4.5 Article

Novel cyclomatrix polyphosphazene nanospheres: preparation, characterization and dual anticancer drug release application

期刊

POLYMER BULLETIN
卷 79, 期 5, 页码 2851-2869

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00289-021-03654-5

关键词

Controlled release; Cross-linking; Nanospheres; Self-assembly; Polyphosphazene; Drug delivery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focused on investigating the in vitro pH-responsive, dual anticancer drug release from cyclomatrix polyphosphazene nanospheres for combination chemotherapy. The novel nanospheres containing curcumin and quercetin were prepared using one-pot drug self-framed precipitation polymerization, and characterized through various techniques. Controlled drug release was observed at lysosomal pH and blood pH, with the release kinetics following Korsmeyer-Peppas model and a non-Fickian release mechanism for the nanospheres.
In this study, it is aimed to investigate in vitro pH-responsive, dual anticancer drug release from cyclomatrix polyphosphazene nanospheres for combination chemotherapy. For the first time, novel cyclomatrix polyphoshazene nanospheres that contain curcumin and quercetin were prepared by one-pot drug self-framed precipitation polymerization. Curcumin and quercetin were used both as monomers in synthesis of nanospheres and as released drugs. The nanospheres were characterized by SEM, EDX, FTIR, solid state P-31-NMR, BET, XRD, DLS and UV-vis techniques. It was determined that nanospheres contained 500 mg.g(-1) drugs (DL%: 36% curcumin, 14% quercetin; EE%: 47.2% curcumin and 23% quercetin). The controlled release of drugs was investigated in lysosomal pH (pH:5.5) and blood pH (pH:7.4), at 37 degrees C, using dialysis membrane. Quercetin and curcumin were released from nanospheres at pH 7.4: 18.14%, 2.25%; pH 5.5: 10.12%, 1.02%, respectively, at 7 days. The release kinetic was determined to be Korsmeyer-Peppas kinetic model according to correlation coefficients, and the release mechanism was non-Fickian model for nanospheres.

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

4.5
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