| Literature DB >> 36234308 |
Elena Arce1, Rosa Devesa-Rey2, Andrés Suárez-García2, David González-Peña3, Manuel García-Fuente3.
Abstract
Thermal comfort is essential when wearing a postural-corrective garment. Discomfort of any kind may deter regular use and prolong user recovery time. The objective of this work is therefore to optimize a new compound that can alter the temperature of orthopedic insoles, thereby improving the thermal comfort for the user. Its novelty is a resin composite that contains a thermoregulatory Phase-Change Material (PCM). An experimental design was used to optimize the proportions of PCM, epoxy resin, and thickener in the composite and its effects. A Box-Behnken factor design was applied to each compound to establish the optimal proportions of all three substances. The dependent variables were the Shore A and D hardness tests and thermogravimetric heat-exchange measurements. As was foreseeable, the influence of the PCM on the thermal absorption levels of the compound was quantifiable and could be determined from the results of the factor design. Likewise, compound hardness was determined by resin type and resin-PCM interactions, so the quantity of PCM also had some influence on the mechanical properties of the composite. Both the durability and the flexibility of the final product complied with current standards for orthopedic insoles.Entities:
Keywords: Box–Behnken design; PCM; epoxy resin; insole; insole thermal properties; paraffin
Year: 2022 PMID: 36234308 PMCID: PMC9573535 DOI: 10.3390/ma15196967
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1Heat transfer pathways between foot and ground: (left) traditional orthopedic insole; (right) proposed orthopedic insole with PCM.
Figure 2Procedure followed to formulate the new insoles.
Figure 3Orthopedic insoles manufactured for this study (crosses marked in black show the five Shore hardness measurement points).
Shore D results for previous insole characterization.
| Sampling Point | Insole 1 | Insole 2 | Insole 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 45 | 48 | 57 |
| 2. | 55 | 51 | 67 |
| 3. | 57 | 54 | 68 |
| 4. | 54 | 55 | 65 |
| 5. | 51 | 47 | 61 |
| Mean value | 52.4 | 51 | 63.6 |
| CV (%) | 8.9 | 6.9 | 7.2 |
Independent and dependent variables used in the study.
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
| Resin (1050) | [R] | % | (20, 40) |
| Thickener | [T] | g | (0.3, 0.5) |
| PCM | [PCM] | g | (1, 2) |
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
| Dimensionless resin | x1 | ([R] – 30)/10 | (–1, 1) |
| Dimensionless thickener | x2 | ([T] – 0.4)/0.1 | (–1, 1) |
| Dimensionless PCM | x3 | ([PCM]–1.5)/0.5 | (–1, 1) |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |
| Shore D hardness | y1 | Shore D | |
| Shore A hardness | y2 | Shore A | |
| Absorbed heat | y3 | µV/mg | |
Figure 4Temperature variations on Day 3 depending on the activity. Room temperature is shown with a blue line and in-shoe temperature with an orange line.
Figure 5Pareto chart of standardized effects, showing the influence of the independent variables on the dependent variables. (a) Shore D hardness; (b) Shore A hardness; (c) Heat exchange. Values exceeding blue line are those significantly influencing the process.
Operational conditions considered in this study (expressed in terms of the coded independent variables: dimensionless resin ×1; dimensionless thickener ×2; and dimensionless PCM ×3). Experimental results achieved for the dependent variables: y1 (Shore D hardness); y2 (Shore A hardness); and y3 (absorbed heat after thermogravimetry).
| Independent Variables | Dependent Variables | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exp. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 49 | 93.4 | 0.5145 |
| 2 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 49 | 94.6 | 0.4774 |
| 3 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 58 | 97.4 | 0.4416 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 57 | 96.4 | 0.6115 |
| 5 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 49 | 94 | 0.3126 |
| 6 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 46.2 | 93.2 | 0.5020 |
| 7 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 56 | 94.4 | 0.3723 |
| 8 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 59.4 | 97 | 0.5243 |
| 9 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 53 | 97.6 | 0.1893 |
| 10 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 51.2 | 95.8 | 0.6708 |
| 11 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 53 | 95.6 | 0.1970 |
| 12 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 52 | 94.8 | 0.6211 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 52.2 | 96 | 0.3884 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 52.2 | 96 | 0.438 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 52.2 | 96 | 0.4188 |
Figure 6Graphs of principal effects for Shore D and Shore A hardness and enthalpy.
Ascending path for Shore D/Shore A hardness and enthalpy, showing the effect of increasing the resin content in six steps of 1% increments.
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0000 | 96.0 |
| 1.0 | −2.1377 | 0.9338 | 102.392 |
| 2.0 | −6.2131 | 2.3701 | 134.047 |
| 3.0 | −10.4371 | 3.7829 | 194.466 |
| 4.0 | −14.6997 | 5.1868 | 283.881 |
| 5.0 | −18.9797 | 6.5861 | 401.386 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0000 | 52.2 |
| 1.0 | −0.02299 | 0.07579 | 57.651 |
| 2.0 | −0.07504 | 0.3413 | 65.271 |
| 3.0 | −0.1416 | 0.7052 | 75.508 |
| 4.0 | −0.2161 | 1.1243 | 88.535 |
| 5.0 | −0.2953 | 1.5771 | 104.431 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0000 | 0.4 |
| 1.0 | 1.0 | 8.2553 | −0.303 |
| 2.0 | 2.0 | 16.3357 | −4.805 |
| 3.0 | 3.0 | 24.5669 | −13.267 |
| 4.0 | 4.0 | 32.8108 | −25.654 |
| 5.0 | 5.0 | 41.0529 | −41.964 |
Optimized values for Shore D/A hardness and enthalpy, expressed as coded and uncoded values.
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.9999 |
|
|
| −0.9703 |
|
|
| 1.0 |
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.0000 |
|
|
| −1.0000 |
|
|
| 0.9994 |
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
| −1.0 |
|
|
| −1.0 |
|
|
| 0.9522 |
|
Figure 7Endo- and exothermic transformations in two reversible cycles.
Figure 8Secondary electron topographic images of the sample section.