4.7 Article

Characterization of nanocellulose production by strains of Komagataeibacter sp. isolated from organic waste and Kombucha

期刊

CARBOHYDRATE POLYMERS
卷 266, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118176

关键词

Nanocellulose; Acetobacter; 16S rDNA; Raman spectroscopy; NMR

资金

  1. Reliance Industries Limited

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacterial nanocellulose production from Acetobacter strains isolated from organic waste and fermented tea was studied, with optimal glycerol concentration found to be 1%. The study showed a maximum productivity of 4.5 g/L of bacterial nanocellulose and an average nitrogen and phosphorus consumption rate of 45 mg/L/day each. Physical properties such as crystallinity and fibril dimensions varied based on the carbon source used.
Bacterial nanocellulose production is gaining popularity owing to its applications in food, cosmetics and medical industry. Three Acetobacter strains isolated from organic waste and fermented tea were identified using 16S rDNA sequencing and their ability to produce nanocellulose was studied. Strain isolated from Kombucha has 99% homology with Komagataeibacter rhaeticus DSM 16663 T. This is the first report where nanocellulose productivity of this strain with different carbon sources such as glucose, glycerol, fructose and sucrose has been studied. 1% glycerol was found to be optimal concentration, with up to 69% of the utilized carbon converted to nanocellulose. Maximum productivity of 4.5 g/L of bacterial nanocellulose was obtained. Average nitrogen and phosphorus consumption rate was 45 mg/L/day each. Physical properties such as crystallinity, fibril dimensions, and glass transition temperature were studied. Bacterial cellulose was 80% crystalline when glycerol and glucose were used as carbon source and 73% for fructose and sucrose. Renewable materials such as bacterial cellulose with their unique properties are the future for applications in the field of cosmetics, composite and wound care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据