19.02.2013 Views

W. Richard Bowen and Nidal Hilal 4

W. Richard Bowen and Nidal Hilal 4

W. Richard Bowen and Nidal Hilal 4

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

70 2. MEASUREMENT OF PARTICLE ANd SURFACE INTERACTIONS<br />

2.5 EFFECt oF RouGHnESS on MEASuREd AdHESIon<br />

And SuRFACE FoRCES<br />

The continuum theories outlined above, such as the JKR <strong>and</strong> DMT<br />

theories, assume that perfectly smooth surfaces come into contact [2].<br />

Unfortunately, the degree of roughness of particles <strong>and</strong> surfaces is quite<br />

variable, <strong>and</strong> often, except for when studying molecularly smooth surfaces,<br />

some account may be needed to be taken of roughness. The presence<br />

of asperities on surfaces coming into contact serves, in most cases,<br />

to effectively decrease the contact area. There are a number of models<br />

that have been developed to account for the effect of surface roughness<br />

on measured adhesion when trying to infer various properties of interactions<br />

from adhesion forces. These generally use some measure of roughness,<br />

such as the root mean square (rms) roughness of the surface, or<br />

values for mean asperity size to account for the reduced contact areas<br />

due to the presence of surface asperities [158–165]. As well as serving<br />

to keep the two surfaces separated, the angle at which asperities on the<br />

particle surfaces approach each other may also affect the effective contact<br />

area <strong>and</strong> thus the measured adhesion [166]. Rabinovich et al. [162] determined<br />

that surface roughness values as small as 1.6 nm rms were significant<br />

<strong>and</strong> could reduce adhesion values by as much as fivefold from that<br />

expected.<br />

In addition, rough particles make determination of the radius of probe<br />

particles, <strong>and</strong> hence normalisation by particle size, difficult. Larson <strong>and</strong><br />

colleagues [167] determined an effective probe radius when performing<br />

measurements between TiO 2 colloids <strong>and</strong> crystal surfaces by fitting force<br />

data to an electrical double layer model, with surface potential values<br />

determined independently. This allowed calculation of an effective probe<br />

radius that was used to normalise all subsequent force measurements.<br />

AbbREVIAtIonS And SyMbolS<br />

a Effective hard sphere particle radius in solution m<br />

ac Contact radius m<br />

ai Particle radius of molecule i M<br />

a VW van der Waals gas constant N m 4 mol �2<br />

A131 Effective Hamaker constant in medium 3 J<br />

AH Hamaker constant (in vacuum or in medium) J<br />

bVW van der Waals gas constant m3 mol�1 c Velocity of light in a vacuum (2.998 � 108 ) m s�1

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!