dc
dc
2
k
B
TD
2
where c is the concentration, c is the surface tension, k
B
is
Boltzmanns constant, T is temperature and D is a poorly
defined measure of thickness. Note that surface elasticity is
often interpreted as arising froman increase in surface tension
when an expansion of the interface leads to a reduction in the
amount of adsorbed material at the interface in the presence of
a surface-active component. However, it equally applies
when the solute is depleted from the interface, as is the case
with many electrolytes (surface tension increases with con-
centration); thus, the mechanismgiving rise to elasticity is not
a local increase in surface tension, as is often described.
Inspection of Eq. (2) reveals that the magnitude of the surface
tension change with concentration of solute is important, but
not the sign. Indeed, a correlation between the transition
concentration at which bubble coalescence is prevented and
the magnitude of the surface tension gradient has long been
recognized [3134
..
], suggesting that the elasticity of the
film during rapid stretching associated with film thinning, or
capillary waves, is crucial in the prevention of bubble
coalescence. However Stoyanov and Benkov [29
.
] argues
that the Gibbs Elasticity disappears from the equations that
describe the drainage and hydrodynamic stability of thin
films and that surface diffusion dominates the behavior. Like
the Gibbs Elasticity, the drainage velocity determined using
the surface diffusion approach [29
.
] is also approximately
proportional to (dc/dc)
2
. Thus, the observed experimental
correlation with (dc/dc)
2
may arise from the diffusion of
solute in the thin film rather than from Gibbs Elasticity. The
correlation with (dc/dc)
2
also includes electrolytes that have
no influence on bubble coalescence, as they generally have
lower values of (dc/dc)
2
[31]. Values of (dc/dc)
2
belowf1.0
(mN
2
m
2
M
2
) indicate no bubble coalescence inhibition.
Large values of (dc/dc)
2
may dampen capillary waves and
reduce film thinning and rupture. However, the coalescence
inhibition of some salts is not described by their influence on
surface tension. The tetramethylammonium acetate electro-
lyte is a strong test of the validity of the combing rules, as it is
a hh salt and bubble coalescence is prevented. However, the
(dc/dc)
2
value of 0.25 predicts that it will have no effect on
bubble coalescence. Sodium acetate has a (dc/dc)
2
value of
2.1, yet, has no significant influence on bubble coalescence;
thus, the value of this term as a true indicator of the role of
electrolyte must questioned.
Perhaps then, electrolytes inhibit rupture by preventing
nucleation in the film separating bubbles. It is known that
most electrolytes have an electrorestrictive influence on
water, causing a contraction in the volume occupied by
water upon the addition of ions. It is possible that electro-
restriction is accompanied by an increase in the cohesiveness
V.S.J. Craig / Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 9 (2004) 178184 182
of water. However, no reasonable correlation can be found
with electrorestriction. A reduction of gas concentration in
the film could reduce the probability of rupture. Indeed, a
possible influence of dissolved gas on bubble coalescence
has been raised [1,2
..
,33
.
,34
..
]. Ions are known to salt
out dissolved gas, and the electrolytes that more strongly
salt out gas are known to effect bubble coalescence inhibition
at lower concentrations [20,33
.
,34
..
]. The diffusivity of the
sparging gas has also been related to the amount of electro-
lyte required to prevent coalescence [35]. However, suffi-
cient data on a complete series of electrolytes are lacking to
fully test these correlations. These data would be useful, as it
is possible that a reduction in the amount and ease with
which gas enters the aqueous film separating bubbles could
inhibit nucleation and film rupture. A possible mechanism
for rupture in the absence of electrolyte is the migration of
gas molecules into the liquid film under action of an
attractive force. If electrolyte prevents or reduces this mi-
gration, film rupture could be arrested.
7. Conclusions
The bubble coalescence process in aqueous electrolyte
solutions remains unresolved. The mechanism of film rup-
ture remains unclear, and the means by which ions influence
coalescence behavior remains elusive. Additionally, the
influence of both ions in combination, as described by the
combining rules, remains a major challenge. However,
recent efforts at understanding the specific-ion interfacial
behavior at high salt concentrations may provide important
clues. A recent suggestion by Marcelja (personal communi-
cation and in this issue) focuses on the behavior of ions at
the interface. The recent work by Jungwirth et al. [36
..
38
.
]
and Ninham et al. [3
.
,39
.
,40
..
], which indicates that some
ions are attracted to the interface despite the image charge
repulsion, has inspired his interpretation. Marcelja proposes
categorizing ions based on their preference for the surface or
the bulk. The beauty of this proposal is that it naturally
incorporates a combining law where the influence of an ion
is dependent upon the nature of the other ions present. Thus,
ions that are both located in the bulk or both at the interface
will have little effect, but ion combinations that are located
in the bulk and at the interface will prevent bubble coales-
cence. Whilst in its infancy, this is an exciting proposal that
can be tested using mixtures of electrolytes. This permits a
tentative model to be proposed. Ion combinations that are
separated at the interface result in a reduction in the mobility
of the interface. The reduced mobility ensures that thermal
capillary waves grow less quickly, leading to an increase in
the stability of the film. At a sufficient concentration of ions
in bulk, the surface mobility is suppressed to an extent that
bubble coalescence does not take place within the lifetime of
a collision. Another related challenge awaiting experimental
attention is an investigation of electrolyte effects on bubble
coalescence in nonaqueous solvents. I propose that specific-
ion effects will again be important, but due to the different
properties of the interface, the influence of ion combinations
may be very different from one system to the next. Such a
study may see ion-specific behavior relevant to biological
systems.
Acknowledgements
Discussions with Barry Ninham, Stjepan Marcelja,
Hakan Wennerstro m and Pavel Jungwirth have been
illuminating. The assistance of Chiara Neto and Mika
Kohonen in the preparation of this manuscript is appreci-
ated. I would like to acknowledge the support of the
Australian Research Council, through the provision of a
research fellowship.
References and recommended reading
[1] Craig VSJ, Ninham BW, Pashley RM. Effect of electrolytes on bubble
coalescence. Nature 1993;364:3179.
[2]
..
Craig VSJ, Ninham BW, Pashley RM. The effect of electrolytes on
bubble coalescence in water. J Phys Chem 1993;97:101927.
[3]
.
Bostrom M, Williams DRM, Ninham BW. Specific ion effects: the
role of co-ions in biology. Europhys Lett 2003;63:6105.
[4] Leontidis E. Hofmeister anion effects on surfactant self-assembly and
the formation of mesoporous solids. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci
2002;7:8191.
[5] Franks GV. Zeta potentials and yield stresses of silica suspensions in
concentrated monovalent electrolytes: isoelectric point shift and ad-
ditional attraction. J Colloid Interface Sci 2002;249:4451.
[6] Hofmeier U, Yaminsky VV, Christenson HK. Observations of so-
lute effects on bubble formation. J Colloid Interface Sci 1995;174:
199210.
[7]
.
Fisher LR, Hewitt D, Mitchell EE, Ralston J, Wolfe J. The drainage of
an aqueous film between a solid plane and an air bubble. Adv Colloid
Interface Sci 1992;39:397416.
[8]
..
Mahnke J, Schulze HJ, Stockelhuber KW, Radoev B. Rupture of thin
wetting films on hydrophobic surfaces: Part I. Methylated glass sur-
faces. Colloids Surf, A Physicochem Eng Asp 1999;157:19.
[9]
..
Mahnke J, Schulze HJ, Stockelhuber KW, Radoev B. Rupture of thin
wetting films on hydrophobic surfaces: Part II. Fatty acid Langmuir
Blodgett layers on glass surfaces. Colloids Surf, A Physicochem Eng
Asp 1999;157:1120.
[10] Doubliez L. Capillary instability of a fast-draining film. Colloids Surf
1992;68:1723.
[11]
.
Coons JE, Halley PJ, McGlashan SA, Tran-Cong T. A review of
drainage and spontaneous rupture in free standing thin films with
tangentially immobile interfaces. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 2003;
105:362.
[12] Ruckenstein E, Jain RK. Spontaneous rupture of thin liquid films. J
Chem Soc, Faraday Trans II 1973;70:13247.
[13]
.
Cain FW, Lee JC. A technique for studying the drainage and rupture
of unstable liquid films formed between two captive bubbles: meas-
urements on KCl solutions. J Colloid Interface Sci 1985;106:7085.
[14]
.
Jeelani SAK, Hartland S. Effect of interfacial mobility on thin film
drainage. J Colloid Interface Sci 1994;164:296308.
[15]
.
Li D, Lie S. Coalescence between small bubbles or drops in pure
liquids. Langmuir 1996;12:521620.
[16]
.
Schulze HJ. Einige Untersuchungen uber da Zerreien dunner Flus-
sigkeitsfilme auf Feststoffoberflachen. Colloid Polym Sci 1975;253:
7307.
V.S.J. Craig / Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 9 (2004) 178184 183
[17]
.
Butt H.-J. A technique for measuring the force between a colloidal
particle in water and a bubble. J Colloid Interface Sci 1994;166:
10919.
[18] Yoon R.-H., Yordan JL. The critical rupture thickness of thin water
films on hydrophobic surfaces. J Colloid Interface Sci 1991;146:
56572.
[19]
..
Blake TD, Kitchener JA. Stability of aqueous films on hydrophobic
methylated silica. J Chem Soc, Faraday Trans I 1972;68:143542.
[20] Deschenes LA, Zilaro P, Muller LJ, Fourkas JT, Mohanty U. Quan-
titative measure of hydrophobicity: experiment and theory. J Phys
Chem, B 1997;101:57779.
[21]
.
Christenson HK. M C P: direct measurements of the force between
hydrophobic surfaces in water. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 2001;91:
391436.
[22] Miller JD, Hi Y, Veeramasuneni S, Lu Y. In-situ detection of butane
gas at a hydrophobic silicon surface. Colloids Surf, A Physicochem
Eng Asp 1999;154:13747.
[23]
.
Ishida N, Inoue T, Miyahara M, Higashitani K. Nano bubbles on a
hydrophobic surface in water observed by tapping-mode atomic force
microscopy. Langmuir 2000;16:637780.
[24] Steitz R, Gutberlet T, Hauss T, Klosgen B, Krastev R, Schemmel S,
et al. Nanobubbles and their precursor layer at the interface of water
against a hydrophobic substrate. Langmuir 2003;19:240918.
[25]
.
Wennerstrom H. Influence of dissolved gas on the interaction between
hydrophobic surfaces in water. J Phys Chem, B 2003;107:137723.
[26] Considine RF, Drummond CJ. Long-range force of attraction between
solvophobic surfaces in water and organic liquids containing dis-
solved air. Langmuir 2000;16:6315.
[27] Deschenes LA, Barrett J, Muller LJ, Fourkas JT, Mohanty U. In-
hibition of bubble coalescence in aqueous solutions: 1. Electrolytes.
J Phys Chem, B 1998;102:51159.
[28] Craig VSJ, Ninham BW, Pashley RM. Study of the long-range hy-
drophobic attraction in concentrated salt solutions and its implications
for electrostatic models. Langmuir 1998;14:332632.
[29] Stoyanov SD, Benkov ND. Role of surface diffusion for the drainage
and hydrodynamic stability of thin liquid films. Langmuir 2001;17:
11506.
[30] Gibbs JW. The collected works. New York: Longmans, Green and
Co.; 1928. p. 30015.
[31] Christenson HK, Yamiinsky VV. Solute effects on bubble coales-
cence. J Phys Chem 1995;99:10420.
[32] Marrucci G, Nicodemo L. Coalescence of gas bubbles in aqueous
solutions of inorganic electrolytes. Chem Eng Sci 1967;22:125765.
[33]
.
Weissenborn PK, Pugh RJ. Surface tension and bubble coalescence
phenomena of aqueous solutions of electrolytes. Langmuir 1995;11:
14226.
[34]
..
Weissenborn PK, Pugh RJ. Surface tension of aqueous solutions of
electrolytes: relationship with ion hydration, oxygen solubility, and
bubble coalescence. J Colloid Interface Sci 1996;184:55063.
[35] Pashley RM, Craig VSJ. Effects of electrolytes on bubble coales-
cence. Langmuir 1997;13:47724.
[36]
..
Jungwirth P, Tobias DJ. Ions at the air/water interface. J Phys Chem, B
B 2002;106:636173.
[37]
.
Jungwirth P, Curtis JE, Tobias DJ. Polarizability and aqueous solva-
tion of the sulfate dianion. Chem Phys Lett 2003;367:70410.
[38]
.
Salvador P, Curtis JE, Tobias DJ, Jungwirth P. Polarizability of the
nitrate anion and its solvation at the air/water interface. Phys Chem
Chem Phys 2003;5:37527.
[39]
.
Bostrom M, Williams DRM, Ninham BW. Surface tension of electro-
lytes: specific ion effects explained by dispersion forces. Langmuir
2001;17:44758.
[40]
..
Bostrom M, Williams DRM, Ninham BW. Specific ion effects: why
DLVO theory fails for biology and colloidal systems. Phys Rev Lett
2001;87:8103.
V.S.J. Craig / Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 9 (2004) 178184 184