| Literature DB >> 32932693 |
M Mohan Babu1, P Syam Prasad1, P Venkateswara Rao2, S Hima Bindu1, A Prasad1, N Veeraiah3, Mutlu Özcan4.
Abstract
Zirconium dopedEntities:
Keywords: P2O5-bioglass; SBF; hydroxyapatite; in vitro bioactivity; melt-quenching; zirconia
Year: 2020 PMID: 32932693 PMCID: PMC7560252 DOI: 10.3390/ma13184058
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
The Nominal bioactive glass (mol%) composition.
| Glass Code | ZnO | Na2O | CaO | P2O5 | ZrO2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Z.1 | 8.0 | 22.0 | 23.9 | 46.0 | 0.1 |
| Z.3 | 8.0 | 22.0 | 23.7 | 46.0 | 0.3 |
| Z.5 | 8.0 | 22.0 | 23.5 | 46.0 | 0.5 |
| Z.7 | 8.0 | 22.0 | 23.3 | 46.0 | 0.7 |
The concentration of various ions in the simulated body fluid (SBF) solution.
| Ion Type | Na+ | K+ | Mg2+ | Ca2+ | Cl− | HCO3− | HPO42− | SO4− |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration (mM) | 142.0 | 5.0 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 148.8 | 4.2 | 1.0 | 0.5 |
| Human blood plasma | 142.0 | 5.0 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 103.0 | 27.0 | 1.0 | 0.5 |
Figure 1DTA analysis curves of ZrO2 doped bioglass samples Z.1, Z.3, Z.5 and Z.7.
Figure 2Variation of glass transition (Tg) as a function of ZrO2 (mol%) content (inset shows the thermal stability vs ZrO2 concentration).
Thermal properties of the ZrO2 containing bioglasses.
| Sample Code | ΔT (°C) |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 262.21 (± 1.11) | 335.67 | 672.67 | 73.46 (± 0.45) | 0.22 |
|
| 271.10 (± 1.30) | 349.21 | 686.92 | 78.10 (± 0.38) | 0.23 |
|
| 280.40 (± 1.24) | 362.87 | 691.84 | 82.47 (± 0.43) | 0.25 |
|
| 301.15 (± 1.25) | 386.32 | 697.49 | 85.16 (± 0.35) | 0.27 |
Figure 3X-ray diffraction patterns of the bioglass samples after immersion in SBF (a) 0 day, (b) 1 day and (c) 5 days.
Figure 4FTIR absorption spectra from the glass surface: (a) 0 day before and after (b) 1 day, (c) 5 days’ immersion in several days in SBF.
Assignments of various bands from FTIR spectra of the bioglasses.
| Wavenumber (cm−1) | Assignments | References | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 day | 1 day | 5 days | ||
| 506 | 555 | 557 | ~506 PO43− O–P–O bending vibrations/P–O amorphous | [ |
| ~555–557 HAp (PO34) | [ | |||
| 752 | 736 | 738 | ~752 P–O–P symmetric stretching | [ |
| 978 | 916 | 918 | ~978cm−1 P–O–P stretching vibrations | [ |
| - | 1126 | 1143 | PO2 symmetric stretching vibration | [ |
| - | 1265 | - | PO2− asymmetric group /P=O stretching vibration | [ |
| - | - | 1410 | –OH, hydroxyl carbonate group | [ |
| - | - | 1543 | –OH groups | [ |
| 1642 | 1650 | - | ~1642–1650 cm−1 stretching vibrations of P-O-H group | [ |
| 2382 | - | - | P–O–H group /CO32− and HCO3− groups | [ |
| - | 2998 | - | C–H stretching vibrations | [ |
| - | - | 3198 | C–H | [ |
| 3464 | 3414 | 3553 | ~3414–3464 H–O–H bond /CO32− and HCO3− | [ |
| ~3553 O–H symmetric stretching | [ | |||
Figure 5SEM micrograph and EDS analysis of the bioglass sample Z.5 magnifications: for (a) 0 day before and (b) 1 day, (c) 5 days after immersion in SBF solution.
Figure 6pH variation for all the bioglass samples after immersion in SBF solution.
Figure 7Weight loss of ZrO2 doped glasses after immersion in SBF for 1 day and 5 days.