Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:53:46.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Hardness and toughness of exoskeleton material in the stone crab, Menippe mercenaria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

C. A. Melnick
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611
Z. Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science & Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611
J. J. Mecholsky Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science & Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611
Get access

Abstract

Techniques from the field of materials science and engineering were utilized to examine the mechanical effects of dark pigment in exoskeleton material on the distal portion of stone crab, Menippe mercenaria, chelae. We made specimens from dark-and light-colored exoskeleton material to measure hardness and fracture toughness. The results from these tests showed the dark material to be much harder and tougher than light-colored material from the same crab chela. Scanning electron microscope photographs are presented to document the microstructure and level of porosity. We think that the structural difference in material properties is due to the lower level of porosity and phenolic tanning in dark material and that this tanning caused the dark color and filling of porosity. The exoskeleton structure is a laminated organic-inorganic structure which can serve as a model for self-healing structures.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Burtt, E. H., An Analysis of Physical, Physiological, and Optical Aspects of Avian Coloration with Emphasis on Wood-Warblers, Ornithological Monographs No. 38 (The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC, 1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Say, T., J. Acad. Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 1 (2), 448 (1818).Google Scholar
3.Bender, E. S., M. S. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL (1971), 110 pp.Google Scholar
4.Roer, R. and Dillaman, R., American Zoologist 24, 893909 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Ghidalia, W., Structural and Biological Aspects of Pigments in the Biology of Crustacea, edited by Bliss, D. E. and Mantel, L. H. (Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 1985), Vol. 9, pp. 301394.Google Scholar
6.Warner, G. F., The Biology of Crabs (Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1977).Google Scholar
7.Vincent, J., Structural Biomaterials–Rev. ed. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1990).Google Scholar
8.Krishnan, G., Quarterly J. Microscopical Sci. 92, part 3, 333342 (1951).Google Scholar
9.Savage, T. and Sullivan, J. R., Growth and Claw Regeneration of the Stone Crab, Menippe mercenaria (Florida Marine Research Publications, Florida Department of Natural Resources, 1978) No. 32, 23 pp.Google Scholar
10.Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 17, Refractories, Glass, and Other Ceramic Materials: Manufactured Carbon and Graphite, Products (American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1974), pp. 103106.Google Scholar
11.Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 10, Metals—Mechanical, Fracture, and Corrosion Testing; Fatigue; Erosion; Effect of Temperature (American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1978), pp. 271281.Google Scholar
12.Chantikul, P., Anstis, G. R., Lawn, B. R., and Marshall, D. B., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 64 (9), 539543 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Welinder, B. S., Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 52A, 659663 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar