Investigation on Pseudo-polyanions of Cationic Cellulose-Sodium Dodecylbenzenesulfonate†

doi:10.7503/cjcu20190057

Abstract

Abstract:

The complexation between typical cationic cellulose(JR400) and a typical anionic surfactant sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate(SDBS) in aqueous solution was studied by nephelometry, tensiometry, zeta potential method and capillary electrophoresis(CE) in this paper. The turbidity and the zeta potential results show that precipitation zone(PZ) appears near to the isoelectric zone and shrinks with the declined concentration of JR400, and sediment disappears when SDBS in large excess, in addition to being less influenced by molecular weight and substitution degree of the cationic celluloses. The tensiometry results show that there are three critical concentration thresholds though the second critical concentration is commonly overlapped by PZ, which indicates the formation of complexes between SDBS and the polycations similar with “neutral polymer-anionic surfactant” systems. The zeta potential results show that the complexes formed ahead of PZ have the positive zeta potential so that keep the polycation properties, while behind the zone the negative in large excess of SDBS, and the latter is confirmed by CE being pseudo-polyanions. These experimental results and conclusions have great theoretical significance and practical value for studies of polycation-anionic surfactant systems.

Key words: Cationic cellulose, Sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate, Complexation, Pseudo-polyanion, Capillary electrophoresis

CLC Number:

O648

TrendMD:

HU Xueyi, CHEN Miaomiao, FANG Yun, FENG Ruiqin, HAN Huihui. Investigation on Pseudo-polyanions of Cationic Cellulose-Sodium Dodecylbenzenesulfonate^†[J]. Chem. J. Chinese Universities, 2019, 40(7): 1464.

Figures/Tables 12

Fig.1 Appearance of JR400(2 g/L)-SDBS(A) and JR400(0.5 g/L)-SDBS(B) with the corresponding turbidity curve(A) cSDBS/(mmol·L-1): a. 0 (clear); b. 2 (clear); c. 4 (turbid); d. 6 (precipitation); e. 8 (precipitation); f. 10 (precipitation); g. 20 (precipitate); h. 30 (clear). (B) cSDBS/(mmol·L-1): a. 0.5 (clear); b. 1 (clear); c. 2 (turbid); d. 4 (precipitation); e. 6 (precipitation); f. 8 (clear); g. 9 (clear).

Table 1 Concentration thresholds of JR400-SDBS complexes including the corresponding precipitation zone(PZ)*

ρ/(g·L^-1)	c_SDBS/(mmol·L^-1)
ρ/(g·L^-1)	Precipitation zone	c₁	psp	c₂
0.05	0.4—0.8	0.1	—	4.0
0.10	0.6—1.0	0.2	—	6.0
0.50	2.0—6.0	0.4	2.0	8.0

Fig.2 Zeta potential profiles of JR400(0.05 g/L)-SDBS(A), JR400(0.1 g/L)-SDBS(B) and JR400(0.5 g/L)-SDBS(C) complexes PZ: precipitation zone.

Fig.3 Surface tension curves of JR400-SDBS complexes and the corresponding areas of precipitation zoneρ/(g·L-1): (A) 0.05; (B) 0.1; (C) 0.5.

Scheme 1 Molecular structure of cationic celluloses

Table 2 Properties of the tested cationic celluloses

Cationic cellulose	Mass fraction(%)	Viscosity/(mPa·s)	N content(%)	SD/(cation per unit)	CD^*/(mmol e·g^-1)
JR125	2	75—175	1.5—2.2	0.42	1.33(0.42)
JR400	2	300—500	1.5—2.2	0.42	1.33(0.42)
JR30M	2	25000—35000	1.5—2.2	0.42	1.33(0.42)
LR400	2	300—500	0.8—1.1	0.17	0.62(0.17)

Fig.4 Effects of molecular mass and substitution degrees of cationic celluloses on zeta potential variation of the cationic cellulose-SDBS complexesPZ: precipitation zone. (A) JR125(0.05 g/L)-SDBS; (B) JR125(0.1 g/L)-SDBS; (C) JR125(0.5 g/L)-SDBS; (D) JR30 M(0.05 g/L)-SDBS; (E) JR30M(0.1 g/L)-SDBS; (F) JR30M(0.5 g/L)-SDBS; (G) LR400(0.1 g/L)-SDBS.

Fig.5 Effect of molecular mass and substitution degrees of cationic celluloses on surface tension variation of the cationic cellulose-SDBS complexesPZ: precipitation zone. ρ/(g·L-1): (A) 0.05; (B) 0.1; (C) 0.5; (D) 0.05; (E) 0.1; (F) 0.5; (G) 0.1.

Table 3 More concentration thresholds of various cationic cellulose-SDBS complexes including the corresponding precipitation zone*

Complex	ρ/(g·L^-1)	c_SDBS/(mmol·L^-1)
Complex	ρ/(g·L^-1)	Precipitation zone	c₁	psp	c₂
JR125-SDBS	0.05	0.4—0.8(6.0—12.0)	0.2	—	4.0
	0.10	0.6—1.0(4.5—7.5)	0.2	—	6.0
	0.50	2.0—6.0(3.0—9.0)	0.4	2.0	8.0
JR30M-SDBS	0.05	0.4—0.8(6.0—12.0)	0.2	—	4.0
	0.10	0.6—1.0(4.5—7.5)	0.4	—	6.0
	0.50	2.0—6.0(3.0—9.0)	0.4	2.0	8.0
LR400-SDBS	0.10	0.6—1.0(9.7—16.1)	0.2	—	6.0

Fig.6 Electropherograms of various cationic cellulose-SDBS complexes(A) JR125(0.05 g/L)-SDBS; (B) JR125(0.1 g/L)-SDBS; (C) JR400(0.05 g/L)-SDBS; (D) JR400(0.1 g/L)-SDBS; (E) JR400(0.05 g/L)-SDBS; (F) JR400(0.1 g/L)-SDBS; (G) JR400(0.1 g/L)-SDBS.cSDBS/(mmol·L-1): a. 8; b. 6; c. 4; d. 2; e. 1.

Table 4 Effective electrophoretic mobility(μe) of various cationic cellulose-SDBS complexes

Complex	ρ/(g·L^-1)	μ_e/(cm²·kV^-1·s^-1)
Complex	ρ/(g·L^-1)	1 mmol/L SDBS	2 mmol/L SDBS	4 mmol/L SDBS	6 mmol/L SDBS	8 mmol/L SDBS
JR125	0.05	-0.36	-0.37	-0.37	-0.38	-0.37
	0.10		-0.35	-0.36	-0.36	-0.37
JR400	0.05	-0.33	-0.38	-0.38	-0.38	-0.39
	0.10		-0.37	-0.38	-0.38	-0.38
JR30M	0.05	-0.34	-0.36	-0.37	-0.37	-0.37
	0.10		-0.36	-0.36	-0.37	-0.37
LR400	0.10		-0.37	-0.38	-0.38	-0.38

Fig.7 Schematic illustration of chemical species evolution in cationic cellulose-SDBS complexes

References 25

[1]	Senra T. D. A., Campana-Filho S. P., Desbrièresb J., European Polymer Journal, 2018, 104, 128—135
[2]	Cao Y., Li H.L., Chem. J. Chinese Universities, 2001, 22(2), 312—316
	(曹亚, 李惠林. 高等学校化学学报, 2001, 22(2), 312—316
[3]	Deshpande T., M , Shi H., Pietryka J., Stephen W. H., Medek A., Mol. Pharm., 2018, 15(3), 962—974
[4]	Qi L., Li J., Ma J., Advanced Materials, 2002, 14(14), 300—303
[5]	Nilsson S., Goldraich M., Lindman B., TalmonL Y., Langmuir, 2000, 16(17), 6825—6832
[6]	Mel’Nikov S. M., Sergeyev V. G., Yoshikawa K., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1995, 117(40), 9951—9956
[7]	Taylor D. J. F., Thomas R. K., Hines J. D., Humphreys K., Langmuir, 2002, 18(25), 9783—9791
[8]	Wang R.J., Yan H. T., Ma W. W., Li Y. H., Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 2016, 509, 293—300
[9]	Chatterjee S., Prajapati R., Bhattacharya A., Mukherjee T. K., Langmuir, 2014, 30(32), 9859—9865
[10]	Liu Q., Li J., Tao W., Zhu Y. D., Yao S. Z., Bioelectrochem., 2007, 70(2), 301—307
[11]	Lafitte G., Thuresson K., Soderman O., Langmuir, 2005, 21(16), 7097—7104
[12]	Taylor D.J., Thomas R. K., Penfold J., Adv. Colloid Interface Sci., 2007, 132(2), 69—110
[13]	Liu Y., Chen G., Zhu J. T., Chen W. J., Hu W., Liu Y. Y., Fang Z. Q., Chem. J. Chinese Universities, 2018, 39(10), 2298—2303
	(刘宇, 陈港, 朱家添, 陈文锦, 胡稳, 刘映尧, 方志强. 高等学校化学学报, 2018, 39(10), 2298—2303
[14]	Wang W. L., Shi Y. J., Wang S. H., Dang Z. P., Li X. P., Chem. J. Chinese Universities, 2018, 39(5), 964—970
	(王文亮, 时宇杰, 王少华, 党泽攀, 李新平. 高等学校化学学报, 2018, 39(5), 964—970
[15]	Chakraborty I., Chakraborty T., Moulik S. P. J., Colloid and Polymer Science, 2013, 291(8), 1939—1948
[16]	Han J., Jiang X. D., Journal of Cellulose Science and Technology, 2015, 23(1), 36—42
	(韩晶, 江笑单. 纤维素科学与技术, 2015, 23(1), 36—42
[17]	Goddard E. D., J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc., 1994, 71(1), 1—16
[18]	Han J., Cheng F., Wang X. G., Wei Y. P., Carbohydrate Polymers, 2012, 88(1), 139—145
[19]	Goddard E. D., J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2002, 256(1), 228—235
[20]	Feng W. Y., Qiao J., Qi L., Li Z. W., Chem. J. Chinese Universities, 2018, 39(8), 1640—1646
	(冯文雅, 乔娟, 齐莉, 李志伟. 高等学校化学学报, 2018, 39(8), 1640—1646
[21]	Wu Y.F., Chen J., Fang Y., Zhu M., J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2016, 479, 34—42
[22]	Wu Y. F., Chen M. M.,Fang Y, Wang W. S., RSC Adv., 2017, 7(15), 9338—9346
[23]	Wu Y.F., Chen M. M., Fang Y., Zhu M., J. Chromatogr. A, 2017, 1489, 134—142
[24]	Wu Y.F., Wang W. S., Fang Y., Chen M. M., Feng R. Q., J. Electroanal. Chem., 2019, 832, 105—111
[25]	Jones M.N., J Colloid Interface Sci., 1967, 23(1), 36—42