Blog List

Wednesday, 26 October 2016

Surface modification of starch based biomaterials by oxygen plasma or UV-irradiation

Published Date

DOI: 10.1007/s10856-009-3831-0

Cite this article as: 
Pashkuleva, I., Marques, A.P., Vaz, F. et al. J Mater Sci: Mater Med (2010) 21: 21. doi:10.1007/s10856-009-3831-0


  • Iva Pashkuleva
  • Email author
  • Alexandra P. Marques
  • Filipe Vaz
  • Rui L. Reis

  • Abstract

    Radiation is widely used in biomaterials science for surface modification and sterilization. Herein, we describe the use of plasma and UV-irradiation to improve the biocompatibility of different starch-based blends in terms of cell adhesion and proliferation. Physical and chemical changes, introduced by the used methods, were evaluated by complementary techniques for surface analysis such as scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy, contact angle analysis and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The effect of the changed surface properties on the adhesion of osteoblast-like cells was studied by a direct contact assay. Generally, both treatments resulted in higher number of cells adhered to the modified surfaces. The importance of the improved biocompatibility resulting from the irradiation methods is further supported by the knowledge that both UV and plasma treatments can be used as cost-effective methods for sterilization of biomedical materials and devices.


    Blend of starch with poly[ethylene-co-(vinyl alcohol)] copolymer (50/50 wt%)
    Blend of starch with cellulose acetate (50/50 wt.%)
    Blend of starch with poly(ε-caprolactone) (70/30 wt.%)
    Room temperature
    X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy
    Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy
    Scanning electron microscope
    Atomic force microscopy
    Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium
    Fetal bovine serum
    Phosphate buffered saline solution


    1. Sakiyama-Elbert SE, Hubbell JA. Functional biomaterials: design of novel biomaterials. Annu Rev Mater Res. 2001;31:183–201.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
    2. 2.
      Duncan R. The dawning era of polymer therapeutics. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003;2(5):347–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    3. 3.
      Murphy MB, Mikos AG. Polymer scaffold fabrication. In: Lanza R, Langer R, Vacanti JP, editors. Principles in tissue engineering. Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc; 2007. p. 309–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    4. 4.
      Martina M, Hutmacher DW. Biodegradable polymers applied in tissue engineering research: a review. Polymer Int. 2007;56:145–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    5. 5.
      Mano JF, et al. Natural origin biodegradable systems in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: present status and some moving trends. J Royal Soc Interface. 2007;4(17):999–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    6. 6.
      Chu PK, et al. Plasma surface modification of biomaterials. Mat Sci Eng. 2002;R36:143–206.Google Scholar
    7. 7.
      Pashkuleva I, Reis RL. Surface activation and modification—a way for improveing the biocompatibility of degradable biomaterials. In: Reis R, Roman JS, editors. Biodegradable systems in medical functions: design, processing, testing and application. Boca Ranton: CRC press; 2004. p. 429–54.Google Scholar
    8. 8.
      Silva GA, et al. Starch-based microparticles as vehicles for the delivery of active platelet-derived growth factor. Tissue Eng. 2007;13(6):1259–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    9. 9.
      Boesel LF, Mano JF, Reis RL. Optimization of the formulation and mechanical properties of starch based partially degradable bone cements. J Mat Sci: Mat Med. 2004;15:73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    10. 10.
      Salgado AJ, Coutinho OP, Reis RL. Novel starch-based scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: cytotoxicity, cell culture, and protein expression. Tissue Eng. 2004;10(3–4):465–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    11. 11.
      Azevedo HS, Gama FM, Reis RL. In vitro assessment of the enzymatic degradation of several starch based biomaterials. Biomacromolecules. 2003;4(6):1703–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    12. 12.
      Martins AM, et al. The role of lipase and alpha-amylase in the degradation of starch/poly(epsilon-caprolactone) fiber meshes and the osteogenic differentiation of cultured marrow stromal cells. Tissue Eng A. 2009;15(2):295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    13. 13.
      Reis RL, et al. Mechanical behavior of injection-molded starch-based polymers. Polym Adv Technol. 1996;7(10):784–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    14. 14.
      Sousa RA, et al. Mechanical performance of starch based bioactive composite biomaterials molded with preferred orientation. Polym Eng Sci. 2002;42(5):1032–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    15. 15.
      Oliveira JM, Leonor IB, Reis RL. Preparation of bioactive coatings on the surface of bioinert polymers through an innovative auto-catalytic electroless route. Key Eng Mater. 2005;284–286:203–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    16. 16.
      Pashkuleva I, Azevedo HS, Reis RL. Surface structural investigation onto starch based biomaterials. Macromol Biosci. 2008;8:210–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    17. 17.
      Pashkuleva I, et al. Surface modification of starch based blends using potassium permanganate-nitric acid system and its effect on the adhesion and proliferation of osteoblast-like cells. J Mat Sci: Mat Med. 2005;16:81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    18. 18.
      Elvira C, et al. Plasma- and chemical-induced graft polymerization on the surface of starch-based biomaterials aimed at improving cell adhesion and proliferation. J Mat Sci: Mat Med. 2003;14(2):187–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    19. 19.
      Oliveira AL, et al. Surface treatments and pre-calcification routes to enhance cell adhesion and proliferation. In: Reis RL, Cohn D, editors. Polymer based systems on tissue engineering, replacement and regeneration. Drodercht: Kluwer Press; 2002. p. 183–217.Google Scholar
    20. 20.
      Garbassi F, Morra M, Occhiello E. Chemical modifications. In: Garbassi F, Morra M, Occhiello E, editors. Polymer surfaces from physics to technology. Chichester: Willey; 1994. p. 242–74.Google Scholar
    21. 21.
      Chan CM, Ko T-M. Polymer surface modification by plasmas and photons. Surface Sci Reports. 1996;24:1–54.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
    22. 22.
      Kaczmarek H, et al. Surface modification of thin polymeric films by air plasma or UV irradiation. Surf Sci. 2002;507–510:883–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    23. 23.
      Oehr C. Plasma surface modification of polymers for biomedical use. NIM B. 2003;208:40–7.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
    24. 24.
      Inagaki N. Plasma surface modification and plasma polymerization. Basel: Technomic Publishing AG; 1996.Google Scholar
    25. 25.
      Benson RS. Use of radiation in biomaterial science. NIM B. 2002;191:752–7.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
    26. 26.
      Anselme K, et al. Qualitative and quantitative study of human osteoblast adhesion on materials with various surface roughnesses. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2000;49(2):155–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    27. 27.
      Mata A, et al. Osteoblast attachment to a textured surface in the absence of exogenous adhesion proteins. IEEE Trans Nanobiosci. 2003;2(4):287–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    28. 28.
      Craighead HG, James CD, Turner AMP. Chemical and topographical patterning for directed cell attachment. Curr Opin Solid State Mat Sci. 2001;5:177–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    29. 29.
      Lim JY, Donahue HJ. Cell sensing and response to micro- and nanostructured surfaces produced by chemical and topographic patterning. Tissue Eng. 2007;13(8):1879–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    30. 30.
      Saltzman WM, Kyriakides TR. Cell interactions with polymers. In: Lanza R, Langer R, Vacanti JP, editors. Principles of tissue engineering. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc; 2007. p. 279–96.Google Scholar
    31. 31.
      Wilson CJ, et al. Mediation of biomaterial–cell interactions by adsorbed proteins: a review. Tissue Eng. 2005;11(1/2):1–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    32. 32.
      Vogler EA. Structure and reactivity of water at biomaterial surfaces. Adv Colloid Interface Sci. 1998;74:69–117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    33. 33.
      Lopez-Perez PM, et al. Effect of chitosan membrane surface modification via plasma induced polymerization on the adhesion of osteoblast-like cells. J Mat Chem. 2007;17:4064–71.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
    34. 34.
      Altankov G, et al. Modulating the biocompatibility of polymer surfaces with poly(ethylene glycol): effect of fibronectin. J Biomed Mat Res. 2000;52(1):219–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    35. 35.
      Altankov G, et al. Morphological evidence for a different fibronectin receptor organization and function during fibroblast adhesion on hydrophilic and hydrophobic glass substrata. J Biomat Sci-Polym Ed. 1997;8(9):721–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    36. 36.
      E Ostuni, et al. A survey of structure-property relationships of surfaces that resist the adsorption of protein. Langmuir. 2001;17:5605–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    37. 37.
      Arima Y, Iwata H. Effects of surface functional groups on protein adsorption and subsequent cell adhesion using self-assembled monolayers. J Mat Chem. 2007;17(38):4079–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    38. 38.
      Reis RL, Cunha AM. Characterization of two biodegradable polymers of potential application within the biomaterials field. J Mat Sci: Mat Med. 1995;6(12):786–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    39. 39.
      Araujo MA, Cunha AM, Mota M. Enzymatic degradation of starch-based thermoplastic compounds used in prostheses: identification of the degradation products in solution. Biomaterials. 2004;25:2687–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    40. 40.
      Pashkuleva I et al. Optimization of a DC-generated Ar/O2 gas plasma modification process for osteoblasts adhesion improving on starch based biomaterials. ESB; 2005; Sorrento, Italy.
    41. 41.
      Prime KL, Whitesides GM. Self-assembled organic monolayers: model systems for studying adsorption of proteins at surfaces. Science. 1991;252:1164–7.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
    42. 42.
      Alves CM, Reis RL, Hunt JA. Preliminary study on human protein adsorption and leucocyte adhesion to starch-based biomaterials. J Mat Sci: Mat Med. 2003;14:157–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    43. 43.
      Marques AP, Reis RL, Hunt JA. The biocompatibility of novel starch-based polymers and composites: in vitro studies. Biomaterials. 2002;23:1471–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    44. 44.
      Schamberger PC, Gardella JA. Surface chemical modification of materials which influence animal cell adhesion - a review. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces. 1994;2:209–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    45. 45.
      Toselli M. Poly (e-caprolactone)-poly(fluoroalkylene oxide)-poly(e-caprolactone) block copolymers. 2. Thermal and surface properties. Polymer. 2001;42:1771–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    46. 46.
      Hegemann D, Brunner H, Oehr C. Plasma treatment of polymers for surface and adhesion improvement. NIM B. 2003;208:281–6.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
    47. 47.
      Chan CM. Polymer surface modification and characterization. Cincinnati: Hanser; 1994.
    48. 48.
      Brett PM, et al. Roughness response genes in osteoblasts. Bone. 2004;35(1):124–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    49. 49.
      Oldani M, Schock G. Characterization of ultrafiltration membranes by infrared spectroscopy, ESCA, and contact angle measurements. J Membrane Sci. 1989;43:243–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    50. 50.
      Briggs D. Surface analysis of polymers by XPS and static SIMS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    51. 51.
      Riekerink MB, et al. Tailoring the properties of asymmetric cellulose acetate membranes by gas plasma etching. J Coll Interface Sci. 2002;245:338–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    52. 52.
      Svorcik V, et al. Cell proliferation on UV-excimer lamp modified and grafted polytetrafluoroethylene. NIM B. 2004;217:307–13.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
    53. 53.
      Alves CM, et al. Modulating bone cells response onto starch-based biomaterials by surface plasma treatment and protein adsorption. Biomaterials. 2007;28:307–15.CrossRefPubMedADSGoogle Scholar
    54. 54.
      Webb K, Hlady V, Tresco PA. Relationships among cell attachment, spreading, cytoskeletal organization, and migration rate for anchorage-dependent cells on model surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;49(3):362–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    55. 55.
      MacDonald DE, et al. Thermal and chemical modification of titanium-aluminum-vanadium implant materials: effects on surface properties, glycoprotein adsorption, and MG63 cell attachment. Biomaterials. 2004;25(16):3135–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    For further details log on website :

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Advantages and Disadvantages of Fasting for Runners

    Author BY   ANDREA CESPEDES  Food is fuel, especially for serious runners who need a lot of energy. It may seem counterintuiti...