Abstract
In actual context, when the terms of biomass and bioenergy are extensively used, it becomes clear that the comparative study of some biopolymers, such as cellulose and chitosan, can offer a large usage range, based on the scientific progress obtained in the biomaterials field. Starting from the structural similarity of these two polymers, we synthesized composite materials by grafting on their surface biocide substances (phosphonium salts). After testing the biocidal effect, we can conclude that the antibacterial effect depends on the ratio of support to phosphonium salt, influenced by the interaction between the cationic component of the biocides and by the anionic component of the bacterial cellular membrane. It was also observed that for the materials obtained by cellulose functionalization with tri-n-butyl-hexadecyl phosphonium bromide, the bacterial effect on E. coli strain was much better when chitosan was used as the support material.
Highlights
Cellulose and and chitosan chitosanare arethe themost mostabundant abundantnatural natural polymers [1–4], being of anipolymers [1–4], being of animal malvegetal or vegetal origin [3–7], non-toxic biodegradable of these polymers preor origin [3–7], non-toxic and and biodegradable [3]. [3].BothBoth of these polymers present, sent, grafted ontostructure, their structure, different functional thatthem confer them with good grafted onto their different functional groupsgroups that confer with good biocombiocompatibility and superior properties toprecursors natural precursors [3,8–10].Thebiopolymers studied bipatibility and superior properties to natural [3,8–10]
We aim to prepare, characterize and compare the antimicrobial activity of materials prepared by the functionalization of two natural polymers with phosphonium salts
To prepare the materials used in present study, two different support materials were used: chitosan
Summary
Cellulose and and chitosan chitosanare arethe themost mostabundant abundantnatural natural polymers [1–4], being of anipolymers [1–4], being of animal malvegetal or vegetal origin [3–7], non-toxic biodegradable of these polymers preor origin [3–7], non-toxic and and biodegradable [3]. [3].BothBoth of these polymers present, sent, grafted ontostructure, their structure, different functional thatthem confer them with good grafted onto their different functional groupsgroups that confer with good biocombiocompatibility and superior properties toprecursors natural precursors [3,8–10].Thebiopolymers studied bipatibility and superior properties to natural [3,8–10]. BothBoth of these polymers present, sent, grafted ontostructure, their structure, different functional thatthem confer them with good grafted onto their different functional groupsgroups that confer with good biocombiocompatibility and superior properties toprecursors natural precursors [3,8–10]. A structural symmetrysymmetry [2,11,12], being formed the same basic structural units, linked the same β-glyosidic bonds. The main from the same basic structural units,by linked by the same β-glyosidic. Thedifference main difbetween these compounds is the presence of amino grafted grafted at C2 inatthe of ference between these compounds is the presence of groups amino groups. C2case in the chitosan and theand presence of hydroxyl groups groups in the case of cellulose (Figure (Figure 1). Case of chitosan the presence of hydroxyl in the case of cellulose.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
