Understanding wetting phenomena at the micro- and nanoscale is vital for a broad range of applications, including digital microfluidics [1,2], additive manufacturing [3], coating technologies [4], and tribological systems [5]. In contrast to the macroscale, where the liquid–solid contact is governed by the three surface tensions of the solid, the liquid, and the gas phases, at the nanoscale one also has to take into account the line tension, i.e., the force of the tensile or compressive strength of the one-dimensional three-phase contact line [6]. In analogy to surface tension, which seeks to reduce the area of the interfaces, the line tension seeks to reduce the free energy of the solid–liquid–gas system by adjusting the length of the contact line of the liquid drop.Line tension was thermodynamically described by Gibbs as the excess free energy per unit length of the contact line [7]. Its cause is attributed to the imbalance of intermolecular forces in the three phase contact region [6]. It leads to a rebalance of interfacial forces in this region, and thus to a modified form of Young’s equation [8]:
where γLG, γSG, and γLS are the liquid–gas, solid–gas, and liquid–solid interfacial tensions and θ∞ and θ are the contact angles of a macroscopic droplet and a droplet with the contact radius r, respectively. Here, τ represents not only the thermodynamic line tension, but also the curvature-dependent surface tension and line contribution effects [9,10,11,12], and thus, it is referred to as the apparent line tension.From Equation (1) it can be seen that the contact angle becomes size dependent at the nanoscale. Furthermore, one can determine the apparent line tension by measuring the contact angle of the drops with different diameters at this scale.However, the reduction of the droplet size is associated with some difficulties. For example, the influence of the evaporation rate increases strongly as the droplet diameter decreases. The possibilities for controlled manipulation of the droplets become severely limited and determining the contour angle requires high-resolution microscopes. Thus, despite many efforts for several decades, the experimental determination of the apparent line tension has remained a difficult task. Positive as well as negative values have been reported, spanning over several orders of magnitude from 10−12 to 10−5 J/m [6,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. So far, most methods rely on AFM measurement of the drop shape and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. Recently, Zhao et al. have determined the apparent line tension by acquiring the topography of nanoscale 1-butyl-3-methylmidazolium iodide drops via atomic force microscope (AFM) measurements and the subsequent three-dimensional cap fitting [22]. While the results show τ values that are in agreement with the literature, this technique (as well as others based on AFM measurements) suffers from not being able to accurately capture the behavior in the liquid–solid–gas contact point due to the finite size of the AFM cantilever tip and having to rely on cap fitting and extrapolation of the contact angle and radius for data analysis, which might not be accurate—especially for contact angles > 90°.To address these issues, we have previously presented the use of a liquid metal as a liquid with a barely measurable evaporation rate [22] and demonstrated robotically assisted contact angle measurements in a scanning electron microscope (SEM) [23]. To address the issue of oxide layer growth on the liquid metal droplets, which would prevent them from being useful for contact angle measurements [24], our experiments take place in the low-oxygen vacuum atmosphere of an SEM chamber.Thus, in this work, we are able to investigate the dependence of the contact angle on drop size via direct measurement of the advancing and receding contact angle of liquid metal droplets with different diameters inside an SEM. From those measurements, we determine the magnitude of the apparent line tension using Equation (1). Our results show that the contact angle is (a) indeed size dependent once the contact area reaches the nanoscale, and (b) the magnitude of the line tension of Galinstan is in the range of 10−7 J/m.
SEM micrographs presenting four different contact angle measurements series (columns from left to right) with liquid metal droplet diameters of 1.3 µm, 2.5 µm, 7 µm, and 14.7 µm, respectively; the upper row (I) depicts the advancing contact angles of each measurement, the middle row (II) depicts the receding contact angles, while the last row (III) the respective manipulator is illustrated.
During the measurements, several things should be considered. For example, the influence of the SEM beam can lead to a change in adhesion. Thus, especially when measuring with smaller spheres, care must be taken to use the same magnification as when measuring larger spheres. Due to the increased irradiation dose at higher magnification, electron beam-induced depositions (EBiD) are more likely to be formed [29] and can lead to a significantly stronger adhesion of the liquid metal to the surface. Thus, the increased accuracy from measuring the contact angle at a higher magnification must be weighed against the stronger influence of the electron beam. Consequently, these measurements must be performed faster or at a lower magnification relative to the sphere radius, which in turn leads to inaccuracies.In addition, the increasing influence of the oxide layer with longer measuring times must also be taken into account. Therefore, the measurements were performed within a maximum of ten minutes after the preparation of the sphere to keep this influence low. More details about the contact angle measurement technique and the influence of the oxide layer can be found in previous work [23].
3. Results
Measurements of advancing and receding contact angles for different droplet sizes on a stainless steel substrate have been performed by the height variation method [28], as described above. Knowing the advancing and receding contact angles, the equilibrium angle θ can be calculated according to following equations [30]:Contact angle hysteresis is caused by inhomogeneities of the surface, and thus Equations (2)–(4) can be derived by incorporating the contribution of the line tension into Young’s equation and then assuming that the resistance to motion for an advancing drop is equal to the resistance of the motion in a receding drop because both of these resistances are a result of the pinning of the contact line to similar surface irregularities [30].Figure 2 shows the behavior of the advancing, receding, and equilibrium contact angles with decreasing liquid metal droplet sizes. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the measurement results around the mean value. While the advancing angle is hardly influenced by the drop size, it can be seen, despite the variation of individual values, that, overall, the receding angle drops with the decreasing size of the liquid metal sphere—starting from a critical diameter of around 10–12 µm—and thus, the equilibrium contact angle shows a similar behavior. For example, the difference in the equilibrium contact angle can amount to more than 50° between droplets of around a 12 µm diameter and ones with a diameter of 2 µm. From these findings, it can be expected that the receding and equilibrium contact angles decrease even more for smaller droplets.
Figure 2
Values of advancing, receding, and the equilibrium contact angle calculated according to Equations (2)–(4) for liquid metal spheres with different diameters; the trend shows decreasing receding and equilibrium contact angle with decreasing sphere size, whereas the advancing contact angle doesn’t show a significant change with decreasing drop size.