Advertisement

Terminologies and Definitions

Chapter
  • 2.5k Downloads

Abstract

One of the weak links in surface research has been the lack of clear, well-defined terminologies, definitions, and common language. This at least in part contributes to the current messiness in the surface literature. In this chapter, some of the commonly used terminologies and language are overviewed, shortfalls are discussed, and areas for improvement are proposed. In terms of definition, hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity are the most important concepts in surface science, and they mean having and lacking of affinity with water, respectively. Water contact angle θ at 90° has been defined as the cutoff between hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity. This definition may have been derived from trigonometry but has been challenged numerous times in the past. An improved definition based on the wetting and adhesion interactions of water with 20 different surfaces of varying water affinity is proposed. Surfaces with θR > 90° were found to have no affinity with water and are defined as hydrophobic, whereas those with θR < 90° are defined as hydrophilic. Surfaces with θA ≥ 145° are shown to have no attraction toward water. Accordingly, a surface can be defined as superhydrophobic when its θR is >90° and θA is ≥145°. The fundamental reason why a surface becomes hydrophobic is discussed. The methodology has been extended to define hexadecane oleophilicity, oleophobicity, and superoleophobicity. It is also shown that the philicity/phobicity cutoff should not be universal at 90°, rather it should be dependent of the liquid surface tension; the lower the surface tension, the larger the θR cutoff angle.

Keywords

Hydrophilicity Hydrophobicity Definitions Terminologies Oleophilicity Oleophobicity Superhydrophobicity Superoleophobicity Liquid cohesion Wetting interaction Amphiphobicity Omniphobicity 

References

  1. 1.
    Gao L, McCarthy TJ (2008) Teflon is hydrophilic. Comments on definitions of hydrophobic, shear versus tensile hydrophobicity and wetting characterization. Langmuir 24:9183–9188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen W, Fadeev AY, Hsieh MC, Oner D, Youngblood J, McCarthy TJ (1999) Ultrahydrophobic and ultralyophobic surfaces: some comments and examples. Langmuir 15:3395–3399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krumpfer JW, McCarthy TJ (2010) Contact angle hysteresis: a different view and a trivial recipe for low hysteresis hydrophobic surfaces. Faraday Discuss 146:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheng DF, Urata C, Masheder B, Hozumi A (2012) A physical approach to specifically improve the mobility of alkane liquid drops. J Am Chem Soc 134:10191–10199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Urata C, Cheng DF, Masheder B, Hozumi A (2012) Smooth, transparent and non-perfluorinated surfaces exhibiting unusual contact angle behavior towards organic liquids. RSC Adv 2:9805–9808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Urata C, Masheder B, Cheng DF, Miranda DF, Dunderdale GJ, Miyamae T, Hozumi A (2014) Why can organic liquids move easily on smooth alky-terminated surfaces? Langmuir 30:4049–4255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kovacs GJ, Law KY, Zhao H, Sambhy V (2012) Coating for an ink jet printhead front face. US Patent 8,226,207Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sambhy V, Law KY, Zhao H, Chugh S (2013) Thermally stable oleophobic low adhesion coating for inkjet printhead front face. US Patent 8,544,987Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sambhy V, Law KY, Zhao H, Chugh S (2014) Low adhesion sol gel coatings with high thermal stability for easy clean, self cleaning printhead front face applications. US Patent 8,851,163Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Della Volpe C, Siboni S, Morra M (2002) Comments on some recent papers on interfacial tension and contact angles. Langmuir 18:1441–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zisman WA (1964) Relation of the equilibrium contact angle to liquid and solid constitution. In: Fowkes F (ed) Contact angle, wettability, and adhesion, advances in chemistry. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 1–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Langmuir I (1934) Mechanical properties of monomolecular films. J Franklin Inst 218:143–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schmidt DL, DeKoven BM, Coburn CE, Potter GE, Meyers GF, Fischer DA (1996) Characterization of a new family of nonwettable nonstick surfaces. Langmuir 12:518–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Oss CJ (1994) Interfacial forces in aqueous media. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vogler EA (1998) Structure and reactivity of water at biomaterial surfaces. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 74:69–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Samuel B, Zhao H, Law KY (2011) Study of wetting and adhesion interactions between water and various polymer and superhydrophobic surfaces. J Phys Chem C 115:14852–14861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Law KY (2014) Definitions for hydrophilicity, hydrophobicity and superhydrophobicity getting the basics right. J Phys Chem Lett 5:686–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Young T (1805) An essay on the cohesion of fluids. Philos Trans R Soc London 95:65–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roach P, Shirtcliffe NJ, Newton MI (2008) Progress in superhydrophobic surface development. Soft Matter 4:224–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Forsberg PSH, Priest C, Brinkmann M, Sedev R, Ralston J (2010) Contact line pinning on microstructured surfaces for liquids in the Wenzel states. Langmuir 26:860–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Law KY (2014) Superoleophobic surfaces. Surface properties, fabrication methods, and potential application. In: Lyshevski S (ed) Dekker encyclopedia of nanoscience and nanotechnology, 3rd edn. CRC Press, New York, p 4657Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bellanger H, Darmanin T, deGivenchy ET, Guittard F (2014) Chemical and physical pathways for the preparation of superoleophobic surfaces and related wetting theories. Chem Rev 114:2694–2716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kota AK, Mabry JM, Tuteja A (2013) Superoleophobic surface design: design criteria and recent studies. Surf Innov 1:77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu K, Tian Y, Jiang L (2013) Bio-inspired superoleophobic and smart materials: design, fabrication, and application. Prog Mater Sci 58:503–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nishimoto S, Bhushan B (2013) Bioinspired self-cleaning surfaces with superhydrophobicity, superoleophobicity, and superhydrophilicity. RSC Adv 3:671–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Law KY (2015) Water-surface interactions and definitions for hydrophilicity, hydrophobicity and superhydrophobicity. Pure Appl Chem 87(8):759–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Founder & CEO at Research and Innovative SolutionsPenfieldUSA
  2. 2.School of Engineeing, Mechanical and Nuclear EngineeringVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations