Effect of protein concentrations of bovine serum albumin and γ-globulin on the frictional response of a cobalt-chromium femoral head

  • Cong-Truyen Duong
  • Jae-Hoon Lee
  • Younho Cho
  • Ju-Suk Nam
  • Hyong-Nyun Kim
  • Sang-Soo Lee
  • Seonghun Park


The study aims to identify the concentration-dependent role of bovine serum albumin (BSA) and γ-globulin in the lubricating ability of a cobalt-chromium femoral head. The frictional coefficients of the cobalt-chromium femoral head decreased with increasing BSA concentrations from 10 to 40 mg/ml and showed statistical differences between any of the BSA concentration groups, except between the 30 and 40 mg/ml concentration groups. In γ-globulin, the frictional coefficients significantly decreased at concentrations of 2.5 and 5.0 mg/ml as compared with the PBS control group, but significant increases were observed at 7.5 and 12.5 mg/ml. These results suggest that the friction of the cobalt-chromium femoral head is dependent on the concentration of both BSA and γ-globulin. However, there is a maximum concentration for BSA to act as an effective boundary lubricant, while the lubricating ability of γ-globulin is most effective in the physiological concentration range within human synovial fluid.


UHMWPE Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene Frictional Coefficient Bearing Surface Bovine Serum Albumin Concentration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was supported by WCU (World Class University) program and Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (R33-10155, 2010-0021759).


  1. 1.
    Charnley J. The lubrication of animal joints in relation to surgical reconstruction by arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis. 1960;19:10–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jin ZM, Stone M, Ingham E, Fisher J. Biotribology. Curr Orthopaed. 2006;20:32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dowson D, Jin ZM. Metal-on-metal hip joint tribology. P I Mech Eng H. 2006;220:107–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Charnley J (1959) The lubrication of animal joints. Symposium on Biomechanics. Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London pp 12–22.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reimann I, Stougaard J, Northeved A, Johnsen SJ. Demonstration of boundary lubrication by synovial fluid. Acta Orthop Scand. 1975;46:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Linn F. Lubrication of animal joints. II. The mechanism. J Biomech. 1968;1:193–205.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gispert MP, Serro AP, Colaco R, Saramago B. Friction and wear mechanisms in hip prosthesis: Comparison of joint materials behaviour in several lubricants. Wear. 2006;260:149–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mishina H, Kojima M. Changes in human serum albumin on arthroplasty frictional surfaces. Wear. 2008;265:655–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saikko V. Effect of lubricant protein concentration on the wear of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene sliding against a CoCr counterface. J Tribol-T Asme. 2003;125:638–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kitano T, Ateshian GA, Mow VC, Kadoya Y, Yamano Y. Constituents and pH changes in protein rich hyaluronan solution affect the biotribological properties of artificial articular joints. J Biomech. 2001;34:1031–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sawae Y, Murakami T, Chen J. Effect of synovia constituents on friction and wear of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene sliding against prosthetic joint materials. Wear. 1998;216:213–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang A, Essner A, Schmidig G. The effects of lubricant composition on in vitro wear testing of polymeric acetabular components. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2004;68B:45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hall RM, Unsworth A. Friction in hip prosthesis. Biomaterials. 1997;18:1017–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scholes SC, Unsworth A, Goldsmith AAJ. A frictional study of total hip joint replacements. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45:3721–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scholes SC, Unsworth A, Hall RM, Scott R. The effects of material combination and lubricant on the friction of total hip prostheses. Wear. 2000;241:209–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brockett C, Williams S, Jin ZM, Isaac G, Fisher J. Friction of total hip replacements with different bearings and loading conditions. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2007;81B:508–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saikko V, Calonius O, Keranen J. Effect of counterface roughness on the wear of conventional and crosslinked ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene studied with a multi-directional motion pin-on-disk device. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;57:506–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saikko V, Ahlroos T. Wear simulation of UHMWPE for total hip replacement with a multidirectional motion pin-on-disk device: Effects of counterface material, contact area, and lubricant. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;49:147–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nakashima K, Sawae Y, Murakami T. Influence of protein conformation on frictional properties of poly (vinyl alcohol) hydrogel for artificial cartilage. Tribol Lett. 2007;26:145–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murakami T, Sawae Y, Nakashima K, Yarimitsu S, Sato T. Micro- and nanoscopic biotribological behaviours in natural synovial joints and artificial joints. P I Mech Eng J–J Eng. 2007;221:237–45.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bhushan B, Dandavate C. Thin-film friction and adhesion studies using atomic force microscopy. J Appl Phys. 2000;87:1201–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bhushan B. Nanotribology, nanomechanics and nanomaterials characterization. Philos T R Soc A. 2008;366:1351–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coles JM, Blum JJ, Jay GD, Darling EM, Guilak F, Zauscher S. In situ friction measurement on murine cartilage by atomic force microscopy. J Biomech. 2008;41:541–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Park S, Costa KD, Ateshian GA. Microscale frictional response of bovine articular cartilage from atomic force microscopy. J Biomech. 2004;37:1679–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim SH, Marmo C, Somorjai GA. Friction studies of hydrogel contact lenses using AFM: non-crosslinked polymers of low friction at the surface. Biomaterials. 2001;22:3285–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu HW, Bhushan B. Nanotribological characterization of molecularly thick lubricant films for applications to MEMS/NEMS by AFM. Ultramicroscopy. 2003;97:321–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Duong CT, Nam JS, Seo EM, Patro BP, Chang JD, Park S, et al. Tribological property of the cobalt-chromium femoral head with different regions of wear in total hip arthroplasty. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2010;224:541–9.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Katta J, Jin ZM, Ingham E, Fisher J. Biotribology of articular cartilage-A review of the recent advances. Med Eng Phys. 2008;30:1349–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schmidt TA, Gastelum NS, Nguyen QT, Schumacher BL, Sah RL. Boundary lubrication of articular cartilage-Role of synovial fluid constituents. Arthritis Rheum-Us. 2007;56:882–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McPherson RA, Pincus MR. Henry’s Clinical Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc.; 2006.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shishido T, Clarke IC, Williams P, Boehler M, Asano T, Shoji H, et al. Clinical and simulator wear study of alumina ceramic THR to 17 years and beyond. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2003;67B:638–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Product information: Bovine serum albumin and gamma globulin. Retrieved from
  33. 33.
    Arias DF, Marulanda DM, Baena AM, Devia A. Determination of friction coefficient on ZrN and TiN using lateral force microscopy (LFM). Wear. 2006;261:1232–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liu Y, Wu T, Evans DF. Lateral Force Microscopy Study on the Shear Properties of Self-Assembled Monolayers of Dialkylammonium Surfactant on Mica. Langmuir. 1994;10:2241–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kageshima M, Ogiso H, Nakano S, Lantz MA, Tokumoto H. Atomic force microscopy cantilevers for sensitive lateral force detection. Jpn J Appl Phys 1. 1999;38:3958–61.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cannara RJ, Eglin M, Carpick RW. Lateral force calibration in atomic force microscopy: A new lateral force calibration method and general guidelines for optimization. Rev Sci Instrum. 2006;77:-.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ho SP, Carpick RW, Boland T, LaBerge M. Nanotribology of CoCr-UHMWPE TJR prosthesis using atomic force microscopy. Wear. 2002;253:1145–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nakashima K, Sawae Y, Murakami T. Study on wear reduction mechanisms of artificial cartilage by synergistic protein boundary film formation. Jsme Int J C-Mech Sy. 2005;48:555–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chandrasekaran M, Wei LY, Venkateshwaran KK, Batchelor AW, Loh NL. Tribology of UHMWPE tested against a stainless steel counterface in unidirectional sliding in presence of model synovial fluids: part 1. Wear. 1998;223:13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cong-Truyen Duong
    • 1
  • Jae-Hoon Lee
    • 1
  • Younho Cho
    • 1
  • Ju-Suk Nam
    • 2
  • Hyong-Nyun Kim
    • 2
  • Sang-Soo Lee
    • 2
  • Seonghun Park
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Mechanical Engineering & Institute for Skeletal Aging, Pusan National UniversityBusanRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Orthopedic Surgery & Institute for Skeletal Aging, Hallym University, College of MedicineChuncheonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations