4.6 Article

Isolation and chemical analysis of nanoparticles from English ivy (Hedera helix L.)

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2013.0392

关键词

bioadhesive; nanoparticles; nanocomposite; English ivy

资金

  1. Army Research Office [W911NF-10-1-0114]
  2. National Science Foundation (CMMI) [1029953]
  3. National Science Foundation (CBET) [0965877]
  4. Genome Science and Technology Graduate School at UT-Knoxville
  5. US Department of Energy, Biological and Environmental Research Division, Genome Sciences Program
  6. Directorate For Engineering
  7. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1029953] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  9. Directorate For Engineering [0965877] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bio-inspiration for novel adhesive development has drawn increasing interest in recent years with the discovery of the nanoscale morphology of the gecko footpad and mussel adhesive proteins. Similar to these animal systems, it was discovered that English ivy (Hedera helix L.) secretes a high strength adhesive containing uniform nanoparticles. Recent studies have demonstrated that the ivy nanoparticles not only contribute to the high strength of this adhesive, but also have ultraviolet (UV) protective abilities, making them ideal for sunscreen and cosmetic fillers, and may be used as nanocarriers for drug delivery. To make these applications a reality, the chemical nature of the ivy nanoparticles must be elucidated. In the current work, a method was developed to harvest bulk ivy nanoparticles from an adventitious root culture system, and the chemical composition of the nanoparticles was analysed. UV/visible spectroscopy, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, Fourier transforminfrared spectroscopy and electrophoresis were used in this study to identify the chemical nature of the ivy nanoparticles. Based on this analysis, we conclude that the ivy nanoparticles are proteinaceous.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据