4.5 Article

Optimizing material and manufacturing process for PEGDA/CNF aerogel scaffold

期刊

JOURNAL OF POROUS MATERIALS
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 1623-1637

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10934-020-00938-5

关键词

CNF; Aerogel; Scaffold; Factor; Taguchi method

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51875214, 11972161]
  2. Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou, China [201804010452]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cellulose nano fibril (CNF) aerogel, which is provided with high porosity, ultralow density and biodegradable ability, is a promising material for tissue engineering scaffold. Restricted by its poor mechanical properties, common CNF aerogel is unable to make scaffold with customized 3D structures. In order to make it useful in tissue engineering, the synthetic polymer Poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGDA) has been chosen to mix with CNF solution to form a kind of composite bio-resin, which is ready for stereolithography. Our former study has proved the printability of the bio-resin and the biocompatibility of the CNF aerogel scaffold. But the relationship among its properties, material component and manufacturing condition has not been systematically studied. Thus an attempt is made to study and optimize the process factors that govern the aerogel scaffold's property by using Taguchi experiment design in this work, where four main factors of material and fabrication process: the content of PEGDA, the content of CNF, the size of CNF and the pre-freeze temperature have been chosen to make a discussion of their effect on the aerogel scaffold's properties including its porosity, mechanical property, micro-structure and so on. An orthogonal array of experiment is developed. It has the least number of experimental runs with desired process factor settings. The results analyzed by the tool of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) show that different factor has various degrees of effect on different properties. Finally the optimized factors are acquired by screening the experiments data.

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

4.5
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