Measuring of the hardly measurable: adhesion properties of anti-adhesive surfaces

Purtov, Julia; Gorb, Elena V.; Steinhart, Martin; Gorb, Stanislav N.

doi:10.1007/s00339-012-7520-3

Cited by 29 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Certain of these natural surfaces can effectively prevent wetting by water, while simultaneously protecting against attachment by insects by taking advantage of the same or very similar surface features [16–23]. Unfortunately, these natural anti-attachment properties have received relatively little attention from researchers working on surface science and engineering [24–25]. Another possible reason might be that the properties of unwettable biological surfaces, other than surface wetting/de-wetting, have not been tested.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface roughness rather than surface chemistry essentially affects insect adhesion

England¹,

Sato²,

Yagihashi³

et al. 2016

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe attachment ability of ladybird beetles Coccinella septempunctata was systematically investigated on eight types of surface, each with different chemical and topographical properties. The results of traction force tests clearly demonstrated that chemical surface properties, such as static/dynamic de-wettability of water and oil caused by specific chemical compositions, had no significant effect on the attachment of the beetles. Surface roughness was found to be the dominant factor, strongly affecting the attachment ability of the beetles.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface roughness rather than surface chemistry essentially affects insect adhesion

England¹,

Sato²,

Yagihashi³

et al. 2016

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The obtained PDMS prepolymer formulation was kept under ambient conditions until all air bubbles had vanished and then poured onto polyvinylsiloxan (PVS) molds containing several half-spherical cavities that had in turn been obtained by replication molding of sapphire spheres glued on a glass slide. 19 Subsequently, the with an area of about 1 cm 2 , and a series of force-displacement measurements was carried out under dry conditions. Then, 5 μL mineral oil were dropped onto the uncovered part of the tissue paper, and we acquired a series of force-displacement curves under wet but otherwise identical conditions without moving the sample and without changing the PDMS half-sphere.…”

Section: Force-displacement Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, sticky and compliant surfaces can adapt to surface topographies characterized by feature sizes below a few microns. 19 Therefore, the contact between the contacting surfaces is conformal; the real contact area and F Ad may even be enhanced as compared to contacts between two flat surfaces. Secondly, the detection of anti-adhesive properties has remained challenging.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, we acquired force-displacement measurements using sticky and compliant viscoelastic PDMS half-spheres as probes, which are particularly suitable for the investigation of weakly adhesive surfaces. 19 The classical Johnson-Kendall-Roberts (JKR) model 45 for sphere-on-flat contacts assumes that the flat surface does not exhibit any kind of roughness. The surfaces of the NMMAs and FNMs studied here exhibit roughness on the 100 nm scale.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Influence of Surface Topography and Surface Chemistry on the Anti-Adhesive Performance of Nanoporous Monoliths

Eichler-Volf

Xue

Dornberg

et al. 2016

ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We designed spongy monoliths allowing liquid delivery to their surfaces through continuous nanopore systems (mean pore diameter ∼40 nm). These nanoporous monoliths were flat or patterned with microspherical structures a few tens of microns in diameter, and their surfaces consisted of aprotic polymer or of TiO2 coatings. Liquid may reduce adhesion forces FAd; possible reasons include screening of solid-solid interactions and poroelastic effects. Softening-induced deformation of flat polymeric monoliths upon contact formation in the presence of liquids enhanced the work of separation WSe. On flat TiO2-coated monoliths, WSe was smaller under wet conditions than under dry conditions, possibly because of liquid-induced screening of solid-solid interactions. Under dry conditions, WSe is larger on flat TiO2-coated monoliths than on flat monoliths with a polymeric surface. However, under wet conditions, liquid-induced softening results in larger WSe on flat monoliths with a polymeric surface than on flat monoliths with an oxidic surface. Monolithic microsphere arrays show antiadhesive properties; FAd and WSe are reduced by at least 1 order of magnitude as compared to flat nanoporous counterparts. On nanoporous monolithic microsphere arrays, capillarity (WSe is larger under wet than under dry conditions) and solid-solid interactions (WSe is larger on oxide than on polymer) dominate contact mechanics. Thus, the microsphere topography reduces the impact of softening-induced surface deformation and screening of solid-solid interactions associated with liquid supply. Overall, simple modifications of surface topography and chemistry combined with delivery of liquid to the contact interface allow adjusting WSe and FAd over at least 1 order of magnitude. Adhesion management with spongy monoliths exploiting deployment (or drainage) of interfacial liquids as well as induction or prevention of liquid-induced softening of the monoliths may pave the way for the design of artificial surfaces with tailored contact mechanics. Moreover, the results reported here may contribute to better understanding of the contact mechanics of biological surfaces.

show abstract

“…Therefore, only very soft materials such as PSAs or rubber‐like polymers, which are able to adapt to the surface roughness may tolerate roughness to certain extent. A requirement is that the gain in adhesion energy (the real contact area can be larger as the apparent contact area in case of rough surfaces) is larger than the work done to elastically deform the material to follow the surface roughness …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges and Solutions for Joining Polymer Materials

Jin

Heepe

Strueben

et al. 2014

Macromol. Rapid Commun.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Measuring of the hardly measurable: adhesion properties of anti-adhesive surfaces

Cited by 29 publications

References 30 publications

Surface roughness rather than surface chemistry essentially affects insect adhesion

Surface roughness rather than surface chemistry essentially affects insect adhesion

The Influence of Surface Topography and Surface Chemistry on the Anti-Adhesive Performance of Nanoporous Monoliths

Challenges and Solutions for Joining Polymer Materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About