Transport in Porous Media

, Volume 94, Issue 1, pp 225–242 | Cite as

The Effect of Isopropyl Alcohol and Non-Ionic Surfactant Mixtures on the Wetting of Porous Coated Paper

  • C.-M. TågEmail author
  • M. Toiviainen
  • M. Juuti
  • J. B. Rosenholm
  • K. Backfolk
  • P. A. C. Gane


The influence of isopropyl alcohol and non-ionic surfactant solutions on aqueous droplet wetting behaviour on porous coated paper was determined. Paper coatings provide a micro- and nano-porous surface structure, which strictly speaking cannot be described in simple roughness terms as sub-surface lateral absorption directly impacts on the apparent contact angle. It is this very deviation from an idealised system that leads to novel wetting phenomena. Isopropyl alcohol and surfactant-based systems, both of which are commonly used in the printing industry, show differences in wetting behaviour, on both short and long timescales, with changes in the relative composition of the mixtures. Small variations of 0.1 wt% in surfactant concentration have a dramatic influence on the dynamic surface tension, and thus the wetting. It was observed that the wetting kinetics for isopropyl alcohol and surfactant solutions were different in terms of both wetting area and the penetration rate, even in cases where the dynamic surface tension of the solutions was kept the same. Different stages in the wetting and following drying processes could be observed with near infrared spectral imaging. In addition, the surfactant chemistries such as their degrees of hydrophilicity and molecular weights generated comparative differences in the wetting kinetics. The dominating factor affecting the wetting was, as expected, the solid–liquid interfacial energy defined on the practical porous substrate, which differed from the direct comparison with dynamic surface tension, thus exemplifying the deviation from idealised surface roughness behaviour when considering porous materials. An apparent “equivalent” surface roughness value for the porous material was determined, and it was seen that an increase in this equivalent parameter enhanced the rate of wetting behaviour with decreasing solution surface tension, and so also affected the wetting evolution. The wetting was enhanced by cavities in the coating layer, which were enlarged by the penetrating liquids.


Fountain solution Imbibition Offset printing Porous media Spreading Wetting 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adeel, Z., Luthy, R.G.: Concentration-dependent regimes in sorption and transport of a nonionic surfactant in sand-aqueous systems. In: Sabatini, D.A., Knox, R.C., Harwell, J.H. (eds.) Surfactant-Enhanced Subsurface Remediation, chap. 4. ACS Symposium Series 594, American Chemical Society, Washington (1995)Google Scholar
  2. Aurenty P., Lemery S., Gandini A.: Dynamic spreading of alcohol based vs surfactant based fountain solutions on model plate “non-image” areas. Am. Ink Maker 12, 154–160 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. Bascom W.D., Cottington R.L., Singleterry C.R.: Contact angle, wettability and adhesion. In: Fowkes, F.M (ed) Advances in Chemistry Series, vol. 43, American Chemical Society, Washington (1964)Google Scholar
  4. Bernadiner M.G.: A capillary micro structure of the wetting front. Transp. Porous Med. 30, 251–265 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bettahar M., Ducreux J., Schäfer G., van Dorpe F.: Surfactant enhanced in situ remediation of lnapl contaminated aquifers: large scale studies on a controlled experimental site. Transp. Porous Med. 37, 255–276 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bico J., Marzolin C., Quéré D.: Pearl drops. Europhys. Lett. 47(2), 220–226 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dougherty W.R.: Acetylenic diol surfactants cut foaming and wetting problems. Adhes. Age 32, 26 (1989)Google Scholar
  8. Dubé M., Chabot B., Daneault C., Alava M.: Fundamentals of fluid front roughening in imbibition. Pulp Paper Can. 106(9), T178 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. Eriksson J., Tiberg F., Zhmud B.: Wetting effects due to surfactant carryover through the three phase contact line. Langmuir 17, 7274–7279 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fountain J.C., Klimek A., Beikirch M.G., Middleton T.M.: The use of surfactants for in-situ extraction of organic pollutants from a contaminated aquifer. Special issue on in-situ remediation. J. Hazardous Mater. 28, 295–311 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gane P.A.C., Kettle J.P., Matthews G.P., Ridgway C.J.: Void space structure of compressible polymer spheres and consolidated calcium carbonate paper-coating formulations. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 35, 1753 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gane P.A.C., Schoelkopf J., Spielmann D.C., Matthews G.P., Ridgway C.J.: Fluid transport into porous coating structures: Some novel findings. Tappi J. 83(5), 77–78 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. Gate L.F., Leaity K.: New Aspects on the Gloss of Paper, Tappi 1991 Coating Conference Proceedings. Tappi Press, Atlanta (1991)Google Scholar
  14. Gojo, M., Dragcevic, K., Hincak, I.: Dependence of the contact angle on the fountain solution concentration. In: Conference Proceedings, vol. 15, pp 117–123. Grafički Fakultet, Acta Graphica, Intergrafika, Zagreb, (1998)Google Scholar
  15. Hammond P., Pearson J.: Pore-scale flow in surfactant flooding. Transp. Porous Med. 83, 127–149 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen C.M.: The three dimensional solubility parameter—key to paint component affinities: I. Solvents, plasticizers, polymers, and resins. J. Paint Technol. 39, 505 (1967)Google Scholar
  17. Hayworth J.S., Burris D.R.: Modeling cationic surfactant transport in porous media. J. Ground Water 34, 274–282 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Järn M., Brieler F.J., Kuemmel M., Grosso D., Lindén M.: Wetting of heterogeneous nanopatterned inorganic surfaces. Chem. Mater. 20, 1476–1483 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jönsson B., Lindman B., Holmberg K., Kronberg B.: Surfactants and Polymers in Aqueous Solution. Wiley, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  20. Kamusewitz H., Possart W.: Wetting and scanning force microscopy on rough polymer surfaces: Wenzel’s roughness factor and the thermodynamic contact angle. Appl. Phys. A 76, 889–902 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kipphan H.: Handbook of Print Media—Technologies and Production Methods, ISBN:3–540 67326–1. Springer, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  22. Krishnan R., Sprycha R.: Interactions of acetylenic diol surfactants with polymers: Part 1 Maleic anhydride co-polymers. Colloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 149, 355–366 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee F.J.: Acetylenic glycol based surfactants for use in fountain solutions. Am. Ink Maker 9, 28–53 (1998)Google Scholar
  24. Lindqvist, U., Virtanen, J., Korostenski, J., Wallström, E.: Substitution of IPA in Fountain Solutions— Technical and Environmental Consequences, pp. 118–138 (1981)Google Scholar
  25. Medina S.: Acetylenic-based surfactants, problem solvers in complaint coating applications. Paint Coatings Indus. 3, 66–72 (1997)Google Scholar
  26. Lovrecek M., Gojo M., Dragcevic K.: Interfacial characteristics of the rubber blanket—dampening solution system. In: Bristow, J.A (ed) Advances in Printing Science and Technology, pp. 103–114. Pira International, Leatherhead (1999)Google Scholar
  27. Mulligan C.: Surfactant-enhanced remediation of contaminated soil: a review. Eng. Geol. 60, 371–380 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Musselman S.W., Chander S.: Wetting and adsorption of acetylenic diol based non-ionic surfactants on heterogeneous surfaces. Colloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 206, 497–513 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peltonen J., Järn M., Areva S., Lindén M., Rosenholm J.B.: Topographical parameters for specifying a three-dimensional surface. Langmuir 20, 9428–9431 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reinius H., Pajari H., Tahkola K., Mikkilä J., Pohler T., Nieminen S., Hermansson E., Schulze U.: Knowledge of the interactions between fountain solution and coating provides ways to improve printed paper quality. Profess. Papermak. 1, 44–47 (2006)Google Scholar
  31. Ridgway C.J., Gane P.A.C.: Bulk density measurement and coating porosity calculation for coated paper samples. Nordic Pulp Paper Res. J. 18, 24–31 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ridgway C.J., Gane P.A.C.: Dynamic absorption into simulated porous structures. Colloids Surf. A 206, 217–239 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenholm, J.B., Tåg, C.-M.: Chemical interaction and transport processes during printing. In: Rosenholm, J.B., Tåg, C.-M. (eds) Network of Competence in Formation of Surface Properties: Molecular Understanding of Printability, pp. 88–132, ISBN:978-952-12-1984-9. Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland (2007)Google Scholar
  34. Rosenholm J.B.: Wetting of surfaces and interfaces. A conceptual equilibrium thermodynamic approach. In: Tadros, Th. (ed) Colloid Stability–the Role of Surface Forces, pp. 1–83. Wiley, (2007)Google Scholar
  35. Schoelkopf J., Ridgway C.J., Gane P.A.C., Matthews G.P., Spielmann D.C.: Measurement and network modelling of liquid permeation into compacted mineral blocks. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 227(1), 119–131 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schoelkopf, J., Gane, P.A.C., Ridgway, C.J., Matthews, G.P.: Practical observation of deviation from Lucas-Washburn scaling in porous media. Colloids Surf 445–454 (2002)Google Scholar
  37. Shibuichi S., Onda T., Satoh N., Tsujii K.: Super water-repellent surfaces resulting from fractal structure. J. Phys. Chem. 100, 19512–19517 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stout W., Lee F.J.: New Generation Gemini Surfactants in Graphic Arts Applications. ECS, (2001)Google Scholar
  39. Ström G.: The importance of surface energetics and dynamic wetting in offset printing. J Pulp Paper Sci. 19(2), 79–85 (1993)Google Scholar
  40. Taniguchi M., Belfort G.: Correcting for surface roughness: advancing and receding contact angles. Langmuir 18, 6465–6467 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tåg C.-M., Pykönen M., Rosenholm J.B., Backfolk K.: Wettability of model fountain solutions: the influence on topo-chemical and -physical properties of offset paper. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 330, 428–436 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wenzel R.N.: Resistance of solid surfaces to wetting by water. Ind. Eng. Chem. 28, 988–994 (1936)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • C.-M. Tåg
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • M. Toiviainen
    • 3
  • M. Juuti
    • 3
  • J. B. Rosenholm
    • 1
  • K. Backfolk
    • 4
  • P. A. C. Gane
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Laboratory of Physical Chemistry, Center for Functional MaterialsÅbo Akademi UniversityÅboFinland
  2. 2.Forest Pilot Center OyRaisioFinland
  3. 3.VTT Technical Research Centre of FinlandKuopioFinland
  4. 4.Laboratory of Fiber and Paper Technology, Department of Chemical TechnologyLappeenranta University of TechnologyLappeenrantaFinland
  5. 5.Department of Forest Products Technology, School of Chemical TechnologyAalto UniversityAaltoFinland
  6. 6.Omya Development AGOftringenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations