In vitro and in vivo studies on biocompatibility of carbon fibres

In the present study we focused on the in vitro and in vivo evaluation of two types of carbon fibres (CFs): hydroxyapatite modified carbon fibres and porous carbon fibres. Porous CFs used as scaffold for tissues regeneration could simultaneously serve as a support for drug delivery or biologically active agents which would stimulate the tissue growth; while addition of nanohydroxyapatite to CFs precursor can modify their biological properties (such as bioactivity) without subsequent surface modifications, making the process cost and time effective. Presented results indicated that fibre modification with HAp promoted formation of apatite on the fibre surface during incubation in simulated body fluid. The materials biocompatibility was determined by culturing human osteoblast-like cells of the line MG 63 in contact with both types of CFs. Both tested materials gave good support to adhesion and growth of bone-derived cells. Materials were implanted into the skeletal rat muscle and a comparative analysis of tissue reaction to the presence of the two types of CFs was done. Activities of marker metabolic enzymes: cytochrome c oxidase (CCO) and acid phosphatase were examined to estimate the effect of implants on the metabolic state of surrounding tissues. Presented results evidence the biocompatibility of porous CFs and activity that stimulates the growth of connective tissues. In case of CFs modified with hydroxyapatite the time of inflammatory reaction was shorter than in case of traditional CFs

Microstructural path analysis of martensite burst

Modeling the martensite reaction requires reckoning with spatial aspects of the reaction. For that, we used formal kinetics, more specifically, the microstructural path method (MPM) to analyze the microstructure observed in a burst. The microstructural path analysis revealed that the size of the spread cluster in extended space, characterized by the Vandermeer and Juul-Jensen's impingement compensated mean intercept length, λG, remained constant, independently of the parent austenite grain size. Moreover, current analysis introduced a purely formal description of the reaction progress by taking the parent austenite grain size as the progress variable. This description worked very well and resulted in a relationship between the volume fraction of partially transformed austenite, V VG, and austenite grain size, λG. The significance of these findings in the light of the advantages and disadvantages of formal kinetics is discussed

Cavitation Phenomena in Mechanical Heart Valves: Studied by Using a Physical Impinging Rod System

[[abstract]]When studying mechanical heart valve cavitation, a physical model allows direct flow field and pressure measurements that are difficult to perform with actual valves, as well as separate testing of water hammer and squeeze flow effects. Movable rods of 5 and 10 mm diameter impinged same-sized stationary rods to simulate squeeze flow. A 24 mm piston within a tube simulated water hammer. Adding a 5 mm stationary rod within the tube generated both effects simultaneously. Charged-coupled device (CCD) laser displacement sensors, strobe lighting technique, laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV), particle image velocimetry (PIV) and high fidelity piezoelectric pressure transducers measured impact velocities, cavitation images, squeeze flow velocities, vortices, and pressure changes at impact, respectively. The movable rods created cavitation at critical impact velocities of 1.6 and 1.2 m/s; squeeze flow velocities were 2.8 and 4.64 m/s. The isolated water hammer created cavitation at 1.3 m/s piston speed. The combined piston and stationary rod created cavitation at an impact speed of 0.9 m/s and squeeze flow of 3.2 m/s. These results show squeeze flow alone caused cavitation, notably at lower impact velocity as contact area increased. Water hammer alone also caused cavitation with faster displacement. Both effects together were additive. The pressure change at the vortex center was only 150 mmHg, which cannot generate the magnitude of pressure drop required for cavitation bubble formation. Cavitation occurred at 3–5 m/s squeeze flow, significantly different from the 14 m/s derived by Bernoulli’s equation; the temporal acceleration of unsteady flow requires further study.[[incitationindex]]SCI[[booktype]]紙