4.2 Article

Assessment of Hydro/Oleophobicity for Shark Skin Replica with Riblets

Journal

JOURNAL OF NANOSCIENCE AND NANOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 14, Issue 10, Pages 7562-7568

Publisher

AMER SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1166/jnn.2014.9570

Keywords

Shark Skin; Riblet; Hydrophobicity; Oleophobicity

Funding

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [2011-0009281]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2011-0009281] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The shark skin has a unique skin structure which enables the shark to swim faster and more efficiently due to an intriguing three-dimensional rib pattern. Shark skin has also known as having functional performances such as self cleaning and anti-fouling as well as excellent drag reduction due to a hierarchical structure built up by micro grooves and nano-long chain mucus drag reduction interface around the shark body. In this study, the wetting properties for the biomimetic surfaces that replicate shark skin are assessed. First of all, the shark skin replicas are obtained using the micro molding technique directly from a shark skin template. The quantitative replication precision of the shark skin replicas is evaluated comparing with the geometry of shark skin template using 3D and 2D surface profiles are measured. Then contact angles in the conditions of solid-air-water, solid-air-oil and solid-water-oil interfaces are evaluated for shark skin replicas. The effect of Teflon coating on the wetting properties of shark skin replicas is also observed. The results show the shark skin replica by the micro molding technique gives better effect on the wetting performance, and the micro riblets on shark skin improve the wettability feature.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available