Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:25:59.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multifluid Eulerian model of an electrospray in a host gas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2013

F. J. Higuera
F. J. Higuera*
Affiliation:
E. T. S. Ingenieros Aeronáuticos, UPM, Plaza Cardenal Cisneros 3, 28040 Madrid, Spain
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An Eulerian multifluid model is used to describe the evolution of an electrospray plume and the flow induced in the surrounding gas by the drag of the electrically charged spray droplets in the space between an injection electrode containing the electrospray source and a collector electrode. The spray is driven by the voltage applied between the two electrodes. Numerical computations and order-of-magnitude estimates for a quiescent gas show that the droplets begin to fly back toward the injection electrode at a certain critical value of the flux of droplets in the spray, which depends very much on the electrical conditions at the injection electrode. As the flux is increased toward its critical value, the electric field induced by the charge of the droplets partially balances the field due to the applied voltage in the vicinity of the injection electrode, leading to a spray that rapidly broadens at a distance from its origin of the order of the stopping distance at which the droplets lose their initial momentum and the effect of their inertia becomes negligible. The axial component of the electric field first changes sign in this region, causing the fly back. The flow induced in the gas significantly changes this picture in the conditions of typical experiments. A gas plume is induced by the drag of the droplets whose entrainment makes the radius of the spray away from the injection electrode smaller than in a quiescent gas, and convects the droplets across the region of negative axial electric field that appears around the origin of the spray when the flux of droplets is increased. This suppresses fly back and allows much higher fluxes to be reached than are possible in a quiescent gas. The limit of large droplet-to-gas mass ratio is discussed. Migration of satellite droplets to the shroud of the spray is reproduced by the Eulerian model, but this process is also affected by the motion of the gas. The gas flow preferentially pushes satellite droplets from the shroud to the core of the spray when the effect of the inertia of the droplets becomes negligible, and thus opposes the well-established electrostatic/inertial mechanism of segregation and may end up concentrating satellite droplets in an intermediate radial region of the spray.

JFM classification

Drops and Bubbles: Drops and Bubbles Drops and Bubbles: Electrohydrodynamic effects
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 734 , 10 November 2013 , pp. 363 - 386
Copyright
©2013 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrero, A. & Loscertales, I. G. 2007 Micro- and nanoparticles via capillary flows. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 19, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsall, C. K. & Langdon, A. B. 1981 Plasma Physics Via Computer Simulation. Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Clift, R., Grace, J. R. & Weber, M. E. 1978 Bubbles, Drops and Particles. Academic.Google Scholar
Cloupeau, M. & Prunet-Foch, B. 1989 Electrostatic spraying of liquids in cone-jet mode. J. Electrostat. 22, 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng, W. & Gomez, A. 2007 Influence of space charge on the scale-up of multiplexed electrosprays. J. Aerosol Sci. 38, 1062–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenn, J. B., Mann, M., Meng, C. K., Wong, S. K. & Whitehouse, C. M. 1989 Electrospray ionization for mass spectrometry of large biomolecules. Science 246, 64–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernández de la Mora, J. 1992 The effect of charge emission from electrified liquid cones. J. Fluid Mech. 243, 561–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández de la Mora, J. 2007 The fluid dynamics of Taylor cones. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 39, 217–243.Google Scholar
Filippov, A. V. 1991 Electrostatic deposition of inertially moving charged aerosol particles onto the earthed disk. J. Electrostat. 26, 81–98.Google Scholar
Filippov, A. V. 1992 Electrostatic deposition of a moving charged aerosol cloud onto a conducting sphere. J. Aerosol Sci. 23, 203–215.Google Scholar
Gamero-Castaño, M. 2008 The structure of electrospray beams in vacuum. J. Fluid Mech. 604, 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gañán-Calvo, A. M., Lasheras, J. C., Dávila, J. & Barrero, A. 1994 Electrostatic spray emitted from an electrified conical meniscus. J. Aerosol Sci. 25, 1121–1142.Google Scholar
Grace, J. M. & Dunn, P. F. 1996 Droplet motion in an electrohydrodynamic fine spray. Exp. Fluids 20, 153–164.Google Scholar
Grifoll, J. & Rosell-Llompart, J. 2012 Efficient Lagrangian simulation of electrospray droplets dynamics. J. Aerosol Sci. 47, 78–93.Google Scholar
Hartman, R. P. A., Borra, J.-P., Brunner, D. J., Marijnissen, J. C. M. & Scarlett, B. 1999 The evolution of electrohydrodynamic sprays produced in the cone-jet mode, a physical model. J. Electrostat. 47, 143–170.Google Scholar
Higuera, F. J. 2012 Eulerian model of a dilute spray of charged droplets. J. Aerosol Sci. 48, 34–45.Google Scholar
Hockney, R. W. & Eastwood, J. W. 1988 Computer Simulation Using Particles. Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. 1997 Locally averaged equations of motion for a mixture of identical spherical particles and a Newtonian fluid. Chem. Engng Sci. 52, 2457–2469.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. 2000 The Dynamics of Fluidized Particles. Cambidge University Press.Google Scholar
Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M. 1981 Physical Kinetics. Pergamon.Google Scholar
Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M. 1993 Electrodynamics of Continuous Media. Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lee, Y. H., Kimm, C. A., Jang, W. H., Choi, H. J. & Jhon, M. S. 2001 Synthesis and electrorheological characteristics of microencapsulated polyaniline particles with melamine-formaldehyde resins. Polymer 42, 8277–8283.Google Scholar
Oh, H., Kim, K. & Kim, S. 2008 Characterization of deposition patterns produced by twin-nozzle electrospray. J. Aerosol Sci. 39, 801–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, K. & Gomez, A. 1994 On the structure of an electrostatic spray of monodisperse droplets. Phys. Fluids 6, 2317–2332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, G. I. 1964 Disintegration of water drops in an electric field. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 280, 383–397.Google Scholar
Wilhelm, O., Mädler, L. & Pratsinis, S. E. 2003 Electrospray evaporation and deposition. J. Aerosol Sci. 34, 815–836.Google Scholar
Yang, W., Lojewski, B., Wei, Y. & Deng, W. 2012 Interactions and deposition patterns of multiplexed electrosprays. J. Aerosol Sci. 46, 20–33.Google Scholar
Zeleny, J. 1917 Instabilities of electrified surfaces. Phys. Rev. 10, 1–6.Google Scholar
Zhang, D. Z. & Prosperetti, A. 1997 Momentum and energy equations for disperse two-phase flows and their closure for dilute suspensions. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 23, 425–453.Google Scholar