Superhydrophobic surfaces exhibiting low interfacial toughness with ice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Three superhydrophobic surfaces were examined for their large-scale de-icing capability. • Mechanically durable micro/nanostructures with high graft density low-surface-energy formed. • Durability and high graft density were essential to observe a low interfacial toughness with ice. • Surface could repel ∼ 40 µL water droplets at low tilting angles under highly condensing conditions. Superhydrophobic surfaces (SHPs) demonstrate superior water repellency and promising surface properties like self-cleaning, anti-fouling, and drag-reducing characteristics. However, it remains unclear whether SHPs can effectively lower the adhesion of ice accumulated on a surface, particularly for large-scale interfaces (>1 cm) where the delamination of ice is controlled by interfacial toughness. Here, three categories of SHP surfaces were evaluated. It was found that the mechanical durability of commercially available SHP sprays was insufficient even for collecting reproducible ice adhesion results using the push-off test. While roughening a piece of a hydrophobic surface like Teflon did increase the water repellency and result in superhydrophobicity, the adhesion of ice on the textured surface was dramatically increased due to mechanical interlocking of the ice. Instead, a SHP surface was designed with both micro- and nano-structures conformally coated by a silica layer, followed by a perfluoropolyether (PFPE) top coat. This SHP, due to its durability and robust Cassie Baxter state, demonstrated promising large-scale ice repellency for the first time, i.e. a low interfacial toughness with ice of 0.6 J/m 2 under freezing conditions at −20 °C, even after more than 40 repeated icing/de-icing tests. Compared to a similar SHP surface without the silica layer, the silica-primed SHP maintained low friction with water droplets under condensing conditions (T = 2 °C, relative humidity > 50 %) for over 10 min. The hierarchical structure in addition to the high grafting density of the PFPE on the silica-primed SHP surface was confirmed by cross-sectional transmission electron microscope imaging and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".