Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27474680›Full record

ArticleCarbohydrate polymers2016

Synthesis, structure and antimicrobial property of green composites from cellulose, wool, hair and chicken feather.

Chieu D Tran, Franja Prosenc, Mladen Franko, Gerald Benzi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Carbohydrate polymers, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chieu D TranDepartment of Chemistry, Marquette University, P.O. Box 1881, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA. Electronic address: chieu.tran@marquette.edu.
Franja ProsencDepartment of Chemistry, Marquette University, P.O. Box 1881, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA.
Mladen FrankoDepartment of Chemistry, Marquette University, P.O. Box 1881, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA.
Gerald BenziDepartment of Chemistry, Marquette University, P.O. Box 1881, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA.
Marquette University · US

Funding

Polysaccharide Ecocomposite Materials: Recyclable Synthesis and ApplicationsR15GM099033 · NIGMS · MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY · PI TRAN, CHIEU D. · 2012 to 2012
$339k
NIGMS NIH HHS R15 GM099033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Novel composites between cellulose (CEL) and keratin (KER) from three different sources (wool, hair and chicken feather) were successfully synthesized in a simple one-step process in which butylmethylimidazolium chloride (BMIm(+)Cl(-)), an ionic liquid, was used as the sole solvent. The method is green and recyclable because [BMIm(+)Cl(-)] used was recovered for reuse. Spectroscopy (FTIR, XRD) and imaging (SEM) results confirm that CEL and KER remain chemically intact and homogeneously distributed in the composites. KER retains some of its secondary structure in the composites. Interestingly, the minor differences in the structure of KER in wool, hair and feather produced pronounced differences in the conformation of their corresponding composites with wool has the highest α-helix content and feather has the lowest content. These results correlate well with mechanical and antimicrobial properties of the composites. Specifically, adding CEL into KER substantially improves mechanical strength of [CEL+KER] composites made from all three different sources, wool, hair and chicken feathers i.e., [CEL+wool], [CEL+hair] and [CEL+feather]. Since mechanical strength is due to CEL, and CEL has only random structure, [CEL+feather] has, expectedly, the strongest mechanical property because feather has the lowest content of α-helix. Conversely, [CEL+wool] composite has the weakest mechanical strength because wool has the highest α-helix content. All three composites exhibit antibacterial activity against methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The antibacterial property is due not to CEL but to the protein and strongly depends on the type of the keratin, namely, the bactericidal effect is strongest for feather and weakest for wool. These results together with our previous finding that [CEL+KER] composites can control release of drug such as ciprofloxacin clearly indicate that these composites can potentially be used as wound dressing.

Indexed as

ChickensAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCelluloseChemistry Techniques, SyntheticFeathersGreen Chemistry TechnologyHairKeratinsMechanical PhenomenaWoolAnti-Bacterial AgentsCelluloseKeratinsAntibacteriaGreenIonic liquidKeratinWound dressing

Identifiers

PMID27474680
PMCPMC4968586
OpenAlexW2415616559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.