Search

Tissue engineering (TE) was initially designed to tackle clinical organ shortage problems. Although some engineered tissues have been successfully used for non-clinical applications, very few (e.g., reconstructed human skin) have been used for clinical purposes. As the current TE approach has not achieved much success regarding more broad and general clinical applications, organ shortage still remains a challenging issue. This very limited clinical application of TE can be attributed to the constraints in manufacturing fully functional tissues via the traditional top–down approach, where very limited cell types are seeded and cultured in scaffolds with equivalent sizes and morphologies as the target tissues. The newly proposed developmental engineering (DE) strategy towards the manufacture of fully functional tissues utilises a bottom–up approach to mimic developmental biology processes by implementing gradual tissue assembly alongside the growth of multiple cell types in modular scaffolds. This approach may overcome the constraints of the traditional top–down strategy as it can imitate in vivo-like tissue development processes. However, several essential issues must be considered, and more mechanistic insights of the fundamental, underpinning biological processes, such as cell–cell and cell–material interactions, are necessary. The aim of this review is to firstly introduce and compare the number of cell types, the size and morphology of the scaffolds, and the generic tissue reconstruction procedures utilised in the top–down and the bottom–up strategies; then, it will analyse their advantages, disadvantages, and challenges; and finally, it will briefly discuss the possible technologies that may overcome some of the inherent limitations of the bottom–up strategy.

Antiplasticization of glassy polymers, arising from the addition of small amounts of plasticizer, was examined to highlight the developments that have taken place over the last few decades, aiming to fill gaps of knowledge in the large number of disjointed publications. The analysis includes the role of polymer/plasticizer molecular interactions and the conditions leading to the cross-over from antiplasticization to plasticization. This was based on molecular dynamics considerations of thermal transitions and related relaxation spectra, alongside the deviation of free volumes from the additivity rule. Useful insights were gained from an analysis of data on molecular glasses, including the implications of the glass fragility concept. The effects of molecular packing resulting from antiplasticization are also discussed in the context of physical ageing. These include considerations on the effects on mechanical properties and diffusion-controlled behaviour. Some peculiar features of antiplasticization regarding changes in Tg were probed and the effects of water were examined, both as a single component and in combination with other plasticizers to illustrate the role of intermolecular forces. The analysis has also brought to light the shortcomings of existing theories for disregarding the dual cross-over from antiplasticization to plasticization with respect to modulus variation with temperature and for not addressing failure related properties, such as yielding, crazing and fracture toughness.

© 2014 Society of Plastics Engineers. The influence of untreated and stearic acid surface pretreated calcium carbonate (CaCO3) nanofiller (U1 - untreated CaCO3 and U1S2 - stearic acid treated CaCO3) on the properties of polyurethane/poly(vinyl acetate) (PUR/PVAC) polymer blends was investigated. Adhesion between fillers and polymers in the polymer blend composite, and filler position in regard to the polymer phases, are predicted on the basis of calculated adhesion parameters and wetting factor ωa of PUR, PVAC, U1, and U1S2. U1 is located in the PUR matrix phase and U1S2 is located at the interface between matrix PUR domain and dispersed PVAC domain. Polymer blend composites with predominant U1S2 showed lower tensile strength and elongation compared to these of polymer blend composites with predominant U1 mainly due to the fillers' different surface properties, which confirmed that the mechanical properties of polymer blend composites were dependent on overall system morphology rather than the filler location.