Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T08:47:58.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relation between Surface Area and Surface Potential Change during (co)Polyesters Degradation as Langmuir Monolayer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2019

Natalia A. Tarazona ,
Rainhard Machatschek  and
Andreas Lendlein
Natalia A. Tarazona
Affiliation:
Institute of Biomaterial Science and Berlin-Brandenburg Center for Regenerative Therapies, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Kantstraße 55, 14513 Teltow, Germany
Rainhard Machatschek
Affiliation:
Institute of Biomaterial Science and Berlin-Brandenburg Center for Regenerative Therapies, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Kantstraße 55, 14513 Teltow, Germany
Andreas Lendlein*
Affiliation:
Institute of Biomaterial Science and Berlin-Brandenburg Center for Regenerative Therapies, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Kantstraße 55, 14513 Teltow, Germany Institute of Chemistry, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Straße 24-25, 14469 Potsdam, Germany
*
*Correspondence to: Andreas Lendlein E-mail: andreas.lendlein@hzg.de
Get access

Abstract

Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) are degradable (co)polyesters synthesized by microorganisms with a variety of side-chains and co-monomer ratios. PHAs can be efficiently hydrolyzed under alkaline conditions and by PHA depolymerase enzymes, altering their physicochemical properties. Using 2D Langmuir monolayers as model system to study the degradation behavior of macromolecules, we aim to describe the the interdependency between the degradation of two PHAs and the surface potential, which influences material-proteins interaction and cell response. We hypothesize that the mechanism of hydrolysis of the labile ester bonds in (co)polyesters defines the evolution of the surface potential, owing to the rate of accumulation of charged insoluble degradation products. The alkaline hydrolysis and the enzymatically catalyzed hydrolysis of PHAs were previously defined as chain-end scission and random-scission mechanisms, respectively. In this study, these two distinct scenarios are used to validate our model. The surface potential change during the chain-end scission of poly(3-R-hydroxybutyrate) (PHB) under alkaline conditions was compared to that of the enzymatically catalyzed hydrolysis (random-scission) of poly[(3-R-hydroxyoctanoate)-co-(3-R-hydroxyhexanoate)] (PHOHHx), using the Langmuir monolayer technique. In the random-scission mechanism the dissolution of degradation products, measured as a decrease in the area per molecule, was preceded by a substantial change of the surface potential, provoked by the negative charge of the broken ester bonds accumulated in the air-water interface. In contrast, when chains degraded via the chain-ends, the surface potential changed in line with the dissolution of the material, presenting a kinetic dependent on the surface area of the monolayers. These results provide a basis for understanding PHAs degradation mechanism. Future research on (co)polymers with different main-chain lengths might extend the elucidation of the surface potential development of (co)polyesters as Langmuir monolayer.

Keywords

biomaterialinterfacepolymersurface chemistrythin film
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 5 , Issue 12-13: Soft Materials and Biomaterials , 2020 , pp. 667 - 677
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Metwally, S. and Stachewicz, U., Mater. Sci. Eng. C 104, 109883 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nedela, O., Slepicka, P. and Svorcik, V., Materials (Basel) 10 (10), 1115 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sambha’a, E., Lallam, A. and Jada, A., J. Polym. Environ. 18 (4), 532-538 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanova, T., Svendsen, A., Verger, R. and Panaiotov, I., Colloid Polym. Sci. 278 (8), 719-727 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grozev, N., Svendsen, A., Verger, R. and Panaiotov, I., Colloid Polym. Sci. 280 (1), 7-17 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanova, T., Malzert, A., Boury, F., Proust, J. E., Verger, R. and Panaiotov, I., Colloids Surf., B 32 (4), 307-320 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balashev, K., Ivanova, T., Mircheva, K. and Panaiotov, I., J. Colloid Interface Sci. 360 (2), 654-661 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machatschek, R., Schulz, B. and Lendlein, A., Macromol. Rapid Commun. 40 (1), 1800611 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machatschek, R., Schulz, B. and Lendlein, A., MRS Adv . 3 (63), 3883-3889 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koller, M., Molecules 23 (2), 362 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, F., Wang, L., Ouyang, Z., Wen, Y. and Lu, X., Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 102 (7), 3229-3241 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarazona, N. A., Machatschek, R. and Lendlein, A. (submitted).Google Scholar
Scandola, M., Pizzoli, M., Ceccorulli, G., Cesaro, A., Paolletti, S. and Navarini, L., Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 10 (6), 373-377 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, L. J. R. and Tighe, B. J., Polym. Degrad. Stab. 87 (1), 1-10 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, J., Plackett, D. and Chen, L. X. L., Polym. Degrad. Stab. 89 (2), 289-299 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, V., de Santos, P. G., Garcia-Hidalgo, J., Hormigo, D., Prieto, M. A., Arroyo, M. and de la Mata, I., Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 99 (22), 9605-9615 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarazona, N. A., Machatschek, R., Schulz, B., Prieto, M. A. and Lendlein, A., Biomacromolecules 20 (9), 3242-3252 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar