4.6 Article

Electro-actuated hydrogel walkers with dual responsive legs

期刊

SOFT MATTER
卷 10, 期 9, 页码 1337-1348

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c3sm51921j

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Triangle NSF MRSEC on Programmable Soft Matter [DMR-1121107]
  2. DS/DGA-France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stimuli responsive polyelectrolyte hydrogels may be useful for soft robotics because of their ability to transform chemical energy into mechanical motion without the use of external mechanical input. Composed of soft and biocompatible materials, gel robots can easily bend and fold, interface and manipulate biological components and transport cargo in aqueous solutions. Electrical fields in aqueous solutions offer repeatable and controllable stimuli, which induce actuation by the re-distribution of ions in the system. Electrical fields applied to polyelectrolyte-doped gels submerged in ionic solution distribute the mobile ions asymmetrically to create osmotic pressure differences that swell and deform the gels. The sign of the fixed charges on the polyelectrolyte network determines the direction of bending, which we harness to control the motion of the gel legs in opposing directions as a response to electrical fields. We present and analyze a walking gel actuator comprised of cationic and anionic gel legs made of copolymer networks of acrylamide (AAm)/sodium acrylate (NaAc) and acrylamide/quaternized dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA Q), respectively. The anionic and cationic legs were attached by electric field-promoted polyion complexation. We characterize the electro-actuated response of the sodium acrylate hydrogel as a function of charge density and external salt concentration. We demonstrate that osmotically passive fixed charges play an important role in controlling the bending magnitude of the gel networks. The gel walkers achieve unidirectional motion on flat elastomer substrates and exemplify a simple way to move and manipulate soft matter devices and robots in aqueous solutions.

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

4.6
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