| Literature DB >> 36234690 |
Carlos Velázquez-Carriles1, María Esther Macías-Rodríguez1, Omar Ramírez-Alvarado1, Rosa Isela Corona-González2, Adriana Macías-Lamas1, Ismael García-Vera1, Adriana Cavazos-Garduño1, Zuamí Villagrán3, Jorge Manuel Silva-Jara1.
Abstract
Due to the current concerns against opportunistic pathogens and the challenge of antimicrobial resistance worldwide, alternatives to control pathogen growth are required. In this sense, this work offers a new nanohybrid composed of zinc-layered hydroxide salt (Simonkolleite) and thymol for preventing bacterial growth. Materials were characterized with XRD diffraction, FTIR and UV-Vis spectra, SEM microscopy, and dynamic light scattering. It was confirmed that the Simonkolleite structure was obtained, and thymol was adsorbed on the hydroxide in a web-like manner, with a concentration of 0.863 mg thymol/mg of ZnLHS. Absorption kinetics was described with non-linear models, and a pseudo-second-order equation was the best fit. The antibacterial test was conducted against Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Staphylococcus aureus strains, producing inhibition halos of 21 and 24 mm, respectively, with a 10 mg/mL solution of thymol-ZnLHS. Moreover, biofilm formation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa inhibition was tested, with over 90% inhibition. Nanohybrids exhibited antioxidant activity with ABTS and DPPH evaluations, confirming the presence of the biomolecule in the inorganic matrix. These results can be used to develop a thymol protection vehicle for applications in food, pharmaceutics, odontology, or biomedical industries.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial activity; antioxidant capacity; biofilm-formation inhibition; layered hydroxide salt; terpenes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36234690 PMCID: PMC9571740 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27196161
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1X-ray diffractograms of zinc layered hydroxide with and without thymol.
Figure 2Thymol absorption in zinc layered hydroxide with non-linear fitted models.
Non-linear kinetic parameters with the correction coefficients for thymol adsorption on ZnLHS.
| Kinetic Model | Statistical Validation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| χ2 |
|
| ||
| Lagergren’s pseudo-first order | 0.954 | 0.060 | 15.727 | 0.092 | −64.464 | −65.436 |
| Ho and McKay’s pseudo-second order | 0.989 | 0.031 | 4.654 | 0.017 | −81.752 | −82.724 |
| Elovich | 0.986 | 0.033 | 4.431 | 0.019 | −80.157 | −81.129 |
| Intra-particle diffusion | 0.950 | 0.065 | 15.636 | 0.131 | −62.407 | −63.379 |
R2, correlation coefficient; RMSE, root mean squared error; ARE%, average relative error; χ2, Chi-square; AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion.
Figure 3Thymol liberation from zinc hydroxide salt in PBS at 25 °C.
Figure 4Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy: (a) IR spectra of thymol and zinc layered hydroxide with and without thymol and (b) second derivative spectra of the analyzed samples in the 1500–600 cm−1 region; significant peaks were considered at p < 0.05 and represented by *.
Figure 5Raman spectroscopy of thymol, ZnHSL, and thymol–ZnHSL.
Figure 6Thermograms of ZnHSL and thymol–ZnHSL.
Figure 7Optical energy plot and zeta potential. (a) Bandgap of Simonkolleite (ZnLHS) and (b) ζ-potential of Simonkolleite (ZnLHS) and thymol–ZnLHS, respectively. Scanning electronic microscopy: (c) ZnLHS and (d) thymol–ZnLHS.
Figure 8Antioxidant capacity of thymol, ZnLHS, and thymol–ZnLHS: (a) DPPH inhibition (%) and (b) ABTS inhibition (%). For DPPH and ABTS assays, different letters are significantly different at a p < 0.05.
Inhibition halo of E. coli O157:H7 and S. aureus ATCC 25,923 (SD ± 3).
| Concentration (mg/mL) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thymol | ZnHSL | Thymol–ZnLHS | Thymol | ZnHSL | Thymol–ZnLHS | |
|
| 10.3 ± 0.1 f | 10.3 ± 0.2 f | 11.0 ± 0.5 e | 10.3 ± 0.6 F | 10.5 ± 0.2 F | 16.2 ± 2.3 D |
|
| 10.6 ± 0.5 f | 10.6 ± 0.5 f | 10.9 ± 0.2 e | 11.8 ± 0.4 F | 10.5 ± 0.3 F | 19.5 ± 0.5 C |
|
| 21.2 ± 0.1 c | 10.4 ± 0.5 f | 11.7 ± 0.6 e | 13.0 ± 1.0 E | 10.4 ± 0.4 F | 20.7 ± 0.6 B |
|
| 22.4 ± 0.4 b | 10.2 ± 0.3 f | 15.5 ± 0.5 d | 19.3 ± 1.5 C | 10.2 ± 0.3 F | 22.7 ± 0.8 A |
|
| 23.9 ± 0.3 a | 10.7 ± 0.3 e | 21.1 ± 0.1 c | 21.2 ± 0.7 B | 10.7 ± 0.6 E | 24.0 ± 1.0 A |
Different superscripts indicate significant (p < 0.05) difference among groups. Lower and Upper case are to differentiate between bacterial strains.
Figure 9Biofilm inhibition of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (%). Significant differences were based on LSD Fisher post hoc paired comparisons (* p < 0.05).