

research papers
Probing the out-of-equilibrium dynamics of driven colloids by X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy
aESRF – The European Synchrotron, 38043 Grenoble, France
*Correspondence e-mail: narayan@esrf.fr
This article is part of a collection of articles related to the 19th International Small-Angle Scattering Conference (SAS2024) in Taipei, Taiwan.
The high
of fourth-generation synchrotron sources coupled with advanced X-ray detectors enables a wide range of dynamic studies of colloids and other soft-matter systems. In particular, the higher fraction of coherent provided by these new sources is a major boost for X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy (XPCS). As a result, not only can equilibrium dynamics be accessed but also relatively fast out-of-equilibrium processes can be investigated by XPCS. This article briefly recalls the statistical properties of coherent scattering and then demonstrates a case study of non-equilibrium fluctuations in a driven colloidal system. A simple example is the resuspension of colloids by vigorous shaking, where the inhomogeneous flow generates local variations in of particles leading to strong velocity fluctuations. The of the particles homogenizes the suspension with time and the system gradually returns to pure diffusive dynamics. On the other hand, in a uniformly sheared suspension of particles, such concentration gradients do not form and upon cessation of shear the return to Brownian dynamics is rapid. These transient non-equilibrium effects can inadvertently influence micrometre-range particle size measurement by means of dynamic scattering methods.Keywords: X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy; XPCS; ultra-small-angle X-ray scattering; USAXS; colloids; out-of-equilibrium dynamics; non-equilibrium fluctuations.
1. Introduction
Fourth-generation synchrotron sources based on multi-bend achromat storage-ring lattices have come into operation in recent years (Eriksson et al., 2014; Shin, 2021
). These X-ray sources together with advanced photon-counting pixel array detectors (Fröjdh et al., 2024
) are very attractive for performing scattering experiments (Narayanan et al., 2023
). Compared with the previous third-generation synchrotrons, these new sources have increased the and degree of transverse coherence of X-ray beams by more than an order of magnitude (Raimondi et al., 2021
; Shin, 2021
). Both small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) and X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy (XPCS) methods benefit from the enhanced and coherence of the X-ray beam. Usually, SAXS experiments are performed using a larger beam consisting of multiple coherence volumes; the smaller beam and lower divergence in the horizontal direction have improved the angular resolution (Narayanan et al., 2022
). The time resolution offered by the current advanced detectors enables probing of kinetic processes in the millisecond range and below by time-resolved SAXS and allied methods (Narayanan, 2024
). Ideally, XPCS requires single or a few coherent scattering volumes (Sutton, 2008
) and therefore the benefit of the new sources is even more significant (Lehmkühler et al., 2021
; Narayanan et al., 2023
). In particular, the higher degree of coherence together with the high frame rate of pixel array detectors enables multispeckle XPCS measurements in the sub-millisecond time range (Zhang et al., 2018
; Zinn et al., 2018
). Furthermore, XPCS down to the sub-microsecond range can be performed at X-ray free-electron laser (XFEL) facilities (Lehmkühler et al., 2021
; Dallari et al., 2021
).
In this article a particular type of out-of-equilibrium dynamics in a driven δv) akin to a sedimenting suspension are observed. In a sedimenting the hydrodynamic back flow caused by neighbouring particles reduces the (v) from the Stokes velocity (vS) (Batchelor, 1972). Fluctuations in the local particle (N) lead to variance in the sedimentation speed that scales with the system size (Caflisch & Luke, 1985
), 〈δv2〉 ∼ L, with L the smallest dimension of the container. Such a diverging variance in sedimentation speed has not been observed experimentally and remains a puzzle (Ramaswamy, 2001
; Guazzelli & Hinch, 2011
; Segrè, 2016
). However, in the present case the colloidal particles are sub-micrometre sized with Péclet number Pe (representing the relative importance of advection over diffusion) ∼0.1. That means dominates over gravitationally induced settling and the macroscopic sedimentation time is of the order of many hours. Nevertheless, thermally induced or Brownian velocity fluctuations can be significant even at low values of Pe and moderate ϕ of particles (Padding & Louis, 2008
).
During the shaking process in a capillary, the suspension is subjected to a high shear that is non-uniform and the long-range hydrodynamic fluctuations thereby induced decay with time. In particular, the spatial and temporal correlations of the hydrodynamic δv are known to exhibit an algebraic long tail (Padding & Louis, 2008). Therefore, the measured intensity–intensity autocorrelation functions g2(q, t) can become affected by this slowly decaying hydrodynamic δv. The thermally induced δv also contributes to g2(q, t) but its magnitude is less significant than self-diffusion (Padding & Louis, 2008
). The hydrodynamic part of δv is anisotropic during sedimentation (Segrè, 2016
; Padding & Louis, 2008
; Möller & Narayanan, 2017
) and a similar anisotropy may be present in shaken samples. As a result, multispeckle XPCS and direction-dependent analysis are critical for this study. The XPCS and SAXS experiments presented here were performed in the ultra-small-angle (UA) configuration by spatially selecting the coherent part of the X-ray beam (Chèvremont et al., 2024
).
2. Experimental methods
2.1. Materials
The main samples used in this study consisted of charge-stabilized silica spheres with a mean radius RS ≃ 300 nm and standard deviation σR ≃ 5.6 nm dispersed in MilliQ water. The (ϕ) of the suspensions varied from 3 × 10−3 to 1.5 × 10−2. A second set of samples with RS ≃ 126 nm and σR ≃ 6.2 nm were also investigated. For the characterization of intensity statistics, a dried film of polystyrene spheres (RS ≃ 1.015 µm and σR ≃ 7.0 nm) was used. For all three sets of particles, RS, σR and ϕ were determined from ultra-small-angle X-ray scattering (USAXS) analysis (Narayanan et al., 2022).
For the shaking experiment, the suspensions were contained in quartz capillaries with internal diameter ∼1 mm and wall thickness ∼10 µm. This capillary size was chosen as a compromise for fast sample displacement and multiple scattering (Semeraro et al., 2018b). For shear experiments, the was contained in a coaxial capillary shear cell coupled to a rheometer (RS6000, Thermo Scientific) (Narayanan et al., 2020
).
2.2. X-ray scattering
UA-XPCS and USAXS experiments were performed on beamline ID02 (TRUSAXS) at the ESRF, Grenoble, France (Narayanan et al., 2022). The measurements covered a scattering vector range of 0.002 ≤ q ≤ 0.1 nm−1 using a sample-to-detector distance dSD of 31 m. Here, q is the magnitude of the scattering vector given by q = (4π/λ)sin(θ/2), with θ the scattering angle and λ the X-ray wavelength ≃ 1 Å. The 2D scattering patterns were acquired by an EIGER 500K (Paul Scherrer Institute) photon-counting pixel array detector with a maximum frame rate of 23000 s−1 (Chèvremont et al., 2024
). The coherent at the sample position was of the order of 1012 photons s−1. For recording the static speckle patterns, a high-resolution fibre-optically coupled charge-coupled device detector (FReLoN: fast readout low noise) (Narayanan et al., 2022
) was also used.
A coherent beam was obtained by closing the primary slits (at 27 m from the source) to 0.15 mm × 0.15 mm and two secondary slits (at 49 and 62 m from the source) to 0.04 mm vertically and 0.015 mm horizontally. The resulting beam was roughly symmetrical with FWHM ≃ 25 µm at the sample position. The degree of coherence was varied by enlarging the gaps of the two secondary slits. From the measured 2D speckle patterns, pixel-by-pixel intensity–intensity autocorrelations were calculated using the Dynamix package (Paleo et al., 2021). The normalized ensemble-averaged two-time correlation function (TTCF) is obtained by averaging these quantities over the desired azimuthal range for a given q (Chèvremont et al., 2024
). The time averaging of the TTCF yielded the time- and ensemble-averaged intensity–intensity autocorrelation function, represented by g2(q, t) with t the lag time. For USAXS, the measured 2D scattering patterns were normalized and azimuthally averaged to obtain the 1D scattering profiles denoted by I(q) (Narayanan et al., 2022
). Further treatment and background subtraction were performed using the SAXSutilities software (Sztucki, 2021
).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characterization of coherence
This section aims to provide a comparison of the degree of coherence between the instrumental configurations used for SAXS/USAXS and XPCS at a fourth-generation synchrotron X-ray source. A distinct feature of coherent scattering is the speckles in the intensity pattern, which are generated by the interference of scattered waves from the randomly distributed structural units in the medium. As a result, speckle visibility from a disordered sample is an elegant way of characterizing the coherence of the beam. The speckle visibility can be quantified in terms of the intensity statistics (Goodman, 1985). With a fully coherent beam, the scattered electric field is a Gaussian random variable, for large values of which the probability distribution tends to be normal or Gaussian following the central limit theorem. As a result, the intensity probability distribution P(I) takes the well known negative exponential form P(I) =
, with 〈I〉 the mean value. In the case of a partially coherent beam, P(I) is better described by a Gamma distribution of the following form (Goodman, 1985
; Abernathy et al., 1998
):
where Γ(M) is the Gamma function, M ≥ 1 is the number of modes or of the distribution, and the speckle contrast βM = 1/M. For M = 1, equation (1) reduces to the negative exponential form. Partial coherence is signified by M > 1 and it represents the number of coherent patches within the scattering volume. M → ∞ corresponds to and P(I) approaches a Gaussian distribution or I becomes a random variable. In the literature, the conventional SAXS measured by a partially coherent beam is sometimes referred to as (Grübel & Zontone, 2004
; van der Veen & Pfeiffer, 2004
), which is not exactly correct. usually originates from an inelastic process (Agarwal, 2013
). The contribution of to the measured intensity in the small-angle region is relatively low (away from an atomic absorption edge), well below 1% (Pavlinsky, 2021
).
Fig. 1 displays static speckle patterns measured from a film of dried polystyrene particles (RS ≃ 1.015 µm and σR ≃ 7 nm) with two different collimation settings at dSD of 31 m using the high-resolution FReLoN detector (Narayanan et al., 2022
). In the upper panel, a nearly coherent beam was obtained by closing the last collimation slits to 40 µm (vertical) and 20 µm (horizontal), resulting in a beam size of 25 µm at the sample position. P(I) in Fig. 1
(b) can be fitted to equation (1
) with M = 3.5. To obtain a better fit of the peak, a larger value of M is needed (4.5), while the tail of the distribution requires a smaller M (2.5). Note that double or multiple scattering events may slightly distort the functional form of P(I) (Semeraro et al., 2018b
). With the larger beam used for USAXS, the speckle visibility is significantly diminished and the corresponding P(I) in Fig. 1
(d) is well described by equation (1
) with M = 16. With a further reduction in speckle visibility, the value of M increases, and therefore M is a good parameter to quantify the degree of coherence. Additional data from a powder sample are shown in the supporting information (Fig. S1).
![]() | Figure 1 Static speckle patterns from dried polystyrene particles (RS ≃ 1.015 µm and σR ≃ 7 nm) measured with two different collimation settings. The intensity statistics P(I) were analysed over the range 2.6 × 10−3 ≤ q ≤ 3.6 × 10−3 nm−1 which covers the structure peak. (a) Slits closed to 40 µm vertically and 20 µm horizontally. (b) Corresponding analysis of P(I) using equation (1 ![]() ![]() |
However, speckle visibility depends not only on the degree of coherence but also on the resolution of the detection scheme. The speckle size ls scales as ls ∼ λdSD/σB, with σB the size of the beam (Lehmkühler et al., 2021). The speckle visibility will be very poor if the detector does not have sufficient spatial and temporal resolution or if the beam size is large. In conventional SAXS, the beam sizes used are relatively large compared with the typical transverse coherence length (ξT) and therefore the speckle size becomes much smaller than the detector pixel size. This does not imply that the scattering is completely incoherent, and the phase relationship should be maintained at the largest size scale probed by the SAXS experiment (Glatter, 2002
). The required level of coherence is provided by the beam collimation as ξT ≃ λ/(2ΔΘ), with ΔΘ the angular source size (Grübel & Zontone, 2004
).
The coherence length determines the ultimate resolution that can be obtained (Petukhov et al., 2015). The SAXS intensity from an isolated object (form factor) is the coherent sum of the scattering amplitudes from the different regions of that object. In the dilute case, the scattered intensities from different objects or particles in a suspension and the solvent molecules are incoherently summed. This is because the relative positions of other particles and solvent molecules are randomized within the typical acquisition time and the phase factor is averaged out to zero (Pusey, 2002
). That is why the solvent background scattering can be subtracted out without having to deal with the cross term. In a concentrated system, the accounts for the correlation between different particles and the resulting alteration of the scattered intensity.
For a more optimized setup with collimation slits further closed to 30 µm (vertical) and 15 µm (horizontal), the speckle visibility further improved and therefore M decreased. Fig. 2 presents the corresponding P(I) recorded with a dilute aqueous suspension of silica colloidal particles (RS ≃ 300 nm and σR ≃ 5.4 nm) with an acquisition time (50 µs) much shorter than the diffusion time. In this case, M ≃ 2.2 and βM ≃ 0.45. For lower intensities, P(I) is better described by the Poisson–Gamma or negative binomial distribution PM(I) (Lehmkühler et al., 2021
; Chèvremont et al., 2024
) that has the form
The corresponding analysis yielded a larger value of M ≃ 2.8. In other words, equation (1) needs to be convoluted by the Poisson statistics to estimate M correctly at low intensity values (Goodman, 1985
).
![]() | Figure 2 Intensity statistics P(I) for a dilute suspension of silica colloidal particles (RS ≃ 300 nm and σR ≃ 5.4 nm) over the range 2.0 × 10−3 ≤ q ≤ 3.2 × 10−3 nm−1. The analysis was done in terms of equations (1 ![]() ![]() |
3.2. Non-equilibrium velocity fluctuations
The vast majority of studies of velocity fluctuations are focused on suspensions involving non-Brownian particles (Segre et al., 1997; Guazzelli & Hinch, 2011
; Segrè, 2016
). However, similar velocity fluctuations have been found with Brownian particles using different experimental methods (Möller & Narayanan, 2017
; Hirano & Norisuye, 2024
) and mesoscopic computer simulations (Padding & Louis, 2008
). Incomplete mixing creates a non-random distribution of particles that generates these transient fluctuations (Padding & Louis, 2008
; Guazzelli & Hinch, 2011
). In the following experiment, a Brownian (Pe ≃ 0.08) contained in a capillary (diameter ∼1 mm) was shaken rapidly upside down and back, such that a column of sample (20 mm) near the top was displaced at about 40 mm s−1 to the very bottom. During the shaking process, the induced flow can be considered as Poiseuille type having a parabolic velocity profile. This flow field generates a maximum (
) at the capillary wall and a minimum at the centre. This variation in
can induce long-range concentration inhomogeneities if the particles do not strictly follow the fluid due to the difference in their densities.
XPCS measurements were started from 70 s after shaking – the time required to interlock the experimental station. The time elapsed after shaking is represented by the kinetic time tkin. In order to avoid any beam-induced effects, the incident intensity was attenuated to 1011 photons s−1 and the number of frames was limited to 2000. Fig. 3
presents the typical time evolution of sector-averaged (±10°) g2(q, t) along the vertical direction (q∥) or axis of the capillary following the vigorous shaking (three times). The suspension consisted of silica particles (RS ≃ 300 nm and σR ≃ 5.4 nm) with ϕ ≃ 0.014. Clearly, a strong deviation from diffusive dynamics can be observed 70 s after the shaking, as depicted in Fig. 3
(a). g2(q∥, t) decays much faster than expected for diffusive dynamics and exhibits periodic modulations after the initial decay. These oscillations are a signature of directed motion of particles in a deterministic flow (Möller & Narayanan, 2017
; Zinn et al., 2020
). Similar features are also observed in the horizontal direction (q⊥) along the diameter of the capillary but with a rate two to three times slower. With time these oscillations smear out and the dynamics gradually return to Brownian behaviour, characterized by an of g2(q∥, t) as shown in Fig. 3
(b). Additional plots of g2(q∥, t) and g2(q⊥, t) at an intermediate tkin are presented in Fig. S2.
![]() | Figure 3 The time evolution of g2(q, t) along q∥ for a suspension of silica particles (RS ≃ 300 nm and σR ≃ 5.4 nm) with ϕ ≃ 0.014. (a) At 70 s after shaking, illustrating the signature of velocity fluctuations (oscillations after the initial fast decay). (b) At about 2000 ![]() |
The above observation is a purely dynamic effect and the static USAXS profiles do not show any significant anisotropy or variation with time. Fig. 4 displays the normalized USAXS profiles at different times after the shaking. As these particles are charge stabilized, there is a weak even at ϕ ≃ 0.014. The inset presents the form factor of these particles and the corresponding modelling in terms of the polydisperse sphere form factor with RS ≃ 300 nm and σR ≃ 5.4 nm. As the profiles superimpose perfectly at different times, sedimentation effects are not important in this case. The first minima of the profiles are slightly smeared due to non-negligible multiple scattering with a sample thickness of ∼1 mm (Semeraro et al., 2018b
); this is not a resolution effect as it does not happen with a dilute sample ϕ ≃ 0.003. The wiggles in the low-q region are due to insufficient time averaging (within an acquisition time of 0.1 s), as the speckles fluctuate more slowly at lower q.
![]() | Figure 4 USAXS profiles of the silica colloidal suspension (RS ≃ 300 nm and ϕ ≃ 0.014) at different times after shaking. The inset displays the scattering form factor of the particles measured over an extended q range using a dilute sample (ϕ ≃ 0.003). The fit corresponds to the polydisperse sphere form factor (RS ≃ 300 nm and σR ≃ 5.4 nm). |
The measured g2(q, t) can be related to the intermediate scattering function g1(q, t) via the Siegert relation,
where β ≃ βM is determined by the coherence properties of the X-ray beam and the angular resolution of the setup (Sutton, 2008). For dilute Brownian particles, g1(q, t) =
and the relaxation rate Γ(q) = D0q2. Here, D0 is the given by the Stokes–Einstein relation, D0 = kBT/(6πηRH), with kB, T, η and RH being the absolute temperature, solvent viscosity and mean hydrodynamic radius of particles, respectively.
In a driven system, advection dominates over diffusion. In this case, g1(q, t) in a given direction can be factorized in the following form, at least for relatively dilute suspensions (Busch et al., 2008; Burghardt et al., 2012
):
where the first term represents diffusive motions, the second term takes into account the decorrelation due to the transit of particles across the beam determined by their mean velocity v, and the last term denotes the advective part constituted by the differences in Doppler shift of all particle pairs in the scattering volume. This last term is determined by the average velocity difference between all particle pairs δv, and the exact functional form of g1,A(q, t) depends on the probability distribution of v (Zinn et al., 2020).
The oscillatory feature in Fig. 3(a) indicates a constant δv with only a fraction α of particles at velocities deviating from v (Möller & Narayanan, 2017
). In this case, g2(q, t) along a given direction can be expressed as
When α = 1, equation (5) reduces to that used to describe a constant velocity difference in a Couette flow (Burghardt et al., 2012
). α < 1 is indicated by non-zero values of minima in g1(q, t).
In the simultaneous fitting of g2(q, t) functions over 0.002 ≤ q ≤ 0.02 nm−1, both α and δv were constrained to the same values at any given tkin. While δv decayed systematically with tkin, α fluctuated between 0.2 and 1. Fig. 5 displays representative fits for the direction-dependent analysis of g2(q, t). The position and depth of the minima determined δv and α, respectively. This coexistence of advective and diffusive motions is somewhat reminiscent of fractional (Nolte, 2024
). Finally, the g2(q, t) functions became identical to an exponential function and at this point δv and α were not determinable.
![]() | Figure 5 Typical time evolution of g2(q, t) along (a) q∥ and (b) q⊥ for a suspension of silica particles (RS ≃ 300 nm and σR ≃ 5.4 nm) with ϕ ≃ 0.014 at fixed q of 3.4 × 10−3 nm−1. The continuous lines are fits to equation (5 ![]() |
Fig. 6 shows the typical decay of δv along q∥ by combining parameters from several repetitions following the same shaking protocol. The variation along q⊥ also follows the same trend but is smaller in amplitude. It is tempting to describe this decay with an exponential function by analogy with sedimentation (Tee et al., 2002
; Möller & Narayanan, 2017
). The corresponding function yielded an initial δv ≃ 52 µm s−1, which is significantly smaller than what occurred during the shaking process. Alternatively, the decay can be described by a power law with exponent ∼1. Due to the large spread of the data, numerically it is difficult to distinguish which function fits better, but the asymptotic limits of an initial large value of δv (tkin > 0) and a slowly decaying tail are reproduced by a power-law decay.
![]() | Figure 6 The decay of velocity fluctuations from three repetitions for the suspension consisting of silica particles (RS ≃ 300 nm and σR ≃ 5.4 nm) with ϕ ≃ 0.014. The continuous lines represent the functional form given in the legend. The error bars for δv are smaller than the size of the symbols. |
Surprisingly, a suspension of the same particles with a lower ϕ ≃ 0.004 did not manifest similar velocity fluctuations following the same shaking protocol. Fig. 7 presents representative g2(q, t) for this suspension at a fixed q = 4.5 × 10−3 nm−1. At all times, the decay of g2(q, t) is described by an exponential function with the expected value of D0 for these particles. The magnitude of δv decreased with ϕ and the dynamics became indistinguishable from Brownian diffusion below ϕ ≃ 0.01. The transition region is rather fuzzy and a precise cut-off value of ϕ could not be determined from the present experiments.
![]() | Figure 7 Lack of time evolution of g2(q, t) functions for a suspension of silica particles (RS ≃ 300 nm and ϕ ≃ 0.004) at a fixed q of 4.5 × 10−3 nm−1. The continuous line is a fit to an [equation (3 ![]() |
In order to rationalize the observed findings, one can relate homogenization by vigorous shaking to scalar mixing in Batchelor flow (Batchelor, 1959). This is because the Reynolds number (Re) for a flow rate of 40 mm s−1 in a capillary of diameter 1 mm for water-like viscosity is about 40, well below the transition to fully developed turbulence. The smallest size of the local concentration fluctuations is given by the dissipation length lD of Batchelor flow, lD ≃ lPe−1/2Re−1/4, with l the smallest size of the channel and the flow-generated Pe ≃ 2RSv/D0 (Villermaux, 2019
). For the maximum v obtained during shaking, Pe ≃ 30000 and therefore lD ≃ 2.3 µm. This size scale should be compared with the mean separation between particles, 〈d〉 = 2RSϕ−1/3. For ϕ = 0.004, 〈d〉 ≃ 4 µm. In reality, the estimation of v during shaking could be off by a factor of up to 2. In that case, lD increases to 3.8 µm. When 〈d〉 ≥ lD, the induced velocity fluctuations become less significant or not detectable. For smaller 〈d〉 (larger ϕ), the velocity fluctuations induced during the shaking process become important. δv decays as Brownian diffusion homogenizes the suspension with time.
For smaller particles, 〈d〉 is smaller but the diffusion is faster. Therefore, these non-equilibrium velocity fluctuations may be manifested less except in the very low q region. Nevertheless, the same shaking protocols with a suspension of silica particles RS ≃ 126 nm yielded similar results, as shown in Fig. S3. These velocity fluctuations can have implications in applications such as measurement of particle size and diffusion coefficients by dynamic (DLS) and XPCS when micrometre-sized particles are involved. In particular, the reproducibility may be affected by the homogenization method used prior to the measurement. In a typical DLS setup, the scattering geometry is horizontal and this effect may even go unnoticed, leading to an underestimation of RH. Finally, it is not a thermally induced effect as a temperature variation should not change the functional form of g2(q, t) (see Fig. S4) (Zinn et al., 2022) and it should be direction and ϕ independent.
3.3. Velocity fluctuations following shear cessation
When the same RS ≃ 300 nm and ϕ ≃ 0.014) is subjected to a uniform shear in a coaxial cylindrical cell, well defined oscillations appear in the measured g2(q, t) (Narayanan et al., 2023). These oscillations are due to a constant velocity difference in the annular gap (Burghardt et al., 2012
; Narayanan et al., 2020
) and can be well described by equation (5
) with α = 1 (Narayanan et al., 2023
). An important question is whether these velocity fluctuations persist upon cessation of uniform shear. Even at a modest (
≃ 10 s−1), δv is large and is given by the angular frequency of the rotor and the size of the annular gap.
For this experiment, the et al., 2020). In order to capture the fast decay due to shear (Doppler shift caused by the flow), XPCS acquisitions were performed at a frame rate of 20 kHz. The change in dynamics was monitored via TTCF (Chèvremont et al., 2024
). Fig. 8
(a) illustrates the rapid change in dynamics upon switching on the shear (
≃ 10 s−1). Here the TTCF plot for a given q can be considered as a stack of g2(q, t) curves. Before turning on the shear, the decay is fully governed by and then by Doppler shift caused by advection of the particles. This change in dynamics is rapid, on the millisecond scale. Fig. 8
(b) demonstrates the opposite scenario when the shear is turned off. Rather surprisingly, the corresponding transformation of dynamics happens within 300 ms and Brownian dynamics are fully restored on the second time scale.
![]() | Figure 8 TTCF plots along the flow direction during (a) the startup and (b) the cessation of shear for a suspension of silica particles (RS ≃ 300 nm and ϕ ≃ 0.014) at a fixed q of 3.4 × 10−3 nm−1. Here the origin of tkin is the same as that of the lag time t. The sharp transition behaviour is identical at other q values. |
This step-like transition behaviour was also observed with other values of , ca 200 s−1. This contrasting scenario in comparison with the shaking experiment can be rationalized on the basis of the of shear flow. Within the coaxial flow geometry,
is nearly uniform across the gap and the flow does not create concentration inhomogeneities in the suspension. The hydrodynamic contributions are arrested upon cessation of shear. The inertia of the particles is negligible and Brownian dynamics are restored at once. However, in a stirred suspension the flow is inhomogeneous below the rotor and δv decays on a much slower time scale (Chèvremont & Narayanan, 2025
).
4. Summary and outlook
We have presented two representative examples of the use of UA-XPCS to probe relatively fast out-of-equilibrium dynamics in colloidal suspensions subjected to an external flow. A fourth-generation synchrotron source and an advanced photon-counting pixel array detector enabled these measurements. These examples are not exhaustive and primarily serve the purpose of illustrating the new possibilities offered by multispeckle XPCS on a faster time scale. The observed non-equilibrium fluctuations upon shaking a
are rather intriguing but they can play an adverse role in particle sizing in the micrometre range. A similar flow-induced non-equilibrium effect could occur when using an automated pipetting system for XPCS measurements. The static scattering profile is not affected but the from dynamic measurement may be overestimated. Therefore, it is always safer to correlate static and dynamic measurements when investigating colloidal suspensions.In non-equilibrium thermodynamics of fluid mixtures, giant non-equilibrium fluctuations of concentration and temperature are relatively new phenomena (Sengers, 2024). There are a variety of similar non-equilibrium effects in driven colloidal suspensions which will be worth exploring by multispeckle XPCS. The intense X-ray beam available at an XFEL instrument can itself induce thermally driven out-of-equilibrium dynamics (Dallari et al., 2021
).
Another interesting scenario is when colloids are suspended in biological milieux (Semeraro et al., 2018a; Otto et al., 2024
; Silva et al., 2024
), where subtle non-equilibrium effects may be elicited. Out-of-equilibrium dynamics are prevalent in biology; for example, in cellular media involves anomalous diffusion via Lévy flight or fractional (Nolte, 2024
). The observed non-equilibrium dynamics of otherwise passive particles manifest certain aspects of active colloids (Zinn et al., 2020
; Zinn et al., 2022
). Therefore, such out-of-equilibrium behaviour may bridge the gap between passive and active colloids.
Supporting information
Additional data. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576725001244/ju5077sup1.pdf
Footnotes
‡Present address: Diamond Light Source, Didcot OX11 0DE, United Kingdom.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the ID02 beamline staff for technical support. The ESRF is gratefully acknowledged for the provision of synchrotron beam time.
Funding information
The following funding is acknowledged: European Synchrotron Radiation Facility.
References
Abernathy, D. L., Grübel, G., Brauer, S., McNulty, I., Stephenson, G. B., Mochrie, S. G. J., Sandy, A. R., Mulders, N. & Sutton, M. (1998). J. Synchrotron Rad. 5, 37–47. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Agarwal, B. K. (2013). X-ray spectroscopy: an introduction. Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar
Batchelor, G. K. (1959). J. Fluid Mech. 5, 113–133. CrossRef Google Scholar
Batchelor, G. K. (1972). J. Fluid Mech. 52, 245–268. CrossRef Google Scholar
Burghardt, W. R., Sikorski, M., Sandy, A. R. & Narayanan, S. (2012). Phys. Rev. E, 85, 021402. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Busch, S., Jensen, T. H., Chushkin, Y. & Fluerasu, A. (2008). Eur. Phys. J. E, 26, 55. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Caflisch, R. E. & Luke, J. H. (1985). Phys. Fluids, 28, 759–760. CrossRef Google Scholar
Chèvremont, W. & Narayanan, T. (2025). Phys. Fluids, 37, 023390. Google Scholar
Chèvremont, W., Zinn, T. & Narayanan, T. (2024). J. Synchrotron Rad. 31, 65–76. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Dallari, F., Jain, A., Sikorski, M., Möller, J., Bean, R., Boesenberg, U., Frenzel, L., Goy, C., Hallmann, J., Kim, Y., Lokteva, I., Markmann, V., Mills, G., Rodriguez-Fernandez, A., Roseker, W., Scholz, M., Shayduk, R., Vagovic, P., Walther, M., Westermeier, F., Madsen, A., Mancuso, A. P., Grübel, G. & Lehmkühler, F. (2021). IUCrJ, 8, 775–783. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Eriksson, M., van der Veen, J. F. & Quitmann, C. (2014). J. Synchrotron Rad. 21, 837–842. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Fröjdh, E., Bergamaschi, A. & Schmitt, B. (2024). Front. Phys. 12, 1304896. Google Scholar
Glatter, O. (2002). Neutrons, X-rays and light: scattering methods applied to soft condensed matter, pp. 73–102. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Google Scholar
Goodman, J. W. (1985). Statistical optics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
Grübel, G. & Zontone, F. (2004). J. Alloys Compd. 362, 3–11. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Guazzelli, É. & Hinch, J. (2011). Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 43, 97–116. CrossRef Google Scholar
Hirano, M. & Norisuye, T. (2024). Phys. Fluids, 36, 113370. Google Scholar
Lehmkühler, F., Roseker, W. & Grübel, G. (2021). Appl. Sci. 11, 6179. Google Scholar
Möller, J. & Narayanan, T. (2017). Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 198001. Web of Science PubMed Google Scholar
Narayanan, T. (2024). Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 325, 103114. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Narayanan, T., Chèvremont, W. & Zinn, T. (2023). J. Appl. Cryst. 56, 939–946. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Narayanan, T., Dattani, R., Möller, J. & Kwaśniewski, P. (2020). Rev. Sci. Instrum. 91, 085102. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Narayanan, T., Sztucki, M., Zinn, T., Kieffer, J., Homs-Puron, A., Gorini, J., Van Vaerenbergh, P. & Boesecke, P. (2022). J. Appl. Cryst. 55, 98–111. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Nolte, D. D. (2024). Rep. Prog. Phys. 87, 036601. CrossRef Google Scholar
Otto, F., Dallari, F., Westermeier, F., Wieland, D. F., Parak, W. J., Lehmkühler, F. & Schulz, F. (2024). Aggregate, 5, e483. CrossRef Google Scholar
Padding, J. T. & Louis, A. A. (2008). Phys. Rev. E, 77, 011402. CrossRef Google Scholar
Paleo, P., Kieffer, J. & Chushkin, Y. (2021). Dynamix v0.2: XPCS from Python, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5520626. Google Scholar
Pavlinsky, G. V. (2021). X-ray Spectrom. 50, 454–457. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Petukhov, A. V., Meijer, J.-M. & Vroege, G. J. (2015). Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 20, 272–281. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Pusey, P. (2002). Neutrons, X-rays and light: scattering methods applied to soft condensed matter, pp. 3–21. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Google Scholar
Raimondi, P., Carmignani, N., Carver, L., Chavanne, J., Farvacque, L., Le Bec, G., Martin, D., Liuzzo, S., Perron, T. & White, S. (2021). Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams, 24, 110701. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Ramaswamy, S. (2001). Adv. Phys. 50, 297–341. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Segrè, P., Herbolzheimer, E. & Chaikin, P. (1997). Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2574–2577. Google Scholar
Segrè, P. N. (2016). Fluids, colloids and soft materials: an introduction to soft matter physics, edited by A. Fernandez-Nieves & A. M. Puertas, ch.4, pp. 45–58. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
Semeraro, E. F., Devos, J. M. & Narayanan, T. (2018a). J. Chem. Phys. 148, 204905. Google Scholar
Semeraro, E. F., Möller, J. & Narayanan, T. (2018b). J. Appl. Cryst. 51, 706–713. CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Sengers, J. V. (2024). Int. J. Thermophys. 45, 132. CrossRef Google Scholar
Shin, S. (2021). AAPPS Bull. 31, 21. Google Scholar
Silva, C. E., Picco, A. S., Galdino, F. E., de Burgos Martins de Azevedo, M., Cathcarth, M., Passos, A. R. & Cardoso, M. B. (2024). Nano Lett. 24, 13293–13299. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Sutton, M. (2008). C. R. Phys. 9, 657–667. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Sztucki, M. (2021). SAXSutilities, https://www.saxsutilities.eu. Google Scholar
Tee, S.-Y., Mucha, P., Cipelletti, L., Manley, S., Brenner, M., Segre, P. & Weitz, D. (2002). Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 054501. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Veen, F. van der & Pfeiffer, F. (2004). J. Phys. Condens. Matter, 16, 5003–5030. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Villermaux, E. (2019). Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 51, 245–273. CrossRef Google Scholar
Zhang, Q., Dufresne, E. M., Narayanan, S., Maj, P., Koziol, A., Szczygiel, R., Grybos, P., Sutton, M. & Sandy, A. R. (2018). J. Synchrotron Rad. 25, 1408–1416. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Zinn, T., Homs, A., Sharpnack, L., Tinti, G., Fröjdh, E., Douissard, P.-A., Kocsis, M., Möller, J., Chushkin, Y. & Narayanan, T. (2018). J. Synchrotron Rad. 25, 1753–1759. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Zinn, T., Narayanan, T., Kottapalli, S. N., Sachs, J., Sottmann, T. & Fischer, P. (2022). New J. Phys. 24, 093007. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Zinn, T., Sharpnack, L. & Narayanan, T. (2020). Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033177. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are cited.