Langmuir 2002, 18, 7761-7761 Reply to Comments on Fluorescence Study of Premicellar Aggregation in Cationic Gemini Surfactants
We wish to thank the author of the preceeding comments paper for performing a thorough review of the data presented in our originally reviewed publication (Mathias et al. Langmuir 2001, 17, 6148-6154) and greatly appreciate their constructive comments. It general, it appears that the main point of issue by the author is the level of sensitivity required for determination of aggregation numbers of gemini surfactants, which could potentially lie beyond the sensitivity of the fluorescence methodology employed in our studies. We have considered carefully the major issues of concern outlined and would like to address these points with the following comments: 1. We agree that measurement of small aggregalion numbers as detailed in our work is challenging. Although the author bases the arguments on speculative theoretical discussions, we believe (as detailed in the original text p 6149, line 56) that based on the reproducibility of our results (within 10%), very low aggregation numbers are evident for gemini surfactants, while we agree that the quoted value for the aggregation number (2) may not be absolute. Additionally, such small aggregation numbers (
