Session: ASME Undergraduate Student Design Expo

Paper Number: 176162

Effects of Mechanical Vibration Parameters on Cell Viability 

Introduction: Vibrational effects on the human body and on individual cells are not fully understood, yet they hold significant implications for both structural integrity and biological processes. At the cellular level, mechanical vibration may alter membrane stability, trigger signaling cascades, or disrupt viability, with downstream effects on tissues and overall organismal health. Understanding these direct and emergent consequences is critical for clarifying how vibration influences biological systems. The goal of this research is to investigate how controlled vibrational parameters affect the structural integrity of the cell membrane and, consequently, cell survival. While epidemiological evidence links vibration to health outcomes, relatively few studies have systematically tested how defined vibrational conditions influence cell viability.

Methodology: The study utilized SAOS2 osteosarcoma cells as a robust and reproducible model for evaluating cellular responses to mechanical vibration. As an osteoblast-like cell line, SAOS-2 cells are naturally mechanosensitive and possess cytoskeletal structures adapted to mechanical loading, which makes them well-suited for vibration-based studies. Their resilience and consistency in culture provide a reliable baseline for assessing vibrational effects before extending investigations to more sensitive primary cells or tissue-specific models.

Manual hemocytometry with trypan blue staining was used to evaluate cell viability across five groups tested in three independent rounds, with three trials per group per round. Four experimental groups (T1–T4) were exposed to vibration treatments for 20 minutes under distinct combinations of frequency and magnitude. T1 received high frequency (90 Hz) and low magnitude (0.5 g), T2 high frequency (90 Hz) and high magnitude (1.5 g), T3 low frequency (10 Hz) and low magnitude (0.5 g), and T4 low frequency (10 Hz) and high magnitude (1.5 g). The vibration parameters were selected based on biological relevance and prior evidence. Low frequency (10 Hz) was included because previous studies indicate that spinal bone tissue resonates near this range, making cells potentially more sensitive to low-frequency loading. Magnitudes above 1 g are known to impose excessive mechanical stress, so both mild (0.5 g) and higher (1.5 g) conditions were tested. Additionally, our group's preliminary work with higher frequencies around 90 Hz at lower amplitudes has shown beneficial effects on cell proliferation, motivating the inclusion of this condition for comparison.

C1 served as the base control, incubated for 20 minutes under identical conditions but without vibration. After treatments, cells were detached with Accutase, suspended in fresh media, and centrifuged. Following resuspension, cell samples were mixed with trypan blue, loaded onto hemocytometer plates, and counted to determine viability.

Results: Across all conditions, cell viability remained consistently high, generally above 85%. Vibration exposure did not reduce survival relative to the control. Magnitude influenced viability more than frequency, with frequency playing a smaller role. Although some variability occurred between rounds, the overall pattern pointed to vibration intensity as the more critical factor.

Conclusion: These findings demonstrate that short-term vibration exposure does not compromise cell viability and may, under certain conditions, help maintain survival comparable to or slightly better than controls. The results suggest that magnitude has a greater impact on cell response than frequency, underscoring the importance of loading intensity in mechanobiological studies. Overall, the work provides preliminary evidence that carefully controlled vibrational environments can preserve cellular viability in vitro and establishes a foundation for further studies aimed at linking mechanical loading parameters to cellular health outcomes.

Presenting Author: James Daniel Yeatman Mississippi State University

Presenting Author Biography: James (Daniel) Yeatman is a junior majoring in Biomedical Engineering at Mississippi State University. Originally from Birmingham, Alabama, He plans to pursue medical school after graduation with the goal of combining clinical practice and research. His research interests include mechanical stimuli, epigenetics, and regenerative medicine.

Authors:

James Daniel Yeatman Mississippi State University
Hayes Henry Mississippi State University
Eric Flynn Mabowitz Mississippi State University