4.7 Article

The effects of two biocompatible plasticizers on the performance of dry bacterial cellulose membrane: a comparative study

Journal

CELLULOSE
Volume 25, Issue 10, Pages 5893-5908

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10570-018-1968-z

Keywords

Bacterial cellulose; Dry membrane; Plasticizer; Glycerol; Polyethylene glycol

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51473019, 51773018]
  2. Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Plan Projects [Z161100000116003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bacterial cellulose (BC) has unique properties and is widely applied as wound dressings. Dry BC membranes have better stability and longer storage time, but are poor in gas permeability and water absorption. To solve the problems with dry BC, we prepared two different plasticized dry BC membranes using two biocompatible plasticizers with different molecular weight and hydroxyl content, namely glycerol (G) and polyethylene glycol (PEG). The different effects of the two plasticizers on the structure and performance of dry BC were systematically compared and analyzed. The plasticized dry BC membranes were characterized with Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, thermo-gravimetry, etc. The elongation at break for BC/2%G and BC/2%PEG were 8.1 and 12.5 times that of dry BC, respectively. BC/2%G had a water absorption of 4560%, and a water retention rate of 2468%, and those for BC/2%PEG were 4690% and 1972%, respectively. The highly porous structure of the plasticized dry BC membranes effectively enhanced the water vapor transmission rate of the membranes. The different effects of the two plasticizers can be ascribed to the differences in molecule size, hydroxyl content, hydrogen bond interaction, etc. The plasticized dry BC membranes showed excellent resistance to bacteria, which were 99.8% for BC/G and 99.9% for BC/PEG. The performance of the two plasticized dry BC membranes can be tuned to adapt to different applications. [GRAPHICS] .

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available