J. Am. Ceram. Soc.
, 89 [3] 823–828 (2006)
Journal
Origin of the Potential Drop Over the Deposit During Electrophoretic
Deposition
G. Anné, B. Neirinck, K. Vanmeensel, O. Van der Biest,* and J. Vleugelsw
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering (MTM), K.U.Leuven, B-3001, Heverlee, Belgium
A model is developed to explain the origin of the potential drop
over the deposit during electrophoretic deposition (EPD). The
magnitude of the potential drop over the deposit is explained in
terms of the ion transport through the deposit, as controlled by
the pore potential that is related to the thickness of the electro-
static double layer relative to the pore radius and the magnitude
of the surface potential of the powder particles. This model is
verified for EPD of Al2O3 powder in ethanol-based suspensions
with HNO3 as a function of the operational pH.
I. Introduction
C OLLOIDAL processes have become very popular in recent
times because the defect sizes are smaller compared with
dry pressing, and they also allow safe manipulation of nanome-
ter-sized powders. Among the different colloidal processing
techniques, electrophoretic deposition (EPD) is very promising
because it is a fairly rapid, low-cost process for the fabrication of
ceramic coatings, monoliths, composites, laminates, and func-
tionally graded materials varying in thickness from a few nano-
meters to centimeters.
EPD consists of two processes, i.e., the movement of charged
particles in a suspension in an electric field between two elec-
trodes (electrophoresis) and particle deposition on one of the
electrodes or on a membrane (electro-coagulation). The driving
force for this process is the electric field between the two elec-
trodes and therefore, knowledge of the electric field distribution
between the electrodes is essential.
According to Sarkar et al.,1 the deposition yield of Al2O3
from an ethanol with an HCl solvent decreases during EPD
owing to the increase in deposit resistivity, whereas the resistivity
of the deposit is only marginally higher when depositing from an
ethanol with CH3COOH system. Van der Biest and Vandeperre2
found that the depletion of charge carriers in a suspension of
SiC in acetone with n-butylamine increases the resistance of the
whole deposition cell, slowing down the EPD process. Koura
et al.3 attributed the rapid decrease in current during the first
step of EPD of YBaCuO suspensions in acetone with I2 during a
constant voltage experiment to a diffusion-controlled electrode
reaction. Put et al.4,5 measured the resistance of wet Al2O3 and
ZrO2 deposits in acetone/n-butylamine suspensions, prov-
ing that Al2O3 and ZrO2 deposits have a specific resistivity sim-
ilar to their corresponding suspensions.
Anné et al.6 developed a procedure to measure the electrical
field drop during EPD from the measured current flowing
through the deposition cell and the conductivity of the suspen-
L. Klein—contributing editor
Manuscript No. 20275. Received March 7, 2005; approved October 3, 2005.
Work supported by the GROWTH program of the Commission of the European
Communities under project contract No. G5RD-CT2000-00354, the Fund for Scientific
Research Flanders under project No. G.0180.02. and the Research Fund K.U.Leuven
under project GOA/2005/08-TBA.
*Member, American Ceramic Society.
w
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: Jozef.vleugels@mtm.
kuleuven.be
823
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2005.00817.x
r 2005 The American Ceramic Society
sion during EPD, revealing that an electrically resistive layer was
formed during EPD of Al2O3 from ethanol with HNO3, HCl,
poly(ethylene)imine, or CH3COOH addition, whereas no po-
tential drop was observed when depositing from a methylethyl-
ketone (MEK)1butylamine suspension. Additionally, a clear
relationship was found between the yield of deposition and the
magnitude of the potential drop at the deposition electrode.
In this paper, the magnitude of the potential drop over the
deposit is explained in terms of the ion transport through the
deposit, as controlled by the pore potential that is related to
the thickness of the electrostatic double layer relative to the pore
radius and the magnitude of the surface potential of the powder
particles. Other factors such as a possible potential drop over the
electrodes and the existence of a concentration gradient close to
the electrodes are not discussed in this model, but the model
does not exclude these factors.
II. Theoretical Considerations
In an electrochemical cell, like an EPD cell, the current flows by
transport of ions. At the electrodes, the charge is transferred by
electrochemical reactions. For Al2O3 particles moving in an
acidic ethanol suspension, the charge transfer at the cathode is
defined as Hþ þ e
¼ 12H2 , and protons must be supplied from
the bulk solution to the cathode interface. Therefore, the charge
transfer process involves two steps7:
þ transport process þ charge transfer 1
Hx¼1
! Hx¼0
! 2H2 (1)
where the subscript x 5 0 corresponds to the position of the
outer Helmholtz plane. The transport of protons from the bulk
(x 5 N) to the electrode–solution interface (x 5 0), as well as
the charge transfer process, involve an activation energy.7 If the
charge transfer is at virtual equilibrium, the process is controlled
by the diffusion rate of protons from the bulk to the electrode.
In this way, there is a concentration overpotential. EPD exper-
iments performed on a membrane revealed that a potential drop
is present over the deposit and that no significant polarization is
present at the electrodes when using ethanol1HCl-based Al2O3
suspensions.8
Through the powder compact, which is formed at the elec-
trode, only ions and liquid can pass, while the powder particles
deposit at the growth front of the deposit. From this point of
view, a powder compact can be regarded as a membrane. In
the pores of the powder compact, complex mechanisms such
as electrostatic interactions between the charged deposit and
charged solution species (ions) may play a role. The retention of
ions in the deposit, causing a reduced mass transport through
the deposit, will not only depend on the pore size but also on the
surface charge and the Debye screening length of the deposited
particles forming the pore wall.
The retention of ions depends on the thickness of the double
layer relative to the pore radius, the magnitude and the sign of
the interior surface charge of the membrane/deposit, and the
surface charge at the suspension–membrane interface.9 High se-
lectivity for either cations or anions will occur when the ionic
824 Journal of the American Ceramic Society—Anne´ et al.
double layer spans the membrane pores, i.e., when the free sur-
face double-layer thickness is larger than the pore radius.9 When
the double layer overlaps the size of the pores, total retention
occurs, whereas both cationic and anionic species can be trans-
ported through the channel when the double layer is confined to
a small region close to the channel wall, leaving the center of the
channel electrically neutral.10 The surface charge and surface
potential change with pH (added acid or base), salt concentra-
tion. The surface potential also depends on the extent of elec-
trostatic double-layer overlap because of the specific interaction
of ions in the suspension with the pore surface. Biesheuvel et al.
calculated that the retention of ions in membranes with nano-
meter-sized pores sharply decreases when the point of zero
charge is approached, in agreement with experiences with hy-
drophilic membranes.11,12
To estimate the double-layer thickness in a pore in the de-
posit, the surface charge and potential have to be known. The
relationship between the specific surface charge of powder in the
suspension and the deposit is rather complex.13 The Brönsted
character of the surface of the powder compact, however, is not
changed during powder deposition.14 The surface charge and
potential of the powder compact will, however, differ from an
isolated surface because of overlapping of the wall electric dou-
ble layers inside the pores.15 The pore geometry and pore size of
the powder deposit will also influence the concentration of ions
in the pore. It can, however, be assumed that the surface po-
tential of the powder particles for Al2O3 in the deposit changes
in a manner similar to the surface potential of the powder par-
ticles in the suspension.
(1) Calculation of the Potential in a Pore of the Deposit
Owing to overlapping double layers, the potential, c, in a pore
differs significantly from that on isolated membrane particles.16
To calculate the potential in a pore of the deposit, the mathe-
matical solution of Ohshima17 was used to describe the potential
distribution, c(x), between two parallel plates (Fig. 1):
ZecðxÞ Zecðx0 Þ Zecðx0 Þ
¼
tanh
kT kT kT
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1
0
cosh cosh Zecðx 0Þ
kðh=2
xÞ
B kT C sions for ddep 5 5 mm, d 5 35 mm, Vtot 5 300 V as a function of
B
@1
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  C
A
Zecðx0 Þ
cosh cosh kT h=2
with Z being the valence of the ions, e the elementary charge
(1.6  10
19 C), k the Boltzmann constant (1.381  10
23 J/K),
T the absolute temperature (K), and h being the distance be-
tween the two plates. The x-axis is taken perpendicular to the
plate surface with the origin 0 at the surface of plate 1. k is the
V
_
+ +
Charged particles
_
+ + Cations
_ _ Anions
_
+
+
_
electrode deposit suspension electrode
Fig. 1. Schematic presentation of the electrophoretic deposition proc-
ess, in which the deposit is thought to consist of parallel plate-shaped
pores.
Vol. 89, No. 3
Debye–Hückel parameter given by
 2P 
2 1=2
e i ni Zi
k
1 ¼ (3)
er e0 kT
with er being the relative permittivity of the liquid, e0 the per-
mittivity of vacuum (8.85  10
12 C2/Jm), Zi the valence of the
ions i, and ni being the ion concentration (molarity).
The potential distribution in a plate-shaped pore with a width
of 100 nm and a surface potential of 40 mV, calculated as a
function of the Debye screening length, k
1, is presented in
Fig. 2. When k
140.25 times the pore width, the double layer
overspans the pore wall, generating a reduced mass transport of
ions with the same sign as the surface charge. In this case, the
potential drop over the deposit during EPD is increased. When
k
1o0.05 times the pore width, the double layer is located close
to the channel wall and no decreased ion mass transport and
concomitant potential drop will be observed over the deposit.
(2) Relation Between the Conductivity of the Suspension
and the Deposit
The magnitude of the potential drop over the deposit does not
only depend on the specific interactions in the deposit but also
on the relative resistance of the deposit and the suspension. De-
fining a factor Y as the ratio between the deposit resistivity,
rdeposit (O  m), and the suspension resistivity, rsupension (O  m):
rdeposit
Y¼ (4)
rsuspension
with 0oYo1 for isolated powder particles, and assuming a se-
rial electrical connection of deposit and suspension, the voltage
drop over the deposit is given by
ddep
Vd ¼ Vtot (5)
ðddep þ ððd
ddep ÞYÞ
with ddep being the thickness of the deposit, d the distance be-
tween the electrodes, and Vtot being the applied voltage. Figure 3
(2) shows the potential drop and the E-field strength in the suspen-
the resistivity ratio Y. Figure 3 shows that when the ratio of the
resistivity of the suspension and deposit decreases, the potential
drop over the deposit increases. This means that a highly con-
ductive suspension and a low conductive deposit are beneficial
for the formation of coatings with a uniform thickness on an
electrically non-uniform substrate surface, since the generated
potential drop over the deposit will act as a self-controlling dep-
osition rate parameter for irregularities in the electrical field
strength over the suspension induced by the surface curvature,
roughness, or protrusions on the electrodes. On the other hand,
suspension and deposit with comparable resistivity would result
Fig. 2. Potential distribution in a plate-shaped pore with a surface
potential of 40 mV and a pore width of 100 nm, as a function of
the Debye screening length, k
1.
March 2006 Origin of the Potential Drop Over the Deposit During EPD 825

ing a 150 mL suspension at 2.5 mL/s through the deposition cell

for 1200 s. The initial powder load of the suspension was 100 g/
L. The voltage during EPD was 300 V.
During deposition, the cell current was automatically record-
ed (K3NH-TA1A, Omron, Kyoto, Japan), whereas the conduc-
tivity of the suspension was measured by a conductivity
electrode (LR 325/01, WTW, Cond Level 2, Weilheim, Germany)
in the suspension circulating system outside the deposition cell to
avoid interference from the applied electric field in the cell. In this
way, the relationship between the conductivity of the suspension,
L, and the current, C, in the deposition cell could be determined.
The electric field strength over the suspension with an electrode
surface, S (m2), can be calculated as6:

Fig. 3. Potential drop over the deposit and E-field strength over the
suspension as a function of the ratio of the resistivity of the suspension
and deposit Y ¼ rsuspension =rdeposit .
in a low potential drop and a high electrical field in the suspen-
sion, allowing to make thick deposits.
III. Experimental Procedure
The theory of considering the deposit as a membrane is verified
for ethanol-based Al2O3 suspensions as a function of the
amount of HNO3 added. It was proven before that et-
hanol1HNO3-based suspensions were suitable for the EPD of
Al2O3 powder.6
The starting powder was commercially available a-Al2O3
powder (Baikowski grade SM8, Annecy, France), with an av-
erage crystal and particle size of 0.6 mm. Ethanol (technical,
Brenntag NV, Geel, Belgium) and HNO3 (100%, Acros, Geel,
Belgium) were used for the suspension preparation.
The suspension preparation was carried out by adding a cer-
tain amount of powder to the solvents in a glass container. The
suspensions were magnetically stirred for 60 min and sub-
sequently ultrasonicated in an ultrasonic bath (Branson
2510, Branson Ultrasonics Corp., Danbury, CT) for 15 min.
Afterwards, the suspensions were magnetically stirred again for
15 min.
EPD at a constant voltage was performed with freshly
prepared suspensions, using an F.U.G. (type MCN 1400-50,
F.U.G., Rosenheim, Germany) power supply. The setup for the
EPD experiments was composed of a suspension flow-through
deposition cell and a suspension circulation system driven by a
peristaltic pump. The distance between the flat disk-shaped elec-
trodes was 35 mm and the electrodes had a diameter of 37.5 mm.
The volume of the deposition cell was 120 mL. The edges of the
deposition electrode were shielded by a non-conductive cover,
made from acetal. Homogeneous deposits were made by pump-
C
E¼ (6)
LS
After deposition, the deposits were dried, weighted, and the green
density was determined by the Archimedes method using lacquer
(Enthone B.V., Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands) encapsulation.
The electrophoretic mobility and the x potential of the spe-
cific suspensions were determined by means of electro-acoustic
analyses (ESA 9800, Matec, Northborough, MA). The opera-
tional pH, pH, of the ethanol-based suspensions was measured
by means of a pH meter (WTW, 315i). The pore diameter of
dried Al2O3 deposits was determined by mercury porosimetry
(Pore sizer, Micrometrics 9310, Micrometrics Co., Norcross,
GA).
IV. Results and Discussion
Suspensions with an operational pH between 8.17 and 1.59
were prepared. The conductivity, x potential, ionic strength, and
Debye screening length are given in Table I. The x potential was
measured by means of the ESA 9800. The Debye screening
length was calculated by means of Eq. (3). The ionic strength, I,
was calculated from the specific suspension conductivity, L, the
following18:
LF
I¼ (7)
L0 e
with L0 being the limiting equivalent conductivity and F the
Faraday constant. The equivalent conductivity is attributed to
cations and anions independently, i.e.:
L0 ¼ Lþ;0 þ L
;0 (8)
For obtaining the limiting equivalent conductivity in a non-
aqueous solution, Walden’s law was used, which states that the
product of the limiting equivalent conductance and the viscosity

Table I. Operational pH, pH, Conductivity, r, Zeta Potential, n, Ionic Strength, I, and Debye Screening Length, j
1, of the
Ethanol-Based Al2O3 Suspension, as well as the Deposition Yield, Deposit Thickness, Green Density, and E-Field Strength after 300
and 1200 s as Function of the Amount of HNO3
pH HNO3 (mM) s (mS/cm) x (mV) I (10
6 M) k
1 (nm) Yield (g) Thickness (mm) Green density (%) E-field (300 s) E-field (1200 s)

8.17 0 1.49 24 3.8 348 8.2 4.40 53 60.8 42.3

7.88 0.025 1.55 27 4.0 341 8.2 4.17 53 58.8 46.7
7.67 0.115 1.56 30 4.0 340 8.0 4.24 54 42.7 25.9
7.15 0.25 1.75 33 4.5 321 5.1 2.60 55 29.5 18.4
6.90 0.375 1.85 33 4.7 313 5.6 2.67 57 32.0 22.5
6.50 1.5 2.93 34 7.5 248 5.3 2.24 57 34.2 22.5
5.75 2 3.20 33 8.2 238 5.6 2.40 57 34.3 21.9
5.54 2.5 3.50 33 9.0 227 5.7 2.24 58 32.2 25.5
4.44 3 5.75 31 14.7 177 5.1 2.24 55 41.5 23.7
2.44 6 9.00 24 23.1 142 — — — 22.8 10.9
2.27 8 16.64 23 42.6 104 — — — 12.2 5.0
1.83 10 26.10 17 66.9 83 — — — 7.0 3.3
826 Journal of the American Ceramic Society—Anne´ et al. Vol. 89, No. 3

90
80
70

E-field (V/cm)
60
pH
50
8.17
40
30 7.67
4.44
20 6.90
10 2.4
1.8
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (s)

Fig. 6. E-field strength over the Al2O3 suspension as a function of dep-

osition time, calculated according to Eq. (6), for ethanol-based suspen-
Fig. 4. Green Al2O3 disk made by electrophoretic deposition from an
sions with HNO3.
ethanol-based suspension with HNO3 addition (pH 5 5.75).

of the liquid is a constant for any electrolyte, independent
of the solvent18:
L0;aq Zaq ¼ L0;nonaq Znonaq
As limiting equivalent conductivities in water, a value of
349.82 S-cm2/equivalent for the cations (H1) and a value of
71.4 S-cm2/equivalent was adopted for the anions (NO
19
3 ). The
dielectric constant of ethanol was taken as 24.3, with a viscosity
of 1.078 mPa  s.18
Table I shows that the ionic strength increases and the Debye
screening length decreases with increasing acid concentration.
At a pH of 2.44 and lower, very unstable suspensions were
obtained due to the increased ionic strength, compressing the
double layer to such an extent that the attractive Van der Waals
forces induced flocculation. These low-stability suspensions
were neglected in further calculations.
EPD at a constant voltage was performed with freshly pre-
pared suspensions. For an operational pH42.44, the deposits
obtained had a very smooth surface and did not crack during
drying, as illustrated in Fig. 4. The thickness of the deposits and
related deposition yield was found to be substantially higher in
the 8.17–7.67 pH region when compared with the 7.15–4.44
pH region. All experimental data are summarized in Table I.
The relative green density of the deposits was comparable for all
the suspensions investigated, ranging between 52% and 57%,
indicating that the structure of the dry deposit was still very
open and porous.
For all suspensions, the conductivity decreased linearly with
the deposition time, whereas the current decreased linearly with
t1/2. The E-field strength also decreased linearly with t1/2, as
3 3.5
shown in Fig. 5 for a pH of 6.5. The E-field strength reduction
increased with decreasing pH, but did not vary much between a
pH of 7.15 and 4.44, as shown in Fig. 6. The drop in electrical
(9) field strength is caused by the potential drop generated over the
deposit. It has been proven before that no polarization occurs at
the electrodes during EPD from ethanol suspensions with
HNO3 addition.6
Assuming no polarization occurs at the electrodes, which is
the case for this suspension system,6,8 the resistivity (O  cm) of
the deposit, plotted in Fig. 7, is calculated from the potential
drop over the deposit based on the measured current, the con-
ductivity of the suspension, and the thickness of the deposit after
1200 s.
The resistivity of the suspension linearly increases with in-
creasing operational pH in the 4.4–8.1 range because of a de-
creasing ionic strength. The resistivity of the deposit is
significantly higher than that of the suspension. In the opera-
tional pH range between 4.4 and 7.2, the potential drop over
the deposit increases with decreasing ratio of the resistivity of
the suspension and deposit, in agreement with Fig. 3. At an op-
erational pH above 7.15, however, the potential drop over the
deposit is drastically reduced, although the resistivity of the sus-
pension increases further. This phenomenon has to be correlated
to a decreased surface charge of the pore wall and concomitant
pore potential in the deposit, as the operational pH approaches
the isoelectric point of the Al2O3, which is measured to be at a
pH of 8.45. This is also confirmed by the reducing x potential
at higher pH. It is also in agreement with the calculations of
Biesheuvel et al.,15 that the retention of ions in membranes with
nanometer-sized pores sharply decreases when the point of zero
200 0.14
rsuspension / rdeposit
rsuspension
0.12
rdeposit
Resistivity (104 Ω.cm)

rsuspension /rdeposit (Y)

Conductivity (µS/cm)

2.5 3 150
0.10
2.5
Current (mA)

2 0.08
2 100
1.5
1.5 0.06
1
1 0.04
50
0.5 0.5
0.02
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 0.00
Time (s) 4 5 6 7 8 9
Operational pH*
Fig. 5. Current (I) and conductivity (L) during electrophoretic deposi-
tion of Al2O3 from an ethanol-based suspension with HNO3 addition at Fig. 7. Specific resistivity of the alumina deposit and suspension as a
an operational pH of 6.50. function of the operational pH after 1200 s of electrophoretic deposition.
March 2006 Origin of the Potential Drop Over the Deposit During EPD
6 suspension with respect to the isoelectric point or by electrolyte
5 crease, whereas the ion mobility decreases. To obtain a high
Diff. Volume [%]
4
3
2 V. Conclusions
1 During EPD, a potential drop is generated over the deposit
0 pensions with HNO3 addition. The change in specific resistivity
0 50 100 150
Pore diameter (nm)
Fig. 8. Pore size distribution of an Al2O3 powder compact, deposited at
a pH of 7.15.
charge is approached, which would imply that the ion mobility is
high enough to reduce or even eliminate the potential drop over
the deposit.
Assuming the surface potential in the pores to be the same as
the x potential of the alumina particles in the suspension, the
pore potential can be calculated from the Debye screening
length, k
1, and the pore diameter. Since there is no simple cor-
relation between the x potential and surface potential, the x po-
tential is usually taken as a first approximation, which, however,
leads to an underestimation of the actual value.20
The actual average pore diameter was determined for dried
Al2O3 deposits, made by EPD at a pH of 7.15. As the max-
imum shrinkage of the deposit during drying was measured to
be only 2%, the pore size of the dried deposit was assumed to be
the same as in the wet deposit. Figure 8 shows the experimen-
tally determined pore size distribution. A very narrow peak is
observed at a pore diameter of 80 nm. No large pores are
present, indicating that no large agglomerates or air entrapment
is present in the green compact. Liu21 found a similar pore size
distribution between 50 and 95 nm for Al2O3 powder compacts
with a density of, respectively, 62 and 55 vol % for a particle size
between 0.4 and 4 mm.
The potential distribution in a pore with a diameter of 80 nm
is calculated according to Eq. (2) and the calculated potential in
the center of the pore is plotted against the measured specific
resistivity of the deposit in Fig. 9. Figure 9 shows that the spe-
cific deposit resistivity, rdeposit, increases when the potential in
the center of a pore increases, implying that the interparticle in-
teractions in the deposit influence the resistivity by influencing
the ion mass transport in the deposit.
With increasing x potential or decreasing ionic strength,
established by adjusting the acid or base character of the
Fig. 9. Specific resistivity of the deposit, rdeposit, as a function of the
calculated potential in the center of an 80 nm wide pore, using the
measured x potential of the powder in suspension as the surface
potential.
827
addition, the pore potential and the resistivity of the deposit in-
potential drop over the deposit, a high x potential and high sus-
pension conductivity are beneficial.
during cathodic deposition of Al2O3 from ethanol-based sus-
of the deposit and suspension could be experimentally investi-
gated as a function of the operational pH.
The magnitude of the potential drop over the deposit is sub-
stantially higher than that over the suspension in the operational
pH range from 4.4 to 8.1, and the resistivity of the suspension
linearly increases with increasing operational pH because of a
decreasing ionic strength. In the operational pH range between
4.4 and 7.2, the potential drop over the deposit increases with
decreasing ratio of the resistivity of the suspension and deposit.
At an operational pH above 7.15, approaching the isoelectric
point, the potential drop over the deposit is drastically reduced
because of the reduced surface charge of the deposit and the
concomitant reduced pore potential, allowing ion transport
through the deposit.
The potential drop over the electrode as a function of the
operational pH is determined by the interparticle interactions in
the deposit, i.e., the surface charge and potential of the pore wall
and the Debye screening length that is related to the ionic
strength. For the ethanol-based suspensions with HNO3 addi-
tion, the specific deposit resistivity and the concomitant poten-
tial drop over the deposit were found to increase with increasing
potential in the center of the pores of the deposit, as calculated
from the x potential of the particles in suspension, the Debye
screening length, and the average pore size measured. An in-
creased pore potential inhibits ion movement through the pores
of the deposit, increasing the resistivity of and the potential drop
over the deposit.
References
1
P. Sarkar, D. De, and H. Rho, ‘‘Synthesis and Microstructural Manipulation
of Ceramics by Electrophoretic Deposition,’’ J. Mater. Sci., 39 [3] 819–23 (2004).
2
O. Van der Biest and L. Vandeperre, ‘‘Electrophoretic Deposition of Materi-
als,’’ Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci., 29, 327–52 (1999).
3
N. Koura, T. Tsukamoto, H. Shoji, and T. Hotta, ‘‘Preparation of Various
Oxide-Films by an Electrophoretic Deposition Method—A Study of the Mecha-
nism,’’ Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., 34 [3] 1643–7 (1995).
4
S. Put, J. Vleugels, G. Anné, and O. Van der Biest, ‘‘Functionally Graded Ce-
ramic and Ceramic–Metal Composites Shaped by Electrophoretic Deposition,’’
Colloids Surfaces A, 222 [1–3] 223–32 (2003).
5
S. Put, J. Vleugels, and O. Van Der Biest, ‘‘Gradient Profile Prediction in
Functionally Graded Materials Processed by Electrophoretic Deposition,’’ Acta
Mater., 51 [20] 6303–17 (2003).
6
G. Anné, K. Vanmeensel, J. Vleugels, and O. Van der Biest, ‘‘Influence of the
Suspension Composition on the Electric Field and Deposition Rate during Elect-
rophoretic Deposition,’’ Colloids Surfaces A, 245, 35–9 (2004).
7
D. De and P. S. Nicholson, ‘‘Role of Ionic Depletion in Deposition During
Electrophoretic Deposition,’’ J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 82, 3031–6 (1999).
8
G. Anné, B. Neirinck, K. Vanmeensel, J. Vleugels, and O. Van der Biest, ‘‘Ev-
olution of the Electrical Field Drop Over the Suspension During EPD,’’ Key Eng.
Mater., in press.
9
P. J. Kemery, J. K. Steehler, and PW Bohn, ‘‘Electric Field Mediated Trans-
port in Nanometer Diameter Channels,’’ Langmuir, 14 [10] 2884–9 (1998).
10
R. J. Hunter, Foundations of Modern Colloid Science. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 2001.
11
P. M. Biesheuvel and W. B. S. De Lint, ‘‘Application of the Charge Regulation
Model to the Separation of Ions by Hydrophilic Membranes,’’ J. Colloid Interface
Sci., 241 [2] 422–7 (2001).
12
J. J. Schaep, C. Vandecasteele, B. Peeters, J. Luyten, C. Dotremont, and D.
Roels, ‘‘Characteristics and Retention Properties of a Mesoporous Gamma-Al2O3
Membrane for Nanofiltration,’’ J. Membr. Sci., 163 [2] 229–37 (1999).
13
C. Labbez, P. Fievet, F. Thomas, A. Szymczyk, A. Vidonne, A. Foissy, and
P. Pagetti, ‘‘Evaluation of the ‘‘DSPM’’ Model on a Titania Membrane:
Measurements of Charged and Uncharged Solute Retention, Electrokinetic
Charge, Pore Size, and Water Permeability,’’ J. Colloid Interface Sci., 262 [1]
200–11 (2003).
828 Journal of the American Ceramic Society—Anne´ et al. Vol. 89, No. 3
14 18
R. Herbig, R. E. Braunig, and G. Tomandl, ‘‘Electroacoustic Measurement of G. Wang, P. Sarkar, and P. Nicholson, ‘‘Influence of Acidity on the Electro-
Surface Potentials,’’ Colloids Surfaces A, 222, 79–85 (2003). static Stability of Alumina Suspensions in Ethanol,’’ J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 80 [4]
15
P. M. Biesheuvel, ‘‘Implications of the Charge Regulation Model for 965–72 (1997).
19
the Interaction of Hydrophilic Surfaces in Water,’’ Langmuir, 17 [12] 3553–6 J. Dean, Lange’s Handbook of Chemistry. McGraw-Hill, New York,
(2001). 1985.
16 20
W. De Lint, Transport of Electrolytes through Ceramic Nanofiltration Mem- M. Kosmulski, ‘‘Oxide/Electrolyte Interface: Electric Double Layer in Mixed
branes, Ph.D Thesis, Universiteit Twente, Twente, the Netherlands, 2003. Solvent Systems,’’ Colloids Surfaces A, 95 [2–3] 81–100 (1995).
17 21
H. Ohshima, ‘‘Approximate Expression for the Potential Energy of Double- D. M. Liu, ‘‘Influence of Solid Loading and Particle Size Distribution on the
Layer Interaction Between Two Parallel Similar Plates with Constant Surface Porosity Development of Green Alumina Ceramic Mouldings,’’ Ceram. Int., 23 [6]
Potential,’’ Colloids Surfaces A, 146, 213–6 (1999). 513–20 (1997). &