![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fracture formation in vitrified thin films of cryoprotectants Biothermal Technology Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15237 * Corresponding author; Phone: (412) 268 2204; Fax: (412) 268 3348; Email: Rabin/at/CMU.EDU The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Cryobiology. See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.Abstract As a part of an ongoing effort to study the continuum mechanics effects associated with cryopreservation, the current report focuses on fracture formation in vitrified thin films of cryoprotectant agents. The current study combines experimental observations with continuum mechanics analysis. Experimental results have been developed using a new imaging device, termed a “cryomacroscope”, which has been recently presented by the current research team. A newly developed liquid nitrogen-based cooling stage is presented in this paper. The samples under investigation are 0.5 ml droplets of cryoprotective agents, having a characteristic diameter of 20 mm and a characteristic thickness of 1.5 mm. Tested samples included dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in a concentration range from 6M to 8.4M, and the cryoprotectant cocktails VS55 and DP6. Some samples contained small bovine muscle segments, having a characteristic dimension of 1 mm, in order to study stress concentration effects. Experimental results show that the onset of fracturing in vitrified films of cryoprotectants is very consistent, occurring over a small temperature range. Fracture pattern, however, was affected by the cooling rate. The presence of tissue segments did not affect the onset temperature of fracture, but affected the fracture pattern. The continuum mechanics analysis solidified the hypothesis that fracture is driven by thermal stress, not by temperature per se, and allowed fracture strain to be inferred from observed fracture temperature. In conjunction with the current report, additional photos of fracture formation in thin films are available at http://www.me.cmu.edu/faculty1/rabin/CryomacroscopyImages02.html. Keywords: Cryomacroscopy, vitrification, continuum mechanics, fracture, DMSO, VS55, DP6 Introduction One of the many factors that impact the survival and integrity of living biological tissues during cryopreservation is the development of mechanical stress [6,7,11,34] (also termed “thermal stress”). Thermal stress is driven by the phenomenon of thermal expansion [16–18,21–23,27], with fracture formation as its most dramatic outcome [6,11,24,26,31]. The study of thermal stress effects in cryobiology can be classified with respect to the process of freezing: by crystallization, by vitrification (i.e., glass formation; vitreous in Latin means glass), or by a combination of both. Of those freezing processes, mathematical modeling of thermal stress during crystallization (such as the case in cryosurgery) is the least complex [5,19,20]. Here, the material is most conveniently subdivided into regions according to the phase of state, where the frozen material is typically assumed to behave like a linear-elastic material, having a linear relationship between strain and stress (or between elongation and load in the special case of uni-axial loading). The unfrozen material is assumed to behave like a stationary liquid, incapable of supporting any shear stress. Additional model assumptions must be made when phase transition occurs over a temperature range, which is typically the case in biological materials. However, experimental evidence on the mechanical behavior of the material in the phase transition temperature range is largely unknown. While the mathematical modeling of thermal stress during vitrification is largely uncharted, concepts from the general field of continuum mechanics clearly must be drawn upon. Analysis must account for the elevation of the viscosity by fourteen orders of magnitude associated with cooling the material from room temperature to the so-called glass transition temperature [15,27]; this dramatic property change produces a continuous transformation from a liquid-like material to a solid-like material. Stresses in a vitrified material would produce both elastic (instantaneous) deformation, as well as “creep” or viscous deformation. In creep, the strain increases continually under constant stress, where the creep strain rate is inversely proportional to the viscosity. Creep is related to stress relaxation, which refers to the decrease (relaxation) of stress over time when a material is subjected to a sudden increase in strain. Creep strain dominates elastic strains at higher temperatures; with a decrease in temperature, the elastic strain becomes comparable to, and eventually dominates, creep strain. While complete vitrification can potentially prevent the devastating effect of ice crystallization [30], the high concentration of the cryoprotective agents involved in it is potentially very toxic [7,10,12,32,33]. Cryopreservation subject to a low concentration cryoprotective agent (CPA) and sub-critical cooling rates to promote vitrification, is widely known as classical cryopreservation. In classical cryopreservation, ice crystals first nucleate at about the heterogeneous nucleation point for the specific cryoprotectant composition, while the concentration of the remaining solution elevates. The progress of crystal formation, and elevation of the concentration of the remaining solution, continues with cooling, until the remaining solution becomes so viscous as to form glass at the particular cooling rate [16]. One could view classical preservation as localized vitrification in small regions, or “pockets”. The volume fraction eventually occupied by ice crystals is affected by many factors, and the coexistence of crystallized and vitrified regions is an inevitable outcome of classical cryopreservation. Modeling of classical cryopreservation is a very challenging task; the formation of pockets of vitrified material are statistical events that are difficult to predict. It seems that continuum mechanics effects associated with classical cryopreservation can be modeled only after cryopreservation by vitrification alone is better understood in the continuum mechanics sense. Many continuum mechanics effects in the vitrification of biomaterials are presently unexplored. The current study is designed to explore one aspect of the continuum mechanics of cryopreservation for vitrifying materials: fracture formation in thin films. More specifically, the current study seeks to investigate the repeatability and consistency of fracture formation in vitrified cryoprotectants, in the presence and absence of tissue segments. This study is focused on DMSO in the concentration range of 6M to 8.4M, and the cryoprotectant cocktails VS55 and DP6. Thermal stress analysis is combined with experimental results to interpret events associated with thermal stress during vitrification. Materials and Methods Figure 1
With reference to Fig. 1
The cooling mechanism comprises an air pressure source of 30 psi, a vacuum insulated liquid nitrogen container, a cooling stage, and two nitrogen flow valves. The combination of the air pressure source and the liquid nitrogen container provides a constant heat sink on demand. To create various thermal histories for experimentation, the actual nitrogen flow rate through the cooling stage is controlled by the two-valve configuration. Below the heterogeneous nucleation point of the sample, vitrification requires a cooling rate higher than some threshold rate, depending on the material properties. The threshold cooling rate is inversely proportional to the sample’s viscosity, and since the viscosity value increases exponentially with decrease in temperature, the same threshold cooling rate decreases exponentially with the decrease in temperature. The two-valve setup illustrated in Fig. 2 The Sample The sample in this study is a 0.5 ml cryoprotectant droplet resting on a flat surface, which naturally formed a circular thin film with a typical thickness of 1.5 mm and a typical diameter of 20 mm (thin in the continuum mechanics sense where the diameter is more than 10 times the thickness). The current study includes experimental observations on DMSO in a concentration range of 6M to 8.4M, as well as the cryoprotectant cocktails DP6 and VS55. DP6 is a cocktail of 234.4 g/ DMSO (3M), 228.3 g/ propylene glycol (3M), and 2.4 g/ HEPES in a EuroCollins solution.VS55 is a cocktail of 242.14 g/ DMSO (3.1M), 168.38 g/ propylene glycol (2.2M), 139.56 g/ formamide (3.1M), and 2.4 g/ HEPES in a EuroCollins solution. The two cocktails are similar, except for the exclusion of formamide from DP6. In return, the DP6 contains a higher concentration of propylene glycol [17,23]. For comparison purposes, the specific DMSO concentration of 7.05M was studied, which contains the same overall mass of solutes as in the cocktail of VS55 [17]. The VS55 and DP6 cocktails were prepared at Cell and Tissue Systems, Inc. (Charleston, SC).In order to gain insight into the effect of tissue samples on fracture formation, a few bovine muscle segments were further immersed in selected cryoprotectant samples. Those tissue segments had typical lineal dimension of 1 mm, and they were permeated with the cryoprotectant for at least 24 h prior to experimentation. At the end of the permeation period, and as a part of sample preparations, the tissue segments were immersed in a new droplet of cryoprotectant, to eliminate dilution of the cryoprotectant droplet. The Cooling Stage With reference to Fig. 2 Since direct temperature measurements by immersing a temperature sensor into the sample may affect fracture formation, and due to the fact that copper has an extremely high thermal conductivity (which further increases with the decrease in temperature), a four thermocouple array, surrounding the sample from all sides, was used to measure the cooling stage temperature. Four holes were drilled in the plexiglass plate for that purpose, at the four corners of an imaginary square, 35 mm × 35 mm in size. The average temperature of the four thermocouples is estimated to be the sample temperature. Due to the extremely high value of thermal resistance to heat transfer by convection from the sample to the air, when compared with the resistance to heat transfer by conduction across the film, the temperature variation across the film is negligible. The driving mechanism for fracture formation in the sample is the thermal expansion difference between the cryoprotectant and the heat exchanger, and the constraint imposed by the heat exchanger on the cryoprotectant. In order to obtain additional evidence as to the driving mechanism for cracking, a series of additional experiments were carried out in which sample substrates of various materials were used (Fig. 2(c) Experimental Results and Discussion Table 1 presents a summary of experimental results from 97 experiments on various concentrations of DMSO, 52 experiments on VS55, and 41 experiments on DP6. The number of fractured samples, nf, out of the total number of tested samples, nt, is also listed in Table 1 for each set of experimental conditions. However, nf is only an indication of whether fracture formation took place, not the intensity of fracturing. Not only did fractures occur in only one half of the samples placed on the 30 μm plastic substrate, but the intensity of fractures in those experiments was also dramatically lower, when compared with, for example, experiments on a 120 μm plastic substrate. It is acknowledged that the term “fracture intensity” is used here as a qualitative measure only, where quantification of this effect is yet not established.
The fracture temperature, Tf, listed in Table 1 is the average temperature of the four thermocouples located at the four corners of the cooling stage. The reason for the temperature variation is the pattern of flow in the heat exchanger, where the highest temperature is near the inlet, and the lowest temperature is near the outlet. The maximum temperature difference is a function of the boiling regime in the channels, as well as of the mass flow rate of the liquid nitrogen. The maximum temperature difference between these thermocouples is listed as ΔTfm. Since the typical diameter of the sample is 20 mm and the typical distance between the thermocouples is 35 mm, ΔTfs represents an estimated upper limit for temperature difference along the cryoprotectant sample (i.e., ΔTfm scaled down by a ratio of 20 to 35). It is noted that the typical uncertainty in thermocouple measurements is 0.5°C, and that it is smaller than the maximum temperature difference along the cooling stage in most cases. In general, the authors of this paper find it somewhat surprising to have such small values of standard deviation in the fracture temperature, for any given set of experimental conditions. It is noted that the onset of fracturing is commonly considered to be a statistical event, especially in highly brittle materials. This observation may be very useful in modeling and predicting fracture formation in cryoprotectants. The maximum temperature difference along the cooling stage, ΔTfm, increased when substrates made of either glass or plastic were used, as a result of the introduction of contact resistance between the substrate on the heat exchanger. A common way of reducing contact resistance (which is mostly attributed to surface roughness and air voids between two solid surfaces) is by filling in the gaps with more highly conductive material, such as a commercial thermal grease, water, or even the cryoprotectant itself. However, such added material would freeze or vitrify at cryogenic temperatures, bonding the substrate to the heat exchanger, and thereby defeating the purpose of including a substrate material in the first place, as discussed in the continuum mechanics analysis section below. A wide selection of images from the experiments summarized in Table 1 is available on a website published in conjunction with the current paper [25]. A representative selection of images from those experiments is presented in Figs. 3
Two values of cooling rates are listed in Table 2, H1, which is the average cooling rate between −120ºC and −150ºC, and H2, which is the average cooling rate at the onset of fracturing, calculated between Tf −10ºC and Tf +10ºC for each experiment. The observations that H2 is greater than H1 in many experiments (Table 2), and that the temperature of the sample does not decay exponentially with time to some steady state value (Fig. 9 It can be seen from Table 1 that the fracture temperature is not a strong function of the concentration of DMSO. For example, for experiments on a copper base in the absence of tissue segments, the difference between the average fracture temperature from all samples, and the average fracture temperature from a group of experiments with specific concentration, is less than one standard deviation in measurements from the same group. For a specific DMSO concentration, the difference in fracture temperature for samples in the presence and absence of tissue segments is less than two standard deviations in measurement, but with no definitive trend (a sample with tissue segments resulted in either lower or higher fracture temperature). This indicates an inconclusive effect of the presence of tissue segments on the fracture temperature. It is noted that the standard deviation presented in Table 1 for any specific experimental conditions represents a wide variety of cooling rates. More cooling rate information is listed in the opening table on the associated website [25]. The effect of the cooling rates on the fracture temperature is discussed in more detail in the continuum mechanics analysis section. It can be seen from Table 1 that the fracture temperature of VS55 and DP6 are comparable in the absence of tissue segments, and that on average it is about 8ºC above the fracture temperature of DMSO. Note that the glass transition temperature is −133.4ºC for 6M DMSO [17], −132.0ºC for 7.05M DMSO [17], −127.6ºC for 8.4M DMSO [17], −123ºC for VS55 [14], and −119ºC for DP6 [26,31]. However, these glass transition values were obtained with a differential scanning calorimetry technique (DSC), with a standard protocol characterized by a low cooling rate of about 1ºC/min when approaching the glass transition temperature. Furthermore, these values represent the mid-point of glass transition upon rewarming (see Angel [1] for a review of common definitions for the glass transition temperatures), while the fracture temperature reported in the current study refers to the cooling phase only. In general, the glass transition during rewarming is expected to be at a higher temperature than the glass transition during cooling for the same material. Furthermore, the glass transition is expected to take place at a lower temperature for a higher cooling rate, where all the experiments of the current study were performed at higher cooling rates than those typically used in DSC measurements. Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 It can be concluded from Figs. 5 Figure 8 The bottom images in Fig. 8 Finally, the experimental setup is designed to study fractures in thin films, where the diameter of the droplet is an order of magnitude greater than its thickness. While an effort was made to make the droplet contour perfectly circular, variation from the circular shape can be observed in Figs. 3 Continuum Mechanics Analysis The objective in this section is to combine thermal stress analysis with experimental results, to study whether fractures are consistent with thermal stresses predicted during vitrification. These mathematical results will be used as building blocks for prediction of continuum mechanics effects in future studies, in more complex geometries, and subject to a variety of thermal conditions. The mechanism of stress development for a droplet adhering to a substrate has been presented in [31]. The droplet deforms due to temperature changes and due to stress (tension); stress produces both elastic deformation and viscous (creep) deformation. The usual assumption is adopted that elastic, viscous, and thermal contributions to strain superpose [13]. The total tensile strain-rate under conditions of uniaxial stress is then the sum of the elastic strain-rate, the viscous strain-rate, and the thermal strain-rate:
where σ is the tensile stress, E is the elastic modulus, η is the shear viscosity, and β is the coefficient of thermal expansion. The elastic and thermal contributions may be more familiar in the forms εelastic = σ/E and εthermal = βΔT, which are differentiated with time in Eq. (1). The material is assumed to respond isotropically; consequently, the elongational viscosity is three times the shear viscosity, which explains the factor of 3 in the denominator of Eq. (1). The thermal strain rate is significant at all temperatures. The elastic modulus is essentially constant with temperature, while the viscosity increases by orders of magnitude; thus, the viscous strain rate is important at high temperatures and unimportant at low temperatures. Two different methods of solution are used to compute the stress in the CPA in the current study. The first ignores the influence of deformations due to stress on the substrate entirely, and is applicable to the case of a thick substrate, such as the copper heat exchanger. Here, the stress in the circular droplet of the cryoprotectant is approximated as uniform (which is nearly true except for the edges). The tensile stresses in the plane of the sample are equal in all directions, and the stress perpendicular to the sample is zero. Given the thermal history of the sample, the stress can be found by time integration of the following equation [13]:
The Poisson ratio, ν, of the CPA, and the extra factor of ½ in the viscous strain-rate term enter to account for stress acting in all directions in the plane of the sample (see Appendix for more details). The integration must account for the temperature dependency of both the viscosity and the thermal expansion. In the second method, a finite element numerical technique (ANSYS 8.1) is used, and the deformation and stress in both the droplet and the substrate are computed. This method is required when the substrate is thin, and the overall force applied by the CPA to the substrate is high enough to bend the substrate. Here, the CPA is still modeled with Eq. (1), but the substrate is modeled as a linear elastic material. The domain (shown in the inset in Fig. 13 Typical physical properties of the CPA and the substrate are listed in Table 3. The elastic moduli of cryoprotectants are unknown, and a value of 1 GPa has been selected for the current study, which is typical of organic materials. The implication of this choice on the results is straightforward, as explained below.
The viscosity of DMSO at various molar concentrations has been measured in the temperature range of 20ºC to −45ºC with falling ball viscometry [29]; the authors are unaware of viscosity measurements of DMSO at lower temperatures, or of VS55 and DP6 at all. Moreover, the viscosity of DMSO in the temperature range of interest (in the vicinity of glass transition) is orders of magnitude higher than that in the range of available experimental data [29]. While Tg is commonly measured with differential calorimetry techniques (DSC), an alternative definition of glass transition is the temperature at which the viscosity reaches 1012 Pa-s (1013 Poise). In the absence of viscosity data at low temperatures, the following functional behavior is assumed [29]:
Equation (3) yields a viscosity value of 1012 Pa-s at the glass transition temperature (measured with DSC), and the parameters T0 and b are chosen to fit to the available experimental data at higher temperatures [29]. Mathematical Results and Comparison with Experimental Observations Variation of Stress with Temperature Typical stress results in the droplet as a function of temperature are shown in Fig. 10
From the observed temperature of fracture, one can infer the apparent fracture stress from the curve presented in Fig. 10 Dependence on Viscosity Since the variation of viscosity at low temperatures is uncertain, the sensitivity of the predicted stress to the viscosity is of interest. Several viscosity functions were investigated, as presented in Fig. 11
Dependence on Cooling Rate To study the cooling rate effect on the developing stress, Eq. (2) was solved again for the best fit viscosity curve illustrated in Fig. 11 A simple argument is now presented to estimate the set temperature, and to rationalize the stress dependence on cooling rate. For high temperatures, the elastic contribution is negligible, and the first term in Eq. (2) can be neglected. For a constant cooling rate and thermal expansion coefficient, Eq. (2) can be rearranged to estimate the increase in stress with time:
For low temperatures, by contrast, the viscous contribution (second term in Eq. (2)) is negligible, and Eq. (2) can be rearranged to estimate the increase in stress with time:
The set temperature can be viewed as the temperature where the material response transitions from viscous dominated to elastic dominated. This should take place when the estimates from Eqs. (4) and (5) are comparable, that is:
With E, ν, and dT/dt remaining constant, and η varying smoothly with temperature, Eq. (6) implicitly defines a single temperature, which we argue should be close to the set temperature inferred from extrapolating the numerical results, as described above. To test this relation, we extracted the set temperature from the numerical results of integrating Eq. (2), and then computed dη/dT at this temperature from the viscosity function (Fig. 11
It can be seen from Table 4 that R at T equal to the set temperature is 1.44 ± 3.5% for cooling rates varying over three orders of magnitude, which confirms the explanation for the determinants of the set temperature. Moreover, one now has a simple way of estimating the set temperature: given values of cooling rate and elastic modulus, the set temperature satisfies Eq. (7). The set temperature is seen to be relatively insensitive to elastic modulus and to cooling rate: To keep the ratio R constant with even a substantial change in cooling rate requires only a small change in the set temperature, because the viscosity function is so dramatically dependent on temperature. Dependence on Substrate To provide additional evidence that cracking is indeed tied to thermal stress and not to temperature per se, droplets of CPA were cooled on substrates that were placed upon, but not bonded to, the copper heat exchanger. As discussed above, fracture temperature was indeed observed to change significantly as the substrate was changed. Finite element calculations were conducted to determine the stress in the CPA associated with different substrates. Figure 13 Besides the important effect of the thermal expansion difference between the CPA and the substrate, these results indicate that lower levels of stress are produced when the substrate is more flexible, either by being thinner or having a lower elastic modulus. Greater flexibility means less resistance to the contraction of the CPA and hence lower stress. While precise predictions of the actual temperature to fracture with such non-uniform stress distributions requires much additional work, the general trend of diminished stress for the different substrates is consistent with the observed decrease in fracture temperatures, supporting the hypothesis that thermal stress governs fracture. Results for VS55 and DP6 Calculations were also carried out for stresses in VS55 and DP6 vitrified on copper, using viscosity functions which best fit the measured values of Tg (−123°C and −119°C, respectively) and experimental data for DMSO at higher temperatures (in the absence of specific viscosity data for these cocktails). The same elastic modulus of 1 GPa was presumed. Comparison with the stress in DMSO is shown in Fig. 14
Summary and Conclusions Fracture formation in thin films of vitrified cryoprotectants has been investigated experimentally, and concepts from the theory of continuum mechanics were applied to explain the experimental observations. Experimental results show that the onset of fracturing in vitrified films of cryoprotectants is very consistent, occurring over a small temperature range. This observation is a bit surprising to the authors of this paper, and it will have a direct impact on future continuum mechanical analyses of cryopreservation. For DMSO in the concentration range of 6.5M and 8.4M, the onset of fracture was found to be insensitive to the concentration. The fracture pattern, however, varied between different DMSO concentrations, once fracturing started to progress. Experimental results indicate that the onset temperature of fracture, as well as the intensity of fracture propagation, decreased with the decrease in stiffness of the substrate carrying the cryoprotectant sample. This evidence further solidifies the hypothesis that fracture is driven by thermal stress not with temperature per se. Fracture pattern was also affected by the cooling rate. At low cooling rate, initial fractures were found to be long and circular, with the first fracture always occurring at a larger diameter. Fracture formation progressed in a similar pattern to smaller radii as the temperature decreases. At high cooling rates, the initial development of fractures appeared random, but progressive fracturing formed imaginary circles or cells, where the typical diameter of the cell decreases with the decrease in temperature. The presence of small tissue segments appeared not to affect the onset temperature of fracturing. The effect of the tissue segments becomes noticeable only when fractures continue to develop. Then, it appeared that fractures are initiated at, or arrested by, the tissue segments. From continuum mechanics analysis, a simple picture of stress development in cryoprotectant droplets vitrified on substrates has emerged. With cooling, the stress is nearly zero until a “set” temperature is reached; the stress builds up linearly thereafter with diminishing temperature. The set temperature, which is on the order of 5°C to 10°C above Tg, is determined principally by how rapidly the viscosity increases with temperature near Tg. Viscosity as a function of temperature for DMSO was approximated by fixing it to 1012 Pa-s at Tg and fitting to experimental data for temperatures in the range of 20ºC to −45ºC. Stresses were predicted for the best fit viscosity and for other viscosity functions having milder and sharper variations with temperature. From the observed temperature to fracture, one can infer the stress or strain at fracture; strains to cause fracture in DMSO are likely to be in the range of 0.28% to 0.36%, typical of brittle organic materials. The reasonableness of predicted values of fracture strain supports the thermal stress theory for the origin of cracking in vitrified CPA. Additional evidence for this explanation of cracking is provided by observations of diminished cracking tendency on thin substrates. Stress analyses confirm that the stress in the CPA is markedly less when the cooling occurs on a thin substrate that can bend and not fully restrain the contracting CPA. Analyses also shed light on the effect of cooling rate: the fracture temperature is predicted to increase by approximately 2°C with every decade increase in cooling rate. Predictions of stress were likewise made for VS55 and DP6 (using the Tg for those CPAs and high temperature viscosity data for DMSO); comparisons with fracture temperature place the fracture strains at 0.23% and 0.18%, respectively. In general, vitrifying CPA in contact with a material with much lower thermal expansion leads to stress and cracking, even if the temperatures are uniform, as studied here. Temperature gradients within CPA or tissue are another mechanism whereby stresses are generated; such gradients are likely to be a factor when vitrifying not thin layers but more bulky specimens. Such issues are also worthy of closer investigation. Acknowledgments This study has been supported in part by NHLBI, grant number R01 HL069944-01A1,02,03. The authors wish to thank Mr. Jim Dillinger, Mr. John Fulmer, and Mr. Edward Wojciechowski, of the Machine Shop, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, for assistance in constructing the experimental apparatus. The authors wish to thank Dr. Michael J. Taylor, Cell and Tissue Systems, Inc., Charleston, SC, for the insightful discussions about the application of cryoprotectants. Appendix The approximate solution for stresses in the axi-symmetric droplet, presented in Eq. (2), is based on a uniform stress state of σr=σθ σ in the r and z directions, and σz=τr=0. This stress state satisfies the stress equations of equilibrium precisely, and the boundary condition of zero force (σz=τrz=0) on the upper surface. It does not satisfy the zero force condition on the outer edge; however, this simplified solution approximates the complete solution to a high degree of accuracy several thicknesses away from the free edge. Indeed, the finite element analysis, which makes no assumption on the thinness of the layer, confirms that this stress state is reached away from the edge. (In the complete solution, the tension is transferred to the droplet by shear stresses exerted by substrate over a small zone of contact near the outer edge.) Furthermore, the uniform stress state gives rise to uniform compatible strains that are consistent with the substrate, if the substrate contracts uniformly under the presumed uniform temperature, and if the substrate deformation due to stress is neglected.With an isotropic elastic response, the elastic strains reduce to:
With an isotropic viscous response, viscous strains are associated with shear stresses or, in the general case, with deviatoric stresses (sr and sθ), which are defined as the actual stress components minus the hydrostatic part of the stress:
Using the simplified stresses, one finds:
Footnotes This study has been supported in part by NHLBI, grant number R01 HL069944-01A1,02,03. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review o f the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. References 1. Angell CA. In: Encyclopedia of Materials: Science and Technology. Buschow KHJ, Cahn R, Flemings MC, Ilschner B, Kramer EJ, Mahajan S, editors. Chap 4. Elsevier; New York: 2001. pp. 3565–3575. 2. Ashby MF, Jones DRH. Engineering Materials: An Introduction to their Properties and Applications. Pergamon Press; Oxford: 1980. 3. Chen BF, Hwang J, Yu GP, Huang J-H. In situ observation of the cracking behavior of TiN coating on 304 stainless steel subjected to tensile strain. Thin Solid Films. 1999;352:173–178. 4. Corning Inc. Acton, MA: (supplier data). 5. Dennis BH, Dulikravich GS, Rabin Y. Optimization of organ freezing protocols with specified allowable thermal stress levels. IMECE 2000; Orlando, FL. November 5–10; 2000. pp. 33–48. 6. Fahy GM, Saur J, Williams JR. Physical problems with the vitrification of large biological systems. Cryobiology. 1980;27:492–510. [PubMed] 7. Fahy GM. Biological effects of vitrification and devitrification. In: Pegg DE, Karow AM Jr, editors. The Biophysics of Organ Preservation. Plenum Publishing Corp.; New York: 265. pp. 297–1987. 8. Gere JG. Mechanics of Materials. 6. Brooks/Cole; Belmont, CA: 2004. 9. Goodfellow Cambridge Ltd; Huntingdon, UK: (supplier data). 10. Karow AM. Biophysical and chemical considerations in cryopreservation. In: Karow AM, Pegg DE, editors. Organ Preservation for Transplantation. Dekker; New York: 1981. p. 113. 11. Kroener C, Luyet BJ. Formation of cracks during the vitrification of glycerol solutions and disappearance of the cracks during rewarming. Biodynamica. 1966;10(201):47–52. [PubMed] 12. Luyet BJ. The Vitrification of Organic Colloids and of Protoplasm. Biodynamica. 1937;1(29):1–14. 13. Malvern LE. Introduction to the Mechanics of a Continuous Medium. Prentice-Hall; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: 1969. 14. Mehl P. Nucleation and crystal growth in a vitrification solution tested for organ cryopreservation by vitrification. Cryobiology. 1993;30:509–518. [PubMed] 15. Palastro MC, Steif PS, Rabin Y. Predictions of cracking during vitrification of cryoprotectants. CRYO 2005 – The 42nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Cryobiology; Minneapolis, MN. July 24–27. 16. Pegg DE, Wusteman MC, Boylan S. Fractures in cryopreserved elastic arteries. Cryobiology. 1997;34(2):183–192. [PubMed] 17. Plitz J, Rabin Y, Walsh J. The effect of thermal expansion of ingredients on the cocktails VS55 and DP6. Cell Preservation Technology. 2004;2(3):215–226. 18. Rabin Y, Taylor MJ, Wolmark N. Thermal expansion measurements of frozen biological tissues at cryogenic temperatures. ASME Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. 1998;120(2):259–266. 19. Rabin Y, Steif PS. Thermal stress modeling of freezing biological tissues. Advances in Heat and Mass Transfer in Biotechnology; IMECE 1999; Nashville, Tennessee. 1999. pp. 183–188. 20. Rabin Y, Steif PS. Thermal stress modeling in cryosurgery. International Journal of Solids and Structures. 2000;37:2363–2375. 21. Rabin Y, Bell E. Thermal expansion measurements of cryoprotective agents. Part I: A new experimental apparatus. Cryobiology. 2003;46:254–263. [PubMed] 22. Rabin Y, Bell E. Thermal expansion measurements of cryoprotective agents. Part II: Measurements of DP6 and VS55, and comparison with DMSO. Cryobiology. 2003;46:264–270. [PubMed] 23. Rabin Y, Plitz J. Thermal expansion of blood vessels and muscle specimens permeated with DMSO, DP6, and VS55 in cryogenic temperatures. Annals of Biomedical Engineering. 2005;33(9):1213 – 1228. [PubMed] 24. Rabin Y, Steif PS, Taylor MJ, Walsh JR, Baicu S. Cryomacroscopy of vitrification: selected experiments on DP6 and VS55. 2005. http://www.me.cmu.edu/faculty1/rabin/CryomacroscopyImages01.html. 25. Rabin Y, Steif PS, Hess KC, Jimenez-Rios JL. Cryomacroscopy of fracture formation in vitrified thin films of cryoprotectants. 2005. http://www.me.cmu.edu/faculty1/rabin/CryomacroscopyImages02.html. 26. Rabin Y, Taylor MJ, Walsh JR, Baicu S, Steif PS. Cryomacroscopy of vitrification, Part I: A prototype and experimental observations on the cocktails VS55 and DP6. Cell Preservation Technology. 2005;3(3):169–183. [PubMed] 27. Rabin Y, Steif PS. Analysis of thermo-mechanical stress during cryopreservation of blood vessels. Cryoletters. 2005;26(6):409–411. [PubMed] 28. Richerson DW. Modern ceramic engineering: properties, processing, and use in design. Marcel Dekker, Inc.; New York: 1992. 29. Schichman SA, Amey RL. Viscosity and local liquid structure in dimethyl sulfoxide - water mixtures. J of Phys Chem. 1971;75(1):98–102. 30. Song YC, Khirabadi BS, Lightfoot FG, Brockbank KGM, Taylor MJ. Vitreous cryopreservation maintains the function of vascular grafts. Nature Biotechnology. 2000;18:296–299. 31. Steif PS, Palastro M, Wen CR, Baicu S, Taylor MJ, Rabin Y. Cryomacroscopy of vitrification, Part II: Experimental observations and analysis of fracture formation in vitrified VS55 and DP6. Cell Preservation Technology. 2005;3(3):184–200. [PubMed] 32. Taylor MJ. Sub-zero preservation and the prospect of long-term storage of multicellular tissues and organs. In: Calne RY, editor. Transplantation Immunology: Clinical and Experimental. Oxford, New York, Tokyo: Oxford University Press; 1984. pp. 360–390. 33. Taylor MJ. Physico-chemical principles of low temperature biology. In: Grout BWW, Morris JG, editors. The Effects of Low Temperatures on Biological System. Edward Arnold; London: 1987. pp. 3–71. 34. Taylor MJ, Song YC, Brockbank KGM. Vitrification in tissue preservation: new developments. In: Fuller BJ, Lane N, Benson EE, editors. Life in the Frozen State. CRC Press; New York: 2004. pp. 603–641. |
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cryobiology. 1990 Oct; 27(5):492-510.
[Cryobiology. 1990]Biodynamica. 1966 Dec; 10(198):47-52.
[Biodynamica. 1966]Cryobiology. 1997 Mar; 34(2):183-92.
[Cryobiology. 1997]Cryobiology. 2003 Jun; 46(3):254-63.
[Cryobiology. 2003]Ann Biomed Eng. 2005 Sep; 33(9):1213-28.
[Ann Biomed Eng. 2005]Cryo Letters. 2005 Nov-Dec; 26(6):409-11, author reply 412.
[Cryo Letters. 2005]Cryobiology. 1997 Mar; 34(2):183-92.
[Cryobiology. 1997]Cell Preserv Technol. 2005 Sep; 3(3):169-183.
[Cell Preserv Technol. 2005]Ann Biomed Eng. 2005 Sep; 33(9):1213-28.
[Ann Biomed Eng. 2005]Cryobiology. 1993 Oct; 30(5):509-518.
[Cryobiology. 1993]Cell Preserv Technol. 2005 Sep; 3(3):169-183.
[Cell Preserv Technol. 2005]Cell Preserv Technol. 2005 Sep; 3(3):184-200.
[Cell Preserv Technol. 2005]Cell Preserv Technol. 2005 Sep; 3(3):184-200.
[Cell Preserv Technol. 2005]