Fabrication of protein-loaded PLGA nanoparticles: effect of selected formulation variables on particle size and release profile

  • Monireh Azizi
  • Farhid Farahmandghavi
  • Mohammadtaghi Joghataei
  • Mojgan Zandi
  • Mohammad Imani
  • Mehrdad Bakhtiary
  • Farid Abedin Dorkoosh
  • Fariba Ghazizadeh
Original Paper


In this study, the processing conditions for fabricating bovine serum albumin (BSA)-loaded poly(d,l-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) nanoparticles via a water/oil/water double emulsion technique were adjusted and release profiles were studied. Particle size and surface morphology of the BSA-loaded PLGA nanoparticles were comprehensively controlled as a function of processing determinants. The nanoparticles were intended as a carrier for controlled delivery of therapeutic proteins; however, BSA was chosen as a hydrophilic model protein encapsulated within PLGA nanoparticles to investigate the effective formulation parameters. Several key processing parameters were changed including surfactant(s) concentration in the internal and external aqueous phases, BSA concentration, poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) characteristics, and power of ultrasonicator probe to investigate their effects on the morphological characteristics and size distribution of the nanoparticles (NPs). The prepared NPs showed spherical shape with smooth and pore-free surfaces along with a relatively narrow particle size distribution. The mean particle size of the optimized formulation was 251.3 ± 8.5 nm, which is ideal for drug delivery applications. Our results demonstrate that using PVA with Mw 13–23 kDa and degree of hydrolysis approximately 87–89 % yields better results than PVA of higher molecular weight and higher degree of hydrolysis. Surfactants concentrations in internal (Span 60) and external phase (Tween 80) of the emulsions, which play a key role in determining NP characteristics and cumulative percentage BSA released, were optimized at 14 % (w/w) and 4 % (w/v), respectively. Optimal level of ultrasonication power (50 W) was also determined. According to the results, the optimized protein-loaded NPs with proper shape, size, and surface properties were prepared and these may act as a good candidate for protein delivery.


PLGA Nanoparticles Protein delivery BSA Double emulsion 



The authors are grateful to the Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) for the financial assistance (grant no. 89003650) and Iran Polymer and Petrochemical Institute for technical support. We would especially like to thank Dr Manizheh Motavalian for kindly providing freeze-drying facilities during the particle fabrication, and Mrs Khosravi and Mr Pirhajatie for performing SEM and TEM analyses.


  1. 1.
    Lu Y, Chen SC (2004) Micro and nano-fabrication of biodegradable polymers for drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 56:1621–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Halliday A, Wallace GG, Cook M (2012) Novel methods of antiepileptic drug delivery–polymer-based implants. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 64:953–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winzenburg G, Schmidt C, Fuchs S, Kissel T (2004) Biodegradable polymers and their potential use in parenteral veterinary drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 56:1453–1466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Budhian A, Siegel SJ, Winey KI (2007) Haloperidol-loaded PLGA nanoparticles: systematic study of particle size and drug content. Int J Pharm 336:367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thompson CJ, Hansford D, Higgins S, Rostron C, Hutcheon GA, Mundaya DL (2007) Evaluation of ibuprofen-loaded microspheres prepared from novel copolyesters. Int J Pharm 329:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bysell H, Månsson R, Hansson P, Malmsten M (2011) Microgels and microcapsules in peptide and protein drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 63:1172–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tan LM, Choong PFM, Dass CR (2010) Review, recent developments in liposomes, microparticles and nanoparticles for protein and peptide drug delivery. Peptides 31:184–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Floy BJ, Visor GC, Sanders LM (1993) Design of biodegradable polymer systems for controlled release of bioactive agents. In: El-Nokaly MA, Piatt DM, Charpentier BA (eds) Polymeric delivery systems. ACS, Washington, pp 154–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Niwa T, Takeuchi H, Hino T, Kunou N, Kawashima Y (1993) Preparations of biodegradable nanospheres of water-soluble and insoluble drugs with D,L-lactide/glycolide copolymer by a novel spontaneous emulsification solvent diffusion method, and the drug release behavior. J Control Release 25:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tabata Y, Gutta S, Langer R (1993) Controlled delivery systems for proteins using polyanhydride microspheres. Pharm Res 10:487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson OL, Cleland JL, Lee HJ, Jones AJS, Putney SD (1996) A month-long effect from a single injection of microencapsulated human growth hormone. Nat Med 7:795–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feirong K, Jagdish S (2001) Effects of additives on release of a model protein from PLGA microspheres. AAPS Pharmsci Tech 2:1–7Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ravivarapu HB, Burton K, Deluca PP (2000) Polymer and microspher blending to alter the release of peptide from PLGA microspheres. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 50:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Torchilin VP (2007) Micellar nanocarriers: pharmaceutical perspectives. Pharm Res 24:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cohen-Sela E, Chorny M, Koroukhov N, Danenberg HD, Golomb G (2009) A new double emulsion solvent diffusion technique for encapsulating hydrophilic molecules in PLGA nanoparticles. J Control Release 133(2):90–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu L, Ding J (2004) In vitro degradation of three-dimensional porous poly(d,l-lactide-co-glycolide) scaffolds for tissue engineering. Biomaterials 25:5821–5830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    DellaPorta G, Castaldo F, Scognamiglio M, Paciello L, Parascandola P, Reverchona E (2012) Bacteria microencapsulation in PLGA microdevices by supercritical emulsion extraction. J Supercrit Fluids 63:1–7Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lu JM, Wang XW, Marin-Muller C, Wang H, Lin PH, Yao QZ, Chen CY (2009) Current advances in research and clinical applications of PLGA-based nanotechnology. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 9:325–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwendeman SP, Cardamone M, Klibanov A, Langer R (1996) In: Cohen S, Bernstein H (eds) Microparticulate systems for the delivery of proteins and vaccines. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 1–49Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berkland C, Kim KK, Pack DW (2001) Fabrication of PLG microspheres with precisely controlled and monodisperse size distributions. J Control Release 73:59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Amidi M, Mastrobattista E, Jiskoot W, Hennink WE (2010) Chitosan-based delivery systems for protein therapeutics and antigens. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 62(1):59–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shim MS, Kwon YJ (2012) Stimuli-responsive polymers and nanomaterials for gene delivery and imaging applications. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 64(11):1046–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prabha S, Zhou WZ, Panyam J, Labhasetwar V (2002) Size-dependency of nanoparticle-mediated gene transfection studies with fractionated nanoparticles. Int J Pharm 244:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hans ML, Lowman AM (2002) Biodegradable nanoparticles for drug delivery and imaging. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci 6:319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kobsa S, Saltzman WM (2008) Bioengineering approaches to controlled protein delivery. Pediatr Res 63(5):513–519Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rosenoer VM (1977) Albumin structure, function and uses. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu Y, Deng X (2002) Influences of preparation conditions on particle size and DNA loading efficiency for poly (DL-lactic acid-polyethylene glycol) microspheres entrapping free DNA. J Control Release 83:147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Márquez AL, Palazolo GG, Wagner JR (2007) Water in oil (w/o) and double (w/o/w) emulsions prepared with spans: microstructure, stability, and rheology. Colloid Polym Sci 285:1119–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Khoee S, Yaghoobian M (2009) An investigation into the role of surfactants in controlling particle size of polymeric nanocapsules containing penicillin-G in double emulsion. Eur J Med Chem 44:2392–2399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mitchell DJ, Ninham BW (1981) Micelles, vesicles and microemulsions. Chem Soc Faraday Trans II 77:601–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mondal N, Samanta A, Pal TK, Ghosal SK (2008) Effect of different formulation variables on some particle characteristics of poly(DL-lactide-co-glycolide) nanoparticles. Yakugaku Zasshi 128(4):595–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kibbe AH (2000) Handbook of pharmaceutical excipients, 3rd edn. Pharmaceutical Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhua Y, Zhang G, Yang H, Hong X (2005) Surfactant Deterg 8(4):353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Arshady R (1991) Preparation of biodegradable microspheres and microcapsules: 2. Polylactides and related polyesters. J Control Release 17:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Feczkó T, Tóth J, Gyenis J (2008) Comparison of the preparation of PLGA–BSA nano- and microparticles by PVA, poloxamer and PVP. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 39(1–3):188–195Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Feng SS (2004) Nanoparticle of biodegradable polymer for new concept chemotherapy. Expert Rev Med Devices 1(1):115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jeong Y, Cho C, Kim S, Ko K, Kim S, Shim Y, Nah J (2001) Preparation of poly(DL-lactide-co-glycolide) nanoparticles without surfactant. Appl Polym Sci 80:2228–2236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhang X, Jackson JK, Burt HM (1996) Development of amphiphilic diblock copolymers as micellar carriers of taxol. Int J Pharm 132(1–2):195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Boury F, Ivanova T, Panaiotov I, Proust JE, Bois A, Richou J (1995) Dynamic properties of poly(D,L-lactide) and PVA monolayers at the air/water and dichloromethane air/water interfaces. J Colloid Interf Sci 169:380–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Murakami H, Kawashima Y, Niwa T, Hino T, Takeuchi H, Kobayashi M (1997) Influence of the degrees of hydrolyzation and polymerization of PVA on the preparation and properties of PLGA nanoparticles. Int J Pharm 149:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zambaux MF, Bonneaux F, Gref R, Maincent P, Dellacherie E, Alonso MJ, Labrude P, Vigneron C (2000) Influence of experimental parameters on the characteristics of poly(lactid acid) nanoparticles prepared by double emulsion method. J Control Release 50:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Konan YN, Cerny R, Favet J, Berton M, Gurny R, Allemann E (2003) Preparation and characterization of sterile sub-200 nm meso-tetra(4-hydroxylphenyl)porphyrin-loaded nanoparticles for photodynamic therapy. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 55:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Feczkó T, Tóth J, Dósa G, Gyenis J (2011) Influence of process conditions on the mean size of PLGA nanoparticles. Chem Eng Process Process Intensif 50(8):846–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yan C, Resau JH, Hewetson J, West M, Rill WL, Kende M (1994) Characterization and morphological analysis of protein-loaded PLGA microparticles prepared by water/oil/water emulsion technique. J Control Release 32:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Koppolu B, Rahimi M, Nattama S, Wadajkar A, Nguyen KT (2010) Development of multiple-layer polymeric particles for targeted and controlled drug delivery. Nanomedicine 6(2):355–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kang F, Singh J (2003) Conformational stability of a model protein (bovine serum albumin) during primary emulsification process of PLGA microspheres synthesis. Int J Pharm 260:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jalil R, Nixon JR (1990) Microencapsulation using poly(L-lactic acid). 2. Preparative variables affecting microcapsule properties. J Microencapsul 7:25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Arakawa T, Kita Y (2000) Stabilizing effects of caprylate and acetyltryptophanate on heat-induced aggregation of bovine serum albumin. Biochim Biophys Acta 1479:32–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Clark AH, Saunderson DHP, Suggett A (1981) Infrared and laser-Raman spectroscopic studies of thermally-induced globular protein gels. Int J Pept Protein Res 17:353–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yang A, Yang L, Liu W, Li Z, Xu H, Yang X (2007) Tumor necrosis factor alpha blocking peptide loaded PEG-PLGA nanoparticles: preparation and in vitro evaluation. Int J Pharm 331:123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Peng ZG, Hidajat K, Uddin MS (2004) Adsorption of bovine serum albumin on nanosized magnetic particles. Colloid Interf Sci 271:277–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Roach P, Farrar D, Perry CC (2006) Surface tailoring for controlled protein adsorption: effect of topography at the nanometer scale and chemistry. J Am Chem Soc 128(12):3939–3945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bellusci M, Barbera AL, Padella F, Secci D (2011) Multifunctional ferrite-albumin nano particles in nanomedicine. Energ Ambiente Inneovazione 4–5:80–87Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nakamoto K (2009) Infrared and Raman spectra of inorganic and coordination compounds, 5th edn. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monireh Azizi
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Farhid Farahmandghavi
    • 2
  • Mohammadtaghi Joghataei
    • 3
    • 1
  • Mojgan Zandi
    • 4
  • Mohammad Imani
    • 2
  • Mehrdad Bakhtiary
    • 3
    • 1
  • Farid Abedin Dorkoosh
    • 5
  • Fariba Ghazizadeh
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of AnatomyTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  2. 2.Novel Drug Delivery Systems DepartmentIran Polymer and Petrochemical InstituteTehranIran
  3. 3.Cellular and Molecular Research CenterTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  4. 4.Biomaterial Department, Iran Polymer and Petrochemical InstituteTehranIran
  5. 5.Faculty of PharmacyTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran

Personalised recommendations