Polymer Bulletin

, Volume 75, Issue 9, pp 3935–3950 | Cite as

Cellulose acetate/sericin blend membranes for use in dialysis

  • Hizba WaheedEmail author
  • Fozia T. Minhas
  • Arshad Hussain
Original Paper


The objective of this research is to synthesize cellulose acetate (CA) based membranes for hemodialysis. It is planned to blend sericin with CA to make CA/sericin blend membranes for examining the increment in dialysis efficiency of CA. Afterwards contact angle measurement, porosity, molecular weight cutoff, pure water flux and water uptake of blend membranes are determined to check the change in CA matrix after modification. Moreover, the surface morphology of CA/sericin blend membranes examined using SEM, AFM and FTIR analysis. These results reveal successful and homogenous blending of sericin in CA. The Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA) rejection and urea clearance of CA/sericin blend membranes were investigated to view their applicability in dialysis operation. Furthermore, concentration of sericin is varied in CA/sericin blend membranes and its impact was inspected on BSA rejection and Urea clearance. It is observable that M4 is showing best results among all prepared membranes. The increase of 7.5% sericin in CA matrix remarkably augments the BSA rejection and urea clearance up to 96 and 60%, respectively. Mainly protein nature of both sericin and BSA is responsible for the notable BSA rejection of CA/sericine blend membranes. Conclusively, the present study is novel and considerably applicable in wide range of dialysis procedure.


Cellulose acetate Sericin Hemodialysis BSA rejection Urea clearance 


  1. 1.
    US Renal Data System, USRDS (2009) Annual data report: atlas of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease in the United States. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD.
  2. 2.
    Smeby LC, Wideroe TE, Balstad T, Jorstad S (1986) Biocompatibility aspects of cellophane, cellulose acetate, polyacrylonitrile, polysulfone and polycarbonate hemodialyzers. Blood Purif 4:93–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hartmann K, Henz BM, Kruger-Krasagakes S, Kohl J, Burger R, Guhl S, Haase I, Lippert U, Zuberbier T (1997) C3a and c5a stimulate chemotaxis of human mast cells. Blood 89:2853–2870Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sivakumar M, Mohan Raju D, Rangarajan R (1998) Preparation and performance of cellulose acetate polyurethane blend membranes and their applications. Part 1. Polym Int 47:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deshmukh SP, Li K (1998) Effect of ethanol composition in water coagulation bath on morphology of PVDF hollow fiber membrane. J Membr Sci 150:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yin L, Huanlin C, Bogeng L (2002) Influence of additives on phase separation process of PVDF solution and membrane morphology. Acta Polym Sin 5:656–661Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fushimi F, Nakayama M, Nishimura K, Hiyoshi T (1998) Platelets adhesion, contact phase coagulation activation, and c5a generation of polyethylene glycol acid-grafted high flux cellulosic membrane with varieties of grafting amounts. Artif Organs 22:821–826CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diamantoglou M, Nywlt M, Holz W (2000) Method of making cellulosic dialysis membrane. US Patent 6,019,925Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ye SH, Watanabe J, Iwasaki Y, Ishihara K (2005) In situ modification on cellulose acetate hollow fiber membrane modified with phospholipid polymer for biomedical application. J Membr Sci 249:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ye SH, Watanabe J, Takai M, Iwasaki Y, Ishihara K (2005) Design of functional hollow fiber membranes modified with phospholipid polymers for application in total hemo purification system. Biomaterials 26:5032–5041CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alonso-Echanove J, Sippy BD, Chin AE, Cairns L (2006) The transfusion-associated red eye syndrome study group, infection control and hospital, nationwide outbreak of red eye syndrome associated with transfusion of leukocyte-reduced red blood cell units. Epidemiology 27:1146–1152Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoenich NA, Woffindin C, Mathews JNS, Vienken J (1995) Biocompatibility of membranes used in the treatment of renal failure. Biomaterials 16:587–592CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tomaszewska M (1996) Preparation and properties of flat sheet membranes from poly(vinylidene fluoride) for membrane distillation. Desalination 104:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stropnik C, Germic L, Zerjal B (1996) Morphology variety and formation mechanisms of polymeric membranes prepared by wet phase inversion. J Appl Polym Sci 61:1821–1830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nguyen TD, Matsuura T, Sourirajan S (1987) Effect of non-solvent additives on the pore size and the pore size distribution of aromatic polyamide reverse osmosis membranes. Chem Eng Commun 54:17–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Idris A, Yet LK (2006) The effect of different molecular weight PEG additives on cellulose acetate asymmetric dialysis membrane performance. J Membr Sci 280:920–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kee CM, Idris A (2010) Permeability performance of different molecular weight cellulose acetate hemodialysis membrane. Sep Purif Technol 75:102–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guan R, Zou H, Lu D, Gong C, Liu Y (2005) Polyethersulfone sulfonated by chlorosulfonicacid and its membrane characteristics. Eur Polym J 41:1554–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xu ZK, Nie FQ, Qu C, Wan LS, Wu J, Yao K (2005) Tethering poly (ethylene glycol) to improve the surface biocompatibility of poly(acrylonitrile-co-maleic acid)asymmetric membranes. Biomaterials 26:589–598CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen Z, Deng M, Chen Y, He G, Wu M, Wang J (2004) Preparation and performance of celluloseacetate/polyethyleneimine blend microfiltration membranes and their applications. J Membr Sci 235:73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jia Z, Tian C (2009) Quantitative determination of polyethylene glycol with modified Dragendorff reagent method. Desalination 247:423–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Senthilkumar S, Rajesh S, Mohan Raju D, Soundararajan P (2013) Preparation, characterization, and performance evaluation of poly(ether-imide) incorporated acetate ultrafiltration membrane for hemodialysis. Sep Sci Technol 48:66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sivakumar M, Mohana DR, Rangarajan R (2006) Studies on cellulose acetate-polysulfone ultrafiltration membranes II. Effect of additive concentration. J Membr Sci 268:208–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Waheed H, Hussain A, Farrukh S (2016) Fabrication, characterization and permeation study of ultrafiltration dialysis membranes. Desalination 57:24799–24806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chiti F, Dobson CM (2006) Protein misfolding, functional amyloid and human disease. Annu Rev Biochem 75:333–366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Idris A, Zain NM, Noordin MY (2007) Synthesis, characterization and performance of a symmetric polyethersulfone (PES) ultrafiltration membranes with poly-ethylene glycol of different molecular weights as additives. Desalination 207:324–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Idris A, Hew KY, Chan MK (2009) Preparation of cellulose acetate dialysis membrane using d-glucose monohydrate as additive. J Teknol (Kejuruteraan) 51:67–76Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Farrukh S, Minhas FT, Hussain A, Memon S, Bhanger MI, Mujahid B (2014) Preparation, characterization, and applicability of novel calix[4]arene-based cellulose acetate membranes in gas permeation. J Appl Polym Sci 131:39985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Idris A, Lee KY, Noordin M, Chan MK (2008) Response surface methodology approach to study the influence of PEG and water in cellulose acetate dialysis membranes. J Teknol F 49:39–49Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Iwasaki Y, Yamato H, Kono TN, Fujieda A, Uchida M, Hosokawa A, Motojima M, Fukagawa M (2006) Ureamic toxin and bone metabolism. J Bone Miner Metab 24:172–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sakai K (1994) Determination of pore size and pore size distribution 2. Dialysis membranes. J Membr Sci 96:91–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lesaffer G, De Smet R, Lameire N, Dhondt A, Duym P, Vanholder R (2000) Intra dialytic removal of protein-bound uraemic toxins: role of solute characteristics and of dialyse membrane. Nephrol Dial Transplant 15:50–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vanholder R, De Smet RV, Ringoir SM (1992) Assessment of urea and other uremic markers for quantification of dialysis efficacy. Clin Chem 38:1429–1436PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Irfan M, Idris A, Yusof NM, Khairuddin NFM, Akhmal H (2014) Surface modification and performance enhancement of nano-hybrid f-MWCNT/PVP90/PES hemodialysis membranes. J Membr Sci 467:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Eknoyan G, Beck GJ, Cheung AK, Daugirdas JT, Greene T, Kusek JW, Allon M, Bailey J, Delmez JA, Depner TA (2002) Effect of dialysis dose and membrane flux in maintenance hemodialysis. N Engl J Med 347:2010–2019CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hizba Waheed
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fozia T. Minhas
    • 2
  • Arshad Hussain
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Chemical and Materials Engineering (SCME)National University of Sciences and TechnologyIslamabadPakistan
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryKhawaja Fareed University of Engineering and Information TechnologyRaheem Yar KhanPakistan

Personalised recommendations