Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T21:22:24.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

From electrodiffusion theory to the electrohydrodynamics of leaky dielectrics through the weak electrolyte limit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2018

Yoichiro Mori*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
Y.-N. Young
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: ymori@umn.edu

Abstract

The Taylor–Melcher (TM) model is the standard model for describing the dynamics of poorly conducting leaky dielectric fluids under an electric field. The TM model treats the fluids as ohmic conductors, without modelling the underlying ion dynamics. On the other hand, electrodiffusion models, which have been successful in describing electrokinetic phenomena, incorporate ionic concentration dynamics. Mathematical reconciliation of the electrodiffusion picture and the TM model has been a major issue for electrohydrodynamic theory. Here, we derive the TM model from an electrodiffusion model in which we explicitly model the electrochemistry of ion dissociation. We introduce salt dissociation reaction terms in the bulk electrodiffusion equations and take the limit in which the salt dissociation is weak; the assumption of weak dissociation corresponds to the fact that the TM model describes poor conductors. Together with the assumption that the Debye length is small, we derive the TM model with or without the surface charge convection term depending upon the scaling of relevant dimensionless parameters. An important quantity that emerges is the Galvani potential (GP), the jump in voltage across the liquid–liquid interface between the two leaky dielectric media; the GP arises as a natural consequence of the interfacial boundary conditions for the ionic concentrations, and is absent under certain parametric conditions. When the GP is absent, we recover the TM model. Our analysis also reveals the structure of the Debye layer at the liquid–liquid interface, which suggests how interfacial singularities may arise under strong imposed electric fields. In the presence of a non-zero GP, our model predicts that the liquid droplet will drift under an imposed electric field, the velocity of which is computed explicitly to leading order.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Copyright
© 2018 Cambridge University Press 
Figure 0

Figure 1. When $l_{C}\neq l_{A}$, an electric double layer develops across the interface $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}$ even when the system is at rest, with a resulting voltage jump (the Galvani potential) of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E5}}=(RT/2F)\ln (l_{C}/l_{A})$.

Figure 1

Figure 2. A schematic showing the inter-relation between the different models and asymptotic limits. When $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}\rightarrow 0$ leads to the charge diffusion model (§ 3). We subsequently take the limit $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}\rightarrow 0$. Here, the limiting behaviour is fundamentally different depending on whether $l_{C}=l_{A}$ or $l_{C}\neq l_{A}$. When $l_{C}=l_{A}$, we obtain the Taylor–Melcher model (§ 4) whereas when $l_{C}\neq l_{A}$ we obtain droplet electromigration under an imposed electric field (§ 5).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Schematic diagram illustrating the heuristic derivation of the Galvani potential. The Galvani potential $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E5}}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{in}^{\infty }-\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{ex}^{\infty }$ is the difference in the voltage across the Debye layer.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Suppose $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}$ is stationary and $\boldsymbol{x}_{0}\in \unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}$ is a stagnation point of the flow field and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D735}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}}\boldsymbol{\cdot }\boldsymbol{u}_{\Vert }<0$ (see discussion for details). Then, the surface charge $q$ will be carried to the point $\boldsymbol{x}_{0}$ via the flow field (green arrows) and accumulate at $\boldsymbol{x}_{0}$, potentially overwhelming charge relaxation.

Figure 4

Figure 5. In the presence of a non-zero Galvani potential, an imposed electric field will exert opposite forces on the two sides of the interface, producing a velocity slip across the Debye layer. The explicit expression for this is given in (5.65).

Figure 5

Figure 6. Set-up for the modified Saville model. The interior/exterior medium is denoted by $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FA}_{in}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FA}_{ex}$. The interface is denoted by $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}$. The unknown functions in $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FA}_{in,ex}$ are the cation/anion/salt concentrations $c,a,s$, velocity and pressure fields $\boldsymbol{u},p$ and the electrostatic potential $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}$.

Figure 6

Figure 7. Set-up for the charge diffusion model. In contrast to the modified Saville model (figure 6), the unknown functions in $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FA}_{in,ex}$ are now the charge $q$, the velocity and pressure fields $\boldsymbol{u},p$ and the electrostatic potential $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}$. As $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}\rightarrow 0$, a boundary layer of width $r_{D}$ ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}$ in dimensionless units) develops on both sides of the interface $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}$, as shown on the right.

Figure 7

Table 1. The presence of surface charge convection in the limiting TM model depending on the scaling of $Pe$ or $Pe_{E}$ with respect to $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}$ or $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}_{E}$. The dimensionless constants $Pe_{E}$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}_{E}$ pertain to asymptotics under strong electric fields discussed in § 4.3, and are defined in (4.79) and (4.82).

Figure 8

Figure 8. The curvilinear coordinate system. $\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}$ is perpendicular to the surface $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}$, where $\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}<0$ is on the $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FA}_{in}$ side. The $\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}=0$ surface corresponds to $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}$ and $\boldsymbol{\unicode[STIX]{x1D702}}=(\unicode[STIX]{x1D702}^{1},\unicode[STIX]{x1D702}^{2})$ is the coordinate system fitted to $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}$.

Figure 9

Figure 9. Set-up for the TM model. The unknown functions are now the velocity and pressure fields $\boldsymbol{u},p$ and electrostatic potential $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}$ in $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FA}_{in,ex}$ and the surface charge density $q_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}}$ on $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}$. The bulk charge $q_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FA}}$, shown in parentheses above, can be set identically to $0$ so that we recover the classical TM model with surface charge advection (see argument below (4.65)).

Figure 10

Figure 10. A flow field plot indicating regions of positive and negative surface divergence $\unicode[STIX]{x1D735}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}}\boldsymbol{\cdot }\boldsymbol{u}_{\Vert }$. Plotted is the flow field around a sphere of the quadrupole vortex of Taylor (horizontal axis is the axis of rotation and is parallel to the imposed electric field direction) (Taylor 1966). On the sphere, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D735}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}}\boldsymbol{\cdot }\boldsymbol{u}_{\Vert }<0$ in the region in thick red and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D735}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}}\boldsymbol{\cdot }\boldsymbol{u}_{\Vert }>0$ in the region in thin blue. The charge distribution in the region $\unicode[STIX]{x1D735}_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}}\boldsymbol{\cdot }\boldsymbol{u}_{\Vert }<0$ is expected to decay algebraically with distance from the interface.

Figure 11

Figure 11. The boundary layer structure when the externally imposed voltage is large. There are two layers, the inner layer of thickness $r_{E}$ ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}_{E}$ in dimensionless units) and an inner–inner layer of thickness $r_{D}$ ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}$ in dimensionless units).

Figure 12

Figure 12. Flow field around a migrating droplet, in a frame moving with the droplet. Rotation axis is horizontal. $D_{A/C,in,ex}=1$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{in,ex}=1$, $l_{C}=1.01$, $l_{A}=1/l_{C}$. In (a), $\unicode[STIX]{x1D716}_{in}=1$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D716}_{ex}=2$ and in (b), $\unicode[STIX]{x1D716}_{in}=2$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D716}_{ex}=1$ so that the flow field is consistent with a prolate/oblate deformation in figure (a)/(b). Electric field is in the direction of the arrow. $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E5}}>0$, $Q_{mgr}>1$ in both figures so that the droplet is moving in the direction of the arrow.

Figure 13

Figure 13. Model hierarchy and energy relations. The top row lists the modified Saville, charge diffusion and TM models and the bottom row lists the energy relations satisfied by the respective models, (A 2), (A 11) and (A 15) (we have omitted the boundary energy input term ${\mathcal{I}}$ to avoid a cluttered diagram). The horizontal arrows correspond to taking (asymptotic) limits $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}\rightarrow 0$ or $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}\rightarrow 0$. The vertical arrows correspond to the ‘operation’ of forming the free energy identity. These arrows commute in the following sense. Taking the asymptotic limit in the complex model and then forming the energy identity, or forming the energy identity of the complex model and then taking the asymptotic limit in the energy identity, leads to the same energy identity for the simpler model.