4.6 Article

Chitosan-pectin hybrid nanoparticles prepared by coating and blending techniques

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejps.2016.01.004

关键词

Chitosan; Pectin; Hybrid nanoparticles; Ionotropic gelation; Coating and blending technique

资金

  1. European Project FP6 NanoBioPharmaceutics [NMP 026723-2]
  2. MIUR (Rome)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The preparation of chitosan nanoparticles in combination with pectins, as additional mucoadhesive biopolymers, was investigated. Pectins from apple and from citrus fruit were considered; polygalacturonic acid was taken as a reference. Tripolyphosphate was used as an anionic cross-linker. Two different techniques were compared, namely the coating and the blending. Coated nanoparticles (NPs) in the ratio pectin: NPs from 2: 1 to 5: 1 evidenced that the size of NPs increased as the amount of pectin (both from apple and citrus fruit) was increased. In particular, for NPs coated with pectin from citrus fruit the size ranges from 200 to 260 nm; while for NPs coated with pectin from apple the size ranges from 330 to 450 nm. A minimum value of Z-potential around -35 mV was obtained for the ratio pectin: NPs 4: 1, while further addition of pectin did not decrease the Z-potential. Also blended NPs showed a dependence of the size on the ratio of the components: for a given ratio pectin: tripolyphosphate the size increases as the fraction of chitosan increases; for a low ratio chitosan: pectin a high amount of tripolyphosphate was needed to obtain a compact structure. The effect of the additional presence of loaded proteins in chitosan-pectin nanoparticles was also investigated, since proteins contribute to alter the electrostatic interactions among charged species. FT-IR and DSC characterization are presented to confirm the interactions between biopolymers. Finally, the biocompatibility of the used materials was assessed by the chorioallantoic membrane assay, confirming the safety of the materials. (C) 2016 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

4.6
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