Contents
Battery R&D & Process Control

Electrolyte Wetting Optimization and Additive Selection for Lithium-Ion Battery Production

Accelerate electrolyte wetting by quantifying contact angle, spreading kinetics, and surface tension on real electrode and separator materials, so you can reduce filling time, catch dry spots, and de-risk additive selection with a QC-ready gate.

Who this is for: Battery R&D chemists, lithium-ion process engineers, and QA/QC teams evaluating electrode, separator, and electrolyte formulation changes.

Positioning: Dropometer does not replace full lithium-ion battery validation (electrochemical testing, impedance, cycle life). It adds fast, quantitative wetting behavior data, contact angle, spreading kinetics, and liquid surface tension, earlier in the workflow than a full cell build, so you catch a wetting problem before it becomes a formation or impedance problem.

Last updated
July 12, 2026
Request Dropometer Quote Book a 15 minute Consult
Gurdeep-Saini-Photo
Written by
Gurdeep Singh Saini
Holds a BASc in Mechanical Engineering (Ryerson) and an MASc from York University. He focuses on the custom AI behind the instrument.
COO at Droplet Lab
Read More
Droplet-Lab logo
Technical Review by
Droplet Lab Team
Droplet Lab builds precision instruments and software for surface science measurement, specialising in contact angle analysis and surface tension characterisation. Used by researchers across materials science, pharmaceuticals, coatings, and advanced manufacturing, Droplet Lab's Dropometer has contributed to studies published in peer-reviewed journals including Advanced Functional Materials (Impact Factor 19). The team combines instrument engineering with deep domain knowledge in wettability science with a focus on practical accuracy.
Read More
Gurdeep-Saini-Photo
Written By

Gurdeep Singh Saini

COO at Droplet Lab

Holds a BASc in Mechanical Engineering (Ryerson) and an MASc from York University. He focuses on the custom AI behind the instrument.

Droplet-Lab logo
Reviewed By

Droplet Lab Team

Droplet Lab builds precision instruments and software for surface science measurement, specialising in contact angle analysis and surface tension characterisation. Used by researchers across materials science, pharmaceuticals, coatings, and advanced manufacturing, Droplet Lab's Dropometer has contributed to studies published in peer-reviewed journals including Advanced Functional Materials (Impact Factor 19). The team combines instrument engineering with deep domain knowledge in wettability science with a focus on practical accuracy.

Featured Studies & Publications

Research Paper Contact angle measurement with a smartphone
Research Paper Surface tension measurement with a smartphone using a pendant drop

The Cost Of Getting It Wrong

15–20%

of annual revenue consumed by Cost of Poor Quality in typical manufacturing operations

American Society for Quality

10×

higher hidden cost vs. visible scrap cost: rework, re-inspection, downtime, and warranty claims are rarely captured

Lean Six Sigma research consensus

$1 → $10

upstream prevention typically saves $10 in internal rework and up to $100 in external warranty and recall costs, for the specific failure modes an upstream screen actually catches

COPQ prevention-to-failure ratio

Sources: ASQ, Learn Lean Sigma, Fabrico COPQ Guide 2026. Figures are industry-wide benchmarks, not Droplet Lab claims. On this page specifically, the relevant cost isn't factory scrap, it's electrolyte filling downtime and R&D iteration time: slow wetting extends the filling and formation step on every cell, and a wrong additive choice discovered only at cycle-life testing is a far more expensive iteration than one caught at the wetting-screen stage.

QC-Ready Summary

What this workflow does and what it does not

Quick technical reference for battery R&D chemists and process engineers evaluating fit before reading further.

Evidence Box (QC-Ready)

Problem this solves

Electrolyte wetting failures in lithium-ion cells that cause slow filling, incomplete wetting, dry regions in electrode or separator layers, and inconsistent electrolyte distribution across batches.

Dropometer role in workflow

A fast screening and QC tool for electrolyte wetting optimization, additive evaluation, and drift detection in electrode or electrolyte batches before cell assembly. Not a replacement for full electrochemical validation (impedance, formation, cycle life).

Primary outputs

Contact angle for electrolyte wetting on electrode and separator surfaces
Spreading and absorption kinetics (wetting rate)
Pendant drop surface tension of the liquid electrolyte
Surface energy trend data for electrode or separator materials, where relevant

Calibration requirement

Correlate wetting metrics to your own battery outcomes (wetting time, impedance, formation yield) per electrolyte system and electrode material family, not a generic published value.

Protocol defaults

Use real electrolyte or a controlled electrolyte solvent system
Fixed droplet volume, small-volume dosing supported down to the instrument's automatic dosing floor
Minimum 5 replicates per zone
Report contact angle plus kinetics plus variability, not a single reading

Known limitation

Porous electrode materials produce an apparent contact angle, not a true equilibrium value, since the liquid is wicking into the pore structure as it's measured. Wetting metrics are a strong predictive indicator of filling behavior, not a guarantee of downstream electrochemical performance.

Who this is for

What are you trying to solve?

The Dropometer serves four roles across an electrolyte wetting program. Each has a different primary risk.

Process Engineer (Filling Throughput)

Fighting slow electrolyte filling and formation dwell time that's limiting line throughput, and needing to know whether the bottleneck is electrolyte chemistry or electrode microstructure.

Filling time and line throughput cost

Battery R&D Chemist (Additive Selection)

Screening candidate electrolyte additives for wetting performance before committing to full cell builds and cycle-life testing, ranking candidates by measured wetting data instead of trial cells.

Iteration and cell-build cost

QA / QC Manager

Needing a numeric release gate on incoming electrode or separator batches to catch a wetting drift before it reaches cell assembly.

Batch inconsistency cost

Compliance Officer

Requiring documented, defensible evidence of electrode, separator, and electrolyte batch qualification for NCR responses, CAPA files, or supplier audits.

Audit non-conformance
workflow fit

Is this the right screen for your process?

This is not a universal solution. Check the conditions below before investing further time.

Good fit if

You need to reduce electrolyte filling or formation dwell time and want to know whether electrolyte chemistry or electrode microstructure is the limiting factor
You're screening candidate electrolyte additives and want a numeric wetting comparison before committing to full cell builds
You see batch-to-batch variability in filling behavior or impedance with no confirmed cause
You're qualifying a new electrode or separator material and need a wetting baseline before it enters production
Your QA or compliance process requires a traceable electrode, separator, or electrolyte batch record

Less relevant if

Your wetting issue is confirmed to trace back to calendaring pressure or electrode porosity targets rather than electrolyte or additive chemistry; see Honest Scope for why this instrument only measures the wetting symptom, not the mechanical root cause
You need a final electrochemical performance number (impedance, formation efficiency, cycle life) for a spec sheet — full cell testing remains the acceptance method
Your electrode material is highly porous in a way that makes apparent contact angle unreliable without a validated correlation to your own filling-time data first
You already have a stable, well-characterized electrolyte and electrode system with no new additive candidates to screen and no batch variability to investigate
Root Cause Context

Electrolyte Wetting Isn't Just a Filling-Time Problem. It's a Formation-Quality Problem in Disguise.

Poor electrolyte wetting doesn't just slow the line, it produces uneven solid electrolyte interphase formation and impedance variability that shows up much later, and much more expensively.

In lithium-ion battery production, electrolyte filling and wetting is a critical, often underappreciated step. Poor wetting leaves dry regions in the electrode or separator, increases impedance, and produces uneven formation of the solid electrolyte interphase, the layer that governs long-term cycling stability. Because these downstream effects surface during formation or cycle-life testing, a wetting problem discovered there is a far more expensive iteration than one caught at the wetting-screen stage.

Wetting behavior is driven by liquid electrolyte surface tension, electrode and separator pore structure, and additive chemistry, all measurable well before a full cell build. High electrolyte surface tension slows infiltration into the electrode's pore network; additives change surface tension, viscosity, and interfacial chemistry, sometimes in ways that trade wetting speed for electrochemical compatibility; and electrode microstructure sets a physical ceiling on how fast even an ideal electrolyte can wet the material.

This workflow measures contact angle, spreading kinetics, and pendant-drop surface tension directly on real electrode, separator, and electrolyte materials, so wetting behavior can be screened and additive candidates ranked before committing lab time to a full cell build. The honest limit: contact angle on a porous electrode is an apparent value, not a true equilibrium reading, and wetting metrics predict filling behavior, they don't replace the electrochemical testing that confirms an additive is actually compatible with the cell chemistry.

Recognition

What Does an Electrolyte Wetting Problem Actually Look Like?

Your electrolyte doesn't wet electrode materials consistently. The wetting process varies across batches, leading to slow filling, incomplete wetting, and downstream performance variability, without a quantitative way to isolate whether the cause is the electrolyte, the electrode, or the additive package.

Increased electrolyte filling time in battery production
Dry regions detected in electrode or separator layers after filling.
High variability in impedance across cells from the same nominal batch.
Unexpected wetting impact when an electrolyte additive is changed.
Poor wetting behavior on a new electrode material or separator design.
Formation yield variability that tracks with electrode or electrolyte lot changes.
Diagnosis

Root Causes

Why:

  • High surface tension reduces wetting rate and limits how far electrolyte infiltrates the electrode's pore network in a given dwell time.

How to detect:

  • Increased contact angle on the electrode surface, or a higher measured pendant-drop surface tension relative to your baseline electrolyte

Corrective action:

  • Optimize electrolyte solvent composition, or introduce a compatible wetting additive

Why:

  • Wetting rate depends on pore size, structure, and permeability of the electrode and separator, independent of electrolyte chemistry.

How to detect:

  • Slow wetting despite an acceptable contact angle reading, or differences across electrode batches at matched electrolyte

Corrective action:

  • Adjust electrode calendaring pressure or target porosity; this is a mechanical, not a chemical, fix

Why:

  • Additives change surface tension, viscosity, and interfacial chemistry, and can improve wetting while trading off electrochemical compatibility elsewhere.

How to detect:

  • Measured change in contact angle or spreading kinetics across additive candidates or concentrations

Corrective action:

  • Systematically screen additive concentration against measured wetting data, then confirm electrochemical compatibility separately before adoption

Why:

  • Handling or processing residues create hydrophobic regions on the electrode or separator that locally block electrolyte wetting.

How to detect:

  • High variability across measurement zones on the same nominal material, inconsistent with a uniform electrode

Corrective action:

  • Improve handling protocols and enforce clean-surface controls between calendaring and filling

Why:

  • Electrolyte composition drifts with storage time, moisture exposure, and handling, and that drift changes wetting performance even when the nominal formulation is unchanged.

How to detect:

  • Drift in surface tension or contact angle results across electrolyte lots or storage durations

Corrective action:

  • Standardize storage conditions and monitor electrolyte batches on a schedule

Why:

  • If wetting metrics measure as expected but impedance or cycle-life results still show a problem, the cause is more likely electrochemical incompatibility, formation protocol, or calendaring pressure than anything a wetting screen captures.

How to detect:

  • Contact angle, kinetics, and surface tension are all within baseline, while impedance or cycle-life testing still shows variability

Corrective action:

  • Route the investigation to electrochemical testing and mechanical process parameters rather than continuing to iterate on wetting measurement alone

Not sure which root cause applies to your process?

A surface science specialist can review your wetting and impedance history and help you identify whether a wetting screen would add a useful upstream gate.

For Compliance Officers and QA Managers

Building a defensible additive selection record

Surface readiness measurement produces the type of numeric, traceable output that a subjective "the electrolyte looked like it wetted fine" observation cannot. If your quality system requires documented evidence of process control at each stage for NCR responses, CAPA files, incoming inspection records, or supplier audits, contact angle and wetting-kinetics data provide that evidence in a format your QA documentation already requires.

Audit trail

Numeric contact angle, wetting kinetics, and surface tension values with replicate spread, timestamps, and electrode/electrolyte lot identification; replacing subjective wetting notes with defensible numeric logs.

CAPA evidence

When an impedance or formation-yield issue triggers a Corrective and Preventive Action file, wetting data from before and after an electrolyte, electrode, or additive change provide quantitative evidence of the mechanism involved, not anecdotal description.

NCR documentation

Non-conformance reports that include numeric wetting data allow you to assign root cause to electrolyte surface tension, electrode microstructure, additive effect, or contamination with evidence, not inference.

Supplier qualification

Incoming electrode, separator, or electrolyte lot inspection using contact angle and wetting kinetics provides a numeric acceptance criterion for supplier qualification, independent of the supplier's own published values.

Process control records

Contact angle and wetting kinetics trend logs demonstrate statistical process control at the filling step; relevant to Six Sigma, SPC, and DMAIC programs targeting wetting-driven yield loss.

Additive selection record

A concentration-series comparison across candidate electrolyte additives gives R&D a numeric basis for gating which additive advances to full cell build and cycle-life testing, instead of discovering an incompatibility only after that far more expensive step.

What to Measure

Primary screen

Contact angle on electrode / separator

Why it matters: Direct indicator of how well electrolyte wets the electrode surface.

How to interpret: Lower contact angle generally indicates better wetting, correlated against your own filling-time data.

When it is not enough: On a porous electrode, this is an apparent contact angle, not a true equilibrium value.

Primary screen

Wetting kinetics (spreading / absorption rate)

Why it matters: Reflects real electrolyte filling behavior over time, not just a single-point reading.

How to interpret: Faster spreading and absorption indicates better real-process wetting rate.

When it is not enough: A surface-level measurement; it doesn't confirm electrolyte reaches deep pore structure uniformly.

Primary screen

Surface tension of the liquid electrolyte (pendant drop)

Why it matters: A key property of the liquid electrolyte itself that influences wetting rate independent of the electrode.

How to interpret: Lower surface tension generally supports faster wetting.

When it is not enough: Doesn't account for electrode-specific interaction; pair with contact angle data on the actual electrode material.

QC

Variability across zones and batches

Why it matters: Detects non-uniform wetting or contamination that a single-point reading would miss.

How to interpret: High variability relative to your baseline signals contamination, batch inconsistency, or electrode drift worth investigating.

When it is not enough: Flags inconsistency without identifying which specific root cause is responsible.

Supplementary

Tilted sessile drop (pinning / hysteresis)

Why it matters: Detects pinning and surface heterogeneity that a static contact angle reading can miss.

How to interpret: High hysteresis between advancing and receding angle indicates surface irregularity worth flagging.

When it is not enough: A supplementary signal, most useful when a static reading looks acceptable but real-process wetting still seems inconsistent.

Validated Measurement Approach

Independent benchmarking and publication-based validation references.

Benchmark Validation

Dropometer contact angle and pendant-drop surface tension methods have been benchmarked against KRÜSS DSA100E reference measurements. The instrument is referenced in peer-reviewed journals including Bioactive Materials (Impact Factor 20) and Advanced Functional Materials (Impact Factor 19).

See peer-reviewed validation

Publication Evidence

Our instruments are referenced in peer-reviewed journals, theses, and conference publications.

Browse citations
QC Protocol

How Dropometer Fits Your Workflow

Dropometer is best used to build a wetting baseline for your electrode, separator, and electrolyte system, then screen additive candidates against it before committing to a full cell build.

1

Define Wetting Targets

Select the electrode and separator materials actually used in your lithium-ion cell: This determines which surfaces your baseline and future batches get measured against

2

Build Baseline

Measure contact angle, kinetics, and surface tension on a known-good electrolyte and electrode system: This baseline is what every future batch and additive candidate gets compared to

3

Electrolyte Additive Selection

Measure surface tension of each candidate electrolyte formulation, then contact angle and wetting kinetics on the real electrode: Compare formulation-level and real-surface wetting performance before a full cell build

4

Establish QC Gates

Set PASS / MONITOR / FAIL thresholds based on measured wetting parameters, correlated to your own filling-time and impedance data: PASS: within baseline band → release for cell assembly MONITOR: borderline result → re-measure or hold for review FAIL: out of band → hold and troubleshoot using the Root Causes signal pattern

We completed our gage R&R study on the unit and it performed very well.

Brandon Barbee

Corporate Quality Engineer - Zeus Industries - Polymer Manufacturing

Download the Electrolyte Wetting Screening SOP Template

An editable SOP template your team can adapt for your electrode, separator, and electrolyte system. Includes measurement protocol, gate-setting guidance, and a QC log format ready for your documentation system.

Example Outputs

Sample Additive Screening: Wetting Performance Comparison

Representative output format. Values are illustrative, not a universal specification.

Actual measurement output

Dropometer contact angle and spreading-kinetics measurement on a real electrode surface, tracking time-to-wet across candidate electrolyte additive formulations. This is the type of output used to select an additive candidate before committing to a full cell build.

Actual measurement output

Sample Additive Screening: Wetting Performance Comparison

Candidate System Electrolyte Surface Tension (mN/m) Contact Angle on Electrode (°) Time to 90% Spread (s) Additive Fit
Baseline electrolyte, no additive 32.1 41 48 Reference baseline
Baseline + Additive A, at target concentration 28.6 22 19 Faster wetting, candidate for adoption
Baseline + Additive B, at target concentration 29.4 35 41 Marginal improvement, weak candidate
Baseline + Additive C, at target concentration 27.9 18 15 Fastest wetting; confirm electrochemical compatibility before adoption

Additive A shows a clear wetting improvement over baseline and is a reasonable candidate on wetting data alone. Additive B's surface tension drop is modest and its contact angle and spread-time improvements are marginal, likely not worth the reformulation cost relative to Additive A. Additive C shows the fastest wetting of the three but that result alone doesn't confirm electrochemical compatibility, the wetting screen narrows the candidate list, it doesn't replace impedance and cycle-life testing on whichever additive advances. This output would be included in the additive selection record used to decide which candidate proceeds to a full cell build.

QC-Ready Quick Protocol (SOP Card)

Simple checklist for pre-bond release gating

Goal: Standardize electrolyte wetting evaluation for lithium-ion batteries

Sample Handling

  • Enforce no-touch zones and glove/fixture rules
  • Record time since surface prep and storage conditions

Setup

  • Level part and lock lighting/fit settings
  • Include a known-good control coupon every run

Measurement

  • Run fixed droplet volume at fixed timepoint
  • Measure multiple zones when failures are intermittent
  • Record median + IQR per zone

Release Rules

  • PASS: proceed to bonding
  • MONITOR: hold + re-clean/re-treat
  • FAIL: stop + troubleshoot
Troubleshooting

Electrolyte wetting troubleshooting guide

Start condition: filling time is inconsistent, dry regions are appearing, or impedance variability is showing up across cells. Use the signal pattern to identify the most likely cause.

Signal A

Increased contact angle or higher measured surface tension

Likely cause: Electrolyte surface tension has drifted upward, limiting infiltration rate.
Action: Optimize solvent composition or introduce a compatible wetting additive.

Signal B

Slow wetting despite an acceptable contact angle

Likely cause: Electrode or separator microstructure and porosity are limiting wetting rate independent of electrolyte chemistry.
Action: Adjust electrode calendaring pressure or porosity target; treat this as a mechanical fix, not a formulation one.

Signal C

Wetting behavior shifts after an additive change

Likely cause: The additive is changing surface tension, viscosity, or interfacial chemistry in a way that affects wetting, and possibly electrochemical compatibility too.
Action: Quantify the wetting effect first, then confirm electrochemical compatibility before adoption.

Signal D

High variability across measurement zones on the same nominal material

Likely cause: Surface contamination or handling residue is creating locally hydrophobic regions.
Action: Improve handling protocols and enforce clean-surface controls between calendaring and filling.

FAQ

Common questions before adoption

No. It's an upstream wetting screen that narrows your electrode, separator, and additive candidates before a full cell build, formation, and cycle-life testing, not a replacement for that testing.

No. It measures wetting performance, contact angle, kinetics, and surface tension, which is a strong predictor of filling behavior. Electrochemical compatibility still needs to be confirmed with impedance and cycle-life testing.

It's an apparent contact angle rather than a true equilibrium value on a porous surface, since the liquid is wicking as it's measured. Correlate it against your own filling-time data before treating it as an absolute pass/fail threshold.

Yes. Comparing surface tension, contact angle, and spreading kinetics across candidates at matched concentration is one of the more direct uses of this protocol.

Yes. Pore size, structure, and permeability set a physical ceiling on wetting rate independent of how good the electrolyte is, this is a documented root cause, not a hypothetical one.

Yes. Storage time, moisture exposure, and handling shift electrolyte composition and wetting performance even when the nominal formulation hasn't changed, standardize storage conditions for comparable results.

Yes. The Dropometer produces numeric contact angle, kinetics, and surface tension data with replicate records, timestamps, and lot identification, usable in NCR responses, CAPA files, and supplier audit packages.

Business Impact

What Changes When You Screen Wetting Instead of Discovering It at Formation

Before and with Dropometer; operational outcomes

Metric Before Dropometer With Dropometer Indicative Benchmark
Failure discovery point Formation or cycle-life testing, after committing a full cell build Contact angle and kinetics screening before cell assembly "COPQ from late-discovered defects typically 15–20% of revenue for manufacturers without upstream gates"
Additive selection Trial-and-error additive dosing validated only by full cell testing Measured wetting performance guides candidate selection before a cell build "Reducing trial-and-error is the outcome this page's own positioning statement already states"
Candidate ranking Full cell builds and cycle-life tests across each candidate additive Contact angle, kinetics, and surface tension comparison in a single screening run "Structured data-driven ranking vs. full cell-build trial-and-error"
Batch-to-batch consistency Unmeasured electrode or electrolyte lot variability Tracked per batch against a wetting baseline "Replicate spread detects drift before it reaches cell assembly"
Audit documentation Subjective downstream observation; not defensible under audit Numeric wetting logs with timestamps and lot ID "Applicable to NCR, CAPA, incoming inspection, and supplier qualification records"

Instant ROI Snapshot

Battery Electrolyte R&D ROI Snapshot

Estimate saved iterations and lab cost.

Each Dropometer unit is $5,000 — default models 1 unit.
Electrolyte chemistry plus electrode and separator specimen cost per trial.
Electrode prep, contact angle and kinetics capture, and analysis.
Conservative given high per-trial material cost uncertainty.

Result

~0
Iterations saved / month
~0
Monthly savings
~0
Payback period
~0
Year-1 net benefit

Monthly savings = materials saved + technician time saved from reduced iterations.

Honest scope

What Wetting Measurement Cannot Tell You About Battery Performance

Knowing the limits of any measurement tool is part of using it responsibly.

No universal contact angle threshold applies across all lithium-ion battery chemistries and electrode systems; set your own threshold from your baseline data.
Porous electrode materials distort contact angle readings into an apparent, not a true equilibrium, value.
Surface tension and contact angle alone cannot predict electrochemical compatibility or cycle-life performance.
Electrolyte additives must be validated for electrochemical compatibility separately; a wetting improvement doesn't guarantee the additive is otherwise compatible with your cell chemistry.
Fast wetting processes may require controlled capture timing to get a representative kinetics reading rather than a single endpoint number.
Use wetting metrics as an upstream quality gate, then confirm final suitability with your established impedance, formation, and cycle-life acceptance tests.

Use this page to improve additive screening and upstream troubleshooting, not to replace your formation and cycle-life testing. The Dropometer is one layer in a quality system, not a substitute for one.

Request Dropometer Quote Book a 15 minute Consult
Related use cases

Similar surface readiness workflows

CMC Assessment Techniques for Surfactant Concentration

The concentration-series measurement methodology this page's additive screening depends on.

View use case

Foam Control and Foam Quality Tuning

A related R&D formulation-screening workflow using the same surface tension and kinetics measurement approach.

View use case

Emulsion Stability Mechanism

A related interfacial screening workflow, relevant since electrolyte additives can affect interfacial behavior the same way emulsifiers do in other formulations.

View use case

How this page was created

Editorial and technical transparency notes for this page.

Transparency Details 4 checklist items
01

Drafting assistance

Initial draft created with AI assistance (Claude 4.8 Opus Pro), then rewritten for technical clarity by Droplet Lab Staff

02

Transparency Note

Technical review and editing by a surface-science specialist for accuracy

03

Transparency Note

Identifiers, units, thresholds, and key claims checked against cited sources before publication

04

Transparency Note

Reviewed every 12 months or when underlying standards or instrument specifications change

Report a correction

Spotted an issue in this summary? Send a correction request and our team will review it.

Correction Request

We work hard to keep this standards summary accurate and up to date. If you spot an error (wrong revision/year, missing requirement, incorrect interpretation, or broken link), tell us and we'll review it.

Contact us to report a correction
References

Sources

1.
A Systematic Literature Analysis on Electrolyte Filling and Wetting in Lithium-Ion Battery Production. Batteries (MDPI), 9(3), 164 (2023). https://www.mdpi.com/2313-0105/9/3/164
2.
KRÜSS Scientific. Wetting of Battery Electrodes. https://www.kruss-scientific.com/en-US/know-how/use-cases/wetting-of-battery-electrodes
3.
Chen, X. et al. Contact angle measurement with a smartphone. Review of Scientific Instruments, 89, 035117 (2018). https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/article-abstract/89/3/035117/368179/Contact-angle-measurement-with-a-smartphone
4.
Surface tension measurement with a smartphone using a pendant drop. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927775717307744
5.
Fabrico. The Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ) in Manufacturing: 2026 Guide. https://www.fabrico.io/blog/cost-of-poor-quality-copq-manufacturing-guide/
6.
Making Strategy Happen. The Cost of Quality: The 1-10-100 Rule. https://www.makingstrategyhappen.com/the-cost-of-quality-the-1-10-100-rule/