Brasil
Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology
Tabla de contenido Anterior Actual Siguiente
Tabla de contenido
Article - Biological, Medical and Health Technologies • Braz. arch. biol. technol. 69 • 2026 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4324-2026250631 linkcopy

Open-access How do Time and Temperature Affect the Viscosity of Silicone for Cold Temperature Plastination?

AuthorshipSCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Plastination is a technique for the preservation of biological tissues, whose principle is the replacement of water and tissue lipids by a cured polymer. In the forced impregnation step in the cold temperature method, the silicone polymer PDMS (polydimethylsiloxane) with the catalyst DBTL (dibutyltin dilaurate) permeates the tissue and occupies the cellular and interstitial space. However, this impregnation mixture is reactive, increasing its viscosity over time and, therefore, must be kept at low temperatures to reduce the reaction rate. It is known, however, that the more viscous the mixture, the greater the tissue shrinkage it promotes. There are no comparative studies in the literature of reactive mixtures with different silicones that analyze viscosity changes as a function of temperature and time. Thus, this study aimed to analyze the variation in the viscosities of Biodur® S10 (control) and Polisil® P1 silicones stored at defined temperatures (-25, -15, 5, and 25 ºC) for 18 months to evaluate their use in plastination. Viscosity measurements were performed using a rotational rheometer from ThermoFisher Scientific brand, Haake Mars IV model. Mixtures stored at -25 °C had the smallest viscosity increases over time, especially for mixtures with silicone with lower initial viscosity (P1). In view of the results, it is advantageous to use impregnation mixtures composed of low viscosity silicones, such as P1, stored at temperaturesbelow -15 ºC.

Keywords:
plastination; viscosity; silicone; temperature.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Lower viscosity silicones can be used for longer periods of time in plastination.

• The lower the storage temperature of the impregnation mixture, the longer it can be used for plastination.

• The relationship between temperature, viscosity and tissue shrinkage must be considered in plastination.

• The use of low viscosity silicones, in addition to having a longer viability period, promotes less tissue shrinkage.

INTRODUCTION

The natural tendency of biological tissues is to decompose after death, leading to putrefaction. For this reason, many techniques have been developed to enable the preservation of bodies [1]. In 1977, an innovative technique for the preparation of anatomical specimens was developed: plastination, which is an embalming process developed by Gunther von Hagens, a physician and professor at the University of Heidelberg (Germany). In this technique, biological tissue is not only preserved, but kept inert, realistic, and antiseptic [2].

Besides avoiding the use of toxic preservative solutions and unpleasant odors for the maintenance of anatomical specimens, such as formaldehyde, plastination increases the durability of the specimens, and enables handling, which is extremely useful for research and educational activities in anatomy, whether in the academic or museum environment [3].

According to von Hagens, Tiedemann and Kriz (1987) [2], this technique is conducted via a process consisting basically of four stages: fixation in formalin at 10% (v/v), dehydration in alcohol or acetone, forced impregnation with the use of the polymer of choice, and chemical or photochemical curing. With plastination, the fluids in the tissues are replaced by polymers, which can be silicone, epoxy, or polyester. Each polymer is used for a purpose, producing specimens with different optical and mechanical characteristics. Silicone (polydimethylsiloxane - PDMS), for example, is ideal for preserving organs and whole pieces of biological tissues with a larger volume.

In the forced impregnation stage, specimens are submerged in a mixture of the polymer of interest with their respective curing agents. For room temperature plastination with silicone (20 to 25 ºC), the impregnation mixture (or reaction mixture) consists of silicone and its crosslinker (tetraethyl silicate - TES), at a concentration of 8% (w/w). In the cold temperature (-25 to -15 ºC) method, this mixture consists of silicone and its catalyst (dibutyl tin dilaurate - DBTL), at a concentration of 1% (w/w). This stage of the process is usually slow and gradual and occurs under the action of progressive vacuum in a specific chamber, aiming to replacing acetone in the tissue with the polymer [2]. One of the drawbacks of cold temperature plastination is precisely due to the use of the reactive mixture (silicone and catalyst). The literature shows that this mixture can already induce the polymerization of silicone (unlike the mixture of silicone only with its crosslinker), with an increase in viscosity over time [4], without forming crosslinks. Although the mixture remains at low temperatures to slow down the reaction, the literature lacks studies that evaluate the degree of polymerization or the variation of its viscosity at different temperatures over time. Thus, the ideal temperature conditions for impregnation and storage of the mixture are not known so that it can maintain its rheological characteristics and be used in the plastination process without damage or loss of quality of the final product, since a higher viscosity of the polymer promotes greater tissue shrinkage, resulting in specimens with distorted dimensions [5]. Thus, depending on the increase in silicone viscosity, the mixture should no longer be used in the technique to avoid excessive tissue shrinkage.

Silicone plastination is a valuable research and teaching tool, particularly in the medical and biological sciences. Understanding how the rheological behavior of the impregnation mixture changes over time can have a direct impact on these fields. In teaching and research, the expectation is that the plastinated specimen will have the lowest possible shrinkage compared to the natural specimen, especially when it comes to morphometric analyses [1,2].

In this sense, the evaluation of the viscosities of impregnation mixtures composed of PDMS silicones of different viscosities and their DBTL catalysts for plastination at low temperatures over time could indicate the appropriate time for storage and safe use of the impregnation mixture, avoiding polymer waste - a costly product (approximately 36 euros/kg for S10 silicone, July 2024 quotation).

This study aimed to analyze the variation in viscosity of impregnation mixtures of Biodur S10 (higher viscosity) and Polisil P1 (lower viscosity) silicones, stored at different temperatures (-25, -15, 5, and 25 ºC) for 18 months, to assess their feasibility in plastination and discuss the implications for the technique.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this study, the polymers Biodur S10 (from Germany), the reference silicone in plastination, and Polisil P1, a silicone commercialized in Brazil, were used. According to the product datasheets, S10 has a viscosity of 400-600 mPa.s, and P1’s viscosity is <100 mPa.s at 25 ºC.

For all viscosity measurements, a ThermoFisher Scientific rotational rheometer, model Haake Mars IV, with a sample volume of 10 mL and a shear rate between 100 and 600 s-1 was used. All measurements were performed in duplicate and expressed as the mean.

A previous study involving S10 and P1 resins was also conducted, without the use of the catalyst. In this case, viscosity measurements were conducted within the temperature range of -10 to 30 ºC, at intervals of 2.5 °C.

Over 18 months, viscosity measurements were performed on the reactive mixtures S10/S3 and P1/DBTL (respective silicones/catalysts combinations). For the preparation of the mixtures, a mass of approximately 400 g of the polymer and 1% (w/w) of the catalyst were used. The mixtures were prepared manually using a glass stirring rod for two minutes. A sample of each experimental group (S10 and P1) was stored in a horizontal freezer (Fricon, model HCED503) at temperatures of I) -25 ºC; II) -15 ºC; III) 5 ºC; IV) 25 ºC, with maximum temperature variations of ± 2 ºC. The monthly viscosity measurements of each sample were performed in the temperature range of -10 to 30 ºC, at intervals of 2.5 °C. The samples removed for the measurements were discarded at the end of the tests.

RESULTS

From the rheological study initially conducted with pure silicone samples, data on the viscosities of each polymer as a function of temperature were obtained. Table 1 and Figure 1 show these values.

Thumbnail
Table 1
Viscosity values (Pa.s) of pure silicones P1 and S10 at different temperatures.

thumbnail of Figure 1
Figure 1
Viscosity curves versus temperature of pure S10 and P1 silicones. Legend: y = viscosity; x = temperature.

According to the manufacturer’s information, Biodur S10 silicone should have a viscosity ranging from 0.4-0.6 Pa.s at 25 °C. The experimental data show that the value obtained was 0.468 Pa.s, which is in accordance with the information provided by the supplier.

Silicone P1 has lower viscosity values throughout the analyzed temperature range when compared to S10. At the highest measurement temperature (30 °C), the viscosity value observed was 0.063 Pa.s for silicone P1 and 0.419 Pa.s for S10, i.e., S10’s viscosity is approximately 6.6 times higher than that of P1. For the lowest temperature analyzed (-10 ºC), viscosities of 0.132 and 1.249 Pa.s were obtained for the P1 and S10 silicones, respectively. For comparison purposes, at the negative temperature mentioned, the viscosity of S10 silicone was 9.4 times higher than that of P1. The lower the temperature used, the greater the viscosity difference between silicones. In addition, it is notable that the S10 polymer is more sensitive to temperature variation than P1 (Figure 1).

The difference in viscosity between the silicones tested is mainly due to the difference in the sizes of the polymer chains. Silicone S10 is composed of a distribution of larger chains compared to P1, which increases its molecular interactions and, consequently, increases viscosity [4,5,6].

Table 2 and Figure 2 present the viscosity results measured at 20 °C to compare the viscosities of S10 and P1 silicone impregnation mixtures stored at different temperatures (-25, -15, 5, 25 °C) over 18 months. Month zero corresponds to the first measurement performed, immediately after the silicone and catalyst were mixed.

Thumbnail
Table 2
Viscosity values as a function of time of the reactive mixtures of S10 and P1 silicones measured at 20°C for samples stored at test temperatures (-25°C, -15°C, 5°C, and 25°C).

thumbnail of Figure 2
Figure 2
Viscosity curves versus time for the reactive mixtures of S10 and P1 silicones stored at temperatures of -25°C measured at 20 °C. Legend: y = viscosity; x = temperature.

In the analysis of the viscosity of the impregnation mixtures over time, the tests of the samples were discontinued from month three, when stored at 25 °C, and from month eight when kept at 5 °C. Results could not be obtained under the conditions described above due to the considerable increase in the viscosity of the resins, which exceeded the specified viscosity range of the available equipment (Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5). For the reactive samples of both S10 and P1 stored at negative temperatures (-15°C and -25°C), a clear increase in viscosity was observed over time, but measurements were still feasible at the end of the 18-month follow-up (Table 2 and Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5).

thumbnail of Figure 3
Figure 3
Viscosity curves versus time for the reactive mixtures of S10 and P1 silicones stored at temperatures of -15°C measured at 20 °C. Legend: y = viscosity; x = temperature.

thumbnail of Figure 4
Figure 4
Viscosity curves versus time for the reactive mixtures of S10 and P1 silicones stored at temperatures of 5°C measured at 20 °C. Legend: y = viscosity; x = temperature.

thumbnail of Figure 5
Figure 5
Viscosity curves versus time for the reactive mixtures of S10 and P1 silicones stored at temperatures of 25°C measured at 20 °C. Legend: y = viscosity; x = temperature.

The results demonstrate that the variation of viscosity over time shows an exponential growth for all the conditions studied. Futhermore, it was verified that the higher the storage temperature, the greater the observed viscosity increase. These results indicate that the binding reactions between the terminal hydroxyl groups of the polymeric molecules are accelerated with increasing temperature. In this sense, it was evident that storing impregnation mixtures at lower temperatures slows down the viscosity-increasing reaction (Figure 2). It is also notable that under all the conditions studied, polymer P1 consistently exhibited lower viscosities than S10.

Table 2 and Figures 2, 3, 4 e 5 show that at month zero, the S10 silicone mixture was approximately 7.6 times more viscous than that of P1 at a storage temperature of -25 °C, and by the end of 18 months, S10 was three times more viscous than P1. At the storage temperature of -15 °C, S10 was 7.6 times more viscous than P1 at month zero, and at month 18, the difference was 2.6 times. For both storage temperatures, there was a gradual decrease in the difference in the viscosities of the impregnation mixtures over the months of evaluation.

In addition, P1 already has a lower initial viscosity, which contributes to its viscosities at different storage temperatures remaining lower compared to S10 throughout all months of analysis, even with the addition of the DBTL catalyst.

From another perspective, Figures 6 and 7 show the comparison between the storage temperatures of -25 and -15 °C within the respective silicon groups (P1 or S10), with the recording temperature always fixed at 20 °C. The storage temperatures of -25 and -15 °C were chosen because they are the most used impregnation temperatures in the literature.

thumbnail of Figure 6
Figure 6
Comparison of viscosity curves at 20 °C versus storage time of S10 silicone at the respective storage temperatures of -25 and -15 °C. Source: Prepared by the author.

thumbnail of Figure 7
Figure 7
Comparison of viscosity curves at 20 °C vs storage time of P1 silicone at the respective storage temperatures of -25 and -15 °C.

The difference between the viscosity curves of the mixtures with S10 at storage temperatures of -15 ºC and -25 ºC increases over the months, given the direct relationship between temperature and the rate of the viscosity-increasing reaction. The same trend is observed for P1 (Figures 6 and 7).

For standardization, viscosity comparisons were performed only at a fixed temperature of 20 °C. However, for an analysis more directly applicable to plastination practice, which utilizes impregnation temperatures of -25 ºC or -15 ºC, it was necessary to extrapolate the curves obtained for each month using the equations derived from the graphs, as the rheometer's minimum measurement temperature was limited to -10 °C. These calculated measurements allow for a more practical observation of the influence of storage time and temperature on viscosity increase and enable correlation of viscosity with tissue shrinkage rate caused during the forced impregnation stage.

Table 3 shows the viscosity values of each sample at its own storage temperature. It should be noted that Table 2 and Figures 2 to 7 utilized viscosity values read by the rheometer at 20 °C for the different subgroups, whereas Table 3 and Figure 8 present the viscosity values extrapolated to the temperatures used in plastination (-25 °C or -15 °C).

Thumbnail
Table 3
Viscosity values of the impregnation mixtures with S10 and P1 silicones at different storage temperatures over the 18 months of analysis.

thumbnail of Figure 8
Figure 8
Comparison of viscosity curves versus time among subgroups stored at temperatures of -25, -15, 5, and25 °C on a base-2 logarithmic scale.

Figure 8 shows the scatter plot of the viscosity data in Table 3 on a base-2 logarithmic scale.

DISCUSSION

The different viscosities found in PDMS silicones, such as S10 and P1, can be primarily determined by the degree of polymerization of the molecules. That is, a longer silicone chain produces more intermolecular interactions with adjacent molecules and, as a result, the flow resistance (fluidity) will be lower. Within PDMS, the molecular weight factor is very strong and directly proportional to viscosity [5,6]. Another important factor for determining the viscosity of silicones is temperature, as observed in Figure 1. The increase in temperature is accompanied by an increase in the kinetic energy of the polymer molecules which, consequently, increases the spacing between the molecule chains and weakens the intermolecular interactions, facilitating flow [5,6].

According to Sora and coauthors (2015) [4], the addition of the DBTL catalyst to PDMS silicone causes the chain extension of the silicone molecules with an “end-to-end” alignment. DBTL promotes the chain extension of HO-PDMS-OH due to the intermolecular condensation of silanol groups [7] (Figure 9). Furthermore, according to the author, longer chains result in more viscous polymers, and theoretically, chain extension begins when DBTL and the polymer are mixed. This reaction is drastically slowed down at temperatures below -15 °C but not stopped.

thumbnail of Figure 9
Figure 9
Schematic of the PDMS chain extension reaction with DBTL.

It is important to emphasize that when choosing the temperature for forced impregnation of biological tissues with silicone, two fundamental principles must be considered: the vapor pressure of acetone and the viscosity of silicone. At lower temperatures, the reaction of increasing the viscosity of the silicone is reduced (increasing its useful life), however, the vapor pressure of acetone also decreases, making it more difficult to extract under vacuum and requiring a higher final vacuum and longer time for complete extraction. For example, the acetone vapor pressure is about 15.8, 29.8, 90.3 and 229.5 mmHg at -25, -15, 5 and 25 ◦C, respectively (from Dortmund Data Bank website - http://ddbonline.ddbst.de/AntoineCalculation/AntoineCalculationCGI.exe). However, it is also known that higher impregnation temperatures increase the rate of the polymerization reaction of the impregnation mixture, thereby increasing the viscosity of the silicone, which is directly related to tissue shrinkage. Several studies show that the higher the viscosity of the silicone, the greater the tissue shrinkage caused during the impregnation stage [4,5,6,8]. The mechanism for the difference in shrinkage appears to be primarily due to the greater resistance of the higher-viscosity polymer (larger molecular chain) to tissue permeation, while acetone volatilizes and exits the tissue more easily, causing the tissue to collapse and shrink [4,5]. Given this dilemma, some authors propose an impregnation temperature of -25 °C [2,9], while others suggest -15 °C [6,10]. Yet other studies indicate temperatures between -15 and -25 °C [11,12,13].

Although the idea that the viscosity of the impregnation mixture influences tissue shrinkage is described in the literature, as already mentioned, there are very few studies evaluating the quantitative impact of the relationship between silicone viscosity and tissue shrinkage. One of these authors, Monteiro (2022) [12] quantified the shrinkage of sections area (15 mm) of different types of biological tissues using two distinct impregnation mixtures composed of a less viscous silicone (P1) and a higher viscosity one (S10). Using an impregnation temperature of -18 ºC, the P1 silicone had a viscosity of 0.420 Pa.s and promoted an average retraction of approximately 7%, while S10, with a viscosity of 1.250 Pa.s, promoted a retraction on the order of 15%.

In another research, Monteiro and coauthors (2022) [6] measured the volumetric shrinkage (more appropriate and accurate than area shrinkage) of bovine kidney tissue caused by cold temperature impregnation mixtures composed of silicones with different viscosities. As a result, it was found that one of the silicone samples (P10, Polisil), with a viscosity of 3.0 Pa.s at -15 ± 2 °C, promoted a mean tissue shrinkage of 45%, leading to noticeable visual changes and distortions in the external appearance of the specimens. Nevertheless, the silicone sample with a viscosity of 1.2 Pa.s promoted a mean tissue shrinkage of 30%, which was considered an acceptable value and caused low distortions, especially considering it was a newly prepared impregnation mixture using Biodur S10, the world reference silicone in plastination (Figure 10).

thumbnail of Figure 10
Figure 10
Before and after results of impregnation of bovine kidneys with different silicones (S10 and P10) at cold temperature (-15 °C).

Sora and coauthors (2015) [4] also carried out a study in which the increase in viscosity of the impregnation mixture of two different silicones was monitored, but only over a period of 1 month and at different temperatures than in the present study. In this work, storage at different impregnation temperatures was not verified for the cold temperature method and, therefore, it was not possible to analyze the change in viscosity at the negative temperatures most used in plastination (-15 and -25 °C). The author also stated that it is possible to use silicones with up to 4.4 Pa.s for specimens’ impregnation in the plastination process. However, in their work, the shrinkage of the specimens was not quantified nor was it assessed whether there was tissue distortion. In this sense, based on the results already shown by Monteiro and coauthors (2022) [6], it can be stated that within the viscosity range of the study by Sora and coauthors (2015) [4], there may be a very significant degree of shrinkage. This marked degree of shrinkage can be even more worrying in morphometric analyses.

In view of the lack of literature on an acceptable limit of silicone viscosity for use in impregnation and the results found in the study by Monteiro and coauthors (2022) [6], it is suggested that a viscosity of 3 Pa.s at the impregnation temperature used (since viscosity depends on temperature) should be the upper limit for the impregnation of anatomical specimens, so as to avoid excessive shrinkage and preserve their anatomical characteristic.

In addition to temperature and viscosity, different factors can influence the tissue shrinkage of specimens, such as types of biological tissues and specimen exchange surface area [12]. Consequently, specimens that are more dissected (i.e., having a larger exchange surface), cavity organs and with tissues less prone to shrinkage (e.g., bone) could be impregnated with a more viscous silicone (>3 Pa.s) without major visible changes. On the other hand, for morphometric studies, the storage time of the reactive mixture should also be monitored to avoid shrinkage that could undermine or invalidate the research.

In addition to the time specimens are impregnated, during which there is the uptake of silicone inside the chamber, the reactive mixture can be stored for long periods while awaiting the next impregnation, depending on the laboratory’s scheduling and routine. Usually, this waiting time between impregnations is the critical period for increasing viscosity. Therefore, it is suggested that storage be carried out at the lowest possible temperatures depending on the freezer capacity.

From the analysis of Table 3 and Figure 8, and using the proposed viscosity limit of 3 Pa.s for the impregnation mixture as a parameter, the mixtures with the lower viscosity silicone are suitable for impregnation even if stored for a longer period.

For impregnation at -25 °C, the S10 mixture would be indicated for used within approximately 9 months when maintained at this temperature, whereas P1 could be used for more than 18 months. For a storage temperature of -15 °C, the S10 mixture could be used for approximately 6 months, and P1 for more than 15 months. Finally, at temperatures of 5 and 25 °C, the mixtures become unusable more quickly: between two and three months when stored at 5 °C, and for only one month when stored at 25 °C.

The longer shelf life of the mixture with the lower-viscosity silicone was clear too in the results of Table 3. To reach the initial viscosity (month 0) of S10, P1 takes 15-16 and 9 months at storage temperatures of -25 and -15 °C, respectively. This value is quite significant when considering financial and tissue shrinkage factors. When comparing the same silicone at the most common temperatures used for impregnation at negative temperatures, after approximately one year of storage, the viscosity of the mixture at -15 °C becomes double that of the mixture kept at -25 °C. In addition to promoting less shrinkage, the shorter polymer chains of the more fluid silicone mean it takes longer to reach problematic viscosity levels. Therefore, for researchers working at temperatures of -15°C, it is suggested that storage between impregnations be done at -25°C or below.

Some authors have proposed using the reactive impregnation mixture (silicone and catalyst) at room temperature for plastination [15,16]. According to them, the main advantage is a reduction in impregnation time and easier acetone extraction from the tissue. However, based on our results, the reactive mixture would become unviable in just the first month (Figure 8), allowing for only a few possible simultaneous impregnations (4 impregnations of approximately 7 days), which increases tissue shrinkage and the chances of waste.

The results of this research are of great importance for plastinators, as these data enable better planning for the use of the reactive mixture to avoid polymer waste due to excessive viscosity increase over time, and to reduce the tissue shrinkage in specimens prepared with older mixtures, thus making plastinated specimens more faithful to their original/natural state. Consequently, cold temperature plastination may become more attractive as a technique for preserving biological tissues for other researchers.

Unlike other preservation methods, plastination produces specimens that are more resistant, non-toxic, free of unpleasant odors, and highly durable, and can be handled without the need for personal protective equipment (PPE). Formalin (formaldehyde) for preservation, for example, is the most well-known and applied method, but it presents a chemical risk to students, morphology laboratory workers, and the environment, as it is a carcinogenic, teratogenic, and mucosal irritant [1,2,8].

In this way, the results found may have an impact on the areas of teaching and research. In teaching, producing specimens with less shrinkage may be more appropriate, as it better respects the actual dimensions compared to natural specimens and avoids morphoanatomical distortions. Furthermore, plastinated sections can be better compared in teaching with imaging exams in the medical field. In research, morphometric studies and 3D reconstruction, tools widely used in clinical and applied anatomy research, can generate more accurate and reliable results. Plastination of specimens with less shrinkage may yield better results in microscopic studies, such as histology and pathology [2,14]. As concluded by Ramos and coauthors (2018) [14], plastinated specimens or fragments of biological tissues can be used in histological preparations to produce slides for electron and optical microscopy, for which specimens with less shrinkage are preferable.

The main limitations of this work are the extrapolation of viscosities at temperatures below the rheometer’s measurement range and the lack of shrinkage tests of specimens at different viscosities of the impregnation mixture at cold temperature method for a more accurate determination of the viscosity limit of the impregnation mixture.

CONCLUSION

This work showed, in a pioneering way, the increase in the viscosity of the impregnation mixture in the cold temperature method over 18 months and at different storage temperatures. In this sense, this study concludes that temperature is, in fact, an important factor affecting the viscosity-increasing reaction of silicone impregnation mixtures, in which the more negative the storage temperature, the lower the increase in viscosity over time. The results of this research also demonstrated that silicones with lower viscosity tend to remain viable for plastination for a much longer time compared to more viscous ones. The data and the methodology of analysis and projection presented in this work establish an important tool for planning the use and management of reactive silicone mixtures, ensuring resource savings, minimizing material waste, and improving the quality of the plastinated product. Finally, it is concluded that this work contributes to more ecologically responsible plastination, since it avoids the disposal and production of solid waste.

  • Funding:
    This research was funded by FINEP (Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos).
  • Institutional Review Board Statement:
    Not applicable.
  • Informed Consent Statement:
    Not applicable.
  • Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence:
    The author declare that did not use the artificial intelligence.
  • Declaration of responsibility and license agreement:
    All authors agree to the declaration of Responsibility and License Agreement.

Acknowledgments:

PRPPG/Ufes for the scientific initiation scholarship for A. K. V. and K.M.R.

Data Availability Statement:

Data are available on reasonable request for corresponding author.

REFERENCES

  • 1 Saeed M, Rufai AA, Elsayed S. Mummification To Plastination. Saudi Med J. 2001 Nov;22(11):956-9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11744964/
    » https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11744964/
  • 2 Von Hagens G, Tiedemann K, Kriz W. The current Potential of Plastination. Anat Embryol (Berl). 1987;175(4):411-21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309677
    » https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309677
  • 3 Henry RW. Silicone Plastination of biological tissue: cold temperature technique North Carolina technique and products. J Int Soc Plastination. 2007;22:15-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.56507/DGZJ6845
    » https://doi.org/10.56507/DGZJ6845
  • 4 Sora MC, Boia M, Banciu CD. Silicone (BIODUR) Viscosity and Impregnation in Plastination. Materiale Plastice. 2015;52(4):593-5. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289532818_Silicone_BIODUR_viscosity_and_impregnation_in_plastination
    » https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289532818_Silicone_BIODUR_viscosity_and_impregnation_in_plastination
  • 5 Monteiro YF, Juvenato LS, Bittencourt AP, Siqueira BM, Monteiro FC, Baptista CA, et al. Influence of The Temperature on The Viscosity of Different Types of Silicone. J Int Soc Plastination. 2018;30(1):4-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.56507/HETT9088
    » https://doi.org/10.56507/HETT9088
  • 6 Monteiro YF, Juvenato LS, Bittencourt AP, Baptista CA, Bittencourt AS. Influence of silicone viscosity on shrinkage during room and cold temperature impregnation. J Plastination. 2022;34(1):1-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.56507/AVGH6759
    » https://doi.org/10.56507/AVGH6759
  • 7 Jurásková A, Olsen SM, Skov AL. Reversible Dynamic Behavior of Condensation-Cured Silicone Elastomers Caused by a Catalyst. Macromol Mater Eng. 2023;308(6):2200615. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/mame.202200615
    » https://doi.org/10.1002/mame.202200615
  • 8 Delpupo FV, Cassiano LG, Monteiro YF, Júnior MC, Soares K, Bittencourt AS. Low viscosity silicone with less shrinkage for brain slices. Morphologie. 2024;108(360):100772. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.morpho.2023.100726
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.morpho.2023.100726
  • 9 Miller JR, Henry RW, Nader P, Engstrom MD, Illif S, Chereminski V, et al. The Challenges of Plastinating a Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) Heart. J Plastination. 2017;29(2):1-13. Available from: https://doi.org/10.56507/SJTL1096
    » https://doi.org/10.56507/SJTL1096
  • 10 Dejong K, Henry RW. Silicone Plastination of Biological Tissue: Cold-temperature Technique Biodur© S10/S15 Technique and Products. J Int. Soc. Plast. 2007;22:2-14. Available from: https://doi.org/10.56507/ZLMJ7068
    » https://doi.org/10.56507/ZLMJ7068
  • 11 Nicoll S. Plastination of Specimens Using the Silicone (S10) Technique Following Embalming with Dodge© Products Results in Improved Color Retention and Tissue Differentiation. J Plastination. 2021;33(1):1-10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.56507/TNNI3327
    » https://doi.org/10.56507/TNNI3327
  • 12 Monteiro YF, Silva MVF, Bittencourt APSV, Bittencourt AS. Plastination with low viscosity silicone: strategy for less tissue shrinkage. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2022;55:1-.10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1590/1414-431X2022e11962
    » https://doi.org/10.1590/1414-431X2022e11962
  • 13 Miller JR, Albors OL, Raverty S, Cottrell P, Engstrom MD, Latorre R. Plastination of an endangered southern resident killer whale heart (Orcinus orca). J Plastination. 2021;33(1):1-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.56507/JWUL5276
    » https://doi.org/10.56507/JWUL5276
  • 14 Ramos M L, De Paula TR, Zerlotini MF, Silva VH. A Comparison of Different De-plastination Methodologies for Preparing Histological Sections of Material Plastinated with Biodur® S10 / S3. J Plastination. 2018;30(1):10-5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.56507/OHLF5315
    » https://doi.org/10.56507/OHLF5315
  • 15 Ottone NE, Cirigliano V, Bianchi HF, Medan CD, Algieri RD, Brum GB, et al. New contributions to the development of a plastination technique at room temperature with silicone. Anat Sci Int. 2015 Jan;90:126-35. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12565-014-0258-6
    » https://doi.org/10.1007/s12565-014-0258-6
  • 16 Baygeldi SB, Ozkan ZE, Yilmaz S, Aslan Kanmaz Y. Silicone plastination of nasus and lingua in large ruminants with and without use of formaldehyde. Int J Morphol. 2022;40(4):966-72. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022022000400966
    » https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022022000400966
  • Editor-in-Chief:
    Paulo Vitor Farago
  • Associate Editor:
    Andressa Novatski

Publication Dates

  • Publication in this collection
    17 Aug 2026
  • Date of issue
    2026

History

  • Received
    07 Sept 2025
  • Accepted
    25 May 2026
Creative Common - by 4.0
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
location_on
Instituto de Tecnologia do Paraná - Tecpar Rua Prof. Algacyr Munhoz Mader, 3775 - CIC, 81350-010 , Tel: +55 41 3316-3054 - Curitiba - PR - Brazil
E-mail: babt@tecpar.br
rss_feed Acompañe los números de esta revista en su lector de RSS
Notificar error