| Literature DB >> 28773665 |
Maria Chiara Sportelli1, Rosaria Anna Picca2, Roberto Ronco3, Elisabetta Bonerba4, Giuseppina Tantillo5, Mauro Pollini6, Alessandro Sannino7, Antonio Valentini8, Tommaso R I Cataldi9, Nicola Cioffi10.
Abstract
Antimicrobial copper nanoparticles (CuNPs) were electrosynthetized and applied to the controlled impregnation of industrial polyurethane foams used as padding in the textile production or as filters for air conditioning systems. CuNP-modified materials were investigated and characterized morphologically and spectroscopically, by means of Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), and X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS). The release of copper ions in solution was studied by Electro-Thermal Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (ETAAS). Finally, the antimicrobial activity of freshly prepared, as well as aged samples-stored for two months-was demonstrated towards different target microorganisms.Entities:
Keywords: ETAAS; XPS; copper nanoparticle; nanoantimicrobials; polyurethane foam
Year: 2016 PMID: 28773665 PMCID: PMC5456853 DOI: 10.3390/ma9070544
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1(a) Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) micrographs of CuNPs (highlighted by arrows) synthesized by sacrificial anode electrolysis. A micrograph at higher magnification is reported as insert; (b) Size distribution histogram of as synthesized CuNPs.
Figure 2Photographs of (a) type A and (b) type B pristine polyurethane (PU) foams. Optical micrographs of pristine and Cu-treated foams; (c) Low magnification—Pristine type A foam; (d) Low magnification—Pristine type B foam; (e) High magnification—Pristine type A foam; (f) High magnification—Pristine type B foam; (g) 1:1000 Cu-modified type A foam; (h) 1:1000 Cu-modified type B foam.
Surface elemental composition estimated by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) of fresh samples A and B, treated with CuNPs. Error is expressed as the larger value between the error associated to a single quantification (0.2% for copper, 0.5% for other elements) and one standard deviation, calculated on at least three replicate analyses. Data about pristine samples are reported for comparison.
| Element | Sample A | Sample B | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pristine | PU/CuNPs (1:100) | PU/CuNPs (1:1000) | Pristine | PU/CuNPs (1:100) | PU/CuNPs (1:1000) | |
| <0.2% | 1.3 ± 0.2 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | <0.2% | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 0.3 ± 0.2 | |
| 73.7 ± 0.5 | 76.9 ± 0.5 | 79 ± 3 | 72.6 ± 0.5 | 68.4 ± 0.5 | 67.5 ± 0.5 | |
| 1.6 ± 0.5 | 1.7 ± 0.5 | 1.3 ± 0.5 | 1.6 ± 0.5 | 1.6 ± 0.5 | 2.8 ± 0.5 | |
| 23.3 ± 0.5 | 18.5 ± 0.5 | 18 ± 3 | 20.7 ± 0.5 | 24.4 ± 0.5 | 23.7 ± 0.5 | |
| 1.4 ± 0.5 | 1.6 ± 0.5 | 0.9 ± 0.5 | 4.5 ± 0.5 | 5.1 ± 0.5 | 5.7 ± 0.5 | |
| – | <0.5 | <0.5 | – | <0.5 | <0.5 | |
| – | – | – | 0.6 ± 0.5 | <0.5 | <0.5 | |
Attributions of C1s chemical environments identified on type A pristine and Cu-modified PU foams; relative abundance % of each signal component is reported for comparison. Error is expressed as one standard deviation, calculated on at least three replicate analyses.
| Sample | BE (eV) | Attribution | Relative Abundance % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pristine | 284.8 ± 0.1 | C–C | 43 ± 2 |
| 286.4 ± 0.2 | C–O, C–N | 55.8 ± 1.3 | |
| 289.0 ± 0.2 | HN–C=O | 1.2 ± 0.8 | |
| PU/CuNPs (1:100) | 284.8 ± 0.1 | C–C | 55 ± 3 |
| 286.4 ± 0.2 | C–O, C–N | 42 ± 2 | |
| 288.8 ± 0.2 | HN–C=O | 3.0 ± 1.3 |
Figure 3Typical Cu2p3/2 X-ray photoelectron (XP) high-resolution spectra of fresh (a); and aged (b) CuNP-modified polyurethane foams.
Figure 4Copper release in physiologic solution from CuNP-modified polyurethane foams, as a function of the incubation time. Different columns are relevant to different CuNP concentrations in the impregnation baths, giving rise to different Cu surface abundance on the composite. Different rows are relevant to composites obtained by different polyurethane batches or to differently aged samples.
Average values of plateau Cu concentrations and kinetic constants for samples A and B. Data about fresh and aged samples are reported. The error is expressed as the largest value between the standard deviation relevant to the repeated measurements and the error associated to individual quantifications.
| Sample | CuNPs Dilution | Plateau [Cu]/ppb | Kinetic Constant/h−1 | [Cu]0/ppb | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh | Aged | Fresh | Aged | Fresh | Aged | ||
| Sample A | 1:100 | 1200 ± 90 | 670 ± 40 | 0.20 ± 0.04 | 0.20 ± 0.04 | 0 | 40 ± 30 |
| 1:1000 | 300 ± 40 | 330 ± 20 | 0.8 ± 0.3 | 0.20 ± 0.04 | 50 ± 30 | 0 | |
| Sample B | 1:100 | 1100 ± 200 | 550 ± 40 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.40 ± 0.09 | 300 ± 100 | 40 ± 30 |
| 1:1000 | 260 ± 30 | 270 ± 20 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 30 ± 20 | 20 ± 20 | |
Number of colony forming units (CFU) for the three target microorganisms, exposed to different samples for 24 h as described in the experimental section. Error on CFU counts is ±5 in the last digit.
| Sample | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample A | PU | U a | U | U |
| PU + 0.1 M TOAC solution | 0 | U | U | |
| PU + 1:1000 CuNPs | 0 | 0 | 30 | |
| PU + 1:100 CuNPs | 0 | 0 | 25 | |
| Sample B | PU | U | U | U |
| PU + 0.1 M TOAC solution | 2 | U | U | |
| PU + 1:1000 CuNPs | U | 72 | U | |
| PU + 1:100 CuNPs | 0 | 0 | U | |
a U = Uncountable.