4.6 Article

Purity of graphene oxide determines its antibacterial activity

期刊

2D MATERIALS
卷 3, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2053-1583/3/2/025025

关键词

graphene oxide; bacteria; antibacterial properties; purification; protocol

资金

  1. Graphene Bioscience Interdisciplinary Grand Challenges (Medical Research Council Confidence in Concept scheme) [MC-PC-12018]
  2. EU [604391]
  3. ERC
  4. Royal Society
  5. Welcome Trust
  6. EPSRC [EP/K005014/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. MRC [MC_PC_12018] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K005014/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Medical Research Council [MC_PC_12018] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nanomaterials based on two-dimensional (2D) atomic crystals are considered to be very promising for various life-science and medical applications, from drug delivery to tissue modification. One of the most suitable materials for these purposes is graphene oxide (GO), thanks to a well-developed methods of production and water solubility. At the same time, its biological effect is still debated. Here we demonstrate that highly purified and thoroughly washed GO neither inhibited nor stimulated the growth of E. coli, ATCC25922; E. coli NCIMB11943 and S. aureus ATCC25923 at concentrations of up to 1 mg ml(-1). Moreover, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of GO exposed bacteria did not reveal any differences betweenGOexposed and not exposed populations. In contrast, a suspension of insufficiently purified GO behaved as an antibacterial material due to the presence of soluble acidic impurities, that could be removed by extended purification or neutralisation by alkaline substrates. A standardised protocol is proposed for the generation of clean GO, so it becomes suitable for biological experiments. Our findings emphasise the importance of GO purification status when dealing with biological systems as the true effect of material can be masked by the impact of impurities.

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