2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2007.10.047
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Water evaporation rates across hydrophobic acid monolayers at equilibrium spreading pressure

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
(42 reference statements)
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The values found for E, and therefore E′, are significantly higher than those found in the literature for pure water or latex films drying in static air. 11,34,35 It should be noted, however, that the values reported here are obtained with an airflow in the climate chamber.…”
Section: ■ Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…The values found for E, and therefore E′, are significantly higher than those found in the literature for pure water or latex films drying in static air. 11,34,35 It should be noted, however, that the values reported here are obtained with an airflow in the climate chamber.…”
Section: ■ Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Insoluble surfactants can be characterized by their equilibrium spreading pressure (ESP), which is the maximum equilibrium surface pressure that can be achieved by deposition of surfactant onto a water surface. Higher surface pressures can be achieved, for example, by compressing the surface material onto a smaller area, but these films would eventually relax to the ESP for the material. ESPs are strongly temperature-dependent for the fatty acid and alcohol materials under study here, starting around 5–7 mN/m for C 18 acid , and ∼34 mN/m for octadecanol and decreasing with decreased temperature. While measurements have not been made on supercooled water, ESPs less than 1 mN/m are expected at temperatures where freezing occurs for all surfactants used here. Because of this, the relevant phases are the L 1 , L 2 , L 2 ′, L 2 ″, and the 3D solid.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…26 This data can be used to determine the performance of a surface film, which is often reported as the ratio (φ) of the evaporation rate with a monolayer to the rate for water alone (φ = k m /k w ), with the effectiveness of the monolayer then defined as 1 -φ. 27 These results are shown in Table 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 12 As a comparison for evaluating the influence the externally applied force has on the surface film properties, the same experiment was carried out; however, in this case the centrifugal fan was not switched on, providing directly comparable results in a static environment. The water evaporation rates and effectiveness over 12 hours were calculated and are shown in Table 1 A significantly higher evaporation rate (8.5× higher) is observed in the dynamic system compared to the static system.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%