| Literature DB >> 35012203 |
R A Ilyas1,2, M Y M Zuhri3,4, Mohd Nor Faiz Norrrahim5, Muhammad Syukri Mohamad Misenan6, Mohd Azwan Jenol7, Sani Amril Samsudin1, N M Nurazzi8, M R M Asyraf9, A B M Supian3, Sneh Punia Bangar10, R Nadlene11, Shubham Sharma12, Abdoulhdi A Borhana Omran13,14.
Abstract
Recent developments within the topic of biomaterials has taken hold of researchers due to the mounting concern of current environmental pollution as well as scarcity resources. Amongst all compatible biomaterials, polycaprolactone (PCL) is deemed to be a great potential biomaterial, especially to the tissue engineering sector, due to its advantages, including its biocompatibility and low bioactivity exhibition. The commercialization of PCL is deemed as infant technology despite of all its advantages. This contributed to the disadvantages of PCL, including expensive, toxic, and complex. Therefore, the shift towards the utilization of PCL as an alternative biomaterial in the development of biocomposites has been exponentially increased in recent years. PCL-based biocomposites are unique and versatile technology equipped with several importance features. In addition, the understanding on the properties of PCL and its blend is vital as it is influenced by the application of biocomposites. The superior characteristics of PCL-based green and hybrid biocomposites has expanded their applications, such as in the biomedical field, as well as in tissue engineering and medical implants. Thus, this review is aimed to critically discuss the characteristics of PCL-based biocomposites, which cover each mechanical and thermal properties and their importance towards several applications. The emergence of nanomaterials as reinforcement agent in PCL-based biocomposites was also a tackled issue within this review. On the whole, recent developments of PCL as a potential biomaterial in recent applications is reviewed.Entities:
Keywords: green biocomposites; hybrid biocomposites; mechanical properties; polycaprolactone; thermal properties
Year: 2022 PMID: 35012203 PMCID: PMC8747341 DOI: 10.3390/polym14010182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
List of biopolymers.
| Type of Biopolymer | Example | |
|---|---|---|
| Natural biopolymer | Plant carbohydrate and animal | Starch, cellulose, nanocellulose, agar, chitosan, etc. |
| Plant origin protein | Soy protein, corn zein, wheat gluten, gelatine, collagen, whey protein, casein | |
| Synthetic biodegradable polymer | Poly(L-lactide), polyglycolic acid, polycaprolactone, polybutylene succinate, polyvinyl alcohol, etc. | |
| Biopolymers produced by microbial fermentation | Polyhydroxyalkanoates including poly-β-hydroxybutyrate, poly-3- hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate, etc. | |
Figure 1Synthesis of PCL.
Properties of PCL with different molecular weights.
| Molecular Weight | Melting Point, °C | Tensile Stress, N/m2 | Elongation at Break, % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 37,000 | 58–60 | 1.37 × 107 | 660 |
| 50,000 | 58–60 | 3.53 × 107 | 800 |
| 80,000 | 60–62 | 5.69 × 107 | 900 |
The degradation behaviour of the biodegradable polyesters. Reproduce from ref. [24].
| Polyester | Degradation By-Products (pKa) | In Vivo Degradation Rate | Degradation Mechanism |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCL | Caproic acid (4.88) | 50% in 4 years | Hydrolytic degradation |
| PLA | Lactic acid (3.85) | 50% in 1–2 years 98% in 12 months 100% in >12 months 100% in 12–16 month | Hydrolysis through the action of enzymes |
| PGA | Glycolic acid (3.83) | 100% in 2–3 month | Both enzymatic and non-enzymatic hydrolysis |
Advantages and disadvantages of PCL.
| Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|
| High biocompatibility | Adheres poorly to cells |
| Highly biodegradable | Toxic solvent |
| Great electrospinning properties | Low melting point |
| Long biodegradable time | Complex and expensive production |
| High material purity |
Figure 2Type of natural fibers.
Chemical composition of selected fibers.
| Fibers | Chemical Compositions (wt.%) * | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cellulose | Hemicellulose | Lignin | Pectin | |
| Abaca | 62.5 | 21 | 12 | 0.8 |
| Alfa | 45.4 | 38.5 | 14.9 | - |
| Bagasse | 37 | 21 | 22 | 10 |
| Banana | 62.5 | 12.5 | 7.5 | 4 |
| Bamboo | 34.5 | 20.5 | 26 | - |
| Coir | 46 | 0.3 | 45 | 4 |
| Cotton | 89 | 4 | 0.75 | 6 |
| Curaua | 73.6 | 5 | 7.5 | - |
| Flax | 70.5 | 16.5 | 2.5 | 0.9 |
| Hemp | 81 | 20 | 4 | 0.9 |
| Henequen | 60 | 28 | 8 | - |
| Isora | 74 | - | 23 | - |
| Jute | 67 | 16 | 9 | 0.2 |
| Kapok | 13.16 | - | - | - |
| Kenaf | 53.5 | 21 | 17 | 2 |
| Nettle | 86 | 10 | - | - |
| Phormium | 67 | 30 | 11 | - |
| Piassava | 28.6 | 25.8 | 45 | - |
| Pineapple | 80.5 | 17.5 | 8.3 | 4 |
| Ramie | 72 | 14 | 0.8 | 1.95 |
| Sisal | 60 | 11.5 | 8 | 1.2 |
* Note that the total composition in some fibers may not add up to 100% due to presence of pectin, lignin and waxes, which may exist in negligible amount and can be considered as zero.
Mechanical properties of natural fibers.
| Type of Fiber | Diameter (μm) | Density (g/cm3) | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Young’s Modulus (GPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abaca | 250–300 | 1.5 | 717 | 18.6 |
| Jute | 250–2500 | 1.3–1.49 | 393–800 | 13–26.5 |
| Sisal | 205–230 | 1.41 | 350–370 | 12.8 |
| Kenaf | 83.5 | 1.2 | 282.60 | 7.13 |
| Coconut | 396.98 | 1.2 | 140–225 | 3–5 |
| Bamboo | - | 1.2–1.5 | 500–575 | 27–40 |
| Date palm | - | 0.463 | 125–200 | - |
| Banana | - | 0.95–0.75 | 180–430 | - |
| Reed | - | 0.49 | 70–140 | - |
Figure 3Life cycle of biocomposites.
Figure 4Possible reaction of WF and PCL-g-MA.
Mechanical properties of PCL-based green biocomposites.
| Green Biocomposites | Processing Technique | Mechanical Properties | Ref. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tensile Strength | Tensile Modulus | Flexural Strength | Flexural Modulus | |||
| Cellulose acetate–PCL | Solvent casting | 10 MPa | - | 400 MPa | - | [ |
| Cellulose–PCL | Solution infiltration | 2.8–6.2 MPa | 15–44 MPa | - | - | [ |
| Cellulose–PCL | Extrusion | 2.12 ± 0.15 to 2.35 ± 0.51 MPa | - | - | 18.7 ± 3.1 to | [ |
| CNC–PCL | Electrospinning | 1.1–1.6 MPa | 7.2 MPa | - | - | [ |
| Wood flour–PCL | Knead processing | 13–27 MPa | 581–1011 MPa | - | - | [ |
| Wheat–PCL | Blending | 5–15 MPa | 160–500 MPa | - | - | [ |
| Starch–PCL | Predrying of starch | 29.49 ± 2.7 MPa | [ | |||
| Silk fabric–PCL | Compression moulding | 92.93 ± 3.273 MPa | 1.143 ± 0.108 MPa | 36.036 ± 1.903 MPa | 2.688 ± 0.0124 MPa | [ |
| HAP–PCL | Grafted and blended techniques | 2.53 ± 0.21 MPa | 111.92 ± 3.97 MPa | - | - | [ |
| Cellulose–PCL | Wet feeding | 31 ± 0.71 MPa | 1.85 ± 0.08 MPa | - | - | [ |
| Cellulose–PCL | Dry-feeding | 24 ± 1.24 MPa | 0.59 ± 0.06 MPa | - | - | [ |
| Cellulose–PCL | Electrospinning process | 4.45 ± 0.32 MPa | 19.17 ± 0.8 MPa | - | - | [ |
| Oil palm Fiber–PCL | Melt blending | 9.8 MPa | 250 MPa | - | - | [ |
TGA and DTG measurements of degradation temperature at 5.0, 10.0, 50.0, and 80.0 percent fiber degradation. Reproduce with copyright permission from Khandanlou et al. [135].
| Sample | T5% (°C) | T10% (°C) | T80% (°C) | Tmax (°C) | T5% (°C) | Residue at 500 °C (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ORS | 222.55 | 343.11 | 452.60 | 452.60 | 404.45 | 17.2 |
| PCL | 380.01 | 404.16 | 418.50 | 418.50 | 409.04 | 5.0 |
| 1.0% | 367.95 | 400.57 | 413.62 | 413.62 | 402.27 | 5.2 |
| 3.0% | 356.29 | 393.07 | 409.08 | 409.08 | 400.10 | 6.3 |
| 5.0% | 349.94 | 388.53 | 404.37 | 404.37 | 387.76 | 8.1 |
| 7.0% | 343.13 | 381.72 | 400.15 | 400.15 | 372.95 | 10.9 |
Figure 5Effects of PCL-g-MA content on the thermal properties of WF–PCL biocomposites [121].
Mechanical properties of PCL hybrid biocomposites.
| Hybrid Biocomposites | Processing Technique | Mechanical Properties | Ref. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tensile Strength | Tensile Modulus | Flexural Strength | Flexural Modulus | |||
| CAP–starch–PCL | Internal blending | Increased (value is not reported) | Increased (value is not reported) | - | - | [ |
| Graphene oxide–CNC–PCL | Solvent casting and ultrasonication | 4.55 ± 0.15 MPa | - | - | - | [ |
| Zinc oxide–CNC–PCL | Solvent casting | 12.16 ± 0.51 to 15.41 ± 0.79 MPa | 61.71 ± 0.17 to 91.71 ± 0.23 MPa | - | - | [ |
| Elastic–PCL | - | 500–520 kPa | 257–281 kPa | - | - | [ |
| Gelatin–acetylated CNF–PCL | Electrospun | 2.5–4.3 MPa | 21.3–24.1 MPa | - | - | [ |
| Coconut–acrylic acid–PCL | Blending | 12–30 MPa | - | - | - | [ |
| Alginate–PCL(electrospun)–PCL(struts) | Electrospun | 0.3–12.5 MPa | 0.9–10 MPa | - | - | [ |
Thermal properties of PLA–PCL–OPMF biocomposites and PLA–PCL/1 wt.% clay/OPMF hybrid biocomposites.
| Sample | Onset Temperature (°C) | Offset Temperature (°C) | Percentage of Degradation |
|---|---|---|---|
| PLA–PCL–OPMF | 196.01 | 473.84 | 72.78 |
| PLA–PCL/1 wt.% clay–OPMF | 221.12 | 458.36 | 71.08 |
Figure 6Florescence images with a scale bar of 200 μm of 3T3 fibroblast cell culture results at day 10 of microcellular injection moulded samples: neat PCL, 0.5% CNC, 1% CNC, and 5% CNC. Adapted with copyright permission from ref. [178].
Figure 7Factors affecting polymer selection.
Figure 8Different demonstrated architecture of PCL modification: (i) graft copolymer; (iia) diblock copolymer; (iib,c) triblock copolymer; (iid) tricomponent triblock copolymer; (iii) sta- shaped copolymer; (iv) hyperbranched copolymer; (v) molecular brush or comb shaped copolymer; and (vi) targeted block copolymer. Adapted with copyright permission from ref. [190].
Figure 9Drug release diagram of drug loaded samples with various concentration of CNC (Experimental data for ○ PCL, □ PCL-CNC0.5%, × PCL-CNC1.0%, ● PCL-CNC1.5%, ▯ PCL-CNC2.5%, ◊ PCL-CNC4%. Reproduced from ref. [199].