Influence of partial charge on the material removal rate during chemical polishing

A partial charge‐based chemical polishing model has been developed, which can serve as metric for describing the relative polishing material removal rate for different combinations of slurries and workpieces. A series of controlled polishing experiments utilizing a variety of colloidal polishing slu...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the American Ceramic Society 2019-04, Vol.102 (4), p.1566-1578
Hauptverfasser: Suratwala, Tayyab, Steele, Rusty, Miller, Philip E., Wong, Lana, Destino, Joel F., Feigenbaum, Eyal, Shen, Nan, Feit, Michael
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1578
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1566
container_title Journal of the American Ceramic Society
container_volume 102
creator Suratwala, Tayyab
Steele, Rusty
Miller, Philip E.
Wong, Lana
Destino, Joel F.
Feigenbaum, Eyal
Shen, Nan
Feit, Michael
description A partial charge‐based chemical polishing model has been developed, which can serve as metric for describing the relative polishing material removal rate for different combinations of slurries and workpieces. A series of controlled polishing experiments utilizing a variety of colloidal polishing slurries (SiO2, CeO2, ZrO2, MgO, Sb2O5) and optical materials [single crystals of Al2O3 (sapphire), SiC, Y3Al5O12 (YAG), CaF2, and LiB3O5 (LBO); a SiO2‐Al2O3‐P2O5‐Li2O glass ceramic (Zerodur); and glasses of SiO2:TiO2 (ULE), SiO2 (fused silica), and P2O5‐Al2O3‐K2O‐BaO (Phosphate)] was performed and its material removal rate was measured. As previously proposed by Cook (J Non‐Cryst Solids. 1990;120:152), for many polishing systems, the removal rate is governed by a series of chemical reactions which include the formation of a surface hydroxide, followed by condensation of that hydroxyl moiety with the polishing particle, and a subsequent hydrolysis reaction. The rate of condensation can often be the rate limiting step, thus it can determine the polishing material removal rate. By largely keeping the numerous other factors that influence material removal rate fixed (such as due to particle size distributions, interface interactions, pad topography, kinematics, and applied pressure), the material removal rate is shown to scale exponentially with the partial charge difference (δwp‐s) between the workpiece and polishing slurry particle for many of the slurry‐workpiece combinations indicating that condensation rate is the rate limiting step. The partial charge (δ) describes the equilibrium distribution of electron density between chemically bonded atoms and is related to the electronegativity of the atoms chemically bonded to one another. This partial charge model also explains the age‐old experimental finding of why cerium oxide is the most effective polishing slurry for chemical removal of many workpieces. Some of the slurry‐workpiece combinations that did not follow the partial charge dependence offer insight to other removal mechanisms or rate limiting reaction pathways.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/jace.15995
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_osti_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_osti_scitechconnect_1468661</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2175290810</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3645-7b25d09793f2a1b8a869a3325289116b39c89569c40485c19d857b80fd0f84ef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMouH5c_AVFb0LXTNqkyXFZVl1ZEETPIU3TbZZ-mbTK_ntT69m5DPPwzDC8CN0AXkKoh4PSZglUCHqCFkApxEQAO0ULjDGJM07wObrw_hBGEDxdoLdtW9ajabWJujLqlRusqiNdKbcPpI2GykSNGoybsDNN9zX1AKJidLbdB9U0VgfYd7X1VUBX6KxUtTfXf_0SfTxu3tfP8e71abte7WKdsJTGWU5ogUUmkpIoyLniTKgkIZRwAcDyRGguKBM6xSmnGkTBaZZzXBa45Kkpk0t0O9_t_GCl13YwutJd2xo9SEgZZwyCdDdLves-R-MHeehG14a_JIGMEoE54GDdz5Z2nffOlLJ3tlHuKAHLKVg5BSt_gw0yzPK3rc3xH1O-rNabeecHQAJ5Fw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2175290810</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Influence of partial charge on the material removal rate during chemical polishing</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Suratwala, Tayyab ; Steele, Rusty ; Miller, Philip E. ; Wong, Lana ; Destino, Joel F. ; Feigenbaum, Eyal ; Shen, Nan ; Feit, Michael</creator><creatorcontrib>Suratwala, Tayyab ; Steele, Rusty ; Miller, Philip E. ; Wong, Lana ; Destino, Joel F. ; Feigenbaum, Eyal ; Shen, Nan ; Feit, Michael</creatorcontrib><description>A partial charge‐based chemical polishing model has been developed, which can serve as metric for describing the relative polishing material removal rate for different combinations of slurries and workpieces. A series of controlled polishing experiments utilizing a variety of colloidal polishing slurries (SiO2, CeO2, ZrO2, MgO, Sb2O5) and optical materials [single crystals of Al2O3 (sapphire), SiC, Y3Al5O12 (YAG), CaF2, and LiB3O5 (LBO); a SiO2‐Al2O3‐P2O5‐Li2O glass ceramic (Zerodur); and glasses of SiO2:TiO2 (ULE), SiO2 (fused silica), and P2O5‐Al2O3‐K2O‐BaO (Phosphate)] was performed and its material removal rate was measured. As previously proposed by Cook (J Non‐Cryst Solids. 1990;120:152), for many polishing systems, the removal rate is governed by a series of chemical reactions which include the formation of a surface hydroxide, followed by condensation of that hydroxyl moiety with the polishing particle, and a subsequent hydrolysis reaction. The rate of condensation can often be the rate limiting step, thus it can determine the polishing material removal rate. By largely keeping the numerous other factors that influence material removal rate fixed (such as due to particle size distributions, interface interactions, pad topography, kinematics, and applied pressure), the material removal rate is shown to scale exponentially with the partial charge difference (δwp‐s) between the workpiece and polishing slurry particle for many of the slurry‐workpiece combinations indicating that condensation rate is the rate limiting step. The partial charge (δ) describes the equilibrium distribution of electron density between chemically bonded atoms and is related to the electronegativity of the atoms chemically bonded to one another. This partial charge model also explains the age‐old experimental finding of why cerium oxide is the most effective polishing slurry for chemical removal of many workpieces. Some of the slurry‐workpiece combinations that did not follow the partial charge dependence offer insight to other removal mechanisms or rate limiting reaction pathways.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-7820</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1551-2916</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jace.15995</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Columbus: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Aluminum oxide ; Barium oxides ; Cerium oxides ; Charge materials ; Chemical bonds ; Chemical polishing ; Chemical reactions ; Condensates ; Constraining ; Dependence ; Electron density ; Electronegativity ; Fused silica ; Glass ceramics ; Kinematics ; Lithium oxides ; Material removal rate (machining) ; Optical materials ; Organic chemistry ; Process planning ; Silicon dioxide ; Single crystals ; Slurries ; Yttrium-aluminum garnet</subject><ispartof>Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 2019-04, Vol.102 (4), p.1566-1578</ispartof><rights>2018 The American Ceramic Society</rights><rights>2019 American Ceramic Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3645-7b25d09793f2a1b8a869a3325289116b39c89569c40485c19d857b80fd0f84ef3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3645-7b25d09793f2a1b8a869a3325289116b39c89569c40485c19d857b80fd0f84ef3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2164-8773 ; 0000-0001-9086-1039 ; 0000000321648773 ; 0000000190861039</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjace.15995$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjace.15995$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/1468661$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Suratwala, Tayyab</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steele, Rusty</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, Philip E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Lana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Destino, Joel F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feigenbaum, Eyal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shen, Nan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feit, Michael</creatorcontrib><title>Influence of partial charge on the material removal rate during chemical polishing</title><title>Journal of the American Ceramic Society</title><description>A partial charge‐based chemical polishing model has been developed, which can serve as metric for describing the relative polishing material removal rate for different combinations of slurries and workpieces. A series of controlled polishing experiments utilizing a variety of colloidal polishing slurries (SiO2, CeO2, ZrO2, MgO, Sb2O5) and optical materials [single crystals of Al2O3 (sapphire), SiC, Y3Al5O12 (YAG), CaF2, and LiB3O5 (LBO); a SiO2‐Al2O3‐P2O5‐Li2O glass ceramic (Zerodur); and glasses of SiO2:TiO2 (ULE), SiO2 (fused silica), and P2O5‐Al2O3‐K2O‐BaO (Phosphate)] was performed and its material removal rate was measured. As previously proposed by Cook (J Non‐Cryst Solids. 1990;120:152), for many polishing systems, the removal rate is governed by a series of chemical reactions which include the formation of a surface hydroxide, followed by condensation of that hydroxyl moiety with the polishing particle, and a subsequent hydrolysis reaction. The rate of condensation can often be the rate limiting step, thus it can determine the polishing material removal rate. By largely keeping the numerous other factors that influence material removal rate fixed (such as due to particle size distributions, interface interactions, pad topography, kinematics, and applied pressure), the material removal rate is shown to scale exponentially with the partial charge difference (δwp‐s) between the workpiece and polishing slurry particle for many of the slurry‐workpiece combinations indicating that condensation rate is the rate limiting step. The partial charge (δ) describes the equilibrium distribution of electron density between chemically bonded atoms and is related to the electronegativity of the atoms chemically bonded to one another. This partial charge model also explains the age‐old experimental finding of why cerium oxide is the most effective polishing slurry for chemical removal of many workpieces. Some of the slurry‐workpiece combinations that did not follow the partial charge dependence offer insight to other removal mechanisms or rate limiting reaction pathways.</description><subject>Aluminum oxide</subject><subject>Barium oxides</subject><subject>Cerium oxides</subject><subject>Charge materials</subject><subject>Chemical bonds</subject><subject>Chemical polishing</subject><subject>Chemical reactions</subject><subject>Condensates</subject><subject>Constraining</subject><subject>Dependence</subject><subject>Electron density</subject><subject>Electronegativity</subject><subject>Fused silica</subject><subject>Glass ceramics</subject><subject>Kinematics</subject><subject>Lithium oxides</subject><subject>Material removal rate (machining)</subject><subject>Optical materials</subject><subject>Organic chemistry</subject><subject>Process planning</subject><subject>Silicon dioxide</subject><subject>Single crystals</subject><subject>Slurries</subject><subject>Yttrium-aluminum garnet</subject><issn>0002-7820</issn><issn>1551-2916</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMouH5c_AVFb0LXTNqkyXFZVl1ZEETPIU3TbZZ-mbTK_ntT69m5DPPwzDC8CN0AXkKoh4PSZglUCHqCFkApxEQAO0ULjDGJM07wObrw_hBGEDxdoLdtW9ajabWJujLqlRusqiNdKbcPpI2GykSNGoybsDNN9zX1AKJidLbdB9U0VgfYd7X1VUBX6KxUtTfXf_0SfTxu3tfP8e71abte7WKdsJTGWU5ogUUmkpIoyLniTKgkIZRwAcDyRGguKBM6xSmnGkTBaZZzXBa45Kkpk0t0O9_t_GCl13YwutJd2xo9SEgZZwyCdDdLves-R-MHeehG14a_JIGMEoE54GDdz5Z2nffOlLJ3tlHuKAHLKVg5BSt_gw0yzPK3rc3xH1O-rNabeecHQAJ5Fw</recordid><startdate>201904</startdate><enddate>201904</enddate><creator>Suratwala, Tayyab</creator><creator>Steele, Rusty</creator><creator>Miller, Philip E.</creator><creator>Wong, Lana</creator><creator>Destino, Joel F.</creator><creator>Feigenbaum, Eyal</creator><creator>Shen, Nan</creator><creator>Feit, Michael</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2164-8773</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9086-1039</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000321648773</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000190861039</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201904</creationdate><title>Influence of partial charge on the material removal rate during chemical polishing</title><author>Suratwala, Tayyab ; Steele, Rusty ; Miller, Philip E. ; Wong, Lana ; Destino, Joel F. ; Feigenbaum, Eyal ; Shen, Nan ; Feit, Michael</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3645-7b25d09793f2a1b8a869a3325289116b39c89569c40485c19d857b80fd0f84ef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Aluminum oxide</topic><topic>Barium oxides</topic><topic>Cerium oxides</topic><topic>Charge materials</topic><topic>Chemical bonds</topic><topic>Chemical polishing</topic><topic>Chemical reactions</topic><topic>Condensates</topic><topic>Constraining</topic><topic>Dependence</topic><topic>Electron density</topic><topic>Electronegativity</topic><topic>Fused silica</topic><topic>Glass ceramics</topic><topic>Kinematics</topic><topic>Lithium oxides</topic><topic>Material removal rate (machining)</topic><topic>Optical materials</topic><topic>Organic chemistry</topic><topic>Process planning</topic><topic>Silicon dioxide</topic><topic>Single crystals</topic><topic>Slurries</topic><topic>Yttrium-aluminum garnet</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Suratwala, Tayyab</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steele, Rusty</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, Philip E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Lana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Destino, Joel F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feigenbaum, Eyal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shen, Nan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feit, Michael</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><jtitle>Journal of the American Ceramic Society</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Suratwala, Tayyab</au><au>Steele, Rusty</au><au>Miller, Philip E.</au><au>Wong, Lana</au><au>Destino, Joel F.</au><au>Feigenbaum, Eyal</au><au>Shen, Nan</au><au>Feit, Michael</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Influence of partial charge on the material removal rate during chemical polishing</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the American Ceramic Society</jtitle><date>2019-04</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>102</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1566</spage><epage>1578</epage><pages>1566-1578</pages><issn>0002-7820</issn><eissn>1551-2916</eissn><abstract>A partial charge‐based chemical polishing model has been developed, which can serve as metric for describing the relative polishing material removal rate for different combinations of slurries and workpieces. A series of controlled polishing experiments utilizing a variety of colloidal polishing slurries (SiO2, CeO2, ZrO2, MgO, Sb2O5) and optical materials [single crystals of Al2O3 (sapphire), SiC, Y3Al5O12 (YAG), CaF2, and LiB3O5 (LBO); a SiO2‐Al2O3‐P2O5‐Li2O glass ceramic (Zerodur); and glasses of SiO2:TiO2 (ULE), SiO2 (fused silica), and P2O5‐Al2O3‐K2O‐BaO (Phosphate)] was performed and its material removal rate was measured. As previously proposed by Cook (J Non‐Cryst Solids. 1990;120:152), for many polishing systems, the removal rate is governed by a series of chemical reactions which include the formation of a surface hydroxide, followed by condensation of that hydroxyl moiety with the polishing particle, and a subsequent hydrolysis reaction. The rate of condensation can often be the rate limiting step, thus it can determine the polishing material removal rate. By largely keeping the numerous other factors that influence material removal rate fixed (such as due to particle size distributions, interface interactions, pad topography, kinematics, and applied pressure), the material removal rate is shown to scale exponentially with the partial charge difference (δwp‐s) between the workpiece and polishing slurry particle for many of the slurry‐workpiece combinations indicating that condensation rate is the rate limiting step. The partial charge (δ) describes the equilibrium distribution of electron density between chemically bonded atoms and is related to the electronegativity of the atoms chemically bonded to one another. This partial charge model also explains the age‐old experimental finding of why cerium oxide is the most effective polishing slurry for chemical removal of many workpieces. Some of the slurry‐workpiece combinations that did not follow the partial charge dependence offer insight to other removal mechanisms or rate limiting reaction pathways.</abstract><cop>Columbus</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/jace.15995</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2164-8773</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9086-1039</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000321648773</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000190861039</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0002-7820
ispartof Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 2019-04, Vol.102 (4), p.1566-1578
issn 0002-7820
1551-2916
language eng
recordid cdi_osti_scitechconnect_1468661
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Aluminum oxide
Barium oxides
Cerium oxides
Charge materials
Chemical bonds
Chemical polishing
Chemical reactions
Condensates
Constraining
Dependence
Electron density
Electronegativity
Fused silica
Glass ceramics
Kinematics
Lithium oxides
Material removal rate (machining)
Optical materials
Organic chemistry
Process planning
Silicon dioxide
Single crystals
Slurries
Yttrium-aluminum garnet
title Influence of partial charge on the material removal rate during chemical polishing
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T20%3A41%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_osti_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Influence%20of%20partial%20charge%20on%20the%20material%20removal%20rate%20during%20chemical%20polishing&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20American%20Ceramic%20Society&rft.au=Suratwala,%20Tayyab&rft.date=2019-04&rft.volume=102&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1566&rft.epage=1578&rft.pages=1566-1578&rft.issn=0002-7820&rft.eissn=1551-2916&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jace.15995&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_osti_%3E2175290810%3C/proquest_osti_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2175290810&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true