Frictional properties of light-activated antimicrobial polymers in blood vessels

  • Polina Prokopovich
  • Stefano Perni
  • Clara Piccirillo
  • Jonathan Pratten
  • Ivan P. Parkin
  • Michael Wilson
Article

Abstract

The adhesion of microbes to catheter surfaces is a serious problem and the resulting infections frequently lead to longer hospitalisation and higher risk for the patient. Several approaches have been developed to produce materials that are less susceptible to microbial colonisation. One such approach is the incorporation of photoactivated compounds, such as Toluidine Blue O (TBO), in the polymeric matrix resulting in ‘light-activated antimicrobial materials’. The insertion and removal of catheters can cause tissue damage and patient discomfort through frictional forces; hence the lubricity of a catheter material is also very important. In this work the tribological performance of silicone and polyurethane containing TBO and gold nanoparticles were evaluated using two different surfaces, the inner part of the aorta and the superior vena cava of sheep. Static and kinetic friction coefficients of these materials were measured using a tribometric device developed for in vitro applications using dry materials and those lubricated with blood. It was found that neither the preparation process nor the presence of TBO or gold nanoparticles, had an effect on the friction factors in comparison to those of untreated materials. In all cases, static and kinetic friction coefficients on aorta tissue were higher than those on vena cava due to higher surface roughness of the aorta. The presence of blood as a lubricant resulted in lower friction coefficients.

References

  1. 1.
    Rabinowicz E. Friction and wear of materials. New York: Wiley; 1965.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greenwood JA. Contact of rough surfaces. In: Singer IL, Pollock HM, editors. Fundamentals of friction: macroscopic and microscopic processes. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1992. p. 37–56.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bowden F, Tabor D. The friction and lubrication of solids. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1986.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhushan B. Introduction to tribology. New York: Wiley; 2002.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amontons G. De la resistance caus’ee dans les machines. Me′moires de l’Acade′mie Royale. 1699;A:257–82. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gao J, Luedtke WD, Gourdon D, Ruth M, Israelachvili JN, Landman U. Frictional forces and Amonton’s law: from the molecular to the macroscopic scale. J Phys Chem B. 2004;108:3410–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Persson BNJ, Tosatti E. Physics of sliding friction. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stickler DJ, Lear JC, Morris NS, Macleod SM, Downer A, Cadd DH, et al. Observations on the adherence of Proteus mirabilis onto polymer surfaces. J Appl Microbiol. 2006;100:1028–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferrieres L, Hancock V, Klemm P. Specific selection for virulent urinary tract infectious Escherichia coli strains during catheter-associated biofilm formation. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2007;51:212–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Norwood DE, Gilmour A. The growth and resistance to sodium hypochlorite of Listeria monocytogenes in a steady-state multispecies biofilm. J Appl Microbiol. 2000;88:512–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Juan-Torres A, Harbarth S. Prevention of primary bacteraemia. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007;30S:S80–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haa US, Chob YH. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections: new aspects of novel urinary catheters. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2006;28:485–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hetrick EM, Schoenfisch MH. Reducing implant-related infections: active release strategies. Chem Soc Rev. 2006;35:780–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perni S, Piccirillo C, Pratten JR, Prokopovich P, Chrzanowski W, Parkin IP, et al. The antimicrobial properties of light-activated polymers containing methylene blue and gold nanoparticles. Biomaterials. 2009;30(1):89–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Perni S, Prokopovich P, Piccirillo C, Pratten JR, Parkin IP, Wilson M. Toluidine blue-containing polymers exhibit bactericidal activity when irradiated with red light. J Mater Chem. 2009;19:2715–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones DS, Garvin CP, Gorman SP. Relationship between biomedical catheter surface properties and lubricity as determined using textural analysis and multiple regression analysis. Biomaterials. 2004;25:1421–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones DS, Garvin CP, Gorman SP. Design of a simulated urethra model for the quantitative assessment of urinary catheter lubricity. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2001;12:15–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ho SP, Nakabayashi N, Iwasaki Y, Boland T, LaBerge M. Frictional properties of poly(MPC-co-BMA) phospholipid polymer for catheter applications. Biomaterials. 2003;24:5121–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D’Angelo E, Loring SH, Gioia ME, Pecchiari M, Moscheni C. Friction and lubrication of pleural tissues. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2004;142(1):55–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Takashima K, Shimomura R, Kitou T, Terada H, Yoshinaka K, Ikeuchi K. Contact and friction between catheter and blood vessel. Tribol Int. 2007;40:319–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kazmierska K, Szwast M, Ciach T. Determination of urethral catheter surface lubricity. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2008;19:2301–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karaszkiewicz A. Contact width and contact pressure of o-seals. Przegl Mech. 1979;7:14–6, 25–6 (in Polish).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Triolo PM, Andrade JD. Surface modification and characterization of some commonly used catheter materials. II. Friction characterization. J Biomed Mater Res. 1983;17:149–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Homola AW, Israelachvili JN, McGuiggan PM, Lee ML. Fundamental experimental studies in tribology: the transition from interfacial friction of undamaged molecularly smooth surfaces to normal friction with wear. Wear. 1990;136:65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schwarz UD, Zworner O, Koster P, Wiesendanger R. Quantitative analysis of the frictional properties of solid materials at low loads. Carbon compounds. Phys Rev B. 1997;56:6987–96.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blau PJ. Scale effect in steady-state friction. Tribol Trans. 1991;34:335–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hurtado J, Kim K. Scale effect in friction of single-asperity contacts. 1. From concurrent slip to single-dislocation-assisted slip. II. Multiple-dislocations-cooperated slip. Proc R Soc Lond A. 1999;455:3363–400.MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johnson KE. Histology and cell biology. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins; 1991.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stensballe J, Looms D, Nielsen PN, Tvede M. Hydrophilic-coated catheters for intermittent catheterisation reduce urethral micro-trauma: a prospective, randomised, participant-blinded, crossover study of three different types of catheters. Eur Urol. 2005;48:978–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Koga S, Ikeda S, Futagawa K, Sonoda K, Yoshitake T, Miyahara Y, et al. The use of a hydrophilic-coated catheter during trans-radial cardiac catheterization is associated with a low incidence of radial artery spasm. Int J Cardiol. 2004;96(2):255–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Polina Prokopovich
    • 1
  • Stefano Perni
    • 2
  • Clara Piccirillo
    • 3
  • Jonathan Pratten
    • 2
  • Ivan P. Parkin
    • 3
  • Michael Wilson
    • 2
  1. 1.Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing EngineeringLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK
  2. 2.Division of Microbial Diseases, UCL Eastman Dental InstituteUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of Chemistry, Materials Chemistry Research CentreUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations