4.6 Review

Overview of the design of bionic fine hierarchical structures for fog collection

期刊

MATERIALS HORIZONS
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 4827-4856

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d3mh01094e

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review discusses the basic principles of fog collection, the role of hierarchical structures in fog collection, and the performance analysis of different designs. It also proposes a new method to analyze hierarchical structure designs. The review provides an overall overview of recent research from a dynamic and spatial dimensional perspective.
Nature always uses its special wisdom to construct elegant and suitable schemes. Consequently, organisms in the flora and fauna are endowed with fine hierarchical structures (HS) to adapt to the harsh environment due to many years of evolution. Water is one of the most important resources; however, easy access to it is one the biggest challenges faced by human beings. In this case, fog collection (FC) is considered an efficient method to collect water, where bionic HS can be the bridge to efficiently facilitate the process of the FC. In this review, firstly, we discuss the basic principles of FC. Secondly, the role of HS in FC is analyzed in terms of the microstructure of typical examples of plants and animals. Simultaneously, the water-harvesting function of HS in a relatively new organism, fungal filament, is also presented. Thirdly, the HS design in each representative work is analyzed from a biomimetic perspective (single to multiple biomimetic approaches). The role of HS in FC, and then the FC performance of each work are analyzed in order of spatial dimension from a bionic perspective. Finally, the challenges at this stage and the outlook for the future are presented. A novel perspective is proposed to analyze designs of fine hierarchical structures, which are vital for fog collection. In this review, an overall overview of recent work is given from a bionic, and thus from a spatial dimensional perspective.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据