4.7 Article

Evaluation of bone-like apatite biomineralization on biomimetic graphene oxide/hydroxyapatite nanocomposite

Journal

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 149, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.inoche.2023.110450

Keywords

Graphene oxide; Hydroxy apatite; Biomineralization; Bone-like apatite

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Graphene oxide/hydroxy apatite (GO/HAp) nanocomposites were synthesized using different ratios of HAp through a hydrothermal process. The impact of these ratios on the growth of bone-like HAp crystals was investigated, and the bioactivity of the GO/HAp nanocomposites was tested in a simulated body fluid solution. Characterization techniques such as FTIR, XRD, and TEM confirmed the successful synthesis of GO/HAp nanocomposites.
Graphene oxide/Hydroxy apatite (GO/HAp) nanocomposites are fabricated with the different ratios of HAp by hydrothermal process. In this study, the additive influence of the different ratios of HAp on bone-like HAp crystal growth was investigated. We tested the influences of the different ratios of HAp on the bioactivity ability of GO/ HAp nanocomposite via biomineralization assay in a simulated body fluid (SBF) solution. The formation of GO/ HAp nanocomposite was confirmed by Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR), X-ray Diffraction (XRD), and Trans-mission Electron Microscopy (TEM). Here, GO/HAp nanocomposite was synthesized with three weight per-centages of HAp (low, mid, and, high) and tested to induce biomineralization in a simulated body fluid (SBF) solution. To observe the mineralization of bone-like apatite on the GO nanosheet's surface, Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FE-SEM) and Energy-dispersive X-ray spectrum (EDX) elemental mapping were utilized. Biomineralization test results exhibited that the GO with a higher amount of HAp accelerated the deposition of like apatite structures in an in vitro model.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available