Method for antibacterial treatment of surfaces and dispersion for antibacterial treatment of surfaces

Abstract

An object of the present invention is to provide a surface antibacterial method capable of imparting an antibacterial effect to the surface of a substrate without significantly changing the color or gloss of the surface of the substrate. [Solution] In a surface antibacterial method according to a first aspect of the present invention, 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 a different average particle diameter (D50) from the first particles is sprayed onto a surface of a substrate to form an antibacterial surface on the substrate. In the above configuration, it is preferable that the average particle diameter (D50) of the first particles is in the range of 2 μm to 13 μm, and the average particle diameter (D50) of the second particles is in the range of 15 μm to 25 μm.

Description

[Technical field]

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

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

[0003] [Patent Document 1] JP 2008-214197 A Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0004] Thus, today, there is a demand for a method of imparting antibacterial properties to the surface of a substrate by surface antibacterial treatment, etc. 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 capable of imparting 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 size (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 within a 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 same substrate 。

[0007] As a result of careful investigation 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 substrate surface before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. Also, Particle size within the range First silver-coated particle , Secondary silver-coated particles It has become clear that the use of the above-mentioned compound makes it possible to impart antibacterial properties to a substrate having an antibacterial surface 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 particle or Secondary silver-coated particles It is possible to adjust the acceleration rate at the time of spraying, and thus it is possible to change the degree of antibacterialization of the surface of the substrate 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 It is preferable that the color difference (ΔE) from the surface of the base material is 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 particle and, Silver Coating of The first particle and the second particle with different average particle size (D50) On the surface The second silver-coated particles and Secondary silver-coated particles for the mass of First silver-coated particle The mass ratio is within 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-mentioned dispersion in 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 substrate surface before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. [Brief description 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 had 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. [Diagram 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 an antibacterial surface treatment in accordance with Example 1 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated stainless steel plate (SUS304) in accordance with Comparative Example 1. [Diagram 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 an antibacterial surface treatment in accordance with Example 2 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated polycarbonate plate in accordance with 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 an antibacterial surface treatment in accordance with Example 2 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated polycarbonate plate in accordance with Comparative Example 2. [Diagram 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 the surface antibacterial treatment of Example 3 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated polypropylene plate of 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 against Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of a polystyrene plate that has been subjected to surface antibacterial treatment in accordance with Example 4 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated polystyrene plate in accordance with Comparative Example 4. [Figure 9] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect of E. coli on the treated surface of a float glass plate that has been subjected to an antibacterial surface treatment in accordance with Example 5 with the antibacterial effect of E. coli on the surface of an untreated float glass plate in accordance with 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 an antibacterial surface treatment in accordance with Example 5 with the antibacterial effect of Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated float glass plate in accordance with 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 in Example 6 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plate in 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 in accordance with Example 6 with the antibacterial effect of Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plate in accordance with 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 the surface antibacterial treatment of Example 7 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated Teflon (registered trademark) plate of Comparative Example 7. [Figure 14] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of a Teflon (registered trademark) plate that has been subjected to the surface antibacterial treatment of Example 7 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated Teflon (registered trademark) plate of 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 the surface antibacterial treatment of Example 8 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plate of 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 the surface antibacterial treatment of Example 8 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plate of 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 accordance with Example 9 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated high-density polyethylene plate in accordance with 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 accordance with Example 9 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated high-density polyethylene plate in accordance with 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 the surface antibacterial treatment of Example 10 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated nylon 6 plate of 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 the surface antibacterial treatment of Example 10 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated nylon 6 plate of Comparative Example 10. [Figure 21] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of a pure titanium plate that has been subjected to an antibacterial surface treatment in accordance with Example 11 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated pure titanium plate in accordance with 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 an antibacterial surface treatment in accordance with Example 11 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated pure titanium plate in accordance with Comparative Example 11. [Diagram 23] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of an ABS plate that had been subjected to an antibacterial surface 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 an antibacterial surface treatment in Example 12 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated ABS plate in Comparative Example 12. [Diagram 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 an antibacterial surface treatment in accordance with Example 13 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated POM plate in accordance with 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 an antibacterial surface treatment in accordance with Example 13 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated POM plate in accordance with 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 the surface antibacterial treatment of Example 14 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated acrylic plate of 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 the surface antibacterial treatment of Example 14 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated acrylic plate of Comparative Example 14. [Figure 29] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the treated surface of an Alumina 96 plate that has been subjected to the antibacterial surface treatment of Example 15 with the antibacterial effect against E. coli on the surface of an untreated Alumina 96 plate of Comparative Example 15. [Diagram 30]1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the treated surface of an alumina 96 plate that had been subjected to the antibacterial surface treatment of Example 15 with the antibacterial effect against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of an untreated alumina 96 plate of Comparative Example 15. [Diagram 31] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial activity value (R) against Escherichia coli on the surface of each substrate. [Diagram 32] 1 is a graph comparing the antibacterial activity value (R) against Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of each substrate. [Diagram 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 PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

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

[0013] The above First silver-coated particle and Secondary silver-coated particles The shape of the particles is preferably polygonal or spherical. First particles that serve as core particles of the first silver-coated particles and second particles that serve as core particles of the second silver-coated particles For the ion exchange material, alumina, zirconia, silicon, glass beads, etc. can be used, but from the viewpoint of cost, it is preferable to use glass beads. 。

[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 using particles having a coating layer, the particles are coated with the coating layer by electroless plating or other methods. The above On the surface of the core particle silver Alternatively, a coating layer of commercially available silver The coating layer was 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, and the like can be determined. First silver-coated particle and Secondary silver-coated particles Percentage of First silver-coated particles and second silver-coated particles Average particle size (D50), First silver-coated particle and Secondary silver-coated particles The setting conditions such as the discharge pressure of the dispersion containing the component (A), 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 appropriately changed.

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

[0017] Also, First silver-coated particle and Secondary silver-coated particles When the 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 within the range of 1.1 to 1.5, and more preferably within 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 particle for 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, First silver-coated particle 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 a core particle. The average particle diameter (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, further 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 diameter (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 for Silver The mass fraction of the coating layer is preferably in the range of 5 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less, more preferably in the range of 5 mass% or more and 18 mass% or less, even more preferably in the range of 6 mass% or more and 15 mass% or less, and particularly preferably in the range of 8 mass% or more and 12 mass% or less.

[0023] In addition, Secondary silver-coated particlesThe average particle size (D50) of 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 as mentioned above. First silver-coated particle and average particle size (D50) are different.

[0024] First silver-coated particle 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 with respect to the surface to be treated is preferably in the range of 45° to 90°. The distance of the dispersion spray nozzle to the surface to be treated is preferably in the range of 50 mm to 200 mm. The treatment time is preferably 10 seconds to 40 seconds, more preferably 20 seconds to 40 seconds, when treating an area of, for example, 50 mm x 50 mm.

[0025] First silver-coated particle 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, no wet blasting has been performed. 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, the wet blasting process was performed.The color difference ΔE between the substrate surface and the substrate is preferably 0.08 to 4.0, more preferably 0.05 to 4.0, more preferably 0.08 to 3.5, more preferably 0.05 to 3.5, even more preferably 0.08 to 3.0, even more preferably 0.05 to 3.0, even more preferably 0.08 to 2.5, even more preferably 0.05 to 2.5, particularly preferably 0.08 to 2.0, especially preferably 0.05 to 2.0, more especially preferably 0.08 to 1.5, more especially preferably 0.05 to 1.5, even more especially preferably 0.08 to 1.0, and most especially preferably 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 surface of the substrate before and after the surface antibacterial treatment, and thus the less the color and gloss of the surface of the substrate before and after the surface antibacterial treatment are impaired. In general, when ΔE is 4.0 or less, it is considered that there is no difference in the color and gloss of the surface of the substrate before and after the surface antibacterial treatment.

[0026]

number

[0027] 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. EXAMPLES

[0028] 1. Antibacterial treatment for the surface of stainless steel sheets The core particles are glass beads, and the surfaces of the glass beads are coated with a silver layer. First silver-coated particle (First core-shell particle) (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 particle The mass ratio of the silver coating layer (first coating layer) to the total weight of the substrate 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 particle The average particle size (D50) of Secondary silver-coated particles The average particle diameter (D50) of the powder was 20 μm. First silver-coated particle Equivalent to 1.75kg Secondary silver-coated particles A dispersion for wet blasting was prepared by adding 1.50 kg of the above to 100 g of water and mixing. First silver-coated particle Equivalent to 7.5g Secondary silver-coated particles The above-mentioned dispersion 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 antibacterial surface treatment is referred to as "sample surface 1").

[0029] (Surface antibacterial treatment conditions) Injection pressure: 0.3MPa 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 (the following formula (2)) according to the antibacterial test method defined in JIS Z 2801. Here, the antibacterial activity value (R) is an index value for judging the degree of antibacterial effect in the test method defined 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 culture on an untreated product divided by the number of bacteria (C) after 24 hours of culture on an antibacterial treated product, and an antibacterial effect is recognized when this antibacterial activity value (R) is 2.0 or more (a death rate of 99% or more). The details of this evaluation procedure are described below.

[0031] (1) Preparation of test bacteria 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 bacteria as a precipitate. The turbidity (OD) was then measured using a UV-1800 spectrophotometer (Shimadzu Corporation). 600 The precipitate was suspended in sterile water so that the pH was approximately 1.0. The suspension was diluted 100-fold with sterile water to obtain a microbial suspension. 2.0 mL of the microbial suspension was then mixed with 0.4 mL of 10-fold diluted normal 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 bacteria solution obtained in (1), the antibacterial activity value (R) of the test surface 1 against E. coli was calculated according to the antibacterial test method defined 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 more) (see Table 1). This demonstrated that the test surface 1 exhibited high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0033]

number

[0034] R: Antibacterial activity value U 0 : Average common logarithm of viable cell count immediately after inoculation of untreated test specimen 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 on antibacterial treated test specimens after 24 hours

[0035] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli 0.4 mL of the test bacteria liquid was dropped onto the sample surface 1, and the drop surface was covered with a 40 mm x 40 mm polyethylene film to make the test bacteria liquid adhere to the sample surface 1, and then the sample was placed in a sterilized petri dish with a diameter of 90 mm and left to stand at 35 ° C for 24 hours to prepare a first sample. At this time, as a comparative control (control), 0.4 mL of the test bacteria liquid was dropped onto a 50 mm x 50 mm polyethylene film instead of the sample surface 1, and the drop surface was covered with a 40 mm x 40 mm polyethylene film to make a second sample in which the test bacteria liquid was adhered to the 50 mm x 50 mm polyethylene film, and the second sample was placed in a sterilized petri dish with a diameter of 90 mm and left to stand at 35 ° C for 24 hours. Thereafter, the first sample and the second sample collected from each sterilized petri dish were placed in separate sterilized polyethylene bags, and 10 mL of SCDLP medium (manufactured by Shioya MS Co., Ltd.) was added to wash out the bacteria, and a washout liquid was obtained. The washout solution was diluted stepwise with sterilized water in 10-fold increments up to 1000-fold to obtain three types of dilutions: 10-fold, 100-fold, and 1000-fold. Then, 0.1 mL of each of the undiluted washout solution and the above three types of dilutions was applied to a standard agar medium (manufactured by Shimadzu Diagnostics Co., Ltd.), and the medium was cultured at 35°C for 48 hours. At this time, 1.0 mL of the undiluted washout solution was added to the standard agar medium by the pour method, and the medium was cultured at 35°C for 48 hours. After the culture, the number of viable bacteria was calculated by counting the colonies grown on the medium. The calculation results of the viable bacteria number are shown in Table 5 below. As is clear from Table 5, it was confirmed that the number of viable bacteria of E. coli on the test surface 1 was significantly reduced compared to the number of viable bacteria of E. coli in the test bacteria solution before the test and the number of viable bacteria of E. coli on the polyethylene film as a comparison control (control). This also clarified that the test surface 1 exhibited high antibacterial properties against E. coli. The detection limit in this test was 1 CFU / mL, and the lower detection limit for the number of bacteria per 10 mL of washout liquid was 10 CFU. In addition, all tests were performed on three samples, and the average value obtained was taken as the viable bacteria count.

[0036] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus (1) Preparation of test bacteria solution Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538P was cultured in 2xLB broth (Becton Dickinson Japan) 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 (Shimadzu Corporation). 600 The precipitate was suspended in sterile water so that the pH was approximately 1.0. The suspension was diluted 100-fold with sterile water to obtain a microbial suspension. 2.0 mL of the microbial suspension was then mixed with 1.0 mL of 10-fold diluted nutrient bouillon medium (Shioya 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 bacteria liquid obtained in (1), the antibacterial activity value (R) of the test surface 1 against Staphylococcus aureus was calculated according to the antibacterial test method defined 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 more) (see Table 3). This demonstrated that the test surface 1 exhibited high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0038] 5. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus 0.4 mL of the test bacteria liquid was dropped onto the sample surface 1, and the drop surface was covered with a 40 mm x 40 mm polyethylene film to make the test bacteria liquid adhere to the sample surface 1, and then the sample was placed in a sterilized petri dish with a diameter of 90 mm and left to stand at 35 ° C for 24 hours. At this time, as a comparative control (control), 0.4 mL of the test bacteria liquid was dropped onto a 50 mm x 50 mm polyethylene film instead of the sample surface 1, and the drop surface was covered with a 40 mm x 40 mm polyethylene film to make a sample in which the test bacteria liquid was adhered to the 50 mm x 50 mm polyethylene film, and the sample was placed in a sterilized petri dish with a diameter of 90 mm and left to stand at 35 ° C for 24 hours. Thereafter, the sample collected from the sterilized petri dish was placed in a sterilized polyethylene bag, and 10 mL of SCDLP medium (manufactured by Shioya MS Co., Ltd.) was added to wash out the bacteria, and a washout liquid was obtained. The washout solution was diluted stepwise with sterilized water in 10-fold increments up to 1000-fold to obtain three types of dilutions: 10-fold, 100-fold, and 1000-fold. Then, 0.1 mL of each of the undiluted washout solution and the above three types of dilutions was applied to a standard agar medium (manufactured by Shimadzu Diagnostics Co., Ltd.), and the medium was cultured at 35°C for 48 hours. At this time, 1.0 mL of the undiluted washout solution was added to the standard agar medium by the pour method, and the medium was cultured at 35°C for 48 hours. After the culture, the number of live bacteria was calculated by counting the colonies grown on the medium. The calculation results of the viable bacteria count are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the number of live bacteria of Staphylococcus aureus on the test surface 1 was significantly reduced compared to the number of live bacteria of Staphylococcus aureus in the test bacteria liquid before the test and the number of live bacteria of Staphylococcus aureus on the polyethylene film as a comparison control (control). This also clarified that the test surface 1 exhibited high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus. The detection limit in this test was 1 CFU / mL, and the lower detection limit for the number of bacteria per 10 mL of washout liquid was 10 CFU. In addition, all tests were performed on three samples, and the average value obtained was taken as the viable bacteria count.

[0039] Comparative Example 1 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "E. coli antibacterial test" was carried out 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., no surface antibacterial treatment was applied to the treated surface of the stainless steel plate (SUS304)). 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 for 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 confirmed 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 count of E. coli on the test surface 1 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable count of E. coli on the comparative sample surface 1 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 1). This shows that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of the stainless steel plate (SUS304). Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable count of Staphylococcus aureus on the test surface 1 was significantly reduced compared to the viable count of Staphylococcus aureus on the comparative sample surface 1 (see Table 6 and FIG. 2). This shows that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of the stainless steel plate (SUS304).

[0042] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after antibacterial surface treatment) The sample surface 1 and the comparative sample surface 1 were measured using a color difference meter (CR-400Head, manufactured by Konica Minolta Japan, Inc.), and the values ​​of ΔL (-1.312), Δa (0.034), and Δb (0.826) between the sample surface 1 and the comparative sample surface 1 were obtained. The obtained values ​​of ΔL, Δa, and Δb were then substituted into the formula shown in the above (Equation 1) to calculate ΔE. As a result, the color difference ΔE between the sample surface 1 and the 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 and after the surface antibacterial treatment. The values ​​of ΔL, Δa, and Δb were the average values ​​obtained by measuring a total of five points, four points at the ends and one point at the center, of the substrate surfaces of the sample surface 1 and the comparative sample surface 1 (see FIG. 33). EXAMPLES

[0043] 1. Antibacterial treatment for 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, and a treated surface having an adhesion layer of an antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 2") was produced.

[0044] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli Except for using test surface 2 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, 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 more) (see Table 1). This revealed that test surface 2 exhibits high antibacterial properties 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 for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 makes it clear that test surface 2 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0046] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus Except for using test surface 2 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, 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, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 5.3802 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 3). This revealed that test surface 2 exhibits high antibacterial properties 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 for the antibacterial activity evaluation. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on test surface 2 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control (control). This also makes it clear that test surface 2 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0048] Comparative Example 2 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "antibacterial test for E. coli" was performed 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 the comparative test surface 2 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacteria solution before the test. This confirmed that the 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 for 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 live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 2 was significantly increased compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacteria liquid before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 2, i.e., the treated surface of an 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 cell count of E. coli on the test surface 2 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable cell count of E. coli on the 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 the polycarbonate plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on the test surface 2 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on the 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 the polycarbonate plate.

[0051] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after antibacterial surface treatment) The treated surface of the polycarbonate plate was measured with a colorimeter before and after the antibacterial surface treatment in the same manner 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 was not impaired before and after the antibacterial surface treatment. EXAMPLES

[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 an antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 3").

[0053] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli Except for using test surface 3 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, 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 more) (see Table 1). This revealed that test surface 3 exhibits high antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0054] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was carried out in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 3 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 makes it clear that test surface 3 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0055] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus Except for using test surface 3 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, 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 more) (see Table 3). This revealed that test surface 3 exhibits high antibacterial properties 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 for the antibacterial activity evaluation. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on test surface 2 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also makes it clear that test surface 3 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0057] Comparative Example 3 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "antibacterial test for E. coli" was performed 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 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 3 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacteria solution before the test. This confirmed that the 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 for 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 live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 3 was significantly increased compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacteria liquid before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 3, i.e., the treated surface of an 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 number of live E. coli bacteria on the test surface 3 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria on the comparative sample surface 3 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 5). This makes it clear that by applying the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention, it is possible to impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of the polypropylene plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the test surface 3 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the comparative sample surface 3 after 24 hours (see Table 6 and FIG. 6). This makes it clear that by applying the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention, it is possible to impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of the polypropylene plate.

[0060] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after antibacterial surface treatment) When the treated surface of the polypropylene 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 the sample surface 3 and the comparative sample surface 3 was 2.176, the Δa value was 0.128, and the Δb value was 0.164, and the color difference ΔE value between the sample surface 3 and the 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 was not impaired before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. EXAMPLES

[0061] 1. Antibacterial treatment of the surface of polystyrene board 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 an antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 4").

[0062] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli Except for using test surface 4 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, 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 more) (see Table 1). This revealed that test surface 4 exhibits high antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0063] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was carried out in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 4 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 makes it clear that test surface 4 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0064] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacteria liquid 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, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 4.9294 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 3). This revealed that test surface 4 exhibits high antibacterial properties 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 for the antibacterial activity evaluation. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on test surface 4 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also makes it clear that test surface 4 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0066] Comparative Example 4 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "antibacterial test for E. coli" was performed 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 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 4 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacteria solution before the test. This confirmed that the 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 for 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 live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 4 was increased compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacteria liquid before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 4, i.e., the treated surface of an 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 number of live E. coli bacteria on the test surface 4 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria on the comparative sample surface 4 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 7). This makes it clear that by applying the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention, it is possible to impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of the polystyrene plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the test surface 4 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the comparative sample surface 4 after 24 hours (see Table 6 and FIG. 8). This makes it clear that by applying the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention, it is possible to impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of the polystyrene plate.

[0069] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after antibacterial surface 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 the sample surface 4 and the 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 the sample surface 4 and the 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 was not impaired before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. EXAMPLES

[0070] 1. Antibacterial treatment for the surface of float glass sheets Except for the treated surface (50 mm x 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 prepare a treated surface having an adhesion layer of an antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 5").

[0071] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacteria liquid 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 more) (see Table 1). This revealed that test surface 5 exhibits high antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0072] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was carried out in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 5 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 makes it clear that test surface 5 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0073] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacteria liquid 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, it was confirmed that the antibacterial activity value (R) was 5.7634 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 3). This revealed that test surface 5 exhibits high antibacterial properties 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 for the antibacterial activity evaluation. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on test surface 5 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control (control). This also makes it clear that test surface 5 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0075] Comparative Example 5 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "E. coli antibacterial test" was carried out 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 surface antibacterial treatment was not performed on the treated surface of the float glass plate). 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 5 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacteria solution before the test. This confirmed that the comparative test surface 5, i.e., the treated surface of the untreated float glass plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0076] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test for Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the 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 live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the comparative test surface 5 was significantly increased compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacteria liquid before the test. This confirmed that the comparative test surface 5, i.e., the treated surface of the 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 number of live bacteria of E. coli on the test surface 5 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the number of live bacteria of E. coli on the comparative sample surface 5 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 9). This shows that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of the float glass plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the number of live bacteria of Staphylococcus aureus on the test surface 5 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the number of live bacteria of Staphylococcus aureus on the comparative sample surface 5 after 24 hours (see Table 6 and FIG. 10). This shows that the antibacterial surface treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of the float glass plate.

[0078] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after antibacterial surface treatment) Furthermore, when the treated surface of the float glass 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 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, and 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. EXAMPLES

[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.), an antibacterial treatment was applied to 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 an antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 6").

[0080] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli Except for using the test surface 6 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 more than 6.0 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 1). This revealed that the test surface 6 exhibited high antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0081] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was carried out in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 6 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 makes it clear that test surface 6 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0082] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacteria liquid 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 revealed that test surface 6 exhibits high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0083] 5. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus" was carried out in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 6 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on test surface 6 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also makes it clear 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 carried out 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 the comparative test surface 6 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacteria solution before the test. This confirmed that the 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 for 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 live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 6 was significantly increased compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacteria liquid 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 cell count of E. coli on the test surface 6 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable cell count of E. coli on the comparative sample surface 6 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 11). This shows that the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of the PVC plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on the test surface 6 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on the comparative sample surface 6 after 24 hours (see Table 6 and FIG. 12). This shows that the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of the PVC plate.

[0087] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after antibacterial surface treatment) The treated surface of the PVC 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 the sample surface 6 and the comparative sample surface 6 was 2.364, the Δa value was 0.090, and the Δb value was -0.806, and the color difference ΔE value between the sample surface 6 and the comparative sample surface 6 calculated from these values ​​was 2.499 (4.0 or less). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the PVC plate was not impaired before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. EXAMPLES

[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 an antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 7").

[0089] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli Except for using the test surface 7 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 more than 6.1761 (i.e., 2.0 or more) (see Table 1). This revealed that the test surface 7 exhibited high antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0090] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was carried out in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 7 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 makes it clear that test surface 7 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0091] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus Except for using the test surface 7 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 revealed that the test surface 7 exhibited high antibacterial properties 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 for the antibacterial activity evaluation. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on test surface 7 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also makes it clear that test surface 7 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0093] Comparative Example 7 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "E. coli antibacterial test" 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 the comparative test surface 7 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacteria solution before the test. This confirmed that the 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 for 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 live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 7 was significantly increased compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacteria liquid 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 number of live bacteria of E. coli on the test surface 7 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the number of live bacteria of E. coli on the comparative sample surface 7 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 13). This shows that the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of the Teflon (registered trademark) plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the number of live bacteria of Staphylococcus aureus on the test surface 7 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the number of live bacteria of Staphylococcus aureus on the comparative sample surface 7 after 24 hours (see Table 6 and FIG. 14). This shows that the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of the Teflon (registered trademark) plate.

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

[0097] 1. Antibacterial treatment for 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 an antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 8").

[0098] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the test surface 8 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 the test surface 8 exhibits high antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0099] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was carried out in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 8 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 makes it clear that test surface 8 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0100] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the test surface 8 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 revealed that the test surface 8 exhibits high antibacterial properties 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 for the antibacterial activity evaluation. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on test surface 8 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also makes it clear 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 carried out 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 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 8 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacteria solution before the test. This confirmed that the 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 for Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the 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 live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the comparative test surface 8 was significantly increased compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacteria liquid before the test. This confirmed that the 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 number of live bacteria of E. coli on the test surface 8 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the number of live bacteria of E. coli on the comparative sample surface 8 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 15). This makes it clear that by applying the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention, it is possible to impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of the PET plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the number of live bacteria of Staphylococcus aureus on the test surface 8 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the number of live bacteria of Staphylococcus aureus on the comparative sample surface 8 after 24 hours (see Table 6 and FIG. 16). This makes it clear that by applying the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention, it is possible to impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of the PET plate.

[0105] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after antibacterial surface treatment) The treated surface of the PET 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 the sample surface 8 and the comparative 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 the sample surface 8 and the comparative 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 was not impaired before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. EXAMPLES

[0106] 1. Antibacterial treatment of the surface of high density polyethylene plate 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 performed on the treated surface of a polycarbonate plate under the same conditions as in Example 1, and a treated surface having an adhesion layer of an antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 9") was produced.

[0107] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli Except for using the test surface 9 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 more) (see Table 2). This revealed that the test surface 9 exhibited high antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0108] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was carried out in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 9 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 makes it clear that test surface 9 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0109] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus Except for using the test surface 9 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 revealed that the test surface 9 exhibits high antibacterial properties 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 for the antibacterial activity evaluation. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on test surface 9 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also makes it clear that test surface 9 exhibits high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0111] Comparative Example 9 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "antibacterial test for E. coli" was performed 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 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 bacteria 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 for 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 live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 9 was significantly increased compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacteria liquid 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 number of live bacteria of E. coli on the test surface 9 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the number of live bacteria of E. coli on the comparative sample surface 9 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 17). This shows that the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of the high-density polyethylene plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the number of live bacteria of Staphylococcus aureus on the test surface 9 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the number of live bacteria of Staphylococcus aureus on the comparative sample surface 9 after 24 hours (see Table 6 and FIG. 18). This shows that the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of the high-density polyethylene plate.

[0114] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after antibacterial surface treatment) When the treated surface of the high-density polyethylene 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 the sample surface 9 and the comparative sample surface 9 was 0.640, the Δa value was -0.048, and the Δb value was -0.318, and the color difference ΔE value between the sample surface 8 and the 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 and after the surface antibacterial treatment. EXAMPLES

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

[0116] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli Except for using the test surface 10 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 more) (see Table 2). This revealed that the test surface 10 exhibits high antibacterial properties 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 for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 10 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 makes it clear that test surface 10 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0118] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus Except for using the test surface 10 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 revealed that the test surface 10 exhibits high antibacterial properties 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 for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 bacteria liquid before the test and the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also makes it clear that test surface 10 exhibits high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0120] Comparative Example 10 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "E. coli antibacterial test" was carried out 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 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 bacteria solution before the test. This confirmed that the comparative test surface 10, i.e., the treated surface of an untreated nylon 6 plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0121] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test for Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the 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 live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the comparative test surface 10 was significantly increased compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacteria liquid 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 Staphylococcus aureus.

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

[0123] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after antibacterial surface treatment) The treated surface of the nylon 6 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 the sample surface 10 and the comparative sample surface 10 was 1.004, the Δa value was 0.320, and the Δb value was -2.184, and the color difference ΔE value between the sample surface 10 and the 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 was not impaired before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. EXAMPLES

[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 surface treatment under the same conditions as in Example 1, to produce a treated surface having an adhesion layer of an antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 11").

[0125] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli Except for using the test surface 11 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 more) (see Table 2). This revealed that the test surface 11 exhibited high antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0126] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was carried out in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 11 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 11 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 makes it clear that test surface 11 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0127] 1. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus Except for using the test surface 11 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 revealed that the test surface 11 exhibits high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0128] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus" was carried out in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 11 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation. The results of the test are shown in Table 6 below. As is clear from Table 6, it was confirmed that the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on test surface 11 was significantly lower than the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus in the test bacterial solution before the test and the viable cell count of Staphylococcus aureus on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also makes it clear 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" was performed on the 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 surface antibacterial treatment was not performed on the treated surface of the pure titanium plate). 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 bacteria 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 properties against E. coli.

[0130] 2. (Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus) An "antibacterial test against Staphylococcus aureus" was performed on the 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 live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the comparative test surface 11 was significantly increased compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacteria solution before the test. This confirmed that the comparative test surface 2, i.e., the treated surface of an untreated pure titanium plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus.

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

[0132] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after antibacterial surface treatment) The treated surface of the pure titanium plate was measured with a colorimeter before and after the antibacterial surface 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 was not impaired before and after the antibacterial surface treatment. EXAMPLES

[0133] 1. Antibacterial treatment for the surface of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) resin plate 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 an antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 12").

[0134] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli Except for using the test surface 12 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 more) (see Table 2). This revealed that the test surface 12 exhibited high antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0135] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was carried out in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the test surface 12 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 the test surface 12 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 makes it clear that the test surface 12 exhibits high antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0136] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus Except for using the test surface 12 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 revealed that the test surface 12 exhibited high antibacterial properties 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 the test surface 12 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 the test surface 12 was significantly lower than the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacteria liquid before the test and the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also makes it clear that the test surface 12 exhibits high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0138] Comparative Example 12 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "E. coli antibacterial test" was performed on the comparative sample surface 12 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 bacteria solution before the test. This confirmed that the comparative test surface 12, i.e., the treated surface of an untreated ABS resin plate, did not exhibit any antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0139] 2. Antibacterial test using Staphylococcus aureus An "antibacterial test for Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the 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 live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the comparative test surface 12 was significantly increased compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacteria liquid 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 Staphylococcus aureus.

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

[0141] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after antibacterial surface treatment) The treated surface of the ABS resin 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 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, and the color difference ΔE value between the sample surface 12 and the comparative sample surface 12 calculated from these values ​​was 2.378 (4.0 or less). This confirmed that the color and gloss of the treated surface of the ABS resin plate was not impaired before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. EXAMPLES

[0142] 1. Antibacterial treatment for the surface of polyoxymethylene (POM) resin plate 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 an antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 13").

[0143] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli Except for using the test surface 13 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 revealed that the test surface 13 exhibits high antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0144] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was carried out in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the test surface 13 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 the test surface 13 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 makes it clear that the test surface 13 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0145] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus Except for using the test surface 13 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 revealed that the test surface 13 exhibits high antibacterial properties 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 for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 bacteria liquid before the test and the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also makes it clear that test surface 13 exhibits high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0147] Comparative Example 13 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "E. coli antibacterial test" was performed on the comparative sample surface 13 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 the comparative test surface 13 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacteria solution before the test. This confirmed that the 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 for Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the 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 live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the comparative test surface 13 was significantly increased compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacteria liquid before the test. This confirmed that the 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 count of E. coli on the test surface 13 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable count of E. coli on the comparative sample surface 13 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 25). This shows that the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against E. coli to the treated surface of the POM resin plate. Similarly, as is clear from Table 6, the viable count of Staphylococcus aureus on the test surface 13 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the viable count of Staphylococcus aureus on the comparative sample surface 13 (see Table 6 and FIG. 26). This shows that the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of the POM resin plate.

[0150] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after antibacterial surface treatment) The treated surface of the POM resin 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 the sample surface 13 and the comparative sample surface 13 was 0.442, the Δa value was 0.038, and the Δb value was -0.816, and the color difference ΔE value between the sample surface 13 and the 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 was not impaired before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. EXAMPLES

[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 an antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 14").

[0152] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli Except for using the test surface 14 for the antibacterial activity evaluation, a test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 revealed that the test surface 14 exhibits high antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0153] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was carried out in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 14 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 14 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 makes it clear that test surface 14 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0154] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacteria liquid was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the test surface 14 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation, and the antibacterial activity value (R) of the 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 revealed that the test surface 14 exhibits high antibacterial properties 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 for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 bacteria liquid before the test and the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also makes it clear 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" was performed on the comparative sample surface 14 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 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 bacteria 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 for 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 live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on comparative test surface 14 was significantly increased compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacteria liquid before the test. This confirmed that comparative test surface 14, i.e., the treated surface of an untreated acrylic resin plate, does not exhibit any antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus.

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

[0159] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after antibacterial surface treatment) When the treated surface of the acrylic resin 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 the sample surface 14 and the comparative sample surface 14 was 2.752, the Δa value was -0.048, and the Δb value was -0.646, and the color difference ΔE value between the sample surface 14 and the comparative 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 was not impaired before and after the surface antibacterial treatment. EXAMPLES

[0160] 1. Antibacterial treatment for 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.), a surface antibacterial treatment was performed on the treated surface of the Alumina 96 plate under the same conditions as in Example 1, to produce a treated surface having an adhesion layer of an antibacterial metal (hereinafter referred to as "test surface 15").

[0161] 2. Antibacterial activity evaluation using E. coli A test bacteria liquid 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 revealed that test surface 15 exhibits high antibacterial properties against E. coli.

[0162] 3. Antibacterial test using Escherichia coli An "antibacterial test using E. coli" was carried out in the same manner as in Example 1, except that test surface 15 was used for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 15 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 makes it clear that test surface 15 exhibits high antibacterial activity against E. coli.

[0163] 4. Antibacterial activity evaluation using Staphylococcus aureus A test bacteria liquid 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 revealed that test surface 15 exhibits high antibacterial properties 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 for the antibacterial activity evaluation. 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 bacteria liquid before the test and the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the polyethylene film used as a comparison control. This also makes it clear that test surface 15 exhibits high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus.

[0165] Comparative Example 15 1. Antibacterial test using E. coli An "E. coli antibacterial test" was performed on the comparative sample surface 15 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 the comparative test surface 15 was significantly increased compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria in the test bacteria solution before the test. This confirmed that the 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 for Staphylococcus aureus" was conducted in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the 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 live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the comparative test surface 15 was significantly increased compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in the test bacteria liquid before the test. This confirmed that the 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 number of live E. coli bacteria on the test surface 15 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the number of live E. coli bacteria on the comparative sample surface 15 after 24 hours (see Table 5 and FIG. 29). This shows that the surface antibacterial 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 number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the test surface 15 after 24 hours was significantly reduced compared to the number of live Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on the comparative sample surface 15 (see Table 6 and FIG. 30). This shows that the surface antibacterial treatment according to the present invention can impart high antibacterial properties against Staphylococcus aureus to the treated surface of the Alumina 96 plate.

[0168] (Evaluation of color difference (ΔE) of each test surface before and after antibacterial surface treatment) The treated surface of the Alumina 96 plate was measured with a colorimeter before and after the antibacterial surface treatment in the same manner as in Example 1. The ΔL value between the sample surface 15 and the comparative sample surface 15 was 1.049, the Δa value was -0.046, and the Δb value was -0.602, and the color difference ΔE value between the sample surface 15 and the comparative 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 was not impaired before and after the antibacterial surface 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. In addition, the surface antibacterial method of the present invention is highly versatile because it can be used for the surfaces of substrates made of various materials. Therefore, the surface antibacterial method of the present invention is useful in imparting antibacterial properties to the surfaces of substrates made of various materials without significantly changing the color or gloss of the surfaces of the same substrates.

Claims

1. First silver-coated particles having a first particle and a silver coating layer covering the first particle, the first particle having an average particle diameter (D50) of 2 μm or more and 13 μm or less, and a mass ratio of the silver coating layer being 40 mass% or more and 60 mass% or less; second silver-coated particles having a second particle having a particle size different from that of the first particle and a silver coating layer covering the second particle, the second particle having an average particle size (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; a silver-coated particle-containing liquid obtained by mixing the above-mentioned components so that the ratio of the mass of the first silver-coated particles to the mass of the second silver-coated particles is within a range of 1.1 to 1.5, and the silver-coated particle-containing liquid is sprayed onto the surface of the substrate, thereby forming an antibacterial surface on the substrate. Surface antibacterialization method.

2. a color difference (ΔE) between a surface of the substrate not subjected to the wet blasting treatment and a surface of the substrate subjected to the wet blasting treatment is within a range of 0.05 to 4.0; The method for antibacterializing a surface according to claim 1.

3. A first silver-coated particle having a first particle and a silver coating layer covering the first particle, the mass fraction of the silver coating layer being within the range of 40 mass% or more and 60 mass% or less; second silver-coated particles each having a second particle having an average particle diameter (D50) different from that of the first particle and a silver coating layer covering the second particle, the mass ratio of the silver coating layer being within a range of 5 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less; Contains 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 or more and 1.5 or less; Dispersion for surface antibacterial treatment by wet blasting.

Images