| Literature DB >> 35053094 |
Alessandro Di Cerbo1, Andrea Mescola2, Giuseppe Rosace3, Valentina Trovato3, Roberto Canton4, Ramona Iseppi5, Roberta Stocchi1, Shakira Ghazanfar6, Stefano Rea1, Anna Rita Loschi1, Carla Sabia5.
Abstract
Aluminum is the second most widely used metal worldwide. It is present as an additive in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, food, and food contact materials (FCM). In this study, we confirm the bactericidal effect of a special anodizing method, based on TiO2 nanoparticles (DURALTI®) deposited on aluminum disks with different roughness and subjected to two sanitizing treatments: UV and alcohol 70%. Consequently, we perform a time-course evaluation against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria to better frame the time required to achieve the best result. Approximately 106 CFU/mL of Escherichia coli ATCC 25922; Salmonella Typhimurium ATCC 1402; Yersinia enterocolitica ATCC 9610; Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27588; Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538; Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212; Bacillus cereus ATCC 14579 and Listeria monocytogenes NCTT 10888 were inoculated onto each aluminum surface and challenged with UV and alcohol 70% at 0, 15", 30", 1', 5', 15', 30', 1, 2, 4 and 6 h. DURALTI® coating already confirmed its ability to induce a 4-logarithmic decrease (from 106 to 102 CFU/mL) after 6 h. Once each sanitizing treatment was applied, an overall bacterial inhibition occurred in a time ranging from 15'' to 1'. The results are innovative in terms of preventing microbial adhesion and growth in the food industry.Entities:
Keywords: TiO2; aluminum; bacterial inhibition; food contact materials; sanitizing treatments
Year: 2022 PMID: 35053094 PMCID: PMC8772801 DOI: 10.3390/biology11010097
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biology (Basel) ISSN: 2079-7737
Figure 1FTIR spectra of R0.25, R0.5 and R1 uncoated and DURALTI®-coated aluminum disks in the range between (A) 4000–530 cm−1 and 4000–1200 cm−1 (B).
Figure 2Graphical representation of Gram-positive bacterial counts (A–L) at different exposure times on uncoated aluminum disks with different surface roughness (R0.25, R0.5 and R1 μm) and subjected to UV and alcohol sanitizing methods.
Figure 3Graphical representation of Gram-positive bacterial (A–L) counts at different exposure times on DURALTI®-coated aluminum disks with different surface roughness (R0.25, R0.5 and R1 μm) and subjected to UV and alcohol sanitizing methods.
Figure 4Graphical representation of Gram-negative bacterial counts (A–L) at different exposure times on uncoated aluminum disks with different surface roughness (R0.25, R0.5 and R1 μm) and subjected to UV and alcohol sanitizing methods.
Figure 5Graphical representation of Gram-negative bacterial counts (A–L) at different exposure times on DURALTI®-coated aluminum disks with different surface roughness (R0.25, R0.5 and R1 μm) and subjected to UV and alcohol sanitizing methods.
Figure 6ESEM morphological analysis of (A) uncoated, (B) DURALTI®-coated aluminum disks at 1 μm roughness; (C) X-EDS microanalysis of a DURALTI®-coated aluminum disk at 1 μm roughness.
Figure 7Images of steady-state water CA of uncoated and DURALTI®-coated aluminum disks.
Roughness profile and CA measurements of uncoated and coated aluminum disks. The standard deviation was computed considering ten repeated tests performed on each sample.
| Sample | Roughness (µm) | CA (°) | CA Change (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| R0.25 uncoated | 0.25 | 85.4 ± 4.2° | 1.3 |
| R0.25 DURALTI®-coated | 0.25 | 86.7 ± 1.5° | |
| R0.5 uncoated | 0.50 | 86.7 ± 2.1° | −18.0 |
| R0.5 DURALTI®-coated | 0.50 | 71.1 ± 6.0° | |
| R1 uncoated | 1.00 | 85.0 ± 1.3° | −16.0 |
| R1 DURALTI®-coated | 1.00 | 71.4 ± 5.4° |