| Literature DB >> 28878170 |
Dina A Mosselhy1,2, Henrika Granbohm3, Ulla Hynönen4, Yanling Ge5, Airi Palva6, Katrina Nordström7, Simo-Pekka Hannula8.
Abstract
Infected superficial wounds were traditionally controlled by topical antibiotics until the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.Entities:
Keywords: antibacterial effects; composite; mechanisms of action; prolonged silver leaching; silica; silver nanoparticles; wound dressings
Year: 2017 PMID: 28878170 PMCID: PMC5618372 DOI: 10.3390/nano7090261
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1SEM images showing (A) the spherical pristine SiO2 particles; and (B) the raspberry-like Ag–SiO2 composite with surface-immobilized Ag NPs.
The sizes of SiO2 particles and Ag NPs on the composite. The number of measured particles is 50 at a minimum for each sample. standard deviation (SD).
| Materials | SiO2 Particles | Ag Nanoparticles (NPs) of the Composite |
|---|---|---|
| Median size (nm) | 673 | 5 |
| Mean size (nm) | 674 | 5 |
| SD (nm) | 22 | 2 |
| Minimum particle size (nm) | 616 | 2 |
| Maximum particle size (nm) | 724 | 20 |
Figure 2(A,B) TEM images showing spherical Ag NPs immobilized throughout the SiO2 matrix in the raspberry-like composite at different magnifications; (C) The selected-area electron diffraction (SAED) ring pattern of the crystalline Ag NPs of the composite; and (D) the high-resolution TEM (HRTEM) image of the labeled surface-immobilized Ag NP showing the lattice fringes (d-spacing) and the corresponding fast Fourier transform (FFT) pattern (inset); (E) The energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) elemental analysis of the Ag–SiO2 composite.
Figure 3In vitro leaching profile of Ag from the filtered aqueous suspensions of the Ag–SiO2 composite (1 mg/mL), shaken at regular time intervals, shown as the average values of triplicate measurements. The bars represent the standard errors of the averages.
Figure 4Antibacterial effects of UV-treated and filter-sterilized Ag–SiO2 composites detected by the diameters of inhibition zones (IZs) on plates with (A) MRSA and (B) E. coli. (C) The diameters of IZs. The averages and standard errors of two independent agar diffusion assays are shown.
Figure 5(A,B) Antibacterial effects of Ag–SiO2 composite-impregnated gauze (Ag–SiO2-G) against MRSA (A) and E. coli (B) in the agar diffusion assay. The black and white numbers represent the sizes of the dressings and the produced IZs in mm, respectively. The white arrow points to the small IZ produced by the commercial Ag-containing dressing (CSD) (Hansaplast) against E. coli. (C) The corrected inhibition zones (CIZs) of Ag–SiO2-G and CSD.
Figure 6The prolonged antibacterial effects of Ag–SiO2-G against (A) MRSA and (B) E. coli in the Mueller–Hinton broth (MHB) turbidity assays observed after 24, 48, and 72 h of incubation. G, pristine gauze. +C, bacterial suspensions without dressings. –C, MHB without bacteria.
Figure 7Growth curves of (A) MRSA and (B) E. coli in MHB in the presence of no inhibitor (+C), Ag–SiO2-G, CSD, and pristine gauze (G). Each data point represents the average of five consecutive measurements. The standard errors were too small to be depicted. The data shown is a representative of two independent experiments.
Figure 8TEM images of (A) untreated MRSA; (B) MRSA treated with pristine SiO2 NPs; and (C,D) MRSA treated with the Ag–SiO2 composite; (E) HAADF-STEM image of MRSA treated with the composite; (F) The EDX elemental analyses of the selected areas 1 and 2 in panel E. Yellow arrows highlight the gaps between the cell walls and cytoplasmic membranes. Blue arrows show the release of cytoplasmic contents from the bacterial cells. Green arrows demonstrate the central condensation of the bacterial DNA. Red arrows indicate the disruption and loss of bacterial membranes.