Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Acta Biomater. 2020 Apr 16;110:68–81. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.04.013

Figure 4: Mechanical evaluation of dECM, dECM+PPF, and PPF in tension.

Figure 4:

(A) A typical curve for dECM to illustrate ultimate tensile strength, maximum strain, E1, and E2. (B) Average curves for the groups studied to illustrate differences in mechanical behavior. (C) dECM and dECM+PPF undergo a significant decrease, while PPF experiences a significant increase, in ultimate tensile strength after 4 h in collagenase (*p=0.003, **p=0.014, and ***p=0.002; two-sample t-test). (D) Degradation does not have a significant impact on the materials’ deformation at failure. The addition of PPF to dECM does not significantly change the (E) E1 modulus (MPa) or (F) E2 modulus (MPa). Groups with different letters indicate statistical difference. All data is presented as mean + standard deviation.