1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The influence of weak attractive forces on the microstructure and rheology of colloidal dispersions
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1122/1.1859792
/content/sor/journal/jor2/49/2/10.1122/1.1859792
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/sor/journal/jor2/49/2/10.1122/1.1859792

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

(a) Form factor: Comparison of measured form factor with the calculated value Eq. (14) for silica in . (b) Form factor: Comparison of measured form factor with the calculated value Eq. (14) assuming the scattering is from the silica particles. , , and gelatin is .

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Osmotic potential with , , , attractive and . It is assumed that the adsorbed layer is incompressible, hence the potential diverges at .

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Comparison of structure factor for the osmotic overlap model with depletion attractions [Eq. (28)] from the solution of the Percus-Yevick equation [Eqs. (15) and (16), solid line] compared with the model of Menon et al. (1991) [Eqs. (18)–(25)] using the effective hard-sphere diameter Eq. (30). Core , corona with osmotic pressure in the layer and of 0.25.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Measured zero-shear relative viscosities for silica in gelatin vs model predictions at , salt, and 8 [Krishnamurty et al. (2004)]. The solid line is Eq. (2) and the dashed line Eq. (3), both with the effective hard sphere size determined from the osmotic overlap potential and Eq. (30). The uncertainty in data is of order of the symbol size.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Measured SANS for silica in gelatin vs model predictions at , salt, and 8. The solid line is the effective hard-sphere prediction. The intensities are shifted vertically for clarity.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Measured zero-sphere relative viscosities for silica in gelatin vs model fit at , salt, and 8. The dashed line is the prediction of Eq. (9) with . The solid line is the prediction of Eq. (9) with . The uncertainty in data is of order of the symbol size.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Measured SANS for silica in gelatin vs model predictions at , salt, and 8. The solid line is the adhesive hard-sphere prediction. The parameters are tabulated in Table IV. The intensities are shifted vertically for clarity.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Measured zero-shear relative viscosities for silica in gelatin vs model at , salt, and 8. The dashed line is the prediction of Eq. (2) accounting for osmotic repulsion in the brush and the solid line is the prediction of the Eq. (9) accounting for additional depletion attractions., The parameters are tabulated in Table V.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Measured SANS for silica in gelatin vs model predictions at , salt, and 8. The gelatin concentration is varied as noted. The solid line is the adhesive hard-sphere prediction. The dashed line is the prediction of the effective hard-sphere model without attractions. The parameters are tabulated in Table VI. The intensities are shifted vertically for clarity.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Relative viscosity of gelatin coated particles at different plotted as a function of the bare colloid concentration from Vaynberg and Wagner (2001) 5.8(▾), 6.5(∎) and 8(▴), Hone et al. (2000) PS on salt (◆) and no salt in 0.5% gelatin (▶) and this work (●).

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

Data rescaled with calculated volume fraction and corrected for attractions from Vaynberg and Wagner (2001) 5.8 (▾), 6.5(∎) and 8(▴), Hone et al. (2000) PS no salt(◆) and PS no salt in 0.5% gelatin (▶) and this work(●). The parameters are tabulated in Table VII. Also shown for reference are predictions of hard sphere equation Eq. (2) with (solid line) and Eq. (3) (dashed line).

Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

Relative viscosity of gelatin coated particles for different gelatins plotted as a function of the effective colloid concentration from Hone and Howe (2002) Gel A with corona thickness measured from DLS (▾), Gel B corona (◻) and Gel D with a corona (▴). The bare particle was in diameter. Data plotted with volume fraction rescaled with half the reported hydrodynamic layer thickness. The dotted line is the prediction of Eq. (2) with a hard-sphere size based on the reported DLS diameter for the particle. Dashed line is the prediction of Eq. (2) and the solid line is the prediction of Eq. (9) with , both accounting for brush overlap.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Material properties.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Scattering length densities of individual components.

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

Osmotic pressure parameters [Eq. (31)] for gelatin.

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

Parameters for SANS prediction in Fig. 7. The FWHM of neutrons is 14.7% and polydispersity is 8%. was calculated from parameters reported in Table II.

Generic image for table
TABLE V.

Parameters for predicting the data presented in Fig. 8. Silica volume fraction is 0.043. .

Generic image for table
TABLE VI.

Parameters for SANS prediction in Fig. 9.

Generic image for table
TABLE VII.

Rheological parameters for Fig. 11.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/sor/journal/jor2/49/2/10.1122/1.1859792
2005-03-01
2014-04-16
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: The influence of weak attractive forces on the microstructure and rheology of colloidal dispersions
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/sor/journal/jor2/49/2/10.1122/1.1859792
10.1122/1.1859792
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM