| Literature DB >> 28468278 |
Elias E Elemike1,2,3, Omolola E Fayemi4,5, Anthony C Ekennia6, Damian C Onwudiwe7,8, Eno E Ebenso9,10.
Abstract
Synthesis of metallic and semiconductor nanoparticles through physical and chemical routes has been extensively reported. However, green synthesized metal nanoparticles are currently in the limelight due to the simplicity, cost-effectiveness and eco-friendliness of their synthesis. This study explored the use of aqueous leaf extract of Costus afer in the synthesis of silver nanoparticles (CA-AgNPs). The optical and structural properties of the resulting silver nanoparticles were studied using UV-visible spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and Fourier transform infra-red spectrophotometer (FTIR). TEM images of the silver nanoparticles confirmed the existence of monodispersed spherical nanoparticles with a mean size of 20 nm. The FTIR spectra affirmed the presence of phytochemicals from the Costus afer leaf extract on the surface of the silver nanoparticles. The electrochemical characterization of a CA-AgNPs/multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT)-modified electrode was carried out to confirm the charge transfer properties of the nanocomposites. The comparative study showed that the CA-AgNPs/MWCNT-modified electrode demonstrated faster charge transport behaviour. The anodic current density of the electrodes in Fe(CN)₆]4-/[Fe(CN)₆]3- redox probe follows the order: GCE/CA-Ag/MWCNT (550 mA/cm²) > GCE/MWCNT (270 mA/cm²) > GCE (80 mA/cm²) > GCE/CA-Ag (7.93 mA/cm²). The silver nanoparticles were evaluated for their antibacterial properties against Gram negative (Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumonia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and Gram positive (Bacillus subtilis and Staphylococcus aureus) pathogens. The nanoparticles exhibited better inhibition of the bacterial strains compared to the precursors (leaf extract of Costus afer and silver nitrate). Furthermore, the ability of the nanoparticles to scavenge DPPH radicals at different concentrations was studied using the DPPH radical scavenging assay and compared to that of the leaf extract and ascorbic acid. The nanoparticles were better DPPH scavengers compared to the leaf extract and their antioxidant properties compared favorably the antioxidant results of ascorbic acid. The green approach to nanoparticles synthesis carried out in this research work is simple, non-polluting, inexpensive and non-hazardous.Entities:
Keywords: Costus afer; antibacterial; antioxidant; electrochemical; silver nanoparticles
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28468278 PMCID: PMC6154536 DOI: 10.3390/molecules22050701
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1UV-vis spectra showing the surface plasmon resonance exhibited by the nanoparticles at different time intervals.
Figure 2The FTIR spectra of the (a) Costus afer leaf and (b) biosynthesized AgNPs.
Figure 3(a) SEM and (b) TEM images of the as-synthesized Costus afer mediated silver nanoparticles (c) SEM and (d) TEM images of the CA-AgNPs/MWCNT.
Figure 4TG/DTG and DSC curves of the CA-AgNPs obtained in nitrogen atmosphere.
Figure 5Cyclic Voltammograms of GCE/CA-Ag (green), bare GCE (black), GCE/MWCNT (blue), and GCE/CA-Ag/MWCNT (red) in 5mM Fe(CN)6]4−/[Fe(CN)6]3− solution prepared in 0.1 M PBS at scan rate 25 mVs−1.
Figure 6Cyclic voltammograms obtained for (a) GCE/CA-AgNPs/MWCNT in FECN solution prepared in 0.1 M PBS (scan rate: 25–500 mVs−1; inner to outer); (b) Linear plots of Ipa vs. V1/2 and Ipc vs. V1/2 for GCE/CA-AgNPs/MWCNT in 5 mM Fe(CN)6]4−/[Fe(CN)6]3− solution prepared in 0.1 M PBS.
Figure 7Typical Nyquist plots (a) obtained for the electrodes in 5 mM Fe(CN)6]4−/[Fe(CN)6]3− solution prepared in 0.1 M PBS (pH 7) at a fixed potential of 0.2 V (vs. Ag|AgCl, saturated KCl) (b(i,ii)) represent the circuits used in the fitting of the EIS data.
Impedance data obtained for the bare GCE and the modified electrodes in 5 mM Fe(CN)6]4−/[Fe(CN)6]3− solution at 0.2 V (vs. Ag|AgCl saturated KCl). All values were obtained from the fitted impedance spectra. The values in parentheses are percent errors of data fitting.
| GCE | 116.10 (1.04) | 4.53 (4.05) | 1572.00 (1.14) | 0.14 (10.97) |
| GCE/MWCNT | 82.30 (0.59) | 0.36 (3.33) | 15.00 (27.05) | 302.10 (23.24) |
| GCE/CA-AgNPs | 72.20 (0.50) | 0.66 (2.52) | 76.50 (4.36) | 399.00 (4.65) |
| GCE/CA-AgNPs/MWCNT | 76.10 (2.37) | 0.21 (5.46) | 74.70 (11.74) | 100.30 (9.79) |
Figure 8Bode plots obtained for some of the electrodes, showing (a) the plots of phase angle/deg. vs. log (f/Hz)) and (b) the plot of log |Z/Ω| vs. log (f/Hz).
Figure 9Histogram representation of the antibacterial results.
Descriptive table for antibacterial studies.
| Microbial Strains | MIC | Mean | Std. Deviation | Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Strains | Samples | |||
| CA-AgNPs | 23.00 a | 1.414 | 0 | |
| Plant extract (CA) | 13.00 b | 2.828 | ||
| AgNO3 | 8.00 b,c | 2.828 | ||
| Gentamycin | 21.50 a,d | 0.707 | ||
| DMSO | 00.00 e | 0 | ||
| CA-AgNPs | 20.50 a | 0.707 | 0 | |
| Plant extract (CA) | 10.50 b | 0.707 | ||
| AgNO3 | 12.00 b,c | 1.414 | ||
| Gentamycin | 24.00 a,d | 1.414 | ||
| DMSO | 00.00 e | 0 | ||
| CA-AgNPs | 17.50 a | 0.707 | 0 | |
| Plant extract (CA) | 7.50 b | 2.121 | ||
| AgNO3 | 14.00 a,c | 1.414 | ||
| Gentamycin | 20.00 a,d | 0 | ||
| DMSO | 00.00 e | 0 | ||
| CA-AgNPs | 14.00a | 1.414 | 0.001 | |
| Plant extract (CA) | 11.00 a,b | 4.243 | ||
| AgNO3 | 4.00 b,c | 0 |
Values (in mm) represent the mean of double replications and their standard deviation; Gentamycin; Standard antibacterial drug used as positive control for antibacterial studies, Negative control DMSO and R = resistant. Post Hoc analysis (Tukey HSD test): Mean values in the same column with similar super scripted alphabets were not significantly different, while those with different alphabets are significantly different.
MIC values of silver nanoparticles (CA-AgNPs).
| 10 μg/mL | |
| 25 μg/mL | |
| 25 μg/mL | |
| 10 μg/mL | |
| 40 μg/mL |
Figure 10Histogram presentation of DPPH radical scavenging results.
Antioxidant results.
| Concentration (μg/mL) | CA-AgNPs | Sig | Plant Extract (CA) | Sig | Ascorbic Acid | Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | 39 ± 0.107 a | 0.000 | 37 ± 0.154 a | 0.027 | 48 ± 0.257 a | 0.001 |
| 50 | 53 ± 0.134 a | 48 ± 0.017 a,b | 53 ± 0.035 a,b | |||
| 75 | 70 ± 0.108 b | 51 ± 0.058 a,b,c | 75 ± 0.045 c | |||
| 100 | 93 ± 0.068 c | 67 ± 0.172 b,c | 95 ± 0.003 d |
Mean values are the percentage DPPH radical scavenging ability of the samples at different concentrations. Post Hoc analysis (Tukey HSD test): Mean values in the same column with similar super scripted alphabets were not significantly different, while those with different alphabets are significantly different.