4.6 Article

Impact of Nanoscale Roughness of Titanium Thin Film Surfaces on Bacterial Retention

Journal

LANGMUIR
Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 1973-1982

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/la902623c

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC)
  2. Advanced Manufacturing Co-operative Research Centre (AMCRC)
  3. Swinburne University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two human pathogenic bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus CIP 68.5 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 9025, were adsorbed onto surfaces containing Ti thin films of varying thickness to determine the extent to which nanoscale surface roughness influences the extent of bacterial attachment. A magnetron sputter thin film system was used to deposit titanium films with thicknesses of 3, 12, and 150 nm on glass Substrata with corresponding Surface roughness parameters of R-q 1.6, 1.2, and 0.7 nm (on a 4 mu m x 4 mu m scanning area). The chemical composition, wettability, and surface architecture of titanium thin films were characterized using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. contact angle measurements, atomic force microscopy, three-dimensional interactive visualization, and statistical approximation of the topographic profiles. Investigation of the dynamic evolution Or the Ti thin film topographic parameters indicated that three commonly used parameters, R-a, R-q, and R-max. were insufficient to effectively characterize the nanoscale rough/smooth surfaces. Two additional parameters, R-skw and R-kur, which describe the statistical distributions of roughness character, were found to be useful for evaluating the surface architecture. Analysis of bacterial retention profiles indicated that bacteria responded differently to the surfaces oil a scale of less than 1 nm change in the R-a and R-q Ti thin film surface roughness parameters by (i) an increased number of retained cells by a factor of 2-3, and (ii) an elevated level of secretion of extracellular polymeric substances.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available