Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:40:11.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Invariance of Electrowetting Contact Angle Saturation to Polymer, Fluid, and Interfacial Materials Properties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2011

Stéphanie Chevalliot  and
Jason Heikenfeld
Stéphanie Chevalliot
Affiliation:
Novel Devices Laboratory, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221.
Jason Heikenfeld
Affiliation:
Novel Devices Laboratory, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221.
Get access

Abstract

The electrowetting equation predicts contact angle modulation to zero degrees as voltage is continually increased. However, in practice contact angle appears to saturate around 60 to 70°. Although several hypotheses have been advanced to explain the physical mechanisms of contact angle saturation, none satisfactorily and unequivocally holds for the large body of electrowetting data. Herein we experimentally demonstrate that under DC voltage electrowetting contact angle saturation is invariant to polymer, fluid, and interfacial materials properties. We furthermore reveal that saturation is also a time-dependant phenomenon.

Keywords

dielectricelectrical propertiessurface chemistry
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1346: Symposium AA – Micro- and Nanofluidic Systems for Materials Synthesis, Device Assembly and Bioanalysis , 2011 , mrss11-1346-aa04-03
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2011

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

1. Verheijen, H. J. J., and Prins, M.W.J., Langmuir 15, 6616 (1999).Google Scholar
2. Drygiannakis, A. I., Papathanasiou, A.G., and Boudouvis, A. G., Langmuir 25, 147 (2009).Google Scholar
3. Iribarne, J. V., and Thomson, B. A.. J. Chem. Phys. 64, 2287 (1976).Google Scholar
4. Vallet, M., Vallade, M., and Berge, B. B, Eur. Phys. J. B 11, 583 (1999).Google Scholar
5. Mugele, F., and Herminghaus, S., Appl. Phys. Lett. 81, 2303 (2002).Google Scholar
6. Fontelos, M.A., and Kindelán, U., SIAM J. Appl. Math. 69, 126 (2008).Google Scholar