| Literature DB >> 35163084 |
Martin Birkett1, Lynn Dover2, Cecil Cherian Lukose1, Abdul Wasy Zia1, Murtaza M Tambuwala3, Ángel Serrano-Aroca4.
Abstract
International interest in metal-based antimicrobial coatings to control the spread of bacteria, fungi, and viruses via high contact human touch surfaces are growing at an exponential rate. This interest recently reached an all-time high with the outbreak of the deadly COVID-19 disease, which has already claimed the lives of more than 5 million people worldwide. This global pandemic has highlighted the major role that antimicrobial coatings can play in controlling the spread of deadly viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 and scientists and engineers are now working harder than ever to develop the next generation of antimicrobial materials. This article begins with a review of three discrete microorganism-killing phenomena of contact-killing surfaces, nanoprotrusions, and superhydrophobic surfaces. The antimicrobial properties of metals such as copper (Cu), silver (Ag), and zinc (Zn) are reviewed along with the effects of combining them with titanium dioxide (TiO2) to create a binary or ternary contact-killing surface coatings. The self-cleaning and bacterial resistance of purely structural superhydrophobic surfaces and the potential of physical surface nanoprotrusions to damage microbial cells are then considered. The article then gives a detailed discussion on recent advances in attempting to combine these individual phenomena to create super-antimicrobial metal-based coatings with binary or ternary killing potential against a broad range of microorganisms, including SARS-CoV-2, for high-touch surface applications such as hand rails, door plates, and water fittings on public transport and in healthcare, care home and leisure settings as well as personal protective equipment commonly used in hospitals and in the current COVID-19 pandemic.Entities:
Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; antimicrobial; coating; high-touch surface; nanoprotrusion; superhydrophobic
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35163084 PMCID: PMC8835042 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23031162
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Cu-based antimicrobial coated commercial products. Adopted from public internet platforms: (A–D) [13], (E,F) [14], (G,H) [15], (I) [16], (J) [17].
Figure 2Contact killing mechanism of (A) Cu; (B) Ag; (C) ZnO and (D) TiO2. Reproduced with permission from: (A) [26], (B) [27], Adopted from (C) [28] (D) [29].
Figure 3Role of Cu in antimicrobial activity: (A) effect of Cu particle size against S. aureus ATCC 25923; (B) effect of Cu concentration and humidity against E. coli M-17; (C) effect of dry and (D) moist environments against P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442. Reproduced with permissions: (A) [39], Adopted from: (B) [40], (C) and (D) [41].
Figure 4Role of Ag in antimicrobial activity: (A) effect of Ag nanoparticle size, suggesting 10 nm size gives optimum antimicrobial efficacy against V. natriegens; (B) effect of Ag concentration and morphology suggest that the concentration of Ag particles have a significant effect on the viability of mesenchymal stem cells. Whereas the morphology of Ag particles such as rod, sphere, cubes, etc., also influence cell viability but not as significantly as Ag concentration. Whereas, ( * ) presents the significance in differences when compared with control i.e., * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.005; and *** p < 0.001. Adapted from: (A) [51], (B) [52].
Figure 5Role of ZnO in antimicrobial activity: (A) effect of ZnO concentrations of 0.1 mg/mL (sample 1), 0.3 mg/mL (sample 2), 0.5 mg/mL (Bulk) and (B) effect of ZnO nanoparticle size on antibacterial performance against S. aureus. Adapted from: (A) [76] Reproduced with permission from: (B) [80].
Figure 6(A) performance of TiO2 nanoparticles in combination with Cu and Ag particles and (B) influence of TiO2 particle size and concentration on E. coli viability. Reproduced with permission from: (A) [95], Adapted from: (B) [96].
Common synthesis methods to produce Cu, Ag, ZnO, and TiO2 nanoparticles and their corresponding advantages and disadvantages. Data adopted from [105,106,107,108].
| Element | Synthesis Type | Methods | Advantage | Disadvantage | Further Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cu | Chemical methods | Chemical reaction/reduction | Simple, Versatile, Saleable | Toxic and Flammable chemicals | [ |
| Microemulsion/colloidal method | Simple, high control, homogenous size | Expensive, surfactants lower yields | [ | ||
| Sonochemical method | Low cost, safe, environment friendly | Agglomerations, lower yield | [ | ||
| Electrochemical method | Low cost, accessible instrumentation | High current densities | [ | ||
| Hydrothermal decomposition | High yields, small size, high purity | Complex control on process | [ | ||
| Physical methods | Pulse laser ablation/deposition | Clean process and scalable | Expensive and uniformity challenges | [ | |
| Pulsed wire discharge method | Fast process, high purity | Limited production, contaminations | [ | ||
| Mechanical/ball milling method | Efficient and low cost | Long process | [ | ||
| Biological synthesis | Green methods | Green synthesis, localized nanoparticles formation | Little knowledge available | [ | |
| Ag | Chemical methods | Sol-gel process | High purity, uniform size | Expensive precursors, scalability | [ |
| Reverse micelle | Simple and scalable | Lower yields, Toxic and hazardous chemicals | [ | ||
| Chemical vapor deposition (CVD) | One-step process | High cost, complex process, scalability issues | [ | ||
| Wet chemical synthesis | Simple process and small particle size | Toxic and hazardous chemicals | [ | ||
| Physical methods | Arc discharge | Simple, process, high yield, high purity | Large size distributions | [ | |
| Laser ablation | Small size particles, high purity | Higher energy consumptions, lower yields | [ | ||
| Evaporation/condensation | Industrial-scale synthesis | Expensive instrumentation and process | [ | ||
| Ball milling | Simple process | Small-scale process, agglomerations | [ | ||
| Biological synthesis | Bacteriogenic synthesis | Simple and eco-friendly | Slow production, pathogenic behaviours | [ | |
| Fungi based synthesis | Simple, fast, and high intakes | Long process, pathogenic behaviours | [ | ||
| Virus driven synthesis | Simple, environmentally friendly, small size | Less metal-binding sites, expensive requisites | [ | ||
| Algae driven synthesis | Simple and low-cost | Slow production | [ | ||
| Plant-based synthesis | Non-pathogenic and non-hazardous compounds | Little knowledge of unknown mechanisms | [ | ||
| ZnO | Chemical synthesis | Hydrothermal synthesis | High purity | Lower yields | [ |
| Sol-gel method | Control over morphology | Lower yields | [ | ||
| Direct precipitation method | Uniform size | Purity issues | [ | ||
| Sonochemical method | Facile and environmentally friendly | Difficult scalability | [ | ||
| Solvothermal method | No calcination prerequisites | Time-consuming process | [ | ||
| Thermal process | Thermal catalyzation | High production efficiency | Health and safety protocols | [ | |
| Combustion method | High purity | High temperature | [ | ||
| Physical methods | Mechanochemical process | High purity | High cost | [ | |
| Microwave irradiation methods | Simple and economical process | Difficult scalability | [ | ||
| Laser ablation method | High energy inputs | Lower yields | [ | ||
| Biological synthesis | Plant-based reduction agents | Above 95% conversion to nanoparticles | Little knowledge of unknown mechanisms | [ | |
| TiO2 | Chemical synthesis | Sol-gel method | High conversion rates | Difficult to scale-up | [ |
| Ionic-liquid assisted synthesis | Simple process, atmospheric conditions | Expensive raw materials | [ | ||
| Microemulsion technique | thermodynamic stable, controlled size growth | agglomeration | [ | ||
| Precipitation method | Controlled process | Temperature- dependent crystallinity | [ | ||
| Electrochemical synthesis | Versatile and low-temperature | Required high energy inputs | [ | ||
| Thermal synthesis | Hydrothermal method | Homogeneous particles size | Usage of multiple chemicals | [ | |
| Solvothermal method | Usage of organic solvents | Crystal size is sensitive to precursor composition | [ | ||
| Biological synthesis | Green synthesis | eco-friendly, mild conditions | toxic chemicals | [ |
Figure 7Examples of superhydrophobic surfaces in nature: (a) SEM image of lotus leaf at two different magnifications; (b) SEM images of springtail showing hierarchical structures and (c) Optical image of an interaction of a 10 μL water droplet on a termite wing and a topographical view of the wing membrane. Reproduced with permission from: (a) [8], Adapted from: (b) [9], (c) [10].
Figure 8(a) Optical and SEM images of laser-fabricated graphene mask (scale bar = 10 μm) and the resulting water contact angle of 141° on the mask; (b) FE-SEM images of hydrophobic nanoporous Anodic Aluminium Oxide (AAO) transformed into nano pillared AAO with extended post etching (inset shows improvement in water contact angle) and (c) SEM image of a film cast from a block copolymer micelle solution (0.01 g/mL) (inset shows the water contact angle > 160°). Reproduced with permission from: (a) [161], (b) [162], (c) [164].
Figure 9(a) SEM images of a bare Stainless Steel substrate, laser-etched and with the PDA@ODA modification (inset shows water contact angles), corresponding high magnification and Laser confocal microscopy images, and plots of colony-forming units per mL (CFU/mL) for E. coli and S. aureus bacteria with a concentration of PDA@ODA compound [Reproduced with permission from reference no. S.Li et al., 2019] (b) As-prepared ZnO nanorod films at low and high magnifications (inset shows the water droplet shape before (left) and after (right) UV illumination) [Reproduced with permission from reference no. X.Feng et al., 2003] (c) Low and High magnification images of TiO2 nanorod film (inset shows contact angle of 154°). Reproduced with permission from: (a) [165], (b) [166], (c) [167].
Figure 10(a) Structural physiology of the forewing of cicada and SEM image of a P. aeruginosa cell sinking between the nanopillars on the wing surface (scale bar = 200 nm); (b) Optical image of wings from common sanddragon dragonfly; (c). SEM images of four E. coli bacteria attached to the uncoated nanopillar surface of a dragonfly wing in progressive stages of death and a red arrow marking the darker region formed by leakage of cellular fluid flooding the nanopillars (scale bar = 200 nm) and (d) 3-D biophysical model of the interactions between cicada wing nanopillars and rod-shaped bacterial cells. Reproduced with permission from: (a) [168], (b) [178], (c) [171], (d) [179].
Figure 11SEM images showing surface patterns of (a) black Si and (b) dragonfly forewings (measured nanopillars highlighted by red line, magnification = 35 k, scale bar = 200 nm), (c) SEM images and confocal laser scanning micrographs show P. aeruginosa cells are significantly disrupted through interaction with both the dragonfly wing and black Si (scale bars = 200 nm) and (d) Bactericidal efficiency of black Si and dragonfly wings on various bacterial strains. Reproduced with permission from [169].
Figure 12SEM images of (a) TiO2 nanopillar surface developed on Ti6Al4V substrate; (b) K. pneumoniae bacteria envelope interaction with Ti alloy control compared to deformation induced by TiO2 nanopillar surface; (c) Brightfield TEM and a 3D reconstruction of the tomogram, showing multiple nanopillars penetrating the bacterial envelope; and (d) Colony-forming units (CFU) determined for K. pneumoniae when incubated on the Ti alloy control or TiO2 nanopillar surfaces for up to 10 h (*** indicates p ≤ 0.001 relative to control, as determined by one-way ANOVA and Tukey-HSD post hoc test). Adapted from [7].
Figure 13A schematic of our proposed transmission combating strategy: (a) Virus encapsulation, (b) contamination suppression, and (c) virus elimination. Reproduced with permission from [185].
Figure 14Comparison of the E. coli killing effect over time seen for superhydrophobic and superhydrophilic Cu surfaces prepared by nanosecond laser processing. Reproduced with permission from [186].
Figure 15Effect of the bacteria surface density on the antibacterial activity for the 20th day of the test. Mi represents the change in fluorescence intensity caused by the increase or decrease in the bacterial population. The Mi of the “hybrid” SH+Cu surface remains low even for densities up to 13.4 × 108 colony-forming units per cm2 (CFU/cm2). Reproduced with permission from [187].
Figure 16Total number of S. aureus colonies on different specimens after incubating for 1 and 5 days. (Data are shown as mean ± SD, n = 3, * represents p < 0.05 compared with Ti control surface). Reproduced with permission from [192].
Figure 17E. coli growth inhibition in presence of: 1—TiO2/SiO2; 2—TiO2/SiO2/Ag9.7 at.%; 3—TiO2/SiO2/Ag14.4 at.%; 4—TiO2/SiO2/Ag19.8 at.%; control—in absence of sample. Reproduced with permission from [194].
Figure 18(a) Zn leached from ZnO nanoparticle Zn2+/Cel-6 film at different times. (b) bacteria inhibition rate of different Zn2+ concentrations for S. aureus, E. coli, and C. albicans. (c) bacteria inhibition rate of ZnO nanoparticle Zn2+/Cel-6 film not treated by UV for S. aureus, E. coli, and C. albicans. SEM images of (d) E. coli (bacteria) and (e) C. albicans (fungus) cells before and after mechanical rupture (without UV treatment) and photocatalytic oxidation inactivation of ZnO nanoparticle Zn2+/Cel-6 film respectively. (f) Schematic of antimicrobial mechanism of ZnO nanoparticle Zn2+/Cel films. Reproduced with permission from [196].
Figure 19Schematic diagram illustrating the synthesis procedure of ZnO nano-spines on an activated-carbon nanofiber (ZnO/ACNF) structure. Reproduced with permission from [198].