Technical Brief

A Protocol for Measuring Pull-off Stress of Wound-Treatment Polymers

[+] Author and Article Information
Vitaly O. Kheyfets, Rita C. Thornton, Mikala Kowal

Department of Biomedical Engineering,
The University of Texas at San Antonio,
San Antonio, TX 78249

Ender A. Finol

Department of Biomedical Engineering,
The University of Texas at San Antonio,
San Antonio, TX 78249
e-mail: ender.finol@utsa.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received September 10, 2013; final manuscript received April 3, 2014; accepted manuscript posted April 11, 2014; published online May 12, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Sean S. Kohles.

J Biomech Eng 136(7), 074501 (May 12, 2014) (5 pages) Paper No: BIO-13-1420; doi: 10.1115/1.4027412 History: Received September 10, 2013; Revised April 03, 2014; Accepted April 11, 2014

Skin wounds and burns compromise the body's natural barrier to bacteria and other pathogens. While many forms of wound dressings are available, polymeric films are advantageous for various reasons, ranging from the ease of application to durability. One common drawback of using polymeric films for a wound bandage is that the films tend to adhere to common inanimate objects. Patients spend hours in contact with soft and hard materials pressed against their skin, which, if the skin was dressed with a polymeric film, would inflict further wound damage upon body movement. In this work, we present a novel technique that allowed for measuring polymeric tackiness, after a long incubation period, with materials regularly encountered in a hospital or home setting, and soft fabrics. The polymers were exposed to an environment intended to simulate daily conditions and the technique is designed to perform multiple experiments simultaneously with ease. Four commercially available polymers (new-skin, no-sting skin-prep, skin shield, and Silesse) were tested as proof-of-concept to gather preliminary data for an overall assessment of wound treatment efficacy, resulting in the estimation of pull-off stress of the polymers from a specimen of porcine skin. Silesse did not reveal a measurable tackiness, no-sting skin-prep had the highest mean tackiness (13.8 kPa), while the mean tackiness between new-skin and skin shield was approximately equal (9.8 kPa vs. 10.1 kPa, respectively), p = 0.05. Future work on polymeric fluids for wound dressing applications should include tensile stress and dynamic viscosity estimations.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Sezer, A. D., and Cevher, E., 2011, “Biopolymers as Wound Healing Materials: Challenges and New Strategies,” Biomaterials Applications for Nanomedicien, R. Pignatello (ed.), InTech, Rijeka, Croatia. [CrossRef]
Kauvar, D. S., Wolf, S. E., Wade, C. E., Cancio, L. C., Renz, E. M., and Holcomb, J. B., 2006, Burns Sustained in Combat Explosions in Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF explosion burns),” Burns, 32(7), pp. 853–857. [CrossRef]
D'Avignon, L. C., Chung, K. K., Saffle, J. R., Renz, E. M., and Cancio, L. C., 2011, “Prevention of Combat-Related Infections Guidelines P. Prevention of Infections Associated With Combat-Related Burn Injuries,” J. Trauma, 71(2 Suppl 2), pp. S282–S289. [CrossRef]
Gay, C., and Leibler, L., 1999, “On Stickiness,” Phys. Today, 52(11), pp. 48–52. [CrossRef]
Gay, C., 2002, “Stickiness—Some Fundamentals of Adhesion,” Integr. Comp. Biol., 42(6), pp. 1123–1126. [CrossRef]
Bikerman, J. J., 1947, “The Fundamentals of Tackiness and Adhesion,” J. Coll. Sci. Imp. U. Tok., 2(1), pp. 163–175. [CrossRef]
Cilurzo, F., Gennari, C. G., and Minghetti, P., 2012, “Adhesive Properties: A Critical Issue in Transdermal Patch Development,” Expert Opin. Drug Deliv., 9(1), pp. 33–45. [CrossRef]
Panchaxari, D. M., Pampana, S., Pal, T., Devabhaktuni, B., and Aravapalli, A. K., 2013, “Design and Characterization of Diclofenac Diethylamine Transdermal Patch Using Silicone and Acrylic Adhesives Combination,” J. Faculty Pharm., 21(6), pp. 1–14.
Shi, Y., Xu, S., Dong, A., and Zhang, J., 2013, “Design and In Vitro Evaluation of Transdermal Patches Based on Ibuprofen-Loaded Electrospun Fiber Mats,” J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med., 24(2), pp. 333–341. [CrossRef]
Wong, C. F., Yuen, K. H., and Peh, K. K., 1999, “Formulation and Evaluation of Controlled Release Eudragit Buccal Patches,” Int. J. Pharm., 178(1), pp. 11–22. [CrossRef]
Peh, K., Khan, T., and Ch'ng, H., 2003, “Mechanical, Bioadhesive Strength and Biological Evaluations of Chitosan Films for Wound Dressing,” J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci., 3(3), pp. 303–311.
Peh, K. K., and Wong, C. F., 1999, “Polymeric Films as Vehicle for Buccal Delivery: Swelling, Mechanical, and Bioadhesive Properties,” J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci., 2(2), pp. 53–61.
Gullick, D. R., Pugh, W. J., Ingram, M. J., Cox, P. A., and Moss, G. P., 2010, “Formulation and Characterization of a Captopril Ethyl Ester Drug-in-Adhesive-Type Patch for Percutaneous Absorption,” Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm., 36(8), pp. 926–932. [CrossRef]
Cilurzo, F., Minghetti, P., Pagani, S., Casiraghi, A., and Montanari, L., 2008, “Design and Characterization of an Adhesive Matrix Based on a Poly(ethyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate),” AAPS Pharm. Sci. Tech., 9(3), pp. 748–754. [CrossRef]
Cilurzo, F., Minghetti, P., Gennari, C. G., Casiraghi, A., and Montanari, L., 2010, “A Novel Polymethylmethacrylate Hydrophilic Adhesive Matrix Intended for Transdermal Patch Formulations,” Drug Deliv., 17(3), pp. 171–177. [CrossRef]
Taghizadeh, S. M., Soroushnia, A., Mirzadeh, H., and Barikani, M., 2009, “Preparation and In Vitro Evaluation of a New Fentanyl Patch Based on Acrylic/Silicone Pressure-Sensitive Adhesive Blends,” Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm., 35(4), pp. 487–498. [CrossRef]
Pizzi, A., and Mittal, K. L., 2003, Handbook of Adhesive Technology, 2nd ed., Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York.
Karwoski, A. C., 2003, Testing and Analysis of the Peeling of Medical Adhesives from Human Skin, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Civil Engineering. Blacksburg, VA.
Yu, Z., Liang, Y., and Liang, W., 2013, “Development and Evaluation of Alpha-Asarone Transdermal Patches Based on Hot-Melt Pressure-Sensitive Adhesives,” AAPS Pharm. Sci. Tech., 14(1), pp. 294–300. [CrossRef]
Chen, J., Feng, M., Gonzalez, Y., and Pugnaloni, L. A., 2008, “Application of Probe Tensile Method for Quantitative Characterisation of the Stickiness of Fluid Foods,” J. Food Eng., 87(2), pp. 281–290. [CrossRef]
Matwiej, L., and Senski, M., 2006, “Modelling of Ergonomic Contrautions of Mattresses in Upholstery Furniture,” Electron. J. Polish Agri. Univ., 9(3), pp. 1–9.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Pull-off testing apparatus and nomenclature: (a) pull-off stress testing assembly configured for the Bose Electroforce T3200 testing apparatus; (b) radial insert ball bearing system; and (c) close-up of the Block-Skin-Polymer-Dolly assembly clamped to the load cell top plate and metal stoppers.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Schematic showing primary testing components by layer. The load cell top and bottom plates are made of Plexiglas ® and machined to accommodate the load cell threading. (b) A picture of weight distributed over 12 samples curing inside an incubator.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Protocol for conducting pull-off testing between polymeric films intended as wound dressings and soft fabrics: (a) a clamp is laid atop a flat piece of pig hide with polymer applied; (b) a dolly and cloth are compressed onto the skin through the clamp. This assembly can be made simultenously and placed in incubation as shown in Fig. 2; (c) a custom made part containing a threaded shaft; and (d) as the assembly is placed on the bottom base for testing, the custom part (shown in c) is pressed through the clamp and the fabric is secured to the shaft.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Appearance of dolly and skin after pull-off experiment for the 4 polymeric films. All 3 modes of detachment are present among the films: (1) failure in the adhesive strength at the polymer-skin interface; (2) failure in the adhesive strength at the polymer-dolly interface; and (3) failure in the structural integrity of the cured polymer.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Mean and standard error of pull-off stress with skin for three commercial products: New-skin (9.8 ± 0.8 kPa), no-sting skin-prep (13.8 ± 1.4 kPa), and skin shield (10.1 ± 1.4 kPa). The insert shows exemplary Force vs. displacement data for skin shield. Silesse is not shown as it revealed no measurable tackiness.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Mean and standard error of the work of separation with skin for three commercial products: New-skin (24.9 ± 2.4 J/m2), no-sting skin-prep (37.8 ± 5.4 J/m2), and skin shield (28.6 ± 4.6 J/m2).



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In