Investigation of Electrophoretic Mobility of Various Nanofibers in Ethanol or Water

Abstract

The mobility of particles in a dispersion or an aggregation is based on the electrostatic interaction energy of molecules inside the sample. The Smoluchowksi and the Henry’s equations are used for the calculation of electrophoretic mobility which is obtained from the zeta potentials. In this study, the electrophoretic mobility of nanofibers in ethanol or in water was calculated by using both equations from zeta potential values and related to their measured diffusion coefficients. Results showed that all samples in ethanol had positive zeta potential values, whereas all samples in water, except sample 3 containing gelatin, had negative zeta potential values. The samples with PVA or PVA-alginate had the most stable suspensions in water compared to other samples, regarding zeta potential values. The electrophoretic mobilities calculated by using the Smoluchowski and Henry equations of samples showed similar charge characteristics as zeta potential values. Gelatin might have charged by applied voltage during the electrospinning process. When results were related to the diffusion coefficient values, it was observed that the higher electrophoretic mobility and zeta potential values resulted in lower diffusibility. Moreover, adding limonene to the structure decreased the electrophoretic mobility and zeta potential values, and increased the diffusion coefficient. The adding different polymers revealed that molecular structure and charging behavior of the polymers are some of the most important factors on the electrophoretic mobility and zeta potential of nanofibers.

Keywords

• Electrophoretic mobility,zeta potential,Smoluchowski equation,Henry equation,electrospun nanofibers,electrospinning

References

1. Chassagne, C., & Ibanez, M. (2013). Electrophoretic mobility of latex nanospheres in electrolytes: experimental challenges. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 85, 1, 41-51.
2. Cho, D., Lee, SG., W.Frey, M. (2012) Characterizing zeta potential of functional nanofibers in a microfluidic device. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 372, 252–260.
3. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 73rd Edition. Ed. David R. Lide. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. 1992.
4. Dede, S., Lokumcu Altay, F. (2019). Nanofiber encapsulation of limonene and modeling its release mechanisms. Acta Alimentaria, Vol. 48 (1), pp. 56–64.
5. Delgado, A. V., González-Caballero, F., Hunter, R. J., Koopal, L. K. & Lyklema, J. (2005). Measurement and interpretation of electrokinetic phenomena. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 77, 1753–1805. (doi:10.1351/pac200577101753).
6. Drzymala, J., Sadowski, Z., Holysz, L., Chibowski, E. (1999). Ice/Water Interface: Zeta Potential, Point of Zero Charge, and Hydrophobicity. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 220, 229–234.
7. Gao, J., Li, Q., Chen, W., Liu, Y., Yu, H. (2014). Self-Assembly of Nanocellulose and Indomethacin into Hierarchically Ordered Structures with High Encapsulation Efficiency for Sustained Release Applications. ChemPlusChem, 79, 725 – 731.
8. Hunter RJ. Introduction to Modern Colloid Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

9. Iwamoto, S., Yamamoto, S., Lee, S.H., Endo, T. (2014). Solid-state shear pulverization as effective treatment for dispersing lignocellulose nanofibers in polypropylene composites. Cellulose, 21, 1573-1580.
10. Kaledin, L.A., Tepper, F., Kaledin, T.G. (2014). Long-range attractive forces extending from alumina nanofiber surface, International Journal of Smart and Nano Materials, 5:3, 133-151.
11. Kobayashi, M., and Sasaki, A. (2014). Electrophoretic mobility of latex spheres in mixture solutions containing mono and divalent counter ions. Colloids and Surface A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 440, 74-78.
12. Kowalewski, T. A.; Blonski, S.; Barral, S. (2005). Experiments and Modeling of Electrospinning Process. Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences: Technical Sciences, 53, 385−394.
13. Li, P-H., and Lu, W-C. (2015). Effects of storage conditions on the physical stability of D-limonene nanoemulsion. Food Hydrocolloids. 53, 218-224.
14. Monaghan, B.R., White, H.L. (1936). Effect of proteins on electrophoretic mobility and sedimentation velocity of red cells. Journal of General Physiology, 19(5): 715–726.
15. Nishiya, M., Sugimoto, T., Kobayashi, M. (2016). Electrophoretic mobility of carboxyl latex particles in the mixed solution of 1:1 and 2:1 electrolytes: experiments and modeling. Colloids Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 504, 219-227.
16. Okutan, N., Terzi, P. Altay, F. (2014). Affecting parameters on electrospinning process and characterization of electrospun gelatin nanofibers. Food Hydrocolloids, 39: 19-26.
17. Předota, M., L. Machesky, M., J. Wesolowski, D. (2016). Molecular Origins of the Zeta Potential. Langmuir, 32 (40), 10189–10198.
18. Raychoudhury, T., Naja, G., Ghoshal, S. (2010). Assessment of transport of two polyelectrolyte-stabilized zero-valent iron nanoparticles in porous media. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 118, 143-151.
19. Reneker, D. H.; Yarin, A. L. (2008). Electrospinning Jets and Polymer Nanofibers. Polymer, 49, 2387−2425.
20. Sato, Y., Kusaka, Y., Kobayashi, M. (2017). Charging and aggregation behavior of cellulose nanofibers in aqueous solution. Langmuir, 33, 12660-12669.
21. Skoglund, S., Hedberg, J., Yunda, E., Godymchuk, A., Blomberg, E. and Wallinder, I.O. (2017). Difficulties and flaws in performing accurate determinations of zeta potentials of metal nanoparticles in complex solutions—Four case studies. PLoS One, 12(7):e0181735.
22. Smoluchowski, M. Handbuch der Electrizität und des Magnetismus (Graetz), vol. II, p. 366. Leipzig, Germany: Barth., 1921.
23. Srinivasan, S., Barbhuiya, S., Charan, D.S. Pandey, S.P. (2010). Characterising cement–superplasticizer interaction using zeta potential measurements. Construction and Building Materials, 24, 517–2521.
24. Xue, J., Xie, J., Liu, W. and Xia, Y. (2017). Electrospun Nanofibers: New Concepts, Materials, and Applications. Accounts of Chemical Research, 50(8): 1976-1987.