Advertisement

Beech wood cross sections as natural templates to fabricate superhydrophobic surfaces

  • Yaru Wang
  • Selin Vitas
  • Ingo Burgert
  • Etienne CabaneEmail author
Original
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Inspired by the hierarchical and porous wood microstructure, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)-positive replicas of beech (Fagus sylvatica) cross sections, with superhydrophobic properties, were fabricated. Microtomed transverse sections of beech wood were directly used as templates, and an accurate replication of the anatomical wood features (vessels and fibers) was obtained. The resulting PDMS-positive replicas show an arrangement of pillars, contributing to surface structuration. By adjusting the PDMS pre-curing time, the extent of PDMS penetration could be controlled inside the wood capillaries, inducing the formation of pillars with various aspect ratios. The wettability of the templated surfaces as a function of the different pillars heights was studied, and the optimal pillar aspect ratio was identified to enhance the hydrophobicity of the PDMS structured surfaces (reaching a water contact angle of 156°). Fagus sylvatica wood cross sections are therefore simple, scalable, and inexpensive templates to manufacture structured surfaces, with the possibility to adjust wettability according to application needs.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the China Scholarship Council (CSC) for funding, Stéphane Croptier and Thomas Schnider from the Wood Materials Science group in ETH Zürich for discussions on wood species and for their help in wood samples preparation, respectively. We are grateful to the Scientific Center for Optical and Electron Microscopy (ScopeM) at ETH Zürich for the SEM studies.

Author contributions

The manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript.

Funding sources

Yaru Wang is financed by the Chinas Scholarship Council.

Supplementary material

226_2019_1113_MOESM1_ESM.docx (7.9 mb)
Supporting Information. A PDF file with additional data is available (images of native wood and replicas, roughness measurements with stylus profilometry and AFM). (DOCX 8133 kb)

References

  1. Autumn K, Hansen W (2006) Ultrahydrophobicity indicates a non-adhesive default state in gecko setae. J Comp Physiol A 192:1205.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-006-0149-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baquedano E, Martinez RV, Llorens JM, Postigo PA (2017) Fabrication of silicon nanobelts and nanopillars by soft lithography for hydrophobic and hydrophilic photonic surfaces. Nanomaterials 7:109.  https://doi.org/10.3390/nano7050109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bello M, Welch C, Goodwin L, Keller J (2014) Sylgard® mixing study. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los AlamosCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhushan B, Jung YC, Koch K (2009) Micro-, nano- and hierarchical structures for superhydrophobicity, self-cleaning and low adhesion. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 367:1631–1672.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2009.0014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bixler GD, Bhushan B (2012) Biofouling: lessons from nature. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 370:2381–2417.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2011.0502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cassie A, Baxter S (1944) Wettability of porous surfaces. Trans Faraday Soc 40:546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng YT, Rodak D, Wong C, Hayden C (2006) Effects of micro-and nano-structures on the self-cleaning behaviour of lotus leaves. Nanotechnology 17:1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darmanin T, Guittard F (2015) Superhydrophobic and superoleophobic properties in nature. Mater Today 18:273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flowers G, Switzer ST (1978) Background material properties of selected silicone potting compounds and raw materials for their substitutes. Mason and Hanger-Silas Mason, AmarilloCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gao X, Jiang L (2004) Biophysics: water-repellent legs of water striders. Nature 432:36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghosh A, Ganguly R, Schutzius TM, Megaridis CM (2014) Wettability patterning for high-rate, pumpless fluid transport on open, non-planar microfluidic platforms. Lab Chip 14:1538–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gorb SN (2009) Functional surfaces in biology: little structures with big effects, vol 1. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guo H et al (2017) Bio-inspired superhydrophobic and omniphobic wood surfaces advanced materials. Interfaces 4:1600289Google Scholar
  14. Hao B, Lin W, Jie J, Ruize S, Yongmei Z, Lei J (2014) Efficient water collection on integrative bioinspired surfaces with star-shaped wettability patterns. Adv Mater 26:5025–5030.  https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201400262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ju J, Bai H, Zheng Y, Zhao T, Fang R, Jiang L (2012) A multi-structural and multi-functional integrated fog collection system in cactus. Nat Commun 3:1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kiaei M, Samariha A (2011) Fiber dimensions, physical and mechanical properties of five important hardwood plants. Indian J Sci Technol 4:1460–1463Google Scholar
  17. Kitin P, Sano Y, Funada R (2001) Analysis of cambium and differentiating vessel elements in Kalopanax pictus using resin cast replicas. IAWA J 22:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kreder MJ, Alvarenga J, Kim P, Aizenberg J (2016) Design of anti-icing surfaces: smooth, textured or slippery? Nat Rev Mater 1:15003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee K, Lyu S, Lee S, Kim YS, Hwang W (2010) Characteristics and self-cleaning effect of the transparent super-hydrophobic film having nanofibers array structures. Appl Surf Sci 256:6729–6735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mele E, Girardo S, Pisignano D (2012) Strelitzia reginae leaf as a natural template for anisotropic wetting and superhydrophobicity. Langmuir 28:5312–5317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miyauchi Y, Ding B, Shiratori S (2006) Fabrication of a silver-ragwort-leaf-like super-hydrophobic micro/nanoporous fibrous mat surface by electrospinning. Nanotechnology 17:5151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nosonovsky M, Bhushan B (2008) Lotus-effect and water-repellent surfaces in nature multiscale dissipative mechanisms and hierarchical surfaces: friction, superhydrophobicity, and biomimetics, pp 181–197Google Scholar
  23. Öner D, McCarthy TJ (2000) Ultrahydrophobic surfaces. Effects of topography length scales on wettability. Langmuir 16:7777–7782.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la000598o CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parker AR, Lawrence CR (2001) Water capture by a desert beetle. Nature 414:33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parmak EDS (2016) Fabrication of microstructured polymers by a simple biotemplate embossing method and their characterization. Mater Test 58:246–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Plötze M, Niemz P (2011) Porosity and pore size distribution of different wood types as determined by mercury intrusion porosimetry. Eur J Wood Prod 69:649–657.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-010-0504-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roach P, Shirtcliffe NJ, Newton MI (2008) Progess in superhydrophobic surface development. Soft Matter 4:224–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rowell RM (2012) Handbook of wood chemistry and wood composites. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sai H, Fu R, Xing L, Xiang J, Li Z, Li F, Zhang T (2015) Surface modification of bacterial cellulose aerogels’ web-like skeleton for oil/water separation. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 7:7373–7381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sass U, Eckstein D (1995) The variability of vessel size in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and its ecophysiological interpretation. Trees 9:247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schneider F, Draheim J, Kamberger R, Wallrabe U (2009) Process and material properties of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) for Optical MEMS. Sens Actuators A 151:95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Steppe K, Cnudde V, Girard C, Lemeur R, Cnudde J-P, Jacobs P (2004) Use of X-ray computed microtomography for non-invasive determination of wood anatomical characteristics. J Struct Biol 148:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sun T, Tan H, Han D, Fu Q, Jiang L (2005) No platelet can adhere—largely improved blood compatibility on nanostructured superhydrophobic surfaces. Small 1:959–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sun M, Watson GS, Zheng Y, Watson JA, Liang A (2009) Wetting properties on nanostructured surfaces of cicada wings. J Exp Biol 212:3148–3155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sylgard 184: viscosity increase during cure. Sandia National Laboratories. https://www.sandia.gov/polymer-properties/E1-viscosity.html. 01.10. 2018
  36. Uraki Y, Nemoto J, Sano Y (2006) A novel preparation of microcast for wood micromorphology using polydimethylsiloxane without digesting cell wall. J Wood Sci 52:163–166.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-005-0740-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang H, Yao Q, Wang C et al (2016) A simple, one-step hydrothermal approach to durable and robust superparamagnetic, superhydrophobic and electromagnetic wave-absorbing wood. Sci Rep 6:35549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wenzel RN (1936) Resistance of solid surfaces to wetting by water. Ind Eng Chem 28:988–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wu D, Wang J-N, Wu S-Z et al (2011) Three-level biomimetic rice-leaf surfaces with controllable anisotropic sliding. Adv Funct Mater 21:2927–2932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yan Z, Liang X, Shen H, Liu Y (2017) Preparation and basic properties of superhydrophobic silicone rubber with micro-nano hierarchical structures formed by picosecond laser-ablated template. IEEE Trans Dielectr Electr Insul 24:1743–1750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang Y, Li X, Zheng X, Chen Z, Zhou Q, Chen Y (2018) 3D-printed biomimetic super-hydrophobic structure for microdroplet manipulation and oil/water separation. Adv Mater 30:1704912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zander NE, Orlicki JA, Karikari AS, Long TE, Rawlett AM (2007) Super-hydrophobic surfaces via micrometer-scale templated pillars. Chem Mater 19:6145–6149.  https://doi.org/10.1021/cm0715895 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang X, Ji D, Lei T et al (2013) Integration of antireflection and light diffraction in nature: a strategy for light trapping. J Mater Chem A 1:10607–10611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhao H, Park K-C, Law K-Y (2012) Effect of surface texturing on superoleophobicity, contact angle hysteresis, and “robustness”. Langmuir 28:14925–14934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zheng Y, Gao X, Jiang L (2007) Directional adhesion of superhydrophobic butterfly wings. Soft Matter 3:178–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wood Materials ScienceETH ZürichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Applied Wood MaterialsEMPA-Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and TechnologyDübendorfSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations