.
.,
zyxwv
zyxwv
zyx
zyx
J Am Ceram Soc 73
[a] 2228-37 (1990)
Quantitative Electron Microscopic Investigation of the Pore
Structure in 10 :90 Colloidal SilicafPotassium Silicate Sol-Gels
z
zyxw
Helen M. Kerch,* Rosario A. Gerhardt,*V+and John L. GrazuV
Department of Ceramics, Rutgers University,
Piscataway, New Jersey 08855
Transmission electron microscopy (TEM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), mercury intrusion porosimetry
(MIP), and nitrogen sorption technique (BET) were utilized
to characterize the microstructure of a 10:90 wt% colloidal
silica/potassium silicate gel as first described by Shoup.
Gels in the unsintered state (15% theoretical density) were
prepared for microscopy by the techniques of ultramicrotomy, Pt/C replication, and pore casting. Electron microscopic images of the ultramicrotomed thin sections (70 nm)
show that the unfired gel possesses three distinct species of
pores which are referred to as the micropores, mesopores,
and macropores. The average micropore diameter was found
to be 4 nm as determined by nitrogen desorption. Quantitative stereological analysis on the ultramicrotomed sections
indicated that the average circular and lengthwise dimensions of the cylindrical mesopores were 0.15 and 0.39 pm,
respectively. Similarly, this same analysis determined the average spherical macropore diameter to be 0.83 pm. In contrast, MIP results suggested that these gels possessed a
unimodal pore size distribution centered around the 0.2-pm
pore size. The discrepancy between MIP and microscopy
can be explained by viewing the void space as a pore-throat
network. Experimental evidence for this type of pore geometry was obtained from stereo pairs of Pt/C replicas and
thick microtomed sections (0.5 pm) which gave information
about particle connectivity and pore casts which depicted
the pore connectivity in three dimensions. [Key words:
silica, sol-gel, porosity, microscopy, porosimetry.]
type of data they provide and their pore size detectability
range. Included in such techniques are BETInitrogen sorption
technique and mercury poro~imetry,~
X-ray microtomography? SANS (small angle neutron ~cattering),~
NMR (nuclear
magnetic resonance),Io and electron microscopy." Since this
paper will restrict itself to the discussion of pore characterization by mercury porosimetry and electron microscopy, only
these techniques will be discussed in detail.
The pore size distribution of ceramics is commonly obtained by mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP), which can
detect pores with diameters between 2 nm and 100 pm." The
technique is based on the idea that pressure must be applied
to a nonwetting substance, in this case liquid mercury, in
order for it to penetrate into a void space. By equating the capillary and applied forces within a cylindrical pore, Washburn13
derived an expression relating the applied pressure and pore
diameter. In many cases, however, the pore geometry is unknown or has been characterized as being complex and irregularly shaped. Nevertheless, the Washburn equation is often
used to derive pore size information from mercury intrusion
even though it should be applicable only to isolated cylindrical pores. MIP is also employed to determine pore volume.
Unlike MIP, which relies upon an assumed geometric model
of the pore structure, electron microscopy allows direct observation of the microstructure. Critics of this technique
point to the difficulty in sample preparation and image interpretation as well as to the possibility of nonrepresentative
~amp1ing.l~
These are valid concerns; however, they are not
insurmountable. It is true that sample preparation for electron
microscopy can be time-consuming, but the microstructural
information revealed is often unobtainable by other analytical
methods. Also, with an understanding of the interrelationship
between specimen preparation and image formation, the
problem of interpretation can be resolved. Finally, quantitative microstructural information may be furnished which satisfies the statistical requirements if a proper sampling scheme
is carried
Of the methods available for sample preparation of porous
ceramics for TEM, ion milling17.'s and powder grinding and/
or d i ~ p e r s i o n ' ~have
- ~ ~ been utilized in a number of investigations. We feel that these preparation methods are not
applicable to the study of our gels and materials with similar
pore morphologies for the following reasons:
(1) Ion milling, which involves specimen thinning by
argon ion bombardment at an acute angle, causes widening of
the pores due to the preferential ion attack of the pore
boundaries. This will cause a general shift in the pore size to
larger values. In addition, with brittle and highly porous
solids such as the one in this study, survival of the sample
during ion bombardment is doubtful.
( 2 ) The method of powder dispersion entails grinding the
specimen into a powder and then dispersing it in a liquid
medium by the use of either a deflocculant or an ultrasonicator. A TEM grid is then dipped into the liquid, causing adherence of the dispersed powder onto the grid. The ground
material may be directly placed on a TEM support, thus eliminating the dispersion step. With such a sample preparation
zyxwvutsrqponml
I. Introduction
P
OROSITY is a common microstructural feature in ceramic
bodies.' In some cases the porous phase is tailored to produce specific properties in the materiaL2 For most ceramics,
however, the ultimate goal is the reduction of porosity, and
the raw materials processing and subsequent heat treatment
are designed to achieve a product at or close to full density.
With either scenario, the importance of accurate pore characterization is e ~ i d e n t . ~ - ~
Complete description of porosity involves a number of different parameters including pore size and pore size distribution, pore volume and density, surface area, pore texture and
shape, and pore connectivity.6 Analytical techniques used to
obtain these parameters are usually categorized by both the
T. E. Mitchell-contributing
editor
Manuscript No. 198136. Received September 5 , 1989; approved March 23,
1990.
Presented at the 91st Annual Meeting of the American Ceramic Society,
Indianapolis, IN, April 24, 1989 (Glass Division, Paper No. 10-G-89).
Supported by the Fiber Optic Materials Research Program, Dr. George H.
Sigel, Jr., Director.
*Member, American Ceramic Society.
'Author to whom all correspondence should be sent.
'Bureau of Biological Research.
2228
August 1990
zyxwvutsrqpo
Quantitative Electron Microscopic Investigation of Pore Structure
method, there is little question that destruction of the pore
network has occurred on both the gross and local levels. This
prevents the possibility of structural information to be
derived from the resultant images. In addition, the sample
thickness across the grid is variable and unknown because of
the random manner in which the material is placed on the
grid surface. Hence large pores can be masked by a layer or
layers above or below it and small pores may be hidden from
view altogether.
SEM s t ~ d i e s ' ~ - of
' ~ fractured and polished surfaces of
porous materials may also be found in the literature. Interpretation of the images furnished by fracture surfaces, where the
pore size scales with the fracture features, is ambiguous because of the inability to distinguish between surface topography and true pores. Similarly, sample pullout may obscure the
true morphology for specimens that are polished.
In performing the microscopic analysis of the colloidal gels
in this investigation, the strategy was to use a variety of
preparation techniques in order to maximize the amount and
type of microstructural information. With many of the familiar methods eliminated, it became necessary to pursue those
not often utilized in materials science. The methods chosen
are ultramicrotomy," Pt/C replication,26and pore ~asting.2~
Ultramicrotomy is a method by which ultrathin sections,
typically 4 0 0 nm, are made by the cutting action of a glass
or diamond knife against a resin-embedded specimen. Both
ceramic and metallic materials have been prepared in this
manner.28,29For ceramics, the technique is usually chosen because ultramicrotomed thin sections can reveal the inner
structure of large particles or agglomerates. The resin simply
provides the medium for holding the particles together during
the thinning process. For our case, the resin represents the
porous phase and its features are as important as the monolithic gel that it infiltrates.
The main advantages of using ultramicrotomy for viewing
the pore microstructure are the maintenance of gel coherence, the ability to view a large number of fields, and, if serial
sections are collected, the possibility of performing threedimensional (3-D) reconstruction. In addition, because the
sections produced are flat and ultrathin, stereological principles may be applied to obtain quantitative information such
as pore volume and pore size distribution.
Pore shape and degree of pore and particle connectivity are
more difficult to quantify, but they may be readily obtained,
at least qualitatively, by 3-D images afforded by TEM stereo
pairs of microtomed thick sections and Pt/C replicas and
SEM micrographs of samples prepared by pore casting. Pt/C
replication involves the sequential evaporation of carbon and
platinum at an angle onto a sample surface. The sample is
etched away, leaving a replica of the specimen topography.
Pore-cast samples are obtained by infiltrating a porous specimen with an epoxy or other polymer material and then dissolving the original sample. This way a negative of the solid is
created which depicts the pore shape and connectivity.
The purpose of this study is to fully characterize the pore
parameters utilizing both microscopy and the conventional
techniques of mercury intrusion and BET. A comparison of
the data obtained by the different methodologies will be provided along with the rationale for any discrepancies between
techniques.
2229
The average particle diameter of the colloidal sol is 15 nm.
The potassium silicate is comprised of a mixture of 20.8 wt%
SiOz and 8.3 wt% K 2 0 with the balance being water. The
proposed gelation mechanism is a destabilization of the colloidal sol with a concurrent deposition of the potassium silicate onto the points of contact between colloidal particles.
Clusters of colloidal particles are joined, causing the subsequent formation of the 3-D gel structure.' The 10:90 wt%
ratio was chosen because preliminary Hg porosimetry data,
the sole source of pore size information at the time this work
was started, indicated that it possessed a unimodal pore size
distribution. Hence it was expected that this composition
would have the simplest microstructure.
The gel monoliths were cut into equivalent-size disks with
a diamond saw.** Sample blocks for both microscopic analysis and porosimetry were taken from the center of the disk,
which in turn was taken from the median of the monolith.
Two gel batches were made and subjected to identical preparation and analysis to ensure batch-to-batch reproducibility.
(2) Density Measurements
Bulk density was determined by geometrical measurements
and mercury intrusion of cut disks obtained from the gel monoliths. Density information was also derived from X-ray microtomography via mass fraction profiling.* The volume fraction
of porosity, and hence the density, was also furnished by quantitative stereological analysis of ultramicrotomed thin sections.
(3) Pore Size and Size Distribution
Pore size and size information were obtained from micrographs of gels prepared by the three different methods of
ultramicrotomy, Pt/C replication, and pore casting. Quantitative stereological data were derived from the ultramicrotomed thin sections and compared with mercury porosimetry
and BET results.
(A) Preparation for Microscopic Analysis
( I ) Ultramicrotomy: In preparation for ultramicrotomy
the gel blocks were first dehydrated by three acetone replacement baths. This is necessary as the epoxy impregnant is not
miscible with water. We chose to infiltrate the sample with
Spurr3' epoxy as it had been used successfully with other
ceramic materials. Also it possesses desirable rheological
properties in the uncured state as well as the necessary mechanical strength in the cured state.
A four-step infiltration schedule was carried out in the following order with the ratios representing volume percent
Spurr epoxy to propylene oxide: (1) 25:75, (2) 50:50,
(3) 75:25, (4) 1OO:O. Each infiltration bath was performed in a
rotator for a duration of 7 h. Samples were cured in Nalgenett
molds for 48 h at 70°C. The tip of the infiltrated specimen
block was then trimmed into a pyramidal shape as this keeps
the orientation of the sample straight during cutting and aids
in creating a distortion-free section. Microtomingtt was done
with a biological-grade diamond knife'$ which enabled the
production of coherent 70-nm-thick sections (see Fig. 1).Random thin sections were then collected onto carbon-coated
TEM grids. Thick sections ranging from 0.25 to 1 pm were
also obtained from an unfired gel.
(2) Pt/C Replication: Samples for replication were first
fractured in air, then placed inside a freeze etch apparatus"
torr. Platinum was evapoin a vacuum of better than 1 x
rated at an angle of 45" to a thickness of 2.5 nm followed by
a 15-nm layer of carbon deposited at 90°C. The replicas were
retrieved by immersing the gel in H F followed by a distilled
water rinse.
(3) Pore Casting: Specimens for pore-cast analysis were
dehydrated, infiltrated, and cured in the exact manner de-
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrq
zyx
zyxwvutsr
11. Experimental Procedure
(I) Gel Preparation
Gel preparation is described in detail elsewhere7 and will
not be reviewed here. All silica monoliths were made with a
mixture of 10 wt% colloidal silica$ and 90 wt% potassium
silicate' which gels in the presence of formamide and water.
'Ludox HS-40, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Wilmington, DE.
'Kasil-1, Philadelphia Quartz Co., Lafayette Hill, PA.
**Isornet, Buehler Ltd., Lake Bluff, IL.
"Size 00, Nalge Corp., Rochester, NY.
'*Porter-Blum MT-2, Ivan Sorvall, Inc., Newton, CT.
"Delaware Diamond Knives, Inc., Wilmington, DE.
"BAF301, Balzers, Hudson, NH.
2230
z
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvut
zyxwv
Vol. 73, No. 8
Journal of the American Ceramic Society -Kerch et al.
111.
Results
(1) Density
The homogeneity of the gel density, as determined by
X-ray microtomography, is a function of gel size as displayed
in Fig. 2 for unfired gels consolidated in 12-, 7.5, and 125-mL
containers.tttt As shown, the 12-mL gel has the most uniform
density across the sample while gels made in larger containers
exhibit a more concave density profile. For this reason all gels
used in this study were made in 12-mL containers. Table I
summarizes the density values obtained by geometrical measurements, mercury intrusion, X-ray microtomography, and
stereological analysis. As can be seen, good agreement is
found between all the methods.
Fig. 1. TEM micrograph of ultramicrotomed trapezoid on specimen grid.
scribed for ultramicrotomy. The tip of the sample block was
cut with a diamond saw to expose the interconnected silica
and epoxy phases. This surface was sequentially hand polished with 6-, l-, and 0.25-pm grit size diamond paste
followed by 0.05-pm alumina polish. The specimen was
placed in a 45 wt% KOH solution for 30 min at 70°C to dissolve the silica phase. The pore cast was then mounted on an
SEM stud and sputtered with gold and platinum to reduce
charging effects.
(B) Microscopy: Micrographs of the specimens prepared
by ultramicrotomy and Pt/C replication were taken in brightfield mode at 100 kV.*** Stereo pairs were taken with a tilt
angle of 10" between them. Pore-cast samples were observed
under the SEM.ttt In addition, the thick microtomed sections
were viewed with an intermediate voltage electron microscope (IVEM).~"
(C) Image Analysis: Quantitative stereological analysis
of the ultramicrotomed sections was done with a digital image
analyzer."' In order to achieve statistically significant data
the following nested sampling scheme was carried out: from
two silica monoliths originating from separate gel batches,
two blocks were removed and prepared for ultramicrotomy.
Three thin sections cut from each block were chosen randomly and three fields or micrographs at a magnification of
19000~were obtained from each section. This yielded a total
of 36 two-dimensional (2-D) fields from which the quantitative microstructural information was derived.
The basic stereological quantities obtained were average
pore diameter (D,,,J, the total pore volume (K), and the number of pore species per unit area and volume ( N . and N u ,
respectively).
(0) Mercury Porosimetry and BET: Pore size distribution and pore volume data were obtained by mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP)." The maximum pressure that the
gel was subjected to was 30000 psi ( ~ 2 0 MPa),
0
which corresponds to a 3-nm pore radius. Values for contact angle and
surface tension were taken as 135" and 0.484 N/m, respectively. Pores with smaller diameters were characterized with
BET.****The pore size distribution was derived from the nitrogen desorption curve.
(2) Qualitative Description of the Microstructure
(A) Ultramicrotomy: Figures 3(A) to (C) depict representative images of a 70-nm thin section of an as-dried gel at
three different magnifications. The light regions represent the
epoxy or void space while the darker regions correspond to
the silica gel. These micrographs indicate that in the microtoming process we have cut across some large pores as well as
directly through silica agglomerates. The images show that
the gel samples were completely infiltrated as evidenced by
the lack of voids at the silica/epoxy interfaces. The specimens
also appear to have sustained no damage during sectioning.
This observation is supported by the lack of rips, tears, or
folds in the sections. The low-magnification image (Fig. 3(A))
demonstrates the uniformity of the colloidal gel microstructure. The micrograph complements the recent NMR data
which predicted that the homogeneity of the gel was on a
scale of less than 5 pm."
Referring to Figs. 3(A) to (C), it is possible to designate
qualitatively three distinct species of pores based on a knowledge of the consolidation process which gives rise to the
following hierarchical gel network structure. The pores
appearing as texture in Fig. 3(8) and labeled "a" in Fig. 3(C)
are termed the micropores. The micropores comprise the
interstices between the colloidal particles which come together
as a result of the destabilization of the sol. As the destabilization process continues, the individual clusters of colloidal
silica which have formed grow in dimension as more colloids
become attached. Some of these clusters aggregate into larger
agglomerates which are separated by the mesopores (labeled
"b" in Fig. 3(B)). Other clusters form long chains or branches
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvuts
ttttThe drop in the center of the curves is an artifact of the analysis and
hence does not represent an actual density decrease in the center of the gel.
0.500
~
0.400
I
I
I
J
zyxwvutsrqpon
'**J.E.O.L. lOOCX, JEOL U.S.A., Inc., Peabody, MA.
'"Hitachi S450, Hitachi Instruments, Inc., Santa Clara, CA.
**'JEM-4000FX,JEOL U S A . Inc.
:ha
ecraft, Princeton Gamma Tech, Princeton, NJ.
Mofel 3005, Micromeritics, Norcross, GA.
*"*Omnisorp 360 Analyzer, Omicron Technology Corp., Berkeley
Heights, NJ.
.-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
RADIUS r (cm)
Fig. 2. Graph of bulk density as a function of gel container size
obtained by X-ray microtomography: (a) 125, (b) 75, (c) 12 mL.
August 1990
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvu
zyxw
zyxwvuts
zyxwv
zyx
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqp
Quantitative Electron Microscopic Investigation of Pore Structure
2231
Table I. Summary of Bulk Density Data Obtained by Various Techniques
Density
(g/cm3)
Analytical technique
Geometric measurements
Mercury intrusion*
X-ray microtomography
Stereology (areal analysis)
Stereology (pore frequency analysis)*,+
*Phi = 1/[(5)
+ (&,)I. Pbd = bulk density,
difference between a sphere and a cylinder.
0.32 r 0.01
0.328 ? 0.02
0.339 ? 0.01
0.401 t 0.01
0.268 ? 0.03
Theoretical density
Pore volume
(”/.I
14.5
14.9
15.4
18.2
12.2
85.5
85.1
84.6
81.8
87.8
(%)
= pore volume, pth = theoretical density. ‘Error obtained by calculating volume
which connect the agglomerates in three dimensions. The
large pores, termed the macropores (labeled “c” in Fig. 3(A)),
are formed by these silica branches.
To take full advantage of the method of ultramicrotomy
0.25- and 0.5-pm-thick sections of the gel were viewed in an
IVEM. The arrangement of the pores in three dimensions
can be seen via the stereo pairs of the 0.5-pm-thick sections
presented in Fig. 4. The thick sections can be visualized as a
superposition of approximately seven layers of the thinner
ultramicrotomed sections as shown in Fig. 3. The proposed
pore network described above is convincingly displayed by
this stereo pair. Several sublayers of mesopores are visible
within the thick section, confirming that their size is smaller
than the section thickness (0.5 pm). On the other hand, portions of what appears to be only two layers of macropores
can be seen, which would imply that their size is larger
than 0.5 pm. The gel layers are stacked in such a way that
the mesopore and macropores are displaced with respect
to the pores in the upper and lower layers. The reduction of
the visible void space or light regions is caused by this stacking arrangement.
(B) PtlC Replication: Figure 5 displays a stereo pair of a
gel fracture surface. With the aid of stereo visualization the
silica particle connectivity and overall gel arrangement can
be revealed. The most prominent feature in the replicas is the
large ringlike structures that are formed by linking of several
of the individual gel cluster units. At certain points about the
rings are agglomerates which envelop somewhat smaller pore
spaces. These structural units are similar to those found in
the ultramicrotomed thick sections (Fig. 4). The rings are
rather loosely packed and would account for the low theoretical density (15%) demonstrated by the unfired gel. The micropores may not be characterized because of the resolution limit
of the replication technique .31
(C) Pore Casting: Connectivity, shape, and size of the
void space can be clearly discerned by a cast of the pores.
zyxwvuts
Fig. 3. Ultramicrotomed section (70 nm) of an unsintered gel taken at three different magnifications illustrating the three pore species:
(A) micropores, (B) mesopores, (C) macropores.
2232
z
zyxwv
zyxw
zyxwvutsrqponm
Journal of the American Ceramic Society -Kerch et al.
Vol. 7 3 , No. 8
zyxwvutsrqp
Fig. 4. Stereo pair of a thick microtomed section (0.5 pm) of an unfired gel showing arrangement of gel in three
dimensions.
Figure 6 is an SEM micrograph of a pore cast sample of an
unsintered gel. A number of prominent features are illustrated in the micrograph. On the surface of the cast are the
concavities left from the silica particles which have been
etched away during the dissolution process. This provides evidence that what is being viewed is the actual pore cast rather
than artifacts produced by the polishing procedure.
In accord with the ultramicrotomed thin sections and the
Pt/C replicas, the casts show the presence of both the
macropores and mesopores. The imprint of the micropores on
the pore cast was not resolvable because of the coating procedure. The mesopores appear to be cylindrical in shape while
the macropores are best described as being spherical. The
mesopores are seen to connect the macropores in the pore
network. This connectivity is somewhat complex in nature;
some macropores are linked by only a few mesopores while
others are joined by many mesopore channels.
(3) Quantitative Analysis of the Microstructure
Quantitative microstructural information pertaining to
pore volume, average pore size, and pore size distribution was
furnished via stereological analysis of the ultramicrotomed
thin sections. For comparison, the porosity was also characterized by BET nitrogen sorption and MIP.
(A) Pore Volume: Pore volume was calculated according
to the stereological identity
V, = A,
(1)
That is, for a completely random structure the area fraction of
a particular phase is equivalent to its volume fraction. A , was
determined by the ratio of the total number of pixels occupying the porous phase over the total number of pixels in the
field. The average pore volume for the 36 fields examined was
81.78% ? 3.3, which is comparable to MIP data, geometric
zyxwvutsrqp
Fig. 5. Stereo pair of a Pt/C replicated fracture surface for an unfired sample depicting particle connectivity.
August 1990
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqpo
Quantitative Electron Microscopic Investigation of Pore Structure
2233
(C) Pore Size and Pore Size Distribution of the Mesopores
and Macropores: The data from the stereological analysis of
the ultramicrotomed gels are given in Table 11. The pores
were divided into 0.1-pm size class intervals with the largest
pores considered having a diameter of 1.2 pm. Pores with
diameters larger than this were not observed in the thin sections. The total number of pores counted was 3385. The frequency of occurrence in each pore class is given in the second
column of Table 11. The number of pores comprising a
specific pore size interval per unit area of field (in this case
360 pm2) yields the quantity N, (third column). The calculation of N , is less straightforward because the 2-D diameter of
a pore in the image plane depends on how the actual 3-D
pore was sectioned. For example, a 2-D pore with diameter
D, may have originated from 3-D pores with diameters D, to
D,,, where D,,, is the largest observable pore diameter, Following the analysis given by Underwood34 for spherical
pores,$§$*
the contribution from each 3-D pore size interval to
the 2-D distribution may be determined as follows:
zyxwvutsrqpo
Fig. 6. SEM of a pore cast (unfired sample). Note pore shape and
connectivity. Mesopores (circles) and macropores (boxes) are designated in the micrograph.
density calculations, and microtomographic results listed in
Table I.
It should be added that this analysis is valid for sufficiently
thin sections only, as an erroneous pore volume of 35% would
be obtained from the thick microtomed sections illustrating
the importance of approaching a true 2-D sample. The discrepancy in pore volume between thick and thin sections is
due to the overlapping arrangement of the gel (see Fig. 4) which
conceals portions of the porous phase in the thicker sections.
(B) Pore Size and Pore Size Distribution of the Micropores: Figure 3(C) is a high-magnification image of a gel
cluster which clearly depicts the micropores. Imaging the micropores was possible by utilizing a defocus contrast technique which has reviously been used to image voids32and
small
in other materials. In an underfocused
image, contrast arises due to the phase difference between
the electrons originating from the silica phase and those
coming from the pores. This phase difference manifests itself
as dark rings which encircle the micropores, therefore making
them visible. Within each cluster may be seen a distribution
in the micropore size; however, a statistically complete description of these pores has not yet been carried out but will
be reported in a future publication.*"* They can, however,
be quantified by nitrogen sorption technique. This method
has shown that the as-dried gels have an average micropore
size of 4 nm,' and this value scales well with the size of the
micropores seen in the micrograph.
inclusion^^^
'"'For purposes of comparison, the defocus diameter of the micropores is
reported in Table 111. The value should be comparable to the real size for the
degree of defocus employed (0.7 rm).
zyx
zyxwvu
zyxwvut
In this system of notation the i refers to the 2-D section diameter while j refers to the 3-D sphere diameter. (N"),is the
number of pores per unit volume of sizej, Z(Na),,]is the number per unit area of sections of size i obtained from spheres of
size j , pl,i is the probability of a thin section intersecting a 3-D
pore of diameter j and yielding a 2-D section of diameter i ,
and Di is the diameter of the 3-D pore of size j .
Utilizing this analysis, the term N , for each size interval
was determined and is given in the fourth column of Table 11.
This value was converted from a number quantity to a volumetric term by multiplication with inverse bulk density and a
term representing the volume of a sphere for each r, class size.
This product provides a value for the pore volume for each
pore size interval. The cumulative pore volume was then determined from the largest to the smallest pore species in order
that the data (fifth column of Table 11) may be compared to
MIP cumulative curves (Fig. 7(A)). There are a number of
salient differences between the curves. First, the cumulative
pore volume obtained by stereological analysis is larger than
that indicated by MIP. Second, the pore size distribution according to mercury intrusion is shown to be unimodal as indicated by the smoothly varying curve. In addition, the curve
furnished by image analysis reveals a much broader range of
pore sizes, especially in the region of 0.5 pm and less. The
curve exhibits a change of slope between 0.5 and 0.7 pm. For
values larger than 0.7 pm, the pore volume falls off rapidly.
*"'Although we have observed the mesopores to be cylindrical in shape,
we do not expect a large error in the distribution curve by using the analysis
for spherical pores. What we do expect from this assumption is an overestimation of the pore volume occupied by the mesopores (see Table I).
Table 11. Stereological Data for the Unsintered Gels
zyx
Pore size interval
(rm)
N,
(l/rmZ)
N"
Frequency
(wm3)
Pore vplume
(cm /d
Cumulative ore volume
(cm /g)
0-0.1
0.1-0.2
0.2-0.3
0.3-0.4
0.4-0.5
0.5-0.6
0.6-0.7
0.7-0.8
0.8-0.9
0.9-1.0
1.0-1.1
1.1-1.2
649
921
705
399
153
66
93
103
137
132
18
9
1.8
2.56
1.07
0.76
0.43
0.17
0.26
0.29
0.38
0.37
0.005
0.0025
13.6
12.7
3.46
2.15
1.04
0.04
0.24
0.27
0.581
0.847
0.008
0.005
0.0222
0.166
0.153
0.225
0.213
0.0141
0.135
0.226
0.693
1.39
0.0174
0.0141
3.2688
3.2466
3.0806
2.9276
2.7026
2.4896
2.4755
2.3405
2.1145
1.4215
0.0315
0.0141
Totals
3385
8.10
34.94
3.2688
P
2234
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvut
zyxwv
Journal of the American Ceramic Society -Kerch et al.
Vol. 73, No. 8
0.50
zyxwv
zyxw
0.00
.01
.1
10
1
pore diameter (microns)
(A)
U
N
E
U
e
U
Izyxwvutsrqponm
n
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsrqpo
20
.01
.1
pore
./
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
IC
1
dze (mlsrona)
-
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.5
pore diameter (microns)
Fig. 7. Cumulative and differential pore size data obtained from intrusion measurements (0)and quantitative stereology (A). Insert in (B) is the pore size distribution from the stereological analysis given on a logarithmic scale to better illustrate
the break in the mesopore distribution at 0.25 j m .
The average pore size can be obtained from the differential
form of the curve (Fig. 7(B)), specifically dv/dd where the
derivative of the intruded volume is taken with respect to
that of the pore diameter to eliminate the dependence on
pore size. For MIP the average pore size is given as 0.2 pm.
Stereological measurements indicate three maxima. One
sharp maximum is observed about 0.9 pm and another much
broader distribution contains the two other maxima and
spans from 0.15 to 0.45 pm. The larger maximum is attributed to the macropores while the two smaller ones reflect
contributions from the circular and lengthwise dimensions of
the cylindrical mesopores. The mean pore diameters for both
mesopore diameters and the macropores were calculated and
found to be 0.15, 0.39, and 0.83 pm, respectively. By comparing the area under the curves, it is demonstrated that approximately 75% of the pore volume is comprised of the macropores.
Dimensions for the mesopores and macropores may also be
estimated by stereo viewing of the Pt/C replicas (Fig. 5) and
by direct inspection of the pore-cast specimens (Fig. 6). The
pores in the replicas were measured by averaging the longest
and shortest chord across those pores which were situated
parallel to the image plane. This averaging method was also
used on the pore casts.
The pore size data for all the analytical methods employed
are summarized in Table 111. The deviations shown for the
ultramicrotomed sections were determined by a nested analysis of variance35which takes into account the variance at each
sampling level. It may be noticed that no standard deviation is
listed for the average mesopore sizes because the errors were
smaller than the number of significant figures. A complete
statistical evaluation was not carried out for the pore diameters obtained from the replicas and pore casts and their
zyx
zyxwv
Table 111. Comparison of Analytical Techniques Utilized for
Pore Characterization in This Study
Analytical technique
Nitrogen sorption
Mercury intrusion
Ultramicrotomy*
Pt/C replicationt
Pore castingt
Micropores
(nm)
4
=4
?
0.2
Mesopores
(m)
0.2 2 0.01
0.15'
0.39*
0.24 r 0.12
0.23 ? 0.08
Macropores
(w)
0.83
?
0.05*
0.88 t 0.12
0.78 2 0.18
"Determined from stereological analysis. 'Calculated by averaging the longest and shortest chord across the pores. 'Errors determined by a nested analysis of variance. Mesopores
had negligible variance for both the circular and lengthwise dimensions.
August 1990
zyxwv
z
zyxwvutsrqp
Quantitative Electron Microscopic Investigation of Pore Structure
2235
values are shown only for comparison. For nitrogen sorption
and mercury intrusion, the errors reflect the standard experimental deviations.
IV. Discussion
TOthe authors’ knowledge, this is the first time that ultramicrotomy has been employed to obtain a pore size distribution curve. In addition to the usefulness of the statistically
derived pore size distribution curve, the micrographs have revealed previously unknown information pertaining to the gel
network. For example, we have been able to image the interstices or micropores between the colloidal particles (Fig. 3(C))
which are responsible for the majority of the surface area in
the gels. Similarly, the pore volume is seen to arise primarily
from the macropores which were so clearly observed in the
2-D ultramicrotomed sections as well as in the 3-D stereo representation of the Pt/C replicas, the thick microtomed sections, and the pore casts. It is also found that the mesopores
serve as the links between macropores, giving rise to a porethroat network microstructure. Consistency in the results
from all three TEM sample preparation methods assures us
that what we are seeing is the actual microstructure of the gel
and not artifacts of the preparation.
Pore volume results as obtained by stereological areal analysis of the 2-D images are in good agreement with those furnished by MIP. When the pore volume is converted to bulk
density (see Table I), agreement is also found with values obtained by geometrical measurements as well as by X-ray mass
profiling, suggesting the validity of the methods employed.
The slight overestimation of the average density in the areal
analysis case is probably due to the inability to quantify the
micropore volume. The contribution of the micropores to the
total volume is expected to be less than 9% based on BET
results;’ therefore, the values obtained are quite reasonable.
On the other hand, bulk density obtained from the cumulative pore volume curve errs in the opposite direction (see
Table I and Fig. 7(A)). This is because the pores were assumed to be spherical and the volume of a sphere of diameter d will always be greater than the volume of a cylinder
with height d . Since the mesopores are known to be cylindrical (Fig. 6), it may be concluded that the additional pore volume stems from this oversimplification. Nevertheless, the
estimated pore volume still falls within an acceptable standard deviation.
A more striking difference between the results given by
MIP and stereological analysis is provided by Fig. 7(B), in
which the pore size distributions given by the two methods
are compared. Detailed examination of the pore-cast images
offers an explanation of this discrepancy between microscopy
and porosimetry. In Fig. 6 we see that the larger macropores
are interconnected by small channels and that the pores are
not isolated as assumed by Washburn’s analysis. These channels or throats comprise the mesopores. A nonbiased illustration of the channels (mesopores) and sinks (macropores) is
given in the binary image of an ultramicrotomed thin section
which is presented in Fig. 8. During the intrusion process, the
liquid mercury flows through the pore space via these channels (marked by arrows) and subsequently fills the larger
macropores as it reaches them.36 The pressure measured by
MIP corresponds to the pressure required to force the mercury into these channels. The macropores are not “seen” by
MIP because the mercury can only reach them through these
channels. Experimentally one has surpassed the pressure required to penetrate into the large macropores once intrusion
through the mesopores begins. Thus we see no change in
slope in the cumulative MIP curve at 0.83 pm (the average
macropore size) and the total pore volume is erroneously assigned to the mesopore population. Porosimetry can only detect the mesopores and the microstructure is characterized as
being unimodal. One might consider performing an extrusion
Fig. 8. Binary image of thin section (70 nm) of unsintered gel. Black regions represent the pore space; gray regions are the gel. Arrows depict flow of mercury through
“pore-throat’’ network.
experiment on a solid with this type of pore geometry in
order to obtain the large void dimension. However, t w o
additional conditions are imposed in order for mercury evacuation from the pore space to take place. First, a pore path
must be available to the mercury in order for it to retract at a
specific pressure. Second, the mercury must be attached to the
evacuating mercury or else it will be stranded in the pore?6 In
addition, interpretation of extrusion curves is difficult because there is a question as to whether the hysteresis observed
between intrusion and extrusion porosimetry curves is due to
contact angle differences or true pore m ~ r p h o l o g y . ~
Our
~-~~
results suggest that true morphology would be the cause of
such a hysteresis.
Fairly good agreement is nevertheless found between the
smallest average mesopore size as measured from the micrographs and that obtained from mercury porosimetry. This is
because the smallest entrance will determine the force required to intrude the pore space. For a cylindrically shaped
pore,13 the applied force, F,,, is given by
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvu
zyxwv
Fa = r R 2 P
(3)
where P is the pressure across the cross section of the pore,
rR2. The opposing capillary force F, is given by
F, = 2rrRy cos 0
14)
where y is the surface tension of the mercury which acts in
the direction determined by the contact angle, 0,over the
perimeter 2rR, of the cylindrical pore. When the applied
force equals the capillary force, mercury breakthrough can
occur and infiltration of all the pore volume will take place if
all the porosity is open. It is therefore not surprising that such
good match between the bulk density measurements and that
calculated from MIP was obtained.
The statistically derived averages of the mesopore crosssectional diameter and height were surprisingly error-free
(see Table 111). This is probably due to the large number of
mesopores counted in the stereological analysis. It is interesting to note that the averages correspond with the peaks in the
mesopore distribution in Fig. 7(B). Based on the stereology
results, it may be argued that the mesopores have an aspect
ratio of approximately 3 (length/circular width ratio). This is
because in the ultramicrotoming process, sections were made
across both the pore diameter and height as well as at oblique
angles to the pore. However, because the N , calculation was
strictly for spherical pores, the true ratio may be slightly dif-
2236
zy
zyxwvutsr
zyxwv
zyxw
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrq
Journal of the American Ceramic Society -Kerch et al.
ferent. In contrast, since the macropores are spherical, their
dimensional analysis is more accurate and it closely matches
what is seen in the 2-D micrographs and 3-D stereo pairs
(Figs. 4 and 5 ) . As an additional note, the average pore sizes
estimated from the biaxial viewing of the Pt/C replicas and
pore casts agree quite well with the statistically derived values
for the macropore case, but seem to give an average of the
mesopore cross-sectional diameter and height. It is not possible to comment further on the mesopore values supplied by
the replicas and pore casts since a thorough quantitative
study was not done on their images. These techniques were
utilized primarily to furnish qualitative information about the
gel microstructure.
This quantitative microscopic study of the pore size distribution in these silica colloidal gels suggests that the often reported agreement between MIP and powder dispersion
samples claimed by previous investigators is misleading. We
have provided experimental evidence that for a sample containing the “pore-throat” type geometry, MIP analysis only
measures the small channels or mesopores and not the
macropores or pore sinks. The fortuitous agreement between
MIP and powder dispersion samples could only have come
by partial destruction of the pore network during sample
preparation or by masking of several layers of sample on the
TEM grid.
K Conclusions
It has been shown that microscopy is a viable technique for
pore characterization provided that proper sample preparation is carried out. Ultramicrotomy, Pt/C replication, and
pore casting together give the most thorough picture of the
pore structure. Hg porosimetry, on the other hand, may only
be used to describe the pore-throats (mesopores) in these
gels. BET is necessary to quantify the micropores even
though they may also be viewed by microscopic techniques.
While microscopic determination of pore size is neither
quick nor easy, it allows the investigator to directly measure
the pore size. From samples prepared via ultramicrotomy, we
were able to determine a quantitative measure of the pore
sizes and pore size distribution as well as information about
the total pore volume.
Stereo visualization by Pt/C replicas and thick microtomed
sections revealed gel connectivity and overall particle arrangement. At the same time, pore shape and connectivity
were displayed by pore-cast specimens. Each sample preparation technique provided different but essential information
and together they furnished rich detail of the gel microstructure not obtainable by the conventional methods of Hg
porosimetry and BET sorption technique. This knowledge of
the gel network may now be utilized to derive an understanding of the sintering mechanisms in these types of materials:’
Acknowledaments:
?ye. thank W. Q. Cao for his cooperation and
suggestions. adeline Micell and Michelle Levin are acknowledged for
their assistance in microscopy and sample preparation, respectively. We
also thank Dr. Lee Peachey at the University of Pennsylvania for the use
of the IVEM facilities there, and Dr. W. Glantschnig for the X-ray
microtomography.
References
Vol. 73, No. 8
Characterization Techniques”; pp. 75-82 in Materials Research Society
Symposia Proceedings, Vol. 137, Pore Structure and Permeability of Cementitious Materials. Edited by L. R . Roberts and I. P. Skalny. Materials Research Society, New York, 1989.
‘W. Q. Cao, R. Gerhardt, and I. B. Wachtman, Jr., “Preparation and Sintering of Colloidal Silica-Potassium Silicate Gels,” J. A m . Ceram. Sac., 71
[12] 1108-13 (1988).
8W.J. Glantschnin and A. Holliday, “Mass Fraction Profiling Based on
X-ray Tomographyand Its Applicaiion to Characterizing Porous Silica
Boules,” Appl. Opt., 26, 983-89 (1987).
9G. G . Long, S.T. Krueger, and R. A. Gerhardt, “Small Angle Neutron
Scattering Characterization of Microporous Silica”; pp. 171-80 in Ceramic
Transactions, Vol. 5, Advanced Characterization Techniques for Ceramics.
Edited by W. S. Young, G. L. McVay, and G. E. Pike. American Ceramic
Society, Westerville, OH, 1989.
loS. Bhattacharja, F. DOrazio, J. C. Tarczon, W. P. Halperin, and R. Gerhardt, “Internal Structure of Porous Silica: A Model System for Characterization by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance,”J. Am. Ceram. Sac., 72 [ll]2126-30
(1989).
”H. M. Kerch and R. A. Gerhardt, “Ultramicrotomy of Porous Ceramics”;
pp. 360-69 in Ceramics Transactions, Vol. 5, Advanced Characterization
Techniques for Ceramics. Edited by W. S. Young, G. L. McVay, and G. E.
Pike. American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH, 1989.
l2O. J. Whittemore, “Mercury Porosimetry of Ceramics,” Powder Technol.,
29, 167-75 (1981).
13E.W. Washburn, “Note on a Method of Determining the Distribution of
Pore Sizes in a Porous Material,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., U X A . , 7 , 115-16
(1921).
I4H.M. Rootare and A. C. Nyce, “The Use of Porosimetry in the Measurement of Pore Size Distribution in Porous Materials,” Int. J. Powder Metall., 7
[l] 3-11 (1971).
ISW.L. Nicholson, ‘Application of Statistical Methods in Quantitative Microscopy,” J. Microsc., 113 [3] 223-39 (1978).
I6H. J. G. Gundersen and R. Osterby, “Optimizing Sampling Efficiency of
Stereological Studies in Biology, or ‘Do More Less Well!,”’ J. Microsc., 121
[l] 65-73 (1981).
17E.M. Ekmejian and J. B. Bulko, “Preparation Techniques for Structural
Characterization of Powdered and Composite Materials,” Mater. Res. Sac.
Symp. Proc., 115, 87-92 (1988).
18J. Rodel and A. M. Glaser, “Production of Controlled-Morphology Pore
Arrays: Implications and Opportunities,” J. Am. Ceram. Sac., 70 [8] C-172C-175 (1987).
I9P. H. Tewari, A. J. Hunt, K. D. Lofftus, and J. G. Lieber, “Microstructural Studies of Transparent Silica Gels and Aerogels,” Mater. Res. Sac.
Symp. Proc., 73, 195-205 (1986).
”M.W. Shafer, V. Castano, W. Krakow, R.A. Figat, and G. C. Ruben,
“Structural Observations of Porous Silica Gels,” Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc.,
73, 331-36 (1986).
*IV. M. Castano, T. Takamori, and M.W. Shafer, “Transmission Electron
Microscopic Observations of a-Cristobalite in Fused Silica,” J. Am. Ceram.
Soc., 70 [4] C-77-C-78 (1987).
*’J. H. Mazur and C. M. Lampert, “High Resolution Electron Microscopy
Study of Silica Aerogel Transparent Insulation”; pp. 123-27 in Optical Materials Technology for Energy Efficiency and Solar Energy Conversion 111,
Vol. 502. Society of Photographic Instrumentation Engineers, Bellingham,
WA, 1984.
%. P. Mukherjee, J. F. Cordaro, and J. C. Debsikdar, “Pore Structure
Microstructures of Silica Gel Monoliths at Different Stages of Sintering,”
Adv. Ceram. Mater., 3 [ 5 ] 463-67 (1988).
%D. Tomanova, B. Zbuzek, K. Jerabek, and P. Schneider, “Comparison
of Different Methods for Study of Pore Structure,” Collect. Czech Chem.
Commun., 46, 2060-67 (1981).
”Z. Ministri, “Stereology and Mercury Porosimetry,” Proc. Int. Symp.
Pore Struct. Mater., Part 2, C155-Cl71 (1973).
=M.W. Shafer, D. D. Awshalom, I. Warnick, and G. Ruben, “The Chemistry of and Physics with Porous Sol-Gel Glasses,” J. Appl. Phys., 61 [12]
5438-46 (1987).
27M.G . Patsoules and J. C. Cripps, “The Application cf Kesin ImplPziation to the Three-Dimensional Study of Chalk Pore Geometry,” Eng. Geol.,
19, 15-27 (1982).
28R. Phillips, “Diamond Knife Ultramicrotomy of Metals and the Structure of Microtomed Sections,” Br. J. Appl. Phys., 12, 554-55 (1961).
Z9D.G. Pickles and E. Lilley, “Ultramicrotomy of Ceramic Powders for
Electron Microscopy,” J. Am. Ceram. Sac., 68 [9] C-222-C-223 (1985).
MA.R. Spurr, ‘A Low Viscosity Epoxy Resin Embedding Medium for
Electron Microscopy,” J. Ultrastruct. Rex, 26 [l] 31-43 (1969).
3’G.C. Ruben, “Ultrathin (1 nm) Vertically Shadowed Platinum-Carbon
Replicas for Imaging Individual Molecules in Freeze-Etched Biological
DNA and Material Science Metal and Plastic Specimens,” J. Electron
Microsc. Tech., 2, 335-54 (1989).
”M. Riihle, “Transmission Electron Microscopy of Radiation-Induced
Defects”; pp. 255-91 in Proc. Int. Conf. Radiation-Induced Voids in Metals
(CONF-710601). US.Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC, April
1972.
33Y. Okinaka and S. Nakahara. “Structure of Electroolated Hard Gold
Observed by Transmission Electron Microscopy,” J. Elecirochem. Soc., 123,
1284-89 (19761.
%E.E. Underwood, Quantitative Stereology; pp. 109-16. Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co., Reading, MA, 1981.
zyxw
zyxwvutsr
‘R.D. Shoup, “Controlled Pore Silica Bodies Gelled from Silica SolAlkali Silicate Mixtures”; pp. 63-69 in Colloid and Interface Science, Vol. 3.
Academic Press, New York, 1976.
ZD.J. Green, “Fabrication and Mechanical Properties of Lightweight Ceramics Produced by Sintering of Hollow Spheres,”J. A m . Ceram. Soc., 68 [7]
403-409 (1985).
3G.R. Lapidus, A.M. Lane, K. M. Ng, and W. C. Conner, “Interpretation
of Mercury Porosimetry Data Using a Pore-Throat Network Model,” Chem.
Eng. Commun., 38, 33-56 (1985).
‘W. M. Curtis Conner and A. M. Lane, “Measurement of the Morphology
of High Surface Area Solids: Effect of Network Structure on the Simulation
of Porosimetry,” J. Cafal., 89, 217-25 (1984).
SG.P. Androutsopoulos and R. Mann, “Evaluation of Mercury Porosimeter Experiments Using a Network Pore Structure Model,” Chem. Eng.
Sci., 34, 1203-12 (1979).
6R. A. Gerhardt, ‘A Review of Conventional and Non-Conventional Pore
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwv
August 1990
Quantitative Electron Microscopic Investigation of Pore Structure
2231
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyx
z
3SG.W.Snedecor and W. Cochran, Statistical Methods, 7th ed. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, IA, 1980.
%A. M. Lane; Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
MA, 1983.
)’J. Van Brakel, S. Modry, and M. Svata, “Mercury Porosimetry: State of
the Art,” Powder Technol., 29, 1-12 (1981).
38W.C. Canner, Jr., C. Blanco, K. Coyne, J. Neil, S. Mendioroz, and J.
Pajares, “Measurement of Morphology of High Surface Area Solids: Infer-
ring Pore Shape Characteristics”; pp. 273-81 in Characterization of Porous
Solids. Edited by K. K. Unger et al. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1988.
39R,G . Jenkins and M. B. Rao, “The Effect of Elliptical Pores on Mercury
Porosimetry Results,” Powder Technol., 38, 177-80 (1984).
40H.M. Kerch, R. A. Gerhardt, and J. L. Grazul, ‘A Transmission Electron Microscopic Study of the Densification of 10:90 Colloidal Silica: Alkali
Silicate Sol-Gels,’’ Proc. Annu. EMSA Meeting, 47, 436-37 (1989).
0