Effect of Wettability on Micro- and Nanostructure Surface Using Sessile Droplet Contact Angle for Heat Transfer Application

Research Paper


This experimental investigation studied the variation in the dynamic contact angle measured on copper surface roughened by emery with grit size of 320, 600, 1000, 1500 and 2000 and titanium oxide nanoparticle-coated nanostructure with thickness of 250, 500, 750 and 1000 nm on copper substrates by e-beam evaporation process using deionized water as liquid with the help of macroscopic contact angle meter. In case of emery-roughened copper, advancing contact angle increases with the increase in emery grit size. For nanoparticle-coated surface, initially with the increase in coating thickness from 250 up to 750 nm, advancing contact angle increases; after that, further increasing in coating thickness to 1000 nm, advancing contact angle diminishes. Generally, the contact angle was found to vary from 30° to 60° for deionized water droplet for the nanoparticle-coated surface having different thickness. The surfaces are characterized with respect to morphology and topography to know the particle size and shape and particle distribution pattern and surface roughness with the help of AFM and FEG-SEM. The theoretical analysis is also carried out to determine the dependency of contact angle and roughness on the nanoparticle-coated titanium oxide thin-film surface. This formulation qualitatively showed a similar trend with experimental results.


Contact Angle Nanostructure Surface Surface Roughness 

List of symbols




Spreading coefficient



Greek symbols


Surface free energy


Contact angle



Atomic force microscopy


Scanning electron microscopy


Surface free energy


Contact angle





Solid surface


Solid–liquid interface


Liquid surface




Thin film



We are thankful to SAIF, IIT Bombay, CRF, IIT Patna, and CRF, NIT Agartala, for samples characterization such as FESEM, MCA and AFM.


  1. Bakhshan Y, Hajhosseini A (2015) Using multi-wall carbon nanotube (mwcnt) based nanofluid in the heat pipe to get better thermal performance. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Mech Eng 39(M2):325–335Google Scholar
  2. Bottiglione F, Carbone G (2015) An effective medium approach to predict the apparent contact angle of drops on super-hydrophobic randomly rough surfaces. J Phys Condens Matter 27:015009–015018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cansoy CE, Erbil HY, Akar O, Akin T (2011) Effect of pattern size and geometry on the use of Cassie–Baxter equation for superhydrophobic surfaces. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 386:116–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carey VP (1992) Liquid–vapour phase change phenomena, Chapter-3, 1st edn. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York, pp 57–76Google Scholar
  5. Cassie ABD, Baxter S (1944) Wettability of porous surfaces. Trans Faraday Soc 40:546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chibowski E (2003) Surface free energy of a solid from contact angle hysteresis. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 103:149–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chibowski E, Ontiveros-Ortega A, Perea-Carpio R (2002) On the interpretation of contact angle hysteresis. J Adhes Sci Technol 16:1367–1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Das S, Bhaumik S (2014a) A correlation for prediction of pool boiling heat transfer of nanofluid. Arab J Sci Eng 39(6):4997–5006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Das S, Bhaumik S (2014b) Enhancement of nucleate pool boiling heat transfer on titanium oxide thin film surface. Arab J Sci Eng 39(10):7385–7395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Das S, Bhaumik S (2016a) Experimental study of nucleate pool boiling heat transfer using water on thin film Surface. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Mech Eng 40(1):21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Das S, Bhaumik S (2016b) The effect of coating thickness and roughness of nucleate pool boiling heat transfer on nanocoated surface. J Inst Eng Ser E 97:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Das S, Durbba SK, Bhaumik S (2016) Experimental study of nucleate pool boiling heat transfer of water on silicon oxide nanoparticle coated copper heating surface. Appl Therm Eng 96:555–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erbil HY, McHale G, Rowan SM, Newton MI (1999) Determination of the receding contact angle of sessile drops on polymer surfaces by evaporation. Langmuir 15:7378–7385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Extrand CW (2003) Contact angles and hysteresis on surfaces with chemically heterogeneous islands. Langmuir 19:3793–3896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gao L, McCarthy TJ (2007) How Wenzel and Cassie were wrong. Langmuir 23:3762–3765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hong KT, Imadojemu H, Webb RL (1994) Effects of oxidation and surface roughness on contact angle. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 8:279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kline SJ, McClintock FA (1953) Describing uncertainties in single-sample experiments. Mech Eng 75:3–8Google Scholar
  18. Kubiak KJ, Wilson MCT, Mathia TG, Carval P (2011) Wettability versus roughness of engineering surfaces. Wear 271:523–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kwok Y et al (1998) Low-Rate dynamic contact angles on poly (methyl methacrylate) and the determination of solid surface tensions. J Colloid Interface Sci 206:44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Munshi AM, Singh VN, Kumar M, Singha JP (2008) Effect of nanoparticle size on sessile droplet contact angle. J Appl Phys 084315:103–107Google Scholar
  21. Nishino T, Meguro M, Nakamae K, Matsushita M, Ueda Y (1999) The lowest surface free energy based on -CF3 alignment. Langmuir 15:4321–4323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Quere D (2002) Rough ideas on wetting. Phys A 313:32–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Quere D (2008) Wetting and Roughness. Annu Rev Mater Res 38:71–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raj R, Enright R, Zhu Y, Adera S, Wang EN (2012) Unified model for contact angle hysteresis on heterogeneous and superhydrophobic surfaces. J Langmuir 28:15777–15788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tadmor R (2004) Line energy and the relation between advancing, receding and Young contact angles. Langmuir 20(18):7659–7664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wenzel RN (1936) Resistance of solid surfaces to wetting by water. Ind Eng Chem 28:988–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Whyman G, Bormashenko E, Stein T (2008) The rigorous derivation of Young, Cassie-Baxter and Wenzel equations and the analysis of the contact angle hysteresis phenomenon. Chem Phys Lett (Elsevier) 450:355–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yi ZD, Wei Q, Deng WL (2011) Hydrophobic mechanism and criterion of lotus-leaf-like micro-convex-concave surface. Chin Sci Bull 56(15):1623–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Young T (1805) An essay on the cohesion of fluids. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 95:65–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhou CX, Yuan XG, Fan LT, Zeng AW, Yu KT, Kalbassi M, Porter KE (2010) Experimental study on contact angle of ethanol and N-propanol aqueous solutions on metal surfaces, Distillation Absorption, pp 359–364Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringNational Institute of Technology AgartalaAgartalaIndia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringTIT AgartalaAgartalaIndia
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringNational Institute of Technology AgartalaAgartalaIndia

Personalised recommendations