4.6 Article

The Efficacy of Silver Nitrate (AgNO3) as a Coating Agent to Protect Paper against High Deteriorating Microbes

期刊

CATALYSTS
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/catal11030310

关键词

historical manuscript; coating agents; silver nitrate; biodeterioration; analytical techniques

资金

  1. Taif, Saudi Arabia [TURSP-2020/07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focused on the efficacy of silver nitrate as a coating agent to preserve papers against microbial deterioration. The results showed that AgNO3 could effectively inhibit the growth of Bacillus subtilis and Penicillium chrysogenum, as well as improve the color and mechanical properties of the paper.
This study focuses on the efficacy of silver nitrate (AgNO3) as a coating agent used to preserve papers against microbial deterioration. To this end, the in vitro cytotoxicity of AgNO3 was assessed against two normal cell lines, WI-38 and HFB-4, to detect a safe dose that can be used as a coating agent, which was 80 mu g mL(-1). Bacillus subtilis B3 and Penicillium chrysogenum F9 were selected as high deteriorating microbes, previously isolated from a historical manuscript dating back to 1677 A.-D. The microbial growth inhibition, color change, mechanical properties, and cellulosic fibers of untreated/treated papers were evaluated. The data showed the efficacy of AgNO3 to inhibit the growth of B. subtilis with a percentage of 100% after 7 days, while it inhibits the growth of P. chrysogenum with a percentage of 85.9 +/- 1.1% after 21 days. The color and mechanical properties of treated paper in the presence/absence of microbial inoculation were slightly changed, although they changed greatly due to microbial growth in the absence of AgNO3. The EDX analysis confirmed the successful adsorption of Ag-ion on papers, with a weight percentage of 1.9%. The cellulosic fibers of untreated paper in the presence of microbial growth were highly deteriorated as compared with treated and standard filter paper (shown by FT-IR and SEM).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据