Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:37:46.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Measurement of Surface Energy by Video Analysis of Captive-Bubble Contact-Angles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Jeremy C. Thomas  and
John Davenport
Jeremy C. Thomas
Affiliation:
University Marine Biological Station, Millport, Isle of Cumbrae, KA28 OEG
John Davenport
Affiliation:
University Marine Biological Station, Millport, Isle of Cumbrae, KA28 OEG
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Surface energy has been demonstrated to have a significant effect upon the settlement and growth of many marine organisms. However, the measurement of surface energy has either been too expensive for most marine laboratories to consider its use, or the methods used have relied upon classical contact-angle theory. Modern contact-angle theory and a video-based technique using captive bubbles are described. The technique is non-destructive, inexpensive, rapid and accurate enough to compare living and man-made surfaces. A precision of ~5° has been achieved and rapidly-changing angles can be quantified. Data for PTFE sheet, Parafilm, acetate sheet, Geltek gel, sea-water-conditioned slate, Porphyra umbilicalis (L.) Agardh, Ciona intestinalis (L.), and Cyanea capillata (L.) are presented. The contact angles for the living surfaces are smaller (31–44°) than for all the non-living surfaces (73–112°), suggesting overall higher surface energies for the biological materials studied.

Type
Short Communications
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 75 , Issue 3 , August 1995 , pp. 763 - 766
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baier, R.E. & Meyer, A.E., 1986. Surface analysis. In Handbook of biomaterials evaluation: scientific, technical and clinical testing of implant materials (ed. A.F. Von, Recum), pp. 97–108. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Budziak, C.J., Varghabutler, E.I. & Neumann, A.W., 1991. Temperature dependence of contact angles on elastomers. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 42, 1959–1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, S.C., 1976. Influence of substrate wettability on the formation of bacterial slime films on solid surfaces immersed in natural sea-water. Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Marine Corrosion and Fouling (ed. V., Romanovsky), pp. 137–144. Boulogne: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Gerhart, D.J., Rittschof, D., Hooper, I.R., Eisenman, K., Meyer, A.E., Baier, R.E. & Young, C., 1992. Rapid and inexpensive quantification of the combined polar components of surface wettability: application to biofouling. Biofouling, 5, 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, W.A., Wieker, F. & Eiben, R., 1976. Larval adhesion, releasing stimuli and metamorphosis. In Coelenterate ecology and behaviour (ed. G.O., Mackie), pp. 339–346. London: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oss, C.J. Van, Good, R.J. & Chaudhury, M.K., 1988. Additive and nonadditive surface tension components and the interpretation of contact angles. Langmuir, 4, 884–891.Google Scholar
Pawlik, J.R., 1992. Chemical ecology of the settlement of benthic marine invertebrates. Oceanography and Marine Biology. Annual Review. London, 30, 273–335.Google Scholar
Uyama, Y., Inque, H., Ito, K., Kishida, A. & Ikada, Y., 1991. Comparison of different methods for contact angle measurement. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 141, 275–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W. & Hallström, B., 1990. Membrane characterization using the contact angle technique. I. Methodology of the captive bubble technique. Desalination, 79, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar