Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Reducing the contact time of a bouncing drop

An Erratum to this article was published on 04 December 2013

Abstract

Surfaces designed so that drops do not adhere to them but instead bounce off have received substantial attention because of their ability to stay dry1,2,3,4, self-clean5,6,7 and resist icing8,9,10. A drop striking a non-wetting surface of this type will spread out to a maximum diameter11,12,13,14 and then recoil to such an extent that it completely rebounds and leaves the solid material15,16,17,18. The amount of time that the drop is in contact with the solid—the ‘contact time’—depends on the inertia and capillarity of the drop1, internal dissipation19 and surface–liquid interactions20,21,22. And because contact time controls the extent to which mass, momentum and energy are exchanged between drop and surface23, it is often advantageous to minimize it. The conventional approach has been to minimize surface–liquid interactions that can lead to contact line pinning20,21,22; but even in the absence of any surface interactions, drop hydrodynamics imposes a minimum contact time that was conventionally assumed to be attained with axisymmetrically spreading and recoiling drops21,24. Here we demonstrate that it is possible to reduce the contact time below this theoretical limit by using superhydrophobic surfaces with a morphology that redistributes the liquid mass and thereby alters the drop hydrodynamics. We show theoretically and experimentally that this approach allows us to reduce the overall contact time between a bouncing drop and a surface below what was previously thought possible.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: A water drop bouncing on a superhydrophobic silicon surface.
Figure 2: Non-axisymmetric recoil can shorten contact time.
Figure 3: The effect of macrotexture on drop impact dynamics and contact time.
Figure 4: Recoil dynamics generalize to a wide range of materials and microtextures.

References

  1. 1

    Richard, D., Clanet, C. & Quéré, D. Contact time of a bouncing drop. Nature 417, 811 (2002)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    de Gennes, P. G., Brochard-Wyart, F. & Quéré, D. Capillarity and Wetting Phenomena (Springer, 2004)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Gao, X. F. & Jiang, L. Water-repellent legs of water striders. Nature 432, 36 (2004)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Quéré, D. Non-sticking drops. Rep. Prog. Phys. 68, 2495–2532 (2005)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Blossey, R. Self-cleaning surfaces — virtual realities. Nature Mater. 2, 301–306 (2003)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Tuteja, A. et al. Designing superoleophobic surfaces. Science 318, 1618–1622 (2007)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Deng, X., Mammen, L., Butt, H. J. & Vollmer, D. Candle soot as a template for a transparent robust superamphiphobic coating. Science 335, 67–70 (2012)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Mishchenko, L. et al. Design of ice-free nanostructured surfaces based on repulsion of impacting water droplets. ACS Nano 4, 7699–7707 (2010)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Meuler, A. J., McKinley, G. H. & Cohen, R. E. Exploiting topographical texture to impart icephobicity. ACS Nano 4, 7048–7052 (2010)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Jung, S., Tiwari, M. K., Doan, N. V. & Poulikakos, D. Mechanism of supercooled droplet freezing on surfaces. Nature Commun. 3, 615 (2012)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Chandra, S. & Avedisian, C. T. On the collision of a droplet with a solid surface. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 432, 13–41 (1991)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Clanet, C., Beguin, C., Richard, D. & Quéré, D. Maximal deformation of an impacting drop. J. Fluid Mech. 517, 199–208 (2004)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Rein, M. Phenomena of liquid-drop impact on solid and liquid surfaces. Fluid Dyn. Res. 12, 61–93 (1993)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Eggers, J., Fontelos, M. A., Josserand, C. & Zaleski, S. Drop dynamics after impact on a solid wall: theory and simulations. Phys. Fluids 22, 062101 (2010)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Richard, D. & Quéré, D. Bouncing water drops. Europhys. Lett. 50, 769–775 (2000)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Bartolo, D. et al. Bouncing or sticky droplets: impalement transitions on superhydrophobic micropatterned surfaces. Europhys. Lett. 74, 299–305 (2006)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Deng, T. et al. Nonwetting of impinging droplets on textured surfaces. Appl. Phys. Lett. 94, 133109 (2009)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Kwon, Y., Patankar, N., Choi, J. & Lee, J. Design of surface hierarchy for extreme hydrophobicity. Langmuir 25, 6129–6136 (2009)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Bergeron, V., Bonn, D., Martin, J. Y. & Vovelle, L. Controlling droplet deposition with polymer additives. Nature 405, 772–775 (2000)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Bartolo, D., Josserand, C. & Bonn, D. Retraction dynamics of aqueous drops upon impact on non-wetting surfaces. J. Fluid Mech. 545, 329–338 (2005)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Reyssat, M., Richard, D., Clanet, C. & Quéré, D. Dynamical superhydrophobicity. Faraday Discuss. 146, 19–33 (2010)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Li, X. Y., Ma, X. H. & Lan, Z. Dynamic behavior of the water droplet impact on a textured hydrophobic/superhydrophobic surface: the effect of the remaining liquid film arising on the pillars’ tops on the contact time. Langmuir 26, 4831–4838 (2010)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E. & Lightfoot, E. N. Transport Phenomena (Wiley, 1960)

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Okumura, K., Chevy, F., Richard, D., Quéré, D. & Clanet, C. Water spring: a model for bouncing drops. Europhys. Lett. 62, 237–243 (2003)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Taylor, G. The dynamics of thin sheets of fluid. III. Disintegration of fluid sheets. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 253, 313–321 (1959)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Culick, F. E. C. Comments on a ruptured soap film. J. Appl. Phys. 31, 1128–1129 (1960)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Rayleigh, L. On the capillary phenomena of jets. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 29, 71–97 (1879)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Wachters, L. H. J. & Westerling, N. A. J. The heat transfer from a hot wall to impinging water drops in the spheroidal state. Chem. Eng. Sci. 21, 1047–1056 (1966)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Corrigan, R. D. & DeMiglio, R. D. Effect of Precipitation on Wind Turbine Performance. Report No. NASA-TM-86986 (NASA, 1985)

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Cotton, K. C. Evaluating and Improving Steam Turbine Performance (Cotton Fact, 1993)

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Liu, J. et al. Hierarchical nanostructures of cupric oxide on a copper substrate: controllable morphology and wettability. J. Mater. Chem. 16, 4427–4434 (2006)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Aziz, S. D. & Chandra, S. Impact, recoil, and splashing of molten metal droplets. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 43, 2841–2857 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Legendre, D., Daniel, C. & Guiraud, P. Experimental study of a drop bouncing on a wall in a liquid. Phys. Fluids 17, 097105 (2005)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Reyssat, M., Pépin, A., Marty, F., Chen, Y. & Quéré, D. Bouncing transitions on microtextured materials. Europhys. Lett. 74, 306 (2006)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Jung, Y. C. & Bhushan, B. Dynamic effects of bouncing water droplets on superhydrophobic surfaces. Langmuir 24, 6262–6269 (2008)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Brunet, P., Lapierre, F., Thomy, V., Coffinier, Y. & Boukherroub, R. Extreme resistance of superhydrophobic surfaces to impalement: reversible electrowetting related to the impacting/bouncing drop test. Langmuir 24, 11203–11208 (2008)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    Tuteja, A., Choi, W., Mabry, J., McKinley, G. H. & Cohen, R. E. Robust omniphobic surfaces. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 18200–18205 (2008)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Tsai, P., Pacheco, S., Pirat, C., Lefferts, L. & Lohse, D. Drop impact upon micro- and nanostructured superhydrophobic surfaces. Langmuir 25, 12293–12298 (2009)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39

    Zou, J., Wang, P. F., Zhang, T. R., Fu, X. & Ruan, X. Experimental study of a drop bouncing on a liquid surface. Phys. Fluids 23, 044101 (2011)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Kwon, D. H. & Lee, S. J. Impact and wetting behaviors of impinging microdroplets on superhydrophobic textured surfaces. Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 171601 (2012)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

K.K.V. was supported by a DARPA Young Faculty Award, the MIT Energy Initiative, an NSF Career Award (0952564) and the MIT-Deshpande Center. J.C.B. was supported by an NSF Postdoctoral Research Fellowship (DMS1004678). We thank T. Buonassisi, Y. Cui, A. Paxson and J. Bales at MIT for the use of equipment, and D. Quéré, G. McKinley, J. Bush, K. Corriveau and P. Barbone for reading and commenting on the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J.C.B., R.D., H.-M.K. and K.K.V. designed the research; J.C.B., R.D. and H.-M.K. performed the research; J.C.B., R.D., H.-M.K. and K.K.V. analysed the data; J.C.B. wrote the original manuscript and all authors helped revise it. K.K.V. supervised the research.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kripa K. Varanasi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Impact of molten tin droplets (250 °C) on microscopically textured silicon substrates without (top row) and with (bottom row) macroscopic ridges.

The substrate temperature is 150 °C, 82 °C below the droplet freezing point. In both cases, the droplets are able to bounce off the substrate.

Extended Data Figure 2 Impact of molten tin droplets (250 °C) on microscopically textured silicon substrates without contacting (top row) and contacting (bottom row) a macroscopic ridge.

Here the substrate is maintained at 125 °C (a subcooling of 107 °C). When the droplet hits the macroscopic ridge, it is able to bounce off in 6.8 ms, whereas when impact is not on the ridge, the droplet is arrested owing to solidification. For more details, see Supplementary Video 5.

Extended Data Figure 3 Impact of molten tin droplets (250 °C) on microscopically textured silicon substrates without (top row) and with (bottom row) ridges.

Droplets impacting the ridge surface continued to bounce off until the substrate was cooled to about 50 °C, indicating that a significantly large subcooling (182 °C) is needed to arrest the droplets on the ridge surface. Droplets impacting the surface without ridges (maintained at 50 °C) is arrested owing to solidification.

Extended Data Figure 4 Images of AAO substrate surface at different magnifications.

a, Top view of the anodized aluminium oxide (AAO) surface showing the macro-scale ridges (height 100 μm, width 200 μm); scale bar, 5 mm. b, Magnified SEM image of a single ridge showing micropits; scale bar, 100 μm. c, Further magnified SEM image showing nanoscale pores; scale bar, 1 μm.

Extended Data Figure 5 Images of copper oxide substrate surface at different magnifications.

a, SEM image of the copper oxide nano-textured macro-ridge (height 100 μm, width 200 μm); scale bar, 100 μm. b, A magnified image, showing spiky nano-textures; scale bar, 1 μm.

Extended Data Figure 6 SEM images of naturally occurring surfaces at different magnifications.

a, A vein on the wing of a Morpho butterfly (M. didius); b, a vein on a nasturtium leaf (T. majus L.). Scale bars in a left to right; 200 μm, 50 μm and 1 μm: scale bars in b left to right; 200 μm, 10 μm and 2 μm.

Extended Data Figure 7 Droplet splitting and contact time.

ac, Diagrams of the ridge case (a), the simplistic case where a droplet splits before impact (b), and the generalized (n-split parts) ridge case (c).

Extended Data Table 1 Experimental contact time of bouncing drops from past studies

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Discussions on the Freezing of Impacting Droplets and Droplet Splitting and Contact Time. (PDF 425 kb)

Axisymmetric versus centre-assisted recoil

This video corresponds to Figure1b,e, showing equal-sized water droplets impacting two different superhydrophobic surfaces: the left one (control) without any macrotexture giving axisymmetric recoil (the typical scenario), and the right one with designed macrotexture giving non-axisymmetric recoil in which the drop centre actively assists in retraction. Both surfaces are superhydrophobic, and made of silicon, textured by laser-ablation. (MOV 8348 kb)

Drop impact on control and macro-ridge surfaces

This video shows simultaneous side and top views of water droplet impingement on both the control and macrotextured surface, shown in Figure1a, b and Figure 2c, d, respectively. On the control surface, the droplet spreads and recoils axisymmetrically; whereas on the macrotextured surface, the radial symmetry of droplet is broken, creating a “zipping” effect that reduces the overall contact time. Both surfaces are superhydrophobic, and made of silicon, textured by laser-ablation. (MOV 9137 kb)

Drop impact on micropillar, control, and macrotextured surface

This video shows the contact time differences on three different superhydrophobic surfaces (micropillar array, control surface, and macrotextured surface) with the side views of water droplet impingement. All surfaces were made of silicon. While the micropillar array takes the longest (18.0 ms) to repel the impinging water droplet, the control surface takes much shorter contact time (12.4 ms) due to minimal pinning, representing the theoretical minimum contact time under these conditions. The surface with designed macrotexture however goes even beyond the theoretical limit by repelling the impinging droplet in a mere 7.8 ms. (MOV 6386 kb)

Centre-assisted recoil on synthetic and natural surfaces

This video contains the videos of a water drop impacting on artificial (AAO, and nano-textured copper oxide) and natural superhydrophobic surfaces (a leaf of Nasturtium plant, wing of a Morpho butterfly, and lotus leaf), shown in Figure 4 Both the Nasturtium leaf and butterfly wing have multiple ridges or veins that trigger non-axisymmetric recoil and reduce the contact time of the bouncing drop, as well as both the artificially made surfaces. In contrast, the impinging droplet on the lotus leaf is nearly axisymmetric throughout impact resulting in a contact time close to the theoretical limit. (MOV 5405 kb)

Liquid tin droplets bounce off before freezing on macrotextured ridge surfaces

This video corresponds to Extended Data Figure 2, showing the impact of molten tin droplets (250 °C) onto laser-ablated silicon without and with ridge, maintained at 125 °C (subcooling = 107 °C). When the droplet impacts the ridge, it is able to bounce off the surface in 6.8 ms. In contrast, droplet impacting the substrate without ridge sticks to the surface due to solidification at the contact area. (MOV 3874 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Source data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bird, J., Dhiman, R., Kwon, HM. et al. Reducing the contact time of a bouncing drop. Nature 503, 385–388 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12740

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing