Table 3-.
Comparative analysis of bacterial CFU/cm2 adhering to CarboSil, C-Se, C-SNAP and SNAP-Se-1 polymer composites.
| Bacterial strain | CarboSil | C-Se | C-SNAP | SNAP-Se-1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S. aureus | Average CFU | 9 × 106 | 2.43× 106 | 7.5× 104 | 3.17× 104 |
| Reduction efficiency (%) | - | 73.01 ± 21.3 | 99.16 ± 0.27 | 99.65 ± 0.28 | |
| p-value vs. CarboSil control | - | 0.008 | 0.003 | 0.003 | |
| E. coli | Average CFU | 6.6 × 107 | 2.5× 107 | 1.33× 107 | 5.5× 105 |
| Reduction efficiency (%) | - | 62.50 ± 15 | 80.00 ± 11.4 | 99.18 ± 0.13 | |
| p-value vs. CarboSil control | - | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.005 |