This study demonstrates that activated carbon materials improve osteoblast viability in tissue engineering, indicating potential as biocompatible substitutes.
Having high porosity and biocompatibility, carbon-based materials are promising candidates for tissue engineering applications, particularly as substitutes for biological tissues. This study investigates the growth and viability of osteoblasts on four different activated carbon (AC) materials and correlates biological responses with their physicochemical and morphological properties. Two materials derived from non-renewable sources—AC1, a laboratory-synthesized carbon derived from anthracite, and AC3, a commercial activated carbon (Norit GCN 830) derived from coal—and two commercial activated carbons derived from renewable sources—peat, AC2 (Norit PK1-3), and wood, AC4 (ROX 0.8)—are studied. Results showed that AC1 exhibited the highest porosity (3072 m2/g), with higher phenolic and oxygen-containing surface groups but lower cell viability. In contrast, AC2, AC3, and AC4 displayed lower porosity compared to AC1 (755, 1040, and 1083 m2/g, respectively) and fewer surface phenolic groups but sustained osteoblast proliferation. Notably, AC4 demonstrated superior performance, characterized by regions of fibrous surface, pores in the meso- and microscale range (<50 nm), and enhanced cell viability and proliferation. AC2 also showed favorable results, ranking second for cell growth support. These findings suggest that biomass-derived ACs, particularly AC4 and AC2, provide favorable environments for osteoblast viability and proliferation. AC costs were estimated at 15 to 38 times lower than those for hydroxyapatite and bioceramics, which are widely used for bone cell growth. Thus, ACs made from renewable sources are promising candidates for tissue engineering applications, offering sustainable and effective alternatives for biomedical use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pereira et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: