Table 1.
The amount of BAR loaded in non-blended and blended polymeric EF formulations (μg/mg) and percent of total BAR loaded in blended and blended EFs.
| Fiber formulation | Blend ratio | Overall polymer yield(%) | Loading BAR/fiber (μg/mg) | Encapsulation efficiency (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLGA | 100:0 | 59.0 | 6.9 ± 0.1 | 69 ± 2.5 |
| PCL | 51.0 | 6.0 ± 0.4 | 60 ± 4.0 | |
| PLLA | 42.3 | 4.6 ± 0.6 | 46 ± 5.2 | |
| PLGA:PEO | 40:60 | 82.9 | 7.4 ± 0.5 | 74 ± 5.5 |
| PCL:PEO | 91.5 | 8.6 ± 0.2 | 86 ± 2.4 | |
| PLLA:PEO | 82.0 | 9.1 ± 0.3 | 92 ± 3.1 | |
| PLGA:PEO | 20:80 | 80.9 | 8.8 ± 0.2 | 88 ± 2.6 |
| PCL:PEO | 89.3 | 8.9 ± 0.4 | 89 ± 4.0 | |
| PLLA:PEO | 85.2 | 8.3 ± 0.4 | 83 ± 4.2 | |
| PLGA:PEO | 10:90 | 82.8 | 8.8 ± 0.5 | 88 ± 5.6 |
| PCL:PEO | 80.0 | 6.0 ± 0.4 | 60 ± 4.0 | |
| PLLA:PEO | 80.9 | 8.5 ± 0.3 | 85 ± 3.5 |
High loading and encapsulation efficiency were achieved in all fiber formulations. However, non-blended EFs showed comparatively lower polymer yield and encapsulation efficiency, relative to the blended EFs. Data represent the mean ± standard deviation (n = 3) of three independent samples.