4.1 Article

Evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of chitosan and its quaternized derivative on E-coli and S. aureus growth

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjp.2015.09.010

关键词

Biopolymer; Chitosan; N,N,N-trimethylchitosan; Antimicrobial activity; Turbidity measurements; Quaternization process

资金

  1. FAPESP [07/58715-4]
  2. Rede AgroNano(Embrapa)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chitosan is largely known for its activity against a wide range of microorganisms, in which the most acceptable antimicrobial mechanism is found to include the presence of charged groups in the polymer backbone and their ionic interactions with bacteria wall constituents. This interaction suggests the occurrence of a hydrolysis of the peptidoglycans in the microorganism wall, provoking the leakage of intracellular electrolytes, leading the microorganism to death. The charges present in chitosan chains are generated by protonation of amino groups when in acid medium or they may be introduced via structural modification. This latter can be achieved by a methylation reaction resulting in a quaternized derivative with a higher polymeric charge density. Since the charges in this derivative are permanents, it is expected a most efficient antimicrobial activity. Hence, in the present study, commercial chitosan underwent quaternization processes and both (mother polymer and derivative) were evaluated, in gel form, against Staphylococcus aureus (Gram-positive) and Escherichia coli (Gram-negative), as model bacteria. The results, as acquired from turbidity measurements, differ between materials with an expressive reduction on the Gram-positive microorganism (S. aureus) growth, while E. coli (Gram-negative) strain was less sensitive to both polymers. Additionally, the antibacterial effectiveness of chitosan was strongly dependent on the concentration, what is discussed in terms of spatial polymer conformation. (C) 2015 Sociedade Brasileira de Farmacognosia. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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