In situ tunability of bacteria produced cellulose by additives in the culture media
Source abstract
Abstract
Bacterial cellulose offers several advantages over other celluloses not only in terms of purity and properties but also because it allows modifications during synthesis (in situ modification). This possibility has been explored in this paper to tune bacterial cellulose in terms of cellulose microfibril dimensions, branching, crystallinity, crystallite size and porosity. It has been shown that modifiers can be added to the bacterial cell culture medium to obtain these variations during the cellulose biosynthesis. The effects of four of the several possible modifiers have been reported, namely calcofluor (dye used for cellulose), carboxy methyl cellulose (cellulose derivative), polyethylene glycol and nalidixic acid (antibiotic). Crystallinity was found to decrease from over 80 % for unmodified cellulose to about 50 % for that modified by calcofluor. The crystallite size also decreases, but to different extents along the different crystal directions, on modifications. The microfibril dimensions were found to decrease from 65 nm in case of unmodified cellulose to about 30 nm in case of carboxy methyl cellulose modification. The cellulose modified with polyethylene glycol does not show much change in crystallinity, crystallite size and microfibril dimension. Porosity was also found to decrease in all cases except that modified by polyethylene glycol where it increased from 79 to over 110 m2/g. All these observations are explained on the basis of the effect of modifier on cellulose polymerization and assembly.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Cellulose Research Studies · Biofuel production and bioconversion · Enzyme Production and Characterization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (26)
Show source-provided references
1. Brown RM (1996) The Biosynthesis of cellulose. J Macromol Sci Part A 33(10):1345–1373. doi: 10.1080/1060132960801491210.1080/10601329608014912 ↗
2. Haigler C, Brown R Jr, Benziman M (1980) Calcofluor white ST alters the in vivo assembly of cellulose microfibrils. Science 210(4472):903–906. doi: 10.1126/science.743400310.1126/science.7434003 ↗
3. Cheng K-C, Catchmark J, 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. Cheng K-C, Catchmark JM, Demirci A (2011) Effects of CMC Addition on bacterial cellulose production in a biofilm reactor and its paper sheets analysis. Biomacromolecules 12(3):730–736. doi: 10.1021/bm101363t10.1021/bm101363t ↗
5. Haigler CH, White AR, Brown RM, Cooper KM (1982) Alteration of in vivo cellulose ribbon assembly by carboxymethylcellulose and other cellulose derivatives. J Cell Biol 94(1):64–69. doi: 10.1083/jcb.94.1.6410.1083/jcb.94.1.64 ↗
6. Tokoh C, Takabe KJ, Fujita M (2002) Cellulose synthesized by Acetobacter xylinum in the presence of plant cell wall polysaccharides. Cellulose 9(1):65–7410.1023/A:1015827121927 ↗
7. Haigler C, Chanzy H (1988) Electron diffraction analysis of the altered cellulose synthesized by Acetobacter xylinum in the presence of fluorescent brightening agents and direct dyes. J Ultrastruct Mol Struct Res 98(3):299–31110.1016/S0889-1605(88)80922-4 ↗
8. Heßler N, Klemm D (2009) Alteration of bacterial nanocellulose structure by in situ modification using polyethylene glycol and carbohydrate additives. Cellulose 16(5):899–91010.1007/s10570-009-9301-5 ↗
9. Hirai A, Tsuji M, Yamamoto H, Horii F (1998) In situ crystallization of bacterial cellulose III. Influences of different polymeric additives on the formation of microfibrils as revealed by transmission electron microscopy. Cellulose 5(3):201–213. doi: 10.1023/a:100923332323710.1023/A:1009233323237 ↗
10. Yamanaka S, Sugiyama J (2000) Structural modification of bacterial cellulose. Cellulose 7(3):213–225. doi: 10.1023/a:100920802295710.1023/A:1009208022957 ↗
11. Huang H-C, Chen L-C, Lin S-B, Hsu C-P, Chen H-H (2010) In situ modification of bacterial cellulose network structure by adding interfering substances during fermentation. Bioresour Technol 101(15):6084–609110.1016/j.biortech.2010.03.031 ↗
12. Khandelwal M, Hessler N, Windle AH (2013) Effect of modification in cellulose microstructure on liquid crystallinity. MRS Online Proceedings Library Archive 1498:221–226. doi: 10.1557/opl.2013.34010.1557/opl.2013.340 ↗
13. Hestrin S, Schramm M (1954) Synthesis of cellulose by Acetobacter xylinum. 2. Preparation of freeze-dried cells capable of polymerizing glucose to cellulose. Biochem J 58(2):34510.1042/bj0580345 ↗
14. Segal L, Creely J, Martin A, Conrad C (1959) An empirical method for estimating the degree of crystallinity of native cellulose using the X-ray diffractometer. Text Res J 29(10):786–79410.1177/004051755902901003 ↗
15. Patterson A (1939) The Scherrer formula for X-ray particle size determination. Phys Rev 56(10):97810.1103/PhysRev.56.978 ↗
16. Andersson S, Serimaa R, Paakkari T, SaranpÄÄ P, Pesonen E (2003) Crystallinity of wood and the size of cellulose crystallites in Norway spruce (Picea abies). J Wood Sci 49(6):531–53710.1007/s10086-003-0518-x ↗
17. Focher B, Palma M, Canetti M, Torri G, Cosentino C, Gastaldi G (2001) Structural differences between non-wood plant celluloses: evidence from solid state NMR, vibrational spectroscopy and X-ray diffractometry. Ind Crops Prod 13(3):193–20810.1016/S0926-6690(00)00077-7 ↗
18. Revol JF, Dietrich A, Goring DAI (1987) Effect of mercerization on the crystallite size and crystallinity index in cellulose from different sources. Can J Chem 65(8):1724–1725. doi: 10.1139/v87-28810.1139/v87-288 ↗
19. Quader H (1981) Interruption of cellulose microfibril crystallization. Naturwissenschaften 68(8):428–429. doi: 10.1007/bf0107971410.1007/BF01079714 ↗
20. Elazzouzi-Hafraoui S, Nishiyama Y, Putaux J-L, Heux L, Dubreuil F, Rochas C (2007) The shape and size distribution of crystalline nanoparticles prepared by acid hydrolysis of native cellulose. Biomacromolecules 9(1):57–65. doi: 10.1021/bm700769p10.1021/bm700769p ↗
21. Nishiyama Y (2009) Structure and properties of the cellulose microfibril. Journal of Wood Science 55(4):241–249. doi: 10.1007/s10086-009-1029-110.1007/s10086-009-1029-1 ↗
22. Nishiyama Y, Kim UJ, Kim DY, Katsumata KS, Roland P, Langan P (2003) Periodic disorder along ramie cellulose microfibrils. Biomacromolecules 4(4):1013–101710.1021/bm025772x ↗
23. Nishiyama Y, Sugiyama J, Chanzy H, Langan P (2003) Crystal structure and hydrogen bonding system in cellulose Ia from synchrotron X-ray and neutron fiber diffraction. J Am Chem Soc 125(47):14300–1430610.1021/ja037055w ↗
24. Cousins SK, Brown RM (1995) Cellulose I microfibril assembly: computational molecular mechanics energy analysis favours bonding by van der Waals forces as the initial step in crystallization. Polymer 36(20):3885–388810.1016/0032-3861(95)99782-P ↗
25. Herth W (1980) Calcofluor white and Congo red inhibit chitin microfibril assembly of Poterioochromonas: evidence for a gap between polymerization and microfibril formation. J Cell Biol 87(2):442–45010.1083/jcb.87.2.442 ↗
26. Goss WA, Deitz WH, Cook TM (1965) Mechanism of action of nalidixic acid on Escherichia coli II. Inhibition of deoxyribonucleic acid synthesis. J Bacteriol 89(4):1068–107410.1128/JB.89.4.1068-1074.1965 ↗