Surface & Coatings Technology 276 (2015) 580586

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Surface & Coatings Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/surfcoat

Surface modication of stainless steel implants using nanostructured

forsterite (Mg2SiO4) coating for biomaterial applications
Mitra Kheirkhah a,c,, Mohammadhossein Fathi a,b, Hamid Reza Salimijazi c, Mehdi Razavi a,b,d,e
a
Biomaterials Research Group, Department of Materials Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran
b
Dental Materials Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
c
Department of Materials Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran
d
Institute of Materials and Manufacturing, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, London, UB8 3PH, UK
e
Brunel Institute for Bioengineering, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, London, UB8 3PH, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The main aim of this research was the preparation of the forsterite (Mg2SiO4) coating on the surface of 316L
Received 12 June 2014 stainless steel (316L SS) substrate. For this purpose, the nanostructured forsterite was coated on the 316L SS
Revised 16 April 2015 substrate using the solgel dip coating technique. Structural characterization techniques including X-ray
Accepted in revised form 6 June 2015
diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDX) were utilized
Available online 9 June 2015
to investigate the phase structure, morphology and elemental composition of the uncoated and coated samples.
Keywords:
Corrosion properties of samples were studied using the electrochemical measurements in simulated body uid
Stainless steel (SBF). The in vitro bioactivity evaluation of the forsterite coated samples was conducted by soaking the samples
Implant in the SBF at the temperature of 37 C. The results showed that, a crack-free and homogeneous forsterite coating
Coating with the crystallite size of around 40 nm was successfully achieved on the surface of 316L SS substrate. The
Bioceramic corrosion current density of the forsterite coated samples was lesser than that of the uncoated ones indicating
Forsterite the improvement of corrosion resistance of the metallic substrate using the forsterite coating. Deposition of Ca
Biomedical applications and P-contained products on the surface of coated samples during the incubation in the SBF solution conrmed
the bioactivity behavior of the forsterite coated samples. Consequently, the 316L SS substrate coated with
nanostructured forsterite may be an appropriate selection for dental and orthopedic implant applications.
2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of relative position of the implant is extremely detrimental and con-

Metallic biomaterials such as titanium and its alloys, cobalt-based
alloys and stainless steels have been widely used for clinical applications
due to their noticeable strength, biocompatibility, durability, and corro-
sion resistance in physiological environments [1,2]. The high mechani-
cal strength and fracture toughness of the mentioned bio-metals are
their most vital advantages compared to bioactive ceramics, which are
inherently brittle [3]. Nowadays, stainless steel is employed as bone
xation devices due to the combination of mechanical properties, corro-
sion resistance and lower cost compared to other conventional metallic
implant materials [4]. The biocompatibility of stainless steel implants
has been approved by clinical trials [1]. Moreover, the handling of stain-
less steel implants are easier compared to that of the titanium alloys for
required plastic deformations during the surgery [4]. However, stainless
steel implants will be corroded in the presence of aggressive ions in bio-
uids. The corrosion process releases the ions which may adversely
affect the biocompatibility of the implant [4]. Furthermore, the variation
Corresponding author at: Biomaterials Research Group, Department of Materials
Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran.
E-mail address: kheirkhah.mitra65@gmail.com (M. Kheirkhah).
sequently immobilization of a patient may be necessary before the im-
plant xation. Therefore, during implantation, a close contact between
metal prostheses and the host tissue is required for a subsequent in-
growth of the bone tissue into the implant surface [3]. Current clinical
researches have reported that about 100 days recovery time can be re-
duced to only 20 days through the use of bioactive ceramics on the sur-
face of implant due to the quick bond formation between the implant
and bone tissue [3].
Among regular techniques for enhancement of corrosion resistance
and biocompatibility of metal implants, surface modication has been fre-
quently utilized [5]. Accordingly, selection of a proper coating material for
stainless steel implants may highly affect the biological behavior [3]. A de-
signed system including the metal as the substrate and a bioactive ce-
ramics as the coating material combines the mechanical properties of the
metallic substrate and biological properties of the bioceramic coating [6].
Among the bioactive ceramics, Mg and Si-contained ceramics have
attracted much attention as bone replacement materials [7]. Si is an es-
sential element in skeletal development and Mg is directly associated
with mineralization of calcined tissues and ultimately inuences the
mineral metabolism [8]. Forsterite with the chemical composition of
Mg2SiO4 is a member of olivine family of crystals in the magnesia

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2015.06.012
0257-8972/ 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 M. Kheirkhah et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 276 (2015) 580586
silica binary system which is considered as a new bioactive ceramics
with appropriate bioactivity and biocompatibility properties [7].
Forsterite as a biocompatible material have in vitro bioactivity, better
mechanical properties compared to the hydroxyapatite, and can be ap-
plicable as a new biomaterial for hard tissue repairs [7,9]. Moreover,
fracture toughness of forsterite is close to that of the natural bone [10].
Hydroxyapatite (HA) is an important achievement of bioceramics as a
bone tissue regenerating material. HA is osteoconductive; a property that
encourages bone in-growth. However, weak mechanical properties in-
cluding low toughness have conned its clinical applications. Bulk HA
has lesser fracture toughness compared to that of the cortical bone, and
more elastic modulus than cortical bone [11,12]. Bioactive glasses (BaG)
are also another category of bioactive materials which have been
employed for production of tissue engineering scaffolds. BaG indicates
osteoproductive properties, bonding ability to both of the soft and hard tis-
sues and formation of a bioactive deposited layer (HCA) when exposed to
physiological environment [13,14]. In contrast, the poor mechanical prop-
erties of these materials have restricted their clinical applications. The high
reactivity of BaG is the main benet for its application in bone repairs, be-
cause the deposited reaction products from the body uids result in the
formation of the apatite phase, similar to the inorganic constituent of
bone in hard tissues [15,16]. Forsterite could be an attractive material
owing to its superior mechanical properties and biodegradability than
HA and BaG. In comparison with HA and BaG, forsterite indicates signi-
cant fracture toughness and hardness. Research indicates that forsterite
has better mechanical properties compared to calcium phosphate ce-
ramics like HA. The fracture toughness of forsterite ceramics is
2.4 MPa m1/2 more than the lower limits reported for bone implants. En-
hanced fracture toughness of forsterite coating compared to that of the
HA coating will avoid the formation of cracks, pores, and coating delamina-
tion [10,17]. The biodegradability of BaG may be accounted as its main dis-
advantage when it is utilized as a coating material on the permanent
implants such as 316L SS. Through the coating degradation, crack and
pore is formed on the coating's surface resulting in the direct exposure of
substrate to the corrosive media. It will adversely affect the degradation
protection properties of coating. Ni et al. [7] indicated that forsterite is a
bioceramics with high biocompatibility and might be apt for hard tissue re-
generation. In addition, making the nanostructured forsterite suggests that
these can be extensively enhanced concerning their fracture toughness
(KIC = 3.61 MPa m1/2) and hardness (940 Hv) compared to the hydroxy-
apatite ceramics (KIC = 0.751.2 MPa m1/2 and hardness = 700 Hv). Ac-
cording to aforementioned advantages, we selected the forsterite as a
coating material on the 316L SS substrate.
Among coating methods, solgel is simple, industrial and cost-effec-
tive technique which applies a variety of coatings materials on different
substrates, involving the immersion of the substrate into a liquid medi-
um [18].
The nanostructured materials with the high volume fraction of grain
boundaries are reported to present improved biocompatibility and in-
creased osteoblast adhesion and proliferation over the normal materials
[19]. Regarding the forsterite, the in vitro studies have showed a signif-
icant osteoblast adhesion and forsterite nanopowder unlike micron-
sized forsterite has indicated the in vitro bioactivity [9].
In this research, we used biomedical stainless steel type 316L SS as
the substrate for studying the nanostructured forsterite coating using
the solgel technique. The stainless steel type 316L SS has been exten-
sively utilized for fabrication of prosthesis devices such as plate, screw,
etc., in orthopedic surgery [4]. In this work, we investigate the charac-
teristics of deposited coatings on the surfaces.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample preparation
Rectangular substrates with the dimensions of 10 mm 10 mm
2 mm were machined and prepared from the 316L SS. The prepared
581
samples were ground with SiC papers progressively to 1200 grit, after-
ward were ultrasonically cleaned in acetone for about 0.5 h and dried.
2.2. Coating process
The coating solution was prepared similar to our previous procedure
on the production of forsterite nanopowders using solgel technique
[17]. Briey, the aqueous solution of magnesium nitrate was dissolved
in 50 mL distilled water on a magnetic stirrer. Then, colloidal silicon
oxide was added to the solution with the ratio of Mg:Si = 2:1. The su-
crose was separately dissolved in 100 ml distilled water and was
added to the previous solution. After homogenizing for 2 h, a solution
containing polyvinyl alcohol in 200 ml distilled water with the ratio of
magnesium ion to polyvinyl alcohol of 0.8:1 was added to the solution.
The pH of solution was adjusted to be around 1 using nitric acid. The ho-
mogenizing operation of solution was conducted at ambient temperature
for 2 h at 80 C. To prepare the forsterite coating on the 316L SS substrate,
the prepared solution was rst stirred for 15, 30, and 45 min at 200 C.
Then, the samples were vertically immersed for 1, and 2 times in the pre-
pared solution for 30 and 60 s and extracted gently with the constant rate
of 27 mm/min. Aging and drying processes were performed on the coated
substrates for 24 h at 25 C and 48 h at 70 C, respectively. The samples
were calcinated for 2 h at 800 C with the heating rate of 1 C/min and
were cooled inside the furnace. Among the abovementioned parameters,
one set of parameters which could create and develop the best quality of
the coating in regard to the coating thickness, delaminating and pore for-
mation was selected as follows: stirring time: 45 min, immersing time:
30 s for 1 time, extracting rate: 27 mm/min, heat treatment time and tem-
perature: 24 h at 25 C, 48 h at 70 C, and 2 h at 800 C with a heating rate
of 1 C/min.
2.3. Coating characterization
A low angle X-ray diffraction analysis technique (XRD: Xpert Pro
MPD) was conducted to reveal the phase composition of the synthe-
sized forsterite coating. The operating conditions were selected 40 kV
and 30 mA using Cu-K radiation at 2 range of 1090, employing
the step size of 0.02/s. The broadening of the peaks in XRD patterns
was utilized to determine the crystallite size according to Scherrer for-
mula (Eq. (1)) [20]:
Xs 0:9=Cos 1
where Xs is crystallite size (nm), is wavelength of X-ray beam ( =
1.5418A for Cu-K radiation), is full width at half maximum of the
diffraction peaks (radian), and is diffraction angle (degree).
The morphology and elemental composition of prepared samples
were investigated using a scanning electron microscopy (SEM: Philips
XL 30: Eindhoven) equipped with energy dispersive spectroscopy
(EDS).
2.4. Electrochemical corrosion measurements
A standard platinum wire was used as the counter electrode and a
KCl saturated Ag/AgCl electrode was used as the reference electrode.
In order to perform the potentiodynamic polarization experiments, un-
coated and forsterite coated 316L SS samples as working electrodes
were subjected in 600 ml simulated body uid (SBF) at 37 1 C. The
effective surface area of samples was adjusted to be 1 cm2. The open-
circuit potential (Eocp) of the samples was continuously monitored
for 1 h until the potential was reached to a stable value. The electro-
chemical polarization corrosion examinations were carried out using a
potentiostat/galvanostat with the model of AMETEK, PARSTAT 2273.
The potential were scanned from 250 mV to + 800 mV versus
open-circuit potential with a scan rate of 3 mV/s. The corrosion
582 M. Kheirkhah et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 276 (2015) 580586
potentials (Ecorr) and corrosion current densities (ICorr) were extracted
from the potentiodynamic polarization curves.
2.5. In vitro bioactivity evaluation
Forsterite coated 316L SS samples were immersed in gamma-
sterilized falcon bottles containing SBF and the immersed samples
were placed in a bain-marie water bath (NB9-NVE, Turkey) at 37
1 C for 28 days. The SBF prepared by Kokubo's protocol [21], had a
chemical composition similar to that of the human blood plasma. The
concentration of Mg, Ca, and P ion in the SBF during the incubation
time was measured using an inductively coupled plasma-optical emis-
sion spectrometry (ICP-OES, OPTIMA 7300 DV). Three samples were
employed for pH measurements. The mean values of the acquired re-
sults were calculated and the data was reported in mean standard
deviation.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Coating characterization
Fig. 1 shows the SEM photomicrographs of forsterite coating on the
316L substrate which had been prepared after 0 (a), 15 (b), 30 (c),
and 45 (d) minutes stirring time of the forsterite solution at 200 C. Ac-
cording to Fig. 1, the coating defects such as porosities and heterogene-
ity were decreased on the surface of coating by increasing the stirring
time whereas 45 min (Fig. 1d) made an improved quality compared to
others in 0 (Fig. 1a), 15 (Fig. 1b), and 30 min (Fig. 1c) stirring time.
(a) 0 min stirring time
Coating
heterogeneity
50 m
(c) 30 min stirring time
Scratch
Porosity
50 m
Fig. 1. SEM photomicrographs of forsterite coating on the 316L SS substrate which had been prepared after 0 (a), 15 (b), 30 (c), and 45 minute stirring time of the forsterite solution at
200 C (d).
The forsterite solution viscosity enhanced as a result of increasing the
stirring time led to a positive effect on both of the quality and thickness
of coating. As can be seen in Fig. 1a, some heterogeneities and small
pores are observed on the surface which may be due to the lesser
amount of coating thickness since a very thin forsterite layer were not
able to cover the 316L uniformly. However, increasing the viscosity as
the result of increasing the stirring time could decrease the mentioned
defects on the coating surface according to Fig. 1. It is worth to mention
that delaminating process occurred in the stirring times higher than
45 min. Based on this reason, 45 min was selected as the optimized stir-
ring time for preparing the coating. Since the solvent of used materials
for making the forsterite solution was water, increasing the stirring
time results in its evaporation. Thus, the amount of water in the
forsterite solution decreased by increasing the stirring time. During
the following drying process, unnecessary and additional amount of
water which has remained inside the coating material, increase the
water evaporation pressure leading to creating some coating defects
in the forsterite coating.
Fig. 2 shows the SEM photomicrographs of top view (a), cross-
sectional view (b) and the grain size distribution prole of forsterite
coating on stainless steel type 316L SS substrate. A uniform and crack-
free coating structure was formed on the surface as can be observed in
Fig. 2a. The cross-sectional view image presented in Fig. 2b shows the
existence of forsterite coating on the surface of the 316L SS substrate.
Moreover, the thickness of the coating was almost 78 m. The grain
size distribution analysis obtained from an Image Tool software accord-
ing to ASTM E112-96 [22] standard methods for determining average
grain size. In this technique, Heyn lineal intercept procedure was
(b) 15 min stirring time
Porosity
50 m
(d) 45 min stirring time
50 m
 M. Kheirkhah et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 276 (2015) 580586 583

(a) (b) Forsterite coating (cross-sectional view)

Forsterite coating (top view)

Forsterite coating

316L SS substrate

50
(c)
Frequency percent (%)

40

30

20

10

0
19 24 29 34 39 44 49
Grain size (nm)

Fig. 2. SEM photomicrographs of top view (a), cross-sectional view (b) and the grain size distribution prole of forsterite coating on the 316L SS substrate showing the morphology,
thickness and grain size of forsterite coating.

employed in order to measure the average grain size by counting the
number of grains intercepted by the long straight lines which yield at
least 50 intercepts on the SEM images of the sample. The counts were
conducted on three selected areas to calculate an average for the sam-
ple. The grain size distribution obtained from Image Tool software con-
rmed that the most frequent grain size in the coating structure was
about 32 nm (Fig. 2c). The grain size of forsterite coating was also calcu-
lated using the Scherrer equation [20] that was equal to 39 nm.
Fig. 3 shows the SEM photomicrograph of the cross-section of
forsterite coated 316L SS (a) and the EDS line scan analysis from the
316L SS substrate to the forsterite coating (b). According to Fig. 3a, the
thickness of forsterite coating is around 30 m. The changes in Fe and
Si elements could be detected in the line-scan analysis (Fig. 3b). Accord-
ing to Fig. 3b, the intensity of Fe peak decreased from 316L SS substrate
to forsterite coating, while the Si element is in the opposite trends
conrming the existence of forsterite coating on the surface of 316L SS
substrate.
Fig. 4 presents the XRD pattern of the forsterite coating on the 316L
SS substrate. In EDS analysis of forsterite coating, Fe, Cr, Ni, Mg, and Si
elements were identied. The rst three elements namely Fe, Cr, and
Ni are in the 316L SS substrate, and the last two elements namely Mg
and Si are related to the forsterite coating. The XRD pattern of the coat-
ing displays the expected peaks of the forsterite phase. Thus, the results
of EDS analysis and XRD pattern veried the presence of forsterite coat-
ing on the 316L SS substrate.
3.2. Electrochemical corrosion evaluation
To examine the protection efciency of the forsterite coating on the
316L SS substrate, the potentiodynamic polarization corrosion test was

(a) (b)
Forsterite coating
316L SS substrate

50 m

Fig. 3. SEM photomicrograph of the cross-section of forsterite coated 316L SS (a) and the EDS line scan analysis from the 316L SS substrate to the forsterite coating (b).
584 M. Kheirkhah et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 276 (2015) 580586

800
SS substrate. However, the polarization test recorded a reduction in
700 Forsterite Icorr by applying the forsterite coating, whereas the Icorr for the uncoated
600 316L SS and forsterite coated 316L SS samples were 140 8 and 12
316L SS 6 nA/cm2, respectively. Thus, the results of electrochemical test accord-
Intensity (cps)

500
400
300
200
100
0 plying the localized severe corrosion attack as shown in Fig. 5b. In
10 20 30 40 50
2 theta (degree)
Fig. 4. XRD pattern from the forsterite coating on the 316L SS substrate showing the
existence of elements and the peaks expected for the forsterite coating.
carried out for the uncoated and forsterite coated 316L SS samples
(Fig. 5a). The values of corrosion current density (Icorr) and corrosion
potential (Ecorr) were derived from the polarization plots. As the poten-
tial is enhanced, pitting corrosion will be started at a value known as the
breakdown potential (EB, the lowest potential at which pitting occurs).
Since pitting corrosion relates to an increase in the oxidation rate, the EB
is determined by the corresponding increase in measured current. An
increase in EB is related to the higher pitting corrosion resistance [23,
24]. According to the presented results in Fig. 5a, EB for forsterite coat-
ing is lesser than that of the 316L SS substrate indicating the forsterite
coating has a lower resistance to pitting corrosion compared to 316L
ing to Fig. 5a show an enhancement of uniform corrosion resistance
caused by the forsterite coating, although the forsterite coating pro-
duced by our procedure is less susceptible to local attacks from the cor-
rosive media. Fig. 5 also shows the morphology of corroded surface of
uncoated (b) and forsterite coated 316L SS (c) samples after polariza-
tion test. The uncoated 316L SS sample showed obvious deep pits im-
60 70 80 90 contrast, it can be observed that the forsterite coated 316L SS sample
(Fig. 5c) has been subjected to a milder and more uniform corrosion at-
tack. The coated sample showed a few microcracks on the surface which
implies the existence of slight corrosion attacks on the forsterite coated
samples. The corrosion of 316L SS substrate is due to the presence of Cl
ion in the corrosive media [24]. For forsterite coated 316L SS samples,
the coating acts as a barrier, which prevents the substrate from the di-
rect contact with corrosive medium as well as isolates against electro-
lyte penetration.
3.3. In vitro bioactivity evaluation
Fig. 6 shows the SEM photomicrographs of the forsterite coated 316L
SS sample after 1 (a), 3 (b) and 14 (c) days of incubation in the SBF. As
presented in Fig. 6a, the microcracks appeared on the coating surface
due to the corrosion and bright particles have deposited on the surface.
The density of deposited particles on the surface of forsterite coated

316L Forsterite coating

(a) 2

1.5
Potential vs. SCE (V)

0.5

-0.5

-1
-11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
2
Log current density (A/cm )

(b) 316L SS substrate (c) Forsterite coated 316L SS

Microcracks

Pitting corrosion

Fig. 5. The results of potentiodynamic polarization test for uncoated 316L SS and forsterite coated 316L SS samples (a), and corrosion morphology of uncoated 316L SS (b) and forsterite
coated 316L SS (c) samples showing a comparison between the corrosion resistance of samples.
 M. Kheirkhah et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 276 (2015) 580586 585

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 6. SEM morphology of the forsterite coated 316L SS sample after 1 (a), 3 (b) and 14 day incubation (c) in the SBF.

samples was enhanced by increasing the incubation time from 1 to

14 days. (a)
Fig. 7 shows EDS analysis of the forsterite coated 316L SS sample be-
fore (a), and after 14 days immersion in the SBF (b). In Fig. 7a, Fe, Cr, Ni,
Mg, and Si elements were identied. The rst three elements including
Fe, Cr, and Ni are in the chemical composition of 316L stainless steel
substrate, and the last two elements including Mg and Si are related to
the forsterite coating. EDS analysis was also carried out on the white
particles which had been precipitated on the surface of samples after
14 day immersion in the SBF solution as the bioactive products
(Fig. 7b). According to Fig. 7b, the precipitated particles were mainly
composed of the Ca, and P elements. There were small peaks relevant
to the existing elements in the chemical composition of 316L stainless
steel substrate (Cr, Fe). The mentioned precipitates conrm the forma-
tion of bioactive minerals on the surface during the incubation in the
SBF [21,25].
The in vitro mineralization behavior of 316 L SS without coating was
investigated by immersion of the pristine samples in SBF and apatite
formation on the surface of samples were evaluated through SEM stud- (b)
ies. The results indicated that the uncoated 316L have not shown the
ability to encourage the deposition of bioactive minerals on its surface.
Moreover, some microcracks could observe on the surface due to the
corrosion process of 316L SS substrate in the SBF [26].
Bioactive materials used for either tissue substitution or for tissue re-
generation must hold controlled chemical release kinetics that synchro-
nize with the sequence of cellular changes happening in wound repair
[27]. The surface reactions involve the dissolution of Si, Ca, and P ions
from the chemical composition of bioactive ceramics and physiological Cr Fe
medium [13]. The mechanism of bioactivity on the surface of forsterite
coating might be similar to that of the CaOSiO2MgO based bioactive
ceramics. Regarding the bioactivity mechanism of forsterite, it has
been reported that the Mg ion is released from the chemical compo- Fig. 7. EDS analysis of the forsterite coated 316L SS sample before (a), and after 14 day
sition of forsterite leading to the formation of silanol (SiOH) in the immersion in the SBF (b).
586 M. Kheirkhah et al. / Surface & Coatings Technology 276 (2015) 580586

(a) Mg Ca P
the concentration of mentioned elements decreased as can be observed
110
in Fig. 8a. It is well known that Mg has an inhibitor effect on the forma-
100 tion of calcium phosphate [31]. However, the formation of calcium
Ion release value (ppm)

90 phosphate on the surface of forsterite coated samples in the presence

80 of Mg may be a clear indication of the formation mechanism by electro-
70 static interaction and the good in vitro bioactivity of coated material.
60
It's worth mentioning that according to the cross-sectional view of
forsterite coating on the 316L SS (Fig. 2b), the coating with appropriate
50
adhesion seems to be formed on the surface whereas there is no evi-
40
dence of presence in the gap between the forsterite coating and 316L
30 SS substrate. Moreover, throughout the immersion test in simulated
20 body uid, coating delamination wasn't observed and the coating kept
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 its integrity on the substrate until the end of this experiment.
Incubation time (days)
(b) 7.9
4. Conclusion
7.7

7.5 A novel nanostructured forsterite was coated on the surface of 316L

SS substrate using the solgel technique. The forsterite coated samples
pH value

7.3
not only exhibited a better corrosion resistance compared to the un-
7.1
coated substrates, but also indicated the in vitro bioactivity. Our future
6.9 research trends will be focused on the adhesion, mechanical properties
and biocompatibility characterizations of the forsterite coating on 316L
6.7
SS.
6.5
1 3 7 14 21 28
Incubation time (days) Acknowledgment

Fig. 8. The changes in ionic concentrations of Mg, Ca, and P ions of SBF contained forsterite The authors are thankful for the contributions of Isfahan Universi-
coated 316L SS sample versus incubation time (a), and the changes of pH value of SBF ty of Technology in this research.
contained forsterite coated 316L SS sample versus incubation time (b).

References
interface between the forsterite and physiological environment. Ac-
[1] M. Niinomi, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 33 (2002) 477486.
cordingly, a negative charge is applied on the surface and Ca ions [2] K. Alvarez, H. Nakajima, Materials 2 (2009) 790832.
(Ca2+) and P ions (P3+) with positive charges are attracted on the sur- [3] D.-M. Liu, Q. Yang, T. Troczynski, Biomaterials 23 (2002) 691698.
face from the existing ions in simulated body uid (SBF). The presence [4] J. Disegi, L. Eschbach, Injury 31 (2000) D2D6.
[5] K. Hayashi, N. Matsuguchi, K. Uenoyama, T. Kanemaru, Y. Sugioka, J. Biomed. Mater.
of enough Ca and P ions on the surface of forsterite coating causes the Res. 23 (1989) 12471259.
formation of calcium phosphate layer [17]. [6] A. Boccaccini, S. Keim, R. Ma, Y. Li, I. Zhitomirsky, J. R. Soc. Interface 7 (2010)
ICP was used in order to determine the variation of ionic concentra- S581S613.
[7] S. Ni, L. Chou, J. Chang, Ceram. Int. 33 (2007) 8388.
tions of Mg, Ca, and P in the SBF in order to further interpret the bioac- [8] J. Althoff, P. Quint, E.-R. Krefting, H. Hhling, Histochemistry 74 (1982) 541552.
tivity and corrosion properties of forsterite coated 316L SS substrates [9] M. Fathi, M. Kharaziha, Mater. Lett. 62 (2008) 43064309.
(Fig. 8a). Immersion of forsterite coated samples in the SBF solution [10] A. Yazdanpanah, R. Kamalian, F. Moztarzadeh, M. Mozafari, R. Ravarian, L. Tayebi,
Ceram. Int. 38 (2012) 50075014.
showed an increase in the Mg ion concentration and a decrease in Ca,
[11] H. Oonishi, Biomaterials 12 (1991) 171178.
and P ion concentrations compared to the control group (SBF without [12] P. Habibovic, F. Barrere, C.A. Blitterswijk, K. Groot, P. Layrolle, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 85
immersed sample). The most variations in the ion concentration oc- (2002) 517522.
curred in the initial days of the experiment. When the samples were im- [13] L.L. Hench, I.D. Xynos, J.M. Polak, J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 15 (2004) 543562.
[14] J.R. Jones, Acta Biomater. 9 (2013) 44574486.
mersed in the SBF, the pH value of SBF was monitored and the results [15] J.R. Jones, L.M. Ehrenfried, L.L. Hench, Biomaterials 27 (2006) 964973.
were presented in Fig. 8b. According to this Fig., the pH value increased [16] T. Kokubo, Biomaterials 12 (1991) 155163.
rapidly in the rst three days, decreased slowly in two weeks and [17] M. Kharaziha, M. Fathi, Ceram. Int. 35 (2009) 24492454.
[18] L.L. Hench, J.K. West, Chem. Rev. 90 (1990) 3372.
reached a stable value in further immersion times. The most changes [19] O.V. Salata, J. Nanobiotechnol. 2 (2004) 3.
in the ion concentration and the pH value of solution occurred in the [20] A. Patterson, Phys. Rev. 56 (1939) 978.
rst days of experiment. The pH value is dependent on the solubility [21] T. Kokubo, H. Takadama, Biomaterials 27 (2006) 29072915.
[22] A. Standard, Standard test methods for determining average grain size, 2004.
of the forsterite coating. When the forsterite coated 316L SS is immersed [23] R.C. Alkire, D.M. Kolb, J. Lipkowski, P. Ross, Advances in electrochemical science and
in the SBF, magnesium ions rst exchange with H+ in the solution lead- engineering, 2006. (Wiley. com).
ing to the formation of silanol (SiOH) in the surface layer, a pH in- [24] J. Ge, O. Isgor, Mater. Corros. 58 (2007) 573582.
[25] L.L. Hench, J. Wilson, An introduction to bioceramics, World Scientic, 1993.
crease, and eventually the production of a negatively charged surface
[26] S. Sutha, K. Kavitha, G. Karunakaran, V. Rajendran, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 33 (2013)
with the functional group (SiOH). During 3 days until 2 week immer- 40464054.
sion, the pH value of solution decreased, which may be attributed to the [27] L.L. Hench, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 17 (2006) 967978.
[28] H.-M. Kim, Curr. Opinion Solid State Mater. Sci. 7 (2003) 289299.
formation of bioactive minerals on the surface [28,29]. The increasing
[29] M. Razavi, M. Fathi, O. Savabi, D. Vashaee, L. Tayebi, Phys. Sci. Int. J. 4 (2014)
Mg ion in the SBF solution may be due to the dissolution of forsterite 708722.
coating. The consumption of Ca and P ions present in the SBF solution [30] K. Lee, M. Park, H. Kim, Y. Lim, H. Chun, H. Kim, S. Moon, Biomed. Mater. 1 (2006)
results in the spontaneous growth of calcium phosphate nuclei on the R31.
[31] M. Iasco, A. Rufni, A. Adamiano, S. Sprio, A. Tampieri, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 35 (2014)
surface of biomaterials in vitro [30]. Due to the consumption of Ca and 212219.
P elements during the deposition of bioactive minerals on the surface,