Uniformity analysis of dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) processed polyethylene terephthalate (PET) surface

C Liu, NMD Brown, BJ Meenan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) plasma, operating in air at atmospheric pressure, has been used to induce changes in the surface properties of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) films. The effects that the key DBD operating parameters: discharge power, processing speed, processing duration, and electrode configurations, have on producing wettability changes in the PET surface region have been investigated. The approach taken involves the application of an Taguchi experimental design and robust analysis methodology. The various data sets obtained from these analyses have been used to studies the effect of the operating parameters on the surface uniformity and efficiency of the said treatment.In general, the results obtained indicate that DBD plasma processing is an effective method for the controlled surface modification of PET. Relatively short exposures to the atmospheric pressure discharge produces significant wettability changes at the polymer film surface, as indicted by pronounced reductions in the water contact angle measured. It was observed that the wettability of the resultant surface shows no significant differences in respect to orientation parallel (L-direction) or perpendicular (T-direction) to the electrode long axis. However, there was significant differences between the data obtained from these two orientations. Analysis of the role of each of the operating parameters concerned shows that they have a selective effectiveness with respect to resultant surface modification in terms of uniformity of modification and wettability. The number of treatment cycles and the electrode configuration used were found to have the most significant effects on the homogeneity of the resultant PET surface changes in L- and T-orientation, respectively. On the other hand, the applied power showed no significant role in this regard. The number of treatment cycles was found to be the dominant factor (at significance level of 0.05) in respect of water contact angle changes at the processed PET surface in both orientations. The driven metal electrodes (stainless steel or aluminium) were apparently superior to the driven dielectric electrode (ceramic or quartz) configurations. The grounded electrode in each case was a silicon rubber-covered aluminium plate (see later). The nature and scale of the surface changes that originate from the various processing conditions employed have been considered so as to determine the optimum treatment conditions in respect of processing outcomes, properties and any orientation dependence. Thus, it was revealed that higher processing speeds and longer processing durations are key for uniformity along the electrode axial orientation, while lower processing speeds and short exposure durations are key considerations, in the corresponding perpendicular orientation. In general, longer processing durations (low processing speeds and a high number of treatment cycles) and higher plasma powers induced greater changes in the surface wettability of the PET, as demonstrated by the observed water contact angles. This behaviour is taken to indicate that different combinations of DBD operating parameters and electrodes produce discharge conditions that can result in different plasma chemical processes in respect of uniformity, treatment efficiency and orientation dependence.
LanguageEnglish
Pages2297-2310
JournalApplied Surface Science
Volume252
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2006

Fingerprint

Polyethylene Terephthalates
Polyethylene terephthalates
Electrodes
Processing
Wetting
Contact angle
Aluminum
Plasmas
Atmospheric pressure
Surface treatment
Water
Plasma applications
Quartz
Stainless Steel
Rubber
Silicon
Polymer films
Discharge (fluid mechanics)
Design of experiments
Surface properties

Keywords

  • Surface modification
  • Dielectric barrier discharge
  • Atmospheric plasma processing
  • Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
  • Robust analysis

Cite this

@article{13dc71e59f534e968a5e05d4db674c7b,
title = "Uniformity analysis of dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) processed polyethylene terephthalate (PET) surface",
abstract = "A dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) plasma, operating in air at atmospheric pressure, has been used to induce changes in the surface properties of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) films. The effects that the key DBD operating parameters: discharge power, processing speed, processing duration, and electrode configurations, have on producing wettability changes in the PET surface region have been investigated. The approach taken involves the application of an Taguchi experimental design and robust analysis methodology. The various data sets obtained from these analyses have been used to studies the effect of the operating parameters on the surface uniformity and efficiency of the said treatment.In general, the results obtained indicate that DBD plasma processing is an effective method for the controlled surface modification of PET. Relatively short exposures to the atmospheric pressure discharge produces significant wettability changes at the polymer film surface, as indicted by pronounced reductions in the water contact angle measured. It was observed that the wettability of the resultant surface shows no significant differences in respect to orientation parallel (L-direction) or perpendicular (T-direction) to the electrode long axis. However, there was significant differences between the data obtained from these two orientations. Analysis of the role of each of the operating parameters concerned shows that they have a selective effectiveness with respect to resultant surface modification in terms of uniformity of modification and wettability. The number of treatment cycles and the electrode configuration used were found to have the most significant effects on the homogeneity of the resultant PET surface changes in L- and T-orientation, respectively. On the other hand, the applied power showed no significant role in this regard. The number of treatment cycles was found to be the dominant factor (at significance level of 0.05) in respect of water contact angle changes at the processed PET surface in both orientations. The driven metal electrodes (stainless steel or aluminium) were apparently superior to the driven dielectric electrode (ceramic or quartz) configurations. The grounded electrode in each case was a silicon rubber-covered aluminium plate (see later). The nature and scale of the surface changes that originate from the various processing conditions employed have been considered so as to determine the optimum treatment conditions in respect of processing outcomes, properties and any orientation dependence. Thus, it was revealed that higher processing speeds and longer processing durations are key for uniformity along the electrode axial orientation, while lower processing speeds and short exposure durations are key considerations, in the corresponding perpendicular orientation. In general, longer processing durations (low processing speeds and a high number of treatment cycles) and higher plasma powers induced greater changes in the surface wettability of the PET, as demonstrated by the observed water contact angles. This behaviour is taken to indicate that different combinations of DBD operating parameters and electrodes produce discharge conditions that can result in different plasma chemical processes in respect of uniformity, treatment efficiency and orientation dependence.",
keywords = "Surface modification, Dielectric barrier discharge, Atmospheric plasma processing, Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), Robust analysis",
author = "C Liu and NMD Brown and BJ Meenan",
note = "Reference text: [1] J. Meichsner, M. Nitschke, R. Rochotzki and M. Zeuner, Surf. Coat. Technol. 74–75 (1995), pp. 227–231. Article | PDF (402 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (33) [2] S.A. Visser, R. Hergenrother and S.L. Coper In: B.D. Ratner, Editor, Biomaterials Science, San Diego, CA, USA (1996). [3] J. Meichsner, M. Zeuner, B. Krames, M. Nitschke, R. Rochotzki and K. Barucki, Surf. Coat. Technol. 98 (1998), pp. 1565–1571. Abstract | PDF (452 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (20) [4] M. Zeuner, H. Neumann and J. Meichsner, Vacuum 48 (1997), pp. 443–447. Article | PDF (602 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (10) [5] C.Z. Liu, R.D. Arnell, A.R. Gibbons, S.M. Green, L.Q. Ren and J. Tong, Surf. Eng. 16 (2000), pp. 215–217. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (12) [6] C.Z. Liu, N.Y. Cui, N.M.D. Brown and B.J. Meenan, Surf. Coat. Technol. 185 (2004), pp. 310–319. [7] H. Biederman, M. Zeuner, J. Zalman, P. Bilkova, D. Slavinska, V. Stelmasuk and A. Boldyreva, Thin Solid Films 392 (2001), pp. 208–213. Article | PDF (483 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (36) [8] N.M.D. Brown, W.S. McClean and C.B. Kane, An Exploratory Study of the Plasma Modification of Linen Textiles Using Ambient Pressure Plasmas, Sofitel Gent, Belgium (1999) pp. 72–85. [9] S. Ishikawa, K. Yukimura, K. Matsunaga and T. Maruyama, Surf. Coat. Technol. 130 (2000), pp. 52–56. Article | PDF (159 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (19) [10] H. Xu, Z. Hu, S.H. Wu and Y. Chen, Mater. Chem. Phys. 9710 (2002), pp. 1–5. [11] S.K. Oiseth, A. Krozer, B. Kasemo and J. Lausmaa, Appl. Surf. Sci. 202 (2002), pp. 92–103. Article | PDF (342 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (35) [12] C.Z. Liu, J.Q. Wu, L.Q. Ren, J. Tong, J. Li, N.Y. Cui, N.M.D. Brown and B.J. Meenan, Mater. Chem. Phys. 85 (2004), pp. 340–346. Article | PDF (346 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (12) [13] M.C. Coen, R. Lehmann, P. Groening and L. Schlapbach, Appl. Surf. Sci. 9729 (2003), pp. 1–11. [14] N.Y. Cui and N.M.D. Brown, Appl. Surf. Sci. 189 (2002), pp. 31–38. Article | PDF (202 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (90) [15] D.P. Liu, S. Yu, Y. Liu, C. Ren, J. Zhang and T. Ma, Thin Solid Films 414 (2002), pp. 163–169. Article | PDF (549 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (14) [16] R. Seebock, H. Esrom, M. Charbonnier, A. Romand and U. Kogeschatz, Surf. Coat. Technol. 142 (2001), pp. 455–459. Article | PDF (1121 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (31) [17] G. Borcia, N.M.D. Brown, D. Dixon and R. McIlhagger, Surf. Coat. Technol. 179 (2003), pp. 70–77. [18] G. Borcia, N.M.D. Brown and C.A. Anderson, Appl. Surf. Sci. 225 (2003), pp. 186–197. [19] T. Nozaki, T. Unno, Y. Miyazaki and K. Okazaki, A Clear Distinction of Plasma Structure Between APG and DBD, Orleans, France (2001) pp. 77–83. [20] L.F. Dong, Y.F. He, Z.Q. Yin and Z.F. Chai, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 13 (2004), pp. 164–165. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (11) [21] A. Chirokov, A. Gutsol, A. Fridman, K.D. Sieber, J.M. Grace and K.S. Robinson, Plasma Source Sci. Technol. 13 (2004), pp. 623–635. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (21) [22] D.J. Upadhyay, N.Y. Cui, C.A. Anderson and N.M.D. Brown, Appl. Surf. Sci. 229 (2004), pp. 352–364. Article | PDF (253 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (24) [23] W.J. Diamond, Practical Experiment Designs: For Engineers and Scientists, John Wiley & Sons (2001). [24] L.Q. Ren, Experiment Design and Analysis, Changchun, P.R. China, Science and Technology Publishing Ltd., Jinlin Province (2001). [25] A. Grill, Cold Plasma in Materials Fabrication, IEEE Press, New York (1994). [26] V.I. Gibalov and G.J. Pietsch, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 33 (2000), pp. 2618–2636. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (146) [27] U. Kogelschatz, Fundamentals and applications of dielectric barrier discharges, http://webferret.search.com/click?wf,DBD+PLASMA,mmlab.dlut.edu.cn{\%}2Fplasma-16.pdf, 2003. [28] M.V. Kozlov, M.V. Sokolova, A.G. Temnikov, V.V. Timatkov, I.P. Vereshchagin, Surface discharge characteristics for different types of applied voltage and different dielectric materials, Puhajarve, Estonia, http://www.ut.ee/hakone8/papers/T1/Kozlov1.pdf, 2002.",
year = "2006",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.apsusc.2005.04.016",
language = "English",
volume = "252",
pages = "2297--2310",
number = "6",

}

Uniformity analysis of dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) processed polyethylene terephthalate (PET) surface. / Liu, C; Brown, NMD; Meenan, BJ.

Vol. 252, No. 6, 01.2006, p. 2297-2310.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Uniformity analysis of dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) processed polyethylene terephthalate (PET) surface

AU - Liu, C

AU - Brown, NMD

AU - Meenan, BJ

N1 - Reference text: [1] J. Meichsner, M. Nitschke, R. Rochotzki and M. Zeuner, Surf. Coat. Technol. 74–75 (1995), pp. 227–231. Article | PDF (402 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (33) [2] S.A. Visser, R. Hergenrother and S.L. Coper In: B.D. Ratner, Editor, Biomaterials Science, San Diego, CA, USA (1996). [3] J. Meichsner, M. Zeuner, B. Krames, M. Nitschke, R. Rochotzki and K. Barucki, Surf. Coat. Technol. 98 (1998), pp. 1565–1571. Abstract | PDF (452 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (20) [4] M. Zeuner, H. Neumann and J. Meichsner, Vacuum 48 (1997), pp. 443–447. Article | PDF (602 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (10) [5] C.Z. Liu, R.D. Arnell, A.R. Gibbons, S.M. Green, L.Q. Ren and J. Tong, Surf. Eng. 16 (2000), pp. 215–217. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (12) [6] C.Z. Liu, N.Y. Cui, N.M.D. Brown and B.J. Meenan, Surf. Coat. Technol. 185 (2004), pp. 310–319. [7] H. Biederman, M. Zeuner, J. Zalman, P. Bilkova, D. Slavinska, V. Stelmasuk and A. Boldyreva, Thin Solid Films 392 (2001), pp. 208–213. Article | PDF (483 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (36) [8] N.M.D. Brown, W.S. McClean and C.B. Kane, An Exploratory Study of the Plasma Modification of Linen Textiles Using Ambient Pressure Plasmas, Sofitel Gent, Belgium (1999) pp. 72–85. [9] S. Ishikawa, K. Yukimura, K. Matsunaga and T. Maruyama, Surf. Coat. Technol. 130 (2000), pp. 52–56. Article | PDF (159 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (19) [10] H. Xu, Z. Hu, S.H. Wu and Y. Chen, Mater. Chem. Phys. 9710 (2002), pp. 1–5. [11] S.K. Oiseth, A. Krozer, B. Kasemo and J. Lausmaa, Appl. Surf. Sci. 202 (2002), pp. 92–103. Article | PDF (342 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (35) [12] C.Z. Liu, J.Q. Wu, L.Q. Ren, J. Tong, J. Li, N.Y. Cui, N.M.D. Brown and B.J. Meenan, Mater. Chem. Phys. 85 (2004), pp. 340–346. Article | PDF (346 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (12) [13] M.C. Coen, R. Lehmann, P. Groening and L. Schlapbach, Appl. Surf. Sci. 9729 (2003), pp. 1–11. [14] N.Y. Cui and N.M.D. Brown, Appl. Surf. Sci. 189 (2002), pp. 31–38. Article | PDF (202 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (90) [15] D.P. Liu, S. Yu, Y. Liu, C. Ren, J. Zhang and T. Ma, Thin Solid Films 414 (2002), pp. 163–169. Article | PDF (549 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (14) [16] R. Seebock, H. Esrom, M. Charbonnier, A. Romand and U. Kogeschatz, Surf. Coat. Technol. 142 (2001), pp. 455–459. Article | PDF (1121 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (31) [17] G. Borcia, N.M.D. Brown, D. Dixon and R. McIlhagger, Surf. Coat. Technol. 179 (2003), pp. 70–77. [18] G. Borcia, N.M.D. Brown and C.A. Anderson, Appl. Surf. Sci. 225 (2003), pp. 186–197. [19] T. Nozaki, T. Unno, Y. Miyazaki and K. Okazaki, A Clear Distinction of Plasma Structure Between APG and DBD, Orleans, France (2001) pp. 77–83. [20] L.F. Dong, Y.F. He, Z.Q. Yin and Z.F. Chai, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 13 (2004), pp. 164–165. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (11) [21] A. Chirokov, A. Gutsol, A. Fridman, K.D. Sieber, J.M. Grace and K.S. Robinson, Plasma Source Sci. Technol. 13 (2004), pp. 623–635. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (21) [22] D.J. Upadhyay, N.Y. Cui, C.A. Anderson and N.M.D. Brown, Appl. Surf. Sci. 229 (2004), pp. 352–364. Article | PDF (253 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (24) [23] W.J. Diamond, Practical Experiment Designs: For Engineers and Scientists, John Wiley & Sons (2001). [24] L.Q. Ren, Experiment Design and Analysis, Changchun, P.R. China, Science and Technology Publishing Ltd., Jinlin Province (2001). [25] A. Grill, Cold Plasma in Materials Fabrication, IEEE Press, New York (1994). [26] V.I. Gibalov and G.J. Pietsch, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 33 (2000), pp. 2618–2636. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (146) [27] U. Kogelschatz, Fundamentals and applications of dielectric barrier discharges, http://webferret.search.com/click?wf,DBD+PLASMA,mmlab.dlut.edu.cn%2Fplasma-16.pdf, 2003. [28] M.V. Kozlov, M.V. Sokolova, A.G. Temnikov, V.V. Timatkov, I.P. Vereshchagin, Surface discharge characteristics for different types of applied voltage and different dielectric materials, Puhajarve, Estonia, http://www.ut.ee/hakone8/papers/T1/Kozlov1.pdf, 2002.

PY - 2006/1

Y1 - 2006/1

N2 - A dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) plasma, operating in air at atmospheric pressure, has been used to induce changes in the surface properties of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) films. The effects that the key DBD operating parameters: discharge power, processing speed, processing duration, and electrode configurations, have on producing wettability changes in the PET surface region have been investigated. The approach taken involves the application of an Taguchi experimental design and robust analysis methodology. The various data sets obtained from these analyses have been used to studies the effect of the operating parameters on the surface uniformity and efficiency of the said treatment.In general, the results obtained indicate that DBD plasma processing is an effective method for the controlled surface modification of PET. Relatively short exposures to the atmospheric pressure discharge produces significant wettability changes at the polymer film surface, as indicted by pronounced reductions in the water contact angle measured. It was observed that the wettability of the resultant surface shows no significant differences in respect to orientation parallel (L-direction) or perpendicular (T-direction) to the electrode long axis. However, there was significant differences between the data obtained from these two orientations. Analysis of the role of each of the operating parameters concerned shows that they have a selective effectiveness with respect to resultant surface modification in terms of uniformity of modification and wettability. The number of treatment cycles and the electrode configuration used were found to have the most significant effects on the homogeneity of the resultant PET surface changes in L- and T-orientation, respectively. On the other hand, the applied power showed no significant role in this regard. The number of treatment cycles was found to be the dominant factor (at significance level of 0.05) in respect of water contact angle changes at the processed PET surface in both orientations. The driven metal electrodes (stainless steel or aluminium) were apparently superior to the driven dielectric electrode (ceramic or quartz) configurations. The grounded electrode in each case was a silicon rubber-covered aluminium plate (see later). The nature and scale of the surface changes that originate from the various processing conditions employed have been considered so as to determine the optimum treatment conditions in respect of processing outcomes, properties and any orientation dependence. Thus, it was revealed that higher processing speeds and longer processing durations are key for uniformity along the electrode axial orientation, while lower processing speeds and short exposure durations are key considerations, in the corresponding perpendicular orientation. In general, longer processing durations (low processing speeds and a high number of treatment cycles) and higher plasma powers induced greater changes in the surface wettability of the PET, as demonstrated by the observed water contact angles. This behaviour is taken to indicate that different combinations of DBD operating parameters and electrodes produce discharge conditions that can result in different plasma chemical processes in respect of uniformity, treatment efficiency and orientation dependence.

AB - A dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) plasma, operating in air at atmospheric pressure, has been used to induce changes in the surface properties of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) films. The effects that the key DBD operating parameters: discharge power, processing speed, processing duration, and electrode configurations, have on producing wettability changes in the PET surface region have been investigated. The approach taken involves the application of an Taguchi experimental design and robust analysis methodology. The various data sets obtained from these analyses have been used to studies the effect of the operating parameters on the surface uniformity and efficiency of the said treatment.In general, the results obtained indicate that DBD plasma processing is an effective method for the controlled surface modification of PET. Relatively short exposures to the atmospheric pressure discharge produces significant wettability changes at the polymer film surface, as indicted by pronounced reductions in the water contact angle measured. It was observed that the wettability of the resultant surface shows no significant differences in respect to orientation parallel (L-direction) or perpendicular (T-direction) to the electrode long axis. However, there was significant differences between the data obtained from these two orientations. Analysis of the role of each of the operating parameters concerned shows that they have a selective effectiveness with respect to resultant surface modification in terms of uniformity of modification and wettability. The number of treatment cycles and the electrode configuration used were found to have the most significant effects on the homogeneity of the resultant PET surface changes in L- and T-orientation, respectively. On the other hand, the applied power showed no significant role in this regard. The number of treatment cycles was found to be the dominant factor (at significance level of 0.05) in respect of water contact angle changes at the processed PET surface in both orientations. The driven metal electrodes (stainless steel or aluminium) were apparently superior to the driven dielectric electrode (ceramic or quartz) configurations. The grounded electrode in each case was a silicon rubber-covered aluminium plate (see later). The nature and scale of the surface changes that originate from the various processing conditions employed have been considered so as to determine the optimum treatment conditions in respect of processing outcomes, properties and any orientation dependence. Thus, it was revealed that higher processing speeds and longer processing durations are key for uniformity along the electrode axial orientation, while lower processing speeds and short exposure durations are key considerations, in the corresponding perpendicular orientation. In general, longer processing durations (low processing speeds and a high number of treatment cycles) and higher plasma powers induced greater changes in the surface wettability of the PET, as demonstrated by the observed water contact angles. This behaviour is taken to indicate that different combinations of DBD operating parameters and electrodes produce discharge conditions that can result in different plasma chemical processes in respect of uniformity, treatment efficiency and orientation dependence.

KW - Surface modification

KW - Dielectric barrier discharge

KW - Atmospheric plasma processing

KW - Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

KW - Robust analysis

U2 - 10.1016/j.apsusc.2005.04.016

DO - 10.1016/j.apsusc.2005.04.016

M3 - Article

VL - 252

SP - 2297

EP - 2310

IS - 6

ER -