Dependence of adhesion force on contact time due to water thin-film flow revealed with an AFM cantilever at low humidity
Source abstract
Abstract
The contact time dependence of adhesion force is not well understood. Adhesion forces between a tipless silica cantilever and some samples with different hydrophilicity were measured to study the dependence at low relative humidity (16 ± 1%). Dependent adhesion forces were observed on hydrophilic samples. The adhesion force has three distinct trends: sharply increasing at first, then followed by moderately increasing and at last remaining almost unchanged (reaching saturation). The saturation time is varied for different samples: from several seconds to tens of seconds. The more hydrophilic the sample surface is, the longer the saturation time is. The increasing tendency is well explained by a model of water thin-film flow. It takes some time for the liquid absorbed on a surface to flow into a growing water bridge due to a large viscosity. The viscosity of the film on a more hydrophilic sample may be larger because of stronger interaction between the film and the sample surface, eventually resulting in a longer saturation time. The reported results may help deepen the understanding of the mechanism of adhesion and explain other experimental results concerning AFM parameters.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Force Microscopy Techniques and Applications · Mechanical and Optical Resonators · Adhesion, Friction, and Surface Interactions
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China
Funding
the National Natural Science Foundation of China
References (43)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1163/1568561036055439310.1163/15685610360554393 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.microrel.2011.07.08110.1016/j.microrel.2011.07.081 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.surfrep.2005.08.00310.1016/j.surfrep.2005.08.003 ↗
4. 10.3390/ijms13101277310.3390/ijms131012773 ↗
5. 10.1039/D0CS00318B10.1039/D0CS00318B ↗
6. 10.1163/15685610232039611110.1163/156856102320396111 ↗
7. 10.1163/156856108X30694810.1163/156856108X306948 ↗
8. 10.1163/016942410X50830710.1163/016942410X508307 ↗
9. 10.1080/02726351.2015.104564110.1080/02726351.2015.1045641 ↗
10. 10.1080/01694243.2014.97769810.1080/01694243.2014.977698 ↗
11. 10.1007/s11431-013-5404-110.1007/s11431-013-5404-1 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2014.04.11810.1016/j.apsusc.2014.04.118 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2015.07.07610.1016/j.apsusc.2015.07.076 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2017.06.00710.1016/j.ijadhadh.2017.06.007 ↗
15. 10.3390/ma1402037010.3390/ma14020370 ↗
16. 10.1021/ac991198c10.1021/ac991198c ↗
17. 10.1021/jp972289l10.1021/jp972289l ↗
18. 10.1021/la702513r10.1021/la702513r ↗
19. 10.1021/la202917d10.1021/la202917d ↗
20. 10.1021/la052167h10.1021/la052167h ↗
21. 10.1088/0022-3727/40/14/03610.1088/0022-3727/40/14/036 ↗
22. 10.1021/la202191c10.1021/la202191c ↗
23. 10.1021/jp212110k10.1021/jp212110k ↗
24. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.04.22010.1016/j.apsusc.2017.04.220 ↗
25. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b0316410.1021/acs.langmuir.8b03164 ↗
26. 10.1021/jp061591410.1021/jp0615914 ↗
27. 10.1063/1.114397010.1063/1.1143970 ↗
28. Israelachvilli J. · 2011
29. 10.1006/jcis.2000.716710.1006/jcis.2000.7167 ↗
30. 10.1116/1.58518810.1116/1.585188 ↗
31. 10.1007/s11433-016-0241-710.1007/s11433-016-0241-7 ↗
32. 10.1038/s41598-018-32021-010.1038/s41598-018-32021-0 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.mser.2007.03.00310.1016/j.mser.2007.03.003 ↗
34. 10.1021/la051763910.1021/la0517639 ↗
35. 10.1063/1.37141610.1063/1.371416 ↗
36. Zhao YP. · 2012
37. 10.1063/1.35146710.1063/1.351467 ↗
38. 10.1016/0043-1648(95)06648-910.1016/0043-1648(95)06648-9 ↗
39. 10.1080/0098644870891191910.1080/00986448708911919 ↗
40. 10.1103/PhysRevB.75.11541510.1103/PhysRevB.75.115415 ↗
41. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.17780310.1103/PhysRevLett.96.177803 ↗
42. 10.1021/la035430s10.1021/la035430s ↗
43. 10.1021/jp053042o10.1021/jp053042o ↗