MATERIALS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NEWSLETTER · Consider a spherical cow...”. When dealing with the types of particle contami nati o o e has t deal with in r al life situations Eq.(1)

1

MATERIALS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NEWSLETTER

Vol. 3, No. 2 SPRING - SUMMER 2006

Dr. Robert H. LacombeChairmanMaterials Science and TechnologyCONFERENCES, LLC3 Hammer DriveHopewell Junction, NY 12533-6124Tel. 845-897-1654FAX 212-656-1016E-mail: [email protected]

FOCUSING ON PARTICLES, CONTACT ANGLE AND SURFACE THERMODYNAMICS

IN THIS ISSUE

EDITORIAL COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PARTICLE SURFACE GEOMETRY AS IT RELATES TO PARTICLE ADHESION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Fractals for Dummies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Fractal Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Power Law Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Fractal Surfaces and Particle Adhesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

THE GIBBS-THOMSON EQUATION MEETS CONTACT ANGLE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Enter the Gibbs-Thomson Relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Gibbs-Thomson Confronts Contact Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Fractal Surfaces and the Gibbs-Thomson Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

FINAL PROGRAM: TENTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON PARTICLES ON SURFACES:DETECTION, ADHESION AND REMOVAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

FINAL PROGRAM: FIFTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CONTACT ANGLE, WETTABILITYAND ADHESION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

REGISTRATION INFORMATION.................................................................................................21

2

(1)

EDITORIAL COMMENTS

By way of leading up to the TENTHINTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON PARTICLESON SURFACES: DETECTION, ADHESION ANDREMOVAL, to be held in Toronto Canada, June 19-21, 2006 we thought it would be apropos tocomment on a number of aspects of particlegeometry as it relates to particle adhesion tosurfaces as this is clearly a topic of interest tothose who would like to remove particles from asurface and, in a reciprocal manner, to those whowould like particles to adhere also. This leadsdirectly to the concept of fractals which wasspearheaded by Benoit Mandelbrot in the mid1970's. Aside from nanotechnology, it is quite1

likely that no other subject has received quite asmuch attention from the academic community andis currently a frontier research topic in manyinstitutions. Our treatment will be quite down toearth and deal directly with the problem of particleshape and only exhume more abstruse issues suchas Hausdorf dimension,..etc as absolutely required.

In addition, since the FIFTH INTERNATIONALSYMPOSIUM ON CONTACT ANGLE,WETTABILITY AND ADHESION directly followsthe particle symposium, and in fact overlaps with itat midweek, we also touch upon a topic relating tothe surface free energy of solids. This is anenigmatic conundrum related to the GibbsThomson equation from crystallization theory. TheGibbs Thomson formula is used by thecrystallization community to estimate the surfacefree energy of a forming crystal. A number oftheoretical and experimental arguments have beenput forward to support this approach. The problemis that the numbers that come out are orders ofmagnitude different from what more conventionalmethods like contact angle measurements predict! Now if we were only talking about a factor of twoor something then one could easily explain awaythe discrepancy as being due to any of a numberof gremlins that plague surface measurements, buttwo orders of magnitude is too far over the top toexplain away.

We will get on to the Gibbs Thomson paradox afterdealing with the particle shape problem. Rightnow Dr. Mittal and I would like to extend ourcordial invitation to all the readers of thenewsletter to join us in Toronto this June wherethese problems and many other related ones canbe discussed in a scholarly manner and in a most

congenial environment. Full details of thesymposia including the Final programs are at theend of this newsletter.

PARTICLE SURFACE GEOMETRY AS ITRELATES TO PARTICLE ADHESION

It is eminently clear that the adhesion of a particleto a given surface will depend in a critical way onboth the surface roughness of the particle and thatof the surface. An elementary discussion of thisproblem is given in the text by Kendall. The basic2

point is that any given particle, under dryconditions, adheres to a surface through somearea of intimate contact. The elementarytreatments of the problem start by consideringspherical particles on perfectly flat surfaces whichgive rise to nice closed formulae for the force ofadhesion. For example, in the case of twospherical particles in close contact the attractiveforce can be closely estimated by Bradley’s rule:

Where:

W = Work of adhesion betweenparticles

D = Particle diameter

Formulae like Eq.(1) tend to remind me of the oldjoke that was kicking around way back when I wasstill an undergraduate about the theoreticalphysicist’s tendency to greatly oversimplifycomplex problems. A farmer comes to a wellknown and highly regarded physicist/philosopherand tells him that his cow is ill and not giving milkand can he recommend a solution to the problem. The physicist tells him to come back the next daywhile he cogitates upon the problem. The farmerreturns and the physicist begins his lecture “Consider a spherical cow...”. When dealing withthe types of particle contamination one has to dealwith in real life situations Eq.(1) is roughlyequivalent to the spherical cow approximation

“Fractals Form, Chance and Dimension”,1

Benoit Mandelbrot (W. H. Freeman and Company,1977).

“Molecular Adhesion and its Applications”2

Kevin Kendall (Kluwer Academic/PlenumPublishers, New York, 2001). For those interestedwe have reviewed this volume in Vol2No1 Spring-Summer 2005 of the newsletter which is availablein the newsletter archive online at(www.mstconf.com/Newsletters.htm).

3

Figure 1 C function magnified several times till in a4

small enough region it appears to be a straight line. This property holds for every subregion of the functionand is the basis for the well known Taylor expansionformula.

(2)

though it does have the saving grace of beingaccurate for true spherical particles in a certainsize range. What we want to explore here is thenext approximation to Eq.(1) which will moreaccurately model the rough and highly variegatedparticles that we commonly find contaminating thesurfaces we want to clean. In order to do this weneed to move up the ladder of geometriccomplexity from simple Euclidian entities likespheres to what have become know as fractalshapes that more closely resemble the surfaces wefind nearly everywhere in nature. Beforecontinuing, however, it will be helpful to give abrief and hopefully understandable overview of themathematical concept of a fractal surface.

Fractals for Dummies

If you grew up in the late 1950's and early 1960'sas I did you learned in school about all the nicegeometric entities first treated by Euclid severalmillennia ago. Lines were straight and flat andsolid objects had nice smooth surfaces. As youprogressed to study the calculus you learned thatthe term “smooth” implied that the derivatives ofthe function describing the surface in questionwere all continuous and existed to all orders. Trueat that time the mathematicians already knew ofoutlaw functions that were continuous everywherebut had no derivatives of any order and weretherefore incredibly rough, but those desperadoswere safely locked away and treated as rareaberrations which only the sadists would associatewith. The functions one was typically exposed tobelonged to a class labeled as C which essentially4

meant having continuous derivatives of all orders. All of the polynomials and the trigonometricfunctions were typical examples. For our purposesthe most relevant property of a C function is that4

no matter how tortuous it might appear, if youmagnify any particular segment to a high enoughresolution, it will ultimately look like a straight lineas shown in figure (1).

Examining figure 1 we see that as we blow up aparticular region going from (a) to (d) we see thatthe curve progressively loses more and more of itsdetail till finally at (d) it looks like a straight linewhich will not change on further magnification. this property underlies the well known Taylorexpansion formula which allows one to expand a

0smooth function f(x) about any particular point xin a power series as follows:

The Taylor formula clearly assumes that the first

0order approximation at x is a straight linefollowed by quadratic and higher order terms. Thus all is well with the C functions in that we can4

approximate them at any point to any desireddegree of accuracy using polynomial expansionssuch as the Taylor formula.

The C functions have served as reliable4

workhorses of science and technology ever sincethe days of Newton and Leibnitz who first broughtthem to the world stage as the foundationalconcept of the calculus. However, another class offunctions were steadily gathering more and moreattention. In particular, the pioneering work ofJean Perrin on Brownian motion and that of LewisFry Richardson on the measurement of coastlinesbegan to poke holes in the theory of smoothfunctions by providing examples of physicalprocesses from nature that defied all attempts atresolution via the machinery of the calculus. WithBrownian motion, for instance, you had adynamical behavior so irregular that the commonassumption of continuous first and secondderivatives no longer held up. The Brownianparticles clearly were not behaving like cannonballs which follow a smooth near parabolictrajectory. Rather they jumped around soerratically that it was questionable whether anykind of smooth function could be found whichwould reliable represent the velocity of the particlemuch less its acceleration. If this was not badenough, Richardson’s work on measuringcoastlines was bringing to light the fact that the

4

Figure 2: Progressive stages of building a Koch

curve.

Figure 3: Approximate limiting shape of Koch

curve in the limit of an infinite number ofiterations.

result you get depends on the length of yourmeasuring stick. The shorter the measuring stickthe longer the coastline becomes due to the factthat as one starts to measure distances at finerand finer scales one winds up taking a much largernumber of smaller measurements due to the highdegree of irregularity of any given coastline. Wecan get a clearer idea of what is happening bylooking at one of the classic fractal entities knownas the Koch curve. The recipe for generating aKoch curve is quite simple even though it leads toa rather astonishing entity as illustrated in figure(2). In building the Koch curve one starts in frame(a) of figure (2) with a simple straight line of unitlength. What could be simpler than that? Thebasic algorithm is illustrated in frame (b) wherebyone divides the initial line into three equalsegments and erects upon the middle segment anequilateral triangle of side 1/3. In frame (c) onesimply repeats the process for each straight linesegment in frame (b). Frame (d) repeats theprocess again now acting on the line segments inframe (c). The mathematical Koch curve is arrivedat after one has performed this process an infinitenumber of times, a task which we will not attempthere. However, figure (3) shows what the curvestarts to look like after many iterations. The curvein figure (3) looks harmless enough from adistance but nonetheless has some amazingproperties. First it is clearly continuouseverywhere, but equally clear is the fact that it hasno derivatives anywhere. It is one of the roguefunctions mentioned earlier. In particular, Taylor’sformula given in Eq.(2) is wholly useless in dealingwith such a curve. In fact, if we go through themagnification exercise outlined in figure (1) forany segment of the Koch curve we discover theamazing property that no matter what level ofmagnification we use the resulting curve looksexactly like what we started with! That is eachmagnified frame, after a suitable rotation, wouldlook exactly the same as every other one. Thisproperty is called self similarity. One does notfind it in any of the C curves.4

Another property one might like to enquire into isthe length of the curve. Just how long is thisthing? For our mild mannered curve in figure (1)we can easily imagine a simple procedure wherebyif we take a piece of flexible string and lay it outalong the curve from end to end and then lift it off,straighten it out and lay it along a rule we wouldbe able to read off its length. It is not at all clearthat this stratagem would work for the curve infigure (3). It works nicely for figure (1) due to theinherent smoothness of the curve but we clearlywill have trouble with figure (3) due to theinherent roughness at every scale. In fact thelength of any segment of the Koch curve is

effectively infinite. This beast simply does nothave a well defined one dimensional length. It isas if it existed in some higher dimension which isin fact the case. But what dimension are wetalking about? It is clearly not 2 dimensional andnot one dimensional. It is like something out ofthe twilight zone. We seem to perceive it yet wereally don’t. It in fact exists in a fractionaldimensional space which leads us to our nexttopic.

Fractal Dimension

In the case of our old friends the Euclidian shapessuch as lines, planes and spheres, we had a clearidea that each of the entities existed in one ofwhat are called the topological dimensions 1, 2 and3. We clearly cannot shoehorn the curve infigure(3) into any of those boxes so we have tothink up something new. We can sneak up on thisproblem by studying figure (2) in more detail. Saysomeone asked us to measure the lengths of thecurves in this figure. The line in figure (2a) is thetrivial case where the length L=1. Figure (2b)requires a little more work. Here we simply take arule of length 1/3 and we see that we have to layit out 4 times to cover the curve giving a total

5

(3)

(4)

Figure 4 Elementary example of 3 Euclidian

f objects illustrating the fragmentation ratio r and

fthe fragmentation number N for the case where

f fr = 1/6. The fragmentation number N is thenumber of line segments, squares or cubes of

fside r required to cover the respective objectscompletely.

length of 4/3. Following the same procedure it iseasy to see that for figure (2c) we need a rule oflength (1/9) and have to lay it out 16 times. Thegeneral procedure quickly becomes clear and wecan summarize the results in a simple table.

Table 1: Successive Approximations toLength of Koch Curve from Figure (2)

FRAMENUMBER

RULELENGTH

NUMBEROF SIDES

TOTAL LENGTH L

0 1 1 1

1 1/3 4 4/3

2 1/9 16 16/9

3 1/27 64 64/27

N (1/3) 4 4 (1/3)N N N N

=4 /3 =(4/3)N N N

Table 1 summarizes the results given in figure (2)and in the last row indicates the general formulafor the side length, the number of sides and thetotal length one would have at the Nth frame ifone cared to carry on the process to that extreme. Note that the total length L(N)=(4/3) and growsN

without bound as N increases. This is veryinconvenient since one would like to work withfinite entities. However, somewhere along the linesomeone had the idea that if we take thelogarithm of the numerator and denominator of thelength formula we get a finite number that canserve as a measure of the “dimension” of theobject in question. Thus we have:

Eq.(3) has the nice property that it is independentof N the frame number and is defined solely by twonumbers which are intrinsic to the geometricshape being generated. We may define these

fnumbers as being the fragmentation ratio r whichis 1/3 for this case and the fragmentation number

fN which is 4 for the Koch curve. Thus as we buildthe curve going from frame to frame in figure (1)we segment each straight section in the currentframe into 4 pieces each 1/3 the size of theoriginal segment. Thus we might conjecture amore general form of Eq.(3) as:

We can in fact easily demonstrate that Eq.(4)

reduces to the topological definition of dimension for standard Euclidian objects. Figure (4) gives a

fsimple example of 3 Euclidian objects where r and

f fN are defined for the case where r is set to 1/6 forillustrative purposes. In figure (4a) for example,we measure the line of unit length by taking a rule

fof length r = 1/6 and finding that it takes 6 suchsegments to cover the line. Figure (4b)generalizes the process to the unit square. Againkeeping the rule size at 1/6 we find that we need

fN = 6 = 36 squares of side 1/6 to completely2

cover the square. Figure (4c) illustrates theobvious generalization to the unit cube. Table 2summarizes the results.

Table 2: Summary of Topological andHausdorf Dimension of the EuclidianObjects in Figure (4) for an Arbitrarily Small

f fRule Length r = 1/N .

Object Topological

Dimensionf fr N Hausdorf

Dimension

f fD = ln(N )/ln(1/r )

UNIT LINE 1 1/6 6 1

UNITSQUARE

2 1/6 6 22

UNITCUBE

3 1/6 6 33

Comparing columns 3 and 5 clearly illustrates thatEq.(4) for the fractal dimension reduces to theEuclidian or topological dimension for these simpleobjects. Equation (4) is often referred to as theHausdorf dimension which provides a usefulgeneralization of the term “dimension” which can

6

(5)

(6)

be applied to both strange objects such as theKoch curve and to the simple Euclidian objects weare all familiar with. It should be noted thatEq.(4) is by no means the most general definitionof dimension that one could come up with andneither is it unique in that a number of otherschemes can be derived that achieve similarresults. The main virtue of Eq.(4) is that it is oneof the simplest formulas available for getting atthe highly abstract notion of the dimension offractal entities.

Up to this point we have been dealing with whatare called geometric fractals in that they aredefined by relatively simple geometric rules andthey exhibit an exact property of self similarity. Infact the Koch curve in figure (3) is a rather tameobject by fractal standards which is its main virtuefor illustrative purposes. One can furthergeneralize the fractal concept by going to yet morecomplex entities know as statistical fractals. Anyone familiar with statistical process controlcharts for the manufacture of an item such as ballbearings knows that when measured to highprecision the ball diameters show randomfluctuations about some mean value. Thusalthough the mean diameter of the bearings maybe closely controlled the precise diameters of somerandom selection of bearings will jump around in arandom fashion. Typically, however, for a wellcontrolled manufacturing process the distributionof diameters about the mean will be defined bysome well characterized probability distributionfunction such as the Gaussian distribution which isdetermined by the mean diameter value and itsstandard deviation parameter. All is consideredwell if the standard deviation parameter lies withinsome suitably determined bounds. Thus the keyproperty of the statistical process control chart isthe fact that it can be precisely defined in astatistical sense by a well known probabilitydistribution. Consider now a curve somewhatanalogous to the Koch curve in figure (3) exceptthat instead of the regular triangular shapes whichdefine the Koch curve, every segment now lookslike a piece of a statistical process control chart atevery level of magnification. For the Koch curvethe precise geometry of the curve is reproducedfor every segment at every level of magnification. For the statistical fractal, however, what isinvariant is the statistical behavior of the curve. Thus no two segments of the curve will lookexactly the same but the random behavior of thefluctuations of the curve will follow the sameprobability distribution for every segment at everylevel of magnification. At this stage one starts toget dizzy trying to imagine such an object,however, the Brownian motion of a particle floatingin the air is closely approximated by just such an

arabesque entity. Indeed the shape of particlescontaminating surfaces are also candidates for themenagerie of statistical fractals.

Power Law Behavior

Before closing this elementary tutorial, it isimportant to mention one more property thatcharacterizes fractal behavior and that is the

spower law behavior of the number of segments Nrequired to cover a given section of a fractal curve

fin terms of the rule length r . Richardson’smeasurements on the length of coastlines andother studies suggest that the data is best fit by aformula of the form :3

We can get at the exponent D by taking thelogarithm of both sides and solving as follows:

Thus the exponent in the power law relation givenby Eq.(5) turns out to be none other than thefractal dimension defined in Eq.(4).

To summarize, what we learn up to this point isthat the simple Euclidian objects we all learnedabout in our younger days barely begin to coverthe universe of geometrical objects which can infact exist both as mathematical entities and to agood approximation as real items of everydayexperience. What is most relevant, however, fromthe point of view of studying particle behavior is

See for instance Mandelbrot Chapter 23

from footnote 1.

7

(7)

(8)

that fractal surfaces offer a more relevant tool forestimating the surface properties of particulatematter and this affects not only particleappearance but also particle interactions and inparticular particle adhesion to surfaces. Unfortunately what we have covered can onlyserve as a brief introduction to fractals and theirbehavior. The reader interested in delving furtherinto this topic is encouraged to look into Prof.Mandelbrot’s second volume on this topic which4

covers everything from the shapes of clouds to thebehavior of financial markets. Those with a moremathematical bent will enjoy the excellent volumeby Michael Barnsley. Be forewarned though that5

this is not your elementary coffee table browse atleisure volume. Barnsley will bring you face toface with the calculus of metric spaces andHausdorf measures and you should feelcomfortable with interpreting the panoply ofmathematical symbols such as {0dhqv��}. Having given fair warning, however, I cannonetheless recommend this volume as one of themore readable and in fact captivating treatmentsof this topic. Finally for those interested inphysical applications will find many examplescovered in the edited volume by Pietronero andTosatti. 6

Fractal Surfaces and Particle Adhesion

The essence of this little essay is to assert that thesurface properties of the common types of particlecontamination one is likely to confront in day today applications are closer to some sort of fractalthan they are to smooth spheres. In themicroelectronics industry, for example, one of themost common substrate materials for packaginghigh end microchips, such as microprocessors, issintered alumina. Before sintering, the alumina is

2 3a fine powder of Al O particles mixed to someextent with glass particles commonly referred to asfrit. Without getting into the details of the preciseformulation it is easy to see that the aluminaparticles form a dandy source of hard irregularparticles that can easily get spread around unlessspecial precautions are taken. The typical alumina

particle is formed by a grinding process that yieldsa fairly compact shape with a highly irregularsurface. Thus this type of particle is likely to bebetter characterized by a fractal shape than any ofthe Euclidian solids. The first question that comesto mind is how does this affect the adhesion ofsuch a particle to a given surface? A clue comesalready from the work of Gane et. al. who studied7

the force required to separate cylinders of hardmaterials such as sapphire and titanium carbideand found that the results were some 2 to 3 ordersof magnitude smaller than expected. This resultthey attributed to the uncontrollable surfaceroughness of their samples. We can begin to get ahandle on this problem by considering the simplemodel depicted in figure (5).

In this figure we see a schematic profile of ahypothetical particle with a rough surface. Wegain an estimate of the surface roughness bycontaining the apparent rough surface regionwithin two concentric geometric spheres. The

1inner sphere of radius R is the largest sphere thatfits entirely within the solid core of the particle.

2The outer sphere of radius R is the smallestsphere that contains the entire particle. We seethat the shell region between the surfaces of thespheres contains the irregular topography of theparticle and it is this region which will define thesurface behavior of the particle with regard tointeractions with other surfaces or other particles.

One important question we might ask is what isthe density of the material in this surface shellregion? This will simply be the mass within theregion divided by its volume. Calculating thevolume is the easy part so we do that first. Fromelementary solid geometry we know that thevolume of any sphere is given by (4/3)BR so the3

volume within the shell region is simply given by:

We now assume that the thickness * of the shellregion is small compared to the particle radius, i.e.

2 1From Eq.(8) we can express R as R +* andsubstitute this into Eq(7). By expanding the term

1(R +*) as a cubic polynomial and saving only3

terms linear in the small quantity * we greatly

“The Fractal Geometry of Nature”, Benoit4

B. Mandelbrot (Freeman and Company, New York,1977)

“Fractals Everywhere”, Michael Barnsley5

(Academic Press, Inc., Boston, 1988)

“Fractals in Physics” Ed. L. Pietronero and6

E. Tosatti (North Holland Physics Publishing,Amsterdam, 1985)

N. Gane, P. F. Pfaelzer and D. Tabor,7

Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 340, 495 (1974).

8

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

Figure 5 Schematic of a particle with a rough

1surface. The sphere of radius R is the largestsmooth sphere which fits entirely within the

2particle. The concentric sphere of radius R is thesmallest which contains the entire particle.

(14)

(15)

(16)

simplify Eq.(7) to:

Now if we know that the density of the particlematerial is D and if we assume the particle to be

perfectly smooth, i.e. a perfect Euclidian sphere,then we would calculate the mass )m within theshell region as:

We know, however, that Eq.(10) cannot be correctfor our “real” particle since we are aware that itssurface is very rough and thus highly porus. Furthermore, from our discussion of fractalbehavior above we strongly suspect that )m willfollow some kind of power law behavior. Thus weconjecture that the correct formula for the mass inthe surface shell region will look more like thefollowing:

The power law exponent " will be some number

1greater than 1 which, since (* /R )<<1, will makethe mass predicted by Eq.(11) significantly lessthan that given By Eq.(10) which is what weexpect. We can now combine Eqs.(9) and (11) togive an expression for the density of the surfaceshell layer:

Eq.(12) can be further solved for the surface layerthickness *:

The quantity * is clearly important from the pointof view of particle adhesion since it in effect limitshow close the particle can come to a smoothsurface. In fact for a spherical particle of nominalradius R the force of attraction to a given surface

can be represented as a Hamaker style relation ofthe form:

In the case of smooth surfaces the minimum

0separation distance is some length z which isrelatively constant for most smooth surfaces andhas been estimated as being roughly 1.6×10 m. -10

For our hypothetical “real world” particle with arough surface we need to replace z in Eq.(14) with* as given by Eq.(13) to yield:

We can get some idea of the effect of the surfaceroughness on the attractive force by taking theratio of Eq.(15) to (14) as follows:

9

(17)

All quantities in Eq.(16) are as defined in Eqs.(14)

0and (15) and z is the minimum separationdistance for smooth surfaces as discussed above. As with all power law relations, Eq.(16) is moreeasily dealt with if we take the logarithm of bothsides. In this case we use logs to the base 10:

To get some idea of how big an effect the surfaceroughness can have we can insert somerepresentative numbers into Eq.(17) and see whatcomes out. For instance, assume we have a 0.1micron particle and we want to see what happensto the attractive force when the particle surface isrough as modeled by our simple fractal equations.

0Taking z as roughly 10 meters then the term-10

0 0z /R comes to 10 which implies log(z /R)=-3. -3

Assume also that the density of the surface layeris 1/10 the bulk particle density and further take "

as 1.5. Inserting these numbers into the right

r shand side of Eq(17) gives log (F /F ) = -2. Thusthe attractive force on the rough particle is twoorders of magnitude smaller than that on thesmooth one which is consistent with the findings ofGane et. al. mentioned above in reference 7.

Eq.(17) is indeed a dandy little formula forestimating the effect of surface roughness onparticle adhesion and also for learning somethingabout the fractal geometry of particle surfaces. For example, if one had data from an atomic forcemicroscope experiment on the attractive force vsparticle size for geometrically similar particles oftwo different densities, then Eq(17) suggests thatplotting the log of the ratio of the measured forceto that expected for smooth spheres verses the log

0of z /R should yield a straight line of slope 2 and

sintercept [2/(1-")]log(D /D). With data on

particles of two different densities one should beable to back out estimates of the parameters " and

sD from the measured intercept data. However, aswith just about everything else in the field of fineparticle analysis, Eq.(17) comes with a host ofdisclaimers that must be taken into account. Rimai and Quesnel have discussed a number of8

potential problems in some detail so we need onlymention a few here. In particular one expects torun into problems with particles of softer materialssuch as pure metals and polymers where elasticityeffects must be taken into account. We can expect

soft particles to squash the surface layer and thusradically change the surface geometry. Suchelasticity effects are at the basis of the well knownJohnson, Kendall and Roberts (JKR) formalism ofparticle adhesion. Thus we expect Eq.(17) to workbest on the refractory materials such as aluminadiscussed above. Problems don’t end with thequestion of particle elasticity, however. It is clearthat contamination by all forms of liquids willgreatly affect the results since they can wet theparticle substrate interface and act as a sort of lowviscosity glue which will have a major effect on thenet attractive force. Also lurking in the corner areelectrostatic effects which can arise due to trappedsurface charges again modifying the attractiveforce. Having said all this however, Eq.(17) doeshave the redeeming feature of giving us a betterpicture of particle surface geometry. At least wewill no longer be considering “spherical cows”.

THE GIBBS-THOMSON EQUATION MEETSCONTACT ANGLE DATA

Introduction

The history of science and technology suggeststhat many of the most important advances arebrought about by the resolution of some paradoxor another which conventional wisdom cannot dealwith. The classic case which comes to mind is thequestion of the stability of atomic matter. Theprediction of classical mechanics and classicalelectrodynamics was absolutely clear andunequivocal. An electron could not orbit around aproton in any meaningful classical sense because itwould be constantly changing its direction andthus accelerating which existing theory predictedwould cause the electron to radiate away itsenergy and thus ultimately crash into the proton. Thus classical theory predicted that the hydrogenatom could not exist. It took the advent ofquantum theory to resolve the dilemma. Thescience of surface thermodynamics has a similar ifnot quite so weighty conundrum of its own in theform of the so called Gibbs-Thomson equation.

The problem arises from what seems at first to bea fairly harmless question concerning themeasurement of the solid liquid interfacial tension

slwhich is commonly labeled as ( . It appears in the

classic Young-Dupree equation along with its

svbrethren the solid-vapor interfacial tension ( and

lvthe liquid-vapor tension ( as follows:

“Fundamentals of Particle Adhesion”,8

Donald S. Rimai and David J. Quesnel (GlobalPress, 2001)

10

(18)

(19)

The angle 2 is the well known contact angle that adrop of the liquid makes with the solid. Of all thequantities in Eq.(18) the contact angle and the

lvsurface tension ( are the least controversial. The

contact angle can be measured with preciseinstruments and the liquid-vapor surface tensioncan be evaluated independently by capillaritymeasurements. In fact rather extensive tables of

lv( have been published for a wide range of liquids

so it is no more controversial than the liquiddensity. The solid-vapor and solid-liquid surfacetensions are another matter altogether. Withthese quantities controversy abounds and one isapt to find rather divergent numbers given for anyparticular material depending on the investigatorand the measurement method used as we will seein what follows. The problem of extracting values

sl svof ( and ( from contact angle data have been

covered in detail in the edited volume byNeumann and Spelt who use the “equation of9

state” approach and by van Oss who uses theLifshitz van der Waals/Acid-Base (LW/AB)10

method. Further discussion of this problem hasbeen given in a previous issue of the Newsletter. 11

The problem is greatly complicated by the diversenature of solid surfaces leading to divergentresults between the different measurementmethods. In consequence of this, alternatemeasurement measurements are sought out inorder to try and bring about a consensus. Aninteresting idea but in this case using yet anothermeasurement method only seems to expand thediversity of the results.

Enter the Gibbs-Thomson Relation

Drops sitting on solid surfaces are not the onlysituation in which one encounters solid-liquidinterfaces. A crystal forming from the melt

presents another physical system with a solid-liquidinterface and the growing solid surface also

slpossesses a surface tension describable by ( . In

this case the solid surface is assumed to be inquasi equilibrium with its own liquid phase and the

slobvious assumption is that ( is the same quantity

one would measure by placing a drop of the liquidon top of a block of the solid phase and performingthe appropriate contact angle analysis? Aneminently reasonable conjecture but when theactual measurements are performed the results donot pan out as expected.

Before opening pandora’s box on the solid-liquidinterfacial tension problem, a few words are inorder concerning the Gibbs-Thomson relation. Thisequation in its various forms is one of the pillars ofcrystallization theory and a truly impressiveliterature has grown around it. An informativeoverview has been given by Makkonen who also12 13

analyzes the discrepancy which arises when tryingto compare solid-liquid interfacial tension resultsbased on this equation with those derived fromcontact angle measurements. The Gibbs-Thomsonequation combines the Gibbs-Duhem relation withthe Laplace equation. The Gibbs-Duhem part takesaccount of the heat of fusion of crystallization andthe Laplace equation factors in the effect of surfacestrain energy caused by the curvature of thegrowing crystal front. Without going into furtherdetails the final result can be stated in followingcompact equation:

Where:L = Latent heat of fusion governing

crystallization

m)T = T - T = difference between liquidtemperature and melting point

mtemperature of solid phase T .

sl( = Solid liquid interfacial tension

1 2K = (1/r )+(1/r ) = Mean local curvaturedefined in terms of the local principal

1 2radii of curvature 1/r and 1/r .

The left hand side of Eq.(19) comes from theGibbs-Duhem relation and essentially expresses

“Applied Surface Thermodynamics”, Ed. A.9

W. Neumann and Jan K. Spelt (Marcel Dekker,New York, 1996)

“Interfacial Forces in aqueous Media”,10

Carel J. van Oss (Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York,1994)

MATERIALS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY11

NEWSLETTER,Vol2No3-2005, Fall-Winter, 2005,available at the MST CONFERENCES website:(www.mstconf.com/Vol2No3-2005.pdf).

“On the Methods to Determine Surface12

Energies”, Lasse Makkonen, Langmuir, 16, 7669(2000).

“Gibbs-Thomson Eqution and the Solid-13

Liquid Interface”, Lasse Makkonen, Langmuir, 18,1445 (2002).

11

the amount of energy per unit volume given up bythe liquid upon crystallization. The right hand sideof Eq.(19) is the energy per unit volume taken upby the expanding crystal surface in the form ofsurface tension or, what comes to the same thing,surface energy. Eq.(19) apparently provides uswith an additional means of determining the

slelusive solid-liquid surface tension ( .

Gibbs-Thomson Confronts Contact Angle

Moy and Neumann have rounded up solid-liquid14

surface tension data on a number of materials inan attempt to compare the predictions of Eq.(19)with those of contact angle measurements and theresults are not very promising. Solid-Liquidsurface tensions are tabulated for 5 differentmaterials. For each material as many as 5different surface tension measurements are givenof which three are derived from crystallizationdata using a Gibbs-Thompson type analysis andtwo are arrived at on the basis of contact anglemeasurements. The results presented by Moy andNeumann may be summarized as follows:

< Two sets of solid-liquid surface tension dataare tabulated based on contact anglemeasurements. One set is derived from anequation of state analysis and the otherfrom the Fowkes’ equation which isessentially the precursor of the moremodern (LW/AB) theory mentioned above.

< Three sets of solid-liquid surface tensiondata are tabulated based on Crystalnucleation data, crystal grain boundaryanalysis and the Skapski advancing crystalfront method. All these approaches use theGibbs-Thomson equation to estimate thesolid-liquid surface tension.

< The comparison between the two differentcontact angle analyses is a mixed bag withgood agreement being obtained for the two

normal alkanes listed (n-Dodecane and n-Hexadecane) and poor agreement for themore complex molecules Naphthalene andBiphenyl.

< Similarly, the agreement among the threesets of crystallization data based on theGibbs-Thomson equation, while not tooimpressive, are at least within the same ballpark.

< The comparison between the contact angleanalyses and the Gibbs-Thompson analyses,however, is truly abysmal. The discrepancybetween these data sets ranges from one totwo orders of magnitude across the board.

On the basis of these results the authors concludethat something must be inherently wrong with theGibbs-Thomson approach. In contradistinction,Makkonen, on the basis of fairly cogent12 13

thermodynamic arguments, has argued quite theopposite, that the problem in fact lies with thecontact angle work. A moments thought, however,suggests that neither conclusion is correct and thateach method has a certain level of validity withinsome restricted domain. It seems fairly apparentthat the problem lies with the extreme complexityof solid surfaces and that the differentmeasurement methods are not looking at the samething though each method is quite likely giving afair account of what it sees. In particular, each ofthe measurement methods comes with its own setof problems that tend to color the final result. Forinstance, Moy and Neumann point out that theGibbs-Thomson analysis based on crystalnucleation data is suspect due to the extremelysmall size of the crystallites involved (typicallycrystals on the nanometer scale involving a fewhundred molecules). In addition, nucleationstudies can involve large degrees of super cooling,i.e. )T in Eq.(19) is large which implies thatequilibrium arguments may not apply in thisregime. Equally cogent counter arguments can beleveled against the contact angle approach. Inparticular there was an order of magnitudediscrepancy between the two contact angleanalyses for naphthalene and biphenyl mentionedabove, so all is not peace and harmony within thecontact angle world. The case of the ice/waterinterface summarizes the problem neatly.

“Theoretical Approaches for Estimating14

Solid-Liquid Interfacial Tensions”, E. Moy and A.W. Neumann, in Applied Surface Thermodynamics,A. W. Neumann and Jan K. Spelt Eds. (MarcelDekker, Inc., New York, 1996).

12

(20)

(21)

(22)

slTable 3: Estimates of the Water/Ice Interfacial Energy ( (mJ/m ) Derived from Different2

Experimental Analyses

Crystalnucleation*

Skapsiadvancingfront*

Grainboundary*

Equation ofState*

(LW/AB)componentwise analysis#

(LW/AB)classic YoungDupreeanalysis#

26.1 44 29 0.38 0.04 1.5

*Data from reference 14; # Data from reference 15

slTable 3 presents 6 different estimates for ( for

the water/ice interface. The data in the first 4columns comes from the paper of Moy andNeumann. The data in the last two columns14

comes from the work on the water/ice system byvan Oss et. al. One always hates to use water as15

an example since it is one of the most anomalousliquids known and will nearly always give unusualresults. The data in table 3 certainly followthrough on this expectation. What is clear fromthis table is that though the results varyconsiderably within each method there is a distinctphase separation between the first thee columnsand the last three. The Gibbs-Thomson dataaverage close to 33 mJ/m whereas the contact2

angle data average about 0.6 mJ/m . This is the2

basic mystery we are faced with and I think thatwe will find that, due to the complexity of the solidsurfaces involved, the two separate methodssimply are not looking at the same thing. Onecould go on to near encyclopedic lengths givingphysical arguments as to why this discrepancyexists but time and space prohibit it. Rather, sincethe underlying theme of these essays is the jointissues which are of concern to both thoseinterested in particle contamination and contactangle behavior we will advance an argument basedon surface geometry which clearly enters thisproblem in a most fundamental way.

Fractal Surfaces and the Gibbs-ThomsonEquation

Looking again at figure (5) we can clearly considerit to be some sort of elementary model of agrowing crystal nucleus as opposed to being acontaminant particle. The common denominator is

of course the surface geometry. Arthur Adamsonin fact has already proposed a modified equationfor the contact angle on a fractal surface in hisclassic text on the physical chemistry of surfaces. 16

We can propose a similar modification of theGibbs-Thomson equation based on the samearguments that lead to Eq.(11) above. We firstrewrite Eq.(19) in the following equivalent form:

In this equation we simply replace the localsurface curvature K with its definition in terms ofthe rate of change in surface area with volume. This is just straightforward geometry. Bycombining Eqs.(10) and (11) above we canestimate the change in volume for a fractal surfaceas:

Arguments very similar to those used in derivingEqs.(10) and (11) can be employed to derive thechange in surface area )A which accompanies thechange in volume )V as follows:

All quantities in Eq.(22) are the same as in Eq.(21)except that we now have a new scaling exponent $taking the place of the old exponent ". We can

take the ratio of Eqs.(22) to (21) to estimate thederivative dA/dV appearing in Eq.(20): “Surface Tension Parameters of Ice15

Obtained from Contact Angle Data and fromPositive and Negative Particle Adhesion toAdvancing Freezing Fronts”, C. J. van Oss, R. F.Giese, R. Wentzek, J. Norris and E. M. Chuvilin, inContact Angle, Wettability and Adhesion:Festschrift in honor of Professor Robert J Good, K.L. Mittal Ed. (VSP, Utrecht, the Netherlands, 1993)

Physical Chemistry of Surfaces; sixth16

edition, Arthur W. Adamson and Alice P. Gast(John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997). See inparticular Chapter X, “The Solid-Liquid Interface -Contact Angle” p. 358.

13

(23)

(24)

(25)

Using the derivative dA/dV just derived in place ofthe local curvature K in Eq.(19) yields thefollowing version of the Gibbs-Thomson equationmodified for fractal surfaces:

All parameters in Eq.(24) are as defined forEq.(19) and the new scaling exponent , is given by

$ - ". We can easily solve Eq.(24) for the solid

slliquid surface tension ( as follows:

Since the ratio R/* in Eq.(25) is greater than 1 andthe exponent , is negative i.e. " > $ the factor

(R/*) will be less than 1 and thus the predicted,

slvalue of ( will be significantly less than thatyielded by the standard Gibbs-Thomson equationgiven by Eq.(19). Thus an analysis based onEq.(25) could potentially bring the Gibbs-Thomson

slestimates of ( into closer agreement with thosefrom contact angle. However, we need torecognize that Eq.(25) is simply a hypotheticalsuggestion for reconciling the discrepancy betweenthe Gibbs-Thomson results and the contact angledata for the solid-liquid surface tensionmeasurements mentioned above. The usualcaveats and disclaimers apply to this equation asmany other possibilities exist which could give analternative explanation. Nonetheless, Eq.(25)does have the advantage of being straightforwardin concept as well as simple in form. The conceptsimply states that in order to get more accuratesurface tension data for the solid liquid interfacialtension we need a more accurate model of thesolid surface as this strongly affects the netinteracting surface area. In particular, we arguethat due to the complex nature of solid surfaces ingeneral, the local microscopic geometry of agrowing crystal surface can be significantlydifferent from a surface prepared in a differentmanner such as cutting or polishing an existingblock of the material in question. Interesting idea. Could be wrong, but hey in this game you can tryjust about anything.

Now on to something completely different.

When is the Final Program Truly Final

One of the more trying tasks associated withorganizing an international symposium is pullingtogether a “final program” with specific time slotsfor each presenter. We fully realize that peopleare very busy these days with crowded schedulesthat leave them little leeway in makingappointments so when they are participating in asymposium they need to know as early as possiblewhen their talk is scheduled. In addition theywant to know when talks they have a particularinterest in are scheduled also so they can maketheir travel and hotel arrangements accordingly.

Making airline reservations is particularly vexing asthese days it more closely resembles making astock purchase than a travel arrangement. Pricestend to vary widely and depend in a most sensitivemanner on the details of the itinerary. Horrorstories abound concerning passengers who haveidentical accommodations for a given flight butwhose ticket prices differ by a factor of 2 or more. It’s ironic to note that in the pre deregulation daysairline prices were not cheap but were nonethelessfairly stable and predictable. Airlines were forcedto provide service to all localities including remoteplaces with little traffic. Service was so so and thefood, to put it kindly, was marginal. Worst of allthe airlines continually complained that they werenot making money. Along comes deregulationwhich was supposed to cure all these ills. Thefeeling was that the “invisible hand of the market”will set things straight. Prices will come down, theairlines will make money and everyone willbasically get what they really want. Thesubsequent reality was that prices did indeed comedown but along with this salutary development wesaw the demise of more that half of the existingairlines, nearly every small community lost its airservice, pricing has become a crap shoot, thequality of the food has gone from poor tononexistent and the airlines are still not makingany money. Oh well, the best laid plans of miceand men as they say.

Getting back to the final program. Though westruggle mightily to get it out as early as possibleand as accurately as possible the answer to ouropening question is that the final program is nottruly final till the meeting is over. Any givenpresenter listed in the program may have to optout for any one of a number of reasons. The mostcommon causes arise from personal difficultiessuch as a death in the family, unexpected illness,...etc. We have experienced nearly everything. Atone of the previous symposia one of the prominentspeakers, who in fact was among the first to

14

register and who we had no question would be atthe meeting simply passed away due to heartattack! My favorite case, however, occurred at oneof our earliest symposia where we had onepresenter fully registered and sitting in theaudience with his presentation in hand (this wasway back when people still used overheads). Youwould think that if ever there was a sure bet thiswould be it. Wrong. Barely minutes before hisscheduled time our putative presenter gets a callfrom his management instructing him to canceldue to some undisclosed patent issues that wereapparently hanging. So, on pain of losing his jobour erstwhile presenter had to decline. What doyou do in a case like this? Go to the next speakeror extend the coffee break that’s what.

I don’t want to scare you but people need to knowthat final programs are not entirely deterministicentities. However, the upcoming programs forToronto appear to be in good shape. A fewchanges have already been made since theprogram was E-mailed to everyone nearly a monthago but nonetheless things are holding up as wellas can be expected. We do try to keep everyoneposted on changes as soon as they occur byupdating the final program on the conference website (www.mstconf.com) . This is clearly the onlyfeasible way of making the latest informationavailable to everyone as quickly as possible. Andby the way if you go to the web site you may wantto check out previous issues of the newsletter.

Finally, Dr. Mittal and I would like to again extendour cordial invitation to all our readers to join us inToronto this Summer for what promises to be amost fruitful and enjoyable meeting.

FINAL PROGRAM: TENTH INTERNATIONALSYMPOSIUM ON PARTICLES ON SURFACES:DETECTION, ADHESION AND REMOVAL

Toronto, Canada; June 19-21, 2006

This will be the tenth event in the series ofsymposia on particles on surfaces initiated as partof the Fine Particle Society meeting in 1986.Particles are yield detractors in the manufacture ofsophisticated and sensitive electronic componentsand are very undesirable in many othertechnologies. Contamination of optical surfacesand shorting of microelectronic circuits byconducting particles, among other concerns,underscore the importance of particle detection,adhesion and removal. On the other hand,however, in certain instances particle adhesion tosurfaces is necessary. The purpose of thissymposium is to address the vast ramifications ofparticles on solid surfaces by bringing together

specialists in many allied fields to discuss theirlatest findings and to identify areas for furtherinvestigation. Various types of substrates andparticles including metals, oxides, glass, andpolymers are covered. Finally, it is apropos thatthis meeting is being held back to back with theFIFTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CONTACTANGLE, WETTABILITY AND ADHESION. Both ofthese symposia share a common and criticalinterest in the surface free energy of solidmaterials. The particle removal investigator knowsthis quantity strongly affects particle adhesion andfor the contact angle person it is one of the primemeasurement objectives. Thus on Wednesday the21st we plan to bring both groups together for ajoint session with papers of interest to both camps.It is hoped that a cross-fertilization of ideas willlead to insights of mutual benefit to all. Thefollowing is the list of papers to be presented atthis meeting. Please note that the address givenmay apply only to the presenting author

SESSION I: DETECTION AND MEASUREMENTMETHODS; Monday, June 19, 2006

8:30-8:35: INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

8:35-9:05: R. Snel, J. C. J. van der Donck, J. H.van den Berg, H. Meiling and H. Meijer; TNOScience & Industry, P.O. box 155, 2600 JA Delft,THE NETHERLANDS; Particle Detection on FlatSubstrates

9:05-9:35: Kenneth J. Ward, Milo Overbay andJohn W. Hellgeth, Hewlett-Packard Company,Corvallis, Oregon; Chemical Identification ofSubmicron Size Organic Particles UsingConventional FTIR Microscopy: New Horizonsfor an Old Technique.

9:35-10:05: P.West and N. Starostina;"PacificNanotechnology" Inc., 17984 Sky ParkCircle, Suite J, Irvine, CA 92614; AFMCapabilities in Characterization of Particles:from Angstroms to Microns

10:05-10:25: COFFEE BREAK

10:25-10:55: Stephen Silverman and TouficNajia; Bartlett Bay Consulting,10 Stanhope Rd, So.Burlington, VT 05403; The Flip-Side of theWafer: Backside Particles

10:55-11:25: A. S. Geller and C. C. Walton;Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000East Ave., Livermore, CA 94550; ImprovedReticle Carrier Design Through NumericalSimulation

15

11:25-11:55: Peter X. Feng, P.Yang, GerardoMorell, Ram Katiyar, and Brad Weiner; PhysicsDepartment, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan,PR 00931; Control of the Preferred Orientationof Nanoscale Carbon Particle Distributions

11:55-1:30: LUNCH

SESSION II: CLEANING TECHNOLOGY;Monday, June 19, 2006

1:30-2:00: John Durkee; 437 Mack Hollimon,Kerrville, TX 78028; 500 New Cleaning SolventsDiscovered!!

2:00-2:30: Adam Judd, Timothy Fredette, TaniaAlarcon, Sherry Kirkland, Gary Stickel, DanielHeenan, Adam Kulczyk, and Robert Kaiser;Entropic Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 397, Winchester,MA 01890-0597; Development of a Two StepPrecision Cleaning Process for theDecontamination of Sensitive EquipmentItems Contaminated with Chemical WarfareAgents

2:30-3:00: A. Lippert, P. Engesser, M. Köffler, F.Kumnig, R. Obweger, A. Pfeuffer and H.Okorn-Schmidt; SEZ AG, Research Center,Draubodenweg 29, 9500 Villach, AUSTRIA; Keysto Advanced Single Wafer Cleaning

3:00-3:20: COFFEE BREAK

3:20-3:50: Craig M.V. Taylor, J. B. Rubin, A.Busnaina and L.D Sivils; Los Alamos NationalLaboratory, Mail Stop J-964, Los Alamos, NM87545; Precision Cleaning of Semi-conductor

2Surfaces Using C Based Fluids

3:50-4:20: Thomas Bahners, Helga Thomas andEckhard Schollmeyer; DeutschesTextilforschungszentrum Nord-West e. V., Adlerstr.1, 47798 Krefeld, GERMANY; ElectrospunNanofibers - a Way to Improved Wet FiltrationEfficiency of Textile Filter Media

SESSION III: PARTICLE INTERACTIONS ANDADHESION; Tuesday, June 20, 2006

8:30-9:00: Mahdi Farshchi-Tabrizi, MichaelKappl and Hans-Jürgen Butt; MPI for PolymerResearch, Ackermannweg 10, 55128 Mainz,GERMANY; Influence of Humidity on Adhesion:an AFM Study

9:00-9:30: Niels P. Boks, Henny C. van der Mei,Willem Norde and Henk J. Busscher; Departmentof BioMedical Engineering, University MedicalCenter Groningen and University of Groningen,Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV Groningen, THENETHERLANDS; Microbial Adhesion ForcesStudied in a Parallel Plate Flow Chamber

9:30-10:00: F. Barbagini, W. Fyen, J. V.Hoeymissen, P. Mertens and J. Fransaer; IMEC,Kapeldreef 75, 3001 Heverlee, BELGIUM;Time-dependent Interaction Force Between aSilica Particle and a Flat Silica Surface inDodecane

10:00-10:20: COFFEE BREAK

10:20-10:50: W. Wójcik, B. Jaczuk and R.Ogonowski; Department of Interfacial Phenomena,Faculty of Chemistry, Maria Curie-SkodowskaUniversity, 20-031 Lublin, POLAND; Interactionof Silica Particles Through a Liquid

10:50-11:20: Alex Kabansky; CypressSemiconductor, San Jose, CA 95134; Progress inWafer Cleaning focusing on Particles, Residueand Defects for Sub-100nm Silicon-BasedCMOS Devices

11:20-11:50: Klaus Opwis, Frank Schroeter,Torsten Textor and Eckhard Schollmeyer; GermanTextile Research Center North - West; Adlerstr. 1;D-47798 Krefeld, GERMANY; Titanium DioxideNanoparticles in Photocatalytic TextileApplications

11:50-1:30: LUNCH

SESSION IV: PARTICLE ADHESION ANDREMOVAL; Tuesday, June 20, 2006

1:30-2:00: K. J. Belde and S.J. Bull; School ofChemical Engineering and Advanced Materials,University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE17RU, UK; Intentional Polymer ParticleContamination and the Simulation of AdhesionFailure in Transit Scratches in Ultra-Thin SolarControl Coatings on Glass

2:00-2:30: Astrid Roosjen; University ofWageningen, Laboratory of Physical Chemistry andColloid Science, Dreijenplein 6, Wageningen 6703HB, THE NETHERLANDS; Adhesion, Preventionof Adhesion and Removal of Bacteria fromSurfaces in Aqueous Environment

16

2:30-3:00: Jin-Goo Park; Hanyang University,Div. of Materials and Chemical Engineering, Ansan426-791, KOREA; The Effect of Chemicals onAdhesion and Removal of Slurry ParticlesDuring Cu CMP

3:00-3:30: Yakov Epshteyn, A. Scott Lawing andJesse Federowicz; Rohm and Haas ElectronicMaterials CMP Inc., 3804 E. Watkins St., Phoenix,AZ 85032; Ceria Slurry Particles RemovalOptimization

(Note: At this point the PARTICLE symposium joinsCONTACT ANGLE for a joint session all day the21st)

FINAL PROGRAM: FIFTH INTERNATIONALSYMPOSIUM ON CONTACT ANGLE,WETTABILITY AND ADHESION

Toronto, Canada; June 21-23, 2006

In his opening remarks at the first symposium inthis series Professor Robert Good pointed out thatGalileo in the 17th century was quite likely thefirst investigator to observe contact angle behaviorwith his experiment of floating thin gold leaf on topof a water surface. Since that time contact anglemeasurements have found wide application as amethod of determining the energetics of surfaces.This, in turn, has a profound effect on thewettability and adhesion of liquids and coatings tosurfaces. This symposium is concerned with boththe fundamental and applied aspects of contactangle measurements. Issues such as theapplicability and validity of various measurementtechniques and the proper theoretical frameworkfor the analysis of contact angle data will be ofprime concern. In addition, a host of applicationsof the contact angle technique will be exploredincluding but not limited to: wettability of powders,fibers, wood products, inks, paper, polymers andmonolayers. Further attention will be given to theuse of contact angle data in evaluating surfacemodification procedures, determining relevance ofwettability to adhesion, the role of wettability inbioadhesion, ophthalmology, prosthesis and in thecontrol of dust in mining and milling applications.The primary focus of this symposium is to providea forum for the discussion of cutting edgeadvancements in the field and to review andconsolidate the accomplishments which have beenachieved thus far.

Finally, it is apropos that this meeting is being heldback to back with the TENTH INTERNATIONALSYMPOSIUM ON PARTICLES ON SURFACES:DETECTION, ADHESION AND REMOVAL. Bothof these symposia share a common and criticalinterest in the surface free energy of solid

materials. The particle removal investigator knowsthis quantity strongly affects particle adhesion andfor the contact angle person it is one of the primemeasurement objectives. Thus on Wednesday the21st we plan to bring both groups together for ajoint session with papers of interest to both camps.It is hoped that a cross-fertilization of ideas willlead to insights of mutual benefit to all. Thefollowing is the list of papers to be presented atthis meeting. Please note that the address givenmay apply only to the presenting author.

SESSION I, JOINT SESSION WITH 10TH

PARTICLE SYMPOSIUM: PARTICLE WETTINGAND INTERACTIONS: JOINT SESSION WITHCONTACT ANGLE SYMPOSIUM; Wednesday,June 21, 2006

8:00-8:05: INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

8:05-8:35: Jerry Y. Y. Heng and Daryl R.Williams; Department of Chemical Engineering,Imperial College London, South KensingtonCampus, London SW7 2AZ, UK; The Influence ofSurface Chemistry in the Wetting Behaviour ofCrystalline Pharmaceutical Solids

8:35-8:55: A. Synytska, L. Ionov, S. Minko, K.-J.Eichhorn, M. Stamm and K. Grundke; LeibnizInstitute of Polymer Research Dresden e.V., HoheStr. 6, 01069 Dresden, GERMANY; ModelStructured Surfaces from Core-shell Particles.Influence of Chemical and TopographicalHeterogeneities on Surface Wettability

8:55-9:15: Laurent Forny, Khashayar Saleh,Isabelle Pezron, Ljepsa Komunjer and PierreGuigon; Laboratoire Génie des ProcédésIndustriels, UMR CNRS 6067 Université deTechnologie de Compiègne, 60205 CompiègneCedex, FRANCE; Influence of WettingParameters and Mixing Conditions onCharacteristics of Water-rich PowdersObtained by Encapsulation

9:15-9:45: Glen McHale, Michael I. Newton, NeilJ. Shirtcliffe, F. Brian Pyatt and Stefan H. Doerr;School of Biomedical & Natural Sciences,Nottingham Trent University, Clifton Lane,Nottingham NG11 8NS, UK; Self-organisation ofSoil and Granular Surfaces

17

9:45-10:15: L. Labajos-Broncano, M. J. Nuevo,M. L. González-Martín, J. A Antequera-Barroso andJ. M. Bruque; Department of Physics, University ofExtremadura, Campus Universitario, Avda. deElvas s/n, 06071 Badajoz, SPAIN; AnExperimental Study about the Effect of theInterfacial Adsorption on the Imbibition ofAqueous Surfactant Solutions in HydrophilicPorous Media

10:15-10:35: COFFEE BREAK

10:35-11:05: B.P. Binks, J.H. Clint, P.D.I.Fletcher, T.J.G. Lees and P. Taylor; Surfactant &Colloid Group, Department of Chemistry, TheUniversity of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK; Effect ofSurface Wettability on the Growth of GoldNanoparticle Films

11:05-11:35: D. Clausse, L. Sacca, F. Gomezand I. Pezron; Université de Technologie deCompiègne , Département de Génie Chimique,CNRS UMR 6067 GPI, BP 20529, 60205 Compiègnecedex, FRANCE; Emulsions Stabilized byNanoparticles

11:35-11:55: Chuan Guo Ma, Min Zhi Rong andMing Qiu Zhang; Materials Science Institute,Zhongshan University, Guangzhou 510275, P. R.CHINA; Use of Wetting Coefficient plus Surfaceand Adhesive Work to Predict DispersionState of Nano-CaCO3 Fillers

11:55-12:15: A. Méndez-Vilas, A.B.Jódar-Reyes, M.G. Donoso, J.M. Bruque and M.L.González-Martín; Department of Physics,University of Extremadura, Campus Universitario,Avda. de Elvas s/n, 06071 Badajoz, SPAIN;Nanoscale Exploration of Wetting/DewettingPhenomena at Silicon Wafer Surface

12:15-12:35: Anselm Kuhn, and John Durkee;437 Mack Hollimon, Kerrville, TX 78028;Wettability Measurements for SurfaceCleanliness Testing - an Old TechniqueRevisited & Updated

12:35-1:35: LUNCH

SESSION II JOINT SESSION WITH 10TH

PARTICLE SYMPOSIUM: COLLOIDS, POWDERSAND DROPLETS: FRACTAL AND WETTINGASPECTS; Wednesday, June 21, 2006

1:35-2:05: Carel Jan van Oss; Department ofMicrobiology and Immunology; Department ofChemical and Biological Engineering, andDepartment of Geology; University at Buffalo,State University of New York, South Campus,Buffalo, NY 14214-3000; Properties of Water inColloidal And Biological Systems

2:05-2:35: Po-zen Wong; Department ofPhysics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA01002; Multilayer Adsorption on FractalSurfaces

2:35-2:55: M. Ojha, S. Panchangam. P.C. Wayner,Jr. and J. L. Plawsky; Dept of Chemical andBiological Engineering, Rensselaer PolytechnicInstitute 110 Eighth St., Troy, NY 12180; Effectsof Surface Structure on Contact Line Behavior

2:55-3:25: Anton A. Darhuber, Nikolai V.Priezjev and Sandra M. Troian, MicrofluidicResearch & Engineering Laboratory, PrincetonUniversity, Princeton, NJ 08544-5263; SlipBehavior at Liquid/Solid Interfaces:Hydrodynamic Predictions versusMolecular-Dynamics Simulations

3:25-3:45: Aiping Fang, Thierry Ondarçuhu,Erik Dujardin, André Meister and Raphaël Pugin;Centre d'Elaboration des Matériaux et d'EtudesStructurales, CEMES-CNRS, 29 rue Jeanne Marvig,31055 Toulouse cedex 4, FRANCE; NanoscaleDispensing of Droplets

3:45-4:05: COFFEE BREAK

4:05-4:25: Thierry Ondarçuhu and AgnèsPiednoir; Nanoscience group, CEMES-CNRS, 29 rueJeanne Marvig, 31055 Toulouse, FRANCE;Interaction of a Contact Line With NanometricSteps

4:25-4:45: Mariëlle Wouters; TNO IndustrialTechnology, Polymer Technology, De Rondom 1,5612 AP Eindhoven, THE NETHERLANDS; Aspectsof Wettability and the Improvement ofAdhesion of UV Curable Powdercoatings onPolypropylene Substrates

4:45-5:15: Dandina N. Rao and Subhash C.Ayirala; The Craft & Hawkins Department ofPetroleum Engineering, Louisiana State University,Baton Rouge, LA 70803-6417; MechanisticModeling of Dynamic Vapor-Liquid InterfacialTension in Complex Petroleum Fluids

18

5:15-5-45: O. Karoussi, A. A. Hamouda;University of Stavanger, P. O. Box 8002Ullandhaug, 4068 NORWAY; The Effect of BinaryFatty Acids Systems on Partitioning, IFT andWettability of Calcite Surfaces

5:45-6:05: Frank Schröter, Thomas Sottmann,Dierk Knittel and Eckhard Schollmeyer; DeutschesTextilforschungszentrum Nord-West e. V., Adlerstr.1, 47798 Krefeld, GERMANY; Phase Behavior ofNon-Ionic Microemulsions of Water/SiliconeOil/Surfactant

SESSION III: NOVEL AND ADVANCEDMEASUREMENT METHODS; Thursday, June 22,2006

8:00-8:30: Hossein Tavana and A. WilhelmNeumann; Department of Mechanical Eng.,University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S IA4,CANADA; Contact Angles: Measurement andInterpretation

8:30-9:00: Dennis Palms, Rick Fabretto, RossenSedev, Joel De Coninck and John Ralston; IanWark Research Institute, University of SouthAustralia, Mawson Lakes, SA 5095 AUSTRALIA;Measurement and Interpretation of DynamicContact Angles and Contact Angle Hysteresis

9:00-9:30: M. Brugnara, C. Della Volpe, G.Ischia, D. Maniglio, M.A. Rodrìguez-Valverde andS. Siboni; Dept. Of Materials Engineering,University of Trento, Via Mesiano 77,38050 Trento,ITALY; Recent Advances in the Determinationof an Equilibrium Contact Angle onRough/Heterogeneous Surfaces

9:30-10:00: F. J. Montes Ruiz-Cabello, P.Gea-Jódar, M. A. Rodríguez-Valverde and M . A.Cabrerizo-Vílchez; Biocolloid and Fluid PhysicsGroup, Applied Physics Department, SciencesFaculty, University of Granada. E-18071 Granada,SPAIN; Contact Angle of Polygonal SessileDrops

10:00-10:20: COFFEE BREAK

10:20-10:40: M. Brugnara, M.A.Rodríguez-Valverde, S. Siboni and C. Della Volpe;Polymers and Composites Laboratory, Dept. ofMaterials Engineering and Industrial Technologies,University of Trento. E- 38050 Trento, ITALY;Comparison of Algebraic Algorithms for DropProfile Fitting: Circle and Ellipse

10:40-11:00: M. G. Cabezas, M. Hoorfar , H.Tavana and A. W. Neumann; Escuela deIngenierías Industriales, Universidad deExtremadura, ESPAÑA; Axisymmetric DropShape Analysis (ADSA) for the Determinationof Contact Angle

11:11:30: M. J. Nuevo, L. Labajos-Broncano, M.L. González-Martín and J. M. Bruque; Departmentof Physics, University of Extremadura, CampusUniversitario, Avda. de Elvas s/n, 06071, Badajoz,SPAIN; An Experimental Study about the Effectof the Velocity on the Contact Angle inExperiments of Spontaneous Flow of Liquidsin Porous Media

11:30-11:50: A. Méndez-Vilas, M.G. Donoso, J.L.González-Carrasco, J.M. Bruque, and M. L.González-Martín ; Department of Physics,University of Extremadura, Campus Universitario,Avda. de Elvas s/n, 06071 Badajoz, SPAIN; AFMMicro-Topography and Contact AngleGoniometry on Ti-Based Biomaterials

11:50-12:10: Bernt Boström, FIBRO System AB,Stockholm, SWEDEN; Evaluation of Very LowContact Angles Using a Compact Video System

12:10-1:30: LUNCH

SESSION IV: SUPERHYDROPHOBIC EFFECT;Thursday, June 22, 2006

1:30-2:00: Emil Chibowski, Konrad Terpilowskiand Lucyna Holysz; Department of PhysicalChemistry-Interfacial Phenomena, Faculty ofChemistry,Maria Curie-Sklodowska University,Lublin, POLAND; Superhydrophobic Effect dueto Deposition of Nano- and/or Microparticleson a Solid Surface

2:00-2:30: C. W. Extrand; Entegris Inc., 3500Lyman Blvd., Chaska, MN 55318; ModelingUltralyophobicity: a Liquid Drop Suspended ona Single Asperity

2:30-3:00: A.Milne, W Li, K. Grundke and A.Amirfazli; Department of Mechanical Engineering,University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G8CANADA; Wetting of SuperhydrophobicSurfaces: Experimental and TheoreticalPerspectives

19

3:00-3:20: H. Tavana, A. Amirfazli, and A.W.Neumann; Laboratory of Applied SurfaceThermodynamics, Department of Mechanical andIndustrial Engineering, University of Toronto,Toronto Ontario, CANADA; Fabrication ofSuperhydrophobic Surfaces ofn-Hexatriacontane and Study of their WettingProperties

3:20-3:40: A. Safaee, D. K. Sarkar and M.Farzaneh; Université du Québec à Chicoutimi,CANADA G7H 2B1; SuperhydrophobicProperties of Silver Coated Copper

3:40-4:00: COFFEE BREAK

4:00-4:20: N. Saleema, D. K. Sarkar, M.Farzaneh and E. Sacher; Canada Research Chairon Atmospheric Icing Engineering of PowerNetworks and Industrial Chair on AtmosphericIcing of Power Network Equipment, Université duQuébec à Chicoutimi, CANADA G7H 2B1; Effect ofTemperature on Superhydrophobic Zinc OxideNanotowers

4:20-4:40: D. K. Sarkar, and M. Farzaneh;Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, CANADA G7H2B1; Superhydrophobic Aluminum Surfaces

4:40-5:00: P. J. Ramón-Torregrosa, M. A.Rodríguez-Valverde and M. A. Cabrerizo-Vílchez;Biocolloid and Fluid Physics Group, Applied PhysicsDepartment, Sciences Faculty, University ofGranada. E-18071 Granada, SPAIN; Effect ofAcid-Etching on Titanium Wettability. ACrossover Between Wetting Regimes

5:00-5:20: Jin-Goo Park; Hanyang University,Div. of Materials and Chemical Engineering, Ansan426-791, KOREA; Preparation andCharacterization of Hydrophobic Anti-stictionLayer in Nano Imprinting

5:20-5:40: Wen Zhong, Ning Pan and DavidLukas; Department of Textile Sciences, Universityof Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2 CANADA;Wetting and Adhesion in Fibrous Materials:Stochastic Modeling and Simulation

5:40-6:00: Mathilde Reyssat and David Quéré;ESPCI, Laboratoire de Physique et Mécanique desMilieux Hétérogènes, CNRS UMR 7636, Paris,FRANCE; On « fakir » Drops

SESSION V: SURFACE FREE ENERGY ANDWETTABILITY STUDIES; Friday, June 23,2006

8:00-8:30: Hans Riegler; MPIKG, AmMühlenberg, D-14476 Potsdam, GERMANY;Wetting Properties, Interfacial Mobility andAggregation Behaviour of Long Chain Alkanesat Solid/Vapour Interfaces

8:30-9:00: Martien A. Cohen Stuart; Lab. ofPhysical Chemistry and Collloid Science,Wageningen University, P. O. Box 8038, 6700 EKWageningen, THE NETHERLANDS; Wettability of'Soft' Surfaces: the Contact Angle on SwollenPolymer Brushes and Gels

9:00-9:30: Frieder Mugele; University ofTwente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, THENETHERLANDS; Generation ofCharge-Controlled Microdroplets UsingAC-Electrowetting

9:30-10:00: Glen McHale, Michael I. Newton,Dale L. Herbertson, Neil J. Shirtcliffe and StephenJ. Elliott; School of Biomedical & Natural Sciences ,Nottingham Trent University, Clifton Lane,Nottingham NG11 8NS, UK; Electrowetting onSuper-hydrophobic Surfaces

10:00-10:20: COFFEE BREAK

10:20-10:50: Masataka Murahara; EntropiaLaser Initiative Tokyo Institute of Technology,2-12-1, O-okayama, Meguro, Tokyo, 152-8552,JAPAN; Electrowetting-induced PhotochemicalSurface Modification of PTFE by Using ArFLaser

10:50-11:10: Mika M. Kohonen; Department ofApplied Mathematics, Research School of PhysicalSciences and Engineering, Australian NationalUniversity, Canberra ACT 0200, AUSTRALIA; TheEffects of Wall Sculpturing, Sap Solutes, andDrying on the Wettability of Tree Capillaries

11:10-11:30: S. Temmel, T. Höfler and W. Kern;Polymer Competence Center Leoben GmbH,A-8700 Leoben, AUSTRIA; Surface Properties ofPolymers Functionalized by UV Irradiation

11:30-12:00: Ilker S. Bayer, Constantine M.Megaridis, Daniel R. Gamota and Jie Zhang;Department of Mechanical and IndustrialEngineering, University of Illinois at Chicago,Chicago, IL, 60607-7022; Surface Free EnergyEstimation and Wettability Characterization ofUV Curable Coatings by Contact AngleMeasurements

20

12:00-12:20: Emil Chibowski, KonradTerpilowski and Lucyna Holysz; Department ofPhysical Chemistry-Interfacial Phenomena, Facultyof Chemistry, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University,Lublin, POLAND; Influence of Ambient Humidityon the Apparent Surface Free Energy ofSmooth Solid Surface

12:20-1:20: LUNCH

SESSION VI: BIOADHESION, CLEANABILITYAND SURFACE PROPERTIES; Friday, June 23,2006

1:20-1:50: Alain Carré and Valérie Lacarrière;Corning European Technology Centre, 7bis Avenuede Valvins, 77210 Avon, FRANCE; Cell Adhesionand Proliferation on Polystyrene Substrates ofDifferent Surface Properties

1:50-2:10: Klaus Opwis, Thomas Bahners andEckhard Schollmeyer; DeutschesTextilforschungszentrum Nord-West e. V., Adlerstr.1, 47798 Krefeld, GERMANY; SurfaceModifications for the Control of Cell Growth onTextile Substrates

2:10-2:30: M. L. González-Martín, A.M.Gallardo-Moreno, R. Calzado-Montero, J.M. Bruqueand C. Pérez-Giraldo; Department of Physics,University of Extremadura, Campus Universitario,Avda. de Elvas s/n, 06071 Badajoz, SPAIN;Physico-Chemisty of Initial BacterialAdhesion. Insigts into the Relations BetweenExperiments and Model Proposals

2:30-3:00: Tanweer Ahsan; Henkel Corporation,15350 Barranca Parkway, Irvine, CA 92688;Adhesion Performance of Molding Compoundsin Semiconductor Packaging

3:00-3:20: Juha Lindfors, Janne Laine and PerStenius, Laboratory of Forest Products Chemistry,Helsinki University of Technology - TKK, FINLAND;Adhesion of Hydrophobing Agents to Wet andDry Surfaces

3:20-3:40: COFFEE BREAK

3:40-4:00: R. Sedev, N. Stevens and J. Ralston;Ian Wark Research Institute, Mawson Lakes, SA5095, AUSTRALIA; Receding Contact Angle in aPorous Medium

4:00-4:30: Laurence Boulangé-Petermann,Christelle Gabet, Jean Charles Joud and BernardBaroux ; Ugine-ALZ, Arcelor, FRANCE; Effect ofthe Surface Properties on the Cleanability ofBare and Coated Stainless Steels

4:30-4:50: Thomas Bahners, Lutz Prager andEckhard Schollmeyer; DeutschesTextilforschungszentrum Nord-West e. V., Adlerstr.1, 47798 Krefeld, GERMANY; Functional TopCoats on Coated Textiles for Improved orSelf-attained Cleanability

4:50-5:10: Sarthak K. Patel and R. N.Jagtap;Chemical & Materials EngineeringDepartment,University of Alberta, Edmonton,Alberta, CANADA; Stimulate of Contact Anglewith Respect to Grafting of Butyl AcrylateHybrid - PUD Adhesives for Plastic Laminates

5:10-5:30: Tao Du, Yazhen Wang, Peng Xia andYan Luo; Research Center of Material Science andEngineering, Guilin University of ElectronicTechnology, Guilin, CHINA; Study of ABS ResinBond with Acrylonitrile-Modified Epoxy Resin

21

REGISTRATION INFORMATIONDATES:

JUNE 19-21, 2006: TENTH INTERNATIONALSYMPOSIUM ON PARTICLES ON SURFACES:DETECTION ADHESION AND REMOVAL

JUNE 21-23, 2006: FIFTH INTERNATIONALSYMPOSIUM ON CONTACT ANGLE,WETTABILITY AND ADHESION

LOCATION:

NOVOTEL HOTELTotonto Centre45 The EsplanadeToronto, Ontario M5E IW2, CANADATel. 1-416-367-8900FAX: 1-416-360-8285

E-mail: [email protected] Site: www.novotel.com REGISTRATION:

Speaker/student $395 each; regular attendee $595each. A 20% discount applies if you are attendingboth symposia. An additional 10% discount appliesif more than 1 person are participating from thesame organization. HOTEL: Please make room reservations directlywith the Novotel Hotel. A block of rooms has beenset aside for conference registrants until May 29,2006. After this date the hotel will acceptreservations on a space available basis and theycannot guarantee that the special conference ratesof CAD$179 single/double per day will apply. Makeyour reservations early and be sure to mentionthat you are attending one of the MST symposia inorder to receive the reduced conference hotel rate.

TRANSPORTATION:

Shuttle bus service is available from TorontoIsland Airport to Union Rail Station. The NovotelHotel is one block from the station. Direct railservice is available to Union Station.

TO REGISTER FOR SYMPOSIUM:

BY PHONE: 845-897-1654; 845-227-7026BY FAX: 212-656-1016E-mail: [email protected]

REGISTER ONLINE:

www.mstconf.com/mstreg.htm

BY MAIL: SEND COMPLETED FORM TO:

Dr. Robert LacombeChairman MST Conferences3 Hammer DriveHopewell Junction, NY 12533-6124, USA

SHORT COURSE ON APPLIED ADHESIONMEASUREMENT METHODS, JUNE 24, 2006:Associated with these symposia MST gives a shortcourse on adhesion measurement methods. Sincenearly all of the MST symposia have some relationto adhesion phenomena, the ability to quantifythe adhesion of one material layer to another isclearly one of the unifying themes. This course isdesigned to mesh with the topical symposia bypresenting an overview of the most usefuladhesion measurement techniques which are beingused to evaluate the PRACTICAL ADHESION ofcoatings. Emphasis will be given to methodswhich can be carried out in a manufacturingenvironment as well as in the lab and which giveresults that are directly relevant to the durabilityand performance of the coatings. The effects ofmaterial elastic properties and residual stress areconsidered as well as other external influenceswhich affect coating adhesion.

Audience: Scientists and professional staff inR&D, manufacturing, processing, qualitycontrol/reliability involved with adhesion aspects ofcoatings or laminate structures.Level: Beginner to IntermediatePrerequisites: Elementary background Inchemistry, physics or materials science.Duration: 1 dayRegistration fee: $595: Includes course notes, handouts and a copy of the newly publishedhandbook and reference volume: ADHESIONMEASUREMENT METHODS: THEORY ANDPRACTICE (CRC Press, 2006).

How You Will Benefit From This Course:

< Understand advantages and disadvantagesof a range of adhesion measurementtechniques.

< Gain insight into mechanics of adhesiontesting and the role of intrinsic stress andmaterial properties

< Learn optimal methods for setting adhesionstrength requirements for coatingapplications.

< Learn how to select the best measurementtechnique for a given application.

< Gain perspective from detailed discussion ofactual case studies of productmanufacturing and development problems.

CANCELLATIONS: Registration fees are refundable,subject to a 15% service charge, if cancellation ismade by May 15, 2006. NO refunds will be givenafter that date. All cancellations must be in writing.Substitutions from the same organization may bemade at any time without penalty. MST Conferencesreserves the right to cancel any of the symposia orthe short course if it deems this necessary and will,in such event, make a full refund of the registrationfee. No liability is assumed by MST Conferences forchanges in program content.

22

REGISTRATION FORM: CHECK ALL THAT YOU WANT TO ATTEND

TENTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOPSIUM ON PARTICLES ON SURFACES, JUNE 19-21, 2006(speaker/student)

$395

TENTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOPSIUM ON PARTICLES ON SURFACES, JUNE 19-21, 2006(regular attendee)

$595

FIFTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CONTACT ANGLE, WETTABILITY AND ADHESION, JUNE 21-23, 2006 (speaker/student)

$395

FIFTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CONTACT ANGLE, WETTABILITY AND ADHESION, JUNE 21-23, 2006 (regular attendee)

$595

Sub Total

Deduct 20% if attending both Symposia. Deduct additional 10% if more than 1 participantfrom same institution

Short Course on Applied Adhesion Measurement Methods $595

TOTAL REGISTRATION FEE

METHOD OF PAYMENT, CHECK WHICH METHOD YOU PREFER

CREDIT CARD: Check here and fill out box below

BANK WIRE TRANSFER: Check here and and contact Dr. Lacombe for bank details:Dr. Robert H. LacombeTel: 845-227-7026; 845-897-1654FAX: 212-656-1016E-mail: [email protected]

CHECK: Make check payable to MST Conferences, LLC and mail to:Dr. Robert H. LacombeConference Chairman3 Hammer DriveHopewell Junction, NY 12533-6124, USA

CREDIT CARD INFORMATION ADDRESS INFORMATION

9 VISA NAME:

9 MASTER CARD ADDRESS:

9 AMERICAN EXPRESS

9 DINERS CLUB

Expiration Date: E-mail:

PHONE: FAX:

Card Number: Card Holder Name: _____