Next Article in Journal
Urea Fertilization Significantly Promotes Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Agricultural Soils and Is Attributed to the Short-Term Suppression of Nitrite-Oxidizing Bacteria during Urea Hydrolysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Properties of Native Australian Plant Endophytes against Wound-Infecting Bacteria
Previous Article in Journal
Understanding Salinity-Driven Modulation of Microbial Interactions: Rhizosphere versus Edaphic Microbiome Dynamics
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Role of Chlorine in the Formation and Development of Tap Water Biofilms under Different Flow Regimes
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

TiO2 Nanocomposite Coatings and Inactivation of Carbapenemase-Producing Klebsiella Pneumoniae Biofilm—Opportunities and Challenges

by
Alina-Simona Bereanu
1,2,
Bogdan Ioan Vintilă
1,2,*,
Rareș Bereanu
1,
Ioana Roxana Codru
1,2,*,
Adrian Hașegan
1,2,
Ciprian Olteanu
2,
Vicențiu Săceleanu
1,2 and
Mihai Sava
1,2
1
Faculty of Medicine, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Lucian Blaga Street 2A, 550169 Sibiu, Romania
2
County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Bld. Corneliu Coposu nr. 2-4, 550245 Sibiu, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2024, 12(4), 684; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12040684
Submission received: 4 March 2024 / Revised: 26 March 2024 / Accepted: 27 March 2024 / Published: 28 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bacterial Biofilm Formation and Eradication)

Abstract

:
The worldwide increase of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria is a global threat. The emergence and global spread of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase- (KPC-) producing Klebsiella pneumoniae represent a particular concern. This pathogen has increased resistance and abilities to persist in human reservoirs, in hospital environments, on medical devices, and to generate biofilms. Mortality related to this microorganism is high among immunosuppressed oncological patients and those with multiple hospitalizations and an extended stay in intensive care. There is a severe threat posed by the ability of biofilms to grow and resist antibiotics. Various nanotechnology-based strategies have been studied and developed to prevent and combat serious health problems caused by biofilm infections. The aim of this review was to evaluate the implications of nanotechnology in eradicating biofilms with KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, one of the bacteria most frequently associated with nosocomial infections in intensive care units, including in our department, and to highlight studies presenting the potential applicability of TiO2 nanocomposite materials in hospital practice. We also described the frequency of the presence of bacterial biofilms on medical surfaces, devices, and equipment. TiO2 nanocomposite coatings are one of the best long-term options for antimicrobial efficacy due to their biocompatibility, stability, corrosion resistance, and low cost; they find their applicability in hospital practice due to their critical antimicrobial role for surfaces and orthopedic and dental implants. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has recently classified titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2 NPs) as possibly carcinogenic. Currently, there is an interest in the ecological, non-toxic synthesis of TiO2 nanoparticles via biological methods. Biogenic, non-toxic nanoparticles have remarkable properties due to their biocompatibility, stability, and size. Few studies have mentioned the use of nanoparticle-coated surfaces as antibiofilm agents. A literature review was performed to identify publications related to KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae biofilms and antimicrobial TiO2 photocatalytic nanocomposite coatings. There are few reviews on the antibacterial and antibiofilm applications of TiO2 photocatalytic nanocomposite coatings. TiO2 nanoparticles demonstrated marked antibiofilm activity, but being nano in size, these nanoparticles can penetrate cell membranes and may initiate cellular toxicity and genotoxicity. Biogenic TiO2 nanoparticles obtained via green, ecological technology have less applicability but are actively investigated.

1. Introduction

Klebsiella pneumoniae is a pathogenic, non-motile bacterium that has been associated with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), postoperative infections, and sepsis, possibly even leading to septic shock and death. The overall spread of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria is a worldwide threat. The development and global spread of multidrug-resistant (MDR) Klebsiella pneumoniae are of particular concern. MDR K. pneumoniae strains usually lead to hard-to-treat or untreatable nosocomial infections. The primary multidrug-resistant mechanism is enzyme production. Three major classes of enzymes are involved: Ambler class A (Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase) (KPC), B (Metallo-beta-lactamase) (MBLs), and D (oxacillinases) (OXA-48-like). All of these enzymes are mediated via plasmids, mobile genetic elements carrying antibiotic-resistant genes, facilitating the dissemination of carbapenem resistance worldwide [1,2].
Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumonia (KPC-Kp) are mostly encountered in Greece, Italy, Israel, the United States, Colombia, and Argentina [1,3,4]. In 2016, the Annual Report of the European Antibiotic Surveillance Network published an average percentage of carbapenem resistance of 6.1%, with a prevalence distribution in Greece, Italy, and Romania [4]. A study by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the National Public Health Organization in Greece (2022) reported a quick spread of carbapenemase-producing, highly drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (sequence type 39) [5].
This pathogen has increased resistance and the ability to persist in human reservoirs and in hospital environments, and to generate biofilms. Nosocomial spread of KPC-producing K. pneumoniae may be the result of failure of adequate intrahospital disinfection of medical surfaces and equipment. Wet environments (drains, faucets, sinks) are where these bacteria can survive and spread. Medical devices can be contaminated and, if not used properly, become vectors for spreading infections with these germs in hospitals. Initially, the bacteria can be transferred to the device via contaminated medical equipment, contaminated water, or other external environmental factors [6,7,8]. Furthermore, medical equipment and devices (e.g., endoscopes) can be contaminated and colonized with KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae and, thus, become vectors of transmission of the infection from one patient to another [6]. Gastrointestinal endoscopes, despite the use of advanced disinfection techniques, can still harbor persistent contamination that increases the risk of bacterial transmission. Several factors contribute to this, including exposure to endogenous flora during procedures, the ability of bacteria such as Klebsiella pneumoniae to form biofilm on the endoscope surfaces, the design and surface characteristics of endoscopes that make thorough cleaning a challenge, and disinfection techniques that may not eliminate bacteria. The most identified bacteria associated with contamination, transmission, and infections associated with gastrointestinal endoscopes are Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa [6,9,10,11,12].
The increase in carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella species has led to high hospital mortality and limited treatment options. Hospitals worldwide implement strict measures to limit infection and prevent the spread of the bacterium but, currently, the effectiveness of these measures is still unknown [13,14,15,16]. Recently, more guidelines and recommendations have focused on controlling and preventing carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae infections. However, there is no agreement regarding the success of individual infection control measures regarding the spread of KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae [13,17,18,19]. Several key issues must be addressed when treating KPC-producing K. pneumoniae in critically ill patients: prevention of colonization of the patient, prevention of infection in the colonized patient, prevention of colonization of the contacts of these patients, and reduction of mortality in infected patients [20].
Prolonged stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), dependence on invasive medical equipment, inappropriate antibiotic therapy, and chronic illness (diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer) are the most critical risk factors for the emergence of infections with KPC-producing bacteria. KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae infections have also been associated with travel, immigration, and recent healthcare in areas where such infections are constantly present [3,21,22,23,24]. Intensive care units are mainly affected due to the multitude of maneuvers and invasive devices, but also due to the severity of the diagnoses of hospitalized patients and the large number of days of hospitalization [4,5,25]. Patients with bacteremia or respiratory infections due to carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae present a high death rate (30–70%) [4,5,25,26]. In our intensive care unit, we also face this major problem. KPC-producing K. pneumoniae is one of the most frequently isolated bacteria from samples collected from critical patients with extended stays; most of the samples were from tracheal aspirates (intubated and mechanically ventilated patients). We have found MDR (multidrug-resistant), XDR (extensively drug-resistant), and even PDR (pandrug-resistant) Klebsiella pneumoniae in our ICU.
Bacteria are single-celled organisms and attach to inert or living surfaces to form communities of microorganisms and biofilms. Bacterial biofilm is an aggregate of bacteria (belonging to one or more species of microorganisms) surrounded by a matrix they produce, adherent to each other and to surfaces and/or tissues. Microbes practically live on surfaces, including medical devices, leading to colonization and mature biofilm formation by secreting extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) that provide protection and resistance to aggressive factors, such as antibacterial agents (impossible for antibiotics to penetrate the biofilm), the host immune responses, and extreme environmental factors (UV radiation, extreme temperature, extreme pH, high pressure, high salinity, etc.) [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. The biofilm formation steps are as follows: initially reversible attachment (adherence of bacteria to a surface), irreversible attachment (inhibition of motility factor and production of EPS), maturation, and dispersion (bacteria revert to their original form). Thus, the biofilm expands and establishes itself in new places, resulting in disease progression and the spread of infection (Figure 1) [28].
Klebsiella pneumoniae possesses the capacity to form biofilms. Gram-negative bacteria (including Klebsiella pneumoniae) produce acyl homoserine lactose inducer (AHL), which spreads out from the cell and enters another bacterial cell, attaches to, and activates the activator protein, binds to the DNA, and releases AHL synthetase, which catalyzes the creation of new AHL and process repeats, producing quorum sensing (cell–cell communication system) among the colony of microorganisms facilitating biofilm formation [28,35,36]. The phenotypic and genotypic characteristics of biofilm microorganisms differ from those of planktonic organisms, which confer strong resistance [27,28,29,30,31,32,37,38].
Multiple species of microorganism form biofilms. These biofilms are responsible for producing 80% of acute and chronic infections. While Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus are frequently associated with biofilm formation on medical devices, among Staphylococcal species, multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, especially Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumanii, and Escherichia coli, are the most commonly involved in biofilm-based infections. K. pneumoniae is frequently associated with biofilms formed on central venous catheters (CVCs) and urinary catheters. Staphylococcus aureus biofilms are associated with post-implant orthopedic infections, chronic osteomyelitis, and endocarditis. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms are usually responsible for catheter-associated urinary tract infections and contact-lens-related keratitis. S. aureus, S. epidermidis, K. pneumonia, P. aeruginosa, Acinetobacter spp., E. coli, and Enterococcus form biofilms on cardiovascular implants (prosthetic valves, pacemakers, and coronary artery bypass grafts). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumanii have been reported to colonize and form biofilms in endotracheal tubes and cause ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) [28,29,30].
Source control is the basis of treating infectious diseases and includes all the actions a multidisciplinary team takes in prevention and care [3]. Photocatalytic coatings are considered one of the best solutions for surface and medical device decontamination and self-disinfection, reducing the risk of infection transmission [39,40,41]. Titanium dioxide or Titania (TiO2) is one of the best photocatalytic materials for antimicrobial coatings. It has self-sterilizing effects and is considered a non-toxic material as a result of its inert nature compared to other metal oxides. In the presence of moisture and upon UV illumination, non-toxic metal oxides used for photocatalytic coating generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) (hydroxyl radicals, hydroperoxyl radicals, hydrogen peroxide, singlet oxygen, and superoxide radicals), kill microbes, and prevent their reactivation [39]. TiO2-coated surfaces could minimize bacterial adhesive interaction by changing the surface free energy and reducing bacterial adhesion by increasing the surface energy of the electron donor of the coating. Airborne ROS mobility could also destroy airborne microbes [39,42,43,44,45,46,47,48]. Most photocatalysts (including TiO2) are UV light absorbers. There is concern about using the entire solar spectrum, from UV to infrared wavelengths [49]. In several recent studies, TiO2 was combined with metals, non-metals, or other chemicals to enhance visible light absorption, its electron migration rate, and photocatalytic performance. Nanoparticles (NPs) of antimicrobial metals (titanium, gold, silver, zinc, copper) have antimicrobial and antibiofilm properties that are much better than their micro-sized counterparts [31,50,51,52,53,54,55]. Thus, TiO2 nanocomposite coatings find their applicability in hospital practice due to their essential antimicrobial role not only for surfaces but also for orthopedic and dental implants.
There is a severe threat posed by the ability of biofilms to grow and resist antibiotics. Various nanotechnology-based strategies have been studied and developed to prevent and combat serious health problems caused by biofilm infections. Factors such as mechanical stress, enzymatic digestion, oxygen availability, temperature, pH, and limited nutrition bring about the dispersal of bacteria from the biofilm, with bacteria becoming susceptible to antibiotics [56,57]. Nanoparticles (NPs) can play a vital antibiofilm role by EPS matrix disruption, dispersal of bacteria, and increasing susceptibility to antibiotics [57,58]. The NPs adopt various mechanisms to destroy biofilm. TiO2 NPs produce ROS in the bacterial cells, lipid peroxidation of EPS, cell membrane disruption, and the formation of extracellular polysaccharides (Figure 2) [28,48].
Only a few studies reported the use of NP-coated surfaces as antibiofilm agents. At the nanoscale, materials display distinct biological and physicochemical properties that their bulk counterparts do not. These unique properties are size-dependent, their dimensions being of the same order as biomolecules, and these materials can easily penetrate microbial cell walls and even biofilm EPS layers, causing irreversible DNA and cell membrane damage and, eventually, cell death. The large surface/volume ratios and long plasma half-lives improve their physicochemical reactivities and antibacterial and antibiofilm bioactivities. Other properties of nanoparticles identified as responsible for antibiofilm roles are given by shape, surface charge, and composition. The adherence of bacteria is inhibited by using surfaces with nano-roughness [28,29,59].
TiO2 nanoparticles demonstrated an excellent antibiofilm activity against bacteria (including Klebsiella pneumoniae) and fungi (Candida albicans) [26,28]. TiO2 NPs have been considered non-toxic materials compared with other metal oxides due to their inert nature. Silver (Ag) nanoparticles showed marked antibiofilm activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus (including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). Prolonged exposure to Ag NPs may result in diminished efficacy, and excessive dosages may have toxic effects on skin cells. Zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles exhibit good antibiofilm activity against Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Escherichia coli, and Bacillus subtilis. Copper oxide (CuO) NPs demonstrated antibacterial properties but to a lesser extent than Ag NPs or Zn NPs. Gold NPs showed little or no antimicrobial properties alone [28,29].
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has recently classified titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2 NPs) as possibly carcinogenic. Upon entering the body via inhalation, injection, dermal penetration, or gastrointestinal absorption, these particles could accumulate in various organs and induce harmful effects on cells and genes. The cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of TiO2 NPs are of particular concern, necessitating further research to ascertain the benefit–risk ratio associated with their use. As such, additional studies are required to assess the safety of TiO2 NPs and determine the optimal conditions for their use in various applications [60].
Conventionally, TiO2 nanoparticles are obtained by physical or chemical methods, using harmful reagents or energy-consuming manufacturing processes. Currently, there is an interest in the ecological synthesis of TiO2 NPs via biological methods using bacteria (Acinetobacter baumannii S1, Acinetobacter seohaensis N3, Aeromonas hydrophila, Bacillus cereus A1, Bacillus mycoides, Rummeliibacillus pycnus M1, and Streptomyces sp.), fungi (Aspergillus flavus, Fomes fomentarius, Fomitopsis pinicola, and Trichoderma citrinoviride), or plant-based extracts (Azadirachta indica, Ledebouria revoluta, Luffa acutangula, Mentha arvensis, Ocimum americanum, Piper betel, Prunus yedoensis, and Trigonella foenum-graecum). Nanoparticles obtained through green, ecological technology have remarkable properties and dimensions and improved stability. Nanoparticles synthesized by biological methods mediated by bacteria are used in medicine as antimicrobial and anticancer agents due to their biocompatibility. Biogenic TiO2 nanoparticles have less applicability but are actively investigated [61,62,63].
The main aim was the evaluation of the implications of nanotechnology in eradicating biofilms with KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, one of the bacteria most frequently associated with nosocomial infections in intensive care units, including in our department. We also described the frequency of the presence of bacterial biofilms (including multidrug-resistant K. pneumoniae) on medical surfaces, devices, and equipment; the nosocomial dissemination of KPC-producing K. pneumoniae; and the importance of eradicating these biofilms, the main goal of the health system being to reduce patient morbidity and mortality and the costs associated with medical care. The secondary aim was to highlight studies presenting the potential applicability of TiO2 nanocomposite materials in hospital practice.

2. Materials and Methods

This review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Guidelines 2020 (PRISMA). We used PubMed, Web of Science, Up to Date, and Cochrane Library as search engines. Between 2013 and 2024, over 300 specialized studies were published concerning the implications of antibacterial and antibiofilm nanocomposite coatings in relation to the role of TiO2 nanocomposite coatings in inactivation of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. We took into consideration meta-analysis, systematic reviews, and original studies. The keyword combinations used for searching the databases were: carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, TiO2 nanocomposite coatings, TiO2 nanoparticles, and biofilms.
The inclusion criteria for studies were reviews, meta-analyses, original studies, and peer-reviewed journals regarding MDR Klebsiella pneumoniae biofilm and the antimicrobial and antibiofilm effects of TiO2 nanocomposite coatings. Exclusion criteria were as follows: studies that are not on the subject of the theme addressed and single case reports.

3. Results and Discussions

When a search was conducted using the keyword combination “carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae biofilm”, 188 articles were identified. Using “carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae biofilm”, 76 articles were identified. When a search was conducted using the keyword combination “antimicrobial TiO2 nanocomposite coatings”, 76 articles were identified. The database search identified 19 articles when we used the keyword combination “TiO2 nanocomposite in photocatalytic inactivation of bacteria” and 39 articles when we searched for “antibiofilm nanocomposite coatings”.
The database search identified 398 records, including 27 duplicates. A total of 236 articles were selected for screening; 129 were excluded. Altogether, 77 articles were evaluated regarding eligibility, of which 71 were included in the final analysis; 61 were original reports, and 10 were reviews (Figure 3, Table 1).
Table 1 presents the characteristics of the 71 included studies. The studies included were divided into and discussed in two main categories: those focused on multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae biofilm, and those investigating the antimicrobial and antibiofilm effects of TiO2 nanocomposite coatings.

3.1. Studies on MDR Klebsiella Pneumoniae Biofilm

Studies describe a vital virulence trait used by Klebsiella pneumoniae: the ability to form biofilms on biotic and abiotic surfaces [64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72]. There are two types of biofilms: hydrated biofilms (in drains and catheters) and dry surface biofilms (DSB) (on surfaces and some medical devices). The biofilms lead to increased resistance to external stressors, antibiotics, and antimicrobial factors, and constitute an essential reservoir of pathogens, including MDR bacteria [73,74,75,76,77,78,79]. In their review, Banerjee and colleagues (2019) describe three hypotheses about the failure of the antibiotic susceptibility on the biofilm bacteria: failure of penetration of biofilm by bactericidal substance, altered chemical environment of biofilm, and altered gene expression of biofilm [28].
Folliero and colleagues (2021) reported that 72.7% of Klebsiella pneumoniae strains isolated from medical devices were biofilm-producing. They isolated the primary pathogens contaminating medical devices and studied their capacity to form biofilms and the prevalence of MDR-biofilm-producing strains. Klebsiella pneumoniae strains were detected in central venous catheters (CVCs), nephrostomy tubes, abdominal drain tubes, and Foley catheters. Some devices were colonized by more than one microorganism. Following analysis of the antibiotic susceptibility profiles detected of all isolated strains, 59.2% were MDR strains [80].
Klebsiella pneumoniae easily forms biofilms on catheters, nephrostomy tubes, abdominal drain tubes, Foley’s catheters, intubation cannulas, endoscopes, and other medical devices, but also on the hands of health professionals, and on intensive care unit environment surfaces [30,31,80,81,82,83]. The materials from which invasive medical devices and medical equipment are made, but also surfaces in patient rooms (e.g., furniture, paintwork) can influence the persistence of bacteria and the formation of biofilms. In their prospective study, Thorarinsdottir et al. showed the differences between the material of endotracheal tubes and biofilm formation. Compared to the uncoated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) endotracheal tubes, the noble-metal-coated PVC endotracheal tubes were associated with a lower rate of biofilm formation [82].
There are several biofilm-related infections, such as urinary-catheter-associated urinary tract infections, central-venous-catheter-associated bloodstream infections, and respiratory infections due to biofilms in the intubation cannula. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most common intensive-care-unit- (ICU-) acquired infections occurring in patients who have been on mechanical ventilation for at least 48 h. The most common causes of VAP are bacteria (with an important role in MDR pathogens). The microorganisms most frequently isolated from these patients are aerobic Gram-negative bacteria (Klebsiella pneumonia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter spp., etc.) and, in more than 60% of the cases, Gram-positive cocci (particularly methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) [31,84,85,86,87].
Despite advanced disinfection methods, Klebsiella pneumoniae can survive on the surfaces of endoscopes, easily forming biofilms, which leads to the transmission of the bacteria from one patient to another, thus increasing the risk of infection. In a study conducted by Bourigault et al. in 2018, the phenomenon of cross-transmission during an outbreak of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae was investigated. The study revealed a pattern wherein five patients were identified as having undergone endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures with the same endoscope. KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae were identified in these patients and the duodenoscope was the only epidemiological link [10]. In a review published in 2020, Snyder describes that studies have demonstrated persistent gastrointestinal endoscope contamination despite appropriate and advanced disinfection techniques. Several factors contribute to endoscope contamination, including exposure to endogenous flora during procedures, the ability of bacteria such as Klebsiella pneumoniae to form biofilm on the endoscope surfaces, and the design and surface characteristics of endoscopes. The most commonly identified bacteria associated with contamination, transmission, and infections associated with endoscope are Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa [9].
The survival of Klebsiella pneumoniae poses questions about its persistence in healthcare settings. Dry surface biofilms (DSB) persist in the hospital environments, differ from the traditional “wet” biofilms, and represent a challenge for cleaning and disinfection. Biofilms in a dry state have recently been found to colonize dry surfaces such as ceilings, curtains, keyboards, door handles, light switches, trolley handles, ventilator inlets, mattresses, and bed rails. DSBs are challenging to remove due to increased resistance to disinfectants and detergents, and they periodically release bacteria that are a source of infection into the environment [88,89,90,91,92]. Hu and colleagues (2015) showed that ICU environmental surfaces are contaminated by MDR bacteria found in dry surface biofilms despite terminal disinfection with chlorine solution. Multiple species of microorganisms formed biofilms in 93% of samples. Polymicrobial biofilms are less susceptible to disinfection than mono-bacterial biofilms [91,93]. Centeleghe and colleagues published (2023) the first study that confirmed that Klebsiella pneumoniae can survive for a long time on dry surfaces as a dry surface biofilm (DSB). Although the culturability of K. pneumoniae from DSB is low after four weeks, the viability remains high. Transfer of bacteria from DSB is reduced over extended periods. After removing Klebsiella pneumoniae from surfaces by mechanical wiping and reducing culturability over time, the bacteria remained viable for up to 4 weeks of incubation, indicating viable but non-culturable status [94]. The biofilms on healthcare facility surfaces, especially high-touch surfaces, constitute an essential reservoir of pathogens and multidrug-resistant organisms, as dry surface biofilms persist for a long period of time and are difficult to clean and disinfect (Costa et al., 2019) [90].

3.2. Studies on Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Effects of TiO2 Nanocomposite Coatings

Nanomaterials are used for biomedical applications, constituents of coatings, cancer treatment, tissue engineering, drug/gene delivery vehicles, and medical implants. Many studies describe the antimicrobial effects of TiO2 nanoparticles. Several reports have been conducted on photocatalytic biofilm inhibition by metal oxide nanoparticles, including TiO2 [29,84,95,96]. The antibacterial mechanism is linked to the ability of TiO2 NPs to produce ROS in microbial cells, lipid peroxidation of EPS, and oxidation of internal enzymes, which impairs cellular respiration and leads to apoptosis [39,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110].
In December 2023, Pourmehdiabadi and colleagues published their study about the effects of ZnO and TiO2 NPs on forming biofilm and persister cells in Klebsiella pneumoniae. They investigated the expression of genes in Klebsiella pneumoniae, which has a role in bacterial persistence, under nanoparticle exposure and compared it with the expression of untreated bacteria as a control. They showed that another antibiofilm mechanism of NPs can be the change in gene expression in biofilm production [26].
There is an interest in using nanoparticles for antibacterial and anticancer properties, while avoiding their cytotoxic and genotoxic effects in long-term or invasive use (e.g., implants and invasive medical devices) [60]. Thus, the applicability of biogenic nanoparticles in medicine is being studied. Pandya and Ghosh published (February 2024) their study and reported that biogenic TiO2 NPs inhibit bacteria such as Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Proteus vulgaris, Salmonella enterica, Yersinia enterocolitica, Clostridium perfringens, Clostridium tetani, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcus pyogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, and Vibrio cholerae [63]. Biogenic, environmentally friendly, non-toxic nanoparticles have remarkable properties due to their biocompatibility, stability, and size. Biogenic TiO2 nanoparticles have less applicability but have been actively investigated [60,61,62,63,109]. Thakur et al. (2019) published a paper describing the antibacterial efficacy of the TiO2 nanoparticles against Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus Subtilis, and Salmonella enterica using Azadirachta indica leaf extract (green synthesis). This investigation showed that TiO2 nanoparticles (TiO2 NPs) prevented bacterial development. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of titanium dioxide nanoparticles against K. pneumoniae was 16.66 μg/mL and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) was 83.33 μg/mL (the lowest MBC value compared with Escherichia coli, Salmonella enterica, Bacillus subtilis, and Staphylococcus aureus). Titanium dioxide NPs showed the highest zone of inhibition (ZOI) 20.67 ± 1.45 mm at 200 μg/mL concentration against K. pneumoniae [109].
TiO2 coatings with active inorganic metals (like Ag or Cu), organic polymers, or 2D materials could demonstrate the maximum antibacterial efficacy compared to TiO2 or bare metals [29,98,100,103,104,105]. In their study (2016), Tahir and colleagues demonstrated that the Ag/TiO2 nanocomposite has a much higher photo inhibition activity against Gram-negative bacteria than bare TiO2 and Ag nanoparticles [111]. In their study, Naik and colleagues (2013) reported that mesoporous TiO2 nanoparticles containing Ag ions have excellent antimicrobial activity against Gram-negative and Gram-positive pathogens at low silver concentrations without photoactivation, and ensure long-term antibiofilm activity [112]. Bonan and colleagues (2019) investigated in vitro antimicrobial and anticancer activities of mesoporous and superhydrophilic TiO2 nanofibers containing AgNPs. They demonstrated that Ag/TiO2 nanofibers have antibacterial activity against Gram-negative and Gram-positive tested bacteria and strong potential for local cancer therapy [113]. Rahman and colleagues (2021) describe in their research work the influence of multimodal and flexible hybrid membranes that contain bacterial cellulose (BC) and photoactive (TiO2) and antibacterial (Ag) components (BC-SiO2-TiO2/Ag). This nano platform contained TiO2 and Ag with antibacterial properties and photocatalytic and self-cleaning characteristics, and showed significant antibacterial efficacy. These flexible membranes can be easily disinfected under UV irradiation and/or natural sunlight and can be used in different areas (antibacterial surfaces, filters, and face masks) [114].
There are not many large reviews on the antibacterial and antibiofilm applications of TiO2 photocatalytic nanocomposite coatings.
Table 1. Details of the papers identified through the systematic search.
Table 1. Details of the papers identified through the systematic search.
StudyCountryType of StudyKeywords
Alipanahpour Dil E et al., 2019 [53]IranExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coating
Araújo BF et al.,
2018 [64]
BrazilCross-sectionalBiofilms, KPC-Kp
Aslam M et al.,
2021 [62]
MalaysiaReviewTiO2 nanoparticles
Bai J et al.,
2023 [77]
ChinaCross-sectionalBiofilms, KPC-Kp
Banerjee D et al.,
2019 [28]
IndiaReviewBiofilms, TiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Barani M et al.,
2022 [95]
IranReviewBiofilms, nanocomposite coating
Bevacqua E et al.,
2023 [60]
ItalyReviewTiO2 nanoparticles
Bode-Aluko et al.,
2021 [40]
South AfricaExperimental studyBiofilms, nanocomposite coating
Booq RY et al.,
2022 [68]
Saudi ArabiaCross-sectionalBiofilms, KPC-Kp
Bonan RF et al.,
2019 [113]
BrazilExperimental studyBiofilms, nanocomposite coating
Bourigault et al., 2018 [10]FranceExperimental studyKlebsiella pneumoniae
Brunke MS et al.,
2022 [7]
GermanyCase controlBiofilms, KPC-Kp
Cai Y et al.,
2013 [101]
SwedenExperimental studyBiofilms, TiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Centeleghe I et al.,
2023 [94]
UKExperimental studyBiofilms, KPC-Kp
Costa DM et al.,
2019 [90]
BrazilCohort studyBiofilms, KPC-Kp
Dan B et al.,
2023 [8]
ChinaCohort studyBiofilms, KPC-Kp
D’Apolito D et al.,
2020 [69]
ItalyCohort studyBiofilms, KPC-Kp
Dey D et al.,
2016 [76]
IndiaExperimental studyBiofilms, KPC-Kp
Fasciana T et al.,
2021 [16]
ItalyCohort studyBiofilms, KPC-Kp
Fetyan NAH et al., 2024 [61]EgyptExperimental studyTiO2 nanoparticles
Folliero V et al.,
2021 [80]
ItalyCohort studyBiofilms, KPC-Kp
Hebeish AA et al.,
2013 [98]
EgyptExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Horváth E et al.,
2020 [42]
SwitzerlandExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Hu H et al.,
2015 [91]
AustraliaCross-sectionalBiofilm
Jones RN,
2010 [84]
USACohort studyBiofilms, KPC-Kp
Joya YF et al.,
2012 [106]
UKExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Kerbauy G et al.,
2016 [74]
BrazilExperimental studyBiofilms, KPC-Kp
Kumar A et al.,
2017 [56]
IndiaReviewBiofilms
Kumaravel V et al.,
2021 [39]
IrelandReviewTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Kiran ASK et al.,
2018 [97]
IndiaExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Ledwoch K et al.,
2018 [89]
UKMulticenter studyBiofilms
Liu Y et al.,
2017 [70]
ChinaExperimental studyBiofilms, KPC-Kp
Lin Y et al.,
2021 [102]
ChinaExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Mahmud ZH et al.,
2022 [71]
BangladeshCohort studyBiofilms, KPC-Kp
Melsen WG et al.,
2011 [86]
NetherlandsSystematic reviewBiofilms, KPC-Kp
Mohammadi M et al.,
2023 [87]
IranCohort studyBiofilms, KPC-Kp
Moongraksathum B et al., 2019 [99]TaiwanExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Motay M et al.,
2020 [55]
FranceExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Mousavi SM et al.,
2023 [59]
IranExperimental studyBiofilms, TiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Naik K et al.,
2013 [112]
IndiaExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Nica IC et al.,
2017 [107]
RomaniaExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Nica IC et al.,
2017 [108]
RomaniaExperimental studyBiofilms, TiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Noreen et al.,
2019 [105]
PakistanExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Nosrati et al.,
2017 [103]
IranExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Ochońska et al.,
2021 [83]
PolandExperimental studyCarbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae
Ohko et al.,
2009 [110]
JapanExperimental studyBiofilms, TiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Palacios et al.,
2022 [75]
SpainExperimental studyCarbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, biofilms
Pandya et al., 2024
[63]
IndiaReviewTiO2 nanoparticles
Papalini et al.,
2020 [73]
ItalyExperimental studyKPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, biofilms
Pourmehdiabadi et al.,
2023 [26]
IranExperimental studyKPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, biofilms
Prasad et al.,
2019 [100]
IndiaExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Rafiq et al.,
2016 [37]
IndiaExperimental studyCarbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae
Rahman et al.,
2021 [114]
PakistanExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Rani et al.,
2021 [104]
IndiaExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Sabenca et al.,
2023 [81]
PortugalExperimental studyCarbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, biofilms
Shadkam et al.,
2021 [38]
IranExperimental studyCarbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, biofilms
Snyder et al.,
2020 [9]
USAReviewBiofilms
Silva et al.,
2021 [72]
BrazilExperimental studyKPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae
Singha et al.,
2023 [54]
BangladeshExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Stallbaum et al.,
2021 [65]
BrazilCross-sectional studyBiofilms
Tahir et al.,
2016 [111]
ChinaExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Taylor et al.,
2011 [96]
USAReviewBiofilms
Thakur et al.,
2019 [109]
IndiaExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Thorarinsdottir et al.,
2020 [82]
SwedenObservational studyBiofilms
Veltri et al.,
2019 [47]
ItalyDescriptive studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Vickery et al.,
2012 [88]
AustralianExperimental studyBiofilms
Yazgan et al.,
2018 [67]
TurkeyExperimental studyBiofilms
Zhang et al.,
2019 [43]
UKExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings
Zheng et al.,
2020 [50]
SingaporeExperimental studyBiofilms
Zhou C et al.,
2023 [79]
ChinaExperimental studyCarbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae
Zhou H et al.,
2021 [48]
ChinaExperimental studyTiO2 nanocomposite coatings

4. Conclusions

The degree of virulence of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase- (KPC-) producing Klebsiella pneumoniae has led scientists to identify new antibacterial compounds. Understanding the resistance mechanisms of Klebsiella pneumoniae can guide the development of new technologies to inhibit microbial growth and proliferation. K. pneumoniae is frequently associated with biofilms formed on central venous catheters, urinary catheters, and endotracheal tubes, but also endoscopes and different dry surfaces in the hospital. Recent developments in nanotechnology have significantly boosted the treatment of biofilm infections and proved promising for applications in removing pathogens. TiO2 photocatalytic coatings are one of the best long-term options for antimicrobial efficacy due to their biocompatibility, stability, corrosion resistance, and low cost. TiO2 nanoparticles demonstrated marked antibiofilm activity. TiO2 nanocomposite coatings with active inorganic metals, organic polymers, or 2D materials demonstrated the maximum antimicrobial and antibiofilm efficacy compared to TiO2 or bare metals. There are few comprehensive reviews regarding the antibacterial and antibiofilm applications of TiO2 photocatalytic nanocomposite coatings. This review summarized research studies on the role of nanomaterials, in particular TiO2 nanocomposite coatings, and their medical applications for preventing the spread of nosocomial infections with KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has recently classified titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2 NPs) as possibly carcinogenic. Currently, there is an interest in the ecological, non-toxic synthesis of TiO2 nanoparticles via biological methods. Biogenic, environmentally friendly, non-toxic nanoparticles have remarkable properties due to their biocompatibility, stability, and size. Research remains open in these areas, and questions regarding the interactions between nanoparticles, biofilm, and hosts, and their impact on natural systems need to be resolved. Biogenic TiO2 nanoparticles have less applicability but are actively investigated. Further research is needed to prevent and remove biofilm, to determine the safety and long-term effects of using metal nanoparticles as antimicrobial agents, and to ensure successful clinical applications.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.-S.B., B.I.V. and R.B.; methodology, A.-S.B., B.I.V., I.R.C. and A.H.; software, A.-S.B., B.I.V., I.R.C. and C.O.; validation, A.-S.B., I.R.C. and M.S.; formal analysis, A.-S.B., B.I.V. and I.R.C.; investigation, A.-S.B., B.I.V., R.B. and A.H.; resources, A.-S.B., B.I.V., I.R.C. and C.O.; writing—original draft preparation, A.-S.B., B.I.V. and R.B.; writing—review and editing, A.-S.B., B.I.V., I.R.C., A.H., V.S. and M.S.; visualization, A.-S.B., B.I.V., R.B., I.R.C., A.H., C.O. and M.S.; supervision, A.H., V.S. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

AHLAcyl homoserine lactose inducer
AgSilver
AuGold
BCBacterial cellulose
CuCopper
CuOCopper oxide
CVCCentral venous catheter
CRKPCarbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae
CSChitosan
DSBDry surface biofilms
EPSExtracellular polymeric substances
ICU
KP
Intensive care unit
Klebsiella pneumoniae
KPCCarbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae
MBCMinimum bactericidal concentration
MICMinimum inhibitory concentration
MDRMultidrug-resistant
MRSAMethicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus
NPsNanoparticles
PDRPandrug-resistant
PRISMAPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis
PVCPolyvinyl chloride
ROSReactive oxygen species
SiO2Silicon dioxide
TiO2Titanium dioxide
VAPVentilator-associated pneumonia
XDRExtensively drug-resistant
ZnOZinc oxide
ZOIZone of inhibition

References

  1. Suay-García, B.; Pérez-Gracia, M.T. Present and Future of Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) Infections. Antibiotics 2019, 8, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Mukherjee, S.; Bhadury, P.; Mitra, S.; Naha, S.; Saha, B.; Dutta, S.; Basu, S. Hypervirulent Klebsiella pneumoniae Causing Neonatal Bloodstream Infections: Emergence of NDM-1-Producing Hypervirulent ST11-K2 and ST15-K54 Strains Possessing pLVPK-Associated Markers. Microbiol. Spectr. 2023, 11, e04121-22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bassetti, M.; Peghin, M. How to manage KPC infections. Ther. Adv. Infect. Dis. 2020, 7, 2049936120912049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance in Europe 2017. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/surveillance-antimicrobial-resistance-europe-2017 (accessed on 25 January 2024).
  5. Carbapenem- and/or Colistin-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in Greece: Molecular Follow-Up Survey 2022. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/carbapenem-andor-colistin-resistant-klebsiella-pneumoniae-greece-molecular-follow (accessed on 25 January 2024).
  6. Reyes, J.; Aguilar, A.C.; Caicedo, A. Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae: Microbiology Key Points for Clinical Practice. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2019, 12, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Brunke, M.S.; Konrat, K.; Schaudinn, C.; Piening, B.; Pfeifer, Y.; Becker, L.; Schwebke, I.; Arvand, M. Tolerance of biofilm of a carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae involved in a duodenoscopy-associated outbreak to the disinfectant used in reprocessing. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2022, 11, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dan, B.; Dai, H.; Zhou, D.; Tong, H.; Zhu, M. Relationship Between Drug Resistance Characteristics and Biofilm Formation in Klebsiella pneumoniae Strains. Infect. Drug Resist. 2023, 16, 985–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Snyder, G.M. Introduction to Transmission of Infection: Potential Agents Transmitted by Endoscopy. Gastrointest. Endosc. Clin. N Am. 2020, 30, 611–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bourigault, C.; Le Gallou, F.; Bodet, N.; Musquer, N.; Juvin, M.-E.; Corvec, S.; Ferronniere, N.; Wiesel, S.; Gournay, J.; Birgand, G.; et al. Duodenoscopy: An amplifier of cross-transmission during a carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae outbreak in a gastroenterology pathway. J. Hosp. Infect. 2018, 99, 422–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gastmeier, P.; Vonberg, R.P. Klebsiella spp. in endoscopy-associated infections: We may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg. Infection 2014, 42, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Humphries, R.M.; Yang, S.; Kim, S.; Muthusamy, V.R.; Russell, D.; Trout, A.M.; Zaroda, T.; Cheng, Q.J.; Aldrovandi, G.; Uslan, D.Z.; et al. Duodenoscope-Related Outbreak of a Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae Identified Using Advanced Molecular Diagnostics. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2017, 65, 1159–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tsioutis, C.; Eichel, V.M.; Mutters, N.T. Transmission of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae: The role of infection control. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2021, 76 (Suppl. S1), i4–i11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Vintila, B.I.; Arseniu, A.M.; Morgovan, C.; Butuca, A.; Sava, M.; Bîrluțiu, V.; Rus, L.L.; Ghibu, S.; Bereanu, A.S.; Codru, I.R.; et al. A Pharmacovigilance Study Regarding the Risk of Antibiotic-Associated Clostridioides difficile Infection Based on Reports from the EudraVigilance Database: Analysis of Some of the Most Used Antibiotics in Intensive Care Units. Pharmaceuticals 2023, 16, 1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Imtiaz, W.; Dasti, J.I.; Andrews, S.C. Draft genome sequence of a carbapenemase-producing (NDM-1) and multidrug-resistant, hypervirulent Klebsiella pneumoniae ST11 isolate from Pakistan, with a non-hypermucoviscous phenotype associated with rmpA2 mutation. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2021, 25, 359–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fasciana, T.; Ciammaruconi, A.; Gentile, B.; Di Carlo, P.; Virruso, R.; Tricoli, M.R.; Palma, D.M.; Pitarresi, G.L.; Lista, F.; Giammanco, A. Draft Genome Sequence and Biofilm Production of a Carbapenemase-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (KpR405) Sequence Type 405 Strain Isolated in Italy. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Magiorakos, A.P.; Burns, K.; Baño, J.R.; Borg, M.; Daikos, G.; Dumpis, U.; Lucet, J.C.; Moro, M.L.; Tacconelli, E.; Simonsen, G.S.; et al. Infection prevention and control measures and tools for the prevention of entry of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae into healthcare settings: Guidance from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2017, 6, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Facility Guidance for Control of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE): November 2015 Update—CRE Toolkit. Available online: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/79104 (accessed on 25 January 2024).
  19. Guidelines for the Prevention and Control of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Health Care Facilities; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  20. Bassetti, M.; Giacobbe, D.; Giamarellou, H.; Viscoli, C.; Daikos, G.; Dimopoulos, G.; De Rosa, F.; Giamarellos-Bourboulis, E.; Rossolini, G.; Righi, E.; et al. Management of KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae infections. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2018, 24, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Bassetti, M.; Carnelutti, A.; Peghin, M. Patient specific risk stratification for antimicrobial resistance and possible treatment strategies in gram-negative bacterial infections. Expt. Rev. Anti Infect. Ther. 2017, 15, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Vasoo, S.; Barreto, J.N.; Tosh, P.K. Emerging issues in gram-negative bacterial resistance: An update for the practicing clinician. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2015, 90, 395–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lee, C.R.; Lee, J.H.; Park, K.S.; Kim, Y.B.; Jeong, B.C.; Lee, S.H. Global Dissemination of Carbapenemase-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae: Epidemiology, Genetic Context, Treatment Options, and Detection Methods. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, Q.; Chen, M.; Ou, Q.; Zheng, L.; Chen, X.; Mao, G.; Fang, J.; Jin, D.; Tang, X. Carbapenem-resistant hypermucoviscous Klebsiella pneumoniae clinical isolates from a tertiary hospital in China: Antimicrobial susceptibility, resistance phenotype, epidemiological characteristics, microbial virulence, and risk factors. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 1083009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hasegan, A.; Totan, M.; Antonescu, E.; Bumbu, A.G.; Pantis, C.; Furau, C.; Urducea, C.B.; Grigore, N. Prevalence of Urinary Tract Infections in Children and Changes in Sensitivity to Antibiotics of E. coli Strains. Rev. Chim. 2019, 70, 3788–3792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pourmehdiabadi, A.; Nobakht, M.S.; Hajjam Balajorshari, B.; Yazdi, M.R.; Amini, K. Investigating the effects of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles on the formation of biofilm and persister cells in Klebsiella pneumoniae. J. Basic Microbiol. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Flemming, H.C.; Wingender, J.; Szewzyk, U.; Steinberg, P.; Rice, S.A.; Kjelleberg, S. Biofilms: An emergent form of bacterial life. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2016, 14, 563–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Banerjee, D.; Shivapriya, P.M.; Gautam, P.K.; Misra, K.; Sahoo, A.K.; Samanta, S.K. A Review on Basic Biology of Bacterial Biofilm Infections and Their Treatments by Nanotechnology-Based Approaches. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. B Biol. Sci. 2019, 90, 243–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ramasamy, M.; Lee, J. Recent Nanotechnology Approaches for Prevention and Treatment of Biofilm-Associated Infections on Medical Devices. Biomed. Res. Int. 2016, 2016, 1851242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chatterjee, S.; Maiti, P.; Dey, R.; Kundu, A.; Dey, R. Biofilms on indwelling urologic devices: Microbes and antimicrobial management prospect. Ann. Med. Health Sci. Res. 2014, 4, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Codru, I.R.; Sava, M.; Vintilă, B.I.; Bereanu, A.S.; Bîrluțiu, V. A Study on the Contributions of Sonication to the Identification of Bacteria Associated with Intubation Cannula Biofilm and the Risk of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia. Medicina 2023, 59, 1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yin, W.; Wang, Y.; Liu, L.; He, J. Biofilms: The Microbial “Protective Clothing” in Extreme Environments. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Chung, P.Y. The emerging problems of Klebsiella pneumoniae infections: Carbapenem resistance and biofilm formation. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2016, 363, fnw219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rahdar, H.A.; Malekabad, E.S.; Dadashi, A.-R.; Takei, E.; Keikha, M.; Kazemian, H.; Karami-Zarandi, M. Correlation between biofilm formation and carbapenem resistance among clinical isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae. Ethiop. J. Health Sci. 2019, 29, 745–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bandyopadhyay, S.; Bhattacharyya, D.; Samanta, I.; Banerjee, J.; Habib; Dutta, T.K.; Dutt, T. Characterization of Multidrug-Resistant Biofilm-Producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae in Healthy Cattle and Cattle with Diarrhea. Microb. Drug Resist. 2021, 27, 1457–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Yin, W.-F.; Purmal, K.; Chin, S.; Chan, X.-Y.; Koh, C.-L.; Sam, C.-K.; Chan, K.-G. N-acyl homoserine lactone production by Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from human tongue surface. Sensors 2012, 12, 3472–3483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Rafiq, Z.; Sam, N.; Vaidyanathan, R. Whole genome sequence of Klebsiella pneumoniae U25, a hypermucoviscous, multidrug resistant, biofilm producing isolate from India. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz. 2016, 111, 144–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Shadkam, S.; Goli, H.R.; Mirzaei, B.; Gholami, M.; Ahanjan, M. Correlation between antimicrobial resistance and biofilm formation capability among Klebsiella pneumoniae strains isolated from hospitalized patients in Iran. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2021, 20, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Kumaravel, V.; Nair, K.M.; Mathew, S.; Bartlett, J.; Kennedy, J.E.; Manning, H.G.; Whelan, B.J.; Leyland, N.S.; Pillai, S.C. Antimicrobial TiO2 nanocomposite coatings for surfaces, dental and orthopaedic implants. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 416, 129071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Bode-Aluko, C.A.; Pereao, O.; Kyaw, H.H.; Al-Naamani, L.; Al-Abri, M.Z.; Myint, M.T.Z.; Rossouw, A.; Fatoba, O.; Petrik, L.; Dobretsov, S. Photocatalytic and antifouling properties of electrospun TiO2 polyacrylonitrile composite nanofibers under visible light. Mater. Sci. Eng. B 2021, 264, 114913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wojciechowski, K.; Gutarowicz, M.; Mierzejewska, J.; Parzuchowski, P. Antimicrobial films of poly(2-aminoethyl methacrylate) and its copolymers doped with TiO2 and CaCO3. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2020, 185, 110605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Horváth, E.; Rossi, L.; Mercier, C.; Lehmann, C.; Sienkiewicz, A.; Forró, L. Photocatalytic Nanowires-Based Air Filter: Towards Reusable Protective Masks. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020, 30, 2004615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Zhang, S.; Liang, X.; Gadd, G.M.; Zhao, Q. Advanced titanium dioxide-polytetrafluorethylene (TiO2-PTFE) nanocomposite coatings on stainless steel surfaces with antibacterial and anti-corrosion properties. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2019, 490, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhao, Q.; Liu, C.; Su, X.; Zhang, S.; Song, W.; Wang, S.; Ning, G.; Ye, J.; Lin, Y.; Gong, W. Antibacterial characteristics of electroless plating Ni-P-TiO2 coatings. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2013, 274, 101–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liu, C.; Geng, L.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, B.; Zhao, Q. Mechanisms of the enhanced antibacterial effect of Ag-TiO2 coatings. Biofouling 2018, 34, 190–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Liu, C.; Geng, L.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, B.; Zhang, S.; Zhao, Q. Reduction of bacterial adhesion on Ag-TiO2 coatings. Mater. Lett. 2018, 218, 334–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Veltri, S.; Palermo, A.M.; De Filpo, G.; Xu, F. Subsurface treatment of TiO2 nanoparticles for limestone: Prolonged surface photocatalytic biocidal activities. Build. Environ. 2019, 149, 655–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhou, H.; He, F.J. Copper Modified Titania Nanocomposites with a High Photocatalytic Inactivation of Escherichia coli. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2021, 21, 5486–5492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Barba-Nieto, I.; Caudillo-Flores, U.; Fernández-García, M.; Kubacka, A. Sunlight-Operated TiO2-Based Photocatalysts. Molecules 2020, 25, 4008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Zheng, K.; Li, S.; Jing, L.; Chen, P.Y.; Xie, J. Synergistic Antimicrobial Titanium Carbide (MXene) Conjugated with Gold Nanoclusters. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2020, 9, e2001007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Nagay, B.E.; Dini, C.; Cordeiro, J.M.; Ricomini-Filho, A.P.; de Avila, E.D.; Rangel, E.C.; da Cruz, N.C.; Barao, V.A.R. Visible-Light-Induced Photocatalytic and Antibacterial Activity of TiO2 Codoped with Nitrogen and Bismuth: New Perspectives to Control Implant-Biofilm-Related Diseases. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 18186–18202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Yang, J.; Wang, C.; Liu, X.; Yin, Y.; Ma, Y.; Gao, Y.; Wang, Y.; Lu, Z.; Song, Y. Gallium–Carbenicillin Framework Coated Defect-Rich Hollow TiO2 as a Photocatalyzed Oxidative Stress Amplifier against Complex Infections. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020, 30, 2004861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Alipanahpour Dil, E.; Ghaedi, M.; Asfaram, A.; Mehrabi, F.; Bazrafshan, A.A.; Tayebi, L. Synthesis and application of Ce-doped TiO2 nanoparticles loaded on activated carbon for ultrasound-assisted adsorption of Basic Red 46 dye. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2019, 58, 104702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Singha, S.K.; Hoque, S.M.; Das, H.; Alim, M.A. Evaluation of chitosan-Ag/TiO2 nanocomposite for the enhancement of shelf life of chili and banana fruits. Heliyon 2023, 9, e21752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Motay, M.; Martel, D.; Vileno, B.; Soraru, C.; Ploux, L.; Méndez-Medrano, M.G.; Colbeau-Justin, C.; Decher, G.; Keller, N. Virtually Transparent TiO2/Polyelectrolyte Thin Multilayer Films as High-Efficiency Nanoporous Photocatalytic Coatings for Breaking Down Formic Acid and for Escherichia coli Removal. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 55766–55781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Kumar, A.; Alam, A.; Rani, M.; Ehtesham, N.Z.; Hasnain, S.E. Biofilms: Survival and defense strategy for pathogens. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2017, 307, 481–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Fulaz, S.; Vitale, S.; Quinn, L.; Casey, E. Nanoparticle-Biofilm Interactions: The Role of the EPS Matrix. Trends Microbiol. 2019, 27, 915–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Vitale, S.; Rampazzo, E.; Hiebner, D.; Devlin, H.; Quinn, L.; Prodi, L.; Casey, E. Interaction between Engineered Pluronic Silica Nanoparticles and Bacterial Biofilms: Elucidating the Role of Nanoparticle Surface Chemistry and EPS Matrix. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2022, 14, 34502–34512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Mousavi, S.M.; Mousavi, S.M.A.; Moeinizadeh, M.; Aghajanidelavar, M.; Rajabi, S.; Mirshekar, M. Evaluation of biosynthesized silver nanoparticles effects on expression levels of virulence and biofilm-related genes of multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates. J. Basic Microbiol. 2023, 63, 632–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bevacqua, E.; Occhiuzzi, M.A.; Grande, F.; Tucci, P. TiO2-NPs Toxicity and Safety: An Update of the Findings Published over the Last Six Years. Mini Rev. Med. Chem. 2023, 23, 1050–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Fetyan, N.A.H.; Essa, T.A.; Salem, T.M.; Taha, A.A.; Elgobashy, S.F.; Tharwat, N.A.; Elsakhawy, T. Promising Eco-Friendly Nanoparticles for Managing Bottom Rot Disease in Lettuce (Lactuca sativa var. longifolia). Microbiol. Res. 2024, 15, 196–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Aslam, M.; Abdullah, A.Z.; Rafatullah, M. Recent Development in the Green Synthesis of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles Using Plant-Based Biomolecules for Environmental and Antimicrobial Applications. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2021, 98, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pandya, P.; Ghosh, S. Biogenic TiO2 Nanoparticles for Advanced Antimicrobial and Antiviral Applications. In Nanoparticles in Modern Antimicrobial and Antiviral Applications. Nanotechnology in the Life Sciences; Kokkarachedu, V., Sadiku, R., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Araújo, B.F.; Ferreira, M.L.; de Campos, P.A.; Royer, S.; Gonçalves, I.R.; Batistão, D.W.d.F.; Fernandes, M.R.; Cerdeira, L.T.; de Brito, C.S.; Lincopan, N.; et al. Hypervirulence and biofilm production in KPC-2-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae CG258 isolated in Brazil. J. Med. Microbiol. 2018, 67, 523–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Stallbaum, L.R.; Pruski, B.B.; Amaral, S.C.; de Freitas, S.B.; Wozeak, D.R.; Hartwig, D.D. Phenotypic and molecular evaluation of biofilm formation in Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) isolates obtained from a hospital of Pelotas, RS, Brazil. J. Med. Microbiol. 2021, 70, 001451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Santiago, A.J.; Burgos-Garay, M.L.; Kartforosh, L.; Mazher, M.; Donlan, R.M. Bacteriophage treatment of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in a multispecies biofilm: A potential biocontrol strategy for healthcare facilities. AIMS Microbiol. 2020, 6, 43–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Yazgan, B.; Türkel, I.; Güçkan, R.; Kılınç, K.; Yıldırım, T. Comparison of biofilm formation and efflux pumps in ESBL and carbapenemase producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2018, 12, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Booq, R.Y.; Abutarboush, M.H.; Alolayan, M.A.; Huraysi, A.A.; Alotaibi, A.N.; Alturki, M.I.; Alshammari, M.K.; Bakr, A.A.; Alquait, A.A.; Tawfik, E.A.; et al. Identification and Characterization of Plasmids and Genes from Carbapenemase-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in Makkah Province, Saudi Arabia. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. D’apolito, D.; Arena, F.; Conte, V.; De Angelis, L.H.; Di Mento, G.; Carreca, A.P.; Cuscino, N.; Russelli, G.; Iannolo, G.; Barbera, F.; et al. Phenotypical and molecular assessment of the virulence potential of KPC-3-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae ST392 clinical isolates. Microbiol. Res. 2020, 240, 126551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Liu, Y.; Liu, P.P.; Wang, L.H.; Wei, D.D.; Wan, L.G.; Zhang, W. Capsular Polysaccharide Types and Virulence-Related Traits of Epidemic KPC-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae Isolates in a Chinese University Hospital. Microb. Drug Resist. 2017, 23, 901–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Mahmud, Z.H.; Uddin, S.Z.; Moniruzzaman, M.; Ali, S.; Hossain, M.; Islam, T.; Costa, D.T.D.; Islam, M.R.; Islam, S.; Hassan, Z.; et al. Healthcare Facilities as Potential Reservoirs of Antimicrobial Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae: An Emerging Concern to Public Health in Bangladesh. Pharmaceuticals 2022, 15, 1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Silva, N.B.S.; Alves, P.G.V.; Marques, L.D.A.; Silva, S.F.; Faria, G.D.O.; de Araújo, L.B.; Pedroso, R.D.S.; Penatti, M.P.A.; Menezes, R.D.P.; Röder, D.V.D.D.B. Quantification of biofilm produced by clinical, environment and hands’ isolates Klebsiella species using colorimetric and classical methods. J. Microbiol. Methods 2021, 185, 106231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Papalini, C.; Sabbatini, S.; Monari, C.; Mencacci, A.; Francisci, D.; Perito, S.; Pasticci, M.B. In vitro antibacterial activity of ceftazidime/avibactam in combination against planktonic and biofilm carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from blood. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2020, 23, 4–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kerbauy, G.; Vivan, A.C.; Simões, G.C.; Simionato, A.S.; Pelisson, M.; Vespero, E.C.; Costa, S.F.; Andrade, C.G.D.J.; Barbieri, D.M.; Mello, J.C.; et al. Effect of a Metalloantibiotic Produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa on Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase (KPC)-producing K. pneumoniae. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2016, 17, 389–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Perez-Palacios, P.; Gual-De-Torrella, A.; Delgado-Valverde, M.; Oteo-Iglesias, J.; Hidalgo-Díaz, C.; Pascual, Á.; Fernández-Cuenca, F. Transfer of plasmids harbouring blaOXA-48-like carbapenemase genes in biofilm-growing Klebsiella pneumoniae: Effect of biocide exposure. Microbiol. Res. 2022, 254, 126894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Dey, D.; Ghosh, S.; Ray, R.; Hazra, B. Polyphenolic Secondary Metabolites Synergize the Activity of Commercial Antibiotics against Clinical Isolates of β-Lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Phytother. Res. 2016, 30, 272–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bai, J.; Liu, Y.; Kang, J.; Song, Y.; Yin, D.; Wang, S.; Guo, Q.; Wang, J.; Duan, J. Antibiotic resistance and virulence characteristics of four carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae strains coharbouring blaKPC and blaNDM based on whole genome sequences from a tertiary general teaching hospital in central China between 2019 and 2021. Microb Pathog. 2023, 175, 105969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Larcher, R.; Laffont-Lozes, P.; Naciri, T.; Bourgeois, P.-M.; Gandon, C.; Magnan, C.; Pantel, A.; Sotto, A. Continuous infusion of meropenem-vaborbactam for a KPC-3-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infection in a critically ill patient with augmented renal clearance. Infection 2023, 51, 1835–1840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhou, C.; Zhang, H.; Xu, M.; Liu, Y.; Yuan, B.; Lin, Y.; Shen, F. Within-Host Resistance and Virulence Evolution of a Hypervirulent Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae ST11 Under Antibiotic Pressure. Infect. Drug Resist. 2023, 16, 7255–7270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Folliero, V.; Franci, G.; Dell’annunziata, F.; Giugliano, R.; Foglia, F.; Sperlongano, R.; De Filippis, A.; Finamore, E.; Galdiero, M. Evaluation of Antibiotic Resistance and Biofilm Production among Clinical Strain Isolated from Medical Devices. Int. J. Microbiol. 2021, 2021, 9033278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Sabença, C.; Costa, E.; Sousa, S.; Barros, L.; Oliveira, A.; Ramos, S.; Igrejas, G.; Torres, C.; Poeta, P. Evaluation of the Ability to Form Biofilms in KPC-Producing and ESBL-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae Isolated from Clinical Samples. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Thorarinsdottir, H.R.; Kander, T.; Holmberg, A.; Petronis, S.; Klarin, B. Biofilm formation on three different endotracheal tubes: A prospective clinical trial. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ochońska, D.; Ścibik, Ł.; Brzychczy-Włoch, M. Biofilm Formation of Clinical Klebsiella pneumoniae Strains Isolated from Tracheostomy Tubes and Their Association with Antimicrobial Resistance, Virulence and Genetic Diversity. Pathogens 2021, 10, 1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Jones, R.N. Microbial etiologies of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2010, 51 (Suppl. S1), S81–S87, Erratum in Clin. Infect. Dis. 2010, 51, 1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. American Thoracic Society; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2005, 171, 388–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Melsen, W.G.; Rovers, M.M.; Koeman, M.; Bonten, M.J.M. Estimating the attributable mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia from randomized prevention studies. Crit. Care Med. 2011, 39, 2736–2742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Mohammadi, M.; Saffari, M.; Siadat, S.D.; Hejazi, S.H.; Shayestehpour, M.; Motallebi, M.; Eidi, M. Isolation, characterization, therapeutic potency, and genomic analysis of a novel bacteriophage vB_KshKPC-M against carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae strains (CRKP) isolated from Ventilator-associated pneumoniae (VAP) infection of COVID-19 patients. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2023, 22, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Vickery, K.; Deva, A.; Jacombs, A.; Allan, J.; Valente, P.; Gosbell, I.B. Presence of biofilm containing viable multiresistant organisms despite terminal cleaning on clinical surfaces in an intensive care unit. J. Hosp. Infect. 2012, 80, 52–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ledwoch, K.; Dancer, S.; Otter, J.; Kerr, K.; Roposte, D.; Rushton, L.; Weiser, R.; Mahenthiralingam, E.; Muir, D.; Maillard, J.-Y. Beware biofilm! Dry biofilms containing bacterial pathogens on multiple healthcare surfaces; a multi-centre study. J. Hosp. Infect. 2018, 100, e47–e56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Costa, D.; Johani, K.; Melo, D.; Lopes, L.; Lima, L.L.; Tipple, A.; Hu, H.; Vickery, K. Biofilm contamination of high-touched surfaces in intensive care units: Epidemiology and potential impacts. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 68, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Hu, H.; Johani, K.; Gosbell, I.; Jacombs, A.; Almatroudi, A.; Whiteley, G.; Deva, A.; Jensen, S.; Vickery, K. Intensive care unit environmental surfaces are contaminated by multidrug-resistant bacteria in biofilms: Combined results of conventional culture, pyrosequencing, scanning electron microscopy, and confocal laser microscopy. J. Hosp. Infect. 2015, 91, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ababneh, Q.; Abulaila, S.; Jaradat, Z. Isolation of extensively drug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii from environmental surfaces inside intensive care units. Am. J. Infect. Control 2022, 50, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Maillard, J.Y.; Centeleghe, I. How biofilm changes our understanding of cleaning and disinfection. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2023, 12, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Centeleghe, I.; Norville, P.; Hughes, L.; Maillard, J.Y. Klebsiella pneumoniae survives on surfaces as a dry biofilm. Am. J. Infect. Control 2023, 51, 1157–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Barani, M.; Fathizadeh, H.; Arkaban, H.; Kalantar-Neyestanaki, D.; Akbarizadeh, M.R.; Turki Jalil, A.; Akhavan-Sigari, R. Recent Advances in Nanotechnology for the Management of Klebsiella pneumoniae-Related Infections. Biosensors 2022, 12, 1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Taylor, E.; Webster, T.J. Reducing infections through nanotechnology and nanoparticles. Int. J. Nanomed. 2011, 6, 1463–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kiran, A.S.K.; Kumar, T.S.S.; Sanghavi, R.; Doble, M.; Ramakrishna, S. Antibacterial and Bioactive Surface Modifications of Titanium Implants by PCL/TiO2 Nanocomposite Coatings. Nanomaterials 2018, 8, 860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hebeish, A.A.; Abdelhady, M.M.; Youssef, A.M. TiO2 nanowire and TiO2 nanowire doped Ag-PVP nanocomposite for antimicrobial and self-cleaning cotton textile. Carbohydr. Polym. 2013, 91, 549–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Moongraksathum, B.; Chien, M.Y.; Chen, Y.W. Antiviral and Antibacterial Effects of Silver-Doped TiO2 Prepared by the Peroxo Sol-Gel Method. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2019, 19, 7356–7362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Prasad, M.S.; Dutt, V.G.V.; Kumar, K.K.P.; Atchuta, S.R.; Anbazhagan, V.; Sakthivel, S. A functional Ag-TiO2 nanocomposite solar selective absorber with antimicrobial activity by photochemical reduction process. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B. 2019, 199, 111626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Cai, Y.; Strømme, M.; Welch, K. Photocatalytic antibacterial effects are maintained on resin-based TiO2 nanocomposites after cessation of UV irradiation. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e75929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Lin, Y.; Liu, X.; Liu, Z.; Xu, Y. Visible-Light-Driven Photocatalysis-Enhanced Nanozyme of TiO2Nanotubes@MoS2 Nanoflowers for Efficient Wound Healing Infected with Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria. Small 2021, 17, e2103348, Erratum in Small 2022, 18, e2201184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Nosrati, R.; Olad, A.; Shakoori, S. Preparation of an antibacterial, hydrophilic and photocatalytically active polyacrylic coating using TiO2 nanoparticles sensitized by graphene oxide. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 2017, 80, 642–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Rani, N.; Dehiya, B.S. Magnetic core-shell Fe3O4@TiO2nanocomposites for broad spectrum antibacterial applications. IET Nanobiotechnol. 2021, 15, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Noreen, Z.; Khalid, N.R.; Abbasi, R.; Javed, S.; Ahmad, I.; Bokhari, H. Visible light sensitive Ag/TiO2/graphene composite as a potential coating material for control of Campylobacter jejuni. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 2019, 98, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Joya, Y.F.; Liu, Z.; Joya, K.S.; Wang, T. Preparation and antibacterial properties of laser-generated silver-anatase nanocomposite film against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. Nanotechnology 2012, 23, 495708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Nica, I.C.; Stan, M.S.; Popa, M.; Chifiriuc, M.C.; Pircalabioru, G.G.; Lazar, V.; Dumitrescu, I.; Diamandescu, L.; Feder, M.; Baibarac, M.; et al. Interaction of New-Developed TiO2-Based Photocatalytic Nanoparticles with Pathogenic Microorganisms and Human Dermal and Pulmonary Fibroblasts. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Nica, I.C.; Stan, M.S.; Popa, M.; Chifiriuc, M.C.; Pircalabioru, G.G.; Lazar, V.; Dumitrescu, I.; Diamandescu, L.; Feder, M.; Baibarac, M.; et al. Development and Biocompatibility Evaluation of Photocatalytic TiO2/Reduced Graphene Oxide-Based Nanoparticles Designed for Self-Cleaning Purposes. Nanomaterials 2017, 7, 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Thakur, B.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, D. Green synthesis of titanium dioxide nanoparticles using Azadirachta indica leaf extract and evaluation of their antibacterial activity. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 124, 223–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ohko, Y.; Nagao, Y.; Okano, K.; Sugiura, N.; Fukuda, A.; Yang, Y.; Negishi, N.; Takeuchi, M.; Hanada, S. Prevention of Phormidium tenue Biofilm Formation by TiO2 Photocatalysis. Microbes Environ. 2009, 24, 241–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Tahir, K.; Ahmad, A.; Li, B.; Nazir, S.; Khan, A.U.; Nasir, T.; Khan, Z.U.H.; Naz, R.; Raza, M. Visible light photo catalytic inactivation of bacteria and photo degradation of methylene blue with Ag/TiO2 nanocomposite prepared by a novel method. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B. 2016, 162, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Naik, K.; Chatterjee, A.; Prakash, H.; Kowshik, M. Mesoporous TiO2 nanoparticles containing Ag ion with excellent antimicrobial activity at remarkable low silver concentrations. J. Biomed. Nanotechnol. 2013, 9, 664–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Bonan, R.F.; Mota, M.F.; Farias, R.M.D.C.; da Silva, S.D.; Bonan, P.R.F.; Diesel, L.; Menezes, R.R.; Perez, D.E.D.C. In vitro antimicrobial and anticancer properties of TiO2 blow-spun nanofibers containing silver nanoparticles. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 2019, 104, 109876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Rahman, K.U.; Ferreira-Neto, E.P.; Rahman, G.U.; Parveen, R.; Monteiro, A.S.; Rahman, G.; Van Le, Q.; Domeneguetti, R.R.; Ribeiro, S.J.; Ullah, S. Flexible bacterial cellulose-based BC-SiO2-TiO2-Ag membranes with self-cleaning, photocatalytic, antibacterial and UV-shielding properties as a potential multifunctional material for combating infections and environmental applications. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 104708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Stages of biofilm formation: adherence of bacteria to the surface (a); inhibition of motility factor (b); generation of EPS and quorum sensing leading to mature biofilm formation (c); dispersal of mature cells (d) [28].
Figure 1. Stages of biofilm formation: adherence of bacteria to the surface (a); inhibition of motility factor (b); generation of EPS and quorum sensing leading to mature biofilm formation (c); dispersal of mature cells (d) [28].
Microorganisms 12 00684 g001
Figure 2. Mechanisms of NPs to combat biofilm: Ag-NPs damage bacterial DNA; Au-NPs produce ROS; TiO2 NPs cause lipid peroxidation of EPS; chitosan (CS) NPs destroy biofilm due to their positive charge; some NPs inhibit quorum sensing [28].
Figure 2. Mechanisms of NPs to combat biofilm: Ag-NPs damage bacterial DNA; Au-NPs produce ROS; TiO2 NPs cause lipid peroxidation of EPS; chitosan (CS) NPs destroy biofilm due to their positive charge; some NPs inhibit quorum sensing [28].
Microorganisms 12 00684 g002
Figure 3. Research strategy of the present review.
Figure 3. Research strategy of the present review.
Microorganisms 12 00684 g003
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bereanu, A.-S.; Vintilă, B.I.; Bereanu, R.; Codru, I.R.; Hașegan, A.; Olteanu, C.; Săceleanu, V.; Sava, M. TiO2 Nanocomposite Coatings and Inactivation of Carbapenemase-Producing Klebsiella Pneumoniae Biofilm—Opportunities and Challenges. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 684. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12040684

AMA Style

Bereanu A-S, Vintilă BI, Bereanu R, Codru IR, Hașegan A, Olteanu C, Săceleanu V, Sava M. TiO2 Nanocomposite Coatings and Inactivation of Carbapenemase-Producing Klebsiella Pneumoniae Biofilm—Opportunities and Challenges. Microorganisms. 2024; 12(4):684. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12040684

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bereanu, Alina-Simona, Bogdan Ioan Vintilă, Rareș Bereanu, Ioana Roxana Codru, Adrian Hașegan, Ciprian Olteanu, Vicențiu Săceleanu, and Mihai Sava. 2024. "TiO2 Nanocomposite Coatings and Inactivation of Carbapenemase-Producing Klebsiella Pneumoniae Biofilm—Opportunities and Challenges" Microorganisms 12, no. 4: 684. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12040684

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop