Next Article in Journal
Nitriding an Oxygen-Doped Nanocarbonaceous Sorbent Synthesized via Solution Plasma Process for Improving CO2 Adsorption Capacity
Next Article in Special Issue
Peptide-Carbon Quantum Dots conjugate, Derived from Human Retinoic Acid Receptor Responder Protein 2, against Antibiotic-Resistant Gram Positive and Gram Negative Pathogenic Bacteria
Previous Article in Journal
Facile Synthesis of Triangular and Hexagonal Anionic Gold Nanoparticles and Evaluation of Their Cytotoxicity
Previous Article in Special Issue
Synthesis and Antibacterial Properties of Novel ZnMn2O4–Chitosan Nanocomposites
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nanomaterials
Volume 9
Issue 12
10.3390/nano9121775
nanomaterials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Limitations of Recent Studies Dealing with the Antibacterial Properties of Silver Nanoparticles: Fact and Opinion

by
Raphaël E. Duval
1,2,*,
Jimmy Gouyau
1 and
Emmanuel Lamouroux
1,*
1
Université de Lorraine, CNRS, L2CM, F-54000 Nancy, France
2
ABC Platform®, Faculté de Pharmacie, F-54505 Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nanomaterials 2019, 9(12), 1775; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano9121775
Submission received: 1 October 2019 / Revised: 7 December 2019 / Accepted: 11 December 2019 / Published: 13 December 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antibacterial Activity of Nanoparticles)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Due to the constant increase in the number of infectious diseases and the concomitant lack of treatment available, metallic nanoparticles (e.g., silver nanoparticles) have been of particular interest in the last decades. Indeed, several studies suggest that silver nanoparticles have valuable antimicrobial activities, especially against bacteria, which may lead us to think that these nanoparticles may one day be an attractive therapeutic option for the treatment of bacterial infections. Unfortunately, when we look a little closer to these studies, we can see a very great heterogeneity (e.g., in the study design, in the synthetic process of nanoparticles, in the methods that explore the antibacterial properties of nanoparticles and in the bacteria chosen) making cross-interpretation between these studies impossible, and significantly limiting the interest of silver nanoparticles as promising antibacterial agents. We have selected forty-nine international publications published since 2015, and propose to discuss, not the results obtained, but precisely the different methodologies developed in these publications. Through this discussion, we highlighted the aspects to improve, or at least to homogenize, in order to definitively establish the interest of silver nanoparticles as valuable antibacterial agents.

1. Introduction

The 3rd of April 2018, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published on its official website an article about “nightmare bacteria”. These bacteria are resistant to all antibiotic tested, and more than 200 cases were reported in USA in 2017 [1]. It is urgent to react. New therapeutic strategies have to be proposed. These last fifteen years, the studies about using “nanoparticles” as antibacterial agents did not cease [2]. What about metallic nanoparticles as new antibacterial drugs?
The antimicrobial properties of several metals, such as platinum, copper, gold and silver are very widely documented in the scientific literature and some (i.e., gold and silver) are even known since Antiquity. Even if a substantial quantity of scientific literature covers the use of colloidal suspensions of metallic nanoparticles—mainly silver—only a few deals with the study of the influence of nanosized silver-core. Indeed, in large part of studies, the extract-plant or biosynthesis approach is used for the synthesis of the silver nanoparticles. As such chemicals used may have antibacterial activity, it is not possible to conclude about silver nanoparticles (Ag NPs) one. Moreover, as silver exhibit antibacterial properties, a large part of studies are devoted to the synthesis and characterization of silver-based-nanocomposites.
Hence, one question remains: are metallic nanoparticles and, more specifically, silver nanoparticles a promising antibacterial agent? To answer, it is necessary to consider studies dealing with the synthesis and antibacterial activity of aqueous colloidal solutions of silver nanoparticles obtained by a synthetic approach, which does not imply antibacterial stabilizers, biosynthesis, extract plant synthesis, composites and assimilated ones. Moreover, the colloidal solutions of silver nanoparticles have to be well-characterized, and the antibacterial activity has to be evaluated accurately (i.e., using standard procedure and identified bacteria strains). However, it is not always the case in reported studies. Therefore, we selected international publications from 2015 to 2018, referring to “antibacterial”, “silver” and “nanoparticles” keywords (using SciFindern, we obtained 4779 articles published in English) and removed all ones dealing with biosynthesis/biogenic (green, plants, extract, leaf, bacteria, fungi, etc.), composites (coated/coating, hybrid, alloys, core-shell, bi-metallic, decorated, combined to other metals such as titanium, copper or iron, grafted, filer, doped, modified, porous, hydrogel, etc.), carbonaceous materials (carbon nanotubes, graphene, etc.), NPs with a mean size higher than 100 nm (such as fibers, etc.), dental adhesive or supported/embedded nanoparticles (cellulose, silk, etc.) and all formulations using silver nanoparticles combined with antibacterial agent or active molecules (chitosan, pectin, tannic acid, curcumin, etc.). Finally, we obtained forty-nine international publications published since 2015 (Table 1 and Supplementary Materials Table S1). The aim of this review is to discuss the limits we are currently facing regarding the study of aqueous colloidal solutions of silver nanoparticles, in particular, the different methods used, from their synthesis to the evaluation of their antibacterial properties.

2. Ag NPs and Antibacterial Activity

2.1. Nanoparticles Definition

Following ISO/TS 80004-1:2015 recommendations, nano-objects are defined as a material, which has one, two or three dimensions less than 100 nm. As the antibacterial activity of nanoscale is under consideration, we have to define nanoparticles as a nano-objects having three dimensions ranging from 1 to 100 nm. Thus, metallic nanoparticles can be defined as a metal atoms aggregate—i.e., chemically bonded—exhibiting a certain size dispersity.
The LaMer’s theory can explain the formation of metallic nanoparticles in solution [52]. Briefly, in solution, metal ions condense to lower the system free energy. When the supersaturation in the precursor is reached, a critical germ forms. Then, the nanoparticle will be obtained by the growth of this critical germ by either adding an atom to the critical germ or by coalescence with another critical germ/nanoparticle. As the system wants to minimize its free energy, it will continue to grow until the formation of the corresponding bulk material. So, it is necessary to add a stabilizer (i.e., ions/molecule in interaction with nanoparticle surface) to avoid the aggregation process.
Thus, the preparation of NPs colloidal solution implies a solvent, a metal source, a reductant and a stabilizer. Several recent review papers describe the different strategies to design NPs, more specifically silver ones for biomedical applications [53,54,55,56,57,58]. In some cases, a unique compound can be used as solvent, reductant and stabilizers or as reductant and stabilizer—e.g., polyol process or citrate-based approach, respectively [59].
Therefore, stabilizer-NPs are characterized by their metallic-core-size, shape and structural properties, the nature of the stabilizer/capping agent. However, as we are interested in colloidal solutions for an antibacterial purpose, other parameters such as pH, ionic strength and all the chemicals present in the solution have to be considered.

2.2. Antibacterial Mechanism of Silver Colloidal Solutions

There are four principal possible mechanisms of silver colloidal solutions (Figure 1): (i) the formation of free radicals (e.g., reactive oxygen species) by redox reaction, (ii) Ag NPs adhesion to bacteria cell membrane inducing its destabilization, (iii) the intercalation of Ag NPs between DNA bases inhibiting DNA replication and transcription and (iv) Ag NPs-induced ribosome destabilization inhibiting protein synthesis. The antibacterial mechanism of silver colloidal solutions is however not elucidated: Ag NPs antibacterial activity results from Ag+ ions release from Ag NPs or the Ag NPs themselves or both. For more details about these aspects, we recommend the following references [60,61,62,63,64,65].

2.3. Colloidal Solution Parameters Influencing Antibacterial Activity

The two parameters that we can find in almost all the studies dealing with Ag NPs and the antibacterial activity are the size and the shape of the nanoparticles (Table 1). However, there are other parameters of prime importance for antibacterial activity such as stability and accessibility of NPs’ surface, and silver concentration.

2.3.1. NPs-Metallic-Core Size

The NPs-metallic-core size is usually considered as the main parameter because as the size decreases the surface-to-volume ratio increases resulting in physicochemical and biological properties differing from the corresponding bulk material. Indeed, a small size will facilitate the interaction with the bacteria surface and will potentially have higher antibacterial activity. For instance, Ajitha et al. prepared, from silver nitrate, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and NaBH4 in water, spherical PVA-Ag NPs [26]. They obtained four PVA-Ag NPs sizes by varying the pH of the solution with NaOH (from SEM: 31, 24, 19 and 14 nm at pH = 6, 8, 10 and 12, respectively). Then they evaluated their antibacterial activities using the Kirby-Bauer method and Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas spp. as test bacteria. The data obtained indicate that the inhibition disk size increases when the NPs size decreases. However, as NPs samples possess, by definition, a size distribution it is quite difficult to give a definitive conclusion, and many questions remain: Which proportion of each NPs sizes are present? Which one is more efficient? As the presence of Ag2O leads to Ag+ ions release in solution [66], what is the chemical composition and oxidation state of Ag NPs (i.e., Ag° or Ag° @ Ag2O)?

2.3.2. Shape and Structural Properties

During their formation, NPs minimize their total free energy by adopting facetted structures. These structures exhibit faces of different Miller indices, mainly (111) and (100) faces. It worth to note that (111) faces have lower free energy than (100) ones (i.e., γ (111) < γ (100)). Hence, the so-called “spherical” NPs possess mainly (111) faces whereas others kind of NPs (e.g., nanoplates, nanorods) present large (100) faces. The NPs shape and the kind of faces will also influence bacteria/NPs interaction and then their antibacterial activity. For instance, Hong et al. added NaCl to the reaction medium to modify the nanoparticles shape [34]. Starting from AgNO3 and polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP k30) in ethylene glycol, they obtained “spherical” nanoparticles of 60 nm (±15 nm) exhibiting mainly {111} facets. With a small amount of NaCl, truncated-nanocubes are formed. With these truncated-nanocubes, there are by-products such as bipyramids, nanospheres and nanorods. The average size of these truncated-nanocubes is 55 nm (±10 nm), and the sample exhibits mainly {100} facets with {111} ones for truncated faces. After treatment of E. coli with Ag NPs, they found that {100} facets structures have higher antibacterial activities than ones with {111} facets. It can be attributed to higher reactivity of the {100} facets, which have higher energy than {111} facets. Therefore, nanocubes attach more rapidly to the bacteria cell membrane, and they also have a higher contact surface with bacteria membrane in comparison with spherical nanoparticles. This last point explains why with nanowires (length >2–4 μm) they obtained had the lowest efficiency. Moreover, various nanoparticles shapes can also be achieved with the seed-mediated growth approach [67]. Hu et al. used seed-mediated growth to prepare silver nanorods starting from 2 nm seeds and cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) and ascorbic acid [68]. By varying the number of seeds in the growth solution, they obtained as main products nanospheres or nanorods (spheres mean size: 42 nm; rods mean length: 70 and 85 nm). The antibacterial activities have been evaluated by treating S. aureus and E. coli with the different samples of NPs, but no significant difference can be observed. However, as CTAB exhibits antibacterial activity [69,70], it is not evident to decide between the influence of CTAB or NPs shape on their antibacterial activities. Thus, even if NPs shape and structure should have a strong influence on antibacterial activity, the lack of structure characterization limits our comprehension of its influence. Moreover, if different capping agents and/or different average sizes are used, it becomes also difficult to conclude on the influence of these parameters on antibacterial activity.

2.3.3. Surface Stability

The surface stability of NPs is related to colloidal solution one. In a non-stable colloidal solution, the NPs tend to aggregate and so reducing the accessible surface area. Therefore, the potential zeta and capping agent are also two critical parameters.
A colloidal solution is usually considered as stable when the zeta potential is lower or higher of −30 or +30 mV. As bacteria membrane cells are negatively charged, a colloidal solution having positive zeta potential should have enhanced antibacterial activity. In most of the cases, the reported zeta potential values are obtained from a suspension of nanoparticles in water. Are these values always valid in culture media? If yes, we can correlate its sign/value to antibacterial activity. However, metallic nanoparticles exhibit surface plasmon resonance (SPR), and this phenomenon can be characterized by UV-vis spectroscopy. As the SPR depends on the surface electronic environment, the modification of the UV-vis spectrum of nanoparticles in water and culture medium observed is related to surface interaction. Hence, the zeta potential, which corresponds to the electric potential surrounding nanoparticle surface; should also be modified when the colloidal solution is added to culture medium. Moreover, most of colloidal solution used for antibacterial activity evaluation has a negative zeta potential (see Supplementary Materials Table S1). To elucidate the influence of zeta potential, it is necessary to perform a series of measurements with different pH and ionic strength values close to culture media ones.

2.3.4. Surface Accessibility

Capping agent at the surface of the metallic core is either preventing or inducing NPs aggregation [71]. Moreover, depending on the pH of the medium and surface dissociation constants of the capping agents, the NPs’ assembly can occur [72]. Furthermore, the presence of divalent cations can induce assembly of NPs by bridging stable negatively charged colloidal solutions [73]. However, capping agent influences also the interaction between medium/bacteria and NPs surface. As NPs-bacteria surfaces interaction seem to play a crucial role in antibacterial activity (e.g., penetration of NPs in the bacterial cell), it is essential to verify NPs surface accessibility when capping agent is grafted to its surface. This aspect is, however, most of the time not considered in the studies dealing with metallic NPs and antibacterial activities. A catalytic reaction can be used to prove the surface accessibility. For instance, the hydrogenation of 4-nitrophenol by NaBH4 in water is possible only in the presence of metallic nanoparticles (e.g., silver or gold nanoparticles) [74]. The systematic use of this characterization of Ag NPs surface could give information about surface reactivity and one point of comparison. However, the reactions have to be conducted using the same experimental conditions (i.e., same concentrations, temperature, the proportion of nanoparticles, etc.) to facilitate the comparison between studies.

2.3.5. Other Chemicals and Concentration of Silver

It is also important to consider all chemicals used for the preparation of the NPs colloidal solutions. Indeed, in some cases, molecules having recognized antibacterial activity are used during the NPs synthesis, as reductant or solvent for example [32,46]. In such a case, it is no longer possible to consider only stabilizer-Ag NPs, but antibacterial molecule activity has also to be.
Moreover, if the antibacterial activity of all chemicals used is not known, they also must be evaluated. Therefore, it is crucial to have reference tests with the metallic precursor, stabilizer and all other chemicals used for NPs synthesis. Moreover, the activity of metallic NPs has to be compared to at least one “conventional antibacterial agent” in the same conditions.
The silver concentration is also an important parameter, which has to be considered and can be determined by different techniques, such as inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Hence, the comparison of the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) between different studies could be facilitated by expressing MIC in molar concentration (mol/L). Moreover, as silver-ions-antibacterial activity is known since centuries, it is crucial to determine silver ions concentration in colloidal solution and culture media after incubation time.

3. How to Evaluate the Antibacterial Properties of Ag NPs?

Most of the bacteria are divided into two groups: Gram-positive bacteria and Gram-negative bacteria. This distinction is primarily based on the structure of the bacterial cell wall (Figure 2).
This difference in cell wall structure is significant because it has a direct impact on the activity of certain antibiotics that are then called narrow spectrum, i.e., only active on Gram-negative bacteria or Gram-positive bacteria.
For several years we have been confronted with a particularly worrying phenomenon: resistance to anti-infectives. This resistance is found in all microorganisms, to different degrees, but is particularly worrying in bacteria. Indeed, bacteria have acquired the formidable ability to develop mechanisms of resistance to anti-infectives, making most of the antibiotics used in therapy obsolete. This situation is particularly worrying given the limited number of new antibacterial drugs available, and continued emergence and rapid spread of newly resistant bacterial strains. Therefore, there is an urgent medical need for new antibacterials [75].
In the search for new antibacterial drugs many studies have sought to study the antibacterial properties of metal nanoparticles in general, and silver nanoparticles in particular.

3.1. Which Bacteria Test?

If we want to determine the antibacterial spectrum of Ag NPs, it is, therefore, necessary to test their effectiveness on several different bacteria and if possible both on Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. In most studies, there are two major bacterial species: Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus (Table 1 and Supplementary Materials Table S1). Indeed, these two species are those most frequently encountered in human infectious diseases. They are also particularly resistant to antibiotics and therefore problematic [76,77]. Now for the same species, there are several strains, and these strains all have different properties. It is difficult to compare studies that have not been conducted on the same strains of a species. This may lead some authors to different or even opposite conclusions.
The choice of the bacterium to be tested is also fundamental depending on the therapeutic applications that one wishes to develop for the use of Ag NPs. We can notably quote the study of Niska et al. who wanted to study the interest of the Ag NPs in the oral field and who thus chose to work on bacteria of the oral commensal flora [48].
However, some bacterial species have no interest in human infectious diseases; we think in particular to Bacillus subtilis. Most of the time, these authors use this bacterium as a model, which may be conceivable, but then, it would be more scientifically right to be very careful about the interpretation of the results, e.g., by recalling that this bacterium does not have interest in human disease, which de facto would limit the interest of the study itself.
Many authors study the antibacterial properties of Ag NPs either on strains from a collection (e.g., ATCC) or clinical isolates (Table 1 and Supplementary Materials Table S1). The interest of strains from a collection is that they are perfectly characterized (phenotypically, antibiotic resistance profile), which is rarely the case for clinical isolates, but these ones are directly isolated from patients and therefore correspond to a unique pathological situation (normally) clearly defined. It should be noted, however, that some studies do not specify the origin of the bacteria that have been tested [19,20,26,27,31,42,78], and this is hardly acceptable from a scientific point of view.
Now if we want at a time to demonstrate the full interest of Ag NPs, we will evaluate their antibacterial properties on clinical isolates, on bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Unfortunately, if we look at Table 1 and Supplementary Materials Table S1, finally very few studies have been done on antibiotic-resistant bacteria; and in these studies, we rarely have the antibiograms of the bacterial strains studied. This is the next step that we must take if we want to prove the interest of a potential use of Ag NPs in human (or animal) therapy.

3.2. Which Technique to Use?

There is currently no standard, no reference for studying the antibacterial activities of nanoparticles. Moreover, as we can see (Table 1 and Supplementary Materials Table S1) several techniques, very different from each other, are used by the authors to evaluate the antibacterial properties of Ag NPs. For a review of the different techniques that exist to evaluate the antibacterial properties of molecules, we recommend the review by Balouiri and colleagues [79].
However, this poses a first problem: from the moment when the studies do not use all the same technique, it will be challenging, if not impossible, to compare the results. In the laboratory, we have chosen to adapt the method used for antibiotics: microdilution in liquid medium [80]. Indeed, after evaluating several protocols, this technique allows us: not to have any problem of diffusion of Ag NPs in the culture medium (which is not the case with the agar method), it is possible to agitate the microplate to promote contacts between bacteria and Ag NPs (which is not possible with methods using Petri dishes), this technique is the only one that can give us a minimum inhibitory concentration correct (which must be the first step when conducting a study on the antibacterial properties of molecules).
Once the problem of the method is settled, another question arises: which culture medium to use? Again, if we look at the different studies (Table 1 and Supplementary Materials Table S1), there is no homogeneity in the choice of culture media used. On the contrary, here again, a very large number of culture media, very different from each other are used: Luria Bertani, Mueller Hinton and Nutrient Agar. This point can seem anecdotal for some authors, but it is on the contrary fundamental. Bacteria are living organisms, and each culture medium has a different substrate composition; in such a way that, depending on the culture medium used for the experiments, we will not have the same growth kinetics of the bacteria, nor the same phenotypic characters for these bacteria. In the end, if the growing conditions do not allow us to control the growth of bacteria how to be certain that we will only evaluate the antibacterial properties of NPs? Again, it is not possible.
In the laboratory, we chose to use the cation-adjusted Mueller Hinton medium. The cation-adjusted Mueller Hinton medium is the only one recommended for performing antibiograms in clinical bacteriology [81]. Historically it has been developed for positively charged antibiotics (e.g., colistin) which is still somewhat interesting in the case of Ag NPs. It is also important to specify that this medium should be complemented in the case where the study focuses on demanding or “fastidious” bacteria (i.e., that require an additional substrate for their growth, such as adding blood for streptococci, for example) [81].
In the end, as we have just seen, it is difficult to conclude on the results of the studies we have selected, although there is evidence on the antibacterial activities of Ag NPs. However, what is even more difficult is to compare studies with each other. Nevertheless, we can highlight the efforts that have been made by some authors, we can for example highlight the work of Cavassin and collaborators or Niska and collaborators [44,48] who worked on several bacterial species and for some species several strains were tested, using accurate techniques; proof that we progress and we have to continue this way.

4. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

In the fight against infectious diseases, the report is alarming: we are currently very badly engaged, microorganisms are gaining, day by day, more battles. There are several reasons for this situation, and we will remember two: antimicrobial resistance and the urgency to find new anti-infectives [75]. One of the research topics in our research laboratory is dedicated to the research of new anti-infectives. Moreover, we believe, like other numerous authors, that metallic nanoparticles, such as silver nanoparticles, might represent, in the future, a therapeutic option for the management and the treatment of infectious diseases. In any case, silver nanoparticles (and more generally metallic nanoparticles) deserve our interest in them; that is the challenge. This review aimed to take stock, through the latest publications on the subject, about the different methodologies that are currently used, considering the synthesis of nanoparticles, their characterization, and even the evaluation of their antibacterial properties. The idea was to be able to compare the studies with each other, to have the best judgment regarding the promising use of Ag NPs. In the end, it appears that it is impossible to compare the studies between them: there are too many discrepancies between studies (Table 1 and Supplementary Materials Table S1). Indeed, we think that it is urgent to homogenize the studies, to better characterize the nanoparticles, to choose a method (or to limit their number) for the evaluation of the antibacterial properties, to choose bacteria of interest, in agreement with the epidemiological data or the therapeutic uses envisaged for the silver nanoparticles. It is at this price that the data will have more impact on the whole of the scientific community (Table 2).
Nevertheless, we must also point out a critical feature of Ag NPs: the toxicity. Indeed, having an excellent antibacterial agent, with very interesting MICs, is an essential first step, when you are looking for the antibacterials of tomorrow. However, at the same time, you must never forget the second and equally important step: the safety of your “promising” antibacterial agent (i.e., Ag NPs). De facto, many studies have reported a possible toxicity of Ag NPs, both in vivo and in vitro (see [82] for a state-of-the-art review). Finally, studying the mechanisms of interaction between Ag NPs and biological cells (i.e., eukaryotic cells) in order to better appreciate the potential risks related to a possible future use of Ag NPs as antibacterial agents, also seems to become a significant issue.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/9/12/1775/s1, Table S1: Ag NPs and antibacterial activity evaluation of selected publications from 2015–2018 period.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

J.G. acknowledges the French Ministry of Higher Education (MRES) for Ph.D. grant. The authors (R.E.D., J.G. and E.L.) are grateful to the French Ministry of Further Education and Research (MRES), the French National Scientific Research Centre (CNRS), the Université de Lorraine and Region Grand Est.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. CDC Containing Unusual Antibiotic Resistance. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/containing-unusual-resistance/index.html (accessed on 1 August 2018).
  2. Database Scifinder. «Search with “Nanoparticles” and “Antibacterial” Terms». 14454 Publications over 2000–2018. Available online: https://scifinder.cas.org (accessed on 14 November 2019).
  3. Subbiah, R.; Jeon, S.B.; Park, K.; Ahn, S.J.; Yun, K. Investigation of cellular responses upon interaction with silver nanoparticles. Int. J. Nanomed. 2015, 10, 191–201. [Google Scholar]
  4. Łysakowska, M.E.; Ciebiada-Adamiec, A.; Klimek, L.; Sienkiewicz, M. The activity of silver nanoparticles (Axonnite) on clinical and environmental strains of Acinetobacter spp. Burns 2015, 41, 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kourmouli, A.; Valenti, M.; van Rijn, E.; Beaumont, H.J.E.; Kalantzi, O.-I.; Schmidt-Ott, A.; Biskos, G. Can disc diffusion susceptibility tests assess the antimicrobial activity of engineered nanoparticles? J. Nanopart. Res. 2018, 20, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Pompilio, A.; Geminiani, C.; Bosco, D.; Rana, R.; Aceto, A.; Bucciarelli, T.; Scotti, L.; Di Bonaventura, G. Electrochemically Synthesized Silver Nanoparticles Are Active Against Planktonic and Biofilm Cells of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Other Cystic Fibrosis-Associated Bacterial Pathogens. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Markowska, K.; Grudniak, A.M.; Milczarek, B.; Wolska, K.I. The Effect of Silver Nanoparticles on Listeria monocytogenes PCM2191 Peptidoglycan Metabolism and Cell Permeability. Pol. J. Microbiol. 2018, 67, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Choi, Y.; Kim, H.-A.; Kim, K.-W.; Lee, B.-T. Comparative toxicity of silver nanoparticles and silver ions to Escherichia coli. J. Environ. Sci. 2018, 66, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Manipriya, B.; Tasneem, B.; Prem, K.L.; Kalyani, M. Evaluation of antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and detection of virulence factors-nuclease, phosphatase, and bio film production. Asian J. Pharm. Clin. Res. 2018, 11, 224. [Google Scholar]
  10. Singh, V.; Tiwari, A. Evaluating the antimicrobal efficiency of chemically silver nanoparticles. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2015, 4, 5–10. [Google Scholar]
  11. Korshed, P.; Li, L.; Ngo, D.-T.; Wang, T. Effect of Storage Conditions on the Long-Term Stability of Bactericidal Effects for Laser Generated Silver Nanoparticles. Nanomaterials 2018, 8, 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Belluco, S.; Losasso, C.; Patuzzi, I.; Rigo, L.; Conficoni, D.; Gallocchio, F.; Cibin, V.; Catellani, P.; Segato, S.; Ricci, A. Silver as Antibacterial toward Listeria monocytogenes. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Skіba, M.; Pivovarov, A.; Makarova, A.; Vorobyova, V. Plasma-chemical Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles in the Presence of Citrate. Chem. J. Mold. 2018, 13, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Sun, L. A facile method to prepare size-tunable silver nanoparticles and its antibacterial mechanism. Adv. Powder Technol. 2018, 29, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Acharya, D.; Singha, K.M.; Pandey, P.; Mohanta, B.; Rajkumari, J.; Singha, L.P. Shape dependent physical mutilation and lethal effects of silver nanoparticles on bacteria. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Tian, X.; Jiang, X.; Welch, C.; Croley, T.R.; Wong, T.-Y.; Chen, C.; Fan, S.; Chong, Y.; Li, R.; Ge, C.; et al. Bactericidal Effects of Silver Nanoparticles on Lactobacilli and the Underlying Mechanism. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 8443–8450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Rojas-Andrade, M.; Cho, A.T.; Hu, P.; Lee, S.J.; Deming, C.P.; Sweeney, S.W.; Saltikov, C.; Chen, S. Enhanced antimicrobial activity with faceted silver nanostructures. J. Mater. Sci. 2015, 50, 2849–2858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Vanitha, G.; Rajavel, K.; Boopathy, G.; Veeravazhuthi, V.; Neelamegam, P. Physiochemical charge stabilization of silver nanoparticles and its antibacterial applications. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2017, 669, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mostafa, A.A.; Sayed, S.R.M.; Solkamy, E.N.; Khan, M.; Shaik, M.R.; Al-Warthan, A.; Adil, S.F. Evaluation of Biological Activities of Chemically Synthesized Silver Nanoparticles. J. Nanomater. 2015, 2015, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Khatoon, U.T.; Nageswara Rao, G.V.S.; Mohan, K.M.; Ramanaviciene, A.; Ramanavicius, A. Antibacterial and antifungal activity of silver nanospheres synthesized by tri-sodium citrate assisted chemical approach. Vacuum 2017, 146, 259–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Silvan, J.M.; Zorraquin-Peña, I.; Gonzalez de Llano, D.; Moreno-Arribas, M.V.; Martinez-Rodriguez, A.J. Antibacterial Activity of Glutathione-Stabilized Silver Nanoparticles Against Campylobacter Multidrug-Resistant Strains. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Vasileva, M.Yu.; Ershov, A.Yu.; Baigildin, V.A.; Lagoda, I.V.; Kuleshova, L.Yu.; Shtro, A.A.; Zarubaev, V.V.; Yakimanskii, A.V. Synthesis of Silver Glyconanoparticles Based on 3-Thiopropionylhydrazones of Mono- and Disaccharides. Russ. J. Gen. Chem. 2018, 88, 109–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bhargava, A.; Pareek, V.; Roy Choudhury, S.; Panwar, J.; Karmakar, S. Superior Bactericidal Efficacy of Fucose-Functionalized Silver Nanoparticles against Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 and Prevention of Its Colonization on Urinary Catheters. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 29325–29337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Nam, S.; Park, B.; Condon, B.D. Water-based binary polyol process for the controllable synthesis of silver nanoparticles inhibiting human and foodborne pathogenic bacteria. RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 21937–21947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Sangsuwan, A.; Kawasaki, H.; Matsumura, Y.; Iwasaki, Y. Antimicrobial Silver Nanoclusters Bearing Biocompatible Phosphorylcholine-Based Zwitterionic Protection. Bioconjug. Chem. 2016, 27, 2527–2533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ajitha, B.; Ashok Kumar Reddy, Y.; Sreedhara Reddy, P. Enhanced antimicrobial activity of silver nanoparticles with controlled particle size by pH variation. Powder Technol. 2015, 269, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ashkarran, A.A. The effect of visible-light intensity on shape evolution and antibacterial properties of triangular silver nanostructures. Opt. Mater. 2016, 58, 454–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Garuglieri, E.; Cattò, C.; Villa, F.; Zanchi, R.; Cappitelli, F. Effects of sublethal concentrations of silver nanoparticles on Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Biointerphases 2016, 11, 04B308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Li, W.-R.; Sun, T.-L.; Zhou, S.-L.; Ma, Y.-K.; Shi, Q.-S.; Xie, X.-B.; Huang, X.-M. A comparative analysis of antibacterial activity, dynamics, and effects of silver ions and silver nanoparticles against four bacterial strains. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2017, 123, 304–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mosselhy, D.A.; El-Aziz, M.A.; Hanna, M.; Ahmed, M.A.; Husien, M.M.; Feng, Q. Comparative synthesis and antimicrobial action of silver nanoparticles and silver nitrate. J. Nanopart. Res. 2015, 17, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lau, C.P.; Abdul-Wahab, M.F.; Jaafar, J.; Chan, G.F.; Abdul Rashid, N.A. Toxic effect of high concentration of sonochemically synthesized polyvinylpyrrolidone-coated silver nanoparticles on Citrobacter sp. A1 and Enterococcus sp. C1. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. 2017, 50, 427–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Asadi, M.; Khosravi-Darani, K.; Haj-Seyed Javadi, N.; Esmaeili, S.; Azadnia, E. Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles through Chemical Reduction and its Antibacterial Effect. RRJFPDT 2015, 3, 18–23. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gurusamy, V.; Krishnamoorthy, R.; Gopal, B.; Veeraravagan, V.; Neelamegam, P. Systematic investigation on hydrazine hydrate assisted reduction of silver nanoparticles and its antibacterial properties. Inorg. Nano-Met. Chem. 2017, 47, 761–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hong, X.; Wen, J.; Xiong, X.; Hu, Y. Shape effect on the antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles synthesized via a microwave-assisted method. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 4489–4497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Duffy, L.L.; Osmond-McLeod, M.J.; Judy, J.; King, T. Investigation into the antibacterial activity of silver, zinc oxide and copper oxide nanoparticles against poultry-relevant isolates of Salmonella and Campylobacter. Food Control 2018, 92, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, H.; Jiang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, X.; Ali, Md.A.; Fox, E.M.; Gobius, K.S.; Man, C. Silver nanoparticles: A novel antibacterial agent for control of Cronobacter sakazakii. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 10775–10791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Yi, J.; Cheng, J. Effects of water chemistry and surface contact on the toxicity of silver nanoparticles to Bacillus subtilis. Ecotoxicology 2017, 26, 639–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bondarenko, O.M.; Sihtmäe, M.; Kuzmičiova, J.; Ragelienė, L.; Kahru, A.; Daugelavičius, R. Plasma membrane is the target of rapid antibacterial action of silver nanoparticles in Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Int. J. Nanomed. 2018, 13, 6779–6790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Lv, X.; Wang, H.; Su, A.; Chu, Y. A Novel Approach for Sericin-Conjugated Silver Nanoparticle Synthesis and Their Potential as Microbicide Candidates. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 28, 1367–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Hoseini-Alfatemi, S.M.; Karimi, A.; Armin, S.; Fakharzadeh, S.; Fallah, F.; Kalanaky, S. Antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of nanochelating based silver nanoparticles against several nosocomial pathogens: Bioactivity of nanochelating based AgNPs. Appl. Organomet. Chem. 2018, 32, e4327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jin, J.-C.; Wu, X.-J.; Xu, J.; Wang, B.-B.; Jiang, F.-L.; Liu, Y. Ultrasmall silver nanoclusters: Highly efficient antibacterial activity and their mechanisms. Biomater. Sci. 2017, 5, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ajitha, B.; Kumar Reddy, Y.A.; Reddy, P.S.; Jeon, H.-J.; Ahn, C.W. Role of capping agents in controlling silver nanoparticles size, antibacterial activity and potential application as optical hydrogen peroxide sensor. RSC Adv. 2016, 6, 36171–36179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Abbaszadegan, A.; Ghahramani, Y.; Gholami, A.; Hemmateenejad, B.; Dorostkar, S.; Nabavizadeh, M.; Sharghi, H. The Effect of Charge at the Surface of Silver Nanoparticles on Antimicrobial Activity against Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria: A Preliminary Study. J. Nanomater. 2015, 2015, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Cavassin, E.D.; de Figueiredo, L.F.P.; Otoch, J.P.; Seckler, M.M.; de Oliveira, R.A.; Franco, F.F.; Marangoni, V.S.; Zucolotto, V.; Levin, A.S.S.; Costa, S.F. Comparison of methods to detect the in vitro activity of silver nanoparticles (AgNP) against multidrug resistant bacteria. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2015, 13, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Padmos, J.D.; Boudreau, R.T.M.; Weaver, D.F.; Zhang, P. Impact of Protecting Ligands on Surface Structure and Antibacterial Activity of Silver Nanoparticles. Langmuir 2015, 31, 3745–3752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Long, Y.-M.; Hu, L.-G.; Yan, X.-T.; Zhao, X.-C.; Zhou, Q.-F.; Cai, Y.; Jiang, G.-B. Surface ligand controls silver ion release of nanosilver and its antibacterial activity against Escherichia coli. Int. J. Nanomed. 2017, 12, 3193–3206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. El-Zahry, M.R.; Mahmoud, A.; Refaat, I.H.; Mohamed, H.A.; Bohlmann, H.; Lendl, B. Antibacterial effect of various shapes of silver nanoparticles monitored by SERS. Talanta 2015, 138, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Niska, K.; Knap, N.; Kędzia, A.; Jaskiewicz, M.; Kamysz, W.; Inkielewicz-Stepniak, I. Capping Agent-Dependent Toxicity and Antimicrobial Activity of Silver Nanoparticles: An In Vitro Study. Concerns about Potential Application in Dental Practice. Int. J. Med. Sci. 2016, 13, 772–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Kujda, M.; Ocwieja, M.; Adamczyk, Z.; Bochenska, O.; Bras, G.; Kozik, A.; Bielanska, E.; Barbasz, J. Charge stabilized silver nanoparticles applied as antibacterial agents. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2015, 15, 3574–3583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vu, X.H.; Duong, T.T.T.; Pham, T.T.H.; Trinh, D.K.; Nguyen, X.H.; Dang, V.-S. Synthesis and study of silver nanoparticles for antibacterial activity against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. Adv. Nat. Sci. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2018, 9, 025019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Feng, A.; Cao, J.; Wei, J.; Chang, F.; Yang, Y.; Xiao, Z. Facile Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles with High Antibacterial Activity. Materials 2018, 11, 2498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. LaMer, V.K.; Dinegar, R.H. Theory, Production and Mechanism of Formation of Monodispersed Hydrosols. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1950, 72, 4847–4854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, Z.; Shen, W.; Xue, J.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Yan, P.; Liu, J.; Tang, J. Recent advances in synthetic methods and applications of silver nanostructures. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Mathur, P.; Jha, S.; Ramteke, S.; Jain, N.K. Pharmaceutical aspects of silver nanoparticles. Artif. Cells Nanomed. Biotechnol. 2018, 46, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Lee, S.; Jun, B.-H. Silver Nanoparticles: Synthesis and Application for Nanomedicine. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Halbus, A.F.; Horozov, T.S.; Paunov, V.N. Colloid particle formulations for antimicrobial applications. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 249, 134–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. De Matteis, V.; Cascione, M.; Toma, C.; Leporatti, S. Silver Nanoparticles: Synthetic Routes, In Vitro Toxicity and Theranostic Applications for Cancer Disease. Nanomaterials 2018, 8, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Hühn, J.; Carrillo-Carrion, C.; Soliman, M.G.; Pfeiffer, C.; Valdeperez, D.; Masood, A.; Chakraborty, I.; Zhu, L.; Gallego, M.; Yue, Z.; et al. Selected Standard Protocols for the Synthesis, Phase Transfer, and Characterization of Inorganic Colloidal Nanoparticles. Chem. Mater. 2017, 29, 399–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cushing, B.L.; Kolesnichenko, V.L.; O’Connor, C.J. Recent Advances in the Liquid-Phase Syntheses of Inorganic Nanoparticles. Chem. Rev. 2004, 104, 3893–3946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yan, X.; He, B.; Liu, L.; Qu, G.; Shi, J.; Hu, L.; Jiang, G. Antibacterial mechanism of silver nanoparticles in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Proteomics approach. Metallomics 2018, 10, 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ullah Khan, S.; Saleh, T.A.; Wahab, A.; Ullah Khan, M.H.; Khan, D.; Ullah Khan, W.; Rahim, A.; Kamal, S.; Ullah Khan, F.; Fahad, S. Nanosilver: New ageless and versatile biomedical therapeutic scaffold. Int. J. Nanomed. 2018, 13, 733–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Cao, H. (Ed.) Silver Nanoparticles for Antibacterial Devices: Biocompatibility and Toxicity; CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; ISBN 978-1-4987-2532-3. [Google Scholar]
  63. Haider, A.; Kang, I.-K. Preparation of Silver Nanoparticles and Their Industrial and Biomedical Applications: A Comprehensive Review. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015, 2015, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Khodashenas, B. The Influential Factors on Antibacterial Behaviour of Copper and Silver Nanoparticles. Indian Chem. Eng. 2016, 58, 224–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Franci, G.; Falanga, A.; Galdiero, S.; Palomba, L.; Rai, M.; Morelli, G.; Galdiero, M. Silver Nanoparticles as Potential Antibacterial Agents. Molecules 2015, 20, 8856–8874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Fujiwara, K.; Sotiriou, G.A.; Pratsinis, S.E. Enhanced Ag+ Ion Release from Aqueous Nanosilver Suspensions by Absorption of Ambient CO2. Langmuir 2015, 31, 5284–5290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Xia, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Lim, B.; Skrabalak, S.E. Shape-Controlled Synthesis of Metal Nanocrystals: Simple Chemistry Meets Complex Physics? Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 60–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hu, G.; Jin, W.; Chen, Q.; Cai, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Zhang, W. Antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles with different morphologies as well as their possible antibacterial mechanism. Appl. Phys. Mater. Sci. Process. 2016, 122, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ishikawa, S.; Matsumura, Y.; Katoh-Kubo, K.; Tsuchido, T. Antibacterial activity of surfactants against Escherichia coli cells is influenced by carbon source and anaerobiosis. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2002, 93, 302–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Maneedaeng, A.; Phoemboon, S.; Chanthasena, P.; Chudapongse, N. Synthesis, interfacial properties, and antimicrobial activity of a new cationic gemini surfactant. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2018, 35, 2313–2320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hepel, M.; Stobiecka, M. Detection of Oxidative Stress Biomarkers Using Functional Gold Nanoparticles. In Fine Particles in Medicine and Pharmacy; Matijević, E., Ed.; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 241–281. ISBN 978-1-4614-0378-4. [Google Scholar]
  72. Stobiecka, M.; Hepel, M. Rapid functionalization of metal nanoparticles by moderator-tunable ligand-exchange process for biosensor designs. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2010, 149, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hepel, M.; Blake, D.; McCabe, M.; Stobiecka, M.; Coopersmith, K. Assembly of Gold Nanoparticles Induced by Metal Ions. In Functional Nanoparticles for Bioanalysis, Nanomedicine, and Bioelectronic Devices, Volume 1; Hepel, M., Zhong, C.-J., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; Volume 1112, pp. 207–240. ISBN 978-0-8412-2775-0. [Google Scholar]
  74. Kästner, C.; Thünemann, A.F. Catalytic Reduction of 4-Nitrophenol Using Silver Nanoparticles with Adjustable Activity. Langmuir 2016, 32, 7383–7391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Duval, R.E.; Grare, M.; Demoré, B. Fight against Antimicrobial Resistance: We Always Need New Antibacterials but for Right Bacteria. Molecules 2019, 24, 3152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States. 2013. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/index.html (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  77. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance in Europe 2016. Available online: https://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/antimicrobial-resistance-surveillance-europe-2016 (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  78. Anjana, G.; Gowri, M.; Raja, C.S.A.; Prasath, M.; Balakumar, S.; Ganesh, V. Silver Nanoparticles as a Non Alcoholic Hospital Disinfectant to Combat Nosocomial Pathogens. J. Bionanosci. 2015, 9, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Balouiri, M.; Sadiki, M.; Ibnsouda, S.K. Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review. J. Pharm. Anal. 2016, 6, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. ISO 20776-1. Clinical Laboratory Testing and In Vitro Diagnostic Test Systems—Susceptibility Testing of Infectious Agents and Evaluation of Performance of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Devices—Part 1: Reference Method for Testing the In Vitro Activity of Antimicrobial Agents Against Rapidly Growing Aerobic Bacteria Involved in Infectious Diseases. ISO 20776-1: La Plaine Saint Denis, France, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  81. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria that Grow Aerobically; Approved Standard-Tenth Ed. M07-A10; CLSI: Wayne, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  82. Liao, C.; Li, Y.; Tjong, S. Bactericidal and Cytotoxic Properties of Silver Nanoparticles. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Gao, X.; Lowry, G.V. Progress towards standardized and validated characterizations for measuring physicochemical properties of manufactured nanomaterials relevant to nano health and safety risks. NanoImpact 2018, 9, 14–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Cockerill, F.; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria that Grow Aerobically: Approved Standard; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-1-56238-783-9. [Google Scholar]
  85. EUCAST (European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing). Routine and Extended Internal Quality Control for MIC Determination and Disk Diffusion as Recommended by EUCAST. Available online: http://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/QC/v_8.0_EUCAST_QC_tables_routine_and_extended_QC.pdf (accessed on 31 July 2018).
  86. ISO 20776-2. Clinical Laboratory Testing and In Vitro Diagnostic Test Systems—Susceptibility Testing of Infectious Agents and Evaluation of Performance of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Devices—Part 2: Evaluation of Performance of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Devices; ISO 20776-2: La Plaine Saint Denis, France, 2007.
Nanomaterials 09 01775 g001 550
Figure 1. Probable antibacterial mechanisms of action of silver nanoparticles.
Figure 1. Probable antibacterial mechanisms of action of silver nanoparticles.
Nanomaterials 09 01775 g001
Nanomaterials 09 01775 g002 550
Figure 2. Bacterial cell wall structures.
Figure 2. Bacterial cell wall structures.
Nanomaterials 09 01775 g002
Table
Table 1. Methods, synthesis and characterizations of silver nanoparticles, and antibacterial activity evaluation of selected publications from the 2015–2018 period.
Table 1. Methods, synthesis and characterizations of silver nanoparticles, and antibacterial activity evaluation of selected publications from the 2015–2018 period.
StabilizerNPs Size (nm)NPs ShapeStock Suspension Concentration or MassZeta Potential (mV) *CommentBacteriaBacteria OriginProtocolCulture MediaReference
“Naked”19.5 ± 7.7Nano-sphereN/A−18.0 ± 0.6
(in culture media)		NaBH4 + AgNO3 in presence of ultrasonicationE. faecalis
S. aureus
S. epidermidis
B. subtilis
E. coli
S. typhimurium
S. enterica		KCCM 13807
KCTC 1916
KCTC 1971
KCTC 1021
KCTC 1682
KCCM 40253
KACC 10763		Kirby-Bauer method
Microdilution method
MIC90		Mueller Hinton Agar
Luria Bertani		[3]
10Nano-flake50 ppmN/AAxonnite Silver suspended in demineralized waterA. baumannii
(n = 17)
A. baumannii
A. nosocomialis
(n = 10)		Clinical
isolates
ATCC 1906
Clinical
isolates		Microdilution methodN/A[4]
10
20
40		Nano-sphereN/AN/AVapor nucleation in N2 gasE. coliN/AKirby-Bauer methodMueller Hinton 2 Agar[5]
55.6 ± 2.9 (DLS)Nanosphere8.53 mg−51.5 ± 2.5Electrochemically synthesizedP. aeruginosa
(n = 3)
S. maltophilia
(n = 3)
B. cepacia
(n = 3)
S. aureus
(n = 3)		Clinical isolatesKirby-Bauer method
Microdilution method
TKA		Mueller Hinton
Cation-Adjusted		[6]
2–5
(70–75% TEM)		Nano-sphere50 mg/kg+9.2Nano-Tech (Warsaw, Poland)L. monocytogenesPCM 2191Microdilution methodTryptone Soy yeast extract broth[7]
23.6 (TEM)
57.8 (DLS)		Nano-sphereN/A−28.3
(N/A)		Nanoleader (Korea)E. coli
(K-12)		KCTC 1116Growth CurvesLuria Bertani[8]
10Nano-sphere1 mg/mLN/ASisco Research lab.S. aureus
S. aureus
(n = 30)		ATCC 25923
Clinical isolates		Agar Well diffusion method
Microdilution method		Mueller Hinton Agar
Luria Bertani		[9]
“Naked”40 (TEM)Nano-sphereN/AN/AAgNO3 + NaBH4S. aureus
B. cereus
P. aeruginosa
K. pneumoniae
E. coli		N/AAgar Well diffusion methodMueller Hinton Agar[10]
Unknown “Naked”35
27.2		Nano-sphere20 µg/mL
N/A		N/ASigma Aldrich (Dorset UK) Laser generatedE. coli
(K-12)		JM 109Agar Well diffusion methodMueller Hinton[11]
Citrate23 ± 2 (TEM)Nano-sphere2 mMN/ACitrate BioPure™ Silver, Nanocomposix (San Diego, CA, USA)L. monocytogenes
(n = 20)
L. monocytogenes		Clinical isolatesColony Forming UnitsMueller Hinton[12]
6.0–28.2 (XRD) N/A−28.2 to −32.0Plasma dischargeS. aureus
E. coli		ATCC 25923
ATCC 35218		Kirby-Bauer methodNutrient Agar[13]
2.3 ± 0.5
12.5 ± 2.2
32.4 ± 6.5 (TEM)		Nano-sphereN/A1N/A1NaBH4 + AgNO3 + sodium citrateS. aureus
E. coli		ATCC 35696
ATCC 23282		Microdilution method
Kirby-Bauer method
Growth Curves		Broth medium[14]
40–50
20 × 20–90		Nano-sphere
Nano-rod		N/A−28.8
−23.5		Citrate thermal reduction methodS. aureus
B. subtilis
P. aeruginosa
K. pneumoniae
E. coli		ATCC 25923
AST5-2
AL2-14B
AWD5
ATCC 25922		Microdilution method
Kirby-Bauer method
TKA		Nutrient Agar[15]
20.1 ± 4.4 (TEM)
49.3 ± 5.7
(DLS)		Nano-sphereN/A−19.2 ± 0.7Citrate thermal reduction methodE. coli
S. aureus
L. bulgaricus
L. casei		ATCC 25922
ATCC 25923
CGMCC 1.6970
CGMCC 1.2435		TKALuria Bertani
Tryptone Soy
MRS		[16]
10–40 (TEM)Sharp-tipped triangular, truncated triangular, nanoprisms, decahedra, tetrahedra N/AN/APhotochemical synthesis:
4.76 ± 3.88 nm silver seed nanoparticles (AgNO3 + citrate + NaBH4) + 40 W blue LEDs (Hongke Lighting kem = 455–475 nm)
{111} facets		E. coliATCC 25922Growth CurvesLuria Bertani[17]
Citrate20 ± 9
25 ± 3
11 ± 6 (TEM)		Nano-sphereN/A−26.37
−37.95
−28.23
(H2O + salts)		AgNO3 + citrate + NaBH4S. aureusATCC 25923Agar Well diffusion methodNutrient Agar[18]
42–58 (TEM)Nano-sphereN/AN/AAgNO3 + citrate + NaBH4; polydisperse; XRD11: intense reflection at (111)S. aureus
S. pyogenes
S. typhi
P. aeruginosa		N/AKirby-Bauer methodTryptone Soy[19]
15
18
30
30 (DLS)		Nano-sphereN/A−38.8
−30.7
−38.5
−42.2
(N/A)		AgNO3 + Citrate + NaBH4E. coli
B. subtilis		N/AKirby-Bauer methodNutrient Agar[20]
GSH1310–50Nano-sphere0.197 mg/mLN/AAgBF4 + NaBH4 + glutathioneC. jejuni
(n = 22)
C. coli
(n = 18)
C. jejuni		Animal or Human clinical isolates
NCTC 11168		Microdilution methodBrucella
Mueller Hinton		[21]
D-xylose
L-arabinose
D-ribose
D-glucose
D-galactose
D-mannose
D-lactose
D-xylose		33
30
39
25
28
25
15
18		Nano-sphereN/AN/A E. coli
Klebsiella spp.		N/AN/AN/A[22]
L-fucose10.15 ± 3.37 (TEM)Nano-sphereN/A−65.4
−17.7		AgNO3 + NaBH4 + sodium citrate + mercaptopropionic acid, then L-fucoseP. aeruginosa
(PAO1)		N/AMicrodilution methodLuria Bertani without Chloride ions[23]
PEG15.8 ± 2.2 (TEM)Nano-sphereN/A−17.2 ± 2.1AgNO3 + EG/PEGS. aureus
P. aeruginosa
S. enterica
E. coli		ATCC 6538
ATCC 15442
ATCC 10708
ATCC 11229		Microdilution methodMueller Hinton[24]
PC3.3 ± 0.9
4.9 ± 2.9
(TEM)		Nano-sphereN/AN/AZwitterionic Protection: AgNO3 + NaBH4 + PC-SH E. coli
S. aureus		OW6
Mu50		Growth curvesTodd Hewitt broth[25]
PVA31 (SEM; TEM: 26)
24 (SEM)
19 (SEM)
14 (SEM; TEM: 10)		Nano-sphereN/AN/APVA + AgNO3 + NaBH4
(pH = 6; 8; 10; 12, respectively)		E. coli
Pseudomonas sp.		N/AKirby-Bauer methodNutrient Agar[26]
PVP/citrate50–60
70–80		Semi-triangular and truncated triangular silver nanoparticles + few nano-sphere
Triangular silver nanoparticles with sharp corner		N/AN/ACitrate + AgNO3 + NaBH4 + PVP + visible-light halogen lamp (50 and 100 W, respectively); bigger nanoparticles (>100 nm) obtained with visible-light halogen lamps with higher intensitiesE. coliN/AColony Forming UnitsNutrient Agar[27]
PVP2014.0 ± 0.3 (TEM)Nano-sphere1 mg/mL−27.3Nanocomposix, OECD standard BioPure, PVP20 40kDaE. coli (K-12)
B. subtilis		MG1655
ATCC 6051		Growth curvesTryptone Soy[28]
5
20		Nano-sphere1 mg/mL
2 mg/mL		N/AShanghai Institute of Fine Chemical Materials (China)E. coli
P. aeruginosa
S. aureus
S. epidermidis		ATCC 8739
ATCC 9027
ATCC 6538
ATCC 12228		Poisoned Food TechniqueMueller Hinton[29]
8
29 (TEM)		Nano-sphereN/A−22.36
−37.82		PVP + ethylene glycol + AgNO3; redispersed in waterA. hydrophila
P. putida
E. coli
B. subtilis
S. aureus		4AK4
KT2442
Trans 1-T1
ATCC 28357
N/A		Kirby-Bauer method
Microdilution method		N/A
Mueller Hinton		[30]
15.6 (TEM)Nano-sphereN/AN/APVP + AgNO3 + NaBH4 in water; polydisperseCitrobacter sp.
Enterococcus sp.		N/AColony Forming UnitsN/A[31]
3–34 (TEM)Nano-sphereN/AN/AAgNO3 + Ethanol + PVP (55000 molecular mass) in waterS. aureus
PTCC No. 1112
E. coli
PTCC No. 1330		ATCC 6537
ATCC 8739		N/AMueller Hinton[32]
10–15 (TEM)Nano-sphereN/AN/AAgNO3 + PVP (k30; Mw. 40000) + hydrazine; influence of AgNO3, PVP and hydrazine concentrationsE. coli
S. aureus		ATCC 25922
ATCC 25923		Kirby-Bauer methodNutrient Agar[33]
60 ± 15
55 ± 10
60 × 2000–4000		Nano-sphere
Nano-cube, right bipyramids
Nanowire		N/AN/AAgNO3 + PVP (k30) + ethylene glycol + NaCl (0. 1, and 5 mg, respectively)E. coliATCC 25922Growth curves
Microdilution method		Luria Bertani[34]
20.6 ± 3.1Nano-sphere1 mg/mL−35Nanocomposix (San Diego, CA, USA)C. jejuni
(n = 4)
C. jejuni
Salmonella spp.
(n = 5)		Chicken isolates
NCTC 11168
Chicken isolates		Microdilution methodMueller Hinton
Luria Bertani		[35]
PVP
Glycerol		31.2 (TEM)
46.5 (DLS)		Nano-sphereN/A+18.7
(N/A)		AgNO3 + PVP or glycerol + sodium citrate
(NH4OH, pH = 8)		C. sakazakiiATCC 29544
ATCC BAA894
ATCC 29004
ATCC 12868		Microdilution method
Oxford cup method		Luria Bertani[36]
Oleylamine10 (TEM)Nano-sphereN/A−7.11ColdStones Tech. (Suzhou, China)B. subtilisATCC 6633Growth curvesLuria Bertani[37]
Casein12.5 ± 4 (TEM)
50.0 ± 0.7 (DLS)		Nano-sphereN/A−26.6 ± 1.7
{in 3-(N-morpholini)
propanesulfonic acid-(hydroxy-methanyl)
aminomethane}		Lab. Argenol S. L. (Zaragoza, Spain)E. coli
P. aeruginosa		MC 1061
DS 10-129		Bioluminescence inhibition assayLuria Bertani[38]
Sericin3.78 ± 1.14 (TEM)Nano-sphereN/AN/ASilk sericin protein + AgNO3 + NaBH4S. aureus
E. coli		ATCC 25923
ATCC 25922		Cell counting
(FCM)		Nutrient medium[39]
Thioacetic acid
Propionic acid		20–25
30–35		Nano-sphereN/AN/AThioacetic or propionic acid + silver acetate + sodium carbonate (US20120100372A1)S aureus
S. epidermidis
A. baumannii
P. aeruginosa		ATCC 25923
ATCC 35984
ATCC 19606
ATCC 27853		Microdilution methodMueller Hinton[40]
Lipoid acid2.0 ± 0.5 (TEM)Nano-sphereN/AN/Adihydrolipoic acid + NaOH + AgNO3 + NaBH4S. aureus
E. coli
E. coli		N/A
DH5α
DSM4230		Growth curvesLuria Bertani[41]
PEG
EDTA
PVP
PVA		44
39
35
31 (SEM)		Nano-sphereN/A1−17.5
−23.0
−41.0
−47.0		PEG, EDTA, PVP or PVA + AgNO3 + NaOH + NaBH4 in waterE. coli
Pseudomonas spp.		N/AKirby-Bauer methodNutrient Agar[42]
“Naked”
Unknown		7.5
10.1 (TEM)		Nano-sphere9.7 × 10−8 mol/L
4 × 10−8 mol/L		−38.0
0.0		AgNO3 + NaBH4
Rice starch + AgNO3		S. aureus
S. mutans
S. pyogenes
E. coli
P. vulgaris		ATCC 29737
ATCC 35668
ATCC 8668
ATCC 15224
ATCC 7829		Agar Well diffusion method
Microdilution method		Brain Heart Infusion
Mueller Hinton		[43]
PVA
Citrate
Citrate 		10 nm (SEM)
40 nm (SEM)
60 nm		Nano-sphereN/A
N/A
20 μg/L		−17.0
−48.4
N/A		Chitosan-Ag NPs also prepared and tested
(Sigma Aldrich)		A. baumanni
(n = 17)
P. aeruginosa
(n = 13)
Enterobacteriaceae
(n = 21)
S. maltophilia
(n = 2)
S. aureus
(n = 13)
S. aureus
S. epidermidis
Enterococcus sp.
(n = 14)		Clinical isolates
Clinical isolates
Clinical isolates
Clinical isolates
Clinical isolates
ATCC 29213
INCQS 198
Clinical isolates		Agar Well diffusion method
Microdilution method
Time kill assay		Mueller Hinton
Mueller Hinton Cation Adjusted
Tryptone Soy
Mueller Hinton Cation Adjusted		[44]
Cysteine
PVP		7.6 ± 1.5
7.7 ± 1.6 (TEM)		Nano-sphereN/AN/AAgNO3 + NaBH4 + L-cysteine
AgNO3 + KOH + PVP (Mw 8000) + NaBH4		S. aureus
E. coli
P. aeruginosa		ATCC 29213
ATCC 23716
ATCC 25619		Microdilution methodMueller Hinton Cation Adjusted[45]
Citrate
MPA
MHA
MPS		10.2 ± 2.3
10.2 ± 2.5
10.2 ± 2.2
9.9 ± 2.0		Nano-sphereN/A−47.4
−34.5
−29.1
−32.6		Citrate + tannic acid + AgNO3
Citrate-Ag NPs + mercaptopropionic acid
(ligand exchange)
Citrate-Ag NPs + mercaptohexanoic acid
(ligand exchange)
Citrate-Ag NPs + mercaptopropionic sulfonic acid
(ligand exchange)		E. coliMG 1655Growth curvesLuria Bertani[46]
Citrate
PVP
PEG		40 (TEM; 10–70)Nano-sphere
Triangular silver nanoparticles with rounded edges
Hexagonal silver NPs		N/AN/AAgNO3 + citrate
PVP (Mw = 25000) + AgNO3 + citrate + H2O2 + NaBH4
PEG (2000) + NaOH + AgNO3		E. coliDH5αAgar Well diffusion method
Growth curves		Luria Bertani[47]
Lipoid acid
PEG
“Naked”		9.5 ± 1.9 (TEM)
9.8 ± 2.0
11.2 ± 2.1		Nano-sphereN/A−28.6
(Serum free culture medium)
−10
(Serum free culture medium)
−33.9
(Serum free culture medium)		Nanocomposix, Europe
Nanocomposix, Europe
Also Tannic acid-NPs
US research (Nanomaterilas (Houston, TX, USA)		Actinomyces
(n = 1)
Bacteroides
(n = 4)
Bacteroides fragilis
Bifidobacterium
(n = 1)
Bifidobacterium breve
Finegoldia
(n = 2)
Fusobacterium
(n = 4)
Fusobacterium nucleatum
Parabacteroides
(n = 1)
Parvimonas
(n = 2)
Peptostreptococcus
(n = 1)
Peptostreptococcus anaerobius
Porphyromonas
(n = 3)
Porphyromonas levii
Prevotella
(n = 5)
Prevotella loescheii
Propionibacterium
(n = 2)
Tannerella
(n = 1)
S. aureus
S. aureus
S. aureus
S. epidermidis
S. mutans		Clinical isolates
Clinical isolates
ATCC 25285
Clinical isolates
ATCC 15700
Clinical isolates
Clinical isolates
ATCC 25585
Clinical isolates
Clinical isolates
Clinical isolates
ATCC 25286
Clinical isolates
ATCC 29147
Clinical isolates
ATCC 15930
Clinical isolates
Clinical isolates
ATCC 25923
ATCC 6538
ATTC 6538P
ATCC 14990
ATCC 29175		Plate dilution method
Microdilution method		Brucella agar supplemented
Mueller Hinton		[48]
Citrate
HH
SHSH
SHST		15 ± 4
13 ± 2
13 ± 4
10 ± 6 (TEM)		Nano-sphere290 mg/L
290 mg/L
330 mg/L
330 mg/L		−39.8 ± 0.74
(H2O + NaCl)
−34.0 ± 1.97
(H2O + NaCl)
−34.4 ± 2.03
(H2O + NaCl)
−35.9 ± 1.09
(H2O + NaCl)		AgNO3 + Citrate + NaBH4
Hydroxylamine hypochlorite + NaOH + AgNO3
Sodium hypophosphite + sodium hexametaphosphate + AgNO2
Sodium hypophosphite + sodium hexametaphosphate + sodium tripolyphosphate + AgNO2		E. coli
(K-12)
E. coli		ATCC 10798
ER2566		Microdilution methodMueller Hinton[49]
Starch8 ± 4 (TEM)Nano-sphereN/AN/AAgNO3 + NaBH4 + (C6H10O5)nS. aureus
E. coli		N/AKirby-Bauer methodNutrient agar[50]
AOT20
50		“Nano-sphere”N/AN/ABis(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate + AgNO3 + ascorbic acidE. coli
S. aureus		N/AMicrodilution methodLuria Bertani[51]
N/A: not available; KCCM: Korean Culture Center of Microorganisms; KCTC: Korean Collection of Type Cultures; KACC: Korean Agriculture Culture Collection; MIC: minimal inhibitory concentration; ATCC: American Type Culture Collection; DLS: dynamic light scattering; TKA: Time Kill Assay; TEM: transmission electron microscope; PCM: Polish Collection of Microorganisms; XRD: X-ray diffraction; CGMCC: China General Microbiological Culture Collection Center; MRS: deMan, Rogosa and Sharpe medium; GSH: glutathione; NCTC: National Collection of Type Culture; PEG: polyethylene glycol; CTAB: cetyl-trimethyl ammonium bromide; NTA: nanoparticle tracking analysis; PC: phosphorylcholine; PVA: polyvinyl alcohol; SEM: scanning electron microscope; PVP: polyvinylpyrrolidone; ATCC: American Type Culture Collection; EDTA: ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid; FCM: flow cytometry; MPA: mercaptopropionic acid; MHA: mercaptohexanoic acid; MPS: mercaptopropionic sulfonic acid; HH: Hydroxylamine hypochlorite; SHSH: Sodium hypophosphite and sodium hexametaphosphate; SHST: sodium hypophosphite, sodium hexametaphosphate and sodium tripolyphosphate; AOT: Bis(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate; * in aqueous medium if not specified.
Table
Table 2. Proposed recommendations.
Table 2. Proposed recommendations.
Nanoparticle Samples
SynthesisSpecification of all chemicals used[83]
CharacterizationsMetal core size (TEM)
Hydrodynamic size (DLS)
Zeta-potential
Stock suspension concentration in metal or metal mass (e.g., ICP-AES)
Microbiology
Antibacterial activitySpecification of the procedure used for antibacterial activity determination:
  • Broth Dilution Procedures (Macrodilution, Microdilution…)
  • Kirby-Bauer Method
  • In accordance with standard and approved denominations
[79,80,84,85,86]
Without forgetting to specify growing conditions (temperature and time of incubation, shaking or not)
BacteriaSpecification of the origin of the bacteria:
Strains issued from international collections (e.g., ATCC) or Clinical Isolates (with appropriated antibiograms)
For example:
  • Escherichia coli ATCC 25922
  • Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213
  • Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853
Bacterial mediumMueller Hinton (MH)
Cation-Adjusted MH (CA-MH)
Supplemented in accordance with the bacterial strains studied…

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Duval, R.E.; Gouyau, J.; Lamouroux, E. Limitations of Recent Studies Dealing with the Antibacterial Properties of Silver Nanoparticles: Fact and Opinion. Nanomaterials 2019, 9, 1775. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano9121775

AMA Style

Duval RE, Gouyau J, Lamouroux E. Limitations of Recent Studies Dealing with the Antibacterial Properties of Silver Nanoparticles: Fact and Opinion. Nanomaterials. 2019; 9(12):1775. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano9121775

Chicago/Turabian Style

Duval, Raphaël E., Jimmy Gouyau, and Emmanuel Lamouroux. 2019. "Limitations of Recent Studies Dealing with the Antibacterial Properties of Silver Nanoparticles: Fact and Opinion" Nanomaterials 9, no. 12: 1775. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano9121775

APA Style

Duval, R. E., Gouyau, J., & Lamouroux, E. (2019). Limitations of Recent Studies Dealing with the Antibacterial Properties of Silver Nanoparticles: Fact and Opinion. Nanomaterials, 9(12), 1775. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano9121775

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