journal article·2020-12

Mesoporous x[Cu(II)O] nanoclusters dispersed and immobilized on y$$[\text {SiO}2]$$ matrix: structure and effective controlled biocidal activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Bacillus subtilis

Dhiman Banik, S Chennakesavulu, Monika Singh, Nidhi Pandey, Ragini Tilak, Aramati Bindu Madhava Reddy, Pradip Paik

Bulletin of Materials Science· Volume 43· Issue 1
Publisher page

Abstract

Herein we report the synthesis of mesoporous nanostructures comprising copper (II) oxide ({x[mathrm{Cu(II)O}]}) immobilized on silica ({ y}[mathrm{SiO}2]) template for release of copper ions by precipitation via sol–gel technique. Three different specimens with increasing amount of Cu in the matrix with amount of Si being the same in all the samples, viz. ‘6Cu:5Si’, ‘4.5Cu:5Si’ and ‘3Cu:5Si’ where the numbers refer to the respective molar ratios of their respective domains, were prepared. Increase of crystallinity in the mesoporous material with increase in incorporation of copper domains consisting of CuO in ( ext {SiO}2) matrix has been established. The average size of the CuO nanoparticle (NP) (domain) is 20–30 nm. The BET surface area has been found to be 276–390 ( ext {m}2 ext {g}-1) and Langmuir surface area has been found to be 422–605.9 ( ext {m}2 ext {g}-1) for the samples 5Si:3Cu–5Si:6Cu, respectively, having pore size of 4–6.5 nm. The cytotoxicity data show that the NPs are less toxic below concentration of (125 upmu ext {g ml}-1). A steady increase in percentage of bacterial-‘Escherichia coli’, ‘Pseudomonas aeruginosa’ and ‘Bacillus subtilis’ cell death (indicated by decrease in optical density) due to increase in concentrations of NPs after incubation for 14 h, showing sensitivity even at very low concentrations (5–20 (upmu )g), has been observed. A comparative antibacterial activity test among the three prepared specimens has been reported, which shows better antibacterial activity with the lowest copper concentration. Better antibacterial sensitivity when compared with equivalent amount of commercial CuO is established.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Copper-based nanomaterials and applications · Advanced Nanomaterials in Catalysis · Gold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and Applications

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (26)

Show source-provided references
1. Faúndez G, Troncoso M, Navarrete P and Figueroa G 2004 BMC Microbiol. 4 1910.1186/1471-2180-4-19 ↗
2. Borkow G and Gabbay J 2005 Curr. Med. Chem. 12 1810.2174/0929867054637617 ↗
3. Borkow G and Gabbay J 2004 FASEB J. 18 1410.1096/fj.04-2029fje ↗
4. Karpanen T J, Casey L, Lambert P A, Cookson B D, Nightingale P, Miruszenko L et al 2012 Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.33 110.1086/663644 ↗
5. Souli M, Galani I, Plachouras D, Panagea T, Armaganidis A, Petrikkos G et al 2013 J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 68 85210.1093/jac/dks473 ↗
6. Mikolay A, Huggett S, Tikana L, Grass G, Braun J and Nies D H 2010 Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 87 187510.1007/s00253-010-2640-1 ↗
7. Ahamed M, Alhadlaq A, Majeed Khan M A, Karuppiah P and Al-Dhabi N A 2014 J. Nanomater.2014 110.1155/2014/637858 ↗
8. Mageshwari K and Sathyamoorthy R 2013 J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 29 1010.1016/j.jmst.2013.04.020 ↗
9. Azam A, Ahmed A S, Oves M, Khan M S and Memic A 2012 Int. J. Nanomed. 7 600310.2147/IJN.S35347 ↗
10. Cioffi N, Torsi L, Ditaranto L, Tantillo G, Ghibelli L, Sabbatini L et al 2005 Chem. Mater. 17 525510.1021/cm0505244 ↗
11. Ditta I B, Steele A, Liptrot C, Tobin J, Tyler H, Yates H M et al 2008 Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 79 110.1007/s00253-008-1411-8 ↗
12. Gajjar P, Pettee B, Brittd W, Huang W, Johnson W P and Anderson A J 2009 J. Biol. Eng. 3 110.1186/1754-1611-3-9 ↗
13. Dubey R S, Rajesh Y B R D and More M A 2015 Mater. Today Proc. 2 357510.1016/j.matpr.2015.07.098 ↗
14. Venkatathri N 2007 Bull. Mater. Sci. 30 61510.1007/s12034-007-0097-3 ↗
15. Le V H, Thuc C N H and Thuc H H 2013 Nanoscale Res. Lett. 8 5810.1186/1556-276X-8-58 ↗
16. Phiwdang K, Suphankij S, Mekprasart W and Pecharapa W 2013 Energy Procedia34 74010.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.808 ↗
17. Taufik A, Kalim I and Saleh R 2015 Mater. Sci. Forum 827 3710.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.827.37 ↗
18. In S I, Vaughn II D D and Schaak R E 2012 Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.51 391510.1002/anie.201108936 ↗
19. Beck J S, Vartuli J C, Roth W J, Leonowicz M E, Kresge C T, Schmitt K D et al 1992 J. Am. Chem. Soc.114 1083410.1021/ja00053a020 ↗
20. Kresge C T, Leonowicz M E, Roth W J, Vartuli J C and Beck J S 1992 Nature 359 71010.1038/359710a0 ↗
21. Attard G S, Glyde J C and Göltner C G 1995 Nature 378 36610.1038/378366a0 ↗
22. Hoshino N, Kimura T, Yamaji A and Ando T 1999 Free Radic. Biol. Med. 27 124510.1016/S0891-5849(99)00157-4 ↗
23. Stevenson J, Barwinska-Sendra A, Tarrant E and Waldron K J 2013 in Microbial pathogens and strategies for combating them: science, technology and education A Mendez-Vilas (ed) (Badajoz, Spain: Formatex Research Center) vol 1 p 468
24. Grass G, Rensing C and Solioz M 2011 Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77 510.1128/AEM.02766-10 ↗
25. Paik P and Zhang Y 2011 Nanoscale 3 221510.1039/c1nr10134j ↗
26. Kumar V B, Annamanedi M, Prashad M D, Arunasree K M, Mastai Y, Gedanken A et al 2013 J. Nanopart. Res. 15 395610.1007/s11051-013-1904-y ↗