Skip to main content
. 2024 Sep 12;15:7993. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-52418-y

Fig. 2. Injectability, stability, mechanical and adhesive properties of ICAA hydrogel.

Fig. 2

a Schematic illustration of the controllable reaction kinetics between -SH and -Mal by introducing competing reactions: (i) -SH and -Mal and (ii) -SH and TA. b Quantitative analysis of gelation time of ICAA hydrogel suggest its desirable injectability (n = 3 independent experiments). c Representative tensile stress-strain curves of the ICAA hydrogels. d Representative compressive stress-strain curves of the ICAA hydrogels. e Quantitative analysis of tensile modulus of the ICAA hydrogels (n = 3 independent experiments). f Quantitative analysis of the ICAA hydrogel′s swelling ratio over time in PBS buffer at 37 °C (n = 3 independent experiments). g Photographs of the ICAA hydrogel immersed in PBS during 4 weeks. Scale bar, 5 mm. h Instantaneous adhesion of the ICAA hydrogel on a silicone with PDA coating and sciatic nerve. i, j Representative load-displacement curves for ICAA hydrogel-tissue interface in peeling measurements (i), and the interfacial toughness between ICAA hydrogels and nerve tissues (j) (n = 3 independent experiments). ICAA hydrogels are prepared with varying solid contents of PEG-8SH, PEG-2Mal, and MXene (ICAA (15 wt%, 10 wt%, and 4 wt%); ICAA-1 (5 wt%, 3.33 wt%, and 1.33 wt%); ICAA-2 (10 wt%, 6.6 wt%, and 2.66 wt%)). Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation in (b, e, f, j) and were analyzed by one-way ANOVA first, and then by the Tukey′s post hoc test in (b, e, j). *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001. b p = 2.94 × 10−4 (ICAA-2 vs ICAA-1), p = 4.94 × 10−5 (ICAA vs ICAA-1), p = 0.0409 (ICAA vs ICAA-2). e p = 3.67 × 10−3 (ICAA-2 vs ICAA-1), p = 1.47 × 10−4 (ICAA vs ICAA-1), p = 0.0102 (ICAA vs ICAA-2). j p = 8.37 × 10−4 (ICAA-2 vs ICAA-1), p = 1.83 × 10−5 (ICAA vs ICAA-1), p = 1.04 × 10−3 (ICAA vs ICAA-2).