Effect of Surface Charge and Hydrophobicity Modulation on the Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Potential of Magnetic Iron Nanoparticles

Table 1

Antibacterial effects of MNPs with different surface groups.

Iron coating or functional group	Surface charge (mV)	Hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity	Bacterial strain tested	Effect on bacteria	Ref.
Iron functionalized with Henna Extract “2-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone” and Gardenia Leave Extract	—	—	E. coli, S. enterica, P. mirabilis, and S. aureus	Inhibited growth	[34]
OA-MNP	−40	Hydrophobic	S. aureus and P. aeruginosa	(i) Inhibited growth	[35]
				(ii) Showed antibiofilm activity
Glycerol, MNPs	—	Hydrophilic	P. aeruginosa, E. faecalis	Stimulated growth	[36]
Extract of A. Mexicana, MNPs	—	Hydrophilic	E. coli, P. mirabilis, and B. subtilis	Inhibited growth	[37]
MNPs	—	Hydrophilic		No effect
Chitosan-MNPs	61.8	Hydrophilic	E. Coli	Inhibited growth	[38]
MNPs	43.7	Hydrophilic	S. aureus and S. epidermidis	Inhibited growth	[39]
CES-MNPs	−15.4	Hydrophilic		Inhibited growth
APTES-MNPs	32.6	Hydrophilic		Inhibited growth
PEG-MNPs	−7.7	Amphiphilic		No effect
MNP	−32.2	Hydrophilic	B. subtilis and E. coli	No effect	[8]
Chitosan-MNP	+36.2	Hydrophilic		Inhibited growth
Streptomycin-chitosan-MNPs	—	Hydrophilic	S. aureus	Enhanced antibacterial activity	[40]
Ampicillin-chitosan-MNPs	+14.4	Hydrophilic	M. tuberculosis	Enhanced antibacterial activity	[41]
PVA-MNPs	−19	Amphiphilic	S. aureus	Inhibited growth	[42]
Citric acid-MNPs	−30	Hydrophilic	M. smegmatis	No effect	[43]
Polyacrylic acid-MNPs	−30	Hydrophilic	M. smegmatis	No effect	[7]

The OA-IONPs showed more potent antibiofilm inhibitory activity against Gram-positive bacteria S. aureus as compared to Gram-negative bacteria P. aeruginosa.