Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 54, Issue 15, pp 10941–10962 | Cite as

Crosslinking of genipin and autoclaving in chitosan-based nanofibrous scaffolds: structural and physiochemical properties

  • Yi Wah Mak
  • Wallace Woon-Fong LeungEmail author
Polymers
  • 185 Downloads

Abstract

Chitosan-based electrospun nanofibrous scaffolds have been selected as wound healing/tissue scaffolds because of their extracellular matrix nature and biocompatible properties. However, crosslinking of scaffolds is necessary to avoid lysozyme degradation in an aqueous environment, as a stable scaffold is crucial for the activities of fibroblasts, including adhesion and proliferation during wound healing. Autoclaving (physical) and genipin crosslinking (chemical) methods have been employed to stabilize chitosan-based scaffolds individually. However, the differences in scaffold microstructure induced by the individual or combined crosslinking methods have yet to be investigated systematically. In this study, autoclaving crosslinking improved mainly the structural properties (tensile strength and crystallinity), but it also expanded the chitosan and PEO network by hydrolysis, which enlarged the fiber diameter and caused chitosan chain degradation. Meanwhile, genipin crosslinking improved the physiochemical properties, primarily hydrophilicity. On the other hand, the combined crosslinking significantly improved both the structural and physiochemical properties through the unique reorganization of the polymeric network. The confined geometry of the nanofiber as well as the genipin crosslinks resulted in maximal crystallization of chitosan and amorphization of PEO chains. Unfortunately, the combined crosslinking resulted in the lowest antibacterial activity because of the consumption of amino and protonated amino groups in the crosslinking process. Despite this, the combined crosslinking scaffold achieved the best stability under lysozyme degradation and therefore it is preferred over autoclaving or genipin crosslinking alone. In conclusion, the results show that chemical and physical crosslinking methods induce different changes in crystallinity and hydrophilicity that affect the physicochemical properties. Therefore, crystallinity and hydrophilicity are significant considerations when designing a tissue scaffold.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Yi Wah Mak acknowledges the funding support from the Hong Kong Research Grant Council PhD fellowship for three years. She also acknowledges additional studentship for 1 year from the Department of Mechanical Engineering, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HKPolyU). The authors are grateful to Mr. Kenneth K.S. Lo from the Dept. of Mechanical Engineering (ME), HKPolyU, for comments, Dr. Kit Ying Choy from the Dept. of Applied Biology and Chemical Technology (ABCT), HKPolyU, for bacterial culture technology, Prof. Thomas Leung from the Dept. of ABCT, HKPolyU, for the gift of S. aureus, and Dr. Y.S. Szeto from the Department of ITC, HKPolyU, for his comments.

Funding

Yi Wah Mak received the PhD fellowship funding from the Hong Kong Research Grant Council for 3 years. She also received additional studentship for 1 year from the Department of Mechanical Engineering, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10853_2019_3649_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 2770 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Jayakumar R, Prabaharan M, Sudheesh Kumar PT, Nair SV, Tamura H (2011) Biomaterials based on chitin and chitosan in wound dressing applications. Biotechnol Adv 29:322–337.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chung YC, Chen CY (2008) Antibacterial characteristics and activity of acid-soluble chitosan. Bioresour Technol 99:2806–2814.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.06.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Angelova N, Manolova N, Rashkov I, Maximova V, Bogdanova S, Domard A (1995) Preparation and properties of modified chitosan films for drug release. J Bioact Compat Polym 10:285–298.  https://doi.org/10.1177/088391159501000401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kumar MNVR, Muzzarelli RAA, Muzzarelli C, Sashiwa H, Domb AJ (2005) Chitosan chemistry and pharmaceutical perspectives. Chem Rev 104:6017–6084.  https://doi.org/10.1021/cr030441b Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paul W, Sharma CP (2004) Chitosan and alginate wound dressings: a short review. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 18:18–23Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guillaume C, Erik S (2014) Physical influences of the extracellular environment on cell migration. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 15:813–824.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3897 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu M, Duan X-P, Li Y-M, Yang D-P, Long Y-Z (2017) Electrospun nanofibers for wound healing. Mater Sci Eng C 76:1413–1423.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2017.03.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nae Gyune R, Choongsoo SS, Heungsoo S (2013) Current approaches to electrospun nanofibers for tissue engineering. Biomed Mater 8:014102.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-6041/8/1/014102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jia Y-T, Gong J, Gu X-H, Kim H-Y, Dong J, Shen X-Y (2007) Fabrication and characterization of poly(vinyl alcohol)/chitosan blend nanofibers produced by electrospinning method. Carbohydr Polym 67:403–409.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2006.06.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ignatova M, Manolova N, Rashkov I (2007) Novel antibacterial fibers of quaternized chitosan and poly(vinyl pyrrolidone) prepared by electrospinning. Eur Polym J 43:1112–1122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2007.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhattarai N, Edmondson D, Veiseh O, Matsen FA, Zhang M (2005) Electrospun chitosan-based nanofibers and their cellular compatibility. Biomaterials 26:6176–6184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.03.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muzzarelli RAA (1997) Human enzymatic activities related to the therapeutic administration of chitin derivatives CMLS. Cell Mol Life Sci 53:131–140.  https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00000584 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lim LY, Khor E, Ling CE (1999) Effects of dry heat and saturated steam on the physical properties of chitosan. J Biomed Mater Res 48:111–116.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(1999)48:2%3c111:AID-JBM3%3e3.0.CO;2-W CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ritthidej CC, Phaechamud T, Koizumi T (2002) Moist heat treatment on physicochemical change of chitosan salt films. Int J Pharm 232:11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mayol L, De Stefano D, Campani V, De Falco F, Ferrari E, Cencetti C, Matricardi P, Maiuri L, Carnuccio R, Gallo A, Maiuri M, De Rosa G (2014) Design and characterization of a chitosan physical gel promoting wound healing in mice. Eur Soc Biomater 25:1483–1493.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-014-5175-7 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schiffman JD, Schauer CL (2007) Cross-linking chitosan nanofibers. Biomacromolecules 8:594–601.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm060804s CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jawad AH, Nawi MA (2012) Oxidation of crosslinked chitosan-epichlorohydrine film and its application with TiO2 for phenol removal. Carbohydr Polym 90:87–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.04.066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yue W (2014) Prevention of browning of depolymerized chitosan obtained by gamma irradiation. Carbohydr Polym 101:857–863.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cheng YX, Ramos D, Lee P, Liang DN, Yu XJ, Kumbar SG (2014) Collagen functionalized bioactive nanofiber matrices for osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells: bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Nanotechnol 10:287–298.  https://doi.org/10.1166/jbn.2014.1753 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pauliukaite R, Ghica ME, Fatibello-Filho O, Brett CMA (2009) Comparative study of different cross-linking agents for the immobilization of functionalized carbon nanotubes within a chitosan film supported on a graphite–epoxy composite electrode. Anal Chem 81:5364–5372.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ac900464z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huang LLH, Sung HW, Tsai CC, Huang DM (1998) Biocompatibility study of a biological tissue fixed with a naturally occurring crosslinking reagent. J Biomed Mater Res 42:568–576.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(19981215)42:4%3c568:aid-jbm13%3e3.0.co;2-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Norowski PA, Fujiwara T, Clem WC, Adatrow PC, Eckstein EC, Haggard WO, Bumgardner JD (2012) Novel naturally crosslinked electrospun nanofibrous chitosan mats for guided bone regeneration membranes: material characterization and cytocompatibility. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 9:577–583.  https://doi.org/10.1002/term.1648 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mi F-L, Tan Y-C, Liang H-C, Huang R-N, Sung H-W (2001) In vitro evaluation of a chitosan membrane cross-linked with genipin. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 12:835–850.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156856201753113051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mekhail M, Jahan K, Tabrizian M (2014) Genipin-crosslinked chitosan/poly-l-lysine gels promote fibroblast adhesion and proliferation. Carbohydr Polym 108:91–98.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.03.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sung H-W, Huang R-N, Huang LLH, Tsai C-C (1999) In vitro evaluation of cytotoxicity of a naturally occurring cross-linking reagent for biological tissue fixation. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 10:63–78.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156856299X00289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hc L, Chang W, Hf L, Lee M, Hw S (2004) Crosslinking structures of gelatin hydrogels crosslinked with genipin or a water-soluble carbodiimide. J Appl Polym Sci 91:4017–4026.  https://doi.org/10.1002/app.13563 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Muzzarelli RAA (2009) Genipin-crosslinked chitosan hydrogels as biomedical and pharmaceutical aids. Carbohydr Polym 77:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.01.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ma B, Wang X, Wu C, Chang J (2014) Crosslinking strategies for preparation of extracellular matrix-derived cardiovascular scaffolds. Regen Biomater 1:81–89.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rb/rbu009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Silva SS, Motta A, Rodrigues MT, Pinheiro AFM, Gomes ME, Mano JF, Reis RL, Migliaresi C (2008) Novel genipin-cross-linked chitosan/silk fibroin sponges for cartilage engineering strategies. Biomacromolecules 9:2764–2774.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm800874q CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gomes SR, Rodrigues G, Martins GG, Henriques CMR, Silva JC (2012) In vitro evaluation of crosslinked electrospun fish gelatin scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C 33:1219–1227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2012.12.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Norowski PA, Mishra S, Adatrow PC, Haggard WO, Bumgardner JD (2012) Suture pullout strength and in vitro fibroblast and RAW 264.7 monocyte biocompatibility of genipin crosslinked nanofibrous chitosan mats for guided tissue regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 100:2890–2896.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li Q, Wang X, Lou X, Yuan H, Tu H, Li B, Zhang Y (2015) Genipin-crosslinked electrospun chitosan nanofibers: determination of crosslinking conditions and evaluation of cytocompatibility. Carbohydr Polym 130:166–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.05.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fessel G, Cadby J, Wunderli S, van Weeren R, Snedeker JG (2014) Dose- and time-dependent effects of genipin crosslinking on cell viability and tissue mechanics—toward clinical application for tendon repair. Acta Biomater 10:1897–1906.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2013.12.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Luna SM, Silva SS, Gomes ME, Mano JF, Reis RL (2011) Cell adhesion and proliferation onto chitosan-based membranes treated by plasma surface modification. J Biomater Appl 26:101–116.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328210362924 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jhala D, Rather H, Vasita R (2016) Polycaprolactone–chitosan nanofibers influence cell morphology to induce early osteogenic differentiation. Biomater Sci 4:1584–1595.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c6bm00492j CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Galante R, Rediguieri CF, Kikuchi IS, Vasquez PAS, Colaço R, Serro AP, Pinto TJA (2016) About the sterilization of chitosan hydrogel nanoparticles. PLoS ONE 11:e0168862.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168862 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rao SB, Sharma CP (1995) Sterilization of chitosan: implications. J Biomater Appl 10:136–143.  https://doi.org/10.1177/088532829501000204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rivero S, García MA, Pinotti A (2013) Physical and chemical treatments on chitosan matrix to modify film properties and kinetics of biodegradation. J Mater Phys Chem 1:51–57.  https://doi.org/10.12691/jmpc-1-3-5 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chiono V, Pulieri E, Vozzi G, Ciardelli G, Ahluwalia A, Giusti P (2008) Genipin-crosslinked chitosan/gelatin blends for biomedical applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med 19:889–898.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-007-3212-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kim CH, Park HS, Gin YJ, Son Y, Lim SH, Choi YJ, Park KS, Park CW (2004) Improvement of the biocompatibility of chitosan dermal scaffold by rigorous dry heat treatment. Macromol Res 12:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Krishnakumar GS, Sampath S, Muthusamy S, John MA (2019) Importance of crosslinking strategies in designing smart biomaterials for bone tissue engineering: a systematic review. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 96:941–954.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.11.081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Donius AE, Kiechel MA, Schauer CL, Wegst UG (2013) New crosslinkers for electrospun chitosan fibre mats. Part II: mechanical properties. J R Soc Interface 10:20120946.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2012.0946 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vetten MA, Yah CS, Singh T, Gulumian M (2014) Challenges facing sterilization and depyrogenation of nanoparticles: effects on structural stability and biomedical applications. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med 10:1391–1399.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nano.2014.03.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Focher B, Beltrame PL, Naggi A, Torri G (1990) Alkaline N-deacetylation of chitin enhanced by flash treatments. Reaction kinetics and structure modifications. Carbohydr Polym 12:405–418.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0144-8617(90)90090-F CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lu C, Chiang SW, Du H, Li J, Gan L, Zhang X, Chu X, Yao Y, Li B, Kang F (2017) Thermal conductivity of electrospinning chain-aligned polyethylene oxide (PEO). Polymer 115:52–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2017.02.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Osorio-Madrazo A, David L, Trombotto S, Lucas J-M, Peniche-Covas C, Domard A (2010) Kinetics study of the solid-state acid hydrolysis of chitosan: evolution of the crystallinity and macromolecular structure. Biomacromolecules 11:1376–1386.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm1001685 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wojdyr M (2010) Fityk : a general-purpose peak fitting program. J Appl Crystallogr 43:1126–1128.  https://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889810030499 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Langford JI, Wilson AJC (1978) Scherrer after sixty years: a survey and some new results in the determination of crystallite size. J Appl Crystallogr 11:102–113.  https://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889878012844 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chen ZG, Wang PW, Wei B, Mo XM, Cui FZ (2010) Electrospun collagen-chitosan nanofiber: a biomimetic extracellular matrix for endothelial cell and smooth muscle cell. Acta Biomater 6:372–382.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2009.07.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jett BD, Hatter KL, Huycke MM, Gilmore MS (1997) Simplified agar plate method for quantifying viable bacteria. Biotechniques 23:648–650.  https://doi.org/10.2144/97234bm22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Duarte ML, Ferreira MC, Marvão MR, Rocha J (2002) An optimised method to determine the degree of acetylation of chitin and chitosan by FTIR spectroscopy. Int J Biol Macromol 31:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-8130(02)00039-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rakkapao N, Vao-Soongnern V, Masubuchi Y, Watanabe H (2011) Miscibility of chitosan/poly(ethylene oxide) blends and effect of doping alkali and alkali earth metal ions on chitosan/PEO interaction. Polymer 52:2618–2627.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2011.03.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lagaron JM, Fernandez-Saiz P, Ocio MJ (2007) Using ATR-FTIR spectroscopy to design active antimicrobial food packaging structures based on high molecular weight chitosan polysaccharide. J Agric Food Chem 55:2554–2562.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf063110j CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Butler MF, Ng YF, Pudney PDA (2003) Mechanism and kinetics of the crosslinking reaction between biopolymers containing primary amine groups and genipin. J Polym Sci Part A Polym Chem 41:3941–3953.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pola.10960 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Osman Z, Arof AK (2003) FTIR studies of chitosan acetate based polymer electrolytes. Electrochim Acta 48:993–999.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4686(02)00812-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Toffey A, Samaranayake G, Frazier CE, Glasser WG (1996) Chitin derivatives. I. Kinetics of the heat-induced conversion of chitosan to chitin. J Appl Polym Sci 60:75–85.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4628(19960404)60:1%3c75:AID-APP9%3e3.0.CO;2-S CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Arteche Pujana M, Pérez-Álvarez L, Cesteros Iturbe LC, Katime I (2013) Biodegradable chitosan nanogels crosslinked with genipin. Carbohydr Polym 94:836–842.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.01.082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Martinová L, Lubasová D (2008) Electrospun chitosan based nanofibers. Res J Text Appar 12:72–79.  https://doi.org/10.1108/RJTA-12-02-2008-B009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Pakravan M, Heuzey M-C, Ajji A (2011) A fundamental study of chitosan/PEO electrospinning. Polymer 52:4813–4824.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2011.08.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Liu H, Du Y, Wang X, Sun L (2004) Chitosan kills bacteria through cell membrane damage. Int J Food Microbiol 95:147–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.01.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mauricio-Sánchez RA, Salazar R, Luna-Bárcenas JG, Mendoza-Galván A (2018) FTIR spectroscopy studies on the spontaneous neutralization of chitosan acetate films by moisture conditioning. Vib Spectrosc 94:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vibspec.2017.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Demarger-Andre S, Domard A (1994) Chitosan carboxylic acid salts in solution and in the solid state. Carbohydr Polym 23:211–219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0144-8617(94)90104-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Fl M, Ss S, Ck P (2005) Characterization of ring-opening polymerization of genipin and pH-dependent cross-linking reactions between chitosan and genipin. J Polym Sci Part A Polym Chem 43:1985–2000.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pola.20669 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Zivanovic S, Li J, Davidson PM, Kit K (2007) Physical, mechanical, and antibacterial properties of chitosan/PEO blend films. Biomacromolecules 8:1505–1510.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm061140p CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Naito P-K, Ogawa Y, Kimura S, Iwata T, Wada M (2015) Crystal transition from hydrated chitosan and chitosan/monocarboxylic acid complex to anhydrous chitosan investigated by X-ray diffraction. J Polym Sci Part B Polym Phys 53:1065–1069.  https://doi.org/10.1002/polb.23748 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Szymanska E, Winnicka K (2015) Stability of chitosan-A challenge for pharmaceutical and biomedical applications. Mar Drugs 13:1819–1846.  https://doi.org/10.3390/md13041819 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kawada J, Abe Y, Yui T, Okuyama K, Ogawa K (1999) Crystalline transformation of chitosan from hydrated to anhydrous polymorph via chitosan monocarboxylic acid salts. J Carbohydr Chem 18:559–571.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07328309908544019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mejía A, García N, Guzmán J, Tiemblo P (2013) Confinement and nucleation effects in poly(ethylene oxide) melt-compounded with neat and coated sepiolite nanofibers: modulation of the structure and semicrystalline morphology. Eur Polym J 49:118–129.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2012.09.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Desai K, Kit K, Li J, Zivanovic S (2008) Morphological and surface properties of electrospun chitosan nanofibers. Biomacromolecules 9:1000–1006.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm701017z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Peniche-Covas C, Argüelles-Monal W, San Román J (1993) A kinetic study of the thermal degradation of chitosan and a mercaptan derivative of chitosan. Polym Degrad Stab 39:21–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-3910(93)90120-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Neto CGT, Giacometti JA, Job AE, Ferreira FC, Fonseca JLC, Pereira MR (2005) Thermal analysis of chitosan based networks. Carbohydr Polym 62:97–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2005.02.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Klein MP, Hackenhaar CR, Lorenzoni ASG, Rodrigues RC, Costa TMH, Ninow JL, Hertz PF (2016) Chitosan crosslinked with genipin as support matrix for application in food process: support characterization and β-d-galactosidase immobilization. Carbohydr Polym 137:184–190.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.10.069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Juan AS, Montembault A, Gillet D, Say JP, Rouif S, Bouet T, Royaud I, David L (2012) Degradation of chitosan-based materials after different sterilization treatments. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 31:012007.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/31/1/012007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Aguirre-Chagala YE, Pavón-Pérez LB, Altuzar V, Domínguez-Chávez JG, Muñoz-Aguirre S, Mendoza-Barrera C (2017) Comparative study of one-step cross-linked electrospun chitosan-based membranes. J Nanomater 2017:14.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1980714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Andersson RL, Ström V, Gedde UW, Mallon PE, Hedenqvist MS, Olsson RT (2014) Micromechanics of ultra-toughened electrospun PMMA/PEO fibres as revealed by in situ tensile testing in an electron microscope. Sci Rep 4:6335.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kohsari I, Shariatinia Z, Pourmortazavi SM (2016) Antibacterial electrospun chitosan-polyethylene oxide nanocomposite mats containing ZIF-8 nanoparticles. Int J Biol Macromol 91:778–788.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.06.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Moghadas B, Dashtimoghadam E, Mirzadeh H, Seidi F, Hasani-Sadrabadi MM (2016) Novel chitosan-based nanobiohybrid membranes for wound dressing applications. RSC Adv 6:7701–7711.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c5ra23875g CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bots JGF, van der Does L, Bantjes A (1986) Small diameter blood vessel prostheses from blends of polyethylene oxide and polypropylene oxide. Biomaterials 7:393–399.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(86)90011-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Vårum KM, Myhr MM, Hjerde RJN, Smidsrød O (1997) In vitro degradation rates of partially N-acetylated chitosans in human serum. Carbohydr Res 299:99–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-6215(96)00332-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hasmann A, Wehrschuetz-Sigl E, Kanzler G, Gewessler U, Hulla E, Schneider KP, Binder B, Schintler M, Guebitz GM (2011) Novel peptidoglycan-based diagnostic devices for detection of wound infection. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 71:12–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2010.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Frohm M, Gunne H, Bergman AC, Agerberth B, Bergman T, Boman A, Lidén S, Jörnvall H, Boman HG (1996) Biochemical and antibacterial analysis of human wound and blister fluid. Eur J Biochem 237:86–92.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-1033.1996.0086n.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Friedman M, Sigel CW (1966) A kinetic study of the ninhydrin reaction. Biochemistry 5:478–485.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bi00866a012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Wang QZ, Chen XG, Liu N, Wang SX, Liu CS, Meng XH, Liu CG (2006) Protonation constants of chitosan with different molecular weight and degree of deacetylation. Carbohydr Polym 65:194–201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2006.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Roberts GAF (1992) Chemical behaviour of chitin and chitosan. In: Roberts GAF (ed) Chitin chemistry. Macmillan Education, London, pp 203–273.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11545-7_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Li K, Xing R, Liu S, Qin Y, Yu H, Li P (2014) Size and pH effects of chitooligomers on antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus. Int J Biol Macromol 64:302–305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2013.11.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHung HomHong Kong

Personalised recommendations