STM Journals Peer-reviewed research from Consortium e-Learning Network

Research and Reviews : A Journal of Biotechnology Original Research

Influence of Agitation and Static Cultivation on Physicochemical Characteristics of Bacterial Cellulose Produced by Gluconacetobacter liquefaciens MTCC 3135

  1. Garima Singh Department of Biotechnology, Jaypee Institute of Information Technology
  2. Pammi Gauba Department of Biotechnology, Jaypee Institute of Information Technology
  3. Garima Mathur Department of Biotechnology, Jaypee Institute of Information Technology

Abstract

Bacterial cellulose (BC) a with applications spanning biomedical, food, paper, electronics, and diverse industrial processes. Its unique properties include high purity, biocompatibility, and flexibility. BC is a versatile natural biopolymeric material, secreted by certain acetic acid bacteria. BC has numerous benefits over plant cellulose due to distinctive features, e.g., higher polymerization degree and purity, superior crystalline structure, water retention, biocompatibility, and biodegradability, which make BC a valuable material in creating sustainable and innovative solutions across various industries. However, the high operating cost, expensive culture media components, and low productivity often limit its widespread industrial usage. In our study, BC production by Gluconacetobacter liquefaciens MTCC 3135 was analyzed under agitation and static cultivation in the Hestrin–Shramm (HS) medium. Variations were observed in microbial growth kinetics parameters of G. liquefaciens under agitation and static cultivation. The highest BC yield at 3.55 ± 0.26 g/L was obtained in static cultivation, while agitated culture condition yielded the lowest BC at 2.59 ± 0.16 g/L. BC samples produced under agitation and static culture were purified using NaOH treatment and were subjected to physicochemical characterization using FTIR, XRD, and DSC. FTIR spectra showed peak shifting and variations in peak intensities for BC samples produced under agitation and static culture when compared to commercial cellulose (HiMedia, India). BC produced under static culture was more crystalline compared to BC samples produced under agitation, as determined by FTIR and XRD. The research contributes valuable insights into alternative sources of BC production, targeting to fill gaps in knowledge and promote sustainable cellulose production.

Keywords

References (48)

  1. Naomi R, Bt Hj Idrus R, Fauzi MB. Plant- vs. Bacterial-Derived Cellulose for Wound Healing: A Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(18):6803. doi:10.3390/ijerph17186803
  2. Liu Y, Ahmed S, Sameen DE, Wang Y, Lu R, Dai J, et al. A review of cellulose and its derivatives in biopolymer-based for food packaging application. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2021;112:532-546. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2021.04.016
  3. Singh AK, Itkor P, Lee YS. State-of-the-Art Insights and Potential Applications of Cellulose-Based Hydrogels in Food Packaging: Advances towards Sustainable Trends. Gels. 2023;9(6):433. doi:10.3390/gels9060433
  4. Mokhena TC, John MJ. Cellulose nanomaterials: new generation materials for solving global issues. Cellulose. 2019;27(3):1149-1194. doi:10.1007/s10570-019-02889-w
  5. Davis CA. Advanced Overview of Bacterial Nanocellulose Manufacturing for Novel Applications. Analysis of Biosynthesis, Chemical Treatments, Processing, and Properties [Master's thesis]. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya; 2022.
  6. Han T, New N, Win P. Bacterial cellulose and its applications. In: Handbook of Biopolymers. Jenny Stanford Publishing; 2018. p. 183–222.
  7. Raut M, Asare E, Syed Mohamed S, Amadi E, Roy I. Bacterial Cellulose-Based Blends and Composites: Versatile Biomaterials for Tissue Engineering Applications. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023;24(2):986. doi:10.3390/ijms24020986
  8. Sharma P, Mathur G, Dhakate SR, Chand S, Goswami N, Sharma SK, et al. Evaluation of physicochemical and biological properties of chitosan/poly (vinyl alcohol) polymer blend membranes and their correlation for Vero cell growth. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2016;137:576-583. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.10.096
  9. Dey B, Behera B, Parvathy KK, Jayaraman S, Paramasivan B. Functionalized bacterial cellulose-based biopolymers for biomedical applications: Current research trends and challenges. Biotic Resour. 2023;175–91.
  10. Sharma G, Thakur B, Naushad M, Kumar A, Stadler FJ, Alfadul SM, et al. Applications of nanocomposite hydrogels for biomedical engineering and environmental protection. Environmental Chemistry Letters. 2017;16(1):113-146. doi:10.1007/s10311-017-0671-x
  11. Li J, Wu Y, Yao X, Tian Y, Sun X, Liu Z, et al. Preclinical Research of Stem Cells: Challenges and Progress. Stem Cell Reviews and Reports. 2023;19(6):1676-1690. doi:10.1007/s12015-023-10528-y
  12. Ul-Islam M, Khan S, Fatima A, Ahmad MW, Khan MS, Islam SU, et al. Production of bio-cellulose from renewable resources: Properties and applications. In: Renewable Polymers and Polymer-Metal Oxide Composites. Elsevier; 2022. p. 307–39.
  13. Katyal M, Singh R, Mahajan R, Sharma A, Gupta R, Aggarwal NK, et al. Bacterial cellulose: Nature's greener tool for industries. Biotechnology and Applied Biochemistry. 2023;70(5):1629-1640. doi:10.1002/bab.2460
  14. Suryanto H, Yanuhar U, Mansingh BB, Binoj JS. Bacterial nanocellulose from agro-industrial wastes. In: Handbook of Biopolymers. Springer Nature Singapore; 2022. p. 1–39.
  15. Moreno AD, Alvira P, Ibarra D, Tomás-Pejó E. Production of Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Biomass. Biofuels and Biorefineries. 2017:375-410. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-4172-3_12
  16. Pasaribu KM, Masruchin N, Karina M. Potential Application of Agro-Industrial By-Product for Bacterial Cellulose Production; Its Challenges and Emerging Trends for Food Packaging. Biomass Convers Sustain Biorefinery Towards Circ Bioeconomy. 2024;43–66.
  17. Hestrin S, Schramm M. Synthesis of cellulose by Acetobacter xylinum. 2. Preparation of freeze-dried cells capable of polymerizing glucose to cellulose. Biochemical Journal. 1954;58(2):345-352. doi:10.1042/bj0580345
  18. Singh R, Mathur A, Goswami N, Mathur G. Effect of carbon sources on physicochemical properties of bacterial cellulose produced from Gluconacetobacter xylinus MTCC, 7795. e-Polym. 2016;16(4):331–6.
  19. Mohammadkazemi F, Azin M, Ashori A. Production of bacterial cellulose using different carbon sources and culture media. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2015;117:518-523. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.10.008
  20. Zeng X, Small DP, Wan W. Statistical optimization of culture conditions for bacterial cellulose production by Acetobacter xylinum BPR 2001 from maple syrup. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2011;85(3):506-513. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.02.034
  21. Wang SS, Han YH, Chen JL, Zhang DC, Shi XX, Ye YX, et al. Insights into Bacterial Cellulose Biosynthesis from Different Carbon Sources and the Associated Biochemical Transformation Pathways in Komagataeibacter sp. W1. Polymers. 2018;10(9):963. doi:10.3390/polym10090963
  22. Mikkelsen D, Flanagan BM, Dykes GA, Gidley MJ. Influence of different carbon sources on bacterial cellulose production byGluconacetobacter xylinusstrain ATCC 53524. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2009;107(2):576-583. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04226.x
  23. Jayalakshmi A, Sivarajasekar N, Kumar M, Mekala V. Growth kinetics of cellulose producing bacteria. AIP Conference Proceedings. 2022;2659:020020. doi:10.1063/5.0109690
  24. Kovárová-Kovar K, Egli T. Growth Kinetics of Suspended Microbial Cells: From Single-Substrate-Controlled Growth to Mixed-Substrate Kinetics. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 1998;62(3):646-666. doi:10.1128/mmbr.62.3.646-666.1998
  25. Srivastava S, Mathur G. Komagataeibacter saccharivorans strain BC-G1: An alternative strain for production of bacterial cellulose. Biologia. 2022;77:3657–3668. doi:10.1007/s11756-022- 01222-4.
  26. Mohite BV, Patil SV. Physical, structural, mechanical and thermal characterization of bacterial cellulose by G. hansenii NCIM 2529. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2014;106:132-141. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.02.012
  27. Rusdi RAA, Halim NA, Norizan MN, Abidin ZHZ, Abdullah N, Che Ros F, et al. Pre-treatment effect on the structure of bacterial cellulose from Nata de Coco (Acetobacter xylinum). Polimery. 2022;67(3):110-118. doi:10.14314/polimery.2022.3.3
  28. Nelson ML, O'Connor RT. Relation of certain infrared bands to cellulose crystallinity and crystal lattice type. Part II. A new infrared ratio for estimation of crystallinity in celluloses I and II. Journal of Applied Polymer Science. 1964;8(3):1325-1341. doi:10.1002/app.1964.070080323
  29. Urbina L, Corcuera MÁ, Gabilondo N, Eceiza A, Retegi A. A review of bacterial cellulose: sustainable production from agricultural waste and applications in various fields. Cellulose. 2021;28(13):8229-8253. doi:10.1007/s10570-021-04020-4
  30. Bandyopadhyay S, Saha N, Saha P. Characterization of Bacterial Cellulose Produced using Media Containing Waste Apple Juice. Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology. 2018;54(6):649-657. doi:10.1134/s0003683818060042
  31. Segal D. Chemical Synthesis of Advanced Ceramic Materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
  32. Colombo A, Ribotta PD, León AE. Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) Studies on the Thermal Properties of Peanut Proteins. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2010;58(7):4434-4439. doi:10.1021/jf903426f
  33. Vasconcelos NF, Andrade FK, Vieira LDAP, Vieira RS, Vaz JM, Chevallier P, et al. Oxidized bacterial cellulose membrane as support for enzyme immobilization: properties and morphological features. Cellulose. 2020;27(6):3055-3083. doi:10.1007/s10570-020-02966-5
  34. Souza EF, Furtado MR, Carvalho CWP, Freitas-Silva O, Gottschalk LMF. Production and characterization of Gluconacetobacter xylinus bacterial cellulose using cashew apple juice and soybean molasses. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2020;146:285-289. doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.12.180
  35. Vigentini I, Fabrizio V, Dellacà F, Rossi S, Azario I, Mondin C, et al. Set-Up of Bacterial Cellulose Production From the Genus Komagataeibacter and Its Use in a Gluten-Free Bakery Product as a Case Study. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2019;10. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2019.01953
  36. Lahiri D, Nag M, Dutta B, Dey A, Sarkar T, Pati S, et al. Bacterial Cellulose: Production, Characterization, and Application as Antimicrobial Agent. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021;22(23):12984. doi:10.3390/ijms222312984
  37. Girard VD, Chaussé J, Vermette P. Bacterial cellulose: A comprehensive review. Journal of Applied Polymer Science. 2024;141(15). doi:10.1002/app.55163
  38. Chandana A, Mallick SP, Dikshit PK, Singh BN, Sahi AK. Recent Developments in Bacterial Nanocellulose Production and its Biomedical Applications. Journal of Polymers and the Environment. 2022;30(10):4040-4067. doi:10.1007/s10924-022-02507-0
  39. Wong SS, Kasapis S, Tan YM. Bacterial and plant cellulose modification using ultrasound irradiation. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2009;77(2):280-287. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2008.12.038
  40. Ciolacu D, Ciolacu F, Popa VI. Amorphous cellulose—Structure and characterization. Cellulose Chem Technol. 2011;45:13.
  41. Wang SS, Han YH, Ye YX, Shi XX, Xiang P, Chen DL, et al. Physicochemical characterization of high-quality bacterial cellulose produced by Komagataeibacter sp. strain W1 and identification of the associated genes in bacterial cellulose production. RSC Advances. 2017;7(71):45145-45155. doi:10.1039/c7ra08391b
  42. Czaja W, Romanovicz D, Brown RM. Structural investigations of microbial cellulose produced in stationary and agitated culture. Cellulose. 2004;11:403–11. doi:10.1023/B.0000046412.11983.61.
  43. Mohite BV, Koli SH, Rajput JD, Patil VS, Agarwal T, Patil SV. Production and characterization of multifacet exopolysaccharide from an agricultural isolate, Bacillus subtilis. Biotechnology and Applied Biochemistry. 2019;66(6):1010-1023. doi:10.1002/bab.1824
  44. Thongwai N, Futui W, Ladpala N, Sirichai B, Weechan A, Kanklai J, et al. Characterization of Bacterial Cellulose Produced by Komagataeibacter maltaceti P285 Isolated from Contaminated Honey Wine. Microorganisms. 2022;10(3):528. doi:10.3390/microorganisms10030528
  45. Meng FH, Schricker SR, Brantley WA, Mendel DA, Rashid RG, Fields HW, et al. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and temperature-modulated DSC study of three mouthguard materials. Dental Materials. 2007;23(12):1492-1499. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2007.01.006
  46. Vasconcelos NF, Feitosa JPA, da Gama FMP, Morais JPS, Andrade FK, de Souza Filho MDSM, et al. Bacterial cellulose nanocrystals produced under different hydrolysis conditions: Properties and morphological features. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2017;155:425-431. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.08.090
  47. Potivara K, Phisalaphong M. Development and Characterization of Bacterial Cellulose Reinforced with Natural Rubber. Materials. 2019;12(14):2323. doi:10.3390/ma12142323
  48. Oliveira RL, Vieira JG, Barud HS, Assunção RMN, Rodrigues Filho G, Ribeiro SJL, et al. Synthesis and Characterization of Methylcellulose Produced from Bacterial Cellulose under Heterogeneous Condition. Journal of the Brazilian Chemical Society. 2015. doi:10.5935/0103-5053.20150163
Support