Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:21:34.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Chemical Functionality on Adhesion Hysteresis: A Study using the JKR Method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Soojin Kim ,
Gun Young Choi ,
Jeff Nezaj ,
Abraham Ulman  and
Cathy Fleischer
Soojin Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, and Materials Science and the NSF MRSEC for Polymers at Engineered Interfaces, Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, New York 11201
Gun Young Choi
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, and Materials Science and the NSF MRSEC for Polymers at Engineered Interfaces, Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, New York 11201
Jeff Nezaj
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, and Materials Science and the NSF MRSEC for Polymers at Engineered Interfaces, Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, New York 11201
Abraham Ulman
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, and Materials Science and the NSF MRSEC for Polymers at Engineered Interfaces, Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, New York 11201
Cathy Fleischer
Affiliation:
Material Science and Engineering Division, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY 14650
Get access

Abstract

The adhesion of crosslinked PDMS surfaces to self-assembled monolayers with different chemical functionality was investigated using the JKR method, the contact mechanics of solids spreading their interfacial area under load. Interfacial H-bonding was shown to be an important chemical interaction causing significant adhesion hysteresis. The number of H-bonds between PDMS and silanol groups on SiO2/Si surfaces increased with time of the contact under a constant load, indicating pressure-induced reorganization of the PDMS network near the interface. The interaction between PDMS and carboxylic acid groups showed somewhat smaller hysteresis which suggests weaker H-bonding strength. The interaction between PDMS and functionalized biphenyl groups exhibited small hysteresis which is believed to be caused by dipolar interaction. whereas that between PDMS and nonpolar perfluorocarbon groups showed negligible hysteresis. The distinction in the behavior of the unloading data between H-bonding related interaction and dipolar interaction seems to indicate the difference in the nature between non-specific (van der Waals, dipolar) and specific (donor-acceptor, H-bond, acid-base) interactions.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 461: Symposia BB – Morphological Control in Multiphase Polymer Mix… , 1996 , 81
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Johnson, K.L., Kedall, K., and Roberts, A.D., Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 324, 301 (1971).Google Scholar
2. Chaudhury, M.K. and Whitesides, G.M., Langmuir 7, 1013 (1991).Google Scholar
3. Chaudhury, M.K. and Whitesides, G.M., Science 255, 1230 (1992).Google Scholar
4. Chaudhury, M.K., J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 7, 669 (1993).Google Scholar
5. Zhang Newby, B., Chaudhury, M.K., and Brown, H.R., Science 269, 1407 (1995).Google Scholar
6. Silberzan, P., Perutz, S., Kramer, E., and Chaudhury, M.K., Langmuir 10, 2466 (1994).Google Scholar
7. Brown, H.R., Annual Rev. Mater. Sci. 21, 463 (1991).Google Scholar
8. Merill, W.W., Pocius, A.V., Thakker, B.V., and Tirrell, M., Langmuir 7, 1975, (1991).Google Scholar
9. Lee, C.L., Frye, C.L., and Johnson, O.K., Polym. Prepr., Am. Chem. Soc. Div. Polym. Chem. 10. 1361 (1969).Google Scholar
10. Lee, C.L. and Johnson, O.K., J. Polym. Sci.: Polym. Chem. Ed. 14, 729 (1976).Google Scholar
11. Lee, C.L., U.S.Patent No. 3 445 426 (1969).Google Scholar
12. Patel, S.K., Malone, C., Cohen, J.R., Gilmore, J.R., and Colby, R.H., Macromolecules 25, 2541 (1992).Google Scholar
13. Perutz, S., Wang, J., Ober, C.K., and Kramer, E.J., 1996 ACS Meeting Proceedings, 45 (1996).Google Scholar
14. Ulman, A., Evans, S.D., Shnidman, Y., Sharma, R., Eilers, J.E., and Chang, J.C., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 113, 1499(1991).Google Scholar
15. Ulman, A., Ultrathin Organic Films: From Langmuir-Blodgett to Self Assembly (Academic Press, Boston, 1991).Google Scholar
16. Ulman, A., Chem. Rev. 96, 1533 (1996).Google Scholar
17. Chen, Y.L., Helm, C A., and Israelachvili, J.N., J. Phys. Chem. 95, 10736 (1991).Google Scholar
18. Horn, R.G., Israelachvili, J.N., and Pribac, F., J. Colloid Interface Sci. 115, 480 (1987).Google Scholar
19. Chaudhury, M.K., Materials Science and Engineering R16, (19) No. 3, (1996).Google Scholar
20. Maugis, D. and Barquins, M., J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 11, 1989 (1978).Google Scholar