Abstract

Observations in crystal growth and assembly from recent in situ methods suggest alternative, non-classical crystallization pathways play an important role in the determination of the micro- and meso- structures in crystalline systems. These processes display parallels that cross-cut multiple disciplines investigating crystallization across four orders of magnitude in size scales and widely differing environments, hinting that alternative crystal growth pathways may be a fundamental scheme in natural crystal formation. Using a system of short-range attractive microbeads, we demonstrate that the addition of a small concentration of sub-species incommensurate with the lattice spacing of the dominant species results in a stark change in crystal size and morphology. These changes are attributed to the presence of fleeting, amorphous-like configurations of beads that ultimately change the melting and growth dynamics in preferred directions. From these real-time observations, we hypothesize the amorphous mineral precursors present in biological mineralized tissues undergo similar non-classical crystallization processes resulting in the complex structures found in biomineralization.

Highlights

  • Functional biological materials possess a myriad of intricate architectures and material properties, brought about by diverse and complex formation processes (Coelfen and Antonietti, 2008; Noorduin et al, 2013)

  • Biological mineralization has provided examples of materials with a diversity of morphologies and functions found in the biological world

  • From recent in situ investigations on a diversity of biomineralization model systems, we find common themes in the construction of strong, tough biological materials from their nano-scale constituents

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Functional biological materials possess a myriad of intricate architectures and material properties, brought about by diverse and complex formation processes (Coelfen and Antonietti, 2008; Noorduin et al, 2013). Biology has adapted mechanisms to sequester and organize local environments to provide the conditions necessary for growth of these materials while the organism exists in a global environment unsuited for growth or development of these materials. Local environments have shown to be controlled in numerous ways, such as regulation of pH, material concentration, protein concentration, and cellular density (Fritz et al, 1994; Aizenberg, 2004; Seto et al, 2004; Dunlop and Fratzl, 2010; Schenk et al, 2012; Seto, 2012; Rao et al, 2017). There is intense interest in these fundamental mechanisms (Gasser, 2009; Dalmaschio et al, 2010; Vekilov, 2010; Weiner and Addadi, 2011; Vekilov and Vorontsova, 2014), and the results of recent studies have produced valuable insights that may enable better

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call