4.7 Article

Impact of polymer surface characteristics on the microrheological measurement quality of protein solutions - A tracer particle screening

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
卷 505, 期 1-2, 页码 246-254

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2016.03.047

关键词

Microrheology; Polymer-protein interaction; Dynamic viscosity; Hydrophobicity; Tracer particle

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) [0315342B, 0316071B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microrheological measurements prove to be suitable to identify rheological parameters of biopharmaceutical solutions. These give information about the flow characteristics but also about the interactions and network structures in protein solutions. For the microrheological measurement tracer particles are required. Due to their specific surface characteristic not all are suitable for reliable measurement results in biopharmaceutical systems. In the present work a screening of melamine, PMMA, polystyrene and surface modified polystyrene as tracer particles were investigated at various protein solution conditions. The surface characteristics of the screened tracer particles were evaluated by zeta potential measurements. Furthermore each tracer particle was used to determine the dynamic viscosity of lysozyme solutions by microrheology and compared to a standard. The results indicate that the selection of the tracer particle had a strong impact on the quality of the microrheological measurement dependent on pH and additive type. Surface modified polystyrene was the only tracer particle that yielded good microrheological results for all tested conditions. The study indicated that the electrostatic surface charge of the tracer particle had a minor impact than its hydrophobicity. This characteristic was the crucial surface property that needs to be considered for the selection of a suitable tracer particle to achieve high measurement accuracy. (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

4.7
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