Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T18:42:32.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The influence of interfacial mechanical behaviour upon deformation and fracture of composite biopolymer gels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

K.P. Plucknett
Affiliation:
Unilever Research, Colworth Laboratory, Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire, MK44 1LQ, UK
V. Normand
Affiliation:
Unilever Research, Colworth Laboratory, Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire, MK44 1LQ, UK
S.J. Pomfret
Affiliation:
Unilever Research, Colworth Laboratory, Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire, MK44 1LQ, UK
D. Ferdinando
Affiliation:
Unilever Research, Colworth Laboratory, Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire, MK44 1LQ, UK
W.J. Frith
Affiliation:
Unilever Research, Colworth Laboratory, Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire, MK44 1LQ, UK
I.T. Norton
Affiliation:
Unilever Research, Colworth Laboratory, Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire, MK44 1LQ, UK
Get access

Abstract

Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (CLSM) has been used to follow the dynamic structure evolution of two protein/polysaccharide mixed biopolymer gel systems during large strain deformation. Gelatin/maltodextrin composites exhibited a ‘;pseudo-yielding’ stress-strain response in both tension and compression, when the gelatin-rich phase is continuous, which was attributed to debonding of the particle/matrix interface. This behaviour was significantly less apparent for gelatin/agarose mixed gels. The interfacial fracture energy of the two systems was determined using an elastomer composite debonding model. The gelatin/maltodextrin interfacial fracture energy (∼0.2 J.m-2) was found to be an order of magnitude less than for gelatin/agarose, leading to the observed variation for the two systems.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Morris, V.J., Chem. Ind.-London, 5 159, 1985.Google Scholar
2. Brownsey, G.J., Ellis, H.S., Ridout, M.J. and Ring, S.G., J. Rheol., 31 635, 1987.Google Scholar
3. Gao, Y.C. and Lelievre, J., Polym. Eng. Sci., 34 1369, 1994.Google Scholar
4. Plucknett, K.P., Normand, V., Ferdinando, D. and Pomfret, S.J., Polymer, 41 2319, 2000.Google Scholar
5. Plucknett, K.P. and Normand, V., Polymer, 41 6833, 2000.Google Scholar
6. Bot, A., van Amerongen, I.A., Groot, R.D., Hoekstra, N.L. and Agterof, W.G.M., Polym. Gels Networks, 4 189, 1996.Google Scholar
7. Gent, A.N., J. Mater. Sci., 15 2884, 1980.Google Scholar
8. Creton, C., Kramer, E.J., Hui, C.Y. and Brown, H.R., Macromolecules, 25 3075, 1992.Google Scholar
9. Mangipudi, V.S., Huang, E., Tirrell, M. and Pocius, A.V., Macromol. Symp., 102 131, 1996.Google Scholar
10. Johnson, K.L., Kendall, K. and Roberts, A.D., Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 324 301, 1971.Google Scholar
11. Pomfret, S.J., Plucknett, K.P., Frith, W.J., Normand, V. and Norton, I.T., Submitted for publication in MRS Symp. Proc. Vol. 629. Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh (2000).Google Scholar
12. Atkins, A.G. and Mai, Y-W., Elastic and Plastic Fracture: Metals, Polymers, Ceramics, Composites, Biological Materials, Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK (1985).Google Scholar
13. Plucknett, K.P., Baker, F., Normand, V. and Donald, A.M., manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar