The discovery of wetting as a topic of physical science dates back
two hundred years, to one of the many achievements of the eminent
British scholar Thomas Young. He suggested a simple equation
relating the contact angle between a liquid surface and a solid
substrate to the interfacial tensions involved [1],
γlg cos θ = γsg - γsl (1)
In modern terms, γ denotes the excess free energy per unit
area of the interface indicated by its indices, with l, g and
s corresponding to the liquid, gas and solid, respectively
[2]. After that, wetting seems to have been largely
ignored by physicists for a long time. The discovery by Gabriel
Lippmann that θ may be tuned over a wide range by
electrochemical means [3], and some important
papers about modifications of equation~(1) due to substrate
inhomogeneities [4,5] are among the rare
exceptions.
This changed completely during the seventies, when condensed
matter physics had become enthusiastic about critical phenomena,
and was vividly inspired by the development of the renormalization
group by Kenneth Wilson [6]. This had solved the long
standing problem of how to treat fluctuations, and to understand
the universal values of bulk critical exponents. By inspection of
the critical exponents of the quantities involved in
equation~(1), John W Cahn discovered what he called critical
point wetting: for any liquid, there should be a well-defined
transition to complete wetting (i.e., θ = 0) as the
critical point of the liquid is approached along the coexistence
curve [7]. His paper inspired an enormous amount of
further work, and may be legitimately viewed as the entrance of
wetting into the realm of modern physics.
Most of the publications directly following Cahn's work were
theoretical papers which elaborated on wetting in relation to
critical phenomena. A vast amount of interesting, and in part
quite unexpected, ramifications were discovered, such as the
breakdown of universality in thin film systems [8].
Simultaneously, a number of very specific and quantitative
predictions were put forward which were aimed at direct experimental
tests of the developed concepts [9].
Experimentally, wetting phenomena proved to be a rather difficult
field of research. While contact angles seem quite easy to
measure, deeper insight can only be gained by assessing the
physical properties of minute amounts of material, as provided by
the molecularly thin wetting layers. At the same time, the
variations in the chemical potential relevant for studying wetting
transitions are very small, such that system stability sometimes
poses hard to solve practical problems. As a consequence, layering
transitions in cryogenic systems were among the first to be
thoroughly studied [10] experimentally, since they
require comparably moderate stability. First-order wetting
transitions were not observed experimentally before the early
nineties, either in (cryogenic) quantum systems
[11,12] or in binary liquid mixtures
[13,14]. The first observation of critical wetting, a
continuous wetting transition, in 1996 [15] was a major
breakthrough [16].
In the meantime, a detailed seminal paper by Pierre Gilles de
Gennes published in 1985 [17] had spurred a large
number of new research projects which were directed to wetting
phenomena other than those related to phase transitions. More
attention was paid to non-equilibrium physics, as it is at work
when oil spreads over a surface, or a liquid coating beads off
(`dewets') from its support and forms a pattern of many individual
droplets. This turned out to be an extremely fruitful field of
research, and was more readily complemented by experimental
efforts than was the case with wetting transitions. It was
encouraging to find effects analogous to layering (as mentioned
above) in more common systems such as oil films spreading on a
solid support [18,19]. Long standing riddles
such as the divergence of dissipation at a moving contact line
were now addressed both theoretically and
experimentally [20,21].
However, the requirements concerning resolution of the
measurements, as well as the stability and cleanliness of the systems,
were immense for the reasons mentioned above. The pronounced
impact of impurities was already well-known from contact angle
measurements, where one invariably observes quite significant
hysteresis effects and history dependence of the measured angle
due to minute substrate inhomogeneity. This is why pioneering
work on
characteristic patterns emerging upon dewetting of thin liquid
films [22] opened a long lasting, and eventually very fruitful,
controversy on the question whether the underlying mechanism was
unstable surface waves [24] (which was
unambiguously observed for the first time in 1996
[23]) or `just' nucleation from defects.
By the mid-nineties, the physics of wetting had made its way
into the canon of physical science topics in its full breadth. The
number of fruitful aspects addressed by that time is far too
widespread to be covered here with any ambition to completeness.
The number of researchers turning to this field was continuously
growing, and many problems had already been successfully resolved,
and many questions answered. However, quite a number of
fundamental problems remained, which obstinately resisted
solution. Only a few shall be mentioned:
There was no satisfactory explanation for triple point
wetting [25], in particular for its ubiquity.
The numerical values of contact line tensions in both theory
and (very reproducible) experiments [26] were many
orders of magnitude apart.
In the particularly interesting field of structure
formation, i.e., dewetting, there was no clear interpretation of
many experimental results, and no possibility to distinguish with
certainty between the different possible mechanisms. Furthermore,
the impact of the rather strong non-linearities of the involved van
der Waals forces was entirely unclear.
In the more remote field of bionics, it was not clear how
some plants manage to make liquids bead off so perfectly from
their leaves.
This list, which is of course far from complete, serves
to illustrate the wide scope of open questions. At that time,
research groups in Germany concerned with wetting phenomena
gathered and finally applied for a priority programme on wetting and
structure formation at interfaces, which obtained funding from the
German Science Foundation [27]. This special issue
is dedicated to the research carried out within this programme.
It spans the period starting from spring 1998 until summer 2004,
and is presented as a combination of review over that period and
original presentation of the state-of-the-art at its end.
Although only a very limited number of problems could be tackled
within the programme, a few significant achievements could be
attained. Some of these shall be highlighted:
It could be shown that triple point wetting is a direct
consequence of topographic substrate imperfection. By taking the
bending energy of a solid slab on a rough substrate into account,
accordance between theory [28] and experiment
[29] was finally achieved.
By applying scanning force microscopy to three phase contact
lines, it could be shown that the `real' contact line tension is
indeed much smaller than `observed' on macroscopic scale
[39], and comes close to what is theoretically
expected.
In the field of structure formation by dewetting,
unprecedented agreement between experiment [31], theory
[32], and particularly careful simulations
[33] was achieved. The underlying mechanisms could be
clearly distinguished by means of Minkowski functionals.
It could be shown both theoretically [34,35]
and experimentally [36,37] that chemically
patterned substrates give rise not only to a large variety of
liquid morphologies, but that the latter can be manipulated and
controlled in a precise manner.
It was demonstrated that spherical (colloidal) beads may not
only be used like surfactants as in Pickering emulsions, but that
the resulting interface configurations may be applied to generate
an amazing variety of well-controlled porous membranes, with a lot
of potential applications [39].
This gives a flavour of the variety of topics addressed in
the papers making up this issue. They are organized in five
sections, each of which is opened with a short introduction
explaining their mutual relation. For further access to the
pertinent literature, the reader is referred to the references
given in each article separately.
References
[1] Young T 1805 Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London 95 65
[2] Equation (1) is readily derived by demanding force balance at
the contact line, where all three phases meet.
[3] Lippmann G 1886 Anal. Chim. 48 776
[4] Cassie A B D and Baxter S 1944 Trans. Faraday Soc. 40 546
[5] Wenzel R N 1949 J. Phys. Chem. 531466
[6] Wilson K G 1971 Phys. Rev. B 4
3174 and 3184
[7] Cahn J W 1977 J. Chem. Phys. 66
3667
[8] See, for example
Dietrich S and Schick M 1986 Phys. Rev. B 33 4952
[9] See, for example
Cheng E et al 1991 Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 1007
[10] Dash J G and Ruvalds J (ed) 1980 Phase Transitions in Surface
Films (NATO advanced study series vol B51) (New York: Plenum)
[11] Nacher P J and Dupont-Roc J 1991 Phys. Rev. Lett. 67
2966
[12] Rutledge J E and Taborek P 1992 Phys. Rev. Lett. 69
937
[13] Bonn D, Kellay H and Wegdam G H 1992 Phys. Rev. Lett. 69
1975
[14] Bonn D, Kellay H and Wegdam G H 1993 J. Chem. Phys. 99 7115
[15] Ragil K et al 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett. 771532
[16] Findenegg G H and Herminghaus S 1997 Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2 301
[17] de Gennes P G 1985 Rev. Mod. Phys. 57 827
[18] Heslot F, Fraysse N and Cazabat A M 1989 Nature 338 1289
[19] Fraysse N et al 1993 J. Colloid Int. Sci. 158 27
[20] Huh C and Scriven L E 1971 J. Colloid Int. Sci. 35 85
[21] Brochard F et al 1994 Langmuir 10 1566
[22] Reiter G 1992 Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 75
[23] Bischof J et al 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 1536
[24] Ruckenstein E and Jain R K 1974 J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. II 70 132
[25] Herminghaus S et al 1997 Annal. Phys. 6 425
[26] Li D and Neumann A W 1990 Colloids Surf. 43 195
[27] Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft,
Schwerpunktprogramm 1052, `Benetzung und Strukturbildung an
Grenzflächen'
[28] Esztermann A and Löwen H 2005 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 17 S429
[29] Sohaili M et al 2005 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 17 S415
[30] Pompe T and Herminghaus S 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 1930
[31] Seemann R et al 2005 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 17 S267
[32] Herminghaus S et al 1998 Science 282 916
[33] Becker J and Gr\"un G 2005 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 17 S291
[34] Lipowsky R \etal 2005 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 17 S537
[35] Dietrich S et al 2005 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 17 S577
[36] Gau H et al 19999 Science 283 46
[37] Mugele F \etal 2005 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 17 S559
[38] Pfohl T et al 2003 Chem. Phys. Chem. 4 1291
[39 Xu H et al 2005 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 17 S465