MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220783500 · doi:10.1002/admt.202101702

Fabrication of Superamphiphobic Surfaces via Spray Coating; a Review

2022· review· en· W4220783500 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Materials Technologies · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSurface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCoatingWettingFabricationNanotechnologyThermal sprayingSurface roughnessMetallurgyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Superamphiphobic coatings that simultaneously repel both water and oil and are applicable to a wide range of surfaces are needed for use in self‐cleaning, anti‐icing, and antimicrobial coatings. Spray coating is a method that can be used to apply such coatings to a wide range of surfaces in a scalable and high throughput manner. This review presents a comprehensive overview of the materials architecture, synthesis, applications, and figures‐of‐merit of superamphiphobic surfaces that are deposited using spray coating. The design requirements of superamphiphobic surfaces—surface roughness and wettability, re‐entrant topographic features, and chemical composition—are initially introduced. Based on the material, different synthesis techniques are then discussed with a focus on metal oxides and metal oxide composites, polymers, emerging, and green materials. The areas of application of superamphiphobic coatings are also presented. Finally, the main hurdles in using such coatings in real‐life applications are discussed in depth, and emerging technologies for overcoming these challenges are presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it