substrate and force equilibria at the free surface, and applies a long-wave approximation. Under the assumption that concentrations equilibrate rapidly over the film thickness, we obtain coupled non-linear evolution equations for the film thickness profile h ( x, t ) and the amount of nanoparticles per unit length h$_{p}$ = φh , where φ is the volume concentration of the nanoparticles. Note, that h$_{p}$ corresponds to the local thickness of the nanoparticle layer when all the solvent is evaporated. The resulting evolution equation for the film thickness is Eq. (1) above and focusing on the influence of particle-independent capillarity and wettability only, the energy functional F [ h ] is given by Eq. (2) above. Note that the viscosity η depends on the particle concentration. Following Refs. [88, 89, 91, 92] we use the Quemada law for dense suspensions [93–95] where φ$_{c}$ = 0 . 64 corresponds to random close packing of spherical particles. For the nanoparticle volume per length h$_{p}$ = φh one obtains the following evolution equation: where the particle concentration dependent diffusion coefficient D ( φ ) is related to the viscosity by the Einstein relation D ( φ ) = kT/ 6 πRη ( φ ) , where R is the radius of the nanoparticles [96]. We illustrate results obtained employing this thin film theory using the single example of a re- ceding dewetting front for a partially wetting film. We use the disjoining pressure and material constants for the liquid considered in Ref. [57], where the evaporative and convective dewetting of a film of volatile liquid is studied. We add, however, the nanoparticles to the system. The expression that we employ for the local free energy term in Eq. (2) is: where the parameters characterising the interaction between the liquid film and the surface are the apolar and polar spreading coefficients S$_{LW}$ and S$_{P}$ , respectively, the Debye length l$_{0}$ and the Born repulsion length d$_{0}$ [57]. The resulting disjoining pressure Π = − ∂$_{h}$f ( h ) allows for a stable precursor film (thickness h$_{precursor}$ ) and also has a second (larger) thickness ( h$_{0}$ ) that corresponds to a secondary minimum of the underlying energy functional. See Refs. [11, 97] for studies of film and drop states for similar disjoining pressures. Our results are calculated for a system where the profiles only vary in one Cartesian direction ( x ), corresponding to a straight dewetting front. However, our results may also be interpreted as applying to a circular flat drop whose front remains 19 η ( φ ) = η$_{0}$ ( 1 − φ φ$_{c}$$^{)}$$^{−}$$^{2}$ (8) ∂$_{t}$ ( φh ) = ∇ ·$^{[}$ φQ$_{c}$ ∇ δF δh$^{]}$ + ∇ · [ D ( φ ) h ∇ φ ] , (9) f ( h ) = S$_{LW}$ d 2 0 h 2 + S$_{P}$ exp$^{(}$ d$_{0}$ − h l$_{0}$ ) , (10)