Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ACS Omega logoLink to ACS Omega
. 2018 Jul 30;3(7):8393–8400. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.8b00871

Surface Nanostructuration and Wettability of Electrodeposited Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxypyrrole) and Poly(3,4-propylenedioxypyrrole) Films Substituted by Aromatic Groups

Djibril Diouf †, Thierry Darmanin ‡,*, Alioune Diouf †, Samba Yandé Dieng †, Frédéric Guittard ‡,§,*
PMCID: PMC6644621  PMID: 31458969

Abstract

graphic file with name ao-2018-00871z_0008.jpg

In the aim to obtain parahydrophobic materials (both high contact angles and high hysteresis) for possible applications in water harvesting systems, we report the synthesis of novel 3,4-ethylenedioxypyrrole (EDOP) and 3,4-propylenedioxypyrrole (ProDOP) monomers with aromatic rings on the 3,4-alkylenedioxy bridge and the resulting conducting polymer films were prepared by electropolymerization. We show that the surface properties can be tuned by the nature of the aromatic ring (phenyl, biphenyl, diphenyl, naphthalene, fluorene, and pyrene) and the polymerizable core (EDOP or ProDOP). The best results are obtained with both EDOP and diphenyl, with which extremely high hydrophobic properties (up to 116°) are obtained, even if the polymers are intrinsically hydrophilic. These surfaces could be applied in the future, for example, in water harvesting systems or in water/oil separation membranes. The synthesis strategy is extremely interesting, and many other molecules will be envisaged in the future.

1. Introduction

Controlling the surface wettability is fundamental for various applications in self-cleaning surfaces, oil/water separation membranes, and sensors or in microfluidics.1−4 Inspired by natural surfaces, the surface hydrophobicity is depending on both the surface energy and the surface roughness and morphology.5−8 Indeed, in nature, we can found species with various wetting properties. Superhydrophobic properties, characterized by both high contact angles and low hysteresis, are present in lotus leaves, cicada wings, or water strider’s legs.5,6 In opposite, parahydrophobic properties, characterized by both high contact angles and high hysteresis, are present in rose petals or gecko foot.2,7,8 The processes to create structured surfaces are numerous and imply different treatments (chemical, physical, mechanical...) such as etching, plasma, laser, lithography, or templating.9−14

Following the used process, conducting polymers can form nanostructured materials.15−18 This is possible not only in solution by self-assembly but also directly on surfaces inducing a high influence of the surface properties. The electropolymerization was revealed as a very interesting process because of an easy and fast control of the surface structures using various electrochemical parameters.19−23 In this process, a monomer is oxidized to form conducting polymers onto conductive substrates that are used as a working electrode such as gold, platinum, titanium, stainless steel, or indium tin oxide, whatever the surface geometry is (flat substrates, textured substrates, meshes, fabrics...). In this process, the monomer also plays a key role not only in the polymerization but also in the control of the surface morphology and wettability. Among the multiple possibilities, monomers of the 3,4-alkylenedioxypyrrole family such as 3,4-ethylenedioxypyrrole (EDOP) and 3,4-propylenedioxypyrrole (ProDOP) are exceptional monomers because of their ultralow exceptional potential, leading to polymers with unique optoelectronic properties.24−30 Reynolds et al. were the first to report their substitution not only on the nitrogen but also on the bridge, leading to numerous synthesis possibilities.25−28 However, the substitution on the bridge needs the synthesis of each monomer in about eight steps. Moreover, the authors reported their exceptional optoelectronic properties including high conductivity, multicolor cathodic and anodic electrochromism, and rapid redox switching, but their surface morphology and hydrophobicity were not investigated.

Previously, it was found a way to obtain EDOP and ProDOP derivatives with hydroxyl groups on the bridge using epibromohydrin.31 These monomers could be easily functionalized by simple esterification reaction. Thanks to the presence of NH groups, superhydrophobic nanofibers were obtained with fluorinated chains.

Here, for applications in water harvesting systems, we want to develop structured materials with parahydrophobic properties. Such materials are extremely interesting to collect water droplets even in arid or hot environments. For these applications, it is preferable to use substituents of lower hydrophobicity than fluorinated chains such as aromatic rings. Hence, we wanted to develop original EDOP and ProDOP monomers with various aromatic rings (Scheme 1). The resulting surfaces were investigated in order to determine significant effects on the surface morphology and wettability.

Scheme 1. Original Monomers Studied in This Paper.

Scheme 1

Open in a new tab

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Electrochemical Synthesis

Electrodepositions were performed in anhydrous acetonitrile containing 0.1 M Bu4NClO4 and 0.01 M monomer. The monomer oxidation potential was found to be between 0.96 and 1.12 V following the monomer used.

Then, it was very important to study the polymer growth by cyclic voltammetry because this technique gives extremely important information. It is known that the substituents induce steric hindrance during polymerization affecting both the polymer chain length and the resulting surface morphology. The substituent can also affect the polymerization capacity of the monomers by electrowithdrawing/electrodonating effects, but in our case, this is not the case because the substituents are sufficiently separated from the monomer. Indeed, the conductivity should be the highest in electrodeposition and the polymer insolubility. For example, the conductivity is affected by both the length of the polymer chain (different if we choose EDOP or ProDOP) and the presence of the substituent. Hence, the polymer conductivity and insolubility are very important if the polymer oxidation potential is very far from that of the monomer, and the intensity of its peak constantly increases after each scan without shift in potential.

The cyclic voltammograms are given in Figures 1 and 2. In the case of ProDOT derivatives (Figure 1), the voltammograms displayed superposed curves after each scan, indicating that the growth is homogeneous when the thickness increases, whatever the substitutes used here. Shifts to the high potentials are however observed with ProDOT-diPh, ProDOT-Fluo, and ProDOP-Py, indicating a significant steric hindrance. Moreover, using ProDOP derivatives, the polymer oxidation potentials [between −0.5 and 0 V vs saturated calomel electrode (SCE)] are very far from the monomer oxidation potentials, indicating of extremely long polymer chain length. This parameter is extremely important in electropolymerization because the polymer insolubility increases when the polymer chain lengths. Moreover, differences in the polymer chain lengths can also change the resulting surface morphology. In the case of the EDOP derivatives (Figure 2), the substituents induce much higher steric hindrance. Only, EDOP-Ph and EDOP-Fluo display superposed curves after each scan.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Cyclic voltammogram of the ProDOP monomers (0.01 M) in anhydrous acetonitrile containing 0.1 M Bu4NClO4 and at a scan rate of 20 mV s–1; working electrode: 3.14 mm2 Pt tip.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Cyclic voltammogram of the EDOP monomers (0.01 M) in anhydrous acetonitrile containing 0.1 M Bu4NClO4 and at a scan rate of 20 mV s–1; working electrode: 3.14 mm2 Pt tip.

2.2. Surface Properties

Then, the polymers were electrodeposited on 2 cm2 gold plates and using different deposition charges (Qs) from 12.5 to 400 mC cm–2. The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images are given in Figures 3 and 4, and the surface roughness and wettability in Tables 1 and 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

SEM images of the polymer surfaces obtained from ProDOP derivatives for a deposition charge of 400 mC cm–2; working electrode: 2 cm2 Au-coated Si wafer.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

SEM images of the polymer surfaces obtained from EDOP derivatives for a deposition charge of 400 mC cm–2; working electrode: 2 cm2 Au-coated Si wafer.

Table 1. Roughness (Ra and Rq) and Wettability Data for the ProDOP Polymers; Working Electrode: 2 cm2 Au-Coated Si Wafer.

polymer deposition charge [mC cm–2] Ra [nm] Rq [nm] θw [deg]
ProDOP-Ph 12.5 15 ± 2.3 27 ± 2.6 76 ± 4.2
  25 21 ± 1.8 32 ± 6.4 77 ± 3.8
  50 15 ± 2.3 23 ± 6.2 83 ± 6.3
  100 90 ± 11 117 ± 9.8 89 ± 6.2
  200 118 ± 6.2 153 ± 14 74 ± 5.8
  400 200 ± 50 315 ± 65 92 ± 7.2
ProDOP-BiPh 12.5 16 ± 7.9 36 ± 5.5 65 ± 8.5
  25 20 ± 4.0 50 ± 10 62 ± 11
  50 9.2 ± 1.5 12 ± 1.5 88 ± 3.2
  100 14 ± 4 25 ± 7.1 96 ± 2.6
  200 19 ± 5 34 ± 8.4 91 ± 2.2
  400 288 ± 24 370 ± 48 99 ± 6.8
ProDOP-diPh 12.5 14.6 ± 2.3 24 ± 8.4 76 ± 9.8
  25 10.5 ± 1.0 13 ± 1.1 88 ± 4.2
  50 43.9 ± 6.2 55 ± 6.4 87 ± 2.5
  100 61 ± 11 100 ± 14 85 ± 3.3
  200 191 ± 31 277 ± 37 86 ± 3.0
  400 526 ± 35 818 ± 70 99 ± 4.2
ProDOP-Na 12.5 12 ± 2.4 15 ± 3.3 82 ± 4.5
  25 12 ± 1.4 22 ± 5.8 82 ± 4.9
  50 11 ± 1.4 16 ± 5.7 85 ± 4.7
  100 9.1 ± 1.0 17 ± 4.4 95. ± 10
  200 29 ± 1.7 55 ± 8.6 99 ± 5.3
  400 105 ± 9 183 ± 74 96 ± 6.3
ProDOP-Fluo 12.5 15 ± 4.9 33 ± 10 73 ± 4.6
  25 34 ± 4.6 53 ± 12 75 ± 4.6
  50 25 ± 11 37 ± 15 67 ± 3.9
  100 27 ± 12 39 ± 17 88 ± 3.2
  200 127 ± 33 172 ± 18 86 ± 2.1
  400 219 ± 31 324 ± 26 97 ± 3.2
ProDOP-Py 12.5 9.5 ± 1.2 21 ± 1.6 74 ± 8.0
  25 8.4 ± 3.1 12 ± 4.2 78 ± 11
  50 8.0 ± 1.2 12 ± 5.0 80 ± 7.6
  100 8.9 ± 2.1 14 ± 5.8 81 ± 3.6
  200 14 ± 2.9 22 ± 5.7 84 ± 3.5
  400 115 ± 35 156 ± 66 80 ± 4.1
Open in a new tab

Table 2. Roughness (Ra and Rq) and Wettability Data for the EDOP Polymers; Working Electrode: 2 cm2 Au-Coated Si Wafer.

polymer deposition charge [mC cm–2] Ra [nm] Rq [nm] θw [deg]
EDOP-Ph 12.5 12 ± 1.8 16 ± 4.8 75 ± 5.5
  25 10 ± 1.5 14 ± 4.3 86 ± 4.9
  50 8.8 ± 1.1 12 ± 1.5 77 ± 4.2
  100 7.1 ± 1.2 9.9 ± 1.3 75 ± 2.0
  200 39 ± 10 56 ± 15 81 ± 1.4
  400 162 ± 35 438 ± 95 87 ± 4.0
EDOP-BiPh 12.5 12 ± 3.5 29.5 ± 7.3 66 ± 10
  25 9.6 ± 1.2 12 ± 1.7 92 ± 3.4
  50 9.3 ± 0.8 14 ± 4.1 76 ± 5.8
  100 16 ± 5.3 30 ± 10.5 93.9 ± 2.7
  200 50 ± 20 81 ± 35 103 ± 5.5
  400 700 ± 190 1430 ± 270 106 ± 2.7
EDOP-diPh 12.5 20.5 ± 7.2 42 ± 18 68 ± 11
  25 19 ± 2.9 40 ± 19 73 ± 6.4
  50 11 ± 1.2 22 ± 5.6 87 ± 1.4
  100 155 ± 16 210 ± 18 97 ± 2.0
  200 171 ± 22 228 ± 33 103 ± 4.6
  400 277 ± 81 400 ± 131 116 ± 5.6
EDOP-Na 12.5 11 ± 1.1 13 ± 1.1 82 ± 2.1
  25 10 ± 2.6 19 ± 8.7 81 ± 1.2
  50 11 ± 0.7 24 ± 1.0 84 ± 1.3
  100 23 ± 3.9 38.5 ± 16 87 ± 4.7
  200 160 ± 65 213 ± 78 90 ± 4.3
  400 96 ± 25 144 ± 41 114 ± 7.2
EDOP-Fluo 12.5 16 ± 7.2 35 ± 13 75 ± 9.2
  25 14 ± 2.0 34 ± 19 66 ± 7.9
  50 16 ± 2.5 25 ± 9.1 97 ± 4.4
  100 17 ± 9.4 22.1 ± 11 96 ± 4.5
  200 46 ± 22 80.6 ± 31 97 ± 3.9
  400 116 ± 23 156 ± 22 88 ± 4.8
EDOP-Py 12.5 16 ± 2.8 41 ± 12 67 ± 9.4
  25 10 ± 1.3 13 ± 1.8 82 ± 2.9
  50 11 ± 4.6 15 ± 5.8 62 ± 6.3
  100 10 ± 0.5 15 ± 1.8 89 ± 1.6
  200 117 ± 28 174 ± 55 75 ± 2.4
  400 121 ± 23 198 ± 40 79 ± 5.1
Open in a new tab

First of all, the surfaces are not extremely rough (Tables 1 and 2), as obtained with EDOT or ProDOT derivatives. This is in agreement with previous works, in which the authors show that one of the main factors influencing on the surface morphology is the solubility of the oligomers formed in the first instances of the polymerization.32 The presence of NH groups induces, here, a high increase in the polymer solubility reducing the surface structurations.

However, some of the polymer films are nanoporous. This is the case of the films obtained with ProDOP-Ph, ProDOP-BiPh, and EDOP-diPh, whereas others are nanostructured such as the films obtained with ProDOP-Na, EDOP-BiPh, EDOP-Na, and EDOP-Fluo. The presence of nanostructure/nanoporosity is very important and can induce an important increase in the surface hydrophobicity. Indeed, at low deposition charge, all of the surfaces are hydrophilic, indicating that all of these polymers are intrinsically hydrophilic. This is not surprising because of the high polarity of the NH groups, whereas the aromatic substituents are not very apolar, compare the linear alkyl or fluorinated chains. The highest hydrophobicity up to about 116° is obtained with EDOP-diPh at 400 mC cm–2 (Figure 5), for which the surface was both nanoporous and with a high surface roughness (Ra > 500 nm). This increase is not possible using the Wenzel equation (cos θ = r cos θY where r is a roughness parameter) because the surface roughness would increase the surface hydrophilicity.33 Indeed, the Wenzel equation describes the case where the water droplet enters in all surface roughness leading to a full solid–liquid interface. With this equation, it is possible to increase θ but only if the contact angle of the smooth surface (θY) is above 90° (intrinsically hydrophobic).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Example of contact angle measured on PEDOP-diPh with a deposition charge of 400 mC cm–2.

Only the Cassie–Baxter can explain these results, indicating the presence of air between the surface and the water droplet.34 The Cassie–Baxter equation is cos θ = rff cos θY + f – 1, where rf is the roughness ratio of the substrate wetted by the liquid, f is the solid fraction, and (1 – f) is the air fraction. Indeed, because of the presence of surface nanoporosity, air is trapped between the surface and the water droplet leading to an increase in θ even if the polymer is intrinsically hydrophilic. As a consequence, these states are intermediate states between “the Wenzel” and “Cassie–Baxter states”. Moreover, there is absolutely no direct link between the roughness and wettability. There is a link between the roughness parameter “r”, which is different from the surface roughness (Ra or Rq), but only if the surfaces are in the “Wenzel state”. This is not the case here because of the presence of air trapped between the surface and the water droplet.

It should also be noticed that compared to previous works on PEDOP or ProDOP polymers substituted on the bridge, the results with linear or branched alkyl chains gave higher parahydrophobic properties because of the possible formation of long nanofibers structures, depending on their length.19,30

3. Conclusions

Here, in the aim to prepare parahydrophobic materials (both high contact angles and high hysteresis), we investigated the electropolymerization of novel EDOP and ProDOP monomers with aromatic rings on the 3,4-alkylenedioxy bridge and studied their surface morphology and wettability. We demonstrated the influence of the nature of the aromatic ring (phenyl, biphenyl, diphenyl, naphthalene, fluorene, and pyrene) and the polymerizable core (EDOP or ProDOP) on the surface properties. The best results were obtained with both EDOP and diphenyl, with which extremely high hydrophobic properties (up to 116°) are obtained, even if the polymers are intrinsically hydrophilic. The synthesis strategy is extremely interesting and will open new lead to investigating many other molecules. Moreover, these surfaces could be excellent candidates in the future, for example, in water harvesting systems and in water/oil separation membranes.

4. Experimental Section

4.1. Monomer Synthesis and Characterization

For the monomer synthesis, the key molecules were ProDOP-OH and EDOP-OH as shown in Scheme 2. These intermediates were obtained in eight steps from iminodiacetic acid, as reported in the literature.31 Indeed, from intermediate 1, it is possible to obtain and separate the EDOP and ProDOP derivates thanks to epibromohydrin, following by nitrogen deprotection, saponification, and decarboxylation.

Scheme 2. Synthesis Way to the Monomers.

Scheme 2

Open in a new tab

Then, the substituents were grafted by simple esterification reaction. All of the acids used here were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. For that, 1.2 equiv of the corresponding acid, 0.31 g of N-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)-N-ethylcarbodiimide hydrochloride (0.0015 mol, 1.2 equiv), and 20 mg of N,N-dimethylaminopyridine were added to 20 mL of absolute dichloromethane. After 30 min at room temperature, the mixture was added to 20 mL of absolute acetonitrile containing 0.2 g of ProDOP-OH or EDOP-OH (0.0013 mol, 1 equiv). After stirring for 24 h at room temperature, the products were purified by column chromatography using tetrahydrofuran/petroleum ether 60:40 as an eluent. Here, it was also extremely important to add 10% of triethylamine in the silica gel and in the eluent because of the product sensitivity.

4.1.1. ProDOP-Ph: 2,3,4,7-Tetrahydro-[1,4]dioxepino[2,3-c]pyrrol-3-yl 2-Phenylacetate

Yield 51%; crystalline solid; mp 127.1 °C; δH (200 MHz, CDCl3): 7.31 (m, 5H), 7.20 (s, 1H), 6.32 (d, J = 3.3 Hz, 2H), 5.19 (m, 1H), 4.23 (dd, J = 12.5 Hz, J = 4.9 Hz, 2H), 4.06 (dd, J = 12.5 Hz, J = 2.7 Hz, 2H), 3.73 (s, 2H); δC (100 MHz, CDCl3): 171.01, 138.85, 135.76, 133.63, 129.28, 128.61, 127.20, 125.50, 103.11, 73.23, 72.52, 41.08; MS (ESI LC/MS): m/z [M − H]+ 274.00.

4.1.2. ProDOP-biPh: 2,3,4,7-Tetrahydro-[1,4]dioxepino[2,3-c]pyrrol-3-yl 2-([1,1′-Biphenyl]-4-yl)acetate

Yield 71%; crystalline solid; mp 137.8 °C; δH (200 MHz, CDCl3): 7.58 (m, 4H), 7.41 (m, 5H), 7.19 (s, 1H), 6.33 (d, J = 3.3 Hz, 2H), 5.22 (m, 1H), 4.26 (dd, J = 12.5 Hz, J = 4.9 Hz, 2H), 4.08 (dd, J = 12.5 Hz, J = 2.7 Hz, 2H), 3.78 (s, 2H); δC (100 MHz, CDCl3): 171.00, 140.77, 140.18, 138.88, 135.77, 132.64, 129.72, 128.74, 127.37, 127.26, 127.07, 125.50, 103.14, 73.33, 72.53, 40.71; MS (ESI LC/MS): m/z [M − H]+ 350.00.

4.1.3. ProDOP-diPh: 2,3,4,7-Tetrahydro-[1,4]dioxepino[2,3-c]pyrrol-3-yl 2,2-Diphenylacetate

Yield 61%; crystalline solid; mp 133.1 °C; δH (200 MHz, CDCl3): 7.32 (m, 10H), 7.09 (s, 1H), 6.29 (d, J = 3.3 Hz, 2H), 5.26 (m, 1H), 5.14 (s, 1H), 4.18 (dd, J = 12.4 Hz, J = 5.0 Hz, 2H), 4.09 (dd, J = 12.4 Hz, J = 3.1 Hz, 2H); δC (100 MHz, CDCl3): 171.86, 138.81, 138.33, 128.62, 128.57, 128.54, 127.34, 103.00, 73.44, 72.40, 56.73; MS (ESI LC/MS): m/z [M − H]+ 350.00.

4.1.4. ProDOP-Na: 2,3,4,7-Tetrahydro-[1,4]dioxepino[2,3-c]pyrrol-3-yl 2-(Naphthalen-2-yl)acetate

Yield 86%; liquid; δH (200 MHz, CDCl3): 7.72 (m, 4H), 7.39 (m, 3H), 7.11 (s, 1H), 6.24 (d, J = 3.3 Hz, 2H), 5.13 (m, 1H), 4.17 (dd, J = 12.5 Hz, J = 4.9 Hz, 2H), 3.98 (dd, J = 12.5 Hz, J = 2.7 Hz, 2H), 3.82 (s, 2H); δC (100 MHz, CDCl3): 170.99, 138.86, 133.44, 132.51, 131.10, 128.29, 128.08, 127.71, 127.63, 127.29, 126.18, 125.84, 125.50, 103.13, 73.33, 72.52, 41.27; MS (ESI LC/MS): m/z [M − H]+ 324.07.

4.1.5. ProDOP-Fluo: 2,3,4,7-Tetrahydro-[1,4]dioxepino[2,3-c]pyrrol-3-yl 2-(9H-Fluoren-9-yl)acetate

Yield 49%; liquid; δH (200 MHz, CDCl3): 7.75 (m 2H), 7.52 (m, 2H), 7.36 (m, 4H), 7.20 (s, 1H), 6.22 (d, J = 3.3 Hz, 2H), 5.28 (m, 1H), 4.43 (m, 1H), 4.18 (dd, J = 12.4 Hz, J = 5.0 Hz, 2H), 4.08 (dd, J = 12.4 Hz, J = 3.0 Hz, 2H), 2.90 (m, 2H); δC (100 MHz, CDCl3): 171.61, 146.00, 140.80, 138.80, 127.50, 127.19, 124.34, 119.94, 103.08, 73.15, 72.51, 43.48; MS (ESI LC/MS): m/z [M − H]+ 362.07.

4.1.6. ProDOP-Py: 2,3,4,7-Tetrahydro-[1,4]dioxepino[2,3-c]pyrrol-3-yl 2-(Pyren-1-yl)acetate

Yield 40%; crystalline solid; mp 163.1 °C; δH (200 MHz, CDCl3): 8.18 (m, 5H), 8.00 (m, 4H), 7.20 (s, 1H), 6.32 (d, J = 3.3 Hz, 2H), 5.21 (m, 1H), 4.46 (s, 2H), 4.24 (dd, J = 12.6 Hz, J = 4.9 Hz, 2H), 4.04 (dd, J = 12.6 Hz, J = 2.7 Hz, 2H); δC (100 MHz, CDCl3): 171.00, 131.29, 131.09, 130.92, 130.78, 129.45, 128.40, 128.01, 127.71, 127.38, 125.97, 125.51, 125.27, 125.17, 124.90, 124.73, 123.17, 73.44, 72.52, 39.24; MS (ESI LC/MS): m/z [M − H]+ 398.07.

98.65, 98.42, 72.01, 66.44, 63.10, 51.77;

4.1.7. EDOP-Ph: (3,6-Dihydro-2H-[1,4]dioxino[2,3-c]pyrrol-2-yl)methyl 2-Phenylacetate

Yield 41%; liquid; δH (200 MHz, CDCl3): 7.31 (m, 5H), 7.10 (s, 1H), 6.20 (m, 2H), 4.30 (m, 3H), 4.11 (m, 1H), 3.96 (m, 1H), 3.68 (s, 2H); δC (100 MHz, CDCl3): 171.25, 135.76, 133.58, 132.13, 131.88, 129.24, 128.61, 127.22, 125.50, 98.68, 98.47, 72.07, 66.51, 62.98, 41.06; MS (ESI LC/MS): m/z [M − H]+ 274.00.

4.1.8. EDOP-biPh: (3,6-Dihydro-2H-[1,4]dioxino[2,3-c]pyrrol-2-yl)methyl 2-([1,1′-Biphenyl]-4-yl)acetate

Yield 38%; liquid; δH (200 MHz, CDCl3): 7.56 (m, 4H), 7.40 (m, 5H), 7.10 (s, 1H), 6.20 (m, 2H), 4.32 (m, 3H), 4.13 (m, 1H), 4.00 (m, 1H), 3.73 (s, 2H); δC (100 MHz, CDCl3): 171.25, 140.72, 140.21, 138.86, 135.76, 132.59, 132.14, 129.68, 128.74, 127.37, 127.29, 127.06, 125.50, 98.68, 98.49, 72.09, 66.52, 65.84, 63.06, 40.67; MS (ESI LC/MS): m/z [M − H]+ 350.00.

4.1.9. EDOP-diPh: 2 (3,6-Dihydro-2H-[1,4]dioxino[2,3-c]pyrrol-2-yl)methyl 2,2-Diphenylacetate

Yield 45%; liquid; δH (200 MHz, CDCl3): 7.31 (m, 10H), 7.10 (s, 1H), 6.18 (m, 2H), 5.09 (s, 1H), 4.38 (m, 3H), 4.10 (m, 1H), 3.90 (dd, J = 11.5 Hz, J = 6.3 Hz, 2H); δC (100 MHz, CDCl3): 172.74, 138.29, 132.12, 131.85, 128.62, 128.58, 127.36, 98.66, 98.45, 72.00, 66.45, 63.09, 56.87; MS (ESI LC/MS): m/z [M − H]+ 350.07.

4.1.10. EDOP-Na: (3,6-Dihydro-2H-[1,4]dioxino[2,3-c]pyrrol-2-yl)methyl 2-(Naphthalen-2-yl)acetate

Yield 54%; liquid; δH (200 MHz, CDCl3): 7.79 (m, 4H), 7.47 (m, 3H), 7.08 (s, 1H), 6.20 (m, 2H), 4.36 (m, 3H), 4.11 (m, 1H), 3.96 (m, 1H), 3.68 (s, 2H); δC (100 MHz, CDCl3): 171.24, 135.77, 133.43, 132.51, 132.14, 131.88, 131.04, 128.31, 128.02, 127.67, 127.65, 127.25, 126.19, 125.88, 125.51, 98.69, 98.48, 72.08, 66.52, 63.06, 41.24; MS (ESI LC/MS): m/z [M − H]+ 324.00.

4.1.11. EDOP-Fluo: (3,6-Dihydro-2H-[1,4]dioxino[2,3-c]pyrrol-2-yl)methyl 2-(9H-Fluoren-9-yl)acetate

Yield 46%; liquid; δH (200 MHz, CDCl3): 7.75 (m 2H), 7.51 (m, 2H), 7.34 (m, 4H), 7.08 (s, 1H), 6.20 (m, 2H), 4.38 (m, 4H), 4.13 (m, 1H), 3.93 (dd, J = 11.5 Hz, J = 6.6 Hz, 2H), 2.90 (m, 2H); δC (100 MHz, CDCl3): 171.97, 145.97, 140.78, 132.15, 131.88, 127.53, 127.20, 124.31, 119.96, 98.68, 98.48, 72.05, 66.49, 62.83, 43.47; MS (ESI LC/MS): m/z [M − H]+ 362.07.

4.1.12. EDOP-Py: (3,6-Dihydro-2H-[1,4]dioxino[2,3-c]pyrrol-2-yl)methyl 2-(Pyren-1-yl)acetate

Yield 58%; crystalline solid; mp 169.5 °C; δH (200 MHz, CDCl3): 8.17 (m, 5H), 8.00 (m, 4H), 7.10 (s, 1H), 6.16 (m, 2H), 4.37 (m, 3H), 4.18 (m, 1H), 4.00 (m, 1H), 3.85 (s, 2H); δC (100 MHz, CDCl3): 171.24, 132.06, 131.82, 131.28, 130.90, 130.75, 129.40, 128.32, 128.02, 127.59, 127.36, 125.99, 125.30, 125.17, 125.01, 124.86, 124.69, 123.11, 98.65, 98.42, 72.01, 66.44, 63.10, 39.20; MS (ESI LC/MS): m/z [M − H]+ 398.13.

4.2. Electropolymerization

The depositions were performed using an Autolab potentiostat of Metrohm. Three electrodes were used to connect an electrochemical cell to the potentiostat. A glassy carbon rod was used as a counter-electrode, and a SCE was used as the reference electrode. As the working electrode, a platinum tip (surface = 3.14 mm2) was first used in order to study electropolymerization, whereas 2 cm2 Au-coated Si wafers were used for surface characterization. The Au-coated Si wafers were placed opposite to the counter electrode with a distance of about 2 cm, whereas the reference electrode was placed anywhere.

Ten milliliters of anhydrous acetonitrile containing 0.1 M tetrabutylammonium perchlorate (Bu4NClO4) and 0.01 M monomer was inserted inside the electrochemical cell. The solution was degassed under argon before each experiment.

4.3. Surface Characterization

The surface morphology was investigated by SEM. A 6700F microscope of JEOL was used. For the surface wetting properties, a DSA30 goniometer of Krüss was used. For that 2 μL water droplets were placed on the surface and the apparent contact angles were taken at the triple point. The arithmetic (Ra) and quadratic (Rq) surface roughness were determined with a WYKO NT1100 optical profiling system from Bruker. For that these measurements were realized with the working mode high mag phase-shift interference, the objective 50×, and the field of view 0.5×. Each data given in the paper is a mean of five measurements. The measurements were not determined at the edge of the plates because of differences in the polymer growth observed here.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Centre Commun de Microscopie Appliquée (CCMA) for the SEM images.

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

References

  1. Szczepanski C. R.; Guittard F.; Darmanin T. Recent Advances in the Study and Design of Parahydrophobic Surfaces: From Natural Examples to Synthetic Approaches. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 241, 37–61. 10.1016/j.cis.2017.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Marmur A. Hydro- Hygro- Oleo- Omni-phobic? Terminology of Wettability Classification. Soft Matter 2012, 8, 6867–6870. 10.1039/c2sm25443c. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Su B.; Tian Y.; Jiang L. Bioinspired Interfaces with Superwettability: From Materials to Chemistry. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 1727–1748. 10.1021/jacs.5b12728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Nosonovsky M.; Bhushan B. Superhydrophobic Surfaces and Emerging Applications: Non-Adhesion, Energy, Green Engineering. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2009, 14, 270–280. 10.1016/j.cocis.2009.05.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Darmanin T.; Guittard F. Superhydrophobic and Superoleophobic Properties in Nature. Mater. Today 2015, 18, 273–285. 10.1016/j.mattod.2015.01.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Koch K.; Bhushan B.; Barthlott W. Diversity of Structure, Morphology and Wetting of Plant Surfaces. Soft Matter 2008, 4, 1943–1963. 10.1039/b804854a. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Feng L.; Zhang Y.; Xi J.; Zhu Y.; Wang N.; Xia F.; Jiang L. Petal Effect: A Superhydrophobic State with High Adhesive Force. Langmuir 2008, 24, 4114–4119. 10.1021/la703821h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Sun Z.; Liao T.; Sheng L.; Kim J. H.; Dou S. X.; Bell J. Fly Compound-Eye Inspired Inorganic Nanostructures with Extraordinary Visible-Light Responses. Mater. Today Chem. 2016, 1–2, 84–89. 10.1016/j.mtchem.2016.11.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Yong J.; Chen F.; Yang Q.; Jiang Z.; Hou X. A Review of Femtosecond-Laser-Induced Underwater Superoleophobic Surfaces. Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 5, 1701370. 10.1002/admi.201701370. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cheng Y.; Yang H.; Yang Y.; Huang J.; Wu K.; Chen Z.; Wang X.; Lin C.; Lai Y. Progress in TiO2 Nanotube Coatings for Biomedical Applications: A Review. J. Mater. Chem. B 2018, 6, 1862–1886. 10.1039/c8tb00149a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Liu H.; Wang Y.; Huang J.; Chen Z.; Chen G.; Lai Y. Bioinspired Surfaces with Superamphiphobic Properties: Concepts, Synthesis, and Applications. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2018, 28, 1707415. 10.1002/adfm.201707415. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Zhang S.; Huang J.; Tang Y.; Li S.; Ge M.; Chen Z.; Zhang K.; Lai Y. Understanding the Role of Dynamic Wettability for Condensate Microdrop Self-Propelling Based on Designed Superhydrophobic TiO2 Nanostructures. Small 2017, 13, 1600687. 10.1002/smll.201600687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Lai Y.; Huang J.; Cui Z.; Ge M.; Zhang K.-Q.; Chen Z.; Chi L. Recent Advances in TiO2-Based Nanostructured Surfaces with Controllable Wettability and Adhesion. Small 2016, 12, 2203–2224. 10.1002/smll.201501837. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lai Y.; Pan F.; Xu C.; Fuchs H.; Chi L. In Situ Surface-Modification-Induced Superhydrophobic Patterns with Reversible Wettability and Adhesion. Adv. Mater. 2013, 25, 1682–1686. 10.1002/adma.201203797. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Darmanin T.; Godeau G.; Guittard F. Superhydrophobic, Superoleophobic and Underwater Superoleophobic Conducting Polymer Films. Surf. Innovations 2018, 10.1680/jsuin.18.00006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Zhao Y.; Stejskal J.; Wang J. Towards Directional Assembly of Hierarchical Structures: Aniline Oligomers as the Model Precursors. Nanoscale 2013, 5, 2620–2626. 10.1039/c3nr00145h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Tan L.; Cao L.; Yang M.; Wang G.; Sun D. Formation of Dual-Responsive Polystyrene/Polyaniline Microspheres with Sea Urchin-Like and Core-Shell Morphologies. Polymer 2011, 52, 4770–4776. 10.1016/j.polymer.2011.08.050. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Im S. G.; Gleason K. K. Systematic Control of the Electrical Conductivity of Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) via Oxidative Chemical Vapor Deposition. Macromolecules 2007, 40, 6552–6556. 10.1021/ma0628477. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Diouf D.; Diouf A.; Mortier C.; Darmanin T.; Dieng S. Y.; Guittard F. Poly(3,4-propylenedioxypyrrole) Nanofibers with Branched Alkyl Chains by Electropolymerization to Obtain Sticky Surfaces with High Contact Angles. ChemistrySelect 2017, 2, 9490–9494. 10.1002/slct.201701756. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Qu L.; Shi G.; Chen F.; Zhang J. Electrochemical Growth of Polypyrrole Microcontainers. Macromolecules 2003, 36, 1063–1067. 10.1021/ma021177b. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lin H.-A.; Luo S.-C.; Zhu B.; Chen C.; Yamashita Y.; Yu H.-h. Molecular or Nanoscale Structures? The Deciding Factor of Surface Properties on Functionalized Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) Nanorod Arrays. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2013, 23, 3212–3219. 10.1002/adfm.201203006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Krompiec M. P.; Baxter S. N.; Klimareva E. L.; Yufit D. S.; Congrave D. G.; Britten T. K.; Perepichka I. F. 3,4-Phenylenedioxythiophenes (PheDOTs) Functionalized with Electron-Withdrawing Groups and their Analogs for Organic Electronics. J. Mater. Chem. C 2018, 6, 3743–3756. 10.1039/c7tc05227h. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Shao S.; Shi J.; Murtaza I.; Xu P.; He Y.; Ghosh S.; Zhu X.; Perepichka I. F.; Meng H. Exploring the Electrochromic Properties of Poly(thieno[3,2-b]thiophene)s Decorated with Electron-Deficient Side Groups. Polym. Chem. 2017, 8, 769–784. 10.1039/c6py01847e. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Merz A.; Schropp R.; Dötterl E. 3,4-Dialkoxypyrroles and 2,3,7,8,12,13,17,&nospace;18-octaalkoxyporphyrins. Synthesis 1995, 795–800. 10.1055/s-1995-3993. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Schottland P.; Zong K.; Gaupp C. L.; Thompson B. C.; Thomas C. A.; Giurgiu I.; Hickman R.; Abboud K. A.; Reynolds J. R. Poly(3,4-alkylenedioxypyrrole)s: Highly Stable Electronically Conducting and Electrochromic Polymers. Macromolecules 2000, 33, 7051–7061. 10.1021/ma000490f. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Arroyave F. A.; Reynolds J. R. 3,4-Propylenedioxypyrrole-Based Conjugated Oligomers via Pd-Mediated Decarboxylative Cross Coupling. Org. Lett. 2010, 12, 1328–1331. 10.1021/ol100231g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Walczak R. M.; Reynolds J. R. Poly(3,4-alkylenedioxypyrroles): The PXDOPs as Versatile Yet Underutilized Electroactive and Conducting Polymers. Adv. Mater. 2006, 18, 1121–1131. 10.1002/adma.200502312. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Zong K.; Reynolds J. R. 3,4-Alkylenedioxypyrroles: Functionalized Derivatives as Monomers for New Electron-Rich Conducting and Electroactive Polymers. J. Org. Chem. 2001, 66, 6873–6882. 10.1021/jo001620l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Darmanin T.; Guittard F. Enhancement of the Superoleophobic Properties of Fluorinated PEDOP using Polar Glycol Spacers. J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118, 26912–26920. 10.1021/jp509509p. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Mortier C.; Darmanin T.; Guittard F. Major Influence of the Hydrophobic Chain Length in the Formation of Poly(3,4-propylenedioxypyrrole) (PProDOP) Nanofibers with Special Wetting Properties. Mater. Today Chem. 2018, 7, 65–75. 10.1016/j.mtchem.2018.01.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Mortier C.; Darmanin T.; Guittard F. Direct Electrodeposition of Superhydrophobic and Highly Oleophobic Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxypyrrole) (PEDOP) and Poly(3,4-propylenedioxypyrrole) (PProDOP) Nanofibers. ChemNanoMat 2017, 3, 885–894. 10.1002/cnma.201700236. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Poverenov E.; Li M.; Bitler A.; Bendikov M. Major Effect of Electropolymerization Solvent on Morphology and Electrochromic Properties of PEDOT Films. Chem. Mater. 2010, 22, 4019–4025. 10.1021/cm100561d. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Wenzel R. N. Resistance of Solid Surfaces to Wetting by Water. Ind. Eng. Chem. 1936, 28, 988–994. 10.1021/ie50320a024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Cassie A. B. D.; Baxter S. Wettability of Porous Surfaces. Trans. Faraday Soc. 1944, 40, 546–551. 10.1039/tf9444000546. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from ACS Omega are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES