| Literature DB >> 31491918 |
Jiří Bednář1,2, Ladislav Svoboda3,4, Zuzana Rybková5, Richard Dvorský3,4, Kateřina Malachová5, Tereza Stachurová5, Dalibor Matýsek6, Vladimír Foldyna3,7.
Abstract
Antimicrobial materials are widely used for inhibition of microorganisms in the environment. It has been established that bacterial growth can be restrained by silver nanoparticles. Combining these with other antimicrobial agents, such as ZnO, may increase the antimicrobial activity and the use of carrier substrate makes the material easier to handle. In the paper, we present an antimicrobial nanocomposite based on silver nanoparticles nucleated in general silicate nanostructure ZnO·mSiO2. First, we prepared the silicate fine net nanostructure ZnO·mSiO2 with zinc content up to 30 wt% by precipitation of sodium water glass in zinc acetate solution. Silver nanoparticles were then formed within the material by photoreduction of AgNO3 on photoactive ZnO. This resulted into an Ag-ZnO·mSiO2 composite with silica gel-like morphology and the specific surface area of 250 m2/g. The composite, alongside with pure AgNO3 and clear ZnO·mSiO2, were successfully tested for antimicrobial activity on both gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial strains and yeast Candida albicans. With respect to the silver content, the minimal inhibition concentration of Ag-ZnO·mSiO2 was worse than AgNO3 only for gram-negative strains. Moreover, we found a positive synergistic antimicrobial effect between Ag and Zn agents. These properties create an efficient and easily applicable antimicrobial material in the form of powder.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial effect; silver; synergistic effect; zinc oxide
Year: 2019 PMID: 31491918 PMCID: PMC6781028 DOI: 10.3390/nano9091265
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Dependence of the silicate composition on the chosen modulus “m”. With lower modulus, the zinc content was increasing. The modulus used in the experiment is in bold.
| ZnO∙3SiO2 | 2ZnO∙5SiO2 | ZnO∙2SiO2 | 2ZnO∙3SiO2 |
Figure 1Photoreduction of AgNO3 on the surface of photocatalytic ZnO within the pore of the silicate substrate ZnO·mSiO2. The 200-nm UV light induced an electron-hole charges separation within photocatalytic ZnO. The AgNO3 was decomposed and Ag+1 reduced to metallic Ag0 on the surface of ZnO. The limited amount of AgNO3 within pores of the substrate then caused limited growth of Ag particles.
Figure 2Backscattered electron images of: (a) silicate substrate ZnO·mSiO2 and (b) final antimicrobial material Ag-ZnO·mSiO2.
Figure 3EDX qualitative analysis of: (a) silicate substrate ZnO·mSiO2 and (b) final antimicrobial material Ag-ZnO·mSiO2. Unlabelled peaks have origin in supportive aluminium pad with carbon tape.
Figure 4(a) UV-Vis absorption spectra and (b) Tauc plots with estimated band gap values of Ag-ZnO·mSiO2 and ZnO·mSiO2 substrate.
Figure 5Photoluminescence spectroscopy of antimicrobial material Ag-ZnO·mSiO2 and ZnO·mSiO2 substrate. The solid lines are the excitation (Ex) spectra and dashed lines the emission (Em) spectra.
Figure 6XRD pattern of antimicrobial material Ag-ZnO·mSiO2. The main top pattern is decomposed to ZnO with structural defects (blue), nanocrystalline ZnO (black) and Ag (green).
MIC (mg·cm−3) for materials tested on various microbial strains of gram-positive (G+) and gram-negative (G−) bacteria. Values without deviation had the same MIC in all three tests. N/A means that MIC was not found in the measured range.
| Microbial Strains | MIC (mg·cm−3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| AgNO3 | Ag-ZnO· | ZnO· | |
| 0.005 | 2.9 ± 0.1 | 10.6 | |
| 0.005 | 3.9 ± 1.4 | 26.5 | |
| 0.16 | 5.9 ± 1.3 | 21.2 ± 2.7 | |
| 0.16 | 5.9 ± 0.1 | 21.2 | |
|
| 0.16 | 23.5 ± 0.5 | N/A |
Partial MIC of Ag (mg·cm−3) with respect to the Ag content in the material and their corresponding concentration ratios. All values have been subsequently rounded.
| Microbial Strains |
|
| Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.003 | 0.008 | 2.4 | |
| 0.003 | 0.010 | 3.3 | |
| 0.102 | 0.016 | 0.2 | |
| 0.102 | 0.016 | 0.2 | |
|
| 0.102 | 0.063 | 0.6 |
Figure 7Scheme of the synergistic effect calculation. Was the needed amount of the two separated antimicrobial agents the same as when they acted together?
Calculated partial MIC (mg·cm−3) as described in the text and the corresponding synergistic effect in a form of material savings. The Candida albicans is not listed, because Zn was inactive in the measured range and the corresponding synergistic effect could not be calculated.
| Microbial Strains |
|
|
|
| Material Saving (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.003 | 2.979 | 0.008 | 0.809 | 45.20 | |
| 0.003 | 7.447 | 0.010 | 1.090 | 70.45 | |
| 0.102 | 5.957 | 0.016 | 1.652 | 44.93 | |
| 0.102 | 5.957 | 0.016 | 1.652 | 44.93 |