Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 54, Issue 9, pp 7198–7210 | Cite as

Evaluation of cellulose nanocrystal addition on morphology, compression modulus and cytotoxicity of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) scaffolds

  • Thaís Larissa do Amaral MontanheiroEmail author
  • Larissa Stieven Montagna
  • Viorica Patrulea
  • Olivier Jordan
  • Gerrit Borchard
  • Gabriela Matheus Monteiro Lobato
  • Luiz Henrique Catalani
  • Ana Paula Lemes
Materials for life sciences

Abstract

Nanocomposite scaffolds of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV) with 1, 2 and 3% (wt) of cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) were produced by thermally induced phase separation. CNC presented an average length of 91 ± 26 nm and average diameter of 7 ± 1 nm, determined by atomic force microscopy (AFM). Field emission gun scanning electron microscopy (FEG-SEM) and X-ray microtomography showed porous morphology with interconnected pores, porosity between 41 and 77% and micron-sized CNC dispersion along the samples. Pore distribution after introducing CNC was less regular with an average reduction of 37% in the porosity. The compression modulus was improved about 28% for PHBV/1% CNC, 25% for PHBV/2% CNC and 63% for PHBV/3% CNC. Mouse fibroblasts attached and proliferated better on PHBV/CNC scaffolds surface than on neat PHBV or tissue culture plate controls. After 10 days of cell culture, PHBV/2% CNC sample enhanced cell proliferation with 42%, compared to neat PHBV. Therefore, the addition of CNC can improve both compressive modulus and cell proliferation, making the composite scaffold a potential candidate for tissue engineering.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Drª Maria Lucia Brison from Associated Laboratory of Sensors and Materials at National Institute of Space Research for FEG-SEM micrographs and Dr. João Paulo Barros Machado from Associated Laboratory of Sensors and Materials at National Institute of Space Research for AFM images. We would also thank the Nanostructured Soft Materials Laboratory and Brazilian Nanotechnology National Laboratory, LNNano, for the use of X-ray microtomography facility.

Funding

This study was funded by the Brazilian Funding institutions CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior), CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) (476131/2013-8, 153640/2016-2 and 133130/2016-9) and FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) (2013/27064-9 and 2011/21442-6).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    O’Brien FJ (2011) Biomaterials & scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Today 14:88–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sankar D, Chennazhi KP, Nair SV, Jayakumar R (2012) Fabrication of chitin/poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) hydrogel scaffold. Carbohydr Polym 90:725–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fernández E, Gil FJ, Ginebra MP, Driessens C, Planell A, Best SM (1999) Calcium phosphate bone cements for clinical applications. Part I: solution chemistry. J Mater Sci Mater Med 10:169–176.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008937507714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chanprateep S (2010) Current trends in biodegradable polyhydroxyalkanoates. J Biosci Bioeng 110:621–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cao Z, Dou C, Dong S (2014) Scaffolding biomaterials for cartilage regeneration. J Nanomater 2014:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen GQ, Wu Q (2005) The application of polyhydroxyalkanoates as tissue engineering materials. Biomaterials 26:6565–6578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moon RJ, Martini A, Nairn J, Simonsen J, Youngblood J (2011) Cellulose nanomaterials review: structure, properties and nanocomposites. Chem Soc Rev 40:3941–3994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ten E, Turtle J, Bahr D, Jiang L, Wolcott M (2010) Thermal and mechanical properties of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate)/cellulose nanowhiskers composites. Polymer (Guildf) 51:2652–2660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Song T, Tanpichai S, Oksman K (2016) Cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) foams reinforced with cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs). Cellulose 23:1925–1938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yu H-Y, Qin Z-Y (2014) Surface grafting of cellulose nanocrystals with poly(3-hydroxybutirate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate). Carbohydr Polym 101:471–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miao C, Hamad WY (2016) In-situ polymerized cellulose nanocrystals (CNC)-poly(L-lactide) (PLLA) nanomaterials and applications in nanocomposite processing. Carbohydr Polym 153:549–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ten E, Jiang L, Wolcott MP (2013) Preparation and properties of aligned poly (3-hydroxybutyrate- co -3-hydroxyvalerate)/cellulose nanowhiskers composites. Carbohydr Polym 92:206–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jiang L, Morelius E, Zhang J, Wolcott M, Holbery J (2008) Study of the poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate)/cellulose nanowhisker composites prepared by solution casting and melt processing. J Compos Mater 42:2629–2645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benini KCCC, Cioffi MOH, Voorwald HJC (2017) PHBV/cellulose nanocrystals composites obtained by solution casting and electrospinning process. Revista Matér 22:1–9Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yu H, Qin Z, Zhou Z (2011) Cellulose nanocrystals as green fillers to improve crystallization and hydrophilic property of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate). Prog Nat Sci Mater Int 21:478–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yu H-Y, Qin Z-Y, Liu Y-N, Chen L, Liu N, Zhou Z (2012) Simultaneous improvement of mechanical properties and thermal stability of bacterial polyester by cellulose nanocrystals. Carbohydr Polym 89:971–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Srithep Y, Ellingham T, Peng J et al (2013) Melt compounding of poly (3-hydroxybutyrate- co-3- hydroxyvalerate)/nanofibrillated cellulose nanocomposites. Polym Degrad Stab 98:1439–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hermida ÉB, Ruiz I, Baldessari A, Kreimann E (2012) Biodegradation and histological response of PHBV porous scaffolds. Biocell A9:1–4Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sultana N (2013) Biodegradable polymer-based scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eichhorn SJ (2011) Cellulose nanowhiskers: promising materials for advanced applications. Soft Matter 20:1–12Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deroiné M, Le Duigou A, Corre Y-M et al (2014) Seawater accelerated ageing of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate). Polym Degrad Stab 105:237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stock SR (2008) Recent advances in X-ray microtomography applied to materials. Int Mater Rev 53:129–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meyer JP, Adio SA, Sharifpur M, Nwosu PN (2016) The viscosity of nanofluids: a review of the theoretical, empirical, and numerical models. Heat Transf Eng 37:387–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Murshed SMS, Estellé P (2017) A state of the art review on viscosity of nanofluids. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 76:1134–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bashirnezhad K, Bazri S, Safaei MR et al (2016) Viscosity of nanofluids: a review of recent experimental studies. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 73:114–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bolloli M, Antonelli C, Molméret Y, Alloin F, Iojoiu C, Sanchez JY (2016) Nanocomposite poly(vinylidene fluoride)/nanocrystalline cellulose porous membranes as separators for lithium-ion batteries. Electrochim Acta 214:38–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wu J, Xue K, Li H, Sun J, Liu K (2013) Improvement of PHBV scaffolds with bioglass for cartilage tissue engineering. PLoS ONE 8:1–9Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D (2005) Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials 26:5474–5491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Naseri N, Poirier JM, Girandon L, Fröhlich M, Oksman K, Mathew AP (2016) 3-Dimensional porous nanocomposite scaffolds based on cellulose nanofibers for cartilage tissue engineering: tailoring of porosity and mechanical performance. RSC Adv 6:5999–6007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Whang K, Healy KE, Elenz DR, Nam EK et al (1999) Engineering bone regeneration with bioabsorbable scaffolds with novel microarchitecture. Tissue Eng 5:35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yang S, Leong K-F, Du Z, Chua C-K (2001) The design of scaffolds for use in tissue engineering. Part I Tradit Factors Tissue Eng 7:679–689Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bruzauskaite I, Bironaite D, Bagdonas E, Bernotiene E (2016) Scaffolds and cells for tissue regeneration: different scaffold pore sizes—different cell effects. Cytotechnology 68:355–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Murphy CM, O’Brien FJ (2010) Understanding the effect of mean pore size on cell activity in collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffolds. Cell Adhes Migr 4:377–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ghorbani F, Zamanian A (2016) Oriented microstructure in neural tissue engineering: a review. J Tissue Sci Eng 07:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liang D, Hsiao BS, Chu B (2007) Functional electrospun nanofibrous scaffolds for biomedical applications. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 59:1392–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Diermann SH, Lu M, Zhao Y, Vandi L, Dargusch M, Huang H (2018) Synthesis, microstructure, and mechanical behaviour of a unique porous PHBV scaffold manufactured using selective laser sintering. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 84:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ku D N (2005) Flexible Spinal Disc. US 2005/0055099 A1Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang K, Nune KC, Misra RDK (2016) The functional response of alginate-gelatin-nanocrystalline cellulose injectable hydrogels toward delivery of cells and bioactive molecules. Acta Biomater 36:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sabree I, Gough JE, Derby B (2015) Mechanical properties of porous ceramic scaffolds: influence of internal dimensions. Ceram Int 41:8425–8432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zhu H, Shen J, Feng X, Zhang H, Guo Y, Chen J (2010) Fabrication and characterization of bioactive silk fibroin/wollastonite composite scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C 30:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhou C, Wu Q (2012) Recent development in applications of cellulose nanocrystals for advanced polymer-based nanocomposites by novel fabrication strategies. In: Neralla S (ed) Nanocrystals-synthesis, characterization and applications. IntechOpen, London, pp 103–120Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Montanheiro TLA, Montagna LS, de Farias MA, Magalhães JA, Tada DB et al (2018) Cytotoxicity and physico-chemical evaluation of acetylated and pegylated cellulose nanocrystals. J Nanopart Res 20:206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Patil S, Sandberg A, Heckert E, Self W, Seal S (2007) Protein adsorption and cellular uptake of cerium oxide nanoparticles as a function of zeta potential. Biomaterials 28:4600–4607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pelaz B, del Pino P, Maffre P, Hartmann R et al (2015) Surface functionalization of nanoparticles with polyethylene glycol: effects on protein adsorption and cellular uptake. ACS Nano 9:6996–7008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hu SG, Jou CH, Yang MC (2003) Protein adsorption, fibroblast activity and antibacterial properties of poly(3-hydroxybutyric acid-co-3-hydroxyvaleric acid) grafted with chitosan and chitooligosaccharide after immobilized with hyaluronic acid. Biomaterials 24:2685–2693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hu S-G, Jou C-H, Yang M-C (2004) Biocompatibility and antibacterial activity of chitosan and collagen immobilized poly(3-hydroxybutyric acid-co-3-hydroxyvaleric acid). Carbohydr Polym 58:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhijiang C, Yi X, Haizheng Y, Jia J, Liu Y (2016) Poly(hydroxybutyrate)/cellulose acetate blend nanofiber scaffolds: preparation, characterization and cytocompatibility. Mater Sciende Eng C 58:757–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thaís Larissa do Amaral Montanheiro
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Larissa Stieven Montagna
    • 2
  • Viorica Patrulea
    • 3
  • Olivier Jordan
    • 3
  • Gerrit Borchard
    • 3
  • Gabriela Matheus Monteiro Lobato
    • 4
  • Luiz Henrique Catalani
    • 4
  • Ana Paula Lemes
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory of Nanotechnology, Division of Fundamental SciencesTechnological Institute of AeronauticsSão José dos CamposBrazil
  2. 2.Technology Laboratory of Polymers and BiopolymersFederal University of São PauloSão José dos CamposBrazil
  3. 3.School of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of Geneva, University of LausanneGenevaSwitzerland
  4. 4.Laboratory of Polymeric BiomaterialsInstitute of Chemistry, University of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations