4.7 Article

Controlled antiseptic/eosin release from chitosan-based hydrogel modified fibrous substrates

期刊

CARBOHYDRATE POLYMERS
卷 131, 期 -, 页码 306-314

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.05.057

关键词

Chitosan biopolymer; Antiseptic/eosin release; Fibrous cellulose wound dressings

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fibers of cellulose networks were stably coated with N-methacrylate glycol chitosan (MGC) shells using subsequent steps of dip coating and photo-curing. The photo-crosslinked MGC-coated cellulose networks preserved their fibrous structure. A model hydrophilic antiseptic solution containing eosin, chloroxylenol and propylene glycol was incorporated into the shells to study the drug release dynamics. Detailed drug release mechanism into phosphate buffered saline (PBS) solutions from coated and pristine fibers loaded with the antiseptic was investigated. The results show that the MGC-coated cellulose fibers enable the controlled gradual release of the drug for four days, as opposed to fast, instantaneous release from eosin coated pristine fibers. This release behavior was found to affect the antibacterial efficiency of the fibrous cellulose sheets significantly against Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans. In the case of the MGC-eosin functionalized system the antibacterial efficiency was as high as 85% and 90%, respectively, while for the eosin coated pristine cellulose system the efficiency was negative, indicating bacterial proliferation. Furthermore, the MGC-eosin system was shown to be efficacious in a model of wound healing in mice, reducing the levels of various pro-inflammatory cytokines that modulate early inflammatory phase responses. The results demonstrate good potential of these coated fibers for wound dressing and healing applications. Due to its easy application on common passive commercial fibrous dressings such as gauzes and cotton fibers, the method can render them active dressings in a cost effective way. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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