Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 71 references

Evaporation of sessile drops on a heated superhydrophobic substrate

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two closely spaced droplets on a superhydrophobic surface evaporate more slowly than an isolated droplet—1.6 times slower at 27 °C and 1.2 times slower at 50 °C—because vapor shielding raises the local humidity between them.

desk verdict Useful experimental dataset on two-drop evaporation on superhydrophobic surfaces at elevated temperature; the modeling claim is stronger than the evidence supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00774 v1 pith:EULQGPKY submitted 2025-07-01 physics.flu-dyn

Sivanandan Kavuri , Chander Shekhar Sharma , George Karapetsas , Kirti Chandra Sahu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords SessiledropletevaporationSuperhydrophobicsubstrateVaporshieldingTwo-dropconfigurationEvaporativecoolingNaturalconvectionContactangledynamicsShadowgraphyimaging
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 investigates how two water droplets sitting side by side on a water-repellent micro-nano textured superhydrophobic aluminum surface evaporate, compared with an isolated droplet, at 27 °C and 50 °C. It claims that the two-drop configuration evaporates more slowly because vapor from each droplet accumulates between them—a vapor-shielding effect—producing asymmetric evaporation and longer lifetimes: about 1.6 times longer at room temperature and 1.2 times longer at 50 °C. The paper further claims that a purely diffusion-based model captures evaporation at room temperature, while at 50 °C the model must also include evaporative cooling and buoyancy-driven natural convection to track the measured volume. The practical stakes: droplet arrays on superhydrophobic surfaces evaporate at different rates than isolated droplets, and the difference depends strongly on substrate temperature.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the vapor-shielding factor $1/(1+\varphi)$, where $\varphi$ is the dimensionless vapor-concentration field of the isolated spherical cap (given analytically by Eqs. (6)--(8)); the pair model divides the isolated evaporation rate by this factor, assuming equal drops and symmetric evaporation. At elevated temperature, two empirical corrections carry the argument: the evaporative-cooling factor $K(E,\theta)$ (with $E = 0.19$ and $\theta = 150^\circ$, giving $K = 0.54$) and the natural-convection enhancement $E_r = 0.31 Gr^{0.216}$ based on the Grashof number. These are combined with the spherical-cap diffusion solution $f(\theta)$ into Eqs. (14)--(15), which are integrated to predict $V(t)$.

What would settle it

Measure the interfacial temperature of the two drops during evaporation with infrared thermography at $T_s = 50^\circ$C: the model's cooling factor predicts a specific suppression of the interface temperature relative to the substrate, and if a high-contact-angle superhydrophobic pair does not show that suppression, the 14% agreement at half-volume would have to be considered coincidental.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a superhydrophobic substrate, two droplets placed side by side with edge-to-edge gap $L_e \le 0.37$ mm live significantly longer than a single drop. At $T_s = 27^\circ$C the pair's average lifetime is 2050 s versus 1269 s for the isolated drop (1.6$\times$); at $T_s = 50^\circ$C it is 593 s versus 494 s (1.2$\times$). The paper attributes this to vapor shielding: the inner sides of the pair see a higher local vapor concentration, so the evaporation flux is asymmetric and the total rate is reduced. It supports this with a sequence of theoretical models: Eq. (3) (diffusion only) suffices at room temperature; at 50 $^\circ$C the isolated drop and the pair require the diffusion equation multiplied by the evaporative-cooling factor $K(E,\theta) = 0.54$ and by $1 + 0.31 Gr^{0.216}$ for natural convection, giving Eq. (14) for a single drop and Eq. (15) for the pair. The combined model overestimates the half-volume time at 50 $^\circ$C for the two-drop system by only 14%, whereas diffusion alone underpredicts it by 31%.

Load-bearing premise

The elevated-temperature model imports an evaporative-cooling correction and a buoyant-convection enhancement that were measured for isolated, low-contact-angle drops under saturated conditions, and applies them unchanged to each member of a closely spaced pair on a superhydrophobic surface, while also assuming the two drops are equal-sized and evaporate symmetrically.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 27 °C a paired droplet takes about 1.6 times as long to evaporate as an isolated one; at 50 °C the ratio drops to about 1.2, so heating a superhydrophobic substrate weakens vapor shielding.
  • At room temperature the diffusion-only model (Eq. 3) is sufficient; at 50 °C, diffusion alone underpredicts the half-volume time by 31% for the pair, while the full model with evaporative cooling and convection overpredicts it by only 14%.
  • In the pair, the evaporation rate converges to the isolated-drop rate after $t/t_{f,iso} \approx 0.7$ at 27 °C and $\approx 0.4$ at 50 °C, meaning the late-stage pair behaves like two independent drops.
  • Both isolated and paired droplets shift from mostly constant-contact-angle evaporation at room temperature to mixed-mode evaporation at 50 °C, with stick-slip events in both cases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not vary the edge-to-edge gap $L_e$ systematically; a testable extension is to measure pair lifetime against $L_e/R_c$ and compare with the $1/(1+\varphi)$ prediction, which should show shielding decaying smoothly as the drops separate.
  • The model assumes equal-sized drops with symmetric evaporation; if one drop is smaller, the shielding field is asymmetric and the smaller drop should be shielded more strongly, a prediction that could be checked by dispensing unequal volumes.
  • If the trend extrapolates, dense droplet arrays on superhydrophobic surfaces at near-room temperature will show much longer collective lifetimes, while at elevated temperature natural convection short-circuits the shielding—a consideration for cooling and anti-icing applications.
  • Because both borrowed correlations were derived for single drops, the 14% error at 50 °C for the pair is not strong evidence by itself; a direct test of the two corrections on a superhydrophobic pair would separate mechanism from curve-fitting.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental and theoretical study of sessile water droplets (V0 ≈ 4 µl) evaporating on a micro-nano textured superhydrophobic aluminum substrate at Ts = 27 °C and 50 °C, RH = 16%, comparing an isolated droplet with a two-drop configuration. The main experimental findings are that droplets in the two-drop configuration evaporate more slowly due to vapor shielding, with lifetimes 1.6 times (27 °C) and 1.2 times (50 °C) those of an isolated droplet, and that the evaporation mode differs with temperature and configuration. The theoretical part combines a diffusion-based model (Popov) with an evaporative-cooling correction K(E,θ) from Shen et al. and a natural-convection enhancement Er = 0.31Gr^0.216 from Kelly-Zion et al., claiming this combined model 'accurately captures' the elevated-temperature dynamics while diffusion alone suffices at room temperature.

Significance. If substantiated, the experimental results provide a useful and novel dataset on multi-droplet evaporation on superhydrophobic surfaces at elevated temperatures, a regime that has received little attention. The repeated shadowgraphy measurements with uncertainty bars, the clear reporting of lifetimes and evaporation modes, and the absence of fitted parameters in the model are strengths. The experimental core—paired droplets live 1.6× and 1.2× longer than isolated droplets—is well supported. However, the theoretical modeling claim as stated is not established: the 'accurate' combined model rests on two empirical correlations explicitly outside their validity range and is supported only by a single half-volume-time match at 50 °C, raising the risk of error compensation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III A, Eq. (15) and Fig. 10(d); Abstract and Conclusion] The claim that the combined D_f+Ec+Cv model 'accurately captures' the elevated-temperature dynamics is not supported by the evidence presented. The only quantitative support in the two-drop case is a 14% overprediction of the half-volume time at Ts = 50 °C (Fig. 10d), and no full-curve error metric (e.g., L2 relative error in V/V0(t)) is reported. The text itself states that K(E,θ) is derived for an isolated drop under saturated conditions and that the convection correlation 0.31Gr^0.216 corresponds to a single-drop system with low contact angles; both are outside the present superhydrophobic, RH=16%, paired-drop regime. Since K=0.54 suppresses evaporation while the Gr term enhances it, the observed agreement could arise from compensation of two out-of-range corrections. Please either soften the claim to 'improves agreement' or strengthen it with a sensitivity analysis for K and Er and a full-curve error quantification.
  2. [§III A, after Eq. (3)] The geometric ratios used for the two-drop model are internally inconsistent with the reported experimental dimensions. The text reports Lc/Rc ≈ 5.46 and Le/Rc = 0.52, but the measured initial droplet diameter is d0 ≈ 2.1 mm (Rc ≈ 1.05 mm) with Lc ≈ 2.46 mm and Le ≈ 0.22 mm, which gives Lc/Rc ≈ 2.3 and Le/Rc ≈ 0.2. Since the dimensionless concentration field φ in Eq. (6) depends on Rc, h, and Lc, the reported 18% underprediction at room temperature and 14% overprediction at 50 °C could be influenced by using a different value of Rc in the calculations than in the experiments. Please state the exact values of Rc, h, Lc, and Le used in Eqs. (9) and (15) and verify their consistency with the measured data.
  3. [§III A and Fig. 10(c)] For the isolated drop at Ts = 50 °C, the paper states that the combined model 'agrees well' with experiments but reports no quantitative error. The preceding D_f+Ec model overpredicts the half-volume time by 16%, and the addition of the convection enhancement changes this to an unreported value. Please report the half-time error and, ideally, a full-curve error metric for the isolated-drop case at 50 °C; without this, the claim that Eqs. (14)–(15) accurately capture the isolated-drop dynamics is not quantitatively established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'theoreticaly' (start of §III A), 'dimater' (Fig. 2 caption), 'at at Ts' (Fig. S3 caption), 'op surface' (Fig. 2 caption), and 'boemite' (Fig. 3 caption, should be 'boehmite').
  2. [§III A, after Eq. (15)] The phrase 'both isolated and single-drop systems' appears to be a slip; it should presumably be 'isolated and two-drop systems'.
  3. [§III A, after Eq. (3)] The sentence 'Changing this θ value in the range 155° ± 5°' is inconsistent with the just-stated calculation value θ = 150°; the intended range is likely 150° ± 5°.
  4. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion use the phrase 'accurately captures' for the combined model, while the conclusion's own wording later softens to 'improves agreement'; aligning these statements would more accurately reflect the evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the experimental lifetime and mode results are independent measurements, and the theoretical model imports external correlations without fitting parameters to the data being compared.

full rationale

The central experimental claims—that paired droplets evaporate more slowly than isolated droplets, with lifetimes 1.6× longer at 27°C and 1.2× longer at 50°C, and that the two configurations follow the reported mode sequences—rest on repeated shadowgraphy measurements and are fully independent of the theory. The theoretical portion combines the standard Popov diffusion solution (Eqs. 1–3), the Masoud et al. two-drop correction factor φ (Eqs. 5–9), and two external correlations: the evaporative-cooling factor K(E,θ)=0.54 from Shen et al. [69] and the natural-convection enhancement E_r=0.31Gr^0.216 from Kelly-Zion et al. [66]. No parameter is fitted to the evaporation data being compared; the contact angle θ=150° is a representative measured value, and the paper explicitly checks that varying it by ±5° does not significantly change the predicted volume evolution. The only quantitative support for the combined model at 50°C is the half-volume-time error (14% for the two-drop case, Fig. 10d), and the paper itself flags that the K and Gr correlations are outside their stated validity range for this two-drop, superhydrophobic, RH=16% configuration. That is a correctness and robustness concern—the agreement could involve compensation between evaporative-cooling suppression and convection enhancement—but it is not circularity, because the model's output is not achieved by fitting and is not definitionally equivalent to the data. The self-citations (Refs. 20, 45, 62) are used only for image-processing procedure, D_v evaluation, and substrate preparation; they are not load-bearing for the evaporation conclusions. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is assembled from the standard diffusion equation plus two empirical correction factors imported from prior studies; no constant is fitted to the evaporation data in this paper. The representative contact angle (150°) is a measured input, not a tuned parameter. The main assumption risks are the transfer of single-drop correlations to a two-drop, high-contact-angle, non-saturated system.

free parameters (3)
  • Representative contact angle θ = 150°
    Chosen as the average contact angle during evaporation; the paper states results are insensitive to θ in the range 145-160°.
  • Evaporative cooling correction K(E,θ) = 0.54 (E=0.19, θ=150°)
    From the empirical correlation of Shen et al. (Eqs. S1-S2); applied to both isolated and two-drop heated cases.
  • Convection enhancement E_r = 0.31 Gr^0.216 = 0.31 and exponent 0.216 from Kelly-Zion et al.
    Empirical correlation for buoyant convection, originally for single low-contact-angle drops; applied to each droplet in the pair.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The vapor concentration at the liquid-gas interface is at saturation C_sat(T_s), and far-field concentration is RH*C∞(T∞) (Eq. 1).
    Standard assumption for diffusion-limited evaporation; invoked in Section III.A.
  • domain assumption Droplets are spherical caps throughout evaporation, including at high contact angles (150-165°), and the geometry used in Popov's f(θ) applies.
    Used to compute volume from Rc and θ and in the diffusion model; the paper acknowledges the close spacing (Le/Rc=0.52) is not fully captured.
  • ad hoc to paper The empirical correlations K(E,θ) (Shen et al.) and E_r=0.31Gr^0.216 (Kelly-Zion et al.), derived for isolated drops, apply to each drop in the two-drop system at elevated temperature.
    Eq. (15) multiplies the two-drop diffusion rate by both corrections; the paper admits these were not derived for two-drop/high-contact-angle/saturated conditions.
  • domain assumption The two drops are equal-sized and evaporate symmetrically, so the evaporation rate is J = J_iso/(1+φ) (Eq. 5).
    Used to model the two-drop system; experiments show asymmetric evaporation due to the shielding effect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evaporation of sessile drops on a heated superhydrophobic substrate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EULQGPKY

@misc{pith2026250700774,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evaporation of sessile drops on a heated superhydrophobic substrate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EULQGPKY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00774}
}
read the original abstract

We experimentally investigate the evaporation dynamics of sessile water droplets on a micro-nano textured superhydrophobic aluminum substrate at various temperatures using shadowgraphy imaging. By comparing the evaporation behavior of two droplets placed side-by-side with that of an isolated droplet, we find that droplets in the two-drop system evaporate more slowly due to the vapor shielding effect, which increases vapor concentration between the droplets. This leads to asymmetric evaporation and longer lifetimes, particularly at room temperature compared to higher temperatures. At room temperature, the isolated droplet primarily follows a constant contact angle (CCA) mode, with occasional stick-slip events. The two-drop system predominantly exhibits CCA mode for most of its lifetime, with mixed-mode evaporation and some stick-slip behavior. At elevated temperatures, the isolated droplet maintains a nearly constant contact angle for the first half of its lifetime, transitioning to a mixed evaporation mode with occasional stick-slip events. In contrast, the two-drop system follows a mixed evaporation mode throughout, with occasional stick-slip behavior. Furthermore, a comprehensive theoretical model that accounts for diffusion, evaporative cooling, and convection accurately captures the evaporation dynamics of sessile droplets on a superhydrophobic substrate in both isolated and paired configurations at elevated substrate temperatures. In contrast, a diffusion-based model alone adequately describes the evaporation behaviour at room temperature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00774 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup. It consists of a droplet dispensing mechanism con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic representation of a pair of drops on a superhydrophobic substrate. In this configuration, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The SEM images of the micro and nano textured aluminum substrates are presented at two magnifi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Temporal evolution of the droplet shapes undergoing evaporation in both the isolated and two-drop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Temporal evolution of the droplet shapes undergoing evaporation in both the isolated and two-drop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Temporal variation of (a) normalized wetting diameter ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Temporal variation of (a) normalized wetting diameter ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Variation of the normalized droplet volume ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The variation of the rate of change of the volume of the isolated drop and the left drop of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Comparison of experimentally measured and theoretically predicted normalized volume ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L.; Fan, Z

    Garcia-Cordero, J. L.; Fan, Z. H. Sessile droplets for chemical and biological assays. Lab Chip 2017, 17, 2150–2166

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Evaporation-driven liquid flow in sessile droplets.Soft Matter 2022, 18, 8535–8553

    Gelderblom, H.; Diddens, C.; Marin, A. Evaporation-driven liquid flow in sessile droplets.Soft Matter 2022, 18, 8535–8553

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Balusamy, S.; Banerjee, S.; Sahu, K. C. Lifetime of sessile saliva droplets in the context of SARS- CoV-2. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 2021, 123, 105178

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Katre, P.; Banerjee, S.; Balusamy, S.; Sahu, K. C. Fluid dynamics of respiratory droplets in the context of COVID-19: Airborne and surfaceborne transmissions. Phys. Fluids 2021, 33, 081302

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Direct liquid cooling of high flux micro and nano electronic components

    Bar-Cohen, A.; Arik, M.; Ohadi, M. Direct liquid cooling of high flux micro and nano electronic components. Proc. IEEE 2006, 94, 1549–1570

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    All-Optical Rapid Formation, Transport, and Sustenance of a Sessile Droplet in a Two-Dimensional Slit with Few-Micrometer Separation

    Takamatsu, Y .; Yamato, C.; Kuwahara, M.; Saito, Y .; Saiki, T. All-Optical Rapid Formation, Transport, and Sustenance of a Sessile Droplet in a Two-Dimensional Slit with Few-Micrometer Separation. Micromachines 2023, 14, 1460

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Y .; Choudhury, M

    Zang, D.; Tarafdar, S.; Tarasevich, Y . Y .; Choudhury, M. D.; Dutta, T. Evaporation of a Droplet: From physics to applications. Phys. Rep. 2019, 804, 1–56

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Kumari, N.; Garimella, S. V . Characterization of the heat transfer accompanying electrowetting or gravity-induced droplet motion. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2011, 54, 4037–4050

    work page 2011

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Spray cooling heat transfer: the state of the art

    Kim, J. Spray cooling heat transfer: the state of the art. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 2007, 28, 753–767

    2007

  2. [10]

    Prasad, A.; Lin, A. T. H.; Rao, V . R.; Seshia, A. A. Monitoring sessile droplet evaporation on a micromechanical device. Analyst 2014, 139, 5538–5546

    2014

  3. [11]

    Self-assembly of nanoparticles from evaporating sessile droplets: Fresh look into the role of particle/substrate interaction

    Bridonneau, N.; Zhao, M.; Battaglini, N.; Mattana, G.; Thévenet, V .; Noël, V .; Roché, M.; Zrig, S.; Carn, F. Self-assembly of nanoparticles from evaporating sessile droplets: Fresh look into the role of particle/substrate interaction. Langmuir 2020, 36, 11411–11421

    2020

  4. [12]

    Fundamental fluid dynamics challenges in inkjet printing

    Lohse, D. Fundamental fluid dynamics challenges in inkjet printing. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.2022, 54, 349–382

    2022

  5. [13]

    de Gans, B.-J.; Schubert, U. S. Inkjet printing of well-defined polymer dots and arrays. Langmuir 2004, 20, 7789–7793

    2004

  6. [14]

    Modelling of Droplet Absorption and 24 Evaporation during Pharmaceutical Tablet Coating

    Christodoulou, C.; Mazzei, L.; García-Muñoz, S.; Sorensen, E. Modelling of Droplet Absorption and 24 Evaporation during Pharmaceutical Tablet Coating. 2017, 40, 85–90

    2017

  7. [15]

    G.; Wray, A

    Schofield, F. G.; Wray, A. W.; Pritchard, D.; Wilson, S. K. The shielding effect extends the lifetimes of two-dimensional sessile droplets. J. Eng. Math. 2020, 120, 89–110

    2020

  8. [16]

    J.; Ouali, F

    Iqtidar, A.; Kilbride, J. J.; Ouali, F. F.; Fairhurst, D. J.; Stone, H. A.; Masoud, H. Drying dynamics of sessile-droplet arrays. Phys. Rev. Fluids 2023, 8, 013602

    2023

  9. [17]

    D.; Stone, H

    Masoud, H.; Howell, P. D.; Stone, H. A. Evaporation of multiple droplets. J. Fluid Mech. 2021, 927, R4

    2021

  10. [18]

    W.; Duffy, B

    Wray, A. W.; Duffy, B. R.; Wilson, S. K. Competitive evaporation of multiple sessile droplets.J. Fluid Mech. 2020, 884, A45

    2020

  11. [19]

    Dynamics of the interaction of a pair of thin evaporating droplets on compliant substrates

    Malachtari, A.; Karapetsas, G. Dynamics of the interaction of a pair of thin evaporating droplets on compliant substrates. J. Fluid Mech. 2024, 978, A8

    2024

  12. [20]

    Hari Govinda, A.; Balusamy, S.; Banerjee, S.; Sahu, K. C. Intricate evaporation dynamics in different multidroplet configurations. Langmuir 2024, 40, 18555–18567

    2024

  13. [21]

    Y .; McHale, G

    Erbil, H. Y .; McHale, G. Droplet evaporation on superhydrophobic surfaces. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2023, 123, 080501

    2023

  14. [22]

    Collective behavior of evaporating droplets on superhydrophobic surfaces

    Moradi Mehr, S.; Businaro, L.; Habibi, M.; Moradi, A. Collective behavior of evaporating droplets on superhydrophobic surfaces. AIChE J. 2020, 66, e16284

    2020

  15. [23]

    J.; Newton, M

    Roach, P.; Shirtcliffe, N. J.; Newton, M. I. Progess in superhydrophobic surface development. Soft Matter 2008, 4, 224–240

    2008

  16. [24]

    Superhydrophobic surfaces and emerging applications: Non-adhesion, energy, green engineering

    Nosonovsky, M.; Bhushan, B. Superhydrophobic surfaces and emerging applications: Non-adhesion, energy, green engineering. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2009, 14, 270–280

    2009

  17. [25]

    Bhushan, B.; Jung, Y . C. Natural and biomimetic artificial surfaces for superhydrophobicity, self- cleaning, low adhesion, and drag reduction. Prog. Mater. Sci.2011, 56, 1–108

    2011

  18. [26]

    Influence of water adhesion of superhydrophobic surfaces on their anti-corrosive behavior.Surf

    Cui, M.; Shen, Y .; Tian, H.; Yang, Y .; Feng, H.; Li, J. Influence of water adhesion of superhydrophobic surfaces on their anti-corrosive behavior.Surf. Coat. Technol. 2018, 347, 38–45

    2018

  19. [27]

    Icephobic/anti-icing properties of superhydrophobic surfaces

    Huang, W.; Huang, J.; Guo, Z.; Liu, W. Icephobic/anti-icing properties of superhydrophobic surfaces. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2022, 304, 102658

    2022

  20. [28]

    Preparation of superhydrophobic surfaces on Al substrates and the anti-icing behavior

    Yang, J.; Li, W. Preparation of superhydrophobic surfaces on Al substrates and the anti-icing behavior. J. Alloys Compd. 2013, 576, 215–219

    2013

  21. [29]

    Wang, Y .; Zhao, W.; Han, M.; Guan, L.; Han, L.; Hemraj, A.; Tam, K. C. Sustainable superhydropho- bic surface with tunable nanoscale hydrophilicity for water harvesting applications. Angew. Chem. 25 2022, 134, e202115238

    2022

  22. [30]

    Superhydrophobic and super- oleophilic membranes for oil-water separation application: A comprehensive review

    Rasouli, S.; Rezaei, N.; Hamedi, H.; Zendehboudi, S.; Duan, X. Superhydrophobic and super- oleophilic membranes for oil-water separation application: A comprehensive review. Mater. Des. 2021, 204, 109599

    2021

  23. [31]

    Predicting the lifetimes of evaporating droplets in ordered arrays

    Chen, H.; An, Q.; Zhang, H.; Li, C.; Fang, H.; Yin, Z. Predicting the lifetimes of evaporating droplets in ordered arrays. Phys. Fluids 2022, 34, 082010

    2022

  24. [32]

    J.; Choi, C

    Lee, H. J.; Choi, C. K.; Lee, S. H. Vapor-shielding effect and evaporation characteristics of multiple droplets. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 2023, 144, 106789

    2023

  25. [33]

    S.; Vu, D

    Birdi, K. S.; Vu, D. T.; Winter, A. A study of the evaporation rates of small water drops placed on a solid surface. J. Phys. Chem. 1989, 93, 3702–3703

    1989

  26. [34]

    G.; Bexon, R

    Picknett, R. G.; Bexon, R. The evaporation of sessile or pendant drops in still air. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1977, 61, 336–350

    1977

  27. [35]

    Experimental and theoretical investigations of evaporation of sessile water droplet on hydrophobic surfaces

    Yu, Y .; Wang, Z.; Zhao, Y . Experimental and theoretical investigations of evaporation of sessile water droplet on hydrophobic surfaces. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2012, 365, 254–259

    2012

  28. [36]

    Hari Govindha, A.; Katre, P.; Balusamy, S.; Banerjee, S.; Sahu, K. C. Counter-intuitive evaporation in nanofluids droplets due to stick-slip nature. Langmuir 2022, 38, 15361–15371

    2022

  29. [37]

    Hu, H.; Larson, R. G. Evaporation of a sessile droplet on a substrate. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 1334–1344

    2002

  30. [38]

    J.; Sefiane, K.; Kim, J.; Matar, O

    Sáenz, P. J.; Sefiane, K.; Kim, J.; Matar, O. K.; Valluri, P. Evaporation of sessile drops: a three- dimensional approach. J. Fluid Mech. 2015, 772, 705–739

    2015

  31. [39]

    A combined computational and experimental investigation on evaporation of a sessile water droplet on a heated hydrophilic substrate.Int

    Kumar, M.; Bhardwaj, R. A combined computational and experimental investigation on evaporation of a sessile water droplet on a heated hydrophilic substrate.Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.2018, 122, 1223– 1238

    2018

  32. [40]

    Influence of evaporation on contact angle

    Bourges-Monnier, C.; Shanahan, M. Influence of evaporation on contact angle. Langmuir 1995, 11, 2820–2829

    1995

  33. [41]

    A.; Kapur, N.; Summers, J

    Kadhim, M. A.; Kapur, N.; Summers, J. L.; Thompson, H. Experimental and theoretical investigation of droplet evaporation on heated hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces. Langmuir 2019, 35, 6256– 6266

    2019

  34. [42]

    Analysis of an evaporating sessile droplet on a non-wetted surface

    Bhardwaj, R. Analysis of an evaporating sessile droplet on a non-wetted surface. Colloids Interface Sci. Commun. 2018, 24, 49–53

    2018

  35. [43]

    S.; Bhardwaj, R

    Chatterjee, S.; Kumar, M.; Murallidharan, J. S.; Bhardwaj, R. Evaporation of initially heated sessile 26 droplets and the resultant dried colloidal deposits on substrates held at ambient temperature.Langmuir 2020, 36, 8407–8421

    2020

  36. [44]

    K.; Bhardwaj, R

    Mahato, L. K.; Bhardwaj, R. Joint effect of air flow and substrate wettability on evaporation of a sessile droplet on a solid surface. Results in Surfaces and Interfaces 2023, 13, 100148

    2023

  37. [45]

    Gurrala, P.; Katre, P.; Balusamy, S.; Banerjee, S.; Sahu, K. C. Evaporation of ethanol-water sessile droplet of different compositions at an elevated substrate temperature. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2019, 145, 118770

    2019

  38. [46]

    Shaikeea, A. J. D.; Basu, S. Insight into the evaporation dynamics of a pair of sessile droplets on a hydrophobic substrate. Langmuir 2016, 32, 1309–1318

    2016

  39. [47]

    Universal evaporation dynamics of ordered arrays of sessile droplets

    Hatte, S.; Pandey, K.; Pandey, K.; Chakraborty, S.; Basu, S. Universal evaporation dynamics of ordered arrays of sessile droplets. J. Fluid Mech. 2019, 866, 61–81

    2019

  40. [48]

    K.; Zhou, Q.; Kim, D.; Ha, D.; Kim, T

    Thokchom, A. K.; Zhou, Q.; Kim, D.; Ha, D.; Kim, T. Characterizing self-assembly and deposition behavior of nanoparticles in inkjet-printed evaporating droplets. Sens. Actuators B: Chem. 2017, 252, 1063–1070

    2017

  41. [49]

    J.; Benusiglio, A.; Prakash, M

    Cira, N. J.; Benusiglio, A.; Prakash, M. Vapour-mediated sensing and motility in two-component droplets. Nature 2015, 519, 446–450

    2015

  42. [50]

    Kumar, M.; Bhardwaj, R.; Sahu, K. C. Wetting dynamics of a water droplet on micropillar surfaces with radially varying pitches. Langmuir 2020, 36, 5312–5323

    2020

  43. [51]

    Evaporation of water droplets on soft patterned surfaces

    Chuang, Y .; Chu, C.; Lin, S.; Chen, L. Evaporation of water droplets on soft patterned surfaces. Soft Matter 2014, 10, 3394–3403

    2014

  44. [52]

    J.; Newton, M

    McHale, G.; Aqil, S.; Shirtcliffe, N. J.; Newton, M. I.; Erbil, H. Y . Analysis of droplet evaporation on a superhydrophobic surface. Langmuir 2005, 21, 11053–11060

    2005

  45. [53]

    G.; Nair, H.; Van Houselt, A.; Lefferts, L.; Snoeijer, J

    Gelderblom, H.; Marin, A. G.; Nair, H.; Van Houselt, A.; Lefferts, L.; Snoeijer, J. H.; Lohse, D. How water droplets evaporate on a superhydrophobic substrate. Phys. Rev. E. 2011, 83, 026306

    2011

  46. [54]

    Popov, Y . O. Evaporative deposition patterns: spatial dimensions of the deposit. Phys. Rev. E. 2005, 71, 036313

    2005

  47. [55]

    Dash, S.; Garimella, S. V . Droplet evaporation dynamics on a superhydrophobic surface with negligi- ble hysteresis. Langmuir 2013, 29, 10785–10795

    2013

  48. [56]

    Dash, S.; Garimella, S. V . Droplet evaporation on heated hydrophobic and superhydrophobic surfaces. Physical Review E 2014, 89, 042402

    2014

  49. [57]

    A.; Garimella, S

    Pan, Z.; Weibel, J. A.; Garimella, S. V . Transport mechanisms during water droplet evaporation on 27 heated substrates of different wettability. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2020, 152, 119524

    2020

  50. [58]

    Yu, J.; Pan, Z.; Weibel, J. A. Transition of buoyancy-driven flow from an axisymmetric to non- axisymmetric vortex inside an evaporating sessile droplet. J. Fluid Mech. 2024, 997, A47

    2024

  51. [59]

    Y .; Lee, H

    Hwang, W. Y .; Lee, H. J.; Jin, J.; Choi, C. K.; Lee, S. H. Enhanced insights into paired droplet evap- oration dynamics on heated substrates: Unveiling the role of convection and diffusion. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 2024, 157, 107740

    2024

  52. [60]

    G.; Kim, J

    Hwang, I. G.; Kim, J. Y .; Weon, B. M. Droplet evaporation with complexity of evaporation modes. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2017, 110, 031602

    2017

  53. [61]

    A.; Stamatopoulos, C.; Tiwari, M

    Maitra, T.; Antonini, C.; der Mauer, M. A.; Stamatopoulos, C.; Tiwari, M. K.; Poulikakos, D. Hier- archically nanotextured surfaces maintaining superhydrophobicity under severely adverse conditions. Nanoscale 2014, 6, 8710–8719

    2014

  54. [62]

    S.; Combe, J.; Giger, M.; Emmerich, T.; Poulikakos, D

    Sharma, C. S.; Combe, J.; Giger, M.; Emmerich, T.; Poulikakos, D. Growth rates and spontaneous navigation of condensate droplets through randomly structured textures. ACS Nano 2017, 11, 1673– 1682

    2017

  55. [63]

    K.; D’Ambrosio, H

    Wilson, S. K.; D’Ambrosio, H. M. Evaporation of sessile droplets. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2023, 55, 481–509

    2023

  56. [64]

    S.; Patta- matta, A

    Josyula, T.; Wang, Z.; Askounis, A.; Orejon, D.; Harish, S.; Takata, Y .; Mahapatra, P. S.; Patta- matta, A. Evaporation kinetics of pure water drops: Thermal patterns, Marangoni flow, and interfacial temperature difference. Phys. Rev. E. 2018, 98, 052804

    2018

  57. [65]

    Evaporating droplets

    Shahidzadeh-Bonn, N.; Rafai, S.; Azouni, A.; Bonn, D. Evaporating droplets. J. Fluid Mech. 2006, 549, 307–313

    2006

  58. [66]

    L.; Pursell, C

    Kelly-Zion, P. L.; Pursell, C. J.; Vaidya, S.; Batra, J. Evaporation of sessile drops under combined diffusion and natural convection. Colloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2011, 381, 31–36

    2011

  59. [67]

    Experimental evidence of the atmospheric convective transport contri- bution to sessile droplet evaporation

    Carle, F.; Sobac, B.; Brutin, D. Experimental evidence of the atmospheric convective transport contri- bution to sessile droplet evaporation. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2013, 102, 061603

    2013

  60. [68]

    Kek-Kiong, T.; Sadhal, S. S. Dropwise evaporation: thermal analysis of multidrop systems. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 1992, 35, 1987–2004

    1992

  61. [69]

    Numerical and theoretical analysis of fast evaporating sessile droplets with coupled fields

    Shen, Y .; Kang, F.; Cheng, Y .; Zhang, K.; Sui, Y . Numerical and theoretical analysis of fast evaporating sessile droplets with coupled fields. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2022, 172, 107284

    2022

  62. [70]

    Nguyen, T. A. H.; Biggs, S. R.; Nguyen, A. Analytical model for diffusive evaporation of sessile droplets coupled with interfacial cooling effect. Langmuir 2018, 34, 6955–6962. 28

    2018

  63. [71]

    G.; Ledesma-Aguilar, R.; Orejon, D.; Armstrong, S.; McHale, G

    Jenkins, A.; Wells, G. G.; Ledesma-Aguilar, R.; Orejon, D.; Armstrong, S.; McHale, G. Suppression of crystallization in saline drop evaporation on pinning-free surfaces.J. Chem. Phys. 2023, 158, 124708. 29 Supplementary Information (a) (b) 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 t/tf,iso 0.6 0.7 0.8 0....

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.