4.1 Article

Analysis of the Mechanical Failure of Polymer Microneedles by Axial Force

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
卷 56, 期 4, 页码 1223-1227

出版社

KOREAN PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.3938/jkps.56.1223

关键词

Mechanical failure; Buckling; Aspect ratio; Microneedle

资金

  1. Korean Government [KRF2007-331-D00582]
  2. Kyungwon University Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A polymeric microneedle has been developed for drug delivery applications. The ultimate goal of the polymeric microneedle is insertion into the specified region without failure for effective transdermal drug delivery. The mechanical failure of various geometries of microneedles by axial load was modeled using the Euler formula and the :Johnson formula to predict the failure force of tapered-column microneedles. These formulas were compared with measured data to identify the mechanical behavior of microneedles by determining the critical factors, including the actual length and the end-fixed factor. The comparison of the two formulas with the data showed good agreement at an end-fixity (K) of 0.7. This value means that a microneedle column has one fixed end and one pinned end and that; part of the microneedle is overloaded by an axial load. When the aspect ratio of length-to-equivalent diameter is 12:1 at Young's modulus of 3 GPa., there is a transition from the Euler region to the Johnson region clue to the decreased length and the increased base diameter of the microneedle. A polymer having a stiffness of less than 3 GPa would follow the Euler formula. A 12:1 aspect ratio of length-to-equivalent diameter of the microneedle is a mechanical indicator determining the failure mode between elastic buckling and inelastic buckling at; Young's modulus of less than 3 GPa for polymer. Microneedles with an aspect ratio of length-to-equivalent diameter below 12:1 and Young's modulus of more than 3 GPa are recommended for reducing sudden failure by buckling and for successfully inserting a microneedle into the skin.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据