| Literature DB >> 29283366 |
Ortensia Ilaria Parisi1,2, Luca Scrivano3, Sebastiano Candamano4, Mariarosa Ruffo5, Anna Francesca Vattimo6, Maria Vittoria Spanedda7, Francesco Puoci8,9.
Abstract
The aim of the present research work was the synthesis of molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) with a rod-like geometry via "mesophase polymerization". The ternary lyotropic system consisting of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), water, and decanol was chosen to prepare a hexagonal mesophase to direct the morphology of the synthesized imprinted polymers using theophylline, methacrylic acid, and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate as a drug model template, a functional monomer, and a crosslinker, respectively. The obtained molecularly imprinted microrods (MIMs) were assessed by performing binding experiments and in vitro release studies, and the obtained results highlighted good selective recognition abilities and sustained release properties. In conclusion, the adopted synthetic strategy involving a lyotropic mesophase system allows for the preparation of effective MIPs characterized by a rod-like morphology.Entities:
Keywords: mesophase polymerization; molecularly imprinted polymers; polymeric microrods; theophylline
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29283366 PMCID: PMC6017483 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23010063
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Scanning electron micrographs of the synthesized molecularly imprinted microrods (MIMs) (a) and non-molecularly imprinted microrods (NIMs) (b).
Percentages of bound theophylline (THEO) by imprinted (MIMs) and non-imprinted (NIMs) microrods. Data are shown as means ± S.D.
| Incubation Time (h) | Bound THEO (%) 0.6 mM | Bound THEO (%) 0.06 mM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIMs | NIMs | MIMs | NIMs | |
| 3 | 45.8 ± 1.1 | 58.4 ± 0.8 | 23.4 ± 1.0 | 33.2 ± 1.1 |
| 6 | 50.6 ± 0.9 | 42.5 ± 0.7 | 42.7 ± 0.6 | 31.5 ± 0.7 |
| 24 | 60.7 ± 0.8 | 46.6 ± 0.7 | 49.2 ± 0.7 | 39.1 ± 1.2 |
Imprinting efficiency (α) and selectivity coefficient (ε).
| Imprinting Efficiency (α) | Selectivity Coefficient (ε) | |
|---|---|---|
| αTHEO | αCAFF | |
| 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.5 |
Drug loading content (DLC) and drug loading efficiency (DLE).
| DLC (%) | DLE (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 8.9 ± 0.6 | 7.7 ± 0.8 | 89.0 ± 0.7 | 76.5 ± 0.8 |
Figure 2THEO release profiles.