Biological materials have evolved over millions of years. In the structural studies of biological materials, it is observed that at the mesoscale (~100 nm to few μm), the mineral crystals are preferentially aligned along the length of the organic-phase polypeptide molecules in a hierarchical (e.g., staggered or Bouligand pattern) arrangement. Multicomponent hierarchical structure of biomaterials results in the organic–inorganic interfaces involved at different length scales, i.e., between the basic components at the nanoscale, between the mineralized fibrils at the microscale, and between the layers of the multilayered structures at micro- or macroscale. Interfaces control biological reactions, provide unique organic microenvironments that can enhance specific affinities, provide self-assembly in the interface plane that can be used to orient and space molecules with precision, etc. This collection provides recent research work done in the area of interface mechanics of collagen- and chitin-based biomaterials along with various techniques that can be used to understand the mechanics of biological systems and materials.


Biological materials Biomimetics Computational and experimental analyses 


  1. 1.
    P. Fratzl, R. Weinkamer, Nature’s hierarchical materials. Prog. Mater. Sci. 52, 1263–1334 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.A. Meyers, P.Y. Chen, A.Y.M. Lin, Y. Seki, Biological materials: structure and mechanical properties. Prog. Mater. Sci. 53, 1–206 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2007.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.Y. Rho, L. Kuhn-Spearing, P. Zioupos, Mechanical properties and the hierarchical structure of bone. Med. Eng. Phys. 20, 92–102 (1998)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M.E. Launey, R.O. Ritchie, On the fracture toughness of advanced materials. Adv. Mater. 21, 2103–2110 (2009). doi: 10.1002/adma.200803322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D.K. Dubey, V. Tomar, Role of molecular level interfacial forces in hard biomaterial mechanics: a review. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 38, 2040–2055 (2010)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Vaia, Polymer nanocomposites: status and opportunities. MRS Bull. (USA) 26, 394–401 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    W.J. Landis et al., Mineralization of collagen may occur on fibril surfaces: evidence from conventional and high-voltage electron microscopy and three-dimensional imaging. J. Struct. Biol. 117, 24–35 (1996)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    W.J. Landis, K.J. Hodgens, J. Arena, M.J. Song, B.F. McEwen, Structural relations between collagen and mineral in bone as determined by high voltage electron microscopic tomography. Microsc. Res. Tech. 33, 192–202 (1996)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Fratzl, N. Fratzlzelman, K. Klaushofer, G. Vogl, K. Koller, Nucleation and growth of mineral crystals in bone studied by small-angle X-ray scattering. Calcif. Tissue Int. 48, 407–413 (1991)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Weiner, Y. Talmon, W. Traub, Electron diffraction of mollusc shell organic matrices and their relationship to the mineral phase. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 5, 325–328 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Al‐Sawalmih et al., Microtexture and chitin/calcite orientation relationship in the mineralized exoskeleton of the American lobster. Adv. Funct. Mater. 18, 3307–3314 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Indian Institute of Technology DelhiNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations