This research develops a biocompatible hydrogel using Kelulut honey, showing improved mechanical and biocompatible properties for wound recovery.
Hydrogels are attractive biomaterials for skin replacement and tissue regeneration, offering advantages over split-skin grafts for large or irregular wounds. Honey-containing hydrogels are of particular interest, combining honey’s natural healing properties with the versatility of hydrogel matrices. This study aimed to develop a biocompatible, biodegradable, and mechanically stable hydrogel as a cutaneous substitute. To achieve this, different formulations were prepared using gelatin (GE), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and Kelulut honey (KH). The formulations were designated as: GE-PVA (6% (w/v) GE: 5% (w/v) PVA, without KH), GE-PVA-H1 (containing 1% (v/v) KH), GE-PVA-H5 (containing 5% (v/v) KH), and GE-PVA-H10 (containing 10% (v/v) KH). All formulations were crosslinked with 0.1% (w/v) genipin (GNP). GE-PVA-H1 and GE-PVA-H1-GNP showed swelling ratios of 110.18 ± 20.14% and 86.31 ± 14.27%, lower than GE-PVA-H5 (125.79 ± 23.76%), GE-PVA-H10 (132.79 ± 20.86%), and their crosslinked counterparts. All formulations had WVTR <1500 g/m−2h−1, with GE-PVA-H1-GNP at 501.21 ± 41.35 g/m−2h−1, GE-PVA-H5-GNP at 473.77 ± 44.10 g/m−2h−1, and GE-PVA-H10-GNP at 467.51 ± 73.59 g/m−2h−1. GE-PVA-H1-GNP exhibited the slowest biodegradation (0.0036 ± 0.0003 g/h vs. 0.0096–0.0206 g/h for other groups). Contact angle was lowest for GE-PVA-H1-GNP (38.46° ± 3.89°), confirming higher hydrophilicity compared with GE-PVA-H5/H10 groups. Resilience (98.85% ± 1.03%) and compression strength (77.42% ± 7.17%) of GE-PVA-H1-GNP were comparable to GE-PVA-H5-GNP and GE-PVA-H10-GNP. MTT assays confirmed cytocompatibility across all groups. Collectively, GE-PVA-H1-GNP emerged as the optimal formulation, combining mechanical stability, hydrophilicity, and biocompatibility for wound healing applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zainuddin et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: