Measurement of the Adsorption at Solid−Liquid Interfaces from the Pressure Dependence of Contact Angles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earlier studies have indicated that in an isothermal three-phase system, the liquid-phase pressure at the three-phase line, xL3, may be viewed as the independent variable of the contact angle, theta, and that adsorption at the solid-liquid interface is the mechanism relating them. When the liquid-vapor interface is axi-symmetric, we show that theta can be predicted as a function of xL3 and that by measuring theta(xL3), the amount adsorbed at the solid-liquid interface can be determined. We consider water in differently sized borosilicate glass cylinders. For progressively larger cylinders, xL3 increases with cylinder radius, but when a particularly sized cylinder is rotated about it longitudinal axis, xL3 is decreased. The observed value of theta in each case is found to be in close agreement with that predicted. A Gibbs model of the interphase is used, and the Gibbs adsorption at the solid-liquid interface is found to be negative. As xL3 increases above its value at wetting, the amount adsorbed at the solid-liquid interface becomes progressively more negative. Negative adsorption is shown to mean that the concentration of the fluid component is greater in the bulk liquid than in the interphase and that the difference in concentration increases as xL3 is increased. The data is used to investigate the hypothesis that the curvature of the three-phase line affects theta through line tension, but we find no relation between line tension and theta. There is an apparent relation between the curvature of the liquid-vapor interface, CLV and theta, but this is shown to be because CLV affects xL3.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".