Advertisement

Journal of Bionic Engineering

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 63–70 | Cite as

Wetting Characteristics of Insect Wing Surfaces

  • Doyoung ByunEmail author
  • Jongin Hong
  • Saputra
  • Jin Hwan Ko
  • Young Jong Lee
  • Hoon Cheol Park
  • Bong-Kyu Byun
  • Jennifer R. Lukes
Article

Abstract

Biological tiny structures have been observed on many kinds of surfaces such as lotus leaves, which have an effect on the coloration of Morpho butterflies and enhance the hydrophobicity of natural surfaces. We investigated the micro-scale and nano-scale structures on the wing surfaces of insects and found that the hierarchical multiple roughness structures help in enhancing the hydrophobicity. After examining 10 orders and 24 species of flying Pterygotan insects, we found that micro-scale and nano-scale structures typically exist on both the upper and lower wing surfaces of flying insects. The tiny structures such as denticle or setae on the insect wings enhance the hydrophobicity, thereby enabling the wings to be cleaned more easily. And the hydrophobic insect wings undergo a transition from Cassie to Wenzel states at pitch/size ratio of about 20. In order to examine the wetting characteristics on a rough surface, a biomimetic surface with micro-scale pillars is fabricated on a silicon wafer, which exhibits the same behavior as the insect wing, with the Cassie-Wenzel transition occurring consistently around a pitch/width value of 20.

Keywords

insect wing superhydrophobicity mimicry hierarchical structure micro- and nano-scale structures Cassie-Wenzel transition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Neinhuis C, Barthlott W. Characterization and distribution of water-repellent, self-cleaning plant surfaces. Annals of Botany, 1997, 79, 667–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Feng L, Li S, Li Y, Li H, Zhang L, Zhai J, Song Y, Liu B, Jiang L, Zhu, D. Super-hydrophobic surfaces: From natural to artificial. Advanced Materials, 2002, 14, 1857–1860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Ma M, Hill R M. Superhydrophobic surfaces. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science, 2006, 11, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Vukusic P, Sambles J R. Photonic structures in biology. Nature, 2003, 424, 852–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Bushnell D M, Moore K J. Drag reduction in nature. Annual Reviews in Fluid Mechanics, 1991, 23, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Wagner T, Neinhuis C, Barthlott W. Wettability and contaminability of insect wings as a function of their surface sculptures. Acta Zoologica, 1996, 77, 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Cong Q, Chen G, Fang Y, Ren L. Super-hydrophobic characteristics of butterfly wing surface. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2004, 1, 249–255.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Fang Y, Sun G, Cong Q, Chen G, Ren L. Effect of methanol on wettability of the non-smooth surface on butterfly wing. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2008, 5, 127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Parker A R, Lawrence C R. Water capture by a desert beetle. Nature, 2001, 414, 33–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Gao X, Jiang L. Water-repellent legs of water striders. Nature, 2004, 432, 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Wenzel R N. Resistance of solid surfaces to wetting by water. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 1936, 28, 988–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Cassie A B D, Baxter S. Wettability of porous surfaces. Transactions of the Faraday Society, 1944, 40, 546–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Patankar N A. Transition between superhydrophobic states on rough Surfaces. Langmuir, 2004, 20, 7097–7102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Lafuma A, Quere D. Superhydrophobic states. Nature Materials, 2003, 2, 457–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Krupenkin T N, Taylor J A, Schneider T M, Yang S. From rolling ball to complete wetting: The dynamic tuning of liquids on nanostructured surfaces. Langmuir, 2004, 20, 3824–3827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Wagner P, Furstner R, Barthlott W, Neinhuis C. Quantitative assessment to the structural basis of water repellency in natural and technical surfaces. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2003, 54, 1295–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Patankar N A. Mimicking the lotus effect: Influence of double roughness structures and slender pillars. Langmuir, 2004, 20, 8209–8213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Nosonovsky M, Bhushan B. Roughness optimization for biomimetic superhydrophobic surfaces. Microsystem Technologies, 2005, 11, 535–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Nosonovsky M. Multiscale roughness and stability of superhydrophobic biomimetic interfaces. Langmuir, 2007, 23, 3157–3161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    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
  21. [21]
    Chen Y, He B, Lee J, Patankar N A. Anisotropy in the wetting of rough surfaces. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2005, 281, 458–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Jilin University 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Doyoung Byun
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jongin Hong
    • 2
  • Saputra
    • 1
  • Jin Hwan Ko
    • 1
  • Young Jong Lee
    • 1
  • Hoon Cheol Park
    • 3
  • Bong-Kyu Byun
    • 4
  • Jennifer R. Lukes
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Aerospace Information Engineering, Artificial Muscle Research CenterKonkuk UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied MechanicsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPennsylvaniaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Advanced Technology Fusion, Artificial Muscle Research CenterKonkuk UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Korea National ArboretumPocheon, KyoungkiRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations