Relative assessment of density and stability of foam produced with four synthetic surfactants

Selection of the surfactant has an impact on many of the foam properties as it affects the surface tension and gas–liquid interfacial properties. The objective is to produce stable aqueous foam of required density. These two characteristics are influenced by the type of surfactant, its concentration and foam generation pressure. This study compares the density and stability of foam produced using four synthetic surfactants namely sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium lauryl ether sulfate, sulfanol and cocodiethanolamide through a systematic experiment design based on response surface methodology. The relative performance has also been assessed in terms of their suitability for use in foamed concrete production based on ASTM test method. The effect of surfactant concentration has relatively lesser effect on foam density for sodium lauryl sulfate and sulfanol irrespective of foam generation pressure adopted. The drainage is proportional to the initial foam density for all the surfactant concentration for ionic surfactants at different foam generation pressures. For all the four surfactants under the optimum foam generation pressure, a stable foam with drainage less than 12% in 300 s (by considering economy as a factor) is achieved. From the foam stability test based on ASTM C 796-97, it is observed that all the four surfactants are suitable for use in foamed concrete production when optimized foam production parameters are adopted.

[1]  Rudolph C. Valore,et al.  Cellular Concretes Part 1 Composition and Methods of Preparation , 1954 .

[2]  Simon Cox,et al.  Foam drainage in two dimensions , 2005 .

[3]  Ron B. H. Wills,et al.  Effects of temperature. , 2007 .

[4]  K. Khilar,et al.  Enhancement of stability of aqueous foams by addition of water-soluble polymers—measurements and analysis , 1988 .

[5]  Bogdan Z. Dlugogorski,et al.  Free drainage in aqueous foams: Model and experimental study , 2001 .

[6]  R. Žurauskas,et al.  The effect of foam polystyrene granules on cement composite properties , 2005 .

[7]  Guk-Rwang Won American Society for Testing and Materials , 1987 .

[8]  Adnan Çolak,et al.  Density and strength characteristics of foamed gypsum , 2000 .

[9]  K. Ramamurthy,et al.  Analysis of the Foam Generated Using Surfactant Sodium Lauryl Sulfate , 2010 .

[10]  Kartic C. Khilar,et al.  Stability of aqueous foams with polymer additives: II. Effects of temperature , 1990 .

[11]  P. Wilde Foam Measurement by the Microconductivity Technique: An Assessment of Its Sensitivity to Interfacial and Environmental Factors , 1996 .

[12]  S. Quebaud,et al.  Use of chemical foam for improvements in drilling by earth-pressure balanced shields in granular soils , 1998 .

[13]  R. H. Myers,et al.  Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments , 1995 .

[14]  D. Myers Surfactant Science and Technology , 1988 .

[15]  K. Ramamurthy,et al.  Air‐void characterisation of foam concrete , 2007 .

[16]  S. Marze,et al.  Protein and surfactant foams: linear rheology and dilatancy effect , 2005 .

[17]  B. Herzhaft Rheology of Aqueous Foams: a Literature Review of Some Experimental Works , 1999 .

[18]  Bogdan Z. Dlugogorski,et al.  A comparative study of drainage characteristics in AFFF and FFFP compressed-air fire-fighting foams , 2002 .