Slashdot Mirror


Nanotech Paint To Kill Bacteria

ColGraff points out reporting at Science News about the possibility of killing bacteria with paint. Scientists in the UK have found that high concentrations of titanium oxide nanoparticles in paint can kill bacteria by creating hydroxyl radicals when exposed to ordinary fluorescent light. Titanium dioxide is present in most white paint at concentrations of 30% or so, but not always at nanoparticle scale. The researchers found that an 80% concentration of TiO2 nanoparticles worked well to kill E. Coli bacteria. There is hope that the technique could be used against "superbugs," which are resistant to multiple antibiotics. A researcher not associated with the UK team pointed out the problem with developing products based on this idea: "[A]nything that survives and sticks around grows greater resistance... ultimately [antibiotic paint] will be its own worst enemy and the bacteria could grow to be even stronger."

4 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. Let's hope they keep it controller by Zarhan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tetrasodium-including soaps have already given a free boot camp for bacterias at home when folks have been buying the stuff thinking it somehow makes places healthier. There's a difference between clean and sterile environments, and clean is really all that you need.

  2. Needs more research by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A researcher [...] pointed out the problem [...]: "[A]nything that survives and sticks around grows greater resistance"

    If those were his words, then I guess this "researcher" needs to do a bit more research, perhaps starting with a book written by a certain "Charles Darwin".

    If the bacteria "stick around" it's because they are already resistant. Meaning they get to multiply, not to "grow greater resistance" (if they survived, their resistance is as "great" as it needs to be).

    All that antibiotics do (in the long run) is change the relative populations of different kinds of bacteria (eliminating the ones that aren't resistant, leaving more room and resources for the resistant ones to grow). They don't actively make bacteria "get stronger", as the quote suggests. It's not as if the bacteria send a sample of the antibiotic to their underground lab where bacterial boffins come up with an antidote. They don't even have proper immune systems.

    It's annoying when even "scientists" attribute some sort of "guiding intelligence" to the process of natural selection (or to individual bacteria, for that matter).

    P.S. - And yes, I'm aware of plasmids, but bacteria can't suddenly rush out to buy some when they need them [ * ], so it's still a matter of selection, not "self-improvement".

    [ * ] Unless they're playing Bioshock.

  3. Re:A researcher says what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So we get bacteria who adapt to live in conditions that are totally unlike the conditions inside a human body.

    Was this supposed to be a bad thing?

    (Captcha: fitness. I swear, the thing has a mind of its own.)

  4. Re:A researcher says what? by tmosley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Antibacterial soaps target specific molecules on the surface of bacterial membranes, or interfere with some metabolic process. This stuff directly oxidizes the bonds on the surface of the membrane. The only way to develop resistance would be to change the nature of the membrane dramatically.

    That would mean (by definition) that they have evolved into a new species. More than likely, they wouldn't be able to live inside the body anymore.

    I am working on developing a similar technology in my lab, one that I would argue is better, because it doesn't require light or UV.