Effect of Modification of Poly(vinyl alcohol) Hydrogels on Mouse Fibroblast Cell Growth in Culture

  • Paul Y. Wang

Abstract

Hydrogels prepared by crosslinking of natural or synthetic polymers have many biomedical applications. In the treatment of severe skin defects caused by disease or accidents, it is desirable to have the hydrogel surface modified to support cell growth which may enhance healing. To prepare and test such an hydrogel in vitro, 5 g of poly (vinyl alcohol) granules were suspended in 40 mL ethanol for reaction with 9 g of glycidyltrimethyl ammonium chloride at 60°C for 6 hr to graft the trimethyl-2-hydroxyaminopropyl (abbrev. TMHAP) function onto some of the hydroxyl groups. The 5 g of modified poly(vinyl alcohol) granules was then dissolved in 35 mL of water and 3.6 mL of 10 N sodium hydroxide for crosslinking by 2.8 g of epichlorohydrin to form a gel sheet in 20 hr having about 2% solids content. The amount of TMHAP groups thereon was determined by exchange of the chloride ions with a 10% sodium sulfate solution, followed by titration with silver nitrate using potassium chromate as indicator. Hydrogels with about 0.15 mM TMHAP group/g dry solid and diameter of 3.5 cm were inoculated with about 2 × 105 cells. On the next day, 20% of the cells attached thereto grew to 1.6, 3.1, and 6.5 × 105 cells on days 3, 5, and 7, respectively. The growth depended on the pre-conditioning of the hydrogel in culture medium and frequency of its change, but much less on cell inoculation density.

Keywords

Solid Content Polyvinyl Acetate Vinyl Alcohol Trimethyl Ammonium Chloride Potassium Chromate 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. Y. Wang, Clin. Materials, 2, 91–102 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Y. C. Ma & P. Y. Wang, Polymer Sci. Tech., 35, 11–16 (1987).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. A. Peppas, Div. Polym. Chem. Prepr., 18 (1), 794–797 (1979).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. F. A. Goosen & M. V. Sefton, J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 17, 359–373 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. A. Peppas & E. W. Merrill, J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 11, 423–434 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. C. Bray & E. W. Merrill, J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 7, 431–443 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    W. Mutschler, et al., Helv. Chir. Acta., 47, 163–166 (1980).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Hollinger, et al., Biopolymers, 13, 879–890 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Hirtenstein, et al., Develop. Biol. Standard, 50, 73–102 (1982).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Y. Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Chemical Biology, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations