AUTOMATED CONTACT ANGLE MEASUREMENT OF

SESSILE DROP IMAGES USING DEEP LEARNING MODEL

Carla L. Cornillon1,*, Yuan Liang2, Jia Li3, Tingyi “Leo” Liu4, Connor M. Choi5, Lei He2,
and Chang-Jin “CJ” Kim1,6
1
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, 2Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, 6Department of Bioengineering, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA),
California; 3Microfabrica, Van Nuys, California; 4Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts; 5Anderson W. Clark Magnet
High School, La Crescenta, California, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT existing contact-angle measurement software is eliminated

We report development of a measurement method for
the public to upload a sessile drop image and receive its
contact angles. Different from all existing practices, the
reported method is aimed to process a wide variety of
images by introducing a deep learning model for detection
and segmentation of the three-phase contact regions.
Currently trained to measure angles between ~10° and
~65°, the model is continuing training to expand the
detectable range. The measurements are quick and
automated, producing contact angles within five seconds of
receiving an image without supervision. The measurement
method is currently being tested on a local website but will
be deployed for public use once the full range is reached.
INTRODUCTION
The contact angle formed by a solid surface and liquid-
fluid interface is a fundamental parameter used in many
fields to determine the properties of the solid surface and
two fluids involved. In MEMS, where interfacial properties
become more prominent due to the large surface-to-volume
ratio, contact angles are frequently measured for both
fabrication processes and devices, such as the
characterization of anti-stiction coatings [1], wettability
controls [2], micro-lens systems [3], and digital
microfluidics [4, 5]. Contact angles have been widely
measured for academic research and industrial processes in
various disciplines, such as chemistry, biology, and
polymer science, to measure surface tension [6],
characterize surface energy and roughness [7], probe
surface charges [8], find work of adhesion [9], and study
functional groups grafting between material interfaces
[10], to list just a few. Due to the impact in diverse fields,
there are many different methods of measuring the contact
angles formed at the three-phase contact points [11, 12].
However, existing methods are either too simple (e.g.,
circle or ellipse fitting methods) to provide accurate
measurements or too inconvenient for the general public to
utilize because nontrivial amount of learning is required for
proper usage. The contact-angle measurement software
that comes with commercial goniometers are highly
optimized for the instrument and not only inadequate for
general usage but also ineffective for the images not
obtained by the instrument.
Focusing on the sessile drop experiment, here we
develop a fast and automatic algorithm for measuring the
droplet interface contact angle, giving the user the
simplicity of just uploading an image and retrieving the
data they need. The human intervention required for all
by employing a deep learning model that detects the three-
phase contact regions in a wide variety of droplet images
and measures the contact angle using the droplet edge
within each region. The reported project can support, for
example, the electrowetting-on-dielectric (EWOD) cyber-
manufacturing system, which aims to offer an online
platform with design tools and links to chip fabricators for
any users to obtain own EWOD devices and exercise
digital microfluidics [13].
EXPERIMENT AND DESIGN
The following method describes the process used to
automate the measurement of contact angles produced
from the sessile drop experiment. Figure 1 illustrates the
steps for the new approach. Rather than focusing on the full
profile of the droplet, either symmetric or asymmetric, to
create a global approximation of its shape, the proposed
algorithm focuses on detecting the three-phase contact
Figure 1: Sample images undergoing measurement steps to
retrieve contact angles. (A) The two three-phase contact
regions (i.e., the green boxes) identified during the object
detection phase. (B) The three-phase contact points (i.e.,
the green dots) and the droplet edges (i.e., the red dotted
lines) determined using the segmented images (i.e., the blue
triangles). (C) The contact angles calculated using the
horizontal line (i.e., the yellow straight line) plotted
between the three-phase contact points (i.e., the green and
red dots) and the tangential lines (i.e., the green and red
lines) of the fitted droplet edges at the three-phase contact
points.
regions. This new approach allows bypassing the difficulty
of producing the global model from the droplet shape and
avoiding the typical errors of resulting contact angles [11,
12] – common to most existing contact-angle measurement
methods. The algorithm first detects the two three-phase
contact regions of the droplet image, as shown in Figure
1(A), and then uses only the segmented image shown in
Figure 1(B) to determine both the droplet edge and the
location of the contact points of the image. From there, it
then plots a horizontal line between the two three-phase
contact points to approximate the cross-sectional solid
surface as reference for measurement and fits the edges
with a separate third-degree (i.e., cubic) polynomial.
Finally, the contact angles are measured as the angle
between a linear approximation from the slope of the
polynomial at the contact points and the plotted reference
line, as shown in Figure 1(C).
The single shot multibox detector model (SSD) is used
to detect the three-phase contact region within a droplet
image where the contact point resides. The SSD is a deep
learning neural network that is used for the detection of
specified objects by plotting bounding boxes at the areas of
interest in an image. Compared to other neural network
models, the SSD is easy to train, fast, and straightforward
in its integration with other tasks, making it compatible
with our uses [14]. Our model was trained using a
multitude of images with droplets of varying contact angles
as well as other varying factors including different droplet
positions, backlighting, and background conditions. To
train the model, about 6000 images were manually labeled
with bounding boxes specifying the three-phase contact
regions we are interested in. These boxes are also referred
to as the “ground truth”, and the labeled data is used to train
the model to recognize the area of interest: the three-phase
contact region.
Within the three-phase contact region, important
information can be interpolated for the measurement of the
contact angle. The key to finding this information is to
identify the edge of the droplet. In practice, the quality of
the edge detection is affected by image resolution, pre-
processing distortion, background noise, and other factors,
limiting the precision and accuracy of the measurement
[12]. Taking these issues in consideration, we restrict the
edge detection to the pixels within the area of the three-
phase contact regions. This produces localized profiles of
the droplet edge within these two regions, rather than a
global approximation of the droplet edge across the image.
Applying the k-means algorithm from CNN-based
detection for unsupervised image segmentation, the
algorithm clusters each pixel within the three-phase contact
regions into two categories: droplet pixel or background
pixel, as shown in Figure 2 [15]. This clustering is based
on pixel intensities, and it optimizes within cluster
variances. Once each area is properly labeled so that the
droplet is identified within the region, the algorithm
determines the edge of the droplet area. This edge is used
to determine the pixel that represents the three-phase
contact point as well as fit the localized edge with a third-
degree polynomial.
The three-phase contact points and pixels of the
droplet are used to plot a reference line that approximates
the cross-sectional solid surface for contact angle
measurement. The fit of the localized edge of the droplet
determined above is used to find the tangent along the edge
that lies through the three-phase contact point and produces
the resulting contact angle measurement of the droplet
interface on both ends of the droplet.
Figure 2: Cropped original image that has undergone
segmentation within the three-phase contact region to
include only labeled droplet pixels. (A) The segmented
image shows the droplet pixels labeled as red within the
three-phase contact region. (B) The interpolated data is
shown, including the three-phase contact points, the
reference line, and the tangential lines of droplet edges
used for contact angle measurement.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
To evaluate the success of the measurement method,
we determined both the accuracy of the model’s ability to
detect the three-phase contact region and compared the
calculated contact angle results with those produced from
a standard measurement software. Most measurement
software currently available to the public are for a specific
instrument (i.e., for processing a certain type of images)
and also require human involvement before each reading.
The detection model was tested using a batch of 400
manually labeled images that were kept separate from the
6000 images used for the training and validation of the
model. The images were captured by a do-it-yourself (DIY)
contact angle measurement software with changing
background light and droplet position. To understand the
results, it is important to explain how the detection model
labels the bounding boxes it produces that identify the
regions of interest. The model generates bounding boxes
where it detects the three-phase contact region in the testing
images. We then compared the detected bounding boxes
with the ground truth boxes from manual labeling. The
generated bounding boxes are categorized as either positive
or negative. Positive signifies whether the generated
bounding box contains the three-phase contact region with
an Intersection over Union (IoU) larger than 80%.
Moreover, only one generated bounding box was taken as
positive for each ground truth box in order to reduce the
duplicated box predictions. In specific, IoU is defined as:
IoU = area of overlap / area of union (1)
where the area of overlap refers to the area of overlap
between the generated bounding box and the ground truth,
and the area of union is the total area between both boxes.
 The precision of the model is directly linked to the rate Table 1: Left (L) and right (R) contact angles (CA)
at which it produces false positives; the more false calculated using the proposed measurement method and
positives the model generates, the less precise it is. In the ImageJ Drop Analysis. The proposed method is automatic
case of our model, false positives would occur as bounding and processed in 0-5 seconds for each image. ImageJ
boxes that do not contain the three-phase contact region, requires multiple manual steps from the user and would
but are labeled as such. False negatives, in contrast, signify take 45 seconds – 2 minutes per image depending on the
the existence of a three-phase contact region the model skills and tools.
failed to identify. The sensitivity measures the ratio of its
true positives to the total of true positives and false Proposed method Using ImageJ
negatives, which indicates the ability of the model to detect Automatic; 0-5 sec Manual; 45 sec – 2 min
real contact regions. As the sensitivity of the model Image L CA R CA L CA R CA
approaches one, the model produces no false negatives and
thus accurately detects all the three-phase contact region. A 11.7 7.7 10.2 8.7
Figure 3 shows the accuracy of the detection model by B 16.1 13.0 15.1 11.6
plotting its free-response receiver operating characteristic
(FROC) curve [16]. Our FROC curve approaches C 28.0 18.7 23.8 23.5
maximum sensitivity while having a low number of false
D 34.8 29.9 34.1 34.9
positive detection per image, which demonstrates the
model is consistently and accurately detecting the three- E 34.6 23.0 27.7 26.5
phase contact region.
F 38.5 40.0 38.8 42.4

G 50.4 56.1 51.9 57.2

H 69.1 65.6 69.2 67.7

Figure 3: FROC curve for our detection model. The FROC

curve shows the relationship between the model’s accuracy
by comparing its sensitivity to its false positive rate as we
change the threshold of the overlap for identifying a
positive in our model. For each data point in the FROC
plot, we set a threshold value, and used it to determine the
true positive detection and false positive detection, and
further calculate the model sensitivity and false positive per
image. If the threshold value is too high, the model is
unable to identify both three-phase contact regions,
producing false negatives. In comparison, if the threshold
value is too low, the model may label false positives.
Table 1 shows the contact angles calculated from our
measurement method compared to contact angles measured
from a standard software, ImageJ Drop Analysis
(DropSnake), across the range for which our model
currently works. Figure 4 shows the images used in the
measurements. The calculated contact angles between the
two methods are similar (usually within 5° of each other
with the greatest difference in measurement equal to ~7°).
Different factors affect the difference in measurement,
notably how the droplet edge was calculated as well as the
method for calculating the contact angles. Despite these
differences, this suggests our model is capable as a means
of measurement compared to other common software used
for measuring contact angles.
Figure 4: Images passed through both our measuring
method and the ImageJ Drop Analysis software. The
images selected show droplets with different experimental
conditions and contact angles to demonstrate the
capability of our measurement method to process a wide
range of images – difficult for the software coming with
commercial goniometers.
Figure 5 demonstrates the resulting image generated
for a user to validate the contact angle measurements
calculated from the original image uploaded to the website,
at this point, hosted locally that contains our measurement
method. If the calculated contact angle measurements seem
unreasonable to the user, the model returns the generated
image to show the user the data it collected to produce its
calculations. It is important to note the accessibility of a
website to a wide range of users, as well as the quickness
of the return of the measurements and image. Running the
measurement method with a four-core CPU laptop, the
information is returned within 5 seconds.

Figure 5: Sample image uploaded by user and the
generated image returned by measurement method. The
generated image (B) is the original image (A) labeled with
the three-phase contact points, the contact line and the
linear approximation of the droplet edge used in the
contact angle measurement.
CONCLUSION
We have developed a fast and automatic measurement
method that calculates the contact angles from images of
sessile droplets. Our method uses deep learning to detect
the three-phase contact point; it locally and accurately
measures the contact angles using the three-phase contact
points and the droplet edges. Currently being tested on a
local website for accuracies and robustness, the contact-
angle measurement results are quickly returned to the
uploading user along with the original image labeled with
three-phase contact points.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been supported by National Science
Foundation (NSF) Award #1711708 (CK, JL) and Award
#1720499 (CK, LH, JL), NSF Research Experiences for
Undergraduates (REU) program (CC), Volgenau Endowed
Chair in Engineering (CK), and University of
Massachusetts Amherst startup package (TL). The authors
thank Qining Wang for his advice on the website.
REFERENCES
[1] Y. X. Zhuang and A. Menon, “On the stiction of
MEMS materials,” Tribol Lett, vol. 19, pp. 111–117,
2005.
[2] T. Liu and C.-J. Kim, “Turning a surface superrepellent
even to completely wetting liquids,” Science, vol. 346,
pp. 1096–1100, 2014.
[3] F. Krogmann, W. Mönch, and H. Zappe, “A MEMS-
based variable micro-lens system,” J. Opt. A: Pure
Appl. Opt., vol. 8, pp. S330–S336, 2006.
[4] S. K. Cho, H. Moon, and C.-J Kim, “Creating,
Transporting, Cutting, and Merging Liquid Droplets
by Electrowetting-Based Actuation for Digital
Microfluidic Circuits”, J. Microelectromechanical
Systems, vol. 12, pp. 70-80.
[5] J. Li, N. S. Ha, T. Liu, R. M. van Dam, and C.-J. Kim,
“Ionic-surfactant-mediated electro-dewetting for
digital microfluidics,” Nature, vol. 572, pp. 507–510,
2019.
[6] K. G. Kabza, J. E. Gestwicki, and J. L. McGrath,
“Contact Angle Goniometry as a Tool for Surface
Tension Measurements of Solids, Using Zisman Plot
Method. A Physical Chemistry Experiment,” J. Chem.
Educ., vol. 77, p. 63, 2000, .
[7] L. Gao and T. J. McCarthy, “Ionic Liquids Are Useful
Contact Angle Probe Fluids,” J. Am. Chem. Soc., vol.
129, pp. 3804–3805, 2007.
[8] G. Hurwitz, G. R. Guillen, and E. M. V. Hoek, “Probing
polyamide membrane surface charge, zeta potential,
wettability, and hydrophilicity with contact angle
measurements,” Journal of Membrane Science, vol.
349, pp. 349–357, 2010.
[9] K. M. Liechti, S. T. Schnapp, and J. G. Swadener,
“Contact Angle and Contact Mechanics of a
Glass/Epoxy Interface,” International Journal of
Fracture, vol. 86, pp. 361–374, 1997.
[10] A. Y. Fadeev and T. J. McCarthy, “Trialkylsilane
Monolayers Covalently Attached to Silicon Surfaces: 
Wettability Studies Indicating that Molecular
Topography Contributes to Contact Angle
Hysteresis,” Langmuir, vol. 15, pp. 3759–3766, 1999.
[11] A. F. Stalder, G. Kulik, D. Sage, L. Barbieri, and P.
Hoffmann, “A snake-based approach to accurate
determination of both contact points and contact
angles”, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical
and Engineering Aspects, vol. 286, pp. 92-103, 2006.
[12] S. F. Chini and A. Amirfazli, “A method for measuring
contact angle of asymmetric and symmetric drops”,
Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and
Engineering Aspects, vol. 388, pp. 29-37, 2011.
[13] X. Huang, C.-C. Liang, J. Li, T.-Y. Ho, and C.-J. Kim,
“Open-Source Incubation Ecosystem for Digital
Microfluidics – Status and Roadmap,” Digest of
Technical Papers, 2019 IEEE/ACM Int. Conf.
Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD), Westin
Westminster, CO, Nov. 2019, 9B1.
[14] W. Liu, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, C. Szegedy, S. Reed,
C. Fu, and A. Berg, “SSD: Single Shot MultiBox
Detector”, ArXiv, abs/1512.02325, 2016.
[15] N. Dhanachandra and Y. J. Chanu, “A survey on
image segmentation methods using clustering
techniques,” European Journal of Engineering
Research and Science, vol. 2, pp. 15-20, 2017.
[16] A. I. Bandos, H. E. Rockette, T. Song, and D. Gur,
“Area under the free-response ROC curve (FROC) and
a related summary index”, Biometrics, vol. 65, pp.
247-56, 2009.
CONTACT
* C. Cornillon, tel: +1-408-455-4243;
carlacornillon@ucla.edu