4.6 Article

Oxygen consumption and diffusion in assemblages of respiring spheres: Performance enhancement of a bioartificial pancreas

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 64, 期 22, 页码 4470-4487

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2009.06.028

关键词

Bioartificial pancreas; Islets; Oxygen consumption; Reaction-diffusion models; Encapsulation; Biomedical engineering; Mathematical modeling; Numerical analysis

资金

  1. NIH [R01 DK50657, R01-DK063108-01A1]
  2. NCRR ICR [U4Z 16606]
  3. JDRF Center for Islet Transplantation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microencapsulation provides an immune barrier for transplanted islets of Langerhans to treat diabetes, but it imposes oxygen diffusional limitations that can result in loss of viability and function. We investigate two methods to reduce oxygen transport limitations: (1) enhancement of the encapsulant oxygen permeability, for example, by combination of a highly concentrated perfluorocarbon (PFC) emulsion with alginate (PFC alginate); and (2) reduction of islet tissue size, for example, by dispersing the islets into single cells followed by reaggregation into cell clusters smaller than the original islet. A theoretical reaction-diffusion model is used to predict the three-dimensional distribution of oxygen partial pressure in a spherical microcapsule and a planar slab containing islet tissue, from which the loss of cell viability and the reduction in insulin secretion rate is estimated. Numerical simulations are carried out for normal alginate and PFC alginate to examine the effect of surface oxygen partial pressure, capsule diameter, slab thickness, and the size and density of dispersed islet tissue. Results show that hypoxic conditions can be reduced, thereby enhancing islet viability and substantially maintaining insulin secretion rate when PFC emulsion is incorporated in the encapsulation material or when smaller islet cell aggregates are used in both types of geometries. (C) 2009 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

4.6
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