pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.02309 · v1 · pith:OEEV66OXnew · submitted 2026-07-02 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

Effect of surfactant kinetics on the wetting following the drop impact onto rough surfaces

S. Rodr\'iguez-Aparicio , M. Herreruela-Rosado , M. G. Cabezas , J. M. Montanero , E. J. Vega This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 04:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn
keywords surfactant kineticsdrop impactwettingrough surfacesdynamic surface tensioncoverage areareceding contact angleadsorption
0
0 comments X

The pith

Surfynol 465 produces larger final coverage than Triton X-100 or SDS on rough surfaces at twice the critical micelle concentration due to matching pure water spreading.

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

The paper experimentally compares three surfactants to determine how their dynamic surface tensions influence droplet spreading and final wetted area after impact on rough surfaces. Below the critical micelle concentration the coverage evolution is nearly identical for all surfactants and matches pure water. At twice the critical micelle concentration Surfynol 465 droplets spread like pure water yet finish with substantially larger coverage areas than Triton X-100 or SDS. The final coverage is set during quasi-static recession of the contact line, which is governed by the receding contact angle. Higher Weber numbers reduce the sensitivity of spreading to surface tension and therefore to surfactant kinetics.

Core claim

The evolution of the coverage area during spreading is nearly the same for pure water droplets and those containing Surfynol 465, indicating that surfactant depletion is negligible during the rapid spreading stage. Surfynol 465 produces larger coverage areas than Triton X-100 and SDS. The final coverage area is governed by the quasi-static recession of the triple contact line, which is controlled by the receding contact angle. Surfynol 465 consistently yields substantially larger final coverage areas across the range of surface roughness considered.

What carries the argument

Dynamic surface tension set by surfactant adsorption kinetics, which determines the receding contact angle that controls quasi-static recession of the contact line after maximum spread.

If this is right

  • Surfactant adsorption kinetics have negligible effect on the spreading phase at sufficiently high Weber numbers.
  • Final wetted area after impact is controlled by the receding contact angle rather than by the maximum extent of spreading.
  • Pronounced differences between surfactants appear only when concentration exceeds the critical micelle concentration.
  • The relative ordering of surfactants by final coverage remains consistent across the studied range of surface roughness.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Surfactants whose adsorption is slower than Surfynol 465 could produce even larger final coverage if they allow more time before recession begins.
  • The same recession-controlled mechanism may govern coverage in other high-speed deposition processes on textured substrates such as inkjet printing.
  • Direct in-situ measurement of surface tension during the impact event itself would test whether the proposed kinetic depletion effect holds at the observed time scales.

Load-bearing premise

The observed differences in final coverage are caused by the distinct dynamic surface tensions and adsorption kinetics of the three surfactants rather than by unmeasured differences in viscosity, molecular interactions with the surface, or other surfactant-specific properties.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of the receding contact angle for each surfactant solution on the same rough surfaces, followed by verification that the measured angles predict the observed final coverage areas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02309 by E. J. Vega, J. M. Montanero, M. G. Cabezas, M. Herreruela-Rosado, S. Rodr\'iguez-Aparicio.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Coverage area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Rough surface fabrication by molding PDMS over grinding papers (SiC). Optical microscope images of (b) grinding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Equilibrium surface tension [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dynamic surface tension of aqueous solutions of Su [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Advancing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Droplet velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Experimental setup for capturing the front-view (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Sequence of the front-view images of a droplet with SDS (a) and Surfynol 465 (b). The labels indicate the time elapsed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Sequence of the bottom-view images of a droplet with SDS (a) and Surfynol 465 (b). The figure also shows the processed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Coverage area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: shows the results for c/ccmc = 2. Both SDS and Surfynol 465 achieve higher maximum coverage than 10-1 100 101 102 103 0 5 10 15 20 Clean Triton SDS Surfynol t C FIG. 11. Coverage area C(t) for We = 416, Re = 6451, c/ccmc = 1, and Sa = 1.1. The diamonds, squares, trian￾gles, and circles correspond to a clean interface, Triton X-100, ({Pi}Tri, θr = 39.8 ◦±6.2 ◦ ), SDS ({Pi}SDS, θr = 28.5 ◦±4.4 ◦ ) and Surfy… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: shows the results for c/ccmc = 2. The cov￾erage area C(t) for Surfynol 465 deviates slightly from that of SDS at t ∼ 10 (tˆ∼ 6 ms). Specifically, the max￾imum value of C(t) for Surfynol 465 is approximately 28% higher than that in the presence of SDS. This effect is slightly larger than that observed for We ≃ 400, prob￾ably due to the reduction of the droplet impact time (the increase in the Weber number)… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Final coverage area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We experimentally analyze the effect of a surfactant on wetting following drop impact on rough surfaces, paying special attention to the role of dynamic surface tension. To this end, we compare the results obtained with Triton X-100, SDS, and Surfynol 465. For concentrations below the critical micelle concentration $c_{\textin{cmc}}$, the evolution of the coverage area is nearly identical for all three surfactants, suggesting that the surfactant concentration is too low to significantly influence droplet spreading. In contrast, pronounced differences emerge due to the distinct dynamic surface tensions of the surfactants at $c/c_{\textin{cmc}}=2$. The evolution of the coverage area during spreading is nearly the same for pure water droplets and those containing Surfynol 465, indicating that surfactant depletion is negligible during the rapid spreading stage. As the Weber number increases, droplet spreading becomes progressively less sensitive to surface tension, thereby reducing the influence of surfactant adsorption kinetics. Nevertheless, Surfynol 465 produces larger coverage areas than Triton X-100 and SDS. The final coverage area is governed by the quasi-static recession of the triple contact line, which is controlled by the receding contact angle. Surfynol 465 consistently yields substantially larger final coverage areas across the range of surface roughness considered in this study.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript experimentally compares the post-impact spreading and final coverage of droplets containing Triton X-100, SDS, and Surfynol 465 on rough surfaces, at concentrations below and above the CMC and across a range of Weber numbers. It concludes that below CMC the coverage evolution is surfactant-independent, while at c/c_cmc=2 Surfynol 465 yields larger final areas than the other two surfactants because its dynamic surface tension and adsorption kinetics differ, with final coverage set by quasi-static recession governed by the receding contact angle.

Significance. If the distinctions hold after proper controls, the work isolates the contribution of surfactant kinetics to the recession phase on rough surfaces and shows that spreading sensitivity to surface tension decreases with increasing Weber number; this could inform models of droplet deposition in coating or printing processes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'pronounced differences emerge due to the distinct dynamic surface tensions of the surfactants at c/c_cmc=2' and that Surfynol 465 produces larger final coverage 'across the range of surface roughness' requires that bulk properties (viscosity, density) and surface interactions are matched across the three surfactants; no such measurements or equivalence checks are reported, which is load-bearing for attributing the coverage differences to adsorption kinetics rather than other surfactant-specific effects.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'the final coverage area is governed by the quasi-static recession of the triple contact line, which is controlled by the receding contact angle' is presented without any reported receding-angle data for the surfactant solutions on the rough surfaces, leaving the mechanistic link between observed coverage and receding angle unverified.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract would be strengthened by stating the number of replicates, presence of error bars, and the specific roughness and Weber-number ranges examined.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'pronounced differences emerge due to the distinct dynamic surface tensions of the surfactants at c/c_cmc=2' and that Surfynol 465 produces larger final coverage 'across the range of surface roughness' requires that bulk properties (viscosity, density) and surface interactions are matched across the three surfactants; no such measurements or equivalence checks are reported, which is load-bearing for attributing the coverage differences to adsorption kinetics rather than other surfactant-specific effects.

    Authors: We agree that explicit checks on bulk properties would strengthen the attribution to adsorption kinetics. Although all solutions are dilute (c/c_cmc=2) and prepared in the same base solvent, we will add a new subsection reporting measured viscosity and density values for each surfactant solution to confirm they differ by less than 2% from water. Surface interactions are surfactant-specific by nature, but the use of three chemically distinct surfactants at matched reduced concentrations supports isolating the role of dynamic surface tension. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'the final coverage area is governed by the quasi-static recession of the triple contact line, which is controlled by the receding contact angle' is presented without any reported receding-angle data for the surfactant solutions on the rough surfaces, leaving the mechanistic link between observed coverage and receding angle unverified.

    Authors: The link is inferred from the post-spreading quasi-static recession phase and the dependence of final area on surface roughness. We acknowledge that direct receding contact angle data on the rough surfaces were not reported. We will add these measurements (obtained via tilted-plate or sessile-drop methods on the same substrates and solutions) in the revised manuscript to verify the proposed mechanism. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely experimental comparisons with no derivations or self-referential predictions

full rationale

The paper reports direct experimental measurements of coverage area evolution for different surfactants at matched concentrations, with conclusions drawn from observed differences in spreading and recession. No equations, fitted models, predictions from parameters, or self-citations of uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text. All load-bearing claims rest on measured data rather than reducing to inputs by construction. This matches the default expectation for non-circular experimental work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study is experimental and therefore rests on standard domain assumptions about surface reproducibility and measurement fidelity rather than on free parameters or new entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Roughness parameters of the test surfaces are consistent and the dominant variable controlling wetting behavior across the compared conditions.
    The abstract states results hold across a range of surface roughness, presupposing that roughness is well-controlled and comparable.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5789 in / 1233 out tokens · 30652 ms · 2026-07-03T04:51:19.306116+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

46 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    This has been attributed to the in- crease in the diffusion speed towards the newly formed interface as the chain length increases [28]

    studied how the surfactant chain length affects the droplet spreading. This has been attributed to the in- crease in the diffusion speed towards the newly formed interface as the chain length increases [28]. This paper experimentally analyzes the spreading and retraction of surfactant-loaded droplets on rough sur- faces. Special attention will be paid to ...

  2. [2]

    instantaneous adsorp- tion

    used the same methodology to measure the rough- ness of some plant leaves, obtaining arithmetical mean height values up to 2.4µm. B. Surfactants We conducted experiments with Triton X-100 (Sigma- Aldrich), SDS (Sigma-Aldrich), and Surfynol 465 (Evonik).We dissolved the surfactant in ultra-pure Milli- Q water (ρ= 998 kg/m 3 andµ= 1.0 mPa·s) using a magneti...

    2000

  3. [3]

    Drop impact dynamics: Splashing, spread- ing, receding, bouncing

    A. L. Yarin, “Drop impact dynamics: Splashing, spread- ing, receding, bouncing...” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.38, 159–192 (2006)

    2006

  4. [4]

    Drop impact on a solid surface,

    C. Josserand and S.T. Thoroddsen, “Drop impact on a solid surface,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.48, 365–391 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    Experiments of drops impacting a smooth solid surface: A model of the critical impact speed for drop splashing,

    G. Riboux and J. M. Gordillo, “Experiments of drops impacting a smooth solid surface: A model of the critical impact speed for drop splashing,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 024507 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    Droplet splashing on rough surfaces,

    T. de Goede, K. de Bruin, N. Shahidzadeh, and D. Bonn, “Droplet splashing on rough surfaces,” Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 043604 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    The effect of surface roughness on the contact line and splashing dynamics of impacting droplets

    M.A. Quetzeri-Santiago, A.A. Castrej´ on-Pita, and J.R. Castrej´ on-Pita, “The effect of surface roughness on the contact line and splashing dynamics of impacting droplets.” Sci. Rep.9, 15030 (2019). 12

    2019

  8. [8]

    Interaction between droplet impact and surface roughness considering the effect of vibration,

    X. Chen, A. Du, K. Liang, Z. Li, M. Zhang, C. Yang, and X. Wang, “Interaction between droplet impact and surface roughness considering the effect of vibration,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.220, 125018 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    Dynamics of droplet impact on solid surface with different roughness,

    C.Tang, M. Qin, X. Weng, X. Zhang, P. Zhang, J. Li, and Z. Huang, “Dynamics of droplet impact on solid surface with different roughness,” Int. J, of Multiph. Flow96, 56–69 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    Viscous droplets impact on rough surfaces,

    L. Liu, G. Cai, B. Jiang, B. He, and P.A. Tsai, “Viscous droplets impact on rough surfaces,” Int. J. Multiph. Flow 192, 105345 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    Effect of surface roughness on hydrodynamic characteristics of an impinging droplet,

    R.K. Singh, P.D. Hodgson, N. Sen, and S. Das, “Effect of surface roughness on hydrodynamic characteristics of an impinging droplet,” Langmuir37, 3038–3048 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    Influence of leaf surface wettability on the drop splash phenomenon,

    E. Papierowska, R. Mazur, T. Sta´ nczyk, M. Beczek, J. Szewi´ nska, A. Sochan, M. Ry˙ zak, J. Szaty lowicz, and A. Bieganowski, “Influence of leaf surface wettability on the drop splash phenomenon,” Agric. For. Meteorol.279, 107762 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    Mechanisms controlling leaf retention of agricultural spray solutions,

    W. Wirth, S. Storp, and W. Jacobsen, “Mechanisms controlling leaf retention of agricultural spray solutions,” Pestic. Sci.33, 411–420 (1991)

    1991

  14. [14]

    Controlling liquid splash on superhydrophobic surfaces by a vesicle surfactant,

    M. Song, J. Ju, S. Luo, Y. Han, Z. Dong, Y. Wang, Z. Gu, L. Zhang, R. Hao, and L. Jiang, “Controlling liquid splash on superhydrophobic surfaces by a vesicle surfactant,” Sci. Adv.3, e1602188 (2017)

    2017

  15. [15]

    Control the entire journey of pesticide ap- plication on superhydrophobic plant surface by dynamic covalent trimeric surfactant coacervation,

    B. Liu, Y. Fan, H. Li, W. Zhao, S. Luo, H. Wang, B. Guan, Q. Li, J. Yue, Z. Dong, Y. Wang, and L. Jiang, “Control the entire journey of pesticide ap- plication on superhydrophobic plant surface by dynamic covalent trimeric surfactant coacervation,” Adv. Funct. Mater.31, 2006606 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    Regulating droplet impact and wetting behaviors on hy- drophobic weed leaves by a double-chain cationic surfac- tant,

    Z. Li, Y. Ma, K. Zhao, C. Zhang, Y. Gao, and F. Du, “Regulating droplet impact and wetting behaviors on hy- drophobic weed leaves by a double-chain cationic surfac- tant,” ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng.9, 2891–2901 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    Droplet splash and spread on superhy- drophobic lotus leaves: Direct regulation by tuning the chain length of surfactant,

    Z. Li, K. Zhao, Y. Wang, Z. Zheng, C. Zhang, Y. Gao, and F. Du, “Droplet splash and spread on superhy- drophobic lotus leaves: Direct regulation by tuning the chain length of surfactant,” Colloids Surf. A Physic- ochem. Eng. Asp.648, 129178 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    Regulating droplet impact and wetting behav- iors on hydrophobic leaves using a nonionic surfactant,

    R. Zhao, M. Yu, Z. Sun, L. Li, X. Guo, Y. Xu, and X. Wu, “Regulating droplet impact and wetting behav- iors on hydrophobic leaves using a nonionic surfactant,” J. Colloid Interface Sci.629, 926–937 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Dynamic surface tension effects in impact of a drop with a solid surface,

    X. Zhang and O. A. Basaran, “Dynamic surface tension effects in impact of a drop with a solid surface,” J. Colloid Interface Sci.187, 166–178 (1997)

    1997

  20. [20]

    Retarding spreading of sur- factant drops on solid surfaces: Interplay between the Marangoni effect and capillary flows,

    P. Bazazi and S. H. Hejazi, “Retarding spreading of sur- factant drops on solid surfaces: Interplay between the Marangoni effect and capillary flows,” Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 084006 (2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    Uniform spread of high-speed drops on superhydrophobic surface by live-oligomeric surfactant jamming,

    S. Luo, Z. Chen, Z. Dong, Y. Fan, Y. Chen, B. Liu, C. Yu, C. Li, H. Dai, H. Li, Y. Wang, and L. Jiang, “Uniform spread of high-speed drops on superhydrophobic surface by live-oligomeric surfactant jamming,” Adv. Mater.31, 1904475 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    Spherical-micelle-driven deposition of high-speed im- pacting water droplets on superhydrophobic surfaces,

    Y. Jiang, M. Wang, J. Wei, Y. Fan, and Y. Wang, “Spherical-micelle-driven deposition of high-speed im- pacting water droplets on superhydrophobic surfaces,” J. Mater. Chem. A10, 23175–23184 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    Dynamic surface tension and adsorption mechanisms of surfactants at the air-water in- terface,

    J. Eastoe and J. S. Dalton, “Dynamic surface tension and adsorption mechanisms of surfactants at the air-water in- terface,” Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.85, 103–144 (2000)

    2000

  24. [24]

    Surfactant dynamics: hidden variables controlling fluid flows,

    H. Manikantan and T. M. Squires, “Surfactant dynamics: hidden variables controlling fluid flows,” J. Fluid Mech. 892, P1 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    Dynamic surface ten- sion of surfactants in the presence of high salt concentra- tions,

    M. J. Qazi, S. J. Schlegel, E. H. G. Backus, M. Bonn, D. Bonn, and N. Shahidzadeh, “Dynamic surface ten- sion of surfactants in the presence of high salt concentra- tions,” Langmuir36, 7956–7964 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    Deposition and spread of aque- ous pesticide droplets on hydrophobic/superhydrophobic surfaces by fast aggregation of surfactants,

    Y. Fan and Y. Wang, “Deposition and spread of aque- ous pesticide droplets on hydrophobic/superhydrophobic surfaces by fast aggregation of surfactants,” Langmuir 39, 5631–5640 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    Effect of sur- factants on the splashing dynamics of drops impacting smooth substrates,

    N. Varghese, T. C. Sykes, M. A. Quetzeri-Santiago, A. A. Castrej´ on-Pita, and J. R. Castrej´ on-Pita, “Effect of sur- factants on the splashing dynamics of drops impacting smooth substrates,” Langmuir40, 8781–8790 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Con- trolling droplet deposition with surfactants,

    H. Hoffman, R. Sijs, T. de Goede, and D. Bonn, “Con- trolling droplet deposition with surfactants,” Phys. Rev. Fluids6, 033601 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    Impact behaviors on su- perhydrophobic surfaces for water droplets of asymmetric double-chain quaternary ammonium surfactants,

    H. Li, Z. Cai, and Y. Wang, “Impact behaviors on su- perhydrophobic surfaces for water droplets of asymmetric double-chain quaternary ammonium surfactants,” Lang- muir36, 14113–4122 (2020)

    2020

  30. [30]

    Controlling im- pact behavior on superhydrophobic surfaces for droplets of nonionic surfactants by tailoring hydrophilic chain length,

    Z. Bao, A. Zeng, T. Gao, Y. Gao, Q. He, Y. Huang, J. Chou, L. Yu, C. Zhang, and F. Du, “Controlling im- pact behavior on superhydrophobic surfaces for droplets of nonionic surfactants by tailoring hydrophilic chain length,” J. Mol. Liquids346, 117071 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Unifying theory of scaling in drop impact: Forces and maximum spreading diameter,

    V. Sanjay and D. Lohse, “Unifying theory of scaling in drop impact: Forces and maximum spreading diameter,” Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 104003 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    3d optical surface profiler for quantifying leaf surface roughness,

    J. R. Abbott and H. Zhu, “3d optical surface profiler for quantifying leaf surface roughness,” Surf. Topogr.: Metrol. Prop.7, 045016 (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    Radio- tracer studies on adsorption of surface active substance at aqueous surface. I. Accurate measurement of adsorp- tion of Tritiated Sodium Dodecylsulfate,

    K. Tajima, M. Muramatsu, and T. Sasaki, “Radio- tracer studies on adsorption of surface active substance at aqueous surface. I. Accurate measurement of adsorp- tion of Tritiated Sodium Dodecylsulfate,” Bull. Chem. Soc. Japan43, 1991–1998 (1970)

    1991

  34. [34]

    Colloid-chemical properties of non- ionic gemini surfactants Surfynol 400 series with different degrees of oxyethylation,

    Y. A. Penkina, I. M. Zolnikov, A. E. Pomazyonkova, and G. V. Avramenko, “Colloid-chemical properties of non- ionic gemini surfactants Surfynol 400 series with different degrees of oxyethylation,” Butlerov Communications46, 92–101 (2016)

    2016

  35. [35]

    Global linear stability of the bubble rising in the presence of a soluble surfactant,

    M. A. Herrada, J. M. L´ opez-Herrera, D. Fern´ andez- Mart´ ınez, M. G. Cabezas, and J. M. Montanero, “Global linear stability of the bubble rising in the presence of a soluble surfactant,” J. Fluid Mech.1031, A45 (2026)

    2026

  36. [36]

    Guidelines to measurements of reproducible contact angles using a sessile-drop technique,

    J. Drelich, “Guidelines to measurements of reproducible contact angles using a sessile-drop technique,” Surf. In- nov.1, 248–254 (2013)

    2013

  37. [37]

    Time evolu- tion of liquid drop impact onto solid, dry surfaces

    R. Rioboo, M. Marengo, and C. Tropea, “Time evolu- tion of liquid drop impact onto solid, dry surfaces.” Exp. Fluids33, 112–124 (2002)

    2002

  38. [38]

    Maximum diameter of impacting liquid droplets,

    N. Laan, K. G. de Bruin, D. Bartolo, C. Josserand, and D. Bonn, “Maximum diameter of impacting liquid droplets,” Phys. Rev. Appl.2, 044018 (2014)

    2014

  39. [39]

    Max- imal deformation of an impacting drop,

    C. Clanet, C. B´ eguin, D. Richard, and D. Qu´ er´ e, “Max- imal deformation of an impacting drop,” J. Fluid Mech. 517, 199–208 (2004)

    2004

  40. [40]

    Contact time of a bouncing drop,

    D. Richard and C. Clanet abd D. Qu´ er´ e, “Contact time of a bouncing drop,” Nature417, 811–811 (2002)

    2002

  41. [41]

    Influence of surfactant kinetics on rapid interface cre- 13 ation via microjet impact on liquid pools,

    D. Fern´ andez-Mart´ ınez, E. J. Vega, J. M. Montanero, U. J. Guti´ errez-Hern´ andez, and D. Fernandez-Rivas, “Influence of surfactant kinetics on rapid interface cre- 13 ation via microjet impact on liquid pools,” J. Colloid Int. Sci.717, 140335 (2026)

    2026

  42. [42]

    Interface pinch-off in the presence of a soluble surfactant

    M. Rubio, S. Rodr´ ıguez-Aparicio, J. M. Montanero, and M. A. Herrada, “Interface pinch-off in the presence of a soluble surfactant,” arXiv:2605.03504v1 , 1–21 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Mi- crodroplet impact at very high velocity,

    C. W. Visser, Y. Tagawa, C. Sun, and D. Lohse, “Mi- crodroplet impact at very high velocity,” Soft Matter8, 10732 (2012)

    2012

  44. [44]

    Rough- ness measurement of leaf surface based on shape from focus,

    Z. Zhang, F. Liu, Z. Zhou, Y. He, and H. Fang, “Rough- ness measurement of leaf surface based on shape from focus,” Plant Methods17, 72 (2021)

    2021

  45. [45]

    Effects of leaf surface roughness and contact angle on in vivo measurement of droplet retention,

    J. Ma, K. Liu, X. Dong, C. Chen, B. Qiu, and S. Zhang, “Effects of leaf surface roughness and contact angle on in vivo measurement of droplet retention,” Agronomy12, 2228 (2022)

    2022

  46. [46]

    Foliar uptake of pesti- cides—Present status and future challenge,

    C. J. Wang and Z. Q. Liu, “Foliar uptake of pesti- cides—Present status and future challenge,” Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology87, 1–8 (2007)

    2007