| Title |
Oxygen diffusion in marine-derived tissue engineering scaffolds
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10856-015-5531-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E. Boccardi, I. V. Belova, G. E. Murch, A. R. Boccaccini, T. Fiedler |
| Abstract |
This paper addresses the computation of the effective diffusivity in new bioactive glass (BG) based tissue engineering scaffolds. High diffusivities facilitate the supply of oxygen and nutrients to grown tissue as well as the rapid disposal of toxic waste products. The present study addresses required novel types of bone tissue engineering BG scaffolds that are derived from natural marine sponges. Using the foam replication method, the scaffold geometry is defined by the porous structure of Spongia Agaricina and Spongia Lamella. These sponges present the advantage of attaining scaffolds with higher mechanical properties (2-4 MPa) due to a decrease in porosity (68-76 %). The effective diffusivities of these structures are compared with that of conventional scaffolds based on polyurethane (PU) foam templates, characterised by high porosity (>90 %) and lower mechanical properties (>0.05 MPa). Both the spatial and directional variations of diffusivity are investigated. Furthermore, the effect of scaffold decomposition due to immersion in simulated body fluid (SBF) on the diffusivity is addressed. Scaffolds based on natural marine sponges are characterised by lower oxygen diffusivity due to their lower porosity compared with the PU replica foams, which should enable the best oxygen supply to newly formed bone according the numerical results. The oxygen diffusivity of these new BG scaffolds increases over time as a consequence of the degradation in SBF. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 21% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 2 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 8 | 24% |
| Materials Science | 7 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 15% |
| Chemical Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 July 2017.
All research outputs
#12,735,689
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#933
of 1,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,509
of 263,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,403 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 263,581 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.