IntechOpen

Home > Books > Superhydrophobic Coating - Recent Advances in Theory and Applications

Open access peer-reviewed chapter

The Effect of Micro/Nano Roughness on Antifouling and Bactericidal Surfaces

Written By

Reyna I. Garcia-Gonzalez and Colin R. Crick

Submitted: 16 August 2023 Reviewed: 18 August 2023 Published: 17 November 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1002808

Superhydrophobic Coating IntechOpen
Superhydrophobic Coating Recent Advances in Theory and Applications Edited by Junfei Ou

From the Edited Volume

Superhydrophobic Coating - Recent Advances in Theory and Applications

Junfei Ou

Book Details Order Print

Chapter metrics overview

63 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics
Advertisement

Abstract

The importance of microorganisms, especially bacteria, has often been underestimated, yet they have vital roles in staying in the environment and affecting human health and industries. These microorganisms have complex systems and change quickly over time, becoming more resistant. The spread of harmful microorganisms has negative effects on industries and human health. Even microorganisms that seem harmless can be a big problem because they are becoming more resistant to normal cleaning and antibiotics. They resist ways like creating strong biofilms, which make these microorganisms even tougher and help infections spread. Although there are other options like using heat or chemicals, the problem of bacterial resistance is still a big worry for health and industries. Trying out new ideas that do not use chemicals or antibiotics, like using superhydrophobic surfaces, could be a big solution. These surfaces use both special chemicals and changes in how they feel to water to stop bacteria from sticking and growing. By looking for new ways, we can get better at dealing with these microorganisms and find better ways to live with them.

Keywords

  • roughness
  • bacteria
  • antimicrobial surfaces
  • self-cleaning surfaces
  • nanostructure
  • microstructure

1. Introduction

Single-celled organisms are often judged in everyday life to be insignificant or harmless. However, bacteria have been on Earth for billions of years and have been integral to generating and maintaining its habitability for plants and animals. Their complex metabolic systems and rapid evolutionary pathways help them become more and more resistant over time [1]. The complexity of single-celled organisms has been progressively revealed over decades of scientific research; without this, we would not have discovered their abilities, including their processes of developing resilience in a range of environments [2, 3]. The proliferation of harmful microorganisms affects a range of fields, including industrial processes that are affected by biofouling and corrosion. Microbes that present an intrinsically low risk may cause detrimental conditions when they are not attended to properly (e.g., thrush caused by yeast infections). Despite the widespread use of microbial elimination from surfaces, such as disinfectants and antibiotics, their proliferation is still problematic, as microbes have the capacity to develop resistance to these efforts. These resistance mechanisms make microbes more resilient to the local environment, generally through the generation of biofilms [4, 5]. Genetic and assembly modifications (i.e., biofilms) contribute to growing antibiotic and chemical resistance, which has presented a new challenge for scientists. Antimicrobial resistance is mainly driven by their inherent metabolic mechanisms: the diversity of genetics to create mutations, the capacity to exchange genetic information with other bacteria, biofilms formation, rapid reproduction, and forced exposure to antibiotics or chemicals that force genetic mutations or resistance genes [1, 6, 7]. To combat this issue, prudent and responsible use of antibiotics and chemicals as well as research and development of new antimicrobial agents are essential to slow down the development and spread of resistance. By consistently managing drugs and antibiotics, microbial resistance would be reduced worldwide, since the presence of these emerging contaminants helps the distribution of microbial-resistant agents. Over the years, there have been alternatives that avoid using chemical disinfectants and antibiotics, such as heat, ultraviolet light, ozone, colloidal silver, supercritical water treatment, and natural and phytochemical competitors [3, 8]. However, it is important to note that while these methods may be helpful in certain contexts, serious medical situations, or highly contaminated environments, antibiotics, and chemical disinfectants remain essential tools to fight infection and prevent the spread of pathogenic bacteria [2]. Antimicrobial resistance is a key reason for exploring biocide-free alternatives such as superhydrophobic surfaces, which focus on the removal of bacteria and microorganisms from the surfaces by preventing the attachment of organic material and preventing the accumulation of water, which could otherwise promote the growth and colonization of these microorganisms [9]. Superhydrophobic surfaces are made by altering their structural and chemical properties. An inherently water-repelling surface chemistry is required alongside a highly rough morphology (on both the micro and nano scales). Micro/nano roughness can be developed by forming bumps, pillars, ridges, or other types of surface structures. Additionally, a hierarchical arrangement can be created by incorporating multiple levels of micro and nanostructures.

Advertisement

2. Biofilm formation and bacterial attachment in roughness areas

Bacterial biofilm formation represents a dynamic phenomenon that allows bacterial cells to adhere to surfaces and aggregate into colonies. Through this process of biofilm formation, pathogenic bacteria can prosper by adjusting to their external environment [10, 11, 12]. This resilience is obtained by microbial biopolymers such as poly-gamma-glutamic acid, proteins, exopolysaccharides, and extracellular DNA, which allows a more suitable environment to be created [11, 13]. Pathogenic bacteria can grow as biofilms, protecting them against antimicrobial agents and other substances such as disinfectants and antibiotics. The combination of these factors allows bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics and chemicals, posing significant challenges in healthcare, agriculture, and environmental protection [2, 10]. Therefore, avoiding the formation of these biofilms by developing superhydrophobic surfaces by micro and nanostructures is a pathway to research, and then bacteria resistance can be reduced. The agglomeration process of bacteria within a biofilm depends on several distinct stages where the implementation of a superhydrophobic material could affect their formation, avoiding microorganisms during the reversible adhesion stage [2, 4]. The main objective of this stage is to obstruct the continuation of biofilm formation because bacteria are not already attached to the surface; in this way, a superhydrophobic surface could limit bacteria to starting the second phase of the biofilm formation, the irreversible adhesion [13, 14, 15, 16]. During the irreversible adhesion stage, the bacteria undergo a transformation characterized by the loss of their flagellum, rendering them immobile on the surface. Subsequently, these immobilized bacteria begin to secrete material, enabling them to adhere firmly to the surface and remain devoid of movement, creating connections and marking the initiation of the third stage in the biofilm process. The colonization stage requires a proliferation of bacteria in such a manner that, in conjunction with the excreted slime, they form a suitable structure to acquire external nutrients through water channels. This colonization process is vital for the bacteria’s growth, stability, and development. It is enhanced by quorum sensing, which is the complex system of communication between bacteria to coordinate the behavior into the biofilm formation as well as regulate the gene expression to make it favorable to biofilm formation [4, 17]. Upon reaching a considerable size and nourishment level, the biofilm enters the active dispersal stage. During this phase, bacteria start to depart from the biofilm, equipped with flagella, to colonize new surfaces that have not yet been populated. This repetitive cycle (Figure 1) remains the biofilm formation process, which could be limited by superhydrophobic properties [15, 16].

Figure 1.

Biofilm formation. (A) Reversible adhesion stage, (B) irreversible adhesion, (C) biofilm formation, (D) colonization process by quorum sensing, and (E) dispersal stage.

As previously mentioned, the limited control of bacteria spread could lead to infections in various sectors, including healthcare, agriculture, and industrial processes. For instance, hospitals are a critical area of concern where nosocomial infections can result in prolonged stays, disabilities, and financial burdens [18]. In agriculture, the misuse of antibiotics in farm animals has contributed to bacteria resistance, such as Penicillin resistance in humans, which can be transmitted to humans through food consumption and contact [2, 19]. Regarding the industry field, biofilms can decrease heat transfer across surfaces, make fluids harder to flow, and even increase surface degradation. Moreover, biofilm formation of resistant microorganisms that grow in process reactors and pipelines can be spread and generate polluted food even after it has been processed, triggering infections in the purchasers [20, 21]. While bacterial contamination can indeed be mitigated through the implementation of singular or multi-tiered functionalization steps across surfaces to achieve remarkable antiseptic potential, preferably during the initial phases of bacterial adhesion preceding biofilm formation, an environmental alternative without the use of antibiotics and chemicals involves the development of superhydrophobic surfaces through structural modification, as it could be seen in nature [5, 12].

Advertisement

3. Roughness effect in hysteresis, tilt angle, and wettability in materials

A superhydrophobic surface is characterized by an extreme water repellency, namely the ability to repel water droplets to a remarkable extent, causing them to bead up and easily roll off the surface. Incorporating micro and nano-scale irregularities serves a dual purpose: enhancing water repellency (avoid adhesion) and amplifying the hysteresis property [22, 23]. The effect of low surface energy materials and the surface roughness trigger droplets to bead up into spherical droplets as they roll off the surface, carrying away dust and surface contaminants [24, 25]. The achieved roughness on the material improves the property of capturing air between the water droplet and the surface, minimizing the contact area and reducing the adhesion between water and the surface [23, 26]. As a result, water droplets cannot wet the surface effectively, leading to the water-repellent behavior observed on superhydrophobic surfaces. This property has many applications, including self-cleaning coatings, anti-icing surfaces, and even potential medical and industrial uses [23, 27]. Wettability varies depending on the surface’s physical structure and chemical properties [28]. Measurement of surface wettability is principally achieved through the Water Contact Angle (WCA), sliding angle, and contact angle hysteresis (CAH).

The WCA describes the angle formed between the plane of the surface and the surface of the water droplet at the three-phase contact point (water-vapor-solid) [29, 30]. Varying these surface properties can result in tremendous changes to its water repellency. Essentially, it illustrates the capacity to which a surface repels or attracts a liquid. If the angle is large, the droplet tends to bead up and roll off the surface, indicating a super hydrophobic or water-repellent behavior [25, 29]. The sliding angle characterizes the facility with which a water droplet can smoothly roll off a surface, in this way, quantifies the angle by which the droplet is inclined in relation to the surface plane until movement starts to be complicated due to the liquid adhesion to the surface (32,37). Then, the sliding angle is influenced by properties like droplet mobility, adhesion, and resistance to external forces (Figure 2). This sliding angle reaches its highest point when the droplet begins to roll off the surface, being the point at which the lowest receding contact angle (upper edge) and the highest advancing contact angle (lower edge) are reached [31].

Figure 2.

Sliding angle and hysteresis. Water droplets roll off a tilted surface.

CAH=(θA)−(θR)E1

The difference between the advancing angle (θA) and the receding angle (θR) is commonly referred to as the contact angle hysteresis (Eq. (1)) [32]. This hysteresis phenomenon in water contact angle measurements emerges due to the complex interactions between a liquid droplet and a solid surface during interactions that involve vapor, liquid, and solid surface tensions [33]. Surface roughness introduces irregularities that influence the behavior of the liquid droplet [24, 34]. Then, when having a highly hydrophobic material, the θA and θR get high values, and the difference between them is about zero.

The CAH phenomenon as well as the analysis of tilt angle and WCA are vital in real-world scenarios, influencing the behavior of liquids on surfaces during dynamic conditions [22, 33] and finding applications in fields ranging from self-cleaning materials to efficient fluid transport systems. Additionally, understanding and manipulating WCA, tilt angle, and CAH contributes to adapting surface functionalities to specific needs, developing innovations in numerous industries, such as the aerospace sector, where improved aerodynamics and anti-icing properties are sought, as well as the medical field, where avoiding wettability and biofilm formation on medical devices is crucial [27, 35, 36].

As these three parameters describe the relation between the surface properties and the liquid behavior, how specific surfaces repel water and are self-cleaned could be analyzed by Young’s equation, Wenzel State, and the Cassie-Baxter State. The pioneering investigation into measuring a characteristic that determines whether a material is hydrophobic or not was initiated by Young, whose equation describes the behavior of a droplet when in contact with a surface; the droplet shape changes when it interacts on a surface, creating a new interface-three-phase contact line in an ideal smooth surface (Figure 3) [31, 37, 38]. Then, these three interfacial tensions (solid–liquid, liquid–gas, and solid–gas interfacial tensions) must be balanced to the total surface free energy to describe the corresponding contact angle [39]. However, to explain the behavior of a droplet by the WCA on a rough surface, the protuberances of these surfaces must be considered as the main feature [34, 40]. The roughness effect on the surfaces could be described by the fundamental states known as Wenzel State and Cassie-Baxter State to describe how a droplet of water interacts with a surface (Figure 3). Regarding the Wenzel state, when a droplet of water comes into contact with a surface, the liquid fills up the gaps present on the surface to completely cover them, leading to a complete contact with water surface [41, 42, 43]. This completely wetting surface could amplify the hydrophobic or hydrophilic properties of the surface, depending on whether the droplet creates a convex or concave shape. On the other hand, the Cassie–Baxter state suggests the opposite scenario; the liquid droplets do not fill these gaps created by the micro and nano roughness but rather by air, resulting in a surface composed of both solid and air [43, 44, 45]. As the droplet is suspended by air and some spots of the material, the liquid can easily slide off the surface due to low adhesion, preventing water and nutrient adhesion and thus decreasing bacterial growth. Through the interplay between these states, antibacterial and bactericidal properties could be achieved on different material surfaces.

Figure 3.

Models that describe wettability.

Advertisement

4. Antibiofouling and bactericide properties

As described above, the hierarchical structure on surfaces increases the hydrophobicity of a material. However, bactericide and anti-biofouling properties greatly influence a material when industrial and environmental processes are being analyzed to prevent the spread of infections, corrosion, and biofouling. Even when both properties involve inhibiting or eliminating bacteria, they operate in distinct ways. Antibiofouling surfaces prevent the proliferation of bacteria, decreasing the availability of initial attachment of bacteria, while bactericidal surfaces directly kill bacteria [46]. The anti-biofouling property refers to a surface that can impede the growth and reproduction of bacteria by affecting the bacterial metabolic processes, disrupting cell wall formation, or even perturbing essential functions of certain cells [47, 48, 49]. Hence, the antibacterial principle is to avoid bacteria proliferating and decreasing biofilm formation by eliminating essential nutrient sources to the correct bacteria growth or adding elements that could affect the bacteria biofilm formation [47, 50]. The main nutrients required for bacteria to grow are water, carbon, nitrogen, and common minerals such as salts, phosphate, sulfate, magnesium, and calcium [51, 52]. The limitation of bacteria growth by changing the amount of nutrients was analyzed to study the impact of microorganisms on humans [53]. Pioneering work in creating a culture medium for the growth of specific bacteria was developed by Louis Pasteur in 1860 [51], which demonstrates the role of microorganisms in fermentation and diseases. However, Robert Koch developed the first solid culture to grow and isolate bacteria by a selection of nutrients required to make possible the individual study of metabolic processes of the different colonies of bacteria [54, 55]. This selective and differential media improves microbiology research by possibly differentiating microorganisms between them based on their metabolic requirements. The use of these different culture media has demonstrated that nutrient limitation could be a critical feature in slowing down bacteria growth on certain surfaces, making them valuable for disease prevention and hygiene improvements.

In the real world, nutrients could be limited in the environment, such as in the glacial environments, where bacteria face nutrient limitations due to the low organic matter content and slow nutrient release from ice melt [56]. Bacteria in desert soils are limited to rainfall and high evaporation rates; water becomes the main limitation for these bacteria [57]. These limitations of nucleotides required for DNA synthesis affect the DNA replication in the metabolisms of bacteria to the correct growth and cell division [58, 59]. The limitation of amino acids from organic matter restricts protein synthesis, which is one of the most important metabolic processes for enzyme activity, meaning essential cellular functions. In the same way, the cell wall formation can be compromised by the organic matter limitation, and the amino acids are the precursors of peptidoglycan synthesis that is primarily composed of bacterial cell walls [60, 61]. These are some examples of how nutrient limitations in removing organic matter and water from the surfaces could trigger more hygienic and clean surfaces through anti-biofouling properties. Hierarchical structures, with their inherent ability to repel water through hydrophobicity, offer a multifaceted solution that extends beyond surface water resistance. These structures possess a self-cleaning mechanism that extends to the removal of nutrients and dead cells of microorganisms that might have adhered to the surface. This self-cleaning capacity is a result of the interrelation between the surface’s architecture and the water-repellent nature. The surfaces not only prevent water from adhering to them but also inhibit the attachment of organic matter, such as dead cells of microorganisms and nutrients, from remaining on the surface [62]. On the other hand, the bactericide property points out a more proactive approach to decrease bacteria growth and proliferation on surfaces, directly involving bacteria neutralization or killing bacteria on contact, which makes bacteria unable to form biofilms and incapable of reproduction [63, 64]. Even the bactericide surface is more effective when combining physical, chemical, and, in some cases, photonic mechanisms; the micro and nano roughness structures represent the main point of analysis for developing these bactericide structures [46, 62].

In their initial stages, designs for bactericidal surfaces predominantly relied on chemical methods as standalone approaches. These methods involved incorporating silver nanoparticles or applying antimicrobial compounds to the surface, effectively achieving their intended antibacterial effect [6, 49]. While these strategies have demonstrated success, they have also introduced certain challenges, like environmental concerns related to toxicity, as well as the gradual decrease in effectiveness over time due to the bacterial resistance and possible degradation and diminishing concentration of the active compounds [7, 65]. Furthermore, given the escalating concern about antimicrobial resistance, elaborating hierarchical structures is an alternative to research.

4.1 Antibacterial micro and nanostructures in the real world

The starting point of these structures are examples found in nature such as cicada wings, shark and springtail skin, and lotus leaves. Hierarchical structures made in laboratories and industry that effectively prevent bacteria growth find their inspiration in the remarkable designs found in nature. These natural micro and nano roughness surfaces, with unique advantages, serve as the foundation for innovative solutions in certain fields, including antibacterial technology [66, 67, 68]. Cicada wings exhibit a hierarchical arrangement characterized by micro- and nano-scale structures. These structures give the wings their water-repellent properties and prevent bacterial adhesion. The intricate patterns on cicada wings create a surface that is not only water-resistant but also impedes the agglomeration of organic matter and nutrients for bacteria growth [67, 69, 70, 71]. Bacteria can be eliminated easily from these cicada wings due to the combination of micro and nano protrusions that provide water-repelling characteristics, which affects their growth and colonization [46, 69, 72]. Similarly, shark skin poses a unique texture that reduces water friction. This texture consists of tiny square structures called dermal denticles, which serve as an inspiration for antibacterial surfaces due to hydrophobicity but also for antimicrobial properties [73, 74, 75, 76]. In the same way, springtail skin features a pattern that enables it to regulate moisture levels and avoid immersion when standing on water [77, 78]. The lotus leaf, known for its exceptional self-cleaning properties due to micro and nanostructures, enhances water droplets to bead up and easily roll off, carrying away contaminants. This behavior, known as the Lotus effect, serves as a model for creating surfaces with both self-cleaning and antibacterial properties [36, 68, 78, 79, 80]. By incorporating these hierarchical structures into materials, the research seeks to not only prevent bacterial adhesion but also enable easy removal of any attached contaminants. Then, examples such as cicada wings, shark skin, springtail skin, and lotus leaves have exhibited the importance of complex patterns and textures in resisting bacterial colonization. By emulating these natural designs, researchers are developing innovative solutions for creating surfaces that are not only antibacterial but also self-cleaning, paving the way for cleaner and safer environments across various applications [70, 81]. These surfaces appear to effectively prevent biofilm formation and bacterial proliferation, offering a promising perspective to create cleaner and more hygienic materials in certain environments.

The comparison of structures found in nature can be compared, and the similarities suggest similar behavior through bacterial attachment. An example of these is the structure laboratory made with SiO2 nanoparticles spread on the micropatterned wafers (Image A, B, C, D) and found in natural structures such as the lotus leaves (Image E and F) and springtail skin (Image G) in Figure 4. The micro and nano roughness of these surfaces achieves superhydrophobic properties as well as antibacterial and antifouling qualities.

Figure 4.

Comparison of PDMS-covered pillars and SiO2 nanoparticles and lotus leaf SEM (scanning electron microscopy) images. (A) Micropillars covered by SiO2 nanoparticles, (B) a single micropillar covered by SiO2 nanoparticles, (C) SiO2 nanoparticles spread on the top of a micropillar, (D) SiO2 nanoparticles cluster on the top of a micropillar, (E) lotus leaf, (F) lotus leave, (G) springtail skin. (lotus leaf image (E) reproduced from Zhao [63], lotus leaf image (F) and springtail skin image (G) reproduced from Yang et al. [82]).

Advertisement

5. Self-cleaning surfaces

The advantage that these superhydrophobic surfaces could achieve is that they not only could be cleaned easily but also, could have the property of being clean by themselves, self-cleaning properties allow droplets of water to carry out contaminants, mainly organic material, because of the low affinity to be adhered to the surface [83]. Moreover, by limiting the removal of nutrients from the surface, giving an anti-biofouling property, micro and nanostructures are able to affect bacterial cell walls and impede bacteria attachment. Adhesion of the metabolites improves the presence of biofilms that tend to create biofouling issues; therefore, their repulsion is highly important for long-term antifouling [84, 85]. Self-cleaning surfaces have received a lot of attention in research as well as in commercial applications. Potential applications could be developed for self-cleaning surfaces such as automotive, building, household, optical applications, and aerospace [79, 84, 85, 86, 87]. Therefore, to achieve an antibacterial effect, the surface’s tilt angle must be small with a high contact angle hysteresis for droplets to fall out of the surface (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Self-cleaning surfaces.

Moreover, by reaching a high hydrophobicity, bacteria will be attached to water by being more attracted by it instead of staying on the surface. Nevertheless, eliminating water from the surfaces will make it more difficult for bacteria to grow because of limited wettability [10, 11, 15, 21, 88]. As shown in Video 1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IbIawbAZ1uAWTxSAPWQLF1rfcpBGea1E/view?usp=drive_link), when creating a self-cleaning surface by micro-patter (silicon pillars), the droplet of water appears to remove the dust particles (paper made) that remain on the top of a surface. Despite the water not being adhered to the surface material, the amount of water and the sliding angle required to roll off is noticeably more elevated compared to the results that a hierarchical structure could reach on the surface, as shown in Video 2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eFLqx8dHFp_q9q4HMHXkhe5WHw3WTWrn/view?usp=drive_link). When combining micro-roughness (silicon pillars) and nano roughness on the top (SiO2 nanoparticles), the property of self-cleaning surface is evident. This surface removes the undesired material from the surface remarkably with a lower sliding angle and an evident low hysteresis due to the stable spherical shape of the droplets of water. Another illustrative example of these laboratory-fabricated structures utilizing nanopillars resembling natural examples not only for antifouling properties but for bactericide purposes is shown in Figure 6, where TiO2 nanopillars demonstrate to damage the cell walls of bacteria like Escherichia coli or Klebsiella pneumoniae, which leads to bacteria eradication. Similarly, Staphylococcus aureus poses a smaller morphology; the hierarchical structure impedes the attachment of coccus and disrupts the correct functionality of metabolism.

Figure 6.

SEM images highlight the interaction between TiO2 nanopillars and E. coli, K. Pneumonia, and S. aureus (reproduced from Jenkings et al. [63]).

Advertisement

6. Bacteria on hydrophobic and hydrophilic surfaces

When comparing the behavior of bacteria on superhydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces, their distinct wetting properties come into play. Superhydrophilic surfaces exhibit a strong affinity for water, causing water droplets to spread out extensively, creating a larger contact area. In the context of bacterial interaction, these surfaces encourage bacterial adherence and expansion, as the increased contact area enhances the chances of bacteria attaching to the surface [88]. This characteristic can be advantageous in scenarios such as wound healing and biofilm studies, where promoting bacterial colonization is desired. In contrast, hydrophobicity leads to water droplets forming compact beads that readily roll off. When bacteria encounter hydrophobic surfaces, their ability to adhere becomes compromised [89, 90]. The limited contact area and weak attractive forces inhibit bacterial attachment and colonization. This behavior is particularly useful in applications where preventing microbial contamination is crucial, such as medical devices and environments prone to high humidity. Hydrophobic surfaces effectively resist bacterial growth and biofilm formation by eliminating the main nutrients bacteria require to grow and avoiding water accumulation [89, 91].

Superhydrophilic surfaces facilitate bacterial adhesion and spreading, making them suitable for cases requiring enhanced bacterial colonization. On the other hand, hydrophobic surfaces deter bacterial attachment, proving advantageous when preventing bacterial growth and biofilm formation is the objective [63, 88, 89, 90].

Advertisement

7. Conclusion

The intricate process of bacterial biofilm formation presents challenges in various sectors due to its role in promoting bacterial resistance. The development of superhydrophobic surfaces, characterized by water repellence due to micro/nano-scale irregularities, inhibits biofilm formation and directly kills bacteria. This approach aligns with different stages of biofilm development, from avoiding initial adhesion to the surfaces before irreversible attachment to directly avoiding bacteria growth to reduce bacterial resistance. Superhydrophobic surfaces offer a potential solution by preventing water adherence and impeding biofilm formation, leading to improved hygiene and disease prevention in healthcare, agriculture, and industries. Furthermore, the development of hierarchical structures in surfaces offers solutions for anti-biofouling and bactericidal properties. These properties target bacterial attachment and metabolism, impede biofilm formation, and disrupt essential functions. The innovative combination of micro and nano roughness to reach superhydrophobicity and bacterial remotion presents a transformative approach to challenges in infection prevention, corrosion mitigation, and biofouling to achieve cleaner, safer, and more efficient environments. The exceptional potential of superhydrophobic surfaces developed by hierarchical structures provides beyond self-cleaning properties to even decrease bacteria growth and proliferation.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

RIGG would like to acknowledge the Mexican-QMUL dual-center program for funding her master’s research degree. CRC would also like to acknowledge the EPSRC for funding.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts to declare.

References

  1. 1. Lawrence R, Jeyakumar E. Antimicrobial resistance: A cause for global concern. BMC Proceedings. 2013;7:S1. DOI: 10.1186/1753-6561-7-s3-s1
  2. 2. Exner M, Bhattacharya S, Gebel J, Goroncy-Bermes P, Hartemann P, Heeg P, et al. Chemical disinfection in healthcare settings: Critical aspects for the development of global strategies. German Medical Science (GMS) hygiene and infection control, 15, Doc 36, German; 2020. DOI: 10.3205/dgkh000371
  3. 3. Li W, Calle L, Hanford A, Stambaugh I, Callahan M. Investigation of silver biocide as a disinfection technology for spacecraft–an early literature review. In: 48th International Conference on Environmental Systems. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 2018. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2346/74083
  4. 4. De Silva LADS, Heo GJ. Biofilm formation of pathogenic bacteria isolated from aquatic animals. Archives of Microbiology. 2023;205:36. DOI: 10.1007/s00203-022-03332-8
  5. 5. Wang Y, Bian Z, Wang Y. Biofilm formation and inhibition mediated by bacterial quorum sensing. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2022;106:6365-6381. DOI: 10.1007/s00253-022-12150-3
  6. 6. Mancuso G, Midiri A, Gerace E, Biondo C. Bacterial antibiotic resistance: The most critical pathogens. Pathogens. 2021;10:1310. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens10101310
  7. 7. Coculescu B-I. Antimicrobial resistance induced by genetic changes. Journal of Medicine and Life. 2009;2(2):114-123
  8. 8. Fong D, Gaulin C, Lê M-L, Shum M. Effectiveness of Alternative Antimicrobial Agents for Disinfection of Hard Surfaces. Public Health Agency of Canada; 2014
  9. 9. Ashok D, Cheeseman S, Wang Y, Funnell B, Leung SF, Tricoli A, et al. Superhydrophobic surfaces to combat bacterial surface colonization. Advanced Materials Interfaces. 2023;10(24):1-22. DOI: 10.1002/admi.202300324
  10. 10. Parrilli E, Tutino ML, Marino G. Biofilm as an adaptation strategy to extreme conditions. Rendiconti Lincei. 2022;33:527-536. DOI: 10.1007/s12210-022-01083-8
  11. 11. Penesyan A, Paulsen IT, Kjelleberg S, Gillings MR. Three faces of biofilms: A microbial lifestyle, a nascent multicellular organism, and an incubator for diversity. npj Biofilms and Microbiomes. 2021;7:80. DOI: 10.1038/s41522-021-00251-2
  12. 12. Hrynyshyn A, Simões M, Borges A. Biofilms in surgical site infections: Recent advances and novel prevention and eradication strategies. Antibiotics. 2022;11:69. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11010069
  13. 13. Mohsin MZ, Omer R, Huang J, Mohsin A, Guo M, Qian J, et al. Advances in engineered Bacillus subtilis biofilms and spores, and their applications in bioremediation, biocatalysis, and biomaterials. Synthetic and Systems Biotechnology. 2021;6:180-191. DOI: 10.1016/j.synbio.2021.07.002
  14. 14. Arnaouteli S, Bamford NC, Stanley-Wall NR, Kovács ÁT. Bacillus subtilis biofilm formation and social interactions. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2021;19:600-614. DOI: 10.1038/s41579-021-00540-9
  15. 15. Bhattacharjee A, Khan M, Kleiman M, Hochbaum AI. Effects of growth surface topography on bacterial signaling in coculture biofilms. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. 2017;9:18531-18539. DOI: 10.1021/acsami.7b04223
  16. 16. Sauer K, Stoodley P, Goeres DM, Hall-Stoodley L, Burmølle M, Stewart PS, et al. The biofilm life cycle: Expanding the conceptual model of biofilm formation. Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 2022;20:608-620. DOI: 10.1038/s41579-022-00767-0
  17. 17. Haque S, Ahmad F, Dar SA, Jawed A, Mandal RK, Wahid M, et al. Developments in strategies for quorum sensing virulence factor inhibition to combat bacterial drug resistance. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2018;121:293-302. DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2018.05.046
  18. 18. Khan HA, Baig FK, Mehboob R. Nosocomial infections: Epidemiology, prevention, control and surveillance. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine. 2017;7:478-482. DOI: 10.1016/j.apjtb.2017.01.019
  19. 19. Economou V, Gousia P. Agriculture and food animals as a source of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. Infection and Drug Resistance. 2015;8:49-61. DOI: 10.2147/IDR.S55778
  20. 20. Garrett TR, Bhakoo M, Zhang Z. Bacterial adhesion and biofilms on surfaces. Progress in Natural Science. 2008;18:1049-1056. DOI: 10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.04.001
  21. 21. Vestby LK, Grønseth T, Simm R, Nesse LL. Bacterial biofilm and its role in the pathogenesis of disease. Antibiotics. 2020;9:59. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics9020059
  22. 22. Zhang Y, Zhang Z, Yang J, Yue Y, Zhang H. A review of recent advances in superhydrophobic surfaces and their applications in drag reduction and heat transfer. Nanomaterials. 2022;12:44. DOI: 10.3390/nano12010044
  23. 23. Falde EJ, Yohe ST, Colson YL, Grinstaff MW. Superhydrophobic materials for biomedical applications. Biomaterials. 2016;104:87-103. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.06.050
  24. 24. Manoharan K, Bhattacharya S. Superhydrophobic surfaces review: Functional application, fabrication techniques and limitations. Journal of Micromanufacturing. 2019;2:59-78. DOI: 10.1177/2516598419836345
  25. 25. Parvate S, Dixit P, Chattopadhyay S. Superhydrophobic surfaces: Insights from theory and experiment. Journal of Physical Chemistry B. 2020;124:1323-1360. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b08567
  26. 26. Mohamed AMA, Abdullah AM, Younan NA. Corrosion behavior of superhydrophobic surfaces: A review. Arabian Journal of Chemistry. 2015;8:749-765. DOI: 10.1016/j.arabjc.2014.03.006
  27. 27. Huang W, Huang J, Guo Z, Liu W. Icephobic/anti-icing properties of superhydrophobic surfaces. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science. 2022;304:102658. DOI: 10.1016/j.cis.2022.102658
  28. 28. Slepickova, Kasalkova N, Slepicka P, Kolska Z, Svorcik V. Wettability and other surface properties of modified polymers. In: Wetting and Wettability. London, UK: IntechOpen; 2015. DOI: 10.5772/60824
  29. 29. Celia E, Darmanin T, Taffin de Givenchy E, Amigoni S, Guittard F. Recent advances in designing superhydrophobic surfaces. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. 2013;402:1-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2013.03.041
  30. 30. Genzer J, Efimenko K. Recent developments in superhydrophobic surfaces and their relevance to marine fouling: A review. Biofouling. 2006;22:339-360. DOI: 10.1080/08927010600980223
  31. 31. Kim SH. Fabrication of superhydrophobic surfaces. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology. 2008;22:235-250. DOI: 10.1163/156856108X305156
  32. 32. Butt HJ, Liu J, Koynov K, Straub B, Hinduja C, Roismann I, et al. Contact angle hysteresis. Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science. 2022;59:101574. DOI: 10.1016/j.cocis.2022.101574
  33. 33. Shams H, Basit K, Khan MA, Saleem S, Mansoor A. Realizing surface amphiphobicity using 3D printing techniques: A critical move towards manufacturing low-cost reentrant geometries. Additive Manufacturing. 2021;38:101777. DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2020.101777
  34. 34. Kanungo M, Mettu S, Law KY, Daniel S. Effect of roughness geometry on wetting and dewetting of rough PDMS surfaces. Langmuir. 2014;30:7358-7368. DOI: 10.1021/la404343n
  35. 35. Gresham IJ, Neto C. Advances and challenges in slippery covalently-attached liquid surfaces. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science. 2023;315:102906. DOI: 10.1016/j.cis.2023.102906
  36. 36. Avramescu RE, Ghica MV, Dinu-Pîrvu C, Prisada R, Popa L. Superhydrophobic natural and artificial surfaces-a structural approach. Materials. 2018;11:866. DOI: 10.3390/ma11050866
  37. 37. Zhang L, Mehanna YA, Crick CR, Poole RJ. Surface tension and viscosity dependence of slip length over irregularly structured superhydrophobic surfaces. Langmuir. 2022;38:11873-11881. DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.2c01323
  38. 38. Calvimontes A. The measurement of the surface energy of solids using a laboratory drop tower. npj Microgravity. 2017;3:25. DOI: 10.1038/s41526-017-0031-y
  39. 39. Law KY. Contact angle hysteresis on smooth/flat and rough surfaces. Interpretation, mechanism, and origin. Accounts of Materials Research. 2022;3:1-7. DOI: 10.1021/accountsmr.1c00051
  40. 40. Mądry K, Nowicki W. Wetting between Cassie–Baxter and Wenzel regimes: A cellular model approach. European Physical Journal E. 2021;44:138. DOI: 10.1140/epje/s10189-021-00140-8
  41. 41. Peters AM, Pirat C, Sbragaglia M, Borkent BM, Wessling M, Lohse D, et al. Cassie-Baxter to Wenzel state wetting transition: Scaling of the front velocity. European Physical Journal E. 2009;29:391-397. DOI: 10.1140/epje/i2009-10489-3
  42. 42. Mohd Khairuddin FA, Rashid AA, Leo CP, Lim GK, Ahmad AL, Lim HM, et al. Recent progress in superhydrophobic rubber coatings. Progress in Organic Coating. 2022;171:107024. DOI: 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2022.107024
  43. 43. Li J, Gong S, Zhang L, Cheng P, Ma X, Hong F. Wetting states and departure diameters of bubbles on micro-/nanostructured surfaces. Langmuir. 2022;38:3180-3188. DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.1c03212
  44. 44. Wang L, Tian Z, Jiang G, Luo X, Chen C, Hu X, et al. Spontaneous dewetting transitions of droplets during icing & melting cycle. Nature Communications. 2022;13:378. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-28036-x
  45. 45. Catley TE, Corrigan RM, Parnell AJ. Designing effective antimicrobial nanostructured surfaces: Highlighting the lack of consensus in the literature. ACS Omega. 2023;8:14873-14883. DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.2c08068
  46. 46. Razavi SMR, Oh J, Haasch RT, Kim K, Masoomi M, Bagheri R, et al. Environment-friendly antibiofouling superhydrophobic coatings. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. 2019;7:14509-14520. DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b02025
  47. 47. He Z, Yang X, Wang N, Mu L, Pan J, Lan X, et al. Anti-biofouling polymers with special surface wettability for biomedical applications. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2021;9:807357. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.807357
  48. 48. Imani SM, Maclachlan R, Rachwalski K, Chan Y, Lee B, McInnes M, et al. Flexible hierarchical wraps repel drug-resistant gram-negative and positive bacteria. ACS Nano. 2020;14:454-465. DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.9b06287
  49. 49. Zhou H, Li Q, Zhang Z, Wang X, Niu H. Recent advances in superhydrophobic and antibacterial cellulose-based fibers and fabrics: Bioinspiration, strategies, and applications. Advanced Fiber Materials. Singapore: Springer Nature. 2023;1:1-37. DOI: 10.1007/s42765-023-00297-1
  50. 50. Bonnet M, Lagier JC, Raoult D, Khelaifia S. Bacterial culture through selective and non-selective conditions: The evolution of culture media in clinical microbiology. New Microbes New Infections. 2020;34:100622. DOI: 10.1016/j.nmni.2019.100622
  51. 51. Snell EE, Mitchell HK. Purine and pyrimidine bases as growth substances for lactic acid bacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1941;27(1):1-7
  52. 52. Lagier JC, Hugon P, Khelaifia S, Fournier PE, La Scola B, Raoult D. The rebirth of culture in microbiology through the example of culturomics to study human gut microbiota. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2015;28:237-264. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00014-14
  53. 53. Zhang XH, Ahmad W, Zhu XY, Chen J, Austin B. Viable but nonculturable bacteria and their resuscitation: Implications for cultivating uncultured marine microorganisms. Marine Life Science & Technology. 2021;3:189-203. DOI: 10.1007/s42995-020-00041-3
  54. 54. Lagier JC, Edouard S, Pagnier I, Mediannikov O, Drancourt M, Raoult D. Current and past strategies for bacterial culture in clinical microbiology. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2015;28:208-236. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00110-14
  55. 55. Larose C. Observatoire des Sciences de l’Univers de Grenoble (OSUG ), Institut polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology-Université Grenoble Alpes 2016-2019 (UGA), ECL, Corinne Leyval. Microbiogeochemistry of Cold Ecosystems. HAL CCSD; 2016
  56. 56. Cowan DA, Cary SC, DiRuggiero J, Eckardt F, Ferrari B, Hopkins DW, et al. ‘Follow the water’: Microbial water acquisition in desert soils. Microorganisms. 2023;11:1670. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11071670
  57. 57. O’Donnell M, Langston L, Stillman B. Principles and concepts of DNA replication in bacteria, archaea, and eukarya. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. 2013;5(7):a010108. DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a010108
  58. 58. Dewachter L, Verstraeten N, Fauvart M, Michiels J. An integrative view of cell cycle control in Escherichia coli. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 2018;42:116-136. DOI: 10.1093/femsre/fuy005
  59. 59. Kelly B, Pearce EL. Amino assets: How amino acids support immunity. Cell Metabolism. 2020;32:154-175. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.06.010
  60. 60. Aliashkevich A, Alvarez L, Cava F. New insights into the mechanisms and biological roles of D-amino acids in complex eco-systems. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2018;9:683. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00683
  61. 61. Ma J, Sun Y, Gleichauf K, Lou J, Li Q. Nanostructure on taro leaves resists fouling by colloids and bacteria under submerged conditions. Langmuir. 2011;27:10035-10040. DOI: 10.1021/la2010024
  62. 62. Jenkins J, Mantell J, Neal C, Gholinia A, Verkade P, Nobbs AH, et al. Antibacterial effects of nanopillar surfaces are mediated by cell impedance, penetration and induction of oxidative stress. Nature Communications. 2020;11:1626. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-15471-x
  63. 63. Yang X, Zhang W, Qin X, Cui M, Guo Y, Wang T, et al. Recent progress on bioinspired antibacterial surfaces for biomedical application. Biomimetics. 2022;7:88. DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics7030088
  64. 64. Baran A, Kwiatkowska A, Potocki L. Antibiotics and bacterial resistance—A short story of an endless arms race. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023;24:5777. DOI: 10.3390/ijms24065777
  65. 65. Zang J, Li M, Luo Q , Jin Y, Zhang L, Tang J, et al. Preparation and investigation of high-performance 3D Ag/SiO2 nanohole array substrate based on cicada wing. Optical Materials (Amst). 2023;136:113412. DOI: 10.1016/j.optmat.2022.113412
  66. 66. Fujimoto K, Saito A, Kotsuchibashi Y. Cicada-wing-inspired nanopillar hydrogels consisting of poly(vinyl alcohol) and poly(methacrylic acid) for capturing bacteria through their flexibility and wide range of motion. ACS Macro Letters. 2022;11:727-732. DOI: 10.1021/acsmacrolett.2c00126
  67. 67. Elbourne A, Crawford RJ, Ivanova EP. Nano-structured antimicrobial surfaces: From nature to synthetic analogues. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. 2017;508:603-616. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2017.07.021
  68. 68. Yang Y, Yang R, Fan C, Huang Y, Yan Y, Xu Y. Cicada wing-like hierarchical porous carbon to facilitate the re-deposition of sulfur for high-performance lithium-sulfur batteries. International Journal of Energy Research. 2022;46:23407-23417. DOI: 10.1002/er.8638
  69. 69. Ivanova EP, Hasan J, Webb HK, Truong VK, Watson GS, Watson JA, et al. Natural bactericidal surfaces: Mechanical rupture of pseudomonas aeruginosa cells by cicada wings. Small. 2012;8:2489-2494. DOI: 10.1002/smll.201200528
  70. 70. Wang J, Wang Q , Xu J, Li G, Ge J, Li Z, et al. AlPO4 film with transparent anti-fogging function imitating cicada wings. Thin Solid Films. 2023;781:139996. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsf.2023.139996
  71. 71. Cheng YW, Hsiao CW, Lin CH, Huang LY, Chen JS, Yang MC, et al. Bionic 3D periodic nanostructures by Ag nano-islands deposited on cicada wings for rapid SERS detection. Surface and Coating Technology. 2022;436:128323. DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2022.128323
  72. 72. Tian G, Zhang Y, Feng X, Hu Y. Focus on bioinspired textured surfaces toward fluid drag reduction: Recent progresses and challenges. Advanced Engineering Materials. 2022;24:2100696. DOI: 10.1002/adem.202100696
  73. 73. La Barre S, Bates SS. Marine biominerals with a biotechnological future. In: La Barre S, Bates SS, editors. Blue Biotechnology. New Jersey, USA: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA Hoboken; 2018. DOI: 10.1002/9783527801718.ch27
  74. 74. Malshe A, Rajurkar K, Samant A, Hansen HN, Bapat S, Jiang W. Bio-inspired functional surfaces for advanced applications. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology. 2013;62:607-628. DOI: 10.1016/j.cirp.2013.05.008
  75. 75. Eadie L, Ghosh TK. Biomimicry in textiles: Past, present and potential. An overview. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 2011;8:761-775. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0487
  76. 76. Helbig R, Nickerl J, Neinhuis C, Werner C. Smart skin patterns protect springtails. PLoS One. 2011;6:e25105. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025105
  77. 77. Dayan CB, Chun S, Krishna-Subbaiah N, Drotlef DM, Akolpoglu MB, Sitti M. 3D printing of elastomeric bioinspired complex adhesive microstructures. Advanced Materials. 2021;33:2103826. DOI: 10.1002/adma.202103826
  78. 78. Yu C, Sasic S, Liu K, Salameh S, Ras RHA, van Ommen JR. Nature–inspired self–cleaning surfaces: Mechanisms, modelling, and manufacturing. Chemical Engineering Research and Design. 2020;155:48-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2019.11.038
  79. 79. Latthe SS, Terashima C, Nakata K, Fujishima A. Superhydrophobic surfaces developed by mimicking hierarchical surface morphology of lotus leaf. Molecules. 2014;19:4256-4283. DOI: 10.3390/molecules19044256
  80. 80. Ensikat HJ, Ditsche-Kuru P, Neinhuis C, Barthlott W. Superhydrophobicity in perfection: The outstanding properties of the lotus leaf. Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology. 2011;2:152-161. DOI: 10.3762/bjnano.2.19
  81. 81. Zhao F, Zhan F, Wang L. Hybrid topography of lotus leaf under hydrostatic/hydrodynamic pressure. Advanced Materials Interfaces. 2023;10:2202044. DOI: 10.1002/admi.202202044
  82. 82. Zhang X, Wang L, Levänen E. Superhydrophobic surfaces for the reduction of bacterial adhesion. RSC Advances. 2013;3:12003-12020. DOI: 10.1039/c3ra40497h
  83. 83. Adak D, Bhattacharyya R, Barshilia HC. A state-of-the-art review on the multifunctional self-cleaning nanostructured coatings for PV panels, CSP mirrors and related solar devices. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2022;159:112145. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112145
  84. 84. Upton RL, Crick CR, Crick CR. Pigmented self-cleaning coatings with enhanced UV resilience: Via the limitation of photocatalytic activity and its effects. Molecular Systems Design and Engineering. 2020;5:876-881. DOI: 10.1039/d0me00013b
  85. 85. Rios PF, Dodiuk H, Kenig S, McCarthy S, Dotan A. Durable ultra-hydrophobic surfaces for self-cleaning applications. Polymers for Advanced Technologies. 2008;19:1684-1691. DOI: 10.1002/pat.1208
  86. 86. Akhtar N, Thomas PJ, Svardal B, Almenningen S, De Jong E, Magnussen S, et al. Pillars or pancakes? Self-cleaning surfaces without coating. Nano Letters. 2018;18:7509-7514. DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b02982
  87. 87. Tuson HH, Weibel DB. Bacteria-surface interactions. Soft Matter. 2013;9:4368-4380. DOI: 10.1039/c3sm27705d
  88. 88. Jaggessar A, Shahali H, Mathew A, Yarlagadda PKDV. Bio-mimicking nano and micro-structured surface fabrication for antibacterial properties in medical implants. Journal of Nanobiotechnology. 2017;15:64. DOI: 10.1186/s12951-017-0306-1
  89. 89. Si Y, Dong Z, Jiang L. Bioinspired designs of superhydrophobic and superhydrophilic materials. ACS Central Science. 2018;4:1102-1112. DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.8b00504
  90. 90. Rasouli S, Rezaei N, Hamedi H, Zendehboudi S, Duan X. Superhydrophobic and superoleophilic membranes for oil-water separation application: A comprehensive review. Materials and Design. 2021;204:109599. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109599
  91. 91. Shao H, Ma M, Wang Q , Yan T, Zhao B, Guo S, et al. Advances in the superhydrophilicity-modified titanium surfaces with antibacterial and pro-osteogenesis properties: A review. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2022;10:1000401. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.1000401

Written By

Reyna I. Garcia-Gonzalez and Colin R. Crick

Submitted: 16 August 2023 Reviewed: 18 August 2023 Published: 17 November 2023

© The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

View All
Chapter 5 Advanced Bioinspired Superhydrophobic Marine Antif...

By Mohamed S. Selim, Hamed I. Hamouda, Nesreen A. Fat...

105 downloads

Chapter 6 Hydrophobic Protection for Building Materials

By Katarzyna Buczkowska

55 downloads

Chapter 1 Superhydrophobic Coatings with Environmentally Fri...

By Brenda Resendiz Diaz and Colin R. Crick

122 downloads