Abstract
It has proven to be a challenging task to quantitatively resolve the interfacial profile at diffuse interfaces, such as, the adsorption profile near a bulk binary liquid mixture critical point. In this contribution we examine the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of experimental techniques for studying adsorption, including neutron reflectometry, X-ray reflectometry and ellipsometry. Short length scale interfacial features are best resolved using neutron/X-ray reflectometry, whereas, large length scale interfacial features are best resolved using ellipsometry, or in special circumstances, neutron reflectometry. The use of multiple techniques severely limits the shape of the adsorption profile that can describe all experimental data sets. Complex interfaces possessing surface features on many different length scales are therefore best studied using a combination of neutron/X-ray reflectometry and ellipsometry.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
J.H. Carpenter, B.M. Law, D.S.P. Smith, Phys. Rev. E 59, 5655 (1999)
J. Jestin, L.-T. Lee, M. Privat, G. Zalczer, Eur. Phys. J. B 24, 541 (2001)
J. Bowers, A. Zarbakhsh, H.K. Christenson, I.A. McLure, J.R.P. Webster, R. Steitz, Phys. Rev. E 72, 041606 (2005)
M.E. Fisher, P.-G. de Gennes, C. R. Seances Acad. Sci. Ser. B 287, 207 (1978)
J.-H.J. Cho, B.M. Law, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 146101 (2002); Phys. Rev. E 67, 31605 (2003)
J.-H.J. Cho, B.M. Law, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2070 (2001); Phys. Rev. E 65, 011601 (2001)
M. Born, E. Wolf, Principles of optics, 6th edn. (Pergamon, Oxford, 1980), p. 51
H.W. Diehl, M. Smock, Phys. Rev. B 47, 5841 (1993); 48, 6470(E) (1993)
A.J. Liu, M.E. Fisher, Phys. Rev. A 40, 7202 (1989)
J.H. Carpenter, J.-H.J. Cho, B.M. Law, Phys. Rev. E 61, 532 (2000)
\(c_{+}=0.788_{-0.015}^{+0.009},~c_{-}=1.117_{-0.021}^{+0.013},~c_{1+}=-0.245,~c_{1-}=0.169,~P_{\infty+}=0.963_{-0.201}^{+0.117},~P_{\infty -}=0.572_{-0.152}^{+0.357},~P_{1+}=1.437,~P_{1-}=0.533,\) and xo=1.15 from Carpenter00 where the errors represent the 95% confidence limits
M. Smock, H.W. Diehl, D.P. Landau, Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. 98, 486 (1994)
G. Floeter, S. Dietrich, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 97, 213 (1995)
Z. Borjan, P.J. Upton, Phys. Rev. E 63, 065102(R) (2001)
M.D. Brown, B.M. Law, S. Satija, W.A. Hamilton, E. Watkins, J.-H.J. Cho, J. Majewski, J. Chem. Phys. 126, 204704 (2007)
M. Brown, S. Uran, B. Law, L. Marschand, L. Lurio, I. Kumenko, T. Gog, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 75, 2536 (2004)
M.K. Sanyal, S. Hazra, J.K. Basu, A. Datta, Phys. Rev. B 58, R4258 (1998)
L.G. Parratt, Phys. Rev. 95, 359 (1954)
L.W. Marschand, M. Brown, L.B. Lurio, B.M. Law, S. Uran, I. Kuzmenko, T. Gog, Phys. Rev. E 72, 011509 (2005)
M.D. Brown, B.M. Law, L. Marschand, L.B. Lurio, I. Kuzmenko, T. Gog, W.A. Hamilton, Phys. Rev. E 75, 061606 (2007)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Law, B., Brown, M., Marchand, L. et al. Adsorption at liquid interfaces: A comparison of multiple experimental techniques. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 167, 127–132 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2009-00947-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2009-00947-2