| Literature DB >> 36135570 |
Maria Antonia Cassa1,2, Martina Maselli3,4, Alice Zoso1,2, Valeria Chiono1,2,5, Letizia Fracchia6, Chiara Ceresa6, Gianluca Ciardelli1,2,5, Matteo Cianchetti3,4, Irene Carmagnola1,2.
Abstract
A deeply interconnected flexible transducer of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) and poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):polystyrenesulfonate (PEDOT:PSS) was obtained as a material for the application of soft robotics. Firstly, transducers were developed by crosslinking PEDOT:PSS with 3-glycidyloxypropryl-trimethoxysilane (GPTMS) (1, 2 and 3% v/v) and using freeze-drying to obtain porous sponges. The PEDOT:PSS sponges were morphologically characterized, showing porosities mainly between 200 and 600 µm2; such surface area dimensions tend to decrease with increasing degrees of crosslinking. A stability test confirmed a good endurance for up to 28 days for the higher concentrations of the crosslinker tested. Consecutively, the sponges were electromechanically characterized, showing a repeatable and linear resistance variation by the pressure triggers within the limits of their working range (∆RR0  max = 80% for 1-2% v/v of GPTMS). The sponges containing 1% v/v of GPTMS were intertwined with a silicon elastomer to increase their elasticity and water stability. The flexible transducer obtained with this method exhibited moderately lower sensibility and repeatability than the PEDOT:PSS sponges, but the piezoresistive response remained stable under mechanical compression. Furthermore, the transducer displayed a linear behavior when stressed within the limits of its working range. Therefore, it is still valid for pressure sensing and contact detection applications. Lastly, the flexible transducer was submitted to preliminary biological tests that indicate a potential for safe, in vivo sensing applications.Entities:
Keywords: biomaterials engineering; interconnected networks; piezoresistive material; soft and flexible transducer
Year: 2022 PMID: 36135570 PMCID: PMC9500767 DOI: 10.3390/jfb13030135
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Funct Biomater ISSN: 2079-4983
The set of parameters for the voltage divider circuit used in every electromechanical test and performed on all samples under investigation.
| % | Repetition | Vin [V] | Rc [KΩ] |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1% | 1–2–3 | 5 | 56 |
| 2% | 1–2–3 | 5 | 220.5 |
| 3% | 1–2 | 5 | 1200 |
| 3 | 395 | ||
| 1% + PDMS | 1 | 5 | 6860 |
| 2–3 | 1200 |
Vin = input voltage; Rc = known resistance value for the resistor in series with our sample.
The set of parameters used for every cyclic compression test performed on all samples under investigation.
| % | n° of Cycles | εmax [%] | Vdef [mm/min] |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1% | 4 | 50 | 0.5–10 |
| 80 | |||
| 2% | 4 | 80 | 0.5–10 |
| 3% | 4 | 80 | 0.5–10 |
| 1% + PDMS | 4 | 50 | 0.5–10 |
εmax = maximum deformation applied to the sample during mechanical compression; Vdef = velocity of deformation.
Figure 1Flow chart of the fabrication steps for both the native PEDOT:PSS sponges and PEDOT:PSS/PDMS flexible transducers.
Figure 2(A) PEDOT_GPTMS 1% SEM image under 250 times magnification. (B) PEDOT_GPTMS 1% SEM image under 100 times magnification. (C) PEDOT_GPTMS 2% SEM image under 250 times magnification. (D) PEDOT_GPTMS 2% SEM image under 100 times magnification. (E) PEDOT_GPTMS 3% SEM image under 250 times magnification. (F) PEDOT_GPTMS 3% SEM image under 100 times magnification. (G) Distribution of the different porosities dimensions in all of the piezoresistive sponges investigated.
Figure 3Results of the stability study for PEDOT:PSS sponges crosslinked with three different percentages of volume/volume of GPTMS.
The initial intrinsic resistance value calculated for each sample under investigation through voltage divider circuit acquisitions.
| % | Vin [V] | Rep | Rc [kΩ] | Rsample [kΩ] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1% | 5 | 1–2–3 | 56 | 100.53 ± 62.46 |
| 2% | 5 | 1–2–3 | 220.5 | 464.74 ± 107.37 |
| 3% | 5 | 1–2 | 1200 | 1942.5 ± 1467.1 |
| 3 | 395 | |||
| 1% + PDMS | 5 | 1 | 6860 | 52,138 ± 69,175 |
| 2–3 | 1200 |
Vin = input voltage; rep = number of repetitions of the experiment; Rc = known resistance value for the resistor in series with our sample; Rsample = resistance value calculated as mean ± standard deviation of the three measurements performed on the different samples for each type of biomaterial under investigation.
Figure 4Arrows indicate the direction of advancement of the curve from starting point (A) Compressive stress–lambda curve for PEDOT_GPTMS 1% under the cyclic compression with max deformation of 80%, showing a distinctively different behaviour during the first cycle of loading. (B) Compressive stress–lambda curve for PEDOT_GPTMS 1% under the cyclic compression and max deformation of 80%, the last three cycles were mediated and the test was carried out in triplicates. (C) Compressive stress–lambda curve for PEDOT_GPTMS 1%/PDMS under the cyclic compression and max deformation of 50%, the last three cycles were mediated and the test was carried out in triplicates.
The maximum stress endured and hysteresis calculated for each sample under investigation through mechanical cyclic compressive tests.
| % | εmax | Vdef [mm/min] | σmax [kPa] | % Hysteresis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1% | 80% | 0.5 | 15.49 ± 3.68 | 74.36 ± 3.42 |
| 2% | 80% | 0.5 | 22.17 ± 15.09 | 80.40 ± 9.51 |
| 3% | 80% | 0.5 | 49.51 ± 20.07 | 64.18 ± 33.05 |
| 1% + PDMS | 50% | 0.5 | 129.08 ± 48.32 | 24.32 ± 5.37 |
εmax = maximum deformation applied to the sample during mechanical compression; Vdef = velocity of deformation; σmax = maximum stress endured by the sample during mechanical compression.
Figure 5The magnitude of intrinsic resistance variation displayed by the samples under investigation, in response to pressure triggers ranging from 5 to 30 kPa: (A) PEDOT_GPTMS 1%; (B) PEDOT_GPTMS 2%; (C) PEDOT_GPTMS 3%; and (D) PEDOT_GPTMS 1%/PDMS.
Figure 6(A) The metabolic activity estimation for planktonic cells through absorbance measurements after the MTT reduction assay for PEDOT_GPTMS 1%/PDMS compared with native PDMS. (B) The biofilm biomass estimation through absorbance measurements after CV staining for PEDOT_GPTMS 1%/PDMS compared with the native PDMS.
Figure 7The percentages of bacterial inhibition calculated through the CV absorbance measurements for the PEDOT_GPTMS 1%/PDMS material.