Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Sergei Kulinich

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 4. SEM images of samples 5(a) and 6(b) prepared from Ag nanoparticles. Sessile and moving water droplets are shown as insets. Scale bars indicate 1 wm.

Figure 4 SEM images of samples 5(a) and 6(b) prepared from Ag nanoparticles. Sessile and moving water droplets are shown as insets. Scale bars indicate 1 wm.

Related Figures (6)

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of coating procedure.
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of coating procedure.
Sample description and properties. Table 1
Sample description and properties. Table 1
Fig. 2. (a) Coated sample in centrifuge set-up measuring ice adhesion: (1) sample, (2) Al beam and (3) counter-weight. (b) Sample with artificial glaze ice.
Fig. 2. (a) Coated sample in centrifuge set-up measuring ice adhesion: (1) sample, (2) Al beam and (3) counter-weight. (b) Sample with artificial glaze ice.
Fig. 3. Surface images of samples 3(a) and 4(b) prepared from ZrO2 nanopowder. Sessile and moving water droplets are shown as insets. Scale bars indicate 500 nm. Table 1 presents surface roughness (R,) and wetting character- istics of the samples used in this study. Surface images of rough super-hydrophobic samples are shown in Figs. 3 and 4, while Fig. 5 presents surface profiles of the flat sample 2 and rough samples 3 and 4. Fig. 3 compares samples 3(a) and 4(b) prepared from the same ZrO» suspension by means of spraying (Fig. 3a) or spin- coating (Fig. 3b) and demonstrating contrasting CAH (see Table 1 and insets in Fig. 3). Both surfaces are seen to be rough at microscale. Their roughness, R3, measured by profilometry over
Fig. 3. Surface images of samples 3(a) and 4(b) prepared from ZrO2 nanopowder. Sessile and moving water droplets are shown as insets. Scale bars indicate 500 nm. Table 1 presents surface roughness (R,) and wetting character- istics of the samples used in this study. Surface images of rough super-hydrophobic samples are shown in Figs. 3 and 4, while Fig. 5 presents surface profiles of the flat sample 2 and rough samples 3 and 4. Fig. 3 compares samples 3(a) and 4(b) prepared from the same ZrO» suspension by means of spraying (Fig. 3a) or spin- coating (Fig. 3b) and demonstrating contrasting CAH (see Table 1 and insets in Fig. 3). Both surfaces are seen to be rough at microscale. Their roughness, R3, measured by profilometry over
Fig. 5. Surface profiles of samples 2(a), 3(b) and 4(c).
Fig. 5. Surface profiles of samples 2(a), 3(b) and 4(c).
4. Summary Fig. 6. Values of ice adhesion reduction factor (ARF) (a) and contact angle hysteresis (b) for samples used. Sample numbers correspond to Table 1. Fig. 6a presents ARF values obtained for all the samples in Table 1. The results obtained on the uncoated Al and flat fluoropolymer-coated samples (1 and 2 in Fig. 6a) are consistent
4. Summary Fig. 6. Values of ice adhesion reduction factor (ARF) (a) and contact angle hysteresis (b) for samples used. Sample numbers correspond to Table 1. Fig. 6a presents ARF values obtained for all the samples in Table 1. The results obtained on the uncoated Al and flat fluoropolymer-coated samples (1 and 2 in Fig. 6a) are consistent
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved