Correlations of Materials Surface Properties with Biological Responses

Abstract

More than 50 years have passed since it was first recognized that the surface properties, and predominantly the surface energies of materials controlled their interactions with all biological phases via their spontaneous acquisition of proteinaceous "conditioning films" of differing degrees of denaturation but usually of the same substances within any given system. This led to the understanding that useful engineering control of such interactions could thus be manifested through adjustments to those surface properties, giving significant control and utility to the biomaterials developer without requiring detailed discovery of the biological specifications of the components involved. Thus, effective selection of adhesive versus abhesive (non-stick, non-retention) outcomes for such useful appliances as dental implants versus substitute blood vessels, or water-resistant bonded structures versus clean, nontoxic ship bottoms is now facilitated with little biological background required. A historical overview is presented, followed by a brief survey of the forces involved and most useful analyses applied. Utility for blood-contacting materials is described in contrast to utility for bone-and tissue-contacting materials, demonstrating practical uses in controlling cell-surface interactions and preventing biofouling. New research directions being explored are noted, urging applications of this prior knowledge to replace the use of toxicants.

New insights into developing antibiofouling surfaces for industrial photobioreactors

“…Currently, poly(dimethyl) siloxane elastomers (PDMS) are the best alternative for fabricating FRCs under dynamic conditions (Lejars et al, ). However, the adsorption of proteins and other foulants to these surfaces (viz., hydrophobic attraction) are unavoidable and finally leads to the formation of a “conditioning film” on the original surface (Baier, ; Meyer et al, ). The peculiarity of some LES, when in contact with seawater, is that they preserve the γ c value close to the initial value (22–24 mJ/m 2 ) despite the formation of the conditioning film (Meyer et al, ; Figure a).…”

“…On the other hand, after exposure to natural seawater, the very low hydrophobic surface (PC‐C2) conserves its wettability, while PC‐C3, also a very hydrophobic surface, does not conserve it (see Figure b). Both coatings (C2 and C3), due to the special texture of the resulting surfaces, are very low energy surfaces (2.5 and 11.9 mJ/m 2 , respectively) and are located on the left side (super hydrophobic surfaces) of the Baier curve and the left line in Vogler's theory (Type I biological response; Baier, ; Vogler, ). It is therefore predictable that biofouling on these coatings would be greater than in LES, as can be observed in Figure b.…”

“…Methodologies for determining the physicochemical properties of both the microalgae surface and the rigid materials that are potentially useful for fabricating PBRs used in the cultivation of planktonic marine microalgae have previously been developed (Zeriouh et al, ; Zeriouh, Reinoso‐Moreno, López‐Rosales, Cerón‐García, et al, ; Zeriouh, Reinoso‐Moreno, López‐Rosales, Sierra‐Martín, et al, ). In this context, the biocompatibility theories developed by Baier and Vogler (Baier, , ; Vogler, , , ) may also help to design a universal antibiofouling surface for PBRs. Nontoxic hydrophobic fouling release coatings (FRCs) exhibiting a critical surface tension ( γ c ) value near that which minimizes cell adhesion, ca.…”

Provenance information as a tool for addressing engineered nanoparticle reproducibility challenges

“…Although the significance of nano-object surfaces is widely acknowledged and the relationship of surface properties to biological responses is long established, 44–47 the importance of knowing and understanding the nature of nano-object surfaces seems to be somewhat ignored by some researchers, 8 and the effort required to create and characterize nano-object surfaces is not fully appreciated 10,13 . Although particle changes are discussed in Sec.…”

“…Although other surface sensitive analysis methods are useful for specific information, 44,53 we frequently apply XPS as part of routine nano-object characterization as a quality check to make sure there are no compositional or contamination surprises and to quantitatively verify particle composition or functionalization (Fig. 3).…”