4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Dissolution kinetics of mesoporous silica nanoparticles in different simulated body fluids

期刊

JOURNAL OF SOL-GEL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 79, 期 2, 页码 319-327

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10971-016-4053-9

关键词

Mesoporous silica; Silica dissolution; Physiological buffers; Simulated body fluids

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The application of mesoporous silica nanoparticles as a platform for drug delivery and bioimaging requires a good understanding of the degradability of these particles under physiological conditions. Optimally, the degradability should be studied in vivo using relevant administration routes and dosings, but such studies are complicated and expensive. Thus, the biodegradability is often studied in vitro using simulated body fluids. However, such studies are scarce to date, and the results are partially conflicting. The aims of this study were therefore (a) to determine the influence of the composition of different simulated body fluids on the observed silica dissolution rates and (b) to establish morphological key parameters that determine the dissolution kinetics of silica nanoparticles. As dissolution media, simulated body fluid (SBF), simulated lung fluid (SLF), simulated gastric juice (SGF) and PBS buffer were used, and the silica concentration was kept below the silica saturation limit. Three mesoporous silica particles of different sizes were studied together with one non-porous Stober-type silica particle. The observed silica dissolution rates followed the order SLF > SBF ae PBS ae << SGF. Apart from general pH effects, the presence of organic acids in SLF is suggested to enhance the silica dissolution rate. The specific surface area was identified as the main parameter controlling the rate of dissolution of the different silica particles studied, while particle size influences were minor. The dissolution of mesoporous silicas with different particle sizes has been studied in four different physiological buffers. [GRAPHICS]

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