Skip to main content
Log in

Influence of surface roughness on contact angle hysteresis and spreading work

  • Original Contribution
  • Published:
Colloid and Polymer Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Surface roughness is an important factor that affects dynamic wetting behavior, which can improve the surface hydrophobicity, so it is of great significance to obtain a better understanding of roughness effect from both theoretical and practical perspectives. In this paper, we studied the influence of macro-size surface roughness on contact angle hysteresis and spreading work and analyzed the relationship between contact angle hysteresis and spreading work. Results showed that as the surface roughness increased, both the advancing contact angle and the receding contact angle continued to increase until their maximum values were reached, and then started to decrease within the range of surface roughness studied, while the contact angle hysteresis presented the opposite trend. In addition, with the increase of surface roughness the spreading work initially increased to a certain maximum value, then continuously decreased to the minimum value, and then began to increase within the range of the surface roughness studied. These trends could be attributed to the surface wetting state (Wenzel state, Cassie state, and transition state) changing with the change of surface roughness. These findings can provide guidance for the preparation of wetted surfaces with specific functions, especially when it is required to change the wettability without changing the surface chemical properties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bracco G, Holst B (2013) Surface science techniques. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Si Y, Yu C, Dong Z, Jiang L (2018) Wetting and spreading: fundamental theories to cutting-edge applications. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 36:10–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chau TT, Bruckard WJ, Koh PTL, Nguyen AV (2009) A review of factors that affect contact angle and implications for flotation practice. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 150:106–115

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kuchin I, Starov V (2015) Hysteresis of contact angle of sessile droplets on smooth homogeneous solid substrates via disjoining/conjoining pressure. Langmuir 31:5345–5352

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Arjmandi-Tash O, Kovalchuk NM, Trybala A, Kuchin IV, Starov V (2017) Kinetics of wetting and spreading of droplets over various substrates. Langmuir 33:4367–4385

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Girifalco LA, Good RJ (1957) A theory for the estimation of surface and interfacial energies: I. Derivation and application to interfacial tension. J Phys Chem 61:904–909

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nishino T, Meguro M, Nakamae K, Matsushita M, Ueda Y (1999) The lowest surface free energy based on –CF3 alignment. Langmuir 15:4321–4323

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nakajima A, Hashimoto K, Watanabe T (2001) Recent studies on super-hydrophobic films. Monatsh Chem 132:31–41

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nilsson MA, Daniello RJ, Rothstein JP (2010) A novel and inexpensive technique for creating superhydrophobic surfaces using Teflon and sandpaper. J Phys D Appl Phys 43:045301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Watson GS, Gellender M, Watson JA (2014) Self-propulsion of dew drops on lotus leaves: a potential mechanism for self-cleaning. Biofouling 30:427–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Miwa M, Nakajima A, Fujishima A, Hashimoto K, Watanabe T (2000) Effects of the surface roughness on sliding angles of water droplets on superhydrophobic surfaces. Langmuir 16:5754–5760

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim JH, Kavehpour HP, Rothstein JP (2015) Dynamic contact angle measurements on superhydrophobic surfaces. Phys Fluids 27:032107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ramón-Torregrosa PJ, Rodríguez-Valverde MA, Amirfazli A, Cabrerizo-Vílchez MA (2008) Factors affecting the measurement of roughness factor of surfaces and its implications for wetting studies. Colloids Surfaces A 323:83–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kubiak KJ, Wilson MCT, Mathia TG, Carval P (2011) Wettability versus roughness of engineering surfaces. Wear 271:523–528

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Karim AM, Rothstein JP, Kavehpour HP (2018) Experimental study of dynamic contact angles on rough hydrophobic surfaces. J Colloid Interface Sci 513:658–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cheng K, Naccarato B, Kim KJ, Kumar A (2016) Theoretical consideration of contact angle hysteresis using surface-energy-minimization methods. Int J Heat Mass Tran 102:154–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Quéré D (2008) Wetting and roughness. Annu Rev Mater Res 38:16.1–16.29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lafuma A, Quéré D (2003) Superhydrophobic states. Nat Mater 2:457–460

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ramiasa M, Ralston J, Fetzer R, Sedev R (2014) The influence of topography on dynamic wetting. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 206:275–293

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang J, Cao Y, Li G, Wang Y, Li S, Liao Y (2020) Determination of dynamic wetting behavior using different methods. Colloid Polym Sci https://doi.org/ 298:595–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00396-020-04651-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Spori DM, Drobek T, Zürcher S, Ochsner M, Sprecher C, Mühlebach A, Spencer ND (2008) Beyond the lotus effect: roughness influences on wetting over a wide surface-energy range. Langmuir 24:5411–5417

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang X, Shi F, Niu J, Jiang YG, Wang ZQ (2008) Superhydrophobic surfaces: from structural control to functional application. J Mater Chem 18:621–633

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Chibowski E (2003) Surface free energy of a solid from contact angle hysteresis. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 103:149–172

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kakar MR, Hamzah MO, Akhtar MN, Woodward D (2016) Surface free energy and moisture susceptibility evaluation of asphalt binders modified with surfactant-based chemical additive. J Clean Prod 112:2342–2353

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lashkarbolooki M, Ayatollahi S (2018) Investigating injection of low salinity brine in carbonate rock with the assist of works of cohesion and adhesion and spreading coefficient calculations. J Petrol Sci Eng 161:381–389.

  26. Lamperti R, Grenfell J, Sangiorgi C, Lantieri C, Airey GD (2015) Influence of waxes on adhesion properties of bituminous binders. Constr Build Mater 76:404–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (U1704252;51904299) for which the authors express their appreciation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yijun Cao or Guosheng Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, J., Wu, Y., Cao, Y. et al. Influence of surface roughness on contact angle hysteresis and spreading work. Colloid Polym Sci 298, 1107–1112 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00396-020-04680-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00396-020-04680-x

Keywords

Navigation