| Title |
Can disc diffusion susceptibility tests assess the antimicrobial activity of engineered nanoparticles?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nanoparticle Research, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11051-018-4152-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Angeliki Kourmouli, Marco Valenti, Erwin van Rijn, Hubertus J. E. Beaumont, Olga-Ioanna Kalantzi, Andreas Schmidt-Ott, George Biskos |
| Abstract |
The use of disc diffusion susceptibility tests to determine the antibacterial activity of engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) is questionable because their low diffusivity practically prevents them from penetrating through the culture media. In this study, we investigate the ability of such a test, namely the Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion test, to determine the antimicrobial activity of Au and Ag ENPs having diameters from 10 to 40 nm on Escherichia coli cultures. As anticipated, the tests did not show any antibacterial effects of Au nanoparticles (NPs) as a result of their negligible diffusivity through the culture media. Ag NPs on the other hand exhibited a strong antimicrobial activity that was independent of their size. Considering that Ag, in contrast to Au, dissolves upon oxidation and dilution in aqueous solutions, the apparent antibacterial behavior of Ag NPs is attributed to the ions they release. The Kirby-Bauer method, and other similar tests, can therefore be employed to probe the antimicrobial activity of ENPs related to their ability to release ions rather than to their unique size-dependent properties. Graphical abstractᅟ. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Japan | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 163 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 21 | 13% |
| Unknown | 59 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 21 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 10% |
| Materials Science | 9 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 5% |
| Engineering | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 33 | 20% |
| Unknown | 69 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 July 2018.
All research outputs
#7,489,716
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nanoparticle Research
#248
of 907 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,416
of 331,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nanoparticle Research
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 907 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
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 331,404 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.