4.6 Article

Capillary Rise: Validity of the Dynamic Contact Angle Models

Journal

LANGMUIR
Volume 33, Issue 32, Pages 7862-7872

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.7b01762

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The classical Lucas-Washburn-Rideal (LWR) equation, using the equilibrium contact angle, predicts a faster capillary rise process than experiments in many cases. The major contributor to the faster prediction is believed to be the velocity dependent dynamic contact angle. In this work, we investigated the dynamic contact angle models for their ability to correct the dynamic contact angle effect in the capillary rise process. We conducted capillary rise experiments of various wetting liquids in borosilicate glass capillaries and compared the model predictions with our experimental data. The results show that the LWR equations modified by the molecular kinetic theory and hydrodynamic model provide good predictions on the capillary rise of all the testing liquids with fitting parameters, while the one modified by Joos' empirical equation works for specific liquids, such as silicone oils. The LWR equation modified by molecular self-layering model predicts well the capillary rise of carbon tetrachloride, octamethylcydotetrasiloxane, and n-alkanes with the molecular diameter or measured solvation force data. The molecular self-layering model modified LWR equation also has good predictions on the capillary rise of silicone oils covering a wide range of bulk viscosities with the same key parameter W(0), which results from the molecular self-layering. The advantage of the molecular self-layering model over the other models reveals the importance of the layered molecularly thin wetting film ahead of the main meniscus in the energy dissipation associated with dynamic contact angle. The analysis of the capillary rise of silicone oils with a wide range of bulk viscosities provides new insights into the capillary dynamics of polymer melts.

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