| Literature DB >> 32290155 |
Muhammad Asim Akhtar1, Kanwal Ilyas1, Ivo Dlouhý2, Filip Siska2, Aldo R Boccaccini1.
Abstract
Bacterial infection associated with medical implants is a major threat to healthcare. This work reports the fabrication ofEntities:
Keywords: antibacterial; chitosan; coatings; complexes; copper; electrophoretic deposition
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32290155 PMCID: PMC7177350 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21072637
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Zeta potential and electrophoretic mobility of the suspensions used for electrophoretic deposition (EPD).
| Sample | Zeta Potential (mV) at pH 4.7 | Zeta Potential Dev. (mV) |
|---|---|---|
|
| +29 | 6 |
|
| +29 | 6 |
|
| +21 | 6 |
|
| +22 | 6 |
|
| +22 | 7 |
Figure 1Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) morphologies of coatings (A) Chitosan (CS), (B) Copper(II)–Chitosan (Cu(II)–CS), and (C) cross-sectional image of Cu(II)–CS4, indicating a coating thickness of around 40μm.
Figure 2EDX spectra of coatings: (A) SEM image of CS, (B) EDX pattern of CS, (C) SEM image of Cu(II)–CS4, (D) EDX pattern of Cu(II)–CS4, and (E) Cu mapping on Cu(II)–CS4 coating.
Calculated amount of Cu in the coatings by using energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX).
| Samples | Cu(II)–CS1 | Cu(II)–CS2 | Cu(II)–CS3 | Cu(II)–CS4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theoretical X % | 3 | 6 | 12 | 18 |
| CukL/ Ckα % | 2.93 ± 0.23 | 5.82 ± 0.28 | 11.45 ± 0.22 | 16.50 ± 0.27 |
Figure 3Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectra of CS and Cu(II)–CS4 coatings. The relevent peaks are discussed in the text.
Figure 4X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of CS and Cu(II)–CS4 coatings.
Figure 5Overall variation of the hardness of the different coatings. Significantly different coatings from the CS coating are highlighted (* p < 0.05).
Critical load values in scratch test with respect to standard deviations of CS and its complex coatings.
| Samples ID | CS | Cu(II)–CS1 | Cu(II)–CS2 | Cu(II)–CS3 | Cu(II)–CS4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Critical load (N) | 2.2 | 2.8 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.4 |
| SD | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
Figure 6SEM images of sctratchs on coatings at lower and higher loads (A,B) CS, (C,D) Cu(II)–CS1, (E,F) Cu(II)–CS2, (G,H) Cu(II)–CS3, and (I,J) Cu(II)–CS4 coatings.
Figure 7Swelling behaviour of CS and Cu(II)–CS complex coatings with different Cu(II) concentrations with respect to time. Tests were carried out in phosphate buffered saline (PBS).
Figure 8Degradation behaviour of CS and Cu(II)–CS coatings with different Cu(II) concentrations with respect to time in lysozyme–PBS solution.
Figure 9(A) Average contact angle of water droplets on CS and Cu(II)–CS coatings measured at three timepoints (i.e., immediately after deposition, after 3 min and 5 min) and (B) profiles of water droplets on CS and Cu(II)–CS coatings immediately after deposition.
Figure 10Bacterial growth as % of colonized area: (A) Staphylococcus aureus and (B) Escherichia Coli. (C) Optical Images of recultivated bacterial colonies on agar after 3 h of incubation for the different samples investigated.
Figure 11(A) Graph representing MG-63 cell viability (WST-8 assay) on different samples investigated, (* p < 0.05). (B) fluorescence microscope images showing the results of calcein-DAPI staining after 24 h of culture with CS and Cu(II)–CS coatings with different concentration of Cu(II).
Amounts of Cu2+ in CS with different molar ratios and crossonding sample labelling.
| Sample Labels | X (%) | Cu2+: NH2 |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | - |
|
| 3 | 1:33 |
|
| 6 | 1:17 |
|
| 12 | 1:8 |
|
| 18 | 1:6 |