Self-Propelled Droplet Transport on Shaped-Liquid Surfaces

Gaby Launay; Gary G. Wells; Glen McHale; Halim Kusumaatmaja; Muhammad Subkhi Sadullah; Rodrigo Ledesma-Aguilar

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Self-Propelled Droplet Transport on Shaped-Liquid Surfaces

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A shaped liquid surface formed by nanotextured rails imbibed with silicone oil creates a liquid-on-liquid wetting state with sub-degree contact-angle hysteresis and a wettability gradient strong enough to self-propel water droplets…

desk verdict Liquid-on-liquid wettability gradients largely remove pinning and give real, long-range droplet transport; the qualitative mechanism holds up, but the high-fs endpoint and the fitted parameters need attention before the quantitative story is clean. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01305 v1 pith:BQXRDW7E submitted 2019-08-04 physics.flu-dyn cond-mat.soft

Gaby Launay , Muhammad Subkhi Sadullah , Glen McHale , Rodrigo Ledesma-Aguilar , Halim Kusumaatmaja , Gary G. Wells This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.flu-dyncond-mat.soft

keywords self-propelleddroplettransportshapedliquidsurfaceswettabilitygradientliquid-on-liquidwettingcontactanglehysteresisslipperyliquid-infusedimpactcapturemicrofluidics

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that replacing the solid contact underneath a droplet with a shaped liquid surface can eliminate the main obstacle to self-propelled droplet transport: contact-angle hysteresis and pinning. By coating a micro-textured solid with a thin, conformal silicone-oil layer, the droplet sits on a composite liquid-and-air surface with hysteresis below one degree. A gradual change in the underlying rail density creates a wettability gradient that drives the droplet without any external energy input. The authors show that the resulting transport is sustained, controllable in speed, works uphill, and can capture impacting droplets even on inverted surfaces. The central message is that liquid-on-liquid wetting, not solid-liquid contact, can be engineered to do the work of droplet actuation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the shaped liquid surface: a solid micro-structure (rails, 60 µm high with spacing 75 µm) conformally coated with a hydrophobic nanoparticle layer and imbibed with 20 cSt silicone oil, so that the droplet rests on a composite surface of oil and trapped air. The apparent contact angle is set by the effective Young's law for liquid-on-liquid wetting, $\cos\theta_e = (\gamma_{oa}-\gamma_{wo})/\gamma_{eff}$, combined with a Cassie-Baxter-type area fraction $f_l$. The mechanism that carries the argument is the force balance: the wettability gradient produces a driving force $F_d = 8k\gamma_{oa}\alpha R^2$ along the droplet perimeter, while dissipation at the moving contact line, $F_v \propto f_s \mu_o v R \ln(R/L_o)$, provides the dominant resistance, yielding $v \propto \gamma_{oa} \alpha R/(\mu_o f_s)$. This single scaling law links the observed velocity, the measured driving and pinning forces, and the threshold gradient for motion.

What would settle it

Measure the apparent contact angle of a droplet at positions along the transport gradient, especially in the $f_s > 0.7$ region, while simultaneously imaging the substrate from below. If the air pockets are replaced by oil at any position, the contact angle should drop from the Eq. 2 value to $\theta_e = 108.4^\circ$, and the droplet speed should deviate from $v \propto 1/f_s$ — directly contradicting the claim of solid-free, mixed-state transport across the full gradient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a dual-length-scale substrate — a nanoparticulate coating that holds silicone oil, superimposed on larger micron-scale rails whose solid fraction $f_s$ varies in space — forms a shaped liquid surface on which water droplets move spontaneously. The apparent contact angle follows a liquid Cassie-Baxter relation, $\cos\theta = f_l \cos\theta_e - (1-f_l)$ with $f_l \approx f_s + 0.059$, where $\theta_e = 108.4^\circ$ is the flat liquid-surface contact angle. Because the liquid surface has contact-angle hysteresis below one degree, the pinning force is tiny ($F_p \approx 1.1 \, \mu\text{N}$ measured), so even weak wettability gradients, down to $\alpha \approx 0.03 \, \text{mm}^{-1}$, overcome pinning and propel droplets over centimetre distances. Balancing the capillary driving force $F_d \propto \gamma_{oa} \alpha R^2$ against viscous dissipation from the droplet contact line gives the terminal velocity $v \propto \gamma_{oa} \alpha R / (\mu_o f_s)$, matching the observed slowdown with increasing rail fraction. The same surface captures and transports impacting droplets, including hanging droplets on inverted substrates, because the liquid layer increases dissipation and normal adhesion compared with a superhydrophobic solid.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument depends on the droplet remaining in a mixed liquid-and-air Cassie-Baxter state, with stable air pockets underneath it, so that the apparent contact angle follows Eq. 2 and the droplet never touches the solid; the paper itself notes that for $f_s > 0.7$ the air pockets are sometimes filled with oil, which would change the contact angle to the flat-liquid value and could weaken the gradient that drives motion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the scaling law is correct, droplet speed can be tuned continuously by adjusting the local rail fraction gradient and the lubricant viscosity, without any external actuation.
The low pinning force means that much weaker wettability gradients than those needed on superhydrophobic solids can drive transport, enabling longer travel distances per unit gradient.
Because the transport works on inverted and inclined surfaces, the design should allow droplet collection and removal in orientations where gravity opposes motion, such as fog harvesting or condensation management.
The ability to capture impacting droplets and then move them uphill suggests that shaped liquid surfaces can combine drop capture, coalescence, and directional delivery in a single passive device.
The rate $v \propto 1/f_s$ gives a practical design rule: to slow droplets down, increase the local solid fraction, which the paper demonstrates over a range of volumes and gradients.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A direct corollary not spelled out in the paper is that the driving force scales with the oil-air surface tension $\gamma_{oa}$ but not the water-oil tension, so choosing a lower-$\gamma_{oa}$ lubricant should increase droplet speed at fixed gradient; this is a testable prediction that follows from the model.
The observed failure of air pockets at $f_s > 0.7$, where oil fills the gaps and the contact angle drops to $\theta_e$, implies a design constraint: wettability-gradient devices should keep the operating rail fraction below this threshold if solid-free transport and the $1/f_s$ scaling are to be maintained.
The paper's force balance neglects inertial effects during impact; extending the model to include droplet deformation and oil-layer displacement during capture could predict the maximum impact velocity for which the surface still captures rather than bounces a droplet.
Because the apparent contact angle is set by the liquid surface rather than the solid chemistry, the same design could be adapted to transport other immiscible liquids, provided the lubricant has negative spreading power on the transported liquid.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know: this is a genuine experimental advance, not just another lubricant-infused surface variant. The authors show that a dual-length-scale texture—micro-rails plus a nanotextured conformal oil layer—creates a liquid surface whose apparent wettability can be patterned by the underlying solid fraction, and droplets move on it with almost no pinning: hysteresis about a degree, spontaneous uphill and inverted transport, and capture of impacting drops. That combination is new, and the visual evidence is strong.

What is actually new: prior self-propelled droplet work on solid gradients (cactus spines, butterfly wings, chemical gradients) was limited by pinning; here the droplet never touches the solid, and the gradient lives in a liquid-on-liquid wetting energy. The force-balance model in the SI is a reasonable scaling model—Fd ~ γ_oa α R^2, Fv ~ µ_o f_s v R ln(R/L_o), giving v ∝ γ_oa α R/(µ_o f_s). The measured speed dropping as 1/f_s and rising with α and R supports the mechanism. The pinning-force measurement from critical tilt angles gives F_p ≈ 1.1 µN, order-of-magnitude consistent with the hysteresis estimate of 0.48 µN.

The model does have soft joints. First, the key wetting law (Eq. 2) comes from the authors' own prior paper and uses fl = fs + 0.059; the correction is small and plausibly explained by coating thickness, but it is a fit, so the driving force is not fully first-principles. Second, the footprint aspect ratio k in Fd = 8kγ_oa αR^2 is never reported; the force values in Fig. 3c depend on it. Third, and more substantively, the stress-test is right: SI §1.4 reports that for fs > 0.7 the air pockets under the droplet sometimes fill with oil, and the apparent contact angle drops to θe, losing its fs dependence. The transport substrate's fs goes to 1, so once a droplet's footprint moves into the filled regime, the local wettability gradient vanishes. The claim of sustained transport over the full pattern is therefore not fully backed—either the data effectively stop before the endpoint or the model overestimates the driving force in the terminal regime. That does not kill the low-to-mid-fs transport, which is the core result, but it should be re-scoped or measured directly.

This paper is for anyone working on droplet transport, microfluidics, fog harvesting, or lubricant-infused surfaces. It deserves a serious referee: the experiments are reproducible and the mechanism is worth the field's attention. My recommendation: send it out, but ask for the missing k, a direct check of whether oil fills the air pockets during transport, and a revised statement about how far along the pattern transport is actually sustained.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a dual-length-scale 'shaped liquid surface' formed by nanotextured rails imbibed with silicone oil. It reports measurements of low contact angle hysteresis, a linear variation of apparent contact angle with solid fraction, spontaneous droplet motion toward higher solid fraction, self-propelled transport along gradient rails with speed decreasing as 1/f_s, uphill and inverted transport, and capture of impacting droplets. A force-balance model balances a capillary driving force F_d = 8kγ_oa α R^2 with viscous dissipation at the contact line to yield v ∝ γ_oa α R/(μ_o f_s). The qualitative phenomena are directly demonstrated, while the quantitative model contains fitted corrections and unmeasured parameters.

Significance. If validated, the approach offers a passive, energy-free route to droplet transport with low hysteresis, including in inverted orientations, with potential applications in microfluidics, self-cleaning surfaces, fog harvesting, and heat transfer. The strengths are the clear experimental demonstrations, the use of control super-hydrophobic surfaces that remain pinned, the direct measurement of low hysteresis, and the explicit reporting of a limitation in SI §1.4. The main weaknesses are that the driving-force model relies on a fitted wetting law, an unreported footprint aspect ratio, and a Cassie-state assumption that is known to break down at f_s > 0.7; these issues make the quantitative comparison partly a consistency check rather than a falsifiable prediction.

major comments (4)

[SI §1.4 and main text Fig. 2a] SI §1.4 explicitly reports that for f_s > 0.7 the air pockets under the droplet are sometimes filled with oil, in which case the apparent contact angle falls to θ_e and loses its dependence on f_s. Because the gradient substrate spans f_s = 0 to 1, a droplet with a finite base radius must sample f_s > 0.7 before the end of the pattern. The driving force F_d = 8kγ_oa α R^2 in SI §1.7.1 is derived by integrating Eq. (2) over the entire footprint, so it overestimates the wettability contrast in the terminal portion of the transport. The 'sustained self-propulsion over the pattern' claim is therefore not supported by the presented data, which end near f_s = 0.77 in Fig. 2a; the authors should either restrict the claim to the regime where the composite Cassie state is stable, demonstrate that the droplet completes the pattern before entering the oil-filled regime, or include a model for the transition to the filled state.
[SI §1.7.1, Eq. (5)] The driving force expression F_d = 8kγ_oa α R^2 contains the droplet footprint aspect ratio k, but k is never measured or reported anywhere in the manuscript. The comparison in Fig. 3c between the measured driving force and the model is therefore not fully quantitative: an order-one value of k could be chosen to bring the model into agreement, and the reported error bars do not constrain k. To make the force-balance model testable, the authors should report k from direct footprint measurements or perform the integration over the actual contact-line shape.
[Fig. 1c and Eq. (2)] Eq. (2) is fit to the contact-angle data using the correction f_l = f_s + 0.059, and this fitted correction is inherited by the force-balance model, since SI §1.7.1 uses Eq. (2) directly. Consequently the quantitative agreement in Fig. 3c is not a parameter-free test of the driving-force model. The authors should clearly separate fitted from predicted quantities and show the sensitivity of F_d and the terminal velocity v to the fitted offset δ = 0.059, especially because the offset is close to the coating-thickness estimate and may vary between samples.
[Main text, paragraph following Fig. 3] The measured pinning force F_p ≈ 1.11 ± 0.25 μN is more than a factor of two larger than the value estimated from contact angle hysteresis, F_p ≈ 0.48 μN. This discrepancy is not discussed, yet it is relevant to the claim that pinning is overcome by the gradient. The authors should explain whether the hysteresis-based estimate underestimates the relevant pinning or whether an additional dissipative or pinning mechanism contributes to the critical-angle measurements.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. 3c axis label] The vertical axis label 'F [ N]' appears to be missing the micro symbol; it should read 'F [μN]' to match the values in the text.
[SI §1.7.4, Eq. (13)] In Eq. (13) the symbol 'ν' is used where the droplet velocity 'v' is meant; this typo makes the equation momentarily confusing.
[Main text, first paragraph of the propulsion section] The phrase 'the liquid surface area fractions f_l increases linearly' should be 'the liquid surface area fraction f_l increases linearly'.
[Abstract] The sentence fragment 'the conical shape of cactus spines to create self-propelled motion' is grammatically incomplete and should be revised for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the wetting law is validated in-paper, the fitted correction cancels in the force model, and the transport scaling is tested against independent measurements.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The central wetting relation, cos(θ)=fl cos(θe)-(1-fl), is attributed to prior work by overlapping authors (ref. 28), but it is independently validated in this paper against contact-angle measurements on the actual fabricated surfaces (Fig. 1c and SI Fig. 8), so the self-citation is not the load-bearing justification. The small correction fl=fs+0.059 is fitted to those measurements, but it cancels identically in the driving-force integral: substituting fl=fs+0.059 into g=(γoa+γwo)cosθ gives a gradient contribution 2γoa(dfs/dx)R, independent of the 0.059 offset, yielding Fd=8kγoaαR^2. Thus the force model does not secretly reuse the fitted correction as a prediction. The terminal-velocity scaling v∝γoaαR/(μo fs) is derived from a separate force balance and then compared with measured velocities from a different dataset (Fig. 2c), while the critical-angle measurements in Fig. 3 provide an independent route to Fd and Fp. None of the paper's predictions is statistically forced by a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely through self-citation. The SI note that air pockets are sometimes oil-filled for fs>0.7 identifies a possible limitation of the Cassie-state assumption at the high-fraction end, but this is a correctness or robustness concern, not a circularity in the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanism rests on a small set of standard wetting laws plus three ad hoc or domain assumptions: the linear Cassie-Baxter averaging, the persistence of air pockets, and the rectangular footprint approximation. A fitted liquid-fraction correction and an unreported aspect ratio k are free parameters in the force model.

free parameters (4)

liquid fraction correction δ = 0.059 = 0.059
Added to the solid fraction fs in Eq. 2 to match measured apparent contact angles (Fig. 1c); justified a posteriori by the nanoparticle coating thickness (~2 µm gives ~0.053). This parameter enters the driving-force model.
droplet footprint aspect ratio k = not reported
Appears in Fd = 8kγ_oa αR^2 and in the theoretical lines of Fig. 3c, but its value is not stated in the text or supplemental; it is either an assumed constant or a fit.
terminal velocity proportionality constant = not reported
The relation v ∝ γ_oa αR/(µ_o f_s) is presented as a prediction, but the dashed fits in Fig. 2b fix a numerical prefactor; no predicted absolute speed is given.
slip length L_o = not measured
Used in the Cox-Voinov dissipation term (Eq. 8 and 13) to argue contact-line friction dominates, but no value is estimated.

assumptions (5)

standard math Effective Young's law for a droplet on a thin immiscible liquid film, cosθe = (γ_oa - γ_wo)/γ_eff (Eq. 1)
Follows from interfacial force balance on the oil-encased droplet; validated against the measured 109.3±0.7° angle.
domain assumption Cassie-Baxter-type linear averaging of cosθ for a composite liquid-air surface (Eq. 2)
Assumes the droplet sits on a mixture of liquid surface and air pockets with no solid contact; this is the standard assumption for superhydrophobic textures applied here to a liquid surface.
domain assumption Air pockets remain stable beneath the droplet for all fs along the transport path
The apparent contact angle model requires the mixed state to persist; the paper reports that at fs > 0.7 the pockets are sometimes oil-filled (Supplement, Fig. 8), so this assumption is not fully satisfied in the whole range.
ad hoc to paper Droplet footprint is a rectangle of length R and width kR for force integration
Simplifies the contact-line integral; k is never specified or measured, which weakens the quantitative force prediction.
ad hoc to paper Viscous dissipation at the moving contact line dominates over bulk and oil-layer dissipation
Argued from the high oil/water viscosity ratio and large R/L_o, but not verified by measurement; it is the basis for the v ∝ 1/f_s scaling.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-Propelled Droplet Transport on Shaped-Liquid Surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQXRDW7E

@misc{pith2026190801305,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-Propelled Droplet Transport on Shaped-Liquid Surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQXRDW7E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01305}
}

read the original abstract

The transport of small quantities of liquid on a solid surface is inhibited by the resistance to motion caused by the contact between the liquid and the solid. To overcome such resistance, motion can be externally driven through gradients in electric fields, but these all inconveniently involve the input of external energy. Alternatively, gradients in physical shape and wettability - the conical shape of cactus spines to create self-propelled motion. However, such self-propelled motion to date has limited success in overcoming the inherent resistance to motion of the liquid contact with the solid. Here we propose a simple solution in the form of shaped-liquid surface, where solid topographic structures at one length scale provides the base for a smaller length-scale liquid conformal layer. This dual-length scale render possible slippery surfaces with superhydrophobic properties. Combined to an heterogeneous topography, it provides a gradient in liquid-on-liquid wettability with minimal resistance to motion and long range directional self-propelled droplet transport. Moreover, the liquid-liquid contact enables impacting droplets to be captured and transported, even when the substrate is inverted. These design principles are highly beneficial for droplet transport in microfluidics, self-cleaning surfaces, fog harvesting and in heat transfer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01305 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Wetting on liquid surfaces. (a) Water droplet on a low-hysteresis liquid surface obtained by imbibing an hydrophobic nano-particles coating with silicon oil. The scale bar is 1 mm. (inset) Diagram presenting the surface tensions acting at the droplet edges. (b) Water droplet on a liquid surface shaped with rectangular rails. The fraction of the sample covered by the rails is fs = 0.18. Pockets of air are trapped und… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Self-propulsion on a textured gradient liquid surface. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Strength of gradient induced self-propulsion. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Impact, capture and transport of droplets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: SEM images of the micro-structures manufactured by photolithography and coated with a conformal layer of silanized nano-particles. (a) Parallel rails obtained by photolithography. (e) Close-up of the top of a rail highlighting the nano-particles of the porous layer. Th…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: 5 µl droplets on patterned surfaces. (a) Super-hydrophobic patterned surface. The droplet lies in Cassie-Baxter state on the top of rails. (b) After dip-coating the surface in silicone oil, the oil completely fills the micro-structures. The contact angle hysteresis is …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: presents the rail geometry used to create wettability gradients with liquid surfaces. a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Droplet apparent contact angle as a function of the solid fraction fs. (blue) circles: static droplets deposited on rails with an uniform solid fraction. (orange) squares: droplets pinned in place at different positions on rails with divergent width. (red) rightpointi…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Droplet rapid motion due to a discontinuity in wettability of a shaped liquid surface. (a) Illustration of a droplet on a discontinuity of solid fraction. The solid fraction is fs = 0.1 on the left and fs = 0.9 on the right. (b) Droplet held in place on the discontinui…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Droplets deposited on surfaces with a gradient of solid fraction (α = 0.05 mm−1 ). (a) Super-hydrophobic surface. The gradient of wettability is not strong enough to overcome the pinning force and the droplet remains motionless. (b) Liquid surface. The increased gradi…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Droplets projected on an upside-down shaped liquid surface. Droplet are captured due to the surface high normal adhesion and then driven towards the high wettability region (right here). Droplets of different sizes move at different velocities, in agreement with [PI…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[1]

G., Fair, R

Pollack, M. G., Fair, R. B. & Shenderov, A. D. Electrowetting-based actuation of liquid droplets for microﬂuidic applications.Applied Physics Letters 77, 1725–1726 (2000)

work page 2000
[2]

B., Gunji, M., Washizu, M

Jones, T. B., Gunji, M., Washizu, M. & Feldman, M. Dielectrophoretic liquid actuation and nanodroplet formation.Journal of applied Physics 89, 1441–1448 (2001)

work page 2001
[3]

Motions of droplets on solid surfaces induced by chemical or thermal gradients

Brochard, F. Motions of droplets on solid surfaces induced by chemical or thermal gradients. langmuir 5, 432–438 (1989)

work page 1989
[4]

A., Valentino, J

Darhuber, A. A., Valentino, J. P., Davis, J. M., Troian, S. M. & Wagner, S. Microﬂuidic actuationbymodulationofsurfacestresses. Applied Physics Letters82,657–659(2003)

work page 2003
[5]

L., Liu, W

Yarin, A. L., Liu, W. & Reneker, D. H. Motion of droplets along thin ﬁbers with temperature gradient. Journal of applied physics 91, 4751–4760 (2002)

work page 2002
[6]

& Ichimura, K

Oh, S.-K., Nakagawa, M. & Ichimura, K. Photocontrol of liquid motion on an azoben- zene monolayer. Journal of Materials Chemistry 12, 2262–2269 (2002). 8 1 mm 0 5 10 15 20 25 hr [mm] B = 2B=1 B=0 0 5 10 15 20 25 hr [mm] 6 8 10 12V [µL] B ≥ 5 B=0 c d Figure 4: Impact, capture and transport of droplets.(a): 5 µL water droplet impact- ing on a tilted (β= 2.3...

work page 2002
[7]

Photo-actuation of liquids for light-driven microﬂuidics: state of the art and perspectives

Baigl, D. Photo-actuation of liquids for light-driven microﬂuidics: state of the art and perspectives. Lab on a Chip 12, 3637–3653 (2012)

work page 2012
[8]

Squires, T. M. & Quake, S. R. Microﬂuidics: Fluid physics at the nanoliter scale. Reviews of modern physics 77, 977 (2005)

work page 2005

Show all 31 references

[9]

Linke, H. et al. Self-propelled Leidenfrost droplets.Physical review letters 96, 154502 (2006)

2006
[10]

& Quéré, D

Lagubeau, G., Le Merrer, M., Clanet, C. & Quéré, D. Leidenfrost on a ratchet.Nature Physics 7, 395 (2011)

2011
[11]

Ju, J. et al. A multi-structural and multi-functional integrated fog collection system in cactus. Nature communications 3, 1247 (2012)

2012
[12]

Liu,C.,Ju,J.,Zheng,Y.&Jiang,L.Asymmetricratcheteﬀectfordirectionaltransport of fog drops on static and dynamic butterﬂy wings.ACS nano 8, 1321–1329 (2014)

2014
[13]

Chaudhury, M. K. & Whitesides, G. M. How to make water run uphill.Science 256, 1539–1541 (1992)

1992
[14]

& Guo, Z

Li, J. & Guo, Z. Spontaneous directional transportations of water droplets on surfaces driven by gradient structures.Nanoscale 10, 13814–13831 (2018)

2018
[15]

& Liao, G

Tan, X., Zhu, Y., Shi, T., Tang, Z. & Liao, G. Patterned gradient surface for sponta- neous droplet transportation and water collection: simulation and experiment.Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 26, 115009 (2016)

2016
[16]

D., Burnett-Hall, G

Bain, C. D., Burnett-Hall, G. D. & Montgomerie, R. R. Rapid motion of liquid drops. Nature 372, 414 (1994)

1994
[17]

Li, J. et al. Oil droplet self-transportation on oleophobic surfaces.Science advances 2, e1600148 (2016)

2016
[18]

Dong, Z. et al. Superoleophobic Slippery Lubricant-Infused Surfaces: Combining Two Extremes in the Same Surface.Advanced Materials 30, 1803890 (2018)

2018
[19]

Smith, J. D. et al. Droplet mobility on lubricant-impregnated surfaces.Soft Matter 9, 1772–1780 (2013)

2013
[20]

V., Li, R., Velling, S

Daniel, D., Timonen, J. V., Li, R., Velling, S. J. & Aizenberg, J. Oleoplaning droplets on lubricated surfaces.Nature Physics 13, 1020 (2017)

2017
[21]

& Kusumaatmaja, H

Semprebon, C., McHale, G. & Kusumaatmaja, H. Apparent contact angle and contact angle hysteresis on liquid infused surfaces.Soft matter 13, 101–110 (2017)

2017
[22]

Kreder, M. J. et al. Film dynamics and lubricant depletion by droplets moving on lubricated surfaces. Physical Review X 8, 031053 (2018). 10

2018
[23]

Wong, T.-S. et al. Bioinspired self-repairing slippery surfaces with pressure-stable om- niphobicity. Nature 477, 443 (2011)

2011
[24]

Luo, J. T. et al. Slippery liquid-infused porous surfaces and droplet transportation by surface acoustic waves.Physical Review Applied 7, 014017 (2017)

2017
[25]

B., Yang, S

Dai, X., Stogin, B. B., Yang, S. & Wong, T.-S. Slippery wenzel state.Acs Nano 9, 9260–9267 (2015)

2015
[26]

& Baxter, S

Cassie, A. & Baxter, S. Wettability of porous surfaces. Transactions of the Faraday society 40, 546–551 (1944)

1944
[27]

Wetting and roughness.Annu

Quéré, D. Wetting and roughness.Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 38, 71–99 (2008)

2008
[28]

V., Wells, G

McHale, G., Orme, B. V., Wells, G. G. & Ledesma-Aguilar, R. Apparent Contact An- gles on Lubricant-Impregnated Surfaces/SLIPS: From Superhydrophobicity to Elec- trowetting. Langmuir 35, 4197–4204 (2019)

2019
[29]

Mao, T., Kuhn, D. C. & Tran, H. Spread and rebound of liquid droplets upon impact on ﬂat surfaces.AIChE Journal 43, 2169–2179 (1997)

1997
[30]

Yarin, A. L. Drop impact dynamics: splashing, spreading, receding, bouncing...Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 38, 159–192 (2006)

2006
[31]

& Rothstein, J

Kim, J.-H. & Rothstein, J. P. Droplet impact dynamics on lubricant-infused superhy- drophobic surfaces: The role of viscosity ratio.Langmuir 32, 10166–10176 (2016). 11 1 Supplemental Material 1.1 Surface fabrication process We describe here the fabrication process of the super...

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

G., Fair, R

Pollack, M. G., Fair, R. B. & Shenderov, A. D. Electrowetting-based actuation of liquid droplets for microﬂuidic applications.Applied Physics Letters 77, 1725–1726 (2000)

work page 2000

[2] [2]

B., Gunji, M., Washizu, M

Jones, T. B., Gunji, M., Washizu, M. & Feldman, M. Dielectrophoretic liquid actuation and nanodroplet formation.Journal of applied Physics 89, 1441–1448 (2001)

work page 2001

[3] [3]

Motions of droplets on solid surfaces induced by chemical or thermal gradients

Brochard, F. Motions of droplets on solid surfaces induced by chemical or thermal gradients. langmuir 5, 432–438 (1989)

work page 1989

[4] [4]

A., Valentino, J

Darhuber, A. A., Valentino, J. P., Davis, J. M., Troian, S. M. & Wagner, S. Microﬂuidic actuationbymodulationofsurfacestresses. Applied Physics Letters82,657–659(2003)

work page 2003

[5] [5]

L., Liu, W

Yarin, A. L., Liu, W. & Reneker, D. H. Motion of droplets along thin ﬁbers with temperature gradient. Journal of applied physics 91, 4751–4760 (2002)

work page 2002

[6] [6]

& Ichimura, K

Oh, S.-K., Nakagawa, M. & Ichimura, K. Photocontrol of liquid motion on an azoben- zene monolayer. Journal of Materials Chemistry 12, 2262–2269 (2002). 8 1 mm 0 5 10 15 20 25 hr [mm] B = 2B=1 B=0 0 5 10 15 20 25 hr [mm] 6 8 10 12V [µL] B ≥ 5 B=0 c d Figure 4: Impact, capture and transport of droplets.(a): 5 µL water droplet impact- ing on a tilted (β= 2.3...

work page 2002

[7] [7]

Photo-actuation of liquids for light-driven microﬂuidics: state of the art and perspectives

Baigl, D. Photo-actuation of liquids for light-driven microﬂuidics: state of the art and perspectives. Lab on a Chip 12, 3637–3653 (2012)

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Squires, T. M. & Quake, S. R. Microﬂuidics: Fluid physics at the nanoliter scale. Reviews of modern physics 77, 977 (2005)

work page 2005