4.6 Article

Biphilic jumping-droplet condensation

Journal

CELL REPORTS PHYSICAL SCIENCE
Volume 3, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrp.2022.100823

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Office of Naval Research [N00014-16-1-2625]
  2. Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Center
  3. Interna-tional Institute for Carbon Neutral Energy Research
  4. Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The combination of smooth, low-surface-energy spots with rough superhydrophobic backgrounds can achieve higher jumping-droplet condensation heat-transfer coefficients. Design guidelines for biphilic surfaces to maximize condensation heat transfer are proposed based on simulation and experimental validation.
Jumping-droplet condensation on rough superhydrophobic surfaces exhibits increased heat-transfer rates when compared with dropwise condensation on smooth hydrophobic surfaces. However, the performance of superhydrophobic surfaces is limited by the low individual droplet growth rates associated with their extreme apparent advancing contact angles. Here, we report that biphilic surfaces having smooth, low-surface-energy spots on a superhydrophobic background exhibit a 103 higher jumping-droplet condensation heat-transfer coefficient when compared with homogeneous superhydrophobic surfaces. Our detailed condensation heat -transfer modeling coupled with numerical simulations of binary and coordinated droplet coalescence show that spot wettability should not be optimized toward minimizing droplet nucleation energy barriers. Rather, spot wettability should be optimized to minimize droplet adhesion while maximizing individual droplet growth rates. Model-predicted design optimization of a variety of biphilic surfaces is validated against experiments. Our findings provide design guidelines for biphilic surface development to maximize condensation heat transfer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available