Oxygen diffusion in marine-derived tissue engineering scaffolds

  • E. Boccardi
  • I. V. Belova
  • G. E. Murch
  • A. R. Boccaccini
  • T. FiedlerEmail author
Tissue Engineering Constructs and Cell Substrates Original Research
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Tissue Engineering Constructs and Cell Substrates


This paper addresses the computation of the effective diffusivity in new bioactive glass (BG) based tissue engineering scaffolds. High diffusivities facilitate the supply of oxygen and nutrients to grown tissue as well as the rapid disposal of toxic waste products. The present study addresses required novel types of bone tissue engineering BG scaffolds that are derived from natural marine sponges. Using the foam replication method, the scaffold geometry is defined by the porous structure of Spongia Agaricina and Spongia Lamella. These sponges present the advantage of attaining scaffolds with higher mechanical properties (2–4 MPa) due to a decrease in porosity (68–76 %). The effective diffusivities of these structures are compared with that of conventional scaffolds based on polyurethane (PU) foam templates, characterised by high porosity (>90 %) and lower mechanical properties (>0.05 MPa). Both the spatial and directional variations of diffusivity are investigated. Furthermore, the effect of scaffold decomposition due to immersion in simulated body fluid (SBF) on the diffusivity is addressed. Scaffolds based on natural marine sponges are characterised by lower oxygen diffusivity due to their lower porosity compared with the PU replica foams, which should enable the best oxygen supply to newly formed bone according the numerical results. The oxygen diffusivity of these new BG scaffolds increases over time as a consequence of the degradation in SBF.


Foam Simulated Body Fluid Effective Diffusivity Bioactive Glass Marine Sponge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was supported under the Australian Research Council Discovery Projects funding scheme (Project Number DP130101377). In addition, this research was carried out in the framework of the EU ITN FP-7 Project “GlaCERCo”. The authors would like to acknowledge its financial support.


  1. 1.
    Gómez-Barrena E, Rosset P, Lozano D, Stanovici J, Ermthaller C, Gerbhard F. Bone fracture healing: cell therapy in delayed unions and nonunions. Bone. 2015;70:93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stevens MM. Biomaterials for bone tissue engineering. Mater Today. 2008;11:18–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mulvana H. New materials and technologies for healthcare. In: Hench LL, Jones JR, Fenn MB, editors. London: Imperial College Press; 2011, p. 520, ISBN: 978-1-84816-558-8; Ultrasound in medicine & biology. vol. 40; 2//2014. p. 457.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hutmacher DW. Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials. 2000;21(24):2529–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gerhardt L-C, Boccaccini AR. Bioactive glass and glass-ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Materials. 2010;3:3867–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Polak JM, Hench LL, Kemp P. Future strategies for tissue and organ replacement. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hench LL. The story of bioglass. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2006;2006(17):967–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jones JR. Review of bioactive glass: from Hench to hybrids. Acta Biomater. 2013;9:4457–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gorustovich AA, Roether JA, Boccaccini AR. Effect of bioactive glasses on angiogenesis: a review of in vitro and in vivo evidences. Tissue Eng Part B. 2009;16(2):199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen QZ, Thompson ID, Boccaccini AR. 45S4 Bioglass-derived glass ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2006;27:2414–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cunningham E, Dunne N, Clarke S, Choi SY, Walker G, Wilcox R, et al. Comparative characterization of 3-D hydroxyapatite scaffolds developed via replication of synthetic polymer foams and natural marine sponges. J Tissue Sci Eng. 2011. doi: 10.4172/2157-7552.S1-001.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karande TS. Effect of scaffold architecture on diffusion of oxygen in tissue engineering constructs. PhD, The University of Texas at Austin, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kang TY, Kang HW, Hwang CM, Leel SJ, Park J, Yoo JJ, et al. The realistic prediction of oxygen transport in a tissue-engineered scaffold by introducing time-varying effective diffusion coefficients. Acta Biomater. 2011;7:3345–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fiedler T, Belova IV, Murch GE, Jones JR, Roether JA, Boccaccini AR. A comparative study of oxygen diffusion in tissue engineering scaffolds. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2014;25:2573–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pronzato R, Manconi R. Mediterranean commercial sponges: over 5000 years of natural history and cultural heritage. Mar Ecol. 2008;29:146–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yang S, Leong KF, Du Z, Chua CK. The design of scaffolds for use in tissue engineering—traditional factors. Tissue Eng. 2001;7:679–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mastrogiacomo M, Scaglione S, Martinetti R, Dolcini L, Beltrame F, Cancedda R, et al. Role of scaffold internal structure on in vivo bone formation in macroporous calcium phosphate bioceramics. Biomaterials. 2006;27:3230–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boccardi E, Philippart A, Juhasz-Bortuzzo JA, Novajra G, Vitale-Brovarone C, Boccaccini AR. Characterisation of Bioglass®-based foams developed via replication of natural marine sponges. Adv. Appl Ceram. 2015 (accepted for publication).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hench L, Wilson J. Surface-active biomaterials. Science. 1984;226:630–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kokubo T, Takadama H. How useful is SBF in predicting in vivo bone bioactivity? Biomaterials. 2006;27:2907–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fiedler T, Belova IV, Rawson A, Murch GE. Optimized lattice Monte Carlo for thermal analysis of composite. Comput Mater Sci. 2014;95:207–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Belova IV, Murch GE, Fiedler T, Öchsner A. Lattice-based walks and the Monte Carlo method for addressing mass, thermal and elasticity problems. Defect Diffus Forum. 2008;283–286:3–23.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fiedler T, Belova IV, Murch GE. Theoretical and lattice Monte Carlo analyses on thermal conduction in cellular metals. Comput Mater Sci. 2010;50:503–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fiedler T, Belova IV, Öchsner A, Murch GE. A review on thermal lattice Monte Carlo analysis. In: Delgado JM, editor. Current trends in chemical engineering. Houston: Studium Press LCC; 2010. p. 105–30.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Solorzano E, Reglero JA, Rodríguez-Perez MA, Lehmhus D, Wichmann M, De Saja JA. An experimental study on the thermal conductivity of aluminium foams by using the transient plane source method. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2008;51:6259–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maxwell JC. A treatise on elasticity and magnetism. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1892.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dulnev GN. Heat transfer through solid disperse systems. J Eng Phys. 1965;9:275–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Doube M, Kłosowski MM, Arganda-Carreras I, Cordeliéres F, Dougherty RP, Jackson J, et al. BoneJ: free and extensible bone image analysis in ImageJ. Bone. 2010;47:1076–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Institute of BiomaterialsUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany
  2. 2.School of EngineeringUniversity of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations