Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 55, Issue 7, pp 3139–3156 | Cite as

Effects of soft segment characteristics on the properties of biodegradable amphiphilic waterborne polyurethane prepared by a green process

  • Zhihui Yang
  • Guangfeng WuEmail author
Polymers & biopolymers
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Traditional 3D printing materials are not suitable for tissue engineering due to their toxicity, low degradability and poor biocompatibility. In this study, a new amphiphilic biodegradable waterborne polyurethane (WBPU) was developed by a green and sustainable process without any organic solvents, catalysts or cross-linkers. The soft segments of this kind of WBPU were formed by replacing hydrophobic poly(ε-caprolactone) diol with hydrophilic poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG). Different block lengths of PEG were used for this purpose. The combination of ester and ether groups endowed WBPU with amphiphilic characteristics, which is important for regeneration and maintenance of tissue. The effects of composition and content of soft segments on the phase separation, thermal properties, mechanical properties, water absorption, biodegradability and cytotoxicity of WBPU were investigated. The results showed that the desired properties of WBPU could be achieved by tuning the block length of PEG and content of soft segments. The present work provided a new approach to prepare WBPUs with amphiphilic and biodegradable characteristics, which are promising candidates for 3D printing materials for tissue engineering scaffolds.

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by science and technology project from Jilin Province Ministry of Education (Grant No. JJKH20191304KJ).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Inzana JA, Olvera D, Fuller SM, Kelly JP, Graeve OA, Schwarz EM (2014) 3D printing of composite calcium phosphate and collagen scaffolds for bone regeneration. Biomaterials 35:4026–4034Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tarafder S, Balla VK, Davies NM, Bandyopadhyay A, Bose S (2013) Microwave-sintered 3D printed tricalcium phosphate scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 7:631–641Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wu G-H, Hsu S-h (2015) Review: polymeric-based 3D printing for tissue engineering. J Med Biol Eng 35:285–292Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Han LH, Yu S, Wang T, Behn AW, Yang F (2013) Microribbon-like elastomers for fabricating macroporous and highly flexible scaffolds that support cell proliferation in 3D. Adv Funct Mater 23:346–358Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yen HJ, Hsu SH, Tseng CS, Huang JP, Tsai CL (2009) Fabrication of precision scaffolds using liquid-frozen deposition manufacturing for cartilage tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part A 15:965–975Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen Q, Liang S, Thouas GA (2013) Elastomeric biomaterials for tissue engineering. Prog Polym Sci 38:584–671Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Suri S, Han LH, Zhang W, Singh A, Chen S, Schmidt CE (2011) Solid freeform fabrication of designer scaffolds of hyaluronic acid for nerve tissue engineering. Biomed Microdevices 13:983–993Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ovsianikov A, Malinauskas M, Schlie S, Chichkov B, Gittard S, Narayan R et al (2011) Three-dimensional laser micro- and nano-structuring of acrylated poly(-ethylene glycol) materials and evaluation of their cytoxicity for tissue engineering applications. Acta Biomater 7:967–974Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reininghaus W, Koestner A, Klimisch HJ (1991) Chronic toxicity and oncogenicity of inhaled methyl acrylate and n-butyl acrylate in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food Chem Toxicol 29:329–339Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kligerman AD, Atwater AL, Bryant MF, Erexson GL, Kwanyuen P, Dearfield KL (1991) Cytogenetic studies of ethyl acrylate using C57BL/6 mice. Mutagenesis 6:137–141Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lin ZF, Wu MM, He HM, Liang QF, Hu CS, Zeng ZW et al (2019) 3D Printing of mechanically stable calcium-free alginate-based scaffolds with tunable surface charge to enable cell adhesion and facile biofunctionalization. Adv Funct Mater 29:1808439Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hao HY, Shao JY, Deng Y, He S, Luo F, Wu YK et al (2016) Synthesis and characterization of biodegradable lysine-based waterborne polyurethane for soft tissue engineering applications. Biomater Sci 4:1682–1690Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hung KC, Tseng CS, Dai LG, Hsu SH (2016) Water-based polyurethane 3D printed scaffolds with controlled release function for customized cartilage tissue engineering. Biomaterials 83:156–168Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sartori S, Chiono V, Tonda-Turo C, Mattu C, Gianluca C (2014) Biomimetic polyurethanes in nano and regenerative medicine. J Mater Chem B 2:5128–5144Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang Y-J, Jeng US, Hsu S-h (2018) Biodegradable water-Based polyurethane shape memory elastomers for bone tissue engineering. Acs Biomater Sci Eng 4:1397–1406Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nair LS, Laurencin CT (2007) Biodegradable polymers as biomaterials. Prog Polym Sci 32:762–798Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cai L, Heilshorn SC (2014) Designing ECM-mimetic materials using protein engineering. Acta Biomater 10:1751–1760Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cui H, Webber MJ, Stupp SI (2010) Self-assembly of peptide amphiphiles: from molecules to nanostructures to biomaterials. Pept Sci 94:1–18Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Han DK, Park KD, Hubbell JA, Kim YH (1998) Surface characteristics and biocompatibility of lactide-based poly (ethylene glycol) scaffolds for tissue engineering. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 9:667–680Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kutikov AB, Song J (2015) Biodegradable PEG-based amphiphilic block copolymers for tissue engineering applications. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 1:463–480Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Veronese FM, Pasut G (2005) PEGylation successful approach to drug delivery. Drug Discov Today 10:1451–1458Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jiang X, Yu F, Wang Z, Li J, Tan H, Ding M, Fu Q (2010) Fabrication and characterization of waterborne biodegradable polyurethanes 3-dimensional porous scaffolds for vascular tissue engineering. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 21:1637–1652Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang Z, Yu L, Ding M, Tan H, Li J, Fu Q (2011) Preparation and rapid degradation of nontoxic biodegradable polyurethanes based on poly(lactic acid)-poly(ethylene glycol)-poly(lactic acid) and l-lysine diisocyanate. Polym Chem 2:601–607Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ma Z, Hong Y, Nelson DM, Pichamuthu JE, Leeson CE, Wagner WR (2011) Biodegradable polyurethane ureas with variable polyester or polycarbonate soft segments: effects of crystallinity, molecular weight, and composition on mechanical properties. Biomacromol 12:3265–3274Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hung K-C, Tseng C-S, Hsu S-H (2014) Synthesis and 3D printing of biodegradable polyurethane elastomer by a water-based process for cartilage tissue engineering applications. Adv Healthcare Mater 3:1578–1587Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yeong W-Y, Chua C-K, Leong K-F, Chandrasekaran M (2004) Rapid prototyping in tissue engineering: challenges and potential. Trends Biotechnol 22:643–652Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yen H-J, Hsu S, Tseng C-S, Huang J-P, Tsai C-L (2009) Fabrication of precision scaffolds using liquid-frozen deposition manufacturing for cartilage tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part A 15:965–975Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hsu SH, Hung KC, Lin YY, Su CH, Yeh HY, Jeng US et al (2014) Water-based synthesis and processing of novel biodegradable elastomers for medical applications. J Mater Chem B 2:5083–5092Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guo M, Wyss HM (2011) Micromechanics of Soft Particles. Macromol Mater Eng 296:223–229Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fang CQ, Zhou X, Yu Q, Liu SL, Guo DG, Yu RE, Hu JB (2014) Synthesis and characterization of low crystalline water borne polyurethane for potential application in water-based ink. Prog Org Coat 77:61–71Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tao C, Luo Z, Bao J, Cheng Q, Huang Y, Xu G (2018) Effects of macromolecular diol containing different carbamate content on the micro-phase separation of waterborne polyurethane. J Mater Sci 53:8639–8652.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-017-1908-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    García-Pacios V, Jofre-Reche JA, Costa V, Colera M, Martín-Martínez JM (2013) Coatings prepared from waterborne polyurethane dispersions obtained with polycarbonates of 1,6-hexanediol of different molecular weights. Prog Org Coat 76:1484–1493Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Princi E, Vicini S, Castro K, Capitani D, Proietti N, Mannina L (2009) On the micro-phase separation in waterborne polyurethanes. Macromol Chem Phys 210:879–889Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cakić SM, Ristić IS, Marinović-Cincović M, Špírková M (2013) The effects of the structure and molecular weight of the macrodiol on the properties polyurethane anionic adhesives. Int J Adhes Adhes 41:132–139Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yu L, Zhou L, Ding M, Li J, Tan H, Fu Q (2011) Synthesis and characterization of novel biodegradable folate conjugated polyurethanes. J Colloid Interface Sci 358:376–383Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ayres E, Oréfice RL, Yoshida MI (2007) Phase morphology of hydrolysable polyurethanes derived from aqueous dispersions. Eur Polym J 43:3510–3521Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mondal S, Martin D (2012) Hydrolytic degradation of segmented polyurethane copolymers for biomedical applications. Polym Degrad Stabil 97:1553–1561Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bogdanov B, Toncheva V, Schacht E, Finelli L, Sarti B, Scandola M (1999) Physical properties of poly(ester-urethanes) prepared from different molar mass polycaprolactone-diols. Polymer 40:3171–3182Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mondal S, Hu JL (2006) Structural characterization and mass transfer properties of nonporous-segmented polyurethane membrane: influence of the hydrophilic segment content and soft segment melting temperature. J Membr Sci 276:16–22Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mondal S, Hu JL (2006) Structural characterization and mass transfer properties of polyurethane block copolymer: influence of mixed soft segment block and crystal melting temperature. Polym Int 55:1013–1020Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    O’Sickey MJ, Lawrey BD, Wilkes GL (2002) Structure–property relationships of poly(urethane urea)s with ultra-low monol content poly(propylene glycol) soft segments. I. Influence of soft segment molecular weight and hard segment content. J Appl Polym Sci 84:229–243Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Li F, Hou J, Zhu W, Zhang X, Xu M, Luo X (1996) Crystallinity and morphology of segmented polyurethanes with different soft-segment length. J Appl Polym Sci 62:631–638Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mondal S, Hu JL (2008) Structural characterization and mass transfer properties of dense segmented polyurethane membrane: influence of hard segment and soft segment crystal melting temperature. Polym Eng Sci 48:233–239Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang T-L, Hsieh T-H (1997) Effect of polyol structure and molecular weight on the thermal stability of segmented poly(urethaneureas). Polym Degrad Stabil 55:95–102Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yashima E, Noguchi J, Okamoto Y (1994) Enantiomer enrichment of oxprenolol through cellulose tris(3,5-dimethylphenylcarbamate) membrane. J Appl Polym Sci 54:1087–1091Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Coutinho FMB, Delpech MC (2000) Degradation profile of films cast from aqueous polyurethane dispersions. Polym Degrad Stabil 70:49–57Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pielichowski K, Pielichowski J, Altenburg H, Balloff H-J (1996) Thermische degradation von MDI-basierenden polyurethanen: charakteristische abhängigkeiten zwischen den zersetzungsparametern. Thermochim Acta 284:419–428Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chattopadhyay DK, Webster DC (2009) Thermal stability and flame retardancy of polyurethanes. Prog Polym Sci 34:1068–1133Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Król P (2007) Synthesis methods, chemical structures and phase structures of linear polyurethanes. Properties and applications of linear polyurethanes in polyurethane elastomers, copolymers and ionomers. Prog Mater Sci 52:915–1015Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Migneco F, Huang YC, Birla RK, Hollister SJ (2009) Poly(glycerol-dodecanoate), a biodegradable polyester for medical devices and tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomaterials 33:6479–6484Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Liu N, Zhao Y, Kang M, Wang J, Wang X, Feng Y (2015) The effects of the molecular weight and structure of polycarbonatediols on the properties of waterborne polyurethanes. Prog Org Coat 82:46–56Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hou LJ, Ding YT, Zhang ZL, Sun ZS, Shan ZH (2015) Synergistic effect of anionic and nonionic monomers on the synthesis of high solid content waterborne polyurethane. Colloid Surface A 467:46–56Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zhang T, Zhang HF, Zhang LQ, Jia SJ, Liu J, Xiong Z, Sun W (2017) Biomimetic design and fabrication of multilayered osteochondral scaffolds by low-temperature deposition manufacturing and thermal-induced phase-separation techniques. Biofabrication 9:025021Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tokiwa Y, Suzuki T, Takeda K (1988) Two types of lipases in hydrolysis of polyester. Agric Biol Chem 52:1937–1943Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kamath KR, Park K (1993) Biodegradable hydrogels in drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 11:59–84Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hao HY, Deng Y, Wu YK, Liu SY, Lin WW, Li JH et al (2018) Synthesis of biodegradable waterborne phosphatidylcholine polyurethanes for soft tissue engineering applications. Regen Biomater 4:69–79Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wang C, Zheng YD, Sun Y, Fan JS, Qin Q, Zhao Z (2016) A novel biodegradable polyurethane based on poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) and poly(ethylene glycol) as promising biomaterials with the improvement of mechanical properties and hemocompatibility. Polym Chem 7:6120–6132Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Engineering Research Center of Synthetic Resin and Special Fiber, Ministry of EducationChangchun University of TechnologyChangchunPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations