Skip to content
Publicly Available Published by De Gruyter January 17, 2014

Optimization of superamphiphobic layers based on candle soot

Maxime Paven , Periklis Papadopoulos , Lena Mammen , Xu Deng , Hermann Sachdev , Doris Vollmer EMAIL logo and Hans-Jürgen Butt EMAIL logo

Abstract

Liquid repellent layers can be fabricated by coating a fractal-like layer of candle soot particles with a silicon oxide layer, combusting the soot at 600 °C and subsequently silanizing with perfluoroalkylsilanes. Drops of different liquids deposited on these so called “superamphiphobic” layers easily roll off thanks to the low liquid-solid adhesion. The lower value of the surface tension of liquids that can be repelled depends on details of the processing. Here, we analyze the influence of the soot deposition duration and height with respect to the flame on the structure and wetting properties of the superamphiphobic layer. The mean diameter of the soot particles depends on the distance from the wick. Close to the wick, the average diameter of the particles varies between 30 and 50 nm as demonstrated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Close to the top of the flame, the particles size decreases to 10–20 nm. By measuring the mass of superamphiphobic layers and their thickness by laser scanning confocal microscopy (LSCM) in reflection mode, we could determine that the average porosity is 0.91. The height-dependent structural differences affect the apparent contact and roll-off angles. Lowest contact angles are measured when soot is deposited close to the wick due to wax that is not completely burnt, smearing out the required overhanging structures. The small particle size close to the top of the flame also reduces contact angles, again due to decreasing size of overhangs. Sooting in the middle of the flame led to optimal liquid repellency. Furthermore, for sooting times longer than 45 s the properties of the layer did not change with sooting time, verifying the self-similarity of the layer.

Introduction

Superamphiphobic layers repel water and oils [1, 2]. Tilting a superamphiphobic surface by <10° is enough to allow droplets to roll off. Superamphiphobic layers are “self-cleaning”, which means that water, soap solutions, and oil drops are able to remove dust and contaminants while rolling off the surface. Superamphiphobic layers can serve as almost contact-free substrates for many liquids and solutions.

In general, the wetting behavior of a surface can be characterized by the value of the contact angle of a liquid droplet deposited on it. The liquid may spread completely or form a finite contact angle Θ. For a smooth, homogeneous surface, the contact angle of a liquid droplet on a solid surface in thermodynamic equilibrium can be calculated theoretically by Young’s equation [3]:

Here, γSL, γSV, and γSL are the liquid–vapor, solid–vapor, and solid–liquid surface tensions, respectively. If the surface tension of the solid–vapor interface is higher than that of the solid–liquid interface (γSV > γSL), the right side of the Young equation is positive. As a consequence, cosΘ is also positive, corresponding to a contact angle between 0 and 90°; the surface is lyophilic. When the right side of the Young equation is negative (γSV < γSL), cosΘ is negative; this corresponds to a contact angle higher than 90°, and the surface is lyophobic. In the case of smooth surfaces, the highest contact angle observed for a water drop is about 120° on fluorinated materials.

To reach higher apparent contact angle, the surface needs to be textured. For textured surfaces, the apparent contact angle can exceed 150°, if the texture leads to an entrapment of air [4]. On such composite surfaces, the drop partially sits on air pockets. The situation, where the drop sits to a significant degree on air, is called the Cassie state [5]. In addition to the high apparent contact angle, the drop rolls off at small tilting angles. A surface is called super-repellent with respect to a certain liquid if the liquid forms an apparent contact angle above 150° and a drop rolls off at a tilting angle below 10° [6–8].

No naturally occurring flat surface is known to show a contact angle >90° for organic liquids. Few synthetic superamphiphobic surfaces have been reported [9–16], as they are considerably more difficult to create than superhydrophobic surfaces. Tuteja et al. proved that careful design of the topography of a surface allows constructing surfaces with a contact angle for hexadecane close to 160°, although the flat surface was oleophilic [2]. Composite surfaces with convex small-scale roughness and overhanging structures can provide an energy barrier which is sufficient to prevent complete impalement of the liquid [17–19]. When the liquid impales a superamphiphobic layer and the entrapped air is displaced, the state is called the Wenzel state [20]. Superamphiphobicity is lost in the Wenzel state and only exists in the Cassie state.

Lately we developed a facile method to fabricate transparent superamphiphobic layers by using candle soot as template [21]. Soot is well known for its good water-repellency [22, 23]. This procedure is applicable to a whole variety of different substrates that can be heated to 600 °C, such as glass plates, metal pieces, and meshes. In this manuscript, we show that the size and shape of deposited soot can be tuned by the soot deposition procedure. Large aggregates are formed close to the wick, whereas small particles are deposited if the substrate is placed close to the top of the candle flame. Size and shape of the particles change the level of liquid repellency of the layer.

Materials and methods

Chemicals

All chemicals were used without further purification: Ammonia (25% in water, Fluka, Germany), tetraethoxysilane (TEOS, 98%, Acros Organics, Belgium), absolute ethanol (>99.8%, Sigma-Aldrich, Germany), hexadecane (99%, Sigma-Aldrich, Germany) and trichloro(1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctyl)silane (97%, Sigma-Aldrich, Germany). Milli-Q water was obtained from a Millipore purification system operating at 18.2 MΩcm (arium 611 VF, Sartorius, Germany). The glass slides, Menzel GmbH, Germany and silicon wafers (Si-Mat, Germany) taken as a substrate for the superamphiphobic layers were cleaned with a Hellmanex II solution (Hellma GmbH, Germany).

Characterization methods

The morphology of the soot particles and the layer were characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM, low-voltage LEO 1530 Gemini, Germany and SU8000, Hitachi, Japan). The samples were prepared on a silicon wafer and investigated without further treatment. The thickness of the layer and its topography were determined by laser scanning confocal microscopy (LSCM, Leica, TCS SP5 II – STED CW, Germany) [24]. Static contact angles and roll-off angles were measured in the sessile drop configuration (Dataphysics OCA35, Data Physics Instruments GmbH, Germany). The contact and roll-off angle was measured at six positions after depositing a 6-μL hexadecane droplet on the surface, removing the needle and tilting the stage at a speed of 1.3°/s. Simultaneously, the shape of the droplet was recorded. Increasing the speed by one order of magnitude or droplet volume by a factor of two did not change the tilting angle within experimental accuracy. The chemical composition of the soot layer was investigated using a confocal Raman microscope (Bruker, Senterra).

Sooting of samples

Preparation of superamphiphobic layers (Fig. 1) starts with sooting [21, 25]. Silicon wafers or glass slides (2 × 2 cm2) were used as substrates. The substrates were cleaned with Hellmanex II solution prior to usage. The samples were coated with an automated sooting machine, which could hold and move the substrate. The horizontal range of the linear sooting movement was 18 cm, and a full cycle took 1.4 s. The velocity followed a sinusoidal profile to reduce vibrations close to reversal of direction. The range of the sooting movement exceeded the size of the substrates by a factor of 9. Therefore, the velocity of the substrate was almost constant while sooting. The distance of the substrate from the candle wick was fixed during deposition and could be varied between 0 and 3 cm.

Fig. 1 
            Schematic of the fabrication of superamphiphobic surfaces. (a) deposition of soot. (b) Chemical vapor deposition of tetraethoxysilane coats the soot with a silica shell. (c) Combustion of the soot renders the surface transparent.
Fig. 1

Schematic of the fabrication of superamphiphobic surfaces. (a) deposition of soot. (b) Chemical vapor deposition of tetraethoxysilane coats the soot with a silica shell. (c) Combustion of the soot renders the surface transparent.

Chemical vapor deposition (CVD) of tetraethoxysilane (TEOS)

Soot-coated samples were transferred to a desiccator, and two snap cap vials with a diameter of 2.4 cm and a volume of 30 mL were placed next to the samples. One snap cap vial was filled with 3 mL ammonium hydroxide aqueous solution and the other vial with 3 mL TEOS. The desiccator was sealed and vacuum was applied for ≈ 30 s (250 mbar). After 1 min, the vacuum was slowly released by opening the desiccator valve up to the point where a faint hissing could be noticed. The pressure in the desiccator reached 1 atm after 1 min. CVD was carried out for 24 h, if not stated otherwise. Similar to a Stöber reaction, silica is formed by hydrolysis and condensation of TEOS catalyzed by ammonia. Samples were directly used after preparation.

Combustion

CVD-coated samples were heated for 2 h at 600 °C, becoming nearly transparent.

Hydrophobization

After combustion, the samples were coated with trichloro(1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctyl)silane. Again, samples were transferred to a desiccator and a snap cap vial with a diameter of 2.4 cm and a volume of 30 mL was filled with 100 μL trichloro(1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctyl)silane and placed next to the samples. The desiccator was sealed and vacuum was applied until the pressure reached a value of 200 mbar (1 min). The vacuum was released after 3–4 h. To remove the excess of not chemically bound trichloro(1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctyl)silane, the samples were placed in an oven at 60 °C and 200 mbar for 2 h.

The properties of the superamphiphobic layer depend on details of the sooting procedure as well as on the period of CVD of TEOS. Both influence the nanoscale structure, which plays an important role for the superamphiphobic character of the sample. Therefore, sooting parameters play a crucial role for the density, mechanical stability, and superamphiphobicity of these surfaces. Variation of sooting height and time permits tuning of the structure of the soot template.

Results

Deposited soot mass

In order to explore the influence of soot deposition parameters, we designed an automated sooting device, which permits varying the distance of the candle wick to the substrate, hi. To compare different flames, we use the relative sooting height Ri = hi/H in the following. Here, H denotes the height of the flame (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 
            Image of a candle flame. The black solid lines denote the positions of the substrate (glass slide or silicon wafer). The different sooting heights, hi, were measured with respect to the wick, dotted line. In most cases, the flame height was H ≈ 3 cm. This corresponds to relative sooting heights: R1 = 0.92, R2 = 0.64, R3 = 0.45, and R4 = 0.26 from top to bottom.
Fig. 2

Image of a candle flame. The black solid lines denote the positions of the substrate (glass slide or silicon wafer). The different sooting heights, hi, were measured with respect to the wick, dotted line. In most cases, the flame height was H ≈ 3 cm. This corresponds to relative sooting heights: R1 = 0.92, R2 = 0.64, R3 = 0.45, and R4 = 0.26 from top to bottom.

To explore the mass of deposed soot with regard to the different sooting heights and times, glass substrates with a dimension of 2 × 2 cm2 were coated using the automated sooting device. We measured the mass of the glass substrate before and after sooting. The soot mass deposited increases linearly with sooting time although the error is large for low sooting times and for substrates that were positioned just above the wick, for R = 0.25 (Fig. 3). The gas flow may inhibit effective and homogenous absorption of soot particles onto the glass. Maximal deposition rate is obtained at R = 0.45. Close to the top of the flame, R = 0.92, the amount of deposited soot per unit of time decreases again, likely due to partial combustion of the soot particles.

Fig. 3 
            Deposited soot mass on a 2 × 2 cm2 glass slide for different sooting times and heights. Each data point resembles the arithmetic mean of two or three independent measurements. The solid lines are guides to the eye.
Fig. 3

Deposited soot mass on a 2 × 2 cm2 glass slide for different sooting times and heights. Each data point resembles the arithmetic mean of two or three independent measurements. The solid lines are guides to the eye.

To gain more insight in the size and shape of the deposited particles, we investigated the surface of the layer by scanning electron microscopy (Fig. 4). Close to the top of the flame, R = 0.92, the particles are almost spherical but they are too small to be clearly resolved. The particles with a diameter between 10 and 20 nm (Fig. 4a) assemble in particles strands varying in length, orientation and shape. The strands form a highly porous fractal-like network (Fig. 4b). Close to the wick, R = 0.25, the particles are larger and less spherical (Figs. 4c and 5a). High-magnification SEM shows that aggregates are formed which seem to consist of several isolated particles. It is possible that the wax is not fully burned, causing the neighboring particles to be embedded in a layer of evaporated wax. At lower magnification, the denser network still appears fractal-like (Fig. 4d).

Fig. 4 
            Dependence of the size and shape of the soot particles on the sooting height. The substrates were sooted for 20 s. Images (a) and (b) were taken at R = 0.92. Images (c) and (d) were taken at R = 0.25.
Fig. 4

Dependence of the size and shape of the soot particles on the sooting height. The substrates were sooted for 20 s. Images (a) and (b) were taken at R = 0.92. Images (c) and (d) were taken at R = 0.25.

Fig. 5 
            SEM images showing the morphology of soot deposited at low sooting height, R = 0.25. (a) Image taken directly after depositing soot for 20 s. (b) Image taken after heating the soot coated substrate for 3 h at 200 °C in a vacuum oven.
Fig. 5

SEM images showing the morphology of soot deposited at low sooting height, R = 0.25. (a) Image taken directly after depositing soot for 20 s. (b) Image taken after heating the soot coated substrate for 3 h at 200 °C in a vacuum oven.

To check whether incompletely burned wax is the reason for the formation of aggregates, we heated the deposited soot in a vacuum oven for 3 h at 200 °C. At this temperature, wax evaporates slowly. After heating, the irregularly shaped aggregates are shown to consist of almost spherical soot particles (Fig. 5b). The size of the particles varied between 30 and 50 nm. Thus, close to the wick, evaporated wax can lead to cluster formation, whereas close to the top of the flame, combustion causes smaller particle sizes.

Network structure for different sooting times

To test whether the morphology of the network depends on the sooting time, different sooting times between 20 s and 3 min were explored. Neither the topography of the layer nor the size and shape of the particles changed with the sooting time, as indicated by SEM images taken at different magnifications (Fig. 6). This supports the self-similarity of the layer. Therefore, the final properties of the layer should be independent of the sooting time in agreement with our previous findings.

Fig. 6 
            SEM images showing the dependence of the morphology and particle size on sooting time and magnification, R = 0.64. (a) to (c) the substrates were sooted for 20 s. (d) to (f) the substrates were sooted for 120 s.
Fig. 6

SEM images showing the dependence of the morphology and particle size on sooting time and magnification, R = 0.64. (a) to (c) the substrates were sooted for 20 s. (d) to (f) the substrates were sooted for 120 s.

For the time-dependent measurements we select samples coated at a middle height (R = 0.64). The samples shown in Fig. 6 were not heated before the SEM images were taken. The high-resolution SEM images show that the particle aggregates are made up of almost spherical carbon beads, having a size of 40 ± 10 nm, i.e., still much larger than those close to the top of the flame. At this height, hardly any wax could be resolved, implying that at this height the wax already burned completely (Fig. 6c and f). This renders heat treatment of the samples before usage unnecessary.

Analyzing soot composition by Raman spectroscopy

The soot particles are only connected by weak physical bonds. Therefore, the fractal-like structure is fragile. To improve its mechanical stability, we developed a technique to coat the soot particles with a silica shell. However, for a good chemical bonding of TEOS to the soot surface, a surface functionalization with hydroxyl groups would be beneficial. Raman spectroscopy was used as a nondestructive tool to verify the presence of hydroxyl groups. We deposited a thick layer of soot (>100 μm) on a platinum substrate to ensure that the substrate does not contribute to the Raman signal. For comparison, we measured the spectrum of pure soot (Fig. 7, black line) and the soot layer after CVD of TEOS (Fig. 7, red line).

Fig. 7 
            Raman spectrum of soot (black line) and silica-coated soot (red line). The spectra proof the hydrophilicity of the soot surface, due to presence of OH-groups. Sooting height: R ≈ 0.64. Laser excitation: 488 nm.
Fig. 7

Raman spectrum of soot (black line) and silica-coated soot (red line). The spectra proof the hydrophilicity of the soot surface, due to presence of OH-groups. Sooting height: R ≈ 0.64. Laser excitation: 488 nm.

Since the preparation of the soot took place in air, the soot samples can chemically be described as CxHyOz, with x >> y, z. Rather pure, unordered carbons with different sp2/sp3 ratios give usually rise to various intense D- and G-bands in the spectra with almost no or only broad, unstructured contributions in the range of 2500–3500 cm–1 where C-H stretching vibrations are expected. Highly ordered (few layer) graphene or graphitic materials lead to well-resolved D, G, D′, D + D″, 2D, D + D′ and 2D′ contributions, the last four also located in the above-mentioned region [26–28]. Since ternary CxHyOz materials still have significant amounts of aliphatic and aromatic CH-bonds and also C–OH-bonds (of weak Raman activity) in the same region, the Raman modes of weakly crystalline carbonaceous materials, such as soot, can reveal significant contributions of these moieties in this region. In that case, the features resulting from highly crystalline graphene structures can be excluded if broad D- and G-band structures are present.

For both samples, the Raman spectrum shows a broad D-peak at 1360cm–1 andG-peak at 1560 cm–1, indicating a weakly ordered carbonaceous material. In addition, in the range from

it is possible to assign the modes according to the above-described arguments for an extremely weak ordered carbon material also to originate from superposition of symmetric and anti-symmetric aliphatic C–H stretches
aromatic C–H stretches
and O–H stretches
broad). The latter broad peak suggests hydroxyl groups on the soot surface, enabling an ammonia-catalyzed nucleophilic condensation of TEOS on the surface in order to form an enveloping silica network.

A treatment of the sooted samples before or after CVD of TEOS in a water vapor or oxygen containing plasma can further enhance the number of OH binding states (and also of CH– and CH2 groups in the case of water) at the surface of the carbon soot.

Thickness of porous silica

Coating the soot particle network with silicon oxide keeps the network intact. To measure the thickness of the layer we coated the soot deposited on glass substrates with silica and combusted the carbon at 600 °C. This renders the black layer almost transparent. The transparency decreases with increasing thickness of the layer. Up to a few tens of micrometers the thickness of the layer can be measured by confocal microscopy in reflection mode. Although the layer is largely transparent, a minor part of the light is reflected at the silica-air interfaces (Fig. 8). The thickness of the layer is measured at different positions of the glass plate. Near the rim of the plate (0 mm), no superamphiphobic layer was visible. The black line shows the reflection of the light at the upper surface of the glass plate (Fig. 8a, inverted intensity scale). The reflectivity curve of the glass-air interface is almost symmetric, with a width given by the diffraction-limit of confocal microscopy (Fig. 8b, black line). When looking at the superamphiphobic layer 5 and 10 mm away from the rim toward the center of the glass substrate, the peak is followed by a plateau. Light is also reflected up to 10 μm above the glass–air interface (Fig. 8b, red line). Further above the glass surface, the reflectivity decreases strongly, pointing towards the absence of material that can reflect light. From the end of the plateau we estimated the layer thickness (Fig. 8b, red arrow). Further experiments showed that the thickness of the layer hardly varies parallel to the sooting direction (Fig. 8c, red data points). Perpendicular to the sooting direction, it is maximal close to the center and decreases when approaching the edges (Fig. 8c, black data points). The fluctuations of the layer thickness in the “plateau” region arise from local inhomogenities of the deposition of soot. These inhomogenities are caused by turbulences in the gas stream carrying the soot particles.

Fig. 8 
            (a) Vertical cross-sectional confocal images of the reflectivity along the sample measured at different distances from the rim of the glass slide. Image width: 180 μm. (b) Average reflectivity as a function of height measured at different positions of a glass plate; size: 20 × 20 mm2. The sharp reflection at z = 0 results from the glass-silica interface. The “plateau” for higher z results from light scattered by the porous silica network. Local variations of the layer thickness cause that the reflectivity is smeared out. Therefore, we used the inflection point to measure the thickness of the layer, red and blue arrows. (c) Thickness of the silica layer parallel (red data points) and perpendicular (black data points) to the sooting direction. This glass plate was sooted for 30 s at R = 0.45, treated for 48 h with CVD of TEOS, and the soot was subsequently combusted.
Fig. 8

(a) Vertical cross-sectional confocal images of the reflectivity along the sample measured at different distances from the rim of the glass slide. Image width: 180 μm. (b) Average reflectivity as a function of height measured at different positions of a glass plate; size: 20 × 20 mm2. The sharp reflection at z = 0 results from the glass-silica interface. The “plateau” for higher z results from light scattered by the porous silica network. Local variations of the layer thickness cause that the reflectivity is smeared out. Therefore, we used the inflection point to measure the thickness of the layer, red and blue arrows. (c) Thickness of the silica layer parallel (red data points) and perpendicular (black data points) to the sooting direction. This glass plate was sooted for 30 s at R = 0.45, treated for 48 h with CVD of TEOS, and the soot was subsequently combusted.

Porosity of the layer

To estimate the mean density of the superamphiphobic layer, the volume and the mass need to be known. The volume of the layer can be estimated from the thickness of the layer (Fig. 8c). Furthermore, the mass of the layer was measured after sooting for well-defined periods, as well as after CVD of TEOS, combustion of soot and fluorination. This yields for the average density of soot, ρsoot = 0.072 ± 0.02 g/cm3 (Fig. 9). Although 48 h of CVD of TEOS slightly smears out the overhanging structures, a thicker silica shell increases the accuracy of the measurements of the tiny masses. The density of the fluorinated hollow silica network is larger, likely due to the high density of silica, ρSiO2 = 0.14 ± 0.03 g/cm3. Note that ρSiO2 depends on the period of CVD of TEOS. Within experimental accuracy, the density does not vary with sooting time, in agreement with the independence of the morphology on time (Fig. 6). Assuming a density of the pure soot (amorphous carbon) of 2.0 g/cm3 and that of amorphous silicon oxide of 2.5 g/cm3 the porosity of the superamphiphobic layer is 0.96 and 0.94, respectively. For the silicon oxide we should also consider that the value includes the hollow space which has previously been filled by the soot. This space is not available to the liquid. If we only ask for the available porosity, this hollow space needs to be taken into account. The available porosity is given by adding the porosity of the soot and that of the silicon oxide to a final value of 0.91.

Fig. 9 
            Dependence of the density of the soot layer (squares) and of the hollow silica layer after fluorination (circles) on sooting time. Before combustion, the soot was exposed to CVD of TEOS for 48 h. R = 0.45.
Fig. 9

Dependence of the density of the soot layer (squares) and of the hollow silica layer after fluorination (circles) on sooting time. Before combustion, the soot was exposed to CVD of TEOS for 48 h. R = 0.45.

Contact angle and roll-off angles

To transform the hydrophilic silicon oxide layer into a superamphiphobic layer, its surface was coated by CVD of trichloro(1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluoro octyl)silane. The contact and roll-off angle of the final superamphiphobic layer did not change within experimental accuracy when the period of CVD was decreased to 1 h. The apparent contact angle slightly decreased, and the roll-off angled increased when the soot was not combusted. Still, the layer can resist wetting of liquids with low surface tension such as hexadecane.

Contact angle measurements

Water was not suitable to reliably measure contact and roll-off angles because the contact angles were too large and drops immediately rolled off. Therefore, hexadecane was used to characterize all samples. The surface tension of hexadecane is 27.5 mN/m. It shows a contact angle of 64 ± 1° on a flat fluorinated surface. Highest contact angles and lowest roll-off angles were achieved with R = 0.45 and sooting times longer than 45 s (Fig. 10). Samples with sooting times of 45 s or less suffer from pinning effects of hexadecane, especially for low sooting times. Likely, the layer was so thin that the drop can impale the layer. Removal of the drop can cause the removal of the top most part of the layer.

Fig. 10 
            (a) Dependence of the contact and roll-off angles of hexadecane on the sooting height, R. (b) Variation of the contact angle and roll-off angle with sooting time. Relative sooting height: R = 0.45. The error is the standard deviation of six independent measurements. Drop volume: 6 μL.
Fig. 10

(a) Dependence of the contact and roll-off angles of hexadecane on the sooting height, R. (b) Variation of the contact angle and roll-off angle with sooting time. Relative sooting height: R = 0.45. The error is the standard deviation of six independent measurements. Drop volume: 6 μL.

Conclusions

The size of the soot particles depends on the sooting height. Close to the wick, the particles are enveloped by a layer of wax, which can be removed by heating in vacuum. The average particle size varies between 30 and 50 nm. Close to the top of the flame, the particles size decreases to 10–20 nm as confirmed by SEM. Coating the particles with a silica shell is possible due to the presence of hydroxyl groups at the outside of the soot particles. Raman spectroscopy also reveals that both the soot and the silica shell are amorphous. Combustion of the soot renders the superamphiphobic layer transparent. The thickness of the layer can be measured by LSCM in reflection mode. The average mass density of soot is 0.07 g/cm3, proving a high porosity of the soot layer of 0.96. The contact and roll-off angles depend on the initial sooting position, because of the variation in particle size and due to the formation of wax-coated particle aggregates. Sooting in the middle of the flame led to layers with the best liquid repellency. These results might promote industrial-scale applications of superamphiphobic coatings based on soot.


Corresponding authors: Doris Vollmer and Hans-Jürgen Butt, Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research, Ackermannweg 10, D-55128, Mainz, Germany, Tel.: +49 6131 379111, E-mail: ;


A collection of invited papers based on presentations at the 33rd International Conference on Solution Chemistry (ICSC-33), Kyoto, Japan, 7–12 July 2013.


We are grateful to S. Geiter, G. Glasser, and G. Schäfer for technical support. We acknowledge financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft via SPP 1273 (D.V.), SPP 1420 (H.J.B.).

References

[1] Q. D. Xie, J. Xu, L. Feng, L. Jiang, W. H. Tang, X. D. Luo, C. C. Han. Adv. Mater. 16, 302 (2004).Search in Google Scholar

[2] A. Tuteja, W. Choi, M. L. Ma, J. M. Mabry, S. A. Mazzella, G. C. Rutledge, G. H. McKinley, R. E. Cohen. Science 318, 1618 (2007).10.1126/science.1148326Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[3] T. Young. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London 95, 65 (1805).10.1098/rstl.1805.0005Search in Google Scholar

[4] D. Oner, T. J. McCarthy. Langmuir 16, 7777 (2000).10.1021/la000598oSearch in Google Scholar

[5] A. B. D. Cassie, S. Baxter. Trans. Faraday Soc. 40, 0546 (1944).Search in Google Scholar

[6] D. Quere. Rep. Prog. Phys. 68, 2495 (2005).10.1088/0034-4885/68/11/R01Search in Google Scholar

[7] L. Feng, S. H. Li, Y. S. Li, H. J. Li, L. J. Zhang, J. Zhai, Y. L. Song, B. Q. Liu, L. Jiang, D. B. Zhu. Adv. Mater. 14, 1857 (2002).Search in Google Scholar

[8] C. Dorrer, J. Ruhe. Soft Matter 5, 51 (2009).10.1039/B811945GSearch in Google Scholar

[9] S. Shibuichi, T. Yamamoto, T. Onda, K. Tsujii. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 208, 287 (1998).Search in Google Scholar

[10] H. F. Meng, S. T. Wang, J. M. Xi, Z. Y. Tang, L. Jiang. J. Phys. Chem. C 112, 11454 (2008).10.1021/jp803027wSearch in Google Scholar

[11] T. Darmanin, F. Guittard. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 7928 (2009).Search in Google Scholar

[12] S. S. Chhatre, W. Choi, A. Tuteja, K. C. Park, J. M. Mabry, G. H. McKinley, R. E. Cohen. Langmuir 26, 4027 (2010).10.1021/la903489rSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] D. Xiong, G. J. Liu, L. Z. Hong, E. J. S. Duncan. Chem. Mater. 23, 4357 (2011).Search in Google Scholar

[14] T. S. Wong, S. H. Kang, S. K. Y. Tang, E. J. Smythe, B. D. Hatton, A. Grinthal, J. Aizenberg. Nature 477, 443 (2011).10.1038/nature10447Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[15] G. R. J. Artus, J. Zimmermann, F. A. Reifler, S. A. Brewer, S. Seeger. Appl. Surf. Sci. 258, 3835 (2012).Search in Google Scholar

[16] H. Bellanger, T. Darmanin, E. T. De Givenchy, F. Guittard. RCS Adv. 3, 5556 (2013).Search in Google Scholar

[17] S. Herminghaus. Europhys. Lett. 52, 165 (2000).10.1209/epl/i2000-00418-8Search in Google Scholar

[18] M. Nosonovsky. Langmuir 23, 3157 (2007).10.1021/la062301dSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] H. J. Butt, C. Semprebon, P. Papadopoulos, D. Vollmer, M. Brinkmann, M. Ciccotti. Soft Matter 9, 418 (2013).10.1039/C2SM27016ASearch in Google Scholar

[20] R. N. Wenzel. Ind. Eng. Chem. 28, 988 (1936).10.1021/ie50320a024Search in Google Scholar

[21] X. Deng, L. Mammen, H.-J. Butt, D. Vollmer. Science 335, 67 (2012).10.1126/science.1207115Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] M. Callies, D. Quere. Soft Matter 1, 55 (2005).10.1039/b501657fSearch in Google Scholar

[23] S. Naha, S. Sen, I. K. Puri. Carbon 45, 1702 (2007).10.1016/j.carbon.2007.04.018Search in Google Scholar

[24] P. Papadopoulos, X. Deng, D. Vollmer, H.-J. Butt. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 24, 464110 (2012).10.1088/0953-8984/24/46/464110Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[25] C. P. Arana, M. Pontoni, S. Sen, I. K. Puri. Combust. Flame 138, 362 (2004).10.1016/j.combustflame.2004.04.013Search in Google Scholar

[26] A. C. Ferrari, J. Robertson. Phys. Rev. B 61, 14095 (2000).10.1103/PhysRevB.61.14095Search in Google Scholar

[27] A. C. Ferrari, D. M. Basko. Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 235 (2013).Search in Google Scholar

[28] A. C. Ferrari. Solid State Commun. 143, 47 (2007).10.1016/j.ssc.2007.03.052Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2014-01-17
Published in Print: 2014-02-01

©2014 IUPAC & De Gruyter Berlin Boston

Downloaded on 9.12.2022 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/pac-2014-5015/html
Scroll Up Arrow