The antibacterial mechanism of CeO₂ NMs with different doping materials against various bacterial strains.

Nanomaterials	Bacterial name	Mechanism
Au@CeO2	Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli	The near-infrared light could significantly enhance the antibacterial activity of Au@CeO2, and the photothermal effect did not dominate the enhancement47
Ce(Mn, Fe)O2	Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli	The zone of inhibition (antibacterial effect) increased with an increase in the concentration of the dopant (Mn, Fe) elements48
CeO2/GO	Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella typhi	CeO2/GO showed the highest values; this confirmed that the interaction of GO and CeO2 as a nanocomposite enhanced the antibacterial activity49
Sm-doped CeO2	Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus and Salmonella typhi	The antibacterial activity revealed that the killing efficiency of Sm-CeO2 increased with an increasing concentration of Sm3+50
CeO2–Al2O3	Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphyloccus aureus, Bacillus subtilis and Escherichia coli	ROS generation led to cell membrane disruption, protein denaturation, and DNA losses, hindering bacterial growth51
Co-doped CeO2	Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus and Salmonella typhi	The electrostatic interactions between the positively charged nanomaterial and negatively charged bacteria aided the nanomaterial to penetrate the cell wall and cause damage52
CeO2	Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa	The microorganism reduction in viable number indicates loss of inhibition ability of CeO2 nanomaterials53
CeO2/CePO4	Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, Escherichia coli, and Salmonella typhimurium	The redox switching between Ce3+ and Ce4+ in the CeO2/CePO4 nanocomposites might increase the penetrating ability of the positively charged nanocomposites through the negatively charged bacterial cell wall, causing bacterial cell damage54
Polyindole/Ag–CeO2	Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli	The improved antibacterial activity of the nanocomposites based on the concentration of silver ions was due to the interaction between the cell wall of the bacteria and the nanocomposites, which caused toxicity55
Zr-doped CeO2	Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Streptococcus fecalis, Bacillus subtilis and Proteus vulgaris	The antibacterial activity/sensitivity of the nanoparticles was associated with the different bacterial cell wall structures56