Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:38:07.361Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Monolith formation and ring-stain suppression in low-pressure evaporation of poly(ethylene oxide) droplets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2012

Kyle A. Baldwin ,
Samuel Roest ,
David J. Fairhurst ,
Khellil Sefiane  and
Martin E. R. Shanahan
Kyle A. Baldwin
Affiliation:
School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG11 8NS, UK
Samuel Roest
Affiliation:
School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG11 8NS, UK
David J. Fairhurst*
Affiliation:
School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG11 8NS, UK
Khellil Sefiane
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, UK
Martin E. R. Shanahan
Affiliation:
Université de Bordeaux, Institut de Mécanique et d’Ingénierie–Bordeaux (UMR 5295), Bâtiment A4, 351, Cours de la Libération, 33405 Talence CEDEX, France
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When droplets of dilute suspensions are left to evaporate the final dry residue is typically the familiar coffee-ring stain, with nearly all material deposited at the initial triple line (Deegan et al., Nature, vol. 389, 1997, pp. 827–829). However, aqueous poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) droplets only form coffee-ring stains for a very narrow range of the experimental parameters molecular weight, concentration and drying rate. Instead, over a wide range of values they form either a flat disk or a very distinctive tall central monolith via a four-stage deposition process which includes a remarkable bootstrap-building step. To predict which deposit will form, we present a quantitative model comparing the effects of advective build-up at the triple line to diffusive flux and use this to calculate a dimensionless number . By experimentally varying concentration and flux (using a low-pressure drying chamber), the prediction is tested over nearly two orders of magnitude in both variables and shown to be in good agreement with the boundary between disks and monoliths at .

JFM classification

Phase change: Condensation/evaporation Drops and Bubbles: Drops Non-Newtonian Flows: Polymers
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 695 , 25 March 2012 , pp. 321 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Abramchuk, S. S., Khokhlov, A. R., Iwataki, T., Oana, H. & Yoshikawa, K. 2001 Direct observation of DNA molecules in a convection flow of a drying droplet. Eur. Phys. Lett. 55 (2), 294–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Askounis, A., Orejon, D., Koutsos, V., Sefiane, K. & Shanahan, M. E. R. 2011 Nanoparticle deposits near the contact line of pinned volatile droplets: size and shape revealed by atomic force microscopy. Soft Matt. 7, 4152–4155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Baldwin, K. A., Granjard, M., Willmer, D. I., Sefiane, K. & Fairhurst, D. J. 2011 Drying and deposition of poly(ethylene oxide) droplets determined by Peclet number. Soft Matt. 7, 7819–7826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Cazabat, A.-M. & Geoffroy, G. 2010 Evaporation of macroscopic sessile droplets. Soft Matt. 6, 2591–2612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Deegan, R. D., Bakajin, O., Dupont, T. F., Huber, G., Nagel, S. R. & Witten, T. A. 1997 Capillary flow as the cause of ring stains from dried liquid drops. Nature 389 (6653), 827–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Doi, M. & Edwards, S. F. 1998 The Theory of Polymer Dynamics. Clarendon.Google Scholar
7. Hammouda, B., Ho, D. L. & Kline, S. 2004 Insight into clustering in poly(ethylene oxide) solutions. Macromolecules 37 (18), 6932–6937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Hu, H. & Larson, R. G. 2002 Evaporation of a sessile droplet on a substrate. J. Phys. Chem. B 106 (6), 1334–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Hu, H. & Larson, R. G. 2006 Marangoni effect reverses coffee-ring depositions. J. Phys. Chem. B 110 (14), 7090–7094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Li, G. & Graf, K. 2009 Microstructures formation by deposition of toluene drops on polystyrene surface. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 11 (33), 7137–7144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Marín, Á. G., Gelderblom, H., Lohse, D. & Snoeijer, J. H. 2011 Order-to-disorder transition in ring-shaped colloidal stains. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 085502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Parisse, F. & Allain, C. 1997 Drying of colloidal suspension droplets: experimental study and profile renormalization. Langmuir 13 (14), 3598–3602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Pauchard, L. & Allain, C. 2003 Buckling instability induced by polymer solution drying. Eur. Phys. Lett. 62 (6), 897–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Rowan, S. M., Newton, M. I., Driewer, F. W. & McHale, G. 2000 Evaporation of microdroplets of azeotropic liquids. J. Phys. Chem. B 104 (34), 8217–8220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Stannard, A. 2011 Dewetting-mediated pattern formation in nanoparticle assemblies. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 23, 083001.Google ScholarPubMed
16. Willmer, D., Baldwin, K. A., Kwartnik, C. & Fairhurst, D. J. 2010 Growth of solid conical structures during multistage drying of sessile poly(ethylene oxide) droplets. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 12 (16), 3998–4004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Yunker, P. J., Still, T., Lohr, M. A. & Yodh, A. G. 2011 Suppression of the coffee-ring effect by shape-dependent capillary interactions. Nature 476, 308–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baldwin supplementary movie

Low pressure drying of 1.5% polymer solution droplet. A 10 μl droplet of PEO in water with initial concentration c0=0.015 is shown drying at a reduced pressure of 25mbar. The triple line of the droplet begins to recede at around 80 seconds, marking the start of stage 2. The remaining liquid begins to lift at 240 seconds (start of stage 3) and is completely enclosed by a dry skin at 400 seconds (start of stage 4).

Download Baldwin supplementary movie(Video)
Video 3 MB

Baldwin supplementary movie

Low pressure drying of 1.5% polymer solution droplet. A 10 μl droplet of PEO in water with initial concentration c0=0.015 is shown drying at a reduced pressure of 25mbar. The triple line of the droplet begins to recede at around 80 seconds, marking the start of stage 2. The remaining liquid begins to lift at 240 seconds (start of stage 3) and is completely enclosed by a dry skin at 400 seconds (start of stage 4).

Download Baldwin supplementary movie(Video)
Video 383.9 KB

Baldwin supplementary movie

Low pressure drying of 5% polymer solution droplet. A 10 μl droplet of PEO in water with initial concentration c0=0.05 is shown drying at a reduced pressure of 25mbar. The triple line of the droplet begins to recede at around 10 seconds (start of stage 2), then the remaining liquid begins to lift at 120 seconds (start of stage 3) and is completely enclosed by a dry skin at 400 seconds (start of stage 4). Stages 2 and 3 start noticeably earlier for this droplet than for the lower concentration droplet with c0=0.015.

Download Baldwin supplementary movie(Video)
Video 8 MB

Baldwin supplementary movie

Low pressure drying of 5% polymer solution droplet. A 10 μl droplet of PEO in water with initial concentration c0=0.05 is shown drying at a reduced pressure of 25mbar. The triple line of the droplet begins to recede at around 10 seconds (start of stage 2), then the remaining liquid begins to lift at 120 seconds (start of stage 3) and is completely enclosed by a dry skin at 400 seconds (start of stage 4). Stages 2 and 3 start noticeably earlier for this droplet than for the lower concentration droplet with c0=0.015.

Download Baldwin supplementary movie(Video)
Video 1.6 MB