SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Chemistry / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 4

Characterization, mechanical, and antibacterial properties of nanofibers derived from olive leaf, fumitory, and terebinth extracts

Nilsen SUNTER EROGLU
Suat CANOGLU
Metin YUKSEK
Pages
1043–1057
Publication Date
2020-08-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This study aimed to increase knowledge on obtaining nanofiber structures, including various polymers derived from olive leaves, fumitory, and terebinth plants.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, nanofiber structures were obtained with convenient polymers (PVA [polyvinyl alcohol] and PCL [poly Omega-caprolactone]) derived from the herbal extracts of olive leaves, fumitory, and terebinth plants.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In terms of the determination of antibacterial effects, nanofiber structures of all 3 plant species proved to be effective against bacteria.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study aimed to increase knowledge on obtaining nanofiber structures, including various polymers derived from olive leaves, fumitory, and terebinth plants.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2 samples
⚙️Variables:Electrospinning · nanofiber · herbal extracts

Abstract

In this study, nanofiber structures were obtained with convenient polymers (PVA [polyvinyl alcohol] and PCL [poly Omega-caprolactone]) derived from the herbal extracts of olive leaves, fumitory, and terebinth plants. Optimum nanofiber structures were identified by measuring viscosity and conductivity values and performing morphological analysis, characterization, and mechanical tests of the prepared solutions. The potential use for wound healing at the most efficient level was determined as a result of antibacterial analysis of the structures obtained. APT (PVA/terebinth) and BFO (PCL/fumitory) nanofibers had the thinnest diameter range and the highest strength values. In terms of the determination of antibacterial effects, nanofiber structures of all 3 plant species proved to be effective against bacteria. The greatest effect was observed against Escherichia coli in the nanofiber structure containing olive leaves, with a zone diameter of 32 mm In addition, APT and BFO nanofibers had the highest values of thinness and strength. In these 2 samples, using BFO against Staphylococcus aureus and APT against Candida albicans increased their areas of activity. In the literature review, no study was available about obtaining nanofibers, especially from fumitory and terebinth plants. This study aimed to increase knowledge on obtaining nanofiber structures, including various polymers derived from olive leaves, fumitory, and terebinth plants.

🔖

Cite This Article

EROGLU, N. S., CANOGLU, S., YUKSEK, M. (2020). Characterization, mechanical, and antibacterial properties of nanofibers derived from olive leaf, fumitory, and terebinth extracts. Turkish Journal of Chemistry, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 4, 1043–1057. https://ajindex.com/articles/214926

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Abdullah Shukry N., 2014, P INT C TEXT ENG FAS, P7, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-981-287-011-7_2 Acibuca V, 2018, CUKUROVA J AGR FOOD, V33, P37 Acik G, 2020, EUR POLYM J, V127, DOI 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2020.109602 Altiok E, 2008, SEP PURIF TECHNOL, V62, P342, DOI 10.1016/j.seppur.2008.01.022 Avci H, 2013, J BIOMAT SCI-POLYM E, V24, P1815, DOI 10.1080/09205063.2013.804758 Avci H, 2019, POLYM BULL, V76, P3709, DOI 10.1007/s00289-018-2578-5 Bartnikowski M, 2019, PROG POLYM SCI, V96, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2019.05.004 Baycin D, 2007, J AGR FOOD CHEM, V55, P1227, DOI 10.1021/jf062829o Benhammou N, 2008, AFR J PHARM PHARMACO, V2, P022 Bozorgi M, 2013,
  2. SCI WORLD J, DOI 10.1155/2013/219815 Call CC, 2008, STUDY ELECTROSPUN NA. Carlisle CR, 2009,
  3. BIOMATERIALS, V30, P1205, DOI 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.11.006 Dogan C., 2016, DETERMINATION MENENG. Dogan G, 2012, INVESTIGATION POTENT. Dogan G, 2016, MICROSC RES TECHNIQ, V79, P38, DOI 10.1002/jemt.22603 Durmaz G, 2011, FOOD CHEM, V128, P410, DOI 10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.03.044 Erdogan I, 2015, J APPL POLYM SCI, V132, DOI 10.1002/app.41338 Erdogrul OT, 2002, PHARM BIOL, V40, P269, DOI 10.1076/phbi.40.4.269.8474 Ghanbari R, 2012, INT J MOL SCI, V13, P3291, DOI 10.3390/ijms13033291 Giner-Larza EM, 2000, J ETHNOPHARMACOL, V73, P61, DOI 10.1016/S0378-8741(00)00276-2 Giner-Larza EM, 2002, PLANTA MED, V68, P311, DOI 10.1055/s-2002-26749 Gulsoy S., 2013, Suleyman Demirel Universitesi Orman Fakultesi Dergisi Seri A, V14, P15 Ivanov I. G., 2014, International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, V3, P296 Jin GR, 2013,
  4. BIOMATERIALS, V34, P724, DOI 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.10.026 Koski A, 2004, MATER LETT, V58, P493, DOI 10.1016/S0167-577X(03)00532-9 Mary SA, 2015, J TEXT I, V106, P886, DOI 10.1080/00405000.2014.951247 Mondal D, 2016, INT J POLYM MATER PO, V65, P255, DOI 10.1080/00914037.2015.1103241 Otles S, 2012, ZEYTIN BILIMI, V3, P59. Ozdamar B., 2014, IMMOBILIZATION OLIVE. Rakotondramasy-Rabesiaka L, 2007, SEP PURIF TECHNOL, V54, P253, DOI 10.1016/j.seppur.2006.09.015 Ramakrishna S, 2005, INTRO ELECTROSPINNIN, P382 Ranalli A, 2006, J AGR FOOD CHEM, V54, P434, DOI 10.1021/jf051647b Ranjbar-Mohammadi M, 2016, INT J BIOL MACROMOL, V84, P448, DOI 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2015.12.024 Saxena SK, 2004, 61 JECFA. Serpi M, 2012, KAHRAMANMARAS SUTCU, V15, P7 Thong CC, 2016, CONSTR BUILD MATER, V107, P172, DOI 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.188 Topcu G, 2007, FOOD CHEM, V103, P816, DOI 10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.09.028 Tur