Impact of Various Sterilization and Disinfection Techniques on Electrospun Poly-ε-caprolactone.
Journal
ACS omega
ISSN: 2470-1343
Titre abrégé: ACS Omega
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101691658
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Apr 2020
21 Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
04
02
2020
accepted:
31
03
2020
entrez:
28
4
2020
pubmed:
28
4
2020
medline:
28
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Electrospun materials made from biodegradable polycaprolactone are used widely in various tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications because of their morphological similarity to the extracellular matrix. However, the main prerequisite for the use of such materials in clinical practice consists of the selection of the appropriate sterilization technique. This study is devoted to the study of the impact of traditional sterilization and disinfection methods on a nanofibrous polycaprolactone layer constructed by means of the needleless electrospinning technique. It was determined that hydrogen peroxide plasma treatment led to the loss of fibrous morphology and the creation of a foil. However, certain sterilization (ethylene oxide, gamma irradiation, and peracetic acid) and disinfection techniques (ethanol and UV irradiation) were found not to lead to a change in morphology; thus, the study investigates their impact on thermal properties, molecular weight, and interactions with a fibroblast cell line. It was determined that the surface properties that guide cell adhesion and proliferation were affected more than the bulk properties. The highest proliferation rate of fibroblasts seeded on nanofibrous scaffolds was observed with respect to gamma-irradiated polycaprolactone, while the lowest proliferation rate was observed following ethylene oxide sterilization.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32337451
doi: 10.1021/acsomega.0c00503
pmc: PMC7178787
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
8885-8892Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Références
Sci Rep. 2020 Jan 24;10(1):1134
pubmed: 31980716
J Biomed Nanotechnol. 2016 Oct;12(10):1864-75
pubmed: 29359901
Biomacromolecules. 2010 Dec 13;11(12):3228-36
pubmed: 21105638
Nanoscale. 2019 Oct 25;11(41):19166-19178
pubmed: 31099816
Int Wound J. 2019 Jun;16(3):730-736
pubmed: 30767437
J Biomed Mater Res. 1995 Dec;29(12):1525-36
pubmed: 8600143
J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2012;23(17):2197-206
pubmed: 22126862
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2018 Nov 1;92:132-142
pubmed: 30184736
Macromol Biosci. 2015 Jun;15(6):861-74
pubmed: 25761231
Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2014 Sep;20(9):714-23
pubmed: 24341350
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2017 Feb;105(2):389-397
pubmed: 27649836
Med Eng Phys. 2009 Mar;31(2):221-6
pubmed: 18760952
Biotechnol Adv. 2011 Nov-Dec;29(6):739-67
pubmed: 21821113
Int Wound J. 2018 Oct;15(5):789-797
pubmed: 29806201
Nanoscale. 2015 Aug 7;7(29):12351-5
pubmed: 26154994
Acta Biomater. 2014 Jan;10(1):308-17
pubmed: 24013025