Hubbry Logo
Triboelectric effectTriboelectric effectMain
Open search
Triboelectric effect
Community hub
Triboelectric effect
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Triboelectric effect
Triboelectric effect
from Wikipedia

Styrofoam peanuts clinging to a cat's fur due to static electricity.

The triboelectric effect (also known as triboelectricity, triboelectric charging, triboelectrification, or tribocharging) describes electric charge transfer between two objects when they contact or slide against each other. It can occur with different materials, such as the sole of a shoe on a carpet, or between two pieces of the same material. It is ubiquitous, and occurs with differing amounts of charge transfer (tribocharge) for all solid materials. There is evidence that tribocharging can occur between combinations of solids, liquids and gases, for instance liquid flowing in a solid tube or an aircraft flying through air.

Often static electricity is a consequence of the triboelectric effect when the charge stays on one or both of the objects and is not conducted away. The term triboelectricity has been used to refer to the field of study or the general phenomenon of the triboelectric effect,[1][2][3][4] or to the static electricity that results from it.[5][6] When there is no sliding, tribocharging is sometimes called contact electrification, and any static electricity generated is sometimes called contact electricity. The terms are often used interchangeably, and may be confused.

Triboelectric charge plays a major role in industries such as packaging of pharmaceutical powders,[3][7] and in many processes such as dust storms[8] and planetary formation.[9] It can also increase friction and adhesion. While many aspects of the triboelectric effect are now understood and extensively documented, significant disagreements remain in the current literature about the underlying details.

History

[edit]

The historical development of triboelectricity is interwoven with work on static electricity and electrons themselves. Experiments involving triboelectricity and static electricity occurred before the discovery of the electron. The name ēlektron (ἤλεκτρον) is Greek for amber,[10][11] which is connected to the recording of electrostatic charging by Thales of Miletus around 585 BC,[12] and possibly others even earlier.[12][13] The prefix tribo- (Greek for 'rub') refers to sliding, friction and related processes, as in tribology.[14]

From the axial age (8th to 3rd century BC) the attraction of materials due to static electricity by rubbing amber and the attraction of magnetic materials were considered to be similar or the same.[11] There are indications that it was known both in Europe and outside, for instance China and other places.[11] Syrian women used amber whorls in weaving and exploited the triboelectric properties, as noted by Pliny the Elder.[11][15]

The effect was mentioned in records from the medieval period. Archbishop Eustathius of Thessalonica, Greek scholar and writer of the 12th century, records that Woliver, king of the Goths, could draw sparks from his body. He also states that a philosopher was able, while dressing, to draw sparks from his clothes, similar to the report by Robert Symmer of his silk stocking experiments, which may be found in the 1759 Philosophical Transactions.[16]

Generator built by Francis Hauksbee[17]

It is generally considered[13] that the first major scientific analysis was by William Gilbert in his publication De Magnete in 1600.[16][18] He discovered that many more materials than amber such as sulphur, wax, glass could produce static electricity when rubbed, and that moisture prevented electrification. Others such as Sir Thomas Browne made important contributions slightly later, both in terms of materials and the first use of the word electricity in Pseudodoxia Epidemica.[19] He noted that metals did not show triboelectric charging, perhaps because the charge was conducted away. An important step was around 1663 when Otto von Guericke invented[20] a machine that could automate triboelectric charge generation, making it much easier to produce more tribocharge; other electrostatic generators followed.[16] For instance, shown in the Figure is an electrostatic generator built by Francis Hauksbee the Younger. Another key development was in the 1730s when C. F. du Fay pointed out that there were two types of charge which he named vitreous and resinous.[21][22] These names corresponded to the glass (vitreous) rods and bituminous coal, amber, or sealing wax (resinous) used in du Fay's experiments.[23]: I:44  These names were used throughout the 19th century. The use of the terms positive and negative for types of electricity grew out of the independent work of Benjamin Franklin around 1747 where he ascribed electricity to an over- or under- abundance of an electrical fluid.[23]: 43–48 

At about the same time Johan Carl Wilcke published in his 1757 PhD thesis a triboelectric series.[24][25] In this work materials were listed in order of the polarity of charge separation when they are touched or slide against another. A material towards the bottom of the series, when touched to a material near the top of the series, will acquire a more negative charge.

The first systematic analysis of triboelectricity is considered to be the work of Jean Claude Eugène Péclet in 1834.[26] He studied triboelectric charging for a range of conditions such as the material, pressure and rubbing of surfaces. It was some time before there were further quantitative works by Owen in 1909[27] and Jones in 1915.[28] The most extensive early set of experimental analyses was from 1914–1930 by the group of Professor Shaw, who laid much of the foundation of experimental knowledge. In a series of papers he: was one of the first to mention some of the failings of the triboelectric series, also showing that heat had a major effect on tribocharging;[29] analyzed in detail where different materials would fall in a triboelectric series, at the same time pointing out anomalies;[1] separately analyzed glass and solid elements[30] and solid elements and textiles,[31] carefully measuring both tribocharging and friction; analyzed charging due to air-blown particles;[32] demonstrated that surface strain and relaxation played a critical role for a range of materials,[33][34] and examined the tribocharging of many different elements with silica.[35]

Much of this work predates an understanding of solid state variations of energies levels with position, and also band bending.[36] It was in the early 1950s in the work of authors such as Vick[37] that these were taken into account along with concepts such as quantum tunnelling and behavior such as Schottky barrier effects, as well as including models such as asperities for contacts based upon the work of Frank Philip Bowden and David Tabor.[38]

Basic characteristics

[edit]

Triboelectric charging occurs when two materials are brought into contact then separated, or slide against each other. An example is rubbing a plastic pen on a shirt sleeve made of cotton, wool, polyester, or the blended fabrics used in modern clothing.[39] An electrified pen will attract and pick up pieces of paper less than a square centimeter, and will repel a similarly electrified pen. This repulsion is detectable by hanging both pens on threads and setting them near one another. Such experiments led to the theory of two types of electric charge, one being the negative of the other, with a simple sum respecting signs giving the total charge. The electrostatic attraction of the charged plastic pen to neutral uncharged pieces of paper (for example) is due to induced dipoles[36]: Chapter 27  in the paper.

The triboelectric effect can be unpredictable because many details are often not controlled.[40] Phenomena which do not have a simple explanation have been known for many years. For instance, as early as 1910, Jaimeson observed that for a piece of cellulose, the sign of the charge was dependent upon whether it was bent concave or convex during rubbing.[41] The same behavior with curvature was reported in 1917 by Shaw,[1] who noted that the effect of curvature with different materials made them either more positive or negative. In 1920, Richards pointed out that for colliding particles the velocity and mass played a role, not just what the materials were.[42] In 1926, Shaw pointed out that with two pieces of identical material, the sign of the charge transfer from "rubber" to "rubbed" could change with time.[43]

There are other more recent experimental results which also do not have a simple explanation. For instance the work of Burgo and Erdemir,[44] which showed that the sign of charge transfer reverses between when a tip is pushing into a substrate versus when it pulls out; the detailed work of Lee et al.[45] and Forward, Lacks and Sankaran[46] and others measuring the charge transfer during collisions between particles of zirconia of different size but the same composition, with one size charging positive, the other negative; the observations using sliding[46] or Kelvin probe force microscope[47] of inhomogeneous charge variations between nominally identical materials.

Illustration of triboelectric charging from contacting asperities

The details of how and why tribocharging occurs are not established science as of 2023. One component is the difference in the work function (also called the electron affinity) between the two materials.[48] This can lead to charge transfer as, for instance, analyzed by Harper.[49][50] As has been known since at least 1953,[37][51][52][53] the contact potential is part of the process but does not explain many results, such as the ones mentioned in the last two paragraphs.[41][43][44][47] Many studies have pointed out issues with the work function difference (Volta potential) as a complete explanation.[54][55][56][4] There is also the question of why sliding is often important. Surfaces have many nanoscale asperities where the contact is taking place,[38] which has been taken into account in many approaches to triboelectrification.[49] Alessandro Volta and Hermann von Helmholtz suggested that the role of sliding was to produce more contacts per second.[50] In modern terms, the idea is that electrons move many times faster than atoms, so the electrons are always in equilibrium when atoms move (the Born–Oppenheimer approximation). With this approximation, each asperity contact during sliding is equivalent to a stationary one; there is no direct coupling between the sliding velocity and electron motion.[57] An alternative view (beyond the Born–Oppenheimer approximation) is that sliding acts as a quantum mechanical pump which can excite electrons to go from one material to another.[58] A different suggestion is that local heating during sliding matters,[59] an idea first suggested by Frenkel in 1941.[60] Other papers have considered that local bending at the nanoscale produces voltages which help drive charge transfer via the flexoelectric effect.[61][62] There are also suggestions that surface or trapped charges are important.[63][64] More recently there have been attempts to include a full solid state description.[65][66][67][58]

Explanations and mechanisms

[edit]

From early work starting around the end of the 19th century[27][28][29] a large amount of information is available about what, empirically, causes triboelectricity. While there is extensive experimental data on triboelectricity there is not as yet full scientific consensus on the source,[68][69] or perhaps more probably the sources. Some aspects are established, and will be part of the full picture:

  • Work function differences between the two materials.[49]
  • Local curvature, strain and roughness.[41][1][70]
  • The forces used during sliding, and the velocities when particles collide as well as the sizes.[3][56]
  • The electronic structure of the materials, and the crystallographic orientation of the two contacting materials.[37]
  • Surface or interface states, as well as environmental factors such as humidity.[37][49]

Triboelectric series

[edit]
A simple triboelectric series

An empirical approach to triboelectricity is a triboelectric series. This is a list of materials ordered by how they develop a charge relative to other materials on the list. Johan Carl Wilcke published the first one in a 1757 paper.[24][25] The series was expanded by Shaw[1] and Henniker[71] by including natural and synthetic polymers, and included alterations in the sequence depending on surface and environmental conditions. Lists vary somewhat as to the order of some materials.[1][71]

Another triboelectric series based on measuring the triboelectric charge density of materials was proposed by the group of Zhong Lin Wang. The triboelectric charge density of the tested materials was measured with respect to liquid mercury in a glove box under well-defined conditions, with fixed temperature, pressure and humidity.[72][73]

Cyclic triboelectric series example, illustrating that a linear approach does not work in practice

It is known that this approach is too simple and unreliable.[37][49][74] There are many observed cases of triboelectric interactions that are intransitive with respect to the materials involved, an issue mentioned by Shaw in 1914.[29] There exist materials A, B, and C, where A charges positively when rubbed against B, B charges positively when rubbed against C, and C charges positively when rubbed against A. This cyclic relation cannot be explained by the a linear triboelectric series.[75] Furthermore, there are many cases where charging occurs with contacts between two pieces of the same material.[76][77][47] This has been modelled as a consequence of the electric fields from local bending (flexoelectricity).[61][62][78]

Work function differences

[edit]
When the two metals depicted here are in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other as shown (equal Fermi levels), the vacuum electrostatic potential ϕ is not flat due to a difference in work function.

In all materials there is a positive electrostatic potential from the positive atomic nuclei, partially balanced by a negative electrostatic potential of what can be described as a sea of electrons.[36] The average potential is positive, what is called the mean inner potential (MIP). Different materials have different MIPs, depending upon the types of atoms and how close they are. At a surface the electrons also spill out a little into the vacuum, as analyzed in detail by Kohn and Liang.[36][79] This leads to a dipole at the surface. Combined, the dipole and the MIP lead to a potential barrier for electrons to leave a material which is called the work function.[36]

A rationalization of the triboelectric series is that different members have different work functions, so electrons can go from the material with a small work function to one with a large.[37] The potential difference between the two materials is called the Volta potential, also called the contact potential. Experiments have validated the importance of this for metals and other materials.[48] However, because the surface dipoles vary for different surfaces of any solid[36][79] the contact potential is not a universal parameter. By itself it cannot explain many of the results which were established in the early 20th century.[42][43][41]

For completeness, it should be mentioned that the original concept of a Volta potential came from a model to explain the function of an electric battery (Voltaic pile). The concept was a simplified form where contact between two metals led to a force to transfer electrons, what is called contact tension. This was extensively debated in the 19th century, the conclusion being that this was not the driving force for battery operation.[80][81]

Electromechanical contributions

[edit]

Whenever a solid is strained, electric fields can be generated. One process is due to linear strains, and is called piezoelectricity, the second depends upon how rapidly strains are changing with distance (derivative) and is called flexoelectricity. Both are established science, and can be both measured and calculated using density functional theory methods. Because flexoelectricity depends upon a gradient it can be much larger at the nanoscale during sliding or contact of asperity between two objects.[38]

There has been considerable work on the connection between piezoelectricity and triboelectricity.[82][83] While it can be important, piezoelectricity only occurs in the small number of materials which do not have inversion symmetry,[36] so it is not a general explanation. It has recently been suggested that flexoelectricity may be very important[61] in triboelectricity as it occurs in all insulators and semiconductors.[84][85] Quite a few of the experimental results such as the effect of curvature can be explained by this approach, although full details have not as yet been determined.[62] There is also early work from Shaw and Hanstock,[33] and from the group of Daniel Lacks demonstrating that strain matters.[86][87][70]

Capacitor charge compensation model

[edit]
Capacitor schematic with dielectric

An explanation that has appeared in different forms is analogous to charge on a capacitor. If there is a potential difference between two materials due to the difference in their work functions (contact potential), this can be thought of as equivalent to the potential difference across a capacitor. The charge to compensate this is that which cancels the electric field. If an insulating dielectric is in between the two materials, then this will lead to a polarization density and a bound surface charge of , where is the surface normal.[88][89] The total charge in the capacitor is then the combination of the bound surface charge from the polarization and that from the potential.

The triboelectric charge from this compensation model has been frequently considered as a key component.[90][91][92][93] If the additional polarization due to strain (piezoelectricity) or bending of samples (flexoelectricity) is included[61][62] this can explain observations such as the effect of curvature[41] or inhomogeneous charging.[78]

Electron and/or ion transfer

[edit]

There is debate about whether electrons or ions are transferred in triboelectricity. For instance, Harper[49] discusses both possibilities, whereas Vick[37] was more in favor of electron transfer. The debate remains to this day with, for instance, George M. Whitesides advocating for ions,[94] while Diaz and Fenzel-Alexander[95] as well as Laurence D. Marks support both,[61][62] and others just electrons.[96]

Thermodynamic irreversibility

[edit]

In the latter half of the 20th century the Soviet school led by chemist Boris Derjaguin argued that triboelectricity and the associated phenomenon of triboluminescence are fundamentally irreversible.[97] A similar point of view to Derjaguin's has been more recently advocated by Seth Putterman and his collaborators at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).[98][99]

A proposed theory of triboelectricity as a fundamentally irreversible process was published in 2020 by theoretical physicists Robert Alicki and Alejandro Jenkins.[58] They argued that the electrons in the two materials that slide against each other have different velocities, giving a non-equilibrium state. Quantum effects cause this imbalance to pump electrons from one material to the other.[58] This is a fermionic analog of the mechanism of rotational superradiance originally described by Yakov Zeldovich for bosons.[58] Electrons are pumped in both directions, but small differences in the electronic potential landscapes for the two surfaces can cause net charging.[58] Alicki and Jenkins argue that such an irreversible pumping is needed to understand how the triboelectric effect can generate an electromotive force.[58][100]

Humidity

[edit]

Generally, increased humidity (water in the air) leads to a decrease in the magnitude of triboelectric charging.[101] The size of this effect varies greatly depending on the contacting materials; the decrease in charging ranges from up to a factor of 10 or more to very little humidity dependence.[102] Some experiments find increased charging at moderate humidity compared to extremely dry conditions before a subsequent decrease at higher humidity.[103] The most widespread explanation is that higher humidity leads to more water adsorbed at the surface of contacting materials, leading to a higher surface conductivity.[104][105] The higher conductivity allows for greater charge recombination as contacts separate, resulting in a smaller transfer of charge.[104][106][107] Another proposed explanation for humidity effects considers the case when charge transfer is observed to increase with humidity in dry conditions. Increasing humidity may lead to the formation of water bridges between contacting materials that promote the transfer of ions.[103]

Examples

[edit]

Friction and adhesion from tribocharging

[edit]

Friction[108] is a retarding force due to different energy dissipation process such as elastic and plastic deformation, phonon and electron excitation, and also adhesion.[109] As an example, in a car or any other vehicle the wheels elastically deform as they roll. Part of the energy needed for this deformation is recovered (elastic deformation), some is not and goes into heating the tires. The energy which is not recovered contributes to the back force, a process called rolling friction.

Similar to rolling friction there are energy terms in charge transfer, which contribute to friction. In static friction there is coupling between elastic strains, polarization and surface charge which contributes to the frictional force.[84] In sliding friction,[110] when asperities contact[38] and there is charge transfer, some of the charge returns as the contacts are released, some does not[111] and will contribute to the macroscopically observed friction. There is evidence for a retarding Coulomb force between asperities of different charges,[112] and an increase in the adhesion from contact electrification when geckos walk on water.[113] There is also evidence of connections between jerky (stick–slip) processes during sliding with charge transfer,[44] electrical discharge[114] and x-ray emission.[98] How large the triboelectric contribution is to friction has been debated. It has been suggested by some[112] that it may dominate for polymers, whereas Harper[115] has argued that it is small.

Liquids and gases

[edit]
Illustration of tribocharge generated from a sliding drop

The generation of static electricity from the relative motion of liquids or gases is well established, with one of the first analyses in 1886 by Lord Kelvin in his water dropper which used falling drops to create an electric generator.[116] Liquid mercury is a special case as it typically acts as a simple metal, so has been used as a reference electrode.[2] More common is water, and electricity due to water droplets hitting surfaces has been documented since the discovery by Philipp Lenard in 1892 of the spray electrification or waterfall effect.[117][118] This is when falling water generates static electricity either by collisions between water drops or with the ground, leading to the finer mist in updrafts being mainly negatively charged, with positive near the lower surface. It can also occur for sliding drops.[119]

Another type of charge can be produced during rapid solidification of water containing ions, which is called the Workman–Reynolds effect.[120] During the solidification the positive and negative ions may not be equally distributed between the liquid and solid.[121] For instance, in thunderstorms this can contribute (together with the waterfall effect) to separation of positive hydrogen ions and negative hydroxide ions, leading to static charge and lightning.[122]

A third class is associated with contact potential differences between liquids or gases and other materials, similar to the work function differences for solids. It has been suggested that a triboelectric series for liquids is useful.[123] One difference from solids is that often liquids have charged double layers, and most of the work to date supports that ion transfer (rather than electron) dominates for liquids[124] as first suggested by Irving Langmuir in 1938.[125]

Finally, with liquids there can be flow-rate gradients at interfaces, and also viscosity gradients. These can produce electric fields and also polarization of the liquid, a field called electrohydrodynamics.[126] These are analogous to the electromechanical terms for solids where electric fields can occur due to elastic strains as described earlier.

Powders

[edit]

During commercial powder processing[3][127][128] or in natural processes such as dust storms,[129][130][8] triboelectric charge transfer can occur. There can be electric fields of up to 160kV/m with moderate wind conditions, which leads to Coulomb forces of about the same magnitude as gravity.[131] There does not need to be air present, significant charging can occur, for instance, on airless planetary bodies.[132] With pharmaceutic powders and other commercial powders the tribocharging needs to be controlled for quality control of the materials and doses. Static discharge is also a particular hazard in grain elevators owing to the danger of a dust explosion,[133] in places that store explosive powders,[134] and in many other cases.[135] Triboelectric powder separation has been discussed as a method of separating powders, for instance different biopolymers.[136] The principle here is that different degrees of charging can be exploited for electrostatic separation, a general concept for powders.[137]

In industry

[edit]
Static electricity hazard sign (ISO 7010)

There are many areas in industry where triboelectricity is known to be an issue. some examples are:

  • Non-conducting pipes carrying combustible liquids or fuels such as petrol can result in tribocharge accumulation on the walls of the pipes, which can lead to potentials as large as 90 kV.[138] Pneumatic transport systems in industry can lead to fires due to the tribocharge generated during use.[139]
  • On ships, contact between cargo and pipelines during loading and unloading, as well as flow in steam pipes and water jets in cleaning machines can lead to dangerous charging.[140] Courses exist to teach mariners the dangers.[141]
  • US authorities require nearly all industrial facilities to measure particulate dust emissions. Various sensors based on triboelectricity are used, and in 1997 the United States Environmental Protection Agency issued guidelines for triboelectric fabric-filter bag leak-detection systems.[142] Commercial sensors are available for triboelectric dust detection.[143]
  • Wiping a rail near a chemical tank while it is being filled with a flammable chemical can lead to sparks which ignite the chemical. This was the cause of a 2017 explosion that killed one and injured many.[144]

Other examples

[edit]
Static wicks on a Winglet Airbus A319-132

While the simple case of stroking a cat is familiar to many, there are other areas in modern technological civilization where triboelectricity is exploited or is a concern:

  • Air moving past an aircraft can lead to a buildup of charge called "precipitation static" or "P-static"; aircraft typically have one or more static wicks to remove it.[145] Checking the status of these is a standard task for pilots.[146] Similarly, helicopter blades move fast, and tribocharging can generate voltages up to 200 kV.[147]
  • During planetary formation, a key step is aggregation of dust or smaller particles.[9] There is evidence that triboelectric charging during collisions of granular material plays a key role in overcoming barriers to aggregation.[148]
  • Single-use medical protective clothing must fulfill certain triboelectric charging regulations in China.[149]
  • Space vehicles can accumulate significant tribocharge which can interfere with communications such as the sending of self-destruct signals. Some launches have been delayed by weather conditions where tribocharging could occur.[150]
  • Triboelectric nanogenerators are energy harvesting devices which convert mechanical energy into electricity.[151]
  • Triboelectric noise within medical cable assemblies and lead wires is generated when the conductors, insulation, and fillers rub against each other as the cables are flexed during movement. Keeping triboelectric noise at acceptable levels requires careful material selection, design, and processing.[152] It is also an issue with underwater electroacoustic transducers if there are flexing motions of the cables; the mechanism is believed to involve relative motion between a dielectric and a conductor in the cable.[153]
Antistatic belts on a car in Russia in 2014
  • The carbon black added to vehicle tires helps to conduct away tribocharge that could shock passengers when they exit.[154] There are also discharging straps that can be purchased.[155]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
The triboelectric effect is a type of contact electrification in which two dissimilar materials become electrically charged upon frictional contact and subsequent separation, with electrons transferring from one material to the other based on their relative positions in the triboelectric series. This phenomenon, which generates , occurs due to the intimate contact at the atomic or molecular level, leading to charge imbalance and potential differences that can reach thousands of volts. First observed around 600 BCE by the Greek philosopher , who noted that rubbing with fur attracted lightweight objects like straw, the effect derives its name from the Greek word "tribo," meaning to rub. The mechanism of the triboelectric effect involves the transfer of electrons across the interface between materials, driven by differences in their work functions, , or chemical affinities for electrons. Materials higher in the triboelectric series tend to lose electrons and become positively charged, while those lower gain electrons and become negatively charged; for instance, (PTFE) is typically at the negative end, while or is at the positive end. Factors such as , , contact , and influence the magnitude of charge transfer, with low-humidity environments enhancing the effect. Although the exact microscopic processes remain under investigation, recent studies using liquid metals like mercury have quantified charge densities for over 50 polymers, establishing a standardized triboelectric series under controlled conditions (e.g., 20°C and 0.43% relative humidity). In modern applications, the triboelectric effect powers triboelectric nanogenerators (TENGs), devices invented in 2012 that harvest from motion, such as human walking, , or ocean waves, converting it into electrical energy for sustainable power sources. TENGs have enabled self-powered sensors for health monitoring (e.g., respiratory tracking via smart masks), environmental sensing (e.g., vibration detection in smart cities), and blue energy harvesting, where networks could generate up to 1.15 MW per square kilometer from ocean waves. With over 16,000 research papers published since their inception as of 2024, TENGs address challenges in powering the (IoT) and wearable electronics, offering low-cost, flexible alternatives to traditional batteries.

Historical Development

Ancient and Early Observations

The earliest documented observation of the triboelectric effect is attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher around 585 BC, who reported that , when rubbed with cloth or fur, acquired the ability to attract lightweight objects such as feathers, straw, or hair. This qualitative description, preserved in later accounts by and others, highlighted the mysterious attractive power of "elektron"—the Greek term for —without any mechanistic explanation. Throughout antiquity, similar anecdotal reports appeared in Greek and Roman literature, often linking static phenomena to natural materials like fur, wool, and resinous substances. For instance, writers such as in his treatise On Stones alluded to 's frictional properties, while in his (circa 77 AD) described how rubbed could draw straws and other small particles, treating it as a curious property of gem-like materials sourced from the . These accounts portrayed the effect as an enchanting or animistic quality, sometimes associating it with the "soul" of objects, but remained limited to casual observations rather than controlled demonstrations. In the early , qualitative experiments began to explore these phenomena more demonstratively. Around 1663, German engineer and inventor created a globe mounted on an axis, which, when hand-rotated and rubbed, generated visible in the dark, produced a repulsive "electric wind," and attracted light objects to its surface. Guericke's device marked a shift toward repeatable displays, though still focused on sensory effects rather than measurement. These early observations collectively transitioned into the formal study of "," a term derived from the Greek elektron and later coined by William Gilbert in 1600.

Key Scientific Milestones

Building on ancient observations, such as Thales of Miletus's report around 600 BCE of attracting light objects when rubbed, the 17th and 18th centuries saw systematic experiments that began to formalize the triboelectric effect as a distinct electrical phenomenon. In 1600, English physician William Gilbert published , where he clearly distinguished electric attraction from magnetism through experiments involving rubbed and other substances like glass and sealing wax. Gilbert demonstrated that electric attraction could act at a distance without contact and affected non-magnetic materials, coining the term "electric" derived from the Greek word for , elektron. He emphasized that while similar in attracting light bodies, electric effects were fundamentally separate from magnetic ones, marking a pivotal step in isolating triboelectricity as a unique force. Early in the 1700s, advanced frictional electricity studies by developing an using partially evacuated tubes rubbed with wool or hands. His 1705–1709 experiments, detailed in Physico-Mechanical Experiments on Various Subjects, showed that on produced not only attraction of light particles but also a luminous glow in , highlighting the role of mechanical contact in charge generation and influencing later electrical machines. In the 1730s, French chemist Charles François du Fay conducted key experiments revealing two opposing types of produced by . Rubbing glass or gems yielded "vitreous" electricity, which repelled similarly charged bodies but attracted "resinous" electricity from rubbed or ; conversely, like charges repelled and opposites attracted, establishing the concept of positive and negative charges in triboelectric interactions. Du Fay's findings, reported to the , shifted understanding from a single electrical fluid to dual natures, directly informed by triboelectric rubbing. A major milestone came in 1757 when Swedish physicist Johan Carl Wilcke published the first triboelectric series in his dissertation Disputatio physica experimentalis de electricitatibus contrariis. This ordered list of 11 materials—ranging from smooth (most positive) through wool, quills, wood, paper, , white wax, rough , lead, and to other metals (most negative)—ranked substances by their relative tendency to acquire positive or negative charge upon frictional contact, providing an empirical framework for predicting triboelectric behavior.

Theoretical Evolution in the Modern Era

In the early , P. E. Shaw conducted extensive experiments on contact between 1914 and 1930, establishing foundational empirical data on charge generation during material interactions. His work, including detailed studies on the triboelectric series and the effects of and air-blown particles, led him to hypothesize that transfer, rather than alone, played a significant role in the charging process, particularly under varying environmental conditions like . Shaw's numerous publications, including a series in the , provided quantitative measurements of charge polarity and magnitude, influencing subsequent theoretical models by highlighting the reproducibility and material-specific nature of tribocharging. By the 1950s, quantum mechanical interpretations began to emerge, integrating concepts like tunneling to explain charge transfer across material interfaces. F.A. Vick's theoretical framework in 1953 proposed that contact electrification could be modeled using quantum tunneling of s through potential barriers formed at the junction of metals and insulators, accounting for observed charge asymmetries without relying solely on classical ion mobility. This approach marked a shift from purely empirical observations to microscopic quantum descriptions, predicting charge buildup proportional to the tunneling probability and contact time. Vick's model laid groundwork for understanding insulator-insulator charging, where traditional fell short. A significant advancement came in 2020 with the quantum thermodynamic model developed by Robert Alicki and Alejandro Jenkins, which framed the triboelectric effect as an driven by mechanical dissipation. Their posits that rubbing induces non-equilibrium electron state populations at the interface, leading to sustained charge separation due to thermodynamic irreversibility, with the generated voltage scaling with sliding velocity. This model resolves longstanding paradoxes in triboelectricity by linking macroscopic energy dissipation to quantum-level charge dynamics, predicting a maximum tribovoltage and offering testable predictions for device efficiency. Post-2020 has further refined these ideas through quantum-level simulations of charge transfer at interfaces. Recent theoretical advances as of 2025 include models of triboelectric charge transfer driven by interfacial thermoelectric effects, providing a quantification method for charge dynamics in frictional contacts. These developments support the evolution of predictive models for triboelectric .

Fundamental Principles

Basic Characteristics

The triboelectric effect is a contact electrification in which electric charges are generated when two dissimilar materials are brought into physical contact, rubbed together, or separated, leading to electrostatic attraction or repulsion between the surfaces. This process, one of the earliest observed forms of , occurs due to the intimate interaction at the material interfaces, resulting in one surface becoming positively charged and the other negatively charged. The effect is observable in everyday scenarios, such as the static cling of or the attraction of to surfaces, and manifests as a potential difference that can drive currents in suitable setups. A classic demonstration illustrates these properties: rubbing a rod, such as one made of acrylic or Teflon, with or charges the rod negatively, enabling it to attract lightweight neutral objects like bits of paper or peanuts through . This simple experiment highlights the effect's reliance on frictional contact to produce measurable electrostatic forces, with the rod's charge persisting until discharged. The charge generated is influenced by several macroscopic variables, including surface curvature, which affects the distribution of ; contact , which determines the duration and intensity of interaction; applied , which modulates the real area of contact; and material cleanliness, as contaminants can reduce charge transfer efficiency by altering surface properties. For instance, smoother and cleaner surfaces under moderate and tend to yield more consistent charging, though optimal conditions vary by material pair. Despite these dependencies, the triboelectric effect remains inherently unpredictable in terms of charge polarity and magnitude, primarily because of microscopic surface asperities that create uneven contact points and environmental factors like , which can dissipate charges through conduction. This variability often leads to inconsistent results in repeated trials, even under controlled conditions, underscoring the effect's sensitivity to subtle surface and ambient influences. Materials can be qualitatively ordered in a triboelectric series to anticipate relative charging tendencies, though exact predictions require empirical .

Triboelectric Series

The triboelectric series is a hierarchical list that ranks materials according to their tendency to acquire a positive or negative charge when brought into contact or rubbed together, with materials at the positive end losing electrons (becoming positively charged) and those at the negative end gaining electrons (becoming negatively charged). This ranking provides a predictive framework for the direction and relative magnitude of charge transfer between pairs of materials during triboelectrification. The concept originated in 1757 when Johan Carl Wilcke published the first empirical triboelectric series in his work on , listing about ten materials based on observed charging behaviors. Modern iterations, such as the charge affinity scale developed by Zhong Lin Wang and colleagues in the , quantify these tendencies using triboelectric (TECD) measurements, achieving values up to approximately 1000 μC/m² under controlled conditions like contact with electrodes. A typical triboelectric series arranges common materials from positive to negative charging propensity as follows: , , aluminum, , , wood, hard rubber, and , and Teflon. For instance, rubbing against Teflon results in the glass becoming positively charged and Teflon negatively charged, with the charge separation magnitude depending on the materials' relative positions. Despite its utility, the triboelectric series has limitations due to its context-dependency; rankings can vary with environmental factors such as , which promotes charge dissipation through water layer formation, and surface treatments like roughness or that alter efficiency. Thus, the series is not universal and requires empirical validation for specific applications or conditions.

Explanatory Mechanisms

Work Function Differences

The work function, denoted as ϕ\phi, represents the minimum energy required to extract an electron from the Fermi level of a material to a point in the vacuum immediately outside the surface. This property is fundamental to understanding electron transfer in the triboelectric effect, particularly for metals where surface states are well-defined. In the context of triboelectric charging, when two materials with differing work functions ϕ1\phi_1 and ϕ2\phi_2 (where ϕ1<ϕ2\phi_1 < \phi_2) are brought into intimate contact, electrons flow from the lower-work-function material to the higher-work-function one to align their Fermi levels at equilibrium. This unidirectional electron transfer generates opposite surface charges on the materials, with the magnitude depending on the work function disparity. The resulting contact potential difference is given by ΔV=ϕ2ϕ1e,\Delta V = \frac{\phi_2 - \phi_1}{e}, where ee is the elementary charge. The total transferred charge QQ can then be approximated as QCΔVQ \approx C \Delta V, with CC being the effective capacitance of the interface. This model highlights how work function differences drive the initial charge separation without requiring mechanical stress or other external factors. Experimental evidence supports this mechanism through observed correlations between work functions and triboelectric charging behavior in metals. For instance, when various metals are contacted with liquid mercury (ϕ4.475\phi \approx 4.475 eV), those with work functions below this value acquire a net positive charge, while those above acquire a negative charge, with charge magnitude increasing with the work function difference. Such patterns align with the ordering of metals in the triboelectric series, where position reflects relative electron-donating or -accepting tendencies based on ϕ\phi.

Electromechanical Contributions

The electromechanical contributions to the triboelectric effect arise from mechanical stresses induced during frictional contact, which generate additional charge separation through polarization in materials. These contributions complement contact electrification by leveraging deformation to produce bound charges that enhance overall charging efficiency. plays a key role in this process, occurring in non-centrosymmetric materials where mechanical deformation displaces charge centers, creating electric dipoles and a macroscopic potential difference. In materials like , an asymmetric allows stress to induce polarization, with the direct piezoelectric effect generating positive or negative charges depending on the deformation direction—tensile stress typically yields positive potential, while yields negative. During triboelectric interactions, frictional contact applies localized stresses that deform these materials, polarizing them and contributing bound charges to the interface; for instance, in hybrid nanogenerators using (PVDF), a piezoelectric , deformation synchronizes with contact-separation cycles to amplify , achieving outputs up to 370 V and 12 μA/cm². This mechanism adds to charge separation by driving flow in response to mechanical input, particularly in press-and-release scenarios where PVDF operates in d31 mode. Flexoelectricity extends this electromechanical influence to all materials, generating voltage from non-uniform strain gradients rather than uniform stress, which is especially relevant in thin films or nanoscale contacts where gradients are pronounced. In triboelectric charging, indentation and pull-off during create strain gradients that induce flexoelectric polarization, leading to bound charges at the surface and facilitating free charge transfer across the interface. This effect is modeled to drive triboelectricity even between similar materials, with band at the contact modulating charge injection based on deformation and pressure, implying size-dependent charging behaviors. For example, in films subjected to bending, flexoelectric contributions enhance charging by polarizing the material through curvature-induced gradients, increasing surface without requiring .

Capacitor Charge Compensation Model

The capacitor charge compensation model conceptualizes the triboelectric effect as the charging process between two contacting surfaces that behave analogously to the plates of a parallel-plate . In this framework, the two surfaces initially possess a potential difference, often arising from differences in their work functions, and upon intimate contact, charge redistributes to equalize this potential while maintaining overall electrical neutrality. This model, originally proposed in studies of particle charging and later applied more broadly, treats the contact interface as a with capacitance CC determined by the geometry of the contact area and the effective separation distance. During the contact phase, electrons flow between the surfaces to compensate for the initial potential difference, effectively charging the until equilibrium is reached. The quantity of charge transferred, QQ, is given by Q=σAQ = \sigma A, where σ\sigma is the surface induced on each plate and AA is the contact area. The associated electrostatic stored in this process is W=12Q2CW = \frac{1}{2} \frac{Q^2}{C}, representing the work done to separate the charges against the building . This expression highlights the model's emphasis on electrostatic storage, with CC typically approximated as C=ϵ0Az0C = \epsilon_0 \frac{A}{z_0}, where ϵ0\epsilon_0 is the of free space and z0z_0 is a critical gap distance related to the contact intimacy. Upon separation of the surfaces, the capacitor effectively opens, leaving opposite charges trapped on each surface due to their insulating properties or limited conductivity, which prevents immediate neutralization. This residual charge separation generates an between the surfaces, proportional to σ\sigma, and persists until occurs through environmental factors or further contacts. The model thus predicts that the triboelectric charging scales with the contact area AA and the initial potential difference, providing a quantitative basis for observed charge magnitudes in various material pairs. This framework is particularly applicable to explaining post-charging forces, where the separated charges create an attractive electrostatic interaction between the surfaces, enhancing cohesion in granular systems or during detachment in mechanical processes. For instance, in handling, the model accounts for how accumulated triboelectric charges increase particle-wall , influencing flow dynamics and requiring compensation strategies to mitigate buildup. By focusing on macroscopic charge redistribution via , the model complements microscopic explanations without delving into material-specific band structures.

Electron and Ion Transfer

The triboelectric effect involves a longstanding debate over whether charge transfer primarily occurs via , , material (mass) transfer, or combinations thereof, depending on material properties and environmental conditions. Early models emphasized as the dominant mechanism, while later studies highlighted the role of and material transfer, particularly in insulating polymers and humid environments. This section explores these hypotheses, supporting evidence from spectroscopic analyses, and hybrid models distinguishing behaviors in insulators versus conductors. The electron transfer hypothesis posits that charge arises from direct quantum tunneling or thermionic emission of electrons across the contacting interfaces of materials. In quantum tunneling models, electrons move between surfaces without classical energy barriers, driven by wavefunction overlap during intimate contact, leading to charge separation upon separation. Thermionic emission, alternatively, involves electrons gaining thermal energy to overcome work function barriers at elevated interface temperatures generated by friction, facilitating unidirectional flow from lower to higher work function materials. These processes are particularly relevant for metallic or semiconducting contacts where electron mobility is high. In contrast, the ion transfer hypothesis suggests that charge transfer involves the migration of material-specific s, such as hydroxide ions (OH⁻) in s, facilitated by chemical bonds or adsorbed layers at the interface. For instance, during contact between polymer surfaces, a thin water bridge can form, enabling selective adsorption and transfer of OH⁻ s to the more hydrophilic due to differences in solvation energies. This mechanism is prominent in insulators, where electron mobility is low, and charge buildup stems from redistribution rather than free electron flow. transfer, another key mechanism, involves the physical exchange of microscopic patches or molecules between surfaces, leading to net charge imbalance based on differing electron affinities of the transferred ; this is especially significant for s and granular systems. Spectroscopic studies have provided evidence for these mechanisms, fueling ongoing debates about their relative contributions. Techniques like (XPS) and (KPFM) have detected shifts in binding energies indicative of in dry, conductor-insulator pairs, while reveals ion-specific signatures, such as OH⁻ stretching modes, in contacts under ambient . Hybrid models reconcile these findings by proposing electron-dominated transfer in conductors, where rapid equilibration occurs via delocalized states, versus ion- or material-dominated processes in insulators, where localized charges persist due to trapping sites; these models predict context-dependent charging, with transitions observed at humidity thresholds around 50% relative humidity. Recent studies from 2022 to 2023 on liquid-solid interfaces, particularly involving drops, have strengthened the transfer role by demonstrating charge acquisition through selective adsorption during droplet impact and sliding. For example, experiments with falling drops on hydrophobic surfaces showed net positive charging of the drops (negative on the surface) correlated with OH⁻ adsorption and mobility at the interface, quantified via measurements, highlighting dynamics in fluidic triboelectric systems. These insights suggest that in aqueous environments, transfer can dominate even over mechanisms, influencing applications like droplet-based harvesters.

Thermodynamic Irreversibility

The triboelectric effect is characterized by thermodynamic irreversibility, wherein mechanical contact and subsequent separation of materials result in persistent charge separation that does not spontaneously reverse without external input. This irreversibility stems from the second law of thermodynamics, as the process generates through dissipative mechanisms, such as frictional heating and non-equilibrium charge redistribution, ensuring that recombination is suppressed in the absence of work to overcome the barrier. The net outcome is a path-dependent charging state, where the magnitude and polarity of the separated charge depend on the history of mechanical interactions rather than equilibrium thermodynamics alone. A comprehensive model for this irreversibility was developed by Alicki and Jenkins in 2020, employing quantum master equations to describe surface electrons as an coupled to bulk reservoirs of the contacting materials. In this framework, rubbing induces a velocity-dependent in the electronic states, driving irreversible charge currents between the reservoirs while accounting for dissipation into the environment. The approach treats the triboelectric interface as a nonequilibrium , where input sustains the charge imbalance against thermal relaxation. Central to this thermodynamic description is the rate σ0\sigma \geq 0, a hallmark of irreversible processes in open systems, which captures the dissipation inherent to charge transfer. This production links to the separated charge QQ via the statistical change ΔS=klnΩ\Delta S = k \ln \Omega, where kk is Boltzmann's constant and Ω\Omega denotes the increased number of accessible microstates following charge separation and dispersal into the reservoirs. serves as the primary dissipative channel, amplifying entropy and rendering tribocharging fundamentally non-reversible and dependent on the mechanical pathway.

Environmental Influences

The triboelectric effect is significantly modulated by environmental factors, with relative humidity (RH) playing a dominant role in charge generation and retention. At low RH levels (below 20%), triboelectric charging proceeds efficiently due to the insulating nature of dry surfaces, allowing charges to accumulate without rapid dissipation. However, as RH increases, water molecules adsorb onto material surfaces, forming thin conductive layers that enhance surface conductivity (σ) and facilitate leakage, thereby reducing net charge buildup. This effect becomes particularly pronounced above 40% RH, where adsorbed water bridges provide pathways for charge neutralization, often limiting charging to negligible levels in highly humid conditions such as during rainfall. Quantitatively, the charge decay τ follows τ = ε / σ, where ε is the material ; humidity-induced increases in σ can accelerate charge relaxation by factors of up to 12 times from 25% to 75% RH for hydroxyl-rich surfaces. Temperature also influences triboelectric charging by altering mobility and contact dynamics. Elevated temperatures enhance atomic and electronic mobility at interfaces, promoting greater or ion transfer during contact, which can increase charge magnitudes in some material pairs. Conversely, low temperatures may stiffen surfaces, reducing contact intimacy and thus suppressing charging efficiency. Studies on granular materials show that temperature variations of 10–30°C can modulate charge transfer rates by 20–50%, with warmer conditions generally favoring higher charging in dry environments. Atmospheric gases further mediate the triboelectric process by affecting availability and discharge mechanisms. In air, ambient s and gas molecules can neutralize surface charges or trigger corona discharges, capping maximum charge accumulation, unlike in where higher charges are possible without gaseous breakdown. For instance, experiments with triboelectric nanogenerators filled with air components (N₂, O₂, CO₂, etc.) demonstrate that oxygen-rich atmospheres enhance positive charge transfer due to increased , while inert gases like reduce ion-mediated dissipation. These gas effects are most evident in open-air systems, where influences the availability of charge-compensating species.

Applications and Manifestations

Everyday and Natural Examples

One common manifestation of the triboelectric effect in daily life occurs when individuals experience static shocks after walking across carpets, particularly with synthetic shoes like those made of nylon rubbing against wool or polyester fibers. This friction causes electron transfer between the materials, leaving the person negatively charged and the carpet positively charged, which can discharge as a spark upon touching a grounded object like a doorknob. Similarly, combing dry hair with a plastic comb generates static electricity through triboelectric charging, where the comb typically acquires a negative charge and the hair a positive one, often causing hair to stand on end or attract small particles. This effect is more pronounced in low-humidity environments, as dry conditions reduce charge dissipation. In clothing, triboelectric interactions during rubbing in dryers lead to static cling, where oppositely charged fabrics or lint particles adhere due to electrostatic attraction, such as polyester garments sticking to skin or collecting dust. In natural settings, the triboelectric effect contributes to electrification in atmospheric phenomena like dust devils and sandstorms, where colliding particles separate charges, generating electric fields up to 180 kV/m that can influence particle dynamics and even produce . Volcanic eruptions also exhibit this through triboelectric charging of ash particles during collisions in the plume, leading to significant charge buildup observable hundreds of kilometers from the vent and potentially triggering discharges.

Industrial and Practical Uses

The triboelectric effect plays a key role in electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) used for dust removal in coal-fired power plants, where frictional contact between particles and collector surfaces imparts charges to fine ash particles, enhancing their capture efficiency in dry or hybrid systems. In these applications, tribocharging supplements traditional corona methods to improve collection of submicron particles. In powder coating processes, triboelectric charging is employed to electrostatically attract dry powder particles to grounded metal substrates, enabling uniform application without solvents and minimizing waste. The powder, typically composed of polymers like epoxy or polyester, acquires charge through friction with the gun's insulating barrel, achieving transfer efficiencies of 90-95% and facilitating curing at lower temperatures. Similarly, in pharmaceutical powder handling, controlled triboelectric charging prevents clumping by inducing uniform repulsion between particles during mixing and tableting, as demonstrated in simulations of blender collisions where charge magnitudes influence flowability and adhesion. This approach, often combined with humidity control to dissipate excess charge, ensures consistent dosing and reduces segregation in hygroscopic APIs. Aircraft utilize to safely discharge triboelectric charge buildup from friction with atmospheric particles and ions during flight, preventing interference with and radio communications. These wick-like dischargers, typically carbon-impregnated rubber or conductive fibers attached to trailing edges, ionize surrounding air to bleed off potentials exceeding 10 kV, maintaining safe operation in high-altitude conditions. In inkjet printing, triboelectric charge control mitigates static accumulation on substrates and inks, ensuring precise droplet placement by neutralizing unwanted adhesion through ionized air or conductive rollers. To mitigate explosion hazards in grain handling facilities like silos, grounding and bonding systems are implemented to dissipate triboelectric charges generated during pneumatic conveying and auger transfer, preventing spark ignition of combustible dust clouds. These measures, including metallic straps connecting equipment to earth, reduce static potentials below 1 kV and comply with standards for facilities handling materials with minimum ignition energies as low as 10 mJ.

Advanced Technological Developments

Triboelectric nanogenerators (TENGs), first invented by Zhong Lin Wang in 2012, operate by converting into through the contact-separation mode, where triboelectric charges generated upon contact between two materials drive electron flow across electrodes during separation. This innovation has enabled self-powered systems that harvest ambient without external power sources. In advanced applications, TENGs power wearables and sensors by integrating into flexible fabrics or skin-like patches, providing continuous for health monitoring devices such as trackers. For blue , TENG networks capture wave motion to generate , with large-scale arrays demonstrating viability for sustainable marine power, as reviewed in studies on wave-driven TENG configurations. Recent advances include hybrid TENGs incorporating interfaces, such as the guided- design developed by Yoo et al. in 2023, which enhances omnidirectional wave energy capture for flexible buoys and wearable prototypes through improved contact intimacy between solid and tribolayers. These hybrids achieve output power densities up to 13 mW/cm² under dynamic conditions, enabling efficient charging of small electronics. As of 2025, further progress includes hydrogel-based TENGs for biocompatible wearables and aerogel-integrated s for enhanced energy density. Despite these benefits, TENG production raises concerns, including material degradation from environmental exposure that reduces device lifespan and contributes to e-waste accumulation if non-biodegradable polymers like PTFE are used. Efforts to mitigate impacts involve agro-waste or e-waste into TENG components, promoting principles to minimize ecological footprints.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.