| Literature DB >> 30103430 |
Jie Li1, Bing Xie2, Kai Xia3, Yingchun Li4, Jing Han5, Chunmao Zhao6.
Abstract
Nano titanium dioxide (TiO₂) with photocatalytic activity was firstly modified byEntities:
Keywords: cross-linked chitosan; photocatalytic antibacterial; silver; titanium dioxide
Year: 2018 PMID: 30103430 PMCID: PMC6119987 DOI: 10.3390/ma11081403
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1The fabrication process for Ag doped TiO2-chitosan (STC) composite.
Figure 2(a) Digital photos and (b) Fourier transform infrared spectrometer (FTIR) spectra of chitosan, TiO2-chitosan (TC), and STC.
Figure 3X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) of chitosan, TC, and STC. (a) Wide scan; (b) High resolution XPS Ag 3d spectra on the surface of STC; (c) Ag MNN Auger electron spectra of STC; and, (d) High resolution XPS Ti 2p spectra on the surface of STC.
Figure 4SEM images of (a) chitosan, (b) TC and (c) STC.
Figure 5SEM images and particle size of STC composites with different glutaraldehyde dosage (a) 1.0%, (b) 1.5%, (c) 2.0%, and (d) 2.5% (v/v).
Figure 6SEM images and particle size of STC composites with different cross-linking reaction time (a) 2 h, (b) 4 h, (c) 6 h, and (d) 8 h.
Size distribution of STC composites under different reaction parameters.
| No. | Reaction Parameters | Frequency of STC (1–10 μm) (%) | Frequency of STC (10–20 μm) (%) | Frequency of STC (20–30 μm) (%) | Frequency of STC (30–40 μm) (%) | Frequency of STC (40–50 μm) (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dosage of Glutaraldehyde (% | Reaction Time (h) | Stirring Rate (r/min) | ||||||
| 1 | 1.0 | 4 | 450 | 25.00 | 39.70 | 26.48 | 8.82 | 0 |
| 2 | 1.5 | 4 | 450 | 39.13 | 26.09 | 17.39 | 8.70 | 8.70 |
| 3 | 2.0 | 4 | 450 | 54.34 | 20.23 | 9.83 | 8.09 | 5.20 |
| 4 | 2.5 | 4 | 450 | 52.82 | 28.87 | 14.09 | 3.52 | 0.70 |
| 5 | 2.0 | 2 | 450 | 21.74 | 32.61 | 34.78 | 8.70 | 2.17 |
| 6 | 2.0 | 6 | 450 | 58.64 | 17.28 | 10.47 | 8.90 | 4.19 |
| 7 | 2.0 | 8 | 450 | 68.75 | 16.67 | 7.29 | 4.17 | 1.04 |
| 8 | 2.0 | 4 | 300 | 0 | 9.09 | 4.55 | 13.64 | 24.24 |
Figure 7SEM images and particle size distribution of (a) STC-3, (b) STC-5, and (c) STC-8.
Figure 8Antibacterial activities of STC-3, STC-5, and STC-8 with typical particle size. (a) Flat colony counting method (Standard Norm ASTM E2180–07) for STC composites with typical particle size (1–10 μm, 20–30 μm and 40–50 μm), against E. coli (CGMCC 1.3373), S. aureus (CGMCC 1.2465) and P. aeruginosa (CGMCC 1.2620); and, (b) Antibacterial test quantitative evaluation results. The agar plates (bacterial concentration of 1 × 104 CFU/mL) without STC composites were treated as control group.
The colony forming units (CFU) and antibacterial rate (AR) of STC with different size range.
| Bacteria | Control | STC 40–50 μm | STC 20–30 μm | STC 1–10 μm |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CFU | CFU * | CFU * | CFU * | |
|
| 1 × 104 | 30 | 12 | 8 |
|
| 1 × 104 | 73 | 41 | 10 |
|
| 1 × 104 | 107 | 46 | 21 |
* The mean number of the colony forming units in the three repeated experiments.
Figure 9Effect of visible light photocatalysis on antibacterial activity. (a) Flat colony counting method (Standard Norm ASTM E2180–07) for chitosan, TC, STC-3 under visible-light conditions and STC-3 under dark conditions against E. coli (CGMCC 1.3373), S. aureus (CGMCC 1.2465), and P. aeruginosa (CGMCC 1.2620); and, (b) Antibacterial test quantitative evaluation results.
The colony forming units (CFU) and antibacterial rate (AR) of each sample (Chitosan, TC and STC).
| Bacteria | Control | Chitosan | TC | STC (Dark) * | STC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CFU | CFU ** | CFU ** | CFU ** | CFU ** | |
|
| 1 × 104 | 5888 | 78 | 27 | 3 |
|
| 1 × 104 | 9216 | 250 | 45 | 16 |
|
| 1 × 104 | 11456 | 406 | 127 | 24 |
* STC (dark) represents the tested sample in dark conditions. Other samples were tested under visible light conditions. ** The mean number of the colony forming units in the three repeated experiments.
Figure 10(a) Absorbance UV/vis spectra of TC and STC; and, (b) Determination of the band gap energy values for TC and STC.
Figure 11FTIR spectra of the (a) E. coli (CGMCC 1.3373), and (b) S. aureus (CGMCC 1.2465) and (c) P. aeruginosa (CGMCC 1.2620) before and after the treatment with STC under/without light exposure.
Figure 12Antibacterial mechanisms of STC composites under visible light conditions. The first step: visible light radiation for STC. The second step: generation of active hydroxyl groups by photo initiation of Ag-TiO2. The third step: silver ions and active hydroxyl attack the bacterial cell wall. The fourth step: death of bacterial.