Premium
Evaluation of substrates for 90° peel adhesion—A collaborative study. I. Medical tapes
Author(s) -
Wokovich Anna M.,
Brown Stanley A.,
McMaster Fraser J.,
Doub William H.,
Cai Bing,
Sadrieh Nakissa,
Chen Mei Ling,
Machado Stella,
Shen Meiyu,
Buhse Lucinda F.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
journal of biomedical materials research part b: applied biomaterials
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.665
H-Index - 108
eISSN - 1552-4981
pISSN - 1552-4973
DOI - 10.1002/jbm.b.31075
Subject(s) - food and drug administration , materials science , high density polyethylene , substrate (aquarium) , biomedical engineering , dwell time , cadaver , polyethylene , medical device , adhesion , composite material , medicine , surgery , pharmacology , biology , ecology , clinical psychology
As part of a method development for peel testing, an interlaboratory comparison among Food and Drug Administration—Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration—Center for Devices and Radiological Health and Southwest Research Institute was conducted using medical tapes. The aim was to determine which readily available substrate [stainless steel (SS), high density polyethylene (HDPE) or Vitro‐Skin®] would best distinguish among various medical tapes. Five medical tapes (3M 1523, 3M 1525L, 3M 1776, Mepiform® and Mediderm® 3505) were evaluated on four different substrates (SS, HDPE, Vitro‐Skin, and human cadaver skin) using the following peel parameters: ∼ 3 min dwell time, 90° peel angle, and 300 mm/min peel rate. No substrate mimics cadaver skin for all five tapes. SS had the best ability to distinguish among the medical tapes. Overall, for quality control purposes (yielding good discrimination and precision), SS would be the optimal substrate. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2008