The field of the present invention relates to electrostatically-driven solvent ejection or particle formation. In particular, apparatus, methods, and reduced-conductivity fluid compositions are disclosed herein for electrostatically-driven (ESD) solvent ejection (e.g., spraying or atomization) or particle formation (e.g., formation of particles or fibers, including nanoparticles or nanofibers).
Nanostatics Corporation and GABAE Industries Corporation are parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect before the date the invention claimed herein was made. The invention claimed herein was made on behalf of Nanostatics Corporation as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement.
The subject matter disclosed herein may be related to subject matter disclosed in co-owned: (i) U.S. non-provisional App. No. 11/634,012 entitled “Electrospraying/electrospinning array utilizing a replacement array of individual tip flow restriction” filed Dec. 5, 2006 (now Pat. No. 7,629,030); (ii) U.S. provisional App. No. 61/161,498 entitled “Electrospinning Cationic Polymers and Method” filed Mar. 19, 2009; (iii) U.S. provisional App. No. 61/256,873 entitled “Electrospinning with reduced current or using fluid of reduced conductivity” filed Oct. 30, 2009; and (iv) U.S. non-provisional App. No. 12/728,070 entitled “Fluid formulations for electric-field-driven spinning of fibers” filed Mar. 19, 2010 (now Pat. No. 8,518,319). Each of said provisional and non-provisional applications is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. Each of said applications was made on behalf of, and is owned by, Nanostatics Corporation.
“Electrospinning” and “electrospraying” conventionally refer to the production of, respectively, fibers or droplets, which may be “spun” as fibers or “sprayed” as droplets by applying high electrostatic fields to one or more fluid-filled spraying or spinning tips (i.e., emitters or spinnerets). Under suitable conditions and with suitable fluids, so-called nanofibers or nanodroplets can be formed from a Taylor cone that forms at each tip (although the terms are also applied to production of larger droplets or fibers). The high electrostatic field typically (at least when using a conventional, relatively conductive fluid) produces the Taylor cone at each tip opening from which fibers or droplets are emitted, the cone having a characteristic full angle of about 98.6°. The sprayed droplets or spun fibers are typically collected on a target substrate typically positioned several tens of centimeters away; solvent evaporation from the droplets or fibers during transit to the target typically plays a significant role in the formation of the droplets or fibers by conventional electrospinning and electrospraying. A high voltage supply provides an electrostatic potential difference (and hence the electrostatic field) between the spinning tip (usually at high voltage, either positive or negative) and the target substrate (usually grounded). A number of reviews of electrospinning have been published, including (i) Huang et al, “A review on polymer nanofibers by electrospinning and their applications in nanocomposites,” Composites Science and Technology, Vol. 63, pp. 2223-2253 (2003), (ii) Li et al, “Electrospinning of nanofibers: reinventing the wheel?”, Advanced Materials, Vol. 16, pp. 1151-1170 (2004), (iii) Subbiath et al, “Electrospinning of nanofibers,” Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 96, pp. 557-569 (2005), and (iv) Bailey, Electrostatic Spraying of Liquids (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1988). Details of conventional electrospinning materials and methods can be found in the preceding references and various other works cited therein, and need not be repeated here.
Conventional fluids for electrospinning (melts, solutions, colloids, suspensions, or mixtures, including many listed in the preceding references) typically possess significant fluid conductivity (e.g., ionic conductivity in a polar solvent, or a conducting polymer). Fluids conventionally deemed suitable for electrospinning have conductivity typically between 100 μS/cm and about 1 S/cm (Filatov et al; Electrospinning of Micro-and Nanofibers; Begell House, Inc; New York; 2007; p 6). It has been observed that electrospinning of nanometer-scale fibers using conventional fluids typically requires conductivity of about 1 mS/cm or more; lower conductivity typically yields micron-scale fibers. In addition, conventional methods of electrospinning typically include a syringe pump or other driver/controller of the flow of fluid to the spinning tip or emitter, and a conduction path between one pole of the high voltage supply (typically the high voltage pole) and the fluid to be spun. Such arrangements are shown, for example, in U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0224998 (hereafter, the '998 publication), which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. In FIG. 1 of the '998 publication is shown an electrospinning arrangement in which high voltage is applied directly to a conductive emitter (e.g., a spinning tip or nozzle), thereby establishing a conduction path between the high voltage supply and the fluid being spun. In FIGS. 2, 5, 6A, and 6B of the '998 publication are shown various electrospinning arrangements in which an electrode is placed within a chamber containing the fluid to be spun, thereby establishing a conduction path between one pole of the high voltage supply and the fluid. The chamber communicates with a plurality of spinning tips. In any of those arrangements, significant current (typically greater than 0.3 μA per spinning tip, often greater than 1 μA/tip) flows along with the spun polymer material. Conventional electrospinning fluids are deposited on metal target substrates so that current carried by the deposited material can flow out of the substrate (either to a common ground or back to the other pole of the high voltage supply), thereby “completing the circuit” and avoiding charge buildup on the target substrate. Even so, flow rates for electrospinning of conventional fluids are typically limited to a few μL/min/nozzle, particularly if nanofibers are desired (increasing the flow rate tends to increase the average diameter of fibers spun from conventional electrospinning fluids). Electrospinning onto nonconductive or insulating substrates has proven problematic due to charge buildup on the insulating substrate that eventually suppresses the electrospinning process. Application of electric fields greater than a few kV/cm to conventional fluids or to metal spinning tips often leads to arcing between the tip and the target substrate, typically precluding useful electrospinning.
The embodiments shown in the Figures are exemplary, and should not be construed as limiting the scope of the present disclosure or appended claims.
Conventional electrospinning of polymer-containing fibers or nanofibers, or electrospraying of small droplets, can be employed to produce a variety of useful materials. However, scaling up (beyond the laboratory or prototype level) an electrospinning process that employs conventional, relatively conductive fluid compositions has proven to be problematic. To achieve production-type quantities, multiple electrospinning tips are often employed, usually in an arrayed arrangement. However, the conductive fluids used and the significant current (often greater than 1 μA per tip) carried by fibers emerging from each tip lead to impractically large overall current and to undesirable electrostatic interactions among the electrospinning tips and fibers; these limit the number and density of electrospinning tips that can be successfully employed. Similar difficulties are typically encountered when electrospinning from a porous membrane emitter. Electrospinning onto non-conductive target surfaces is also problematic, as noted above.
Apparatus, methods, and fluid compositions are disclosed herein for electrostatically-driven (ESD) solvent ejection (e.g., spraying or atomization) or particle formation (e.g., formation of particles or fibers, including nanoparticles or nanofibers) by physical mechanism(s) distinct from conventional, evaporative electrospraying or electrospinning of conductive fluids from a single Taylor cone formed at an emitter orifice. The methods disclosed or claimed herein can be readily scaled up to production-scale quantities of material produced. The fluid compositions are emitted from electrically-insulating emitters (e.g., nozzles, capillaries, or tips) toward a target surface that is nonconductive or electrically isolated, and which need not be connected to a ground or voltage supply or positioned near any electrical ground (although the presence of an electrical ground plane behind or beneath an insulating target can help to direct particles toward the target once they form). Voltage can be, but need not be, applied directly to the fluid. Some of the fluid compositions disclosed herein exhibit substantially reduced conductivity (less than about 1 mS/cm, preferably less than about 100 μS/cm; some compositions less than about 50 μS/cm, less than about 30 μS/cm, or less than about 20 μS/cm) relative to conventional electrospinning fluid compositions (greater than about 100 μS/cm; typically greater than about 1 mS/cm for producing polymer nanofibers).
Some of the disclosed compositions comprise a first material having a dielectric constant greater than about 25 mixed into a liquid solvent having a dielectric constant less than about 15; in some disclosed examples the dielectric constant of the liquid solvent is less than about 10, or less than about 5. Some of the disclosed compositions include a salt, a surfactant (ionic or nonionic), or a dissolved ionic liquid. The nonconductive emitters, nonconductive or isolated target surface, and/or the reduced conductivity of some of the fluid compositions disclosed herein can at least partly mitigate the undesirable electrostatic interactions described above, can enable flow rates greater than about 100 μL/min/emitter, can enable use of multiple emitters spaced within, e.g., one centimeter or less of one another, can enable deposition of particles or fibers onto an electrically insulating or electrically isolated collection surface, or can enable formation and deposition of particles in the absence of a counter-electrode near the collection surface that is grounded or connected to the voltage supply driving the deposition.
Those reduced conductivity fluid compositions, and use of electrically insulating emitters and collection surface, can also enable use of higher voltages and/or smaller emitter-to-target distances (e.g., from just a few centimeters down to about 5 millimeters), which typically would result in arcing in a conventional electrospinning arrangement using conventional fluids. Emitter-to-target distances of about 5-20 cm are typically required in conventional electrospinning arrangements: close enough to enable application of sufficiently large electric fields without applying voltage high enough to cause arcing, but far enough to enable adequate evaporation of solvent from the spun fibers before they reach the target. Seemingly paradoxically, the compositions disclosed herein can also be employed in an arrangement wherein the target or collection surface is more than about 30 cm, or even 40 or 50 cm or more, from the emitter. Emission of the fluid composition into such an large, unimpeded volume appears to enhance the flow rate of the fluid and production rate of spun fibers (described further below).
Under conditions disclosed herein, and using fluid formulations disclosed herein, conventional Taylor cone formation, and conventional electrospinning or electrospraying from that Taylor cone, appear to be suppressed in favor of a different, non-evaporative mechanism for solvent ejection and particle formation from the fluid composition after it exits the emitter (fibers and nanofibers being considered elongated particles). Therefore, the term “electrostatically-driven (ESD) solvent ejection and particle formation,” or simply “ESD solvent ejection,” shall be employed to describe the observed phenomena disclosed herein and shall be considered distinct from conventional electrospinning or electrospraying.
Exemplary apparatus are illustrated schematically in the drawings, each comprising a nozzle 102 (the emitter) with an orifice 104 at its distal end, into which is introduced a fluid composition (described further below). Although nozzles 102 are shown and described in the exemplary embodiments, any suitable emitter can be equivalently employed. The nozzle 102 is supported by an insulating stand 106 or other suitable structure that electrically isolates the nozzle from its surroundings, and the nozzle 102 itself comprises one or more electrically insulating materials such as glass, plastic, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), nylon, or other suitable insulating material that is also chemically compatible with the fluid composition. The nozzle 102 can act as a reservoir for the fluid composition (e.g., as in
A wide range of fluid compositions can be employed. A first group of suitable fluid compositions include compositions comprising a first material having a dielectric constant greater than about 25 mixed into a liquid solvent having a dielectric constant less than about 15. Many examples of suitable fluid compositions are described below that exhibit at least that degree of dielectric contrast. Most of the disclosed examples of high dielectric contrast fluid compositions also include a polymer dissolved, emulsified, or otherwise dispersed in the liquid solvent. In some exemplary fluid compositions of the first group, the first material has a dielectric constant greater than about 30, or the liquid solvent has a dielectric constant less than about 10 or less than about 5; other exemplary fluid compositions having still greater dielectric contrast are disclosed and can be employed. One or more additional materials can be included in the composition, each having a dielectric constant between those of the low-dielectric liquid solvent and the high-dielectric material, forming a so-called “dielectric ladder.” A second group of exemplary fluid compositions comprise a salt, a surfactant (ionic or nonionic), or an ionic liquid dissolved or mixed into a liquid solvent, along with a dissolved, emulsified, or dispersed polymer. There can be some overlap between those first two groups of suitable fluid compositions, e.g., a salt, surfactant, or ionic liquid can act as a high dielectric material in a high contrast fluid composition, often as the “top rung” in a dielectric ladder. A third group of examples of suitable fluid compositions can comprise a polymer dissolved, emulsified, or dispersed in a liquid solvent, wherein the liquid solvent has a dielectric constant greater than about 8 and the primary dielectric contrast is between the solvent and the polymer, which has a dielectric constant less than about 4. In the third group of exemplary fluid compositions, there appears to be a positive correlation between solvent dielectric constant and maximum viscosity that permits ESD solvent ejection. Specific examples from all three groups of fluid composition types are described below. Exemplary compositions in all three groups exhibit conductivity less than about 1 mS/cm, preferably less than about 100 μS/cm. Conductivity less than about 50 μS/cm, less than about 30 μS/cm, or less than about 20 μS/cm can be advantageously employed.
A power supply 110 applies a voltage to the fluid composition, in the examples of
As illustrated schematically in
The jet behavior depicted schematically in
If the fluid composition includes a polymer, ESD ejection of the solvent causes formation of polymer particles or fibers 348 and separation of those particles or fibers 348 from the ejected solvent. Fibers can be considered as elongated particles, and the terms “particle” and “fiber” may be used somewhat interchangeably in the subsequent discussion to encompass both fibers as well as non-elongated particles. The methods and fluid compositions disclosed herein for ESD solvent ejection and particle formation can be advantageously employed for forming polymer fibers (including polymer nanofibers, e.g., fibers having an average diameter less than about 500 nm) in larger quantities at faster rates than conventional electrospinning. In conventional electrospinning (
In contrast, in ESD solvent ejection (
In the example of
In the arrangement of
In another exemplary arrangement for ESD solvent ejection, illustrated schematically in
The exemplary arrangement illustrated schematically in
At such substantially larger nozzle-surface separations (e.g., up to 30 cm, 40 cm, 50 cm, or more), the behavior of the arrangement of
It has been observed that emitting the fluid jets 342 and fibers 348 into a larger, unimpeded volume of space appears to enhance the flow rate of the fluid composition through the emitter. A collection surface 130 positioned 30 cm, 40 cm, or 50 cm from the nozzle 102, or even farther, appears to result in increased flow rates of the fluid composition through the nozzle orifice 104 (in the arrangements of
The exemplary arrangements of
Any suitable external electrode 116 can be employed.
Sufficiently large voltage (positive or negative) must be applied to the fluid composition via the electrode 114 or 116 to form polymer fibers by ESD solvent ejection from the emitted fluid composition. The precise voltage threshold can vary somewhat depending on the particular fluid composition being employed and the arrangement of the emitter 102 and collecting surface 130.
In the arrangements of
For the arrangements of
In the arrangement of
Another characteristic that distinguishes the methods and fluid compositions disclosed herein from conventional electrospinning with conventional fluids becomes apparent when the applied voltage is turned off. Conventional Taylor cone electrospinning ceases almost immediately upon turning off the voltage supply. In contrast, when using a low conductivity, high dielectric contrast fluid in any of the arrangements of
The continuation of fluid jets exiting the nozzle orifice 104 after the applied voltage is turned off is indicative of at least one characteristic relaxation time of the system, and that characteristic relaxation time can be exploited to enhance the ESD solvent ejection process and formation of polymer fibers (and to reduce any parallel Taylor cone electrospinning by the duty cycle of the voltage cycling). By cycling the applied voltage on and off at a frequency on the order of the reciprocal of the relevant relaxation time, enhancement of non-evaporative, ESD solvent ejection can be achieved. Rather than attempting to measure or characterize the relevant relaxation time, it can be more expedient to vary the frequency at which the applied voltage is cycled and note which frequency (or range of frequencies) appear to enhance the desired ESD solvent ejection process. For non-evaporative, ESD solvent ejection, suitable frequencies for enhancement have been observed between about 0.1 Hz and about 100 Hz.
Polymer fibers formed by the methods disclosed herein using fluid compositions having high dielectric contrast and low conductivity can be advantageously employed for a wide variety of purposes, particularly when the fibers formed are nanofibers, i.e., have diameters less than about 1 μm, or typically less than about 500 nm. Such purposes can include but are not limited to filtration, protective gear, biomedical applications, or materials engineering. For example, a mesh of polymer nanofibers can form at least a portion of a filtration medium that transmits only particles smaller than about 1 μm. In another example, a matrix of polymer nanofibers can be employed to retain small particles (e.g., less than 0.1 μm) of other materials (e.g., super absorbent polymers, zeolites, activated charcoal, or carbon black) to yield a material having various desired properties. A full discussion of the many uses of the fibers thus formed is beyond the scope of this disclosure. A wide array of polymers, liquid solvents, low-dielectric liquid solvents (e.g., dielectric constant less than about 15), high-dielectric materials (e.g., dielectric constant greater than about 25), salts, surfactants, and/or ionic liquids can be employed, depending on the desired properties of the nanofibers produced, and many examples are given below. For a given polymer to be deposited on a given collection surface, some optimization of parameters typically will be required to produce suitable or optimal fibers or nanofibers. Those parameters can include: identity, dielectric constant, and weight percent of the low-dielectric solvent; presence, identity, and weight percent of the high-dielectric material, salt, surfactant, or ionic liquid; presence, identity, and weight percent of any additional high dielectric material(s); conductivity and viscosity of the fluid composition; nature of the emitter (e.g., nozzle(s), channel(s), or permeable membrane), emitter orifice diameter; emitter hydrodynamic resistance; applied voltage; presence of a grounded surface and its distance from the emitter orifice; distance between the emitter orifice and the collection surface. The principles and examples disclosed herein will enable those skilled in the art to identify and optimize many other combinations of polymer, low-dielectric solvent, and high-dielectric material that are not explicitly disclosed herein that yield desirable polymer fibers or nanofibers; those other combinations, and the fiber or nanofibers thus produced, shall fall within the scope of the present disclosure or the appended claims.
Many combinations of chemically compatible and sufficiently soluble polymers, high-dielectric materials, salts, surfactants, or ionic liquids can be employed with a given solvent to produce a fluid composition that exhibits ESD solvent ejection. Table 1 is a list of examples of fluid compositions that exhibit ESD solvent ejection; those that include a polymer have been employed according to the methods disclosed herein to produce polymer fibers or nanofibers by ESD solvent ejection. The listed formulations are exemplary, are intended to illustrate general principles guiding selection of fluid components, and are not intended to limit the overall scope of the present disclosure or appended claims. However, specific disclosed exemplary formulations, or ranges of formulations, can be considered preferred embodiments and may therefore be further distinguished from the prior art on that basis.
In some exemplary compositions, ESD solvent ejection and formation of polymer fibers or nanofibers has been demonstrated with fluid compositions based on polystyrene dissolved in d-limonene, in combination with a variety of high-dielectric materials and/or other materials. Other aromatic polymers and/or other terpene, terpenoid, or aromatic solvents have been observed to exhibit similar behavior. D-limonene is attractive for use as the liquid solvent because it is considered “green” (e.g., it is available from natural, renewable sources, lacks significant toxicity, and does not raise significant environmental or disposal issues). In one group of exemplary fluid compositions, polystyrene typically comprises between about 10% and about 25% of the composition by weight, preferably between about 15% and about 20%. D-limonene typically comprises between about 30% and about 70% of the composition by weight, preferably between about 35% and about 45%. A variety of high-dielectric materials can be employed with polystyrene/d-limonene that result in ESD ejection of the d-limonene solvent and production of polystyrene fibers or nanofibers. Propylene carbonate (PC), dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), and dimethyl formamide (DMF) have been employed as a high-dielectric material, alone or in combination with methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) or acetone used as an intermediate dielectric material. Intermediate dielectric materials can often be employed to increase the solubility of the high-dielectric material in the polystyrene/limonene (or other polymer/low-dielectric) solution, forming a so-called “dielectric ladder.” In another exemplary fluid composition, water is employed as the high dielectric material in a polystyrene/d-limonene solution, with DeMULS DLN-532CE surfactant (DeForest Enterprises, Inc) acting as an emulsifier to enable mixing of the water into the d-limonene solution. Polyvinyl alcohol, a soap, a detergent, or other emulsifying agent can be employed.
Ionic liquids (e.g., trihexyltetradecylphosphonium bis(2,4,4-trimethylpentyl) phosphinate aka [P66614][R2PO2], trihexyltetradecylphosphonium decanoate aka [P66614][Dec], or 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate aka [bmim][PF6]) have been employed as high-dielectric components, with various combinations of PC, DMSO, MEK, and acetone employed as intermediate steps in the dielectric ladder. Various inorganic salts (e.g., LiCl, AgNO3, CuCl2, or FeCl3) have been employed, in combination with DMF, MEK, or N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), as disclosed in application Ser. No. 12/728,070, already incorporated by reference. It has been observed that as the dielectric ladder is ascended, progressively lower material concentrations are required for the fluid to exhibit ESD solvent ejection. Note for example the relative concentrations of the various materials in the exemplary compositions listed in Table 1. Solid particles suspended in the fluid can act as the high-dielectric material in a high dielectric contrast composition, with or without intermediate “dielectric ladder” components. Barium titanate (BaTiO3) and titanium oxide (TiO2) have been employed and can give rise to ESD solvent ejection, alone in a polystyrene/d-limonene solution, or in combination with other fluid components mentioned here or listed in Table 1.
In some other exemplary compositions, ESD solvent ejection and formation of polymer fibers or nanofibers has been demonstrated with fluid compositions based on polysulfone dissolved in d-limonene, in combination with DMF, NMP, and an ionic liquid. In some typical examples, polysulfone comprises between about 15% and about 30% of the composition by weight, d-limonene comprises between about 20% and about 30% of the composition by weight, NMP comprises between about 5% and about 20% by weight, DMF comprises between about 20% and about 40% by weight, and the ionic liquid comprises between about 1.5% and about 3% by weight.
In some other exemplary compositions, ESD solvent ejection and formation of polymer fibers or nanofibers has been demonstrated with fluid compositions based on mixtures of polystyrene and polycarbomethylsilane (PCMS) dissolved in d-limonene, in combination with DMF and an ionic liquid. In some typical examples, polystyrene comprises between about 15% and about 25% of the composition by weight, PCMS comprises between about 5% and about 20% by weight, d-limonene comprises between about 40% and about 55% of the composition by weight, DMF comprises between about 5% and about 30% by weight, and the ionic liquid comprises between about 0.05% and about 0.2% by weight.
The use of PCMS in combination with polystyrene, and UV curing of the resulting deposited polymer material, can be employed to form nanofibers to increase the heat resistance of the of those nanofibers. For example, nanofibers formed from polystyrene alone are observed to melt at about 127° C. That temperature may in some instances be too low for the nanofibers to withstand subsequent processing of the material on which they are deposited. In one example of a filtration medium, the medium is heated to about 190° C. for at least 30 seconds, resulting in melting of the deposited polystyrene nanofibers. It has been observed, however, the use of PCMS in combination with polystyrene, and UV curing of the resulting nanofibers, enables the cured nanofibers to survive intact after being heated to about 190° C. for several minutes. A mercury lamp (maximum output at a wavelength of 254 nm) can be employed for curing the polystyrene/PCMS nanofibers, and using a lamp producing about 50 W at 254 nm for a curing time on the order of an hour provides adequate curing. That curing time can be reduced by using a higher wattage lamp or by increasing the fraction of the lamp output that impinges on the fibers (e.g., using focusing or collecting optics).
In still other exemplary compositions, ESD solvent ejection and formation of polymer fibers or nanofibers has been demonstrated with fluid compositions based on polyetherimide (PEI) dissolved in d-limonene, in combination with DMF, NMP, and a salt. In some typical examples, PEI comprises between about 10% and about 25% of the composition by weight, d-limonene comprises between about 15% and about 25% of the composition by weight, NMP comprises between about 20% and about 60% by weight, DMF comprises between about 5% and about 25% by weight, and the salt comprises between about 0.25% and about 4% by weight.
Low conductivity polymer solutions (less than about 100 μS/cm), without substantial material components in addition to the polymer and solvent, have also been demonstrated to exhibit ESD solvent ejection and polymer fiber formation. Examples include solutions of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) and polyvinylacetate (PVAc) dissolved in ethanol (EtOH), methanol (MeOH), or dichloromethane (DCM) and observed to exhibit ESD solvent ejection. For high dielectric solvents, such solutions can be regarded as exhibiting high dielectric contrast, between polymer (typically having a dielectric constant less than about 5) and solvent. This is the case for the MeOH and EtOH formulations. However, the DCM formulations do not exhibit a similar degree of dielectric contrast with the polymers, but nevertheless exhibit ESD solvent ejection under certain conditions. For PVP and PVAc solutions in DCM, ESD solvent ejection is appears to be inhibited by the viscosity of the polymer solution. For example, for PVP in DCM, a 25% PVP solution (viscosity about 67 cps) was observed not to exhibit ESD solvent ejection, while a 15% PVP solution in DCM (viscosity about 20 cps) did exhibit ESD solvent ejection. A similar trend was noted for solutions of PVAc in DCM. The apparent quenching of ESD solvent ejection by high viscosity is more readily apparent in solvents having a dielectric constant less than about 10 than in higher dielectric solvents. Other polymer/solvent combinations can be employed, but a minimum threshold dielectric constant of the solvent between about 6 and about 8 seems to be required for the solvent to exhibit ESD solvent ejection.
In addition to forming polymer fibers or nanofibers, additional particles can be deposited on the collection surface during collection of the polymer fibers, thereby retaining the additional particles in a matrix formed by the collected polymer fibers. Any suitable deposition method can be employed for depositing the additional particles that is compatible with formation of the polymer fibers. In one example, if air flow (e.g., from a vacuum belt) is employed to propel the polymer fibers to the collection surface as they are formed, that air flow can also entrain the additional particles and propel them to the collection surface as well. Whatever means are employed, simultaneous collection of the polymer fibers and deposition of the additional particles results in the additional particles being incorporated into a matrix formed by the collected fibers. If polymer nanofibers are formed, they can readily enable retention and immobilizations of additional particles that are as small as about 0.1 μm. The additional particles can comprise any suitable, desired material. In one example, super absorbent polymer particles (e.g., sodium polyacrylate) can be incorporated into a polymer nanofibers matrix in an absorbent product such as a diaper. In another example, zeolite or activated charcoal particles can be incorporated into a polymer nanofiber matrix in a filtration medium, resulting in both particulate and vapor interception capabilities. Additional examples abound.
In addition to producing polymer particles or fibers, methods disclosed herein can be employed for atomizing a low-dielectric solvent using a fluid composition comprising the low-dielectric liquid solvent and a high-dielectric constant additive, but no polymer. As illustrated schematically in
It is intended that equivalents of the disclosed exemplary embodiments and methods shall fall within the scope of the present disclosure or appended claims. It is intended that the disclosed exemplary embodiments and methods, and equivalents thereof, may be modified while remaining within the scope of the present disclosure or appended claims.
In the foregoing Detailed Description, various features may be grouped together in several exemplary embodiments to streamline the disclosure or to disclose preferred embodiments. This method of disclosure is not to be interpreted as reflecting an intention that any claimed embodiment requires more features than are expressly recited in the corresponding claim. Rather, as the appended claims reflect, inventive subject matter may lie in less than all features of a single disclosed exemplary embodiment, or in combinations of features that do not appear in combination in any single disclosed embodiment. Thus, the appended claims are hereby incorporated into the Detailed Description, with each claim standing on its own as a separate disclosed embodiment. However, the present disclosure and appended claims shall also be construed as implicitly disclosing any embodiment having any suitable combination of disclosed or claimed features (i.e., combinations of features that are not incompatible or mutually exclusive), including those combinations of features that are not explicitly disclosed herein. In particular, any suitable combination of parameters or features for performing the disclosed or claimed methods (e.g., any one or more of applied voltage, emitted-collector distance, emitter geometry, and so forth) can be combined with any suitable fluid composition (e.g., any suitable combination of one or more of specific polymer(s), solvent(s), dielectric material(s), and so forth). It should be further noted that the scope of the appended claims do not necessarily encompass the whole of the subject matter disclosed herein.
For purposes of the present disclosure and appended claims, the conjunction “or” is to be construed inclusively (e.g., “a dog or a cat” would be interpreted as “a dog, or a cat, or both”; e.g., “a dog, a cat, or a mouse” would be interpreted as “a dog, or a cat, or a mouse, or any two, or all three”), unless: (i) it is explicitly stated otherwise, e.g., by use of “either . . . or”, “only one of . . . ”, or similar language; or (ii) two or more of the listed alternatives are mutually exclusive within the particular context, in which case “or” would encompass only those combinations involving non-mutually-exclusive alternatives. For purposes of the present disclosure or appended claims, the words “comprising,” “including,” “having,” and variants thereof shall be construed as open ended terminology, with the same meaning as if the phrase “at least” were appended after each instance thereof.
In the appended claims, if the provisions of 35 USC §112 ¶ 6 are desired to be invoked in an apparatus claim, then the word “means” will appear in that apparatus claim. If those provisions are desired to be invoked in a method claim, the words “a step for” will appear in that method claim. Conversely, if the words “means” or “a step for” do not appear in a claim, then the provisions of 35 USC §112 ¶ 6 are not intended to be invoked for that claim.
This application claims benefit of U.S. provisional App. No. 61/349,832 entitled “Apparatus, methods, and fluid compositions for electrostatically-driven solvent ejection or particle formation” filed May 29, 2010 in the names of Ashley S. Scott, Evan E. Koslow, Andrew L. Washington, Jr., John A. Robertson, Adria F. Lotus, Jocelyn J. Tindale, Tatiana Lazareva, and Michael J. Bishop, said provisional application being hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1975504 | Formhals | Oct 1934 | A |
2160962 | Formhals | Jun 1939 | A |
2187306 | Formhals | Jan 1940 | A |
2323025 | Formhals | Jun 1943 | A |
2349950 | Formhals | May 1944 | A |
4284594 | Joh et al. | Aug 1981 | A |
4757421 | Mykkanen | Jul 1988 | A |
6793856 | Hartmann et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
7591883 | Kameoka et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
20050025974 | Lennhoff | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050073075 | Chu et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050104258 | Lennhoff | May 2005 | A1 |
20050224998 | Andrady et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20060057377 | Harrison et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20070116640 | Kim et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070199824 | Hoerr et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070244569 | Weber et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080113214 | Davis et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080131615 | Robertson et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20100239861 | Scott et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20130280436 | Scott et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
101003917 | Jul 2007 | CN |
4351094 | Sep 2005 | JP |
2008-69478 | Mar 2008 | JP |
10-2005-0062683 | Jun 2005 | KR |
WO 2004016839 | Feb 2004 | WO |
WO 2005026398 | Mar 2005 | WO |
WO 2005090653 | Sep 2005 | WO |
WO 2008063866 | May 2008 | WO |
WO 2008063870 | May 2008 | WO |
WO 2008073662 | Jun 2008 | WO |
WO 2009030355 | Mar 2009 | WO |
WO 2010028339 | Mar 2010 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Jaworek, A; Sobzyk, AT; “Electrospraying route to nanotechnology: An overview”, Journal of Electrostatics, 2008, vol. 66, p. 197-219. |
“Cross-link”, wikipedia.org, accessed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-link on Jan. 8, 2015. |
“Electrospray Ionization”, wikipedia.org, Apr. 29, 2009 revision, accessed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electrospray—ionization&oldid=286789559 on Jan. 8, 2015. |
“Chemical Constants of d-Linomene”, Florida Chemical Company accessed at http://www.floridachemical.com/dlimonenechemical—constants.htm on Dec. 19, 2014. |
“Dielectric Constants of Common Materials”, kabusa.com, accessed at http://www.kabusa.com/Dilectric-Constants.pdf on Dec. 19, 2014. |
“Dielectric Charts”, washington.edu, accessed at http://depts.washington.edu/eooptic/linkfiles/dielectric—chart[1].pdf on Dec. 19, 2014. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 9, 2012 for counterpart App No. PCT/US2011/038470. |
Zhang et al; IEEE Power Modulator and High Voltage Conference; p. 221 (May 27, 2010). |
Lin et al; Nanotechnology; vol. 15 p. 1375 (Aug. 13, 2004). |
Yuh et al; Materials Letters; vol. 59 p. 3645 (Jul. 21, 2005). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Nov. 4, 2010 for co-owned App No. PCT/US2010/028019. |
Deery et al; Rapid Comm Mass Spec; v 11, p. 57 (1997). |
Li et al; Advanced Materials; v 16, n 14, p. 1151 (2004). |
Subbiah et al; J Appl Polymer Sci; v 96, p. 557 (2005). |
Huang et al; Composite Sci & Tech; v 63, p. 2223 (2003). |
Pattamaprom et al; Macromol Materials & Eng; v 291, p. 840 (2006). |
Toshima et al; J Macromol Sci A; v 25, p. 1349 (1988). |
Sharma et al; Polymer Int'l; v 25, p. 167 (1991). |
Korkut et al; Phys Rev Lett; v 100, p. 034503 (2008). |
Tripatanasuwan et al; Polymer; v 50, p. 1835 (2009). |
Keki et al; Rapid Comm Mass Spec; v 15, p. 675 (2001). |
Hattori et al; Adv Polymer Tech; v 27, p. 35 (2008). |
Hattori et al; J Wood Sci; (2009). |
Eda et al; Eur Polymer J; v 43, p. 1154 (2007). |
Hayati; Collis & Surfaces; v 65, p. 77 (1992). |
Hayati et al; J Colloid Interface Sci; v 117, p. 205 (1987). |
Hayati et al; J Colloid Interface Sci; v 117, p. 222 (1987). |
Hohman et al; Physics of Fluids; v 13, p. 2201 (2001). |
Hohman et al; Physics of Fluids; v 13, p. 2221 (2001). |
Han et al; Polymer Degradation & Stability; v 86, p. 257 (2004). |
Shin et al; Polymer; v 42, p. 9955 (2001). |
Moon et al; J Appl Polymer Sci; v 109 p. 691 (2008). |
Morget et al; NASA Report TM-2005-213786 (2005). |
Taylor; Proc R Soc London A; v 280, p. 383 (1964). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120004370 A1 | Jan 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61349832 | May 2010 | US |