4.7 Article

Understanding mechanical characteristics of cellulose nanocrystals reinforced PHEMA nanocomposite hydrogel: in aqueous cyclic test

Journal

CELLULOSE
Volume 24, Issue 5, Pages 2095-2110

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10570-017-1244-7

Keywords

Cellulose nanocrystals; Hydrogels; Nonlinear responding behaviour; Aqueous cyclic test

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51373131]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [XDJK2016A017, WUT2017IVA015]
  3. Project of Applied Basic Research, Wuhan Science and Technology Bureau [2015010101010015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) can be embedded within hydrogels to form tough and strong nanocomposite materials, which possess biomimetic properties from hydrogels including good biocompatibility, permeability and flexible mechanical characteristics. There are many potential applications for these strong nanocomposite hydrogels in medical devices, such as wound dressing or super absorbents. Whereas, the research on the mechanical properties of CNC reinforced nanocomposite remains at superficial level, and their nonlinear mechanical responses are rarely investigated in previous reports. Mechanical characteristics of CNC reinforced poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (PHEMA) nanocomposite hydrogels, in terms of stress-strain correlations, fracture mechanism, and cyclic stretching responses, have been investigated in this work. Experimental results show that the modulus of the nanocomposite hydrogel tends to increase with increasing CNC content. Theoretical foundation for analysing the mechanical properties of hydrogels based on Mooney-Rivlin hyperelastic model, Voigt model and Reuss model has been developed and validated, which provides the prediction of the mechanical responses of CNC reinforced nanocomposite hydrogel to tension, especially the nonlinear responding behaviour.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available