| Title |
Antibacterial property and mechanism of a novel Pu-erh tea nanofibrous membrane
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00253-011-3501-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yajuan Su, Chenlu Zhang, Yan Wang, Ping Li |
| Abstract |
Pu-erh tea is made via a natural fermentation process. In this study, Pu-erh tea was used as a raw material for nanomaterials preparation and as an antibacterial agent. Antibacterial activities on Escherichia coli of Pu-erh tea, Pu-erh tea powder (PTP) of different sizes, and Pu-erh tea residual powder were firstly determined, respectively. With polyvinyl alcohol as the carrier, through an electrospinning technique, different kinds of nanofibrous membranes were obtained from the extract of Pu-erh tea and nano-PTP (NPTP), and their antibacterial properties and mechanism against E. coli were evaluated. The results showed better antibacterial activity with smaller PTP particles, the nano-sized particles had the best effects, and the MIC of NPTP was 13.5 mg/mL. When NPTP was in nanofibrous membranes, the antibacterial activity decreased slightly, but increased with modification by ZnO. Pu-erh tea in nanofibrous membranes damaged the E. coli cell membranes and caused leakage of K(+) and enzymes. What is more is that damage of the cell walls led to the leakage of fluorescent proteins from enhanced green fluorescence protein-expressing E. coli. These results indicate that the Pu-erh tea nanofibrous membranes had good antibacterial activities against E. coli, which may provide a promising application of novel antibacterial materials. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Romania | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Physics and Astronomy | 4 | 13% |
| Engineering | 4 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 September 2019.
All research outputs
#8,022,830
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
#2,748
of 8,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,719
of 126,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
#28
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,034 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 126,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.