4.7 Article

Sustainable superhydrophobic branched hierarchical ZnO nanowires: Stability and wettability phase diagram

期刊

APPLIED SURFACE SCIENCE
卷 561, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2021.150068

关键词

Superhydrophobicity; Hierarchical; Cassie-Baxter; Critical pressure; ZnO

资金

  1. Iran's National Elites Foundation (INEF)
  2. INEF and Research Council of the Sharif University of Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the stability of the Cassie-Baxter state was investigated on branched hierarchical ZnO nanowires (BH-ZnO NWs) compared to ZnO nanowires (ZnO NWs) through theoretical and experimental approaches. The results indicated that the BH-ZnO NWs sample exhibited higher CB stability due to the presence of hierarchical nanostructures when compared to the ZnO NWs sample.
Stability of Cassie-Baxter (CB) state is very critical in application of superhydrophobic surfaces. The most industrial applications of superhydrophobic surfaces are limited by the transition from the CB state to Wenzel (W) state. In this research, CB state stability of branched hierarchical ZnO nanowires (BH-ZnO NWs) was investigated as compared with ZnO nanowires (ZnO NWs) by using theoretical and experimental approaches. For this purpose, surface of the BH-ZnO NWs and ZnO NWs were modified by thin layers of methyltrimethoxysilane (MTMS). The MTMS thickness was optimized by varying NH4F (0, 5, 10, 20 mu L) as used catalyst. The highest water contact angle (WCA) was measured at about 153 +/- 3 degrees with sliding angle of 15 +/- 3 degrees for the M (10)/BH-ZnO NWs. Based on the theoretical results, the critical pressure (P-c) for the transition from the CB to W state was obtained at about of 1155 +/- 230 and 36770 +/- 7350 Pa for the M (10)/ZnO NWs and first level of the M (10)/BH-ZnO NWs samples, respectively. Finally, it was found that the M (10)/BH-ZnO NWs sample showed the higher CB stability as compared to the M (10)/ZnO NWs sample due to presence of hierarchical nanostructures.

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