1 / 23

Impact of Reactor Design on Plasma Polymerization Processes - An International Round-Robin Study

AVS Tampa 2012 PsThA8. Impact of Reactor Design on Plasma Polymerization Processes - An International Round-Robin Study. J.D.Whittle , A.Michelmore , D.A.Steele , R.D.Short. www.liquipel.com. www. myskin - info .com/. www. hi-tec .com/infinity/uk/ liquid -mountaineering/.

lynda
Download Presentation

Impact of Reactor Design on Plasma Polymerization Processes - An International Round-Robin Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AVS Tampa 2012 PsThA8 • Impact of Reactor Design on Plasma Polymerization Processes - AnInternational Round-Robin Study J.D.Whittle, A.Michelmore, D.A.Steele, R.D.Short

  2. www.liquipel.com www.myskin-info.com/ www.hi-tec.com/infinity/uk/liquid-mountaineering/ www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe3St1GgoHQ www.bdbiosciences.com/purecoat

  3. Biomaterials Surfaces A method for the deposition of controllable chemical gradients. J.D.Whittle, D.Barton, M.R.Alexander, R.D.Short. Chemical Communications pp1766-1767 (2003) COOR Component of C1s region at 0.5mm intervals

  4. Protocols • Argon Plasma Treatment • 2 samples – spin-cast polystyrene • Treatment at 5W for 20 seconds at 2sccm argon • Acrylic Acid plasma polymer deposition • 3 runs • 2 samples per run • All at 2sccm for 20 minutes, at 2, 5 and 20W continuous wave rf power

  5. Responses • Samples from 16 different reactors at 11 different labs • Study requirements are fairly arbitrary and not well suited to some plasma set-ups – samples which did not meet the requirements are not used in the analysis - e.g. Some were unable to measure flow-rate online for AA, so calculate post-plasma.

  6. Reactor Types • Steel Cylinder (3) • Axial Symmetry • Internal Electrodes • Steel Barrel (2) • non-coaxial geometry • Internal Electrodes • Glass Cylinder (2) • Substrates perpendicular to flow • Insulating walls, Internal Electrodes • Glass Barrel (7) • Substrates parallel to flow • External Electrodes • Band (5) or Coil (2) Electrodes • Glass Cross-piece (2) • Substrates parallel to flow • External Coil electrodes

  7. Argon Plasma Treatment

  8. Operator variability Add XPS and Deposition rate data here for the 6 runs in warwick. Plus quickie description.

  9. Argon Plasma Treatment • Oxygen ranged from 6 - 15% • Nitrogen ranged from 0.1 – 2.4% • No correlation between incorporation of N and O A B C D E F G H I J M N

  10. Oxygen ranged from 6 - 15% • Nitrogen ranged from 0.1 – 2.4% • No correlation between incorporation of N and O

  11. Oxygen ranged from 6 - 15% • Nitrogen ranged from 0.1 – 2.4% B D G M I

  12. Argon Plasma Treatment • No correlation between N and O incorporation • No correlation between reactor base pressure and N or O incorporation

  13. Acrylic Acid Deposition Comparison – Typical Low and High Power

  14. Acrylic Acid Deposition

  15. Acrylic Acid Deposition

  16. Acrylic Acid Deposition

  17. Acrylic Acid Deposition

  18. Processing Correlations

  19. Conclusions • W/F provides insufficient information for us to use it to compare treatments between systems • Within-system variation is very low and processes can be very well controlled • There appear to be no simple correlation between pressure, flow, power, residence time, number of molecules etc. • For some reactors this exercise was outside the normal operating regime, which leads to non-representative treatments • We would like to add more data points – jason.whittle@unisa.edu.au

  20. Future Work • Trying to link internal measures with outcome • Example: Ion flux (Andrew Michelmore presented earlier in week)

  21. Acknowledgements Prof. Morgan Alexander, Dr. Andrew Hook, University of Nottingham, UK Prof. Hynek Biederman, Dr. Anton Serov, Charles University, Prague, CZ. Dr. Francois Rossi, Dr. Giacomo Ceccone, Dr. Jan Hanus, European Commission Joint Research Centre, IT. Prof. Renate Förch, Dr. Juan-Carlos Ruiz, Max Plank Institute for Polymer Research, Mainz, DE Prof. Gary Kinsel, Kristopher Kirmess, Stephanie Eastwood, Southern Illinois University, US Prof. Sally McArthur, Dr. Thomas Ameringer, Swinburne University of Technology, AU Dr. Toby Jenkins, Dr. David Jamieson, University of Bath, UK. Dr. Dirk Hegemann, Dr Enrico Körner, Swiss Federal Laboratory for Materials Testing, CH Prof. David Castner, Dr. Winston Ciridon, University of Washington, Seattle, US Prof. James Bradley, Dr. Faiq Jan, University of Liverpool, UK Dr. Sue Low, Dr. Karyn Jarvis, Dr. Louise Smith, Dr. David Robinson, Carla Daunton, Agnieska Zuber, Emily Mitchell, Shima, Taheri, Akash Bachhuka, Mawson Institute, University of South Australia, AU

More Related