Electrophoretic Mobility of a Semi-dilute Suspension of Spherical Particles with Thick Double Layers and Low Zeta Potentials

Electrophoretic Mobility of a Semi-dilute Suspension of Spherical Particles with Thick Double Layers and Low Zeta Potentials

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE 189, 382–383 (1997) ERRATA Volume 185, Number 1 (1997), in Article No. CS964565, ‘‘Electrophoretic Mobility...

94KB Sizes 0 Downloads 9 Views

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE

189, 382–383 (1997)

ERRATA Volume 185, Number 1 (1997), in Article No. CS964565, ‘‘Electrophoretic Mobility of a Semi-dilute Suspension of Spherical Particles with Thick Double Layers and Low Zeta Potentials,’’ by J. Ennis and L. R. White, pages 157–173: Some terms were omitted in Eq. (75), with consequences for Eqs. [76] to [78] and Eq. [83] and for Fig. 4. The corrected expressions are as follows:

» Wj … Å U (i 0 ) fj

S * S

*

`

A\ / 2A⊥ 0 3 /

1/lij `

/ f j E`

2u 2

dH l2ij / 4uH / du 3

S

u2

d 2H d 3H / 4u du 3 du 2

DD

gij (u)du;

[75]

zj (B\ / 2B⊥ ) u 2 gij (u)du, zi

[76]

2 2 kaj ( kaj ) 2 k a j 0 0 0 e (3E5 ( kaj ) 0 5E3 ( kaj )). 2 kaj ( k aj ) 15 30

[77]

1/lij

Sij Å 0

D

zj (B\ / 2B⊥ ) u 2 gij (u)du zi

1 0 ej / er zj f ( kaj ) zj K( kaj ) 0 / 2 / ej / er zi f ( kai ) zi f ( kai ) /

*

`

1/lij

S

A\ / 2A⊥ 0 3 /

D

where

K( kaj ) Å f ( kaj ) 0 L( kaj ) Å0

Physically K( kaj ) represents the effect of the additional backflow which balances the total amount of fluid dragged along by a single particle of type j, since the average volume flux in the suspension must be zero. Equation [78] is now unnecessary, and there is an obvious change to Eq. [83] using the corrected function K( ka). In the corrected expressions for Sij and K( kaj ), the terms which are exponentially small in ka have canceled out as they should. So for large ka the correction to Sij is negligible, and the asymptotic expansions are unchanged. The only figure that is noticeably altered by the correction is Fig. 4, where the O( f ) coefficient becomes substantially more negative for ka õ 4. We include the revised figure here. Note that with the correction, the function K( ka)/ f ( ka) agrees with the result of Levine and Neale given in Eq. [85], so we omit the comparison made in the original Fig. 4. Due to unrelated typographical errors, Eq. [86] should read

Ç0

3 33 333 0 / / O(( ka) 05 ) for ka @ 1 3 ka ( ka) ( ka) 4 382

Copyright q 1997 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

AID

JCIS 4907

/

6g25$$$641

05-15-97 11:47:38

coida

[86]

383

ERRATA

and Eq. [89] should read e » z …s UU Å f ( ka)E` (1 / fSii ). 4ph

[89]

Other results in the paper are unaffected. In particular, our conclusions are as before. This erratum is Article No. CS974907.

FIG. 4. O( f ) correction to the average mobility of a monodisperse suspension as a function of ka for ei Å 0. Solid line: renormalization contribution. Short dashes: reflection approximation up to O(r 06 12 ). Dot– dash: reflection approximation up to O(r 09 12 ).

Volume 185, Number 1 (1997), in Article No. CS964589, ‘‘The Interpretation of Dynamic Contact Angles Measured by the Wilhelmy Plate Method,’’ by E. Rame´, pages 245–251: On page 247, the sentence that introduces Eq. [3] should read ‘‘The downward component of the force, made dimensionless with s is’’; the first line of Eq. [6] should read u Å g 01 (g( u )).

On page 248, the expression R1 / a should be changed to R1 /a in the first and fifth lines following Eq. [12]. This erratum is Article No. CS974914.

AID

JCIS 4907

/

6g25$$$641

05-15-97 11:47:38

coida