Home Cosmetic Science Talk Formulating General Science What is the smallest surfactant molecule?

  • What is the smallest surfactant molecule?

    Posted by OldPerry on February 24, 2017 at 6:22 pm

    I was just writing about surfactants and emulsifiers and it occurred to me that there probably has to be some minimum size for a molecule to be a surfactant.  Anyone know what would be the smallest sized surfactant (from a molecular standpoint)?  

    I did a little searching but didn’t find a satisfying answer.   Could Ethyl Alcohol be considered a surfactant?

    DRBOB@VERDIENT.BIZ replied 7 years, 10 months ago 5 Members · 7 Replies
  • 7 Replies
  • Bill_Toge

    Member
    February 25, 2017 at 3:15 pm

    I suspect the smallest commonly encountered one in cosmetics is sodium laurate

    sodium caprate (C10), sodium caprylate (C8) and sodium hexanoate (C6) have been shown to have some surfactancy, but below C6 the carbon chain is apparently too short to form micelles

    my view is that if it can form micelles, it’s a surfactant; if it can’t, it’s not

  • OldPerry

    Member
    February 27, 2017 at 1:26 am

    Limiting the definition of surfactant to something that can form micelles seems like a pretty good parameter

  • belassi

    Member
    February 27, 2017 at 2:42 am

    Surfactant: Surfactants are compounds that lower the surface tension (or interfacial tension) between two liquids or between a liquid and a solid. 
    (Wikipedia) 
    - alcohol, eg methanol, does that, so alcohol by definition must be a surfactant (as well as a solvent).

  • jeremien

    Member
    February 27, 2017 at 9:03 am

    I guess that any amphiphilic molecule can be
    considered as surfactant. Of course you cannot stabilize emulsion with short
    chain alcohol, but they can be considered as co-surfactants as they have
    affinity for the interface.

     I don ‘t know if there is a definition
    linked to a specific value of surface tension that have to be reached to
    consider a molecule as surfactant. 

    In my opinion,  there is no point to describe a surfactant by
    its size (unless you want to demonstrate the kinetic of interface adsorption or
    for large molecules steric stabilization), HLB or other scales that describe
    the amphiphilicity of the molecule are more convenient to describe surfactant
    molecules.

  • Bill_Toge

    Member
    February 27, 2017 at 11:55 am

    @jeremien I’d disagree - there are a few situations in which the shape, and hence the size, of the surfactant/emulsifier plays an important part in determining the overall properties of the system

    one example is the difference between using stearyl alcohol ethoxylates and oleyl alcohol ethoxylates as emulsifiers

    the two are almost identical in terms of chemistry and HLB, but you get very different emulsions because the latter is wedge-shaped rather than linear, and takes up more space at the interface than the former

  • jeremien

    Member
    February 27, 2017 at 12:46 pm

    @Bill_Toge  I agree with you. Of course the chemical structure of your surfactant is important to understand
    the difference in properties (maybe in that example, the PIT (phase inversion temperature) could be the best system to explain the differences).

    I guess my comment was confusing, i mean  there is no sense to add a minimum
    size (the same as a maximum) to the definition of a surfactant.

  • DRBOB@VERDIENT.BIZ

    Member
    February 27, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    you can run and plot surface tension as a function of SAA concentration (we used DN tensiometer with ring method) and determine critical micelle concentration (CMC). Area/molecule can then be calculated.

Log in to reply.

Chemists Corner