Table 1.
Investigated SAMs.
Table 2.
Contact angles, SAM thickness (dSAM), and theoretical SAM thickness (one triplicate measurement for each SAM).
Fig 1.
In-situ SE (dSE), QCM-D (dQCMD) thickness and adsorbate volume fraction (fo,V) on various SAM surfaces.
(A) MUOH; (B) MUA; (C) AUT; and (D) DT10.
Fig 2.
Averages from triplicate SE/QCM-D measurements.
(A) SE and QCM-D thickness parameters (dSE, dQCMD, respectively) of different SAM surfaces with associated standard errors. (B) Adsorbate volume fractions (fo,V) of different SAM surfaces with associated standard errors.
Fig 3.
BSA areal mass attached on different SAM-coated Au surfaces measured by SE and QCM-D.
(A) mSE: areal mass measured by SE, and (B) mQCMD: areal mass measured by QCM-D. Time 0 was the start of BSA phase following initial DI H2O phase. Different shades represent associated rinse phase of each SAM. The rinse phases of all measurement were not simultaneous.
Fig 4.
Interaction of BSA on AUT SAM as a function of BSA concentrations.
(A) Areal mass of BSA attachment detected by QCM-D. (B) Volumetric fraction of BSA attachment. Time 0 was the start of BSA phase following initial DI H2O phase.
Fig 5.
BSA adsorption rate measurements.
(A) BSA initial adsorption rate and (B) BSA overall adsorption rate as a function of surface properties. The error bars represent standard deviations.
Fig 6.
Influence of pH solution on the adsorption of BSA to AUT SAM.
pH 2 solution was flushed into the liquid cell immediately preceding DI H2O rinsing phase. Time 0 was the start of BSA phase following initial DI H2O phase which was not shown.
Fig 7.
BSA arrangement scenarios on various SAM surfaces.
Left: Scenario 1 –Side-on; Right: Scenario 2: End-on.