ArticleACS nano2020
Microdroplet Contaminants: When and Why Superamphiphobic Surfaces Are Not Self-Cleaning.
Article in ACS nano, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Thermo-Photo Dual-Curing Enables Dense Polymer Networks Toward Robust and Fluorine-Free Superhydrophobic Coatings.Small methods · 2026Article
- Article
- A photocatalytic superhydrophobic coating with p-n type BiOBr/α-FeRSC advances · 2025Article
- Designing Plastrons for Underwater Bubble Capture: From Model Microstructures to Stochastic Nanostructures.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Covalent crosslinking chemistry for controlled modulation of nanometric roughness and surface free energy.Chemical science · 2024Article
- Anti-Environmental Aging Passive Daytime Radiative Cooling.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Super pressure-resistant superhydrophobic fabrics with real self-cleaning performance.iScience · 2022Article
- Emerging Separation Applications of Surface Superwettability.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Electrification at water-hydrophobe interfaces.Nature communications · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Superamphiphobic surfaces are commonly associated with superior anticontamination and antifouling properties. Visually, this is justified by their ability to easily shed off drops and contaminants. However, on micropillar arrays, tiny droplets are known to remain on pillars' top faces while the drop advances. This raises the question of whether remnants remain even on nanostructured superamphiphobic surfaces. Are superamphiphobic surfaces really self-cleaning? Here we investigate the presence of microdroplet contaminants on three nanostructured superamphiphobic surfaces. After brief contact with liquids having different volatilities and surface tension (water, ethylene glycol, hexadecane, and an ionic liquid), confocal microscopy reveals a "blanket-like" layer of microdroplets remaining on the surface. It appears that the phenomenon is universal. Notably, when placing subsequent drops onto the contaminated surface, they are still able to roll off. However, adhesion forces can gradually increase by up to 3 times after repeated liquid drop contact. Therefore, we conclude that superamphiphobic surfaces do not warrant self-cleaning and anticontamination capabilities at sub-micrometric length scales.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.