New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Learning from Nature: Moth Eyes Inspire Nonreflective Screen Coating

A new technique could make digital devices easier to read in bright sunlight 

Susumu Nishinaga Science Source

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

It is a summer night, and the moths are all aflutter. Despite being drenched in moonlight, their eyes do not reflect it—and soon the same principle could help you see your cell-phone screen in bright sunlight.

Developing low-reflectivity surfaces for electronic displays has been an area of intensive research. So-called transflective liquid-crystal displays reduce glare by accounting for both backlighting and ambient illumination. Another approach, called adaptive brightening control, uses sensors to boost the screen's light. But both technologies guzzle batteries, and neither is completely effective. The anatomy of the moth eye presents a far more elegant solution, according to Shin-Tson Wu of the University of Central Florida, who described a technique for making an insect-inspired display coating recently in Optica.

When light moves from one medium to another, it bends and changes speed as the result of differences in a material property called refractive index. If the difference is sharp—as when light moving through air suddenly hits a pane of glass—much of the light is reflected. But a moth's eye is coated with tiny, uniform bumps that gradually bend (or refract) incoming light. The light waves interfere with one another and cancel one another out, rendering the eyes dark.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Wu and his colleagues at National Taiwan University created a silicon dioxide mold that resembles a moth's eye surface and used it to produce a hard, dimpled coating on a flexible sheet. Although these dimples are concave rather than convex such as those on the moth's eye, they prevent glare in the same way. In tests, the material resulted in less than 1 percent reflectance.

“The main barrier to the wide-scale adoption of this approach is its cost,” says Stuart Boden, who researches semiconductor device fabrication at the University of Southampton in England and who was not involved in the new work. Wu is hoping to find a commercial partner to scale up the technology.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 317 Issue 3This article was published with the title “A Moth’s Eye” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 317 No. 3 (), p. 14
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican092017-6e9rNP1N2o22RlKJiaRRJO

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe