Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Nanoscale Analysis of Surface Modifications on Silanized Glass: Wettability Alteration and Long-Term Stability

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Silanization shields glass surfaces from humidity-driven nanoscale wear

desk verdict Useful, small-N surface characterization; the humidity storage warning is the real takeaway, and the proposed BET-normalization artifact points the wrong way. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14836 v1 pith:XV5REHIW submitted 2024-11-22 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Mohammad Hossein Khoeini , Gijs Wensink , Tomislav Vukovic , Ilja Krafft , Antje van der Net , Maja Rucker , Azahara Luna-Triguero This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords wettabilityalterationsilanizationsurfaceenergyinversegaschromatographyatomicforcemicroscopyhumiditystoragestabilityglassbeadsBETarea
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

This paper tries to establish what silanization actually does to glass at the nanoscale and whether the treatment survives storage in humid air. Using inverse gas chromatography and atomic force microscopy on glass beads, it argues that a Surfasil coating lowers both the dispersive and the specific (polar) parts of surface energy, shrinks the measured BET surface area, and smooths the roughness features seen on untreated glass. The same tools are then used to compare untreated and strongly silanized beads after 20 days at 90% relative humidity. The claim is that untreated glass gains polar groups and roughness, while the silanized beads change only at low surface coverage, where the coating is incomplete. The practical stake is that humidity control during storage matters for reproducible wettability in porous-media experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is surface-coverage-resolved surface energy from inverse gas chromatography (IGC), a technique in which pulses of alkane and polar probe gases travel through a column packed with beads and retention times are converted into dispersive and specific surface energies at each surface coverage. Because low coverage samples high-energy sites (cracks, narrow pores) and high coverage reports the average surface, the curves let the authors separate chemical from structural changes. The Schultz linear-regression method supplies the dispersive values; BET applied to the n-octane isotherm supplies surface area; and AFM height histograms over $10\ \mu\mathrm{m}\times 10\ \mu\mathrm{m}$ areas supply direct topography. The conceptual model in Figure 10 ties these together: adsorbed water preferentially collects on exposed, uncoated glass, so treated samples degrade only where the silane coating is patchy.

What would settle it

Take replicate columns (at least three) of untreated and VR-0.1 treated beads, measure dispersive and specific surface energy before and after 20 days at 90% relative humidity, and also image several 10 $\mu\mathrm{m}$ regions per bead; if the untreated-versus-treated differences in surface energy and BET area overlap within uncertainty, the claimed protective effect of silanization would not be confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Silanization of soda-lime glass beads with dichlorooctamethyltetrasiloxane (Surfasil) at three dilutions reduces the dispersive and specific components of surface energy at all surface coverages, with the basic (electron-donor) parameter dropping while the acidic parameter stays flat, which the authors read as selective substitution of silanol groups. BET surface area falls from $0.069$ to $0.057\ \mathrm{m^2/g}$ and AFM height histograms narrow, so the surface becomes smoother but more feature-dense, indicating patchy coating. After 20 days at 90% relative humidity, the untreated reference shows broad increases in both surface-energy components and a rise in BET area to $0.078\ \mathrm{m^2/g}$, whereas the VR-0.1 treated sample shows only low-coverage increases and a small BET rise to $0.062\ \mathrm{m^2/g}$. The paper interprets this as water vapor attacking exposed glass at incomplete-coating regions while the hydrophobic coating itself resists reaction.

Load-bearing premise

The trends rest on one IGC column per treated sample and one 10-by-10-micrometer AFM scan per sample, with the additional assumption that the BET and Schultz analyses give unbiased surface areas and energies for these low-area beads.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stored untreated glass beads become gradually more hydrophilic and rougher, so experiments using them as water-wet references have a shelf life set by storage humidity.
  • VR-0.1 silanized beads keep their hydrophobic character under humid storage far better than untreated beads, but not perfectly: low-coverage surface energy still rises.
  • Humidity, not just contact with liquid water, should be treated as a variable in preparing and storing glass micromodels and bead packs.
  • Surface-energy distributions measured by IGC can reveal where a coating is incomplete, since residual high-energy sites appear at low surface coverage.
  • The same IGC/AFM workflow can quantify other surface treatments' nanoscale chemical and structural effects on porous media.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If patchy coverage is the weak point, a second dilute silanization pass aimed at the residual high-energy sites should suppress the low-coverage energy rise seen after humid storage; that is a testable prediction the paper does not make.
  • The single-column and single-scan sampling means the claimed stability difference should be checked with replicate columns and multiple AFM regions before using these numbers as quantitative benchmarks.
  • Because IGC averages over the whole column while AFM images a $10\ \mu\mathrm{m}$ patch, pairing the two techniques could be used to estimate the fraction of exposed glass area from the magnitude of the low-coverage energy increase.
  • For multiphase-flow experiments, these results imply that storage history can confound wettability comparisons; reporting relative humidity during storage may matter as much as reporting the contact angle.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript uses inverse gas chromatography (IGC) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) to characterize the nanoscale chemical and structural changes of soda-lime glass beads after Surfasil silanization at three concentrations (VR-0.0002, 0.001, 0.1). The authors report that silanization reduces both the dispersive and specific components of surface energy (Figures 5–6), lowers BET surface area from 0.069 to 0.057 m²/g (Figure 7), and produces a smoother but more feature-dense surface in AFM height maps (Figure 8). In a second experiment, untreated and VR-0.1 treated beads are exposed to 90% relative humidity for 20 days; the untreated sample shows broad increases in surface energy and roughness, whereas the treated sample shows changes only at low surface coverage, which the authors attribute to incomplete coating regions. A conceptual model (Figure 10) is proposed for the water-adsorption-induced modifications, and the authors recommend strict humidity control during storage for reproducible wettability experiments.

Significance. If the results are robust, the manuscript provides a useful link between macroscopic contact-angle wettability characterization and nanoscale surface-energy and roughness measurements using the same silanization protocol. The combination of IGC and AFM is appropriate for the research question, and the humidity-exposure experiment addresses a practically important issue for experimental reproducibility. The authors are transparent about several limitations, including single-column BET for treated samples and single AFM scans per sample. However, the quantitative claims—reduction in surface energy components and humidity-induced changes—rest on a coverage coordinate that is calibrated using BET values from the same IGC data, and no error bars or replicate experiments are reported for the energy distributions. The central claims are therefore not yet supported to the standard expected for publication; they require either additional replicates and error analysis or a re-presentation of the data on an absolute-coordinate basis.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3.2 and §3.1, Eq. (12)] The surface-energy distributions in Figures 5, 6, and 9 are plotted against surface coverage θ = N/n_m, where n_m is obtained from the BET surface area via Eq. (12). For treated samples, the BET surface area is determined from a single column (Section 2.3.2). Any error in that single-column S_BET scales the entire coverage axis for that sample, and because γ^D and γ^SP decrease monotonically with θ, an underestimated S_BET for VR-0.1 (0.057 vs 0.069 m²/g) shifts its curves to lower energies at fixed θ, potentially mimicking a genuine reduction in per-site energy. The same mechanism affects the before/after humidity comparison in Section 3.2: the post-exposure curves use the post-exposure BET values (0.078 and 0.062 m²/g), so the reported increases at fixed coverage may partly reflect this rescaling rather than real surface changes. Please report the n-octane isotherms, BET C constants, and fitting ranges (Eq. 14), and either provide replicate BET measurements or plot the energy distributions against an absolute coverage variable that avoids the between-sample normalization.
  2. [§2.4 and Figure 8] The claim that silanization makes the surface progressively smoother and more feature-dense is based on a single 10 µm × 10 µm AFM height map per sample, and no quantitative roughness parameters (e.g., RMS roughness, Ra) or error bars are provided. The height histograms in Figure 8(E) are also reported without uncertainties. Given the small scan size relative to the 1–2 mm bead diameter, multiple scans per sample are needed to support this conclusion; please add at least three scans per condition and report quantitative roughness metrics.
  3. [§3.2] The humidity-exposure experiment is performed with one column per sample type. The central comparison—untreated shows broad increases while VR-0.1 shows only low-coverage changes—is thus based on single curves. The 'low-coverage only' claim is sensitive to the exact shape of the energy distribution and could be affected by the BET normalization bias described in the first major comment. Without replicates and confidence intervals on the curves, or an alternative analysis, the distinction between a localized real modification and a coverage-axis artifact cannot be established.
  4. [§3.2 and Figure 7] The post-exposure BET increase for the VR-0.1 sample (0.057 → 0.062 m²/g, a ~9% change) is presented as marginal. However, no replicate measurements or method precision are reported for treated samples, so the statistical significance of this 9% change is unknown. Given that the BET is determined from a single column, this change could be within measurement noise. Please provide replicate BET determinations or a precision estimate (e.g., from the untreated replicates) to support the claim that the treated sample is stable under humidity.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.3.1, Eq. (2)] The James–Martin correction factor in Eq. (2) has mismatched parentheses; the formula should be j = (3/2) * [((ΔP/P_atm)+1)^2 − 1] / [((ΔP/P_atm)+1)^3 − 1].
  2. [§2.3.1] There are several typographical errors: 'Avagardo's number' should be 'Avogadro's number'; 'as showin in Figure 3' should be 'as shown in Figure 3'; 'the slop of the linear regression' should be 'the slope of the linear regression'.
  3. [§3.1] The reported BET value reads '0. 0. 069 ± 0. 003 m2/g', which contains a stray '0.'; it should read '0.069 ± 0.003 m²/g'.
  4. [Figure 7] The y-axis label uses 'gr' as an abbreviation for gram; please use 'g' for consistency with the rest of the manuscript.
  5. [Figures 5 and 6] The legend labels are embedded in the plot area and the curves may be difficult to distinguish in grayscale; please clarify line styles or colors in the captions.
  6. [§2.3.2] Please specify the number of injection points and the partial-pressure range used for the BET analysis from the n-octane isotherm, so that readers can assess the validity of the BET fit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central IGC surface-energy and humidity-stability findings are direct measurements, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is measurement-based rather than self-referential. Retention volumes are converted to dispersive and specific surface energy components through the standard Schultz and van Oss relations (Eqs. 4-11); the dispersive energy is obtained from the slope of RT ln(Vn) versus NA.am.(gammaP^D)^0.5, which does not contain the BET surface area. The BET area enters only through Eq. 12 to convert adsorbed amount N into surface coverage theta = N/nm. Thus the reported reductions in dispersive and specific energy at fixed theta are not algebraically forced by the lower BET area of treated samples; a single-column BET uncertainty shifts the coverage axis but does not by itself generate the energy values. The humidity-stability claim is supported by before/after IGC retention data, BET changes, and AFM images on the same samples; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper explicitly flags in Section 2.3.2 that 'For the treated samples, due to the limited quantity available, BET values were determined from a single column'; this is a precision/robustness limitation, not circularity, and should be weighed under correctness risk. The self-citations to Vukovic et al. [15] supply the silanization procedure and contact-angle reference values, but the nanoscale IGC and AFM conclusions do not reduce to that citation; Khoeini et al. [24] and Wensink et al. [30] are contextual method/background citations. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-smuggling, or definitional equivalence was found. The score of 2 reflects only the minor non-load-bearing self-citations; the central analysis has independent experimental content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper adds no mathematical derivation; it applies established IGC and AFM characterization methods. The central measurement chain rests on standard but unverified assumptions about isotherm shape, molecular cross-sectional areas, and representativeness of single scans and single columns. No new physical entities are introduced; the Figure 10 'model' is a conceptual illustration, not a quantitative model.

free parameters (2)
  • Probe cross-sectional areas (am) for n-octane, n-nonane, n-decane, dichloromethane, ethyl acetate = Literature values assumed; exact numbers not reported
    Eqs. 6 and 12 use am to convert retention volumes into Gibbs energies and BET areas; different literature am sets shift absolute surface energy values.
  • BET monolayer capacity (nm) from n-octane isotherms = Not reported directly; derived BET areas: 0.069 m2/g untreated, 0.057 m2/g VR-0.1
    Fitted through Eq. 14 to n-octane adsorption isotherms and used to normalize surface coverage and compute surface areas; treated samples were measured on single columns.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption n-alkane and polar probe adsorption isotherms follow Type II or V IUPAC behavior, so BET theory applies.
    Stated in Section 2.3.1 as required for BET surface area determination; no isotherm shape verification is shown.
  • domain assumption Fowkes geometric mean and Van Oss acid-base decompositions hold for the glass-probe system.
    Used in Eqs. 8-11 in Section 2.3.1; the surface energy split into dispersive and specific components is assumed additive.
  • domain assumption Literature values for probe cross-sectional areas and acid-base parameters are accurate for these surfaces.
    Eqs. 6, 10, and 12 require am and acid-base parameters for probes; values are taken from prior literature without independent verification.
  • domain assumption Accelerated exposure to 90% relative humidity for 20 days simulates long-term ambient storage.
    Section 2.3.2 states this acceleration; no ambient-storage control experiment is reported.
  • domain assumption A single 10 micrometer by 10 micrometer AFM scan per sample and height histograms capture the surface roughness relevant to wettability.
    Section 2.4 describes one QI-mode scan per sample; no RMS roughness or scan-to-scan variation is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nanoscale Analysis of Surface Modifications on Silanized Glass: Wettability Alteration and Long-Term Stability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XV5REHIW

@misc{pith2026241114836,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nanoscale Analysis of Surface Modifications on Silanized Glass: Wettability Alteration and Long-Term Stability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XV5REHIW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14836}
}
read the original abstract

To investigate the effect of wettability on multiphase flow in porous media, hydrophilic glass surfaces are typically modified through a silanization process. This study examines the nanoscale chemical and structural modifications of glass bead surfaces treated with Surfasil, using inverse gas chromatography and atomic force microscopy. The results show that silanization reduces both specific and dispersive components of surface energy, indicating fewer polar groups and lower total energy, leading to decreased hydrophilicity compared to untreated glass beads. BET surface area measurements and AFM images reveal that the surface becomes progressively smoother with increased silanization. Subsequently, this study assessed the stability and extent of surface modifications in silanized samples caused by adsorbed water during storage, using untreated glass beads as a reference. Untreated samples exhibit increases in surface roughness and polar groups, leading to marginal increase in surface energy and hydrophilicity. In contrast, the silanized samples show resistance to water adsorption, with only minor alterations in surface energy and structure, likely occurring in areas where the silanization coating was incomplete. The results suggest that humidity control is crucial during extended storage, as prolonged moisture exposure could still lead to surface modifications, even in silanized samples, potentially affecting wettability consistency in repeated experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14836 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simplified illustration of water adhesion on a pure silica glass su [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mechanism of the silanization reaction on the glass surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic of an Inverse Gas Chromatography column pac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic illustrating the determination of dispersive comp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dispersive and specific components of surface energy fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Acidic and basic parameters of specific component of surfa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: BET surface area of untreated (three replicates shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: AFM Height Maps of Glass Bead Surfaces: (A) Untreated, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dispersive and specific surface energy components of un [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Schematic of surface modifications on untreated and sila [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Heinemann, J

    N. Heinemann, J. Alcalde, J. M. Miocic, S. J. T. Hangx, J. Kallmeyer , C. Ostertag-Henning, A. Hassanpouryouzband, E. M. Thaysen, 26 G. J. Strobel, C. Schmidt-Hattenberger, K. Edlmann, M. Wilkin- son, M. Bentham, R. Stuart Haszeldine, R. Carbonell, A. Rudloff, Enabling large-scale hydrogen storage in porous media – the scientifi c challenges, Energy & Envir...

    doi:10.1039/d0ee03536j 2021

  2. [2]

    N. R. Morrow, H. T. Lim, J. S. Ward, Effect of Crude-Oil-Induced Wettability Changes on Oil Recovery, SPE Formation Evaluation 1 (01) (1986) 89–103. doi:10.2118/13215-PA. URL https://doi.org/10.2118/13215-PA

    work page doi:10.2118/13215-pa 1986

  3. [3]

    J. W. Mercer, R. M. Cohen, A review of immiscible fluids in the subsur face: Properties, models, Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 6 (2) (1990) 107–163. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-7722(90)90043-G . URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016977229090043G

    work page arXiv 1990

  4. [4]

    M. E. Boot-Handford, J. C. Abanades, E. J. Anthony, M. J. Blu nt, S. Brandani, N. Mac Dowell, J. R. Fern´ andez, M.-C. Ferrari, R. Gro ss, J. P. Hallett, R. S. Haszeldine, P. Heptonstall, A. Lyngfelt, Z. Maku ch, E. Mangano, R. T. J. Porter, M. Pourkashanian, G. T. Rochelle, N. Shah, J. G. Yao, P. S. Fennell, Carbon capture and storage upd ate, Energy Env...

    work page doi:10.1039/c3ee42350f 2014

  5. [5]

    Wijshoff, Drop dynamics in the inkjet printing process, Cur- rent Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 36 (2018) 20–27

    H. Wijshoff, Drop dynamics in the inkjet printing process, Cur- rent Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 36 (2018) 20–27. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2017.11.004. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359029417301528

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cocis.2017.11.004 2018

  6. [6]

    Singh, M

    K. Singh, M. Jung, M. Brinkmann, R. Seemann, Capillary-Dominated Fluid Displacement in Porous Media (2018). doi:10.1146/annurev-fluid-010518 . URL https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-010518-

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-fluid-010518 2018

  7. [7]

    Pavuluri, R

    S. Pavuluri, R. Holtzman, L. Kazeem, M. Mohammed, T. D. Seers, H. S. Rabbani, Interplay of viscosity and wettability controls fluid dis - placement in porous media, Physical Review Fluids 8 (9) (9 2023). doi:10.1103/PhysRevFluids.8.094002. 27

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevfluids.8.094002 2023

  8. [8]

    R. T. Armstrong, C. Sun, P. Mostaghimi, S. Berg, M. R¨ ucker, P. Luckham, A. Georgiadis, J. E. McClure, Multiscale Characterization of Wettability in Porous Media, Transport in Porous Media 140 (1) (2021) 215–240. doi:10.1007/s11242-021-01615-0 . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-021-01615-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11242-021-01615-0 2021

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Mascini, V

    A. Mascini, V. Cnudde, T. Bultreys, Event-based contact angle mea- surements inside porous media using time-resolved micro-computed to- mography, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 572 (2020) 35 4–363. doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2020.03.099

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    S. Berg, H. Ott, S. A. Klapp, A. Schwing, R. Neit- eler, N. Brussee, A. Makurat, L. Leu, F. Enzmann, J.- O. Schwarz, M. Kersten, S. Irvine, M. Stampanoni, Real-time 3D imaging of Haines jumps in porous media flow, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (10) (2013...

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    L. Shui, J. C. T. Eijkel, A. van den Berg, Multiphase flow in microfluidic systems – Control and applications of dr oplets and interfaces, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 133 (1) (2007) 35–49. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2007.03.001. URL https://www.sciencedirect...

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    W. R. Gaillard, A. Maharanwar, J. J. Weimer, J. D. Williams, Isotherm analysis of the solution-phase uptake of chlorotrimethy l silane on a photosensitive glass Surfaces and Interfaces 10 (2018) 188–196. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2017.10.008. URL https://www.science...

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Bauer, R

    F. Bauer, R. Meyer, S. Czihal, M. Bertmer, U. Decker, S. Naumov, H. Uhlig, M. Steinhart, D. Enke, Functionalization of porous siliceous materials, Part 2: Surface cha racterization by inverse gas Journal of Chromatography A 1603 (2019) 297–310. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ch...

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Iglauer, A

    S. Iglauer, A. Salamah, M. Sarmadivaleh, K. Liu, C. Phan, Contamination of silica surfaces: Impact on water–CO2–quartz an d glass contact angle measuremen International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 22 (2014) 32 5–328. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.01.006. URL h...

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Vukovic, J

    T. Vukovic, J. Røstad, U. Farooq, O. Torsæter, A. van der Net, Systematic Study of Wettability Alteration of Glass Surfaces by Dichlorooctamethyltetrasiloxane Silanization-A Guide for Con- tact Angle Modification, ACS Omega 8 (40) (2023) 36662–36676. doi:10.1021/acsomega.3c02448

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Rueckriem, T

    M. Rueckriem, T. Hahn, D. Enke, Inverse gas chromatograph ic studies on porous glass., Optica Applicata 42 (2) (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    T. Dey, D. Naughton, Cleaning and anti-reflective (AR) hydrop hobic coating of glass surface: Journal of Sol-Gel Science and Technology 77 (1) (2016) 1–27. doi:10.1007/s10971-015-3879-x . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10971-015-3879-x

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Maharanwar, J

    A. Maharanwar, J. J. Weimer, Analysis of the uptake of chlorot rimethylsilane on glass from toluene Surfaces and Interfaces 7 (2017) 29–38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2017.01.007. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246802301730007X

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Hoffmann, S

    J. Hoffmann, S. M. Gamboa, A. Hofmann, H. Gliemann, A. Welle, I. Wacker, R. R. Schr¨ oder, L. Ness, V. Hagenmeyer, U. Gengen bach, Siloxane-functionalised surface patterns as templates for the or dered deposition of thin lamellar Scientific Reports 9 (1) (2019) 17952. doi:10.103...

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    M. E. McGovern, K. M. R. Kallury, M. Thompson, Role of Solvent on the Silanization of Glass with Octadecyltrichlorosilan e, Langmuir 10 (10) (1994) 3607–3614. doi:10.1021/la00022a038. URL https://doi.org/10.1021/la00022a038

    1994 doi

  13. [21]

    A. C. Borges-Mu˜ noz, D. P. Miller, E. Zurek, L. A. Col´ on, Silanization of superficially porous silica particles with p-aminophenyltr imethoxysilane, Microchemical Journal 147 (2019) 263–268. 29 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2019.02.013. URL https://www.sciencedirect.c...

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    J. J. Cras, C. A. Rowe-Taitt, D. A. Nivens, F. S. Ligler, Comparison of chemical cleaning methods of glass in preparation for silanization, Biosensors and Bioelectronics 14 (8) (1999) 683–688. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-5663(99)00043-3 . URL https://www.sciencedirect.co...

    1999 doi

  15. [23]

    Bendada, B

    K. Bendada, B. Hamdi, L. Boudriche, H. Balard, R. Calvet, Surface characterization of reservoir rocks by inverse gas chro matography: Effect of a surfactan Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 504 (2016) 75–85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa....

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    M. H. Khoeini, T. Vukovic, A. van der Net, A. Luna-Triguero, M. R¨ ucker, A novel application of inverse gas chromatography for estimating c ontact angles in porous media Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 680 (2025) 98–106. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2024.10.164...

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    M. Wei, R. S. Bowman, J. L. Wilson, N. R. Morrow, Wetting Properties and Stability of Silane-Treated Glass Exposed to Water, Air, and Oil, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 157 (1) (1993) 154–159. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/jcis.1993.1170. URL https://www.sciencedirect...

    1993

  18. [27]

    J. Yeon, S. C. Chowdhury, J. W. Gillespie Jr., Hydroxylation and water-surface interaction for S-glass and silica glass using ReaxFF based molecular Applied Surface Science 608 (2023) 155078. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2022.155078. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

    2023

  19. [28]

    M. M. Nielsen, C. M. Pedersen, Vessel effects in organic chem- ical reactions; a century-old, overlooked phenomenon (5 2022). doi:10.1039/d2sc01125e

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    Gin, J.-M

    S. Gin, J.-M. Delaye, F. Angeli, S. Schuller, Aqueous alteration of silicate glass: state of knowledge and perspe ctives, npj Materials Degradation 5 (1) (2021) 42. doi:10.1038/s41529-021-00190-5 . URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41529-021-00190-5

    2021 doi

  21. [30]

    Wensink, M

    G. Wensink, M. K. S. Mosalman, P. Geurts, Y. Gao, G. Garfi, S. Krevor, A. Georgiadis, P. F. Luckham, M. R¨ ucker, In-situ 3D measurements of water films on the natural grain surfa ce of porous rocks, Advances in Water Resources 188 (2024) 104705. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ad...

    2024

  22. [31]

    R. Ho, J. Y. Y. Heng, A Review of Inverse Gas Chromatography and its Development as a Tool to Characterize Anisotropic Surface Prope rties of Pharmaceutical Solids, KONA Powder and Particle Journal 30 (20 13) 164–180. doi:10.14356/kona.2013016

    doi

  23. [32]

    Voelkel, Inverse gas chromatography in characterization o f surface, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 72 (2) (2004) 205–207

    A. Voelkel, Inverse gas chromatography in characterization o f surface, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 72 (2) (2004) 205–207. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemolab.2004.01.016. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016974390400036X

    2004 doi

  24. [33]

    Seidel-Morgenstern, Modeling of Chromatographic Process es, in: Preparative Chromatography, 2020, pp

    A. Seidel-Morgenstern, Modeling of Chromatographic Process es, in: Preparative Chromatography, 2020, pp. 311–354. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527816347.ch6. URL https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527816347.ch6

    2020 doi

  25. [34]

    G. M. Dorris, D. G. Gray, Adsorption of n-alkanes at zero surf ace coverage on cellulose paper and Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 77 (2) (1980) 353–362. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9797(80)90304-5 . URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021979780903045

    1980

  26. [35]

    J. R. Conder, C. L. Young, Physicochemical measurement by g as chromatography, A Wiley-Interscience publication, Wiley, 1979. URL https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130282271635552384.bib?lang=en 31

    1979

  27. [36]

    Thielmann, D

    F. Thielmann, D. J. Burnett, J. Y. Y. Heng, Determination of the Surface Energy Distributions of Different Pro cessed Lactose, Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy 33 (11) (2007) 1240– 1253. doi:10.1080/03639040701378035. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/03639040701378035

    2007 doi

  28. [37]

    Mohammadi-Jam, K

    S. Mohammadi-Jam, K. E. Waters, Inverse gas chromatography applications: A review, Ad- vances in Colloid and Interface Science 212 (2014) 21–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2014.07.002. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001868614002164

    2014 doi

  29. [38]

    Schultz, L

    J. Schultz, L. Lavielle, C. Martin, The Role of the Interface in Carbon Fibre-Epoxy Composites, The Journal of Adhesion 23 (1) (1987) 45–60. doi:10.1080/00218468708080469. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/00218468708080469

    1987 doi

  30. [39]

    Gholami, M

    F. Gholami, M. Tomas, Z. Gholami, S. Mirzaei, M. Vakili, Surface Characterization of Carbonaceous Materials Using Inver se Gas Chromatography: A Review Electrochem 1 (4) (2020) 367–387. doi:10.3390/electrochem1040024. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2673-3293/1/4/24

    2020 doi

  31. [40]

    F. M. Fowkes, Acid-Base Interactions in Polymer Adhesion, in: J . M. Georges (Ed.), Tribology Series, Vol. 7, Elsevier, 1981, pp. 119–13 7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8922(08)70878-2 . URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167892208708782

    1981 doi

  32. [41]

    F. M. Fowkes, M. A. Mostafa, Acid-Base Interactions in Polyme r Adsorption, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Product Research and Develop - ment 17 (1) (1978) 3–7. doi:10.1021/i360065a002. URL https://doi.org/10.1021/i360065a002

    1978 doi

  33. [42]

    F. M. Fowkes, Role of acid-base interfacial bonding in adhesion, Jour- nal of Adhesion Science and Technology 1 (1) (1987) 7–27. doi:10.1163/156856187X00049. URL https://doi.org/10.1163/156856187X00049

    1987 doi

  34. [43]

    Lee, Roles of molecular interactions in adhesion, adsorptio n, contact angle and wettabilit Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 7 (6) (1993) 583–634

    L.-H. Lee, Roles of molecular interactions in adhesion, adsorptio n, contact angle and wettabilit Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 7 (6) (1993) 583–634 . 32 doi:10.1163/156856193X00871. URL https://doi.org/10.1163/156856193X00871

    1993 doi

  35. [44]

    C. J. Van Oss, R. J. Good, M. K. Chaudhury, Additive and nonadditive surface tension components and the inter pretation of contact angles Langmuir 4 (4) (1988) 884–891. doi:10.1021/la00082a018. URL https://doi.org/10.1021/la00082a018

    1988 doi

  36. [45]

    C. J. van Oss, M. K. Chaudhury, R. J. Good, Monopolar surfac es, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 28 (1987) 35–64. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8686(87)80008-8 . URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001868687800088

    1987

  37. [46]

    Goss, Considerations about the Adsorption of Organic Mo lecules from the Gas Phase to Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 190 (1) (1997) 241–249

    K.-U. Goss, Considerations about the Adsorption of Organic Mo lecules from the Gas Phase to Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 190 (1) (1997) 241–249. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/jcis.1997.4835. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021979797948359

    1997

  38. [47]

    Voelkel, B

    A. Voelkel, B. Strzemiecka, K. Adamska, K. Milczewska, Inverse gas chromatography as a source of physiochemical data , Journal of Chromatography A 1216 (10) (2009) 1551–1566. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.10.096. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pi...

    2009 doi

  39. [48]

    Balard, E

    H. Balard, E. Brendle, E. Papirer, Determination of the acid-ba se prop- erties of solid surfaces using inverse gas chromatography: Advan tages and limitations, Acid-Base Interactions: Relevance to Adhesion Scie nce and Technology (2000) 299–316

    2000

  40. [49]

    F. M. Fowkes, ATTRACTIVE FORCES AT INTERF ACES, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry 56 (12) (1964) 40–52. doi:10.1021/ie50660a008. URL https://doi.org/10.1021/ie50660a008

    1964 doi

  41. [50]

    D. K. Owens, R. C. Wendt, Estimation of the surface free ener gy of polymers, Journal of Applied Polymer Science 13 (8) (1969) 1741–1747. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/app.1969.070130815. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/app.1969.070130815

    1969

  42. [51]

    van Asten, N

    A. van Asten, N. van Veenendaal, S. Koster, Surface characterization of industrial fibers with inverse gas chr omatography, 33 Journal of Chromatography A 888 (1) (2000) 175–196. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(00)00487-8 . URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artic...

    2000 doi

  43. [52]

    Buckton, H

    G. Buckton, H. Gill, The importance of surface energetics of po wders for drug delivery and the Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 59 (14) (2007) 1474–1479. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2007.06.017. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169409X07001895

    2007 doi

  44. [53]

    Thommes, K

    M. Thommes, K. Kaneko, A. V. Neimark, J. P. Olivier, F. Rodriguez-Reinoso, J. Rouquerol, K. S. W. Sing, Physisorption of gases, with special reference to the evaluation o f surface area and pore size distribution 87 (9-10) (2015) 1051–1069. doi:doi:10.1515/pac-2014-1117 . URL ...

    2015 doi

  45. [54]

    P. P. Yl¨ a-M¨ aih¨ aniemi, J. Y. Y. Heng, F. Thielmann, D. R. Williams, Inverse Gas Chromatographic Method for Measuring the Dispersiv e Surface Energy Distribution Langmuir 24 (17) (2008) 9551–9557. doi:10.1021/la801676n. URL https://doi.org/10.1021/la801676n

    2008 doi

  46. [55]

    Brunauer, P

    S. Brunauer, P. H. Emmett, E. Teller, Adsorption of Gases in Multimolecular Layers, Journal of the Americ an Chemical Society 60 (2) (1938) 309–319. doi:10.1021/ja01269a023. URL https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01269a023

    1938 doi

  47. [56]

    Maj´ erus, P

    O. Maj´ erus, P. Lehu´ ed´ e, I. Biron, F. Al- loteau, S. Narayanasamy, D. Caurant, Glass alteration in atmospheric conditions: crossing perspectives f rom cultural heritage, glass npj Materials Degradation 4 (1) (2020) 27. doi:10.1038/s41529-020-00130-9 . URL https://doi.org/...

    2020 doi

  48. [57]

    D. B. Asay, S. H. Kim, Evolution of the Adsorbed Water Layer St ructure on Silicon Oxide at Ro The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 109 (35) (2005) 16760–1676 3. doi:10.1021/jp053042o. URL https://doi.org/10.1021/jp053042o

    2005 doi

  49. [58]

    G. C. Savulescu, M. R¨ ucker, A. Scanziani, R. Pini, A. Georgiadis, P. F. Luckham, Atomic force microscopy for the characterisation of pinning effect s of seawater micro-droplets 34 Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 592 (2021) 397–404. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis....

    2021 doi

  50. [59]

    Mader-Arndt, Z

    K. Mader-Arndt, Z. Kutelova, R. Fuchs, J. Meyer, T. Staedler, W. Hintz, J. Tomas, Single particle contact versus particle packing behavior: model bas ed analysis of chemically mo Granular Matter 16 (3) (2014) 359–375. doi:10.1007/s10035-013-0478-9 . URL https://doi.org/10.1007...

    2014 doi

  51. [60]

    Bauer, R

    F. Bauer, R. Meyer, M. Bertmer, S. Naumov, M. Al-Naji, J. Wissel, M. Steinhart, D. Enke, Silanization of siliceous materials, part 3: Modification of surface ene rgy and acid-base properties Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 618 (2021) 126472. doi...

    2021

  52. [61]

    Legras, A

    A. Legras, A. Kondor, M. T. Heitzmann, R. W. Truss, Inverse gas chromatography for natural fibre characterisatio n: Identification of the critical parameters Journal of Chromatography A 1425 (2015) 273–279. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2015.11.033. URL https://www.scienc...

    2015 doi

  53. [62]

    J. E. Shelby, Introduction to Glass Science and Technology, Th e Royal Society of Chemistry, 2020. doi:10.1039/9781839169229. URL https://doi.org/10.1039/9781839169229 35

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.