4.6 Article

Heparin-Mimetic Chitooligosaccharides-Based Monoliths Obtained from C/W Emulsions: Hemocompatibility and Toxin Removal Ability

期刊

ACS BIOMATERIALS SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 5610-5621

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c00833

关键词

chitosan oligosaccharides; high internal phase emulsion; carbon dioxide-in-water emulsion; hemocompatibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hemoperfusion (HP) is a prominent therapy for treating uremia, hyperbilirubinemia, and acute drug toxicity. In this study, a green preparation strategy was used to develop a HP material with good properties and strong adsorption capacity. It showed potential application value in blood and environmental purification.
Hemoperfusion (HP) is one of the most prominent therapies for treating uremia, hyperbilirubinemia, and acute drug toxicity. The comprehensive performance of currently used porous HP adsorbents needs to be improved due to the impediment to their synthesis strategy. Herein, green carbon dioxide-in-water high internal phase emulsions (C/W HIPEs) were utilized and emulsified with poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) for the formation of a heparin-mimetic chitosan oligosaccharides/poly(acrylamide-co-sodium 4-styrenesulfonate) [COS/P(AM-co-SSS)] monolith, which exhibited good mechanical properties, stable swelling performance, hydrophilic properties, anticoagulant effect, and low hemolysis. It showed a strong toxin adsorption capacity (415.2 mg/g for creatinine, 199.3 mg/g for urea, 279.5 mg/g for bilirubin, and 160 mg/g for tetracycline). The adsorption process of porous COS/P(AM-co-SSS) followed the pseudo-second-order kinetic and Langmuir isotherm models. Moreover, the porous materials had a strong electrostatic force on creatinine. The removal of creatinine by simulated in vitro blood perfusion was 80.2% within 30 min. This work provides a green preparation strategy for developing novel HP materials, highlighting their potential application value in blood and environmental purification.

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