pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.05858 · v1 · pith:IQFTB2N4new · submitted 2019-07-10 · ❄️ cond-mat.soft · physics.flu-dyn

Evaporation of ethanol-water droplet at different substrate temperatures and compositions

Pradeep Gurrala , Pallavi Katre , Saravanan Balusamy , Sayak Banerjee , Kirti Chandra Sahu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 23:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.soft physics.flu-dyn
keywords evaporation dynamicssessile dropletsbinary mixturesethanol-watersubstrate temperaturenon-ideal mixingcontact line motion
0
0 comments X

The pith

Evaporating ethanol-water droplets exhibit non-monotonic lifetimes with rising ethanol concentration due to non-ideal mixing.

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

The paper tracks the evaporation of fixed-volume sessile droplets of ethanol-water mixtures on heated substrates. Pure water or ethanol droplets show simple pinned evaporation, while binary mixtures produce an early pinned stage followed by recession at room temperature, with nonlinear early rates because ethanol leaves faster. At elevated substrate temperatures the lifetime first falls then rises with ethanol fraction, and the entire process for different compositions collapses onto a single self-similar curve at 60 °C. Late-stage interface instabilities and occasional break-up appear only in certain mixtures. The authors compare measured rates against an existing theoretical model for both pure and mixed droplets.

Core claim

The lifetime of the droplet exhibits a non-monotonic trend with the increase in ethanol concentration in the binary mixture, which can be attributed to the non-ideal behaviour of water-ethanol binary mixtures. Increasing substrate temperature decreases the lifetime of the 50 % ethanol droplet on a logarithmic scale, and the evaporation dynamics for different compositions at 60 °C exhibit a self-similar trend.

What carries the argument

Non-ideal thermodynamic mixing of ethanol and water that alters the effective volatility and thereby produces the observed non-monotonic dependence of total evaporation time on composition.

If this is right

  • Lifetime of the 50 % mixture decreases logarithmically as substrate temperature rises from 25 °C to 60 °C.
  • At 60 °C an early spreading stage precedes the pinned and receding stages for the 50 % mixture.
  • Late-stage interfacial instability and droplet break-up occur for some but not all binary compositions.
  • Evaporation rates of both pure and binary droplets are compared directly with an existing theoretical model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If non-ideal mixing is the dominant cause, the same non-monotonic lifetime curve should appear in other binary systems that deviate strongly from Raoult’s law.
  • The self-similar collapse at high temperature suggests a temperature-driven scaling that could be tested by varying droplet volume or substrate material while holding temperature fixed.
  • Composition could be used as a control knob to set evaporation time in processes that rely on sessile binary droplets.

Load-bearing premise

The non-monotonic change in lifetime with ethanol fraction is produced by the non-ideal properties of the mixture rather than by unmeasured internal flows or surface-tension gradients.

What would settle it

Plotting measured lifetime against ethanol fraction for a different binary pair whose mixing is known to be nearly ideal and checking whether the non-monotonic shape disappears.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.05858 by Kirti Chandra Sahu, Pallavi Katre, Pradeep Gurrala, Saravanan Balusamy, Sayak Banerjee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic diagram of the experimental set-up. It consists of a heater, a cellulose acetate substrate placed on a stainless [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The scanning electron microscope images of (a, b) cellulose acetate substrate at 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The atomic force microscopy images of the cellulose acetate substrate at (a) 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The image processing steps for a typical ethanol-water droplet recorded using the camera. (a) Typical original image of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The steps associated with the data processing for a typical droplet. (a) The typical data points for the diameter of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Temporal evolution of droplet shape for pure water (E 0% + W 100%), (E 50% + W 50% solution) and pure ethanol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Contours of the droplet for pure water (E 0% + W 100%), (E 50% + W 50%) solution and pure ethanol (E 100% + W [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: At Ts = 40◦C, it can be seen that during 0 ≤ t/te ≤ 0.2, the droplet of (E 50% + W 50%) binary mixture spreads a little; the spreading is observed only in the right contact line, while the left contact line is pinned (top right panel in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Variations of (a) the height ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The variation of the lifetime time, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Temporal evolution of droplet shape for pure water (E 0% + W 100%), (E 50% + W 50% solution) and pure ethanol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Comparison of the droplet spreading behaviour for different compositions. The contours are plotted in an interval of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Comparison of late time behaviour of evaporation of binary droplets of (a) (E 60% + W 40%) and (b) (E 80% + W [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Variations of (a) the height ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: The variation of the lifetime time, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Temporal evolutions of a (E 50% + W 50%) droplet at different substrate temperatures. The length of the scale bar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Comparison of the droplet spreading behaviour at different substrate temperatures for (E 50% + W 50%) composition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Variations of (a) the height ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Schematic diagram of a sessile droplet on a substrate maintained at temperature, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19: The vapour-liquid pressure curves for the binary mixture at (a) 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20: Comparison of the experimental and the theoretically obtained ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21: Comparison of the experimental and theoretically obtained ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22: Comparison of the experimental and theoretically obtained ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23: Comparison of the experimental and theoretically obtained ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24: The variations of normalised mass of the droplet with the initial mass of the droplet ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25: Comparison of the experimental and theoretically obtained ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26: The variations of the normalised mass of the droplet with the initial mass of the droplet ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_26.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We experimentally investigate the evaporation dynamics of sessile droplets of a fixed volume consisting of different compositions of ethanol-water binary mixture at different substrate temperatures (T_s). At T_s=25oC, we observe pinned-stage linear evaporation for pure droplets, but a binary droplet undergoes two distinct evaporation stages: an early pinned stage and a later receding stage. In the binary droplet, the more volatile ethanol, evaporates faster leading to a nonlinear trend in the evaporation process at the early stage. The phenomenon observed in the present study at T_s=25oC is similar to that presented by previous researchers at room temperature. More interesting dynamics is observed in the evaporation process of a binary droplet at an elevated substrate temperature. We found that the lifetime of the droplet exhibits a non-monotonic trend with the increase in ethanol concentration in the binary mixture, which {can be attributed to} the non-ideal behaviour of water-ethanol binary mixtures. Increasing T_s decreases the lifetime of the (50\% ethanol + 50 \% water) binary droplet in a logarithmic scale. For this composition, at T_s=60oC, we observed an early spreading stage, an intermediate pinned stage and a late receding stage of evaporation. Unlike T_s=25oC, at the early times of the evaporation process, the contact angle of the droplet of pure water at T_s=60oC is greater than 90. Late stage interfacial instability and even droplet break-up are observed for some (though not all) binary mixture compositions. The evaporation dynamics for different compositions at T_s=60oC exhibit a self-similar trend. Finally, the evaporation rates of pure and binary droplets at different substrate temperatures are compared against a theoretical model developed for pure and binary mixture droplets.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript experimentally investigates the evaporation of fixed-volume sessile ethanol-water binary mixture droplets on substrates at 25°C and 60°C. It reports pinned-to-receding stages at room temperature, a non-monotonic droplet lifetime versus ethanol concentration at elevated temperature (attributed to non-ideal mixture behavior), logarithmic lifetime reduction with increasing T_s for the 50-50 composition, an additional early spreading stage and late instabilities at 60°C, self-similar dynamics across compositions at 60°C, and comparisons of measured evaporation rates to an existing theoretical model for pure and binary droplets.

Significance. If the non-monotonic lifetime trend can be rigorously isolated as arising from thermodynamic non-ideality rather than hydrodynamic effects, the observations would extend prior room-temperature binary droplet studies to elevated temperatures and provide data on temperature-dependent stage transitions and instabilities useful for applications such as spray cooling or thin-film deposition.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the non-monotonic lifetime trend with increasing ethanol concentration 'can be attributed to the non-ideal behaviour of water-ethanol binary mixtures' is load-bearing for the interpretation at both 25°C and 60°C, yet the manuscript provides no activity-coefficient data, vapor-liquid equilibrium measurements, or model decomposition that separates thermodynamic non-ideality from possible Marangoni flows or internal convection, which could produce equivalent non-monotonicity.
  2. [Results (T_s=60°C)] Results section on T_s=60°C experiments: the reported self-similar evaporation dynamics and three-stage sequence (spreading-pinned-receding) for the 50-50 mixture lack quantitative metrics such as normalized time scales, contact-line velocity data, or error bars on lifetime values, preventing direct assessment of the model comparison and the claimed logarithmic T_s dependence.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and throughout: temperature is written as '25oC' and '60oC' rather than the conventional 25°C; this should be standardized.
  2. [Discussion] The final model comparison paragraph does not specify whether the theoretical curves are parameter-free predictions or involve any fitting, nor does it report quantitative agreement metrics (e.g., RMS deviation) for the binary cases.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the non-monotonic lifetime trend with increasing ethanol concentration 'can be attributed to the non-ideal behaviour of water-ethanol binary mixtures' is load-bearing for the interpretation at both 25°C and 60°C, yet the manuscript provides no activity-coefficient data, vapor-liquid equilibrium measurements, or model decomposition that separates thermodynamic non-ideality from possible Marangoni flows or internal convection, which could produce equivalent non-monotonicity.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not contain new activity-coefficient measurements or a full decomposition isolating non-ideality from hydrodynamics. The attribution draws on well-established non-ideal VLE behavior of ethanol-water mixtures documented in the literature. In revision we will (i) add explicit citations to activity-coefficient models and VLE data, (ii) discuss why Marangoni or convection effects are unlikely to produce the observed non-monotonic lifetime trend given the contact-line dynamics we record, and (iii) tone the abstract claim to 'consistent with' rather than 'can be attributed to'. No new experiments are feasible, but the added discussion and citations will strengthen the interpretation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results (T_s=60°C)] Results section on T_s=60°C experiments: the reported self-similar evaporation dynamics and three-stage sequence (spreading-pinned-receding) for the 50-50 mixture lack quantitative metrics such as normalized time scales, contact-line velocity data, or error bars on lifetime values, preventing direct assessment of the model comparison and the claimed logarithmic T_s dependence.

    Authors: We will revise the T_s=60°C results section to include normalized time scales for each stage, contact-line velocity versus time plots (with error bars from repeated trials), and error bars on all reported lifetimes. These additions will enable quantitative comparison with the model and direct verification of the logarithmic dependence. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; experimental observations compared to external model

full rationale

The paper reports direct experimental measurements of droplet lifetimes, stages (pinned/receding/spreading), and trends with composition and substrate temperature. The non-monotonic lifetime trend is presented as an observed fact and interpreted via the known non-ideal thermodynamics of ethanol-water mixtures; no equations are fitted to the present data and then re-used as 'predictions.' The comparison to 'a theoretical model developed for pure and binary mixture droplets' is external benchmarking, not a self-referential reduction. No self-citation chains, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked as load-bearing steps for the central claims. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is primarily experimental and relies on standard domain assumptions from prior droplet evaporation literature plus known non-ideal properties of ethanol-water mixtures; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Evaporation of sessile droplets proceeds through distinct pinned, receding, and (at elevated temperature) spreading stages as established in prior literature.
    Invoked when describing the observed stages at 25°C and 60°C.
  • domain assumption Non-ideal thermodynamic behavior of ethanol-water mixtures governs composition-dependent evaporation rates and lifetimes.
    Used to explain the non-monotonic lifetime trend with increasing ethanol concentration.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5875 in / 1459 out tokens · 30075 ms · 2026-05-24T23:40:05.254186+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The dynamics observed in 7 (a) Original image (b) Filtered image (c) Binary image (d) Droplet image (e) Droplet profile

    for an ethanol-water droplet on a teflon substrate for different compositions at 24 ◦C. The dynamics observed in 7 (a) Original image (b) Filtered image (c) Binary image (d) Droplet image (e) Droplet profile . . FIG. 4: The image processing steps for a typical ethanol-water droplet recorded using the camera. (a) Typical original image of a droplet, (b) the ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    and the droplet begins to recede for t/te > 0.2 (bottom right panel of Figure 7). The non-monotonic behaviour of the binary droplet is further highlighted in Figures 8(a)-(e), where the variations of the droplet height (h in mm), the wetting diameter (D in mm), the left contact angle (θl), the right contact angle (θr) (based on field of camera view) and of...

    work page

  3. [3]

    In our case, all the droplets can be 13 assumed to have a spherical cap profile during the evaporation process, which in turn implies that θl =θr =θ

    The diffusion limited model The diffusion limited droplet evaporation model is relatively well-developed and widely used by several research groups to model evaporation flux of pure droplets at room temperatures [1]. In our case, all the droplets can be 13 assumed to have a spherical cap profile during the evaporation process, which in turn implies that θl =θ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    The impact of the natural convection on droplet evaporation was studied by [20]

    Model for free convection While the evaporation of a droplet on an unheated substrate is primarily governed by the diffusive fluxes, the evaporation dynamics of a droplet on a heated substrate depends on both the Stefan flow and the natural convection, particularly for the more volatile ethanol liquid that boils at 78 ◦C [35]. The impact of the natural conve...

    work page

  5. [5]

    residual

    Passive transport due to free convection of air The relation considered so far incorporates the effects of both the diffusive mass flux and the convective mass flux due to the gradients in vapour concentration. But in the case of a sessile droplet on a heated substrate, additional terms arise due to the temperature gradient driven free convection of air. Whil...

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Brutin, Droplet wetting and evaporation: from pure to complex fluids (Academic Press, 2015)

    D. Brutin, Droplet wetting and evaporation: from pure to complex fluids (Academic Press, 2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    M. K. Yau and R. R. Rogers, A short course in cloud physics (Elsevier, 1996)

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    M. K. Tripathi and K. C. Sahu, Procedia IUTAM 15, 201 (2015)

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    S. T. Chang and O. D. Velev, Langmuir 22, 1459 (2006)

    work page 2006

  10. [10]

    Langmuir, Physical review 12, 368 (1918)

    I. Langmuir, Physical review 12, 368 (1918)

    work page 1918

  11. [11]

    Shahidzadeh-Bonn, S

    N. Shahidzadeh-Bonn, S. Rafai, A. Azouni, and D. Bonn, J. Fluid Mech. 549, 307 (2006)

    work page 2006

  12. [12]

    R. G. Picknett and R. Bexon, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 61, 336 (1977)

    work page 1977

  13. [13]

    Brutin and V

    D. Brutin and V. Starov, Chem. Soc. Rev. 47, 558 (2018)

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    H. Y. Erbil, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 170, 67 (2012)

    work page 2012

  15. [15]

    Dash and S

    S. Dash and S. V. Garimella, Phys. Rev. E. 89, 042402 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    K. S. Birdi, D. T. Vu, and A. Winter, J. Phys. Chem. 93, 3702 (1989)

    work page 1989

  17. [17]

    Bourges-Monnier and M

    C. Bourges-Monnier and M. E. R. Shanahan, Langmuir 11, 2820 (1995)

    work page 1995

  18. [18]

    N. M. Kovalchuk, A. Trybala, and V. M. Starov, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 19, 336 (2014)

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    Girard, M

    F. Girard, M. Antoni, and K. Sefiane, Langmuir 24, 9207 (2008)

    work page 2008

  20. [20]

    L. Y. Barash, T. P. Bigioni, V. M. Vinokur, and L. N. Shchur, Phys. Rev. E. 79, 046301 (2009)

    work page 2009

  21. [21]

    W. D. Ristenpart, P. G. Kim, C. Domingues, J. Wan, and H. A. Stone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 234502 (2007)

    work page 2007

  22. [22]

    Sefiane, J

    K. Sefiane, J. R. Moffat, O. K. Matar, and R. V. Craster, Appl. Phys. Lett. 93, 074103 (2008)

    work page 2008

  23. [23]

    P. J. S´ aenz, A. W. Wray, Z. Che, O. K. Matar, P. Valluri, J. Kim, and K. Sefiane, Nat. Commun. 8, 14783 (2017)

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    E. Y. Gatapova, A. A. Semenov, D. V. Zaitsev, and O. A. Kabov, Colloids. Surf. A. 441, 776 (2014)

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    Sobac and D

    B. Sobac and D. Brutin, Phys. Rev. E. 86, 021602 (2012)

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    Carle, S

    F. Carle, S. Semenov, M. Medale, and D. Brutin, Int J. Therm. Sci. 101, 35 (2016)

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    P. L. Kelly-Zion, C. J. Pursell, S. Vaidya, and J. Batra, Colloids Surf. A. 381, 31 (2011)

    work page 2011

  28. [28]

    Sefiane, L

    K. Sefiane, L. Tadrist, and M. Douglas, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 46, 4527 (2003)

    work page 2003

  29. [29]

    J. R. E. Christy, Y. Hamamoto, and K. Sefiane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 205701 (2011)

    work page 2011

  30. [30]

    Bennacer and K

    R. Bennacer and K. Sefiane, J. Fluid Mech. 749, 649 (2014)

    work page 2014

  31. [31]

    F. G. H. Schofield, S. K. Wilson, D. Pritchard, and K. Sefiane, J. Fluid Mech. 851, 231 (2018)

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    Wang, X.-F

    Z. Wang, X.-F. Peng, A. S. Mujumdar, A. Su, and D.-J. Lee, Dry. Technol. 26, 806 (2008)

    work page 2008

  33. [33]

    L. Shi, P. Shen, D. Zhang, Q. Lin, and Q. Jiang, Surf. Interface Anal. 41, 951 (2009)

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    A. K. H. Cheng, D. M. Soolaman, and H.-Z. Yu, J. Phys. Chem. B. 110, 11267 (2006)

    work page 2006

  35. [35]

    Sefiane, S

    K. Sefiane, S. David, and M. Shanahan, J. Phys. Chem. B. 112, 11317 (2008)

    work page 2008

  36. [36]

    Karpitschka, F

    S. Karpitschka, F. Liebig, and H. Riegler, Langmuir 33, 4682 (2017)

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    Karapetsas, K

    G. Karapetsas, K. C. Sahu, and O. K. Matar, Langmuir 32, 6871 (2016)

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    Karapetsas, K

    G. Karapetsas, K. C. Sahu, K. Sefiane, and O. K. Matar, Langmuir 30, 4310 (2014)

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    Karapetsas, K

    G. Karapetsas, K. C. Sahu, and O. K. Matar, Langmuir 29, 8892 (2013)

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    E. W. Lemmon, M. L. Huber, and M. O. McLinden, Standard Reference Data Program, Gaithersburg (2007)

    work page 2007

  41. [41]

    A. N. Sterlyagov, V. N. Letushko, M. I. Nizovtsev, and V. Y. Borodulin, in J. Phys. Conf. Ser. (IOP Publishing, 2018), vol. 1105, p. 012068

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    Bejan, Advanced engineering thermodynamics (John Wiley & Sons, 2016)

    A. Bejan, Advanced engineering thermodynamics (John Wiley & Sons, 2016)

    work page 2016

  43. [43]

    Semenov, A

    S. Semenov, A. Trybala, R. G. Rubio, N. Kovalchuk, V. Starov, and M. G. Velarde, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 206, 382 (2014)

    work page 2014

  44. [44]

    Carle, B

    F. Carle, B. Sobac, and D. Brutin, Applied Physics Letters 102, 061603 (2013)

    work page 2013

  45. [45]

    David, K

    S. David, K. Sefiane, and L. Tadrist, Colloids Surf. A 298, 108 (2007)

    work page 2007

  46. [46]

    Hu and R

    H. Hu and R. G. Larson, J. Phys. Chem. B. 106, 1334 (2002)

    work page 2002

  47. [47]

    P. L. Kelly-Zion, C. J. Pursell, G. N. Wassom, B. V. Mandelkorn, and C. Nkinthorn, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 118, 355 (2018)

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    A. K. Pal and A. K. Barua, J. Phys, D. Appl. Phys. 1, 71 (1968)

    work page 1968

  49. [49]

    Teske, E

    V. Teske, E. Vogel, and E. Bich, J. Chem. Eng. Data 50, 2082 (2005)

    work page 2082

  50. [50]

    Lapuerta, J

    M. Lapuerta, J. P. Hern´ andez, and J. R. Agudelo, Appl. Therm. Eng. 73, 539 (2014)

    work page 2014

  51. [51]

    W. D. Hall and H. R. Pruppacher, J. Atmos. Sci. 33, 1995 (1976)

    work page 1995

  52. [52]

    J. R. Lloyd and W. R. Moran, J. Heat Transfer 96, 443 (1974)

    work page 1974

  53. [53]

    S. I. Sandler, Chemical, biochemical, and engineering thermodynamics (John Wiley & Sons, 2017)

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    Gmehling, J

    J. Gmehling, J. Li, and M. Schiller, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 32, 178 (1993)

    work page 1993

  55. [55]

    Williams and J

    C. Williams and J. Buttriss, Industrial Solvents Handbook (William Andrew Publishing Noyes, 1998)

    work page 1998

  56. [56]

    K. N. Marsh and A. E. Richards, Aust. J. Chem. 33, 2121 (1980)

    work page 1980

  57. [57]

    Jim´ enez, J

    J. Jim´ enez, J. Manrique, and F. Mart´ ınez, Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Qu´ ım. Farm.33, 145 (2004)

    work page 2004

  58. [58]

    Danahy, D

    B. Danahy, D. Minnick, and M. Shiflett, Fermentation 4, 72 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    (null)">(null)</latexit><latexit sha1_base64=

    C. Liu, E. Bonaccurso, and H.-J. Butt, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 10, 7150 (2008). 22 (a) (b) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 t/te 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 h 0 100 50 50 100 0 E (%) W (%) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 t/te 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 D 0 100 50 50 100 0 E (%) W (%) (c) (d) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 t/te 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 θl 0 100 50 50 100 0 E (%) W (%) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 t/te 0 10 20 30...

    work page 2008