Advertisement

Bio-Design and Manufacturing

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 187–212 | Cite as

Nanocellulose isolation characterization and applications: a journey from non-remedial to biomedical claims

  • Sania Naz
  • Joham S. Ali
  • Muhammad ZiaEmail author
Review
  • 547 Downloads

Abstract

Cellulose is a renewable, biodegradable, ecofriendly and sustainable biomaterial. Global market of nanocellulose is comprehensively very high due to its utility. Extraction of nanocellulose from bacteria and plant results in different morphology and size of nanocellulose. Biocompatibility, mechanical strength, biofabrication, crystallinity, high surface area per unit mass, hydrophilicity, porosity, transparency and non-toxicity of bacterial cellulose make it more attractive. The extravagant nanoscaled three-dimensional network of cellulosic structures possess extraordinary properties for biomedical application, evidencing its usage in skin therapy, cardiovascular implants, cartilage meniscus implants, tissue engineering, bone tissue and neural implants, wound care products, drug delivery agents, tablet modification, tissue engineered urinary conduits, and synthesis of artificial cornea. Hence due to potential benefits associated with nanocellulose effective and efficient techniques are required for the isolation of nanocellulose that should be economical, ecofriendly and non-toxic.

Keywords

Nanocellulose Plant and bacterial source Extraction Applications 

Introduction

Increased concerns about the environment and market demand for sustainable products and services have pushed for the development and use of renewable materials and products [129, 176]. Presently, there is a strong need for replacing fossil fuel products with bio-based biodegradables which can resolve numerous issues such as reduction in crude oil stocks and their geographical localization, carbon footprint, plastic pollution and sustainability. Cellulose, the most abundant natural polymer on earth, is one potential alternative which can be used to propose rational solutions for these issues.

Cellulose is a renewable, biodegradable, ecofriendly and sustainable biomaterial with an estimated annual bio production of over 7.53 × 1010 metric tons [72, 106]. It is the most abundant natural polymer present in different biological entities such as in microbes like bacteria, all plants and very few animals such as tunicates (a marine animal) [45]. Cellulose present in tunicates is called as Tunicin, and is known to consist of 1β allomorph. It is well known for its high crystallinity and to determine the hydrogen bonding system and crystal and molecular structure of cellulose [185]. As animals tend to lack the presence of cellulose in their cell, apart from these marine entities and not much exploitation is done regarding the nanocellulose synthesis, it is not focused in this review. Cellulose acts as a major part of plant’s cell wall material formed by the α-d-glucose [139] by condensation reaction linked through 1–4 glycosidic bond. Cellulose obtained from plant source is pronounced strengthen material in various matrices [52]. While bacterial cellulose (BC) or microbial cellulose (MC) is an auspicious natural polymer discovered in 1886 by A. J. Brown during vinegar fermentation but its applicability has been realized recently. It is unbranched polysaccharide comprising of linear chains of β-1,4-glucopyranose residues and produced by many species of nitrogen fixing bacteria. Bacteria produces cellulose to shield itself against the harsh chemical and ultraviolet effects and to access oxygen [182], while for plants it acts as a supportive backbone.

What is nanocellulose?

Nanocellulose is composed of cellulose fibrils having 1–100 nm in size. Nanocellulose is widely used to describe different cellulose-based nanomaterials like nano cellulose fibers, crystalline nanocellulose, cellulose composites etc. [1] with high surface areas and aspect ratios [52, 104]. On the basis of functions, structures, mode of productions, sources and reaction conditions, there are three major subdivisions of nanocellulose [17, 27]. These are bacterial nanocellulose (BNC), nanofibrillated cellulose (NFC) and cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) (Table 1).
Table 1

Characteristics of various kinds of nanocelluloses

Type

Diameter (nm)

Length

L/D

Crystallinity (%)

References

CNF

10–100

> 1 µm

70–100

84.9

Dufresne [50], Lavoine et al. [112]

CNC

4–25

100–500 nm

15–50

91.2

Habibi et al. [72], Lu and Hsieh [126]

BNC

20–100

> 1 µm

50–100

70–80

Hu et al. [78], Castro et al. [29]

Bacterial cellulose

Bacterial cell wall acts as the vehicle for cellulose production. Bacterial cellulose is less than 100 nm in width having ribbon-shaped fibril consist of fine nanofibrils of 2–4 nm [25]. For isolation and purification, no pretreatments are required due to the presence of pure cellulose [43]. The exclusive mechanical, physical and structural properties of BC extend its feasibility to become a vendible material in many fields of biomedical, electronic and industrial arena [94].

Cellulose nanocrystal

Cellulose nanocrystal is elongated, less flexible and rod shape crystalline structure [24]. Nanowhiskers [90], nanorods [84]; [51] and nanofiber or nanofibril cellulose [3, 5, 74] are other terms used for cellulose nanocrystals. Their production can be achieved by acid hydrolysis [19] with low aspect ratio of 2–20 nm diameter [80]. It is pure cellulose of 100 nm to several µm long, in between 54 and 88% crytstallinity index [139].

Nanofibrillated cellulose

Nanofibers of around 1–100 nm long and flexible intervening network [32] of nanofibrillated cellulose consist of compressed chain of cellulose fibers present in plant. Alternations of crystalline, amorphous forms are also present [24]. Along with chemical or enzymatic treatment [108], delamination of wood pulp by mechanical pressure can be used as a method for nanofibrillated cellulose production [10, 39, 199].

Structural arrangement of cellulose

In nature cellulose, glucose units are present in chains or threads of cellulose forming microfibrils in cell walls of different organisms. Plants cell wall is composed of two layers. Outer thin layer is primary wall while inner or secondary layer is thicker, composed of three more layers consist of amorphous and crystalline microfibrillar areas. Within matrix, cellulose array is present which give them shape and strength like a concrete rod [14, 55, 153]. In axial 20 and 60 nm, and in lateral dimensions around 5–30 nm crystal size is present [6]. Helically arranged microfibrils [98] from 15 to 18 nm thick clusters in wood cellulose fibers. Fibrils form the basic structural pillars which unite to form bigger unit known as microfibrils which constitute biggest unit called fibers. At surface alternate crystalline and amorphous form of microfibrils are present [11] which can be extracted as nano cellulose.

Bacterial cellulose is an unbranched polysaccharide comprising of linear chains of β-1,4-glucopyranose residues where well-arranged networks of fibril give rise to three dimensional nanofibers which help in the production of BC sheets with high surface area and pore size [194].The chemical foundation of BC structure is the chain molecules linked by cellobiose. Similar to cellulose it is free of contaminant molecules, such as lignin, hemicelluloses, and pectin, etc., that are normally present in plant-derived cellulose [43].The purification of BC using NaOH solution tends to be a low energy process, which is why the chemical purity of BC can be maintained without the use of harsh chemicals [173]. Degree of Polymerization (DP) of BC ranges from 300 to 10,000 residing on bacterial strains, cultivation conditions, and various additives [123]. Due to compact packing of cellulose/nanocellulose in plants, sophisticated techniques are required for their extraction to achieve maximum benefits associated with this biomaterial.

Extraction techniques

Various techniques have been in practice since long for isolation of cellulose/nanocellulose. These methods comprise of chemical, enzymatic and mechanical means for the production of cellulose microfibrils. The chemical methods like alkaline treatment [7, 8] and acid hydrolysis are used for the disintegration of compactly packed cellulose microfibrils [53], while enzymatic hydrolysis [74] is also employed for similar purpose. Mechanical methods involves cryocrushing [200], homogenization through high pressure [143], shredding/grinding [2] etc. In some cases more than one reactions are required to follow on the basis of applications.

Sources of nanocellulose

Cellulose/nanocellulose can be extracted from various sources like plants, marine animals, fungi and bacteria. Among them, we discuss in detail the extraction of cellulose/nanocellulose from different plant materials and bacterial cultures (Tables 2, 3). Cellulose is fundamental building block of plant cell wall that can be extracted by chemical and enzymatic processes (Fig. 1). Functional properties of cellulose nanofibers and their abundance emphasize utilization of agricultural waste, as a major source of cellulose [89, 124] due to their availability in large quantities, cheaper and easy purchasing [66, 130]. Besides these, it will be helpful in the management of waste overcoming pollution or diseases associated with dumping of waste [145]. Utilization of biomass has attracted growing interest for the synthesis of cellulose-based novel composites [35]. Various plant materials act as a raw material for cellulose, including wood, cotton, flax, hemp, jute, ramie, straws, cornhusk, fruit remains, sugarcane bagasse and many more [110, 162, 224].
Table 2

Plant sources of nanocellulose; method of isolation, characterization and applications

Source

Method used

Size

Characterization

Application

References

Kraft Pulp

High-pressure homogenizer

50–100 nm

SEM

Exhibit great potential as reinforcement material for optically transparent composites

Iwamoto et al. [83]

Corn stalks 

Mechanical and chemical treatment

50–100 nm

XRD, SEM

The structure and properties of cornstalk fibers indicate that the fibers are suitable for producing various textile products

Reddy and Yang [163]

Swede root

High-pressure food homogenizer

10–20 nm

SEM

Plant fiber is used in industrial composites

Bruce et al. [26]

Hemp fibers

Chemical and mechanical treatments

30–100 nm

SEM, TEM, AFM

Polymer matrix

Wang et al. [202]

Hemp fiber of Ontario, spring flax fibers, Kraft pulp, rutabaga

Chemical and mechanical treatments. Acid hydrolysis, cryocrushing, high shear and high energy

5–60 nm

SEM, TEM

Cheap and environment friendly reinforcement to process composite materials using polyvinyl alcohol as a polymer matrix

Bhatnagar and Sain [19]

Soybean

Cryocrushing

50–100 nm

AFM, TEM

Plastic reinforcement, gel forming and thickening agent

Wang and Sain [200]

Cotton Pulp

Ultrasound wave

6 nm

LS, TEM, FTIR, XRD

Nanocrystal

Xiao-quan [209]

Cotton linters

Hydrothermal intracrystalline deuteration and acid hydrolyze

3–20 nm

Neutron reflectivity

Textile, food, and pulp and paper industries

Jean et al. [86]

Cellulose cotton

Both physical and chemical techniques

60–570 nm

AFM, TEM, SEM

Sustainability and green chemistry

Zhang et al. [218]

Bagasse

homogenization process,

200 nm

SEM

Used as reinforcing elements in composites with biodegradable thermoplastic co-polyesters or other common engineering thermoplastics

Bhattacharya et al. [20]

Sisal fibers

acid hydrolysis, chlorination, alkaline extraction, and bleaching

100–500 again purify result in 7–31 nm

TGA, FTIR, XRD, DSC, SEM

Used in future works in the production of biodegradable nanocomposites with enhanced properties

Morán et al. [140]

Wheat straw

Cryocrushing followed by fibrillation and subsequent homogenization

20–120 nm

SEM, TEM

Starch-based thermoplastic polymer

Alemdar and Sain [7, 8]

Wheat straw and soy hulls

Chime mechanical technique

10–80 nm

TEM

Potential for use as reinforcement fibers in bio composite applications

Alemdar and Sain [7, 8]

Banana

High-pressure defibrillation and acid treatment

200–250 nm

FTIR, XRD, SEM

Reinforcing elements in nanocomposites.

Cherian et al. [34]

Banana rachis

Different combinations of chemical and mechanical treatments

3–5 nm

TEM, XRD, solid-state 13C NMR

Agro-industries

Zuluaga et al. [226]

Golden grass

Bleaching and acid hydrolysis

Size 4.5 and 300 nm,

XRD, SEM, TEM

Used as energy resources and in paper industries

Siqueira et al. [180]

Pineapple

Alkali treatment and acid hydrolysis

5–60 nm

SEM, AFM, TEM, XRD

Biodegradable plastic composites

Cherian et al. [35]

White cotton

Acid hydrolysis

6–18 nm diameter

XRD, SEM, STEM, AFM

Medical implants, tissue engineering, drug delivery, and other medical applications

Morais et al. [44]

Cassava

Acid hydrolysis

15 nm in diameter

SEM, XRD, DMA

Used in natural rubber as matrix

Pasquini et al. [151]

Curaua

Acid hydrolysis using 3 acids H2SO4, H2SO4/HC1, HC1

6–10 nm

XRD, TG, TEM, DP

Used as raw material applied to polymer composites by the textile and automotive industries

Corrêa et al. [38], Hill et al. [75]

Sesame husk

Alkali treatment

30–120 nm

XRD, TEM, SEM, AFM

Applied in nutraceutical and medical

Purkait et al. [158]

Banana, Coir, Sisal, Pineapple, Kapok

Alkaline treatment, bleaching and acid hydrolysis

10–25 nm

SE, AFM, TEM, XRD, TGA, IGC

Reinforcing agents in polymer nanocomposite sector

Deepa et al. [46]

Bamboo

Chemical purification and high-pressure homogenization

10–50 nm

SEM, TEM, FTIR XRD

Wang et al. [205]

Coconut

Chemical treatment, grinding and homogenization

50–100 nm

SEM, TEM, FTIR

Ideal reinforcing material for polymer composite, fabrication of films without using organic solvent

Zhao et al. [221]

Jatropha corcas L.

Cryocrushing, acid hydrolysis, dialysis and sonication

SEM, TEM, XRD, AFM

As an additive to improve the quality of composite for medical appliances, electronic and many other application

Mahadia et al. [131]

Raw jute

Steam explosion and alkaline treatment

50 nm in diameter

SEM, TEM, XRD, TGA, FTIR

Reinforcing agent in natural rubber latex, cross-linking agent

Thomas et al. [188]

Mexican feather grass

Pulping, bleaching and acid hydrolysis

Diameter 8 ± 2 nm

XRD, AFM, FTIR, TGA

Used as reinforcing phase to prepare bionanocomposite films or reinforcing agent for casting/evaporation methods preparation of bio nanocomposites

Youssef et al. [216]

Tomato

Acid hydrolysis, alkali treatment

3.3 nm thick, 7.2 nm wide, 13.5 nm long

FTIR, AFM, TEM, SEM, EDS, XRD, TGA

 

Jiang and Hsieh [87]

Sweet orange

Alkaline treatment, bleaching and enzymatic hydrolysis

Diameter 10 nm,

SEM, AFM, TEM, XRD, TGA, IGC

Reinforcing agents in polymer nanocomposite sector

Mariño et al. [133]

Garlic

Alkali treatment, bleaching and acid hydrolysis

6 nm diameter

TEM, AFM, XRD, TGA, FTIR

Used as reinforcement in the preparation of nanocomposite

Kallel et al. [97]

Kinnow

Alkaline treatment and acid hydrolysis

9.7 nm diameter

XRD, SEM

Used in production of biodegradable nanocomposite

Naz et al. [145]

Banana c.v. valery

Chemical treatment and high-pressure homogenization

100–200 nm

SEM, TEM, FTIR, TGA, XRD

Velásquez-Cock et al. [197]

East-Indian screw tree

Thermal, chemical and mechanical methods

50 nm diameter

TEM, SEM, XRD, FTIR

Nanocomposite preparation

Joy et al. [92]

Rubber wood

High-pressure homogenization, enzymatic and chemical pretreatment

37–85 nm

FTIR, SEM, XRD

Reinforcement agent

Podder et al. [156]

Pinecone

Alkaline treatment and grinding

5–25 nm

FTIR, SEM, XRD TGA

Manufacturing of bio-nanocomposites

Rambabu et al. [161]

Rice plant

Acid hydrolysis, bleaching and alkali treatment

5–50 nm

TGA, FTIR, AFM

Reinforcing agent

Castro-Guerrero et al. [30]

Date palm

Acid hydrolysis and sample pyrolysis

20 nm

SEM

Barrier properties

Hossain and Uddin [76], Nair et al. [142]

Organosolv Straw Pulp

Thermal and ultrasound treatment

10–40 nm

SEM, TEM

Its application for the preparation of new nanocomposite materials

Barbash et al. [15]

Satin tail

Alkaline treatment and acid hydrolysis

Single-fiber diameter 5 µm

SEM, FTIR, TGA, XRD

Coelho et al. [37]

False indigo

Grinding and high-pressure homogenization

10 nm in diameter

XRD, FTIR, SEM, TEM

Zhuo et al. [223]

Table 3

Bacterial sources of nanocellulose; isolated nanocellulose characteristics and applications

Source

Size

Extraction technique

Characterization

Application

References

Acetobacter xylinum (ATCC 23767)

500 nm

Microbial cell culture/alkaline

AFM, NMR spectroscopy

Gillis et al. [62]

Acetobacter xylinus

50 nm

Chemical/alkaline

SEM, VARI

Manufacturing rigid and robust natural fiber

Touzel et al. [191]

Gluconacetobacter

10–200 nm

Production of BC/PHEMA nanocomposite films

FTIR, 13C NMR, SEM, Crystallinity, XRD

Optical transparent, nanocomposites, electronic paper, fuel cell membranes

Nakagaito et al. [144], Ifuku et al. [81]

Glucanacetobacer xylinus

60–80 nm

Bacterial cell culture/Chemical

XRD, SEM

Hybrid BNC-TiO2 for purification of drinking water

Graber [67]

Glucanacetobacter xylinus

45–80 nm

Microbial cell culture/Alkaline

SEM

Cartilage regeneration/regeneration medicines

Graber [67]

Glucanacetobacter xylinus

60 nm

Microbial cell culture/alkaline

SEM

In 3D culturing for invitro studies of neurodegenerative mechanisms

Graber [67]

Glucanacetobacter xylinus (DSM 14666)

600 μm

Chemical/alkaline

SEM, FTIR, XPS

Cartilage implants

Klemm et al. [107]

Glucanacetobacter xylinus DSM (14666)

60 nm

Static microbial cultivation/chemical

FTIR, SEM

Enhance antimicrobial activity of silver nanoparticles (hybrid)

Klemm et al. [107]

Glucanobacter/acetobacter specie

10–200 nm

Silver plating on surface of bacterial nanocellulose. Chemical methods

Wound healing

Keshk and Sameshima [100]

G. xylinus (IFO 13693)

Static culture 28 °C for 168 h

IR spectroscopy, XRD

Artificial skin for scaled or wound healing

Keshk and Sameshima [100]

A. xylinum

≥ 100 than plant cellulose

Agitated condition

Wound healing

Czaja et al. [40]

Glucanacetobacter xylinus (DSM 14666)

0.12 μm

Microbial cell culture/Alkaline

SEM

Drug delivery system for the model protein albumin

Klemm et al. [107]

Glucanacetobacter xylinus (ATCC53582)

50 nm

Static microbial culture/chemical

X-ray photoelectron Spectroscopy, SEM, FTIR

Tissue engineering/tissue reconstruction

Kato et al. [99]

Acetobacter xylinum

10–80 nm

Agitated conditions

XRD, FTIR

Sun et al. [186]

G. xylinus

Enzymatic, temperature 30 °C at 160 rpm for 24 h

SEM

The nanofibers exhibit great potential as reinforcement material for optically transparent composites

El-Saied et al. [54]

Agrobacterium

≥ 100 nm

Enzymatic

FTIR, XRD, SEM

Higher water capacity, used commercially, high crystalinity

El-Saied et al. [54]

Acetobacter xylinus

1/100 of plant cellulose

Super-critical drying for porous structure preparation

FTIR, SEM

Pre-vapouration process

Phisalaphong et al. [155]

Acetobacter xylinum

Agitated on a shaking plate at 150 rpm

Electron microscopy,Single fiber tensile tests, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, Inverse gas chromatography

Wound dressings, burn treatments, tissue regeneration

Pommet et al. [157]

Gluconacetobacter xylinus

Static culture conditions (liquid medium)

FTIR, XRD,SEM,EDS, TGA

Food additive, scaffold in tissue engineering, food packaging, preparation of composite materials

George et al. [61], Lee et al. [113]

Gluconacetobacter xylinus

500 μm

TO and SiO2 films were deposited onto dried BC membranes

AFM Optical absorption and transmission measurement, PTI fluorimeter for electroluminescence spectra

Flexible substrates for the fabrication of organic light emitting diodes (OLED), Photodynamic therapy (PDT) to treat skin cancer, electronic paper

Legnani et al. [117]

Acetobater xylinum

10–80 nm

Treatment with tween 80(0.20 g/l) for 36 h

FTIR, UV analysis

Wound healing, tissue regeneration

Deng and Wu [47]

Glucon acetobacter hansenii (PJK)

8 µm

Static centrifugation, physical and enzymatic methods

Paper industry, oil recovery

Ha et al. [71]

Acetobacter xylinum

0.8–1.0 cm

static culture of coconut water

UV analysis X-ray diffraction

Desserts, fruit, cocktails, jellies and reduced lipid level of consumer

Jagannath et al. [85]

Glucon acetobacter xylinus strain (K3)

22 mm

BC film was harvested green tea as supplementary material

Extend bacterial life nanostructure, morphological similarities with collagen

Nguyen et al. [146]

Gluconacetobacter hansenii

8 µm

Static culture using a medium containing ethanol

Nutritional source for the production of water-soluble oligosaccharide.

Ha et al. [71]

Gluconacetobacter xylinus

35–70 nm

Static Bacterial Culture/Chemical

SEM, XRD, FTIR

Nguyen et al. [146]

Glucanacetobacter xylinus

40–80 nm

Static bacterial culture/Alkaline

SEM, XRD

Neuroma prevention

Pecoraro et al. [152]

Acetobacter xylinum

40–60 nm

Microbial culture/chemical

XRD,SEM, Rama Spectroscopy

High-performance, composite

Cheng et al. [33]

Gluconacelobacler hansenii or Gluconacelobacler xylinus

40–60 nm

Photo-catalytic membrane prepared by incorporating photo catalytic particles with the BC hydrogel membrane

UV analysis

Wound care, skin, ulcer, burns

Limaye et al. [121]

Acetobacter xylinum X-2

120 nm

Chemical method

SEM, TEM, XRD, FTIR

Higher mechanical properties, scaffold in tissue engineering

Yang et al. [212]

Acetobacter sp. V6

141 nm

Combination of ball milling, acid hydrolysis and ultrasound

X-ray analysis, XRD, FTIR, SEM, TEM

Doubled tensile modulus of the polymer and optically transparent composites

Qua et al. [159]

A. xylinum X-2

70–150 nm

Enzymatic preparation

FTIR, XRD, SEM, TEM, XPS

Biomedical applications (blood related)

Goelzer et al. [63]

G. xylinus (ATCC 53524)

120–150 nm

Static culture at 30 °C for 96 h

FE-SEM, FEI, FTIR, ATR-FTIR

Paper, cotton, pharmaceuticals and wound care industries

Mikkelsen et al. [135]

Acetobacter xylinum (NBRC 13693)

100 nm

Static culture at 30 °C for 96 h

XRD, SEM

Kurosumi et al. [111]

Acetobacter xylinum (JCM 9730)

130–170 nm

Stirred culture at 30 °C and 125 rpm for 288 h

XRD, SEM, FTIR X- ray analysis

Supramolecular structure, exceptional product characteristic

Kurosumi et al. [111]

Gluconacetobacter

170–200 nm

Stirred culture at 30 °C and 125 rpm for 280 h

SEM, XRD

Electrospinning candidate, good mechanical properties

Gatenholm and Klemm [60]

Acetobacter sp. V6

200 nm

Stirred culture at 30 °C and 200 rpm for 168 h

Wide-Angle X-ray Diffraction, SEM, AFM, SAXS

Remarkable strength, structural and chemically engineered at nano- , micro- and macro-scale

Jung et al. [93]

Acetobacter xylinum

180 nm

Chemical preparation

FTIR, SEM,

Better mechanical properties

Li et al. [118]

Acetobacter xylinum(ATCC 23769)

7–13 nm,

Ultrasonic and heating process

SEM, AFM, SAXS, DTA, Wide Angle XRD

Higher crystallinity and lower surface roughness

Tischer et al. [189]

A.xylinum subspecies sucrofermentas (IBPR2001)

170 nm

Mechanical method

XRD, FTIR, TEM, SEM

Higher porosity, scaffold for bone regeneration

Zaborowska et al. [217]

Acetobacter xylinum (ATCC 23669)

200 nm

Chemical-based method

FE-SEM, FEI, FTIR, ATR-FTIR

High porosity, tissue engineering

Zaborowska et al. [217]

Gluconacetobacter xylinum (AX 5)

180 nm

Agitated cultivation

ATR-IR, XRD, SEM

Mechanical strength, bio-medical devices

Gu et al. [68]

Glucano bacter/acetobacter

10–80 nm

Mechanical properties evaluation

Biomedical applications, new generations of cardiovascular, orthopedic implants

Bodin et al. [22]

Gluconacetobacter sp(RKY5)

50–100 nm

Static fermentation

Plastic composite

Gu et al. [68]

Glucanacetobacter xylinus (ATCC 700178)

30 nm width

Microbial Cell Culture/Alkaline

SEM

Cartilage replacement

Dahman et al. [42]

Gluconacetobacter xylinum sucrofermentans (BPR2001)

Enzymatic, pH

SEM, TEM

High tensile strength, commercial applications, food industry

Siró and Plackett [181]

Gluconacetobacter (G. xylinus and G. Hanseni)

20–100 nm

Enzymatic method

LS, TEM, FTIR, XRD

Textile industries, high mechanical strength polymers, high crystallinity, high tensile strength, high water binding capacity, good compatibility

Siró and Plackett [181]

Glucanacetobacter xylinus (KCCM 41431)

500 nm

Microbial cell culture/Alkaline

SEM

Application in flexible energy storage devices

Kim et al. [102]

G. xylinus (IFO 13693)

170 nm

Ultrasonic and heating process

SEM,FTIR

Biodegradability, renewable, inexpensive

Zimmermann et al. [225]

Acetobacter xylinum

(23769)

100–180 nm

Chemical base method

X-ray analysis, XRD, FTIR, SEM, TEM

High crystallinity, hydrophillicity, ultrafine network architecture and purity

Kalia et al. [96]

G. xylinus (CGMCC 2955)

120–200 nm

Chemical base method

XRD, FTIR, SEM, TEM

Artificial skin, paint industry (thickener for ink)

Biao et al. [21]

Acetobacter xylinum (ATCC 23773)

130–180 nm

Chemical method

ATR-IR, XRD, TG/DTA

Biomedical applications, paper industry, optical industry

Lee et al. [114]

G. sacchari

70–100 nm

Static culture at 30 °C for 96 h

XRD, SEM

Biomedical, mechanical strength, chemical and morphologic controllability, used in medical devices

Trovatti et al. [192]

A. xylinum 186

130–180 nm

Static culture at 30 °C for 144 h

FE-SEM, FEI, FTIR, ATR-FTIR

Synthesis of composites, used in packaging materials, good thermo-mechanical properties

Lu et al. [127]

Gluconacetobacter xylinus

20–100 nm

Agitated cultivation

SEM, FTIR

Industrial applications; pharmaceutical, cosmetic and paper industry

Klemm et al. [108]

Acetobacter xylinum, subspecie (BPR2001)

200 nm

Static cultivation

Wide-angle X-ray scattering, SEM, Dielectric analysis

Produce xylan films, Improved strength

Stevanic et al. [183]

Glucanacetobacter xylinus (ATCC700178)

600 nm

Chemical/physical

ESCA, XRD, SEM

Cartilage regeneration

Guo and Catchmark [69]

Anerobic Microbial Consortium

134 nm

Chemical/Enzymatic

FTIR, AFM

Drug delivery/biomedical application

Satyamurthy and Vigneshwaran [174]

Gluconacetobacter sacchari

200 nm

Chemical method

FTIR-ATR spectra, SEM

Biocompatibility, biodegradability

Gomes et al. [64]

Gluconacetobacter xylinus (NRRL B-42)

 

Inoculate were cultured for 48 h in Erlenmeyer flasks containing Hestrin and Schramm (HS) medium (%, w/v): glucose, 2.0; peptone, 0.5; yeast extract, 0.5; anhydrous disodium phosphate, 0.27; citric acid, 0.115. pH 6.0 with dil. HCl or NaOH

High-performance anion exchange chromatography, TEM, NMR

The nanofibers exhibit great potential as reinforcement material for optically transparent composites

Vazquez et al. [196]

Acetobacter pasteurianus

Mechanical, Temperature 22–60 °C during electrospinning

AFM, TEM, SEM

Higher purity, biocompatibily, polymerization

Mohite and Patil [137]

Pseudomonas

Enzymatic, 30 °C at 160 rpm for 24 h

XRD, SEM

Bio-compatibility, high degree of polymerization, commercial applications

Mohite and Patil [137]

A. xylinum 23,769

Wood hot water extraction pH 5–8, temperature 26–30 °C

TGA,FTIR,XRD,DSC,SEM

Textile industries, non-woven cloths, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics

Kiziltas et al. [105]

Gluconacetobacter xylinus (NRRL B-42)

 

Enzymatic, pH 6.0, 28 ± 1 °C for 14 days

TEM

The nanofibers exhibit great potential as reinforcement material for optically transparent composites

Kiziltas et al. [105]

Glucanacetobacter xylinus (KCCM40216)

300 μm

Chemical/alkaline

FE-SEM, XRD

Park et al. [150]

Glucanacetobacter xylinus (ATCC 23769)

Gel 0.7 cm

Chemical

SEM

Bioactive mass for facial treatment

Lee et al. [115]

G. xylinus (CH001)

Enzymatic, fermentation at 28 °C for 5 days

TEM

Sewage purification, paper industry, high yield, high mechanical strength

Huang et al. [79]

Komagataeibacter xylinus

500 nm

Microbial cell culture, chemical/physical

SEM

Wound dressing

Fan et al. [56]

G.sp. gel_SEA623-2

SEM

Laboratories, high yield, polymers

Kim et al. [103]

Acetobacter xylinus (AGR60)

50–80 nm

Static microbial culture/chemical

XRD, SEM, FTIR

Biocompatible materials

Dourado et al. [48]

Fig. 1

Occurrence of cellulose from Plant material

Biocompatibility, mechanical strength, biofabrication, crystallinity, high surface area per unit mass, hydrophilicity, porosity, transparency and non-toxicity of bacterial cellulose [41, 194] demands utilization of bacterial cultures for the isolation of bacterial cellulose. Various bacterial cultures act as a vital source of cellulose some of them are Acetobacter, Agrobacterium, Alcaligenes, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, or Sarcina [54]. However, Acetobacter xylinum acts as efficient source of bacterial cellulose [107]. The bacterial cellulose is present in cell wall and the isolation process yield pure cellulose (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Occurrence of cellulose in bacterial sources

Applications of nanocellulose

In ancient times Cellulose was used for making ropes, sails, paper, and timber for buildings and various other utilities [83, 208]. Non-toxic and ecofriendly nature of nanocellulose has diverted attention of scientists toward these materials for their applicability [101]. Nanocellulose is an interesting commodity which is applied in plenty of applications like textile, medicine, food packaging, cosmetics, pharmacy, fossil fuels, bioplastics, strengthening material, enhanced oil recovery, super absorbent, paints, electronic, biomimetic material [28, 88, 109, 122], optical and energy devices [147]. Other potential applications include use of nanocellulose as polymer nanocomposites with other polymers, hydrogels and technical materials (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3

Applications of nanocellulose extracted from plant and bacterial sources

Biomedical applications

The elementary characteristics of an ideal biomaterial correlates to its biocompatibility, chemical composition, structural diversity (chirality), hydrophilicity, biodegradability/bio absorbability tendency to promote cellular interactions, proliferation, cell adhesion, porosity and excellent mechanical strength [160, 195]. Nanocellulose especially BC can be sterilized and modified without damaging the basic infrastructure and properties tending it to be a suitable implantable biomaterial [125] offering a wide range of special applications in medicines (Fig. 4). The biomedical applications of bacterial cellulose in contrast to nanocellulose are emphasized here due to its extensive use in medical sector (Tables 4, 5).
Fig. 4

Biomedical Applications of nanocellulose isolated from bacterial and plant sources

Table 4

Bacterial cellulose (BC)-based commercial products having biomedical applications

Product

Application

Company

Biofill®

Treat burns and ulcers.

Human med AG; Fibrocel

Gengiflex®

Regeneration of periodontal tissues, guided bone tissue regeneration

Organogenesis Inc.

Cellumed

Treat large surface wounds of animals

Cellumed Co. Inc

BASYC®

Artificial blood vessel, cuff for nerve suturing.

Sutumed

XCell®

Treatment of venous leg ulcers

Xylose corporation

Table 5

Biomedical applications of nanocellulose

Application

Advantages

Disadvantages

References

Skin therapy

Extraordinary mechanical strength and permeability. Less irritation. Suitable barrier. Reduced treatment cost. Faster healing

Restricted elasticity in mobile areas

Yaron and Romling [213]

Cardiovascular implants

Good tear resistance and mold ability. Prevent blood clot as observed in synthetic materials. Mechanical strength and resemblance to the core vessels

Intricate conditions needed to prevent thrombosis and occlusion

Yadav et al. [210], Klemm et al. [107]

Cartilage meniscus implants

Biodegradation resistant with higher stability. Prevent pro inflammatory cytokines production

Still under trials

Yadav et al. [210]

Tissue engineering

High mechanical and anisotropic behavior similar to that of body tissues. High cell-binding property. Low antigenicity

Much work needed for long term satisfactory results. Expensive as Expression of tissue specific proteins needs to be analyzed

Yilmaz et al. [214], Fu et al. [59]

Bone tissue implants

Good mechanical and tensile strength. Enhanced biocompatibility for bone regeneration

Mineralized nanocellulose tends to be more favorable than native nanocellulose

Bacakova et al. [12], Petersen and Gatenholm [154]

Neural implants

Good biocompatibility. Less toxic effects. Facilitated neural regeneration

Long term effects need validation in larger animals

Rajwade et al. [160], Kalashnikova et al. [95]

Wound care products

Provide moist environment. Effective barrier against infection. High mechanical strength. Low irritation

Effectivity highly rely on culture conditions and co agent attached

Figueiredo et al. [57], Ul-Islam et al. [194]

Artificial cornea

High water holding capacity. High thermal and mechanical properties. High light transmittance tendency

Limited research work on engineered corneas

Wang et al. [204]

Urinary conduits

Expression of urothelial markers. Effective for patients with bladder cancer

Still in preclinical trials.

Bodin et al. [22].

Dental implants

High expansion capacity. High tensile strength. High liquid adsorption capacity

Specific conditions required for synthesis

Yoshino et al. [215]

Drug delivery application

High diffusion potential. Facilitated transport and adsorption. Good for oral and transdermal drug delivery

Small drug molecules are mainly facilitated

Abeer et al. [4], Trovatti et al. [193]

Tablet modification

High crystallinity. Better affinity

Requirement of intricate conditions making synthesis complicated

Simm et al. [179]

Bactericidal and Bacteriostatic potential

Enhanced antimicrobial activity. Rapid applicability. Safety

Bacterial elements need to be attached

Ul-Islam et al. [194]

Skin therapy

The high mechanical strength, permeability for substances (liquids, gases) and less irritation of BC at wet state suggest its usage as a wound healer and artificial skin generator. Two commercial BC products are being used in surgery, health care sector and dental implants, i.e., Biofill® and Gengiflex®. Biofill®. These are used in case of second- and third-degree burns, ulcers and temporary skin substitute [213]. It is highly known for its effectiveness for more than 300 treatments due to its extraordinary behavior including close adhesion to the wound bed, spontaneous detachment, reduced treatment time and cost, reduced infection, post-surgery discomfort, faster healing, transparency, immediate pain relief but the restricted elasticity in mobility areas limitize its affectivity to some extent. Gengiflex® on another hand helps periodontal tissues to recover. Cellumed is also a product used to treat large surface wounds of dogs and horses [23].

Artificial blood vessels (cardiovascular implants)

Bacterial cellulose (BC) due to its shape retention ability, mold ability and good tear resistance tends to be the effective replacement of synthetic material being used for artificial blood vessels as it prevents the risks of blood clot. Mechanical strength and resemblance factor of BC in terms of inner lining (diameter of 1 mm, length of about 5 mm and wall thickness of 0.7 mm), to that of natural blood vessels helps to fulfill microsurgical requirement making it a potent candidate in major bypass operations [175]. BASYC tubes are synthesized in a way to resist mechanical strains and anatomize blood pressure. In comparison with organic sheets (polyethylene-terephthalate or cellophane and polypropylene) processed BC sheets represents high mechanical strength and compatibility to native tissue [136]. Anisotropic PVA-BC composite replicates the porcine aorta (10% PVA with 0.3% BC at 75% initial strain) depicting mechanical properties that favor its usage as a vascular graft and replacement to connective and cardiovascular tissues [207]. In order to enhance the cellular adhesion, metabolism and cell metastasis, xyloglucan is used as a carrier molecule along with BC. Varying components have been tested in combination with BC to test the thrombogenic properties of BC depicting its slower coagulation potency representing lower platelets consumption and low thrombin values in comparison with Dacron® and Gore-Tex®. The mechanical properties of bacterial cellulose are comparable to porcine carotid artery and better than expanded poly-tetra-flour-ethylene [13].The tubular-shaped bacterial cellulose (BC-TS) is reported to be used as a blood vessel replacement [13, 107].

Cartilage meniscus implants

The limited regeneration capacity of cartilage tissue makes it a major area of focus. Artificial cartilage needs to be tough and must resist biodegradation as living material deteriorates with time, they must possess stability. BC materials act as a major scaffold material for this purpose along with their capability. As a major matrix, they also prevent pro-inflammatory cytokines during in vitro macrophage. Chondrocytes impregnated on BC membranes showed proliferation and collagen type II production, indicating suitability of BC as a bio-mimicking scaffold [107]. Metabolically engineered Gluconacetobacter xylinus is mainly focused for the modified BC production for cartilage repair that act as a novel in vivo degradable scaffold for chondrogenesis [210]. BC is also used for auricular cartilage replacement as it matches the mechanical strength and host response of human auricular cartilage [160].

Tissue engineering

In order to maintain the cell proliferation, shape and differentiated function of tissues, a variety of natural (alginate, chitosan, fibrin glue, collagen and hyaluronic acid) and synthetic polymeric (polylactic acid (PLA), polyglycolic acid (PGA), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA),polyhydroxy ethyl methacrylate (pHEMA) and polyN iso propyl acrylamide (pNIPAA)) scaffold materials have been used for tissue engineering of cartilage [172]. Gluconacetobacter xylinus-based native and modified BC materials (phosphorated and sulfonated BCs) when evaluated using bovine chondrocytes, the native one depicted approximately 50% of proliferation of collagen type II substrate, significant mechanical properties, and higher chondrocyte growth in comparison with calcium alginate and tissue culture plastic [164, 165, 168, 169]. While the chemically modified BC had zero effect on chondrocyte growth but had an effect on its viability [59]. Insignificant activation of pro-inflammatory cytokine production during macrophage screening was observed in these cases. TEM analysis and RNA expression of collagen II from human chondrocytes indicated the tendency of unmodified BC supports growth and proliferation of chondrocytes suggesting the potential of BC as an important biomaterial candidate for tissue engineering [160]. Tissue replacement of connective and cardiovascular tissues is also an important aspect of BC composites especially BC-PVA composites due to their mechanical and anisotropic behavior similar to that of body tissues [214]. BC-COL composites are also well known for their use in this field due to their high mechanical strength, biodegradability, cell-binding properties and low antigenicity [128].

Bone tissue implants/bone tissue engineering

BC composites are being synthesized as a template for biomimetic apatite formation [154]. Calcium chloride/calcium phosphate precipitated in BC hydrogel makes it suitable for bone implant. HABC nano composites are also reported for the formulation of phosphorylated BC enhancing its biocompatibility and its use in bone tissue engineering [160]. BC goat bone apatite (GBA) nano composites promotes cell differentiation and proliferation when observed on L929 cells. This suggests that GBA is an important bone filler to treat bone defects and their reconstruction [154]. Acetobacter xylinum (ATCC 52582)-based BC gave similar results [187]. BC obtained using A. xylinum M-12 and impregnated using poly-lysine (PLL) makes it structurally similar and molecularly different from natural ECM. PLL coated BC nanofibers acts as nano templates and induces formation of nano sized platelet and calcium deficient B-type carbonated HAp [160]. BC also acts as delivery system for BMP-2 and promotes bone formation [12]. Glucoacetobacter xylinus synthesized BC incorporated with growth peptides via hydrogen bonding facilitates bone regeneration. Significant mineralization in BC was observed in osteogenic medium making it an effective scaffold as seeding cells in bone tissue implants [160].

Neural implants

The most challenging tissue reconstruction is of nervous tissues. BC being an effective scaffold material/fiber when adheres to mesenchymal stem cells, proliferates nuetrophin (nerve growth factor) promoting neuronal regeneration [160]. Consortium of five bacterial and four yeast strains have used to obtain BC membranes for the preparation of nerve conduits that possess good biocompatibility and less toxic effects [154]. Implanted BC tubes are also reported to facilitate nerve regeneration procedure [91, 95].

Wound care products

Microbial cellulose usage is evident from early 1980s when it was used as a liquid loaded pad for wound care introduced by Johnson & Johnson (US Patent 4,655,758; 4,588,400). The ideal characteristics like reduced pain, autolytic debridement and accelerated granulation makes it a significant player in wound dressing industry [160]. It also helps to create moist environment and acts strictly as a barrier in between wound and the surrounding to prevent infections. Its thrombogenecity also accentuates its usage in wound healing procedures [58]. XCell® is one such BC-based commercial product in clinical trials and depicts excellent characteristics for the treatment of venous leg ulcers [170]. Biofill, a brazillian industry intended to investigate the market specific use of microbial cellulose in wound care market [213]. They successfully purified and commercialized BC gelatinous membrane as an artificial skin for wound dressing [213]. In comparison with quaze, an artificial skin for temporary wound covering, BC gelatinous membrane has high mechanical strength, high permeability for liquids and gases and low irritation [23]. BC composites by blending with poly ethylene glycol (PEG), gelatin and chitosan followed by freeze drying have widen application in biomedical fields of tissue engineering and wound dressing [138] due to their high porosity, morphology, larger aspect surface and biocompatibility when studied using 3T3 fibroblast cells [171]. BC-Ch composites due to their cell adhesion, biocompatibility, water holding capacities and cell proliferation properties facilitate its use in wound healing process [194]. The degradation [36] and non-toxic effect [123] of BC-Ch makes it potent candidate for wound healing procedures. BC impregnated with superoxide dismutase and poviargol stimulated thermal burns healing of the skin in acute radiation disease [116]. BC modified with a synthetic polymer, viz., poly (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (PHEMA), is also used for dry wound dressing [57].

Artificial cornea

One of the major cause of blindness is corneal malfunction. Approximately 10 million have lost their eyesight due to corneal disease or malfunction. This situation demands the corneal transplants and demands wide variety of biomaterials for bioengineered corneas [204]. The non-porous structure, intraocular pressure, definite pellucidness and excellent mechanical properties of BC makes it a significant material for artificial cornea generation. One such example is of BC-PVA hydrogel possessing high water holding capacity, excellent thermal and mechanical properties [204].

Urinary conduits

Functional and biocompatible urinary conduits are of prime importance due to increased number of bladder cancer patients. 3D porous BC after seeding with human urine-derived stem cells (USC) expressed higher urothelial markers. Porous BC scaffold provides favorable conditions for the development of tissue engineered urinary conduits paving way for patients at the end stage of bladder diseases [22, 31].

Dental implants

BC has tremendous potential as a dental canal treatment material for intracanal asepsis [215]. One such case was observed for BC membranes produced using two Acetobacter hansenii (ATCC 700178 and ATCC 35059) strains depicting higher liquid absorption and expansion capacity, tensile strength and drug deliverance tendency facilitating its use in root canal treatment.

Drug delivery applications

The reproducibility loss of material issues during topical drug delivery system paves way for BC membranes (hydrogels) for drug delivery. BC membranes possess high diffusion potential, facilitate transport and adsorption of drugs [184] giving them an edge as precise drug delivery and holding capacity to avoid loss. BC membranes when loaded with lidocaine (anesthetic) and Ibuprofen gave successful results having enhanced bioavailability and easy application [192]. Drugs loaded on BC membranes modulate their bioavailability for percutaneous administration and facilitate their adherence to irregular skin surface [193]. BC also depicted successful transdermal drug delivery using diclofenac sodium salt as a model drug and glycerol as a plasticizer [177]. Thermo and pH responsive BC hydrogels have been synthesized using lyophilized BC powder and acrylic acid (AA) suggesting its usage in gastric environments [9]. Solubilized BC are reported a good source of oral drug delivery [149, 211]. HPMC-BC (HBC) is mainly reported to be used for delivery of small drug molecules [4].

Tablet modification

Microcrystalline cellulose from G. xylinus (BC) and kenaf (KF) depicted cellulose lattice with high crystallinity (DBC (85%) and DKF (70%) [134]. During a comparative study in between commercially available microcrystalline cellulose; Avicel® PH101 and DBC showed loose density [201]. Avicel® PH101 and DBC demonstrated similar flow and binding behavior. Increased thermal stability was observed within DBC materials during thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA) [179].

Bactericidal and bacteriostatic potential

Non-bactericidal activity of BC has caused the urge for the use and synthesis of several bactericidal BC composites having the potential to be used as bacteriostatic and bactericidal activities against Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria [36] enhancing their antimicrobial activity. BC-Ag nanocomposites is one such example that tends to be effective against ample bacterial and fungal species enhancing its applicability in rapid and safe wound healing and dressing procedures [132]. Metallic oxide composites (BC-TiO2) also impart antibacterial properties enhancing its biomedical application [70]. Clay material BC composites (BC-MMT) also possess unique antibacterial properties [194].

Electrical, magnetic and optical applications

Biocompatibility, crystallinity, nanoscale and high tensile strength of natural BC while the transparency, mechanical properties, non-toxicity and low thermal coefficient of nanocellulose (CNF and CNC) polymer has widened its application arena in magnetic, optical and electrical fields. Nanomaterials (electrical, optical and magnetic) have captivated the attention of novel technologies and the scientific community for the development of high-tech equipment (intelligent clothes, sensors and electronic devices) in fields of agriculture, defense and medicine [190, 206].

Electrical materials

Cellulose nanofibers act as an auspicious candidate for conductive supplement due to its stiffness and tensile strength linked to its renewability and biodegradability [82]. The conducting properties of nanocellulose on its own are restricted and needs to be reinforced with a better conductive material resulting in composites having enhanced conducive properties. Nanocellulose technically lacks the conducting property and is only exploited in electrical material synthesis due to their light weight, environmental friendly nature and low cost while the conductivity is usually added by combing a conductive material (Conductive Polymer (PPy, Pani), conductive carbon (graphene, CNTs) and metallic particle (Silver, copper) to these magical composites [49]. PPy-BC, PAni-BC, CNC/PU composites are being produced through in situ oxidative chemical polymerization using FeCl3 6H2O turned out to possess continuous conducting layers along the core shell structure facilitating the conductive nature [141]. The electrical conductivity of nanocellulose composites associates to monomer concentration, retention time and nature of the oxidant. Even the developed composites are morphologically (ordered flake type, multi-walled) modified for enhanced capacitance, electrochemical stability (nanocellulose core and PAni shell) interaction and conductivity. One such example is graphene-PANI nano composites (*300 F/g) relying mainly on the dispersion and flake size of PAni flakes [65]. Nanocellulose derivatives are also known for its extensive use as sensors, optical and high-level piezoelectric materials at thermo-trophic liquid crystalline state like bezoylated bacterial cellulose (BBC) [203]. For the development of photonic and optoelectronic devices, nanocellulose membranes are used for the fabrication of organic light emitting diodes (OLED) due to the ease of synthesis, low operating tendency, wide selection of emission colors using organic material and low voltage of electro luminescent (EL) devices give them an edge over usual devices [117]. Electrochemical scrutiny frequently uses carbon paste electrodes (CPE) in order to enhance the sensitivity and selectivity of electrode a carbonized nanocellulose-based CPE is developed [119]. The high electrical conductivity of pyrolyzed BC (p-BC)/poly dimethyl siloxane (PDMS) composites (0.20–0.41 S/cm) stands out even among the conventional carbon nanotubes and graphene-based composites. The robust and 3D interconnected networks of p-BC aerogels facilitate electron to move quickly [73, 120]. After the orientation of nanocellulose microcrystals the ionic strength of suspension facilitates its application as security papers [11]. Two novel sensors (humidity sensor and a formaldehyde sensor) with high sensitivity, low cost, good linearity and reversibility fabricated by the use of quartz crystal microbalance coating with nanocellulose membranes and polyethyleneimine [77]. BC is not only used as the proton exchange membrane fuel cells but also as membrane electrode having platinum (Pt) nanoparticles incorporated within having comparable electrolyte value to that of Pt/C (19.9 mW/cm2) [212]. BC-Au nanocomposite having its application in biomedical filed is also well known for its specific use as biosensor and enzyme immobilization [219]. A novel H2O2 biosensor, prepared using BC-Au nanocomposites act as outstanding supports for horse radish peroxidase (HRP) immobilization. For immobilization of many enzymes nanocomposites can be processed enabling their use in bio-electro-catalysis and bio-electro-analysis [219]. Metallic oxide composites (BC-TiO2) imparts conducting properties along with their biomedical application [70].

Magnetic materials

Magnetic nanoparticles when combined with nanocellulose polymer matrix, results in polymer-nanoparticles composites making them strong candidates for devices, biomedical and data storage applications [220]. They have high mechanical strength, outstanding porosity and strong skeletal backbone to the basic structure. CNC’s and CNF’s are known to be used as magnetic aerogels and for making magnetic nanopaper [18]. Ni-BC composites conduce to possess ferromagnetic properties at room temperature [198]. In order to escalate the surface roughness and self-cleaning properties of magnetic and flexible nanocellulose, it can be fabricated to boost the amphiphobicity and decrease the surface energy of the material on such example is the synthesis of Fe3O4 nanoparticles on BC nanofibers using fluroalkyl silane (FAS) modification [220].

Optical materials

Cellulose nanocomposite is a probable aspirant for optical applications due to the light transmittance and optical transparency (low light scattering) of nanosized fibers. Apart from these, they also possess iridescence, selective reflection of left circularly polarized (LCP) light, and transmission of right circularly polarized (RCP) light. High strength and large surface area also make them ideal candidates for optical materials [222]. The light transmittance of nanocellulose (middle of visible wavelength range), self-assembling tendency and absorption of harmful UV rays make them potent UV blocking agents with higher transparency [50, 178]. Optically transparent nanocomposites like PHB-BC (poly (3-hydroxybutyrate)/bacterial cellulose) and CNC/PU have promising applications as lenses, display devices and coatings [148, 222]. BC- silica hybrids (BC membranes and tetra-ethoxy-silane (TEOS)) display broad emission band under UV excitation [16] and also have significant tunable emission color potential widening the application arena to new phosphors. Through surface modification using spiropyran photochromes, photochromic BC nanofibrous membranes and CNF’s biofilms having 10,30,30-trimethyl-6-nitrospiro (2H-1-benzopyran-2,20-indoline) (NO2SP) were successfully synthesized [77]. CNC’s combined with SiO2 and ZnO nanoparticles are also significant to possess UV resistance and certain other nanocellulose are known for possessing significant photosensitivity expanding its usage as biosensors, sensitive displays and optical devices creating their extensive use as nano photonics.

Conclusion

From detailed survey on the importance of nanocellulose, it can be concluded that nanocellulose is a widely applicable material throughout the world. Most important sources include plant and bacterial sources. Different techniques are there for isolation of nanocellulose that can be easily applicable and scale up. Nanocellulose being a vital molecule has being used in almost all fields from biological to non-biological application. Hence due to potential benefits associated with nanocellulose effective and efficient techniques are required for the isolation of nanocellulose that will be economical, ecofriendly and non-toxic.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human or animals participants.

References

  1. 1.
    Abe K, Yano H (2009) Comparison of the characteristics of cellulose microfibril aggregates of wood, rice straw and potato tuber. Cellulose 16(6):1017Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abe K, Yano H (2010) Comparison of the characteristics of cellulose microfibril aggregates isolated from fiber and parenchyma cells of Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens). Cellulose 17(2):271–277Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abe K, Iwamoto S, Yano H (2007) Obtaining cellulose nanofibers with a uniform width of 15 nm from wood. Biomacromol 8(10):3276–3278Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abeer MM, Mohd Amin MCI, Martin C (2014) A review of bacterial cellulose-based drug delivery systems: their biochemistry, current approaches and future prospects. J Pharm Pharmacol 66:1047–1061Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ahola S, Österberg M, Laine J (2008) Cellulose nanofibrils—adsorption with poly (amideamine) epichlorohydrin studied by QCM-D and application as a paper strength additive. Cellulose 15(2):303–314Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Akil H, Omar MF, Mazuki AA, Safiee SZ, Ishak ZM, Bakar AA (2011) Kenaf fiber reinforced composites: a review. Mater Des 32(8–9):4107–4121Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alemdar A, Sain M (2008) Biocomposites from wheat straw nanofibers: morphology, thermal and mechanical properties. Compos Sci Technol 68(2):557–565Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alemdar A, Sain M (2008) Isolation and characterization of nanofibers from agricultural residues–wheat straw and soy hulls. Biores Technol 99(6):1664–1671Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amin MC, Ahmad N, Halib N, Ahmad I (2012) Synthesis and characterization of thermo-and pH-responsive bacterial cellulose/acrylic acid hydrogels for drug delivery. Carbohydr Polym 88(2):465–473Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ashori A (2008) Wood–plastic composites as promising green-composites for automotive industries. Biores Technol 99:4661–4667Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Azizi Samir MA, Alloin F, Dufresne A (2005) Review of recent research into cellulosic whiskers, their properties and their application in nanocomposite field. Biomacromol 6(2):612–626Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bacakova L, Novotná K, Parizek M (2014) Polysaccharides as cell carriers for tissue engineering: the use of cellulose in vascular wall reconstruction. Physiol Res 1(63):S29Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bäckdahl H, Esguerra M, Delbro D, Risberg B, Gatenholm P (2008) Engineering microporosity in bacterial cellulose scaffolds. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 2(6):320–330Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Banthia N, Majdzadeh F, Wu J, Bindiganavile V (2014) Fiber synergy in hybrid fiber reinforced concrete (HyFRC) in flexure and direct shear. Cement Concr Compos 1(48):91–97Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barbash VA, Yaschenko OV, Shniruk OM (2017) Preparation and properties of nanocellulose from Organosolv straw pulp. Nanoscale Res Lett 12(1):241Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barud HS, Assunção RM, Martines MA, Dexpert-Ghys J, Marques RF, Messaddeq Y, Ribeiro SJ (2008) Bacterial cellulose–silica organic–inorganic hybrids. J Sol-Gel Sci Technol 46(3):363–367Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beck S, Bouchard J, Berry R (2010) Controlling the reflection wavelength of iridescent solid films of nanocrystalline cellulose. Biomacromol 12(1):167–172Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berglund LA, Peijs T (2010) Cellulose biocomposites—from bulk moldings to nanostructured systems. MRS Bull 35(3):201–207Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bhatnagar A, Sain M (2005) Processing of cellulose nanofiber-reinforced composites. J Reinf Plast Compos 24(12):1259–1268Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bhattacharya D, Germinario LT, Winter WT (2008) Isolation, preparation and characterization of cellulose microfibers obtained from bagasse. Carbohydr Polym 73(3):371–377Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Biao H, Li-rong T, Da-song D, Wen O, Tao L, Xue-rong C (2011) Preparation of nanocellulose with cation–exchange resin catalysed hydrolysis. In: Biomaterials science and engineering. InTechGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bodin A, Bharadwaj S, Wu S, Gatenholm P, Atala A, Zhang Y (2010) Tissue-engineered conduit using urine-derived stem cells seeded bacterial cellulose polymer in urinary reconstruction and diversion. Biomaterials 31(34):8889–8901Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bokranz W, Wang X, Tschäpe H, Römling U (2005) Expression of cellulose and curli fimbriae by Escherichia coli isolated from the gastrointestinal tract. J Med Microbiol 54(12):1171–1182Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brinchi L, Cotana F, Fortunati E, Kenny JM (2013) Production of nanocrystalline cellulose from lignocellulosic biomass: technology and applications. Carbohydr Polym 94(1):154–169Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brown EE, Laborie MP (2007) Bioengineering bacterial cellulose/poly (ethylene oxide) nanocomposites. Biomacromol 8(10):3074–3081Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bruce DM, Hobson RN, Farrent JW, Hepworth DG (2005) High-performance composites from low-cost plant primary cell walls. Composites Part A Appl Sci Manuf 36(11):1486–1493Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cao Y, Weiss J, Youngblood J, Moon R, Zavattieri P (2013) Performance-enhanced cementitious materials by cellulose nanocrystal additions. Prod Appl Cellul Nanomater 2Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Capadona JR, Shanmuganathan K, Tyler DJ, Rowan SJ, Weder C (2008) Stimuli-responsive polymer nanocomposites inspired by the sea cucumber dermis. Science 319(5868):1370–1374Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Castro C, Zuluaga R, Putaux JL, Caro G, Mondragon I, Gañán P (2011) Structural characterization of bacterial cellulose produced by Gluconacetobacter swingsii sp. from Colombian agroindustrial wastes. Carbohydr Polym 84(1):96–102Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Castro-Guerrero CF, Díaz-Guillén MR, Delgado-Arroyo F, Rodas-Grapain A, Godavarthi S (2016) Purification of cellulose from rice husk for the synthesis of nanocellulose. In: 2016 IEEE 16th international conference on nanotechnology (IEEE-NANO), IEEE, pp 569–572Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cervin N, Aulin C, Larsson P et al (2012) Ultra porous nanocellulose aerogels as separation medium for mixtures of oil/water liquids. Cellulose (London) 19(2):401Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chakraborty A, Sain M, Kortschot M (2006) Reinforcing potential of wood pulp-derived microfibres in a PVA matrix. Holzforschung 60(1):53–58Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cheng KC, Catchmark JM, Demirci A (2009) Effect of different additives on bacterial cellulose production by Acetobacter xylinum and analysis of material property. Cellulose 16(6):1033Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cherian BM, Pothan LA, Nguyen-Chung T, Mennig G, Kottaisamy M, Thomas S (2008) A novel method for the synthesis of cellulose nanofibril whiskers from banana fibers and characterization. J Agric Food Chem 56(14):5617–5627Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cherian BM, Leão AL, de Souza SF, Thomas S, Pothan LA, Kottaisamy M (2010) Isolation of nanocellulose from pineapple leaf fibres by steam explosion. Carbohydr Polym 81(3):720–725Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ciechanska D (2004) Multifunctional bacterial cellulose/chitosan composite materials for medical applications. Fibres Text East Eur 12(4):69–72Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Coelho de Carvalho Benini KC, Voorwald HJ, Cioffi MO, Milanese AC, Ornaghi HL Jr (2017) Characterization of a new lignocellulosic fiber from Brazil: Imperata brasiliensis (Brazilian Satintail) as an alternative source for nanocellulose extraction. J Nat Fib 14(1):112–125Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Corrêa AC, de Morais TE, Pessan LA, Mattoso LH (2010) Cellulose nanofibers from curaua fibers. Cellulose 17(6):1183–1192Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cowie J, Bilek E, Wegner TH, Shatkin JA (2014) Market projections of cellulose nanomaterial-enabled products. Tappi J 13(6):57–69Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Czaja W, Krystynowicz A, Bielecki S, Brown RM Jr (2006) Microbial cellulose—the natural power to heal wounds. Biomaterials 27(2):145–151Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dahman Y (2009) Nanostructured biomaterials and biocomposites from bacterial cellulose nanofibers. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 9(9):5105–5122Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dahman Y, Jayasuriya KE, Kalis M (2010) Potential of biocellulose nanofibers production from agricultural renewable resources: preliminary study. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 162(6):1647–1659Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    De Azeredo HM, Rosa MF, De Sá M, Souza Filho M, Waldron KW (2014) The use of biomass for packaging films and coatings. In: Advances in biorefineries, pp 819–874Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    de Morais TE, Corrêa AC, Manzoli A, de Lima LF, de Oliveira CR, Mattoso LH (2010) Cellulose nanofibers from white and naturally colored cotton fibers. Cellulose 17(3):595–606Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    de Souza Lima MM, Borsali R (2004) Rodlike cellulose microcrystals: structure, properties, and applications. Macromol Rapid Commun 25(7):771–787Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Deepa B, Abraham E, Cordeiro N, Mozetic M, Mathew AP, Oksman K, Faria M, Thomas S, Pothan LA (2015) Utilization of various lignocellulosic biomass for the production of nanocellulose: a comparative study. Cellulose 22(2):1075–1090Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Deng MC, Wu YL (2008) The effect of surfactant on the production of bacterial cellulose from Acetobacter xylinum. Food Res Dev 7:013Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dourado F, Fontão A, Leal M, Rodrigues AC, Gama M (2017) Process modeling and techno-economic evaluation of an industrial bacterial nanocellulose fermentation process. In: Bacterial nanocellulose, pp 199–214Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Du X, Zhang Z, Liu W, Deng Y (2017) Nanocellulose-based conductive materials and their emerging applications in energy devices—a review. Nano Energy 1(35):299–320Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dufresne A (2013) Nanocellulose: a new ageless bionanomaterial. Mater Today 16(6):220–227Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dujardin E, Peet C, Stubbs G, Culver JN, Mann S (2003) Organization of metallic nanoparticles using tobacco mosaic virus templates. Nano Lett 3(3):413–417Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Eichhorn SJ, Dufresne A, Aranguren M, Marcovich NE, Capadona JR, Rowan SJ, Weder C, Thielemans W, Roman M, Renneckar S, Gindl W (2010) current international research into cellulose nanofibres and nanocomposites. J Mater Sci 45(1):1Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Elazzouzi-Hafraoui S, Nishiyama Y, Putaux JL, Heux L, Dubreuil F, Rochas C (2007) The shape and size distribution of crystalline nanoparticles prepared by acid hydrolysis of native cellulose. Biomacromol 9(1):57–65Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    El-Saied H, El-Diwany AI, Basta AH, Atwa NA, El-Ghwas DE (2008) Production and characterization of economical bacterial cellulose. Bioresources 3(4):1196–1217Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Emons AM, Mulder BM (2000) How the deposition of cellulose microfibrils builds cell wall architecture. Trends Plant Sci 5(1):35–40Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fan X, Gao Y, He W, Hu H, Tian M, Wang K, Pan S (2016) Production of nano bacterial cellulose from beverage industrial waste of citrus peel and pomace using Komagataeibacter xylinus. Carbohydr Polym 20(151):1068–1072Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Figueiredo AG, Figueiredo AR, Alonso-Varona A, Fernandes S, Palomares T, Rubio-Azpeitia E, Barros-Timmons A, Silvestre AJ, Pascoal Neto C, Freire CS (2013) Biocompatible bacterial cellulose-poly (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) nanocomposite films. Biomed Res Int 2013:698141Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fink H, Faxälv L, Molnar GF, Drotz K, Risberg B, Lindahl TL, Sellborn A (2010) Real-time measurements of coagulation on bacterial cellulose and conventional vascular graft materials. Acta Biomater 6(3):1125–1130Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Fu L, Zhang Y, Li C, Wu Z, Zhuo Q, Huang X, Qiu G, Zhou P, Yang G (2012) Skin tissue repair materials from bacterial cellulose by a multilayer fermentation method. J Mater Chem 22(24):12349–12357Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gatenholm P, Klemm D (2010) Bacterial nanocellulose as a renewable material for biomedical applications. MRS Bull 35(3):208–213Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    George J, Sajeevkumar VA, Kumar R, Ramana KV, Sabapathy SN, Bawa AS (2008) Enhancement of thermal stability associated with the chemical treatment of bacterial (Gluconacetobacter xylinus) cellulose. J Polym Sci 108(3):1845–1851Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gillis M, Kersters K, Gossele F, Swings J, De Ley J, MacKenzie AR, Bousfield IJ (1983) Rediscovery of Bertrand’s sorbose bacterium (Acetobacter aceti subsp. xylinum): Proposal to designate NCIB 11664 in place of NCIB 4112 (ATCC 23767) as the type strain of Acetobacter aceti subsp. xylinum. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 33(1):122–124Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Goelzer FD, Faria-Tischer PC, Vitorino JC, Sierakowski MR, Tischer CA (2009) Production and characterization of nanospheres of bacterial cellulose from Acetobacter xylinum from processed rice bark. Mater Sci Eng C 29(2):546–551Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gomes FP, Silva NH, Trovatti E, Serafim LS, Duarte MF, Silvestre AJ, Neto CP, Freire CS (2013) Production of bacterial cellulose by Gluconacetobacter sacchari using dry olive mill residue. Biomass Bioenergy 1(55):205–211Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gómez H, Ram MK, Alvi F, Villalba P, Stefanakos EL, Kumar A (2011) Graphene-conducting polymer nanocomposite as novel electrode for supercapacitors. J Power Sour 196(8):4102–4108Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Gould JM (1984) Alkaline peroxide delignification of agricultural residues to enhance enzymatic saccharification. Biotechnol Bioengin 26(1):46–52Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Grabber JH (2005) How do lignin composition, structure, and cross-linking affect degradability? A review of cell wall model studies. Crop Sci 45(3):820–831Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Gu R, Kokta BV, Frankenfeld K, Schlufter K (2010) Bacterial cellulose reinforced thermoplastic composites: preliminary evaluation of fabrication and performance. Bioresources 5(4):2195–2207Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Guo J, Catchmark JM (2012) Surface area and porosity of acid hydrolyzed cellulose nanowhiskers and cellulose produced by Gluconacetobacter xylinus. Carbohydr Polym 87(2):1026–1037Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Gutierrez J, Tercjak A, Algar I, Retegi A, Mondragon I (2012) Conductive properties of TiO2/bacterial cellulose hybrid fibres. J Colloid Interface Sci 377(1):88–93Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    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(4):812Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Habibi Y, Lucia LA, Rojas OJ (2010) Cellulose nanocrystals: chemistry, self-assembly, and applications. Chem Rev 110(6):3479–3500Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Heath L, Thielemans W (2010) Cellulose nanowhisker aerogels. Green Chem 12(8):1448–1453Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Henriksson M, Berglund LA, Isaksson P, Lindström T, Nishino T (2008) Cellulose nanopaper structures of high toughness. Biomacromol 9(6):1579–1585Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Hill K, Swiecki B, Cregger J (2012) The bio-based materials automotive value chain. Center Autom Res 112Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Hossain AS, Uddin MM (2016) Nano-cellulose production from date palm plant biomass. Adv Biores 7(5)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hu W, Chen S, Liu L, Ding B, Wang H (2011) Formaldehyde sensors based on nanofibrous polyethyleneimine/bacterial cellulose membranes coated quartz crystal microbalance. Sens Actuators B Chem 157(2):554–559Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hu W, Chen S, Yang J, Li Z, Wang H (2014) Functionalized bacterial cellulose derivatives and nanocomposites. Carbohydr Polym 101:1043–1060Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Huang C, Guo HJ, Xiong L, Wang B, Shi SL, Chen XF, Lin XQ, Wang C, Luo J, Chen XD (2016) Using wastewater after lipid fermentation as substrate for bacterial cellulose production by Gluconacetobacter xylinus. Carbohydr Polym 20(136):198–202Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hubbe MA, Rojas OJ, Lucia LA, Sain M (2008) Cellulosic nanocomposites: a review. Bioresources 3(3):929–980Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ifuku S, Nogi M, Abe K, Handa K, Nakatsubo F, Yano H (2007) Surface modification of bacterial cellulose nanofibers for property enhancement of optically transparent composites: dependence on acetyl-group DS. Biomacromol 8(6):1973–1978Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Iguchi M, Yamanaka S, Budhiono A (2000) Bacterial cellulose—a masterpiece of nature’s arts. J Mater Sci 35(2):261–270Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Iwamoto S, Nakagaito AN, Yano H, Nogi M (2005) Optically transparent composites reinforced with plant fiber-based nanofibers. Appl Phys A 81(6):1109–1112Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Iwamoto S, Nakagaito AN, Yano H (2007) Nano-fibrillation of pulp fibers for the processing of transparent nanocomposites. Appl Phys A 89(2):461–466Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Jagannath A, Kalaiselvan A, Manjunatha SS, Raju PS, Bawa AS (2008) The effect of pH, sucrose and ammonium sulphate concentrations on the production of bacterial cellulose (Nata-de-coco) by Acetobacter xylinum. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 24(11):2593Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Jean B, Heux L, Dubreuil F, Chambat G, Cousin F (2008) Non-electrostatic building of biomimetic cellulose—xyloglucan multilayers. Langmuir 25(7):3920–3923Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Jiang F, Hsieh YL (2015) Cellulose nanocrystal isolation from tomato peels and assembled nanofibers. Carbohydr Polym 20(122):60–68Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Johansson C, Bras J, Mondragon I, Nechita P, Plackett D, Simon P, Svetec DG, Virtanen S, Baschetti MG, Breen C, Aucejo S (2012) Renewable fibers and bio-based materials for packaging applications–a review of recent developments. Bioresources 7(2):2506–2552Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    John MJ, Anandjiwala RD (2009) Chemical modification of flax reinforced polypropylene composites. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 40(4):442–448Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    John MJ, Thomas S (2008) Biofibres and biocomposites. Carbohydr Polym 71(3):343–364Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Jorfi M, Skousen JL, Weder C, Capadona JR (2014) Progress towards biocompatible intracortical microelectrodes for neural interfacing applications. J Neural Eng 12(1):011001Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Joy J, Jose C, Varanasi SB, Mathew P, Thomas S, Pilla S (2016) Preparation and characterization of poly (butylene succinate) bionanocomposites reinforced with cellulose nanofiber extracted from Helicteres isora plant. J Renew Mater 4(5):351–364Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Jung HI, Jeong JH, Lee OM, Park GT, Kim KK, Park HC, Lee SM, Kim YG, Son HJ (2010) Influence of glycerol on production and structural–physical properties of cellulose from Acetobacter sp. V6 cultured in shake flasks. Bioresour Technol 101(10):3602–3608Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Juntaro J, Pommet M, Kalinka G, Mantalaris A, Shaffer MS, Bismarck A (2008) Creating hierarchical structures in renewable composites by attaching bacterial cellulose onto sisal fibers. Adv Mater 20(16):3122–3126Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Kalashnikova I, Bizot H, Cathala B, Capron I (2011) New Pickering emulsions stabilized by bacterial cellulose nanocrystals. Langmuir 27:7471–7479Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Kalia S, Kaith BS, Kaur I (2011) Cellulose fibers: bio-and nano-polymer composites: green chemistry and technology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Kallel F, Bettaieb F, Khiari R, García A, Bras J, Chaabouni SE (2016) Isolation and structural characterization of cellulose nanocrystals extracted from garlic straw residues. Ind Crops Prod 1(87):287–296Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Kamel S (2007) Nanotechnology and its applications in lignocellulosic composites, a mini review. Exp Polym Lett 1(9):546–575Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Kato N, Sato T, Kato C, Yajima M, Sugiyama J, Kanda T, Mizuno M, Nozaki K, Yamanaka S, Amano Y (2007) Viability and cellulose synthesizing ability of Gluconacetobacter xylinus cells under high-hydrostatic pressure. Extremophiles 11(5):693–698Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    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(2):291Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Khalil HA, Bhat AH, Yusra AI (2012) Green composites from sustainable cellulose nanofibrils: a review. Carbohydr Polym 87(2):963–979Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Kim J, Cai Z, Lee HS, Choi GS, Lee DH, Jo C (2011) Preparation and characterization of a bacterial cellulose/chitosan composite for potential biomedical application. J Polym Res 18(4):739–744Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Kim SS, Lee SY, Park KJ, Park SM, An HJ, Hyun JM, Choi YH (2017) Gluconacetobacter sp. gel_SEA623-2, bacterial cellulose producing bacterium isolated from citrus fruit juice. J Biol Sci 24(2):314–319Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Kiziltas A, Nazari B, Gardner DJ, Bousfield DW (2014) Polyamide 6–cellulose composites: effect of cellulose composition on melt rheology and crystallization behavior. Polym Eng Sci 54(4):739–746Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Kiziltas EE, Kiziltas A, Blumentritt M, Gardner DJ (2015) Biosynthesis of bacterial cellulose in the presence of different nanoparticles to create novel hybrid materials. Carbohydr Polym 20(129):148–155Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Klemm D, Heublein B, Fink HP, Bohn A (2005) Cellulose: fascinating biopolymer and sustainable raw material. Angewandte Chemie Inter Ed 44(22):3358–3393Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Klemm D, Schumann D, Kramer F, Heßler N, Hornung M, Schmauder HP, Marsch S (2006) Nanocelluloses as innovative polymers in research and application. In: Polysaccharides Ii, Springer, Berlin, pp 49–96Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Klemm D, Kramer F, Moritz S, Lindström T, Ankerfors M, Gray D, Dorris A (2011) Nanocelluloses: a new family of nature-based materials. Angewandte Chemie Inter Ed 50(24):5438–5466Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Korhonen JT, Kettunen M, Ras RH, Ikkala O (2011) Hydrophobic nanocellulose aerogels as floating, sustainable, reusable, and recyclable oil absorbents. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 3(6):1813–1816Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Krishna SH, Reddy TJ, Chowdary GV (2001) Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of lignocellulosic wastes to ethanol using a thermotolerant yeast. Biores Technol 77(2):193–196Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Kurosumi A, Sasaki C, Yamashita Y, Nakamura Y (2009) Utilization of various fruit juices as carbon source for production of bacterial cellulose by Acetobacter xylinum NBRC 13693. Carbohydr Polym 76(2):333–335Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Lavoine N, Desloges I, Dufresne A, Bras J (2012) Microfibrillated cellulose–its barrier properties and applications in cellulosic materials: a review. Carbohydr Polym 90(2):735–764Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Lee DS, Yam KL, Piergiovanni L (2008) Food packaging science and technology. CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Lee KY, Quero F, Blaker JJ, Hill CA, Eichhorn SJ, Bismarck A (2011) Surface only modification of bacterial cellulose nanofibres with organic acids. Cellulose 18(3):595–605Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Lee CM, Gu J, Kafle K, Catchmark J, Kim SH (2015) Cellulose produced by Gluconacetobacter xylinus strains ATCC 53524 and ATCC 23768: pellicle formation, post-synthesis aggregation and fiber density. Carbohydr Polym 20(133):270–276Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Legeza VI, Galenko-Yaroshevskii VP, Zinovèv EV, Paramonov BA, Kreichman GS, Turkovskii II, Gumenyuk ES, Karnovich AG, Khripunov AK (2004) Effects of new wound dressings on healing of thermal burns of the skin in acute radiation disease. Bull Exp Biol Med 138(9):311–315Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Legnani C, Vilani C, Calil VL, Barud HS, Quirino WG, Achete CA, Ribeiro SJ, Cremona M (2008) Bacterial cellulose membrane as flexible substrate for organic light emitting devices. Thin Solid Films 517(3):1016–1020Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Li ZQ, Zhou XD, Pei CH (2010) Preparation and characterization of bacterial cellulose/polylactide nanocomposites. Poly-Plast Technol Eng 49(2):141–146Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Liang Y, He P, Ma Y, Zhou Y, Pei C, Li X (2009) A novel bacterial cellulose-based carbon paste electrode and its polyoxometalate-modified properties. Electrochem Commun 11(5):1018–1021Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Liang HW, Guan QF, Song LT, Yao HB, Lei X, Yu SH (2012) Highly conductive and stretchable conductors fabricated from bacterial cellulose. NPG Asia Mater 4(6):e19Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Limaye SY, Subramanian S, Evans BR, O’neill HM, Inventors; UT-Battelle LLC, Assignee (2009) Photoactivated antimicrobial wound dressing and method relating thereto. United States patent application US 12/034,629Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Lin N, Dufresne A (2014) Nanocellulose in biomedicine: current status and future prospect. Eur Polym J 1(59):302–325Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Lin SP, Calvar IL, Catchmark JM, Liu JR, Demirci A, Cheng KC (2013) Biosynthesis, production and applications of bacterial cellulose. Cellulose 20(5):2191–2219Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Liu W, Howarth M, Greytak AB, Zheng Y, Nocera DG, Ting AY, Bawendi MG (2008) Compact biocompatible quantum dots functionalized for cellular imaging. J Am Chem Soc 130(4):1274–1284Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Liu C, Yang D, Wang Y, Shi J, Jiang Z (2012) Fabrication of antimicrobial bacterial cellulose–Ag/AgCl nanocomposite using bacteria as versatile biofactory. J Nanopart Res 14(8):1084Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Lu P, Hsieh YL (2012) Preparation and characterization of cellulose nanocrystals from rice straw. Carbohydr Polym 87(1):564–573Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Lu Z, Zhang Y, Chi Y, Xu N, Yao W, Sun B (2011) Effects of alcohols on bacterial cellulose production by Acetobacter xylinum 186. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 27(10):2281–2285Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Luo H, Xiong G, Huang Y, He F, Wang Y, Wan Y (2008) Preparation and characterization of a novel COL/BC composite for potential tissue engineering scaffolds. Mater Chem Phys 110(2–3):193–196Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Lyne B (2013) Market prospects for nanocellulose. The Royal Institute of Technology, Alberta Biomaterials Development Centre, EdmuntonGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Ma H, Zhou B, Li HS, Li YQ, Ou SY (2011) Green composite films composed of nanocrystalline cellulose and a cellulose matrix regenerated from functionalized ionic liquid solution. Carbohydr Polym 84(1):383–389Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Mahadia MB, Rahmana NA, Manafa SF (2015) Isolation of nanocellulose from jatropha waste: an overview. Jurnal Teknologi 76(7):37–41Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Maneerung T, Tokura S, Rujiravanit R (2008) Impregnation of silver nanoparticles into bacterial cellulose for antimicrobial wound dressing. Carbohydr Polym 72(1):43–51Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Mariño M, Lopes da Silva L, Durán N, Tasic L (2015) Enhanced materials from nature: nanocellulose from citrus waste. Molecules 20(4):5908–5923Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Matthysse AG, Deora R, Mishra M, Torres AG (2008) Polysaccharides cellulose, poly-β-1, 6-N-acetyl-d-glucosamine, and colanic acid are required for optimal binding of Escherichia coli O157: h7 strains to alfalfa sprouts and K-12 strains to plastic but not for binding to epithelial cells. Appl Environ Microbiol 74(8):2384–2390Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Mikkelsen D, Flanagan BM, Dykes GA, Gidley MJ (2009) Influence of different carbon sources on bacterial cellulose production by Gluconacetobacter xylinus strain ATCC 53524. J App Microbiol 107(2):576–583Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Millon LE, Guhados G, Wan W (2008) Anisotropic polyvinyl alcohol—Bacterial cellulose nanocomposite for biomedical applications. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 86(2):444–452Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Mohite BV, Patil SV (2014) A novel biomaterial: bacterial cellulose and its new era applications. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 61(2):101–110Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Monteiro C, Saxena I, Wang X, Kader A, Bokranz W, Simm R, Nobles D, Chromek M, Brauner A, Brown RM, Römling U (2009) Characterization of cellulose production in Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 and its biological consequences. Environ Microbiol 11(5):1105–1116Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Moon RJ, Martini A, Nairn J, Simonsen J, Youngblood J (2011) Cellulose nanomaterials review: structure, properties and nanocomposites. Chem Soc Rev 40(7):3941–3994Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Morán JI, Alvarez VA, Cyras VP, Vázquez A (2008) Extraction of cellulose and preparation of nanocellulose from sisal fibers. Cellulose 15(1):149–159Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Müller D, Mandelli JS, Marins JA, Soares BG, Porto LM, Rambo CR, Barra GM (2012) Electrically conducting nanocomposites: preparation and properties of polyaniline (PAni)-coated bacterial cellulose nanofibers (BC). Cellulose 19(5):1645–1654Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Nair SS, Zhu JY, Deng Y, Ragauskas AJ (2014) High performance green barriers based on nanocellulose. Sustain Chem Proc 2(1):23Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Nakagaito AN, Yano H (2008) Toughness enhancement of cellulose nanocomposites by alkali treatment of the reinforcing cellulose nanofibers. Cellulose 15(2):323–331Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Nakagaito AN, Iwamoto S, Yano H (2005) Bacterial cellulose: the ultimate nano-scalar cellulose morphology for the production of high-strength composites. Appl Phys A 80(1):93–97Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Naz S, Ahmad N, Akhtar J, Ahmad NM, Ali A, Zia M (2016) Management of citrus waste by switching in the production of nanocellulose. IET Nanobiotechnol 10(6):395–399Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Nguyen VT, Flanagan B, Gidley MJ, Dykes GA (2008) Characterization of cellulose production by a Gluconacetobacter xylinus strain from Kombucha. Curr Microbiol 57(5):449Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Nyström G, Razaq A, Strømme M, Nyholm L, Mihranyan A (2009) Ultrafast all-polymer paper-based batteries. Nano Lett 9(10):3635–3639Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Pal L, Joyce MK, Fleming PD, Cretté SA, Ruffner C (2008) High barrier sustainable co-polymerized coatings. JCT Res 5(4):279–489Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Pandey M, Cairul M, Mohd I, Ahmad N, Abeer MM (2013) Rapid synthesis of superabsorbent smart-swelling bacterial cellulose/acrylamide-based hydrogels for drug delivery. Int J Polym Sci 905471Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Park M, Lee D, Hyun J (2015) Nanocellulose-alginate hydrogel for cell encapsulation. Carbohydr Polym 13(116):223–228Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Pasquini D, de Morais TE, da Silva Curvelo AA, Belgacem MN, Dufresne A (2010) Extraction of cellulose whiskers from cassava bagasse and their applications as reinforcing agent in natural rubber. Ind Crops Prod 32(3):486–490Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Pecoraro É, Manzani D, Messaddeq Y, Ribeiro SJ (2008) Bacterial cellulose from Glucanacetobacter xylinus: preparation, properties and applications. In: Monomers, polymers and composites from renewable resources, pp 369–383Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Peters S, Rushing T, Landis E, Cummins T (2010) Nanocellulose and microcellulose fibers for concrete. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 10(2142):25–28Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Petersen N, Gatenholm P (2011) Bacterial cellulose-based materials and medical devices: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 91(5):1277Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Phisalaphong M, Suwanmajo T, Tammarate P (2008) Synthesis and characterization of bacterial cellulose/alginate blend membranes. J Appl Polym Sci 107(5):3419–3424Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    Podder PK, Gupta A, Jamari SS, Rashid SS, Sharma S, Subramaniam M, Thraisingam J (2016) Isolation of nano cellulose from rubber wood fibre and fibrillation effects on nano cellulose reinforced poly (Ethylene Oxide). In: National conference for postgraduate research (NCON-PGR 2016)Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    Pommet M, Juntaro J, Heng JY, Mantalaris A, Lee AF, Wilson K, Kalinka G, Shaffer MS, Bismarck A (2008) Surface modification of natural fibers using bacteria: depositing bacterial cellulose onto natural fibers to create hierarchical fiber reinforced nanocomposites. Biomacromol 9(6):1643–1651Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    Purkait BS, Ray D, Sengupta S, Kar T, Mohanty A, Misra M (2010) Isolation of cellulose nanoparticles from sesame husk. Ind Eng Chem Res 50(2):871–876Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    Qua EH, Hornsby PR, Sharma HS, Lyons G, McCall RD (2009) Preparation and characterization of poly (vinyl alcohol) nanocomposites made from cellulose nanofibers. J Appl Polym Sci 113(4):2238–2247Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    Rajwade JM, Paknikar KM, Kumbhar JV (2015) Applications of bacterial cellulose and its composites in biomedicine. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99(6):2491–2511Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    Rambabu N, Panthapulakkal S, Sain M, Dalai AK (2016) Production of nanocellulose fibers from pinecone biomass: evaluation and optimization of chemical and mechanical treatment conditions on mechanical properties of nanocellulose films. Ind Crops Prod 1(83):746–754Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    Red C (2012) Composites in aircraft interiors, 2012–2022. In: High performance compositesGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Reddy N, Yang Y (2005) Structure and properties of high quality natural cellulose fibers from cornstalks. Polymer 46(15):5494–5500Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    Reiner RS, Rudie AW (2013) 1 Process scale-up of cellulose nanocrystal production to 25 kg per batch at the forest products laboratory. In: Production and applications of cellulose nanomaterials, TAPPI Press, Chapter 1.1, pp 21–24, vol 1, pp 21–24Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Retrieved from China Economic Net: Engineering plastics sector to see increase of 10.93%. Huiqin W. 2011. http://en.ce.cn/Insight/201202/01/t20120201_23034917.shtml
  166. 166.
    Retrieved from Flex Form Technologies Vehicle Weight Reduction and Safety Concerns for meeting CAFE Standards. Retrieved from Flex Form Technogies: http://www.naturalfibersforautomotive.com/?p=84. April 2016
  167. 167.
    Retrieved from Future Markets Inc: Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials in the Automotive industry 2016 September 9, pp 28–35Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Retrieved from SpecialChem: Automobiles Push Renewable Plastic and Composite Use Biron M Feb 11 2013Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    Retrived from Ford Motor Company, Ford develops carbon fibre technology that could deliver more fuel-efficient vehicles. Press release, 9 April 2016Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    Rudnick A (2006) Advances in tissue engineering and use of type 1 bovine collagen particles in wound bed preparation. J Wound Care 15(9):402–404Google Scholar
  171. 171.
    Saldaña Z, Xicohtencatl-Cortes J, Avelino F, Phillips AD, Kaper JB, Puente JL, Girón JA (2009) Synergistic role of curli and cellulose in cell adherence and biofilm formation of attaching and effacing Escherichia coli and identification of Fis as a negative regulator of curli. Environ Microbiol 11(4):992–1006Google Scholar
  172. 172.
    Sanchis MJ, Carsí M, Gómez CM, Culebras M, Gonzales KN, Torres FG (2017) Monitoring molecular dynamics of bacterial cellulose composites reinforced with graphene oxide by carboxymethyl cellulose addition. Carbohydr Polym 10(157):353–360Google Scholar
  173. 173.
    Sani A, Dahman Y (2010) Improvements in the production of bacterial synthesized biocellulose nanofibres using different culture methods. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 85(2):151–164Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    Satyamurthy P, Vigneshwaran N (2013) A novel process for synthesis of spherical nanocellulose by controlled hydrolysis of microcrystalline cellulose using anaerobic microbial consortium. Enzyme Microbial Technol 52(1):20–25Google Scholar
  175. 175.
    Schumann DA, Wippermann J, Klemm DO, 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):877–885Google Scholar
  176. 176.
    Shatkin JA, Wegner TH, Bilek ET, Cowie J (2014) Market projections of cellulose nanomaterial-enabled products-Part 1: applications. TAPPI J 13(5):9–16Google Scholar
  177. 177.
    Silva NH, Rodrigues AF, Almeida IF, Costa PC, Rosado C, Neto CP, Silvestre AJ, Freire CS (2014) Bacterial cellulose membranes as transdermal delivery systems for diclofenac: in vitro dissolution and permeation studies. Carbohydr Polym 15(106):264–269Google Scholar
  178. 178.
    Simão CD, Reparaz JS, Wagner MR, Graczykowski B, Kreuzer M, Ruiz-Blanco YB, García Y, Malho JM, Goñi AR, Ahopelto J, Torres CM (2015) Optical and mechanical properties of nanofibrillated cellulose: toward a robust platform for next-generation green technologies. Carbohydr Polym 1(126):40–46Google Scholar
  179. 179.
    Simm R, Remminghorst U, Ahmad I, Zakikhany K, Römling U (2009) A role for the EAL-like protein STM1344 in regulation of CsgD expression and motility in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. J Bacteriol 191(12):3928–3937Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    Siqueira G, Abdillahi H, Bras J, Dufresne A (2010) High reinforcing capability cellulose nanocrystals extracted from Syngonanthus nitens (Capim Dourado). Cellulose 17(2):289–298Google Scholar
  181. 181.
    Siró I, Plackett D (2010) Microfibrillated cellulose and new nanocomposite materials: a review. Cellulose 17(3):459–494Google Scholar
  182. 182.
    Somerville C (2006) Cellulose synthesis in higher plants. Ann Rev Cell Dev Biol 10(22):53–78Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    Stevanic JS, Joly C, Mikkonen KS, Pirkkalainen K, Serimaa R, Rémond C, Toriz G, Gatenholm P, Tenkanen M, Salmén L (2011) Bacterial nanocellulose-reinforced arabinoxylan films. J Appl Polym Sci 122(2):1030–1039Google Scholar
  184. 184.
    Stoica-Guzun A, Stroescu M, Tache F, Zaharescu T, Grosu E (2007) Effect of electron beam irradiation on bacterial cellulose membranes used as transdermal drug delivery systems. Nuclear Inst Meth Phys Res Sec B Beam Interact Mater Atoms 265(1):434–438Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    Šturcová A, Davies GR, Eichhorn SJ (2005) Elastic modulus and stress-transfer properties of tunicate cellulose whiskers. Biomacromol 6(2):1055–1061Google Scholar
  186. 186.
    Sun D, Zhou L, Wu Q, Yang S (2007) Preliminary research on structure and properties of nano-cellulose. J Wuhan Univ Technol-Mater Sci Ed 22(4):677Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    Tazi N, Zhang Z, Messaddeq Y, Almeida-Lopes L, Zanardi LM, Levinson D, Rouabhia M (2012) Hydroxyapatite bioactivated bacterial cellulose promotes osteoblast growth and the formation of bone nodules. Amb Express 2(1):61Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    Thomas MG, Abraham E, Jyotishkumar P, Maria HJ, Pothen LA, Thomas S (2015) Nanocelluloses from jute fibers and their nanocomposites with natural rubber: preparation and characterization. Int J Biol Macromol 81:768–177Google Scholar
  189. 189.
    Tischer PC, Sierakowski MR, Westfahl H Jr, Tischer CA (2010) Nanostructural reorganization of bacterial cellulose by ultrasonic treatment. Biomacromol 11(5):1217–1224Google Scholar
  190. 190.
    Torvinen K, Sievänen J, Hjelt T, Hellén E (2012) Smooth and flexible filler-nanocellulose composite structure for printed electronics applications. Cellulose 19(3):821–829Google Scholar
  191. 191.
    Touzel JP, Chabbert B, Monties B, Debeire P, Cathala B (2003) Synthesis and characterization of dehydrogenation polymers in Gluconacetobacter xylinus cellulose and cellulose/pectin composite. J Agric Food Chem 51(4):981–986Google Scholar
  192. 192.
    Trovatti E, Silva NH, Duarte IF, Rosado CF, Almeida IF, Costa P, Freire CS, Silvestre AJ, Neto CP (2011) Biocellulose membranes as supports for dermal release of lidocaine. Biomacromol 12(11):4162–4168Google Scholar
  193. 193.
    Trovatti E, Freire CS, Pinto PC, Almeida IF, Costa P, Silvestre AJ, Neto CP, Rosado C (2012) Bacterial cellulose membranes applied in topical and transdermal delivery of lidocaine hydrochloride and ibuprofen: in vitro diffusion studies. Int J Pharm 435(1):83–87Google Scholar
  194. 194.
    Ul-Islam M, Ha JH, Khan T, Park JK (2013) Effects of glucuronic acid oligomers on the production, structure and properties of bacterial cellulose. Carbohydr Polym 92(1):360–366Google Scholar
  195. 195.
    UPM-Kymmene Corporation, pat. WO 2013072550 A3, 2013Google Scholar
  196. 196.
    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):545–554Google Scholar
  197. 197.
    Velásquez-Cock J, Castro C, Gañán P, Osorio M, Putaux JL, Serpa A, Zuluaga R (2016) Influence of the maturation time on the physico-chemical properties of nanocellulose and associated constituents isolated from pseudostems of banana plant cv Valery. Ind Crops Prod 1(83):551–560Google Scholar
  198. 198.
    Vitta S, Drillon M, Derory A (2010) Magnetically responsive bacterial cellulose: synthesis and magnetic studies. J Appl Phys 108(5):053905Google Scholar
  199. 199.
    Walker C (2012) Thinking small is leading to big changes-nanotechnology is fast becoming a game changer for the pulp and paper industry. Paper360, pp 8–13Google Scholar
  200. 200.
    Wang B, Sain M (2007) Dispersion of soybean stock-based nanofiber in a plastic matrix. Polym Int 56(4):538–546Google Scholar
  201. 201.
    Wang X, Rochon M, Lamprokostopoulou A, Lünsdorf H, Nimtz M, Römling U (2006) Impact of biofilm matrix components on interaction of commensal Escherichia coli with the gastrointestinal cell line HT-29. Cell Mol Life Sci 63:2352–2363Google Scholar
  202. 202.
    Wang B, Sain M, Oksman K (2007) Study of structural morphology of hemp fiber from the micro to the nanoscale. Appl Compos Mater 14(2):89Google Scholar
  203. 203.
    Wang Y, Luo Q, Peng B, Pei C (2008) A novel thermotropic liquid crystalline–Benzoylated bacterial cellulose. Carbohydr Polym 74(4):875–879Google Scholar
  204. 204.
    Wang J, Gao C, Zhang Y, Wan Y (2010) Preparation and in vitro characterization of BC/PVA hydrogel composite for its potential use as artificial cornea biomaterial. Mater Sci Eng C 30(1):214–218Google Scholar
  205. 205.
    Wang H, Zhang X, Jiang Z, Li W, Yu Y (2015) A comparison study on the preparation of nanocellulose fibrils from fibers and parenchymal cells in bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens). Indus Crops Prod 1(71):80–88Google Scholar
  206. 206.
  207. 207.
    Wippermann J, Schumann D, Klemm D, Kosmehl H, Salehi-Gelani S, Wahlers T (2009) Preliminary results of small arterial substitute performed with a new cylindrical biomaterial composed of bacterial cellulose. Eur J Vasc Endovas Surg 37(5):592–596Google Scholar
  208. 208.
    Wong S (2014) An overview of nanotechnology in building materials. Can Young Sci J 2014(2):18–21Google Scholar
  209. 209.
    Xiao-quan JL (2008) Preparation and characterization of nano-crystalline cellulose from enzymolysis of cotton pulp. Chem Eng Equip 10:002Google Scholar
  210. 210.
    Yadav V, Sun L, Panilaitis B, Kaplan DL (2015) In vitro chondrogenesis with lysozyme susceptible bacterial cellulose as a scaffold. Tissue Eng Regen Med 9(12):E276–E288Google Scholar
  211. 211.
    Yang X, Cranston ED (2014) Chemically cross-linked cellulose nanocrystal aerogels with shape recovery and superabsorbent properties. Chem Mater 26(20):6016–6025Google Scholar
  212. 212.
    Yang J, Sun D, Li J, Yang X, Yu J, Hao Q, Liu W, Liu J, Zou Z, Gu J (2009) In situ deposition of platinum nanoparticles on bacterial cellulose membranes and evaluation of PEM fuel cell performance. Electrochim Acta 54(26):6300–6305Google Scholar
  213. 213.
    Yaron S, Römling U (2014) Biofilm formation by enteric pathogens and its role in plant colonization and persistence. Microbial Biotechnol 7(6):496–516Google Scholar
  214. 214.
    Yılmaz ND (2015) Biomedical applications: biodegradable polymeric nanocomposites. Adv Biomed Appl 231Google Scholar
  215. 215.
    Yoshino A, Tabuchi M, Uo M, Tatsumi H, Hideshima K, Kondo S, Sekine J (2013) Applicability of bacterial cellulose as an alternative to paper points in endodontic treatment. Acta Biomater 9(4):6116–6122Google Scholar
  216. 216.
    Youssef B, Soumia A, Omar C, Abdelaziz L, Mohamed Z (2015) Preparation and properties of bionanocomposite films reinforced with nanocellulose isolated from Moroccan alfa fibres. Autex Res J 15(3):164–172Google Scholar
  217. 217.
    Zaborowska M, Bodin A, Bäckdahl H, Popp J, Goldstein A, Gatenholm P (2010) Microporous bacterial cellulose as a potential scaffold for bone regeneration. Acta Biomater 6(7):2540–2547Google Scholar
  218. 218.
    Zhang J, Elder TJ, Pu Y, Ragauskas AJ (2007) Facile synthesis of spherical cellulose nanoparticles. Carbohydr Polym 69(3):607–611Google Scholar
  219. 219.
    Zhang T, Wang W, Zhang D, Zhang X, Ma Y, Zhou Y, Qi L (2010) Biotemplated synthesis of gold nanoparticle–bacteria cellulose nanofiber nanocomposites and their application in biosensing. Adv Funct Mater 20(7):1152–1160Google Scholar
  220. 220.
    Zhang W, Chen S, Hu W, Zhou B, Yang Z, Yin N, Wang H (2011) Facile fabrication of flexible magnetic nanohybrid membrane with amphiphobic surface based on bacterial cellulose. Carbohydr Polym 86(4):1760–1767Google Scholar
  221. 221.
    Zhao Y, Xu C, Xing C, Shi X, Matuana LM, Zhou H, Ma X (2015) Fabrication and characteristics of cellulose nanofibril films from coconut palm petiole prepared by different mechanical processing. Ind Crops Prod 1(65):96–101Google Scholar
  222. 222.
    Zhijiang C, Guang Y (2011) Optical nanocomposites prepared by incorporating bacterial cellulose nanofibrils into poly (3-hydroxybutyrate). Mater Lett 65(2):182–184Google Scholar
  223. 223.
    Zhuo X, Liu C, Pan R, Dong X, Li Y (2017) Nanocellulose Mechanically Isolated from Amorpha fruticosa Linn. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 5(5):4414–4420Google Scholar
  224. 224.
    Zimmermann T, Bordeanu N, Strub E (2010) Properties of nanofibrillated cellulose from different raw materials and its reinforcement potential. Carbohydr Polym 79(4):1086–1093Google Scholar
  225. 225.
    Zimmermann KA, LeBlanc JM, Sheets KT, Fox RW, Gatenholm P (2011) Biomimetic design of a bacterial cellulose/hydroxyapatite nanocomposite for bone healing applications. Mater Sci Eng C 31(1):43–49Google Scholar
  226. 226.
    Zuluaga R, Putaux JL, Cruz J, Vélez J, Mondragon I, Gañán P (2009) Cellulose microfibrils from banana rachis: effect of alkaline treatments on structural and morphological features. Carbohydr Polym 76(1):51–59Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Zhejiang University Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiotechnologyQuaid-i-Azam University IslamabadIslamabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations