Micro-Morphologies of Two Typical Leaf Surfaces and the Effects on their Hydrophobicity and Anti-Adhesion
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12970/2311-1755.2013.01.02.1Keywords:
Micro-morphology, non-smooth, hydrophobicity, anti-adhesion, stoma, cilia.Abstract
The surface micro-morphologies of two kinds of leaves—folium perillae and corn husk—which have excellent anti-adhesion characteristics at high temperature and wet circumstance, were investigated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The hydrophobicity and anti-adhesion characteristics were quantitatively measured meanwhile. Results showed that they all had non-smooth surface morphologies mounted with cilia and demonstrated favorable anti-adhesion features. Folium perillae which showed hydrophilicity, had the surface compactly pieced together by jigsaw-like plates, with stomas embedded. On the other hand, corn husk showing hydrophilicity, had the surface appeared longitudinal undulated ripples with sags and crests, and had grains on secondary microscale.
References
Bhushan B. Tribology issues and opportunities in MEMS. Dordrecht: Kluwer–Academic 1998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5050-7
Bharat B, Yong CJ. Natural and biomimetic artificial surfaces for super hydrophobicity, self-cleaning, low adhesion, and drag reduction. Prog Mater Sci 2011; 56: 1-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2010.04.003
Burton Z, Bhushan B. Surface characterization and adhesion and friction properties of hydrophobic leaf surfaces. Ultramicroscopy 2006; 106: 709-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2005.10.007
Bhushan B, Jung YC. Micro and nanoscale characterization of hydrophobic and hydrophilic leaf surface. Nanotechnology 2006; 17: 2758-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/17/11/008
Ren LQ, Wang SJ, Tian XM, et al. Non-Smooth morphologies of typical plant leaf surfaces and their anti-adhesion effects. J Bionic Eng 2007; 4: 33-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1672-6529(07)60010-9
Jung YC, Bhushan B. Contact angle, adhesion, and friction properties of micro- and nanopetterned polymers for superhydrophobicity. Nanotechnology 2006; 17: 4970-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/17/19/033
Guo ZG, Liu WM, Su BL. Superhydrophobic surfaces: From natural to biomimetic to functional. J Colloid Interface Sci 2011; 353: 335-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2010.08.047
Johnson RE, Dettre RH. Contact angle hysteresis. Adv Chem 1964; 43: 112-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ba-1964-0043.ch007
Bormashenko E, Pogreb R, Whyman G. Cassie–Wenzel wetting transition in vibrated drops deposited on the rough surfaces: is dynamic Cassie–Wenzel transition 2D or 1D affair? Langmuir 2007; 23: 1-3.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/la700935x
Wenzel RN. Surface roughness and contact angle. J Phys Colloid Chem 1949; 53: 1466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/j150474a015
Cassie ABD. Contact angles. Discuss. Faraday Soc 1948; 3: 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/df9480300011
Johnson RE, Dettre RH. Contact Angle, Wettability, and Adhesion. In: Contact angle hysteresis. Adv Chem Ser 1964; 43: 112-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ba-1964-0043.ch007
Mittal KL. The role of the interface in adhesion phenomena. Polym Eng Sci 1977; 17: 467-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pen.760170709
Marshall SJ, Bayne SC, Baier R. A review of adhesion science. Dent Mater 2010; 26: 11-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.157
Walker G. Adhesion to smooth surfaces by insects-a review. Int J Adhes 1993; 13: 3-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0143-7496(93)90002-Q
Wei YG, Hutchinson JW. Interface strength, work of adhesion and plasticity in the peel test. Int J Fracture 1998; 93: 315-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007545200315
