| Title |
Improved Antimicrobial Potency through Synergistic Action of Chitosan Microparticles and Low Electric Field
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12010-012-9794-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Glareh Azadi, Matthew Seward, Mona Utne Larsen, Nina C. Shapley, Anubhav Tripathi |
| Abstract |
Techniques to inhibit gram-negative bacteria such as Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli are valuable as the prevalence of large-scale industrial food preparation increases the likelihood of contamination. Chitosan, the deacetylated derivative of chitin, has been demonstrated to inhibit bacteria growth in acidic environments, but is significantly less effective in preventing bacteria grown at pH >7.0. Pulsed electric fields, constituting another method of bacteria inhibition, are difficult to generate at sufficient strength due to the high electric potentials required. This study utilizes adsorption of particulate chitosan in a very low electric field for an increased inhibition of gram-negative bacteria in neutral or alkaline pH conditions. Chitosan microparticles are demonstrated to flocculate E. coli, inhibit growth, and exhibit increased efficacy when combined with a low voltage electric field applied over 2-min intervals. Using sustained pulses of approximately 100 V/cm, it is demonstrated that bacteria viability is reduced by several orders of magnitude. The degree of bacterial inhibition is increased when chitosan microparticles are introduced to the system prior to imposing a small electric field. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 4 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 14% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 24% |
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 25 July 2012.
All research outputs
#15,247,248
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology
#1,549
of 2,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,192
of 163,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology
#12
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,496 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 163,003 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.