Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
1.8
18
1.6
16
1.4
14
1.2
12
1
10
0.8
8
0.6
6
0.4
0.2
4
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
G
H
Film thickness (mm)
Film thickness (mm)
2.6
1.6
1.4
2.4
1.2
2.2
1
2
0.8
1.8
0.6
1.6
0.4
1.4
0.2
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
I
J
Film thickness (mm)
Film thickness (mm)
Figure 10.9—cont'd
(g) Decrease in the ratio of the binding rate coefficients, k
2
/k
1
, with an increase in the film
thickness (in mm). (h) Increase in the fractal dimension, D
f1
, with an increase in the film thickness
(in mm). (i) Increase in the fractal dimension, D
f2
, with an increase in the film thickness (in mm).
(j) Increase in the fractal dimension for dissociation, D
fd
, with an increase in the film thickness
(in mm).
The fit is poor. Only three data points are available. The availability of more data points
would lead to a better and more reliable fit. The poor fit is also reflected in the error in
the value of the binding rate coefficient,
k
1
, presented. Only the positive value is presented
since the binding rate coefficient cannot have a negative value. The binding rate coefficient,
k
2
, is sensitive to the film thickness, in mm since it exhibits a slightly greater than second
(equal to 2.065) order of dependence on the film thickness.
Figure 10.9c
and
Tables 10.6
and
10.7
show the increase in the dissociation rate coefficient,
k
d
, with an increase in the film thickness, in mm for a dual-fractal analysis. For the data
shown in
Figure 10.9c
, the dissociation rate coefficient,
k
d
, is given by:
2
:
47
0
:
301
10
07
k
d
¼ð
4
:
5
1
:
3
Þ
½
film thickness, inmm
ð
10
:
8c
Þ
