| Literature DB >> 35448813 |
Aistė Balčiūnaitienė1, Mindaugas Liaudanskas2,3, Viktorija Puzerytė1, Jonas Viškelis1, Valdimaras Janulis2, Pranas Viškelis1, Egidijus Griškonis4, Virginija Jankauskaitė5.
Abstract
Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) biosynthesized using plant extracts as reducing and capping agents show multiple possibilities for solving various biological problems. The aim of this study was to expand the boundaries of AgNPs using a novel low toxicity and production cost phytochemical method for the biosynthesis of nanoparticles from Eucalyptus globulus and Salvia officinalis aqueous leaf extracts. Biosynthesized AgNPs were characterized by various methods (ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy (UV-vis), Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy with horizontal attenuated total reflectance (HART), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS)). The determined antioxidative and antimicrobial activity of plant extracts was compared with the activity of the AgNPs. The UV-vis spectral analysis demonstrated the absorption peaks at 408 and 438 nm, which confirmed the synthesis of stable AgNPs from E. globulus and S. officinalis, respectively. FTIR-HART results suggested strong capping of phytochemicals on AgNPs. TEM results show mainly spherical-shaped AgNPs, whose size distribution depends on the plant leaf extract type; the smaller AgNPs were obtained with E. globulus extract (with size range of 17.5 ± 5.89 nm compared to 34.3 ± 7.76 nm from S. officinalis AgNPs). The in vitro antioxidant activity evaluated by radical scavenging assays and the reduction activity method clearly demonstrated that both the plant extracts and AgNPs showed prominent antioxidant properties. In addition, AgNPs show much stronger antimicrobial activity against broad spectrum of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria strains than the plant extracts used for their synthesis.Entities:
Keywords: Eucalyptus globulus; Salvia officinalis; antibacterial activity; antioxidant activity; green synthesis; phytochemical analysis; silver nanoparticles
Year: 2022 PMID: 35448813 PMCID: PMC9026162 DOI: 10.3390/plants11081085
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Phytochemical analysis of plant extracts and biosynthesized AgNPs.
| Compound Name |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The total content of proanthocyanidins, mg EE/g | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.09 ± 0.00 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 0.07 ± 0.04 |
| The total content of hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives, mg CAE/g | 1.38 ± 0.05 | 1.57 ± 0.02 | 1.24 ± 0.02 | 1.54 ± 0.01 |
| The total content of phenolic compounds, mg GAE/g | 0.69 ± 0.04 | 0.78 ± 0.00 | 0.58 ± 0.03 | 0.61 ± 0.02 |
| The total content of flavonoids, mg RE/g | 0.48 ± 0.04 | 0.44 ± 0.00 | 0.43 ± 0.01 | 0.41 ± 0.03 |
Figure 1TEM images (a–d) and SAED (e,f) of E. globulus (a,b,e) and S. officinalis (c,d,f) patterns.
Figure 2(a) Changes in the color of the colloidal solutions indicating the formation of AgNPs (I-a—E. globulus + AgNO3; I-b—EuG-AgNPs; II-a—S. officinalis +AgNO3; II-b—SaO-AgNPs); (b) UV-vis absorption spectra of plant extracts and biosynthesized AgNPs.
Figure 3FTIR spectra of AgNPs synthesized by the reduction of AgNO3 with the E. globulus (a) and S. officinalis (b) leaf extracts.
Figure 4Suggested mechanisms for the formation of AgNPs via bioreduction derived from plant extracts.
Figure 5TEM images (a–d) and EDS spectra (e,f) of biosynthesized EuG-AgNPs (a,b,e) and SaO-AgNPs (c,d,f).
Antioxidant activity of plant extracts and biosynthesized AgNPs (p > 0.05).
| Assay |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABTS, mmol TE/g | 1.69 ± 0.07 c | 1.46 ± 0.04 d | 1.97 ± 0.01 b | 2.28 ± 0.04 a |
| DPPH, mmol TE/g | 0.96 ± 0.03 a | 0.37 ± 0.01 b | 0.98 ± 0.02 a | 0.39 ± 0.02 b |
| TFPH, mmol TE/g | 1.46 ± 0.64 a | 1.37 ± 0.43 a | 2.08 ± 0.12 a | 1.87 ± 0.01 a |
| FRAP, mmol TE/g | 9.23 ± 0.43 a | 4.23 ± 0.18 b | 9.11 ± 0.14 a | 4.02 ± 0.01 b |
The different superscript letters in the same line indicate statistically significant differences between the antioxidant activity of plant extracts (p < 0.05).
Inhibition zones of the plant extracts and AgNPs against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria strains (p > 0.05).
| Bacterial Strains | Inhibition Zone ± SD, mm: | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
| Gram-positive |
| 14.4 ± 0.01 d | 17.9 ± 0.20 c | 20.0 ± 0.10 b | 24.4 ± 0.05 a |
|
| 13.2 ± 0.05 d | 15.7 ± 0.70 c | 20.4 ± 0.08 b | 24.0 ± 0.10 a | |
|
| 14.7 ± 0.10 c | 13.2 ± 0.55 d | 18.2 ± 0.09 b | 20.0 ± 0.22 a | |
|
| 14.0 ± 0.01 c | 13.1 ± 0.01 d | 20.0 ± 0.20 a | 18.8 ± 0.18 b | |
| Gram-negative |
| 14.0 ± 0.02 c | 13.9 ± 0.01 d | 19.0 ± 0.01 b | 22.4 ± 0.03 a |
|
| 13.8 ± 0.01 c | 13.0 ± 0.10 d | 20.1 ± 0.03 b | 20.9 ± 0.27 a | |
|
| 13.6 ± 0.04 c | 13.2 ± 0.25 d | 21.5 ± 0.01 b | 23.0 ± 0.14 a | |
|
| 12.5 ± 0.08 d | 12.8 ± 0.10 c | 19.7 ± 0.10 b | 20.7 ± 0.40 a | |
The different superscript letters in the same line indicate statistically significant differences between Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria strains of plant extracts (p < 0.05).