Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 326

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Criteria for Ultralyophobic Surfaces

Extrand, C. W.·2004·Langmuir

Abstract

Very rough surfaces can suspend small liquid drops and produce very large contact angles. This behavior often is referred to as ultralyophobicity or super repellency. It is proposed that two criteria must be met to invoke ultralyophobicity: a contact line density criterion and asperity height criterion. The proposed criteria were tested using experimental data available in the literature and were found to correctly predict suspension of small water drops on model rough surfaces with a wide variety of asperity shapes, sizes, and spacing.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/la036481s

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 326

Metadata

Authors
Extrand, C. W.
Venue
Langmuir
Published
2004-05-13
Volume
20
Issue
12
Pages
5013-5018
ISSN
  • 0743-7463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5827
OpenAlex
W2038852763
Cited by
326
References
22
FWCI
4.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.