| Literature DB >> 28772613 |
Yunhong Liang1,2, Jian Peng3, Xiujuan Li4, Jubin Huang5, Rongxian Qiu6, Zhihui Zhang7,8, Luquan Ren9.
Abstract
Inspired by the array microstructure of natural superhydrophobic surfaces (lotus leaf and cicada wing), an array microstructure was successfully constructed by high speed wire electrical discharge machining (HS-WEDM) on the surfaces of a 7075 aluminum alloy without any chemical treatment. The artificial surfaces had a high apparent contact angle of 153° ± 1° with a contact angle hysteresis less than 5° and showed a good superhydrophobic property. Wettability, contact time, and the corresponding superhydrophobic mechanism of artificial superhydrophobic surface were investigated. The results indicated that the micro-scale array microstructure was an important factor for the superhydrophobic surface, while different array microstructures exhibited different effects on the wettability and contact time of the artificial superhydrophobic surface. The length (L), interval (S), and height (H) of the array microstructure are the main influential factors on the wettability and contact time. The order of importance of these factors is H > S > L for increasing the apparent contact angle and reducing the contact time. The method, using HS-WEDM to fabricate superhydrophobic surface, is simple, low-cost, and environmentally friendly and can easily control the wettability and contact time on the artificial surfaces by changing the array microstructure.Entities:
Keywords: apparent contact time; array microstructure; biomimetic; superhydrophobic; wettability
Year: 2017 PMID: 28772613 PMCID: PMC5503404 DOI: 10.3390/ma10030254
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
The chemical compositions of the 7075 aluminum alloy (wt %).
| Element | Al (%) | Si (%) | Fe (%) | Cu (%) | Mn (%) | Mg (%) | Cr (%) | Zn (%) | Ti (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| content | 89.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 2.7 | 0.2 | 6 | 0.1 |
Figure 1(a,b) Different magnifications of SEM images show microscopic structure of lotus leaf. Inset of (a): the apparent contact angle of lotus leaves is about 157° ± 1°; (c,d) Different magnifications of SEM images show microscopic structure of cicada wings. Inset of (c): the apparent contact angle of cicada wings is about 152° ± 1°.
Figure 2The photos and SEM images of the as-prepared aluminum alloy surface. (a) The photo of a water droplet on the as-prepared surface, and the inset of (a), the apparent contact angle of prepared aluminum alloy is 153° ± 1°; (b) The laser scanning confocal microscope image; (c,d) Different magnifications of SEM images on structured aluminum alloy surface after the HS-WEDM process.
Figure 3XPS spectrum of the artificial superhydrophobic surface.
Figure 4Regime of wetting according to the Cassie–Baxter model is depicted.
Figure 5A water drop bouncing on the artificial surface (surface parameters: L = 130 μm, S = 300 μm, H = 200 μm). (a) Front-view images of a droplet bouncing on the artificial surface; (b) Synchronized top-view images of a droplet bouncing on this surface.
Figure 6A water drop bouncing on the unprocessed 7075 surface. (a) Front-view images of a droplet bouncing on surface. Inset of (a): the contact angle of the surface is about 61°; (b) Synchronized top-view images of a droplet bouncing on the surface.
The experimental surface parameters and results of the contact time and the apparent contact angle.
| Sample No. | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ( | ( | ( | 155 | 25.3 |
| 2 | ( | ( | ( | 153 | 22.7 |
| 3 | ( | ( | ( | 152 | 22.8 |
| 4 | ( | ( | ( | 154 | 22.7 |
| 5 | ( | ( | ( | 153 | 25.6 |
| 6 | ( | ( | ( | 151 | 21.4 |
| 7 | ( | ( | ( | 156 | 22.8 |
| 8 | ( | ( | ( | 153 | 19.1 |
| 9 | ( | ( | ( | 156 | 26.8 |
The analyzed results of the orthogonal array.
| Indices | Item |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| APCA (°) |
| 461 | 464 | 467 |
|
| 461 | 462 | 460 | |
|
| 465 | 459 | 459 | |
|
| 153.7 | 154.7 | 155.7 | |
|
| 153.7 | 154 | 153.3 | |
|
| 155 | 153 | 153 | |
|
| 1.3 | 1.7 | 2.7 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
| Contact time (ms) | 70.8 | 70.8 | 77.7 | |
| 69.7 | 67.4 | 66.9 | ||
| 68.7 | 71 | 64.6 | ||
| 23.6 | 23.6 | 25.9 | ||
| 23.2 | 22.5 | 22.3 | ||
| 22.9 | 23.7 | 21.5 | ||
| 0.7 | 1.2 | 4.4 | ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Figure 7Tendency charts of (a) the apparent contact angle and (b) the contact time as a function of surface parameters.