The Kinetics of Swelling of Hydrogel Polymers studied using NMR Imaging

The Kinetics of Swelling of Hydrogel Polymers studied using NMR Imaging Mohammad Chowdhury, Karina George, David J.T. Hill, Katia Strounina, Andrew K. Whittaker and Zainuddin Centre for High Performance Polymers, University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia. Andrew.Whittaker@cmr.uq.edu.au This paper presents a detailed discussion of the use of NMR imaging to study the swelling of hydrogel polymers and the range of methods available for determination of the kinetic parameters. NMR imaging provides the most detailed description of the concentration of water through swelling hydrogel devices. The analysis of the kinetics of diffusion is greatly facilitated by such information. NMR imaging has been extensively applied by us to the problem of swelling of polymers in contact with a solvent [1-5]. Some care must be exercised to ensure that the profiles obtained using this method reflects accurately the solvent concentration in the swelling polymer. The most robust imaging sequence is based on the spin-echo method; images should be collected with a range of echo times to ensure that differences in T 2 relaxation times of water molecules in different environments are taken account of. In addition the experiment should be repeated sufficiently slowly to allow full relaxation of the 1 H spins. This last condition necessitates in some cases long experiment times. The spin-lattice relaxation times of the protons of water molecules (which are imaged in these experiments) increase in proportion to the water content, so that water in hydrogels which absorb large concentrations of water tend to have long relaxation times, approaching the relaxation time of pure water. Thus the imaging experiment time for this class of hydrogel may be quite long. This point is significant as the rate of swelling of these hydrogels is often very rapid, and thus it may be difficult to obtain more than one image before equilibrium has been reached. Two approaches to circumvent this problem can be envisaged. Firstly a small concentration of paramagnetic relaxation agent, usually a transition metal ion, can be added to the solvent. This has the effect of reducing the spin-lattice relaxation time of the water protons and hence decreases experiment time, however, care must be taken to ensure that the kinetics of swelling are not perturbed by the presence of the dissolved ions. A second method is to use a rapid imaging method which measures a parameter which can be related to solvent concentration, for example the spin-spin relaxation time. Examples of the use of such methodology will be given in this talk. The materials we have investigated [1-11] span the full range of behaviour reported in the literature. As is well known, when the extent of swelling is relatively small, or the matrix has the ability to relax during the swelling process, the rate of diffusion of the solvent is proportional to the concentration gradient of that solvent in the hydrogel. This is the case in general for materials which absorb less than approximately 30-40% of their initial mass in solvent. In our case we have investigated the swelling of copolymers of HEMA with hydrophilic monomers where the equilibrium water content range from zero to 1 wt. %. All of these systems display Fickian diffusion kinetics. Materials which absorb higher concentrations of water, for example copolymers of HEMA with the hydrophilic monomer MOEP, tend on the other hand, to show anomalous diffusion profiles. During free radical copolymerization with HEMA, MOEP initiates crosslinking, possibly through chain transfer to the monomer. Thus at high MOEP contents the materials are very brittle, and shatter

through swelling stresses on exposure to water. At low MOEP contents the water profiles obtained by NMR imaging are strongly non-fickian (see Figure 1). This behaviour can be described using a number of different models, and we have found that having the diffusion coefficient dependent on the exponential water concentration results in good fits to the profiles. 1.1 Relative concentration 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 Experimental Profile Calculated Profile D0 = 4.5 10^-8 cm^2/s A = 2 0.1 Figure 1. Profile of water concentration in a copolymer containing 3 wt.% MOEP after 24 hours immersion in distilled water. The upper curve was calculated assuming a concentration-dependent diffusion coefficient. There is some evidence of loss of water at the surface of the hydogels. An attempt will be made in this talk to present a unified approach to the analysis of such data based on the finite-difference methods described some years ago by Crank [12] and others. Systems discussed included copolymers of HEMA, blends of PVP and PVA and copolymers of NIPAM. References -0.1-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance across diameter 1. Ghi, P. Y.; Hill, D. J. T.; Maillet, D.; Whittaker, A. K Polymer (1997), 38(15), 3985-3989. 2. Hill, David J. T.; Lim, McKenzie C. H.; Whittaker, Andrew K. Polym. Int. (1999), 48(10), 1046-1052. 3. Hill, D. J. T.; Moss, N. G.; Pomery, P. J.; Whittaker, A. K.. Polymer (1999), Volume Date 2000, 41(4), 1287-1296. 4. Goodwin, A. A.; Whittaker, A. K.; Jack, K. S.; Hay, J. N.; Forsythe, J. Polymer (2000), 41(19), 7263-7271. 5. Ghi, P.Y.; Hill, D.J.T.; Whittaker, A.K.. Biomacromolecules, (2001), 2, 504-510. 6. Ghi, Phuong Y.; Hill, David J. T.; O'Donnell, James H.; Pomery, Peter J.; Whittaker, Andrew K Polym. Gels Networks (1996), 4(3), 253-267. 7. Hodge, R. M.; Simon, G. P.; Whittaker, M. R.; Hill, D. J. T.; Whittaker, A. K. J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys. (1998), 36(3), 463-472. 8. Ghi, P.Y.; Hill, D.J.T.; Whittaker, A.K. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. (1999), 37(19), 3730-3737. 9. Faragalla, M.M.; Hill, D.J.T.; Pomery, P.J.; Whittaker, A.K.. Polym. Bull, (2002), 47, 421-427. 10. Ghi, P.Y.; Hill, D.J.T.; Whittaker, A.K. Biomacromolecules (2002), 3(3), 554-559. 11. Ghi, P.Y.; Hill, D.J.T.; Whittaker, A.K. Biomacromolecules (2002), 3(5), 991-997. 12. Crank, J.. The Mathematics of Diffusion, 2 nd Ed. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1975.

Diffusion in Polymeric Hydrogels studied using NMR Imaging Andrew K. Whittaker, Centre for Magnetic Resonance, The University of Queensland, Australia.

Acknowledgements David Hill Phuong Yen Ghi Naomi Moss Lucy Baker James Beck Magdy Faragalla Mohammad Chowdhury Katia Strounina Zainuddin Members of the Department of Chemistry and the Centre for High Performance Polymers

Outline of this talk The problem defined Measurement of swelling of polymers NMR imaging methodology Experimental examples PHEMA hydrogels PVP/PNVP hydrogels PHEMA-MOEP hydrogels PNIPAM-DMA hydrogels Do we have a unified approach?

The problem defined Say an equilibrium is perturbed by addition of a solvent or a change in concentration Diffusion of solvent into surface of object

The end result? At equilibrium, the degree of swelling will depend on a number of factors: Chemistry (hydrophilicity) Crosslink density Cracking Geometry Additives, for e.g. drugs Activity of solution

Kinetics of swelling What affects rate of initial diffusion? What about subsequent molecules? H 2 O H 2 O H 2 O H 2 O H 2 O H 2 O H 2 O H 2 O H 2 O H 2 O

Other methods Gravimetry 0.7 0.6 PHEMA + 5% B12 PHEMA + 10% B12 M(t)-M(0)/M(0) 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 PHEMA PHEMA + 5% Aspirin PHEMA + 10% Aspirin 0.1 0.0 0 4000 8000 12000 Diffusion Time (mins)

Analysis of gravimetric data In the case of relatively small weight gains we use classical solutions to Fick s laws 1.0 M M t 4 = 2 1 exp( Dα ) 2 2 nt n= 1 a αn M t / M inf 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 PHEMA 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time 1/2 (min 1/2 )

Need for imaging data Many solutions to the previous data Require more detailed information: Optical density Rutherford backscattering Microinterferometry Fluorescence techniques ESR imaging FT-IR imaging NMR imaging

Analysis of swelling hydrogels Require numerical methods Finite difference methods Planar sheet divided into layers of thickness h Initial concentrations at interfaces = C 0, C 1, C 2.. The flux of fluid passing through R is given by q R = -Dτ(C 1 -C 0 )/h Simple extension to plane S More stable solutions available, e.g. Crank-Nicholson method

Swelling of a gel matrix Li and Tanaka, 1990 Derive a collective diffusion constant D0 = ( K + 4 µ /3)/ f K = compressional modulus µ = zero shear modulus f = friction coefficient Solutions provided for all geometries For cylinders define an apparent D e D e depends on time and position

Swelling of a glassy matrix Thomas and Windle have provided most successful description of so-called Case-II diffusion Couples viscoelastic response of glassy polymer to osmotic swelling stress, and Fickian diffusion φ = t P / η Linear viscous response φe P= ( kbt / Ω)ln( ) 0 φ η = η exp( mφ ) Osmotic swelling pressure Viscosity

Magnetic resonance imaging Conventional spin-echo sequence Frequency-selective 90 RF pulse is applied in the presence of a gradient G slice to excite a slice within the sample The MR signal is refocused with a 180 pulse FID signal is collected after echo time TE in the presence of the gradient G read to encode frequency as a function of a spatial position in the direction of G read The sequence is repeated and increasing G phase is applied perpendicular to slice and read gradients, thus providing spatial resolution in the direction of G phase

Time resolution in MRI experiment In polymers with slower equilibration in water, imaging time brings small uncertainty into the water content measured Water Content, % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 WC T imag t In polymers with faster equilibration the uncertainty becomes significant, so there is need to reduce imaging time Imaging time depends on the rate of spin relaxation Water Content, % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 WC T imag t

Relaxation of nuclear spins Two kinds of spin relaxation: spin-lattice (T 1 ) and spin-spin (T 2 ) Both depend on the state of water HEMA hydrogels (equilibrium over 48 hours) Water content 5-40 % T 1 (spin- lattice relaxation time) ca. 600ms. T repetition in imaging pulse sequence is ca. 2 sec. Total imaging time 25-30 min

Relaxation of nuclear spins Two kinds of spin relaxation: spin-lattice (T 1 ) and spin-spin (T 2 ) Both depend on the state of water PVA/PVP hydrogels (equilibrium over 12 hours) Water content ~ 80-95 %. T 1 is ca. 1-2 sec T repetition ~ 5-10 sec Total imaging time ca. 2 hrs.

NMR contrast gift or curse? Differences in T 1, T 2 are used in medical imaging to create contrast Examples of parameter-weighted images Goal of medical imaging is contrast, not quantitative intensities

How to overcome this problem? Addition of paramagnetic relaxation agent But these salts can affect diffusion kinetics Measure a property proportional to proton density T 1 relaxation time but experiment very long T 2 relaxation time need to cope with diffusion attenuation

Pulse sequences for T 2 map 180 y 180 y 90 x 90-x 90 x RF 0 * TE* 0 TE G read G phase G slice Increasing echo time, TE*

Diffusion profiles T 2 depends on water content Calculated for each point according to: 1 nw np = + T T T 2 2w 2 p Known values: before swelling 0.879 mol water, at equilibrium 0.983 mol. Image intensity WC, mol 1.01 1 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.92 1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.9 0.88 0.86 Profile from T 2 map after 29 h 29 h 0 5 10 15 20 pixels Calculated water content profiles Time, h 1 5.7 72.1 100.7 227.5-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 R, cm

HEMA copolymers Application is drug delivery We aim for a fundamental understanding Copolymerized to control diffusion kinetics CH 3 CH 3 CH 2 C CH 2 C C O O x C O O y Hydrophilic CH 2 CH 2 Hydrophobic CH 2 OH O

Mass uptake Slight overshoot at high HEMA content Water Uptake (g H2 O / g dry polymer ) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 High HEMA content 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 PHEMA T10H90 T20H80 T30H70 T40H60 T50H50 D, EWC depend on composition f HEMA

Mass uptake Low HEMA content 0.14 Water Uptake (g H 2O / g dry polymer ) 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 T60H40 T70H30 T80H20 T90H10 PTHFMA Slow second stage at low HEMA contents f HEMA

NMR imaging Profile along this plane Contour plot of MRI image, central slice, of PHEMA-co-THFMA (90:10), 2 hrs diffusion time, 37 o C

Initial stages Water concentration profiles 1.0 Mt / Minf = 0.18 D = 1.5 * 10-7 cm 2 s -1 A 0.8 1.0 C / C 0 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.0 M t / M inf 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 B A 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time 1/2 (min 1/2 ) C / C 0-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 Distance Across Diameter (mm) 1.0 Mt / Minf = 0.33 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 B Distance Across Diameter (mm)

Prior to fronts meeting 1.0 0.8 Mt / Minf = 0.43 A 1.0 C / C 0 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 M t / M inf 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 B A 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time 1/2 (min 1/2 ) C / C 0 0.0-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 Distance Across Diameter (mm) 1.0 Mt / Minf = 0.62 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 B -3-2 -1 0 1 2 3 Distance Across Diameter (mm)

Diffusion fronts have met M t / M inf 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 B A 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time 1/2 (min 1/2 ) C / C 0 C / C 0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Mt / Minf = 0.72-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 Distance Across Diameter (mm) Mt / Minf = 0.75 D = 1.5*10-7 cm 2 s -1-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 Distance Across Diameter (mm) A B

Close to overshoot 1.0 Mt / Minf = 0.79 D = 1.5*10-7 cm 2 s -1 A 0.8 1.0 0.8 B A C / C 0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 M t / M inf 0.6 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.8-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 Distance Across Diameter (mm) Mt / Minf = 0.83 D = 2.1*10-7 cm 2 s -1 B 0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time 1/2 (min 1/2 ) C / C 0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 Distance Across Diameter (mm)

Final stages 1.0 M t / M inf = 0.84 A 0.8 M t / M inf 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 A B C / C 0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 Distance Across Diameter (mm) M 1.0 t / M inf = 1.00 0.8 B 0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time 1/2 (min 1/2 ) C / C 0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 Distance Across Diameter (mm)

PVP-PVA hydrogels Application is wound dressing Crosslinked in swollen state in water Initial WC = 85 % Final equilibrium swelling depends on crosslink density (90-97%) H 2 C H 2 C CH OH CH N n n CO

Mass uptake At intermediate times obeys Fickian diffusion Kinetics over full range not fully understood Require higher- order model Acquire T 2 maps as described earlier Ct/Cinf Ct/Cinf 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 T, h 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 T 1/2, sec 1/2

Images Time, h 0 2.9 12.6 24.3 43.2 100.7 142.3 225.6 Increase T 2

Numerical modelling of water concentration profiles Water content profiles were modelled using equations based on Fick s second law C J ( rβ / R) β C J R 2 t 0 n n = 1 2 exp D 2 n= 1 βn 1( βn) Diffusion coefficients were determined numerically t WC WC 1 1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.9 0.88 0.86 Time, h -0.8-0.3 0.2 R, cm 0.7 0.98 r radius of the voxel(point), 0<r<R 0.96 R radius of the sample 0.94 β n roots of the Bessel function of order n 0.92 D diffusion coefficient 0.9 0.88 0.86 1 5.7 72.1 T = 73h 100.7 227.5-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 R, cm

Diffusion coefficients Diffusion coefficient is time- dependent due to: 2.50E-06 2.00E-06 Increased resistance to deformation as the polymer approaches equilibrium swelling ratio Result broadly consistent with Li and Tanaka D, m 2 sm -1 1.50E-06 1.00E-06 5.00E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+ 00 1.00E+ 05 2.00E+ 05 3.00E+ 05 4.00E+ 05 5.00E+ 05 6.00E+ 05 Swelling time 7.00E+ 05 8.00E+ 05 T, sec 9.00E+ 05

Copolymers of HEMA and MOEP Application is controlled calcification Random copolymers grafted onto surfaces MOEP enhances rate of calcification HEMA O OH O MOEP O O OH P OH O O

Effect of crosslinking on EWC Increasing EWC due to hydrophilicity of MOEP EWC 61 59 57 55 53 51 49 47 45 0 10 20 30 40 mol % MOEP Decreasing EWC due to crosslinking through MOEP

Mass uptake 0.7 0.6 0.5 Water Content 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time^0.5 (s^0.5) PHEMA 3MOEP 6MOEP 10MOEP 20MOEP 30MOEP

MRI of 3% MOEP copolymer PHEMA-co-MOEP (97:3), 12 hrs diffusion time, 37 o C

Water concentration profiles Relative Concentration 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0-0.4-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 Distance Across Diameter (cm) 6%MOEP 20% MOEP Fickian Profile

Full time course 1.1 3% MOEP D = D 0 e C A C 0 0.9 Relative concentration 0.7 0.5 0.3 Experimental Profile Calculated Profile D0 = 3 10^-8 cm^2/s A = 3 D o = 3.0 x 10-8 cm 2 /s A = 3 Time = 1 hr 0.1-0.1-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance across diameter

Full time course A C0 D = D 0 e C 1.1 3% MOEP 0.9 Relative concentration 0.7 0.5 0.3 Experimental Profile Calculated Profile D0 = 3 10^-8 cm^2/s A = 3 D o = 3.0 x 10-8 cm 2 /s A = 3 Time = 3.5 hr 0.1-0.1-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance across diameter

Full time course A C0 D = D 0 e C 1.1 3% MOEP 0.9 Relative concentration 0.7 0.5 0.3 Experimental Profile Calculated Profile D0 = 3 10^8 cm^2/s A = 1.6 D o = 3.0 x 10-8 cm 2 /s A = 1.6 Time = 7 hr 0.1-0.1-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance across diameter

Full time course A C0 D = D 0 e C 1.1 3% MOEP 0.9 Relative concentration 0.7 0.5 0.3 Experimental Profile Calculated Profile D0 = 2.5 10^-8 cm^2/s A = 2 D o = 2.5 x 10-8 cm 2 /s A = 2 Time = 8.7 hr 0.1-0.1-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance across diameter

Full time course A C0 D = D 0 e C 1.1 3% MOEP 0.9 Relative Concentration 0.7 0.5 0.3 Experimental Profile Calculated Profile D0 = 2.6 10^-8 cm^2/s A = 2 D o = 2.6 x 10-8 cm 2 /s A = 2 Time = 12 hr 0.1-0.1-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance across diameter

Full time course A C0 D = D 0 e C 1.1 3% MOEP 0.9 Relative concentration 0.7 0.5 0.3 Experimental Profile Calculated Profile D0 = 3 10^-8 cm^2/s A = 1.6 D o = 3.0 x 10-8 cm 2 /s A = 1.6 Time = 18 hr 0.1-0.1-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance across diameter

Full time course A C0 D = D 0 e C 3% MOEP 1.1 0.9 Experimental Profile Calculated Profile Relative concentration 0.7 0.5 0.3 D0 = 4.5 10^-8 cm^2/s A = 2 D o = 4.5 x 10-8 cm 2 /s A = 2 Time = 24 hr 0.1-0.1-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance across diameter

Full time course A C0 D = D 0 e C 1.1 3% MOEP 0.9 Relative concentration 0.7 0.5 0.3 Experimental Profile Calculated Profile D0 = 4 10^-8 cm^2/s A = 3.8 D o = 4.0 x 10-8 cm 2 /s A = 3.8 Time = 24 hr 0.1-0.1-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance across diameter

Copolymers of DMA and NIPAM Application is thermally-responsive gels Absorb up to 900 % water CH CH 2 1.5 CH CH 2 C O NH CH CH 3 CH 3 NIPAM Turbidity 1.0 0.5 PNIPAM 75:25 NIPAM:DMA 50:50 NIPAM:DMA 25:75 NIPAM:DMA PDMA C O N CH 3 CH 3 DMA 0.0 20 40 60 80 Temperature ( o C)

Mass uptake 1.0 0.8 M t /M equil 0.6 0.4 PDMA 75:25 DMA:NIPAM 50:50 DMA:NIPAM 25:75 DMA:NIPAM PNIPAM 0.2 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Time (mins)

MRI of swelling hydrogels Images of swelling cylinder in water Image intensity ~ water content PNIPAM, 30 mins diffusion time, 37 oc

Images during swelling Imaged every nine minutes T echo = 14 ms Quantitative images

Profiles of water concentration Poly(DMA) 250 200 Image Int. (a.u.) 150 100 50 0 9 minutes 18 minutes 28 minutes 35 minutes 44 minutes 53 minutes 61 minutes 70 minutes 79 minutes 88 minutes -4-2 0 2 4 Radial Co-ordinate (mm)

D scales with concentration D = D 0 (1 + 8.[H 2 O]) Image Int. (a.u.) 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0-4 -2 0 2 4

Diffusion into PNIPAM 200 1.0 Image Int. (a.u.) 150 100 50 0 158 Minutes 316 minutes 474 minutes 632 minutes 790 minutes 948 minutes 1106 minutes 1264 minutes Amplitude (fraction water) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0-4 -2 0 2 4 Radial Co-ordinate (mm) -4-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 4 Radial co-ordinate (mm) Poor fit to diffusion profiles for PNIPAM

Thomas and Windle model 200 100 150 80 Image Int. (a.u.) 100 50 0 9 minutes 18 minutes 28 minutes 35 minutes 44 minutes 53 minutes 61 minutes 70 minutes 79 minutes 88 minutes Image Int. (a.u.) 60 40 20 0-4 -2 0 2 4 Radial Co-ordinate (mm) -4-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 4 Radial co-ordinate (mm) Systematic changes seen in TW parameters seen across copolymer composition range

Model development Approach depends on whether rate of diffusion varies with: Concentration gradient Chemistry Rate of deformation of matrix

Low water contents Classical Fickian diffusion confirmed Additional features such as cracking confirmed C / C 0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Mt / Minf = 0.18 D = 1.5 * 10-7 cm 2 s -1-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 Distance Across Diameter (mm)

Intermediate water contents Chemistry determines the form of kinetics Concentration-dependent diffusion coefficients 1.1 0.9 Relative concentration 0.7 0.5 0.3 Experimental Profile Calculated Profile D0 = 3 10^-8 cm^2/s A = 1.6 0.1-0.1-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance across diameter

High water contents Swelling from dry polymer results in Case- II diffusion Deformation of matrix determines kinetics 200 150 Image Int. (a.u.) 100 50 0 9 minutes 18 minutes 28 minutes 35 minutes 44 minutes 53 minutes 61 minutes 70 minutes 79 minutes 88 minutes -4-2 0 2 4 Radial Co-ordinate (mm)

Elastic networks Fickian diffusion again confirmed Diffusion coefficient decreases and so evidence for swelling stress Care need with measurement techniques WC 1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.9 0.88 0.86 Time, h -0.8-0.3 0.2 R, cm 0.7 1 5.7 72.1 100.7 227.5

Thanks to.. Australian Research Council Braden, Patel of LHMC Chirila of Lions Eye Institute, Perth Centre for Magnetic Resonance Organisers of Gel Sympo 2003 Thanks to you!