10.1007/s40097-018-0275-4

Preventing the collapse of 3D bacterial cellulose network via citric acid

Show Details XML HTML PDF
  • A. Meftahi1,
  • R. Khajavi*2,
  • A. Rashidi1,
  • M. K. Rahimi3,
  • A. Bahador4,
  1. Department of Textile, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, IR
  2. Department of Polymer and Textile Engineering, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, IR
  3. Department of Microbiology, Tehran Medical Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, IR
  4. Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR
Cover Image

Published in Issue 17-08-2018

How to Cite

Meftahi, A., Khajavi, R., Rashidi, A., Rahimi, M. K., & Bahador, A. (2018). Preventing the collapse of 3D bacterial cellulose network via citric acid. Journal of Nanostructure in Chemistry, 8(3 (September 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40097-018-0275-4
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

HTML views: 83

PDF views: 186

Abstract

Abstract Bacterial cellulose (BC) is a three-dimensional interconnected network of biosynthesized nanofibers. Its rehydration potential would be reduced significantly after its first drying, as a result of entanglement and jamming of cellulose polymer chains. Consequently, its versatility would be also reduced to some limited applications in which repeated water absorbance potential is not of great importance. This study aims to prevent the drawback of carboxylic bridging/cross-linking between cellulose polymer chains. Ten-day-cultured BC pellicles were immersed in various citric acid solutions (as bridging agent) and cured at 160 °C for 5 min. The formation of bridges was confirmed using attenuated total reflection–fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Scanning electron microscope images showed that there is a different porosity bridged/cross-linked BC specimens (XBC). According to Brunauer–Emmett–Teller analysis, the surface area of XBC (20 w/v % with catalyst) got 87.5 times larger than that of the unbridged/pristine BC (PBC). X-ray diffraction patterns showed no change of crystallinity of XBC in comparison with PBS. The thickness and wettability of XBC samples were 137 and 3.27 times more than PBC samples orderly. Furthermore, the water swelling rate increased significantly for XBC in comparison with PBC. Meanwhile, treated samples had lower elongation and strength than normal BC. The conclusion is that XBC could conserve its repeated absorbency potential after the presented process. Graphical abstract

Keywords

  • Bacterial cellulose (BC),
  • Rehydration,
  • Cross-linking/bridging agent,
  • Citric acid,
  • 3D nanostructure of BC
HTML PDF

References

  1. Fu et al. (2013) Present status and applications of bacterial cellulose-based materials for skin tissue repair (pp. 1432-1442) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.10.071
  2. Hu et al. (2014) Functionalized bacterial cellulose derivatives and nanocomposites (pp. 1043-1060) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.09.102
  3. Huang et al. (2014) Recent advances in bacterial cellulose 21(1) (pp. 1-30) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-013-0088-z
  4. Qiu et al. (2016) Bacterial cellulose and bacterial cellulose-vaccarin membranes for wound healing (pp. 303-309) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2015.10.016
  5. Rajwade et al. (2015) Applications of bacterial cellulose and its composites in biomedicine (pp. 2491-2511) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-015-6426-3
  6. Stumpf et al. (2013) Enriched glucose and dextrin mannitol-based media modulates fibroblast behavior on bacterial cellulose membranes (pp. 4739-4745) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2013.07.035
  7. Sulaeva et al. (2015) Bacterial cellulose as a material for wound treatment: properties and modifications. A review (pp. 1547-1571) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.07.009
  8. Picheth et al. (2017) Bacterial cellulose in biomedical applications: a review (pp. 97-106) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.05.171
  9. Gao et al. (2016) Time-dependent rheological behaviour of bacterial cellulose hydrogel (pp. 153-159) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2015.08.019
  10. Gao et al. (2016) Through-thickness stress relaxation in bacterial cellulose hydrogel (pp. 90-98) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.12.021
  11. Pandey et al. (2017) Microwaved bacterial cellulose-based hydrogel microparticles for the healing of partial thickness burn wounds (pp. 89-99) https://doi.org/10.1007/s13346-016-0341-8
  12. Yuan et al. (2016) Superior hybrid hydrogels of polyacrylamide enhanced by bacterial cellulose nanofiber clusters (pp. 221-230) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.04.074
  13. Römling and Galperin (2015) Bacterial cellulose biosynthesis: diversity of operons, subunits, products, and functions 23(9) (pp. 545-557) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2015.05.005
  14. Lin et al. (2013) Biosynthesis, production and applications of bacterial cellulose 20(5) (pp. 2191-2219) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-013-9994-3
  15. Ashjaran et al. (2013) Overview of bio nanofabric from bacterial cellulose 104(2) (pp. 121-131) https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2012.703796
  16. Abeer et al. (2014) A review of bacterial cellulose-based drug delivery systems: their biochemistry, current approaches and future prospects 66(8) (pp. 1047-1061)
  17. Reiniati et al. (2017) Recent developments in the production and applications of bacterial cellulose fibers and nanocrystals 37(4) (pp. 510-524) https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2016.1189871
  18. Ul-Islam et al. (2012) Water holding and release properties of bacterial cellulose obtained by in situ and ex situ modification (pp. 596-603) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.01.006
  19. Ul-Islam et al. (2013) Effect of post-synthetic processing conditions on structural variations and applications of bacterial cellulose (pp. 253-263) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-012-9799-9
  20. Meftahi et al. (2010) The effects of cotton gauze coating with microbial cellulose (pp. 199-204) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-009-9377-y
  21. Brown et al. (2012) Glutaraldehyde treatment of bacterial cellulose/fibrin composites impact on morphology, tensile and viscoelastic properties (pp. 127-137) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-011-9617-9
  22. Brown et al. (2011) Never-dried bacterial cellulose/fibrin composites: preparation, morphology and mechanical properties (pp. 631-641) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-011-9500-8
  23. Cacicedo et al. (2016) Progress in bacterial cellulose matrices for biotechnological applications (pp. 172-180) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.071
  24. Tang et al. (2010) The influence of fermentation conditions and post-treatment methods on porosity of bacterial cellulose membrane https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-009-0151-y
  25. Gao et al. (2011) Preparation and characterization of bacterial cellulose sponge with hierarchical pore structure as tissue engineering scaffold (pp. 139-145) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10934-010-9364-6
  26. Wang et al. (2012) Immobilization of gelatin on bacterial cellulose nanofibers surface via crosslinking technique (pp. 536-541) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2011.12.006
  27. Castro et al. (2015) In-situ glyoxalization during biosynthesis of bacterial cellulose (pp. 32-39) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.03.014
  28. Reddy and Yang (2010) Citric acid cross-linking of starch films (pp. 702-711) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.05.050
  29. Chang et al. (2012) Nano-biomaterials application: morphology and physical properties of bacterial cellulose/gelatin composites via crosslinking (pp. 137-144) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2011.08.004
  30. Dahman (2009) Nanostructured biomaterials and biocomposites from bacterial cellulose nanofibers (pp. 5105-5122) https://doi.org/10.1166/jnn.2009.1466
  31. Fijałkowski et al. (2015) Modification of bacterial cellulose through exposure to the rotating magnetic field (pp. 52-60) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.07.011
  32. Shah et al. (2013) Overview of bacterial cellulose composites: a multipurpose advanced material (pp. 1585-1598) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.08.018
  33. Seifert et al. (2004) Controlling the water content of never dried and reswollen bacterial cellulose by the addition of water-soluble polymers to the culture medium (pp. 463-470) https://doi.org/10.1002/pola.10862
  34. Xu et al. (2015) Development of tannic acid/chitosan/pullulan composite nanofibers from aqueous solution for potential applications as wound dressing (pp. 16-24) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.08.081
  35. Pinho and Soares (2018) Functionalization of cotton cellulose for improved wound healing 6(13) (pp. 1887-1898) https://doi.org/10.1039/C8TB00052B
  36. Gyawali et al. (2010) Citric-acid-derived photo-cross-linked biodegradable elastomers 21(13) (pp. 1761-1782) https://doi.org/10.1163/092050609X12567178204169
  37. Capanema et al. (2018) Superabsorbent crosslinked carboxymethyl cellulose-PEG hydrogels for potential wound dressing applications (pp. 1218-1234) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.08.124
  38. El Fawal et al. (2018) Hydroxyethyl cellulose hydrogel for wound dressing: fabrication, characterization and in vitro evaluation (pp. 649-659) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.01.040
  39. Ebrahimi et al. (2017) Effects of bio-production process parameters on bacterial cellulose mechanical properties 50(11) (pp. 857-861) https://doi.org/10.1252/jcej.15we301
  40. Khajavi et al. (2011) Crystalline structure of microbial cellulose compared with native and regenerated cellulose 60(14) (pp. 1178-1192) https://doi.org/10.1080/00914037.2010.551372
  41. Prabhu et al. (2017) Effect of microwave argon plasma on the glycosidic and hydrogen bonding system of cotton cellulose (pp. 34-44) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.08.057
  42. Awada et al. (2014) Cross-linking of papers based on thermomechanical pulp fibers by polycarboxylic acids: influence on the wet breaking length 53(11) (pp. 4312-4317) https://doi.org/10.1021/ie500101n
  43. Widsten et al. (2014) Citric acid crosslinking of paper products for improved high-humidity performance (pp. 998-1004) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.10.002
  44. Grande et al. (2009) Development of self-assembled bacterial cellulose–starch nanocomposites (pp. 1098-1104) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2008.09.024
  45. Poletto et al. (2014) Native cellulose: structure, characterization and thermal properties 7(9) (pp. 6105-6119) https://doi.org/10.3390/ma7096105
  46. Ye et al. (2015) Quantitative analysis of citric acid/sodium hypophosphite modified cotton by HPLC and conductometric titration (pp. 92-98) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.12.028