Skip to main content
. 2022 Jul 20;29(59):89772–89787. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-21871-x

Table 3.

Comparison of the antibacterial efficacy of phytosynthesized rGO in the current work and that reported in literature.

Sample Sample concentration (mg mL−1) Bacterial strain Zone of inhibition (mm) References
rGO Bacillus subtilis 2 (Rani et al. 2019)
Escherichia coli 1.9
rGO-Cu2O Bacillus subtilis 3.5
Escherichia coli 3
rGO 100 Escherichia coli 18 (Vatandost et al. 2020)
Staphyllococus aureus 23
GO Escherichia coli Resistant
Staphyllococus aureus Resistant
Pd-RGO-ZnO nanocomposite Klebsiella pneumonia 11 (Rajeswari and Prabu 2020)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 10
Ag-rGO nanocomposite 100 Staphyllococus aureus 8 (Rajeswari et al. 2017)
Bacillus subtilis 9
Escherichia coli 18
GO 100 Bacillus subtilis 9 (Thiyagarajulu and Arumugam 2021)
Escherichia coli 8
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 6
rGO Bacillus subtilis 16
Escherichia coli 12.5
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 7.5
rGO-ZnO nanocomposite 200 Klebsiella pneumonia 14 (Rajeswari and Prabu 2018)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 14.5
GO 100 Bacillus subtilis 9 (Thiyagarajulu et al. 2020)
Escherichia coli 8
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 6
rGO Bacillus subtilis 18
Escherichia coli 14
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 7.5
Au-rGO nanocomposite 150 Klebsiella pneumonia 23.4 (Saikia et al. 2016)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 24.4
Staphyllococus aureus 21.4
rGO Escherichia coli 11 (Joshi et al. 2020)
rGO 100 Escherichia coli No growth (sensitive) The current work
Klebsiella pneumonia No growth (sensitive)
Bacillus subtilis Resistant
Staphyllococus aureus