Table 2. Comparison between the Antimicrobial Efficiency of Ag@Biochar Prepared in the Current Study and AgNPs and AgNP Nanocomposites Prepared in Other Studies.
sample | sample concentration (mg mL–1) | bacterial strain | zone of inhibition (mm) | references |
---|---|---|---|---|
chitosan–silver nanoparticles (CS–AgNPs) | 1 | Escherichia coli | 10 | (78) |
methanol silver nanoparticles (SNPs) | 100 | Staphylococcus aureus | 14.33 | (79) |
Escherichia coli | 10.33 | |||
Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 13.67 | |||
Staphylococcus aureus | 12.6 | |||
Staphylococcus aureus | 13 | |||
Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 16 | |||
AgNP-embedded guar gum/gelatin nanocomposite | Escherichia coli | 12.5 | (80) | |
Staphylococcus aureus | 13 | |||
Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 12.5 | |||
Ag/GO nanocomposite | 1 | Staphylococcus aureus | 15 | (81) |
Escherichia coli | 19 | |||
copper–silver–titanium oxide nanocomposite (Cu–Ag–TiO2) | 0.5 | Staphylococcus aureus | 21 | (82) |
Escherichia coli | 16 | |||
Escherichia coli | 16 | |||
Escherichia coli | 9.3 | |||
Ag@biochar | 1 | Escherichia coli | no growth (sensitive) | this study |
Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 19 | |||
Klebsiella pneumoniae | 18 | |||
Bacillus subtilis | 22 | |||
Staphylococcus aureus | resistant | |||
Candida albicans | 16 |