Can solid surface energy be a predictor of ice nucleation ability?

Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationship Studies on Alkane Chemistry Tuning Ice Nucleation

“…, where ε 0 is the permittivity of vacuum and N and ε are the molecule density and the effective dielectric constant of SAMs, respectively; note here that differences of N and ε among the alkane SAMs are not dominant as a result of the identical Si−O−Si terminal network and the same alkane type. 19,38,39 Therefore, combining the surface potential measurement result and the above simulation analysis, we can safely conclude that the surface polarity increases with the extending of L from C 2 -SAM to C 16 -SAM. On the basis of the L-dependent ice nucleation and surface polarity results, we found a correlation between the surface polarity and ice nucleation ability of alkane SAMs.…”

“…It is obvious that the surface potential increases with L increasing. Also, the V difference between the SAM and Si substrate (Δ V ) also increases with L increasing (Table S2 of the Supporting Information), indicating the increase of the dipole moment directed normally to the substrate surface ( μ ⊥ ) with L increasing based on the equation normalΔ V = V normalSAM − V normalSi = N μ ⊥ ε ε 0 , where ε 0 is the permittivity of vacuum and N and ε are the molecule density and the effective dielectric constant of SAMs, respectively; note here that differences of N and ε among the alkane SAMs are not dominant as a result of the identical Si–O–Si terminal network and the same alkane type. ,, Therefore, combining the surface potential measurement result and the above simulation analysis, we can safely conclude that the surface polarity increases with the extending of L from C 2 -SAM to C 16 -SAM.…”

“…For example, hydrophilicity and surface energy, which are traditionally deemed as variable parameters for tuning ice nucleation, have been found not to be reliable predictors of ice nucleation ability. 19,20 Therefore, it is necessary and practical to directly focus on the typical surface chemistry types to investigate their impacts on ice nucleation.…”

“…Until now, very extensive studies on heterogeneous ice nucleation have demonstrated that both surface chemistry and structure (or morphology) features can affect ice nucleation prominently. ,− In terms of surface chemistry, different atom/functional group/molecule types may show quite different polarities, abilities to form hydrogen bonds with H 2 O, and even charge characters, which can tune ice nucleation effectively through influencing the affinities/orders of H 2 O on foreign surfaces. − However, as a result of the diversity and complexity of surface chemistry properties, there is no simple and unified predictor that can be used to forecast the ice nucleation abilities of surfaces with disparate chemistry types. For example, hydrophilicity and surface energy, which are traditionally deemed as variable parameters for tuning ice nucleation, have been found not to be reliable predictors of ice nucleation ability. , Therefore, it is necessary and practical to directly focus on the typical surface chemistry types to investigate their impacts on ice nucleation.…”

Tuning ice nucleation with pH-modulated Fe3+ cross-linked hydrogel surfaces

“…14 Qin et al also discovered that surface polarity influences ice nucleation by influencing the orientation of interfacial water by analyzing ice nucleation on different halogenated chemical surfaces. 15 However, when discussing interfaces, rigid interfaces are usually meant because the interfacial water at soft matter interfaces is very complex and has been subdivided into ''tightly bound water,'' ''bound water,'' and ''bulk-like water''. 16 Although a series of advances have been made in the study of the regulation of ice nucleation at soft matter interfaces, [17][18][19] no systematic investigation has been conducted to explore the impact of different interfacial waters in the soft matter on ice nucleation.…”