2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2014.06.024
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Difference in pore contact angle and the contact angle measured on a flat surface and in an open space

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
29
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
5
29
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…These results imply that the status of interface direction is more Pore throat size. Receding contact angles increase with decreasing pore throat size (Figure 3a), in agreement with previous studies [32,47]. Li et al [32] have reported that the contact angle increases when smaller capillary tubes are used.…”
Section: Dynamic Contact Anglesupporting
confidence: 81%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…These results imply that the status of interface direction is more Pore throat size. Receding contact angles increase with decreasing pore throat size (Figure 3a), in agreement with previous studies [32,47]. Li et al [32] have reported that the contact angle increases when smaller capillary tubes are used.…”
Section: Dynamic Contact Anglesupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Receding contact angles increase with decreasing pore throat size (Figure 3a), in agreement with previous studies [32,47]. Li et al [32] have reported that the contact angle increases when smaller capillary tubes are used. Using X-ray CT images, Tudek et al [47] have observed that CO 2 bubbles trapped in smaller pores of a sandstone have higher contact angles due to local higher pressure of CO 2 in small pores.…”
Section: Dynamic Contact Anglesupporting
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The water contact angle of PDMS scaffolds increased with decreasing pore size, which was in agreement with other results. 23 …”
Section: Surface Wettability Of Pdms Scaffoldsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…3(c) and 3(d)]. We attribute the disagreement to (1) the effect of the top and bottom walls currently ignored in our 2D model, (2) deposition of a thin film of oil on the post that might alter the wetting properties, (3) the difference between measuring the contact angles on flat surfaces and the actual contact angles in small microchannels [29], and (4) change in wetting behavior due to surface roughness and contact-angle hysteresis [30,31] (details of contact-angle hysteresis measurements are provided in the Appendix).…”
Section: Theoretical Setupmentioning
confidence: 89%