Skip to main content
PNAS Nexus logoLink to PNAS Nexus
. 2024 Feb 8;3(2):pgae059. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae059

Marangoni spreading on liquid substrates in new media art

San To Chan 1,b,, Eliot Fried 2
Editor: Gary Grest
PMCID: PMC11079615  PMID: 38725527

Abstract

With the advent of new media art, artists have harnessed fluid dynamics to create captivating visual narratives. A striking technique known as dendritic painting employs mixtures of ink and isopropanol atop paint, yielding intricate tree-like patterns. To unravel the intricacies of that technique, we examine the spread of ink/alcohol droplets over liquid substrates with diverse rheological properties. On Newtonian substrates, the droplet size evolution exhibits two power laws, suggesting an underlying interplay between viscous and Marangoni forces. The leading edge of the droplet spreads as a precursor film with an exponent of 3/8, while its main body spreads with an exponent of 1/4. For a weakly shear-thinning acrylic resin substrate, the same power laws persist, but dendritic structures emerge, and the texture of the precursor film roughens. The observed roughness and growth exponents (3/4 and 3/5) suggest a connection to the quenched Kardar–Parisi–Zhang universality class, hinting at the existence of quenched disorder in the liquid substrate. Mixing the resin with acrylic paint renders it more viscous and shear-thinning, refining the dendrite edges and further roughening the precursor film. At larger paint concentrations, the substrate becomes a power-law fluid. The roughness and growth exponents then approach 1/2 and 3/4, respectively, deviating from known universality classes. The ensuing structures have a fractal dimension of 1.68, characteristic of diffusion-limited aggregation. These findings underscore how the nonlinear rheological properties of the liquid substrate, coupled with the Laplacian nature of Marangoni spreading, can overshadow the local kinetic roughening of the droplet interface.

Keywords: media art, rheology, kinetic roughening, Marangoni effect


Significance Statement.

Artists have long employed fluid mechanics to create mesmerizing patterns: dendritic painting, a fascinating technique in contemporary art, merges fluid dynamics and artistic creativity. The physics underlying this technique poses a nontrivial, interdisciplinary problem touching on art, soft matter science, and statistical physics. Our findings expose the role of fluid–fluid interactions and rheological complexity in dendritic painting. By examining the spread of ink/alcohol droplets on diverse liquid substrates, we reveal key scaling laws that govern dendrite formation. Furthermore, we connect them to recognized principles in statistical mechanics. Our findings bridge the realms of art and science, revealing the physical underpinnings of a captivating art form for fluid-based creative endeavors for industrial applications involving liquid spreading and coating.

Introduction

Art and science, often viewed as disjoint fields, have historically been intertwined in remarkable ways. Leonardo da Vinci, with his intricate sketches of turbulent water flows (1), stands as an early testament to the connection between artistic expression and fluid dynamics. Jackson Pollock, the pioneer of abstract expressionism, saw the rather chaotic nature of fluid flows as a way to break away from traditional painting methods. His famous action painting technique allowed him to create highly dynamic textures by dripping and throwing paints onto the canvas (2–5). More recently, media artist Naoko Tosa used a high-speed camera to capture the movement of acoustically excited paint. This approach resulted in a series of videos under the name of “Sound of Ikebana.” In essence, this œuvre is akin to kado¯, the Japanese art of flower arrangement, but with the working media being liquids (6). From the examples above, it is clear that artists have a deep, intuitive grasp of how various flow phenomena can be harnessed to create visually appealing shapes and textures. Hidden in many art techniques is an endeavor of fluid dynamics, rheology, and interfacial science to be explored.

In this work, we draw inspiration from the artworks by Akiko Nakayama, a fine artist known for her live painting style, who manipulates multihued liquids in real time (Fig. 1A), fully embracing the dynamic nature of fluid motions to bring shapes and textures to life. Figure 1B and C showcases two artworks in which she leveraged the dendritic painting technique (7), where binary mixtures of ink and rubbing alcohol (isopropanol, IPA) are applied over a paint layer, yielding intricate tree-like dendritic patterns. Those patterns exhibit several textural characteristics. The dendrites are of diverse sizes and predominantly exhibit self-avoiding tendencies without intersecting. While some of their edges are blurred, others are more clearly defined.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Examples of dendritic painting. A) A photograph showing fine artist Akiko Nakayama manipulating alcohol and paints to create tree-like dendritic patterns during a live painting session. B and C) Artworks created by Nakayama utilizing the dendritic painting technique. Images courtesy of Alive Painting, Akiko Nakayama. Used with permission.

Dendritic painting poses an interesting yet nontrivial problem involving the evaporation, propagation, and pattern formation of thin liquid films atop rheologically complex media. To simplify this seemingly complicated problem, we consider in this work the spread of acrylic carbon black ink/IPA droplets of various IPA concentrations cIPA (in vol%) on liquid substrates of thickness H, which have varying levels of rheological complexity (Fig. 2A). The substrate fluids include a sugar syrup, an acrylic resin, and several samples of acrylic titanium white paint of concentration cP (in wt%), diluted by the resin. Figure 2B and C shows droplet properties, namely surface tension σd, shear viscosity ηd, and mass density ρd, as functions of cIPA. Figure 2D shows the shear viscosity ηs of the substrate liquid as a function of applied shear rate γ˙. The flow curves are well described by the three-parameter Cross model ηs(γ˙)=ηs0/(1+(kγ˙)n), where ηs0 is the constant zero-shear viscosity, k is a constant with the dimension of time, and the dimensionless constant n is the power-law index (8, 9). For n=0, the Cross model reduces to the classical Newtonian model with a constant viscosity ηs(γ˙)=ηs0. For kγ˙1, the power-law fluid model ηs(γ˙)=Kγ˙n, with K=ηs0kn, is recovered. The model fitting parameters used are summarized in Table 1. While the sugar syrup is Newtonian, the acrylic resin and paints are shear-thinning. Since acrylic resin and paints contain microscopic structures (emulsion droplets and pigments) that can align with the flow direction and thereby facilitate shearing, their viscosity decreases with an increasing shear rate (10). For cP=33.3 wt%, the paint exhibits the rheological properties of a power-law fluid.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Experimental setup and physical properties of the liquids used in this work. A) The experiment consists of a carbon black ink/IPA droplet of volume V and IPA concentration cIPA spreading on a liquid substrate of thickness H. B) Surface tension σd and shear viscosity ηd and C) mass density ρd of the ink/IPA droplet as functions of cIPA. D) Flow curves illustrating the shear viscosity ηs vs. the shear rate γ˙ for various liquid substrates, including a sugar syrup, an acrylic resin, and three titanium white paint samples of paint concentration cP diluted by the resin. Symbols are experimental data. Lines are fits to the Cross model ηs(γ˙)=ηs0/[1+(kγ˙)n], where ηs0 is the zero-shear viscosity, k is a characteristic time, and n is the power-law index. For the parameter values, see Table 1.

Table 1.

Cross model parameters for substrate liquids.

Substrate liquid ηs0 (Pa s) k (s) n
Sugar syrup 1.0 N/A 0
Acrylic resin 0.5 0.0013 0.5
11.1 wt% acrylic paint 2.7 0.1 0.5
20.0 wt% acrylic paint 18.0 1.5 0.6
33.3 wt% acrylic paint 368,401 830,952 0.7

Preliminaries

Physical phenomena often manifest consistent patterns or dynamics irrespective of the time and length scales at which they are observed. Perhaps the most striking example of this phenomenon is provided by fractals, which appear self-similar at various levels of magnification (11, 12). Such scale-invariant behaviors can be encapsulated by scaling laws, which delineate how certain properties of a given system of interest change in relation to time, size, or other parameters (13). In this section, we briefly introduce several scaling laws that are relevant to dendritic painting.

Scaling in Marangoni spreading

Marangoni spreading refers to the fluid motion driven by differences in surface tension on the free surface of a liquid (14, 15). A classic example is the “tears of wine” phenomenon. When alcohol, possessing a lower surface tension than water, evaporates from wine in a glass, a local imbalance in alcohol concentration arises. In turn, this leads to an imbalance in surface tension, inducing a force that causes a thin liquid film along the surface of the glass. Accumulation of the liquid then results in the formation of tear-like motifs (16, 17).

Two power laws that underpin Marangoni spreading can be derived from simple scaling arguments (18–20). Consider an insoluble surface-active agent (surfactant) monolayer of radius R and mass M, which is spreading on a liquid of mass density ρ and viscosity η on a flat solid substrate at time t. Granted that the concentration Γ of the surfactant on the liquid layer scales as ΓM/R2, upon balancing the viscous stress τvηR/tδc and the Marangoni stress τMAΓ/R, it follows that R(AMδct/η)1/4. Here, A=dσ/dΓ is the surface activity, with σ being the surface tension, and δc is the characteristic vertical length scale of the spreading process. If Γ is sufficiently large, the activity of the surfactant saturates, rendering A a constant. If the thickness H of the liquid layer is much larger than the penetration depth ηt/ρ of the spreading flow in the liquid bulk, the solid boundary effect can be neglected. In such a case, δc=ηt/ρ, and

R(A2M2ρη)1/8t3/8. (1)

Alternatively, if effects due to the solid boundary dominate, δc=H, whereby

R(AMHη)1/4t1/4. (2)

The 1/4 exponent of Marangoni spreading has been experimentally observed on several occasions for long-chain alcohols and detergents (20–25). To our knowledge, however, there has only been one set of measurements (23) demonstrating the 3/8 exponent. The difficulty of testing the 3/8-law might stem from the relatively large compliance of sufficiently thick liquid layers; long-chain surfactants, heavier than the liquid phase, could introduce gravitational effects into the problem. Perhaps for the same reason, there is as yet no evidence supporting the scaling relations of the prefactors in scaling relations [1] and [2].

Scaling in kinetic roughening

Kinetic roughening refers to the roughening of evolving interfaces (26). An example can be found in the wetting of porous media like paper, where the imbibition front becomes increasingly irregular as the liquid infiltrates the medium (27–29). In two dimensions, with h(θ,t) being the radial distance of the interface from its geometric center at azimuth θ and time t, the roughness of the interface can be measured as

w=[h(θ,t)hl]2l, (3)

where l is the length scale at which the interface is observed. The bracket l indicates averaging over a segment of length l, and indicates averaging over all segments for all tested samples. Regarding the scaling of w, Vicsek and Family (30) proposed the following ansatz:

wtβF(ltβ/α). (4)

For ll*, wlα; for ll*, wtβ. Here, l* is a crossover length scale to be determined empirically, α is the roughness exponent, and β is the growth exponent. If plotting wtβ vs. ltβ/α leads to the collapse of w obtained at different t onto a master curve, then a phenomenon is said to exhibit dynamic scaling behavior.

A large variety of interface growth phenomena in nature obey the Family–Vicsek dynamic scaling hypothesis [4]. Examples include the relaxation of quantum Bose gases (31, 32), the phase transitions exhibited in turbulent liquid crystals (33–35), the displacement of viscous liquids in porous media (27–29), electrochemical deposition of metals (36–39), the growth of bacterial colonies (40–45), and the geomorphological evolution of mountains (46, 47). Dynamic scaling has also been computationally observed through various discrete stochastic growth algorithms (48–51), as well as the Kardar–Parisi–Zhang (KPZ) model (52), which yields an evolution equation for h of an interface of the form

ht=νΔh+λ2|h|2+ζ, (5)

where ν and λ are constant phenomenological parameters and ζ is a noise term. The term involving Δh penalizes roughness. The term involving |h| governs the propagation of the interface normal to itself.

If ζ is a spatially and temporally uncorrelated Gaussian white noise, the KPZ model predicts a roughness exponent of αKPZ=1/2 characteristic of random walks (53, 54), and a growth exponent of βKPZ=1/3. If ζ is time-independent, or temporally “quenched,” the quenched KPZ (qKPZ) model predicts that αqKPZ=3/4 and βqKPZ=3/5 (55, 56).

The various exponents arising from the KPZ model play crucial roles in classifying kinetic roughening phenomena. For instance, systems exhibiting KPZ exponents αKPZ and βKPZ belong to the KPZ universality class (57), reflecting shared macroscopic behaviors regardless of the microscopic details.

Results and discussion

Newtonian substrate

Before delving into dendritic painting, exemplified in the present work through the spreading of ink/IPA droplets on rheologically complex substrates, we first consider the relatively simple situation in which the substrate is a Newtonian fluid. We use sugar syrup as a representative liquid. Being a molecular glass former (58), this liquid lacks microstructure that could influence droplet spreading. Although its viscosity is similar to that of the acrylic resin used in our other experiments, its surface tension (76.9 mN m−1) is much larger than those of the resin (37.9 mN m−1) and the ink/IPA mixture (cf. Fig. 2B, circular symbols). This affords a reference for droplets spreading on a relatively large surface tension substrate.

Figure 3 contains images showing the spread of a cIPA=50 vol% ink droplet of volume V=7.5  μL on sugar syrup substrate of thickness H=400  μm. The droplet can be divided into two parts: an outer fringe of radius Rout and an inner, main body, of radius Rin. Based on the variation in color intensity, it is evident that the outer fringe is thinner than the main body, which is of thickness h=V/πRin2100  μm. Being visible to the naked eye, it is plausible that the fringe contains optical inhomogeneities with linear dimension on the order of, or exceeding, the visible wavelength 1  μm (59). This suggests a fringe thickness bounded in the range 1–100 μm. Such length scales, as well as the appearance of the fringe, are characteristic of the thin liquid film (precursor film) typically observed when a droplet wets a substrate (60), formed via an evaporation–condensation mechanism or diffusion of molecules from the edge of the droplet (61–63). Notably, no dendritic structures, like those in Fig. 1, are observed. This suggests that even though a large surface tension difference between the droplet and substrate could induce a larger Marangoni stress, it might also suppress dendrite formation.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Radius time evolution of a V=7.5  μL ink droplet of rubbing alcohol (isopropanol, IPA) concentration cIPA=50 vol% spreading on a sugar syrup substrate of thickness H=400  μm. While the closed symbols represent the outer radius Rout of the droplet, the open symbols represent the inner radius Rin. Each point represents the ensemble average of radius values sampled at 12 (roughly) equally spaced azimuthal positions for 3 experimental realizations. The shaded areas represent a range of 2 SDs centered around the mean values. The embedded images show the ink droplet at representative stages of spreading, highlighting the appearance of an outer fringe without dendritic structures.

Plotted in the same Fig. 3, the outer and inner radii Rout and Rin as functions of time t demonstrate the characteristic 3/8 and 1/4 scalings characteristic of Marangoni spreading. These findings point to the significant roles of the viscous and Marangoni stresses in governing how the precursor film and main body spread. At first glance, the observation of the 3/8-spreading mode is rather surprising, given the significantly larger characteristic length scale δc=ηt/ρ10 mm for t0.1 s compared to the substrate thickness H=400  μm. It turns out that this discrepancy is contingent on assuming that the viscosity and mass density of the substrate serve as the characteristic viscosity and density. Indeed, when the viscosity ηd and mass density ρd of the droplet are used instead, we find that δc1 mm, which is comparable to H. Consequently, this leads us to conjecture that the 3/8-spreading mode is predominantly influenced by the inherent properties of the droplet rather than by those of the liquid substrate.

It is also possible to estimate the relative importance of the gravitational and Marangoni effects during the droplet spreading process by calculating the Bond number Bo=ρgH2/Δσ (20). If the gravitational acceleration is taken to be g=10 ms−2, then, for a typical mass density ρ1,000 kg m−3 and a difference in surface tension Δσ10 mN m−1 between the droplet and the substrate, Bo is on the order of 0.1. We therefore infer that gravitational effects can be neglected as long as the substrate thickness H is sufficiently small.

Weakly shear-thinning substrate

Figure 4 contains snapshots of multiple droplets, each of volume V=7.5  μL with varying cIPA, spreading on a weakly shear-thinning acrylic resin substrate of thickness H=400  μm. During the early stages of spreading (t6.3 s), air bubbles occasionally form, clustering around the center of the droplet. However, as experimental results remain reproducible regardless of the number and longevity of any air bubbles that are present, their influence on the spreading process is deemed negligible.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.

Snapshots of the ink/IPA droplets of various IPA concentrations cIPA, spreading on an acrylic resin substrate of thickness H=400  μm, captured at various instances. For the 16.7 and 50 vol% cases, dendritic structures similar to those shown in Fig. 1 are evident.

For cIPA=0 vol%, akin to the Newtonian case (cf. Fig. 3), a fringe-like precursor film bordering the main body becomes visible as the droplet wets the substrate. In contrast to the Newtonian case, however, the droplet spreads much more slowly. This behavior aligns with our conjecture that droplet spreading is driven by Marangoni stress. Without IPA to create a surface tension gradient on the droplet–air interface, the droplet is essentially entrapped by the viscous resistance due to interactions, at its base, with the substrate.

For the droplet with cIPA=16.7 vol%, at t=1 s, its radius is notably larger than that with cIPA=0 vol% case, indicating enhanced substrate wetting. By t=2.5 s, distinct spiky patterns form at the edge of the droplet, patterns which later evolve into dendritic structures reminiscent of Fig. 1. The surrounding precursor film is roughened. Notably, our findings align with a prior computer graphics-based study on dendritic painting (7). That study relied on a phenomenological reaction–diffusion model that postulated a “solvent layer” beneath the dendrites, facilitating their growth; this agrees with prior experimental and theoretical investigations focused on the dendritic growth (or fingering) instability of surfactant spreading on thin aqueous films (64–68). The model also revealed the possibility of a reciprocal interaction between the dendrites and the solvent layer.

For cIPA=50 vol%, wetting is more prominent at t=1 s, with the precursor film morphing from fringe-like to a thin liquid sheet with small finger-like protrusions. Similar patterns were reported in previous studies of Marangoni spreading on liquid films (20, 21, 68) and solid substrates (17, 69). The fingers then grow into dendrites similar to those observed for the droplet with 16.7 vol% case but which appear fuzzier, possibly due to diffusion of the color pigments. The expanse of the droplet also broadens, spanning a larger area on the substrate, signifying that an amplified Marangoni stress is in play.

Figure 5 shows how the outer and inner radii, Rout and Rin, of the droplet evolve with t. Unlike the sugar syrup case, where Rout is defined as the radius of the precursor film (see Fig. 3, inset image), here it is measured as the average distance from the center of the droplet to the tips of the dendrites. This approach reduces reliance on the specific method of image binarization employed. For the droplet with cIPA=0 vol%, Rout and Rin overlap since no dendrites form. Also, due to the absence of the Marangoni driving force, their values do not comply with the 3/8 or 1/4 scaling laws of Marangoni spreading. For cIPA=16.7 vol%, the radii overlap for a duration of 1 s, during which the spreading roughly follows the 1/4–law, signaling the finite thickness effect of the underlying liquid substrate. For t>1 s, as dendrites grow, Rout is seen to follow the 3/8-law, similar to the spreading of the precursor film observed for sugar syrup (cf. Fig. 3). However, Rin is seen to reach a plateau, presumably due to a depleted supply of IPA in the main body. Finally, for cIPA=33.3, 50, and 66.7 vol%, spontaneous dendrite formation is observed. For t<10 s, the plots of the radius for the three cases closely align, with Rout following the 3/8-law and Rin the 1/4-law. This suggests that the speed at which dendrites form is insensitive to cIPA if the value of cIPA is sufficiently large, in accordance with the observation that the droplet surface tension σd (hence, the Marangoni stress) saturates for cIPA33.3 vol% (cf. Fig. 2).

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5.

Radius vs. time of V=7.5  μL ink/IPA droplets with varying IPA concentrations cIPA spreading on a acrylic resin substrate of thickness H=400  μm. While the closed symbols represent the mean outer radius Rout of the droplet, the open symbols represent the mean inner radius Rin. The shaded areas represent a range of 2 SDs centered around the mean values.

We next consider the force balance across the droplet/substrate interface. Let Ud and Us denote the characteristic radial velocities of the droplet and the substrate, respectively. The miscibility of the droplet and substrate allows us to disregard surface tension effects, in which case the interfacial force balance simplifies to ηdγ˙d=ηs0γ˙s. For sufficiently thin films, the characteristic shear rates can be approximated as γ˙dUd/h and γ˙sUs/H. This results in the relation Us/Ud=(H/h)(ηd/ηs0). For ηs0ηd, UsUd, from which we infer that the liquid substrate might serve effectively as a rigid boundary. Our conjecture that the intrinsic properties of the droplet chiefly dictate the 3/8-spreading mode thus appears to be physically plausible.

Dynamic similarity of Marangoni spreading

Droplets that spread on the weakly shear-thinning acrylic resin differ significantly from those that spread on Newtonian sugar syrup. Remarkably, however, when the IPA concentration cIPA is sufficiently large, the radii Rout and Rin of these droplets consistently display the power-law exponents 3/8 and 1/4 indicative of Marangoni spreading. This observation hints at a potential universal trend in the spreading of ink/IPA droplets on nominally Newtonian substrates. Consequently, we proceed to validate the exact forms of the 3/8 and 1/4 scaling laws as depicted in Eqs. [1] and [2].

Figures 6A and B show the evolution of Rout and Rin over time t for sugar syrup and acrylic resin substrates. The dataset encompasses an additional five cases, with cIPA=50 vol%, varying in droplet volume V and substrate thickness H. For H=2,000  μm, the inner and outer regions of the ink droplet become increasingly indistinguishable as time proceeds (see Fig. 6B, inset images). The data of Rin for t>4 s are consequently discarded. If the scaling laws of Marangoni spreading are valid, then plotting Rout against (A2M2t3/ρdηd)1/8, and Rin against (AMHt/ηs0)1/4, should lead to the collapse of data onto two universal master curves. The results, assuming a constant value of A=1 m2 s−2, are illustrated in Figs. 6C and D. While the collapse of Rout is subtle due to their initial proximity, the collapse of Rin is exceptionally good. Notably, even the outlying H=2,000  μm and sugar syrup cases tend to converge postscaling; the deviation of the H=2,000  μm case from the master curve is likely due to nonnegligible gravitational effects (70), as evidenced by the value Bo1 of the Bond number for this case. The clear collapse of data serves as a strong support for the Marangoni spreading scaling laws [1] and [2]. More importantly, it affirms our conjecture that power-law droplet spreading and dendritic growth are driven by the Marangoni effects.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6.

Experimental validation of the 3/8 and 1/4 scaling laws for Marangoni spreading. A and B) The outer and inner radii Rout and Rin of the ink/IPA droplets plotted as functions of time t for different IPA concentrations cIPA, droplet volumes V, substrate thicknesses H, and substrate liquid types. The top left and bottom right embedded images in B) show the ink droplet for the H=2,000  μm case at t=1 and 4 s, respectively, highlighting that the inner and outer regions of the droplet become increasingly blurred as time proceeds. Consequently, the data of Rin for t>4 s are discarded. C and D) Rout and Rin plotted as functions of (A2M2t3/ρdηd)1/8 and (AMHt/ηs0)1/4, respectively, showing the collapse of data points onto the universal master curves [1] and [2]. Fits are based on choosing a value of A=1 m2 s−2 for the surface activity.

Shear-thinning substrate

In view of the established dynamic similarity of Marangoni spreading on nominally Newtonian substrates, we next examine the underlying causes for the distinct morphologies observed between droplets spreading on Newtonian sugar syrup and weakly shear-thinning acrylic resin substrates. To this end, we consider the Marangoni spreading of ink/IPA droplets (cIPA=50 vol%) over diluted acrylic paint substrates of various paint concentrations cP. The results are depicted in Fig. 7. Overall, the spreading dynamics are similar to those shown in Fig. 4. However, as cP increases, the spreading slows, indicating the presence of enhanced viscous stress in opposition to the Marangoni stress. The dendrites shrink in width (see rightmost images in Fig. 7), from ∼1 mm for cIPA=11.1 wt% to ∼0.1 mm for cIPA=20 wt% and ∼0.01 mm for cIPA=33.3 wt%, indicating a suppression in lateral growth. Also, their edges become increasingly refined, and their appearance becomes increasingly fractal-like.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7.

Snapshots of the ink/IPA droplets with IPA concentration cIPA=50 vol%, spreading on diluted acrylic paint substrates of thickness H=400  μm and varying paint concentration cP, captured at various instances. The images on the rightmost column show the zoomed-in views of representative dendritic structures. For the cP=33.3 wt% case, the fractal dimension of the dendritic structure measured using the box-counting method (11) and averaged over 30 individual branches of the dendrites is Df=1.68±0.04.

Figure 8 shows the outer and inner radii Rout and Rin of the droplets as functions of time t for representative choices of cP. Data for the case of pure acrylic resin (cP=0 wt%) are included as a reference. Evidently, Rout and Rin still show the 3/8 and 1/4 power-law behaviors characteristic of Marangoni spreading. However, the magnitude of Rout is seen to decrease as cP increases, signifying that the dendritic growth process now depends on the properties of the liquid substrate. The magnitude of Rin is largely independent of cP, for cP>0 wt%. These observations deviate from our findings for the nominally Newtonian substrates (cf. Fig. 6). These findings show that whereas the 3/8-spreading mode is independent of the rheological properties of the substrate, the 1/4 mode is sensitive to those properties. In view of the pronounced morphological changes observed for the spreading droplets in Fig. 7, this deviation is unsurprising. This indicates that, in the present context, substrate-induced non-Newtonian effects outstrip Marangoni effects.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 8.

Radius vs. time of V=7.5  μL ink/IPA droplets with IPA concentration cIPA=50 vol% spreading on diluted acrylic paint substrates of various paint concentrations cP and thickness H=400  μm. While the closed symbols represent the mean outer radius Rout of the droplet, the open symbols represent the mean inner radius Rin. The shaded areas represent a range of 2 SDs centered around the mean values.

Marangoni spreading as Laplacian growth

Interfacial growth in a Laplacian field, or “Laplacian growth,” is observed in various scenarios, including crystal growth, electrodeposition, and the evolution of fluid–fluid interfaces. These interfaces transform under the influence of the Laplace equation, subject to specific boundary conditions (71, 72). In this section, we argue that Marangoni spreading is a type of Laplacian growth process.

For cP=33.3 wt%, the fractal dimension of the dendrites is measured to be Df=1.68±0.04. This value is characteristic of diffusion-limited aggregation (DLA), a process in which diffusing particles undergo random-walk motion and irreversibly stick together to form a fractal aggregate when encountering one another (73–75). The DLA process is diffusion-limited in the sense that as the particle concentration approaches zero, the cluster formation rate is governed primarily by the diffusion rate of each particle.

DLA-like fractal dimensions have also been observed for viscous fingering, a dendrite-forming flow instability that arises when a less viscous fluid displaces a more viscous one in a porous medium (76) or in a thin gap (77). If the interfacial tension approaches zero, and the viscosity difference between the liquids approaches infinity, the resultant instability can spawn fractal patterns reminiscent of DLA structures (78–81). Given the propensity of our liquid substrates to mix with the ink/IPA droplets and that their viscosities are substantially greater than those of the droplets, the dendritic structures we observed might stem from a mechanism akin to viscous fingering.

There indeed exist profound similarities between DLA, viscous fingering, and Marangoni spreading, all of which are related to the Laplace equation Δϕ=0, meaning that they are Laplacian growth processes. For DLA, ϕ represents the probability density, indicating the likelihood of locating a random-walking particle in proximity to an aggregation cluster. Particles have a higher probability of encountering the tip of a cluster rather than any region internal to the cluster, fostering the formation of dendrite-like structures and inhibiting the formation of compact structures. For viscous flow in a porous medium, the average velocity of the viscous liquid can be described by Darcy’s law u=(k/η)P, where k is the permeability of the medium and P is the pressure in the liquid (76). The incompressibility of the liquid leads to the condition ×uΔP=0, yielding a Laplace equation for P. As uP, any perturbations of the boundary of the liquid where the magnitude of u is maximized tend to grow more rapidly; in turn, this further amplifies the perturbation, causing the viscous fingers to become progressively more slender.

It turns out that the Marangoni-driven spreading of surfactants on a viscous liquid film can be described by an effective Darcy’s law, which reads u=(Ah/η)sΓ, where h is the film thickness and sΓ is the surface gradient of Γ on the liquid film (64–66, 82). The incompressibility condition then leads to ΔsΓ=0, where ΔsΓ is the surface Laplacian of Γ on the liquid film, once again resulting in a Laplace equation, albeit with ϕ=Γ. This mathematical similarity between viscous flow in porous media and Marangoni spreading reinforces our conjecture that the dendritic growth phenomenon depicted in Fig. 7 is mechanistically reminiscent of viscous fingering, meaning that it is a Laplacian growth process. This interpretation agrees with a recent study focusing on the Marangoni spreading-induced fingering instability of surfactant-laden droplets on Newtonian and viscoelastic liquid substrates (83).

Notwithstanding the similarity between viscous fingering and Marangoni-driven dendritic growth, it is crucial to recognize potential differences in their underlying mechanisms. Warner et al. (84, 85), Edmonstone et al. (86), and Craster and Matar (87) explored one such difference by constructing a set of evolution equations to model the dendritic growth instability associated with the spreading of a surfactant-laden droplet atop a thin liquid substrate having the same viscosity. Through linear stability analysis and direct numerical simulations of these equations, it was predicted that a thickened spreading front would form downstream of a thinned region surrounding the main droplet. The boundary between the main droplet and the thinned region is susceptible to spanwise perturbations. The growth of the perturbations leads to dendrite formation (cf. Fig. 4) if the liquid substrate and thinned region are both sufficiently thin; otherwise, dendrite formation is suppressed (cf. Fig. 6B, inset images). Thus, variations in the thickness of the spreading droplet and the liquid substrate alone can trigger dendritic growth, even if their viscosities are identical. This differs from what occurs during viscous fingering, in which the growth of perturbations is determined by the permeability of the porous medium and the viscosity difference between the fluids involved.

Marangoni spreading, being a Laplacian growth process, is sensitive to nonlocal effects due to boundary conditions. Such sensitivity explains two observations regarding dendritic painting, namely the propensity of droplets to maintain separation and the evident self-avoidance of dendritic patterns, as illustrated by the artworks in Fig. 1. These tendencies stem from the sensitivity of the droplets and dendrites to the surrounding concentration of IPA. It is important to clarify, however, that the nonlocal nature of Marangoni spreading does not imply that local effects are negligible. Particularly with non-Newtonian substrates, local interactions resulting from the nonlinear rheological properties of the substrate may potentially overshadow the nonlocal dynamics inherent to Laplacian growth.

Marangoni spreading and qKPZ universality

Having established how Marangoni spreading and its trait as a Laplacian growth process can lead to dendrite formation, we now turn our attention to the local effects due to the rheological properties of the liquid substrate. To this end, we inspect the morphology of the growing droplet/substrate interface through the lens of kinetic roughening. A critical assumption is that the interface can be represented by a function h of the azimuthal angle θ and time t. This assumption is justified based on past experimental and theoretical findings that Marangoni spreading interfaces are consistently surrounded by the precursor film, which roughens as dendritic growth occurs (64–68). Figure 9 shows the interface roughness w as given by [3] at different time instances t for ink/IPA droplets spreading on diluted paint substrates of varying paint concentrations cP. As expected, w magnifies with increasing t or cP, consistent with our earlier observation (cf. Fig. 7).

Fig. 9.

Fig. 9.

Evolution of the interface roughness w [3] at different instances of time t, for ink/IPA droplets of IPA concentration cIPA=50 vol% spreading on diluted acrylic paint substrates of different paint concentrations cP. A) cP=0 wt% (acrylic resin without paint added). B) cP=20 wt%. C) cP=33.3 wt%. Each line represents the ensemble average over at least six experimental realizations. Insets show the same data but with vertical and horizontal axes rescaled according to the Family–Vicsek dynamic scaling hypothesis [4]. The roughness and growth exponents, α and β, for the rescaling of A, B, and C are (3/4,3/5), (3/4,3/5), and (1/2,3/4), respectively.

For cP=0 wt% (Fig. 9A), the plots of w at different t overlap for length scales l<1 mm considerably smaller than the radius of curvature Rc10 mm of the droplet, indicating time-independence. This region shows a l3/4 scaling, suggesting a roughness exponent of α=3/4. For l>1 mm, a plateau in the curves emerges, signifying a dependence of w on time t but independence of the length scale l. On applying the Family–Vicsek dynamic scaling hypothesis [4] with the qKPZ exponents α=3/4 and β=3/5, the plots of w are seen to collapse onto a master curve, as shown in the inset of Fig. 9A. This is indicative of the existence of quenched disorder in the acrylic resin substrate, likely arising from variations in the shear viscosity, granted that the resin is shear-thinning.

For cP=20 wt% (Fig. 9B), the observed roughness behavior is similar to the cP=0 wt% case with α=3/4 and β=3/5. Notably, an additional scaling regime with wl1/2 emerges for 0.1mm<l<1mm, with l0.1 mm corresponding to the size of the dendrite tips. This 1/2 power-law scaling mirrors the behavior of interfaces formed by a group of random walkers. Prior studies on these random-walk-like interfaces showed that the mean square radius fluctuation wl2=[h(θ,t)hl2]l is distributed as

ΦRW(x)=π23m(1)m1m2exp(π26m2x), (6)

with x=wl2/wl2 (53, 54). Comparing this prediction to the experimentally obtained distribution of x (Fig. 10A), we find good agreement for 1<x<2, emphasizing the correspondence between the observed intermediate 1/2 scaling and a classical random walk.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 10.

Comparison of the experimentally obtained normalized counts of the mean square radius fluctuation x=wl2/wl2 of the droplet/substrate interface to the theoretically predicted scaling function ΦRW(x), for ink/IPA droplets of IPA concentration cIPA=50 vol% spreading on diluted acrylic paint substrates of paint concentrations A) cP=20 wt% and B) cP=33.3 wt%. Symbols represent experimental data. Black lines represent the prediction of [6].

For cP=33.3 wt% (Fig. 9C), as for cP=0 and 20 wt%, the roughness w displays power-law scaling for l<1 mm. Notably absent, however, is the previously observed 3/4 scaling, leaving behind the 1/2 regime. This roughness exponent of α=1/2 implies that the droplet/substrate is now predominantly random walk-like, as demonstrated by the agreement between the experimentally obtained distribution of x=wl2/wl2 and [6] (Fig. 10B). Even though the α=1/2 exponent is characteristic of the KPZ universality class, it appears that only a growth exponent of β=3/4 conforms with the Family–Vicsek dynamic scaling hypothesis [4], instead of βKPZ=1/3.

The exponents α=1/2 and β=3/4 pose a unique challenge, for they, as a pair, are not traditionally associated with any recognized universality class in the context of kinetic roughening. One reason might be the transient behavior of the interface. Considering that the cP=33.3 wt% diluted paint substrate is a power-law fluid (cf. Fig. 2D), it shows a propensity to inhibit processes involving low shear rates. This resistance could potentially halt the kinetic roughening before the interface reaches the dynamical scaling regime of any established universality class.

Another potential reason for the nonuniversal values of α and β is that the Laplacian growth effect might be overshadowing the local kinetic roughening effect. In fact, an intermediate 1/2 scaling regime similar to our observation in Fig. 9B for cP=20 wt% was previously reported for two-phase viscous flow in porous media, a system known to fall under the qKPZ universality class (28). Hence, such flow configuration can exhibit either qKPZ or Laplacian growth behaviors (76), depending on factors like pressure, surface tension, and viscosity differences between the liquid phases. Drawing parallels, the intermediate 1/2 scaling we have observed might indicate a transition from the local qKPZ to the nonlocal Laplacian growth behaviors. Analogous trends were reported for other pattern-formation processes, such as the electrochemical deposition of metals (37–39) and the growth of bacterial colonies (43–45). As nonlocal effects such as diffusion become increasingly dominant, these systems exhibit nonuniversal values of α and β.

Conclusion and outlook

Drawing inspiration from the art of dendritic painting, we studied the behavior of acrylic ink/IPA droplets on liquid substrates of diverse rheological properties. For sufficiently large values of the IPA concentration, a spreading droplet exhibits an outer precursor film of radius Rout and an inner main body of radius Rin. The radii Rout and Rin are power-law functions of time with exponents 3/8 and 1/4, respectively, characteristic of spreading driven by Marangoni effects. For nominally Newtonian substrates, the 3/8 mode of spreading is found to depend solely on the inherent properties of the droplet. In contrast, the 1/4 mode is affected by the thickness and viscosity of the substrate. On using the scaling laws [1] and [2] of Marangoni spreading to rescale time, all data collected for Rout and Rin collapse onto two universal master curves. While multiple studies (20–25) have reported on the 1/4 exponent of Marangoni spreading, we are aware of only a single set of measurements (23) has been noted for the 3/8 exponent. Additionally, there has been no experimental evidence supporting the specific expressions for the prefactors in Eqs. [1] and [2]. In this work, the exponents of the scaling laws, along with their associated prefactors, have been experimentally confirmed.

For shear-thinning liquid substrates, dendritic structures are observed in the outer rim of the spreading droplet. As the substrate becomes increasingly shear-thinning, the dendrites become progressively dense and slender. In the extreme case of a power-law fluid, the dendrites morph into fractals with a fractal dimension of Df=1.68±0.04 characteristic of DLA. This suggests that Marangoni spreading on shear-thinning substrates is a Laplacian growth process; moreover, it is sensitive to nonlocal factors like the IPA concentration in the liquid substrate. The dendritic growth appears to be analogous to viscous fingering, albeit driven by Marangoni stress rather than a pressure gradient. Examining the dendrite formation process through the lens of kinetic roughening, we observed that the roughening of the droplet/substrate interface primarily demonstrates characteristics of the qKPZ universality class, with a roughness exponent α=3/4 and growth exponent β=3/5. This hints at the existence of quenched disorder in the shear-thinning liquid substrate, potentially manifested as local variations in the shear viscosity. Nonuniversal exponents α=1/2 and β=3/4 were observed for the power-law fluid case, suggesting that the nonlinear rheological effects of the liquid substrate and the nonlocal effects due to the Laplacian growth nature of the Marangoni spreading process might be dominant under these circumstances, shadowing the effects of local quenched disorder.

Recognizing that dendritic painting demonstrates strong evidence of both Laplacian growth and kinetic roughening behaviors, it will be interesting in the future to conduct similar experiments with other types of liquid as substrates, including those with different rheological properties and wettability. For instance, using active liquids that can self-organize to exhibit patterns reminiscent of 2D turbulence (88–90) might introduce spatially and temporally uncorrelated noise in the liquid substrate. In such a case, KPZ behaviors like those observed in turbulent liquid crystals (33) can be expected. If a low-viscosity oil is used, the dendritic painting problem reduces to the Marangoni bursting problem (91–93), in which the droplet spreading is known to be affected by the Rayleigh–Plateau instability (94, 95) instead of the Saffman–Taylor type of instability (96) as in the situation considered in this work. Finally, we also note that there is a problem similar to dendritic painting in watercoloring, in which table salts are used to create starburst patterns on wet watercolor papers. In such a technique, diffusiophoresis (97, 98) might also be important. A whole world awaits exploration.

Materials and methods

Material characterization

The carbon black acrylic ink, acrylic resin (pouring medium), and titanium white paint used in the current study were all obtained from the art materials supplier Liquitex; the sugar syrup was purchased from a local supermarket. All rheological measurements (Fig. 2B, triangular symbols and Fig. 2D) were performed at room temperature (24 °C) employing a strain-controlled rotational rheometer (ARES-G2, TA instruments) equipped with a 50-mm diameter stainless steel 1 cone-and-plate fixture. To prevent the evaporation of the material during measurement, a solvent trap filled with the same material was used. Surface tensions of the materials (Fig. 2B, circular symbols) were measured employing the pendant drop method (99) using an optical tensiometer (Theta Attension, Biolin Scientific). All surface tension measurements were performed at room temperature and with a relative humidity of 35±5%. The mass densities of the materials (Fig. 2C) were obtained using an electronic balance. The evaporation rate of IPA and the resin were also measured; they are ϵIPA=0.11 g m−2 s−1 and ϵAR=0.03 g m−2 s−1, respectively.

Experimental protocol

For each experiment, a liquid substrate of thickness H was deposited onto a water-proof synthetic paper using a film applicator (Mitsui Electric Co., Ltd) for H=200, 300, and 400 μm. For the case of H=2,000  μm, three wooden popsicle sticks were used: two for defining the gap size and one for trimming the excess liquid. The values of H were chosen such that the evaporation time scale of the liquid substrate τρwH/ϵAR>6,000 s, where ρw is the mass density of water, is much larger than the experimental time scale texp100 s. An air-displacement pipette (PIPETMAN P20, 2–20 μL, Metal Ejector, Gilson, Inc.) was used to apply the ink/IPA droplet onto the liquid substrate. A schematic of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 2A. A Canon EOS 5Ds R camera was used to capture videos of the droplet spreading process, with a resolution of 0.05 mm per pixel and a frame rate of 30 fps. All experiments were performed at room temperature and with a relative humidity of 35±5%. Experiments were repeated at least three times for the measurement of Rout and Rin and at least six times for w.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Akiko Nakayama for granting permission to feature her artworks in their manuscript and for sharing her valuable perspectives on the art and science of dendritic painting.

Contributor Information

San To Chan, Mechanics and Materials Unit, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University, Onna, Okinawa 904-0495, Japan.

Eliot Fried, Mechanics and Materials Unit, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University, Onna, Okinawa 904-0495, Japan.

Funding

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University with subsidy funding from the Cabinet Office, Government of Japan.

Author Contributions

S.T.C. conceived the study and conducted the experiments. S.T.C. and E.F. analyzed the results, and wrote and reviewed the manuscript.

Preprints

A preprint of this article is published at http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.05518.

Data Availability

All data are included in the manuscript.

References

  • 1. Marusic  I, Broomhall  S. 2021. Leonardo da Vinci and fluid mechanics. Annu Rev Fluid Mech. 53:1–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Taylor  RP, Micolich  AP, Jonas  D. 1999. Fractal expressionism. Phys. World. 12(10):25–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Taylor  RP, Micolich  AP, Jonas  D. 2002. The construction of Jackson Pollock’s fractal drip paintings. Leonardo. 35(2):203–207. [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Palacios  B, Rosario  A, Wilhelmus  MM, Zetina  S, Zenit  R. 2019. Pollock avoided hydrodynamic instabilities to paint with his dripping technique. PLoS One. 14(10):e0223706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Zenit  R. 2019. Some fluid mechanical aspects of artistic painting. Phys Rev Fluids. 4(11):110507. [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Tosa  N, et al. 2023. Sound of Ikebana: fluid artwork created under zero-G using parabolic flight. Leonardo. 56(4):359–366. [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Canabal  JA, Otaduy  MA, Kim  B, Echevarria  J. 2020. Simulation of dendritic painting. Comput Graph Forum. 39(2):597–606. [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Cross  MM. 1965. Rheology of non-Newtonian fluids: a new flow equation for pseudoplastic systems. J Colloid Sci. 20(5):417–437. [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Cross  MM. 1969. Polymer rheology: influence of molecular weight and polydispersity. J Appl Polym Sci. 13(4):765–774. [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Cheng  X, McCoy  JH, Israelachvili  JN, Cohen  I. 2011. Imaging the microscopic structure of shear thinning and thickening colloidal suspensions. Science. 333(6047):1276–1279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Mandelbrot  BB. 1982. The fractal geometry of nature. Vol. 1. New York: WH Freeman. [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Vicsek  T. 1992. Fractal growth phenomena. Singapore: World Scientific. [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Barenblatt  GI. 2003. Scaling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Marangoni  C. 1865. Sull’espansione delle goccie d’un liquido galleggianti sulla superfice di altro liquido. Firenze: Fratelli Fusi. [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Scriven  LE, Sternling  CV. 1960. The Marangoni effects. Nature. 187(4733):186–188. [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Thomson  J. 1855. XLII. On certain curious motions observable at the surfaces of wine and other alcoholic liquors. Philos Mag. 10(67):330–333. [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Fournier  JB, Cazabat  AM. 1992. Tears of wine. Europhys Lett. 20(6):517–522. [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Jensen  OE. 1995. The spreading of insoluble surfactant at the free surface of a deep fluid layer. J Fluid Mech. 293:349–378. [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Espinosa  FF, Shapiro  AH, Fredberg  JJ, Kamm  RD. 1993. Spreading of exogenous surfactant in an airway. J Appl Physiol. 75(5):2028–2039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Afsar-Siddiqui  AB, Luckham  PF, Matar  OK. 2003. Unstable spreading of aqueous anionic surfactant solutions on liquid films. Part 1. Sparingly soluble surfactant. Langmuir. 19(3):696–702. [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Afsar-Siddiqui  AB, Luckham  PF, Matar  OK. 2003. Unstable spreading of aqueous anionic surfactant solutions on liquid films. 2. Highly soluble surfactant. Langmuir. 19(3):703–708. [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Dussaud  AD, Matar  OK, Troian  SM. 2005. Spreading characteristics of an insoluble surfactant film on a thin liquid layer: comparison between theory and experiment. J Fluid Mech. 544:23–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 23. De Ryck  A. 1997. Fragmentation of a spreading drop. Europhys Lett. 40(3):305–310. [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Fallest  DW, Lichtenberger  AM, Fox  CJ, Daniels  KE. 2010. Fluorescent visualization of a spreading surfactant. New J Phys. 12(7):073029. [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Swanson  ER, Strickland  SL, Shearer  M, Daniels  KE. 2015. Surfactant spreading on a thin liquid film: reconciling models and experiments. J Eng Math. 94:63–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Halpin-Healy  T, Zhang  YC. 1995. Kinetic roughening phenomena, stochastic growth, directed polymers and all that. Aspects of multidisciplinary statistical mechanics. Phys Rep. 254(4–6):215–414. [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Rubio  MA, Edwards  CA, Dougherty  A, Gollub  JP. 1989. Self-affine fractal interfaces from immiscible displacement in porous media. Phys Rev Lett. 63(16):1685–1688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Horváth  VK, Family  F, Vicsek  T. 1991. Dynamic scaling of the interface in two-phase viscous flows in porous media. J Phys A Math Gen. 24(1):L25–L29. [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Horváth  VK, Stanley  HE. 1995. Temporal scaling of interfaces propagating in porous media. Phys Rev E. 52(5):5166–5169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Vicsek  T, Family  F. 1984. Dynamic scaling for aggregation of clusters. Phys Rev Lett. 52(19):1669–1672. [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Fujimoto  K, Hamazaki  R, Kawaguchi  Y. 2020. Family–Vicsek scaling of roughness growth in a strongly interacting Bose gas. Phys Rev Lett. 124(21):210604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Glidden  JAP, et al. 2021. Bidirectional dynamic scaling in an isolated Bose gas far from equilibrium. Nat Phys. 17(4):457–461. [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Takeuchi  KA, Sano  M. 2010. Universal fluctuations of growing interfaces: evidence in turbulent liquid crystals. Phys Rev Lett. 104(23):230601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Takeuchi  KA, Sano  M, Sasamoto  T, Spohn  H. 2011. Growing interfaces uncover universal fluctuations behind scale invariance. Sci Rep. 1(1):34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Takeuchi  KA. 2014. Experimental approaches to universal out-of-equilibrium scaling laws: turbulent liquid crystal and other developments. J Stat Mech Theory Exp. 2014(1):P01006. [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Schilardi  PL, Azzaroni  O, Salvarezza  RC, Arvia  AJ. 1999. Validity of the Kardar–Parisi–Zhang equation in the asymptotic limit of metal electrodeposition. Phys Rev B. 59(7):4638–4641. [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Kahanda  GLMKS, Zou  XQ, Farrell  R, Wong  PZ. 1992. Columnar growth and kinetic roughening in electrochemical deposition. Phys Rev Lett. 68(25):3741–3744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Iwamoto  A, Yoshinobu  T, Iwasaki  H. 1994. Stable growth and kinetic roughening in electrochemical deposition. Phys Rev Lett. 72(25):4025–4028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Castro  M, Cuerno  R, Sánchez  A, Domínguez-Adame  F. 2000. Multiparticle biased diffusion-limited aggregation with surface diffusion: a comprehensive model of electrodeposition. Phys Rev E. 62(1):161–173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Vicsek  T, Cserző  M, Horváth  VK. 1990. Self-affine growth of bacterial colonies. Physica A Stat Mech Appl. 167(2):315–321. [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Wakita  J, Itoh  H, Matsuyama  T, Matsushita  M. 1997. Self-affinity for the growing interface of bacterial colonies. J Phys Soc Jpn. 66(1):67–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Bonachela  JA, Nadell  CD, Xavier  JB, Levin  SA. 2011. Universality in bacterial colonies. J Stat Phys. 144:303–315. [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Santalla  SN, Ferreira  SC. 2018. Eden model with nonlocal growth rules and kinetic roughening in biological systems. Phys Rev E. 98(2):022405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Santalla  SN, et al. 2018. Nonuniversality of front fluctuations for compact colonies of nonmotile bacteria. Phys Rev E. 98(1):012407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Martínez-Calvo  A, et al. 2022. Morphological instability and roughening of growing 3D bacterial colonies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 119(43):e2208019119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Czirók  A, Somfai  E, Vicsek  T. 1993. Experimental evidence for self-affine roughening in a micromodel of geomorphological evolution. Phys Rev Lett. 71(13):2154–2157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Czirók  A, Somfai  E, Vicsek  T. 1994. Self-affine roughening in a model experiment on erosion in geomorphology. Physica A Stat Mech Appl. 205(1–3):355–366. [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Family  F, Vicsek  T. 1985. Scaling of the active zone in the Eden process on percolation networks and the ballistic deposition model. J Phys A Math Gen. 18(2):L75–L81. [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Meakin  P, Ramanlal  P, Sander  LM, Ball  RC. 1986. Ballistic deposition on surfaces. Phys Rev A. 34(6):5091–5103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Takeuchi  KA. 2012. Statistics of circular interface fluctuations in an off-lattice Eden model. J Stat Mech Theory Exp. 2012(05):P05007. [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Alves  SG, Oliveira  TJ, Ferreira  SC. 2014. Origins of scaling corrections in ballistic growth models. Phys Rev E. 90(5):052405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Kardar  M, Parisi  G, Zhang  YC. 1986. Dynamic scaling of growing interfaces. Phys Rev Lett. 56(9):889–892. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Foltin  G, Oerding  K, Rácz  Z, Workman  RL, Zia  RKP. 1994. Width distribution for random-walk interfaces. Phys Rev E. 50(2):R639–R642. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Antal  T, Droz  M, Györgyi  G, Rácz  Z. 2002. Roughness distributions for 1/fα signals. Phys Rev E. 65(4):046140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Kessler  DA, Levine  H, Tu  Y. 1991. Interface fluctuations in random media. Phys Rev A. 43(8):4551–4554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Csahók  Z, Honda  K, Somfai  E, Vicsek  M, Vicsek  T. 1993. Dynamics of surface roughening in disordered media. Physica A Stat Mech Appl. 200(1–4):136–154. [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Takeuchi  KA. 2018. An appetizer to modern developments on the Kardar–Parisi–Zhang universality class. Physica A Stat Mech Appl. 504:77–105. [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Slade  L, Levine  H. 1988. Non-equilibrium behavior of small carbohydrate–water systems. Pure Appl Chem. 60(12):1841–1864. [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Mansour  K, Soileau  MJ, Van Stryland  EW. 1992. Nonlinear optical properties of carbon-black suspensions (ink). J Opt Soc Am B. 9(7):1100–1109. [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Popescu  MN, Oshanin  G, Dietrich  S, Cazabat  AM. 2012. Precursor films in wetting phenomena. J Phys Condens Matter. 24(24):243102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Novotny  VJ, Marmur  A. 1991. Wetting autophobicity. J Colloid Interface Sci. 145(2):355–361. [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Bahadur  P, Yadav  PS, Chaurasia  K, Leh  A, Tadmor  R. 2009. Chasing drops: following escaper and pursuer drop couple system. J Colloid Interface Sci. 332(2):455–460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Walls  DJ, Haward  SJ, Shen  AQ, Fuller  GG. 2016. Spreading of miscible liquids. Phys Rev Fluids. 1(1):013904. [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Troian  SM, Wu  XL, Safran  SA. 1989. Fingering instability in thin wetting films. Phys Rev Lett. 62(13):1496–1499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Troian  SM, Herbolzheimer  E, Safran  SA. 1990. Model for the fingering instability of spreading surfactant drops. Phys Rev Lett. 65(3):333–336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Matar  OK, Troian  SM. 1997. Linear stability analysis of an insoluble surfactant monolayer spreading on a thin liquid film. Phys Fluids. 9(12):3645–3657. [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Frank  B, Garoff  S. 1995. Origins of the complex motion of advancing surfactant solutions. Langmuir. 11(1):87–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Matar  OK, Craster  RV. 2009. Dynamics of surfactant-assisted spreading. Soft Matter. 5(20):3801–3809. [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Mouat  AP, Wood  CE, Pye  JE, Burton  JC. 2020. Tuning contact line dynamics and deposition patterns in volatile liquid mixtures. Phys Rev Lett. 124(6):064502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Gaver  DP, Grotberg  JB. 1990. The dynamics of a localized surfactant on a thin film. J Fluid Mech. 213:127–148. [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Kessler  DA, Koplik  J, Levine  H. 1988. Pattern selection in fingered growth phenomena. Adv Phys. 37(3):255–339. [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Gustafsson  B, Teodorescu  R, Vasil’ev  A. 2014. Classical and Stochastic Laplacian Growth. Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Witten  TA, Sander  LM. 1983. Diffusion-limited aggregation. Phys Rev B. 27(9):5686–5697. [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Meakin  P. 1983. Diffusion-controlled cluster formation in 2–6-dimensional space. Phys Rev A. 27(3):1495–1507. [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Schaefer  DW. 1988. Fractal models and the structure of materials. MRS Bull. 13(2):22–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Mly  KJ, Boger  F, Feder  J, Jøssang  T, Meakin  P. 1987. Dynamics of viscous-fingering fractals in porous media. Phys Rev A. 36(1):318–324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Hill  S. 1952. Channeling in packed columns. Chem Eng Sci. 1(6):247–253. [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Kadanoff  LP. 1985. Simulating hydrodynamics: a pedestrian model. J Stat Phys. 39:267–283. [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Daccord  G, Nittmann  J, Stanley  HE. 1986. Radial viscous fingers and diffusion-limited aggregation: fractal dimension and growth sites. Phys Rev Lett. 56(4):336–339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Van Damme  H, Obrecht  F, Levitz  P, Gatineau  L, Laroche  C. 1986. Fractal viscous fingering in clay slurries. Nature. 320(6064):731–733. [Google Scholar]
  • 81. Van Damme  H, Alsac  E, Laroche  C, Gatineau  L. 1988. On the respective roles of low surface tension and non-Newtonian rheological properties in fractal fingering. Europhys Lett. 5(1):25–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 82. Anderson  DM, Cermelli  P, Fried  E, Gurtin  ME, McFadden  GB. 2007. General dynamical sharp-interface conditions for phase transformations in viscous heat-conducting fluids. J Fluid Mech. 581:323–370. [Google Scholar]
  • 83. Ma  X, et al. 2023. Experiments on Marangoni spreading—evidence of a new type of interfacial instability. J Fluid Mech. 958:A33. [Google Scholar]
  • 84. Warner  MRE, Craster  RV, Matar  OK. 2004. Fingering phenomena associated with insoluble surfactant spreading on thin liquid films. J Fluid Mech. 510:169–200. [Google Scholar]
  • 85. Warner  MRE, Craster  RV, Matar  OK. 2004. Fingering phenomena created by a soluble surfactant deposition on a thin liquid film. Phys Fluids. 16(8):2933–2951. [Google Scholar]
  • 86. Edmonstone  BD, Craster  RV, Matar  OK. 2006. Surfactant-induced fingering phenomena beyond the critical micelle concentration. J Fluid Mech. 564:105–138. [Google Scholar]
  • 87. Craster  RV, Matar  OK. 2006. Numerical simulations of fingering instabilities in surfactant-driven thin films. Phys Fluids. 18(3):032103. [Google Scholar]
  • 88. Hinz  DF, Panchenko  A, Kim  TY, Fried  E. 2015. Particle-based simulations of self-motile suspensions. Comput Phys Commun. 196:45–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 89. Saintillan  D. 2018. Rheology of active fluids. Annu Rev Fluid Mech. 50:563–592. [Google Scholar]
  • 90. Alert  R, Casademunt  J, Joanny  JF. 2022. Active turbulence. Annu Rev Condens Matter Phys. 13:143–170. [Google Scholar]
  • 91. Keiser  L, Bense  H, Colinet  P, Bico  J, Reyssat  E. 2017. Marangoni bursting: evaporation-induced emulsification of binary mixtures on a liquid layer. Phys Rev Lett. 118(7):074504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92. Hasegawa  K, Manzaki  Y. 2021. Marangoni fireworks: atomization dynamics of binary droplets on an oil pool. Phys Fluids. 33(3):034124. [Google Scholar]
  • 93. Seyfert  C, Marin  A. 2022. Influence of added dye on Marangoni-driven droplet instability. Phys Rev Fluids. 7(4):043602. [Google Scholar]
  • 94. Plateau  JAF. 1873. Statique expérimentale et théorique des liquides soumis aux seules forces moléculaires. Paris: Gauthier-Villars. [Google Scholar]
  • 95. Rayleigh  L. 1878. On the instability of jets. Proc London Math Soc. 1(1):4–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 96. Saffman  PG, Taylor  GI. 1958. The penetration of a fluid into a porous medium or Hele-Shaw cell containing a more viscous liquid. Proc R Soc Lond A Math Phys Sci. 245(1242):312–329. [Google Scholar]
  • 97. Gupta  A, Shim  S, Stone  HA. 2020. Diffusiophoresis: from dilute to concentrated electrolytes. Soft Matter. 16(30):6975–6984. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98. Shin  S. 2020. Diffusiophoretic separation of colloids in microfluidic flows. Phys Fluids. 32(10):101302. [Google Scholar]
  • 99. Berry  JD, Neeson  MJ, Dagastine  RR, Chan  DYC, Tabor  RF. 2015. Measurement of surface and interfacial tension using pendant drop tensiometry. J Colloid Interface Sci. 454:226–237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data are included in the manuscript.


Articles from PNAS Nexus are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES