GEMS 102 Project Sheet
Name(s) (the maximum is four authors per project sheet):
Sudi Jawahery, Eisha Nathan
E-mail address(es):
sudij@umd.edu, eisha.nathan@gmail.com
Section Leader(s):
Divya Raghavachari
Natasha Gallo
The Rules:
-
For a project sheet to be considered, the authors must meet with Dr. Thomas and Dr. Wallace the week of February 28 BEFORE
the sheet is due. The meeting sign-up sheet is located on Dr. Thomas’s office door: 0100H Ellicott Hall.
A committee of Gemstone staff and GEMS102 Section Leaders will review all project sheets for feasibility, worth, and academic
rigor. Authors will be notified within two days whether their project sheets are accepted on the first try; otherwise, they will be
asked to revise and resubmit.
The first round of project sheets will be posted by Thursday, March 10th. After this point, no new topics will be allowed.
Each project sheet may have no more than four authors and once a project sheet has been submitted (by 3/6/11 at 11:59 p.m.), NO
new authors may be added to the sheet.
If you plan to propose a project, we expect you to take this responsibility seriously and commit to your project. At least one
author for every project sheet needs to commit to seeing the project through the final vote and listing it as his/her first-choice
team. If, as the sole project sheet author, you lose interest in your topic, you must pull your topic out BEFORE the second vote.
PART A: (due to Rebecca Thomas at rschenk@umd.edu by Sunday, March 6, 2011 by 11:59 p.m.)
I.
Research project title: ELECTRODE: Evaluating Low Electrical Currents for Tissue Repair and Organizing a Device for
Experimentation
II.
Please briefly describe the overarching research problem. Why is it a problem? Why does this problem warrant academic
research? Who cares?
Severe burns are a type of serious injury that can have a variety of causes, including heat, chemicals, and radiation. Second-tofourth degree burns affect a large portion of the population, especially those working in industries requiring regular exposure to
adverse conditions. 2.4 million burn injuries are reported in the United States every year. Of these, 20,000 affect at least 25% of the
total body surface area. Extensive burns can result in potentially fatal and disfiguring complications, and therefore warrant new
technologies that are capable of speeding up the healing process and minimizing the amount of damage and scarring. The aim of
this project would be to develop a device that uses electrical stimulation to accelerate the rate and improve the quality of severe
burn repair.
III. Please describe the current direction of research on this problem (including two scholarly references).
Directing electrical impulses to damaged tissue has been proven to induce more comprehensive repair than the body’s natural
capacity for healing. Studies show that pulsed electrical stimulation of second-degree rat burns produces repaired skin that is
visibly comparable to unharmed skin. Two developing methods have branched off of more primitive forms of electrical
stimulation, mainly low voltage pulsed current (LVPC) and high voltage pulsed current (HVPC). Although LVPC, at an amplitude
of around 10-50 mA at 100 Hz, has had successful trials, it runs at relatively high currents and is thus likely to irritate the skin. On
the contrary, HVPC runs at high voltage but maintains a low total energy, which eliminates the risk of skin irritation, yet is still
effective. There are several ongoing projects that apply these new methods and could serve as sources of background research.
Researchers at Tufts University are working on a “regenerative sleeve” that uses electrical stimulation and an optimized
environment to support the early stages of tissue regrowth of amputated limbs. In addition, researchers at the University of Ulster
in Ireland are testing means to regrows tissue that has been damaged due to pressure ulcers (bedsores). Current research seems to
be pointing in the direction of further technological advancements in this field.
Castillo, E., H. Sumano, T. Fortoul, and A. Zepeda. "The Influence of Pulsed Electrical Stimulation on the Wound Healing of
Burned Rat Skin." Arch Med Res. 26.2 (1995): 185-89. PubMed. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.
Cutting, Keith F. "Electric Stimulation in in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds." Wounds UK2.1 (2006): 62-71. Print.
Hechavarria, Daniel, Abiche Dewilde, Susan Braunhut, Michael Levin, and David L. Kaplan. "BioDome Regenerative Sleeve for
Biochemical and Biophysical Stimulation of Tissue Regeneration." Medical Engineering & Physics 32.9 (2010): 1065-073. Print.
"Medications for Burn Victims - Burn Survivor Resource Center - Burn Medicine." Burn Injury Victim Care, Severe Burns
Treatment, Burn Survivor Resource Center. The Law Offices of Robert A. Brenner, 2010. Web. 06 Mar. 2011.
United States. U.S. Army Wounded Warrior Program. Warrior Transition Command. AW2. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.
Weber, S.A.; Vonhoff, P.A.; Owens, F.J.; Byrne, J.A.; McAdams, E.T.; , "Development of a multi — Electrode electrical
stimulation device to improve chronic wound healing,"Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2009. EMBC 2009. Annual
International Conference of the IEEE , vol., no., pp.2145-2148, 3-6 Sept. 2009
IV. Please describe the proposed research project description (to address an aspect of the problem cited above). How will the
team carry out the research? What methodologies and methods will the team use? What data are most important to collect?
The first stage of this project would involve reviewing journals to determine the general consensus on the feasibility of certain
methods of electrical stimulation. We would then obtain appropriate skin tissue and simulate the effect of severe burns. We would
then run tests on the tissue in order to determine what amount and type of electrical stimulation is needed to provide a healthy and
optimal amount of repair. Our research would include examining the efficacy of differences in voltage, current, pulse length, and
surface area of exposure to stimulation with respect to varying burn severities. We would then compile our data to more precisely
pinpoint the specifications that are most conducive to tissue repair.
The second stage of the project would involve designing and building a device that incorporates the designated parameters in order
to function as supplementary apparatus to the body’s natural healing process. Since different severities of burns would require
different specifications, the device made at the end of the project would either be suited for one particular type of burn, or may be
programmable/adjustable for different types of burns.
V.
Potential research question(s)
Is there an upper limit to the amount of electrical stimulation that can be supplied to dermal tissue before negative effects start
outweighing the positive effects?
What parameters (voltage, current, pulse length, surface area of exposure) have the largest impact on tissue repair?
VI. Additional considerations:
A. Please comment on this project’s feasibility (considering time, cost, and staffing). Your initial impressions based on your
two sources are fine for the first vote, but Part B will need to be completed for the project to be eligible for the second
vote.
Although feasible, this project would require a large, concerted effort on the part of the student members and faculty
mentor of the team. At least one year would have to be dedicated to the design and development of the actual device,
which means that the team would have to get started on research as soon as possible. The main costs of our project
would most likely come from obtaining the necessary tissue and outsourcing any programming for the device. Ideally,
the members of the team should come from a variety of educational backgrounds, ranging from the technical sciences to
the biological sciences. A team of all biology majors may not have as much success as a team with more diversity
because a heavy research concentration is not all that this project requires.
B. Are you aware of any potential mentors within the campus or community? If so, please list their name(s) and position(s):
We have spoken to and consulted with Dr. John Fisher, Professor of Bioengineering, who has taken interest in the project and
is willing to be a mentor. Dr. Fisher also runs the Tissue Engineering Laboratory at the University of Maryland, the resources
of which will prove to be applicable.
VII. 30-second PSA (Public Service Announcement).
Write up a sample of a 30-second advertisement for your topic. This write-up should be akin to something you might hear as
an announcement on the radio. Make this PSA something that would entice your fellow classmates to be curious about and
interested in your topic. Construct this PSA so that students will want to vote for your topic! Use your creative ideas here to
make this as enticing as possible! This PSA will be used during various times throughout the semester to quickly and
succinctly “plug” your topic/idea for a follow up research project.
Severe burns affect 2.4 million people in America each year and often leave victims disfigured for life. ELECTRODE aims to
minimize the effects of these burns by designing a device to supplement the body’s natural healing process. This device will
direct electrical stimulation into the affected tissue and accelerate the recovery period, drastically improving the lives of
many burn victims. If engineering a solution to one of society’s oldest concerns appeals to you, join us at ELECTRODE!
PART B: (please revise Part A and complete Part B and email to Rebecca Thomas at rschenk@umd.edu by Monday, April 4,
2011 by 5 p.m.)
VIII.
In order for this topic to be eligible for the second vote, you must discuss (vet) its feasibility with a faculty member on
campus and write a summary of his or her opinion regarding the project’s worth and feasibility. Project sheets that have not been
vetted by a suitable expert will NOT be eligible to move forward in the process.
A. Name of expert who vetted the project: Dr. Ian White
B. Title of expert who vetted the project: Assistant Professor, Fischell Department of Bioengineering
C. Date the project was vetted by the expert: Friday, April 1
D. Was the project vetted by email, phone, or an in-person conversation? In-person
E. A summary of the expert’s comments regarding the feasibility of the project (e.g., time, money, logistics,
staffing):
Dr. White said that the basic design of our device would not have to be too complicated. We would need basic electronic and
controls components, such as a microprocessor, a controls box, and two electrodes placed some distance apart from each other. Based
on his experience working with undergraduates in the Electrical & Computer Engineering Department, he feels that undergraduates
would be able to handle the level of electronics design required for the project. However, he mentioned that in order for the project to
be completed on time, it would require the team to start working on prototypes early in the process and for groups to work on
biological research and electrical design in parallel.
Dr. White estimated that a (very!) rough cost for a final project to be around $1000. This price is not unreasonable given the
funding that we receive from the Gemstone program and the fact that we will be applying for multiple grants from various institutions.
F. A summary of the expert’s comments regarding the worthiness of the project (Who cares? Is it academically
rigorous? Does it have the potential to make a worthwhile contribution to the field? Is it worth doing?):
Dr. White said that he could imagine a final product not being too unwieldy or large (about the size of a Kleenex box) and
that he could see it being worn as a sleeve during treatment for burns. This means that our envisioned final product could be applied to
burn patients and that it could change the current methods of treatment.
G. A summary of the expert’s overall assessment. Should this project be allowed to move forward? If so, what changes are
necessary?
Dr. White was interested in the project’s premise and direction. He feels that since the project is building off existing research
and technology, the goals are more attainable and leave room for potential complications that may arise along the way, either
in the biological research of the project or the electronics design. We discussed the possibility of adding a co-mentor in the
Electrical Engineering Department to our project, as it would be easier to integrate the biological and electrical design
components of our project into a cohesive final product. Dr. White suggested that we consult with professors in the Electrical
Engineering Department because his specific line of work is with smaller-scale electronics. He noted that we would need
access to the Electrical Engineering Circuit labs, which would also be easier if we have an Electrical Engineering mentor. We
are currently in the process of consulting with EE professors who would be willing to work with our team.