ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Tuning Crystal Structures of Iron-Based Metal–Organic Frameworks for Drug Delivery Applications
My Activity
  • Open Access
Article

Tuning Crystal Structures of Iron-Based Metal–Organic Frameworks for Drug Delivery Applications
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Hao Pham
    Hao Pham
    Department of Physical Sciences, Long Beach City College, Long Beach, California 90808, United States
    More by Hao Pham
  • Kimberly Ramos
    Kimberly Ramos
    Chemistry Department, Cerritos College, Norwalk, California 90650, United States
  • Andy Sua
    Andy Sua
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90840, United States
    More by Andy Sua
  • Jessica Acuna
    Jessica Acuna
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90840, United States
  • Katarzyna Slowinska
    Katarzyna Slowinska
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90840, United States
  • Travis Nguyen
    Travis Nguyen
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90840, United States
  • Angela Bui
    Angela Bui
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90840, United States
    More by Angela Bui
  • Mark D. R. Weber
    Mark D. R. Weber
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90840, United States
  • Fangyuan Tian*
    Fangyuan Tian
    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90840, United States
    *E-mail: [email protected]. Phone: 1-(562)-985-2115. Fax: 1-(562)-985-8557.
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

ACS Omega

Cite this: ACS Omega 2020, 5, 7, 3418–3427
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b03696
Published February 12, 2020

Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Iron-based metal–organic frameworks (Fe-MOFs) have emerged as promising candidates for drug delivery applications due to their low toxicity, structural flexibility, and safe biodegradation in a physiological environment. Here, we studied two types of Fe-MOFs: MIL-53 and MIL-88B, for in vitro drug loading and releasing of ibuprofen as a model drug. Both Fe-MOFs are based on the same iron clusters and organic ligands but form different crystal structures as a result of two different nucleation pathways. The MIL-53 structure demonstrates one-dimensional channels, while MIL-88B exhibits a three-dimensional cage structure. Our studies show that MIL-53 adsorbs more ibuprofen (37.0 wt %) compared to MIL-88B (19.5 wt %). A controlled drug release was observed in both materials with a slower elution pattern in the case of the ibuprofen-encapsulated MIL-88B. This indicates that a complex cage structure of MIL-88 is beneficial to control the rate of drug release. A linear correlation was found between cumulative drug release and the degree of material degradation, suggesting the biodegradation of Fe-MILs as the main drug elution mechanism. The cytotoxicity of MIL-88B was evaluated in vitro with NIH-3T3 Swiss mouse fibroblasts, and it shows that MIL-88B has no adverse effects on cell viability up to 0.1 mg/mL. This low toxicity was attributed to the morphology of MIL-88B nanocrystals. The very low toxicity and controlled drug release behavior of Fe-MIL-88B suggest that better materials for drug-delivery applications can be created by controlling not only the composition but also the crystal structure and nanoparticle morphology of the material.

Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society

1. Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The rapid growth of drug discovery and the increasing demand for drug-eluting medical implants accelerate the search for new drug carrier systems with low toxicity, better control of drug loading capacity, and sustainable drug releasing. So far, polymeric and inorganic complexes have been widely applied for the drug delivery and controllable release of pharmaceutical compounds. In particular, poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), polymers and their polymeric particles have been used in a variety of therapeutic devices due to their excellent biocompatibility. (1−3) The inorganic solids, such as porous silicon, functionalized silica, and zeolites, are also utilized as drug carriers. (4−6) Some of these organic and inorganic materials have limited drug loading capacity and complex interactions of loaded drugs at the guest–host interface. As an alternative, a type of hybrid materials, metal–organic frameworks (MOFs), combining the advantages of polymers and inorganic mesoporous solids, have emerged as drug delivery matrices. (7−11)
MOFs are solid porous crystals composing of metal ions or clusters as secondary building blocks (SBUs) cross-linked by organic ligands. (12,13) Due to the high porosity, large surface area, and suitable pore sizes, MOFs have exhibited potential in many applications, such as gas separation and storage, catalysis, and loading other guest molecules. (14−18) More recently, increasing interest has been attracted to apply MOFs for biomedical applications, such as imaging, sensing, and loading therapeutic agents as delivery vehicles. (19−21) Compared to other traditional drug carriers (i.e., polymers, nanoparticles, bacteria, etc.), MOFs exhibit an excellent drug loading capacity and controlled release profile of many therapeutic agents, attributed to their porous structures. (19,22) In addition, MOFs can be engineered for specific drug delivery due to the flexibility and versatile chemical composition of the framework. For example, a rigid MOF, MIL-100 (MIL stands for Material Institut Lavoisier), is able to hold up to 21.2 wt % azidothymidine triphosphate (AZT-TP, an antiretroviral drug for HIV/AIDS treatment), while its loading capacity can be increased to 42.0 wt % when amino-functionalized MIL-100 is used. (9) In comparison, traditional drug carriers have a much lower loading capacity (i.e., polymer nanoparticles, ∼6 wt %; liposomal systems, <1 wt %). (23,24) Despite the MOFs advantage of high drug loading and effective delivery, an ongoing issue of its safety and biocompatibility is questioned. In the last five years, many studies have been conducted to test cytotoxicity of MOFs with various cell and animal models. (25,26) One type of MOF, iron-containing MOFs (Fe-MOFs), has truly stood out for their supreme safety and biodegradability. (11,22,27) A majority of Fe-MOFs belong to the MIL and BioMOF families, including MIL-53, MIL-88, MIL-100, MIL-101, BioMOF-1, and BioMOF-5. (10,19,28−31) Selection of a drug delivery system is based on drug formulation, delivery routes, targeting organs/cells, etc. Therefore, it is crucial to select the correct MOF for a particular drug and for a specific target. So far, little research has been done to optimize MOF structures for a certain delivery route. In addition, other factors should also be considered, such as the guest–host interaction, pore size, cavity volume, and stability, especially when a MOF is paired with a therapeutic agent. Most MOFs contain hydrophobic properties due to their organic ligands, making them efficient in adsorbing hydrocolloids and lipophilic drugs. However, most MOFs lack stability in aqueous conditions due to their relatively weak coordination bonding between metal clusters and ligands. The degradation of MOFs in aqueous solutions can be viewed as an advantage when considering a potential biodegradable drug delivery system. Structural decomposition provides an easy method for releasing encapsulated drug molecules; however, the kinetics of decomposition and retention of MOF structure in a biological environment is not well understood. Additionally, when designing MOFs for drug delivery, it is important to take into consideration their wettability and stability.
In this study, we focused on using unstable Fe-MOFs as biodegradable drug delivery systems. This work aims at studying two aspects of Fe-MOFs: (A) the effect of crystal structure on drug loading/adsorption and (B) the interactions between the guest molecules and host matrix (drug and MOFs), including drug elution kinetics and material degradation.
Fe-based MIL-53 and MIL-88B are two flexible Fe-MOFs consisting of iron ligands connected by terephthalate (TA) linkers. It has been found that MIL-53 forms through a homogenous nucleation and MIL-88B through a heterogeneous nucleation. (32) MIL-53 consists of oxygen-centered iron-carboxylate trimers (octahedral shaped FeO6) connected by TA linkers forming rhomb-shaped 1D channels. (33) Composing of the same FeO6 clusters and TA ligands, MIL-88B exhibits a hexagonal 3D structure. (30) Here, we show that differences in crystal structure results in various characteristics in drug (ibuprofen) loading and delivery. Ibuprofen was selected as the model drug in this study due to its structural simplicity and size. Powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD), infrared spectroscopic studies, and nitrogen sorption isotherms have been performed to determine the drug adsorption and interface interactions within the carriers’ systems. Various kinetic models were used to evaluate the drug release profiles of MIL-53 and MIL-88B. The biocompatibility was tested in vitro with NIH-3T3 Swiss mouse fibroblasts. We believe that the joint effort of MIL synthesis coupled with cell model studies will provide a deep and systematic understanding of these two Fe-based MIL materials as drug delivery systems. Additionally, we focused on the role of the crystal structure toward drug delivery by illustrating three drug elution models that can be applied to other MOFs.

2. Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

2.1. Characterization of Materials and Drug Loading Studies

MIL-88B and MIL-53 contain the same ligands, but their formation is guided by different nucleation processes that can be controlled by different synthetic conditions. The crystal structures of MIL-88B and MIL-53 before and after loading with ibuprofen were studied using powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD). As shown in Figure 1a, the PXRD patterns of MIL-88B are in good agreement with previous studies. (39,40) MIL-88B exhibited three characteristic diffraction peaks at 9.14°, 10.60°, and 11.48° representing the 002, 100, and 101 phases, respectively. (10) We noticed that the diffraction feature was shifted from 10.62° for as-synthesis MIL-88B to 11.48° for the same bulk crystal after solvent exchange followed by further thermal activation. A diffraction angle shifting to a larger angle indicates the shrinkage of the crystal cell based on the Bragg’s Law, (41) This increase in the angle confirms the decreased cage volume of MIL-88B once the trapped DMF solvent inside crystals was replaced and removed. Moreover, after loading with ibuprofen, the MIL-88B pore volume was expanded reflected by the decrease in diffraction angle for the same 101 peak. Our results confirmed the structural flexibility of both MIL-53 and MIL-88B as the “breathing effect” enables both materials to trap guest molecules with shrinkable frameworks, which is consistent with previous literature. (28,42−44)Figure 1b shows the PXRD patterns for MIL-53 as synthesized, after solvent exchange, and loaded with ibuprofen. The diffraction angle at 9.1° is a significant feature for MIL-53. (45,46) After loading with ibuprofen, both MIL-53 and MIL-88B exhibited crystal structures from both host and guest materials. Extra PXRD features at 16.6° and 19.4° were observed on both MILs after loading with ibuprofen, indicating that ibuprofen was added to both porous solids. (47) It is critically important to determine the location of guest drug molecules relative to the host material; therefore, we further performed gas sorption studies to study the porosity changes corresponding to drug loading in the next part. The chemical compositions of both MILs are identical as confirmed by our attenuated total reflectance infrared (ATR-IR) studies, shown in Figure 2. Both MILs exhibited a Fe–O stretch at 549 cm–1, a carboxylate —C═O stretch at 1602 cm–1, a and −C–O stretch at 1389 cm–1, which are consistent with those previously reported in the literature. (25,28,48) After the structural studies, we optimized drug loading conditions for each material. Considering the polarity of ibuprofen and stability of MILs in organic solvents, we immersed MILs into ibuprofen/hexane solutions with various concentrations for different amounts of time. We found that the best drug loading condition for MIL-88B was 10 mg/mL with a soaking time of 24 h, while for MIL-53, the condition is 30 mg/mL for 72 h with a nanoparticle-to-drug ratio of 1:3. After loading ibuprofen in hexane, the crystal structures of both MIL-88B and MIL-53 were still present (Figure 1), indicating that both materials did not degrade during drug loading procedures. Additionally, ATR-IR studies confirmed that the ibuprofen has been successfully incorporated into both materials, indicated by an increasing intensity of the —C═O stretch by comparison with pure ibuprofen shown in Figure 1b. By analyzing IR and PXRD studies of MIL-88B, we concluded that ibuprofen was successfully incorporated in MIL-88B. However, at this point, we were unclear about whether ibuprofen was adsorbed on the outer surface or encapsulated inside of MIL-53 crystals. Therefore, we applied N2 gas sorption analysis to monitor the changes in the surface area and available pore sizes of both Fe-MILs after ibuprofen treatments, Figure 3. The specific surface area (SSA) was calculated based on the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) theory (49) with N2 sorption isotherms at 77 K (details are available in the Supporting Information). We noticed that the SSA of MIL-53 decreased from 30.1 to 22.1 m2/g after loading with ibuprofen, indicating that ibuprofen was encapsulated inside of MIL-53 and occupied available channels. A similar trend was also observed for MIL-88B by comparing SSA before and after ibuprofen loading. Table S1 summarizes the surface area changes of both MILs corresponding to drug loading. We also examined the external surface area of both MILs before and after loading with ibuprofen. The t-plot studies (50) using Micromeritics software show that the external surface area of ibu-MIL-88B decreased to 21.7 cm2/g compared to that of pristine MIL-88 of 27.9 cm2/g. The micropore surface area of MIL-88B decreases from 14.4 to 3.9 cm2/g after loading with ibuprofen, confirming that majority internal cages were filled with ibuprofen. A similar trend was also noticed on the MIL-53 system with a decrease in the external surface area. To eliminate solvent molecules that may interfere with our results, all testing samples were thermally activated in a vacuum oven at 65 °C for over 72 h. Based on their unique crystal structures, the maximum accessible surface areas (theoretical SSA) for MIL-53 and MIL-88B are 2203 m2/g (H2 as a probe) and 3042 m2/g (N2 as a probe), respectively. (28,51,52) Although the surface areas obtained experimentally are typically smaller than those predicted based on single-crystal structures, this is due to some solvent molecules still remain and a small fraction of framework bonds break, thus block channels during degassing. Furthermore, a strong surface tension can be formed between the adsorbent and adsorbate during the removal of the solvent in vacuum, which may further promote the collapse of channels. The structural loss of porosity affects more for porous crystals with 1D channels, such as MIL-53. Another explanation is attributed to the structural flexibility of iron-based MILs. Unlike their Cr or Al analogues, the channels remain closed for Fe-MIL-53 after the solvent or guest molecule is removed, thus unable nitrogen molecules to enter. (53−55)Scheme S1 illustrates the flexibility of MIL-53 frameworks. Relatively small SSA was also reported for MIL-53 in other studies. (10,28,56) Combining results from PXRD, ATR-IR, and N2 sorption analyses, we concluded that ibuprofen was successfully encapsulated in MIL-88B and MIL-53.

Figure 1

Figure 1. PXRD patterns of (a) MIL-88B and (b) MIL-53 at the condition of (i) as-synthesized, (ii) after solvent exchange, and (iii) after loading with ibuprofen, in comparison to the PXRD patterns of (iv) pure ibuprofen.

Figure 2

Figure 2. ATR-IR spectra of (a) pure ibuprofen, (b) pristine Fe-MIL-88B, (c) ibuprofen loaded Fe-MIL-88B, (d) pristine Fe-MIL-53, and (e) ibuprofen loaded Fe-MIL-53.

Figure 3

Figure 3. N2 sorption isotherms of Fe-MIL-88B (black) and Fe-MIL-53 (red) at 77 K before and after loading with ibuprofen. Solid symbols correspond to adsorption plots, and open symbols correspond to desorption plots.

The driving force for ibuprofen loading is the strong hydrogen-bonding and weak van der Waals interactions between ibuprofen and the hydroxyl groups from the matrix. (10) We also tried a one-pot synthesis method (57) to mix therapeutic agents together with MOF starting materials in a solvothermal setting; however, no desired MIL crystals were formed. We suspect that the carboxylate groups in ibuprofen may compete with terephthalic acid for coordinating with FeO3 clusters, thus disturbed the formation of MIL-88B and MIL-53. Therefore, we continued with the immersion method for drug loading in this study. To quantify the drug loading capacity of MIL materials, we applied a UV–vis spectrometer to monitor the concentration of ibuprofen at 264 nm (λmax), before and after incorporation into MIL materials. The detailed UV spectra were provided in the Supporting Information. Based on eq 1, the calculated ibuprofen loading amounts approximates 372.2 mg/g of MIL-53 and 194.6 mg/g of MIL-88B, respectively. The drug loading capacities are consistent with previously reported values. (9,10) Although these values are not as large as the values reported for other MOFs, for example, MIL-101 and MIL-100 (containing much larger volumes because of their rigid structures), both MIL-53 and MIL-88B are significantly better than other porous materials for drug delivery (usually less than 50 mg of drug per gram of the host material, of 5 wt %). (24,58) In our studies, MIL-53 was able to be incorporated about 17% more ibuprofen compared to MIL-88B. We suspected that the higher drug loading capacity observed for MIL-53 is mainly due to the monoclinic symmetry of its structure, facilitating the diffusion of guest molecules. The crystal structures and drug loading capacity for each MIL have been summarized in Table 1. Although Fe-MIL-88B contains a larger pore volume than MIL-53, the drug loading capacity is lower than for MIL-53. We presume that the 1D channel of MIL-53 may account for a faster mass transfer of guest molecules compared to the cage-like structure of MIL-88B crystals.
Table 1. Structures of Fe-Based MIL-88B and MIL-53 and Comparison of Ibuprofen Loading Capacity
a

Structures are viewed along the c-axis.

b

Space group of dehydrated form. (55,59)

c

Maximum available pore volume with solvent. (10,28)

d

From this study.

Additionally, we studied the changes in morphology of MIL-88B crystals corresponding to drug loading in hexane. Figure 4 presents the scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of MIL-88B before and after loading of ibuprofen. MIL-88B exhibited a rice-grain shape with a length of around 500 nm along the c-axis. Larger crystals with a dimension of 2 μm were observed in the same synthesis solution that may attribute to an over-grown crystallization process. After being treated with ibuprofen in hexane, MIL-88B showed no obvious change in morphology, although the population of large crystals has increased. This may indicate a continuous crystal growth of MIL-88B during the drug loading process, which may cause ibuprofen molecules encapsulated not only within the pores but also trapped inside the particles.

Figure 4

Figure 4. SEM images of MIL-88B crystals (a) before and (b) after ibuprofen loading.

2.2. Drug Elution Studies

After confirming ibuprofen was successfully loaded into both Fe-MILs, we studied the drug elution process of each material. We stirred ibuprofen-loaded MIL-53 and MIL-88B in phosphate buffer saline (PBS), respectively, to mimic drug releasing in a physiologic environment. Solutions were collected in periodic intervals up to 10 days for monitoring ibuprofen elution and degradation of MILs and analyzed using a reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Figure 5 displays the cumulative ibuprofen released from treated MIL-53 and MIL-88B as a function of an immersing time. We noticed that the concentration of ibuprofen increased with increasing soaking times for both Fe-MILs, indicating that ibuprofen was released from both materials over time. However, a drug releasing burst was observed for both MILs within the first 24 h, indicating a faster drug elution process, likely due to surface adsorbed species. The drug release profile can be illustrated by two stages: the first stage refers to a fast drug release; the second stage can be treated as a stable phase as the drug concentration increased slightly with respect to the increasing contact time with PBS. A similar two-stage drug release profile was observed previously on Cr-based MIL-53. (10) During our testing period, the accumulative drug releasing amounts were 27.4 and 18.0% for MIL-53 and MIL-88B, respectively. The low drug elution amounts after 10 days indicates that there was still a large amount of ibuprofen that had not been released from the host materials. We think that the low drug releasing amount was due to the slow degradation of Fe-MILs in aqueous. A similar drug elution result was reported by Horcajada et al., showing that Fe-MIL-88B can last up to 21 days in a simulated body fluid. (10) In our study, we noticed that MIL powder was still visible in the testing solution even after 1 month. A slow releasing rate of ibuprofen by MILs after the first two days was similar to the releasing profile of MIL-88B when caffeine was used as the model drug. (60) The slow drug releasing rate is beneficial for drug delivery applications that require drug elution in a controlled manner. Additionally, it is critically important to understand the drug release mechanisms to better adopt MIL materials for drug delivery applications. Therefore, we applied several mathematical models to interpret the drug elution behaviors with consideration of the biodegradable nature of both MILs. Scheme 1 summarizes the drug delivery systems and their fitting models in this work.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Profiles of cumulative ibuprofen release percentage as a function of soaking time in PBS for MIL-53 (squares) and MIL-88B (circles). The data were fitted with the Hill equation as indicated by the red plots.

Scheme 1

Scheme 1. Illustrative Scheme of Drug Delivery Systems and Models Considered for MIL-88B and MIL-53
The zero-order (eq 2) kinetics is based on Fick’s law of diffusion and has been widely used to describe release kinetics for diffusion-controlled reservoir systems, such as nanoparticles and membrane-encapsulated vesicles. (61) Studies show that ibuprofen released by Cr- and Fe-based MIL-53 has followed this model for at least one stage. (10) Considering the biodegradation of both MILs, a first-order kinetic model (eq 3) was used to analyze the drug delivery behaviors. The first-order kinetic equation is based on hydrolysis decomposition behaviors. (35) Moreover, the degradation/erosion of a drug delivery system can be distinguished into two models: surface erosion and bulk erosion. Surface erosion refers to the degradation process, which is mainly restricted to the outermost surface of these porous crystals without harm to the interior. The surface erosion model can be described using the Peppas equation (eq 4). (36,62) The bulk erosion model describes a drug delivery system decomposing into smaller fragments due to material cleavage in physiological environment and can be described by the Hixson–Crowell model (eq 5). (23,37) The Hill model (eq 6) takes into consideration of the limited diffusion and erosion of the matrices. (38) Drug release kinetics is the combined results of drug molecular movement (mass transfer) and host material’s behaviors, such as swelling, degradation, and interactions with guest molecules. (61) Based on the crystal structure and stability of MILs, the higher correlation coefficients were observed in the Hill model for both drug delivery systems, shown in Figure 5, indicating that the ibuprofen release kinetics fits better for a combined model of diffusion, surface, and bulk erosion. The monoclinic structure of MIL-53 is expected to promote the mass transfer of ibuprofen to be released. In comparison, MIL-88B has complex 3D pores, which may reduce the drug releasing rate. Such a controlled drug release profile of MIL-88B is favorable for a desired slow drug delivery process.
Another factor that should be considered is the stability of MILs in aqueous conditions. Most Fe-based MILs are not stable in aqueous environment due to interruption in coordination bonds induced by water molecules. To evaluate the stabilities of MIL-53 and MIL-88B, we monitored the concentration change of the building ligand (terephthalate) for both MILs using HPLC, shown in Figure 6a. We noticed an increase in the concentration of terephthalate ligands with a longer immersion time in PBS with a similar kinetic profile as the ibuprofen elution process. With the breakdown of frameworks of each MIL, preloaded guest molecules are able to freely diffuse into the surrounding solution. This degradation of MILs can explain the increasing concentrations of ibuprofen even after 10 days. The degradation process also leads to the increase in concentrations of Fe3+, which was monitored using ICP-AES. This increasing amount of iron is another evidence of MIL decomposition in PBS as a function of time. By performing a linear regression analysis to evaluate the relationship between drug release and material degradation, a linear relationship was observed for both systems (Figure 6b), indicating that material degradation has caused the drug elution. We believe that the drug releasing process is a combination of ibuprofen desorption/diffusion and, more importantly, MIL material degradation. Based on the releasing profiles, we believe that the degradation of carrier matrices is the dominant factor on drug releasing.

Figure 6

Figure 6. (a) Plots of TA concentration as a function of soaking time in PBS for MIL-53 (open squares) and MIL-88B (open circles). (b) Linear regression correlation between TA concentration change and cumulative drug release percents of both MIL-53 (blue solid squares) and MIL-88B (black solid circles).

2.3. Cytotoxicity Studies

The chemical composition of MIL-88B (iron and terephthalate) was one of the factors why MIL-88B was selected as a carrier for drug delivery applications. The toxicity of Fe-based MOFs is low when compared to Zr-based MOFs that exhibit better stability in aqueous conditions. In addition, Fe-based MOF nanoparticles are also classified as safe for the delivery of contrast agents. (25) We have tested the cytotoxicity of MIL-88B nanoparticles because its monotonic release profile of ibuprofen (Figure 5) seems more suitable for drug delivery applications than MIL-53.
We evaluated the cytotoxicity of the MIL-88B with the NIH-3T3 Swiss mouse fibroblast cells by adding the particles to the media (after sterilization). After 48 h incubation, the CellTiter96 viability assay (Figure 7) shows that the particles have no adverse effect on cell viability up to 0.1 mg/mL. After the addition of 0.25 mg/mL, the viability decreases to about 60% and then drops to about 40% after increasing the concentration to 2 mg/mL. The cell viability did not drop below 40% for the maximum tested concentration of 2.5 mg/mL.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Effect of MIL-88B on viability of NIH-3T3 Swiss mouse fibroblasts. The error bar represents a standard deviation from 18 independent measurements.

The cellular uptake of nanoparticles strongly depends on their size and surface groups and, in this case, also the MOF composition. Both metal ion and organic ligand can contribute to toxicity. In Figure 4, the size and shape of the studied MIL-88B show that the majority of the material is formed as approximately 500 nm (along the c-axis) rice-grain shaped particles. Thus, the nanoparticles are significantly larger than previously tested MIL-88B by Tamames-Tabar et al. (25) where the average size of nanoparticle was 100 ± 20 nm. The reported toxicity at 50% was 1.26 mg/mL recorded in HeLa cells and 0.37 mg/mL recorded in J774 cells. The differences were attributed to the different phagocytic pathways in tested cell lines since J774 is a macrophage cell line prone to increased phagocytosis. In the case of our studies, the toxicity of the MIL-88B measured with 3T3 cells is lower than in both previously studied cell lines. Both HeLa and 3T3 cells are not macrophages, so the difference in toxicity is most likely related to the larger particle size in our studies. At this point, we cannot conclude with certainty what is the main mechanism of lower toxicity of MIL-88 in our study compered to Tamames-Tabar et al., (25) but we can identify two sources of this behavior. Either the large size of the nanoparticles decreases the cellular uptake or the larger size of nanoparticles slows down the decomposition of individual nanoparticles within the cell and, thus, lowers the toxicity of the tested material.

3. Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In all, two types of Fe-MOFs, MIL-88B and MIL-53, were evaluated for drug loading and elution with ibuprofen as a model drug. We concluded that the monoclinic crystal structure of MIL-53 promotes a high drug loading capacity due to a favorable mass transfer within the 1D channels, but the same structure also exhibits a faster and higher drug release profile. MIL-88B with a 3D cage structure offers more flexibility and better control over drug elution behavior. These structural differences between Fe-MOFs that are formed with identical SBUs and ligands strongly suggest that directing crystal structure can tune drug elution behavior. In addition, we show that the MIL-88B in the form of large nanoparticles is biodegradable and noncytotoxic. We believe that the ability to direct structures of Fe-MOFs together with its high biocompatibility will allow in the future to create the “designer” structures for the delivery of particular drug with desired release profile.

4. Experimental Section

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

4.1. Materials

All chemicals were reagent grade or better and used as received, included: iron(III) chloride (hexahydrate, 99 + %, Acros), terephthalic acid (TA, 99 + %, Acros), N,N-dimethylformamide (Fisher Chemical, ACS Certified), sodium hydroxide (2.0 N Standardized Solution, Alfa Aesar), hexanes (Fisher Chemical, ACS Certified), ibuprofen (99%, Acros), phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH = 7.2, 1×, Gibco), trifluoroacetic acid (HPLC Grade, Acros), Milli-Q water (18 MΩ· cm, Millipore), and acetonitrile (HPLC Grade, Fisher Chemical).

4.2. Synthesis of MIL-53

Fe-MIL-53 was synthesized according to the literature. (10) TA (0.7 mmol) and FeCl3·6H2O (0.7 mmol) were dissolved in 15 mL of DMF in a glass reactor. To obtain a sufficient material, six reactors were prepared together. The mixed solution was placed in a preheated oven at 150 °C for 15 h to form Fe-MIL-53 crystals. After cooling to room temperature, the crystals were separated by vacuum filtration and rinsed with DMF, acetone, and deionized water. After that, the crystals were vacuum dried at room temperature and followed by drying in a gravity oven at 110 °C to remove extra moisture. These crystals were named as-synthesized MIL-53 and were performed PXRD analysis. Solvent exchange for trapped DMF for water by stirring as-synthesized MIL-53 in deionized water for 24 h. The MIL-53 colloid was then centrifuged at 5000 rpm (Eppendorf, Centrifuge 5430). For the removal of water and free up porous space for drug loading, MIL-53 crystals were further dried in a vacuum oven (Fisher Scientific, Isotemp vacuum oven model 281A) at 65 °C for 24 h.

4.3. Synthesis of MIL-88B

Fe-MIL-88B crystals were synthesized via a revised solvothermal method according to a previous reported procedure. (9) FeCl3·6H2O (1 mmol) and TA (1 mmol) were dispersed in 5 mL of DMF with 0.4 mL of sodium hydroxide (2.0 N) in a glass reactor. The mixed solution was sonicated for 3 min before being placed in a preheated oven at 100 °C for 12 h. After the solvothermal synthesis, the orange solid, Fe-MIL-88B, was recovered by filtration and washed with DMF, deionized water, and acetone. The product was then placed in a gravity oven at 110 °C for 24 h to completely dry as-synthesized Fe-MIL-88B.
To make sure the MIL-88B structure was clear from DMF and unreacted ligands, additional solvent exchange procedures were performed: MIL-88B was stirred in deionized water for 24 h, solids were then collected by vacuum filtration, and washed with deionized water three times. Finally, the crystals were dried in a vacuum oven at 65 °C for 24 h.

4.4. Drug Loading Studies

Dry Fe-MIL crystals were stirred in ibuprofen/hexane solutions with varying concentrations for different set amount of times. The material-to-ibuprofen mass ratio was kept at 1:3. We found that the best ibuprofen loading condition for MIL-53 was stirring 50 mg of MIL-53 with 5 mL of ibuprofen/hexane solution (30 mg/mL) for 72 h. The optimal ibuprofen loading condition for MIL-88B was 20 mg of MIL-88 mixed with 6 mL of ibuprofen/hexane (10 mg/mL) for 24 h. After desired soaking period, the drug encapsulated crystals were collected by centrifugation at 5000 rpm for 20 min. The supernatant was saved for UV analysis for drug loading quantification. The precipitate (Fe-MILs loaded with ibuprofen) was dried in a vacuum oven at 65 °C for 24 h. The drug loading capacity (LC, mg of ibuprofen per gram of material) of each Fe-MIL was evaluated based on the following equation
(1)
where C0 is the initial ibuprofen concentration, Ct is the ibuprofen concentration at time t, V is the total volume of ibuprofen solution, and m is the mass of Fe-MIL applied in the mixture solution.

4.5. Drug Elution Studies

An amount of 10 mg of dry ibuprofen encapsulated MILs was soaked and stirred in 40 mL of PBS at room temperature for drug release studies. A 2 mL aliquot of mixed solution was collected at each hour for the first 6 h, one sample was then collected each day for the next ten days. The collected solution was filtered through a syringe filter (PVDF, 0.45 μm, 13 mm diameter) to remove large Fe-MIL solids before analysis. Ibuprofen release amounts and Fe-MIL degradation rates were examined by monitoring the changes in concentrations of ibuprofen and TA over time using a reversed-phase HPLC. Horcajada et al. reported a two-stage drug release profile for MIL-53 materials. (10) In this study, we observed a similar trend on both Fe-based MIL-53 and MIL-88B systems. The release kinetics of each system on both stages was evaluated using different drug delivery models, including zero-order, first-order, Peppas, Hixson–Crowell, and Hill models. If a higher correlation coefficient is observed, it confirms that the drug delivery system follows the corresponding kinetic model.
A zero-order drug delivery model is commonly used to describe the diffusion behaviors of a system and can be expressed in the following equation (34)
(2)
where, Mt and M represent the absolute cumulative amount of released drug at the time t and at infinite time, and k is the release rate constant. The ratio of Mt and M represents the cumulative drug release percent.
The first-order kinetic equation takes consideration of material degradation in water and can be expressed as followed (35)
(3)
The Peppas model was first proposed in 1985 (36) and is now widely used for modeling polymer-based drug delivery systems with surface erosion. It can be expressed as the following equation where n is the release exponent
(4)
We also applied the Hixson–Crowell model to consider a bulk-erosion system since Fe-MILs may degrade into smaller crystals in physiological environment. The Hixson–Crowell model can be expressed as follows (37)
(5)
The Hill model was also applied to fit the cumulative drug release percent as a function of time. This model takes consideration of diffusion and degradation processes of the matrices and can be expresses as follows (38)
(6)
where M0 and MEq represent the drug release amounts at time zero and at an equilibrium condition, and t1/2 represents the time when the slope of the cumulative drug release curve has the highest value.

4.6. Cytotoxicity Studies

A CellTiter 96 nonradioactive cell proliferation assay (MTT) from Promega was used to evaluate the cytotoxicity of MIL-88B with the NIH-3T3 Swiss mouse fibroblasts (ATCC) cell line. Cells were cultured in complete (10% fetal bovine serum, 1% penicillin streptomycin-glutamine) Dulbecco’s modified Eagle medium (DMEM) and incubated at 37 °C in a humidified 5% CO2 atmosphere until 90% confluent. Sterile MIL-88B (3.5 mg) was dissolved in DMEM through sonication to serve as stock solution. PBS and trypsin were used to induce detachment of 3T3 cells. In a 96-well plate, cells were seeded at a density of 1.0 × 104 cells/well. Concentrations (0.05–2.5 mg/mL) of the stock solution were then added to the plate and incubated for 48 h. Subsequently, the CellTiter 96 assay was performed. The plate reader (Thermo Scientific Varioskan Flash Reader) was used to record absorption at 570 nm. Each point was calculated from 18 repeats: 6 wells, 3 plates.

4.7. Characterization

Powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD) measurements were carried out on a SmartLab X-Ray diffractometer (Rigaku). Bragg–Brentano Focusing measurements were conducted using a Cu Kα1 (λ = 1.5406 Å) radiation source. The diffraction angles of measurement were between 7 and 20 degrees with steps of 0.008 degrees.
Infrared spectroscopic studies were performed on a Bruker Alpha I attenuated total reflectance infrared (ATR-IR) spectrometer. All spectra were collected in the range of 4000–400 cm–1 at a resolution of 4 cm–1 with 64 scans per spectrum.
N2 sorption studies of Fe-MILs before and after ibuprofen loading were performed on a Micromeritics 2020PLUS surface characterization analyzer at 77 K using liquid nitrogen. Prior to measurements, approximately 50 mg of sample was degassed under vacuum at 60 °C for over 12 h. The sample tube was immersed in a liquid nitrogen dewar during measurements. The gas adsorption isotherms were collected as a function of pressure up to 800 torr.
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM, FEI Quanta 650) was applied to study the morphology changes of MIL-88B crystals before and after drug loading. The images were taken with an acceleration voltage of 20 kV and a working distance of 9.4 mm in a high vacuum condition. Gold-coated silicon substrates were coated with desired MIL crystal samples by a dip-coater (Chemat Technology). For increased resolution, all samples were sputter-coated with gold prior to SEM imaging.
A UV–vis spectrophotometer (Shimadzu, UV-1700) was applied to measure ibuprofen loading amounts by monitoring the wavelength at 264 nm (λmax for ibuprofen in hexane). A standard curve of ibuprofen in hexane was created based on a concentration range of 0.001–0.025 mg/mL. The absorbance of ibuprofen before and after drug loading was measured in triplicate with hexane as the blank. For solutions with concentrations out of range of the standard curve, samples were diluted with hexane before measurements.
High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC, Thermo Scientific, Ultimate 3000) was employed to study drug release kinetics. A reverse-phase C18 analytical column (Agilent, Zorbax 300SB-C18, 4.6 x 250 mm 5-μm) was used along with the mobile phase of water and acetonitrile (50:50 v/v) with 0.08% trifluoroacetic acid in each solvent with a pump rate of 1.5 mL/min. The UV detector was set at wavelengths of 215 and 242 nm at room temperature. A sample volume of 20 μL was injected, and all analyses were performed in triplicate. Standard calibration curves of ibuprofen and TA in PBS were created separately by plotting retention time peak area (mV × s) versus concentration. The peak of ibuprofen was observed at a retention time of 5.2 min in a UV channel of 215 nm. The peak of TA showed up at 1.9 min in the channel of 242 nm.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.9b03696.

  • UV–vis spectra, BET plots and parameters, and drug release models (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Hao Pham - Department of Physical Sciences, Long Beach City College, Long Beach, California 90808, United StatesPresent Address: Current Address: Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, California 92110, United States (H.P.)
    • Kimberly Ramos - Chemistry Department, Cerritos College, Norwalk, California 90650, United StatesPresent Address: Current Address: School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95616, United States (K.R.)
    • Andy Sua - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90840, United States
    • Jessica Acuna - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90840, United States
    • Katarzyna Slowinska - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90840, United StatesOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-6468-2918
    • Travis Nguyen - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90840, United States
    • Angela Bui - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90840, United States
    • Mark D. R. Weber - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90840, United StatesPresent Address: Current Address: School of Materials Science and Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332, United States (M.D.R.W.)
  • Author Contributions

    All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award numbers 8UL1GM118979-02 and 5UL1GM118979-03. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. H.P. and K.R. would like to acknowledge the NIH BRIDGE program at CSULB. K.S. acknowledges the NIH under Award number of GM099594. T.N. acknowledges the NIH-BUILD program at CSULB under Award Numbers 5UL1GM118979; 5TL4GM118980; and 5RL5GM118978. A.B. would like to acknowledge the NIH-MARC U*STAR program at CSULB under Award number of T34GM008074. The project is partially supported by grant from National Science Foundation (MRI-1828334).

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 62 other publications.

  1. 1
    Zelikin, A. N.; Ehrhardt, C.; Healy, A. M. Materials and Methods for Delivery of Biological Drugs. Nat. Chem. 2016, 8, 9971007,  DOI: 10.1038/nchem.2629
  2. 2
    Enlow, E. M.; Luft, J. C.; Napier, M. E.; DeSimone, J. M. Potent Engineered PLGA Nanoparticles by Virtue of Exceptionally High Chemotherapeutic Loadings. Nano Lett. 2011, 11, 808813,  DOI: 10.1021/nl104117p
  3. 3
    Zhu, L.; Li, M.; Liu, X.; Jin, Y. Drug-Loaded PLGA Electrospraying Porous Microspheres for the Local Therapy of Primary Lung Cancer via Pulmonary Delivery. ACS Omega 2017, 2, 22732279,  DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.7b00456
  4. 4
    Wang, J.; Kumeria, T.; Bezem, M. T.; Wang, J.; Sailor, M. J. Self-Reporting Photoluminescent Porous Silicon Microparticles for Drug Delivery. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 32003209,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.7b09071
  5. 5
    Singh, N.; Karambelkar, A.; Gu, L.; Lin, K.; Miller, J. S.; Chen, C. S.; Sailor, M. J.; Bhatia, S. N. Bioresponsive Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles for Triggered Drug Release. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 1958219585,  DOI: 10.1021/ja206998x
  6. 6
    Tavolaro, A.; Riccio, I. I.; Tavolaro, P. Hydrothermal Synthesis of Zeolite Composite Membranes and Crystals as Potential Vectors for Drug-Delivering Biomaterials. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2013, 167, 6270,  DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2012.04.024
  7. 7
    Huxford, R. C.; Della Rocca, J.; Lin, W. Metal–organic Frameworks as Potential Drug Carriers. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2010, 14, 262268,  DOI: 10.1016/J.CBPA.2009.12.012
  8. 8
    Rojas, S.; Colinet, I.; Cunha, D.; Hidalgo, T.; Salles, F.; Serre, C.; Guillou, N.; Horcajada, P. Toward Understanding Drug Incorporation and Delivery from Biocompatible Metal–organic Frameworks in View of Cutaneous Administration. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 29943003,  DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.8b00185
  9. 9
    Horcajada, P.; Chalati, T.; Serre, C.; Gillet, B.; Sebrie, C.; Baati, T.; Eubank, J. F.; Heurtaux, D.; Clayette, P.; Kreuz, C. Porous Metal-organic-Framework Nanoscale Carriers as a Potential Platform for Drug Delivery and Imaging. Nat. Mater. 2010, 9, 172178,  DOI: 10.1038/nmat2608
  10. 10
    Horcajada, P.; Serre, C.; Maurin, G.; Ramsahye, N. A.; Balas, F.; Vallet-Regí, M.; Sebban, M.; Taulelle, F.; Férey, G. Flexible Porous Metal-organic Frameworks for a Controlled Drug Delivery. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 67746780,  DOI: 10.1021/ja710973k
  11. 11
    Miller, S. R.; Heurtaux, D.; Baati, T.; Horcajada, P.; Grenèche, J.-M.; Serre, C. Biodegradable Therapeutic MOFs for the Delivery of Bioactive Molecules. Chem. Commun. 2010, 46, 45264528,  DOI: 10.1039/c001181a
  12. 12
    Eddaoudi, M.; Moler, D. B.; Li, H.; Chen, B.; Reineke, T. M.; O’Keeffe, M.; Yaghi, O. M. Modular Chemistry: Secondary Building Units as a Basis for the Design of Highly Porous and Robust Metal–organic Carboxylate Frameworks. Acc. Chem. Res. 2001, 34, 319330,  DOI: 10.1021/AR000034B
  13. 13
    Ruiz, M. A.; Sua, A.; Tian, F. Covalent Attachment of Metal-organic Framework Thin Films on Surfaces. In Encyclopedia of Interfacial Chemistry: Surface Science and Electrochemistry; Elsevier: 2018; Vol. 4, pp 646671.
  14. 14
    Li, J.-R.; Kuppler, R. J.; Zhou, H.-C. Selective Gas Adsorption and Separation in Metal-organic Frameworks. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2009, 38, 14771504,  DOI: 10.1039/b802426j
  15. 15
    Farrusseng, D.; Aguado, S.; Pinel, C. Metal-organic Frameworks: Opportunities for Catalysis. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 75027513,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.200806063
  16. 16
    Kuo, C.-H.; Tang, Y.; Chou, L.-Y.; Sneed, B. T.; Brodsky, C. N.; Zhao, Z.; Tsung, C.-K. Yolk-Shell Nanocrystal@ZIF-8 Nanostructures for Gas-Phase Heterogeneous Catalysis with Selectivity Control. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 1434514348,  DOI: 10.1021/ja306869j
  17. 17
    Yang, J.; Zhang, F.; Lu, H.; Hong, X.; Jiang, H.; Wu, Y.; Li, Y. Hollow Zn/Co ZIF Particles Derived from Core-Shell ZIF-67@ZIF-8 as Selective Catalyst for the Semi-Hydrogenation of Acetylene. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2015, 127, 1103911043,  DOI: 10.1002/ange.201504242
  18. 18
    Dhakshinamoorthy, A.; Alvaro, M.; Garcia, H. Commercial Metal-organic Frameworks as Heterogeneous Catalysts. Chem. Commun. 2012, 48, 1127511288,  DOI: 10.1039/c2cc34329k
  19. 19
    Giménez-Marqués, M.; Hidalgo, T.; Serre, C.; Horcajada, P. Nanostructured Metal–organic Frameworks and Their Bio-Related Applications. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2016, 307, 342360,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2015.08.008
  20. 20
    Gaudin, C.; Cunha, D.; Ivanoff, E.; Horcajada, P.; Chevé, G.; Yasri, A.; Loget, O.; Serre, C.; Maurin, G. A Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship Approach to Probe the Influence of the Functionalization on the Drug Encapsulation of Porous Metal-organic Frameworks. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2012, 157, 124130,  DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2011.06.011
  21. 21
    Wu, M.-X.; Yang, Y.-W. Metal-organic Framework (MOF)-Based Drug/Cargo Delivery and Cancer Therapy. Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1606134,  DOI: 10.1002/adma.201606134
  22. 22
    Keskin, S.; Kızılel, S. Biomedical Applications of Metal organic Frameworks. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 17991812,  DOI: 10.1021/ie101312k
  23. 23
    Huang, W.; Tsui, C. P.; Tang, C. Y.; Gu, L. Effects of Compositional Tailoring on Drug Delivery Behaviours of Silica Xerogel/Polymer Core-Shell Composite Nanoparticles. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 13002,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-31070-9
  24. 24
    Cullis, P. R.; Mayer, L. D.; Bally, M. B.; Madden, T. D.; Hope, M. J. Generating and Loading of Liposomal Systems for Drug-Delivery Applications. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 1989, 3, 267282,  DOI: 10.1016/0169-409X
  25. 25
    Tamames-Tabar, C.; Cunha, D.; Imbuluzqueta, E.; Ragon, F.; Serre, C.; Blanco-Prieto, M. J.; Horcajada, P. Cytotoxicity of Nanoscaled Metal–organic Frameworks. J. Mater. Chem. B 2014, 2, 262271,  DOI: 10.1039/C3TB20832J
  26. 26
    Filippousi, M.; Turner, S.; Leus, K.; Siafaka, P. I.; Tseligka, E. D.; Vandichel, M.; Nanaki, S. G.; Vizirianakis, I. S.; Bikiaris, D. N.; Van Der Voort, P. Biocompatible Zr-Based Nanoscale MOFs Coated with Modified Poly(ε-Caprolactone) as Anticancer Drug Carriers. Int. J. Pharm. 2016, 509, 208218,  DOI: 10.1016/J.IJPHARM.2016.05.048
  27. 27
    Al Haydar, M.; Abid, H.; Sunderland, B.; Wang, S. Metal organic Frameworks as a Drug Delivery System for Flurbiprofen. Drug Des., Dev. Ther. 2017, Volume 11, 26852695,  DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S145716
  28. 28
    Horcajada, P.; Salles, F.; Wuttke, S.; Devic, T.; Heurtaux, D.; Maurin, G.; Vimont, A.; Daturi, M.; David, O.; Magnier, E. How Linker’s Modification Controls Swelling Properties of Highly Flexible Iron(III) Dicarboxylates MIL-88. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 1783917847,  DOI: 10.1021/ja206936e
  29. 29
    Serre, C.; Surblé, S.; Mellot-Draznieks, C.; Filinchuk, Y.; Férey, G. Evidence of Flexibility in the Nanoporous Iron(Iii) Carboxylate MIL-89. Dalton Trans. 2008, 0, 5462,  DOI: 10.1039/b805408h
  30. 30
    Surblé, S.; Serre, C.; Mellot-Draznieks, C.; Millange, F.; Férey, G. A New Isoreticular Class of Metal-organic-Frameworks with the MIL-88 Topology. Chem. Commun. 2006, 3, 284286,  DOI: 10.1039/b512169h
  31. 31
    McKinlay, A. C.; Morris, R. E.; Horcajada, P.; Férey, G.; Gref, R.; Couvreur, P.; Serre, C. BioMOFs: Metal-organic Frameworks for Biological and Medical Applications. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 62606266,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201000048
  32. 32
    Scherb, C.; Schödel, A.; Bein, T. Directing the Structure of Metal-organic Frameworks by Oriented Surface Growth on an organic Monolayer. Angew. Chem. Int. 2008, 47, 57775779,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.200704034
  33. 33
    Whitfield, T. R.; Wang, X.; Liu, L.; Jacobson, A. J. Metal-organic Frameworks Based on Iron Oxide Octahedral Chains Connected by Benzenedicarboxylate Dianions. Solid State Sci. 2005, 7, 10961103,  DOI: 10.1016/J.SOLIDSTATESCIENCES.2005.03.007
  34. 34
    Huang, X.; Brazel, C. S. On the Importance and Mechanisms of Burst Release in Matrix-Controlled Drug Delivery Systems. J. Controlled Release 2001, 73, 121136,  DOI: 10.1016/S0168-3659(01)00248-6
  35. 35
    Körber, M. PLGA Erosion: Solubility- or Diffusion-Controlled?. Pharm. Res. 2010, 27, 24142420,  DOI: 10.1007/s11095-010-0232-5
  36. 36
    Peppas, N. A. Analysis of Fickian and Non-Fickian Drug Release from Polymers. Pharm. Acta Helv. 1985, 60, 110111
  37. 37
    Costa, P.; Sousa Lobo, J. M. Modeling and Comparison of Dissolution Profiles. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2001, 13, 123133,  DOI: 10.1016/S0928-0987(01)00095-1
  38. 38
    Goutelle, S.; Maurin, M.; Rougier, F.; Barbaut, X.; Bourguignon, L.; Ducher, M.; Maire, P. The Hill Equation: A Review of Its Capabilities in Pharmacological Modelling. Fundam. Clin. Pharmacol. 2008, 22, 633648,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2008.00633.x
  39. 39
    Xu, B.; Yang, H.; Cai, Y.; Yang, H.; Li, C. Preparation and Photocatalytic Property of Spindle-like MIL-88B(Fe) Nanoparticles. Inorg. Chem. Commun. 2016, 67, 2931,  DOI: 10.1016/J.INOCHE.2016.03.003
  40. 40
    Shi, L.; Wang, T.; Zhang, H.; Chang, K.; Meng, X.; Liu, H.; Ye, J. An Amine-Functionalized Iron(III) Metal-organic Framework as Efficient Visible-Light Photocatalyst for Cr(VI) Reduction. Adv. Sci. 2015, 2, 1500006,  DOI: 10.1002/advs.201500006
  41. 41
    Bragg, W. L. The Diffraction of Short Electromagnetic Waves by a Crystal. Proc. Camb. Philol. Soc. 1913, 17, 4357
  42. 42
    Loiseau, T.; Serre, C.; Huguenard, C.; Fink, G.; Taulelle, F.; Henry, M.; Bataille, T.; Férey, G. A Rationale for the Large Breathing of the Porous Aluminum Terephthalate (MIL-53) upon Hydration. Chemistry 2004, 10, 13731382,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.200305413
  43. 43
    Ma, M.; Noei, H.; Mienert, B.; Niesel, J.; Bill, E.; Muhler, M.; Fischer, R. A.; Wang, Y.; Schatzschneider, U.; Metzler-Nolte, N. Iron Metal-organic Frameworks MIL-88B and NH 2 -MIL-88B for the Loading and Delivery of the Gasotransmitter Carbon Monoxide. Chem. - A Eur. J. 2013, 19, 67856790,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.201201743
  44. 44
    Walton, R. I.; Munn, A. S.; Guillou, N.; Millange, F. Uptake of Liquid Alcohols by the Flexible FeIII Metal-organic Framework MIL-53 Observed by Time-Resolved In Situ X-Ray Diffraction. Chem. - A Eur. J. 2011, 17, 70697079,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.201003634
  45. 45
    Nikseresht, A.; Daniyali, A.; Ali-Mohammadi, M.; Afzalinia, A.; Mirzaie, A. Ultrasound-Assisted Biodiesel Production by a Novel Composite of Fe(III)-Based MOF and Phosphotangestic Acid as Efficient and Reusable Catalyst. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2017, 37, 203207,  DOI: 10.1016/J.ULTSONCH.2017.01.011
  46. 46
    Feng, X.; Chen, H.; Jiang, F. In-Situ Ethylenediamine-Assisted Synthesis of a Magnetic Iron-Based Metal-organic Framework MIL-53(Fe) for Visible Light Photocatalysis. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 494, 3237,  DOI: 10.1016/J.JCIS.2017.01.060
  47. 47
    Alsop, R. J.; Armstrong, C. L.; Maqbool, A.; Toppozini, L.; Dies, H.; Rheinstädter, M. C. Cholesterol Expels Ibuprofen from the Hydrophobic Membrane Core and Stabilizes Lamellar Phases in Lipid Membranes Containing Ibuprofen. Soft Matter 2015, 11, 47564767,  DOI: 10.1039/c5sm00597c
  48. 48
    Wang, Y.; Muramatsu, A.; Sugimoto, T. FTIR Analysis of Well-Defined α-Fe2O3 Particles. Colloids Surf., A 1998, 134, 281297,  DOI: 10.1016/S0927-7757(97)00102-7
  49. 49
    Brunauer, S.; Emmett, P. H.; Teller, E. Adsorption of Gases in Multimolecular Layers. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1938, 60, 309319,  DOI: 10.1021/ja01269a023
  50. 50
    Harkins, W. D.; Jura, G. An Adsorption Method for the Determination of the Area of a Solid without the Assumption of a Molecular Area, and the Area Occupied by Nitrogen Molecules on the Surfaces of Solids. J. Chem. Phys. 1943, 11, 431432,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1723871
  51. 51
    Düren, T.; Millange, F.; Férey, G.; Walton, K. S.; Snurr, R. Q. Calculating Geometric Surface Areas as a Characterization Tool for Metal - organic Frameworks. J. Phys. Chem. C 2007, 111, 1535015356,  DOI: 10.1021/jp074723h
  52. 52
    First, E. L.; Floudas, C. A. MOFomics: Computational Pore Characterization of Metal-organic Frameworks. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2013, 165, 3239,  DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2012.07.049
  53. 53
    Vu, T. A.; Le, G. H.; Dao, C. D.; Dang, L. Q.; Nguyen, K. T.; Nguyen, Q. K.; Dang, P. T.; Tran, H. T. K.; Duong, Q. T.; Nguyen, T. V. Arsenic Removal from Aqueous Solutions by Adsorption Using Novel MIL-53(Fe) as a Highly Efficient Adsorbent. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 52615268,  DOI: 10.1039/c4ra12326c
  54. 54
    Millange, F.; Guillou, N.; Walton, R. I.; Grenèche, J.-M.; Margiolaki, I.; Férey, G. Effect of the Nature of the Metal on the Breathing Steps in MOFs with Dynamic Frameworks. Chem. Commun. 2008, 39, 47324734,  DOI: 10.1039/b809419e
  55. 55
    Devic, T.; Horcajada, P.; Serre, C.; Salles, F.; Maurin, G.; Moulin, B.; Heurtaux, D.; Clet, G.; Vimont, A.; Grenéche, J.-M. Functionalization in Flexible Porous Solids: Effects on the Pore Opening and the Host-Guest Interactions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 11271136,  DOI: 10.1021/ja9092715
  56. 56
    Matsuyama, K.; Hayashi, N.; Yokomizo, M.; Kato, T.; Ohara, K.; Okuyama, T. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide-Assisted Drug Loading and Release from Biocompatible Porous Metal-organic Frameworks. J. Mater. Chem. B 2014, 2, 75517558,  DOI: 10.1039/c4tb00725e
  57. 57
    Zheng, H.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, L.; Wan, W.; Guo, P.; Nyström, A. M.; Zou, X. One-Pot Synthesis of Metal-organic Frameworks with Encapsulated Target Molecules and Their Applications for Controlled Drug Delivery. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 962968,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.5b11720
  58. 58
    Spokoyny, A. M.; Kim, D.; Sumrein, A.; Mirkin, C. A. Infinite Coordination Polymer Nano- and Microparticle Structures. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2009, 38, 1218,  DOI: 10.1039/b807085g
  59. 59
    Serre, C.; Mellot-Draznieks, C.; Surblé, S.; Audebrand, N.; Filinchuk, Y.; Férey, G. Role of Solvent-Host Interactions That Lead to Very Large Swelling of Hybrid Frameworks. Science 2007, 315, 18281831,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1137975
  60. 60
    Liédana, N.; Galve, A.; Rubio, C.; Téllez, C.; Coronas, J. CAF@ZIF-8: One-Step Encapsulation of Caffeine in MOF. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2012, 4, 50165021,  DOI: 10.1021/am301365h
  61. 61
    Siepmann, J.; Siepmann, F. Mathematical Modeling of Drug Delivery. Int. J. Pharm. 2008, 364, 328343,  DOI: 10.1016/J.IJPHARM.2008.09.004
  62. 62
    Rothstein, S. N.; Federspiel, W. J.; Little, S. R. A Unified Mathematical Model for the Prediction of Controlled Release from Surface and Bulk Eroding Polymer Matrices. Biomaterials 2009, 30, 16571664,  DOI: 10.1016/J.BIOMATERIALS.2008.12.002

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 66 publications.

  1. Hannah D. Cornell, Abhishek T. Sose, Stefan Ilic, Sreenivasulu Chinnabattigalla, Naomei E. Lidman, Colleen M. Oldmixon, Xiaozhou Yang, Sanket A. Deshmukh, Amanda J. Morris. Photoactivated Multivariate Metal–Organic Frameworks for On-Demand Drug Release: The Role of Host–Guest Interactions. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2025, 147 (9) , 7423-7432. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.4c15222
  2. Jose Paul, Jongsung Kim. Screen-Printed Electrode-Based Sensing of l-Ascorbic Acid Using Metal–Organic Framework Supported Carbon–Palladium-Doped MXene Quantum Dots in Human Serum and Artificial Sweat. ACS Applied Nano Materials 2024, 7 (22) , 26032-26043. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.4c05225
  3. Xin Ma, Zhihao Yu, Farid Nouar, Iurii Dovgaliuk, Gilles Patriarche, Nicolas Sadovnik, Marco Daturi, Jean-Marc Grenèche, Mathilde Lepoitevin, Christian Serre. How Defects Impact the In Vitro Behavior of Iron Carboxylate MOF Nanoparticles. Chemistry of Materials 2024, 36 (1) , 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.3c01495
  4. Olivia Basu, Anupam Das, Tushar Jana, Samar K. Das. Design of Flexible Metal–Organic Framework-Based Superprotonic Conductors and Their Fabrication with a Polymer into Proton Exchange Membranes. ACS Applied Energy Materials 2023, 6 (18) , 9092-9107. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaem.2c02972
  5. Nikita O. Mishra, Alisa S. Quon, Anna Nguyen, Edgar K. Papazyan, Yajiao Hao, Yangyang Liu. Constructing Physiological Defense Systems against Infectious Disease with Metal–Organic Frameworks: A Review. ACS Applied Bio Materials 2023, 6 (8) , 3052-3065. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsabm.3c00391
  6. Lesly Carmona-Sarabia, Gabriel Quiñones Vélez, Andrea M. Escalera-Joy, Darilys Mojica-Vázquez, Solimar Esteves-Vega, Esther A. Peterson-Peguero, Vilmalí López-Mejías. Design of Extended Bisphosphonate-Based Coordination Polymers as Bone-Targeted Drug Delivery Systems for Breast Cancer-Induced Osteolytic Metastasis and Other Bone Therapies. Inorganic Chemistry 2023, 62 (24) , 9440-9453. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.3c00542
  7. Steven G. Guillen, Jacob Parres-Gold, Angel Ruiz, Ethan Lucsik, Benjamin Dao, Tran K. L. Hang, Megan Chang, Adaly O. Garcia, Yixian Wang, Fangyuan Tian. pH-Responsive Metal–Organic Framework Thin Film for Drug Delivery. Langmuir 2022, 38 (51) , 16014-16023. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.2c02497
  8. Yong-Huei Hong, Manmath Narwane, Lawrence Yu-Min Liu, Yi-Da Huang, Chieh-Wei Chung, Yi-Hong Chen, Bo-Wen Liao, Yu-Hsiang Chang, Cheng-Ru Wu, Hsi-Chien Huang, I-Jui Hsu, Ling-Yun Cheng, Liang-Yi Wu, Yu-Lun Chueh, Yunching Chen, Chia-Her Lin, Tsai-Te Lu. Enhanced Oral NO Delivery through Bioinorganic Engineering of Acid-Sensitive Prodrug into a Transformer-like DNIC@MOF Microrod. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2022, 14 (3) , 3849-3863. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.1c21409
  9. Xianbin Liu, Tiantian Liang, Rongtao Zhang, Qian Ding, Siqiong Wu, Chunhong Li, Yan Lin, Yun Ye, Zhirong Zhong, Meiling Zhou. Iron-Based Metal–Organic Frameworks in Drug Delivery and Biomedicine. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2021, 13 (8) , 9643-9655. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c21486
  10. Harrison D. Lawson, S. Patrick Walton, Christina Chan. Metal–Organic Frameworks for Drug Delivery: A Design Perspective. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2021, 13 (6) , 7004-7020. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.1c01089
  11. Sheeba Dawood, Austin Dorris, Klinton Davis, Nathan I. Hammer, Hemali Rathnayake. Synthesis, Characterization, and Photophysics of Self-Assembled Mn(II)-MOF with Naphthalene Chromophore. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2021, 125 (1) , 792-802. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.0c09600
  12. Zachary L. Mensinger, Brenna L. Cook, Elsie L. Wilson. Adsorption of Amyloid Beta Peptide by Metal–Organic Frameworks. ACS Omega 2020, 5 (51) , 32969-32974. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.0c04019
  13. Dilip Kumar Chandra, Awanish Kumar, Chinmaya Mahapatra. Smart nano-hybrid metal-organic frameworks: Revolutionizing advancements, applications, and challenges in biomedical therapeutics and diagnostics. Hybrid Advances 2025, 9 , 100406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hybadv.2025.100406
  14. Keaoleboga Mosupi, Mike Masukume, Guoming Weng, Nicholas M. Musyoka, Henrietta W. Langmi. Recent advances in Fe-based metal-organic frameworks: Structural features, synthetic strategies and applications. Coordination Chemistry Reviews 2025, 529 , 216467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2025.216467
  15. Mohan Chen, Yichao Wang, Ziwen Fan, Yue Wang, Zheng Niu, Jianping Lang. Fluorocarboxylic Acid‐Modified MOF‐808 with Enhanced Acetylene Adsorption Capacity and C 2 H 2 /C 2 H 4 Separation Performance. European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry 2025, 28 (3) https://doi.org/10.1002/ejic.202400640
  16. Tran K. L. Hang, Fangyuan Tian. Metal–Organic Framework Thin Films as Drug Delivery Systems. 2025, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-4402-7_1
  17. Maryam Akhtar, Hammad Majeed, Tehreema Iftikhar, Khalil Ahmad. Climate friendly MOFs synthesis for drug delivery systems by integrating AI, intelligent manufacturing, and quantum solutions in industry 6.0 sustainable approach. Toxicology Research 2024, 14 (1) https://doi.org/10.1093/toxres/tfaf011
  18. Dongyu Gu, Yunxiao Wang, Yi Yang. Rational design of metal organic frameworks as the carriers for improving the efficiency of cancer drug delivery. Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology 2024, 102 , 106378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jddst.2024.106378
  19. Koyeli Girigoswami, Pragya Pallavi, Agnishwar Girigoswami. Crafting porous nanoscaled architecture as a potential frontier for drug delivery. Molecular Systems Design & Engineering 2024, 9 (11) , 1085-1106. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4ME00098F
  20. Alexey V. Yaremenko, Roman O. Melikov, Nadezhda A. Pechnikova, Iaroslav B. Belyaev, Alina Ringaci, Tamara V. Yaremenko, Aziz B. Mirkasymov, Alexandr A. Tamgin, Vladislav I. Rodionov, Sofya M. Dolotova, Grigory A. Plisko, Evgeny D. Semivelichenko, Anna S. Rogova, Albert R. Muslimov, Arina S. Ivkina, Dmitry Yu. Ivkin, Valery P. Erichev, Sergey M. Deyev, Sergey E. Avetisov, Yongjiang Li, Hai‐Jun Liu, Ivan V. Zelepukin. Modification of contact lenses via metal‐organic frameworks for glaucoma treatment. Aggregate 2024, 5 (5) https://doi.org/10.1002/agt2.586
  21. Lidia E. Chiñas‐Rojas, José E. Domínguez, Luis Ángel Alfonso Herrera, Francisco E. González‐Jiménez, Raúl Colorado‐Peralta, Jesús Antonio Arenzano Altaif, José María Rivera Villanueva. Exploring Synthesis Strategies and Interactions between MOFs and Drugs for Controlled Drug Loading and Release, Characterizing Interactions through Advanced Techniques. ChemMedChem 2024, 19 (19) https://doi.org/10.1002/cmdc.202400144
  22. Xiao Yang, Yunbo Wang, Weihua Cao, Jinghan Zheng, Changxin Liu, Bingli Fan, Xiaowen Qi. Flexible metal–organic frameworks based self-lubricating composite. Friction 2024, 12 (8) , 1816-1827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-023-0857-0
  23. Hossein Poursadegh, Vahid Bakhshi, Mohammad Sadegh Amini-Fazl, Zahra Adibag, Fahimeh Kazeminava, Siamak Javanbakht. Incorporating mannose-functionalized hydroxyapatite/metal-organic framework into the hyaluronic acid hydrogel film: A potential dual-targeted oral anticancer delivery system. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2024, 274 , 133516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.133516
  24. Lahbib Moutanassim, Mohamed Aqil, Abdelwahed Chari, Jones Alami, Mouad Dahbi, Samir El Hankari. Disordered and defective semi-crystalline Fe-MOF as a high-power and high-energy anode material for lithium-ion batteries. Journal of Energy Storage 2024, 93 , 112055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2024.112055
  25. Kexin Guan, Fangyi Xu, Xiaoshan Huang, Yu Li, Shuya Guo, Yizhen Situ, You Chen, Jianming Hu, Zili Liu, Hong Liang, Xin Zhu, Yufang Wu, Zhiwei Qiao. Deep learning and big data mining for Metal–Organic frameworks with high performance for simultaneous desulfurization and carbon capture. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 2024, 662 , 941-952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2024.02.098
  26. Hongxia Li, Quanxing Liao, Yongdong Liu, Yunfeng Li, Xiaohui Niu, Deyi Zhang, Kunjie Wang. Hierarchically Porous Carbon Rods Derived from Metal‐Organic Frameworks for Aqueous Zinc‐Ion Hybrid Capacitors. Small 2024, 20 (15) https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202307184
  27. Xinyu Song, Qiufan Jiang, Junyang Ma, Yang Liu, Liangliang Zhang, Tingting Jiang, Jie Zhang, Qing Li, Jie Sun. Fe3O4 NPs-encapsulated metal-organic framework/enzyme hybrid nanoreactor for drug-resistant bacterial elimination via enhanced chemodynamictherapy. Ceramics International 2024, 50 (5) , 7486-7496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2023.12.050
  28. Bhavya Balakrishnan, Balladka Kunhanna Sarojini, Arun Krishna Kodoth, Bikrodi Sesappa Dayananda, Ranjitha Venkatesha. Fabrication and characterization of tamarind seed gum based novel hydrogel for the targeted delivery of omeprazole magnesium. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2024, 258 , 128758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.128758
  29. Sepideh Ahmadi, Yousef Fatahi, Mohammad Reza Saeb, Dokyoon Kim, Mohammadreza Shokouhimehr, Siavash Iravani, Navid Rabiee, Rajender S. Varma. Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) and their applications in detection, conversion, and depletion of nitroaromatic pollutants. Inorganic Chemistry Communications 2024, 160 , 111982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inoche.2023.111982
  30. Salma Mansi, Sarah V. Dummert, Geoffrey J. Topping, Mian Zahid Hussain, Carolin Rickert, Kilian M. A. Mueller, Tim Kratky, Martin Elsner, Angela Casini, Franz Schilling, Roland A. Fischer, Oliver Lieleg, Petra Mela. Introducing Metal–Organic Frameworks to Melt Electrowriting: Multifunctional Scaffolds with Controlled Microarchitecture for Tissue Engineering Applications. Advanced Functional Materials 2024, 34 (2) https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202304907
  31. Kishor Danao, Vijayshri Rokde, Deweshri Nandurkar, Ritesh Fule, Ruchi Shivhare, Ujwala Mahajan. Metal-organic frameworks for drug delivery: part B. 2024, 257-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-15259-7.00019-X
  32. Hossein Poursadegh, Mohammad Sadegh Amini-Fazl, Siamak Javanbakht, Fahimeh Kazeminava. Magnetic nanocomposite through coating mannose-functionalized metal-organic framework with biopolymeric pectin hydrogel beads: A potential targeted anticancer oral delivery system. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2024, 254 , 127702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.127702
  33. Ying Wang, Gareth R. Williams, Yilu Zheng, Honghua Guo, Shiyan Chen, Rong Ren, Tong Wang, Jindong Xia, Li-Min Zhu. Polydopamine-cloaked Fe-based metal organic frameworks enable synergistic multidimensional treatment of osteosarcoma. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 2023, 651 , 76-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2023.07.146
  34. Khaled AbouAitah, Heba A. Hassan, Naglaa M. Ammar, Doha H. Abou Baker, Imane M. Higazy, Olfat G. Shaker, Ahmed A. A. Elsayed, Abeer M. E. Hassan. Novel delivery system with a dual–trigger release of savory essential oil by mesoporous silica nanospheres and its possible targets in leukemia cancer cells: in vitro study. Cancer Nanotechnology 2023, 14 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12645-022-00152-9
  35. Tengfei Shi, Shahid Hussain, Chuanxin Ge, Guiwu Liu, Mingsong Wang, Guanjun Qiao. ZIF-X (8, 67) based nanostructures for gas-sensing applications. Reviews in Chemical Engineering 2023, 39 (6) , 911-939. https://doi.org/10.1515/revce-2021-0100
  36. Jiaxun Li, Mufeng Lin, Chichao Shen, Zhixuan Zhou. Metal-Organic Framework (MOFs) for Drug Delivery Applications. Highlights in Science, Engineering and Technology 2023, 58 , 304-312. https://doi.org/10.54097/hset.v58i.10113
  37. Trang Thi Thu Nguyen, Bao Quang Gia Le, Vy Tran Hanh Nguyen, Jae‐Hyoung Lee, Ngoc Xuan Dat Mai, Linh Ho Thuy Nguyen, Tan Le Hoang Doan. Microwave‐Assisted Synthesis of Porous Biomolecule‐Incorporated Metal‐Organic Frameworks as Efficient Nanocarriers for Anti‐Cancer Drugs. ChemistrySelect 2023, 8 (25) https://doi.org/10.1002/slct.202301543
  38. Zahra Akhavan‐Bahabadi, Hamid R. Zare, Zahra Mohammadpour, Bi Bi Fatemeh Mirjalili. Improvement of Anti‐Corrosion Performance of a Cu‐Ni Bimetallic Organic Framework Smart Coating Using Amino‐Substitution Triazole. ChemistrySelect 2023, 8 (24) https://doi.org/10.1002/slct.202300363
  39. Rongyue Zhu, Mengru Cai, Tingting Fu, Dongge Yin, Hulinyue Peng, Shilang Liao, Yuji Du, Jiahui Kong, Jian Ni, Xingbin Yin. Fe-Based Metal Organic Frameworks (Fe-MOFs) for Bio-Related Applications. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15 (6) , 1599. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15061599
  40. Sanyang Yu, Kaihao Xu, Zhenhua Wang, Zhichang Zhang, Zhongti Zhang. Bibliometric and visualized analysis of metal-organic frameworks in biomedical application. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 2023, 11 https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1190654
  41. Xiaoli Qi, Ningfei Shen, Aya Al Othman, Alexandre Mezentsev, Anastasia Permyakova, Zhihao Yu, Mathilde Lepoitevin, Christian Serre, Mikhail Durymanov. Metal-Organic Framework-Based Nanomedicines for the Treatment of Intracellular Bacterial Infections. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15 (5) , 1521. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15051521
  42. Si Yuanlei, Zahra Jokar, Elham Khedri, Parisa Mohammadi Khanaman, Maryam Mohammadgholian, Mahbubeh Ghotbi, Sepehr Shafiee, ZX Li, Mustafa Inc. In-silico tuning of the nano-bio interface by molecular dynamics method: Amyloid beta targeting with two-dimensional metal-organic frameworks. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 2023, 149 , 166-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enganabound.2023.01.020
  43. Mojtaba Abbasian, Musa Khayyatalimohammadi. Ultrasound-assisted synthesis of MIL-88(Fe) conjugated starch-Fe3O4 nanocomposite: A safe antibacterial carrier for controlled release of tetracycline. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2023, 234 , 123665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.123665
  44. Brij Mohan, Anshul Kamboj, Virender, Kamal Singh, Priyanka, Gurjaspreet Singh, Armando J.L. Pombeiro, Peng Ren. Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) materials for pesticides, heavy metals, and drugs removal: Environmental safety. Separation and Purification Technology 2023, 310 , 123175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2023.123175
  45. R. K. Baimuratova, V. A. Zhinzhilo, I. E. Uflyand, A. I. Dmitriev, M. V. Zhidkov, N. S. Ovanesyan, G. D. Kugabaeva, G. I. Dzhardimalieva. Low-Temperature Synthesis of Metal–Organic Coordination Polymers Based on Oxo-centered Iron Complexes: Magnetic and Adsorption Properties. Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry A 2023, 97 (4) , 735-748. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0036024423040064
  46. R. K. Baimuratova, V. A. Zhinzhilo, I. E. Uflyand, A. I. Dmitriev, M. V. Zhidkov, N. S. Ovanesyan, G. D. Kugabaeva, G. I. Dzhardimalieva. Low-Temperature Synthesis of Metal–Organic Coordination Polymers Based on Oxo-centered Iron Complexes: Magnetic and Adsorption Properties. Журнал физической химии 2023, 97 (4) , 543-558. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0044453723040064
  47. Chien-Jung Wu, Irish Valerie Maggay, Ching-Hsueh Chiang, Wei Chen, Yung Chang, Chechia Hu, Antoine Venault. Removal of tetracycline by a photocatalytic membrane reactor with MIL-53(Fe)/PVDF mixed-matrix membrane. Chemical Engineering Journal 2023, 451 , 138990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.138990
  48. Junaid Munawar, Muhammad Shahzeb Khan, Shan E. Zehra Syeda, Shahid Nawaz, Farooque Ahmed Janjhi, Hameed Ul Haq, Ehsan Ullah Rashid, Teofil Jesionowski, Muhammad Bilal. Metal-organic framework-based smart nanoplatforms for biosensing, drug delivery, and cancer theranostics. Inorganic Chemistry Communications 2023, 147 , 110145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inoche.2022.110145
  49. Aanchal Sharma, Suman Sen. Synthesis of metal organic frameworks and their applications in drug delivery. 2023, 020310. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0163536
  50. Tayah C. Livesey, Lila A. M. Mahmoud, Maria G. Katsikogianni, Sanjit Nayak. Metal–Organic Frameworks and Their Biodegradable Composites for Controlled Delivery of Antimicrobial Drugs. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15 (1) , 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15010274
  51. Yi-nan Wu, Yue Fang, Jiarui Fu, Lina He, Daniel Manaye Kabtamu, Ljiljana Matović, Fengting Li, Jie Li. Optimized scalable synthesis and granulation of MIL-88B(Fe) for efficient arsenate removal. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 2022, 10 (6) , 108556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.108556
  52. Wenjie Zhang, Reza Taheri-Ledari, Mahdi Saeidirad, Fateme Sadat Qazi, Amir Kashtiaray, Fatemeh Ganjali, Ye Tian, Ali Maleki. Regulation of Porosity in MOFs: A Review on Tunable Scaffolds and Related Effects and Advances in Different Applications. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 2022, 10 (6) , 108836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.108836
  53. Shiqi Peng, Rong Li, Yongfang Rao, Yu Huang, Yulei Zhao, Mingyu Xiong, Junji Cao, Shuncheng Lee. Tuning the unsaturated iron sites in MIL-101(Fe) nanoparticles for reactive oxygen species-mediated bacterial inactivation in the dark. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 2022, 316 , 121693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2022.121693
  54. Angela Bui, Steven G. Guillen, Andy Sua, Travis C. Nguyen, Angel Ruiz, Lester Carachure, Mark D.R. Weber, Araseli Cortez, Fangyuan Tian. Iron-containing metal-organic framework thin film as a drug delivery system. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 2022, 650 , 129611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2022.129611
  55. Sander Dekyvere, Mohamed Elhousseini Hilal, Somboon Chaemchuen, Serge Zhuiykov, Francis Verpoort. Sacrificial Zinc Oxide Strategy-Enhanced Mesoporosity in MIL-53-Derived Iron–Carbon Composite for Methylene Blue Adsorption. Inorganics 2022, 10 (5) , 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/inorganics10050059
  56. Linh Ho Thuy Nguyen, Y. Thi Dang, Trang Thi Thu Nguyen, Bao Quang Gia Le, Ngoc Xuan Dat Mai, Ha Van Nguyen, Minh-Tri Le, Thang Bach Phan, Tan Le Hoang Doan. Pore engineering of biomolecule-based metal–organic framework nanocarriers for improving loading and release of paclitaxel. New Journal of Chemistry 2022, 46 (14) , 6630-6635. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2NJ00416J
  57. Yi-nan Wu, Yue Fang, Jiarui Fu, Daniel Manaye Kabtamu, Ljiljana Matović, Jie Li, Fengting Li. Optimized Scalable Synthesis and Granulation of Mil-88b(Fe) Mof for Efficient Arsenate Removal. SSRN Electronic Journal 2022, 142 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4018860
  58. Amr A. Ibrahim, Shaimaa L. Ali, Mina Shawky Adly, S. A. El-Hakam, S. E. Samra, Awad I. Ahmed. Green construction of eco-friendly phosphotungstic acid Sr-MOF catalysts for crystal violet removal and synthesis of coumarin and xanthene compounds. RSC Advances 2021, 11 (59) , 37276-37289. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RA07160B
  59. Siamak Javanbakht, Malihe Pooresmaeil, Hassan Namazi, Abolfazl Heydari. Facile synthesis of Zn-based metal-organic framework in the presence of carboxymethyl cellulose: A safe carrier for ibuprofen. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2021, 191 , 531-539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.09.033
  60. Xinyue Shi, Yuying Shan, Meng Du, Huan Pang. Synthesis and application of metal-organic framework films. Coordination Chemistry Reviews 2021, 444 , 214060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2021.214060
  61. Xi-Yu Sun, Hong-Jing Zhang, Xiao-Yang Zhao, Qian Sun, Yuan-Yuan Wang, En-Qing Gao. Dual functions of pH-sensitive cation Zr-MOF for 5-Fu: large drug-loading capacity and high-sensitivity fluorescence detection. Dalton Transactions 2021, 50 (30) , 10524-10532. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1DT01772A
  62. Sima Darvishi, Siamak Javanbakht, Abolfazl Heydari, Fahimeh Kazeminava, Pourya Gholizadeh, Mahdi Mahdipour, Ahmad Shaabani. Ultrasound-assisted synthesis of MIL-88(Fe) coordinated to carboxymethyl cellulose fibers: A safe carrier for highly sustained release of tetracycline. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2021, 181 , 937-944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.04.092
  63. Ximeng Liu, Lei Zhang, John Wang. Design strategies for MOF-derived porous functional materials: Preserving surfaces and nurturing pores. Journal of Materiomics 2021, 7 (3) , 440-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmat.2020.10.008
  64. Vy Anh Tran, Sang-Wha Lee. pH-triggered degradation and release of doxorubicin from zeolitic imidazolate framework-8 (ZIF8) decorated with polyacrylic acid. RSC Advances 2021, 11 (16) , 9222-9234. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RA10423J
  65. Khaled AbouAitah, Imane M. Higazy, Anna Swiderska-Sroda, Reda M. Abdelhameed, Stanislaw Gierlotka, Tarik A. Mohamed, Urszula Szałaj, Witold Lojkowski. Anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects of nanoformulations composed of metal-organic frameworks delivering rutin and/or piperine natural agents. Drug Delivery 2021, 28 (1) , 1478-1495. https://doi.org/10.1080/10717544.2021.1949073
  66. Pamela Berilyn So, Hsin-Tsung Chen, Chia-Her Lin. De novo synthesis and particle size control of iron metal organic framework for diclofenac drug delivery. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 2020, 309 , 110495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2020.110495

ACS Omega

Cite this: ACS Omega 2020, 5, 7, 3418–3427
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b03696
Published February 12, 2020

Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Article Views

5454

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. PXRD patterns of (a) MIL-88B and (b) MIL-53 at the condition of (i) as-synthesized, (ii) after solvent exchange, and (iii) after loading with ibuprofen, in comparison to the PXRD patterns of (iv) pure ibuprofen.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. ATR-IR spectra of (a) pure ibuprofen, (b) pristine Fe-MIL-88B, (c) ibuprofen loaded Fe-MIL-88B, (d) pristine Fe-MIL-53, and (e) ibuprofen loaded Fe-MIL-53.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. N2 sorption isotherms of Fe-MIL-88B (black) and Fe-MIL-53 (red) at 77 K before and after loading with ibuprofen. Solid symbols correspond to adsorption plots, and open symbols correspond to desorption plots.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. SEM images of MIL-88B crystals (a) before and (b) after ibuprofen loading.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Profiles of cumulative ibuprofen release percentage as a function of soaking time in PBS for MIL-53 (squares) and MIL-88B (circles). The data were fitted with the Hill equation as indicated by the red plots.

    Scheme 1

    Scheme 1. Illustrative Scheme of Drug Delivery Systems and Models Considered for MIL-88B and MIL-53

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. (a) Plots of TA concentration as a function of soaking time in PBS for MIL-53 (open squares) and MIL-88B (open circles). (b) Linear regression correlation between TA concentration change and cumulative drug release percents of both MIL-53 (blue solid squares) and MIL-88B (black solid circles).

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. Effect of MIL-88B on viability of NIH-3T3 Swiss mouse fibroblasts. The error bar represents a standard deviation from 18 independent measurements.

  • References


    This article references 62 other publications.

    1. 1
      Zelikin, A. N.; Ehrhardt, C.; Healy, A. M. Materials and Methods for Delivery of Biological Drugs. Nat. Chem. 2016, 8, 9971007,  DOI: 10.1038/nchem.2629
    2. 2
      Enlow, E. M.; Luft, J. C.; Napier, M. E.; DeSimone, J. M. Potent Engineered PLGA Nanoparticles by Virtue of Exceptionally High Chemotherapeutic Loadings. Nano Lett. 2011, 11, 808813,  DOI: 10.1021/nl104117p
    3. 3
      Zhu, L.; Li, M.; Liu, X.; Jin, Y. Drug-Loaded PLGA Electrospraying Porous Microspheres for the Local Therapy of Primary Lung Cancer via Pulmonary Delivery. ACS Omega 2017, 2, 22732279,  DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.7b00456
    4. 4
      Wang, J.; Kumeria, T.; Bezem, M. T.; Wang, J.; Sailor, M. J. Self-Reporting Photoluminescent Porous Silicon Microparticles for Drug Delivery. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 32003209,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.7b09071
    5. 5
      Singh, N.; Karambelkar, A.; Gu, L.; Lin, K.; Miller, J. S.; Chen, C. S.; Sailor, M. J.; Bhatia, S. N. Bioresponsive Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles for Triggered Drug Release. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 1958219585,  DOI: 10.1021/ja206998x
    6. 6
      Tavolaro, A.; Riccio, I. I.; Tavolaro, P. Hydrothermal Synthesis of Zeolite Composite Membranes and Crystals as Potential Vectors for Drug-Delivering Biomaterials. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2013, 167, 6270,  DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2012.04.024
    7. 7
      Huxford, R. C.; Della Rocca, J.; Lin, W. Metal–organic Frameworks as Potential Drug Carriers. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2010, 14, 262268,  DOI: 10.1016/J.CBPA.2009.12.012
    8. 8
      Rojas, S.; Colinet, I.; Cunha, D.; Hidalgo, T.; Salles, F.; Serre, C.; Guillou, N.; Horcajada, P. Toward Understanding Drug Incorporation and Delivery from Biocompatible Metal–organic Frameworks in View of Cutaneous Administration. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 29943003,  DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.8b00185
    9. 9
      Horcajada, P.; Chalati, T.; Serre, C.; Gillet, B.; Sebrie, C.; Baati, T.; Eubank, J. F.; Heurtaux, D.; Clayette, P.; Kreuz, C. Porous Metal-organic-Framework Nanoscale Carriers as a Potential Platform for Drug Delivery and Imaging. Nat. Mater. 2010, 9, 172178,  DOI: 10.1038/nmat2608
    10. 10
      Horcajada, P.; Serre, C.; Maurin, G.; Ramsahye, N. A.; Balas, F.; Vallet-Regí, M.; Sebban, M.; Taulelle, F.; Férey, G. Flexible Porous Metal-organic Frameworks for a Controlled Drug Delivery. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 67746780,  DOI: 10.1021/ja710973k
    11. 11
      Miller, S. R.; Heurtaux, D.; Baati, T.; Horcajada, P.; Grenèche, J.-M.; Serre, C. Biodegradable Therapeutic MOFs for the Delivery of Bioactive Molecules. Chem. Commun. 2010, 46, 45264528,  DOI: 10.1039/c001181a
    12. 12
      Eddaoudi, M.; Moler, D. B.; Li, H.; Chen, B.; Reineke, T. M.; O’Keeffe, M.; Yaghi, O. M. Modular Chemistry: Secondary Building Units as a Basis for the Design of Highly Porous and Robust Metal–organic Carboxylate Frameworks. Acc. Chem. Res. 2001, 34, 319330,  DOI: 10.1021/AR000034B
    13. 13
      Ruiz, M. A.; Sua, A.; Tian, F. Covalent Attachment of Metal-organic Framework Thin Films on Surfaces. In Encyclopedia of Interfacial Chemistry: Surface Science and Electrochemistry; Elsevier: 2018; Vol. 4, pp 646671.
    14. 14
      Li, J.-R.; Kuppler, R. J.; Zhou, H.-C. Selective Gas Adsorption and Separation in Metal-organic Frameworks. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2009, 38, 14771504,  DOI: 10.1039/b802426j
    15. 15
      Farrusseng, D.; Aguado, S.; Pinel, C. Metal-organic Frameworks: Opportunities for Catalysis. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 75027513,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.200806063
    16. 16
      Kuo, C.-H.; Tang, Y.; Chou, L.-Y.; Sneed, B. T.; Brodsky, C. N.; Zhao, Z.; Tsung, C.-K. Yolk-Shell Nanocrystal@ZIF-8 Nanostructures for Gas-Phase Heterogeneous Catalysis with Selectivity Control. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 1434514348,  DOI: 10.1021/ja306869j
    17. 17
      Yang, J.; Zhang, F.; Lu, H.; Hong, X.; Jiang, H.; Wu, Y.; Li, Y. Hollow Zn/Co ZIF Particles Derived from Core-Shell ZIF-67@ZIF-8 as Selective Catalyst for the Semi-Hydrogenation of Acetylene. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2015, 127, 1103911043,  DOI: 10.1002/ange.201504242
    18. 18
      Dhakshinamoorthy, A.; Alvaro, M.; Garcia, H. Commercial Metal-organic Frameworks as Heterogeneous Catalysts. Chem. Commun. 2012, 48, 1127511288,  DOI: 10.1039/c2cc34329k
    19. 19
      Giménez-Marqués, M.; Hidalgo, T.; Serre, C.; Horcajada, P. Nanostructured Metal–organic Frameworks and Their Bio-Related Applications. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2016, 307, 342360,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2015.08.008
    20. 20
      Gaudin, C.; Cunha, D.; Ivanoff, E.; Horcajada, P.; Chevé, G.; Yasri, A.; Loget, O.; Serre, C.; Maurin, G. A Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship Approach to Probe the Influence of the Functionalization on the Drug Encapsulation of Porous Metal-organic Frameworks. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2012, 157, 124130,  DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2011.06.011
    21. 21
      Wu, M.-X.; Yang, Y.-W. Metal-organic Framework (MOF)-Based Drug/Cargo Delivery and Cancer Therapy. Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1606134,  DOI: 10.1002/adma.201606134
    22. 22
      Keskin, S.; Kızılel, S. Biomedical Applications of Metal organic Frameworks. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 17991812,  DOI: 10.1021/ie101312k
    23. 23
      Huang, W.; Tsui, C. P.; Tang, C. Y.; Gu, L. Effects of Compositional Tailoring on Drug Delivery Behaviours of Silica Xerogel/Polymer Core-Shell Composite Nanoparticles. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 13002,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-31070-9
    24. 24
      Cullis, P. R.; Mayer, L. D.; Bally, M. B.; Madden, T. D.; Hope, M. J. Generating and Loading of Liposomal Systems for Drug-Delivery Applications. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 1989, 3, 267282,  DOI: 10.1016/0169-409X
    25. 25
      Tamames-Tabar, C.; Cunha, D.; Imbuluzqueta, E.; Ragon, F.; Serre, C.; Blanco-Prieto, M. J.; Horcajada, P. Cytotoxicity of Nanoscaled Metal–organic Frameworks. J. Mater. Chem. B 2014, 2, 262271,  DOI: 10.1039/C3TB20832J
    26. 26
      Filippousi, M.; Turner, S.; Leus, K.; Siafaka, P. I.; Tseligka, E. D.; Vandichel, M.; Nanaki, S. G.; Vizirianakis, I. S.; Bikiaris, D. N.; Van Der Voort, P. Biocompatible Zr-Based Nanoscale MOFs Coated with Modified Poly(ε-Caprolactone) as Anticancer Drug Carriers. Int. J. Pharm. 2016, 509, 208218,  DOI: 10.1016/J.IJPHARM.2016.05.048
    27. 27
      Al Haydar, M.; Abid, H.; Sunderland, B.; Wang, S. Metal organic Frameworks as a Drug Delivery System for Flurbiprofen. Drug Des., Dev. Ther. 2017, Volume 11, 26852695,  DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S145716
    28. 28
      Horcajada, P.; Salles, F.; Wuttke, S.; Devic, T.; Heurtaux, D.; Maurin, G.; Vimont, A.; Daturi, M.; David, O.; Magnier, E. How Linker’s Modification Controls Swelling Properties of Highly Flexible Iron(III) Dicarboxylates MIL-88. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 1783917847,  DOI: 10.1021/ja206936e
    29. 29
      Serre, C.; Surblé, S.; Mellot-Draznieks, C.; Filinchuk, Y.; Férey, G. Evidence of Flexibility in the Nanoporous Iron(Iii) Carboxylate MIL-89. Dalton Trans. 2008, 0, 5462,  DOI: 10.1039/b805408h
    30. 30
      Surblé, S.; Serre, C.; Mellot-Draznieks, C.; Millange, F.; Férey, G. A New Isoreticular Class of Metal-organic-Frameworks with the MIL-88 Topology. Chem. Commun. 2006, 3, 284286,  DOI: 10.1039/b512169h
    31. 31
      McKinlay, A. C.; Morris, R. E.; Horcajada, P.; Férey, G.; Gref, R.; Couvreur, P.; Serre, C. BioMOFs: Metal-organic Frameworks for Biological and Medical Applications. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 62606266,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201000048
    32. 32
      Scherb, C.; Schödel, A.; Bein, T. Directing the Structure of Metal-organic Frameworks by Oriented Surface Growth on an organic Monolayer. Angew. Chem. Int. 2008, 47, 57775779,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.200704034
    33. 33
      Whitfield, T. R.; Wang, X.; Liu, L.; Jacobson, A. J. Metal-organic Frameworks Based on Iron Oxide Octahedral Chains Connected by Benzenedicarboxylate Dianions. Solid State Sci. 2005, 7, 10961103,  DOI: 10.1016/J.SOLIDSTATESCIENCES.2005.03.007
    34. 34
      Huang, X.; Brazel, C. S. On the Importance and Mechanisms of Burst Release in Matrix-Controlled Drug Delivery Systems. J. Controlled Release 2001, 73, 121136,  DOI: 10.1016/S0168-3659(01)00248-6
    35. 35
      Körber, M. PLGA Erosion: Solubility- or Diffusion-Controlled?. Pharm. Res. 2010, 27, 24142420,  DOI: 10.1007/s11095-010-0232-5
    36. 36
      Peppas, N. A. Analysis of Fickian and Non-Fickian Drug Release from Polymers. Pharm. Acta Helv. 1985, 60, 110111
    37. 37
      Costa, P.; Sousa Lobo, J. M. Modeling and Comparison of Dissolution Profiles. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2001, 13, 123133,  DOI: 10.1016/S0928-0987(01)00095-1
    38. 38
      Goutelle, S.; Maurin, M.; Rougier, F.; Barbaut, X.; Bourguignon, L.; Ducher, M.; Maire, P. The Hill Equation: A Review of Its Capabilities in Pharmacological Modelling. Fundam. Clin. Pharmacol. 2008, 22, 633648,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2008.00633.x
    39. 39
      Xu, B.; Yang, H.; Cai, Y.; Yang, H.; Li, C. Preparation and Photocatalytic Property of Spindle-like MIL-88B(Fe) Nanoparticles. Inorg. Chem. Commun. 2016, 67, 2931,  DOI: 10.1016/J.INOCHE.2016.03.003
    40. 40
      Shi, L.; Wang, T.; Zhang, H.; Chang, K.; Meng, X.; Liu, H.; Ye, J. An Amine-Functionalized Iron(III) Metal-organic Framework as Efficient Visible-Light Photocatalyst for Cr(VI) Reduction. Adv. Sci. 2015, 2, 1500006,  DOI: 10.1002/advs.201500006
    41. 41
      Bragg, W. L. The Diffraction of Short Electromagnetic Waves by a Crystal. Proc. Camb. Philol. Soc. 1913, 17, 4357
    42. 42
      Loiseau, T.; Serre, C.; Huguenard, C.; Fink, G.; Taulelle, F.; Henry, M.; Bataille, T.; Férey, G. A Rationale for the Large Breathing of the Porous Aluminum Terephthalate (MIL-53) upon Hydration. Chemistry 2004, 10, 13731382,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.200305413
    43. 43
      Ma, M.; Noei, H.; Mienert, B.; Niesel, J.; Bill, E.; Muhler, M.; Fischer, R. A.; Wang, Y.; Schatzschneider, U.; Metzler-Nolte, N. Iron Metal-organic Frameworks MIL-88B and NH 2 -MIL-88B for the Loading and Delivery of the Gasotransmitter Carbon Monoxide. Chem. - A Eur. J. 2013, 19, 67856790,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.201201743
    44. 44
      Walton, R. I.; Munn, A. S.; Guillou, N.; Millange, F. Uptake of Liquid Alcohols by the Flexible FeIII Metal-organic Framework MIL-53 Observed by Time-Resolved In Situ X-Ray Diffraction. Chem. - A Eur. J. 2011, 17, 70697079,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.201003634
    45. 45
      Nikseresht, A.; Daniyali, A.; Ali-Mohammadi, M.; Afzalinia, A.; Mirzaie, A. Ultrasound-Assisted Biodiesel Production by a Novel Composite of Fe(III)-Based MOF and Phosphotangestic Acid as Efficient and Reusable Catalyst. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2017, 37, 203207,  DOI: 10.1016/J.ULTSONCH.2017.01.011
    46. 46
      Feng, X.; Chen, H.; Jiang, F. In-Situ Ethylenediamine-Assisted Synthesis of a Magnetic Iron-Based Metal-organic Framework MIL-53(Fe) for Visible Light Photocatalysis. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 494, 3237,  DOI: 10.1016/J.JCIS.2017.01.060
    47. 47
      Alsop, R. J.; Armstrong, C. L.; Maqbool, A.; Toppozini, L.; Dies, H.; Rheinstädter, M. C. Cholesterol Expels Ibuprofen from the Hydrophobic Membrane Core and Stabilizes Lamellar Phases in Lipid Membranes Containing Ibuprofen. Soft Matter 2015, 11, 47564767,  DOI: 10.1039/c5sm00597c
    48. 48
      Wang, Y.; Muramatsu, A.; Sugimoto, T. FTIR Analysis of Well-Defined α-Fe2O3 Particles. Colloids Surf., A 1998, 134, 281297,  DOI: 10.1016/S0927-7757(97)00102-7
    49. 49
      Brunauer, S.; Emmett, P. H.; Teller, E. Adsorption of Gases in Multimolecular Layers. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1938, 60, 309319,  DOI: 10.1021/ja01269a023
    50. 50
      Harkins, W. D.; Jura, G. An Adsorption Method for the Determination of the Area of a Solid without the Assumption of a Molecular Area, and the Area Occupied by Nitrogen Molecules on the Surfaces of Solids. J. Chem. Phys. 1943, 11, 431432,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1723871
    51. 51
      Düren, T.; Millange, F.; Férey, G.; Walton, K. S.; Snurr, R. Q. Calculating Geometric Surface Areas as a Characterization Tool for Metal - organic Frameworks. J. Phys. Chem. C 2007, 111, 1535015356,  DOI: 10.1021/jp074723h
    52. 52
      First, E. L.; Floudas, C. A. MOFomics: Computational Pore Characterization of Metal-organic Frameworks. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2013, 165, 3239,  DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2012.07.049
    53. 53
      Vu, T. A.; Le, G. H.; Dao, C. D.; Dang, L. Q.; Nguyen, K. T.; Nguyen, Q. K.; Dang, P. T.; Tran, H. T. K.; Duong, Q. T.; Nguyen, T. V. Arsenic Removal from Aqueous Solutions by Adsorption Using Novel MIL-53(Fe) as a Highly Efficient Adsorbent. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 52615268,  DOI: 10.1039/c4ra12326c
    54. 54
      Millange, F.; Guillou, N.; Walton, R. I.; Grenèche, J.-M.; Margiolaki, I.; Férey, G. Effect of the Nature of the Metal on the Breathing Steps in MOFs with Dynamic Frameworks. Chem. Commun. 2008, 39, 47324734,  DOI: 10.1039/b809419e
    55. 55
      Devic, T.; Horcajada, P.; Serre, C.; Salles, F.; Maurin, G.; Moulin, B.; Heurtaux, D.; Clet, G.; Vimont, A.; Grenéche, J.-M. Functionalization in Flexible Porous Solids: Effects on the Pore Opening and the Host-Guest Interactions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 11271136,  DOI: 10.1021/ja9092715
    56. 56
      Matsuyama, K.; Hayashi, N.; Yokomizo, M.; Kato, T.; Ohara, K.; Okuyama, T. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide-Assisted Drug Loading and Release from Biocompatible Porous Metal-organic Frameworks. J. Mater. Chem. B 2014, 2, 75517558,  DOI: 10.1039/c4tb00725e
    57. 57
      Zheng, H.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, L.; Wan, W.; Guo, P.; Nyström, A. M.; Zou, X. One-Pot Synthesis of Metal-organic Frameworks with Encapsulated Target Molecules and Their Applications for Controlled Drug Delivery. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 962968,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.5b11720
    58. 58
      Spokoyny, A. M.; Kim, D.; Sumrein, A.; Mirkin, C. A. Infinite Coordination Polymer Nano- and Microparticle Structures. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2009, 38, 1218,  DOI: 10.1039/b807085g
    59. 59
      Serre, C.; Mellot-Draznieks, C.; Surblé, S.; Audebrand, N.; Filinchuk, Y.; Férey, G. Role of Solvent-Host Interactions That Lead to Very Large Swelling of Hybrid Frameworks. Science 2007, 315, 18281831,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1137975
    60. 60
      Liédana, N.; Galve, A.; Rubio, C.; Téllez, C.; Coronas, J. CAF@ZIF-8: One-Step Encapsulation of Caffeine in MOF. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2012, 4, 50165021,  DOI: 10.1021/am301365h
    61. 61
      Siepmann, J.; Siepmann, F. Mathematical Modeling of Drug Delivery. Int. J. Pharm. 2008, 364, 328343,  DOI: 10.1016/J.IJPHARM.2008.09.004
    62. 62
      Rothstein, S. N.; Federspiel, W. J.; Little, S. R. A Unified Mathematical Model for the Prediction of Controlled Release from Surface and Bulk Eroding Polymer Matrices. Biomaterials 2009, 30, 16571664,  DOI: 10.1016/J.BIOMATERIALS.2008.12.002
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.9b03696.

    • UV–vis spectra, BET plots and parameters, and drug release models (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.