Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 454

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mechanisms of Foam Destruction by Oil-Based Antifoams

Denkov, Nikolai D.·2004·Langmuir
DOI 10.1021/la049676o
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Oils and mixtures of oils with hydrophobic particles are widely used in various technologies and consumer products to control foaminess and foam stability. The aim of this review is to summarize our current understanding of the mechanisms of foam destruction by such substances, which are usually called antifoams or defoamers. The experimental results show that two types of antifoam can be distinguished (called for brevity "fast" and "slow") which differ in the modes of their action. Fast antifoams are able to rupture the foam films at the early stages of film thinning. As a result, fast antifoams destroy completely the foam in less than a minute, in a typical foam-stability test. Microscopic observations have shown that the fast antifoams rupture the foam films by the so-called "bridging" mechanisms, which involve the formation of oil bridges between the two surfaces of the foam film. The stability/instability of these oil bridges is explained by using the theory of capillarity. In contrast, the oily globules of the slow antifoams are unable to enter the surfaces of the foam films and are first expelled into the Plateau borders (PBs). Only after being compressed by the narrowing walls of the PBs (due to water drainage from the foam), are the globules of the slow antifoams able to enter the solution surface and to destroy the adjacent foam films. Typically, the process of foam destruction by slow antifoams requires much longer time, minutes or tens of minutes, and a residual foam of well-defined height is observed in the foam tests. The experiments show that there is no direct relation between the magnitudes of the entry, E, spreading, S, and bridging, B, coefficients, on one side, and the antifoam efficiency, on the other side. The only requirement for having active antifoam, with respect to the bridging mechanisms, is that B should be positive. On the other hand, the barrier preventing the emergence of pre-emulsified antifoam globules on the solution surface (so-called "entry barrier") is of crucial importance for the mode of foam destruction and for the antifoam efficiency. Measurements of the entry barrier with recently developed film trapping technique (FTT) showed that antifoams possessing low entry barriers act as fast antifoams, whereas high barriers correspond to slow or inactive antifoams, although E, S, and B coefficients could be strongly positive in the latter case. A good agreement between the magnitude of the entry barrier, measured by FTT, and the height of the residual foam, in the presence of slow antifoams, was experimentally established and theoretically explained. The importance of various factors, such as the size of antifoam globules, oil spreading, kinetics of surfactant adsorption, hydrophobicity of solid particles in mixed oil-solid antifoams, and the presence of amphiphilic additives (foam boosters), is discussed from the viewpoint of the mechanisms of antifoaming. The main experimental methods, used for studying the modes of antifoam action, are briefly described.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/la049676o

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 454

Metadata

Authors
Denkov, N. D.
Venue
Langmuir
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2004-06-24
Volume
20
Issue
22
Pages
9463-9505
ISSN
  • 0743-7463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5827
DOI
10.1021/la049676o
OpenAlex
W1980555190
Cited by
454
References
30
FWCI
4.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.