Volume 14, Issue 2 (9-2026)
J Environ Health Eng 2026, 14(2): 240-256 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Tavafi H, Tork N. An Analytical Review of Laboratory Methods for Evaluating Antibacterial Activity: Principles, Limitations, and Applications. , J Environ Health Eng. 2026; 14 (2) :240-256
URL: http://jehe.abzums.ac.ir/article-1-1175-en.html
URL: http://jehe.abzums.ac.ir/article-1-1175-en.html
1- Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, Faculty of science, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran & Assistant Professor, Department of Biothechnology, Faculty of Interdisciplinary science and Technology, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran , hadistavafi@yahoo.com
2- Master's degree, Industrial Microbiology, Razi University of Kermanshah, Iran
2- Master's degree, Industrial Microbiology, Razi University of Kermanshah, Iran
Abstract: (25 Views)
Background: One of the most important global health crises is the increase in antimicrobial resistance, especially among multidrug-resistant bacteria, which further highlights the need for accurate and reproducible laboratory methods to assess the efficacy of antimicrobial agents.
Materials and Methods: This review was conducted to compare standard laboratory methods used to evaluate antimicrobial activity, including disk diffusion (Kirby-Bauer) and broth microdilution, focusing on their applications, advantages, and limitations.
Results: Due to its high accuracy and quantitative results, the broth microdilution method is considered one of the most important reference methods and a recognized standard for determining the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC). Disk diffusion offers simplicity and cost-effectiveness for routine clinical laboratories, while agar dilution is suitable for testing large numbers of isolates. Emerging challenges such as biofilm formation require specialized assays, which are briefly discussed.
Conclusion: The selection of an appropriate method for antimicrobial susceptibility testing depends on laboratory resources and the need for quantitative versus qualitative data. These advanced approaches are expected to play a pivotal role in the future of antimicrobial therapy. Each method has its own strengths and limitations, and their complementary use is essential to advance our understanding of antibiotic resistance, improve clinical outcomes, and provide appropriate laboratory methods to prevent antimicrobial resistance.
Materials and Methods: This review was conducted to compare standard laboratory methods used to evaluate antimicrobial activity, including disk diffusion (Kirby-Bauer) and broth microdilution, focusing on their applications, advantages, and limitations.
Results: Due to its high accuracy and quantitative results, the broth microdilution method is considered one of the most important reference methods and a recognized standard for determining the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC). Disk diffusion offers simplicity and cost-effectiveness for routine clinical laboratories, while agar dilution is suitable for testing large numbers of isolates. Emerging challenges such as biofilm formation require specialized assays, which are briefly discussed.
Conclusion: The selection of an appropriate method for antimicrobial susceptibility testing depends on laboratory resources and the need for quantitative versus qualitative data. These advanced approaches are expected to play a pivotal role in the future of antimicrobial therapy. Each method has its own strengths and limitations, and their complementary use is essential to advance our understanding of antibiotic resistance, improve clinical outcomes, and provide appropriate laboratory methods to prevent antimicrobial resistance.
Keywords: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing, Disk diffusion, Multidrug resistance, Microdilution broth
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2026/07/26 | Accepted: 2026/09/4 | Published: 2026/09/20
Received: 2026/07/26 | Accepted: 2026/09/4 | Published: 2026/09/20
References
1. Basavegowda N, Baek K-H. Multimetallic nanoparticles as alternative antimicrobial agents: challenges and perspectives. Molecules. 2021;26(4):912. [DOI:10.3390/molecules26040912]
2. Bischoff S, Walter T, Gerigk M, Ebert M, Vogelmann R. Empiric antibiotic therapy in urinary tract infection in patients with risk factors for antibiotic resistance in a German emergency department. BMC infectious diseases. 2018;18(1):56. [DOI:10.1186/s12879-018-2960-9]
3. Lin Z, Yuan T, Zhou L, Cheng S, Qu X, Lu P, et al. Impact factors of the accumulation, migration and spread of antibiotic resistance in the environment. Environmental geochemistry and health. 2021;43(5):1741-58. [DOI:10.1007/s10653-020-00759-0]
4. Yue C, Shen W, Hu L, Liu Y, Zheng Y, Ye Y, et al. Effects of tigecycline combined with azithromycin against biofilms of multidrug-resistant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia isolates from a patient in China. Infection and Drug Resistance. 2021:775-86. [DOI:10.2147/IDR.S298274]
5. Chokshi A, Sifri Z, Cennimo D, Horng H. Global contributors to antibiotic resistance. Journal of global infectious diseases. 2019;11(1):36. [DOI:10.4103/jgid.jgid_110_18]
6. Senobar Tahaei SA, Stájer A, Barrak I, Ostorházi E, Szabó D, Gajdács M. Correlation between biofilm-formation and the antibiotic resistant phenotype in Staphylococcus aureus isolates: a laboratory-based study in Hungary and a review of the literature. Infection and drug resistance. 2021:1155-68. [DOI:10.2147/IDR.S303992]
7. Gonzalez-Pastor R, Carrera-Pacheco SE, Zúñiga-Miranda J, Rodríguez-Pólit C, Mayorga-Ramos A, Guamán LP, et al. Current landscape of methods to evaluate antimicrobial activity of natural extracts. Molecules. 2023;28(3):1068. [DOI:10.3390/molecules28031068]
8. Hossain TJ. Methods for screening and evaluation of antimicrobial activity: A review of protocols, advantages, and limitations. European journal of microbiology and immunology. 2024;14(2):97-115. [DOI:10.1556/1886.2024.00035]
9. Alsamahi A, Alhmoudi HAA, Mirza SB, Ridouane FL. Comprehensive analysis of nutritional composition, mineral content, antimicrobial activity, and theoretical evaluation of phytochemicals in Henna (Lawsonia inermis) from the fujairah, united Arab Emirates. Int J Biol Chem Sci. 2023;17(7):2614-30. [DOI:10.4314/ijbcs.v17i7.2]
10. Schuetz AN, Ferrell A, Hindler JA, Humphries R, Bobenchik AM. Overview of changes in the clinical and laboratory standards institute performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing: M100 32nd and 33rd editions. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2025;63(9):e01623-23. [DOI:10.1128/jcm.01623-23]
11. Dematheis F, Manzulli V, Grass G, Matuschek E, Jacob D, Melzer F, et al. European multi-centre study to establish MIC and zone diameter epidemiological cut-off values for Bacillus anthracis. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2024;30(9):1170-5. [DOI:10.1016/j.cmi.2024.05.019]
12. El-Halfawy OM, Valvano MA. Antimicrobial heteroresistance: an emerging field in need of clarity. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2015;28(1):191-207. [DOI:10.1128/CMR.00058-14]
13. van Belkum A, Burnham C-AD, Rossen JW, Mallard F, Rochas O, Dunne Jr WM. Innovative and rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing systems. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2020;18(5):299-311. [DOI:10.1038/s41579-020-0327-x]
14. Gaur P, Hada V, Rath RS, Mohanty A, Singh P, Rukadikar A. Interpretation of antimicrobial susceptibility testing using European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) breakpoints: analysis of agreement. Cureus. 2023;15(3). [DOI:10.7759/cureus.36977]
15. Marcelo GA, Galhano J, Duarte MP, Capelo-Martínez JL, Lodeiro C, Oliveira E. Validation of a standard luminescence method for the fast determination of the antimicrobial activity of nanoparticles in Escherichia coli. Nanomaterials. 2022;12(13):2164. [DOI:10.3390/nano12132164]
16. Chiu C-T, Lai C-H, Huang Y-H, Yang C-H, Lin J-N. Comparative analysis of gradient diffusion and disk diffusion with agar dilution for susceptibility testing of Elizabethkingia anophelis. Antibiotics. 2021;10(4):450. [DOI:10.3390/antibiotics10040450]
17. Gajic I, Kabic J, Kekic D, Jovicevic M, Milenkovic M, Mitic Culafic D, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing: a comprehensive review of currently used methods. Antibiotics. 2022;11(4):427. [DOI:10.3390/antibiotics11040427]
18. Wayne P. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 27th informational supplement M. 2011;100:2017.
19. Tavafi H. An investigation of antibacterial resistance patterns in isolated bacteria from contaminated water samples in poultry slaughterhouses. Biosis Biol Syst. 2020;1:85-90. [DOI:10.37819/biosis.001.02.0059]
20. Bavelaar H, Justesen US, Morris TE, Anderson B, Copsey-Mawer S, Stubhaug TT, et al. Development of a EUCAST disk diffusion method for the susceptibility testing of rapidly growing anaerobic bacteria using Fastidious Anaerobe Agar (FAA): a development study using Bacteroides species. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2021;27(11):1695. e1-. e6. [DOI:10.1016/j.cmi.2021.03.028]
21. Giske CG, Turnidge J, Cantón R, Kahlmeter G. Update from the European committee on antimicrobial susceptibility testing (EUCAST). Journal of clinical microbiology. 2022;60(3):e00276-21. [DOI:10.1128/jcm.00276-21]
22. Callebaut K, Stoefs A, Emmerechts K, Vandoorslaer K, Wybo I, De Geyter D, et al. Evaluation of automated disk diffusion antimicrobial susceptibility testing using Radian® in-line carousel. Current microbiology. 2024;81(7):196. [DOI:10.1007/s00284-024-03710-z]
23. Atmanto Y, Adi K, Abd Kadir N, Rusli B. Extended spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL) confirmation test using E-Test. Int J Recent Adv Multidiscipl Topics. 2022;5:125-30.
24. Hiflan F, Abeygoonawardena H, Karawgoda R, Chandrasiri N, Balasuriya A, Senanayake N. Comparison of broth microdilution and E-test for susceptibility of MRSA to vancomycin. Sri Lankan Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2024;14(1). [DOI:10.4038/sljid.v14i1.8598]
25. Conrads G, KLOMP T, DENG D. The antimicrobial susceptibility of Porphyromonas gingivalis: genetic repertoire, global phenotype, and review of the literature. Antibiotics (Basel). 2021: 10: 1438. [DOI:10.3390/antibiotics10121438]
26. Rodríguez-Melcón C, Alonso-Calleja C, García-Fernández C, Carballo J, Capita R. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) for twelve antimicrobials (biocides and antibiotics) in eight strains of Listeria monocytogenes. Biology. 2021;11(1):46. [DOI:10.3390/biology11010046]
27. Oliveira M, Cunha E, Tavares L, Serrano I. P. aeruginosa interactions with other microbes in biofilms during co-infection. AIMS microbiology. 2023;9(4):612. [DOI:10.3934/microbiol.2023032]
28. Elawady R, Aboulela AG, Gaballah A, Ghazal AA, Amer AN. Antimicrobial Sub-MIC induces Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation without affecting the bacterial count. BMC infectious diseases. 2024;24(1):1065. [DOI:10.1186/s12879-024-09790-3]
29. Shin H-J, Yang S, Lim Y. Antibiotic susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus with different degrees of biofilm formation. Journal of Analytical Science and Technology. 2021;12(1):41. [DOI:10.1186/s40543-021-00294-2]
30. Ben Hassena A, Abidi J, Miled N, Kulinowski Ł, Skalicka‐Woźniak K, Bouaziz M. New insights into the antibacterial activity of hydroxytyrosol extracted from olive leaves: molecular docking simulations of its antibacterial mechanisms. Chemistry & biodiversity. 2025;22(1):e202401714. [DOI:10.1002/cbdv.202401714]
31. Alshareef F. Protocol to evaluate antibacterial activity MIC, FIC and time kill method. Acta Sci Microbiol. 2021;4(5):2-6. [DOI:10.31080/ASMI.2021.04.0825]
32. Van Os W, Zeitlinger M. Predicting antimicrobial activity at the target site: pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic indices versus time-kill approaches. Antibiotics. 2021;10(12):1485. [DOI:10.3390/antibiotics10121485]
33. Gubenšek U, de Laat M, Foerster S, Boyd A, van Dam AP. Pharmacodynamics of ceftriaxone, ertapenem, fosfomycin and gentamicin in Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Antibiotics. 2022;11(3):299. [DOI:10.3390/antibiotics11030299]
34. Chiu P-W, Wang J-L, Hsueh S-C, Lee N-Y, Huang Y-T, Ko W-C, et al. Cefiderocol nonsusceptibility among carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii: data from the 2024 Antimicrobial Testing Leadership and Surveillance (ATLAS) program. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2026:e00634-26.
35. Bajaj E, Gupta A, Purwar S, Pundir S, Brar SS. A "Time-Kill" Study to Assess the Effect of Colistin on Gram-Negative Strains: An Experimental Study for Developing an Indigenous Microfluidics-Based Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Device. Cureus. 2025;17(6). [DOI:10.7759/cureus.85321]
36. NADİR Y, BATIREL AA. Review of Colistin Susceptibility Testing with Current Data. Mediterranean Journal of Infection, Microbes & Antimicrobials. 2024;13(1):1.
37. Haridas H, Raina S, Das P, Kunwar S, Gaind R. Evaluation of colistin susceptibility among Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates by broth microdilution and colistin agar test. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease. 2025:117119. [DOI:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2025.117119]
38. Bonnin RA, Emeraud C, Jousset AB, Naas T, Dortet L. Comparison of disk diffusion, MIC test strip and broth microdilution methods for cefiderocol susceptibility testing on carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2022;28(8):1156. e1-. e5. [DOI:10.1016/j.cmi.2022.04.013]
39. Khatun MR, Alam KMF, Shahrear MK, Zahan RA, Sazzad J. Determination of MIC of Different Antibiotics against Intermediate Isolates of S. aureus at a Tertiary Care Hospital by E-test. 2023. [DOI:10.36348/sjpm.2023.v08i02.003]
40. Wolf LJ, Stingu C-S. Antimicrobial susceptibility profile of rare anaerobic bacteria. Antibiotics. 2022;12(1):63. [DOI:10.3390/antibiotics12010063]
41. Datar R, Orenga S, Pogorelcnik R, Rochas O, Simner PJ, van Belkum A. Recent advances in rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Clinical chemistry. 2022;68(1):91-8. [DOI:10.1093/clinchem/hvab207]
42. Guo Y, Yuan H, Yang Y, Chen M, Wang M. Gradient guidance for diffusion models: An optimization perspective. Advances in neural information processing systems. 2024;37:90736-70. [DOI:10.52202/079017-2881]
43. Liu Y, Chen R, Liu S, Chen J, Sun M, Fan Z, et al. Eradicating biofilms: decoding persistent mechanisms and combating therapeutic strategies. Advanced Healthcare Materials. 2026;15(6):e02707. [DOI:10.1002/adhm.202502707]
44. Agboola OE, Agboola O, Ayinla ZA, Agboola SS, Olaiya OE, Oyinloye OM, et al. Integrated virtual screening for anti-caries compounds from neem: dual-target inhibition of biofilm formation and bacterial DNA replication. Biomedicines. 2025;13(9):2202. [DOI:10.3390/biomedicines13092202]
45. Alzubaidy FH, Al-saadi T, Nasser NI. Enhanced detection of bacterial biofilm formation using beetroot-supplemented Congo Red Agar: Comparison with the microtiter plate assay.
46. Khaddam W, Durgham B. Comparative analysis of biofilm detection methods and antibiotic resistance in catheter-associated uropathogens: a cross-sectional study from Syria. BMC microbiology. 2025;25(1):760. [DOI:10.1186/s12866-025-04506-2]
47. Zhang S, Lee M, Zuber F, Wang L, Navascués P, Colomina-Alfaro L, et al. A simple, reproducible, and rapid droplet culture method for the formation and characterization of microbial biofilms. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2026:180067. [DOI:10.1016/j.cej.2026.180067]
48. Unubol N, Ayaş M, Uyar NY, Mozioğlu E. Inconsistent Findings Between Crystal Violet and Congo Red Methods on Biofilms with Comparative Sugar Supplementation. Microorganisms. 2025;14(1):21. [DOI:10.3390/microorganisms14010021]
49. Stephens S, Mahadevan R, Allen DG. Establishing a quantitative link between crystal violet absorbance and biomass in biofilms. MethodsX. 2025:103630. [DOI:10.1016/j.mex.2025.103630]
50. Nasiri SN, Aghajanloo B, Nasiri N, Nazarnezhad S. Cytotoxicity and biocompatibility of green biomaterials. Green Biomaterials in Tissue Engineering: ACS Publications; 2025. p. 175-205. [DOI:10.1021/bk-2025-1497.ch005]
51. Sukach O, Maiorova O. Use of methods for determining cell viability in cryobiological research. Problems of Cryobiology and Cryomedicine. 2025;35(4):181-95--95. [DOI:10.15407/cryo35.04.181]
52. Stindlova M, Peroutka V, Jencova V, Havlickova K, Lencova S. Application of MTT assay for probing metabolic activity in bacterial biofilm-forming cells on nanofibrous materials. Journal of Microbiological Methods. 2024;224:107010. [DOI:10.1016/j.mimet.2024.107010]
53. Constante CK, Rodríguez J, Sonnenholzner S, Domínguez-Borbor C. Adaptation of the methyl thiazole tetrazolium (MTT) reduction assay to measure cell viability in Vibrio spp. Aquaculture. 2022;560:738568. [DOI:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738568]
54. Etebu E, Arikekpar I. Antibiotics: Classification and mechanisms of action with emphasis on molecular perspectives. International journal of applied microbiology and biotechnology research. 2016;4(2016):90-101.
55. Cook MA, Wright GD. The past, present, and future of antibiotics. Science translational medicine. 2022;14(657):eabo7793. [DOI:10.1126/scitranslmed.abo7793]
56. Bush K, Bradford PA. Interplay between beta-lactamases and new beta-lactamase inhibitors (vol 17, pg 295, 2019). NATURE REVIEWS MICROBIOLOGY. 2019;17(7):459-60. [DOI:10.1038/s41579-019-0221-6]
57. Yahav D, Giske CG, Grāmatniece A, Abodakpi H, Tam VH, Leibovici L. New β-lactam-β-lactamase inhibitor combinations. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2020;34(1):10.1128/cmr. 00115-20. [DOI:10.1128/CMR.00115-20]
58. Wiegand I, Hilpert K, Hancock RE. Agar and broth dilution methods to determine the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of antimicrobial substances. Nature protocols. 2008;3(2):163-75. [DOI:10.1038/nprot.2007.521]
59. Kadeřábková N, Mahmood AJ, Mavridou DA. Antibiotic susceptibility testing using minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assays. npj Antimicrobials and Resistance. 2024;2(1):37. [DOI:10.1038/s44259-024-00051-6]
60. Prescott JF. Antimicrobial drug action and interaction: an introduction. Antimicrobial Therapy in Veterinary Medicine. 2024:1-11. [DOI:10.1002/9781119654629.ch1]
61. Rhee KY, Gardiner DF. Clinical relevance of bacteriostatic versus bactericidal activity in the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections. Clinical infectious diseases. 2004;39(5):755-6. [DOI:10.1086/422881]
62. Parmanik A, Das S, Kar B, Bose A, Dwivedi GR, Pandey MM. Current treatment strategies against multidrug-resistant bacteria: a review. Current microbiology. 2022;79(12):388. [DOI:10.1007/s00284-022-03061-7]
63. Wang Z-J, Zhu Y-Y, Bai L-Y, Tang D-M, Zhou Z-S, Wei M-Z, et al. A new therapeutic strategy for infectious diseases against intracellular multidrug-resistant bacteria. Journal of Controlled Release. 2024;375:467-77. [DOI:10.1016/j.jconrel.2024.09.028]
64. Muheyuddeen G, Verma S, Yadav P, Khan MY, Ahmad T, Khushtar M. Caffeic acid: A comprehensive review of its traditional use and modern pharmacological applications by 2025. Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Químico Farmacéuticas. 2026;55(2):336. [DOI:10.15446/rcciquifa.v55n2.122741]
65. Zeng Y-f, Su Y-l, Liu W-l, Chen H-g, Zeng S-g, Zhou H-b, et al. Design and synthesis of caffeic acid derivatives and evaluation of their inhibitory activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Medicinal Chemistry Research. 2022;31(1):177-94. [DOI:10.1007/s00044-021-02810-w]
66. Pakravan N, Shayani-Jam H, Beiginejad H, Tavafi H, Paziresh S. A green method for the synthesis of novel spiro compounds: Enhancement of antibacterial properties of caffeic acid through electrooxidation in the presence of barbituric acid derivatives. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. 2019;848:113286. [DOI:10.1016/j.jelechem.2019.113286]
67. Pakravan N, Shayani-Jam H, Beiginejad H, Tavafi H. A green and efficient synthesis of novel caffeic acid derivatives with Meldrum's acid moieties as potential antibacterial agents. Journal of the Iranian Chemical Society. 2021;18(10):2679-88. [DOI:10.1007/s13738-021-02224-w]
68. Niu Y, Wang K, Zheng S, Wang Y, Ren Q, Li H, et al. Antibacterial effect of caffeic acid phenethyl ester on cariogenic bacteria and Streptococcus mutans biofilms. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2020;64(9):10.1128/aac. 00251-20. [DOI:10.1128/AAC.00251-20]
69. Tavafi H. In vitro evaluation of synergistic inhibitory effect of Propolis and Chlorhexidine on biofilm cells of oral pathogens. 2021. [DOI:10.5812/jjcmb.122091]
70. Sadrzadeh-Afshar M, Tavafi H, Niroomand S. In vitro effectiveness of antimicrobial properties of propolis and chlorhexidine on oral pathogens: A comparative study: effectiveness of antimicrobial properties of propolis and chlorhexidine on oral pathogens. Biosis: Biol. Syst. 1, 116-125. 2020. [DOI:10.37819/biosis.001.03.0062]
71. Stähli A, Schröter H, Bullitta S, Serralutzu F, Dore A, Nietzsche S, et al. In vitro Activity of Propolis on Oral Microorganisms and Biofilms. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1045. s Note: MDPI stays neu-tral with regard to jurisdictional claims in …; 2021. [DOI:10.3390/antibiotics10091045]
72. Ezazi Maleki A, Javadi A, Jafarizadeh-Malmiri H, Mirzaei H. Preparation and Evaluation of Physico-Chemical and Antimicrobial Properties of Alcoholic Extract of Propolis. Iranian Chemical Engineering Journal. 2022;20(119):31-40. [DOI:10.1016/j.fbio.2021.100894]
73. Pobiega K, Kraśniewska K, Derewiaka D, Gniewosz M. Comparison of the antimicrobial activity of propolis extracts obtained by means of various extraction methods. Journal of food science and technology. 2019;56(12):5386-95. [DOI:10.1007/s13197-019-04009-9]
74. Veloz JJ, Alvear M, Salazar LA. Evaluation of alternative methods to assess the biological properties of propolis on metabolic activity and biofilm formation in Streptococcus mutans. Evidence‐Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2019;2019(1):1524195. [DOI:10.1155/2019/1524195]
75. Almadi KH, Ahmed MA, Ghazal T, Jouhar R, Alkahtany MF, Abduljabbar T, et al. Antimicrobial efficacy of propolis in comparison to chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Applied Sciences. 2021;11(8):3469. [DOI:10.3390/app11083469]
76. Khezripour AR, Souri D, Tavafi H, Ghabooli M. Serial dilution bioassay for the detection of antibacterial potential of ZnSe quantum dots and their Fourier transform infra-red spectroscopy. Measurement. 2019;148:106939. [DOI:10.1016/j.measurement.2019.106939]
77. Hashemi A, Tavafi H, Naseri M, Mojtabazadeh H, Abedi M, Tork N. Structural and antibacterial properties of AgFe2O4 and Fe3O4 nanoparticles, and their nanocomposites. Progress in Physics of Applied Materials. 2024;4(1):37-46.
78. Lagashetty A, Pattar A, Ganiger SK. Synthesis, characterization and antibacterial study of Ag doped magnesium ferrite nanocomposite. Heliyon. 2019;5(5). [DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01760]
79. Sivakumar S, Manimaran K, Govindasamy M, Alzahrani F, Alsaiari N. Green synthesis and characterization of CuO nanoparticles using Halymenia dilatata extract and its evaluation of antimicrobial and anticancer activity. Biomass Conversion and Biore nery, 14, 27623-27632. 2024. [DOI:10.1007/s13399-022-03678-5]
80. Jamzad M, Kamari Bidkorpeh M. Green synthesis of iron oxide nanoparticles by the aqueous extract of Laurus nobilis L. leaves and evaluation of the antimicrobial activity. Journal of nanostructure in Chemistry. 2020;10(3):193-201. [DOI:10.1007/s40097-020-00341-1]
81. Akshaya S, Rowlo PK, Dukle A, Nathanael AJ. Antibacterial coatings for titanium implants: recent trends and future perspectives. Antibiotics. 2022;11(12):1719. [DOI:10.3390/antibiotics11121719]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
