Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:26:33.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physico-chemical Effects of Gelatin Addition in Carboxymethylcellulose and Calcium Phosphate Cement-based Nanocomposites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2019

Esra Güben  and
Duygu Ege
Esra Güben*
Affiliation:
Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey
Duygu Ege
Affiliation:
Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey
*
*(Email: [email protected])
Get access

Abstract:

Nanocomposites comprising of biopolymers and calcium phosphate cements (CaP) are promising due to their biocompatibility, non-toxicity, biodegradability and suitable mechanical properties for biomedical applications. In here, a new composite material was synthesized with carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) and gelatin (GEL) as the liquid phase and CaP based powder as the solid phase. In this study, the effect of addition of different wt% of GEL including 0, 5, 10, 20 in the liquid phase was investigated on the physical properties of the nanocomposites. Physico-chemical characteristics of materials were determined by using Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and mechanical tests. Swelling analysis was performed after 1, 8, 16, 24 and 48 hours and degradation of samples was studied after 7 and 14 days. FTIR results showed that there was physical interaction between CMC and GEL with H bonding which was evident from the peak at 3288cm-1. Disruption in GEL structure was observed from the band at 1600-1400 cm-1 Disruption of GEL structure may increase the interaction between CMC and GEL molecules. After mixing of solid and liquid phases, negative charged COO- groups on CMC and Ca2+ molecules from CaP start to interact with each other. This produces attraction sites for PO43- molecules. This lead to accumulation of hydroxyapatite-like structures. A homogenous and porous microstructure was observed by using SEM in all samples. Mechanical tests showed that GEL improved the strength of the samples up to 20 wt% of GEL. The addition of 20 wt% of GEL decreased the mechanical properties. The compressive strength values were found up to approximately 6 MPa. Swelling results revealed that increasing in GEL concentration cause decrease in swelling until the 16th hour, after that 10wt% GEL samples had the lowest swelling which was approximately 28%. Finally, degradation studies indicated that the highest degradation rate was for 10% GEL incorporated samples. Addition of further GEL also reduced the degradation rate. Overall, the addition of GEL improved physical properties of the samples for potential biomedical applications.

Keywords

biomaterialbiomimeticcompositestress/strain relationship
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 4 , Issue 46-47: Soft Materials and Biomaterials , 2019 , pp. 2453 - 2459
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References:

Meital, Zilberman, editor. Stud. Mechanobiology Tissue Eng. Biomater. 8. Springer US; 2011.Google Scholar
Dorozhkin, S. J. Funct Biomater. 2013; 4: 209–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habraken, WJEM, De Jonge, LT, Wolke, JGC, Yubao, L, Mikos, AG, Jansen, JA. J Biomed. Mater. Res. - Part A. 2008; 87: 643–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, RA, Kim, HW, Ginebra, MP. J. Tissue Eng. 2012; 3: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Liu, W., Schnitzler, V., Tancret, F., and Bouler, J. M., Acta Biomater., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1035–1049, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nawawi, N. A., Alqap, A. S.F., and Sopyan, I., Recent Patents Mater. Sci. 2011;4, 1: 63–80.Google Scholar
Manjubala, I, Basu, P, Narendrakumar, U. Colloid and Polymer Science; 2018;17: 29–37.Google Scholar
Engstrand, J., Persson, C., and Engqvist, H., Biomatter, 2013;3,4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaihre, B, Jayasuriya, AC. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. Elsevier B.V.; 2016; 69:733–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demitri, C, Sole, R Del, Scalera, F, Sannino, A, Vasapollo, G, Maffezzoli, A, et al. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2008; 110: 2453-2460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigi, A, Bracci, B, Panzavolta, S. Biomaterials. 2004; 25: 2893–2899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez-Heredia, MA, Sariibrahimoglu, K, Yang, W, Bohner, M, Yamashita, D, Kunstar, A, et al. Acta Biomater. Acta Materialia Inc.; 2012; 8: 404–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashem, M., Sharaf, S., Abd El-Hady, M. M., and Hebeish, A., Carbohydr. Polym., 2013;95,1:421–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowska, J., Stachowiak, N., and Sionkowska, A., Polymers (Basel).2018;10, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duhoranimana, E, Karangwa, E, Lai, L, Xu, X, Yu, J, Xia, S, et al. Food Hydrocoll. Elsevier Ltd; 2017; 69:111–120.Google Scholar
Buhus, G, Peptu, C, Popa, M, Desbrières, J. Cellul. Chem. Technol. 2009; 43:141–151.Google Scholar
Medvecky, L., Giretova, M., and Sopcak, T., Mater. Lett., 2013;100:137–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarker, A, Linh, NTB, Jung, H Il, Seo, HS, Lee, BT. Macromol. Res. 2014; 22: 1297–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohamed, KR, Beherei, HH, El-Rashidy, ZM. J. Adv. Res. Cairo University; 2014; 5: 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliaz, N. and Metoki, N., Materials (Basel).,2017; 10,334:1–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, N. L., Barrère-de Groot, F., and Grijpma, D. W., Elsevier Inc., 2014;177–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, Z., Li, Z., Zhang, F., and Peng, X., J. Macromol. Sci. Part A Pure Appl. Chem., 2014;51,8: 646–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Yao, Y., Wei, A., Shen, L., and Chen, S., IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., 2018; 439,4: 0–6.Google Scholar
Jiankang, et al., Acta Biomater., 2009;5,1: 453–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bose, S., Roy, M., Bandyopadhyay, A.. Trends Biotechnol. 2012;30(10): 546–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar