Adhesion forces in liquid media: Effect of surface topography and wettability

On the stability of bubbles trapped at a solid–liquid interface: A thermodynamical approach

“…(11) and (12) relate the stability of bubbles trapped at a solid-liquid interface with the experimentally accessible properties, h ap , r and f. The apparent contact angle, h ap , can be obtained from wettability measurements. The roughness parameter, r, can be calculated directly from topographic profiles that also yield a rough estimation for the parameter f. A final remark is at hand concerning the high Young-Laplace pressure in bubbles with nanometric curvature radius.…”

“…Afterwards, many other papers describe the direct observation of these small gas domains (e.g. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12], among others), and nowadays, besides their relation with LRHF effects, nanobubbles are good candidates to explain a considerable number of other phenomena: the stability of some colloidal systems [6], the liquid slippage at walls in nano and microfluidic systems [13], the superhydrophobic effect in lotus-leaf like surfaces [14], processes of separation by flotation [15], and the anomalous behaviour of nanoadhesion forces in hydrophobic surfaces, as recently reported by the authors [11].…”

Effects of surface wettability on gecko adhesion underwater

“…In fact, we should note that nano-bubbles can hardly form on a hydrophilic surface spontaneously, especially on a smooth hydrophilic one. Several experiments by AFM have revealed that nano-bubbles on a hydrophilic surface are hardly measured underwater [26,27,47,48]. But if roughness is introduced or solvent-water (i.e.…”

Adsorption of albumin and sodium hyaluronate on UHMWPE: A QCM-D and AFM study

“…On the bare polymer surface, two sets of values were obtained: one around 41 nN, corresponding to the majority of measurements, and another much smaller ≈10 nN. According to a previous publication [15], the high values may be attributed to the presence of air nanobubbles at the aqueous solution-polyethylene interface.…”

“…Their spring constants (k z ) were determined according to the method described in Ref. [15] and have the average value k z = 0.16 N/m. Measurements were made at a vertical scan rate of 1 Hz in 8 × 8 arrays over scan areas of 1 × 1 m 2 .…”