Scribd
Upload
23 views9 pages

project 1 foaming capacity

The document details an experiment aimed at comparing the foaming capacity of various soap samples, highlighting the chemical properties of soap and its interaction with water. It explains the role of soap molecules in cleaning, the effect of hard water on soap efficiency, and outlines the experimental procedure. Results indicate that Santoor soap has the highest foaming capacity, while Lux soap has the lowest.

Uploaded by

silentdeadpole
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
23 views9 pages

project 1 foaming capacity

The document details an experiment aimed at comparing the foaming capacity of various soap samples, highlighting the chemical properties of soap and its interaction with water. It explains the role of soap molecules in cleaning, the effect of hard water on soap efficiency, and outlines the experimental procedure. Results indicate that Santoor soap has the highest foaming capacity, while Lux soap has the lowest.

Uploaded by

silentdeadpole
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

► Certificate of

Authenticity

► Acknowledgement

► Preface

► Introduction to Concept

► Aim of the Experiment

► Theory of Experiment

► Apparatus and Materials

Required

~ rocedure
" .., .
0
I

rlntroductiol1>-/
' Soaphde sodium or potassium salts of
hig_,l}..er fatty acids. T e higher fatty acids may be
such as steari_c acid ( 17 35 COOH), palmitic acid
(C15H 31 COOH). A soap molecule has a lipophilic(oil
soluble) part and a hydrophilic (water so ble) part_.
Soaps are used for washing purposes. e soap is .
shaken with water, it produces foam which is
responsible for remo~al ~ dirt. A s~ap _whic~
produces more foam 1~~ effective m c ~~~
The cleansing tion of , oap can expla1
keeping in mi that a :p/~ecule contains n -
polar lipophili group an . a ~ r hyd o hilic oup.
When soap is plied, the n -polar alkyl oup
dissolves in oil 1 ile t polar -Coo-Na+
group rem~solve . in water
. l I
0 (
In th way ch oil droli>let is ~urrounded by
nega ·ve C~---~if-7 ~
~f negati~ charged oil droplets cannot coalesce
an,(!~~,,stabl_~--e~ulsion is formed. These oil droplets
containing .~ .IJ part® can be washed away with
water.
Washing or cleansing capacity of a soap decreases in
ha water. Hard water contains Ca2+a:@:g2+iO..,.
which 1 eract with soap to form curtly ppt. calcium
and Mag esium salts of higher fatty acids.
2C17H3s OONa+ C~+~~ (C17H3sCOO ! + 2Na+
2C11H COON I +/ (C11H3sC00)2M I+ 2Na+
The rdnes of water c ·n bGnove by addi
washing sod 1 (Na2C03) hereby Ca 2+ an ,.,.,. .,. . .+ ions
gets precipita

Ca~N'a: 03 - - - aC03 l + 2Na+


·~ Na2 03 "'7------- . gC03 J + 2Na+

This ~j~~~s aOnparing the_ foaTlli~g c pacit


of varro'us samples of soaps of d1fferent bra s
I••

Exueriment
Aim-

To compare the forming

capacity of various samples

of soaps.
I
0

ThPorv
",~ e f odining cf1Pl1fity ofsoap depends upon
tfie ~tUre of'tfrlsoap and its concentration.
%is may 6e compared6y sliakf-n1P4iua[ ..
vo[umes ofso[utions ofso[ution1Q,j)different:
samp{es liaving tlie same concentration witli
same force fort~ me amount ofti,On
so{utions are lien an wed to st aw I e
foam p auced ·ng fiarkf,ng isappea in
eacli sa p[e is det rmikJ-. CJ'lie er e time
takf n~Sal;])_ n tlie foam for tlie
given sa . ieOfI oap, grea er is itsfoaming
cap city or~a ·ng actio .
0 (

0 n ____c_ --

Soop is -an aniopiG., surfactant used in


conjunction wiMater for washing
and cleaning, which historical~omes_,
either in solid bars or in for~ _,
viscous liquid. Soap consists of K
Na of fatty aci~ · d is obtain~
reacting c m oil ~ or fat with
strong al al ine in p~ss nown a
saponific~on.
The gene for ula of _oap is [
CH2)n
-COONa
0
pa~ And Materia~ uired
0 /"
❖ : tt~e :1..& f coV\ico.f ffo.sks,
•!• Five test tubes)

❖ :1..OOW\{ W\eo.sur-iV\g C!:Jl@r-,


•!• Test Tubes staVtd

•!• Wei9V\iVt9~ cV\iVte 0


❖ St j
❖ ive Diffe eV\hbo.p s
❖
1
D~JJ#'i ater-
❖ ~p'io.t Y'
0 (

., ._ _ 0 n ___ - - J_ ----
~ ·

+ [Tak~ five 100ml conical flasks and the no.


~ / __.,.•·,,,

thYrn froi£ 1 to 5. Pu~lofwater in


each flask;·- .l ild add l~ms of soap.

+ Warm the contents of test tube to get a 0


solution.

+ Take five test tubes, a~ f soap

solution to 3

[Repeat this pro ' ess for each oap Qtion in

~
+ Close the m oft test tubes; hake

it vigor I for J ii ame

for all t · equ 1 force.

+ Start the timer imme ·


0 s
Tesf Tube Time ta ken for disappearance of
Brand name of the soap
No........._____/./,,,,.J .··"···•.____ foam

l. Dove ll.42 min

2. Lux 3.28 min

3. Tetmosol

4. Santoor

s. Cinthol 9.40 min

P~1 J ,_,_
0
.,/

The Cleansing I pacity o 1'e(59aps t ken in o d


Santoor > Dove > inthol > Tet oso~Lux

From the above ~eri n infer that Santoor


has the highest forming apacity, i other words,
highest c l e a ~ cit , . Wherea , Lux has the
least time ~ for isap ar e of froth
proves it lea~ y · ~acity.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy