, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 2255–2265 | Cite as

A study of properties and enzymatic hydrolysis of bacterial cellulose

  • Ekaterina I. KashcheyevaEmail author
  • Evgenia K. Gladysheva
  • Ekaterina A. Skiba
  • Vera V. Budaeva
Original Research


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.

Graphical abstract


Bacterial 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.


  1. Adepu S, Khandelwal M (2018) Broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity of bacterial cellulose silver nanocomposites with sustained release. J Mater Sci 53(3):1596–1906. Google Scholar
  2. Ahvenainen P, Kontro I, Svedstrom K (2016) Comparison of sample crystallinity determination methods by X-ray diffraction for challenging cellulose I materials. Cellulose 23(2):1073–1086. Google Scholar
  3. Akduman B, Uygun M, Çoban EP, Uygun DA, Bıyık H, Akgöl S (2013) Reversible immobilization of urease by using bacterial cellulose nanofibers. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 171(8):2285–2294. Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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. Google Scholar
  6. Amano Y, Nozaki K, Araki T, Shibasaki H, Kuga S, Kanda T (2002) Reactivities of cellulases from fungi towards ribbon-type bacterial cellulose and band-shaped bacterial cellulose. Cellulose 8(4):267–274. Google Scholar
  7. Anwar B, Bundjali B, Arcana IM (2015) Isolation of cellulose nanocrystals from bacterial cellulose produced from pineapple peel waste juice as culture medium. Proc Chem 16:279–284. Google Scholar
  8. Barth A (2007) Infrared spectroscopy of proteins: review. Biochim Biophys Acta 1767(9):1073–1101. Google Scholar
  9. 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. Google Scholar
  10. Belgacem MN, Gandini A (2008) Monomers, polymers and composites from renewable resources. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. Google Scholar
  12. Bowling AJ, Amano Y, Lindstrom R, Brown RM Jr. (2001) Rotation of cellulose ribbons during degradation with fungal cellulose. Cellulose 8(1):91–97. Google Scholar
  13. Budaeva VV, Makarova EI, Gismatulina Y (2016) Integrated flowsheet for conversion of nonwoody biomass into polyfunctional materials. Key Eng Mater 670:202–206. Google Scholar
  14. Chawla PR, Bajaj IB, Survase SA, Singhal RS (2009) Microbial cellulose: fermentative production and applications. Food Technol Biotechnol 47(2):107–124Google Scholar
  15. Chen Y, Stipanovic AJ, Winter WT, Wilson DB, Kim YJ (2007) Effect of digestion by pure cellulases on crystallinity and average chain length for bacterial and microcrystalline celluloses. Cellulose 14:283–293. Google Scholar
  16. Cheng K, Catchmark J, Demirci A (2009) Enhanced production of bacterial cellulose by using a biofilm reactor and its material property analysis. J Biol Eng 3:1–10. Google Scholar
  17. Czaja W, Krystynowicz A, Bielecki S, Brown RM Jr. (2006) Microbial cellulose: the natural power to heal wounds. Biomaterials 27(2):145–151. Google Scholar
  18. Fontana JD, De Souza AM, Fontana CK, Torriani IL, Moreschi JC, Gallotti BJ, De Souza SJ, Narcisco GP, Bichara JA, Farah LFX (1990) Acetobacter cellulose pellicle as a temporary skin substitute. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 24(1):253–264. Google Scholar
  19. 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. Google Scholar
  20. French AD (2014) Idealized powder diffraction patterns for cellulose polymorphs. Cellulose 21(2):885–896. Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Gladysheva EK, Skiba EA, Zolotukhin VN, Sakovich GV (2018) Study of the conditions for the biosynthesis of bacterial cellulose by the producer Medusomyces gisevii Sa-12. Appl Biochem Microbiol 54(2):179–187. Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Hall M, Bansal P, Lee JH, Realff MJ, Bommarius AS (2010) Cellulose crystallinity: a key predictor of the enzymatic hydrolysis rate. FEBS J 277(6):1571–1582. Google Scholar
  26. Horii F, Hirai A, Kitamura R (1987) CP/MAS 13C NMR spectra of the crystalline components of native celluloses. Macromolecules 20(9):2117–2120. Google Scholar
  27. Hu F, Ragauskas A (2012) Pretreatment and lignocellulosic chemistry. Bioenerg Res 5(4):1043–1066. Google Scholar
  28. Ioelovich M (2014) Study of enzymatic hydrolysis of bacterial nanocellulose. Am J BioSci 2(6–1):13–16. Google Scholar
  29. Ioelovich M, Morag E (2011) Effect of cellulose structure on enzymatic hydrolysis. BioResources 6(3):2818–2835. Google Scholar
  30. Jung H, Yoon HG, Park W, Choi C, Wilson DB, Shin DH, Kim YJ (2008) Effect of sodium hydroxide treatment of bacterial cellulose on cellulase activity. Cellulose 15(3):465–471. Google Scholar
  31. Keshk SM (2014) Bacterial cellulose production and its industrial applications. J Bioprocess Biotechnol 4(2):150–160. Google Scholar
  32. Khandelwal M, Windle AH, Hessler N (2016) In situ tunability of bacteria produced cellulose by additives in the culture media. J Mater Sci 51(10):4839–4844. Google Scholar
  33. Lee SE, Park YS (2017) The role of bacterial cellulose in artificial blood vessels. Mol Cell Toxicol 13(3):257–261. Google Scholar
  34. Lv P, Zhou H, Zhao M, Li D, Lu K, Wang D, Huang J, Cai Y, Lucia LA (2018) Highly flexible, transparent, and conductive silver nanowire-attached bacterial cellulose conductors. Cellulose 25(6):3189–3196. Google Scholar
  35. Meftahi A, Khajavi R, Rashidi A, Sattari M, Yazdanshenas ME, Torabi M (2010) The effects of cotton gauze coating with microbial cellulose. Cellulose 17(1):199–204. Google Scholar
  36. Miller GL (1959) Use of dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing sugar. Anal Chem 31(3):426–428. Google Scholar
  37. Nishiyama Y, Langan P, Chanzy H (2002) Crystal structure and hydrogen-bonding system in cellulose Iβ from synchrotron X-ray and neutron fiber diffraction. J Am Chem Soc 124(31):9074–9082. Google Scholar
  38. Nishiyama Y, 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(47):14300–14306. Google Scholar
  39. Santos SM, Carbajo JM, Gómez N, Ladero M, Villar JC (2017) Paper reinforcing by in situ growth of bacterial cellulose. J Mater Sci 52(10):5882–5893. Google Scholar
  40. Schumann AD, Wippermann J, Klemm OD, Kramer F, Koth D, Kosmehl H, Wahlers T, Salehi-Gelani S (2009) Artificial vascular implants from bacterial cellulose: preliminary results of small arterial substitutes. Cellulose 16(5):877–885. Google Scholar
  41. Silva TM, Santiago PO, Purcena LLA, Fernandes KF (2010) Study of the cashew gum polysaccharide for the horseradish peroxidase immobilization: structural characteristics, stability and recovery. Mater Sci Eng 30(4):526–530. Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Tiboni M, Grzybowski A, Passos M, Barison A, Lião LM, Campos FR, Pontarolo R, Fontana JD (2012) The use of dyed bacterial cellulose to monitor cellulose complex activity. Cellulose 19(6):1867–1877. Google Scholar
  44. 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. Google Scholar
  45. 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(2):545–554. Google Scholar
  46. Wang Y, Wang Y, Jiang L (2018) Freestanding carbon aerogels produced from bacterial cellulose and its Ni/MnO2/Ni(OH)2 decoration for supercapacitor electrodes. J Appl Electrochem 48(5):495–507. Google Scholar
  47. Yin X, Zhang X, Yang J, Lin Q, Wang J, Zhu Q (2011) Comparison of succinylation methods for bacterial cellulose and adsorption capacities of bacterial cellulose derivatives for Cu2+ ion. Polym Bull 67(3):401–412. Google Scholar
  48. 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. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bioconversion LaboratoryInstitute for Problems of Chemical and Energetic Technologies, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IPCET SB RAS)BiyskRussia

Personalised recommendations