Next Article in Journal
Recent Trends in Advanced Radiation Shielding Concrete for Construction of Facilities: Materials and Properties
Next Article in Special Issue
Networking Skills: The Effect of Graphene on the Crosslinking of Natural Rubber Nanocomposites with Sulfur and Peroxide Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Chitosan-Strontium Oxide Nanocomposite: Preparation, Characterization, and Catalytic Potency in Thiadiazoles Synthesis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Modeling of the Electrotransport Process in PP-Based and PLA-Based Composite Fibers Filled with Carbon Nanofibers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Polymers
Volume 14
Issue 14
10.3390/polym14142829
polymers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Chemical Structural Coherence Principle on Polymers for Better Adhesion

by
Alena L. Krapivko
1,*,
Yegor D. Ryabkov
1,
Fedor V. Drozdov
2,
Nikolay A. Yashtulov
1,
Nikolay K. Zaitsev
3 and
Aziz M. Muzafarov
2
1
M. V. Lomonosov Institute of Fine Chemical Technologies, MIREA—Russian Technological University, Vernadskogo Prospect, 86, 119571 Moscow, Russia
2
N.S. Enikolopov Institute of Synthetic Polymeric Materials, Russian Academy of Sciences, Profsoyuznaya St., 70, 117393 Moscow, Russia
3
Econics-Expert Ltd., Akademika Bakuleva St., 6, 117513 Moscow, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2022, 14(14), 2829; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14142829
Submission received: 18 May 2022 / Revised: 28 June 2022 / Accepted: 8 July 2022 / Published: 12 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Synthesis and Applications of Polymer-Based Nanocomposites)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Composite materials are the most variative type of materials employed in almost every task imaginable. In the present study, a synthesis of a novel perfluoroalkyltriethoxysilane is reported to be used in creating composites with polyhexafluoropropylene—one of the most indifferent and adhesion-lacking polymers existing. The mechanism of adhesion of hexafluoropropylene is proved to be due to chemical structural coherence of perfluoroalkyltriethoxysilane to a link of polyhexafluoropropylene chain. The ability of perfluoroalkyltriethoxysilane to attach to surfaces was studied by FT-IR spectroscopy of modified glass microspheres. Although the perfluoroalkyltriethoxysilane surface modifier allowed partial adhesion of polyhexafluoropropylene, some detachment took place; therefore, the surface nanostructuring was used to increase its specific area by aluminum foil anodizing. An anodized aluminum surface was studied by scanning electron microscopy. The resulting composite consisting of anodized aluminum, perfluoroalkyl surface modifier, and polyhexafluoropropylene layer was proved to be stable, showed no signs of detachment, and is a promising material for usage in harsh environments.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Composite materials of different application gain increasing attention nowadays. Composite materials are employed in various areas, including construction [1,2,3,4,5], aerospace [6], biomedical [7,8,9,10,11], sensor [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20], and many other industries. Composite material is a system consisting of at least two phases with a pronounced interface border. Thus, it is crucial for composite stability that its constituents must have proper adhesion to each other [21]. Without proper adhesion of two heterogenous materials a significant decrease in mechanical strength becomes possible up to rapid destruction of the composite [22,23,24,25,26,27].
There are several methods for increasing adhesion between polymer matrix and fillers. Most of these methods are related to surface modification [28,29]. Nanostructuring is a promising method for increasing specific surface area, chemical structure of the surface and its roughness, and that leads to better adhesion [30,31]. A chemical surface modification can be employed to create “anchor” functional groups on different surfaces, which will allow a polymer to attach to the surface due to chemical structural coherence, and silanes with various architecture frequently serve this purpose [32,33].
Among many materials used as polymer matrices, fluorinated polymers occupy a special place. These materials have outstanding properties, such as durability, photoaging resistance, and chemical inactivity [7,34,35,36,37,38,39] due to high carbon-fluorine bond energy. One of the most stable and promising materials is polyhexafluoropropylene (PHFP) [40]. PHFP is a perfluorinated polymer with the least surface energy and a wide range of working temperatures. However, fluoropolymers have extremely low adhesion to almost all materials due to the abovementioned low surface energy, and that makes them challenging to work with as composite matrices [41,42]. Neither the nanostructuring mentioned above nor the use of known commercially available silanes make it possible to obtain stable composites based on PHFP.
In this paper, we report a method for significantly improving the adhesion of perfluorinated materials using PHFP as an example. In fact, this work is an extension of the gecko-tape idea of Nobel laureate Andre Geim [43], but we decided to go down to the molecular level of coherence. It implies that a structural element of the fluorinated matrix is used as a part of the specially designed surface modifier. This paper describes the direct synthesis of a new perfluoroalkyltriethoxysilane with a dimer of hexafluoropropylene molecular fragment, i.e., with a structural element of PHFP. The modifier could be used for surfaces that need to be attached to the polymer matrix–whether it is a filler particle or a substrate surface. We proposed that although van der Waals interactions between similar structural parts are weak, due to a great number of interactions, the desired effect of PHFP adhesion could be attained. The modifier allows one to attach the fluorinated polymer to the glass or metal surface, and a modifier for epoxy resin could be obtained in case of copolymerization with phenyltriethoxysilane. The well-known aluminum foil anodizing technique [44,45,46,47] was engaged as a method for surface nanostructuring and further increasing of the fluorinated polymer adhesion to metal surface.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Aluminum foil A5 DPRNM 0.1 × 500 mm State Standard 618-2014 was purchased from RT-Techpriemka (Rostech, Moscow, Russia), analytical grade acids were purchased from Chimmed (Moscow, Russia), and auxiliary electrode was purchased from Econics-Expert (Moscow, Russia). Hexane for syntheses purposes was purchased from Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA), as well as glass microspheres with particle size 1–40 μm, trichlorosilane, carbamide, ethanol, toluene, Carsted catalyst, acetone, and calcium chloride as drying agent. Hexafluorobenzene was provided by P&M Invest (Moscow, Russia). Polyhexafluoropropylene was kindly provided by Laboratory of Chemical Reactions under High Pressure of N. D. Zelinsky Institute of Organic Chemistry Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia, the synthesis was reported earlier [48]. 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-Undecafluoro-N-(3-methyldiethoxysilylpropyl)hexanamide surface modifier was kindly provided by N.S. Enikolopov Institute of Synthetic Polymeric Materials, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia.

2.2. Synthesis of 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-Heptafluoro-4,4-bis(trifluoromethyl)pentyltriethoxysilane

The initial fluorine-containing precursor for this synthesis has been obtained by our group earlier by a known method [49]. Reaction was carried out in argon atmosphere. Trichlorosilane was introduced in reaction flask through a septum to the fluorinated precursor, then Carsted catalyst was added. Reaction mixture was intensively mixed for 24 h in room temperature. Trichlorosilane was then removed from reaction mixture by distillation at 50 °C. Reaction product was then distilled, fraction with boiling point at 94 °C was collected (Figure 1).
A mixture of carbamide, ethanol, and hexane was added to four-necked round bottom flask with mechanical stirring in argon atmosphere. The product of previous stage was introduced to reaction mixture by dropping funnel at low rate and intensive stirring. After full introduction of the trichlorosilane the reaction was heated to 50 °C and was held under argon atmosphere and intensive stirring for 12 h (Figure 2). The resulting product was distilled and fraction with boiling point at 120 °C.

2.3. Aluminum Foil Anodizing

The formation of nanopeforations on the aluminum surface was performed on aluminum foil samples with a purity of 98.5% by high-voltage anodizing. Before anodizing, aluminum samples were cleaned with acetone. Amounts of 0.3 M phosphoric acid, 0.3 M oxalic acid, and 0.3 M sulfuric acid were used as the background electrolyte. Oxygen was removed from the solution by purging with 99.999% purity nitrogen, while the gas purging continued during anodization. The auxiliary electrode was a platinum wire with a diameter of 0.5 mm and a length of 20 cm, which was twisted into a spiral with a coil diameter of 1 cm, at a charge of 10 A and a voltage maintenance accuracy of 0.5 V. An aluminum foil sample with an uninsulated area of 4 cm2 was placed in a cell equipped with a RITM-01 magnetic stirrer (Econics-Expert, Moscow, Russia), which was a heat resistant glass. The background electrolyte temperature was maintained constant at 21 °C by passing tap water at the same temperature through the cell jacket. The sample treated for the selected time and at the selected voltage was washed with bidistilled water, dried in air for 24 h, and then examined on a Hitachi-SU8200 scanning electron microscope (Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) in a low-voltage, low-temperature mode at an accelerating voltage of 20 kV and temperature of 77 K. Scanning electron microscopy was the main method for determining the number and size of nanoperforations on the aluminum surface. Anodized aluminum samples preparation is described in Table 1.
The Digimizer program Version 5.7.2 (MedCalc Software Ltd., Ostend, Belgium) was used to process images and calculate average nanoperforation diameters.

2.4. Sample Surface Preparation

Anodized aluminum foil samples were degreased in acetone, air-dried, and then submerged in NaOH 2.5 M solution for 30 s with a following rinse in distilled water. The prepared aluminum foils were dried in desiccator over calcium chloride for 24 h.

2.5. Sample Surface Modification

The prepared aluminum foils were submerged in 1% solution of surface modifier in hexafluorobenzene for 60 s, then these samples were placed in an oven at 150 °C for an hour. Prepared samples were air cooled.

2.6. Polymer Films Application

A 10% solution of polymer in appropriate solvent was prepared. Hexafluorobenzene was used for polyhexafluoropropylene, toluene was used for polymethylmethacrylate, and acetone was used for polytetrafluoroethylene copolymer.
The prepared aluminum foils with surface area of 3 cm2 were coated with 500 μL of the prepared solution and air dried for 24 h.

2.7. Shear Strength Test Samples Preparation

A 10% solution of polymer in appropriate solvent was prepared. Hexafluorobenzene was used for polyhexafluoropropylene, toluene was used for polymethylmethacrylate, and acetone was used for polytetrafluoroethylene copolymer.
The prepared aluminum foils with surface area of 3 cm2 were coated with 500 μL of the prepared solution, covered with another aluminum foil, and air dried for 24 h.

2.8. Shear Strength Test

Shear strength tests were performed on Instron 5942 (Instron, Norwood, MA, USA). ASTM D1002 method was employed—a lap shear test which is performed to determine the shear strength of an adhesive that is applied to two metal plates and pulled to failure.

2.9. Glass Microspheres Modification

Glass microspheres surface was prepared the same way as the aluminum foils. Treated glass microspheres were submerged in perfluoroalkyltriethoxysilane solution for 10, 30, 60 and 300 s, and then were placed in an oven at 150 °C for an hour.

2.10. 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-Heptafluoro-4,4-bis(trifluoromethyl)pentyltriethoxysilane Characterization

NMR studies were carried out on WM-250 spectrometer (Bruker Corporation, Billerica, MA, USA) in hexafluorobenzene solution.

2.11. Surfaces Characterization

2.11.1. Glass Microspheres Surface Characterization

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR) method was employed to prove glass surface modification on Bruker Equinox 55 FT-IR spectrometer (Billerica, MA, USA).

2.11.2. Aluminum Surface Characterization

Water contact angles on treated aluminum foil surfaces were obtained and measured on Biolin Scientific Theta lite (Gothenburg, Sweden).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. 1.1,1,2,2,3,3-Heptafluoro-4,4-bis(trifluoromethyl)pentyltriethoxysilane Characterization

NMR spectrum of synthesized modifier is shown in Figure 3.

3.2. Glass Surface Characterization

The synthesized 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-4,4-bis(trifluoromethyl)pentyltriethoxysilane can be attached to hydroxyl-containing surfaces in the same way as other organosilanes [50]. The interaction between the modifier and glass and metal surfaces that were previously treated with sodium hydroxide to create hydroxyl groups was studied. Modifier addition mechanism is shown in Figure 4. Thus, the surface modification can be referred to as chemosorption of the modifier to the hydroxyl-containing surface, creating covalent Si-O-Si bonding.
The FT-IR spectra of glass microspheres are shown in Figure 5. The adsorption band of 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-4,4-bis(trifluoromethyl)pentyltriethoxysilane modifier was detected at 2928 cm−1 (C–H, stretching).
The kinetics of glass microspheres modification was studied by treating glass microspheres with modifier with varying exposure times (Figure 5). One can see increasing values of the C–H band peak intensity that corresponds to increasing quantity of propyl groups of the modifier. The longer modification time is, the more molecules of modifier absorb on glass surface. The dependence of calculated peak area is well-fitted by the Langmuir-type equation as seen on the Insertion in Figure 5.
A = A max τ τ + K
where A represents peak area, Amax—maximum peak area, τ—modification time, and K—equilibrium constant of modifier chemosorption reaction. In this case, K represents time needed for half of the chemosorption sites to react. Numerical fitting for the observed reaction yields the values Amax = 0.33 a.u., K = 50.6 s. C–F adsorption band is overlapped by Si–O adsorption band and cannot be used to estimate the modification success.

3.3. Anodized Aluminum Characterization

According to earlier studies, it is known that aluminum specific surface area obtained by anodizing can be manipulated by changing the technological parameters such as voltage, exposition time, electrolyte composition etc. [51,52]. Anodized aluminum samples 1–6 were prepared by using certain regimes with nanoperforation diameters of 10, 30, 50, 70, 100, and 150 nm, respectively. Figure 6 shows SEM images of these samples’ surfaces, which show the grids of the resulting regular patterns of nanoperforations. Sample № 0 is aluminum that has not been anodized and is shown here for comparison.

3.4. Modified Aluminum Surface Characterization

Data obtained from water contact angle comparison are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. It is clear that the dependence of water contact angles to nanoperforation average diameter in non-linear with a maximum somewhere in between 40 nm to 60 nm due to the attainment of maximum specific surface area.
This step is needed to increase the number of adsorption sites for the polymer after the surface modification. Further anodization, as it seems, leads to lower values of specific surface area due to the merging of nanoperforations together and destruction of perforations’ walls with formation of fewer amounts of bigger perforations. Anodized aluminum foils without surface modification show linear decrease in water contact angles due to hydrophilic nature of aluminum, that is further strengthened by increased specific surface area.

3.5. Polymer Films

Examples of films of various polymers deposited on untreated and treated aluminum substrates are shown in Figure 9.
Sample 1 shows that polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) did not attach to untreated aluminum surface at all. Sample 2 shows even attachment of PMMA to anodized aluminum surface. Sample 3 is an unevenly attached layer of PTFE copolymer on anodized aluminum surface. PTFE has significantly lower surface free-energy and it takes additional effort to provide proper adhesion on desirable surfaces. Sample 4 is a PHFP layer that has completely detached from the anodized aluminum surface during the drying process. In contrast, the PHFP film on the modified and anodized aluminum surface adhered very well without any sign of detachment (Sample 5). As can be seen from the pictures, polymers do attach better to nanostructured surfaces than to untreated aluminum due to the lack of adhesion centers of the latter. However, PHFP film did not stick to anodized surface at all due to its extremely low surface energy. PHFP film on the modified and anodized aluminum surface attached completely without any signs of detachment. This is possible due to chemical structural coherence that was attained by treating the anodized aluminum surface with the modifier with an element of PHFP structure. Modification of the surface creates large number of adhesion sites with the PHFP links, acting as crystallization seeds for the polymer. And the more sites the desirable surface has, the better adhesion will be attained due to larger numbers of van der Waals interactions between the PHFP chains and modifier’s fluorinated substituent. To increase the number of these sites we simply increased the specific surface area on aluminum samples by anodizing, and that manipulation ensured the even adhesion of the PHFE to the modified surface.
As can be seen from Figure 10, the shear strength of composite material changes dramatically when materials have structural coherence. The polymer samples on untreated aluminum foil proved to be unstable even at the drying stage. Samples with nanostructured aluminum foils show significant increase in shear strength, although PHFP sample was still unstable. Samples with anodized aluminum foils with 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-4,4-bis(trifluoromethyl)pentyltriethoxysilane modification show much better adhesion for PHFP, and slight decrease of shear strength for PTFE copolymer. Samples with anodized aluminum foils and 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-Undecafluoro-N-(3-methyldiethoxysilylpropyl)hexanamide modification showed almost no adhesion increase for PHFP compared to unmodified anodized aluminum surface. These results make it clear that structural coherence between PHFP and 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-4,4-bis(trifluoromethyl)pentyltriethoxysilane does in fact takes place and it is this interaction that plays a key role in the demonstrated method for improving adhesion.

4. Conclusions

The 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-4,4-bis(trifluoromethyl)pentyltriethoxysilane modifier was synthesized. The ability of modifier to attach to surfaces containing hydroxyl groups was studied along with the kinetics of the modification and the results implied that the modifier successfully attached to the surfaces forming a covalent chemical bond. The surface modification technique was optimized. The adhesive ability of the modifier towards the PHFP was studied and compared to different polymers adhesion to treated and untreated aluminum surfaces by a series of shear strength tests. The chemical structural coherence was proven to take place between the modifier and PHFP film as the shear strength of the composite increased dramatically. This discovery opens new horizons for composite materials by showing the possibility of the direct synthesis customized surface modifiers for low surface free-energy fluorinated materials to be used as a constituent of different composites.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.V.D. and A.L.K.; methodology, F.V.D. and A.M.M.; supervision, N.K.Z. and F.V.D.; investigation, A.L.K., Y.D.R. and F.V.D.; writing—original draft preparation, A.L.K.; writing—review and editing, N.K.Z.; project administration, N.A.Y.; funding acquisition, N.A.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was carried out within the framework of the State Assignment of the Russian Federation (theme no. 0706-2020-0020). This work was performed using the equipment of the Shared Science and Training Center for Collective Use RTU MIREA and supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation within the framework of agreement No. 075-15-2021-689 dated 1 September 2021.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hsissou, R.; Seghiri, R.; Benzekri, Z.; Hilali, M.; Rafik, M.; Elharfi, A. Polymer Composite Materials: A Comprehensive Review. Compos. Struct. 2021, 262, 113640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Guo, H.; Liu, Q.; Xu, J.; Sun, G. Design of High Strength and Lightweight Construction Composites Using Advanced Porous and Tough Cementitious Materials. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 2021, 19, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Grammatikos, S.; Tsampas, S.; Petterson, J.; Luping, T.; Löfgren, I. Recycling and Re-Purposing Decommisioned Construction Polymer Composites for Construction Applications. In Proceedings of the ECCM 2018—18th European Conference on Composite Materials, Athens, Greece, 24–28 June 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. Li, W.; Han, S.; Han, X.; Yao, Y. Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Mechanical Properties of Geocell Reinforced Reclaimed Construction Waste Composite Base Layer. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 304, 124587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lechner, T.; Schmitt, V.; Fischer, O.; Kempf, J. Modulbauweisen Im Verbundbrückenbau: Rückblick Und Aktuelle Tendenzen Beim Bau von Brücken Mit Kleinen Und Mittleren Spannweiten. Stahlbau 2021, 90, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Liu, Q.M.; Huang, S.Z.; He, A.J. Application Requirements and Challenges of CMC-SiC Composites on Aero-Engine. Cailiao Gongcheng/J. Mater. Eng. 2019, 47, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cardoso, V.F.; Correia, D.M.; Ribeiro, C.; Fernandes, M.M.; Lanceros-Méndez, S. Fluorinated Polymers as Smart Materials for Advanced Biomedical Applications. Polymers 2018, 10, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Jaya Krishna, K.; Jayakumar, V.; Bharathiraja, G. Mechanical Analysis of Medical Waste Reinforced Polymer Composite. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 22, 473–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Park, S.-B.; Sung, M.H.; Uyama, H.; Han, D.K. Poly(Glutamic Acid): Production, Composites, and Medical Applications of the next-Generation Biopolymer. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2021, 113, 101341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chen, X.; Wang, Z.; Wu, J. Processing and Characterization of Natural Rubber/Stearic Acid-Tetra-Needle-like Zinc Oxide Whiskers Medical Antibacterial Composites. J. Polym. Res. 2018, 25, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shen, W.; Qhobosheane, R. Durability of Medical Composite Systems. In Woodhead Publishing Series in Composites Science and Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 363–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zaitsev, N.K.; Melnikov, P.V.; Alferov, V.A.; Kopytin, A.V.; German, K.E. Stable Optical Oxygen Sensing Material Based on Perfluorinated Polymer and Fluorinated Platinum(II) and Palladium(II) Porphyrins. Procedia Eng. 2016, 168, 309–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Naumova, A.O.; Melnikov, P.V.; Dolganova, E.V.; Yashtulov, N.A.; Zaitsev, N.K. Shifts in the PKa Value of Acid–Base Indicators Caused by Immobilization on Solid Substrates via Water-Soluble Polycationic Polymers: A Case Study of Congo Red. Fine Chem. Technol. 2020, 15, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kano, Y.; Katsumata, T.; Komuro, S.; Aizawa, H. Development of Fluorescence Thermo-Sensor Composite with Cr Doped YAlCl3 and Silicone Resin. ECS Electrochem. Lett. 2014, 3, B9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Saito, H.; Shimogawa, S.; Tanaka, S.; Shioda, S. Estimating Parameters of Multiple Heterogeneous Target Objects Using Composite Sensor Nodes. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 2012, 11, 125–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Georgopoulou, A.; Kummerlöwe, C.; Clemens, F. Effect of the Elastomer Matrix on Thermoplastic Elastomer-Based Strain Sensor Fiber Composites. Sensors 2020, 20, 2399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Wang, J.; Xu, B.; Zhang, J.; Liu, G.; Zhang, T.; Qiu, F.; Zhao, M. Humidity Sensors of Composite Material of Nanocrystal BaTiO3 and Polymer (R)NM+X-. J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 1999, 18, 1603–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Melnikov, P.V.; Alexandrovskaya, A.Y.; Naumova, A.O.; Popova, N.M.; Spitsyn, B.V.; Zaitsev, N.K.; Yashtulov, N.A. Modified Nanodiamonds as a Means of Polymer Surface Functionalization. From Fouling Suppression to Biosensor Design. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 2980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Melnikov, P.V.; Aleksandrovskaya, A.Y.; Safonov, A.V.; Popova, N.M.; Spitsin, B.V.; Naumova, A.O.; Zaitsev, N.K. Tuning the Wetting Angle of Fluorinated Polymer with Modified Nanodiamonds: Towards New Type of Biosensors. Mendeleev Commun. 2020, 30, 453–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Optical Analyzer for Continuous Monitoring of Dissolved Oxygen in Aviation Fuel and Other Non-Aqueous Media. Available online: https://www.ije.ir/article_88193.html (accessed on 28 June 2022).
  21. Novák, L.; Fojtl, L.; Kadlečková, M.; Maňas, L.; Smolková, I.; Musilová, L.; Minařík, A.; Mráček, A.; Sedláček, T.; Smolka, P. Surface Modification of Metallic Inserts for Enhancing Adhesion at the Metal–Polymer Interface. Polymers 2021, 13, 4015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kafkopoulos, G.; Padberg, C.J.; Duvigneau, J.; Vancso, G.J. Adhesion Engineering in Polymer-Metal Comolded Joints with Biomimetic Polydopamine. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 19244–19253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Suriani, M.J.; Ruzaidi, C.M.; Wan Nik, W.B.; Zulkifli, F.; Sapuan, S.M.; Ilyas, R.A.; Khalina, A.; Abubakar, A.; Musapha, R.; Mohd Radzi, F.S. Effect of Fibre Contents toward Manufacturing Defects and Interfacial Adhesion of Arenga Pinnata Fibre Reinforced Fibreglass/Kevlar Hybrid Composite in Boat Construction. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1960, 12022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Plichta, T.; Sirjovova, V.; Zvonek, M.; Kalinka, G.; Cech, V. The Adhesion of Plasma Nanocoatings Controls the Shear Properties of Gf/Polyester Composite. Polymers 2021, 13, 593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Pang, H.; Pei, L.; Xu, J.; Cao, S.; Wang, Y.; Gong, X. Magnetically Tunable Adhesion of Composite Pads with Magnetorheological Polymer Gel Cores. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2020, 192, 108115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tian, H.; Yao, Y.; Wang, C.; Jv, R.; Ge, X.; Xiang, A. Essential Work of Fracture Analysis for Surface Modified Carbon Fiber/Polypropylene Composites with Different Interfacial Adhesion. Polym. Compos. 2020, 41, 3541–3551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. You, X.; Chen, Y.; Huang, Y.; Wang, C.; Zhou, G.; He, W.; Wang, S.; Tang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Li, Z.; et al. Surface Coarsening of Carbon Fiber/Cyanate Ester Composite for Adhesion Improvement of Electroless Copper Plating as Conductive Patterns. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2020, 255, 123597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shakhmurzova, K.T.; Kurdanova, Z.I.; Zhansitov, A.A.; Baikaziev, A.E.; Khashirova, S.Y. Possible Ways to Improve Interphase Adhesion between Fiberglass and Polyphenylenesulfide. Key Eng. Mater. 2021, 899, 440–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tal, N.Y.; Timor, Y.; Dodiuk, H.; Kenig, S. Polymer/Nanoparticle Interface in Polymer Nanocomposites: A Critical Review. Rev. Adhes. Adhes. 2021, 9, 368–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gravis, D.; Rigolé, G.; Yengui, M.; Knapp, W.; Coulon, J.F.; Poncin-Epaillard, F. Enhancement of Metal Adhesion, Owing to the Plasma Texturing of PEEK. Plasma Processes Polym. 2021, 18, 2100009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Preda, N.; Costas, A.; Lilli, M.; Sbardella, F.; Scheffler, C.; Tirillò, J.; Sarasini, F. Functionalization of Basalt Fibers with ZnO Nanostructures by Electroless Deposition for Improving the Interfacial Adhesion of Basalt Fibers/Epoxy Resin Composites. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2021, 149, 106488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, W.; Hu, C.; Zhang, W.; Liu, Z.; Shu, J.; Gu, J. Modification of Birch Wood Surface with Silane Coupling Agents for Adhesion Improvement of UV-Curable Ink. Prog. Org. Coat. 2020, 148, 105833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kwak, B.M.; Kwon, Y. Enhanced Mechanical Properties of Porous Silicone Composites Prepared by Silane Surface Functionalization of Hollow Silica Particles. Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. 2021, 734, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pei, M.; Huo, L.; Zhao, X.; Chen, S.; Li, J.; Peng, Z.; Zhang, K.; Zhou, H.; Liu, P. Facile Construction of Stable Hydrophobic Surface via Covalent Self-Assembly of Silane-Terminated Fluorinated Polymer. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2020, 507, 145138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yu, M.; Li, P.; Feng, Y.; Li, Q.; Sun, W.; Quan, M.; Liu, Z.; Sun, J.; Shi, S.; Gong, Y. Positive Effect of Polymeric Silane-Based Water Repellent Agents on the Durability of Superhydrophobic Fabrics. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2018, 450, 492–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wu, P.; Zhang, S.; Yang, H.; Zhu, Y.; Chen, J. Preparation of Emulsion-Templated Fluorinated Polymers and Their Application in Oil/Water Separation. J. Polym. Sci. Part A Polym. Chem. 2018, 56, 1508–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kallitsis, K.; Thuau, D.; Brochon, C.; Cloutet, E.; Hadziioannou, G. Tailoring Fluorinated Electroactive Polymers toward Specific Applications. Colloid Polym. Sci. 2021, 299, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Huang, H.; Guo, H.; Feng, Y. Study on UV-Aging Performance of Fluorinated Polymer Coating and Application on Painted Muds. Mater. Res. Express 2021, 8, 15301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shkinev, P.; Evdokimova, A.; Drozdov, F.V.; Gervits, L.L.; Muzafarov, A.M. Non-Accumulative in the Environment Facile Hydrophobic Coatings Based on Branched Siloxanes with Perfluoroalkyl Substituents. J. Organomet. Chem. 2021, 948, 121910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Belov, N.A.; Zharov, A.A.; Shashkin, A.V.; Shaikh, M.Q.; Raetzke, K.; Yampolskii, Y.P. Gas Transport and Free Volume in Hexafluoropropylene Polymers. J. Membr. Sci. 2011, 383, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tasaki, T.; Guo, Y.; Machida, H.; Akasaka, S.; Fujimori, A. Nano-Dispersion of Fluorinated Phosphonate-Modified Nanodiamond in Crystalline Fluoropolymer Matrix to Achieve a Transparent Polymer/Nanofiller Hybrid. Polym. Compos. 2019, 40, E842–E855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Baby, M.; Periya, V.K.; Soundiraraju, B.; Balachandran, N.; Cheriyan, S.; Sankaranarayanan, S.K.; Maniyeri, S.C. Bio-Mimicking Hybrid Polymer Architectures as Adhesion Promoters for Low and High Surface Energy Substrates. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2021, 100, 351–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Geim, A.K.; Dubonos, S.V.; Grigorieva, I.V.; Novoselov, K.S.; Zhukov, A.A.; Shapoval, S.Y. Microfabricated Adhesive Mimicking Gecko Foot-Hair. Nat. Mater. 2003, 2, 461–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ryabkov, E.D.; Antropov, A.P.; Zaitsev, N.K.; Yashtulov, N.A. Methods of Measuring the Depth of Nanoholes in Metallic Aluminum in the Process of High-Voltage Anodizing. Mosc. Univ. Chem. Bull. 2021, 76, 388–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ofoegbu, S.U.; Fernandes, F.A.O.; Pereira, A.B. The Sealing Step in Aluminum Anodizing: A Focus on Sustainable Strategies for Enhancing Both Energy Efficiency and Corrosion Resistance. Coatings 2020, 10, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Chiu, L.H.; Chen, C.C.; Yang, C.F. Improvement of Corrosion Properties in an Aluminum-Sprayed AZ31 Magnesium Alloy by a Post-Hot Pressing and Anodizing Treatment. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2005, 191, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Salman, S.A.; Okido, M. Anodization of Magnesium (Mg) Alloys to Improve Corrosion Resistance; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Sawston, UK, 2013; ISBN 9780857094377. [Google Scholar]
  48. Zharov, A.A.; Guzyaeva, I.A. Kinetics and Mechanism of Thermal Polymerization of Hexafluoropropylene under High Pressures. Russ. Chem. Bull. 2010, 59, 1225–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Drozdov, F.V.; Krapivko, A.L.; Cherkaev, G.V.; Gervits, L.L.; Yashtulov, N.A.; Kalinina, A.A.; Muzafarov, A.M. Multifunctional Hydrophobic Coatings Based on Siloxane Polymers with Branched Perfluoroalkyl Substituents: Fast, Simple and Ecologically Safe Synthesis in Active Media. J. Organomet. Chem. 2020, 921, 121398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Makowski, T. Hydrophobization of Cotton Fabric with Silanes with Different Substituents. Cellulose 2020, 27, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Masuda, T.; Asoh, H.; Haraguchi, S.; Ono, S. Fabrication and Characterization of Single Phase α-Alumina Membranes with Tunable Pore Diameters. Materials 2015, 8, 1350–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Antropov, A.P.; Zaytsev, N.K.; Ryabkov, Y.D.; Yashtulov, N.A.; Mudrakova, P.N. Manufacturing of Nanopillar (Ultra-Dispersed) Catalytically Active Materials through Chemical Engineering. Fine Chem. Technol. 2021, 16, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Polymers 14 02829 g001 550
Figure 1. Trichlorosilane addition reaction scheme.
Figure 1. Trichlorosilane addition reaction scheme.
Polymers 14 02829 g001
Polymers 14 02829 g002 550
Figure 2. Etoxylation reaction scheme.
Figure 2. Etoxylation reaction scheme.
Polymers 14 02829 g002
Polymers 14 02829 g003 550
Figure 3. NMR spectrum of 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-4,4-bis(trifluoromethyl)pentyltriethoxysilane 1H NMR (70 MHz, C6F6), δ, m.d. = 3.24 (t, 2H, J = 8.3 Hz, CH2), 3.82 (t, 9H, J = 7.0 Hz, OCH2CH3), 4.32–4.36 (m, 2H, CH2), 4.82 (t, 2H, J = 8.3 Hz, CH2), 6.38 (q, 2H, J = 7.0 Hz, OCH2CH3).
Figure 3. NMR spectrum of 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-4,4-bis(trifluoromethyl)pentyltriethoxysilane 1H NMR (70 MHz, C6F6), δ, m.d. = 3.24 (t, 2H, J = 8.3 Hz, CH2), 3.82 (t, 9H, J = 7.0 Hz, OCH2CH3), 4.32–4.36 (m, 2H, CH2), 4.82 (t, 2H, J = 8.3 Hz, CH2), 6.38 (q, 2H, J = 7.0 Hz, OCH2CH3).
Polymers 14 02829 g003
Polymers 14 02829 g004 550
Figure 4. Modifier attachment to hydroxyl-containing surfaces mechanism.
Figure 4. Modifier attachment to hydroxyl-containing surfaces mechanism.
Polymers 14 02829 g004
Polymers 14 02829 g005 550
Figure 5. FT-IR spectra of modified glass microspheres with different modification times: a—10 s, b—30 s, c—60 s, d—120 s, e—300 s. Insertion–calculated peak area fitted by Langmuir-type model Equation (1).
Figure 5. FT-IR spectra of modified glass microspheres with different modification times: a—10 s, b—30 s, c—60 s, d—120 s, e—300 s. Insertion–calculated peak area fitted by Langmuir-type model Equation (1).
Polymers 14 02829 g005
Polymers 14 02829 g006 550
Figure 6. SEM images of anodized aluminum foil samples, anodizing conditions and sample numbers are shown in Table 1. The nanoperforations diameters are: (0)—aluminum without anodizing; (1)—10 nm; (2)—30 nm; (3)—50 nm; (4)—70 nm; (5)—100 nm; (6)—150 nm.
Figure 6. SEM images of anodized aluminum foil samples, anodizing conditions and sample numbers are shown in Table 1. The nanoperforations diameters are: (0)—aluminum without anodizing; (1)—10 nm; (2)—30 nm; (3)—50 nm; (4)—70 nm; (5)—100 nm; (6)—150 nm.
Polymers 14 02829 g006
Polymers 14 02829 g007 550
Figure 7. Water contact angles comparison of pictures of modified and untreated anodized aluminum foil samples.
Figure 7. Water contact angles comparison of pictures of modified and untreated anodized aluminum foil samples.
Polymers 14 02829 g007
Polymers 14 02829 g008 550
Figure 8. Water contact angle dependence of nanoperforation average diameters, 1—untreated anodized aluminum, 2—modified aluminum.
Figure 8. Water contact angle dependence of nanoperforation average diameters, 1—untreated anodized aluminum, 2—modified aluminum.
Polymers 14 02829 g008
Polymers 14 02829 g009 550
Figure 9. Pictures of polymer films on aluminum samples: (1)—polymethylmethacrylate film on untreated aluminum; (2)—polymethylmethacrylate film on anodized aluminum; (3)—polytetrafluoroethylene copolymer film on anodized aluminum; (4)—polyhexafluoropropylene film on anodized aluminum surface; (5)—polyhexafluoropropylene film on modified and anodized aluminum surface.
Figure 9. Pictures of polymer films on aluminum samples: (1)—polymethylmethacrylate film on untreated aluminum; (2)—polymethylmethacrylate film on anodized aluminum; (3)—polytetrafluoroethylene copolymer film on anodized aluminum; (4)—polyhexafluoropropylene film on anodized aluminum surface; (5)—polyhexafluoropropylene film on modified and anodized aluminum surface.
Polymers 14 02829 g009
Polymers 14 02829 g010 550
Figure 10. Sheer strength of adhesive systems with abovementioned polymers: (1)—untreated aluminum foils, (2)—anodized aluminum foils, (3)—anodized aluminum foils with 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-4,4-bis(trifluoromethyl)pentyltriethoxysilane modification, (4)—anodized aluminum foils with 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-Undecafluoro-N-(3-methyldiethoxysilylpropyl)hexanamide modification.
Figure 10. Sheer strength of adhesive systems with abovementioned polymers: (1)—untreated aluminum foils, (2)—anodized aluminum foils, (3)—anodized aluminum foils with 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-4,4-bis(trifluoromethyl)pentyltriethoxysilane modification, (4)—anodized aluminum foils with 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-Undecafluoro-N-(3-methyldiethoxysilylpropyl)hexanamide modification.
Polymers 14 02829 g010
Table
Table 1. Anodized aluminum foil samples preparation.
Table 1. Anodized aluminum foil samples preparation.
№Voltage, VBackground Electrolyte CompositionTime, Min
1100.3 M sulfuric acid15
2600.3 M oxalic acid15
3600.3 M phosphoric acid15
4800.3 M phosphoric acid15
51000.3 M phosphoric acid15
61200.3 M phosphoric acid15
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Krapivko, A.L.; Ryabkov, Y.D.; Drozdov, F.V.; Yashtulov, N.A.; Zaitsev, N.K.; Muzafarov, A.M. Chemical Structural Coherence Principle on Polymers for Better Adhesion. Polymers 2022, 14, 2829. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14142829

AMA Style

Krapivko AL, Ryabkov YD, Drozdov FV, Yashtulov NA, Zaitsev NK, Muzafarov AM. Chemical Structural Coherence Principle on Polymers for Better Adhesion. Polymers. 2022; 14(14):2829. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14142829

Chicago/Turabian Style

Krapivko, Alena L., Yegor D. Ryabkov, Fedor V. Drozdov, Nikolay A. Yashtulov, Nikolay K. Zaitsev, and Aziz M. Muzafarov. 2022. "Chemical Structural Coherence Principle on Polymers for Better Adhesion" Polymers 14, no. 14: 2829. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14142829

APA Style

Krapivko, A. L., Ryabkov, Y. D., Drozdov, F. V., Yashtulov, N. A., Zaitsev, N. K., & Muzafarov, A. M. (2022). Chemical Structural Coherence Principle on Polymers for Better Adhesion. Polymers, 14(14), 2829. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14142829

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop