/mol1 K1), T is the thermody-
synthetic brine effects on the foamability and foam stability namic temperature (K), c is the surface tension (mN/m1), C
for the surfactant systems were studied at 300 K. The same is the surfactant concentration (mmol/L1) at the CMC. The
dc


procedure was followed for mixed surfactants which were term, d ln C used in Eq. 1 can be calculated from the slope
prepared by 1:1 (w/w) combinations of different surfactants of the plot of the logarithm of the surfactant concentration
(SDS ? C12E4 = MS1; SDS ? C18E20 = MS2; SDS ? with the surface tension shown in Fig. 2. From Fig. 2, it is
C16E20 = MS3; CTAB ? C12E4 = MS4; CTAB ? clear that, as the surfactant concentration increases, the
C18E20 = MS5; CTAB ? C16E20 = MS6). surface tension decreases rapidly and each curve has a level
off point at the concentration corresponding to the CMC,
Surface Tension Measurement then remains at an almost constant value at higher con-
centrations of surfactant in solution.
Measurement of surface tension is a very useful supple-
mentary test method for characterization of the surface
activity of surfactants. In the present study, surface ten-
sions of the surfactant solutions (0.5 wt%) were measured SDS
with the help of a programmable tensiometer (Kruss CTAB
10 Brij 30
GmbH, Germany, Model: K20 EasyDyne) at 300 K by the Brij S20
Brij 58
Initial foam volume (ml)

Du Noüy ring method. To determine the CMC, surface

8
tensions of different concentrated surfactant solutions were
measured and the CMC was calculated from the point of
inflexion. The platinum ring was thoroughly cleaned with 6

acetone and flame-dried before each measurement. In all

cases, the measurement range was set at 10 and the stan- 4
dard deviation did not exceed ±0.1 mN/m.
2

Results and Discussions 0

Water 2wt% Brine 4 wt% Brine Synthetic brine
Foamability Different solutions

Fig. 1 Initial foam volume of different surfactant solutions in

Foamability is the foam generating power of surfactant distilled water, 2 wt% NaCl, 4 wt% NaCl, and synthetic brine at
solutions and is favored by the ability of the surfactant to 300 K

123
624 J Surfact Deterg (2013) 16:621–630

The CMC of a surfactant is a good measure of its effi-

(a)
ciency as a foaming agent; the lower the CMC, the more
efficient the surfactant as a foamer. Therefore, a low CMC
helps to form a greater amount of foam than a surfactant
with a higher CMC of same type. The CMC of a surfactant
also influences the foam stability. If the CMC of the sur-
factant solution is low then foam stability is high.
The molecular cross-sectional area can be determined
using the following equation:
1
A¼ ð2Þ
CNA
where A is the molecular cross-section of the polar head
group (Å2) and NA is the Avogadro constant
(6.023 9 1023 mol-1). The surface excess concentration
and molecular cross-sectional area were calculated using
55 Eqs. 1 and 2 and are depicted in Table 1. A noticeable
(b) result was found in the case of nonionic surfactant systems
where adsorption decreases with the increase in CMC of
50 the surfactants. In the case of C12E4, the surfactant has a
Surface tension (mNm-1)

lower CMC and the C value is greater than the other sur-
45
factants (Brij C18E20 and C16E20). The surface activity of
CMC a surfactant decreases with an increasing hydrophilic-
lipophilic balance (HLB) value (given in Table 1) implying
40 that the surfactant with a lower HLB value tends to con-
centrate at the air/liquid interface instead of remaining in
35
the bulk. As the HLB value increases, the CMC and the
surface tension at CMC is also increased. The hydrocarbon
chain length of the surfactant also influences the CMC.
30 Generally, with increasing the hydrocarbon chain of the
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 surfactant leads to the surfactant molecules being more
lnC (mmolL -1 ) hydrophobic. Therefore, it is also experimentally found
60 that surfactants with longer hydrocarbon chains have a
(c) driving force for aggregation, and thus dramatically reduce
55 the solution CMC. As the CMC values of the surfactants
decrease the C values of the surfactants also increase.
Surface tension (mNm-1)

50
However this effect is not alway applicable as the surfac-
tants are sometimes of technical grade. It can also be
deduced from Table 1 that as the C value increases, the
45
molecular cross-section of the polar head group
CMC (A) decreases for the nonionic surfactants. As SDS and
40
CTAB are different types of surfactants, such a comparison
is therefore not valid. When the test solution shifted from
35 water to brines and synthetic brine, the initial foam volume
of SDS increases in brine and decreases in synthetic brine
30 but in the case of CTAB it decreases in both brines and
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 synthetic brine. In the case of nonionic surfactants, the
lnC(mmolL-1 ) initial foam volume decreases in all cases when it is shifted
from water to brines and synthetic brine. The variation of
Fig. 2 The surface tension versus concentration plot for the deter-
mination of the CMC of the surfactants at 300 K: a polyethoxylated NaCl concentration affects the foamability of the SDS
alcohol surfactants; b SDS and c CTAB solution. Since SDS is an anionic surfactant, in presence of

123
J Surfact Deterg (2013) 16:621–630 625

NaCl, the SDS is therefore adsorbed on the liquid film nonionic surfactant mixture than an anionic/nonionic sur-
array tightly and the foaming power of SDS increased with factant mixture.
increasing NaCl concentration as shown in the Fig. 1.
However, in the case of synthetic brine, foamability of SDS Foam Stability
decreases due to the presence of Ca2? and Mg2? cations,
which cause the SDS to precipitate in synthetic brine. On The foam stability of a surfactant solution is defined as the
the other hand, CTAB is a cationic surfactant in which a change in foam volume, i.e. the volume of liquid drained
positive charge resides on the nitrogen atom therefore the from the foam per unit time. Foams are thermodynamically
monovalent Na? cations of brines (and other cations of unstable due to their high interfacial free energy, and their
synthetic brine) experience a repulsive force and the relative stability depends on several factors such as drain-
foaming power of CTAB is reduced by decreasing the age, disproportionation and coalescence, viscosity and
adsorbing power of the CTAB surfactant on the air–water surface shear viscosity of the liquid phase. Foam stability is
interface. Since the nonionic surfactants are neutral, the the property of the two air/water interfaces of the thin films
adsorption of surfactants on the liquid film is very low in which influences the formation and destruction of foam.
the presence of NaCl; therefore, foamability of the sur- Stabilization of foam is caused by van der Waals forces
factants decreases in all cases. between the molecules in the foam, electrical double layers
The foamability of mixed surfactant systems is depicted created by dipolar surfactants, and the Marangoni effect,
in Fig. 3. More or less all the mixed surfactant systems which acts as a restoring force to the lamellae. Several
show higher foamability than the individual system. In destabilizing effects can break foam down. The influencing
synthetic brine, the initial foam volume of the MS1 system factors are (1) Gravitation causes drainage of liquid to the
decreases drastically compared to water. In the case of foam base, (2) osmotic pressure causes drainage from the
mixed surfactant systems, a salt effect on foamability has lamellae to the Plateau borders due to internal concentra-
been also found. A probable explanation can be made on tion differences in the foam, while (3) Laplace pressure
the basis of the effect of salt on the CMC of the surfactant. causes diffusion of gas from small to large bubbles due to
With an increase in salt concentration, the CMC of the pressure difference. Films can break under disjoining
surfactant decreases and as a result the foamability pressure. These effects can lead to rearrangement of the
increases [42]. It is also noticeable that nonionic surfactants foam structure at scales larger than the bubbles, which may
show good foamability when they combine with anionic be individual or collective. The changes in foam volume as
and cationic surfactants. Due to synergism, mixed surfac- a function of time are shown in Figs. 4, 5, 6 and 7 for all
tant systems exhibit better foaming power than that of the surfactants in distilled water, 2 wt% NaCl, 4 wt% NaCl
single one. From the Fig. 3, it is clear that the synergism is and synthetic brine respectively. In all cases, the time
very much more prominent in the case of a cationic/ evolution of the foam structure provides natural

10 MS1
MS2
MS3
MS4
8 MS5
Initial foam volume (ml)

MS6

0
Water 2 wt% Brine 4 wt% Brine Synthetic brine
Different solutions

Fig. 3 Initial foam volume of different mixed surfactant solutions in Fig. 4 Plot of foam volumes of different surfactants versus time in
distilled water, 2 wt% NaCl, 4 wt% NaCl, and synthetic brine distilled water

123
626 J Surfact Deterg (2013) 16:621–630

quantifying foam stability [43]. The presence of dispersed

particles of colloid in the continuous phase is one of the
major factors responsible for the foam stability. They
minimize the liquid drainage rate due to increased surface
viscosity of the continuous phase. It was also reported that
the characteristics of the colloid dispersion highly influence
the stability and thinning behavior of foams [9, 44]. In the
case of synthetic brine, the foam stability is quite low
compared to other solutions. Due to the presence of dif-
ferent salts in the synthetic brine, the foam stability is
affected noticeably. It is clear from the figures that the
nonionic surfactants show good foam stability in some
cases compared to other surfactants. Some researchers
suggested that dry or metastable foams seem to show two
different regimes of foam decay, one during the initial
stage, immediately after foam formation, followed by a
second one of comparatively slow drainage [33, 44]. The
Fig. 6 Plot of foam volumes of different surfactants versus time in
decrease in foam volume with time for the mixed surfactant 4 wt% NaCl
systems is depicted in Figs. 8, 9, 10 and 11 in distilled
water, 2 wt% NaCl, 4 wt% NaCl and synthetic brine
respectively. In water, the mixed surfactant systems show
better results regarding the foam stability than that of the
individual surfactant systems. The foam stability of the mixed
surfactant systems in water is also higher than the other
solutions (2 wt% NaCl, 4 wt% NaCl and synthetic brine).

Surface Tension of Surfactant Solutions in Saline Water

For measurement of the surface tension of surfactant

solutions, all the surfactants were used to prepare solutions
at 0.5 wt% concentration in water, 2 wt% NaCl, 4 wt%
NaCl and synthetic brine. In Fig. 12, surface tensions of
different anionic, cationic and nonionic surfactants in water
have been plotted for comparison of their surface activities.

Fig. 7 Plot of foam volumes of different surfactants versus time in

synthetic brine

Surface tensions of water, 2 and 4 wt% NaCl solutions, and

synthetic brine have been also shown in the same graph for
general comparison. Among the surfactants, C2E4 shows
the lowest surface tension (26.3 mN/m) in water. Surface
tensions of 2 wt% NaCl, 4 wt% NaCl, water and synthetic
brine have been reported as 60, 61, 58 and 71 mN/m,
respectively. The ST value of synthetic brine was evaluated
for comparison purposes and a lower value when compared
with water or brine i.e., 58 mN/m, was measured. ST
values for all the anionic, cationic and nonionic surfactant
Fig. 5 Plot of foam volumes of different surfactants versus time in solutions prepared in water, brines, and synthetic brine are
2 wt% NaCl shown in Fig. 13 together. ST values for surfactant

123
J Surfact Deterg (2013) 16:621–630 627

8
10 MS1
MS1
MS2
7 MS2
MS3
MS3
MS4
MS4

Foam volume (ml)

8 MS5 6
MS5
Foam volume (ml)

MS6
MS6
5
6
4

4
3

2
2

1
0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (min) Time (min)
Fig. 8 Plot of foam volumes of different mixed surfactants versus Fig. 10 Plot of foam volumes of different mixed surfactants versus
time in distilled water time in 4 wt% NaCl

6 8
MS1 MS1
MS2 7 MS2
5 MS3 MS3
MS4 MS4
MS5 6
Foam volume (ml)

MS5
Foam volume (ml)

4 MS6 MS6
5

3 4

3
2

2
1
1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (min) Time (min)

Fig. 9 Plot of foam volumes of different mixed surfactants versus Fig. 11 Plot of foam volumes of different mixed surfactants versus
time in 2 wt% NaCl time in synthetic brine

solutions in brine are found to be smaller than those of the Surface Tensions of Mixed Surfactants
corresponding water solution. It is important to report that
in the case of synthetic brine due to the presence of a large Surface tension of a particular surfactant solution can be
amount of salts, including Mg and Ca, SDS was precipi- modified by mixing of any two types of surfactants
tated. Due to precipitation, ST values of the surfactant (anionic/nonionic, cationic/nonionic, and anionic/cationic).
solutions in synthetic brine show high values compared to In this study, a mixture of anionic/nonionic and cationic/
other solutions. To prevent precipitation of the SDS sur- nonionic surfactants was used for characterization. A
factant, different alternatives may be used like nonionic/ noticeable change in surface tension of mixed surfactant
anionic surfactants mixtures, and addition of sodium etc. In systems was observed from Fig. 14. In water, the MS4
case of synthetic brine, all the nonionic surfactants show surfactant system showed a surface tension of 23.2 mN/m,
higher ST values than those of the other solutions. This is which is lower than that of any surfactant solution alone
due to the presence of different salts in the synthetic brine, which have been used to prepare the MS4 system. On the
which reduces the activity of the surfactants. other hand, the MS2 surfactant system showed the highest

123
628 J Surfact Deterg (2013) 16:621–630

60
55
Water
2 wt% NaCl
50
4 wt% NaCl

Surface tension (mN/m)

45 SPW
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 MS5 MS6
Different Mixed Surfactants

Fig. 14 Surface tensions for different mixed surfactant systems

Fig. 12 Surface tensions for different surfactants (0.5 wt%) in water (0.5 wt%) in water, brines, and synthetic brine at 300 K
at 300 K

the case of a cationic/nonionic surfactant system due to

presence of different salts.

Conclusions

Foamability and foam stability of different surfactants and

mixed surfactant systems were studied for their application
in enhanced oil recovery. SDS shows a maximum foama-
bility in a 4 wt% NaCl solution. Foamability of nonionic
surfactants depends on the CMC value. Adsorption of
nonionic surfactants at an air–water interface decreases as
the CMC values of the surfactants increase. In water,
foamability of mixed surfactant systems increases for all
the solutions. In a 4 wt% NaCl solution, all the surfactants
shows better foam stability than the other solutions. Among
the surfactants, C12E4 shows the lowest surface tension
Fig. 13 Surface tensions for different surfactants (0.5 wt%) in water, (26.3 mN/m) in water. For the mixed surfactant systems,
brines, and synthetic brine at 300 K the MS4 surfactant system shows a surface tension of
23.2 mN/m, which is lower than that of the individual
ST value in water. Therefore, it is clear from the surface surfactants. In the case of a cationic/nonionic surfactant
tension values of mixed surfactant systems that a cationic/ mixture, synergism is very much more pronounced than in
nonionic system can modify surface properties more effi- an anionic/nonionic surfactant system. For the synthetic
ciently than an anionic/nonionic system. The reduction in brine, high synergism takes place in the case of a cationic/
surface tension of a mixed surfactant solution can be nonionic surfactant system due to the presence of different
explained based on the synergism. In the case of a cationic/ salts. The present study provides useful information for
nonionic surfactant mixture, synergism is very much pro- selecting suitable mixed surfactant systems for enhanced
nounced than an anionic/nonionic surfactant system. This oil recovery.
phenomenon can be explained by the C value of the cat-
ionic surfactant. Since the C value is greater than other Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the finan-
cial assistance provided by the University Grant Commission [F. No.
surfactants, therefore the combination with a nonionic
37-203/2009(SR)], New Delhi to the Department of Petroleum
surfactant gives better results than that of the others. In Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, India. Thanks are
synthetic brine, both low and high synergism takes place in also extended to all individuals associated with the project.

123
J Surfact Deterg (2013) 16:621–630 629

References 20. Vrij A (1966) Possible mechanism for the spontaneous rupture of
thin, free liquid films. Disc Faraday Soc 42:23–33
1. Parekh P, Varade D, Parikh J, Bahadur P (2011) Anionic–cationic 21. Pugh RJ (1996) Foaming, foam films, antifoaming and defoa-
mixed surfactant systems: micellar interaction of sodium dodecyl ming. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 64:67–142
trioxymethylene sulfate with cationic gemini surfactants. Col- 22. Saito H, Friberg SE (1975) In: Chandrashekhar S (ed) Liquid
loids Surf A 385:111–120 crystals. Indiana Academy of Science, Indiana
2. El-Batanoney M, Abdel-Moghny Th, Ramzi M (1999) The effect 23. Scheludko A (1967) The thin film. Adv Colloid Interface Sci
of mixed surfactants on enhancing oil recovery. J Surf Deterg 1:391–464
2:201–205 24. Scheludko A, Manev E (1968) Critical thickness of rupture of
3. Fanun M (2010) Properties of microemulsions with mixed non- chlorobenzene and aniline films. Trans Faraday Soc 64:1123–
ionic surfactants and citrus oil. Colloids Surf A 369:246–252 1134
4. Rodrı́guez A, Junquera E, del Burgo P, Aicart E (2004) Con- 25. Prud’homme RK, Khan SA (1996) Foams: theory, measurements,
ductometric and spectrofluorimetric characterization of the mixed and applications. Marcel Dekker, New York
micelles constituted by dodecyltrimethylammonium bromide and 26. Morrison ID, Ross S (2002) Colloidal dispersions: suspensions,
a tricyclic antidepressant drug in aqueous solution. J Colloid emulsion and foams. Wiley, New York
Interface Sci 269:476–483 27. Malysa K (1992) Wet foams: formation, properties and mecha-
5. Holland PM, Rubingh DN (1992) Mixed surfactants systems. In: nism of stability. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 40:37–83
Mixed surfactant systems. ACS symposium series 50. American 28. Exerowa D, Kruglyakov PM (1998) Foam and foam films. In:
Chemical Society, Washington, DC Mobius D, Miller R (eds) Studies in interface science, vol 5.
6. Holland PM (1992) Modeling mixed surfactant systems. In: Elsevier, Amsterdam
Holland PM, Rubingh DN (eds) Mixed surfactant systems. ACS 29. Tuinier R, Bisperink CGJ, Van den Berg C, Prins A (1996)
symposium series 501. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC Transient foaming behavior of aqueous alcohol solutions as
7. Rosen MJ (1986) Molecular interaction and synergism in binary related to their dilational surface properties. J Colloid Interface
mixtures of surfactants. In: Scamehorn JF (ed) Phenomena in Sci 179:327–334
mixed surfactant systems. ACS symposium series 311. American 30. Wantke K, Fruhner H (2001) Determination of surface dilational
Chemical Society, Washington, DC viscosity using the oscillating bubble method. J Colloid Interface
8. Scamehorn JF (1986) An overview of phenomena involving Sci 237:185–199
surfactant mixtures. In: Scamehorn JF (ed) Phenomena in mixed 31. Rosen MJ (2004) Surfactants and interfacial phenomena, 3rd edn.
surfactant systems. ACS symposium series 311. American Wiley, New York
Chemical Society, Washington, DC 32. Carey E, Stubenrauch C (2009) Properties of aqueous foams
9. Rosen MJ (1989) Selection of surfactant pairs for optimization of stabilized by dodecyltrimethylammonium bromide. J Colloid
interfacial properties. J Am Oil Chem Soc 66:1840–1843 Interface Sci 333:619–627
10. del Burgo P, Aicart E, Junquera E (2007) Mixed vesicles and 33. Dickinson E, Ettelaie R, Kostakis T, Murray BS (2004) Factors
mixed micelles of the cationic–cationic surfactant system: dide- controlling the formation and stability of air bubbles stabilized by
cyldimethylammonium bromide/dodecylethyldimethylammo- partially hydrophobic silica nanoparticles. Langmuir 20:8517–
nium bromide/water. Colloids Surf A 292:165–172 8525
11. Kume G, Gallotti M, Nunes G (2008) Review on anionic/cationic 34. Binks BP, Tommy SH (2005) Aqueous foams stabilised solely by
surfactant mixtures. J Surf Deterg 11:1–11 silica nanoparticles. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 44:3722–3725
12. Alargova RG, Ivanova VP, Kralchevsky PA, Mehreteab A, Broze 35. Gonzenbach UT, Studart AR, Tervoort E, Gauckler LJ (2006) Ul-
G (1998) Growth of rod-like micelles in anionic surfactant trastable particle-stabilized foams. Angew Chem Int Ed 45:3526–3530
solutions in the presence of Ca2? counterions. Colloids Surf A 36. Huang D, Nimolvo A, Wasan D (1986) Foams: basic properties
142:201–221 with applications to porous media. Langmuir 2:672–677
13. Ness JN, Moth DK (1988) Direct electron microscopical obser- 37. Amaral MH, Neves JD, Oliveria AZ, Bahia MF (2008) Foama-
vation of rod-like micelles of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide bility of detergent solutions prepared with different types of
in aqueous sodium bromide solution. J Colloid Interface Sci surfactants and waters. J Surf Deterg 11:275–278
123:546–547 38. Tan SN, Fornasiero D, Sedev R, Ralston J (2005) The role of sur-
14. Garg G, Hassan PA, Kulshreshth SK (2006) Dynamic light factant structure on foam behavior. Colloids Surf A 263:233–238
scattering studies of rod-like micelles in dilute and semi-dilute 39. Wang HR, Chen KM (2006) Preparation and surface active
regime. Colloids Surf A 275:161–167 properties of biodegradable dextrin derivative surfactants. Col-
15. Upadhyaya A, Acosta EJ, Scamehorn JF, Sabatini DA (2006) loids Surf A 281:190–193
Microemulsion phase behavior of anionic-cationic surfactant 40. Kroschwitz JI (1994) Kirk Othmer’ encyclopedia of chemical
mixtures: effect of tail branching. J Surf Deterg 9:169–179 technology, 4th edn. Wiley, New York
16. Zhang L, Luo L, Zhao S, Xu Z, An J, Yu J (2004) Effect of 41. Kaptay G (2004) Interfacial criteria for stabilization of liquid
different acidic fractions in crude oil on dynamic interfacial foams by solid particles. Colloids Surf A 230:67–80
tensions in surfactant/alkali/model oil systems. J Pet Sci Eng 42. Iglesias E, Anderez J, Forgiarini A, Salager JL (1995) A new
41:189–198 method to estimate the stability of short-life foams. Colloids Surf
17. Zhao Z, Bi C, Li Z, Qiao W, Cheng L (2006) Interfacial tension A 98:167–174
between crude oil and decylmethylnaphthalene sulfonate surfac- 43. Sethumadhavan GN, Nikolov AD, Wasan DT (2001) Stability of
tant alkali-free flooding systems. Colloids Surf A 276:186–191 liquid films containing monodisperse colloidal particles. J Colloid
18. Bera A, Mandal A, Ojha K, Kumar T (2011) Interfacial tension Interface Sci 240:105–112
and phase behavior of surfactant-brine–oil system. Colloids Surf 44. Lunkenheimer K, Malysa K (2003) A simple automated method
A 383:114–119 of quantitative characterization of foam behaviour. Polymer Int
19. Kunieda H (1987) Phase behavior and ultralow interfacial ten- 52:536–541
sions around a tricritical point in a sodium taurocholate system.
J Colloid Interface Sci 116:224–229

123
630 J Surfact Deterg (2013) 16:621–630

Author Biographies B.ChE. degree from Jadavpur University, India in chemical engi-
neering, and obtained her M.Tech and Ph.D. degree from IIT-
Achinta Bera is currently working as a senior research fellow at the Kharagpur, India. Presently she is performing research on coal bed
Petroleum Engineering Department, Indian School of Mines, Dhan- methane, hydro fracturing gel, and surfactant based foam for drilling.
bad, Jharkhand, India. He received his M.Sc. in chemistry from the
Scottish Church College, University of Calcutta, Kolkata. His Ajay Mandal is an associate professor in the Department of
research works focus on the wettability alteration, interfacial tension Petroleum Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad. He
reduction, and enhanced oil recovery by chemical flooding (surfac- received his B.Sc. and B.Tech. from Calcutta University and his
tant, microemulsion, and nanoemulsion etc.). Master’s degree from Jadavpur University, India in chemical
engineering. He obtained his Ph.D. degree from IIT-Kharagpur.
Keka Ojha is an associate professor in the Department of Petroleum Currently he is researching on gas hydrates, enhanced oil recovery,
Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad. She received her oil–water emulsion and multi-phase flow system.

123