Selective wetting in the tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide aqueous solution-p-xylene-solid system

Соболева, О. А.; Badun, G. A.; Korobkov, V. I.; Иванова, Н. И.

doi:10.1134/s1061933x07040138

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Results for both clean and pre-exposed surfaces are shown on the same graph. The low contact angle hysteresis (CAH, advancing contact angle minus receding contact angle) shows that the surfactant molecules are not significantly changing the topography of the surface between the advancing and receding stages and has been seen before in the literature. ,− Similar levels of CAH are seen for water on the same surface…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 55%

Autophilic Effect: Wetting of Hydrophobic Surfaces by Surfactant Solutions

Milne

Amirfazli

2009

Langmuir

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper resolves questions in the literature regarding the autophilic effect (i.e., movement of surfactant past the advancing contact line-leading to an increase in drop radius beyond that due to the advance) and its importance to quasi-static sessile drop wetting. Various systems (SDS, HTAB, and MEGA 10 surfactant solutions at three concentrations each and pure water and ethylene glycol on hydrophobic Teflon and OTS-coated silicon) are probed to determine the existence, time constant, and magnitude of the autophilic effect, using quasi-static advancing and receding sessile drops. From spreading results and advancing contact angle measurements, it is inferred that the autophilic effect does not occur for our systems (in contradiction of some literature) for the following reasons. First, no relation exists between the time constant for spreading and surfactant concentration, meaning the spreading seen is likely inertial in cause and not due to surfactants. Second, advancing contact angle decreases between tests on clean surfaces and those pre-exposed to surfactant, ruling out the possibility that the autophilic effect is faster than the advance. Third, spreading is seen after the end of the advance over both clean and pre-exposed surfaces, ruling out the possibility that the autophilic effect is slower than the advance. Finally, the pure liquids spread in a similar fashion to surfactant solutions on Teflon and similar contact angle measurements are seen for surfactant solutions and pure liquids of similar surface tension.

show abstract