An autonomous robotic module for efficient surface tension measurements of formulations
Source abstract
Abstract
Chemical space is vast, and the space of physical properties derived from it even more so. Despite over a century of physical chemistry measurements, we still lack large, well-organised data sets of key physical properties such as the interfacial tension of surfactant solutions. Access to such data sets is essential to developing the next generation of predictive models for physicochemical properties using modern approaches such as artificial intelligence and machine learning (ML). Thus, we require experimental methods which can efficiently provide large, reproducible and informative data sets. In this work, we developed a robotic, automated pendant drop module for the efficient characterisation of the interfacial properties of surfactant-containing solutions. Provided with surfactant stock solutions, the module measures a surface tension isotherm, from which multiple important physical properties can be determined, including the critical micelle concentration and the maximum surface excess concentration. The module handles critical experimental challenges and decisions such as choosing an appropriate drop volume, detecting failed measurements and selecting concentration points to measure. To obtain a maximally informative dataset, the platform leverages an active learning algorithm combining Bayesian inference and mutual information to dynamically design experiments in response to collected data. We validate the platform by characterising a range of surfactants and demonstrate the effectiveness of its capabilities by mapping the surface tension of binary surfactant mixtures. This module lays the foundation for efficiently and autonomously generating informative datasets of the interfacial properties of surfactant formulations, paving the way to the next generation of ML models for the prediction of formulation properties.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Machine Learning in Materials Science · Innovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation · Block Copolymer Self-Assembly
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (49)
Show source-provided references
1. Summers, M. & Eastoe, J. Applications of polymerizable surfactants. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 100–102, 137–152 (2003).10.1016/S0001-8686(02)00058-1 ↗
2. De, S., Malik, S., Ghosh, A., Saha, R. & Saha, B. A review on natural surfactants. RSC Adv. 5, 65757–65767 (2015).10.1039/C5RA11101C ↗
3. Yu, Y., Zhao, J. & Bayly, A. E. Development of surfactants and builders in detergent formulations. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 16, 517–527 (2008).10.1016/S1004-9541(08)60115-9 ↗
4. Baret, J.-C. Surfactants in droplet-based microfluidics. Lab Chip 12, 422–433 (2012).10.1039/C1LC20582J ↗
5. Ceresa, C., Fracchia, L., Fedeli, E., Porta, C. & Banat, I. M. Recent advances in biomedical, therapeutic and pharmaceutical applications of microbial surfactants. Pharmaceutics 13, 466 (2021).10.3390/pharmaceutics13040466 ↗
6. Kralova, I. & Sjöblom, J. Surfactants used in food industry: a review. J. Dispers. Sci. Technol. 30, 1363–1383 (2009).10.1080/01932690902735561 ↗
7. Seddon, D., Müller, E. A. & Cabral, J. T. Machine learning hybrid approach for the prediction of surface tension profiles of hydrocarbon surfactants in aqueous solution. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 625, 328–339 (2022).10.1016/j.jcis.2022.06.034 ↗
8. Chen, J. et al. Prediction of critical micelle concentration (CMC) of surfactants based on structural differentiation using machine learning. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 703, 135276 (2024).10.1016/j.colsurfa.2024.135276 ↗
9. Hödl, S. L. et al. SurfPro—a curated database and predictive model of experimental properties of surfactants. Digit. Discov. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4DD00393D (2025).10.1039/D4DD00393D ↗
10. Scholz, N., Behnke, T. & Resch-Genger, U. Determination of the critical micelle concentration of neutral and ionic surfactants with fluorometry, conductometry, and surface tension—a method comparison. J. Fluoresc. 28, 465–476 (2018).10.1007/s10895-018-2209-4 ↗
11. du Noüy, P. L. An interfacial tensiometer for universal use. J. Gen. Physiol. 7, 625–631 (1925).10.1085/jgp.7.5.625 ↗
12. Volpe, C. D. & Siboni, S. The Wilhelmy method: a critical and practical review. Surf. Innov. 6, 120–132 (2018).10.1680/jsuin.17.00059 ↗
13. Cottingham, M. G., Bain, C. D. & Vaux, D. J. Rapid method for measurement of surface tension in multiwell plates. Lab. Investig. 84, 523–529 (2004).10.1038/labinvest.3700054 ↗
14. Berry, J. D., Neeson, M. J., Dagastine, R. R., Chan, D. Y. C. & Tabor, R. F. Measurement of surface and interfacial tension using pendant drop tensiometry. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 454, 226–237 (2015).10.1016/j.jcis.2015.05.012 ↗
15. Pandi, A. et al. A versatile active learning workflow for optimization of genetic and metabolic networks. Nat. Commun. 13, 3876 (2022).10.1038/s41467-022-31245-z ↗
16. Seifrid, M. et al. Autonomous Chemical experiments: challenges and perspectives on establishing a self-driving lab. Acc. Chem. Res. 55, 2454–2466 (2022).10.1021/acs.accounts.2c00220 ↗
17. Shiri, P. et al. Automated solubility screening platform using computer vision. iScience 24, 102176 (2021).10.1016/j.isci.2021.102176 ↗
18. Soh, W. et al. Automated pipetting robot for proxy high-throughput viscometry of Newtonian fluids. Digit. Discov. 2, 481–488 (2023).10.1039/D2DD00126H ↗
19. Liang, Q. et al. Benchmarking the performance of Bayesian optimization across multiple experimental materials science domains. npj Comput. Mater. 7, 188 (2021).10.1038/s41524-021-00656-9 ↗
20. Lei, B. et al. Bayesian optimization with adaptive surrogate models for automated experimental design. npj Comput. Mater. 7, 194 (2021).10.1038/s41524-021-00662-x ↗
21. Rosen, M. J. Adsorption of surface-active agents at interfaces, adsorption isotherms. in Surfactants and Interfacial Phenomena (John Wiley & Sons, 2012).
22. Szyszkowski, Bvon Experimentelle Studien über kapillare Eigenschaften der wässerigen Lösungen von Fettsäuren. Z. Phys. Chem. 64U, 385–414 (1908).10.1515/zpch-1908-6425 ↗
23. Rubingh, D. N. Mixed micelle solutions. in Solution Chemistry of Surfactants Vol. 1 (ed. Mittal, K. L.) 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-7880-2_15 (Springer New York, 1979).10.1007/978-1-4615-7880-2_15 ↗
24. Wu, Y., Walsh, A. & Ganose, A. M. Race to the bottom: Bayesian optimisation for chemical problems. Digit. Discov. 3, 1086–1100 (2024).10.1039/D3DD00234A ↗
25. Slattery, A. et al. Automated self-optimization, intensification, and scale-up of photocatalysis in flow. Science 383, eadj1817 (2024).10.1126/science.adj1817 ↗
26. Pomberger, A. et al. Automated pH adjustment driven by robotic workflows and active machine learning. Chem. Eng. J. 451, 139099 (2023).10.1016/j.cej.2022.139099 ↗
27. Shields, B. J. et al. Bayesian reaction optimization as a tool for chemical synthesis. Nature 590, 89–96 (2021).10.1038/s41586-021-03213-y ↗
28. Al-Soufi, W., Piñeiro, L. & Novo, M. A model for monomer and micellar concentrations in surfactant solutions: application to conductivity, NMR, diffusion, and surface tension data. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 370, 102–110 (2012).10.1016/j.jcis.2011.12.037 ↗
29. Gittens, G. J. Variation of surface tension of water with temperature. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 30, 406–412 (1969).10.1016/0021-9797(69)90409-3 ↗
30. Misak, M. D. Equations for determining 1/H versus S values in computer calculations of interfacial tension by the pendent drop method. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 27, 141–142 (1968).10.1016/0021-9797(68)90020-9 ↗
31. Kalová, J. & Mareš, R. Temperature dependence of the surface tension of water, including the supercooled region. Int. J. Thermophys. 43, 154 (2022).10.1007/s10765-022-03077-y ↗
32. Hernáinz-Bermúdez de Castro, F., Gálvez-Borrego, A. & Calero-de Hoces, M. Surface tension of aqueous solutions of sodium dodecyl sulfate from 20 °C to 50 °C and pH between 4 and 12. J. Chem. Eng. Data 43, 717–718 (1998).10.1021/je9800149 ↗
33. Dankloff, P. F. J. et al. An autonomous robotic module for efficient surface tension measurements of formulations. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17232763 (2025).10.5281/zenodo.17232763 ↗
34. El-Hefian, E. A., & Yahaya, A. H. Investigation on some properties of SDS solutions. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 5, 1221–1227 (2011).
35. Hua, X. Y. & Rosen, M. J. Calculation of the coefficient in the Gibbs equation for the adsorption of ionic surfactants from aqueous binary mixtures with nonionic surfactants. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 87, 469–477 (1982).10.1016/0021-9797(82)90344-7 ↗
36. Rosen, M. J. Molecular interactions and synergism in mixtures of two surfactants. in Surfactants and Interfacial Phenomena (John Wiley & Sons, 2012).
37. Suzuki, N. Interaction parameters for the formation of mixed micelles and partitioning of solutes in them: a review. AppliedChem 4, 1–14 (2024).10.3390/appliedchem4010001 ↗
38. Serafini, P. et al. The aqueous Triton X-100—dodecyltrimethylammonium bromidemicellar mixed system. Experimental results and thermodynamic analysis. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 559, 127–135 (2018).10.1016/j.colsurfa.2018.09.027 ↗
39. Maneedaeng, A., Haller, K. J., Grady, B. P. & Flood, A. E. Thermodynamic parameters and counterion binding to the micelle in binary anionic surfactant systems. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 356, 598–604 (2011).10.1016/j.jcis.2011.01.008 ↗
40. Hoffman, M. D. & Gelman, A. The No-U-Turn sampler: adaptively setting path lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 15, 1593–1623 (2014).
41. Nelder, J. A. & Mead, R. A simplex method for function minimization. Comput. J. 7, 308–313 (1965).10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308 ↗
42. Ricardo, F. et al. Estimation and prediction of the air–water interfacial tension in conventional and peptide surface-active agents by random Forest regression. Chem. Eng. Sci. 265, 118208 (2023).10.1016/j.ces.2022.118208 ↗
43. Rosen, M. J., Cohen, A. W., Dahanayake, M. & Hua, X. Y. Relationship of structure to properties in surfactants. 10. Surface and thermodynamic properties of 2-dodecyloxypoly(ethenoxyethanol)s, C12H25(OC2H4)xOH, in aqueous solution. J. Phys. Chem. 86, 541–545 (1982).10.1021/j100393a025 ↗
44. Liu, X.-G., Xing, X.-J. & Gao, Z.-N. Synthesis and physicochemical properties of star-like cationic trimeric surfactants. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 457, 374–381 (2014).10.1016/j.colsurfa.2014.06.019 ↗
45. Yatcilla, M. T. et al. Phase behavior of aqueous mixtures of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) and sodium octyl sulfate (SOS). J. Phys. Chem. 100, 5874–5879 (1996).10.1021/jp952425r ↗
46. Shah, S. K., Chatterjee, S. K. & Bhattarai, A. The effect of methanol on the micellar properties of dodecyltrimethylammonium bromide (DTAB) in aqueous medium at different temperatures. J. Surfactants Deterg. 19, 201–207 (2016).10.1007/s11743-015-1755-x ↗
47. Lin, I. J. & Marszall, L. C. M. C. HLB, and effective chain length of surface-active anionic and cationic substances containing oxyethylene groups. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 57, 85–93 (1976).10.1016/0021-9797(76)90178-8 ↗
48. Woolfrey, S. G., Banzon, G. M. & Groves, M. J. The effect of sodium chloride on the dynamic surface tension of sodium dodecyl sulfate solutions. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 112, 583–587 (1986).10.1016/0021-9797(86)90129-3 ↗
49. Kaneshina, S., Tanaka, M., Tomida, T. & Matuura, R. Micelle formation of sodium alkylsulfate under high pressures. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 48, 450–460 (1974).10.1016/0021-9797(74)90189-1 ↗