1993
DOI: 10.1006/jcis.1993.1099
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Surface Tension of Cork from Contact Angle Measurements

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
7
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The hydrophobic nature of cork was already observed by Abenojar et al [20], who detected a contact angle of natural cork between 90° and 100°. Similar results were obtained by Gomes et al [21] who observed an average contact angle of 84° ± 2°. These contact angle values are lower than those obtained in this study, and this can be ascribed to the difference between natural cork and agglomerated cork roughness.…”
Section: Surface Wettabilitysupporting
confidence: 90%
“…The hydrophobic nature of cork was already observed by Abenojar et al [20], who detected a contact angle of natural cork between 90° and 100°. Similar results were obtained by Gomes et al [21] who observed an average contact angle of 84° ± 2°. These contact angle values are lower than those obtained in this study, and this can be ascribed to the difference between natural cork and agglomerated cork roughness.…”
Section: Surface Wettabilitysupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Gomes et al 108 were the first to measure contact angles and surface properties of cork. They found that nalkanes spread spontaneously on the surface with zero contact angle.…”
Section: Physical Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This conclusion is also corroborated by the visual observation of the water droplets in Figure 37, set down on agglomerated cork NL20 and PVC foam HP130 during wettability tests. Cork hydrophobic nature was already pinpointed by Abenojar et al [161] who found out a contact angle between 90° and 100° for natural cork, and by Gomes et al [162] who obtained similar results and in particular an average contact angle of 84° ± 2°. The contact angle values reported in literature are lower than those reported in this study and this discrepancy can be explained considering the difference in surface roughness that arises between agglomerated and natural cork.…”
Section: Wettabilitymentioning
confidence: 65%