2020
DOI: 10.1039/c9sm02199j
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Liquid marbles from soot films

Abstract: Mechanically-weak superhydrophobic soot films are suitable for liquid marble production.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
0
13
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This is in contrast to the results from other work, where a smaller particle size leads to weaker LMs. 75,76 The results drawn from the experiments by varying the particle size from 22 to 141 μm in this demonstration may not be universal. Nevertheless, we assume that different preparation methodology may affect the robustness of LMs.…”
Section: Methodologies and Formation Under Electrostaticsmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…This is in contrast to the results from other work, where a smaller particle size leads to weaker LMs. 75,76 The results drawn from the experiments by varying the particle size from 22 to 141 μm in this demonstration may not be universal. Nevertheless, we assume that different preparation methodology may affect the robustness of LMs.…”
Section: Methodologies and Formation Under Electrostaticsmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Very recently, such performance has been also found in superhydrophobic soot films used for liquid marble production. [ 36 ] To address this issue, concave glasses have been employed as substrates, such that both small and large droplets can be arbitrarily rolled on a shaking substrate. [ 25,36 ] Here, concave platforms were employed for rolling liquids with different surface tensions and volumes.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Currently, the general consensus is that LMs coated with multiple layers of particles have a slower rate of evaporation than their uncoated counterpart (drying rate is halved for a coating thickness 1/10th the drop size), whereas LMs with a particle monolayer have faster rates than their equivalent naked droplet. [17,18,21,22,24,109,123,125,138,139] For monolayer LMs this has been attributed to the incompressibility of the interface, which remains constant over the course of drying. An LM covered with a monolayer of particles will exhibit more interface and therefore quicker drying (Figure 4).…”
Section: Mono/multilayermentioning
confidence: 99%