4.7 Article

Development of techniques to compare mechanical properties of reversible hydrogels with spherical, square columnar and ocular lens geometry

Journal

POLYMER
Volume 47, Issue 11, Pages 4203-4209

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2006.02.029

Keywords

hydrogel; lens; biomechanics

Funding

  1. Directorate For Engineering
  2. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [0757140] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We have developed a new experimental technique for determining the elastic modulus of the ocular lens by using hydrogel phantoms. We successfully prepared disulfide-reversible polyacrylamide hydrogels in the forms of a square column, a sphere, and a lens. The M-n (number average molecular weight) of the reduced copolymer ranged from 696,800 to 870,900 Da. The physical and swelling properties of the gels were independent of shape. The M, (molecular weight between cross-links) ranged from 1776 to 1887 compared with the theoretical M-c of 1638 Da. The gels exhibited non-linear rubber elasticity, but at low strains the elastic moduli (E) were 4680 +/- 150, 5010 +/- 280, and 4870 +/- 220 Pa for the square column, sphere, and lens, respectively. The shear modulus (G) was 1531 +/- 70 Pa with an E/G ratio of approximately 3: 1, indicating an incompressible gel at low strains. At high strains (similar to 15%) the Mooney-Rivlin plot was linear and the magnitude of 2C(1) was 1515 Pa, which was comparable to the shear modulus of the gels. Finally, the Tatara mechanical model for large deformation of rubber spheres was successfully applied to extract the elastic modulus of the lens. The modulus of the lens obtained with this technique was consistent with the moduli for the square column and sphere. The new technique will be used to determine the mechanical properties of the ocular lens. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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