Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Heliyon logoLink to Heliyon
. 2021 Mar 13;7(3):e06456. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06456

Nanoparticles as antimicrobial and antiviral agents: A literature-based perspective study

Shabnam Sharmin a, Md Mizanur Rahaman a, Chandan Sarkar a, Olubunmi Atolani b, Mohammad Torequl Islam a,∗, Oluyomi Stephen Adeyemi c
PMCID: PMC7973307  PMID: 33763612

Abstract

The scientific explorations of nanoparticles for their inherent therapeutic potencies as antimicrobial and antiviral agents due to increasing incidences of antibiotic resistance have gained more attention in recent time. This factor amongst others necessitates the search for newer and more effective antimicrobial agents. Several investigations have demonstrated the prospects of nanoparticles in the treatment of various microbial infections. The therapeutic applications of nanoparticles as either delivery agent or broad spectrum inhibition agents in viral and microbial investigations can no longer be overlooked. Their large surface area to volume ratio made them an indispensable substance as delivery agents in many respect. Various materials have been used for the synthesis of nanoparticles with unique properties channelised to meet specific therapeutic requirement. This review focuses on the antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral potential of nanoparticles with their probable mechanism of action.

Keywords: Bacteria, Fungi, Virus, Nanoparticles, Anti-microbial therapy

Bacteria; Fungi; Virus; Nanoparticles; Anti-microbial therapy.

1. Introduction

Nanoparticles (NPs), often referred to as invisible particulate substances with a diameter ranging from 1-100 nm (nm) are of paramount relevance in the modern science (Khan et al., 2017; Song et al., 2021; Vert et al., 2012). The large surface area to volume ratio of nanoparticles made them a unique delivery and antimicrobial agents in many respect (Ingle et al., 2013). Over the past few decades, nanoparticles have been used for human welfare in different fields (Sharma et al., 2019). In recent time an intense scientific exploration is ongoing on nanoparticles due to its potential applications in various fields including medical science (Singh and Nalwa, 2011), drug delivery (Medhi et al., 2020), electronics (Magdassi et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2010), optics (Li et al., 2010; Biju et al., 2008), agriculture (Ghasemnezhad et al., 2019; Scott and Chen, 2013), waste water treatment (El Nahrawy et al., 2019; Nahrawy et al., 2020), as sensor support (Abou-Hammad et al., 2019) among others (Guang et al., 2021; Han et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021). The prospective applications of NPs in various fields are premised on the nanoparticle's unique characteristics such as its shape, charge, size, high ratio of surface area to mass and, high reactivity. This has drawn the attention of many individual (Kim et al., 2007). Gold, silver, platinum, and other oxide nanoparticles have been extensively used in the field of nano-biomedicine for their distinctive properties (Daniel and Astruc, 2004; Jeyaraj et al., 2013; Hashimoto et al., 2016; Falcaro et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2021).

Infectious diseases are a set of diseases or disorders caused by pathogenic microbes (bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa, parasites) that directly affect human health (Singh et al., 2014). In recent times, infectious diseases have become a great burden on the world economy as well as on public health. Various health issues including Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), meningitis, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), H5N1, trichomoniasis, pneumocystis pneumonia are generally caused by microbes which cause death to millions of people around the world annually (Sethi and Murphy, 2001; Durand et al., 1993; Lara et al., 2010; Singh et al., 2014). However, for the treatment of these infections, antibiotics are often the first choice. Antibiotics significantly inhibit the presence of different microbes and reduce the associated signs and symptoms (Ewald, 1980). But microbes’ growing resistance against these antibiotics coupled with the abuse of drugs as well as the release of the antibiotics to the environment has impeded progress expected from the treatment option (Laxminarayan et al., 2013; Friedman et al., 2003; Atolani et al., 2020). Highly mutative capacity and rapid morphological changes may lead to microbial resistance. Recent research regarding this issue revealed that a new kind of β-lactamase has been developed by the bacteria that produce resistance against β-lactam antibiotics (Fishovitz et al., 2014). To overcome the resistance developed by microbes, nanoparticle-based treatment presents a very promising approach. Therefore, conjugated use of antibiotics with nanoparticles may enhance the inhibition capacity and show less chance of resistance by organisms (Sobhani et al., 2017). Rai et al. (2010) in his study showed the significant antibacterial activity of gold nanoparticles (52–22 nm) capped with cefaclor, a second-generation antibiotic. The antimicrobial activity was apparently due to the presence of β-lactam ring on the surface of the nanoparticles. Microbial biofilms, planktonic cells may also contribute to resistance and therapy failure. In the case of bacteria and fungi, the biofilm formation inhibition is frequently seen to achieve bactericidal and fungicidal activity. Biofilm is the complex structure of the pathogen that may often show resistance towards foreign chemicals. These microbial aggregates can be 10-10,000 times less sensitive towards antimicrobial agents than the organism itself in suspension (Harrison et al., 2005). Nanotherapy seems to have a significant effect on biofilms of bacteria and fungi imparting vague mechanisms. Cremonini et al. (2016), reported the antibiofilm activity of biogenic selenium nanoparticles that effectively retards the biofilm formation of gram-negative Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The same result was observed for TiO2 nanoparticles against fungal biofilms (Haghighi et al., 2013). Planktonic microbes are also known to induce resistance although to a lesser extent compared to the biofilms. PVK–GO nanocomposites at a low concentrations exhibited antibacterial effects up to 30% and 57% for gram-positive and gram-negative planktonic cells and biofilms (Carpio et al., 2012).

Studies disclosed that nanoparticles carrying features like high surface area, charge, ability to deliver a large number of antibiotics or other substance, size and shape makes them ideal antimicrobial weapon (Bhosale et al., 2018; Fabiyi et al., 2020; Yien et al., 2012). These features saliently or latently may contribute to its antimicrobial efficacy. The size of nanoparticles are proven features that confers antimicrobial potency on the substance. Besides the innate antimicrobial potential of NPs, the vast varieties of analyses on NPs suggested that the large surface area of the NPs are imperative for microbial attachment and rapid penetration into the cell (Gurunathan et al., 2014; Yien et al., 2012). Philip (2010), reported the presence of different shapes of metal NPs including nanosized rods, tubes, spherical, triangles, tetragonal, pentagonal, and hexagonal. Shapes of NPs are directly important in determining the types and extent of interaction with the membrane or enzymes of microorganisms. For instance, ZnO nanoparticles of different shapes (plate, sphere, and pyramid) showed shape-dependent activity on a typical enzyme β-galactosidase (GAL) (Cha et al., 2015).

The inhibitory mechanism that is followed by the nanoparticles is not correctly assembled and fully explained. However, evidence shows that induced oxidative stress (Gurunathan et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2011; Quinteros et al., 2016; Joe et al., 2018), released metal ions (Nagy et al., 2011; Bagchi et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2010; Panicker et al., 2020), other non-oxidative mechanisms (Leung et al., 2014; Anicˇić et al., 2018; Setyawati et al., 2013) are thoroughly followed, models. Moreover, microbial cell wall penetration, the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), damaged DNA and proteins, loss of cellular integrity are the underlying mechanisms that cause inhibition for bacteria, fungi, and likewise viruses. Cell penetration is often the initial step in the stages involved in some microbial cell inhibition process before other mechanisms are adopted. Adsorption or diffusion of NPs at the cell surface is the main penetration mechanism. Adsorption can be attained through the binding of NPs with the negative charged functional groups of proteins resulting in protein destruction and cell death (Padmavathy and Vijayaraghavan, 2011). While evidence has reported ROS formation into pathogenic cells through the diffusion process (Zhang et al., 2013). Besides, microbial destruction and inactivation due to an interaction between various surface-exposed groups of microbes and nanoparticles may seem to be a possible mechanism (Ray et al., 2007; Rogers et al., 2008).

From the overall discussion, some characteristics of nanoparticles are explored which can be very beneficial to future researchers. The antimicrobial activity of nanoparticles has been studied against a wide range of microorganisms including bacteria, fungi, viruses from time to time. This study aims to summarize the effects of different nanoparticles against microbial infections with the possible mechanism of action. It further aims to draw the attention of researchers to conduct advanced level exploration on the promising traits of nanoparticles in this specific affair.

2. Methodology

A search (till September 2020) was done in the following databases: PubMed, Science Direct, MedLine, and Google Scholar with the keyword ‘Nanoparticle’, paring with ‘anti-bacterial. antifungal and anti-viral activity/effect’. No language restrictions were imposed. Articles were assessed for information about the nanoparticles, microbial strains, test results, and possible mechanisms of action.

Inclusion criteria

The following inclusion criteria were adopted:

  • 1.

    Studies with nanoparticles and synthesized nanoparticles from various sources.

  • 2.

    Studies carried out in vivo, in vitro or ex vivo with or without experimental animals including microbial strains.

  • 3.

    Studies with or without activity's mechanism.

Exclusion criteria

The following exclusion criteria were adopted:

  • 1.

    Titles and/or abstract not meeting the inclusion criteria, duplication of data.

  • 2.

    Nanoparticles with other studies obscuring the current subject of interest.

Findings

Among the vast pieces of evidence, some randomly selected published articles found in the databases that contains screening reports on nanoparticles against microbial infections is herein summarized.

2.1. Application of nanoparticles in bacterial infections

Nanoparticles often show high bactericidal activities when tested against pathogenic bacterial strains (Figure 1). Metal nanoparticles can be bactericidal, bacteriostatic depending on their particle size, capping method, and concentration (Slavin et al., 2017). Through vast analysis of shreds of evidence, it has been noticed that nanoparticles manifest antibacterial activity on both gram-positive and gram-negative strains. In the case of gram-negative strains, the cell wall composition shows a thin layer of peptidoglycan polymer (~7–8nm) with a surface carrying negative charges (Sirelkhatim et al., 2015; Halder et al., 2015). These features are directly linked to the antibacterial activity exhibited by the NPs, the thin cell-wall ensures better penetration into the bacterial cell and, the negatively charged surface provides high electrostatic interaction between cells and NPs leading to the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and oxidative stress. This results in bacterial cell destruction and inhibition (Pramanik et al., 2012; Mai-Prochnow et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2013). Unlike the gram-negative bacteria, gram-positive contains only the outer peptidoglycan layer not the polysaccharide membrane with structural lipopolysaccharides. This ensures better permeability towards substances (Cabeen and Jacobs-Wagner, 2005). In the case of gram-positive strains, the presence of a smaller negative charge in the surface enhances NPs penetration allowing the entrance of negatively charged superoxide radical anions and peroxide ions to ensure cell destruction at a relatively low concentration (Padmavathy and Vijayaraghavan, 2008; Sonohara et al., 1995; Reddy et al., 2007). Mahdy et al. (2012) stated that zero-valent Iron (FeO) nanoparticles generate oxidative stress via ROS and damage bacterial protein and DNA of some tested gram-positive and gram-negative strains. Some nanoparticles (Cu) also seem to have an affinity towards carboxyl and amine groups present in the cell surface (Beveridge and Murray, 1980; Ren et al., 2009). They may interfere with DNA molecules after entering the cell and disarrange the helical structure by cross-linking within the nucleic acid strands.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Schematic represents antimicrobial (bacteria and/or fungi) mechanisms of various nanoparticles. The antimicrobial (bacteria and/or fungi) activity of NPs has been attributed to their direct interaction with the bacterial and fungal cell wall/membrane and prevention of biofilm formation. In addition, NPs display potent anti-bacterial/anti-fungal effects through the generation of innate along with adaptive host immune responses, production of toxic reactive oxygen species (ROS), and stimulation of intracellular effects (e.g., enzyme disruption, DNA damage, and protein damage).

Fluorescent Ag nanoparticles (nAg-Fs) of 1.5 nm shows antibacterial activity against gram-positive (Staphylococcus epidermidis, Bacillus megaterium), gram-negative (Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli) strains with an IC50 value of 2 μg/mL. The antibacterial activity is observed due to the perforation of nAg-NPS into the bacterial cell cytoplasm and leakage of the cytoplasmic contents which causes cell death (Bera et al., 2014). Again silver nanoparticles synthesized from tulsi leaf extract inhibits E. coli and S. aureus with a MIC value of 0.314 μg/mL and 1.25 μg/mL respectively. The antibacterial mechanism behind it is yet to be explored (Singhal et al., 2011). Aljabali et al. (2018) reported that the antibacterial activity of gold nanoparticles against E. coli with a zone of inhibition of about 0.5mm.

Nanoparticles of various metallic oxides and other metallic compounds have also shown potent antibacterial efficacy. The metal oxide is proven to be a hopeful combating weapon towards a wide range of pathogenic microbes including MDR isolates (El-Sayyad et al., 2018). CaO nanoparticles exhibit antibacterial activity by interfering with bacterial cell integrity and disrupting the cell membrane of S. epidermidis, P. aerugin with a MIC value of 2 and 4 mM respectively (Roy et al., 2013). Magnesium oxide nanoparticles are effective against a set MDR resistant Gram-positive and Gram-negative strains and significantly inhibits the growth at a concentration of 7.81 μg/mL. Though the mechanism is still ill-defined it indicates the reactive oxygen species (ROS) liberation, and interaction with the cell wall (El-Sayyad et al., 2018). SiO2 doped Fe2O3 NPs (5.89–19.89 nm) exhibited bactericidal activity against B. subtilis and E. coli and inhibits bacterial growth (Arshad et al., 2019). In addition to this, bacterial biofilm structures also seem to be effectively inhibited by nanoparticles. Biogenic Selenium nanoparticles retard the biofilm formation of gram-negative Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Cremonini et al., 2016). Some reported bactericidal potencies of nanoparticles are indicated in Table 1.

Table 1.

Bactericidal potencies of some nanoparticles.

Nanoparticles (Diameter) Test bacteria (strains) Concentration Mechanism of action Reference
Chitosan nanoparticles (40 nm) S. choleraesuis (Gram-negative) 0.25 μg/mL Chelation with trace elements that inhibit growth.
Formation of an impermeable layer around the cell that prevents the transportation of essential solution		 Qi et al. (2004)
Silver nanoparticles (7 nm) E. coli (Gram-negative)
S. aureus(Gram-positive)		 3.38 and 6.75 μg/mL Damage DNA and disturb the synthesis of protein Martinez castanon et al., 2008
Copper nanoparticles (10 nm) E. coli (Gram-negative)
B. subtilis (Gram-positive)
S. aureus (Gram-positive)		 20–300 mg/mL Mechanism unclear Jayesh et al. (2008)
Cephalor reduced gold nanoparticles (52-22 nm) Staphylococcus aureus (Gram-positive)
Escherichia coli (gram-negative)		 10 μg/mL for S. aureus and 100 μg/mL for. E. coli Inhibited synthesis of peptidoglycan layer, gold NPs generated holes in the bacterial cell wall leading towards increased permeability, leakage of cellular contents. Rai et al. (2010)
Zinc oxide nanoparticles (30 nm) Camphylobacter jejuni (Gram-negative) 0.05–0.025 mg/mL Disruption of the cell membrane and oxidative stress in C. jejuni. Xie et al. (2011)
Zero-valent Iron (Fe°) nanoparticles, spherical (31.1 nm) Staphylococcus aureus (Gram-positive)
E. coli (Gram-negative)		 MIC for both strains at 30 μg/mL and complete growth inhibition at 60 μg/mL Oxidative stress generation via ROS and visible damage to bacterial protein and DNA. Mahdy et al. (2012)
Copper oxide nanoparticles (20 nm) S. aureus (Gram positive)
B. subtilis (Gram positive)
Psedomonas aeruginosa (Gram negative)
E. coli (Gram negative)		 100 μg/mL Rupture bacterial cell and leading to protein denaturation Azam et al. (2012)
CaO nanoparticles (16 nm) Staphylococcus epidermidis MTCC 435 (Gram-positive)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853 (Gram-negative)		 MIC for strains are 2, 4mM
MBC 4, 8 mM respectively.		 Loss of cellular integrity, change in the cell morphology including disruption of cellular membrane Roy et al. (2013)
Fluorescent Ag nanoparticles (nAg-Fs), 1.5 nm Staphylococcus epidermidisNCIM2493, Bacillus megaterium (Gram-positive)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC27853, Escherichia coli (Gram-negative)		 No cell growth observed at conc. 2.0 μg/mL Penetration of nAg-NPS into cell cytoplasm, leakage of cytoplasmic contents Bera et al. (2014)
Magnetic Iron oxide nanoparticles (50–110 nm) S. aureus (Gram-positive) DMF solution with 40 and 60 mJ laser fluencies showed the highest antibacterial activity Could be due to stress generated by ROS disrupting bacterial cell membrane. Ismail et al. (2015)
Biogenic Selenium nanoparticles: Sm-SeNPs(-) (Stenotrophomonas maltophilia) (170.6 ± 35.12nm), Bm-SeNPs (+) (Bacillus mycoides) (160.6 ± 52.24 nm) Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Gram negative) (INT, CFC20, CFC21, CFCB, CFCA strains) P. aeruginosa INT 256 μg/mL [Sm-SeNPs(-)], 512 μg/mL [Bm-SeNPs(+)] P.aeruginosa (CFC21, CFC20, CFCA, CFCB) 8–16 μg/mL [Sm-SeNPs(-)], 32–64 μg/mL [Bm-SeNPs(+)] Bacterial biofilm formation inhibition, disaggregation of the mature exopolysaccharide matrix produced by microbes. Cremonini et al. (2016)
Ciprofloxacin loaded chitosan nanoparticles (72 nm) Escherichia coli
ATCC 25922 (Gram-negative)
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923 (Gram-positive)		 40 ng/mL for E. coli
250 ng/mL for S. aureus 		Increased penetration of the drug into the bacterial cells, growth inhibition. Sobhani et al. (2017)
Silver oxide nanoparticles (42.7 nm) Streptococcus mutans (Gram-positive)
Lactobacillus acidophilus (Gram-positive)		 Streptococcus mutans: At conc 250 μg zone of inhibition (ZI) was 6 ± 0.8 mm, MBC was 22 ± 0.2%
L. acidophilus: zone of inhibition 8 ± 0.4 mm, MBC 25 ± 0.5%		 Mechanism unclear Manikandan et al. (2017)
ZrO2 nanoparticles (15–21 nm) Bacillus subtilis MTCC 1305, Staphylococcus aureus MTCC 3160 (Gram-positive)
Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa MTCC 2453 (Gram-negative)		 Zone of inhibition 20 mm was observed for 100 μg/mL ZrO2 NPs The electromagnetic attraction between positively charged NPs and negatively charged cell surface. Fathima et al. (2017)
Nickel ferrite (NiFe2O4) nanoparticles (NFOTP) Staphylococcus aureus NCIM 5021, Streptococcus pyogenes NCIM 5280 (Gram-positive)
Escherichia coli NCIM 2345, Salmonella typhimurium NCIM 2501 (Gram-negative)		 Zone of inhibition for E. coli was seen but no numeric value is mentioned. Higher negatively charged surface of E. coli, thin surface and formation of reactive oxidative species (ROS) and oxidative stress lead to cell death. Bhosale et al. (2018)
Magnesium oxide nanoparticles (10.28 nm) Escherichia coli, Enterobacter cloacae, Acinetobacter baumannii (Gram negative)
Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, MRSA (Gram-positive)		 Highest activity shown for E. faecalis at MIC 7.81 μg/mL, ZI 22.mm, others ranged 125.0–15.625 μg/mL ROS liberation, the interaction of MgO NPs with bacterial cell (suggested). El-Sayyad et al., (2018)
Nalidixic acid-vanadium (V-NA) nanoparticles (170–330 nm) E. coli (Gram-negative)
B. cereus (Gram-positive)
P. aeruginosa (Gram-negative)
S. aureus (Gram-positive)		 E. coli: 10 μM (MIC), 5.3 μM (IC50), 50 μM (MBC)
B. cereus: 10 μM (MIC), 3.1 μM (IC50), 25–50 μM (MBC)
P. aeruginosa: 625 μM (MIC), 430 μM (IC50), 5000 μM (MBC)
S. aureus: 125 μM (MIC), 40 μM (IC50), 250–500 μM (MBC)		 Electrostatic interaction between hybrid NP and bacterial cell due to highly negative charged surface Bueloni et al. (2020)
Gold-chitosan hybrid nanoparticles (16.9 nm) S. aureus (Gram positive)
P. aeruginosa (Gram-negative)		 0.25 mg/mL Mechanism still unclear Hussein et al. (2020)
Open in a new tab

2.2. Application of nanoparticles in fungal infections

From ancient times, fungal infections have been significantly contributing to the ever-increasing morbidity and mortality rate (Ardi et al., 2020; Friedman et al., 2020; Khoury et al., 2020). The fungicidal and fungistatic activity of nanoparticles is being studied to control outbreaks caused by pathogenic fungi. Silver nanoparticles stabilized with surfactants of size 25nm are proven to have potent antifungal activity when tested against 4 Candida strains with a MIC value ranging from 0.21-1.69 mg/L. Surfactant activity of the AgNPs disrupted the cell wall of the tested yeasts (Panáček et al., 2009). Gold nanoparticles also seem to be effective on Candida strain at 16–32 μg/ml, surfactant, and acidification activity of nanoparticles are directly involved with the fungicidal activity in these two cases. The fungicidal activity observed was size and shape-dependent where small-sized nanodiscs showed inhibition of H + ATPase, leading to intracellular acidification and cell death (Wani and Ahmad, 2012). In some cases, nanoparticles cause deformation in fungal hyphae and inhibit hyphal transition that may often lead to fungicidal activity (He et al., 2011; Cousins et al., 2007).

Oxides of different nanoparticles are also seen to have potential effect on different fungi. Previous studies revealed that zinc oxide NPs (12–32 nm) disrupts membrane structure and alter the permeability of Alternaria alternate, Aspergillus niger, and Botrytis cinerea at a concentrations ranging from 16-128 μg/ml (Jamdagni et al., 2018). Haghighi et al. (2013) claimed that titanium oxide (TiO2) at a conc. 5.14 μg/mL inhibits biofilm formation of Candida albicans. Oxidative stress on fungal cells by reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation may destroy the cell and exhibit antifungal activity. Iron oxide nanoparticles form ROS and damage the proteins and DNA of fungal cells by oxidative stress (Parveen et al., 2018). The antifungal potentials of some other nanoparticles are indicated in Table 2. The anti-fungal activity of various nanoparticles is as displayed in Figure 1.

Table 2.

Antifungal potential of some nanoparticles.

Nanoparticles (Diameter) Test fungi (strains) Concentration Mechanism of action Reference
Silicon nanoparticles (7 and 14 nm) Candida albican - Inhibited the yeast to hyphal transition that is induced in the presence of serum. Cousins et al. (2007)
SDS stabilized silver nanoparticles (AgNPs), 25 nm Candida albicans (I, II)
Candida tropicalis,
Candida parapsilosis 		0.052 mg/L (C. albicans I)
0.1 mg/L (C. albicans II)
0.42 mg/L (C. tropicalis)
0.84 mg/L (C. parapsilosis)		 The surfactant activity of NPs disrupts the cell wall of yeast. Panáček et al. (2009)
Zinc oxide nanoparticles (70 nm) Botrytis cinerea
Penicillium expansum 		3–12 mol/Ll−1 Inhibition of growth by affecting cellular functions He et al. (2010)
Zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO NPs), 70 ± 15 nm Botrytis cinerea,
Penicillium expansum 		3 mmol/L Deformation in fungal hyphae by affecting cellular function He et al. (2011)
Nanoparticles of low molecular weight (LMW) chitosan, high molecular weught (HMW) chitosan (170–435 nm) Candida albicans,
Fusarium solani,
Aspergillus niger 		C. albicans: MIC for LMW chitosan 0.25–0.86 mg/mL, MIC for HMW chitosan 0.6–1.0 mg/mL,
F. solani: MIC for LMW chitosan 0.86–1.2 mg/mL, MIC for HMW chitosan 0.5–1.2 mg/mL		 Disruption of fungal cell membrane integrity due to particle size and zeta potential of NPs. Yien et al. (2012)
Gold nanoparticles (25 nm) Candida sp 16–32 μg/mL Inhibition of H + ATPase leading to intracellular acidification and cell death Wani and Ahmad. (2012)
TiO2 nanoparticles (70–100 nm) Candida albicans 5.14 μg/mL Inhibition of fungal biofilms Haghighi et al. (2013)
Copper nanoparticles (3–10 nm) Phoma destructiva (DBT 66)
Curvularia lunata (MTCC, 2030)
Alternaria alternate (MTCC 6572)
Fusarium oxysporum (MTCC 1755)		 Zone of inhibition (ZI) value for Phoma destructive: 22 ± 1 mm
Curvularia lunata: 21 ± 0.5 mm
Alternaria alternate: 18 ± 1 mm
Fusarium oxysporum: 24 ± 0.5 mm		 Not clearly mentioned Kanhed et al. (2014)
Zinc oxide nanoparticles (12–32 nm) Alternaria alternata (ITCC 6531),
Aspergillus niger (ITCC 7122),
Botrytis cinerea (ITCC 6192),
Fusarium oxysporum (ITCC 55),
Penicillium expansum (ITCC 6755)		 64 μg/mL (A. alternata)
16 μg/mL (A. niger)
128 μg/mL (B. cinerea)
64 μg/mL (F. oxysporum)
128 μg/mL (P. expansum)		 Disruption of membrane structure and change in permeability. Jamdagni et al. (2018)
Iron oxide nanoparticles (10–30 nm) Trichothecium roseum,
Cladosporium herbarum,
Penicillium chrysogenum,
Alternaria alternate,
Aspergillus niger.		 Varies between 0.063-0.016 mg/mL Formation of ROS, damage of protein, and DNA by oxidative stress. Parveen et al. (2018)
Open in a new tab

2.3. Application of nanoparticles in viral infection

Viruses are particles that are generally smaller than living cells. They are generally smaller than bacteria and are the main cause of several minor illnesses (Singh et al., 2014). The main mechanism that is adopted by virucidal agents often shows direct interference with the first phase of viral replication (Cagno et al., 2018). Kumar et al. (2019) proposed that iron oxide nanoparticles change viral RNS transcripts of H1N1 Influenza A virus within 24h with a MIC value ranging from 4.25 ± 0.2 pg. Zinc oxide (16–20 nm) suppresses the cell proliferation of H1N1 influenza virus thus shows antiviral activity (Ghaffari et al., 2019). The small size of nanoparticles may also contribute to the effectivity due to the impact of zeta potential (Gaikwad et al., 2013). AgNPs of size 10–80 nm are reported to have antiviral activity when tested against Monkeypox virus where size 10 nm is more potent to be used as a therapeutic antiviral agent (Rogers et al., 2008). Elechiguerra et al. (2005) reported the potency of small-sized AgNPs that could easily append to viral cell inhibiting its further attachment to host cell and lastly attenuation of viral replication.

Silver nanoparticles of 30–50 nm size inhibit HIV-1 isolates by preventing CD-4 dependent virion binding, fusion, infectivity, inhibition of post-entry stages of the HIV-1 lifecycle thus prevents the attack of HIV (Lara et al., 2010). Silver nanoparticles also show the antiviral effect on HAV-10, HSV-1, CoxB4 strains via obscure mechanism (Haggag et al., 2019). Mori et al. (2013) also suggest that silver nanoparticles show activity on H1N1 influenza virus by inhibiting viral penetration into the host cell. Since precision drug delivery is one of the major setback in the development of potent anti-viral drug candidates, recent researches have suggested that polymeric nanoparticles are potential anti-viral drug delivery agents equipped with a sustained and controlled drug-delivery mechanisms, improved bioavailability with less toxicity and side effects (Haggag et al., 2019). Cavalli et al. (2009) reported the antiviral effects of acyclovir loaded β-cyclodextrin-poly (4-acryloylmorpholine) conjugate nanoparticles against HSV-1 virus. The virucidal activity is achieved due to increased drug accumulation and sustained drug delivery in viral cells. The antiviral potentials of some nanoparticles are as indicated in Table 3. The antiviral mechanism of various nanoparticles has been shown in Figure 2.

Table 3.

Antiviral potentials of nanoparticles.

Nanoparticles (Diameter) Test virus (strains) Concentration Mechanism of action Reference
Acyclovir loaded into β-cyclodextrin-poly(4-acryloylmorpholine) conjugate nanoparticles (150 nm when unloaded, 200 nm when loaded) HSV-1 BGM, HSV-1 MRC IC50 0.05 μg/mL, IC99 0.15 μg/mL (HSV-1 BGM),
IC50 0.05 μg/mL, IC99 0.59 μg/mL (HSV-1 MRC)		 Increased drug accumulation and sustained drug delivery results in cell death Cavalli et al. (2009)
Silver nanoparticles (30–50 nm) HIV-1 isolates 0.44 to 0/91 mg/mL Prevention of CD-4 dependent virion binding, fusion, infectivity, inhibition of post-entry stages of HIV-1 lifecycle. Lara et al. (2010)
Gold nanoparticles (17 nm) HIV-1 0.05–0.12 mg/mL The mechanism of gold nanoparticles against HIV-1 is not clear but it inhibits the HIV-1 fusion Vijayakumar and Ganesan (2012)
Copper Iodide nanoparticles (160 nm) Feline Calicivirus 10 ng/mL to 10 μg/mL ROS generation and subsequent capsid protein oxidation Shionoiri et al. (2012)
Silver/chitosan nanoparticles (3.5, 6.5, 12.9 nm) H1N1 influenza A 100 μg of Ag NPs was added to 1 mg of chitosan Inhibiting viral penetration into the host cell Mori et al. (2013)
Cuprous oxide nanoparticles (45.4 ± 68 nm) Hepatitis C virus (HCV) 2 μg/mL Attachment and entry inhibition of HCV infection Hang et al. (2015)
Iron oxide nanoparticles (10–15 nm) H1N1 Influenza A 4.25 ± 0.2 pg Change in viral RNS transcripts within 24 h, 08 fold reduction when treated with Iron
oxide		 Kumar et al. (2019)
Silver nanoparticles of Lampranthus coccineus (10.12–27.89 nm), Malephora lutea (8.91–14.48 nm). HAV-10, HSV-1, CoxB4 L. coccineus:
HAV-10- no activity, HSV-1- 520.6 μg/mL, COxB4- no activity (aqueous nano extract)
11.7 μg/mL, 36.36 μg/mL, 12.74 μg/mL (hexane nano extract)
M. lutea: no activity for aqueous nano extract, HAV-10- 31.38 μg/mL, HSV-1-no activity, COxB4- 29.04 μg/mL (hexane nano extract)		 Not determined Haggag et al. (2019)
Iron oxide nanoparticles (10–15 nm) A/Puerto Pico/8/1934H1N1 influenza virus strain (PR8-H1N1) 1.1 pg Inactivation of cell protein through the interaction of nanoparticles and –SH group (Proposed, not investigated yet) Kumar et al. (2019)
Zinc oxide nanoparticles (16–20 nm) H1N1 Influenza 75 and 200 μg/mL Suppress the proliferation of influenza virus at an inhibition rate of 52.2% Ghaffari et al. (2019)
Open in a new tab

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Schematic representations of the antiviral mechanism of some nanoparticles. NPs directly enter into the host cell besides the direct interaction with viral surface glycoproteins and exert their antiviral activity through binding to viral and host cellular factors thereby blocking the viral replication mechanism.

3. Conclusion

People all around the globe are faced with the challenge of various microbial infections alongside other deadly diseases caused directly or indirectly by pathogenic microbes including bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoa, and parasites. Despite having promising therapies and medicines, it is seen to be difficult to successfully eradicate the problem. This study aims to focus on the possible scope of nanoparticles regarding this occurrence. Nanoparticles are used in different fields for human welfare and hold good promise in the pharmaceutical and biomedical industries properly harnessed. Nanoparticles show different activities according to their size, shape, charge, and surface area. These unique features are even being used against different infectious diseases that may be directly related to pathogenic microbes. From the recent studies considered, it is obvious that nanoparticles possess activity against different microbial infections. Small particle size and the charged surface has provided NPs an easy route to enter the pathogenic cells, interfere with cellular contents such as protein and DNA thereby inducing programmed cell death. Moreover, antibiotic therapy in conjugation with nanotherapy is now being considered a methodical approach to overcome microbial resistance. However, some drawbacks which include selectivity index, efficiency and toxicity are major factors to be further analyzed. The mechanism of action adopted by the nanoparticles is not fully understood thereby underscoring the need for more studies. A need for effective in-vivo analysis is also necessary to evaluate the effectiveness alongside the safety. Although, some nanoparticles are limited because they exhibit some measure of toxicity at elevated concentrations, they nonetheless have potential applications in biomedical sciences in the near future if well harnessed. It is therefore concluded that this concise review adds credence to the existing pool of knowledge on NPs and also encourages that more studies should be carried out to further establish the potential applications of NPs in the management of various microbial infections.

Declarations

Author contribution statement

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability statement

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Declaration of interests statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

References

  1. Abou Hammad A.B., Elnahrawy A.M., Youssef A.M., Youssef A.M. Sol gel synthesis of hybrid chitosan/calcium aluminosilicate nanocomposite membranes and its application as support for CO2 sensor. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019;125:503–509. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.12.077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aljabali A.A., Akkam Y., Al Zoubi M.S., Al-Batayneh K.M., Al-Trad B., Abo Alrob O., Evans D.J. Synthesis of gold nanoparticles using leaf extract of Ziziphus zizyphus and their antimicrobial activity. Nanomaterials. 2018;8(3):174. doi: 10.3390/nano8030174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ardi P., Daie-Ghazvini R., Hashemi S.J., Salehi M.R., Bakhshi H., Rafat Z.…Ahmadikia K. Study on invasive aspergillosis using galactomannan enzyme immunoassay and determining antifungal drug susceptibility among hospitalized patients with hematologic malignancies or candidates for organ transplantation. Microb. Pathog. 2020;147 doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2020.104382. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arshad M., Abbas M., Ehtisham-ul-Haque S., Farrukh M.A., Ali A., Rizvi H., Iqbal M. Synthesis and characterization of SiO2 doped Fe2O3 nanoparticles: photocatalytic and antimicrobial activity evaluation. J. Mol. Struct. 2019;1180:244–250. [Google Scholar]
  5. Anicˇić N., Vukomanović M., Koklicˇ T., Suvorov D. Fewer defects in the surface slows the hydrolysis rate, decreases the ROS generation potential, and improves the non-ROS antimicrobial activity of MgO. Small. 2018;14(26):1800205. doi: 10.1002/smll.201800205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Atolani O., Baker M.T., Adeyemi O.S., Olanrewaju I.R., Hamid A.A., Ameen O.M.…Usman L.A. Covid-19: critical discussion on the applications and implications of chemicals in sanitizers and disinfectants. EXCLI Journal. 2020;19:785–799. doi: 10.17179/excli2020-1386. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Azam A., Ahmed A.S., Oves M., Khan M.S., Memic A. Size-dependent antimicrobial properties of CuO nanoparticles against Gram-positive and-negative bacterial strains. Int. J. Nanomed. 2012;7:3527. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S29020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bera R.K., Mandal S.M., Raj C.R. Antimicrobial activity of fluorescent A g nanoparticles. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2014;58(6):520–526. doi: 10.1111/lam.12222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bhosale S.V., Ekambe P.S., Bhoraskar S.V., Mathe V.L. Effect of surface properties of NiFe2O4 nanoparticles synthesized by dc thermal plasma route on antimicrobial activity. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2018;441:724–733. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bagchi B., Kar S., Dey S.K., Bhandary S., Roy D., Mukhopadhyay T.K.…Nandy P. In situ synthesis and antibacterial activity of copper nanoparticle loaded natural montmorillonite clay based on contact inhibition and ion release. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 2013;108:358–365. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2013.03.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Beveridge T.J., Murray R.G. Sites of metal deposition in the cell wall of Bacillus subtilis. J. Bacteriol. 1980;141(2):876–887. doi: 10.1128/jb.141.2.876-887.1980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Biju V., Itoh T., Anas A., Sujith A., Ishikawa M. Semiconductor quantum dots and metal nanoparticles: syntheses, optical properties, and biological applications. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2008;391(7):2469–2495. doi: 10.1007/s00216-008-2185-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bueloni B., Sanna D., Garribba E., Casto G.R., Leon I.E., Islan G.A. Deign of nalidixic acid-vanadium complex loaded into chitosan hybrid nanoparticles as smart strategy to inhibit bacterial growth and quorum sensing. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.07.304. 2018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cagno V., Andreozzi P., D’Alicarnasso M., Silva P.J., Mueller M., Galloux M., Weber J. Broad-spectrum non-toxic antiviral nanoparticles with a virucidal inhibition mechanism. Nat. Mater. 2018;17(2):195–203. doi: 10.1038/nmat5053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cabeen M.T., Jacobs-Wagner C. Bacterial cell shape. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2005;3(8):601–610. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cha S.H., Hong J., McGuffie M., Yeom B., VanEpps J.S., Kotov N.A. Shape-dependent biomimetic inhibition of enzyme by nanoparticles and their antibacterial activity. ACS Nano. 2015;9(9):9097–9105. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.5b03247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Carpio I.E.M., Santos C.M., Wei X., Rodrigues D.F. Toxicity of a polymer–graphene oxide composite against bacterial planktonic cells, biofilms, and mammalian cells. Nanoscale. 2012;4(15):4746–4756. doi: 10.1039/c2nr30774j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Chen Q., Li J., Wu Y., Shen F., Yao M. Biological responses of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria to nZVI (Fe 0), Fe 2+ and Fe 3+ RSC Adv. 2013;3(33):13835–13842. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cavalli R., Donalisio M., Civra A., Ferruti P., Ranucci E., Trotta F., Lembo D. Enhanced antiviral activity of Acyclovir loaded into β-cyclodextrin-poly (4-acryloylmorpholine) conjugate nanoparticles. J. Contr. Release. 2009;137(2):116–122. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2009.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cousins B.G., Allison H.E., Doherty P.J., Edward C., Garvery M.J., Martin D.S., Wiliams R.L. Effect of a nanoparticulate silica substrate on cell attachment of Candida abicans. The Society for Applied Microbiology. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007;102:757–765. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.03124.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cremonini E., Zonaro E., Donini M., Lampis S., Boaretti M., Dusi S., Vallini G. Biogenic selenium nanoparticles: characterization, antimicrobial activity and effects on human dendritic cells and fibroblasts. Microb. Biotechnol. 2016;9(6):758–771. doi: 10.1111/1751-7915.12374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Daniel M.C., Astruc D. Gold nanoparticles: assembly, supramolecular chemistry, quantum-size-related properties, and applications toward biology, catalysis, and nanotechnology. Chem. Rev. 2004;104(1):293–346. doi: 10.1021/cr030698+. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Durand M.L., Calderwood S.B., Weber D.J., Miller S.I., Southwick F.S., Caviness V.S., Jr., Swartz M.N. Acute bacterial meningitis in adults--A review of 493 episodes. N. Engl. J. Med. 1993;328(1):21–28. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199301073280104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. El Nahrawy A.M., Hammad A.B.A., Bakr A.M., Hemdan B.A., Wassel A.R. Decontamination of ubiquitous harmful microbial lineages in water using an innovative Zn2Ti0.8Fe0.2O4 nanostructure: dielectric and terahertz properties. Heliyon. 2019;5(9) doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. El-Sayyad G.S., Mosallam F.M., El-Batal A.I. One-pot green synthesis of magnesium oxide nanoparticles using Penicillium chrysogenum melanin pigment and gamma rays with antimicrobial activity against multidrug-resistant microbes. Adv. Powder Technol. 2018;29(11):2616–2625. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ewald P.W. Evolutionary biology and the treatment of signs and symptoms of infectious disease. J. Theor. Biol. 1980;86(1):169–176. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(80)90073-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Elechiguerra J.L., Burt J.L., Morones J.R., Camacho-Bragado A., Gao X., Lara H.H., Yacaman M.J. Interaction of silver nanoparticles with HIV-1. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2005;3(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/1477-3155-3-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Fabiyi O., Olatunji G., Atolani Olubunmi, Olawuyi O. Preparation of bio-nematicidal nanoparticles of eucalyptus officinalis for the control of cyst nematode (heterodera sacchari) J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2020;30(5):1172–1177. [Google Scholar]
  29. Falcaro P., Ricco R., Yazdi A., Imaz I., Furukawa S., Maspoch D., Doonan C.J. Application of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles@ MOFs. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2016;307:237–254. [Google Scholar]
  30. Fathima J.B., Pugazhendhi A., Venis R. Synthesis and characterization of ZrO2 nanoparticles-antimicrobial activity and their prospective role in dental care. Microb. Pathog. 2017;110:245–251. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2017.06.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Fishovitz J., Hermoso J.A., Chang M., Mobashery S. Penicillin-binding protein 2a of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. IUBMB Life. 2014;66(8):572–577. doi: 10.1002/iub.1289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Friedman H., Newton C., Klein T.W. Microbial infections, immunomodulation, and drugs of abuse. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2003;16(2):209–219. doi: 10.1128/CMR.16.2.209-219.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Friedman M., Tam C.C., Cheng L.W., Land K.M. Anti-trichomonad activities of different compounds from foods, marine products, and medicinal plants: a review. BMC Compl. Med. Ther. 2020;20(1):271. doi: 10.1186/s12906-020-03061-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Ghaffari H., Tavakoli A., Moradi A., Tabarraei A., Bokharaei-Salmi F., Zahmatkeshan M., Farahmand M., Javanmard D., Kiani S.J., Esghaei M., Prihajati-Mahabadi V., Monavari S.H., Pirkooh A.A. Inhibition of H1N1 influenza virus infection by zinc oxide nanoparticles: another emerging application of nanomedicine. J. Biomed. Sci. 2019;26:70. doi: 10.1186/s12929-019-0563-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Gaikwad S., Ingle A., Gade A., Rai M., Falanga A., Incoronato N.…Galdiero M. Antiviral activity of mycosynthesized silver nanoparticles against herpes simplex virus and human parainfluenza virus type 3. Int. J. Nanomed. 2013;8:4303. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S50070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Gurunathan S., Han J.W., Dayem A.A., Eppakayala V., Kim J.H. Oxidative stress-mediated antibacterial activity of graphene oxide and reduced graphene oxide in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Int. J. Nanomed. 2012;7:5901. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S37397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Gurunathan S., Han J.W., Kwon D.N., Kim J.H. Enhanced antibacterial and anti-biofilm activities of silver nanoparticles against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2014;9(1):1–17. doi: 10.1186/1556-276X-9-373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Ghasemnezhad A., Ghorbanpour M., Sohrabi O., Ashnavar M. Vol. 87. Elsevier; 2019. A general overview on application of nanoparticles in agriculture and plant science; pp. 85–110. (Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry). [Google Scholar]
  39. Guang S., Yu J., Wang H., Liu X., Qu S., Zhu R., Tang W. A low temperature processable tin oxide interlayer via amine-modification for efficient and stable organic solar cells. J. Energy Chem. 2021;56:496–503. [Google Scholar]
  40. Halder S., Yadav K.K., Sarkar R., Mukherjee S., Saha P., Haldar S.…Sen T. Alteration of Zeta potential and membrane permeability in bacteria: a study with cationic agents. SpringerPlus. 2015;4(1):1–14. doi: 10.1186/s40064-015-1476-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Harrison J.J., Turner R.J., Marques L.L., Ceri H. Biofilms: a new understanding of these microbial communities is driving a revolution that may transform the science of microbiology. Am. Sci. 2005;93(6):508–515. [Google Scholar]
  42. Haggag E.G., Elshamy A.M., Rabeh M.A., Gabr N.M., Salem M., Youssif K.A., Abdelmohsen U.R. Antiviral potential of green synthesized silver nanoparticles of Lampranthus coccineus and Malephora lutea. Int. J. Nanomed. 2019;14:6217. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S214171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Haghighi F., Roudba Mohammadir S., Mohammadi P., Hossinkhani S., Shidpour R. Antifungal acitivity of Tio2 nanoparticles and EDTA on Candida abicans Biofilms. Infect. Epidemiol. Med. Summer 2013;1:133–138. [Google Scholar]
  44. Han Y., Gao C., Wang H., Sun J., Liang M., Feng Y.…Sun B. Macrophage membrane-coated nanocarriers co-modified by RVG29 and TPP improve brain neuronal mitochondria-targeting and therapeutic efficacy in alzheimer's disease mice. Bioact. Mater. 2021;6(2):529–542. doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.08.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Hang X., Peng H., Song H., Qi Z., Miao X., Xu W. Antiviral activity of cuprous oxide nanoparticles against hepatitis C virus in vitro. J. Virol Methods. 2015;222:150–157. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2015.06.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Hashimoto M., Kawai K., Kawakami H., Imazato S. Matrix metalloproteases inhibition and biocompatibility of gold and platinum nanoparticles. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2016;104(1):209–217. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.35557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. He L., Liu Y., Mustapha A., Lin M. Microbiological Research166; 2010. Antifungal activity of zinc oxide nanoparticles against Botrytis cinerea and Penicillium expansum; p. 207—215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. He L., Liu Y., Mustapha A., Lin M. Antifungal activity of zinc oxide nanoparticles against Botrytis cinerea and Penicillium expansum. Microbiol. Res. 2011;166(3):207–215. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2010.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Hussein M.A.M., Banos F.G.D., Grinholc M., Dena A.S.A., El-Shebiny I.M., Megahed M. Exploring the physicochemical and antimicrobial properties of gold-chitosan hybrid nanoparticles composed of varying chitosan amounts. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.08.046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Ingle A.P., Duran N., Rai M. Bioactivity, mechanism of action, and cytotoxicity of copper-based nanoparticles: a review. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013;98(3):1001–1009. doi: 10.1007/s00253-013-5422-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Ismail R.A., Sulaiman G.M., Abdulrahman S.A., Marzoog T.R. Antibacterial activity of magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles synthesized by laser ablation in liquid. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2015;53:286–297. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2015.04.047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Jamdagni P., Khatri P., Rana J.S. Green synthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles using flower extract of Nyctanthes arbor-tristis and their antifungal activity. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2018;30(2):168–175. [Google Scholar]
  53. Joe A., Park S.H., Kim D.J., Lee Y.J., Jhee K.H., Sohn Y., Jang E.S. Antimicrobial activity of ZnO nanoplates and its Ag nanocomposites: insight into an ROS-mediated antibacterial mechanism under UV light. J. Solid State Chem. 2018;267:124–133. [Google Scholar]
  54. Jayesh P., Ruparelia, Chatterjee A.P., Duttagupta S.P.B., Mukherji S. Strain specificity in antimicrobial activity of silver and copper nanoparticles. Acta Biomater. 2008;4:707–716. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2007.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Jeyaraj M., Rajesh M., Arun R., MubarakAli D., Sathishkumar G., Sivanandhan G., Ganapathi A. An investigation on the cytotoxicity and caspase-mediated apoptotic effect of biologically synthesized silver nanoparticles using Podophyllum hexandrum on human cervical carcinoma cells. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 2013;102:708–717. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.09.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Kanhed P., Birla S., Gaikwad S., Gade A., Seabra A.B., Rubilar O.…Rai M. In vitro antifungal efficacy of copper nanoparticles against selected crop pathogenic fungi. Mater. Lett. 2014;115:13–17. [Google Scholar]
  57. Khan I., Saeed K., Khan I. Nanoparticles: properties, applications and toxicities. Arab. J. Chem. 2017;12(7):908–931. [Google Scholar]
  58. Khoury M.K., Heid C.A., Cripps M.W., Pickett M.L., Nagaraj M.B., Johns M.…Hennessy S.A. Antifungal therapy in fungal necrotizing soft tissue infections. J. Surg. Res. 2020;256:187–192. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.06.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Kim H.C., Park S.M., Hinsberg W.D. Block copolymer based nanostructures: materials, processes, and applications to electronics. Chem. Rev. 2010;110(1):146–177. doi: 10.1021/cr900159v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Kim J.S., Kuk E., Yu K.N., Kim J.H., Park S.J., Lee H.J.…Kim Y.K. Antimicrobial effects of silver nanoparticles. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2007;3(1):95–101. doi: 10.1016/j.nano.2006.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Kumar R., Nayak M., Sahoo G.C., Pandey K., Sarkar M.C., Ansari Y.…Das P. Iron oxide nanoparticles based antiviral activity of H1N1 influenza A virus. J. Infect. Chemother. 2019;25(5):325–329. doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2018.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Lara H.H., Ayala-Nuñez N.V., Ixtepan-Turrent L., Rodriguez-Padilla C. Mode of antiviral action of silver nanoparticles against HIV-1. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2010;8(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/1477-3155-8-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Laxminarayan R., Duse A., Wattal C., Zaidi A.K., Wertheim H.F., Sumpradit N.…Greko C. Antibiotic resistance—the need for global solutions. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2013;13(12):1057–1098. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70318-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Liu J., Sonshine D.A., Shervani S., Hurt R.H. Controlled release of biologically active silver from nanosilver surfaces. ACS Nano. 2010;4(11):6903–6913. doi: 10.1021/nn102272n. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Leung Y.H., Ng A.M., Xu X., Shen Z., Gethings L.A., Wong M.T.…Lee P.K. Mechanisms of antibacterial activity of MgO: non-ROS mediated toxicity of MgO nanoparticles towards Escherichia coli. Small. 2014;10(6):1171–1183. doi: 10.1002/smll.201302434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Liu S., Zeng T.H., Hofmann M., Burcombe E., Wei J., Jiang R.…Chen Y. Antibacterial activity of graphite, graphite oxide, graphene oxide, and reduced graphene oxide: membrane and oxidative stress. ACS Nano. 2011;5(9):6971–6980. doi: 10.1021/nn202451x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Li S., Meng Lin M., Toprak M.S., Kim D.K., Muhammed M. Nanocomposites of polymer and inorganic nanoparticles for optical and magnetic applications. Nano Rev. 2010;1(1):5214. doi: 10.3402/nano.v1i0.5214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Magdassi S., Grouchko M., Kamyshny A. Copper nanoparticles for printed electronics: routes towards achieving oxidation stability. Materials. 2010;3(9):4626–4638. doi: 10.3390/ma3094626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Mahdy S.A., Raheed Q.J., Kalaichelvan P.T. Antimicrobial activity of zero-valent iron nanoparticles. Int. J. Mod. Eng. Res. 2012;2(1):578–581. [Google Scholar]
  70. Manikandan V., Velmurugan P., Park J.H., Chang W.S., Park Y.J., Jayanthi P., Cho M., Oh B.T. Green synthesis of silver oxide nanoparticles and its antibacterial activity agains dental pathogens. 3 Biotech. 2017;7:72. doi: 10.1007/s13205-017-0670-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Mai-Prochnow A., Clauson M., Hong J., Murphy A.B. Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria differ in their sensitivity to cold plasma. Sci. Rep. 2016;6:38610. doi: 10.1038/srep38610. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Martinez castanon G.A., Martínez-Gutiérrez F., Ruiz F. Synthesis and antimicrobial activity of solver nanoparticles with different sizes. J. Nano Res. 2008;10:1343–1348. [Google Scholar]
  73. Medhi R., Srinoi P., Ngo N., Tran H., Lee T.R. Nanoparticle-based strategies to combat COVID-19. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2020;3(9):8557–8580. doi: 10.1021/acsanm.0c01978. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Mori Y., Ono T., Miyahira Y., Nguyen V.Q., Matsui T., Ishihara M. Antiviral activity of silver nanoparticle/chitosan composites against H1N1 influenza A virus. Mori et al. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2013;8:93. doi: 10.1186/1556-276X-8-93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Nagy A., Harrison A., Sabbani S., Munson R.S., Jr., Dutta P.K., Waldman W.J. Silver nanoparticles embedded in zeolite membranes: release of silver ions and mechanism of antibacterial action. Int. J. Nanomed. 2011;6:1833. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S24019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Nahrawy A.M.E., Bakr A.M., Hammad A.B.A., Hemdan B.A. High performance of talented copper/magneso-zinc titanate nanostructures as biocidal agents for inactivation of pathogens during wastewater disinfection. Appl. Nanosci. 2020;10:3585–3601. [Google Scholar]
  77. Philip D. Green synthesis of gold and silver nanoparticles using Hibiscus rosa sinensis. Phys. E Low-dimens. Syst. Nanostruct. 2010;42(5):1417–1424. [Google Scholar]
  78. Padmavathy N., Vijayaraghavan R. Interaction of ZnO nanoparticles with microbes—a physio and biochemical assay. J. Biomed. Nanotechnol. 2011;7(6):813–822. doi: 10.1166/jbn.2011.1343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Panicker S., Ahmady I.M., Han C., Chehimi M., Mohamed A.A. On demand release of ionic silver from gold-silver alloy nanoparticles: fundamental antibacterial mechanisms study. Mater. Today Chem. 2020;16:100237. [Google Scholar]
  80. Padmavathy N., Vijayaraghavan R. Enhanced bioactivity of ZnO nanoparticles—an antimicrobial study. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 2008;9(3) doi: 10.1088/1468-6996/9/3/035004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Pramanik A., Laha D., Bhattacharya D., Pramanik P., Karmakar P. A novel study of antibacterial activity of copper iodide nanoparticle mediated by DNA and membrane damage. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 2012;96:50–55. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.03.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Panáček A., Kolář M., Večeřová R., Prucek R., Soukupova J., Kryštof V., Kvítek L. Antifungal activity of silver nanoparticles against Candida spp. Biomaterials. 2009;30(31):6333–6340. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.07.065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Parveen S., Wani A.H., Shah M.A., Devi H.S., Bhat M.Y., Koka J.A. Preparation, characterization and antifungal activity of iron oxide nanoparticles. Microb. Pathog. 2018;115:287–292. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2017.12.068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Qi L., Xu Z., Jiang X., Hu C., Zou X. Preparation and antibacterial activity of chitosan nanoparticles. Carbohydr. Res. 2004;339:2693–2700. doi: 10.1016/j.carres.2004.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Quinteros M.A., Aristizábal V.C., Dalmasso P.R., Paraje M.G., Páez P.L. Oxidative stress generation of silver nanoparticles in three bacterial genera and its relationship with the antimicrobial activity. Toxicol. Vitro. 2016;36:216–223. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2016.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Rai A., Prabhune A., Perry C.C. Antibiotic mediated synthesis of gold nanoparticles with potent antimicrobial activity and their application in antimicrobial coatings. J. Mater. Chem. 2010;20(32):6789–6798. [Google Scholar]
  87. Ray S., Mohan R., Singh J.K., Samantaray M.K., Shaikh M.M., Panda D., Ghosh P. Anticancer and antimicrobial metallopharmaceutical agents based on palladium, gold, and silver N-heterocyclic carbene complexes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007;129(48):15042–15053. doi: 10.1021/ja075889z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Reddy K.M., Feris K., Bell J., Wingett D.G., Hanley C., Punnoose A. Selective toxicity of zinc oxide nanoparticles to prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2007;90(21):213902. doi: 10.1063/1.2742324. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Ren G., Hu D., Cheng E.W., Vargas-Reus M.A., Reip P., Allaker R.P. Characterisation of copper oxide nanoparticles for antimicrobial applications. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2009;33(6):587–590. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2008.12.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Rogers J.V., Parkinson C.V., Choi Y.W., Speshock J.L., Hussain S.M. A preliminary assessment of silver nanoparticle inhibition of monkeypox virus plaque formation. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2008;3(4):129. [Google Scholar]
  91. Roy A., Gauri S.S., Bhattacharya M., Bhattacharya J. Antimicrobial activity of CaO nanoparticles. J. Biomed. Nanotechnol. 2013;9(9):1570–1578. doi: 10.1166/jbn.2013.1681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Sirelkhatim A., Mahmud S., Seeni A., Kaus N.H.M., Ann L.C., Bakhori S.K.M.…Mohamad D. Review on zinc oxide nanoparticles: antibacterial activity and toxicity mechanism. Nano-Micro Lett. 2015;7(3):219–242. doi: 10.1007/s40820-015-0040-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Scott N., Chen H. Nanoscale science and engineering for agriculture and food systems. Ind. Biotechnol. 2013;9(1):17–18. [Google Scholar]
  94. Sethi S., Murphy T.F. Bacterial infection in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 2000: a state-of-the-art review. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2001;14(2):336–363. doi: 10.1128/CMR.14.2.336-363.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Sharma V., Kaushik S., Pandit P., Dhull D., Yadav J.P., Kaushik S. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles from medicinal plants and evaluation of their antiviral potential against chikungunya virus. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019;103(2):881–891. doi: 10.1007/s00253-018-9488-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Shen Y., Lu S., Xu W., Lv A., Wang Z., Wang H.…Zhang Y. Fabrication of composite material with pd nanoparticles and graphene on nickel foam for its excellent electrocatalytic performance. Electrocatalysis. 2021;11(5):522–535. [Google Scholar]
  97. Shionoiri N., Sato T., Fujimori Y., Nakayama T., Nemoto M., Matsunaga T., Tanaka T. Investigation of the antiviral properties of copper iodide nanoparticles agains feline calicivirus. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2012;113(5):580–586. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2011.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Singh R., Nalwa H.S. Medical applications of nanoparticles in biological imaging, cell labeling, antimicrobial agents, and anticancer nanodrugs. J. Biomed. Nanotechnol. 2011;7(4):489–503. doi: 10.1166/jbn.2011.1324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Singh S.R., Krishnamurthy N.B., Mathew B.B. A review on recent diseases caused by microbes. J. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014;2(4):106–115. [Google Scholar]
  100. Sonohara R., Muramatsu N., Ohshima H., Kondo T. Difference in surface properties between Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus as revealed by electrophoretic mobility measurements. Biophys. Chem. 1995;55(3):273–277. doi: 10.1016/0301-4622(95)00004-h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Setyawati M.I., Fang W., Chia S.L., Leong D.T. Nanotoxicology of common metal oxide based nanomaterials: their ROS-y and non-ROS-y consequences. Asia Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2013;8(2):205–217. [Google Scholar]
  102. Singhal G., Bhavesh R., Kasariya K., Sharma A.R., Singh R.P. Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using Ocimum sanctum (Tulsi) leaf extract and screening its antimicrobial activity. J. Nanoparticle Res. 2011;13(7):2981–2988. [Google Scholar]
  103. Slavin Y.N., Asnis J., Häfeli U.O., Bach H. Metal nanoparticles: understanding the mechanisms behind antibacterial activity. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2017;15(1):1–20. doi: 10.1186/s12951-017-0308-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Sobhani Z., Samani S.M., Montaseri H., Khezri E. Nanoparticles of chitosan loaded ciprofloxacin: fabrication and antimicrobial activity. Adv. Pharmaceut. Bull. 2017;7(3):427. doi: 10.15171/apb.2017.051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Song X., Bayati P., Gupta M., Elahinia M., Haghshenas M. Fracture of magnesium matrix nanocomposites - a review. Int. J. Lightweight Mater. Manufact. 2021;4(1):67–98. [Google Scholar]
  106. Vert M., Doi Y., Hellwich K.H., Hess M., Hodge P., Kubisa P.…Schué F. Terminology for biorelated polymers and applications (IUPAC Recommendations 2012) Pure Appl. Chem. 2012;84(2):377–410. [Google Scholar]
  107. Vijayakumar S., Ganesan S. Gold nanoparticles as an HIV entry inhibitor. Curr. HIV Res. 2012;10(8) doi: 10.2174/157016212803901383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Wani I.A., Ahmad T. Size and shape dependant antifungal activity of gold nanoparticles: a case study of Candida. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 2012;101:162–170. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Xie Y., He Y., Irwin P.L., Jin T., Shi X. Antibacterial activity and mechanism of action of zinc oxide nanoparticles against Campylobacter jejuni. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011;77:2325–2331. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02149-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Yien L., Zin N.M., Sarwar A., Katas H. Antifungal activity of chitosan nanoparticles and correlation with their physical properties. Int. J. Biomater. 2012;2012 doi: 10.1155/2012/632698. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Zhang Z., Wang Y., Ma Q., Zhang S., Liu H., Zhao B.…Kong D. Biomimetic carrier-free nanoparticle delivers digoxin and doxorubicin to exhibit synergetic antitumor activity in vitro and in vivo. Chem. Eng. J. 2021;406 [Google Scholar]
  112. Zhou Y., Dong X., Li W., Hao G., Yan D., Lu A. Millimeter-sized few-layer graphene sheets with aligned channels for fast lithium-ion charging kinetics. J. Energy Chem. 2021;55:62–69. [Google Scholar]
  113. Zhang W., Li Y., Niu J., Chen Y. Photogeneration of reactive oxygen species on uncoated silver, gold, nickel, and silicon nanoparticles and their antibacterial effects. Langmuir. 2013;29(15):4647–4651. doi: 10.1021/la400500t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Articles from Heliyon are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES