effect of types of buffer solution, ph and soaking time on the … · 2004-11-26 · demo polymer...

9
Polymer (Korea), Vol. 28, No. 6, pp 478-486 (2004) / , \28Ì \6x, 2004, pp 478-486 41#Ý# |ÀÀ ¸ô¼ ¸À Ð9|Àp 4x XÄ Ð$ <° ôh°H, x ¨Åi 1 QÔ på XÉÔ åp Ø\, |À@ д ¼ôØÌ X´ 8 4x Ñ é´ $X ô p å å  O , ý ðÔ Á&#&ÞÕ#Õ/#sK#u]#å=#YM#-õ# ".Õí>#é#Õ#¹#Þ#%y# ½Ñ¯]M¯"=. . ¯½µ . ¯í . ¯ññ¦ . ¯µ % # DÁ@# `p|5</# -0¬# ظôì0¬@# +5337#8#6¼# QX/#5337# 44#;¼# ,# Effect of Types of Buffer Solution, pH and Soaking Time on the Water Uptake of Small Intestinal Submucosa Sheets Seon Hwa Kim, Hye Won Shin, Ji Wook Jang*, Moon Suk Kim*, Sun Hang Cho*, Hai Bang Lee*, and Gilson Khang % Department of Advanced Organic Materials Engineering, Chonbuk National University, 664-14 Dukjin, Jeonju 561-756, Korea *Nano-biomaterials Laboratory, Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology, P. O. Box 107, Yuseong, Daejon 305-600, Korea e-mail : [email protected] (Received May 3, 2004;accepted November 8, 2004) 5¨¹ÌåP° ¼`< @ìä8¸@ì¸ O x,q IÔ qå¸Ð $ ¬qXô È $. <Ô ´Å´ ´- °ÀX´ Ô ô|\ éX È SIS ¨`Xô ÈÔ qå¸ÐÔ Du |ÀÐu Ô° QÔ -  $ dx È$. ðìÔ 8Ø SIS ¬ø xøð| Øì, }dè SIS ¬ø¼ @, AA @´ 1ù< 5ù SIS ¬ø¼ @$. ´¼ SEM õ´ ´ O (´ U¼ ¸@, ÝX, ¸ð< é¡, HBSS (Hank’s balanced salt solution) é ¡, øìä é¡, HEPES (N-[2-hydroxyethyl] piperazine-N-[2-ethanesulfonic acid]) é¡\ | ¡Xq, pH p¸ | ¡Xq 8ì D p¸ | ¡Xq $@$. 8Ø SIS ¬ø4$ ð Øì\ SIS ¬ø@, ÝX4$Ô é¡\ | ¡Xq´ Ò ¸@$. Qq é¡4$ ðq< <pq é¡\ SIS ¬øÔ }dXô | ¡X@$. 2, ÝX HEPES é¡\ D p¸ | ¡Xq $ ð< 1¼ ´Àp 10¼ ½ 200% | ÍA| ¡X@$. ´¨ SIS ¬ø ð Øì \ SIS ¬ø@ } ¼ D H1\ Ä´q´ ì\ ìé@åì¼ P(\$. ,-897,.9¹Small intestinal submucosa (SIS) is consisted with collagen and glycosaminoglycan as well as some growth factors which can stimulate cell activity. Recently, it has been recognized that SIS has been successfully examined in the bio-medical application as biomaterials without xenograft immuno-rejection response. We prepared native SIS sheets and acid treated SIS sheets by acetic acid with 1 or 5-layered sheets, respectively. The water uptake ability of native and acid treated SIS sheets was examined to evaluate the possibility as wound dressings. Morphologies of SIS sheets were characterized by SEM and the effects of various buffer solutions and different pH solutions on the water uptake ability were observed for 16 days. We observed that the acid treated SIS sheets had higher water uptake ability than native SIS sheets. Also, the water uptake ability of these was slightly higher in various buffers than distilled water. In conclusion, this study suggests that native and acid treated SIS sheets could be useful for the applications of wound dressing and biodegradable injectable materials. Keywords¹small intestinal submucosa, sheet, swelling, water uptake, wound dressing.

Upload: others

Post on 09-Mar-2020

3 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Effect of Types of Buffer Solution, pH and Soaking Time on the … · 2004-11-26 · Demo Polymer (Korea) , Vol. 28, No. 6, pp 478-486 (2004) 28 , 6 , 2004 , pp 478-486 , , Effect

Demo

���� Polymer (Korea), Vol. 28, No. 6, pp 478-486 (2004) �

���� ���, �28� �6�, 2004�, pp 478-486 �

������

��� ��� �� ������ ���� �� ��

� ���� ����, �� ���� � ��� ���

���� ��� ����, ��� ��� ��� ��

� �� �� ���� ��� �� � �� ��� �

����������������������������

��������������������

����������������

�����

�����

�����

��

����������������������������� �����

������� ��� ������������ �� �����

Effect of Types of Buffer Solution, pH and Soaking Time on the Water Uptake of Small Intestinal Submucosa Sheets

Seon Hwa Kim, Hye Won Shin, Ji Wook Jang*, Moon Suk Kim*, Sun Hang Cho*, Hai Bang Lee*, and Gilson Khang�

Department of Advanced Organic Materials Engineering, Chonbuk National University, 664-14 Dukjin, Jeonju 561-756, Korea

*Nano-biomaterials Laboratory, Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology, P. O. Box 107, Yuseong, Daejon 305-600, Korea

†e-mail : [email protected]

(Received May 3, 2004;accepted November 8, 2004)

����������� ���� ���������� � ����� ���� ������ ���� ��. ���� ����� �� ����� � ������ ���� �� SIS� ���� �� ����� �� ������ ����� ��� ��� ��� �� ��. ��� ��� SIS �� �����

� ���� ���� SIS ��� �����, ��� �� 1�� 5�� SIS ��� �����. �� SEM� �� �� � ��� ��� �����, ���, �� ���, HBSS (Hank’s balanced salt solution)��

�, ��� ���, HEPES (N-[2-hydroxyethyl] piperazine-N′-[2-ethanesulfonic acid]) ������ � ���, pH� �� � ��� ��� ��� �� � ���� �� �����. ��� SIS ���� � ��� SIS ���, ������ ������ � ���� ��� �����. �� ���� ��� �� ���� SIS ��� ���� � �� �� �����. ��, ��� HEPES ����� ��� �� � ��� ��� � �� 1 ���� 10 �� � 200% �� ���� �����. ��� SIS �� � ��

� SIS ��� �� ��� �� ���� ������ ��� ������� ����. ���������Small intestinal submucosa (SIS) is consisted with collagen and glycosaminoglycan as well as some growth factors which can stimulate cell activity. Recently, it has been recognized that SIS has been successfully examined in the bio-medical application as biomaterials without xenograft immuno-rejection response. We prepared native SIS sheets and acid treated SIS sheets by acetic acid with 1 or 5-layered sheets, respectively. The water uptake ability of native and acid treated SIS sheets was examined to evaluate the possibility as wound dressings. Morphologies of SIS sheets were characterized by SEM and the effects of various buffer solutions and different pH solutions on the water uptake ability were observed for 16 days. We observed that the acid treated SIS sheets had higher water uptake ability than native SIS sheets. Also, the water uptake ability of these was slightly higher in various buffers than distilled water. In conclusion, this study suggests that native and acid treated SIS sheets could be useful for the applications of wound dressing and biodegradable injectable materials. Keywords�small intestinal submucosa, sheet, swelling, water uptake, wound dressing.

Page 2: Effect of Types of Buffer Solution, pH and Soaking Time on the … · 2004-11-26 · Demo Polymer (Korea) , Vol. 28, No. 6, pp 478-486 (2004) 28 , 6 , 2004 , pp 478-486 , , Effect

Polymer (Korea), Vol. 28, No. 6, 2004� �he Water Uptake of SIS Sheets � �����

���, �28� �6�, 2004� ������� ��� � ���� � � ����

�� ��� ���� ��. ��� ��� ��� ��

�� �� ��� ��� ����� ���� �

� ���� ��� �� ��� ���. ��� �

�� ��� ��� �� ���� ��� ���

��� ����� �� ��� �� ��, ���

��� �� ��, ���� ��� �� ��� ���

���, ��� ������ �� ��, ������

��� ���, ����� ��� �� ��, ���

���, ��� ��� �� �� �� � � ��.1

��� ��� ��� �� �� ��� ���� ��

�,2-8 ��� ��� � ��� �� ���9 � � ��.

���� ����� �� �� ��� �����

�����,5 �� ��� ��� �� �������

(small intestinal submucosa, SIS)� ���� �� ��� �

��� ���� �.10 �� ���� ���, ���

�� � �� � ��� SIS� ���� ��� ��

� ��� ��� I, III���,11 ��� ��� IV, V, VI

�� ���� ��. ��� ����� ��� (A, B),

��, �� ���, ������ ��12 �����

������ ������ ��13 ���� ��. ��

��� ����, �� ����, ���� ����,

�� ����, � �� ���� ���� �� �

���� ���� ��,14 �� ���� �� �, �

� ��, �� �� �� ���� ��� ��� ���

�� ��.15,24-26 SIS� 90% ��� �� �� ���

���, �� ��� ����� ��� ��� ��

��� ��� �,16 60�90 �� ����� � �

��� ���� ��,17-19 �,20 �,21,22 �,23 ��, �

� �� ���� ��� �� ���.

��� ��� ���� � ����� ��� ���

�� ��� ������ SIS� ����� ���

� �� �� ���� ���� �� ��� ����

��� � ��, ��� ��� ��� �� �� �

�����, ����, ��, �� �� �� ���

� �� ���� ���� ���� �����.24 ��

SIS ���� �� ���� PLA� ���� ���

��� ���� �� ��� ������ ����

� ��� ��� �����.25 SIS ��� �� ��

� �� �� ���� �� �� �� ���� ��

�� ��� ���� ��� �� ���� �� �

� ��� �� ��� �� �� ���� ����

�.26 SIS ��� ����� ��� � ����� SIS

���� ��� � �� �� �� � �� �� ��

��� ��� �� ���� �����.27 ��, ��

� �����, ��� ������ ��� ����

� � �� �� ���� ���� ���� SIS

��� �� ��� � �� ���� ���� ��

�� �� �� ������ ���� �����.28

� ����� ��� � ��� ���� ����

�� �� ����� ��� ���� SIS� SIS ��

� ����� ��� SIS ��� �����. ��� �

��� ��� � �� ��� ���, ���� ��

��� ��� ��� ��� ���� � � ��� �

�.29 ��� ��� pH� ���� ��� �� �

���� � ��� ��� ��� �� ��� �

�� ��� ��� ��. �� ��� ��� ���

�� ���� 5�10��� ���� ����� ��

�� ���� ��� � �, ����, ����

� �� ����� ��.1 ��� �� ���� � �

���� SIS �� ��� ���� ��� � �� �

���� ���� SIS� �����. SIS ��� ���

�� ���� ���� �� �� ���� �����

� ���� ��. ��� � ����� �� ��� SIS

��� ���� �� ��� ��, pH� �� ���

��� �� � ��� �� �� �����.

�������

��������������� �� 2�� ��� ���

�� ��� ���� ��� ��� ����� ��

��, �� �� �� �� 0.9% � �� ���

�. ���� ���� 10 cm ��� �� ���� ��

� ��� SIS� �����.10,14,30,31 �� ��� ��

�� ���� ��� ��� � ���� ��� �

� �� ����� (Figure 1 (A)). ��� SIS� 0.9% �

�� 15�� 3� �� ��� �� ���� SIS�

��� ���� �� -80 � ��� � ���� �

��� ��� �� �� ���� (Figure 1 (B)). SIS

��� ���� ��� 4 �� SIS� ��� �� ��

�� �� � 2 �� ���� (Bondiro Iishin

Co, Ltd., Korea)�� �� �� � � �����. 5��

SIS ��� 5�� SIS ��� �� � �� ��� ��

� ���� ��� �� (MH-50Y CAP 50 tons, Japan)

� ���� ���� 10 kgf/cm2� ���� 5� �� �

�� �, 1�� SIS �� � ��� �� �

������.

� ��� SIS ��� ���� ��� 4 �� SIS�

��� �� 1% ���� ��� 24�� �� ���

� SIS ��� �����. � ��� SIS ��� ��

����� ��� �� ��� ���� ���� 5�

Page 3: Effect of Types of Buffer Solution, pH and Soaking Time on the … · 2004-11-26 · Demo Polymer (Korea) , Vol. 28, No. 6, pp 478-486 (2004) 28 , 6 , 2004 , pp 478-486 , , Effect

���� � �Kim et al. Polymer (Korea), Vol. 28, No. 6, 2004�

���� � � ���� ���, �28� �6�, 2004��

�� ����. �� � ��� SIS ��� �� �

���� pH� 5 �����. � ��� SIS ��� �

� �� �� � ������. 5�� � ��

� SIS ��� � �� ��� �����. � �

�� ��� �� ���� (CD-15CP, Mitutoyo Corp.,

Japan)� ���� � ���.

����������������� SIS �� � ���

SIS ��� ��� �� �� ��� �� ��� (SEM,

Hitachi, S-2250N, Japan)� �����. SIS ��� ���

� � ��� �� �� ��� 2� �� ���

��� (Model SC 500K, Emscope, UK)� ���� 200 �

��� � �� ���. SEM� �� �� ���

� ��� �� ���� P-SEM (Mirero, Korea)� �

��� �����.

�������������������������� ���

SIS ��� �� �� � ���� � �� ��� �

� 20 mL� 0.02 g� SIS ��� �� �, 24�� ���

��. �� ��� SIS ��� ��� ��� ��� �

��� �� (w)�� � �� �� � (1)� ����

� ���� �����.32

� ��� (%)� 10002.0

02.0 ×−w (1)

� ��� ��� ��� ��� Table 1� �����.

�� ��� (PBS, phosphate buffered saline, pH 7.2), ��

�, HBSS (Hank`s balanced salt solution)� Gibco BRL (USA)

� ��� �����. HEPES (N-[2-hydroxyethyl] pipera-

zine-N ′-[2-ethanesulfonic acid])� Sigma (St. Louis, MO,

USA)�� ���� �����. ��� ��� �� Milli-

Q ���� (Millipore, Molsheim, France)� ����

�, �����. ���� ������ 3M� (St. Paul,

USA)� Tegaderm, Coloplast� (Humlebæk, Denmark)�

Comfeel, ����� (Hwaseong, Korea)� Epicare ���

���� (Seoul, Korea)� ��� ���� �����

�����.

����������������������� pH� �� �

��� SIS ��� � ���� ���� � �� ��

� pH� 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 ��� 12� ��� �� ���

HCl ��� ��� 2 N NaOH ��� ���� ���

��. pH� pH meter (Corning Glass Works, pH meter 340,

USA)� ���� � ���. � ��� ��� � (1)�

�����. pH� ��� SIS ��� ��� ���� �

��� ��� pH 2, 8, ��� 12 ����� � ���

��� �� � SIS ��� ����� SEM� ��

��� �����. SEM � �� � ��� �

����.

����������������������� SIS ��� �

� ���� ��� �� ��� � � ���� ��

�� ��� ���� ��� ��� HEPES ����

(A) �

(B) �

������� � Schematic diagram for the processing of SIS pre-paration ; (A) section of procine jejunum and (B) dehydrated SIS.�

��� ����������������������������������

Solution N am e C ontent & C oncentration pH

D W H 2O 6 .8

PB S K C l, K H 2PO 4, N aC l, N a2H PO 4 7 .2

H B SS K C l, K H 2PO 4, N aC l, H N a2PO 4, D -glucose 7 .1

Tris-C l buffer (2-A m ino-2-hydroxym ethyl-1 ,3-propanedio l) 50 m M 7.4

H E PE S buffer (N -[2-hydroxyethyl]piperazine-N `-[2-ethanesulfonic acid]) 50 mM

7.2

Page 4: Effect of Types of Buffer Solution, pH and Soaking Time on the … · 2004-11-26 · Demo Polymer (Korea) , Vol. 28, No. 6, pp 478-486 (2004) 28 , 6 , 2004 , pp 478-486 , , Effect

Polymer (Korea), Vol. 28, No. 6, 2004� �he Water Uptake of SIS Sheets � �����

���, �28� �6�, 2004� ������� ��� � ���� � � ����

SIS �� � ��� SIS ��� ���� ��� ��

���. HEPES ���� ������ SIS �� � ��

� ���� SIS ��� �� �� ���� ���� �

�� �� ���. � ��� ��� � (1)� ��

���. ��� 16 �� ������, 16� �� �

� ���� SIS ��� �� ��� �� �� �

� ���� � ���.

�����������

���������� � ����� � �� SIS� �

� ��� ����� (Figure 1 (B)). SIS ��� ����

�� ��� ���� ��� ���� ��, ��

�� ��� �� ���� ��� ���� ��

(Figure 2 (A), (B)). � ��� SIS ��� �����

�� �� ��� �� ��� ��� �����.

(Figure 2 (C)). � ����� ���� ��� �� SIS

� ��� ���� ��� ���� SIS� ����

�. SIS �� ��� � 0.10 mm ��� � ��� SIS

��� � 0.58 mm ���. � ��� SIS ��� SIS

���� 4� �� ��� ���� ����� (Table 2).

� ����� �� ���� �� ���� �����

�� ���� ���� ��� �� ���� ���

� �� ��� SIS ��� � �� ���� �� �

�� ��� ���.

������������� Figure 3� SIS ��� � �

�� �� �� ��� SEM� �� �� ���. ��

�� ��� ��� �� �� � �� ���

� ��� ��� �� �� ��� � �� (Figure 3

(A)). � ��� � ��� �� � � � ���

��� ��� �� (Figure 3 (B)). SIS ��� �� �

� ��� ����� ��� � ��� �� ��

� �� � ��� SIS ��� ��� � �� �

100 µm� �� ��� ��� ��� ���� �� �

���� SIS ���� ����� ���� ����

(Figure 4 (A), (C)). �� 0.47 mm ��� ��� 5� SIS

��� �� SEM ��� �� 5�� ��� �� �

� � ������ ����� (Figure 4 (B)). 5� � �

�� SIS ��� �� ���� ��� �� �� �

�� ����� (Figure 4 (D)). 5� � ��� SIS ��

����� ��� � 100 µm� ��� ��� ���

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

(A) (B) (C)

�������� The appearance of dehydrated SIS sheets ; (A) native SIS sheet dried at room temperature, (B) native SIS sheet freeze-dried at -55 �, and (C) acid treated SIS sheet freeze-dried at - 55 �.�

�� ����������������������������������������

Sample Name Thickness (mm) S1a 0.103�0.022 S5b 0.470�0.100

AS1c 0.577�0.133 AS5d 1.762�0.395

aS1 : 1 layered native SIS sheets. bS5 : 5 layered native SIS sheets. cAS1 : 1 layered acid treated SIS sheets. dAS5 : 5 layered acid treated SIS sheets��

Page 5: Effect of Types of Buffer Solution, pH and Soaking Time on the … · 2004-11-26 · Demo Polymer (Korea) , Vol. 28, No. 6, pp 478-486 (2004) 28 , 6 , 2004 , pp 478-486 , , Effect

���� � �Kim et al. Polymer (Korea), Vol. 28, No. 6, 2004�

���� � � ���� ���, �28� �6�, 2004��

�� ��� ����� �.

�������������������������� ��

��� ��� ������ SIS ��� � ���� �

����� � ����� ��� �� (Figure 5). �

���� HEPES > PBS > Tris ��� > HBSS > ��� �

�� ��� �����. ����� ������

SIS ��� � ���� �� ��� �� � � �

� �� �� ��� ���, � �� � �� ���

� �� �� ����� ��� ����. � ��

� SIS ��� SIS ����, 1�� ��� 5�� ���

� � � � � � �

(A) (B) �

�������� SEM images of SIS sheets ; (A) stratum compactum surface and (B) abluminal surface (�150).�

� � � � � � �

(A) (B) �

� � � � � � �

(C) (D) �

�������� SEM micorphotographs of 5 layered native SIS sheet for (A) surface, (B) cross section and 5 layered acid treated SIS sheet for (C) surface, and (D) cross section (�80).�

Page 6: Effect of Types of Buffer Solution, pH and Soaking Time on the … · 2004-11-26 · Demo Polymer (Korea) , Vol. 28, No. 6, pp 478-486 (2004) 28 , 6 , 2004 , pp 478-486 , , Effect

Polymer (Korea), Vol. 28, No. 6, 2004� �he Water Uptake of SIS Sheets � ����

���, �28� �6�, 2004� ������� ��� � ���� � � ���

� �� � ���� ���, ��� � �� ���

��� �� �� ���� � ��� �� ���

5� �� ���� ���� ��� � ���� 1� �

��� �� ���.

����������������������� ��� ��

��� ���� �� ��. ����� ��� ��

� � �� ���� � � ��, �� ��� ��

���� ���� �� � ��. ��� ��� ���

��� ��� �� ���� ���� � ���

�.33 � ��� SIS ��� �� �� �� � ���

��� ��� �� ��� ��� ���� ���. SIS

��� ���� ���� ���� ��� �� �

�� �� �� ���� � SEM� �� �� ��

� �� ��� ��� (Figure 4). ���� � ���

SIS ��� SIS ���� ��� ��� �� �� �

� ��� �� �� ��� pH� �� �����

������� The water uptake in various buffers ((A) DW, (B) PBS, (C) Tris buffer, (D) HBSS buffer and (E) HEPES buffer) of native SIS sheets, acid treated SIS sheets and commercialized wound dressings ; Tegaderm, Comfeel, Epicare and gauze.�

� ��� ��� ���� ���� ����� �� ������������ ����

(A)

Wat

er U

ptak

e (%

) in

DW

����

����

����

���

�0

0

0

0

0

Wat

er U

ptak

e (%

) in

PB

S ����

����

����

���

� ��� ��� ���� ���� ����� �� ������������ ����

(B)

0

0

0

0

0

��� ��� ���� ���� ����� �� ������������ ����

(C)

Wat

er U

ptak

e (%

) in

Tris

buf

fer ����

����

����

���

�0

0

0

0

0

� ��� ��� ���� ���� ����� �� ������������ ����

(D)

Wate

r Upta

ke (%

) in H

BSS

buffe

r

�����

�����

�����

����

��0

0

0

0

0

��� ��� ���� ���� ����� �� ������������ ����

(E) W

ater U

ptake

(%) in

HEP

ES bu

ffer �����

�����

�����

����

��0

0

0

0

0

�������! The water uptake of 1 layered native and acid treated SIS sheet in various buffers.�

0

0

0

0

0

S1 AS1

� ��� ���� ��� ����� � ������

Buffers

Wat

er U

ptak

e (%

)

���

����

����

���

�������" The water uptake of native and acid treated SIS sheet in different pH solution.�

� �� �� �� ��� � �

pH

Wat

er U

ptak

e (%

)

����

����

�����

�����

����

��0

0

0

0

0

0

S1 AS1

Page 7: Effect of Types of Buffer Solution, pH and Soaking Time on the … · 2004-11-26 · Demo Polymer (Korea) , Vol. 28, No. 6, pp 478-486 (2004) 28 , 6 , 2004 , pp 478-486 , , Effect

���� � �Kim et al. Polymer (Korea), Vol. 28, No. 6, 2004�

���� � � ���� ���, �28� �6�, 2004��

� �� �� ��� � ���. SIS ��� �� ��

�� ��� �� ���� � �� ����� (Figure 5).

� ��� SIS ��� �� ��� ���� ���� �

�� SIS ��� ��� � ���� � pH 6�� ��

pH 8�� ��� � ���� � ��� ����. SIS

��� ��� �� ���� ��� �� ��� �

�� ���� �� �� �����. pH 2, 8 ��� 12

� ���� � ��� ��� � � ����� SEM

� �� ��� �� �� SIS ��� pH 2 12� �

��� Figure 4 (C) � � ��� ���� ���

��� ��� �� �� ��� ��, pH 8 ����

SIS ��� ��� ��� �� (Figure 8 (A), (C), (E)).

� ��� SIS ��� pH 2, 8 ��� 12� ���� �

��� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� (Figure 8

(B), (D), (F)).

����������������������� � ��� SIS

�������������������������������� �������������������

� � � � � � � � pH 2

(A) (B)

� � � � � � � � pH 8�

(C) (D)

� � � � � � � pH 12

(E) (F) ��������# SEM image of native SIS sheets and acid treated SIS sheets. (left side : native SIS sheets, right side : acid treated SIS sheets ; (A) and (B) : in pH 2 solution, (C) and (D) : in pH 8 solution, (E) and (F) : in pH 12 solution) (�100).�

Page 8: Effect of Types of Buffer Solution, pH and Soaking Time on the … · 2004-11-26 · Demo Polymer (Korea) , Vol. 28, No. 6, pp 478-486 (2004) 28 , 6 , 2004 , pp 478-486 , , Effect

Polymer (Korea), Vol. 28, No. 6, 2004� �he Water Uptake of SIS Sheets � ����

���, �28� �6�, 2004� ������� ��� � ���� � � ���

��� SIS ���� ��� �� �� �� ��� �

�� �� �� ����� (Figure 5, 6, 7). ������

10� ��� � ��� �� ��� ���� ���.

� ��� ��� ��� � ��� �� 4�� �

��� �� ���� � ���� 200% �� ���

����� (Figure 9).

HEPES ������ ������ �� �� ��

�� � ��� SIS ��� SIS ���� �� �� ��

���. ������ ��� �� �� ��� ��

HEPES ������ �� ��� ���� 7�� �

��� �� ���� � ��� �� ��� 14��

���� ���� ��� ���� (Figure 10). ��� �

� HEPES� �� � �� �� �� SIS �� �� �

��� ��� �� ��� ����� ����� �

�� ��� ���� ��� ����. 16 �� ���

HEPES ���� SIS ��� ���� � ����

� ��� � �� ��� �� ��� ����.

����� ��� 1���� 5�� �� HEPES �

����� 5��� 1�� ��� (Table 3). SIS ���

� ��� SIS ���� ��� ��, HEPES ����

� ������� ��� ���. ��� ���� �

��� ��, pH �� �� ��� ��� ��

��� ��� ���, ����� ��� ��� �

� �� ��� �� � �� ��, �� �� ���

���� �� ��� �� ���� ����.34

�������

� ����� SIS ��� �� �� ����� ��

�� ��� SIS �� � ��� SIS ��� 1�� 5

��� ���� ���� ��� ��� �� ��� �

����� ���. ��� ����� ��� � ��

� ��� SIS ��� ���� � �� ��� �

��� � �� SIS ���� � ���� ���� �

�������$ The water uptake in DW of prepared SIS sheets and commercialized wound dressing ; Tegaderm, Comfeel, Epicare and gauze for 16 days.�

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

S1 S5 AS1 AS5

� � �� �� �� ��� � � ��� ���

Time (Days)

Wat

er U

ptak

e (%

) in

DW

���

��

���

����

����

����

� ��

����

���

���

���

��

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Tegaderm Comfeel Epicare Gauze

� � �� �� �� ��� � � ��� ��

Time (Days)

Wat

er U

ptak

e (%

) in

DW

���

��

���

����

����

����

� ��

����

���

���

���

��

��������% The water uptake in HEPES buffer of prepared SIS sheets and commercialized wound dressing ; Tegaderm, Comfeel, Epicare and gauze for 16 days.�

� �� �� �� ��� � � ��� ���

Time (Days)

Wat

er U

ptak

e (%

) in

HE

PE

S b

uffe

r ���

��

���

����

����

����

� ��

����

���

���

���

��

�0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

S1 S5 AS1 AS5

� �� �� �� ��� � � ��� ���

Time (Days)

Wat

er U

ptak

e (%

) in

HE

PE

S b

uffe

r ���

��

���

����

����

����

� ��

����

���

���

���

��

�0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Tegaderm Comfeel Epicare Gauze

Page 9: Effect of Types of Buffer Solution, pH and Soaking Time on the … · 2004-11-26 · Demo Polymer (Korea) , Vol. 28, No. 6, pp 478-486 (2004) 28 , 6 , 2004 , pp 478-486 , , Effect

���� � �Kim et al. Polymer (Korea), Vol. 28, No. 6, 2004�

���� � � ���� ���, �28� �6�, 2004��

����. ��� SIS ��� ���� �� �����

� ���� ����, ������ � � �� �

��� � �� ���� ��� �� ��� � �

� ���� �� ���� ���� ��� � ��

��� ����. SIS ��� ��� HEPES ����

� 10 �� �� ���� �� ���� 1 ���

�� 200% �� � ��� � �� ��� �� ���

� � ��� ��� � ����� ����.

� ����� ��� �� ��� ��� �

��� ����� ��� �� SIS� ����� �

� �� ��� � ����� ���� �����.

� in vitro �� � in vivo, �� ��� ��� ��

� �� �� � ��� �� ��� ��� ����

�� �� ��� �� �� ��.

��� ��� ��� ������ ��� ����

�� (N11-A08-1402-05-1-3)� �� �������� �

� ����.

� � � �� ��

1. S. K. Han and S. J. Choi, “The demand of Dressing”, in

Advance in Wound Care, H. J. Yoo, J. H. Kim, M. H. Park, K. K. Lee, J. H. Lee, Y. S. Yoo, S. K. Han, and G. Yushimize, Editors, Korea Medical Book Publisher Co., Seoul, pp 167 ~ 172 (2003).

2. J. W. L. Davies, Burns, 10, 94 (1983). 3. J. Golan, A. Eldad, and B. Rudensky, Burns, 11, 274 (1985). 4. J. F. Burke, I. V. Yannas, and W. C. Quinby, Ann. Surg., 194,

413 (1981). 5. R. Elliott and J. Hoehn, Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 52, 401 (1973). 6. T. Phillips, J. Dermatol. Surg. Oncol., 19, 794 (1993).

7. J. Nanchahal and C. M. Ward, J. Plast. Surg., 45, 354 (1992). 8. Y. Kuroyanagi, M. Kenmochi, and N. Shioya, Ann. Plast. Sur.,

31, 340 (1993). 9. B. E. Bromberg, I. C. Song, and M. P. Mohn, Plast. Reconstr.

Surg., 36, 80 (1965). 10. U. R. Shettigar, R. Jogannathan, and R. Natarajan, Artif.

Organs, 6, 256 (1982). 11. J. P. Hodde, Tissue Eng., 8, 295 (2002). 12. J. P. Hodde, S. F. Badylak, A. O. Brightman, and S. L. Voytik-

Harbin, Tissue Eng., 2, 209 (1996). 13. T. B. Mcpherson and S. F. Badylak, Tissue Eng., 4, 75 (1998). 14. S. L. Voytik-Harbin, A. O. Brightman, M. Kraine, B. Waisner,

and S. F. Badylak, J. Cell Biochem., 67, 478 (1997). 15. E. N. Lamme, H. J. de Vries, H. van Veen, G. Gabbiani, W.

Westerhof, and E. Middelkoop, J. Histochem. Cytochem., 44, 1311 (1996).

16. S. F. Badylak, B. Kropp, and T. B. Mcphesron, Tissue Eng., 4, 379 (1998).

17. S. F. Badylak, G. C. Lantz, and A. C. Coffey, J. Surg. Res., 47, 74 (1989).

18. G. C. Lantz, S. F. Badylak, and A. C. Coffey, J. Invest. Surg., 3, 217 (1990).

19. G. E. Sandusky, S. F. Badylak, and R. J. Horff, Ann. J. Path., 140, 317 (1992).

20. S. P. Hong, J. K. Park, S. H. Huh, and H. S. Kim, J. Plast. Surg., 25, 547 (1998).

21. B. E. Bromberg, I. C. Song, and M. P. Mohn, Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 36, 80 (1965).

22. B. L. Kropp, B. L. Eppley, and C. D. Prevel, J. Urol., 46, 396 (1995).

23. C. D. Prevel, B. L. Eppley, and S. F. Badylak, Ann. Plast. Surg., 35, 381 (1995).

24. S. B. Song, G. Khang, S. K. Hong, I. Lee, S. W. Kim, and H. B. Lee, Biomater. Res., 4, 13 (2000).

25. G. Khang, P. K. Shin, I. Y. Kim, B. Lee, S. J. Lee, Y. M. Lee, H. B. Lee and I. W. Lee, Macromol. Res., 10, 158 (2002).

26. J. A. Kang, S. J. Lee, G. Khang, I. Lee, and H. B. Lee, Biomater. Res., 6, 107 (2002).

27. H. W. Shin, S. H. Kim, J. W. Jang, M. S. Kim, S. H. Cho, H. B. Lee, and G. Khang, Polymer(Korea), 28, 194 (2004).

28. S. H. Kim, H. W. Shin, J. W. Jang, M. S. Kim, S. H. Cho, H. B. Lee and G. Khang, Biomater. Res., 8, 143 (2004).

29. Y. O. Park, K. M. Min, and J. P. Huh, J. Korean Soc. Plast Reconstr. Sur., 29, 297 (2002).

30. K. M. Clark, G. C. Lantz, S. K. Salibury, S. F. Badylak, M. C. Hiles, and S. L. Voytik, J. Surg. Res., 60, 107 (1996).

31. M. C. Hiles, S. F. Badylak, G. C. Lantz, K. Kokini, L. A. Geddes, and R. J. Morff, J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 29, 883 (1995).

32. J. S. Pieper, T. Hafmans, J. H. Veerkamp, and T. H. van Kuppevelt, Biomaterials, 21, 581 (2000).

33. S. Doonan, “Peptides and Proteins”, in Tutorial Chemistry Texts, E. W. Abel, A. G. Davies, D. Phillips, and J. D. Woollins, Editors, The Royal Society of Chemistry, UK, p 16 (2002).

34. D. Agrawal, P. Patidar, T. Banerjee, and S. Patil, Process Biochemistry, 39, 977 (2004). �

�� ����&������'����������������������������������(&�����)*�*���������������(������������!�(�+���

W eig h t L o ss (% ) o f S IS S h ee ts S am p le N am e

D W H E P E S b u ffe r S 1 a 1 4 .1 1�1 .2 8 4 1 .6 2�2 .8 6 S 5 b 2 8 .1 8�1 .4 4 2 9 .7 4�0 .5 7

A S 1 c 9 .2 8�0 .8 1 1 5 .6 9�5 .5 5 A S 5 d 1 1 .8 3�0 .8 1 2 .5 1 2�1 .3 6

T eg ad e rm 0 .0 0�0 .0 0 -1 .6 1�0 .2 4 C o m fee l 2 5 .6 4�0 .5 5 2 2 .2 1�0 .6 6 E p ica re 0 .0 0�0 .0 0 -5 3 .2 0�5 2 .7 6 g au ze 1 .3 9�0 .5 3 1 7 .1 7�1 9 .6 5

aS1 : 1 layered native SIS sheets. bS5 : 5 layered native SIS sheets. cAS1 : 1 layered acid treated SIS sheets. dAS5 : 5 layered acid treated SIS sheets. �Compared by the weight change of freeze-dried SIS sheets before and after dipping for 16 days.