Comment on “Comparison of the Lateral Retention Forces on Sessile, Pendant, and Inverted Sessile Drops”

Abstract

Tadmor et al.'s 2009 PRL article shows experiments of pendant drops with ∼30% higher retention forces than their sessile analogues. A recent article (de la Madrid, R. et al. Langmuir 2019, 35, 2871 seemingly explains this result theoretically using a drastically different experimental system that shows a ∼3% higher force that exceeds the scatter in three out of four data points. The differences between the two experimental systems might have allowed the two theories to coexist, but Tadmor's theory, which can explain both, allows an understanding of the solid−liquid interaction, which the newer theory lacks.

Reply to Comment on “Comparison of the Lateral Retention Forces on Sessile, Pendant, and Inverted Sessile Drops”

“…As pointed out in Comment [3], to determine the "onset of motion" of the drops, we established the criterion that the receding edge of the drop had to be moving at around 0.09 mm/s. There are two important reasons why we chose such criterion.…”

“…Although not directly related to the issues raised in Comment [3], we would like to mention two interesting aspects of Fig. 1.…”

“…In their Comment [3], Tadmor et al state that in the original paper [2], the onset of the motion was determined by monitoring the advancing edge, instead of the receding edge. Several comments are in order.…”

“…[2]. In a Comment [3], Tadmor et al compare the results of Refs. [2] and [4] with ours, and they raise some issues.…”

Identification of surface active components in glass forming melts by thermodynamic model

“…The most common methods are based on the analysis of sessile or pendant drop profile [22][23][24][25][26][27]. The principle of these methods is based on the regression analysis of the droplet profile based on the numerical integration of the Laplace equation [28][29][30][31][32].…”