Table 1.
Comparison of PDMS modification strategies with the approach described in this manuscript, the addition of a PDMS-PEG BCP with optimized processing.
| Approach | WCA (°) | Throughput/Scalability | Shelf Life (Longevity) | Biocompatibility | Optical/mechanical effects |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plasma treatment10,11 | 50–60 | Current process | Low (<3 days) | High | Cracking possible |
| Grafting-to (e.g. plasma, silanization)28,58,59 | <10–100 | Low-medium (2–7 added steps) | Medium (14–47 days) | Not reported | Likely not affected |
| Grafting-from (e.g. SI-ATRP)60,61 | 10–80 | Very low (many added steps) | Medium-high (up to 3 months) | Not reported | Likely not affected |
| Physisorption62–65 | 15–90 | Low (one-many added steps) | Typically low | Not reported | Likely not affected |
| Past studies with block copolymer (BCP) addition or other prepolymer additives20–22 | 63–104 | Very high; no added steps | Not reported; BCP or other additives dependent | Not reported | Reduced optical clarity for low WCA in studies reported to date |
| A past study using PDMS-b-PEO addition23 | 21.5–80.9 | Very high; no added steps | 2 months | Not reported | Compromised mechanical properties at higher concentrations that yield hydrophilic surfaces |
| Current study -Addition of a PDMS-PEG BCP with optimized processing | <10–20 | Very high; no added steps | Very high (up to 20 months) | High | None when well-designed |