Surface Forces and Interaction Mechanisms of Emulsion Drops and Gas Bubbles in Complex Fluids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interactions of emulsion drops and gas bubbles in complex fluids play important roles in a wide range of biological and technological applications, such as programmable drug and gene delivery, emulsion and foam formation, and froth flotation of mineral particles. In this feature article, we have reviewed our recent progress on the quantification of surface forces and interaction mechanisms of gas bubbles and emulsion drops in different material systems by using several complementary techniques, including the drop/bubble probe atomic force microscope (AFM), surface forces apparatus (SFA), and four-roll mill fluidic device. These material systems include the bubble-self-assembled monolayer (SAM), bubble-polymer, bubble-superhydrophobic surface, bubble-mineral, water-in-oil and oil-in-water emulsions with interface-active components in oil production, and oil/water wetting on polyelectrolyte surfaces. The bubble probe AFM combined with reflection interference contrast microscopy (RICM) was applied for the first time to simultaneously quantify the interaction forces and spatiotemporal evolution of a confined thin liquid film between gas bubbles and solid surfaces with varying hydrophobicity. The nanomechanical results have provided useful insights into the fundamental interaction mechanisms (e.g., hydrophobic interaction in aqueous media) at gas/water/solid interfaces, the stabilization/destabilization mechanisms of emulsion drops, and oil/water wetting mechanisms on solid surfaces. A long-range hydrophilic attraction was found between water and polyelectrolyte surfaces in oil, with the strongest attraction for polyzwitterions, contributing to their superior water wettability in oil and self-cleaning capability of oil contamination. Some remaining challenges and future research directions are discussed and provided.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".