| Literature DB >> 32764640 |
Sibel Demiroglu Mustafov1, Fatih Sen2, M Ozgur Seydibeyoglu3.
Abstract
Porous three-dimenEntities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32764640 PMCID: PMC7413266 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-70421-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1SEM images of (A) diatomite and (B) hydroxyapatite, respectively [insets: higher magnification SEM image (top), EDX spectrum (bottom)].
Figure 2SEM images of the PUF reinforced with (a) 0% diatomite; (b) 1% diatomite; (c) 2% diatomite and (d) 5% diatomite.
Figure 3SEM images of the PUF reinforced with (a) 1% HA; (b) 2% HA and (c) 5% HA.
Figure 4(a) TGA curves of the PUF-Diatomite biocomposites with pure PUF and (b) TGA curves of the PUF-HA biocomposites with pure PUF.
Figure 5Stress–strain curves for (a) PUF and PUF/Diatomite biocomposites and (b) PUF and PUF/HA biocomposites.
Compressive modulus and maximum compressive strength values of diatomite and hydroxyapatite reinforced PUF.
| Filler concentration (%) | Diatomite | Hydroxyapatite | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compressive modulus (MPa) | Max compressive strength (kPa) | Compressive modulus (MPa) | Max compressive strength (kPa) | |
| 0 | 3.58 | 137.29 | 3.58 | 137.29 |
| 1 | 3.45 | 133.71 | 7.45 | 553.61 |
| 2 | 4.18 | 174.93 | 5.45 | 179.97 |
| 5 | 6.56 | 200.56 | 6.31 | 228.18 |