| Literature DB >> 35808742 |
Irina V Tyshkunova1, Iosif V Gofman1, Dmitry G Chukhchin2, Alexey V Malkov2,3, Alexander I Mishanin4, Alexey S Golovkin4, Ekaterina N Pavlova1, Daria N Poshina1, Yury A Skorik1,5.
Abstract
Polysaccharide-based cryogels are promising materials for producing scaffolds in tissue engineering. In this work, we obtained ultralight (0.046-0.162 g/cm3) and highly porous (88.2-96.7%) cryogels with a complex hierarchical morphology by dissolving cellulose in phosphoric acid, with subsequent regeneration and freeze-drying. The effect of the cellulose dissolution temperature on phosphoric acid and the effect of the freezing time of cellulose hydrogels on the structure and properties of the obtained cryogels were studied. It has been shown that prolonged freezing leads to the formation of denser and stronger cryogels with a network structure. The incorporation of chitin nanowhiskers led to a threefold increase in the strength of the cellulose cryogels. The X-ray diffraction method showed that the regenerated cellulose was mostly amorphous, with a crystallinity of 26.8-28.4% in the structure of cellulose II. Cellulose cryogels with chitin nanowhiskers demonstrated better biocompatibility with mesenchymal stem cells compared to the normal cellulose cryogels.Entities:
Keywords: biocompatibility; cellulose cryogels; chitin nanowhiskers; complex hierarchical morphology; composite cryogels; tissue engineering
Year: 2022 PMID: 35808742 PMCID: PMC9268798 DOI: 10.3390/polym14132694
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Dissolution conditions and characteristics of cellulose cryogels.
| Sample | Cellulose | Dissolution Time, h | Temperature, °C | Sample | Yield, | ∆ V, | Mw | Crystallinity, | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5 | 24 | 20 ± 2 | Intact | 93.6 | 60 | 3319 | 53,770 | 28.2 |
| 2 | 5 | 46 | 86.2 | 60 | 3647 | 29,620 | 28.4 | ||
| 3 | 5 | 24 | 29 ± 1 | Partially | 88.4 | −45 | 1189 | 18,110 | 28.0 |
| 4 | 10 | 24 | Intact | 90.9 | 17.5 | 1210 | 24,000 | 27.0 | |
| 5 | 5 | 24 | 39 ± 1 | Partially | 90.3 | −34 | 1388 | 19,390 | 27.7 |
| 6 | 5 | 48 | 86.1 | −62.5 | 803 | 13,190 | 27.9 |
* Ð = Mw/Mn is the dispersity, where Mw is the weight-average molecular weight and Mn is the number-average molecular weight.
Characterization of intact cylindrical cryogels.
| Sample | Cryogel Volume, | Volume Shrinkage, | ρ, | Porosity, | SR, | Specific Surface Area, |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.5 | 10.7 | 0.052 | 96.2 | 8.7 | 38.1 |
| 2 | 4.7 | 6.9 | 0.046 | 96.7 | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| 4 | 12.6 | 37.3 | 0.144 | 89.6 | Sample broken | 6.0 |
Figure 1Diffractograms of microcrystalline cellulose (0) and cellulose cryogel samples (numbers according to Table 1).
Figure 2FTIR spectra of microcrystalline cellulose (0) and cellulose cryogel samples (numbers according to Table 1).
Mechanical properties of cellulose cryogels.
| Sample | E, kPa | σy, kPa | σmax, kPa | εmax, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1231 ± 132 | 79 ± 26 | 366 ± 45 | 70 |
| 2 | 126 ± 25 | 43 ± 11 | 268 ± 30 | 70 |
| 4 | Broken under load | |||
Figure 3SEM images of cryogel samples 1–6.
Effects of freezing time on the properties of cryogels.
| Sample | Freezing Time, | Yield, | Cryogel Volume, | Volume Shrinkage, | ρ, | Porosity, | ∆ V, | SR, | E, | Crystallinity, | Specific | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 93.6 | 4.5 | 10.7 | 0.052 | 96.2 | 60 | 3319 | 8.7 | 1231 ± 132 | 28.2 | 38.062 |
| 7 | 10 | 90.0 | 1.43 | 71.4 | 0.157 | 88.6 | 66 | 3566 | 7.1 | 1099 ± 121 | 27.4 | 4.647 |
| 8 | 28 | 91.2 | 1.40 | 71.9 | 0.162 | 88.2 | 60 | 3336 | 5.1 | 2872 ± 478 | 26.8 | 16.765 |
Figure 4SEM images of cryogel samples 7 and 8.
Conditions of the production process and the characteristics of composite cryogels.
| Sample | CNW, | Freezing Time, | Yield, | Cryogel Volume, | Volume Shrinkage, | ∆ V, | ρ, | Porosity, | SR, | Specific | E, | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 3 | 93.6 | 4.50 | 10.7 | 60 | 0.052 | 96.2 | 3319 | 8.7 | 38.062 | 1231 ± 132 |
| 9 | 1 | 3 | 89.2 | 1.84 | 63.2 | 40 | 0.121 | 91.2 | 3010 | 4.9 | 0.981 | 1238 |
| 10 | 2.5 | 3 | 90.8 | 2.76 | 44.9 | 40 | 0.082 | 94.0 | 2946 | 7.7 | 2.629 | 1570 |
| 11 | 5 | 3 | 92.6 | 3.10 | 37.8 | 124 | 0.078 | 94.3 | 4529 | 6.6 | 1.012 | 273 |
| 12 | 10 | 3 | 83.3 | 2.49 | 50.2 | 104 | 0.092 | 93.3 | 4349 | 6.8 | 0.530 | 383 ± 150 |
| 13 | 1 | 10 | 75.6 | 1.80 | 63.8 | 60 | 0.106 | 92.3 | 4144 | 4.6 | 9.737 | 3120 ± 120 |
| 14 | 2.5 | 10 | 90.5 | 2.51 | 49.8 | 64 | 0.092 | 93.3 | 3567 | 4.9 | 0.935 | 3050 ± 160 |
Figure 5SEM images of cryogel samples 9–14.
Figure 6Morphology of mesenchymal stem cells adhered on coverslips and on experimental samples (magnification of ×10).
Characteristics of spheroids on the tested cryogel samples (mean ± SE).
| Sample | Number of Spheroids/mm2 | Spheroid Size, µm | Depth of Spheroids Location, µm |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | 7.3 ± 0.9 | 41.0 ± 1.4 | 223 ± 5 |
| 8 | 6.6 ± 1.8 | 44 ± 2 | 230 ± 5 |
| 13 | 8.6 ± 0.7 | 57 ± 3 * | 230 ± 9 |
* p < 0.05 comparing sample 7 and sample 8.
Figure 7Spheroids on the surface of the cryogel samples (magnification of ×40).