Effects of different sterilization methods on the morphology, mechanical properties, and cytotoxicity of chitosan membranes used as wound dressings

Abstract The aim of this work was to compare the effects induced by two different sterilization methods (exposure to gamma radiation or ethylene oxide) and an antiseptic technique (immersion in 70% ethanol aqueous solution) on the morphology, tensile strength, percentage of strain at break, and in vitro cytotoxicity to Vero cells on chitosan membranes designed for wound healing. Four distinct membrane compositions were evaluated, with chitosan, glycerol, and chitin used as components. Gamma radiation, in spite of being one of the most commonly employed sterilizing agents, negatively affected the morphology of membranes composed solely by chitosan as well as the percentage of strain at break of the chitosan‐membranes containing glycerol on their composition. Moreover, its use affected the color of the chitosan membranes. The use of 70% ethanol aqueous solution did not change the chitosan‐membrane characteristics significantly, but its use has limitations concerning the process scale up. With ethylene oxide (EtO), chitosan‐membrane morphology, percentage of strain at break, and in vitro cytotoxicity to Vero cells were not significantly affected. The tensile strength of the membranes containing chitin were reduced after the treatment with ethylene oxide; however, the obtained values were comprised in the range verified for normal human skin. Therefore, because the final characteristics of the membranes treated with ethylene oxide are appropriate when considering their use as wound healing devices, and because this sterilization process is easily adjusted to use on an industrial scale, EtO can be considered the most adequate sterilizing agent for chitosan membranes. However, it should be considered that this chemical is associated with toxicity, flammability, and environmental risks, as well as with possible material contamination with ethylene oxide residues. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 71B: 268–277, 2004