Transcript ICC - Paris
Environmentally Benign Deagglomeration and Mixing of Nanoparticles in Supercritical CO2 4 Shen , 4 Vishnyakov , 4 Tomassone Yangyang Aleksey M. Silvina 1 Program NIRT; Award: DMI: 0506722; PI: Dr. Rajesh Davé Co-PIs: R. R. Pfeffer, S. 3 Sundaresan , M. S. 4 Tomassone Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, 2Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 3Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 4Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ Motivation Interparticle Forces T = 77.4K, pbulk = 1atm FCC structured model (MD) Spherical shell model (GCMC) Disjoining Pressure particles at contact Nex = N Nbulk – 276 SiO2 units – D = 2.2 nm 2 R 2 U sf R, h = 2 s 2 5 Rh h 5 R h Rh Rh 10 0.1 10 4 4 large separation 0 -0.05 10 20 40 50 60 70 Hin, ii. dependence on fluid model 25 0.1 4 CO2 on MCM at 195K -- Morishige vs Bakaev Peaks correspond to the pore width when a new layer is formed and the separation distance is small Morishige - MCM41 36A 20 3 T = 318K, pbulk = 68atm p, Gpa 10 5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 p /p 0 1 Sorption isotherms at 273 K on amorphous silicas that differ only by hydroxylation level Sorption isotherms at 195K at different amorphous silicas The attraction is substantially weaker for dehydroxylated particles The disjoining force is repulsive when nanoparticles are close, then becomes attractive, and finally diminishes to zero when the separation is sufficiently large. dumbbell 1.5 bulk Minima correspond to pore width with large distance between adjacent layers 0.5 -0.1 0 5 10 15 Fluid Models (CO2) Dumbbell with point quadruple (Moller & Fischer, 1994 and 1997) 10 2 sf 5 z . p, Gpa sf 4 sf 3 z 30.61 z 10 6 4 2 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 p/p 0 Experiment vs GCMC 195K 303K ~ Critical temperature 1.4 10 1.2 8 1 6 4 GCMC - 10-4-3 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.8 1 0 20 40 60 80 p, kPa p /p 0 GCMC and experimental isotherms of CO2 (Dumbbell model) at 195K 40 50 H in, A Conclusions GCMC, dumbbell, rough 0 0.4 30 References GCMC, LJ 10-4-3 Bakaev's isotherm scaled 0.2 20 experiment, 303K GCMC, dumbbell, 10-4-3 2 10 0.6 GCMC - rough surface 0 Contact: Tel.: +1-732-445-2972 Fax: +1-732-445-2421 Email: [email protected] Here, the influence of inhomogeneities is negligible Both Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics approaches were successfully applied to study the forces between two spherical silica nanoparticles in a supercritical carbon dioxide environment at realistic pressures. The two models considered (dumbbell and one-center LJ) with validated parameters, accurately reproduce experimental data on bulk CO2 and CO2 sorption on silica. Particles effectively attract at the lower pressures ranging 68100 atm and they experience repulsive forces for pressures above 100 atm. These conclusions do not depend on the molecular model considered. Energetic inhomogeneities do not significantly affect the value of the force between the particles. Point inhomogeneity: distance between the solute molecule and inhomogeneity vs. extra energy added to the “base” 10-4-3 0 LJ model: one set of parameters. LJ model does not fit experimental isotherm at low temperature. Dumbbell model: different sf to account for hydroxylation 0 4 U inh = 4ff for r< 0.75 = 8ff r -10ff for 0.75< r < 1.25 mol/m2 mo l/m 8 Disjoining pressure for dumbbell model with smooth walls (10-4-3 potential) and inhomogeneous walls at pbulk =102atm -0.1 12 2 ... 12 rough smooth (bulk) (2) Solid-fluid parameters: fitting sf and sf for a surface in the presence of inhomogeneities GCM C - strong field GCM C - m edium field GCM C - weak field expt, M CM 41 (M orishige) reference isotherm 14 60 H in, A 0.05 Attractive: blue; repulsive: red Here sf and sf parameters are chosen to get the best fit of GCMC and MD isotherms with the Steele potential to experiment 50 0.1 0 40 iii. dependence on surface roughness Usf = Usf (z1) Usf (z2 ) U inh 10 4 sf 4 sf 3 z 30.61 z 30 Nature of force oscillations on the width differs in narrow pores. Pronounced oscillation periodicity when LJ model is used. However, in general the results are consistent Interaction potential (with FCC structured nanoparticle) 2 sf 2 U sf z = 2 s sf sf 5 z 20 -0.05 (1) 10 Disjoining pressure for LJ and dumbbell models with smooth walls (10-4-3 potential only) at pbulk =68atm Solid-fluid potential: Steele’s potential + point inhomogeneities U sf z = 2 s sf sf 0 20 H in, A Larger Particles and Surface Inhomogeneity 2 -0.02 -0.08 Interaction potential (with spherical shell nanoparticle) This potential reduces to the 10-4 form of Steele potential when R approaching infinity, which represents a flat surface. 0 -0.06 -0.5 The attraction is most prominent for strongly hydroxylated particles Solid-Fluid Interaction 0.02 -0.04 0 Interactions strongly depend on surface hydroxylation: Surface hydroxylation increases => more energetic adsorption sites => adsorption is intensified 2 10 2 10 4 4 2 R U sf R, h = 2 s h 5 R h 5 R h R h R h 0.04 LJ 2 1 0 LJ dumbbell bulk 0.06 2.5 . Bakaev - dehydroxylated glass 15 0.08 . Bakaev -hydroxylated glassglass Reduction of pressure causes evaporation of the supercritical solvent --> supersaturation of drug and subsequent precipitation The fluid model must exactly reproduce the phase diagram and thermodynamic properties of the bulk fluid in the given range of temperature and pressure. 30 Experimental Sorption Isotherms The drug is dissolved in the supercritical fluid The drug containing supercritical fluid is passed through an expansion valve The nanoparticles are collected when the particles settle on a collection plate = 3.68 Å /kB = 286.2 K Disjoining pressure for LJ model at T=318K and different pbulk. Long-range repulsion at pbulk =102 and 200 atm, not observed at 68 atm 68atm 102atm 200atm 68 atm (bulk) 102 atm (bulk) 200 atm (bulk) 0 RESS: Rapid Expansion in Supercritical Solvents One-center effective Lennard-Jones particle i=1 -0.1 Tc = 31.1 °C Pc = 7.38 MPa Low toxicity High stability = 3.033 Å /kB = 125.57 K l = 0.699 Å Q2/5 = 3.0255 i Fw2 Pbulk 0.05 Supercritical CO2 i w1 adsorption micromole/square meter . Liquid-like density and solubility Gas-like diffusivity and viscosity An ideal medium for the purpose of deagglomerating nanoparticles, because it can penetrate the pores within the nano-agglomerates, and upon rapid depressurization, can cause separation of the nanoparticles F LJ model influence of bulk pressure micromole /s qua re me te r . Supercritical fluids: N i. dependence on bulk pressure 3.5 Background 1 Pdisjoining = A derived form the Derjaguen approximation p, Gpa Nanoparticles (NP) and nanocomposites have great potential to improve performance of drugs, biomaterials, catalysts and other high-value-added materials. They offer unique properties that arise from their small size and large surface area. A major problem in utilizing nanoparticles is that they often lose their high surface area due to grain growth or unavailability of the high surface area where it matters. It is difficult to produce forces required to deagglomerate the nanoparticles at a sufficiently small length scale. The addition of nanoparticles to polymer composites has been shown to significantly influence the mechanical, optical, and electrical properties. However when nanoparticles aggregate, they lose their nanoscale size and corresponding properties. The breakup of nanoagglomerates, driven by the tensile stresses generated by depressurization, has not been studied previously for nanoparticles and there is a paucity of published analysis on this subject. Nanoparticle Models (SiO2) p, Gpa 1New 2 Gupta , GCMC and experimental isotherms of CO2 (Dumbbell and LJ models) at 303K 100 Bakaev, V. A., W. A. Steele, et al. (1999). Journal of Chem. Phys. 111(21): 9813-9821. Katoh, M., K. Sakamoto, et al. (2000). PCCP 2(19): 4471-4474. Morishige, K., H. Fujii, et al. (1997). Langmuir 13(13): 3494-3498. Möller, D. and J. Fischer (1994). Fluid Phase Equilibria 100: 35-61. Span, R. and W. Wagner (1996). J. of Phys. and Chem. Refer. Data 25(6): 1509-1596. Funding from NSF – NIRT (Award # 0506722) and IGERT (Award # 050497) is acknowledged.