Natural nanofibers embedded in the seed mucilage envelope: composite hydrogels with specific adhesive and frictional properties

• Agnieszka Kreitschitz and
• Stanislav N. Gorb

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2024, 15, 1603–1618, doi:10.3762/bjnano.15.126

• . Natural hydrogels share some features with synthetic hydrogels, but are more easy to obtain and recycle. One of the main sources of such hydrogels are mucilaginous seeds and fruits, which produce after hydration a gel-like, transparent capsule, the so-called mucilage envelope. Mucilage serves several

• the mucilage envelope, primarily in the context of its structure and physical properties, as well as biological functions associated with these properties. Keywords: adhesion; cellulose; friction; hydrogel; mucilage envelope; seeds; Introduction The definition of hydrogels describes them as

• hydrophilic, three-dimensional (3D), polymeric networks able to absorb huge amounts of water [1][2][3]. This term refers perfectly to the mucilage envelope produced by many fruits and seeds (diaspores) of diverse plant taxa [4][5][6][7][8][9]. Mucilage is considered as a natural hydrogel and shares specific

“Sticky invasion” – the physical properties of Plantago lanceolata L. seed mucilage

• Agnieszka Kreitschitz,
• Alexander Kovalev and
• Stanislav N. Gorb

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2016, 7, 1918–1927, doi:10.3762/bjnano.7.183

• , D-24118 Kiel, Germany 10.3762/bjnano.7.183 Abstract The mucilage envelope of seeds has various functions including the provision of different ways for the dispersal of diaspores. Chemical composition and water content of the mucilage yield particular adhesive and frictional properties in the

• wall that is rich in pectins form elastic, gel-like mucilage envelope after hydration [14][17]. Other components of the mucilage envelope such as cellulose fibrils also influence its properties and consequently its function. Seed mucilage possesses a clearly defined nanostructure. Cellulose is a linear

• properties. The latter two experiments were performed using different hydration conditions of the mucilage envelope. We used in our experiments the same devices, methods and conditions as in the previous work [32]. The following questions were asked: (1) Is there difference in the dynamics of water loss in