Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Recently, antibacterial coatings based on graphene oxide (GO) nanocomposites have attracted many studies around the world. The use of polymers as the matrices of GO nanofillers in the nanocomposites has been explored to produce efficient coatings against bacteria. One of the most prospective applications is the incorporation of GO into biocompatible polymers, which can produce antibacterial coatings. Here, recent progresses on the antibacterial coatings of nanocomposites based on biocompatible polymers and GO are reviewed. The effect of GO filler concentrations, biocide materials, and biocompatibility are discussed to find the most efficient antibacterial activity and biocompatibility of nanocomposites. Among biocompatible polymers, chitosan (Cs), poly vinyl alcohol (PVA), and poly lactic acid (PLA) are the most popular matrices used for the nanocomposites. This review also elaborates challenges in the use of other biocompatible polymers. Future works on biocompatible antibacterial coatings should be conducted by considering the concentration of GO nanofillers or adding other materials such as essential oils to suppress the toxicity toward functional cells.

Keywords

Nanocomposites biocompatible polymers graphene oxide antibacterial coatings

Introduction

The colonization of bacteria on surfaces can give an adverse impact on the function of instruments such as petroleum pipelines, aquatic systems, textiles, food packages, contact lenses, and medical devices.^1–3 These negative impacts include the worsening of surface functions and properties⁴; surface corrosion⁵; bacterial contaminations^6,7; biofouling⁸; chronic infection⁷; and even deaths.⁹ Food packaging without antibacterial coatings may cause quality deterioration and spoilage of foods. The microorganisms attaching to these surfaces, e.g.: Escherichia coli (E. coli)¹⁰; Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus),⁷ commonly form biofilm that may resist several antibiotics. Moreover, the type of antibacterial coating depends upon the mechanism in which the coating interacts with the bacteria, e.g.: silver nanoparticle (AgNP) coating is effective in treating E. coli, but not so toward S. aureus. This leads to a challenge in biomedical innovation focusing on the development of antibacterial surfaces by the application of surface coatings or modification of the surface architecture.^11,12 With recent progress in nanotechnology, the effort to design and fabricate new antibacterial coatings based on nanomaterials has been conducted.^13–15 Antibacterial coatings have several advantages including high efficiency of bactericidal activity, low toxicity, low cost, environmentally friendly, and long lifetime.^16,17 Antibacterial coatings based on nanomaterials are widely used in clinics, industries, and households to prevent bacterial colonization and the spread of infections.^16,17

The nanomaterials based on graphene, such as graphene oxide (GO) and reduced GO (rGO) have been widely used in coating technologies^18–21 including antibacterial coatings.^22–26 Although rGO has been used as an antibacterial agent,²⁷ GO is more potential for antibacterial coatings due to its functionalized structure,²⁸ good dispersion, remarkable thermal stability,^29,30 and synergistic effect with other biocide agents.^28,31–33 GO is accepted as the most effective antibacterial nanomaterial due to its edge cutting effect,^34,35 oxidative stress effect created by reactive oxygen species (ROS) or charge transfer,³⁵ and cell entrapment ability.³⁶ Oxidative stress may damage bacteria cells by the release of ROS, whereas the cell entrapment is envisioned by confining the bacteria on the layers of GO limiting its cell division ability.³⁵

GO exhibits biocompatibility that makes it a promising nanofiller for some biocompatible polymers to form antibacterial coatings.^37–39 GO activates antibacterial effect and enhances the mechanical strength of the polymers.^40,41 In general, there are three strategies to fabricate biocompatible an antibacterial coatings based on biocompatible polymers and GO nanocomposites as shown in Figure 1. The first strategy is to directly disperse GO nanofillers into a biocompatible polymer, e.g.: melt mixing GO or rGO with poly lactic acid (PLA).⁴² For some biocompatible polymers, GO filler can readily activate the antibacterial effect on the nanocomposites. The second strategy is to add biocide materials such as AgNPs, metal oxides, and antibiotics together with GO as nanofillers of biocompatible polymers.⁴³ The concentration of these biocide agents and the synergistic effect with GO strongly affect the antibacterial activity of the coatings. However, the excessive use of the biocide agents might decrease the biocompatibility of the coatings. The third strategy is covalently modifying GO before being dispersed into the polymers.⁴⁴ The biocompatibility and antibacterial activity can be adjusted by tuning the concentration of the functionalized GO.⁴⁵

Figure 1.

Three different strategies to obtain antibacterial coatings based on biocompatible polymers and GO.

The concentration of GO nanofillers cannot be arbitrary in order to hold or improve biocompatibility of the polymers. Optimizing GO and biocides in the biocompatible polymer matrix is crucial and challenging for fabricating biocompatible antibacterial coatings. This is because the nanocomposites should kill bacteria, but not kill normal and functional cells, e.g.: erythrocyte and human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs).⁴⁴ Recent studies show the possibility to produce nanocomposites with this multipurpose property.^44,45 The coating process of the nanocomposite films can also influence the biocompatibility and antibacterial activity. The solution-casted film of chitosan/GO nanocomposite, for example, shows cytotoxicity when the concentration of GO is 3 wt.%⁴⁴ while the electrophoretic-deposited film of the same composite exhibits biocompatibility even when the concentration of GO is 30 wt.%.⁴⁵ The coating technique does affect the biocompatibility of these two films yet both of them still exhibit a comparable bactericidal effect.^44,45

Searching nanocomposites with excellent antibacterial properties and less toxicity is still a challenge. The availability of review papers on this topic is necessary to provide the path and outlooks toward future research on biocompatible antibacterial coatings. Han et al. wrote an overview of antibacterial coatings based on graphene nanomaterials with an emphasis on antibacterial activities.⁴⁶ Henriques et al. reviewed the relation between the production process of antibacterial coatings based on graphene nanomaterials and their antibacterial performances.⁴⁷ However, this paper overviews the antibacterial performance of antibacterial coatings that have biocompatibility property. Recent progresses on the antibacterial coatings of nanocomposites based on biocompatible polymers and GO are reviewed. The effect of GO filler concentrations, biocide materials, and biocompatibility are discussed to find the most efficient antibacterial as well as biocompatible nanocomposites.

Chitosan/GO based antibacterial coatings

Chitosan (poly (1,4-b-d-glucopyranosamine)) has excellent antibacterial,⁴⁸ non-toxicity, high biocompatibility, and bioadsorbility properties.^49,50 However, its mechanical strength is lacking. GO nanofillers can improve chitosan’s mechanical strength without hampering its antibacterial properties.⁵¹ This combination may result in excellent film-forming ability with antibacterial and biocompatibility so that it is suitable for active food packaging and medical device coatings.⁴⁴ Table 1 summarizes nanocomposites materials based on chitosan/GO for biocompatible and antibacterial coatings.

Table 1.

Nanocomposites materials based on chitosan/GO for antibacterial coatings.

Materials	Compositions	Coating process	Bacteria	CFU/mL	Antibacterial activity performances	Biocompatibility tests	Ref
Chitosan/GO	30 wt.% GO	Electrophoretic deposition	S. aureus	NG	BR: 62% (2h)	No cytotoxicity on human osteosarcoma cell line	[45]
	3 wt. % GO	Solution-casting	S. aureus	1 x 10⁵	IR: 100% (24h)	Causing erythrocyte hemolysis	[44]
	3 wt. % GO	Solution-casting	E. coli	1 x 10⁵	IR: 95% (24h)	Causing erythrocyte hemolysis	[44]
	1.5 wt.% GO	Solution-casting	S. aureus	1 x 10⁷	BR: >77% (3h)	Biocompatible for high proliferation of hMSCs.	[51]
Chitosan/GO/AgNPs	Chitosan: GO/AgNPs (1:4)	NG	S. aureus	1 x 10⁷	MIC: 2.44 µg/mL (1.09 Ag+ and 1.35 GO), MBC: 7.33 µg/mL (3.28 Ag+ and 4.05 GO)	NG	[52]
	0.025 wt.% GO	Electrophoretic deposition	Pseudomonas sp.	1 x 10⁷	BR: ˜93% (24h)	NG	[53]
	Chitosan: GO: AgNPs (5:1:1)	NG	S. aureus	1 x 10⁶	MIC: 10 ug/mL	NG	[47]
			S. mutans	1 x 10⁶	MIC: 10 ug/mL
			E. coli	1 x 10⁶	MIC: 8 ug/mL
			K. pneumoniae	1 x 10⁶	MIC: 8 ug/mL
			P. aeruginosa	1 x 10⁶	MIC: 7 ug/mL
			S. typhi	1 x 10⁶	MIC: 8 ug/mL
Chitosan/GO/Iron Oxide	0.1 wt.% GO/Iron oxide	Gel-casting	S. aureus	1 x 10⁵	DIZ: ˜15 mm	Causing concentration-dependent hemolysis of human red blood cells.	[54]
			E. coli	1 x 10⁶	DIZ: ˜15 mm		[54]
	Chitosan: GO (5:1)	NG	E. coli	1 x 10⁶	BR: 99% (20 min)	NG	[55]
Chitosan/GO/ZnO	NG	NG	S. aureus	1 x 10⁶	MIC: 0.1 ug/mL	NG.	[56]
			E. coli	1 x 10⁶	MIC: 0.1 ug/mL
Chitosan/GO/TiO₂	Chitosan: GO: TiO₂ (1:20:4)	Freeze-drying	B. subtilis	1 x 10⁸	With 40 ug/mL of the material, the OD₆₀₀ of B. subtilis drop from 0.79 to 0.33 for 12 h	Not causing cytotoxicity against mammalian somatic cells and plant cells	[57]
Chitosan/GO+ antibiotics vancomycin (> 0.5 g/l)	30 wt.% GO	Drug-eluting	S. aureus	NG	BR: 100 % (2h)	NG	[45]
Chitosan/rGO	3 wt. % rGO	Solution-casting	S. aureus	1 x 10⁵	IR: 90 % (24h)	Causing erythrocyte hemolysis	[44]
	3 wt. % rGO	Solution-casting	E. coli	1 x 10⁵	IR: 80% (24h)	Causing erythrocyte hemolysis	[44]
	0.3 wt.% rGO	Drop-casting	P. aeruginosa	1 x 10⁶	BR: 100% (24h)	NG	[58]
Chitosan/phosphorylated GO	3 wt. % phosphorylated GO	Solution-casting	S. aureus	1 x 10⁵	IR: 95% (24h)	Causing erythrocyte hemolysis	[44]
			E. coli	1 x 10⁵	IR: 95% (24h)
Chitosan/trimethylsilylated GO	3 wt. % trimethylsilylated GO	Solution-casting	S. aureus	1 x 10⁵	IR: 95% (24h)	Causing erythrocyte hemolysis	[44]
			E. coli	1 x 10⁵	IR: 50% (24h)
Chitosan/guanidine Functionalized GO	Chitosan/guanidine: GO (1:1)	NG	S. aureus	1 x 10⁵	BR: 92% (30 min)	NG	[59]
			E. coli	1 x 10⁵	BR: 95% (30 min)MIC toward both bacteria: 32 ug/mL
Chitosan/chitosan-grafted graphene	4 wt.% Chitosan-grafted graphene	Solution-casting	S. epidermidis	1 x 10⁸	BR: 79% (18 h)	NG	[60]

Note: BR: Bactericidal rate, IR: Inhibitory rate, MIC: Minimum inhibitory concentration, MBC: Minimum Bactericidal concentration, DIZ: Diameter of inhibitory zone, OD: Optical density, NG: Not given

The biocompatibility and antibacterial activities of chitosan/GO nanocomposites depend on the GO concentration and the coating process. Wronska et al. reported that the addition of GO filler of 3 wt.% was excellent to combat S. aureus and E. coli. The coating also displayed improved mechanical strength compared to pure chitosan, but slightly cytotoxic. The biocompatibility of chitosan/GO can be achieved by adjusting the GO nanofiller concentration.⁴⁴ Mazaheri et al. demonstrated that by adding only 1.5 wt.% of GO into chitosan matrix polymer, the film becomes biocompatible for high proliferation of hMSCs without affecting its antibacterial activity.⁵¹ By changing the coating method, Ordikhani et al. reported that chitosan/GO film caused no toxicity on human osteosarcoma cell line (MG-63 osteoblast-like cells) even with 30 wt.% of GO nanofiller. Moreover, the film still exhibited antibacterial activity on S. aureus with bactericidal rate of 62% in 2 hours.⁴⁵ It is noteworthy that the viability of osteoblast-like cells on the coating highly depends on the concentration of GO nanofiller.^45,61

Many attempts have been done to incorporate small amount of GO nanofiller into chitosan to suppress the cytotoxicity of chitosan/GO nanocomposite yet still holding enough mechanical properties. However, this decreases the antibacterial activity. Therefore, adding biocide materials could be an efficient way to reinforce the antibacterial effect. AgNPs can be used as a biocide into chitosan/GO nanocomposites. The main reason of using AgNPs is due to their good synergistic antibacterial effect when combined with other antibacterial agents.^52,62–64 Marta et al. demonstrated a stable chitosan/GO/AgNPs film that can effectively combat bacteria due to the synergistic effect of all constituents, which depends on the ratio of chitosan to AgNPs–GO.⁵² Khawaja et al. fabricated chitosan/GO/AgNPs by directly dispersing GO and AgNPs into the chitosan solution. The resulted film has synergetic effects and inhibits several bacteria, e.g.: S. aureus, S. mutans, E. coli, K. pneumonia, P. aeruginosa, and S. typhi.⁶⁵ Jena et al. coated Cu-Ni alloy with chitosan/GO/AgNPs by means of electrophoretic deposition such that GO can be suppressed to only 0.025 wt. %. The coating exhibits an antibacterial effect on Pseudomonas sp.⁵³ The chitosan/GO/AgNPs exhibits higher antibacterial activity than most of the antibacterial agents based on AgNPs or AgNPs–GO reported so far.

Metal oxide nanoparticles are biocide materials which can be incorporated into chitosan/GO nanocomposite. Metal oxides such as iron oxide,^54,55 ZnO,⁵⁶ and TiO₂⁵⁷ are recognized as safe materials and have inherent antibacterial activities.^57,66,67 Konwar et al. incorporated 0.1 wt.% of GO/iron oxide into chitosan to produce chitosan/GO/iron oxide nanocomposites with antibacterial activity against Methicillin-resistant S. aureus, S. aureus, and E. coli. Furthermore, reducing the concentration of GO/iron oxide down to 0.05 wt.% leads to very low hemolytic activity toward human erythrocytes.⁵⁴ Another advantage of incorporating iron oxide or metal oxide is the ability to adsorb liquid waste. Jiang et al. reported the use of chitosan/GO/iron oxide to combat bacteria and adsorb methyl orange.⁵⁵ Sanmugam et al. demonstrated the chitosan/GO/ZnO film exhibited strong antibacterial activity against E. coli and S. aureus and good dye adsorption behavior for methylene blue and chromium complex.⁵⁶ In addition, Xu et al. found that the nanocomposite based on chitosan/GO/TiO₂ exhibited excellent antibacterial activity and biocompatibility.⁵⁷

Another way to improve the antibacterial activity of chitosan/GO nanocomposite is to reduce GO,^58,63 and functionalize GO into phosphorylated GO, trimethylsilylated GO,⁴⁵ guanidine functionalized GO,⁵⁹ or chitosan-grafted graphene.⁶⁰ However, the use of more than 1.5 wt.% of the first three modified GO cause cytotoxicity, erythrocyte hemolysis, adsorbing the released hemoglobin, oxidizing hemoglobin, and changing catalase activity.⁴⁴ It is an open question for searching the minimum content of modified GO to be nanofillers of chitosan polymer that has good mechanical properties, antibacterial activity, and biocompatibility. The use of antibiotics may be another solution. Ordikhani et al. reported that adding 0.5 g/l of vancomycin into chitosan/GO completely kills bacteria in only 2 hours.⁴⁵

PVA is a synthetic polymer which is highly biocompatible, water-soluble, and non-toxic. It has excellent film-forming, emulsifying, and adhesive properties yet has poor mechanical properties and brittle.^68–71 Incorporating small amount of GO nanofiller, i.e.0.1 wt.% to the PVA matrix improves the thermal, mechanical, and electrical properties of the film.⁶⁹ However, the PVA/GO nanocomposite does not exhibit obvious antibacterial performance.⁷⁰ Therefore, PVA/GO nanocomposite can be modified by means of adding biocide materials or functionalizing GO as shown in Table 2. Cao et al. reported that adding methylated melamine grafted polyvinyl benzyl chloride (mm-g-PvBCl), into PVA/GO nanocomposite activated the bactericidal effect which increases with increasing concentration of the biocide up to 5 wt.%.⁷⁰ The bactericidal effect is due to the positive charge density of active groups in the biocide, which attracts the negatively charged bacteria cells and damages them. This PVA/GO/mm-g-PvBCl nanocomposite could be a promising material for antibacterial coatings in food packaging and hygiene products industry.

Table 2.

Nanocomposite materials based on PVA/GO for antibacterial coatings.

Materials	Compositions	Coating process	Bacteria	CFU/mL	Antibacterial activity performances	Biocompatibility tests	Ref
PVA/GO	0.1 wt.% GO	Solution casting	S. aureus	2 x 10⁵	No obvious (24h).	NG	[70]
			E. coli	2 x 10⁴
PVA/GO/AgNPs	0.01 wt.% GO, 10 wt.% PVA, 3.9 mM AgNO3	Solution casting	S. aureus	1 x 10⁶	BR: 100% (3h)	NG	[71]
			E. coli	1 x 10⁶	BR: 100%(1h)
	0.01 wt.% GO, 10 wt.% PVA, 0.25 mM AgNO₃	NG	S. aureus	NG	BR: 97% (1h)	No cytotoxicity on PBMC	[72]
			E. coli	NG	BR: 100% (1h)
	0.5 wt.% silver precursor, 1 wt.% of GO	Solution casting	S. aureus	5 x 10⁶	IR: ˜100% (24h)	NG	[73]
			E. coli	5 x 10⁶	IR: ˜100% (24h)
	1 wt.% silver precursor, 2 wt.% GO	Solution casting	S. aureus	5 x 10⁶	IR: ˜100% (72h)	NG
		E. coli	5 x 10⁶	IR: ˜100% (72h)
	5 wt.% PVA, 5 wt.% GO/AgNPs	Solution casting	S. aureus	5 x 10⁶	IR: ˜100% (72h)	NG	[74]
		E. coli	5 x 10⁶	IR: ˜100% (48h)
PVA/GO/AgNPs/Starch	0.5 wt.% GO, 0.1 wt.% silver precursor, 50 wt.% starch	Solution casting	S. aureus	1 x 10⁸	DIZ: 20.5 mm		[75]
			E. coli	1 x 10⁸	DIZ: 17 mm
PVA/GO/(mm-g-PvBCl)	1 wt.% mm-g-PvBCl	Solution casting	S. aureus	2 x 10⁵	BR: 92.3% (24h)	NG	[70]
			E. coli	2 x 10⁴	BR: 92.0% (24h)
	5 wt.% mm-g-PvBCl	Solution casting	S. aureus	2 x 10⁵	BR: 99.6% (24h)	NG
			E. coli	2 x 10⁴	BR: 95.8% (24h)
	10 wt.% mm-g-PvBCl	Solution casting	S. aureus	2 x 10⁵	BR: 99.7% (24h)	NG
			E. coli	2 x 10⁴	BR: 97.1% (24h)
PVA/chlorinated GO-PSPH	10 wt.% chlorinated GO-PSPH	Solution casting	S. aureus	1.5 x 10⁵	BR: 99.33% (30 min)	NG	[76]
			E. coli	1.5 x 10⁵	BR: 99.89% (30 min)
PVA/GO- CDPC-La	GO: CDPC (1:4)	Solution intercalation	S. aureus	NG	MIC: 1 mg/mL	Promoting proliferation rate of NIH3T3 cells.	[77]
			E. coli	NG	MIC: 2 mg/mL	Promoting proliferation rate of NIH3T3 cells.	[77]

PVA/GO/AgNPs nanocomposites show antibacterial activity depending on GO and AgNPs precursor concentrations. Surudzic et al. reported that by adding 0.01 wt.% of GO and 3.9 nM of AgNPs precursor into PVA, the resulted nanocomposite film had better mechanical and thermal properties and had antibacterial activity against S. aureus and E. coli. Its bactericidal effect was higher than the Ag/PVA film.⁷¹ Abudabbus et al. reduced the concentration of AgNPs precursor down to only 0.25 mM yet the PVA/GO/AgNPs film still had antibacterial activity toward the same bacteria. A synergistic action of both silver and graphene causes the physical damage on bacterial membranes and accelerates the bactericidal rate. Furthermore, the PVA/GO/AgNPs nanocomposite has no cytotoxic toward peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC).⁷² Cobos et al. studied the antibacterial dependency of PVA/GO/AgNPs nanocomposite on GO and AgNPs concentration. They compared two PVA/GO/AgNPs nanocomposites, i.e.: the film with 1 wt.% of GO and 0.5 wt.% of silver precursor; and the film with 2 wt.% of GO and 1 wt.% of silver precursor. They concluded that the more concentration of GO and AgNPs in the film the longer the inhibition of bacterial growth.⁷³ Furthermore, Cobos et al. reported that the incorporation of 5 wt.% of GO/AgNPs has antibacterial activity. However, the biocompatibility of the nanocomposite toward functional cells was not studied.⁷⁴ Usman et al. combined PVA, GO, AgNPs, and starch through one pot synthesis into a nanocomposite. The starch was used to reduce GO and Ag salt in the PVA matrix. The film showed inhibition zone against S. aureus and E. coli due to synergistic effect of GO and AgNPs.⁷⁵

Functionalizing GO is also used to obtain biocompatible antibacterial nanocomposites. Pan et al. modified GO with polymeric N-halamine then mixed the functionalized GO with PVA solution to obtain a novel hybrid nanocomposite.⁷⁶ The N-halamine compound is known as an efficient antimicrobial, non-toxic, and environmentally friendly material, which can enhance the antibacterial efficacy of GO. They used the as-prepared polymeric N-halamine or poly [5,5-dimethyl-3-(30-triethoxysilylpropyl) hydantoin] (PSPH). The PSPH was covalently grafted onto GO, chlorinated, and mixed with PVA. It was concluded that GO and polymeric N-halamine enhanced the antibacterial activities with bactericidal rate nearly 100% in 30 minutes against S. aureus and E. coli. Liu et al. reported functionalized GO with zwitterionic citicoline (CDPC) to improve the dispersibility of water-based polymers and put La³⁺ ions to enhance antibacterial properties. The resulted PVA/GO-CDPC-La film inhibited the growth of S. aureus and E. coli. Furthermore, in vivo wound healing experiments demonstrated that the film healed wound faster post-operatively and promoted the formation of mature epidermal architecture. This finding could lead the use of the film as a wound-dressing material.⁷⁷

PLA/GO based antibacterial coatings

PLA is commonly known as a biodegradable and biocompatible polymer. Unfortunately, PLA does not exhibit antibacterial capacity and suffers from brittleness. The addition of different ratio of GO nanofillers into PLA can produce multifunctional nanocomposites with mechanical strength, antibacterial behavior, and improved biocompatibility.³⁹ Table 3 summarizes different route for producing antibacterial coatings of PLA/GO based nanocomposites. Liu et al. reported that incorporating 1 wt.% of GO into PLA via direct dispersion method does not give antibacterial effect.⁷⁸ However, increasing the concentration of GO up to 5 wt.% caused completely bactericidal effects toward S. aureus and E. coli within 24 hours.⁴² Furthermore, the nanocomposite was biocompatible toward osteosarcoma cells.⁴² The use of 10 wt.% of rGO in PLA/rGO film showed lower antibacterial than the use of GO and more toxic toward osteosarcoma cells. However, by giving an electrical stimulus over the PLA/rGO film the efficiency of bactericidal increases to 100%.⁴² Kang et al. produced Poly (L-lactide) PLLA/GO film via grafting method, which enables GO to be functionalized by PLLA.⁷⁹ The nanocomposite has good polymer matrix/GO compatibility and homogeneous distribution of GO with only 0.5 wt.% of GO via electrospinning method.⁷⁹ However, physical mixing and covalent functionalization can either cause phase segregation or compromise the intrinsic properties of GO.⁸⁰ Yang et al. reported different technique to fabricate PLLA/GO film via π-π stacking process to form PLLA-conjugated GO (PLLA-c-GO), which then dispersed into PLLA solution. By using 4 wt.% of GO, the film has advantages including antibacterial activity, uniform distribution of GO in the PLLA matrix, and very low toxicity toward mammalian cells, e.g.: L929 and macrophage cells.⁸⁰

Table 3.

Nanocomposite materials based on PLA/GO for antibacterial coatings.

Materials	Compositions	Coating process	Bacteria	CFU/mL	Antibacterial activity performances	Biocompatibility tests	Ref
PLA/GO	1 wt.% GO	Electrospinning	S. aureus	NG	No DIZ	NG	[78]
PLA/GO	1 wt.% GO	Electrospinning	E. coli	NG	No DIZ	NG	[78]
PLA/GO	5 wt.% GO	Hot press molding	S. aureus		BR: 100 %(24h).	No toxicity on osteosarcoma cells.	[42]
PLA/GO	5 wt.% GO	Hot press molding	E. coli		BR: 100 %(24h)	No toxicity on osteosarcoma cells.	[42]
PLLA/GO	0.5 wt.% GO	Electrospinning	S. aureus		IC₅₀: 0.06 g/mL	NG	[79]
PLLA/GO	4 wt.% GO	Solution casting	S. aureus		BR: 90 % (12h)	Low toxicity towards L929 and macrophage cells.	[80]
			E. coli		BR: 90 % (12h)
			B. subtilis		BR: 90 % (12h)
PLA/rGO	10 wt.% rGO	Hot press molding	S. aureus		BR:35. 5 % (24h)	70% viability of osteosarcoma cells.	[42]
PLA/rGO	10 wt.% rGO	Hot press molding	E. coli		BR: 44.9 % (24h)	70% viability of osteosarcoma cells.
PLA/rGO with electrical stimulus	10 wt.% rGO	Hot press molding	S. aureus		BR: 100 % (24h)	NG
PLA/rGO with electrical stimulus	10 wt.% rGO	Hot press molding	E. coli		BR: 100 % (24h)	NG
PLA/GO/AgNPs	1 wt.% GO, 7 wt.% AgNPs	Electrospinning	S. aureus		BR: ˜82% (4h)	NG	[78]
PLA/GO/AgNPs	1 wt.% GO, 7 wt.% AgNPs	Electrospinning	E. coli		BR: ˜87 % (6h)	NG	[78]
PLA/GO-ZnO	0.2 wt.% GO-ZnO	Solution casting	S. aureus	NG	BR: 83 % (24 h no light), 99% (24h with light)	NG	[81]
PLA/GO-ZnO	0.2 wt.% GO-ZnO	Solution casting	E. coli	NG	BR: 52% (24h no light), 98% (24h with light)	NG	[81]
PLA/GO/CFX	5 wt.% of GO, 5 wt.% CFX	Compression-molding	M. luteus		DIZ: 38 mm	NG	[82]
PLLA/GO-g-PLLA	2 wt.% GO-g-PLLA	Solution casting	S. aureus		IC₅₀: 0.1 g/mL	NG	[79]
PLA/GO/Clove oil	1 wt. % GO, 30 wt.% Clove oil	Solution casting	S. aureus		7 log reduction (7 days)	NG	[83]
PLA/GO/Clove oil	1 wt. % GO, 30 wt.% Clove oil	Solution casting	E. coli		6 log reduction (7 days)	NG	[83]

Note: IC₅₀: Inhibitory concentration up to 50% of bacteria colonies.

The incorporation of GO-inorganic nanocomposites into PLA matrix also offers an opportunity to develop enhanced mechanical, antibacterial, and biocompatible properties. Liu et al. developed PLA-based coatings with GO/AgNPs nanofillers through electrospinning method. They used 1 wt.% GO and 7 wt.% AgNPs incorporated into the PLA matrix to improve the tensile and bactericidal performances.⁷⁸ The film exhibits synergistic antibacterial properties that exceed the performances of individual GO and AgNPs components.⁷⁸ GO/metal oxide nanocomposites attract attention from researchers because GO could bring enhanced properties and improved performance of metal compounds.⁸⁴ Huang et al. reported the use of GO/ZnO nanofillers to improve the properties of PLA polymer. The resulted film not only keeps the preferable properties of GO and ZnO, but also exhibits the synergetic effect between them.⁸¹ Interestingly, this film can lead to photo-induced antibacterial nanocomposite. The PLA/GO/ZnO film with 0.2 wt.% of GO-ZnO can kill 83% and 52% of S. aureus and E. coli, respectively, without light exposure. Under light exposure, the killing efficiency increases up to 99% and 98% toward S. aureus and E. coli, respectively.⁸¹

A combination of GO and essential oil could make better antibacterial films when incorporated into PLA matrix.⁸³ GO is used to control the release of essential oil to combat the bacteria. However, limited studies have been carried out on the PLA based films incorporated with GO and essential oils. Arafat et al. demonstrated the use of GO nanofillers and clove essential oil into PLA matrix enhances its flexibility and lowers the oxygen permeability.⁸³ The film has excellent antibacterial activities against S. aureus and E. coli. Antibiotic could be used as antibacterial agent slowly released from nanocomposite. Scaffaro et al. incorporated ciprofloxacin (CFX) into PLA/GO film, which inhibits M. luteus. Moreover, the incorporation of graphene nanofiller enhances the stiffness of the film and tunes the release of CFX to combat the bacteria.⁸²

Table 4 summarizes other biocompatible polymers with excellent antibacterial properties by incorporating GO nanofillers.^85–93 Mahdavi et al. reported the use of 1 wt.% of GO and 1 wt.% of rGO/AgNPs as nanofillers for PAM matrix. The PAM/GO was synthesized by in situ polymerization while the PAM/rGO/AgNPs was obtained via in situ reduction of silver nitrate using sodium borohydride as the reducing agent. The PAM/GO has inhibition ability toward S. aureus and Pseudomonas. Moreover, the inhibitory zone increases via reducing GO and incorporating AgNPs into the solution.⁸⁵ It is well known that AgNPs has an ability to pass through cell membranes then accumulates inside the bacteria to lead cell malfunction.⁶⁴ Hu et al. studied the different antibacterial effects of PDMS/GO and PDMS/rGO from PDMS/aerogel GO and PDMS/aerogel rGO. The antibacterial activity of PDMS/GO and PDMS/rGO is inferior only by 40% bactericidal rate toward S. aureus and E. coli. Moreover, the modification of rGO into aerogel rGO does not improve the bactericidal ability of PDMS/rGO. However, PDMS/aerogel GO exhibits the bactericidal rate rises up to 88% (3 hours) and 82% (3 hours) toward S. aureus and E. coli.⁸⁶ The study of biocompatible antibacterial coatings is still highly open for these two polymers.

Table 4.

Nanocomposite materials based on other polymers/GO for antibacterial coatings.

Materials	Compositions	Coating process	Bacteria	CFU/mL	Antibacterial activity performances	Biocompatibility tests	Ref.
PAM/GO	1 wt.% PAM/GO	Solution casting	S. aureus	NG	DIZ: 24 mm	NG	[85]
PAM/GO	1 wt.% PAM/GO	Solution casting	Pseudomonas	NG	DIZ: 28 mm	NG
PAM/rGO/Ag	1 wt.% PAM/rGO	Solution casting	S. aureus	NG	DIZ: 47 mm	NG
PAM/rGO/Ag	1 wt.% PAM/rGO	Solution casting	Pseudomonas	NG	DIZ: 45 mm	NG
PDMS/GO	1 wt.% GO	Solution casting	S. aureus		BR: ˜40% (3h)	NG	[86]
PDMS/GO	1 wt.% GO	Solution casting	E. coli		BR: ˜40% (3h)	NG
PDMS/rGO	1 wt.% rGO	Solution casting	S. aureus		BR: ˜32% (3h)	NG
PDMS/rGO	1 wt.% rGO	Solution casting	E. coli		BR: ˜20% (3h)	NG
PDMS/GO Aerogel	1 wt.% GO Aerogel	Solution casting	S. aureus		BR: 88% (3h)	NG
PDMS/GO Aerogel	1 wt.% GO Aerogel	Solution casting	E. coli		BR: 82% (24h)	NG
PDMS/rGO Aerogel	1 wt.% rGO Aerogel	Solution casting	S. aureus		BR: 79% (3h)	NG
PDMS/rGO Aerogel	1 wt.% rGO Aerogel	Solution casting	E. coli		BR: 68% (24h)	NG
PHBV/GO	1 wt.% GO	Vacuum solution casting	S. aureus		DIZ: 11 mm	Promoting the proliferative activity of canine ASC	[94]
PVK/GO	3 wt.% GO	NG	E. coli		BR: 89% (1h)	Low toxicity on NIH3T3 cells	[95]
			C. metallidurans		BR: 92% (1h)
			B. subtilis		BR: 89% (1h)
			R. opacus		BR: 90% (1h).
PEG/GO/AgNPs	NG	NG	S. aureus		MIC: 4 µg/mL	80 % viabilityof HEK 2931T cells	[66]
PEG/GO/AgNPs	NG	NG	E. coli		MIC: 3 µg/mL	80 % viabilityof HEK 2931T cells	[66]
PSPH-GO-Cl	PSPH: GO (2:1)	NG	S. aureus		BR: 100% (30 min	NG	[96]
PSPH-GO-Cl	PSPH: GO (2:1)	NG	E. coli		BR: 100% (10 min)	NG	[96]
PU/GO	2 wt.% GO	Electrospinning	E. coli		BR: 22% (12h)	NG	[97]
PU/rGO/AgNPs	2 wt.% rGO-AgNPs	Electrospinning	E. coli		BR: 79% (12h)	NG	[97]

Rivera-Briso et al. prepared Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV) filled with 1 wt.% of GO nanosheets. The PHBV/GO (1 wt.%) can inhibit the growth of S. aureus and promotes the proliferative activity of canine adipose derived mesenchymal cells (ASC). The film had improved mechanical strength due to the GO.⁹⁴ Carpio et al. reported the use of 3 wt.% of GO as nanofillers of polyvinyl-N-carbazole (PVK). The resulted film presented excellent antibacterial properties without significant cytotoxicity to mammalian cells. In addition, PVK/GO film completely inhibited the growth of bacterial film in 48 hours and still presented a significant toxic effect with a bactericidal rate of 89%, 92%, 89%, and 90% toward E. coli, C. metallidurans, B. subtilis, R. opacus, respectively.⁹⁵ Pan et al. have modified PSPH/GO by changing GO into chlorinated GO to kill S. aureus and E. coli with efficiency of 100% in 30 minutes and 10 minutes of incubation time, respectively.⁹⁶

Other examples of biocompatible polymers incorporated to GO are PEG and polyurethane (PU). These are biocompatible polymers that have no antibacterial effect even after being combined with GO.^66,97 Incorporating AgNPs could improve the bactericidal effect of PEG/GO and PU/GO. Chen et al. developed PEG/GO film incorporated with AgNPs, which exhibited antibacterial activities toward S. aureus and E. coli and low toxicity toward mammalian cells.⁶⁶ Pant et al. reported the production of PU coating containing rGO-AgNPs via the electrospinning technique. Even though the distribution of GO nanosheets in the nanocomposite was uniform, its bactericidal rate was only 22% (12 hours) toward E. coli. It indicates that PU/GO nanocomposite does not have clear antibacterial behavior. However, the bactericidal rate of PU/GO was improved up to 79% (12 hours) by reducing its GO with addition of AgNPs.⁹⁷

Perspective and conclusions

This mini review highlighted the recent development on biocompatible polymers/GO nanocomposites for antibacterial coatings. GO nanofillers are very useful to enhance mechanical strength of the polymers and to combat bacteria. However, there is a limit for GO addition on the polymer to cause a cytotoxicity effect, which is undesired for functional biocompatible coatings. The biocompatible polymers emphasized in this mini review are chitosan, PVA, and PLA. The cytotoxicity is one of the main hurdles for the optimum coatings. Even though the bactericidal rates of some nanocomposites are high, the cytotoxicity toward mammalian and functional cells increases with a large concentration of GO fillers. The toxicity may even be higher in the presence of biocide materials especially metal oxides and AgNPs. Therefore, the optimization of biocompatible antibacterial coatings depends on the concentration of GO fillers, addition of biocide materials, and coating processes. There are three main challenges for future studies, viz.: controlling the GO filler, modifying the polymer/GO composites with bactericidal agents, and testing the nanocomposite’s biocompatibility. Studies on adding essential oils such as clove oil are very prospective for developing antibacterial coating with biocompatibility. Further works related to theoretical studies and developing available antibacterial coatings are strongly needed to study exact mechanism of the antibacterial effect. Future studies may also include the potential applications of the coating toward viruses and fungus.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors would like to thank UNY for providing financial support through the Research Group (RG) grant with grant number: B/189/UN34.13/PM.01.01/2020.

ORCID iD

Fika Fauzi

References

Bazaka

Jacob

Crawford

, et al. Efficient surface modification of biomaterial to prevent biofilm formation and the attachment of microorganisms. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2012; 95: 299–311.

Variola

Brunski

Orsini

, et al. Nanoscale surface modifications of medically relevant metals: state-of-the art and perspectives. Nanoscale 2011; 3: 335–353.

Palmieri

Papi

Conti

, et al. The future development of bacteria fighting medical devices: the role of graphene oxide. Expert Rev Med Devices 2016; 13: 1013–1019.

Zou

Zhang

, et al. Photothermal bactericidal surfaces: killing bacteria by light instead of biocides. Biomater Sci 2021; 9: 10–22.

Cui

Qin

Ding

, et al. Study on corrosion behavior of X80 steel under stripping coating by sulfate reducing bacteria. BM Biotech 2021; 21: 1–12.

Ding

Salvador

CSC

Caldeira

, et al. Biodegradation and microbial contamination of limestone surfaces: an experimental study from Batalha Monastry, Portugal. Corr Mater Degrad 2021; 2: 31–45.

Coman

ANC

Mare

Tanase

, et al. Silver-deposited nanoparticles on the titanium nanotubes surface as a promising antibacterial material into implants. Metals 2021; 11: 1–16.

Dhakal

Salinas-Rodriguez

Ampah

, et al. Measuring biofouling potential in SWRO plants with a flow-cytometry-based bacterial growth potential method. Membranes 2021; 11: 1–15.

Hagniaz

Rabbani

Vajhadin

. Anti-bacterial and wound healing-promoting effects of zinc ferrite nanoparticles. J Nanobiotech 2021; 19: 1–15.

10.

Villa

Secundo

Forlani

, et al. Biochemical and molecular changes of the zosteric acid-treated Escherichia coli biofilm on a mineral surface. Ann Microbiol 2021; 71: 1–7.

11.

Wright

Sutherland

. New strategies for combating multidrug-resistant bacteria. Trends Mol Med 2007; 13: 260–267.

12.

Laxminarayan

Duse

Wattal

, et al. Antibiotic resistance—the need for global solutions. Lancet Infect Dis 2013; 13: 1057–1098.

13.

Tiller

Liao

Lewis

, et al. Designing surfaces that kill bacteria on contact. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98: 5981–5985.

14.

Arciola

Campoccia

Speziale

, et al. Biofilm formation in Staphylococcus implant infections. A review of molecular mechanisms and implications for biofilm-resistant materials. Biomaterials 2012; 33: 5967–5982.

15.

Hasan

Crawford

Ivanova

. Antibacterial surfaces: the quest for a new generation of biomaterials. Trends Biotechnol 2013; 31: 295–304.

16.

Huh

Kwon

. “Nanoantibiotics”: a new paradigm for treating infectious diseases using nanomaterials in the antibiotics resistant era. J Controlled Release 2011; 156: 128–145.

17.

Musil

. Flexible antibacterial coatings. Molecules 2017; 22: 813.

18.

Nine Md

Cole

Tran

DNH

, et al. Graphene: a multipurpose material for protective coatings. J Mater Chem A 2015; 3: 12580–12602.

19.

Wan

, et al. Controlled water adhesion and electrowetting of conducting hydrophobic graphene/carbon nanotubes composite films on engineering materials. J Mater Chem A 2013; 1: 1254–1260.

20.

Shin

Wang

Huang

, et al. Surface-energy engineering of graphene. Langmuir 2010; 26: 3798–3802.

21.

Fauzi

Suhendar

Kusumaatmaja

, et al. A simple method to examine room-temperature corrosion of graphene-coated copper foil after stored for 2.5 years. Mater Res Express 2018; 5: 105016.

22.

Mao

Laurent

Chen

, et al. Graphene: promises, facts, opportunities, and challenges in nanomedicine. Chem Rev 2013; 113: 3407–3424.

23.

Fan

Wang

Zhao

, et al. Fabrication, mechanical properties, and biocompatibility of graphene-reinforced chitosan composites. Biomacromolecules 2010; 11: 2345–2351.

24.

Geng

Zheng

Tang

, et al. Transition metal sulfides based on graphene for electrochemical energy storage. Adv Energy Mater 2018; 8: 1703259.

25.

Khan

Ghosh

Pradhan

, et al. Two-dimensional (2D) nanomaterials towards electrochemical nanoarchitectonics in energy-related applications. Bull Chem Soc Jpn 2017; 90: 627–648.

26.

Jin

Guo

Liu

, et al. Emerging two-dimensional nanomaterials for electrocatalysis. Chem Rev 2018; 118: 6337–6408.

27.

Pan

Huang

Lin

, et al. Synergistic antibacterial effects of localized heat and oxidative stress caused by hydroxyl radicals mediated by graphene/iron oxide-based nanocomposites. Nanomedicine 2016; 12: 431–438.

28.

Wang

Zhu

. Graphene-metal particle nanocomposites. J Phys Chem C 2008; 112: 19841–19845.

29.

Ando

. The electronic properties of graphene and carbon nanotubes. NPG Asia Mater 2009; 1: 17–21.

30.

Zhou

. Health and ecosystem risks of graphene. Chem Rev 2013; 113: 3815–3835.

31.

Georgakilas

Otyepka

Bourlinos

, et al. Functionalization of graphene: covalent and non-covalent approaches, derivatives and applications. Chem Rev 2012; 112: 6156–6214.

32.

Park

Ruoff

. Chemical methods for the production of graphenes. Nat Nanotechnol 2009; 4: 217–224.

33.

Stankovich

Piner

Chen

, et al. Stable aqueous dispersions of graphitic nanoplatelets via the reduction of exfoliated graphite oxide in the presence of poly(sodium 4-styrenesulfonate). J Mater Chem 2006; 16: 155–158.

34.

Akhavan

Ghaderi

. Toxicity of graphene and graphene oxide nanowalls against bacteria. ACS Nano 2010; 4: 5731–5736.

35.

Liu

Zeng

Hofmann

, et al. Antibacterial activity of graphite, graphite oxide, graphene oxide, and reduced graphene oxide: membrane and oxidative stress. ACS Nano 2011; 5: 6971–6980.

36.

Dallavalle

Calvaresi

Bottoni

, et al. Graphene can wreak havoc with cell membranes. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2015; 7: 4406–4414.

37.

Tai

, et al. Preparation and cytocompatibility of polylactic acid/hydroxyapatite/graphene oxide nanocomposite fibrous membrane. Chin Sci Bull 2012; 57: 3051–3058.

38.

Shulga

Baskakov

Muradyan

, et al. Colorful polymer compositions with dyed graphene oxide nanosheets. ISRN Optics 2012; 2012: 1–5.

39.

Bayer

. Thermomechanical properties of polylactic acid-graphene composites: a state-of-the-art review for biomedical applications. Materials 2017; 10: 748.

40.

Bohannon

. Nanomaterials. ‘Smart coatings’ research shows the virtues of superficiality. Science 2005; 309: 376–377.

41.

Jankovic

Erakovic

Vukašinovic Sekulic

, et al. Graphene-based antibacterial composite coatings electrodeposited on titanium for biomedical applications. Prog Org Coat 2015; 83: 1–10.

42.

Arriagada

Palza

Palma

, et al. Poly(lactid acid) composites based on graphene oxide particles with antibacterial behavior enhanced by electrical stimulus and biocompatibility. J Biomed Mater Res A 2017; 106(4): 1051–1060.

43.

De Faria

Perreault

Shaulsky

, et al. Antimicrobial electrospun biopolymer nanofiber mats functionalized with graphene oxide-silver nanocomposites. ACS App Mater Interfaces 2015; 7(23): 12751–12759.

44.

Wronska

Anouar

El Achaby

, et al. Chitosan-functionalized graphene nanocomposite films: interfacial interplay and biological activity. Materials 2020; 13: 998.

45.

Ordikhani

Farani

Dehghani

, et al. Physicochemical and biological properties of electrodeposited graphene oxide/chitosan films with drug-eluting capacity. Carbon 2014; 84: 91–102.

46.

Han

, et al. Graphene family nanomaterials (GFNs)—promising materials for antimicrobial coating and film: a review. Chem Eng J 2019; 358: 1022–1037.

47.

Henriques

Borges

Pinto

, et al. Fabrication and antimicrobial performance of surfaces integrating graphene-based materials. Carbon 2018; 132: 709–732.

48.

, et al. Preparation and characterization on mechanical and antibacterial properties of chitosan/cellulose blends. Carbohydr Polym 2004; 57: 435–440.

49.

Costa-Júnior

EDS

Pereira

Mansur

. Properties and biocompatibility of chitosan films modified by blending with PVA and chemically crosslinked. J Mater Sci-Mater Med 2009; 20: 553–561.

50.

Roberts

GAF

. Chitin chemistry. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 1992.

51.

Mazaheri

Akhavan

Simchi

. Flexible bactericidal graphene oxide–chitosan layers for stem cell proliferation. Appl Surf Sci 2014; 301: 456–462.

52.

Marta

Potara

Iliuta

, et al. Designing chitosan–silver nanoparticles–graphene oxide nanohybrids with enhanced antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus. Colloids Surf A 2015; 487: 113–120.

53.

Jena

Anandkumar

Vanithakumari

, et al. Graphene oxide-chitosan silver composite coating on Cu-Ni alloy with enhanced anticorrosive and antibacterial properties suitable for marine applications. Prog Org Coat 2020; 139: 105444.

54.

Konwar

Kalita

Kotoky

, et al. Chitosan–iron oxide coated graphene oxide nanocomposite hydrogel: a robust and soft antimicrobial biofilm. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2016; 8: 20625–20634.

55.

Jiang

Gong

Zeng

, et al. Magnetic chitosan–graphene oxide composite for anti-microbial and dye removal applications. Int J Biol Macromol 2016; 82: 702–710.

56.

Sanmugam

Vikraman

Park

, et al. One-pot facile methodology to synthesize chitosan-ZnO-graphene oxide hybrid composites for better dye adsorption and antibacterial activity. Nanomaterials 2017; 7: 363.

57.

Xie

Huang

, et al. The graphene oxide and chitosan biopolymer loads TiO₂ for antibacterial and preservative research. Food Chem 2017; 221: 267–277.

58.

Lim

Huang

Loo

. Facile preparation of graphene-based chitosan films: enhanced thermal, mechanical and antibacterial properties. J Non Cryst Solids 2012; 358: 525–530.

59.

Gao

Sun

, et al. Synthesis, characterization, and bactericidal evaluation of chitosan/guanidine functionalized graphene oxide composites. Molecules 2017; 22: 12.

60.

Yadav

Jung

Kim

, et al. Mechanically robust, electrically conductive biocomposite films using antimicrobial chitosan-functionalized graphenes. Part Part Syst Charact 2013; 30: 721–727.

61.

Lahiri

Dua

Zhang

, et al. Graphene nanoplatelet-induced strengthening of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene and biocompatibility in vitro. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2012; 4(4): 2234–2241.

62.

Blecher

Nasir

Friedman

. The growing role of nanotechnology in combating infectious disease. Virulence 2011; 2: 395–401.

63.

Zhu

Radovic-Moreno

, et al. Nanomedicine in the management of microbial infection—overview and perspectives. Nano Today 2014; 9: 478–498.

64.

Morones

Elechiguerra

Camacho

, et al. The bactericidal effect of silver nanoparticles. Nanotechnology 2005; 16: 2346–2353.

65.

Khawaja

Zahir

Asghar

, et al. Graphene oxide, chitosan and silver nanocomposite as a highly effective antibacterial agent against pathogenic strains. Colloids Surf A 2018; 555: 246–255.

66.

Chen

Huang

Zheng

, et al. Preparation of different sized nano-silver loaded on functionalized graphene oxide with highly effective antibacterial properties. J Mater Chem B 2015; 3(35): 7020–7029.

67.

Huang

Chen

, et al. Investigation of functional selenium nanoparticles as potent antimicrobial agents against superbugs. Acta Biomater 2015; 30: 397–407.

68.

Georgieva

Bryaskova

Tzoneva

. New polyvinyl alcohol-based hybrid materials for biomedical application. Mater Lett 2012; 88: 19–22.

69.

Hajeeassa

Hussein

Al-amshany

. The influence of graphene nano-particles on the biological interest of polyvinyl alcohol nanocomposites. Int J Biosen Bioelectron 2017; 3: 230–232.

70.

Cao

Wei

Liu

, et al. The preparation of graphene reinforced poly(vinyl alcohol) antibacterial nanocomposite thin film. Int J Polym Sci 2015; 2015: 1–7.

71.

Surudzic

Jankovic

Bibic

, et al. Physico–chemical and mechanical properties and antibacterial activity of silver/poly(vinyl alcohol)/graphene nanocomposites obtained by electrochemical method. Compos B 2016; 85: 102–112.

72.

Abudabbus

Jevremovic

Jankovic

, et al. Biological activity of electrochemically synthesized silver doped polyvinyl alcohol/graphene composite hydrogel discs for biomedical applications. Compos B 2016; 104: 26–34.

73.

Cobos

De-La-Pinta

Quindos

, et al. One-step eco-friendly synthesized silver-graphene oxide/poly(vinyl alcohol) antibacterial nanocomposites. Carbon 2019; 150: 101–116.

74.

Cobos

De-La-Pinta

Quindos

, et al. Synthesis, physical, mechanical and antibacterial properties of nanocomposites based on poly(vinyl alcohol)/graphene oxide–silver nanoparticles. Polymers 2020; 12: 723.

75.

Usman

Hussain

Riaz

, et al. Enhanced mechanical, thermal and antimicrobial properties of poly(vinyl alcohol)/graphene oxide/starch/silver nanocomposites films. Carbohydr Polym 2016; 153: 592–599.

76.

Pan

Ren

, et al. Antibacterial films with enhanced physical properties based on poly(vinyl alcohol) and halogen aminated-graphene oxide. J Appl Polym Sci 2019: 48176.

77.

Liu

Zhang

Zhou

, et al. Study on a novel poly(vinyl alcohol)/graphene oxide-citicoline sodium-lanthanum wound dressing: biocompatibility, bioactivity, antimicrobial activity, and wound healing effect. Chem Eng J 2020; 395: 125059.

78.

Liu

Shen

Yeung

KWK

, et al. Development and antibacterial performance of novel polylactic acid-graphene oxide-silver nanoparticle hybrid nanocomposite mats prepared by electrospinning. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 2017: 471–486.

79.

Kang

Wang

Shi

, et al. Crystallization, rheology behavior, and antibacterial application of graphene oxide-graft-poly(L-lactide)/poly(L-lactide) nanocomposites. Appl Surf Sci 2018; 451: 315–324.

80.

Yang

Sun

Wang

, et al. Novel poly(L lactide)/graphene oxide films with improved mechanical flexibility and antibacterial activity. J Colloid Interface Sci 2017; 507: 344–352.

81.

Huang

Wang

Zhao

, et al. Poly(lactic acid)/graphene oxide–ZnO nanocomposite films with good mechanical, dynamic mechanical, anti-UV and antibacterial properties. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2014; 90: 1677–1684.

82.

Scaffaro

Botta

Maio

, et al. Effect of graphene nanoplatelets on the physical and antimicrobial properties of biopolymer-based nanocomposites. Materials 2016; 9: 351.

83.

Arfat

Ahmed

Ejaz

, et al. Polylactide/graphene oxide nanosheets/clove essential oil composite films for potential food packaging applications. Int J Biol Macromol 2017; 107: 194–203.

84.

Bai

Shen

. Graphene—inorganic nanocomposites. RSC Adv 2012; 2: 64–98.

85.

Mahdavi

Rahmani

Shahverdi

. Polyacrylamide/reduced graphene oxide-Ag nanocomposite as highly efficient antibacterial transparent film. J Iran Chem Soc 2017; 14: 37–46.

86.

Qian

, et al. A novel method to prepare homogeneous biocompatible graphene-based PDMS composites with enhanced mechanical, thermal and antibacterial properties. Polym Compos 2019; 40: E1397–E1406.

87.

Hiranyawasit

Punpattanakul

Pimpin

, et al. A novel method for transferring graphene onto PDMS. Appl Surf Sci 2015; 358: 70–74.

88.

Jiang

Niu

Liu

, et al. Photo responsive soft-robotic platform: biomimetic fabrication and remote actuation. Adv Funct Mater 2014; 24: 7598.

89.

Xia

Chen

Liu

, et al. Aligning graphene sheets in PDMS for improving output performance of triboelectric nanogenerator. Carbon 2017; 111: 569–576.

90.

Zhao

Luo

, et al. Preparation of microporous silicone rubber membrane with tunable pore size via solvent evaporation-induced phase separation. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2013; 5: 2040–2046.

91.

Zhao

Luo

, et al. A self-healing, re-moldable and biocompatible crosslinked polysiloxane elastomer. J Mater Chem B 2016; 4: 982–989.

92.

Deng

Lei

Zhou

, et al. Absorptive supramolecular elastomer wound dressing based on polydimethylsiloxane–(polyethylene glycol)–polydimethylsiloxane copolymer: preparation and characterization. RSC Adv 2016; 6: 51694–51702.

93.

Zhao

Luo

, et al. Self-healing poly(siloxane-urethane) elastomers with remoldability, shape memory and biocompatibility. Polym Chem 2016; 7: 7278–7286.

94.

Rivera-Briso

Aachmann

Moreno-Manzano

, et al. Graphene oxide nanosheets versus carbon nanofibers: enhancement of physical and biological properties of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) films for biomedical applications. Int J Biol Macromol 2020; 143: 1000–1008.

95.

Carpio

IEM

Santos

Weib

, et al. Toxicity of a polymer–graphene oxide composite against bacterial planktonic cells, biofilms, and mammalian cells. Nanoscale 2012; 4: 4746.

96.

Pan

Liu

Fan

, et al. Preparation and characterization of antibacterial graphene oxide functionalized with polymeric N-halamine. J Mater Sci 2017; 52: 1996–2006.

97.

Pant

Park

Jang

, et al. Synthesis, characterization, and antibacterial performance of Ag-modified graphene oxide reinforced electrospun polyurethane nanofibers. Carbon Lett 2017; 23: 17–21.

Nanocomposites based on biocompatible polymers and graphene oxide for antibacterial coatings

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Chitosan/GO based antibacterial coatings

PLA/GO based antibacterial coatings

Perspective and conclusions

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References