journal article·2019-09

Tuning the physiochemical properties of bacterial cellulose: effect of drying conditions

Mani Pujitha Illa, Chandra S. Sharma, Mudrika Khandelwal

Journal of Materials Science· Volume 54· Issue 18
Publisher page

Abstract

Bacteria have an ability to produce cellulose in pure form without any impurities such as hemicellulose and lignin, unlike plant cellulose. Bacterial cellulose as-produced with 3-D interwoven nanofibrous network is superior to plant cellulose in terms of mechanical properties, porosity, crystallinity, water holding capacity, and sustainability. In its natural form, bacterial cellulose is in the form of a hydrogel, which implies high porosity and holding capacity, however, to use it for different applications, water needs to be removed. The physical properties of bacterial cellulose such as morphology, porosity, and mechanical strength are vastly affected by the drying method employed. This paper presents a case study in which we produced bacterial cellulose using two different strains, followed by systematically studying the effect of drying (oven and freeze drying) on physiochemical, morphological, and structural properties of as-produced bacterial cellulose using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction, field emission scanning electron microscopy, BET surface area, and tensile testing. Oven-dried bacterial cellulose showed higher crystallinity, reduced fiber diameter, and narrow size distribution and higher mechanical properties as compared to freeze-dried bacterial cellulose. Understanding so developed in this work may allow us to simply tune the bacterial cellulose properties for a given application.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Advanced Cellulose Research Studies · Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications · Polysaccharides and Plant Cell Walls

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (43)

Show source-provided references
1. Keshk SM (2014) Bacterial cellulose production and its industrial applications. J Bioprocess Biotech 04:1–1010.4172/2155-9821.1000150 ↗
2. Gao W-H, Chen K-F, Yang R-D et al (2010) Properties of bacterial cellulose and its influence on the physical properties of paper. BioResources 6:144–15310.15376/biores.6.1.144-153 ↗
3. Chawla PR, Bajaj IB, Survase SA, Singhal RS (2009) Microbial cellulose: fermentative production and applications (review). Food Technol Biotechnol 47:107–124
4. Yodsuwan N, Owatworakit A, Ngaokla A et al (2012) Effect of carbon and nitrogen sources on bacterial cellulose production for bionanocomposite materials. In: In 1st Fah Luang University international conference, pp 2005–2010
5. Faridah F, Diana S, Helmi H et al (2013) Effect of sugar concentrations on bacterial cellulose production as cellulose membrane in mixture liquid medium and material properties analysis. In: ASEAN/Asian Academic Society international conference proceeding series
6. Krystynowicz A, Czaja W, Jezierska AW- et al (2002) Factors affecting the yield and properties of bacterial cellulose. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 29:189–19510.1038/sj.jim.7000303 ↗
7. Korhonen JT, Kettunen M, Ras RHA, Ikkala O (2011) Hydrophobic nanocellulose aerogels as floating, sustainable, reusable, and recyclable oil absorbents. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 3:1813–181610.1021/am200475b ↗
8. Zhang CJ, Wang L, Zhao JC, Zhu P (2011) Effect of drying methods on structure and mechanical properties of bacterial cellulose films. Adv Mater Res 239–242:2667–2670
9. Pa’e N, Hamid NIA, Khairuddin N et al (2014) Effect of different drying methods on the morphology, crystallinity, swelling ability and tensile properties of nata de coco. Sains Malays 43:767–773
10. Zeng M, Laromaine A, Roig A (2014) Bacterial cellulose films: influence of bacterial strain and drying route on film properties. Cellulose 21:4455–446910.1007/s10570-014-0408-y ↗
11. Tang W, Jia S, Jia Y, Yang H (2010) The influence of fermentation conditions and post-treatment methods on porosity of bacterial cellulose membrane. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 26:125–13110.1007/s11274-009-0151-y ↗
12. Feng X, Ullah N, Wang X et al (2015) Characterization of bacterial cellulose by Gluconacetobacter hansenii CGMCC 3917. J Food Sci 80:2217–222710.1111/1750-3841.13010 ↗
13. Chen G, Wang W (2007) Role of freeze drying in nanotechnology. Dry Technol 25:29–3510.1080/07373930601161179 ↗
14. Kuga S, Kim D-Y, Nishiyama Y, Brown RM (2002) Nanofibrillar carbon from native cellulose. Mol Cryst Liq Cryst 387:13–1910.1080/713738864 ↗
15. Al-Shamary EE, Al-Darwash AK (2013) Influence of fermentation condition and alkali treatment on the porosity and thickness of bacterial cellulose membranes. Online J Sci Technol 3:194–203
16. Liebner F, Haimer E, Wendland M et al (2010) Aerogels from unaltered bacterial cellulose: application of scCO2 drying for the preparation of shaped, ultra-lightweight cellulosic aerogels. Macromol Biosci 10:349–35210.1002/mabi.200900371 ↗
17. Clasen C, Sultanova B, Wilhelms T et al (2006) Effects of different drying processes on the material properties of bacterial cellulose membranes. Macromol Symp 244:48–5810.1002/masy.200651204 ↗
18. Basak AK (2015) Drying characteristics of bacterial cellulose produced from fermentation of black tea by symbiotic colony of yeast and bacteria. Int J Sci Res 4:2013–2016
19. Markiewicz EWA, Hilczer B, Pawlaczyk C (2004) Dielectric and acoustic response of biocellulose. Ferroelectrics 304:39–4210.1080/00150190490454422 ↗
20. Indrartil L, Yudiantil R, Amurwabumil K, Yuli N (1998) Application of biocellulose as an acoustic membrane. Indones J Biotechnol 6:180–184
21. Khandelwal M, Windle AH, Hessler N (2016) In situ tunability of bacteria produced cellulose by additives in the culture media. J Mater Sci 51:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-016-9783-010.1007/s10853-016-9783-0 ↗
22. Rangaswamy BE, Vanitha KP, Hungund BS (2015) Microbial cellulose production from bacteria isolated from rotten fruit. Int J Polym Sci. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/28078410.1155/2015/280784 ↗
23. Seifert M, Hesse S, Kabrelian V, Klemm D (2004) Controlling the water content of never dried and reswollen bacterial cellulose by the addition of water-soluble polymers to the culture medium. J Polym Sci Part A Polym Chem 42:463–47010.1002/pola.10862 ↗
24. Shi Q-S, Feng J, Li W-R et al (2013) Effect of different conditions on the average degree of polymerization of bacterial cellulose produced by Gluconacetobacter intermedius BC-41. Cell Chem Technol 47:503–508
25. Szymańska-Chargot M, Cybulska J, Zdunek A (2011) Sensing the structural differences in cellulose from apple and bacterial cell wall materials by Raman and FT-IR spectroscopy. Sensors 11:5543–556010.3390/s110605543 ↗
26. Wada M, Okano T (2001) Localization of Iα and Iβ phases in algal cellulose revealed by acid treatments. Cellulose 8:183–18810.1023/A:1013196220602 ↗
27. Wada M, Okano T, Sugiyama J (2001) Allomorphs of native crystalline cellulose I evaluated by two equatorial d-spacings. J Wood Sci 47:124–12810.1007/BF00780560 ↗
28. Hermans PH (1947) Quantitative X-ray investigations on the crystallinity of cellulose fibers. A background analysis. J Appl Phys 19:491–50610.1063/1.1698162 ↗
29. Park S, Baker JO, Himmel ME et al (2010) Cellulose crystallinity index: measurement techniques and their impact on interpreting cellulase performance. Biotechnol Biofuels 3:1–1010.1186/1754-6834-3-10 ↗
30. Patterson AL (1939) The Scherrer formula for X-ray particle size determination. Phys Rev 56:978–98210.1103/PhysRev.56.978 ↗
31. Laha A, Yadav S, Majumdar S, Sharma CS (2016) In-vitro release study of hydrophobic drug using electrospun cross-linked gelatin nanofibers. Biochem Eng J 105:481–48810.1016/j.bej.2015.11.001 ↗
32. Gama M, Gatenholm P, Klemm D (2012) Bacterial nanocellulose: a sophisticated multifunctional material. CRC Press, Boca Raton
33. Tahara N, Tabuchi M, Watanabe K et al (1997) Degree of polymerization of cellulose from Acetobacter xylinum BPR2001 decreased by cellulase produced by the strain. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 61:1862–186510.1271/bbb.61.1862 ↗
34. O’connor RT, Dupré EF, Mitcham D (1958) Applications of infrared absorption spectroscopy to investigations of cotton and modified cottons: part I: physical and crystalline modifications and oxidation. Text Res J 28:382–39210.1177/004051755802800503 ↗
35. Kouris M, Ruck H, Mason SG (1958) The effect of water removal on the crystallinity of cellulose. Can J Chem 36:931–94810.1139/v58-135 ↗
36. Matheus P, Zattera AJ, Santana RM (2012) Structural differences between wood species: evidence from chemical composition, FTIR spectroscopy, and thermogravimetric analysis. J Appl Polym Sci 126:E337–E34410.1002/app.36991 ↗
37. Liu Y (2013) Recent progress in Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy study of compositional, structural and physical attributes of developmental cotton fibers. Materials (Basel) 6:299–31310.3390/ma6010299 ↗
38. Mondal MIH (2013) Mechanism of structure formation of microbial cellulose during nascent stage. Cellulose 20:1073–108810.1007/s10570-013-9880-z ↗
39. Wang S, Li T, Chen C et al (2018) Transparent, anisotropic biofilm with aligned bacterial cellulose nanofibers. Adv Funct Mater 28:1707491–170750110.1002/adfm.201707491 ↗
40. Li G, Nandgaonkar AG, Habibi Y et al (2017) An environmentally benign approach to achieving vectorial alignment and high microporosity in bacterial cellulose/chitosan scaffolds. RSC Adv 7:13678–1368810.1039/C6RA26049G ↗
41. Sehaqui H, Zhou Q, Ikkala O, Berglund LA (2011) Strong and tough cellulose nanopaper with high specific surface area and porosity. Biomacromolecules 12:3638–364410.1021/bm2008907 ↗
42. Hindeleh AM (1980) Crystallinity, crystallite size, and physical properties of native Egyptian cotton. Text Res J 50:667–67410.1177/004051758005001106 ↗
43. Zhang Y, Ben Jar PY, Xue S, Li L (2019) Quantification of strain-induced damage in semi-crystalline polymers: a review. J Mater Sci 54:62–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-018-2859-210.1007/s10853-018-2859-2 ↗