4.8 Article

Adhesive free-standing multilayer films containing sulfated levan for biomedical applications

期刊

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
卷 69, 期 -, 页码 183-195

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.01.027

关键词

Sulfated levan; Free-standing membranes; Adhesiveness; Biomedical applications

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [SFRH/BPD/96797/2013, SFRH/BD/97606/2013]
  2. COST Action [CA15216]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/97606/2013] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work is the first reporting the use of layer-by-layer to produce adhesive free-standing (FS) films fully produced using natural-based macromolecules: chitosan (CHI), alginate (ALG) and sulfated levan (L-S). The deposition conditions of the natural polymers were studied through zeta potential measurements and quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation monitoring analysis. The properties of the FS films were evaluated and compared with the control ones composed of only CHI and ALG in order to assess the influence of levan polysaccharide introduced in the multilayers. Tensile tests, dynamic mechanical analysis and single lap shear strength tests were performed to evaluate the mechanical properties of the prepared FS films. The presence of L-S conferred both higher tensile strength and shear strength to the developed FS membranes. The results showed an adhesion strength 4 times higher than the control (CHI/ALG) FS films demonstrating the adhesive character of the FS films containing L-S. Morphological and topography studies were carried out revealing that the crosslinking reaction granted the L-S based FS film with a higher roughness and surface homogeneity. Preliminary biological assays were performed by cultivating myoblasts cells on the surface of the produced FS films. Both crosslinked and uncrosslinked FS films containing L-S were cytocompatible and myoconductive. (C) 2018 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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