Advertisement

Influence of Topography on Adhesion and Bioadhesion

  • Donglee Shin
  • J. Carson MeredithEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Polymer Science book series (POLYMER, volume 284)

Abstract

Nature, through evolution, has developed many different structured adhesive systems to create strong and reliable adhesion on various substrates, including those with rough or smooth surfaces under dry and wet conditions. However, the details of the adhesive interactions of structured or roughened surfaces are just beginning to be resolved. This chapter examines the physical principles of dry and wet adhesion of structured surfaces from simple to complex geometries. A particular emphasis is placed on bioadhesive systems that achieve an impressive level of control over adhesion via fascinating structural features such as fibrils and spines. The influence of surface morphology and roughness on adhesion is also covered. Recent studies show that the attachment abilities of bioadhesive systems are dramatically reduced below a critical roughness. Based on this and other principles borrowed from nature, strategies can be pursued to create anti-adhesive surfaces via manipulating the surface topography of the substrate.

Keywords

Adhesion Bioadhesion Contact mechanics Surface morphology Surface topography 

List of Abbreviations

A

Hamaker constant

a

Contact area

b

Slip length

C

Coefficient in the atom-atom pair potential

D

Separation distance

D0

Cutoff separation distance

Dw

Separation distance (wet adhesion models)

d

Interplanar separation

F

External loading force

FDMT

Pull-off force (DMT model)

FJKR

Pull-off force (JKR model)

Hw

Meniscus height

hl

Thickness of liquid film

K

Elastic modulus

k1

Proportionality factor (Rabinovich’s model)

la

Azimuthal radius

N

Total number of liquid bridges

p1, p2

Number of atoms in unit volume

p(z)

Peak height distribution function

R

Radius of sphere

Rc

Contact radius

RLS

Radius of sphere (Rumpf’s model, Rabinovich’s model)

Rp

Mean peak radius

RS

Radius of sphere (JKR model, DMT model)

Rw

Radius of sphere (wet adhesion models)

r

Radius of small hemispherical asperities (Rumpf’s, Rabinovich’s models)

rm

Meridional radius

rms

Root-mean-square

W12

Work of adhesion

x

Ratio between the contact radius and half of the cutoff separation distance

γ, γl

Surface tension

η

Viscosity of liquid

θ, θl

Contact angle

λ

Peak-to-peak distance

ϕ

Filling angle

Ω

Meniscus area

ΔP

Laplace pressure

f*

Correction factor to account for the effect of a partial slip boundary

References

  1. 1.
    Shirtcliffe NJ, McHale G, Atherton S, Newton MI (2010) An introduction to superhydrophobicity. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 161:124–138.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2009.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lv J, Song Y, Jiang L, Wang J (2014) Bioinspired strategies for anti-icing. ACS Nano 8:3152–3169.  https://doi.org/10.1021/nn406522nCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee A, Moon MW, Lim H et al (2012) Water harvest via dewing. Langmuir 28:10183–10191.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la3013987CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Park K-C, Kim P, Grinthal A et al (2016) Condensation on slippery asymmetric bumps. Nature 531:78–82.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16956CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gu ZZ, Uetsuka H, Takahashi K et al (2003) Structural color and the lotus effect. Angew Chem Int Ed 42:894–897.  https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.200390235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bechert DW, Bruse M, Hage W et al (1997) Experiments on drag-reducing surfaces and their optimization with an adjustable geometry. J Fluid Mech 338:59–87.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112096004673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geim AK, Dubonos SV, Grigorieva IV et al (2003) Microfabricated adhesive mimicking gecko foot-hair. Nat Mater 2:461–463.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat917CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hao P, Yao Z, Zhang X (2011) Study of dynamic hydrophobicity of micro-structured hydrophobic surfaces and lotus leaves. Sci China Phys Mech Astron 54:675–682.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-011-4269-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barthlott W, Neinhuis C (1997) Purity of the sacred lotus, or escape from contamination in biological surfaces. Planta 202:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004250050096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parker AR, Lawrence CR (2001) Water capture by a desert beetle. Nature 414:33–34.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35102108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parker AR, Townley HE (2007) Biomimetics of photonic nanostructures. Nat Nanotechnol 2:347–353.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2007.152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luo Y, Liu Y, Anderson J et al (2015) Improvement of water-repellent and hydrodynamic drag reduction properties on bioinspired surface and exploring sharkskin effect mechanism. Appl Phys A Mater Sci Process 120:369–377.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-015-9198-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Autumn K, Liang YA, Hsieh ST et al (2000) Adhesive force of a single gecko foot-hair. Nature 405:681–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Federle W, Barnes WJP, Baumgartner W et al (2006) Wet but not slippery: boundary friction in tree frog adhesive toe pads. J R Soc Interface 3:689–697.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2006.0135CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Varenberg M, Pugno NM, Gorb SN (2010) Spatulate structures in biological fibrillar adhesion. Soft Matter 6:3269.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c003207gCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spolenak R, Gorb S, Gao H, Arzt E (2005) Effects of contact shape on the scaling of biological attachments. Proc R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 461:305–319.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2004.1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dirks JH, Li M, Kabla A, Federle W (2012) In vivo dynamics of the internal fibrous structure in smooth adhesive pads of insects. Acta Biomater 8:2730–2736.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2012.04.008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lin H, Qu Z, Meredith JC (2016) Pressure sensitive microparticle adhesion through biomimicry of the pollen-stigma interaction. Soft Matter 12:2965–2975.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C5SM02845KCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Edlund AF, Swanson R, Preuss D (2004) Pollen and stigma structure and function: the role of diversity in pollination. Plant Cell 16:S84–S97.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.015800CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scholz I, Bückins M, Dolge L et al (2010) Slippery surfaces of pitcher plants: nepenthes wax crystals minimize insect attachment via microscopic surface roughness. J Exp Biol 213:1115–1125.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.035618CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bauer U, Federle W (2009) The insect-trapping rim of nepenthes pitchers: surface structure and function. Plant Signal Behav 4:1019–1023.  https://doi.org/10.4161/psb.4.11.9664CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim P, Wong TS, Alvarenga J et al (2012) Liquid-infused nanostructured surfaces with extreme anti-ice and anti-frost performance. ACS Nano 6:6569–6577.  https://doi.org/10.1021/nn302310qCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kreder MJ, Alvarenga J, Kim P, Aizenberg J (2016) Design of anti-icing surfaces: smooth, textured or slippery? Nat Rev Mater 1:15003.  https://doi.org/10.1038/natrevmats.2015.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Efimenko K, Finlay J, Callow ME et al (2009) Development and testing of hierarchically wrinkled coatings for marine antifouling. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 1:1031–1040.  https://doi.org/10.1021/am9000562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hamaker HC (1937) The London—van der Waals attraction between spherical particles. Physica 4:1058–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Butt H-J, Kappl M (2009) Normal capillary forces. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 146:48–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2008.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mehrotra VP, Sastry KVS (1980) Pendular bond strength between unequal-sized spherical particles. Powder Technol 25:203–214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-5910(80)87031-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gu Y, Li D (1999) The van der Waals interaction between a spherical particle and a cylinder. J Colloid Interface Sci 217:60–69.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jcis.1999.6349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hartmann U (1991) Van der Waals interactions between sharp probes and flat sample surfaces. Phys Rev B 43:2404–2407.  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.43.2404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tselishchev YG, Val’tsifer VA (2003) Influence of the type of contact between particles joined by a liquid bridge on the capillary cohesive forces. Colloid J 65:385–389.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024275327145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tadmor R (2001) The London-van der Waals interaction energy between objects of various geometries. J Phys Condens Matter 13:L195–L202.  https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/13/9/101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Majumder A, Sharma A, Ghatak A (2010) Bioinspired adhesion and adhesives: controlling adhesion by micro-nano structuring of soft surfaces. In: Chakraborty S (ed) Microfluid. Microfabr. Springer, New York, pp 283–307.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1543-6_7
  33. 33.
    Labonte D, Federle W (2015) Rate-dependence of “wet” biological adhesives and the function of the pad secretion in insects. Soft Matter 11:8661–8673.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C5SM01496DCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jagota A, Hui CY (2011) Adhesion, friction, and compliance of biomimetic and bioinspired structured interfaces. Mater Sci Eng R Rep 72:253–292.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mser.2011.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wohl CJ, Smith JG, Palmieri FL, Connell JW (2017) The physics of insect impact and residue expansion. Adv Polym Sci (in press)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wong T-S, Kang SH, Tang SKY et al (2011) Bioinspired self-repairing slippery surfaces with pressure-stable omniphobicity. Nature 477:443–447.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gorb SN (2008) Biological attachment devices: exploring nature’s diversity for biomimetics. Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci 366:1557–1574.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2007.2172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gorb SN (2011) Biological fibrillar adhesives: functional principles and biomimetic applications. In: Handb Adhes Technol, pp 1409–1436.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01169-6_54
  39. 39.
    Derks D, Lindner A, Creton C, Bonn D (2003) Cohesive failure of thin layers of soft model adhesives under tension. J Appl Phys 93:1557–1566.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1533095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Croll S (2002) DLVO theory applied to TiO2 pigments and other materials in latex paints. Prog Org Coat 44:131–146.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9440(01)00261-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lin L (2003) Mechanisms of pigment dispersion. Pigm Resin Technol 32:78–88.  https://doi.org/10.1108/03699420310464784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Leite FL, Bueno CC, Da Róz AL et al (2012) Theoretical models for surface forces and adhesion and their measurement using atomic force microscopy. Int J Mol Sci 13(10):12773–12856.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms131012773CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Israelachvili JN (2010) Intermolecular and surface forces, 3rd edn. Academic Press, Cambridge, p 710.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375182-9.10025-9
  44. 44.
    Hertz H (1896) Miscellaneous papers. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Johnson KL, Kendall K, Roberts AD (1971) Surface energy and the contact of elastic solids. Proc R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 324:301–313.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1971.0141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Grierson DS, Flater EE, Carpick RW (2005) Accounting for the JKR-DMT transition in adhesion and friction measurements with atomic force microscopy. J Adhes Sci Technol 19:291–311.  https://doi.org/10.1163/1568561054352685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kamperman M, Kroner E, Del Campo A et al (2010) Functional adhesive surfaces with “Gecko” effect: the concept of contact splitting. Adv Eng Mater 12:335–348.  https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.201000104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Derjaguin BV, Muller VM, Toporov YP (1975) Effect of contact deformations on the adhesion of particles. J Colloid Interface Sci 53:314–326.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9797(75)90018-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Götzinger M, Peukert W (2004) Particle adhesion force distributions on rough surfaces. Langmuir 20:5298–5303.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la049914fCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rabinovich YI, Adler JJ, Ata A et al (2000) Adhesion between nanoscale rough surfaces. J Colloid Interface Sci 232:10–16.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jcis.2000.7167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fuller KNG, Tabor D (1975) The effect of surface roughness on the adhesion of elastic solids. Proc R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 345:327–342.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1975.0138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Persson BNJ, Tosatti E (2001) The effect of surface roughness on the adhesion of elastic solids. J Chem Phys 115:5597–5610.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1398300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rumpf H (1974) Die Wissenschaft des agglomerierens. Chem Ing Tech 46:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.330460102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gao H, Yao H (2004) Shape insensitive optimal adhesion of nanoscale fibrillar structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:7851–7856.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0400757101CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Eichenlaub S, Kumar G, Beaudoin S (2006) A modeling approach to describe the adhesion of rough, asymmetric particles to surfaces. J Colloid Interface Sci 299:656–664.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2006.03.010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Prokopovich P, Starov V (2011) Adhesion models: from single to multiple asperity contacts. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 168:210–222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2011.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yu J, Chary S, Das S et al (2012) Friction and adhesion of gecko-inspired PDMS flaps on rough surfaces. Langmuir 28:11527–11534.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la301783qCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Cai S, Bhushan B (2007) Meniscus and viscous forces during normal separation of liquid-mediated contacts. Nanotechnology 18:465704.  https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/18/46/465704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Dirks JH, Federle W (2011) Fluid-based adhesion in insects – principles and challenges. Soft Matter 7:11047.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c1sm06269gCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Dirks JH (2014) Physical principles of fluid-mediated insect attachment-shouldn’t insects slip? Beilstein J Nanotechnol 5:1160–1166.  https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.5.127CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Orr FM, Scriven LE, Rivas AP (1975) Pendular rings between solids: meniscus properties and capillary force. J Fluid Mech 67:723.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112075000572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Matthewson MJ (1988) Adhesion of spheres by thin liquid films. Philos Mag A 57:207–216.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01418618808204510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ata A, Rabinovich Y, Singh R (2002) Role of surface roughness in capillary adhesion. J Adhes Sci Technol 4243:37–41.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156856102760067145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Willett CD, Adams MJ, Johnson SA, Seville JPK (2000) Capillary bridges between two spherical bodies. Langmuir 16:9396–9405.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la000657yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rabinovich YI, Esayanur MS, Moudgil BM (2005) Capillary forces between two spheres with a fixed volume liquid bridge: theory and experiment. Langmuir 21:10992–10997.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la0517639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bhushan B (2003) Adhesion and stiction: mechanisms, measurement techniques, and methods for reduction. J Vac Sci Technol B Microelectron Nanom Struct 21:2262.  https://doi.org/10.1116/1.1627336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lee T, Charrault E, Neto C (2014) Interfacial slip on rough, patterned and soft surfaces: a review of experiments and simulations. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 210:21–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2014.02.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mongruel A, Chastel T, Asmolov ES, Vinogradova OI (2013) Effective hydrodynamic boundary conditions for microtextured surfaces. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys 87:1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.87.011002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kunert C, Harting J, Vinogradova OI (2010) Random-roughness hydrodynamic boundary conditions. Phys Rev Lett 105:2–5.  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.016001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Maali A, Pan Y, Bhushan B, Charlaix E (2012) Hydrodynamic drag-force measurement and slip length on microstructured surfaces. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys 85:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.85.066310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Vinogradova OI (1995) Drainage of a thin liquid film confined between hydrophobic surfaces. Langmuir 11:2213–2220.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la00006a059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Pilkington GA, Gupta R, Fréchette J (2016) Scaling hydrodynamic boundary conditions of microstructured surfaces in the thin channel limit. Langmuir 32:2360–2368.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.5b04134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Nizkaya TV, Dubov AL, Mourran A, Vinogradova OI (2016) Probing effective slippage on superhydrophobic surfaces by atomic force microscopy. Soft Matter 12:6910–6917.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C6SM01074ACrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Creton C, Gorb SN (2007) Sticky feet: from animals to materials. MRS Bull 32:466–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Pacini E, Hesse M (2005) Pollenkitt - its composition, forms and functions. Flora Morphol Distrib Funct Ecol Plants 200:399–415.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2005.02.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lin H, Gomez I, Meredith JC (2013) Pollenkitt wetting mechanism enables species-specific tunable pollen adhesion. Langmuir 29:3012–3023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Huber G, Gorb SN, Hosoda N et al (2007) Influence of surface roughness on gecko adhesion. Acta Biomater 3:607–610.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2007.01.007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Lake GJ, Thomas AG (1967) The strength of highly elastic materials. Proc R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 300:108–119.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1967.0160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Arzt E, Gorb S, Spolenak R (2003) From micro to nano contacts in biological attachment devices. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:10603–10606.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1534701100CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Peattie AM, Full RJ (2007) Phylogenetic analysis of the scaling of wet and dry biological fibrillar adhesives. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:18595–18600.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707591104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Labonte D, Clemente CJ, Dittrich A et al (2016) Extreme positive allometry of animal adhesive pads and the size limits of adhesion-based climbing. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:201519459.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519459113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Autumn K, Sitti M, Liang YA et al (2002) Evidence for van der Waals adhesion in gecko setae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:12252–12256.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.192252799CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Bhushan B, Sayer RA (2007) Gecko feet: natural attachment systems for smart adhesion. In: Appl Scanning Probe Methods VII, pp 41–76.  https://doi.org/10.1007/11785705
  84. 84.
    Gao H, Wang X, Yao H et al (2005) Mechanics of hierarchical adhesion structures of geckos. Mech Mater 37:275–285.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2004.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Bullock JMR, Drechsler P, Federle W (2008) Comparison of smooth and hairy attachment pads in insects: friction, adhesion and mechanisms for direction-dependence. J Exp Biol 211:3333–3343.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.020941CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Autumn K, Majidi C, Groff RE et al (2006) Effective elastic modulus of isolated gecko setal arrays. J Exp Biol 209:3558–3568.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Tian Y, Pesika N, Zeng H et al (2006) Adhesion and friction in gecko toe attachment and detachment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:19320–19325.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0608841103CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Drechsler P, Federle W (2006) Biomechanics of smooth adhesive pads in insects: influence of tarsal secretion on attachment performance. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 192:1213–1222.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-006-0150-5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Gorb EV, Hosoda N, Miksch C, Gorb SN (2010) Slippery pores: anti-adhesive effect of nanoporous substrates on the beetle attachment system. J R Soc Interface 7:1571–1579.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2010.0081CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    De Souza EJ, Brinkmann M, Mohrdieck C, Arzt E (2008) Enhancement of capillary forces by multiple liquid bridges. Langmuir 24:8813–8820.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la8005376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Su Y, Ji B, Huang Y, Hwang K (2007) Effects of contact shape on biological wet adhesion. J Mater Sci 42:8885–8893.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-007-1759-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Gorb S, Varenberg M (2007) Mushroom-shaped geometry of contact elements in biological adhesive systems. J Adhes Sci Technol 21:1175–1183.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156856107782328317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Barnes WJP (2007) Functional morphology and design constraints of smooth adhesive pads. MRS Bull 32:479–485.  https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs2007.81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Barnes WJP, Goodwyn PJP, Nokhbatolfoghahai M, Gorb SN (2011) Elastic modulus of tree frog adhesive toe pads. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 197:969–978.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-011-0658-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Barnes WJP, Oines C, Smith JM (2006) Whole animal measurements of shear and adhesive forces in adult tree frogs: insights into underlying mechanisms of adhesion obtained from studying the effects of size and scale. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 192:1179–1191.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-006-0146-1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Scholz I, Barnes WJP, Smith JM, Baumgartner W (2009) Ultrastructure and physical properties of an adhesive surface, the toe pad epithelium of the tree frog, Litoria Caerulea white. J Exp Biol 212:155–162.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.019232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Iturri J, Xue L, Kappl M et al (2015) Torrent frog-inspired adhesives: attachment to flooded surfaces. Adv Funct Mater 25:1499–1505.  https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201403751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Endlein T, Barnes WJP, Samuel DS et al (2013) Sticking under wet conditions: the remarkable attachment abilities of the torrent frog, Staurois Guttatus. PLoS One 8(9):e73810.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073810CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Dirks J-H, Clemente CJ, Federle W (2010) Insect tricks: two-phasic foot pad secretion prevents slipping. J R Soc Interface 7:587–593.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2009.0308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Thio BJR, Lee JH, Meredith JC (2009) Characterization of ragweed pollen adhesion to polyamides and polystyrene using atomic force microscopy. Environ Sci Technol 43:4308–4313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Lin H, Lizarraga L, Bottomley LA, Meredith JC (2015) Effect of water absorption on pollen adhesion. J Colloid Interface Sci 442:133–139.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2014.11.065CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Zinkl GM, Zwiebel BI, Grier DG, Preuss D (1999) Pollen-stigma adhesion in Arabidopsis: a species-specific interaction mediated by lipophilic molecules in the pollen exine. Development 126:5431–5440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Luu DT, Passelègue E, Dumas C, Heizmann P (1998) Pollen-stigma capture is not species discriminant within the Brassicaceae Family. C R Acad Sci III 321:747–755.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0764-4469(98)80015-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Cho WK, Ankrum JA, Guo D et al (2012) Microstructured barbs on the north American porcupine quill enable easy tissue penetration and difficult removal. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:21289–21294.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1216441109CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Ling J, Jiang L, Chen K et al (2016) Insertion and pull behavior of worker honeybee stinger. J Bionic Eng 13:303–311.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1672-6529(16)60303-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Zhao Z-L, Zhao H-P, Ma G-J et al (2015) Structures, properties, and functions of the stings of honey bees and paper wasps: a comparative study. Biol Open 4:921–928.  https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.012195CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Yang SY, O’Cearbhaill ED, Sisk GC et al (2013) A bioinspired swellable microneedle adhesive for mechanical interlocking with tissue. Nat Commun 4:1702.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2715CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Song Y, Dai Z, Wang Z et al (2016) The synergy between the insect-inspired claws and adhesive pads increases the attachment ability on various rough surfaces. Sci Rep 6:26219.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26219CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Wolff JO, Gorb SN (2012) Surface roughness effects on attachment ability of the spider Philodromus Dispar (Araneae, Philodromidae). J Exp Biol 215:179–184.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.061507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Wang L, Johannesson CM, Zhou Q (2015) Effect of surface roughness on attachment ability of locust Locusta migratoria manilensis. Wear 332:694–701.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2015.02.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Bullock JMR, Federle W (2011) The effect of surface roughness on claw and adhesive hair performance in the dock beetle Gastrophysa viridula. Insect Sci 18:298–304.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7917.2010.01369.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Peressadko AG, Gorb SN (2004) Surface profile and friction force generated by insects. In: First Int Ind Conf Bionik 2004, pp 257–261Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Prüm B, Florian Bohn H, Seidel R et al (2013) Plant surfaces with cuticular folds and their replicas: influence of microstructuring and surface chemistry on the attachment of a leaf beetle. Acta Biomater 9:6360–6368.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2013.01.030CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Gaume L, Perret P, Gorb E et al (2004) How do plant waxes cause flies to slide? Experimental tests of wax-based trapping mechanisms in three pitfall carnivorous plants. Arthropod Struct Dev 33:103–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asd.2003.11.005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Gorb E, Haas K, Henrich A et al (2005) 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. J Exp Biol 208:4651–4662.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.01939CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Gorb EV, Purtov J, Gorb SN (2014) Adhesion force measurements on the two wax layers of the waxy zone in Nepenthes alata pitchers. Sci Rep 4:5154.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep05154CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Gorb EV, Baum MJ, Gorb SN (2013) Development and regeneration ability of the wax coverage in Nepenthes alata pitchers: a cryo-SEM approach. Sci Rep 3:3078.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03078CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Eichler-Volf A, Kovalev A, Wedeking T et al (2016) Bioinspired monolithic polymer microsphere arrays as generically anti-adhesive surfaces. Bioinspir Biomim 11:25002.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-3190/11/2/025002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Varanasi KK, Deng T, Smith JD et al (2010) Frost formation and ice adhesion on superhydrophobic surfaces. Appl Phys Lett 97:234102.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3524513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Schutzius TM, Jung S, Maitra T et al (2015) Physics of icing and rational design of surfaces with extraordinary icephobicity. Langmuir 31:4807–4821.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la502586aCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Wohl CJ, Smith JG, Penner RK et al (2013) Evaluation of commercially available materials to mitigate insect residue adhesion on wing leading edge surfaces. Prog Org Coat 76:42–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.porgcoat.2012.08.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Krishnan KG, Milionis A, Loth E et al (2017) Influence of hydrophobic and superhydrophobic surfaces on reducing aerodynamic insect residues. Appl Surf Sci 392:723–731.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2016.09.096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Carman ML, Estes TG, Feinberg AW et al (2006) Engineered antifouling microtopographies - correlating wettability with cell attachment. Biofouling 22:11–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08927010500484854CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Genzer J, Efimenko K (2006) Recent developments in superhydrophobic surfaces and their relevance to marine fouling: a review. Biofouling 22:339–360.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08927010600980223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Scardino AJ, de Nys R (2011) Mini review: biomimetic models and bioinspired surfaces for fouling control. Biofouling 27:73–86.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2010.536837CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Magin CM, Cooper SP, Brennan AB (2010) Non-toxic antifouling strategies. Mater Today 13:36–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-7021(10)70058-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Borodich FM, Gorb EV, Gorb SN (2010) Fracture behaviour of plant epicuticular wax crystals and its role in preventing insect attachment: a theoretical approach. Appl Phys A Mater Sci Process 100:63–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-010-5794-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Edwards JS, Tarkanian M (1970) The adhesive pads of Heteroptera: a re-examination. Proc R Entomol Soc Lond A Gen Entomol 45:1–5Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Bauer U, Federle W, Seidel H et al (2015) How to catch more prey with less effective traps: explaining the evolution of temporarily inactive traps in carnivorous pitcher plants. Proc Biol Sci 282:20142675.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2675CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Bauer U, Bohn HF, Federle W (2008) Harmless nectar source or deadly trap: nepenthes pitchers are activated by rain, condensation and nectar. Proc Biol Sci 275:259–265.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Bohn HF, Federle W (2004) Insect aquaplaning: nepenthes pitcher plants capture prey with the peristome, a fully wettable water-lubricated anisotropic surface. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:14138–14143.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0405885101CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Epstein AK, Wong T-S, Belisle RA et al (2012) Liquid-infused structured surfaces with exceptional anti-biofouling performance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:13182–13187.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201973109CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Darmanin T, Guittard F (2013) Recent advances in the potential applications of bioinspired superhydrophobic materials. R Soc Chem 0:1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C4TA02071ECrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Sun X, Damle VG, Liu S, Rykaczewski K (2015) Bioinspired stimuli-responsive and antifreeze-secreting anti-icing coatings. Adv Mater Interfaces 2:25–27.  https://doi.org/10.1002/admi.201400479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Bhushan B (2012) Bioinspired structured surfaces. Langmuir 28:1698–1714.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la2043729CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Ivanova EP, Hasan J, Webb HK et al (2013) Bactericidal activity of black silicon. Nat Commun 4:2838.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3838CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, Renewable Biomaterials Institute, Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations