| Literature DB >> 35558137 |
Leonardo Francisco Gonçalves Dias1,2, Stephani Stamboroski1,3, Michael Noeske1, Dirk Salz1, Klaus Rischka1, Renata Pereira1,4, Maria do Carmo Mainardi1,5, Marina Honorato Cardoso6, Martin Wiesing1, Erika Soares Bronze-Uhle7, Rodrigo Barros Esteves Lins8, Paulo Noronha Lisboa-Filho2.
Abstract
Tailoring the surface properties of materials for biomedical applications is important to avoid clinical complications. Forming thin layers of amphiphilic molecules with apolar regions that facilitate attractive intermolecular interactions, can be a suitable and versatile approach to achieve hydrophobic surface modification and provide functional antibacterial properties. Aiming to correlate layer structure and properties starting from film formation, octadecylphosphonic acid (ODPA) and dimethyloctadecyl (3-trimethoxysilylpropyl) ammonium chloride (DMOAP) layers were adsorbed onto smooth titania surfaces. Then the films were studied by atomic force microscopy (AFM) and X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS), and their interactions with aqueous environments were characterized by contact angle and zeta potential measurements. In addition, antibacterial assays were performed using E. coli and S. mutants to reveal the antibacterial properties effected by the surface modification. Immediately after sputter deposition, titania was hydrophilic; however, after air storage and adsorption of DMOAP or ODPA, an increase in the water contact angle was observed. XPS investigations after layer formation and after antibacterial tests revealed that the attachment of layers assembled from ODPA on titania substrates is considerably stronger and more stable than that observed for DMOAP films. Heat treatment strongly affects DMOAP layers. Furthermore, DMOAP layers are not stable under biological conditions. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 35558137 PMCID: PMC9088674 DOI: 10.1039/d0ra06511k
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Fig. 1Linear structure of (a) DMOAP and (b) ODPA.
Parameters of immersion, drying method, and sample name for DMOAP/titania films prepared from two different DMOAP solutions: DMOAP-N (without acid addition) and DMOAP-A (with acid addition)
| Solution | Immersion time | Drying method | Sample name |
|---|---|---|---|
| DMOAP-N | 10 minutes | Blown using compressed air | TiO2/DMOAP-N 10 min |
| Heated in an oven at 100 °C in air overnight | TiO2/DMOAP-N 10 min heated | ||
| 24 hours | Blown using compressed air | TiO2/DMOAP-N 24 h | |
| Heated in an oven at 100 °C in air overnight | TiO2/DMOAP-N 24 h heated | ||
| DMOAP-A | 10 minutes | Blown using compressed air | TiO2/DMOAP-A 10 min |
| Heated in an oven at 100 °C in air overnight | TiO2/DMOAP-A 10 min heated | ||
| 24 hours | Blown using compressed air | TiO2/DMOAP-A 24 h | |
| Heated in an oven at 100 °C in air overnight | TiO2/DMOAP-A 24 h heated |
Comparison between expected for homogeneous solid ODPA and obtained values from the XPS-based evaluations of atomic concentration
| Atomic concentration (at%) | [C] | [O] | [P] | [Si] | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | [C*–C/C*–H] | [C*–P] | Total | [P–O*H] | [P | Total | Total | [Bulk Si] |
| |
| Expected value | 81.92 | 77.33 | 4.59 | 13.64 | 9.09 | 4.54 | 4.54 | 0 | — | — |
| Obtained from data evaluation | 82.68 | 78.45 | 4.23 | 11.75 | 7.84 | 3.90 | 4.22 | 1.34 | 1.18 | 0.16 |
Ratios between the atomic concentrations of carbon [C], phosphorous [P], and oxygen [O] species, as expected from stoichiometry and found in XPS investigations
| Atomic concentration ratio | [C]/[O] | [C]/[P] | [O]/[P] |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expected from stoichiometry | 6.0 | 18.0 | 3.0 |
| Found by XPS | 7.0 | 19.6 | 2.8 |
Fig. 2XPS high resolution spectra for investigated bulk sample ODPA, (a) C1s, (b) O1s and (c) P2p signal.
Atomic concentration in at% of the distinct surface species by XPS investigations, compared to stoichiometrically expected values
| Sample name | [C] | [O] | [N] | [Si] | [Cl] | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | [C*–C/C*–H] | [C*–N+] | [C*–O–Si] | Total | Total | [–N+] | [N*–O] | Total | Total | |
| Bulk DMOAP, vacuum-dried | 82.21 | 56.17 | 14.30 | 11.74 | 9.53 | 3.06 | 2.61 | 0.45 | 2.80 | 2.40 |
| Expected value for bulk DMOAP | 81.25 | 59.37 | 12.50 | 9.38 | 9.36 | 3.13 | 3.13 | — | 3.13 | 3.13 |
| Water exposed DMOAP | 80.28 | 61.33 | 10.27 | 8.68 | 8.73 | 3.46 | 3.42 | — | 4.31 | 3.22 |
| Expected values for fully hydrolysed DMOAP | 79.31 | 65.52 | 13.79 | 0 | 10.34 | 3.45 | 3.45 | — | 3.45 | 3.45 |
Fig. 3XPS C1s high-resolution spectra for DMOAP, (a) bulk, (b) water exposed, and (c) heated blot.
Concentration ratios obtained from fitting C1s signals of DMOAP bulk samples prepared following different processes
| Sample name | [C*–O]/[C*–N+] ratio |
|---|---|
| Vacuum-dried from solution | 0.8 |
| Water exposed | 0.8 |
| Thick film after conditioning at 100 °C in air | 0.6 |
Fig. 4XPS high-resolution spectra for sputtered titanium dioxide, (a) Ti2p, (b) O1s, (c) C1s and (d) N1s signal.
Fig. 5High-resolution C1s and O1s XPS spectra obtained for ODPA layers on titania after immersion in ODPA solution for 4 h (a) and (c); 24 h (b) and (d).
Normalized XPS signal intensity ratios for ODPA samples adsorbed on titania, based on the sample immersed for 24 h in ethanolic ODPA solution and then rinsed with ethanol (subsequently labelled “SAM”), and estimated layer thickness
| Sample name | {[P]/[Ti]}/{[P]/[Ti]}SAM | {[C]/[P]}/{[C]/[P]}SAM | Estimated layer thickness (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| TiO2/ODPA 4 h EtOH | 0.58 | 0.47 | 0.4 |
| TiO2/ODPA 24 h EtOH | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.5 |
| TiO2/ODPA 72 h EtOH | 1.00 | 0.88 | 1.3 |
| Bulk ODPA | — | 0.71 | > 10 |
Fig. 8AFM height and adhesion force image for the investigated layers.
Atomic concentration in at% of the distinct surface species from XPS investigations of DMOAP/titania films
| Sample name | [C] | [O] | [N] | [Si] | [Ti] | [Cl] | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [C*–C/C*–H] | [C*–N+] | [C*–O] | [C*–N] | [O–C* |
| [Organic oxygen/O*H | [Si–O*] | [C–N*] | [–N*+] | [O3Si*–C] | [Ti*O2] | [Cl−] | |
| TiO2/DMOAP-A 10 min heated | 25.04 | 3.25 | 2.29 | 0.75 | 2.38 | 36.38 | 6.82 | 1.09 | 0.76 | 0.84 | 1.85 | 17.64 | 0.47 |
| TiO2/DMOAP-N 10 min heated | 18.71 | 2.43 | 1.55 | 0.65 | 2.04 | 41.35 | 7.53 | 0.86 | 0.61 | 0.62 | 1.27 | 12.22 | 0.00 |
| TiO2/DMOAP-N 24 h heated | 36.85 | 1.66 | 3.19 | 1.10 | 2.64 | 27.91 | 5.40 | 3.98 | 1.05 | 0.43 | 2.47 | 13.22 | 0.08 |
| TiO2/DMOAP-N 24 h | 38.56 | 1.54 | 4.13 | 1.35 | 3.70 | 22.84 | 5.12 | 6.60 | 1.35 | 0.41 | 1.63 | 12.22 | 0.00 |
Fig. 6XPS high-resolution spectra for DMOAP layer on titania, (a) C1s, (b) O1s, (c) N1s and (d) Si2p signals.
Contact angle results for DMOAP and ODPA films on smooth titania (freshly prepared)
| Sample name | Water contact angle (°) |
|---|---|
| TiO2 | 11.4 ± 3.5 |
| TiO2/DMOAP-N 10 min | 80.0 ± 0.9 |
| TiO2/DMOAP-A 10 min | 86.8 ± 0.9 |
| TiO2/DMOAP-N 10 min heated | 65.1 ± 0.8 |
| TiO2/DMOAP-A 10 min heated | 63.1 ± 3.0 |
| TiO2/DMOAP-N 24 h | 82.3 ± 2.5 |
| TiO2/DMOAP-A 24 h | 85.4 ± 0.4 |
| TiO2/DMOAP-N 24 h heated | 48.8 ± 1.1 |
| TiO2/DMOAP-A 24 h heated | 48.3 ± 0.4 |
| TiO2/ODPA, 4 h EtOH rinsed | 99.5 ± 0.5 |
Normalized atomic concentration ratios for freshly prepared DMOAP films on titania surfaces as obtained by XPS and referencing the findings for the DMOAP-N/titania films obtained after 24 h immersion (labelled “DMOAP-N 24 h” here)
| Sample name | {[Si]/[Ti]}/{ [Si]/[Ti]}DMOAP-N 24 h | {[C]/[Si]}/{ [C]/[Si]}DMOAP-N 24 h | Estimated layer thickness (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| TiO2/DMOAP-A 10 min heated | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.9 |
| TiO2/DMOAP-N 10 min heated | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| TiO2/DMOAP-N 24 h | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.8 |
| TiO2/DMOAP-N 24 h heated | 1.4 | 0.6 | 1.7 |
| Bulk DMOAP vacuum dried | — | 1.0 | — |
Mean (SD) findings of E. coli growth attached to sample surface in 24 ha
| Treatment group | Time evaluation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial | Maximum | Final | |
| TiO2 | 0.099 (0.2 × 10−2) Ca | 0.442 (0.03) Ab | 0.287 (0.07) Bb |
| TiO2/DMOAP-A 10 min | 0.100 (0.6 × 10−2) Ca | 0.445 (0.05) Ab | 0.346 (0.03) Bab |
| TiO2/DMOAP-A 10 min heated | 0.102 (0.7 × 10−2) Ca | 0.491 (0.03) Aab | 0.394 (0.03) Bab |
| TiO2/DMOAP-A 24 h | 0.096 (0.07 × 10−2) Ba | 0.512 (0.03) Aa | 0.430 (0.06) Aa |
| TiO2/DMOAP-A 24 h heated | 0.101 (0.5 × 10−2) Ca | 0.460 (0.05) Ab | 0.334 (0.5 × 10−2) Bab |
| TiO2/DMOAP-N 10 min | 0.098 (0.09 × 10−2) Ca | 0.494 (0.02) Aab | 0.356 (0.03) Bab |
| TiO2/DMOAP-N 10 min heated | 0.096 (1.1 × 10−2) Ca | 0.481 (0.01) Aab | 0.360 (0.04) Bab |
| TiO2/DMOAP-N 24 h | 0.104 (1.1 × 10−2) Ca | 0.545 (0.04) Aa | 0.413 (0.06) Bab |
| TiO2/DMOAP-N 24 h heated | 0.099 (0.4 × 10−2) Ca | 0.454 (0.05) Ab | 0.353 (0.02) Bab |
| TiO2/ODPA | 0.102 (1.1 × 10−2) Ca | 0.461 (0.04) Ab | 0.338 (0.02) Bab |
|
|
|
|
|
Mean values followed by distinct letters differ statistically at 5%, according to two-way repeated measures ANOVA and Bonferroni test. Uppercase letters compare time evaluation within treatment group (lines). Lowercase letters compare treatment groups (columns).
Fig. 7Zeta potential results for the studied layers on smooth titanium dioxide.
Fig. 9AFM height profile of (a) sputtered titanium dioxide and (b) ODPA monolayer.
Fig. 10S. mutans growth after exposition to different samples during three different periods.
Changes of water contact angles obtained for thick and thin DMOAP films on titania substrates and for ODPA/titania after 24 h exposure to bacterial medium containing S. mutans and subsequent rinsing with alcohol
| Sample name | Water contact angle (°) |
|---|---|
| Before rinsing in isopropanol | 92.8 ± 8.3 |
| After rinsing in isopropanol | 54.2 ± 8.4 |
| After 1 h exposition in biological medium | 65.4 ± 16.1 |
| After 4 h exposition in biological medium | 58.9 ± 12.3 |
| After 24 h exposition in biological medium | 55.2 ± 23.5 |
| TiO2/DMOAP-N 24 h heated | 46.3 ± 4.2 |
| TiO2/ODPA 4 h | 88.6 ± 8.3 |