Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:38:30.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hierarchical Structure of a Natural Composite: Insect Cuticle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

Stephen L. Gunderson ,
Katie E. Gunnison  and
John W. Sawvel
Stephen L. Gunderson
Affiliation:
University of Dayton Research Institute, 300 College Park, Dayton, OH 45469-0168
Katie E. Gunnison
Affiliation:
University of Dayton Research Institute, 300 College Park, Dayton, OH 45469-0168
John W. Sawvel
Affiliation:
Ohio Northern University, Department of Biology, Ada, OH 45810
Get access

Abstract

The insect cuticle is an excellent example of a natural, fiber-reinforced, polymeric composite consisting of chitin fibers embedded in a protein matrix. Optical and electron microscopy have been used to examine the structure and interaction of the constituents of the bessbeetle (Odontotaenius disjunctus) cuticle from the molecular to the macroscopic levels.

Molecular chains of the polysaccharide chitin (N-acetylglucosamine) are grouped together to form “fibrils” which are either dispersed throughout the matrix or combined to form larger “fibers”. The fibers are unidirectionally oriented within individual sheets or laminae which are stacked on top of one another at various angles forming a laminated structure.

The protein matrix is ductile upon initial deposition but then undergoes a crosslinking process which increases its shear stiffness, thereby improving load transfer between fibers. The matrix is bound to the chitin via beta linkages holding it together at both the fibril and fiber levels. The matrix has a fibrous morphology which provides adequate toughness in spite of the high degree of crosslinking.

Reference is made to designs observed in the bessbeetle cuticle which could be applied to man-made composites for improved performance primarily in the areas of damage tolerance and strength and stiffness coupled with low weight. For these designs to be implemented using synthetic materials, new or modified processing and fabrication methods are needed.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 255: Symposium Z – Hierarchically Structured Materials , 1991 , 159
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hepburn, H. R. and Ball, A., J. Mat. Sci. 1973, 618–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Vincent, J. F. V., Structural Biomaterials. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1990).Google Scholar
3. Hadley, N. F.,Sci. Amer. 1986, 104–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Fraenkel, G. and Rudall, K. M., in Proc. R. Soc. Lond.: B, 129, (1947) pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
5. Gunderson, S. L. and Schiavone, R. C., AFOSR Sponsored Workshop on Biomimetics, (in press).Google Scholar
6. Gunderson, S. L. and Schiavone, R. C., JOM, 41, (11), 80 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Saliba, J. E., Schiavone, R. C., Gunderson, S. L., and Taylor, D. G., in Materials Synthesis Based on Biological Processes, Alper, M. et. al eds. (Mat. Res. Soc. Proc. 218, Pittsburgh, PA 1991) pp. 215–220.Google Scholar
8. Zelazny, B. and Neville, A. C., J. Insect Physiol., 18, 2095 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Hepburn, H. R. and Joffe, I., in The Insect Integument. Hepburn, H. R. ed. (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1976) pp. 207–235.Google Scholar
10. Eric, Dr. Nelson, V., personal communication.Google Scholar
11. Guild, F., Harris, B., and Atkins, A., J. Mat. Sci., 13, 2295 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Corden, J., in Engineered Materials Handbook. Vol.1: Composites, Dostal, C. A. et. al eds. (Am. Soc. Metals, Materials Park, OH, 1987) pp 721–728.Google Scholar