Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 500

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

Wagner, Thomas, Neinhuis, Christoph, Barthlott, Wilhelm·1996·Acta Zoologica

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1463-6395.1996.tb01265.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 500

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.