Table 1 Critical comparisons between the antibacterial activity of NIR-I, NIR-II and NIR-III NMs
From: Review of light activated antibacterial nanomaterials in the second biological window
Property | NIR-I (650–950 nm) | NIR-II (950–1450 nm) | NIR-III (1500–1850 nm) |
|---|---|---|---|
Penetration Depth in Tissue | Moderate (mm range) | Higher (up to cm range) | Highest (deepest penetration) |
Photothermal Efficiency | Moderate | High | Very High |
Tissue Absorption | More absorption by hemoglobin and water | Less absorption by water, better tissue penetration | Higher absorption by water (may limit efficiency) |
Photothermal Antibacterial Effect | Effective with good nanomaterial design | More effective due to deeper penetration and higher photothermal conversion | Potentially highly effective but limited by high water absorption |
ROS Generation | Possible but less efficient | Enhanced ROS production with suitable nanomaterials | Limited ROS generation |
Bacterial Killing Efficiency | Good for superficial infections | Superior for deep tissue infections | Effective for deep infections but needs optimized conditions |
Thermal Damage to Healthy Tissue | Higher risk due to moderate penetration | Lower risk due to deeper penetration and selective heating | Potential risk due to water absorption |