Should the Gibbs analysis be revised?

J. Laven, G. With, de

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

29 Citations (Scopus)
1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Recently, some arguments were published that cast doubt on the validity of the Gibbs adsorption isotherm. The doubt was on whether the often visible linearly declining part in the surface tension versus logarithm of concentration plot of a surfactant solution, just before the critical micelle concentration, really represents a situation of constant adsorption. Those published arguments are partly of a conceptual nature and partly based on experimental evidence. The conceptual arguments appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the theory, while the arguments based on experimental evidence stem from an inaccurate treatment of these data. Our conclusion is that none of the relevant arguments put forward are valid. The experimental evidence, if properly treated, is in line with the Gibbs theory.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)7958-7962
Number of pages5
JournalLangmuir
Volume27
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint

Critical micelle concentration
Adsorption isotherms
Surface-Active Agents
Surface tension
Surface active agents
Adsorption
adsorption
logarithms
stems
casts
micelles
interfacial tension
isotherms
plots
surfactants

Cite this

Laven, J. ; With, de, G. / Should the Gibbs analysis be revised?. In: Langmuir. 2011 ; Vol. 27, No. 12. pp. 7958-7962.
@article{b71f68a39ab34cd6bedbe7c212ae1443,
title = "Should the Gibbs analysis be revised?",
abstract = "Recently, some arguments were published that cast doubt on the validity of the Gibbs adsorption isotherm. The doubt was on whether the often visible linearly declining part in the surface tension versus logarithm of concentration plot of a surfactant solution, just before the critical micelle concentration, really represents a situation of constant adsorption. Those published arguments are partly of a conceptual nature and partly based on experimental evidence. The conceptual arguments appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the theory, while the arguments based on experimental evidence stem from an inaccurate treatment of these data. Our conclusion is that none of the relevant arguments put forward are valid. The experimental evidence, if properly treated, is in line with the Gibbs theory.",
author = "J. Laven and {With, de}, G.",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1021/la200152d",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "7958--7962",
journal = "Langmuir",
issn = "0743-7463",
publisher = "American Chemical Society",
number = "12",

}

Should the Gibbs analysis be revised? / Laven, J.; With, de, G.

In: Langmuir, Vol. 27, No. 12, 2011, p. 7958-7962.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Should the Gibbs analysis be revised?

AU - Laven, J.

AU - With, de, G.

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Recently, some arguments were published that cast doubt on the validity of the Gibbs adsorption isotherm. The doubt was on whether the often visible linearly declining part in the surface tension versus logarithm of concentration plot of a surfactant solution, just before the critical micelle concentration, really represents a situation of constant adsorption. Those published arguments are partly of a conceptual nature and partly based on experimental evidence. The conceptual arguments appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the theory, while the arguments based on experimental evidence stem from an inaccurate treatment of these data. Our conclusion is that none of the relevant arguments put forward are valid. The experimental evidence, if properly treated, is in line with the Gibbs theory.

AB - Recently, some arguments were published that cast doubt on the validity of the Gibbs adsorption isotherm. The doubt was on whether the often visible linearly declining part in the surface tension versus logarithm of concentration plot of a surfactant solution, just before the critical micelle concentration, really represents a situation of constant adsorption. Those published arguments are partly of a conceptual nature and partly based on experimental evidence. The conceptual arguments appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the theory, while the arguments based on experimental evidence stem from an inaccurate treatment of these data. Our conclusion is that none of the relevant arguments put forward are valid. The experimental evidence, if properly treated, is in line with the Gibbs theory.

U2 - 10.1021/la200152d

DO - 10.1021/la200152d

M3 - Article

C2 - 21604731

VL - 27

SP - 7958

EP - 7962

JO - Langmuir

JF - Langmuir

SN - 0743-7463

IS - 12

ER -