Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 18, 2025

Fabrication of Superhydrophobic Metal Surfaces for Anti-Icing Applications
Published on: August 15, 2018
How Different Are Fog Collection and Dew Water Harvesting on Surfaces with Different Wetting Behaviors?
Dimitrios Nioras1,2, Kosmas Ellinas1, Vassilios Constantoudis1
1Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, NCSR "Demokritos", Aghia Paraskevi, Greece 15341.
Abstract:
As the clean water shortage becomes a serious problem for mankind, atmospheric water harvesting has emerged as a viable solution. Two main approaches to collect water from the atmosphere exist: the first is to capture it from fog, whereas the second is through condensation of vapor on surfaces with a temperature below the dew point. The water collection mechanism in these two modes is completely different. In this work, we develop a deeper understanding of the effect of surface wettability on gravity-assisted atmospheric water harvesting and a comparative study of the two collection modes (fog and dew). First, we present theoretical estimates for the maximum water mass available in each mode and introduce an efficiency factor η which enables the direct comparison among surfaces in different setups and modes. Then we fabricate a series of micronanostructured surfaces with different surface wetting properties from hydrophilic to superhydrophobic. Our results demonstrate that drop mobility, derived from the surface superhydrophobic properties and micronanotopography, is the most important factor affecting fog collection: superhydrophobic surfaces show 40-65% higher fog collection rates compared to flat hydrophilic surfaces, with the more mobile among superhydrophobic surfaces (hysteresis 2°, and air-liquid fraction fA-L > 0.9) showing higher water collection. On the other hand, dew harvesting efficiency depends on the combination of drop mobility and nucleation rate, with superhydrophobic surfaces exhibiting 40% higher water collection rate compared to the flat hydrophilic or hydrophobic surfaces due to their low hysteresis as well as high surface area available for nucleation.
More Related Videos
08:02Rendering SiO2/Si Surfaces Omniphobic by Carving Gas-Entrapping Microtextures Comprising Reentrant and Doubly Reentrant Cavities or Pillars
Published on: February 11, 2020
07:18Measuring the Interaction Force Between a Droplet and a Super-hydrophobic Substrate by the Optical Lever Method
Published on: June 14, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Surface Tension, Capillary Action, and Viscosity
The various IMFs between identical molecules of a substance are examples of cohesive forces. The molecules within a liquid are surrounded by other molecules and are attracted equally in all directions by the cohesive forces within the liquid. However, the molecules on the surface of a liquid are attracted only by about one-half as many molecules. Because of the unbalanced molecular attractions on the surface molecules, liquids contract to form a shape that minimizes the number...
Types of Coprecipitation
Sometimes, ions in a crystal lattice can undergo isomorphous replacement by inclusions of similar charge and size. For...
Cohesion
On a...
Precipitation Processes
Precipitation and Co-precipitation
Porosity and Absorption of Aggregate
When all pores in an aggregate are filled with water, the aggregate is considered saturated and surface-dry. If left in dry air, water will evaporate until the...