AbstractSurface tension studies of the most common fluorosilicone, poly(3,3,3‐trifluoropropylmethylsiloxane) (PTFPMS), give unexpected results. Compared to polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), the liquid surface tension is higher, the critical surface tension of wetting similar, and the solid surface tension, determined by water and methylene iodide contact angles and the method of Owens and Wendt, considerably lower. As the outermost surface of the lowest energy materials are comprised of close‐packed perfluoromethyl groups and as a flexible polymer backbone should aid in the adoption of the lowest surface energy configuration, fluorosilicones could in principle be the lowest surface energy polymers. In practice, other groups such as the ethylene link between the perfluoromethyl group and the siloxane backbone in PTFPMS are required to produce a stable material. This introduces factors such as bulkiness of side chains, unresolved fluorocarbon/hydrocarbon dipoles, and fluorine/silicon coordination effects. The results are discussed in these terms and compared with PDMS and two fluoropolymers, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE). PTFE shows similar trends to PTFPMS whereas PCTFE behaves rather like P
展开▼
