4.1 Article

Preparation and characterization of pH sensitive crosslinked Linseed polysaccharides-co-acrylic acid/methacrylic acid hydrogels for controlled delivery of ketoprofen

期刊

DESIGNED MONOMERS AND POLYMERS
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 485-495

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15685551.2017.1368116

关键词

pH responsive; hydrogel; Linseed hydrogel-co-acrylic acid; Linseed hydrogel-co-methacrylic acid; ketoprofen; drug release

资金

  1. Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Some pH responsive polymeric matrix of Linseed (Linum usitatissimum), L. hydrogel (LSH) was prepared by free radical polymerization using potassium persulfate (KPS) as an initiator, N, N-methylene bisacrylamide (MBA) as a crosslinker, acrylic acid (AA) and methacrylic acid (MAA) as monomers; while ketoprofen was used as a model drug. Different formulations of LSH-co-AA and LSH-co-MAA were formulated by varying the concentration of crosslinker and monomers. Structures obtained were thoroughly characterized using Fourier transforms infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, XRD analysis and Scanning electron microscopy. Sol-gel fractions, porosity of the materials and ketoprofen loading capacity were also measured. Swelling and in vitro drug release studies were conducted at simulated gastric fluids, i.e., pH 1.2 and 7.4. FTIR evaluation confirmed successful grafting of AA and MAA to LSH backbone. XRD studies showed retention of crystalline structure of ketoprofen in LSH-co-AA and its amorphous dispersion in LSH-co-MAA. Gel content was increased by increasing MBA and monomer content; whereas porosity of hydrogel was increased by increasing monomer concentration and decreased by increasing MBA content. Swelling of copolymer hydrogels was high at pH 7.4 and low at pH 1.2. Ketoprofen release showed an increasing trend by increasing monomer content; however it was decreased with increasing MBA content. Sustained release of ketoprofen was noted from copolymers and release followed Korsmeyer-Peppas model.

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

4.1
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