4.5 Article

Palm Fibers Residues from Agro-industries as Reinforcement in Biopolymer Filaments for 3D-printed Scaffolds

期刊

FIBERS AND POLYMERS
卷 22, 期 10, 页码 2689-2699

出版社

KOREAN FIBER SOC
DOI: 10.1007/s12221-021-0936-7

关键词

Biopolymer; Bleached fibers; Residue reuse; Additive manufacturing; Scaffold

资金

  1. FAPERJ [260.026/2018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study showed that using PHBV biocomposites filled with bleached fibers of palm residues for 3D printing of scaffolds has the advantages of biodegradability, biocompatibility, and non-toxicity, while also promoting reuse of agricultural residues and by-products. The addition of bleached BFPR to PHBV enhanced cell viability, improved wettability, and slightly increased nanohardness. The composite scaffolds had an interconnected porous structure with a pore size of about 900μm and a filling rate of 60%.
Poly(hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV) is a biodegradable, biocompatible, and non-toxic biopolymer. The biopolymer properties can be improved using cellulosic-based materials, often derived from agro-industrial residues, and promoting reuse/re-significance of a by-product for bone tissue engineering applications. Biocomposites of PHBV filled with bleached fibers of palm residues (BFPR) (0-10 % wt/wt) for 3D-printing were prepared. The scaffolds were obtained by additive manufacturing (fused deposition modeling (FDM)). The samples were characterized by stereomicroscopy, SEM, TGA, nanohardness, wettability, FTIR, and biocompatibility. Biocomposites filaments revealed homogeneous diameters, suitable for FDM. Composite filaments had thermal stability at 100-250 degrees C (processing did not degrade the material). The -OH groups of cellulose (enhanced by bleaching treatment) BFPR added to PHBV had advantages: optimal cell viability, wettability improvement, and slight nanohardness increase. PHBV/BFPR1 % scaffolds had an interconnected porous structure with a pore size of similar to 900 mu m and 60 % filling.

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