4.7 Article

The Optimization of Pressure-Assisted Microsyringe (PAM) 3D Printing Parameters for the Development of Sustainable Starch-Based Patches

期刊

POLYMERS
卷 15, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/polym15183792

关键词

3D printing; extrusion-based technique; PAM; starch gel; beta-glucan; patch

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to develop sustainable patches for wound application using 3D printing technology and the biopolymer starch. The composition of the starch gel and the printing parameters were optimized to improve the physicochemical and mechanical properties of the patches. The results suggest the possibility of low-cost production of patches for wound treatment using additive manufacturing technology.
The aim of this work was to develop sustainable patches for wound application, using the biopolymer starch, created using a low-cost 3D printing PAM device. The composition of a starch gel was optimized for PAM extrusion: corn starch 10% w/w, beta-glucan water suspension (filler, 1% w/w), glycerol (plasticizer, 29% w/w), and water 60% w/w. The most suitable 3D printing parameters were optimized as well (nozzle size 0.8 mm, layer height 0.2 mm, infill 100%, volumetric flow rate 3.02 mm(3)/s, and print speed 15 mm/s). The suitable conditions for post-printing drying were set at 37 degrees C for 24 h. The obtained patch was homogenous but with low mechanical resistance. To solve this problem, the starch gel was extruded over an alginate support, which, after drying, becomes an integral part of the product, constituting the backing layer of the final formulation. This approach significantly improved the physicochemical and post-printing properties of the final bilayer patch, showing suitable mechanical properties such as elastic modulus (3.80 +/- 0.82 MPa), strength (0.92 +/- 0.08 MPa), and deformation at break (50 +/- 1%). The obtained results suggest the possibility of low-cost production of patches for wound treatment by additive manufacturing technology.

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