Microfluidics and Nanofluidics

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 1141–1145 | Cite as

Why are slip lengths so large in carbon nanotubes?

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

A possible explanation for the enhanced flow in carbon nanotubes is given using a mathematical model that includes a depletion layer with reduced viscosity near the wall. In the limit of large tubes the model predicts no noticeable enhancement. For smaller tubes the model predicts enhancement that increases as the radius decreases. An analogy between the reduced viscosity and slip-length models shows that the term slip-length is misleading and that on surfaces which are smooth at the nanoscale it may be thought of as a length-scale associated with the size of the depletion region and viscosity ratio. The model therefore provides a physical interpretation of the classical Navier slip condition and explains why ‘slip-lengths’ may be greater than the tube radius.

Keywords

Carbon nanotube Slip length Navier slip 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

TM gratefully acknowledges the support of this research through the Marie Curie International Reintegration Grant Industrial applications of moving boundary problems, grant no. FP7—256417 and partial support by the project 2009-SGR-345 from AGAUR-Generalitat de Catalunya.

References

  1. Alexeyev AA, Vinogradova OI (1996) Flow of a liquid in a nonuniformly hydrophobized capillary. Colloids Surf A: Physicochem 108:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrat J-L, Bocquet L (1999) Influence of wetting properties on hydrodynamic boundary conditions at a fluid/solid interface. Faraday Discuss 112:119–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhushan B (ed) (2008) Springer handbook of nanotechnology. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi C-H, Westin JA, Breuer KS (2003) Apparent slip flows in hydrophilic and hydrophobic microchannels. Phys Fluids 15(10):2897–2902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cottin-Bizonne C, Cross B, Steinberger A, Charlaix E (2005) Boundary slip on smooth hydrophobic surfaces: intrinsic effects and possible artifacts. Phys Rev Lett 94:056102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Gennes PG (2002) On fluid/wall slippage. Langmuir 18:3413–3414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Denn MM (2001) Extrusion instabilities and wall slip. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 33:265–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eijkel JCT, van den Berg A (2005) Nanofluidics: what is it and what can we expect from it? Microfluid Nanofluid 1:249–267. doi: 10.1007/s10404-004-0012-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holt JK, Park HG, Wang Y, Stadermann M, Artyukhin AB, Grigoropoulos CP, Noy A, Bakajin O (2006) Fast mass transport through sub-2-nanometer carbon nanotubes. Science 312:1034. doi: 10.1126/science.1126298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hummer G, Rasaiah JC, Noworyta JP (2001) Water conduction through the hydrophobic channel of a carbon nanotube. Nature 414(8):188–190Google Scholar
  11. Joseph S, Aluru NR (2008) Why are carbon nanotubes fast transporters of water. Nano Lett 8(2):452–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Majumder M, Chopra N, Andrews R, Hinds BJ (2005) Enhanced flow in carbon nanotubes. Nat Biotechnol 438:44Google Scholar
  13. Matthews MT, Hill JM (2008) Nanofluidics and the Navier boundary condition. Int J Nanotechnol 5(2/3):218–242Google Scholar
  14. Mattia D, Gogotsi Y (2008) Review: static and dynamic behavior of liquids inside carbon nanotubes. Microfluid Nanofluid 5:289–305. doi: 10.1007/s10404-008-0293-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Myers TG (1998) Thin films with high surface tension. SIAM Rev 40(3):441–462CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Myers TG (2002) Modeling laminar sheet flow over rough surfaces. Water Resour Res 38:1230. doi: 10.1029/2000WR000154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Myers TG (2005) Application of non-Newtonian models to thin film flow. Phys Rev E 72:066302CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Neto C, Evans DR, Bonaccurso E, Butt H-J, Craig VSJ (2005) Boundary slip in Newtonian liquids: a review of experimental studies. Rep Prog Phys 68:2859–2897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Noya A et al (2007) Nanofluidics in carbon nanotubes. Nano Today 2(6):22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Donovan EJ, Tanner RI (1984) Numerical study of the Bingham squeeze film problem. J Non-Newton Fluid Mech 15:75–83CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Orikasa H, Inokuma N, Okubo S, Kitakami O, Kyotani T (2006) Template synthesis of water-dispersible carbon nano ‘test tubes’ without any post-treatment. Chem Mater 18:1036–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Poynor A, Hong L, Robinson IK, Granick S (2006) How water meets a hydrophobic surface. Phys Rev Lett 97:266101-1–266101-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pozhar LA (2000) Structure and dynamics of nanofluids: theory and simulations to calculate viscosity. Phys Rev E 61(2):1432–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Qian T, Wang X-P, Sheng P (2004) Power-law slip profile of the moving contact line in two-phase immiscible flows. Phys Rev Lett 93(9):094501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.094501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ruckenstein E, Rajora P (1983) On the no-slip boundary condition of hydrodynamics. J Colloid Interface Sci 96(2):488–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thomas JA, McGaughey AJH (2008a) Reassessing fast water transport through carbon nanotubes. Nano Lett 8(9):2788–2793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomas JA, McGaughey AJH (2008b) Density, distribution, and orientation of water molecules inside and outside carbon nanotubes. J Chem Phys 128:084715. doi: 10.1063/1.2837297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Travis KP, Todd BD, Evans DJ (1997) Departure from Navier-Stokes hydrodynamics in confined liquids. Phys Rev E 55(4):4288–4295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tretheway DC, Meinhart CD (2002) Apparent fluid slip at hydrophobic microchannel walls. Phys Fluids 14(3):L9–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Verdaguer A, Sacha GM, Bluhm H, Salmeron M (2006) Molecular structure of water at interfaces: wetting at the nanometer scale. Chem Rev 106:1478–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Verweij H, Schillo MC, Li J (2007) Fast mass transport through carbon nanotube membranes. Small 3(12):1996–2004. doi: 10.1002/smll.200700368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vinogradova OI (1995) Coagulation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic solids under dynamic conditions. J Colloid Interface Sci 169:306–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vinogradova OI (1999) Slippage of water over hydrophobic surfaces. Int J Miner Process 56:31–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Whitby M, Cagnon L, Thanou M, Quirke N (2008) Enhanced fluid flow through nanoscale carbon pipes. Nano Lett 8(9):2632–2637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. White FM (1991) Viscous fluid flow. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Werder T et al (2001) Molecular dynamics simulation of contact angles of water droplets in carbon nanotubes. Nano Lett 1:697–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhu Y, Granick S (2001) Rate-dependent slip of Newtonian liquids at smooth surfaces. Phys Rev Lett 87:96105CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre de Recerca Matemática, Campus de BellaterraBellaterra, BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations