4.6 Article

Synthesis and evaluating of carbon nanoallotrope-biomacromolecule gel composites as drug delivery systems

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED POLYMER SCIENCE
卷 138, 期 33, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/app.50830

关键词

biomaterials; differential scanning calorimetry (DSC); kinetics; nanoparticles; nanowires and nanocrystals; non‐ polymeric materials and composites

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study assessed the role of precursors in carbon nanoallotropes-biomacromolecules composite drug delivery system, and found that Cs-GO gel composite provided better control for niacin release.
This work was done to assess the role of precursors (agro and graphite) on performance of carbon nanoallotropes-biomacromolecules composite as drug delivery for controlling the release of niacin. In this respect graphene oxide and bagasse-based carbon oxide were synthesized and chelated with chitosan (Cs-GO and Cs-Co). These gel composites were characterized by many techniques [morphology, differential scanning calorimetry, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy, swelling, encapsulation efficiency (EE) and loading (L) % of niacin. Another series of experiments was carried out for studying the role of replacing part of carbon nanoallotrope by carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) on performance of produced drug carries, these systems were coded as Cs-GO-CMC and Cs-Co-CMC. The data showed that, the Cs-GO gel composite provided maximum release of NA, at 5 h, for pH's simulated gastric and intestinal fluids; pH. 2.1 and pH 7.4 (1120 mg/L and 757 mg/L). The incorporation of CMC is not acceptable as it provided low drug release together with burst release of NA-drug, and consequently possible caused tissue irritation or toxicity in the human body. The Cs-GO and Cs-CO systems with relatively low drug loading were recommended for their better controllability system to NA release, which prolonging benefit of human with niacin. The NA release from all investigated gels followed Fickian and non-Fickian diffusion mechanisms.

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

4.6
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