4.7 Article

The model of rough wetting for hydrophobic steel meshes that mimic Asparagus setaceus leaf

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 354, 期 2, 页码 866-872

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2010.11.006

关键词

Hydrophobic; Steel mesh; Cassie-Baxter model

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51003021]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [20090460067]
  3. Natural Scientific Research Innovation Foundation in Harbin Institute of Technology [HIT.NSRIF.2009123]
  4. Heilongjiang Postdoctorial Financial Assistance [LBH-Z08185]
  5. KOTO innovation foundation [HIT(SCET)-KOTO-20100603]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comprehensive analytical model is proposed to provide a relationship between the macroscopic roughness and contact angle, which is used to develop macroscopic rough surface and to create biomimetic superhydrophobic surfaces. Using chemical surface modification of steel wires, an artificial hydrophobic surface was prepared. A steel mesh mimicking the Asparagus setaceus leaf was created by lowing the surface energy and enhancing macroscopic surface roughness. Water contact angles as high as 129.0 degrees were achieved on the steel mesh with 200 mu m x 200 mu m pore size. Bad agreement between the predictions based on the original Cassie-Baxter model and experiments was obtained. The version of the Cassie-Baxter model in current use could not be applied to this problem since the roughness magnitude changes from nano/microscopic to macroscopic. A new model, called macroscopic Cassie-Baxter (MCB) model, is constructed by the introduction of contact area density (delta) to original Cassie-Baxter model. It is shown that the measured data is in good agreement with the predicted data based on the MCB model. This model not only for solving macroscopic hydrophobic problems of meshes, but also can be used to solve that of other materials with macroscopic roughness. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据