The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Wettability and Contaminability of Insect Wings as a Function of Their Surface Sculptures
Abstract
Abstract The wing surfaces of 97 insect species from virtually all relevant major groups were examined by high resolution scanning‐electron‐microscopy, in order to identify the relationships between the wing microstructures, their wettability with water and their behaviour under the influence of contamination. Isolated wings with contact angles between 31.6° and 155.5° were artificially contaminated with silicate dusts and subsequently fogged until drops of water (“dew”) formed and rolled off. The remaining particles were counted via a digital image analysis system. Remaining particle values between 0.41% and 103% were determined in comparison with unfogged controls. Some insects with very unwettable wings show a highly significant “self‐cleaning” effect under the influence of rain or dew. Detailed analysis revealed that there is a correlation between the wettability and the “SM Index” (quotient of wing surface/(body mass)0.67) with values ranging from 2.42 to 57.0. Furthermore, there is a correlation between the “self‐cleaning” effect and the SM Index, meaning that taxa with a high SM Index, e.g. “large‐winged” Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Planipennia, and many Lepidoptera, have very unwettable wings and show high particle removal due to dripping water drops. The “small‐winged” insects, such as Diptera and Hymenoptera, and insects with elytra, such as Blattariae, Saltatoria, Heteroptera and Coleoptera, show completely opposite effects. This is clearly a result of the fact that species with a high SM Index are, in principle, more restricted in flight by contamination than species with a low SM Index which can also actively clean their own wings. The wings primarily serve a protection function in insects with elytra, so that the effects of contamination are probably of minor importance in these insects. Copyright © 1996 The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Wettability of porous surfaces
Cassie, A. B. D., & Baxter, S. (1944) · Transactions of the Faraday Society · doi:10.1039/tf9444000546 · Cited by 13,807
Cited by
Quéré, D. (2008) · Annual Review of Materials Research · doi:10.1146/annurev.matsci.38.060407.132434 · Cited by 2,691
Superhydrophobic surfaces: from structural control to functional application
Zhang, X., Shi, F., Niu, J., Jiang, Y., & Wang, Z. (2008) · J. Mater. Chem. · doi:10.1039/b711226b · Cited by 1,768
Quéré, D. (2005) · Reports on Progress in Physics · doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/11/r01 · Cited by 1,249
Design and mechanical properties of insect cuticle
Vincent, J. F. V., & Wegst, U. G. K. (2004) · Arthropod Structure & Development · doi:10.1016/j.asd.2004.05.006 · Cited by 1,117
Natural Bactericidal Surfaces: Mechanical Rupture of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Cells by Cicada Wings
Ivanova, E. P., Hasan, J., Webb, H. K., Truong, V. K., Watson, G. S., Watson, J. A., Baulin, V. A., Pogodin, S., Wang, J. Y., Tobin, M. J., et al. (2012) · Small · doi:10.1002/smll.201200528 · Cited by 1,019
Metadata
- Authors
- Wagner, T., Neinhuis, C., & Barthlott, W.
- Venue
- Acta Zoologica
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1996-07
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 213-225
- ISSN
- 0001-7272 (ISSN-L)
- 1463-6395
- OpenAlex
- W2024730326
- Cited by
- 500
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Wettability and Contaminability of Insect Wings as a Function of Their Surface Sculptures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1463-6395.1996.tb01265.x
- The paper
- Wagner, T., Neinhuis, C., & Barthlott, W. (1996). Wettability and Contaminability of Insect Wings as a Function of Their Surface Sculptures. Acta Zoologica. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-6395.1996.tb01265.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.