Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May 31;11(6):1453.
doi: 10.3390/nano11061453.

Nanotoxicity of 2D Molybdenum Disulfide, MoS2, Nanosheets on Beneficial Soil Bacteria, Bacillus cereus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Michael Bae  1 , Jun Kyun Oh  2 , Shuhao Liu  1 , Nirup Nagabandi  1 , Yagmur Yegin  1 , William DeFlorio  1 , Luis Cisneros-Zevallos  3   4 , Ethan M A Scholar  1   5
Affiliations

Nanotoxicity of 2D Molybdenum Disulfide, MoS2, Nanosheets on Beneficial Soil Bacteria, Bacillus cereus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Michael Bae et al. Nanomaterials (Basel). .

Abstract

Concerns arising from accidental and occasional releases of novel industrial nanomaterials to the environment and waterbodies are rapidly increasing as the production and utilization levels of nanomaterials increase every day. In particular, two-dimensional nanosheets are one of the most significant emerging classes of nanomaterials used or considered for use in numerous applications and devices. This study deals with the interactions between 2D molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) nanosheets and beneficial soil bacteria. It was found that the log-reduction in the survival of Gram-positive Bacillus cereus was 2.8 (99.83%) and 4.9 (99.9988%) upon exposure to 16.0 mg/mL bulk MoS2 (macroscale) and 2D MoS2 nanosheets (nanoscale), respectively. For the case of Gram-negative Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the log-reduction values in bacterial survival were 1.9 (98.60%) and 5.4 (99.9996%) for the same concentration of bulk MoS2 and MoS2 nanosheets, respectively. Based on these findings, it is important to consider the potential toxicity of MoS2 nanosheets on beneficial soil bacteria responsible for nitrate reduction and nitrogen fixation, soil formation, decomposition of dead and decayed natural materials, and transformation of toxic compounds into nontoxic compounds to adequately assess the environmental impact of 2D nanosheets and nanomaterials.

Keywords: 2D nanosheets; MoS2 nanomaterials; nanotoxicity; soil bacteria.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scanning electron microscopy images of (a) B. cereus and (b) P. aeruginosa, and (c) zeta-potential of these microorganisms.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Scanning electron microscopy image of bulk MoS2, (b) atomic force microscopy image of 2D MoS2 nanosheets, and (c) zeta potential of bulk and exfoliated MoS2.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Normalized (with respect to initial concentration) survival of B. cereus in peptone water and MoS2 suspension inoculated with (a) bulk MoS2 and (b) exfoliated MoS2. The error bars represent the standard error of the mean.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Normalized (with respect to initial concentration) survival of P. aeruginosa in peptone water and MoS2 suspension inoculated with (a) bulk MoS2 and (b) exfoliated MoS2. The error bars represent the standard error of the mean.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Dose–response curve of (a) B. cereus and (b) P. aeruginosa against bulk and exfoliated MoS2. The error bars represent the standard error of the mean.
Figure 6
Figure 6
SEM micrographs showing interactions between soil bacteria and MoS2 particles at a concentration of 4.0 mg/mL for an inoculation time of 12 h. (a) B. cereus inoculated with bulk MoS2, (b) B. cereus inoculated with exfoliated MoS2, (c) P. aeruginosa inoculated with bulk MoS2, and (d) P. aeruginosa inoculated with exfoliated MoS2. Additional SEM images are shown in Figures S5 and S6, in the Supplementary Materials.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Arvidsson R., Baun A., Furberg A., Hansen S.F., Molander S. Proxy measures for simplified environmental assessment of manufactured nanomaterials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018;52:13670–13680. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b05405. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pagano L., Servin A.D., De La Torre-Roche R., Mukherjee A., Majumdar S., Hawthorne J., Marmiroli M., Maestri E., Marra R.E., Isch S.M. Molecular response of crop plants to engineered nanomaterials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016;50:7198–7207. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b01816. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oh J.K., Liu S., Jones M., Yegin Y., Hao L., Tolen T.N., Nagabandi N., Scholar E.A., Castillo A., Taylor T.M., et al. Modification of aluminum surfaces with superhydrophobic nanotextures for enhanced food safety and hygiene. Food Control. 2019;96:463–469. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.10.005. - DOI
    1. Sakimoto K.K., Kornienko N., Cestellos-Blanco S., Lim J., Liu C., Yang P. Physical biology of the materials–microorganism interface. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018;140:1978–1985. doi: 10.1021/jacs.7b11135. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dimkpa C.O., McLean J.E., Latta D.E., Manangón E., Britt D.W., Johnson W.P., Boyanov M.I., Anderson A.J. CuO and ZnO nanoparticles: Phytotoxicity, metal speciation, and induction of oxidative stress in sand-grown wheat. J. Nanopart. Res. 2012;14:1125. doi: 10.1007/s11051-012-1125-9. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources