Skip to main content

Selected Water Harvesting Mechanisms—Lessons from Living Nature

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Bioinspired Water Harvesting, Purification, and Oil-Water Separation

Part of the book series: Springer Series in Materials Science ((SSMATERIALS,volume 299))

Abstract

Water moves continuously above and below the surface of the Earth. Bodies of water, clouds, evaporation and condensation all are part of the water cycle. Fog is composed of micron-sized water droplets that form when air becomes saturated with water vapor. Fog is a thick cloud that remains suspended in the atmosphere. Dew is the deposit of water droplets that are formed on cold surfaces, with temperature lower than the dew point, by condensation of water vapor in the air. In many plants and animals, living nature uses fog and condensation as a vital source of water, particularly in arid areas that receive little rainfall (Brown and Bhushan, 2016; Bhushan, 2018, 2019, 2020). Fog and dew always exist when the temperature decreases late at night and in the early morning. There is evidence that over 5000 years ago, hunter–gatherer groups were able to populate arid areas along the southern coast of Peru by utilizing fresh water from fog and condensation, though the collection method is unknown (Beresford-Jones et al. 2015).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adamson, A. V. and Gast, A. P. (1997), Physical Chemistry of Surfaces, sixth ed., Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, P. J. and Blumer, W. F. C. (1962), “Uptake of Water by the Lizard, Moloch horridus,” Nature 194, 699–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beresford-Jones, D., Pullen, A. G., Whaley, O. Q., Moat, J., Chauca, G., Cadwallader, L., Arce, S., Orellana, A., Alarcón, C., Gorriti, M., Maita, P. K., Sturt, F., Dupeyron, A., Huaman, O., Lane, K. J., and French, C. (2015), “Re-evaluating the Resource Potential of Lomas Fog Oasis Environments for Preceramic Hunter–gatherers under Past ENSO Modes on the South Coast of Peru,” Quat. Sci. Rev. 129, 196–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhushan, B. (2013a), Introduction to Tribology, second ed., Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhushan, B. (2013b), Principles and Applications of Tribology, second ed., Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhushan, B. (2016), Biomimetics: Bioinspired Hierarchical-Structured Surfaces for Green Science and Technology, second ed., Springer International, Cham, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhushan, B. (2018), Biomimetics: Bioinspired Hierarchical-Structured Surfaces for Green Science and Technology, third ed., Springer International, Cham, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhushan, B. (2019), “Bioinspired Water Collection Methods to Supplement Water Supply,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 377, 20190119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhushan, B. (2020), “Design of Water Harvesting Towers and Projections for Water Collection from Fog and Condensation,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378, 20190440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. S. and Bhushan, B. (2016), “Bioinspired Materials for Water Supply and Management: Water Collection, Water Purification and Separation of Water from Oil,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 374, 20160135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardwell, M. D. (2006), “Rain Harvesting in a Wild Population of Crotalus s. scutulatus (Serpentes: Viperidae,” Herpetol. Rev. 37, 142–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comanns, P., Buchberger, G., Buchbaum, A., Baumgartner, R., Kogler, A., Bauer, S., and Baumgartner, W. (2015), “Directional, Passive Liquid Transport: the Texas Horned Lizard as a Model for a Biomimetic ‘Liquid Diode’,” J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20150415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebner, M., Miranda, T., and Roth-Nebelsick, A. (2011), “Efficient Fog Harvesting by Stipagrostis sabulicola (Namib Dune Bushman Grass),” J. Arid Environ. 75, 524–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds, D. T. and Vollrath, F. (1992), “The Contribution of Atmospheric Water Vapour to the Formation and Efficiency of a Spider’s Capture Web,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 248, 145–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorb, S. N. and Gorb, E. V. (Eds.) (2017), Functional Surfaces in Biology III – Diversity of the Physical Phenomena, Springer International, Cham, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurera, D. and Bhushan, B. (2019), “Designing Bioinspired Surfaces for Water Collection from Fog,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 377, 20180269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurera, D. and Bhushan, B. (2020), “Passive Water Harvesting by Desert Plants and Animals: Lessons from Nature,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378, 20190444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. J. and Seely, M. K. (1976), “Fog Basking by the Namib Desert Beetle, Onymacris unguicularis,” Nature 262, 284–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ju, J., Bai, H., Zheng, Y., Zhao, T., Fang, R., and Jiang, L. (2012), “A Multi-structural and Multi-functional Integrated Fog Collection System in Cactus,” Nat. Commun. 3, 1247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klemm, O., Schemenauer, R. S., Lummerich, A., Cereceda, P., Marzol, V., and Corell, D., et al. (2012), “Fog as a Fresh-Water Resource: Overview and Perspectives,” Ambio 41, 221–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, K., Bhushan, B., and Barthlott, W. (2008), “Diversity of Structure, Morphology and Wetting of Plant Surfaces,” Soft Matter 4, 1943–1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C., Xue, Y., Chen, Y., and Zheng, Y. (2015), “Effective Directional Self-gathering of Drops on Spine of Cactus with Splayed Capillary Arrays,” Sci. Rep. 5, 17757 pp 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenceau, É. and Quéré, D. (2004), “Drops on a Conical Wire,” J. Fluid Mech. 510, 29–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louw, G. N. and Seely, M. K. (1980), “Exploitation of Fog Water by a Perennial Namib Dune Grass, Stipagrotis sabulicola,” S. Afr. J. Sci. 76, 38–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, H. A., Weisser, P. J., and Gulmon, S. L. (1977), “Environmental Adaptations of the Atacaman Desert Cactus Oopiapoa haseltoniana,Flora, Bd. 166, S. 117–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogburn, R. M. and Edwards, E. J. (2009), “Anatomical Variation in Cactaceae and Relatives: Trait Lability and Evolutionary Innovation,” Am. J. Bot. 96, 391–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pan, Z., Pitt, W. G., Zhang, Y., Wu, N., Tao, Y. and Truscott, T. T. (2016), “The Upside-down Water Collection System of Syntrichia caninervis,” Nat. Plants 2, 16076.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, A. R. and Lawrence, C. R. (2001), “Water Capture by a Desert Beetle,” Nature 414, 33–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth-Nebelsick, A., Ebner, M., Miranda, T., Gottschalk, V., Voigt, D., Gorb, S., Stegmaier, T., Sarsour, J., Linke, M., and Konrad, W. (2012), “Leaf Surface Structures Enable the Endemic Namib Desert Grass Stipagrostis sabulicola to Irrigate Itself with Fog Water,” J. R. Soc. Interface 9, 1965–1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenk, K. and Greene, H. W. (1987), “Water Collection and Drinking in Phrynocephalus helioscopus: A Possible Condensation Mechanism,” J. Herpetol. 21, 134–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanyengana, E. S., Henschel, J. R., Seely, M. K., and Sanderson, R. D. (2002), “Exploring Fog as a Supplementary Water Source in Namibia,” Atmos. Res. 64, 251–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vesilind, P. J. (2003), “Atacama Desert,” National Geographic (August, 2003) see http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/features/world/south-america/chile/atacama-text.

  • Xue, Y., Wang, T., Shi, W., Sun, L., and Zheng, Y. (2014), “Water Collection Abilities of Green Bristlegrass Bristle,” RSC Adv. 4, 40837–40840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, Y., Bai, H., Huang, Z., Tian, X., Nie, F.-Q., Zhao, Y., Zhai, J., and Jiang, L. (2010), “Directional Water Collection on Wetted Spider Silk,” Nature 463, 640–643.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bharat Bhushan .

Appendices

Appendix 3.A: Laplace Pressure Gradient on a Conical Surface

For a spherical droplet sitting on a surface, capillary pressure or Laplace pressure in the liquid \( p_{\text{L}} \) is proportional to the surface tension of the liquid in air (\( \gamma_{\text{LA}} \)) divided by the local radius, R (Adamson and Gast 1997; Bhushan 2013a, b, 2018),

$$ p_{\text{L}} = \frac{{\gamma_{\text{LA}} }}{R} $$
(3.A.1)

The Laplace pressure can be attractive or repulsive depending on whether the surface is hydrophilic or hydrophobic, respectively. The \( p_{\text{L}} \) remains constant on a flat surface.

Next, we consider a liquid droplet sitting on a conical object. We consider two adjacent locations A and B with the local radii of the cone, as RA and RB, respectively, Fig. 3.A.1 (Bhushan 2018). The surface curvature gradient results in the Laplace pressure difference between the two opposite ends of the droplet along the surface. The Laplace pressure difference is given as,

Fig. 3.A.1
figure 7

Schematic of a liquid droplet on a conical object with a cone angle of 2α and local radii RA and RB at two locations of A and B, respectively. Shown is the Laplace force (FL) which helps in driving the droplet towards a larger radius (adapted from Bhushan 2018)

$$ \Delta p_{\text{L}} = \gamma_{\text{LA}} \left( {\frac{1}{{R_{A}^{'} }} - \frac{1}{{R_{B}^{'} }}} \right) $$
(3.A.2)

where \( R_{A}^{'} \) and \( R_{B}^{'} \) are the radii of curvature at the front and rear contact lines of the droplet, respectively. The curvature gradient leading to Laplace pressure difference that acts on the contact area A, produces the Laplace force FL,

$$ F_{\text{L}} = {\iint \limits_{A}} \Delta p_{\text{L}} {\text{d}}A $$
(3.A.3)

where the contact area is approximately equal to volume of the droplet, \( V_{\text{droplet}} \) divided by the length L of the droplet,

$$ A \sim \frac{\sin \alpha }{{\left( {R_{B} - R_{A} } \right)}} V_{\text{droplet}} $$
(3.A.4)

where α is the half apex angle of the cone. Combining (3.A.2) to (3.A.5), we get,

$$ F_{\text{L}} \sim \gamma_{\text{LA}} \left( {\frac{1}{{R_{A}^{\prime} }} - \frac{1}{{R_{B}^{\prime} }}} \right)\frac{\sin \alpha }{{R_{B} - R_{A} }}V_{\text{droplet}} $$
(3.A.5)

The Laplace force acting on a conical object drives the droplet from regions of lower radius to larger radius as long as the Laplace force is larger than adhesion force. During this droplet movement, new droplets may be deposited in the path, which coalesce resulting in a large liquid volume and provide the additional movement.

Appendix 3.B: Definition of Various Wetting States

To define various wetting states of surfaces, we start with the definition of a few Greek words of interest for liquids: hydro- = water, oleo- = oil, amphi- = both (water and oil in this context), omni- = all or everything, and liquid- = an unspecified liquid. Within oils, edible oils have a surface tension larger than 30 mN/m and alkanes-based oils have a surface tension 20–30 mN/m. Greek suffixes of interest are: -philic = friendly or attracting, and -phobic = afraid of or repelling.

Figure 3.B.1 shows schematics of various wetting states (Bhushan 2016, 2018). If a liquid wet a surface, it is referred to as a wetting liquid and the value of the static contact angle is \( 0 \le \theta \le 90^\circ \). A surface that is wetted by a wetting liquid is referred to as hydrophilic if that wetting liquid is water, oleophilic if it is oil, amphiphilic if it can be wetted by water and oil, omniphilic if all liquids wet the surface, and liquiphilic if the liquid is unspecified. If the liquid does not wet the surface, it is referred to as a non-wetting liquid, and the value of the contact angle is 90° < θ ≤ 180°. A surface that repels a liquid is referred to as hydrophobic if it repels water, oleophobic for oil, amphiphobic if it repels both water and oil, omniphobic if it repels all liquids, and liquiphobic if the liquid is unspecified. Surfaces with a contact angle of less than 10° are called superliquiphilic, while surfaces with a contact angle between 150° and 180° are called superliquiphobic. The words superliquiphilic and superliquiphobic were coined by Bhushan (2016).

Fig. 3.B.1
figure 8

Schematics of liquid droplets in contact with superliquiphobic, liquiphobic, liquiphilic, and superliquiphilic solid surfaces (Bhushan 2016)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bhushan, B. (2020). Selected Water Harvesting Mechanisms—Lessons from Living Nature. In: Bioinspired Water Harvesting, Purification, and Oil-Water Separation. Springer Series in Materials Science, vol 299. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42132-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics