Volume 136, Issue 11 47191
Article

Polymer blending or fiber blending: A comparative study using chitosan and poly(ε-caprolactone) electrospun fibers

Tiago Valente

Tiago Valente

Faculty of Science and Technology, Physics Department, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Campus de Caparica, 2829-516, Caparica, Portugal

Search for more papers by this author
José Luís Ferreira

José Luís Ferreira

CENIMAT/I3N, Faculty of Science and Technology, Physics Department, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Campus de Caparica, 2829-516, Caparica, Portugal

Search for more papers by this author
Célia Henriques

Célia Henriques

CENIMAT/I3N, Faculty of Science and Technology, Physics Department, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Campus de Caparica, 2829-516, Caparica, Portugal

Search for more papers by this author
João Paulo Borges

João Paulo Borges

CENIMAT/I3N, Faculty of Science and Technology, Materials Science Department, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Campus de Caparica, 2829-516, Caparica, Portugal

Search for more papers by this author
Jorge Carvalho Silva

Corresponding Author

Jorge Carvalho Silva

CENIMAT/I3N, Faculty of Science and Technology, Physics Department, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Campus de Caparica, 2829-516, Caparica, Portugal

Correspondence to: J. C. Silva (E-mail: [email protected])Search for more papers by this author
First published: 04 October 2018
Citations: 16

ABSTRACT

Nonwoven membranes of poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) and chitosan (CS) were produced according to the two methods: by blending the polymers in solution followed by electrospinning – polymer blending method – and by simultaneous deposition of fibers electrospun from separate solutions – fiber blending (FB) method. The two production methods were compared by assessing fiber morphology, mass loss, swelling degree, water contact angle, and mechanical properties of the resulting electrospun membranes. Furthermore, the adhesion, proliferation, and morphology of human dermal fibroblasts on the eight types of scaffold produced were evaluated to assess if the blending method used would influence cell–scaffold interaction. Cell adhesion to the different scaffolds lied in the interval 40–60%, with the CS scaffold presenting the lowest value. Interestingly, cell proliferation was the same when comparing polymer blending and FB scaffolds having 3:1 or 1:3 PCL/CS ratios but very different when the ratio was 1:1 – the FB scaffold sustained a proliferation rate double that of the polymer blending scaffold. This work shows that, when blending polymers to improve the properties of a scaffold for tissue engineering or 3D cell culture, their spatial distribution may considerably affect scaffold's properties and should be considered as another parameter requiring optimization. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2019, 136, 47191.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.