Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical ApplicationsNanocomposite Films for Food PackagingAdvanced Drug Delivery Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Morphological, Mechanical and Mucoadhesive Properties of Electrospun Chitosan/Phospholipid Hybrid Nanofibers

Open access
Mendes, Ana C., Sevilla Moreno, Jorge, Hanif, Muhammad, E.L. Douglas, Timothy, Chen, Menglin, Chronakis, Ioannis S.·2018·International Journal of Molecular Sciences
DOI 10.3390/ijms19082266PMC PMC6121410
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study aimed to develop hybrid electrospun chitosan–phospholipid nanofibers and investigate the effect of phospholipid (P) content and chitosans (Ch) molecular weights (Mw) and degree of acetylation (DA), on the morphological, mechanical and mucoadhesive properties of the nanofibers. Electrospun Ch/P nanofibers exhibited a smooth and uniform surface with average diameters ranging from 300 to 1000 nm, as observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The average diameter of the nanofibers was observed to increase with the increase of the Mw and degree of deacetylation of Ch, and phospholipid content. The elastic and adhesive properties of the nanofibers were determined by atomic force microscopy, and displayed higher values for higher Mw and lower DA Ch used. The elastic modulus of electrospun Ch/P hybrid fibers determined for the different conditions tested was found to be in the range of 500 and 1400 MPa. Furthermore, electrospun Ch/P nanofibers displayed mucoadhesive properties expressed by the work of adhesion calculated after the compression of the nanofibers against a section of pig small intestine. Our results showed that the increase in phospholipid content and DA of Ch decrease the work of adhesion, while the increase of Mw resulted in slightly higher work of adhesion of the nanofibers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ijms19082266

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of Ch/P fibers and respective histograms (on the right side) with the distribution of fiber diameters.
Figure 1 Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of Ch/P fibers and respective histograms (on the right side) with the distribution of fiber diameters.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Turbidity profiles of Ch’s (samples 1, 2, 3, 4), Ch-M, Ch/P, Ch/P-M, M (Mucin) and P (phospholipids) solutions after 30 min of interactions. Presented results are average of at least three independent experiments (n = 3) and are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 2 Turbidity profiles of Ch’s (samples 1, 2, 3, 4), Ch-M, Ch/P, Ch/P-M, M (Mucin) and P (phospholipids) solutions after 30 min of interactions. Presented results are average of at least three independent experiments (n = 3) and are presented as mean ± standard deviation.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Zeta potential of Ch’s (samples 1, 2, 3, 4), Ch–M, Ch/P, Ch/P–M, M (mucin) and P (phospholipids) solutions. Presented results are average of at least three independent experiments (n = 3) and are presented as a mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 3 Zeta potential of Ch’s (samples 1, 2, 3, 4), Ch–M, Ch/P, Ch/P–M, M (mucin) and P (phospholipids) solutions. Presented results are average of at least three independent experiments (n = 3) and are presented as a mean ± standard deviation.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Intensity weighted particle size distributions of of Ch, Ch–M and M solutions obtained by DLS.
Figure 4 Intensity weighted particle size distributions of of Ch, Ch–M and M solutions obtained by DLS.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Work of adhesion of Ch/P fibers with pig small intestine, normalized with Teflon pads as a control. Results are expressed as means ± standard deviation, and are performed in triplicates, p < 0.05 (*) and p < 0.001 (***).
Figure 5 Work of adhesion of Ch/P fibers with pig small intestine, normalized with Teflon pads as a control. Results are expressed as means ± standard deviation, and are performed in triplicates, p < 0.05 (*) and p < 0.001 (***).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Peak force quantitative nanomechanical (PFQNM) stiffness images (left column) and the Derjaguin–Muller–Toporov (DMT) modulus (right column) of a single Ch/P nanofiber using different ratios of Ch/P (samples 1, 2) and different Mw and DA (samples 3, 4). 2 µm line profile was drawn along the major axes of nanofiber for averaging DMT values; 3 µm × 3 µm scan size.
Figure 6 Peak force quantitative nanomechanical (PFQNM) stiffness images (left column) and the Derjaguin–Muller–Toporov (DMT) modulus (right column) of a single Ch/P nanofiber using different ratios of Ch/P (samples 1, 2) and different Mw and DA (samples 3, 4). 2 µm line profile was drawn along the major axes of nanofiber for averaging DMT values; 3 µm × 3 µm scan size.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 56

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Mendes, A. C., Sevilla Moreno, J., Hanif, M., E.L. Douglas, T., Chen, M., & Chronakis, I. S.
Affiliations
  • Technical University of Denmark (DK)
  • Nano-BioScience Research Group, DTU-Food, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), B202, 2800Kgs Lyngby, Denmark
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • Engineering Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YW, UK
Corresponding author
Mendes, Ana C.
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-08-02
Volume
19
Issue
8
Pages
2266
ISSN
1422-0067 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ijms19082266
PMC
PMC6121410
OpenAlex
W2886887355
Cited by
55
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Molecular Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Seventh Framework Programme (613931)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanocomposite Films for Food Packaging
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Advanced Drug Delivery Systems
Keywords
chitosan, phospholipids, hybrid nanofibers, electrospinning, mucoadhesion, nanofiber morphology, mechanical properties, elastic modulus, chitosan molecular weight, degree of deacetylation, work of adhesion, intestinal mucosa, drug delivery
MeSH terms
Adhesives, Animals, Intestinal Mucosa, Intestine, Small, Materials Testing, Phospholipids, Swine, Chitosan, Elastic Modulus, Nanofibers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.