A Unified Model to Predict Electrophoresis in Porous Media and Free Electrolytes
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Current theories of electrophoresis have focused on a free concentrated or dilute electrolyte in the absence of porous media, or porous media saturated with a dilute electrolyte. A predictive model for electrophoresis in porous media saturated with a concentrated electrolyte is lacking. Here, a mathematical model is developed to compute the electrophoretic mobility of a charged colloid in porous media saturated with a concentrated electrolyte. The model is unified in that it can also predict electrophoresis in porous media saturated with a dilute electrolyte, as well as electrophoresis in a free concentrated or dilute electrolyte. Three novel key findings are reported. First, without fitting parameters, the present model captures the electrophoretic mobility sign reversal in a free monovalent electrolyte reported in recent experiments. Second, the present model captures the electrophoretic mobility from experiments with porous media saturated with a concentrated or dilute electrolyte. Third, the present model predicts a novel electrophoretic mobility sign reversal in porous media saturated with an electrolyte. The present model can be used to understand and predict electrophoresis in a wide range of applications, including gel electrophoresis, nanoparticle drug delivery, and soil remediation.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Electrostatics and Colloid Interactions · Microfluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications · Nanopore and Nanochannel Transport Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Chemical Engineering University of Florida Gainesville FL 32611 USA
Department of Chemical Engineering Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, and Department of Mathematics University of Florida Gainesville FL 32611 USA
Funding
American Chemical Society Petroleum Research Fund
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1146/annurev.fl.09.010177.00154110.1146/annurev.fl.09.010177.001541 ↗
2. Hunter R. J. · 1981
3. 10.1146/annurev.fl.21.010189.00042510.1146/annurev.fl.21.010189.000425 ↗
4. 10.1021/la049524t10.1021/la049524t ↗
5. 10.1017/CBO978051176072310.1017/CBO9780511760723 ↗
6. 10.1039/C6SM01685E10.1039/C6SM01685E ↗
7. Lee E. · 2018
8. 10.1016/j.cis.2019.06.00710.1016/j.cis.2019.06.007 ↗
9. 10.1002/elps.20190004810.1002/elps.201900048 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.cocis.2022.10158710.1016/j.cocis.2022.101587 ↗
11. 10.1126/science.172.3982.44010.1126/science.172.3982.440 ↗
12. 10.1021/jp026144c10.1021/jp026144c ↗
13. 10.1021/jp065041h10.1021/jp065041h ↗
14. 10.1021/ja104909310.1021/ja1049093 ↗
15. 10.5772/220510.5772/2205 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.jcis.2014.04.02410.1016/j.jcis.2014.04.024 ↗
17. 10.1080/1539445X.2016.118367510.1080/1539445X.2016.1183675 ↗
18. 10.1038/208681a010.1038/208681a0 ↗
19. 10.1016/S0022-0728(72)80221-310.1016/S0022-0728(72)80221-3 ↗
20. 10.1021/la000519910.1021/la0005199 ↗
21. 10.1006/jcis.2002.837810.1006/jcis.2002.8378 ↗
22. Delgado A. V. · 2002
23. 10.1016/j.jcis.2005.03.04510.1016/j.jcis.2005.03.045 ↗
24. 10.1007/s10404-010-0647-710.1007/s10404-010-0647-7 ↗
25. 10.1007/s10404-011-0884-410.1007/s10404-011-0884-4 ↗
26. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b0336110.1021/acs.langmuir.6b03361 ↗
27. 10.1073/pnas.241775712210.1073/pnas.2417757122 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.04.00210.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.04.002 ↗
29. 10.1002/adma.20210731510.1002/adma.202107315 ↗
30. Pamukcu S. · J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A‐Toxic/Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng. · 2008 · 43 · 934
31. 10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.01.01410.1016/j.advwatres.2012.01.014 ↗
32. 10.1007/s11270-013-1710-210.1007/s11270-013-1710-2 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.10.06510.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.10.065 ↗
34. 10.1007/978-3-319-20179-510.1007/978-3-319-20179-5 ↗
35. Smoluchowski M. · Bulletin International de l'Academie des Sciences de Cracovie · 1903 · 8 · 182
36. Debye P. · Phys. Z · 1924 · 25 · 49
37. 10.1098/rspa.1931.013310.1098/rspa.1931.0133 ↗
38. 10.1098/rspa.1950.015410.1098/rspa.1950.0154 ↗
39. 10.1016/0021-9797(66)90069-510.1016/0021-9797(66)90069-5 ↗
40. Dukhin S. S. · 1974
41. 10.1039/f2978740160710.1039/f29787401607 ↗
42. 10.1016/0001-8686(95)00279-Y10.1016/0001-8686(95)00279-Y ↗
43. 10.1017/jfm.2020.100710.1017/jfm.2020.1007 ↗
44. 10.1017/jfm.2022.87510.1017/jfm.2022.875 ↗
45. 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.32910.1103/RevModPhys.74.329 ↗
46. 10.1088/0034-4885/65/11/20110.1088/0034-4885/65/11/201 ↗
47. 10.1126/science.116450210.1126/science.1164502 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.cis.2009.10.00110.1016/j.cis.2009.10.001 ↗
49. 10.1103/PhysRevE.86.05630310.1103/PhysRevE.86.056303 ↗
50. 10.1017/jfm.2014.35410.1017/jfm.2014.354 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.electacta.2014.11.10910.1016/j.electacta.2014.11.109 ↗
52. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b0085510.1021/acs.langmuir.8b00855 ↗
53. 10.1002/elps.20190012710.1002/elps.201900127 ↗
54. 10.1039/D3NR06152C10.1039/D3NR06152C ↗
55. 10.1039/D4SC04947K10.1039/D4SC04947K ↗
56. 10.1017/jfm.2024.107810.1017/jfm.2024.1078 ↗
57. 10.1017/jfm.2025.1710.1017/jfm.2025.17 ↗
58. 10.1103/PhysRevE.87.02230210.1103/PhysRevE.87.022302 ↗
59. 10.1063/1.154063110.1063/1.1540631 ↗
60. 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2005.06.03410.1016/j.colsurfa.2005.06.034 ↗
61. 10.1021/jp900959y10.1021/jp900959y ↗
62. 10.1038/s41598-020-61624-910.1038/s41598-020-61624-9 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.jcis.2007.04.03010.1016/j.jcis.2007.04.030 ↗
64. 10.1063/1.174694810.1063/1.1746948 ↗
65. 10.1007/BF0212031310.1007/BF02120313 ↗
66. 10.1002/recl.1956075050610.1002/recl.19560750506 ↗
67. 10.1007/s10189017013910.1007/s101890170139 ↗
68. 10.1063/1.46468610.1063/1.464686 ↗
69. 10.1039/c1sm00013f10.1039/c1sm00013f ↗
70. 10.1016/j.ces.2012.08.03210.1016/j.ces.2012.08.032 ↗
71. 10.1016/j.ces.2014.07.04410.1016/j.ces.2014.07.044 ↗
72. 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2021.12808810.1016/j.colsurfa.2021.128088 ↗
73. 10.1021/jp800442610.1021/jp8004426 ↗
74. 10.1002/elps.20210004810.1002/elps.202100048 ↗
75. 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c0392510.1021/acs.analchem.1c03925 ↗
76. 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.10814310.1016/j.cpc.2021.108143 ↗
77. 10.1002/elps.20190035310.1002/elps.201900353 ↗
78. 10.1021/nl071615y10.1021/nl071615y ↗
79. 10.1515/zna-1980-012110.1515/zna-1980-0121 ↗
80. 10.1021/cr00019a01410.1021/cr00019a014 ↗
81. Lide D. R. · 1994
82. Dane J. H. · 200210.2136/sssabookser5.4 ↗
83. 10.1016/0304-4165(67)90064-510.1016/0304-4165(67)90064-5 ↗
84. 10.1016/0022-2836(74)90372-610.1016/0022-2836(74)90372-6 ↗
85. 10.1016/S0006-3495(95)80328-010.1016/S0006-3495(95)80328-0 ↗
86. 10.1002/bip.2080910.1002/bip.20809 ↗
87. 10.1021/ma00191a03510.1021/ma00191a035 ↗
88. 10.1063/1.86927810.1063/1.869278 ↗
89. 10.1016/S0006-3495(96)79645-510.1016/S0006-3495(96)79645-5 ↗
90. 10.1002/047179974210.1002/0471799742 ↗
91. 10.1201/b1711810.1201/b17118 ↗
92. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b0311210.1021/acs.langmuir.8b03112 ↗
93. 10.1103/PhysRevA.32.234710.1103/PhysRevA.32.2347 ↗
94. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.206410.1103/PhysRevLett.84.2064 ↗
95. From our personal communication with Park and Hamad‐Schifferli [73]error bars are available only for the data points at gel concentrationW= 0 mg ml−1 i.e. in a free electrolyte but not for other data points with a non‐zeroW. This is because the focus of the work was to obtain the free electrophoretic mobility. To this end they conducted the gel electrophoresis experiment once at each non‐zero gel concentration to measure the corresponding electrophoretic mobility. Then they applied linear regression to fit the data points. They extrapolated the fit toW= 0 mg ml−1to obtain the free electrophoretic mobility. The free electrophoretic mobility was reported with an error bar which indicates a 95% interval. Although Park and Hamad‐Schifferli[73]did not report error bars for mobilities at non‐zero gel concentrations it is expected that the errors are negligible based on similar gel electrophoresis experiments in a separate work.[14]Specifically the error in typical gel electrophoresis mobility measurements isO(10−10) m2 V−1 s−1 which is negligible compared to the typicalO(10−8) m2 V−1 s−1gel electrophoresis mobility.
96. The Brinkman equation models the solid phase of a porous medium as uniformly distributed spheres of radiusRg. The spheres can be interconnected to form cylindrical structures that model the gel fibers. The porous medium is saturated with a solution. The total hydrodynamic drag of the porous medium is obtained by multiplying the hydrodynamic drag due to each sphere6πηRg(1+Rg/l+Rg2/9l2)$6\pi \eta R_g (1 + R_g / l + R_g^2 / 9l^2)$to the number density of the sphereNs [116]whereηis the dynamic viscosity lis the porous media screening length and the gel fiber volume fractionϕ=4πRg3Ns/3$\phi = 4\pi R_g^3 N_s /3$. Equating the total hydrodynamic drag to the effective drag from the Brinkman equationηl−2yields a quadratic equation for the ratioRg/l. Solving the quadratic equation and taking the negative root to ensure a positive solution gives the Brinkman's theory l=2Rg(2−ϕ)/(9ϕ+3ϕ5+8/ϕ)$l = 2 R_g (2-\phi) / (9\phi + 3\phi \sqrt {5 + 8/\phi })$ for calculating the porous media screening length.
97. Using Equation (17) ϕ=W/ρgf with the gel concentrationW= 0.01 g ml−1 the dry agarose densityρg= 1.64 g ml−1 and the ratio of dry to hydrated agarose volumef= 0.63 the gel fiber volume fractionϕis obtained as 0.0098. Inserting the value ofϕinto the Brinkman's theory (see Section 2.2) gives the screening length asl= 8.1 nm. Inserting the value ofϕandlinto the Carman‐Kozeny equation i.e. Equation (1) (7) (8) and (9a) in Levick [117]gives the gel pore diameter as 112 nm which is sufficiently large for a colloid of diameter 30 nm to pass through.
98. 10.1080/1478644420852081310.1080/14786444208520813 ↗
99. 10.1063/1.364758210.1063/1.3647582 ↗
100. 10.1088/0169-5983/45/2/02550710.1088/0169-5983/45/2/025507 ↗