The Wetting Behavior of Fibers
Historically, the technologies most interested in the wetting of fibers have been those involved in the processing of textiles.(1, 2) Much of the early scientific literature on wetting was concerned with liquid penetration into fabrics and other porous solids.(3) More recently, the rapid development of fiber reinforced composites, notably carbon fiber and glass fiber reinforced polymers (CFRP, GFRP), has generated a renewed interest in the wetting of fibers. However, in the interim there has been a change in the scientific attitude toward the use of contact angle measurements as a means of characterizing the surface chemical constitution of solids. In the early literature, the contact angle was viewed as a characteristic of the fiber and a parameter in the capillarity equations for liquid penetration. Due in large measure to the studies by W. A Zisman and co-workers, there has been a change in attitude toward the physical significance of contact angle measurements. It is now recognized that the contact angle can be a highly sensitive tool for surface characterization. Consequently, there is a growing body of literature on the wetting of textile fibers and fibers used in composites aimed at surface chemical characterization as well as the processing of these fibers into composite materials.
KeywordsContact Angle Carbon Fiber Contact Angle Hysteresis Wetting Behavior Liquid Surface Tension
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.A. B. D. Cassie, in Surface Phenomena in Chemistry and Biology (J. F. Daniellli, K. G. A. Pankhurst, and A. C. Riddiford, eds.), p. 166, Pergamon Press, New York (1958).Google Scholar
- 2.N. K. Adam, The Physics and Chemistry of Surfaces, 3rd ed., p. 169, Oxford University Press, London (1941).Google Scholar
- 4.Lord Rayleigh, Proc. London Math. Soc. 10, 4 (1879).Google Scholar
- 7.J. N. Israelachvilli, Intermolecular and Surface Forces, Academic Press, New York (1985).Google Scholar
- 9.F. Brochard-Wyart and J.-M. di Meglio, Ann. Chim. 77 275 (1987).Google Scholar
- 11.J. J. Elmendorp, Koninklijke/Shell Laboratorium, Amsterdam, private communication.Google Scholar
- 12.P. J. Verschoor and W. D. Bascom, unpublished results.Google Scholar
- 14.J. P. Mutchler, J. Menkart, and A. M. Schwartz, in Pesticidal Formulations Research, Adv. Chem. Ser. No. 86, p. 7, American Chemical Society, Washington DC (1967).Google Scholar
- 16.W. D. Bascom, unpublished results.Google Scholar
- 20.B. Miller, in Surface Characteristics of Fibers, part II (M. J. Schick, ed.), p. 417, Marcel Dekker, New York (1977).Google Scholar
- 24.W. D. Bascom, in Advances in Polymer Science, Vol. 85, p. 89, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1988)Google Scholar
- 25.S. Wu, Polymer Interface and Adhesion, p. 67, Marcel Dekker, New York (1982).Google Scholar