A rheological approach to assess the printability of thermosensitive chitosan-based biomaterial inks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For extrusion-based bioprinting, the inks must be printable and rapidly present sufficient mechanical properties to support additional layers and provide a cohesive, manipulable structure. Thermosensitive hydrogels may be interesting candidates. However, the use of these materials is particularly challenging, since their rheological properties evolve with time and temperature. In this work, a rheological approach to characterize the printability of chitosan-based thermosensitive inks was developed. The method consists of evaluating: (1) the gelation kinetic at room temperature and at 37 °C; (2) shear-thinning behavior to estimate the shear rate applied during printing as a function of printing parameters; and (3) the viscosity after shear removal (recovery test) to simulate behaviour after biomaterial deposition. Hydrogels containing 2 and 3% w v −1 chitosan, combined with different gelling agents (sodium hydrogen carbonate (SHC), phosphate buffer, beta-glycerophosphate (BGP)) were tested, and compared with alginate/gelatin bioink as controls. To correlate the rheological studies with real printing conditions, a 3D-Discovery bioprinter was used to print hydrogels and the visual aspect of the printed structure was observed. Unconfined compressive tests were carried out to study the impact of applied shear rate during printing on the mechanical properties of printed structures. All pre-hydrogel solutions presented shear-thinning properties. The recovery of viscosity was found to depend on the hydrogel formulation, as well as the level of shear rate and the state of gelation at the time of printing. Formulations made with SHC and phosphate buffer presented too rapid gelation and phase separation, leading to poor printing results. One particularly promising formulation composed of SHC and BGP, when printed at a shear rate of 140 s −1 , before its gelation time ( t g ⩽ 15 min), resulted in good printability and 3D structures with rigidity comparable with the alginate/gelatin bioink. The methodology introduced in this paper could be used to evaluate the printability of other time- and temperature-dependent biomaterial inks in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".