AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Powered by AMiner. Clicking this button will take you away from SciOpen.
Home Friction Article
PDF (19.5 MB)
Cite
EndNote(RIS) BibTeX
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Research Article | Open Access

On the friction and adhesion hysteresis between polymer brushes attached to curved surfaces: Rate and solvation effects

Sissi de BEER1,2, G. Djuidjé KENMOÉ3, Martin H. MÜSER2( )
Materials Science and Technology of Polymers, MESA+ Institute for Nanotechnology, University of Twente, P. O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, the Netherlands
Jülich Supercomputing Centre Institute for Advanced Simulation FZ Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany
Department of Physics, Laboratory of Mechanics Faculty of Science, University of Yaoundé, P. O. Box 812, Yaoundé, Cameroon
Show Author Information

Abstract

Computer simulations of friction between polymer brushes are usually simplified compared to real systems in terms of solvents and geometry. In most simulations, the solvent is only implicit with infinite compressibility and zero inertia. In addition, the model geometries are parallel walls rather than curved or rough as in reality. In this work, we study the effects of these approximations and more generally the relevance of solvation on dissipation in polymer-brush systems by comparing simulations based on different solvation schemes. We find that the rate dependence of the energy loss during the collision of brush-bearing asperities can be different for explicit and implicit solvent. Moreover, the non-Newtonian rate dependences differ noticeably between normal and transverse motion, i.e., between head-on and off-center asperity collisions. Lastly, when the two opposing brushes are made immiscible, the friction is dramatically reduced compared to an undersaturated miscible polymer-brush system, irrespective of the sliding direction.

Keywords

molecular dynamics simulationpolymer brushesbiomimetic materials

References

[1]
Milner S T. Polymer brushes. Science 251: 905-914 (1991)
Crossref Google Scholar
[2]
Azzaroni, O. Polymer brushes here, there, and everywhere: Recent advances in their practical applications and emerging opportunities in multiple research fields. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem 50: 3225-3258 (2012)
Crossref Google Scholar
[3]
van der Waarden M. Stabilisation of carbon-black dispersions in hydrocarbons. J Colloid Sci 5: 317-325 (1950)
Crossref Google Scholar
[4]
Stanislav J F. Use of polymers in oil recovery processes. In Proceedings of the First Conference of European Rheologists, Graz, Austria, 1982: 210-211.
Crossref
[5]
Jain P, Baker G L, Bruening M L. Applications of polymer brushes in protein analysis and purification. Annu Rev Anal Chem 2: 387-408 (2009)
Crossref Google Scholar
[6]
Chang Y, Liao S-C, Higuchi A, Ruaan R-C, Chu C-W, Chen W-Y. A highly stable nonbiofouling surface with well-packed grafted zwitterionic polysurfobetaine for plasma protein repulsion. Langmuir 24: 5453-5458 (2008)
Crossref Google Scholar
[7]
Wattendorf U, Merkle H P. PEGylation as a tool for biomedical engineering of surface modified particles. J Pharm Sci 97: 4655-4669 (2008)
Crossref Google Scholar
[8]
Cohen Stuart M A, Huck W T S, Genzer J, Müller M, Ober C, Stamm M, Sukhorukov G B, Szleifer I, Tsukruk V V, Urban M, Winnik F, Zauscher S, Luzinov I, Minko S. Emerging applications of stimuli-responsive polymer materials. Nature Mater 9: 101-113 (2010)
Crossref Google Scholar
[9]
Bajpai A K, Shukla S K, Bhanu S, Kankane S. Responsive polymers in controlled drug delivery. Prog Polym Sci 33: 1088-1118 (2008)
Crossref Google Scholar
[10]
Merlitz H, He G-L, Wu C-X, Sommer J-U. Nanoscale brushes: How to build a smart surface coating. Phys Rev Lett 102: 115702 (2009)
Crossref Google Scholar
[11]
Tokareva I, Minko S, Fendler J H, Hutter E. Nanosensors based on responsive polymer brushes and gold nanoparticle enhanced transmission surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy. J Am Chem Soc 126: 15950-15951 (2004)
Crossref Google Scholar
[12]
Yu Y, Kieviet B D, Kutnyanszky E, Vancso G J, de Beer S. Cosolvency-induced switching of the adhesion between poly(methyl methacrylate) brushes. ACS Macro Lett 4: 75-79 (2015)
Crossref Google Scholar
[13]
Bureau L, Léger L. Sliding friction at a rubber/brush interface. Langmuir 20: 4523-4529 (2004)
Crossref Google Scholar
[14]
Chen M, Briscoe W H, Armes S P, Klein J. Lubrication at physiological pressures by polyzwitterionic brushes. Science 323: 1698-1701 (2009)
Crossref Google Scholar
[15]
de Beer S, Kutnyanszky E, Schön P M, Vancso G J, Müser M H. Solvent induced immiscibility of polymer brushes eliminates dissipation channels. Nat Commun 5: 3781 (2014)
Crossref Google Scholar
[16]
Klein J, Kumacheva E, Mahalu D, Perahia D, Fetters L J. Reduction of frictional forces between solid surfaces bearing polymer brushes. Nature 370: 634-636 (1994)
Crossref Google Scholar
[17]
Lee S, Spencer N D. Aqueous lubrication of polymers: Influence of surface modification. Tribol Int 38: 922-930 (2005)
Crossref Google Scholar
[18]
Li A, Benetti E M, Tranchida D, Clasohm J N, Schönherr H, Spencer N D. Surface-grafted, covalently cross-linked hydrogel brushes with tunable interfacial and bulk properties. Macromolecules 44: 5344-5351 (2011)
Crossref Google Scholar
[19]
O’Shea S J, Welland M E, Rayment T. An atomic force microscope study of grafted polymers on mica. Langmuir 9: 1826-1835 (1993)
Crossref Google Scholar
[20]
Sui X, Zapotoczny S, Benetti E M, Schön P, Vancso G J. Characterization and molecular engineering of surface-grafted polymer brushes across the length scales by atomic force microscopy. J Mater Chem 20: 4981-4993 (2010)
Crossref Google Scholar
[21]
Moro T, Takatori Y, Ishihara K, Konno T, Takigawa Y, Matsushita T, Chung U-I, Nakamura K, Kawaguchi H. Surface grafting of artificial joints with a biocompatible polymer for preventing periprosthetic osteolysis. Nature Mater 3: 829-836 (2004)
Crossref Google Scholar
[22]
Lee S, Spencer N D. Sweet, hairy, soft, and slippery. Science 319: 575-576 (2008)
Crossref Google Scholar
[23]
Jones E. Joint lubrication. Lancet 223: 1426 (1934)
Crossref Google Scholar
[24]
McCutchen C W. The frictional properties of animal joints. Wear 5: 1-17 (1962)
Crossref Google Scholar
[25]
Wilkins J. Proteolytic destruction of synovial boundary lubrication. Nature 219: 1050-1051 (1968)
Crossref Google Scholar
[26]
Alexander S. Adsorption of chain molecules with a polar head a scaling description. J Phys-Paris 38(8): 983-987 (1977)
Crossref Google Scholar
[27]
de Gennes P G. Conformations of polymers attached to an interface. Macromolecules 13: 1069-1075 (1980)
Crossref Google Scholar
[28]
Milner S T, Witten T A, Cates M E. Theory of the grafted polymer brush. Macromolecules 21: 2610-2619 (1988)
Crossref Google Scholar
[29]
Binder K, Kreer T, Milchev A. Polymer brushes under flow and in other out-of-equilibrium conditions. Soft Matter 7: 7159-7172 (2011)
Crossref Google Scholar
[30]
Murat M, Grest G S. Interaction between grafted polymeric brushes: A molecular-dynamics study. Phys Rev Lett 63: 1074-1077 (1989)
Crossref Google Scholar
[31]
Grest G S. Interfacial sliding of polymer brushes: A molecular dynamics simulation. Phys Rev Lett 76: 4979-4982 (1996)
Crossref Google Scholar
[32]
Kreer T, Müser M H, Binder K, Klein J. Frictional drag mechanisms between polymer-bearing surfaces. Langmuir 17: 7804-7813 (2001)
Crossref Google Scholar
[33]
Galuschko A, Spirin L, Kreer T, Johner A, Pastorino C, Wittmer J, Baschnagel J. Frictional forces between strongly compressed, nonentangled polymer brushes: Molecular dynamics simulations and scaling theory. Langmuir 26: 6418-6429 (2010)
Crossref Google Scholar
[34]
Spirin L, Galuschko A, Kreer T, Johner A, Baschnagel J, Binder K. Polymer brush lubrication in the limit of strong compression. Eur Phys J E 33: 307-311 (2010)
Crossref Google Scholar
[35]
de Beer S. Switchable friction using contacts of stimulus- responsive and nonresponding swollen polymer brushes. Langmuir 30: 8085-8090 (2014)
Crossref Google Scholar
[36]
Klein J. Shear, friction and lubrication forces between polymer- bearing surfaces. Annu Rev Mater Sci 26: 581-612 (1996)
Crossref Google Scholar
[37]
Léger L, Raphaël E, Hervet H. Surface-anchored polymer chains: Their role in adhesion and friction. Adv Polym Sci 138: 185-225 (1999)
Crossref Google Scholar
[38]
Maeda N, Chen N, Tirrell M, Israelachvili, J N. Adhesion and friction mechanisms of polymer-on-polymer surfaces. Science 297: 379-382 (2002)
Crossref Google Scholar
[39]
de Beer S, Müser M H. Alternative dissipation mechanisms and the effect of the solvent in friction between polymer brushes on rough surfaces. Soft Matter 9: 7234-7241 (2013)
Crossref Google Scholar
[40]
Wang N, Trunfio-Sfarghiu A-M, Portinha D, Descartes S, Fleury E, Berthier Y, Rieu J-P. Nanomechanical and tribological characterization of the MPC phospholipid polymer photografted onto rough polyethylene implants. Colloids Surf B 108: 285-294 (2013)
Crossref Google Scholar
[41]
Briels W J. Transient forces in owing soft matter. Soft Matter 5: 4401-4411 (2009)
Crossref Google Scholar
[42]
Persson B N J. Theory of rubber friction and contact mechanics. J Phys Chem 115: 3840 (2001)
Crossref Google Scholar
[43]
Tabor, D. Hysteresis losses in the friction of lubricated rubber. Rubber Chem Technol 33: 142-150 (1958)
Crossref Google Scholar
[44]
Nommensen P A, Duits M H G, van den Ende D, Mellema J. Steady shear behavior of polymerically stabilized suspensions: Experiments and lubrication based modeling. Phys Rev E 59: 3147-3154 (1999)
Crossref Google Scholar
[45]
Balko S M, Kreer T, Costanzo P J, Patten T E, Johner A, Kuhle T L, Marques C M. Polymer brushes under high load. PLoS ONE 8: e58392 (2013)
Crossref Google Scholar
[46]
Klein J, Kamiyama Y, Yoshizawa H, Israelachvili J N, Fredrickson G H, Pincus P, Fetters L J. Lubrication forces between surfaces bearing polymer brushes. Macromolecules 26: 5552-5560 (1993)
Crossref Google Scholar
[47]
Drummond C. Electric-field-induced friction reduction and control. Phys Rev Lett 109: 154302 (2012)
Crossref Google Scholar
[48]
Koplik J, Banavar J R. Slip, immiscibility and boundary conditions at the liquid-liquid interface. Phys Rev Lett 96: 044505 (2006)
Crossref Google Scholar
[49]
de Beer S, Müser M H. Friction in (im-) miscible polymer brush systems and the role of transverse polymer tilting. Macromolecules 47: 7666-7673 (2014)
Crossref Google Scholar
[50]
Lo Verso F, Yelash L, Egorov S A, Binder K. Interactions between polymer brush-coated spherical nanoparticles: The good solvent case. J Chem Phys 135: 214902 (2011)
Crossref Google Scholar
[51]
Persson B N J, Albohr O, Tartaglino U, Volokitin A I, Tosatti E. On the nature of surface roughness with application to contact mechanics, sealing, rubber friction and adhesion. J Phys: Condens Matt 17: R1-R62 (2005)
Crossref Google Scholar
[52]
Kong L-T, Denniston C, Müser M H. The crucial role of chemical detail for slip-boundary conditions: Molecular dynamics simulations of linear oligomers between sliding aluminum surfaces. Modelling Simul Mater Sci Eng 18: 034004 (2010)
Crossref Google Scholar
[53]
Grest G S, Kremer K. Molecular dynamics simulation for polymers in the presence of a heat bath. Phys Rev A 33: 3628 (1986)
Crossref Google Scholar
[54]
He G, Müser M H, Robbins M O. Adsorbed layers and the origin of static friction. Science 284: 1650-1652 (1999)
Crossref Google Scholar
[55]
Priezjev N V, Troian S M. Molecular origin and dynamic behavior of slip in sheared polymer films. Phys Rev Lett 92: 018302 (2004)
Crossref Google Scholar
[56]
Mukherji D, Marques C M, Kremer K. Polymer collapse in miscible good solvents is a generic phenomenon driven by preferential adsorption. Nat Commun 5: 4882 (2014)
Crossref Google Scholar
[57]
Kremer K, Grest G S. Dynamics of entangled linear polymer melts: A molecular-dynamics simulation. J Chem Phys 92: 5057 (1990)
Crossref Google Scholar
[58]
Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K. VMD: Visual molecular dynamics. J Molec Graphics 14: 33-38 (1996)
Crossref Google Scholar
[59]
Descas R, Sommer J-U, Blumen A. Grafted polymer chains interacting with substrates: Computer simulations and scaling. Macromol Theory Simul 17: 429-453 (2008)
Crossref Google Scholar
[60]
Binder K, Milchev A. Polymer brushes on flat and curved surfaces: How computer simulations can help to test theories and interpret experiments. J Polym Sci Part B: Polym Phys 50: 1515-1555 (2012)
Crossref Google Scholar
[61]
Murat M, Grest G S. Polymers end-grafted onto a cylindrical surface. Macromolecules 24: 704-708 (1991)
Crossref Google Scholar
[62]
Plimpton S. Fast parallel algorithms for short-range molecular dynamics. J Comp Phys 117: 1-19 (1995)
Crossref Google Scholar
[63]
Groot R D, Warren P B. Dissipative particle dynamics: Bridging the gap between atomistic and mesoscopic simulation. J Chem Phys 107: 4423-4435 (1997)
Crossref Google Scholar
[64]
Pastorino C, Kreer T, Müller M, Binder K. Comparison of dissipative particle dynamics and Langevin thermostats for out-of-equilibrium simulations of polymeric systems. Phys Rev E 76: 026706 (2007)
Crossref Google Scholar
[65]
Flory P J. Thermodynamics of high polymer solutions. J Chem Phys 10: 51 (1942)
Crossref Google Scholar
[66]
Huggins, M. L. Ann. N.Y. Thermodynamic properties of solutions of long-chain compounds. Acad Sci 43: 1-32 (1942)
Crossref Google Scholar
[67]
Thompson P A, Robbins M O. Shear flow near solids: Epitaxial order and flow boundary conditions. Phys Rev A 41: 6830 (1990)
Crossref Google Scholar
[68]
Auroy P, Mir Y, Auvray L. Local structure and density profile of polymer brushes. Phys Rev Lett 69: 93-95 (1992)
Crossref Google Scholar
[69]
Lai P-Y, Binder K. Structure and dynamics of grafted polymer layers: A Monte Carlo simulation. J Chem Phys 95: 9288 (1991)
Crossref Google Scholar
[70]
Murat M, Grest G S. Structure of grafted polymeric brushes in solvents of varying quality: A molecular dynamics study. Macromolecules 26: 3108-3117 (1993)
Crossref Google Scholar
[71]
Cohen Stuart M A, de Vos W M, Leermakers F A M. Why surfaces modified by exible polymers often have a finite contact angle for good solvents. Langmuir 22: 1722-1728 (2006)
Crossref Google Scholar
[72]
Dhinojwala A, Cai L, Granick S. Critique of the friction coefficient concept for wet (lubricated) sliding. Langmuir 12: 4537-4542 (1996)
Crossref Google Scholar
[73]
Ringlein, J., and Robbins, M. O. Understanding and illustrating the atomic origins of friction. Am J Phys 72: 884-891 (2004)
Crossref Google Scholar
[74]
Yoshizawa H, Chen Y-L, Israelachvili J N. Fundamental mechanisms of interfacial friction. 1. Relation between adhesion and friction. J Phys Chem 97: 4128-4140 (1993)
Crossref Google Scholar
[75]
Brenner H. The slow motion of a sphere through viscous fluid towards a plane surface. Chem Eng Sci 16: 242-251 (1961)
Crossref Google Scholar
[76]
Schindler M. A numerical test of stress correlations in fluctuating hydrodynamics. Chem Phys 375: 327-336 (2010)
Crossref Google Scholar
Friction
Volume 3 Issue 2,
June 2015
Pages 148-160
DOI: 10.1007/s40544-015-0078-2
Cite this article:
BEER Sd, KENMOÉ GD, MÜSER MH. On the friction and adhesion hysteresis between polymer brushes attached to curved surfaces: Rate and solvation effects. Friction, 2015, 3(2): 148-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-015-0078-2

647

Views

16

Downloads

16

Crossref

N/A

Web of Science

16

Scopus

0

CSCD

Altmetrics
Received: 27 January 2015
Revised: 06 March 2015
Accepted: 09 March 2015
Published: 30 June 2015
© The author(s) 2015

This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Open Access: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Return