Advertisement

Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 195, Issue 9, pp 805–814 | Cite as

Friction ridges in cockroach climbing pads: anisotropy of shear stress measured on transparent, microstructured substrates

  • Christofer J. Clemente
  • Jan-Henning Dirks
  • David R. Barbero
  • Ullrich Steiner
  • Walter Federle
Original Paper

Abstract

The contact of adhesive structures to rough surfaces has been difficult to investigate as rough surfaces are usually irregular and opaque. Here we use transparent, microstructured surfaces to investigate the performance of tarsal euplantulae in cockroaches (Nauphoeta cinerea). These pads are mainly used for generating pushing forces away from the body. Despite this biological function, shear stress (force per unit area) measurements in immobilized pads showed no significant difference between pushing and pulling on smooth surfaces and on 1-μm high microstructured substrates, where pads made full contact. In contrast, on 4-μm high microstructured substrates, where pads made contact only to the top of the microstructures, shear stress was maximal during a push. This specific direction dependence is explained by the interlocking of the microstructures with nanometre-sized “friction ridges” on the euplantulae. Scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy revealed that these ridges are anisotropic, with steep slopes facing distally and shallow slopes proximally. The absence of a significant direction dependence on smooth and 1-μm high microstructured surfaces suggests the effect of interlocking is masked by the stronger influence of adhesion on friction, which acts equally in both directions. Our findings show that cockroach euplantulae generate friction using both interlocking and adhesion.

Keywords

Adhesion Tribology Biomechanics Direction dependence Lithography 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the help of Andreas Eckart, Patrick Drechsler, Saul Dominguez and Filip Szufnarowski for their help in the development of the LabVIEW motor control programmes. This study was funded by research grants of the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Cambridge Isaac Newton Trust (to W.F.), the EU RTN-6 network “Patterns” (to U.S.), the European Union (Marie-Curie) funding (to D.R.B.), and the German National Academic Foundation (to J.H.D.).

References

  1. Barbero DR, Saifullah MSM, Hoffmann P, Mathieu HJ, Anderson D, Jones GAC, Welland ME, Steiner U (2007) High resolution nanoimprinting with a robust and reusable polymer mold. Adv Funct Mater 17:2419–2425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes WJP (2007) Functional morphology and design constraints of smooth adhesive pads. MRS Bull 32:479–485Google Scholar
  3. Betz O (2002) Performance and adaptive value of tarsal morphology in rove beetles of the genus Stenus (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). J Exp Biol 205:1097–1113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beutel RG, Gorb SN (2001) Ultrastructure of attachment specializations of hexapods (Arthropoda): evolutionary patterns inferred from a revised ordinal phylogeny. J Zool Syst Evol Res 39:177–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beutel RG, Gorb SN (2006) A revised interpretation of attachment structures in Hexapoda with special emphasis on Mantophasmatodea. Arthropod Syst Phylogeny 64:3–25Google Scholar
  6. Bullock JMR, Federle W (2009) Division of labour and sex differences between fibrillar, tarsal adhesive pads in beetles: effective elastic modulus and attachment performance. J Exp Biol 212:1878–1888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 211:3333–3343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Busscher HJ, Van Pelt AWJ, De Boer P, De Jong HP, Arends J (1984) The effect of surface roughening of polymers on measured contact angles of liquids. Colloids Surf 9:319–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan EP, Smith EJ, Hayward RC, Crosby AJ (2008) Surface wrinkles for smart adhesion. Adv Mater 20:711–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chung JY, Chaudhury MK (2005) Roles of discontinuities in bio-inspired adhesive pads. J R Soc Interface 2:55–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clemente CJ, Federle W (2008) Pushing versus pulling: division of labour between tarsal attachment pads in cockroaches. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 275:1329–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dai Z, Gorb SN, Schwarz U (2002) Roughness-dependent friction force of the tarsal claw system in the beetle Pachnoda marginata (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). J Exp Biol 205:2479–2488PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Drechsler P, Federle W (2006) Biomechanics of smooth adhesive pads in insects: influence of tarsal secretion on attachment performance. J Comp Physiol A 192:1213–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Endlein T, Federle W (2008) Walking on smooth or rough ground: passive control of pretarsal attachment in ants. J Comp Physiol A 194:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Federle W, Riehle M, Curtis ASG, Full RJ (2002) An integrative study of insect adhesion: mechanics and wet adhesion of pretarsal pads in ants. Integr Comp Biol 42:1100–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Federle W, Barnes WJP, Baumgartner W, Drechsler P, Smith JM (2006) Wet but not slippery: boundary friction in tree frog adhesive toe pads. J R Soc Interface 3:689–697PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frazier SF, Larsen GS, Neff D, Quimby L, Carney M, DiCaprio RA, Zill SN (1999) Elasticity and movements of the cockroach tarsus in walking. J Comp Physiol A 185:157–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Full RJ, Blickhan R, Ting LH (1991) Leg design in hexapedal runners. J Exp Biol 158:369–390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuller KNG, Tabor D (1975) The effect of surface roughness on the adhesion of elastic solids. Proc R Soc Lond A 345:327–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ghatak A, Mahadevan L, Yun J, Chaudhury M, Shenoy V (2004) Peeling from a biomimetically patterned thin elastic film. Proc R Soc Lond A 460:2725–2735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glassmaker NJ, Jagota A, Hui C-Y (2005) Adhesion enhancement in a biomimetic fibrillar interface. Acta Biomater 1:367–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gorb S (2001) Attachment devices of insect cuticle. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  23. Gorb SN (2008) Smooth attachment devices in insects. In: Casas J, Simpson SJ (eds) Advances in insect physiology, vol 34. Academic Press, London, pp 81–116Google Scholar
  24. Gorb S, Jiao Y, Scherge M (2000) Ultrastructural architecture and mechanical properties of attachment pads in Tettigonia viridissima (Orthoptera Tettigoniidae). J Comp Physiol A 186:821–831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gorb S, Gorb E, Kastner V (2001) Scale effects on the attachment pads and friction forces in syrphid flies. J Exp Biol 204:1421–1431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Green DM (1981) Adhesion and the toe pads of tree frogs. Copeia 1981:790–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grosch KA (1963) The relation between the friction and visco-elastic properties of rubber. Proc R Soc Lond A 274:21–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huber G, Gorb SN, Hosoda N, Spolenak R, Arzt E (2007) Influence of surface roughness on gecko adhesion. Acta Biomater 3:607–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hui CY, Lin YY, Baney JM, Kramer EJ (2001) The mechanics of contact and adhesion of periodically rough surfaces. J Polym Sci B Polym Phys 39:1195–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hui C-Y, Glassmaker NJ, Tang T, Jagota A (2004) Design of biomimetic fibrillar interfaces: 2. Mechanics of enhanced adhesion. J R Soc Interface 1:35–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hui C-Y, Glassmaker NJ, Jagota A (2005) How compliance compensates for surface roughness in fibrillar adhesion. J Adhes 81:699–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jagota A, Bennison SJ (2002) Mechanics of adhesion through a fibrillar microstructure. Integr Comp Biol 42:1140–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jiao Y, Gorb S, Scherge M (2000) Adhesion measured on the attachment pads of Tettigonia viridissima (Orthoptera, Insecta). J Exp Biol 203:1887–1895PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones RAL, Richards RW (1999) Polymers at surfaces and interfaces. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Kendall K (2001) Molecular adhesion and its applications. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  36. Kim TW, Bhushan B (2007) Adhesion analysis of multi-level hierarchical attachment system contacting with a rough surface. J Adhes Sci Technol 21:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lees AD, Hardie J (1988) The organs of adhesion in the aphid Megoura viciae. J Exp Biol 136:209–228Google Scholar
  38. Peressadko AG, Hosoda N, Persson BNJ (2005) Influence of surface roughness on the adhesion between elastic bodies. Phys Rev Lett 95:124301–124304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Persson BNJ (1998) On the theory of rubber friction. Surf Sci 401:445–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Persson BNJ (2007a) Biological adhesion for locomotion on rough surfaces: basic principles and a theorist’s view. MRS Bull 32:486–490Google Scholar
  41. Persson BNJ (2007b) Wet adhesion with application to tree frog adhesive toe pads and tires. J Phys Condens Matter 19:376110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Persson BNJ, Gorb S (2003) The effect of surface roughness on the adhesion of elastic plates with application to biological systems. J Chem Phys 119:11437–11444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roth LM, Willis ER (1952) Tarsal structure and climbing ability of cockroaches. J Exp Zool 119:483–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Russell TP (1990) X-ray and neutron reflectivity for the investigation of polymers. Mater Sci Rep 5:171–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Santos R, Gorb S, Jamar V, Flammang P (2005) Adhesion of echinoderm tube feet to rough surfaces. J Exp Biol 208:2555–2567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scherge M, Gorb SN (2001) Biological micro- and nanotribology: nature’s solutions. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 212:155–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schulmeister S (2003) Morphology and evolution of the tarsal plantulae in Hymenoptera (Insecta), focussing on the basal lineages. Zool Scr 32:153–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith JM, Barnes WJP, Downie JR, Ruxton GD (2006) Structural correlates of increased adhesive efficiency with adult size in the toe pads of hylid tree frogs. J Comp Physiol A 192:1193–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Spagna JC, Goldman DI, Lin P, Koditschek DE, Full RJ (2007) Distributed mechanical feedback in arthropods and robots simplifies control of rapid running on challenging terrain. Bioinspir Biomim 2:9–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stork NE (1980) Experimental analysis of adhesion of Chrysolina polita (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera) on a variety of surfaces. J Exp Biol 88:91–107Google Scholar
  52. Varenberg M, Gorb S (2007) Shearing of fibrillar adhesive microstructure: friction and shear-related changes in pull-off force. J R Soc Interface 4:721–726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Varenberg M, Gorb SN (2009) Hexagonal surface micropattern for dry and wet friction. Adv Mater 21:483–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Voigt D, Schuppert JM, Dattinger S, Gorb SN (2008) Sexual dimorphism in the attachment ability of the Colorado potato beetle Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) to rough substrates. J Insect Physiol 54:765–776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christofer J. Clemente
    • 1
  • Jan-Henning Dirks
    • 1
  • David R. Barbero
    • 2
  • Ullrich Steiner
    • 2
    • 3
  • Walter Federle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Department of Physics, Nanoscience CentreCavendish LaboratoryCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS)University of FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations