Estimating Surface Energies

The interface between a solid and its vapor (or an inert gas) is discussed in this chapter from an essentially phenomenological point of view. We are interested in surface energies and free energies and in how they may be measured or estimated theoretically. The study of solid surfaces at the molecular level, through the methods of spectroscopy and diffraction, is taken up in Chapter VIII. 

Theoretical Estimates of Surface Energies and Free Energies... 

The second model is a quantum mechanical one where free electrons are contained in a box whose sides correspond to the surfaces of the metal. The wave functions for the standing waves inside the box yield permissible states essentially independent of the lattice type. The kinetic energy corresponding to the rejected states leads to the surface energy in fair agreement with experimental estimates [86, 87],... 

Gilman [124] and Westwood and Hitch [135] have applied the cleavage technique to a variety of crystals. The salts studied (with cleavage plane and best surface tension value in parentheses) were LiF (100, 340), MgO (100, 1200), CaFa (111, 450), BaFj (111, 280), CaCOa (001, 230), Si (111, 1240), Zn (0001, 105), Fe (3% Si) (100, about 1360), and NaCl (100, 110). Both authors note that their values are in much better agreement with a very simple estimate of surface energy by Bom and Stem in 1919, which used only Coulomb terms and a hard-sphere repulsion. In more recent work, however, Becher and Freiman [126] have reported distinctly higher values of y, the critical fracture energy. ... 

The excess heat of solution of sample A of finely divided sodium chloride is 18 cal/g, and that of sample B is 12 cal/g. The area is estimated by making a microscopic count of the number of particles in a known weight of sample, and it is found that sample A contains 22 times more particles per gram than does sample B. Are the specific surface energies the same for the two samples If not, calculate their ratio. 

Because of the general difficulty encountered in generating reliable potentials energy surfaces and estimating reasonable friction kernels, it still remains an open question whether by analysis of experimental rate constants one can decide whether non-Markovian bath effects or other influences cause a particular solvent or pressure dependence of reaction rate coefficients in condensed phase. From that point of view, a purely... 

It should be noted that one may obtain an estimate for the surface energy of a solid from a single contact angle measurement by combining Eq. 9 or Eq. 11 with Eq. 3. One then has ... 

Section 4.1 briefly describes some of the commonly employed experimental tools and procedures. Chaudhury et al., Israelachvili et al. and Tirrell et al. employed contact mechanics based approach to estimate surface energies of different self-assembled monolayers and polymers. In these studies, the results of these measurements were compared to the results of contact angle measurements. These measurements are reviewed in Section 4.2. The JKR type measurements are discussed in Section 4.2.1, and the measurements done using the surface forces apparatus (SFA) are reviewed in Section 4.2.2. 

Summary of methods for estimating surface energy from the contact angle data... 

The adsorption of gas onto a solid surface can also be used to estimate surface energy. Both inverse gas chromatography (IGC) and isotherm measurement using the BET method [19] have been used. Further discussion and detailed references are given by Lucic et al. [20] who compare the application of IGC, BET and contact angle methods for characterising the surface energies of stearate-coated calcium carbonate fillers. 

The surface forces apparatus (Section 2.3) enables the estimation of a surface energy term, Fq (Eq. 9), providing sufficiently smooth surfaces can be produced. In recent years Chaudhury, Pocius and colleagues have made a valuable contribution to the field of adhesion by developing the technique to study energies of adhesion and of surface energies of polymers [81-85]. These SFA results provide alternatives to values based on traditional destructive tests or contact angle measurements. 

The model contains a surface energy method for parameterizing winds and turbulence near the ground. Its chemical database library has physical properties (seven types, three temperature dependent) for 190 chemical compounds obtained from the DIPPR" database. Physical property data for any of the over 900 chemicals in DIPPR can be incorporated into the model, as needed. The model computes hazard zones and related health consequences. An option is provided to account for the accident frequency and chemical release probability from transportation of hazardous material containers. When coupled with preprocessed historical meteorology and population den.sitie.s, it provides quantitative risk estimates. The model is not capable of simulating dense-gas behavior. 

Breakup can occur if the shear stress is large enough to deform the particle, that is, when r > 2a j A. The surface area increases during breakup and sufficient energy must also be provided to compensate for the increase in surface energy. In turbulent flows, the available shear stress in the turbulent eddies of size A, can be estimated from [20]... 

The apparent activation energy is now measured under conditions where the surface is estimated to be dean, i.e. 0, = 1. 

---