Table 1.
Comparison of several H2S donor preparations in different dosage forms.
| Dosage form | Active ingredient | Advantage | Disadvantages or adverse reactions | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microparticles | NaHS | Improved water stability and readily removed from wound bed. | A lack of a successful method for encapsulating effectively. | [86] |
| Hydrogels | JK-1 | Absorbed wound exudate, controlled H2S release and improved biocompatibility. | Deformation caused by swelling of the spongy matrix may lead to wound tears. | [75] |
| Nano-fibrous | JK-1 | Controlled H2S release and good cyto-compatibility. | Hard to pinpoint how H2S contribute to various phases of the wound healing process. | [128] |
| Fibers and hydrogels | DATS | High photothermal conversion efficiency. | Fibrous materials are often affected by the expansion of the fibrous interface, and hydrogels are easy to exchange with cells or tissues. | [117] |
| Microfibers | NSHD1 | Prolonged the release time and achieved a tunable release curve. | Biothiols to trigger H2S release, potentially leading to unpredictable and unstable H2S release. | [131] |
| Spray | SATO | Substance can disperse in water and maintain its colloidal stability when diluted. | [63] |