4.7 Article

Hemocompatibility and film stability improvement of crosslinkable MPC copolymer coated polypropylene hollow fiber membrane

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 452, 期 -, 页码 29-36

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2013.10.032

关键词

Artificial lung; Hollow fiber membrane; Surface modification; Hemocompatibility; Phosphorylcholine

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21244001, 21374087]
  2. Shaanxi Science and Technology Development Project [2010K09-04]
  3. Shaanxi Science and Technology Coordination Innovation Engineering project [2011K12-77]
  4. Japan Science Society [S11-001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hollow fiber membranes (HFMs) based artificial lungs require a large blood-contacting membrane surface area to provide adequate gas exchange. However, such a large surface presents significant challenges to hemocompatibility. For improving the hemocompatibility, amphiphilic and cell outer membrane mimetic 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC) copolymers containing 3-(Trimethoxysilyl)propyl methacrylate (TSMA) and/or n-butyl methacrylate (BMA) units, poly(MPC-co-BMA-co-TSMA) (PMBT) and poly(MPC-co-BMA) (PMB) were coated on a commercial polypropylene (PP) HEM. Dynamic contact angle, ATR-FTIR and XPS results showed that both the PMB and PMBT phospholipid polymer coatings are stable in water, but only the crosslinked PMBT coating can resist the dissolution by ethanol or SDS aqueous solution. Protein adsorption, platelet adhesion and whole blood contact experiments showed significant improvement in hemocompatibility after being coated with the PMBT. Moreover, oxygenation experiments indicated that the blood compatible coating could resist blood permeance and did not hinder the gas exchange. Overall these findings revealed improved hemocompatibility which can be realized through crosslinkable phospholipid polymer coating, enabling more stable and more biocompatible HFMs respiratory assist devices. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据