ABSTRACT
Tomato pomace is a low-cost, renewable resource that has been studied for the extraction of the biopolyester cutin, which is mainly composed of long-chain hydroxy fatty acids. These are excellent building blocks to produce new hydrophobic biopolymers. In this work, the monomers of cutin were extracted and isolated from tomato pomace and utilized to produce cutin-based films. Several strategies for the depolymerization and isolation of monomeric cutin were explored. Strategies differed in the state of the raw material at the beginning of the extraction process, the existence of a tomato peel dewaxing step, the type of solvent used, the type of alkaline hydrolysis, and the isolation method of cutin monomers. These strategies enabled the production of extracts enriched in fatty acids (16-hydroxyhexadecanoic, hexadecanedioic, stearic, and linoleic, among others). Cutin and chitosan-based films were successfully cast from cutin extracts and commercial chitosan. Films were characterized regarding their thickness (0.103 ± 0.004 mm and 0.106 ± 0.005 mm), color, surface morphology, water contact angle (93.37 ± 0.31° and 95.15 ± 0.53°), and water vapor permeability ((3.84 ± 0.39) × 10-11 mol·m/m2·s·Pa and (4.91 ± 1.33) × 10-11 mol·m/m2·s·Pa). Cutin and chitosan-based films showed great potential to be used in food packaging and provide an application for tomato processing waste.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Commercially available xenograft blocks, claim to have adequate characteristics to interact with biological media and thus permitting biological fluid absorption. The objective of this in vitro study was to compare the blood absorption capacity of four different xenograft block materials of different composition of collagen and porosity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four brands of xenograft block materials were used (NuOss®, Bio-Oss®, Osteobiol® and Smartbone®). Five samples of each brand were analyzed, making a total of 20 tests. Human blood was used as the absorption liquid for the present experiment. The time period, in which the block remains in contact with the blood, was registered at 30 seconds (T1), 60 seconds (T2) and 5 minutes (T3). The xenograft blocks were evaluated according to their absorption capacity. RESULTS: The absorption capacity of the different biomaterials were statistical significant different (p<0,001) at T1, T2 and T3 time points. At 30 seconds, Smartbone® absorbed significantly less blood than NuOss® and Bio-Oss®, however, without differences comparing with Osteobiol®. The NuOss®, Bio-Oss® and Osteobiol® did not register any significant difference between them. At 60 seconds, the Smartbone® absorbed significantly less blood than the other biomaterials. CONCLUSIONS: The NuOss® was significantly superior than Osteobiol®, but without differences relatively with Bio-Oss®. Also the Bio-Oss® and Osteobiol® did not register any difference between them. At 5 minutes, the Smatbone® continued to significantly absorbed less blood than any other biomaterial, nevertheless, NuOss®, Bio-Oss® and Osteobiol® not register again any significant difference between them. Despite of small sample size, it can be concluded that NuOss® was superior, in terms of blood absorption capacity, comparing with the other block biomaterials at 30 seconds, 60 seconds and 5 minutes. However, more investigation in a clinical setting are needed to know the clinical implications of the absorption capacity of such biomaterials. Key words:Blood absorption, osteoconduction, xenograft, bone regeneration.
