Antibacterial surfaces were prepared using a base polyethylene sheet topped with a layer containing a mixed powder of poly (vinylidene fluoride) and photosensitizers (PSs). A crimpled stamp was placed on the mixed powder, and then it was passed through a heating and pressing device. The three chosen PSs were rose bengal, toluidine blue O and methylene blue. Scanning electron microscope analysis showed that the PS surface texture was coarse and highly developed. Measurement of the apparent contact angles of the droplets deposited on the PS surfaces using goniometry showed that all three surfaces were hydrophobic. Photodynamic analysis of the surfaces into which the PSs were incorporated indicated significant reactive oxygen species formation after illumination with light fluency rate of 1.46 mW cm(-2) for 30 min. Photodynamic inactivation assays performed in nutrient broth demonstrated more than 4 log reduction of the attached Escherichia coli after illumination (1.46 mW cm(-2)) for 24 h when the inoculum was 10(3) CFU mL(-1). However, more than 4 log reduction of Staphylococcus aureus occurred even when the cultures were illuminated for only 6 h. Our results provide an inexpensive, simple, state-of-the-art method for preparing antibacterial surfaces that may help prevent infections in hospital surroundings and in some medical devices.

No abstract

The spectroscopic and biological properties of the new photosensitizer lutetium texaphyrin (Lu-Tex) were assessed in vitro and in vivo on a C26 colon carcinoma model, in comparison with hematoporphyrin (Hp), photofrin II (PII) and chlorin e 6( Chl ). Strong binding of Lu-Tex to lipid bilayer membranes was observed. The results of confocal fluorescence microscopy on C26 cells showed that Lu-Tex was localized in small vesicles in the cytoplasm, possibly in the lysosomes, while Chl and Hp were distributed in larger cytoplasmic vesicles attributed to mitochondria. Scanning electron microscopy and X-ray microanalysis revealed that photodynamic therapy with Lu-Tex induced only slight damage to the cell membrane, leading to a delayed cell response. Chl and Hp caused significant structural damage to the outer cell membrane, resulting in ionic imbalance and fast cell death. The in vitro quantitative assessment of the relative efficiency per absorbed photon of the sensitizers revealed that Lu-Tex was less effective than Chl and Hp . However, the results of our in vivo study showed that at the same light and drug doses the anti-tumor efficiency of the agents was in the following order: Lu-Tex > Chl > PII . The strong in vivo anti-tumor effect of Lu-Tex can be explained by its higher integrated absorption in the long-wavelength range.

No abstract

No abstract