A study of properties and enzymatic hydrolysis of bacterial cellulose
- 85 Downloads
This study evaluates how bacterial cellulose (BC) properties influence the efficiency of enzymatic hydrolysis. BC was produced by the Medusomyces gisevii Sa-12 symbiotic culture in an enzymatic hydrolyzate obtained from oat hulls and was characterized by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, thermogravimetric analysis, and X-ray diffraction. The enzymatic hydrolysis was examined with dried BCs unwashed and washed of culture medium components and cell debris, as well as with wet BC washed of culture medium components, at initial solid loadings of 10 and 30 g/L. The enzymatic hydrolysis of the BC sample unwashed of culture medium components and cell debris exhibited a substrate conversion degree of 56.3–66.6%. The conversion degree of the BC samples washed of culture medium components and cell debris was 89.4–99.5%. The removal of culture medium components and cell debris increased the conversion degree by 1.5 times. The drying of wet BC was found to decrease the enzymatic hydrolysis rate but it did not affect the conversion degree: the maximum yield of reducing sugars of 99.5% was achieved in 56 h for dried BC and in 16 h for wet BC. The substrate’s impurity content (growth medium components and cells) and moisture had the greatest effect on the performance of enzymatic hydrolysis of BC. The high BC crystallinity index of 90% was found to be not a determinant for the enzymatic hydrolysis efficiency.
KeywordsBacterial cellulose Medusomyces gisevii Sa-12 Enzymatic hydrolysis Crystallinity index Substrate behavior
This research was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (Project # 17-19-01054).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Aleshina LA, Glazkova SV, Lugovskaya LA, Podoynikova MV, Fofanov AD, Silina EV (2001) A contemporary view of cellulose structure (review). Chem Plant Raw Mater 1:5–36 (rus) Google Scholar
- Aleshina LA, Gladysheva EK, Budaeva VV, Skiba EA, Arkharova NA, Sakovich GV (2018) X-ray diffraction study of bacterial nanocellulose produced by the Medusomyces Gisevii Sa-12 culture in enzymatic hydrolysates of oat hulls. Crystallogr Rep 63(6):955–960. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063774518050024 Google Scholar
- Barud HS, Araújo Júnior AM, Santos DB, Assunção RMN, Meireles CS, Cerqueira DA, Filho GR, Ribeiro CA, Messaddeq Y, Ribeiro SJL (2008) Thermal behavior of cellulose acetate produced from homogeneous acetylation of bacterial cellulose. Thermochim Acta 471(1–2):61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2008.02.009 Google Scholar
- Belgacem MN, Gandini A (2008) Monomers, polymers and composites from renewable resources. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Boisset C, Fraschini C, Schulein M, Henrissat B, Chanzy H (2000) Imaging the enzymatic digestion of bacterial cellulose ribbons reveals the endo character of the cellobiohydrolase Cel6A from Humicola insolens and its mode of synergy with cellobiohydrolase Cel7A. J Appl Environ Microbiol 66(4):1444–1452. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.66.4.1444-1452.2000%5d Google Scholar
- Budaeva VV, Makarova EI, Gismatulina Y (2016) Integrated flowsheet for conversion of nonwoody biomass into polyfunctional materials. Key Eng Mater 670:202–206. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.670.202 Google Scholar
- Chawla PR, Bajaj IB, Survase SA, Singhal RS (2009) Microbial cellulose: fermentative production and applications. Food Technol Biotechnol 47(2):107–124Google Scholar
- Czaja W, Krystynowicz A, Bielecki S, Brown RM Jr. (2006) Microbial cellulose: the natural power to heal wounds. Biomaterials 27(2):145–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.07.035 Google Scholar
- Foong CY, Hamzah MSA, Razak SIA, Saidin S, Nayan NHM (2018) Influence of poly(lactic acid) layer on the physical and antibacterial properties of dry bacterial cellulose sheet for potential acute wound healing materials. Fiber Polym 19(2):263–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12221-018-7850-7 Google Scholar
- French AD, Howley PS (1989) Comparisons of structures proposed for cellulose. In: Schuerch C (ed) Cellulose and wood—chemistry and technology. Wiley, New York, pp 159–167Google Scholar
- Goh WN, Rosma A, Kaur B, Fazilah A, Karim AA, Rajeev B (2012a) Fermentation of black tea broth (Kombucha): I. Effects of sucrose concentration and fermentation time on the yield of microbial cellulose. Int Food Res J 19(1):109–117Google Scholar
- Goh WN, Rosma A, Kaur B, Fazilah A, Karim AA, Rajeev B (2012b) Microstructure and physical properties of microbial cellulose produced during fermentation of black tea broth (Kombucha). II. Int Food Res J 19(1):153–158Google Scholar
- Terinte N, Ibbett R, Schuster KC (2011) Overview on native cellulose and microcrystalline cellulose I structure studied by X-ray diffraction (WAXD): comparison between measurement techniques. Lenzing Ber 89:118–131Google Scholar
- Torlopov MA, Mikhaylov VI, Udoratina EV, Aleshina LA, Prusskii AI, Tsvetkov NV, Krivoshapkin PV (2018) Cellulose nanocrystals with different length-to-diameter ratios extracted from various plants using novel system acetic acid/phosphotungstic acid/octanol-1. Cellulose 25(2):1031–1046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-017-1624-z Google Scholar
- Żywicka A, Peitler D, Rakoczy R, Junka AF, Fijałkowski K (2016) Wet and dry forms of bacterial cellulose synthetized by different strains of Gluconacetobacter xylinus as carriers for yeast immobilization. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 180(4):805–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-016-2134-4 Google Scholar