4.7 Article

Eco-benign synthesis of nano-gold chitosan-bacterial cellulose in spent ground coffee kombucha consortium: Characterization, microbiome community, and biological performance

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.126869

关键词

Kombucha; Bacterial cellulose; Gold nanocomposite

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, nano-gold chitosan-bacterial cellulose (CBC-Au) was successfully fabricated via a facile in-situ method using spent ground coffee (SGC) in a kombucha consortium. The CBC-Au showed better antimicrobial activity than BC and displayed good biocompatibility performance, indicating its potential use as a medical scaffold.
Biomaterials that are mediocre for cell adhesion have been a concern for medical purposes. In this study, we fabricated nano-gold chitosan-bacterial cellulose (CBC-Au) via a facile in-situ method using spent ground coffee (SGC) in a kombucha consortium. The eco-benign synthesis of monodispersed gold nanoparticles (Au NPs) in modified bacterial cellulose (BC) was successfully achieved in the presence of chitosan (CHI) and a symbiotic culture of bacteria and yeast (SCOBY). The dominant microbiome community in SGC kombucha were Lactobacillaceae and Saccharomycetes. Chitosan-bacterial cellulose (CBC) and CBC-Au affected the microfibril networks in the nano cellulose structures and decreased the porosity. The modified BC maintained its crystallinity up to 80 % after incorporating CHI and Au NPs. Depth profiling using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) indicated that the Au NPs were distributed in the deeper layers of the scaffolds and a limited amount on the surface of the scaffold. Aspergillus niger fungal strains validated the biodegradability of each scaffold as a decomposer. Bacteriostatically CBC-Au showed better antimicrobial activity than BC, in line with the adhesion of NIH-3T3 fibroblast cells and red blood cells (RBCs), which displayed good biocompatibility performance, indicating its potential use as a medical scaffold.

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