4.6 Article

Design and performance of a poly(vinyl alcohol)/silk fibroin enzymatically crosslinked semi-interpenetrating hydrogel for a potential hydrophobic drug delivery

期刊

RSC ADVANCES
卷 9, 期 70, 页码 41074-41082

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c9ra09344c

关键词

-

资金

  1. Major Special Projects of technological innovation of Hubei Province, China [2017ACA168]
  2. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC11 03800]
  3. Research Project of Hubei Provincial Department of Education, China [Q20182701]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, in order to obtain hydrogels with good properties for sustained release of hydrophobic drugs or for tissue engineering, poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA)/silk fibroin (SF) semi-interpenetrating (semi-IPN) hydrogels with varied ratios of PVA/SF were enzymatically cross-linked using horseradish peroxidase. A vial inversion test determined approximate gelation times of PVA/SF hydrogels ranging from 5 to 10 min. The hydrogels with varied ratios showed differences in pore size and morphology. Mass loss rate of hydrogels increased from 15% to 58% with increasing PVA concentration. Stable hydrogels with PVA/SF at 0.5 : 1 w/w showed the best swelling ratio values in distilled water (7.36). FTIR analysis revealed that silk fibroin in these hydrogels exhibited the coexistence of amorphous and silk I crystalline structures and the SF and PVA molecules interacted with each other well. The mechanical properties of the composite hydrogels were controlled by the SF content. From the cell viability results, it was found that the hydrogels exerted very low cytotoxicity. Paeonol was chosen as the hydrophobic drug model for release studies from the hydrogels. Paeonol can be uniformly loaded into the composite hydrogels using the emulsifying property of PVA and paeonol release from the hydrogels was dependent on the PVA/SF ratio. This study applied a novel type of enzymatically crosslinked semi-IPN hydrogel that may have potential applications in drug delivery.

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