|
Table of Content
Acknowledgement III
Abstract IV
Nomenclature VI
List of Tables X
List of Figures XVI
CHAPTER1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Motivation 1
1.2. Literature review 2
1.2.1. Lotus-effect 2
1.2.2. Self-cleaning effect based on superhydrophobic property 3
1.2.3. Biomimetic technology for superhydrophobic surfaces 3
1.2.4. Approaches used to fabricate a superhydrophobic surface. 5
1.3. Aims and missions 13
CHAPTER2. THEORY 26
2.1. Principle of sol-gel process 26
2.2. Silane coupling agent 31
2.3. Coating methods 34
2.3.1. Spin coating 34
2.3.2. Dip coating 35
2.3.3. Air brushing 36
2.3.4. Advantages and disadvantages of different coating methods 39
2.4. Surface energy 40
2.5. Wetting 41
2.6. Contact angle 42
2.7. Young’s equation 42
2.7.1. Wenzel''s model 44
2.7.2. Cassie–Baxter model 44
2.8. Hydrophilic, hydrophobic, superhydrophilic, and superhydrophobic surfaces 45
2.9. Contact angle hysteresis and Tilt angle 46
CHAPTER3. EXPERIMENTS 52
3.1. Experimental chemistry materials, reagents and equipments 52
3.2. Functional silane structures 55
3.3. Fabrication of silica particles based superhydrophobic films on glass substrate 57
3.4. Fabrication of nano silica particles based superhydrophobic films by different coating methods 58
3.4.1. Fabrication of nano silica particles based superhydrophobic films by dipping approach 59
3.4.2. Fabrication of nano silica particles based superhydrophobic films by air-brushing approach 60
3.5. Fabrication of nano silica particles based superhydrophobic films with mixture of silanes in precursor by air-brushing approach 61
3.5.1. Fabrication of nano silica particles based superhydrophobic films with precursor containing TEOS and isobutyltriethoxysilane by air-brushing approach 62
3.6. Fabrication of nano silica particles based superhydrophobic films with precursor diluted via ethanol at various molar ratios by air-brushing approach 63
3.7. Fabrication of nano silica particles based superhydrophobic films with precursor diluted via ethanol and D.I. water at various volumetric ratio by air-brushing approach 64
3.8. Methods for performing air-brushing process 65
3.9. Measuring Principles of Testing Instruments 66
3.9.1. Contact angle system 67
3.9.2. Ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer (UV/Vis) 68
3.9.3. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) 69
3.9.4. Alpha-step 500 Surface Profiler 71
3.9.5. Hardness test 71
3.9.6. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy 72
CHAPTER4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 85
4.1. Silica based superhydrophobic films by dipping approach 85
4.2. Nano silica particles based superhydrophobic films by air-brushing approach 90
4.3. Roughness of superhydrophobic films enhanced by silica suspension containing TEOS and isobutyltriethoxysilane 122
4.4. Nano silica particles based superhydrophobic films by air-brushing approach with precursor diluted at various ethanol molar ratio 124
4.5. Nano silica particles based superhydrophobic films by air-brushing approach with precursor diluted using the mixture of ethanol and D.I. water at various volumetric ratio 162
4.6. An index for the amount of nano silica particles on a coated surface 174
CHAPTER5. CONCLUSION AND PROSPECT 175
REFERENCES 179
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Characteristics of Various Organic Substituents on Silanes 33
Table 2.2 Non-Organoreactive Alkoxysilanes 33
Table 2.3 The advantages and disadvantages of different coating methods 39
Table 2.4 Definition of hydrophobic surface and hydrophilic surface [41]. 47
Table 3.1 The surface energy of different functional group [42] 74
Table 4.1 Sample outlook with different dipping position 86
Table 4.2 Hyrdrophobic surface fabricated with various weight of micro silica particles. 87
Table 4.3 Hyrdrophobic fabricated surface with various weight of nano silica particles. 88
Table 4.4 Different kind of hydrophobic silane treatment for rough surface through dip-coating method 89
Table 4.5 Different kind hydrophobic silanes treatment for rough surface through dip-coating method 90
Table 4.6 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:8:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with trimethoxyphenylsilane (5%). 98
Table 4.7 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:8:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with trimethoxyphenylsilane (5%). 98
Table 4.8 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:8:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with octadecyltrimethoxysilane (1%). 99
Table 4.9 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:8:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with octadecyltrimethoxysilane (1%). 99
Table 4.10 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:8:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with triethoxy (octyl) silane (5%). 100
Table 4.11 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:8:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with triethoxy (octyl) silane (5%). 100
Table 4.12 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:8:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%). 101
Table 4.13 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:8:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%). 101
Table 4.14 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:8:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%). 102
Table 4.15 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:1:8:8 (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with trimethoxyphenylsilane (5%). 102
Table 4.16 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:1:8:8 (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with trimethoxyphenylsilane (5%). 103
Table 4.17 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:1:8:8 (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with octadecyltrimethoxysilane (1%). 103
Table 4.18 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:1:8:8 (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with octadecyltrimethoxysilane (1%). 104
Table 4.19 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:1:8:8 (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with triethoxy (octyl) silane (5%). 104
Table 4.20 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:1:8:8 (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with triethoxy (octyl) silane (5%). 105
Table 4.21 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:1:8:8 (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%). 105
Table 4.22 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:1:8:8 (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%). 106
Table 4.23 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:1:8:8 (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%). 106
Table 4.24 Surface roughness of the precursor at 1:8:4 molar ratio (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water) and various coating parameters. 116
Table 4.25 Surface roughness of the precursor at 1:1:8:8 molar ratio (TEOS: isobutyltriethoxysilaneethanol:D.I. water) and various coating parameters. 116
Table 4.26 Transmittance of the modified glasses with precursor with 1:8:4 molar ratio (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water) and various coating parameters. 119
Table 4.27 Transmittance of the modified glasses with precursor with 1:1:8:8 molar ratio (TEOS: isobutyltriethoxysilaneethanol:D.I. water) and various coating parameters. 120
Table 4.28 Surface hardness of the precursor at 1:8:4 molar ratio (TEOS:ethanol:D.I.water) and various coating parameters. 121
Table 4.29 Surface hardness of the precursor at 1:1:8:8 molar ratio 121
Table 4.30 Oleophobicity evaluation of the modified surface with precursor with 1:1:8:8 molar ratio (TEOS: isobutyltriethoxysilaneethanol:D.I. water) and various coating parameters and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%); Test oil: sunflower oil 121
Table 4.31 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor diluted at 1:8:4, 1:16:4, 1:24:4, and 1:32:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio, coating parameters and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%). 131
Table 4.32 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor diluted at 1:40:4, 1:80:4, 1:120:4, and 1:160:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio, coating parameters and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%). 132
Table 4.33 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor diluted at 1:24:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio, coating parameters and post treatment at trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%). 133
Table 4.34 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor diluted at 1:32:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio, coating parameters and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%). 134
Table 4.35 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor diluted at 1:40:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio, coating parameters and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%). 135
Table 4.36 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor diluted at 1:80:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio, coating parameters and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%). 136
Table 4.37 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor diluted at 1:120:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio, coating parameters and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%). 137
Table 4.38 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:80:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio, various coating parameters and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%) by air-brushing method. 138
Table 4.39 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:80:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio, various coating parameters and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%) by quick-dip by hand. 139
Table 4.40 Contact angles of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:80:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio, various coating parameters and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%) by quick-dip by dip-coater. 140
Table 4.41 Contact angles and transmittance of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor at 1:120:4 and 1:160:4 (TEOS:Etoh:D.I. water) molar ratio, various coating parameters and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%) by quick-dip by dip-coater. 141
Table 4.42 Transmittance of the modified glasses with precursor diluted at 1:8:4, 1:16:4, 1:24:4, 1:32:4, 1:40:4, 1:80:4, 1:120:4, and 1:160:4 molar ratio (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water) and various coating parameters. 142
Table 4.43 Transmittance of the modified glasses with precursor diluted at 1:24:4 and 1:32:4 ratio (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water) and various coating parameters. 143
Table 4.44 Transmittance of the modified glasses with precursor at 1:80:4 molar ratio (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water) and various coating parameters. 144
Table 4.45 Transmittance of the modified glasses at precursor diluted at 1:40:4 and 1:120:4 molar ratio (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water) and various coating parameters. 145
Table 4.46 Hardness of the modified glasses with precursor diluted at 1:8:4, 1:16:4, 1:24:4, 1:32:4, 1:40:4, 1:80:4, 1:120:4, and 1:160:4 molar ratio (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water) and various coating parameters. The baking period was 4 h. 146
Table 4.47 Hardness of the modified glasses with precursor diluted at 1:24:4 and 1:32:4 molar ratio (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water) and various coating parameters. The baking period was 4 h. 147
Table 4.48 Hardness of the modified glasses with precursor diluted at 1:40:4 and 1:120:4 molar ratio (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water) and various coating parameters. The baking period was 4 h. 148
Table 4.49 Hardness of the modified glasses with precursor at1:80:4 molar ratio (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water) and various coating parameters. The baking period was 4 h. 149
Table 4.50 Hardness of the modified glasses with precursor at 1:120:4 and 1:160:4 molar ratio (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water) and various coating parameters. The baking period was 6 h. 150
Table 4.51 Contact angle measurement of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor diluted by ethanol and D.I. water with various volume ratio, coating parameters and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%) by quick-dip by dip-coater. 165
Table 4.52 Contact angle measurement of hydrophobic surface fabricated by preparing precursor diluted by ethanol and D.I. water with various volume ratio, coating parameters and post treatment with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%) by quick-dip by dip-coater. 166
Table 4.53 Hardness of the modified glasses with precursor diluted by ethanol and D.I. water at various volume ratio and coating parameters 172
Table 4.54 Transmittance of the modified glasses with precursor diluted by ethanol and D.I. water at various volume ratio and coating parameters 173
Table 4.55 Silica particle concentrations correspond to the indexes with various suspensions of volumes (unit:g/cm^2) (area of coated surface:19.3548 cm^2) 174
List of Figures
Fig. 1.1 Water droplets on lotus leaf surface can roll freely. [1] 14
Fig. 1.2 Water droplets on micro/nano-scale on the leaf surface [3] 15
Fig. 1.3 SEM image of the surface of lotus leaves is found to be covered by micro and nano bumps [3]. 15
Fig. 1.4 Water carries dust particles away much more efficiently on a superhydrophobic surface (right) than on a hydrophobic surface (left) [4]. 16
Fig. 1.5 Images of the non-wetting leg of a water strider. (a) water strider walking on water (b) scanning electron microscope images of the water strider’s leg on micro scale (c) water strider’s leg on nano scale [5]. 17
Fig. 1.6 SEM images of (a) lotus leaf-like PDMS surface by nanocasting [10], and (b) PS-PDMS surface cast from a 5 mg/ml solution in dimethylformamide (DMF) in humid air [11]. 18
Fig. 1.7 (a) AFM image of the PET surfaces coated with TMS layer after the oxygen plasma treatment [13] ; (b) SEM image of the aluminum surfaces etched with a Beck’s dislocation etchant for 15 s at room temperature and the shape of a water droplet on the surface after fluoroalkylsilane coating [14]. 19
Fig. 1.8 SEM image of the nanopillars after hydrophobization the base diameter of the pillars is about 120nm [15]. 20
Fig. 1.9 SEM images of (a) the ultra water-repellent thin film prepared under TMMOS partial pressure of 50 Pa, with a water contact angle greater than 150°, and ( b) the water-repellent thin film prepared under a TMMOS partial pressure of 18 Pa, with a water contact angle of about 110° [16]. 21
Fig. 1.10 SEM images of the superhydrophobic surfaces made by electrochemical reaction. The copper surface after electrochemical reaction with sulfur gas [18]. 22
Fig. 1.11 SEM images of (PAH/PAA) films after a single acid treatment (A) and after a combined acid treatment (B) (C) SEM image of the fully treated structure with silica nanoparticles. (D) Water droplet on this superhydrophobic surface. [24]. 23
Fig. 1.12 SEM images (60u) of the size-reduced polystyrene beads and the water contact angle measurement on the corresponding modified surfaces (insets). The diameters of polystyrene beads and water contact angles on these surfaces were measured to be (a) 400 nm, 135°, (b) 360 nm, 144°, (c) 330 nm, 152° and (d) 190 nm, 168°. Bar: 1 μm [25]. 24
Fig. 1.13 Shape of water droplet on the (a) HMDZ modified, (b) TMCS modified silica films. [26] 25
Fig. 2.1 Silica particles and glass display the hydroxyl group while such materials meet deionized water. 29
Fig. 2.2 The hydrolysis reaction of tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) 29
Fig. 2.3 The unreacted TEOS react with the silica present to form a strong siloxane bonds, thus bonding with both the silica and glass surface particles. 29
Fig. 2.4 The hydrolyzed TEOS react with the silica present to form a strong siloxane bonds, thus bonding with both the silica and glass surface particles. 30
Fig. 2.5 The format of TEOS couple with silica particles and glass substrates. 30
Fig. 2.6 Miscibility diagram of water, ethanol and TEOS [33] 31
Fig. 2.7 Illustration of Young’s equation on a flat idea surface 48
Fig. 2.8 Schematic drawing of (a) Wenzel’s state, the water droplet was assumed to penetrate into the structure. (b) Cassie-Baxter state, the water droplet was assumed to suspend on the structure. 49
Fig. 2.9 Schematic drawing of the method for measuring contact angles: 50
Fig. 2.10 Illustration of advancing angle (θa) and receding angle (θr) on a tilted surface 51
Fig. 3.1 High temperture furnace 54
Fig. 3.2 Dip-coater 54
Fig. 3.3 Air-brush gun and air compressor 54
Fig. 3.4 Large-sized glass container 55
Fig. 3.5 Scheme of the experimental procedure 75
Fig. 3.6 The procedure of silica based superhydrophobic films by dip-coating with a tilt angle equals to 30°. 76
Fig. 3.7 The procedure of silica based superhydrophobic films by dip-coating with a tilt angle equals to 90°. 77
Fig. 3.8 The procedure of nano silica based superhydrophobic films by air-brushing. 78
Fig. 3.9 The procedure of nano silica based superhydrophobic films with precursor containing TEOS and isobutyltriethoxysilane by air-brushing. 79
Fig. 3.10 The procedure of nano silica based superhydrophobic films with precursor diluted via ethanol at various molar ratios by air-brushing. 80
Fig. 3.11 The procedure of nano silica based superhydrophobic films with precursor diluted via ethanol and D.I. water at various volumetric ratios by air-brushing. 81
Fig. 3.12 Contact angle meter, VCA-2500 82
Fig. 3.13 Ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer (UV/Vis): HR4000CG 83
Fig. 3.14 The principle drawing of ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer (UV/Vis). 83
Fig. 3.15 Scanning electron microscope (SEM) LEO 1530 84
Fig. 3.16 A schematic drawing of principle of scanning electron microscope (SEM) [43]. 84
Fig. 4.1 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 2.00% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:8:4) 107
Fig. 4.2 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 3.29% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:8:4) 107
Fig. 4.3 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 4.55% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:8:4) 108
Fig. 4.4 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 5.78% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:8:4) 108
Fig. 4.5 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 6.97% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:8:4) 109
Fig. 4.6 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 8.14% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:8:4) 109
Fig. 4.7 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 5.78% and volume of coatings was 3 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:8:4) 110
Fig. 4.8 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 6.97% and volume of coatings was 3 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:8:4) 110
Fig. 4.9 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 8.14% and volume of coatings was 3 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:8:4) 111
Fig. 4.10 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 2.00% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:1:8:8) 111
Fig. 4.11 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 3.29% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:1:8:8) 112
Fig. 4.12 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 4.55% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:1:8:8) 112
Fig. 4.13 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 5.78% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:1:8:8) 113
Fig. 4.14 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 6.97% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:1:8:8) 113
Fig. 4.15 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 8.14% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:1:8:8) 114
Fig. 4.16 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 5.78% and volume of coatings was 3 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:1:8:8) 114
Fig. 4.17 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 6.97% and volume of coatings was 3 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:1:8:8) 115
Fig. 4.18 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 8.14% and volume of coatings was 3 ml at different magnifications: (A) 1000X (B) 250X (TEOS:isobutyltriethoxysilane:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:1:8:8) 115
Fig. 4.19 Sample outlook of the precursor with 1:8:4 molar ratio 117
Fig. 4.20 Sample outlook of the precursor at 1:1:8:8 molar ratio (TEOS: isobutyltriethoxysilaneethanol:D.I. water) and various coating parameters. 118
Fig. 4.21 EDS spectrum of the thin film from TEOS: isobutyltriethoxysilane:ethanol:D.I. water=1:1:8:8 and water repelling material coating with trichloro (1h, 1h, 2h, 2-perfluorooctyl) silane (1%) 123
Fig. 4.22 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface at particle concentration was 3.29% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:24:4) 151
Fig. 4.23 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 4.55% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:24:4) 151
Fig. 4.24 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 3.29% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:32:4) 152
Fig. 4.25 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 4.55% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:32:4) 152
Fig. 4.26 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 3.29% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:40:4) 153
Fig. 4.27 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 4.55% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:40:4) 153
Fig. 4.28 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 3.29% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:80:4) 154
Fig. 4.29 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 4.55% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:80:4) 154
Fig. 4.30 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 3.29% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:120:4) 155
Fig. 4.31 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 4.55% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:120:4) 155
Fig. 4.32 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 5.78% and volume of coatings was 1 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:80:4) 156
Fig. 4.33 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 5.78% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:80:4) 156
Fig. 4.34 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 5.78% and volume of coatings was 3 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:80:4) 157
Fig. 4.35 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 6.38% and volume of coatings was 1 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:80:4) 157
Fig. 4.36 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 6.38% and volume of coatings was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:80:4) 158
Fig. 4.37 SEM micrographs of modified glass surface with particle concentration was 6.38% and volume of coatings was 3 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X (TEOS:ethanol:D.I. water = 1:80:4) 158
Fig. 4.38 Contact angle versus molar ratio of ethanol at low silica particles concentration and low volume of coatings. 159
Fig. 4.39 Transmittance versus molar ratio of ethanol at low silica particles concentration and low volume of coatings. 159
Fig. 4.40 Contact angle versus molar ratio of ethanol at low silica particles concentration and medium volume of coatings. 160
Fig. 4.41 Transmittance versus molar ratio of ethanol at low silica particles concentration and medium volume of coatings. 160
Fig. 4.42 Contact angle versus molar ratio of ethanol at low silica particles concentration and high volume of coatings. 161
Fig. 4.43 Transmittance versus molar ratio of ethanol at low silica particles concentration and high volume of coatings. 161
Fig. 4.44 SEM micrographs of modified glasses with precursor diluted by 80 ml D.I. water at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X 167
Fig. 4.45 SEM micrographs of modified glasses with precursor diluted by ethanol 20 ml and D.I. water 60 ml and the volume of suspension was 1 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X 168
Fig. 4.46 SEM micrographs of modified glasses with precursor diluted by ethanol 20 ml and D.I. water 60 ml and the volume of suspension was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X 168
Fig. 4.47 SEM micrographs of modified glasses with precursor diluted by ethanol 40 ml and D.I. water 40 ml and the volume of suspension was 1 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X 169
Fig. 4.48 SEM micrographs of modified glasses with precursor diluted by ethanol 40 ml and D.I. water 40 ml and the volume of suspension was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X 169
Fig. 4.49 SEM micrographs of modified glasses with precursor diluted by ethanol 60 ml and D.I. water 20 ml and the volume of suspension was 1 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X 170
Fig. 4.50 SEM micrographs of modified glasses with precursor diluted by ethanol 60 ml and D.I. water 20 ml and the volume of suspension was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X 170
Fig. 4.51 SEM micrographs of modified glasses with precursor diluted by ethanol 80 ml and the volume of suspension was 1 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X 171
Fig. 4.52 SEM micrographs of modified glasses with precursor diluted by ethanol 80 ml and the volume of suspension was 2 ml at different magnifications: (A) 250X (B) 1000X 171
Fig. 5.1 Optically transparent superhydrophobic glass 178
|
|
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_effect
[2] Cheng YT, Rodak DE, Wong CA, Hayden CA, Nanotechnology 17 (2006) 1359-1362.
[3] Barthlott W, Neinhuis C, Planta 202 (1997) 1-8.
[4] http://www.hk-phy.org/atomic_world/index.html
[5] Sun TL, Feng L, Gao XF, Jiang L, Accounts of Chemical Research 38 (2005) 644-652.
[6] Lee W, Jin MK, Yoo WC, Lee JK, Langmuir 20 (2004) 7665-7669.
[7] Zhai L, Berg MC, Cebeci FC, Kim Y, Milwid JM, Rubner MF, Cohen RE, Nano Letters 6 (2006) 1213-1217.
[8] Tsai YC, Shin PJ, Lin HT, Shin WP, 1st IEEE International Conference on Nano/Micro Engineered and Molecular Systems, Zhuhai, China, Jan (2006) 1388-1391.
[9] Li XM, Reinhoudt D, Crego-Calama M, Chemical Society Reviews 36 (2007) 1350-1368.
[10] Sun MH, Luo CX, Xu LP, Ji H, Qi OY, Yu DP, Langmuir 21 (2005) 8979-8981.
[11] Zhao N, Xie QD, Weng LH, Wang SQ, Zhang XY, Xu J, Macromolecules 38 (2005) 8996-8999.
[12] Song XY, Zhai J, WangYL, Jiang L, Journal of Physical Chemistry 109 (2005) 4048-4052.
[13] Teshima K, Sugimurma H, Inoue Y, Takai O, Takano A, Applied Surface Science 244 (2005) 619-622.
[14] Qian BT, Shen ZQ, Langmuir 21 (2005) 9007-9009.
[15] Martines E, Seunarine K, Morgan H, Gadegarrd N, Wilkinson CDW,
Riehle MO, Nano Letters 5 (2005) 2097-2103.
[16] Wu YY, Sugimura H, Inoue Y, Takai O, Chemical Vapor Deposition 8 (2002) 47-50.
[17] Lee PS, Master Thesis of National Taiwan University (2009).
[18] Han JT, Jang Y, Lee DY, Park JH, Song SH, Ban DY, Cho K, Journal of Materials Chemistry 15 (2005) 3089-3092.
[19] Ma ML, Hill RM, Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science 11 (2006) 193-202.
[20] Huang ZM, Zhang YZ, Kotaki M, Ramakrishna S, Composites Science and Technology 63 (2003) 2223-2253.
[21] Acatay K, Simsek E, Ow-Yang C, Menceloglu YZ, Angewandte Chemie-International Edition 43 (2004) 5210-5213.
[22] Ma ML, Hill RM, Lowery JL, Fridrikh SV, Rutledge GC, Langmuir 21 (2005) 5549-5554.
[23] Ma ML, Mao Y, Gupta M, Gleason KK, Rutledge GC, Macromolecules 38 (2005) 9742-9748.
[24] Zhai L, Cebeci FC, Cohen RE, Rubner MF, Nano Letters 4 (2004) 1349-1353.
[25] Shiu JY, Kuo CW, Chen PL, Mou CY, Chemistry of Materials 16 (2004) 561-564.
[26] Rao AV, Latthe SS, Nadargi DY, Hirashima H, Ganesan V, Journal of Colloidal and Interface Science 332 (2009) 484-490.
[27] Xiu YH, Hess DW, Wong CR, Journal of Colloidal and Interface Science 326 (2008) 465-470.
[28] Chen YK, Chang KC, Wu KY, Tsai YL, Lu JS, Chen H, Applied Surface Science 255 (2009) 8634-8642.
[29] Xu QF, Wang JN, Smithc IH, Sanderson KD, Journal of Materials Chemistry 19 (2009) 655-660.
[30] Shang HM, Wang Y, Limmer SJ, Chou TP, Takahashi K, Cao GZ, Thin Solid Films 472 (2005) 37-43.
[31] Taurino R, Fabbri E, Messori M, Pilati F, Pospiech D, Synytska A, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 325 (2008) 149-156.
[32] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol-gel
[33] Brinker CJ, Scherer GW, “Sol-gel Science: The Physics and Chemistry of Sol-gel Processing,” Academic Press, Inc., California, 1990.
[34] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_coating
[35] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dip-coating
[36] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_brush
[37] Chow TS, Journal of Physics-Condensed Matter 10 (1998) 445-451.
[38] Wenzel RN, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 28 (1936) 988-994.
[39] Cassie ABD, Baxter S, Transactions of the Faraday Society 40 (1944) 0546-0550.
[40] Zhang X, Shi F, Niu J, Jiang Y, Wang Z, Journal of Materials Chemistry 18 (2008) 621-633.
[41] Huang WT, Master Thesis of National Taiwan University (2008).
[42] Clarson SJ, New Journal of Chemistry 17 (1993) 711-714.
[43] http://www.me.tnu.edu.tw/~me010/Precision_Equipment_Lab/SEM_web/
TNIT_lab_SEMintroduction_down.htm
|
| |