Advertisement

Recent progress and challenges with 3D printing of patterned hydrophobic and superhydrophobic surfaces

  • Reza JafariEmail author
  • Come Cloutier
  • Anahaita Allahdini
  • Gelareh Momen
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 48 Downloads

Abstract

Superhydrophobic surfaces are gaining a tremendous amount of attention within multiple scientific and industrial fields. These surfaces can be fabricated by controlling surface chemistry and topography using diverse methods. Three-dimensional (3D) printing, with the freedom that this technology provides designers, is driving a paradigm shift in the realms of science, biomedicine, vehicles and aircraft, fashion and clothing, food, etc. High-precision 3D printing has also been used recently to fabricate superhydrophobic surfaces. The wide range of technologies and materials and the ability to fabricate complex geometries within a single structure provide great advantages over traditional techniques. This article provides a general review of different categories of additive manufacturing and this emerging field of 3D printed hydrophobic and superhydrophobic surfaces. Various 3D printing methods of fabricating such surfaces found in the literature are described in these groups and we also discuss the recent progress, advantages, and challenges of creating superhydrophobic surfaces by these methods.

Keywords

Additive manufacturing Superhydrophobic surfaces 3D printing Contact angle 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Gibson I, Rosen DW, Stucker B (2010) Additive manufacturing technologies: rapid prototyping to direct digital manufacturing. Media (3):193–198Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maghsoudi K, Momen G, Jafari R, Farzaneh M (2018) Direct replication of micro-nanostructures in the fabrication of superhydrophobic silicone rubber surfaces by compression molding. Appl Surf Sci 458(July):619–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kamegawa T, Shimizu Y, Yamashita H (2012) Superhydrophobic surfaces with photocatalytic self-cleaning properties by nanocomposite coating of TiO2 and polytetrafluoroethylene. Adv Mater 24(27):3697–3700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhushan B, Jung YC (2011) Natural and biomimetic artificial surfaces for superhydrophobicity, self-cleaning, low adhesion, and drag reduction. Prog Mater Sci 56(1):1–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shi W, Wang L, Guo Z, Zheng Y (2015) Excellent anti-icing abilities of optimal micropillar arrays with nanohairs. Adv Mater Interfaces 2(18):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Momen G, Jafari R, Farzaneh M (2015) Ice repellency behaviour of superhydrophobic surfaces: effects of atmospheric icing conditions and surface roughness. Appl Surf Sci 349:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Foroughi Mobarakeh L, Jafari R, Farzaneh M (2013) The ice repellency of plasma polymerized hexamethyldisiloxane coating. Appl Surf Sci 284:459–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang C, Tang F, Li Q, Zhang Y, Wang X (2017) Spray-coated superhydrophobic surfaces with wear-resistance, drag-reduction and anti-corrosion properties. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem Eng Asp 514:236–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Momen G, Farzaneh M (2014) Facile approach in the development of icephobic hierarchically textured coatings as corrosion barrier. Appl Surf Sci 299:41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vazirinasab E, Jafari R, Momen G (2018) Application of superhydrophobic coatings as a corrosion barrier: a review. Surf. Coatings Technol 341(November):40–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shirtcliffe NJ, Brian Pyatt F, Newton MI, McHale G (2006) A lichen protected by a super-hydrophobic and breathable structure. J Plant Physiol 163(11):1193–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tricinci O, Terencio T, Mazzolai B, Pugno NM, Greco F, Mattoli V (2015) 3D micropatterned surface inspired by Salvinia molesta via direct laser lithography. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 7(46):25560–25567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horgnies M, Chen JJ (2014) Superhydrophobic concrete surfaces with integrated microtexture. Cem Concr Compos 52:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sarkar DK, Farzaneh M (2009) Superhydrophobic coatings with reduced ice adhesion. J Adhes Sci Technol 23(9):1215–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang D, Wang L, Qian H, Li X (2016) Superhydrophobic surfaces for corrosion protection: a review of recent progresses and future directions. J Coatings Technol Res 13(1):11–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feng BL et al (2002) Super-hydrophobic surfaces: from natural to artificial. Adv Mater 14(24):1857–1860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jokinen V, Kankuri E, Hoshian S, Franssila S, Ras RHA (2018) Superhydrophobic Blood-Repellent Surfaces. Adv Mater 30(24)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jung YC, Bhushan B (2006) Contact angle, adhesion and friction properties of micro-and nanopatterned polymers for superhydrophobicity. Nanotechnology 17(19):4970–4980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cao L, Hu HA, Gao D (2007) Design and fabrication of micro-textures for inducing a superhydrophobic behavior on hydrophilic materials. Langmuir 23(8):4310–4314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grewal HS, Cho IJ, Oh JE, Yoon ES (2014) Effect of topography on the wetting of nanoscale patterns: experimental and modeling studies. Nanoscale 6(24):15321–15332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hubbard A (2017) Book review. J Colloid Interface Sci 495(February):216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Michael N, Bhushan B (2007) Hierarchical roughness makes superhydrophobic states stable. Microelectron Eng 84(3):382–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bhushan B, Chae Jung Y (2007) Wetting study of patterned surfaces for superhydrophobicity. Ultramicroscopy 107(10–11):1033–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cansoy CE, Erbil HY, Akar O, Akin T (2011) Effect of pattern size and geometry on the use of Cassie-Baxter equation for superhydrophobic surfaces. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem Eng Asp. 386(1–3):116–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weisensee PB, Torrealba EJ, Raleigh M, Jacobi AM, King WP (2014) Hydrophobic and oleophobic re-entrant steel microstructures fabricated using micro electrical discharge machining. J. Micromech Microeng 24(9)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. Jafari, Applications of plasma technology in development of superhydrophobic surfaces: a review, no. 418, 1963Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee SE, Lee KW, Kim JH, Lee KC, Lee SS, Hong SU (2011) Mass-producible superhydrophobic surfaces. Chem Commun 47(43):12005–12007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Snyder TJ, Andrews M, Weislogel M, Moeck P, Stone-Sundberg J, Birkes D, Hoffert MP, Lindeman A, Morrill J, Fercak O, Friedman S, Gunderson J, Ha A, McCollister J, Chen Y, Geile J, Wollman A, Attari B, Botnen N, Vuppuluri V, Shim J, Kaminsky W, Adams D, Graft J (2014) 3D systems’ technology overview and new applications in manufacturing, engineering, science, and education. 3D Print Addit Manuf 1(3):169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim H, Moon SK, Seo M (2016) Hybrid layering scanning-projection micro-stereolithography for fabrication of conical microlens array and hollow microneedle array. Microelectron Eng 153:15–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kuang M, Wang L, Song Y (2014) Controllable printing droplets for high-resolution patterns. Adv Mater 26(40):6950–6958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ko SH, Chung J, Hotz N, Nam KH, Grigoropoulos CP (2010) Metal nanoparticle direct inkjet printing for low-temperature 3D micro metal structure fabrication. J. Micromech Microeng 20(12)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Beauchamp MJ, Nordin GP, Woolley AT (2017) Moving from millifluidic to truly microfluidic sub-100-μm cross-section 3D printed devices. Anal Bioanal Chem 409(18):4311–4319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ceylan H, Yasa IC, Sitti M (2017) 3D chemical patterning of micromaterials for encoded functionality. Adv Mater 29(9):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bico J, Thiele U, Quéré D (2002) Wetting of textured surfaces. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem Eng Asp. 206(1–3):41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schroeder TBH, Houghtaling J, Wilts BD, Mayer M (2018) It’s not a bug, It’s a feature: functional materials in insects. Adv Mater 30(19)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Barthlott W, Neinhuis C (1997) Purity of the sacred lotus, or escape from contamination in biological surfaces. Planta 202(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Watson GS, Green DW, Cribb BW, Brown CL, Meritt CR, Tobin MJ, Vongsvivut J, Sun M, Liang AP, Watson JA (2017) Insect analogue to the Lotus leaf: a planthopper wing membrane incorporating a Low-adhesion, nonwetting, superhydrophobic, bactericidal, and biocompatible surface. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 9(28):24381–24392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guo Z, Yang F (2017) Introduction for biomimetic superhydrophobic materials. Surf Interfaces Biomim Superhydrophobic Mater:400Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Young T (1805) An essay on the cohesion of fluids. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 95(0):65–87Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schuster JM, Schvezov CE, Rosenberger MR (2015) Analysis of the results of surface free energy measurement of Ti6Al4V by Analysis of the results of surface free energy measurement of Ti6Al4V by different methods. Procedia Mater Sci 8(July):732–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Brown PS, Bhushan B (2073) Subject areas: bioinspired materials for water supply and management: water collection, water purification and separation of water from oil. Philos Trans R Soc A 374:2016Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Milionis A, Loth E, Bayer IS (2016) Recent advances in the mechanical durability of superhydrophobic materials. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 229:57–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wenzel RN (1936) Resistance of solid surfaces to wetting by water. Ind Eng Chem 28(8):988–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Faraday Society (1944) Wettability of porous surfaces. Trans Faraday Soc 40Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kwon Y, Choi S, Anantharaju N, Lee J, Panchagnula MV, Patankar NA (2010) Is the Cassie-Baxter formula relevant? Langmuir 26(22):17528–17531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tie L, Guo Z, Liu W (2015) Anisotropic wetting properties on various shape of parallel grooved microstructure. J Colloid Interface Sci 453:142–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Im M, Im H, Lee JH, Yoon JB, Choi YK (2010) Analytical modeling and thermodynamic analysis of robust superhydrophobic surfaces with inverse-trapezoidal microstructures. Langmuir 26(22):17389–17397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tuteja A, Choi W, McKinley GH, Cohen RE, Rubner MF (2008) Design parameters for superhydrophobicity and superoleophobicity. MRS Bull 33(8):752–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Quek JY, Magee CL, Low HY (2017) Physical texturing for superhydrophobic polymeric surfaces: a design perspective. Langmuir 33(27):6902–6915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bittoun E, Marmur A (2012) The role of multiscale roughness in the lotus effect: is it essential for super-hydrophobicity? Langmuir 28(39):13933–13942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Plawsky JL, Ojha M, Chatterjee A, Wayner PC (2009) Review of the effects of surface topography, surface chemistry, and fluid physics on evaporation at the contact line. Chem Eng Commun 196(5):658–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    S. Corbel, O. Dufaud, and T. Roques-Carmes, Stereolithography. 2011Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Livesu M, Ellero S, Martínez J, Lefebvre S, Attene M (2017) From 3D models to 3d prints: an overview of the processing pipeline. 36(2)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lee JM, Zhang M, Yeong WY (2016) Characterization and evaluation of 3D printed microfluidic chip for cell processing. Microfluid Nanofluidics 20(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    He Z, Chen Y, Yang J, Tang C, Lv J, Liu Y, Mei J, Lau WM, Hui D (2017) Fabrication of polydimethylsiloxane films with special surface wettability by 3D printing. Compos Part B Eng 129:58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Macdonald NP, Currivan SA, Tedone L, Paull B (2017) Direct production of microstructured surfaces for planar chromatography using 3D printing. Anal Chem 89(4):2457–2463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zhang X, Jiang XN, Sun C (1999) Micro-stereolithography of polymeric and ceramic microstructures. Sensors Actuators A Phys 77(2):149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    J. Stampfl, Photopolymers with tunable mechanical properties processed by laser-based high-resolution stereolithography, no. December, 2008Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Melchels FPW, Feijen J, Grijpma DW (2010) A review on stereolithography and its applications in biomedical engineering. Biomaterials 31(24):6121–6130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wang X, Cai X, Guo Q, Zhang T, Kobe B, Yang J (2013) I3DP, a robust 3D printing approach enabling genetic post-printing surface modification. Chem Commun 49(86):10064–10066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Credi C, Levi M, Turri S, Simeone G (2017) Stereolithography of perfluoropolyethers for the microfabrication of robust omniphobic surfaces. Appl Surf Sci 404:268–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Thompson MK, Mischkot M (2015) Design of test parts to characterize micro additive manufacturing processes. Procedia CIRP 34:223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lee KS, Kim RH, Yang DY, Park SH (2008) Advances in 3D nano/microfabrication using two-photon initiated polymerization. Prog Polym Sci 33(6):631–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lepowsky E, Tasoglu S (2018) Emerging anti-fouling methods: towards reusability of 3D-printed devices for biomedical applications. Micromachines 9(4):196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Brandon S, Haimovich N, Yeger E, Marmur A (2003) Partial wetting of chemically patterned surfaces: the effect of drop size. J Colloid Interface Sci 263(1):237–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Letellier P, Mayaffre A, Turmine M (2007) Drop size effect on contact angle explained by nonextensive thermodynamics. Young’s equation revisited. J Colloid Interface Sci 314(2):604–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Park J et al (2015) Direct and accurate measurement of size dependent wetting behaviors for sessile water droplets. Sci Rep 5(November):1–13Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Barner-Kowollik C, Bastmeyer M, Blasco E, Delaittre G, Müller P, Richter B, Wegener M (2017) 3D laser micro- and nanoprinting: challenges for chemistry. Angew Chem Int Ed 56(50):15828–15845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Li X, Chen Y (2017) Micro-scale feature fabrication using immersed surface accumulation. J Manuf Process 28:531–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    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, vol 1704912, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    De Gans BJ, Schubert US (2004) Inkjet printing of well-defined polymer dots and arrays. Langmuir 20(18):7789–7793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Mahajan A, Frisbie CD, Francis LF (2013) Optimization of aerosol jet printing for high-resolution, high-aspect ratio silver lines. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 5(11):4856–4864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hedges M, Marin AB (2012) 3D Aerosol Jet printing—adding electronics functionality to RP/RM, DDMC 2012 Conf., pp. 1–5Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Barahman M, Lyons AM (2011) Ratchetlike slip angle anisotropy on printed superhydrophobic surfaces. Langmuir 27(16):9902–9909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Wohlers T (2016) Wohlers Report 2016. 3D printing and additive manufacturing state of the industry, Wohlers Rep. 2016, no. May, p. 355Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Guo SZ, Yang X, Heuzey MC, Therriault D (2015) 3D printing of a multifunctional nanocomposite helical liquid sensor. Nanoscale 7(15):6451–6456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Wu W, Geng P, Li G, Zhao D, Zhang H, Zhao J (2015) Influence of layer thickness and raster angle on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed PEEK and a comparative mechanical study between PEEK and ABS. Materials (Basel) 8(9):5834–5846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Marmur A (2008) From hygrophilic to superhygrophobic: theoretical conditions for making high-contact-angle surfaces from low-contact-angle materials. Langmuir 24(14):7573–7579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Go J, Schiffres SN, Stevens AG, Hart AJ (2017) Rate limits of additive manufacturing by fused filament fabrication and guidelines for high-throughput system design. Addit Manuf 16:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Huang W, Zhang X, Wu Q, Wu B (2013) Fabrication of HA/ß-TCP scaffolds based on micro-syringe extrusion system. Rapid Prototyp J 19(5):319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Zheng Q, Lü C (2013) Size effects of surface roughness to superhydrophobicity. Procedia IUTAM 10:462–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Chu J (2017) New 3-D printer is 10 times faster than commercial counterparts, 29/11/2017, pp. 1–4Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ngo CV, Chun DM (2016) Laser printing of superhydrophobic patterns from mixtures of hydrophobic silica nanoparticles and toner powder, Sci. Rep., vol. 6, no. July, pp. 1–9Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    A. K. , Yi-Chen Li, Yu Shrike Zhang, Ali Akpek, Su Ryon Shin, 4D bioprinting: the next-generation technology for biofabrication enabled by stimuli-responsive materials, Biofabrication, vol. 9, 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reza Jafari
    • 1
    Email author
  • Come Cloutier
    • 1
  • Anahaita Allahdini
    • 1
  • Gelareh Momen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied SciencesUniversity of Quebec in Chicoutimi (UQAC)ChicoutimiCanada

Personalised recommendations