Interfacial Rheology

Page 1: Fundamentals

Based on Marquez & Salager, Colloids Interfaces 2025, 9, 14. [DOI]

1. Introduction & Scope

Interfacial rheology investigates the mechanical response—deformation and flow—of the region (interphase or interface) between two immiscible phases, like oil and water or air and water. This field is crucial for understanding systems with extensive interfacial areas, such as emulsions and foams, where the properties of this boundary dictate overall behavior and stability.

Real systems often contain surface-active molecules (amphiphiles) such as surfactants, proteins, or asphaltenes, which adsorb at the interface, forming structures ranging from simple monolayers to complex viscoelastic films. The mechanical properties of these interfaces influence phenomena across diverse fields including food science, energy production (Enhanced Oil Recovery - EOR), pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and biological systems [cite: 4-27].

2. Deformation Modes & Moduli

Two primary modes describe how interfaces deform:

Interactive Deformation Modes

0%0%100%
Shear Deformation

Shear

Constant Area

Dilational Deformation

Dilation / Compression

Area Change

These moduli are complex numbers representing both elastic (storage) and viscous (loss) components:

\( G^{*} = G^{\prime} + iG^{\prime \prime} \)
\( E^{*} = E^{\prime} + iE^{\prime \prime} \)

Here, \(G'\) and \(E'\) are the elastic (storage) moduli, representing the energy stored and recovered per cycle of deformation (solid-like behavior). \(G''\) and \(E''\) are the viscous (loss) moduli, representing energy dissipated as heat per cycle (liquid-like behavior). The imaginary unit is \(i = \sqrt{-1}\). All these moduli have units of force per length, typically mN/m.

3. Historical Context

Early studies by Hadamard, Rybczynski, Boussinesq, Silvey, Frumkin, and Levich established foundational concepts [cite: 25, 37-40]. Boussinesq introduced the idea of a 2D "surface viscosity" to explain droplet sedimentation anomalies. Later, Frumkin and Levich correctly attributed these effects to the presence of surfactants, which create surface tension gradients when displaced during flow. This led to the understanding of the Gibbs-Marangoni effect.

4. The Gibbs-Marangoni Effect

This is a critical phenomenon in interfacial science. Gradients in interfacial tension (\(\nabla \gamma\)), typically caused by variations in surfactant concentration (\(\nabla \Gamma\)) along the interface, generate tangential stresses known as Marangoni stresses. These stresses drive fluid flow from regions of low tension to high tension (Marangoni flow).

In the context of dilational rheology, when an interface is expanded or compressed, the change in area alters the local surfactant concentration, creating tension gradients. The resulting Marangoni stress acts as a restoring force opposing the deformation. This effect is a primary contributor to the elastic dilational modulus (\(E'\)). It plays a major role in stabilizing thin liquid films (like those between bubbles in a foam or droplets in an emulsion) against drainage and rupture.

The relative importance of this effect can be characterized by the Marangoni number: \( M = E / \gamma \).

Note: It's important to distinguish the dynamic dilational modulus \(E^*\) from the equilibrium Gibbs elasticity \(E_G = \Gamma (\partial \Pi / \partial \Gamma)_T = -A (\partial \gamma / \partial A)_T\), which relates equilibrium changes in surface pressure (\(\Pi = \gamma_0 - \gamma\)) or tension (\(\gamma\)) to equilibrium changes in surface concentration (\(\Gamma\)) or area (\(A\)) [cite: 94-101]. \(E^*\) incorporates dynamic and kinetic effects.

5. Dynamic Aspects & Frequency Dependence

Interfacial rheological properties are often strongly dependent on the frequency (\(\omega\)) of the applied deformation. This dependence arises because the interface's response involves molecular relaxation processes with characteristic timescales (\(\tau\)), such as surfactant adsorption/desorption, diffusion along the interface or between the interface and bulk, and conformational changes of adsorbed molecules (e.g., proteins, polymers) [cite: 65, 86, 102-109].

Conceptually:

Viscoelastic Response vs. Frequency

Adjust the relaxation time (\(\tau\)) to see how the response curve shifts relative to frequency (\(\omega\)). The crossover (G' ≈ G'') occurs near \(\omega = 1/\tau\).

Fast (10⁻³s)10-1.0 sSlow (10¹s)
Behavior at 1 Hz: Viscous Dominant

Note: This plot illustrates the concept using a single Maxwell element model. Real interfacial systems often exhibit more complex behavior.

Strain vs. Stress Response

Adjust the phase angle (\(\varphi\)) between strain (input) and stress (response). \(\varphi=0^\circ\) is purely elastic, \(\varphi=90^\circ\) is purely viscous.

Elastic (0°)30°Viscous (90°)

Boussinesq Number (Bo) Estimator

Estimate the conceptual Boussinesq number (\(Bo = \eta_s / (\eta_b \cdot L)\)) comparing interfacial (\(\eta_s\)) to bulk (\(\eta_b\)) viscous effects over length \(L\).

10⁻⁶10⁻³.⁰10⁰
110⁰.⁰1000
0.110⁰.⁰100
Bo ≈ 1.0e+0 : Both effects potentially significant.

Note: This definition of Bo applies primarily to steady flows. Frequency-dependent or oscillatory flow definitions also exist. Values \(Bo\) > 1 are generally considered favorable, indicating that interfacial viscosity effects are strong enough relative to bulk viscosity to be reliably measured and potentially dominate the response. Extremely high \(Bo\)≫1 suggests interfacial dominance, simplifying analysis but potentially posing challenges for the experimental technique itself if the interface becomes very rigid.

Next: Shear Instruments →