Cited by 161Elasticity and Material ModelingRheology and Fluid Dynamics StudiesCellular Mechanics and Interactions

Viscoelastic response of human skin to low magnitude physiologically relevant shear

Open access
Holt, Brian, Tripathi, Anubhav, Morgan, Jeffrey·2008·Journal of Biomechanics

Abstract

Percutaneous implants are a family of devices that penetrate the skin and all suffer from the same problems of infection because the skin seal around the device is not optimal. Contributing to this problem is the mechanical discontinuity of the skin/device interface leading to stress concentrations and micro-trauma that chronically breaks any seal that forms. In this paper, we have quantified the mechanical behavior of human skin under low-magnitude shear loads over physiological relevant frequencies. Using a stress-controlled rheometer, we have performed isothermal (37 degrees C) frequency response experiments between 0.628 and 75.39 rad/s at 0.5% and 0.04% strain on whole skin and dermis-only, respectively. Step-stress experiments of 5 and 10 Pa shear loads were also conducted as were strain sweep tests (6.28 rad/s). Measurements were made of whole human skin and skin from which the epidermis was removed (dermis-only). At low frequencies (0.628-10 rad/s), the moduli are only slightly frequency dependent, with approximate power-law scaling of the moduli, G' approximately G'' approximately omega(beta), yielding beta=0.05 for whole skin and beta=0.16 for dermis-only samples. Step-stress experiments revealed three distinct phases. The intermediate phase included elastic "ringing" (damped oscillation) which provided new insights and could be fit to a mathematical model. Both the frequency and step-stress response data suggest that the epidermis provides an elastic rigidity and dermis provides viscoelasticity to the whole skin samples. Hence, whole skin exhibited strain hardening while the dermis-only demonstrated stress softening under step-stress conditions. The data obtained from the low-magnitude shear loads and frequencies that approximate the chronic mechanical environment of a percutaneous implant should aid in the design of a device with an improved skin seal.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.06.008

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mismatches in elastic modulus between a percutaneous implant and surrounding skin result in shear forces that induce a more severe foreign body response.

    “mismatches in the elastic modulus between an implant and the skin that surrounds it will result in sheer forces that induce a more severe FBR.164”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Ewoldt Randy H McKinley Gareth H Creep Ringing in Rheometry or How to Deal with Oft-discarded Data in Step Stress Tests Rheology Bulletin 2007 76 1 4 6 22 24

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Holt, B., Tripathi, A., & Morgan, J.
Affiliations
Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Morgan, Jeffrey
Venue
Journal of Biomechanics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-08
Volume
41
Issue
12
Pages
2689-2695
ISSN
0021-9290 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2049605176
Cited by
161
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 10
FWCI
3.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomechanics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (F31AR054202)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Elasticity and Material Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Chemical Engineering › Fluid Flow and Transfer Processes › Rheology and Fluid Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Cellular Mechanics and Interactions
Keywords
human skin, viscoelasticity, shear loading, percutaneous implants, dermis, epidermis, frequency response, strain hardening, stress softening, power-law scaling, infection
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Humans, Models, Biological, Physical Stimulation, Skin Physiological Phenomena, Stress, Mechanical, Viscosity, Shear Strength, Elastic Modulus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review