Interaction between Air Bubbles and Superhydrophobic Surfaces in Aqueous Solutions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Superhydrophobic surfaces are usually characterized by a high apparent contact angle of water drops in air. Here we analyze the inverse situation: Rather than focusing on water repellency in air, we measure the attractive interaction of air bubbles and superhydrophobic surfaces in water. Forces were measured between microbubbles with radii R of 40-90 μm attached to an atomic force microscope cantilever and submerged superhydrophobic surfaces. In addition, forces between macroscopic bubbles (R = 1.2 mm) at the end of capillaries and superhydrophobic surfaces were measured. As superhydrophobic surfaces we applied soot-templated surfaces, nanofilament surfaces, micropillar arrays with flat top faces, and decorated micropillars. Depending on the specific structure of the superhydrophobic surfaces and the presence and amount of entrapped air, different interactions were observed. Soot-templated surfaces in the Cassie state showed superaerophilic behavior: Once the electrostatic double-layer force and a hydrodynamic repulsion were overcome, bubbles jumped onto the surface and fully merged with the entrapped air. On nanofilaments and micropillar arrays we observed in addition the formation of sessile bubbles with finite contact angles below 90° or the attachment of bubbles, which retained their spherical shape.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it