4.7 Article

Facile synthesis, structure, biocompatibility and antimicrobial property of gold nanoparticle composites from cellulose and keratin

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 510, 期 -, 页码 237-245

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2017.09.006

关键词

Ionic liquid; Green; Sustainable; Polysaccharide; Keratin; Wound dressing; Gold nanoparticles; Antibiotic-resistant bacteria

资金

  1. Fulbright Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel, one-pot method was developed to synthesize gold nanoparticle composite from cellulose (CEL), wool keratin (KER) and chloroauric acid. Two ionic liquids, butylmethylimmidazolium chloride and ethylmethylimmidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide were used to dissolve CEL, KER and HAuCl4. X-ray diffraction and X-ray photoelectron results show that Au3+ was completely reduced to Au(0)NPs with size of (5.5 +/- 1) nm directly in the composite with NaBH4. Spectroscopy and imaging results indicate that CEL and KER remained chemically intact and were homogeneously distributed in the composites with Au(0)NPs. Encapsulating Au(0)NPs into [CEL+KER] composite made the composite fully biocompatible and their bactericidal capabilities were increased by the antibacterial activity of Au NPs. Specifically, the [CEL+KER+Au(0)NPs] composite exhibited up to 97% and 98% reduction in growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria such as vancomycin resistant Enterococcus faecalis and methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and was not cytotoxic to human fibroblasts. While [CEL+KER] composite is known to possess some antibacterial activity, the enhanced antibacterial observed here was due solely to added Au(0)NPs. These results together with our previous finding that [CEL+KER] composites can be used for controlled delivery of drugs clearly indicate that the (CEL+KER+Au(0)NPs] composites possess all required properties for successful use as dressing to treat chronic ulcerous infected wounds. (c) 2017 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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