4.5 Article

Wound healing potential of sodium alginate-based topical gels loaded with a combination of essential oils, iron oxide nanoparticles and tranexamic acid

期刊

POLYMER BULLETIN
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00289-023-04879-2

关键词

Eucalyptus oil; Lavender oil; Rosemary oil; Iron oxide nanoparticles; Tranexamic acid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wound management is crucial for saving lives, and using appropriate wound dressing is essential. Alginate-based topical gels loaded with essential oils, magnetite nanoparticles, and tranexamic acid were prepared. The gel formulations showed desired properties and demonstrated significant wound healing, antibacterial, and blood clotting potential. These formulations have the potential to be effective wound dressings for treating bleeding and infected wounds.
Wound management is a key feature in saving people's lives, and regardless of the wound size, using appropriate wound dressing is crucial. Alginate-based topical gels loaded with 2 mL essential oils (eucalyptus, lavender and rosemary oil) in combination with 30 mg magnetite (Fe3O4) nanoparticles and 70 mg tranexamic acid were prepared. Carbopol was used as a gelling agent and as a surfactant to disperse the EO. X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscope (SEM) confirmed the successful formation of Fe3O4 nanoparticles. The Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy revealed the absence of a chemical interaction between the iron nanoparticles, tranexamic acid, essential oils and the gel matrix. The gel formulations displayed pH, spreadability and viscosity in the range of 6.8-7.2, 5.4-10.1 cm and viscosity (3444-1260 cp) after 120 s, respectively. The in vitro wound healing studies of the wound dressings revealed a wound closure of 99% on day 3. Their antibacterial and blood clotting potential was significant compared to the control. The wound healing capability of these formulations makes them potential wound dressings for treating bleeding and infected wounds.

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