| Literature DB >> 34883737 |
Nazihah Nasri1, Arjulizan Rusli1, Naozumi Teramoto2, Mariatti Jaafar1, Ku Marsilla Ku Ishak1, Mohamad Danial Shafiq1, Zuratul Ain Abdul Hamid1.
Abstract
The astonishing outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, known as COVID-19, has attracted numerous research interests, particularly regarding fabricating antimicrobial surface coatings. This initiative is aimed at overcoming and minimizing viral and bacterial transmission to the human. When contaminated droplets from an infected individual land onto common surfaces, SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is able to survive on various surfaces for up to 9 days. Thus, the possibility of virus transmission increases after touching or being in contact with contaminated surfaces. Herein, we aim to provide overviews of various types of antiviral and antimicrobial coating agents, such as antimicrobial polymer-based coating, metal-based coating, functional nanomaterial, and nanocomposite-based coating. The action mode for each type of antimicrobial agent against pathogens is elaborated. In addition, surface properties of the designed antiviral and antimicrobial polymer coating with their influencing factors are discussed in this review. This paper also exhibits several techniques on surface modification to improve surface properties. Various developed research on the development of antiviral/antimicrobial polymer coating to curb the COVID-19 pandemic are also presented in this review.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; antimicrobial; antiviral; coating; nanoparticles; polymer coating properties
Year: 2021 PMID: 34883737 PMCID: PMC8659939 DOI: 10.3390/polym13234234
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Classification of various antimicrobial agents/materials for development of antimicrobial surface coating.
Application of antimicrobial polymer coating with their antimicrobial activity efficiency.
| Coating Materials | Coating Techniques | Microbes | Antimicrobial Activity | Application | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Poly(allylamine)-poly(sodium 4-styrenesulfonate)/poly(allylamine hydrochloride) multilayer | Plasma polymerization and layer-by-layer assembly | 77.78 ± 1.72% | Titanium implant antibacterial coating | [ | |
| An amphiphilic polymer made up of polyoxypropylene (poly(propylene oxide)) flanked with two hydrophilic chains of polyoxyethylene (poly(ethylene oxide)), embedded with chlorine dioxide, copper, and L-vitamin C | Not mentioned | Influenza A (H1N1), | No virus plaque observed | Antipathogenic coating for additional measure | [ |
| PEI-silver nanoparticle and copper nanoparticle membrane | Covalent linking via layer-by-layer | MS2 bacteriophage | 4.5 to 5 log reduction | Membrane filter for drinking water | [ |
| Polyvinylpyyrolidone/titanium dioxide | Simple dip coating |
| The width of inhibition zone ranges from 4.5 to 8 mm | Medical device coating with improved blood compatibility and antimicrobial activity | [ |
| Physical painting using cotton swab | Influenza A wild-type and resistant type (H3N2) and avian influenza A wild-type and resistant type (H4N2) | 100% biocidal efficiency for all tested viruses | Antiviral surface painting | [ | |
| Poly(hydantoinylacrylamide-co-3-(trimethyoxysilyl)propyl methacrylate) (HASL) | Covalent binding with cellulose cotton fabric | About 6 log reduction in all tested microbes | Not mentioned | [ | |
| Poly(hydantoinylacrylamide-co-glycidyl methacrylate) (HAGM) | Covalent binding with cellulose cotton fabric | ||||
| Poly(hydantoinylacrylamide-co-2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (HAOH) | Cross-linking via an agent to cellulose cotton fabric | ||||
| Poly(L-lactide)/poly (ε-caprolactone)/propolis | Solvent casting |
| Inhibition zone diameter ranges from 13 to 17 nm | Guided tissue regeneration application | [ |
| Covalent attachment | Poliovirus | 100% virucidal activity | Aqueous solution disinfection | [ | |
| Physical painting | Influenza virus, | 100% virucidal and bactericidal activity | Not mentioned | [ | |
| Polyester/polyurethane/levofloxacin | Hot-press polymer immobilization |
| No viable bacteria found on coated substrate | Antimicrobial implant coating application | [ |
|
| |||||
| Carboxymethylcellulose/chitosan multilayer | Chemical cross-linked layer-by-layer assembly | 74% reduction at 24 h | Superhydrophilic coating for ophthalmic applications | [ | |
| Carrageenan/green tea extract | Simple dip coating | Murine norovirus (MNV-1) and hepatitis A virus (HAV) | Below detection limit at any condition | Antiviral edible coating for fruits | [ |
| Chitosan/green tea extract film coating | Solution casting onto polypropylene film | Murine norovirus (MNV-1) | 1.6 to 4.5 logs PFU/mL reduction after 24 h incubation | Active food packaging | [ |
| Chitosan | Covalent linking via silanization step | No viable cells observed after 24 h | Antibacterial surface for biomedical devices | [ | |
| Carrageenan/citric acid | Not mentioned | Inhibition zone diameter for carrageenan film with highest concentration of citric acid ranges from 3.25 ± 0.29 mm to 4.18 ± 0.28 mm | Biodegradable film | [ | |
| Gelatin/chitosan/d-limonene | Solvent casting |
| Film containing highest d-limonene concentration has inhibition zone diameter with 22.0 ± 1.2 mm | Antimicrobial edible film for food packaging | [ |
| Polyelectrolyte multilayer composed of carrageenan and chitosan embedded with nisin Z | Layer-by-layer coating | Kill over 90% and 99% of planktonic and biofilm cells, respectively | Antimicrobial multilayer coating | [ | |
Figure 2Antimicrobial mechanism of cationic polymer on bacterial cell membrane. (i) Adsorption of cationic polymer onto bacterial cell membrane via electrostatic interaction and (ii) insertion of cationic polymer into phospholipid membrane bilayer causing translocation of anionic lipids and leading to cell burst.
Figure 3Several synthesis reactions for quaternized chitosan derivatives: (a) Direct quatenization of chitosan producing TMC, (b) N-alkylation of TMC, and (c) epoxy-derivative ring-opening producing N-((2-hydroxy-3-trimethylammonium)propyl) chitosan chloride (HTCC).
Figure 4Synthesis of P(DMAEMA-co-MMA), an amphiphilic copolymer from hydrophilic DMMAEMA monomer and hydrophobic MMA monomer.
Figure 5Mechanism of surfactants for inactivating virus.
Figure 6Antimicrobial mechanism of copper ions through ROS production and metal donor atom selectivity.
Inorganic metal nanoparticles: sources, physical characteristics, and antimicrobial activity.
| Inorganic Metal | Synthesis Route | Size and Shape | Antimicrobial Activity | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ag | Biological synthesis using | 11.6–20.7 nm | Inhibition zone diameter ranged from 14 to 22 mm for | [ |
| Ag | Biological synthesis using | 10.12–27.89 nm | The antiviral activity was measured based on IC50
1 (µg/mL) | [ |
| Ag | Biological synthesis using bacterial enzyme | 77–92 nm | Inhibited the growth of Bean Yellow Mosaic Virus | [ |
| Silver oxide (AgO) | Biological synthesis using bioactive compounds from | 14.42–48.97 nm | 49.23% reduction of HSV-1 reproduction in dilution ranging from 10−1–10−8 | [ |
| Au | Biological synthesis using bioactive compounds from | 15.60–77.13 | 42.75% reduction of HSV-1 reproduction in dilution ranging from 10−1–10−8 | |
| Copper oxide (CuO) | Biological reduction using | 61.48 ± 2 nm | Inhibited | [ |
| Manganese (Mn) | Biological reduction using curcumin ethanolic extract | In the range of 50 nm | Inhibition zone diameter ranged from 11 to 20 mm for various bacterial species and fungal species | [ |
| Ag | Biological reduction using | 5 nm | More than 90% inhibition against chikungunya virus (CHIKV) at different nanoparticle concentrations (0.05 mg/mL, 0.1 mg/mL, and 0.2 mg/mL) | [ |
| Iron (Fe) | 32 nm | |||
| ZnO | 12 nm | |||
| Aluminum oxide (Al2O3) | Biological reduction using | 34.5 nm | Complete growth inhibition against | [ |
| Titanium dioxide (TiO2) | Biological reduction using | 32.58 nm | Maximum inhibition zone diameters achieved were 25 mm and 23 mm for | [ |
| Nickel oxide (NiO) | Biological reduction using | 10 to 20 nm | Inhibition zone diameter ranged from 13 to 17 mm for various bacteria | [ |
| Au-Ag-zinc ZnO-chlorine dioxide nanocomposite | Chemical reduction using citric acid | 20–40 nm for AuNP | Inhibited 93.5–100% of SARS-CoV-2 formation | [ |
| Au | Chemical reduction using mixture of tetraethoxysilane and triethoxysilane | 1.5–20 nm | 55–96% inhibition of adenovirus reproduction in MDBK cell culture at various nanoparticle dilutions | [ |
| ZnO | Chemical synthesis via molten salt method | 39.7 nm | Growth curve of both | [ |
| CuO | Chemical synthesis using sodium hydroxide | Average diameter is 10 nm | 99%, 98%, and 93% growth reduction in | [ |
| Ag | Electrochemical | 7.1 nm | Effective concentration was 3.13 ppm against poliovirus | [ |
| Ag nanocluster with silica composite | Radio frequency co-sputtering process with argon | Less than 200 nm | 100% inhibition against coronavirus | [ |
1 IC50 is the half maximal inhibitory concentration of antimicrobial agent and is measured in µg/mL.
Figure 7Antiviral mechanism of metal nanoparticles during virus infection.
Figure 8Three different interfacial boundaries’ contact line for water contact angle.
Figure 9Contact angle of the liquid droplet between (a) hydrophilic surface and (b) hydrophobic surface.
Figure 10Wetting of liquid droplets on rough surfaces. (a) Wenzel model and (b) Cassie–Baxter model.
Advantages and limitations of surface modification techniques.
| Modification | Advantages | Disadvantages | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plasma Surface Treatment |
Low-cost, reliable, and reproducible, Short surface treatment time, Versatility, can be used for diverse range of surface materials, Environmentally friendly and operator friendly, Can be scaled up to industrial production. |
High investment cost, Effective plasma dose determination without damaging treated substrate, Decontamination of uneven surfaces may be inefficient. | [ |
| Microwave Radiation |
Non-contact heating, suitable for heat-sensitive materials, Relatively low cost, energy, and treatment time compared to others, Good instantaneous control and reduced environment pollution. |
Low productivity. | [ |
| Laser Surface Texturing or Patterning |
Can modify polymeric surfaces at a macro-, micro-, and nano-size scale with a high spatial and temporal resolution, Contamination can be easily avoided due to non-contact treatment, High processing speed, high automation, and possibility to treat large areas, No utilization of harmful chemical reagents. |
Costly. | [ |
| Ultraviolet Irradiation Surface Treatment |
Fast reaction rate, Low cost of processing, Relatively simple process equipment. |
Non-uniform and low density of surface functionalization. | [ |
| Acid/Alkali Hydrolysis |
Increased surface energy, Removes contamination, Low cost and simple process, High selectivity. |
The introduction of oxygen containing functional groups onto the surface is non-specific, Difficult to be scaled up, Residual ion deposition. | [ |
| Abrasive Blasting or Sand Blasting |
Produce uniform roughness on the surface, Can be applied onto surfaces with irregular shape. |
Possibility for leaving contaminants on the treated surface. | [ |
| Chemical Vapor Deposition |
Solvent-free process, Producing a highly uniform coating on complex geometries. |
Requires highly specialized equipment, High initial investment. | [ |
| Click Grafting |
Easy introduction, Controllable density, Exact localization of graft chains at the surface without changing bulk properties of substrate. |
Requires additional processing steps. | [ |
Figure 11Plasma surface treatment changing surface morphology and functional group formation on the treated surface.