Surface antibacterial treatment method and dispersion for surface antibacterial treatment

Abstract

To provide a surface antibacterial treatment method that allows antibacterial effect to be applied to the surface of a substrate while avoiding significant alteration of the color or gloss of the substrate surface.SOLUTION: A surface antibacterial treatment method according to a first aspect of the present invention comprises spraying, onto a surface of a substrate, a liquid including first particles having a first antibacterial metal on their surfaces and second particles having a second antibacterial metal on their surfaces and differing from the first particles in average particle diameter (D50), thereby forming an antibacterial surface on the substrate. Preferably, in the configuration above, the average particle diameter (D50) of the first particles is 2 μm or more and 13 μm or less, and the average particle diameter (D50) of the second particles is 15 μm or more and 25 μm or less.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 31

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present invention relates to a method for antimicrobial treatment of a surface, and also to a dispersion for antimicrobial treatment of a surface. [Background technology]

[0002] A method has been proposed to form an anti-fungal surface by using silver particles to adhere silver to the surface of a substrate (see, for example, JP-A-2008-214197). [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0003] [Patent Document 1] Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2008-214197 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0004] Thus, there is a demand today for a method of imparting antibacterial properties to the surface of a substrate by, for example, surface antibacterial treatment. However, in conventional methods, when the surface of a substrate is subjected to antibacterial treatment to impart antibacterial properties to the surface of the substrate, the color, gloss, etc. of the surface of the substrate after the antibacterial treatment may change significantly compared to the surface of the substrate before the antibacterial treatment. This may result in a significant change in the appearance of the surface of the substrate after the antibacterial treatment.

[0005] An object of the present invention is to provide a surface antibacterial method that can impart an antibacterial effect to the surface of a substrate without significantly changing the color or gloss of the surface of the substrate. [Means for solving the problem]

[0006] In the surface antibacterial method according to the first aspect of the present invention, Silver coating of First particle On the surface The first silver-coated particles have an average particle diameter (D50) in the range of 2 μm to 13 μm, and the mass ratio of the silver coating layer is in the range of 40 mass % to 60 mass %, and the silver coating layer of The second particle has a different particle size from the first particle. On the surface, second silver-coated particles having an average particle diameter (D50) in the range of 15 μm or more and 25 μm or less, and a mass ratio of the silver coating layer in the range of 5 mass % or more and 20 mass % or less; of The silver-coated particles are mixed so that the ratio of the mass of the first silver-coated particles to the mass of the second silver-coated particles is in the range of 1.1 to 1.5.The liquid is applied to the surface of the substrate. Wet blasting treatment is applied to the surface. Forming an antibacterial surface on the substrate 。

[0007] As a result of intensive research by the inventors, it has become clear that by using this surface antibacterial treatment method, it is possible to impart antibacterial properties to the surface of a substrate without significantly changing the color or gloss of the surface of the substrate before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. Also, Particle size within this range First silver-coated particles , Secondary silver-coated particles It has been revealed that by using the above, antibacterial properties can be imparted to a substrate whose surface has been subjected to antibacterial treatment without impairing the smoothness of the substrate. Furthermore, the first silver-coated particles or Secondary silver-coated particles By changing the mass and density of First silver-coated particles or Secondary silver-coated particles The acceleration rate at the time of spraying can be adjusted, and thus the degree of antibacterialization of the surface of the substrate can be changed under the same spraying conditions.

[0008] In addition, in the surface antibacterial method according to the first aspect of the present invention, Not wet blasted a surface of a substrate; Wet blasted The color difference (ΔE) from the surface of the substrate is preferably within the range of 0.05 to 4.0.

[0009] Dispersion for surface antibacterial treatment according to the second aspect of the present invention (However, this does not include dispersions for coating.) teeth, Silver coating of First particle have on the surface First silver-coated particles and, Silver coating of The first particle and the second particle with different average particle diameter (D50) On the surface Secondary silver-coated particles and Secondary silver-coated particles for the mass of First silver-coated particles The mass ratio is in the range of 1.1 to 1.5.

[0010] As a result of intensive research by the inventors, it has become clear that by using the above dispersion in the surface antibacterial treatment, it is possible to impart antibacterial properties to the surface of a substrate without significantly changing the color or gloss of the surface of the substrate before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0011] [Figure 1] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of a stainless steel plate (SUS304) that has been subjected to the antibacterial surface treatment of Example 1 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated stainless steel plate (SUS304) of Comparative Example 1. [Figure 2] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of a stainless steel plate (SUS304) that had been subjected to the antibacterial surface treatment of Example 1 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated stainless steel plate (SUS304) of Comparative Example 1. [Figure 3] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of a polycarbonate plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 2 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated polycarbonate plate in Comparative Example 2. [Figure 4] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of a polycarbonate plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 2 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated polycarbonate plate in Comparative Example 2. [Figure 5] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of a polypropylene plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 3 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated polypropylene plate in Comparative Example 3. [Figure 6] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of a polypropylene plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 3 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated polypropylene plate in Comparative Example 3. [Figure 7] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of a polystyrene plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 4 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated polystyrene plate in Comparative Example 4. [Figure 8]1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect of Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of a polystyrene plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 4 with the antibacterial effect of Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated polystyrene plate in Comparative Example 4. [Figure 9] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of a float glass plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment according to Example 5 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated float glass plate according to Comparative Example 5. [Figure 10] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect of Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of a float glass plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 5 with the antibacterial effect of Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated float glass plate in Comparative Example 5. [Figure 11] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment according to Example 6 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plate according to Comparative Example 6. [Figure 12] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect of Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment according to Example 6 with the antibacterial effect of Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plate according to Comparative Example 6. [Figure 13] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of a Teflon (registered trademark) plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment according to Example 7 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated Teflon (registered trademark) plate according to Comparative Example 7. [Figure 14] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect of Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of a Teflon (registered trademark) plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment according to Example 7 with the antibacterial effect of Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated Teflon (registered trademark) plate according to Comparative Example 7. [Figure 15]1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 8 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plate in Comparative Example 8. [Figure 16] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 8 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plate in Comparative Example 8. [Figure 17] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of a high-density polyethylene plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 9 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated high-density polyethylene plate in Comparative Example 9. [Figure 18] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of a high-density polyethylene plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 9 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated high-density polyethylene plate in Comparative Example 9. [Figure 19] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of a nylon 6 plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 10 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated nylon 6 plate in Comparative Example 10. [Figure 20] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of a nylon 6 plate that had been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 10 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated nylon 6 plate in Comparative Example 10. [Figure 21] 11 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of a pure titanium plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 11 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated pure titanium plate in Comparative Example 11. [Figure 22]1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of a pure titanium plate that had been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 11 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated pure titanium plate in Comparative Example 11. [Figure 23] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of an ABS plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 12 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated ABS plate in Comparative Example 12. [Figure 24] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of an ABS plate that had been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 12 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated ABS plate in Comparative Example 12. [Figure 25] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of a POM plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 13 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated POM plate in Comparative Example 13. [Figure 26] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of a POM plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 13 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated POM plate in Comparative Example 13. [Figure 27] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of an acrylic plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 14 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated acrylic plate in Comparative Example 14. [Figure 28] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of an acrylic plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 14 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated acrylic plate in Comparative Example 14. [Figure 29] 10 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of an alumina 96 plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 15 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated alumina 96 plate in Comparative Example 15. [Figure 30]1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of an alumina 96 plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in Example 15 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated alumina 96 plate in Comparative Example 15. [Figure 31] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial activity value (R) against Escherichia coli on the surface of each substrate. [Figure 32] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial activity value (R) against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of each substrate. [Figure 33] FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram showing measurement points on the surface of each substrate for the sample surfaces of each example and the comparative sample surfaces of each comparative example in the evaluation of the color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after surface antibacterial treatment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0012] <Surface antibacterial method according to an embodiment of the present invention> In the surface antibacterial method according to an embodiment of the present invention (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "surface antibacterial treatment"), First silver-coated particles and, Secondary silver-coated particles A liquid containing Wet blasting treatment is applied to the surface. Forming an antibacterial surface on the substrate 。

[0013] The above First silver-coated particles and Secondary silver-coated particles The shape of is preferably polygonal or spherical. First particles that will become core particles of the first silver-coated particles and second particles that will become core particles of the second silver-coated particles Alumina, zirconia, silicon, glass beads, etc. can be used for the catalyst, but glass beads are preferred from the viewpoint of cost. 。

[0014] In the surface antibacterial method according to the embodiment of the present invention, The above On the surface of the core particle silver When particles having a coating layer of the above are used, they are coated with the above coating layer by a method such as electroless plating. The above On the surface of the core particle silver Alternatively, a coating layer of commercially available silver The coating layer Silver-coated particles It may be used.

[0015] In addition, in the surface antibacterial method according to the embodiment of the present invention, for example, the type of dispersion medium, the amount of the dispersion medium, First silver-coated particles and Secondary silver-coated particles The percentage of First silver-coated particles and second silver-coated particles Average particle size (D50) First silver-coated particles and Secondary silver-coated particles The setting conditions such as the discharge pressure of the dispersion containing the compound, the discharge angle of the dispersion, the distance from the dispersion spray nozzle to the surface to be treated, and the treatment time can be changed as appropriate.

[0016] In the surface antibacterial method according to the embodiment of the present invention, it is preferable to use water as the dispersion medium. First silver-coated particles and Secondary silver-coated particles The two types of particles with different average particle sizes are dispersed. First silver-coated particles and Secondary silver-coated particles When dispersing in a dispersion medium, First silver-coated particles is preferably contained in the range of 6.0 g to 9.0 g, more preferably in the range of 7.0 g to 8.0 g, per 100 g of the dispersion medium. Secondary silver-coated particles is preferably contained in a range of 5.0 g to 8.0 g, more preferably 6.0 g to 7.0 g, per 100 g of the dispersion medium.

[0017] Also, First silver-coated particles and Secondary silver-coated particles When a liquid containing the above is used as a dispersion liquid for surface antibacterial treatment, the ratio of the mass of the first particles to the mass of the second particles is preferably in the range of 1.1 to 1.5, more preferably in the range of 1.2 to 1.4.

[0018] According to an embodiment of the present invention The first silver-coated particle is a core particle The average particle diameter (D50) of the first particles is preferably in the range of 2 μm or more and 13 μm or less, more preferably in the range of 3 μm or more and 10 μm or less, even more preferably in the range of 4 μm or more and 8 μm or less, and particularly preferably in the range of 5 μm or more and 8 μm or less.

[0019] According to an embodiment of the present invention First silver-coated particles against Silver The mass fraction of the coating layer is preferably in the range of 40% by mass or more and 60% by mass or less, more preferably in the range of 48% by mass or more and 60% by mass or less, even more preferably in the range of 46% by mass or more and 55% by mass or less, and particularly preferably in the range of 45% by mass or more and 50% by mass or less.

[0020] In addition, the above First silver-coated particles The average particle size (D50) is preferably in the range of 2 μm or more and 13 μm or less, more preferably in the range of 3 μm or more and 10 μm or less, even more preferably in the range of 4 μm or more and 8 μm or less, and particularly preferably in the range of 5 μm or more and 8 μm or less.

[0021] According to an embodiment of the present invention The second silver-coated particle is the core particle. The average particle size (D50) of the second particles is preferably in the range of 15 μm to 25 μm, more preferably in the range of 16 μm to 24 μm, even more preferably in the range of 17 μm to 22 μm, and particularly preferably in the range of 18 μm to 20 μm. That is, the average particle size (D50) of the second particles is different from that of the first particles.

[0022] According to an embodiment of the present invention Secondary silver-coated particles against Silver The mass fraction of the coating layer is preferably in the range of 5% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less, more preferably in the range of 5% by mass or more and 18% by mass or less, even more preferably in the range of 6% by mass or more and 15% by mass or less, and particularly preferably in the range of 8% by mass or more and 12% by mass or less.

[0023] In addition, the above Secondary silver-coated particlesThe average particle size (D50) is preferably in the range of 15 μm or more and 25 μm or less, more preferably in the range of 16 μm or more and 24 μm or less, even more preferably in the range of 17 μm or more and 22 μm or less, and particularly preferably in the range of 18 μm or more and 20 μm or less. Secondary silver-coated particles is the above First silver-coated particles and average particle size (D50).

[0024] First silver-coated particles and Secondary silver-coated particles The discharge pressure of the dispersion containing the above is preferably in the range of 0.2 MPa to 0.4 MPa. The discharge angle of the dispersion relative to the surface to be treated is preferably in the range of 45° to 90°. The distance from the dispersion spray nozzle to the surface to be treated is preferably in the range of 50 mm to 200 mm. The treatment time, for example, when treating an area of ​​50 mm x 50 mm, is preferably 10 seconds to 40 seconds, more preferably 20 seconds to 40 seconds.

[0025] First silver-coated particles and Secondary silver-coated particles A liquid containing Wet blasting treatment is applied to the surface. The surface of the previous substrate ( In other words, it has not been wet blasted. the surface of the substrate) and the same liquid on the surface of the substrate Wet blasting treatment is applied to the surface. The surface of the substrate after forming the antibacterial surface on the substrate ( That is, wet blastedThe color difference ΔE from the surface of the substrate is preferably in the range of 0.08 to 4.0, more preferably in the range of 0.05 to 4.0, more preferably in the range of 0.08 to 3.5, more preferably in the range of 0.05 to 3.5, even more preferably in the range of 0.08 to 3.0, even more preferably in the range of 0.05 to 3.0, even more preferably in the range of 0.08 to 2.5, even more preferably in the range of 0.05 to 2.5, particularly preferably in the range of 0.08 to 2.0, particularly preferably in the range of 0.05 to 2.0, more particularly preferably in the range of 0.08 to 1.5, more particularly preferably in the range of 0.05 to 1.5, even more particularly preferably in the range of 0.08 to 1.0, and most preferably in the range of 0.05 to 1.0. The color difference ΔE can be calculated by substituting the values ​​of ΔL, Δa, and Δb into the following formula (1): Here, ΔL indicates the brightness difference, Δa indicates the red-green phase difference, and Δb indicates the blue-yellow phase difference. The smaller the value of ΔE (i.e., ΔL, Δa, and Δb), the smaller the color difference of the substrate surface before and after the surface antibacterial treatment, and ultimately, the less the loss of color and gloss of the substrate surface before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. In general, when ΔE is 4.0 or less, it is considered that there is no difference in the color and gloss of the substrate surface before and after the surface antibacterial treatment.

[0026]

number

[0027] EXAMPLES In the following, examples and comparative examples are shown to explain the present invention in more detail, but the present invention is not limited to these examples. [Example]

[0028] 1. Antibacterial treatment for the surface of stainless steel sheets The core particles are glass beads, and the surface of the glass beads has a silver coating layer. First silver-coated particles (First core-shell particles) (Potters-Barotini Co., Ltd., ES-6000-S7), and Secondary silver-coated particles (Second core-shell particles) (Potters-Barotini Co., Ltd., ES-5000-S3) were prepared. First silver-coated particles The mass ratio of the silver coating layer (first coating layer) to the total mass is 50 mass %. Secondary silver-coated particles The mass ratio of the silver coating layer (second coating layer) to the total mass was 12 mass%. First silver-coated particles The average particle size (D50) of Secondary silver-coated particles The average particle diameter (D50) of the powder was 20 μm. First silver-coated particles Equivalent to 1.75 kg Secondary silver-coated particles 1.50 kg of the above was added to 100 g of water and mixed to prepare a dispersion for wet blasting treatment (i.e., First silver-coated particles Equivalent to 7.5g Secondary silver-coated particles The dispersion liquid described above was sprayed (i.e., wet blasted) onto the treated surface (50 mm x 50 mm) of a stainless steel plate (SUS304) (manufactured by Standard Test Piece Co., Ltd.) under the conditions shown below, forming an adhesion layer of the antibacterial metal on the treated surface (hereinafter, the treated surface of the stainless steel plate (SUS304) that had been subjected to the surface antibacterial treatment will be referred to as "sample surface 1").

[0029] (Surface antibacterial treatment conditions) Injection pressure: 0.3 MPa Projection distance: 150mm Processing time: 10 seconds per 50mm x 50mm

[0030] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli This antibacterial activity evaluation was performed by calculating the antibacterial activity value (R) on the sample surface 1 using the antibacterial activity value calculation formula (formula (2) below) in accordance with the antibacterial test method specified in JIS Z 2801. Here, the antibacterial activity value (R) is an index value used to determine the degree of antibacterial effect in the test method specified in the antibacterial test method (JIS Z 2801). Specifically, the antibacterial activity value (R) is calculated as the logarithm of the number of bacteria (B) after 24 hours of incubation on an untreated product divided by the number of bacteria (C) after 24 hours of incubation on an antibacterial-treated product, and an antibacterial effect is recognized when this antibacterial activity value (R) is 2.0 or higher (a mortality rate of 99% or higher). The details of this evaluation procedure are described below.

[0031] (1) Preparation of test bacterial solution Escherichia coli (NBRC 3972) was cultured in LB broth (Becton Dickinson Japan) at 30°C for 24 hours with shaking. The resulting culture was centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 3 minutes to collect the precipitated bacteria. The turbidity (OD) was then measured using a UV-1800 spectrophotometer (Shimadzu Corporation). 600 The precipitate was suspended in sterile water to a concentration of approximately 1.0. This suspension was diluted 100 times with sterile water to prepare a microbial suspension. 2.0 mL of the microbial suspension was then mixed with 0.4 mL of 10-fold diluted nutrient bouillon medium (manufactured by Eiken Chemical Co., Ltd.) and 17.6 mL of sterile water to obtain a test bacterial solution.

[0032] (2) Calculation of antibacterial activity value (R) Using the test bacterial solution obtained in (1), the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 1 against E. coli was calculated according to the antibacterial testing method specified in JIS Z 2801. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was greater than 4.6812 (i.e., 2.0 or greater) (see Table 1). This demonstrates that test surface 1 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0033]

number

[0034] R: Antibacterial activity value U0: Mean common logarithm of the number of viable bacteria immediately after inoculation of the untreated test piece U t : Average common logarithm of viable bacteria count after 24 hours on untreated test pieces A t : Average common logarithm of viable bacteria count after 24 hours on antibacterial treated test specimens

[0035] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli 0.4 mL of test bacterial solution was dropped onto sample surface 1, and the dropped surface was covered with a 40 mm x 40 mm polyethylene film to adhere the test bacterial solution to sample surface 1. The sample was then placed in a 90 mm diameter sterilized dish and left to stand at 35 ° C for 24 hours to prepare a first sample. As a comparative control, 0.4 mL of test bacterial solution was dropped onto a 50 mm x 50 mm polyethylene film instead of sample surface 1, and the dropped surface was covered with a 40 mm x 40 mm polyethylene film to adhere the test bacterial solution to the 50 mm x 50 mm polyethylene film. This second sample was then placed in a 90 mm diameter sterilized dish and left to stand at 35 ° C for 24 hours. The first and second samples recovered from each sterilized dish were then placed in separate sterilized polyethylene bags, and 10 mL of SCDLP medium (Shiotani MS Co., Ltd.) was added to wash out the bacteria, obtaining a washout solution. The washout solution was serially diluted with sterile water in 10-fold increments up to 1000-fold to obtain three dilutions: 10-fold, 100-fold, and 1000-fold. Then, 0.1 mL of each of the undiluted washout solution and the three dilutions was applied to a standard agar medium (Shimadzu Diagnostics Co., Ltd.), which was then cultured at 35°C for 48 hours. At this time, 1.0 mL of the undiluted washout solution was added to a standard agar medium by the pour plate method, and the medium was cultured at 35°C for 48 hours. After the culture, the viable bacterial count was calculated by counting the colonies grown on the medium. The results of the viable bacterial count calculations are shown in Table 5 below. As can be seen from Table 5, the viable bacterial count on test surface 1 was significantly reduced compared to the viable bacterial count in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable bacterial count on the polyethylene film (control). This also demonstrates that Test Surface 1 exhibits high antibacterial properties against E. coli. The detection limit in this test is 1 CFU / mL, meaning that the lower limit of detection for the number of bacteria per 10 mL of washout liquid is 10 CFU. All tests were performed on three samples, and the average value obtained was used as the viable bacterial count.

[0036] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus (1) Preparation of test bacterial solution Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 6538P) was cultured in 2x LB broth (manufactured by Nippon Becton Dickinson Co., Ltd.) at 35°C for 24 hours with shaking. The resulting culture was centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 3 minutes to collect the bacteria as a precipitate. The turbidity (OD) was then measured using a UV-1800 spectrophotometer (manufactured by Shimadzu Corporation). 600 The precipitate was suspended in sterile water to a concentration of approximately 1.0. This suspension was diluted 100 times with sterile water to prepare a microbial suspension. 2.0 mL of the microbial suspension was then mixed with 1.0 mL of 10-fold diluted nutrient bouillon medium (Shiotani MS Co., Ltd.) and 17.0 mL of sterile water to obtain a test bacterial solution.

[0037] (2) Calculation of antibacterial activity value (R) Using the test bacterial solution obtained in (1), the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 1 against Staphylococcus aureus was calculated according to the antibacterial testing method specified in JIS Z 2801. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was greater than 4.2304 (i.e., 2.0 or greater) (see Table 3). This demonstrates that test surface 1 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0038] 5. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus 0.4 mL of test bacterial solution was dropped onto sample surface 1, and the dropped surface was covered with a 40 mm x 40 mm polyethylene film to allow the test bacterial solution to adhere to sample surface 1. The sample was then placed in a 90 mm diameter sterilized dish and left to stand at 35 ° C for 24 hours. As a comparative control, 0.4 mL of test bacterial solution was dropped onto a 50 mm x 50 mm polyethylene film instead of sample surface 1, and the dropped surface was covered with a 40 mm x 40 mm polyethylene film to allow the test bacterial solution to adhere to the 50 mm x 50 mm polyethylene film. This sample was then placed in a 90 mm diameter sterilized dish and left to stand at 35 ° C for 24 hours. The sample recovered from the sterilized dish was then placed in a sterilized polyethylene bag, and 10 mL of SCDLP medium (Shiotani MS Co., Ltd.) was added to wash out the bacteria, obtaining a washout solution. The washout solution was serially diluted with sterile water in 10-fold increments up to 1000-fold to obtain three dilutions: 10-fold, 100-fold, and 1000-fold. Then, 0.1 mL of each of the undiluted washout solution and the three dilutions was applied to a standard agar medium (Shimadzu Diagnostics Co., Ltd.), which was then cultured at 35°C for 48 hours. At this time, 1.0 mL of the undiluted washout solution was added to a standard agar medium by the pour plate method, and the medium was cultured at 35°C for 48 hours. After the culture, the viable bacterial count was calculated by counting the colonies grown on the medium. The results of the viable bacterial count calculations are shown in Table 6 below. As can be seen from Table 6, the viable bacterial count of S. aureus on Test Surface 1 was significantly reduced compared to the viable bacterial count in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable bacterial count on the polyethylene film (control). This also demonstrates that Test Surface 1 exhibits high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus. The detection limit in this test is 1 CFU / mL, meaning that the lower detection limit for the number of bacteria per 10 mL of washout liquid is 10 CFU. All tests were performed on three samples, and the average value obtained was used as the viable bacterial count.

[0039] (Comparative Example 1) 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "antibacterial test against E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that an untreated treated surface of a stainless steel plate (SUS304) (hereinafter referred to as "comparative sample surface 1") was used (i.e., the treated surface of the stainless steel plate (SUS304) was not subjected to a surface antibacterial treatment). The evaluation results are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, no significant decrease in the viable E. coli cell count on comparative test surface 1 was confirmed compared to the viable E. coli cell count in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 1, i.e., the treated surface of an untreated stainless steel plate (SUS304), does not exhibit antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0040] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test against Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that comparative sample surface 1 was used (i.e., no surface antibacterial treatment was applied to the treated surface of the stainless steel plate (SUS304)). The evaluation results are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, no significant decrease in the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on comparative test surface 1 was observed compared to the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 1, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated stainless steel plate (SUS304), does not exhibit antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0041] (Comparison of antibacterial test results between Example 1 and Comparative Example 1) As is clear from Table 5, the viable E. coli count on Test Surface 1 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on Comparative Sample Surface 1 (see Table 5 and Figure 1). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of a stainless steel plate (SUS304). Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable Staphylococcus aureus count on Test Surface 1 was significantly reduced compared to the viable Staphylococcus aureus count on Comparative Sample Surface 1 (see Table 6 and Figure 2). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of a stainless steel plate (SUS304).

[0042] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after surface antibacterial treatment) Sample Surface 1 and Comparative Sample Surface 1 were measured using a colorimeter (CR-400Head, manufactured by Konica Minolta Japan, Inc.) to obtain the ΔL (-1.312), Δa (0.034), and Δb (0.826) values ​​for Sample Surface 1 and Comparative Sample Surface 1. The obtained ΔL, Δa, and Δb values ​​were then substituted into the formula shown in (Equation 1) above to calculate ΔE. The color difference ΔE between Sample Surface 1 and Comparative Sample Surface 1 was 1.551 (i.e., 4.0 or less). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the stainless steel plate (SUS304) were not impaired before or after the antibacterial surface treatment. The ΔL, Δa, and Δb values ​​were calculated by averaging the values ​​obtained by measuring five points on the surfaces of Sample Surface 1 and Comparative Sample Surface 1: four points at the edges and one point in the center (see Figure 33). [Example]

[0043] 1. Antibacterial treatment of the surface of polycarbonate plates Except for using a treated surface (50 mm x 50 mm) of a polycarbonate plate (manufactured by Standard Test Piece Co., Ltd.), an antibacterial treatment was performed on the treated surface of the polycarbonate plate under the same conditions as in Example 1, to produce a treated surface having an adhesion layer of antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 2").

[0044] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that Test Surface 2 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of Test Surface 2 against E. coli was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was greater than 6.1139 (i.e., 2.0 or greater) (see Table 1). This demonstrates that Test Surface 2 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0045] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that Test Surface 2 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of E. coli on Test Surface 2 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of E. coli in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of E. coli on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that Test Surface 2 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0046] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that Test Surface 2 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of Test Surface 2 against Staphylococcus aureus was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, the antibacterial activity value (R) was confirmed to be 5.3802 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 3). This demonstrates that Test Surface 2 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0047] 5. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that Test Surface 2 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on Test Surface 2 was significantly lower than the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that Test Surface 2 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0048] (Comparative Example 2) 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "antibacterial test against E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the treated surface of an untreated polycarbonate plate (hereinafter referred to as "comparative sample surface 2") was used (i.e., the treated surface of the polycarbonate plate was not subjected to surface antibacterial treatment). The evaluation results are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on comparative test surface 2 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 2, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated polycarbonate plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0049] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test against Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that comparative sample surface 2 was used. The evaluation results are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 2 was significantly increased compared to the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 2, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated polycarbonate plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0050] (Comparison of antibacterial test results between Example 2 and Comparative Example 2) As is clear from Table 5, the viable E. coli count on Test Surface 2 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on Comparative Sample Surface 2 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 3). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of a polycarbonate plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable E. coli count on Test Surface 2 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on Comparative Sample Surface 2 (see Table 6 and FIG. 4). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of a polycarbonate plate.

[0051] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after surface antibacterial treatment) The treated surface of the polycarbonate plate was measured with a colorimeter before and after the surface antibacterial treatment using the same method as in Example 1. The ΔL value between the sample surface 2 and the comparative sample surface 2 was 3.006, the Δa value was -0.012, and the Δb value was -0.416. The color difference ΔE value between the sample surface 2 and the comparative sample surface 2 calculated from these values ​​was 3.035 (4.0 or less). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the polycarbonate plate were not impaired before or after the surface antibacterial treatment. [Example]

[0052] 1. Antibacterial treatment of the surface of polypropylene board Except for using a treated surface (50 mm x 50 mm) of a polypropylene plate (manufactured by Standard Test Piece Co., Ltd.), an antibacterial treatment was performed on the treated surface of the polypropylene plate under the same conditions as in Example 1, to produce a treated surface having an adhesion layer of antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 3").

[0053] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that Test Surface 3 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of Test Surface 3 against E. coli was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was greater than 6.1761 (i.e., 2.0 or greater) (see Table 1). This demonstrates that Test Surface 3 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0054] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that Test Surface 3 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of E. coli on Test Surface 3 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of E. coli in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of E. coli on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that Test Surface 3 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0055] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that Test Surface 3 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of Test Surface 3 against Staphylococcus aureus was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was greater than 5.7482 (i.e., 2.0 or greater) (see Table 3). This demonstrates that Test Surface 3 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0056] 5. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that Test Surface 3 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on Test Surface 2 was significantly lower than the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that Test Surface 3 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0057] (Comparative Example 3) 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "antibacterial test against E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the treated surface of an untreated polypropylene plate (hereinafter referred to as "comparative sample surface 3") was used (i.e., the treated surface of the polypropylene plate was not subjected to a surface antibacterial treatment). The evaluation results are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on comparative test surface 3 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 3, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated polypropylene plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0058] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test against Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that comparative sample surface 3 was used. The evaluation results are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 3 was significantly increased compared to the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 3, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated polypropylene plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0059] (Comparison of antibacterial test results between Example 3 and Comparative Example 3) As is clear from Table 5, the viable E. coli count on Test Surface 3 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on Comparative Sample Surface 3 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and Figure 5). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of a polypropylene plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable S. aureus count on Test Surface 3 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable S. aureus count on Comparative Sample Surface 3 after 24 hours (see Table 6 and Figure 6). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against S. aureus to the treated surface of a polypropylene plate.

[0060] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after surface antibacterial treatment) The treated surface of the polypropylene plate was measured with a color difference meter before and after the surface antibacterial treatment in the same manner as in Example 1. The ΔL value between sample surface 3 and comparative sample surface 3 was 2.176, the Δa value was 0.128, and the Δb value was 0.164. The color difference ΔE value between sample surface 3 and comparative sample surface 3 calculated from these values ​​was 2.186 (4.0 or less). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the polypropylene plate were not impaired before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. [Example]

[0061] 1. Antibacterial treatment of polystyrene plate surfaces Except for using a treated surface (50 mm x 50 mm) of a polystyrene plate (manufactured by Standard Test Piece Co., Ltd.), an antibacterial treatment was performed on the treated surface of the polystyrene plate under the same conditions as in Example 1, to produce a treated surface having an adhesion layer of antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 4").

[0062] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 4 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 4 against E. coli was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was greater than 6.1461 (i.e., 2.0 or greater) (see Table 1). This demonstrates that test surface 4 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0063] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 4 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of E. coli on test surface 4 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of E. coli in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of E. coli on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 4 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0064] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 4 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 4 against Staphylococcus aureus was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, the antibacterial activity value (R) was confirmed to be 4.9294 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 3). This demonstrates that test surface 4 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0065] 5. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 4 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on test surface 4 was significantly lower than the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 4 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0066] Comparative Example 4 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "antibacterial test against E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the treated surface of an untreated polystyrene plate (hereinafter referred to as "comparative sample surface 4") was used (i.e., the treated surface of the polystyrene plate was not subjected to a surface antibacterial treatment). The evaluation results are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on comparative test surface 4 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 4, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated polystyrene plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0067] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test against Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that comparative sample surface 4 was used. The evaluation results are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 4 was increased compared to the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 4, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated polystyrene plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0068] (Comparison of antibacterial test results between Example 4 and Comparative Example 4) As is clear from Table 5, the viable E. coli cell count on Test Surface 4 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli cell count on Comparative Sample Surface 4 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 7). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of a polystyrene plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable E. coli cell count on Test Surface 4 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli cell count on Comparative Sample Surface 4 after 24 hours (see Table 6 and FIG. 8). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of a polystyrene plate.

[0069] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after surface antibacterial treatment) Furthermore, when the treated surface of the polystyrene plate was measured with a colorimeter before and after the surface antibacterial treatment in the same manner as in Example 1, the ΔL value between sample surface 4 and comparative sample surface 4 was 0.690, the Δa value was 0.254, and the Δb value was -1.058, and the color difference ΔE value between sample surface 4 and comparative sample surface 4 calculated from these values ​​was 1.288 (4.0 or less). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the polystyrene plate were not impaired before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. [Example]

[0070] 1. Antibacterial treatment of the surface of float glass sheets Except for the treated surface (50 mm × 50 mm) of a float glass plate (manufactured by Standard Test Piece Co., Ltd.), antibacterial treatment was performed on the treated surface of the float glass plate under the same conditions as in Example 1, to produce a treated surface having an adhesion layer of antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 5").

[0071] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 5 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 5 against E. coli was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was greater than 6.3424 (i.e., 2.0 or greater) (see Table 1). This demonstrates that test surface 5 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0072] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 5 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of E. coli on test surface 5 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of E. coli in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of E. coli on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 5 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0073] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 5 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 2 against Staphylococcus aureus was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, the antibacterial activity value (R) was confirmed to be 5.7634 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 3). This demonstrates that test surface 5 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0074] 5. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 5 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on test surface 5 was significantly lower than the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 5 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0075] (Comparative Example 5) 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "antibacterial test against E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the treated surface of an untreated float glass plate (hereinafter referred to as "comparative sample surface 5") was used (i.e., the treated surface of the float glass plate was not subjected to surface antibacterial treatment). The evaluation results are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on comparative test surface 5 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 5, i.e., the treated surface of an untreated float glass plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0076] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test against Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that comparative sample surface 5 was used. The evaluation results are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 5 was significantly increased compared to the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 5, i.e., the treated surface of an untreated float glass plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0077] (Comparison of antibacterial test results between Example 5 and Comparative Example 5) As is clear from Table 5, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 5 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 5 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 9). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of a float glass plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 5 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 5 after 24 hours (see Table 6 and FIG. 10). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. aureus to the treated surface of a float glass plate.

[0078] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after surface antibacterial treatment) Furthermore, using the same method as in Example 1, the treated surface of the float glass plate was measured with a color difference meter before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. The ΔL value between the sample surface 5 and the comparative sample surface 5 was 1.034, the Δa value was -0.018, and the Δb value was -0.086. The color difference ΔE value between the sample surface 5 and the comparative sample surface 5 calculated from these values ​​was 1.038 (4.0 or less). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the float glass plate were not impaired before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. [Example]

[0079] 1. Antibacterial treatment for the surface of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) boards Except for the treated surface (50 mm x 50 mm) of a PVC plate (manufactured by Standard Test Piece Co., Ltd.), antibacterial treatment was performed on the treated surface of the PVC plate under the same conditions as in Example 1, to produce a treated surface having an adhesion layer of antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 6").

[0080] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 6 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 6 against E. coli was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was greater than 6.0 (i.e., 2.0 or greater) (see Table 1). This demonstrates that test surface 6 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0081] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 6 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of E. coli on test surface 6 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of E. coli in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of E. coli on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 6 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0082] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 6 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 6 against Staphylococcus aureus was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 5.3424 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 3). This demonstrates that test surface 6 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0083] 5. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 6 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on test surface 6 was significantly lower than the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 6 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0084] (Comparative Example 6) 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "antibacterial test against E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the treated surface of an untreated PVC plate (hereinafter referred to as "comparative sample surface 6") was used (i.e., the treated surface of the PVC plate was not subjected to surface antibacterial treatment). The evaluation results are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on comparative test surface 6 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 6, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated PVC plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0085] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test against Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that comparative sample surface 6 was used. The evaluation results are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 6 was significantly increased compared to the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 6, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated PVC plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0086] (Comparison of antibacterial test results between Example 6 and Comparative Example 6) As is clear from Table 5, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 6 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 6 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 11). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of a PVC plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 6 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 6 after 24 hours (see Table 6 and FIG. 12). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of a PVC plate.

[0087] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after surface antibacterial treatment) Using the same method as in Example 1, the treated surface of the PVC plate was measured with a colorimeter before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. The ΔL value between sample surface 6 and comparative sample surface 6 was 2.364, the Δa value was 0.090, and the Δb value was -0.806. The color difference ΔE value between sample surface 6 and comparative sample surface 6 calculated from these values ​​was 2.499 (less than 4.0). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the PVC plate were not impaired before or after the surface antibacterial treatment. [Example]

[0088] 1. Antibacterial treatment for the surface of Teflon (registered trademark) plate Except for using a treated surface (50 mm x 50 mm) of a Teflon (registered trademark) plate (manufactured by Standard Test Piece Co., Ltd.), an antibacterial treatment was performed on the treated surface of the Teflon (registered trademark) plate under the same conditions as in Example 1, to produce a treated surface having an adhesion layer of antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "Test Surface 7").

[0089] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 7 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 7 against E. coli was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was greater than 6.1761 (i.e., 2.0 or greater) (see Table 1). This demonstrates that test surface 7 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0090] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 7 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of E. coli on test surface 7 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of E. coli in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of E. coli on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 7 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0091] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 7 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 7 against Staphylococcus aureus was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 5.3979 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 3). This demonstrates that test surface 7 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0092] 5. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 7 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on test surface 7 was significantly lower than the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 7 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0093] (Comparative Example 7) 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "antibacterial test against E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the treated surface of an untreated Teflon (registered trademark) plate (hereinafter referred to as "comparative sample surface 7") was used (i.e., the treated surface of the Teflon (registered trademark) plate was not subjected to a surface antibacterial treatment). The evaluation results are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on comparative test surface 7 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 7, i.e., the treated surface of an untreated Teflon (registered trademark) plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0094] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test against Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that comparative sample surface 7 was used. The evaluation results are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 7 was significantly increased compared to the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 2, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated Teflon (registered trademark) plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0095] (Comparison of antibacterial test results between Example 7 and Comparative Example 7) As is clear from Table 5, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 7 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 7 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 13). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of a Teflon (registered trademark) plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 7 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 7 after 24 hours (see Table 6 and FIG. 14). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of a Teflon (registered trademark) plate.

[0096] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after surface antibacterial treatment) Using the same method as in Example 1, the treated surface of the Teflon (registered trademark) plate was measured with a color difference meter before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. The ΔL value between sample surface 7 and comparison sample surface 7 was 0.056, the Δa value was 0.020, and the Δb value was -0.054. The color difference ΔE value between sample surface 7 and comparison sample surface 7 calculated from these values ​​was 0.080 (less than 4.0). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the Teflon (registered trademark) plate were not impaired before or after the surface antibacterial treatment. [Example]

[0097] 1. Antibacterial treatment of the surface of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) boards Except for using a treated surface (50 mm x 50 mm) of a PET plate (manufactured by Standard Test Piece Co., Ltd.), an antibacterial treatment was performed on the treated surface of the PET plate under the same conditions as in Example 1, to produce a treated surface having an adhesion layer of antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 8").

[0098] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 8 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 8 against E. coli was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 6.0414 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 1). This revealed that test surface 8 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0099] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 8 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of E. coli on test surface 8 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of E. coli in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of E. coli on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 8 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0100] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 8 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 8 against Staphylococcus aureus was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 5.4771 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 3). This demonstrates that test surface 8 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0101] 5. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 8 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on test surface 8 was significantly lower than the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 8 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0102] (Comparative Example 8) 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "antibacterial test against E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the treated surface of an untreated PET plate (hereinafter referred to as "comparative sample surface 8") was used (i.e., the treated surface of the PET plate was not subjected to a surface antibacterial treatment). The evaluation results are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on comparative test surface 8 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 8, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated PET plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0103] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test against Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that comparative sample surface 8 was used. The evaluation results are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 8 was significantly increased compared to the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 8, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated PET plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0104] (Comparison of antibacterial test results between Example 8 and Comparative Example 8) As is clear from Table 5, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 8 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 8 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 15). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of a PET plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 8 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 8 after 24 hours (see Table 6 and FIG. 16). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of a PET plate.

[0105] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after surface antibacterial treatment) Using the same method as in Example 1, the treated surface of the PET plate was measured with a colorimeter before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. The ΔL value between sample surface 8 and comparison sample surface 8 was 3.898, the Δa value was -0.086, and the Δb value was -0.458. The color difference ΔE value between sample surface 8 and comparison sample surface 8 calculated from these values ​​was 3.926 (4.0 or less). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the PET plate were not impaired before or after the surface antibacterial treatment. [Example]

[0106] 1. Antibacterial treatment of the surface of high-density polyethylene plates Except for using a treated surface (50 mm x 50 mm) of a high-density polyethylene plate (manufactured by Standard Test Piece Co., Ltd.), an antibacterial treatment was applied to the treated surface of a polycarbonate plate under the same conditions as in Example 1, to produce a treated surface having an adhesion layer of antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 9").

[0107] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 9 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 9 against E. coli was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was greater than 6.1761 (i.e., 2.0 or greater) (see Table 2). This demonstrates that test surface 9 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0108] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 9 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of E. coli on test surface 9 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of E. coli in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of E. coli on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 9 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0109] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 9 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 9 against Staphylococcus aureus was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 5.6435 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 4). This demonstrates that test surface 9 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0110] 5. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 9 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on test surface 9 was significantly lower than the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 9 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0111] (Comparative Example 9) 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "antibacterial test against E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the treated surface of an untreated high-density polyethylene plate (hereinafter referred to as "comparative sample surface 9") was used (i.e., the treated surface of the high-density polyethylene plate was not subjected to a surface antibacterial treatment). The evaluation results are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on comparative test surface 9 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 2, i.e., the treated surface of an untreated high-density polyethylene plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0112] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test against Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that comparative sample surface 9 was used. The evaluation results are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 9 was significantly increased compared to the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 9, i.e., the treated surface of an untreated high-density polyethylene plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0113] (Comparison of antibacterial test results between Example 9 and Comparative Example 9) As is clear from Table 5, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 9 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 9 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 17). This demonstrates that the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of a high-density polyethylene plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 9 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 9 after 24 hours (see Table 6 and FIG. 18). This demonstrates that the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of a high-density polyethylene plate.

[0114] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after surface antibacterial treatment) Using the same method as in Example 1, the treated surface of the high-density polyethylene plate was measured with a colorimeter before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. The ΔL value between sample surface 9 and comparative sample surface 9 was 0.640, the Δa value was -0.048, and the Δb value was -0.318. The color difference ΔE value between sample surface 8 and comparative sample surface 8 calculated from these values ​​was 0.716 (4.0 or less). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the high-density polyethylene plate were not impaired before or after the surface antibacterial treatment. [Example]

[0115] 1. Antibacterial treatment of the surface of nylon 6 plate An antibacterial treatment was performed on the treated surface of the nylon 6 plate under the same conditions as in Example 1, except that a treated surface (50 mm x 50 mm) of a nylon 6 plate (manufactured by Standard Test Piece Co., Ltd.) was used and the spray pressure of the dispersion was changed to 0.25 MPa, to produce a treated surface having an adhesion layer of antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 10").

[0116] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 10 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 10 against E. coli was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was greater than 6.1461 (i.e., 2.0 or greater) (see Table 2). This demonstrates that test surface 10 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0117] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 10 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on test surface 10 was significantly lower than the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live E. coli bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 10 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0118] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 10 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 10 against Staphylococcus aureus was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 5.8388 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 4). This demonstrates that test surface 10 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0119] 5. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 10 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on test surface 10 was significantly lower than the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 10 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0120] (Comparative Example 10) 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "antibacterial test against E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the treated surface of an untreated nylon 6 plate (hereinafter referred to as "comparative sample surface 10") was used (i.e., the treated surface of the nylon 6 plate was not subjected to a surface antibacterial treatment). The evaluation results are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on the comparative test surface 10 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that the comparative test surface 10, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated nylon 6 plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0121] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test against Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that comparative sample surface 10 was used. The evaluation results are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 10 was significantly increased compared to the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 10, i.e., the treated surface of an untreated nylon 6 plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0122] (Comparison of antibacterial test results between Example 10 and Comparative Example 10) As is clear from Table 5, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 10 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 10 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 19). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of a nylon 6 plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 10 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 10 after 24 hours (see Table 6 and FIG. 20). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of a nylon 6 plate.

[0123] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after surface antibacterial treatment) Using the same method as in Example 1, the treated surface of the nylon 6 plate was measured with a colorimeter before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. The ΔL value between sample surface 10 and comparative sample surface 10 was 1.004, the Δa value was 0.320, and the Δb value was -2.184. The color difference ΔE value between sample surface 10 and comparative sample surface 10 calculated from these values ​​was 2.425 (4.0 or less). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the nylon 6 plate were not impaired before or after the surface antibacterial treatment. [Example]

[0124] 1. Antibacterial treatment of the surface of pure titanium plate Except for using a treated surface (50 mm x 50 mm) of a pure titanium plate (manufactured by Standard Test Piece Co., Ltd.), the treated surface of the pure titanium plate was subjected to antibacterial treatment under the same conditions as in Example 1, to produce a treated surface having an adhesion layer of antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 11").

[0125] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 11 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 10 against E. coli was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was greater than 6.2553 (i.e., 2.0 or greater) (see Table 2). This demonstrates that test surface 11 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0126] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 11 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on test surface 11 was significantly lower than the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live E. coli bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 11 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0127] 1. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 11 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 11 against Staphylococcus aureus was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 2.7368 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 4). This demonstrates that test surface 11 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0128] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 11 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on test surface 11 was significantly lower than the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 11 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0129] (Comparative Example 11) 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "E. coli antibacterial test" of the comparative sample surface 11 was carried out in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the treated surface of an untreated pure titanium plate (hereinafter referred to as "comparative sample surface 11") was used (i.e., the treated surface of the pure titanium plate was not subjected to surface antibacterial treatment). The evaluation results are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on the comparative test surface 11 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that the comparative test surface 11, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated pure titanium plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0130] 2. (Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus) An "antibacterial test against Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted on comparative sample surface 11 in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the treated surface of an untreated pure titanium plate (hereinafter referred to as "comparative sample surface 11") was used (i.e., the treated surface of the pure titanium plate was not subjected to surface antibacterial treatment). The evaluation results are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 11 was significantly increased compared to the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 2, i.e., the treated surface of an untreated pure titanium plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0131] (Comparison of antibacterial test results between Example 11 and Comparative Example 11) As is clear from Table 5, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 11 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 11 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 21). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of a pure titanium plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable E. aureus count on the test surface 11 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. aureus count on the comparative sample surface 11 (see Table 6 and FIG. 22). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of a pure titanium plate.

[0132] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after surface antibacterial treatment) The treated surface of the pure titanium plate was measured with a color difference meter before and after the surface antibacterial treatment in the same manner as in Example 1. The ΔL value between the sample surface 11 and the comparative sample surface 11 was 3.452, the Δa value was -0.080, and the Δb value was 0.472. The color difference ΔE value between the sample surface 11 and the comparative sample surface 11 calculated from these values ​​was 3.485 (4.0 or less). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the pure titanium plate were not impaired before or after the surface antibacterial treatment. [Example]

[0133] 1. Antibacterial treatment of the surface of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) resin board Except for using a treated surface (50 mm x 50 mm) of an ABS resin plate (manufactured by Standard Test Piece Co., Ltd.), a surface antibacterial treatment was performed on the treated surface of the ABS resin plate under the same conditions as in Example 1, to produce a treated surface having an adhesion layer of antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 12").

[0134] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 12 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 12 against E. coli was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was greater than 6.2304 (i.e., 2.0 or greater) (see Table 2). This demonstrates that test surface 12 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0135] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 12 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on test surface 12 was significantly lower than the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live E. coli bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 12 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0136] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 12 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 12 against Staphylococcus aureus was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 5.3424 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 4). This demonstrates that test surface 12 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0137] 5. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 12 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on test surface 12 was significantly lower than the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 12 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0138] (Comparative Example 12) 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "E. coli antibacterial test" of the comparative sample surface 12 was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the treated surface of an untreated ABS resin plate (hereinafter referred to as "comparative sample surface 12") was used (i.e., the treated surface of the ABS resin plate was not subjected to a surface antibacterial treatment). The evaluation results are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on the comparative test surface 12 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that the comparative test surface 12, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated ABS resin plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0139] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test against Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that comparative sample surface 12 was used. The evaluation results are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 12 was significantly increased compared to the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 12, i.e., the treated surface of an untreated ABS resin plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0140] (Comparison of antibacterial test results between Example 12 and Comparative Example 12) As is clear from Table 5, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 12 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 12 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 23). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of an ABS resin plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable Staphylococcus aureus count on the test surface 12 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable Staphylococcus aureus count on the comparative sample surface 12 after 24 hours (see Table 6 and FIG. 24). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of an ABS resin plate.

[0141] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after surface antibacterial treatment) The treated surface of the ABS resin plate was measured with a colorimeter before and after the surface antibacterial treatment using the same method as in Example 1. The ΔL value between the sample surface 12 and the comparative sample surface 12 was 2.186, the Δa value was -0.732, and the Δb value was 0.584. The color difference ΔE value between the sample surface 12 and the comparative sample surface 12 calculated from these values ​​was 2.378 (less than 4.0). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the ABS resin plate were not impaired before or after the surface antibacterial treatment. [Example]

[0142] 1. Antibacterial treatment of the surface of polyoxymethylene (POM) resin boards Except for using a treated surface (50 mm x 50 mm) of a POM resin plate (manufactured by Standard Test Piece Co., Ltd.), a surface antibacterial treatment was performed on the treated surface of the POM resin plate under the same conditions as in Example 1, to produce a treated surface having an adhesion layer of antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 13").

[0143] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 13 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 13 against E. coli was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 5.3010 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 2). This demonstrates that test surface 13 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0144] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 13 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on test surface 13 was significantly lower than the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live E. coli bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 13 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0145] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 13 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 13 against Staphylococcus aureus was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 4.9731 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 4). This demonstrates that test surface 13 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0146] 5. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 13 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on test surface 13 was significantly lower than the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 13 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0147] (Comparative Example 13) 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "E. coli antibacterial test" of comparative sample surface 13 was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the treated surface of an untreated POM resin plate (hereinafter referred to as "comparative sample surface 13") was used (i.e., the treated surface of the POM resin plate was not subjected to surface antibacterial treatment). The evaluation results are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on comparative test surface 13 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 13, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated POM resin plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0148] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test against Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that comparative sample surface 13 was used. The evaluation results are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 13 was significantly increased compared to the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 13, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated POM resin plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0149] (Comparison of antibacterial test results between Example 13 and Comparative Example 13) As is clear from Table 5, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 13 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 13 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 25). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of a POM resin plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable Staphylococcus aureus count on the test surface 13 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable Staphylococcus aureus count on the comparative sample surface 13 (see Table 6 and FIG. 26). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of a POM resin plate.

[0150] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after surface antibacterial treatment) Using the same method as in Example 1, the treated surface of the POM resin plate was measured with a color difference meter before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. The ΔL value between sample surface 13 and comparative sample surface 13 was 0.442, the Δa value was 0.038, and the Δb value was -0.816. The color difference ΔE value between sample surface 13 and comparative sample surface 13 calculated from these values ​​was 0.929 (4.0 or less). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the POM resin plate were not impaired before or after the surface antibacterial treatment. [Example]

[0151] 1. Antibacterial treatment for the surface of acrylic resin boards Except for using a treated surface (50 mm x 50 mm) of an acrylic resin plate (manufactured by Standard Test Piece Co., Ltd.), a surface antibacterial treatment was performed on the treated surface of the acrylic resin plate under the same conditions as in Example 1, to produce a treated surface having an adhesion layer of antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 14").

[0152] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 14 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 14 against E. coli was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 6.0792 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 2). This demonstrates that test surface 14 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0153] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 14 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on test surface 14 was significantly lower than the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live E. coli bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 14 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0154] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 14 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 14 against Staphylococcus aureus was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 5.0414 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 4). This demonstrates that test surface 14 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0155] 5. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 14 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on test surface 14 was significantly lower than the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 14 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0156] (Comparative Example 14) 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "E. coli antibacterial test" of the comparative sample surface 14 was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the treated surface of an untreated acrylic resin plate (hereinafter referred to as "comparative sample surface 14") was used (i.e., the treated surface of the acrylic resin plate was not subjected to a surface antibacterial treatment). The evaluation results are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on the comparative test surface 14 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that the comparative test surface 14, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated acrylic resin plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0157] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test against Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that comparative sample surface 14 was used. The evaluation results are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 14 was significantly increased compared to the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 14, i.e., the treated surface of an untreated acrylic resin plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0158] (Summary of Example 14 and Comparative Example 14) As is clear from Table 5, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 14 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 14 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 27). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of an acrylic resin plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable E. aureus count on the test surface 14 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 14 (see Table 6 and FIG. 28). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of an acrylic resin plate.

[0159] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after surface antibacterial treatment) Using the same method as in Example 1, the treated surface of the acrylic resin plate was measured with a colorimeter before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. The ΔL value between sample surface 14 and comparison sample surface 14 was 2.752, the Δa value was -0.048, and the Δb value was -0.646. The color difference ΔE value between sample surface 14 and comparison sample surface 14 calculated from these values ​​was 2.827 (4.0 or less). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the acrylic resin plate were not impaired before or after the surface antibacterial treatment. [Example]

[0160] 1. Antibacterial treatment of the surface of alumina 96 plate Except for using a treated surface (50 mm x 50 mm) of an alumina 96 plate (manufactured by Standard Test Piece Co., Ltd.), the treated surface of the alumina 96 plate was subjected to a surface antibacterial treatment under the same conditions as in Example 1, to produce a treated surface having an adhesion layer of antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 15").

[0161] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 15 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 15 against E. coli was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 6.1761 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 2). This demonstrates that test surface 15 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0162] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 15 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on test surface 15 was significantly lower than the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live E. coli bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 15 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0163] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacterial solution was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 15 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of test surface 15 against Staphylococcus aureus was calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. As a result, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 5.4314 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 4). This demonstrates that test surface 15 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0164] 5. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 15 was used to evaluate antibacterial activity. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on test surface 15 was significantly lower than the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test and the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also demonstrates that test surface 15 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0165] (Comparative Example 15) 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "E. coli antibacterial test" of comparative sample surface 15 was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the treated surface of an untreated alumina 96 resin plate (hereinafter referred to as "comparative sample surface 15") was used (i.e., the treated surface of the alumina 96 plate was not subjected to surface antibacterial treatment). The evaluation results are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of live E. coli bacteria on comparative test surface 15 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 15, i.e., the treated surface of an untreated alumina 96 resin plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0166] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test against Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that comparative sample surface 15 was used. The evaluation results are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 15 was significantly increased compared to the number of viable Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacterial solution before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 15, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated alumina 96 resin plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0167] (Comparison of antibacterial test results between Example 15 and Comparative Example 15) As is clear from Table 5, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 15 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 15 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 29). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of the alumina 96 plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable E. coli count on the test surface 15 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable E. coli count on the comparative sample surface 15 (see Table 6 and FIG. 30). This demonstrates that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. aureus to the treated surface of the alumina 96 plate.

[0168] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after surface antibacterial treatment) Using the same method as in Example 1, the treated surface of the alumina 96 plate was measured with a color difference meter before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. The ΔL value between sample surface 15 and comparison sample surface 15 was 1.049, the Δa value was -0.046, and the Δb value was -0.602. The color difference ΔE value between sample surface 15 and comparison sample surface 15 calculated from these values ​​was 1.049 (4.0 or less). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the alumina 96 plate were not impaired before or after the surface antibacterial treatment.

[0169] [Table 1]

[0170] [Table 2]

[0171] [Table 3]

[0172] [Table 4]

[0173] [Table 5]

[0174] [Table 6] [Industrial Applicability]

[0175] The surface antibacterial method of the present invention can impart an antibacterial effect to the surface of a substrate without significantly changing the color or gloss of the surface of the substrate. Furthermore, the surface antibacterial method of the present invention is highly versatile because it can be used on the surfaces of substrates made of various materials. Therefore, the surface antibacterial method of the present invention is useful for imparting antibacterial properties to the surface of substrates made of various materials without significantly changing the color or gloss of the surface of the same substrate.

Claims

1. A liquid containing first particles having a first antibacterial metal on their surfaces and second particles having a second antibacterial metal on their surfaces and having an average particle size (D50) different from that of the first particles is sprayed onto the surface of a substrate to form an antibacterial surface on the substrate. Surface antibacterialization method.

2. the first particles have an average particle size (D50) of 2 μm or more and 13 μm or less, The average particle diameter (D50) of the second particles is in the range of 15 μm or more and 25 μm or less. The method for antibacterializing a surface according to claim 1.

3. the first particle has a first core made of a material different from the first antibacterial metal, and a first coating layer made of the first antibacterial metal and covering the first core; the second particle has a second core made of a material different from the second antibacterial metal, and a second coating layer made of the second antibacterial metal and covering the second core; a mass ratio of the first coating layer to the first particles is in the range of 40 mass% or more and 60 mass% or less, a mass ratio of the second coating layer to the second particles is in the range of 5 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less; The method for antibacterializing a surface according to claim 1 or 2.

4. a color difference (ΔE) between the surface of the substrate before the liquid is sprayed onto the surface of the substrate and the surface of the substrate after the liquid is sprayed onto the surface of the substrate to form an antibacterial surface on the substrate is in the range of 0.05 or more and 4.0 or less; The method for antibacterializing a surface according to claim 1.

5. first particles having a first antibacterial metal on their surfaces; second particles having a second antibacterial metal on the surface thereof and having an average particle diameter (D50) different from that of the first particles; Contains The ratio of the mass of the first particles to the mass of the second particles is in the range of 1.1 to 1.

5. Dispersion liquid for surface antibacterialization.

Images