Fracture toughness of mung bean gels

Lucas, Peter W.; Oates, C.G.; Lee, Woan Peng

doi:10.1007/bf01191943

Cited by 22 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, it is important to report on the speed at which experiments are being done, and to only compare results to experiments done at similar speeds (Lucas et al, ; Strait and Vincent, ; Williams et al, ; Chanthasopeephan et al, ; Serrat et al, ; Lusk et al, ; Thompson et al, ). Furthermore, the wedge test (described below) has been shown to be extremely sensitive to speed (Lucas et al, ).…”

Section: Materials and Mechanical Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this to be true in the case of the wedge or scissors tests, the tip of the crack would always be slightly ahead of, and never touching, the tip of the wedge or scissor's blades (see Fig. ) (Atkins and Mai, ; Atkins and Vincent, ; Lucas and Pereira, ; Vincent et al, ; Khan and Vincent, ; Lucas et al, ; Ang et al, ) . This is not true for most biological materials, a point proven by the fact that changes in scissor sharpness cause changes in energy release rate (Darvell et al, ).…”

Section: Application Of Mechanical Property Tests To Feeding Biomechamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the studies that do report on speed, some are running tests much faster than advisable [up to 60 mm/min (Strait and Vincent, )], at which point there may be dynamic effects, making the mechanical properties inaccurate. The only published study the author is aware of that investigates the effects of speed on results was conducted on mung bean gels, and speed was found to have a significant effect on the results (Lucas et al, ). It is imperative that more mechanical property data be gathered, particularly on natural occurring biological materials, in order to quantify the effects of speed on mechanical properties within different materials.…”

Section: Future Of the Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These disagreements within materials science have translated into disagreements between materials science and the biological sciences, where disparate concepts have gained equivalent names, and equivalent concepts given different names. This in turn has led to some confusion, particularly with respect to “toughness” which has been used to describe multiple, distinct properties (Lucas and Pereira, ; Lucas et al, ; Zioupos, ; Lucas, ; Ziscovici et al, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Food mechanical properties and dietary ecology

Berthaume

2016

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interdisciplinary research has benefitted the fields of anthropology and engineering for decades: a classic example being the application of material science to the field of feeding biomechanics. However, after decades of research, discordances have developed in how mechanical properties are defined, measured, calculated, and used due to disharmonies between and within fields. This is highlighted by "toughness," or energy release rate, the comparison of incomparable tests (i.e., the scissors and wedge tests), and the comparison of incomparable metrics (i.e., the stress and displacement-limited indices). Furthermore, while material scientists report on a myriad of mechanical properties, it is common for feeding biomechanics studies to report on just one (energy release rate) or two (energy release rate and Young's modulus), which may or may not be the most appropriate for understanding feeding mechanics.Here, I review portions of materials science important to feeding biomechanists, discussing some of the basic assumptions, tests, and measurements. Next, I provide an overview of what is mechanically important during feeding, and discuss the application of mechanical property tests to feeding biomechanics. I also explain how 1) toughness measures gathered with the scissors, wedge, razor, and/or punch and die tests on non-linearly elastic brittle materials are not mechanical properties, 2) scissors and wedge tests are not comparable and 3) the stress and displacement-limited indices are not comparable. Finally, I discuss what data gathered thus far can be best used for, and discuss the future of the field, urging researchers to challenge underlying assumptions in currently used methods to gain a better understanding between primate masticatory morphology and diet. Am J Phys Anthropol 159:S79-S104, 2016. V C 2016 American Association of Physical Anthropologists "If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants." Sir Isaac Newton Materials science is a branch of engineering that "involves investigating the relationships that exist between the structures and properties of materials (pg. 3, Callister (2004))," where structures are defined by the arrangement and internal components of a material (e.g., atomic structure). Over the past several decades, anthropologists and biologists have been measuring/calculating mechanical properties of dietary items to investigate differences in feeding strategies, feeding adaptations, and plant defenses (Choong et al., 1992;Hill and Lucas, 1996;Wright and Vincent, 1996;Darvell et al., 1996;Agrawal et al., 1997;Strait and Vincent, 1998;Yamashita, 1998Yamashita, , 2002Yamashita, , 2003Yamashita, , 2008Lucas et al., 2000Lucas et al., , 2001Lucas et al., , 2009Lucas et al., , 2011Agrawal and Lucas, 2003;Balsamo et al., 2003;Lucas, 2004;Elgart-Berry, 2004;Williams et al., 2005;Teaford et al., 2006;Quyet et al., 2007;Freeman and Lemen, 2007b;Wright et al., 2008;Dominy et al., 2008;Norconk et al., 2009b;Vogel et al., 2009Vogel et al., , 2014Wieczkowski, 2009;Yamas...

show abstract

Section: Materials and Mechanical Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Application Of Mechanical Property Tests To Feeding Biomechamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Future Of the Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Food mechanical properties and dietary ecology

Berthaume

2016

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All tests were performed by one observer (HG) who attempted to keep test speed similar across trials. This is difficult to ensure, however, and variation in test speed may alter toughness results (Berthaume, ; Lucas, Oates, & Lee, ). This research adhered to the American Society of Primatologists principles for the ethical treatment of primates.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toughness of the Virunga mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) diet across an altitudinal gradient

Glowacka

McFarlin

Vogel

et al. 2017

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The robust masticatory system of mountain gorillas is thought to have evolved for the comminution of tough vegetation, yet, compared to other primates, the toughness of the mountain gorilla diet is unremarkable. This may be a result of low plant toughness in the mountain gorilla environment or of mountain gorillas feeding selectively on low-toughness foods. The goal of this paper is to determine how the toughness of the mountain gorilla diet varies across their habitat, which spans a large altitudinal range, and whether there is a relationship between toughness and food selection by mountain gorillas. We collected data on the following variables to determine whether, and if so how, they change with altitude: leaf toughness of two plant species consumed by mountain gorillas, at every 100 m increase in altitude (2,600-3,700 m); toughness of consumed foods comprising over 85% of the gorilla diet across five vegetation zones; and toughness of unconsumed/infrequently consumed plant parts of those foods. Although leaf toughness increased with altitude, the toughness of the gorilla diet remained similar. There was a negative relationship between toughness and consumption frequency, and toughness was a better predictor of consumption frequency than plant frequency, biomass, and density. Consumed plant parts were less tough than unconsumed/infrequently consumed parts and toughness of the latter increased with altitude. Although it is unclear whether gorillas select food based on toughness or use toughness as a sensory cue to impart other plant properties (e.g., macronutrients, chemicals), our results that gorillas maintain a consistent low-toughness dietary profile across altitude, despite toughness increasing with altitude, suggest that the robust gorilla masticatory apparatus evolved for repetitive mastication of foods that are not high in toughness.

show abstract