Skip to main content
ACS AuthorChoice logoLink to ACS AuthorChoice
. 2019 Mar 21;13(5):4972–4979. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.9b00459

Segregation in Drying Binary Colloidal Droplets

Wendong Liu , Jiarul Midya , Michael Kappl , Hans-Jürgen Butt †,*, Arash Nikoubashman
PMCID: PMC6727607  PMID: 30897326

Abstract

graphic file with name nn-2019-00459p_0006.jpg

When a colloidal suspension droplet evaporates from a solid surface, it leaves a characteristic deposit in the contact region. These deposits are common and important for many applications in printing, coating, or washing. By the use of superamphiphobic surfaces as a substrate, the contact area can be reduced so that evaporation is almost radially symmetric. While drying, the droplets maintain a nearly perfect spherical shape. Here, we exploit this phenomenon to fabricate supraparticles from bidisperse colloidal aqueous suspensions. The supraparticles have a core–shell morphology. The outer region is predominantly occupied by small colloids, forming a close-packed crystalline structure. Toward the center, the number of large colloids increases and they are packed amorphously. The extent of this stratification decreases with decreasing the evaporation rate. Complementary simulations indicate that evaporation leads to a local increase in density, which, in turn, exerts stronger inward forces on the larger colloids. A comparison between experiments and simulations suggest that hydrodynamic interactions between the suspended colloids reduce the extent of stratification. Our findings are relevant for the fabrication of supraparticles for applications in the fields of chromatography, catalysis, drug delivery, photonics, and a better understanding of spray-drying.

Keywords: segregation, evaporation, supraparticles, superamphiphobic, colloids


When a suspension droplet evaporates from a solid surface, the previously dispersed colloids remain on the surfaces. The structure of the deposited colloids depends on the wetting properties of the surface. If the suspension fully wets the surface, a film is formed (Figure 1a). Evaporation of films and the resulting film formation has been studied because of its relevance in applications such as painting, coating, film formation, etc.(1) Due to the spatial symmetry of the drying process, evaporation can be described by a single coordinate perpendicular to the substrate.24

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Schematic overview of drying suspension geometries occurring in nature and applications. Evaporation of (a) a horizontal film, (b) an isolated drop on a partially wetted surface, (c) a drop on a super liquid-repellent surface, and (d) a free drop.

The evaporation of isolated drops occurring on partially wetted surfaces is more complex (Figure 1b). Dispersion evaporation is common in daily life and important for applications in printing,5 washing, forensics,6,7 or agriculture.8 The evaporation dynamics and the final structure of the deposit have been widely investigated both experimentally and in simulations.9,10 For partially wetting isolated drops, the evaporation is no longer homogeneous. If the apparent contact angle of the drop is below 90° more liquid evaporates at the periphery than in the center. The resulting radial flow of liquid enriches colloids at the periphery, where particles aggregate and finally form a ring- or doughnut-like structure.1117 As a result of line pinning at the periphery, drops often evaporate at a constant contact radius rather than at a constant contact angle.

Another important case is the evaporation of free droplets, which occurs, for example, in spray drying (Figure 1d). Spray drying is a widely used process to fabricate powders from solutions or suspensions.1823 In the case of a free spherical drop, evaporation is radially symmetric and thus can also be described by a single coordinate.

During the past decade, water and oil repellent surfaces, so-called superamphiphobic surfaces have become available.24,25 Liquid droplets on these surfaces can maintain a spherical morphology with a contact angle larger than 150°, while the interfacial area between liquid and solid is extremely small, i.e., Inline graphic, where V is the volume of the drop (Figure 1c). Usually superamphiphobic surfaces are also porous, allowing the liquid to evaporate through the substrate. As a result, liquid evaporation is almost radially symmetric and the flow is suppressed. Furthermore, super-liquid-repellent surfaces allow for the fabrication of supraparticles. Such supraparticles are typically 100–1000 μm in diameter and consist of colloids that are 20–2000 nm in size. Supraparticles were first formed from aqueous dispersions on superhydrophobic surfaces.2635 Using superamphiphobic substrates, non-aqueous suspensions can be applied, surfactants can be added, and, due to the extremely low real contact area and the low adhesion, supraparticles can easily be removed from the surface,3638 allowing for the production of many supraparticles. Fabrication of supraparticles on a super liquid-repellent surface has the advantage that no surrounding processing liquid is required as in the case of microfluidics. In contrast to spray drying, the process can be carried out slowly under well-controlled boundary conditions so that more-complex supraparticles can be designed. Using super-liquid-repellent surfaces for the preparation of supraparticles may also help to improve our understanding of spray drying.

Previous experimental and simulation studies about drying colloidal droplets on super-liquid-repellent surfaces have focused on monodisperse colloids.26,28,31,33,35 The final packing of the colloids depends on their interaction in suspension. For long-range repulsive interactions, the colloids tend to form a closed-packed crystalline structure. If at a certain level of concentration, attraction takes over, the colloids aggregate and form a random and more porous structure.

In this study, we aim to achieve more complex architectures of the supraparticles. We investigate both experimentally and in simulations the drying processes of a bidisperse colloidal suspension, i.e., the mixture of colloids of two distinct sizes, small (S) and large (L). Of particular interest is the distribution of colloids in the suprapaticles, i.e., whether they remain homogeneously distributed as in the initial suspension, or if they are able to form ordered structures. Previous experiments of bidisperse colloids in evaporating drops on superhydrophobic surfaces26 and in acoustically levitated drops39 suggested an enrichment of small colloids at the supraparticle surface, but the details and mechanisms of the colloid segregation remain largely unexplored.

The evaporation of such bidisperse suspensions has been studied in more detail for thin films experimentally4042 and in simulations.40,4349 It was found that depending on the particle size ratios, initial volume fraction and evaporation speed, the smaller colloids end up more to the top of the film. The larger colloids are pushed to the bottom, creating “inverted” stratification. Qualitatively, this segregation occurs because evaporation leads to a local increase of the colloid concentration near the film–air interface, which, in turn, translates to a chemical potential gradient for both colloid species.44,45 Typically, this gradient is steeper for the large colloids than for the small ones because more volume is excluded to the large colloids. As a consequence, the large colloids experience a stronger driving force pushing the colloids away from the film–air interface. Inverted stratification then occurs if the mobility of the large colloids decrease slower than the driving force increases. The quantitative extent of stratification depends on the specific system, e.g., whether the dispersed particles are rigid colloids or flexible polymers43,45,49 and whether or not hydrodynamic interactions are included in the theoretical description.4749 For a more comprehensive discussion on evaporating films, we refer to the recent review by Schulz and Keddie.4

To study the stratification in spherical drops, we investigated the evaporation behavior of drying binary colloidal drops on a superamphiphobic surface. Aqueous suspensions of polystyrene (PS) colloids of mean diameters Inline graphic and Inline graphic were used as a model system. Before drying, the colloidal suspension making up the droplet contained a volume fraction of Inline graphic for small colloids and Inline graphic for large colloids, respectively. At the end of the evaporation process, the total colloidal volume fraction in the dried supraparticle reached Inline graphic. With the help of scanning electron microscopy (SEM), we observed a significant enrichment of small colloids at the supraparticle surface with a concomitant depletion of large colloids in this region. Toward the center of the supraparticles the two species gradually mixed again. The extent of this separation became less pronounced when we decreased the evaporation speed. Computer simulations confirmed this dynamic stratification and provided additional information on the colloid distribution during the evaporation process. These results will help us to prepare supraparticles for various applications such as in chromatography, catalysis, or for making photonic crystals.

Results and Discussion

Evaporation of Drops

The relevant parameter describing the evaporation process of a suspension is the Péclet number (Pe). It characterizes the relative contributions of advection and diffusion to the motion of the colloids. For evaporating spherical droplets, Pe is the ratio of the typical time, a dispersed particle needs to diffuse one initial droplet radius, Inline graphic, and the characteristic time of evaporation, Inline graphic. The evaporation time can be expressed as Inline graphic, where Inline graphic is the initial droplet radius and Inline graphic is the speed of the receding droplet-air interface. For (free) droplets, the evaporation is limited by the diffusion of water molecules through the surrounding air,50 and the droplet volume Inline graphic decreases as:

graphic file with name nn-2019-00459p_m013.jpg 1

where Inline graphic is the initial volume of the droplet and Inline graphic is the rate of surface reduction. Taking the time derivative of eq 1, one obtains for the initial vev the following expression:

graphic file with name nn-2019-00459p_m016.jpg 2

For a free, spherical droplet, Inline graphic can be determined analytically, i.e.:

graphic file with name nn-2019-00459p_m018.jpg 3

Here, Inline graphic is the diffusion coefficient of vapor molecules in air, Inline graphic is the mass of one vapor/liquid molecule, Inline graphic is the density of the liquid, Inline graphic is the difference in pressure at the droplet surface and outside the film of vapor, and Inline graphic is the thermal energy of the system. For sessile droplets which are shaped like a spherical cap, Picknett and Bexon51 calculated the evaporation rate and found:

graphic file with name nn-2019-00459p_m024.jpg 4

with Inline graphic with the contact angle Inline graphic, and f = 0.00008957 + 0.633θ + 0.116θ2 − 0.08878θ3 + 0.01033θ4 for θ (rad) above 10°. The pressure difference Inline graphic in eqs 3 and 4 can be expressed in terms of relative humidity RH as Inline graphic with saturation vapor pressure Inline graphic. We indeed observed a linear decrease of Inline graphic for the evaporation of pure water droplets as well as the colloidal suspensions (Movie S1 and Figure S1). Using eq 4 for pure water droplets at our experimental conditions (Inline graphic, Inline graphic, Inline graphic, and Inline graphic), we find Inline graphic, which is in excellent agreement with the value of Inline graphic that we obtained from fitting our results with eq 1. Note that these values for Inline graphic are roughly 30% smaller than the ones expected for completely free spherical droplets. Droplets of suspensions evaporated with the same kinetics as pure water droplets but with a slower rate of Inline graphic (Figure S1d). We attribute the slight reduction in the evaporation rate to the reduced surface area of the droplets caused by colloids coating the surface.

The characteristic diffusion time can be expressed as Inline graphic, where Dp is the diffusion coefficient of the colloids. For a spherical particle with stick boundary conditions, Dp can be estimated through the Stokes–Einstein relation, i.e., Inline graphic, with suspension viscosity η. For dilute suspensions of spherical particles, Cichocki and Felderhof showed that Inline graphic can be estimated within reasonable accuracy using Inline graphic,52 with solvent viscosity Inline graphic. This expression can be considered a correction of order Inline graphic to the Einstein viscosity equation.53,54 For the initial colloid volume fraction Inline graphic, we find that the suspension viscosity increases by roughly 24% compared to the neat solvent (water in our case).

In conclusion, we find Inline graphic for evaporating spherical droplets, which is independent of the initial droplet radius. It should be noted that the Péclet numbers quoted in this work refer to the beginning of the evaporation process when the droplets have still their initial radius, Inline graphic, and their initial colloid volume fraction Inline graphic. As the droplet is drying, the (local) colloid volume fraction increases, resulting in a (local) increase of the suspension viscosity. Consequently, the Péclet numbers increase over time and eventually become undefined once the colloids jam or crystallize. Nevertheless, the initial Péclet numbers are useful quantities for characterizing the drying regime of the droplets.

Structure of Supraparticles

When the evaporation is completed, the final supraparticle assumes a nearly spherical shape. It took about 18 min for complete drying of a 2 μL (Inline graphic) binary colloidal drop at ambient conditions (Figure S1d). Drops (2 μL) of our dispersion led to supraparticles with a radius of Rf = 355 μm (Figure S2a). Given these processing conditions (α = 1046 ± 20 μm2/s, DS = 1.1 × 10−8 cm2/s and DL = 2.6 × 10−9 cm2/s), we obtained Inline graphic and Inline graphic for the small and large colloids, respectively. Thus, diffusion is substantially slower than advection.

Small colloids were enriched at the surface of supraparticles (Figure 2a,b). The small colloids were assembled into close packed, crystalline regions with some line and dot defects between the highly ordered regions. Only a small area of the supraparticle surface was occupied by large colloids. These seemed to anchor in particular in the defective regions between the crystals formed by the small particles.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

SEM images of a supraparticle formed from a bidisperse colloidal suspension during “fast” evaporation (24% humidity). The diameters of the small and large colloids are Inline graphic, respectively. The initial colloid volume fractions are Inline graphic and Inline graphic, respectively. (a) Top view of the supraparticle surface. (b) Overlay image of cross-section from the surface to the inner part of the supraparticle, showing the stratification of small and large colloids. A more-extended cross-section showing more of the inner part is shown in Figure S3. (c) Estimated relative volume fractions of small (Inline graphic) and large (Inline graphic) colloids obtained from SEM images (see the Experimental Methods section for details).

To further analyze the distribution of small and large colloids, we cut the supraparticles in half (with a WEDO leather knife) and imaged the internal structure using SEM. Segregation of the small and large colloids was observed. The outer shell of roughly 20 μm thickness contained almost exclusively small colloids (Figures 2a and S2b). They formed well-ordered 3D crystal structures. Only few of the large colloids were found in the shell. In contrast, the core part of the supraparticle consisted mostly of large colloids (Figures 2b, S2c, and S3). The small colloids mainly filled the interstitial spaces. No crystallization was observed in this region. Stitching of a series of SEM pictures taken along a line from the edge to the center shows the transition between these two regions in detail (Figure 2b). The radial distribution of small and large colloids in the supraparticle (Figure 2c) shows the clear spatial segregation between the two colloid types, which manifests itself during evaporation. Note that the crystallization of the smaller colloids that is observed in the outer layer of the supraparticle does not contribute to the stratification effect but is rather a consequence of the segregation. Furthermore, we did not observe any indication of buckling or cracking of the dried supraparticles in our experiments, as it can occur during spray drying due to skin formation.55 In experiments on the formation of supraparticles from monodispersed colloids, we could provoke crust formation only by pronounced acceleration of the evaporation process, using either temperatures close to the boiling point or applying vacuum (manuscript in preparation). Increasing the droplet volume to 10 μL leads to a flattening of the initial droplet due to gravity. As the droplet shrinks during evaporation, it becomes spherical again as its mass decrease. The evaporation rate of α = 884 μm2/s is slightly lower than for the small droplet. However, the final deposit is nonspherical, as during the much longer evaporation time, sedimentation of the PS particles sets in (Figure S4). This sedimentation for larger drop can be mostly suppressed by density matching using D2O instead of H2O, leading to almost spherical supraparticles again (Figure S5).

Comparison to Simulations

For a more-comprehensive understanding of segregation, we conducted complementary Langevin dynamics simulations with an implicit solvent. Initially, the colloids were uniformly distributed (Figure 3a and dotted line in Figure 3b). As the droplet dries, the small colloids accumulate near the surface (dashed and solid red lines in Figure 3b). A corona consisting almost exclusively of small colloids builds up. This shell is directly followed by a region enriched by large colloids (dashed and solid blue lines in Figure 3b), which extends over ∼15 μm in the final state. Additionally, there are a few large colloids trapped at the droplet-air interface, which are no longer able to move through the dense layer of small particles. The core of the supraparticle is seemingly unaffected by the evaporation, as we find the same composition and density of colloids like in the beginning of the simulation. This behavior can be rationalized by the large evaporation rate (Inline graphic and Inline graphic), which impedes diffusive mixing of the core and shell regions.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Simulation of a bidisperse colloidal suspension in a fast evaporation drop (Inline graphic). The diameters of the small and large colloids are Inline graphic, respectively. The initial colloid volume fractions are Inline graphic and Inline graphic, respectively. (a) Cross-sections of the spherical droplet at various times during drying and the corresponding density distributions of small (cyan) and large (red) colloids. (b) Radial distribution of small (red) and large (blue) colloids at different times. The vertical black lines indicate the position of the receding droplet–air interface at the respective times.

When overlaying the density of colloids after evaporation from the simulations with the experimental measurements, the results largely agree (Figure 4). Because the Péclet number is independent of the drop radius, we scaled the radial coordinate and plotted both curves in one graph. Simulated colloid densities qualitatively agree with the experimental results. In both cases, we observe a higher density of large colloids in the core. At a distance of Inline graphic of the supraparticle radius, the small colloids enrich and dominate the shell with the exception of a few large colloids pinned at the surface of the supraparticle.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Relative volume fractions of colloids after evaporation from simulations (blue) and from experiments (red) versus the radial coordinate for fast evaporation (Inline graphic). Solid and dashed lines correspond to data for large and small colloids, respectively.

A closer inspection of Figure 4 reveals that stratification is more pronounced in the simulations. This discrepancy likely stems from the lack of hydrodynamic interactions and liquid back flow in our simulation model. Indeed, for drying films, it has been shown that hydrodynamic interactions and liquid back flow can reduce the degree of stratification.4749 The missing local hydrodynamics in the particle interaction is certainly a limitation of our model. In contrast, large-scale hydrodynamics due to Marangoni flow, as it occurs for sessile drops with pinned contact line (coffee ring effect),1115 can be excluded in our evaporation situation with radial symmetry. Further note that the droplet radius, Inline graphic, in experiments and simulations differs by a factor of Inline graphic (see the Experimental Methods section). Although the Péclet numbers are identical in experiments and simulations, and thus qualitatively similar stratification behavior is expected, the local structuring of the dispersed colloids might be affected by the different size ratio between the colloids and the drop; each colloid takes up relatively more space in the simulations compared to the experiments, which could explain the more pronounced layering found in the simulations. The surface-to-volume ratio of the droplet is also bigger in the simulations, which further supports the stronger separation between large and small colloids in the simulations because stratification is driven by the receding boundary. Nonetheless, the agreement between experiments and simulations is rather good, underlining the robustness of the stratification process.

Low-Speed Evaporation of Binary Colloidal Droplets

For planar films, the extent of stratification depends on the evaporation speed.4,40,44,56 To observe the effect of evaporation speed in radial symmetry, we repeated our experiments at an increased relative humidity of 68%. Increasing the humidity resulted in an increase in the evaporation time from 18 min to 2 h (Figure S6). The Péclet numbers for small and large colloids decreased to 27 and 110, respectively. Again, we observed a monotonic decrease of droplet volume over evaporation time, with a rate of Inline graphic. Spherical supraparticles could still be obtained even after prolonged evaporation (Figure S7a).

For slow evaporation, the colloids were distributed more evenly in the supraparticle surface. Each large colloid was surrounded by a similar volume of small colloids (Figure 5a,b). The cross-section shows that the core region is enriched in large colloids and mixed with a low number of small colloids (Figure 5b). The difference is, however, not as pronounced as after fast evaporation. The shell between a radius of 220 and 280 μm was mostly occupied by small colloids. When crossing over this layer, the number of small colloids gradually decreased, while the density of large colloids increased (Figure 5c). The small colloids did not crystallize in this case, presumably because their concentration was not high enough. Such a weakening of the inverted stratification is consistent with simulation results (Figure S8).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

SEM characterization of supraparticles formed by slow evaporation (68% humidity). The same colloid sizes and colloid volume fractions have been used as for the fast evaporation. (a) Top view of the supraparticle surface. (b) Overlay cross-view SEM images of the outer part of a supraparticle. (c) Relative volume fraction profile for large and small colloids in the supraparticle obtained under high humidity as a function of supraparticle radius.

Conclusions

In this study, we demonstrate that stratification of evaporating binary suspensions occurs not only for film-like geometry but also for radial symmetric geometry. An almost-radial symmetry can be achieved by evaporating drops of suspensions from superamphiphobic surfaces. The distributions of small and large colloids in the supraparticles depend on the evaporation speed. For fast evaporation, small colloids form an outer shell, while the core is enriched by large colloids. The small colloids in the shell form crystallites with several point and line defects. Only a few large colloids are trapped at the surface of the supraparticle, primarily at the site of defects. For slow evaporation, large and small colloids form a disordered structure on the surface, followed by an intermediate layer that is mostly occupied by small colloids with several large colloids randomly distributed. At the center of the supraparticles, the concentration of small colloids gradually decreases, while large colloids are enriched.

Experimental Methods

Materials

Glass slides of 26 mm × 76 mm in size were provided by Menzel-Gläser, Germany. Tetraethoxysilane (TEOS, reagent grade, 98%), Trichloro (1H, 1H, 2H, and 2H-perfluorooctyl) silane (PFOTS, 97%), hexadecane (reagentPlus, 99%), and deuterium oxide (D2O, 99.9 atom % D) were purchased from Aldrich. Ammonia (28%), toluene, acetone, and ethanol absolute were provided by VWR CHEMICALS. N-Hexane (95%) was purchased from Fisher Chemical. Ultrapure water was produced by Sartorius Arium 611 VF Water purification System with a resistivity of 18.2 MΩ·cm. PS colloids with a diameter of 338 nm and 1.43 μm were prepared using surfactant-free emulsion polymerization57 and purified by several cycles of centrifugation and redispersion in ultrapure water. Small and large particles therefore shared the same surface chemistry.

Preparation of Soot-Template Superamphiphobic Surfaces

Glass slides were first cleaned with toluene, acetone, and ethanol by ultrasonication, then dried under nitrogen flow. After treatment of the glass slides with oxygen plasma (Diener Electronic Femto, 300 W for 5 min), candle soot was deposited on the glass slides.58 Afterward, the soot-coated glass slides were placed in a desiccator together with two opened glass bottles containing 3 mL of TEOS and aqueous ammonia solution. The desiccator was closed, evacuated to 250 mbar, and then vented with ambient air to atmospheric pressure for chemical vapor deposition of TEOS (catalyzed with ammonia) for 24 h. After the soot was coated with a silica shell, the soot was burnt away at 550 °C for 3 h. In this way, a fractal-like silica nanoparticle structure with overhangs was created. To achieve superamphiphobicity, the surface was further modified with trichloro (1H, 1H, 2H, and 2H-perfluorooctyl) silane by means of chemical vapor deposition. Silica-coated surfaces were put into a desiccator together with an opened glass bottle containing 0.1 mL of the silane. The desiccator was evacuated to 50 mbar and left for 3 h to finally obtain the soot-template superamphiphobic surfaces. The superamphiphobic substrate exhibited good liquid repellent properties because it was constructed from fractal silica structure with overhangs (Figure S9a) and further modified with perfluorosilane. Water and hexadecane droplets form a spherical morphology. Water droplets possess a contact angle over 170° (Figure S9b) with a sliding angle about 1°, while hexadecane droplets have a contact angle around 154° (Figure S9c) with a sliding angle about 8° at a volume of 5 μL.

Evaporation of Binary Colloidal Droplets on Superamphiphobic Surfaces

A binary mixture of PS colloids with a diameter of Inline graphic (Inline graphic, where Pdi is the polydispersity index) and dS = 338 nm (Inline graphic0.011) was first prepared. The volume fractions (vol %) of large and small colloids in the water were Inline graphic and Inline graphic, respectively. A total of 2 μL of this suspension were dropped onto the superamphiphobic surface. Drops were evaporated at 23 °C, either at ambient conditions (relative humidity 24%), or at a relative humidity of 68% (measured with a TFA Digital Thermo-Hygrometer). High humidity was achieved by putting several opened water bottles around the superamphiphobic substrates in a chamber and by allowing the system to equilibrate for about 0.5 h before placing the drop.

Characterization

Static and sliding angles of 5 μL of water and hexadecane droplets on a superamphiphobic surface were measured with a goniometer, Dataphysics OCA35 (Data Physics Instruments GmbH, Germany). The morphology of the soot-template superamphiphobic surface and supraparticles were characterized by SEM (low-voltage LEO 1530 Gemini, Germany). The samples were sputter-coated with a 5 nm layer of Pt using a BalTec MED 020 coater prior to taking images to avoid charge buildup. The distributions of colloids in the supraparticles from the experiments were obtained by analyzing the SEM images using ImageJ software. The shape of the droplet during the evaporation process was recorded with a side view camera (IDS uEye USB camera). The polydispersity of the prepared PS colloids were characterized by dynamic light scattering (Malvern Zetasizer Nano S90).

Simulations

In the simulations, we modeled the colloidal suspension as a binary mixture of large and small colloids with the same size ratio Inline graphic as in the experiments, and used Inline graphic as our unit of length. The colloid masses were set accordingly to Inline graphic, with Inline graphic being the unit mass in the simulations. The colloids interacted via the purely repulsive Weeks–Chandler–Andersen (WCA) potential.59 For computational efficiency, we used an implicit solvent model using Langevin dynamics simulations, which incorporates the effects of Brownian motion and viscous drag from the solvent on the colloids. The friction coefficient of the small colloid was set to γS = 2.5, and it was adjusted for the large colloid according to Inline graphic. This implicit solvent representation neglects solvent-mediated hydrodynamic interactions between the colloids. The temperature was kept constant at T = 1.0 Inline graphic, where Inline graphic is the interaction strength of the WCA potential (see the Supporting Information for details). We obtained the time scale of our simulations by matching the diffusion coefficients of the small colloids at room temperature in water at infinite dilution using the Einstein relation Di = Inline graphic, which provides τ ≈ 0.0315 s.

The spherical shape of the droplet in the experiments is reproduced by confining the colloids to a spherical domain with radius Inline graphic. The air–droplet interface is modeled through a harmonic potential:

graphic file with name nn-2019-00459p_m072.jpg 5

Here, the spring constants Inline graphic effectively control the surface tension and were chosen as Inline graphic with Inline graphic.10,44,60 The harmonic form of eq 5 stems from geometric consideration of the change in surface area when a colloid is placed at the interface with a contact angle of 90°. This model neglects hydrodynamic interaction between colloids and interface but reflects repulsive interaction due to surface tension preventing a hydrophilic particle to cross the interface. Evaporation is mimicked by reducing Inline graphic according to eq 1 until the droplet reached its final size. Our treatment of the droplet–air interface using an external potential enforces a spherical droplet shape at all times and impedes buckling of the dried supraparticle. Note, however, that neither buckling nor cracking was observed in the experiments, which validates our simulation approach.

The initial droplet had a radius of Inline graphic μm, which is roughly six times smaller than the experimental system due to computational limitations (the total number of colloids in the simulations was Inline graphic). Note that this reduction in droplet size should not significantly alter the behavior of the system, as the simulations were conducted at the same Péclet number as that used in the experiments. The initial volume fractions of the large and small colloids were chosen in line with those in the experiments, i.e., Inline graphic and Inline graphic, respectively. The simulation time step was set to Inline graphic, and all simulations were performed using the HOOMD-blue software package.6163

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Max Planck Center for Complex Fluid Dynamics (W.L. and H.-J.B.). A.N. acknowledges funding by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under grant no. NI 1487/2-1. J.M. acknowledges funding by the Impulsfund of the Rhineland-Palatinate. We also gratefully acknowledge Gabriele Schäfer for synthesizing the colloids.

Supporting Information Available

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.9b00459.

  • Supplementary SEM measurements of supraparticles and superamphiphobic surface, evaporation of large volume droplets, goniometer measurement of surface wettability, evaporation speed under different humidity, and simulation of slow evaporation (PDF)

  • A video showing tracking of the morphology of binary colloidal droplet during water evaporation (AVI)

Author Contributions

§ W.L. and J.M. contributed equally to this work. W.L., M.K., and H.-J.B. conceived and designed the experiments. W.L. performed the experiments and characterizations. J.M. and A.N. performed the simulations. W.L., J.M., M.K., A.N., and H.-J.B. cowrote the paper.

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Supplementary Material

nn9b00459_si_001.pdf (1.4MB, pdf)
nn9b00459_si_002.avi (88.3MB, avi)

References

  1. Jiang S.; Van Dyk A.; Maurice A.; Bohling J.; Fasano D.; Brownell S. Design Colloidal Particle Morphology and Self-Assembly for Coating Applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017, 46, 3792–3807. 10.1039/C6CS00807K. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Routh A. F. Drying of Thin Colloidal Films. Rep. Prog. Phys. 2013, 76, 046603. 10.1088/0034-4885/76/4/046603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cardinal C. M.; Jung Y. D.; Ahn K. H.; Francis L. F. Drying Regime Maps for Particulate Coatings. AIChE J. 2010, 56, 2769–2780. 10.1002/aic.12190. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Schulz M.; Keddie J. L. A Critical and Quantitative Review of the Stratification of Particles During the Drying of Colloidal Films. Soft Matter 2018, 14, 6181–6197. 10.1039/C8SM01025K. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Singh M.; Haverinen H. M.; Dhagat P.; Jabbour G. E. Inkjet Printing-Process and Its Applications. Adv. Mater. 2010, 22, 673–685. 10.1002/adma.200901141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Laan N.; Smith F.; Nicloux C.; Brutin D. Morphology of Drying Blood Pools. Forensic Sci. Int. 2016, 267, 104–109. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen R.; Zhang L.; Zang D.; Shen W. Blood Drop Patterns: Formation and Applications. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2016, 231, 1–14. 10.1016/j.cis.2016.01.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Wang F.; Hu Z.; Abarca C.; Fefer M.; Liu J.; Brook M. A.; Pelton R. Factors Influencing Agricultural Spray Deposit Structures on Hydrophobic Surfaces. Colloids Surf., A 2018, 553, 288–294. 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2018.05.074. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Conway J.; Korns H.; Fisch M. R. Evaporation Kinematics of Polystyrene Bead Suspensions. Langmuir 1997, 13, 426–431. 10.1021/la960833w. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Sefiane K. Patterns From Drying Drops. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2014, 206, 372–381. 10.1016/j.cis.2013.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Li Y.; Lv C.; Li Z.; Quere D.; Zheng Q. From Coffee Rings to Coffee Eyes. Soft Matter 2015, 11, 4669–4673. 10.1039/C5SM00654F. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Deegan R. D.; Bakajin O.; Dupont T. F.; Huber G.; Nagel S. R.; Witten T. A. Capillary Flow As the Cause of Ring Stains From Dried Liquid Drops. Nature 1997, 389, 827–829. 10.1038/39827. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Larson R. G. Re-Shaping the Coffee Ring. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 2546–2548. 10.1002/anie.201108008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Yunker P. J.; Still T.; Lohr M. A.; Yodh A. G. Suppression of the Coffee-Ring Effect by Shape-Dependent Capillary Interactions. Nature 2011, 476, 308–311. 10.1038/nature10344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Zhao M.; Yong X. Modeling Evaporation and Particle Assembly in Colloidal Droplets. Langmuir 2017, 33, 5734–5744. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.7b00284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Maki K. L.; Kumar S. Fast Evaporation of Spreading Droplets of Colloidal Suspensions. Langmuir 2011, 27, 11347–11363. 10.1021/la202088s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Pham T.; Kumar S. Drying of Droplets of Colloidal Suspensions on Rough Substrates. Langmuir 2017, 33, 10061–10076. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.7b02341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Walton D. E.; Mumford C. J. Spray Dried Products—Characterization of Particle Morphology. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 1999, 77, 21–38. 10.1205/026387699525846. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Vehring R.; Foss W. R.; Lechuga-Ballesteros D. Particle Formation in Spray Drying. J. Aerosol Sci. 2007, 38, 728–746. 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2007.04.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Schutyser M. A. I.; Perdana J.; Boom R. M. Single Droplet Drying for Optimal Spray Drying of Enzymes and Probiotics. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 27, 73–82. 10.1016/j.tifs.2012.05.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Vicente J.; Pinto J.; Menezes J.; Gaspar F. Fundamental Analysis of Particle Formation in Spray Drying. Powder Technol. 2013, 247, 1–7. 10.1016/j.powtec.2013.06.038. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Biswas P.; Sen D.; Mazumder S.; Basak C. B.; Doshi P. Temperature Mediated Morphological Transition During Drying of Spray Colloidal Droplets. Langmuir 2016, 32, 2464–2473. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.5b04171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lintingre E.; Lequeux F.; Talini L.; Tsapis N. Control of Particle Morphology in The Spray Drying of Colloidal Suspensions. Soft Matter 2016, 12, 7435–7444. 10.1039/C6SM01314G. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Chu Z.; Seeger S. Superamphiphobic Surfaces. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 2784–2798. 10.1039/C3CS60415B. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ras R.; Marmur A. Non-Wettable Surfaces: Theory, Preparation, and Applications. Rsc Soft Matter Ser. 2017, 5, 1–391. 10.1039/9781782623953. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rastogi V.; Melle S.; Calderón O. G.; García A. A.; Marquez M.; Velev O. D. Synthesis of Light-Diffracting Assemblies from Microspheres and Nanoparticles in Droplets on a Superhydrophobic Surface. Adv. Mater. 2008, 20, 4263–4268. 10.1002/adma.200703008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Rastogi V.; Garcia A. A.; Marquez M.; Velev O. D. Anisotropic Particle Synthesis Inside Droplet Templates on Superhydrophobic Surfaces. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2010, 31, 190–195. 10.1002/marc.201090001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Marin A. G.; Gelderblom H.; Susarrey-Arce A.; van Houselt A.; Lefferts L.; Gardeniers J. G.; Lohse D.; Snoeijer J. H. Building Microscopic Soccer Balls With Evaporating Colloidal Fakir Drops. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2012, 109, 16455–16458. 10.1073/pnas.1209553109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee D. W.; Jin M. H.; Lee C. B.; Oh D.; Ryi S. K.; Park J. S.; Bae J. S.; Lee Y. J.; Park S. J.; Choi Y. C. Facile Synthesis of Mesoporous Silica and Titania Supraparticles by a Meniscus Templating Route on a Superhydrophobic Surface and Their Application to Adsorbents. Nanoscale 2014, 6, 3483–3487. 10.1039/c3nr05501a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Yu B.; Cong H.; Yuan H.; Liu X.; Peng Q.; Zhang X.; Xu X.; Tian C.; Yang R.; Yang S. Preparation of Doughnut-Like Nanocomposite Colloidal Crystal Particles With Enhanced Light Diffraction Using Drying Self-Assembly Method. Curr. Nanosci. 2015, 11, 161–165. 10.2174/1573413710666141105212715. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Sperling M.; Velev O. D.; Gradzielski M. Controlling the Shape of Evaporating Droplets by Ionic Strength: Formation of Highly Anisometric Silica Supraparticles. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 586–590. 10.1002/anie.201307401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Sperling M.; Kim H.-J.; Velev O. D.; Gradzielski M. Active Steerable Catalytic Supraparticles Shuttling on Preprogrammed Vertical Trajectories. Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 3, 1600095. 10.1002/admi.201600095. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Sperling M.; Papadopoulos P.; Gradzielski M. Understanding the Formation of Anisometric Supraparticles: A Mechanistic Look Inside Droplets Drying on a Superhydrophobic Surface. Langmuir 2016, 32, 6902–6908. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b01236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Zhou J.; Yang J.; Gu Z.; Zhang G.; Wei Y.; Yao X.; Song Y.; Jiang L. Controllable Fabrication of Noniridescent Microshaped Photonic Crystal Assemblies by Dynamic Three-Phase Contact Line Behaviors on Superhydrophobic Substrates. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015, 7, 22644–22651. 10.1021/acsami.5b07443. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Sekido T.; Wooh S.; Fuchs R.; Kappl M.; Nakamura Y.; Butt H. J.; Fujii S. Controlling the Structure of Supraballs by pH-Responsive Particle Assembly. Langmuir 2017, 33, 1995–2002. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b04648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Deng X.; Paven M.; Papadopoulos P.; Ye M.; Wu S.; Schuster T.; Klapper M.; Vollmer D.; Butt H. J. Solvent-Free Synthesis of Microparticles on Superamphiphobic Surfaces. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2013, 52, 11286–11289. 10.1002/anie.201302903. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Costa A. M.; Mano J. F. Solvent-Free Strategy Yields Size and Shape-Uniform Capsules. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 1057–1060. 10.1021/jacs.6b11925. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Wooh S.; Huesmann H.; Tahir M. N.; Paven M.; Wichmann K.; Vollmer D.; Tremel W.; Papadopoulos P.; Butt H. J. Synthesis of Mesoporous Supraparticles on Superamphiphobic Surfaces. Adv. Mater. 2015, 27, 7338–7343. 10.1002/adma.201503929. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Raju L. T.; Chakraborty S.; Pathak B.; Basu S. Controlling Self-Assembly and Topology at Micro–Nano Length Scales Using a Contact-Free Mixed Nanocolloid Droplet Architecture. Langmuir 2018, 34, 5323–5333. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b00790. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Fortini A.; Martin-Fabiani I.; De La Haye J. L.; Dugas P. Y.; Lansalot M.; D’Agosto F.; Bourgeat-Lami E.; Keddie J. L.; Sear R. P. Dynamic Stratification in Drying Films of Colloidal Mixtures. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 116, 118301. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.118301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Liu X.; Liu W.; Carr A. J.; Santiago Vazquez D.; Nykypanchuk D.; Majewski P. W.; Routh A. F.; Bhatia S. R. Stratification During Evaporative Assembly of Multicomponent Nanoparticle Films. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2018, 515, 70–77. 10.1016/j.jcis.2018.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Carr A. J.; Liu W.; Yager K. G.; Routh A. F.; Bhatia S. R. Evidence of Stratification in Binary Colloidal Films from Microbeam X-ray Scattering: Toward Optimizing the Evaporative Assembly Processes for Coatings. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2018, 1, 4211–4217. 10.1021/acsanm.8b00968. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Cheng S.; Grest G. S. Dispersing Nanoparticles in a Polymer Film via Solvent Evaporation. ACS Macro Lett. 2016, 5, 694–698. 10.1021/acsmacrolett.6b00263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Howard M. P.; Nikoubashman A.; Panagiotopoulos A. Z. Stratification Dynamics in Drying Colloidal Mixtures. Langmuir 2017, 33, 3685–3693. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.7b00543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Howard M. P.; Nikoubashman A.; Panagiotopoulos A. Z. Stratification in Drying Polymer-Polymer and Colloid-Polymer Mixtures. Langmuir 2017, 33, 11390–11398. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.7b02074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Tatsumi R.; Iwao T.; Koike O.; Yamaguchi Y.; Tsuji Y. Effects of the Evaporation Rate on the Segregation in Drying Bimodal Colloidal Suspensions. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2018, 112, 053702. 10.1063/1.5013194. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sear R. P.; Warren P. B. Diffusiophoresis in Nonadsorbing Polymer Solutions: The Asakura-Oosawa Model and Stratification in Drying Films. Phys. Rev. E: Stat. Phys., Plasmas, Fluids, Relat. Interdiscip. Top. 2017, 96, 062602. 10.1103/PhysRevE.96.062602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Tang Y.; Grest G. S.; Cheng S. Stratification in Drying Films Containing Bidisperse Mixtures of Nanoparticles. Langmuir 2018, 34, 7161–7170. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b01334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Statt A.; Howard M. P.; Panagiotopoulos A. Z. Influence of Hydrodynamic Interactions on Stratification in Drying Mixtures. J. Chem. Phys. 2018, 149, 024902. 10.1063/1.5031789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Langmuir I. The Evaporation of Small Spheres. Phys. Rev. 1918, 12, 368–370. 10.1103/PhysRev.12.368. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Picknett R. G.; Bexon R. The Evaporation of Sessile or Pendant Drops in Still Air. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1977, 61, 336–350. 10.1016/0021-9797(77)90396-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Cichocki B.; Felderhof B. U. Long-Time Self-Diffusion Coefficient and Zero-Frequency Viscosity of Dilute Suspensions of Spherical Brownian Particles. J. Chem. Phys. 1988, 89, 3705–3709. 10.1063/1.454891. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Einstein A. Eine neue Bestimmung der Moleküldimensionen. Ann. Phys. (Berlin, Ger.) 1906, 324, 289–306. 10.1002/andp.19063240204. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Einstein A. Berichtigung zu meiner Arbeit: “Eine neue Bestimmung der Moleküldimensionen”. Ann. Phys. (Berlin, Ger.) 1911, 339, 591–592. 10.1002/andp.19113390313. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Lanotte L.; Boissel F.; Schuck P.; Jeantet R.; Le Floch-Fouéré C. Drying-Induced Mechanisms of Skin Formation in Mixtures of High Protein Dairy Powders. Colloids Surf., A 2018, 553, 20–27. 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2018.05.020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Zhou J.; Jiang Y.; Doi M. Cross Interaction Drives Stratification in Drying Film of Binary Colloidal Mixtures. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017, 118, 108002. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.108002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Shouldice G. T. D.; Vandezande G. A.; Rudin A. Practical Aspects of the Emulsifier-Free Emulsion Polymerization of Stryene. Eur. Polym. J. 1994, 30, 179–183. 10.1016/0014-3057(94)90157-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Deng X.; Mammen L.; Butt H.-J.; Vollmer D. Candle Soot as a Template for a Transparent Robust Superamphiphobic Coating. Science 2012, 335, 67–70. 10.1126/science.1207115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Weeks J. D.; Chandler D.; Andersen H. C. Role of Repulsive Forces in Determining the Equilibrium Structure of Simple Liquids. J. Chem. Phys. 1971, 54, 5237–5247. 10.1063/1.1674820. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Pieranski P. Two-Dimensional Interfacial Colloidal Crystals. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1980, 45, 569–572. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.45.569. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Anderson J. A.; Lorenz C. D.; Travesset A. General Purpose Molecular Dynamics Simulations Fully Implemented on Graphics Processing Units. J. Comput. Phys. 2008, 227, 5342–5359. 10.1016/j.jcp.2008.01.047. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Glaser J.; Nguyen T. D.; Anderson J. A.; Lui P.; Spiga F.; Millan J. A.; Morse D. C.; Glotzer S. C. Strong Scaling of General-Purpose Molecular Dynamics Simulations on GPUs. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2015, 192, 97–107. 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.02.028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Howard M. P.; Anderson J. A.; Nikoubashman A.; Glotzer S. C.; Panagiotopoulos A. Z. Efficient Neighbor List Calculation for Molecular Simulation of Colloidal Systems Using Graphics Processing Units. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2016, 203, 45–52. 10.1016/j.cpc.2016.02.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

nn9b00459_si_001.pdf (1.4MB, pdf)
nn9b00459_si_002.avi (88.3MB, avi)

Articles from ACS Nano are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES