journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials 15 (2012) 24 32

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

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

Research Paper

Small intestine mucosal adhesivity to in vivo capsule

robot materials

Benjamin S. Terrya,n, Anna C. Passerniga, Morgan L. Hilla, Jonathan A. Schoenb,

Mark E. Rentschlera
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado at Boulder, 427 UCB, 1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309-0427, USA
b
Department of Surgery, University of Colorado at Denver, 12631 E 14th Avenue, Aurora, CO 80045, USA

ar t ic l e in f o abs tra ct

Article history: Multiple research groups are investigating the feasibility of miniature, swallowable, in vivo,
Received 18 April 2012 untethered robots that are capable of traversing the small intestine for the purpose of
Received in revised form acquiring biometrics and performing simple surgical procedures. A mathematical model of
18 June 2012 the intraluminal environment will speed the development of these so-called Robotic
Accepted 28 June 2012 Capsule Endoscopes (RCEs), and to this end, the authors, in previous work, initiated a
Available online 6 July 2012 comprehensive program for characterizing both the active and passive forces exerted by

Keywords: the small intestine on an RCE-sized solid bolus. In this work, forces due to adhesivity

Small bowel between RCE materials and the mucosa are investigated. The experimental factors are

Mechanical characterization adhesive modality (peel and tack), material (polycarbonate, micropatterned polydimethyl-

Mucosa adhesivity siloxane, stainless steel, and mucosa), and bowel region (proximal, middle, and distal). The

Mucoadhesion mucosa is excised from a fasting pig, stored in lactated ringers solution at 3 1C, and then

Robotic capsule endoscope
tested at room temperature within 43 h of excision. The results show the mean tack
strength of the mucosa to engineering materials was 0.19870.070 mJ cm2. The mean peel
strength was 0.05570.016 mJ cm2. This study marks the first time, to the authors
knowledge, that adhesivity between small intestinal mucosa and RCE engineering
materials has been measured. The adhesivity values acquired from this study will provide
a valuable input into analytical and numerical models of the gastrointestinal tract,
specifically models that account for the interfacial properties of the tissue.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Multiple research groups are investigating the feasibility of
miniature, swallowable, in vivo, untethered robots that are
capable of traversing the small intestine for the purpose of
acquiring biometrics and performing simple surgical proce-
dures (Glass et al., 2008; Woo et al., 2011; Sliker et al., 2011;
Twomey, 2009; Quirini et al., 2008; Simi et al., 2010). This
effort has been hindered, in part, by the lack of knowledge
concerning the material properties of the intraluminal envir-
onment. An analytical model of this environment will speed
the development of these so-called Robotic Capsule Endo-
scopes (RCEs), and to this end, the authors, in previous works,
initiated a comprehensive program for characterizing both

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 3039488165.
E-mail addresses: benjamin.terry@colorado.edu (B.S. Terry), anna.passernig@colorado.edu (A.C. Passernig),
morgan.hill@colorado.edu (M.L. Hill), jonathan.schoen@ucdenver.edu (J.A. Schoen), mark.rentschler@colorado.edu (M.E. Rentschler).

1751-6161/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2012.06.018
 journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials 15 (2012) 24 32
the active and passive forces exerted by the small intestine
on an RCE-sized solid bolus (Terry et al., 2011, 2012a, 2012b).
As an extension of that work, forces due to adhesivity
between RCE engineering materials and the mucosa are
investigated.
Mucosa lines the inner surface of the small intestine and
consists of an epithelial layer of simple columnar goblet cells
that continually secrete a protective mucus coating that
adheres to intraluminal contents. The secretions form a layer
of firmly adhered gel-like substance covered by a loose layer
that is readily removed by mechanical shear or suction
(Atuma et al., 2001). The glycoprotein molecules in the mucus
have hydrophilic and viscoelastic properties and an ability to
adhere to solids, such as an RCE. The mechanical properties
of the mucus facilitate the removal of particulate matter from
the gastrointestinal (GI) tract without damaging the mucosa.
The mucus layer behaves like a liquid on the nanoscale and
as a non-Newtonian gel on the macro-scale due to its rate
dependent response to shear stress (William, 2005). At the
time of writing, there is no experimental data regarding the
thickness of the mucus layer in the human small intestine;
however, the thickness in a single porcine model was mea-
sured at 25.9711.8 mm at the proximal end of the duodenum
and gradually thickened to 31.0715.7 mm at the distal end of
the ileum (Varum et al., 2010). The thickness is a function of
the secretion rate of the goblet cells, erosion by mechanical
shear, and bacterial digestion (Hoskins and Boulding, 1981).
The mucus layer in humans regenerates approximately every
2448 h (Hanes and Lai, 2010).
Mucosal adhesivity is its interfacial bonding ability and is
quantified by the energy required to separate the two adhered
surfaces. Several factors affect mucosal adhesivity, such as
hydration, mucus surface tension, wettability, temperature,
and dwell time (the amount of time the mucosa is in contact
with the solid surface prior to separation) (King, 1998). During
enteroscopy, the mucosa is in intimate contact with a
mechanical device, and this contact plays a role in device
performance, especially for untethered, robotically controlled
devices that have limited power supply.
RCEs experience forces from a variety of sources. For
example, the myenteron exerts contact pressure (Terry
et al., 2012; Miftahof and Fedotov, 2005), the pumping action
caused by segmentation and peristalsis of the GI tract gen-
erates pressure against the robot fore and aft (Camilleri,
1997), and hydrostatic pressure created by respiration, skele-
tal muscle movement, and gravity all impart forces on an RCE
(Samsom et al., 1998). In addition to these active forces,
reactions from the biomechanical response of the small
bowel tissue act on the robot (Sacks and Sun, 2003; Higa
et al., 2007; Lim et al., 2009). These forces are transmitted to
the RCE via the inner surface of the small bowel, the mucosa.
Therefore, knowledge of the mucosal-RCE surface interaction
is necessary in order to understand the effects of the active
and passive forces on robotic mobility. In addition to contact
pressure, surface interactions are characterized by adhesivity,
dry friction, and fluid shear. The authors previous work and
that of other groups have begun to investigate tribological
interactions (Glass et al., 2008; Lyle et al., 2011; Wang and
Meng, 2010; Wang and Yan, 2009), but the authors are not
aware of any study regarding the adhesivity of the mucosa to
25
RCE engineering materials. The purpose of this study, there-
fore, is to measure the adhesivity of the proximal, middle,
and distal small intestine to typical engineering materials
used in the construction of an RCE.
2. Methods
Presently, there is no standard for measuring the adhesivity
of biological tissue to engineering materials. Mucosa, how-
ever, can be thought of as a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA).
Similar to the mucosa, PSAs, such as self-stick tapes, form
bonds between surfaces simply by pressure without the aid
of activating agents such as water, solvents, or heat. There-
fore, the rigorous, well-developed ASTM test protocol and
apparatuses for characterizing PSAs were used in this work to
measure mucosal adhesivity. Adhesion between the mucosa
and the RCE primarily follows two modalities: tack and peel.
Tack is when two adhered surfaces separate without under-
going shear while maintaining parallel and flat orientation.
Peel is the separation of two adhered surfaces by applying a
force to the leading edge of one of the surfaces so that it is no
longer flat relative to its mating surface. Both tack and peel
were tested using an Insight II tensile testing machine (MTS
systems), 2 or 5 N loadcell (MTS Systems, PN 569326-01), and
custom fixtures.
2.1. Validation of test apparatus
The purpose of the validation protocol is to measure the
repeatability of the adhesive tack and peel strength test
apparatuses, and to provide an intuitive feel for the adhesive
strength of a commercial tape for anecdotal comparison with
the biological adhesive strength of the mucosa. A commercial
adhesive (3M, PN 9471LE) was used for this validation due to
its excellent geometric uniformity and its environmental
stability. Cast polypropylene was used as the adherend due
to its moderate surface energy characteristics. Since testing
lasts 1 h (a fraction of the tapes 2-year shelf life), it is
assumed variation in tack and peel results is due only to
the apparatuses and methods and not a result of deviation in
tape material properties. The adhesivity of mucosa, on the
other hand, is expected to be highly variable, similar to the
other mechanical properties of biological tissue.
The test procedure used to measure the tack adhesivity of
the mucosa was modeled after the ASTM standard test
method for tack (designation: D2979) (ASTM Subcommittee
D14.50, 2009). The standard specifies a protocol and appara-
tus (Fig. 1, left) to determine the pressure sensitive tack
strength of a commercial adhesive to a test material. Tack
is defined as the force required to separate an adhesive and
the adherend shortly after they have touched.
As mentioned, the tack test apparatus was validated using
a commercial adhesive in place of the mucosa, and poly-
propylene as the test material (the adherend). To validate, the
commercial adhesive was transferred to a substrate and
mounted on the lower grip of the test apparatus. A 1 cm2
square piece of cast polypropylene was brought into contact
with the adhesive and held for 10 s with a mean pressure of
5 kPa. After the 10 s dwell time, the polypropylene was pulled
26 journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials 15 (2012) 24 32

Fig. 1 The tack test apparatus consists of a square piece of test material attached to a loadcell (left, A), which is brought into
contact with the test adhesive (left, B). The peel test apparatus consists of a linear slide that translates horizontally and a grip
attached to a loadcell that peels the adhesive from the test material at 901. The vertical movement of the grip is matched by
the horizontal movement of the linear slide to maintain the 901 peel angle (right).

Table 1 Factors and levels that define the 96

from the tape at 10 mm s1. The pull force was recorded adhesivity tests.
during pull-away for ten samples and the mean tack strength
was calculated by Factor Level
Z dt
Adhesivity test Tack, peel
Wtack F ds 1
0 Region of bowel Proximal, middle, distal
Pig One, two, three, four
where F is the force required to separate the two surfaces and material Mucosa, stainless steel, polycarbonate,
dt is the displacement of the upper grip during the tack test. micropatterned polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)
Note that zero displacement corresponds to the no-load
position prior to separation. Tack strength per unit area is
found by dividing (1) by the contact area in cm2. Total adhesive force is found by substituting (3) into (2) and
The test protocol to measure the peel adhesivity of the solving for Fa:
mucosa was modeled after the ASTM standard test method Fa s FT sgT =dp 4
for 901 peel adhesion (designation: D3330/D3330M-04) (ASTM
Subcommittee D10.14, 2010). The standard specifies a proto- Peel strength is calculated by integrating the adhesive
col and apparatus (Fig. 1, right) to determine the peel strength force, Fa(s), over the peel length, dp, and is
Z dp
of an adhesive. Peel strength is defined as the average force  
Wpeel FT sgT =L ds 5
required to cleanly pull tape at 901 from a substrate. Similar 0
to the tack test, the peel test is validated by peeling the
Peel strength per unit area is found by dividing (5) by the
commercial adhesive from a polypropylene substrate. A
contact area in cm2.
5.170.25 mm  147 mm length of transfer tape was rolled
onto polypropylene. Following 30715 s of dwell time, one
2.2. Mucosal tack and peel adhesivity tests
end of the tape was pulled 901 at 10 mm s1 while the pull
force was recorded. As described in the standard, the pull
Small bowel tissue was acquired from the University of
force is maintained at 901 by a linear slide that moves in the
Colorado Hospital according to Institutional Animal Care
horizontal direction at the same rate as the vertical pull rate.
and Use Committee standards (protocol number 87909-05-
The total force experienced by the loadcell during the peel is
1D). The tissue was packaged in plastic Ziplocs-style bags
FT Fa g 2 filled with Lactated Ringers Solution and transported on ice
to the testing facility. Care was taken not to freeze the tissue
where Fa is the adhesive force and g is the weight of the
due to a study by Samuel et al. (2008) that finds cryogenically
adhesive suspended by the grip. During validation, the weight
preserved and then thawed bowel tissue exhibits different
(g) is negligible due to the small mass of the tape and its
adhesive characteristics than fresh tissue. Most samples were
relatively strong adhesivity (i.e. Fa 4g). However, during biologi-
tested within 12 h of euthanization, and all samples were
cal testing, the weight of the tissue is significant because it is
tested within 43 h. Every permutation of the factors and
large relative to its adhesive force (Faog). Assuming uniform
levels shown in Table 1 were tested, which resulted in 24
adhesive samples, g is a function of instantaneous peel length s:
tests per pig intestine and 96 total tests for the four porcine
gs sgT =dp 3 models. The test order was randomized.
where gT and dp are the total weight and length of the peeled Stainless steel, polycarbonate, and micropatterned PDMS are
tissue sample, respectively. candidate materials for use in present or future robotic capsule
 journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials 15 (2012) 24 32 27

endoscope designs and are therefore of interest to the authors.
The micro-patterned PDMS is manufactured by the authors and
is a drive component of a robotic capsule endoscope (Sliker et al.,
2011) discussed in previous work (Sliker et al., 2010). The surface
of the PDMS is covered with 70 mm tall, 140 mm diameter
cylindrical pillars that are equally spaced at 245 mm center-to-
center distance. In addition to testing the adhesivity of mucosa to
these engineering materials, the adhesivity of mucosa to itself is
also investigated. In Table 2 the randomized adhesivity test
matrix for Pig 1 is shown. Similar matrices exist for Pigs 24.
Tack tests were performed on each permutation of bowel
region, material of interest, and porcine model. For example,
for the test permutation Distal, PC, Tack shown in Table 2, a section of tissue is clamped in the upper grip. The upper grip is
6.45 cm2 piece of polycarbonate is gripped by the upper grip
of the tensile tester. A segment of small bowel is adhered
with cyanoacrylate to the lower platform with the mesentery
facing upward. The bowel is cut longitudinally along the
mesentery and splayed open, exposing the mucosa. The
polycarbonate is brought downward at 1 mm s1 until the
material of interest is pressed against the tissue with a force
of 0.2 N for 10 s of dwell time. The upper grip is then raised at
10 mm s1 until the polycarbonate is fully separated from the
tissue. Force and displacement of the upper grip are mea-
sured at 500 samples s1. The test is repeated twice (on
contiguous, fresh samples) to yield a total of three contiguous
measurements per tack test permutation.
Similarly, the peel tests are performed on each permutation of
bowel region, material of interest, and porcine model. For
example, for the test Proximal, MT, Peel, an 8 cm  2 cm
rectangular section of small bowel is excised and placed on
micro-patterned PDMS tread with the mucosa facing downward,
so that it is in contact with the PDMS without entrapping air
bubbles between the two surfaces. One end of the rectangular
then raised at 10 mm s1, which peels the tissue from the PDMS
at 901. The section of adhered tissue travels horizontally at the
same rate the upper grip travels vertically, thus maintaining the
901 peel angle. The force on the loadcell is recorded at 500 sam-
ples s1 throughout approximately 6 cm of travel during peel.
2.3. Statistical analysis

Four-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to

Table 2 Randomized adhesivity test matrix for pig 1. examine the effects of the factors listed in Table 1 on the
Proximal, Middle, and Distal indicates the test was mean adhesivity. P-values less than 0.05 were considered
performed on tissue from that region of the small bowel. statistically significant. The validity of the ANOVA was verified
SS, PC, MT, or Mucosa indicates that stainless
by testing the data for normality using the ShapiroWilk test.
steel, polycarbonate, micropatterned tread, or mucosa
were in contact with the mucosa during the test. Tack
and Peel are the test protocols. Note that tests are
shown randomized. 3. Results
Middle,PC,Peel Distal,PC,Peel Proximal,MT,Peel
Middle,SS,Tack Middle,MT,Peel Proximal,Mucosa,Tack 3.1. Validation of test apparatus
Distal,MT,Peel Proximal,PC,Tack Distal,SS,Tack
Distal,Mucosa,Peel Distal,Mucosa,Tack Proximal,SS,Peel In Fig. 2 raw tack and peel data for ten test samples each are
Proximal,PC,Peel Middle,PC,Tack Distal,PC,Tack shown. The mean tack strength of the 3M 9471LE commercial
Proximal,SS,Tack Distal,SS,Peel Middle,SS,Peel
adhesive to polypropylene per unit area was 87736 mJ cm2.
Middle,MT,Tack Proximal,MT,Tack Proximal,Mucosa,Peel
Middle,Mucosa,Tack Distal,MT,Tack Middle,Mucosa,Peel The mean peel strength of the tape to polypropylene per unit
area was 4572 mJ cm2. Errors are one standard deviation of

Fig. 2 Raw tack test data from ten samples of commercial adhesive (3M 9471LE) adhered to polypropylene (left). Notice the
high variability beginning around 1 mm of travel. This is due to the variable nature of the location of the abrupt release of the
adhesive from the polypropylene. Raw peel data from ten samples of commercial adhesive (3M 9471LE) adhered to
polypropylene (right). Notice the tension ramping as the slack is removed from the adhesive tape. Adhesion calculations do
not include the ramping region. For both figures, error bars are one standard deviation of the mean.
28 journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials 15 (2012) 24 32

Fig. 3 Mucosal tack (left) and peel (right) tests.

Fig. 4 Mucosal tack separation force versus separation position for mucosa adhered to polycarbonate (left). Mucosal peel
separation force versus separation position for mucosa adhered to polycarbonate (right).

the mean. Notice the large standard deviation of the tack
modality as compared to peel. This is due to the randomness
of the location of the abrupt separation of the adhesive from
the polypropylene. Also note that the first 1.5 mm of peel
data is highly transient, which is due to tensioning of the
tape, prior to actual separation, therefore peel adhesivity
measurements do not include this region. Based on this data,
separation of the commercial adhesive from polypropylene
via the tack modality requires approximately 190% more
energy per unit area than by peel. The larger energy required
for separation via tack is probably explained by the contribu-
tion bulk deformation of the adhesive as explained by Josse
et al., 2004 in their work measuring interfacial adhesion
between a soft viscoelastic layer and a rigid surface.
3.2. Mucosal tack and peel adhesivity tests
In Fig. 3 the mucosal tack and peel test setups are shown.
In Fig. 4 representative raw tack and peel data for the test
permutations Middle,PC,Tack and Middle,PC,Peel from bowel region. The last four boxes labeled SS, PC, MT, and
Table 2 are shown. As described in Section 2.2, the tack data
consists of the three contiguous samples (indicated by Trials
13 in the figure), which are averaged, and peel data is
derived from a single sample. As shown in Fig. 4 (right), the
raw peel force (FT) increases due to the increasing weight of
the tissue hanging from the upper grip. The weight is
subtracted from the raw data resulting in Fa from (4). Note
that the transient regions of the peel data are not used to
calculate Fa, hence they are truncated as shown in the figure.
In Figs. 5 and 6 the summaries of the full factorial tests for the
mucosal tack and peel strength, respectively are shown. Each of
these figures contain 11 box plots. The plots show the median,
the 25th and 75th percentiles of the data (the box), and the
extents of the data (the whiskers). Outliers are denoted by
plusses. The bars are grouped first by pig, then bowel region,
and finally material. For example, the four leftmost boxes
indicated by the labels Pig 1 through Pig 4 compare the
median adhesivity of all materials and bowel regions of each pig.
The next three boxes labeled Proximal, Middle, and Distal
compare the median adhesivity of all pigs and materials for each
Mucosa compare the median adhesivity of all pigs and bowel
 journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials 15 (2012) 24 32 29

Fig. 5 Summary of the adhesivity tack strength. From left to right, boxes 14 show the strength per porcine model for all
regions and materials. Boxes 57 show strength per region of the small intestine for all pigs and materials. Boxes 811 show
strength per material tested against the mucosa for all pigs and regions: SS is stainless steel, PC is polycarbonate, MT is
micropatterned PDMS tread, and Mucosa indicates the tack strength of mucosa adhered to itself.

Fig. 6 Summary of the adhesive peel strength. From left to right, boxes 14 show the strength per porcine model for all
regions and materials. Boxes 57 show strength per region of the small intestine for all pigs and materials. Boxes 811 show
strength per material tested against the mucosa for all pigs and regions: SS is stainless steel, PC is polycarbonate, MT is
micropatterned PDMS tread, and Mucosa indicates the peel strength of mucosa adhered to itself.

regions for each material. Note that Figs. 5 and 6 are both
interpreted in this way. Overall, the mean tack strength of the
mucosa per unit area was 0.19870.070 mJ cm2. The mean peel
strength of the mucosa per unit area was 0.05570.016 mJ cm2.
This result follows the same trend as the commercial adhesive
where separation via tack requires more energy per unit area
than by peel.
3.3. Statistical analysis
The ShapiroWilk test confirmed normal distributions within
the tack and peel tests for both the commercial adhesive and
mucosal testing but rejected the null hypothesis for lumped
tack and peel means. Therefore, the two adhesive modalities
were analyzed separately. For both tack and peel tests,
30 journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials 15 (2012) 24 32

Fig. 7 Live porcine small intestine of a fasting animal (left). Notice the intestine has collapsed on itself and is flat. Schematic
of an RCE traveling through the collapsed small intestine (right). Examples of adhesivity are indicated by the dotted regions.
The RCE will expend energy overcoming adhesivity on its leading edge as the mucosa peels away from itself, and also on the
trailing edge as the mucosa is peeled from the tread material.

ANOVA identified significant differences between porcine

models (p 0.05 and 0.00 for tack and peel, respectively).
The differences in adhesivity between bowel regions were
not significant (considering all pigs and materials), although
there may be a weakening trend from proximal end to the
distal end. The adhesive strength of the mucosa to itself is
significantly stronger than that of mucosa to the engineering
materials (p 0.02 and 0.01 for tack and peel, respectively).
Although not significant, the mean adhesive strength of the
engineering materials to mucosa varied from least to greatest
as follows: stainless steel, polycarbonate, and PDMS micro-
patterned tread. This trend is manifested in both the tack and
peel tests.
4. Application
Understanding the adhesivity of the mucosa to RCE materials
leads to a more comprehensive knowledge of the in vivo
forces experienced by such a device. For example, in Fig. 7
(left) is a section of live porcine small intestine that illustrates
the flat, collapsed condition of the bowel in a fasting animal.
In this condition, the mucosa is adhered to itself, and the RCE
will expend energy at its leading edge to separate the two
adhered surfaces as it actively travels through the collapsed
bowel (Fig. 7, right). In addition, the RCE will expend energy at
its trailing edge as the tank-style tracks (the drive mechanism
for the authors RCE) peel away from the mucosa.
Following is an example of how the adhesive properties of
the mucosa measured in this work can be used to make a
simple estimation of the energy requirements for overcoming
it. The authors RCE (Fig. 8) is used in the following analysis as
an example, however the effects of mucosal adhesivity
should be considered for any RCE design.
An estimation of the work required to overcome adhesion
at the leading edge is
Wle C=2LWpeel; mucosa 6
where C is the circumference of the inner surface of the small
intestine, L is the axial length traveled, wpeel,mucosa is the peel
adhesivity of mucosa adhered to mucosa (indicated in Fig. 6,
Fig. 8 Front and side views of the authors RCE. The device
has a rectangular cross section with tank style treads on the
four sides. It is also equipped with a video camera.
right-most box plot). An estimation of the work required to
overcome adhesion at the trailing edge is
Wte NdLWpeel; MT 7
where N is the number of treads on the RCE, L is the axial
length traveled, Wpeel,MT is the peel adhesivity of mucosa
adhered to PDMS micropatterned tread (indicated in Fig. 6,
2nd box plot from the right), and d is the width of a tread.
Consider, for example, a typical small intestine with a
nominal inner diameter of 3 cm, the authors RCE with tread
width of 6 mm, a travel distance of 1 m, and a travel speed of
10 mm s1. An estimate of the energy required to overcome
mucosal adhesivity at the leading and trailing edges due to
mucosamucosa separation and mucosatread separation are
Wle 3p=2100  :055 25:9 mJ 8
and
Wte 4  0:6  100  0:054 13:0 mJ 9
respectively.
Energy requirements for other adhesive modalities (like
tack) can be calculated in a similar manner by understanding
the interfacial geometries and then deriving simple equa-
tions such as those presented in (6) and (7). Note that RCE
speed was given in the above example (10 mm s1) because
that is the speed at which all peel and tack testing were
conducted.
5. Discussion and conclusions
To the authors knowledge, this is the first study of porcine
mucosal adhesivity to engineering materials. As such, the test
 journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials 15 (2012) 24 32
apparatuses are used to first quantify the adhesivity of a
commercially available, environmentally stable, geometrically
uniform adhesive. Several attributes of the tack and peel test
were learned by first using commercial adhesive. For example,
tack adhesivity measurements are highly variable due to the
abrupt and random nature of the release of the adhesive from
the adherend. Also, the adhesivity of the mucosa is several
orders of magnitude less than that of the commercial adhesive,
which offers an intuitive feel for the adhesive strength of the
mucosa. Separation via the tack modality requires much more
energy, which provides an additional consideration for RCE
designers who are interested in design optimization. The
relative tack and peel strengths show similar trends for both
the commercial adhesive and the mucosa.
Estimates of energy (and power) requirements for over-
coming adhesivity appear to be well within the range of the
capabilities of an untethered RCE. When applying these
results, however, recall that mucosal adhesivity is a function
multiple variables such as separation rate, temperature, dwell
time, and postprandial conditions. This work considers a
simple subset of those conditions which were of interest to
the authors and that should be of general use to others
pursing similar work. Future work will investigate adhesivity
as a function of these variables. Also note that this is a
preliminary study, and although care was taken to maintain
hydration of the tissue, future work will investigate in situ
measurements that are more representative of the RCE
environment.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded in part by a Junior Faculty Pilot Award
from the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Insti-
tute (CCTSI). This publication was supported by NIH/NCRR
Colorado CTSI Grant no. UL1 RR025780. Its contents are the
authors sole responsibility and do not necessarily represent
official NIH view.
r e f e r e n c e s
Atuma, C., Strugala, V., Allen, A., Holm, L., 2001. The adherent
gastrointestinal mucus gel layer: thickness and physical state
in vivo. American Journal of PhysiologyGastrointestinal and
Liver Physiology 280 (5), G922G929.
ASTM Subcommittee D14.50, 2009, Standard Test Method for
Pressure-Sensitive Tack of Adhesives Using an Inverted Probe
Machine (ASTM D2979-01).
ASTM Subcommittee D10.14, 2010, Standard Test Method for Peel
Adhesion of Pressure-Sensitive Tape (ASTM D3330/D3330M04).
Camilleri, M., 1997. The duodenum: a conduit or a pump? GUT
41 (5), 714.
Glass, P., Cheung, E., Sitti, M., 2008. A legged anchoring mechan-
ism for capsule endoscopes using micropatterned adhesives.
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 55 (12),
27592767.
Hoskins, L.C., Boulding, E.T., 1981. Mucin degradation in human
colon ecosystems. Evidence for the existence and role of
bacterial subpopulations producing glycosidases as extracel-
lular enzymes. Journal of Clinical Investigation 67 (1), 163172.
31
Hanes, J., Lai, S.K., Issued 2010, Compositions and Methods for
Enhancing Transport Through Mucus. Patent Application
2010/0215580.
Higa, M., Luo, Y., Okuyama, T., Takagi, T., 2007. Characterization
of the passive mechanical properties of large intestine. Inter-
national Journal of Applied Electromagnetics & Mechanics 25
(1/4), 595599.
Josse, G., Sergot, P., Creton, C., Dorget, M., 2004. Measuring interfacial
adhesion between a soft viscoelastic layer and a rigid surface
using a probe method. The Journal of Adhesion 80 (1), 87.
King, M., 1998. Experimental models for studying mucociliary
clearance. European Respiratory Journal 11 (1), 222228.
Lim, Y.-J., Deo, D., Singh, T.P., Jones, D.B., De, S., 2009. In situ
measurement and modeling of biomechanical response of
human cadaveric soft tissues for physics-based surgical
simulation. Surgical Endoscopy 23 (6), 12981307.
Lyle, A., Terry, B., Schoen, J.A. Rentschler, M.E., 2011. An experi-
mental evaluation of small bowel friction forces when elim-
inating edge effects, In: ASME 2011 International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition, Denver.
Miftahof, R., Fedotov, E., 2005. Intestinal propulsion of a solid
non-deformable bolus. Journal of Theoretical Biology 235 (1),
5770.
Quirini, M., Menciassi, A., Scapellato, S., Stefanini, C., Dario, P.,
2008. Design and fabrication of a motor legged capsule for the
active exploration of the gastrointestinal tract. IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics 13 (2), 169179.
Sliker, L.J., Kern, M., Rentschler, M.E., 2011. Surgical evaluation of
a novel robotic capsule endoscope using micro-patterned
treads. Journal of Surgical Endoscopy, SEND, 111291.
Simi, M., Valdastri, P., Quaglia, C., Menciassi, A., Dario, P., 2010.
Design, fabrication, and testing of a capsule with hybrid
locomotion for gastrointestinal tract exploration. IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics 15 (2), 170180.
Samsom, Smout, Hebbard, Fraser, Omari, Horowitz, Dent, 1998. A
novel portable perfused manometric system for recording of
small intestinal motility. Neurogastroenterology and Motility
10 (2), 139148.
Sacks, M., Sun, W., 2003. Multiaxial mechanical behavior of
biological materials. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineer-
ing 5, 251284.
Samuel, N.T., Vailhe, E., Vailhe, C., Vetrecin, R., Liu, C., Maziarz,
P.E., 2008. Comprehensive characterization of the effect of
tissue storage conditions on tissueadhesive interaction. Jour-
nal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer Edition 19 (11), 14551468.
Sliker, L.J., Wang, X., Schoen, J.A., Rentschler, M.E., 2010. Micro-
patterned treads for in vivo robotic mobility. Journal of
Medical Devices 4 (4), 041006041008.
Twomey, K., 2009. Swallowable capsule technology: current per-
spectives and future directions. Endoscopy 41 (8), 732.
Terry, B.S., Lyle, A.B., Schoen, J.A., Rentschler, M.E., 2011. Pre-
liminary mechanical characterization of the small bowel for
in vivo robotic mobility. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
133 (9), 091010091017.
Terry, B.S., Schoen, J.A., Rentschler, M.E., 2012a. Measurements of
the contact force from myenteric contractions on a solid
bolus. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 15.
Terry, B.S., Schoen, J.A., Rentschler, M.E., 2012b. Characterization
and experimental results of a novel sensor for measuring the
contact force from myenteric contractions. IEEE Transactions
on Biomedical Engineering 99, 1.
Varum, F.J.O., Veiga, F., Sousa, J.S., Basit, A.W., 2010. An investiga-
tion into the role of mucus thickness on mucoadhesion in the
gastrointestinal tract of pig. European Journal of Pharmaceu-
tical Sciences 40 (4), 335341.
Woo, S.H., Kim, T.W., Mohy-Ud-Din, Z., Park, I.Y., Cho, J.-H., 2011.
Small intestinal model for electrically propelled capsule endo-
scopy. BioMedical Engineering Online 10 (1), 108.
32 journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials 15 (2012) 24 32

William, K.J., 2005. Krauses Essential Human Histology for
Medical Students. Universal-Publishers.
Wang, X., Meng, M.Q.-H., 2010. An experimental study of resis-
tant properties of the small intestine for an active capsule
endoscope. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine 224 (1),
107118.
Wang, K.D., Yan, G.Z., 2009. Research on measurement and
modeling of the gastro intestines frictional characteristics.
Measurement Science and Technology 20 (1), 015803.