Mechanism for the complex micellar system of sodium dodecyl sulfate/octylphenol ethoxylate OPE9 to solubilize methane

  • Yinghua Zhang
  • Yi Zhang
  • Zhian HuangEmail author
  • Yukun Gao
  • Shiwei Ding
  • Hui Wang
  • Min Zhang
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Mine Safety Science and Engineering


Surfactant solutions are widely used in solubilizing methane, but there is a lack of research on the optimum ratios of surfactant solutions and their mechanism. In this study, surfactants sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and octylphenol ethoxylate OPE9 (Triton X-100) were selected to better understand the mechanism of the surfactant solution to solubilize methane from a microscopic aspect. The mixed SDS and Triton X-100 solution was proven greater at methane solubilization than a single-component SDS, because it generated a higher number of micelles with hydrophobic cores. When the SDS–to–Triton X-100 concentration ratio was 1:4, the lowest critical micelle concentration, the strongest interaction between SDS and Triton X-100, the maximum absolute value of Gibbs free energy, and the maximum value of viscosity were observed. This indicated that the solution was most likely to generate micelles with a hydrophobic environment and that these micelles were favorable for the methane solubilization. This solution also showed a greater uniformity of micelles, a smaller micelle particle size, and a relatively compact micelle structure. It was deduced that methane stays longer in the micelle core of this structure, which can facilitate methane solubilization. The optimum SDS–to–Triton X-100 ratio to solubilize methane was shown to be 1:4.


Surfactant SDS/Triton X-100 Solubilization Methane micelle 


Funding information

This work was financially supported by the Project No. 51474017 provided by the China National Natural Science Foundation, Project No. E21724 provided by the Work Safety Key Lab on Prevention and Control of Gas and Roof Disasters for Southern Coal Mines of China, and Project No. WS2018B03 provided by the State Key Laboratory Cultivation Base for Gas Geology and Gas Control (Henan Polytechnic University).


  1. Bhattacharjee G, Barmecha V, Kushwaha OS, Kumar R (2018) Kinetic promotion of methane hydrate formation by combining anionic and silicone surfactants: scalability promise of methane storage due to prevention of foam formation. J Chem Thermodyn 117:248–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhattacharjee G, Kushwaha OS, Kumar A, Khan MY, Patel JN, Kumar R (2017) Effects of micellization on growth kinetics of methane hydrate. Ind Eng Chem Res 56(13):3687–3698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolden PL, Hoskins JC, King AD (1983) The solubility of gases in solutions containing sodium alkyl sulfates of various chain lengths. J Colloid Interface Sci 91(2):454–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Costantini A, Albertí M, Pirani F, Laganà A (2012) A molecular dynamics study of sodium dodecyl sulfate-methane system in water using the improved Lennard jones formulation. Int J Quantum Chem 112(7):1810–1817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Di Profio P, Arca S, Germani R, Savelli G (2005) Surfactant promoting effects on clathrate hydrate formation: are micelles really involved? Chem Eng Sci 60(15):4141–4145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dryfe RA (2006) Modifying the liquid/liquid interface: pores, particles and deposition. Phys Chem Chem Phys 8(16):1869–1883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards DA, Luthy RG, Liu Z (1991) Solubilization of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in micellar nonionic surfactant solutions. Environ Sci Technol 25(1):127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gayet P, Dicharr C, Marion G, Graciaa A, Lachaise J, Nestero A (2005) Experimental determination of methane hydrate dissociation curve up to 55 MPa by using a small amount of surfactant as hydrate promoter. Chem Eng Sci 60(21):5751–5758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jian HL, Liao XX, Zhu LW, Zhang WM, Jiang JX (2011) Synergism and foaming properties in binary mixtures of a biosurfactant derived from Camellia oleifera Abel and synthetic surfactants. J Colloid Interface Sci 359(2):487–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. King AD (1990) Solubilization of gases by polyethoxylated nonyl phenols. J Colloid Interface Sci 137(2):577–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. King AD (1992) Solubilization of gases by polyethoxylated lauryl alcohols. J Colloid Interface Sci 148(1):142–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu Z, Yang H, Cheng W, Xin L, Ni G (2017) Stress distribution characteristic analysis and control of coal and gas outburst disaster in a pressure-relief boundary area in protective layer mining. Arab J Geosci 10:358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Masuda Y, Yamaotsu N, Hirono S (2017) Gibbs free energy of hydrolytic water molecule in acyl-enzyme intermediates of a serine protease: a potential application for computer-aided discovery of mechanism-based reversible covalent inhibitors. Chem Pharm Bull 65(10):889–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Otzen D (2011) Protein–surfactant interactions: a tale of many states. Biochim Biophys Acta Proteins Proteomics 1814(5):562–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Prapaitrakul W, King AD (1985) The solubility of gases in aqueous solutions of decyltrimethyl- and cetyltrimethylammonium bromide. J Colloid Interface Sci 106(1):186–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Prapaitrakul W, Shwikhat A, King AD (1987) The influence of pH on gas solubilities in aqueous solutions of sodium octanoate at 25° C. J Colloid Interface Sci 115(2):443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Radwan N, King AD (1997) Solubilization of gases by polyethoxylated octyl phenols. J Colloid Interface Sci 194(1):120–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shemshad J, Aminossadati SM, Bowen WP, Kizil MS (2012) Effects of pressure and temperature fluctuations on near-infrared measurements of methane in underground coal mines. Appl Phys B 106(4):979–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Svanedal I, Persson G, Norgren M, Edlund H (2014) Interactions in mixed micellar systems of an amphoteric chelating surfactant and ionic surfactants. Langmuir 30(5):1250–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tessum MW, Raynor PC (2017) Effects of spray surfactant and particle charge on respirable coal dust capture. SH W 8(3):296–305Google Scholar
  21. Tokarczyk K, Jachimska B (2017) Quantitative interpretation of PAMAM dendrimers adsorption on silica surface. J Colloid Interface Sci 503:86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wah LF, Liu WW, Hashim U, Lai CW (2015) The effect of chemical solutions (isopropyl alcohol, dichloromethane, acetone and Triton X-100) on the dispersion of single-walled carbon nanotubes. Adv Mater Res 1109:113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang F, Jia ZZ, Luo SJ, Fu SF, Wang L, Shi XS, Wang CS, Guo RB (2015) Effects of different anionic surfactants on methane hydrate formation. Chem Eng Sci 137:896–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. West CC, Harwell JH (1992) Surfactants and subsurface remediation. Environ Sci Technol 26(12):2324–2330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhou H, Dai H, Ge C (2016) Quality and quantity of pre-drainage methane and responding strategies in Chinese outburst coal mines. Ni G Arab J Geosci 9(6):445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhu DM, Wu X, Schelly ZA (1992) Reverse micelles and water in oil microemulsions of Triton X 100 in mixed solvents of benzene and n-hexane. Dynamic light scattering and turbidity studies. Langmuir 8(6):1538–1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of High-Efficient Mining and Safety of Metal MinesUniversity of Science and Technology Beijing, Ministry of EducationBeijingChina
  2. 2.Work Safety Key Lab on Prevention and Control of Gas and Roof Disasters for Southern Coal MinesHunan University of Science and TechnologyXiangtanChina
  3. 3.State Key Laboratory Cultivation Base for Gas Geology and Gas ControlHenan Polytechnic UniversityJiaozuoChina

Personalised recommendations