Table 1 Performance comparison of state-of-the-art hydrophobic coatings from literature

From: Ultra-resilient multi-layer fluorinated diamond like carbon hydrophobic surfaces

Coating

\({{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}}_{{{\rm{a}}}}\)

t [µm]

G [J/m2]

E [GPa]

Abrasion resistance [# cycles]

Heat transfer coefficient [kW/m2K]

Thermal stability [°C]

Condensation durability [h]

Refs.

Vitrimer

93 ± 3°

~0.01

1

0.1

1

N/A

<200

408

48

Armor-polymer

>170°

>10

N/A

N/A

1000

N/A

<200

N/A

11

PKFE composite

~160°

>50

N/A

N/A

100

N/A

N/A

N/A

10

Candle soot

>160°

>30

N/A

N/A

1

N/A

<400

N/A

12,49

Polymer infused porous surfaces

~105°

~20

N/A

N/A

N/A

~ 130

<250

4800

50

Lipid-double layer

163° ± 2°

~0.1

0.8

4

1

N/A

<200

8760

51

Cu with SAM

~110°

<0.002

N/A

N/A

1

~15

<200

6480

52

SLIPS

~120 ± 3°

~2

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

<150

1080

53

F-DLC

~97 ± 1°

~1.65

100

~80

>5000

~45

>300

26,280

This work

  1. Detailed comparison of properties from major published works are included in Supplementary Table 7. Cells labeled with N/A indicate that data were not measured. Symbols \({\theta }_{{{{{{\rm{a}}}}}}}\), t, G, E, refer to apparent advancing deionized water droplet contact angle, coating thickness, coating-substrate adhesion, and Young’s modulus, respectively. Coatings lifespan studies conducted during condensation in the presence of NCGs are not included in the table (see Supplementary Table 7).
  2. Bold font is used to highlight the current work.
Back to article page