RSC Advances

This is an Accepted Manuscript, which has been through the

Royal Society of Chemistry peer review process and has been
accepted for publication.

Accepted Manuscripts are published online shortly after

acceptance, before technical editing, formatting and proof reading.
Using this free service, authors can make their results available
to the community, in citable form, before we publish the edited
article. This Accepted Manuscript will be replaced by the edited,
formatted and paginated article as soon as this is available.

You can find more information about Accepted Manuscripts in the

Information for Authors.

Please note that technical editing may introduce minor changes

to the text and/or graphics, which may alter content. The journal’s
standard Terms & Conditions and the Ethical guidelines still
apply. In no event shall the Royal Society of Chemistry be held
responsible for any errors or omissions in this Accepted Manuscript
or any consequences arising from the use of any information it
contains.

www.rsc.org/advances
Page 1 of 28 RSC Advances

The Effect of Surfactant Type and Concentration on the Size and

Stability of Microbubbles Produced in a Capillary Embedded T-
Junction Device
M. Parhizkar1, M. Edirisinghe1, E. Stride1, 2 *
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University College London, Torrington
Place, London, WC1E 7JE
2
Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

of Oxford, Old Road Campus Research Building, Headington, Oxford OX3 7DQ
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

This work presents an investigation of the effect of various surfactants on

microbubble formation, size and stability in a capillary embedded T-Junction
microfluidic device. Four different surfactants were chosen. An anionic surfactant,
sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), two non-ionic surfactants, polyoxyethylene sorbitan
monopalmitate (Tween 40) and polyoxyethylene glycol 40 stearate (PEG 40), and a
cationic surfactant, cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB). Each surfactant was
added to 50 wt% aqueous glycerol solution at high concentration (above the critical
micelle concentration) varying from 2 to 5 and 10 wt%. Static surface tension and
contact angle were measured, as well as the viscosity of the solutions. While the value
of surface tension did not significantly change with increasing surfactant
concentration, other properties of the solutions (i.e. viscosity and contact angle) were
affected. Microbubbles with sizes varying from 50 to 360 µm all with polydispersity
index values of < 2% were produced with this technique. The nonionic surfactants
were found to produce smaller bubbles. This is likely to have been due to their higher
adsorption on to the hydrophobic channel surface and hence increase in the thickness
of the liquid film at the contact line between the three phases for approximately
similar capillary numbers and viscosities. Bubble stability for all cases was evaluated
by monitoring the change in average diameter with time. Microbubbles coated with
PEG 40 were found to be the most stable, lasting for 150 days with a uniform size
reduction of ~ 1.5% as compared with SDS microbubbles lasting only for 30 mins
after collection.

Keywords: Microbubbles; Surfactant; Stability; Microfluidic; Monodisperse.

1
 RSC Advances Page 2 of 28

1. Introduction

Microbubbles with potential applications in areas such as the biomedical1, 2, food3,

cosmetics4 and chemical5 industries continue to be a subject of interest for many
researchers. Control over the size and size distribution of microbubbles is critical for
all of these applications6. Microfluidic techniques are highly promising for production
of monodisperse microbubbles due to their ability to provide precise control in space

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

and time over the transport of fluids as well as their ease of fabrication7.

Micro-foams have the potential to create new materials such as scaffolds for tissue
engineering 8, microporous media 9, photonic and phononic crystals 10
. In addition,
micro-foams have numerous other applications from protein and bacteria separation
11
, oil recovery12 to contaminated water treatment 13
. In these applications micro-
foams are utilised due to their large interfacial area, the adsorption of particles at the
microbubble interface, and their stability for enhanced mass transfer. Microfluidic
devices assist in generating such materials, enabling the required degree of control
over their physical properties.

In order to facilitate bubble formation and to stabilize the formed microbubbles,

surfactants are added to the liquid phase14, 15
. Surfactants reduce the gas-liquid
interfacial tension16 and influence the hydrophilic or hydrophobic character of the
microchannel surface17. The interfacial rheological properties of the liquid phase
depend upon the orientation, concentration and interactions of the adsorbed surfactant
molecules and will both affect bubble formation and play an important role in
determining bubble stability18. Varying the surfactant type can thus have a large
impact on drop/microbubble behaviour as different surfactant molecules have
different characteristics. Both interfacial tension and diffusivity are strongly
dependent on the local surface concentration of surfactant molecules and hence both
the concentration in the liquid and adsorption characteristics19. The choice of
surfactant is thus crucial to achieve the desired microbubble characteristics.

The size and size distribution of microbubbles generated in microfluidic devices are
affected by various operating and process parameters20. Several studies have
investigated the effects of surfactant type and concentration on microbubble and

2
Page 3 of 28 RSC Advances

droplet formation16, 21
. Xu et al.18 investigated the effect of an anionic surfactant,
sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) and addition of an electrolyte, sodium chloride
(NaCl) on bubble diameter and stability. Their results indicated that by increasing the
concentration of the surfactant and by addition of NaCl the production rate and
stability of smaller microbubbles were improved. This was attributed to the significant
decrease in the zeta potential and corresponding reduction in the surface charge of the
SDS micelles enabling enhanced adsorption. Kukizaki and Baba16 studied the effect

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

of differently charged surfactants on microbubble formation using Shirasu porous
glass membranes and generated monodisperse microbubbles with systems containing
anionic and nonionic surfactants of SDS and Tween 20, respectively. However, they
demonstrated that the solution containing the cationic surfactant CTAB resulted in the
formation of polydisperse bubbles due to the adsorption of CTAB molecules onto the
negatively charged membrane surface. Tong et al.21 produced monodisperse oil-in-
water microspheres using a microchannel emulsification technique and studied the
effect of different surfactants on microsphere production. Their results indicated that
for the case of nonionic and anionic surfactants the hydrophilic group was repelled
from the negatively charged microchannel surface thereby maintaining its
hydrophilicity. The positively charged group of the cationic surfactant, however,
caused it to be adsorbed on to the microchannel surface which deteriorated the
emulsification process.

The composition and physicochemical properties of the surfactant used can greatly
affect the formation and stabilization of microbubbles. One of the most important
factors to consider with respect to surfactant containing solutions is the critical
micelle concentration (CMC)18, at which the surfactant aggregates and form micelles,
as the properties of the solution dramatically change at this concentration. Previous
studies have indicated that in order to achieve the maximum effect of the surfactant,
concentrations higher than the CMC are required22. Therefore, in this study
experimental investigation of the influence of three different types of commonly used
surfactants (cationic, anionic and nonionic surfactants) at concentrations much higher
than CMC was made. The effect of the chain lengths and molecular structure of the
surfactants on the properties of the liquid phase, mainly the contact angle and
capillary number were studied; and a detailed analysis of the effect of concentration

3
 RSC Advances Page 4 of 28

and type of surfactant on bubble formation and size in a capillary embedded T-

Junction device was carried out. In addition, the stability of microbubbles produced
with each surfactant type and concentration was examined.

2. Theoretical description

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

2.1. Surfactant effect on bubble formation

Surfactants can alter the interfacial stresses produced during bubble/droplet formation
in a complicated manner under dynamic conditions. The surfactant mass transfer
dynamics and the amount of surfactant adsorption are the key factors determining
whether bubble/droplet formation is facilitated or inhibited. Surfactants can also cause
19, 23
droplets/bubbles that would otherwise be stable to break up under flow .
Gravitational and inertial effects are generally insignificant in comparison to
interfacial and viscous forces in microfluidic devices. As well as the Capillary number


 =  
that describes the ratio of viscous to interfacial forces, fluid wetting

plays a central role in determining the flow regime. The wetting of solid surfaces in
the presence of surfactants depends on the characteristics of the solid and liquid
24
phases, the surfactant and its concentration . The contact angle characterises the
movement of the three phase contact line and hence the force balance at the bubble
breakup region and ultimately the size of the bubbles 25.

When surfactant molecules are adsorbed at an interface (either gas-liquid or liquid-

solid), the dynamic surface tension of the liquid as well as the interfacial tension
between the liquid and solid is reduced by an amount that depends upon the level of
adsorption17, 26. On a bubble, surfactant molecules are adsorbed with their polar heads
facing out into the aqueous solution and their tails inwards towards the gas core 27. At
the liquid-solid interface, either the hydrophilic or hydrophobic group may be oriented
toward the surface, depending upon the nature of the surface 28. Since the surface of a
microchannel will, in most cases, be non-polar, molecules will be adsorbed with their
hydrophobic group toward the surface, and therefore make it more hydrophilic.

4
Page 5 of 28 RSC Advances

2.2. Surfactant effect on microbubble stability

Due to the action of interfacial tension, microbubbles are naturally unstable. The
effect of capillary pressure acting on a spherical microbubble surface can be
expressed by the Laplace equation:
P Laplace= 2σ/R Eq (1)
where R is the instantaneous radius of the microbubble and σ is the interfacial tension.

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

The diameter of a microbubble in an unsaturated liquid will decrease exponentially as
the gas diffuses into the surrounding liquid under constant ambient conditions. The
rate of dissolution of the gas depends on the magnitude of the interfacial tension, the
concentration and diffusivity of the gas in the liquid, the ambient temperature and
29, 30 29
pressure, and the size of the microbubble . Epstein and Plesset presented an

equation for the rate of change of bubble radius (  ) under constant interfacial tension

(σ), while they considered the effect of convection negligible:

 (  ()) " "


=   ! + % ' Eq (2)
()

($ ) &

Where Ci and Csat are the initial and saturation concentrations of the dissolved gas in
the liquid, respectively, M is the molecular weight of the gas, B is the universal gas
constant, T is the gas temperature, t is time and ρ(∞) is the density of the gas at a zero
curvature interface with a constant coefficient of dissolution, D. Eq (2) is for an
uncoated bubble, hence the effect of a surfactant coating is not considered. These can
be included either by writing diffusivity and surface tension as functions of surfactant
concentration at the gas-liquid interface, as previously described by Azmin et al. 31 or
by introducing a “shell” term similar to the model proposed by Borden and Longo 32.
By introducing a surfactant layer on the microbubble surface, the dissolution of the
bubble is affected due to the decrease in interfacial tension as well as the restriction to
the mass transfer of the gas in and out of the bubble surface by the surfactant film.
The concentration of the surfactant on the bubble surface is thus important to consider
with respect to both phenomena 33.

5
 RSC Advances Page 6 of 28

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Materials

Glycerol with 99% purity (Sigma Aldrich, UK) was diluted with distilled water to
achieve 50 wt% concentration to form the main component of the liquid phase. In
order to facilitate bubble formation and reduce the surface tension of the newly

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

created interfaces, four different surfactants were added to the aqueous glycerol
solution in varying concentrations. To investigate the effect of liquid surface tension
and surfactant type on the size and stability of the bubbles produced, 2, 5 and 10 wt %
of sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS), cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB),
polyoxyethylene (40) sorbitan monopalmitate (Tween 40) and polyoxyethylene glycol
40 stearate (PEG 40) were added to the aqueous solution with 50 wt % glycerol
concentration (all purchased from Sigma Aldrich, UK). Compressed air was used as
the dispersed (gas) phase. The physiochemical characteristic of the surfactants and
properties of the different solutions are shown in Table 1 and 2, respectively.

3.2. Characterization of solutions

Static surface tension and contact angle for each solution were measured with an error
of ± 2% using a Drop Shape Analysis System, Model DSA100 (Kruss GmbH,
Hamburg, Germany) using the drop shape and circle fitting methods, respectively.
The density of all the solutions used in the experiments were measured using a DIN
ISO 3507- Gay-Lussac type standard density bottle. Viscosity was measured using a
Brookfield DV-11 Ultra programmable rheometer (Brookfield Engineering
Laboratory Inc., USA) as well as using a U-tube viscometer (BS/E type, VWR, UK).
Calibration was carried out with pure water and ethanol. All the measurements,
presented in Table 2, were performed at the ambient temperature (22 ºC) after
calibrating the equipment using distilled water.

3.3. Bubble characterization

Bubbles were collected from the outlet of the device on microscope slides and
immediately observed under an optical microscope (Nikon Eclipse ME 600) fitted
with a camera (JVC KY-F55B). Bubbles were studied at 5x, 10x and 20x
magnifications. For each sample, 100 bubbles were chosen to measure the diameter
6
Page 7 of 28 RSC Advances

and stability over a fixed collection area of 1.5 mm2. A Photron Ultima APX high
speed camera with a maximum resolution of 1024 x 1024 (17µ) pixels at up to 2,000
fps giving 3 seconds of recording time (Photron Europe Ltd., U.K.) was also used to
obtain real time video images of the bubble formation process.

3.4. Experimental Setup

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

The experimental setup consisted of two Teflon FEP (Fluorinated Ethylene
Polypropylene) capillaries inserted perpendicularly into a rigid Polydimethylsiloxane
(PDMS) block (100x100x10 mm) as inlet channels for the gas and liquid flows. A
third FEP capillary was embedded in the polymer block aligned with the gas inlet
channel with a 200 µm distance to create the junction where the two phases meet. The
internal diameter for all of the channels was fixed at 200 µm. A schematic of the T-
Junction set up is shown in Fig. 1. The top capillary was connected to a gas regulator
fitted to a pressurized air tank via 6 mm diameter tubing, where the gas was supplied
to the junction at constant pressure Pg. A digital manometer was connected to the
tubing to measure the in-line gas pressure. Also a gas regulator was used to vary the
pressure supplied to the T- junction. The liquid capillary perpendicular to the capillary
supplying air was connected to a 20 ml stainless steel syringe (KD Scientific,
Holliston, MA, USA). A Harvard syringe pump PHD-4400 (Harvard Apparatus Ltd.,
Edenbridge, UK) was used to force liquid through the capillaries at a constant flow
rate. The advantages that this setup has over the conventional lithographically
manufactured microfluidic chips are: that it can be easily constructed, blocked
capillaries can be easily replaced, and microbubbles smaller than the channel width
can be produced. The conditions tested in the experiments are shown in Table 3. Each
experiment was conducted 10 times to provide an indication of the experimental
uncertainty for the measured mean bubble diameter that was calculated to be
approximately between 2-5%.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Effect of surfactant concentration on the properties of the liquid phase

Three types of differently charged surfactants with three different concentrations of 2,

5 and 10 wt % were chosen for this study. PEG 40 and Tween 40 were chosen as
nonionic surfactants. The molecular structure of these two surfactants contain

7
 RSC Advances Page 8 of 28

polyoxyethylene units that decrease the hydrophobic character of the surfactant, and
as a results they appear to adsorb more efficiently onto hydrophobic surfaces than
28
onto hydrophilic ones . SDS was selected as the anionic surfactant and CTAB for
the cationic category. All surfactants have both hydrophilic and hydrophobic groups.
Both nonionic surfactants Tween 40 and PEG 40 have relatively large hydrophilic
groups, while CTAB has a long hydrophobic chain 21. All the surfactants selected for

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

this study are water soluble, but for higher concentrations of CTAB and SDS the
preparation of the solutions required heating the solutions at 70 °C for approximately
120 s prior to the experiments. From the data in Table 2, it is clear that the
concentration and type of the surfactant have an impact on the surface tension and
contact angle of the aqueous glycerol solution. The surfactants each lower the surface
tension of the aqueous phase to different levels. The interfacial tension of the
solutions containing nonionic surfactants Tween 40 and PEG 40 decreased
dramatically to 41.6 and 46.3 mN/m, respectively, at 2 wt % concentration. However,
increasing the concentration of these surfactants further to 5 and 10 wt % had a little
effect on the surface tension but increased the viscosity of the solutions. This suggests
that the concentrations used in this study were higher than the critical micelle
concentration (CMC). This trend was also seen with SDS and CTAB, although the
surface tension of the solution decreased more with the addition of the latter. As
demonstrated in Table 2, the interfacial tension for 2 wt % PEG 40 has the largest
value, while the solution with 10 wt % CTAB concentration has the lowest interfacial
tension.

In order to find whether the channel walls were hydrophobic or hydrophilic, the static
contact angle (θ) of deionized water was measured against the FEP surface and it was
shown that θ> 90° indicating that the surface was hydrophobic. As shown in Table 2,
the static contact angle for each solution was also measured. For the case of nonionic
surfactants, with increasing concentration the contact angle decreased. Increasing the
concentration of cationic surfactant CTAB and anionic SDS, however, led to an
increase in the contact angle. In polyoxyethylene nonionic surfactants, increasing the
number of oxyethylene groups (C2H4O)n reduces the efficiency of adsorption of the
surfactant on the surface of most materials, because the effective cross sectional area
of the molecule at the interface increases 28. Since the number of oxyethylene groups
in Tween 40 is smaller than in PEG 40 (Table 1), the hydrophobic character of the
8
Page 9 of 28 RSC Advances

surfactant is decreased, leading to higher adsorption of surfactant molecules on the

channel hydrophobic surface and therefore at all concentrations of surfactants the
contact angle is lower compared with PEG 40. At a constant 2 wt % concentration,
solutions with both nonionic surfactants (Tween 40 and PEG 40) and SDS have
similar contact angles which were all higher than for CTAB. The lower contact angle
with CTAB results in the reduction of the liquid film thickness at the three phase

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

contact line and therefore formation of bubbles with larger diameter is anticipated for
these surfactants. While at 10 wt % concentration, the solution containing PEG 40 has
the lowest contact angle, while the other three surfactants produce similar contact
angles. At higher concentrations, well above the CMC (5 and 10 wt %), the surface
tension of the solution did not significantly change, the viscosity of all solutions on
the other hand increased due to the surfactant molecules aggregating and forming
micelles in the bulk. Therefore formation of smaller bubbles was expected at
concentrations of 5 and 10 wt%.

4.2. Effect of surfactant concentration on bubble size

In order to investigate the effect of surfactant concentration on microbubble size,

three concentrations of the solutions with nonionic surfactants PEG 40 and Tween 40
were chosen. The liquid flow rate was kept constant at 200 µl/min for all experiments
to study the effect of capillary number in conjunction with gas pressure on the given
concentration of surfactant in the solution, except for the experiment with 10 wt%
Tween 40 where this parameter was increased to 250 µl/min. As indicated in Figure
2, bubble formation occurred within a larger range of gas pressures for the highest
concentrations for both PEG 40 and Tween 40. In order to produce the same size
bubble with diameter of 200 µm (Figure 2 a), larger gas pressure was required for the
solution with the highest concentration of PEG 40 (10 wt %). The calculated capillary
numbers shown in Table 3, suggest that with increasing the capillary number, a higher
gas pressure is required to produce bubbles. For a fixed gas pressure of 100 kPa
(Figure 2b), at which bubble formation occurred for all Tween 40 concentrations, the
solution with the lowest concentration generated the largest bubble size. This
indicates, as anticipated, that the decrease in the bubble size with increasing capillary
number is mainly related to the increase in viscosity of the solution rather than the

9
 RSC Advances Page 10 of 28

small variation in the surface tension as a result of the increase in surfactant

concentration.

4.3. Influence of surfactant type on the bubble formation time

In this part of the study, the time taken from the gas column entering the exit channel
and the reduction of the neck until the breakup of the formed bubble as well as the

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

effect of the surfactant type on the formation time were studied. The dynamic contact
angle determines the movement of the three phase contact line at the bubble breakup
point and therefore influences the shape of the gas-liquid interface as well as the
amount of gas entering the mixing channel. Measuring the dynamic contact angle in
the microfluidic channel is challenging, but the measured values for the static contact
angle can give an indication of the effect that each surfactant has on the wettability of
the channel wall surface. In order to study the effect of surfactant type on the
formation of microbubbles in the capillary embedded T-Junction device, gas column
breakup and bubble formation were observed using a Photron Ultima APX camera
recording at 2000 frames per second (fps) over 3 s. The behaviour of the two phase
flow was recorded for the solutions containing 2 wt % of the surfactants, with the
liquid flow rate kept constant at 200 µl/min.

The gas pressure of ~ 60 kPa chosen for this study was within the range enabling
bubble production for all solutions, and therefore the only parameters changed by
varying the surfactant type were the capillary number and the contact angle. Once the
bubbles were produced, their diameters were measured with an optical microscope.
Figure 3 shows the high speed camera frames illustrating the time evolution of bubble
breakup for each surfactant. From the images obtained, it is clear that whilst the
operating conditions of the T-Junction setup were kept constant throughout the
experiments, the solution containing CTAB produced the largest bubble size (290 µm
diameter) and the solution with PEG 40 formed the smallest (170 µm diameter). The
images show that bubbles produced with PEG 40 maintained a spherical shape and
the time taken for the neck to decrease and finally pinch off was longer (8.5 ms)
compared to the other surfactants. The bubble size increased with the other nonionic
surfactant Tween 40. It is interesting to notice that for both cases of anionic and
cationic surfactants, SDS and CTAB respectively, the bubble size increased and
adopted a plug like shape while the pinch off time was reduced. Bubbles were
10
Page 11 of 28 RSC Advances

produced at a higher rate of 1 bubble per 2.5 ms for solutions containing CTAB,
indicating that for the chosen set of operating parameters (liquid flow rate of 200
µl/min and gas pressure of 60 kPa), the number of monodisperse bubbles produced
was 1.2 x 105 in every 1 ml of the collected sample. Since the microchannel walls are
made from FEP, their surfaces are hydrophobic. The interaction between the solution
containing surfactant molecules and the microchannel walls is the key factor that can
affect the hydrophilicity of the surface16. Both nonionic surfactants PEG 40 and

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

Tween 40 have a relatively large hydrophilic group compared to the large
hydrophobic groups in SDS and CTAB. Due to the larger hydrophilic group of the
nonionic surfactants, the adsorption of the surfactant molecules at the contact line
between the three phases increase and therefore the thickness of the liquid film at this
point increases, which consequently increases the time required for bubble formation.
The measured surface tension of 38 mN/m for the solution containing CTAB was
lower than that of the SDS, PEG 40 and Tween 40 solutions, as listed in Table 2. On
the other hand, the positively charged CTAB molecules will have been attracted to the
negatively charged microchannel surface and therefore decreased the hydrophilicity
of the channel walls. These phenomena will have altered both the dynamic contact
angle and wettability of the channel surface and hence influenced the bubble
formation process. The dynamic contact angle would have changed the position of the
three phase contact line at the bubble breakup point and therefore the shape of the
gas-liquid interface as well as the amount of gas entering the mixing channel.
Measuring the dynamic contact angle in the microfluidic channel was not feasible in
this study challenging, but the measured values for the static contact angle give an
indication of the effect that each surfactant has on the wettability of the channel wall
surface. A further point to note is that interfacial gradients in surfactant concentration
can further influence the flow profile and hence bubble formation and these will also
be different for different surfactants34.

4.4. Effect of surfactant type on bubble size

For this study, all surfactants were investigated with concentrations of 2 and 5 wt %.
Bubble size was measured for each surfactant and concentration and plots of bubble
diameter for the range of gas pressures that bubble formation was possible are

11
 RSC Advances Page 12 of 28

presented in Figure 4. For a given gas pressure at both concentrations, the bubbles
produced with the Tween 40 solution were generally the smallest, followed by the
solution containing PEG 40. It was shown that for a given gas pressure and surfactant
concentration smaller microbubbles were produced at higher capillary numbers for the
nonionic surfactants followed by the anionic surfactant SDS, while the cationic
surfactant CTAB produced the largest bubbles due to lower capillary numbers. At 2

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

wt % concentration of Tween 40 and PEG 40, the static contact angles with respect to
the channel wall surface were approximately similar (58° and 60°), however bubble
size as shown in Figure 4 a) was smaller for PEG 40 due to the effect of the lower
capillary number of 2 wt % PEG 40 solution. On the other hand, the values of the
contact angle for 5 wt% concentration of Tween 40 and PEG 40 are different but
smaller bubbles were produced when the capillary number was smaller for Tween 40,
as shown in Figure 4 b). In addition, at 5 wt % concentration of PEG 40 and SDS
where the capillary numbers were approximately the same, and the viscosity is also
the same for both surfactants, PEG 40 produced smaller bubbles. The measured
contact angle for PEG 40 (49°) was smaller than for SDS (59°).This indicates that the
factor most strongly affecting the bubble formation and size was the wettability of the
channel by the surfactant molecules.

4.5. Stability of microbubbles

The stability of bubbles/foams is governed by the balance between the roles of surface
35
tension, surface activity and adsorption kinetics . The shorter the length of the
hydrophobic chain of the surfactant molecule, the higher the adsorption rate. Also
dynamic interfacial behaviour is an important factor to consider if the transport rate of
the surfactant molecules between the bulk liquid and the interface by means of
convective flow and diffusion is slower than surface expansion and breakup of
bubbles. The diffusion and adsorption timescales for the surfactants used in this study
have been shown to be relatively long compared with the bubble formation time, in a
36 37
static liquid . Previous studies however have indicated that the flow field within
the device is critical to determining the rate of adsorption of surfactant on to the
bubbles, particularly where the surfactant concentration is significantly above the
CMC as here. The shearing of the liquid in the junction and the presence of micelles
will strongly affect the local concentration and behaviour of surfactant molecules at
the bubble surface as it expands. Thus measurements of dynamic surface tension e.g.
12
Page 13 of 28 RSC Advances

using the maximum bubble pressure method are not directly applicable to the
microchannel system considered here. In addition, the microbubbles once formed
remain suspended in the liquid phase as they travel to the exit of the device and so the
period of time over which surfactant adsorption can occur is significantly longer than
the time required for bubble formation.

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

The more closely packed the surface monolayer at the interface, the more the
diffusion of the encapsulated gas into the surrounding is limited and therefore bubbles
become more stable38, 39. Microbubble size distribution was measured as a function of
time via optical microscopy. 100 randomly selected microbubbles from each sample
collected on the glass slides (2 samples for each surfactant) were studied and
measured every 5 mins for 2 h and additionally every hour to 5 h and consequently
24, 48 and 72 h and 7 to 150 days. For the purpose of comparison, 5 wt %
concentration of all surfactants was selected. As shown in Figure 5, microbubbles
produced with SDS were the least stable, and over the course of 30 minutes at the
ambient temperature and pressure, the size distribution of the bubbles broadened
greatly and bubble coalescence was observed finally bursting occurred. Microbubbles
produced with both nonionic surfactants PEG 40 and Tween 40 were the most stable
for all concentrations studied in this report. Although, SDS and CTAB solutions had a
lower surface tension than the other surfactants, but they both produced the least
stable bubbles in this study, with bubbles produced lasting for only 30 and 90 mins,
for SDS and CTAB, respectively. This could be attributed to electrostatic repulsion
between the ions of both cationic and anionic surfactant head groups on the surface of
adjacent bubbles or lower surface concentrations and hence higher diffusivity. The
most stable bubbles were produced with the solution containing PEG 40, surviving
150 days. This is likely to have been due to steric stabilization by the nonionic
surfactant 40 at the adjacent bubbles.

The variation of the mean diameter and standard deviation of bubbles with time for
sample of 100 bubbles collected were also studied. As shown in figure 6, the mean
diameter of bubbles produced with Tween 40 decreased linearly at the same rate for a
period of 72 hours from the collection time until they all disappeared. However, for
the case of PEG 40, after a certain period of time (7 days) the rate of bubble shrinkage
became negligible. The diameter of all bubbles decreased at the same rate, thereby
13
 RSC Advances Page 14 of 28

maintaining near monodispersity which would have inhibited Ostwald ripening. It

should be noted that during the measurements it was observed that the area where the
measurement was taken was found crucial. As shown in Figure 7, if the sample taken
was from the centre of the collection sample, where the bubbles were closely packed,
stability was greater. In comparison, the microbubbles in close proximity of the edge
were affected by the constant flux of gas from the bubbles to the liquid and to the

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

surrounding air. This was not unexpected since the diffusion of bubbles is influenced
by the amount of surfactant molecules adsorbed on the bubble surface as well as the
amount of solution around the microbubbles and the corresponding concentrations of
gas and surfactant.

Conclusions
In this paper, an experimental study of the effect of the type and concentration of four
different surfactants on the formation and stability of microbubbles was conducted.
For all surfactant types, significant changes in the bubble formation, size and stability
were observed by increasing the concentration of the surfactant. This can be explained
by the effect that surfactants have on the dynamics of bubble formation by influencing
the wettability of the channel surface, the dynamic adsorption of surfactant molecules
on the liquid-solid and liquid-gas interfaces in the microchannels and the physical
properties of the liquid phase. Both Capillary number and the wetting characteristics
of the channel wall surface were found to be key factors in determining the size of
microbubbles. The size of bubbles produced by a T-Junction device is known to be
dependent on capillary number but it is shown in this study that for the solutions
containing different surfactants but same physical properties, at approximately similar
capillary numbers, the wetting characteristic of the solution is the key factor in
determining the bubble size. It was noted that microbubbles produced with solutions
containing the nonionic surfactants (PEG 40 and Tween 40) were generally smaller,
with 10 wt % Tween 40 producing the smallest bubble size of ~ 50 µm for fixed
operating parameters. This is due to the fact that these two surfactants have a larger
hydrophilic group and therefore the wettability of the channel wall surface is affected
in a different manner. The type of the charge of the surfactant head group may also
have influenced the formation of bubbles, however in order to conduct a fair test,

14
Page 15 of 28 RSC Advances

further experiments would be needed with surfactants having similar chain lengths but
different charges.

Analysis of microbubble stability was also performed and it was found that the
solution containing 5 and 10 wt % PEG produced microbubbles that were highly
stable, lasting for 150 days (the length of the study) with only a 1.5% change in

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

diameter. On the other hand, the microbubbles produced with SDS were the least
stable. Increasing the surfactant concentration did not significantly change the
microbubble stability. All the microbubbles produced in this study were highly
monodisperse with a polydispersity index < 2 %.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council,
UK for providing the Photron Ultima APX high speed camera for this work. The
generous help of Adrian Walker of the Instrument Loan Pool is gratefully
acknowledged. The authors would also like to thank Mr Kuanyu Zhang (Biomaterials
and Tissue Engineering MSc student in Mechanical Engineering Department at UCL)
for his assistance in conducting the experiments.

15
 RSC Advances Page 16 of 28

References

1. S.-T. Kang and C.-K. Yeh, Chang Gung medical journal, 2012, 35, 125-139.
2. E. C. Unger, E. Hersh, M. Vannan, T. O. Matsunaga and M. McCreery,
Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 2001, 44, 45-54.
3. G. M. Campbell and E. Mougeot, Trends in Food Science & Technology,
1999, 10, 283-296.
4. E. G. Lima, K. M. Durney, S. R. Sirsi, A. B. Nover, G. A. Ateshian, M. A.
Borden and C. T. Hung, Acta Biomaterialia, 2012, 8, 4334-4341.

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

5. S. E. Burns, S. Yiacoumi and C. Tsouris, Separation and Purification
Technology, 1997, 11, 221-232.
6. E. Stride and M. Edirisinghe, Soft Matter, 2008, 4, 2350-2359.
7. M. De Menech, P. Garstecki, F. Jousse and H. A. Stone, Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 2008, 595, 141-161.
8. J. Zhang, A. Alsayed, K. Lin, S. Sanyal, F. Zhang, W.-J. Pao, V.
Balagurusamy, P. Heiney and A. Yodh, Applied Physics Letters, 2002, 81,
3176-3178.
9. K. Ferrara, R. Pollard and M. Borden, Biomedical Engineering, 2007, 9.
10. M. Hashimoto, B. Mayers, P. Garstecki and G. M. Whitesides, Small, 2006, 2,
1292-1298.
11. P. Jauregi and J. Varley, Biotechnology and bioengineering, 1998, 59, 471-
481.
12. C. A. Conn, K. Ma, G. J. Hirasaki and S. L. Biswal, Lab on a Chip, 2014, 14,
3968-3977.
13. S. Ciriello, S. Barnett and F. Deluise, Separation Science and Technology,
1982, 17, 521-534.
14. J. H. Xu, S. W. Li, G. G. Chen and G. S. Luo, Aiche Journal, 2006, 52, 2254-
2259.
15. S. Takagi and Y. Matsumoto, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 2011, 43,
615-636.
16. M. Kukizaki and Y. Baba, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and
Engineering Aspects, 2008, 326, 129-137.
17. C. P. Tostado, J. Xu and G. Luo, Chemical Engineering Journal, 2011, 171,
1340-1347.
18. Q. Xu, M. Nakajima, S. Ichikawa, N. Nakamura, P. Roy, H. Okadome and T.
Shiina, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2009, 332, 208-214.
19. C. N. Baroud, F. Gallaire and R. Dangla, Lab on a Chip, 2010, 10, 2032-2045.
20. M. Parhizkar, M. Edirisinghe and E. Stride, Microfluidics and Nanofluidics,
2013, 14, 797-808.
21. J. H. Tong, M. Nakajima, H. Nabetani and Y. Kikuchi, Journal of Surfactants
and Detergents, 2000, 3, 285-293.
22. M. S. Kalekar and S. S. Bhagwat, Journal of dispersion science and
technology, 2006, 27, 1027-1034.
23. C. D. Eggleton, T. M. Tsai and K. J. Stebe, Physical Review Letters, 2001, 87.
24. L. J. Yang, T. J. Yao and Y. C. Tai, Journal of Micromechanics and
Microengineering, 2004, 14, 220-225.
25. N. Shao, W. Salman, A. Gavriilidis and P. Angeli, International Journal of
Heat and Fluid Flow, 2008, 29, 1603-1611.
26. R. G. Chaudhuri and S. Paria, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2009,
337, 555-562.
16
Page 17 of 28 RSC Advances

27. J. H. Xu, S. W. Li, J. Tan, Y. J. Wang and G. S. Luo, Aiche Journal, 2006, 52,
3005-3010.
28. M. J. Rosen and J. T. Kunjappu, Surfactants and interfacial phenomena, John
Wiley & Sons, 2012.
29. P. S. Epstein and M. S. Plesset, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 1950, 18,
1505-1509.
30. D. W. Readey and A. R. Copper Jr, Chemical Engineering Science, 1966, 21,
917-922.
31. M. Azmin, G. Mohamedi, M. Edirisinghe and E. Stride, Materials Science and

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

Engineering: C, 2012, 32, 2654-2658.
32. M. A. Borden and M. L. Longo, Langmuir, 2002, 18, 9225-9233.
33. G. Mohamedi, M. Azmin, I. Pastoriza-Santos, V. Huang, J. Perez-Juste, L. M.
Liz-Marzan, M. Edirisinghe and E. Stride, Langmuir, 2012, 28, 13808-13815.
34. J. Tong, M. Nakajima, H. Nabetani and Y. Kikuchi, Journal of Surfactants
and Detergents, 2000, 3, 285-293.
35. D. Beneventi, B. Carre and A. Gandini, Colloids and Surfaces A:
Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 2001, 189, 65-73.
36. C.-H. Chang and E. I. Franses, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and
Engineering Aspects, 1995, 100, 1-45.
37. K. Wang, Y. Lu, J. Xu and G. Luo, Langmuir, 2009, 25, 2153-2158.
38. K. R. Atta, D. Gavril, V. Loukopoulos and G. Karaiskakis, Journal of
Chromatography A, 2004, 1023, 287-296.
39. E. Stride, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a-Mathematical
Physical and Engineering Sciences, 2008, 366, 2103-2115.
40. D. H. Napper, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 1977, 58, 390-407.
41. A. S. Prakash, Journal of Excipients & Food Chemicals, 2010, 1.

17
 RSC Advances Page 18 of 28

List of Figures:

Figure 1: Schematic of the T- Junction microfluidic device setup

Figure 2: The effect of surfactant concentration on bubble size and gas pressure
required for bubble formation for a) PEG 40 and b) Tween 40. All of the
microbubbles produced with this setup were highly monodisperse with polydispersity

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

index < 2 %.

Figure 3: High speed camera images of the bubble formation time for 2 wt %
concentration of a) CTAB, b) SDS, c) Tween 40 and d) PEG 40. Scale bar represents
200 µm.

Figure 4: The effect of surfactant type on microbubble size for a) 2 wt %

concentration and b) 5 wt % concentration All bubbles were monodisperse with
polydispersity index < 2 %.

Figure 5: Micrographs showing the stability of 5 wt % concentration of a) PEG 40, b)

Tween 40, c) SDS and d) CTAB.

Figure 6: Bubble dimensionless diameter stability profile for a) PEG 40 b) Tween 40.

Figure 7: Micrographs of microbubbles with 2 wt % Tween 40 surfactant from a)

centre of the collection sample b) edge of the collected sample at i) time of collection
ii) 2.5 hours and iii) 5 hours after collection.

18
Page 19 of 28 RSC Advances

Table 1: Physico-chemical characteristics of the surfactants utilised in the

experiments. 41

Molecular
CMC in water
Surfactant Formula weight / g

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

/ wt.%
mol-1
Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)

Na C12H25SO4 288.4 0.17-0.23

Cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide

(CTAB)

C19H42BrN 364.5 0.03

Polyoxyethylene glycol 40 stearate

(PEG 40S)
C18H35O2(C2H4O)
2047 0.01
n H , n=40

Polyoxyethylene (40) sorbitan

monopalmitate (Tween 40)

C22H42O6(C2H4O)
1277 0.003
n , n=20

19
 RSC Advances Page 20 of 28

Table 2: Physical properties of the solutions used in the experiment at 22 ° C

(Contact angle was measured on an FEP surface)

Surface
Density Viscosity Contact Angle
Aqueous Solution -3
tension
/ mg m / mPa s /°

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

/ mN m-1

Water 0.99 1 72.1 105

50 wt.% glycerol 1.14 5.5 56 100

2 wt. % PEG 40, 50 wt. %

1.12 5.6 46 58
glycerol

5 wt. % PEG 40, 50 wt. %

1.12 7.8 44 49
glycerol
10 wt. % PEG 40, 50 wt. %
1.13 12.3 44 43
glycerol

2 wt. % Tween 40, 50 wt. %

1.12 5.1 41 60
glycerol
5 wt. % Tween 40, 50 wt. %
1.12 6 39 54
glycerol
10 wt. % Tween 40, 50 wt. %
1.13 10 39 50
glycerol

2 wt. % SDS, 50 wt. % glycerol 1.12 5.6 40 61

5 wt. % SDS, 50 wt. % glycerol 1.12 7.5 40 59

10 wt. % SDS, 50 wt. %

1.08 12.4 37 51
glycerol

2 wt. % CTAB, 50 wt. %

1.10 5.4 38 42
glycerol
5 wt. % CTAB, 50 wt. %
1.04 5.5 37 46
glycerol
10 wt. % CTAB, 50 wt. %
1.02 10 36 52
glycerol

20
Page 21 of 28 RSC Advances

Table 3: Conditions tested in the experiments (at 22 ° C)

Gap

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

Liquid Channel Gas
Experimental between Capillary
flow rate diameter pressure
conditions capillaries Number
/ ml min-1 / µm / kPa
/ µm

2wt% PEG 40 0.2 200 200 45-95 0.0013

5wt% PEG 40 0.2 200 200 80-150 0.0019
10wt% PEG 40 0.2 200 200 140-200 0.0029

2wt% Tween 40 0.2 200 200 30-120 0.0013

5wt% Tween 40 0.2 200 200 45-155 0.0016
10wt% Tween 40 0.2 200 200 70-135 0.0027
10wt% Tween 40 0.25 200 200 80-140 0.0034

2wt% SDS 0.2 200 200 35-100 0.0014

5wt% SDS 0.2 200 200 65-120 0.0019
10wt% SDS 0.2 200 200 110-190 0.0034

2wt% CTAB 0.2 200 200 50-100 0.0015

5wt% CTAB 0.2 200 200 75-125 0.0016
10wt% CTAB 0.2 200 200 115-195 0.0029

21
RSC Advances Page 22 of 28

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

Figure 1

22
Page 23 of 28 RSC Advances

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

Figure 2

23
RSC Advances Page 24 of 28

Figure 3
RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

24
Page 25 of 28 RSC Advances

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

Figure 4

25
RSC Advances Page 26 of 28

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

Figure 5

26
Page 27 of 28 RSC Advances

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

Figure 6
27
RSC Advances Page 28 of 28

RSC Advances Accepted Manuscript

Figure 7

28