Hierarchical Rose Petal Surfaces Delay the Early-Stage Bacterial Biofilm Growth

Abstract

15 A variety of natural surfaces exhibit antibacterial properties; as a result significant efforts in 16 the past decade have been dedicated towards fabrication of biomimetic surfaces that can help 17 control biofilm growth. Examples of such surfaces include rose petals, which possess 18 hierarchical structures like the micro-papillae measuring tens of microns and nano-folds that 19 range in the size of 700 ±100 nm. We duplicated the natural structures on rose-petal surfaces 20 via a simple UV-curable nanocasting technique, and tested the efficacy of these artificial 21 surfaces in preventing biofilm growth using clinically relevant bacteria strains. The rose-petal 22 structured surfaces exhibited hydrophobicity (contact angle~130.8º ±4.3º) and high contact 23 angle hysteresis (~91.0° ±4.9°). Water droplets on rose-petal replicas evaporated following the 24 constant contact line mode, indicating the likely coexistence of both Cassie and Wenzel states 25 (Cassie-Baxter impregnating wetting state). Fluorescent microscopy and image analysis

Advances in Bacterial Biofilm Management for Maintaining Microbiome Homeostasis

“…The micro‐ and nanostructures disrupt the initial attachment of the microbes on the surfaces by introducing water in between the microbial‐surface interface that interferes with the sufficient adhesion on the surfaces (Figure 2C). [ 22,23 ] Additionally, these spear‐like micro‐ and nanostructures can influence microbial lysis. This approach has been employed in developing implant surfaces to prevent microbial biofilm propagation.…”

“…Such an approach has been demonstrated on titanium surfaces formed by intertwining larger nano‐spears [ 22 ] and on epoxy materials that mimic the surface of rose petals. [ 23 ] These surfaces can inhibit biofilm formation of S. epidermidis and P. aeruginosa by 4–8 times lesser microbial biomass after incubation. [ 22,23 ]…”

“…[ 23 ] These surfaces can inhibit biofilm formation of S. epidermidis and P. aeruginosa by 4–8 times lesser microbial biomass after incubation. [ 22,23 ]…”

“…Briefly, the physical approaches encompass the use of bioelectricity, [ 6 ] ultrasonic, [ 7 ] material surface engineering, [ 22 ] and mechanical shearing. [ 23 ] In contrast, chemical approaches will cover the use of metal ion‐chelation, surfactants, [ 8 ] natural products, nitric oxide, and other chemicals. In the biological approaches, we look at the modulation of microbial behavior as an alternative targeting mechanism.…”

Bacterial nanotubes mediate bacterial growth on periodic nano-pillars

“…In particular, surface modifications that physically create rational surface topographies have attracted attention in recent years, and have shown to inhibit bacterial attachment and biofilm growth without the use of antimicrobials. 2,[9][10][11] A comprehensive understanding of the interactions between bacteria and materials with different surface topographies may pave the way for more effective strategies to control biofilm growth.…”