International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET)
Volume 10, Issue 01, January 2019, pp. 2075-2084, Article ID: IJMET_10_01_203
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=1
ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359
© IAEME Publication
Scopus Indexed
FABRICATION OF BIO-POLYMER MATRIX
COMPOSITE (PMCS) USED FOR BIOMEDICAL
APPLICATION
Mohamed Khazal Hussien
Middle Technical University, IRAQ
Raid K Salim
Al-furat Al-awsat Technical University, IRAQ
ABSTRACT
In this researcha biomaterial additives were added to a polymeric materials to
impr0ve the mechanical properties of the resultant composite,which can be used in
bi0medical applications:as examplereplace or supplement functions of living tissues
of human body. The present work is c0ncerned with study the mechanical properties
(Compressive strength, Tensile strength, Impact strength, Wear resistance and
hardness) for the resultant composite material.
Epoxy was reinforced with < 75 µm of caw bone particulates. Three percentage of
particles were used (5, 10 and 15) %, and the most effective addition was (10-15 wt.
%). X-ray results showed that 71 % caw bone is calcium phosphate hydroxide
(apatite). Also results showed that compressive and tensile strength of the resultant
composite was increased by 18% and 24% respectively, as compared to as received
epoxy. Hardness and impact strength of the fabricated composite also increased by
15% and 41% compared to the unreinforced epoxy.
Wear resistance of the composite was improved pronouncedly through the
resultant composite additions of bone particles, where wear rate decreased by 82%.
Finally, the impact strength of the epoxy reinforced caw bone was increased by 41%
compared to that unreinforced epoxy
Keywords: Biomaterials, Polymer Matrix Composite, Mechanical Properties, Caw
Bone, Epoxy
Cite this Article: Mohamed Khazal Hussien and Raid K Salim, Fabrication of BioPolymer Matrix Composite (Pmcs) used for Biomedical Application, International
Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 10(1), 2019, pp. 2075-2084.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=1
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
2075
editor@iaeme.com
Fabrication of Bio-Polymer Matrix Composite (Pmcs) used for Biomedical Application
1. INTRODUCTION
Biomaterials are materials of manmade origin or natural source that are used to direct replace
or supplement the functions of living tissues of the human body[1]. A deterioration of all
tissues with age progressis the major contributor to the need for spare parts for the human
body. As example, Bone is susceptible to fracture as a result of resorption, pathology and
trauma [2].The density of bone decreases due to the growing cells become gradually less
creative in making new bone and repairing a fracture. The strength ofbones with lower
density, greatly deteriorates and an unfortunate result is that many old people spinal pr0blems
or have collapsed vertebrae and fracture their hips [3].In early days, many type of natural
materials such as wood, rubber glue, and tissues from living forms, and fabricated materials
such as glass, gold, zinc and iron were used as biomaterials established on trial and error [4].
Titanium, stainless steel and its alloys have been used for the fracture fixation treatments
[5].Nevertheless, these are implants and metallic devices are not "biodegradable" and needa
second surgery to remove it from the human body. This is cause to increase chances of
complications and infection with elevate the health care cost and hospitalization
time[6].Thedeficiencies of various metallic materialscontains; very high stiffness compared to
tissues, corrosion, high density andlow biocompatibility. While, thedisadvantages of other
materials such as ceramic, comprise: brittleness, difficult to fabricate, low mechanical
reliability, low fracture strength withhigh density and lack of resilience. All thementioned
complexities provide way for the next generation bone implants that have better
biocompatibility. The use of natural material (from animal sourcei.e. Cow bone)as
reinforcement in polymer matrix compositewas good example of the substitute material based
that are gaining attention [7].
Composites generally aim to combine the properties of different materials for medical
applications, as example "biocompatible" polymeric materials have been typically applied as
matrix for composite materials associated with ceramic fillers in tissue engineering. Where,
polymers are known to be flexible and exhibit l0w mechanical stiffness and strength, while
ceramics are generally stiff and brittle materials [8].The interest of fundamental research and
industrial applications in natural fiber reinforced polymer composite materials is rapidly
growing. Their properties such as;biodegradable, renewable, cheap, completely or partially
recyclable and acceptable mechanical properties make them an cute ecological alternative to
carbon, glass as well as manmade fiber used for the fabrication of composites [9].Nowadays,
biomaterials are used in many medical systems and devices:screws, plates, wires and pins for
bone treatments; dental and maxillofacial applications; skull reconstruction; artificial hearts;
synthetic blood vessels and t0tal artificial joint implants. [10]. Many of researchers studied
the ability of fabrication biocomposites which are composed of synthetic or natural resins
reinforced with natural fibers, some of them are selected in the following:
Oladele IO and Isola BA 2016[11] investigated the mechanical properties of epoxy
composite reinforced by goat bone particles. The results showed that the improving in the
mechanical properties were obtained at higher wt. % reinforced composites (16-20 wt. %),
where at 16 wt. %, composites possessed the best tensile and bending properties as well as
good hardness properties.OladeleIOet al. 2016 [12] explained the effects of cow bone
particles additions on the tribological behavior and mechanical properties of polyethylene
composite reinforced by cow bone so as to study the ability of using this new material for
engineering applications. The results exposed that the hardness values and tensile strength of
the resultant composite increase as the wt. % of the bone particles increased, while the rigidity
and impact strength decreased. IsiakaOluwole2013 [13]studied the reinforcement efficiency
of bone particles and b0ne ash on the mechanical properties of polyester matrix so as to
investigate the suitability of the resultant composite as biomaterial. The tensile test result
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
2076
editor@iaeme.com
Mohamed Khazal Hussien and Raid K Salim
showed that, 8 wt. % bone particle reinforced polyester composites has higher tensile
properties, whilein bending test, bone ash reinforced composites exhibited the best bending
properties. Jyoti Prakash Dhal1 and S. C. Mishra 2012 [14] prepared a low cost polymer
composite using brown grass flower broom as reinforcement. Results revealed that the
prepared composite has a light weight and high strength depending on the mechanical and
physical characterization such as: density measurement, porosity (void fraction) measurement,
hardness and bending strength measurement.
Many other researchers have initiated to focus attention on the biocomposites which are
composed of synthetic or natural resins reinforced with natural reinforcements. They
explained the effect of bone particle size dispersed on the mechanical properties of matrix
composites so as to studyits suitability as biomaterials. The researchers also conclude that
these materials are structurally compatible[15].
This research aims to improve the mechanical properties of polymeric materials (epoxy)
using biomaterial (cow bone particles) as a reinforcement particles.
2. EXPERIMENTAL WORK
2.1. Materials
The main materials used in this work are: epoxy resin and cow bones. Boneswere procure
from the marketand scraped to remove meat remnants, washed thoroughly to remove any
oil.They sun dried for 4 weeks, then calcined in the furnace at 300 ºC for 5 hours to eliminate
any protein present and then cooled in air, after which it was crushed with jaw-crusher and
finally milled using laboratory ball mill. Particleswere sieved to obtain the required grain size
of < 75 μm. Figure (1) shows steps of bone particles preparation.
a
b
c
d
Figure 1 the steps of bone particles preparation:
a- Cleaning and cutting. b- Drying. c- Crushing process. d- Milling process
The composite was manufactured using the open mould technique. A mixing ratio of 2:1
(epoxy: hardener) was selected based on the epoxy-hardener manufacturer’s instruction. Bone
particulate was varied in a predetermined percentage of 5, 10 and 15 wt. %. The additives
mixed with epoxy using electric stirrer for 20 minute for each case to guarantee high level of
homogeneity. The manufacture process contains consecutive steps; Epoxy resin (polymer)
fabrication, powder mixing, particulate filled polymer matrix composites fabrication (mixing
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
2077
editor@iaeme.com
Fabrication of Bio-Polymer Matrix Composite (Pmcs) used for Biomedical Application
the product of step (1 and 2), pouring the mixture of composite into a mold, curing at constant
temperature and time, and ejecting the final composite material from the mold, then the
composite were cut to the standard dimensionsto produce tensile, flexural and impacttest
specimens. The mold with the dimension (4 x 80 x 200) mm was shown in figure (2) a and b.
a
b
Figure 2 a- mold used. b- Tensile test specimens
A special mold has been used for the preparation of compression test specimens. The
mold was hollow cylinder with 12.5mm diameter and 25mm length. It was manufactured
according to (ASTM-D695) standardsas shown in Fig (3) a.
Othermold has been used for the preparation of wear test specimens. The mold was
hollow cylinder with 10 mm diameter and 20 mm length. It was manufactured according to
(ASTM-G99) standardsthe length to diameter ratio was nearly (2:1), fig (3) b.All the
specimen were left to cure in the mould for 8 hours thenit rem0ved and dried in air for 14
days before testing.
a
b
Figure 3 a- Compression test specimens. b- Wear test specimens.
2.2. Mechanical Testing
2.2.1. Tensile test
This test was fabricated according to ASTM D3039 standardization, the specimens were cut
to (4 x 13 x 200) mm, with a gauge length of (150) mm and the test was perf0rmed using
(united test) tensile tester in the Specialized Institute for Engineering Industries at Baghdad.
2.2.2. Compression test
The compression test was carried out using a universal testing instrument (united test)
according to ASTM D695 M-89at the Institute of Technology –Mechanical department.
2.2.3. Wear test
Wear test specimens were performed according to ASTM G 99 – 04 standardization, where
their dimensions were (10× 20) mm. Experiments were carried out under, varying loads of (5,
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
2078
editor@iaeme.com
Mohamed Khazal Hussien and Raid K Salim
7.5, 10, 12.5 and 15) N, Constant speed of (250 rpm) and a duration of 15 minutes for each
test.Wear rate can be determine according the standardization:
Wr = (ΔW / S)
(1)
Where:
Wr= Wear rate (gm/cm)
ΔW = Weight difference of sample before and after each test
(ΔW=W1-W2) gm, and
S = Total sliding distance (cm)
A sliding distance is calculated by the following formula:
S= V × t × 100
(2)
Where:
V = Linear velocity (m/min)
t = Time of running (min)
A linear velocity of (m/min) is calculated by using the formula:
V =2π × 𝑟× n
(3)
Where:
𝑟 = Distance from the center of pin to the center of disc, m, and
n = Disc rotational speed (rpm)
2.2.4. Hardness Test
This test was performed on samples which had dimensions of (20x20x5) mm according to
ASTM D2240 using the Durometer tester.
2.2.5 Impact test
The impact test were carried on (impact tester machine) at the university of technology / the
applied science department to measure impact strength .Specimen were cut into dimensions of
(4 x 10 x 55 ) mm according to ( ISO 179-1982 E ).
2.2.6. X-ray diffraction (XRD)
X-ray diffraction was also carried out on the bone particles to determine the elemental
chemical composition of the cow bone particulate. The Instrument was used with X-Ray
diffraction spectrometer at the ministry of science and technology.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
3.1. XRD Test
The X-Ray Diffraction analysis showed that the main elements present in cow bone is
calcium phosphate hydroxide (Apatite) with 71% as shown in figure(4).
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
2079
editor@iaeme.com
Fabrication of Bio-Polymer Matrix Composite (Pmcs) used for Biomedical Application
Figure 4 The X-Ray Diffraction analysis.
3.2. Tensile Strength
Tensile strength was influenced by the change of weight fraction of the reinforcement.At
5 % wt. the tensile strength was decreasedas compared to the received sample. This decrease
may be due to either poor adhesion or direct c0ntact of particles and void formation.
Increasing percentage of filler caused improvement in the strength of the resultant
composite as compared with as received one, the stresses reaches to maximum value of (90
MPa) with 10% wt. of reinforcement materials as shown in Figure (5).The stress increases
proportionally with increasing weight fraction of fillers due to the bond created between the
surface of fillers and matrix,which increases slippage of the particles as well as increasing
wettability leading to increase in the strength.
stress - strain curve
100
90
stress, MPa
80
70
60
50
40
pure epoxy
30
20
5 % bone
particulate
10
0
0
2
4
6
8
strain
Figure 5 stress-strain curveof the resultant composite as compared with received material.
3.3. Compression Strength
Compression stress-strain curves of the resultant composite as c0mpared with as received are
shown in Figure (6). It is clear that the increasing compression stress is a function of
reinforcement materials content, therefore; the compression strength is directly proportional to
the reinforcement content. Increasingthe weight percent of filler causes drops in strain of the
resultant composite and increases in stress reaching maximum at10 % wt. of fillers up to
(127.55 MPa). Increases in weight percent of fillers leads to decrease in the movement of
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
2080
editor@iaeme.com
Mohamed Khazal Hussien and Raid K Salim
particles which cause increasing in the transmitting stresses from matrix to fillers
particles.After which, the stress was drops at15%due to the particles become segregated in
matrix materials.
stress strain curve
140
120
stress, MPa
100
80
60
pure epoxy
5 % bone particulate
10 % bone particulate
15 % bone particulate
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
strain %
30
35
40
Figure 6 stress-strain curveof the resultant composite as compared with received material
3.4. Wear Resistance
Epoxy reinforced with b0ne particles (reinforcement) clearly affected the wear rate of the
composite material.Figure(7)showswear test results, it can be noticed, that in all tested
materials, the intensity of wear rate rises as the applied load increase. The characteristic of
that increase is not the same for all specimens depending on the percent of the bone particles.
The weight loss of each specimen after wear testing was taken in 0rder to calculate the wear
rate (gm/cm) of the samples.This figure shows that the greater the percent of the
reinf0rcement particles (bone) the higher wear resistance (i.e. decrease in wear rate). Thus the
fabricated composite showed improvement in average wear resistance as the bone percentage
increased, compared to pure epoxy. This improvement in wear resistance is due to high
surface contact that’s lead to strong bond formed between matrix and filler, as well as the
nature of these granules which have high abrasion resistance.
wear resistance, gm/cm
0.000002
0.0000018
pure epoxy
0.0000016
0.0000014
5 % bone
particulate
0.0000012
0.000001
0.0000008
0.0000006
0.0000004
0.0000002
0
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
force, N
12
13
14
15
16
Figure 7 Comparison between wear rates of the fabricated composite (5%, 10% and 15%) and
received material.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
2081
editor@iaeme.com
Fabrication of Bio-Polymer Matrix Composite (Pmcs) used for Biomedical Application
3.5. Hardness Test
Hardness property is a measure of the resistance of the materials to surface indentation,
similar response mode to other mechanical properties was observed with a slight difference.
Hardness test results are shown in Figure (8). It is n0ted that all composite materials have
higher hardness than that of as received material.The increase in this property is due to the
high hardness pr0perty of the reinforcement particles in addition to the strengthening resulting
from carrying of the load by these particles.It was noticed that hardness property increase as
the reinforcement increased. Best result was obtained at 15 wt. % bone reinforced sample
with a value of 55.1 HD compared to the unreinforced epoxy matrix with a value of 48 HD.
56
hardness
54
pure
5 % bone particulate
10 % bone particulate
15 % bone particulate
52
55.1
53.3
50.8
50
48.2
48
46
44
Figure 8 hardness test results
3.6. Impact test
In this test, un-n0tched specimens were used. The lack of a notch makes this test method
especially useful for reinforced materiel where a notch may mask the effect of orientation.
Results of this test were illustrated in figure (9).It can see that the resultant c0mposite with
15% wt. of reinforcement give the best toughness properties because of the unique properties
of bone particles which have high impact resistance.
Figure 9 impact test results
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
2082
editor@iaeme.com
Mohamed Khazal Hussien and Raid K Salim
4. CONCLUSIONS
From the research, it was observed that the cow b0ne can be used as reinforcement in
polymeric material to develop composites materials for biomedical applications having met
the necessary structural conditions. The c0nclusions derived from this experimental work can
be summarized as follows:
1. The presence of 71% calcium phosphate hydroxide (apatite) in the reinforcement as a
natural material approve its usability as a suitable reinforcement material in a
polymeric matrix for the devel0pment of composite material used in biomedical
applications.
2. Reinforcement of epoxy with 10 % wt. bone particulate provide the best mechanical
properties.Where, Compressive and tensile strength of the resultant composite
increased by 18% and 24% respectively (at 10 % of bone particulate reinforcement),
as compared with received epoxy.
3. Wear resistance was highly enhanced within 10% wt. of bone particulate
reinforcement, where wear rate decreased about 82% as compared with as received
epoxy.
4. The hardness and impact strength of composite reinf0rced with natural particles
increased about 15% and 41% respectively, as compared with received epoxy.
5. Composite specimen with best combination of mechanical and wear properties was 10
wt. % of caw bone particles reinforced epoxy matrix. This feat positioned the
specimenas the most appropriate material in"biomedical application" having met the
structural conditions necessary.
REFERENCE
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
Black J., Hastings G.W., Handbook of Biomaterials Properties, Chapman and Hall,
London, UK, 1998.
Rabie AB, Wong RW, Hagg U (2000) Composite autogenous bone and demineralized
bone matrices used to repair defects in the parietal bone of rabbits. Br J Oral
MaxillofacSurg 38(5): 565-570.
Hench LL (1998) Bioceramics, Journal of the American Ceramic Society 81(7): 17051728.
Wintermantel E., Mayer J., Anisotropic Biomaterials Strategies and Developments
forBone Implants, In: Wise D.L., Trantolo D.J., Altobelli D.E., Yaszemiski J.D., Gresser
J.D., Schwartz E.R., editors, Encyclopedic Handbook of Biomaterials and Bioengineering,
Part B-I, Marcel Dekker, New York, p. 3-42, 1995.
Eglin D, Alini M (2008) Degradable polymeric materials for osteosynthesis. Eur Cell
Mater 16: 80-91.
Sumner DR (2015) Long-term implant fixation and stress-shielding in total hip
replacement. J Biomech 48(5): 797-800.
Manivasagam G, Dhinasekaran D, Rajamanickam A (2010) Biomedical Implants:
Corrosion and its Prevention - A Review. Recent Patents on Corrosion Science 2: 40-54.
Park JP, Bronzino JD (2003) Biomaterials: Principles and Applications. In: Kon Kim Y &
Park JB (Eds.), Metallic Biomaterials. CRC press, USA, p. 1-20.
Murali MR, Mohana KK, Ratna AV (2010) Fabrication and testing of natural fibre
composites: Vakka, sisal, bamboo and banana. Materials & Design 31(1): 508-513.
Moldovan L., Craciunescu O., Zarnescu O., Macocinschi D., Bojin D., Preparation and
Characterization of New Biocompatibilized Polymeric Materials for Medical Use,Journal
of Optoelectronics and Advanced Materials, 10(4), p. 942-947, 2008.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
2083
editor@iaeme.com
Fabrication of Bio-Polymer Matrix Composite (Pmcs) used for Biomedical Application
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
Oladele IO and Isola BA,Development of Bone Particulate Reinforced Epoxy Composite
For Biomedical Application, Journal of Applied Biotechnology & Bioengineering,
Volume 1 Issue 1 – 2016
Oladele IO, Olajide JL, Amujede M (2016) Wear Resistance and Mechanical Behaviour
of Epoxy/Mollusk Shell Biocomposites developed for Structural Applications. Tribology
in Industry 38 (3): 347-360.
IsiakaOluwoleoladele, Development of Bone Ash and Bone Particulate Reinforced
Polyester Composites for Biomedical Applications, Leonardo Electronic Journal of
Practices and Technologies Issue 22, January-June 2013 p. 15-26
Jyoti Prakash Dhal1 and S. C. Mishra, Processing and Properties of Natural FiberReinforced Polymer Composite, Hindawi Publishing Corporation Journal of Materials,
Volume 2013, Article ID 297213, 6 pages.
Oladele IO, Adewole TA (2013) Influence of Cow Bone Particle Size Distribution on the
Mechanical Properties of Cow Bone- Reinforced Polyester Composites. Hindawi
Publishing Corporation Biotechnology Research International 2013: 1-5.
Ayoola A.A, Sanni S.E, Ojo T, Omonigbeyin O, Ajayi A.A, Olawole O. C. and Ajayi O.
M, Production of A Novel Bio-Polymer For Enhanced Oil Recovery and Modelling The
Polymer Viscosity Using Artificial Neural Network (ANN), International Journal of
Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 9(12), 2018, pp. 562–573.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp
2084
editor@iaeme.com