| Literature DB >> 28811751 |
Diogo José Horst1, Sergio Mazurek Tebcherani2, Evaldo Toniolo Kubaski3, Rogério de Almeida Vieira4.
Abstract
This experimental study investigates the bioactive potential of filaments produced via hot melt extrusion (HME) and intended for fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printing purposes. The oleo-gum-resins from benzoin, myrrha, and olibanum in pure state and also charged with 10% of metal oxide nanoparticles, TiO2, P25, Cu2O, and MoO3, were characterized by ultraviolet-visible (UV-Vis) and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, energy-dispersive X-ray microanalysis (EDXMA), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). Disks were 3D-printed into model geometries (10 × 5 mm) and the disk-diffusion methodology was used for the evaluation of antimicrobial and antifungal activity of materials in study against the clinical isolates: Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Candida albicans. Due to their intrinsic properties, disks containing resins in pure state mostly prevent surface-associated growth; meanwhile, disks loaded with 10% oxides prevent planktonic growth of microorganisms in the susceptibility assay. The microscopy analysis showed that part of nanoparticles was encapsulated by the biopolymeric matrix of resins, in most cases remaining disorderly dispersed over the surface of resins. Thermal analysis shows that plant resins have peculiar characteristics, with a thermal behavior similar to commercial available semicrystalline polymers, although their structure consists of a mix of organic compounds.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28811751 PMCID: PMC5547715 DOI: 10.1155/2017/6398167
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioinorg Chem Appl Impact factor: 7.778
Figure 1Antibiogram of clinical isolates: (a) refers to C. albicans; (b) refers to E. coli; (c) refers to S. aureus; and (d) refers to P. aeruginosa microorganisms.
Antibacterial activity of materials against selected pathogenic strains.
| Oleo-gum-resin | Inhibition zone (mm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nanooxide |
|
|
|
|
| M (pure) | 1.5 ± 1.5 | 3.0 ± 0.4 | 5.5 ± 0.6 | 2.4 ± 3.2 |
| P (pure) | 2.0 ± 1.0 | 3.1 ± 0.5 | 4.7 ± 0.88 | 4.4 ± 2.4 |
| B (pure) | 1.1 ± 1.1 | 4.0 ± 0.4 | 4.0 ± 2.5 | 1.8 ± 1.8 |
| M + TiO2 | 5.2 ± 0.18 | 8.8 ± 0.32 | 7.2 ± 0.28 | 6.8 ± 0.15 |
| M + P25 | 6.0 ± 0.97 | 6.4 ± 0.11 | 6.1 ± 0.35 | 6.1 ± 0.26 |
| M + MoO3 | 5.5 ± 0.22 | 7.0 ± 0.20 | 6.6 ± 0.32 | 6.7 ± 0.92 |
| M + Cu2O | 5.0 ± 0.28 | 6.5 ± 0.91 | 6.4 ± 1.57 | 5.5 ± 0.36 |
| P + TiO2 | 5.5 ± 1.55 | 8.0 ± 0.14 | 7.7 ± 1.90 | 6.0 ± 0.21 |
| P + P25 | 5.8 ± 0.10 | 5.2 ± 0.26 | 6.2 ± 0.88 | 6.0 ± 1.74 |
| P + MoO3 | 5.5 ± 0.23 | 6.5 ± 0.36 | 7.0 ± 0.30 | 6.9 ± 1.59 |
| P + Cu2O | 5.6 ± 1.81 | 8.0 ± 0.53 | 7.4 ± 1.39 | 6.6 ± 2.13 |
| B + TiO2 | 6.0 + 0.38 | 7.7 ± 0.77 | 5.0 ± 1.80 | 6.8 ± 1.27 |
| B + P25 | 7.6 ± 0.53 | 6.2 ± 0.65 | 4.5 ± 0.36 | 6.1 ± 2.05 |
| B + MoO3 | 6.1 ± 1.70 | 8.3 ± 0.40 | 5.2 ± 1.24 | 6.5 ± 2.46 |
| B + Cu2O | 7.5 ± 1.15 | 7.0 ± 0.88 | 4.8 ± 0.36 | 7.1 ± 2.15 |
Note. The experiments were done in quadruplicate and the results were interpreted in terms of standard deviation of mean diameter of zone of inhibition.
Figure 2EDXMA analysis of metal oxides: Cu2O (a); MoO3 (b); P25 (c); TiO2 (d); Cu2O (e); MoO3 (f); P25 (g); TiO2 (h). SEM analysis of materials: B + P25 (i); M + TiO2 (j); P + Cu2O (k); B + MoO3 (l).
Figure 3X-ray diffractograms of samples in pure state and also doped with metal oxides nanoparticles.
Figure 4UV-Vis absorption spectra of samples in pure state and also doped with metal oxides nanoparticles.
Figure 5FTIR spectra of samples in pure state and also doped with metal oxides nanoparticles.
Figure 6DSC phase diagram of samples in pure state and also doped with metal oxides nanoparticles.