2021
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-80729-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A numerical solution to the effects of surface roughness on water–coal contact angle

Abstract: Coal dust is a great threat to coal mine workers' health and safety in coal mine production. Wet dust removal is one of the effective dust removal methods. As a solid, coal has different rough surfaces, which have a certain effect on the wetting effect of coal. In this paper, three coal samples with different surface wettability are used as the research objects. Phase-field interface tracking method is used to simulate the wetting of droplets on rough surfaces. From the simulation results, it can be concluded … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

4
50
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 101 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
4
50
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Overall, the tendency is downward. Wenzel reasoned that the presence of a rough surface would increase the actual solid–liquid contact area above the region shown on the surface geometry, hence, increasing hydrophilicity [ 37 ]. According to Equation (5), is the contact angle of the Wenzel theory; is Young’s angle of Wenzel’s theory; and is the ratio of the actual surface area to the apparent surface area of the rough surface.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Overall, the tendency is downward. Wenzel reasoned that the presence of a rough surface would increase the actual solid–liquid contact area above the region shown on the surface geometry, hence, increasing hydrophilicity [ 37 ]. According to Equation (5), is the contact angle of the Wenzel theory; is Young’s angle of Wenzel’s theory; and is the ratio of the actual surface area to the apparent surface area of the rough surface.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The water contact angle value on the oil side is higher than on the water side. As the roughness factors for both sides are relatively low, the surface topography cannot explain the large differences in the water contact angle values . Hence, we presume that the higher water contact angle (lower surface energy) arises from the partial re-organization of the C 10 (NGly 4 ) 2 molecules on the oil side of the interface.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…A rougher surface increases the effective surface area to react with the upper layer, resulting in a smaller water contact angle, as shown in Figure S7, Supporting Information. [ 38 ] The water contact angles of PVK, PVK 0.75 –CBP 0.25 , PVK 0.5 –CBP 0.5 , PVK 0.25 –CBP 0.75 , and CBP were 61°, 56°, 45°, 33°, and 27°, respectively. The contact angle represents the wettability of the different HTLs with the perovskite precursor solution.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%