CoatingNo Access

Study of parameters affecting microcontact printing of thiols on gold-coated substrate

Swapna A. Jaywant

School of Food and Advanced Technology, Massey University, 229 Dairy Flat Highway, Albany, Auckland 0632, New Zealand

Search for more papers by this author

and

Khalid Mahmood Arif

School of Food and Advanced Technology, Massey University, 229 Dairy Flat Highway, Albany, Auckland 0632, New Zealand

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Corresponding author.

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979220400408Cited by:1 (Source: Crossref)

This article is part of the issue:

SPECIAL ISSUE — MMPD 2019

Abstract

Microcontact printing ( $μ$ CP) is a type of soft-lithography technique, which is widely used for patterning self-assembled monolayers (SAMs). It is a convenient method to form SAMs of bio/chemical ink onto different surfaces such as polymers, palladium, silver and gold. A wide range of applications of this technology includes micromachining, patterning proteins, cells or DNA in biosensors. However, the application primarily depends on the type of the ink used. Here, we present an experimental study that provides information about the parameters that affect the $μ$ CP process. Two different thiol inks (dithiothreitol (DTT) and glutathione (GSH)) have been used for obtaining SAMs on gold-coated substrates. Our findings suggest that transferring the alkanethiols over the gold surface is extremely dependent upon the molecular weight of thiol compound, concentration of the thiol solution and pH value of the buffer used. Furthermore, higher the molecular weight, concentration and pH value of the ink, lower is the time required for the process of $μ$ CP.

Keywords:

PACS: 42.82.Cr, 85.40.Hp

References

1. A. Agarwal et al., Lab Chip 13, 3599 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1039/C3LC50350J Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
2. J. L. Wilbur et al., Adv. Mater. 6, 600 (1994). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
3. A. Perl, D. N. Reinhoudt and J. Huskens, Adv. Mater. 21, 2257 (2009). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
4. L. Libioulle et al., Langmuir 15, 300 (1999). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
5. Y. Xia, X.-M. Zhao and G. M. Whitesides, Microelectron. Eng. 32, 255 (1996). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
6. M. Boeckl and D. Graham, Mater. Matters 1, 3 (2006). Google Scholar
7. C. Y. Hui et al., Langmuir 18, 1394 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1021/la0113567 Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
8. F. Bessueille et al., Langmuir 21, 12060 (2005). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
9. C. D. Bain, J. Evall and G. M. Whitesides, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 111, 7155 (1989). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
10. J. C. Love et al., Chem. Rev. 105, 1103 (2005). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
11. Y. Xue et al., Nat. Commun. 5, 4348 (2014). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
12. T. Kaufmann and B. J. Ravoo, Polym. Chem. 1, 371 (2010). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
13. S. A. Ruiz and C. S. Chen, Soft Matter 3, 168 (2007). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
14. A. MacDairmid, M. Gallagher and J. Banks, J. Phys. Chem. B 107, 9789 (2003). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
15. D.-H. Tsai et al., Langmuir 30, 3397 (2014). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
16. P. D. Jadzinsky et al., Science 318, 430 (2007). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar