journal article·2026-07-29

Fabrication and characterization of an antioxidant and antibacterial fibrous wound dressing based on PVA/PCL incorporated with catechin hydrate and graphene oxide for chronic wound healing

Alireza Sadeghi-avalshahr, Simin Nazarnezhad, Negar Namaei-Ghasemnia, Halimeh Hassanzadeh, Mahboubeh Kazemi Noughabi, Mehdi Jalali

Publisher page

Abstract

Chronic wounds pose a considerable clinical, economic, and psychological burden on patients and healthcare systems. This study aimed to design and fabricate a bioactive electrospun wound dressing for chronic wound healing based on electrospun polycaprolactone (PCL) and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), incorporating graphene oxide (GO) and (+) - catechin hydrate (CH) as antibacterial and antioxidant bioactive agents. Various concentrations of GO and CH were incorporated into electrospun solutions of PVA and PCL, respectively, using two independent electrospinning units. The optimal electrospinning parameters were determined through microstructure evaluation using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Multilayered fibrous dressings were subsequently fabricated to investigate the effects of layer configuration. In addition to physical and mechanical evaluations, the cytotoxic effect of GO and CH on human dermal fibroblast (HDF) cells was evaluated using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. Moreover, antioxidant features were determined using the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging assay. Antibacterial activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) and Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) was studied using disk diffusion and colony-forming unit (CFU) methods. It was found that a PVA/PCL core containing 1% w/v CH, and 0.15% (w/v) GO demonstrated the appropriate outcomes. This dressing exhibited 90.9% antioxidant activity and showed moderate antibacterial activity against p. aeruginosa and pronounced inhibition against s. aureus. Additionally, the viability of HDF cells exceeded 80%. The synergistic bioactive effects of CH and GO, along with the ECM-mimicking nanofibrous architecture of the electrospun dressing, demonstrate its potential as a promising candidate for the treatment of chronic wounds.
Source: europepmc · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Tissue Engineering Research Group (TERG), Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences

Department of Materials Research, Iranian Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research (ACECR), Mashhad, Khorasan Razavi

Metabolic Syndrome Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences

Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine Research Group, Academic Center for Education, Culture, and Research (ACECR) – Khorasan Razavi

Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences

Funding

Mashhad University of Medical Sciences

References (67)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.3390/ma1615545910.3390/ma16155459 ↗
2. Iranpour A, Shahmoradi A, Khanshan A, et al. Fabrication and evaluation of a bi-layered electrospun PCL/PVA patch for wound healing: release of vitamins and silver nanoparticle. Heliyon. 2024;10(12):e33178.
3. 10.2217/rme-2018-007210.2217/rme-2018-0072 ↗
4. 10.3390/polym1502027210.3390/polym15020272 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.biopha.2022.11418410.1016/j.biopha.2022.114184 ↗
6. 10.3389/fphy.2018.0014910.3389/fphy.2018.00149 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.est.2019.10103810.1016/j.est.2019.101038 ↗
8. 10.3390/ijms2313694210.3390/ijms23136942 ↗
9. 10.34133/2022/985074310.34133/2022/9850743 ↗
10. 10.1021/acsnano.7b0585810.1021/acsnano.7b05858 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.01.09310.1016/j.jmrt.2021.01.093 ↗
12. 10.1039/c7bm00987a10.1039/c7bm00987a ↗
13. 10.1166/jnn.2020.1731910.1166/jnn.2020.17319 ↗
14. 10.1186/s12917-022-03560-610.1186/s12917-022-03560-6 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.lfs.2020.11806210.1016/j.lfs.2020.118062 ↗
16. 10.2147/IJN.S38759010.2147/IJN.S387590 ↗
17. 10.3390/molecules2102024410.3390/molecules21020244 ↗
18. 10.1080/07315724.2020.182708210.1080/07315724.2020.1827082 ↗
19. 10.3390/separations1106017110.3390/separations11060171 ↗
20. 10.1186/s40824-022-00304-310.1186/s40824-022-00304-3 ↗
21. 10.1002/adfm.20200944210.1002/adfm.202009442 ↗
22. 10.3390/ijms2317957310.3390/ijms23179573 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.14503310.1016/j.apsusc.2019.145033 ↗
24. 10.21276/ap.2021.10.2.6210.21276/ap.2021.10.2.62 ↗
25. 10.3390/molecules2304096510.3390/molecules23040965 ↗
26. 10.3390/ma1408198410.3390/ma14081984 ↗
27. 10.3390/ijms23191156910.3390/ijms231911569 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.lfs.2020.11864010.1016/j.lfs.2020.118640 ↗
29. 10.3390/pharmaceutics1307095710.3390/pharmaceutics13070957 ↗
30. 10.3390/ijms2107231110.3390/ijms21072311 ↗
31. 10.1007/s40204-020-00129-010.1007/s40204-020-00129-0 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.measurement.2021.10926510.1016/j.measurement.2021.109265 ↗
33. 10.1371/journal.pone.027552810.1371/journal.pone.0275528 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.surfin.2021.10119810.1016/j.surfin.2021.101198 ↗
35. 10.1039/C5RA11972C10.1039/C5RA11972C ↗
36. 10.3390/mps604007010.3390/mps6040070 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.ejpb.2020.08.00310.1016/j.ejpb.2020.08.003 ↗
38. 10.3390/ma1008095410.3390/ma10080954 ↗
39. 10.1021/acsomega.4c0251010.1021/acsomega.4c02510 ↗
40. 10.12968/jowc.2016.25.8.42810.12968/jowc.2016.25.8.428 ↗
41. 10.3390/polym1111179910.3390/polym11111799 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.optmat.2020.10966710.1016/j.optmat.2020.109667 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e0698310.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06983 ↗
44. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.0c0095810.1021/acsbiomaterials.0c00958 ↗
45. 10.11113/mjfas.v16n1.146910.11113/mjfas.v16n1.1469 ↗
46. 10.3390/nano908118010.3390/nano9081180 ↗
47. 10.1088/1742-6596/1495/1/01201210.1088/1742-6596/1495/1/012012 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.bpc.2019.10628210.1016/j.bpc.2019.106282 ↗
49. 10.3390/biom1008119110.3390/biom10081191 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2018.04.02310.1016/j.jmrt.2018.04.023 ↗
51. 10.31487/j.dobcr.2021.02.0410.31487/j.dobcr.2021.02.04 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.polymer.2016.05.04510.1016/j.polymer.2016.05.045 ↗
53. 10.3390/cgpm2020-0719310.3390/cgpm2020-07193 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.12.06110.1016/j.carbpol.2015.12.061 ↗
55. 10.1371/journal.pone.026991410.1371/journal.pone.0269914 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.03.01310.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.03.013 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.mattod.2017.07.00210.1016/j.mattod.2017.07.002 ↗
58. 10.1007/s10924-020-01747-210.1007/s10924-020-01747-2 ↗
59. 10.1186/s12951-017-0308-z10.1186/s12951-017-0308-z ↗
60. 10.1016/j.mtbio.2023.10088610.1016/j.mtbio.2023.100886 ↗
61. 10.2147/IJN.S7576810.2147/IJN.S75768 ↗
62. 10.1038/srep0957810.1038/srep09578 ↗
63. Nikaido H. Permeability of Pseudomonas aeruginosa outer membrane to hydrophilic solutes. J Bacteriol. 1982;152:636–642.10.1128/jb.152.2.636-642.1982 ↗
64. 10.1088/2053-1591/acec3410.1088/2053-1591/acec34 ↗
65. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2020.11099410.1016/j.colsurfb.2020.110994 ↗
66. 10.1002/app.3765610.1002/app.37656 ↗
67. 10.1039/C7RA03997B10.1039/C7RA03997B ↗