ArticleNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Dependencies of Surface Condensation on the Wettability and Nanostructure Size Differences.
Article in Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When changing surface wettability and nanostructure size, condensation behavior displays distinct features. In this work, we investigated evaporation on a flat hydrophilic surface and condensation on both hydrophilic and hydrophobic nanostructured surfaces at the nanoscale using molecular dynamics simulations. The simulation results on hydrophilic surfaces indicated that larger groove widths and heights produced more liquid argon atoms, a quicker temperature response, and slower potential energy decline. These three characteristics closely relate to condensation areas or rates, which are determined by groove width and height. For condensation heat transfer, when the groove width was small, the change of groove height had little effect, while change of groove height caused a significant variation in the heat flux with a large groove width. When the cold wall was hydrophobic, the groove height became a significant impact factor, which caused no vapor atoms to condense in the groove with a larger height. The potential energy decreased with the increase of the groove height, which demonstrates a completely opposing trend when compared with hydrophilic surfaces.
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.