Journal of Bionic Engineering

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 325–345 | Cite as

Interfacial effects of superhydrophobic plant surfaces: A review

Article

Abstract

Nature is a huge gallery of art involving nearly perfect structures and properties over the millions of years of development. Many plants and animals show water-repellent properties with fine micro-structures, such as lotus leaf, water skipper and wings of butterfly. Inspired by these special surfaces, the artificial superhydrophobic surfaces have attracted wide attention in both basic research and industrial applications. The wetting properties of superhydrophobic surfaces in nature are affected by the chemical compositions and the surface topographies. So it is possible to realize the biomimetic superhydrophobic surfaces by tuning their surface roughness and surface free energy correspondingly. This review briefly introduces the physical-chemical basis of superhydrophobic plant surfaces in nature to explain how the superhydrophobicity of plant surfaces can be applied to different biomimetic functional materials with relevance to technological applications. Then, three classical effects of natural surfaces are classified: lotus effect, salvinia effect, and petal effect, and the promising strategies to fabricate biomimetic superhydrophobic materials are highlighted. Finally, the prospects and challenges of this area in the future are proposed.

Keywords

interfacial effects superhydrophobicity plant leaves contact angle bionics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Strukova G K, Strukov E Y, Postnova G. V, Veshchunov I S. Mesoscopic models of plants composed of metallic nanowires. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2013, 10, 368–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Zhang Y B, Chen Y, Shi L, Li J, Guo Z G. Recent progress of double-structural and functional materials with special wettability. Journal of Materials Chemistry, 2012, 22, 799–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Chen Y, Zhang Y B, Shi L, Li J, Xin Y, Yang T T, Guo Z. G. Transparent superhydrophobic/superhydrophilic coatings for self-cleaning and anti-fogging.Appl. Physical Letter, 2012, 101, 033701–033703.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Guo Z G., Zhou F, Hao J C, Liu W M. Biomimic from the superhydrophobic plant leaves in nature: Binary structure and unitary structure. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2005, 127, 15670–15671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Wang B, Zhang Y B, Shi L. Li J, Guo Z G. Advances in the theory of superhydrophobic surfaces. Journal of Materials Chemistry, 2012, 22, 20112–20127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Xia F, Jiang L. Bio-inspired, smart, multiscale interfacial materials. Advanced materials, 2008, 20, 2842–2858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    FornoI W, Harley K L S. The occurrence of Salvinia molesta in Brazil. Aquatic Botany, 1979, 6, 185–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Young T. An essay on the cohesion of fluids. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 1805, 95, 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Wenzel R N. Resistance of solid surfaces to wetting by water. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, 1936, 28, 988–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Cassie A B D, Baxter S. Wettability of porous surfaces. Transactions of the Faraday Society, 1944, 40, 546–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Xu J, Guo Z G, Biomimetic photonic materials with tunable structural colors. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2013, 406, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Wang H, Guo Z G. Design of underwater superoleophobic TiO2 coatings with additional photo-induced self-cleaning properties by one-step route bio-inspired from fish scales. Applied Physics Letters, 2014, 104, 183703–183704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Lau K K, Bico J, Teo K B K, Chhowalla M, Amaratung G A J, Milne W I, McKinley Gleason K K. Superhydrophobic carbon nanotube forests. Nano Letters, 2003, 3, 1701–1705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Shirtcliffe N J, McHale G, Newton M I, Chabrol G, Perry C C. Dual-scale roughness produces unusually water-repellent surfaces. Advanced Materials, 2004, 16, 1929–1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Han J T, Xu X R, Cho K. W. Diverse access to artificial superhydrophobic surfaces using block copolymers. Langmuir, 2005, 21, 6662–6665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Guo Z G, Zhou Liu W M. Preparation of biomimetic superhydrophobic silica film by sol-gel technique. Acta Chimica Sinica, 2006, 64, 761–766.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Shirtcliffe N J, McHale G, Newton M I, Perry C C, Roach P. Porous materials show superhydrophobic to superhydrophilic switching. Chemical Communications, 2005, 3135–3137.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Guo Z G, Fang J, Hao J C, Liang Y M, Liu W M. A novel approach to stable superhydrophobic surfaces. Chemical Physics and Physical Chemistry, 2006, 7, 1674–1677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Furstner R, Barthlott W, Neinhuis C, Walzel P. Wetting and self-cleaning properties of artificial superhydrophobic surfaces. Langmuir, 2005, 21, 956–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Guo Z G, Liu W M, Su B L. Superhydrophobic surfaces: From natural to biomimetic to functional. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2011, 353, 335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Huang L, Lau S P, Yang H Y, Leong E S P, Yu S F, Prawer S. Stable superhydrophobic surface via carbon nanotubes coated with a ZnO thin film. Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 2005, 109, 7746–7748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Zhu H, Guo Z G, Liu W M, Adhesion behaviors on superhydrophobic surfaces. Chemical Communications, 2014, 50, 3900–3913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Koch K, Bohn H F, Barthlott W. Hierarchically sculptured plant surfaces and superhydrophobicity. Langmuir, 2009, 25, 14116–14120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Yuan Z, Ye H, Li S M. Bionic leaf simulating the thermal effect of natural leaf transpiration. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2014, 11, 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Sun T L, Feng L, Gao X F, Jiang L. Bioinspired surfaces with special wettability. Accounts of Chemical Research, 2005, 38, 644–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Barthlott W, Ehler N. Raster-Elektronenmikroskopie der Epidermis-Oberflächen von Spermatophyten. Tropische und Subtropische Pflanzenwelt; Franz Steiner Verlag, GmbH: Wiesbaden, Germany, 1977.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Qi X, Song W, Mao Z, Gao W R, Cong Q. Fabrication of a bionic needle with both superhydrophobic and antibacterial properties. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2013, 10, 377–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Miwa M, Nakajima A, Fujishima A, Hashimoto K, Watanabe T. Effects of surface structure on the hydrophobicity and sliding behavior of water droplets. Langmuir, 2000, 16, 5754–5760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Li J, Du F, Liu X L, Jiang Z H, Ren L Q. Superhydrophobicity of bionic alumina surfaces fabricated by hard anodizing. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2011, 8, 369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Jeffree C E. The Fine Structure of the Plant Cuticle. In Biology of the Plant Cuticle. In: Riederer M and Müller C (eds), Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 2006, 11–125.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Bargel H, Koch K, Cerman Z, Neinhuis C. Evans Review No. 3: Structure-function relationships of the plant cuticle and cuticular waxes-a smart material? Functional Plant Biology, 2006, 3, 893–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Riederer M, Schreiber L. Protecting against water loss: Analysis of the barrier properties of plant cuticles. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2001, 52, 2023–2032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Kerstiens G, Cuticular water permeability and its physiological significance. Journal of Experimental Botany, 1996, 47, 1813–1832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Koch K, Bhushan B, Barthlott W, Multifunctional surface structures of plants: An inspiration for biomimetics. Progress in Materials Science, 2009, 54, 137–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Neinhuis C, Barthlott W. Characterization and distribution of water-repellent, self-cleaning plant surfaces. Annals of Botany, 1997, 79, 667–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Barthlott W, Neinhuis C, Cutler D, Ditsch F, Meusel I, Theisen I. Classification and terminology of plant epicuticular waxes. Botanical Joumal of the Linnean Sociey, 1998, 126, 237–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    Holmes M G, Keiller D R. Effects of pubescence and waxes on the reflectance of leaves in the ultraviolet and photosynthetic wavebands: A comparison of a range of species. Plant, Cell and Environment, 2002, 25, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    Petracek P D, Bukovac M J. Rheological properties of enzymatically isolated tomato fruit cuticle. Plant Physiology, 1995, 109, 675–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    Fürstner R, Barthlott W, Neinhuis C, Walzel P. Wetting and self-cleaning properties of artificial superhydrophobic surfaces. Langmuir, 2005, 21, 956–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    Patankar N A. Mimicking the lotus effect: influence of double roughness structures and slender pillars. Langmuir, 2004, 20, 8209–8213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    Bhushan B, Jung Y C. Natural and biomimetic artificial surfaces for superhydrophobicity, self-cleaning, low adhesion, and drag reduction. Progress in Materials Science. 2011, 56, 1–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    Gorb E, Haas K, Henrich A, Enders S, Barbakadze N, Gorb S. Composite structure of the crystalline epicuticular wax layer of the slippery zone in the pitchers of the carnivorous plant Nepenthes alata and its effect on insect attachment. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2005, 208, 4651–4662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    Bohn H F, Federle W. Insect aquaplaning: Nepenthes pitcher plants capture prey with the peristome, a fully wettable water-lubricated anisotropic surface. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2004, 101, 14138–14143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    Reicosky D A, Hanover J W. Physiological effects of surface waxes: I. Light reflectance for glaucous and nonglaucous Picea pungens. Plant Physiology, 1978, 62, 101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    Riedel M, Eichner A, Jetter R. Slippery surfaces of carnivorous plants: Composition of epicuticular wax crystals in Nepenthes alata Blanco pitchers. Planta, 2003, 218, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. [46]
    Gniwotta F, Vogg G, Gartmann V, Carver T L W, Riederer M, Jetter R. What do microbes encounter at the plant surface? Chemical composition of pea leaf cuticular waxes. Plant Physiology, 2005, 139, 519–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    Holloway P J, Surface factors affecting the wetting of leaves. Pesticide Science, 1970, 1, 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    Barthlott W, Theisen I. Epicuticular wax ultrastructure and classification of Ranunculiflorae. Systematics and Evolution of the Ranunculiflorae, 1995, 9, 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. [49]
    Jetter R, Schäffer S, Riederer M. Plant, Leaf cuticular waxes are arranged in chemically and mechanically distinct layers: Evidence from Prunus laurocerasus L. Cell and Environment, 2000, 23, 619–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. [50]
    Kunst L, Samuels A L. Biosynthesis and secretion of plant cuticular wax. Progress Lipid Research. 2003, 42, 51–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. [51]
    Bhushan B, Jung Y C, Koch K, Micro-, nano- and hierarchical structures for superhydrophobicity, self-cleaning and low adhesion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 2009, 367, 1631–1672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. [52]
    Oros D, Simoneit B. Identification and emission factors of molecular tracers in organic aerosols from biomass burning Part 1. Temperate climate conifers. Applied Geochemistry, 2001, 16, 1513–1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. [53]
    Choi Y H, Kim J, Noh M J, Park E M, Yoo K P. Extraction of epicuticular wax and nonacosan-10-OL from Ephedra herb utilizing supercritical carbon dioxide. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 1996, 13, 216–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. [54]
    Riedel M, Eichner A, Meimberg H, Jetter R. Chemical composition of epicuticular wax crystals on the slippery zone in pitchers of five Nepenthes species and hybrids. Planta, 2007, 225, 1517–1534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. [55]
    Wissemann V, Riedel M, Riederer M. Matroclinal inheritance of cuticular waxes in reciprocal hybrids of Rosa species, sect. Caninae (Rosaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution, 2007, 263, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. [56]
    Buschhaus C, Herz H, Jetter R. Chemical composition of the epicuticular and intracuticular wax layers on adaxial sides of Rosa canina leaves. Annals of Botany, 2007, 100, 1557–1564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. [57]
    Taylor P. The wetting of leaf surfaces. Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science, 2011, 16, 326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. [58]
    Chachalis D, Reddy K N, Elmore C D. Characterization of leaf surface, wax composition, and control of redvine and trumpetcreeper with glyphosate. Weed Science, 2001, 49, 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. [59]
    Barthlott W, Neinhuis C. Purity of the sacred lotus, or escape from contamination in biological surfaces. Planta, 1997, 202, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. [60]
    Mongeot F B de, Chiappe D, Gagliardi F, Toma A, Felici R, Garibbo A, Boragno C. Wetting process in superhydrophobic disordered surfaces. Soft Matter, 2010, 6, 1409–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. [61]
    Jonas U, Vamvakaki M. From Fluidic self-assembly to hierarchical structures-superhydrophobic flexible interfaces. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2010, 49, 4542–4543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. [62]
    Su Y W, Ji B H, Zhang K, Gao H J, Huang Y G, Wang K H, Nano to micro structural hierarchy is crucial for stable superhydrophobic and water-repellent surfaces. Langmuir, 2010, 26, 4984–4989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. [63]
    Bhushan B. Nanotribology and nanomechanics. Wear, 2005, 259, 1507–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. [64]
    Zhang X, Shi F, Niu J, Jiang Y G, Wang Z Q. Superhydrophobic surfaces: From structural control to functional application. Journal of Materials Chemistry, 2008, 18, 621–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. [65]
    YanY Y, Gao N, Barthlott W. Mimicking natural superhydrophobic surfaces and grasping the wetting process: A review on recent progress in preparing superhydrophobic surfaces. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 2011, 169, 80–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. [66]
    Zhang H, Li W, Cui D. Y, Hu Z W, Xu L. Design of lotus-simulating surfaces: Thermodynamic analysis based on a new methodology. Colloids and Surfaces A: Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 2012, 413, 314–327.Google Scholar
  67. [67]
    Bhushan B, Nosonovsky M. The rose petal effect and the modes of superhydrophobicity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 2010, 368, 4713–4728.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. [68]
    Roach P, Shirtcliffe N J, Newton M. I. Progess in superhydrophobic surface development. Soft Matter, 2008, 4, 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. [69]
    Bhushan B, Jung Y C, Koch K. Hierarchically sculptured plant surfaces and superhydrophobicity. Langmuir, 2009, 25, 3240–3248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. [70]
    Kim H, Kim M H, Kim J. Wettability of dual-scaled surfaces fabricated by the combination of a conventional silicon wet-etching and a ZnO solution method. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, 2009, 19, 1–7.Google Scholar
  71. [71]
    Jeong H E, Kwak M K, Park C I, Suh K. Y. Wettability of nanoengineered dual-roughness surfaces fabricated by UV-assisted capillary force lithography. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2009, 339, 202–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. [72]
    Geoghegan M, Krausch G. Wetting at polymer surfaces and interfaces. Progress in Polymer Science, 2003, 28, 261–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. [73]
    Quéré D. Non-sticking drops. Reports on Progress in Physics, 2005, 68, 2495–2532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. [74]
    Nosonovsky M, Bhushan B. Biomimetic superhydrophobic surfaces: Multiscale approach. Nano Letters, 2007, 7, 2633–2637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. [75]
    Quéré D. Surface chemistry: Fakir droplets. Nature Materials, 2002, 1, 14–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. [76]
    Marmur A. Wetting on hydrophobic rough surfaces: To be heterogeneous or not to be? Langmuir, 2003, 19, 8343–8348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. [77]
    Bhushan B, Nosonovsky M, Jung Y C. Towards optimization of patterned superhydrophobic surfaces. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 2007, 4, 643–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. [78]
    Barbieri L, Wagner E, Hoffmann P. Water wetting transition parameters of perfluorinated substrates with periodically distributed flat-top microscale obstacles. Langmuir, 2007, 23, 1723–1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. [79]
    Lafuma A, Quéré D. Superhydrophobic states. Nature Materials, 2003, 2, 457–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. [80]
    He B, Patankar N A, Lee J. Multiple equilibrium droplet shapes and design criterion for rough hydrophobic surfaces. Langmuir, 2003, 19, 4999–5003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. [81]
    Jung Y C, Bhushan B. Dynamic effects of bouncing water droplets on superhydrophobic surfaces. Langmuir, 2008, 24, 6262–6269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. [82]
    Bhushan B, Her E K. Fabrication of superhydrophobic surfaces with high and low adhesion inspired from rose petal. Langmuir, 2010, 26, 8207–8217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. [83]
    Extrand C W. Model for contact angles and hysteresis on rough and ultraphobic surfaces. Langmuir, 2002, 18, 7991–7999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. [84]
    Patankar N A. Transition between superhydrophobic states on rough surfaces. Langmuir, 2004, 20, 7097–7102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. [85]
    Nosonovsky M, Bhushan B. Stochastic model for metastable wetting of roughness-induced superhydrophobic surfaces. Microsystem Technologies, 2006, 12, 231–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. [86]
    Nosonovsky M. Multiscale roughness and stability of superhydrophobic biomimetic interfaces. Langmuir, 2007, 23, 3157–3161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. [87]
    Shibuichi S, Onda T, Satoh N, Tsujii K. Super water-repellent surfaces resulting from fractal structure. Journal of Physics and Chemistry, 1996, 100, 19512–19517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. [88]
    Feng L, Li S H, Li Y S, Li H J, Zhang L J, Zhai J, Song Y L, Liu B Q, Jiang L, Zhu D B. Superhydrophobic surfaces: From natural to artificial. Advanced Materials, 2002, 14, 1857–1860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. [89]
    Guo Z G, Liu W M. Biomimic from the superhydrophobic plant leaves in nature: Binary structure and unitary structure. Plant Science, 2007, 172, 1103–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. [90]
    Hsu S H, Woan K, Sigmund W. Biologically inspired hairy structures for superhydrophobicity. Materials Science and Engineering R, 2011, 72, 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. [91]
    Gowri S, Almeida L, Amorim T, Carneiro N, Souto A P, Esteves M F. Polymer nanocomposites for multifunctional finishing of textiles-a review. Textile Research Journal, 2010, 80, 1290–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. [92]
    Nosonovsky M, Bhushan B. Superhydrophobic surfaces and emerging applications: non-adhesion, energy, green engineering. Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science, 2009, 14, 270–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. [93]
    Marmur A. Soft contact: Measurement and interpretation of contact angles. Soft Matter, 2006, 2, 12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. [94]
    Marmur A. The lotus effect: Superhydrophobicity and metastability. Langmuir, 2004, 20, 3517–3519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. [95]
    Nosonovsky M, Bhushan B. Multiscale friction mechanisms and hierarchical surfaces in nano-and bio-tribology. Materials Science and Engineering R, 2007, 58, 162–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. [96]
    Bhushan B, Jung Y C. Wetting, adhesion and friction of superhydrophobic and hydrophilic leaves and fabricated micro/nanopatterned surfaces. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 2008, 20, 225010.Google Scholar
  97. [97]
    Bhushan B, Koch K, Jung Y C, Nanostructures for superhydrophobicity and low adhesion. Soft Matter 2008, 4, 1799–1804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. [98]
    Sun M H, Luo C X, Xu L P, Ji H, Yuan Q O, Yu D P, Chen Y. Artificial lotus leaf by nanocasting. Langmuir, 2005, 21, 8978–8981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. [99]
    Solga A, Cerman Z, Striffler B F, Spaeth M, Barthlott W. The dream of staying clean: Lotus and biomimetic surfaces. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 2007, 2, 126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. [100]
    Seastedt T R, Hobbs R J, Suding K N. Management of novel ecosystems: Are novel approaches required? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2008, 6, 547–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. [101]
    Ming W, Wu D, Benthem R, With G. Superhydrophobic films from raspberry-like particles. Nano Letters, 2005, 5, 2298–2301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. [102]
    Höcker H. Plasma treatment of textile fibers. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 2002, 74, 423–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. [103]
    Nun E, Oles M, Schleich B. Lotus-effect-surfaces. Macromolecular Symposia, 2002, 187, 677–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. [104]
    Baumann M, Sakoske G, Poth L, Tünker G. Learning from the lotus flower-self-cleaning coatings on glass. In: Days GP, (ed). Proceedings of the 8th international glass conference, Tampere, Finland, 2013, 330–333.Google Scholar
  105. [105]
    Mukherjee S, Kumar S. Adsorptive uptakeof arsenic (V) from water by aquatic fern Salvinia natans. Journal of Water Supply: Research Technology, 2005, 54, 47–53.Google Scholar
  106. [106]
    Oliver J D.A review of the biology of giant salvinia. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 1993, 31, 227–231.Google Scholar
  107. [107]
    Room P M, Harley K L S, Forno I W, Sands D P. Successful biological control of the floating weed salvinia. Nature, 1981, 294, 78–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. [108]
    Barthlott W, Schimmel T, Wiersch S, Koch K, Brede M, Barczewski M, Walheim S, Weis A, Kaltenmaier A, Leder A, Bohn H F. The Salvinia paradox: Superhydrophobic surfaces with hydrophilic pins for air retention under water. Advanced Materials, 2010, 22, 2325–2328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. [109]
    Bernardino N R, Blickle V, Dietrich S. Wetting of surfaces covered by elastic hairs. Langmuir, 2010, 26, 7233–7241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. [110]
    Konrad W, Apeltauer C, Frauendiener J, Barthlott W, Roth-Nebelsick A. Applying methods from differential geometry to devise stable and persistent air layers attached to objects immersed in water. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2009, 6, 350–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. [111]
    Genzer J, Efimenko K.Recent developments in superhydrophobic surfaces and their relevance to marine fouling: a review. Biofouling, 2006, 22, 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. [112]
    Corbett J J, Koehler H W. Updated emissions from ocean shipping. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2003, 108, 4650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. [113]
    Eyring V, Köhler H W, Aardenne J, Lauer A. Emissions from international shipping: 1. The last 50 years. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2005, 110, 17305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. [114]
    Tokunaga J, Kumada M, Sugiyama Y, Watanabe N, Chong Y B, Matsubara N. Method of Forming Air Film on Submerged Surface of Submerged Part-Carrying Structure, and Film Structure on Submerged Surface. 1990, WO 0606 940 Al, 1–14.Google Scholar
  115. [115]
    Fukuda K, Tokunaga J, Nobunaga T, Nakatani T, Iwasaki T, Kunitake Y. Frictional drag reduction with air lubricant over a superwater-repellentsurface. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 2001, 5, 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. [116]
    Parente J, Fonseca P, Henriques V, Campos A. Strategies for improving fuel efficiency in the Portuguese trawl fishery. Fisheries Research, 2008, 93, 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. [117]
    Lee C, Kim C J. Maximizing the giant liquid slip on superhydrophobic microstructures by nanostructuring their sidewalls. Langmuir, 2009, 25, 12812–12818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. [118]
    Jung Y C, Bhushan B. Biomimetic structures for fluid drag reduction in laminar and turbulent flows. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 2010, 22, 035104.Google Scholar
  119. [119]
    Otten A, Herminghaus S.How plants keep dry: A physicist’s point of view. Langmuir, 2004, 20, 2405–2408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. [120]
    Mock U, Förster R, Menz W, Rühe J. Towards ultrahydrophobic surfaces: A biomimetic approach. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 2005, 17, S639–S648.Google Scholar
  121. [121]
    Cerman Z, Striffler B. F, Barthlott W. Dry in the water: The superhydrophobic water fern Salvinia-a model for biomimetic surfaces. Functional Surfaces in Biology, 2009, 1, 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. [122]
    Espinoza-Quinones F R, Zacarlein C E, Palacio S M, Obregon C L, Zenatti D C, Galante R M, Rossi N, Rossi F L, Pereira R A, Welter R A, Rizzulto M A. Removal of heavy metal from polluted river water using aquatic macrophytes Salvinia sp. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology, 2005, 35, 744–746.Google Scholar
  123. [123]
    Molisani M M, Rocha R, Machado W, Barreto R C, Lacerda L D. Mercury contents in aquatic macrophytes from two reservoirs in the Paraíba do Sul: Guandú river system, SE Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 2006, 66, 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. [124]
    Suñe N, Sánchez G, Caffaratti S, Maine M A. Cadmium and chromium removal kinetics from solution by two aquatic macrophytes. Environmental Pollution, 2007, 145, 467–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. [125]
    Olguín E J, Sánchez-Galván G, Pérez-Pérez T, Pérez-Orozco A. Surface adsorption, intracellular accumulation and compartmentalization of Pb (II) in batch-operated lagoons with Salvinia minima as affected by environmental conditions, EDTA and nutrients. Journal of Industrial and Microbiology Biotechnology, 2005, 32, 577–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. [126]
    Dhir B. Salvinia: An aquatic fern with potential use in phytoremediation. Environment & We: An International Journal of Science & Technology. 2009, 4, 23–27.Google Scholar
  127. [127]
    Sánchez-Galván G, Monroy O, Gómez G, Olguín E J. Assessment of the hyperaccumulating lead capacity of Salvinia minima using bioadsorption and intracellular accumulation factors. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 2008, 194, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. [128]
    Jacobson M E, Chiang S Y, Gueriguian L, Westholm L R, Pierson J, Zhu G, Saunders F M. Transformation kinetics of trinitrotoluene conversion in aquatic plants. In: McCutcheon S C, Schnoor J L. Phytoremediation: Transformation and Control of Contaminants, John-Wiley and Sons Inc, USA, 2004.Google Scholar
  129. [129]
    Olguín E J, Sánchez-Galván G, Pérez-Pérez P. Assessment of the phytoremediation potential of Salvinia minima Baker compared to Spirodela polyrrhiza in high-strength organic wastewater. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 2007, 181, 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. [130]
    Hoffmann T, Kutter C, Santamaria J M. Capacity of Salvinia minima Baker to tolerate and accumulate As and Pb. Engineering Life Science, 2004, 4, 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. [131]
    Olguín J, Hernandez E. Ramos I. The effect of both different light conditions and the PH value on the capacity of Salvinia minimia Baker for removing cadmium, lead and chromium. Acta Biotechnology, 2002, 22, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. [132]
    Maine M A, Sune N, Lagger S C. Chromium bioaccumulation: Comparison of the capacity of two free-floating macrophytes. Water Research, 2004, 38, 1494–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. [133]
    Banerjee G, Sarker S. The role of Salvinia rotundifolia in scavenging aquatic Pb (II) pollution: A case study. Bioprocess Engineering, 1997, 17, 295–300.Google Scholar
  134. [134]
    Sen A K, Mondal N G. Removal and uptake of copper by Salvinia natans from wastewater. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 1990, 49, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. [135]
    Sen A K, Bhattacharya M. Studies of uptake and toxic effects of Ni on Salvinia natans. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 1994, 78, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. [136]
    Wang D, Liu Y, Liu X., Zhou F, Liu W, Xue Q. Towards a tunable and switchable water adhesion on a TiO2 nanotube film with patterned wettability. Chemical Communications, 2009, 45, 7018–7020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. [137]
    Cheng Z, Feng L, Jiang L, Tunable adhesive superhydrophobic surfaces for superparamagnetic microdroplets. Advanced Functional Materials, 2008, 18, 3219–3225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. [138]
    Bormashenko E, Stein T, Whyman G, Bormashenko Y, Pogreb R, Wetting properties of the multiscaled nanostructured polymer and metallic superhydrophobic surfaces. Langmuir, 2006, 22, 9982–9985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. [139]
    Gennes P G, Brochard-Wyart F, Quéré D. Capillarity and Wetting Phenomena, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2003.MATHGoogle Scholar
  140. [140]
    Feng L, Zhang Y, Xi J, Zhu Y, Wang N, Xia F, Jiang L. Petal effect: a superhydrophobic state with high adhesive force. Langmuir 2008, 24, 4114–4119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. [141]
    Hong X, Gao X F, Jiang L. Application of superhydrophobic surface with high adhesive force in no lost transport of superparamagnetic microdroplet. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2007, 129, 1478–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. [142]
    Feng L, Zhang Y N, Cao Y Z, Ye X. X, Jiang L. The effect of surface microstructures and surface compositions on the wettabilities of flower petals. Soft Matter, 2011, 7, 2977–2980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. [143]
    Nosonovsky M, Bhushan B. Biologically Inspired Surfaces: Broadening the Scope of Roughness. Advanced Functional Materials, 2008, 18, 843–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. [144]
    JeongH E, Lee S H, Kim J K, Suh K. Y. Nanoengineered multiscale hierarchical structures with tailored wetting properties. Langmuir, 2006, 22, 1640–1645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. [145]
    Bormashenko E, Pogreb R, Stein T, Whyman G, Erlich M, Musin A, Machavariani V, Aurbach D. Characterization of rough surfaces with vibrated drops. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 2008, 27, 4056–4061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. [146]
    He B, Lee J, Patankar N A. Contact angle hysteresis on rough hydrophobic surfaces. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 2004, 248, 101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. [147]
    Xi J M, Jiang L. Biomimic superhydrophobic surface with high adhesive forces. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2008, 47, 6354–6357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. [148]
    Extrand C W. Contact angles and their hysteresis as a measure of liquid-solid adhesion. Langmuir, 2004, 20, 4017–4021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. [149]
    Yoshimitsu Z, Nakajima A, Watanabe T, Hashimoto K. Contact angles and their hysteresis as a measure of liquid-solid adhesion. Langmuir, 2002, 18, 5818–5822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. [150]
    Quéré D, Azzopardi M J, Delattre L. Drops at rest on a tilted plane. Langmuir, 1998, 14, 2213–2216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. [151]
    McCarthy T J, Öner D. Ultrahydrophobic surfaces. Effects of topography length scales on wettability. Langmuir, 2000, 16, 7777–7782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. [152]
    Nosonovsky M, Bhushan B. Multiscale Dissipative Mechanisms and Hierarchical Surfaces: Friction, Superhydrophobicity, and Biomimetics, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 2008.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. [153]
    Bormashenko E, Stein T, Pogreb R, Aurbach D. “Petal effect” on surfaces based on lycopodium: high-stick surfaces demonstrating high apparent contact angles. Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 2009, 113, 5568–5572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. [154]
    Jin M, Feng X, Feng L, Sun T, Zhai J, Li T, Jiang L. Superhydrophobic aligned polystyrene nanotube films with high adhesive force. Advanced Materials, 2005, 17, 1977–1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. [155]
    Guo Z G, Liu W M. Sticky superhydrophobic surface. Applied Physics Letters, 2007, 90, 223111–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. [156]
    Balu B, Breedveld V, Hess D W. Fabrication of “roll-off” and “sticky” superhydrophobic cellulose surfaces via plasma processing. Langmuir, 2008, 24, 4785–4790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. [157]
    Lim H S, Kwak D, Lee D Y, Lee S G, Cho K. UV-driven reversible switching of a roselike vanadium oxide film between superhydrophobicity and superhydrophilicity. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2007, 129, 4128–4129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. [158]
    Das S N, Choi J H, Kar J P, Myoung J M. Tunable and reversible surface wettability transition of vertically aligned ZnO nanorod arrays. Applied Surface Science, 2009, 255, 7319–7322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. [159]
    Verplanck N, Coffinier Y, Thomy V, Boukherroub R. Wettabilityswitching techniques on superhydrophobic surfaces. Nanoscale Research Letters, 2007, 2, 577–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. [160]
    Zhang J L, Han Y H. A topography/chemical composition gradient polystyrene surface:? Toward the investigation of the relationship between surface wettability and surface structure and chemical composition. Langmuir, 2008, 24, 796–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. [161]
    Yu X, Wang Z, Jiang Y, Shi F, Zhang X. Reversible ph-responsive surface: From superhydrophobicity to superhydrophilicity. Advanced Materials, 2005, 17, 1289–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. [162]
    Lai Y, Lin C, Huang J, Zhuang H, Sun L, Nguyen T. Markedly controllable adhesion of superhydrophobic spongelike nanostructure TiO2 films. Langmuir, 2008, 24, 3867–3873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. [163]
    Wang D A, Liu Y, Liu X J, Zhou F, Liu W M. Towards a tunable and switchable water adhesion on a TiO2 nanotube film with patterned wettability. Chemical Communications, 2009, 45, 7018–7020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. [164]
    Zhu X T, Zhang Z Z, Men X H, Yang J, Xu X H. Fabrication of an intelligent superhydrophobic surface based on zno nanorod arrays with switchable adhesionproperty. Applied Surface Science, 2010, 256, 7619–7622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. [165]
    Uchida K, Nishikawa N, Izumi N, Yamazoe S, Mayama H, Kojima Y, Yokojima S, Nakamura S, Tsujii K, Irie M. Phototunable diarylethene microcrystalline surfaces: Lotus and petal effects upon wetting. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2010, 49, 5942–5944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. [166]
    Dawood M K, Zheng H, Liew T H. Mimicking both petal and lotus effects on a single silicon substrate by tuning the wettability of nanostructured surfaces. Langmuir, 2011, 27, 4126–4133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. [167]
    Duan H, Berggren K K. Directed self-assembly at the 10 nm scale by using capillary force-induced nanocohesion. Nano Letters, 2010, 10, 3710–3716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. [168]
    Zhao Y P, Fan J G. Spreading of a water droplet on a vertically aligned Si nanorod array surface. Applied Physics Letters, 2007, 88, 103123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. [169]
    Pirrung M C. How to make a DNA chip? Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2002, 41, 1276–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. [170]
    Ito Y, Nogawa M. Preparation of a protein micro-array using a photo-reactive polymer for a cell-adhesion assay. Biomaterials, 2003, 24, 3021–3024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. [171]
    Orner B P, Derda R, Lewis R L, Thomson J A, Kiessling L L. Arrays for the Combinatorial Exploration of Cell Adhesion. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2004, 126, 10808–10809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. [172]
    Rane T D, Puleo C M, Liu K J, Zhang Y, Lee A P, Wang T H. Counting single molecules in subnanolitre droplets. Lab on a Chip, 2010, 10, 161–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. [173]
    Gibson D G, Glass J I, Lartigue C, Noskov V N, Chuang R Y, Algire M A, Benders G A, Montague M G, Ma L, Moodie M M, Merryman C, Vashee S, Krishnakumar R, Assad-Garcia N, Andrews-Pfannkoch C, Denisova E A, Young L, Qi Z-Q, Segall-Shapiro T H, Calvey C H, Parmar P P, Huthinson III C A, Smith H O, Venter J C. Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science, 2010, 329, 52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Jilin University 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for the Green Preparation and Application of Functional Materials and Hubei Collaborative Innovation Centre for Advanced Organic Chemical MaterialsHubei UniversityWuhanP. R. China
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Solid LubricationLanzhou Institute of Chemical PhysicsLanzhouP. R. China

Personalised recommendations