DataVXCellulosePaper
journal article·2023-05Open access

Effect of food industry by-products on bacterial cellulose production and its structural properties

Raymond Leopold Heydorn, David Lammers, Martina Gottschling, Katrin Dohnt

Cellulose· Volume 30· Issue 7
Publisher pageOpen full text
Source abstract

Abstract

Abstract The advances in bioprocess design, genetic engineering, and media optimization have enabled enhanced bacterial cellulose (BC) production and its application for diverse purposes. Following the requirements of a bioeconomy, numerous approaches were conducted to investigate alternative carbon or nitrogen sources from industrial by-products for BC biosynthesis. They can, however, not only affect the BC production but also its properties. Beet molasses, vinasse, and waste beer fermentation broth (WBFB) have thus been investigated in single and combined approaches for their BC production potential and effects on structural properties using Komagataeibacter xylinus DSM 2325. Therefore, the composition of each complex component was initially analyzed for total organic carbon (TOC), total bound nitrogen (TNb), sugars, organic acids, and alcohols. The polymer properties were characterized via gel permeation chromatography and X-ray diffraction. In dynamic shake flask cultivations, the exchange of Hestrin-Schramm (HS) medium components for a combination of all three complex substrates on a TOC- or TNb-based quantity resulted in the highest BC concentration (8.2 g L−1). Comparable concentrations were achieved when combining molasses and WBFB (8.1 g L−1). Each investigated complex component led to differing degrees of polymerization (DPn: 2751−4601) and BC crystallinities (26−58%) in comparison to HS medium. Beet molasses and vinasse were found to decrease the polymer crystallinity but induce higher DPn whereas the opposite occurred for WBFB. This study thus highlights beneficial effects of food industry by-products for BC biosynthesis and elucidates concomitantly occurring structural polymer alterations to enable further studies dealing with alternative substrates for structurally tailored BC production.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

Polymers

OpenAlex topics: Advanced Cellulose Research Studies · Biofuel production and bioconversion · Polysaccharides and Plant Cell Walls

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

References (100+)

Show source-provided references
1. Abernathy DG, Spedding G, Starcher B (2009) Analysis of protein and total usable nitrogen in beer and wine using a microwell ninhydrin assay. J Inst Brew 115:122–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2050-0416.2009.tb00356.x10.1002/j.2050-0416.2009.tb00356.x ↗
2. Africa TK (1949) The production of nata from coconut water. Unitas 22:60–100
3. Aleshina LA, Gladysheva EK, Budaeva VV, Golubev DS, Skiba EA, Sakovich GV (2019) X-ray diffraction study of bacterial nanocellulose produced by Medusomyces Gisevii Sa-12 cultured in enzymatic hydrolysates of miscanthus. Crystallogr Reports 64:914–919. https://doi.org/10.1134/S106377451906002610.1134/S1063774519060026 ↗
4. Atalla RH, VanderHart DL (1984) Native cellulose: a composite of two distinct crystalline forms. Science 223:283–285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.223.4633.28310.1126/science.223.4633.283 ↗
5. Bae S, Shoda M (2004) Bacterial cellulose production by fed-batch fermentation in molasses medium. Biotechnol Prog 20:1366–1371. https://doi.org/10.1021/bp049849010.1021/bp0498490 ↗
6. Balasubramaniam K, Kannangara PN (1982) Sucrose phosphorylase and invertase activities in bacteria. J Natl Sci Found Sri Lanka 10:169. https://doi.org/10.4038/jnsfsr.v10i2.842610.4038/jnsfsr.v10i2.8426 ↗
7. Barshan S, Rezazadeh-Bari M, Almasi H, Amiri S (2019) Optimization and characterization of bacterial cellulose produced by Komagatacibacter xylinus PTCC 1734 using vinasse as a cheap cultivation medium. Int J Biol Macromol 136:1188–1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.06.19210.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.06.192 ↗
8. Bernardes AN, Godoi LAG, Camiloti PR, da Gomes AC, Sanchez BLS, Torres APR, Botta LS (2021) Organic acids and alcohols quantification by HPLC/RID in sugarcane vinasse: analytical method validation and matrix effect assessment. Int J Environ Anal Chem 101:325–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2019.166683310.1080/03067319.2019.1666833 ↗
9. Bohrn R, Potthast A, Schiehser S, Rosenau T, Sixta H, Kosma P (2006) The FDAM method: determination of carboxyl profiles in cellulosic materials by combining group-selective fluorescence labelling with GPC. Biomacromol 7:1743–1750. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm060039h10.1021/bm060039h ↗
10. Buerger MJ (1940) The correction of X-Ray diffraction intensities for lorentz and polarization factors. Proc Natl Acad Sci 26:637–642. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.26.11.63710.1073/pnas.26.11.637 ↗
11. Çakar F, Özer I, Aytekin AÖ, Şahin F (2014) Improvement production of bacterial cellulose by semi-continuous process in molasses medium. Carbohydr Polym 106:7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.01.10310.1016/j.carbpol.2014.01.103 ↗
12. Campano C, Balea A, Blanco A, Negro C (2016) Enhancement of the fermentation process and properties of bacterial cellulose: a review. Cellulose 23:57–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-015-0802-010.1007/s10570-015-0802-0 ↗
13. Chen HH, Chen LC, Huang HC, Bin LS (2011) In situ modification of bacterial cellulose nanostructure by adding CMC during the growth of Gluconacetobacter xylinus. Cellulose 18:1573–1583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-011-9594-z10.1007/s10570-011-9594-z ↗
14. Chen M, Zhao Z, Meng H, Yu S (2017a) The antibiotic activity and mechanisms of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) molasses polyphenols against selected food-borne pathogens. LWT - Food Sci Technol 82:354–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2017.04.06310.1016/j.lwt.2017.04.063 ↗
15. Chen S-Q, Mikkelsen D, Lopez-Sanchez P, Wang D, Martinez-Sanz M, Gilbert EP, Flanagan BM, Gidley MJ (2017b) Characterisation of bacterial cellulose from diverse Komagataeibacter strains and their application to construct plant cell wall analogues. Cellulose 24:1211–1226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-017-1203-310.1007/s10570-017-1203-3 ↗
16. Cheng KC, Catchmark JM, Demirci A (2009) Enhanced production of bacterial cellulose by using a biofilm reactor and its material property analysis. J Biol Eng 3:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-1611-3-1210.1186/1754-1611-3-12 ↗
17. Choi CN, Song HJ, Kim MJ, Chang MH, Kim SJ (2009) Properties of bacterial cellulose produced in a pilot-scale spherical type bubble column bioreactor. Korean J Chem Eng 26:136–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-009-0021-110.1007/s11814-009-0021-1 ↗
18. Choi SM, Rao KM, Zo SM, Shin EJ, Han SS (2022) Bacterial cellulose and its applications. Polymers 14:1080. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym1406108010.3390/polym14061080 ↗
19. Czaja W, Romanovicz D, Brown RM (2004) Structural investigations of microbial cellulose produced in stationary and agitated culture. Cellulose 11:403–411. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CELL.0000046412.11983.6110.1023/B:CELL.0000046412.11983.61 ↗
20. de Souza KC, Trindade NM, de Amorim JDP, do Nascimento HA, Costa AFS, Henrique MA, Caetano VF, Sarubbo LA, Vinhas GM (2021) Kinetic study of a bacterial cellulose production by Komagataeibacter Rhaeticus using coffee grounds and sugarcane molasses. Mater Res 24(3). https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-5373-mr-2020-045410.1590/1980-5373-mr-2020-0454 ↗
21. Deutsche Melasse Handelsgesellschaft (2015) Vinasse. https://www.deutsche-melasse.de/wp/wp-content/uploads/produkte/vinasse/2-Vinasse-EN-DMH-ES2SG.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2022
22. Einfeldt L, Klemm D (1997) The control of cellulose biosynthesis by Acetobacter Xylinum in view of molecular weight and molecular weight distribution part I: change of molecular weight of bacterial cellulose by simple variation of culture conditions 1. J Carbohydr Chem 16:635–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/0732830970800734110.1080/07328309708007341 ↗
23. Embuscado ME, Marks JS, BeMiller JN (1994) Bacterial cellulose. I. Factors affecting the production of cellulose by Acetobacter xylinum. Food Hydrocoll 8:407–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268-005X(09)80084-210.1016/S0268-005X(09)80084-2 ↗
24. Fang L, Catchmark JM (2014) Structure characterization of native cellulose during dehydration and rehydration. Cellulose 21:3951–3963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-014-0435-810.1007/s10570-014-0435-8 ↗
25. Fijałkowski K, Żywicka A, Drozd R, Kordas M, Rakoczy R (2016) Effect of Gluconacetobacter xylinus cultivation conditions on the selected properties of bacterial cellulose. Polish J Chem Technol 18:117–123. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjct-2016-008010.1515/pjct-2016-0080 ↗
26. Fleury B, Abraham E, De La Cruz JA, Chandrasekar VS, Senyuk B, Liu Q, Cherpak V, Park S, ten Hove JB, Smalyukh II (2020) Aerogel from sustainably grown bacterial cellulose pellicles as a thermally insulative film for building envelopes. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 12:34115–34121. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c0887910.1021/acsami.0c08879 ↗
27. French AD (2014) Idealized powder diffraction patterns for cellulose polymorphs. Cellulose 21:885–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-013-0030-410.1007/s10570-013-0030-4 ↗
28. French AD (2020) Increment in evolution of cellulose crystallinity analysis. Cellulose 27:5445–5448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-020-03172-z10.1007/s10570-020-03172-z ↗
29. Gribkova IN, Eliseev MN, Belkin YD, Zakharov MA, Kosareva OA (2021) The influence of biomolecule composition on colloidal beer structure. Biomolecules 12:24. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom1201002410.3390/biom12010024 ↗
30. Guo J, Catchmark JM (2012) Surface area and porosity of acid hydrolyzed cellulose nanowhiskers and cellulose produced by Gluconacetobacter xylinus. Carbohydr Polym 87:1026–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.07.06010.1016/j.carbpol.2011.07.060 ↗
31. Gwon H, Park K, Chung S-C, Kim R-H, Kang JK, Ji SM, Kim N-J, Lee S, Ku J-H, Do EC, Park S, Kim M, Shim WY, Rhee HS, Kim J-Y, Kim J, Kim TY, Yamaguchi Y, Iwamuro R, Saito S, Kim G, Jung I-S, Park H, Lee C, Lee S, Jeon WS, Jang WD, Kim HU, Lee SY, Im D, Doo S-G, Lee SY, Lee HC, Park JH (2019) A safe and sustainable bacterial cellulose nanofiber separator for lithium rechargeable batteries. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:19288–19293. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.190552711610.1073/pnas.1905527116 ↗
32. Ha JH, Shehzad O, Khan S, Lee SY, Park JW, Khan T, Park JK (2008) Production of bacterial cellulose by a static cultivation using the waste from beer culture broth. Korean J Chem Eng 25:812–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-008-0134-y10.1007/s11814-008-0134-y ↗
33. Harirchi S, Etemadifar Z, Yazdian F, Taherzadeh MJ (2020) Efficacy of polyextremophilic Aeribacillus pallidus on bioprocessing of beet vinasse derived from ethanol industries. Bioresour Technol 313:123662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.12366210.1016/j.biortech.2020.123662 ↗
34. Hernández J, Viana MT, Lastra M, Matus de la Parra A, Toledo-Agüero P (2019) The possible use of beet-vinasse as carbohydrate replacer in formulated diets for the juvenile abalone, Haliotis tuberculata. J Appl Aquac 31:271–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454438.2018.154767210.1080/10454438.2018.1547672 ↗
35. 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 58:345–352. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj058034510.1042/bj0580345 ↗
36. Hornung M, Ludwig M, Gerrard AM, Schmauder H-P (2006) Optimizing the production of bacterial cellulose in surface culture: evaluation of substrate and mass transfer influences on the bioreaction (Part I). Eng Life Sci 6:537–545. https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.20062016210.1002/elsc.200620162 ↗
37. Hur DH, Rhee H-S, Lee JH, Shim WY, Kim TY, Lee SY, Park JH, Jeong KJ (2020) Enhanced production of cellulose in Komagataeibacter xylinus by preventing insertion of IS element into cellulose synthesis gene. Biochem Eng J 156:107527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2020.10752710.1016/j.bej.2020.107527 ↗
38. Husemann VE, Werner R (1963) Cellulosesynthese durch Acetobacter xylinum. I. Über Molekulargewicht und Molekulargewichtsverteilung von Bakteriencellulose in Abhängigkeit von der Synthesedauer. Die Makromol Chemie 59:43–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/macp.1963.02059010410.1002/macp.1963.020590104 ↗
39. Hyun JY, Mahanty B, Kim CG (2014) Utilization of makgeolli sludge filtrate (MSF) as Low-cost substrate for bacterial cellulose production by Gluconacetobacter xylinus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 172:3748–3760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-014-0810-910.1007/s12010-014-0810-9 ↗
40. Iwata T, Indrarti L, Azuma JI (1998) Affinity of hemicellulose for cellulose produced by Acetobacter xylinum. Cellulose 5:215–228. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:100923740154810.1023/A:1009237401548 ↗
41. Jang WD, Kim TY, Kim HU, Shim WY, Ryu JY, Park JH, Lee SY (2019) Genomic and metabolic analysis of Komagataeibacter xylinus DSM 2325 producing bacterial cellulose nanofiber. Biotechnol Bioeng 116:3372–3381. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.2715010.1002/bit.27150 ↗
42. Jung H-I, Jeong J-H, Lee O-M, Park G-T, Kim K-K, Park H-C, Lee S-M, Kim Y-G, Son H-J (2010a) Influence of glycerol on production and structural–physical properties of cellulose from Acetobacter sp. V6 cultured in shake flasks. Bioresour Technol 101:3602–3608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.12.11110.1016/j.biortech.2009.12.111 ↗
43. Jung H-I, Lee O-M, Jeong J-H, Jeon Y-D, Park K-H, Kim H-S, An W-G, Son H-J (2010b) Production and characterization of cellulose by Acetobacter sp. V6 using a cost-effective molasses-corn steep liquor medium. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 162:486–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-009-8759-910.1007/s12010-009-8759-9 ↗
44. Keshk S, Sameshima K (2006) The utilization of sugar cane molasses with/without the presence of lignosulfonate for the production of bacterial cellulose. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 72:291–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-005-0265-610.1007/s00253-005-0265-6 ↗
45. Khan T, Hyun SH, Park JK (2007) Production of glucuronan oligosaccharides using the waste of beer fermentation broth as a basal medium. Enzyme Microb Technol 42:89–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2007.08.00710.1016/j.enzmictec.2007.08.007 ↗
46. Khattak WA, Khan T, Ul-Islam M, Wahid F, Park JK (2015) Production, characterization and physico-mechanical properties of bacterial cellulose from industrial wastes. J Polym Environ 23:45–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-014-0663-x10.1007/s10924-014-0663-x ↗
47. Klemm D, Cranston ED, Fischer D, Gama M, Kedzior SA, Kralisch D, Kramer F, Kondo T, Lindström T, Nietzsche S, Petzold-Welcke K, Rauchfuß F (2018) Nanocellulose as a natural source for groundbreaking applications in materials science: today’s state. Mater Today 21:720–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2018.02.00110.1016/j.mattod.2018.02.001 ↗
48. Lei W, Jin D, Liu H, Tong Z, Zhang H (2020) An Overview of bacterial cellulose in flexible electrochemical energy storage. ChemSusChem 13:3731–3753. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.20200101910.1002/cssc.202001019 ↗
49. Lin D, Lopez-Sanchez P, Li R, Li Z (2014) Production of bacterial cellulose by Gluconacetobacter hansenii CGMCC 3917 using only waste beer yeast as nutrient source. Bioresour Technol 151:113–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.10.05210.1016/j.biortech.2013.10.052 ↗
50. Liu M, Liu L, Jia S, Li S, Zou Y, Zhong C (2018) Complete genome analysis of Gluconacetobacter xylinus CGMCC 2955 for elucidating bacterial cellulose biosynthesis and metabolic regulation. Sci Rep 8:6266. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24559-w10.1038/s41598-018-24559-w ↗
51. Marques WL, Raghavendran V, Stambuk BU, Gombert AK (2016) Sucrose and Saccharomyces cerevisiae: a relationship most sweet. FEMS Yeast Res 16:fov107. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsyr/fov10710.1093/femsyr/fov107 ↗
52. Martínez-Sanz M, Lopez-Sanchez P, Gidley MJ, Gilbert EP (2015) Evidence for differential interaction mechanism of plant cell wall matrix polysaccharides in hierarchically-structured bacterial cellulose. Cellulose 22:1541–1563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-015-0614-210.1007/s10570-015-0614-2 ↗
53. Marx-Figini M, Pion BG (1974) Kinetic invetigations of biosynthesis of cellulose by Actobacter xylinum. Biochim Biophys Acta Gen Subj 338:382–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4165(74)90299-210.1016/0304-4165(74)90299-2 ↗
54. Masaoka S, Ohe T, Sakota N (1993) Production of cellulose from glucose by Acetobacter xylinum. J Ferment Bioeng 75:18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0922-338X(93)90171-410.1016/0922-338X(93)90171-4 ↗
55. McMurry J, Begley T (2006) Organische Chemie der biologischen Stoffwechselwege, 1st edn. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Munich
56. Mohite BV, Kamalja KK, Patil SV (2012) Statistical optimization of culture conditions for enhanced bacterial cellulose production by Gluconoacetobacter hansenii NCIM 2529. Cellulose 19:1655–1666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-012-9760-y10.1007/s10570-012-9760-y ↗
57. Mohite BV, Salunke BK, Patil SV (2013) Enhanced production of bacterial cellulose by using Gluconacetobacter hansenii NCIM 2529 strain under shaking conditions. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169:1497–1511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-013-0092-710.1007/s12010-013-0092-7 ↗
58. Moon S-H, Park J-M, Chun H-Y, Kim S-J (2006) Comparisons of physical properties of bacterial celluloses produced in different culture conditions using saccharified food wastes. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng 11:26–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0293186410.1007/BF02931864 ↗
59. Naritomi T, Kouda T, Yano H, Yoshinaga F (1998) Effect of ethanol on bacterial cellulose production from fructose in continuous culture. J Ferment Bioeng 85:598–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0922-338X(98)80012-310.1016/S0922-338X(98)80012-3 ↗
60. Nishiyama Y, Sugiyama J, Chanzy H, Langan P (2003) Crystal structure and hydrogen bonding system in cellulose Iα from synchrotron X-ray and neutron fiber diffraction. J Am Chem Soc 125:14300–14306. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja037055w10.1021/ja037055w ↗
61. Okajima K, Matsuda Y, Kamide K (1991) Study on change in the degree of polymerisation of bacterial cellulose produced by Acetobacter xylinum during its cultivation. Polym Int 25:145–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/pi.499025030310.1002/pi.4990250303 ↗
62. Ono Y, Tanaka R, Funahashi R, Takeuchi M, Saito T, Isogai A (2016) SEC–MALLS analysis of ethylenediamine-pretreated native celluloses in LiCl/N, N-dimethylacetamide: softwood kraft pulp and highly crystalline bacterial, tunicate, and algal celluloses. Cellulose 23:1639–1647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-016-0948-410.1007/s10570-016-0948-4 ↗
63. Palla G (1983) Characterization of the main secondary components of the liquid sugars from cane molasses. J Agric Food Chem 31:545–548. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf00117a02010.1021/jf00117a020 ↗
64. Palmonari A, Cavallini D, Sniffen CJ, Fernandes L, Holder P, Fagioli L, Fusaro I, Biagi G, Formigoni A, Mammi L (2020) Short communication: characterization of molasses chemical composition. J Dairy Sci 103:6244–6249. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-1764410.3168/jds.2019-17644 ↗
65. Park JK, Jung JY, Park YH (2003) Cellulose production by Gluconacetobacter hansenii in a medium containing ethanol. Biotechnol Lett 25:2055–2059. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BILE.0000007065.63682.1810.1023/B:BILE.0000007065.63682.18 ↗
66. Park S, Baker JO, Himmel ME, Parilla PA, Johnson DK (2010) Cellulose crystallinity index: measurement techniques and their impact on interpreting cellulase performance. Biotechnol Biofuels 3:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-3-1010.1186/1754-6834-3-10 ↗
67. Park SM, Yoon SJ, Son HJ, Lee CY, Kim HS (2010) Properties of bacterial cellulose cultured in different carbon sources. Polymer (Korea) 34:522–52610.7317/pk.2010.34.6.522 ↗
68. Parnaudeau V, Condom N, Oliver R, Cazevieille P, Recous S (2008) Vinasse organic matter quality and mineralization potential, as influenced by raw material, fermentation and concentration processes. Bioresour Technol 99:1553–1562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.04.01210.1016/j.biortech.2007.04.012 ↗
69. Potthast A, Radosta S, Saake B, Lebioda S, Heinze T, Henniges U, Isogai A, Koschella A, Kosma P, Rosenau T, Schiehser S, Sixta H, Strlič M, Strobin G, Vorwerg W, Wetzel H (2015) Comparison testing of methods for gel permeation chromatography of cellulose: coming closer to a standard protocol. Cellulose 22:1591–1613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-015-0586-210.1007/s10570-015-0586-2 ↗
70. Premjet S, Ohtani Y, Sameshima K (1996) X-ray diffraction diagram of the bacterial cellulose membrane produced by Acetobacter xylinum in the medium with lignosulfonate. J Fiber Sci Technol 52:169–174. https://doi.org/10.2115/fiber.52.16910.2115/fiber.52.169 ↗
71. Premjet S, Premjet D, Ohtani Y (2007) The effect of ingredients of sugar cane molasses on bacterial cellulose production by Acetobacter xylinum ATCC 10245. J Fiber Sci Technol 63:193–199. https://doi.org/10.2115/fiber.63.19310.2115/fiber.63.193 ↗
72. Provin AP, dos Reis VO, Hilesheim SE, Bianchet RT, de Aguiar Dutra AR, Cubas ALV (2021) Use of bacterial cellulose in the textile industry and the wettability challenge—a review. Cellulose 28:8255–8274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-021-04059-310.1007/s10570-021-04059-3 ↗
73. Ruan C, Zhu Y, Zhou X, Abidi N, Hu Y, Catchmark JM (2016) Effect of cellulose crystallinity on bacterial cellulose assembly. Cellulose 23:3417–3427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-016-1065-010.1007/s10570-016-1065-0 ↗
74. Ryngajłło M, Jacek P, Cielecka I, Kalinowska H, Bielecki S (2019a) Effect of ethanol supplementation on the transcriptional landscape of bionanocellulose producer Komagataeibacter xylinus E25. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 103:6673–6688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-019-09904-x10.1007/s00253-019-09904-x ↗
75. Ryngajłło M, Kubiak K, Jędrzejczak-Krzepkowska M, Jacek P, Bielecki S (2019b) Comparative genomics of the Komagataeibacter strains—efficient bionanocellulose producers. MicrobiologyOpen 8:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.73110.1002/mbo3.731 ↗
76. Ryngajłło M, Jędrzejczak-Krzepkowska M, Kubiak K, Ludwicka K, Bielecki S (2020) Towards control of cellulose biosynthesis by Komagataeibacter using systems-level and strain engineering strategies: current progress and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 104:6565–6585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-020-10671-310.1007/s00253-020-10671-3 ↗
77. Salari M, Sowti Khiabani M, Rezaei Mokarram R, Ghanbarzadeh B, Samadi Kafil H (2019) Preparation and characterization of cellulose nanocrystals from bacterial cellulose produced in sugar beet molasses and cheese whey media. Int J Biol Macromol 122:280–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.10.13610.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.10.136 ↗
78. Segal L, Creely JJ, Martin AE, Conrad CM (1959) An empirical method for estimating the degree of crystallinity of native cellulose using the X-Ray diffractometer. Text Res J 29:786–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405175590290100310.1177/004051755902901003 ↗
79. Shavyrkina NA, Skiba EA, Kazantseva AE, Gladysheva EK, Budaeva VV, Bychin NV, Gismatulina YA, Kashcheyeva EI, Mironova GF, Korchagina AA, Pavlov IN, Sakovich GV (2021) Static culture combined with aeration in biosynthesis of bacterial cellulose. Polymers 13:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym1323424110.3390/polym13234241 ↗
80. Shezad O, Khan S, Khan T, Park JK (2009) Production of bacterial cellulose in static conditions by a simple fed-batch cultivation strategy. Korean J Chem Eng 26:1689–1692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-009-0232-510.1007/s11814-009-0232-5 ↗
81. Shezad O, Khan S, Khan T, Park JK (2010) Physicochemical and mechanical characterization of bacterial cellulose produced with an excellent productivity in static conditions using a simple fed-batch cultivation strategy. Carbohydr Polym 82:173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.04.05210.1016/j.carbpol.2010.04.052 ↗
82. Shi QS, Feng J, Li WRU, Zhou G, Chen AIM, Ouyang YS, Chen YIB (2013) Effect of different conditions on the average degree of polymerization of bacterial cellulose produced by Gluconacetobacter intermedius BC-41. Cellul Chem Technol 47:503–508
83. Siller M, Ahn K, Pircher N, Rosenau T, Potthast A (2014) Dissolution of rayon fibers for size exclusion chromatography: a challenge. Cellulose 21:3291–3301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-014-0356-610.1007/s10570-014-0356-6 ↗
84. Skiba EA, Gladysheva EK, Budaeva VV, Aleshina LA, Sakovich GV (2022) Yield and quality of bacterial cellulose from agricultural waste. Cellulose 29:1543–1555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-021-04372-x10.1007/s10570-021-04372-x ↗
85. Son H-J, Heo M-S, Kim Y-G, Lee S-J (2001) Optimization of fermentation conditions for the production of bacterial cellulose by a newly isolated Acetobacter sp. A9 in shaking cultures. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 33:1. https://doi.org/10.1042/ba2000006510.1042/ba20000065 ↗
86. Sperotto G, Stasiak LG, Godoi JPMG, Gabiatti NC, De Souza SS (2021) A review of culture media for bacterial cellulose production: complex, chemically defined and minimal media modulations. Cellulose 28:2649–2673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-021-03754-510.1007/s10570-021-03754-5 ↗
87. Stark JB (1961) The composition of beet molasses with particular reference to nitrogenous compounds. J Sugarbeet Res 11:507–514. https://doi.org/10.5274/jsbr.11.6.50710.5274/jsbr.11.6.507 ↗
88. Strobin G, Wlochowicz A, Ciechanska D, Boryniec S, Struszczyk H, Sobczak S (2004) GPC studies on bacterial cellulose. Int J Polym Mater 53:889–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/00911403049050241810.1080/009114030490502418 ↗
89. Tahara N, Tabuchi M, Watanabe K, Yano H, Morinaga Y, Yoshinaga F (1997) Degree of polymerization of cellulose from Acetobacter xylinum BPR2001 decreased by cellulase produced by the strain. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 61:1862–1865. https://doi.org/10.1271/bbb.61.186210.1271/bbb.61.1862 ↗
90. Thygesen A, Oddershede J, Lilholt H, Thomsen AB, Ståhl K (2005) On the determination of crystallinity and cellulose content in plant fibres. Cellulose 12:563–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-005-9001-810.1007/s10570-005-9001-8 ↗
91. Tokoh C, Takabe K, Sugiyama J, Fujita M (2002) CP/MAS 13C NMR and electron diffraction study of bacterial cellulose structure affected by cell wall polysaccharides. Cellulose 9:351–360. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:102115052095310.1023/A:1021150520953 ↗
92. Toyosaki H, Naritomi T, Seto A, Matsuoka M, Tsuchida T, Yoshinaga F (1995) Screening of bacterial cellulose-producing Acetobacter strains suitable for agitated culture. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 59:1498–1502. https://doi.org/10.1271/bbb.59.149810.1271/bbb.59.1498 ↗
93. Tsouko E, Kourmentza C, Ladakis D, Kopsahelis N, Mandala I, Papanikolaou S, Paloukis F, Alves V, Koutinas A (2015) Bacterial cellulose production from industrial waste and by-product streams. Int J Mol Sci 16:14832–14849. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms16071483210.3390/ijms160714832 ↗
94. Tyagi N, Suresh S (2016) Production of cellulose from sugarcane molasses using Gluconacetobacter intermedius SNT-1: optimization & characterization. J Clean Prod 112:71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.05410.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.054 ↗
95. Uhlin KI, Atalla RH, Thompson NS (1995) Influence of hemicelluloses on the aggregation patterns of bacterial cellulose. Cellulose 2:129–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0081638510.1007/BF00816385 ↗
96. Vazquez A, Foresti ML, Cerrutti P, Galvagno M (2013) Bacterial cellulose from simple and low cost production media by Gluconacetobacter xylinus. J Polym Environ 21:545–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-012-0541-310.1007/s10924-012-0541-3 ↗
97. Velásquez-Riaño M, Lombana-Sánchez N (2009) Cellulose production by Gluconacetobacter sp. GM5 in a static semi-continuous fermentation process using vinasse as culture media. Water Sci Technol 59:1195–1200. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.03910.2166/wst.2009.039 ↗
98. Velásquez-Riaño M, Lombana-Sánchez N, Villa-Restrepo AF, Fernández-Calle EP (2013) Cellulose production by Gluconacetobacter kakiaceti GM5 in two batch process using vinasse as culture media. Water Sci Technol 68:1079–1084. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2013.34710.2166/wst.2013.347 ↗
99. Volova TG, Prudnikova SV, Sukovatyi AG, Shishatskaya EI (2018) Production and properties of bacterial cellulose by the strain Komagataeibacter xylinus B-12068. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 102:7417–7428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-018-9198-810.1007/s00253-018-9198-8 ↗
100. Volova TG, Prudnikova SV, Kiselev EG, Nemtsev IV, Vasiliev AD, Kuzmin AP, Shishatskaya EI (2022) Bacterial cellulose (BC) and BC composites: production and properties. Nanomaterials 12:192. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano1202019210.3390/nano12020192 ↗