Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T00:05:51.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaporative Deposition of Bacteria and Microspheres on Mica from a Sessile Drop: The Use of Surface Conditioning in a Laboratory Atmosphere to Control Drop Spreading and Particle Deposition Patterns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Joan E Curry ,
Raina M. Maier ,
Theresa A. Norris  and
Kyle Fisher Baughman
Joan E Curry
Affiliation:
curry@ag.arizona.edu, University of Arizona, Soil, Water and Environmental Science, Tucson, Arizona, United States
Raina M. Maier
Affiliation:
rmaier@ag.arizona.edu, University of Arizona, Soil, Water and Environmental Science, Tucson, Arizona, United States
Theresa A. Norris
Affiliation:
tanorris@email.arizona.edu, University of Arizona, Soil, Water and Environmental Science, Tucson, Arizona, United States
Kyle Fisher Baughman
Affiliation:
kfbaughman@gmail.combaughman@u.arizona.edu
Get access

Abstract

Evaporative deposition from a sessile drop is an appealing way to deposit materials on a surface due to the simplicity of the technique. In this work we deposit aqueous solutions of two types of colloidal particles, namely bacteria and microspheres, on mica. We show that by controlling the extent of initial drop spreading through subtle changes in surface conditioning caused by exposure to the laboratory atmosphere in a laminar flow hood it is possible to systematically vary the particle deposition patterns. On freshly cleaved mica the contact angle of water is < 5°. Drops of bacterial and microsphere solutions deposited on freshly cleaved mica spread to cover a large surface area. Drying occurs through pinning and depinning events leaving a series of colloidal particle rings. We found in our laboratory that the contact angle of water on mica exposed to a constant flow of filtered laboratory air in a laminar flow hood gradually increases with time. For drops of both bacterial and microsphere solutions there is a corresponding decrease in the extent of drop spreading with increasing exposure of the mica surface to laboratory air. This results in a profound change in the colloidal particle deposition pattern. Short exposures of minutes to hours are enough to decrease spreading and affect the resulting deposition pattern. For our longest mica surface exposure times (months to 1 year) the contact angle of water reaches values near 20°. Spreading of the bacterial and microsphere drops is substantially decreased. A portion of the colloidal particles are deposited in an outer deposition ring which marks the extent of drop spreading and the remainder of the particles are deposited in the drop interior as a honeycomb or cellular film. The fraction of the drop residue covered with the cellular film increases with particle concentration as well as the length of time the mica is exposed to the laboratory atmosphere. This work shows that evaporative deposition on mica is very sensitive to surface conditioning through atmospheric exposure and also suggests that particle deposition patterns can be tuned by small changes in drop spreading.

Keywords

biologicalcellular (material form)colloid
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1273: Symposium MM – Evaporative Self Assembly of Polymers, Nanoparticles, and DNA , 2010 , 1273-MM03-03
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1 Deegan, R. D. Phys. Rev. E 61, 475 (2000).Google Scholar
2 Moriarty, P. Taylor, M. D. R. and Brust, M. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 248303/1 (2002).Google Scholar
3 Ge, G. and Brus, L. J. Phys. Chem. B 104, 9573 (2000).10.1021/jp002280aGoogle Scholar
4 Truskett, V. N. and Stebe, K. J. Langmuir 19, 8271 (2003).10.1021/la030049tGoogle Scholar
5 Aizenberg, J. Braun, P. V. and Wiltzius, P. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2997 (2000).Google Scholar
6 Park, J. Moon, J. Langmuir 22, 3506 (2006).10.1021/la053450jGoogle Scholar
7 Deegan, R. D. Bakajin, O. Dupont, T. F. Huber, G. Nagel, S. R. and Witten, T. A. Phys. Rev. E 62, 756 (2000).Google Scholar
8 Deegan, R. D. Bakajin, O. Dupont, T. F. Huber, G. Nagel, S. R. and Witten, T. A. Nature 389, 827 (1997).10.1038/39827Google Scholar
9 Nellimoottil, T. T. Rao, P. N. Ghosh, S. S. and Chattopadhyay, A. Langmuir 23, 8655 (2007).Google Scholar
10 Denkov, N. Velev, O. Kralchevski, P. Ivanov, I. Yoshimura, H. and Nagayama, K. Langmuir 8, 3183 (1992).10.1021/la00048a054Google Scholar
11 Kuncicky, D. M. and Velev, O. D. Langmuir 24, 1371 (2008).10.1021/la702129bGoogle Scholar
12 Birch, W. Carr, A. and Mittal, K. L. In Developments in Surface Contamination and Cleaning, edited by Kohli, R. and Mittal, K. L. (W. Andrew Inc., Norwich NY 2008) pp. 693.Google Scholar
13 White, M. L. In Clean Surfaces: Their Preparation and Characterization for Interfacial Studies, edited by Goldfinger, G. (Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, 1970) pp. 361–373.Google Scholar
14 Baughman, K. F. Maier, R. M. Norris, T. A. Beam, B. M. Mudalige, A. Pemberton, J. E. and Curry, J. E. Langmuir (2010) submitted.Google Scholar
15 Fischer, B. J. Langmuir 18, 60 (2002).Google Scholar
16 Hu, H. and Larson, R. G. J. Phys. Chem. B 110, 7090 (2006).10.1021/jp0609232Google Scholar
17 Dunne, W. M. Jr. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 15, 155 (2002).10.1128/CMR.15.2.155-166.2002Google Scholar