Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 51, Issue 18, pp 8361–8381 | Cite as

Characterization of maghemite (γ-Fe2O3)-loaded poly-l-lactic acid/thermoplastic polyurethane electrospun mats for soft tissue engineering

  • Ehsan Fallahiarezoudar
  • Mohaddeseh Ahmadipourroudposht
  • Ani Idris
  • Noordin Mohd Yusof
  • Mohsen Marvibaigi
  • Muhammad Irfan
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This study proposed a new mixture of three different biocompatible and biodegradable materials for soft tissue which needs elasticity and stretchability as well as stiffness. Five different ratios of poly-l-lactic acid (PLLA)/thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) blend containing 1 % (w/v) maghemite (γ-Fe2O3) nanoparticles were electrospun and characterized in terms of morphology, degradation rate, biological compatibility, and mechanical properties for tunable properties. Neat PLLA/TPU samples were used for maghemite effect verification. The existence of three components in the electrospun mats was confirmed by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. Scanning electron microscopy images illustrated well-fabricated nanofibers with smaller diameter distribution for PLLA. The MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay using human skin fibroblast cell indicates desired proliferation and migrant over the samples. Blood biocompatibility results in terms of clotting time, fibrin formation, and hemolysis were almost in the normal range. Samples’ degradation rate was investigated over 24 weeks where the PLLA shows 47.15 % mass change, while 6.7 % of TPU mass changed. High tensile strength and an extremely low elongation at break were determined from the stress–strain curve for PLLA, while TPU exhibits high elasticity. The 50:50 % ratio of 1 % (w/v) maghemite-loaded PLLA/TPU scaffold presents an overall satisfaction.

Keywords

Tissue Engineering PLLA Simulated Body Fluid Maghemite Fibrin Formation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Funding

The authors wish to thank the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) and Research Management Center, UTM, for the financial support through the Geran Universiti Penyelidikan (GUP) funding number 06H09.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Joy J et al (2015) Fabrication of smooth electrospun nanofibrous gelatin mat for potential application in tissue engineering. Int J Polym Mater Polym Biomater 64(10):509–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bao J et al (2013) Electrospun antimicrobial microfibrous scaffold for annulus fibrosus tissue engineering. J Mater Sci 48(12):4223–4232. doi: 10.1007/s10853-013-7235-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wu S et al (2014) Biomimetic porous scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng R: Rep 80:1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hosseinkazemi H et al (2015) Modification of PCL electrospun nanofibrous mat with calendula officinalis extract for improved interaction with cells. Int J Polym Mater Polym Biomater 64(9):459–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ahmadipourroudposht M et al (2015) Application of response surface methodology in optimization of electrospinning process to fabricate (ferrofluid/polyvinyl alcohol) magnetic nanofibers. Mater Sci Eng C 50:234–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bini T et al (2006) Poly (l-lactide-co-glycolide) biodegradable microfibers and electrospun nanofibers for nerve tissue engineering: an in vitro study. J Mater Sci 41(19):6453–6459. doi: 10.1007/s10853-006-0714-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jia L et al (2013) Biocompatibility evaluation of protein-incorporated electrospun polyurethane-based scaffolds with smooth muscle cells for vascular tissue engineering. J Mater Sci 48(15):5113–5124. doi: 10.1007/s10853-013-7359-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fallahiarezoudar E et al (2015) A review of: application of synthetic scaffold in tissue engineering heart valves. Mater Sci Eng C 48:556–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hutmacher DW (2000) Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials 21(24):2529–2543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mehrasa M et al (2016) Incorporation of zeolite and silica nanoparticles into electrospun PVA/collagen nanofibrous scaffolds: the influence on the physical, chemical properties and cell behavior. Int J Polym Mater Polym Biomater 65(9):457–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu N-H et al (2014) Electrospinning of poly (ε-caprolactone-co-lactide)/Pluronic blended scaffolds for skin tissue engineering. J Mater Sci 49(20):7253–7262. doi: 10.1007/s10853-014-8432-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Qazi TH et al (2015) Biomaterials based strategies for skeletal muscle tissue engineering: existing technologies and future trends. Biomaterials 53:502–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hasan A et al (2014) Electrospun scaffolds for tissue engineering of vascular grafts. Acta Biomater 10(1):11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Costa PF et al (2014) Advanced tissue engineering scaffold design for regeneration of the complex hierarchical periodontal structure. J Clin Periodontol 41(3):283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koysuren O et al (2014) Electrospun polyvinyl borate/poly (methyl methacrylate)(PVB/PMMA) blend nanofibers. Int J Polym Mater Polym Biomater 63(7):337–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yang S et al (2001) The design of scaffolds for use in tissue engineering. Part I. Traditional factors. Tissue Eng 7(6):679–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martin JR et al (2014) A porous tissue engineering scaffold selectively degraded by cell-generated reactive oxygen species. Biomaterials 35(12):3766–3776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mendelson K, Schoen FJ (2006) Heart valve tissue engineering: concepts, approaches, progress, and challenges. Ann Biomed Eng 34(12):1799–1819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ocal H et al (2014) 5-Fluorouracil-loaded PLA/PLGA PEG-PPG-PEG polymeric nanoparticles: formulation, in vitro characterization and cell culture studies. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 40(4):560–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fallahiarezoudar E, Ahmadipourroudposht M, Yusof NM (2015) Geometric modeling of aortic heart valve. Proc Manuf 2:135–140Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Palacios J et al (2015) Characterization and thermal degradation kinetics of poly (l-lactide) nanocomposites with carbon nanotubes. Polym Eng Sci 55(3):710–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wei Y et al (2011) Magnetic biodegradable Fe3O4/CS/PVA nanofibrous membranes for bone regeneration. Biomed Mater 6(5):055008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmidt CE, Baier JM (2000) Acellular vascular tissues: natural biomaterials for tissue repair and tissue engineering. Biomaterials 21(22):2215–2231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dixit P et al (2001) Vascular graft endothelialization: comparative analysis of canine and human endothelial cell migration on natural biomaterials. J Biomed Mater Res 56(4):545–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yoon H, Ahn S, Kim G (2009) Three-dimensional polycaprolactone hierarchical scaffolds supplemented with natural biomaterials to enhance mesenchymal stem cell proliferation. Macromol Rapid Commun 30(19):1632–1637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Samouillan V et al (2011) The use of thermal techniques for the characterization and selection of natural biomaterials. J Funct Biomater 2(3):230–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lutolf M, Hubbell J (2005) Synthetic biomaterials as instructive extracellular microenvironments for morphogenesis in tissue engineering. Nat Biotechnol 23(1):47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pariente J-L, Kim B-S, Atala A (2002) In vitro biocompatibility evaluation of naturally derived and synthetic biomaterials using normal human bladder smooth muscle cells. J Urol 167(4):1867–1871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bawazer L (2015) Bio focus: synthetic biomaterials advance stem cell engineering. MRS Bull 40(10):792–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li Q, Ma L, Gao C (2015) Biomaterials for in situ tissue regeneration: development and perspectives. J Mater Chem B 3(46):8921–8938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mi H-Y et al (2013) Characterization of thermoplastic polyurethane/polylactic acid (TPU/PLA) tissue engineering scaffolds fabricated by microcellular injection molding. Mater Sci Eng C 33(8):4767–4776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rodenas-Rochina J, Vidaurre A, Cortázar IC, Lebourg M (2015) Effects of hydroxyapatite filler on long-term hydrolytic degradation of PLLA/PCL porous scaffolds. Polymer Degrad Stab 119:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Salehi M et al (2015) Preparation of pure PLLA, pure chitosan, and PLLA/chitosan blend porous tissue engineering scaffolds by thermally induced phase separation method and evaluation of the corresponding mechanical and biological properties. Int J Polym Mater Polym Biomater 64(13):675–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gonçalves F et al (2015) Hybrid membranes of PLLA/collagen for bone tissue engineering: a comparative study of scaffold production techniques for optimal mechanical properties and osteoinduction ability. Materials 8(2):408–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Raghavendran HRB et al (2016) Synergistic interaction of platelet derived growth factor (PDGF) with the surface of PLLA/Col/HA and PLLA/HA scaffolds produces rapid osteogenic differentiation. Colloids Surf B 139:68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Raja M, Ryu SH, Shanmugharaj A (2013) Thermal, mechanical and electroactive shape memory properties of polyurethane (PU)/poly (lactic acid)(PLA)/CNT nanocomposites. Eur Polymer J 49(11):3492–3500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ngadiman NHA et al (2015) γ-Fe2O3 nanoparticles filled polyvinyl alcohol as potential biomaterial for tissue engineering scaffold. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 49:90–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fallahiarezoudar E et al (2015) Fabrication (ferrofluid/polyvinyl alcohol) magnetic nanofibers via co-axial electrospinning. J Dispers Sci Technol 36(1):28–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fallahiarezoudar E et al (2015) Influence of process factors on diameter of core (γ-Fe2O3)/shell (polyvinyl alcohol) structure magnetic nanofibers during co-axial electrospinning. Int J Polym Mater Polym Biomater 64(1):15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Prabhakaran MP, Venugopal J, Ramakrishna S (2009) Electrospun nanostructured scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 5(8):2884–2893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Amarjargal A et al (2013) Controlled assembly of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles on electrospun PU nanofibrous membrane: a novel heat-generating substrate for magnetic hyperthermia application. Eur Polymer J 49(12):3796–3805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Arrieta M et al (2014) Multifunctional PLA–PHB/cellulose nanocrystal films: processing, structural and thermal properties. Carbohydr Polym 107:16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Haroosh HJ, Dong Y (2015) Electrospun poly (lactic acid)(PLA): poly (ε-caprolactone)(PCL)/halloysite nanotube (HNT) composite fibers: synthesis and characterization. In: Fillers and reinforcements for advanced nanocomposites, p 59Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Idris A et al (2010) Photocatalytic magnetic separable beads for chromium (VI) reduction. Water Res 44(6):1683–1688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kang Y et al (2009) A study on the in vitro degradation properties of poly (l-lactic acid)/β-tricalcium phosphate (PLLA/β-TCP) scaffold under dynamic loading. Med Eng Phys 31(5):589–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chan K-C, Yin M-C, Chao W-J (2007) Effect of diallyl trisulfide-rich garlic oil on blood coagulation and plasma activity of anticoagulation factors in rats. Food Chem Toxicol 45(3):502–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Deng Y et al (2015) effect of surface roughness on osteogenesis in vitro and osseointegration in vivo of carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone–nanohydroxyapatite composite. Int J Nanomed 10:1425Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ponsonnet L et al (2003) Relationship between surface properties (roughness, wettability) of titanium and titanium alloys and cell behaviour. Mater Sci Eng C 23(4):551–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Deligianni DD et al (2000) Effect of surface roughness of hydroxyapatite on human bone marrow cell adhesion, proliferation, differentiation and detachment strength. Biomaterials 22(1):87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zhang P et al (2015) Water-permeable polylactide blend membranes for hydrophilicity-based separation. Chem Eng J 269:180–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pratsinis SE, Vemury S (1996) Particle formation in gases: a review. Powder Technol 88(3):267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gupta AK, Gupta M (2005) Synthesis and surface engineering of iron oxide nanoparticles for biomedical applications. Biomaterials 26(18):3995–4021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Klabunde KJ, Richards R (2009) Nanoscale materials in chemistry. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ehsan Fallahiarezoudar
    • 1
  • Mohaddeseh Ahmadipourroudposht
    • 1
  • Ani Idris
    • 2
  • Noordin Mohd Yusof
    • 1
  • Mohsen Marvibaigi
    • 3
  • Muhammad Irfan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Materials, Manufacturing & Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaJohor BahruMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Bioprocess Engineering, Faculty of Chemical EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaJohor BahruMalaysia
  3. 3.Department of Biomaterials, Faculty of Bioscience and Medical EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaJohor BahruMalaysia

Personalised recommendations