getpdf NLM PubMed Logo https://doi.org/10.17113/ftb.63.03.25.8746                 

Sustainability and Influencing Factors in Bacterial Cellulose Production: A Review of the Impact of Microorganisms, Culture Media and Cultivation Methods

Rebeca Priscila Flora Catarino*orcid tiny, Vinicius Avanzi Barbosa Mascareliorcid tiny, Viviane Lopes Leite da Costaorcid tiny, Ana Clara Longhi Pavanelloorcid tiny and Wilma Aparecida Spinosaorcid tiny

State University of Londrina, Celso Garcia Cid Road, Km 380, 86051-970 Londrina, PR, Brazil

 

cc by Copyright © 2024 This is a Diamond Open Access article published under CC-BY licence. Copyright remains with the authors, who grant third parties the unrestricted right to use, copy, distribute and reproduce the article as long as the original author(s) and source are acknowledged.

Article history:

Received: 24 June 2024

Accepted: 6 March 2025

Published online: 5 September 2025

Keywords:

bacterial cellulose production; oxidative fermentation parameters; microbial selection; bioprocess; agro-industrial waste

E WEB Goal 09E WEB Goal 12The content of this publication has not been approved by the United Nations and does not reflect the views of the United Nations or its officials or Member States.

Summary:

This review provides a comprehensive analysis of bacterial cellulose production, with a focus on the key factors influencing the bioprocess, including microorganism selection, substrate optimization and cultivation techniques. It addresses the challenges associated with bacterial cellulose production and proposes strategies to optimize upstream processes, such as microorganism preservation, inoculum preparation and culture medium formulation, which are critical for improving production efficiency. Additionally, the review explores the effects of fermentation parameters such as time, temperature, and oxygen availability on the yield and quality of bacterial cellulose. It also highlights the growing interest in utilizing alternative substrates, particularly agro-industrial waste, to reduce production costs and improve sustainability. By evaluating these factors, this review provides valuable insights for the further development of bacterial cellulose production in both research and industrial applications.

*Corresponding author: +554333714585
  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

INTRODUCTION

The biotechnology industry produces numerous products from the metabolism of microorganisms that benefit humans, animals and the environment. Among these, bacterial cellulose has gained importance in industrial applications due to its versatility. Bacterial cellulose is a biodegradable, biocompatible biopolymer with high purity, and is classified as a Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1–3).

Since its discovery in 1886 during vinegar production, bacterial cellulose has consistently attracted global research interest, with efforts focused on increasing its production and improving its properties for high value-added applications (4, 5). Potential applications of bacterial cellulose include food additives and dietary fiber-enriched products (6, 7), food packaging materials (8) and bioengineering uses such as the entrapment of cells and bioactive compounds, the development of biosensors (9–11), cosmetics (12), wound dressings (13) and applications in electronics (14). Despite extensive research demonstrating its potential applications, the commercial use of bacterial cellulose remains limited due to high production costs. Advancing bacterial cellulose commercialization requires strategies to increase yield and reduce production costs, ultimately making this biopolymer economically viable for wider applications. To achieve this, optimizing the activity of microorganisms, nutrient sources, and fermentation techniques is critical to overcome these limitations.

From a metabolic point of view, bacterial cellulose is a product of oxidative fermentation by acetic acid bacteria. These microorganisms metabolize carbon sources, such as sugars, ethanol and sugar alcohols, to produce energy through a series of enzymatic reactions (15). Understanding the mechanisms and factors involved in bacterial cellulose formation is crucial for controlling fermentation parameters and optimizing metabolite production. In general, a fermentation process comprises three main steps: upstream steps (selection and preservation of microorganism, preparation of the inoculum, and formulation of the culture medium), the fermentation phase, and downstream steps (product purification and waste management). Each step directly or indirectly affects product yield, properties, bioprocess efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Currently, researchers are focusing on isolating new strains with high bacterial cellulose productivity, optimizing culture media, and improving fermentation methods to enhance the efficiency and feasibility of bacterial cellulose production (16–18).

This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the key factors influencing bacterial cellulose production, focusing on upstream processes such as microorganism selection and culture medium optimization. Unlike previous studies that focus on isolated aspects of the bioprocess, this review integrates these factors into a detailed discussion of fermentation methods and their critical role in increasing production yield and cost-effectiveness. This review further highlights the importance of novel microbial strains and advanced fermentation techniques, and provides a broader perspective on strategies to improve the scalability of bacterial cellulose production and commercial viability. Additionally, it incorporates recent advances in the use of agro-industrial waste as substrates, reflecting current sustainability trends in biopolymer production.

BACTERIAL CELLULOSE

Bacterial cellulose is an extracellular polysaccharide produced by microorganisms. Unlike plant cellulose, it is a highly pure form of cellulose with a higher degree of crystallinity, which makes it mechanically stronger and more suitable for specialized applications. While plant cellulose is a component of plant cell walls and typically contains impurities such as hemicelluloses and lignin, bacterial cellulose is synthesized in a controlled environment by microorganisms, ensuring superior purity and uniformity (4, 19, 20).

The first observation of bacterial cellulose dates back to 1886, when Adrian Brown reported the formation of a white, gelatinous film on the surface of the medium during acetic acid fermentation for vinegar production. At that time, bacterial cellulose was referred to as vinegar-plant or vinegar-mother. Later chemical and structural analyses confirmed its similarity to plant cellulose (4, 19, 20). Today, bacterial cellulose is also known as biocellulose, microbial cellulose, or bacterial nanocellulose.

The most important bacterial strains that produce cellulose belong to the acetic acid bacteria (AAB). Komagataeibacter genus, due to higher yields than other genera of AAB (21, 22). In microorganisms, bacterial cellulose is a metabolite produced during acetic acid fermentation (oxidative fermentation) and supports flotation by acting as a cell support at the air-liquid interface. This mechanism, which is associated with aerobic metabolism, ensures cell survival under stress conditions. In addition, bacterial cellulose contributes to cell protection against dehydration, ultraviolet radiation and acetic acid diffusion to the cytoplasmic membrane (23–26). During vinegar production, large amounts of bacterial cellulose can become a problem as they require additional purification steps in the fermentors. Also, the presence of AAB in organic vinegar or remaining cells in conventional vinegar (not completely removed by filtration) can affect the visual appearance of the final product (27).

However, studies of the chemical composition and structural properties suggested that the biopolymer has the potential to produce biotechnological products after purification steps. Because of that, researchers have focused on understanding the mechanisms of bacterial cellulose synthesis, isolating bacterial cellulose-producing microorganisms, and optimizing production for controlled processes at both laboratory and industrial scales.

Bacterial cellulose-producing microorganisms

Several microorganisms have been identified as producers of bacterial cellulose, such as Aerobacter, Acetobacter, Komagataeibacter, Achromobacter, Agrobacterium, Alcaligenes, Azotobacter, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium and Sarcina (21, 22). Among the AAB species, Komagataeibacter xylinus is considered a model for the production of this biopolymer from different carbon and nitrogen sources due to the high bacterial cellulose yield. However, new species of Komagataeibacter have been continuously isolated for this purpose, including Komagataeibacter medellinensis, Komagataeibacter intermedius, Komagataeibacter hansenii, Komagataeibacter europaeus and Komagataeibacter rhaeticus (28–31). These microorganisms are usually isolated from kombucha, fruit, vegetables and vinegar (32–36). Apart from AAB, new genera and species of microorganisms have been reported as bacterial cellulose producers, for example Bacillus licheniformis (37), Enterobacter sp. FY-07 (38) and Lactobacillus hilgardii IITRKH159 (39).

Bacterial cellulose is mainly produced by Gram-negative bacteria, particularly by the genus Komagataeibacter, such as Komagataeibacter xylinus. These bacteria are efficient cellulose producers due to their specialized outer membrane and secretion systems, which facilitate the release of cellulose into the extracellular space. Strains like Komagataeibacter rhaeticus K3 and Gluconacetobacter xylinus have shown high cellulose yields, often utilizing simple sugars, such as glucose and sucrose. However, the production process requires optimized media and strict control of environmental conditions, such as pH and temperature, to achieve maximum efficiency. While Gram-negative bacteria tend to outperform Gram-positive species in bacterial cellulose productivity, the potential of Gram-positive bacteria has recently gained more attention (40).

As recently reported by Saleh et al. (40), Gram-positive bacteria, including Lactiplantibacillus plantarum AS.6, Lactobacillus hilgardii and Bacillus velezensis, also produced bacterial cellulose, although at a lower yield than Gram-negative strains. In the study, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum AS.6 was identified as a promising bacterial cellulose producer with a productivity rate of 56 %, which is higher than that of other Gram-positive species. When optimized, L. plantarum AS.6 can produce 4.51 g/L of bacterial cellulose, doubling the yield compared to the basal medium. This suggests that Gram-positive bacteria can be competitive in the production of bacterial cellulose when the growth medium is optimized. Additionally, L. plantarum AS.6 produced composites with strong antibacterial activity, indicating its potential for biomedical applications such as wound dressings and drug delivery.

Acetic acid fermentation and bacterial cellulose synthesis

Bacterial cellulose is a product of oxidative metabolism. Acetic acid bacteria obtain energy through oxidative fermentation (acetic acid fermentation) pathway to compensate for the low energy yield of aerobic respiration and improve biomass formation through incomplete substrate oxidation (41, 42). During acetic acid fermentation, organic substrates such as ethanol, glucose, organic acids, and polyols, are incompletely oxidized to CO2 and H2O. The residual products of this metabolism are used in the biotechnology industry to produce high value-added products (e.g. ketones, organic acids and exopolysaccharides, such as bacterial cellulose) (43).

Bacterial cellulose biosynthesis is a highly precise and specific process controlled by catalytic and regulatory enzymatic complexes using uridine diphosphate glucose (UDP-glucose) as a precursor (44). In this mechanism, the first step is the phosphorylation of glucose to glucose-6-phosphate by the enzyme glucokinase. Then, the phosphoglucomutase promotes the isomerization of glucose-6-phosphate to glucose-1-phosphate, which is converted to UDP-glucose by uridine diphosphate pyrophosphorylase. The polymerization of glucose from UDP-glucose to β-glucan chains is catalyzed by cellulase synthase, a complex of four subunits, namely the bacterial cellulose synthase subunits A, B, C and D (BcsA, BcsB, BcsC and BcsD), coded by three (bcsAB, bcsC and bcsD) or four (bcsA, bcsB, bcsC and bcsD) genes. Finally, the β-glucan chains are crystallized into cellulose (22, 45, 46).

The synthesized chains are secreted into the medium through pores in the cell of the microorganism, which enables the elongation and association of the chains in the extracellular medium and leads to bacterial cellulose subfibrils (1.5 nm wide). These subfibrils give rise to nanofibrils (3–4 nm thick), which eventually form cellulose ribbons (40–60 nm wide and 3–8 nm thick). The random arrangement of the bacterial cellulose ribbons leads to a three-dimensional, porous and highly crystalline network (3, 4, 21, 47, 48). The material observed in the culture medium can have different shapes depending on the cultivation method, the strain and nutrient sources (Fig. 1).

Biosynthesis of bacterial cellulose from glucose and fructose. UDP=uridine diphosphate glucose, P=phosphate

Structure, function and application of bacterial cellulose

As previously mentioned, bacterial cellulose has a similar structure to plant cellulose. Cellulose consists of β-glucopyranosyl units linked by β-(1→4) glycosidic bonds that form a long-chain polymer with a degree of polymerization greater than 20 000 (49). The association between the β-glucopyranosyl units results in a planar structure that forms a ribbon. This planar and linear structure allows the formation of fibrous and polycrystalline bundles along extensive zones due to the association between cellulose molecules by hydrogen bonds. These structures contain both amorphous and crystalline zones (49–51).

In recent years, the production of cellulose from microorganisms has been the subject of research in several countries since the fermentation process produces a material with superior properties and high purity, allowing its application in products such as food, biomedicine and pharmaceuticals (16, 52, 53). The structure of bacterial cellulose formed by the three-dimensional network provides remarkable properties, namely high mechanical strength, crystallinity, stability to chemical agents and high temperatures, high water retention capacity and resistance to degradation. Bacterial cellulose is free of lignin and hemicellulose, it does not require intense purification, and is also a biocompatible and biodegradable biopolymer (21, 54, 55).

High crystallinity is one of the main characteristics of bacterial cellulose, with the degree of crystallinity ranging from approx. 60 to 90 %, depending on the cultivation conditions and the ability of the strain to convert the substrate, as well as the adaptation to the fermentation system. Crystallinity influences other characteristics of the biopolymer such as mechanical properties and thermal stability (34, 56, 57). Concerning the crystalline structure, cellulose I (Iα and Iβ) and cellulose II forms are frequently obtained in the fermentation culture. The Iα (triclinic) and Iβ (monoclinic) forms correspond to crystalline structures and differ in the distribution of intra- and interunit hydrogen bonds. In cellulose II, the random arrangement of the chains results in highly amorphous regions, which also differ in their high thermodynamic stability. In most cases, a higher crystallinity is observed in static culture, while amorphous content is more pronounced in agitated cultivation (21, 58, 59).

The large surface area, the high number of hydroxyl groups, and its porosity enable bacterial cellulose to interact with water and polymers, allowing the application as a support material for the immobilization of enzymes, cells and nanoparticles. Bacterial cellulose has a high water-holding capacity (WHC) and can retain approx. 90 % of its mass. This property is due to the strength of the hydrogen bonds involved in the adsorption of water molecules on the surface of the fibers and the density of the bond between the crosslinked fibers. The presence of thin and long ribbons in the structure of bacterial cellulose also explains its greater water retention capacity, moldability and high tensile strength (30, 60–62). Regarding these properties, bacterial cellulose has potential for food, bioengineering, cosmetics, biomedical and electronic fields (Table 1 (7, 19, 46, 63–82)).

Properties of bacterial cellulose and potential application fields

Application Function Structure/property Reference
Meat products, ice cream Fat replacer Water-holding capacity, emulsion stabilization, amphiphilic nature (63–65)
Dietary fiber source, low calorie products, low cholesterol diet Functional food ingredients Insoluble dietary fiber, high water-holding capacity, ion exchange capacities (7, 19, 46)
Food packaging, edible films and coatings, active and intelligent packaging film; immobilization of cells, enzymes and antimicrobial agents Food packaging and support for bioactive compounds High surface area, porosity, high pore volume, gelling behavior, high crystallinity, hydrophilicity, rehydration property; chemical, thermal and mechanical stability; barrier properties (19, 66–68)
Pickering emulsion, edible foam, beverages, bakery products, dairy products Thickener and stabilizing agent in emulsion, suspensions, and foam stabilizer Amphiphilic nature, high surface area, crystallinity, three-dimensional structure (69–75)
Bioengineering, tissue engineering Controlled release systems, biosensors, scaffold for regeneration, vessel substitute High purity and crystallinity, porosity, biocompatibility, nanofibrillar matrix, mechanical strength, durability, flexibility, elasticity (76–78)
Cosmetics Bioactive compound delivery High water-holding capacity, biocompatibility, nanofibrillar porous structure (79)
Wound dressings, drug delivery systems Controlled release systems, water retainer High water absorption capacity, biocompatibility, porosity, crystallinity, thermal stability (80, 81)
Electronic field     Flexible substrates for electronic devices, conductive materials and biosensors High purity and crystallinity, porosity, biocompatibility, nanofibrillar matrix, mechanical strength, durability, flexibility, large surface area (78, 82)

The material can be used in different shapes, for example, as nanofibers, nanocrystals, dried or wet pellicles and spheres. In food applications, bacterial cellulose acts as a multifunctional ingredient and its addition to food products does not affect the sensory properties since it can be coloured and flavoured (69, 83). From a nutritional point of view, cellulose has a health-promoting function and can be used as a source of dietary fiber and for low-calorie or gluten-free products. As food additives, these biopolymers have been suggested as stabilizers, thickeners and texture modifiers (1, 3).

The three-dimensional, porous and crystalline structure as well as the presence of hydroxyl groups in the surface area allow the association of bacterial cellulose with other polysaccharides and proteins through hydrogen, van der Waals and hydrophilic bonds, improving their functionalities. Otherwise, the crystalline structure facilitates hydrophobic interactions, ensuring the amphiphilic properties of bacterial cellulose (63, 70). The formation of nanocomposites is useful for the development of biodegradable food packaging and edible films. In this case, bacterial cellulose could be combined with other polymers, proteins, bioactive composites and inorganic nanoparticles to improve mechanical and thermal properties, barrier performance, and antimicrobial properties (84–86). Some research papers report the use of chemical, mechanical and enzymatic modifications to improve or develop specific properties that enable further applications (63–65, 87). In addition to various fields of application, the low yield and high production costs are a limiting factor. In this context, it is crucial to understand and optimize the production parameters to improve the cost-effective bioprocess.

The production of bacterial cellulose comprises three stages: i) upstream, ii) fermentation and iii) downstream. Upstream production includes strain selection and conservation, preparation of the inoculum and medium, and determination of cultivation conditions. During fermentation, several parameters can affect the yield and product properties, for example pH, oxygen, temperature and agitation, so they should be controlled. On the other hand, the downstream steps require product purification, neutralization, characterization and effluent treatment. A summarized scheme of bacterial cellulose production is shown in Fig. 2.

Scheme of bacterial cellulose production

Different strategies can be used to overcome or minimize limiting factors in each step of the process to optimize bacterial cellulose production. The following sections discuss the characteristics of the key factors of bacterial cellulose production (microorganism, substrate and cultivation methods), including some strategies to improve this bioprocess.

ACETIC ACID BACTERIA FOR BACTERIAL CELLULOSE PRODUCTION

The cultivation of bacterial cellulose producers is a crucial step when considering the nutritional requirements for cell metabolism and the adaptation of microorganisms to fermentation conditions. In this context, researchers are constantly looking for new strains with a high capacity to produce bacterial cellulose. AAB strains are fastidious microorganisms to cultivate and isolate, posing challenges for researchers to find alternatives for cellulose production (88–90). Komagataeibacter species have previously been described as the most efficient cellulose producers as they are able to grow and produce cellulose from different carbon and nitrogen sources (91, 92). K. intermediuns, K. rhaeticus, K. hansenii and K. medellinensis are often referred to as high producers of bacterial cellulose, similar to the strain K. xylinus, the model for bacterial cellulose production. The main sources for the production of bacterial cellulose are vinegar (33, 93), kombucha (94), fermented juices (29) and fruit and vegetables (15).

The producers of bacterial cellulose have developed mechanisms to survive under stressful conditions, usually in the isolation environment, for example, resistance to high acid and ethanol concentrations. All these mechanisms make AAB attractive for industrial processes and are useful to improve the formation of biopolymers and increase the rate of bioprocess design (92, 95). Moreover, some Komagataeibacter strains showed a remarkable ability to produce cellulose under alkaline conditions, which could be related to the protective nature of the material (29, 96). Additionally, resistance mechanisms have been investigated under different cultivation modes, such as static and agitated cultivation, and the adaptation to the highest rotational speed is referred to as a strain-dependent property (91). Cultivation under laboratory conditions and in synthetic media can reduce the resistance of microorganisms, suggesting that these mechanisms are inducible or transient (97, 98). However, product formation must be evaluated considering the interaction between strain, culture medium and cultivation method once the performance of the microorganisms is affected by the adaptation of the cells to the cultivation conditions. In this case, the same strain cultivated in different bioprocesses does not always give the same yield and productivity (Table 2 (17, 29, 30, 56, 93, 99–102)).

Acetic acid bacteria performance on bacterial cellulose (BC) production under different conditions

Strain Source Nutrient source Method Parameter γ(BC)/
(g/L)		 Q(BC)/
(g/(Lh))		 Reference
t/°C Time/h
K. europaeus
SGP37		 Rotten grapes Hestrin-Schramm (glucose) Static 30 384 5.61 0.0146 (101)
Hestrin-Schramm (fructose and ethanol) Static 30 384 9.98 0.0260
Sweet lime pulp waste Static 30 384 6.30 0.0164 (102)
Sweet lime pulp waste supplemented with HS Static batch 30 384 26.20 0.0682
Sweet lime pulp waste supplemented with HS Static intermittent fed-batch 30 384 38.00 0.0990
K. intermedius
BCRC 910677		 Fermented fruit juice Hestrin-Schramm Static 28 120 1.20 0.0100 (29)
Synthetic optimized medium Static 28 144 3.91 0.0271 (100)
K. intermedius
V-05		 Vinegar Soy molasses with ethanol Static 30 336 10 0.0297 (93)
Hestrin-Schramm Static 30 336 3.7 0.0110
Synthetic with amino acids (optimized) Static 30 240 3.02 0.0125 (17)
K. rhaeticus
AF-1		 Kombucha tea Hestrin-Schramm with ethanol Static 28 96 6.70 0.0698 (56)
Cashew tree exudate Static 28 168 2.80 0.0167 (99)
Cashew gum Static 28 168 2.30 0.0137
Hestrin-Schramm Static 28 168 ~6.0 0.0357
HSCTE Static 28 168 ~6.0 0.0357
HSCG Static 28 168 ~6.0 0.0357
Sugarcane molasses- supplemented Static 30 120 3.46-4.01 0.0288-0.0334 (30)
Sugarcane molasses Static 30 120 1.90 0.0158
Hestrin-Schramm Static 30 120 3.00 0.0250

HSCTE=Hestrin-Schramm cashew tree exudate medium, HSCG=Hestrin-Schramm cashew gum medium

Stress conditions can adversely affect cell metabolism and bacterial cellulose production. These factors can induce spontaneous mutations in the cells, leading to atypical cell morphology and growth, and they can also inactivate essential enzymes for polymer synthesis, thus reducing yield and material properties (24, 102). In addition to reducing bacterial cellulose production, the effect of cells that cannot produce cellulose on the polymer structure can be investigated, with crystallinity being the most affected (103). Additionally, the presence of mutant cells affects the fiber assembly due to the formation of soluble polysaccharides, such as acetan, as both use the same starter molecule, UDP-glucose (104). Regarding the activity of the microorganisms, it is also important to consider the effects of the cultivation parameters on the formation of mutant cells. Changes in process parameters, pH, temperature, culture medium volume and oxygen availability affect cell metabolism and product formation (105).

Similarly, stress conditions, such as high sugar concentration, anaerobic conditions and high temperatures, can induce the viable but non-culturable (VBNC) state, which affects cell monitoring and product formation. Briefly, in the VBNC state, cells are alive, but do not grow on conventional media (nonselective) used to form colonies. The main metabolic and morphological characteristics affected are the modification of cell wall components, reduction in respiration rate, nutrient transport and macromolecular synthesis. Nevertheless, cells in the VBNC state are more resistant to physicochemical stress and antibiotics. A change in the environmental conditions and the composition of the medium could favor the cell growth and reverse this cell state (41, 106, 107).

To improve material formation, cellulose-producing bacterial strains can also be obtained using genetic engineering methods. The most important strategies include the modification of the acs operon, responsible for cellulose synthesis, and genes like pgi and zwf, which improve carbon metabolism to produce bacterial cellulose precursors. Disruption of competing pathways, such as polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) synthesis, and regulation of cyclic dimeric guanosine monophosphate (di-GMP) amounts have also significantly improved production efficiency. These modifications use advanced synthetic biology techniques to optimize bacterial strains for industrial applications (108–110). Yang et al. (111) developed a recombinant strain for bacterial cellulose production in mannose-rich media by introducing genes from the Escherichia coli K-12 strain, which increased bacterial cellulose production by 84 % compared to the wild-type strain. Jacek et al. (112) modified the motility and cell size of K. hansenii, which are believed to influence the yield and network organization in the bacterial cellulose structure. The use of genetic engineering resulted in thicker ribbons of cellulose arranged in looser networks, and the biopolymer is proposed for the production of scaffolds.

Monitoring and control of cell growth

The isolation, cultivation and cell preservation are crucial steps in the bioprocess due to their influence on the formation of biopolymers. The success of AAB cultivation for bacterial cellulose production has been associated with the nutritional requirements of the microorganism and the control of cell growth (27, 113).

Culture media for microorganisms are classified based on their composition, such as chemically defined (synthetic), complex, selective, differential, and enrichment media. The use of complex media (composition not precisely known) is a strategy to evaluate the growth characteristics of unknown strains or to create an environment that can meet the complex nutritional requirements of some microorganisms (114).

Culture media for AAB isolation, pre-activation and inoculum propagation are formulated to satisfy nutritional demands and contain components that simulate the properties of the isolation environment, such as high sugar content, acetic acid and ethanol, which are found in fermentation bioreactors, fruit, vinegar or fermented beverages—common sources for AAB isolation. The main elements for cell formation are carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and phosphorus since these components are used for the synthesis of proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates and lipids (114, 115).

Carbon and nitrogen are the most important nutrients due to their structural role in various cellular components (17). Carbon is an essential element for the synthesis of organic components in cell metabolism and energy production. In the culture medium, this macronutrient is provided by sugars, which constitute a large percentage in the formulation. Although AAB can metabolize several carbon sources, ethanol, glucose, mannitol and glycerol are the most common substrates for these metabolic pathways since they are oxidized by the membrane-bound (periplasmic) dehydrogenases and do not require previous hydrolysis reaction, which would imply additional cell work. The most important dehydrogenases in the oxidative fermentation of carbon sources include, for example, pyrroloquinoline quinone-dependent alcohol dehydrogenase (PQQ-ADH) and aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH), which oxidize ethanol to acetaldehyde and further to acetic acid, respectively. Additionally, PQQ-dependent glucose dehydrogenase (PQQ-GDH) oxidizes glucose to d-glucono-δ-lactone, while PQQ-glycerol dehydrogenase (GLDH) oxidizes polyols to ketones (41, 42, 116).

Nitrogen is required in the medium for the production of proteins, enzymes, nucleic acids and formation of biomass. For the cultivation of AAB and production of bacterial cellulose, this nutrient is supplied by organic (yeast extract, peptone, malt extract and amino acids) and inorganic sources, for example, ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate (17, 100, 117).

Minerals and vitamins also play essential roles in cell growth. Mineral components affect enzyme activity, nitrogen fixation and electron transfer from substrate to oxygen. Some essential minerals for AAB metabolism are molybdenum, boron and manganese. In addition, vitamins such as p-aminobenzoic acid, pyridoxine (B6), cyanocobalamin (B12), nicotinamide (B3) and ascorbic acid have shown significant effect on cell growth and bacterial cell production (115, 118, 119).

Table 3 (18, 33, 97, 116, 120–124) shows the main culture media most commonly used for the cultivation of AAB and their composition. These culture media are mainly composed of sugar (carbon source) and yeast extract or peptone (nitrogen source). Additives are often added to the culture media to supply the microorganism with nutrients. For example, ethanol has been proposed as an alternative energy source for microorganism growth, which also supports cell recovery from the viable but non culturable (VBNC) state and inhibits the non-producing cells (34, 125). Similarly, organic acids such as acetic, citric, malic, lactic, pyruvic and succinic acids could be metabolized by AAB and used as intermediate metabolites for energy production (116, 126).

The main culture media for the isolation, cultivation and preservation of acetic acid bacteria

Culture medium (m(compound)/V(medium))/% Function Reference
Acetic acid-ethanol (AE) Glucose 1.5, yeast extract 0.2, peptone 0.3, ethanol 2.0, acetic acid 6.5 Isolation and enrichment (120)
Glucose-yeast extract- carbonate (GYC) Glucose 10, yeast extract 1.0,
CaCO3 2.0		 Isolation and enrichment (97)
Hestrin-Schramm (HS) Glucose 2.0, yeast extract 0.5, peptone 0.5, Na2HPO4 0.27, citric acid 0.115 Isolation, cultivation and bacterial cellulose production (18, 33, 116, 121)
Mannitol, yeast extract, peptone (MYP) Mannitol 2.5, yeast extract 0.5, peptone 0.3 Isolation and enrichment
Preservation		 (116)
Carr Yeast extract 2.5, ethanol 2.0, peptone 0.02 Preservation (122)
Glycerol Glycerol 15 Preservation (123)
Malt extract Malt extract 20 Preservation (124)

In addition to medium composition, alternative methods of preparation of solid media, such as double-layer agar, can be used during isolation or enrichment stages. For AAB strains from industrial vinegar production, this method simulates the growth conditions in fermentation tanks (116). This technique was described by Entani et al. (120) and consists of creating an bottom layer with broth containing 0.5 % agar. The surface is then coated with the broth containing 1.0 % agar. The use of double-layer agar plate creates an environment with a high humidity that favors the growth of acidophilic colonies (116, 120).

Alternatives to cell enumeration

Estimating the cell population is essential for understanding the growth profile of microorganisms, metabolic aspects related to bacterial cellulose production and fermentation control. The cell growth profile typically consists of four phases: lag, exponential (log), stationary, and death. In the lag phase, the cell count increases slowly as the microorganism adapts to the cultivation conditions. The exponential growth phase reflects the most intense cell activity and substrate consumption. During the stationary phase, nutrient availability is reduced and the growth rate equals the death rate. However, the cells remain active and continue to produce metabolites, such as bacterial cellulose. Eventually, the nutrient limitation leads to cell death (127, 128). Traditionally, the AAB population is determined by cell enumeration in plating or by microscopy, as well as by turbidimetric and gravimetric methods. Since these techniques are well established in the production of vinegar and fermented beverages, they could also be used in the production of bacterial cellulose to improve the control of cell growth and product formation. However, alternative methods are useful for monitoring cell growth and analyzing the behavior of the microorganisms. These techniques should be applicable in fermentation routine to monitor cell growth and ensure the control of bioprocess.

Plating methods for cultivation and enumeration of AAB in synthetic culture media could be affected by the presence of cells in the VBNC, which leads to an underestimation of cell count and limits cultivation, isolation and cell maintenance (116, 129, 130). The VBNC state has been associated with discrepancies between the target inoculation rate and plate count results in fermentation systems. This state can interfere with the direct correlation between biomass formation, substrate consumption, and product yield, as VBNC cells cannot be enumerated (41, 130–132).

Another limiting factor in cell determination is the attachment of the cells to the bacterial cellulose during inoculum propagation and fermentation. During preparation of the inoculum on a liquid medium, simultaneous cell growth and bacterial cellulose formation result in the cells remaining within the biopolymer structure. An alternative to overcome this limitation is the use of cellulase to release the cells attached to bacterial cellulose fibers, thereby increasing the number of free cells in the liquid medium and improving cell enumeration (113, 133).

In addition to monitoring growth, it is crucial to use rapid methods to quantify and identify cell state (i.e. live, dead, or VBNC). Several techniques have been used to quantify both live and dead cells in acetic acid fermentation. Fluorescence has proven useful for this purpose, and shows good results for AAB enumeration compared to the plating method (113). Similarly, flow cytometry has been used to assist in cell enumeration during acetic acid fermentation (134) and to assess cell viability after exposure to stress factors (125). Additionally, real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) offers an alternative to traditional AAB enumeration methods (12, 135).

DESIGNING CULTURE MEDIA FOR BACTERIAL CELLULOSE PRODUCTION

Culture media have a significant impact on the total cost of bacterial cellulose production and require strategies to overcome this limitation and increase the economic feasibility of the bioprocess (126, 127). The conventional medium used for bacterial cellulose production was developed by Hestrin and Schramm (121). The composition of Hestrin-Schramm (HS) medium consists of (%, m/V): glucose 2, peptone 0.5, yeast extract 0.5, anhydrous sodium phosphate 0.27 and citric acid 0.115. The composition of the culture medium must provide sufficient macro- and micronutrients for cell growth and biopolymer synthesis. Considering the HS composition, each component plays an essential role in the metabolism of the microorganisms and bacterial cellulose formation. Carbon is supplied by glucose, which is the ideal precursor for the formation of bacterial cellulose chains (4, 12, 136). Peptone and yeast extract provide amino acids for protein synthesis and essential compounds, such as vitamins and minerals, for the growth of microorganisms (117, 137, 138). Finally, anhydrous sodium phosphate and citric acid exert a buffering effect during cell cultivation (139).

Increasing bacterial cellulose yield and reducing medium costs are essential for bioprocess viability. Nowadays, different approaches have been used to develop economically feasible nutrient sources for bacterial cellulose production. These strategies include the modification of individual components of standard media, the supplementation of culture media, the formulation of synthetic media and the use of low-cost materials. All approaches must consider an ideal carbon and nitrogen ratio for bacterial cellulose production. In microbial biopolymer production, excess nitrogen increases biomass formation while limiting biopolymer production, while an excess of carbon over nitrogen decreases protein synthesis and reduces microorganism growth. Thus, the energy from the excess carbon is used to produce the polysaccharide (28, 140, 141).

Many studies on bacterial cellulose have reported higher production when the carbon and nitrogen sources in the HS medium were modified by changing the concentration or type of sources. Basu et al. (142) used response surface methodology to determine the optimal HS composition for the G. hansenii strain. In this case, glucose and sucrose were analyzed at different concentrations and the authors found higher bacterial cellulose yields with sucrose, a cheaper carbon source than glucose. Similarly, Jacek et al. (94) reported an increase in bacterial cellulose production when glucose was replaced by eucalyptus biomass hydrolysate in the HS medium supplemented with ethanol. Considering the effect of nitrogen on cell growth and biopolymer formation, Santoso et al. (100) used different nitrogen sources, namely, yeast extract, peptone, malt extract and ammonium sulfate in HS medium. The results suggested that peptone was the most suitable source for K. intermedius (BCRC 910677), while no bacterial cellulose was produced when ammonium sulfate was used as N substitute.

The formulation of synthetic media is another alternative to improve the bacterial cellulose yield from different strains. Gomes et al. (17) evaluated the effect of amino acid supplementation on the metabolism of K. intermedius V-05 for bacterial cellulose production. The authors reported aspartic acid (1.5 g/L), phenylalanine (1.5 g/L) and serine (3.0 g/L) as essential elements in the formulated medium (50 g/L sucrose, 10 g/L (NH4)2SO4), 2 g/L Na2HPO4, 1 g/L MgSO47H2O and 10 mL/L ethanol) and obtained 3.02 g/L from the optimized medium.

In recent years, the use of low-cost materials, especially agro-industrial waste, for the biosynthesis of bacterial cellulose has attracted much attention. These materials not only reduce production costs, but also contribute to environmental sustainability by utilizing waste that would otherwise be discarded. Several agro-industrial by-products have been successfully used as substrates for bacterial cellulose production, e.g. cashew apple juice, soybean molasses (119), potato peel waste (143), sugar beet molasses, cheese whey, tobacco waste (20), oat hulls (144) and brewing by-products (e.g. beer and distillery waste) (145).

These waste materials provide a rich source of carbon and nutrients necessary for bacterial growth and cellulose synthesis. However, their complex and variable compositions pose a challenge to the fermentation process. The undefined nature of these substrates can lead to inconsistencies in the bioprocess, making it difficult to achieve reproducible results and potentially affecting the quality and yield of the bacterial cellulose produced. For example, the presence of inhibitors or non-fermentable components in these waste materials can hinder bacterial growth or cellulose production efficiency.

To overcome these challenges, some agro-industrial waste materials require pre-treatment processes such as acid or enzymatic hydrolysis to break down complex polysaccharides and increase the concentration of fermentable sugars. While these treatments can improve bacterial cellulose production, they also incur additional costs and can complicate the overall process. Furthermore, extensive purification may be necessary to remove residual contaminants, which further adds to the operational cost (114, 144).

The development of an optimal culture medium for bacterial cellulose production requires careful consideration of cost-efficiency, environmental sustainability and desired application outcomes. Agro-industrial residues, such as cantaloupe peels (146), starchy kitchen waste (147) and paper sludge (148), have shown great potential as alternative substrates for the biosynthesis of bacterial cellulose. The enzymatic hydrolysis of these substrates increases the availability of fermentable sugars, which significantly increases bacterial cellulose production. For instance, hydrolyzed cantaloupe peels produced a bacterial cellulose yield of 3.49 g/L, while starchy kitchen waste hydrolysates yielded 2.11 g/L. Similarly, paper sludge enzymatically processed in a fed-batch system increased bacterial cellulose production to 3.10 g/L, outperforming batch fermentation. These results highlight the feasibility of using waste-derived substrates to reduce production costs and minimize the impact on the environment, while offering pathways to valorize cellulosic and starchy wastes (146–148).

Optimization of medium formulations using techniques such as Box-Behnken design (BBD) can further improve bacterial cellulose production and application-specific performance. For instance, BBD optimization of the hydrolysis of starchy kitchen waste has maximized the availability of reducing sugars, allowing researchers to adapt culture media to achieve sustainable bacterial cellulose production with improved functionality for various applications, including wastewater treatment, biomedical materials and environmental remediation (146–148).

On the other hand, the use of defined (synthetic) media offers advantages in terms of process control, reproducibility and scalability. These media have a known and consistent composition, which enables better monitoring and optimization of fermentation parameters. Additionally, the use of defined media can simplify the recovery and purification steps, resulting in higher quality bacterial cellulose production. However, synthetic media are generally more expensive than agro-industrial waste, which can offset some cost-reduction benefits (114, 144).

Despite the limitations, the exploration of agro-industrial waste as an alternative culture medium for bacterial cellulose production remains a promising area of research. With further optimization and pretreatment strategies, agro-industrial by-products can serve as a sustainable and cost-effective source for bacterial cellulose production, thus contributing positively to economic and environmental goals. Additionally, bacterial cellulose produced from waste materials could have higher added value in various applications, such as biocomposites, packaging and medical products, making it a potential key player in the circular economy (20, 147, 149).

CULTIVATION METHOD

Bacterial cellulose can be fermented under static or agitated cultivation, and the method used influences both the yield and the material properties. However, the success of each method depends on the adaptation of the strain and the interaction of these variables with the culture medium. Under static conditions, the AAB are inoculated in fermentation flasks or bioreactors with sterile culture medium and incubated at predefined temperature and time conditions. In this method, the bacterial cellulose forms at the air-liquid interface as a gelatinous pellicle, shaped according to the flask used for cultivation (150).

Although static cultivation is the most commonly used technique for bacterial cellulose production, agitated (stirred or shake) culture has been proposed as an alternative as it can overcome some limitations of the static method. In agitated cultivation, the culture medium inoculated with AAB is incubated under different agitation speeds, and the biopolymer is synthesized as ellipsoidal, stellate, or fibrous components dispersed in the culture medium (1). Compared to static cultivation, crystallinity is the most important characteristic affected by agitation, particularly at high rotation speeds. This parameter reflects the structural organization, which would be affected by the shear force, resulting in a less organized network. The formation of spherical bacterial cellulose under the agitation system results from cell aggregation around air bubbles, following a ribbon-like arrangement. However, the mechanism is also influenced by the inoculum, the carbon sources and the temperature of the medium volume (59, 151).

Saleh et al. (152) reported in their work that bacterial cellulose production is highly influenced by fermentation conditions, with static fermentation consistently outperforming agitated fermentation in terms of yield. The addition of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles to the culture medium further increased bacterial cellulose production, with static conditions yielding 4.10 g/L, approx. 1.25 times higher than agitated fermentation. Static fermentation supports BC formation at the air-liquid interface, optimizing oxygen availability, while agitation can cause excessive oxygen diffusion, genetic instability and lower yields. Additionally, structural analysis of bacterial cellulose/hydroxyapatite composites confirmed improved functional properties, especially under static conditions, highlighting their potential for biomedical applications like bone tissue engineering due to improved cell viability and attachment (152).

The evaluation of the strain performance under both systems should consider the effect of the culture medium on cell viability and the ability of cells to adapt metabolic mechanics under each cultivation method used. Therefore, it is useful to consider the medium composition and strain when comparing the static and agitated methods. The main differences observed in studies comparing both methods, where the same strain and nutrient sources were considered in both cultivations, include yield, crystallinity index, water retention, porosity, and bacterial cellulose form (Table 4 (24, 34, 71, 103, 153)).

Bacterial cellulose production by acetic acid strains under static and agitated cultivation

Strain γ(bacterial cellulose)/(g/L) Bacterial cellulose properties Reference
Static Agitated Static Agitated
A. xylinum BCA263
K. xylinus BCC529
G. xylinus P1		 3.97
2.48
1.40		 1.70
1.66
1.72		 Higher crystallinity, stronger tensile strength, denser network structure, higher temperature resistance Larger pore sizes, lower crystallinity, higher water retention (71)
K. xylinus (KX)
K. xylinus (TISTR 086)
K. xylinus (428)
K. xylinus (975)
K. xylinus (1011)		 1.14–1.84
0.14–0.39
0.09–0.22
1.11–1.55
0.57–1.46		 0.60-1.20 (~)
0.00-0.10 (~)
0.20-0.40 (~)
(~) 2.40-3.54
(~) 3.20-4.69		 Higher crystallinity and smaller crystallite sizes Disorderly reticulated structures of microfibrils, higher cellulose Iα content in the flocky asterisk-like bacterial cellulose than in the solid sphere-like cellulose (103)
Komagataeibacter sp.
nov. CGMCC 17276		 8.85 3.22 Higher crystallinity, high water-holding capacity, denser network Network structure looser and more porous, higher porosity (153)
K. hansenii JR-02 4.62 3.14 Thicker fibers, higher thermal degradation temperature and lower moisture content, higher crystallinity Higher mass loss, higher moisture content and amorphous proportion (34)
G. hansenii P2A 1.89 3.25 Ordered and dense network of fibrils with (8–10 nm diameter), the network was composed of interconnected layers Slight decrease in the crystallinity index, looser clump of disordered short and thin fibrils, lower molecular mass, increased thermal stability due the gradual increase in Iβ phase content (24)

These aspects are essential to define the final biopolymer application (16, 71). Bacterial cellulose production is influenced by surface area, volume of culture medium and nutrient availability. Under static cultivation conditions, the surface area-to-volume ratio significantly influences oxygen availability; a larger surface area favors oxygen consumption. Since AAB are aerobic microorganisms, oxygen supply is essential for cell growth. In this case, the cells are suggested to use the synthesized bacterial cellulose as a support to reach the air–liquid interface, which improves their access to oxygen. In contrast, aeration in the agitated method provides a greater oxygen supply and improves the availability of nutrients, thereby promoting cell growth (34, 103, 154, 155).

Despite the higher oxygen diffusion under agitation, bacterial cellulose production can be negatively affected by the occurrence of mutant cells (non-producing cells), the formation of by-products and simultaneous production of water-soluble polysaccharides (WSPS), resulting in lower production than the static method (38, 103, 153). The formation of by-products is a consequence of the nutrient consumption, carbon source metabolization and aeration. For example, when using glucose as a carbon source, Chen et al. (16) reported higher glucose consumption and gluconic acid production in the shaking system. Krusong et al. (156) observed that gluconic acid production increased with the aeration rate, while bacterial cellulose production and cell content were reduced. In addition to these limiting-factors, recent research confirms the ability of some AAB strains to grow and produce bacterial cellulose under agitation, and the yield could be similar or higher than the static method (24, 71, 103).

DOWNSTREAM METHODS OF ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION OF BACTERIAL CELLULOSE

The downstream processes for isolating and purifying bacterial cellulose can be divided into three main steps: harvesting, purification, and drying. At the end of the fermentation step, the produced bacterial cellulose is harvested from the liquid medium and separated by centrifugation or filtration (32, 71, 153).

The harvested bacterial cellulose must be purified to remove residues from the culture medium and cells, as these materials can affect the properties of the biopolymer, such as crystallinity and color, and can also lead to contamination of the bacterial cellulose (157, 158). The conventional approach is alkaline treatment. In this method, bacterial cellulose is purified in an aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide and then neutralized by washing with distilled water. To achieve optimal purification efficiency, literature suggests various combinations of NaOH concentration, temperature and time. Typically, bacterial cellulose is purified with 0.1 to 1 M NaOH solution at 80 to 90 ºC, for 30 to 60 min (10, 17, 100). Alkaline treatment is suggested to be able to remove the remaining nutrients from the culture medium and to lyse bacterial cells attached to the bacterial cellulose (102).

BIOPROCESS CONTROL, OPTIMIZATION AND SCALE-UP

As already mentioned, bacterial cellulose has unique properties for industrial applications. However, the implementation of a highly productive bioprocess is essential to scale up biopolymer production. Any fermentation process can be optimized by using statistical tools to evaluate the effect of critical parameters on the production or properties of bacterial cellulose. In addition to the one-factor-at-a-time approach, statistical optimization is often used to define the ideal conditions for bacterial cellulose production by analyzing a wide range of parameters, including the interaction of process variables.

Studies highlight the use of innovative substrates like enzymatically hydrolyzed prickly pear peels (PPP), which yield 6.01 g/L of bacterial cellulose under optimized conditions (68 % PPP substrate, pH=4, 20 °C, 11 days). Functionalized bacterial cellulose membranes loaded with fruit by-products, such as pomegranate peel extract, showed antimicrobial properties and extended the shelf life of strawberries, highlighting their potential for sustainable packaging (159).

Statistical models offer time- and cost-efficient alternatives for exploring fermentation conditions aimed at large-scale production. Considering their influence on bacterial cellulose yield, the most important parameters used in bioprocess optimization include the type and concentration of carbon and nitrogen sources, ethanol, pH, temperature, cultivation method, rotation speed, inoculum concentration and volume of culture medium (12, 32, 141, 160).

Statistical optimization techniques, such as Plackett-Burman and Box-Behnken designs, have refined parameters like yeast extract concentration, temperature and incubation time, to significantly increase bacterial cellulose yield. For instance, Gluconacetobacter hansenii ATCC 23769 achieved 2.91 g/L bacterial cellulose under optimized conditions. A comprehensive characterization of bacterial cellulose membranes revealed high purity, crystallinity and thermal stability, which emphasizes their suitability for various applications, from packaging to biomedical and environmental uses (161).

Currently, the limitations of large-scale implementation are mainly related to raw material costs, energy and water consumption, formation of by-products, metabolism of carbon sources and reproducibility of yields obtained in the first stages (105, 144). Scale-up studies and alternative modes of operation have been successfully carried out with different nutrient sources and acetic acid bacteria, confirming that this bioprocess can be further explored to improve the application of bacterial cellulose (102, 162).

CONCLUSIONS

Bacterial cellulose is a high-value product obtained by acetic acid fermentation and has the potential for wide use in industrial applications due to its unique properties. To achieve this, the key challenge is to optimize the yield to create a production system that can meet industrial demand. The development of a profitable bioprocess requires consideration of the interaction between the three key elements of fermentation: the strain, the culture medium and the cultivation method. This review aims to present the general aspects of bacterial cellulose production and summarize the main challenges and strategies to increase production and reduce bioprocess costs. The results presented in this review provide insights into alternatives to improve bacterial cellulose production. The development of a bioprocess for bacterial cellulose production requires: i) a highly productive strain, either wild-type or genetically engineered, ii) a low-cost nutrient source, achievable by using agro-industrial waste or substituting carbon sources in a synthetic medium and iii) an optimized cultivation method. An effective combination of these strategies needs to be explored to ensure bacterial cellulose production and its application on an industrial scale.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The researchers thank the State University of Londrina, and Brazilian agencies CNPq and CAPES for their financial support.

AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTION

R.P.F. Catarino contributed to the conception of the work, data collection, drafting of the manuscript and critical revision. V.A.B. Mascareli and A.C.L. Pavanello participated in the preparation and revision of the manuscript. V.L.P. Costa contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. W.A. Spinosa was responsible for preparation and revision of the manuscript, critical revision and provided final approval of the version to be published.

REFERENCES
  1. Azeredo H, Barud H, Farinas C, Vasconcellos V, Claro A. Bacterial cellulose as a raw material for food and food packaging applications. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2019;3:7, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00007
  2. Mandenius C, Brundin A. Bioprocess optimization using design-of-experiments methodology. Biotechnol Prog. 2008;24(6):1191-203, https://doi.org/10.1002/btpr.67, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/19194932
  3. Shi Z, Zhang Y, Phillips G, Yang G. Utilization of bacterial cellulose in food. Food Hydrocoll. 2014;35:539-45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2013.07.012
  4. Cacicedo M, Castro M, Servetas I, Bosnea L, Boura K, Tsafrakidou P. Progress in bacterial cellulose matrices for biotechnological applications. Bioresour Technol. 2016;213:172-80, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.071, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/26927233
  5. Marestoni L, da Silva Barud H, Gomes R, Catarino R, Hata N, Ressutte J. Commercial and potential applications of bacterial cellulose in Brazil: Ten years review. Polímeros. 2020;30(4), https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1428.09420
  6. Li J, Nie S. The functional and nutritional aspects of hydrocolloids in foods. Food Hydrocoll. 2016;53:46-61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2015.01.035
  7. Xavier J, Ramana K. Development of slow melting dietary fiber‐enriched ice cream formulation using bacterial cellulose and inulin. J Food Process Preserv. 2022;46(5), https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.15394
  8. Cazón P, Velázquez G, Vázquez M. Characterization of bacterial cellulose films combined with chitosan and polyvinyl alcohol: Evaluation of mechanical and barrier properties. Carbohydr Polym. 2019;216:72-85, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.03.093, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/31047084
  9. Cai Q, Hu C, Yang N, Wang Q, Wang J, Pan H. Enhanced activity and stability of industrial lipases immobilized onto spherelike bacterial cellulose. Int J Biol Macromol. 2018;109:1174-81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.11.100, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/29157911
  10. Jayani T, Sanjeev B, Marimuthu S, Uthandi S. Bacterial cellulose nano fiber (BCNF) as carrier support for the immobilization of probiotic, Lactobacillus acidophilus 016. Carbohydr Polym. 2020;250, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116965, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/33049863
  11. Moradi M, Tajik H, Almasi H, Forough M, Ezati P. A novel pH-sensing indicator based on bacterial cellulose nanofibers and black carrot anthocyanins for monitoring fish freshness. Carbohydr Polym. 2019;222, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.115030, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/31320095
  12. Bilgi E, Gokce E, Bayir E, Sendemir A, Ozer K, Tuna E. Bacterial cellulose based facial mask with antioxidant property and high moisturizing capacity. Cellulose. 2021;28(16):10399-414, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-021-04106-z
  13. Pasaribu K, Ilyas S, Tamrin T, Radecka I, Swingler S, Gupta A. Bioactive bacterial cellulose wound dressings for burns with collagen in-situ and chitosan ex-situ impregnation. Int J Biol Macromol. 2023;230, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.123118, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/36599383
  14. Legnani C, Barud H, Caiut J, Calil V, Maciel I, Quirino W. Transparent bacterial cellulose nanocomposites used as substrate for organic light-emitting diodes. J Mater Sci Mater Electron. 2019;30(18):16718-23, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-019-00979-w
  15. He Y, Xie Z, Zhang H, Liebl W, Toyama H, Chen F. Oxidative fermentation of acetic acid bacteria and its products. Front Microbiol. 2022;13, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.879246, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/35685922
  16. Chen G, Wu G, Chen L, Wang W, Hong F, Jönsson L. Performance of nanocellulose-producing bacterial strains in static and agitated cultures with different starting pH. Carbohydr Polym. 2019;215:280-8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.03.080, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30981355
  17. Gomes R, Ida E, Spinosa W. Nutritional supplementation with amino acids on bacterial cellulose production by Komagataeibacter intermedius: effect analysis and application of response surface methodology. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2022;194(11):5017-36, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-022-04013-4, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/35687307
  18. Lotfy V, Basta A, Abdel-Monem M, Abdel-Hamed G. Utilization of bacteria in rotten Guava for production of bacterial cellulose from isolated and protein waste. Carbohydr Polym Technol Appl. 2021;2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carpta.2021.100076
  19. Lin D, Liu Z, Shen R, Chen S, Yang X. Bacterial cellulose in food industry: current research and future prospects. Int J Biol Macromol. 2020;158:1007-19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.04.230, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/32387361
  20. Salari M, Khiabani M, Mokarram R, Ghanbarzadeh B, Kafil H. Preparation and characterization of cellulose nanocrystals from bacterial cellulose produced in sugar beet molasses and cheese whey media. Int J Biol Macromol. 2019;122:280-8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.10.136, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30342939
  21. Foresti M, Vázquez A, Boury B. Applications of bacterial cellulose as precursor of carbon and composites with metal oxide, metal sulfide and metal nanoparticles: A review of recent advances. Carbohydr Polym. 2017;157:447-67, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.09.008, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/27987949
  22. Lin S, Calvar I, Catchmark J, Liu J, Demirci A, Cheng K. Biosynthesis, production and applications of bacterial cellulose. Cellulose. 2013;20(5):2191-219, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-013-9994-3
  23. Armitano J, Méjean V, Jourlin-Castelli C. Gram-negative bacteria can also form pellicles. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2014;6(6):534-44, https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-2229.12171, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/25756106
  24. Aydın Y, Aksoy N. Isolation and characterization of an efficient bacterial cellulose producer strain in agitated culture: Gluconacetobacter hansenii P2A. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;98(3):1065-75, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-013-5296-9, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/24190494
  25. Valera M, Torija M, Mas A, Mateo E. Cellulose production and cellulose synthase gene detection in acetic acid bacteria. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015;99(3):1349-61, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-6198-1, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/25381910
  26. Wu J, Liu R. Cost-effective production of bacterial cellulose in static cultures using distillery wastewater. J Biosci Bioeng. 2013;115(3):284-90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2012.09.014, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/23102658
  27. Gomes R, de Fatima Borges M, de Freitas Rosa M, Castro-Gómez R, Spinosa W. Acetic acid bacteria in the food industry: Systematics, characteristics and applications. Food Technol Biotechnol. 2018;56(2):139-51, https://doi.org/10.17113/ftb.56.02.18.5593, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30228790
  28. Lima H, Nascimento E, Andrade F, Brígida A, Borges M, Cassales A. Bacterial cellulose production by Komagataeibacter hansenii ATCC 23769 using sisal juice - an agroindustry waste. Braz J Chem Eng. 2017;34(3):671-80, https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-6632.20170343s20150514
  29. Lin S, Huang Y, Hsu K, Lai Y, Chen Y, Cheng K. Isolation and identification of cellulose-producing strain Komagataeibacter intermedius from fermented fruit juice. Carbohydr Polym. 2016;151:827-33, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.06.032, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/27474630
  30. Machado R, Meneguin A, Sábio R, Franco D, Antonio S, Gutierrez J. Komagataeibacter rhaeticus grown in sugarcane molasses-supplemented culture medium as a strategy for enhancing bacterial cellulose production. Ind Crops Prod. 2018;122:637-46, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.06.048
  31. Molina-Ramírez C, Enciso C, Torres-Taborda M, Zuluaga R, Gañán P, Rojas O. Effects of alternative energy sources on bacterial cellulose characteristics produced by Komagataeibacter medellinensis. Int J Biol Macromol. 2018;117:735-41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.05.195, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/29847783
  32. Du R, Zhao F, Peng Q, Zhou Z, Han Y. Production and characterization of bacterial cellulose produced by Gluconacetobacter xylinus isolated from Chinese persimmon vinegar. Carbohydr Polym. 2018;194:200-7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.04.041, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/29801830
  33. Fernández J, Morena A, Valenzuela S, Pastor F, Díaz P, Martínez J. Microbial cellulose from a Komagataeibacter intermedius strain isolated from commercial wine vinegar. J Polym Environ. 2019;27(5):956-67, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-019-01403-4
  34. Li J, Chen G, Zhang R, Wu H, Zeng W, Liang Z. Production of high crystallinity type-I cellulose from Komagataeibacter hansenii JR-02 isolated from kombucha tea. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. 2019;66(1):108-18, https://doi.org/10.1002/bab.1703, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30359481
  35. Rangaswamy B, Vanitha K, Hungund B. Microbial cellulose production from bacteria isolated from rotten fruit. Int J Polym Sci. 2015;2015, https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/280784
  36. Semjonovs P, Ruklisha M, Paegle L, Saka M, Treimane R, Skute M. Cellulose synthesis by Komagataeibacter rhaeticus strain P 1463 isolated from kombucha. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017;101(3):1003-12, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-7761-8, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/27678116
  37. Bagewadi Z, Bhavikatti J, Muddapur U, Yaraguppi D, Mulla S. Statistical optimization and characterization of bacterial cellulose produced by isolated thermophilic Bacillus licheniformis strain ZBT2. Carbohydr Res. 2020;491, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carres.2020.107979, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/32171995
  38. Liu D, Cao Y, Qu R, Gao G, Chen S, Zhang Y. Production of bacterial cellulose hydrogels with tailored crystallinity from Enterobacter sp. FY-07 by the controlled expression of colanic acid synthetic genes. Carbohydr Polym. 2019;207:563-70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.12.014, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30600040
  39. Khan H, Kadam A, Dutt D. Studies on bacterial cellulose produced by a novel strain of Lactobacillus genus. Carbohydr Polym. 2020;229, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.115513, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/31826477
  40. Saleh A, El-Gendi H, Soliman N, El-Zawawy W, Abdel-Fattah Y. Bioprocess development for bacterial cellulose biosynthesis by novel Lactiplantibacillus plantarum isolate along with characterization and antimicrobial assessment of fabricated membrane. Sci Rep. 2022;12:2181, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06117-7, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/35140278
  41. Lynch K, Zannini E, Wilkinson S, Daenen L, Arendt E. Physiology of acetic acid bacteria and their role in vinegar and fermented beverages. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2019;18(3):587-625, https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12440, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/33336918
  42. Saichana N, Matsushita K, Adachi O, Frébort I, Frebortova J. Acetic acid bacteria: a group of bacteria with versatile biotechnological applications. Biotechnol Adv. 2015;33(6 Pt 2):1260-71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2014.12.001, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/25485864
  43. La China S, Zanichelli G, De Vero L, Gullo M. Oxidative fermentations and exopolysaccharides production by acetic acid bacteria: a mini review. Biotechnol Lett. 2018;40(9–10):1289-302, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-018-2591-7, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/29987707
  44. Jacek P, Dourado F, Gama M, Bielecki S. Molecular aspects of bacterial nanocellulose biosynthesis. Microb Biotechnol. 2019;12(4):633-49, https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.13386, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30883026
  45. Ross P, Mayer R, Benziman M. Cellulose biosynthesis and function in bacteria. Microbiol Rev. 1991;55(1):35-58, https://doi.org/10.1128/mr.55.1.35-58.1991, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/2030672
  46. Ullah H, Santos H, Khan T. Applications of bacterial cellulose in food, cosmetics and drug delivery. Cellulose. 2016;23(4):2291-314, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-016-0986-y
  47. Costa A, Almeida F, Vinhas G, Sarubbo L. Production of bacterial cellulose by Gluconacetobacter hansenii using corn steep liquor as nutrient sources. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:2027, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02027, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/29089941
  48. Shah N, Ul-Islam M, Khattak W, Park J. Overview of bacterial cellulose composites: A multipurpose advanced material. Carbohydr Polym. 2013;98(2):1585-98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.08.018, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/24053844
  49. Habibi Y, Lucia L, Rojas O. Cellulose nanocrystals: Chemistry, self-assembly, and applications. Chem Rev. 2010;110(6):3479-500, https://doi.org/10.1021/cr900339w, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/20201500
  50. Gibson L. The hierarchical structure and mechanics of plant materials. J R Soc Interface. 2012;9(76):2749-66, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2012.0341, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/22874093
  51. Nascimento D, Nunes Y, Figueirêdo M, de Azeredo H, Aouada F, Feitosa J. Nanocellulose nanocomposite hydrogels: Technological and environmental issues. Green Chem. 2018;20(11):2428-48, https://doi.org/10.1039/C8GC00205C
  52. Blanco Parte F, Santoso S, Chou C, Verma V, Wang H, Ismadji S. Current progress on the production, modification, and applications of bacterial cellulose. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2020;40(3):397-414, https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2020.1713721, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/31937141
  53. Ul-Islam M, Khan S, Ullah M, Park J. Comparative study of plant and bacterial cellulose pellicles regenerated from dissolved states. Int J Biol Macromol. 2019;137:247-52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.06.232, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/31260774
  54. Kwak M, Kim J, Go J, Koh E, Song S, Son H. Bacterial cellulose membrane produced by Acetobacter sp. A10 for burn wound dressing applications. Carbohydr Polym. 2015;122:387-98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.10.049, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/25817683
  55. Rani M, Appaiah K. Production of bacterial cellulose by Gluconacetobacter hansenii UAC09 using coffee cherry husk. J Food Sci Technol. 2013;50(4):755-62, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0401-5, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/24425978
  56. Machado R, Gutierrez J, Tercjak A, Trovatti E, Uahib F, de Padua Moreno G. Komagataeibacter rhaeticus as an alternative bacteria for cellulose production. Carbohydr Polym. 2016;152:841-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.06.049, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/27516336
  57. Vasconcelos N, Feitosa J, da Gama F, Morais J, Andrade F, Souza Filho M. Bacterial cellulose nanocrystals produced under different hydrolysis conditions: Properties and morphological features. Carbohydr Polym. 2017;155:425-31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.08.090, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/27702531
  58. Bi J, Liu S, Li C, Li J, Liu L, Deng J. Morphology and structure characterization of bacterial celluloses produced by different strains in agitated culture. J Appl Microbiol. 2014;117(5):1305-11, https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.12619, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/25098972
  59. Brandes R, Carminatti C, Mikowski A, Al-Qureshi H, Recouvreux D. A mini-review on the progress of spherical bacterial cellulose production. J Nano Res. 2017;45:142-54, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/JNanoR.45.142
  60. de Oliveira Barud H, da Silva R, da Silva Barud H, Tercjak A, Gutierrez J, Lustri W. A multipurpose natural and renewable polymer in medical applications: bacterial cellulose. Carbohydr Polym. 2016;153:406-20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.07.059, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/27561512
  61. Feng X, Ullah N, Wang X, Sun X, Li C, Bai Y. Characterization of bacterial cellulose by Gluconacetobacter hansenii CGMCC 3917. J Food Sci. 2015;80(10):E2217-27, https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13010, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/26352877
  62. Fijałkowski K, Peitler D, Rakoczy R, Żywicka A. Survival of probiotic lactic acid bacteria immobilized in different forms of bacterial cellulose in simulated gastric juices and bile salt solution. LWT – Food Sci Technol. 2016;68:322-8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.12.038
  63. Guo Y, Zhang X, Hao W, Xie Y, Chen L, Li Z. Nano-bacterial cellulose/soy protein isolate complex gel as fat substitutes in ice cream model. Carbohydr Polym. 2018;198:620-30, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.06.078, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30093042
  64. Marchetti L, Muzzio B, Cerrutti P, Andrés S, Califano A. Bacterial nanocellulose as novel additive in low-lipid low-sodium meat sausages. Effect on quality and stability. Food Struct.. 2017;14:52-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foostr.2017.06.004
  65. Oliveira A, Guimarães J, Furtado A, Mesquita E. Effect of the addition of bacterial cellulose on the texture and color properties of sausages obtained from mechanically separated meat from Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.). Food Sci Technol.. 2023;43, https://doi.org/10.1590/fst.81522
  66. Farooq U, Ullah M, Yang Q, Aziz A, Xu J, Zhou L. High-density phage particles immobilization in surface-modified bacterial cellulose for ultra-sensitive and selective electrochemical detection of Staphylococcus aureus. Biosens Bioelectron. 2020;157, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2020.112163, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/32250935
  67. Shafipour Yordshahi A, Moradi M, Tajik H, Molaei R. Design and preparation of antimicrobial meat wrapping nanopaper with bacterial cellulose and postbiotics of lactic acid bacteria. Int J Food Microbiol. 2020;321, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2020.108561, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/32078868
  68. Liu H, Shi C, Sun X, Zhang J, Ji Z. Intelligent colorimetric indicator film based on bacterial cellulose and pelargonidin dye to indicate the freshness of tilapia fillets. Food Packag Shelf Life. 2021;29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2021.100712
  69. Marchetti L, Andrés S, Cerruti P, Califano A. Effect of bacterial nanocellulose addition on the rheological properties of gluten-free muffin batters. Food Hydrocoll. 2020;98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.105315
  70. Yan H, Chen X, Song H, Li J, Feng Y, Shi Z. Synthesis of bacterial cellulose and bacterial cellulose nanocrystals for their applications in the stabilization of olive oil pickering emulsion. Food Hydrocoll. 2017;72:127-35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.05.044
  71. Gao H, Sun Q, Han Z, Li J, Liao B, Hu L. Comparison of bacterial nanocellulose produced by different strains under static and agitated culture conditions. Carbohydr Polym. 2020;227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.115323, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/31590841
  72. Martins D, de Carvalho Ferreira D, Gama M, Dourado F. Dry bacterial cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose formulations with interfacial-active performance: processing conditions and redispersion. Cellulose. 2020;27(11):6505-20, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-020-03211-9
  73. Paximada P, Tsouko E, Kopsahelis N, Koutinas A, Mandala I. Bacterial cellulose as stabilizer of o/w emulsions. Food Hydrocoll. 2016;53:225-32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2014.12.003
  74. Zhai X, Lin D, Liu D, Yang X. Emulsions stabilized by nanofibers from bacterial cellulose: new potential food-grade Pickering emulsions. Food Res Int. 2018;103:12-20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.10.030, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/29389597
  75. Zhang X, Zhou J, Chen J, Li B, Li Y, Liu S. Edible foam based on pickering effect of bacterial cellulose nanofibrils and soy protein isolates featuring interfacial network stabilization. Food Hydrocoll. 2020;100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.105440
  76. Gorgieva S, Trček J. Bacterial cellulose: Production, modification and perspectives in biomedical applications. Nanomaterials. 2019;9(10):1352, https://doi.org/10.3390/nano9101352, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/31547134
  77. Dutta S, Patel D, Lim K. Functional cellulose-based hydrogels as extracellular matrices for tissue engineering. J Biol Eng. 2019;13:55, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13036-019-0177-0, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/31249615
  78. Swingler S, Gupta A, Gibson H, Kowalczuk M, Heaselgrave W, Radecka I. Recent advances and applications of bacterial cellulose in biomedicine. Polymers (Basel). 2021;13(3):412, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13030412, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/33525406
  79. Chantereau G, Sharma M, Abednejad A, Vilela C, Costa E, Veiga M. Bacterial nanocellulose membranes loaded with vitamin B-based ionic liquids for dermal care applications. J Mol Liq. 2020;302, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2020.112547
  80. Ul-Islam M, Alhajaim W, Fatima A, Yasir S, Kamal T, Abbas Y. Development of low-cost bacterial cellulose-pomegranate peel extract-based antibacterial composite for potential biomedical applications. Int J Biol Macromol. 2023;231, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.123269, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/36649873
  81. Beekmann U, Schmölz L, Lorkowski S, Werz O, Thamm J, Fischer D. Process control and scale-up of modified bacterial cellulose production for tailor-made anti-inflammatory drug delivery systems. Carbohydr Polym. 2020;236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116062, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/32172877
  82. Potočnik V, Gorgieva S, Trček J. From nature to lab: Sustainable bacterial cellulose production and modification with synthetic biology. Polymers. 2023;15(16):3466, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15163466, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/37631523
  83. Lima H, Gonçalves C, Cerqueira M, do Nascimento E, Gama M, Rosa M. Bacterial cellulose nanofiber-based films incorporating gelatin hydrolysate from tilapia skin: production, characterization and cytotoxicity assessment. Cellulose. 2018;25(10):6011-29, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-018-1983-0
  84. Jang E, Padhan B, Patel M, Pandey J, Xu B, Patel R. Antibacterial and biodegradable food packaging film from bacterial cellulose. Food Control. 2023;153, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.109902
  85. Ju S, Zhang F, Duan J, Jiang J. Characterization of bacterial cellulose composite films incorporated with bulk chitosan and chitosan nanoparticles: a comparative study. Carbohydr Polym. 2020;237, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116167, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/32241399
  86. Salari M, Khiabani M, Mokarram R, Ghanbarzadeh B, Kafil H. Development and evaluation of chitosan based active nanocomposite films containing bacterial cellulose nanocrystals and silver nanoparticles. Food Hydrocoll. 2018;84:414-23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.05.037
  87. Oliveira A, de Mesquita E, Furtado A. Use of bacterial cellulose as a fat replacer in emulsified meat products: Food Sci Technol.. 2022;42, https://doi.org/10.1590/fst.42621
  88. Gullo M, Caggia C, De Vero L, Giudici P. Characterization of acetic acid bacteria in “traditional balsamic vinegar”. Int J Food Microbiol. 2006;106(2):209-12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.06.024, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/16214251
  89. Kim D, Chon J, Kim H, Seo K. Development of a novel selective medium for the isolation and enumeration of acetic acid bacteria from various foods. Food Control. 2019;106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106717
  90. Vegas C, Mateo E, González Á, Jara C, Guillamón J, Poblet M. Population dynamics of acetic acid bacteria during traditional wine vinegar production. Int J Food Microbiol. 2010;138(1–2):130-6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.01.006, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/20117853
  91. Ryngajłło M, Jędrzejczak-Krzepkowska M, Kubiak K, Ludwicka K, Bielecki S. Towards control of cellulose biosynthesis by Komagataeibacter using systems-level and strain engineering strategies: Current progress and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2020;104(15):6565-85, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-020-10671-3, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/32529377
  92. Nascimento F, Torres C, Freitas F, Reis M, Crespo M. Functional and genomic characterization of Komagataeibacter uvaceti FXV3, a multiple stress resistant bacterium producing increased levels of cellulose. Biotechnol Rep (Amst). 2021;30, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2021.e00606, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/33747802
  93. Gomes R, de Sousa Faria-Tischer P, Tischer C, Constantino L, de Freitas Rosa M, Chideroli R. Komagataeibacter intermedius V-05: An acetic acid bacterium isolated from vinegar industry, with high capacity for bacterial cellulose production in soybean molasses medium. Food Technol Biotechnol. 2021;59(4):432-42, https://doi.org/10.17113/ftb.59.04.21.7148, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/35136368
  94. Jacek P, da Silva F, Dourado F, Bielecki S, Gama M. Optimization and characterization of bacterial nanocellulose produced by Komagataeibacter rhaeticus K3. Carbohydr Polym Technol Appl. 2021;2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carpta.2020.100022
  95. Zhang H, Xu X, Chen X, Yuan F, Sun B, Xu Y. Complete genome sequence of the cellulose-producing strain Komagataeibacter nataicola RZS01. Sci Rep. 2017;7:4431, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04589-6, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/28667320
  96. Thongwai N, Futui W, Ladpala N, Sirichai B, Weechan A, Kanklai J. Characterization of bacterial cellulose produced by Komagataeibacter maltaceti P285 isolated from contaminated honey wine. Microorganisms. 2022;10(3):528, https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10030528, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/35336103
  97. Gullo M, Giudici P. Acetic acid bacteria in traditional balsamic vinegar: Phenotypic traits relevant for starter cultures selection. Int J Food Microbiol. 2008;125(1):46-53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.11.076, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/18177968
  98. Barja F, Andrés-Barrao C, Pérez RO, Cabello EM, Chappuis ML. Physiology of Komagataeibacter spp. during acetic acid fermentation. In: Matsushita K, Toyama H, Tonouchi N, Okamoto-Kainuma A, editors. Acetic acid bacteria. Ecology and physiology. Tokyo, Japan: Springer Japan; 2016. pp. 201–21. 10.1007/978-4-431-55933-7_9, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55933-7_9
  99. Pacheco G, Nogueira C, Meneguin A, Trovatti E, Silva M, Machado R. Development and characterization of bacterial cellulose produced by cashew tree residues as alternative carbon source. Ind Crops Prod. 2017;107:13-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.05.026
  100. Santoso S, Chou C, Lin S, Soetaredjo F, Ismadji S, Hsieh C. Enhanced production of bacterial cellulose by Komactobacter intermedius using statistical modeling. Cellulose. 2020;27(5):2497-509, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-019-02961-5
  101. Dubey S, Sharma R, Agarwal P, Singh J, Sinha N, Singh R. From rotten grapes to industrial exploitation: Komagataeibacter europaeus SGP37, a micro-factory for macroscale production of bacterial nanocellulose. Int J Biol Macromol. 2017;96:52-60, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.12.016, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/27939511
  102. Dubey S, Singh J, Singh R. Biotransformation of sweet lime pulp waste into high-quality nanocellulose with an excellent productivity using Komagataeibacter europaeus SGP37 under static intermittent fed-batch cultivation. Bioresour Technol. 2018;247:73-80, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.089, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/28946097
  103. Singhsa P, Narain R, Manuspiya H. Physical structure variations of bacterial cellulose produced by different Komagataeibacter xylinus strains and carbon sources in static and agitated conditions. Cellulose. 2018;25(3):1571-81, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-018-1699-1
  104. Chen S, Mikkelsen D, Lopez-Sanchez P, Wang D, Martinez-Sanz M, Gilbert E. Characterisation of bacterial cellulose from diverse Komagataeibacter strains and their application to construct plant cell wall analogues. Cellulose. 2017;24(3):1211-26, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-017-1203-3
  105. de Araújo e Silva R, Brígida A, de Freitas Rosa M, da Silva Neto R, Spinosa W, de Sá Filho E. An approach for implementing ecodesign at early research stage: a case study of bacterial cellulose production. J Clean Prod. 2020;269, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122245
  106. Shafiei R, Zarmehrkhorshid R, Mounir M, Thonart P, Delvigne F. Influence of carbon sources on the viability and resuscitation of Acetobacter senegalensis during high-temperature gluconic acid fermentation. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2017;40(5):769-80, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-017-1742-x, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/28204982
  107. Dong K, Pan H, Yang D, Rao L, Zhao L, Wang Y. Induction, detection, formation, and resuscitation of viable but non‐culturable state microorganisms. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2020;19(1):149-83, https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12513, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/33319518
  108. Singh A, Walker K, Ledesma-Amaro R, Ellis T. Engineering bacterial cellulose by synthetic biology. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(23):9185, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21239185, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/33276459
  109. Li G, Wang L, Deng Y, Wei Q. Research progress of the biosynthetic strains and pathways of bacterial cellulose. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2022;49(1), https://doi.org/10.1093/jimb/kuab071, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/34549273
  110. Montenegro-Silva P, Ellis T, Dourado F, Gama M, Domingues L. Enhanced bacterial cellulose production in Komagataeibacter sucrofermentans: impact of different PQQ-dependent dehydrogenase knockouts and ethanol supplementation. Biotechnol Biofuels Bioprod. 2024;17:35, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-024-02482-9, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/38424558
  111. Yang F, Cao Z, Li C, Chen L, Wu G, Zhou X. A recombinant strain of Komagataeibacter xylinus ATCC 23770 for production of bacterial cellulose from mannose-rich resources. N Biotechnol. 2023;76:72-81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2023.05.002, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/37182820
  112. Jacek P, Ryngajłło M, Bielecki S. Structural changes of bacterial nanocellulose pellicles induced by genetic modification of Komagataeibacter hansenii ATCC 23769. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2019;103(13):5339-53, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-019-09846-4, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/31037382
  113. Zou X, Zhang S, Chen L, Hu J, Hong F. Determination of live and dead Komagataeibacter xylinus cells and first attempt at precise control of inoculation in nanocellulose production. Microb Biotechnol. 2020;13(2):458-69, https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.13494, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/31651088
  114. Sperotto G, Stasiak L, Godoi J, Gabiatti N, De Souza S. A review of culture media for bacterial cellulose production: complex, chemically defined and minimal media modulations. Cellulose. 2021;28(5):2649-73, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-021-03754-5
  115. dos Santos J. Nizoli É, Galvan D, Gomes RJ, Biz G, Ressutte JB, et al. Micronutrient requirements and effects on cellular growth of acetic acid bacteria involved in vinegar production. Food Sci Technol. 2022;42, https://doi.org/10.1590/fst.05121
  116. Mamlouk D, Gullo M. Acetic acid bacteria: physiology and carbon sources oxidation. Indian J Microbiol. 2013;53(4):377-84, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-013-0414-z, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/24426139
  117. Gopu G, Govindan S. Production of bacterial cellulose from Komagataeibacter saccharivorans strain BC1 isolated from rotten green grapes. Prep Biochem Biotechnol. 2018;48(9):842-52, https://doi.org/10.1080/10826068.2018.1513032, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30303756
  118. Leonarski E, Cesca K, Zanella E, Stambuk B, de Oliveira D, Poletto P. Production of kombucha-like beverage and bacterial cellulose by acerola byproduct as raw material. Lebensm Wiss Technol. 2021;135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2020.110075
  119. Souza E, Furtado M, Carvalho C, Freitas-Silva O, Gottschalk L. Production and characterization of Gluconacetobacter xylinus bacterial cellulose using cashew apple juice and soybean molasses. Int J Biol Macromol. 2020;146:285-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.12.180, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/31883899
  120. Entani E, Ohmori S, Masai H, Suzuki K. Acetobacter polyoxogenes sp. nov., a new species of an acetic acid bacterium useful for producing vinegar with high acidity. J Gen Appl Microbiol. 1985;31(5):475-90, https://doi.org/10.2323/jgam.31.475
  121. Hestrin S, Schramm M. Synthesis of cellulose by Acetobacter xylinum. 2. preparation of freeze-dried cells capable of polymerizing glucose to cellulose. Biochem J. 1954;58(2):345-52, https://doi.org/10.1042/bj0580345, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/13208601
  122. Vashisht A, Thakur K, Kauldhar B, Kumar V, Yadav S. Waste valorization: Identification of an ethanol tolerant bacterium Acetobacter pasteurianus SKYAA25 for acetic acid production from apple pomace. Sci Total Environ. 2019;690:956-64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.070, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/31302559
  123. Gupte Y, Kulkarni A, Raut B, Sarkar P, Choudhury R, Chawande A. Characterization of nanocellulose production by strains of Komagataeibacter sp. isolated from organic waste and Kombucha. Carbohydr Polym. 2021;266, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118176, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/34044916
  124. Sokollek S, Hertel C, Hammes W. Cultivation and preservation of vinegar bacteria. J Biotechnol. 1998;60(3):195-206, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1656(98)00014-5, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/9729803
  125. Shafiei R, Delvigne F, Babanezhad M, Thonart P. Evaluation of viability and growth of Acetobacter senegalensis under different stress conditions. Int J Food Microbiol. 2013;163(2–3):204-13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.03.011, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/23562697
  126. Revin V, Liyaskina E, Nazarkina M, Bogatyreva A, Shchankin M. Cost-effective production of bacterial cellulose using acidic food industry by-products. Braz J Microbiol. 2018;49:151-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjm.2017.12.012, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/29703527
  127. Reiniati I, Hrymak A, Margaritis A. Recent developments in the production and applications of bacterial cellulose fibers and nanocrystals. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2017;37(4):510-24, https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2016.1189871, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/27248159
  128. Vazquez A, Foresti M, Cerrutti P, Galvagno M. Bacterial cellulose from simple and low-cost production media by Gluconacetobacter xylinus. J Polym Environ. 2013;21(2):545-54, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-012-0541-3
  129. Bartowsky E, Henschke P. Acetic acid bacteria spoilage of bottled red wine - A review. Int J Food Microbiol. 2008;125(1):60-70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.10.016, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/18237809
  130. De Roos J, De Vuyst L. Acetic acid bacteria in fermented foods and beverages. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2018;49:115-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2017.08.007, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/28863341
  131. Hutchinson U, Ntwampe S, Ngongang M, Chidi B, Hoff J, Jolly N. Product and microbial population kinetics during balsamic‐styled vinegar production. J Food Sci. 2019;84(3):572-9, https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.14429, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30690746
  132. Tran T, Grandvalet C, Verdier F, Martin A, Alexandre H, Tourdot-Maréchal R. Microbial dynamics between yeasts and acetic acid bacteria in kombucha: impacts on the chemical composition of the beverage. Foods. 2020;9(7):963, https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9070963, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/32708248
  133. Wang Z, Xiang D, Wang X, Li C. Preparation of an inoculum of Gluconacetobacter xylinus without mutants in shaken culture. J Appl Microbiol. 2016;121(3):713-20, https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13193, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/27249070
  134. Baena-Ruano S, Jiménez-Ot C, Santos-Dueñas I, Cantero-Moreno D, Barja F, García-García I. Rapid method for total, viable and non-viable acetic acid bacteria determination during acetification process. Process Biochem. 2006;41(5):1160-4, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2005.12.016
  135. González Á, Hierro N, Poblet M, Mas A, Guillamón J. Enumeration and detection of acetic acid bacteria by real-time PCR and nested PCR. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2006;254(1):123-8, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2005.000011.x, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/16451189
  136. Jozala A, Pértile R, dos Santos C, de Carvalho Santos-Ebinuma V, Seckler M, Gama F. Bacterial cellulose production by Gluconacetobacter xylinus by employing alternative culture media. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015;99(3):1181-90, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-6232-3, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/25472434
  137. Campano C, Balea A, Blanco A, Negro C. Enhancement of the fermentation process and properties of bacterial cellulose: a review. Cellulose. 2016;23(1):57-91, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-015-0802-0
  138. Lee K, Buldum G, Mantalaris A, Bismarck A. More than meets the eye in bacterial cellulose: Biosynthesis, bioprocessing, and applications in advanced fiber composites. Macromol Biosci. 2014;14(1):10-32, https://doi.org/10.1002/mabi.201300298, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/23897676
  139. Molina-Ramírez C, Castro M, Osorio M, Torres-Taborda M, Gómez B, Zuluaga R. Effect of different carbon sources on bacterial nanocellulose production and structure using the low pH resistant strain Komagataeibacter medellinensis. Materials. 2017;10(6):639, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10060639, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/28773001
  140. Miqueleto A, Dolosic C, Pozzi E, Foresti E, Zaiat M. Influence of carbon sources and C/N ratio on EPS production in anaerobic sequencing batch biofilm reactors for wastewater treatment. Bioresour Technol. 2010;101(4):1324-30, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.09.026, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/19783138
  141. Rastogi A, Banerjee R. Statistical optimization of bacterial cellulose production by Leifsonia soli and its physico-chemical characterization. Process Biochem. 2020;91:297-302, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2019.12.021
  142. Basu A, Vadanan S, Lim S. Rational design of a scalable bioprocess platform for bacterial cellulose production. Carbohydr Polym. 2019;207:684-93, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.10.085, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30600054
  143. Abdelraof M, Hasanin M, El-Saied H. Ecofriendly green conversion of potato peel wastes to high productivity bacterial cellulose. Carbohydr Polym. 2019;211:75-83, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.01.095, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30824106
  144. Skiba E, Budaeva V, Ovchinnikova E, Gladysheva E, Kashcheyeva E, Pavlov I. A technology for pilot production of bacterial cellulose from oat hulls. Chem Eng J. 2020;383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.123128
  145. Tsouko E, Pilafidis S, Dimopoulou M, Kourmentza K, Sarris D. Bioconversion of underutilized brewing by-products into bacterial cellulose by a newly isolated Komagataeibacter rhaeticus strain: a preliminary evaluation of the bioprocess environmental impact. Bioresour Technol. 2023;387, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2023.129667, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/37572886
  146. Saleh A, El-Gendi H, El-Fakharany E, Owda M, Awad M, Kamoun E. Exploitation of cantaloupe peels for bacterial cellulose production and functionalization with green synthesized copper oxide nanoparticles for diverse biological applications. Sci Rep. 2022;12:19241, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-23952-w, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/36357532
  147. Saleh A, El-Gendi H, Ray J, Taha T. A low-cost effective media from starch kitchen waste for bacterial cellulose production and its application as simultaneous absorbance for methylene blue dye removal. Biomass Convers Biorefin. 2023;13(14):12437-49, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01973-1
  148. Saleh A, Salama A, Badawy A, Diab M, El-Gendi H. Paper sludge saccharification for batch and fed-batch production of bacterial cellulose decorated with magnetite for dye decolorization by experimental design. Cellulose. 2023;30(17):10841-66, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-023-05545-6
  149. Qi G, Luo M, Huang C, Guo H, Chen X, Xiong L. Comparison of bacterial cellulose production by Gluconacetobacter xylinus on bagasse acid and enzymatic hydrolysates. J Appl Polym Sci. 2017;134(28):45066, https://doi.org/10.1002/app.45066
  150. Khattak W, Khan T, Ul-Islam M, Ullah M, Khan S, Wahid F. Production, characterization and biological features of bacterial cellulose from scum obtained during preparation of sugarcane jaggery (gur). J Food Sci Technol. 2015;52(12):8343-9, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-015-1936-7, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/26604413
  151. Mohite B, Patil S. Physical, structural, mechanical and thermal characterization of bacterial cellulose by G. hansenii NCIM 2529. Carbohydr Polym. 2014;106:132-41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.02.012, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/24721060
  152. Saleh A, Tolba E, Salama A. In situ development of bacterial cellulose/hydroxyapatite nanocomposite membrane based on two different fermentation strategies: Characterization and cytotoxicity evaluation. Biomass Convers Biorefin. 2024;14(16):18857-67, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-023-03940-4
  153. Lu T, Gao H, Liao B, Wu J, Zhang W, Huang J. Characterization and optimization of production of bacterial cellulose from strain CGMCC 17276 based on whole-genome analysis. Carbohydr Polym. 2020;232, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.115788, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/31952596
  154. Gullo M, Sola A, Zanichelli G, Montorsi M, Messori M, Giudici P. Increased production of bacterial cellulose as starting point for scaled-up applications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017;101(22):8115-27, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-017-8539-3, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/28965208
  155. Rodrigues A, Fontão A, Coelho A, Leal M, da Silva F, Wan Y. Response surface statistical optimization of bacterial nanocellulose fermentation in static culture using a low-cost medium. N Biotechnol. 2019;49:19-27, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2018.12.002, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30529474
  156. Krusong W, Pothimon R, La China S, Thompson A. Consecutive bacterial cellulose production by luffa sponge enmeshed with cellulose microfibrils of Acetobacter xylinum under continuous aeration. 3 Biotech. 2021;11(1):6, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-020-02569-8, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/33442505
  157. Dima S, Panaitescu D, Orban C, Ghiurea M, Doncea S, Fierascu R. Bacterial nanocellulose from side-streams of kombucha beverages production: Preparation and physical-chemical properties. Polymers. 2017;9(8):374, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym9080374, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30971046
  158. Sulaeva I, Henniges U, Rosenau T, Potthast A. Bacterial cellulose as a material for wound treatment: Properties and modifications. A review. Biotechnol Adv. 2015;33(8):1547-71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.07.009, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/26253857
  159. El-Gendi H, Salama A, El-Fakharany E, Saleh A. Optimization of bacterial cellulose production from prickly pear peels and its ex situ impregnation with fruit byproducts for antimicrobial and strawberry packaging applications. Carbohydr Polym. 2023;302, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2022.120383, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/36604061
  160. Hu H, Catchmark J, Demirci A. Co-culture fermentation on the production of bacterial cellulose nanocomposite produced by Komagataeibacter hansenii. Carbohydr Polym Technol Appl. 2021;2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carpta.2020.100028
  161. Farrag A, Saleh A, Soliman N, Ibrahim M, El-Shinnawy N, Abdel-Fattah Y. Biocellulose production by Gluconacetobacter hansenii ATCC 23769: Application of statistical experimental designs and cellulose membrane characterization. Egypt J Chem. 2019;62(11):2077-92, https://doi.org/10.21608/ejchem.2019.9975.1662
  162. Jahan F, Kumar V, Saxena R. Distillery effluent as a potential medium for bacterial cellulose production: A biopolymer of great commercial importance. Bioresour Technol. 2018;250:922-6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.094, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/29249539