Structure confirmation of Gemini cationic surfactantsThe chemical structure of the synthesized Gemini cationic surfactants was indicated using 1HNMR spectroscopy and IR spectroscopy.
1H-NMR analysisThe 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.Structure 1Chemical structure of TAC 6 with numbered at different positions (a–h)Figure 11HNMR spectrum of all surfactants in DMSO solvent.IR analysisThe 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.Figure 2IR spectra for All Gemini cationic surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12 and TAC 18.Solvation studiesCritical micelle concentration detectionCritical 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.Figure 3Conductivity vs. molar concentration for all surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12 and TAC 18 in 15% DMSO-water at 298.15 K.Figure 4Refractive index vs. molar concentration for all surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 in 15% DMSO-water at 298.15 K.Figure 5Densities vs. molar concentration for all surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12 and TAC 18 in 15% DMSO-water at 298.15 K.Figure 6Molar Volume vs. molar concentration for all surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 in 15% DMSO-water at 298.15 K.Figure 7surface 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).Table 1 CMC for all surfactants in 15% DMSO-Water solvent at 298.15 K with different techniques.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).Figure 8Comparison between CMC measuring from different techniques.Thermodynamic parameters from conductivity measurementsEstimation 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):$$ \wedge = \frac{{1000 \times K_{s} }}{C} $$
(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):$$ \propto = \frac{{S_{2} }}{{S_{1} }} $$
(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):$$ \beta = \left( {1 – \alpha } \right) $$
(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).$$ \Delta G_{{mic \left( {monomer} \right)}} = \left( {2 – \alpha } \right)RT\ln \left[ {CMC} \right] $$
(4)
$$ \Delta G_{{mic \left( {dimer} \right)}} = \left( {3 – 2\alpha } \right)RT\ln \left[ {CMC} \right] $$
(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.$$ \wedge = \wedge_{0} – B\sqrt C $$
(6)
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)$$\frac{1}{{\wedge}S({\mathcalligra{z}})}=\frac{1}{{{\wedge}}_{0}}+\frac{{K}_{a}C{\wedge}S({\mathcalligra{z}}){\gamma }_{i}^{2}}{{{\wedge}}_{o}^{2}}$$
(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).$$S\left({\mathcalligra{z}}\right)={[\frac{z}{2}+ \sqrt{1+9({\frac{Z}{2})}^{2}}]}^{2}$$
(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).$$ \Delta G_{a} = – 2.303 RT\log K_{a} $$
(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).Table 2 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.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.Molar volumeThe 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):$$ V_{\varphi } = \frac{M}{\rho } – \frac{1000}{m} \left[ {\frac{1}{{\rho^{o} }} – \frac{1}{\rho }} \right] $$
(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).$$ P = \frac{{V_{w} }}{{V_{\varphi } }} = 0.661 \pm 0.017 $$
(11)
While the electrostriction volume which indicates the amount that the pure water solvent compresses can be calculated from Eq. (12)$$ V_{E} = V_{w} – V_{\varphi } $$
(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.Figure 9The relationship between molar concentration against Van der Waals Volume (Vw) and electrostriction Volume (VE) for TAC 6 surfactants.Figure 10The relationship between molar concentration against Van der Waals Volume (Vw) and electrostriction Volume (VE) for TAC 12 surfactants.Figure 11The 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.Modeling studying for densityThe 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)$$ \log \frac{{\rho^{o} }}{\rho } = KC + K_{o} $$
(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).Figure 12Modeling 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.Table 3 The Setschenow parameter.Refractive indexFor 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)$$ R_{m} = \frac{{V_{\varphi } \left( {n^{2} – 1} \right)}}{{n^{2} + 2}} $$
(14)
While atomic polarization (\({P}_{A})\) can be computed from Eq. (15)$$ P_{A} = 1.05n^{2} $$
(15)
The polarizability of all surfactants understudies in 15% DMSO-water solvent at 298.15 K was calculated from Eq. (16)$$ \alpha_{D} = \frac{{3V_{\varphi } \left( {n^{2} – 1} \right)}}{{4N\pi (n^{2} + 2)}} $$
(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.Table 4 refractive index (nD), molar refraction (\({R}_{m}\)), atomic polarizability (PA), and the polarizability (\({\alpha }_{D}\)) of TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 in 15% DMSO-water at 298.15 K.Enhancing aggregation properties under salts effectCritical micelle concentration detection by conductometric techniquesThe 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).Figure 13Conductivity vs. concentration for TAC 6 in 0.001 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.Figure 14Conductivity vs. concentration for TAC 6 in 0.01 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.Figure 15Conductivity vs. concentration for TAC 12 in 0.001 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.Figure 16Conductivity vs. concentration for TAC 12 in 0.01 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.Figure 17Conductivity vs. concentration for TAC 18 in 0.001 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.Figure 18Conductivity vs. concentration for TAC 18 in 0.01 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.Table 5 CMC of all surfactants TAC 6, TAC 12, and TAC 18 with different salt concentrations (0.001 M and 0.01 mol L-1) in 15% DMSO-water solvent at 298.15 K with conductometric technique.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.Detection of CMC under salt effect by refractive index measurementThe 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.Figure 19Refractive index vs. concentration for (TAC 6) in 0.001 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.Figure 20Refractive index vs. concentration for (TAC 6) in 0.01 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.Figure 21Refractive index vs. concentration for (TAC 12) in 0.001 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.Figure 22Refractive index vs. concentration for (TAC 12) in 0.01 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.Figure 23Refractive index vs. concentration for (TAC 18) in 0.001 mol L−1 solution of different salts at 298.15 K.Figure 24Refractive 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.Table 6 CMC of all surfactants in different salt solutions with 0.001 mol L-1 and 0.01 mol L-1 solution with 15% DMSO-water solvent at 298.15 K with refractive index techniques.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.Thermodynamic parameters from conductivity measurements under the effect of saltsIndications 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).Table 7 the degree of ionization, (α) the counter ion binding, (β) and the standard free energy of micellization, the limiting molar conductance (Λ°), association constant (Ka), and the standard free energy change of association (ΔGa) and micellization (ΔGmic.) for the surfactants understudy in 0.001 M and 0.01 M solutions of different inorganic salts 15% DMSO –water solvent at 298.15 K.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.Figure 25Comparison 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.Figure 26Comparison 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.
Aggregation behavior of newly synthesized Gemini cationic surfactants in absence and in presence of different inorganic salts in 15% DMSO–water solvent
