| Literature DB >> 35631974 |
Adrián Leonés1,2, Laura Peponi1,2, Jesús-María García-Martínez1, Emilia P Collar1.
Abstract
In the present work, a statistical study of the morphology and thermal behavior of poly(lactic acid) (PLA)/oligomer(lactic acid) (OLA)/magnesium oxide nanoparticles (MgO), electrospun fibers (efibers) has been carried out. The addition of both, OLA and MgO, is expected to modify the final properties of the electrospun PLA-based nanocomposites for their potential use in biomedical applications. Looking for the compositional optimization of these materials, a Box-Wilson design of experiment was used, taking as dependent variables the average fiber diameter as the representative of the fiber morphologies, as well as the glass transition temperature (Tg) and the degree of crystallinity (Xc) as their thermal response. The results show <r2> values of 73.76% (diameter), 88.59% (Tg) and 75.61% (Xc) for each polynomial fit, indicating a good correlation between both OLA and MgO, along with the morphological as well as the thermal behavior of the PLA-based efibers in the experimental space scanned.Entities:
Keywords: design of experiments; electrospinning; magnesium oxide; oligomer(lactic acid); poly(lactic acid)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35631974 PMCID: PMC9144131 DOI: 10.3390/polym14102092
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Worksheet for the Box–Wilson experimental design used.
| Run | Coded Factors | Controlled Factors | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLA | MgO | OLA (wt%) | MgO (wt%) | |
| I | −1 | −1 | 6.00 | 0.60 |
| II | 1 | −1 | 30.00 | 0.60 |
| III | −1 | 1 | 6.00 | 3.00 |
| IV | 1 | 1 | 30.00 | 3.00 |
| V | −√2 | 0 | 1.03 | 1.80 |
| VI | √2 | 0 | 34.97 | 1.80 |
| VII | 0 | −√2 | 18.00 | 0.10 |
| VIII | 0 | √2 | 18.00 | 3.49 |
| IX | 0 | 0 | 18.00 | 1.80 |
| X | 0 | 0 | 18.00 | 1.80 |
| XI | 0 | 0 | 18.00 | 1.80 |
| XII | 0 | 0 | 18.00 | 1.80 |
| XIII | 0 | 0 | 18.00 | 1.80 |
Figure 1SEM images of the different electrospun mats obtained from run I to run XIII of the experimental worksheet in Table 1.
Efibers experimental responses: Average diameter values, glass transition temperature, Tg, and degree of crystallinity, Xc.
| Run | Diameter (nm) | Tg (°C) | Xc (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | 469 ± 106 | 57 | 3.9 |
| II | 316 ± 67 | 31 | 30.0 |
| III | 137 ± 16 | 56 | 9.6 |
| IV | 156 ± 38 | 32 | 17.6 |
| V | 438 ± 67 | 51 | 3.3 |
| VI | 188 ± 45 | 34 | 16.6 |
| VII | 192 ± 39 | 43 | 9.8 |
| VIII | 186 ± 56 | 46 | 8.4 |
| IX | 172 ± 35 | 42 | 6.1 |
| X | 187 ± 43 | 44 | 14.6 |
| XI | 205 ± 62 | 43 | 12.3 |
| XII | 162 ± 42 | 47 | 7.7 |
| XIII | 163 ± 36 | 43 | 8.6 |
Figure 2DSC thermogram for PLA-based efibers obtained in run X.
Statistical parameters and coefficients of the polynomial equations from the Box–Wilson experimental design used. (Y = a0 + a1∙x1 + a2∙x2 + a3∙x1∙x2 + a4∙x12 + a5∙x22).
| <r2> | L. F. * | C. F. * | Ind. T. * | L. T. * | Int. T. * | Q. T. * | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a0 | a1 | a2 | a3 | a4 | a5 | ||||
| Diameter (nm) | 73.76 | 1.5 | 94.1 | 645.3 | −28.51 | −131.4 | 2.986 | 0.5016 | 7.101 |
| Tg (°C) | 88.59 | 5.2 | 99.1 | 57.86 | −0.7364 | −1.113 | 0.03993 | −0.003420 | 0.3004 |
| Xc (%) | 75.61 | 18.9 | 95.1 | −2.816 | 0.7388 | 2.096 | −0.3142 | 0.01046 | 0.7352 |
* L.F. (Lack of fit), C. F. (Confident Factor), Ind. T. (Independent Term), L. T. (Linear Terms), Int. T. (Interaction Term), Q. T. (Quadratic Terms).
Figure 3Predicted versus measured values for (a) diameter, (b) glass transition temperature and (c) degree of crystallinity.
t-value and confidence coefficient (%) for the different terms of each polynomial equations of the Box–Wilson model obtained for the studied properties.
| Ind. T. * | L. T. * | Int. T. * | Q. T. * | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| x1 | x2 | x1·x2 | x12 | x22 | ||
| Diameter (nm) | 5.31 (99.7%) | 3.33 (98.6%) | 1.54 (82.8%) | 1.18 (71.0%) | 2.61 (96.6%) | 0.37 (31.1%) |
| Tg (°C) | 9.51 (99.9%) | 1.72 (87.0%) | 0.26 (26.0%) | 0.31 (28.5%) | 0.36 (30.5%) | 0.31 (28.4%) |
| Xc (%) | 0.37 (31.0%) | 1.37 (77.8%) | 0.39 (32.0%) | 1.96 (91.1%) | 0.86 (56.6%) | 0.61 (43.3%) |
* Ind. T. (Independent Term), L. T. (Linear Terms), Int. T (Interaction Term), Q. T. (Quadratic Terms).
Figure 4(a) 3D response surface plot and (b) contour plot of the diameter as a function of OLA and MgO NPs content, colours changes are attributed to an increment of 30 nm in the average diameter of efibers. (c) Parametric evolution of diameter with OLA content remaining constant the MgO NPs levels. (d) Parametric evolution of diameter with MgO NPs content remaining constant the OLA amounts.
Figure 5(a) 3D response surface plot and (b) contour plot of the glass transition temperature as a function of OLA and MgO NPs content, colours changes are attributed to an increment of 2 °C in the Tg. (c) Parametric evolution of glass transition temperature with OLA content for different amounts of MgO NPs levels. (d) Parametric evolution of glass transition temperature with MgO NPs content for different amounts of OLA amounts.
Figure 6(a) Three-dimensional response surface plot and (b) contour plot of the degree of crystallinity as a function of OLA and MgO NPs content, colours changes are attributed to an increment of 2.3 % in Xc. (c) Parametric evolution of the degree of crystallinity with OLA content for different amounts of MgO NPs levels. (d) Parametric evolution of the degree of crystallinity with MgO NPs content for different amounts of OLA amounts.