Laboratory Experiment

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Binary Phase Diagrams at the Air−Water Interface: An Experiment

for Undergraduate Physical Chemistry Students
Molly C. Larsen*
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, United States
*
S Supporting Information

ABSTRACT: An experiment is described where students determine the

binary phase diagram of mixed monolayer films of pentadecanoic acid
(C15H30O2) and isopalmitic acid (C16H32O2). They do this by using
Langmuir−Blodgett troughs to measure isotherms, surface pressure (π)
measurements as a function of surface area, of the mixed films above an
aqueous surface. The experiment is appropriate for third-year physical
chemistry students. Students determine the surface pressure of the start of
the phase transition between the liquid expanded (LE) phase and the tilted
condensed (TC) phase from their isotherms and use it to obtain a boundary
line between the LE and coexistence region. They also calculate the mole
fraction of the solution in the tilted condensed phase at the pressure where
the beginning of the LE to TC transition occurs to obtain the boundary line
between the coexistence region and the TC region, allowing the students to
create a binary phase diagram for the LE to TC transition. Students also integrate their isotherms to determine the free energy of
mixing of their solutions at two surface pressures. This experiment allows for several variations with different types of phase
diagrams, and students seemed to enjoy the more modern take on the classic binary phase diagram experiment.
KEYWORDS: Upper-Division Undergraduate, Environmental Chemistry, Laboratory Instruction, Physical Chemistry,
Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Phases/Phase Transitions/Diagrams, Surface Science

T he experiment to determine the binary phase diagram of

mixtures by measuring cooling curves is a classic third-
year physical chemistry experiment.1−3 More modern techni-
surface area is called a pressure−area isotherm. The pressure−
area isotherm is obtained by using a pressure sensor and
Wilhelmy plate to monitor the pressure of the surface while the
ques such as differential scanning calorimetery,4,5 fusion surface area available to the surfactant molecules is decreased in
microscopy,4 and Raman spectroscopy6 have also been used a Langmuir−Blodgett trough (Figure 1). A Langmuir−Blodgett
in physical chemistry laboratories to determine binary phase
diagrams of mixtures. The experiment presented here is a
variation of these experiments where the binary phase diagram
is determined for a mixture of surfactant molecules at a surface
using a Langmuir−Blodgett trough. Langmuir−Blodgett
troughs are currently used in many research laboratories to
understand the properties of surfaces and surfactant molecules
at surfaces. Understanding the properties of surfactant
molecules is important in biochemistry7,8 because of their
role as lung surfactants9−12 and in atmospheric chemistry
because of their presence in aerosols as oxidative products of
organic contaminants.13−15 In this experiment students
measure surface pressure versus area isotherms and use them Figure 1. A schematic of a Langmuir−Boldgett trough.
to understand the properties of surfactant molecules at an air−
water interface. trough is a trough made out of Teflon with movable barriers

■ BACKGROUND
The surface tension is the work required to create a surface
isothermally per unit area of surface. The “surface pressure”, π,
is a measure of the difference between the surface tension when
the surface is covered in a surfactant and the surface tension of
the bare surface.16 The plot of the surface pressure versus the
© 2014 American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
that sit on top of a solvent, such as water, that fills the bottom
of the trough. To obtain a pressure−area isotherm, surfactant
molecules are placed on the surface of the water between the
two barriers and the barriers are moved closer together. As the
area between the barriers is decreased, the water flows under
Published: February 6, 2014
597 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4004854 | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 597−601
Journal of Chemical Education
the barriers but the surfactant molecules remain confined to the
surface between the two barriers. As the area decreases, the
surface pressure increases and the phase of the surface
monolayer changes. A Langmuir pressure sensor with a
Wilhelmy plate can be used to measure the surface pressure
of a liquid. The Wilhelmy plate is a rectangular piece of filter
paper that is partially submerged in the water’s surface, and the
pressure sensor is a very sensitive measurer of the downward
force being exerted on the Wilhelmy plate. The surface pressure
is monitored as a function of surface area at constant
temperature to obtain the pressure−area isotherm. The
pressure−area isotherm provides information about the differ-
ent phases of the surfactant molecules at the surface.17
A typical pressure−area isotherm for a single component
substance is shown in Figure 2.17 When the surfactant is
Figure 2. A typical pressure−area isotherm of a pure surfactant
monolayer. Cartoons of the different phases and the pressures of
where the phase changes and collapse occur are shown in the
isotherm.
deposited and the Teflon barriers in the Langmuir tough are all
the way open, the molecules do not interact much with each
other and they behave as if they are in a “gaseous” state. As the
barriers move closer together, the surfactant molecules begin to
interact as the monolayer changes phase from the gaseous state
to the liquid expanded (LE) state. In this state, there is
interaction between the surfactant molecules but both the
hydrophilic heads and the hydrophobic tails are disordered.
Further compression causes a transition from the liquid
expanded phase to the tilted condensed (TC) phase.17,18
This phase change is seen as a region in the isotherm where
decreasing the area does not cause an increase in the pressure.
In the tilted condensed phase the monolayer is less
compressible than it was in the liquid expanded phase and
the surfactant molecules are ordered on the surface, with their
hydrocarbon tails pointing at an angle relative to the
perpendicular of the surface. Further compression causes a
kink in the pressure−area isotherm indicating another phase
transition to the untilted condensed state (UTC), a state where
the hydrocarbon tails are aligned perpendicular to the plane of
the surface.17 Compressing the monolayer even further leads to
a collapse state where the pressure drops sharply (or exhibits a
sharp break) as the monolayer forms three-dimensional
structures because the surface is no longer stable.17,19 Some
surfactant molecules do not exhibit all the surface phases
described above. Isopalmitic acid, for example, does not have a
transition between the liquid expanded state and the tilted
condensed state (Figure 3).20 The pressure of this surfactant
598
Laboratory Experiment
continues to increase in the liquid expanded state until the
surfactant undergoes collapse.
Figure 3. Typical pressure vs area isotherms obtained by students for
40 μL of 1.85 mM solutions of pentadecanoic acid and isopalmitic acid
deposited on a Langmuir trough surface. The mole fraction of
isopalmitic acid in the deposited solution is represented by x.
Pressure−area isotherms of mixtures can be used to obtain
the two-dimensional phase diagram of binary mixtures at the
surface. The isotherms of mixtures are similar to, but more
complicated than, the isotherms of the pure components.19−23
The surfactant molecules can be either miscible or immiscible.
If the two surfactants are immiscible, then πphasechange does not
depend on composition and the component with a lower
phase-change pressure will still undergo the phase change at the
lower pressure, and the component with the higher phase-
change pressure will also undergo a phase change at the higher
pressure. If the components are miscible, then πphasechange will
vary with composition.19 For miscible films, the phase change
between the liquid expanded and tilted condensed phase does
not occur at a single pressure for most compositions but rather
there is an increase in the surface pressure during the transition
between these two phases.19,21 This leads to a coexistence
region in the phase diagram, analogous to what is seen in phase
diagrams of non-surface mixtures.
■
EXPERIMENTAL OVERVIEW
In the physical chemistry lab at the University of Colorado,
Boulder (CU), students have a three-hour lab that meets once a
week with two weeks allotted to complete each experiment.
Students worked in pairs, and two Langmuir−Blodgett trough
setups were available for the lab. Because the students typically
find that the calculations for this experiment are difficult, the lab
was designed so that the experiments were completed during
the first week, allowing the students to seek assistance with
calculations the following week. Isotherms were collected for
pure pentadecanoic acid, pure isopalmitic acid, and solutions of
0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 mol fraction isopalmitic acid (with the
balance pentadecanoic acid) all in hexanes. It was possible for
the students to complete all 6 isotherms in the three-hour lab
period, and nearly every group completed the experiment in the
allotted time. If one group did not finish all 6 isotherms, they
were allowed to share data between two groups.
Solutions were prepared using pentadecanoic acid (Sigma
Aldrich, ∼99% (capillary GC)) and isopalmitic acid (Sigma
Aldrich, >98% (capillary GC)) in hexanes (Sigma Aldrich,
mixture of isomers, ACS reagent, 98.5%). All of the solutions
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4004854 | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 597−601
Journal of Chemical Education
were 1.85 mM of total surfactant molecules. Solutions were
provided for the students because it was more cost efficient to
make all the solutions in one batch given the high cost of the
isopalmitic acid. Distilled water was used to prepare the HCl
solutions, to clean the trough, and to test that the trough was
clean. Details of how the solutions were prepared are provided
in the Supporting Information. The Langmuir−Blodgett trough
setup consists of a Teflon Langmuir−Blodgett trough, a surface
pressure sensor that uses a Wilhelmy paper plate to measure
the surface pressure, a microprocessor interface unit, and a
computer for collecting the data.24 The trough is covered with a
plexiglass box to prevent air currents in the room from
disrupting the pressure sensor and to help keep dust off the
trough surface. This plexiglass box has notches cut in it at the
bottom through which the cords that attach the pressure sensor
and the trough to the microprosessor feed. These cords are
taped to the table to stabilize them. Concentrations of the
surfactants were chosen so that good isotherms were obtained
when the trough had an area of ∼330 cm2 when the barriers
were all the way open and ∼50 cm2 when the barriers were all
the way closed. Scans were run with a compression speed of 75
cm2/min. The pressure sensor and the trough interfaced with
the computer through a microprocessor interface (IU4)
purchased from KSV NIMA. The computer also ran software
purchased from KSV NIMA.25 However, the entire Langmuir−
Blodgett trough system can be purchased from KSV NIMA.26
Students began by determining that their trough was clean by
collecting an isotherm of distilled water and confirming that it
was flat (the pressure did not increase or decrease by more than
0.2 mN/m over the area range of the trough). Students then
vacuumed the water off the surface using a glass pipet attached
with tubing to a vacuum pump27 with a large Erlenmeyer flask
as a primary trap and a second trap surrounded by an ice water
bath to prevent any water from getting into the pump. This
pump could be replaced by a water aspirator, which was found
to work just as well. The students then replaced the water with
a solution of 0.01 M HCl and again confirmed that the surface
was clean. The 0.01 M HCl solution was used instead of water
because the fatty acids are less soluble in the subphase at this
pH resulting in a more stable film.20 Students then deposited
40 μL of one of their solutions onto the trough between the
barriers using a 50 μL syringe and needle. The students then
waited 5 min for the hexanes to evaporate and collected
another isotherm. Once the isotherm showed evidence of
collapse (as indicated by the pressure decreasing with
decreasing surface area), the students stopped the scan, opened
the barriers, and saved the data. The trough was cleaned by
removing all the solution from the trough, replacing it with
water, removing the water, then covering the trough with a new
0.01 M HCl solution and checking that the trough was clean. If
the trough did not appear clean, it was likely because the
students did not wait long enough for the Wilhelmy paper plate
to be completely wetted by the HCl solution. This issue was
usually resolved by having the students wait 5 min with the
paper in the solution before once again checking that the
surface was clean. Further details of how the experiment was
done are provided in the student handout in the Supporting
Information.
■
HAZARDS
The solutions of HCl used in this experiment are dilute, but
students should avoid skin contact. Students should avoid
inhaling hexanes and should wear nitrile gloves to avoid getting
599
Laboratory Experiment
the hexanes on their skin. Pentadecanoic acid and isopalmitic
acid can cause skin and eye irritation and may cause respiratory
irritation. Solutions should be made in the fume hood, and
nitrile gloves should be worn when making and working with
the solutions. Pentadecanoic acid is also harmful to aquatic life
and should not be put in the sink. Avoid contact with bases,
oxidizing agents, and reducing agents. The needles should be
cleaned with hexanes in the fume hood. Students should be
careful not to poke themselves with the needles. Goggles
should be worn throughout the experiment.
■ RESULTS
This experiment was performed for three semesters by 10
different groups, and all the students who performed the
experiment were able to obtain isotherms with the correct
shapes. Details about the reproducibility of the results are
presented in the Supporting Information. Typical isotherms
from a student’s experiment are shown in Figure 3. The
pressure obtained for the phase change between the LE phase
and the TC phase is lower than what was seen in the
literature.28 This is likely because of the calibration of the
pressure sensor; however, this difference did not qualitatively
affect the results.
For the pure pentadecanoic acid, the phase change from the
liquid expanded phase to the tilted condensed phase occurs all
at one pressure (πeq) because for the pure surfactant there is
only one degree of freedom during this phase transition.
Transitions between the TC phase and the untilted condensed
phase (UTC) can also be observed for the pure pentadecanoic
acid solutions as a kink in the isotherm at ∼25 mN/m (Figure
3). Students use this isotherm to obtain the zero pressure area
of all three phases of this surfactant giving them an idea of the
size of the surfactant molecules and how the surface area per
molecule changes with phase. For the pure isopalmitic acid and
for the solution that has an isopalmitic mole fraction of 0.8, no
phase transition between the LE and TC phases was observed.
This surfactant exists in the LE phase until collapse occurs.20
This is likely because the branched tails of the isopalmitic acid
molecules do not allow for the good packing necessary to form
the TC phase.20,29 Therefore, there is only one phase in the
phase diagram seen for the higher mole fractions of isopalmitic
acid.20
For the surfactant mixtures where a phase change between
the LE and TC phases occurs, the phase change between the
LE and TC phases starts with an abrupt change in the slope of
the isotherm. The pressure where this abrupt change of slope
occurs is called the equilibrium surface pressure, πeq. The
pressure continues to increase as the phase change occurs as
there is an added degree of freedom in the mixture.19 The
pressure where the TC phase has completely formed is difficult
to determine directly from the graph as there is no abrupt
change in slope. Therefore, instead of finding the pressure
where the coexistence region ends, students use the following
formula19−21 to find xtci , the composition of component i in the
mixture in the tilted condensed phase at the surface pressure
πeq:
(Atc − Ale)xile(1 − xile) ⎛ ∂π eq ⎞
xitc = xile + ⎜⎜ le ⎟⎟
kT ⎝ ∂xi ⎠ (1)
T ,P
where i denotes the component (pentadecanoic acid or
isopalmitic acid) with the mole fraction x, xlei is the composition
of component i in the liquid expanded state at πeq (same as the
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4004854 | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 597−601
Journal of Chemical Education
starting solutions), Ale and Atc are the mean area per molecule
of the liquid expanded state and the tilted condensed state of
the mixture, respectively, at the pressure πeq, k is Boltzmann’s
constant, T is the temperature, in absolute temperature units,
and (∂πeq/∂xlei )T,P is the derivative of the equilibrium surface
pressure, πeq, with respect to the composition of the liquid
expanded state at constant temperature and external pressure.
Details of how to obtain Ale and Atc from the isotherms are
presented Figure 4.20,30−34 Students who did their calculations
correctly found phase diagrams similar to what is expected from
the literature.20
Figure 4. Schematic of how the mean area per molecule of the liquid
expanded state (Ale) and mean area per molecule of the tilted
condensed state (Atc) are obtained from a typical mixture isotherm.
Finally, if the students assume that the surface consists only
of pentadecanoic acid and isopalmitic acid molecules (and the
presence of the water is ignored), then ΔGπmix, the free energy
of mixing at a given pressure, can be calculated using the
following equation19,21,35
π
ΔGmix = RT (x1 ln(x1) + x 2 ln(x 2))
π the University of Colorado, Boulder, for building and
+ ∫π→0 (σ12 − x1σ1 − x2σ2) dπ (2)
where x1 is the mole fraction of component 1, x2 is the mole
fraction of component 2, σ1 is the area per mole of pure
component 1, σ2 is the area per mole of pure component 2, and
σ12 is the area per mole of the mixture. Students calculate this
for π = 2 mN/m and π = 18 mN/m for each of their solutions.
The integrations are done numerically using a spreadsheet
program, and the last two integral terms only need to be done
once for each of the pressures. The students figure out how to
do the numerical integration themselves, and they are allowed
to use any numerical integration technique they choose. This
exercise is a good way for them to use the numerical techniques
they learned in their calculus class.
■ CONCLUSIONS
The results obtained in this experiment were very reliable, and
all students obtained isotherms with the correct qualitative
shape for their solutions. Students also seemed to enjoy the
more modern take on the classic two-component phase-
diagram experiment. Students found the calculations to be
challenging but not beyond their capability. This experiment
600
Laboratory Experiment
has also been an excellent exercise in unit conversions as
students had to convert back and forth between microscopic
and macroscopic units. The data analysis in this experiment was
mathematically rigorous in that it required students to do
numerical integrations, fit data, and take derivatives of the data
they had fit. For all the calculations though it was possible to
look at the raw data to determine if the answer they obtained
was at least the correct order of magnitude, which allowed the
students to make corrections if there were errors in their
calculations.
There are several simple ways to modify this experiment. The
phase diagram for the surfactants chosen here did not have an
azeotrope nor eutectic point,20 but many other surfactant
mixtures do.19,21 If time allowed, it would be possible to have
students try several different mixtures to try to understand what
type of interactions lead to ideal or nonideal mixing. Also, with
the availability of temperature dependent troughs, temperature
dependent phase diagrams can be determined.17 These
modifications would be easy to make, leading to large changes
in the scope of the experiment with the only added cost being
the cost of the surfactant chemicals.
■
*
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information
Experimental handouts, discussion on reproducibility of the
experiment, instructions for setting up the instrument, and
instructions for making the solutions. This material is available
via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: Molly.larsen@colorado.edu.
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to extend thanks to the CIRES/Department of
Chemistry and Biochemistry electronics and machine shop at
maintaining the Langmuir troughs and to Veronica Vaida and
Jessica Gilman for initially setting up the troughs at CU for use
in the student laboratories. I would also like to thank Alan
Foster for loaning the advanced laboratories the trough setups.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Shoemaker, D. P.; Garland, C.; Nibler, J. Experiments in Physical
Chemistry, 6th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1996; pp 215−222.
(2) Blanchette, P. P. The Binary Liquid-Solid Phase Diagram of
Naphthalene-p-dichlorobenzene. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64 (3), 267−
268.
(3) Daniels, F. A., R. A.; Williams, J. W.; Cornwell, C. D.; Bender, P.;
Harriman, J. E. Experimental Physical Chemistry, 7th ed.; McGraw-Hill
Book Company: New York, 1970; pp 123−128.
(4) Williams, K. R.; Collins, S. E. The Solid-Liquid Phase Diagram
Experiment - Updated for the Physical Chemistry Laboratory. J. Chem.
Educ. 1994, 71 (7), 617−620.
(5) D’Amelia, R. P.; Clark, D.; Nirode, W. An Undergraduate
Experiment Using Differential Scanning Calorimetry: A Study of the
Thermal Properties of a Binary Eutectic Alloy of Tin and Lead. J.
Chem. Educ. 2011, 89 (4), 548−551.
(6) Scardino, D. J.; Howard, A. A.; McDowell, M. D.; Hammer, N. I.
Raman Spectroscopy as the Method of Detection for Constructing a
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4004854 | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 597−601
Journal of Chemical Education Laboratory Experiment

Binary Liquid-Vapor Phase Diagram. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (8), (26) Biolin Scientific, Inc. 514 Progress Drive, Suite G, Linthicum
1162−1165. Heights, MD 21090. http://www.ksvnima.com (accessed Jan 2014).
(7) Seoane, R.; Minones, J.; Conde, O. Thermodynamic and (27) Vacuubrand ME1. http://www.vacuubrand.com/en-pageID994.
Brewster Angle Microscopy Studies of Fatty Acid/Cholesterol php (accessed Jan 2014).
Mixtures at the Air/Water Interface. J. Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104, (28) Moore, B. G.; Knobler, C. M.; Akamatsu, S.; Rondelez, F. Phase-
7735−7744. Diagram of Langmuir Monolayers of Pentadecanoic Acid -
(8) Griffith, E. C.; Vaida, V. In situ observation of peptide bond Quantitative Comparison of Surface Pressure and Fluorescence
formation at the water-air interface. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, Microscopy Results. J. Phys. Chem. 1990, 94 (11), 4588−4595.
109 (39), 15697−15701. (29) Gaines, G. L., Jr. Insoluble Monolayers at Liquid-Gas Interfaces;
(9) Guzman, E.; Liggieri, L.; Santini, E.; Ferrari, M.; Ravera, F. Interscience Publishers: New York, NY, 1966.
DPPC-DOPC Langmuir monolayers modified by hydrophilic silica (30) Bouloussa, O.; Dupeyrat, M. Chiral Discrimination in N-
nanoparticles: Phase behaviour, structure and rheology. Colloids Surf., Tetradecanoylalanine and N-Tetradecanoylalanine Ditetradecanoyl-
A 2012, 413, 174−183. phosphatidylcholine Monolayers. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1988, 938 (3),
(10) Panda, A. K.; Nag, K.; Harbottle, R. R.; Rodriguez-Capote, K.; 395−402.
Veldhuizen, R. A. W.; Petersen, N. O.; Possmayer, F. Effect of acute (31) Shibata, O.; Kaneshina, S.; Nakamura, M.; Matuura, R.
lung injury on structure and function of pulmonary surfactant films. Monolayers of Alkylammonium Alkanesulfonates. Bull. Chem. Soc.
Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 2004, 30 (5), 641−650. Jpn. 1982, 55 (7), 2243−2247.
(11) Saleem, M.; Galla, H. J. Surface view of the lateral organization (32) Motomura, K.; Iwanaga, S. I.; Yamanaka, M.; Aratono, M.;
of lipids and proteins in lung surfactant model systems-A ToF-SIMS Matuura, R. Thermodynamic Studies on Adsorption at Interfaces 5.
Adsorption From Micellar Solution. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1982, 86
approach. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr. 2010, 1798 (4), 730−740.
(1), 151−157.
(12) Zasadzinski, J. A.; Stenger, P. C.; Shieh, I.; Dhar, P. Overcoming
(33) Motomura, K.; Ikematsu, M.; Hayami, Y.; Matuo, H.; Matuura,
rapid inactivation of lung surfactant: Analogies between competitive
R. Negative Azeotropic Transformation in Mixed Monolayers of
adsorption and colloid stability. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr.
Octadecylammonium Chloride and Tetradecanoic Acid. Bull. Chem.
2010, 1798 (4), 801−828. Soc. Jpn. 1980, 53 (8), 2217−2220.
(13) Feingold, G.; Chuang, P. Y. Analysis of the influence of film- (34) Note that there is not an exact way to find the mean area per
forming compounds on droplet growth: Implications for cloud molecule of the tilted condensed phase from the isotherm. Many
microphysical processes and climate. J. Atmos. Sci. 2002, 59 (12), different methods are used in the literature to estimate this value. The
2006−2018. one chosen here was chosen because it is simple for the students to
(14) Donaldson, D. J.; Vaida, V. The influence of organic films at the obtain from their data and because it is the one that seems to be the
air-aqueous boundary on atmospheric processes. Chem. Rev. 2006, 106 most commonly used in the literature.
(4), 1445−1461. (35) Goodrich, F. C. In Molecular Interaction in Mixed Monolayers.
(15) Griffith, E. C.; Adams, E. M.; Allen, H. C.; Vaida, V. Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of Surface Activity, London;
Hydrophobic Collapse of a Stearic Acid Film by Adsorbed L- London, 1957.
Phenylalanine at the Air-Water Interface. J. Phys. Chem. B 2012, 116
(27), 7849−7857.
(16) Atkins, P.; De Paula, J. Physical Chemistry, 7th ed.; W.H.
Freeman and Company: New York, 2002; pp 150−151 and 757−758.
(17) Kaganer, V. M.; Mohwald, H.; Dutta, P. Structure and phase
transitions in Langmuir monolayers. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1999, 71 (3),
779−819.
(18) The tilted condensed phase is sometimes also referred to as the
liquid condensed state in the literature.
(19) Dorfler, H. D. Mixing Behavior of Binary Insoluble
Phospholipid Monolayers - Analysis of the Mixing Properties of
Binary Lecithin and Cephalin Systems by Application of Several
Surface and Spreading Techniques. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 1990, 31
(1−2), 1−110.
(20) Matuo, H.; Cadenhead, D. A. Mixed Monolayers of Straight and
Branched-Chain Fatty-Acids 1. Mixed Monolayers of N-Tridecanoic,
N-Tetradecanoic and N-Pentadecanoic Acids with the Iso-Fatty Acids
13-Methyltetradecanoic Acid, 14-Methylpentadecanoic Acid, 15-
Methylpentadecanoic Acid, 16-Methylpentadecanoic Acid, and 17-
Methylpentadecanoic Acid. Colloids Surf. 1989, 41 (3−4), 287−301.
(21) Motomura, K. Thermodynamics of Interfacial Monolayers. Adv.
Colloid Interface Sci. 1980, 12 (1), 1−42.
(22) Motomura, K. Thermodynamics of Multicomponent Mono-
layers 1. General Formulation. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1974, 48 (2),
307−318.
(23) Motomura, K.; Sekita, K.; Matuura, R. Thermodynamics of
Multicomponent Monolayers 2. Phase Transitions in Two Compo-
nent Monolayers. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1974, 48 (2), 319−326.
(24) The Langmuir−Blodgett troughs and surface pressure sensors
were built in the University of Colorado CIRES/Department
Chemistry and Biochemistry electronics and machine shop.
(25) The software used was Nima516 version of the NIMA software.
This is the version of the software that the instructions are given for in
the handout. Different versions of the software will have slightly
different instructions.

601 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4004854 | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 597−601