An Overview of Polymer Composite Films for Antibacterial Display Coatings and Sensor Applications

Abstract

The escalating presence of pathogenic microbes has spurred a heightened interest in antimicrobial polymer composites tailored for hygiene applications. These innovative composites ingeniously incorporate potent antimicrobial agents such as metals, metal oxides, and carbon derivatives. This integration equips them with the unique ability to offer robust and persistent protection against a diverse array of pathogens. By effectively countering the challenges posed by microbial contamination, these pioneering composites hold the potential to create safer environments and contribute to the advancement of public health on a substantial scale. This review discusses the recent progress of antibacterial polymer composite films with the inclusion of metals, metal oxides, and carbon derivatives, highlighting their antimicrobial activity against various pathogenic microorganisms. Furthermore, the review summarizes the recent developments in antibacterial polymer composites for display coatings, sensors, and multifunctional applications. Through a comprehensive examination of various research studies, this review aims to provide valuable insights into the design, performance, and real-time applications of these smart antimicrobial coatings for interactive devices, thus enhancing their overall user experience and safety. It concludes with an outlook on the future perspectives and challenges of antimicrobial polymer composites and their potential applications across diverse fields.

Keywords: antibacterial; display coating; multifunctional; polymer composite; sensor.

Figure 5

The antimicrobial activity of the various ZnO–PTFE composite coatings (ZP-10 and ZP-60) against (a) S. aureus, (b) E. coli after incubation for 24 h on (a-1, b-1) blank, (a-2, b-2) ZP-10, and (a-3, b-3) ZP-60 samples), Transmittance. (c) SEM images of as-deposited ZnO and ZP-60 films after 10 h dipping in DI water and 2000 bending cycles, (d) Transmittance of tempered screen protector with and without a coating of ZP-60, (e) ZP-60 coated-tempered glass screen protector attached to a smartphone. (a–e) Reprinted from Ref. [69]. Copyright 2022, Royal Society of Chemistry. (f) Transmittance of the transparent PTPU-TENG. (g) Captured picture of the transparent TENG serving as a screen protector for a smartwatch; confocal laser scanning microscopic images of (h) as-coated TPU, and (i) patterned TPU. (f–i) Reprinted from Ref. [80]. Copyright 2023, Elsevier.

Figure 1

(a) Conceptual illustration of antibacterial polymer composites for display coatings, sensor, and multifunctional applications, and (b) bacterial colonization on interactive displays.

Figure 2

(a) Formation of a Ag/WPUL nanocomposite through the coordination of silver ions with WPUL and its antibacterial activity against S. aureus and P. aeruginosa. (a) Reprinted from Ref. [32]. Copyright 2020, Elsevier. (b) Captured images of PBAT, PBAT/Cu, PBAT/Cu|Cu₂O, and PBAT/CuSO₄, showing antibacterial activity and colonization count at a 3% concentration against (c) S. aureus, (d) A. baumanni, (e) E. faecalis, and (f) S. mutan, respectively. (b–f) Reprinted from Ref. [40]. Copyright 2019, Springer.

Figure 3

(a) FESEM image of GR functionalized with MD10 (GR-MD10), and (b) Antibacterial ratio of GO, GO-MD10, and GR-MD10. (a,b) Reprinted from Ref. [54]. (c) Atomic microscopic and fluorescence microscopic images of biofilm formation of E. coli on PVK-SWNT-coated and suspension surfaces, respectively; and (d) Correlation percentage of nonviable E. coli and B. subtilis cells (inactivated cells %) after interaction with PVK, SWNT (1 mg/mL), and PVK-SWNT. (c,d) Reprinted from Ref. [56]. Copyright 2011, American Chemical Society.

Figure 4

(a) Schematic illustration of SZO/PTFE-based transparent, antireflective, and antibacterial composite coatings for display panel application, (b) Transmittance, (c) Water contact angles of SZO/PTFE composite coatings after exposing to ambient air over a period of days, SEM images of (d) SZO and (e) SZO/PTFE composite films after 80 days of dipping into DI water, and antibacterial activity of (f) SZO and (g) SZO/PTFE coatings against E. coli, and S. aureus. (a–g) Reprinted from Ref. [62]. Copyright 2022, American Chemical Society. (h) Schematic illustration of nanocomposite coatings composed of a protective layer of PTFE/SiO₂ and silver nanoparticles, (i) Transmittance of composite coatings with respective number of swipes, and (j) Antibacterial activity of composite coatings for (A) without swiping, (B) after 2000 touches, (C) after 2000 swipes, and (D) after bending at 3 cm from the original state for 30 s. (h–j) Reprinted from Ref. [75]. Copyright 2015, Elsevier.

Figure 6

(a) Schematic structure of P-TENG with its captured image and corresponding (b) output voltage and (c) current of P-TENG; (d) Pressure sensitivity of P-TENG obtained from the maximum peak output amplitudes and (e) antibacterial activity of ZnO-paper composite against E. coli ((a1, a7) blank paper) and S. aureus ((b1, b7) ZnO@paper-5). (a–e) Reprinted from Ref. [94]. (f) Antibacterial activity, (g) cytotoxicity, (h) water contact angles of PVDF and PVDF composites with 0.5 and 5 wt.% of different fillers: (1) PVDF, (2) 05AgCu2/PVDF, (3) 5AgCu2/PVDF; (4) 05AgCu10/PVDF, (5) 5AgCu10/PVDF; (6) 5NiCu/PVDF. (i) Captured image of a 5AgCu2/PVDF capacitive touch sensor, along with the corresponding chart illustrating the touch locations of two fingers. (f–i) Reprinted from Ref. [95]. Copyright 2022, Wiley-VCH.

Figure 7

(a) PVDF/BZT−0.5BCT (20%) composite fibers and its schematic sensor. (b) Output voltages of sensors with respect to air pressure, (c) optical images and live bacterial counts of E. coli and S. aureus at 0 min, 30 min, and 60 min following ultrasonic treatment with PVDF/BZT−0.5BCT nanofibers, and (d) Antibacterial efficacy of BZT-0.5BCT/PVDF nanofibers against E. coli and S. aureus. (a–d) Reprinted from Ref. [96]. Copyright 2022, IOPscience. (e) Schematic representation of the self-powered antibacterial tactile sensor and its corresponding (f) pressure sensitivity and (g) temperature sensitivity. (e–h) Reprinted from Ref. [99]. Copyright 2023, Elsevier. (i) Structure of the flexible conductive XSBR/CA/Ag film, (j) change in the current of the sensor with increasing bending angle of the finger, and (k) change in (I₀–I)/I₀ with the bending angle of the finger. (l) Change in the current of the sensor with (l) increasing and (m) decreasing humidity. (i–m) Reprinted from Ref. [100]. Copyright 2020, American Chemical Society.

Figure 8

(a) A schematic illustration of the single-electrode TENG structure, accompanied by digital photographs and its corresponding (b) pressure sensitivity and (c) pressure sensitivity. (a–c) Reprinted from Ref. [69]. Copyright 2022, Royal Society of Chemistry. (d) Percentage of photocatalytic degradation of MB on pure PMMA, PMMA/Ag NF, PMMA/ZnO, and PMMA/ZnO–Ag NF Mats, (e) antibacterial activity of PMMA, PMMA/ZnO and PMMA/ZnO NF Mats with different concentrations of Ag%, and (f) a schematic depiction of the incorporation of PMMA/ZnO–Ag NF mats in protective clothing. (d–f) Reprinted from Ref. [101]. Copyright 2021, American Chemical Society. (g) Schematic representation showcasing the multifunctional capabilities of Ni/ZnO fabric as a strain sensor, thermal sensor, and supercapacitor, and (h) Variation in the ΔR/R₀ of the Ni/ZnO fabric specimens in response to ambient temperature. (i) Change in ΔR/R₀ with respect to various strain percentages, and (j) the antibacterial activity of Ni/ZnO fabric specimens against S. aureus and E. coli. (g–j) Reprinted from Ref. [102]. Copyright 2022, Elsevier.

Figure 9

(a) Schematic of Ag@rGO/PVA-PAAm organohydrogel. (b) Schematic diagram illustrating the antibacterial properties of the organohydrogel, along with captured photographs showing the distribution of E. coli and S. aureus colonies after co-culture with different materials. (c) Open-circuit voltage of the O-TENG under different forces. (d) Open-circuit voltage (Voc) of the O-TENG before damage and after self-healing. (e) Open-circuit voltage of the O-TENG at different temperatures (−30 to 25 °C). (a–e) Reprinted from Ref. [103]. Copyright 2022, Wiley-VCH. (f) Schematic representation of MFWD for wound closure, antibacterial activity, and infection monitoring. (g) Schematic diagram and actual photograph of the sensing component of MFDW featuring three distinct sensors: glucose (PB/GOx), pH (PANI), and temperature (PEI/rGO). Scale bar: 1 cm. (h) Glucose calibration: linear 0–200 × 10⁻⁶ m, sensitivity 1.72 μA/mM, r² = 0.968. (i) pH sensing: linear, sensitivity −30.8 mV/pH, r² = 0.991. (j) Temperature sensing: linear, sensitivity ≈0.54%/°C, r² = 0.994. (f–j) Reprinted from Ref. [104]. Copyright 2022, Wiley-VCH.