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
. 2022 Dec 1;11(12):1737.
doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11121737.

Cytotoxicity and Antibacterial Efficacy of AgCu and AgFe NanoAlloys: A Comparative Study

Fang Zhou  1 , Elie Kostantin  2 , De-Quan Yang  1   3 , Edward Sacher  4
Affiliations

Cytotoxicity and Antibacterial Efficacy of AgCu and AgFe NanoAlloys: A Comparative Study

Fang Zhou et al. Antibiotics (Basel). .

Abstract

Although Ag nanoparticles (NPs) have been widely applied in daily life and in biomedical and industrial fields, there is a demand for Ag-based bimetallic nanoalloys (NAs), such as AgCu and AgFe, due to their enhanced antibacterial efficacy and reduced Ag consumption. In this work, we present a comparison study on the antibacterial efficacy and cytotoxicity rates of Ag NPs and AgCu and AgFe NAs to L929 mouse fibroblast cells using the CCK-8 technique based on the relative cell viability. The concept of the minimum death concentration (MDC) is introduced to estimate the cytotoxicity to the cells. It is found that the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of the NPs against E. coli and S. aureus decrease with the addition of both Cu and Fe. There is a strong correlation between the MDC and MIC, implying that the mechanisms of both antibacterial efficacy and cytotoxicity are similar. The enhanced antibacterial efficacy to bacteria and cytotoxicity toward the cell are attributed to Ag+ release. The following order is found for both the MIC and MDC: AgFe < AgCu < Ag NPs. However, there is no cytotoxicity to the L929 cells for AgFe and AgCu NAs at their MIC Ag concentrations against S. aureus.

Keywords: AgCu; AgFe; L929 cells; antibacterial efficacy; cytotoxicity; nanoalloy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic of the silver-based bimetal NA preparation using Ag NP catalysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Photographs of Ag, AgCu and AgFe NAs before (a) and after (b) heating at 80 °C for 4 h. The Ag concentration was 500 ppm for all the samples. The labels Fe, Ag and Cu represent AgFe, Ag and AgCu, respectively.
Figure 3
Figure 3
A comparison of the UV–visible spectra of Ag, AgCu and AgFe. The Ag concentration was 10 ppm for all samples and the Ag/M ratio was 2:1. The inset shows a color comparison of the AgNPs, AgCu NAs and AgFe NAs at the 10 ppm Ag concentration.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Size distributions and TEM photomicrographs of (a,d,g) Ag, (b,e,h) AgCu and (c,f,i) AgFe NAs. The arrows indicate local atomic lattice orientations.
Figure 5
Figure 5
MIC/MBC comparison of various Ag/M ratios against (a,c) S. aureus (ATCC 6538) and (b,d) E. coli (ATCC 8099).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Concentration-dependent cytotoxicity of various Ag/M ratios. (a1,b1) for Ag NPs, (a2–a4) for AgFe NAs and (b2–b4) for AgCu NAs. Note: Compared to the control, * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Figure 7
Figure 7
MDC values for various Ag/M ratios.
Figure 8
Figure 8
A comparison of the MICs and relative cell viability rates of Ag, AgCu and AgFe NAs for (a) E. coli and (b) S. aureus.
Figure 9
Figure 9
(a) MIC and MDC variations with released Ag+ fractions for Ag, AgCu and AgFe. (b) MIC values as a function of the MDC values for Ag, AgCu and AgFe.
Figure 10
Figure 10
The proposed toxicity mechanism of AgM NAs.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. CDC . Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States. U.S. Departmnet of Health and Human Services; Washington DC, USA: 2019.
    1. Marambio-Jones C., Hoek E. A review of the antibacterial effects of silver nanomaterials and potential implications for human health and the environment. J. Nanopart. Res. 2010;12:1531–1551. doi: 10.1007/s11051-010-9900-y. - DOI
    1. Marassi V., Di Cristo L., Smith S.G., Ortelli S., Blosi M., Costa A.L., Reschiglian P., Volkov Y., Prina-Mello A. Silver nanoparticles as a medical device in healthcare settings: A five-step approach for candidate screening of coating agents. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2018;5:171113. doi: 10.1098/rsos.171113. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McShan D., Ray P.C., Yu H. Molecular toxicity mechanism of nanosilver. J. Food Drug Anal. 2014;22:116–127. doi: 10.1016/j.jfda.2014.01.010. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Choi O., Hu Z. Size dependent and reactive oxygen species related nanosilver toxicity to nitrifying bacteria. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008;42:4583–4588. doi: 10.1021/es703238h. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources