## 3 Results and Discussion
An inverse relationship is characteristic for the ITO films. The hydrophobicity of ITO materials decreases with increasing their surface roughness, and this occurs by increasing the concentration of gallium oxide in their composition. How \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Oxide Films with Composition Based on** & **The Value of \(x\) in the Precursor** & **Contact Angle, Degrees (\({}^{\circ}\))** \\  & **Solution** & **Contact Angle, Degrees (\({}^{\circ}\))** \\ \hline In\({}_{0.24}\)Sn\({}_{0.12}\)O\({}_{0.64}\) & 0.0 & 123.02 \\ In\({}_{0.17}\)Sn\({}_{0.06}\)Ga\({}_{0.11}\)O\({}_{0.66}\) & 0.1 & 120.00 \\ In\({}_{0.18}\)Sn\({}_{0.04}\)Ga\({}_{0.16}\)O\({}_{0.62}\) & 0.15 & 108.45 \\ \hline In\({}_{1.0}\)Mg\({}_{0.5}\)O\({}_{2.0}\) & 0.5 & 107.15 \\ In\({}_{0.68}\)Mg\({}_{0.66}\)O\({}_{1.7}\) & 0.65 & 109.93 \\ In\({}_{0.4}\)Mg\({}_{0.8}\)O\({}_{1.4}\) & 0.8 & 128.18 \\ \hline Zn\({}_{0.8}\)Mg\({}_{0.2}\)O & 0.2 & 111.25 \\ Zn\({}_{0.6}\)Mg\({}_{0.4}\)O & 0.4 & 113.98 \\ Zn\({}_{0.4}\)Mg\({}_{0.6}\)O & 0.6 & 116.56 \\ \hline In\({}_{1.75}\)Ga\({}_{0.25}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 0.1 & 106.05 \\ In\({}_{1.6}\)Ga\({}_{0.4}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 0.2 & 110.30 \\ In\({}_{1.4}\)Ga\({}_{0.6}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 0.3 & 112.38 \\ In\({}_{1.2}\)Ga\({}_{0.8}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 0.4 & 116.47 \\ In\({}_{1.0}\)Ga\({}_{1.0}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 0.5 & 119.85 \\ \hline Ga\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 0.0 & 117.80 \\ (Ga\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\))\({}_{0.75}\)(SnO\({}_{2}\))\({}_{0.25}\) & 0.25 & 121.60 \\ Ga\({}_{1.75}\)Al\({}_{0.25}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 0.12 & 122.30 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results of contact angle measurement of all deposited metal oxide thin films. Figure 5: Interdependence between the surface roughness and the contact angle in all investigate metal oxide films. ever, one should note that, concomitantly with the increase in \(Ga\) content, the Sn content decreased in these films. Among the ITO materials, the highest hydrophobicity is exhibited by the In\({}_{0.24}\)Sn\({}_{0.12}\)O\({}_{0.64}\) films, with a contact angle of 123.02 degrees. In comparison, In\({}_{0.17}\)Sn\({}_{0.06}\)Ga\({}_{0.11}\)O\({}_{0.66}\) has slightly lower hydrophobicity, with a wetting angle of 120 degrees, and In\({}_{0.18}\)Sn\({}_{0.04}\)Ga\({}_{0.16}\)O\({}_{0.62}\) shows an even lower hydrophobicity, with a wetting angle of 108.45 degrees. Apart from the surface roughness impact on the hydrophobic properties of films, their hydrophobicity could also be influenced by their composition, due to the nature of chemical bonds, which is determined by the electronegativity of the metals contained in the films. The difference in the electronegativity of zinc (1.65) and magnesium (1.31) is not so big, so that one can suggest that the hydrophobicity of Zn\({}_{1-x}\)Mg\({}_{x}\)O films is mainly impacted by the surface roughness of films, leading to the increase in the contact angle from 111.25\({}^{\circ}\) to 116.56\({}^{\circ}\) with increasing the \(x\) value from 0.2 to 0.6. This suggestion should also refer to (In\({}_{1-x}\)Ga\({}_{x}\))\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) films, since the electronegativity of _In_ (1.78) and \(Ga\) (1.81) are even closer to each other, and so that the increase in the contact angle from 106.05\({}^{\circ}\) to 119.88\({}^{\circ}\) by increasing the \(x\) value from 0.125 to 0.5 can be explained by increasing the surface roughness of the films from 4.16 nm to 10.18 nm. The change in the contact angle from 107.15\({}^{\circ}\) to 128.18\({}^{\circ}\) with an increase in the x value from 0.5 to 0.8 in the (In\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\))\({}_{1-x}\)(MgO)\({}_{x}\) films is significantly greater compared to the Zn\({}_{1-x}\)Mg\({}_{x}\)O and (In\({}_{1-x}\)Ga\({}_{x}\))\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) films; although, the change in the surface roughness of the films from 7.41 nm to 8.80 nm is less compared to the (In\({}_{1-x}\)Ga\({}_{x}\))\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) and Zn\({}_{1-x}\)Mg\({}_{x}\)O films.