Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mechanistic Studies of Particulate Soil Detergency: II: Hydrophilic Soil Removal

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Surfactants and Detergents

Abstract

In this work, the removal mechanism of kaolinite and ferric oxide (model hydrophilic particulate soils) from hydrophilic (cotton) and hydrophobic (polyester) fabrics was studied using three surfactant types: sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), octylphenol ethoxylate (OP(EO)10), and cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB). This work investigated the relations between zeta potential, surfactant adsorption, contact angle, solid/liquid spreading pressure, and dispersion stability in washing solutions as compared to detergency performance and antiredeposition as a function of surfactant concentration and pH level. The SDS showed the best detergency for both particulate soils, followed by OP(EO)10, with CTAB being the least effective surfactant. For SDS, the electrostatic repulsion between fabric and soil was found to be the dominant force for hydrophilic particulate soil removal. For the nonionic surfactant OP(EO)10, electrostatics are also important and steric effects aid particulate soil detergency. Electrostatic forces and solid/liquid interfacial tension reduction aids CTAB detergency. These same detergency mechanisms have previously been found for the case of hydrophobic soil removal from fabrics. Dispersion stability did not prove to be a dominant mechanism governing particulate soil detergency. From the SEM photos of soiled fabric, ferric oxide attaches to the fabric surface with no entrapment between fabric yarns; moreover, ferric oxide tends to form larger aggregates on cotton compared to polyester fabric. The adhesion of larger particles is hypothesized to be weaker than the smaller ones. Therefore ferric oxide can be more easily removed from cotton fabric than polyester. The SEM photos for kaolinite show little visual difference in particle agglomeration on polyester compared to cotton. Removal of kaolinite from cotton was found to be higher than from polyester, but there is less difference than for ferric oxide.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kissa E, Culter WG (1987) Detergency theory and technology. In: Cutler WG, Kissa E (eds) Surfactant science series, vol 20. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, pp1-6

  2. Sanders HL, Lambert JM (1950) An approach to a more realistic cotton detergency test. J Am Oil Chem Soc 27:153–159

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hofenk de Graaff JH (1982) Some recent developments in the cleaning of ancient textiles. In: Brommelle NS, Thomson G (eds) International institute for conservation of historic and artistic works. Science and technology in the service of conservation, pp 93–95

  4. Rosen MJ (2004) Surfactants and interfacial phenomena, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York, p 353

  5. Scamehorn JF, Sabatini DA, Harwell JH (2004) Surfactants, part II: applications. In: Atwood JL, Steed JW (eds) Encyclopedia of supramolecular chemistry. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 1470–1474

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lange KR (1994) Detergents and cleaners: a handbook for formulators. Hanser, Cincinnati, p 36

    Google Scholar 

  7. Santanu P, Monohar C, Khilar CK (2003) Studies on adsorption of surfactants onto cellulosic surface and its relevance to detergency. J Inst Eng Singap 43:34–44

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jones TG (1961) Dirt removal: surface activity and detergency. In: Durham K (eds), MacMillan, London, pp 88

  9. Powe WC (1972) Detergency theory and test methods part I: Laundry soil. In: Cutler WG, Davis RC (eds) Surfactant science series, vol 5. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, pp 31-64

  10. Lange H (1967) Physical chemistry of cleaning action. In: Shinoda K (ed) Solvent properties of surfactant solutions. Marcel Dekker, New York, p 117

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kissa E (1981) Wetting and detergency. Pure Appl Chem 53:2255–2268

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Schott H (1972) Removal of particulate soil. In: Cutler WG, Davis RC (eds) Detergency part I. Marcel Dekker, New York, Ch 6

  13. Goette EK (1949) Theoretical considerations of detergency. J Colloid Sci 4:459–484

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kling W, Lange H (1959) Theory of washing process. J Am Oil Chem Soc 37:30–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Harris JC (1958) Electrical forces affecting soil and substrate in the detergency process—zeta potential. Textile Res J 28:912–928

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jakobi G, Lohr A (1987) Theory of the washing process. Detergent and textile washing- principles and practice. VCH, Weinheim, Germany, Ch 2

  17. Harris JC (1961) Forces in detergency. Soap Chem Spec 37:68–71

    Google Scholar 

  18. Derjaguin BV, Landau L (1941) Theory of the stability of strongly charged lyophobic sols and of the adhesion of strongly charged particles in solutions of electrolytes. Acta Phys Chim URSS 14:633–662

    Google Scholar 

  19. Verwey EJW, Overbeek JTG (1948) Theory of the stability of lyophobic colloids. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Ch 12

  20. Reich I, Vold RD (1959) Flocculation-deflocculation in agitated suspensions. I Carbon and ferric oxide in water. J Phys Chem 63:1497–1501

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Schott H, Kazella IJ (1967) Interaction of an anionic surfactant with hydrous ferric oxide sol. J Am Oil Chem Soc 44:416–419

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Yoshikawa K (2002) Studies on removal of particulate soil from complex-soiled fabrics with particulate soil part II: in washing of Fe2O3 soiled fabrics, the effect of surfactant and builders on the detachment of Fe2O3 from the substrates and the transport of Fe2O3 out of fabrics. Reports of Research Matsuyama Shininime Junior College, vol 33, pp 123–133

  23. Ishikawa Y, Orito S, Oya M (2007) Statistical analysis of washing efficiency for solid particle soil. J Oleo Sci 56:163–168

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Legaly G (1993) Coagulation and flocculation: theory and applications. In: Dobias B (eds). Surfactant science series, vol 47. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, Ch 10.

  25. Miller JD, Nalaskowski J, Abdul B, Du H (2007) Surface characteristics of kaolinite and other selected two layer silicate minerals. Can J Chem Eng 85:617–624

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lagaly G (1989) Principles of flow of kaolin and bentonite dispersions. Appl Clay Sci 4:105–123

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lagaly G (2006) Colloid clay science. In: Bergaya F, Theng BKG, Lagaly G (eds) Handbook of clay science. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 141–246

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Powe WC (1959) The nature of tenaciously bound soil on cotton. Textile Res J 29:879–884

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Tuzson J, Short BA (1962) A study on the agglomeration, deposition, and removal process of clay particles during washing. Textile Res J 32:111–116

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Schott H (1967) On the interaction of anionic detergents and montmorillonite clays. Colloid Polym Sci 219:42–48

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Rojvoranun S, Chadavipoo C, Pengjun W, Chavadej S, Scamehorn JF, Sabatini DA (2012) Mechanistic studies of particulate soil detergency part I: hydrophobic soil removal. J Surf Deterg 15:277–289

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang J, Han B, Yan H, Li Z, Thomas RK (1999) Adsorption and adsolubilization behaviors of cationic surfactant and hydrophobically modified polymer mixtures on Na-kaolinite. Langmuir 15:8207–8211

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Timasheff SN (1966) Turbidity as a criterion of coagulation. J Colloid Interface Sci 21:489–497

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Bellmann C, Synytaka A, Caspari A, Drechsler A, Grundke K (2007) Electrokinetic investigation of surfactant adsorption. J Colloid Interface Sci 309:225–230

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Schwuger MJ (1982) Effects of adsorption on detergency phenomena: I. J Am Oil Chem Soc 59:258–264

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Ginn ME, Kinney FB, Harris JC (1961) Effect of cotton substrate characteristic upon surfactant adsorption. J Am Oil Chem Soc 38:138–143

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Rojvoranun S (2012) Mechanistic studies of particulate soil detergency. Doctoral Dissertation, The Petroleum and Petrochemical College, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand

  38. Rosen MJ (2004) Surfactants and interfacial phenomena, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York, pp 66–74

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Paria S, Khilar KC (2004) A review on experimental studies of surfactant adsorption at the hydrophilic solid–water interface. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 110:75–95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Zhang R, Somasundaran P (2006) Advances in adsorption of surfactants and their mixtures at solid/solution interfaces. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 123–126:213–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Esumi K (2001) Interactions between surfactants and particles: dispersion, surface modification and adsolubilization. J Colloid Interface Sci 241:1–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Pavan PC, Crepaldi EL, Gomes GA, Valim JB (1999) Adsorption of sodium dodecyl sulfate on hydrotalcite-like compound: effect of temperature, pH and ionic strength. Colloids Surf A 154:339–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Somasundaran P, Mehta SC, Yu X, Krishnakumar S (2009) Colloid systems and interfaces stability of dispersions through polymer and surfactant adsorption. In: Birdi KS (eds). Handbook of surface and colloid chemistry, 3rd edn. Taylor & Francis Group, pp 156-194

  44. Jailani S, Franks GV, Healy TW (2008) Zeta potential of nanoparticle suspensions: effect of electrolyte concentration, particle size, and volume fraction. J Am Ceram Soc 91:1141–1147

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Hang JZ, Shi LY, Feng X, Xiao L (2009) Electrostatic and electrosteric stabilization of aqueous suspensions of barite nanoparticles. Powder Technol 192:166–170

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Lyklema J (2005) The bottom size of colloids. Bull Pol Ac Tech 53:317–323

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Adamson AW, Gast AP (1997) Physical chemistry of surfaces, 6th edn. Wiley, New York, pp 183–192

    Google Scholar 

  48. Mustafa S, Tasleem S, Naeem A (2004) Surface charge properties of Fe2O3 in aqueous and alcoholic mixed solvents. J Colloid Interface Sci 275:523–529

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Xu G, Yuan S, Wang Y, Li G (2001) Adsorption of sodium oleate on kaolinite. J Dispers Sci Technol 22:355–362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Zhang Z, Lu X, Su P (2010) Dispersion of kaolin powders in silica sols. Appl Clay Sci 49:51–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Iwadare Y, Suzawa T (1970) ζ-Potentials of natural and synthetic fibers in SDS solutions and the viscosity of SDS solutions above the critical micelle concentration. Bull Chem Soc Jpn 43:2326–2331

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Bellmann C, Caspari A, Albrecht V, Loan DTT, Mäder E, Luxbacher T, Kohl R (2005) Electrokinetic properties of natural fibers. Colloids Surf A 267:19–23

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Hu Y, Jiang H, Wang D (2003) Electrokinetic behavior and flotation of kaolinite in CTAB solution. Miner Eng 16:1221–1223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Ana MG, Anita T, Tanja P (2005) Electro properties of textile fabrics. Color Technol 121:221–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lee CH, Lee EH (2007) Effect of pH on the dispersion stability of aqueous ferric oxide suspension. Mater Sci Forum 544–545:717–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hiemenz PC (1986) Principles of colloid and surface chemistry, 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker Inc., NewYork, p 409

    Google Scholar 

  57. Zisman WA (1964) Relation of the equilibrium contact angle to liquid and solid constitution. Advances in chemistry series. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, vol 43

  58. Adamson AW, Gast AP (1997) Physical chemistry of surfaces, 6th edn. Wiley, New York, pp 80–82

    Google Scholar 

  59. Varajao AFDC, Gilkes RJ, Hart RD (2001) The relationships between kaolinite crystal properties and the origin of materials for Brazilian kaolin deposit. Clays Clay Miner 49:44–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Mackinnon IDR, Uwins PJR, Yago A, Page D (1993) Kaolinite particle sizes in the <2 µm range using laser scattering. Clays Clay Miner 41:613–623

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Kissa E, Culter WG (1987) Detergency theory and technology. In: Cutler WG, Kissa E (eds) Surfactant science series, vol 20. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, p 119

  62. Schwartz AM (1972) The physical chemistry of detergency. In: Matijevic E (ed) Surface and colloid science, vol 5. Wiley, New York, pp 195–244

    Google Scholar 

  63. Stillo HS, Kolat RS (1957) The mode of operation of antiredeposition agents in detergent solutions. Textile Res J 27:949–961

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. Program (RGJ) under The Thailand Research Fund is greatly acknowledged for providing a Ph.D. scholarship for the first author. PTT Global Chemical Co. Ltd. and the Center of Excellence for Petrochemical and Materials Technology also provided financial supports for this work. In addition, the industrial sponsors of the Institute for Applied Surfactant Research, University of Oklahoma, are acknowledged. They are Akzo Nobel, CESI Chemical, Church & Dwight, Clorox, Conoco/Phillips, Ecolab, Halliburton Services, Huntsman, Oxiteno, Sasol, S.C. Johnson and Shell Chemical.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Petroleum and Petrochemical College, Chulalongkorn University, Phayathai Rd., Pathumwan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand

    Sureeporn Rojvoranun & Sumaeth Chavadej

  2. Center of Excellence for Petrochemical and Materials Technology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand

    Sumaeth Chavadej

  3. Institute for Applied Surfactant Research, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

    John F. Scamehorn & David A. Sabatini

Authors
  1. Sureeporn Rojvoranun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sumaeth Chavadej
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John F. Scamehorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David A. Sabatini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sumaeth Chavadej.

About this article

Cite this article

Rojvoranun, S., Chavadej, S., Scamehorn, J.F. et al. Mechanistic Studies of Particulate Soil Detergency: II: Hydrophilic Soil Removal. J Surfact Deterg 15, 663–677 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11743-012-1362-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11743-012-1362-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation