Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:50:51.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contact Angles in Imaginary Number Space: A Novel Tool for Probing the Remaining Mysteries of Ultrahydrophilicity and Superhydrophilicity.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2014

Herbert P. Jennissen
Herbert P. Jennissen*
Affiliation:
Institut für Physiologische Chemie, Universität Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany
Get access

Abstract

Imaginary contact angles underlying hyperhydrophilicity and the Inverse Lotus Effect introduce a fundamental new development in the area of contact angles and wettability. Just as the Lotus Effect expanded hydrophobicity beyond the maximal contact angle of 119° on a smooth surface, the Inverse Lotus Effect expands hydrophilicity beyond the minimal contact angle of 0° on a smooth surface. Imaginary dynamic contact angles thus offer an exciting enhancement in tools and methodology for measuring the wettability on rough, highly hydrophilic surfaces. Contrary to current thinking, full or perfect wetting of rough surfaces is only little understood and cannot be predicted by classical equations. Therefore also the exact physical basis of imaginary dynamic contact angles remains to be elucidated. In this short treatise some aspects of the new field will be treated with examples derived from rough titanium surfaces employed in the medical field.

Keywords

Tisurface reactionwater
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1648: Symposium HH – Functional Surfaces/Interfaces for Controlling Wetting and Adhesion , 2014 , mrsf13-1648-hh01-09
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2014 

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

REFERENCES

Lattner, D. and Jennissen, H. P., Materialwiss. Werkstofftech. (Mater. Sci. Eng. Technol. ) 40, 109 (2009).Google Scholar
Lüers, S., Laub, M., Kirsch, A., and Jennissen, H. P., Bionanomaterials (formerly: Biomaterialien) 11 (S1), 60 (2010).Google Scholar
Chatzinikolaidou, M., Lichtinger, T. K., Müller, R. T., and Jennissen, H. P., Acta Biomater. 6, 4405 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennissen, H. P., Zumbrink, T., Chatzinikolaidou, M., and Steppuhn, J., Materialwiss. Werkstofftech. (Mater. Sci. Eng. Technol. ) 30, 838 (1999).3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennissen, H. P., Materialwiss. Werkstofftech. (Mater. Sci. Eng. Technol) 42, 1111 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennissen, H. P., Materialwiss. Werkstofftech. (Mater. Sci. Eng. Technol) 43, 743 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lüers, S., Seitz, C., Laub, M., and Jennissen, H. P., in “Advances in Contact Angle, Wettability and Adhesion”; Mittal, K. L., ed., (Wiley-Scrivener, Salem, MA, 2013), pp. 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayakawa, M., Kojima, E., Norimoto, K., Machida, M., Kitamura, A., Watanabe, T., Chikuni, M., Fujishima, A., Hashimoto, K., and Itoh, H. Priority date: 26.09.1996. PCT Publ.No. WO96/29375, pp. 1–112 (18 Figs). 1996. Japanese Patent Office.Google Scholar
Wang, R., Hashinmoto, K., Fujishima, A., Kitamura, A., Shimohigoshi, M., and Watanabe, T., Nature 388, 431 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drelich, J., Chibowski, E., Meng, D. D., and Terpilowskic, K., Soft Matter 7, 9804 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lüers, S., Laub, M., Kirsch, A., and Jennissen, H. P., Biomed. Tech. (Berl), 575 (2013), (10.1515/bmt-2012-4464 [doi]).Google Scholar
Jennissen, H. P., Seitz, C., Lüers, S., and Laub, M., http://www.dgm.de/download/tg/1171/1171-126. pdf 1 (2013).Google Scholar
Jennissen, H. P., Luers, S., and Laub, M., Biomed. Tech. (Berl) 57, 915 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenzel, R. N., Ind. Eng. Chem. (Industrial Edition) 28, 988 (1936).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenzel, R. N., J. Phys. & Colloid. Chem. 53, 1466 (1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennissen, H. P., Macromol. Symp. 225, 43 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, D. A. and Vogler, E. A., Langmuir 7, 422 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Y. and Lee, T. R., Brano, C. and Holst, B., eds., 2013), pp. 1.Google Scholar
Jennissen, H. P. and Lüers, S., Materialwiss. Werkstofftech. (Mater. Sci. Eng. Technol) 41, 1062 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaPorte, R. J., (Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., Lancaster PA, USA, 1997).Google Scholar
Nishino, T., Meguro, M., Nakamae, K., Matsushita, M., and Ueda, Y., Langmuir 15, 4321 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, B., Tao, J., Pang, C., Zheng, Z., Shen, Z., Huan, C. H. A., and Yu, T., Langmuir 24, 10569 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öner, D. and McCarthy, T. J., Langmuir 16, 7777 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barthlott, W. and Neinhuis, C., Planta 202, 1 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar