Hydrogen Bubble Characterization
Hydrogen Bubble Characterization
Hydrogen Bubble Characterization
Daniel Lumanauw
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la
National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/nlm, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
éiecaonique.
Daniel Lumanauw
Department oi Metailurgy and Materiais Science
University of Toronto
Little experimentd data exists for conditions found in commercial electrolyzers so thar
the pnmary focus was to develop expenmental technologies. which would allow
The project was successful in demonstrating that Image Analysis and Laser
Scattering Particle Size Analysis were useful in analyzing the bubble evolution
room tempenture and pressure using smooth screen, rough screen, crystalline plate, and
Plate electrodes produced more uniform bubble size distribution than screen type
cathodes. The mean bubble size, for applied current density of 100 to 250 mA/cm2,
decreased in the order of plate electrodes> rough screen > smooth screen electrodes.
Bubble size increases with decrease in electrolyte flownte and increase in current density
to me.
1 would like to say rhank you to my supervison Dr. D. W. Kirk and Dr. S. J.
Thorpe for d l of their guidance, and Stuart Encrgy System Corp., for initiating and
I would like to thank Dr. D. Rubisov for his technical assistance in the operation
Engineering Group: Anson Sinanan. Paulo Borges. and Arthur Pismenny for their
I give my regards to good friends of mine: Marc Dupere. Johan Susanto, and Rudi
Budiarto.
Finally, would like to thank my family for their many years of supports.
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ i
[ . INTRODUCTION
iii
2.2.2.2.1Gas trapping in cavity ................................................................ 2 6
2.2.2.2.2 Nucleation from a preexisting gas phase .............................................. 28
3.3 Bubble growth on electrodes ................................................................................... 30
2.3.1 Individuai bubble growth ................................................................................... 30
2.3.2 Growth by coalescence.................................................................................. 32
2.4 Bubble departure ................................................................................................... 33
..
2.5 Velocity of osing bubblrs ........................................................................................ 3?
2.6 Bubble-bubble interaction in bulk electrolyte ........................................................ 39
AND DISCUSSIONS............................................................................... 71
V . CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. 1 17
REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 119
Table 4.2 Reynolds Number of the Regions in the Channel without Bubbles ....... 110
Table 4.4 Statistical Values of Population B from Figure 4.18 ................................ 114
Table A.1 Recorded Bubble Diameters (in micrometer) €rom a Single Frame ...... 124
Table A.2. Bubble Size Distribution €rom a Single Fmme .................................... 125
......
Figure 1.3 Schematic presentation of ce11 voltage as a function of current d e n ~ i t ~ ' ~7)
Figure 2.3 Free energy of a droplet of liquid as a function of its radius ......................... 20
Figure 2.7 (a) Advance of liquid sheet over a gas-filled groove. (b) advance of gas-
................................................................. 27
liquid interface over a Iiquid-tilled gro~ve"~'.
.................................34
Figure 2.8 Forces acting on a bubble growing on an e~ectrode'~'.
Figure 2.10 The effect of charge and concentration of ions on interfacial ared5? ........41
.
Figure 3.1 (a) Visualization ce11 configuranon i ..........................................................
l-
45
Figure 3.1 (b) Schematic top projection and cross section of visualization ce11............. 46
Figure 3.2 (b) Schematic top projection and cross section of visuaiization ce11
configuration II................................................................................................................. 48
Fipre 3 3 Four cathodes gometry (From the left. cathode no.1: Ni screen. cathode
no . 2: Ni plate. cathode no . 3: commercial screen. cathode no .4: amorphous
nickel alloy tape).............................................................................................................. 50
vii
Figure 3.4 Cathode no. 5: Ni wire geornetry. .............................................................. 5 I
Figure 3.5 (a) A Schematic dnwing of optical microscopy instrumental appmtus. .....54
Figure 3.6 Image anaiyzer for bubble size distribution measurement. .......................... 57
Figure 3.7 The pnnciple of low angle laser light scattering instnirnent~'~~)
................... 59
Figure 3.9 (a) A schematic drawing of PSA without extemal electrolyte fiow
instrumental apparatus..................................................... ................................................. 63
Figure 3.9 (b) Photopph of PSA without extemal electrolyte flow instrumental
apparatus........................................................................................................................... @
Figure 3.10 Bubble collectors were designed so that after they were clamped to the
cathodes, the inlets had a distance of 2.5.5.0, ruid 7.5 cm from the hottom of
the cathodes. ........................ .............................................................................................65
Figure 3.11 (a) A schernatic drawing of PSA with electrolyte flow instrumental
apparatus........................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 3.11 (b) Photogaph of PSA with electrolyte flow instrumental appantus........67
Figure 3.11 (c) Visudization ceIl and bubble separator in PSA with electrolyte
flow instrumental apparatus. .........................................+..................................-...............
68
Figure 4.1 Bubble critical radius as a function of dissolved hydrogen concentration ....72
Figure 4.3 Schematic of bubble path on a smooth screen electrode: (a) paralle1 to
screen electrode and (b) side view projection. ................................................................. 75
Figure 3.7 Bubble evolution on a amorphous allloy plate electrode at current density
oE (a) 10 m~lcm'; (b) 20 mA/cm2; ( c ) 30 &cm2; and (d) 50 m.A/cm2......................80
Figure 4.8 Bubble size distribution for different electrode geometries at a current
density of 30 m ~ l c m.......................................................................................................
' 82
Figure 3.9 Bubble rnean diameter as a function of current density for different
electrode geometries......................................................................................................... 83
Figure 4.10 Cornparison of bubble size distribution from particle size analysis with
. . .
size dtstnbution from image analysis. .............................................................................. 85
Figure 4.11 Bubble mean diarneter as a function of connecting pipe length between
electrolysis cell and detector ceIl in the analyzer. ............................................................ 88
Figure 4.14 Froth structure mode1 suggested by Yianatos er al.. ~ 9 8 6 ' ~.....................
'. 94
Figure 4.16 Bubble mean diameter as a function of current density for various
.
collecter positions. ........................................................................................................... 96
*
Figure 4.19 Schematic of bubble coalescence and departure on a cross section of: (a)
horizontal wire of a screen electrode and (b) a plate electrode in an upward flowing
electrolyte .................................................................................................................. 105
Figure 4.21 Force balance for a bubble attached on a vertical electrode in an upward
flowing fluid. ........................................................................... ...................................110
Fipre 4.22 Bubble mean diarneter as a function of current density for various
electrode geometries at flowrate of 60 cmfs and collecter position of 50 mm. ............. 112
Figure 4.23 Cornparison of bubble growth behavior according equation 4.1 with
experimental data from Westerheide and ~ e s t w a t e r ' using ~ ~ ' 1 M sulfuric acid
at 130 mA/cm2.................................... ................................................................. 113
Figure 4.24 Theoretical relationship of time with: (3) radius; (b) growth rate; and
(c) growth acceleration at various current densities according equation 4.1. ................115
Figure A.1. Circled bubbles on image taken from CCD videocamera (1 M KOH,
10 rnNcrn2, room temperature and pressure)................................................................ 123
Figure A.2 Bubble size distribution histogarn from five images. ................................ 126
Figure C.1 Intemal pressure of a hydrogen bubble as a function of bubble radius. ..... 128
Figure D.2 Bubble mean diameter for populations from screen electrode
as a function of: (a) electrolyte nowrate and (b) current density. .................................. 130
= area (m')
= effective area (m')
= bubble density on electrode surface
= concentration of dissolved gas in liquid (mole fraction)
= drag coefficient
= saturation concentration of dissolved gas in liquid (mole fraction)
= bubble diameter (m)
= bubble diameter (m)
= diffusion coefficient (m2.s'')
= Faraday constant (9.64867 x 10" mol-l)
= void fraction
= contact ange function = (2 + 3 cos 0 - cos38)14
= p v i t y acceleration (9.808 m.s-')
= height of the electrolytic ce11 (m)
= current (A)
= current density ( ~ . m " )
= exchange current density ( ~ . m " )
= rate of nucleation
= Boltzman's constant (1.38062 x 1 0 ' ~J.K-')
= electrolyte conductance ratio with the bubbles present venus bubbles absent
= number of equivalent
= interna1 pressure of a bubble ( ~ . m " )
= partial pressure of gas in a bubble (~.rn")
= liquid pressure (Nrn")
= pure solvent saturation pressure ( ~ . r n " )
= pressure of liquid vapor ( ~ . m " )
= ideal gas constant (8.3 1 4 3 4 1 mol-')
= bubble radius (m)
= bubble radius at time t (m)
= critical ndius for nucleation (m)
= bubble departure ndius (m)
= Reynolds number
= bubble foot ndius (m)
= tempenture (K)
= time (s)
= ûtomic volume (m3.atom-')
= steady state single bubble rising velocity (m.s-')
= steady state bubble population rising velocity ( m d )
= gas evolving electrode potential (V)
= pre-exponentid frequency factor
a = vapor coefficient
C1 = transfer coefficient [eq. 2.101
B = coefficient of degree of supersaturation [eq. 2.341
P = Tafel constant 12. i 1 - 2.13 - 2.141
P = wedge angle of a groove (rad)
E = ratio of density ciifference of liquid and gas to density of liquid
@r = reference electrode potentid (V)
Y = surface tension ( ~ . r n - ' )
rl = vapor coefficient
f13 = anode overpotenud (VI
%cc = activation overpotential (V)
Tl: = cathode overpotential (V)
i7conc = concentration overpotential (V)
rln = ohmic overpotentid (V)
CL = liquid viscosity coefficient (Pa.s)
PG = gas density (kg.m4)
PL = liquid density (kg.m")
Pv = vapor density (kgm")
"P = activity coefficient of giis inside a bubble
ui = specific volume of pure solvent (m3)
Uvap = activity coefficient of vapor inside a bubble
8 = contact angle (rad)
!se = pressure difference between bubble pressure and liquid pressure ( ~ . m " )
= excess pas pressure ( ~ . r n " )
AgV' = free energy change per atom associated with the transfer of atom from a vapor
to a liquid droplet (~.atom")
AG^" = heterogeneous nucleation free energy (I)
AG"^ = homogenous nucleation free energy (J)
AG, = maximum free energy barrier in a homogenous nucleadon (J)
AG, = free enegy to form an interface (J)
AG, = free energy of fonn a phase change (J)
AR = electrolyte resistance ratio with the bubbles present venus bubbles absent
the reference electrode (V)
A = measured potential between working electrode and reference electrode (V)
&aohm= ohmic potential difference between any point on the electrode and
1. INTRODUCTION
comrnodity"'. The chemical and petroleurn industries use the majority of hydrogen tu
produce ammonia, the backbone of the fertilizer industry, and for methanol production.
In the metailurgical industries, for example. hydrogen is used in the reduction stage (such
as in nickel production) and is also used to control the O2content of the atmosphere in a
eneqy carrier? Liquid Hzhas a significantly higher arnount of energy per unit weight
than any hydrocarbon fuel and has been used for space applications. There is interest in
gasoline. It is the cleanest buming fuel and if it is produced from renewable energy
sources such as solar and wind power, it even has a zero emission when it is used in a
fuel cell. Extensive research has been conducted for this application.
For other applications, hydrogen has been used because of its unique physical
properties"'. Due to its low viscosity, hydrogen is used to reduce friction in rotating
matures in electrical power generation systems. Also because of its low density,
Hydrogen has broad applications and they are being evaluated continuously by
many industries. Hence its indusaial demand has been steadily increasing(? The future
role of hydrogen is even more pmmising as it has the potential to be used as the dominant
For some applications, water electrolysis is the best technology for producing
naphtha, partial oxidation of oil, and gasification of coal. When relatively small
quantities of hydrogen are required, on site electrolysis of water may be more economical
than other methods. Production of hydrogen by this method is a simple process with no
moving parts and can be designed as a ponable unit. This technique is very clean,
reliable. and produces more than 99.98 9% purity of hydrogen gas for most commercial
technologies and hence could become even more important in the future.
The ciiscovery of electrochemical water splitting was made in the year 1800 by
Nicholson and ~arlisle"'. Although an acidic medium was originally used. the current
technology uses an alkaline medium (usually 25-3096 KOH). With this medium.
corrosion is more easily controlled and cheaper construction materials c m be used than in
acidic media.
There are two types of water electrolyzen: monopolar and bipoiar cells.
Monopolar cells have only one polarity on each electrode, either positive or negative.
Conversely, each face of an electrode in bipolar cells has a positive polarity on one side
and negative polarity on the other side. Monopolar cells are simpler systems than bipolar
shown schematicdly in Figure 1.1. The electrolytic reactions that occurs on each
From the overall reaction, assuming the current efficiency to be LOO %, 2 faradays of
s Hr gas at 2S°C
electricity are required to produce 1 mol of H?gas Le. 0.1268 c m 3 / ~ . of
and !atm.
The Gibbs free energy and the enthalpy change for the overail water
decomposition reaction (reaction 1.3) represent the revenible voltage and themoneutrd
voltage respectively and the values as a function of temperature as shown in Figure 1.?"".
From thennochemistry, the difference between these two values arises from the entropy
changes and must be balanced by either supplying or removing heat from the system.
voltage is below the themoneutrd voltage (but above the reversible voltage). then the
electrolysis ceIl will absorb heat from the surroundings. Convenely. if the ce11 voltage is
above the thetmoneutrd voltage, then an excess heat will be genented and this causes
energy ineficiency. Thus, it is desirable to opente the ce11 voltage as close as possible to
thermoneutral potential
i f
j electricity and hear used to 1
i make hydrogen 1
1 00 200
temperature (OC)
because the current eficiency for alkaline mter electrolysis is very close to 100%.
E=&-~+%+%+rln ( 1.4)
Present day electrolyzers have a ce11 voltage of 1.8 to 2.2 V and operate between
70" to 90" C which means voltage efficiency from 68 to 80 % only '? In order to
increase this efficiency, the voltage sshould be reduced by lowering the overvoltages
experienced (at the cathode and anode) and the interelectrode resistance from the
The ce11 voltage increases when the process is operated at higher current densities.
increment is mainly due to the higher bubble population in the electrolyte as the jas
production rate increases Iinearly with current density. Therefore, in order to lower the
intemal ohmic drop, the bubble residence time in the interelectrode gap has to be
minimized.
the drag and buoyancy force of the bubble movement. The characteristic size itself is
dependent on the ce11 configuration (such as ce11 and electrode geometry) and operational
pressure).
(V vs. SHE)
cell voltage
500
evolution phenornena,
2. to study the effects of current density, electrode geometry, and materids on the
scattering analysis.
This chapter consists of six sections that provide theoretical background and
related previous research findings. This information gives foundation for discussion of
experimental results as presented in chapter four. The first section descnbes overail
effects of bubble evolution on the electrolyzers. This section shows the importance of
bubble evolution on the electrodes surface and in the bulk electrolyte. The following
sections present the bubble nucleation, growth, and departure theones and findings.
Velocity of bubble nsing and bubble-bubble interaction in the bulk electrolyte are
their position in the interelectrode gap. The dispersed bubbles in the bulk electrolyte
decrease its conductivity and alter the macroscopic current distribution of the vertical
elecuode. The bubbles located on or very near to the elecuode surface contribute
significant electrolyte conductivity loss because their population is very crowded at the
gas evolving surface. Their presence on the electrodes also &ers the rnicroscopic current
In the interelectrode bulk electrolyte, bubbles decrease the fluid volume of the
electrolyte so that the conductivity decreases. Some theones have been developed to
volume fraction occupied by the bubbles and the state of bubble aggregation, which
includes their size distribution and position distribution. The theories themselves are still
lirnited as they only relate the conductance ratio with the bubbles present versus bubbles
to the void fraction, (0. Some of these relations are presented in Table 2.1.
absent. (Kd,
K m = 8(1- f )@- f)
Meredith and (2.5)
T'obias"" (4 + J ) ( f - f)
~ruggeman"" K m = (1 - f (2.6)
dispersed spheres in an electrolyte. The equations 2.1 - 2.4 were derived from
monosized spheres and their cornparison with the experimental data'@is shown in Figure
2.1. It cm be seen that equations of Maxwell and Jeffery follow the data rather well up to
Meanwhile, equations 2.5 and 7.6 were derived from unequai sized spheres. The
equation of Meredith and Tobias used two size fractions while Brugeman's used several
very different size fractions. Cornparison of these equations with experimental data is
shown in Figure 1.1'". After cornparing many theories and some experimental results,
id es'^' pointed out tliat the relationship between size distribution of the dispersed spheres
w.d the conductivity of heterogeneous medium is as follows:
for 0.1 c f < 0.6, the bubble size distribution affects the conductivity,
From some experimental work"". smaller spheres were found to ;ive lower conductivity
The conductivity of bubble filled electrolyte From a real electrolysis sysiem has
been measured and compared to the models given above. On large-scale vertical
electrolyzen, Hine et ai.(14-18) reported that Bniggeman's equation fit their data best.
Other investigators studied the effects of ceIl design and openting panmeten on
diaphraP, as follows:
+ "K , ~ P )
AR= K , R ~ " ( I + K , ~ (2.7)
the Reynold number. and the remaining parameters are empiricai constants. Hine et al.""
found that perforated electrodes minimize the ohrnic losses due to surface bubbles and
sides'@ considered the effect of bubbles near the electrode by analyzing the
potential measured between a hypothetical gas evolving electrode (V,) and a reference
aQT=Vw-ar
or in terms of potential componenü.
@
' T = "oivn + + Vc,mc (2.9)
where A@ohmis the ohmic potential difference between any point on the electrode and the
Bubble evolution on the electrode forces the current to take a longer path around
the bubble and flow through constricted (bubble-bubble contact) areas. Thus as with
bubbles in bulk electrolyte, the conductivity is decreased. Sides and obia as"" found that
by solving Laplace's equation for a single attached bubble on a vertical electrode with
appropriate boundary conditions, the resistance genented is 10% less than in the case of
was found for a bubble layer up to a void fraction of 0.4 but at f > 0.5 greater resistances
were found. Furthemore, the conductivity in the region for f c 0.5 is slightly higher than
the value predicted by Mÿrwell's equation for bulk dispersion of gas bubbles.
At high current density (i > 100 rn~lcm') where the evolution of bubble is
estimated (by the equations developed for bulk electrolyte using the actual void fraction
in the layer). Therefore the role of the surface bubble layer as well as the bulk bubbles
exchange current density. The value of a and i, are a function of the nature of the
electrode material, so that Eq. 2.10 at constant temperature can be rearranged to:
where c anand ij are Taîei constants on a gven smooth eiectroàe wirh m a ol A in the
Meanwhile. as the bubbles are genented and becorne attached to the electrode's
surface, the effective area (Aefr) of the electrodes decreases. These bubbles also cause
non-unifomity of the current density distribution dong the elecuodes. Thus, for a gas-
(2.12)
-
where rl., is an average over the distribution of overpotentials accompanying the non-
For expenmentd work, superficial area of the electrode (A) is still generally used
to define the applied current density as describe in equation 2.1 1. The relationship
between this equation with Eq. 2.12 then should be described as:
(2.13)
where q* is the portion of the activation overpotential related to the nonuniform current
Faraday's law, and the bubble departure site as will be descnbed later.
2.2 Bubble nucleation
The product of the water splitting reaction via electrolysis is in the form of
dissolved gas in the electrolyte. When its concentration exceeds the supersaturation
limits, a bubble is nucleated. Then the nucleated bubble grows and coalesces with its
bubble neighbon on the electrode's surface. When they reach a certain size, they depart
from the surface. Some of them may interact with each other in the bulk electrolyte.
3.2.1. Homo~enousnucteation
away frorn any interface such as walls and particles. Under appropriate tempenture and
pressure conditions. bubbles start to nucleate when the concenuation of dissolved gas in a
There is a critical radius where bubbles with this radius or larger grow while
bubbles having radii less than this dimension tend to decay. To explain this, it is helpful
first to examine the case of a spherical liquid &op nucleating from a supersaninted
vapor. When a droplet is formed frorn the vapor, the net free energy change in the
system consists of two contributors: the 'surface' term and 'volume' tem. The surface
term is due to the eneqy required to form a gas-Iiquid interface of a droplet having a
AG, = 4m'y
The volume term is due to the gain in free energy as the droplet formed is
thermodynamically more stable than the supersaturated vapor. This is given by:
in the vapor and liquid phases. assumed to be negative in value), ui is the volume of an
atom in the liquid phase. and r is the radius. Ovenll, the free-energy change may be
written as:
AG = AG, + AG,
Figure 2.3 shows the free energy of a droplet as a function of its radius. The
overail free energy passes through a maximum with increasing size of the particle. The
rüdius corresponding to this maximum free energy requirement is the critical particle
radius, r,. Since the free energy at r, decreases in both direction. the particle will grow
when r > rc and decay when r < r,. The cntical radius relation may be obtained by setting
the derivative of Eq. 2.17 to zero and solving for rc. which becomes:
surface energy
for a sphericai vapor phase with radius of r in a liquid phase, aven by:
equd to the equilibrium vapor phase pressure (Po,,,) and PL is the liquid phase pressure.
where PL is the totai pressure (i.e. applied hydrostatic head in the liquid) md Pb is the
pressure inside the bubble that is equal to the vapor phase pressure in this mono
component system.
The rate of nucleation, (I),or the number of bubbles formed per second per cubic
where Z is the preexponential frequency factor which varies relatively slowly with the
~olrner'"' showed that the maximum energy barrier for the nucleation is the same as the
one that could be denved for pure vapor-liquid system. However, another
investi;atiod3' showed that the pressure inside the bubble (Pb)is not equal to the
equilibrium vapor phase pressure (Po,,,) but composed of the sum of the partial vapor
pressure of the liquid (P,) and the partial pressure of the dissolved ;as (P,) which are
significantly dependent on the dissolved gas content (C) in the liquid, given by:
where V I .and vz. are the modified activity coefficients of vapor and giis inside the
nucleate bubble respectively (subscripts 1 and 1 refer to a propeny of the solvent and
solute respectively). Csis the saturation concentration of gas in the liquid, and
where k is the Boltzmann constant. ul is the specific volume of pure solvent, and T is the
temperature.
The critical bubble radius under these conditions can be obtained by substitution
gi ves:
- -
J=Z (2.25)
re~ults''~'confirm the applicability of this theory for dissolved nitrogen in ethyl ether.
concentration is one thousand times that of the saturation concentration before hydrogen
bubbles began to nucleate frorn hydrogen dissolved gas in 1 N sulfuric acid. Thus, in
gas evolving elecuodes requires much less dissolved gas supersaturation than the
concentration for nucleation in the bulk. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the
surface decreases the energy b-er for the nucleation process. This decrease c m be
explained by considering two main panmeters, those are contact ange of solid-gas-liquid
Assuming the embryo is a part of a sphere (Le. spherical caps) and there is quasi-
equilibrium between the surface forces at the position where the surface of the caps is in
contact with the solid surface. the free energy of the heterogeneouslv nucleated vapor
B AG^") c m be deri~ed"~'
as:
where AG^‘'^ is the free energy of a spherical embryo of radius equai to the radius of the
cap and f(8) is given by:
The variation of the ratio of AG^'' to that for AG^^^ is the same as value as the function of
contact angle 0 as shown in Figure 2.5. For 0 = 0'. the liquid completely wets the surface
and AG^^' is the same as AG^^^ because f(0) = I. Conversely, ai 9 of 170' yields AG^" =
0.00017 AG""'. Thus, a surface that has poor wetting characteristics (i.e. 0 -t 1804
For the case of bubble nucleation from a dissolved gas in a solution, Eq. (2.25)
r 1
Figure 2.1 A hypotheticd sphencal cap embryo.
exponential term. Therefore much less supersaturation of dissolved gas is needed to cause
mis pürmeirr has noi k e n iuliy investigated for many compiex surface
rp.
geometry shapes. A model has been developed("' for a conical cavity on a flat surface as
first described for the case of nucleate boiling. In this model. a conical shape cavity
applied to the case of a bubble nucleation process at a gas evolving electrode as they
the liquid phase (one component system) with the temperature gradient 3s its dnving
force. For güs evolving on an eleetrode. the bubble is formed due to supersaturation of
dissolved gas in the liquid (two component system) with its concentration gradient as the
driving force.
unidirectionally over the groove. If the contact angle, 0, is equal or smaller than the
wedge angle, p, then the advancing liquid front will touch the bottom of the groove so
that the liquid completely fil1 it as the liquid pass through. Conversely, in the condition
when
....................................................................
................ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
-. liquid ... .. .. ..... .. .. ..... .. ....... .. ..... .. .. ..... .. .. ..... .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..
........................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
..................................
......................................................................................................
..................................
........................................................................ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..
SOL IO
Figure 2.7 (a) Advance of liquid sheet over a gas-filled groove (-: liquid with
minimum contact ange for gas entmpment in the goove) , (b) advance of gas-liquid
interface over a Lquid-filled groove (-: liquid with maximum contact angle for Liquid
entrapment in the g r o o ~ e ) ' ~ ~ ' .
the advancing liquid front will strike the opposite wall of the groove and entrap gas in it.
then the liquid will not to be removed completely from the groove after it passes through.
From here. the grooves of cavities cm be divided into four types of classes as shown in
Table 2.2.
This preexisting gas in the cavities can be caused by gas entrapment during the
fint introduction of Iiquid ro the surface or by residual gas that is left over after bubble
departure. After the cavities are filled with gas. the nucleus gowth occun at the mouth of
the cavity.
If the cavities fail into class no. i or 3 as described Table 2.2, then the trapped gas
can act as a bubble initiator when its size exceeds the cntical bubble size for nucleation,
However this remains m e only for a finite penod of time which depends on the diffusion
rate of the trapped gas in the liquid. Thus the initial concentration of dissolved gas in the
liquid and the rate of dissolved gas production may also affect the initiai bubble
rougher surfaces have a higher mass transfer coefficient so that lower dissolved gas
concentration is needed for the nucleation. The observed increased in nucleation rate on
rough surfaces was hypothesed to be due to a greater size range of cavities existing on the
corner surface so that more cavities with a proper size and shape were available to enuap
the vapor sufficiently. Conversely. polishing narrows the size range so that it increases
The initial growth of a bubble nucleus (having radius R 2 r,) is driven by the
internai pressure of the hubhle. In an infinite nonviscoils and incompressible liqtiid, the
gowth can be descnbed by a mechanicd energy equation, well known as the Rayleigh
where p~ is the liquid density. R is the bubble radius at time t. and @ is the ciifference of
intemal pressure inside the bubble to the surrounding liquid. After inteeniion. the
From the equation above, it can be seen that a bubble nucleus with radius of r, is
metastable and in mechanicd equilibrium with the surrounding liquid. To initiate growth,
a positive disturbance force is needed by introducing the intemal pressure from the
curvature of the interface and background pressures. Severai simplifications were made
for equation 2.31. In fact at this stage the growth depends strongly on viscous, inertia,
and interfacial forces. The nucleus growth at this stage is slow in the beginning but
accelentes until the supply of new rnoiecuIes limits the growth with this mechanism.
Mass m s f e r of dissolved gas to the gas-liquid interface drives the second stage
of the bubble growth. The bubble growth can be described by solutions of the convective
diffusion equation assuming an initially unifonn supersaturated solution surroundhg the
growing bubble:
where D refers to the diffusion coefficient. E refers to the ratio of the density difference
between liquid and jas to the liquid density, and R refers to the velocity of the bubble
interface (i.e. the nte of bubble growth). The fint stage of bubble growth is small in
cornparison with ihis stage. The error introduced by assuming mass transfer govemed the
given by:
hydropn bubbles and found an agreement between their single bubble growth data with
Eq. 1.34. For multipie bubbles, the experimentai growth rate deviates from the theory
The density of bubble nucleation sites increases with the applied current density.
When these sites are very close to each other, the surrounding bubbles affect every
individual bubble's growth and even coalesce with each other. This is particularly mie for
a current density higher thm 100 rnA/crn2 in a typical water electrolysis system where
Sides and s obi as'"' documented oxygen bubble coalescence on a flat elecvode in
3 wt % KOH solution at 500 mNcm2. They classified three types of bubble coalescence.
The fint type of coalescence occurred between small neighboring bubbles (diameter less
than 10 pm)in much less than 0.0001 S. The second type of observed coalescence was
between medium size bubbles (diameter about 40 pm) with the sunounding smaller
bubbles that are translated ndially across the elecvode surface toward stationary centrai
bubbles. The movement may have been a result of local flows established by continual
coalescence that entrains other bubbles toward the collecter. The last type of coalescence
involved bubbles with a size of 50-100 Fm, where the larger bubble. sliding on the
surface, scavenged other bubbles. This was more obvious on a vertical bubble evolving
electrodes.
2.4 Bubble departure
Bubble size in the bulk electrolyte (before they interact with each other) mainly
depends on their departure size from the electrode. There are five different forces acting
shown schematically in Figure 2.8. Drag force (Fd)and surface force (F,) hold the bubble
on the surface, while Iiquid inertia force (F,), pressure force (F,), and buoyancy force (Fb)
pull the bubble away the surface. When the bubble is just about to depart, these iwo
Fi + F, = F, + F, + F, (3.35)
~ ' ,Beer et ai.'39' have shown that the appropriate equation for each
Hatton and ~ a I l ' ~and
where Cdis the drag coefficient of the bubble in the liquid. R, and Rd are the bubble base
radius and bubble departure radius respectively. APG is the excess gas pressure, and g is
With fluid flow, the bubble on the electrode might have a different contact angle
depending on its size, surface roughness, and the magnitude of the extemal force via fluid
equilibnum established by Eq. 2.36 then has to be modified by the introduction of new
tsuriace
tension
contact angles as a function of bubble size, and the angle of the electrode to the fluid
flow. A study of bubble diameter on detachment in flowing liquids has ken made my
Hayes and intert ton""' but due to its complexity. so far there is no satisfactory theory
that c m describe the phenornena.
On 3 srnooth electrode surface. the bubble base radius tends to increase as the
bubble grows. But in the case of a rough surface. the morphology can pin the base bubble
and changes the relative contact angle of base bubble to the overall surface. thus it may
Ibl and ~enczel'"" observed the variation of bubble departure size as a function
of type electrode substrate. Bubbles on a platinurn electrode detached at a larger size than
bubbles on a copper electrode. It was reponed that the difference was due to the number
of nucleation sites. which correspond to the growth of bubble. by codescence and the
difference in the wettability of each surface. which correspond to the adhesion forces of
Some disagreement remains in the litenture about the effect of current density on
the departing bubble size. Janssen et and Landolt. Acosta, Muller. and obia as'^'
found that the bubbles increased in size with current density, as they observed more
bubble size decreased with current density and this was in agreement with a theoretical
flowrate. The hydrodynamics of the electrolyte significantiy affects the mechanical force
balance of a growing bubble. In addition to the flownte, the hydrodynamics is also
'".
affected by the electrode orientation and ce11 configuration
Most of the expenmental bubble size results were obtained using optical
Jansen et al'''' reponed bubble size distributions using this technique. Another
investigator, Thorpe et al":' reported bubble size distributions from a miniature water
The rising velocity of a bubble depends on its size and the properties of the liquid.
A small bubble (less than 1 mm diameter) is sphericd, rises rectilinearly, and behaves as
if it was a rigid sphere due to its high intemal pressure'5? The steady state rising velocity
(v,) of this single bubble with circulation flow on its interface in an infinite stagnant
where d is the bubble diameter and p is the liquid viscosity coefficient. This velocity is
For a population of bubbles, the steady state rising velocity (v,) is affected by the
the drag force on the bubbles is lowered due to the velocity distribution around the
interacting bubbles so that v,>v,. Above that fraction in a closed system. the rising
bubbles causes a countefflow in the electrolyte to satisfy the continuity condition so that
the bubble rising velocity is decreased. The drag force in this condition is also increased
These effects on bubble risinç velocity becorne more important as the gas fraction
increases. ask kas'^' has proposed a theoreticai relationship for uniform. sphencal, and
Some bubbles bounce or coalesce with each other when they flow in the bulk
electrolyte. These interactions depend on fluid phenornena both within the electrolyte and
The bulk electrolyte motion is responsible for bringin; the rising bubbles into
contact. Smaller bubbles rise more slowly than the bigger ones in the electrolyte flow.
make it possible for them to collide. The extemal flow in the volume surrounding the two
coalescing bubbles will influence the internai drainaje of the film sepanting them. The
drainage of liquid from the region between two approaching bubbles is represented in
Figure 1.9. Local curvature determines the pressure field within the liquid and hence
affects the liquid film drainage rate. The intemal pressure in very small bubbles (dclmm)
is very high so that there will be very little coalescence between them.
1.10 shows the effects of some salts on the total interfacial surface area of the bubbles
that was rissumed ro be inversely related to their degree of coalescence on^^'^^'. The
graph shows an increase of interfacial area with respect to the valence of the ionic species
and salt concentration. For example, the surface area at 0.03 M was increased by 300% in
pure water for Alr(S04)3solution and only by 14% for NaCl solution, indicating less
Two theones have been postulated to explain this behavior. Mamcci and
~icodemo"" suggested bat the inhibition was entirely due to the electric repulsive forces
introduced into the water interferes with its fluctuating shon rang order and tends to
make the solution more viscous so this will increase the rigidity of the surface film
between two coalescing bubbles. Sûlts containing small or highly c h q e d ions are strong
structure makers and hence increase the viscosity of the electrolyte so that the
phenornena in water electrolysis have been studied using two methods: image analysis
(IA) and particle size andysis (PSA). Image anaiysis was pnmarily conducted to study
the effects of current density and electrode geometry on bubble evolution by direct
optical microscopy observation of the electrode surface and to measure bubble size
distribution by means of an image analyzer. Low angle light scattering particle size
analysis was then used to measure the bubble size distribution from electrodes openting
Four instrumental appantus and procedures have been developed to apply the
methods:
Each apparatus used particular visualization ce11 configurations, electrode materials, and
electrolyte solutions as explained in section 3.1, 3.3, and 3.3 respectively. Al1 of the
Plexiglas material that provides a clear view of the electrodes. The ce11 had dimensions of
LOxlOxl8 cm3 and contained two electrodes with diaphragms. Two different
shows the arrangement (configuration r) for optical microscopy apparatus, for LA-PSA
cornparison apparatus. and for PSA without electrolyte flow apparatus. Figure 3.2(a)
shows the placement (configuration II) for PSA with electrolyte flow apparatus. The top
projections and their cross sections of both confijurations are schematically shown in
Figure 3.1 (b) and 3.2 (b). The cathode cornpartment had dimensions of 2 x 2 ~ 1 8cm' and
a diaphragm made of Ryton cloth was placed in between the cornpartments to prevent the
2. Ni plate, made of commercial Ni 200 with a thickness of 0.5 mm which was diarnond
Figure 3.2 (b) Schematic top projection and cmss section of visualization cell
configuration II.
amorphous nickel alloy (50 atm%Ni, 25 at.% Co, 20 at.% B, and 5 at.% V), made
from a melt-spinning process, produced in the form of a ribbon with a width of 0.9
cm. The ribbon was diamond polished ( 3 p ) on the wheel-side. The non contact side
had good surface smoothness and was not polished (cathode 4).
The cathodes no. 1-2, and 3 were spot-welded on both sides with Ni 200 plates, to
provide good current distribution, and thrn were coated with a nonconductive epoxy
paint (Amercoat" 90HS),to give an exposed electrode surface of 2x10 cm' on the front
and back face. Cathode no. 4 was clamped with Ni 200 plates and spot-welded on both
top and bottom of the tape. The clamps were spot-welded again to Ni 100 plates on both
sides and coated with the epoxy to give an exposed area of 0.9~10cm' on the front and
back face. A photograph of the first four cathodes as fabricated is shown in Figure 3.3.
These cathodes were used in dl apparatus configurations except For the iA-PSA
cornparison iippantus. iA-PSA cornparison apparatus used the Ni wire cathode made by
coating the Ni wire with the epoxy to leave an exposed length of 3.5 cm. as illusuated in
Figure 3.1. The exposed Ni wire was placed in a horizontal position within the rniddle of
the cathode cornpartment. For al1 electrodes, three coats of Arnercoata 90HS were
applied to ensure insulative integrity. The anode for dl cathodes was prepared similarly
deionized water. A concentration of L M K2C03 was used for the IA and PSA
measurements, while 0.5 M &Co3 was used for the IA-PSA procedure for cornparison
meûsurements. The experiments were done using &CO3 to avoid caustic attack on the
glass-based material of the sample ce11 wall inside the particle size analyzer. The
electrolyte solution was pre-electrolyzed for 1 hour using the electrodes at 200 &cm2
to satunte the solution with dissolved hydrogen and clean the electrode surfaces.
evolution phenornena and its flow path on the electrode for a water electrolysis system.
With calibration, quantitative data for bubble size distribution cm be obtained by means
of an image analyzer.
This technique is most often used for the examination of particles ranging in size
from about 3 to 150 p.The lower resolution limit depends on the wavelength of the
light used, refnctive index different between particle and that of the medium, and the
optical lens configuration. Above the upper b i t , minimal mapification is needed for
observation.
The most severe limitation of this technique is the depth of focus that becornes
shailower as the rnagnification increases, therefore the Mewing area is very Limited at
high mapification. An optimum mapification is needed to give clear visualization of
the bubble field. For the observation of a fast moving bubble, this technique is limited to
the image capture rate. To obtain bubble size distributions, each bubble has to be
apparatus are shown in Figure 3.5 (a) and (b). The visualization ce11 and the Olympus SZ
signal was then sent to a central processor unit with a Rainbow Runner video capture
card and Matrox Millenium II video card. The software used to control the recording
process was VCapture V. 2.0.0.0. Four MR 16 (50watt) lamps were used to illuminate the
ceIl. A Xantrex HPD 30-10 power supply w u used and a multimeter provided an
accurate direct current output. The measurement of bubble diameter was performed using
The visualization ce11 was placed at the Focal point of the optical microscope to
image both the cathode and the hydrogen bubbles. The bottom section of the elec~ode
was investigated because it had the lowest bubble density. Two illumination larnps were
placed at 13 cm from the focal point on each side at a 15" angle from the electrode plane.
The shutter speed of the CCD camera was set to 1/10,000 second to provide a clear image
of fast moving bubbles. The quality of the images was improved by using the video
capture software. The bubble evolution images were taken at current density of 10, 20,
30, 50, 100 and 250 ~ c m at' room pressure and temperature. The images were
recorded in mpeg files with a capture rate of 30 frmes per second. individual images
were from single frames of the mpeg file and were saved as a bmp file.
The bmp files were read into to the image analyzer. The size scale was then
calibrated using the known diameter of the nickel mesh at each microscope magnification
that was used. Bubble diameters were measured by circling each singie bubble on the
image and using the analyzer to record the diameter as illustnted in Figure 3.6. The
diameter data was saved as a text file and then imported into a MS Excel 97 spreadsheet
bubble population for a given range of bubble diameter. An example of bubble size
The method relies on the fact that when light strikes a particle, some of it is
diffracted and the diffraction angle is invenely proportional to the particle size. The
diffracted light forms a specific angular light intensity pattern, depending on the size of
the particle. The relationship between particle size and the angular distribution of light
of particles. Therefore, if the light scattered pattern of a particle population is known, the
The basic instrument consists of a laser source, a lens train, a sample cell, a
photodetector, and a central processor as shown in Figure 3.7? He-Ne gas lasers with
fixed wavelength of 0.63 pn are commonly used. The laser is focused by a convergent
optical system before and after passinj the sample cell. After the laser passes through the
sample cell, the angular pattem is detected. recorded, and sent to the central processor
where the signai is amplified and deconvoluted based on the Mie theory to yield the
unknown size distribution. The detector is usually a slice of photosensitive silicon with a
2 mW
He - Ne laser
Figure 3.7 The principle of low angle laser light scattering instrument^'^".
3.5.2 Instrumentai a ~ ~ a r a t and
u s procedure for the determination of bubble size
distribution
Mastersizer S. The instrument measures particles within the size range of 0.05-3500 p.
Each measurement takes 2 milliseconds and one data report is taken as an average of one
that controls the rneasurement and analysis process. Input parameters include the
refractive indices for the material (bubbles) and the medium (electrolyte) needed for the
Mie theory caiculation. A refractive index of 1.00 and 1.33 was used to represent the
The rneasurement was started by aligning the laser in the analyzer sample and
then measunng the background signai for a bubble-free electrolyte. The obscuration (a
measure of the arnount of laser light lost due to the introduction of the bubble population
within the analyzer beam) was regulated in the range of 10 to 30% by controlling the
bubble concentration in the detector cell. When the bubble-filled electrolyte entered the
detector cell, the bubble distribution profile was displayed on the monitor. The initial
bubble size distribution was unstable for about 1 to 10 seconds. The data were recorded
&ter the distribution became stable. At the end of each measurement, the electrode power
was disconnected and the sampling pump was run until no bubbles were detected in the
detector cell. This procedure was performed to prevent bubble accumulation from the
pipe and detector ce11 wail attachent. The measurement was repeated six times at each
ce11 using a suction pump upstream of the detector cell. There will be a slight volume
expansion of the measured bubbles due to pressure head difference between the
Electrolysis was conducted at a current density of 300 mNcm2. Figure 3.8 shows
distance 1 cm above the Ni wire cathode using a pipe with a diameter of 0.5 cm with a
liquid capture rate of 3 mUsec. The bubble-filled electrolyte was dmwn to the particle
size analyzer by suction from a pump located &ter the analyzer. The bubble size
distribution wûs detexmined using the image malysis method as described earlier in
Electrolysis was conducted at current densities of 25,50, 75, and 100 mA/cm2. A
schematic drawing and a photograph of the instrumental apparatus are shown in Figure
3.9 (a) and (b). The bubbles were sampled using bubble collectors s h o w in Figure 3.10,
with liquid capture rate of 3 mUs. The bubble collection site could be varied in height
Figure 3.11 (a). (b), and (c). Data were taken at four different current densities: 100, 150,
200, and 250 mNcm2, with linear electrolyte flow rate of 60 cm/s in the cathode
compartment. These measurements were repeated for linear electrolyte flow rates of
52.5, 45.0, 37.5, and 30.0 cmls. Bubbles were sampled using the collector at position 50
mm from the bottorn of the electrode. The voIumetric sampling rate that was used in the
bubble collector was adjusted so that the electrolyte flow rate in the collecton was the
3.6 Summary
Table 3.1 sumarizes the four experimentai apparatus and procedures described
Instrumental
apparatus
IA-opticnl
Schcniutic:
Figure
3.5 (a)
Visudfzation
cell
configuration
(section 3.1)
I
Cathode
(section 3.2)
1,2,3,4
Electrolyte
(section 3.3)
Current
density
(rn~/crn~)
10.20.30. 1
Bubhlc
sanipling
the boitiim of
Eleciralyte
flow rate in
the cathode
compartnient
(cints)
/
microscopy I M K2C03 50, 100, ihc cuthodes
( scction 3.4.2)
IA-PSA 3.8 1 5 0.5 M 300 1 1 cm übove the 1 O 1
cornparison I I I l ~ 2 ~ 0 3
( section 3.5.2.1)
PSA without 3.9 (a) 1 1 ,2,3,4 1 M K2C03
externd
electrolyte flow bottom of the
(scction 3.5.2.2) cu~hodes
PSA with 3.1 1 (a) 1I 112,3,4 I M K2C03 LOO, 150, 50 mm from
elcctrolyte 200,250 ilie boitom of
flow the crithodes
(section 3.5.2.3)
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The literature reported in section 7.3.12 indicates that the critical bubble size
radius should be able to be estimated for the experimental conditions used in this work.
dissolved hydrogen gas as described in equation 3.24. For a system of hydrogen gas
in Figure 4.1. Properties of the electrolyte used for the calculation are presented in
Appendix B. Figure 4.1 (a) shows a hyperbolic curve with an asyrnptotic value at a
hydrogen mole fraction of 1.42 x 10'~) is almost impossible due to the very high value of
the radius (+70 pm). For the electrolyte close to the cathode, a dissolved hydrogen
of LOO m~lcm'. The critical radius for homogeneous nucleation at this concentration is
left over after bubble departure and would become a nucleus for the next bubble site. This
happens especidly on pits and grooves. As outlined in the literature section, physical
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9!
I
Figure 4.2. At current densities of 10 and 20 mNcm2, bubbles tend to be generated at the
screen junctions. The junctions provide cavities that t n p some gas which then serve as
bubble nuclei. As current density increases, more nucleation sites become active on the
Bubbles that are genented From the wire surface tend to depw with smaller size than
bubbles frorn screen junctions. From visual observation, the movement of bubble in this
low current density range is schematicdly presented in Figure 4.3. Screen junctions
Above 30 mNcm2, the entire surface becomes active. The bubbles are connecting
and overlapping with each other so that it is hard to recognize individuai bubble. At
cumnt density higher than 100 mAkrn2, the screen is completely covered by a high
Figure 4.4 shows that almost the entire surface of the rough screen is active even
rnicrognph cross section of this surface is shown in Figure 4.5. The surface was an
Figure 4.2 Hydrogen bubble evolution on a smooth screen electrode at current density of:
(a) 10 mA/cm2; (b) 20 mA/cm2; (c)30 rn~lcrn?;(d) 50 mA/cm2; (e) LOO mAfcm2'; and ( f )
250 mA/cmZ.
-
. , --
I I I
;.;:!
. # l
S I
Figure 4.3 Schemrtic of bubble path on a smooth screen electrode: (a) paralle1 to screen
electrode and (b) side view projection.
Figure 4.4 Hydrogen bubble evolution on a rough screen electrode at cumnt density of:
(a) 10 rn~lcm'; (b) 20 rn~fcrn'; (c) 30 rnA/cm2;(d)50 m~fcm'; (e) 100 m~lcm"; and (f)
250 mivcm2.
Figure 1.5 SEM picture of surface morphology of the rough screen electrode.
activated layer coated on a nickel screen. The gmulated coating produces an irregular
porous surface with various cavity geomenies. Once the cavities begin to emit gas
bubbles, a portion of the entrapped gas is carried off with each bubble until eventually the
cavities are filled only with gas. These cavities contain entrapped gas with size p a t e r
than or equal to the critical size so that the bubbles will nucleate and grow spontaneously
when the dissoived gas concentration just exceeds the saturation concentranon.
The roughness also holds the bubbles, so that residence penod on the surface is
longer than on a smooth screen. Some big bubbles (diameter > 150 p)manage to stay
on the surface before they depart to the electrolyte even at a current density higher than
LOO m~/crn'. More variance in bubble size is observed for rough screen electrodes than
Figure 4.6 and 4.7. Larger bubbles were observed on amorphous plate than crystalline
may have a bigger contact angle and hence produce longer bubble foot perimeter that
holds the bigger bubble on the surface. The difference in contact angle may be a result of
Sirnilar to screen electrodes, the entire surface becomes active at a current density
above 50 rnA/cm2. At high current density, bubbles on the surface touch each other,
leading to bubble coalescence before deparme. Thus the size of bubbles from crystalline
and amorphous plate electrodes should become sirnilar at higher current densities.
Figure 4.6 Bubble evolution on a crystalline plate electrode at current density of: (a) 10
mA./crn2:(b) 70 mA/crn2; (c)30 m~lcm'; and (d) 50 mAkrn2.
Figure 4.7 Bubble evolution on a amorphous dloy plate electrode at current density of:
(a) 10 rn~lcrn';(b) 20 rnA/cm2;(c) 30 m~lcm';and (d) 50 rnA/cm2.
4.2.2 Bubble size distribution and rnean diameter for different electrode geometries
Figure 4.8 shows the bubble size distributions for different electrode geometries at
30 mA/cmL. A screen electrode produces bubble with wider size range than plate
electrodes. At this current density. the role of screen junctions as a larger bubble
rn~lcrn') for the electrodes are s h o w in Figure 4.9. Amorphous alloy electrodes produce
the biggest bubble diarneter within the current density range. The size decreases with
current density due to increase in nucleation sites. This technique pmvided size
The validity of quantitative data produced frorn optical image analysis is limited
for a number of reasons. The measurements cm only be reliably made for current
densities lower than 30 rnNcrn2 due to bubble density. At these current densities the
dynamics of bubble evolution is very variable. The data reproducibility was very limited
and hence genented high error bars for each set of measurements. The method also
addition, the number of measured bubbles may not represent the whole bubble population
on the electrode surface. Despite the measurement dificulties, the data illustrates the
order of magnitude of the bubble sizes and shows the trend of bubble size with electrode
1 O0
bubble diameter (w)
Figure 1.8 Bubble size distribution for different electrode geometries at a current density
of 30 m~/crn'.
amorphous alloy plate
x-\
smooth screen
I I I r
O 10 20 30 40
current density (mNcm2)
Figure 1.9 Bubble rnean diameter as a function of current density for different electrode
geometries.
4.3 Low Angle Lieht Scatteriw Particle Size Anaivsis
method is widely used for solid particle chanctenzation of minerals and pigments. It is
required to venfy that the method is applicable for hydrogen bubbles ("a gaseous
particle"). Two approaches were studied to meet this goal. Section 1.3.1.1 reports the
comparison of measured bubble size distribution from this method with results from an
optical rnicroscopic image analysis method. Section 4.3.1.2 investigates the bubble size
stability during transponation from the electrolysis ce11 to the detector cell. in the particle
The cornparison of the bubble size distribution from particle size analysis with the
results from image analysis is shown in Figure 4.10. Each bar in the histograms indicates
an average of bubble volume percentage for a given bubble diameter range taken from 5
frames for i m a p analysis and 6 measurements for particle size andysis. For this
comparison, the electrode used was a single horizontal wire (as shown in Figure 3.4) in
0.5 M &Co3 with a current density of 300 mNcm2. Experimentai details of the
30
Image analysis
Figure 4.10 Cornparison of buhble size distribution from particle size analysis with size
dishibution from image analysis.
The distribution from the particle size analysis and the image analysis agree
within 2 standard deviations (95.5 96 level of confidence). The mean diameter of the
distribution from particle size analysis and image andysis are 52 and 49 pm respectively.
It is also observed that the distributions have an agreement in their modus size range that
is between 45 and 52 W.
Note that some differences are also observed between the distributions. The
dominant bubble population volumes for particle size analysis and image analysis are 14
and 23 percentage respectively. Bubbles greater than LOO pm are not found in the image
analysis distribution. These are likely the result of an image analysis limitation because
measurements cannot be made for overiapping bubbles. Thus the measurements do not
from particle size analysis has a good agreement with the measurements from image
ünalysis. The method has greater precision than image analysis and provides a large
bubbles from the etectrode (in the electrolysis cell) were transported to the detector ce11
(see Figure 3.7) inside the analyzer. The measured size distribution in the detector ce11
should be the same as the size distribution near the electrode. Therefore, it is desirable
msponation.
When the bubbles flow in the connecting pipe, they may dissolve due to their hi@
intemal pressure or may contact each other due to ciifference in the velocity vectors.
Longer bubble transportation in the pipe gives a greater chance for the bubbles to
dissolve, bounce, codesce, or break, depending on their chernical and physical properties.
Therefore, a test was designed to determine the bubble size stability by varying the path
Figure 4.11 shows that the bubble mean diameten for connecting pipe lengths of
90 to 180 cm are constant. The pipe length of 105 cm was chosen for al1 subsequent
particle size analysis. Under the conditions of the test (current densiiy of 100m~/cm'and
electrolyte flowrate of 60 cmls), the avenge diameter value was 23.61 pm with a
standard deviation of 0.2 1 pin. Coalescence of bubbles in the pipe did not occur due to
pressure was caiculated using equation 2.22 - 2.24 and is presented in Appendix C. The
bubble interface behaved as a stable rigid solid surface. This result confimis the
When the electrolyte was not circulated in the electrolysis cell, it was found that
the bubble behavior (size distribution) was very close to the behavior in a flotation
column for minerais separation. The effects of the collector position and current density
bubble populations at different collector positions (from the bottom of a smooth screen
25 mm from the bottom the electrode (Figure 4.12 (a) and (b) respectively) correspond
closely to a log-normal bubble size distribution with increasing in the distribution spread
and the mean bubble diarneter at the higher position. The log-normal distribution was
confirmed by the linearity of the data plotted against a log normal function. The other two
distributions (Figure 4.12 (c) and (d)) that were measured at position 50 and 75 mm are
combination of the same size range log-nomal distribution at lower positions (O and 25
mm) and a new bigpr size range population. The bimodd distributions at these positions
are dmost identical. The summary of statisticai properties from Figure 4.12 is presented
in Table 4.1.
10 100
bubble diameter h m )
10 1O0
bubble diameter h m )
10 1O0
bubble diarneter h m )
14
position: 75 mm +total 1
- - -+-- - population 8 i
I
10 100
bubble diameter h m )
Position (mm) O 25 50 75
Population - - A B A B
Volume (%) 100 100 44.35 55.65 44-54 55.46
Modus (pm) 70.9 1 82.6 1 60.87 206.54 56.56 206.54
Mean (pm) 67.41 79.26 7 1.30 20 1.37 69.38 202.00
Size range 9.74 - 9.74 - 8.36 - 70.9 1 - 7.18 - 60.87 -
i hini) i 206.54 i 443.23 443.23 i 443.23 i 443.23 i 443.23 i
From the observation of the bubble behavior in the cell, bubbles from the lower
part of the electrode are seen to travel upward and enter a region where the electrolyte is
mixed by bigger bubbles that are bounced back by the froth layer close to the surface of
the electrolyte. Figure 4.13 visualizes this two-phase system at different current densities.
25 mm are below the bubble-mixed electrolyte region. while position 50 and 75 mm are
in the region. This 'cloudy' region becomes deeper as the cumnt density increases from
25 to 50 m~/cm'.
that was initinlly developed for a tlotation column froth study. The model shown in
Figure 4.14, divides the system into four sections by the amount of gas holdup. The
sections are bubbling zone; expanded bubble bed: packed bubble bed; and froth zone.
In the bubbling zone. the bubbles move freely upward until they reach an
interface level with an expanded bubble bed. There is almost no collision between
bubbles occurred in the bulk electrolyte. It is sugested that collisions between bubbies
i
1 positions:
bubble collecter
packed
bubble bed
E > 0.74
expanded
bubble bed
E < 0.74
bubbling
zone
€ 9 < 0.20
When the bubbles pass the interface, they coalesce with the bubble bed and
genente a shock pressure wave, which promotes additional collisions above the interface.
This phenornenon could cause the second bigger bubble population distribution of the
At the third section, the packed bubble bed, the fractional liquid content is lower
than 0.76 so that the bubbles loss their momentum to coalesce and they move uniformly
upward to the froth zone. This explains the similarity between the distribution at position
1.3.2.2 Bubble mean diameter for different collector positions and current densities
Most significantly, as illustrated in Figure 4.15, bubble mean size increases in the
m ~ c m respectively.
' These regions correspond to the expanded bubble bed region where
most coalescrnce occurs as explained in the previous section. This is in agreement with
the visual observation of the interface lowering with current density in Figure 4.13. The
bubble mean sizes in the bubbling zone and froth zone are not significantly dependent on
the current density. In the bubble packed region, as explained in the previous section, the
The effect of current density (gas flow rate, by Faraday Law) on the bubble mean
diameter is shown in Figure 4.16. At position O and 25 mm, the mean bubble diameter
collector position (mm)
Figure 4.15 Bubble mean diarneter as a function of collector position nt cumnt density
of 23 and 50 rnNcm2.
Figure 4.16 Bubble mean diameter as a function of current density for various collector
positions.
increases slightly with current density. Especially for position O mm, it can be assumed
that the increase is not due to codescence in the bulk electrolyte, but due to the increase
in current density only (this will be explained in section 4.3.3.3.3). The data plotted in
this figure is not complete for higher current density at upper positions due to over
saturation of bubble concentration in the detector ce11 of the parùcle size analyzer (see
section 3.5.1).
4.3.3 Electrolvsis with ekctrolyte fiow
upward from the bottom of the cathode compartment. There was no significant
coaiescence between bubbles in the bulk electrolyte. The following sections descnbe how
electrode geometry, electrolyte Rowrate. current density, and collecter position affect the
bubble behrivior.
For this type of apparatus. the cathode rectangular electrolyte flow channel (as
described in section 3.5.2.3) is shown in Figure 4.17. Bubble- free electrolyte flowed
îi-om a 1 x 2 cm2 opening on the side-bottom of the channel. The cross section are3 of
channel had a dimension of 2 ?r 2 cm2. The cathode (with dimension 2 x 10 cm') was
placed vertically at 8 cm height from the compartment bottom. The electrolyte linear
velocity in the channel was varied from 0.3 to 0.375. 0.45. 0.525, and 0.6 cm/s
respectively.
The channel can be divided into three flow regions based on the cross section area
and number of phases in the channel. Region I is the bubble-free electrolyte channel
below the electrode. Region II is the channel where the cathode was placed. Region III is
the channel above the electrode where the two-phase flow from region II flow across and
out of the ce11 to the bubble separator (see Figure 3.1 1).
The effective Reynolds number for these regions in the absence of bubbles is
shown in Table 4.2. For thk rectangular cross section, the numbers were found using the
bubble-filled
electrolyte
flow out
region III
(4.5 cm)
i
1 position:
bubble collecter
I
7 50 mm
region II
(10 cm)
\ gas-evolving
electrode
ded,"O:yt'T7;
flow in
Figure 4.17 Fiow channel geometry in the cathode cornpartment of the electrolysis ce11
Table 4.2 Reynolds Number of the Regions in the Channel without Bubbles
effective flow channel diameter, Deff= [64/(Re)]Dh, where fRe is the friction constant
that is specific for each rectangular width-length mtio and Dhis the hydnulic diameter.
Table 4.2 indicates that the flow was turbulent, because the values were of the order of
thousands. Note that strong flow disturbance was also introduced due to a high
During the electrolysis, a two-phase flow was genented in region II and III with
oas flowrate as a function of applied current. Void fraction (bubble population) in region
C
II increased with height in the ce11 and was dependent on the current on the electrode and
electrolyte flownte. n i e discussion covers the flow in region II that is affected by the
Bubble size distributions were measured using smooth screen, rough screen,
crystalline plate, and amorphous alloy plate. In a flowing 1 M &Co3 electrolyte, with a
flowrate of 0.6 d s and a current density of 750 mA/crn2, bubble size distributions for
these electrodes are shown in Figure 4.18. The distributions correspond closely to
bimodal log-normal distribution. Similar distributions were found for each electrode
Two non-intersecting distributions were found for screen electrodes while plate
electrodes produced two overlapping distributions. The population with the smaller size
range at each bimodal distribution is referred to 'Population A' and 'Population B' for the
bigger size distribution. The sumrnruy of statistical values of these populations frorn
Figure 4.18 is presented in Table 4.3 and 4.11.Population A occupied smaller than 10
volume percentase in al1 of the experiments conducted. The population properties are
the whole bubble population but this bubble would also be susceptible to coalescence
during bubble sepuation due to high coalescence rate with bigger bubbles. Discussion in
i
amorphous ailoy plate
- - A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
total
, - - -+- - population A ' - -- --- --- --------- - A - -------
- - -x-- - population 8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - * - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
1 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 10001
1
Plate electrodes produce a bubble population with a bigger size than screen
electrodes. For the given parameters in the figure. the mean bubble diarneter for plate
electrodes is approximately LOO Fm, while the bubble mean diarnerer produced by
smooth and rough screen electrodes are 27 and 4 pm respectively. This phenornenon
rnight have been the result of the locai hydrodyamic forces on the electrode surface
where the bubbles are growing and depming. Figure 4.19 shows a suggested schematic
of bubble interaction and departure on a cross section of a horizontal wire frorn screen
electrode and a vertical plate electrode. Note that at curent densities above 100 mA/cm2,
relative orientation of electrolyte flow to electrode surface where the bubble is growing.
This is due to the vector balance of forces that hold the bubble to the electrode surface
and forces that pull the bubble from the surface (this wil1 be discussed in the following
section).
The vertical plate electrode (Figure 4.19 (b)) has a unifonn paralle1 Bow-surface
orientation. The electrolyte lifting force push the bubbles at the lower part of the
electrolyte
electrolyte flow
flow
Figure 4.19 Schematic of bubble coalescence and departure on a cross section of: (a)
horizontd wire of a screen electmde and (b) a plate electrode in an upward flowing
electrolyte
electrode so that they collide with neighboring bubbles and form bigger size bubbles until
A horizontal wire from a screen electrode (Figure 4.19 (a)) covers al1 of the
possible relative orientations between the flow and the surface. Smaller bubbles at lower
pan of the electrode are more unstable and tend to move upward dong the surface. This
rnovement ieads to surface coaiescence and hence increases the bubble size on the
surface to the bigpest size at position 12 o'clock. Meanwhile, the pulling force vector
from the upward electrolyte turbulent shear dso increases from position 6 o'clock to 9
o'clock and then decreases again to position 11 o'clock. This pulling force vector is
proportionai with the amount of departed bubbles. Hence wider range of bubble with
The lifting force from electrolyte shear is one of the forces that pull the bubble
away from the electrode. Its magnitude is proportional to the square of electrolyte linear
velocity at the projected bubble area. It c m be predicted. as shown in Figure 4.20, that the
This effect is less significant for screen electrodes than plate electrodes. From the
figure. the linear decrease of bubble mem diameter with electrolyte velocity 60 to 30
cmfs for plate electrodes is 75 Pm, while for screen electrodes is 15 p.This difference
might have been the result of the difference in local hydrodynamic tlow between screen
with plate geornetry (Figure 4.19). Bubbles on a plate electrode expenence a unifonn
postulated that the bubbles are not affected in a uniform way. The change in flowrate
less affects the bubbles located distally to the flow direction than the bubble proximally-
located.
theoretically. With a truncated spherical bubble mode1 that is attached on the electrode
(as shown in Figure 4.21 (a)), the surface force will have same magnitude as the internai
pressure force of the bubble against the flattened bubble base. Thus, the detachment wiil
rely on the balance of the drag force, and is not likely to be compensated by the inertial
force of a growing bubble. However, the inertial force may expenence a high jump in
magnitude due to coalescence between gowing bubbles on the electrode surface. This is
thought to be the depamire mechanisrn noting that Westerheide and estm mas ter'^^'
I
I electrolyte flowrate (cmls)
i
Figure 4.20 Bubble mean diarneter as a function of electrolyte flowrate for various
electrode pometnes at c m n t density of 250 rn~lcm'and collector position of 50 mm.
observed a bubble fomed from the coalescence of two large bubbles sometimes jumped
off and retumed for no apparent reason. Also for this sphencal bubble, as shown in
Figure 4.2 1, no vertical force balances the forces that push the bubble upward. Thus the
The bubble shape c m be distorted from sphencal shape (as shown in Figure 4.21
(à)) due to fhe surface roughness and fhe duid shear force. In this case, the bubbie
interna1 pressure and surface force will rnainly determine the detachment mechanism.
Also the difference between the receding and advancing surface force (FS.,- Fs.J will
balance the lifting force and buoyancy force so that there is a maximum size of bubble
which would be immobile in this circumstances. However. this approach is still in need
dense bubble layer in a flowing fluid. Moreover. it should be noted that the surface
tension and contact angle are dependent on surface electrolyte concentration and surface
1
I
x - vector balance:
t
I y
t
- vector balance:
Figure 4.21 Force balance for a bubble attached on a vertical electrode in an upward
flowing fluid.
4.3.3.2.2 Effect of current density
Figure 4.17 illustrates that the rnean bubble diameter increases slightly with the
cumnt density (from 100 to 250 mA/cm2) for electrodes with a smooth surface. Plate
when the current density is increased within the above range. Smooth screens produce a
linear increase of 4 pm within the current density m g e . The increase in bubble diameter
transfer is the n t e detennining of bubble growth (equation 2.34). Some of the dissolved
=.as is transferred to the bubble and rest is diffusrd to the bulk electrolyte.
For current density higher than 100 mNcm2 litenture data from Westerheide and
~ e s t r n a s t e r ' ~were
~ ' plotted in Figure 4.13. It is proposed that the current density
determines the rüte of bubble growth and hence influences bubble coaiescence on the
electrode surface. Due to the very high dissolved H2 gas supersaturation (150 times
dissolved gas is assumed to be transferred to the growing bubbles. Steady state condition
is required and there is no considention for the effect of the electrolyte Row.
Using Faraday's law and the Ided G a law with pressure correction in the bubble
by the Kelvin-Laplace equation (eq. 2.20), a relationship between time (t) of the bubbles
on the electrode surface with bubble radius r at current density i can be obtained as
follows :
Ill
Figure 4.22 Bubble mean diameter as a funcdon of current density for various electrode
geometries at flownte of 60 cm/s and collecter position of 50 mm.
1 O 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
1
time (s)
i
Figure 4.23 Cornparison of bubble growth behavior according equation 4.1 with
~ ' I M sulfuric acid at 130
experimental data from Westerheide and ~ e s t w a t e r ' ~using
mA./crn2.
where: n = number of equivalent
F= Faraday constant
F(0) = contact angle function - equation 7.27
y = surface tension
relationship follows the data pretty well. In addition, this equation produces a growth
behavior, R = t" (not R a t"' for bubble growth govemed by mass transfer). The
pressure for different current densities using equation 4.1 is given in Figure 4.24. The
growth rate is faster at higher current density. which rneans more frequency of contact
between bubbles that leads to more coalescence on the surface before bubble departure.
This is consistent with the increase in mean bubble diameter with current density as
By using a finite difference method, the derivative of radius function with time
(Figure 4.24 (a)) c m be estimated to obtain the growth n i e and growth acceleration as
shown in Figure 4.24 (b) and (c). The growth rate and the absolute growth acceleration
incretise with current density but decrease with time. From equation 2.35 and 2.36, it cm
be deduced that the drag force and liquid inenia force aiso increase with the current
density.
i
1
O 1 2
Ume (s)
3 4
2 3
Ume (s)
t 2 3 4
tfme (s)
Figure 4.24 Theoretical relationship of tirne with: (a) radius; @) growth rate; and
(c) growth acceleration at various cunent densities according equation 4.1.
In contrary to the electrodes with smooth surfaces, the bubble mean diarneter
produced from rough screen decreases with increase in curent density (Figure 4.23).
Surface roughness limits the bubble foot to expmd with bubble size so that the surface
tension force is independent of current density while the pressure. inertia, and buoyancy
forces (pulling forces) increase with current density. Thus for rough surfaces, bubbles
escape from the surface at smaller size at higher current density. Lt is also noted that for
these surfaces, the coalescence between bubbles on the surface does not occur as much
successfully constructed. This image analysis (TA) technique produced bubble size
surface,
crystalline plate electrode produced smaller bubble size than morphous dloy
plate electrode.
3. A particle size analysis (PSA) appmtus was successfully used to directly mensure
was verified for measunng bubble size distribution by cornparison with direct
image anaiysis and by testing of bubble size stability during cransponation from
has greater precision than image analysis and provides a large number of
an interface between bubbling zone and an expanded bubble bed was formed,
bubble population in the bubbling zone had a log-normal bubble size distribution,
comprising distributions from the bubble population at the bubbling zone and a
- rough screen electrodes produced bigger mean bubble size than smooth screen
electrodes,
mean bubble size decreased with increase in electrolyte fiowrate and the decrease
was more prominent for plate electrodes than for screen electrodes,
mean bübble size increased with increase in current density for smooth screen,
crystalline plate, and amorphous alloy plate electrodes, but decreased for the
Tilak. B. V.. Lu. P. W. T.. Colman. J. E.. and Srinivasan, S., Electrolytic Prodiictio~i
of Hydrogett, Comprehensive Treatise of Elecuochemistry, Vol. 2. (Ed. Bockris, J. O.
M., Conway, B. E., Yeager, E., White. R. E.), Plenum Press. New York and London, ,
p. 1. 1983.
Sides, P. J.. Plimornena and Effects ofElectroLytic Gas Evolution. Modem Aspects of
electrochemistry, Vol. 18. (ed. White, R. E.. Bockris. I. O. M.. and Conway, B. E.),
Plenum Press, New York, p. 303-354. 1986.
Jeffery, D. J.. Proc. R. Soc. London. Ser. A, vol. 335, p. 355, 1973.
10. Chiew, Y.. and Glandt, J., Coll. Interface Sci., vol 94, p. 90, 1983.
LI. Meredith. R. E., and Tobias, C. W., J. Electrochem. Soc., vol. 108, p. 286, 1961.
14. Hine, F., Yoshizawa. S., Takehara, Z., J. Electrochem. Soc. Japan. Vol. 28, p. 88,
1960.
15. Hine, F., Yasuda, M., Nakamura, R., and Noda, T., J. Electrochem. Soc. Japan, Vol.
122, p. 1185, 1975.
16. Hine, F., Murakami, K., J. Electrochem. Soc. Japan, Vol. 127, p. 293, 1980.
17. Hine, F., Murakami, K., J. Electrochern. Soc. Japan, Vol. 128, p. 65, 1981.
18. Hine, F., Yasuda, M.. Ogata, Y., and Han, K., J. Electrochem. Soc. Japan, Vol. 131.
p. 83, 1984.
19. Sigrist, L., Dossenbach, O..and Ibl, N. , J. Appl., Electrochem., vol. 10, p. 223, 1980.
20. Jansen, L. J. J., Geraets. J. I. M. , Barendrecht, E., and van Straien, S. D. J..
Electrochirnica Acta, Vol. 9, Pergamon Press, London, p. 1207, 1982.
31. Sides, P. J., and Tobias, C. W.. J. Electrochem. Sac.. vol 127, p. 288, 1980.
22. Sides, P. J., and Tobias. C. W., 3. Electrochern. Soc., vol 129, p. 2715, 1982.
23. Blander, M.. and Katz, 5. L., Biibblr Ndeation in Liqiiids, AIChE Journal, Vol I l .
p. 833-848, 1975.
14. Volmer, M.. Kenetik der Phiisenbildung (Edwards, Ann Ahor, 1945), p. 164.
25. Ward, C. A., Balakrishnan, and Hooper. F. C., Trans. ASME, Vol. 92, p. 95, 1970.
26. Forest, T.W., and Ward C. A., The Journal of Chemical Physics. Vol. 66. No. 6 .
p. 1322-2330, 1977.
27. Dapkus. K., and Sides, P., I. Coll. Interface Sci., Vol. 111, p. 133, 1986.
28. Reed-Hill, E., Physical Metallurgy Pnnciples, 3d ed., PWS Pub., Boston. 1994.
29. Cole, R., Boilitlg Niicleation, Adv. Heat Transfer, Vol. 10. p. 85-166, 1974.
30. Ward,C. A., Johnson, W. R., Venter, R. D.. and HO, S., J. Appl. Phys.? vol. 54(4), p.
1833. 1983.
31. Ward,C, A., and Levart, E., J. Appl. Phys., vol. 56(2), p.491, 1984.
32. Cony,C., and Faust, A. S., Chem. Enp. Progr., Symp. Ser. No. 17, Vol. 51, p. 1,
1955.
33. Fouad, M. G., Sedahrned, G.H., and El-Arbd, H. Ai., Electrochem. Acta, Vol. 18,
p. 279-28 1,1973.
36. Jansenn, L. J. J., and Hoogland, I. H., Electrochim. Acta, vol. 15, p. 1013, 1970.
37. Sides, P., and Tobias, C., J. Electrochem. Soc., vol. 132, p. 583. 1985.
38. Hatton, A. P., and Hal!, 1. S., Pliotograpliic Stridy of Prepared Siiflaces, Proc. 3" [nt.
Heat Trans. Conf., Chicago, IV, p. 24-37, 1966.
39. Beer, H., Borrow, P., and Brsi, R., iVmdeare 8oiiing: 3ribbie Grorvdi ana' Dynarnics,
Heat Transfer iri Buiiirig, Hahne, H . and Grigull, 5 ed., New York, Academic Press,
p. 71-52, L977.
40. Reddy Karry, S. B., Chem. Eng. Comm.. 1988, vol., 70, p. 127-135. 1988.
41. AI-Hayes, R. A. M., and Winterton, R. H.S., Int. J. Heat Mass transfer, vol. 24, p.
213-331, 1981.
42. Ibl, N. and Venczel, I.. Metalloberfiache, vol. 34. p. 365, 1970.
43. Janssen, L., and Hoogland, J., Electrochim Acta, vol. 18, p. 543, 1973.
44. Landolt. D., Acosta. R.. Muller, R. H., and Tobias, C. W., J. Electrochem. Soc., vol.
117, p. 539, 1970.
46. Kabanov. B. and Frurnkin. A.. 2. Phys. Chem., vol. 165A, p. 433, 1933.
48. Lookichev, A. V. and Smeltzer, W. W., J. Electrochem. Soc., vol. 116, p. 574-579,
1979.
50. Janssen, L., and Hoogland, J., Electrochim. Acta, vol. 15, p. 1013-1023, 1970.
51. Thorpe, J. F., Funk, J. E., and Bong, T. Y., I. Basic Eng., vol. 92, p. 173-182, 1970.
52. Clift, R., Gmce, I. R., and Webber, M. E., Bubbles, Drops, and Parricles, Academics
Press, New York, 1978.
Vog, H., Gris Evolving Electrodes, in Comprehensive Treatise of Electrochernistry,
vol. 6 , Plenum Press, New York, p. 445, 1983.
Richardson J. F. and Zaki, W. N., Tnns. Inst. Chem. Eng., vol. 32, p. 35-53, 1954.
56. Ziemenski, S. A. and Whittemore, R. C., Chem. Eng. Sci., vol. 26, p. 509-520, 1971.
57. Mÿmicci, G. ÿnd Nicoderno, L., Chern. Eng. Sci.. voi. 27, p. i257, 1367.
59. Jarvis, N. C. and Scheiman, M. A.. I. Phys. Chern.. vol. 72, p. 71, 1968.
60. Chu, B., Lasr Light Scattering - Basic Principles and Practice, 1"' ed., Academic
Publisher, Londin, 1991.
61. Bayvel, L. P. and Jones, A. R., Electromagnetic Scattering and it's Application.
Applied Science Publisher, London 1986.
64. Yianatos, J. B., Finch, l. A., and Laplante, A. R., Canadian Metdlurgical Quarterly,
VOL 25(1), p. 23-29. 1986.
68. Darby, R. and Haque, M. S., Chem. Eng. Sci.. vol. 28, p. 1129-1 138, 1973.
APPENDIX A: BUBBLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FROM IMAGE ANALYSIS
CALCULATIONS
An image taken from the CCD videocamen was imported into the image
analyzer. A length calibntion based on the diameter of the wire (357 pn) as a standard
was used to provide a unit measurement. each bubble diameter was directly measured by
defining and circling each single bubble manually. Figure A.1. shows an image of
room temperature and pressure. The diameters were recorded in Table A.1 and were
imported into a MS Excel spreadsheet program for further bubble size distribution
analysis.
Figure A.1. Circled bubbles on image taken from CCD videocamera (1 M KOH, 10
mA/cm2, room temperature and pressure).
Table A.l Recorded Bubble Diameters (in micrometer) from a Single Frame.
the bubbles were grouped in the same size nnges used by Malvem Mastenizers-S
Five frames were used for each set of conditions (electrolyte type and current
density). The calculation results from these frames are shown in Table A.3. Figure A.2
shows the histograrn of these calculation results. The error bars represent two standard
1
t
** From: Anthony, D., "Effects of Cyclic Current Modulation on Cathode Materials for
the Hydrogen Evolution Reaction", M. A. Sc. Thesis, Deparnent of Metallurgy
and Materids Science. University of Toronto, p. A-4, 1998.
APPENDIX C: IN'lXRNAL PRESSURE OF A HYDROGEN BUBBLE
1 M &Co3
ELECTRODES
I
7 l
6 - 1
srnooth screen I
5-
4-
3
2
1
O
-
-
15 225
tr
rough screen
30 37.5 45 525
electrolyte flowrate (cmls)
60 67.5 75 '
i
:
srnooth screen A
- - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
----------------------------------
a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - * - - - - - - - - - -
-----------&-----s-----g-----g-----*-----------
(4
Figure D.2 Bubble mean diameter for populations h m screen electrode as a function oE
(a) electrolyte flowrate (at a cumnt density of 250 mA/cm2) and (b) current density (at a
flowrate of 60 c d s ) .