Transcript Document

Electrohydrodynamic instabilities in
microfluidics
Brian D. Storey
Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering
Needham MA
EHD instability in microfluidics
Lin, Storey, Oddy, Chen Santaigo PoF2004
ElMochtar, Aubry, Batton, LoC 2003
Chen, Lin, Lele, Santiago JFM 2005
Santos & Storey PRE 2008
Posner, Santiago, JFM 2006
Computation
Experiment
Lin, Storey, Santaigo JFM 2008
Hoburg and Melcher (JFM 1976)
Web of science
1976-1985 8 citations by the author(s)
1982-1994 4 citations
2004-today 22 citations
Electrohydrodynamics
• Electrohydrodynamics is the interaction
between electric fields and fluid motion.
• Today we will be concerned with EHD of
simple, miscible, electrolytes.
What’s an electrolyte?
A material in which the mobile
species are ions and free movement
of electrons is blocked.
(Newman, Electrochemical Systems)
Na
+
Cl
-
Na
+
Cl
-
Na
+
Cl
-
Na
+
Cl
-
Na
+
Cl
-
Na
+
Electrolytes and charged
surfaces
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
+
+
- + + +
+
+
- +
+ +
- +
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
-
3
2.5
C
2
counter-ions
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
co-ions
1
2
3
X
4
5
Electric field
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
+
+
+
- + + +
+
+ +
- +
+ +
- +
+
+
- +
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
+
+
+
- + + +
+
+ +
- +
+ +
- +
+
+
+
-
-
+
-
+
-
+
+
+
-
-
+
-
Electroosmosis (200th anniversary)
Electroosmosis in a channel
(the simplest pump?)
1
--------------------------
0.8
0.6
0.4
Y
0.2
Electric field
Y0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Electroneutral in bulk
-0.8
-1
- -0 - - - -0.2- - - -0.4
- - - - -0.6- - - -0.8
- - - - -1 - Charge density
Charge
density
Velocity
1
-0.98
0.8
-0.982
0.6
-0.984
0.4
-0.986
0.2
-0.988
0
-0.99
y
y
Double layers are typically thin
-0.2
-0.992
-0.4
-0.994
-0.6
-0.996
-0.8
-0.998
-1
-1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Velocity
0.8
E
U slip 

1
1.2
0
0.2
0.4
Helmholtz-Smolochowski
0.6
Velocity
0.8
1
1.2
Electrohydrodynamic instability
Experiments (Mike Oddy of J. Santiago’s group)
Miscible interface
High conductivity fluid
1 mm
Low conductivity fluid
V
Model summary
• Incompressible Navier-Stokes plus electric body force
• Poisson-Nernst-Planck for ion transport binary, symmetric
electrolyte; simplified by assuming fluid is nearly electro-neutral.
• Helmholtz-Smolochowski electrokinetic slip boundary conditions


Dv
2
Re
 P   v   e E
Dt

v  0
D
2
Ra
   ( is conductivity)
Dt

  E  0
m a=F
Mass is conserved
Fluid conductivity goes
with the flow
Current is conserved, V=iR
Lin, Storey, Oddy, Chen Santaigo PoF2004
Mechanism for charge
generation

  E  0

  E  e


  E    E  0

E    E / 
E
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
High conductivity
Electric field
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Low conductivity

E
 e
positive
x
E 

  e positive
 x
Mechanism for flow



Dv
2
Re
 P   v  e E
Dt

v  0
D
2
Ra
 
Dt


E    E / 
  E  0
E

Dimensionless parameters
U H
Rae  ev
D
Re 
U ev H

 high

 low
U
Rv  eo
U ev

E 2 H 

Electric Rayleigh number U ev 



Reynolds number
Electrical conductivity ratio
Ratio of electro-osmotic to electroviscous velocity
Experiment vs. 2D Computation
Lin, Storey, Oddy, Chen, Santiago, Phys Fluids 2004
Other configurations
High conductivity center
2D Simulation (Storey, Phys D 2005)
Experiment (Ponser & Santiago, JFM 2006)
Low conductivity center
2D Simulation (Storey, Phys D 2005)
Experiment (Ponser & Santiago, JFM 2006)
Instability at T-junction
0.5, 0.75, 1, & 1.25 kV/cm
Simulations with same basic model provided good agreement
Chen, Lin, Lele, & Santiago, JFM 2005
Linear stability results
2D Linear Analysis with
1/ 2=10
3D Linear Analysis with
1/ 2=10
z
Stable
E (V/m)
Ecrit
x
Rae
Rae
E (V/m)
y
Ecrit
Stable
Ecr,experiment ~ 35,000 V/m,
Lin, Storey, Oddy, Chen, Santiago, Phys Fluids 2004
So 3D matters
3D DNS
time
Storey, Physica D, 2005
As does electroosmosis
time
Storey, Physica D, 2005
Thin channels
• So aspect ratio matters, but can we model
flow in thin channels with a 2D model?
z
y
H
x
d
2
E
1
Thin Channel Approx. (Hele-Shaw)
z
y
H
x
d
2
E
1
Solid- full 3D
Dashed – this model
Storey, Tilley, Lin, Santiago, Phys Fluids 2005
Hele-Shaw model works in linear regime,
fails in non-linear regime
3D DNS
Depth Ave
Zeroth order
3D DNS
Depth Ave
Zeroth order
Lin, Storey, Santiago JFM 2008
Higher order (includes EK dispersion) works
better in NL regime
3D Simulation
Full Depth Ave
Zeroth order
3D Simulation
Full Depth Ave
Zeroth order
Lin, Storey, Santiago JFM 2008
Depth-Averaged Model
t = 0.0 s
t = 0.5 s
t = 1.0 s
t = 1.5 s
t = 2.0 s
t = 2.5 s
t = 3.0 s
t = 4.0 s
t = 5.0 s
Computation
Experiment
Lin, Storey, Santiago JFM 2008
Computational Results:
depth-averaged model
Experiment
Simulation
Lin, Storey, Santiago JFM 2008
So…
• Depth averaged, 2D model for
electrokinetic flow works.
• Need to include electrokinetic dispersion in
the model.
• But what’s electrokinetic dispersion?
Classic Taylor dispersion in
pressure driven flow
“Physicochemical Hydrodynamics”
Probstein
Electrokinetic dispersion
(looking in the thin direction)
ueof, 1
ueof, 1
ueof, 2
High conductivity, E1
Low conductivity, E
2
High conductivity, E1
•Electroosmotic velocity depends upon the electric field
•Electric field is high when conductivity is low
•Low conductivity = high EO velocity
Red; cond =10
Blue; cond =1
Ghosal, EP 2004
Baradawaj & Santiago JFM 2005
Ren & Li JCIS 2006
Sounart & Baygents JFM 2007
Dispersion acts as anisotropic diffusion
3D Simulation
Full Depth Ave
Zeroth order
3D Simulation
Full Depth Ave
Zeroth order
Lin, Storey, Santiago JFM 2008
So…
• Is flow stable in the shallow direction?
• How does our shallow model break down?
ueof, 1
High conductivity, E1
ueof, 1
ueof, 2
Low conductivity, E
2
High conductivity, E1
Example of axial conductivity gradients in EK
Field Amplified Sample Stacking (FASS)
t=0
- -- - - - - -
+
High Conductivity buffer
Low Conductivity Sample
High Conductivity buffer
ES
E
t>0
-
EB
+
UB
-
US
--- -- - --
-
EB
-
Stacked Analyte
Burgi & Chein 1991, Analytical Chem.
Unstable flow
E=25,000 V/m, Conductivity ratio=10
Santos & Storey, PRE 2008
Flow in center similar to other
observations
High conductivity center
2D Simulation (Storey, Phys D 2005)
Experiment (Ponser & Santiago, JFM 2006)
Observations
•“Shock” at the leading edge of the sample.
•Vertical velocity at the channel walls pumps fluid toward the centerline.
•Unstable flow only inside the sample region.
Santos & Storey, PRE 2008
Stability measure
Maximum vertical vel.
along the centerline
Santos & Storey, PRE 2008
Stability measure as function of
applied field
Unstable E field
Santos & Storey, PRE 2008
A microfluidic EHD mixer
E Field
ElMochtar, Aubry, Batton, LoC 2003
Boy & Storey, PRE 2007
Time periodic forcing for
enhanced mixing
Boy & Storey, PRE 2007
Classic problem in electrochemistry
Binary electrolyte (C+,C-)
•Fixed potential
•Fixed concentration of C+
•No flux of C-
Current
Solid surfaces are
charge selective
(electrode or ion
exchange
membrane).
y
x
Steady state V=1
Double layer,
Debye =0.01
4
3.5
E, flux of C+
3
C+,C-
2.5
2
1.5
V=1
Double layer,
Debye =0.01
1
0.5
0
0
Bulk is electro-neutral, linear conc. profile
0.2
0.4
x
0.6
0.8
1
Typical dimensionless Debye =0.0001 or less
Current-voltage relationship
6
Resistor at low
voltage
5
Observed
Current
4
1D Solution
3
2
1
0
0
5
10
Voltage
15
20
Attributed to instability of double layers
Zaltzman & Rubinstein, JFM 2007
Different views on bulk stability
•Bulk instability. Grigin (1985, 1992)
•Bulk instability, but not sufficient for mixing. Bruinsma & Alexander
(1990)
•Bulk instability. Rubinstein, Zaltzman, & Zaltzman (1995).
•No bulk instability. Buchanan & Saville (1999)
•No bulk instability. Highlighted problems with all earlier works
reporting instability. Limited parameter space. Lerman, Zaltzman,
Rubinstein (2005)
Q: The model equations for bulk instability is the same as ours, why
is there no bulk instability? Or is there?
0
Hoburg-Melcher limit Pe=∞, low
V analysis
c 
1 2
 v  c 
c
t
Pe
D 1 2
 c    c   0
D 1
Summary
•D>1, Real, S2<0, Stable
•D<1, Real, S2>0, Unstable
•D=1, Imag, Oscillations
D 1
~
S2  S2
1 D
D
; D
D
Storey, Zaltzman, &
Rubinstein, PRE 2007
Bulk electroconvection, finite Pe
low V analysis
Storey, Zaltzman, &
Rubinstein, PRE 2007
unstable
L=-68
k=4.74
I D 1
D
L  Pe
; D 
4 D 1
D
2
Current, Imax =4
Summary
•D>1, Real, Stable
•D<1, Real, Unstable (threshold)
•D=1, Stable
BE at finite voltage, D=0.1
Unstable
Pe=9.9
Storey, Zaltzman, &
Rubinstein, PRE 2007
Relationship between BE and
microchannel EHD instability
• Bulk instability can exist, in theory.
• Threshold is different since conductivity gradient is driven
• New bulk instability mechanism found when D+ < D-, that
can occur at low V.
• Many previous studies only considered D+=D.
• An analysis looking for an application…
Other example of flows driven
by concentration polarization
Device built for bio-molecule preconcentration
From J. Han, MIT
Instability observed
From J. Han, MIT
Stuff I didn’t show you..
Colloids, Posner
Two phase, Zahn & Reddy
Electrothermal, Ramos,
Gonzalez, Castellanos, et al
Two phase, Aubry et al
Multi-species, Oddy & Santiago
Acknowledgements
•
•
•
Collaborators:
– Hao Lin, Rutgers
– Juan Santiago, Stanford
– Boris Zaltzman & Isaac Rubinstein, Ben Gurion University of Negev, Israel
Undergraduate students
– David Boy
– Jobim Santos
– Lee Edwards
– Doug Ellwanger
– Allison Schmidt
– Mark Cavolowsky
– Nina Cary
– Angela Mao
Funding
– NSF
– Olin College
Depth averaged equations
From the DA equations, we can reconstruct the full 3D fields.