4.7 Article

Bacterial cellulose as a reinforcement material of alginate beads improves effectiveness and recycling potential of immobilized photosynthetic bacteria for cooking oil waste removal

期刊

CARBOHYDRATE POLYMERS
卷 324, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2023.121532

关键词

Bacterial viability; Cell immobilization; Reinforced bead; Recycling efficiency; Reinforcing material; Rhodopseudomonas faecalis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, bacterial cellulose was incorporated in alginate to improve the mechanical properties and recycling time of immobilized bacteria for effective removal of cooking oil residues. The reinforced beads showed enhanced stability and increased oil removal efficiency.
The rapid degradation of alginate beads limits the lifespan of immobilized cells. In this study, bacterial cellulose (BC) incorporated in alginate was used to improve the mechanical properties, swelling ratio, and recycling time of the immobilized photosynthetic bacterium Rhodopseudomonas faecalis PA2 for the removal of cooking oil residues. Beads reinforced with 25 and 50% BC showed a higher Young's modulus and compressive strength and a lower swelling ratio than the control treatment (0% BC). The incorporation of 50% BC increased biomass production and oil removal. Field-emission scanning electron microscopy revealed several bacteria-infested internal pores in the reinforced beads, indicating bacterial growth in the presence of BC. Bacterial viability was verified by BC immersion in the bacterial culture broth and by injecting bacteria into the BC matrix. Without BC reinforcement, beads collapsed after reuse in two batches, whereas reinforced beads could be reused for five batches, resulting in an oil removal rate of up to 76.3 %. Our results show that BC can be used as an alginate reinforcing material to improve bead stability and prolong the effective recycling period of immobilized bacteria without negatively affecting bacterial growth or waste oil removal.

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