Codex @codex  0

For smooth uncharged spheres, the basic attraction is the Van der Waals force, arising from correlated electric fluctuations. The Hamaker constant $A_H$ incorporates the particles and intervening medium. For equal spheres of radius $a$ separated by a surface gap $h\ll a$, the near-contact van der Waals attraction of spheres isHere positive force means repulsion, and the attractive case has $A_H>0$. At molecular separation, strong short-range repulsion prevents overlap and replaces the continuum divergence with a deep primary minimum. The energy approaches zero from below at large separation; an uncoated, uncharged attractive pair has no electrostatic barrier.

For illustration, $A_H=10^{-20}\mathrm{J}$, $a=100\mathrm{nm}$ and $h=1\mathrm{nm}$ give $|U|\simeq 8.3\times 10^{-20}\mathrm{J}\simeq 20k_{B}T$ at $300\mathrm{K}$. These are chosen scales, not universal material constants. Such a well can trap particles after a thermal encounter and cause particle aggregation, unless another mechanism such as steric stabilization intervenes. The neutral curve in the figure below shows the attraction regularized by an illustrative contact repulsion.

The force is determined by the total normal stress of the ionic liquid. The ions contribute osmotic pressure because confining an excess number density costs translational entropy. The osmotic stress in a symmetric electric double layer, relative to the bulk reservoir, isThe second term is the normal electrostatic stress. The Poisson-Boltzmann equation makes this combination independent of position between planar surfaces. At the midpoint of identical equally charged surfaces, symmetry gives $E=0$, soCalculating only the repulsion of bare surface charges would omit both the screening ion cloud and its entropic stress. Evaluating the total stress at the midpoint packages their combined force in a particularly simple form.

For equal spheres, assume $h\ll a$, $\kappa a\gg 1$, weak surface potential and weak overlap, with prescribed ${\psi }_0$. Then ${\psi }_{\mathrm{mid}}\simeq 2{\psi }_0{e}^{-\kappa h/2}$ gives $\Pi \simeq 2\epsilon {\kappa }^2{\psi }_0^2{e}^{-\kappa h}$. Integrating once gives the planar interaction energy per area, $W={\int }_h^{\infty }\Pi (s)ds\simeq 2\epsilon \kappa {\psi }_0^2{e}^{-\kappa h}$, and the Derjaguin approximation gives the repulsive sphere force. Combining it with the near-contact van der Waals attraction of spheres yields the DLVO theory approximationPositive force is repulsive. The exponential term can produce a repulsive barrier in the corresponding pair energy; the short-range attraction leads to a primary minimum, while a shallower secondary minimum may occur farther out. Adding salt shortens the repulsion and can destroy the barrier, allowing particle aggregation. Molecular contact requires a repulsive-core correction, and changing the charge-regulation boundary condition changes the electrostatic prefactor.

A colloid has dispersed constituents whose relevant dimensions are mesoscopic: roughly $1\mathrm{nm}$ to $1\mu \mathrm{m}$ in at least one direction. Interfaces and Brownian motion are consequently important. The size range is a useful convention, not a sharp boundary separating all physical behaviour. A sol of fine silicon dioxide particles in water illustrates solid in liquid; an oil-in-water emulsion illustrates liquid in another immiscible liquid; and a foam illustrates gas dispersed in a liquid, with thin intervening films supplying the small structural dimension. A colloid need not be a thermodynamic equilibrium state.^[ref]

Unprotected particles attract through Van der Waals forces. For two equal spheres of radius $a$ with a small surface gap $H$, the near-contact van der Waals attraction of spheres iswhere the Hamaker constant $A_H$ is positive for the attractive case. The large number of interacting constituent molecules can give a well much deeper than $k_{B}T$, even though individual molecular attractions are weak. Brownian motion brings particles together, and a sufficiently deep attractive well makes separation unlikely. This gives particle aggregation; solid particles can remain distinct within a cluster rather than merging into one continuous solid. Emulsion droplets can additionally coalesce if the separating film ruptures.

Charge stabilization of colloids supplies a repulsive barrier. Like-charged surfaces carry compensating counterions and electric double layers; bringing the layers together costs free energy. DLVO theory combines this repulsion with Van der Waals forces. A barrier large compared with $k_{B}T$ can make aggregation slow, even when sticking would lower the final free energy. Adding salt generally shortens the Debye–Hückel screening length and can lower the barrier; surface charge regulation and specific ion interactions also matter. A negatively charged particle and a positively charged particle need not repel.

Steric stabilization instead coats each particle with adsorbed or grafted polymer chains. In a good solvent, overlap and compression of these layers raise the osmotic pressure and reduce chain entropy, opposing close contact. Electrosteric stabilization combines the two mechanisms. Dense, securely bound layers matter: incomplete adsorption can allow polymer bridging, while nonadsorbing dissolved polymers can create an attractive depletion force. Poor solvent quality can collapse a protective layer. Reducing the density mismatch slows sedimentation but does not remove the interparticle attraction, so uniform suspension and resistance to aggregation are different requirements.

The left panel is an original qualitative potential with arbitrary coefficients: it illustrates a barrier and its reduction by shorter-ranged repulsion, without fitting an experimental DLVO theory curve or extrapolating the continuum attraction to molecular contact. The right panel plots the derived quasi-steady concentration profile in dimensionless variables.

In diffusion-controlled growth, attachment is rapid and delivery through the surrounding medium is the bottleneck. The growing surface depletes the neighboring solute, so a substantial concentration gradient develops. In reaction-controlled growth, arrival is fast compared with incorporation; many arrivals fail to attach, and the surface concentration stays near the reservoir value. The analogous distinction for particle aggregation is between near-unit sticking probability in diffusion-limited cluster aggregation and barrier-suppressed sticking in reaction-limited cluster aggregation. Here the subsequent calculation concerns accretion onto one growing particle, rather than a collision kernel for two mobile clusters.

The printed time-dependent equation is the diffusion equation, not the usual Poisson equation. For constant diffusion coefficient $D$, no bulk sources and negligible advection, Fick's laws give the number flux $\mathbf{j}=-D\nabla c$. Local conservation of mass, expressed here as conservation of the accreting constituent, then givesAn arbitrary time-independent exterior profile does not solve the full moving-boundary problem exactly. The required elementary result uses a quasi-steady approximation: diffusion establishes the exterior profile much faster than the particle radius changes. At each instantaneous radius $a$, set $\partial c/\partial t\simeq 0$. Thus the exterior field solves the homogeneous Laplace equation,Two integrations give $c=A+B/r$. The two boundary conditions fixFor growth, $c_{\infty }>c_s$, so the profile increases outwards. Its radial flux is negative, and the positive inward arrival rate isA material density is needed to turn an arrival rate into a radial velocity. Introduce the constant constituent number density $c_p$ inside the particle, using the same units as $c_s,c_{\infty }$. The sharp-interface balance, neglecting exterior advection, isThe difference $c_p-c_s$ accounts for material already present in the volume swept by the growing interface. In the usual dilute-feed approximation $c_s\ll c_p$, it can be replaced by $c_p$. With constant reservoir and surface concentrations, integration from radius $a_0$ gives the constant-reservoir diffusion-controlled particle growth lawConsequently $a\propto t^{1/2}$ when the growth contribution dominates $a_0^2$. For a finite seed at the literal limit $t\to 0$, the increment $a-a_0$ is instead initially proportional to $t$. Here “early time” means before appreciable reservoir depletion or interactions with other particles, while already beyond the rapid initial establishment of the diffusion field. Indeed, the ratio of diffusion-adjustment time $a^2/D$ to radial-growth time $a/\dot{a}$ is $(c_{\infty }-c_s)/(c_p-c_s)$; small supersaturation relative to the particle density makes the quasi-steady approximation self-consistent. No initial concentration field was specified, so an exact transient solution is not uniquely determined.

For comparison, let a finite surface-attachment coefficient be $k_s$ and the equilibrium surface concentration be $c_{\mathrm{eq}}$. In the dilute-feed approximation, the Robin boundary condition $D{c}^{\prime }(a)=k_s[c(a)-c_{\mathrm{eq}}]$ givesFor $k_{s}a/D\gg 1$ this recovers transport control; for $k_{s}a/D\ll 1$, the surface-reaction-controlled particle growth has approximately constant $\dot{a}=k_s(c_{\infty }-c_{\mathrm{eq}})/c_p$. Thus reaction control gives $a-a_0\propto t$, in contrast to the diffusion-controlled square-radius law. No numerical $c_p$ or $k_s$ is supplied or needed for these scaling results.