## 3 Results and Discussion
### Conductometric Study
Furthermore, the data obtained from the thermodynamic parameters are useful for determining the influence of environmental and structural contributions to CMC values, as well as observing the effects of novel structures and environmental deviations in the presence of various components. Meanwhile, in an ionic surfactant it has been stated that the values of \(\Delta G_{m}^{\circ}\) lie in the range from \(-23\) to \(-42\) kJ mol\({}^{-1}\) at 298.15 K [24]. It was noted that the values \(-29.51\) kJ mol\({}^{-1}\) for SDS in ethanol and \(-22.99\) kJ mol\({}^{-1}\) for SDS in cinnaldehyde + ethanol at the corresponding temperature lie in the reported range. There were more negative values of free energy of micellization, \(\Delta G_{m}^{\circ}\) in SDS with -E-OH mixtures than SDS + E-OH + CAD mixtures at all temperature from 298.15 to 313.15 K, observed experimentally. Moreover, the free energy of micellization \(\Delta G_{m}^{\circ}\) examined in Table 1 is negative for both systems at all temperature from 298.15 to 313.15 K. Therefore, the values of \(\Delta G_{m}^{\circ}\) of micellization are more for the SDS +E-OH system than in the SDS + E-OH + CAD system. This signifies the readiness and thermodynamically more spontaneous micellization of SDS with the E-OH mixture than the SDS + E-OH + CAD mixtures. It was noticed that the values of \(\Delta G_{m}^{\circ}\) increase with an increase in temperature, suggesting that the process of micellizations in both studied systems was thermodynamically spontaneous. It was recognized that the desolvation of the hydrophilic groups of the surfactants took place if the \(\Delta G_{m}^{\circ}\) values declined with increasing temperature [25]. Moreover, the observed increased negative values of \(\Delta G_{m}^{\circ}\) with elevated temperatures are because of the mutual effects of the \(\beta\) and ln \(X_{cmc}\)values. The \(\beta\) values increased while the ln \(X_{cmc}\) values decreased at higher temperatures and vice versa. The reason for the increased values of \(\beta\) with rising temperature is desolvation of the hydrogen bond which persisted among the H atoms of -OH groups of ethanol and the polar head groups of the SDS molecules. Sequentially, the surface charge density and electrostatic repulsions between head groups of SDS + E-OH + CAD molecules increased more with the elevated temperatures. Thus, it disfavors the process of micellization with increased temperatures. Similar to \(\Delta G_{m}^{\circ}\) values, the values of \(\Delta H_{m}^{\circ}\) are negative for all the systems at all temperatures. It is worth mentioning that the observed values of \(\Delta G_{m}^{\circ}\), \(\Delta H_{m}^{\prime}\) and \(\Delta S_{m}^{\circ}\) in E-OH + SDS were found to be \(-29.51\) kJ mol\({}^{-1}\), \(-13.06\) kJ mol\({}^{-1}\) and \(0.055\) kJ mol\({}^{-1}\) K\({}^{-1}\) at 298.15 K,respectively, and for SDS + E-OH + CAD were found to be \(-\)22.99 kJ mol\({}^{-1}\), \(-\)1.72 kJ mol\({}^{-1}\) and 0.071 kJ mol\({}^{-1}\) K\({}^{-1}\), which are much lower than the literature values \(-\)39.70 kJ mol\({}^{-1}\), \(-\)22.98 kJ mol\({}^{-1}\) and 0.06 kJ mol\({}^{-1}\) K\({}^{-1}\)[26], respectively, of SDS in pure water at the corresponding temperatures. Lower values of SDS in ethanol than in pure water may be explained by considering the nature of the solvent (ethanol). The marked difference in the thermodynamic parameters may be because of the relative permittivity of water (e = 79.99 at 293.15 K) and ethanol (e = 25.02 at 293 K) [27] is expected to affect the thermodynamic parameters of SDS in these media. The values of standard free energy of micellization becomes less negative with the addition of CAD which indicates that the micellization is less favored with the addition of CAD in the SDS ethanolic media.