Abstract
The past few decades have witnessed a dramatic increase in the development of polymeric biomaterials. These biomaterials have to undergo a sterilization procedure before implantation. However, many sterilization procedures have been shown to profoundly affect polymer properties. Poly(ethylene glycol) hydrogels have gained increasing importance in the controlled delivery of therapeutics and in tissue engineering. We evaluated the effect of ethylene oxide (EtO), hydrogen peroxide (H~2~O~2~), and gamma sterilization of poly(ethylene glycol) hydrogels on properties relevant to controlled drug delivery and tissue engineering. We observed that the release of cyclosporine (CyA) (an immunosuppressive drug that is effective in combating tissue rejection following organ transplantation) was significantly affected by the type of sterilization. However, that was not the case with rhodamine B, a dye. Hence, the drug release characteristics were observed to be dependent not only on the sterilization procedure but also on the type of agent that needs to be delivered. In addition, differences in the swelling ratios for the sterilized and unsterilized hydrogels were statistically significant for 1:1 crosslinked hydrogels derived from the 8000 MW polymer. Significant differences were also observed for gamma sterilization for 1:1 crosslinked hydrogels derived from the 3350 MW polymer and also the 2:1 crosslinked hydrogels derived from the 8000 MW polymer. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) studies revealed that the roughness parameter for the unsterilized and EtO‐sterilized PEG hydrogels remained similar. However, a statistically significant reduction of the roughness parameter was observed for the H~2~O~2~ and gamma‐sterilized samples. Electron spin resonance (ESR) studies on the unsterilized and the sterilized samples revealed the presence of the peroxy and the triphenyl methyl carbon radical in the samples. The gamma and the H~2~O~2~‐sterilized samples were observed to have a much higher concentration of the radical pecies when compared with the EtO and the unsterilized samples. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res, 2008