Sticky Fingers: Geckos, Stick Insects, and Biomimicry

Introduction
Natures 4.5 billion years of research and development have created an array of unique

solutions to problems in a wide variety of areas. This review paper focuses on the amazing

evolutionary development of macro/nano structures on the feet of animals such as geckos,

stick insects, cockroaches, ants, and spiders, and how understanding the fundamentals of how

these systems work could develop a new perspective to how the scientific community

approaches work with surfaces (1-7).

Biomimetic design has been huge for decades and was pivotal in developing the

household common Velcro and even its replacement 3M Dual Lock, which mimicked the

macro/meso scale surface structures found in nature(7). However scientists have not yet perfectly

engineered the micro/nano structures used by some animals, such as the previously mentioned

stick insect. This is not just because of the previous limitations on our ability to see at the

nano/micro scale or our ability to fabricate these small structures, but also by our inability to

understand the natural phenomena and physics(1-2). One example of a phenomena scientists

dont entirely understand is the function of the two-phase fluid used by many insects, which

actually increases resistance against shear forces (during vertical locomotion) as opposed

increasing slip. Alas, even today with a complete understanding of what the structures look like

there is a failure to fully understand how it precisely functions (2-4).

For sake of brevity this review will focus on the gecko and stick insect which have well

understood types of feet and that are very different in how they fulfill their role of moving the

creature around safely through a myriad of environments. Through focusing on the very different

mechanisms of the gecko and the stick insect it is possible to give an overview and
understanding of the types of strategies used by most other insects/lizards/arachnids. Examples

of differences in the two feet type include: wet vs dry pads, adhesion vs friction pads, and

spatula vs spherical fiber tips. These and other comparisons will be used to highlight the

mechanisms of interest in these two creatures (both overlaps and disparities).

This summation of gecko and stick insect feet will also turn to briefly share the

potential applications for improved adhesive or frictional surfaces, such as: military gloves,

improved tires, and even insect repellents(4-5). Thus, this paper should enhance understanding

into how the mechanisms of these creatures function and allow the researcher or student to gain a

new perspective on developing surfaces that encourage adhesion/friction or perhaps even

discourage it.

Structure Overview: What do they look like?

Neither the gecko or the stick insects clinging mechanism for vertical locomotion and

upside down locomotion is in anyway superior, instead it is simply suited for a different task and

each has its own advantages in nature.

To begin, this review shall give an overview of what the structure of the two organisms

attachment/locomotion mechanisms looks like. Also, it would bid us well to briefly explain the

differences between adhesion and friction (in regards to how we will use the terms) in this paper.

High adhesion is the ability for a substance or material to resist forces that pull it in a direction

primarily perpendicular to the surface, whilst high friction would mean that it can resist shear

force (parallel to the surface).

The Gecko
 The geckos toe pad structure is one of the best studied and most well documented. The

gecko has nanostructured fibers called setae which rest in bundled groups on top of long

microscaled pillars called lamalae. The ends of the satae are classified as spatulae shaped, which

is the most common type of end of fiber shape seen in nature(1). This hierarchal structure can be

better understood using Figure 1.

Figure 1: We can see the macroscale image of a gecko (a), we then zoom in to see the ridges of its
feet(b), we zoom in again to see its long lamellae structures(c), we zoom in again to the top of the
lamellaes, in order to see the setae(d), and we zoom in a final time to see the nanostructures referred
to as spatulae, which are the nanostructures responsible for the intermolecular force that holds up the
gecko.

The mechanisms for how these nano/micro scale features interact with the surface are not

perfectly understood, however a lot of potential mechanisms have been ruled out. Scientists

know that electrostatic forces do not affect adhesion or friction, because forces measured are the

same in ionized and unionized air. Similarly theories that the material properties, micro-

interlocking, and a suction cupping effect are what primarily contribute to the adhesion and

friction properties of geckos have been disproved(2). Currently the consensus is that the
nanoscale features interact with the surface at such a small scale that intermolecular forces (VD

forces) become very significant(1).

The adhesion strength and friction strength of an individual setae were studied and it was

discovered that it was able to generate 10 uN and 200-2,000 uN units of force when parallel and

perpendicular forces are applied respectively(1)(4). This means that less than 1% of the setae are

actually needed to hold up the gecko, so why such an overabundance one might wonder? This is

because of the directional nature of the setae. Only a few setae are actually available that will

have force applied in the right direction, furthermore the overabundance is too compensate for

dirty and obstructed setae. The setae are able to self-clean because they are made of B-keratin

which is very inert, so it allows setae to individually have a very low adhesion force. Due to this

material property if a particle is in contact with a handful of setae the adhesion will be extremely

low and the particle will instead adhere to the surface(4)(8). Thus the setae are capable of very

quickly, usually within four surface contact cycles, self-clean.

The way the lamellaes are structured (Figure 1) to curve inward as opposed to growing

perpendicular to the surface of the toes allows for not the entirety of the sataes to be in contact.

This prevents total adhesion and requires the gecko gecko to apply a normal load by

mechanically curling its toes to increase the surface area contact and thus the adhesion it has with

the surface; it also generates shear forces when it does this(1). Analogous to how the gecko

increases its adhesion it must uncurl its toes in order to detach from the surface. It was previously

thought that this process was similar to the way we would peel off adhesive tape, by breaking the

edge contacts first and working ones way through the material. However a hypothesis proposed

in the turn of the 20th century (9) that the gecko setae used frictional adhesion where adhesion

was a function of shear force was proved correct within the last few decades. The gecko would
manipulate its toes in order to create a shear stress which would allow for adhesion to occur; it is

a good way of explaining how the gecko can walk upside down. A simple adhesion model based

solely on normal forces and with no consideration of the generated shear force wouldnt hold up

(no pun intended) in the situation of vertical locomotion. This model in which the geckos

adhesion is dependent on shear allows the gecko to control adhesion and it permits for

detachment to occur with negligible forces(8). However most of the setae surface (or at least the

setae meant to be activated in that given direction) are in contact with the substrate surface when

a very low shear/load is applied and then a type of saturation of adhesion is reached. So the

adhesion in geckos can be thought of as an on/off state, as opposed to a level of adhesion that

increases appreciably along with the shear stress or load applied.

The Stick Insect

The stick insect is not as well studied or as well understood as the gecko and while it

shares a variety of similarities with the geckos toe pads what attracts scientists to this insect is

the improvements upon certain mechanisms of the gecko and the different approaches used solve

the same issue of vertical and upside down locomotion faced by the gecko.
Figure 2: This shows the entire morphology of the tarsus of Carausius morosus stick insects. There is
then a zoom in on the attachment pads (euplantulae), which are covered with conical cuticular
outgrowths (acanthae).

The stick insect has a dual function foot that uses a smooth toe pad, which resembles

the structure of the gecko foot, and a hairy heel pad. The toe pad behaves very similarly to the

geckos toe pad in the sense that it is primarily used to develop quick adhesive forces. The heel

however is designed to act as frictional pad and allow for the generation of large shear forces.

The frictional heel pad in the stick insect has a spherical shaped contact tip as opposed

to the spatulae shape of the setae, also these acanthae do not grow to have a uniform length, thus

not only is contact area limited by the spherical tips (which only graze the surface) but a vast

majority of the acanthae arent in contact with the surface at all. Also, unlike the gecko adhesion

pad this frictional pad is omnidirectional, due to the fact that the acanthae arent being being
curved into one direction. However much like the setae they are tapered so that they can rotate

and twist when placed under load or shear. Due to the fact the acanthae have such a large

amount of unused contact area, as opposed to the setae which fully activate with not much

load/shear, it is capable for the insect to more accurately control what its friction and adhesion to

the surface is. The contact area between the surface and the acanthae is increased in the three

following hierarchies: increasing size of tip contacting surface, causing the bending/rotating of

acanthae so to allow side contact, and a larger number of acanthae can come into contact with

surface as taller ones bend into side contact. In fact when maximum contact is made a single

acanthae have been recorded to have 66 uN of adhesive force as opposed to 10 uN in a single in

gecko setae(2). Also, these are very helpful for rapid locomotion because they are

omnidirectional and will bend in the direction of the shear stress. This is also a beneficial design

because the entirety of the surface of all the acanthae wont be used unless needed,

furthermore the soft fibers of the smooth pad will be kept safe and will only be engaged if

adhesion is needed (3). For example, during vertical locomotion shear forces are dominant and

act greatly on the stick insect, thus it can rely on the friction pad and only use the adhesion pad if

it is in a low-shear environment such as in upside down locomotion(3). Another benefit of this

contact area sensitive design is that the friction generated by the stick insect can increase very

rapidly if it is affected by an unexpected detachment force from any direction. This was another

feature that made this an ideal high friction organ with 0.49 MPa of shear and ~4 mN of friction

per load. Lastly, it is important to state that even though the friction pad and the setae bundles

(adhesion pad) both are controlled by normal forces, because the acanthae are not always in full

contact when in use and they have a spherical tip as opposed to a spatulae tip, that they

experience much lower detachment forces than gecko toes.

 The adhesion pad in the stick insect has specialized cuticles that secrete a non-volatile

highly viscous liquid(2). It is a two-phase oil in water emulsion and it is hypothesized that the

emulsion is a tool for generating strong adhesion on rough surfaces and to aid with upside down

locomotion(5). In theory the insect should not be able to adhere and generate large shear forces if

it walking on a surface that is saturated with the emulsion and perhaps even largely prevents

contact of the cuticle with the surface. However, it has been documented that in some instances

more friction is generated (toe and heel) with the liquid present than without it. With an

understanding of the composition and observations of the behavior of this emulsion, the

scientific community has been able to conclude what the purpose of this liquid is and the

mechanisms behind it.

The emulsion serves the following main purposes: to increase adhesion on wet surfaces,

to increase friction and adhesion on rough surfaces, and to protect the soft cuticles of the

adhesion pad from wear. The two-phase (water suspended in oil) (5) nature of the emulsion is

what allows this emulsion to work on wet surfaces. Its high viscosity also allows for the heel and

toe pads to both adhere to the emulsion as if it was a surface, so it helps when a surface is too

rough for proper contact to be made. The capillary forces enacted by this viscous emulsion also

aid the insect in adhering to surfaces. Lastly, the emulsion provides an safe interface for adhesion

when a rough surface could potentially damage the soft cuticles of the smooth path. Also, the

strong capillary force between the surface and the emulsion allows for the stick insect to detach

rapidly and with little force(2)(4-5).

Biomimicry: Potential Applications

 The purpose, as stated earlier in this review, was to compare and contrast two creatures

mechanisms for locomotion in order to give inspiration for novel biomimetic approaches to

surface engineering. There are several projects of interest to discuss.

The gecko, again due to being so well studied, was used as inspiration to make a dry

adhesive that would not only perform better than our wet adhesives but be extremely reusable

(6). The adhesive made was able to generate approximately 20 uN of adhesive force, which is

consistent with the adhesive force generating by setae. Though compared to wet adhesives it was

very reusable, the .5-4.5 um polyamide artificial setae were far too delicate and ripped after too

much use (however this was a slow and gradual process). If they were made more rigid their

ability to adhere to the surface would dramatically decrease, sometimes to 1% of the desired

interfacial contact area(6). Some changes to this idea were made by MITs team which designed

the StickyBot. They increased the feature size of their polyamide artificial setae to having a

diameter of ~600 um which was much larger than previous artificial setae. This allowed the

StickyBots setae to not lose adhesive ability even after 6 months of use, because the wear and

tear was negligible with such a large feature size, however it lose the ability to self clean so it

required regular cleanings (10). Overall these projects represent the novel innovation that is

possible when nature is used for inspiration and there is much work to be done in developing a

material that can truly replicate the properties of the gecko setae.

Though biomimetics for stick insects are mostly in a computational phase and a product

has not successfully been made that could mimic the friction or adhesion pads of insects. In part

because of the complexity involved in having a material with a constant secretion of an

emulsion, however there is some interesting work being inspired by stick insects. It is well

known how and why the two-phase system is so important in aiding the locomotion of stick
insects, and a variety of other insects, so it was though that perhaps an anti-bug coating could be

made that would disrupt the function of the two-phase emulsion and render it very difficult if not

impossible for certain insects to adhere to a surface (a very rough surface, for example) (5-6). It

also goes without saying that there is room for the development of a surface with the same

properties as the stick insects heel pad, perhaps a surface that could employ both an adhesive

and frictional pad depending on the situation and the forces surrounding it.

Conclusion

The gecko and stick insect both have varied techniques for locomotion, one using a dry

primarily adhesive pad with a directional nature while the other uses a division of labor with wet

adhesive pad and dry frictional pad. These surfaces can give scientists guidance for developing

durable, small, and flexible nano/micro structures for a variety of applications such as

locomotion for robots, anti-insect coatings, or even better gripping gloves and tires.

Hopefully this review has succeeded in encouraging the use of nature as a muse. If you

have enjoyed this review and found it helpful in understanding the basic mechanisms that aid the

gecko and stick insect in its locomotion. Techniques such as the wet and dry adhesion

mechanisms, the use of spatulae and spherical tips, and even the adaptation of directional and

nondirectional feet. However, it is also important to see the potential for surface engineering

that would use the lessons learned from these creatures, then carry forth the principle that the

best R&D imaginable is nature its self.

References:
(Autumn et al., 2000; Bullock, Drechsler, & Federle, 2008; Clemente & Federle, 2008; Del
Campo, Greiner, & Arzt, 2007; Dirks, Clemente, & Federle, 2010; Geim et al., 2003; Labonte,
Williams, & Federle, 2014)(Autumn et al., 2000; Autumn, Dittmore, Santos, Spenko, &
Cutkosky, 2006; Bullock et al., 2008; Del Campo et al., 2007; Dirks et al., 2010; Geim et al.,
2003; Labonte et al., 2014)

Citations:
1. Autumn, K., Liang, Y. a, Hsieh, S. T., Zesch, W., Chan, W. P., Kenny, T. W.,
Full, R. J. (2000). Adhesive force of a single gecko foot-hair. Nature,
405(6787), 681685. http://doi.org/10.1038/35015073
2. Bullock, J. M. R., Drechsler, P., & Federle, W. (2008). Comparison of smooth
and hairy attachment pads in insects: friction, adhesion and mechanisms for
direction-dependence. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 211, 33333343.
http://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.020941
3. Clemente, C. J., & Federle, W. (2008). Pushing versus pulling: division of
labour between tarsal attachment pads in cockroaches. Proceedings.
Biological Sciences / The Royal Society, 275(1640), 13291336.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1660
4. Del Campo, A., Greiner, C., & Arzt, E. (2007). Contact shape controls adhesion
of bioinspired fibrillar surfaces. Langmuir, 23(20), 1023510243.
http://doi.org/10.1021/la7010502
5. Dirks, J.-H., Clemente, C. J., & Federle, W. (2010). Insect tricks: two-phasic foot
pad secretion prevents slipping. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface / the
Royal Society, 7(September 2009), 587593.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2009.0308
6. Geim, a K., Dubonos, S. V, Grigorieva, I. V, Novoselov, K. S., Zhukov, a a, &
Shapoval, S. Y. (2003). Microfabricated adhesive mimicking gecko foot-hair.
Nature Materials, 2(7), 461463. http://doi.org/10.1038/nmat917
7. Labonte, D., Williams, J. A., & Federle, W. (2014). Surface contact and design
of fibrillar friction pads in stick insects (Carausius morosus): mechanisms
for large friction coefficients and negligible adhesion. Journal of the Royal
Society, Interface / the Royal Society, 11(94), 20140034.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0034

8. Gravish, N., Wilkinson, M., & Autumn, K. (2008). Frictional and elastic energy in gecko
adhesive detachment. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface / the Royal Society, 5(20),
339348. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2007.1077
9. Autumn, K., Dittmore, a, Santos, D., Spenko, M., & Cutkosky, M. (2006).
Frictional adhesion: A new angle on gecko attachment. The Journal of
Experimental Biology, 209(Pt 18), 356979. http://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02486
10. Kim, S., Spenko, M., Trujillo, S., Heyneman, B., Santos, D., & Cutkoskly, M. R. (2008).
Smooth vertical surface climbing with directional adhesion. IEEE Transactions on
Robotics, 24(1), 6574. http://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2007.909786