4.6 Article

Chitosan Biocomposites for the Adsorption and Release of H2S

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 14, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14216701

关键词

hydrogen sulphide (H2S); zeolites; activated carbon; glycerin; chitosan; adsorption

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) [PTDC/MEDQUI/28721/2017, UIDB/00100/2020, UIDB/04028/2020, UIDP/04028/2020, DL57]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [UIDP/04028/2020] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The search for H2S donors is increasing and the modification of A zeolites and activated carbon with chitosan showed promising results in this study. The chitosan composite with A zeolite was found to be the most suitable material for potential use as a H2S donor after evaluating adsorption/release properties and conducting cytotoxicity assays with HeLa cells.
The search for H2S donors has been increasing due to the multiple therapeutic effects of the gas. However, the use of nanoporous materials has not been investigated despite their potential. Zeolites and activated carbons are known as good gas adsorbents and their modification with chitosan may increase the material biocompatibility and simultaneously its release time in aqueous solution, thus making them good H2S donors. Herein, we modified with chitosan a series of A zeolites (3A, 4A and 5A) with different pore sizes and an activated carbon obtained from glycerin. The amount of H2S adsorbed was evaluated by a volumetric method and their release capacity in aqueous solution was measured. These studies aimed to verify which of the materials had appropriate H2S adsorption/release properties to be considered a potential H2S donor. Additionally, cytotoxicity assays using HeLa cells were performed. Considering the obtained results, the chitosan composite with the A zeolite with the larger pore opening was the most promising material to be used as a H2S donor so a further cytotoxicity assay using H2S loaded was conducted and no toxicity was observed.

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