Dual-functional surface coatings integrating antimicrobial and antibiofouling mechanisms: from material design to application landscapes

Abstract

Surface-mediated pathogen transmission remains a critical vector for infectious disease, especially amidst biofilm-associated infections and rising antimicrobial resistance. This review critically examines the emergence of dual-functional surface coatings that integrate antimicrobial and antibiofouling strategies to provide continuous protection against microbial contamination. This paper investigates how recent innovations leverage physicochemical repulsion, contact-active biocides, controlled-release systems, and stimuli-responsive architectures to tackle both microbial adhesion and survival. This review spans applications across implants, wound dressings, filtration membranes, public touch surfaces, and marine systems, with a comparative lens on efficacy, biocompatibility, and long-term durability. Special attention is given to smart coatings that respond to stimuli (ex: pH, enzymes, and radiation) and nanocellulose-based systems as sustainable, tunable platforms. Despite significant advancements, challenges persist in balancing antimicrobial efficiency, surface stability, and ecological safety. We conclude by identifying key design principles and translational pathways for the development of next-generation multifunctional coatings capable of addressing complex microbial threats across healthcare, public and environmental interfaces.

---

Sandya S. A. Athukoralalage

Sandya S. A. Athukoralalage is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (AIBN), The University of Queensland. Her PhD research focused on developing dual-functional antimicrobial and low-fouling surface coatings based on functionalised nanocellulose. Her expertise includes nanomaterials, surface modification, and sustainable biomaterials for healthcare and environmental applications.

Nasim Amiralian

Dr Nasim Amiralian is Group Leader at the Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, The University of Queensland. Her research mission is to repurpose and transform agricultural waste and underutilized biomasses into a commercial and sustainable product to tackle the global plastic, health and environmental issues. She partners with industry, First Nations people, community, and farmers to address these challenges collaboratively and transform agricultural waste into diversified, environmentally and financially valuable resources. Nasim is also a strong advocate for cultural diversity and equity, and supports staff and students to grow as more effective leaders and create social good.

---

Wider impact

The persistent threat of microbial contamination amplified by biofouling and antimicrobial resistance demands material solutions that move beyond conventional surface disinfection and single-function antimicrobial or antibiofouling coatings. This review presents a comprehensive overview of recently developed dual-functional surface coatings that integrate both these functionalities within a single interface. Key developments include the evolution of materials capable of preventing microbial adhesion while simultaneously inactivating pathogens through contact-active agents, controlled release systems, and stimuli-responsive architectures. A distinctive feature of this field is its cross-sector relevance: from medical implants and wound dressings to marine equipment and food-contact surfaces, and these coatings effectively address contamination risks in highly diverse environments. By critically analysing existing design strategies, translational barriers, and emerging platforms such as the application of dual-functional nanocellulose, this review offers a roadmap for scalable, durable, and biocompatible surface coating materials. As the field advances, insights from this review will guide the development of next-generation dual-functional coatings that are not only more effective but also more adaptable to real-world application demands.

1. Introduction

Infectious diseases persist as one of the foremost threats to global health, despite decades of pharmaceutical progress. In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) listed six of its top ten global health threats as directly related to infectious pathogens, including the global influenza pandemic, antimicrobial resistance, Ebola and other high-threat pathogens, vaccine hesitancy, dengue, and HIV.¹ In that same year, infectious diseases accounted for an estimated 13.7 million deaths, with bacterial infections ranking as the second leading cause globally.^2,3 Of particular concern, antimicrobial resistance was directly responsible for 1.27 million deaths and implicated in 4.95 million more⁴, with forecasts suggesting it could lead to 10 million deaths annually by 2050, surpassing cancer.⁵ One often overlooked vector in the transmission of pathogens is the ubiquitous role of contaminated surfaces. Clinical and public environments frequently act as reservoirs for pathogen accumulation, where pathogens can persist for extended durations.⁶ Despite increased hygiene practices, frequent disinfection is not always feasible, prompting the need for passive and persistent protective measures such as surface coatings that provide continuous antimicrobial activity.

To address these intrinsic limitations, recent advancements have led to the development of dual-functional antimicrobial and antibiofouling coatings. As stated by Zou et al., “It takes walls and knights to defend a castle”,⁷ underscoring the concept of combining antibiofouling techniques with antimicrobial moieties. The integration of dual functions responds to the inherent limitations of single-mode strategies. Antibiofouling surfaces, such as superhydrophobic coatings and those modified with amphiphilic polymers like zwitterionic materials, can effectively repel bacterial attachment; however, they may not be able to eradicate microbes if adhesion does occur.^8,9 Conversely, coatings that solely rely on antimicrobial agents (for example, those incorporating metal nanoparticles or antibiotics) offer high bactericidal activity but may suffer from issues such as cytotoxicity or the gradual development of bacterial resistance, or debris accumulation often impairs their long-term effectiveness.^10–12

Although dual-functional coatings are increasingly recognised as a promising strategy for controlling pathogen transmission, most research to date remains narrowly focused on single-function coatings, primarily antibacterial materials. To highlight emerging interest in integrated approaches, we conducted a bibliometric analysis using Scopus. The search revealed that while publications on antimicrobial coatings have risen steadily from 2020 to 2025 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, studies explicitly reporting synergistic antimicrobial and antibiofouling functionalities remain comparatively limited (Fig. 1). This underscores a research gap and the need for more holistic surface engineering strategies that simultaneously prevent bacterial adhesion and eliminate pathogens. This review critically evaluates the current landscape of dual-functional surface coatings, with a focus on antibacterial applications across a range of settings, including healthcare, food-related applications, touch surfaces, and marine environments. Finally, we highlight the emerging role of nanostructured cellulosic materials as a sustainable and versatile platform for next-generation dual-functional coatings.

Fig. 1 Annual publication trends from 2020 to 2025 based on Scopus searches conducted on 5 May 2025, illustrating the research output related to antimicrobial and antibiofouling surface coatings. The queries used were: (i) antimicrobial – ((title-abs-key(antimicrobial) OR title-abs-key(antibacterial) OR title-abs-key(antiviral)) AND (title-abs-key(coating) OR title-abs-key(surface AND coating)) AND pubyear > 2019); (ii) antibiofouling – ((title-abs-key(coating) OR title-abs-key(surface AND coating)) AND (title-abs-key(antifouling) OR title-abs-key(lowfouling) OR title-abs-key(low fouling) OR title-abs-key(antibiofilm)) AND pubyear > 2019); (iii) dual-functional coatings – ((title-abs-key(antimicrobial) OR antibacterial OR antiviral) AND (title-abs-key(coating) OR surface AND coating) AND (title-abs-key(biofilm) OR biofouling)).

2. Bacterial adhesion and survival strategies: implications for surface coating design

Understanding how bacteria adhere, survive, and resist antimicrobial treatments is essential for designing effective surface coatings. As illustrated in Fig. 2, bacteria employ sophisticated survival strategies at molecular, cellular, and multicellular levels, allowing them to persist in hostile environments, including exposure to antimicrobial agents.¹³ At the molecular level, bacteria can mitigate disruption by altering target structures, repairing damage, or neutralising antimicrobial materials through enzymatic modification or binding. Their cellular defences include creating protective barriers like membranes, capsules, and extracellular vesicles, and using efflux pumps to expel toxic substances. Motile bacteria can escape harmful environments by repositioning themselves. At the multicellular level, bacteria create extracellular polymeric substances or biofilms that can limit toxin penetration via reduced diffusion or collective degradation.

Fig. 2 Bacterial defences operate at multiple scales: (a) molecular–neutralisation and repair (b) cellular barriers, pumps, and motility and (c) multicellular biofilms, collective actions, and suicide, stress responses. Reproduced with permission from ref. 13 Copyright© 2023, Springer Nature Limited.

Once bacteria encounter a surface, their adhesion is governed by weak physicochemical interactions, including hydrogen bonding, electrostatic forces, and van der Waals forces.¹⁴ The strength of bacterial adhesion and persistence on surfaces is determined not only by microbial surface structures but also by substrate properties, including surface roughness, porosity, charge distribution, and wettability,^15,16 as well as environmental factors such as moisture, humidity and temperature. For a comprehensive overview of bacterial surface sensing and the physicochemical and biological factors influencing initial adhesion, readers are advised to refer to Zheng et al.¹⁶

Surface roughness plays a crucial role in bacterial adhesion, as increased roughness provides a larger surface area and structural support for bacterial attachment, protecting cells from shear forces. Consequently, bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation generally increase with surface roughness.¹⁶ However, porous surfaces, such as nanocellulose coatings, significantly reduce bacterial survival by inducing dehydration through droplet imbibition within the porous fibre network, creating an inhospitable environment.¹⁷ Surface charge also influences bacterial adhesion. Most bacteria possess a net negative charge due to carboxyl, amino, and phosphate groups on their cell walls, leading to stronger adhesion on positively charged surfaces.¹⁶ Hydrophobicity further affects bacterial colonisation, as hydrophobic surfaces reduce repulsive forces between the bacterial cell surface and the substrate, often promoting adhesion.¹⁸ In addition to surface properties, environmental conditions such as low ventilation and high humidity also contribute to bacterial persistence, as they create favourable conditions for nutrient availability.¹⁹

Following attachment, bacteria can transition into biofilms, embedding themselves within a self-produced extracellular matrix. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry formally defines biofilms as: “An aggregate of microorganisms in which cells that are frequently embedded within a self-produced matrix of extracellular polymeric substance adhere to each other and/or to a surface”.²⁰ National Institutes of Health estimates that over 80% of bacterial infections are accompanied by biofilm formation, and about 17 million new biofilm-associated infections annually arise in the United States.²¹

Biofilms are highly adaptable and respond dynamically to environmental conditions, including substrate hydration levels and metal ion availability. The influence of surface properties on biofilm formation is evident in E. coli AR3110, which adjusts its structure based on the water content of its substrate. On wet substrates, biofilms incorporate more water and dry mass, allowing them to spread over a larger area but making them mechanically softer. In contrast, biofilms on drier surfaces remain more compact, forming a denser and structurally rigid extracellular matrix.²² Biofilms of certain E. coli strains exhibit distinct mechanical responses to metal cations depending on their extracellular matrix composition. For example, biofilms co-producing curli and phosphoethanolamine (pEtN)-cellulose uniquely stiffen in the presence of trivalent cations such as Al(III) and Fe(III) but remain unaffected by bivalent cations like Zn(II) and Ca(II). In contrast, biofilms containing either curli or pEtN-cellulose alone do not show stiffness changes irrespective of cation valency, highlighting the complex interactions between biofilm composition and environmental factors.²³ These adaptive responses not only influence biofilm structure but also contribute to bacterial survival advantages. Biofilms enhance microbial resilience by shielding bacteria from antimicrobial agents, facilitating nutrient exchange, and promoting horizontal gene transfer, which accelerates resistance development.¹³

3. Antimicrobial coatings

Antimicrobial coatings typically operate through two main mechanisms: (i) release-based systems, which gradually leach antimicrobial agents that inactivate pathogens close to the surface, and (ii) contact-active surfaces, where antimicrobial compounds are immobilised on the surface, killing microbes upon direct contact. Commonly used antimicrobial agents and how they work are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Commonly integrated antimicrobial material in surface coatings, their antimicrobial mechanisms and applications

Antimicrobial material	Antimicrobial mechanism	Application
Quaternary ammonium (QA)	Cationic QA interacts with anionic phospholipids in bacterial membranes	Implant,^24,25 contact surfaces,^45 filtration membranes,^46 biomedical,^47 marine^48,49
1-Bromo-dodecane	Positive charges disrupt bacterial membranes	Implant^50
Polyimidazolium (PIM)	Positive charges disrupt bacterial membranes	Wound dressing^51
Imidazolium-based zwitterionic polymers	Positively charged C2 carbon disrupts bacterial membranes	Contact surfaces^52
N,N-Dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA)	Positive charges on the surface of protonated DMAEMA	Biomedical^53
Poly(dimethyl amino methyl styrene) (PDMAMS)	Positive charges disrupt bacterial membranes	Biomedical^54
Poly(hexamethylene biguanide) (PHMB)	Positive charges disrupt bacterial membranes	Implant^55
Antimicrobial peptides (AMP)	1. Positive charges disrupt bacterial membranes 2. Penetrate the membranes through hydrophobic interactions	Implant,^56–58 biomedical^59
Polylysine (PLYS)	Disrupt bacterial membranes through electrostatic interactions	Marine and biomedical^60
Triclosan	Inhibiting fatty acid synthesis in bacteria, which is crucial for building cell membranes and for reproducing	Implant^50
Poly(trimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate chloride (polyMETAC)	Electrostatic interactions between positively charged QA groups and negatively charged bacterial membranes	Implant^61
Iodine	Disrupts bacterial cell walls, oxidative damage and enzyme inhibition	Implants^62
Gentamicin	Binds to the bacterial ribosome, inhibiting protein synthesis, and causing cell death	Implant^63,64
Silver nanoparticles	Membrane disruption by positively charged Ag^+ ions and ROS-mediated oxidative stress	Implant,^65–67 contact surfaces,^68 biomedical,^69 textiles^70
Cu ions	ROS-mediated oxidative stress	Biomedical^71
N-Halamine structures	Release reactive chlorine species such as hypochlorous acid and hypochlorite ions → cell membrane damage, oxidize proteins, nucleic acids, and enzymes.	Food containers^36
Carboxymethyl chitosan–zinc oxide (CMC–ZnO)	UV-induced ROS from ZnO. Electrostatic interactions with chitosan's protonated –NH3^+	Marine^37
g-C3N4 nanosheets	Photocatalytic activity	Marine^72
Nitric oxide (NO) releasing compounds	NO disrupts bacterial cell membranes & inhibits respiration & DNA synthesis.	Implant,^58,73 marine^74
Curcumin	Membrane disruption	Implant^75
EndLys enzyme	Hydrolyses the peptidoglycan layer of bacteria	Wound dressing^76
Houttuynia and scutellarin extracts	Contain bioactive compounds like decanal and safrole, which can disrupt bacterial cell walls and membranes.	Marine and biomedical^77
Au nanoparticles	Raising the surface temperature under 808 nm NIR irradiation	Implant^78

---

Release-based coatings include agents such as phenolics, alcohols, aldehydes, halogens, oxidising agents, heavy metals, essential oils, and quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs) that gradually diffuse from the coating.^24–26 Metal nanoparticles have received particular attention due to their efficacy in killing pathogens.²⁷ Among different metal nanomaterials, silver,²⁸ copper,²⁹ and iron oxides such as Fe₂O₃ and Fe₃O₄³⁰ have attracted significant attention due to their proven contact-active antimicrobial properties.^31,32 The major drawback with antimicrobial agents is their finite lifespan, as antimicrobial agents deplete, the surface loses its effectiveness.³³ Additionally, the uncontrolled release of antimicrobial agents raises concerns regarding environmental toxicity³⁴ and the potential for antimicrobial resistance.³⁵

Contact-active coatings include cationic polymers or peptides that interact with bacterial membranes, N-halamines that transfer biocidal chlorine to bacterial cells,³⁶ photocatalytic surfaces and nanoparticles that generate reactive oxygen species (ROS)³⁷ and nanopillars penetrating membranes.³⁸ While these coatings offer long-term antimicrobial activity without the depletion of active agents, efficacy may decrease over time due to surface degradation or biofouling, which can physically block active sites and promote bacterial colonisation.³⁹ Additionally, prolonged exposure to these surfaces may lead to adaptive responses in bacteria such as membrane remodelling or efflux pump upregulation that could potentially contribute to the development of antimicrobial resistance.^40,41

Stimuli-responsive antimicrobial coatings have been explored to overcome limitations, such as uncontrolled release and resistance development. Recent examples include poly(N-isopropylacrylamide-co-acrylic acid) microgel/polycaprolactone nanofibers that exhibit temperature-, pH-, and electro-responsive drug release, providing switchable antimicrobial action under specific triggers such as bacterial contamination (temperature, pH, electrical stimuli).⁴² Similarly, metal–organic framework (MOF)-based polypropylene coatings respond to bacterial metabolites by locally generating antibacterial nitric oxide (NO) radicals upon infection, offering precise microbial inactivation.⁴³ Another innovative system involves thermo- and pH-responsive ciprofloxacin-loaded nanofibers that selectively release antibiotics under conditions typical of microbial colonisation, effectively reducing bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation.⁴⁴

4. Antibiofouling coatings

Antibiofouling coatings function via three main strategies: fouling-resistant surfaces; fouling-release surfaces; and fouling-degrading surfaces (Fig. 3(a)). These effects are achieved by tuning surface chemistry, topography, or architecture, with the latter also leveraging the coating's internal composition (Fig. 3(b)).⁷⁹

Fig. 3 (a) Schematic illustration of antibiofouling strategies and (b) key design strategies to impart antibiofouling properties to surface coatings. Reproduced with permission from ref. 79. Copyright 2020, John Wiley and Sons.

Fouling-resistant surfaces repel the adhesion of pathogens through superhydrophobicity or hydration layers. Most efficient superhydrophobic coatings are combinations of nano/micro textures that have a rough patterned surface with empty concave domains and a layer of nonpolar compounds. Their durability is not affected by drug or ion release, and they repel both Gram (−) and Gram (+) bacteria. However, these coatings are challenging to produce at large scales, are expensive, and the patterns deform in contact with mechanical forces, thus, a defect in a coating will lead to bacterial attachment and consequent biofilm formation.⁸⁰ On the other hand, hydrophilic antibiofoulants repel bacteria from the surface through the production of a strong hydration layer. They are mainly produced by grafting hydrophilic polymer chains containing oxygen-rich functionality onto the surface, which form hydrogen bonds with water and create a steric hindrance. In addition to directly resisting bacterial adhesion, these coatings also prevent the adsorption of proteins and other biomolecules that would otherwise form a conditioning layer on the surface.⁸¹ Since this layer promotes subsequent microbial colonisation, its absence makes the surface less hospitable to biofilm formation.

One of the most commonly used methods to impart antibiofouling properties to a surface is the application of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based coatings through techniques such as physical or chemical adsorption, direct covalent attachment, and block or graft copolymerisation.^82–85 However, PEG is susceptible to oxidative degradation, forming aldehydes and ethers, and loses its antibiofouling properties.^79,86,87 Moreover, grafting PEG onto surfaces is a complex procedure and cannot easily scale up for economic surface coating.^88,89 Zwitterionic polymers with covalently attached cation and anion pendant groups have been used to increase surface interactions with water and create antibiofouling properties.⁷⁹ However, these polymers show the same drawback as PEG and are not stable at different temperatures and pH, limiting their application.⁹⁰

Fouling-release surfaces are designed to permit only weak foulant adhesion, allowing foulants to be easily removed under low shear or mechanical force, such as water flow or manual cleaning. These coatings often utilise low-surface-energy materials like silicones and fluoropolymers, which reduce the interaction strength between the foulant and the substrate.^79,91,92 In contrast, fouling-degrading surfaces contain active agents that target and degrade attached organic matter or kill adherent microorganisms. These may include oxidising agents or bactericidal functionalities embedded within the coating, which act upon contact with the fouling organism to chemically break down or eliminate it.^79,93

Antibiofouling coatings cannot inactivate pathogens that may accumulate on compromised coating regions, eventually leading to biofouling.⁹⁰ Once this occurs, foulants can mask antibiofouling functionalities, effectively turning an antibiofouling surface into a fouling-prone one. Without an antimicrobial mechanism, these coatings offer no defence beyond initial repulsion, making them vulnerable to delayed but persistent microbial colonisation. Moreover, under high bacterial loads, antibiofouling coatings can be overwhelmed, allowing bacterial outgrowth and eventual surface colonisation.^94,95 This highlights a key limitation of antibiofouling-only approaches and sets the stage for dual-functional coatings, which combine passive repellence with active antimicrobial strategies (Table 2).

Table 2 Commonly integrated antibiofouling materials in surface coatings

Antibiofouling mechanism	Antibiofouling materials	Application
Steric repulsion created by the hydration layer	Poly(N-vinylpyrrolidone) (PVP)	Implant,^25,62,75 biomedical^54
	Hyaluronic acid (HA)	Implant^24
	N-(2-Hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide (pHPMA)	Wound dressing^76
	N,N-Dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA)	Biomedical^53
	2-Methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine, 3-methacryloxypropyl trimethoxysilane, and 3-(methacryloyloxy) (PMMMSi)	Biomedical^59
	Zwitterionic polymers	Implant,^55,63,66,67 contact surfaces,^45,52 biomedical,^47,69,71
	N-(3-Aminopropyl) methacrylamide (PDMA)	Implant^56
	Poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG)	Implant,^57,64,78 Wound dressing,^51 biomedical^59
	Heparin	Implant^73
	P(NIPAM-co-DMAPMA)	Implant^50
	PolyHEAA	Implants^61
	2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)	Implants^96
	Fluorinated polyurethane	Marine^37
	Nanosilica resin and TEGO® Addibit EK 50	Contact surfaces^68
	Laser-induced periodic surface structured (LIPSS) Ti	Implant^65
	Poly-Schiff base resin	Marine^72
	β-Poly(2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine) (PMPC)	Marine^60
Surface hydrophobicity	Biocide 4,5-dichloro-2-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (DCOIT)	Marine and biomedical^49
	L-Tryptophan/picolinic acid/4-nitrophenyl-isothiocyanate organogel	Textiles^70
Strong cationic QA attracts bacteria and disrupts their membranes, while the hydration layer prevents them from reattaching.	GMTA	Filtration membranes^46
Provides low surface energy, making it difficult for fouling organisms to attach to the surface	Methylphenyl silicone resin (MSR)	Marine^77
Creates a slippery, lubricated surface that prevents microorganisms from adhering, biomimetic cilia, infused with FSoil, move under the influence of an external magnetic field, further preventing the attachment of microorganisms	Methyl fluoro-silicone oil (FSoil)	Marine^74
UV-Triggered depolymerization	Lithium phenyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoylphosphinate	Marine^48

---

5. Dual-functional surface coatings

Dual-functional surface coatings offer a robust solution to the critical shortcomings of individual use of antimicrobial or antibiofouling strategies. By integrating both functionalities into a single system, these coatings actively prevent microbial attachment and ensure rapid inactivation of any pathogens that come into contact with the surface.⁹⁷ To date, dual-functional materials have primarily been fabricated through three main strategies: (i) copolymerisation of two functional monomers with distinct antimicrobial and antibiofouling activity;⁹⁸ (ii) terminal modification of existing antimicrobial or antibiofouling polymers;⁹⁹ and (iii) separate incorporation of antimicrobial and antibiofouling moieties onto the same surface, often via layer-by-layer deposition.¹⁰⁰

A widely adopted design principle involves combining antibiofouling polymers such as zwitterionic brushes^101,102 or PEG derivatives¹⁰³ with contact-active or stimuli-responsive bactericidal agents. The majority of current dual-functional coatings create robust hydration layers that prevent non-specific adhesion, while integrated biocides such as quaternary ammonium salts (QAS),¹⁰¹ cationic terpolymers,¹⁰⁴ biguanide polymers,⁵⁵ lysozyme,¹⁰⁵ copper ions (Cu²⁺),^71,106 silver nanoparticles (AgNPs),⁶⁹ antimicrobial peptides (AMPs)⁵⁹ and curcumin^75,103 disrupt bacterial membranes or interfere with key metabolic processes. This dual-action mechanism enhances long-term performance: antibiofouling components minimise initial microbial adhesion, while antimicrobial agents inactivate/kill any organisms that overcome the passive barrier. A schematic illustration of this synergistic process is shown in Fig. 4. Dual-functional coatings can be further advanced by integrating stimuli-responsive properties, which dynamically alter the coating's physicochemical properties in response to specific environmental cues such as external triggers (ex, radiation) or bacterial metabolites (ex, enzymes, acidic pH).^107,108

Fig. 4 Schematic illustration of a dual-functional surface coating. Antibiofouling components repel pathogen adhesion, while antimicrobial moieties inactivate pathogens that reach the surface.

5.1. Dual-functional coatings in health care

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) contribute to significant patient morbidity and economic burden, with an estimated 4.1 million patients experiencing 4.5 million cases annually in Europe. The associated financial impact reaches €7 billion in the EU and $6.5 billion in the United States, with prolonged hospital stays accounting for 16 million additional inpatient days each year.⁶⁵ In Australia, HAIs are a significant burden, with an estimated 170 574 HAIs occurring in adults admitted to public hospitals annually, resulting in 7583 deaths.¹⁰⁹ Conventional antimicrobial treatments face limitations due to cytotoxicity and the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), leading to reduced bactericidal effects and increased bacterial pathogenicity. By 2050, it is estimated that 10 million lives annually will be lost due to AMR, highlighting the urgent need for alternative strategies.¹¹⁰Table 3 provides a comparative overview of dual-functional coatings in healthcare, offering insight into the design–performance relationships critical for clinical translation.

Table 3 Dual functional coatings in healthcare

Dual-functional material	Contact angle (CA)	Zeta potential	Coating technique/surface texturing	Antimicrobial activity comes from	Antibiofouling activity comes from	Biocompatibility	Stability
Implants
Poly(N-vinylpyrrolidone-co-ethylene glycol dimethacrylate) (PVE)/iodine PVE–I^62	67.0°	—	Initiated chemical vapour deposition (iCVD)	Iodine.	PVE	Good in vivo biocompatibility	Stable after 12 h at 37 °C; no FTIR changes, WCA shift from 55.4° to 56.2°
				Killed 100% of E. coli and 91.80% of S. aureus.
Fe3O4@PDA–PEG nanoparticles in SF^120	—	—	—	Photothermal killing. Complete eradication of MRSA and E. coli	PEG-induced repulsion; SF limits bacterial contact	Excellent osteoblast viability	Maintains surface integrity after 8 weeks in PBS; no Fe^3+ leaching detected
Polyurethane/Au/PEG^78	∼60°	∼−1.5 mV	Oxygen plasma treatment, thiol group introduction, and PEG post-modification	Au nanorods, 99.9% reduction under 808 nm NIR irradiation, raising the surface temperature to ∼55 °C.	PEG	Good cytocompatibility, hemolysis ratios <5%	Photothermal did not attenuate after 12 cycles of irradiation and cooling
Polydopamine/poly(GMA-co-DVBAPS) (PDA/L-PDV)^124	18° (PEGDGE version)	—	Mussel-inspired PDA co-deposition on PP, PET, and catheters	Polylysine touch-killing	PEGDGE hydration; zwitterionic chain expansion	No toxicity reported	Maintained over 3 bacterial challenges with NaCl-triggered regeneration
QA/hydroxyethyl acrylate/PEG^128	∼25°	—	In situ crosslinked polymer network on steel, Cu, Al	QA	Hydrophilic PEGA480 repels protein	Not cytotoxic; potential for surgical use	Self-healing at room temp; 93% mechanical recovery in 15 min
Polypropylene treated with polydopamine/QA/hyaluronic acid (PP-PDA-Q-HA)^24	72°	+25.4 mV	PDA coating & chemical grafting	QA: Innactivations – 93% S. aureus, 93% E. coli, and 85% C. albicans.	HA: Inhibited 53% of S. aureus biofilm formation.	Good hemocompatibility, cytocompatibility & high cell viability	Retained antibacterial activity over 5 cycles
DMA-MPC-MPA-N^+^101	∼60°	—	Mussel-inspired dopamine terpolymer on PDMS	MPA-N^+ quaternary ammonium (contact-kill)	MPC zwitterionic protein repellency	Hemolysis rate 1.73%; no cytotoxicity to smooth muscle cells	Stable in PBS at 37 °C over 21 days
Zwitterionic poly(sulfobetaine methacrylate-co-dopamine methacrylamide)/gentamicin sulphate (PSB/GS)^63	WCA of 35.3 ± 1.6°	—	Dopamine-assisted co-deposition of PSBDA and covalently linking GS	Zone of inhibition against E. coli and S. aureus due to GS	Zwitterionic PSBDA > 90% resistance to protein and bacterial adhesion	Hemolysis rate < 5%, no significant inflammatory response in vivo. good cytocompatibility	The cumulative release of GS reached 29 μg at pH 5.5 after 30 days
Laser-induced periodic surface structured Ti modified with polydopamine-chitosan–silver nanoparticles (Ti-PCA @LIPSS)^65	20.2° ± 0.7°	—	Electroless plating	Silver ions, chitosan	LIPSS topography	Excellent biocompatibility and low toxicity to mammalian cells.	—
Curcumin/poly(N-vinylpyrrolidone)-co-poly(3-(acrylamido)phenylboronic acid) (PVP-co-PAPBA).^75	34.17 ± 0.93°	—	Visible-light-induced graft polymerisation	Curcumin: Inactivation: 90.9% E. coli & 92.2% S. aureus.	PVP 93.4% reduction in platelet adhesion	Non-hemolytic properties, no cytotoxicity	Curcumin release was stable at pH 7.4 over 14 days, increased at pH 5.0, leading to an acidic responsiveness property
AgNPs/PMPD^66	24.9 ± 3.1°	—	Dopamine-assisted coating	AgNPs 97% against E. coli and 99% against S. aureus.	Zwitterionic copolymer (P(DMA-co-MPC))	Good hemocompatibility, highly biocompatible	WCA remained 28.0°–35.7° after 30 tape cycles: no WCA or thickness change after 12 h PBS flow
Cu^2+-d-Met MOF^106	∼50°	—	MPN chelation + Cu^2+/d-Met MOF mineralization	Cu^2+ catalytic ROS + d-Met biofilm dispersion	Chiral MOF disassembly + hydrophilicity	—	Retained Cu^2+ release over 10 days: robust marine durability
ZIF-90-Bi-CeO2 hydrogel^122	Superhydrophilic		Hydrogel embedding + nanoparticle incorporation on Ti	Bi-mediated photothermal killing and Zn^2+ release	CeO2 antioxidant modulation + hydration	Reduced inflammation; MSC-compatible	Effective across pH & in vivo; Zn^2+ release under acidic conditions
AMN/poly(B5AMA)/poly(MPC-st-B5AMA)/AgNPs^67	<15°	—	Layer-by-layer coating.	AgNPs- releasing Ag^+ → 90% killing S. aureus and E. coli	Poly(B5AMA) and zwitterionic 2-MPC	Non-toxic and cell-adhesive.
						Well-defined biocompatibility even with AgNPs incorporation	90% recovery in nano scratch test; complete macro-scratch healing within 1 min using 5 μL water
Poly(sulfobetaine methacrylate) (pSBMA)/N-hydroxysuccinimide methacrylate (NHSMA)/poly(hexamethylene biguanide) (PHMB)^55	70°	—	Layer-by-layer construction	PHMB 100% antibacterial efficiency against E. coli and S. aureus	Zwitterionic pSBMA	No significant cytotoxicity	—
Si-PHB@Qe^96	∼62°	—	Surface-grafted poly(HEMA-co-APBA) via SI-ATRP	pH-triggered Qe release (quorum sensing inhibition)	Hydration barrier from HEMA	L929 cell viability >90%	Maintained over 72 h; repeated Qe release cycles
Antimicrobial peptides/polydopamine/poly(N,N-dimethylacrylamide)/N-(3-aminopropyl) methacrylamide/iodoacetic acid. (AMPs/PDA/PDMA/APMA/IAA)^56	37.9 ± 0.9°	—	Self-assembly	AMPs	PDMA: Reduced bacterial adhesion by 98.4% for S. saprophyticus and 97.5% for P. aeruginosa	Not hemolytic, high biocompatibility.	No change in thickness after being immersed in PBS for 7 days at 37 °C or after 10 min of ultrasonication
PEG and cationic polypeptide^57	38.4°	—	Dopamine-assisted dip coating	Cationic polypeptide	PEG	Negligible hemolysis, no inflammatory response after 7 days of implantation.	Minimal thickness change after 24 h in water; retained integrity after 1 week in proteinase/lipase
Silicone rubber/S-nitroso-N-acetylpenicillamine/Nisin (SR-SNAP-Nisin)^58	68.7 ± 4.7°	n/a	Dopamine-assisted dip coating	Nisin and NO-S. aureus: 99.55%, E. coli: 96.87% reduction	Nisin and NO -S. aureus: 99.91%, E. coli: 99.99% reduction	No cytotoxicity	Nisin on the PDA coatings is stable for over 120 hours
Heparin/S-nitroso-N-acetylpenicillamine – silicon rubber (Hep-NO-SR)^73	65.3° ± 2.6	n/a	Self-assembly	S-Nitroso-N-acetylpenicillamine (SNAP) → NO Release. A reduction of 99.46 ± 0.17%	Heparin # of viable adhered bacteria reduced by 92.6 ± 2.3% reduced platelet adhesion by 84.12 ± 6.19%	No signs of hemolytic activity, no significant cytotoxic response	Consistent NO flux over two weeks
Heparin reduced SNAP leaching pNO@TNT//pBA^121	—	—	Layer-by-layer NIR-sensitive NO donor grafting on TNT	NIR-triggered NO burst (MRSA, E. coli)	NO-induced disruption; indirect effect	Osteogenic promotion	Stable release modes under infection vs. physiological pH
Triclosan/quaternized P(NIPAM-co-DMAPMA)^50	—	+33.6 ± 1.1 mV	Spray coating on a polyanionic anchoring layer	1-Bromo-dodecane	P(NIPAM-co-DMAPMA)	—	Stable after agitation and 48 h ethanol immersion with no observable changes
NVP/GMA-MPA-N^+^25	42.62 ± 4.12°	—	Surface grafting: RAFT	QA	NVP	Hemolysis ≤2%.	n/a
						High cell viability
PolyHEAA/polyMETAC^61	∼4°	10 mV at neutral pH	Grafting onto a silica surface: SI-ATRP and SI-PIMP	PolyMETAC brush	PolyHEAA	Retain cell viability as high as 93%.	n/a
Gentamicin/poly(ethylene glycol) diglycidyl ether/ethylene glycol diglycidyl ether/ethylenediamine/polydopamine^64	51.5°	—	Polydopamine (PDA) adhesive layer, followed by immersion in polymer solutions	Gentamicin	PEG	Non-toxic	No inhibition zone – coating remained stable and undissolved on the titanium disk
Wound dressing
PEG/PIM-Mal/NAC^51	—	—	Film: solution casting, fibres: syringe extrusion into CaCl2(aq)	PIM	Hydrogel network of PEG and PIM destroys biofilms	Low acute toxicity and good biocompatibility	Swelled 10–12 times in 60 min; tensile strength 4–5 kPa, strain 50–58%
pHPMA/EndLys^76	—	—	Self-assembly on an electrospun PCL mesh	EndLys	pHPMA	Biocompatible and non-toxic to human cells	Remained intact after 32 days in PBS and LB + FBS, and even after 180 days.
							Not damaged by gamma irradiation
Other biomedical applications
Thymol/DMAEMA/BP^53	—	—	Photocuring	Positive charges on the surface of protonated DMAEMA. 100% against E. coli, S. aureus, and MRSA.	DMAEMA blocks inhibit 95% of S. aureus and 81% of E. coli biofilms.	Good biocompatibility	Coating maintained its antibacterial properties for at least 30 days
Metal-polyphenol networks with discrete metal–organic frameworks (MPN-DMOF)	WCA ∼50°	>+15 mV	Self-assembly	Petal-like geometry disrupts the physiological structure of bacteria, DNA damage and cell apoptosis by ROS.	D-Methionine ligands act as molecular scissors, facilitating biofilm detachment.	Did not induce cytotoxicity	Nanoindentation Tests: The hardness values were measured as 40.59 ± 16.03 MPa for MPN and 3.17 ± 0.83 MPa
MPNs: tannic acid (TA), polyethyleneimine (PEI), and Cu2+ ions^106
PDA/MPF/MTF^47	21± 1.2°	—	Self-polymerisation of PD → covalent grafting of copolymers	QA: reduced the survival rate; S. aureus: to 6.8%.	Zwitterionic MPF copolymer	Cell viability >94.3% for normal human lung fibroblast cells	Slight activity loss after 7-day PBS aging; S. aureus survival ↑ to 20%, E. coli ↑ to 15.4%
				E. coli: to 1.2%.	Lower protein adsorption of 3%
AMP KR12/PEG@PMMMSi^59	<120° due to the presence of AMPs	+25 mV	Dip coating of PMMMSi and grafting PEG and KR12	KR12	PMMMSi and PEG	—	—
MPC-AEMA/AgNPs@tannic acid^69	<5°	—	Dip coating	AgNPs	p(MPC-st-AEMA)	Noncytotoxic	—
PDMAMS/EGDA/PVP^54	31°	16 mV at pH 7.2	iCVD	PDMAMS-99.9% killing rate against E. coli and B. subtilis	PVP	No toxicity	No noticeable change after being shaken in deionised water at 200 rpm for 24 h
Cu^II-PCBDA^71	19.2°	—	Dip-coating	Cu II: E. coli: >99.9% P. aeruginosa >99.9%, S. aureus >99.9%, C. albicans >99.9% reduction after 2 hours	Zwitterionic PCBDA: Pristine CL, 22.5 μg cm^−2, Cu II-PCBDA-coated CL: 1.5 μg cm^−2 (24 hours)	100% cell viability when in direct contact with human corneal epithelial cells for 48 hours	The coating is stable after immersion in PBS and shaking for 7 days

---

Dual-functional coatings for implant surfaces. The use of medical implants, ranging from temporary urinary catheters to bridge-to-transplant ventricular assist devices, is crucial for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in healthcare.¹¹¹ Application of medical implants often faces significant challenges due to infections caused by biofilms, with implant-related infections (IRIs) being the most common and complex issue, leading to the majority of implant failures.¹¹² As a result, patients may require revision surgeries for debridement or replacement of implants, or amputation, causing severe pain, extended disability, and long rehabilitation periods. These issues incur significant costs for the patient and the healthcare system. For instance, although the infection rates of orthopaedic implant-associated infections remain steady at 1 to 2% after primary arthroplasty and 3 to 6% after revision, the inpatient costs can reach up to $107 000 per case, amounting to an annual healthcare expenditure of $3 billion in the United States alone.¹¹³ The failure of conventional antibiotics and surface sterilisation strategies against IRIs necessitates implant coatings that integrate both antimicrobial and antibiofouling functionalities. These coatings are typically applied to implant-relevant substrates such as titanium, silicone rubber, or polydimethylsiloxane, and their functionality is assessed on in vitro and, in some cases, in vivo models. A summary of dual-functional coatings applied to implant-relevant surfaces, including details on coating techniques, antimicrobial and antibiofouling mechanisms, biocompatibility assessments, and stability, is presented in Table 3.

One widely studied antibiofouling agent is PEG, whose hydrophilic chains can reduce protein and bacterial adhesion. When combined with antimicrobial agents like polypeptides⁵⁷ and gentamicin dual-functional coatings have been achieved.⁶⁴ Since PEG is susceptible to oxidative degradation,⁶⁴ researchers have increasingly turned to zwitterionic polymers, such as sulphobetaine methacrylate (PSB)⁶³ and dopamine methacrylamide (DMA)¹⁰¹ for their improved stability and hydration-mediated fouling resistance. PSB coatings can maintain efficacy for up to 30 days.⁶³ However, passive antibiofouling alone is insufficient for devices at high risk of infection. To address this, antimicrobial agents are combined with antibiofouling backbones. Chen et al. (2022) applied a terpolymer of DMA, 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC), and maleopimaric acid-derived QAS (MPA-N⁺) to polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) substrates.¹⁰¹ Cationic MPA-N⁺ achieved 1.00-log, 1.09-log, and 0.94-log reductions against S. aureus, E. coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa), respectively. Zwitterionic MPC reduced nonspecific adsorption of BSA, lysozyme, and fibrinogen by over 80% and showed substantial disruption of biofilm structure after 5 days. An in vivo infection model demonstrated a 4.66-log reduction in E. coli colonisation on implants and reduced inflammation. The coating also showed excellent blood compatibility and negligible cytotoxicity. Peng et al. designed a zwitterionic silicone rubber coating incorporating poly(hexamethylene biguanide) (PHMB), a broad-spectrum antimicrobial.⁵⁵ By optimising the polymer blend ratio, they achieved near-total bacterial inhibition while maintaining surface fouling resistance. While promising, such systems face challenges in tuning the release kinetics to match clinical needs, overly rapid release can exhaust the active agent prematurely, while slow release may leave early-stage infections unchecked. Other recent coating strategies include ε-polylysine immobilised via bovine serum albumin supramolecular assembly,¹¹⁴ protein-based films crosslinked with polyurethane and chitosan,¹¹⁵ RAFT-polymerised N-vinylpyrrolidone and maleopimaric acid quaternary ammonium cation,²⁵ and antibiotic-loaded polyacrylate.¹¹⁶

Controlled release of biocidal agents is another key area of interest for dual-functional coatings, as it enables sustained antimicrobial efficacy while reducing the frequency of reapplication. Among these agents, AgNPs are particularly prominent due to their broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity and oxidative stress mechanisms. However, their use has raised growing concern due to the risk of silver ion leaching, environmental accumulation,¹¹⁷ and the growing risk of silver-resistant microbial strains.¹¹⁸ Under prolonged silver nanoparticles exposure, bacteria exhibited reduced membrane permeability, upregulation of efflux pumps, and increased expression of stress response and metal resistance genes. These adaptations contributed to significantly higher minimum inhibitory concentrations, indicating the development of silver resistance.¹¹⁸ To address these challenges Liu and colleagues embedded AgNPs in a polydopamine–phosphorylcholine copolymer matrix, which provided sustained release and reduced platelet adhesion to 9.88% of uncoated surfaces while inhibiting 97% of E. coli and 99% of S. aureus.⁶⁶ Notably, this system retained antimicrobial efficacy after 30 tape-peeling cycles and prolonged phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) immersion. Compared to conventional AgNP coatings, this approach reduced silver ion leaching, mitigating associated risks. Poly(N-vinylpyrrolidone)–iodine (PVE–I) coatings demonstrate how balancing hydrophilicity and cross-linking density controls iodine release profiles. PVE–I-2 coatings, which release 82.44% of iodine within 60 minutes, showed superior efficacy, with inhibition zones of 2.00 cm for E. coli and 2.07 cm for S. aureus.⁶²

Increasing attention has also been paid to “smart” coatings that respond to IRI-related stimuli such as pH, heat, or enzymatic activity. These systems offer the promise of localised, on-demand antimicrobial release, potentially avoiding toxicity to surrounding tissue. Zhao et al. developed a photothermal coating incorporating gold nanorods, which, under near-infrared (NIR) irradiation, achieved >99% bacterial killing and a reduction of bacterial adhesion by 99.9%.⁷⁸ NIR-responsive materials are effective for even deep tissue treatments compared to UV or visible light, which penetrates only a few millimetres into biological tissues.¹¹⁹ Quan et al. (2024) also developed a NIR-responsive coating by embedding magnetite nanoparticles coated with a layer of polydopamine (PDA) and further functionalised with polyethylene glycol (Fe₃O₄@PDA-PEG) into a silk fibroin (SF) matrix on titanium surfaces. Upon 808 nm NIR exposure, the coating reached photothermal temperatures of ∼55 °C, leading to complete eradication of E. coli and MRSA biofilms within 5 minutes, with no bacterial regrowth observed over 24 hours.¹²⁰ While effective, the need for external light activation may limit its use in deep tissue implants. Acid-sensitive systems, such as those using poly(vinylpyrrolidone)–boronate networks to release curcumin under infection-mimicking conditions, represent a more autonomous solution.⁷⁵ Both Hou et al. and Ding et al. introduced stimuli-responsive dual-functional coatings activated by the combination of acidic infection microenvironments and NIR irradiation.^121,122 In Hou's system, a titanium-based surface was engineered by integrating titania nanotubes (TNT) with nitric oxide (NO) donors and coated with polyphenylboronic acid (pBA), forming the pNO@TNT//pBA structure (Fig. 5(a)).¹²¹ Under infection-mimicking acidic conditions, the outer pBA layer detaches, exposing the NO donor (cupferron), which undergoes rapid decomposition upon NIR stimulation to release NO locally (Fig. 5(b)). This results in potent antibacterial activity, achieving 97.84% killing of MRSA and 98.28% of E. coli within 12 hours. The coating also demonstrated significant biofilm eradication and reduced MRSA survival in a rat femoral implant model after seven days (Fig. 5(c)). Once infection resolves, low-dose NO release continues slowly under physiological conditions, promoting osteogenic signalling and supporting implant integration.

Fig. 5 Fabrication, mechanism, and in vivo antibacterial performance of the NO releasing dual-functional titanium coating (pNO@TNT//pBA). (a) Schematic of coating fabrication: NO donors and dopamine hydrochloride (DA·HCl) are co-deposited onto TNT to form pNO@TNT, followed by surface grafting of pBA. (b) Under infection-mimicking acidic conditions and NIR irradiation, the coating releases NO. (c) MRSA survival after 7 days of implantation. Reproduced with permission from ref. 121. Copyright 2025 John Wiley and Sons. (d) Schematic illustration of the fabrication of Ti-PCA@LIPSS, where PCA refers to PDA and chitosan (CS) with AgNPs. (e) Representative SEM images of E. coli biofilm formation for a 24-h incubation time. Scale bars are 10 μm. Reproduced with permission from ref. 65. Copyright 2024 John Wiley and Sons.

Similarly, Ding et al. developed a hyaluronic acid/gelatine hydrogel coating embedded with zeolitic imidazolate framework-90-Bi-CeO₂ nanoparticles.¹²² Upon 808 nm NIR exposure, the bismuth component produced localised heating, resulting in ∼95% biofilm eradication of S. aureus within 10 minutes. The coating also provided antioxidant protection via CeO₂ and Zn²-mediated bioactivity, offering a synergistic platform for both infection control and healing. Zou et al. reported surface-grafted copolymer brushes of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) and 3-(acrylamide)phenylboronic acid, into which quercetin (Qe), a natural antibiofilm molecule, was immobilised via pH-sensitive boronate ester bonds.⁹⁶ The poly(HEMA) layer reduces bacterial adhesion in the first 4 hours by >80%, without contact killing. Upon bacterial colonisation and subsequent acidification of the microenvironment, the boronate ester bonds cleave, releasing Qe to disrupt quorum sensing and inhibit biofilm maturation.

Additionally, enzyme-responsive coatings that harness bacterial protease activity, such as chitosan-hollow-nanosphere system loaded with eugenol and chrysophanol, offer a highly specific release mechanism, with efficacy sustained under physiological fluid flow for up to 30 days.¹²³ Mao et al. (2021) engineered salt-responsive, substrate-independent implant coatings using PDA co-deposition with bactericidal polylysine, antibiofouling PEGDGE, and zwitterionic copolymer poly(GMA-co-DVBAPS).¹²⁴ Coating achieved ∼93% killing of E. coli and ∼91% of S. aureus, as well as ∼94% bacterial release under 1 M NaCl, indicating salt-responsive detachment of adhered bacteria. Smart coatings featuring acid-triggered release of antimicrobial agents,⁷⁵ thermoresponsive micellar assemblies immobilised on implantable surfaces,¹²⁵ or antibiofilm peptides that modulate quorum-sensing pathways and suppress biofilm-associated gene expression^56,126,127 represent a shift toward environmentally adaptive designs that deploy antimicrobial action only when needed, enhancing safety and longevity.

Another area of focus in dual-functional implant coatings is enhancing durability by integrating self-healing mechanisms,^67,128 polymeric brush architectures,⁶¹ and antimicrobial functionalities.²⁵ Aminomalononitrile (AMN)-based self-healing coatings maintained >90% bacterial inhibition against S. aureus and E. coli even after mechanical damage.⁶⁷ Another example is hydroxyethyl acrylate (HEA), polyethylene glycol acrylate (PEGA480), and quaternised 4-vinylpyridine coating, which demonstrated >90% protein-repulsion efficiency and >99.9% bactericidal activity against S. aureus and E. coli after 1 hour.¹²⁸ Upon surface damage, the supramolecular bonds enabled room-temperature self-healing, with mechanical recovery reaching 93% and complete antibacterial function restoration within 15 minutes. Polymer brush coatings incorporating cationic polyMETAC achieved a fivefold reduction in S. aureus adhesion and limited E. coli attachment to 1.8 × 10⁵ cells per cm², retaining low fouling levels even after 72 hours.⁶¹ Chemically modified antimicrobial surfaces, including quaternised polymers⁵⁰ and rosin acid-based QAS,²⁵ have demonstrated long-term antimicrobial effects, with a 99.99% bacterial killing efficacy against S. aureus and 86% reduction of bacterial adhesion and biofilm suppression for up to 21 days and a 4.89 log reduction in E. coli adhesion, respectively. Polysaccharide-based multilayer coatings achieved 93% inhibition of S. aureus and E. coli over five reapplication cycles while reducing hemolysis from 47% to 5%.²⁴ Additionally, photocured coatings synthesised via ATRP reduced S. aureus biofilm formation by 95% and extended catheter lifespans from approximately 7 to 35 days in physiological environments.⁵³ While these strategies collectively enhance coating stability and bacterial resistance, challenges remain in optimising antimicrobial potency while ensuring long-term mechanical resilience, biocompatibility, and resistance to biomolecular fouling, which are critical for clinical and industrial applications.

Surface engineering tactics, such as micropatterning on polypropylene,¹²⁹ cicada wing-inspired topographies,¹³⁰ or slippery liquid-infused porous surfaces infused with QAS,¹³¹ further amplify antibiofouling performance through physical disruption or lubricant-layer barriers. Most innovative recent developments incorporate both structural and chemical antimicrobial strategies. Laser-induced periodic surface structures (LIPSS) offer a physical mechanism to disrupt bacterial membranes via nanoscale topography, while chemical agents such as AgNPs contribute a sustained bactericidal effect.⁶⁵ LIPSS-treated Ti substrates were further functionalised with a hybrid coating composed of PDA, chitosan, and AgNPs. PDA serves as a versatile adhesion promoter, enabling robust coating on the Ti surface and in situ reduction of Ag⁺ (Fig. 5(d)). Chitosan enhances both antimicrobial activity and biocompatibility. The resulting Ti-PCA@LIPSS combines mechano- and chemo-bactericidal functions, leading to significant reductions in E. coli biofilm formation over 24 hours (Fig. 5(e)), while also supporting fibroblast adhesion.

Wound dressing. Wound infections occur when bacterial pathogens circumvent the wound dressing barrier and invade the wound bed, leading to colonisation, inflammation, stalled healing, and chronic infections.⁷⁶ Chronic wounds, including diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and pressure ulcers, impose an economic burden exceeding $50 billion annually in the US alone.⁵¹ Traditional antimicrobial wound dressings face major limitations, such as the accumulation of bacterial debris that hinders antimicrobial action, cytotoxicity from silver ions or antibiotics, and a lack of antibiofouling properties.¹³²

Dual-functional polyethylene glycol/polyimidazolium/N-acetylcysteine (PEG/PIM-Mal/NAC) hydrogel coating⁵¹ and N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide/endolysin (pHPMA/EndLys) coated dressings⁷⁶ offer distinct but complementary strategies for infection control and wound recovery. PEG-based polymer network covalently tethered with polyimidazolium (PIM) for contact-active biofilm eradication, and N-acetylcysteine (NAC) for antioxidative wound healing support, demonstrated complete killing of Methicillin-resistant S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, Carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa, and Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in one hour.⁵¹ In diabetic mouse wounds, coated dressings achieved >3-log of bacteria, accelerated re-epithelialization and promoted granulation tissue formation compared to commercial silver dressings.

Garay-Sarmiento et al. introduced a Kill&Repel ultrathin wound dressing coating that combines antibiofouling polymer brushes with a contact-killing bactericidal enzyme, endolysin (EndLys).⁷⁶ The antibiofouling component, N-(2-hydroxypropyl) methacrylamide (HPMA) and (3-methacryloylamino-propyl)-(2-carboxy-ethyl) dimethylammonium carboxybetaine methacrylamide (CBMAA), were grafted to a surface-affine fusion protein, forming a hydration-layer brush that reduced protein fouling from human plasma by up to 100%, fibroblast adhesion by >90%, and bacterial colonisation by E. coli by nearly 100%. EndLys hydrolysed the peptidoglycan layer of Streptococcus agalactiae (S. agalactiae) upon contact, achieving 92% killing of planktonic cells within 1 hour and 96% clearance of sessile bacteria on infected agar surfaces. To understand the performance of the immobilised EndLys, they evaluated the enzymatic cleavage of a FRET peptide substrate, showing that co-immobilised EndLys retained and even enhanced activity compared to the free enzyme, despite being present at a lower molar concentration (Fig. 6(a)). The immobilised enzyme achieved a 92% reduction in S. agalactiae planktonic cells after 1 hour of incubation, whereas the free enzyme at 1–2 μM only achieved 41–52% reduction (Fig. 6(b)). SEM imaging confirmed minimal bacterial attachment on the coated mesh after incubation in dense S. agalactiae suspensions (Fig. 6(c)). This non-leaching, non-toxic coating was stable for over 6 months and preserved biocompatibility in both extract and direct contact assays.

Fig. 6 Dual-functional performance of the Kill&Repel coating. (a) Schematic of the enzymatic activity assay using a peptide substrate labelled with aminobenzoyl (Abz, a fluorophore) and dinitrophenyl (Dnp, a quencher), enabling Förster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET). Cleavage of the substrate by immobilised EndLys disrupts FRET and restores fluorescence. Fluorescence increase over time confirms the enzymatic activity of immobilised EndLys on pHPMA₇₉₂/EndLys-coated meshes compared to free EndLys and control. (b) Illustration of localised bacterial killing by immobilised EndLys on the coating versus dispersed free EndLys. Quantification shows a 92% reduction in S. agalactiae concentration after 1 h with coated mesh, exceeding the efficacy of free EndLys at 1–2 μM. (c) SEM and fluorescence overlay images show markedly reduced bacterial adhesion (purple spots indicate bacteria) on coated polycaprolactone (PCL) mesh versus bare PCL. Scale bars are 10 μm. Reproduced with permission from ref. 76. Copyright 2022 John Wiley and Sons.

5.2. Dual-functional coatings for frequently touched surfaces

High-touch surfaces represent a functional category found across healthcare, public, industrial, and consumer settings. These surfaces face continuous microbial contamination due to frequent human contact and require robust, biocompatible, and durable surface coatings. However, the practical implementation of dual-functional coatings for frequently touched surfaces remains challenging. These coatings must endure mechanical stresses, including friction, abrasion, cleaning agents, and frequent sterilisation, all of which can compromise coating integrity and effectiveness.¹³³ Addressing mechanical durability explicitly, Lu et al. (2024) developed a nanosilica-based composite incorporating AgNPs and TEGO® Addibit EK 50, formulated specifically for highly abrasive conditions typical of frequently touched surfaces.⁶⁸ This coating achieved 99% antimicrobial effectiveness against both E. coli and S. aureus within 15 minutes, benefiting from the synergy of antimicrobial AgNPs and the antibiofouling hydration effect of nanosilica resin. Critically, its mechanical robustness was validated by maintaining complete antimicrobial efficacy after 2000 friction cycles. By adjusting crosslinker density, this platform can be tailored to different mechanical stress requirements, highlighting its adaptability and scalability for various touch surface environments.

Recent efforts have further explored the use of imidazolium-based zwitterionic polymers and biocompatible nanosilica composites. Chen et al. (2022) introduced a zwitterionic coating synthesised via initiated chemical vapour deposition (iCVD), a solvent-free, substrate-independent technique that enables uniform and conformal coating on complex surfaces (Fig. 7(a)).⁵² The process involved copolymerisation of vinyl imidazole and divinylbenzene via iCVD, followed by vapor-phase derivatization with 1,3-propanesultone to convert imidazole moieties into imidazolium sulfonate groups (Fig. 7(b)). This approach preserved the topographical integrity of diverse substrates, including curved 96-well plates (Fig. 7(c)), glass fibre filters with micrometre-scale 3D structure (Fig. 7(d)), and nanoporous membranes (Fig. 7(e)). SEM-EDX confirmed the presence of sulphur exclusively on coated surfaces. Functionally, the coating reduced coronavirus infectivity by 74%, viral adhesion by 97.4%, and bacterial biofilm formation to 15% of that on conventional polyvinyl chloride (PVC), while inhibiting pyoverdine production in P. aeruginosa biofilms by 67%.

Fig. 7 Synthesis and substrate versatility of the iCVD-derived zwitterionic coatings. (a) Schematic of iCVD setup and (b) post-deposition derivatization with 1,3-propanesultone. Conformal coatings were demonstrated on (c) curved 96-well plates, (d) micrometre-scale glass fibre filters, and (e) nanoporous membranes. Coatings preserved substrate morphology and showed sulphur presence only on treated surfaces. Reproduced with permission from ref. 52. Copyright 2022 The American Association for the Advancement of Science.

5.3. Dual-functional coatings for food contact surfaces

Dual-functional surface coatings for food contact materials remain underexplored, primarily due to strict regulatory requirements, potential toxicity of leaching components, and the need to preserve food safety without compromising coating efficacy or removability.¹³⁴ Zou et al. (2024) developed a dual-functional coating from tannic acid, gelatine, and soy protein hydrolysate for hydrophobic food-contact surfaces, particularly low-density polyethylene.³⁶ This coating effectively reduces microbial contamination by up to 5 log₁₀ CFU cm⁻² against both E. coli and Listeria innocua. The coating is rechargeable by immersing it in a solution with a mild pH of 6 and 20 ppm free active chlorine, allowing it to undergo at least five recharging cycles. It is also removable with hot water or steam, making it easy to clean and reuse. Chen et al. (2025) designed a dual-functional antimicrobial and antibiofouling surface by coordinating ionic silver onto poly(methacrylic acid) (PMAA) thin films synthesised via iCVD.¹³⁵ This coating achieved a two-log reduction in P. aeruginosa viability and a 70% suppression of biofilm formation. Importantly, the system maintained negligible silver ion leaching, suggesting that antimicrobial activity was confined to the surface interface. Over 90% of surface-attached cells were non-viable, with corresponding reductions in virulence factor expression. Furthermore, no cytotoxic effects were observed, making it a promising approach for minimising the risks associated with AgNP use as described in Section 5.1. Nevertheless, for food-contact surfaces, such systems would still require rigorous long-term safety validation and compliance with migration limits defined by regulatory agencies.

5.4. Marine and water filtration applications

The dual-functional coatings reviewed in Table 4 demonstrate a variety of strategies tailored for marine applications. Particularly, marine environments impose some of the most stringent requirements on surface coatings, demanding not only long-term resistance to biofouling but also durability under harsh conditions. Smart coatings leveraging light-triggered responses have shown promise in marine settings. For instance, the coumarin-based slippery liquid-infused porous surface developed by Tong et al. demonstrated exceptional self-healing capacity (92.85%) and maintained antibiofouling performance over 150 days of field testing.¹³⁶ Its UV-triggered lubricity enhancement effectively deterred the adhesion of bacteria and algae. The inherent limitation of these sunlight-dependent coatings was addressed by integrating mobile bionic cilia and nitric oxide release mechanisms.⁷⁴ The g-C₃N₄/poly-Schiff base system further demonstrates the potential of light-activated surfaces.⁷² QAS-modified coatings with UV-induced biofilm exfoliation provide high antibacterial efficacy (>99.9% S. aureus inactivation) and show resilience over repeated microbial challenge cycles.⁴⁸ Fluorinated polyurethane (FPU) and carboxymethyl chitosan–zinc oxide (CMC–ZnO) coating is notable for maintaining integrity at temperatures up to 400 °C and in both flowing and static seawater.³⁷ Its fluorinated PU matrix adds hydrophobic antibiofouling features, while ZnO offers UV-induced ROS activity. However, the visible light/UV requirement again constrains their utility in low-light or deep-sea applications.

Table 4 Dual functional surface coatings across contact, food, marine and water applications

Dual-functional material	Contact angle	Zeta potential	Coating technique/surface texturing	Antimicrobial activity comes from	Antibiofouling activity comes from	Biocompatibility	Stability
Contact surface coatings
Imidazolium-based zwitterionic polymer^52	9.9° ± 2.1°	−13 mV in a 100 mM NaCl standard solution at pH 7	iCVD	Positively charged carbon atom at the C2 position	Strong electrostatic interaction with water molecules	—	Durable and insoluble in aqueous environments due to the incorporation of divinylbenzene as a cross-linker
AMP^137	40.7° ± 1.8°	—	Dopamine-assisted modification	AMP	AMP	Non-toxic and environmentally friendly.	Maintained antibiofouling performance after immersion in artificial seawater for up to 21 days
MDPB/SBMA/polyurethane^45	21.2 ± 4.3°	—	3D printing	QA in MDPB	SBMA	Cell viability remaining >90% after 7 days of testing.	—
Nanosilica resin/AgNPs/TEGO®Addibit EK 50^68	15.05°	—	Sol–gel transformation	AgNPs	Nanosilica resin and TEGO® Addibit EK 50	Excellent biocompatibility	Abrasion resistance (2000 cycles), water resistance (72 hours), and aging resistance (48 hours UV exposure)
Food-related coatings
Gelatin/soy protein hydrolysate/tannic acid@low-density polyethylene (gel/SPH/TA@LDPE)^36	∼30°	—	Atmospheric plasma treatment, solvent casting and crosslinking, chlorination	N-Halamine structures	Hydrophilicity	Do not exhibit cytotoxic effects	Retained 88.2% of its initial mass after 2 hours and 80.4% after 24 hours of water immersion.
				Reduction: Listeria innocua 99.999%, E. coli 99.998%
							Maintained 704 ppm active chlorine after 5 recharging cycles
Ag-coordinated poly(methacrylic acid) (Ag-PMAA)^135	62.9 ± 2.0°	—	iCVD	Surface-bound Ag^+	Surface-bound Ag^+ (non-leaching, contact-kill)	97.4% viability of HDFa (vs. 8% on control PVC)	No measurable Ag^+ leaching after 24 h; robust under immersion
Marine and water treatment
Carbonyl iron particles/silicone elastomer/ZIF-8/BNN6/methyl fluoro–silicone oil^74	≈105°	—	Magnetic field self-assembly	Nitric oxide release under UV	Fluoro–silicone oil	—	Maintained its structure after 1000 bending cycles, with no significant degradation after 30 days in seawater
Carboxymethyl chitosan–zinc oxide/fluorinated polyurethane (CMC-ZnO/FPU)^37	69°	—	Solution casting and curing at 60 °C for another 24 hour	UV-induced hydroxyl radicals and ROS from ZnO. electrostatic interactions with chitosan. survival rate- E.coli 3.14%, S. aureus- 2.53%	FPU	—	Withstanding temperatures up to 400 °C, maintaining structural integrity and performance after 30 days in stationary seawater and 14 days in flowing seawater
g-C3N4 nanosheet/poly-Schiff base composite coating (DPC-x)^72	Before degradation: 97.82°, after 5 days of immersion: 58.4°, after 50 days of degradation: 58.4°	g-C3N4 nanosheets: −18 mV in water	Solution casting	Photocatalytic activity of g-C3N4 nanosheets kills 99.31% in the dark and 99.87% in visible light.	Poly-Schiff base resin degrades to expose fresh g-C3N4 nanosheets, maintaining an active surface.	Environmentally friendly and non-toxic	—
					Hydrophilic surface and negative zeta potential repel microorganisms.
α-lipoic acid QAS/ethylene glycol/lithium phenyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoylphosphinate^48	—	—	Drop casting	QAS >99.9% of S. aureus inactivation	Lithium phenyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoylphosphinate degrades with UV, exfoliating biofilm from the surface	Reduced toxicity	Maintain dual functional properties over multiple cycles
Mesoporous silica nanoparticles/QAS/DCOIT^49	96°	n/a	Mixed with biocide-free paint and coated PVC panels	QA	DCOIT	Low toxicity to non-target species	—
Polylysine/tannic acid/poly(2-diisopropylaminoethyl methacrylate)-b-poly(2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine) (PLYS/TA/PDPA-b-PMPC)^60	32° at pH 7.4, 24° at pH 5.5	2.7 mV at pH 7.4	Immersion coating	PLYS chains −77% inhibition of adhered S. epidermidis	PMPC reduce bacterial adhesion to 22%	90% cell viability	Stable over 30 days of immersion in filtered seawater & 14 days of exposure to flowing seawater at 13 cm s^−1
Houttuynia and scutellarin extracts blended with methylphenyl silicone resin (MSR)^77	>130°	—	Dip-coating	Bioactive compounds in houttuynia and scutellarin. Ex: decanal and safrole, which can disrupt bacterial cell walls and membranes	MRS provides low surface energy, making it difficult for fouling organisms to attach to the surface	—	Reduction rate after 30 days of seawater immersion – Houttuynia/MSR: 73.9% (E. coli), 99% (S. aureus)
							Scutellarin/MSR: 91.3% (E. coli), 72.4% (S. aureus)
							Houttuynia/MSR: 56.25% (Algae)
							Scutellarin/MSR: 64.81% (algae)
Gel/GMTA/QA^46	—	+50 mV (pH 3–10)	Single-step grafting	QA-98% removal of E. coli from dairy wastewater	GMTA	Low cytotoxicity	Retains its viscosity and zeta potential after being stored at 4 °C for 10, 20, and 30 days
L-tryptophan/picolinic acid/4-nitrophenyl-isothiocyanate@AgNPs (gel@AgNPs)^70	140 ± 2.0°	—	Self-assembly	AgNPs reduced viability by ∼95% in 4 hours against E. coli and S. aureus	Superhydrophobic organogel repels bacteria.	Do not inhibit cell proliferation at the tested concentrations	Strong resistance to external shear forces.

---

While several dual-functional coatings demonstrate excellent performance in marine environments, their long-term environmental impact raises concern. For instance, a mesoporous coating composed of silica nanoparticles, QAS and 4,5-dichloro-2-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (DCOIT) achieved 99% bacterial inhibition and only 6.9% surface fouling after six months.⁴⁹ However, their reliance on biocide leaching, particularly DCOIT, poses risks of ecotoxicity. In contrast, biodegradable plant-derived coatings using Houttuynia and Scutellarin extracts showed up to 99% bacterial reduction and 35.92% less fouling in marine field tests.⁷⁷ Polymer-based systems, such as the pH-responsive PDPA-b-PMPC/PLYS coating,⁶⁰ offer biocide-free, switchable functionality and maintain performance over 30 days in static and 14 days in flowing seawater. Similarly, dopamine-assisted antimicrobial peptide coatings on stainless steel significantly reduced marine organism adhesion (>90%) via electrostatic disruption, without inducing toxicity in zebrafish or human renal cells.¹³⁷ At the forefront, a chiral metal–organic framework coating (MPN-DMOF) assembled via Cu²⁺-mediated mineralisation of D-methionine on a tannic acid–polyethylenimine (TA–PEI) metal–polyphenol network demonstrated robust dual-functionality by integrating mechanical biofilm disruption with catalytic ROS generation.¹⁰⁶ The synthesis process (Fig. 8(a)) involves sequential deposition of a uniform MPN adhesive layer (Fig. 8(b) and (c)), which facilitates stable and substrate-independent MOF growth. Subsequent mineralisation yields conformal microspheres with petal-like nanostructures (Fig. 8(d) and (e)), which are critical for exerting mechano-bactericidal effects by inducing membrane rupture through nanoscale protrusions and restricted bacterial adhesion. The multifunctional action of the coating (Fig. 8(f)) causes mechanical disruption, Cu²⁺-driven chemodynamic killing, D-amino-acid-mediated biofilm disassembly, and fluorescence-assisted algae repellence. Functionally, MPN-DMOF achieved a 5.6-log reduction of Bacillus vietnamensis biofilms, >91% E. coli membrane rupture, and further CFU reductions in P. aeruginosa and S. aureus, outperforming its L-methionine analogue in biofilm dispersal and gene-level suppression. The coating also demonstrated consistent wettability across diverse substrates and sustained Cu²⁺ release at 8.5 μg·cm⁻² per day. Extending beyond marine use, Peng et al. introduced a non-leaching, energy-independent coating of carbon-coated Cu(OH)₂ nanotips on copper foam that achieved >99.9% bacterial inactivation through physical rupture over 30 days.¹³⁸

Fig. 8 Fabrication and functional mechanisms of a chiral MOF-based dual-functional coating. (a) Synthesis of the coating via metal–polyphenol network (MPN)-assisted mineralisation using tannic acid (TA), polyethylenimine (PEI), Cu²⁺, and D-methionine. (b), (c) SEM and AFM images showing uniform MPN anchoring on stainless steel. (d), (e) SEM images revealing conformal MOF microspheres with petal-like morphology. (f) Schematic illustration of the dual-functional mechanism, integrating mechano-bactericidal effects, Cu²⁺-driven chemodynamic killing, D-amino-acid-induced biofilm disassembly, and fluorescence-mediated algae inhibition. Reproduced with permission from ref. 106. Copyright John Wiley and Sons 2024.

6. Opportunities for improvement of dual-functional coatings

While dual-functional surface coatings have shown great promise, further refinement could significantly enhance their clinical and industrial utility. Advanced fabrication techniques such as reversible addition–fragmentation chain-transfer (RAFT) polymerisation,²⁵ atom transfer radical polymerisation (ATRP)⁹⁶ or chemical vapour deposition,⁶² have allowed for precise tuning of surface functionalities. However, they are complicated and not easy and cost-effective to scale up, which significantly limits their practical applications. Moreover, the reliance on synthetically engineered polymers adds to the economic and ecological burden. They not only raise concerns around toxicity and long-term biocompatibility but also lack biodegradability, contributing to the global microplastic crisis. Microplastics are now detected in over 1300 species across marine, terrestrial, and atmospheric ecosystems¹³⁹ including recent detection in human ovarian follicular fluid.¹⁴⁰ Driven by growing concerns over health risks, environmental crises, and resource scarcity, the 21st century has witnessed an escalating demand for sustainable materials that are not only biodegradable, non-toxic, and environmentally benign, but also cost-effective and widely accessible.

In this context, cellulose, the most abundant natural biopolymer, presents a compelling alternative.¹⁴¹ Cellulose, first isolated by Anselme Payen in 1838, has become a focus of extensive research due to its renewability, biodegradability, and surface reactivity.^142,143 Among cellulose-based materials, nanocellulose (NC) has gained significant attention due to its unique combination of sustainability, low density, high aspect ratio, high crystallinity, strong hydrophilicity and a modifiable surface that enables tailored functionalisation.¹⁴⁴ In addition, NC-based materials are compatible with scalable, low-cost application methods such as spray coating, facilitating their translation to industrial and biomedical settings.^145,146 There are three main classes of NC: cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs), cellulose nanofibers (CNF), and bacterial nanocellulose (BNC), classified according to their morphology and source.¹⁴⁷ Readers are advised to refer to Thomas et al.¹⁴⁷ for an in-depth overview of NC, production methods, surface modifications, and application potential across diverse fields.

The earliest reported form of NC is acid hydrolysed CNCs which dates back to 1947.¹⁴⁸ In 1949, these materials were referred to as “cellulose micelles and crystallites”.¹⁴⁹ However, it was not until 1953 that electron micrograph imaging revealed that CNCs do not exist in a micelle form but instead exhibit a rod-like structure.¹⁵⁰ Later in 1970, the term ‘Nanocellulose’ came into existence, which is now the standard term.¹⁵¹ A significant milestone came in 1983 when Turbak et al. developed CMFs through high-shear mechanical treatment of wood pulp, marking the precursor to CNFs.¹⁵² In the 1990s and 2000s, researchers like Akira Isogai^153,154 advanced CNF production techniques. In 2011, the growing interest in NC led to the establishment of the first and world's largest CNC producer (1 ton per day), CelluForce® in Canada.¹⁵⁵ Today, there are several other industrial-scale NC producers such as Alberta Innovates Technology Futures, Anomera Inc., GranBio and Forest Products Laboratories (supplied by the University of Maine).^156,157

NC has shown potential for antibiofouling applications, as its hydrophilic surface prevents microbial adhesion and biofilm formation.¹⁵⁸ For instance, NC coatings applied to polyethersulfone membranes reduced surface roughness from 30.5 nm to 4.7 nm for CNC and 7.6 nm for CNF, resulting in 49% less BSA protein adhesion and significantly reducing E. coli coverage to 0.2% compared to 10.2% on uncoated membranes.¹⁵⁹ However, native NC lacks intrinsic antimicrobial activity¹⁶⁰ and thus does not fulfil the criteria for dual-functionality. To address this limitation, recent studies have explored strategies to impart antimicrobial properties to NC while retaining its antibiofouling characteristics. First, surface hydroxyl groups can be chemically transformed into reactive moieties such as aldehydes with intrinsic antimicrobial activity.¹⁷ Second, antimicrobial compounds may be covalently grafted onto the NC to ensure stable, contact-active performance.¹⁶¹ Third, NC can serve as a template for the immobilisation of metal nanoparticles, which confer sustained microbial inhibition via surface-mediated interactions without uncontrolled release.¹⁶²

We recently explored the dual-functional surface coating potential of dialdehyde cellulose microfibres (DACMF) derived from sugarcane trash (Fig. 9).¹⁷ The DACMF coating achieved 99% inactivation of S. aureus within 20 minutes (Fig. 9(a)), over 90% inhibition of E. coli within 60 minutes (Fig. 9(b)), and >99.9% reduction of influenza A/H1N1 virus just after 15 minutes of contact (Fig. 9(c)). Additionally, hydrophilic porous fibre architecture promotes hydration-mediated low fouling, while the aldehyde functionalities lead to irreversible inactivation of any adhered pathogens (Fig. 9(g)–(l)). Covalent grafting has also proven effective in enhancing the dual-functional properties of NC. For example, poly(sulphobetaine methacrylate) (PSBMA) grafted onto CNC reduced protein adsorption and achieved measurable antibacterial activity compared to no activity for pristine CNC.¹⁶¹ Similarly, grafting epoxy propyl dimethyl dodecyl ammonium chloride onto cellulose acetate membranes improved water permeability by 139% and flux recovery by 21.5%, while maintaining >99.99% inactivation of S. aureus and E. coli even after four antibacterial cycles, indicating long-term stability and durability.¹²⁷ The negatively charged surface functionalities of NC (–OH, –COOH, SO₄²⁻) facilitate strong electrostatic interactions with metal ions, enabling effective templating and immobilisation of nanoparticles while preventing aggregations. This anchoring improves coating stability and promotes uniform nanoparticle distribution, enhancing antimicrobial performance while mitigating cytotoxicity through controlled release.⁷⁰ For instance, silver nanoparticles templated CNCs (CNC/Ag) reduced adhesion of E. coli and B. subtilis by over 99%, compared to 66.9% and 32.9% with pristine CNCs and inactivated planktonic cells, with MIC values of 25 μg mL⁻¹ for B. subtilis and 100 μg mL⁻¹ for E. coli.¹⁶²

Fig. 9 Dual-functional performance of dialdehyde cellulose (DAC) coatings. CMF: cellulose microfibres, DACMF: dialdehyde cellulose microfibres and DACNF: dialdehyde cellulose nanofibers. Time-dependent antibacterial activity of uncoated and coated surfaces against (a) S. aureus and (b) E. coli. (c) Antiviral efficacy. SEM images of bacterial accumulation and adhesion after 12 h of incubation: (d)–(j) uncoated, (e)–(k) CMF, and (f)–(l) DACMF-coated surfaces. Scale bar: 10 μm. Reproduced with permission from ref. 17, Copyright 2025 American Chemical Society.

While nanocellulose offers promising features for dual-functional coatings, several challenges must be addressed to enable broader industrial adoption. One major limitation is its hydrophilic surface, which reduces compatibility with hydrophobic matrices, often requiring chemical modification that can increase cost and reduce sustainability. Achieving stable, homogeneous dispersion in different formulations is also difficult, as nanocellulose tends to aggregate or gel over time. Industrial-scale production is progressing, with ongoing challenges in achieving energy-efficient and low-chemical extraction methods.^163,164 In particular, drying nanocellulose without compromising its structure and performance remains a significant hurdle. Conventional drying methods are energy-intensive, and once dried, nanocellulose is often difficult to rehydrate uniformly, which limits its processability and application flexibility. Nanocellulose's hydrophilicity supports antibiofouling yet can compromise dimensional stability under humid conditions and contributes to inconsistent hydration layer formation, an aspect critical for antifouling yet often under-characterised.^165,166 Addressing these technical challenges is essential for unlocking the full potential of nanocellulose in sustainable coating technologies.

In addition to nanocellulose, chitosan- and protein-based surface coatings offer substantial potential as materials capable of inhibiting bacterial colonisation and preventing biofouling. The biopolymer's innate cationic nature facilitates electrostatic interactions with negatively charged microbial membranes, thereby disrupting cellular integrity and limiting biofilm formation. Functionalisation strategies such as PEGylation and nanoparticle incorporation have been shown to enhance chitosan's hydrophilicity and surface uniformity, effectively reducing bacterial adhesion and promoting long-term antifouling efficacy.¹⁶⁷ Recent research has further demonstrated that tuning the surface roughness and chemical structure of chitosan-based films markedly improves their bactericidal performance while maintaining material stability.¹⁶⁸ Mechanistic investigations have elucidated how chemical modifications, such as QA substitution and metal ion chelation, can significantly amplify chitosan's intrinsic antibacterial properties.¹⁶⁹ In addition, chitosan-grafted microsphere systems can effectively enable controlled biocide release while maintaining low toxicity, highlighting a promising pathway toward sustainable high-performance dual-functional coatings.¹⁷⁰ However, chitosan-based coatings can benefit from further optimisation in water stability and mechanical robustness under varying pH and in humid environments.¹⁷¹ Its incompatibility with hydrophobic surfaces often requires chemical modification, while dip-coated films commonly suffer from non-uniformity and limited durability.^171,172

Protein-based surface coatings offer precise molecular architecture, inherent biocompatibility, and modular design capable of combining fouling-resistant, adhesive, and antimicrobial domains in single constructs. For instance, triblock proteins integrating zwitterionic peptides, mussel-adhesive sequences, and silver-binding motifs have demonstrated both antifouling and bactericidal actions.¹⁷³ However, Protein-based coatings require cost-effective, scalable synthesis and greater enzymatic durability.¹⁷⁴ Another key constraint is their structural instability, particularly under fluctuating temperature and humidity, which accelerates denaturation and compromises long-term antimicrobial efficacy.^175,176 Additionally, integration with synthetic or hydrophobic substrates often necessitates cross-linking agents or chemical modifications, which can diminish their biodegradability and introduce cytotoxic residues.¹⁷⁷ Furthermore, batch variability and susceptibility to microbial degradation pose additional challenges to standardization and shelf stability.¹⁷⁸

Zinc-coordinated polydopamine coatings (PDA/Zn) offer a robust synthetic platform for dual-functional performance.^179,180 A PDA/Zn surface, formed via one-pot dopamine polymerisation in zinc ammonium solution, exhibited superhydrophilicity and effectively inhibited the attachment of biological substances, including platelets and bovine serum albumin, while demonstrating antibacterial activity against E. coli and S. aureus through Zn²⁺–protein interactions without inducing cytotoxicity to mammalian cells.¹⁷⁹ Building on this, a superamphophilic antimicrobial membrane incorporating a PDA/Zn metallo–polymeric framework on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) non-woven fabric enabled gravity-driven dehydration of aviation fuel, reducing water content below 10 ppm, and achieved near-complete bacterial eradication through Zn²⁺-mediated toxicity and mechanical puncture from nanostructure cusps.¹⁸⁰ These PDA/Zn systems provide scalable alternatives, but should be evaluated for long-term biosafety and environmental impact due to potential ion leaching.

7. Conclusions

This review provides a critical and comprehensive overview of dual-functional antimicrobial and antibiofouling surface coatings, positioning them as a paradigm shift in surface engineering with relevance across biomedical, industrial, and marine domains. We have explored the underlying mechanisms of microbial adhesion and persistence, evaluated material strategies including contact-active systems, stimuli-responsive release platforms, and polymer–nanoparticle hybrids, and demonstrated how these innovations enable coatings to both prevent microbial adhesion and inactivate pathogens under specific environmental triggers.

Despite significant progress, current approaches remain limited by antimicrobial agent leaching, short functional lifespans, cytotoxicity risks, and complex fabrications. Moreover, the overwhelming focus on antibacterial targets has left viral and fungal threats comparatively underexplored. This is a critical gap, given that viral infections account for millions of deaths annually,¹⁸¹ and fungal diseases affect over 6 million people each year, resulting in approximately 3.75 million deaths, of which 2.55 million are directly attributed to that fungal infection.¹⁸²

As we move toward a “One Health” paradigm seeking to balance human, animal, and environmental health,¹⁸³ future coatings must prioritise not only antimicrobial efficacy but also sustainability, durability, translational feasibility, and safety. In this broader context, NC emerges as a compelling material platform due to its abundance, biodegradability, surface tunability, and excellent mechanical properties. Alongside NC, other emerging systems such as chitosan, protein, and PDA/Zn hybrids offer versatile, biocompatible pathways toward dual-functional performance. We believe that coatings built on such sustainable and adaptable platforms can transition from reactive disinfection tools to proactive, scalable defences against diverse and evolving microbial threats.

Author contributions

S. S. A. A. designed the structure, conducted the investigation and article analysis, and prepared the original draft. N. A. conceived the idea, designed the structure, supervised the work, revised the draft and provided funding support.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Data availability

No primary research results, software or codes have been included, and no new data were generated or analysed as part of this review.

Acknowledgements

S. S. A. A. acknowledges the funding support received from the UQ Research Higher Degree Scholarship. N. A. acknowledges the financial support from the Advance Queensland Industry Fellowship (AQIRF128-2020) and support received from industry partners Manildra Harwood Sugar trading as Sunshine Sugar.

References

1. WHO, Ten threats to global health in 2019, https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019, (accessed April 17, 2025).
2. G. B. D. A. R. Collaborators, Lancet, 2022, 400, 2221–2248.
3. A. Gray and F. Sharara, Lancet Glob. Health, 2022, 10, S2.
4. C. J. L. Murray, K. S. Ikuta, F. Sharara, L. Swetschinski, G. Robles Aguilar, A. Gray, C. Han, C. Bisignano, P. Rao, E. Wool, S. C. Johnson, A. J. Browne, M. G. Chipeta, F. Fell, S. Hackett, G. Haines-Woodhouse, B. H. Kashef Hamadani, E. A. P. Kumaran, B. McManigal, S. Achalapong, R. Agarwal, S. Akech, S. Albertson, J. Amuasi, J. Andrews, A. Aravkin, E. Ashley, F.-X. Babin, F. Bailey, S. Baker, B. Basnyat, A. Bekker, R. Bender, J. A. Berkley, A. Bethou, J. Bielicki, S. Boonkasidecha, J. Bukosia, C. Carvalheiro, C. Castañeda-Orjuela, V. Chansamouth, S. Chaurasia, S. Chiurchiù, F. Chowdhury, R. Clotaire Donatien, A. J. Cook, B. Cooper, T. R. Cressey, E. Criollo-Mora, M. Cunningham, S. Darboe, N. P. J. Day, M. De Luca, K. Dokova, A. Dramowski, S. J. Dunachie, T. Duong Bich, T. Eckmanns, D. Eibach, A. Emami, N. Feasey, N. Fisher-Pearson, K. Forrest, C. Garcia, D. Garrett, P. Gastmeier, A. Z. Giref, R. C. Greer, V. Gupta, S. Haller, A. Haselbeck, S. I. Hay, M. Holm, S. Hopkins, Y. Hsia, K. C. Iregbu, J. Jacobs, D. Jarovsky, F. Javanmardi, A. W. J. Jenney, M. Khorana, S. Khusuwan, N. Kissoon, E. Kobeissi, T. Kostyanev, F. Krapp, R. Krumkamp, A. Kumar, H. H. Kyu, C. Lim, K. Lim, D. Limmathurotsakul, M. J. Loftus, M. Lunn, J. Ma, A. Manoharan, F. Marks, J. May, M. Mayxay, N. Mturi, T. Munera-Huertas, P. Musicha, L. A. Musila, M. M. Mussi-Pinhata, R. N. Naidu, T. Nakamura, R. Nanavati, S. Nangia, P. Newton, C. Ngoun, A. Novotney, D. Nwakanma, C. W. Obiero, T. J. Ochoa, A. Olivas-Martinez, P. Olliaro, E. Ooko, E. Ortiz-Brizuela, P. Ounchanum, G. D. Pak, J. L. Paredes, A. Y. Peleg, C. Perrone, T. Phe, K. Phommasone, N. Plakkal, A. Ponce-de-Leon, M. Raad, T. Ramdin, S. Rattanavong, A. Riddell, T. Roberts, J. V. Robotham, A. Roca, V. D. Rosenthal, K. E. Rudd, N. Russell, H. S. Sader, W. Saengchan, J. Schnall, J. A. G. Scott, S. Seekaew, M. Sharland, M. Shivamallappa, J. Sifuentes-Osornio, A. J. Simpson, N. Steenkeste, A. J. Stewardson, T. Stoeva, N. Tasak, A. Thaiprakong, G. Thwaites, C. Tigoi, C. Turner, P. Turner, H. R. van Doorn, S. Velaphi, A. Vongpradith, M. Vongsouvath, H. Vu, T. Walsh, J. L. Walson, S. Waner, T. Wangrangsimakul, P. Wannapinij, T. Wozniak, T. E. M. W. Young Sharma, K. C. Yu, P. Zheng, B. Sartorius, A. D. Lopez, A. Stergachis, C. Moore, C. Dolecek and M. Naghavi, Lancet, 2022, 399, 629–655.
5. V. I. Band, D. A. Hufnagel, S. Jaggavarapu, E. X. Sherman, J. E. Wozniak, S. W. Satola, M. M. Farley, J. T. Jacob, E. M. Burd and D. S. Weiss, Nat. Microbiol., 2019, 4, 1627–1635.
6. D. Ashok, M. Taheri, P. Garg, D. Webb, P. Parajuli, Y. Wang, B. Funnell, B. Taylor, D. C. Tscharke, T. Tsuzuki, N. K. Verma, A. Tricoli and D. R. Nisbet, Adv. Sci., 2022, 9, 2201415.
7. P. Zou, W. Hartleb and K. Lienkamp, J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 19579–19589.
8. T. Egghe, R. Morent, R. Hoogenboom and N. De Geyter, Trends Biotechnol., 2023, 41, 63–76.
9. X. Chen, J. Zhou, Y. Qian and L. Zhao, Mater. Today Bio, 2023, 19, 100586.
10. V. Hegde, H. Y. Park, E. Dworsky, S. D. Zoller, W. Xi, D. O. Johansen, A. H. Loftin, C. D. Hamad, T. Segura and N. M. Bernthal, Spine, 2020, 45, E305–E311.
11. I. Francolini, C. Vuotto, A. Piozzi and G. Donelli, APMIS, 2017, 125, 392–417.
12. Z. K. Zander and M. L. Becker, ACS Macro Lett., 2018, 7, 16–25.
13. W. P. J. Smith, B. R. Wucher, C. D. Nadell and K. R. Foster, Nat. Rev. Microbiol., 2023, 21, 519–534.
14. A. Krasowska and K. Sigler, Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol., 2014, 4, 112.
15. W. Li, E. S. Thian, M. Wang, Z. Wang and L. Ren, Adv. Sci., 2021, 8, 2100368.
16. S. Zheng, M. Bawazir, A. Dhall, H. E. Kim, L. He, J. Heo and G. Hwang, Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol., 2021, 9, 643722.
17. S. S. A. Athukoralalage, Z. Datson, N. Darwish, Y. Zhu, K. H. K. Chung, K. Chew, A. E. Rowan and N. Amiralian, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2025, 17, 16027–16039.
18. A. Zhao, J. Sun and Y. Liu, Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol., 2023, 13, 1137947.
19. Y. Qiu, Y. Zhou, Y. Chang, X. Liang, H. Zhang, X. Lin, K. Qing, X. Zhou and Z. Luo, Int. J. Environ. Res.Public Health, 2022, 19(22), 15345.
20. K. P. Rumbaugh and M. Whiteley, Nat. Rev. Microbiol., 2025, 23, 57–66.
21. D. Qu, Z. Hou, J. Li, L. Luo, S. Su, Z. Ye, Y. Bai, X. Zhang, G. Chen, Z. Li, Y. Wang, X. Xue, X. Luo and M. Li, Sci. Adv., 2020, 6, eaay9597.
22. R. Ziege, A.-M. Tsirigoni, B. Large, D. O. Serra, K. G. Blank, R. Hengge, P. Fratzl and C. M. Bidan, ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng., 2021, 7, 5315–5325.
23. A. Sarlet, V. Ruffine, K. G. Blank and C. M. Bidan, ACS Omega, 2023, 8, 4667–4676.
24. Q. Li, L. Wang, L. Yu, C. Li, X. Xie, H. Yan, W. Zhou, C. Wang, Z. Liu, G. Hou and Y.-Q. Zhao, Biomacromolecules, 2024, 25, 1180–1190.
25. Z. Li, S. Wang, X. Yang, H. Liu, Y. Shan, X. Xu, S. Shang and Z. Song, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2020, 530, 147193.
26. W. DeFlorio, S. Liu, A. R. White, T. M. Taylor, L. Cisneros-Zevallos, Y. Min and E. M. A. Scholar, Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf., 2021, 20, 3093–3134.
27. Y. Ma, M. Zohaib Aslam, M. Wu, N. Nitin and G. Sun, Food Res. Int., 2022, 159, 111543.
28. C. Gunawan, C. P. Marquis, R. Amal, G. A. Sotiriou, S. A. Rice and E. J. Harry, ACS Nano, 2017, 11, 3438–3445.
29. M. L. Ermini and V. Voliani, ACS Nano, 2021, 15, 6008–6029.
30. S. V. Gudkov, D. E. Burmistrov, D. A. Serov, M. B. Rebezov, A. A. Semenova and A. B. Lisitsyn, Antibiotics, 2021, 10(7), 884.
31. A. Frei, A. D. Verderosa, A. G. Elliott, J. Zuegg and M. A. T. Blaskovich, Nat. Rev. Chem., 2023, 7, 202–224.
32. Z. L. Shaw, S. Kuriakose, S. Cheeseman, M. D. Dickey, J. Genzer, A. J. Christofferson, R. J. Crawford, C. F. McConville, J. Chapman, V. K. Truong, A. Elbourne and S. Walia, Nat. Commun., 2021, 12, 3897.
33. S. Ghosh, R. Mukherjee, D. Basak and J. Haldar, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2020, 12, 27853–27865.
34. M. Reyes-Estebanez, B. O. Ortega-Morales, M. Chan-Bacab, C. Granados-Echegoyen, J. C. Camacho-Chab, J. E. Pereañez-Sacarias and C. Gaylarde, Heritage Sci., 2018, 6, 52.
35. Q. M. Nguyen, P. Hutchison, E. Palombo, A. Yu and P. Kingshott, ACS Appl. Bio Mater., 2024, 7, 918–935.
36. J. Zou, J. Wong, C.-R. Lee, N. Nitin, L. Wang and G. Sun, ACS Appl. Bio Mater., 2024, 7, 1842–1851.
37. H. Kong, J. Fu, R. Yu, M. Wang, J. Tu, Q. Wu, X. Zhang, L. Niu and K. Zhang, Coatings, 2024, 14, 741.
38. J. Jenkins, J. Mantell, C. Neal, A. Gholinia, P. Verkade, A. H. Nobbs and B. Su, Nat. Commun., 2020, 11, 1626.
39. M. Haktaniyan and M. Bradley, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2022, 51, 8584–8611.
40. D. J. Dwyer, P. A. Belenky, J. H. Yang, I. C. MacDonald, J. D. Martell, N. Takahashi, C. T. Y. Chan, M. A. Lobritz, D. Braff, E. G. Schwarz, J. D. Ye, M. Pati, M. Vercruysse, P. S. Ralifo, K. R. Allison, A. S. Khalil, A. Y. Ting, G. C. Walker and J. J. Collins, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2014, 111, E2100–E2109.
41. Â. R. Fernandes, A. G. Rodrigues and L. Cobrado, J. Hosp. Infect., 2024, 151, 45–59.
42. O. Khrystonko, S. Rimpelová, T. Burianová, V. Švorčík, O. Lyutakov and R. Elashnikov, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2023, 648, 338–347.
43. A. Skvortsova, A. Kocianova, O. Guselnikova, R. Elashnikov, V. Burtsev, S. Rimpelova, V. Svobodova Pavlickova, P. Fitl, M. Lukesova, Z. Kolska, V. Švorčík and O. Lyutakov, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2023, 623, 157048.
44. R. Elashnikov, S. Rimpelová, O. Lyutakov, V. S. Pavlíčková, O. Khrystonko, Z. Kolská and V. Švorčík, ACS Appl. Bio Mater., 2022, 5, 1700–1709.
45. H. Xu, Appl. Mater. Today, 2024, 38, 102201.
46. N. Amaly, P. Pandey, A. Pandey, S. Harrison, G. Sun and P. K. Pandey, Colloids Surf., A, 2025, 704, 135537.
47. A. S. Imbia, A. Ounkaew, X. Mao, H. Zeng, Y. Liu and R. Narain, Langmuir, 2024, 40, 10957–10965.
48. Y. Lou and E. F. Palermo, Adv. Healthcare Mater., 2024, 13, 2303359.
49. M. Michailidis, E. Gutner-Hoch, R. Wengier, R. Onderwater, R. A. D’Sa, Y. Benayahu, A. Semenov, V. Vinokurov and D. G. Shchukin, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2020, 8, 8928–8937.
50. D. Keskin, L. Tromp, O. Mergel, G. Zu, E. Warszawik, H. C. van der Mei and P. van Rijn, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2020, 12, 57721–57731.
51. D. Pranantyo, C. K. Yeo, Y. Wu, C. Fan, X. Xu, Y. S. Yip, M. I. G. Vos, S. H. Mahadevegowda, P. L. K. Lim, L. Yang, P. T. Hammond, D. I. Leavesley, N. S. Tan and M. B. Chan-Park, Nat. Commun., 2024, 15, 954.
52. P. Chen, J. Lang, Y. Zhou, A. Khlyustova, Z. Zhang, X. Ma, S. Liu, Y. Cheng and R. Yang, Sci. Adv., 2022, 8, eabl8812.
53. B. Li, C. Pang, S. Chen and L. Hong, Macromol. Rapid Commun., 2024, 45, 2400170.
54. C. Su, Y. Hu, Q. Song, Y. Ye, L. Gao, P. Li and T. Ye, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2020, 12, 18978–18986.
55. W. Peng, B. Fan, Y. Li, Y. Dong, W. Qian, X. Ji, D. Gan, P. Liu and J. Shen, J. Mater. Chem. B, 2022, 10, 8013–8023.
56. K. Yu, A. Alzahrani, S. Khoddami, J. T. J. Cheng, Y. Mei, A. Gill, H. D. Luo, E. F. Haney, K. Hilpert, R. E. W. Hancock, D. Lange and J. N. Kizhakkedathu, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2021, 13, 36784–36799.
57. X. Tian, R. Xue, F. Yang, L. Yin, S. Luan and H. Tang, Biomacromolecules, 2021, 22, 4306–4315.
58. A. Mondal, P. Singha, M. Douglass, L. Estes, M. Garren, L. Griffin, A. Kumar and H. Handa, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2021, 13, 43892–43903.
59. Y. Kozuka, T. Masuda, N. Isu and M. Takai, Langmuir, 2024, 40, 7029–7037.
60. G. Xu, K. G. Neoh, E.-T. Kang and S. L.-M. Teo, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2020, 8, 2586–2595.
61. Y. Fu, Y. Yang, S. Xiao, L. Zhang, L. Huang, F. Chen, P. Fan, M. Zhong, J. Tan and J. Yang, Prog. Org. Coat., 2019, 130, 75–82.
62. Q. Song, Z. Xiao, T. Liu, H. Gao, X. Chen, Q. Jia, P. Li and D. Wei, ACS Macro Lett., 2024, 13, 1056–1064.
63. Q. Hu, Y. Du, Y. Bai, D. Xing, C. Wu, K. Li, S. Lang, X. Liu and G. Liu, Biomater. Sci., 2024, 12, 4471–4482.
64. Q. Zeng, Y. Zhu, B. Yu, Y. Sun, X. Ding, C. Xu, Y.-W. Wu, Z. Tang and F.-J. Xu, Biomacromolecules, 2018, 19, 2805–2811.
65. Y. Wang, Y. Dong, Y. Quan, S. Wackerow, A. Abdolvand, S. A. Zolotovskaya and Q. Zhao, Adv. Mater. Interfaces, 2024, 2400660.
66. X. Liu, L. Yu, J. Wei, Y. Huang, L. Yang, J. Ning, Q. Su, H. Li, J. Xin and K. Jia, Langmuir, 2024, 40, 8654–8664.
67. A. B. Asha, A. Ounkaew, Y.-Y. Peng, M. R. Gholipour, K. Ishihara, Y. Liu and R. Narain, Biomater. Sci., 2023, 11, 128–139.
68. N. Lu, H.-M. Wu, J.-L. Wang, W.-Z. Jiang, Z.-P. Deng and J.-J. Deng, J. Sol-Gel Sci. Technol., 2024, 110, 267–279.
69. A. S. Imbia, A. Ounkaew, X. Mao, H. Zeng, Y. Liu and R. Narain, Langmuir, 2024, 40, 3549–3558.
70. R. Devi, G. Singh, A. Singh, J. Singh, N. Kaur and N. Singh, ACS Appl. Bio Mater., 2024, 7, 4162–4174.
71. G. Liu, K. Li, H. Wang, L. Ma, L. Yu and Y. Nie, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2020, 12, 16125–16136.
72. S. Wu, M. Yan, Y. Wu, Y. Wu, X. Lan, J. Cheng and W. Zhao, Mater. Horiz., 2024, 11, 4438–4453.
73. R. Devine, M. J. Goudie, P. Singha, C. Schmiedt, M. Douglass, E. J. Brisbois and H. Handa, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2020, 12, 20158–20171.
74. Z. Tong, S. Zhang, S. Chen, R. Sun, P. He, L. Song, J. Hu, Y. Hou, X. Zhan and Q. Zhang, Small, 2024, 20, 2401658.
75. L. Qu, X. Li, J. Zhou, X. Peng, P. Zhou, H. Zheng, Z. Jiang and Q. Xie, Colloids Surf., B, 2024, 239, 113939.
76. M. Garay-Sarmiento, L. Witzdam, M. Vorobii, C. Simons, N. Herrmann, A. de los Santos Pereira, E. Heine, I. El-Awaad, R. Lütticken, F. Jakob, U. Schwaneberg and C. Rodriguez-Emmenegger, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2022, 32, 2106656.
77. G. He, H. Li, Z. Zhao, Q. Liu, J. Yu, Z. Ji, X. Ning and F. Ning, Prog. Org. Coat., 2024, 195, 108656.
78. Y.-Q. Zhao, Y. Sun, Y. Zhang, X. Ding, N. Zhao, B. Yu, H. Zhao, S. Duan and F.-J. Xu, ACS Nano, 2020, 14, 2265–2275.
79. A. M. Maan, A. H. Hofman, W. M. de Vos and M. Kamperman, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2020, 30, 2000936.
80. C. S. Ware, T. Smith-Palmer, S. Peppou-Chapman, L. R. Scarratt, E. M. Humphries, D. Balzer and C. Neto, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2018, 10, 4173–4182.
81. I. Banerjee, R. C. Pangule and R. S. Kane, Adv. Mater., 2011, 23, 690–718.
82. X.-T. Wang, X. Deng, T.-D. Zhang, J. Zhang, L.-L. Chen, Y.-F. Wang, X. Cao, Y.-Z. Zhang, X. Zheng and D.-C. Yin, ACS Macro Lett., 2022, 11, 805–812.
83. K. Zhao, M. Li, P. Zhang and J. Cui, Chem. Commun., 2022, 58, 13735–13738.
84. J. Toro-Mendoza, L. Maio, M. Gallego, F. Otto, F. Schulz, W. J. Parak, C. Sanchez-Cano and I. Coluzza, ACS Nano, 2023, 17, 955–965.
85. P. Li, Y. F. Poon, W. Li, H.-Y. Zhu, S. H. Yeap, Y. Cao, X. Qi, C. Zhou, M. Lamrani, R. W. Beuerman, E.-T. Kang, Y. Mu, C. M. Li, M. W. Chang, S. S. Jan Leong and M. B. Chan-Park, Nat. Mater., 2011, 10, 149–156.
86. E. van Andel, I. de Bus, E. J. Tijhaar, M. M. J. Smulders, H. F. J. Savelkoul and H. Zuilhof, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2017, 9, 38211–38221.
87. J. Kang, F.-Z. Wu, Y. Xue, Z.-H. Li, Y.-X. Wang and K. Liu, Macromol. Rapid Commun., 2022, 43, 2200035.
88. R. Bernstein, C. E. Singer, S. P. Singh, C. Mao and C. J. Arnusch, J. Membr. Sci., 2018, 548, 73–80.
89. T. Zheng, C. M. Clemons and S. Pilla, Carbohydr. Polym., 2021, 271, 118405.
90. M. K. Chug and E. J. Brisbois, ACS Mater. Au, 2022, 2, 525–551.
91. P. Hu, Q. Xie, C. Ma and G. Zhang, Langmuir, 2020, 36, 2170–2183.
92. A. Rahimi, J. Dahlgren, K. Faiyaz, S. J. Stafslien, L. VanderWal, J. Bahr, M. Safaripour, J. A. Finlay, A. S. Clare and D. C. Webster, Langmuir, 2024, 40, 1117–1129.
93. G. B. Hwang, K. Page, A. Patir, S. P. Nair, E. Allan and I. P. Parkin, ACS Nano, 2018, 12, 6050–6058.
94. X. Shi, H. Wei, W. Zhou, P. E. D. Soto Rodriguez, C. Lin, L. Wang and Z. Zhang, Nano Mater. Sci., 2024, 6, 375–395.
95. Z. Huang and H. Ghasemi, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci., 2020, 284, 102264.
96. Y. Zou, K. Lu, Y. Lin, Y. Wu, Y. Wang, L. Li, C. Huang, Y. Zhang, J. L. Brash, H. Chen and Q. Yu, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2021, 13, 45191–45200.
97. T. Wei, Y. Qu, Y. Zou, Y. Zhang and Q. Yu, Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng., 2021, 34, 100727.
98. B. Wang, Q. Xu, Z. Ye, H. Liu, Q. Lin, K. Nan, Y. Li, Y. Wang, L. Qi and H. Chen, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2016, 8, 27207–27217.
99. C. Xu, J. Jiang, H. Oguzlu, Y. Zheng and F. Jiang, Carbohydr. Polym., 2020, 250, 116960.
100. Y. Ma, J. Li, Y. Si, K. Huang, N. Nitin and G. Sun, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2019, 11, 17814–17822.
101. C. Chen, Z. Li, X. Li, C. Kuang, X. Liu, Z. Song, H. Liu and Y. Shan, Composites, Part B, 2022, 232, 109623.
102. Z. Wang, F. Zhao, Y. Lv, Y. Wang, X. Guo, X. Zhang, Q. Lin and R. Sheng, Surf. Interfaces, 2024, 51, 104540.
103. L. Qu, X. Li, J. Zhou, K. Cao, Q. Xie, P. Zhou, W. Qian and Y. Yang, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2023, 627, 157224.
104. X. Zhang, L. Liu, W. Peng, X. Dong, Y. Gu, Z. Ma, D. Gan and P. Liu, J. Mater. Chem. B, 2021, 9, 4169–4177.
105. Z. Wang, C. Fu, Y. Gao, Z. Wu, W. Chen, B. Hu, S. Xu, Z. Zhang and P. Yang, Colloids Surf., B, 2023, 225, 113239.
106. Z. Yu, X. Li, Z. Wang, Y. Fan, W. Zhao, D. Li, D. Xu, T. Gu and F. Wang, Adv. Mater., 2024, 36, 2407409.
107. X. Wang, M. Shan, S. Zhang, X. Chen, W. Liu, J. Chen and X. Liu, Adv. Sci., 2022, 9, 2104843.
108. Y. Ren, H. Liu, X. Liu, Y. Zheng, Z. Li, C. Li, K. W. K. Yeung, S. Zhu, Y. Liang, Z. Cui and S. Wu, Cell Rep. Phys. Sci., 2020, 1(8), 100136.
109. M. J. Lydeamore, B. G. Mitchell, T. Bucknall, A. C. Cheng, P. L. Russo and A. J. Stewardson, Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control, 2022, 11, 69.
110. G. B. D. A. R. Collaborators, Lancet, 2024, 404, 1199–1226.
111. K. Chae, W. Y. Jang, K. Park, J. Lee, H. Kim, K. Lee, C. K. Lee, Y. Lee, S. H. Lee and J. Seo, Sci. Adv., 2020, 6, eabb0025.
112. W. Xi, V. Hegde, S. D. Zoller, H. Y. Park, C. M. Hart, T. Kondo, C. D. Hamad, Y. Hu, A. H. Loftin, D. O. Johansen, Z. Burke, S. Clarkson, C. Ishmael, K. Hori, Z. Mamouei, H. Okawa, I. Nishimura, N. M. Bernthal and T. Segura, Nat. Commun., 2021, 12, 5473.
113. O. Gordon, D. E. Lee, B. Liu, B. Langevin, A. A. Ordonez, D. A. Dikeman, B. Shafiq, J. M. Thompson, P. D. Sponseller, K. Flavahan, M. A. Lodge, S. P. Rowe, R. F. Dannals, C. A. Ruiz-Bedoya, T. D. Read, C. A. Peloquin, N. K. Archer, L. S. Miller, K. M. Davis, J. V. S. Gobburu and S. K. Jain, Sci. Transl. Med., 2021, 13, eabl6851.
114. J. Tian, Y. Liu, S. Miao, Q. Yang, X. Hu, Q. Han, L. Xue and P. Yang, Biomater. Sci., 2020, 8, 6903–6911.
115. J. Xing, S. Jin, Y. Yu, G. Zeng, F. Zhang, H. Xiao, R. Yang, K. Li and J. Li, Ind. Crops Prod., 2023, 205, 117445.
116. L. Burroughs, W. Ashraf, S. Singh, L. Martinez-Pomares, R. Bayston and A. L. Hook, Biomater. Sci., 2020, 8, 3926–3934.
117. Y. Zheng, L. Hou, M. Liu, S. E. Newell, G. Yin, C. Yu, H. Zhang, X. Li, D. Gao, J. Gao, R. Wang and C. Liu, Sci. Adv., 2017, 3, e1603229.
118. L. Hochvaldová, D. Panáček, L. Válková, R. Večeřová, M. Kolář, R. Prucek, L. Kvítek and A. Panáček, Commun. Biol., 2024, 7, 1552.
119. B. Ran, L. Ran, Z. Wang, J. Liao, D. Li, K. Chen, W. Cai, J. Hou and X. Peng, Chem. Rev., 2023, 123, 12371–12430.
120. K. Quan, Y. Lu, Z. Mao, S. Wang, X. Ren, C. Yu, T. Zhang, J.-J. Nie, Y. Cheng, D. Chen, Y. Zheng and D. Xia, Chem. Eng. J., 2024, 486, 150147.
121. Z. Hou, K. Wang, G. Liu, Z. Yuan, H. Peng, Y. Yuan, H. Wei, T. Wang and P. Li, Adv. Healthcare Mater., 2025, 2500997.
122. Y. Ding, R. Ma, G. Liu, X. Li, K. Xu, P. Liu and K. Cai, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2023, 15, 13783–13801.
123. P. Prateeksha, V. Sharma, N. Nagpoore, V. Jadaun, C. Rao and B. Singh, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2023, 33, 2214852.
124. S. Mao, D. Zhang, X. He, Y. Yang, I. Protsak, Y. Li, J. Wang, C. Ma, J. Tan and J. Yang, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2021, 13, 3089–3097.
125. S. Tarvirdipour, S. N. Abdollahi, J. Köser, M. Bina, C.-A. Schoenenberger and C. G. Palivan, J. Mater. Chem. B, 2025, 13, 5365–5379.
126. M. Wongchai, S. Wongkaewkhiaw, S. Kanthawong, S. Roytrakul and R. Aunpad, Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob., 2024, 23, 44.
127. Y. Zhou, Y. Jiang, Y. Zhang and L. Tan, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2022, 14, 38358–38369.
128. C. Wang, T. Wang, P. Hu, T. Shen, J. Xu, C. Ding and J. Fu, Chem. Eng. J., 2020, 389, 123469.
129. L. Jiang, N. Qin, S. Gu, W. Zhu, C. Wang and Y. Chen, J. Mater. Chem. B, 2022, 10, 3759–3769.
130. Q. Gao, T. Feng, D. Huang, P. Liu, P. Lin, Y. Wu, Z. Ye, J. Ji, P. Li and W. Huang, Biomater. Sci., 2020, 8, 278–289.
131. Z. Yang, X. He, T. Lou, D. Su, X. Bai and C. Yuan, Eur. Polym. J., 2024, 210, 112947.
132. B. Pilch-Pitera, K. Krawczyk, M. Kędzierski, K. Pojnar, H. Lehmann, D. Czachor-Jadacka, K. Bieniek and M. Hilt, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2024, 12, 10325–10339.
133. M. Birkett, L. Dover, C. Cherian Lukose, A. Wasy Zia, M. M. Tambuwala and Á. Serrano-Aroca, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 2022, 23, 1162.
134. E. Torres Dominguez, P. H. Nguyen, H. K. Hunt and A. Mustapha, Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf., 2019, 18, 1825–1858.
135. P. Chen, H. Shu, Y. Cheng, K. Munechika and R. Yang, MRS Commun., 2025, 15, 181–187.
136. Z. Tong, H. Guo, Z. Di, S. Chen, L. Song, J. Hu, Y. Hou, X. Zhan and Q. Zhang, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2024, 34, 2310702.
137. P. Cao, D. Liu, Y. Zhang, F. Xiao, C. Yuan, F. Liang, X. Liu and C. Zhang, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2022, 589, 153019.
138. L. Peng, H. Zhu, H. Wang, Z. Guo, Q. Wu, C. Yang and H.-Y. Hu, Nat. Commun., 2023, 14, 5734.
139. R. C. Thompson, W. Courtene-Jones, J. Boucher, S. Pahl, K. Raubenheimer and A. A. Koelmans, Science, 2024, 386, eadl2746.
140. L. Montano, S. Raimondo, M. Piscopo, M. Ricciardi, A. Guglielmino, S. Chamayou, R. Gentile, M. Gentile, P. Rapisarda, G. Oliveri Conti, M. Ferrante and O. Motta, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 2025, 291, 117868.
141. K. N. Onwukamike, S. Grelier, E. Grau, H. Cramail and M. A. R. Meier, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2019, 7, 1826–1840.
142. M. L. Pitcher, R. Koshani and A. Sheikhi, J. Polym. Sci., 2024, 62, 9–31.
143. J. T. McNamara, J. L. W. Morgan and J. Zimmer, Annu. Rev. Biochem., 2015, 84, 895–921.
144. N. Peng, D. Huang, C. Gong, Y. Wang, J. Zhou and C. Chang, ACS Nano, 2020, 14, 16169–16179.
145. Q. Chen, C. J. Brett, A. Chumakov, M. Gensch, M. Schwartzkopf, V. Körstgens, L. D. Söderberg, A. Plech, P. Zhang, P. Müller-Buschbaum and S. V. Roth, ACS Appl. Nano Mater., 2021, 4, 503–513.
146. Y. Zheng, H. Oguzlu, A. Baldelli, Y. Zhu, M. Song, A. Pratap-Singh and F. Jiang, Carbohydr. Polym., 2022, 291, 119583.
147. B. Thomas, M. C. Raj, A. K. B, R. M. H, J. Joy, A. Moores, G. L. Drisko and C. Sanchez, Chem. Rev., 2018, 118, 11575–11625.
148. R. F. Nickerson and J. A. Habrle, Ind. Eng. Chem., 1947, 39, 1507–1512.
149. B. G. Rånby, A. Banderet and L. G. Sillén, Acta Chem. Scand., 1949, 3, 649–650.
150. S. M. Mukherjee and H. J. Woods, Biochem. Biophys. Acta, 1953, 10, 499–511.
151. R. Rai and P. Dhar, Nanotechnology, 2022, 33(36), 362001.
152. A. F. Turbak, F. W. Snyder and K. R. Sandberg, J. Appl. Polym. Sci.:Appl. Polym. Symp., 1983, 37(9), 815–827.
153. T. Saito, Y. Nishiyama, J.-L. Putaux, M. Vignon and A. Isogai, Biomacromolecules, 2006, 7, 1687–1691.
154. A. Isogai, Adv. Mater., 2021, 33, 2000630.
155. G. A. S. Haron, H. Mahmood, M. H. Noh, M. Z. Alam and M. Moniruzzaman, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2021, 9, 1008–1034.
156. M. S. Reid, M. Villalobos and E. D. Cranston, Langmuir, 2017, 33, 1583–1598.
157. O. M. Vanderfleet and E. D. Cranston, Nat. Rev. Mater., 2021, 6, 124–144.
158. W. Yang, M. Pan, J. Zhang, L. Zhang, F. Lin, X. Liu, C. Huang, X.-Z. Chen, J. Wang, B. Yan and H. Zeng, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2022, 32, 2109989.
159. A. Aguilar-Sanchez, B. Jalvo, A. Mautner, S. Nameer, T. Pöhler, T. Tammelin and A. P. Mathew, J. Membr. Sci., 2021, 620, 118842.
160. H. Kanematsu, D. M. Barry, R. Satoh, R. Kawai and P. McGrath, in Handbook of Nanocelluloses: Classification, Properties, Fabrication, and Emerging Applications, ed. A. Barhoum, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020, ch. 20-1, pp. 1–14 DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-62976-2_20-1.
161. D. Georgouvelas, B. Jalvo, L. Valencia, W. Papawassiliou, A. J. Pell, U. Edlund and A. P. Mathew, ACS Appl. Polym. Mater., 2020, 2, 3060–3071.
162. V. T. Noronha, J. C. Jackson, C. H. M. Camargos, A. J. Paula, C. A. Rezende and A. F. Faria, ACS Appl. Bio Mater., 2022, 5, 1025–1037.
163. D. Klemm, F. Kramer, S. Moritz, T. Lindström, M. Ankerfors, D. Gray and A. Dorris, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2011, 50, 5438–5466.
164. Y. Wang, Z. Wang, Y. Lin, Y. Qin, R. He, M. Wang, Q. Sun and Y. Peng, Food Res. Int., 2024, 192, 114741.
165. M. Garg, V. Apostolopoulou-Kalkavoura, M. Linares, T. Kaldéus, E. Malmström, L. Bergström and I. Zozoulenko, Cellulose, 2021, 28, 9007–9021.
166. L. Solhi, V. Guccini, K. Heise, I. Solala, E. Niinivaara, W. Xu, K. Mihhels, M. Kröger, Z. Meng, J. Wohlert, H. Tao, E. D. Cranston and E. Kontturi, Chem. Rev., 2023, 123, 1925–2015.
167. D. Yu, F. Ye, S. Dobretsov and J. Dutta, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2024, 281, 136316.
168. D. Yu, X. Zhao, A. P. Amores, Y. Wang, J. Dutta, J.-L. Yang and F. Ye, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2025, 316, 144713.
169. S. Kumar, F. Ye, B. Mazinani, S. Dobretsov and J. Dutta, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 2021, 22, 4513.
170. X. Meng, Y. Wang, M. Yang, X. Guo, L. Wei and Y. Li, J. Mater. Sci., 2025, 60(29), 12438–12456.
171. H. Ahmed, M. A. R. Noyon, M. E. Uddin, M. M. Rafid, M. S. Hosen and R. K. Layek, Clean. Chem. Eng., 2025, 11, 100157.
172. M. Barik, G. V. S. BhagyaRaj, K. K. Dash and R. Shams, J. Agric. Food Res., 2024, 16, 101164.
173. X. Lan, H. Zhang, H. Qi, S. Liu, X. Zhang and L. Zhang, Chem. Eng. J., 2023, 454, 140185.
174. S. V. Pawde, P. Kaewprachu, P. Kingwascharapong, S. Sai-Ut, T. Karbowiak, Y. H. Jung and S. Rawdkuen, Curr. Res. Food Sci., 2025, 10, 101104.
175. R. T. Timms, Z. Zhang, D. Y. Rhee, J. W. Harper, I. Koren and S. J. Elledge, Science, 2019, 365, eaaw4912.
176. S. Gerna, P. D’Incecco, S. Limbo, M. Sindaco and L. Pellegrino, Foods, 2023, 12, 1271.
177. W. Zhang, J. Zhang, F. Hu, W. Wang, Z. Du, Y. Ke, Q. Ma, X. Mou, J. Lu and Z. Yang, Adv. Sci., 2024, 11, 2310259.
178. B. Marelli and A. Behrens, Nat. Rev. Bioeng., 2023, 1, 788–790.
179. P. Wang, Y.-L. Zhang, K.-L. Fu, Z. Liu, L. Zhang, C. Liu, Y. Deng, R. Xie, X.-J. Ju, W. Wang and L.-Y. Chu, Mater. Adv., 2022, 3, 5476–5487.
180. P. Wang, J.-Y. Gong, Y. Li, X.-B. Tian, R. Xie, X.-J. Ju, W. Wang, D.-W. Pan, Z. Liu and L.-Y. Chu, J. Membr. Sci., 2024, 702, 122779.
181. R. G. Bender, S. B. Sirota, L. R. Swetschinski, R.-M. V. Dominguez, A. Novotney, E. E. Wool, K. S. Ikuta, A. Vongpradith, E. L. B. Rogowski, M. Doxey, C. E. Troeger, S. B. Albertson, J. Ma, J. He, K. L. Maass, E. A.F.Simões, M. Abdoun, J. M. Abdul Aziz, D. M. Abdulah, S. Abu Rumeileh, H. Abualruz, S. Aburuz, A. V. Adepoju, R. Adha, W. Adikusuma, S. Adra, A. Afraz, S. Aghamiri, A. Agodi, A. M. Ahmadzade, H. Ahmed, A. Ahmed, K. Akinosoglou, T. M. A. Al-Ahdal, R. M. Al-amer, M. Albashtawy, M. T. AlBataineh, H. Alemi, A. A. S. Al-Gheethi, A. Ali, S. S. S. Ali, J. S. Alqahtani, M. AlQudah, J. A. Al-Tawfiq, Y. M. Al-Worafi, K. H. Alzoubi, R. Amani, P. M. Amegbor, E. K. Ameyaw, J. H. Amuasi, A. Anil, P. E. Anyanwu, M. Arafat, D. Areda, R. Arefnezhad, K. A. Atalell, F. Ayele, A. Y. Azzam, H. Babamohamadi, F.-X. Babin, Y. Bahurupi, S. Baker, B. Banik, M. Barchitta, H. J. Barqawi, Z. Basharat, P. Baskaran, K. Batra, R. Batra, N. S. Bayileyegn, A. Beloukas, J. A. Berkley, K. A. Beyene, A. Bhargava, P. Bhattacharjee, J. A. Bielicki, M. M. Bilalaga, V. R. Bitra, C. S. Brown, K. Burkart, Y. Bustanji, S. Carr, Y. Chahine, V. K. Chattu, F. Chichagi, H. Chopra, I. S. Chukwu, E. Chung, S. Dadana, X. Dai, L. Dandona, R. Dandona, I. Darban, N. R. Dash, M. Dashti, M. Dashtkoohi, D. M. Dekker, I. Delgado-Enciso, V. G. C. Devanbu, K. Dhama, N. Diao, T. H. P. Do, K. G. Dokova, C. Dolecek, A. M. Dziedzic, T. Eckmanns, A. Ed-Dra, F. Efendi, A. Eftekharimehrabad, D. W. Eyre, A. Fahim, A. Feizkhah, T. W. Felton, N. Ferreira, L. S. Flor, S. Gaihre, M. W. Gebregergis, M. Gebrehiwot, C. Geffers, U. Gerema, K. Ghaffari, M. Goldust, P. Goleij, S.-Y. Guan, M. D. Gudeta, C. Guo, V. B. Gupta, I. Gupta, F. Habibzadeh, N. R. Hadi, E. Haeuser, W. B. Hailu, R. Hajibeygi, A. Haj-Mirzaian, S. Haller, M. Hamiduzzaman, N. Hanifi, J. Hansel, M. S. Hasnain, J. Haubold, N. Q. Hoan, H.-H. Huynh, K. C. Iregbu, M. R. Islam, A. Jafarzadeh, A. A. Jairoun, M. Jalili, N. Jomehzadeh, C. E. Joshua, M. A. Kabir, Z. Kamal, K. K. Kanmodi, R. S. Kantar, A. Karimi Behnagh, N. Kaur, H. Kaur, F. Khamesipour, M. N. Khan, M. Z. Khan suheb, V. Khanal, K. Khatab, M. N. Khatib, G. Kim, K. Kim, A. T. T. Kitila, S. Komaki, K. Krishan, R. Krumkamp, M. A. Kuddus, M. D. Kurniasari, C. Lahariya, K. Latifinaibin, N. H. H. Le, T. T. T. Le, T. D. T. Le, S. W. Lee, A. Lepape, T. L. Lerango, M.-C. Li, A. A. Mahboobipour, K. Malhotra, T. H. Mallhi, A. Manoharan, B. A. Martinez-Guerra, A. G. Mathioudakis, R. Mattiello, J. May, B. McManigal, S. M. McPhail, T. Mekene Meto, M. A. M. Mendez-Lopez, S. A. Meo, M. Merati, T. Mestrovic, L. Mhlanga, L. H. N. Minh, A. Misganaw, V. Mishra, A. K. Misra, N. S. Mohamed, E. Mohammadi, M. Mohammed, M. Mohammed, A. H. Mokdad, L. Monasta, C. E. Moore, R. Motappa, V. Mougin, P. Mousavi, F. Mulita, A. A. Mulu, P. Naghavi, G. R. Naik, F. Nainu, T. S. Nair, S. Nargus, M. Negaresh, H. T. H. Nguyen, D. H. Nguyen, V. T. Nguyen, T. K. Nikolouzakis, E. A. Noman, C. A. Nri-Ezedi, I. A. Odetokun, P. G. Okwute, M. D. Olana, T. O. Olanipekun, O. O. Olasupo, A. Olivas-Martinez, M. Ordak, E. Ortiz-Brizuela, A. Ouyahia, J. R. Padubidri, A. Pak, A. Pandey, I. Pantazopoulos, P. P. Parija, R. R. Parikh, S. Park, A. Parthasarathi, A. Pashaei, P. Peprah, H. T. Pham, D. Poddighe, A. Pollard, A. Ponce-De-Leon, P. Y. Prakash, E. J. S. Prates, N. K. Quan, P. Raee, F. Rahim, M. Rahman, M. Rahmati, S. K. Ramasamy, S. Ranjan, I. R. Rao, A. M. Rashid, S. Rattanavong, N. Ravikumar, M. M. R. K. Reddy, E. M. M. Redwan, R. C. Reiner, Jr., L. F. Reyes, T. Roberts, M. Rodrigues, V. D. Rosenthal, P. Roy, T. Runghien, U. Saeed, A. Saghazadeh, N. Saheb Sharif-Askari, F. Saheb Sharif-Askari, S. S. Sahoo, M. Sahu, J. W. Sakshaug, A. A. Salami, M. A. Saleh, H. Salehi omran, M. Sallam, S. Samadzadeh, Y. L. Samodra, R. K. Sanjeev, M. A. Sarasmita, A. Saravanan, B. Sartorius, J. Saulam, A. E. Schumacher, S. A. Seyedi, M. Shafie, S. Shahid, S. Sham, M. A. Shamim, M. A. Shamshirgaran, R. P. Shastry, S. P. Sherchan, D. Shiferaw, A. Shittu, E. E. Siddig, R. Sinto, A. Sood, R. J. D. Sorensen, A. Stergachis, T. Z. Stoeva, C. K. Swain, L. Szarpak, J. L. Tamuzi, M.-H. Temsah, M. B. T. Tessema, P. Thangaraju, N. M. Tran, N.-H. Tran, M. Tumurkhuu, S. S. Ty, A. J. Udoakang, I. Ulhaq, T. P. Umar, A. A. Umer, S. M. Vahabi, A. G. Vaithinathan, J. Van den Eynde, J. L. Walson, M. Waqas, Y. Xing, M. K. Yadav, G. Yahya, D. K. Yon, A. Zahedi Bialvaei, F. Zakham, A. M. Zeleke, C. Zhai, Z. Zhang, H. Zhang, M. Zielińska, P. Zheng, A. Y. Aravkin, T. Vos, S. I. Hay, J. F. Mosser, S. S. Lim, M. Naghavi, C. J. L. Murray and H. H. Kyu, Lancet Infect. Dis., 2024, 24, 974–1002.
182. D. W. Denning, Lancet Infect. Dis., 2024, 24, e428–e438.
183. W. B. Adisasmito, S. Almuhairi, C. B. Behravesh, P. Bilivogui, S. A. Bukachi, N. Casas, N. Cediel Becerra, D. F. Charron, A. Chaudhary, J. R. Ciacci Zanella, A. A. Cunningham, O. Dar, N. Debnath, B. Dungu, E. Farag, G. F. Gao, D. T. S. Hayman, M. Khaitsa, M. P. G. Koopmans, C. Machalaba, J. S. Mackenzie, W. Markotter, T. C. Mettenleiter, S. Morand, V. Smolenskiy and L. Zhou, PLoS Pathog., 2022, 18, e1010537.

---