| Literature DB >> 29518968 |
Valeria Secchi1, Stefano Franchi2, Marta Santi3, Alina Vladescu4, Mariana Braic5, Tomáš Skála6, Jaroslava Nováková7, Monica Dettin8, Annj Zamuner9, Giovanna Iucci10, Chiara Battocchio11.
Abstract
In this work, we applied advanced Synchrotron Radiation (SR) induced techniques to the study of the chemisorption of the Self Assembling Peptide EAbuK16, i.e., H-Abu-Entities:
Keywords: NEXAFS; XPS; bioactive materials; nanostructures; self-assembling peptides; synchrotron radiation induced spectroscopies; titanium alloy
Year: 2018 PMID: 29518968 PMCID: PMC5869639 DOI: 10.3390/nano8030148
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1XRD diffraction pattern of Ti25Nb10Zr alloy and JCPDS files No. 44-1294 (α” phase) and 44-1288 (β phase).
Figure 2(a) Open circuit potential curves of Ti25Nb10Zr alloy in simulated body fluid (SBF) and Hank solutions (symbols are used only for identifying the curves in grey scale printing); (b) potentiodynamic polarization curves of Ti25Nb10Zr alloy in SBF and Hank solutions.
The electrochemical parameters of Ti25Nb10Zr alloy after tests in simulated body fluid (SBF) and Hank solutions (EOCP—open circuit potential; Rp—polarization resistance; Ecorr—corrosion potential at i = 0; icorr—corrosion current density; CR—corrosion rate). The EOCP values were the last measured values in Figure 2a.
| Electrolyte | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBF | −159 | −253 | 1.15 | 45,011 | 0.011 |
| Hank | 6 | −288 | 14.33 | 10,676 | 0.134 |
Figure 3Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) images of the alloy surface before and after electrochemical tests. (a) Before corrosion; (b) after corrosion in SBF; (c) after corrosion in Hank.
Figure 4(a) XPS O1s and (b) XPS C1s spectra of the pristine sample surface.
Figure 5(a) X-ray Photoemission Spectroscopy (XPS) C1s, N1s, O1s MUL sample pH 2; (b) XPS C1s, N1s, O1s ML sample pH 2.
Atomic ratios of the species present on the multilayer (MUL) Self Assembling Peptide (SAP) surface. N+: protonated nitrogen; Me–O: oxygen of metal oxides; O–org: organic oxygen.
| MUL Sample | C–N/C–C Ratio | N–C=O/C–C Ratio | COOH/C–C Ratio | Ntot/Ctot Ratio | N/C-SAP Ratio | N+/Ntot (%) Ratio | O–org/Me–O | C-SAP/Ti Ratio | SAP Thickness (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH 2 | 0.63 | 0.42 | 0.09 | 0.18 | 0.90 | 18.11 | ---- | ---- | ---- |
| pH 4 | 0.57 | 0.37 | 0.05 | 0.14 | 0.77 | 15.57 | ---- | ---- | ---- |
| pH 7 | 0.37 | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.02 | 0.28 | 0.00 | 1.29 | 4.07 | 1.54 |
| pH 10 | 0.56 | 0.37 | 0.06 | 0.16 | 0.87 | 10.99 | ---- | ---- | ---- |
| pH 12 | 0.48 | 0.27 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.76 | 11.33 | 1.75 | 8.17 | 4.31 |
Atomic ratios of the species present on ML. N+: protonated nitrogen; Me–O: oxygen of metal oxides; O–org: organic oxygen.
| ML Sample | C–N/C–C Ratio | N–C=O/C–C Ratio | COOH/C–C Ratio | Ntot/Ctot Ratio | N/C-SAP Ratio | N+/Ntot (%) Ratio | O–org /Me–O | C-SAP/Ti Ratio | SAP Thickness (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH 2 | 0.44 | 0.25 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.77 | 13.47 | 24.76 | 2.91 | 1.22 |
| pH 4 | 0.42 | 0.21 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.23 | 9.20 | 1.83 | 13.41 | 3.10 |
| pH 7 | 0.34 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.58 | 4.13 | 1.04 | 1.76 | 1.28 |
| pH 10 | 0.38 | 0.19 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.46 | 0.00 | 1.67 | 4.07 | 2.52 |
| pH 12 | 0.32 | 0.16 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.42 | 0.00 | 0.96 | 2.15 | 1.32 |
Figure 6XPS N1s spectra collected on the four monolayer (ML) samples prepared with decreasing pH values.
Figure 7Rough Ti2p spectra, showing the attenuation of substrate signal with decreasing pH, indicative for a better peptide adsorption.
Figure 8(a) C K-edge Near Edge X-ray Absorption Fine Structure (NEXAFS) spectrum of EAbuK multilayer deposited at pH = 2; (b) N K-edge NEXAFS spectrum of EAbuK at pH = 2; (c) C K-edge NEXAFS spectrum of EAbuK monolayer deposited at pH = 2; (d) N K-edge NEXAFS spectrum of EAbuK monolayer at pH = 2.
Figure 9Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) images of MUL samples. (A): Pristine surface; (B): pH 2; (C): pH 4; (D): magnification of pH 4 region of interest; (E): pH 7; (F): pH 10; (G): pH 12. Yellow bar = 200 μm; Red bar (only D) = 5 μm.
Figure 10Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) images of ML and MUL samples. It is evident how surfaces are more uniform at acidic pH. Pristine surface is shown in Supplementary Material Figure S2.
Root mean square (RMS) roughness values for multilayer samples (MUL) and monolayer samples (ML).
| Sample | RMS (µm) | |
|---|---|---|
| Clean Surface | 0.0143 | |
| MUL RMS (µm) | ML RMS (µm) | |
| pH 2 | 0.0181 | 0.0446 |
| pH 4 | 0.0136 | 0.1067 |
| pH 7 | 0.0155 | 0.0136 |
| pH 10 | 0.0201 | 0.0141 |
| pH 12 | 0.0127 | 0.0174 |