Preventing bacterial growth on implanted device with an interfacial metallic film and penetrating X-rays

  • Jincui An
  • An Sun
  • Yong Qiao
  • Peipei Zhang
  • Ming SuEmail author
Engineering and Nano-engineering Approaches for Medical Devices
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Engineering and Nano-engineering Approaches for Medical Devices


Device-related infections have been a big problem for a long time. This paper describes a new method to inhibit bacterial growth on implanted device with tissue-penetrating X-ray radiation, where a thin m etallic film deposited on the device is used as a radio-sensitizing film for bacterial inhibition. At a given dose of X-ray, the bacterial viability decreases as the thickness of metal film (bismuth) increases. The bacterial viability decreases with X-ray dose increases. At X-ray dose of 2.5 Gy, 98 % of bacteria on 10 nm thick bismuth film are killed; while it is only 25 % of bacteria are killed on the bare petri dish. The same dose of X-ray kills 8 % fibroblast cells that are within a short distance from bismuth film (4 mm). These results suggest that penetrating X-rays can kill bacteria on bismuth thin film deposited on surface of implant device efficiently.


Bismuth Fibroblast Cell Colony Number Bismuth Film Initial Bacterial Adhesion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work is supported with a Director’s New Innovator Award (1DP2EB016572) from National Institute of Health. We thank Dr. Chaoming Wang for helpful discussions and some data analysis work.


  1. 1.
    Barth E, Myrvik QM, Wagner W, Gristina AG. In vitro and in vivo comparative colonization of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis on orthopaedic implant materials. Biomaterials. 1989;10(5):325–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hetrick EM, Schoenfisch MH. Reducing implant-related infections: active release strategies. Chem Soc Rev. 2006;35(9):780–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Petty W, Spanier S, Shuster JJ, Silverthorne C. The influence of skeletal implants on incidence of infection. Experiments in a canine model. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67(8):1236–44.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zimmerli W, Moser C. Pathogenesis and treatment concepts of orthopaedic biofilm infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2012;65(2):158–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hickok NJ, Shapiro IM. Immobilized antibiotics to prevent orthopaedic implant infections. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2012;64(12):1165–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Niska JA, Meganck JA, Pribaz JR, Shahbazian JH, Lim E, Zhang N, et al. Monitoring bacterial burden, inflammation and bone damage longitudinally using optical and μCT imaging in an orthopaedic implant infection in mice. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(10):e47397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lowy FD. Staphylococcus aureus infections. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(8):520–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Darouiche RO. Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(14):1422–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simon-Deckers A, Brun E, Gouget B, Carrière M, Sicard-Roselli C. Impact of gold nanoparticles combined to X-ray irradiation on bacteria. Gold Bulletin. 2008;41:187–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Norman RS, Stone JW, Gole A, Murphy CJ, Sabo-Attwood TL. Targeted photothermal lysis of the pathogenic bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, with gold nanorods. Nano Lett. 2008;8(1):302–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luo Y, Hossain M, Wang C, Qiao Y, An J, Ma L, et al. Targeted nanoparticles for enhanced X-ray radiation killing of multidrug-resistant bacteria. Nanoscale. 2013;5(2):687–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Turner AD, Lewis AM, Hatfield RG, Powell AL, Higman WA. Feasibility studies into the production of gamma-irradiated oyster tissue reference materials for paralytic shellfish poisoning toxins. Toxicon. 2013;72:35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Turner AD, Hatfield RG, Powell AL, Higman W. Potential use of gamma irradiation in the production of mussel and oyster reference materials for paralytic shellfish poisoning toxins. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2010;397(2):743–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hossain M, Su M. Nanoparticle location and material dependent dose enhancement in X-ray radiation therapy. J Phys Chem C Nanomater Interfaces. 2012;116(43):23047–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hossain M, Luo Y, Sun Z, Wang C, Zhang M, Fu H, et al. X-ray enabled detection and eradication of circulating tumor cells with nanoparticles. Biosens Bioelectron. 2012;38(1):348–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sahu SK, Kortylewicz ZP, Baranowska-Kortylewicz J, Taube RA, Adelstein SJ, Kassis AI. Strand breaks after the decay of iodine-125 in proximity to plasmid pBR322 DNA. Radiat Res. 1997;147(4):401–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jincui An
    • 1
  • An Sun
    • 2
  • Yong Qiao
    • 1
  • Peipei Zhang
    • 1
  • Ming Su
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical EngineeringWorcester Polytechnic InstituteWorcesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Management and InformaticsUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations