The impact of degumming conditions on the properties of silk films for biomedical applications
Source abstract
Abstract
The degumming process to remove sericin decreases silk fiber strength; however, the impact of degumming on the mechanical properties of regenerated silk biomaterials has not been established. This study investigated the effect of degumming temperature, time, alkaline component and alkaline concentration on the mechanical properties of silk fibroin films. Sericin removal was estimated using weight loss; 10 samples with 12.2–29.4% weight loss were then further characterized in terms of fiber mechanical properties, fiber surface morphology, molecular weight distribution and film tensile strength. A negative correlation was found between weight loss and fiber tensile strength. This loss of fiber strength under harsher degumming conditions had a direct impact on the tensile strength of regenerated films. Mild degumming conditions (weight loss of 12.2%) led to higher film strength (8.9 MPa), whereas aggressive degumming conditions (with 29.4% weight loss) resulted in significantly weaker films (4.3 MPa). The presence of some residual sericin, after mild degumming, is likely to affect the mechanical properties of the regenerated silk films. These results will assist in the development of materials with mechanical and biocompatibility properties tuned to specific biomedical applications.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Silk-based biomaterials and applications · Silkworms and Sericulture Research · Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Deakin University, Australia
Ear Science Institute Australia, Australia
References (33)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00353-810.1016/S0142-9612(02)00353-8 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2007.05.01310.1016/j.progpolymsci.2007.05.013 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.addr.2012.09.04310.1016/j.addr.2012.09.043 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.powtec.2008.01.00510.1016/j.powtec.2008.01.005 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.powtec.2008.10.00410.1016/j.powtec.2008.10.004 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.msec.2012.01.02310.1016/j.msec.2012.01.023 ↗
7. 10.1038/nature0180910.1038/nature01809 ↗
8. 10.1002/app.1036610.1002/app.10366 ↗
9. Hu X · J Vis Exp · 2014 · e50891
10. 10.1111/j.1478-4408.1992.tb00091.x10.1111/j.1478-4408.1992.tb00091.x ↗
11. 10.1088/1748-6041/5/3/03500810.1088/1748-6041/5/3/035008 ↗
12. 10.1039/C2SM26945G10.1039/C2SM26945G ↗
13. 10.1002/app.3198110.1002/app.31981 ↗
14. 10.1016/S0928-4931(01)00207-710.1016/S0928-4931(01)00207-7 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2003.09.00610.1016/j.jbiotec.2003.09.006 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.matlet.2005.10.05610.1016/j.matlet.2005.10.056 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2007.05.00510.1016/j.ijbiomac.2007.05.005 ↗
18. 10.1002/app.203810.1002/app.2038 ↗
19. 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00158-310.1016/S0142-9612(03)00158-3 ↗
20. 10.1002/jbm.b.3187510.1002/jbm.b.31875 ↗
21. 10.3390/ijms1004151410.3390/ijms10041514 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.12.04110.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.12.041 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.otohns.2009.06.74610.1016/j.otohns.2009.06.746 ↗
24. 10.1002/jbm.a.3302110.1002/jbm.a.33021 ↗
25. 10.1017/S002221511200166110.1017/S0022215112001661 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.polymer.2005.07.00410.1016/j.polymer.2005.07.004 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.06.01010.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.06.010 ↗
28. 10.1038/227680a010.1038/227680a0 ↗
29. 10.1021/bm401023h10.1021/bm401023h ↗
30. 10.1126/science.118893610.1126/science.1188936 ↗
31. 10.1021/bm900993n10.1021/bm900993n ↗
32. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.01610.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.016 ↗
33. Mondal M · Caspian J Env Sci · 2007 · 5 · 63