Citation: Isabelle Macgregor-Bowles, Devin C. Bowles. Trump, Brexit, Right-wing Anti-globalisation, and An Uncertain Future for Public Health[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2017, 4(2): 139-148. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2017.2.139
| [1] | Jean-Jacques Kengwoung-Keumo . Competition between a nonallelopathic phytoplankton and an allelopathic phytoplankton species under predation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2016, 13(4): 787-812. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2016018 |
| [2] | Menghan Chen, Haihong Liu, Ruiqi Wang . Dynamical behaviors of quorum sensing network mediated by combinatorial perturbation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(5): 4812-4840. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022225 |
| [3] | Gonzalo Robledo . Feedback stabilization for a chemostat with delayed output. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2009, 6(3): 629-647. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2009.6.629 |
| [4] | Blessing O. Emerenini, Stefanie Sonner, Hermann J. Eberl . Mathematical analysis of a quorum sensing induced biofilm dispersal model and numerical simulation of hollowing effects. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2017, 14(3): 625-653. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017036 |
| [5] | Jinliang Wang, Hongying Shu . Global analysis on a class of multi-group SEIR model with latency and relapse. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2016, 13(1): 209-225. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2016.13.209 |
| [6] | Xiaomeng Ma, Zhanbing Bai, Sujing Sun . Stability and bifurcation control for a fractional-order chemostat model with time delays and incommensurate orders. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(1): 437-455. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023020 |
| [7] | Yueping Dong, Jianlu Ren, Qihua Huang . Dynamics of a toxin-mediated aquatic population model with delayed toxic responses. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(5): 5907-5924. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020315 |
| [8] | Jianquan Li, Zuren Feng, Juan Zhang, Jie Lou . A competition model of the chemostat with an external inhibitor. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2006, 3(1): 111-123. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2006.3.111 |
| [9] | Nancy Azer, P. van den Driessche . Competition and Dispersal Delays in Patchy Environments. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2006, 3(2): 283-296. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2006.3.283 |
| [10] | Frédéric Mazenc, Gonzalo Robledo, Daniel Sepúlveda . A stability analysis of a time-varying chemostat with pointwise delay. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(2): 2691-2728. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024119 |
Metal Organic Frameworks (MOFs) have received over a decade's worth of attention from different aspects of significance [1,2]. Yet new areas are being explored day by day. Bio-metal organic frameworks (Bio-MOFs) are actually a subclass of MOFs [3]. These materials contain biomolecules as linkers and biocompatible metal cations as connectors [4]. MOFs can be scaled down to the nano-regime to form nanoscale metal-organic frameworks (nano-MOFs). Recently some nanoscale MOFs have been reported [5]. Although a large number of the bulk MOF materials have been synthesized and characterized up till now, but with the passage of time, the number of research reports on the nano-MOFs are also increasing day by day [6]. Nano-bio-MOFs are the nano-sized MOF materials containing biomolecules and biocompatible metal cations. This emerging class of nano-bio-MOFs can be considered as promising candidates for the drug adsorption and controlled release due to their large surface areas, high porosity, and presence of biocompatible linker molecules [7].
Wuttke et al. have reported that MOFs materials can be designed and tuned accordingly and have been used successfully as nano-carriers with more potential compared with previously used drugs carrier materials [8,9,10]. Roder et al. have also reported the successful use of nano-sized MOF materials for drugs delivery. Due to their smaller size and high surface areas, these MOF materials are used as targeted drugs delivery vehicles. Several other research reports also reveal the use of nano-sized MOFs in the field of drugs delivery [11,12,13,14].
Sattar et al. [15] have reported the hydrothermal synthesis of three nano bio-MOFs compounds 6–8 (cobalt argeninate, cobalt asparaginate and cobalt glutaminate respectively). These compounds have been hydrothermally synthesized and characterized by Scanning Electron Microscopic (SEM) studies. Photocatalytic hydrogen production of these three compounds have been evaluated. These compounds can exhibit mulitifunctional properties. The present work comprises of the drugs adsorption studies of these three nano-bio-MOF compounds 6–8. N2 adsorption experiments of all these compounds have been recorded. In vitro drugs adsorption of four different drugs of all these compounds have been evaluated. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and powder X-ray Diffraction Analysis (Powder XRD) patterns of all these compounds in pure form and after drugs adsorption have been recorded. The amounts of adsorbed drugs and its slow release after intervals have been monitored through the High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC).
BET specific surface areas of compounds 6, 7 and 8 have been determined as 2400 m2·g−1, 2500 m2·g−1 and 2200 m2·g−1 respectively with a pore size of 10 Å by using BET-method based on calculations of N2 adsorption isotherm data. Figure 1 represents the N2 adsorption isotherm of compound 6, 7 and 8.
Figure 1. (a) N2 adsorption isotherm of compound 6, (b) BET surface area of compound 6, (c) N2 adsorption isotherm of compound 7, (d) BET surface area of compound 7, (e) N2 adsorption isotherm of compound 8, (f) BET surface area of compound 8 (A: Pure, B: after terazosine hydrochloride loading, C: after telmisartan loading, D: after glimpiride loading, E: after rosuvastatin loading).Four types of drugs (terazosine hydrochloride, telmisartan, glimpiride and rosuvastatin) have been adsorbed into compounds 6, 7 and 8. It was also elaborated that some pores were blocked after the drugs adsorptions thus decreasing the specific surface areas of this material as shown in Figure 1.
TGA plots of the as synthesized and drugs adsorbed compounds 6–8 were carried out on a SDT Q600 by heating the compounds from 0 to 600 ℃ at a heating rate of 10 ℃/min.
TGA plot of compound 6 (Figure 2a) in pure form shows first weight loss of 8% at 120 ℃ which is due to the loss of coordinated water molecule. Then up to 300 ℃ the framework shows stability with no weight loss. Second weight loss is observed at 300 ℃, which continues up to 385 ℃ with a 55% weight loss indicating the start of framework decomposition along with ligands. Then slow decomposition of framework continues gradually until the whole framework decomposes at 560 ℃ and finally the metal oxides are left. TGA plot of terazosine adsorbed compound 6 (Figure 2b) shows a weight loss of 7% at 45 ℃, which is attributed to the loss of drug molecules. At 170 ℃, the framework shows 4% weight loss which is due to the loss of coordinated water molecule. Then the framework starts to decompose. At 185 ℃ second loss of mass is observed. After that, the framework remains intact till 280 ℃, and at 285 ℃, the framework starts to decompose and this decomposition continues up to 380 ℃ with a weight loss of 58%. The whole framework decomposes along with remaining terazosine up to 590 ℃. TGA plot of telmisartan adsorbed compound 6 (Figure 2c) shows a weight loss of 5% at 40 ℃ which is due to the loss of telmisartan. At 150 ℃, a second loss of weight of 5% shows the loss of water molecules. At 250 ℃, the framework starts to decompose which continues till 300 ℃ with a maximum weight loss of 59%. TGA plot of glimpiride adsorbed compound 6 at 25 ℃ (Figure 2d) shows first weight loss of 4% which is due to the removal of glimpiride. Then the framework remains intact up to 120 ℃, and at this temperature framework shows a weight loss of 4% up to 190 ℃ which is due to removal of coordinated water molecule. At 280 ℃, the decomposition of the framework and ligands starts which continues till 330 ℃ with weight loss of 58%. The thermogram of rosuvastatin adsorbed compound 6 (Figure 2e) shows first weight loss of 4% at 30 ℃ which is due to the removal of drug. Then the framework shows stability up to 115 ℃ and at this temperature framework shows a weight loss of 4% up to 130 ℃ which is due to removal of coordinated water molecules. After 230 ℃, the decomposition of the framework and ligands starts which continues till 555 ℃ with maximum weight loss of 58%. No further weight loss observed in the remaining range studied.
Figure 2. TGA plot of compound 6, (a) Pure, (b) after terazosine hydrochloride loading, (c) after telmisartan loading, (d) after glimpiride loading, (e) after rosuvastatin loading.TGA plot of compound 7 in pure form (Figure 3a) shows first weight loss of 4% at 180 ℃ which is due to the loss of coordinated water molecule. Second weight loss is observed at 280 ℃ due to start of framework decomposition, which gradually and slowly continues up to 580 ℃ with a 30% loss of mass until the whole framework decomposes with the formation of metal oxides. TGA plot of terazosine adsorbed compound 7 (Figure 3b) shows a weight loss of 5% at 60 ℃, which is due to the loss of drug molecules. Then the framework shows stability up to 180 ℃. Second loss of mass at 180 ℃ is observed and this 9% weight loss is due to the loss of coordinated water molecule. After that, the framework remains intact till 280 ℃, and at 280 ℃, the framework starts to decompose and this decomposition continues up to 380 ℃ with a weight loss of 58%. The whole framework decomposes along with remaining terazosine up to 590 ℃. TGA plot of telmisartan adsorbed compound 7 (Figure 3c) shows a weight loss of 4% at 40 ℃ which is due to the loss of telmisartan. Another weight loss of 8% at 150 ℃ shows the loss of coordinated water molecule. Then the framework starts to decompose at 250 ℃ which continues till 300 ℃ with a maximum weight loss of 59%. A plot of glimpiride adsorbed compound 7 (Figure 3d) shows first weight loss of 4% at 50 ℃ which is due to the removal of glimpiride. At 170 ℃, the framework shows a weight loss of 8% up to 190 ℃ which is due to removal of water molecules. At 280 ℃, the decomposition of the framework and ligands starts which continues till 560 ℃ with weight loss of 58%. A TGA plot of rosuvastatin adsorbed compound 7 (Figure 3e) shows first weight loss of 3% at 45 ℃ which is due to the removal of drug. At 175 ℃, framework shows a weight loss of 8% up to 190 ℃ which is due to removal of water molecules. At 285 ℃, the decomposition of the framework and ligands starts which continues till 560 ℃ with weight loss of 58%. No further weight loss observed in the remaining range studied.
Figure 3. TGA plot of compound 7, (a) Pure, (b) after terazosine hydrochloride loading, (c) after telmisartan loading, (d) after glimpiride loading, (e) after rosuvastatin loading.The thermogram of compound 8 (Figure 4a) in pure form shows first weight loss of 5% at 129 ℃ which is due to the loss of water. Then up to 270 ℃, the framework remains intact, after that, the decomposition of framework starts along with ligands which continues till 320 ℃ with major weight loss of 60%. Decomposition continues gradually until 600 ℃ which weight loss of 68% shows complete decomposition of framework and formation of metal oxides. The thermogram of the terazosine loaded compound 8 (Figure 4b) indicates the first weight loss of 10% at 53 ℃ which is due to the loss of adsorbed terazosine molecules. Then up to 140 ℃, the framework shows stability, after that, weight loss of 25% can be observed up to 160 ℃ which is due to removal of water molecules. Gradual decomposition of framework and ligands starts after 300 ℃ and continues gradually till 590 ℃ with 60%. Thermogram of telmisartan loaded compound 8 (Figure 4c) indicates the first weight loss of nearly 6% at 30 ℃ which is due to the loss of adsorbed telmisartan molecules. Then up to 150 ℃, the framework shows stability, after that a weight loss of 10% is observed up to 155 ℃ which is due to the loss of coordinated water molecule. Then a gradual decomposition of framework and ligands starts which continues till 590 ℃ with maximum weight loss of 65%. While thermogram of glimpiride loaded compound 8 (Figure 4d) indicates the first weight loss of nearly 5% at 45 ℃ which is due to the loss of adsorbed glimpiride molecules. The framework shows stability for some time and at 175 ℃ the weight loss of 10% is observed which is due to the loss of coordinated water molecule. Then up to 340 ℃, the framework remains intact, after that gradual decomposition of framework and ligands starts which continues till 598 ℃ with maximum weight loss of 45%. The plot of rosuvastatin loaded compound 8 (Figure 4e) indicates the first weight loss of 4% at 50 ℃ which is due to the loss of adsorbed drug molecules. At 150 ℃, a weight loss of 8% is due to the loss of water molecules. Then up to 340 ℃, the framework remains intact, after that gradual decomposition of framework and ligands starts which continues till 556 ℃ with maximum weight loss of 50%. No further weight loss observed for the remaining range studies.
Figure 4. TGA plot of compound 8, (a) Pure, (b) after terazosine hydrochloride loading, (c) after telmisartan loading, (d) after glimpiride loading, (e) after rosuvastatin loading.PXRD patterns of compounds 6–8 were recorded as described in Figure 5. Powder XRD patterns of all these new synthesized materials after drugs adsorption have revealed the permanent crystalline integrity of these compounds as these have retained its crystallinity even after soaking in water for several days.
Figure 5. PXRD pattern of compound 6, (a) Pure, (b) after terazosine hydrochloride loading, (c) after telmisartan loading, (d) after glimpiride loading, (e) after rosuvastatin loading. PXRD pattern compound 7, (f) Pure, (g) after terazosine hydrochloride loading, (h) after telmisartan loading, (i) after glimpiride loading, (j) after rosuvastatin loading. PXRD pattern of compound 8, (k) Pure, (l) after terazosine hydrochloride loading, (m) after telmisartan loading, (n) after glimpiride loading, (o) after rosuvastatin loading.For estimation of the drugs in the synthesized materials, High Performance Liquid Chromatography was performed on a Waters 2695 separation module. 0.139 g/g terazosine hydrochloride, 0.090 g/g telmisartan, 0.117 g/g glimpiride and 0.129 g/g rosuvastatin have been estimated in compound 6 with a maximum release time of 3, 3, 3 and 3 d respectively. 0.195 g/g terazosine, 0.055 g/g telmisartan, 0.138 g/g glimpiride and 0.095 g/g rosuvastatin were detected in compound 7. These adsorbed amounts of drugs were slowly released from the compound after different time intervals. The maximum release time of these drugs was 5, 3, 1 and 3 d respectively. The adsorbed amounts of drugs terazosine, telmisartan, glimpiride and rosuvastatin were 0.071 g/g, 0.086 g/g, 0.135 g/g, 0.094 g/g in compound 8. Slow release of these drugs from compound 8 was observed through HPLC. The maximum release times were 1, 3, 3 and 1 d respectively. Table 1 gives summative information about the drugs adsorption capacities of compounds 6–8.
| Synthesized porous compounds | Specific Surface areas (m2/g) | Pore sizes (Å) | Names of drugs loaded in materials | Drugs loading capacity (%) | Time of release (days) |
| Compound 6 | 2400 | 10 | Terazosine hydrochloride | 0.139 | 3 |
| Telmisartan | 0.090 | 3 | |||
| Glimpiride | 0.117 | 3 | |||
| Rosuvastatin | 0.129 | 3 | |||
| Compound 7 | 2500 | 10 | Terazosine hydrochloride | 0.195 | 5 |
| Telmisartan | 0.055 | 1 | |||
| Glimpiride | 0.138 | 3 | |||
| Rosuvastatin | 0.095 | 3 | |||
| Compound 8 | 2200 | 10 | Terazosine hydrochloride | 0.072 | 1 |
| Telmisartan | 0.086 | 3 | |||
| Glimpiride | 0.135 | 3 | |||
| Rosuvastatin | 0.094 | 1 |
DownLoad: CSVFigures in Supporting Information indicate the HPLC peaks for the estimation of adsorbed drugs in the channels of compounds 6–8 and their slow release after different time periods. All the details of HPLC parameters used for HPLC studies have been given in Tables S1 and S2 in Supporting Information).
In conclusion, the present work directs towards the multifunctional use of some nanosized bio-MOFs which were previously used for photocatalysis and now have been successfully utilized for the in vitro adsorption of terazosine, telmisartan, glimpiride and rosuvastatin drugs. This work also describes the more potential use of nanoscale bio-MOFs for drugs adsorption compared with previously used large sized carrier materials. Moreover, successful in vitro drug adsorption experiments on these nanosized materials will lead to their use for in vivo drugs adsorption as well as for the welfare of humans in medical grounds.
The authors have no conflict of interest.
| [1] | Miller N (2016) A scene familiar to one across the Atlantic. The Canberra Times. |
| [2] | Berman S (2016) Populism is not Fascism: But it could be a harbinger. Foreign Aff 2016: 39-44. |
| [3] | Rothwell J, Diego-Rosell P (2016) Explaining nationalist political views: The case of Donald Trump. Gallup. |
| [4] | Mudde C (2016) Europe's populist surge. Foreign Aff 2016: 25-30. |
| [5] | Zakaria F (2016) Populism on the march: Why the West is in trouble. Foreign Aff 2016: 9-15. |
| [6] | Klein N (2014) This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate: Simon & Schuster. |
| [7] | Noland M, Robinson S, Moran T (2016) Impact of Clinton's and Trump's trade proposals. In: Noland M, Hufbauer GC, Robinson S, Moran T, editors. Assessing trade agendas in the US presidential campaign. Washington D.C.: Peterson Institute for International Economics. p 17-39. |
| [8] | Cribb J (2010) The coming famine: The global food crisis and what we can do to avoid it. Berkeley: University of California Press. |
| [9] | Gleckman H (2016) Latest Trump tax plan adds trillions to the national debt, Clinton plan trims deficits by taxing the wealthy. Tax Policy Center [Internet]. Available from: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/latest-trump-tax-plan-adds-trillions-national-debt-clinton-plan-trims-deficits-taxing-wealthy. |
| [10] | Allen K (2017) Trump presidency poses threat to global economy, warns Fitch. The Guardian [Internet]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/10/trump-presidency-poses-threat-to-global-economy-fitch-ratimngs-agency-trade-relations. |
| [11] | Quinn B (2017) US foreign aid expected to be biggest casualty of Trump's first budget. The Guardian [Internet]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/27/trump-first-budget-us-foreign-aid. |
| [12] | BBC. What does Alternative for Germany (AfD) want? London: BBC; 2016 [cited 2016 15 November]. Available from: www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37274201. |
| [13] | UNHCR. Figures at a glance Geneva: UNHCR; 2016 [cited 2016 15 November]. Available from: http://www.unhcr.org/en-au/figures-at-a-glance.html. |
| [14] | Amnesty International. Island of despair: Australia's "processing" of refugees on Nauru. London: Amnesty International, 2016. |
| [15] | Parker A, Rosenberg M (2016) Donald Trump vows to bolster nation's military capacities. New York Times. |
| [16] | Soffen K, Lu D (2017) What Trump cut in his budget. The Washington Post. |
| [17] | Bowles DC, Braidwood M, Butler CD (2014) Unholy Trinity: Climate change, conflict and ill health. In: Butler CD, editor. Climate change and global health. Wallingford: Cabi. |
| [18] | Watts N, Adger WN, Agnolucci P, et al. (2015) Health and climate change: Policy responses to protect public health. Lancet 7-59. |
| [19] | Milman O (2016) Donald Trump picks climate change sceptic Scott Pruitt to lead EPA. The Guardian [Internet]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/07/trump-scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency. |
| [20] | Smith D, Kassam A (2017) Trump orders revival of Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipeline. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/24/keystone-xl-dakota-access-pipelines-revived-trump-administration. |
| [21] | Gleick PH (2014) Water, drought, climate change, and conflict in Syria. Wea Climate Soc 6: 331-340. |
| [22] | Kelley CP, Mohtadi S, Cane MA, et al. (2015) Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112: 3241-3246. |
| [23] | Butler CD, Harley D (2010) Primary, secondary and tertiary effects of eco-climatic change: The medical response. Postgrad Med J 86: 230-234. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2009.082727. |
| [24] | Stern NH (2007) The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge: Treasury of Great Britain. |
| [25] | Stern N (2012) Ethics, equity and the economics of climate change. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. |
| [26] | Garnaut R (2011) The Garnaut review 2011: Australia in the global response to climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [27] | Bowles DC, Butler CD, Friel S (2014) Climate change and health in Earth's future. Earth's Future 2014: 60-67. doi: 10.1002/2013EF000177. |
| [28] | Butler CD (2014) Famine, hunger, society and climate change. In: Butler CD, editor. Climate Change and Global Health. Wallingford: Cabi. |
| [29] | Black R, Bennett SRG, Thomas SM, et al. (2011) Climate change: Migration as adaptation. Nature 478: 447-449. doi: 10.1038/478477a. |
| [30] | White G (2011) Climate change and migration: Security and borders in a warming world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| [31] | Welzer H (2012) Climate wars: Why people will be killed in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Polity Press. |
| [32] | Bowles DC, Reuveny R, Butler CD (2014) Moving to a better life? Climate, migration and population health. In: Butler CD, editor. Climate change and global health. Wallingford: CABI. |
| [33] | Bowles DC, Butler CD, Morisetti N (2015) Climate change, conflict and health. J R Soc Med 108: 390-395. doi: 10.1177/0141076815603234. |
| 1. | Fahimeh Asadi, Hamid Forootanfar, Mehdi Ranjbar, Ali Asadipour, Eco friendly synthesis of the LiY(MoO4)2 coral-like quantum dots in biotemplate MOF (QD/BioMOF) for in vivo imaging and ibuprofen removal from an aqueous media study, 2020, 13, 18785352, 7820, 10.1016/j.arabjc.2020.09.013 | |
| 2. | Baoting Sun, Muhammad Bilal, Shiru Jia, Yunhong Jiang, Jiandong Cui, Design and bio-applications of biological metal-organic frameworks, 2019, 36, 0256-1115, 1949, 10.1007/s11814-019-0394-8 | |
| 3. | Alireza Hashemzadeh, Gregor P. C. Drummen, Amir Avan, Majid Darroudi, Majid Khazaei, Ruhollah Khajavian, Abdolrasoul Rangrazi, Masoud Mirzaei, When metal–organic framework mediated smart drug delivery meets gastrointestinal cancers, 2021, 2050-750X, 10.1039/D1TB00155H | |
| 4. | Navid Rabiee, Monireh Atarod, Maryam Tavakolizadeh, Shadi Asgari, Mohsen Rezaei, Omid Akhavan, Ali Pourjavadi, Maryam Jouyandeh, Eder C. Lima, Amin Hamed Mashhadzadeh, Ali Ehsani, Sepideh Ahmadi, Mohammad Reza Saeb, Green metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) for biomedical applications, 2022, 335, 13871811, 111670, 10.1016/j.micromeso.2021.111670 | |
| 5. | Agni Puentes Ossa, Diego Julian Rodriguez, Julian Andres Salamanca Bernal, Computational Modeling of Light Scattering in Polymer Nanoparticles for Optical Characterization, 2024, 34, 1909-7735, 63, 10.18359/rcin.7276 |
Isabelle Macgregor-Bowles, Devin C. Bowles. Trump, Brexit, Right-wing Anti-globalisation, and An Uncertain Future for Public Health[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2017, 4(2): 139-148. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2017.2.139
| Synthesized porous compounds | Specific Surface areas (m2/g) | Pore sizes (Å) | Names of drugs loaded in materials | Drugs loading capacity (%) | Time of release (days) |
| Compound 6 | 2400 | 10 | Terazosine hydrochloride | 0.139 | 3 |
| Telmisartan | 0.090 | 3 | |||
| Glimpiride | 0.117 | 3 | |||
| Rosuvastatin | 0.129 | 3 | |||
| Compound 7 | 2500 | 10 | Terazosine hydrochloride | 0.195 | 5 |
| Telmisartan | 0.055 | 1 | |||
| Glimpiride | 0.138 | 3 | |||
| Rosuvastatin | 0.095 | 3 | |||
| Compound 8 | 2200 | 10 | Terazosine hydrochloride | 0.072 | 1 |
| Telmisartan | 0.086 | 3 | |||
| Glimpiride | 0.135 | 3 | |||
| Rosuvastatin | 0.094 | 1 |
DownLoad: CSV| Synthesized porous compounds | Specific Surface areas (m2/g) | Pore sizes (Å) | Names of drugs loaded in materials | Drugs loading capacity (%) | Time of release (days) |
| Compound 6 | 2400 | 10 | Terazosine hydrochloride | 0.139 | 3 |
| Telmisartan | 0.090 | 3 | |||
| Glimpiride | 0.117 | 3 | |||
| Rosuvastatin | 0.129 | 3 | |||
| Compound 7 | 2500 | 10 | Terazosine hydrochloride | 0.195 | 5 |
| Telmisartan | 0.055 | 1 | |||
| Glimpiride | 0.138 | 3 | |||
| Rosuvastatin | 0.095 | 3 | |||
| Compound 8 | 2200 | 10 | Terazosine hydrochloride | 0.072 | 1 |
| Telmisartan | 0.086 | 3 | |||
| Glimpiride | 0.135 | 3 | |||
| Rosuvastatin | 0.094 | 1 |
