journal article·2024-04Open access

Effect of dehydration method on the micro- and nanomorphological properties of bacterial cellulose produced by Medusomyces gisevii on different substrates

Natalia Pogorelova, Evgeniy Rogachev, Nuraly Akimbekov, Ilya Digel

Journal of Materials Science· Volume 59· Issue 15

Abstract

Abstract Many important properties of bacterial cellulose (BC), such as moisture absorption capacity, elasticity and tensile strength, largely depend on its structure. This paper presents a study on the effect of the drying method on BC films produced by Medusomyces gisevii using two different procedures: room temperature drying (RT, (24 ± 2 °C, humidity 65 ± 1%, dried until a constant weight was reached) and freeze-drying (FD, treated at − 75 °C for 48 h). BC was synthesized using one of two different carbon sources—either glucose or sucrose. Structural differences in the obtained BC films were evaluated using atomic force microscopy (AFM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and X-ray diffraction. Macroscopically, the RT samples appeared semi-transparent and smooth, whereas the FD group exhibited an opaque white color and sponge-like structure. SEM examination showed denser packing of fibrils in FD samples while RT-samples displayed smaller average fiber diameter, lower surface roughness and less porosity. AFM confirmed the SEM observations and showed that the FD material exhibited a more branched structure and a higher surface roughness. The samples cultivated in a glucose-containing nutrient medium, generally displayed a straight and ordered shape of fibrils compared to the sucrose-derived BC, characterized by a rougher and wavier structure. The BC films dried under different conditions showed distinctly different crystallinity degrees, whereas the carbon source in the culture medium was found to have a relatively small effect on the BC crystallinity. Graphical Abstract
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Advanced Cellulose Research Studies · Polysaccharides and Plant Cell Walls · Enzyme-mediated dye degradation

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

References (29)

Show source-provided references
1. Balzar D, Ledbetter H (1993) Voigt-function modeling in Fourier analysis of size- and strain-broadened X-ray diffraction peaks. J Appl Crystallogr 26(1):97–10310.1107/S0021889892008987 ↗
2. Bordun I, Chwastek K, Całus D, Chabecki P, Ivashchyshyn F, Kohut Z, Borysiuk A, Kulyk Y (2021) Comparison of structure and magnetic properties of Ni/C composites synthesized from wheat straw by different methods. Appl Sci 11(21):10031
3. Cheng K-C, Catchmark JM, Demirci A (2009) Effect of different additives on bacterial cellulose production by Acetobacter xylinum and analysis of material property. Cellulose 16(6):1033–104510.1007/s10570-009-9346-5 ↗
4. Chernigova SV, Zubkova NV, Chernigov YV, Pogorelova NA (2019) Morphological changes in the tissue structures after thermal burns on the background of using dermarm wound dressing. La Prensa Méd Argent 105(9):521–254
5. Clasen C, Sultanova B, Wilhelms T, Heisig P, Kulicke W-M (2006) Effects of different drying processes on the material properties of bacterial cellulose membranes. Macromol Symp 244(1):48–5810.1002/masy.200651204 ↗
6. David WIF (1986) Powder diffraction peak shapes. Parameterization of the pseudo-Voigt as a Voigt function. J Appl Crystallogr 19(1):63–6410.1107/S0021889886089999 ↗
7. Digel I, Akimbekov N, Rogachev E, Pogorelova N (2023) Bacterial cellulose produced by Medusomyces gisevii on glucose and sucrose: biosynthesis and structural properties. Cellulose 30(18):11439–1145310.1007/s10570-023-05592-z ↗
8. Domskiene J, Sederaviciute F, Simonaityte J (2019) Kombucha bacterial cellulose for sustainable fashion. IJCST 31(5):644–65210.1108/IJCST-02-2019-0010 ↗
9. Fang L, Catchmark JM (2014) Structure characterization of native cellulose during dehydration and rehydration. Cellulose 21(6):3951–396310.1007/s10570-014-0435-8 ↗
10. French AD (2014) Idealized powder diffraction patterns for cellulose polymorphs. Cellulose 21(2):885–89610.1007/s10570-013-0030-4 ↗
11. Hajlaoui O, Khiari R, Ajili L, Batis N, Bergaoui L (2020) Design and characterization of type I cellulose-polyaniline composites from various cellulose sources: a comparative study. Chemistry Afr 3(3):783–79210.1007/s42250-020-00148-1 ↗
12. Illa MP, Sharma CS, Khandelwal M (2019) Tuning the physiochemical properties of bacterial cellulose: effect of drying conditions. J Mater Sci 54(18):12024–1203510.1007/s10853-019-03737-9 ↗
13. Jarrell J, Cal T, Bennett JW (2000) The Kombucha consortia of yeasts and bacteria. Mycologist 14(4):166–17010.1016/S0269-915X(00)80034-8 ↗
14. Jayabalan R, Malbaša RV, Lončar ES, Vitas JS, Sathishkumar M (2014) A review on kombucha tea-microbiology, composition, fermentation, beneficial effects, toxicity, and tea fungus. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 13(4):538–55010.1111/1541-4337.12073 ↗
15. Lahiri D, Nag M, Dutta B, Dey A, Sarkar T, Pati S, Edinur HA, Abdul Kari Z, Mohd Noor NH, Ray RR (2021) Bacterial cellulose: production, characterization, and application as antimicrobial agent. Int J Mol Sci 22(23):1298410.3390/ijms222312984 ↗
16. Madihally SV, Matthew HW (1999) Porous chitosan scaffolds for tissue engineering. Biomaterials 20(12):1133–114210.1016/S0142-9612(99)00011-3 ↗
17. Mohamad S, Abdullah LC, Jamari SS, Al Edrus SSO, Aung MM, Mohamad SFS (2022) Influence of drying method on the crystal structure and thermal property of oil palm frond juice-based bacterial cellulose. J Mater Sci 57(2):1462–147310.1007/s10853-021-06685-5 ↗
18. Nečas D, Klapetek P (2012) Gwyddion: an open-source software for SPM data analysis. Open Phys 10(1):9910.2478/s11534-011-0096-2 ↗
19. Pogorelova N, Rogachev E, Digel I, Chernigova S, Nardin D (2020) Bacterial cellulose nanocomposites: morphology and mechanical properties. Materials 13(12):284910.3390/ma13122849 ↗
20. Proniewicz LM, Paluszkiewicz C, Wesełucha-Birczyńska A, Barański A, Dutka D (2002) FT-IR and FT-Raman study of hydrothermally degraded groundwood containing paper. J Mol Struct 614(1–3):345–35310.1016/S0022-2860(02)00275-2 ↗
21. Reiniati I, Hrymak AN, Margaritis A (2017) Recent developments in the production and applications of bacterial cellulose fibers and nanocrystals. Crit Rev Biotechnol 37(4):510–52410.1080/07388551.2016.1189871 ↗
22. Ross P, Mayer R, Benziman M (1991) Cellulose biosynthesis and function in bacteria. Microbiol Rev 55(1):35–5810.1128/mr.55.1.35-58.1991 ↗
23. Rosyida VT, Indrianingsih AW, Hayati SN, Apriyana W (2020) The effect of different drying temperature on crystallinity and morphology structure of bacterial cellulose. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 462(1):1205010.1088/1755-1315/462/1/012050 ↗
24. 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 A Polym Chem 42(3):463–47010.1002/pola.10862 ↗
25. Sumadiyasa M, Manuaba IBS (2018) Determining crystallite size using Scherrer formula, Williamson-Hull plot, and particle size with SEM. Bul Fis 19(1):28–3510.24843/BF.2018.v19.i01.p06 ↗
26. Thongsomboon W, Serra DO, Possling A, Hadjineophytou C, Hengge R, Cegelski L (2018) Phosphoethanolamine cellulose: a naturally produced chemically modified cellulose. Science 359(6373):334–33810.1126/science.aao4096 ↗
27. Vasconcellos V, Farinas C (2018) The effect of the drying process on the properties of bacterial cellulose films from Gluconacetobacter hansenii. Chem Eng Trans 64:145–150
28. Wojdyr M (2010) Fityk : a general-purpose peak fitting program. J Appl Crystallogr 43(5):1126–112810.1107/S0021889810030499 ↗
29. Zhang CJ, Wang L, Zhao JC, Zhu P (2011) Effect of drying methods on structure and mechanical properties of bacterial cellulose films. AMR 239–242:2667–2670