Table 1.

Summary of antimicrobial applications

Graphene type/ composite	Antimicrobial Name	Effectivity and highlights		Mechanism of action	Cytotoxicity	Refs.
Graphene oxide	E. coli	98,5%	Cost‐effective and mass production advantages	Oxidative stress or physical disruption	Relatively biocompatible, Mild cytotoxicity	[168]
Graphene oxide	E. coli	91.6 ± 3.2%	Time and concentration dependent antibacterial activity	Membrane and oxidation stress	–	[43]
Graphene oxide/ /PDDA and PVP	PRV, PEDV	2 log reduction	Time and concentration dependent antiviral activity	Sharp edge and negative charge or polymer wrap	Around 80%‐100% cell viability with GO at different concentrations	[15]
Graphene oxide and graphene nanoplatelets/PMMA	T4 bacteriophage	39%	The pristine GO has much more effectivity than composite	Physical and chemical interactions /oxidative stress	–	[12]
Reduced graphene oxide	E. coli	<98,5%	GO shows higher antibacterial activity when compared to rGO	Oxidative stress or physical disruption	Lower cytotoxicity when compared to GO	[168]
Reduced graphene oxide	E. coli	74.9%	Particle size and oxidation capacity can influence the antibacterial activity. Also, rGO can demonstrate stronger antibacterial activity with direct interactions with bacteria	Membrane and oxidation stress	–	[43]
Graphene oxide/AgNPs	E. coli P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, Candida Albicans	–	Shows time and dose dependent antimicrobial activity. Lower temperature is significant for effectivity. Pristine GO is more effective	Oxidative stress	GO–AgNPs are more toxic with pristine GO due to synergetic effect between GO and AgNPs	[166]
Graphene oxide/AgNPs	FCoV IBDV	59,2%	The study shows that this composite is more effective than GO and AgNps	Oxidative stress and insertion/ extraction	GO and GO–Ag did not show cytotoxicity at lower concentration	[14]
Graphene oxide / AgNPs	Candida albicans Candida tropicalis	–	GO/AgNps do not show any antifungal activity. Carbon nanoscrolls /AgNps is effective for fungi inhibition	Oxidative stress	Concentration dependent cytotoxicity was observed	[8]
Reduced graphene oxide/ ZnO	E. coli	–	Comparing rGO with rGO/ZnO, rGO/ZnO shows better effectivity than rGO. Cytotoxicity is low for mammalian cells	Disruption of the bacterial cell	rGO is less cytotoxic	[163]
Graphene/ PVA	E. coli, S. aureus,	97,6%	Mechanically exfoliated graphene nanocomposite has low toxicity and antibacterial activity	Physical damage/ sharp edges and oxidative stress	Low cytotoxicity	[176]
GO/ chitosan/ PVA	Bacillus cereus S. aureus Salmonella spp. E. coli,	–	This new nanocomposite is effective in preventing bacterial growth	These findings point to the films' potential for tissue engineering and cell regeneration when made using GO/ chitosan/ PVA nanocomposites	–	[91]
GO/ curcumin	RSV	–	High biocompatibility and effective for viral inhibition	RSV is directly inactivated, the virus's adhesion to host cells is inhibited, and viral replication is disrupted	A high level of biocompatibility towards the host cells	[16]
GO/ borneol	Mucor racemosus (M. racemosus)	–	GOB has great antifungal activity comparing with GO and rGO	Needle like nanostructure of GO and its surface stereochemistry	GOB is non‐cytotoxic and can be utilized for a variety of purposes	[9]