title: Surface structure influences contact killing of bacteria by copper.
abstract: Copper kills bacteria rapidly by a mechanism that is not yet fully resolved. The antibacterial property of copper has raised interest in its use in hospitals, in place of plastic or stainless steel. On the latter surfaces, bacteria can survive for days or even weeks. Copper surfaces could thus provide a powerful accessory measure to curb nosocomial infections. We here investigated the effect of the copper surface structure on the efficiency of contact killing of Escherichia coli, an aspect which so far has received very little attention. It was shown that electroplated copper surfaces killed bacteria more rapidly than either polished copper or native rolled copper. The release of ionic copper was also more rapid from electroplated copper compared to the other materials. Scanning electron microscopy revealed that the bacteria nudged into the grooves between the copper grains of deposited copper. The findings suggest that, in terms of contact killing, more efficient copper surfaces can be engineered.
authors.affiliation: INM - Leibniz Institute for New Materials, Campus D2 2, 66123, Saarbrücken, Germany.
authors.forename: Marco
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Zeiger
authors.forename: Marc
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Solioz
authors.forename: Hervais
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Edongué
authors.forename: Eduard
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Arzt
authors.forename: Andreas S
authors.initials: AS
authors.lastname: Schneider
mesh_terms: D003300:Copper / Q000737:chemistry / Q000633:toxicity*; D004926:Escherichia coli / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000502:physiology; D050296:Microbial Viability / Q000187:drug effects*; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D013499:Surface Properties
chemical_list: D003300:Copper
keywords: Antibacterial activity; contact killing; copper surfaces; electrodeposition; nosocomial infection
references.citation: J Biol Eng. 2013 Mar 27;7(1):8
references.pmid: 23537176
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011 Feb;77(3):794-802
references.pmid: 21148701
references.citation: J Hosp Infect. 2010 Jan;74(1):80-2
references.pmid: 19781811
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013 Apr;79(8):2605-11
references.pmid: 23396344
references.citation: J Appl Microbiol. 2009 May;106(5):1448-55
references.pmid: 19239551
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008 Feb;74(4):977-86
references.pmid: 18156321
references.citation: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013 May;34(5):479-86
references.pmid: 23571364
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011 Mar;89(6):1963-70
references.pmid: 21085951
references.citation: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012 Feb;33(2):200-1
references.pmid: 22227992
references.citation: Environ Microbiol. 2012 Jul;14(7):1730-43
references.pmid: 22176893
references.citation: J Hosp Infect. 2006 Jul;63(3):289-97
references.pmid: 16650507
references.citation: Food Microbiol. 2012 May;30(1):303-10
references.pmid: 22265316
references.citation: J Hosp Infect. 2008 Feb;68(2):145-51
references.pmid: 18207284
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 May 19;106(20):8344-9
references.pmid: 19416816
references.citation: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013 May;34(5):530-3
references.pmid: 23571374
references.citation: J Hosp Infect. 2010 Jan;74(1):72-7
references.pmid: 19931938
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011 Sep;77(17):6049-59
references.pmid: 21742916
references.citation: Int J Food Microbiol. 2005 Dec 15;105(3):445-54
references.pmid: 16253366
references.citation: J Appl Microbiol. 2010 Dec;109(6):2200-5
references.pmid: 21040269
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011 Mar;77(5):1541-7
references.pmid: 21193661
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010 Jun;76(12):4099-101
references.pmid: 20418419
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010 Aug;87(5):1875-9
references.pmid: 20449737