The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Wenzel and Cassie Were Wrong
Open accessAbstract
We argue using experimental data that contact lines and not contact areas are important in determining wettability. Three types of two-component surfaces were prepared that contain "spots" in a surrounding field: a hydrophilic spot in a hydrophobic field, a rough spot in a smooth field, and a smooth spot in a rough field. Water contact angles were measured within the spots and with the spot confined to within the contact line of the sessile drop. Spot diameter and contact line diameter were varied. All of the data indicate that contact angle behavior (advancing, receding, and hysteresis) is determined by interactions of the liquid and the solid at the three-phase contact line alone and that the interfacial area within the contact perimeter is irrelevant. The point is made that Wenzel's and Cassie's equations are valid only to the extent that the structure of the contact area reflects the ground state energies of contact lines and the transition states between them.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Wettability of porous surfaces
Cassie, A. B. D., & Baxter, S. (1944) · Transactions of the Faraday Society · doi:10.1039/tf9444000546 · Cited by 13,807
RESISTANCE OF SOLID SURFACES TO WETTING BY WATER
Wenzel, R. N. (1936) · Industrial & Engineering Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ie50320a024 · Cited by 13,316
Cited by
Bioinspired Surfaces with Superwettability: New Insight on Theory, Design, and Applications
Wang, S., Liu, K., Yao, X., & Jiang, L. (2015) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr400083y · Cited by 1,646
Hydrophilic and superhydrophilic surfaces and materials
Drelich, J., Chibowski, E., Meng, D. D., & Terpilowski, K. (2011) · Soft Matter · doi:10.1039/c1sm05849e · Cited by 911
Superhydrophobic Surfaces: Insights from Theory and Experiment
Parvate, S., Dixit, P., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2020) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b08567 · Cited by 787
Contact angle hysteresis: a review of fundamentals and applications
Eral, H. B., ’t Mannetje, D. J. C. M., & Oh, J. M. (2013) · Colloid and Polymer Science · doi:10.1007/s00396-012-2796-6 · Cited by 720
A review of factors that affect contact angle and implications for flotation practice
Chau, T. T., Bruckard, W. J., Koh, P. T. L., & Nguyen, A. V. (2009) · Advances in Colloid and Interface Science · doi:10.1016/j.cis.2009.07.003 · Cited by 600
Metadata
- Authors
- Gao, L., & McCarthy, T. J.
- Venue
- Langmuir
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2007-02-22
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 3762-3765
- ISSN
- 0743-7463 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5827
- OpenAlex
- W2073619391
- Cited by
- 809
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 21.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How Wenzel and Cassie Were Wrong. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/la062634a
- The paper
- Gao, L., & McCarthy, T. J. (2007). How Wenzel and Cassie Were Wrong. Langmuir. https://doi.org/10.1021/la062634a
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.
