4.6 Article

Practical Applications of Superhydrophobic Materials and Coatings: Problems and Perspectives

期刊

LANGMUIR
卷 36, 期 10, 页码 2493-2509

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b03908

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Synthetic superhydrophobic (SH) surfaces were developed after 1990s, and the number of publications in this field is around 13 500 at present. However, the industrial production of SH coatings is very unsatisfying after the intensive research activity in the last two decades. The main reason is the loss of the water repellence properties when SH surfaces are exposed to outdoor conditions due to their weak mechanical properties and contamination from the medium which removes the initial SH properties. In this Feature Article, we focus on the scientific and technical reasons which prevent the application of the SH surfaces in our daily lives by highlighting some well-known but mostly overlooked problems in this area. (The synthesis methods of SH surfaces are not the subject of this article since they were reviewed previously in very good articles.) The basic contact angle science and the issue of the cancellation of the Wenzel and Cassie-Baxter equations are reviewed in the first part. The issues of the expensive and small-scale SH surface preparation problems, the difficulties in obtaining a transparent SH surface, the troubles arising from the water vapor condensation on an SH surface, the lack of robustness and abrasion resistance of most of the SH surfaces, the drawbacks of the fabricated self-healing SH surfaces, the short useful service life of self-cleaning SH surfaces due to surface contamination, and the ineffective anti-icing SH coatings are reviewed in the following text. Some important problems affecting the unsuccessful industrial applications of the SH surfaces are discussed critically in the Conclusions and Outlook section. Finally, some proposals are presented for future directions on the synthesis and applications of SH surfaces.

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

4.6
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