Luis A M Rocha1, Lewis Thorne1, Jasper J Wong1, Julyan H E Cartwright2,3, Silvana S S Cardoso1. 1. Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3RA, U.K. 2. Instituto Andaluz de Ciencias de la Tierra, CSIC-Universidad de Granada, 18100 Armilla, Granada, Spain. 3. Instituto Carlos I de Física Teórica y Computacional, Universidad de Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain.
Abstract
We describe and study the formation of confined chemical garden patterns. At low flow rates of injection of cobalt chloride solution into a Hele-Shaw cell filled with sodium silicate, the precipitate forms with a thin filament wrapping around an expanding "candy floss" structure. The result is the formation of an Archimedean spiral structure. We model the growth of the structure mathematically. We estimate the effective density of the precipitate and calculate the membrane permeability. We set the results within the context of recent experimental and modeling work on confined chemical garden filaments.
We describe and study the formation of confined chemical garden patterns. At low flow rates of injection of cobalt chloride solution into a Hele-Shaw cell filled with sodium silicate, the precipitate forms with a thin filament wrapping around an expanding "candy floss" structure. The result is the formation of an Archimedean spiral structure. We model the growth of the structure mathematically. We estimate the effective density of the precipitate and calculate the membrane permeability. We set the results within the context of recent experimental and modeling work on confined chemical garden filaments.
Pattern formation is commonly
observed in nature as a result of
physical, chemical, or biological self-organizing processes.[1,2] A remarkable example of such self-organizing patterns are chemical
gardens, precipitate structures formed when a metal salt contacts
with a solution of silicate, phosphate, carbonate, or many other anions.[3−5] Various methods have been developed to grow these structures, which
lead to a wide array of patterns and regimes;[6−14] the one characteristic common to all is the formation of a semipermeable
precipitate membrane separating two fluids which establishes a steep
concentration and pH gradient. The earliest such experimental method
is seed growth, which simply involves placing a solid crystal of a
metal salt in a reservoir containing a silicate solution. The precipitation
reaction forms a membrane surrounding the seed, across which a concentration
gradient drives water into the seed through osmosis. Eventually, the
increase in pressure causes the membrane to rupture, releasing a buoyant
jet of the inner solution. This process then repeats, given the periodical
rupturing and healing of the membrane by precipitation. The result
is the formation of multiple vertical tubes; the resemblance of this
pattern with the stalks of plants led to the name chemical
garden.[3,15] Novel methods were developed
over time, allowing for better control of the experimental variables,
and thus uncovering new chemical garden patterns. If a metal salt
solution is pumped into the reservoir rather than introduced with
a seed, vertical tubular structures are still formed, which can range
from thin jet-like filaments, to wider oscillating tubes, to even
wider bulbous structures.[16,17] These different regimes
were found to be due to the density difference between the lighter
injected fluid and the denser host solution.[16,17] Further control over the formation of these precipitate patterns
is achieved with Hele-Shaw cells:[18−22] quasi two-dimensional micro reactors where one of
the reactants is injected into the other. This method reveals a truly
remarkable array of different patterns, shaped by the viscosity differences
of the fluids as well as the local velocity. Such regimes include
“spirals”, “flowers”, “worms”,
and “filaments”.[23,24] These filaments are
one of the most noteworthy regimes and occur when the concentrations
of the reactants are both high and the injection flow rate is above
a certain threshold. They consist of thin tubular structures, with
an active tip that periodically changes direction after short rectilinear
paths, resulting in a zigzag pattern.[25−29] The motion of these patterns has been modeled according
to the oscillatory dynamics of the membrane at the tip of the filament.[27] Below the flow rate threshold, no filaments
are observed and the precipitate spreads radially from the nozzle.[25,27,30] In this work, Hele-Shaw cells
are used to grow chemical gardens with very low flow rates but high
concentrations of the reactants, sodium silicate, and cobalt chloride.
The evolution of the radial structures formed is modeled, and a novel
pattern is observed, an Archimedean Spiral;[31] this appears to be the result of the simultaneous
growth of two distinct regimes.
Experimental Methods
A horizontal Hele-Shaw
cell was used for experiments (Figure ). The setup consisted
of two circular perspex plates (30 cm in diameter) separated by rubber
spaces 0.5 mm thick and placed horizontally over a light pad for illumination.
The cell was initially filled from a center injection nozzle with
a host solution of sodium silicate (3.13 M), prepared by dilution
in water of a commercial solution. A displacing solution of cobalt
chloride (0.63 M) was then injected into the cell. This solution was
prepared by dissolution of the powder in water. A syringe pump was
used to pump both solutions into the cell. Photographs were taken
from above during each experiment at 5 s intervals with a Nikon D300s
digital single-lens reflex camera (DSLR, 4288 × 2848 pixels)
with a Hoya circular polarizing lens filter. The images were analyzed
with MATLAB to determine the growth of the precipitate area with time.
This involved binarizing the image to black and white, calculating
the area of precipitate in pixels, and then converting to cm2.
Figure 1
Schematic of the experimental setup.
Schematic of the experimental setup.
Experimental Observations
Regime Characterization
As the cobalt
chloride solution is injected into the host solution of sodium silicate,
precipitate patterns grow radially from the center injection point.
As the structure grows, various different patterns can be observed.
The different regimes observed are presented in Figure .
Figure 2
Different regimes observed during an experiment.
The structure
spreads radially from the nozzle at the center; different patterns
emerge as the local velocity decreases: (A) Archimedean spirals/candy
floss, (B) candy floss, and (C) lichen/worms.
Different regimes observed during an experiment.
The structure
spreads radially from the nozzle at the center; different patterns
emerge as the local velocity decreases: (A) Archimedean spirals/candy
floss, (B) candy floss, and (C) lichen/worms.A new regime was observed, Archimedean spirals,
together with another possibly novel morphology, termed here candy floss. Candy floss growth is characterized by a uniform
and radial seeping of precipitate, with a fluffy pink color, hence
the name. This pattern is similar to the moss regime already reported
in the literature,[30] which is also the
first regime to appear in similar experiments, but with a more homogeneous
pink color. The moss pattern is described as having the features of
compact fibers, with large inner fingers and a violet-blue color,[30] quite different from the candy floss morphology.
These differences may be due to the different concentrations of the
reactants in the two cases, as well as the slightly lower flow rate
used to generate the moss pattern (∼1 μL s–1). It is possible that moss and candy floss are mere
variations of the same regime; however, given the differences, the
pattern observed in this work is referred to as candy floss in this paper.Archimedean spirals were found to grow together
with candy floss,
for all injection flow rates of 3.3 μL s–1 (0.2 mL min–1) and above. These spirals consist
of a clear line of precipitate growing around the edge of the existing
candy floss structure. Because these two patterns cogrow, the lines
growing around the edge are approximately equally spaced on successive
turnings, thus forming an Archimedean spiral. Indeed, such a spiral
is defined as a curve increasing its distance from the origin at a
constant rate, along a line that rotates at a constant angular velocity
(expressed mathematically as r = bθ with b as the filament width); that is similar
to the process observed experimentally in the chemical garden. (The
angular velocity of the precipitate spiral is not constant, but the
velocity is. The result is ultimately the same, the formation of the
chemical garden just slows down with time.)The equation for
the arclength of an Archimedean spiral isIf we assume the spiral grows at a constant
speed and take the derivative with respect to t,
we obtainThis
first-order nonlinear ordinary differential
equation may be integrated to derive an implicit expression relating
θ and t:defining
θ = 0 at t = 0. A similar implicit expression
for r and t may easily be obtained
from the equation for an Archimedean
spiral:Here, we consider the curve
produced by a physical process in which
material is injected into a 2D setup, so having negligible width.
At the beginning of the process, a circle of a certain diameter forms.
At this point the circle becomes unstable and material starts to leak
out to form a filament that wraps around itself. The process then
continues as an advancing filament of fixed width of this material
hugs itself. Before the amount of material injected is sufficient
to form a filament, precisely what form this curve takes depends on
how we might describe in detail the initial injection. However, once
past this initial stage, a self-hugging filament of fixed width is
described by a spiral; the distance between whose turns is constant.
Such a curve is an Archimedean spiral,[31] or its close relative, the involute of the circle.[32,33] These two curves are practically indistinguishable except very close
to the origin (the Archimedean spiral is in fact the pedal curve of
the involute of a circle, with the center as pedal point[34]). Therefore, we refer for simplicity to the
curve as an Archimedean spiral. The way Archimedes formed his spiral
is to think of a point moving at a constant rate along a straight
line that rotates around a point lying on that straight line. Imagine
something like the path an ant makes when it walks along the hand
of a clock from the center outward. If one thinks of the spiral being
constructed thus, if you consider the ant’s speed relative
to the fixed clock face, it increases as it moves outward. But you
obtain the same spiral, only being drawn at the constant speed, rather
than a constant angular velocity, if a second ant marches round and
round the clock face from the center at a constant speed spiralling
outward while following the trajectory left by the first. This is
our case. In fact, Archimedes himself is interested in his original
exploration of the spiral[31] in the areas
between successive turns, which he found to be in arithmetic progression,[35] and these areas tell us how long it takes for
our filament to complete each succeeding coil.The expanding
candy floss does not spread as a perfect circle,
however, so the path of the precipitate spiral may slightly deviate
from a perfect Archimedean spiral (Figure ). In a normal Archimedean spiral, the radius
increases in so-called arithmetic progression, by a constant increment
for each turn; here that is so, but with a deal of statistical noise.
Nevertheless, we consider this term effectively communicates the mechanism
of growth, while distinguishing it from other confined chemical garden
spirals.[18]
Figure 3
Time sequence of photographs showing the
motion of a spiral segment.
The arrow points to the starting point of the line; it then grows
counterclockwise. The segment forms at the edge of the candy floss
region, which separates the various curves of the spiral. The Archimedean
spiral and the candy floss grow simultaneously; candy floss grows
in all directions (note how it eventually even starts leaking from
the outside of the spiral itself, starting at t =
12 s), and the spiral evolves independently, adding new sections to
its moving tip in a linear fashion.
Time sequence of photographs showing the
motion of a spiral segment.
The arrow points to the starting point of the line; it then grows
counterclockwise. The segment forms at the edge of the candy floss
region, which separates the various curves of the spiral. The Archimedean
spiral and the candy floss grow simultaneously; candy floss grows
in all directions (note how it eventually even starts leaking from
the outside of the spiral itself, starting at t =
12 s), and the spiral evolves independently, adding new sections to
its moving tip in a linear fashion.Candy floss growth eventually dominates over the spirals, these
cover a larger area with increasing Q. For Q ≤ 1.7 μL s–1, no spirals
are observed and only candy floss is present, which generally grows
symmetrically. The spirals can lead to an asymmetric growth of the
precipitate in later stages, as shown for Q = 3.3
μs –1 in Figure . After the candy floss regime, the precipitate
growth transitioned to patterns of lichen and worms, as already described
in the literature. These are characterized by a blue-green color and
a wavier perimeter. The transition to new regimes always occurred
at a larger radius of precipitate for higher injection flow rates.
Figure 4
Sequence
of photographs of precipitate patterns formed under different
injection flow rates (1.71–6.7 μL s–1; 0.1–0.4 mL min–1) for different volumes
of injected cobalt chloride (field of view: 9.7 × 9.7 cm).
Sequence
of photographs of precipitate patterns formed under different
injection flow rates (1.71–6.7 μL s–1; 0.1–0.4 mL min–1) for different volumes
of injected cobalt chloride (field of view: 9.7 × 9.7 cm).
Effect of Local Velocity
The appearance
of the different growth regimes is dependent on the local velocity
at a given time.[30] Because the flow rate
of cobalt chloride injected into the cell is constant, the local velocity u = Q/(2πLr) decreases
with radius r from the center injection point as
the structure grows. Figure shows the different patterns observed as a function of local
velocity, for each Q tested. As the structure grows
and the local velocity at its periphery decreases, higher flow rate
patterns become unstable and new regimes emerge: filaments turn into
Archimedean spirals, spirals stop and candy floss dominates, and eventually
candy floss turns into lichen/worms.
Figure 5
Pattern regime formed at calculated local
velocities for different
flow rates. Red bars, Archimedean spirals; orange bars, Candy-floss;
and blue bars, lichen/worms regimes. Images above bars also indicate
regime pattern. Transition to gray bars signify the end of the experiment.
Pattern regime formed at calculated local
velocities for different
flow rates. Red bars, Archimedean spirals; orange bars, Candy-floss;
and blue bars, lichen/worms regimes. Images above bars also indicate
regime pattern. Transition to gray bars signify the end of the experiment.Multiple regimes may be observed simultaneously,
with the secondary
patterns appearing in cogrowth always corresponding to lower local
velocity regimes.[27,30] It is common, for instance, for
filaments to start leaking from the walls[27] and for Archimedean spirals to appear together with candy floss.
This implies that the local velocity may not be constant all across
the perimeter of the precipitate, and it may decrease locally because
of physical barriers caused by asymmetries in the precipitate morphology.[30] The most noteworthy cases of cogrowth involve
filaments, which require the highest local velocity. As initially
expected, one can observe that filaments leak from the walls and then
transition to candy floss, as shown in Figure . However, it is also possible for spirals
to lead to filaments, as presented in Figure . This suggests that spiral growth may be
very similar to filaments because the latter can emerge seamlessly
from a loop of a spiral.
Figure 6
Photographs of precipitate after 175 s for three
repeat experiments
at Q = 6.7 μL s–1(0.4 mL
min–1): (a) leaking from filaments; (b) spirals,
no filaments; (c) filaments from spirals. In spite of the same experimental
conditions, different results may be obtained. This is commonly observed
in chemical garden experiments in Hele-Shaw cells; there exists a
transition region between regimes where any one pattern may be observed.
The fact that filaments are formed under the same conditions as spirals,
or even emerging directly from them, suggests spiral segments may
correspond to a filament wrapping around the candy floss structure;
this would make them very similar to when filaments start leaking
inner fluid from the walls (as shown in panel a). Spirals would then
correspond to filaments self-hugging the leaking inner fluid.
Photographs of precipitate after 175 s for three
repeat experiments
at Q = 6.7 μL s–1(0.4 mL
min–1): (a) leaking from filaments; (b) spirals,
no filaments; (c) filaments from spirals. In spite of the same experimental
conditions, different results may be obtained. This is commonly observed
in chemical garden experiments in Hele-Shaw cells; there exists a
transition region between regimes where any one pattern may be observed.
The fact that filaments are formed under the same conditions as spirals,
or even emerging directly from them, suggests spiral segments may
correspond to a filament wrapping around the candy floss structure;
this would make them very similar to when filaments start leaking
inner fluid from the walls (as shown in panel a). Spirals would then
correspond to filaments self-hugging the leaking inner fluid.In addition, these data show that while it is often
possible to
predict which regimes will appear for a particular injection flow
rate, there are still rather wide transition regions between regimes,
where any of these patterns may emerge.[27]Cogrowth can also appear as internal reaction zones in the
precipitate
structure. During the lichen/worms phase, a darker blue layer within
the main front can be seen to expand at the same time as the whole
precipitate area grows, as shown in Figure . One possible explanation for this are the
inclusions of unreacted sodium silicate left behind during the worms
phase, presented in Figure b. These react at later times as more cobalt chloride flows
through the system and is fed to the external surface of the precipitate.
This effect complicates the modeling of the lichen/worms phase because
the quantity of cobalt chloride that reaches the outer edge of solid
and that contributes to the expansion of the structure is reduced.
It also adds an error into the estimation of the precipitate area
through the binary image processing method because these pockets of
sodium silicate are difficult to detect automatically.
Figure 7
Thin dark annulus of
secondary precipitate is apparent in the worms/lichen
growth phase (see panel a). At a later time (b), the dark annulus
of secondary precipitate has expanded through internal reaction zones.
Figure 8
(a) Close-up of precipitate growth with the candy floss
and Archimedean
spiral regimes. The spiral segments sometimes are broken up into shorter
ones by the expanding candy floss. These segments exhibit some bumps
along their outline, possibly an indication of oscillatory dynamics
similar to chemical garden filaments. (b) Detail of the lichen regime,
which does not grow in a uniform manner. As a result, inclusions of
outer solution may form within the precipitate, reacting with the
inner solution at a later stage of the experiment. These areas are
difficult to detect rigorously with image analysis, introducing uncertainties
in the estimation of the effective density.
Thin dark annulus of
secondary precipitate is apparent in the worms/lichen
growth phase (see panel a). At a later time (b), the dark annulus
of secondary precipitate has expanded through internal reaction zones.(a) Close-up of precipitate growth with the candy floss
and Archimedean
spiral regimes. The spiral segments sometimes are broken up into shorter
ones by the expanding candy floss. These segments exhibit some bumps
along their outline, possibly an indication of oscillatory dynamics
similar to chemical garden filaments. (b) Detail of the lichen regime,
which does not grow in a uniform manner. As a result, inclusions of
outer solution may form within the precipitate, reacting with the
inner solution at a later stage of the experiment. These areas are
difficult to detect rigorously with image analysis, introducing uncertainties
in the estimation of the effective density.
Effective Density Estimation
One
important parameter when studying the growth of these chemical garden
regimes is the density of the precipitate. Given how the precipitate
membrane formed in the reaction is a hydrous, porous material, an
experiment was conducted to estimate the effective density of the
chemical garden structure. The experiment involved injecting known
quantities of both solutions into the cell, first the silicate one
and then cobalt, with known densities ρSi and ρCo. With image analysis it is possible to determine the volume
of sodium silicate before and after reaction, as well as the volume
of precipitate formed. Assuming negligible density changes in the
liquids and that the osmotic flow of water out of the chemical garden
did not dilute the sodium silicate solution, the effective density
can be calculated asHere, the subscript 1 refers to the mass of
the reactant before the injection of cobalt chloride (and thus before
reaction has taken place) and the subscript 2 refers to the end of
the experiment, after the reaction is complete. Thus, MSi,1 is the mass of silicate injected into the cell at
the start, MCo,1 the mass of cobalt injected
after, and MSi,1 the mass of silicate
not consumed by reaction and advected by the cobalt solution. Vprec is the volume of precipitate, measured
with image analysis and assumed to fill the entire gap of the cell.
The density was estimated to be ρeff = (1.19 ±
0.07) × 103 kg m–3, for a precipitate
grown at injection rate Q = 0.3 mL min–1. The error in the measurement is due to any solid formed within
the nozzle being unaccounted for, as well as uncertainty regarding
the moment when the solid started spreading in the cell. The effective
density is much closer to the density of water than that of cobalt
silicate crystals, suggesting a highly porous structure. Assuming
that the only species present are the 0.63 M cobalt chloride solution
and the crystals, which have densities of ρCo = 1070
kg m–3 and ρcrystals = 4600 kg
m–3, respectively, then ρeff =
ρCo(1 – ε) + ρcrystalsε, where ε is the liquid volume fraction. Solving this
equation leads to ε = 0.97 ± 0.02.Densities of various
dry cobalt-silicate chemical garden pellets have been reported to
lie in the range of 240–580 kg m–3,[22] which correspond to porosities of 0.95–0.87,
assuming the same density for the cobalt silicate crystals. The porosity
estimated here is thus of a similar magnitude as these previous findings.
The fact that the pellets have a lower porosity is also to be expected
because these were grown over a much longer time scale of 1–2
h, instead of the few minutes for the experiments described in this
study. In addition, these pellets were grown without injection, giving
the solid more time to grow denser and without being spread by injection.
Mathematical Modeling
Precipitate
Growth
By applying conservation
of mass to this system, it is possible to model the growth of the
precipitate structure during an experiment. This involves taking into
account the effects of injection, chemical reaction, osmosis, and
density change. The in/out flows and phase changes are illustrated
in Figure .
Figure 9
(a) Schematic
of the mass flows into and out of the precipitate
structure. Injection feeds cobalt chloride through the nozzle at the
center; silicate ions are driven from the outer fluid and consumed
in the precipitation reaction to form a membrane; the concentration
gradient established across the membrane drives water into the structure
through osmosis. (b) Density changes occur in the system: the reaction
forms a precipitate product with a higher density than the liquid
reactants, and the overall structure thus consists of the injected
inner liquid and the precipitate product, with an effective density
ρeff. The consumption of silicate ions in the reaction
also leads to a decrease in the density of the outer fluid, which
is assumed to be negligible here.
(a) Schematic
of the mass flows into and out of the precipitate
structure. Injection feeds cobalt chloride through the nozzle at the
center; silicate ions are driven from the outer fluid and consumed
in the precipitation reaction to form a membrane; the concentration
gradient established across the membrane drives water into the structure
through osmosis. (b) Density changes occur in the system: the reaction
forms a precipitate product with a higher density than the liquid
reactants, and the overall structure thus consists of the injected
inner liquid and the precipitate product, with an effective density
ρeff. The consumption of silicate ions in the reaction
also leads to a decrease in the density of the outer fluid, which
is assumed to be negligible here.These different contributions can be expressed mathematically as
follows: 1. Injection: a cobalt chloride solution is
continually injected into the cell with a syringe pump. The mass flow
rate is thus2. Osmosis: the precipitation
reaction forms a semipermeable
membrane, which allows the passage of water molecules but inhibits
the flow of metal ions. Given that a 0.63 M solution of cobalt chloride
is injected into a more concentrated 3.13 M sodium silicate host solution,
an osmotic pressure is created that drives water out of the chemical
garden. The velocity of water can be approximated with Darcy’s
law as follows:where k is the precipitate
membrane system permeability, μ the viscosity of water, r the average radius of the precipitate system, and ΔΠ the osmotic pressure. The osmotic pressure
can be estimated from the following equation:where i is the dimensionless
van’t Hoff index, R the molar ideal gas constant,
and T the temperature in Kelvin; ϕCo and ϕSi are the activity coefficients of CoCl2 and Na2SiO3, respectively, and CCo and CSi are the
molar concentrations of CoCl2 and Na2SiO3, respectively. The values for i and ϕ may be found in the literature;[36,37] here, i = 1, ϕSi = 0.3, and ϕCo = 0.47. The permeability k of the precipitate
membrane was initially unknown, and as a result was a fitting parameter
in the model. Permeability is expected to vary with time as the membrane
grows thicker;[38,39] in this case, it should assume
a value higher than that published for pellet growth (longer time
scale for membrane formation) but lower than the permeability of a
membrane at the tip of a moving filament (shorter time scale for membrane
formation). The mass flow of water out of the system is thuswhere H is the gap between
the plates of the Hele-Shaw cell.3. Reaction: the
two solutions react to form a hydrous
precipitate of cobalt silicateThe reaction thus leads to the incorporation
of silicate ions into
the precipitate system, which will be limited by the number of cobalt
ions, because sodium silicate is in excess. Assuming an instantaneous,
complete, and irreversible reaction, the mass flow of silicate ions
into the solid isCombining all these contributions, we obtain
the following differential equation for the rate of change of mass
of the solid:where ρCo is the
density
of cobalt chloride solution, QCo the injection
flow rate of cobalt chloride solution, the molar mass of SiO32– ions, and is the density of water. The solid structure
formed during each experiment is composed of the precipitate cobalt
silicate membrane as well as a liquid component flowing through it.
The whole system is thus assigned an effective density ρeff, and the total rate of change of mass isIf we combine eqs and 12, we obtainwhich can be solved to giveThis gives the radius of the precipitate structure
as a function of time, considering the contributions of injection,
osmosis, reaction, and density change. If reaction and osmosis are
neglected, then ρeff ≈ ρCo, reducing eq towhich would simplify
the temporal evolution
of r toThis equation describes the evolution
of the
system considering only volume conservation, where the injected solution
fills the cell gap entirely, as a cylinder of radius r and height H. Reaction and osmosis are thus corrections
to this expression.
Archimedean Spiral Dynamics
The Archimedean
spiral pattern is a novel chemical garden regime observed in this
work. The thin spiral segments appear to grow from their tip, by rotating
around the expanding candy floss structure. Filaments were observed
to grow directly out of the spiralling segments; these exhibit the
same color and width as the filaments, as shown in Figure . The spirals evolve together
with the candy floss growth; this process is reminiscent of filaments
leaking inner fluid.[27] Indeed, once filaments
start leaking from their side walls the flow rate reaching the tip
decreases, and eventually their growth stops (a minimum flow rate
is required to form a filament, which varies slightly with the chemical
system[27]). A similar behavior is found
in the spirals: their growth eventually stops as the leaking/candy
floss dominates, and no spirals are even observed at lower flow rates.
Additionally, it often happens that the final segment of the spiral
is further away from the other curves of the spiral than expected,
such as the example of Figure . This indicates that the spiral tip is advancing more slowly
and is thus pushed away further as the candy floss area inflates.
This behavior would be analogous to regular filaments slowing down
and eventually stopping as all the inner fluid escapes through leaking.
Such observations strongly suggest that the spirals consist of filaments
wrapping around spreading precipitate through a self-hugging mechanism.
Indeed, chemical garden filaments have been observed to follow the
path of a pre-existing one when approaching and colliding with it.
Therefore, it is possible that the dynamics of these chemical garden
Archimedean spirals are similar to those of regular filaments. In
essence, if we consider that a filament hugging itself to advance
at a roughly constant rate and that it is approximately following
a circle of ever increasing radius r, then r will increase with the square root of time.Filaments
consist of thin tubes where unreacted inner fluid flows, encased by
precipitate walls on the sides. A thin membrane exists at the tip
of the active advancing filament. Previous research on these structures
considers the variation of concentration of precipitate product at
the tip, c, affected by the accumulation due to reaction
and the spreading due to outflow, as well as the internal pressure
at the tip, p, which changes with the variation of
volume of fluid in the filament and the deformation of the membrane.
Modeling suggests that these parameters oscillate during the evolution
of the filament, leading to its characteristic zigzag motion. The
model can be derived to its non-dimensional form,[27,28] presented here:where is
the Heaviside function.This system is defined by three dimensionless
groups:is a nondimensional rate of accumulation of
solid;is a nondimensional volumetric injection rate
of metal ion;measures the pressure drop along the filament. ĉ, p̂, and t̂ are the nondimensionalized variables for the concentration of product,
internal pressure and time, obtained from the nondimensionalizing
scales cs = c*, ps = γAout/κ,
and ts = μLm/(γAoutkout). Dm is the diffusion
coefficient, Lm the membrane thickness, Lr the length scale of reaction, kout the membrane permeability, μ the fluid viscosity, Aout the cross-sectional area of the filament,
γ the membrane deformation, κ the curvature of the membrane
[defined as κ = 1/(H/2)], α the pressure
drop along the filament, c* the critical product
concentration, cms the inner fluid concentration,
and Qi the flow rate inside the filament.
For filaments grown with cobalt chloride and sodium silicate, the
values of Lm, kout, and Lr2c* have been estimated as 4.8 × 10–6 m, 1.6
× 10–10 m2, and 3.4 × 10–8 mol m–1, respectively.[27] The tortuous motion of the filament tip, periodically
changing direction, is associated with a frequency of oscillation, f. This variable can be derived from the model aswhereFor regular filaments, this
frequency of oscillation can be estimated
experimentally from the speed of the filament tip, ut, and the typical distance between turns, δ, as f = ut/δ. This allows
the comparison of the theory with experiments. In the spirals, however,
no turns exist because these hug the candy floss growth and thus follow
the direction of its outline. This hugging motion may be due to the
local concentration of ions: as the candy floss spreads, it consumes
the silicate ions in the area in front of it; as the spiral loops
around and arrives at that region, its inner side will face a relatively
depleted area of ions, compared to the outer side. This asymmetry
makes it more likely for a deformation to occur on the inner side
of the filament because the precipitate membrane is bound to be weaker
on that side. As a result, the segments will remain “tied”
to the candy floss structure because they are unlikely to turn toward
the outside bulk silicate solution. In spite of this, the dynamics
of the spiral segments should not be fundamentally different from
that of a regular filament: a thin precipitate membrane will exist
at the tip, and the parameters c and p will continuously oscillate. Because the path of the spiral is fixed,
these dynamics should then just affect their width in a periodic manner:
the precipitation reaction concentrates the product in the membrane,
narrowing the segment; outflow spreads the precipitate and expands
the width of the spiral channel. Indeed, the spiral segments do not
have a constant width, with slight bumps on their outline, as shown
in Figure a. We assume
that these are due to the oscillatory dynamics of chemical garden
filaments and that the average gap between these bumps is analogous
to the typical distance between turns in a filament, δ.In a similar fashion to the study of the traditional filaments,
experimental measurements of the frequency of oscillation f can then be compared with theoretical predictions calculated
with eq . The main
challenge in this analysis lies with the fact that the exact flow
rate inside the spiral segments is unknown (it is a fraction of the
flow rate pumped into the cell). The low flow rates involved are also
at the limit of applicability of the model.[27] Furthermore, candy floss generally spreads as an irregular circular
shape; because the spiral follows the outline of the candy floss structure,
some turns and bumps may be not be due to the oscillatory dynamics.
Nevertheless, an attempt is made to estimate the characteristics of
the Archimedean spirals in order to investigate the possibility the
model may be applicable. Assuming a flow rate inside the spiral segments
in the range of 4.2–5.8 μL s–1 (0.25–0.35
mL min–1) for the higher flow rate experiments,
and a segment width of 0.9 mm, eq yields frequencies of oscillation ranging from 8.7
to 4.6 Hz. These values of f are just slightly higher
than those of filaments generated with the same chemical system, which
is consistent with the similar speed of the active tip in both cases
and the fact that the bumps in the spirals are more closely spaced
than the turns in the filaments. This supports the possibility that
the spirals are indeed filaments self-hugging the candy floss area.Confirmation of this hypothesis will require more accurate measurements
and data from the spirals. A high speed camera may be used to record
the development of the structure; modeling predicts the bumps along
their outline are due to a periodical variation of the width of the
moving tip of the spiral, independent from irregularities in the edge
of the expanding candy floss. Additionally, direct and accurate measurements
of the dimensions and properties of the precipitate membranes could
allow for further information on the similarities or differences between
spirals and regular filaments, as well as confined chemical gardens
as a whole.
Results and Discussion
The precipitate growth model can be compared with the experimental
results obtained with the image analysis method described in section
2 and the literature.[26,27] The two initially unknown parameters
are the effective density of the precipitate, ρeff, and the membrane’s permeability, k. The
effective density was assumed constant across the entire area of solid
and was estimated experimentally as presented in section . This leaves the permeability
as the fitting parameter of the model to the experimental data. The
experimental results for the growth of precipitate are shown in Figure for all injected
flow rates tested. The data are shown together with the respective
model prediction. The data are presented only for the Archimedean
spiral and candy floss regimes and show a good agreement between experiments
and model. During the lichen/worms regimes, the model underestimates
the growth of precipitate likely because of the formation of unreacted
pockets of sodium silicate within the structure, which are unaccounted
for by the image analysis method.
Figure 10
Plots of experimental radius as a function
of time compared with
a theoretical model for a compact system and conservation of volume
for Q = 1.7–6.7 μL s–1 (Q = 0.1–0.4 mL min–1).
An effective density ρeff = 1.19 × 103 kg m–3 was used for all. For each experiment, r = 0.3 cm at t = 0 s, which corresponds
to the radius of the nozzle.
Plots of experimental radius as a function
of time compared with
a theoretical model for a compact system and conservation of volume
for Q = 1.7–6.7 μL s–1 (Q = 0.1–0.4 mL min–1).
An effective density ρeff = 1.19 × 103 kg m–3 was used for all. For each experiment, r = 0.3 cm at t = 0 s, which corresponds
to the radius of the nozzle.Despite the good performance of the model, it must be noted that
in all cases the model initially overestimates the growth of solid
and then underestimates it. This suggests that ρeff and k are not constant as the chemical garden evolves.
This trend implies that the effective density decreases with time,
the permeability increases, or both at the same time. This possibility
is consistent with the appearance of inclusions of sodium silicate
in later stages of growth, as shown in Figure b. These are difficult to measure accurately
and not taken into account by the image analysis method, leading to
the area of precipitate being overestimated.The model also
considers the simplest assumption that the product
occupies the whole gap of the cell, essentially as a cylinder of radius r and height H. However, given the larger
density of the precipitate compared to the solutions, it may sink
to the bottom of the cell, leading to a decrease in the actual value
of H as the structure expands. This effect is likely
to be more important in the regions with visible silicate entrapments.
The model may be expanded accordingly with accurate measurements of
this sinking effect on the effective value of H.The transition from candy floss to lichen/moss then corresponds
to the change from a compact system, which naturally grows with the
square root of time, to a noncompact system with elongated fingers
and entrapments, which approaches linear growth. The model considers
only the evolution of a compact system, hence the discrepancy at longer
times. Further experiments to determine the actual density of chemical
garden membranes and their permeability can clarify this question.The values of the fitting parameter of the model, the permeability k, are presented in Table as a function of flow rate. Permeability increases
in a seemingly linear way with injection flow rate into the cell;
a linear regression of the data yields the relationship k = 15.9Q + 0.4 (R2 =
0.99), where k has units of 10–16 m2 and Q has units of mL min–1.
Table 1
Chemical Garden Permeability (k)
for Each Flow Rate Studied, Obtained from Fitting the
Model to the Experimental Results
Q (mL min–1)
k (×10–16 m2)
0.1
1.82 ± 0.07
0.2
3.87 ± 0.15
0.3
5.05 ± 0.27
0.4
6.73 ± 0.35
As the flow rate is reduced,
the system is expected to become more
similar to chemical gardens grown from pellets. In these experiments,
there is no injection and the precipitate growth is driven by osmotic
pressure only. Permeabilities of such membranes have been reported
to lie in the range k = (4.6–27) × 10–19 m2.[40] The
upper range of these values is just 1 order of magnitude below the
expected permeability for zero flow rate, which supports the validity
of these results; it is likely the permeability will not always vary
linearly with flow rate. At higher flow rates filaments are formed,
which exhibit a much higher local velocity. In the filament regime,
the combination of reaction and flow lead to a continuous “opening
and closing” of the membrane, maintaining it at a low width
and much higher permeability. Indeed, in the filament regime, permeability
of the membrane has been estimated to be of the order of 10–10 m2, several orders of magnitude higher than the permeabilities
estimated here.
Conclusions
The
growth of confined chemical gardens created with low injection
flow rates was investigated and modeled mathematically. In accordance
with the literature, new patterns are formed as the local velocity
decreases, starting with Archimedean spirals, then candy floss, and
finally lichen/worms. The candy floss and Archimedean spiral patterns
are novel regimes identified in this work, with the latter possibly
the result of a filament traveling along the edge of the precipitate
with a self-hugging motion. Further study of this regime may involve
obtaining more accurate data of the speed of the spirals and the frequency
of formation of the bumps along their outline.The effective
density of the solid system was estimated experimentally
to be ρeff = (1.19 ± 0.07) × 103 kg m–3, and the fitting of a model to the experimental
results for growth yielded membrane permeabilities in the range k = (1.8–6.7) × 10–16 m2, found to increase linearly with increasing injection flow
rate. Despite good agreement between theory and experiment, discrepancies
suggest that ρeff and k vary during
the expansion of the solid, thus requiring further study to be accurately
measured.Spirals have previously been noted in the growth of
confined chemical
gardens.[18] But those are logarithmic spirals
and form by a completely different mechanism of the curvature of a
growing membrane under pressure in a part of the parameter space far
from that which we have considered in this work. Archimedean spirals,
or the near identical curve, the involute of the circle, that tends
very fast to an Archimedean spiral,[32−34] appear in natural growth
processes like the formation of bees combs[41] and nacre (mother of pearl).[42,43] In particular, they
appear in the growth of many crystals through the Burton–Cabrera–Frank
mechanism[44] of growth at a screw dislocation
in a crystal lattice. Likewise, they appear as spiral waves in chemical
oscillators like the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction.[45,46] However, the growth mechanism we have identified here, at the mesoscale,
although it also leads to an Archimedean spiral, differs from that
one. The crystal growth mechanism produces spiral terraces that may
have equal width, from much smaller growth units—atoms or molecules—that
come together in a fashion that may be described as a type of excitable
system.[47] Our mechanism here, on the other
hand, is that of coiling rope, rolls of paper, and so on, in which
the Archimedean spiral forms through the advance of a constant width
filament, rope, or sheet that hugs itself.
Authors: Julyan H E Cartwright; Antonio G Checa; Bruno Escribano; C Ignacio Sainz-Díaz Journal: Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Florence Haudin; V Brasiliense; Julyan H E Cartwright; Fabian Brau; A De Wit Journal: Phys Chem Chem Phys Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 3.676
Authors: Laura M Barge; Silvana S S Cardoso; Julyan H E Cartwright; Geoffrey J T Cooper; Leroy Cronin; Anne De Wit; Ivria J Doloboff; Bruno Escribano; Raymond E Goldstein; Florence Haudin; David E H Jones; Alan L Mackay; Jerzy Maselko; Jason J Pagano; J Pantaleone; Michael J Russell; C Ignacio Sainz-Díaz; Oliver Steinbock; David A Stone; Yoshifumi Tanimoto; Noreen L Thomas Journal: Chem Rev Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 60.622
Authors: Yang Ding; Carlos M Gutiérrez-Ariza; C Ignacio Sainz-Díaz; Julyan H E Cartwright; Silvana S S Cardoso Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Fabian Brau; Florence Haudin; Stephanie Thouvenel-Romans; Anne De Wit; Oliver Steinbock; Silvana S S Cardoso; Julyan H E Cartwright Journal: Phys Chem Chem Phys Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 3.676
Authors: J Pantaleone; A Toth; D Horvath; J Rother McMahan; R Smith; D Butki; J Braden; E Mathews; H Geri; J Maselko Journal: Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys Date: 2008-04-11
Authors: Julyan H E Cartwright; Antonio G Checa; Bruno Escribano; C Ignacio Sainz-Díaz Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-06-15 Impact factor: 11.205