Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:16:45.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ultrastructural Mechanical and Material Characterization of Fossilized Bone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Sara Elizabeth Olesiak ,
Michelle Oyen ,
Matthew Sponheimer ,
Jaelyn J. Eberle  and
Virginia L. Ferguson
Sara Elizabeth Olesiak
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Colorado, Mechanical Engineering, UCB 427, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Boulder, CO, 80309, United States
Michelle Oyen
Affiliation:
[email protected], Cambridge University, Engineering, Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, United Kingdom
Matthew Sponheimer
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Colorado, Department of Anthropology, Boulder, CO, 80309, United States
Jaelyn J. Eberle
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Colorado, Department of Geological Sciences and University of Colorado Museum, Boulder, CO, 80309, United States
Virginia L. Ferguson
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Colorado, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Boulder, CO, 80309, United States
Get access

Abstract

Bone plays a key role in the paleontological and archeological records and can provide insight into the biology, ecology and the environment of ancient vertebrates. Examination of bone at the tissue level reveals a definitive relationship between nanomechanical properties and the local organic content, mineral content, and microstructural organization. However, it is unclear as to how these properties change following fossilization, or diagenesis, where the organic phase is rapidly removed and the remaining mineral phase is reinforced by the deposition of apatites, calcites, and other minerals. While the process of diagenesis is poorly understood, its outcome clearly results in the potential for dramatic alteration of the mechanical response of biological tissues. In this study, fossilized specimens of mammalian long bones, collected from Colorado and Wyoming, were studied for mechanical variations. Nanoindentation performed in both longitudinal and transverse directions revealed preservation of bone's natural anisotropy as transverse modulus values were consistently smaller than longitudinal values. Additionally modulus values of fossilized bone from 35.0 to 89.1 GPa increased linearly with logarithm of the sample's age. Future studies will aim to clarify what mechanical and material elements of bone are retained during diagenesis as bone becomes part of the geologic milieu.

Keywords

bonearchaeologystrength
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 975: Symposium DD – Mechanics of Biological and Bio-Inspired Materials , 2006 , 0975-DD03-09
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Wang, Yang and Cerling, Thure E., Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 107 (3–4), 281 (1994).Google Scholar
2. Lubell, David, Jackes, Mary, Schwarcz, Henry et al., Journal of Archaeological Science 21 (2), 201 (1994).Google Scholar
3. Butler, Brian M., Hanson, Douglas B., Hunter-Anderson, Rosalind L., Krueger, Harold W. and Ambrose, Stanley H., American Journal of Physical Anthropology 104 (3), 343 (1997).Google Scholar
4. Zazzo, Antoine, Mariotti, Andre, Lecuyer, Christophe et al., Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 186 (1–2), 145 (2002).Google Scholar
5. Price, T. D., Burton, J. H., and Bentley, R. A., Archaeometry 44, 117 (2002).Google Scholar
6. Cerling, Thure E. and Sharp, Zachary D., Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 126 (1–2), 173 (1996).Google Scholar
7. Hedges, R. E. M. and Millard, A. R., Journal of Archaeological Science 22 (2), 155 (1995).Google Scholar
8. Reiche, I., Favre-Quattropani, L., Vignaud, C. et al., Measurement Sci. & Tech. 14 (9), 1608 (2003).Google Scholar
9. Badone, E. and Farquhar, R. M., Journal of Radioanalytical Chemistry 69 (1–2), 291 (1982).Google Scholar
10. Elliott, T. A. and Grime, G. W., Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Mater. and Atoms 77 (1–4), 537 (1993).Google Scholar
11. Kohn, Matthew J., Schoeninger, Margaret J., and Barker, William W., Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 63 (18), 2737 (1999).Google Scholar
12. Quattropani, L., Charlet, L., Lumley, H. de et al., Mineralogical Mag. 63 (6), 801 (1999).Google Scholar
13. Trueman, C. N. G., Behrensmeyer, A. K., Tuross, N. et al., Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (6), 721 (2004).Google Scholar
14. Nielsen-Marsh, Christina M. and E., Robert Hedges, M., 27 (12), 1139 (2000).Google Scholar
15. Oliver, W. C. and Pharr, G. M., J. of Mater. Research 7 (6), 1564 (1992).Google Scholar
16. Koonjul, Vanessa, Bembey, Amanpreet K., Bushby, Andrew J., Ferguson, Virginia L. and Boyde, Alan, Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 841, R2.8.1 (2005).Google Scholar
17. Rho, J. Y., Tsui, T. Y., and Pharr, G. M., Biomaterials 18 (20), 1325 (1997).Google Scholar
18. Dorlot, J.M., L'Esperance, G., and Meunier, A., Trans. 32nd Orthop. Res. Soc. 11, 330 (1986).Google Scholar