Mechanochemical Preparation, Solid-State Characterization, and Antimicrobial Performance of Copper and Silver Nitrate Coordination Polymers with L- and DL-Arginine and Histidine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The antimicrobial activity of the novel coordination polymers obtained by co-crystallizing the amino acids arginine or histidine, as both enantiopure L and racemic DL forms, with the salts Cu(NO3)2 and AgNO3 has been investigated to explore the effect of chirality in the cases of enantiopure and racemic forms. The compounds [Cu·AA·(NO3)2]CPs and [Ag·AA·NO3]CPs (AA = L-Arg, DL-Arg, L-His, DL-His) were prepared by mechanochemical, slurry, and solution methods and characterized by X-ray single-crystal and powder diffraction in the cases of the copper coordination polymers, and by powder diffraction and by solid-state NMR spectroscopy in the cases of the silver compounds. The two pairs of coordination polymers, [Cu·L-Arg·(NO3)2·H2O]CP and [Cu·DL-Arg·(NO3)2·H2O]CP, and [Cu·L-Hys·(NO3)2·H2O]CP and [Cu·DL-His·(NO3)2·H2O]CP, have been shown to be isostructural in spite of the different chirality of the amino acid ligands. A similar structural analogy could be established for the silver complexes on the basis of SSNMR. The activity against the bacterial pathogens Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Staphylococcus aureus was assessed by carrying out disk diffusion assays on lysogeny agar media showing that, while there is no significant effect arising from the use of enantiopure or chiral amino acids, the coordination polymers exert an appreciable antimicrobial activity comparable, when not superior, to that of the metal salts alone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".