Morphological studies
The morphology and mean diameter of nanofibers are shown in
Table 2 and
Figure 1. The electrospinning device variables (voltage, the distance between tip and aluminum collector, feed rate, and aluminum collector speed) were adjusted to obtain an optimal nanofibrous mat without beads. The results indicated that the diameter of the crosslinked nanofibers was non-significantly lesser than that of the uncrosslinked nanofibers (
p > 0.05). These results were in agreement with those of Norowski
et al., who demonstrated that genipin decreased the diameter of chitosan nanofibers (
28). In the current study, it was also found that the addition of doxycycline decreased non-significantly the diameter of nanofibers (n-C/P/D
1% = 100 nm
vs. n-C/P = 104 nm [
p > 0.05]). Doxycycline hydrochloride may reduce the viscosity and increase the conductivity of the electrospinning solution, causing a reduction in the diameter of the nanofibers. The small size of the nanoscale fiber increases the cell-matrix interaction (
23). SEM images of the wound dressing films, prepared using the film casting method showed that the changes in the percentage of genipin and the presence of doxycycline in the structure of films had no effect on surface morphology or roughness (
Figure 2).
Chemical structure of films and nanofibers
ATR-FTIR and FTIR were used to evaluate the chemical structure of the wound dressings prepared by film casting and electrospinning methods, respectively (
29-
31).
Figure 3A shows the ATR-FTIR spectra of film formulations, raw chitosan, and raw PVA. Chitosan peaks were observed at 897 and 1151 cm
-1 (pyranose structure), 1066 cm
-1 (C-O stretching), 1321 cm
-1 (vibration of CH), 1540 cm
-1 (NH bending of NH2), 1625 cm
-1 (C=O of amide bond), 2916 cm
-1 (CH vibration), and 3415 cm
-1 (-OH hydrogen bonds and –NH stretching). PVA peaks were shown at 3265 cm
-1 (OH hydrogen bonds), 2936 cm
-1 (CH vibrations), 1739 (C=O of remaining acetate groups), and 1084 and 1416 cm
-1 (C-O groups).
Figure 3A shows all the peaks reported above were observed in the spectrum of the PVA/chitosan samples. However, the peak at 3416 cm
-1 in the chitosan spectrum of NH and OH was shifted to 3266 cm
-1. Also, the peak observed at1654 cm
-1 in the chitosan spectrum was shifted to 1647 cm
-1 after PVA was added to the formulation. These shifts show the formation of strong hydrogen bonds between PVA and the chitosan chains. The addition of doxycycline to the chitosan/PVA formulation shifted the peak observed at 1647 cm
-1 to 1643 cm
-1. This may be explained by the hydrogen binding of the C=O group of doxycycline with PVA and the chitosan chains.
The addition of genipin did not change the position of the peaks significantly. This may be explained by the overlaps of the new amide formed via the interaction between the NH2 groups of chitosan with genipin and those already existing in the chitosan structure. Genipin molecules interacted only with the NH2 groups and not with the OH groups of PVA.
Figure 3B shows the FTIR spectra of electrospun nanofibers. The same trend was observed in FTIR spectra of the nanofibrous samples.
| Wound dressing | Chitosan (C) | PVA (P) | Doxycycline (D) | Genipin (G) |
|---|
| Film casting | | | | |
| f-C/P | 3% | 5% | 0% | 0% |
| f-C/P/D1% | 3% | 5% | 1% | 0% |
| f-C/P/D1%/G0.05% | 3% | 5% | 1% | 0.05% |
| f-C/P/D1%/G0.1% | 3% | 5% | 1% | 0.1% |
| Electrospinning | | | | |
| n-C/P | 3% | 5% | 0% | 0% |
| n-C/P/D1% | 3% | 5% | 1% | 0% |
| n-C/P/D1%/G0.05% | 3% | 5% | 1% | 0.05% |
| n-C/P/D1%/G0.1% | 3% | 5% | 1% | 0.1% |
| Nanofiber mats | Mean ± SD |
|---|
| n-C/P | 104 ± 24.99 |
| n-C/P/D1% | 100 ± 15.68 |
| n-C/P/D1%/G0.05% | 94 ± 16.45 |
| n-C/P/D1%/G0.1% | 94 ± 17.63 |
The SEM diagrams of nanofiber mats: (A) n-C/P (nanofiber-Chitosan/PVA), (B) n-C/P/D1% (nanofiber-Chitosan/PVA/ Doxycycline 1%), (C) n-C/P/D1%/G0.05% (nanofiber-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%/Genipin 0.05%) and (D) n-C/P/D1%/G0.1% (nanofiber- Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%/Genipin 0.1%).
The SEM diagrams of film samples: (A) f-C/P (film-Chitosan/PVA), (B) f-C/P/D1% (film- Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%),(C) f-C/P/D1%/G0.05% (film-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%/Genipin 0.05%) and (D) f-C/P/D1%/G0.1% (film-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%/Genipin 0.1%).
(A) The ATR-FTIR of (B) films and FTIR of nanofibers
Water uptake of the nanofiber mats and films. n-C/P (nanofiber-Chitosan/PVA), n-C/P/D1% (nanofiber-Chitosan/PVA/ Doxycycline 1%), n-C/P/D1%/G0.05% (nanofiber-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%/Genipin 0.05%), n-C/P/D1%/G0.1% (nanofiber-Chitosan/ PVA/Doxycycline 1%/Genipin 0.1%), f-C/P (film-Chitosan/PVA), f-C/P/D1% (film- Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%), f-C/P/D1%/G0.05% (film-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%/Genipin 0.05%), f-C/P/D1%/G0.1% (film-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%/Genipin 0.1%)
Water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of the nanofiber mats and films. n-C/P (nanofiber-Chitosan/PVA), n-C/P/ D1% (nanofiber-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%), n-C/P/D1%/G0.05% (nanofiber-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%/Genipin 0.05%), n-C/P/ D1%/G0.1% (nanofiber-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%/Genipin 0.1%), f-C/P (film-Chitosan/PVA), f-C/P/D1% (film- Chitosan/PVA/ Doxycycline 1%), f-C/P/D1%/G0.05% (film-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%/Genipin 0.05%), f-C/P/D1%/G0.1% (film-Chitosan/PVA/ Doxycycline 1%/Genipin 0.1%).
Release profile of doxycycline from wound dressing. n-C/P/D1% (nanofiber-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%), n-C/P/D1%/G0.05% (nanofiber-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1% /Genipin 0.05%) and n-C/P/D1%/G0.1% (nanofiber-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1% /Genipin 0.1%).
The antibacterial activity of discs from nanofiber mats and films by agar diffusion antibiogram test. n-C/P (nanofiber- Chitosan/PVA), n-C/P/D1% (nanofiber-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%), n-C/P/D1%/G0.05% (nanofiber-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%/ Genipin 0.05%), n-C/P/D1%/G0.1% (nanofiber-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%/Genipin 0.1%), f-C/P (film-Chitosan/PVA), f-C/P/D1% (film- Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%), f-C/P/D1%/G0.05% (film-Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%/Genipin 0.05%), f-C/P/D1%/G0.1% (film- Chitosan/PVA/Doxycycline 1%/Genipin 0.1%).
Water uptake
Figure 4 shows the decrease in water uptake by film samples after the addition of doxycycline and genipin. The results showed that an increase in genipin concentration led to a significant decrease in water uptake by films (f-C/P/D
1%/G
0.05% [
p ˂ 0.01], f-C/P/D
1%/G
0.1% [
p ˂ 0.0001]), and nanofibers (n-C/P/D
1%/G
0.1% [
p ˂ 0.05]). The addition of a cross-linking agent to the chitosan significantly reduced the water absorption and swelling properties of the polymer. Aldana
et al. found that an increase in genipin (0.1%, 1%, and 3.25%) in chitosan/PVP films led to a reduction in swelling behaviors (
21). Other studies have shown that genipin decreases the water uptake in chitosan/gelatin films (
32). Another study conducted by Wang
et al. on chitosan nanofibers showed that increasing the genipin concentration from 0.1% to 1% led to decreased water uptake (
33).
Water vapor transmission rate (WVTR)
Control and maintenance of the moisture of the wound environment is an important factor in promoting wound healing.
Figure 5 shows the results of the water vapor transmission rate for both film and nanofiber wound dressings. Doxycycline (f-C/P/D
1%) increased the film WVTR (719 ± 15.92 g/m
2/24 h), and genipin (f-C/P/D
1%/G
0.1%) decreased WVTR (598 ± 13.63 g/m
2/24 h). The WVTRs of the nanofibers were 2797 ± 6.48 (n-C/P), 2830 ± 14.97, and 2781 ± 12.76 g/m
2/24 h in genipin 0.05% and 0.1%, respectively. Furthermore, the addition of doxycycline (n-C/P/D
1%) to nanofiber mats decreased the WVTR to 2728 ± 10.20 g/m
2/24 h (
p ˂ 0.001). A suitable wound dressing must regulate the balance of moisture between the wound surface and its environment to avoid wound exudate accumulation or wound dehydration (34). The WVTRs for the carboxyl-modified, PVA-crosslinked chitosan hydrogel film (P/C 70/30, 50/50, and 20/80) were 872, 858, and 772 g/m
2/24 h respectively (
35). Another nanofiber wound dressing with PLA had a WVTR of 3000 g/m
2/24 h (
36).
In-vitro doxycycline release from nanofibers and films
The release profiles of doxycycline from nanofiber mats and film are shown in
Figure 6. The results indicated that the release of doxycycline from films, nanofibers, and crosslinked and uncrosslinked polymers differed. In uncrosslinked f-C/P/D
1%, there was a burst of doxycycline released in the early times, and the release percentage reached 75% in 48 h. The release percentage of doxycycline significantly decreased with the increase of genipin in films. The doxycycline was released significantly faster from the uncrosslinked nanofiber mats than from the crosslinked mats, and the release percentage reached 85% in 48 h. The results showed that cross-linking chitosan and PVA with genipin produced a significant reduction in the release of doxycycline compared to uncrosslinked films and nanofibers (
p ˂ 0.05). Aldana
et al. reported that cross-linking with genipin reduced the release of propranolol hydrochloride from the film containing chitosan and polyvinyl pyrrolidone (
21). The reaction between the genipin and the amino groups on the chitosan chain led to cross-linking (
21,
37). Cross-linking with genipin has been shown to increase the mechanical properties of the polymeric network (
21,
38) and reduce the drug release rate (
21), because water uptake is associated with the formation of hydrogen bonds between water and free amino and hydroxyl groups. The presence of transverse bonds by genipin reduced the absorption of water and the drug release rate of the samples. In the current results, more than 75% of doxycycline was released in 48 h, making it a suitable wound dressing to be applied every 2 days.
Antimicrobial susceptibility study
The most virulent and complicated bacteria that infect wounds are
Pseudomonas aeruginosa,
Staphylococcus aureus, and
Acinetobacter baumannii (
39,
40). The antimicrobial activity of film and nanofiber discs showed that
Staphylococcus aureus was the most sensitive bacterium and
Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most resistance bacterium. The current results also showed that film and nanofiber samples of C/P had no anti-bacterial effects. The current findings also revealed that crosslinking with genipin reduced the antibacterial effects of films and nanofibers (C/P/D/G) compared to uncrosslinked ones (C/P/D). This may be explained by the decrease in doxycycline release. Film and nanofiber samples of C/P/D
1% showed the greatest antimicrobial effect. Nanofibers had no antibacterial effect on
Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria. F-C/P/D
1% showed more antibacterial effect on
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and
Acinetobacter baumannii compared to n-C/P/D
1% (
p ˂ 0.0001). The findings of the present study were in agreement with those of Hafsa
et al. who also showed that pure chitosan film in agar disc diffusion test produced no inhibition zone on
E.
coli,
S.
aureus,
P. aeruginosa, and
Candida spp (
40). Another study reported that chitosan/sericin/PVA nanofibers had no antimicrobial effects against
E.coli in an agar disc diffusion test (
Figure 7) (
41). This action may be due to the inability of chitosan to diffuse into agar media (
42,
43). In the current study, (f-C/P/D
1%, f-C/P/D
1%/G
0.05%, and f-C/P/D
1%/G
0.1%) could inhibit the pigment produced by
Pseudomonas aeruginosa. These pigments, called pyocyanin and pyoverdin, are important virulence factors in the pathogenicity of
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (
44,
45). Phaechamud
et al. demonstrated that
Staphylococcus aureus was the most sensitive bacterium and
Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most resistant bacterium to doxycycline-chitosan sponge forms (
17).
The results of the current study showed the antimicrobial activity of films was more potent than that of the nanofiber mats. This may be explained by the increased rate of drug release to the agar medium and the consequent increase in antibacterial activity. The mechanism of chitosan’s antimicrobial activity is unclear, but it has been suggested that the interaction between the positive charge of chitosan and the negative charge of the bacterial cell membrane leads to destabilization of the cell membrane, permeation of intracellular components, and eventually cell death (
11,
46). The physical form and morphology of chitosan affect the antimicrobial activity. Solid chitosan forms are in contact with the environment via their solid surface (
11).