4.0 Article

Co-culture fermentation on the production of bacterial cellulose nanocomposite produced by Komagataeibacter hansenii

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.carpta.2020.100028

关键词

Bacterial cellulose; Pullulan; Komagataeibacter hansenii; Aureobasidium pullulans; Co-culture; Exopolysaccharides

资金

  1. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Federal Appropriations under Project PAES [4602, 1009850]
  2. Penn State Center of Excellence in Industrial Biotechnology (CoEIB) IMPACT SEED Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacterial cellulose, a biomaterial with improved strength and unique structural properties, is produced by various strains of microorganisms. This study analyzed the effect of different medium compositions on BC production and mechanical properties using response surface methodology, revealing the potential of co-culturing method to enhance production while maintaining desired mechanical properties.
Bacterial cellulose (BC1) is a biomaterial produced by various strains of microorganisms. BC has improved strength and unique structural properties as compared to plant cellulose, thus has many usages in the food and pharmaceutical industries. In our previous study, a novel co-culture agitated fermentation of Komagataeibacter hansenii, a BC producer, with Aureobasidium pullulans, a producer of pullulan polysaccharide, had been demonstrated where the BC produced exhibited improved mechanical properties. Therefore, this study is undertaken to analyze BC production under different medium composition using response surface methodology (RSM) in shake-flasks and benchtop bioreactors. A verified local high point provided 22.4% higher BC production and 4.5- to 6-folds higher elastic moduli in shake-flasks and bioreactors compared to the baseline media. Overall, the study had revealed the potential of the co-culturing method to enhance BC production while maintaining the desired mechanical properties of BC produced in shake-flasks and larger scale bioreactors.

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

4.0
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