3.8 Proceedings Paper

A comparative study on the antibacterial activities of TiO2-Ag nanocomposites with the different molar percentages of Ag

期刊

MATERIALS TODAY-PROCEEDINGS
卷 66, 期 -, 页码 3283-3286

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.06.382

关键词

Nanocomposite; Antibacterial activity; Agar cup Assay; XRD; FESEM

资金

  1. FIST programme [SR/FST/PS-II-001/2011]
  2. UGC (University Grants Commission) India
  3. Department of Physics, Burdwan University
  4. Govt. of West Bengal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

TiO2-Ag nanocomposites with different percentages of Ag (5 mol%, 8 mol%, and 15 mol%) were synthesized via mechanical alloying, and their bactericidal activities were evaluated against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria using an agar cup assay. The nanocomposite with 15 mol% Ag exhibited the highest antibacterial activity against both types of bacteria. Characterization of this nanocomposite was performed using XRD, FESEM, and EDS, confirming its structure and composition.
TiO2- Ag nanocomposites with three different percentages (molar percentage) of Ag (5 mol%, 8 mol%, and 15 mol%) have been synthesized by mechanical alloying of TiO2 and Ag powders for 3 h. The bactericidal activities of these three different nanocomposites have been compared by using an agar cup assay against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. The antibacterial study confirmed that the nanocompos-ite with 15 mol% Ag has the best antibacterial activity against both types of bacteria (Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria). This nanocomposite with the best antibacterial activity has been characterized by analyzing X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns, FESEM images, and EDS spectrum. This novel strategy pro -poses a new route to synthesizing a novel antibacterial agent with minimal side effects in a simple, cost-effective, and facile method. Copyright (c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Condensed Matter Phy-sics.

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

3.8
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