↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms of self-cleaning in fluid-based smooth adhesive pads of insects

Overview of attention for article published in Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Mechanisms of self-cleaning in fluid-based smooth adhesive pads of insects
Published in
Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, July 2012
DOI 10.1088/1748-3182/7/4/046001
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Pressure-sensitive adhesives such as tapes become easily contaminated by dust particles. By contrast, animal adhesive pads are able to self-clean and can be reused millions of times over a lifetime with little reduction in adhesion. However, the detailed mechanisms underlying this ability are still unclear. Here we test in adhesive pads of stick insects (Carausius morosus) (1) whether self-cleaning is enhanced by the liquid pad secretion, and (2) whether alternating push-pull movements aid the removal of particles. We measured attachment forces of insect pads on glass after contamination with 10 µm polystyrene beads. While the amount of fluid present on the pad showed no effect on the pads' susceptibility to contamination, the recovery of adhesive forces after contamination was faster when higher fluid levels were present. However, this effect does not appear to be based on a faster rate of self-cleaning since the number of spheres deposited with each step did not increase with fluid level. Instead, the fluid may aid the recovery of adhesive forces by filling in the gaps between contaminating particles, similar to the fluid's function on rough surfaces. Further, we found no evidence that an alternation of pushing and pulling movements, as found in natural steps, leads to a more efficient recovery of adhesion than repeated pulling slides.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 8%
Sweden 1 4%
Unknown 22 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 24%
Student > Bachelor 4 16%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 24%
Engineering 6 24%
Chemistry 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Linguistics 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 5 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2012.
All research outputs
#29,058,453
of 32,106,825 outputs
Outputs from Bioinspiration & Biomimetics
#725
of 804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,104
of 202,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bioinspiration & Biomimetics
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,106,825 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 202,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.