
Web Release Date: March 1,
Petal Effect: A Superhydrophobic State with High Adhesive Force





and
Department of Chemistry, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, P. R. China, Institute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100080, P. R. China, College of Chemistry, Jilin University, Changchun 130023, P. R. China, and National Center for Nanoscience and Technology, Beijing 100080, P. R. China
Received December 6, 2007
In Final Form: January 23, 2008
Abstract:
Hierarchical micropapillae and nanofolds are known to exist on the petals' surfaces of red roses. These micro- and nanostructures provide a sufficient roughness for superhydrophobicity and yet at the same time a high adhesive force with water. A water droplet on the surface of the petal appears spherical in shape, which cannot roll off even when the petal is turned upside down. We define this phenomenon as the "petal effect" as compared with the popular "lotus effect". Artificial fabrication of biomimic polymer films, with well-defined nanoembossed structures obtained by duplicating the petal's surface, indicates that the superhydrophobic surface and the adhesive petal are in Cassie impregnating wetting state.
The study of biological microstructures has been an active
area of research because these microstructures bring about many
unique properties.1-6
The self-cleaning phenomenon is usually explained as the
cooperation of rough surface with special micro- and nanostructures and low surface energy materials, which lead to
superhydrophobic property with both a high contact angle (greater
than 150
) and a low sliding angle (less than 5
).2 Up to now,
a variety of such surfaces have been theoretically studied and
also artificially prepared,7 including films of carbon,8 polymers,9-12
Generally, there are two superhydrophobic states on a rough surface: Wenzel's state and Cassie's State. The former represents a wet-contact mode of water and rough surface, where water droplets pin the surface to form a high contact angle hysteresis. The latter represents a nonwet-contact mode and water droplets can roll off easily owing to the low contact angle hysteresis. We recently clarified the definition of superhydrophobic surface as five states, in which lotus and gecko attribute to the special case of Cassie's state.20 Compared with the lotus effect widely observed in the nature, less examples are known showing the adhesive property with an important Cassie impregnating wetting state. Therefore, the study of the sixth superhydrophobic state in the natural system is of significance not only for academic reasons but also for their importance in practical applications.
Here, we disclose for the first time that there is a close array of micropapillae on the surfaces of the petal of red rose (rosea Rehd). We also show that many nanofolds exist on each papillae top. These hierarchical micro- and nanostructures provide sufficient roughness for superhydrophobicity but have high adhesive force with water. A water droplet on the surface of these petala is sphere in shape, which cannot roll off even when the petal is turned upside down. We define this phenomenon as the "petal effect" as compared with the familiar "lotus effect". Artificial fabrication of biomimic polymer films, with well-defined nanoembosses by duplicating the petal's microstructures, indicates that the superhydrophobic and adhesive petal is in Cassie impregnating wetting state. Note that much research has previously been performed on the lotus leaf that tends to be in Cassie's state, whereas little has been studied on the Cassie impregnating wetting state in the nature. Therefore, the finding of petal effect should be of great biological and technological importance.
Synthesis. All the chemicals are commercially available analytical grade reagents and were used without further purification. The duplicated processing steps involved in the preparation of superhydrophobic adhesive surfaces are illustrated in the Supporting Information (Figure S1). Poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA, Mw = 22 000 g mol-1, ca. 10 wt %) water solution was poured onto the surface of a red rose petal and exposed to air under ambient conditions. When water was evaporated completely at room temperature, the PVA film was peeled off, which imprinted the inverse petal structures. Polystyrene (PS, Mw = 100 000 g mol-1) films were then obtained by pouring 15 wt % PS chloroform solution onto the prepared PVA film, which were subsequently dried and peeled off.
Characterization. The morphological characterization of the
samples was examined by using scanning electronic microscope
(SEM). SEM measurements of the fresh petals were conducted on
a Hitachi S-3000N scanning electronic microscope in the low vacuum
mode, while SEM measurements of the polymer films were obtained
on a JEOL 6700F scanning electronic microscope in the high vacuum
mode. Contact angles were measured on a dataphysics OCA20 contact
angle system at ambient temperature. Water droplets (2.0
L) were
dropped carefully onto the surface of samples. The average contact
angle was obtained by measuring at five different positions of the
same sample.
Surface Morphology and Surface Wettability. Figure 1a
illustrates the typical scanning electronic micrograph of a usual
red rose petal observed at low vacuum, showing a periodic array
of micropapillae with an average diameter of 16
m and height
of 7
m. The magnified SEM image in Figure 1b clearly reveals
that these micropapillae exhibit cuticular folds in the nanometer
scale, about 730 nm in width on each top. It is known that the
hydrophobicity of a surface can be enhanced by being textured
with different scale structures. In nature, the surface of the lotus
leaf is famous for its self-cleaning property, which is induced
by the roughness at two length scales amplifying the intrinsic
hydrophobicity. Similar to this effect, the petal's surface also
exhibits superhydrophobicity with a contact angle of about 152.4
(Figure 1c) owing to its surface micro- and nanostructures.
However, the diverse design in the surface microstructures and
the different sizes of the lotus leaf and the red petal result in
different dynamic wetting. That is, water droplets with the same
volume can effortlessly roll off the surface of a lotus leaf, while
they stay pinned to the surface of a red rose petal. Water droplets
on the petal's surface maintain the sphere shape when the surface
is facing up or even when it is turned upside down (Figure 1d),
showing a high contact angle hysteresis. The crucial parameter
for this effect is the volume of the droplet. For a small droplet,
the weight is small compared to the surface tension force, and
thus it is expected that a droplet will stick to the surface. When
the volume of the water droplet is about 10
L, a balance of the
weight and the surface tension is reached, above which the droplet
will fall (for more details, see Supporting Information Figure
S2). This character imparts flowers special properties in that
small water droplets can stay stably on the petals maintaining
their fresh looking, while the bigger ones such as raindrops can
roll off.
Duplication of Petal's Surface. The surface microsructure
and surface property of natural petals provide us inspiration to
fabricate biomimic polymer films by using the petal as a duplicated
template and the solvent-evaporation-driven nanoimprint pattern
transfer process at room temperature. In a typical experiment,
10 wt % PVA solution in water was first poured onto the surface
of a fresh red rose petal and exposed to air under ambient
conditions. When water was evaporated completely at room
temperature, the PVA film could be peeled off, and it imprinted
the inverse petal's surface microstructures. Subsequently, PS
film with the exact petal structure can be obtained by pouring
15 wt % PS chloroform solution onto the prepared PVA film,
allowing it to dry, and then peeling off. The SEM images of the
PVA and PS films are given in Figure 2. From panels a and b
of Figure 2, we can see that PVA film is characterized as the
inverse petal's structures with a close-packed array of approximately hemispherical concaves and ditches in the middle
of the concave. Panels c and d of Figure 2 show the representative
SEM images of the PS film, which was duplicated from the
textured PVA film. It is worth to note that the surface of the PS
film with a periodic array of embossment shows remarkable
microstructures and sizes similar to that of the original red rose
petal. This PS film with rough structure shows adhesive
superhydrophobicity with a contact angle of 154.6
, although
the flat PS film exhibits only hydrophobicity with a contact angle
of about 95
.18 Importantly, the duplicated PS film shows a high
contact angle hysteresis, i.e., a water droplet placed on the film
stably stays on the surface and cannot roll off even when the film
is tilted until turned upside down (insert in Figure 2d).
Theoretical Analysis. In general, surfaces with a static contact
angle higher than 150
are defined as superhydrophobic surfaces.
As previously reported, there are two possible origins for
superhydrophobicity: (1) the liquid attaches to the solid surface
(Wenzel's state), and (2) it leaves air inside the texture (Cassie's
state).21 The Wenzel model describes homogeneous wetting by
the equation22

w and
y are the Wenzel contact angle and the Young
contact angle, respectively and r is the roughness ratio, defined
as the ratio of the true area of surface to its projected area.
The Cassie model describes heterogeneous wetting by the
equation23

c and
y are the Cassie contact angle and the Young
contact angle, respectively, r is the ratio of the actual area to the
projected area of the solid surace that is wetted by the liquid, and
f is the area fraction of the projected wet area.
As for the details of contact angle hysteresis, Wenzel's state can induce a high contact angle hysteresis and Cassie's state a low contact angle hysteresis. In the past, much research has been performed on these two states, especially on lotus leaf that tends to exhibit Cassie's state. However, considerably little has been studied on another important superhydrophobic Cassie impregnating wetting state. In Cassie impregnating wetting state, grooves of the solid are wetted with liquid and solid plateaus are dry.24 The Cassie impregnating wetting regime is described with equations which are different from the Wenzel and Cassie ones. In this regime, the liquid film impregnates the texture; however, there will always remain islands that emerge above the "absorbed" liquid film. On the basis of the hierarchical micro- and nanostructures on the surface of petal and the duplicated polymer, it could be suggested that the wetting regime of rose petals when both contact angles and adhesion are large is in the Cassie impregnating wetting state (Figure 3).
| Figure 3 Schematic illustrations of a drop of water in contact with the petal of a red rose (the Cassie impregnating wetting state) and a lotus leaf (the Cassie's state). |
This observation can be attributed to the difference of the
microstructures and chemical composition between the petal and
lotus leaf. For the low contact angle hysteresis, such as in the
case of lotus leaf with hydrophobic waxes covered, triple contact
lines on a randomly rough surface are expected to be contorted
and extremely unstable, preventing water from intruding into the
microstructure spaces.25-28
Other Petals. The microstructures and the special superhydrophobicity with a high contact angle hysteresis can also be
found on other flower petals due to their periodic array of
microsturctures. As a typical example, panels a and b of Figure
4 show representative SEM images of the petal of Chinese Kafir
lily, which is characterized as close-packed hexagons with an
average side length of 75
m and a strip width of 780 nm in each
hexagon. The SEM image of the PVA film duplicated from the
petal of Chinese Kafir lily is shown in Figure 4c, while that of
the corresponding PS film from the prepared PVA film is shown
in Figure 4d, whose surface exhibits adhesive superhydrophobicity
with a large contact angle and a high contact angle hysteresis
(inset in Figure 4d). In another example, the sunflower petal
shows a periodic array of parallel lines with an average diameter
of 15
m and a helix width of 2.5
m on each line, (Figure 4e,f).
Panels g and h of Figure 4 show the SEM images of the
corresponding PVA and PS films, duplicated from the sunflower
petal and the prepared PVA film. The PS film has the
microstructures and wetting behavior similar to that of the original
sunflower petal (inset in Figure 4h is the shape of a water droplet
on the upside down PS film). We propose that these wetting
behaviors mentioned above can be mainly attributed to the special
microstructures and the Wenzel's state they possess. On the basis
of the duplicated technique used herein, polymer films with
different periodic microstructures can be easily obtained by using
different types of flower petals as the templates. Moreover, such
a duplication process can be applied to different polymer
precursors, such as polyacrylonitrile, polyethylene, polypropylene,
polyvinyl chloride, polydimethylsiloxane, polymethyl methacrylate, polyesters, and polyamides.
In conclusion, the understanding of the petal effect provides us with an example of the nature of a superhydrophobic surface with a high adhesive force to water, which shows a unusual Cassie impregnating wetting state. The observation of the petal effect also prompts us to develop a simple method for fabricating biomimic polymer films that possesses both the superhydrophobicity and the adhesive property. Large-scale fabrication can be achieved by using the petal as a mold in the duplicating process, which is possible for industrial production with high throughputs. This study not only improves our understanding of the self-cleaning properties of natural species but also provides important insights into the design of new materials for applications in coatings, functional fibers, and decoration. Material fabrication using the natural petals, an environment friendly material, as templates has the obvious merit over many other conventional techniques, which are not accessible for this purpose.
The authors thank the project funded by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (50703020), Tsinghua Basic Research Foundation (JCpy2005059), and Foundation for the Author of National Excellent Doctoral Dissertation of P. R. China (200526) for continuing financial support. Thanks to Professor Xi Zhang and Professor Lei Liu (Tsinghua University) for the helpful discussions.
The preparation process of polymer films, shapes of water droplets with different volumes on the surface of red rose petal, and SEM images of the surface of a lotus leaf and the PVA film duplicated from a lotus leaf. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
* Corresponding author. E-mail: fl@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn (L.F.); jianglei@iccas.ac.cn (L.J.).
Tsinghua University.
Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Jilin University.
National Center for Nanoscience and Technology.
1. (a) Barthlott, W.; Neinhuis, C. Planta 1997, 202, 1.
(b) Neinhuis, C.;
Barthlott, W. Ann. Bot. 1997, 79, 667.![]()
2. Feng, L.; Li, S.; Li, Y.; Li, H.; Zhang, L.; Zhai, J.; Song, Y.; Liu, B.; Jiang,
L.; Zhu, D. Adv. Mater. 2002, 14, 1857.![]()
3. Sun, T.; Feng, L.; Gao, X.; Jiang, L. Acc. Chem. Res. 2005, 38, 644.![]()
4. (a) Autumn, K.; Liang, Y. A.; Hsieh, S. T.; Zesch, W.; Chan, W. P.; Kenny,
T. W.; Fearing, R.; Full, R. J. Nature 2000, 405, 681.
(b) Parker, A. R.; Lawrence,
C. R. Nature 2001, 414, 33.![]()
5. (a) Wagner, T.; Neinhuis, C.; Barthlott, W. Acta Zool. 1996, 77, 213.
6. Gao, X.; Jiang, L. Nature 2004, 432, 36.![]()
7. (a) Nosonovsky, M.; Bhushan, B. Nano Lett. 2007, 7, 2633.
(b) Lee, Y.;
Park, S. H.; Kim, K. B.; Lee, J. K. Adv. Mater. 2007, 19, 2330.
(c) Yu, Y.; Zhao,
Z. H.; Zheng, Q. S. Langmuir 2007, 23, 8212.
(d) Nosonovsky, M. Langmuir
2007, 23, 3157.![]()
8. (a) Feng, L.; Yang, Z.; Zhai, J.; Song, Y.; Liu, B.; Ma, Y.; Yang, Z.; Jiang,
L.; Zhu, D. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 4217.
(b) Lau, K. K. S.; Bico, J.;
Teo, K. B. K.; Chhowalla, M.; Amaratunga, G. A. J.; Milne, W. I.; McKinley,
G. H.; Gleason, K. K. Nano Lett. 2003, 3, 1701.
(c) Naha, S.; Swarnendu, S.; Puri,
I. K. Carbon 2007, 45, 1702.
(d) Li, Y.; Huang, X. J.; Heo, S. H.; Li, C. C.; Choi,
Y. K.; Cai, W. P.; Cho, S. O. Langmuir 2007, 23, 2169.![]()
9. (a) Genzer, J.; Efimenko, K. Science 2000, 290, 2130.
(b) Yan, H.; Kurogi,
K.; Mayama, H.; Tsujii, K. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2005, 44, 3453.![]()
10. (a) Erbil, H. Y.; Demirel, A. L.; Avci, Y.; Mert, O. Science 2003, 299,
1377.
(c) Puukilainen, E.; Rasilainen, T.; Suvanto, M.; Pakkanen, T. A. Langmuir 2007,
23, 7263.
(d) Michielsen, S.; Lee, H. J. Langmuir 2007, 23, 6004.
11. (a) Feng, L.; Li, S.; Li, H.; Zhai, J.; Song, Y.; Jiang, L.; Zhu, D. Angew.
Chem., Int. Ed. 2002, 41, 1221.
(b) Feng, L.; Song, Y.; Zhai, J.; Liu, B.; Xu, J.;
Jiang, L.; Zhu, D. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 800.
(c) Jiang, L.; Zhao, Y.;
Zhai, J. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 4338.![]()
12. Ming, W.; Wu, D.; van Benthem, R.; de With, G. Nano Lett. 2005, 5,
2298.![]()
13. (a) Gao, L. Y.; Zheng, M. J.; Zhong, M.; Li, M.; Ma, L. Appl. Phys. Lett.
2007, 91, 013101.
(b) Chen, A.; Peng, X.; Koczkur, K.; Miller, B. Chem. Commun.
2004, 17, 1964.![]()
14. (a) Bravo, J.; Zhai, L.; Wu, Z.; Cohen, R. E.; Rubner, M. F. Langmuir
2007, 23, 7293.
(b) Lim, H. S.; Kwak, D.; Lee, D. Y.; Lee, S. G.; Cho, K. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 4128.![]()
15. Hosono, E.; Fujihara, S.; Honma, I.; Zhou, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005,
127, 13458.![]()
16. Zhai, L.; Cebeci, F. C.; Cohen, R. E.; Rubner, M. F. Nano Lett. 2004,
4, 1349.![]()
17. Fürstner, R.; Barthlott, W.; Neinhuis, C.; Walzel, P. Langmuir 2005, 21,
956.![]()
18. Jin, M.; Feng, X.; Feng, L.; Sun, T.; Zhai, J.; Li, T.; Jiang, L. Adv. Mater.
2005, 17, 1977.![]()
19. Hong, X.; Gao, X.; Jiang, L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 1478.![]()
20. Wang, S.; Jiang, L. Adv. Mater. 2007, 19, 3423.![]()
21. Callies, M.; Quéré, D. Soft Matter 2005, 1, 55.![]()
22. Wenzel, R. N. Ind. Eng. Chem. 1936, 28, 988.![]()
23. Cassie, A. B. D.; Baxter, S. Trans. Faraday Soc. 1944, 40, 546.![]()
24. de Gennes, P. G.; Brochard-Wyart, F.; Quéré, D. Capillarity and Wetting Phenomena-Drops, Bubbles, Pearls, Waves; Springer: New York, 2002; p 219.
25. (a) Öner, D.; McCarthy, T. J. Langmuir 2000, 16, 7777.
(b) Chen, W.;
Fadeev, A. Y.; Hsieh, M. C.; Öner, D.; Youngblood, J.; McCarthy, T. J. Langmuir
1999, 15, 3395.![]()
26. Li, S.; Li, H.; Wang, X.; Song, Y.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, L.; Zhu, D. J. Phys.
Chem. B 2002, 106, 9274.![]()
27. Yoshimitsu, Z.; Nakajima, A.; Watanabe, T.; Hashimoto, K. Langmuir
2002, 18, 5818.![]()
28. Extrand, C. W. Langmuir 2002, 18, 7991.![]()
29. (a) Herminghaus, S.; Europhys. Lett. 2000, 52, 165.
(b) Bormashenko,
E.; Stein, T.; Whyman, G.; Bormashenko, Y.; Pogreb, R. Langmuir 2006, 22,
9982.
(c) Marmur, A. Langmuir 2003, 19, 8343.
30. Sun, M.; Luo, C.; Xu, L.; Ji, H.; Ouyang, Q.; Yu, D.; Chen, Y. Langmuir
2005, 21, 8978.![]()