↓ Skip to main content

Anisotropic dehydration of hydrogel surfaces

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Biomaterials, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Anisotropic dehydration of hydrogel surfaces
Published in
Progress in Biomaterials, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40204-017-0075-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georgia Kaklamani, David Cheneler, Liam M. Grover, Michael J. Adams, Spiros H. Anastasiadis, James Bowen

Abstract

Efforts to develop tissue-engineered skin for regenerative medicine have explored natural, synthetic, and hybrid hydrogels. The creation of a bilayer material, with the stratification exhibited by native skin, is a complex problem. The mechanically robust, waterproof epidermis presents the stratum corneum at the tissue/air interface, which confers many of these protective properties. In this work, we explore the effect of high temperatures on alginate hydrogels, which are widely employed for tissue engineering due to their excellent mechanical properties and cellular compatibility. In particular, we investigate the rapid dehydration of the hydrogel surface which occurs following local exposure to heated surfaces with temperatures in the range 100-200 °C. We report the creation of a mechanically strengthened hydrogel surface, with improved puncture resistance and increased coefficient of friction, compared to an unheated surface. The use of a mechanical restraint during heating promoted differences in the rate of mass loss; the rate of temperature increase within the hydrogel, in the presence and absence of restraint, is simulated and discussed. It is hoped that the results will be of use in the development of processes suitable for preparing skin-like analogues; application areas could include wound healing and skin restoration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 26%
Student > Master 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Librarian 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 4 21%
Materials Science 3 16%
Chemical Engineering 2 11%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,572,275
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Biomaterials
#20
of 47 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,445
of 327,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Biomaterials
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 47 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one scored the same or higher as 27 of them.
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 327,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them