Sessile and Pendant Micro-Liter Drops Evaporate at Different Rates: An Experimental Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaporation of micro-liter drops from solid surfaces at room condition is mainly governed by diffusion. Therefore, there should be no difference between evaporation rate of sessile and pendant drops. However, some studies indicate a difference and explain the difference using buoyancy. The objective here is to reconcile the inconsistency in the literature. For that, first, by comparing two identical suspended drops, one with a plate on top and the other underneath with a space between drop and plate, we showed the contribution of buoyancy in evaporation is at most less than 8%. When a plate was placed on top, water (its vapor is lighter than air) evaporated slower and hydrocarbons (their vapors are heavier than air) evaporated faster. Interestingly, it was observed when drops touch the plates (i.e. sessile and pendant drops), both water and hydrocarbon drops evaporated faster in sessile configuration. The observation for hydrocarbons is in contradiction with what buoyancy explains. To describe the difference, different scenarios were studied. It was found that sessile drops stay longer in the “constant wetted area” (CWA) mode, before switching to the CCA (constant contact angle) mode, e.g. a 4 µl sessile water drop on a Poly(methyl methacrylate) coated silicon stays in the CWA mode for 318 s whereas for a similar pendant drop this time is 274 s. Considering the fact that evaporation rate in the CWA mode is 30–40% higher compared to the CCA mode, the faster evaporation rate of sessile drops may be explained.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".