Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Mar 29.
Published in final edited form as: ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2017 Apr 26;9(18):15254–15264. doi: 10.1021/acsami.7b01408

Table 2.

The comparative analysis of bacterial CFU/cm2 grown on with Carbosil, Cu-NPs, SNAP, and Cu-SNAP composites.

NO Flux (× 10−10 mol−2min−1cm−2)
Films 0h 24h post bacteria CFU/cm2 (S. aureus) CFU/cm2 (P. aeruginosa)
Control (Carbosil) -- -- 6.7± 0.1 × 107 6.8 ± 0.1 × 107
1 wt% Cu -- -- 3.8 ± 0.22 × 107 4.8 ± 0.22 × 107
3 wt% Cu -- -- 2.4 ± 0.33 × 106 3.1 ± 0.33 × 106
SNAP 1.31 ± 0.6 0.43 ± 0.1 3.5 ±1.3 × 104 1.8 ± 1.3 × 104
1 wt% Cu-SNAP 4.48 ± 0.5 0.87± 0.1 3.2 ±1.1 × 103 4.2 ± 1.1 × 103
3 wt% Cu-SNAP 4.84 ± 0.2 2.25 ± 0.3 8.9 ±1.8 × 102 2.4 ± 1.8 × 102