Advertisement

Effect of MgO nanofillers on burst release reduction from hydrogel nanocomposites

  • Hadi Hezaveh
  • Ida Idayu Muhamad
Article

Abstract

In this study, MgO nanoparticles are applied to control the initial burst release by modification of matrix structure, thereby affecting the release mechanism. The effects of MgO nanofiller loading on the in vitro release of a model drug are investigated. Surface topography and release kinetics of hydrogel nanocomposites are also studied in order to have better insight into the release mechanism. It was found that the incorporation of MgO nanofillers can significantly decrease the initial burst release. The effect of genipin (GN) on burst release was also compared with MgO nanoparticles, and it was found that the impact of MgO on burst release reduction is more obvious than GN; however, GN cross-linking caused greater final release compared to blanks and nanocomposites. To confirm the capability of nanocomposite hydrogels to reduce burst release, the release of β-carotene in Simulated Gastric Fluid and Simulated Intestinal Fluid was also carried out. Thus, the application of MgO nanoparticles seems to be a promising strategy to control burst release.

Keywords

Drug Release Methylene Blue Burst Release Genipin Simulated Gastric Fluid 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Food and Biomaterial Engineering lab, Bioprocess Engineering technicians and RUGrant vot 01H31from Research Management Centre UTM for support of this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Hamidi M, Azadi A, Rafiei P. Hydrogel nanoparticles in drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliver Rev. 2008;60:1638–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sahiner N, Ozaya H, Ozaya O, Aktas N. A soft hydrogel reactor for cobalt nanoparticle preparation and use in the reduction of nitrophenols. Appl Catal B Environ. 2010;101:137–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huang Y, Zheng Y, Song W, Ma Y, Wu J, Fan L. Poly(vinyl pyrrolidone) wrapped multi-walled carbon nanotube/poly(vinyl alcohol) composite hydrogels. Composites: Part A. 2011;42:1398–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhao X, Sui K, Wu W, Liang H, Li Y, Wu Z, Xia Y. Synthesis and properties of amphiphilic block polymer functionalized multi-walled carbon nanotubes and nanocomposites. Compos Part A. 2012;43:758–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Satarkar NS, Hilt JZ. Hydrogel nanocomposites as remote-controlled biomaterials. Acta Biomater. 2008;4:11–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li X, Weng Y, Kong X, Zhang B, Li M, Diao K, Zhang Z, Wang X, Chen H. A covalently crosslinked polysaccharide hydrogel for potential applications in drug delivery and tissue engineering. J Mater Sci: Mater Med. doi: 10.1007/s10856-012-4757-5.
  7. 7.
    Singh R, Singh D. Radiation synthesis of PVP/alginate hydrogel containing nanosilver as wound dressing. J Mater Sci Mater Med. doi: 10.1007/s10856-012-4730-3.
  8. 8.
    Yeo Y, Park K. Control of encapsulation efficiency and initial burst in polymeric microparticle systems. Arch Pharmacol Res. 2004;27:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang X, Brazel ChS. Analysis of burst release of proxyphylline from poly (vinylalcohol) hydrogels. Chem Eng Commun. 2003;190:519–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lu S, Anseth KS. Modeling and optimization of drug release from laminated polymer matrix devices. AIChE J. 1998;44:1689–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jeong B, Bae YH, Kim SW. Drug release from biodegradable injectable thermosensitive hydrogel of PEG-PLGA-PEG triblock copolymers. J Control Release. 2000;63:155–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shively ML, Coonts BA, Renner WD, Southard JL, Bennet AT. Physicochemical characterization of polymeric injectable implant delivery system. J Controll Release. 1995;33:237–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kissel T, Li YX, Volland C, Görich S, Koneberg R. Parenteral protein delivery systems using biodegradable polyester of ABA block structure containing hydrophobic poly(lactide-co-glycolide) A blocks and hydrophilic poly(ethylene oxide) B blocks. J Controll Release. 1996;39:315–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang YY, Chia HH, Chung TS. Effect of preparation temperature on the characteristics and release profiles of PLGA microspheres fabricated by double-emulsion solvent extraction/evaporation method. J Control Release. 2000;69:81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang J, Wang BM, Schwendeman SP. Mechanistic evaluation of the glucose induced reduction in initial burst release of octreotide acetate from poly(d,l lactide-co-glycolide) microspheres. Biomaterials. 2004;25:919–1927.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Park TG, Cohen S, Langer R. Controlled protein release from polyethyleneimine-coated poly (l-lactic acid)/Pluronic blend matrices. Pharm Res. 1992;9:37–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lalla JK, Snape K. Biodegradable microspheres of poly (d,l-lactic acid) containing piroxicam as a model dispersion drug for controlled release via the parenteral route. J Microencapsul. 1993;10:449–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chiou S, Wu W, Huang Y, Chung T. Effects of the characteristics of chitosan on controlling drug release of chitosan coated PLLA microspheres. J Microencapsul. 2001;18:613–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fu K, Harrell R, Zinski K, Um C, Jaklenec A, Frazier J, Lotan N, Burke P, Klibanov AM, Langer R. A potential approach for decreasing the burst effect of protein from PLGA microspheres. J Pharm Sci. 2003;92:1582–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sheikh Hasan A, Socha M, Lamprecht A, El Ghazouani F, Sapin A, Hoffmana M, Maincent P, Ubrich N. Effect of the microencapsulation of nanoparticles on the reduction of burst release. Int J Pharm. 2007;344:53–61.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saravanan M, Bhaskar K, Srinivasa RG, Dhanaraju MD. Ibuprofen-loaded ethylcellulose/polystyrene microspheres: an approach to get prolonged drug release with reduced burst effect and low ethylcellulose content. J Microencapsul. 2003;20:289–302.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bouissou C, Rouse JJ, Price R, van der Walle CF. The influence of surfactant on PLGA microsphere glass transition and water sorption: remodeling the surface morphology to attenuate the burst release. Pharm Res. 2006;23:1295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yamaguchi Y, Takenaga M, Kitagawa A, Ogawa Y, Mizushima Y, Igarashi R. Insulin-loaded biodegradable PLGA microcapsules: initial burst release controlled by hydrophilic additives. J Controll Release. 2002;81:235–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grenha A, Seijo B, Remunan-Lopez C. Microencapsulated chitosan nanoparticles for lung protein delivery. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2005;25:427–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bhavsar MD, Tiwari SB, Amiji MM. Formulation optimization for the nanoparticles-in-microsphere hybrid oral delivery system using factorial design. J Controll Release. 2006;110:422–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leach WT, Simpson DT, Val TN, Anuta EC, Yu Z. Williams III R O, Johnston K P. Uniform encapsulation of stable protein nanoparticles produced by spray freezing for the reduction of burst release. J Pharm Sci. 2005;94:56–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stoimenov PK, Klinger RL, Marchin GL, Klabunde KJ. Metal oxide nanoparticles as bactericidal agents. Langmuir. 2002;18:6679–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fu G, Vary PS, Lin CT. Anatase TiO2 nanocomposites for antimicrobial coating. J Phys Chem B. 2005;109:8889–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yamamoto O. Influence of particle size on the antibacterial activity of zinc oxide. Int J Inorgan Mater. 2001;3:643–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Huang L, Li D, Lin Y, Wei M, Evans DG, Duan X. Controllable preparation of Nano-MgO and investigation of its bactericidal properties. J Inorgan BioChem. 2005;99:986–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fang M, Chen JH, Xu XL, Yang PH, Hildebrand HF. Antibacterial activities of inorganic agents on six bacteria associated with oral infections by two susceptibility tests. Int J Antimicrob Agent. 2006;27:513–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Daniel-da-Silva AL, Moreira J, Neto R, Estrada AC, Gil AM, Gil T. Impact of magnetic nanofillers in the swelling and release properties of carrageenan hydrogel nanocomposites. Carbohydr Polym. 2012;87:328–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hezaveh H, Muhamad II. The effect of nanoparticles on gastrointestinal release from modified κ-carrageenan nanocomposite hydrogels. Carbohydr Polym. 2012;89:138–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ritger PL, Peppas NA. A simple equation for description of solute release. I. Fickian and non-Fickian release from non-swellable devices in the form of slabs, spheres, cylinders or discs. J Controll Release. 1987;5:23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Song F, Li M, Yang C, Yan L. Genipin-cross-linked casein hydrogels for controlled drug delivery. Int J Pharm. 2009;373:41–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kirk-Othmer. Food and Feed Technology, Chapter 28. 5th ed. USA: Wiley; 2007.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Muhamad II, Fen LS, Hui HN, Mustapha NA. Genipin-cross-linked kappa carrageenan/carboxymethyl cellulose beads and effects on beta-carotene release. Carbohydr Polym. 2011;83:1207–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sannino A, Demitri C, Madaghiele M. Biodegradable cellulose-based hydrogels: design and applications. Materials. 2009;2:353–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Berlin E, Anderson BA, Pallansch MJ. Water sorption by dried dairy products stabilized with carboxymethyl cellulose. J Dairy Sci. 1973;56:685–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chen J, Liu M, Chen Sh. Synthesis and characterization of thermo- and pH-sensitive kappa-carrageenan-g-poly(methacrylic acid)/poly(N,Ndiethylacrylamide) semi-IPN hydrogel. Mater Chem Phys. 2009;115:339–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hezaveh H, Muhamad II. Impact of metal oxide nanoparticles on oral release properties of pH-sensitive hydrogel nanocomposites. Int J Biol Macromol. 2012;50:1334–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ge S, Wang G, Shen Y, Zhang Q, Jia D, Wang H, Dong Q, Yin T. Cytotoxic effects of MgO nanoparticles on human umbilical vein endothelial cells in vitro. Nanobiotechnology. 2011;5:36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Meena R, Prasad K, Siddhanta AK. Effect of genipin, a naturally occurring crosslinker on the properties of kappa-carrageenan. Int J Biol Macromol. 2007;41:94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tonda-Turo C, Gentile P, Saracino S, Chiono V, Nandagiri VK, Muzio G, Canuto RA, Ciardelli G. Comparative analysis of gelatin scaffolds crosslinked by GN and silane coupling agent. Int J Biol Macromol. 2011;49:700–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Durme KV, Mele BV, Loos W, Du PF. Introduction of silica into thermo-responsive poly(N-isopropyl acrylamide) hydrogels: a novel approach to improve response rates. Polymer. 2005;46:9851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Xiang Y, Chen D. Preparation of a novel pH-responsive silver nanoparticle/poly (HEMA–PEGMA–MAA) composite hydrogel. Eur Polym J. 2007;43:4178–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kaneko Y, Nakamura S, Sakai K, Aoyagi T, Kikuchi A, Sakurai Y, Okano T. Rapid deswelling response of poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) hydrogels by the formation of water release channels using poly(ethylene oxide) graft chains. Macromolecules. 1998;31:6099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Huang X, Chestang BL, Brazel CS. Minimization of initial burst in poly(vinyl alcohol) hydrogels by surface extraction and surface-preferential crosslinking. Int J Pharm. 2002;248:183–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Aikawa K, Mitsutake N, Uda H, Tanaka S, Shimamura H, Aramaki Y, Tsuchiya S. Drug release from pH-response polyvinylacetal diethylaminoacetate hydrogel, and the application to nasal delivery. Int J Pharm. 1998;168:181–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Daniel-da-Silva AL, Ferreir L. Gil Ana M, Trindade T. Synthesis and swelling behavior of temperature responsive κ-carrageenan nanogels. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2011;355:512–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fu Y, Kao WJ. Drug release kinetics and transport mechanisms of non-degradable and degradable polymeric delivery systems. Exp Opin Drug Deliv. 2010;7:429–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hezaveh H, Muhamad II. Modification and swelling kinetic study of kappa-carrageenan-based hydrogel for controlled release study. J. Taiwan Inst Chem Eng. 2012. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2012.10.011.
  53. 53.
    Gohel MC, Amin AF. Formulation design and optimization of modified-release microspheres of diclofenac sodium. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1999;25:247–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Naves MMV, Moreno FS. Beta-carotene and cancer chemoprevention: from epidemiological association to cellular mechanisms of action. Nutr Res. 1998;18:1807–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Steinmetz KA, Potter JD. Vegetables, fruit, and cancer prevention: a review. J Am Diet Assoc. 1996;96:1027–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gaziano JM, Manson JE, Buring JE, Hennekens CH. Dietary antioxidants and cardiovascular disease. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1992;669:249–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Chemical EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaJohor BahruMalaysia

Personalised recommendations