Figure 5 Surface profiles of samples 2(a), 3(b) and 4(c).
Related Figures (6)
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of coating procedure. 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. 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. 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 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
Connect with 287M+ leading minds in your field
Discover breakthrough research and expand your academic network
