DOI: 10.1002/ejic.

201800709 Microreview

Antibacterial Surfaces
Self-Assembled Monolayers of Silver Nanoparticles: From
Intrinsic to Switchable Inorganic Antibacterial Surfaces
Piersandro Pallavicini,*[a] Giacomo Dacarro,[a] and Angelo Taglietti*[a]

Abstract: The layer-by-layer technique allows to graft molec-
ular monolayers on bulk surfaces that, in turn, allow to graft
monolayers of metal nanoparticles. This microreview focuses on
the preparation of such materials featuring a monolayer of sil-
ver nanoparticles (AgNP) and their use as antimicrobial surfaces
against both planktonic bacteria and biofilms. The role of Ag+
release and of direct cell/AgNP contact in the antibacterial ac-
tion will be stressed as a function of the adhesive molecular
layer, of the AgNP dimension and shape, of their surface den-
sity, and of the molecular overcoating. While these surfaces dis-
play an intrinsic antibacterial action, a further evolution will also
be reviewed, in which additional photothermal antibacterial ac-
tion can be switched on demand, using near-IR radiation and
non-spherical AgNP or a combination of AgNP with non-spheri-
cal AuNP. The intrinsic and switchable photothermal action of
these surfaces will be unraveled, and their synergistic effect
stressed.

1. Introduction tained with the silane-SiO2 surface chemistry, that after Au/S is
the most popular grafting function/material couple.[9,10] In this
The formation of molecular monolayers on bulk surfaces is an
case, R-Si(OR)3 trialkoxysilanes or R-SiCl3 trichlorosilanes react
important branch of nanochemistry, as the surfaces bearing
with the Si-OH groups on the surface of silica, glass or quartz
such monolayers are dimensionally modified on the nanoscale.
to form covalent R–Si–O–Si(surface) bonds. Once formed these
Implications are enormous, because a simple molecular mono-
bonds are not reversible, as a consequence the obtained mono-
layer allows the modification of the overall properties of the
layer is less ordered (and vertical polymerization is possible),
bulk material interfacing with a medium, e.g. hydrophilicity, hy-
but these materials profit from a much more stable grafting of
drophobicity, solvophobicity, fouling, fogging, conducibility.
the R-Si unit, allowing to prepare mechanically and chemically
Last but not least, molecular monolayers deeply influence the
resistant materials. After that the concept of (self )assembled
behavior of a bulk object in a biologically environment, chang-
monolayers was established, the idea of the layer-by-layer tech-
ing its interactions with cells and tissues, including adhesion,
nique came as an almost obvious consequence. In a seminal
biocompatibility, cytotoxicity, scaffolding and cell growth stimu-
paper in 1997, G. Decher[11] introduced the idea of grafting first
lation.[1] An arsenal of materials and of molecules populate the
a (mono)layer of a given molecule M on a bulk surface [S] and
literature in this area. The rationale (Scheme 1A) is to use a
then to lay a series of further different (mono)layers one after
molecule featuring a function X capable of specific, stable bind-
the other, by successive dipping processes in a solution contain-
ing with the atoms of a given surface. The largest number of
ing the molecule (or polymer) to be grafted, e.g. N, Scheme 1B.
examples regards gold as a surface and S as the binding group.
The driving force is the preferential interaction between the
In the late 80s and early 90s it has been shown by the many
moieties of the molecular layer exposed to the solvent and a
papers of scientist like Whitesides,[2,3] Nuzzo[4] and Allara[5] that
moiety (or the whole) of the molecule or polymer in solution.
the gold–sulfur interaction is coordinative (homolytic bond
The obtained surface can be made in a [S]–M–N–M–N.. replicat-
strength = 40 kJ/mol[6,7]) forming reversible, labile R–S––AuI
ing fashion (Scheme 1C), or in a [S]–M–N–P–Q.. fashion
bonds. In this case one can properly talk of self-assembled
(Scheme 1D), in principle continuing ad libitum the layering
monolayers of R-SH molecules on Au (flat) surfaces, as ordinate,
process.
2D-crystalline structures are obtained in a typical self-assem-
bling process, that allows self-correction of architectural mis- Modification of a bulk surface with a monolayer or with mul-
takes, as defined by the principles of supramolecular chemis- tiple molecular or nanoparticles layers can be an answer to the
try.[8] Less properly defined self-assembled monolayers are ob- problem of microbial infections spread by surfaces of common
use (e.g. touch screens in hospitals) or the problem of the for-
[a] Department of Chemistry, University of Pavia, mation of bacterial biofilms on the surface of internalized medi-
viale Taramelli, 12 - 27100 Pavia, Italy cal devices like prostheses and catheters.[12–15] Biofilms are
E-mail: piersandro.pallavicini@unipv.it sessile microbial communities with a strong mechanical and
angelo.taglietti@unipv.it
http://www-5.unipv.it/inlab/
biological resistance due mainly to their self-produced extracel-
ORCID(s) from the author(s) for this article is/are available on the WWW lular polymeric matrix[16–18] made of polysaccharides and pro-
under https://doi.org/10.1002/ejic.201800709. teins. Biofilms form after adhesion of planktonic bacteria to a

Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2018, 4846–4855 4846 © 2018 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
 Microreview

Scheme 1. Sketch of the layer-by-layer approaches described in this paper.

surface in a biological environment, e.g. on an indwelling de-
vice.[19,20] A short post-implantation period (6 h) seems neces-
sary to the formation of a stable adhering colony, that then
evolves into a biofilm in 24 h.[19–21] When a biofilm is formed
with its full extracellular matrix, it cannot be removed with a
pharmaceutical antibiotic treatment.[22,23] When it is mature,
the release of planktonic bacterial cells leads to infections
spread in the whole patient body.[24] At this stage, surgical re-
moval of the biofilm-infected device (or prosthesis) is the only
possible solution.[25] A plethora of surfaces modified with anti-
bacterial agents have been proposed to avoid bacterial adhe-
sion and biofilm formation.[26,27] The use of an inorganic anti-
bacterial agent such as Ag+ and, even more frequently, silver
nanoparticles (AgNP), is extremely popular in antimicrobial ma-
terials, also thanks to the low resistance towards silver ex-
pressed by most bacterial strains,[28] escaping the increasing
problem of bacterial antibiotic resistance.[29] Literature shows
countless examples of impregnated materials, hybrid materials
and composite materials based on silver cations or on AgNP,
that have been extensively reviewed.[30–35] In all cases, the ac-

Piersandro Pallavicini (PhD in 1991 at the Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa) is Full Professor since 2017 at the Department of Chemistry of
the University of Pavia. His research interests were first oriented towards supramolecular chemistry, controlled molecular movements and ion
translocation, for which he received in 2001 the Medaglia Nasini Prize from the Inorganic Chemistry division of SCI - Società Chimica Italiana.
Since 2007 his interests turned towards inorganic nanochemistry and its biomedical applications.

Giacomo Dacarro took is PhD in chemistry at the University of Pavia in 2008, under the supervision of prof. P. Pallavicini. From 2016 he is
a tenure-track researcher at the Department of Chemistry of the University of Pavia. His research is focused on the modification of surfaces
with coordination compounds and metallic and inorganic nanoparticles for the preparation of antibacterial materials, and on the use of
metal nanoparticles as theranostic devices.

Angelo Taglietti earned a Ph.D in Chemistry in 1995 from the University of Pavia, under the supervision of prof. Luigi Fabbrizzi, and now is
Associate Professor in Inorganic Chemistry in Pavia. His research interests focus on supramolecular systems based on transition metal ions,
synthesis and functionalization of nano-objects for sensing and theranostic applications, use of nano-objects and transition metal complexes
for antibacterial purposes

Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2018, 4846–4855 www.eurjic.org 4847 © 2018 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

tion is claimed to be exclusively due to the release of the Ag+
antibacterial cation, that may be contained as such in the mate-
rial or produced by oxidation of silver nanoparticles.
As it will be reviewed in this paper, the LbL technique allows
to prepare a molecular monolayer on a given surface, whose
moiety exposed to the solvent is able to further bind AgNP,
forming a monolayer of the latter by simple dipping the surface
in a colloidal AgNP solution(Scheme 1E). The fine tuning offered
by such approach implies the use of extremely low quantities
of silver to prepare efficient antibacterial and antibiofilm surfa-
ces, with a control over Ag+ release kinetics and the exploitation
of the additional disruptive effect played by the contact be-
tween the bacterial membrane and the high-energy surface of
environment-exposed AgNP. Moreover, the LbL technique al-
lows also the implementation of layers of NP that are not intrin-
sically antimicrobial but capable of exerting a photothermal ef-
fect, i.e. to convert radiation into heat like gold nanostars (GNS)
in Scheme 1F. This leads to antibacterial and antibiofilm materi-
als in which the hyperthermal disruption of a biofilm or of
planktonic bacteria can be switched on by laser irradiation. Us-
ing suitable absorbing photothermal NP and laser sources in
the so-called Near-IR “biotransparent window” (750–900 nm),
devices featuring photothermal surfaces can be activated by
through-tissues irradiation when implanted. In principle, such a
medical device is capable to be switched on and to disrupt a
biofilm on its surface with no need of surgical removal. In addi-
tion, we will also review the most recent innovations attained
with the LbL approach in this area, i.e. antibacterial surfaces
both featuring AgNP monolayers and capable of switchable
photothermal action. SiO2 will be the material considered as
the bulk surface: beside the wide use of glass and materials
with comparable surface chemistry for surfaces for shared use
(e.g. ITO) or implants (e.g. Ti/TiO2), polydimethyl siloxane
(PDMS) has become a popular material for medical devices, and
the SiO2-silane chemistry studied on glass or silica surfaces can
be easily transferred to pretreated PDMS materials.[36]
2. Molecular Monolayers for Grafting AgNP
Obtaining a molecular monolayer on SiO2 with a terminal X
moiety is an easy task by reacting one of the many commercial
propyltrialkoxy silanes X(CH2)3-Si(OR′)3 (R′ = -CH3 or -CH2CH3)
with the surface silanol groups. As sketched in Scheme 2, pre-
hydrolysis of the alkoxysilane is required. Non aqueous solvents
like absolute ethanol or toluene are used for these reactions,
with a SiO2 bulk fragment (e.g. a glass slide for microscopy)
dipped in a solvent containing X(CH2)3-Si(OR′)3.
The trace quantity of water needed for the alkoxysilane hy-
drolysis is adsorbed on the SiO2 surface during its pretreatment.
The maximum surface Si-OH groups is expressed by first clean-
ing glass with NH3 33 %/H2O2 35 %/water (1:1:5 in volume) and
then treating the surface with a mixture of HCl 37 %/H2O2
35 %/water (1:1:5 in volume) at 85 °C.[37] Alternatively, piranha
solution at room temperature gives similar results[38] (piranha
solution = 3:1 v/v H2SO4/H2O2 30 %). Reaction leading to B
and C in Scheme 2 was studied in detail[37] by comparing litera-
ture grafting methods for (3-mercaptopropyl)trimethoxysilane
Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2018, 4846–4855 www.eurjic.org
Microreview
Scheme 2. Reaction scheme for a trialkoxysilane reacting with a silica surface.
Sketch A represent an activated surface (maximum of Si–OH bonds).
(MPTS, X = SH, R′ = CH3).[39,40] The thiol groups firmly bind
Ag,[6,7,41,42] thus appearing as an ideal grafting function to ob-
tain AgNP monolayers (type E surfaces in Scheme 1). The proce-
dure of choice consisted in dipping pre-activated glass slides in
5 % v/v solution of MPTS in anhydrous toluene, incubating at
40 °C for 4 h, then rinsing with toluene, toluene/ethanol 1:1
and ethanol, generating a surface density (ns) of 1.34 × 1014
MPTS molecules/cm2. The complete reaction of grafted silanol
groups (B→C, Scheme 2) takes place by ageing (18 h, r.t.). Ther-
mal curing in an oven (air) at 100 °C for 16 h led to the forma-
tion of intermolecular disulfide bonds between surface-
grafted –SH moieties, that greatly reduced the number of avail-
able thiol groups (ns = 0.072 × 1014 cm–2). Preparations with
2 % v/v of MPTS in acetone (followed by washing with acetone,
acetone/ethanol and ethanol) or under the same conditions but
with water and then acetone washing for 30 s every 3 min (total
silanization time 45 min) also lead to less efficient coatings (ns =
0.116 × 1014 cm–2 and 0.382 × 1014 cm–2, respectively). It has to
be noted that the highest theoretical number of Si-OH groups
on an amorphous silica surface was calculated to be
4.9 × 1014 cm–2.[43] Considering that a X(CH2)3-Si(OR′)3 molecule
has three potential functions to bind to surface Si-OH groups,
the 1.34 × 1014/cm2 ns value for MPTS represents a fully coated
surface. Similar dipping techniques can be used to graft an ar-
senal of silanes[44] including X(CH2)3-Si(OR′)3 where X is a moi-
ety capable of interactions with AgNP, although less strong then
in the case of -SH. APTES (X = -NH2, R′ = -CH2CH3) forms dense
monolayers on glass from a solution in acetone (plus water
treatment)[45] in toluene[46] or in ethanol.[47] As a further alter-
native (see next section) PEI (polyethyleneimine) bearing an av-
erage of 4 propyltrimethoxysilane functions per polymer unit
(mw = 2000–4000) was grafted on glass from an ethanol solu-
tion at room temp.[48] or on an ITO surface.[49] Also the Cu2+
complex of a tetraaza macrocyclic ligand was bound to iso-
cyanatopropyl trimethoxy silane via the coupling reaction of a
dangling –NH2 arm with the –NCO group and grafted on glass
or quartz from an ethanol solution,[50] with the inert Cu2+ com-
plex acting as a grafting centre by electrostatic interaction with
negatively charged AgNP.
3. Intrinsic Antibacterial Monolayers of AgNP
Although proposals have been advanced,[51] a standard nomen-
clature for nanoparticles is still missing. As it is common use to
4848 © 2018 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
 Microreview

call “nanoparticles” (NP) nano-objects with a spherical shape,
while giving to less symmetric objects trivial names like nano-
rods, nanostars, nanocubes, we will also adopt this use. As
sketched in Scheme 1E, grafting AgNP on a surface can be at-
tained with the LbL technique by dipping a surface bearing a
first molecular monolayer in an AgNP solution. As mentioned
in the previous section, the monolayer must have exposed
functions capable of interacting with AgNP. Typically, AgNP are
in an aqueous solution and negatively charged, due to the ex-
tensively used citrate coating, from their typical synthesis with
Ag+ and citrate[52,53] or citrate/BH4–[54] Thus, most of the many
published examples of surface|monolayer|AgNP LbL materials
rely on the electrostatic interaction between a surface bearing
protonated amines and the negative AgNP. These are preva-
lently in the dimensional range 4 nm < d < 60 nm.[55] Glass has
been frequently used as the bulk material,[53,56,57] but examples
can be found also with materials displaying a chemistry similar
to SiO2 such as ITO,[58] TiO2,[59] mica.[60] Approaches describing
the in-situ growth of AgNP from an Ag+ solution on a bulk
surface bearing molecular monolayer of (poly)amines have also
been reported for ITO[58] and silicon/SiO2.[61] Interestingly, in
this mentioned literature based on amino-monolayers, pub-
lished earlier than 2010, the use of the top monolayer of AgNP
as antibacterial surface is not reported. In 2010 we prepared
antibacterial glass|MPTS|AgNP surfaces, with citrate-coated
AgNP (d = 7 nm) but in this case adhering on a MPTS mono-
layer on glass, that firmly grafts the NP thanks to the strong
Ag-thiolate interactions: the AgNP were not released when the
surfaces were exposed to water or in pseudo-physiological con-
ditions (PBS, phosphate saline buffer).[54] A surface concentra-
tion of 0.357 μg Ag/cm2 was obtained, corresponding to ca.
1.9 × 1011 AgNP/cm2. Slow and sustained oxidation to Ag+ was
observed, with about 15 % silver release in 15 d when the surfa-
ces were exposed to water, with an ascending/plateau trend vs.
time (Figure 1A, black up triangles). Ag+ release corresponded
to a decrease in the absorbance of the grafted monolayer (a
band at ca. 400 nm due to the localized surface plasmon reso-
nance phenomenon, LSPR), with a decrease/plateau trend both
in H2O and in PBS (Figure 1), that was attributed to the slow
formation of a Ag2O shell around the AgNP, influencing the
LSPR absorption. A test was introduced to evaluate the micro-
bicidal effect (ME) of functionalized surfaces, as a modification
of a standard procedure.[62] ME = log (NR/NF), where NF is the
number of colony forming unit (CFU) in a volume containing
planktonic bacterial after a given contact time (5 h or 24 h)
with a functionalized glass surface, while NR is the number of
CFU for the same colony and same contact time but with
a plain glass surface. With glass|MPTS|AgNP the ME found for
the reference strains used for antibacterial materials, the
Gram- Escherichia coli (E. coli) and the Gram+ Staphilococcus
aureus (S. aureus) is larger for the former (Table 1). This is typi-
cally found for antibacterial agents, as Gram+ bacteria have a

Figure 1. A: % absorbance (with respect to the value read after preparation) of a SiO2|MPTS|AgNP surface dipped in water (pink triangles) and in PBS (red
circles), vs. time, left vertical axis. Black triangles refer to Ag+ released in water from the surfaces, vs. time. Dotted curves are not fitting functions, but
graphically drawn to guide the eye. B: absorption spectrum of a SiO2|MPTS|AgNP surface at t = 0 (blue) and t = 19 d (green). Figure is a graphical elaboration
of data from ref.[54]

Table 1. ME, microbicidal effect.

μg % Ag rel. S. aureus[a] E. coli[b]

Ag/cm2 (24 h) 5h 24 h 5h 24 h
[c]
Glass|MPTS|AgNP 0.357 15.4 1.37 5.54 4.93 5.90
Glass|CuN4|AgNP[d] 0.16 n.a. 2.33 6.60 5.29 7.06
Glass|PEI|AgNP[e] 0.76 7.2 0.03 0.86 2.57 6.16
Glass|MPTS|AgNP|GSH [f ] 0.35 12 0.24 0.96 0.42 1.38
Glass|PEI|AgNPLT[g] 6.2 2.1 0.8 >5 0.9 >5
Glass|PEI|AgNTR[h] 1.87 4[i] 0.9 2.5 3.2 3.6
Glass⏐APTES⏐GNS⏐SiO2⏐APTES⏐AgNP[l] 0.6 30 0.7 1.6 1.7 5.4
[a] ATCC 6538. [b] ATCC 10356. [c] Ref.[54]. [d] Ref.[50]. [e] Ref.[48]. [f] Ref.[71]. [g] Ref.[92]. [h] Ref.[100]. [i] After 48h; [l] ref.[101].

Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2018, 4846–4855 www.eurjic.org 4849 © 2018 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

thick continuous peptidoglycane cell wall (20–80 nm) while
Gram- bacteria have a thinner peptidoglycane layer (5–10 nm)
surrounded by a phospholipidic membrane. Large ME values
showing almost 6 order of magnitude decrease of the CFU are
found for both strains at 24 h contact, allowing to candidate
these surfaces as efficient antibiofilm coatings. Interestingly, the
glass|MPTS|AgNP surface leaves a 66 % fraction of AgNP surface
exposed to the solvent[54] and prone to further LbL coating
e.g. with a thiol-bearing molecule. Although no interaction with
bacteria was studied, we also demonstrated the possibility of
controlling the overcoating of the anchored AgNP with two dif-
ferent, competing R-SH molecules, paving the way to antibacte-
rial surfaces with tunable hydrophilicity or release ability.[63] Re-
cently, MPTS has also been used to prepare antimicrobial mate-
rials by grafting on flat glass AgNP prepared from ascorbic acid
reduction of Ag+[64] and to graft AgNP on glass beads.[65] In the
latter case, a nanocomposite with silicone nanofilaments was
obtained, capable of efficient water disinfection, with a 6-order
of magnitude CFU reduction on E. coli strains.
Lower Ag surface concentration but larger ME are found for
citrate-coated AgNP adhering to a monolayer of a Cu2+ tetraaza
macrocyclic complex grafted on glass, i.e. glass|CuN4|AgNP,[50]
Table 1. Differently from MPTS, the monolayer of the CuN4 com-
plex has a not negligible ME (1.65 and 2.46 for S. aureus and
E. coli, respectively, with 24h contact time), but displays an inde-
pendent effect, due to the antibacterial action of the Cu2+ cat-
ion. The increased ME found for the glass|CuN4|AgNP surface is
supposedly due to the simultaneous action of Cu2+ and AgNP,
and to the promoted release of Ag+, that in this case is 30.3 %
in 9 days. The role of the adhesive layer under AgNP is stressed
on the glass|PEI|AgNP surfaces. These are obtained forming first
a layer of PEI-silane.[48] This is of course not a proper monolayer,
due to the polymeric and reticulated nature of PEI, that on the
glass slides adopts a flat conformation (0.25–0.45 nm thickness,
determined by ellipsometry), promoted also by –NH···O(Si) in-
teractions, that are found in some silica-grafted amines.[66,67]
Citrate-coated AgNP with d = 7 nm where adsorbed on grafted
PEI after short dipping times (15 min). Despite an apparent
lower surface density of AgNP with respect to glass|MPTS|AgNP
suggested by AFM imaging, the found Ag amount in
glass|PEI|AgNP was larger (Table 1), leading to the hypothesis
of a multilayer of AgNP embedded in the PEI layer, with most
of the nanoparticles buried in the extended polymer. A smaller
ME was observed for the more resistant S. aureus when in con-
tact with glass|PEI|AgNP, despite the release of 7.2 % Ag+ (with
respect to total silver) in water in 24h, corresponding to a quan-
tity of released Ag+ identical to that found for glass|MPTS|AgNP
in 24h. This is a strong indication that not only released Ag+
exerts an antibacterial action, but also a contact effect holds,
due to the disrupting role played by the high-energy AgNP
surface when interacting with bacterial membranes. This effect
was observed also with AgNP coated with the biomimetic
glutathione (GSH) molecule. These and analogous AgNP coated
with cysteine (Cys) can be prepared from 7 nm citrate-coated
AgNP by addition of the thiolated Cys or GSH.[63] Such AgNP
revealed a fair antimicrobial effect as colloidal solutions, despite
their low Ag+ release, with a MICs for the GSH-capped AgNP of
Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2018, 4846–4855 www.eurjic.org 4850
Microreview
180 and 15 μg/mL for S. aureus and E. coli, respectively (MIC =
minimum inhibitory concentration). This is mostly due to the
disrupting and penetrating ability of such GSH-coated AgNP
towards E. coli and S. aureus,[68] an effect observed also for pec-
tin-embedded AgNP[69] and for biosynthesized AgNP (bearing
the cell free protein of Rhizopus oryzae as coating), in the latter
case displaying antibacterial action against E. coli (Gram-) and
Pseudomonas aeruginosa.[70] The same citrate-coated AgNP
were grafted on glass|MPTS and further overcoated with GSH
on their available surface, in a typical LbL approach.[71] Despite
an identical total Ag surface concentration and a comparable
Ag+ release in 24h (15.7 % and 12 % for glass|MPTS|AgNP and
glass|MPTS|AgNP|GSH, respectively) the glass-immobilized GSH-
coated AgNP exerted a dramatically decreased ME (Table 1),
due to the complete cancellation both of their mobility and of
the contact effect. The membrane disruptive effect exerted by
the direct contact with non-overcoated AgNP was also shown
by AFM imaging, comparing E. coli shapes observed after con-
tact with plain glass (Figure 2a–c), with glass|MPTS|AgNP|GSH
(Figure 2d–f ) and with glass|MPTS|AgNP (Figure 2g–i).
Figure 2. AFM images of E. coli cells after 5h contact with plain glass slides
(a,b,c); glass|MPTS|AgNP|GSH (d,e,f); glass|MPTS|AgNP (g,h,i) (Figure repro-
duced by permission from ref.[71]. Copyright 2012 American Chemical Soci-
ety).
We reported also citrate-coated AgNP (d = 9 nm) grafted
on an APTES (aminopropyltriethoxy silane) monolayer on glass,
giving glass|APTES|AgNP surfaces with 0.73 μg Ag/cm2 surface
concentration,[47] see Figure 3 for imaging. As in the
glass|MPTS|AgNP case, the AgNP were not released in water
even after long dipping times (19 days). However 0.12 μg Ag/
cm2 were released as Ag+ in the same time, observing the larger
Ag+ release in the first 24h [0.096 μg Ag/cm2 corresponding to
80 % of the total (19 days) release]. These surfaces proved to
have an unprecedented antibiofilm activity, as observed by us-
ing S. epidermidis RP62A, a strain capable of forming biofilms.
Biofilms grown on glass and on glass|APTES|AgNP showed
at 37 °C a 105 reduction in the CFU/cm2 in the latter case, after
© 2018 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

Figure 3. Antibiofilm activity of glass/APTES/AgNP. A: CFU/cm2 for S. epidermi-
dis RP62A biofilm grown for 24 h at 37 °C on glass or on glass|APTES|AgNP
(data averaged on 3 experiments, error bars are standard errors of the
means). B and C: CLSM images of S. epidermidis RP62A biofilm grown on
glass (B) and on glass|APTES|AgNP (C) (sagittal sections of the biofilms are
below and at the right side of each panel. Scale bar = 100 μm). D, E: AFM
imaging of the pristine glass|APTES|AgNP surface (D) and after 19 days expo-
sure to water (E). Reproduced with permission from ref.[47], Copyright 2014
Elsevier.
24 h (Figure 3A). CLSM (confocal laser scanning microscopy)
images of S. epidermidis RP62A biofilm after staining with
BacLight Live/Dead viability kit showed that bacteria on
glass|APTES|AgNP (Figure 3C) were mostly red fluorescent
(dead) with only a few green viable cells, and considerably more
dispersed than those on the plain control glass (all green, via-
ble, Figure 3B). Staphylococcal cells closer to the surface of the
AgNPs-coated glass were all dead, indicating that the antibio-
film effect was exerted both by released Ag+ and by contact
with the AgNP surface.
Silanization with APTES and successive adhesion of citrate-
coated AgNP layering was used also on Ti/TiO2 bulk disks, yield-
ing Ti/TiO2|APTES|AgNP surfaces.[72] These exerted a weak
microbicidal effect, with ME = 1.26 and 1.34 for S. aureus (ATCC
6538) and E. coli (ATCC 8099) respectively, in 24 h contact time,
most probably due to the low surface coverage with AgNP. The
versatile LbL approach has been used also to obtain multilay-
ered materials, in which one or more AgNP layers are embed-
ded in polyelectrolytes. Mono and multilayers of positively
charged PEI and negatively charged, citrate-coated AgNP, were
formed on silicon chips, intercalated by PSS (polystyrene sulfon-
ate) negative layers,[73] showing efficient anti-adhesion proper-
ties against strongly adhesive Gram – bacterial strains such as
E. coli, Aeromonas hydrophila and Asaia lannenesis. AgNP were
in-situ generated in multilayers of negatively charged
Poly(acrylic acid) (PAA)/polyacrylamide (PAAm) and positively
charged Poly(allylamine hydrochloride) (PAH), adhering to glass
coverslides. These exerted an inhibitory effect towards E. coli
and S. epidermidis on agar plates.[74] A development of this
work brought to glass surfaces with a dual chemical antibacte-
rial action, thanks to a layer of polymer-embedded AgNP sur-
mounted by a SiO2 NP layer, decorated with quaternary
Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2018, 4846–4855 www.eurjic.org
Microreview
ammonium salts. This resulted in a first strong bactericidal ac-
tion thanks to Ag+ released, followed (after Ag depletion) by a
sustained antibacterial activity due to the immobilized quater-
nary ammonium functions.[75] Also flexible materials can be sur-
face-coated with an AgNP SAM to impart antibacterial proper-
ties, using a polyamine grafing layer: membranes of poly(vinyl-
idene fluoride) and poly(styrene co-maleic anhydride), over-
coated with a layer of polydopamine, allow the formation of
monolayers of AgNP, that are active against S. aureus and
E. coli.[76]
4. Switchable Antibacterial Surfaces
Nanomaterials are used in light-switched photodynamic anti-
bacterial therapy and photothermal bacterial lysis, although at
a limited extent and with nanoparticles as colloidal solu-
tions.[77,78] We recently introduced the use of the LbL technique
to allow an additional switchable hyperthermal antibacterial ac-
tion for modified surfaces by forming monolayers of photother-
mally responsive nanoparticles (Scheme 1F). These are typically
noble metal nanoparticles (Au, Ag), that feature LSPR absorp-
tion bands.[79] Depending on the shape of the nanoparticles,
such intense absorptions can be positioned in the visible or in
the NIR range, eg λmax ca. 400 nm for spherical AgNP, λmax ca.
520 nm for spherical AuNP, and λmax > 700 nm for Au nano-
stars.[80–82] Independently on their shape and LSPR λmax posi-
tion, when irradiated near the maximum of their LSPR absorp-
tion (usually with a laser source), all noble metal nanoparticles
relax thermally. The T increase depends on the irradiance of the
source, on the nanoparticles concentration in the irradiated
area, and on their absorbance at the chosen wavelength.[83,84]
LSPR bands falling in the NIR are found for larger non-spherical
nanoparticles (e.g. rods, stars, cages), and have higher extinc-
tion coefficients than in small spherical nanoparticles. This,
added to the lower energy of NIR radiations and to the already
mentioned biotransparency in the 750–900 nm window, has
pushed towards the use of non-spherical noble metal nanopar-
ticles when localized hyperthermal biomedical applications are
foreseen.[85–87] We first used the LbL technique to prepare
monolayers of GNS on glass slides bearing monolayers of
MPTS[88] and of PEI-silane,[38] as pictorially sketched in
Scheme 1F. Kinetic control of the GNS surface density is possi-
ble with this approach. Pushing the coating to its maximum
surface density, glass|MPTS|GNS slides were prepared with sur-
face concentration in the 2.0–3.0 μg Au/cm2 range, with LSPR
λmax at ca. 800 nm. The photothermal response ΔT linearly in-
creased from +2 to +20 °C (with respect to starting tempera-
ture) with a 808 nm laser source and irradiance increasing from
0.08 to 0.80 W/cm2. In this context it must be mentioned that
the maximum permitted exposure for skin is 0.32 W/cm2 at 800
nm, as established by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) Laser Safety Standards[89–91] A methicillin-resistant
S. aureus LP strain was used to grow a biofilm both on glass
and on glass|MPTS|GNS slides. No biofilm viability decrease was
observed on such surfaces without laser irradiation, as well as
when biofilms were grown on plain glass and irradiated. Using
a 808 nm laser source with 0.090 W/cm2 irradiance led instead
4851 © 2018 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

to 90 % reduction of the CFU after 10 min irradiation and 95 %
reduction after 30 min irradiation.[88]
More recently, we coupled intrinsic (chemical) and switch-
able photothermal antibacterial action by preparing surfaces
bearing monolayers of non-spherical Ag nanoparticles, with in-
tense absorptions in the NIR range.[92] Ag nanoplates (AgNPLT)
were grown on glass slides bearing a PEI-silane layer by means
of a seed-growth procedure, first forming an already described
monolayer of citrate-coated AgNP as seeds,[48] then dipping
these surfaces in a Ag+/citrate/ascorbic acid solution. Kinetically
controlled growth of an AgNPLT monolayers was completed in
2h, Figure 4A–C, with the expected[93] enlargement of the LSPR
absorption band and red shift to the NIR, Figure 4D. The Ag
concentration in the nanoplates monolayer in glass|PEI|AgNPLT
slides was 6.2 μg/cm2, a 10-fold larger value with respect to
what found in the starting seed-slides (glass|PEI|AgNP, Table 1).
The released Ag+ in water after 24 h was 0.13 μg/cm2, a larger
value then in all the cases listed in Table 1, even if the % value
was lower (2.1 %) due to the high overall Ag mass. Pure chemi-
cal (Ag+ release plus contact) ME effect of these surfaces was
large (>> 5, no surviving bacteria) at 24 h contact on both S.
aureus and E. coli. Laser irradiation of glass|PEI|AgNPLT slides at
808 nm gave intense photothermal response (ΔT = 28 °C). TME
(thermal ME) was measured after 20 min contact time under
irradiation. TME = log (NR/INF), where INF and NR are the num-
ber of CFU found for planktonic bacteria in contact with the
functionalized surface with and without irradiation, respec-
tively. TME was >>5 and 3.7 for E. coli and S. aureus, respectively,
with a dramatic increase with respect to ME with no irradiation
measured even at much longer contact times (5h) (Table 1). The
observed effect was not due to an increased Ag+ release in-
Figure 4. a–c: SEM images of glass|PEI|AgNPLT slides after different times of
seed mediated growth: (a) 15 minutes, (b) 30 minutes, (c) 2 hours. D: absorp-
tion spectra of the same slides (growth times in the graph). Reproduced with
permission from ref.[92], Copyright 2016 The Royal Society of Chemistry.
Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2018, 4846–4855 www.eurjic.org
Microreview
duced by laser irradiation (identical quantities of Ag+ were
found in water after 20 min contact time with or without irradi-
ation) but points towards a synergistic effect between Ag+ re-
lease, nanomechanical contact of bacteria with surfaces, and
local hyperthermia. In this context, colloidal suspensions of pal-
ladium nanoplates coated with an Ag film revealed bactericidal
properties under irradiation larger than those of pure irradiation
of the uncoated palladium nanoplates or the simple Ag+ ac-
tion.[94] A similar result was found for colloidal suspensions of
AuNP with an Ag shell, and overcoated with aspartame,[95] and
for colloidal solutions of Au nanorods bearing a shell of Ag and
further conjugated with antibacterial antibodies and stabilizing
polymers[96] although in this case augmented Ag+ release un-
der irradiation was invocated.
The modified LbL approach, with the formation of a seed-
surface on a bulk material bearing an adhesive molecular
monolayer, followed by the growth of Ag nanoobjects, has
been used to obtain other surfaces with monolayers of non-
spherical nanoparticles i.e. triangles (AgNTR), although not for
antibacterial purposes.[61,97] AgNTR have additional interest to
the microbiological community as their colloidal solutions[98]
showed increased intrinsic antibacterial action with respect to
spherical and rod-like Ag nanoparticles.[99] We used the stan-
dard LbL approach to graft large AgNTR (size ca. 170 nm) on a
glass surface bearing a PEI-silane layer, dipping the surfaces in
a AgNTR colloidal solution.[100] Surface Ag concentration was
1.87 μg Ag/cm2, a value between those found for AgNP and
AgNPLT surfaces (Table 1) and Ag+ release (48 h) was significant
on an absolute scale (0.075 μg Ag/cm2) although low with re-
spect to total Ag (4 %). The glass|PEI|AgNTR surfaces were
poorly dense, when referring to the number of NP, due to the
large and thick nature of AgNTR, lying flat on glass|PEI. This
gave a relatively low overall Ag surface available for interaction
with the environment. The observed intrinsic ME effect (Table 1)
was inferior to that of surfaces with lower Ag/cm2 overall con-
centration but bearing monolayers of smaller size spherical NP.
This stresses the importance of the nanomechanical contact ef-
fect exerted by an higher number of AgNP with a smaller radius
of curvature (and an higher surface energy) with respect to that
exerted by few large and flat AgNTR. Irradiation of the sharp
LSPR absorption of glass|PEI|AgNTR (λmax = 820 nm) gave ΔT =
12 °C with irradiance 0.26 W/cm2 (laser source 808 nm). The
number of CFU for planktonic strains laser irradiated for 15 min
in contact with glass|PEI|AgNTR was significantly decreased,
with TME = 2.5 and 1.5 for E. coli and S. aureus, respectively,
also in this case evidencing a synergy between irradiation and
intrinsic effect.
The contribution of intrinsic and photothermal antibacterial
action was recently separated and unravelled in multilayered
materials built with the LbL approach.[101] A GNS monolayer
was grafted on glass slides bearing an APTES monolayer and
then sealed with a 4 nm SiO2 layer to give glass|APTES|GNS|SiO2
slides, presenting an an inert glass-like surface to the environ-
ment. These surfaces gave ME = 0 when in contact with plank-
tonic E. coli and S. aureus. Laser irradiation at 808 nm, matching
GNS LSPR absorption (λmax = 810 nm) gave ΔT = +5 °C with
irradiance 0.20 W/cm2 and a TME = 1.6 and 1.2 for E. coli and
4852 © 2018 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

S. aureus, respectively, with 30 min irradiation. This is a purely
thermal effect, as no Ag+ can be released by these surfaces.
Further layers where grafted over the surfaces obtaining
glass|APTES|GNS|SiO2|APTES|AgNP, i.e. surfaces bearing a segre-
gated photothermal heating layer and a monolayer of AgNP
(d = 9 nm, citrate coated) exposed to the environment, with an
Ag concentration in the top layer of 0.6 μg/cm2.
These surfaces had the same photothermal response as the
parent glass|APTES|GNS|SiO2 and released 0.21 μg Ag+/cm2 in
24h. The intrinsic ME of the AgNP-terminated surfaces was simi-
lar to what found for comparable materials (Table 1). TME was
measured for 30 min irradiation at 0.25 W/cm2 (released Ag+ in
30 min = 0.04 and 0.05 μg/cm2 without and with irradiation,
respectively). The dramatically increased values of TME (>> 6.0
for both strains, i.e. no remaining CFU) sharply indicates a syner-
gistic effect between the intrinsic (chemical and contact) micro-
bicidal effect and local hyperthermia. An analogous trend was
demonstrated on bacteria adhering to the modified surfaces,
investigated by SEM imaging, Figure 5. Enhanced cell disruption
emerged from the combination of photothermal GNS and Ag+
release/contact with AgNP. The enhancement is remarkable
considering that the temperature increase at the surface is
identical, irrespectively of the presence/absence of AgNP.
Figure 5. SEM images showing the effect of laser irradiation on E. coli
cells attached to: (a,d, g) plain glass; (b,e,h) glass|GNS|SiO2; (c,f,i)
glass|GNS|SiO2|AgNP. Increasing power density by row: (a,b,c) = non irradi-
ated samples; (d,e,f) = samples irradiated with 5× power; (g,h,i) = 20 × power.
All scale bars are 500 nm (adapted with permission from ref.[101], Copyright
2017, Springer Nature).
5. Conclusions and Outlook
Bulk materials bearing an AgNP monolayer on the surface have
been reviewed, stressing their antibacterial and antibiofilm
properties that are due both to the slow, sustained release of
the Ag+ cation and to the direct nanomechanical action of the
high energy AgNP surface, that promote the disruption of bac-
terial membranes and lead to cell death. These materials can
be prepared with simple dipping techniques, following the
layer by layer approach with a variety of molecular monolayers
Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2018, 4846–4855 www.eurjic.org
Microreview
first grafted on the bulk material and then used to attach a
further monolayer of AgNP. The foreseen use of such modified
surfaces in implants (prostheses, catheters) or on surfaces for
common use implies that safety issues about nanomaterials
must be considered. Any nanomaterial considered, these are
connected to body penetration and accumulation of nanoparti-
cles and to the intrinsic toxiciy of the material constituting the
nanoparticles. As an example, small noble metal nanoparticles
(15 nm) can permeate the skin and intestine,[102] intermediate
dimensions nanoparticles (50 nm) may cross the blood brain
barrier,[103] and larger nanoparticles (250 nm) may accumulate
in the blood, liver, and spleen.[104] In addition, ionic silver (Ag+,
delivered by the slow oxidation of AgNP) is weakly toxic, with
a safety threshold established by the WHO for drinking water
of 0.1 ppm.[105] The presented LbL approach may overcome or
at least narrow such issues. First, it is reassuring that the surface
concentration of silver is maintained typically in the very low
0.2–0.6 μg Ag/cm2 range. Second, by choosing an appropriate
molecular monolayer for grafting AgNP, robust modified surfa-
ces are obtained that do not release nanoparticles, as in the
case of MPTS.[51,60,65] or in avery recent example of AgNP deco-
rating melamine sponges.[106] Third, the versatily and modular
nature of the LbL approach allows to freely choose among the
plethora of literature papers the safest dimensions and shape
of the AgNP to be grafted on a surface. At this stage, it must
be mentioned that very recent literature has also proposed
methods for surface decoration of bulk materials with sparse
AgNP and of formation of AgNP self-assembled monolayers on
bulk materials that skip the step of the formation of a first adhe-
sive molecular monolayer.[107,108] or use molecular monolayers
different from the traditional (poly)amines or thiols[109] This may
be of great interest on the technological point of view (due to
the simplified synthetic procedure), although mechanical and
chemical stability of the surface-AgNP assembly are still to be
fully assessed.
Of course this review does not cover and exhaust the whole
area of surface modification of bulk materials for antibacterial
and antibiofilm use. Surfaces releasing quaternary ammonium
salts,[110] peptides,[111;112], antibiotics,[113] materials coated with
graphene,[114] with Zinc oxide NP,[115] and with superhydropho-
bic polymers,[116] are some of the most frequently encountered
examples in recent literature. However, in this wide context self-
assembled monolayers of AgNP prepared with the LbL tech-
nique are a subset with some unique advantages. First, the al-
ready mentioned synthetic easiness and versatility is joined by
the double antibacterial action (Ag+ and nanomechanical) that
is strongly active towards the largest spectrum of bacterial
strains.[28] In addition, differently from the case of molecular
antibiotics, bacterial strains do not develop resistance towards
inorganic agents such as Ag+ and AgNP.[29,30] This allows to ob-
tain potentially universal antibacterial materials, that could be
used for antimicrobial surfaces of common use, or to prevent
biofilm formation in indwelling medical devices. Then, the evo-
lution featuring an additional switchable photothermal action
must be considered, opening the way to more sophisticated
materials. These fit well in the very recent trend of smart, re-
sponsive antibacterial surfaces.[117] While LbL-prepared photo-
4853 © 2018 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
 Microreview

thermal AgNP surfaces guarantee a long-term protection A. V. Kumar, S. Maharjan, S. Mushtaq, T. Noorie, D. L. Paterson, A. Pearson,
C. Perry, R. Pike, B. Rao, U. Ray, J. B. Sarma, M. Sharma, E. Sheridan,
against bacterial adhesion and proliferation, it can be foreseen
M. A. Thirunarayan, J. Turton, S. Upadhyay, M. Warner, W. Welfare, D. M.
that the supplementary photothermal action can be switched- Livermore, N. Woodford, Lancet Infect. Dis. 2010, 10, 597–602.
on on demand by through-tissues irradiation of implanted devi- [30] S. Chernousova, M. Epple, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2013, 52, 1636–1653;
ces, in case of biofilm formation. The observed dramatic syner- Angew. Chem. 2013, 125, 1678.
gistic action between chemical (intrinsic) and photothermal [31] M. L. W. Knetsch, L. H. Koole, Polymer 2011, 3, 340–366.
[32] D. R. Monteiro, L. F. Gorup, A. S. Takamiya, A. C. Ruvollo-Filho, E. Rod-
(switchable) antibacterial action suggests that this kind of ma-
rigues de Camargo, D. Barros Barbosa, Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2009, 34,
terials could efficiently tackle post-surgical infections and bacte- 103–110.
rial recolonization of internalized devices. [33] L. Guo, W. Yuan, Z. Lu, C. M. Li, Colloids Surf. A 2013, 439, 69–83.
[34] H. Cao, X. Liu, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 2010, 2,
670–684.
[35] K. Zheng, M. I. Setyawati, D. T. Leong, J. Xie, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2018, 357,
Acknowledgments 1–17.
Authors acknowledge Fondazione Cariplo for the financed re- [36] S. Kuddannaya, Y. J. Chuah, M. H. A. Lee, N. V. Menon, Y. Kang, Y. Zhang,
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2013, 5, 9777–9784.
search projects 2007-5183 and 2010-0454. CIRCMSB (Consorzio [37] P. Pallavicini, G. Dacarro, M. Galli, M. Patrini, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2009,
Interuniversitario di Ricerca in Chimica dei Metalli nei Sistemi 332, 432–438.
Biologici) and University of Pavia (FRG 2015-2017) are also [38] P. Pallavicini, S. Basile, G. Chirico, G. Dacarro, L. D′Alfonso, A. Donà, M.
kindly acknowledged for support. Patrini, A. Falqui, L. Sironi, A. Taglietti, Chem. Commun. 2015, 51, 12928–
12930.
[39] C. M. Halliwell, A. E. G. Cass, Anal. Chem. 2001, 73, 2476.
Keywords: Silver · Gold · Nanoparticles · Antibacterial [40] A. Krasnoslobodtsev, S. Smirnov, Langmuir 2001, 17, 7593.
surfaces · Photothermal effect [41] F. Frederix, J. M. Friedt, K. H. Choi, W. Laureyn, A. Campitelli, D. Mon-
delaers, G. Maes, G. Borghs, Anal. Chem. 2003, 75, 6894.
[42] P. E. Laibinis, M. Fox, J. P. Folkers, G. M. Whitesides, Langmuir 1991, 7,
3167–3173.
[1] M. Mrksich, G. M. Whitesides, Annu. Rev. Biophy. Biom. 1996, 25, 55–78.
[43] L. T. Zhuravlev, Langmuir 1987, 3, 316–318.
[2] C. D. Bain, G. M. Whitesides, Science 1988, 240, 62–63.
[44] E. Vandenberg, H. Elwing, A. Askendal, I. Lundstrom, J. Colloid Interface
[3] G. M. Whitesides, J. P. Mathias, C. T. Seto, Science 1991, 254, 1312–1319.
Sci. 1991, 147, 103.
[4] R. G. Nuzzo, B. R. Zegarski, L. H. Dubois, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1987, 109,
[45] A. V. Krasnoslobodtsev, S. N. Smirnov, Langmuir 2002, 18, 3181.
733–740.
[46] J. A. Howarter, J. P. Youngblood, Langmuir 2006, 22, 11142–11147.
[5] R. G. Nuzzo, F. A. Fusco, D. L. Allara, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1987, 109, 2358–
[47] A. Taglietti, C. R. Arciola, A. D′Agostino, G. Dacarro, L. Montanaro, D.
2368.
Campoccia, L. Cucca, M. Vercellino, A. Poggi, P. Pallavicini, L. Visai, Bio-
[6] R. G. Nuzzo, L. H. Dubois, D. L. Allara, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1990, 112, 558–
materials 2014, 35, 1779–1788.
569.
[7] T. P. Gustafson, Q. Cao, S. T. Wang, M. Berezin, Chem. Commun. 2013, 49, [48] G. Dacarro, L. Cucca, P. Grisoli, P. Pallavicini, M. Patrini, A. Taglietti, Dalton
680–682. Trans. 2012, 41, 2456–2463.
[8] J. M. Lehn, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1990, 29, 1304–1319; Angew. [49] M. Khalid, I. Pala, N. Wasio, K. Bandyopadhyay, Colloids Surf. A 2009, 348,
Chem. 1990, 102, 1347. 263–269.
[9] A. Ulman, Chem. Rev. 1996, 96, 1533–1554. [50] P. Pallavicini, G. Dacarro, L. Cucca, F. Denat, P. Grisoli, M. Patrini, N. Sok,
[10] T. Dey, D. Naughton, J. Sol-Gel Sci. Technol. 2016, 77, 1–27. A. Taglietti, New J. Chem. 2011, 35, 1198–1201.
[11] G. Decher, Science 1997, 277, 1232–1237. [51] D. J. Gentleman, W. C. W. Chan, Small 2009, 5, 426–431.
[12] P. Pallavicini, G. Dacarro, Y. A. Diaz-Fernandez, A. Taglietti, Coord. Chem. [52] P. C. Lee, D. Meisel, J. Phys. Chem. 1982, 86, 3391–339.
Rev. 2014, 275, 37–53. [53] R. M. Bright, M. D. Musick, M. J. Natan, Langmuir 1998, 14, 5695–701.
[13] F. Bertoglio, N. Bloise, M. Oriano, P. Petrini, S. Sprio, M. Imbriani, A. Tampi- [54] P. Pallavicini, A. Taglietti, G. Dacarro, Y. A. Diaz-Fernandez, M. Galli, P.
eri, L. Visai, Appl. Science 2018, 8, 845. Grisoli, M. Patrini, G. Santucci De Magistris, R. Zanoni, J. Colloid Interface
[14] M. Chen, Q. Yu, H. Sun, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 18488–18501. Sci. 2010, 350, 110–116.
[15] M. Cloutier, D. Mantovani, F. Rosei, Trends Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 637–652. [55] M. Oćwieja, Z. Adamczyk, M. Morga, K. Kubiak, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.
[16] J. W. Costerton, P. S. Stewart, E. P. Greenberg, Science 1999, 284, 1318– 2015, 222, 530–563.
1322. [56] Z. Wang, L. J. Rothberg, Appl. Phys. B 2006, 84, 289–293.
[17] J. W. Costerton, R. Veeh, M. Shirtliff, M. Pasmore, C. Post, G. J. Ehrlich, J. [57] S. H. Park, J. H. Im, J. W. Im, B. H. Chun, J. H. Kim, Microcirculation Micro-
Clin. Invest. 2003, 112, 1466–1477. chemistry 1999, 6, 71–91.
[18] M. Sharma, L. Visai, F. Bragheri, I. Cristiani, P. K. Gupta, P. Speziale, Anti- [58] R. Chapman, P. Mulvaney, Chem. Phys. Lett. 2001, 349, 358–362.
microb. Agents Chemother. 2008, 52, 299–305. [59] L. Juan, Z. Zhimin, M. Anchun, L. Lei, Z. Jingchao, Int. J. Nanomed. 2010,
[19] E. M. Hetrick, M. H. Schoenfisch, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2006, 35, 780–789. 5, 261–267.
[20] A. G. Gristina, Science 1987, 237, 1588–1595. [60] A. Michna, Z. Adamczyk, B. Siwek, M. Oćwieja, J. Colloid Interface Sci.
[21] K. A. Poelstra, N. A. Barekzi, A. M. Rediske, A. G. Felts, J. B. Slunt, D. W. 2010, 345, 187–193.
Grainger, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2002, 60, 206–215. [61] S. J. Huo, X. K. Xue, Q. X. Li, S. F. Xu, W. B. Cai, J. Phys. Chem. B 2006, 110,
[22] T. J. Marrie, J. Nelligan, J. W. Costerton, Circulation 1982, 66, 1339–1341. 25721–25728.
[23] A. W. Smith, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 2005, 57, 1539–1550. [62] CEN (CEN European Committee for Standardization) EN 13697 Chemical
[24] R. O. Darouiche, N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 350, 1422–1429. Disinfectants and Antiseptics – Quantitative Nonporous Surface Test for
[25] J. W. Costerton, Z. Lewandowski, D. E. Caldwell, D. R. Korber, H. M. Lap- the Evaluation of Bactericidal and/or Fungicidal Activity of Chemical
pin-Scott, Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 1995, 49, 711–745. Disinfectants used in Food, Industrial, Domestic and Institutional Areas
[26] D. Campoccia, L. Montanaro, C. R. Arciola, Biomaterials 2013, 34, 8533– – Test Method and Requirements (Phase 2, Step 2), CEN, Brussels, 2002.
8554. [63] P. Pallavicini, C. Bernhard, G. Dacarro, F. Denat, Y. A. Diaz-Fernandez, C.
[27] I. Francolini, C. Vuotto, A. Piozzi, G. Donelli, APMIS 2017, 125, 392–417. Goze, L. Pasotti, A. Taglietti, Langmuir 2012, 28, 3558–3568.
[28] J. L. Clement, P. S. Jarret, Met.-Based Drugs 1994, 1, 467. [64] S. Rastegarzadeh, M. Azarkish, S. Abdali, Surf. Interface Anal. 2015, 47,
[29] K. K. Kumarasamy, M. A. Toleman, T. R. Walsh, J. Bagaria, F. Butt, R. Bala- 961–968.
krishnan, U. Chaudhary, M. Doumith, C. G. Giske, S. Irfan, P. Krishnan, [65] M. Meier, A. Suppiger, L. Eberl, S. Seeger, Small 2017, 13, 1601072.

Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2018, 4846–4855 www.eurjic.org 4854 © 2018 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

[66] S. Goubert-Renaudin, M. Etienne, S. Brand`es, M. Meyer, F. Denat, B. Le-
beau, A. Walcarius, Langmuir 2009, 25, 9804–9813.
[67] M. Etienne, S. Goubert-Renaudin, Y. Rousselin, C. Marichal, F. Denat, B.
Lebeau, A. Walcarius, Langmuir 2009, 25, 3137–3145.
[68] E. Amato, Y. A. Diaz-Fernandez, A. Taglietti, P. Pallavicini, L. Pasotti, L.
Cucca, C. Milanese, P. Grisoli, C. Dacarro, J. M. Fernandez-Hechavarria, V.
Necchi, Langmuir 2011, 27, 9165–9173.
[69] P. Pallavicini, C. R. Arciola, F. Bertoglio, S. Curtosi, G. Dacarro, A. D′Agos-
tino, F. Ferrari, D. Merli, C. Milanese, S. Rossi, A. Taglietti, M. Tenci, L. Visai,
J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 498, 271–281.
[70] B. Ramalingam, T. Parandhaman, S. K. Das, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces
2016, 8, 4963–4976.
[71] A. Taglietti, Y. A. Diaz-Fernandez, E. Amato, L. Cucca, G. Dacarro, P. Grisoli,
V. Necchi, P. Pallavicini, L. Pasotti, M. Patrini, Langmuir 2012, 28, 8140–
8148.
[72] L. Juan, Z. Zhimin, M. Anchun, L. Lei, Z. Jingchao, Int. J. Nanomed. 2010,
5, 261–267.
[73] T. Kruk, K. Szczepanowicz, D. Kręgiel, L. Szyk-Warszyńska, P. Warszyński,
Colloids Surf. B 2016, 137, 158–166.
[74] D. Lee, R. E. Cohen, M. F. Rubner, Langmuir 2005, 21, 9651–9659.
[75] Z. Li, D. Lee, X. Sheng, R. E. Cohen, M. F. Rubner, Langmuir 2006, 22,
9820–9823.
[76] J. H. Wang, Y. H. Chen, Y. N. Chen, J. H. Li, Colloid Polym. Sci. 2017, 295,
2191–2196.
[77] D. Pissuwan, C. H. Cortie, S. M. Valenzuela, M. B. Cortie, Trends Biotechnol.
2010, 28, 207–213.
[78] Y. Feng, L. Liu, J. Zhang, H. Aslan, M. Dong, J. Mater. Chem. B 2017, 5,
8631–8652.
[79] A. Moores, A. F. Goettmann, New J. Chem. 2006, 30, 1121–1132.
[80] C. Burda, X. Chen, R. Narayanan, M. A. El-Sayed, Chem. Rev. 2005, 105,
1025–1102.
[81] P. Pallavicini, A. Donà, A. Casu, G. Chirico, M. Collini, G. Dacarro, A. Falqui,
C. Milanese, L. Sironi, A. Taglietti, Chem. Commun. 2013, 49, 6265–6267.
[82] A. Casu, E. Cabrini, A. Donà, A. Falqui, Y. A. Diaz-Fernandez, C. Milanese,
A. Taglietti, P. Pallavicini, Chem. Eur. J. 2012, 18, 9381–9390.
[83] S. Link, M. A. El-Sayed, Int. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2000, 19, 409–453.
[84] A. O. Govorov, H. H. Richardson, Nano Today 2007, 2, 30–38.
[85] H. Liao, C. L. Nehl, J. H. Hafner, Nanomedicine-UK 2006, 1, 201–208.
[86] P. K. Jain, X. H. Huang, I.-H. El-Sayed, M. A. El-Sayed, Acc. Chem. Res. 2008,
41, 1578–1586.
[87] L. Mocan, F. A. Tabaran, T. Mocan, T. Pop, O. Mosteanu, L. Agoston-
Coldea, C. T. Matea, D. Gonciar, C. Zdrehus, C. Iancu, Int. J. Nanomed.
2017, 12, 2255–2263.
[88] P. Pallavicini, A. Donà, A. Taglietti, P. Minzioni, M. Patrini, G. Dacarro, G.
Chirico, L. Sironi, N. Bloise, L. Visai, L. Scarabelli, Chem. Commun. 2014,
50, 1969–1971.
[89] H. Yuan, A. M. Fales, T. Vo-Dinh, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 11358–
11361.
[90] H. Yuan, C. G. Khoury, C. M. Wilson, G. A. Grant, A. J. Bennett, T. Vo-Dinh,
Nanomed-Nanotechnol 2012, 8, 1355–1363.
[91] ANSI, American National Standard for Safe Use of Lasers, Laser Institute
of America, Orlando, FL, 2000.
Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2018, 4846–4855 www.eurjic.org
Microreview
[92] A. D'Agostino, A. Taglietti, P. Grisoli, G. Dacarro, L. Cucca, M. Patrini, P.
Pallavicini, RSC Adv. 2016, 6, 70414–70423.
[93] D. Aherne, D. M. Ledwith, M. Gara, J. M. Kelly, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2008,
18, 2005–2016.
[94] S. Mo, X. Chen, M. Chen, C. He, Y. Lu, N. Zheng, J. Mater. Chem. B 2015,
3, 6255–6260.
[95] C. Fasciani, M. J. Silvero, M. A. Anghel, G. A. Arguello, M. C. Becerra, J. C.
Scaiano, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 17394–17397.
[96] K. C. L. Black, T. S. Sileika, J. Yi, R. Zhang, J. G. Rivera, P. B. Messersmith,
Small 2014, 10, 169–178.
[97] K. Aslan, J. R. Lakowicz, C. D. Geddes, J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 6247–
6251.
[98] I. Pastoriza-Santos, L. M. Liz-Marzan, J. Mater. Chem. 2008, 18, 1724–1737.
[99] S. Pal, Y. K. Tak, J. M. Song, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73, 1712–1720.
[100] A. D'Agostino, A. Taglietti, R. Desando, M. Bini, M. Patrini, G. Dacarro, L.
Cucca, P. Pallavicini, P. Grisoli, Nanomaterials 2017, 7, 7.
[101] P. Pallavicini, B. Bassi, G. Chirico, M. Collini, G. Dacarro, E. Fratini, P.
Grisoli, M. Patrini, L. Sironi, A. Taglietti, M. Moritz, I. Sorzabal-Bellido, A.
Susarrey-Arce, E. Latter, A. J. Beckett, I. A. Prior, R. Raval, Y. A. D. Fernan-
dez, Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 5259.
[102] G. Sonavane, K. Tomoda, A. Sano, H. Ohshima, H. Terada, K. Makino,
Colloids Surf. B 2008, 65, 1–10.
[103] G. Sonavane, K. Tomoda, K. Makino, Colloids Surf. B 2008, 66, 274–280.
[104] W. H. De Jong, W. I. Hagens, P. Krystek, M. C. Burger, A. J. A. M. Sips,
R. R. Geertsma, Biomaterials 2008, 29, 1912–1919.
[105] Centre for Research into Environment and Health. Silver: Water Disin-
fection and Toxicity; World Health Organization: Geneva, 2014.
[106] J. Pinto, D. Magrì, P. Valentini, F. Palazon, J. A. Heredia-Guerrero, S. Lauci-
ello, S. Barroso-Solares, L. Ceseracciu, P. P. Pompa, A. Athanassiou, D.
Fragouli, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 16095–16104.
[107] J. Wang, J. Li, G. Guo, Q. Wang, J. Tang, Y. Zhao, H. Qin, T. Wahafu, H.
Shen, X. Liu, X. Zhang, Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 32699.
[108] K. J. Brobbey, J. Haapanen, M. Gunell, J. M. Mäkelä, E. Eerola, M. Toi-
vakka, J. J. Saarinen, Appl. Surf. Sci. 2017, 420, 558–565.
[109] S. Ferraris, M. Miola, A. Cochis, B. Azzimonti, L. Rimondini, E. Prenesti,
E. Vernè, Appl. Surf. Sci. 2017, 396, 461–470.
[110] P. Makvandi, R. Jamaledin, M. Jabbari, N. Nikfarjam, A. Borzacchiello,
Dent. Mater. 2018, 34, 851–867.
[111] Y. R. Zhao, W. Yang, C. X. Chen, J. Q. Wang, L. M. Zhang, H. Xu, Curr.
Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2018, 35, 112–123</jnl>.
[112] G. Laverty, Future Microbiol. 2018, 13, 5–7.
[113] E. L. Cyphert, H. A. von Recum, Exp. Biol. Med. 2017, 242, 788–798.
[114] P. C. Henriques, I. Borges, A. M. Pinto, F. D. Magalhaes, I. C. Goncalves,
Carbon 2018, 132, 709–732.
[115] P. Sivakumar, M. Lee, Y. S. Kim, M. S. Shim, J. Mater. Chem. B 2018, 6,
4852–4871.
[116] K. Ellinas, A. Tserepi, E. Gogolides, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 250,
132–157.
[117] X. Li, B. Wu, H. Chen, K. Nan, Y. Jin, L. Sun, B. Wang, J. Mater. Chem. B
2018, 6, 4274–4292.
Received: June 6, 2018
4855 © 2018 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim