| Literature DB >> 34080324 |
Marco Lo Presti1, Giorgio Rizzo2, Gianluca M Farinola1,2, Fiorenzo G Omenetto1,3,4,5.
Abstract
The exceptional underwater adhesive properties displayed by aquatic organisms, such as mussels (Mytilus spp.) and barnacles (Cirripedia spp.) have long inspired new approaches to adhesives with a superior performance both in wet and dry environments. Herein, a bioinspired adhesive composite that combines both adhesion mechanisms of mussels and barnacles through a blend of silk, polydopamine, and Fe3+ ions in an entirely organic, nontoxic water-based formulation is presented. This approach seeks to recapitulate the two distinct mechanisms that underpin the adhesion properties of the Mytilus and Cirripedia, with the former secreting sticky proteinaceous filaments called byssus while the latter produces a strong proteic cement to ensure anchoring. The composite shows remarkable adhesive properties both in dry and wet conditions, favorably comparing to synthetic commercial glues and other adhesives based on natural polymers, with performance comparable to the best underwater adhesives with the additional advantage of having an entirely biological composition that requires no synthetic procedures or processing.Entities:
Keywords: bioinspired biomaterials; mussels; polydopamine; silk; underwater adhesive
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34080324 PMCID: PMC8373158 DOI: 10.1002/advs.202004786
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) ISSN: 2198-3844 Impact factor: 16.806
Figure 1a) Schematic representation of functional components of the blend. Beta‐sheets rich protein backbone from B. mori silk fibroin (left) and catechol rich polymer from polydopamine (right) to mimic mussels adhesion. b)Preparation procedure of specimens for lap shearing tests. c) Assembled aircraft model using SF–PDA adhesive with Fe3+ curing process as a proof‐of‐concept of SF–PDA glue.
Figure 2a) Schematic representation of the lap‐shear test. Polymeric adhesives are applied between two adherents and pulled to cohesive failure. b) Load versus extension plots for b1–b4) SF–PDA blends cured with either HCl or FeCl3 in dry conditions. b5–b8) Load versus extension plot for SF–PDA blends employing b5,b6) underwater curing, b7) underwater curing and lap shearing, and b8) underwater curing and lap shearing in basic environment. All blends were measured five times for each condition. c) Summary of lap‐shear test results for neat SF and SF–PDA polymer blends after water, acidic, and acidic Fe3+ curing processes at different concentrations of curing agents in dry condition (left panel) and underwater conditions (right panel).
Figure 3a1–a4) SEM images and relative film insets of different SF–PDA blends. a1) SF film; a2) SF–PDA 2 × 10−3 m; a3) SF–PDA 20 × 10−3 m; a4) SF–PDA 200 × 10−3 m; a5) alveolar porous structure of SF–PDA 200 × 10−3 m after curing with FeCl3 30 × 10−3 m and lap‐shear test; a6) natural byssal plaque of Mytilus edulis; a7) alveolar structure of SF–PDA 200 × 10−3 m cured with FeCl3 30 × 10−3 m (not subjected to lap‐shear test) with a lower magnification; a8) cross‐sectional SEM of SF–PDA 200 × 10−3 m between two glass slides. Markers are reported for each image. a6) Reproduced with permission.[ ] Copyright 2005, Taylor & Francis. b,c) Static contact angles of SF and SF–PDA films uncured or cured either with 4 µL of HCl 55 × 10−3 m or FeCl3 30 × 10−3 m against bidistilled water.
Figure 4Plot reporting failure (MPa) against mass (mg) of recently reported adhesives in underwater conditions. The reported values refer to commercial (black exagon), synthetic (pink triangles), or natural‐based (green squares) adhesives.