This is because the components of the molecules reject those of the cell membrane. To get a clearer understanding of this, picture a glass of water and a glass of cooking oil.
When water is added to the oil, there is repulsion between the molecules. But when one puts water into water and oil into oil, no reaction will be observed. Organic chemistry provides an explanation for this phenomenon. Note that water contains polar molecules; it therefore follows that polar substances and particles get absorbed or attracted by H2O. Hydrophilic molecules are known to be polar and ionic — they have positive and negative charges, which can attract water molecules.
Conversely, hydrophobic particles are known to be non-polar. Hydrophilic means water loving; hydrophobic means resistant to water.
Hydrophilic molecules get absorbed or dissolved in water, while hydrophobic molecules only dissolve in oil-based substances. Hydrophilic molecules require facilitated diffusion, while hydrophobic molecules are suitable for passive diffusion in cellular activities. Hydrophilic molecules are polar and ionic; hydrophobic molecules are non-polar. Hydrophilic molecules are polar in nature. The hydrophilic molecules are largely used in a number of fields, such as chemistry, physics, food, engineering, paint, drug delivery, paper, textiles, biomedical, pharmaceuticals, water treatment, constructions, coatings, adhesives, thickeners, film formers, gallants, stabilizers, dispersing and suspending agents, humectants, flocculants, personal care, lubricants and binders, detergents, mineral processing, building products, and oil field products.
There are a large number of hydrophilic substances, such as starch, salt, sugar, keratin, protein, cotton, cellulose , wool, silica, alcohols, polyethylene glycol ethers, polyvinyl alcohol, gelatin, inulin, guar gum, albumin, chitosan, xanthan gum, agarose, pectin, agar, dextran, algin, carrageenan and so on. Hydrophobic molecules that are known as hydrophobes are molecules that repel water.
Hydrophobes are non polar in nature. The hydrophobic interactions have an important role in many fields, such as oil-water separation, self-cleaning, antibacterial, corrosion resistance, anti-icing, protein folding, chemical separation process, management of oil spills, separation of non-polar elements from polar elements and so on.
Examples of Hydrophobic substances:. A large number of hydrophobic substances can be seen in both the industrial and the domestic sectors. Greasy compounds, fats, oils, alkanes and most of the organic compounds are examples of hydrophobic substances. Other examples of hydrophobic substances include hydrophobicity in plants and animals. A large number of plants are hydrophobic, which means that there is a presence of hydrophobic coatings on the leaves surface. At thermodynamic equilibrium, only hydrophilic surfaces i.
Therefore, it only makes sense to analyze the equilibrium hydration behavior of hydrophilic surfaces, which first requires a determination of the wetting coefficients. We start with a short discussion of the influence of the surface stiffness on the interfacial water behavior and the hydration pressure acting in the z direction between the surfaces. In Figure 2 , we take a look at surface types I, II, and IV whose molecules do not form significant hydrogen bonds between themselves; that is, they have low surface—surface HB capabilty.
The influence of the latter will be discussed in the next section. In surface type I, we strongly restrain the alkane chains as well as the hydrogen atoms in the headgroups. By releasing the hydrogen atoms, we obtain surface type II.
In surface type IV, the chains are only minimally restrained and the surface headgroups can fluctuate considerably as indicated by the headgroup oxygen density distributions shown in orange. Figure 2 shows water density profiles at the three surfaces. At the stiffest surface of type I, water molecules tend to order in distinct layers, which leads to oscillations in the density profiles. Note that in general increased polarity can both enhance 71, 72 or suppress 65, 73 water layering, depending on the complex interplay of water and surface molecular interactions.
Apart from the density oscillations, the depletion zone between the headgroups and water also grows with decreasing polarity Figure 2. This reflects the affinity with which water is bound to the surface, as has been demonstrated previously.
Figure 2 a,b , the layering decreases for the highest polarity, whereas it barely changes for lower polarities. In the case of the soft surfaces in Figure 2 c, where the headgroup undulations exceed the size of a water molecule, the layering is smeared out and the water density profiles decay monotonically to zero on the length scale of the headgroup fluctuations.
Water layering profoundly affects the hydration pressure when two surfaces are brought together to small separations. For all surface types in Figure 3 , the pressure reaches thousands of bars at close contact and decays with increasing surface separation D. In this work, the separation D between surfaces is defined as the distance between the oxygen atoms on the opposing surfaces Figure 1 a. The vertical dashed lines in Figure 3 represent the close-contact distance D adh that corresponds to the equilibrium distance of the surfaces in vacuum, as will be discussed in more detail further below.
A fundamental difference between the soft and stiff surfaces appears as a result of water layering, which induces oscillations in the pressure—distance curves.
Each oscillation in the pressure corresponds to the expulsion of exactly one water layer from the interlamellar region. The oscillatory nature of the interaction, which has been observed experimentally for very flat crystalline surfaces, 20 is hence a structural effect of the solvent. On the other hand, if the interfacial water does not exhibit layering, then the pressure decays almost monotonically with distance, as is the case for the soft surfaces in Figure 3 c.
The monotonic decay is hence typical for soft interfaces, such as lipid membranes. To account for the possibility of cavitation, we have to compare the distance-resolved free energies of the cavitated and hydrated states.
The free energy f D of the hydrated state, shown by a blue curve, starts from zero at large separations D and rises as the surfaces come together, reflecting hydration repulsion between the surfaces. The amount of interlamellar water in the hydrated state is shown by a turquoise curve, with the scale on the right side of the diagram.
As expected, the amount of water decreases as the surfaces approach each other. The functional dependence is not linear, which reflects surface compressibility and nonideal water mixing effects, as will be discussed further in section 3. Upon approach of the surfaces, the free energy of the cavitated state decreases as a result of attractive forces acting between the surfaces in vacuum. The value f vac adh hence corresponds to the vacuum adhesion energy, that is, the work needed to separate the surfaces across a vacuum cf.
Figure 4 a. Consequently, the hydrated state and the cavitated state become indistinguishable and their free energies assume the same values. This means that the free energy of the close-contact state can be expressed in terms of the wetting coefficient k w and the adhesion free energy in vacuum f vac adh as 6 Due to entropic effects, N w can never reach strictly zero in the hydrated state, which is especially relevant for highly polar surfaces that have a strong binding affinity for water.
In the latter case, the free energies of the cavitated and hydrated states do not meet exactly at D adh but at a slightly lower separation, as is shown in Figure 7 b. However, because of a cutoff in the LJ potentials at 0. Therefore, in the following text, we disregard wet adhesive states from the discussion and do not distinguish between such states and the states corresponding to infinite hydration.
The hydration repulsion reflects the work required to remove strongly bound water molecules from the surfaces. In such a case, hydrophilic surfaces globally attract at short distances.
By coming into close contact, all of the water is expelled into the bulk, which we denote as dry adhesion. Very generally, all completely nonpolar surfaces lie deeply in the cavitation-induced attraction region of the diagram.
Aforementioned surface types I, II, and IV, which all have low surface—surface HB capability, show very similar behavior with increasing polarity. In particular, surfaces of type II and IV, as well as V and VI, which differ only in the elastic surface properties, lie very close to each other in the interaction diagram.
In other words, surface elasticity changes the shape of the pressure profiles, as seen in Figure 3 , but does not change the adhesive surface properties as much, as seen in the interaction diagram in Figure 4 b. An important observable, which is also accessible in experiments, is the amount of interlamellar water between the surfaces and its change upon variation of the surface separation.
This quantity drastically depends on the thermodynamic boundary conditions. When surfaces are in contact with a water reservoir, as is the case in our study, the chemical potential of the interlamellar water is fixed.
In this case, the amount of interlamellar water N w is dictated by the change in the system volume V. It represents the required change in the system volume at fixed chemical potential in order to expel one water molecule from the interlamellar region.
At small separations, substantial pressures are required to expel water molecules, as seen in Figure 3 c. Note that the separation D for very high pressures becomes smaller than D adh as a result of surface compression, meaning that the oxygens on opposing surfaces approach more than in the adhesive case in vacuum. Alternatively, the interacting surfaces can be held at constant pressure, a scenario relevant for example in osmotic stress experiments at atmospheric pressure.
The corresponding response of the system volume can be expressed in terms of the partial water volume at constant pressure, 8 Black squares in Figure 5 indicate v p for soft polar surfaces and its dependence on the surface separation.
They also demonstrate the complex coupling between surface hydration and the thermodynamic ensemble. The variation of v p with distance has to be considered when interpreting results from osmotic stress experiments. The latter assumption is commonly made in experiments and is often an acceptable approximation. However, the experimental determination of v p would be desirable not only for validating the calculation of the equivalent pressure but also for a critical comparison with the respective value obtained in computer simulations.
As seen from eq 14 , the difference between both partial volumes arises from the finite compressibility of the system. An important factor that influences the hydration and adhesion properties of surfaces is the capability of polar surface headgroups to form HBs between themselves.
It seems reasonable that surface polarity and in-plane HB capability are correlated. However, there are exceptions of great biological relevance where there is no such correlation, as, for instance, for the most abundant class of phospholipids, the phosphatidylcholine PC lipids.
Their headgroups are highly polar but incapable of forming HBs as a result of the lack of HB donors. In this section, we examine the influence of the surface—surface HB capability by modifying the repulsive LJ coefficient C 12 between the oxygen atoms in OH headgroups. Note that we keep the water—headgroup interactions unchanged. The C 12 coefficients are listed in Table 1. Because the headgroups are arranged on a hexagonal lattice in one plane, the intra- and intersurface hydrogen-bonding capability for these surfaces is considerable, as we show further below.
In the following section, we focus on a detailed comparison of soft surfaces of type IV with low HB capability and type V with high HB capability , which differ only by the repulsive headgroup—headgroup LJ potential.
The effect of modifying the effective hydroxyl size can be directly demonstrated by the radial distribution function RDF between the oxygen atoms of the same surface. For type V, an additional sharp peak appears at a closer distance, indicating that neighboring headgroups form hydrogen bonds, which does not occur in type IV. The HBs can be directly counted in the simulations by using the standard distance—angle criterion. In the case of surface type IV, the surface—surface HBs are almost completely suppressed and their number is negligible.
In contrast, the headgroups in surface type V form on average 0. Because the type IV headgroups cannot form HBs between themselves, they tend to form more HBs with water molecules than does surface type V. The headgroups of type V, on the other hand, redistribute their HB formation among water and other headgroups. The hydration pressures for the two surface types, plotted in Figure 7 a, show qualitatively similar behavior.
Both decay monotonically with separation because of their softness, but they exhibit very different pressure amplitudes. Also, the close-contact separation D adh vertical dashed lines in Figure 7 a is 0. Figure 7 b,c shows the free energy and the amount of water for both surface types. As can be seen, the type IV surface remains strongly hydrated down to small separations. Expelling all water molecules from the interlamellar region requires enormous pressure; in fact, at the close-contact distance D adh in Figure 7 b we still find 0.
In general, the capability of surface—surface hydrogen-bond formation has at least two major consequences. First, because an increased capability lowers the number of surface—water HBs, it lowers the overall surface hydrophilicity for the same polarity. On the other hand, increased hydrogen-bond formation between two opposing surfaces leads to a stronger adhesion in vacuum, f vac adh , which shifts the simulation data to the right in Figure 4 b when going from surfaces with low HB capability to surfaces with high HB capability.
Systems IV and V with high HB capabilities are therefore shifted to the lower right relative to the other surface types of the same polarity. This means that these surfaces are marginally located in the hydration repulsion regime and therefore slightly repel, as also demonstrated by evaluating the hydration free energy for type V in Figure 7 c. Completely polar surfaces with large surface—surface HB capabilities are therefore only slightly repulsive.
In this case, water molecules interact with the surfaces only via dispersion interaction, modeled as LJ potentials in our case, and the exact structural details and surface elastic properties are demonstrated not to play a significant role. The structural details for water—surface interactions start to matter only when the headgroups possess nonvanishing dipole moments. In our modeling approach, tuning the HB capability via modifying the repulsive C 12 coefficient also affects the close-contact distance D adh to which the surfaces approach in vacuum.
Surface types V and VI with small headgroup repulsion therefore have larger f vac adh values than the other surface types. With our model surfaces, we cover the extreme scenarios of hydrogen-bonding capability. Reality is expected to lie somewhere in between, depending on the surface chemistry, topography, and so forth.
Even though the precise surface interactions depend on the molecular details, the overall qualitative adhesion behavior can already be assessed by macroscopic quantities k w and f vac adh , as demonstrated in Figure 4 b. With the preceding analysis, we assess the qualitative impact of all three control parameters of the model surfaces on the adhesion properties.
The second-most-important property regarding the adhesion properties is the surface—surface hydrogen-bonding capability, whereas the elastic properties manifest mainly in the pressure—distance curves Figure 3 but do not strongly affect the adhesion properties.
This large span of the adhesion values k w adh at first sight does not seem to point towards universality. Most naturally occurring experimentally relevant surfaces probably lie somewhere in between these two extreme scenarios, so a comparatively narrow range around a quasi-universal adhesive contact angle is suggested by our results.
Table 2. So far, we have considered only symmetric scenarios where the interacting surfaces are identical in chemical surface structure and thus have the same contact angles. However, many real situations involve dissimilar surfaces, for example, weak protein—protein interactions, 80 nanoparticles interacting with cell membranes, 81 or membranes interacting with biominerals.
For soft surfaces with a low surface—surface HB capability of type IV, it was recently shown that the asymmetric scenario can be described by simple combination rules based on the sum of the contact angles. The situation of dissimilar surfaces leads to qualitatively similar behavior as the symmetric situation. Depending on the surface polarities, the interaction behavior can be cast into one of three regimes: cavitation, dry adhesion, or hydration repulsion.
The second term accounts for the surface—surface adhesion free energy in vacuum, now evaluated for the case of dissimilar surfaces. This term has to be determined independently via simulations for each pair of surfaces.
However, later on we will establish an approximate combination rule that allows for a simple estimate of this term. For similar surfaces, eq 15 simplifies to our previous result in eq 6. Note that the sum of the surface wetting coefficients, as in eq 15 , has previously been used to interpret experimental force measurements. For asymmetric combinations of surface polarities, we present the interaction diagram in Figure 8 a, which is similar to the interaction diagram for symmetric surfaces in Figure 4 b.
The almost vertical trend is due to the fact that the surface—surface interaction f vac adh is not influenced by the polarity of one surface if the other one is nonpolar. However, small deviations from a vertical line occur, probably resulting from weak hydration-induced rearrangements of the headgroups of the polar surface.
An insightful interaction diagram is obtained by plotting the individual wetting coefficients or the contact angles of the surfaces on separate axes, as shown in Figure 8 b,c for surface types IV and V. The three interaction regimes are indicated by the same shaded colors as in Figure 8 a.
In the corner where both surfaces are polar, we find hydration repulsion, whereas in the opposite corner where both surfaces are nonpolar, we find cavitation-induced attraction.
In between these limiting regimes, there is an intermediate regime of dry adhesion. These three regimes extend into the mixed corners, where one surface is polar and the other one nonpolar. In other words, we find hydration repulsion for every nonpolar surface if the other surface is polar enough, and conversely, we find cavitation-induced attraction for a rather polar surface if the other surface is hydrophobic enough. We will now present simple scaling expressions for the transitions among the hydration repulsion, the dry adhesion, and the cavitation-induced attraction regimes that are shown in Figure 8 b,c.
The cavitation transition given by eqs 16 and 17 , shown by straight red lines in Figure 8 b,c, is universal and for given contact angles independent of all other surface properties. Adjacent to the cavitation regime, the blue-shaded areas correspond to the dry adhesion regime. The adhesion transitions in Figure 8 c can be empirically approximated as 18 This result was recently demonstrated for type IV surfaces, 66 but as seen in Figure 8 c, it works as well for type V.
In the next section, we derive the adhesion law in eq 18 for surface interaction by using perturbative combination rules. An interesting and in practice very important question is whether it is possible to infer the interactions between dissimilar surfaces, knowing the interactions of the respective symmetric cases.
Using perturbation analysis, we show that this is indeed possible within good accuracy. The vacuum adhesion energy, f vac adh , on the other hand, cannot be easily generalized to asymmetric surfaces.
To good approximation, we can assume the LJ contribution to be independent of surface polarity. Minor deviations can occur because the dipoles will in general affect the adhesive close-contact distance D adh , which in turn influences the surface—surface LJ interaction. A similar combination rule was established earlier on the basis of experimental data. The agreement is very good, especially for surface type IV.
We conclude that the combination rule in eq 20 is an accurate approximation of the polar interaction between asymmetric surfaces. We now return to the reasoning behind the approximate adhesion law given by eq As we already noted, it is only approximate and depends on the exact functional behavior of f vac adh as a function of k w1 and k w2. As should have become clear from the derivation, which involves a number of simplifications, the dry adhesion law in eq 18 is an approximation and becomes accurate for nearly symmetric scenarios where both contact angles are quite similar.
On the other hand, for considerably asymmetric scenarios, where one surface is very polar and the other one is completely nonpolar, minor deviations from the simple linear relationship given by eq 18 are in fact observed Figure 8 c. So far, we have considered only laterally extended surfaces and have disregarded finite-size or edge effects. In reality, edge effects play an important role for small-enough interacting surfaces, for example, for small colloidal particles.
However, the atmospheric pressure and the water—vapor interface that forms at the lateral edges of the finite surfaces oppose cavitation. As a result, cavitation appears only below a critical surface separation D c. We now estimate finite-size effects on the cavitation transition, as was done previously for the symmetric case. For simplicity, we assume a square shape of the two opposing surfaces such that the total length of the circumference is 4 L Figure 10 a.
The last term in eq 26 represents the work against the external pressure due to removing the water from the region between the surfaces. This curvature can be neglected when considering the water—vapor surface contribution for small surface separations in the nanometer range. Figure 10 b shows the critical surface cavitation separation D c , based on eq 27 , as a function of the lateral size L for three different contact angle combinations.
Another important aspect that arises for smaller surface areas is that the relative fluctuations in the number of water molecules between surfaces become large. Because cavitation is hindered by significant free energy barriers, 15, 16, 34, 35, 83 fluctuations play a crucial role in barrier crossing events.
A detailed analysis suggests that hydration fluctuations indeed become significant for surface sizes below several tens of nanometers. Until now, we have considered flat surfaces with only one chemical type of headgroup. However, biological as well as technologically relevant surfaces are typically characterized by heterogeneous compositions of different headgroup types.
A prototypical example are surfaces with a mixture of polar OH and nonpolar CH 3 headgroups. Heterogeneous surfaces with arbitrary distributions of polar and nonpolar headgroups are beyond the scope of this work. The wetting behavior of water between two plates with heterogeneous headgroup distributions has been thoroughly analyzed in earlier studies. In one extreme case, the polar and nonpolar groups on the surfaces are completely randomly distributed down to the molecular scale Figure 11 a.
In the other limiting scenario, the polar and nonpolar groups are locally segregated and form mesoscale patches on the surfaces Figure 11 b.
In this case, we assume that edge effects of the patches contribute negligibly to the total interaction and therefore add up to the free energy contributions stemming from the overlapping patches.
If we neglect correlations between interacting surface patches, then the free energy in the close-contact state follows as 28 Here, f 11 adh , f 01 adh , and f 00 adh correspond to the adhesion free energies of the polar—polar, polar—nonpolar, and nonpolar—nonpolar surfaces, respectively.
The prefactors denote the fractions of the corresponding overlapping pairs. The above analysis is suitable for quenched distributions, that is, distributions of headgroups that do not laterally reorganize with time. This approximation is valid for covalentely grafted surface molecules.
The scenario more relevant for self-assembled surfaces, such as lipid membranes, is the annealed scenario, where the surface molecules can diffuse in lateral directions and reorganize themselves in order to minimize the free energy. Water-mediated interactions are ubiquitous in biology and technological processes. However, important lessons about the interaction mechanisms can be learned from studies with simplified models of interacting surfaces. In recent years, atomistic computer simulations that account for the chemical potential of water and atomistic surface details have made substantial progress in the description of interfacial forces across aqueous layers.
On the basis of free energy considerations, we have identified three interaction regimes: hydration repulsion for very polar surfaces, dry adhesion for intermediate polarities, and cavitation-induced long-range attraction for low surface polarities. The transitions among these regimes can be universally expressed in terms of the affinities of the involved surfaces for water binding as well as their mutual binding strength. These two affinities tend to be correlated because they typically have similar dependences on surface parameters such as the dipolar strength of functional surface groups.
The transitions among the three interaction regimes are to good approximation related to the sum of the two surface contact angles. Such surfaces would bind to each other very tightly in a dry-adhesion complex, despite their pronounced hydrophilicity.
One major open question in the field of hydration interactions is how surface charges and ions influence the adhesion properties. The adsorption of ions to various interfaces, including the water—vapor interface, depends on the ion hydration properties. Supporting Information. Author Information. The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Google Scholar There is no corresponding record for this reference. Specific interaction between Lex and Lex determinants. A possible basis for cell recognition in preimplantation embryos and in embryonal carcinoma cells J. Lau, Peter C. American Society for Microbiology. Bacterial biofilms are responsible for the majority of all microbial infections and have profound impact on industrial and geochem. While many studies documented phenotypic differentiation and gene regulation of biofilms, the importance of their structural and mech.
Here, the authors investigate how changes in lipopolysaccharide LPS core capping in Pseudomonas aeruginosa affect biofilm structure through modification of adhesive, cohesive, and viscoelastic properties at an early stage of biofilm development. Microbead force spectroscopy and at. Specifically, truncation of core oligosaccharides enhanced both adhesive and cohesive forces by up to fold, whereas changes in instantaneous elasticity were correlated with the presence of O antigen.
Using confocal laser scanning microscopy to quantify biofilm structural changes with respect to differences in LPS core capping, we obsd. In conclusion, this report demonstrated for the first time that changes in LPS expression resulted in quantifiable cellular mech. Thus, the interplay between architectural and functional properties may be an important contributor to bacterial community survival. The role of inert surface chemistry in marine biofouling prevention Phys. Structure and Dynamics of Membranes: I.
Generic and Specific Interactions ; Elsevier , American Association for the Advancement of Science. Differential cell adhesion and cortex tension are thought to drive cell sorting by controlling cell-cell contact formation. Here, we show that cell adhesion and cortex tension have different mech.
Cortex tension controls cell-cell contact expansion by modulating interfacial tension at the contact. By contrast, adhesion has little direct function in contact expansion, but instead is needed to mech. The coupling function of adhesion is mediated by E-cadherin and limited by the mech. Thus, cell adhesion provides the mech. Lubrication by charged polymers Nature , , — DOI: Nature Publishing Group. Long-ranged forces between surfaces in a liq.
In particular, neutral polymer brushes' may lead to a massive redn. Here we show that brushes of charged polymers polyelectrolytes attached to surfaces rubbing across an aq.
Effective friction coeffs. We attribute this to the exceptional resistance to mutual interpenetration displayed by the compressed, counterion-swollen brushes, together with the fluidity of the hydration layers surrounding the charged, rubbing polymer segments. Our findings may have implications for biolubrication effects, which are important in the design of lubricated surfaces in artificial implants, and in understanding frictional processes in biol.
Annual Reviews Inc. A review. Self-cleaning surfaces have drawn a lot of interest for both fundamental research and practical applications. This review focuses on the recent progress in mechanism, prepn. To date, self-cleaning has been demonstrated by the following four conceptual approaches: a TiO2-based superhydrophilic self-cleaning, b lotus effect self-cleaning superhydrophobicity with a small sliding angle , c gecko setae-inspired self-cleaning, and d underwater organisms-inspired antifouling self-cleaning.
Although a no. Through evolution, nature, which has long been a source of inspiration for scientists and engineers, has arrived at what is optimal. We hope this review will stimulate interdisciplinary collaboration among material science, chem. Intermolecular and Surface Forces ; Academic : London , Direct measurements of the force between hydrophobic surfaces in water Adv.
Colloid Interface Sci. Elsevier Science B. A review with refs. Direct measurements of the force between hydrophobic surfaces across aq. The results are presented according to the method of prepn. No single model appears to fit all published results, and an attempt is made to classify the measured interactions in three different categories. The large variation of the measured interaction, often within each class, depending on the type of hydrophobic surface is emphasized. I Stable hydrophobic surfaces show only a comparatively short-range interaction, although little quant.
II Many results showing very long-range attractive forces are most likely due to the presence of sub-microscopic bubbles on the hydrophobic surfaces. Such an interaction is typically measured between silica surfaces made hydrophobic by silylation.
Between self-assembled thiol layers on gold surfaces very short-range attractive forces are possibly due to the presence or nucleation of bubbles. The reason for the apparent stability of these bubbles is not clear and warrants further study. This special glass has been engineered and coated with a nano-sized, thin-film.
Instead of allowing water to form into water droplets that bead up and roll off of the glass, this cool nanotechnology helps tiny water molecules to glide over the surface in a sheet, washing dirt or other debris away. For an example of a hydrophobic substance, look no further than HZO technology. Our thin-film nano-coating encourages water and other liquids to bead up and roll off whatever it is applied to, be it cell phone, tablet, or tiny circuit board.
Which coating is better?
0コメント