| Title |
Processing and bioactivity of 45S5 Bioglass®-graphene nanoplatelets composites
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10856-014-5172-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Harshit Porwal, Salvatore Grasso, Luis Cordero-Arias, Chunchun Li, Aldo R. Boccaccini, Mike J. Reece |
| Abstract |
Well dispersed 45S5 Bioglass(®) (BG)-graphene nanoplatelets (GNP) composites were prepared after optimising the processing conditions. Fully dense BG nanocomposites with GNP loading of 1, 3 and 5 vol% were consolidated using Spark plasma sintering (SPS). SPS avoided any structural damage of GNP as confirmed using Raman spectroscopy. GNP increased the viscosity of BG-GNP composites resulting in an increase in the sintering temperature by ~50 °C compared to pure BG. Electrical conductivity of BG-GNP composites increased with increasing concentration of GNP. The highest conductivity of 13 S/m was observed for BG-GNP (5 vol%) composite which is ~9 orders of magnitude higher compared to pure BG. For both BG and BG-GNP composites, in vitro bioactivity testing was done using simulated body fluid for 1 and 3 days. XRD confirmed the formation of hydroxyapatite for BG and BG-GNP composites with cauliflower structures forming on top of the nano-composites surface. GNP increased the electrical conductivity of BG-GNP composites without affecting the bioactivity thus opening the possibility to fabricate bioactive and electrically conductive scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 21% |
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 16 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Materials Science | 24 | 34% |
| Engineering | 11 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 7% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 August 2014.
All research outputs
#20,233,547
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#1,288
of 1,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,789
of 313,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#15
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,400 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.