A measurement cell for the use of accurate conductivity measurements of corrosive ionic media is presented. Based on the concept of moving electrode electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, exceptional measurement accuracy is achieved in a large conductivity range. Extensive testing with corrosive ionic media demonstrated the robust operation of the cell under harsh chemical conditions, up to temperatures of 130 °C. The novel design allows monitoring small conductivity changes during chemical reactions in ionic media, for instance, zeolite formation from hydrated ionic liquids.
A measurement cell for the use of accurate conductivity measurements of corrosive ionic media is presented. Based on the concept of moving electrode electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, exceptional measurement accuracy is achieved in a large conductivity range. Extensive testing with corrosive ionic media demonstrated the robust operation of the cell under harsh chemical conditions, up to temperatures of 130 °C. The novel design allows monitoring small conductivity changes during chemical reactions in ionic media, for instance, zeolite formation from hydrated ionic liquids.
Conductivity measurements are
commonly used for monitoring and characterization of electrolyte solutions
with applications in fuel cells,[1,2] water quality management,[3,4] and Bayer[5,6] and chlor-alkali[7] process monitoring. Thorough analysis of such conductivity measurements
provide insight into complex molecular-scale processes, such as ionic
association dynamics in ionic liquids,[8,9] reaction kinetics
in (electro)chemical processes,[10−12] or formation of zeolites.[13] For such advanced applications, it is beneficial
to use a high-accuracy conductivity measurement cell, capable of measuring
in a wide conductivity range and which is resistant to a broad spectrum
of corrosive ionic media.Most commonly, two types of conductivity
sensors are used: electrode-based
sensors and inductive sensors. Electrode sensors are suitable for
low and moderate conductivities, with accuracies between ±3%
and ±5% in the conductivity range from 2 × 10–8 to 0.65 S cm–1.[14,15] In common
devices, the accuracy decreases due to the compact design of these
sensors, especially toward higher conductivities. Moreover, in reactive
media, electrode fouling can alter the cell constant with negative
impact on measurement accuracy.Inductive conductivity sensors
are especially suitable for harsh
chemical environments because only inert and heat-resistant materials,
such as PEEK and PTFE, are in contact with the sample. However, these
sensors lack the sensitivity of their electrode-type counterparts
and require large sample volumes.[16] The
latter is disadvantageous in laboratory applications, for instance,
when space is limited or when large sample series need to be analyzed.
Because of the above reasons, we argue that a conductivity measurement
cell for broad applicability of high-accuracy measurements of corrosive
ionic media with small sample volumes is lacking, which obstructs
progress in the implementation of advanced conductivity observation
for the mentioned scientific areas.
Cell Design
The
cell design is illustrated in Figure . The main feature
is a long counter electrode which is mounted on a motorized linear
stage to accurately control its vertical position. The linear stage
is a Thorlabs LTS300/M with a position accuracy of 3.89 μm.
The counter electrode is introduced into an elongated PTFE tube that
contains the sample. The working electrode is located at the bottom
of the setup and mounted on the sample tube by means of a silicone
O-ring. Due to the elongated design of the cell, large electrode distances
are achievable. The sample tube is enclosed by a brass housing, which
is connected to a thermostatic bath. A PT100 temperature sensor is
mounted next to the sample tube to control the sample temperature
(Supporting Information). All wetted parts
are entirely made of corrosion- and heat-resistant materials, such
as PTFE, PEEK, and silicone. Titanium grade 2 is used as electrode
material, a metal which is known for excellent corrosion resistance
in various ionic media. The working and counter electrodes are connected
to a capable potentiostat that collects data. Operation of the whole
setup was automated in Python.
Figure 1
Design of the moving electrode conductivity
cell. All dimensions
in mm.
Design of the moving electrode conductivity
cell. All dimensions
in mm.
Data Acquisition and Processing
High measurement accuracy
is achieved utilizing a novel method called moving-electrode electrochemical
impedance spectroscopy (MEEIS). The principle of MEEIS, presented
earlier to analyze the sedimentation behavior of particles in conductive
suspensions,[17] and was revised and optimized
in this work for high-precision conductivity measurements.The
design meets the requirement to record impedance spectra over a large
frequency range for various electrode distances d, as shown in the magnitude and phase
plots in Figure for
the cases of a highly (M1 and P1) and a poorly (M2 and P2) conductive
test liquid. EIS spectra of liquid samples are generally interpreted
using equivalent circuit models. With an appropriate model, parameters
such as the double-layer capacitance, the charge transfer resistance,
or the bulk conductivity can be determined.[18] As we are interested solely in bulk conductivity, it is possible
to exploit the principle of MEEIS to provide a more efficient and
robust data analysis. We found that the change in impedance for measurements
with negligible capacitive and inductive contributions (arg(Z) ∼ 0°) varies strictly linearly with the electrode
distance d and can be
approximated by a linear function, as illustrated in Figure (LF1 and LF2). If a denotes the slope of this function, the conductivity can
be directly expressed aswith A being
the effective cross section of the sample. the cross section of the
sample tube. In our setup, the value of A = 0.7976
± 0.002 cm2 was determined via calibration with a
conductivity standard and corresponds to the actual cross section
of the sample tube. Equation shows that the conductivity depends solely on the linear
fit parameter a and not on the sample length. This
is a key difference to static cells, where electrode distance and
cross section cannot be determined separately, but always appear in
a single term denoted as the cell constant c = l/A. As discussed in our previous work,[17] this invariance of the sample length allows
independent investigation of electrode(-near) and bulk effects, which,
for instance, is useful for studying samples that tend to phase separate.
Figure 2
MEEIS
impedance spectra (magnitude (M) and phase (P)) and solution
resistance as linear functions of the electrode distance (LF) for
two test liquids with low (1) and high (2) conductivity (σ1 = 1.38 × 10–4 S cm–1, σ2 = 0.625 S cm–1). Each circle
represents the mean of the ten impedance values with the closed phase
angle to zero. The triangles indicate at which frequency arg(Z) is minimal. For both cases, we obtained a highly accurate
fit with slopes a1 = 9007 ± 6.59
Ω cm–1 and a1 =
2.0058 ± 0.0013 Ω cm–1 (black lines in
LF1 and LF2, respectively). The slope is directly related to the conductivity
via eq .
MEEIS
impedance spectra (magnitude (M) and phase (P)) and solution
resistance as linear functions of the electrode distance (LF) for
two test liquids with low (1) and high (2) conductivity (σ1 = 1.38 × 10–4 S cm–1, σ2 = 0.625 S cm–1). Each circle
represents the mean of the ten impedance values with the closed phase
angle to zero. The triangles indicate at which frequency arg(Z) is minimal. For both cases, we obtained a highly accurate
fit with slopes a1 = 9007 ± 6.59
Ω cm–1 and a1 =
2.0058 ± 0.0013 Ω cm–1 (black lines in
LF1 and LF2, respectively). The slope is directly related to the conductivity
via eq .Depending on the sample properties, the region of negligible
capacitive
(arg(Z) < 0°) and inductive effects (arg(Z) > 0°) shifts drastically, as visible in the phase
diagrams in Figure (P1 and P2). This requires selective frequency adaption to determine
the value of a correctly. In contrast to equivalent
circuit modeling, our approach allows effortless automation without
any prior information on the sample properties, as demonstrated by
automated data analysis in Python 3.8.2. Further experimental details
such as measurement voltage used, frequency range, etc. are provided
in the Supporting Information.
Solution Resistance
at Small Electrode Distances
Earlier,
we demonstrated that the linear relationship between electrode distance
and sample resistance is valid for large electrode gaps.[17] However, this linear relationship is lost when
the distance between the electrodes becomes too small. To investigate
where the linear behavior ends, computer simulations using the Finite
Element software COMSOL were performed and a cell with similar geometry
was designed based on the setup shown in Figure (Supporting Information).We simulated the current density field inside the sample
to spot regions of nonuniform current distribution and to investigate
how the field changes when the electrode distance is varied. If the
current is distributed nonuniformly across the sample cross section,
as can be the case near the electrodes, it will contribute a larger
fraction of the overall sample resistance. A linear change of this
parameter can therefore only be expected if the current density field
is not distorted when the electrode distance is varied.As evident
from the results in Figure , the electrode geometry
G1 preserves a uniform current density distribution, even at small
electrode distances. The situation changes when a different electrode
design is chosen. For geometries G2 and G3, field distortions were
much more pronounced when the electrodes were approaching closely,
indicating an early end of the linear resistance regime. The trends
evident in the field plots were confirmed by computing the solution
resistances between the electrode surfaces from the current–density
fields as functions of the electrode distance. The results are presented
in Figure . As expected, we see that the solution resistance
increased linearly with the electrode distance for design G1, whereas
for G2 and G3 a nonlinear behavior was observed at small electrode
distances. The largest change in resistance was observed for G3, where
electrodes with a small surface area were used, followed by G2 and
then G1. Interestingly, all geometries transited into the same linear
behavior (same slope), once the electrode distance became sufficiently
large. This behavior was further experimentally confirmed by using
different counter electrode geometries (Supporting Information) and demonstrates an important aspect of MEEIS
in its practical application. Under the assumption that the electrode
properties do not change during data acquisition (e.g., due to fast
corrosion of the electrode surface), the conductivity determined by
MEEIS is independent of the electrode properties and geometry. This
means that electrodes can be changed without the need for recalibration,
and long-term passivation effects on the electrode surfaces do not
influence the measurement. This is a major advantage over electrode
sensors with nonmovable electrodes, where electric decoupling of electrode(-near)
and bulk effects is impossible and a change of, i.e., the electrode
surface area alters the cell constant.[19] Bubbles on the sidewalls, which might locally decrease the sample
cross section, are not an issue, as they are wiped off by the aligning
element shown in Figure . This feature was automated in the data acquisition program and
is executed just before data acquisition starts.
Figure 3
2D axisymmetric simulations
of the current–density distribution
for three electrode designs at small electrode distances. Gray parts
are electrodes, and white parts are modeled as insulators.
Figure 4
Sample resistance as a function of the electrode distance for simulated
electrode geometries in Figure . The line fit was calculated for data points in the linear
region (data points between 3 and 6 cm not shown).
2D axisymmetric simulations
of the current–density distribution
for three electrode designs at small electrode distances. Gray parts
are electrodes, and white parts are modeled as insulators.Sample resistance as a function of the electrode distance for simulated
electrode geometries in Figure . The line fit was calculated for data points in the linear
region (data points between 3 and 6 cm not shown).
Influence of Nonuniform Temperature Distribution
The
electrical properties of liquid samples are temperature-dependent,
especially for concentrated electrolytes. The conductivity of concentrated
potassium hydroxide solutions, for instance, changes by up to 1%/°C.[20] For organic EMIM-based ionic liquids, a maximum
change of 1.4%/°C was reported.[21]The thermostatic bath controller used has a temperature stability
<0.01 °C. Since the temperature is sensed locally at one point
outside the sample, the extent to which the temperature differs inside
the sample remains elusive. To investigate this aspect, we replaced
the counter electrode by a precision reference thermometer and analyzed
the temperature inside the sample at several vertical positions. We
found that for electrode distances d > 1.5 cm, a temperature stability <0.1 °C
was achieved for all adjusted set point temperatures (40, 60, and
80 °C). For smaller electrode distances, deviations became larger
and more pronounced, especially at higher temperatures, as illustrated
in Figure . The greatest
deviation of ΔT = 1.5 °C was found at d = 0 cm at a set point temperature
of 80 °C. In practice, temperature gradients near the working
electrode do not affect the conductivity measurement for the following
reason: As already discussed in our previous work,[17] MEEIS measures the sample only between the smallest and
largest adjusted electrode distance. If sufficiently large electrode
distances are chosen, as required for moderately and highly conductive
samples, effects near the working electrode do not affect the conductivity
measurement.
Figure 5
(Left) Setup for measuring temperature at variable electrode
positions
inside the sample. (1) Precision reference sensor, (2) linear stage,
(3) thermally isolated cell, and (4) cell-mounted PT100 temperature
sensor as shown in Figure . (Right) Temperature distribution for various set point temperatures
and electrode distances.
(Left) Setup for measuring temperature at variable electrode
positions
inside the sample. (1) Precision reference sensor, (2) linear stage,
(3) thermally isolated cell, and (4) cell-mounted PT100 temperature
sensor as shown in Figure . (Right) Temperature distribution for various set point temperatures
and electrode distances.
Measurement Accuracy and
Conductivity Range
As proposed,
an important quality feature of our cell is its high accuracy for
a large bandwidth of conductivities measured. In theory, the electrolytic
conductivity does not influence measurement accuracy. The impact of
the electromagnetic skin effect can be excluded in the frequency range
of interest due to the relatively low conductivities of ionic solutions
compared to those of metals. In practice, however, high accuracy is
guaranteed only when the recorded impedances are within the limitations
of the measurement hardware.To investigate this aspect, we
performed room-temperature experiments with KCl solutions in a broad
conductivity range. Accuracy was quantified utilizing 95% confidence
intervals, determined from the goodness of fit of the parameter a in eq (Supporting Information). Our findings, illustrated
in Figure , show that
exceptional measurement accuracy was achieved over a wide conductivity
range from 5.6 × 10–5 S cm–1 to 0.82 S cm–1 with a mean relative uncertainty
of ±0.23%. The largest uncertainty of 1.37% was measured for
the least conductive sample, which can be explained by the interference-prone
measurement of small currents that are at the detection limit of the
measurement instrumentation.
Figure 6
Relative measurement uncertainty (95% confidence
interval) for
solutions with various conductivities at room temperature. Error bars
are drawn only for the samples measured in triplicate with the original
data points shown in red.
Relative measurement uncertainty (95% confidence
interval) for
solutions with various conductivities at room temperature. Error bars
are drawn only for the samples measured in triplicate with the original
data points shown in red.
Conductivity Measurements of Corrosive Ionic Media
Finally,
we investigated the proper operation of our setup under
chemically harsh conditions and at high temperatures. As ionic media,
solutions of alkaline potassium hydroxide and acidic hydrochloric
acid were chosen. The constituting ions of these chemicals exhibit
high limiting molar conductivities (λ = 73.5, λ = 197.9, λ = 344, λ = 76.3 in S cm2 mol–1), which
results in high conductivity values in concentrated media. Due to
extreme pH of these liquids, only a few materials exhibit proper corrosion
resistance. In our setup, all wetted, nonconducting components are
inert against these chemicals. The titanium electrodes have a high
corrosion resistance in alkaline media but are sensitive to corrosion
of some acids, such as concentrated HCl solutions.[22] Nonetheless, we used HCl solutions to show that even in
this case, accurate conductivity measurements can be performed when
using our moving electrode approach.For each ionic medium,
solutions of varying concentration were measured at various temperatures
and compared to reference data from the literature.[20,23] As before, measurement accuracy was determined from the goodness
of fit of the parameter a in eq . All measurement data, including errors and
a comparison to reference data, can be found in Tables S1–S6 in Supporting Information.We find that for all tested cases, measurement uncertainties
are
small, with average values of ±0.11% and ±0.064% for the
KOH and HCl solutions, respectively. When compared to reference data,
we observed that measured and reported values differed on average
by about 4.09% and by a maximum of 7.48% for the 40 wt % solution
at 100 °C. HCl solutions differed on average by about 1.4% and
by a maximum of 2.28% for the 10 wt % solution at 25 °C. Presumably,
these differences do not arise from the measurement itself but external
factors. As KOH is a hygroscopic CO2-absorbing substance,
samples are easily contaminated. The observed conductivity is very
sensitive to variations in the water content, especially at high ion
concentrations. The latter also applies for concentrated HCl solutions.
Additionally, the accuracy of published data can be questioned. In
the KOH case, where data of various authors is available, the review
of Gilliam et al.[20] reported differences
of up to 10%.Due to the high boiling point of KOH in the most
concentrated case,
we could demonstrate the proper functioning of our cell at high temperatures.
Even at the highest tested temperature of 130 °C, measurement
uncertainties were no larger than ±1.3%. Unfortunately, we could
not find existing data from the literature to compare our measurement
results in this case.Experiments with HCl demonstrated the
robustness of MEEIS in harsh
chemical conditions. Despite severe corrosion of the electrode surface,
as shown in Figure , a mean measurement uncertainty of ±0.064% was achieved. This
confirms the previously stated advantage of MEEIS that slow alteration
of the electrode surface does not affect the measurement results.
However, due to contamination of the analyte over time, we recommend
choosing an electrode material which is less susceptible to corrosion.
As mentioned previously, conductivity measurement using MEEIS is independent
of the electrode geometry and surface condition, so electrodes can
be changed without the need for recalibration.
Figure 7
Titanium working electrode
after severe corrosion (gray area) from
experiments with concentrated HCl.
Titanium working electrode
after severe corrosion (gray area) from
experiments with concentrated HCl.To conclude, we have reported a setup that combines
high accuracy and robust design for use in conductivity measurements
of corrosive ionic media. In moving-electrode impedance spectroscopy,
the conductivity is determined not from the absolute value of the
sample impedance as in static cells, but from the change in sample
impedance arising from varying the electrode position. By automatically
selecting a suitable frequency range, conductivity is determined solely
from the bulk of the sample, excluding influences of the electrode–liquid
interface (double-layer), of long-term passivation of the electrode
surface, and of cable or contact impedances. Various electrode geometries
were simulated to find an optimal design that ensures high linearity
of the solution resistance even at small electrode distances. Furthermore,
we could demonstrate that, once the linear relationship between electrode
distance and sample resistance is established, the conductivity measurement
will be independent of the electrode geometry or its properties. Thus,
alteration of electrode properties or changing the electrodes does
not require recalibration of the cell. Temperature gradients inside
the sample were analyzed thoroughly to determine the regions of highest
measurement accuracy. Extensive testing with corrosive, ionic media
showed that the relative measurement uncertainty is on average ±0.23%
for conductivities in the range of 5.6 × 10–5 to 0.82 S cm–1. Compared to commercially available
electrode sensors, with specified accuracies as large as 3–5%,[14,15] this is a more than 10-fold increase in accuracy. Moreover, experiments
with caustic solutions of potassium hydroxide and concentrated hydrochloric
acid demonstrated the robust operation of our setup under chemically
harsh conditions and in a large temperature range up to 130 °C.We will use this setup to study in situ process monitoring, for
instance, of the formation of zeolites from so-called hydrated silica
ionic liquids.[24] These are highly alkaline
liquids which form zeolites upon hydrothermal treatment at temperatures
above 60 °C. The resistance changes in the solution during synthesis
are expected to be small, and thus accurate conductivity measurement
will be essential.
Authors: G Brabants; M Hubin; E K Reichel; B Jakoby; E Breynaert; F Taulelle; J A Martens; C E A Kirschhock Journal: Langmuir Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 3.882
Authors: Leen van Tendeloo; Mohamed Haouas; Johan A Martens; C E A Kirschhock; Eric Breynaert; Francis Taulelle Journal: Faraday Discuss Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 4.008
Authors: Nick Pellens; Nikolaus Doppelhammer; Sambhu Radhakrishnan; Karel Asselman; C Vinod Chandran; Dries Vandenabeele; Bernhard Jakoby; Johan A Martens; Francis Taulelle; Erwin K Reichel; Eric Breynaert; Christine E A Kirschhock Journal: Chem Mater Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 10.508