Abstract
Surface fouling is a major concern in health care, marine industry, and water purification plants. Polymeric coatings are traditionally utilized to reduce the attachment of foulants on a surface, however low density and thickness of polymer brushes formed by surface initiated polymerization methods, surface exhaustion by continuous exposure to the foulants, and mechanical vulnerability in harsh environments, limit the antifouling performance of these traditional coatings. Recent trends in bioinspired polymeric coatings combine antifouling properties of super‐hydrophobic, and highly hydrated lubricating polymers with mechanical properties of micro‐ and nano‐particles to yield contact active, foulant releasable and stimuli responsive materials with superior antifouling performance. This review specifically highlights the development of next generation bioactive antifouling coatings using nature as an inspiration and a discussion of their benefits, over traditional polymeric coatings. The bioinspired coatings obtained are further evaluated for their potential applications in the marine environment, as delivery carriers, in implants, biosensors, and in urinary catheters.
Keywords: antifouling, bioinspired, color changing, contact active, foulant release, micro‐nano architecture
The polymeric coatings developed using biological templates combine antifouling properties of polymers with mechanical properties of micro‐ and nano‐particles yielding contact active, foulant releasable, and stimuli responsive materials with superior antifouling performance and demonstrate several applications in the marine environment, as delivery carriers, in implants, biosensors and in urinary catheters.

1. Introduction
Surface fouling is a global concern, that affects industries ranging from health care, and water treatment, to the global shipping and fishing industry.[ 1 , 2 , 3 ] In the healthcare industry, microbial surface contamination and biofilm formation on medical implants are prevalent in everyday settings and can lead to serious infections.[ 1 ] In water treatment plants, fouling occurs due to the buildup of pollutants in the pores and on the surface of filtration membranes, hence limiting permeability and preventing effective water filtration.[ 3 ] Similarly, in the marine environment, the growth of organisms such as barnacles and algae on the under‐water surface causes fouling on ship hulls, decreasing the manoeuvrability of vessels and increasing fuel consumption.[ 2 ] Additionally, the attachment of these organisms to the ships that regularly transit the globe can lead to the transmission of invasive species from one region to another.[ 2 ]
The efforts to resolve the issue of surface fouling have been a topic of interest for decades.[ 2 , 4 , 5 ] Early antifouling coatings composed of metals such as tributyltin or copper‐based materials showed significant environmental harm and toxicity to the marine organisms due to metal leaching, this resulted in legislations, either completely banning or limiting the use of these materials as antifouling agents in 2008.[ 2 ] As of today, antifouling surfaces can be developed by either physical (such as by surface etching) or chemical modification of materials (such as polymers, peptides, and nanoparticle conjugation) on a surface.[ 4 , 5 ] Among chemical modification methods, polymeric antifouling materials are an environmentally friendly and biodegradable option favored due to their low cost, versatility, biocompatibility, low toxicity, tunability, and relative ease of preparation, with applications ranging from medical implants to marine coatings.[ 4 ] Poly(2‐methacryloxytroponone) and its co‐polymers were among the first antimicrobial polymers developed in the 1960s and were evaluated for their antifouling potential.[ 4 , 5 ]
At present, synthetic, biological, or bioinspired polymers are being intensively evaluated for their potential as antifouling coatings.[ 6 , 7 , 8 ] Compared to synthetic polymers such as polyethylene glycol (PEG),[ 8 ] and biological materials such as polysaccharides,[ 7 ] bioinspired coatings are a recent category that utilizes inspiration from nature to combine micro‐ and nano‐architecture of particles with the antifouling properties of polymers to develop new and multifunctional materials with improved antifouling efficacies.[ 6 , 8 ] The field of bioinspired antifouling materials has seen much growth over the last few years and this is expected to continue as the antifouling abilities of the natural environment can provide great inspiration and insight to guide the preparation of man‐made coatings.[ 9 ]
2. Bioinspired Polymeric Coatings
Bioinspired polymeric coatings utilize nature as a template to develop next generation materials that combine the antifouling performance of biological and synthetic polymers with the surface topography and functions of living organisms (Figure 1 ).[ 8 ] Although polymeric coatings comprised of poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS), PEG, zwitterionic polymers, polysaccharides, and their derivatives are well investigated for the antifouling properties, low density and thickness of polymer brushes formed by surface‐initiated polymerization methods, limited antifouling performance and mechanical vulnerability in harsh environments remain major issues with these traditional coatings.
Figure 1.

Schematics depicting biological templates and chemical structure of polymers, and nanoparticles that are combined to obtain antifouling bioinspired coatings.
The existing reviews in the field on bioinspired antifouling coatings have been primarily focused on specific sub‐types of bioinspired coatings with applications in marine environments and for biomedical purposes.[ 6 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ] This review entails an up‐to‐date progress with a special emphasis on how surface topography and functions of the living organisms are replicated in antifouling coatings by introducing mechanical properties of micro‐ and nano‐particles in traditional polymeric coatings. An overview of contact active, color‐changing, and foulant‐releasing polymeric materials inspired by the lotus leaf, shark skin, sea anemones, coral, insect cuticle, articular cartilage, mussel adhesion proteins, blood proteins, cicada wing, pitcher plant surface, and star‐shaped nose of the mole is depicted in Figure 1. A summary of key findings based on bioinspired material designs, their synthesis methods, and antifouling applications is described in Table 1 .
Table 1.
Recent literature on bioinspired antifouling polymeric coatings.
| Polymers and Nanoparticles | Application | Key Findings | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lotus Leaf Inspired Polymeric Coatings | |||
| Polyurethane (PU), poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA), and Fluoro‐ SiO2 (FSiO2) | Various applications in health care and marine industry | PU and PMMA interpenetrated polymer networks combined with F‐SiO2 nanoparticles created superhydrophobic, self‐cleaning, and antifouling surface coating | [25] |
| Silk Fibroin cast in lotus leaf template | Indwelling medical devices | Fresh lotus leaf patterned silk fibroin catheters prevented the attachment of endothelial cells and bacteria | [26] |
| Silicon rubber fabricated with silver (Ag) nanoparticles and F‐SiO2 | Indwelling medical devices | F‐SiO2 and Ag nanoparticles coated silicon rubber based biocompatible, and antifouling materials doped with S‐nitroso‐N‐acetylpenicillamine, provided sustained nitric oxide release capabilities | [27] |
| Poly(vinylidene fluoride‐co‐hexafluoropropylene) poly(VDF‐co‐HFP) with SiO2 nanoparticles and thermochromic microparticles (TMC) | Heating and Cooling Devices | Poly(VDF‐co‐HFP) hydrogels interspersed with hydrophobic SiO2 nanoparticles and TMC yielded lotus leaf like gradient structure and demonstrated temperature responsive color changing and radiative heating and cooling efficacies along with excellent self‐cleaning abilities | [28] |
| Coral Inspired Polymeric Coatings | |||
| Poly(acrylic acid‐ co‐ sulfobetaine methacrylate)poly(AA‐co‐SBMA) and cellulose nanofibrils (CNF) | Various antifouling applications | The nanofibrous polymer brushes mimicking the surface structure of coral were prepared by combining the mechanical properties of CNF with the antifouling properties of poly(AA‐co‐SBMA). The highly oriented polymer brushes embedded in nanoporous aluminum oxide substrate demonstrated self‐regeneration properties and broad spectrum antifouling ability toward bacteria and proteins | [29] |
| Shark Skin Inspired Polymeric Coatings | |||
| Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) cast in shark skin mold | Various antifouling applications | PMMA templates prepared in shark skin molds depicted microstructures present in shark skin and prevented biofilm formation compared with smooth PMMA surface | [30] |
| Mussel Inspired Polymeric Coatings | |||
| Ultra‐high molecular weight poly (N,N‐dimethylacrylamide) (uhPDMA) and polydopamine (PDA) nanoparticles | Urinary catheters | Super hydrophilic uhPDMA coated catheters prepared in the presence of highly adhesive PDA nanoparticles showed anti‐biofilm abilities and reduced bacterial load for P. aeruginosa, and S. saprophyticus upon insertion in mouse model | [31] |
| Catechol‐modified polyethylene glycol (PEG) block copolymers of different topologies | Various applications | PEG and PDA based di‐ and tri‐block copolymers surfaces grafted by polydopamine adhesive properties yielded brush and loop like topologies, respectively.Catechol‐functionalized triblock copolymer, displaying loop‐like topology demonstrated good antifouling properties | [32] |
| PDA, 2‐methacryloyloxy ethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC), 4‐formyl phenylmethacrylate (FPMA), and 2‐(methacryloyloxy)‐ethyl trimethylammonium (META) | Medical Devices | Dual functional coatings based on PDA adhesion chemistry were prepared using copolymers of MPC (antifouling agent), FPMA (adhesive group for grafting the polymer on PDA modified surface) and META (contact active killing) by reversible‐addition fragmentation chain transfer polymerization. The coated surfaces were biocompatible and exhibited antibacterial and antifouling abilities | [33] |
| PDA‐functionalized Poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGDA) | Medical implants | Hyper‐branched polymeric coatings prepared by Michael addition reaction of PEGDA and 3,4‐dihyroxyphenyl‐L‐alanine (DOPA), using trimethylolpropane triacrylate as a branching agent and gentamicin, as an end capping agent exhibited antibacterial and antifouling activities and good biocompatibility toward eukaryotic cells | [34] |
| Poly(diethylene glycol diglycidyl ether) (PEGDGE), poly (L‐lysine) (PLL), and poly[(glycidylmethacrylate)‐co‐3‐(dimethyl(4‐vinylbenzyl)ammonium)propylsulfonate] (poly(GMA‐co‐DVBAPS)) and PDA nanoparticles | Biomedical | Antifouling coatings comprised of PEGDGE as antifouling agent, PLL, as bacterial killing agent, and poly(GMA‐co‐DVBAPS), as salt responsive component were deposited on the surface using adhesive capabilities of PDA nanoparticles. Polymer coated materials prevented bacterial adhesion, yielded contact active bacterial killing, and showed salt responsive bacterial release/self‐cleaning properties | [35] |
| Dually Inspired Coatings | |||
| PMPC, polyethyleneimine (PEI), and PDA nanoparticles | Implanted medical devices | Dually inspired by articular cartilage super lubrication and dopamine based mussel adhesion hyper‐branched copolymers of PEI and PMPC prepared by peroxide initiated grafting polymerization and applied to polyurethane surfaces, via PDA‐based adhesive chemistry demonstrated significantly decreased adhesion of proteins, bacteria, platelets, and red blood cells | [36] |
| Poly (dopamine methacrylamide), poly(DMA), methacrylic anhydride modified cyclodextrins (MA‐β‐CD) and MPC | Drug delivery applications | Inspired by the adhesion of mussels, and super‐lubrication of articular cartilage, copolymers of DMA (adhesive component), MPC (lubricating component), and MA‐β‐CD (drug loading carrier) were prepared by free‐radical polymerization. DMA exposed to slightly basic pH formed PDA nanoparticles that attached to the surface forming biocompatible, antimicrobial, and antifouling coatings | [37] |
| Poly (N‐isopropyl methacrylamide poly(NIPAAM) and SiO2 nanoparticles | Biomedical Devices | The lubricating liquid locked films inspired by the microstructure of the star‐shaped nose of the mole and the hydrophobic surface of the pitcher plant were prepared by embedding SiO2 nanoparticles in PNIPAM hydrogels. The temperature responsive hydrogels were integrated into catheters and were infused with perfluorinated oil, demonstrating oil exudation as a function of temperature, yielding self‐cleaning tubular and 3D porous structure | [38] |
| Blood Protein Inspired Nanoparticles | |||
| Functionalized PEG and gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) | Drug delivery | The end‐functionalized PEG coated AuNPs mimicking the surface charge distribution of blood proteins demonstrated that apoferritin mimicking nanoparticles are the most effective in preventing protein interaction and aggregation of nanoparticles | [39] |
| Vitamin Inspired Coatings | |||
| Poly(Vitamin B5 analogous methacrylamide) poly(B5AMA) | Various biomedical applications | Poly(B5AMA) grafted glass surface showed antifouling efficacies that were comparable to that of PEG coated controls | [40] |
| Poly(MPC), poly(B5AMA) and Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) | Coating for biomedical devices | AgNPs incorporated, poly (MPC‐st‐B5AMA) grafted surfaces exhibited excellent biocompatibility and good antifouling abilities | [41] |
| Insects Inspired Coatings | |||
| PMPC and hydrogenated caffeic acid conjugated polyallylamine (CPA) | Coating for central venous catheters | Insect sclerotization process mimicking CPA‐crosslinked surfaces, grafted with PMPC exhibited antifouling abilities, reduced inflammation, and prevented biofilm formation in vivo | [42] |
| Poly(SBMA) and nanowires | Marine Application | Cicada wings inspired, poly(SBMA) brushes grafted zwitterionic ZnO@Al2O3 nanowires based films showed significant reduction in algae fouling, along with foulant release capacities | [43] |
2.1. Lotus Leaf, Sea Anemones, and Shark Skin Inspired Self‐Cleaning Coatings
Self‐cleaning polymeric coatings inspired by the super‐hydrophobic properties and 3D structures of lotus leaves, surface roughness of shark skin, anisotropic wetting of butterfly wings and fish gills, and by the continuous movement of corals and sea anemones tendrils in ocean currents were designed and evaluated for antifouling properties. The term “lotus effect” describes the superhydrophobic property of lotus leaves, which naturally repel water, causing water droplets to roll off the leaves, collecting debris during the process, giving the leaves natural self‐cleaning ability.[ 44 , 45 , 46 ] In order to mimic the “lotus effect” micro‐nano dual structures and low surface energy materials are developed.[ 45 ] Micro‐nano dual structures are typically obtained by surface etching, while the surface energy of materials is lowered by chemical modification with hydrophobic polymers such as PDMS.[ 39 ] Among other materials that have been used to fabricate lotus inspired surfaces, fluoro‐functionalized nanostructured silica (F‐SiO2) is promising with applications as antifouling coatings.[ 25 ] The presence of nano‐silica creates nanoscale roughness, while the surface energy is reduced by the presence of fluorine containing groups.[ 25 ] The application of fluorinated compounds especially long chain perfluorinated compounds has long been one of the standard methods for reducing surface energy due to their nonpolar nature, however, these materials possess limited commercial applications due to their poor durability.[ 25 ] Bae et al. combined F‐SiO2 with resins to increase the durability of the resultant surfaces with applications in marine environments.[ 45 ] The combination of F‐SiO2 with polymers is another approach to increase the durability while maintaining the antifouling properties of the materials.[ 25 ] For example, Wong et al. demonstrated that combining F‐SiO2 with polyurethane (PU) and poly methylmethacrylate (PMMA) into interpenetrated polymer networks (IPNs), produced materials with superior antifouling capabilities and durability compared to F‐SiO2 alone.[ 25 ]
PMMA and PU prepared by free radical polymerization and upon heating at 60 °C yielded PU‐PMMA‐IPN via non‐covalent interactions and physical tangling of the polymer chains within the polymer network.[ 25 ] Super‐hydrophobic, durable, self‐assembled, hierarchically structured IPNs were then prepared by sequential spray deposition of PU‐PMMA‐IPNs and F‐SiO2 to create surface microroughness.[ 25 ] The spray coated PU‐PMMA‐IPN modified surfaces showed ≈11‐fold higher tensile strength than PU and PMMA modified counterparts and mechanical properties that were comparable to commercially available PDMS.[ 25 ] The analysis of surface micro roughness by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) revealed the formation of sub‐micron craters in PU‐PMMA‐IPNs, while anchoring of nanoparticles in IPN texture was apparent upon F‐SiO2 deposition. The water contact angle measurements further showed a change from 81° for IPNs to super hydrophobic self‐cleaning surfaces with a sliding angle of 0° for F‐SiO2 modified IPNs that was comparable to that of lotus leaf, indicating antifouling potential (Figure 2 ).[ 25 ]
Figure 2.

a) Schematics depicting sequential deposition of PU‐PMMA‐IPN and F‐SiO2 onto substrates, conferring surface roughness and durability. SEM images demonstrating surface roughness of b) micron‐sized structures c) PU‐PMMA‐IPNs and d) PU‐PMMA with F‐SiO2. Color map analysis of PU‐PMMA IPN integration, e) before and f) after incorporation of F‐SiO2, and g) analysis of water contact angle demonstrating super‐hydrophobicity of the modified surfaces, reproduced with permission.[ 25 ] 2016, American Chemical Society.
PU‐PMMA‐IPNs are extremely durable and are under consideration for usage in bulletproof glass. The combination of PU‐PMMA‐IPN with F‐SiO2 nanoparticles in a single material yielded highly durable surfaces with antifouling properties suitable for a variety of applications.[ 25 ] The superhydrophobic effects of F‐SiO2 nanoparticles were combined with nitric oxide (NO) and AgNPs to develop antifouling and antithrombotic coatings for blood‐contacting medical devices.[ 27 ] F‐SiO2 and AgNPs applied to silicon rubber by a dip coating method, followed by incorporation of S‐nitroso‐N‐acetylpenicillamine (SNAP) by solvent assisted swelling approach, yielded sustained NO release capabilities.[ 27 ] The nitric oxide releasing super hydrophobic materials reduced bacterial adhesion by >99%, along with a significant reduction in blood platelet adherence, indicating the potential for these materials as indwelling medical devices to prevent the threat of infection and thrombosis.[ 27 ] F‐SiO2 nanoparticles have also been used in the development of antifouling coatings for water filtration membranes. F‐SiO2 modified microporous polypropylene membranes developed by nano‐ and micro‐scale growth of SiO2 nanoparticles on commercial PP membranes, followed by fluoroalkyl silane modification yielded hybrid structure with optimized micro/nano sized ratios and exhibited extraordinary antifouling and mass transfer properties for purification of saline water.[ 47 ]
Liu et al. then combined the dimensional structure of lotus leaf with super‐hydrophobic, self‐cleaning properties and developed super‐hydrophobic all‐in‐one self‐cleaning coatings (SAC), as potential energy‐free radiated cooling materials.[ 28 ] Lotus leaf has a gradient structure with an upper epidermis, a palisade tissue, a sponge layer, and a lower epidermis. The epidermis a waxy, protective layer of low surface energy is superhydrophobic and has been a great inspiration for researchers to develop self‐cleaning materials.[ 28 ] The palisade tissue, located below the upper epidermis is rich in chloroplast, arranged in the form of grids, while spongy tissue located below the palisade tissue contains sparsely dispersed chloroplasts.[ 28 ] The SAC coatings prepared with commercially available poly(vinylidene fluoride‐co‐hexafluoropropylene) poly(VDF‐co‐HFP), interspersed with hydrophobic SiO2 nanoparticles in the upper layer, followed by the addition of thermochromic microcapsules (TMCs) in the subsequent layers, created nanostructured surface pores and stratified architecture, mimicking the distribution of chloroplasts in the leaf.[ 28 ] TMCs are temperature responsive materials that undergo color change as a function of temperature and work synergistically with porous structures of the polymeric coating to modulate spectral properties of sunlight, ensuring reflection at high temperatures and absorption at lower temperatures.[ 28 ] The porous structure and micro‐, nano‐gradient distribution in SAC coatings was compared with the cross‐section of the lotus leaf by SEM (Figure 3 ).[ 28 ] The non‐wettable SAC obtained from hydrophobic polymeric materials demonstrated excellent self‐cleaning capabilities, upon injection with dirty water when compared with conventional day‐time radiative cooling coatings and flexible thermoregulation capacities, by switching between solar absorption and reflection spectra as a function of temperature, providing a promising and sustainable platform for energy conversion.[ 28 ]
Figure 3.

a) Schematics of lotus leaf cross‐section, b) bioinspired design of SAC coatings, c) SEM images of cross‐section of lotus leaf, d) surface SEM images of SAC coating, e) cross‐section of SAC coating by SEM, f) cross‐section of SAC coating by confocal microscopy and g) working principle of SAC coatings in hot and cold state, showing that SAC reflects sunlight in summer, reducing heat absorption and absorbs sunlight in winter resulting in heat gain, reproduced with permission.[ 28 ] 2024, Wiley.
While F‐SiO2 functionalized IPNs are promising materials, concerns regarding the toxicity of these materials have limited the applications of long‐chain perfluorinated compounds as antifouling materials.[ 25 , 48 ] More recently non‐fluoride based self‐cleaning polymeric antifouling coatings are developed.[ 29 ] In the marine industry, corals quickly became the focus for the development of antifouling coatings due to their unique antifouling strategies, such as foulant release effect, sloughing, natural anti‐foulants, soft tentacles, and fluorescence effect.[ 17 ] Recent examples in the field of marine antifouling and water filtration include several studies applying the fluorescence and the soft tentacle effect of corals.[ 49 , 50 ] In the biomedical field, the soft tentacle effect of corals has been utilized to achieve antifouling properties. Coral and sea anemones contain short uniform tendrils that move with the ocean current, causing unstable fluid flow and foulant removal from the animal surface, providing self‐cleaning tendencies, a phenomenon termed as “soft tentacle effect”.[ 29 ] Polymeric nanocomposites of cellulose nanofibrils (CNF) and sulfobetaine methacrylate (SBMA) prepared via free radical polymerization of acrylic acid (AA), and SBMA in the presence of CNFs onto pretreated nanoporous aluminum substrate yielded nanoporous alloys based on soft/hard combination strategy.[ 29 ] The highly‐oriented nano‐fibrous polymer brushes embedded in aluminum oxide substrate demonstrated antifouling properties due to the presence of zwitterionic SBMA groups, while alumina substrate protected soft polymers from mechanical damage, allowing the material to self‐heal and regenerate upon damage, possibly due to the swelling effect of polymers.[ 29 ] The fabrication of coral inspired antifouling surfaces is depicted in Figure 4 and the formation of polymeric nanocomposites was confirmed by X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and Fourier Transform Infrared.[ 29 ]
Figure 4.

Fabrication methods and characterization for coral inspired antifouling coatings; a) schematics depicting coating preparation, b) scheme for the synthesis of polymer brushes by free radical polymerization. c) SEM image of aluminum substrate. d) SEM image of polymer brushes embedded in the substrate. e) SEM of the image showing nanoscale coral‐like polymer brushes. f) Image of sea anemone, reproduced with permission.[ 29 ] 2023, Elsevier.
The polymer coated nanoporous aluminum substrate evaluated by SEM showed sea anemone like morphology (Figure 4c–f). The aluminum substrate embedded poly(AA‐co‐SBMA)‐CNF brushes demonstrated ≈3‐fold superior strength and ductility over hydrogels of p(AA‐co‐SMBA) and the polymeric fibers inside the substrate nanochannels sufficiently swelled and regenerated upon surface damage. The self‐cleaning, regenerative, coral inspired coatings displayed broad spectrum antifouling ability across a range of foulants including bacteria and proteins.[ 29 ] As a result of the flexibility of the design, and its effectiveness, these materials were well suited for various applications including implant coating and marine antifouling surface.[ 29 ]
Shark skin is decorated with dermal denticles containing concave shaped nanostructured bumps that play an important role in shark swimming and are a source of inspiration for the development of self‐cleaning antifouling coating.[ 30 ] Shark skin imprinted PDMS molds were utilized to create micro‐structured polymeric templates of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA).[ 30 ] The surface microstructure of the PMMA templates exhibited nearly identical surface topography, as depicted in different parts of shark skin (tail, fin, and abdomen). The micro‐textured PMMA obtained from different parts of shark skin demonstrated superior antifouling properties against Gram‐positive and Gram‐negative bacterial strains, compared with the smooth PMMA surface.[ 30 ] Notably, biofilm formed on a smooth PMMA surface whereas, no biofilm formation was observed on shark skin replicated polymeric surface, indicating the surface topography of shark skin may be useful as antifouling coating.[ 30 ]
Xie et al. then utilized a soft lithography approach to create lotus leaf patterned, micro‐papillae structured catheters coated with silk fibroin based gels, yielding water resistant materials, due to the hydrophobic properties of silk fibroin.[ 26 ] The lotus leaf patterned catheters exhibited excellent mechanical properties and inhibited the adhesion of endothelial cells and bacteria, compared to the unpatterned analogue. The micro‐papillae structured patterns not only provided physical barriers, damaging bacterial membranes, and inhibiting bacterial adhesion but also contributed to the super‐hydrophobic nature of silk fibroin, repelling water and bacterial solution.[ 26 ]
2.2. Mussel Inspired Coatings
In the field of bioinspired coatings, mussel inspired highly adhesive polymeric surfaces are among the most extensively studied materials with antifouling efficacies. The ideal habitat for mussels is rocky wave swept areas; mussels maintain their position on the rocks using byssus which are proteinaceous filaments secreted by the organism.[ 51 ] The section of the byssus that makes contact with the rocky surface is enriched in unique proteins containing the modified amino acid, 3,4‐dihyroxyphenyl‐L‐alanine (DOPA).[ 52 ] DOPA is able to strongly interact with a variety of materials including metal ions, oxides, and semi‐metals, allowing strong attachment of organism with various substrates including rocks and glass.[ 52 ] DOPA is a precursor to dopamine and is a catechol derivative.[ 52 ] Thus mussel adhesion inspired coatings employ facile polymerization of dopamine or other catechol derivatives under slightly basic conditions (pH = 8.5) into highly adhesive polydopamine (PDA) nanoparticles to form antifouling coatings on any material.[ 11 ] Mussel inspired coatings have been used for many different applications including water filtration membrane development and for biomedical applications.[ 53 , 54 ]
The mussel inspired dopamine based adhesives were utilized to modify commercially available polyurethane (PU) catheters with ultra‐high molecular weight poly(N,N‐dimethylacrylamide) (uhPDMA) yielding antifouling layer of polymer on the catheters surface. uhPDMA a highly hydrophilic antifouling polymer prepared by living radical polymerization formed a hydration layer on the PU surface in the presence of PDA, as an adhesive agent.[ 31 ] The successful formation of uhPDMA modified catheters evaluated by XPS showed reduced bacterial load (by 99.7% for P. aeruginosa, and 83% for S. saprophyticus) and resistance to bacterial adhesion for up to seven days in a mouse model compared to untreated catheters.[ 31 ]
To overcome the issue of limited surface coverage with polymeric coatings Shin et al. explored the role of polymer architecture in surface coverage and their applications as antifouling coatings. The copolymers comprising of PEG as hydrophilic antifouling block and of catechol acetonide glycidyl ether (CAG) as adhesive unit were prepared by anionic ring‐opening polymerization. The diblock (containing PEG and poly(CAG) segments) and triblock copolymers (containing poly(CAG)‐PEG‐poly(CAG) segments) modified surfaces prepared using catechol chemistry yielded brush and loop‐like conformations, respectively (Figure 5 ).[ 32 ]
Figure 5.

Schematics depicting the preparation of catechol‐functionalized polymeric coatings. a) Mussel‐inspired synthesis of catechol acetonide glycidyl ether monomer, b) Synthesis of the triblock copolymers of PEG and catechol derived monomer by anionic ring opening polymerization c) Antifouling action of the brush and loop conformation of antifouling coatings, reproduced with permission.[ 32 ] 2020, American Chemical Society.
The evaluation of the role of polymer topology (loop vs brush conformation) in the context of surface coverage revealed a larger projection area of triblock copolymers arranged in a loop configuration, causing the PEG block of the copolymer to remain closer to the surface.[ 32 ] Furthermore, the polymers arranged in loop conformation exhibited reduced changes in orientation compared to the brush like architecture, possibly due to the anchorage of poly(CAG) at both ends of the triblock copolymers, forming a loop on the surface thus demonstrating superior antifouling efficacies, than brush like configuration.[ 32 ]
In another study, catechol chemistry was employed to graft zwitterionic, antifouling polymers of 3‐(2‐methylacrylamido)‐N,N‐dimethylpropylamine N‐oxide by surface initiated atom transfer radical polymerization on quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) sensor chips and successfully demonstrated the inhibition of non‐specific surface fouling using bovine serum albumin, as a model protein.[ 55 ]
The multifunctional mussel‐inspired antifouling coatings were then developed by combining contact‐killing efficacies, with antifouling behavior in copolymers along with the adhesive properties of catechol groups. The copolymers of 2‐methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC), 4‐formyl phenylmethacrylate (FPMA), and 2‐(methacryloyloxy)‐ethyl trimethylammonium (META) were prepared by reversible‐addition fragmentation chain transfer polymerization approach.[ 33 ] MPC, a zwitterionic and antifouling component combined with META, a cationic contact‐killing component,[ 56 ] and FPMA, an adhesive group forming Schiff‐base linkage between the aldehyde group of polymer chains and of amino groups of PDA nanoparticles, in copolymer chains yielded multifunctional surfaces grafted by catechol chemistry.[ 33 ] The copolymer modified surfaces demonstrated significant hydrophilicity, possibly due to the zwitterionic nature of the polymeric coatings causing enhanced interaction with water molecules.[ 33 ] The multifunctional coatings were highly biocompatible, and supported the growth of fibroblasts, yet inhibited the attachment of serum proteins and bacteria, suggesting their potential for biomedical applications.[ 33 ]
Similarly dual‐functional mussel inspired hyperbranched polymeric coatings prepared by a Michael‐addition reaction of poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGDA) and dopamine, using trimethylolpropane triacrylate (TMPTA) as a branching agent and gentamicin as an antimicrobial were prepared with varying degrees of branching and amount of gentamicin incorporated into the copolymer structure. The polymeric coatings displayed excellent antibacterial efficacies toward Gram‐positive and Gram‐negative bacteria and antimicrobial efficacies of coatings were largely dependent on the amount of gentamicin incorporated in the copolymer structures.[ 34 ] Additionally the coatings demonstrated strong antifouling efficacies against serum proteins and were non‐toxic toward human pre‐osteoblasts growth, indicating biocompatibility and potential applications as medical implant coating.[ 34 ]
While these multifunctional coatings exhibit superior antifouling capabilities, improved shelf life, and antimicrobial efficacies, such coatings are prone to degradation, exhaustion, and surface damage overtime.[ 21 ] To improve the existing antifouling coatings, smart coatings, also referred to as stimuli responsive coatings are developed that respond to the presence of certain stimuli and can be regenerated over time to maintain their antimicrobial and antifouling properties.[ 21 ] Mao et al. reported the development of stimuli responsive, antimicrobial, and antifouling polymeric coatings using poly(diethylene glycol diglycidyl ether) (PEGDGE), poly L‐lysine (PLL) and the copolymers of poly[glycidylmethacrylate‐co‐3‐(dimethyl(4‐vinylbenzyl)ammonium)propylsulfonate] (poly(GMA‐co‐DVBAP)).[ 35 ] The copolymer prepared by free radical polymerization and mixed with commercially available PLL and PEGDGE were coated on PDA modified substrates using mussel inspired co‐deposition technique; by simple immersion of glass slides in an alkaline solution of dopamine, followed by the addition of polymers by ring opening and Michael addition reactions (Figure 6 ).[ 35 ]
Figure 6.

a) Schematics depicting the development of polymer functionalized surface by one step mussel inspired co‐deposition technique. b) The Chemical structure and corresponding properties of polymeric coatings with single (release), dual (killing and release), and triple (antifouling−killing−release) action capabilities are demonstrated, and reproduced with permission.[ 35 ] 2023, American Chemical Society.
PDA/poly(GMA‐co‐DVBAPS), PDA/PLL/poly(GMA‐co‐DVBAPS) and PDA/PLL/poly(GMA‐co‐DVBAPS)/PEGDGE functionalized surfaces exhibited surface contact killing efficacies in the presence of PLL.[ 35 ] The PEGDGE component provided antifouling abilities by the formation of a hydration layer, preventing microbial adhesion and biofilm formation. The poly(GMA‐co‐DVBAPS) component yielded salt responsiveness and change in coating conformation from shrinkable to stretchable form, causing the release of attached bacteria upon treatment with NaCl, hence addressing the issue of surface exhaustion over time.[ 35 ] The single response coatings PDA/poly(GMA‐co‐DVBAPS) exhibited >90% bacterial release ability, while the dual response coating PDA/PLL/poly(GMA‐co‐DVBAPS) retained bacterial release abilities of >90% along with ≈90% antibacterial efficacies.[ 35 ] The triple response coating containing all three active materials namely, PDA/PLL/poly(GMA‐co‐DVBAPS)/PEGDGE demonstrated antifouling abilities against bacteria for a sustained period of time (2–4 days), with bacterial killing efficacies (44–54%), and retained bacterial release ability of over 90% for three repeated cycles.[ 35 ]
2.3. Articular Cartilage Inspired Coatings
Healthy articular cartilage composed of ≈70% water has among the lowest friction coefficients of any material and is achieved by hydration lubrication.[ 57 ] The theory of hydration lubrication is based on the formation of a hydration layer around charged particles in the joint space, which then act as a lubricating agent.[ 57 ] The commonly studied materials for this purpose are hydrated ions, surfactants, and biomacromolecules such as phosphatidylcholine (PC) vesicles that are particularly interesting due to the highly lubricating nature and hydration capabilities of the head region.[ 57 ]
A requirement to improve joint replacements and joint implants is to develop materials with lubrication properties along with antifouling abilities to limit implant associated infections.[ 36 , 37 ] Zhao et al. developed antifouling and lubricating polymeric coating inspired by articular cartilage, by modifying PU surfaces with polyethyleneimine (PEI)—modified PMPC copolymers by catechol chemistry The polyelectrolytes (PEI‐b‐PMPC) obtained by peroxide‐initiated grafting polymerization were immobilized via Schiff base reaction between amines of PEI and of PDA nanoparticles modified PU, forming adhesive hydrophilic antifouling layer. The bioinspired surfaces obtained by combining lubricating properties of PMPC, with contact active killing efficacies of PEI and with adhesive features of mussel inspired chemistry yielded contact active, antifouling materials with antimicrobial properties (Figure 7 ). The lubricating coatings obtained exhibited reduced adhesion of bacteria, proteins, and blood cells, along with successful contact killing of any adhered bacteria compared with the uncoated control surface.[ 36 ]
Figure 7.

a) Schematics depicting the development of PEI‐b‐PMPC coated surfaces using catechol chemistry, reproduced with permission.[ 36 ] 2023, American Chemical Society.
Similarly, articular cartilage inspired, antifouling, self‐healing PU composites were studied by Tian et al. and exhibited improved surface healing ability and protection of materials in harsh marine environments.[ 58 ]
Another example of multifunctional bioinspired coatings with mussel and articular cartilage‐like properties was reported by Wang et al. The copolymers of dopamine methacrylamide (DMA), 2‐methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC), and methacrylic anhydride modified cyclodextrins (MA‐β‐CD) prepared by free‐radical polymerization, termed as PDMC were applied to Ti6Al4 V surfaces via layer‐by‐layer self‐assembly mediated by PDA adhesion capabilities.[ 37 ] The modified surfaces characterized by XPS demonstrated increased hydrophilicity, due to the presence of zwitterionic PDMC copolymers on the surface.[ 37 ] The biocompatible, antifouling, and lubricating PDMC coatings were further augmented with the addition cyclodextrin providing drug loading capabilities, with potential applications for biomedical implants.[ 37 ]
Similarly, the articular cartilage like super‐lubricating properties of PMPC and PEG were combined with adhesive capabilities of PDA to develop biomimetic polymeric coatings on Ti implants.[ 59 ] The polymers and resin coated Ti‐implants demonstrated excellent lubrication along with antifouling properties, attributed to the hydration layers of PMPC and PEG, and with the potential to reduce patient discomfort for implantable devices.[ 59 ]
2.4. Other Bioinspired Coatings
In addition to articular cartilage, other biological components of living organisms including proteins, vitamins, insect cuticles and wings, plant surfaces, and blood vessels inspired coatings are developed and explored as antifouling materials.[ 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 ] For example, bioinspired polymers cloaking the surface of nanoparticles are ideal and emerging nanotherapeutics with biomedical applications. Nanoparticles based drug delivery carriers have been at the forefront of nanomedicines for decades. One of the major issues with nanoparticles based delivery carriers is their non‐specific interactions with serum proteins, causing opsonisation and removal of nanoparticles from the blood stream. The surface fouling of nanoparticles in physiological conditions is known to reduce drug delivery efficacies, along with non‐specific aggregation and accumulation of nanoparticles in various organs. The surface charge and topography of blood proteins provide a nature inspired approach to cloak the nanoparticles in bloodstream, and to inhibit non‐specific interactions of delivery carriers with the other blood components. The blood protein surface charge mimicking end‐group functionalized PEG coated AuNPs developed by a combination of computational approaches and experimental designs were compared for their surface charge and antifouling properties (Figure 8 ). The nanoparticles mimicking the surface charge of apoferritin, a highly abundant protein in blood plasma, obtained with a precise mixtures of negative (─COOH), positive (─NH2), and neutral (─OCH3) end‐functionalized PEG brushes yielded large zwitterionic surface area and were highly effective at minimizing protein adsorption.[ 39 ]
Figure 8.

Scheme for the synthesis of gold nanoparticles with antifouling coatings composed of different amounts of the ligands HS‐PEG‐NH2, HS‐PEG‐OCH3, and HS‐PEG‐COOH. The table indicates the percentages of each ligand used as well as core size (dc) measured with TEM of the nanoparticles. The HSA‐Sim and Apo‐Sim particles mimicking the surface charge of HSA and Apoferritin respectively, are developed, and reproduced with permission.[ 39 ] 2023, American Chemical Society.
In addition to proteins, hydrophilic and moisture retaining properties of small molecules such as vitamin B5 have been used to develop anti‐fouling surfaces.[ 40 , 61 , 62 , 63 ] Combita et al. investigated the antifouling abilities of vitamin B5‐derived monomer (termed as B5AMA) and its corresponding macromolecules prepared by reversible addition fragmentation chain transfer polymerization. The poly(B5AMA) based coatings prepared by the amide bond formation between the carboxyl group of the chain transfer agent of polymer chains and of the amine group of the silanized glass surface exhibited molecular weight and surface grafting density dependent antifouling efficacies that were comparable to that of PEG coated surfaces.[ 40 ] Poly(B5AMA)‐functionalized glass surfaces were also found to be highly transparent and exhibited good resistance to physical damage such as scratching.[ 40 ]
The multifunctional surface coatings with self‐healing, anti‐fouling, and antibacterial properties were then developed by combining B5AMA, and MPC based statistical copolymers with silver nanoparticles.[ 41 ] Poly(MPC‐st‐B5AMA) prepared by free radical polymerization were grafted onto amine rich surface via hydrogen bond formation between hydroxyl groups of B5AMA and amine modified surfaces, followed by impregnation with AgNPs imparting antibacterial abilities.[ 41 ] The coatings were found to exhibit excellent biocompatibility and good antifouling abilities, along with self‐healing capabilities, likely due to the presence of multiple polar functional groups in the B5AMA monomer, suggesting the coatings are suitable for a wide range of biomedical applications.[ 41 ]
The process of insect cuticle sclerotization involves the crosslinking of cuticle proteins (polyamines) and phenolic compounds in the presence of oxygen by a process mediated by phenol oxidases.[ 42 ] Inspired by this process, polymer coated surfaces prepared by hydrogenated caffeic acid‐conjugated polyallylamine (CPA) crosslinking in the presence of oxygen, followed by MPC grafting by carbodiimide chemistry, resulted in polymer brush formation on the modified surface by free radical polymerization, as shown in Figure 9 .[ 42 ]
Figure 9.

Development of bioinspired coatings based on the insect cuticle sclerotization process. a) Insect cuticle sclerotization process (left) and mechanism of adhesive armor formation PCPA (right). b) Synthesis of PMPC armor prepared by a combination of carbodiimide chemistry and free radical polymerization. c) Visual depiction of the antifouling properties of PMPC armor, reproduced with permission.[ 42 ] Copyright 2024, Elsevier.
The evaluation of surface morphology by SEM demonstrated the presence of uniformly distributed tiny particles on polymer coated surface; possibly attributed to the oxidative crosslinking of the modified surface, whereas unmodified surfaces were relatively smooth.[ 42 ] The polymer coated catheters prevented bacterial adhesion, biofilm formation, and adsorption of fibrinogen and platelets and retained antifouling and anticoagulant abilities 30 days post‐immersion in a rabbit model.[ 42 ] The use of insects as a source of bioinspiration for antifouling coatings is uncommon with the study by Ke et al. being one of the few. Another example of insect inspired antifouling materials is a recent study by Ning et al. where antifouling films for recycling purposes were developed inspired by the surface structures of various soil‐dwelling insects, including the mole cricket, dung beetle, and antlion.[ 64 ]
Blood vessel walls contain a laminar layer of water that effectively prevents protein adsorption and early stage surface fouling, providing another nature‐guided engineering approach for antifouling surface development.[ 43 ] The surface modification with hydrophilic and zwitterionic polymers provides a similar strategy to minimize surface fouling and is among the most studied method to yield polymer coated antifouling materials.[ 43 ] These polymeric coatings alone, however, are not efficient in controlling microbial contamination, especially in a marine environment. Wang et al. combined the antifouling behavior of zwitterionic polymers with the antimicrobial potential of Cicada wing like nano‐structures yielding a new class of coatings with antimicrobial and antifouling efficacies. Bioinspired zwitterionic nanowires comprised of ZnO@Al2O3 fabricated by the hydrothermal synthesis and seeded by atomic layer deposition to form core–shell geometry were surface grafted with poly(sulfobetainemethacrylate) poly(SBMA) brushes by surface‐initiated ATRP (SI‐ATRP). The zwitterionic, hydrophilic polymeric films fabricated were highly durable under shear stress and enabled >75% reduction in algae fouling compared to the bare surface.[ 43 ] The fabricated nanowires also facilitated foulant release (>60%) under low shear stress, suggesting potential applications of materials as marine coatings.[ 43 ]
Combining multiple biological templates in a single surface yields biomimetic materials with improved antifouling properties. The combination of porous tubular materials, inspired by the star‐shaped nose of the mole with the slippery surface of the pitcher plant (Nepenthes) is among the handful of examples that integrate multiple biological approaches into a single material with simultaneous drug delivery and antimicrobial properties.[ 38 ] The super‐wettable tubular glass catheter prepared by layer‐by‐layer photonic crystal deposition method via interfacial self‐assembly of SiO2 nanoparticles of various sizes in poly(NIPAAM) hydrogels produced inverse opal like 3D, temperature‐sensitive, porous structures with color changing capabilities as a function of antimicrobial drug release.[ 38 ] The slippery functions inspired by Nepenthes surface were then incorporated into the stimuli‐responsive catheter by perfluorinated oil infusion in the porous structure of hydrogel, the oil squeezed out and formed a slipper layer on the catheter as a function of temperature, yielding self‐cleaning properties by sliding the water droplets off from the surface.[ 38 ]
3. Conclusion
Polymeric antifouling coatings typically developed by surface initiated polymerization methods or by surface grafting of pre‐made polymers are promising methods to reduce surface contamination of medical devices, sensors, filtration membranes, and ship‐hulls. However polymeric coatings are mechanically weak, prone to degradation, are easily exhausted in the presence of excess foulants, and offer reduced antifouling efficacies due to the limited coverage of polymer chains on solid support. Bioinspired polymeric coatings combine the antifouling characteristics of polymer chains with the 3D architecture of living organisms that tend to keep their surfaces clean by combining the mechanical properties of surface topography with the hydration properties of biological molecules. For example, polymeric scaffolds developed in lotus leaf and shark skin templates combined the surface topography of living organism with superhydrophilic properties of polymers, yielding superior antifouling behavior than the smooth polymer coated surfaces. Lotus leaf inspired superhydrophobic, self‐cleaning surfaces specifically designed by incorporating F‐SiO2 nanoparticles into the polymer networks and mussel inspired PDA nanoparticles coated adhesive polymeric surfaces are among the most studied examples of bioinspired materials with various potential applications in water purification, health care, and in the marine industry. Others combined super‐adhesive properties of catechol derivatives with articular cartilage like super‐lubricating properties of polymers to yield dually inspired materials with improved antifouling efficacies.
The issue of surface exhaustion was addressed by developing multifunctional materials with contact active and stimuli‐responsive properties yielding next generation antifouling coatings with the ability to kill and release the foulants overtime, increasing the overall efficacy and life‐time of the coatings. The multifunctional coatings with applications in health care were designed using insect sclerotization as inspiration. The antifouling polymer coated catheters formed by the crosslinking mechanism of insect cuticles demonstrated remarkable anti‐fouling and anticoagulant activities after days of in vivo insertion. Similarly, using small biological molecules (such as apoferritin and vitamin B5), self‐healing antifouling surfaces, and drug delivery carriers were developed.
The stimuli responsive coatings demonstrating color change upon environmental changes are the focus of recent interest in the field of antifouling coatings. The antifouling materials prepared by combining the superhydrophobic properties of a lotus leaf with color changing capabilities of TMC were reported as self‐cleaning, energy‐free radiated materials with applications such as house cooling and heating devices. Whereas a combination of liquid infused pockets and silica nanoparticles in super‐hydrophilic temperature responsive polymer network grafted catheters demonstrated color change capability as a function of drug release. Antifouling coatings that change color upon bacterial contamination or protein adhesion are of particular interest in the field of stimuli responsive coatings for everyday usage.[ 21 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 ] Bacterial metabolic products such as acids, reactive oxygen species, and enzymes can be used as stimuli that can be detected by smart materials, causing color change upon microbial contamination.[ 72 , 73 ] The idea of combining color changing ability of smart materials with antimicrobial efficacies was recently investigated in food packaging applications that change color upon bacterial contamination, allowing visual inspection of food quality over time.[ 65 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 ] With recent advances in the extraction of food grade stimuli‐responsive dyes such as anthocyanins and their facile incorporation in food packaging materials, stimuli responsive antifouling materials that change color upon microbial contamination represent an attractive and eco‐friendly option.[ 76 , 77 ] The stimuli‐responsive antifouling surfaces that report back upon microbial contamination and their combination with existing contact active and drug releasing antifouling coatings can be a potentially new class of coatings with high significance for health care, water filtration, and marine industries.
Furthermore, despite promising results of newly emerging multifunctional surfaces with antifouling, contact active, and regenerative properties, these materials are still in their infancy. The studies to date clearly demonstrate that surface roughness incorporated by lithography methods or by the incorporation of nanoparticles in polymeric coatings improves the antifouling and antibacterial properties of the modified surfaces. Although, antibacterial properties of rough surfaces are typically associated with the micro/nanostructure length and architecture, surface roughness is reported to augment hydrophobic and hydrophilic properties of polymers, increasing surface area, polymer grafting density, and hence, antifouling and self‐cleaning efficacies. However, in depth exploration of the mechanism of action of nano‐templated surfaces and evaluation of structure activity relationship between surface architecture and antifouling properties is required. The studies entailing sizes and shapes of micro‐ and nanoparticles and their ultimate impact on antifouling properties are yet to demonstrate the role of surface architecture on antifouling properties of polymer modified surfaces.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Author Contributions
C.D. was responsible for manuscript writing, and M.A. contributed to editing, resource provision, and supervision.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank NSERC‐DG (RGPIN‐06183/2018) and Mitacs (IT29811) for the funding of this project.
Biographies
Catherine Doyle graduated from the University of Prince Edward Island with a Bachelor of Science Honours in Chemistry in 2022 and a Master of Science in September 2024, under the supervision of Dr. Marya Ahmed. Her research projects during Master's degree were focused on the development of stimuli‐responsive, and anti‐fouling coatings using polymeric composites.

Marya Ahmed is an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry and Faculty of Sustainable Design Engineering at the University of Prince Edward Island. She received her PhD degree from the University of Alberta and was a postdoctoral fellow at the California Institute of Technology and at the University of Toronto. She joined the University of Prince Edward Island in 2016 and was promoted to Associate Professor in 2021 with tenure. Her research is focused on the development of smart antimicrobial and antifouling polymeric materials with applications in drug delivery.

Doyle C., Ahmed M., Antifouling Coatings Inspired by Biological Templates. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2025, 46, 2400932. 10.1002/marc.202400932
References
- 1. Sathishkumar G., Gopinath K., Zhang K., Kang E.‐T., Xu L., Yu Y., J. Mater. Chem. B 2022, 10, 2296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Song F., Zhang L., Chen R., Liu Q., Liu J., Yu J., Liu P., Duan J., Wang J., ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 33417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Islam M. A., Cho J.‐Y., Azyat K., Mohammadtabar F., Gao F., Serpe M. J., Myles A. J., La Y.‐H., Sadrzadeh M., ACS Appl. Polym. Mater 2021, 3, 1116. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Liu M., Bauman L., Nogueira C. L., Aucoin M. G., Anderson W. A., Zhao B., Curr. Opin. Biomed. Eng. 2022, 22, 100395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Uneputty A., Dávila‐Lezama A., Garibo D., Oknianska A., Bogdanchikova N., Hernández‐Sánchez J. F., Susarrey‐Arce A., Colloid Interface Sci. Commun. 2022, 46, 100560. [Google Scholar]
- 6. Li Z., Liu P., Chen S., Liu X., Yu Y., Li T., Wan Y., Tang N., Liu Y., Gu Y., Eur. Polym. J. 2023, 190, 111997. [Google Scholar]
- 7. Faÿ F., Champion M., Guennec A., Moppert X., Simon‐Colin C., Elie M., Coatings 2023, 13, 766. [Google Scholar]
- 8. Maan A. M., Hofman A. H., de Vos W. M., Kamperman M., Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020, 30, 2000936. [Google Scholar]
- 9. Jin H., Tian L., Bing W., Zhao J., Ren L., Prog. Mater. Sci. 2022, 124, 100889. [Google Scholar]
- 10. Kong T., Luo G., Zhao Y., Liu Z., Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1808012. [Google Scholar]
- 11. Lu Z., Teo B. M., Tabor R. F., J. Mater. Chem. B 2022, 10, 7895. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Li Z., Guo Z., Nanoscale 2019, 11, 22636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Romeu M. J., Mergulhão F., Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1568. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Zhang X., Ma J., Zheng J., Dai R., Wang X., Wang Z., Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 432, 134425. [Google Scholar]
- 15. Liu Y., He X., Yuan C., Cao P., Bai X., J. Adv. Res. 2024, 59, 201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Zhang H., Wang F., Guo Z., Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2024, 325, 103097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Tian L., Yin Y., Jin H., Bing W., Jin E., Zhao J., Ren L., Mater. Today Chem. 2020, 17, 100294. [Google Scholar]
- 18. Yang X., Zhang W., Qin X., Cui M., Guo Y., Wang T., Wang K., Shi Z., Zhang C., Li W., Wang Z., Biomimetics 2022, 7, 88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Damodaran V. B., Murthy N. S., Biomater. Res. 2016, 20, 18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Sullivan T., O'Callaghan I., Biomimetics 2020, 5, 58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Liu Q., Urban M. W., Polymer Reviews 2022, 63, 289. [Google Scholar]
- 22. Liu J., Mohd Rafiq N. B., Wong L. M., Wang S., Frontiers in Chemistry 2021, 9, 768007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Si Y., Li C., Hu J., Zhang C., Dong Z., Adv. Funct. Mater. 2023, 33, 2301017. [Google Scholar]
- 24. Gulati N. M., Stewart P. L., Steinmetz N. F., Mol. Pharmaceutics 2018, 15, 2900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Wong W. S. Y., Stachurski Z. H., Nisbet D. R., Tricoli A., ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 13615. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Xie X., Liu J., Li G., Zhang K., Wang X., Zheng Z., Wang X., Kaplan D. L., Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024, 274, 133271, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Ozkan E., Estes Bright L. M., Kumar A., Pandey R., Devine R., Francis D., Ghalei S ., Ashcraft M., Maffe P., Brooks M., Shome A., Garren M., Handa H., J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2024, 664, 928. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Liu B., Wu J., Xue C., Zeng Y., Liang J., Zhang S., Liu M., Ma C., Wang Z., Tao G., Adv. Mater. 2024, 36, 2400745. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Long F., Liu J., Li X., Sun F., Wu H., Yang J., Wang R., Zhou T., Hu W., Liu L., Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 458, 141475. [Google Scholar]
- 30. Chien H.‐W., Chen X.‐Y., Tsai W.‐P., Lee M., Colloids Surf., B 2020, 186, 110738. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Yu K., Alzahrani A., Khoddami S., Ferreira D., Scotland K. B., Cheng J. T., Yazdani‐Ahmadabadi H., Mei Y., Gill A., Takeuchi L. E., Yeung E., Grecov D., Hancock R. E., Chew B. H., Lange D., Kizhakkedathu J. N., Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2021, 10, 1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Shin E., Lim C., Kang U. J., Kim M., Park J., Kim D., Choi W., Hong J., Baig C., Lee D. W., Kim B.‐S., Macromolecules 2020, 53, 3551. [Google Scholar]
- 33. Imbia A. S., Ounkaew A., Mao X., Zeng H., Liu Y., Narain R., Langmuir 2024, 40, 10957. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Xu H., Cai Y., Chu X., Chu H., Li J., Zhang D., Polym. Chem. 2021, 12, 3413. [Google Scholar]
- 35. Mao S., Zhang D., He X., Yang Y., Protsak I., Li Y., Wang J., Ma C., Tan J., Yang J., ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 3089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Zhao Y., Qian Y., Wang H., Zhao W., Zhao J., Zhang H., ACS Appl. Polym. Mater 2023, 5, 3999. [Google Scholar]
- 37. Wang H., Yang Y., Zhao W., Han Y., Luo J., Zhao X., Zhang H., Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2022, 9, 2200561. [Google Scholar]
- 38. Jiang Z., Chen Y., Xu M., Shao W., Zhang L., Liu C., Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2023, 10, 2202047. [Google Scholar]
- 39. Toro‐Mendoza J., Maio L., Gallego M., Otto F., Schulz F., Parak W. J., Sanchez‐Cano C., Coluzza I., ACS Nano 2023, 17, 955. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Combita D., Nazeer N., Bhayo A. M., Ahmed M., ACS Appl. Polym. Mater 2022, 4, 575. [Google Scholar]
- 41. Asha A. B., Ounkaew A., Peng Y.‐Y., Gholipour M. R., Ishihara K., Liu Y., Biomater. Sci. 2023, 11, 128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Ke Y., Meng H., Du Z., Zhang W., Ma Q., Huang Y., Cui L., Lei Y., Yang Z., Bioact. Mater. 2024, 37, 493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Wang J., Macdonald B., Cho T. H., Repetto T., Sun K., Tuteja A., Dasgupta N. P., Small 2024, 20, 2400784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Collins C. M., Safiuddin M. d., Infrastructures 2022, 7, 46. [Google Scholar]
- 45. Bae S., Lee Y. J., Kim M. K., Kwak Y., Choi C.‐H., Kim D. G., Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7973.35805638 [Google Scholar]
- 46. Si Y., Guo Z., Surf. Interfaces. Biomim. Superhydrophob. Mater. 2017, 7, 117. [Google Scholar]
- 47. Jiang X., Shao Y., Li J., Wu M., Niu Y., Ruan X., Yan X., Li X., He G., ACS Nano 2020, 14, 17376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Habib Z., Song M., Ikram S., Zahra Z., Pollutants 2024, 4, 136. [Google Scholar]
- 49. Jin H., Bing W., Jin E., Tian L., Jiang Y., Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 7, 1901577. [Google Scholar]
- 50. Huang J., Lu X., Chen G., Wan Y., Luo J., AIChE J. 2024, 70, e18391. [Google Scholar]
- 51. Lee B. P., Messersmith P. B., Israelachvili J. N., Waite J. H., Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 2011, 41, 99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Silverman H. G., Roberto F. F., Mar. Biotechnol. 2007, 9, 661. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Zhang N., Cheng K., Zhang J., Li N., Yang X., Wang Z., J. Membr. Sci. 2022, 660, 120829. [Google Scholar]
- 54. Wang X., Yuan S., Shi D., Yang Y., Jiang T., Yan S., Shi H., Luan S., Yin J., Appl. Surf. Sci. 2016, 375, 9. [Google Scholar]
- 55. Zhou Z., Shi Q., Polymers 2024, 16, 1634. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Yang Y., Cai Z., Huang Z., Tang X., Zhang X., Polym. J. 2017, 50, 33. [Google Scholar]
- 57. Lin W., Klein J., Acc. Mater. Res. 2022, 3, 213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Tian W., Wang S., Guo Z., Yu H., Tian L., Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 462, 142346. [Google Scholar]
- 59. Li Q., Yin Q., Hou B., Zhou L., Des. Monomers Polym. 2021, 24, 106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Wang C., Liu W., Chen R., Sun G., Yu J., Liu Q., Liu J., Li Y., Zhu J., Liu P., Wang J., J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2024, 670, 223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Kabir A., Dunlop M. J., Acharya B., Bissessur R., Ahmed M., RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 38100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Nazeer N., Ahmed M., Eur. Polym. J. 2019, 119, 148. [Google Scholar]
- 63. Jahan S., Doyle C., Ghimire A., Combita D., Rainey J. K., Wagner B. D., Ahmed M., Polymers 2023, 16, 65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Ning X., Wu T., Du Y., Chang Z., Xie H., Qu J., Chem. Eng. J. 2024, 497, 155002. [Google Scholar]
- 65. Cui L., Hu J., Wang W., Yan C., Guo Y., Tu C., Cellulose 2020, 27, 6367. [Google Scholar]
- 66. Riaz R. S., Elsherif M., Moreddu R., Rashid I., Hassan M. U., Yetisen A. K., Butt H., ACS Omega 2019, 4, 21792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Weston M., Phan M. A., Arcot J., Chandrawati R., Food Chem. 2020, 326, 127017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Chen M., Yan T., Huang J., Zhou Y., Hu Y., Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 179, 90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Sun Y., Zhao C., Niu J., Ren J., Qu X., ACS Cent. Sci. 2020, 6, 207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Snari R. M., Alsahag M., Alisaac A., Bayazeed A., Alsoliemy A., Khalifa M. E., El‐Metwaly N. M., J. Mol. Liq. 2022, 366, 120149. [Google Scholar]
- 71. Jia L., Sun W., Li W., Dong Y., Wu L., Saldaña M. D. A., Gao Y., Jin Y., Sun W., Packag. Technol. Sci. 2022, 36, 549. [Google Scholar]
- 72. You Y., Sun H., Cheng Z., Xu X., Li J., Polymer 2024, 307, 127312. [Google Scholar]
- 73. Wang X., Shan M., Zhang S., Chen X., Liu W., Chen J., Liu X., Adv. Sci. 2022, 9, 2104843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Pažarauskaitė A., Noriega Fernández E., Sone I., Sivertsvik M., Sharmin N., Polymers 2023, 15, 3118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Mattioli R., Francioso A., Mosca L., Silva P., Molecules 2020, 25, 3809. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Kossyvaki D., Contardi M., Athanassiou A., Fragouli D., Polymers 2022, 14, 4129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Roy S., Rhim J.‐W., Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 61, 2297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
