International Journal of Molecular Sciences (Sep 2024)

Shell Distribution of Vitamin K3 within Reinforced Electrospun Nanofibers for Improved Photo-Antibacterial Performance

  • Wenjian Gong,
  • Meng-Long Wang,
  • Yanan Liu,
  • Deng-Guang Yu,
  • Sim Wan Annie Bligh

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25179556
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 25, no. 17
p. 9556

Abstract

Read online

Personal protective equipment (PPE) has attracted more attention since the outbreak of the epidemic in 2019. Advanced nano techniques, such as electrospinning, can provide new routes for developing novel PPE. However, electrospun antibacterial PPE is not easily obtained. Fibers loaded with photosensitizers prepared using single-fluid electrospinning have a relatively low utilization rate due to the influence of embedding and their inadequate mechanical properties. For this study, monolithic nanofibers and core–shell nanofibers were prepared and compared. Monolithic F1 fibers comprising polyethylene oxide (PEO), poly(vinyl alcohol-co-ethylene) (PVA-co-PE), and the photo-antibacterial agent vitamin K3 (VK3) were created using a single-fluid blending process. Core–shell F2 nanofibers were prepared using coaxial electrospinning, in which the extensible material PEO was set as the core section, and a composite consisting of PEO, PVA-co-PE, and VK3 was set as the shell section. Both F1 and F2 fibers with the designed structural properties had an average diameter of approximately 1.0 μm, as determined using scanning electron microscopy and transmission electron microscopy. VK3 was amorphously dispersed within the polymeric matrices of F1 and F2 fibers in a compatible manner, as revealed using X-ray diffraction and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Monolithic F1 fibers had a higher tensile strength of 2.917 ± 0.091 MPa, whereas the core–shell F2 fibers had a longer elongation with a break rate of 194.567 ± 0.091%. Photoreaction tests showed that, with their adjustment, core–shell F2 nanofibers could produce 0.222 μmol/L ·OH upon illumination. F2 fibers had slightly better antibacterial performance than F1 fibers, with inhibition zones of 1.361 ± 0.012 cm and 1.296 ± 0.022 cm for E. coli and S. aureus, respectively, but with less VK3. The intentional tailoring of the components and compositions of the core–shell nanostructures can improve the process–structure–performance relationship of electrospun nanofibers for potential sunlight-activated antibacterial PPE.

Keywords