Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:18:58.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Chemical and Electrochemical Synthesis of PEDOT:Dextran Sulphate for Bio-Application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2015

Leo R. Stevens ,
David G. Harman ,
Kerry J. Gilmore ,
Marc in het Panhuis  and
Gordon G. Wallace
Leo R. Stevens
Affiliation:
Intelligent Polymer Research Institute, ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. Soft Materials Group, School of Chemistry, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
David G. Harman
Affiliation:
Molecular Medicine Research Group, University of Western Sydney, Campbelltown Campus, Goldsmith Ave, Campbelltown NSW, 2560, Australia Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), University of Western Sydney, Campbelltown Campus, Goldsmith Ave, Campbelltown NSW, 2560, Australia
Kerry J. Gilmore
Affiliation:
Intelligent Polymer Research Institute, ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
Marc in het Panhuis
Affiliation:
Intelligent Polymer Research Institute, ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. Soft Materials Group, School of Chemistry, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
Gordon G. Wallace
Affiliation:
Intelligent Polymer Research Institute, ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
Get access

Abstract

Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) is an organic conducting polymer that has been the focus of significant research over the last decade, in both energy and biological applications. Most commonly, PEDOT is doped by the artificial polymer polystyrene sulfonate due to the excellent electrical characteristics yielded by this pairing. The biopolymer dextran sulphate (DS) has been recently reported as a promising alternative to PEDOT:PSS for biological application, having electrical properties rivaling PEDOT:PSS, complimented by the potential bioactivity of the polysaccharide. In this work we compared chemical and electrochemical polymerisations of PEDOT:DS in terms of their impact on the electrical, morphological and biological properties of the resultant PEDOT:DS films. Post-growth cyclic voltammograms and UV-Vis analyses revealed comparable redox behaviour and absorbance profiles for the two synthesis approaches. Despite good intrinsic conductivity of particles, the addition of chemically produced PEDOT:DS did not markedly enhance the bulk conductivity of aqueous solutions due to the lack of interconnectivity between adjacent PEDOT:DS particles at achievable concentrations. Scanning electron microscopy revealed significantly greater roughness in films cast from chemically produced PEDOT:DS compared to electropolymerised samples, attributable to the formation of solution phase nanoparticles prior to casting. In cell studies with the L929 cell line, electrochemical polymerisation of PEDOT:DS afforded better integrity of resultant films for surface seeding, whilst chemically polymerised PEDOT:DS appeared to localised at the proliferating cells, suggesting possible applications in drug delivery.

Keywords

polymerbiomaterialpolymerization
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1717: Symposium A – Organic Bioelectronics , 2015 , mrsf14-1717-a08-02
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2015 

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

REFERENCES

Chiang, C. K., Fincher, C. R., Park, Y. W., Heeger, A. J., Shirakawa, H., Louis, E. J., Gau, S. C. and MacDiarmid, A. G., Physical Review Letters, 1977, 39, 1098–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, G. G., Moulton, S. E., Higgins, M. J. and Kapsa, R. M. I., Organic Bionics, Wiehei:Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghasemi-Mobarakeh, L., Prabhakaran, M., Morshed, M., Nasr-Esfahani, M. H., Baharvand, H., Kiani, S., Al-Deyab, S. S. and Ramakrishna, S., Journal of Tissue Enineering and Regenerative Medicine, 2011, 5, e17–e35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balint, R., Cassidy, N. J. and Cartmell, S. H., Acta Biomaterials, 2014, 10, 2341–2353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, D. G., Gorkin, R., Stevens, L., Thompson, B., Wagner, K., Weng, B., Chung, J. H. Y., in het Panhuis, M. and Wallace, G. G., Acta Biomaterials, 2014, ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT.Google Scholar
Molino, P., Yue, Z., Zhang, B., Tibbens, A., Liu, X., Kapsa, R. M. I., Higgins, M. J. and Wallace, G. G., Advanced Materials Interfaces, 2014, 1, 1300122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molino, P., Tibbens, A., Kapsa, R. M. I. and Wallace, G. G., MRS Proceedings, 2013, 1569, 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, H., Gately, R. D., O'Brien, P., Gorkin, R. and in het Panhuis, M., Journal of Polymer Science Part B: Polymer Physics, 2014, 52, 864–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H., He, P., Li, Z. and Li, J., Nanotechnology, 2006, 17, 2167–2173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, O., Hahn, M., Herzog, A. and Kötz, R., Carbon, 2005, 43, 1303–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, A. and Wilkinson, C., Biomaterials, 1997, 18, 1573–1583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, R. G., Murphy, C. J., Abrams, G. A., Goodman, S. L. and Nealey, P. F., Biomaterials, 1999, 1999, 573–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yue, Z., Moulton, S. E., Cook, M., O'Leary, S. and Wallace, G. G., Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 2013, 65, 559–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abidian, M. R., Kim, D. H. and Martin, D. C., Advanced Materials, 2006, 18, 405–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar