4.5 Article

Evaluation of pH-sensitive polyurethane/2-diethylaminoethyl methacrylate hybrids potentially useful for drug delivery developments

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jddst.2015.10.016

关键词

Polymeric hybrid materials; Polyurethanes; poly(N,N-diethylaminoethyl methacrylate); Stimuli-sensitive polymers; Drug delivery systems; Films

资金

  1. Comision de Investigaciones Cientificas de la Provincia de Buenos Aires (CICPBA)
  2. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica [PICT 2011 - 0238]
  3. CONICET

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Smart sensitive polymers have been used to improve processes in drug delivery. In this article, we evaluate the behavior of polyurethane/N,N-diethylaminoethyl methacrylate hybrids (PU/DEA) as pH-responsive polymers potentially useful for drug delivery systems development, using Rhodamine 6G (Rh6G) as a model drug. A detailed pH responsive characterization was performed by swelling studies and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Two drug loading methods on drug release-immersion and direct loading were evaluated. The interaction between Rh6G and the polymer matrix was studied by Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy and contact angle determination. The kinetic study of Rh6G release was performed at basic and acidic pH; the mechanism of drug delivery was analyzed using Ritger-Peppas' equation. We discuss about polymer's active sites and drug's distribution through the matrix in relation to both loading methods. Results showed a pH-responsive behavior and morphological changes when pH solution varied from 9.0 to 4.0. In the immersion loading method, results indicated a higher Rh6G molecule concentration at the surface as well as ionic interaction between the drug and polymer's carboxylic groups. Release studies confirmed the pH-sensitive hybrid systems' behavior and kinetic exponent values indicated different mechanism's transport types depending on loading method and polymer composition. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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