Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study assesses in vitro biocompatibility, corrosion kinetics, electrochemical passivation, and hardness of laser powder bed fusion (LPBF)-fabricated AMLOY-ZR01 (Zr 59.3 Cu 28.8 Al 10.4 Nb 1.5 at%) bulk metallic glass (BMG) across a systematic processing matrix - laser power 33-80 W; scan speeds 75-710 mm s −1 ; normalized enthalpy parameter ( ΔH ) = 34, 44, and 54, and volumetric energy density ( VED ) ≈ 28-112 J mm −3 . The novelty lies in integrating cyclic polarization, potentiostatic electrochemical impedance spectroscopy with equivalent-circuit modeling (R(Q(RW)) (QR)), microhardness mapping, and comprehensive Saos-2 assays (Live/Dead, Alamar Blue, scanning electron microscopy, and confocal laser scanning microscopy) to create a process-structure-bio response map for a Zr-based BMG. The methodology combined quantitative electrochemistry ( J corr , E corr , η pit , η rp ), EIS-derived film/bulk-material resistances, capacitances, and Warburg impedance, and cell metabolic/proliferation metrics to link passive-film robustness with early osteoblastic activity. Results identify an optimal normalized enthalpy ΔH = 34 and 44, VED window (≈70-90 J mm −3 ) that minimizes porosity (∼0.02-0.05%) and J corr while maximizing day-3 metabolic activity (∼26-28 a.u.). Representative outcomes include the lowest annual corrosion rate below 1 mpy, the largest pitting margin ( η pit = 424 mV), and hardness spanning ∼504-564 HV 0.2 . EIS parameters (R 1 , R 2 ) delineate ranges of ≈0.87-827 Ω cm 2 and 0.41-84.5 Ω cm 2 , respectively, linking film resistance to cell response. Qualitatively, LPBF AMLOY-ZR01 processed within the optimal window shows passivation and cytocompatibility comparable to or better than crystalline/as-cast references.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hadibeik et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: