2016
DOI: 10.1039/c6sm01716a
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Particle detachment from fluid interfaces: theory vs. experiments

Abstract: Microparticle adsorption and self-assembly at fluid interfaces are strongly affected by the particle three-phase contact angle θ. On the single-particle level, θ can be determined by several techniques, including colloidal-probe AFM, the gel-trapping technique (GTT) and the freeze-fracture shadow-casting (FreSCa) method. While GTT and FreSCa provide contact angle distributions measured over many particles, colloidal-probe AFM measures the wettability of an individual (specified) particle attached onto an AFM c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
65
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(66 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
1
65
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We remark that the range of surface heterogeneities for our particles are on a different scale than surface defects previously studied28, for which thermally activated contact line motion over the defects has been observed9. In fact, the energy barriers associated to the contact line moving over single asperities on our rough particles can be directly calculated29 and are at least of the order of 10 3   k B T (see Supplementary Note 8). This implies that our rough particles are strongly trapped in metastable states and even the energy introduced during an emulsification process is not sufficient to induce a relaxation of the particles' position relative to the interface.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…We remark that the range of surface heterogeneities for our particles are on a different scale than surface defects previously studied28, for which thermally activated contact line motion over the defects has been observed9. In fact, the energy barriers associated to the contact line moving over single asperities on our rough particles can be directly calculated29 and are at least of the order of 10 3   k B T (see Supplementary Note 8). This implies that our rough particles are strongly trapped in metastable states and even the energy introduced during an emulsification process is not sufficient to induce a relaxation of the particles' position relative to the interface.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…The theoretical capillary force (equations ) has been shown to agree well with experimental measurements, albeit the theoretical calculations have been mostly restricted to spheres. Vertical capillary forces on spherical particles have been measured with tensiometry [ Zhang et al ., ; Shang et al ., ] and AFM [ Preuss and Butt , , ; Butt et al ., ; Gillies et al ., ; Anachkov et al ., ; Knüpfer et al ., ]. These types of measurements provide so‐called force‐distance curves, i.e., the force as a function of the position of the air‐water interface, often expressed as the distance between the flat air‐water interface and the particle.…”
Section: Interactions Of Colloids and Air‐water Interfacesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[21]. Because of its practical importance, the detachment of a particle from a planar liquid surface has been studied for a long time [19,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. The quasistatic removal of a sphere from a liquid surface has a strong connection with the meniscus on the outside of a cylinder in a liquid bath, which is governed by the Young-Laplace equation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pitois and Chateau studied the work of detachment of removing a small particle from an interface both experimentally and analytically using a theory based on the Derjaguin-James formula [27,28]. Anachkov et al recently refined Pitois and Chateau's theory by correcting the critical central angle at which a capillary bridge ruptures and compared the theory with experimental data collected with a colloidal-probe atomic force microscope (AFM) [30].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%