| Title |
Cytotoxic and antimicrobial effects of biosynthesized ZnO nanoparticles using of Chelidonium majus extract
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biomedical Microdevices, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10544-017-0233-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Renata Dobrucka, Jolanta Dlugaszewska, Mariusz Kaczmarek |
| Abstract |
The basic goal of this study was to synthesize zinc oxide nanoparticles using the Chelidonium majus extract and asses their cytotoxic and antimicrobial properties. The synthesized ZnO NPs were characterized by UV-Vis, Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) with EDS profile, Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray diffraction (XRD), Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) and Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM). The aforementioned methods confirmed that the size of synthesized ZnO nanoparticles was at the range of 10 nm. The antimicrobial activity of ZnO nanoparticles synthesized using the Ch. majus extract was tested against standard strains of bacteria (Staphylococcus aureus NCTC 4163, Pseudomonas aeruginosa NCTC 6749, Escherichia coli ATCC 25922), yeast (Candida albicans ATCC 10231), filamentous fungi (molds: Aspergillus niger ATCC 16404, dermatophytes: Trichophyton rubrum ATCC 28188), clinical strains of bacteria (Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus) and yeast (Candida albicans). The study showed that zinc oxide nanoparticles were excellent antimicrobial agents. What is more, biologically synthesized ZnO nanoparticles demonstrate high efficiency in treatment of human non-small cell lung cancer A549. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 96 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 16% |
| Researcher | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 34 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 9 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 8% |
| Chemical Engineering | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 17% |
| Unknown | 38 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,579,736
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Biomedical Microdevices
#613
of 754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#326,018
of 438,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biomedical Microdevices
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 754 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 438,465 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.