Subscriber access provided by GAZI UNIV

Article
3D Printing Biocompatible Polyurethane/Poly (lactic acid)/
Graphene Oxide Nanocomposites: Anisotropic Properties
Qiyi Chen, Joey Dacula Mangadlao, Jaqueline D. Wallat, Al Christopher
C. de Leon, Jonathan K Pokorski, and Rigoberto C Advincula
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acsami.6b11793 • Publication Date (Web): 27 Dec 2016
Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on December 28, 2016

Just Accepted

“Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted
online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical
Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the
dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts
appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been
fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all
readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered
to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published
in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just
Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor
changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers
and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors
or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces is published by the American Chemical Society.
1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036
Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society.
However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works
produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course
of their duties.
Page 1 of 19 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

1
2
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS GRAPHICS
4
5                  
6
7  
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27                      
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces Page 2 of 19

1
2
3
4 3D Printing Biocompatible Polyurethane/Poly (lactic
5
6
7 acid)/Graphene Oxide Nanocomposites: Anisotropic Properties
8
9
10
11 Qiyi Chen, Joey Dacula Mangadlao, Jaqueline Wallat, Al De Leon,
12
13 Jonathan K. Pokorski, and Rigoberto C. Advincula*
14
15
16
17 Department of Macromolecular Science and Engineering, Case Western Reserve
18
19 University, Cleveland, OH 44106 (USA)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31 RECEIVED DATE (to be automatically inserted after your manuscript is accepted
32
33 if required according to the journal that you are submitting your paper to)
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41 KEYWORDS: Fused Deposition Modeling, Thermoplastic polyurethane/Poly (lactic acid)
42
43 Polymer Blend, Graphene Oxide, Mechanical Enhancement, Thermal Stability, Biocompatibility.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 3 of 19 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

1
2
3 Abstract: Blending thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) with poly (lactic acid) (PLA) is a proven method to achieve a much more
4
5 mechanically-robust material, while the addition of graphene oxide (GO) is increasingly applied in polymer nanocomposites to
6
7 further tailor their properties. On the other hand, additive manufacturing (AM) has high flexibility of structure design which can
8
significantly expand the application of materials in many fields. This study demonstrates the fused deposition modeling(FDM)
9
10 3D printing of TPU/PLA/GO nanocomposites and its potential application as biocompatible materials. Nanocomposites are
11
12 prepared by solvent-based mixing process and extruded into filaments for FDM printing. The addition of GO largely enhanced
13
14 the mechanical property and thermal stability of the nanocomposites. Interestingly, we found that the mechanical response is
15
16 highly dependent on printing orientation. Furthermore, the 3D-printed nanocomposites exhibit good biocompatibility with
17 NIH3T3 cells, indicating promise as biomaterials scaffold for tissue engineering applications.
18
19
20
21
22
23 INTRODUCTION
24
25
26 Additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, is gaining more and more interests in recent years. Several
27
techniques have been developed for AM, such as stereolithography (SLA), fused deposition modeling (FDM), and selective laser
28
29 sintering (SLS)1, 2. Among all the techniques, FDM is the most commonly used and also the most cost-effective3,4. It is a filament
30
31 based printing process in which materials in a filament form are fed into a heating nozzle where the filament is melted, extruded
32
33 and deposits onto a buildplate to generate a three-dimensional structure in a layer-by-layer fashion. Opposite to traditional
34
35 manufacturing that is based on the subtraction of materials in a pre-designed mold, AM is processed by adding and joining
36 materials together. Therefore, the use efficiency of materials is higher, and more importantly, the fabrication process does not
37
38 require any mold or template5, 6. Because of this high degree of design and manufacturing flexibility, AM is becoming
39
40 increasingly important in various fields. In tissue engineering, AM technique can easily prepare scaffolds with specially designed
41
42 size, porosity and inter-connected channels which are beneficial for the cell growth7. Pressure sensor can be fabricated into well
43
controlled geometry with AM technique to significantly ease the integration of functional materials for electronic devices8. The
44
45 mechanical property of one material can be easily tailored by controlling the architectures during 3D printing9.
46
47
48 Thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) is a highly elastic linear polymer composed of soft segments, usually flexible
49
polyester or polyethers, and hard segments, usually diisocyanates with benzyl structure. TPU exhibits good biocompatibility, and
50
51 also excellent mechanical properties such as good abrasion resistance, high elongation, and moderate tensile and compression
52
53 strength1. These properties enable TPU to be widely applied in many fields including coatings, foaming, adhesives and tissue
54
55 engineering. However, TPU does have several drawbacks including poor shape fixity and low mechanical strength10. Poly (lactic
56
57 acid) (PLA), on the other hand, derived from renewable resources instead of petroleum, has also been commonly used in
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces Page 4 of 19

1
2
3 biomedical applications because of its high biocompatibility and biodegradability11. PLA is mechanically strong and rigid, but
4
5 very brittle with low flexibility and impact resistance. Researchers have studied the blending of TPU and PLA and found that the
6
7 blending of two polymers can effectively improve the overall mechanical strength, impact resistance, and also shape memory
8
property. By simply adjusting the weight ratios of TPU and PLA, the mechanical properties of the resulting polymers can be
9
10 easily tailored to satisfy various application requirements11~17.
11
12
13 Graphene is a two-dimensional single layer of sp2 hybridized carbon atoms. The special structure of graphene offers
14
superior electrical, thermal, mechanical properties, as well as excellent anti-microbial effect18, 19, 20. Graphene oxide (GO), the
15
16 oxidized form of graphene with carboxylic acid, epoxide or hydroxyl groups present on the surface, is miscible with wide range
17
18 of solvents and polymer matrices. It is well established that small amount of GO in a polymer matrix can significantly enhance
19
20 several properties of the polymer nanocomposites 21, 22, 19, 23, 24. Jing, et al. reported the TPU/GO scaffolds, prepared by thermally
21
22 induced phase separation, renders improved thermal, mechanical properties, and good cell viability. Huang, et al. reported that
23 the incorporation of GO in PLA offers excellent mechanical strength, anti-UV and anti-bacterial effects. Although, as described
24
25 above, the TPU/PLA polymer blend has been demonstrated to have excellent and easily tailored properties, the addition of GO in
26
27 TPU/PLA polymer blend resulting in TPU/PLA/GO nanocomposites, has not been well investigated. while the addition of GO
28
29 can further enhance several properties of the polymer blend. Besides, as aforementioned advantages of AM technique, it is
30
reasonable to predict that with the aid of AM techniques, applications of TPU/PLA/GO nanocomposites can be further explored,
31
32 but the study of 3D printed TPU or TPU composites and the investigation of properties of 3D printed objects have never been
33
34 reported before.
35
36
In this study, we report for the first time FDM 3D printing of the TPU/PLA/GO polymer blend nanocomposites. In
37
38 order to have an elastic material, ratio of TPU to PLA is fixed at 7 : 3. Mechanical property, printing orientation effect, thermal
39
40 property of the FDM printed objects were studied. One of the potential application is, not limited to, tissue engineering scaffold,
41
42 thus cell viability were also studied to initially demonstrate its biocompatibility.
43
44
45
46
47 EXPERIMENTAL SECTION
48
49
50 Materials. Chemical reagents were used without further purification unless otherwise specified. TPU was purchased from
51
52 Pearlthane. PLA was purchased from Nature Works Ingeo. Dichloromethane (DCM), dimethylformamide (DMF), and alcohol,
53
were purchased from Fisher Chemical. Graphite, concentrated sulfuric acid (H2SO4), potassium permanganate (KMnO4), and
54
55 hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) were purchased from Sigma Aldrich. Graphene oxide were synthesized based on the procedures
56
57 developed in our lab.
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 5 of 19 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

1
2
3
4
5
6 Graphene Oxide Synthesis. 3 grams of graphite and 400 ml H2SO4 was added slowly into a 1000 ml flask, followed by stirring at
7
400 rpm for 10 min. Then 3 grams of KMnO4 were added slowly into the reaction mixture under stirring. 3 portions of 3g
8
9 KMnO4 were added every 24 hours. On the fourth day, reaction was stopped and each 120 mL of the reaction mixture was mixed
10
11 with 300 ml ice–water mixture. Then 2 ml H2O2 was slowly added into the solution which turned the color from the dark purple
12
13 to yellow. To purify the synthesized GO, yellow solution was centrifuged for 10 min at 4400 rpm. After centrifuge, upper liquid
14
was removed and the sediments were collected and washed with deionized water, followed by another centrifugation and
15
16 washing cycle. For further purification, sediments were then washed with isopropanol repeatedly until the pH was close to neutral.
17
18 Then, sediments were sieved using No. 80 and No. 100 USA Standard Testing Sieve. Sediments after sieving were then re-
19
20 dispersed in isopropanol and dialyzed for 3 days. After centrifugation at 1000 rpm for 30 min and vacuum evaporation, graphene
21
22 oxide solids were collected. (Raman spectrum and TEM of prepared GO is shown in Figure S1)
23
24
25
26
Cell Culture. NIH/3T3 fibroblast cells were maintained in Dulbecco's Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM) at 37 °C in a 5% CO2
27
28 humidified air environment. Medium was supplemented with 10% (v/v) fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 1% (v/v) penicillin-
29
30 streptomycin.
31
32
33
34
35 Filament preparation and FDM printing. The nanocomposite preparation and FDM printing process is shown in Figure 1a. TPU
36
37 were dissolved in DMF at 150 mg/ml under stirring at 60 C for 5 hrs. PLA were dissolved in DCM at 100 mg/ml under stirring at
38
39 room temperature for 10 hrs. As-prepared GO was dispersed in DMF at 5 mg/ml under ultra-sonication for 1 hour. Then three
40 solutions were mixed together under vigorous stirring overnight. In order to have an elastic polymer nanocomposite, the ratio of
41
42 TPU to PLA is fixed at 7:3. The loading of GO are set to be 0.5 wt%, 2 wt% and 5 wt% and the reference sample is TPU/PLA
43
44 blend without GO loading. The solution mixtures were then precipitated in alcohol. After vacuum drying at 40 °C for 24 hours,
45
46 the precipitates were extruded by a mini-extruder to prepare polymer nanocomposite filament which were later directly used in
47
FDM printer. The nozzle size of FDM printer was 0.4 mm. Printing speed was set to be 20 mm/s, layer thickness was 0.1 mm and
48
49 infill density was 100%. Nozzle temperature and buildplate temperature was set at 210 °C and 60 °C respectively.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces Page 6 of 19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 Figure 1. a) TPU/PLA/GO nanocomposites filament preparation and FDM printing process. b) ~ f) photos of FDM printed TPU/PLA/GO nanocomposites. b) 3D
16 printed cuboid specimen and dumbbell specimen for mechanical testing. (0.5 wt% of GO). c) 3D printed Ultimaker robot. (0 wt% of GO). d) 3D printed “RCA Lab”.
17
(black: 2 wt% of GO. yellow: 0 wt% of GO). e) 3D printed microlattice. (5 wt% of GO). f) 3D printed microlattice under bending. (5 wt% of GO).
18
19
20
21
22 Live/Dead Staining. 3D printed TPU/PLA/GO nanocomposites were sterilized with 70% EtOH and placed in the wells of a 6 well
23
24 plate. Confluent NIH/3T3 cells were removed using 0.05 (w/v) trypsin-EDTA and added to each well of the plate at a density of
25
1.0 x 106 cells in 2 mL of complete growth media and incubated in 5% CO2 in humidified air at 37 °C for 4 days. Media was
26
27 replaced daily. After approximately 96 hours, unattached cells were removed via aspiration and the nanocomposites washed 3-
28
29 times with 2 mL of DPBS. Clean nanocomposites were carefully transferred to the surface of a clean coverslip in a petri dish and
30
31 stained using the LIVE/DEAD Viability/Cytotoxicity Kit for mammalian cells (ThermoFisher), as per the manufacturer’s
32
33 instructions. Images were acquired on a Leica TCS SPE confocal microscope.
34
35
36
37 Characterization. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed using Helios Nanolab 650 FESEM. Fourier Transform
38
39 Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR) was measured using Digilab FTS 7000 ATR rapid scan spectrometer in transmittance mode.
40
41 Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) was done on TA Instruments, TGA 2050. 3D printed samples were heated from 25 ºC to 800
42
43 ºC under nitrogen atmosphere at a heating rate of 10 ºC/min. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) was conducted on TA
44
45 Instrument, 2920 MDSC. 3D printed samples of around 6 mg were sealed in aluminum pan and heated from 25 ºC to 250 ºC
46
under nitrogen atmosphere at a heating rate of 10 ºC/min. Fused deposition modeling 3D printing was completed by using
47
48 Ultimaker 2+. Compression and tensile testing were recorded by using MTS ReNew upgrade package system. Filament were
49
50 prepared by using mini-extruder. Cell images were acquired on a Leica TCS SPE confocal microscope.
51
52
53
54
55 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
56
57
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 7 of 19 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

1
2
3 To demonstrate the high flexibility of structure design in FDM 3D printing, objects of different shapes have been
4
5 printed with TPU/PLA at different GO loading. The printed objects are shown in Figure 1b-1f, it can be seen that regular shapes
6
7 such as dumbbells and cuboids (Fig. 1b), and complex shapes such as robotic Figure (Fig. 1c), letters (Fig. 1d) and micro-lattice
8
(Fig. 1e, 1f) can all be printed with high quality. The flexibility of printed objects is also demonstrated in Figure 1f.
9
10
11
12
13 Mechanical Properties
14
15
To investigate the effect of the addition of GO on the mechanical property of the 3D printed parts as well as the effect
16
17 of printing orientation, compression testing and tensile testing were performed. For compression testing, all samples were printed
18
19 into a cuboid shape specimen (Figure S2a), of which the width, length and height are 7 mm, 7 mm, and 15 mm respectively. In
20
21 order to investigate the effect of printing orientation on mechanical response, each type of samples (including TPU/PLA blend
22
23 without GO, with 0.5 wt%, 2 wt% and 5 wt% of GO) were prepared in two different printing orientations: standing specimen
24 (Figure 2a) and lying specimen (Figure 2c). For standing specimen, the printing orientation is same as height direction while for
25
26 lying specimen, the printing orientation is same as width (length) direction. Both types of specimens were performed under
27
28 compression testing in a way that height direction is parallel with the compression direction (Figure 2b, 2d). Therefore, two kinds
29
30 of compression testing
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51 Figure 2. a) Schemes of standing specimen 3D printing. b) Illustration of S compression testing. c) Schemes of lying specimen 3D printing. d) Illustration of L
52 compression testing.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces Page 8 of 19

1
2
3 were performed on each sample: “S compression testing”, where standing specimen is used in the testing, and “L compression
4
5 testing”, where lying specimen is used in the testing. The data is shown in Figure 3 (details shown in table S1). Clearly,
6
7 compression modulus in both L and S compression constantly increases with the loading of GO. Modulus increases 56% in L
8
compression and 167% in S compression at 5 wt% GO, which suggests that the addition of GO significantly improves the
9
10 compression strength of TPU/PLA matrix.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49 Figure 3. a) S Compression testing curves of samples of different GO loading. b) L Compression testing curves of samples of different GO loading. c) Compression
50
modulus of L and S compression testing of samples of different GO loading. d) SEM image of cross-section of S specimen (0.5 wt%). (insert: Image of specimen after
51
52 S compression testing). e) SEM image of cross-section of L specimen (0.5 wt%). (insert: Image of specimen after L compression testing).
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 9 of 19 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

1
2
3 When comparing results of L compression and S compression, it reveals that for each individual sample, the modulus
4
5 of S compression is always smaller than that of L compression. Besides, in L compression, stress will decrease and specimen will
6
7 fail at the final stage while stress constantly increase in S compression (Figure 3a, 3b). This finding exhibits the effect of printing
8
orientation on mechanical response. To understand the cause of printing orientation effect, SEM images of cross-section (cutting
9
10 face is along the compression direction) of S and L specimens were collected. The cross-section of S specimen includes multiple
11
12 layers packing together, and it can be seen that significant number of large voids are present between different layers (Figure 3d).
13
14 The cross-section of L specimen shows the image of one individual layer, and only limited number of small voids are dispersed
15
16 in it (Figure 3e). As mentioned above, FDM printing is based on a layer-by-layer deposition manner. The adhesion between two
17 layers is physical interaction, thus air will be trapped in the large contact areas between two layers which inevitably generates the
18
19 voids and loosens the packing of layers. However, within one individual layer, the small contact area of extruded fibers greatly
20
21 reduced the amount of trapped air and thus provides much stronger packing within each individual layer. The loose packing and
22
23 large voids between layers in S compression testing lead to the smaller compression modulus when compared to the stronger
24
packing within each individual layer in L compression testing. However, in terms of specimen failure at the final stage, in L
25
26 compression, each layer will be bended and the inhomogeneous bending results in the expansion of voids between bended layers.
27
28 Eventually expanded voids lead to the delamination of layers, which causes the failure of specimens. In S compression, instead of
29
30 expansion, voids will be compressed and therefore delamination is avoided which stops the failure of specimen. Images of
31
32 specimen after compression is shown in Figure 3d and 3e inserts. The delamination of layers in L compression can be easily seen
33 but only slight bending is found in S compression. The printing orientation effect on the mechanical response also reveals the fact
34
35 that due to weak adhesion strength between layers, mechanical properties of 3D printed objects are inherently inferior to that of
36
37 the objects produced by traditional processing. However, 3D printing can easily introduce complex structures (as shown in Figure
38
39 1), thus introduce more properties associated with the designed structures.
40
41
42
43 In tensile testing, each sample were printed into dumbbell shaped specimens (Figure S2b), of which width, length and
44
thickness are 5 mm,22 mm, and 3 mm respectively. The printing orientation is only in lying specimen. The tensile testing curves
45
46 are shown in Figure 4 (details shown in table S2). The strain at break of pure TPU/PLA is higher than 7, which means that it
47
48 exhibits good elasticity of the prepared polymer blends. Tensile modulus and yield point has increased by 75.50% and 69.17%,
49
50 respectively at 0.5 wt% loading of GO which indicates that the addition of GO has significantly improved the tensile strength.
51
52 However, when GO loading is further increased, both the tensile modulus and yield point decreased. This is possibly because the
53
percolation threshold for tensile strength in the TPU/PLA matrix is below 2 wt%, thus the further addition of GO will reduce
54
55 tensile strength. The strain at break constantly decreases with the loading of GO which states that the addition of GO decreases
56
57 the elasticity of the polymer matrix.
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces Page 10 of 19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Figure 4. a) Tensile modulus of samples of different GO loading. b) Tensile testing curves of samples of different GO loading.
19
20
21
22 FTIR Spectra and SEM Images
23
24 Generally for polymer nanocomposites mechanical property enhancement relies on uniform dispersion of the filler in
25
26 polymer matrix; and this dispersion is often dictated by interactions between the filler and the matrix. The existence of polar
27
28 group, such as hydroxyl and epoxy groups, on the surface of graphene oxide can hydrogen bond with urethane groups in the
29
30 backbone of TPU and carboxylic group in PLA, thus, the strong interaction between GO and the TPU/PLA matrix is expected. In
31
order to determine if hydrogen bonding occurs between GO and PLA/TPU polymer matrix, Fourier Transfer Infrared (FTIR)
32
33 spectroscopy was used. FTIR provides insight into a materials’ characteristics by monitoring vibrational frequencies at which
34
35 specific functional groups absorb infrared energy. The FTIR spectrum of TPU/PLA with different loading levels of GO are
36
37 shown in Figure S3. Peaks at 3332 cm-1, 2935 and 2850 cm-1, 1701 and 1731 cm-1, and 1754 cm-1 are corresponding to the stretch
38
vibration of N-H, asymmetric and symmetric vibration of –CH2-, H-bonded C=O and free C=O in TPU, and –C=O group in PLA,
39
40 respectively25, 26, 27 In Figure 5a, hydrogen bonding between the matrix and GO was monitored by observing the absorbance peak
41
42 at 3520 cm-1 which refer to the free stretching of N-H group from the TPU. With increased loading levels of GO, the intensity of
43
44 the absorbance peak decreases, a result caused by hydrogen bonds between GO (hydrogen bond acceptor) and N-H from TPU,
45
46 the hydrogen bond donor. This suppression of the free stretching motion of N-H bonds with hydrogen bonding results in reduced
47 peak intensity. In Figure 5b, absorbance peaks at 1731 cm-1 refer to the free stretching of the carbonyl bond (C=O) from PLA and
48
49 TPU. Decreasing absorbance values at 1731cm-1 are observed with increased loading levels of GO, indicating hydrogen bonding
50
51 between the matrix and filler material. Results from the FTIR indicate hydrogen bond interactions between the matrix and filler
52
53 are generated. In order to probe dispersion of the filler in the matrix, scanning electron microscopy was used.
54
55 SEM images of the cross-section of various loading levels of GO in the matrix are shown in Figure 5c-f (1000x magnification)
56
57 Figure S4 (5000x magnification) and Figure S5 (10000x magnification). No signs of aggregation of GO is observed in the
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 11 of 19 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

1
2
3 polymer matrix under different magnifications. Since the diameter of GO, as shown in TEM, is around 20 µm, which makes
4
5 aggregation of GO in the polymer matrix easily observed under SEM, the absence of aggregation is a good indication that GO
6
7 uniformly disperses in the polymer matrix. It is very apparent that flake-like structures with sharp edges are increasingly
8
9 appearing and uniformly dispersed in the cross-sectional surface when the loading of GO increases. These sharp-edged flakes
10
largely increase surface roughness, thus the fractured surface becomes rougher as the loading of GO increases. The formation of
11
12 the flakes is due to the GO embedded in and wrapped by the polymer matrix and the strong interactions between the GO and
13
14 polymer backbone causes mechanical interlocking28, 29, 30
. Taken together, the FTIR data and SEM images confirm strong
15
16 interactions and good dispersion of GO in TPU/PLA matrix.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Figure 5. a - b) FTIR spectrum of the polymer nanocomposites with various loading leveling of GO. a) Absorbance peaks at 3520 cm-1. b) Absorbance peaks at 1731
56
57 cm-1. c-e) SEM images of samples of different GO loading. c) 0 wt% GO. d) 0.5 wt% GO. e) 2.0 wt% GO. f) 5.0% wt GO.
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces Page 12 of 19

1
2
3 Thermal Stability
4
5
6 To determine the influence of GO on thermal property of the 3D printed nanocomposites, Thermal Gravimetric
7
Analysis (TGA) and Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) have been conducted. Weight loss curves (Figure S6) reveal that
8
9 after heating to 800 °C, the remaining residue weight continuously increased from 0.69% to 9.72% when loading of GO
10
11 increased to 5 wt%. Subtracting the weight percentage of GO, more than 4 wt% more polymer blend has remained after 800 °C
12
13 heating. Derivative weight curves (Figure 6a) show that pure TPU/PLA polymer blend has three degradation stages, 308 °C,
14
372 °C, and 442 °C, which correspond to the degradation temperature of PLA component, soft segment of TPU and hard segment
15
16 of TPU, respectively28, 31
. The addition of GO has increased the degradation temperature of PLA at 308 °C toward the
17
18 degradation temperature of TPU soft segment at 389 °C and eventually merges together at 5 wt% GO loading. This phenomenon
19
20 can be explained by interfacial interactions between GO and PLA. As the material is heated, radicals are generated, leading to the
21
22 degradation of the matrix. Generated radicals, however, will covalently bind with the conjugated structure of GO and thus recede
23 the degradation process32, 33. DSC data of the nanocomposites is shown in Figure 6b (DSC data of pure TPU and PLA shown in
24
25 Figure S7). In the curve of pure TPU/PLA blend, cold crystallization occurs at 90 °C, followed by a single melting peak at
26
27 156 °C. Because TPU is amorphous, the crystallization and melting behavior attributes to the PLA component26. The addition of
28
29 GO increased the cold crystallization temperature to 117 °C. This is possibly due to the fact that when sufficient loading of GO is
30
present in the polymer matrix, it will confine the motion of PLA chains, restrict the cold crystallization process of PLA and thus
31
32 increase the crystallization temperature30. Double melting peaks occurs at 156 °C when loading level of GO increased to 2 wt%,
33
34 and higher temperature peak in this double melting peaks gets stronger. The existence of double melting peak is normally caused
35
36 by the recrystallization during melting, which generates different crystalline forms30,34. The intensity increase of higher melting
37
38 peak in the double melting peak indicates better crystalline forms are increasingly generated with the loading of GO. Furthermore,
39 a new melting peak appears at a much higher temperature around 190 °C. The newly appeared melting peak at 190 °C are also
40
41 likely corresponding to the newly generated crystalline forms with a much higher melting temperature, this is most visible with
42
43 the 5% GO. These crystalline forms with higher melting temperature suggest that the addition of GO can nucleate and grow more
44
45 and better crystals in PLA components. Thus the TGA and DSC data both demonstrate that the thermal stability of TPU/PLA
46
blend has been significantly improved by the addition of GO.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 13 of 19 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Figure 6. a) TGA derivative weight curves and b) DSC curves of samples at different GO loading.
20
21
22
23 Cell Culture testing
24
25 Graphene oxide is known to enhance cellular growth and differentiation of various cell types35, 36, while TPU/PLA
26
27 polymers are biocompatible polymers previously used for cell scaffold materials25. For these reasons, TPU/PLA GO blends are
28
29 well suited for cellular culture37. To investigate the effect of graphene oxide on the FDM printed TPU/PLA blend, ultra-thin
30
31 sheets of TPU/PLA blends containing 0.5, 2, and 5 wt% GO were fabricated by printing a monolayer of material on a glass
32
substrate to support cell adhesion, growth, and proliferation. The ultra-thin nature of the 3D printed polymer is aimed to allow for
33
34 the passage of light, a critical feature in imaging the cells for the assay. These 3D printed TPU/PLA GO monolayers were
35
36 evaluated as seeding scaffolds using NIH3T3 mouse embryonic fibroblast cells with a LIVE/DEAD viability/cytotoxicity assay.
37
38 Briefly, 3D printed monolayers were immobilized on a cover-glass slide, and NIH3T3 cells were deposited onto the monolayers.
39
Follow 96 h incubation, the 3D printed scaffolds were washed and stained with a combination of calcein-AM and ethidium
40
41 homodimer-1 (EthD-1) to detect live and dead cells, respectively. Live cells are measured by monitoring the presence of calcein,
42
43 seen in green. Calcein-AM is converted to calcein, a fluorescent molecule, by esterases in healthy cells. Dead cells are measured
44
45 by monitoring EthD-1 which enters damaged membranes in dead cells and binds to nucleic acid, and is visualized in red. The
46
47 results of the LIVE/DEAD assay indicate that at all scaffolds support cells growth as only live cells are detected, no dead cells
48 were detected in any scaffold (Representative images seen in Figure 7, complete result images seen in Figure S8). Additionally,
49
50 the NIH3T3 cells appear to spreading and proliferating on all scaffolds as indicated by their morphology. While all scaffolds
51
52 support cell growth and proliferation, the TPU/PLA with 0.5% GO shows the highest density of cells across all loadings of GO
53
54 and even when compared to the TPU/PLA control (see supplemental for more images). It appears that 0.5% GO is optimal for
55
supporting cell-growth. Although further investigation is needed to explain the result, one possible explanation could be
56
57 attributed to the configuration of GO in the TPU/PLA scaffold. If the loading level of GO is too high, the GO may not ‘lay’ flat
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces Page 14 of 19

1
2
3 in the polymer matrix and thus the enhancement in cellular growth is not afforded38. Taken together these results indicate that all
4
5 scaffolds are non-toxic toward embryonic cells with 0.5% GO providing the greatest enhancement in cellular growth and
6
7 proliferation as indicated by the LIVE/DEAD assay38, 39, 40.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Figure 7. 96 hours cell culture results of NIH3T3 cells on 3D printed TPU/PLA with different GO loading. a) 0 wt% GO. b) 0.5 wt% GO. c) 2 wt% GO. d) 5 wt% GO.
36 (Green color indicates live cells while red color indicates dead cell)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 CONCLUSIONS
45
46
47 In conclusion, we have successfully 3D printed elastic TPU/PLA/GO nanocomposites by using solvent mixing process
48
as well as fused deposition modeling technique. Nanocomposites can be easily printed in to complex shapes with high quality.
49
50 FTIR and SEM images reveals good dispersion of GO in polymer matrix. The addition of GO has significantly enhanced the
51
52 mechanical properties of polymer matrix, 167% in compression modulus and 75.5% in tensile modulus. The printing orientation
53
54 leads to different mechanical responses due to the weak adhesion strength between layers during 3D printing. Thermal stability
55
56 has also been improved, with 90 °C increase in degradation temperature as well as new formation of better crystalline structures.
57
Cell culturing results reveal excellent cell viability of 3D printed scaffolds, indicating limited addition of GO has no obvious
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 15 of 19 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

1
2
3 toxicity to cell growth, and small amount of GO is beneficial for cell proliferation. Based on the above results, the 3D printed
4
5 TPU/PLA/GO nanocomposite exhibits excellent mechanical properties, thermal stabilities and cell viability, which allows it to be
6
7 widely applied in many fields, especially as a good potential in tissue engineering scaffolds.
8
9
10
11
12 AUTHOR INFORMATION
13
Corresponding Author
14
15 Rigoberto C. Advincula
16
17 E-mail: rca41@case.edu
18
19
Phone: +1 216-368-4566
20
21
22
23
24 SUPPORTING INFORMATION
25
26 Raman spectrum of synthesized graphene oxide. TEM images of synthesized graphene oxide. photos of 3D printed specimen for
27
28 mechanical testing. Compression testing data details. Tensile testing data details. Full FTIR spectrum of samples of different GO
29
30 loading. SEM images of cross-section of 3D printed specimens with different GO loading at 5000x and 1000x magnifications.
31
TGA weight loss curves of samples of different GO loading. DSC curves of pure TPU and pure PLA. Cell culture results of NIH
32
33 3T3 cells on 3D printed of samples of different GO loading.
34
35 This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
36
37 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
38
We gratefully acknowledge funding from NSF CMMI NM 1333651 and STC-0423914, and technical support from Dr. David
39
40 Schiraldi (Department of Macromolecular Science and Engineering, Case Western Reserve University), Dr. Eric Baer
41
42 (Department of Macromolecular Science and Engineering, Case Western Reserve University), Swagelok Center for Surface
43
44 Analysis of Materials (Case School of Engineering, Case Western Reserve University), Agilent Technologies, and Park Systems.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces Page 16 of 19

1
2
3 REFERENCES
4
5
6 (1) De Leon, A.C.; Chen, Q.; Palaganas, N.B.; Palaganas, J.O.; Manapat, J.; Advincula, R.C.; High Performance Polymer
7
Nanocomposites for Additive Manufacturing Applications. React Funct Polym. 2016, 103, 141-155.
8
9 (2) Wong, K. V.; Hernandez, A. A Review of Additive Manufacturing. ISRN Mech. Eng. 2012, 2012, 1–10.
10
11 (3) Mohamed, O.A.; Masood, S.H.; Bhowmik, J.L.; Optimization of Fused Deposition Modeling Process Parameters: a
12
13 Review of CurrentRresearch And Future Prospects. Adv. Manuf. 2015, 3, 42-53.
14
(4) Korpela, J.; Kokkari, A.; Korhonen, H; Malin, M.; Närhi, T.; Seppälä, J.; Biodegradable and Bioactive Porous Scaffold
15
16 Structures Prepared Using Fused Deposition Modeling. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B: Appl. Biomater. 2013, 101, 610-
17
18 619.
19
20 (5) Ivanova, O.; Williams, C.; Campbell, T.; Additive Manufacturing (AM) and Nanotechnology: Promises and Challenges.
21
22 Rapid Prototyping J. 2013, 19, 353-364.
23
(6) Jakus, A.E.; Taylor, S.L.; Geisendorfer, N.R.; Dunand, D.C.; Shah, R.N.; Metallic Architectures from 3D‐Printed
24
25 Powder‐Based Liquid Inks. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2015, 25, 6985-6995.
26
27 (7) Duan, B.; Wang, M.; Zhou, W.Y.; Cheung, W.L.; Li, Z.Y.; Lu, W.W.; Three-Dimensional Nanocomposite Scaffolds
28
29 Fabricated via Selective Laser Sintering for Bone Tissue Engineering. Acta Biomater. 2010, 6, 4495-4505.
30
(8) Muth, J.T.; Vogt, D.M.; Truby, R.L.; Mengüç, Y.; Kolesky, D.B.; Wood, R.J.; Lewis, J.A. Embedded 3D Printing of
31
32 Strain Sensors Within Highly Stretchable Elastomers. Adv. Mater. 2014. 26, 6307-6312.
33
34 (9) Compton, B.G.; Lewis, J.A. 3D Printing of Lightweight Cellular Composites. Adv. Mater. 2014, 26, 5930-5935.
35
36 (10) Ping, P.; Wang, W.; Zhang, P.; Chen, X.; Jing, X.; Shape-Memory and Biocompatibility Properties of Segmented
37
38 Polyurethanes Based on Poly(L-lactide). Front. Chem. Chin. 2007, 2. 331-336.
39
(11) Song, J. J.; Srivastava, I.; Kowalski, J.; Naguib, H. E. Fabrication and Characterization of a Foamed Polylactic Acid
40
41 (PLA)/ Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU) Shape Memory Polymer (SMP) Blend for Biomedical and Clinical
42
43 Applications. In SPIE Proceedings; 2014; Vol. 90580B.
44
45 (12) Grzesiak, J.; Marycz, K.; Szarek, D.; Bednarz, P.; Laska, J.; Polyurethane/Polylactide-Based Biomaterials Combined
46
with Rat Olfactory Bulb-Derived Glial Cells and Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for Neural
47
48 Regenerative Medicine Applications. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2015, 52, 163-170.
49
50 (13) Mi, H.Y.; Salick, M.R.; Jing, X.; Jacques, B.R.; Crone, W.C.; Peng, X.F.; Turng, L.S. Characterization of
51
52 Thermoplastic Polyurethane/Polylactic Acid (TPU/PLA) Tissue Engineering Scaffolds Fabricated by Microcellular
53
54 Injection Molding. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2013. 3, 4767-4776.
55 (14) Lai, S.M.; Wu, W.L.; Wang, Y.J.; Annealing Effect on the Shape Memory Properties of Polylactic Acid
56 (PLA)/Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU) Bio-Based Blends. J. Poly. Res., 2016. 23,1-13.
57
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 17 of 19 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

1
2
3 (15) Oliaei, E. and Kaffashi, B.; Investigation on the Properties of Poly (L-Lactide)/Thermoplastic Poly (Ester
4 urethane)/Halloysite Nanotube Composites Prepared Based on Prediction of Halloysite Nanotube Location by
5 Measuring Free Surface Energies. Polymer, 2016, 104, 104-114.
6
7 (16) Song, J.J., Chang, H.H. and Naguib, H.E.; Design and Characterization of Biocompatible Shape Memory Polymer
8 (SMP) Blend Foams with a Dynamic Porous Structure. Polymer, 2015, 56, 82-92.
9
(17) Oliaei, E., Kaffashi, B. and Davoodi, S.; Investigation of Structure and Mechanical Properties of Toughened Poly (L
10 Lactide)/Thermoplastic Poly (Ester Urethane) Blends. J. Appl. Polym. Sci, 2016, 133, 15.
11
12
13 (18) Liu, S. B.; Zeng, T. H.; Hofmann, M.; Burcombe, E.; Wei, J.; Jiang, R.; Kong, J.; Chen, Y.; Antibacterial Activity of
14
15 Graphite, Graphite Oxide, Graphene Oxide, and Reduced Graphene Oxide: Membrane and Oxidative Stress. ACS Nano.
16
2011, 5, 6971–6980
17
18 (19) Jing, X.; Mi, H.Y.; Salick, M.R.; Peng, X.F.; Turng, L.S.; Preparation of Thermoplastic Polyurethane/Graphene Oxide
19
20 Composite Scaffolds by Thermally Induced Phase Separation . Polym. Compos. 2014, 35, 1408-1417.
21
22 (20) Li, X.; Xiao, Y.; Bergeret, A.; Longerey, M.; Che, J.; Preparation of Polylactide/Graphene Composites from Liquid‐
23
24 Phase Exfoliated Graphite Sheets. Polym. Compos. 2014, 35, 396-403.
25
(21) Li, X.; Deng, H.; Li, Z.; Xiu, H.; Qi, X.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, K.; Chen, F.; Fu, Q.; Graphene/Thermoplastic Polyurethane
26
27 Nanocomposites: Surface Modification of Graphene Through Oxidation, Polyvinyl Pyrrolidone Coating and Reduction.
28
29 Compos. Part A. Appl. S. 2015, 68, 264-275.
30
31 (22) Geim, A.K.; Graphene: Status and Prospects. science. 2009, 324, 1530-1534.
32
(23) Menaa, F.; Abdelghani, A.; Menaa, B.; Graphene Nanomaterials as Biocompatible and Conductive Scaffolds for Stem
33
34 Cells: Impact for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. J. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 2015, 9, 1321-1338.
35
36 (24) Lee, E.J.; Lee, J.H.; Shin, Y.C.; Hwang, D.G.; Kim, J.S.; Jin, O.S.; Jin, L.; Hong, S.W.; Han, D.W.; Graphene Oxide-
37
38 Decorated PLGA/Collagen Hybrid Fiber Sheets for Application to Tissue Engineering Scaffolds. Biomater Res. 2014,
39
40 18, 18-24.
41 (25) Yang, X.Z.; Wang, Y.C.; Tang, L.Y.; Xia, H.A.I.; Wang, J.U.N.; Synthesis and Eharacterization of Amphiphilic Block
42
43 Copolymer of Polyphosphoester and Poly (L lactic Acid). J. Polym. Sci. A Polym. Chem. 2008, 46, 6425-6434.
44
45 (26) Yousefi, N.; Gudarzi, M.M.; Zheng, Q.; Lin, X.; Shen, X.; Jia, J.; Sharif, F.; Kim, J.K.; Highly Aligned, Ultra large-
46
47 Size Reduced Graphene Oxide/Polyurethane Nanocomposites: Mechanical Properties and Moisture Permeability.
48
Compos. Part A. Appl. S. 2013, 49, 42-50.
49
50 (27) Sun, Y.; He, C.; Synthesis and Stereocomplex Crystallization of Poly(lactide)–Graphene Oxide Nanocomposites. ACS
51
52 Macro Letters. 2012, 1, 709-713.
53
54 (28) Pluta, M.; Murariu, M.; Alexandre, M.; Galeski, A.; Dubois, P.; Polylactide Compositions. The Influence of Ageing on
55
the Structure, Thermal and Viscoelastic Properties of PLA/Calcium Sulfate Composites. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2008, 93,
56
57 925-931.
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces Page 18 of 19

1
2
3 (29) Rafiee, M.A.; Rafiee, J.; Wang, Z.; Song, H.; Yu, Z.Z.; Koratkar, N.; Enhanced Mechanical Properties of
4
5 Nanocomposites at Low Graphene Content. ACS nano. 2009, 3, 3884-3890.
6
7 (30) Huang, H.D.; Ren, P.G.; Xu, J.Z.; Xu, L.; Zhong, G.J.; Hsiao, B.S.; Li, Z.M.; Improved Barrier Properties of Poly
8
(Lactic Acid) with Randomly Dispersed Graphene Oxide Nanosheets. J. Membr. Sci. 2014, 464, 110-118.
9
10 (31) Zhang, J.; Zhang, C.; Madbouly, S.A. In Situ Polymerization of Bio‐Based Thermosetting Ppolyurethane/Graphene
11
12 Oxide Nanocomposites. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2015, 132, 13.
13
14 (32) Ramanathan, T.; Abdala, A.A.; Stankovich, S.; Dikin, D.A.; Herrera-Alonso, M.; Piner, R.D.; Adamson, D.H.;
15
16 Schniepp, H.C.; Chen, X.R.R.S.; Ruoff, R.S.; Nguyen, S.T.; Functionalized Graphene Sheets for Polymer
17
Nanocomposites. Nat. nanotechnol. 2008, 3, 327-331.
18
19 (33) Villar-Rodil, S.; Paredes, J.I.; Martínez-Alonso, A.; Tascón, J.M.; Preparation of Graphene Dispersions and Graphene-
20
21 Polymer Composites in Organic Media. J. Mater. Chem. 2009, 19, 3591-3593.
22
23 (34) Xu, Z.; Niu, Y.; Yang, L.; Xie, W.; Li, H.; Gan, Z.; Wang, Z.; Morphology, Rheology and Crystallization Behavior of
24
Polylactide Composites Prepared Through Addition of Five-armed Star Polylactide Grafted Multiwalled Carbon
25
26 Nanotubes. Polymer. 2010, 51, 730-737.
27
28 (35) Chung, C.; Kim, Y.K.; Shin, D.; Ryoo, S.R.; Hong, B.H.; Min, D.H.; Biomedical Applications of Graphene and
29
30 Graphene Oxide. Acc. Chem. Res. 2013, 46, 2211-2224.
31
32 (36) Garcia-Alegria, E.; Iluit, M.; Stefanska, M.; Silva, C.; Heeg, S.; Kimber, S.J.; Kouskoff, V.; Lacaud, G.;
33 Vijayaraghavan, A.; Batta, K.; Graphene Oxide Promotes Embryonic Stem Cell Differentiation to Haematopoietic
34
35 Lineage. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6.
36
37 (37) Ruiz, O.N.; Fernando, K.S.; Wang, B.; Brown, N.A.; Luo, P.G.; McNamara, N.D.; Vangsness, M.; Sun, Y.P.; Bunker,
38
39 C.E.; Graphene Oxide: a Nonspecific Enhancer of Cellular Growth. ACS nano. 2011, 5, 8100-8107.
40
(38) Yoon, O.J.; Jung, C.Y.; Sohn, I.Y.; Kim, H.J.; Hong, B.; Jhon, M.S.; Lee, N.E.; Nanocomposite Nanofibers of Poly (D,
41
42 L-lactic-co-glycolic acid) and Graphene Oxide Nanosheets. Compos. Part A. Appl. S. 2011, 42, 1978-1984.
43
44 (39) Yang, J.; Wan, Y.; Tu, C.; Cai, Q.; Bei, J.; Wang, S.; Enhancing the Cell Affinity of Macroporous poly (L‐lactide) Cell
45
46 Scaffold by a Convenient Surface Modification Method. Polym. Int. 2003, 52, 1892-1899.
47
48 (40) Chang, Y.; Yang, S.T.; Liu, J.H.; Dong, E.; Wang, Y.; Cao, A.; Liu, Y.; Wang, H.; In Vitro Toxicity Evaluation of
49 Graphene Oxide on A549 Cells. Toxicol. Lett. 2011. 200, 201-210.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 19 of 19 ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 TABLE OF CONTENTS GRAPHICS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
ACS Paragon Plus Environment