| Literature DB >> 35519862 |
Kishore Chand1,2, M Ishaque Abro2, Umair Aftab2, Ahmer Hussain Shah3, Muhammad Nazim Lakhan1, Dianxue Cao1, Ghazanfar Mehdi4, Abdalla Mohamed Ali Mohamed1.
Abstract
Recently, it has been shown that silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) exhibit great potential for different applications, including food storage, cosmetic products, electronic components, biosensor materials, cryogenics, dental materials and especially for drug-delivery activities. In this study, we synthesized AgNPs with neem extract (NE) alone and mixed plant extracts of neem, onion and tomato (NOT) as a combined reducing and stabilizing agent by a green synthesis method at different pHs. The synthesized products were characterized by ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy (UV-vis), X-ray diffraction (XRD), dynamic light scattering (DLS), atomic force microscopy (AFM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The antibacterial effects of the synthesized products were studied by the Kirby disk diffusion method. It was confirmed that the AgNPs work effectively as a drug material against Gram-positive bacteria Staphylococcus aureus in nutrient agar. In addition, it was seen that the reducing and stabilizing agent NOT could work effectively with six medicines with a different nature at the maximum addition of 15 μg. However, the synthesized product with NE alone only worked for four of the medicines. Therefore, it was evident that the AgNPs synthesized with NOT extract were more susceptible to the Gram-positive bacteria Staphylococcus aureus. We believe that this new route for synthesizing AgNPs with NOT extract could be more beneficial in comparison to NE alone for improved antibacterial properties in drug-delivery applications. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 35519862 PMCID: PMC9064458 DOI: 10.1039/c9ra01407a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Literature work about the green synthesis of AgNPs and Au by different researchers using different plant extracts
| Plant extract | Nanoparticles | Results | References |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Ag/Au, spherical, 5–50 nm | Highly active against Gram-positive |
|
|
| Ag/Au, 50–150 nm | Good antimicrobial activity against waterborne pathogens like |
|
|
| Ag, 35 nm | Excellent bactericidal activity in Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria |
|
|
| Au, hexagonal triangular, 200–500 nm | Particles could be internalized through endocytosis by MCF-7 breast cancer cells |
|
|
| Ag, Au, triangular, spherical, 25–80 nm | These nanoparticles are active against |
|
|
| Ag, spherical, 4–30 nm | High antimicrobial action against Gram-positives |
|
|
| Ag, spherical, 5–150 nm | Adulticidal and larvicidal against the hematophagous fly |
|
| Jambul seeds | Ag/Au, spherical, 29–92 nm | The antimicrobial activity of these nanoparticles was shown to prevent positive and negative bacteria |
|
| Banana peels | Ag, spherical, 20 nm | These nanoparticles displayed antifungal activity against the yeasts |
|
| Neem extract, lemon juice | Ag/Au, spherical, 29–92 nm | NPs are very effective against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria |
|
| Neem gum | Ag, spherical, 30–60 nm Au, spherical, 50–250 nm | Gold and silver nanoparticles have a wide range of antimicrobial activity against animal and human pathogens |
|
|
| Ag, spherical, 42–120 nm | AgNPs showed good bacterial strain destruction against Gram-negative |
|
|
| Ag, spherical, 17 nm | Nanoparticles showed excellent performance against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria |
|
|
| Ag, spherical 35 nm | These AgNPs could be effective as nano-drug carriers in a special category without having an effect on the parasites or host cells, but with an unknown mechanism for enhancing drug availability |
|
|
| Ag, spherical, 5–20 nm | Silver nanoparticles have remarkable antibacterial activity against many species, such as |
|
|
| Ag, 12.74 nm | Show highest catalytic activity for the conversion of |
|
|
| Ag, spherical, 30–50 nm | Silver nanoparticles were used in therapeutics (medical applications) |
|
|
| Ag, spherical, 25–35 nm | Nanoparticles were used for medical and cosmetic applications |
|
|
| Ag, spherical, 30–70 nm | Compared to others, these nanoparticles have more antibacterial activities and were also tested against |
|
|
| Ag, spherical, 35–45 nm | NPs showed much better antibacterial activity towards Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria |
|
|
| Ag, spherical, 15–20 nm | Nanoparticles prepared from the plant have more applications in the biomedical field and also have many benefits, such as effectiveness, compatibility for biomedical and pharmaceutical applications, like antifungal and antibacterial, as well as good for large-scale marketable production |
|
|
| Ag, spherical, 5–10 nm | These nanoparticles were used in medical applications |
|
|
| Ag, spherical, 17 nm | NPs were used as an antibacterial agent for |
|
|
| Ag, spherical, 12 nm | Silver nanoparticles prepared from |
|
| Saffron ( | Ag, spherical, 12–20 nm | The silver nanoparticles showed inhibiting activity against |
|
|
| Ag, spherical, 34 nm | The silver nanoparticles showed antibacterial activities against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative microorganisms |
|
|
| Ag, crystalline nature, 30–40 nm | Nanoparticles played an active role in antimicrobial activity against pathogenic bacteria; also used for commercial appliances and other medical and electronic applications as well as cancer treatment, drug delivery, and sensors |
|
| Turmeric | Ag, triangular, ellipsoidal, decahedral, 5–35 nm | Nanoparticles synthesized with turmeric extract showed extraordinary and proficient antimicrobial activities against two food-borne pathogens ( |
|
| Green tea | Ag, 2.17 nm, crystalline | PEG-AgNPs and AgNPs and showed powerful antibacterial effects against several pathogenic Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria |
|
|
| Ag, 14.5–9.10 and 11.0 nm | AgNPs were used against |
|
| Market vegetable waste | Ag, triangular, spherical, 10–90 nm | Nanoparticles showed a positive effect against Gram-positive bacteria ( |
|
Zone diameter interpreter chart (Becton, Dickinson and Company)
| S. no. | Name of antibiotic | Resistant (Mm) | Intermediate (Mm) | Susceptible (Mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Amikacin | ≤14 | 15–16 | ≥17 |
| 2 | Amoxillian | ≤13 | 14–17 | ≥18 |
| 3 | Cefoaclor | ≤14 | 15–17 | ≥18 |
| 4 | Cefonicid | ≤14 | 15–17 | ≥18 |
| 5 | Clindamycin | ≤14 | 15–17 | ≥18 |
| 6 | Fosfomycin | ≤12 | 13–15 | ≥16 |
| 7 | Levofloxacin | ≤13 | 14–16 | ≥17 |
| 8 | Piperacillin | ≤17 | 18–20 | ≥21 |
Zone/region of inhibition (diameter) in mile meter
| Response | Definition |
|---|---|
| Resistant | If bacteria are unaffected by an antibiotic with or without nanoparticles. In this situation, the inhibition zone diameter will be smaller. This means bacteria are not completely inhibited |
| Susceptible | If bacteria are positively affected by a specific antibiotic with or without silver nanoparticles. In this case, the inhibition zone diameter will be larger. This means the bacteria are completely inhibited |
| Intermediate | If bacteria are poorly affected by a specific antibiotic with or without silver nanoparticles. In this case, the inhibition zone diameter will be intermediate, since the growth of microorganisms is stopped to some extent by the medicine |
Fig. 1UV-vis of AgNPs using NE at (pH 5, pH 7, pH 9).
Fig. 2UV-vis of AgNPs using NOT mixed extract at (pH 5, 7 and 9).
Fig. 3XRD results of AgNPs using NE (pH 5, 7, 9).
Fig. 4XRD results of AgNPs using NOT mixed extract (pH 5, 7, 9).
Particle size analysis of synthesized AgNPs by using various techniques
| Sample name | pH | XRD | AFM | DLS | TEM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FWHM (Deg) | 2 | Particle size (nm) | Size (nm) | Size range (nm) | PDI | Size range (nm) | ||
| NE | 5 | 0.662 | 38.15 | 6.28 | 9 | 6–28 | 0.289 | 6 |
| 7 | 0.562 | 37.95 | 7.44 | 2 | 3–28 | 0.389 | 7.66 | |
| 9 | 0.496 | 38.305 | 8.36 | 2 | 3–10 | 0.486 | 16.8 | |
| NOT | 5 | 0.159 | 38.1 | 26.22 | 25 | 15–500 | 0.244 | 13 |
| 7 | 0.125 | 38.15 | 33.30 | 30 | 15–600 | 0.812 | 17.4 | |
| 9 | 0.148 | 37.95 | 28.27 | 20 | 10–800 | 1.00 | 36 | |
Fig. 5AFM images of AgNPs using NE at pH 5 (A), pH 7 (B), pH 9 (C).
Fig. 6AFM images of AgNPs using NOT at pH 5 (A), pH 7 (B), pH 9 (C).
Fig. 7Size distribution of AgNPs using NE and NOT at (pH 5, 7, 9).
Fig. 8SEM images of AgNPs using NE pH 5 (A), pH 7 (B), pH 9 (C) and NOT pH 5 (D), pH 7 (E), pH 9 (F).
Fig. 9FTIR spectra of AgNPs using (A) neem and (B) NOT.
Fig. 10TEM images of AgNPs synthesized with neem at various pH, 5 (A), 7 (B) and 9 (C); NOT at various pH 5 (D), 7 (E) and 9 (F), the internal image shows the histogram for the particle-size distribution.
Fig. 11Antimicrobial tests for SA microorganism by AgNPs in a culture using Kirby disc diffusion. NE (A–C) and NOT (D–F).
Fig. 12Antimicrobial activity zone/region of inhibition of AgNPs for different classes of medicines, using NE (A) and NOT (B).
Antibacterial activity of AgNPs using NE (pH 5, 7, 9)
| S. no. | Name of antibiotic | pH 5 | pH 7 | pH 9 | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 μg | 5 μg | 10 μg | 15 μg | 5 μg | 10 μg | 15 μg | 5 μg | 10 μg | 15 μg | ||||||||||||
| 1 | Amikacin | 16 | I | 16 | I | 18 | S | 19 | S | 16 | I | 19 | S | 20 | S | 16 | I | 19 | S | 20 | S |
| 2 | Amoxillian | 13 | R | 13 | R | 19 | S | 19 | S | 14 | I | 18 | S | 18 | S | 14 | I | 18 | S | 18 | S |
| 3 | Cefoaclor | 17 | I | 17 | I | 20 | S | 21 | S | 17 | I | 18 | S | 18 | S | 17 | I | 19 | S | 19 | S |
| 4 | Cefonicid | 14 | R | 15 | R | 16 | I | 18 | S | 15 | R | 18 | S | 19 | S | 15 | I | 18 | S | 18 | S |
| 5 | Clindamycin | 10 | R | 10 | R | 10 | R | 10 | R | 10 | R | 10 | R | 10 | R | 10 | R | 10 | R | 10 | R |
| 6 | Fosfomycin | 12 | R | 12 | R | 12 | R | 13 | I | 12 | R | 12 | R | 13 | I | 13 | R | 13 | R | 14 | I |
| 7 | Lecofloxin | 12 | R | 12 | R | 12 | R | 12 | R | 12 | R | 12 | R | 12 | R | 12 | R | 12 | R | 12 | R |
| 8 | Piperacillin | 10 | R | 12 | R | 14 | R | 14 | R | 12 | R | 13 | R | 14 | R | 12 | R | 12 | R | 13 | R |
| Total | Resistive | 6 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | ||||||||||
| Intermediate | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Susceptible | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 4 | |||||||||||
Antibacterial activity of AgNPs using NOT (pH 5, 7, 9)
| S. no. | Name of antibiotic | pH 5 | pH 7 | pH 9 | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 μg | 5 μg | 10 μg | 15 μg | 5 μg | 10 μg | 15 μg | 5 μg | 10 μg | 15 μg | |||||||||||||
| 1 | Amikacin | 16 | I | 16 | I | 18 | S | 19 | S | 16 | I | 18 | S | 19 | S | 16 | I | 18 | S | 18 | S | |
| 2 | Amoxillian | 13 | R | 13 | R | 17 | I | 19 | S | 14 | R | 16 | S | 19 | S | 13 | R | 16 | I | 19 | S | |
| 3 | Cefoaclor | 17 | I | 17 | I | 17 | I | 18 | S | 17 | I | 17 | I | 18 | S | 17 | I | 18 | S | 20 | S | |
| 4 | Cefonicid | 14 | R | 13 | R | 18 | S | 22 | S | 14 | R | 19 | S | 20 | S | 14 | R | 18 | S | 21 | S | |
| 5 | Clindamycin | 10 | R | 11 | R | 14 | R | 12 | R | 11 | R | 12 | R | 13 | R | 12 | R | 12 | R | 13 | R | |
| 6 | Fosfomycin | 12 | R | 15 | I | 17 | S | 25 | S | 15 | I | 24 | S | 25 | S | 16 | I | 25 | S | 25 | S | |
| 7 | Lecofloxin | 12 | R | 13 | R | 13 | R | 14 | R | 13 | R | 0 | R | 13 | R | 12 | R | 13 | R | 13 | R | |
| 8 | Piperacillin | 10 | R | 13 | R | 17 | I | 22 | S | 13 | R | 18 | I | 20 | S | 12 | R | 19 | I | 23 | S | |
| Total | Resistive | 6 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||
| Intermediate | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | ||||||||||||
| Susceptible | 0 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 6 | ||||||||||||