| Literature DB >> 29500470 |
Mohamed Shaban1, Fatma Mohamed2,3, Semsem Abdallah2,3.
Abstract
Dirt and microorganisms are the major problems in textiles which can generate unpleasant odor during their growth. Here, zinc oxide (Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29500470 PMCID: PMC5834644 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-22324-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1SEM images of (a) untreated cotton fabric; ZnO coated fabric at different concentrations of ZnO precursor solution: (b) 0.3 M, (c) 0.5 M and (d) 0.7 M at pH 7 and 20 runs; at different pH values: (e) pH 6 and (f) pH 8 at 0.5 M precursor concentration and 20 runs; at different Mg doping percent: (g) 3% Mg and (h) 7% Mg at 0.5 M precursor concentration, pH 7 and 20 runs; and (i) at 40 coating runs using 0.5 M precursor concentration, pH 7 and 0% Mg.
Figure 2XRD patterns of (a) ZnO nanoparticles prepared by the sol-gel method at 0.5 M precursor concentration, pH 7 and 0% Mg doping percent; ZnO-coated fabric at different (b) concentrations of ZnO precursor solution, (c) pH values, and (d) coating runs and Mg doping percent.
The XRD data for the ZnO NPs and ZnO-loaded fabrics at different conditions, pH values, the number of runs, and Mg%; the texture coefficient (TC), the crystallite size (D), and the dislocation density (δ).
| Planes | D (nm) | δ (10−3 dislocation/ m2) | TC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZnO | (1 0 0) | 15.86 | 3.98 | 1.674 |
| (0 0 2) | 13.66 | 5.36 | 1.817 | |
| (1 0 1) | 12.00 | 6.94 | 1.742 | |
| (1 0 2) | 8.29 | 15.55 | 0.315 | |
| (1 1 0) | 20.86 | 2.30 | 1.146 | |
| (1 0 3) | 8.89 | 12.65 | 0.405 | |
| (1 1 2) | 13.77 | 5.27 | 0.781 | |
|
| ||||
| 0.3 M | (0 0 2) | 20.3 | 2.43 | 1 |
| 0.5 M | (0 0 2) | 17.98 | 3.09 | 1.656 |
| (1 1 0) | 13.99 | 5.10 | 0.344 | |
| 0.7 M | (0 0 2) | 21.01 | 2.30 | 1 |
|
| ||||
| pH 6 | — | — | — | — |
| pH 7 | (0 0 2) | 17.98 | 3.09 | 1.656 |
| (1 1 0) | 13.99 | 5.10 | 0.344 | |
| pH 8 | (0 0 2) | 13.24 | 5.70 | 1 |
|
| ||||
| 20 run | (0 0 2) | 17.98 | 3.09 | 1.656 |
| (1 1 0) | 13.99 | 5.10 | 0.344 | |
| 40 run | (0 0 2) | 5.66 | 31.22 | 1 |
|
| ||||
| 0% Mg | (0 0 2) | 17.98 | 3.09 | 1.656 |
| (1 1 0) | 13.99 | 5.1 | 0.344 | |
| 5% Mg | (0 0 2) | 7.92 | 15.94 | 1.588 |
| (1 0 2) | 1.29 | 600.93 | 0.412 | |
| 7%Mg | (0 0 2) | 13.24 | 5.70 | 1 |
Figure 3(a) The FT-IR spectrum of ZnO-coated fabric at the optimized conditions, (b) FTIR spectra of ZnO-coated fabrics at pH 6 and pH8, (c) zeta potential, and (d) particle size distribution of ZnO nanoparticle suspension.
Figure 4Contact angles photographs for ZnO- coated fabrics fabricated at different (I) ZnO precursor concentrations, (II) pH, (III) number of runs, and (IV) Mg doping percent.
Figure 5WCA of ZnO-coated fabrics versus (a) ZnO precursor concentrations, (b) pH values, (c) number of coating runs and (d) different Mg doping values.
Figure 6Transmittance spectrum of the optimized ZnO-coated fabric. Inset: plotting of (αhν)2 versus hv for the optical band gap (E) calculation. The variation of WCA versus (b) UV illumination time, (c) Outdoor exposure time, and (d) number of polishing cycles for the optimized ZnO-coated fabric. Insets: the photographs of the water droplets on the optimized ZnO-coated fabric.
Antibacterial activity of uncoated cotton fabric and optimized ZnO-coated fabric.
| Tested Microorganisms | Un-coated Fabric | ZnO-coated Fabric | ST.(30 µg) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| 7.3 ± 0.58 | 17.3 ± 1.2 | 32.4 ± 1.2 | |
|
|
| ||
| NA | 36.4 ± 0.58 | 30.3 ± 0.63 | |
| NA | 18.8 ± 0.58 | 28.8 ± 0.58 | |
| 10.3 ± 0.63 | 20.1 ± 1.5 | 22.3 ± 1.2 |
Mean zone of inhibition in mm ± Standard deviation beyond well diameter (6 mm) produced on a range of environmental and clinically pathogenic microorganisms using (20 mg/mL) concentration of tested samples. 105 CFU/mL was utilized for antibacterial assay.
Figure 7(a) Antibacterial activity of (a) uncoated cotton fabric and (b) ZnO-coated fabric against Klebsiella pneumonia. The inset is the structural formula of ZnO-coated cellulosic cotton fabric, (b) effect of ZnO-coated fabric on zones of growth inhibition (mm) of different species of bacteria, and (c) schematic diagram of the different antibacterial mechanisms of ZnO-coated fiber.
Comparison between metal oxide coated fibers for different applications.
| Type of coating on fiber | Type of self -cleaning | Efficiency of coating for self-cleaning | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| ZnO coated fiber by pad –dry –cure method | Biological self-cleaning(antibacterial) only | - showed 99.9 and 80% reduction of |
[ |
| Polyester fiber coated ZnO | Biological self-cleaning only |
[ | |
| cotton fabrics coated with TiO2, Perfluorodecyl trichlorosilane (PFTDS) and stearic acid by sol-gel | Physical self-cleaning only | - showed super-hydrophobic cotton fabrics with contact angle ranged from 94 to 1630. |
[ |
| Polyester fabrics coated with TiO2 | Chemical and biological self-cleaning | - eliminated the chromophores of the Acid Blue 113 stain under UV and daylight irradiation. |
[ |
| cotton fabric coated with zinc oxide | Biological and physical self-cleaning | -reduced the |
[ |
| cotton fibers coated with zinc oxide by Ultrasonic irradiation | biological self-cleaning only | -showed a great drop in the bacteria activity against |
[ |
| cotton fabrics exploiting zinc oxide by dip-pad-dry-cure | Physical self -cleaning | -exhibited good photocatalytic activity against Methylene Blue and reached 100% after 24 h. |
[ |
| Cotton fiber coated with zinc oxide by sol-gel | Physical self-cleaning and biological self –cleaning | -exhibited enhanced antibacterial activities against different species of bacteria, especially K. pneumonia. | Present paper |