| Literature DB >> 34206523 |
Nuankanya Sathirapongsasuti1,2, Anuchan Panaksri3, Sani Boonyagul3, Somchai Chutipongtanate4, Nuttapol Tanadchangsaeng3.
Abstract
The adsorption of proteins on membranes has been used for simple, low-cost, and minimal sample handling of large volume, low protein abundance liquid samples. Syringe-push membrane absorption (SPMA) is an innovative way to process bio-fluid samples by combining a medical syringe and protein-absorbable membrane, which makes SPMA a simple, rapid protein and proteomic analysis method. However, the membrane used for SPMA is only limited to commercially available protein-absorbable membrane options. To raise the method's efficiency, higher protein binding capacity with a lower back pressure membrane is needed. In this research, we fabricated electrospun polybutylene succinate (PBS) membrane and compared it to electrospun polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). Rolling electrospinning (RE) and non-rolling electrospinning (NRE) were employed to synthesize polymer fibers, resulting in the different characteristics of mechanical and morphological properties. Adding graphene oxide (GO) composite does not affect their mechanical properties; however, electrospun PBS membrane can be applied as a filter membrane and has a higher pore area than electrospun PVDF membrane. Albumin solution filtration was performed using all the electrospun filter membranes by the SPMA technique to measure the protein capture efficiency and staining of the protein on the membranes, and these membranes were compared to the commercial filter membranes-PVDF, nitrocellulose, and Whatman no. 1. A combination of rolling electrospinning with graphene oxide composite and PBS resulted in two times more captured protein when compared to commercial membrane filtration and more than sixfold protein binding than non-composite polymer. The protein staining results further confirmed the enhancement of the protein binding property, showing more intense stained color in compositing polymer with GO.Entities:
Keywords: electrospun fiber; filter membrane; graphene oxide; polybutylene succinate; protein adsorption
Year: 2021 PMID: 34206523 PMCID: PMC8271884 DOI: 10.3390/polym13132042
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Sample thickness and mechanical properties of each filter membrane used in this study.
| Sample | Thickness | Young’s Modulus (MPa) | Max. Tensile Strength (MPa) | Elongation at Break (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PBS (RE) | 30.8 ± 7.9 | 193 ± 3.0 | 24 ± 3.6 | 58 ± 6.5 |
| PBS + GO 0.1% (RE) | 45.2 ± 6.9 | 170 ± 2.0 | 31 ± 4.6 | 50 ± 2.6 |
| PVDF (NRE) | 116.8 ± 47.3 | 143 ± 5.6 | 18 ± 3.6 | 61 ± 7.2 |
| PVDF + GO 0.1% (NRE) | 87.6 ± 47.3 | 101 ± 2.6 | 24 ± 2.0 | 53 ± 5.2 |
| PVDF + GO 0.1% (RE) | 82.4 ± 3.2 | 181 ± 2.0 | 32 ± 4.0 | 57 ± 5.2 |
| Nitrocellulose (commercial) | 140.4 ± 1.0 | 4.8 ± 0.6 | 0.18 ± 0.1 | 9 ± 2.6 |
| PVDF (commercial) | 120.2 ± 1.0 | 5.3 ± 1.2 | 0.12 ± 0.1 | 9 ± 3.5 |
Note: RE is rolling electrospinning, NRE is non-rolling electrospinning.
Figure 1Morphology of electrospun fibers at 16,000× magnification. (a) PBS rolling electrospinning, (b) PBS + GO 0.1% rolling electrospinning, (c) PVDF non-rolling electrospinning, (d) PVDF + GO 0.1% non-rolling electrospinning, and (e) PVDF + GO 0.1% rolling electrospinning.
Fiber diameter and membrane area from SEM images.
| Sample | Average Diameter of Fibers | Average Pore Area |
|---|---|---|
| PBS (RE) | 1.00 ± 0.27 | 27.01 ± 4.48 |
| PBS + GO 0.1% (RE) | 0.87 ± 0.16 | 23.32 ± 2.98 |
| PVDF (NRE) | 0.90 ± 0.29 | 36.26 ± 5.86 |
| PVDF + GO 0.1% (NRE) | 1.17 ± 0.22 | 37.48 ± 6.25 |
| PVDF + GO 0.1% (RE) | 1.05 ± 0.22 | 33.29 ± 8.33 |
Figure 2The protein adsorption capacity of five fabricated membranes and three commercial membranes used in this study. Note: * Significant differences of the two samples compared to the others.
Figure 3Brilliant blue Coomassie G-250 staining of absorbed proteins on membranes.