### Abstract

Original language | English |
---|---|

Pages (from-to) | 7669 - 7672 |

Number of pages | 4 |

Journal | Langmuir |

Volume | 16 |

Issue number | 20 |

DOIs | |

Publication status | Published - 2000 |

MoE publication type | A1 Journal article-refereed |

### Fingerprint

### Cite this

*Langmuir*,

*16*(20), 7669 - 7672. https://doi.org/10.1021/la990815p

}

*Langmuir*, vol. 16, no. 20, pp. 7669 - 7672. https://doi.org/10.1021/la990815p

**On the methods to determine surface energies.** / Makkonen, Lasse.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Scientific › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - On the methods to determine surface energies

AU - Makkonen, Lasse

N1 - Project code: Dentriitit

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - There is a prevailing dispute on methods to determine surface energies of surfaces involving a solid. The most widely used methods are the surface component (STC) theory and the equation of state (EQS) approach. Several versions of these basic theories have been developed, and their predictions for various systems differ but are of the same order of magnitude. However, the solid/liquid surface energies determined by the methods based on the effect of interface curvature on the equilibrium phase change temperature, as described by the Gibbs−Thomson (G−T) equation, are 2 orders of magnitude higher than those determined by the STC and the EQS. This controversy is addressed here by critically analyzing both the thermodynamic and mechanical derivations of the G−T equation. It is concluded that none of the arguments recently presented against the use of the G−T equation, to explain the discrepancy, appear to be valid. Consequently, it appears that both the STC theory and the EQS approach may be incorrect.

AB - There is a prevailing dispute on methods to determine surface energies of surfaces involving a solid. The most widely used methods are the surface component (STC) theory and the equation of state (EQS) approach. Several versions of these basic theories have been developed, and their predictions for various systems differ but are of the same order of magnitude. However, the solid/liquid surface energies determined by the methods based on the effect of interface curvature on the equilibrium phase change temperature, as described by the Gibbs−Thomson (G−T) equation, are 2 orders of magnitude higher than those determined by the STC and the EQS. This controversy is addressed here by critically analyzing both the thermodynamic and mechanical derivations of the G−T equation. It is concluded that none of the arguments recently presented against the use of the G−T equation, to explain the discrepancy, appear to be valid. Consequently, it appears that both the STC theory and the EQS approach may be incorrect.

U2 - 10.1021/la990815p

DO - 10.1021/la990815p

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 7669

EP - 7672

JO - Langmuir

JF - Langmuir

SN - 0743-7463

IS - 20

ER -