spore: profile
id: bacterial-cellulose
spore_version: 0.2
family: cellulose
name: Bacterial cellulose (Komagataeibacter nanocellulose)
abbreviation: BC
role: grown biopolymer for membranes, wound dressings and audio diaphragms
category: living
type: bio-grown-building-materials
summary: |
  Bacterial cellulose (BC) is a cellulose polymer that Komagataeibacter bacteria form outside their cells as a wet mat. The 2025 review by Rincon et al. reports crystallinity of 74% to 96% and tensile strength of 20 to 300 MPa across studies. Its Table 3 gives 40 to 76.2 MPa tensile strength and 3.2 to 10.8 GPa Young's modulus for specific strain and culture combinations. Wikipedia reports a water retention value of 1000% for BC against 60% for plant cellulose.
best_for: Water-holding films and audio membranes, where BC is already in use (1000% water retention per Wikipedia)
weakest_at: Strength and stiffness vary widely with culture conditions, and the review says toughness is not sufficient for impact resistance
identity:
  formula: (C6H10O5)n, a linear polymer of beta-1,4 linked glucose units
  organism: Komagataeibacter xylinus, type species of the genus Komagataeibacter
  organism_source: wiki-komagataeibacter
  organism_where: Lead section, type species sentence
  source: wiki-cellulose
  where: Structure and properties section, formula sentence; the same formula is printed in the Wikipedia Bacterial cellulose lead
tags:
  environments: []
  stresses: []
  applications:
    - electronics-and-chips
properties:
  - benchmark: crystallinity_index
    label: Crystallinity index, range across studies in the review introduction
    value: 74
    value_high: 96
    bound: range
    unit: '%'
    scope: material
    conditions:
      basis: range compiled across studies cited in the review introduction (refs 2 to 4); test method and culture not stated
    method: Range printed in the review introduction
    status: ground
    source: rincon2025
    where: Introduction, first page, sentence beginning BC exhibits high crystallinity
    note: Not a canonical property name in spores/property-canon.yaml; snake_case name used.
  - benchmark: degree_of_polymerization
    label: Degree of polymerization, range across studies in the review introduction
    value: 2000
    value_high: 6000
    bound: range
    unit: '-'
    scope: material
    conditions:
      basis: range compiled across studies cited in the review introduction (refs 3, 5 and 6); the review prints no unit
    method: Range printed in the review introduction; recorded as a pure number
    status: ground
    source: rincon2025
    where: Introduction, first page, sentence on high degree of polymerization
    note: Not a canonical property name in spores/property-canon.yaml; snake_case name used.
  - benchmark: ultimate_tensile_strength
    label: Tensile strength, range in the review introduction (refs 2 and 7)
    value: 20
    value_high: 300
    bound: range
    unit: MPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      basis: range cited in the review introduction (refs 2 and 7); test method, form and culture not stated
      reconcile: a second, wider range of 80 to 800 MPa is given in the same introduction and recorded separately
    method: Range printed in the review introduction
    status: ground
    source: rincon2025
    where: Introduction, first page, sentence on high mechanical strength
  - benchmark: elastic_modulus
    label: Young's modulus, range in the review introduction (ref 14)
    value: 10
    value_high: 65
    bound: range
    unit: GPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      basis: range cited in the review introduction (ref 14); test method, form and culture not stated
    method: Range printed in the review introduction
    status: ground
    source: rincon2025
    where: Introduction, first page, sentence beginning Young's modulus of 10-65 GPa
  - benchmark: ultimate_tensile_strength
    label: Tensile strength, second range in the review introduction (ref 14)
    value: 80
    value_high: 800
    bound: range
    unit: MPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      basis: range cited in the review introduction (ref 14); conflicts with the 20 to 300 MPa range from refs 2 and 7 in the same introduction
    method: Range printed in the review introduction
    status: ground
    note: The two tensile ranges in the same introduction do not agree; both are recorded and not reconciled.
    source: rincon2025
    where: Introduction, first page, sentence beginning Young's modulus of 10-65 GPa
  - benchmark: elastic_modulus
    label: Young's modulus, bacterial cellulose sheet across its plane
    value: 15
    unit: GPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      form: bacterial cellulose sheet
      direction: across the plane of the sheet
      basis: value stated as as high as 15 GPa by Wikipedia; test method not given
    method: Stated in the Wikipedia Properties and characterization section
    status: ground
    note: Wikipedia value; it falls inside the 10 to 65 GPa range printed in the review introduction and is recorded beside that range, not in place of it.
    source: wiki-bc
    where: Properties and characterization section, Young's modulus sentence
  - benchmark: crystallinity_index
    label: Crystallinity index, lower bound stated by Wikipedia
    value: 60
    bound: lower
    unit: '%'
    scope: material
    conditions:
      basis: stated as above 60% with no measurement method given
    method: Stated in the Wikipedia Properties and characterization section
    status: ground
    source: wiki-bc
    where: Properties and characterization section, crystallinity index sentence
  - benchmark: water_retention_value
    label: Water retention value, bacterial cellulose
    value: 1000
    unit: '%'
    scope: material
    conditions:
      state: wet pellicle
      basis: value stated by Wikipedia; test method not given
    method: Stated in the Wikipedia Macro structure section, citing ref 33
    status: ground
    source: wiki-bc
    where: Macro structure section, sentence on water retention
  - benchmark: water_retention_value
    label: Water retention value, plant cellulose (comparison in the same sentence)
    value: 60
    unit: '%'
    scope: material
    conditions:
      basis: plant cellulose, as compared by Wikipedia in the same sentence as the bacterial value
    method: Stated in the Wikipedia Macro structure section
    status: ground
    source: wiki-bc
    where: Macro structure section, same sentence as the bacterial value
  - benchmark: ultimate_tensile_strength
    label: Tensile strength, Komagataeibacter CCUG73629 (K29), standard HS medium
    value: 76.2
    unit: MPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      strain: Komagataeibacter sp. CCUG73629 (K29)
      medium: HS (Hestrin-Schramm standard medium)
      culture: static, 30 C, 10 days (Table 2 of the review)
    method: Value printed in Table 3 for ref 40 (Akintunde et al. 2022); test method not stated in the review
    status: ground
    source: rincon2025
    where: Table 3, K29 row, tensile strength 76.2 MPa (HS); the same HS value is repeated in the K29 SCB block
  - benchmark: ultimate_tensile_strength
    label: Tensile strength, Komagataeibacter CCUG73629 (K29), CC medium, intermittent agitation
    value: 57.8
    unit: MPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      strain: Komagataeibacter sp. CCUG73629 (K29)
      medium: CC (corncob enzymatic hydrolysate with nitrogen and phosphate sources)
      culture: intermittent agitation at 100 r/min for 6 h daily, 30 C, 10 days (Table 2 of the review)
    method: Value printed in Table 3 for ref 40 (Akintunde et al. 2022); test method not stated in the review
    status: ground
    source: rincon2025
    where: Table 3, K29 CC block, tensile strength 57.8 MPa (I agitation-CC)
  - benchmark: ultimate_tensile_strength
    label: Tensile strength, Komagataeibacter CCUG73629 (K29), SCB medium, continuous agitation
    value: 40
    unit: MPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      strain: Komagataeibacter sp. CCUG73629 (K29)
      medium: SCB (sugarcane bagasse enzymatic hydrolysate with nitrogen and phosphate sources)
      culture: continuous agitation at 100 r/min, 30 C, 10 days (Table 2 of the review)
    method: Value printed in Table 3 for ref 40 as approx. 40 MPa; test method not stated in the review
    status: ground
    note: Printed as approx. 40 MPa in the review.
    source: rincon2025
    where: Table 3, K29 SCB block, tensile strength 40 MPa approx. (c agitation-SCB)
  - benchmark: elastic_modulus
    label: Young's modulus, Komagataeibacter CCUG73629 (K29), standard HS medium
    value: 7.1
    unit: GPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      strain: Komagataeibacter sp. CCUG73629 (K29)
      medium: HS (Hestrin-Schramm standard medium)
      culture: static, 30 C, 10 days (Table 2 of the review)
    method: Value printed in Table 3 for ref 40 (Akintunde et al. 2022); test method not stated in the review
    status: ground
    source: rincon2025
    where: Table 3, K29 CC block, Young's modulus 7.1 GPa (HS)
  - benchmark: elastic_modulus
    label: Young's modulus, Komagataeibacter CCUG73629 (K29), CC medium, intermittent agitation
    value: 7
    unit: GPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      strain: Komagataeibacter sp. CCUG73629 (K29)
      medium: CC (corncob enzymatic hydrolysate with nitrogen and phosphate sources)
      culture: intermittent agitation at 100 r/min for 6 h daily, 30 C, 10 days (Table 2 of the review)
    method: Value printed in Table 3 for ref 40 (Akintunde et al. 2022); test method not stated in the review
    status: ground
    source: rincon2025
    where: Table 3, K29 CC block, Young's modulus 7.0 GPa (I agitation-CC)
  - benchmark: elastic_modulus
    label: Young's modulus, Komagataeibacter CCUG73629 (K29), SCB medium, continuous agitation
    value: 3.2
    unit: GPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      strain: Komagataeibacter sp. CCUG73629 (K29)
      medium: SCB (sugarcane bagasse enzymatic hydrolysate with nitrogen and phosphate sources)
      culture: continuous agitation at 100 r/min, 30 C, 10 days (Table 2 of the review)
    method: Value printed in Table 3 for ref 40 as approx. 3.2 GPa; test method not stated in the review
    status: ground
    note: Printed as approx. 3.2 GPa in the review.
    source: rincon2025
    where: Table 3, K29 SCB block, Young's modulus 3.2 GPa approx. (c agitation-SCB)
  - benchmark: ultimate_tensile_strength
    label: Tensile strength, Komagataeibacter CCUG73630 (K30), CC medium, intermittent agitation
    value: 70.9
    unit: MPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      strain: Komagataeibacter sp. CCUG73630 (K30)
      medium: CC (corncob enzymatic hydrolysate with nitrogen and phosphate sources)
      culture: intermittent agitation at 100 r/min for 6 h daily, 30 C, 10 days (Table 2 of the review)
    method: Value printed in Table 3 for ref 40 (Akintunde et al. 2022); test method not stated in the review
    status: ground
    source: rincon2025
    where: Table 3, K30 CC block, tensile strength 70.9 MPa (I agitation-CC)
  - benchmark: ultimate_tensile_strength
    label: Tensile strength, Komagataeibacter CCUG73630 (K30), standard HS medium
    value: 48
    unit: MPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      strain: Komagataeibacter sp. CCUG73630 (K30)
      medium: HS (Hestrin-Schramm standard medium)
      culture: static, 30 C, 10 days (Table 2 of the review)
    method: Value printed in Table 3 for ref 40 as approx. 48 MPa; test method not stated in the review
    status: ground
    note: Printed as approx. 48 MPa in the review.
    source: rincon2025
    where: Table 3, K30 CC block, tensile strength 48 MPa approx. (HS)
  - benchmark: ultimate_tensile_strength
    label: Tensile strength, Komagataeibacter CCUG73630 (K30), SCB medium, intermittent agitation
    value: 58.4
    unit: MPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      strain: Komagataeibacter sp. CCUG73630 (K30)
      medium: SCB (sugarcane bagasse enzymatic hydrolysate with nitrogen and phosphate sources)
      culture: intermittent agitation at 100 r/min for 6 h daily, 30 C, 10 days (Table 2 of the review)
    method: Value printed in Table 3 for ref 40 (Akintunde et al. 2022); test method not stated in the review
    status: ground
    source: rincon2025
    where: Table 3, K30 SCB block, tensile strength 58.4 MPa (I agitation-SCB)
  - benchmark: elastic_modulus
    label: Young's modulus, Komagataeibacter CCUG73630 (K30), CC medium, intermittent agitation
    value: 10.8
    unit: GPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      strain: Komagataeibacter sp. CCUG73630 (K30)
      medium: CC (corncob enzymatic hydrolysate with nitrogen and phosphate sources)
      culture: intermittent agitation at 100 r/min for 6 h daily, 30 C, 10 days (Table 2 of the review)
    method: Value printed in Table 3 for ref 40 (Akintunde et al. 2022); test method not stated in the review
    status: ground
    source: rincon2025
    where: Table 3, K30 CC block, Young's modulus 10.8 GPa (I agitation-CC)
  - benchmark: elastic_modulus
    label: Young's modulus, Komagataeibacter CCUG73630 (K30), standard HS medium
    value: 5
    unit: GPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      strain: Komagataeibacter sp. CCUG73630 (K30)
      medium: HS (Hestrin-Schramm standard medium)
      culture: static, 30 C, 10 days (Table 2 of the review)
    method: Value printed in Table 3 for ref 40 as approx. 5.0 GPa; test method not stated in the review
    status: ground
    note: Printed as approx. 5.0 GPa in the review.
    source: rincon2025
    where: Table 3, K30 CC block, Young's modulus 5.0 GPa approx. (HS)
  - benchmark: elastic_modulus
    label: Young's modulus, Komagataeibacter CCUG73630 (K30), SCB medium, intermittent agitation
    value: 9.9
    unit: GPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      strain: Komagataeibacter sp. CCUG73630 (K30)
      medium: SCB (sugarcane bagasse enzymatic hydrolysate with nitrogen and phosphate sources)
      culture: intermittent agitation at 100 r/min for 6 h daily, 30 C, 10 days (Table 2 of the review)
    method: Value printed in Table 3 for ref 40 (Akintunde et al. 2022); test method not stated in the review
    status: ground
    source: rincon2025
    where: Table 3, K30 SCB block, Young's modulus 9.9 GPa (I agitation-SCB)
  - benchmark: bacterial_cellulose_yield
    label: BC yield, Acetobacter xylinum BRCS, glucose with ethanol and oxygen
    value: 15.3
    unit: g/L
    scope: material
    conditions:
      strain: A. xylinum BRCS, as printed in the Wikipedia table
      carbon_source: glucose
      supplement: ethanol and oxygen
      culture_time: 50 h
    method: Yield printed in the Wikipedia table of bacterial strains and yields (culture time given in hours)
    status: ground
    source: wiki-bc
    where: Fermentation production section, table row A. xylinum BRCS (15.30 g/L, 50 h)
  - benchmark: bacterial_cellulose_yield
    label: BC yield, Acetobacter sp. A9, glucose with ethanol
    value: 15.2
    unit: g/L
    scope: material
    conditions:
      strain: Acetobacter sp. A9, as printed in the Wikipedia table
      carbon_source: glucose
      supplement: ethanol
      culture_time: 192 h
    method: Yield printed in the Wikipedia table of bacterial strains and yields (culture time given in hours)
    status: ground
    source: wiki-bc
    where: Fermentation production section, table row Acetobacter sp. A9 (15.20 g/L, 192 h)
  - benchmark: bacterial_cellulose_yield
    label: BC yield, Gluconacetobacter hansenii PJK, glucose with ethanol
    value: 2.5
    unit: g/L
    scope: material
    conditions:
      strain: G. hansenii PJK (KCTC 10505 BP), as printed in the Wikipedia table
      carbon_source: glucose
      supplement: ethanol
      culture_time: 72 h
    method: Yield printed in the Wikipedia table of bacterial strains and yields (culture time given in hours)
    status: ground
    source: wiki-bc
    where: Fermentation production section, table row G. hansenii PJK, glucose with ethanol (2.50 g/L, 72 h)
  - benchmark: optimal_production_temperature
    label: Optimal temperature for maximum BC production
    value: 28
    value_high: 30
    bound: range
    unit: °C
    scope: material
    conditions:
      basis: optimum reported across experimental studies, as stated by Wikipedia
    method: Stated in the Wikipedia fermentation section
    status: ground
    source: wiki-bc
    where: Fermentation section, sentence on optimal temperature
  - benchmark: optimal_production_ph
    label: Optimal pH for BC production, most species
    value: 4
    value_high: 6
    bound: range
    unit: '-'
    scope: material
    conditions:
      basis: optimum for most species, as stated by Wikipedia
    method: Stated in the Wikipedia fermentation section; recorded as a pure number
    status: ground
    source: wiki-bc
    where: Fermentation section, sentence on optimal pH
    note: Not a canonical property name in spores/property-canon.yaml; snake_case name used.
  - benchmark: elastic_modulus
    label: Young's modulus, wet bacterial cellulose pellicle (Zhong 2020 review)
    value: 1.5
    unit: MPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      state: wet pellicle
      basis: average printed for wet BC pellicles; the printed standard deviation is 0.3 MPa; test method not stated
    method: Value printed in the Structure and Properties of BC section of the review
    status: ground
    note: Printed as 1.5 ± 0.3 MPa; the spread is not carried in the value field. Elongation of 49.0 % is printed beside it.
    source: zhong2020
    where: Structure and Properties of BC section, sentence on the Young's modulus of wet BC pellicles
  - benchmark: elastic_modulus
    label: Young's modulus, dry bacterial cellulose film (Zhong 2020 review)
    value: 428
    unit: MPa
    scope: material
    conditions:
      state: dry film
      basis: printed as 428.0 ± 24.1 MPa; test method not stated
    method: Value printed in the Structure and Properties of BC section of the review
    status: ground
    note: Printed as 428.0 ± 24.1 MPa; the spread is not carried in the value field. Deformability of 7.5 % is printed beside it.
    source: zhong2020
    where: Structure and Properties of BC section, sentence on the Young's modulus of dry BC films
  - benchmark: water_retention_value
    label: Water holding capacity, Komagataeibacter strain screen (abstract range)
    value: 10.7
    value_high: 42.3
    bound: range
    unit: g water/g cellulose
    scope: material
    conditions:
      basis: range across nine clones from K. hansenii, K. nataicola, K. rhaeticus, K. swingsii and K. xylinus, with significant differences among strains (p < 0.01)
    method: Range printed in the abstract; printed as gwater/gcellulose in the paper
    status: ground
    source: vigentini2019
    where: Abstract, sentence on water-holding capacity
  - benchmark: water_retention_value
    label: Water holding capacity, wet BC films (Zhong 2020 review)
    value: 60
    value_high: 700
    bound: range
    unit: times dry weight
    scope: material
    conditions:
      state: wet films
      basis: printed as 60 to 700 times the dry weight; test method not stated
    method: Stated in the Structure and Properties of BC section of the review
    status: ground
    source: zhong2020
    where: Structure and Properties of BC section, water-holding capacity sentence
  - benchmark: crystallinity_index
    label: Crystallinity index, Komagataeibacter strain screen (abstract range)
    value: 64
    value_high: 80
    bound: range
    unit: '%'
    scope: material
    conditions:
      basis: range across nine clones screened in the same study; method not stated in the abstract
    method: Range printed in the abstract as high crystallinity of 64 to 80 percent in all samples
    status: ground
    source: vigentini2019
    where: Abstract, sentence on crystallinity
  - benchmark: thermal_decomposition_onset
    label: Thermal decomposition onset, native freeze-dried bacterial cellulose aerogel
    value: 275
    value_high: 330
    bound: range
    unit: °C
    scope: material
    conditions:
      form: native BC aerogel, freeze-dried
      basis: decomposition begins between 275 °C and 330 °C as printed; heating rate and atmosphere not given in the sentence
    method: Stated in Section 3.2.2 of the paper, citing ref 81
    status: ground
    note: Not a canonical property name in spores/property-canon.yaml; snake_case name used. Aerogel form, not a pellicle.
    source: gels2024
    where: Section 3.2.2 (freeze-drying), sentence on native BC aerogel decomposition
corrosion:
  - environment: Drying and purification of the wet pellicle
    headline: Drying and purification change BC's morphology, mechanical properties and thermal stability, and the review gives no loss value.
    effect: The review states that the method used to purify and dry BC can affect its morphological, physical and mechanical properties. It also states that alkali purification improves mechanical properties and thermal stability (refs 16 and 59). No percentage change is given.
    rating: unknown
    conditions:
      basis: statements in the review; no test condition or magnitude printed
    source: rincon2025
    where: Section 2.1, purification and drying paragraph
  - environment: Heating of highly crystalline BC
    headline: The review says highly crystalline BC has high thermal stability, with no temperature limit given.
    effect: The review states that BC exhibits high thermal stability for high crystallinity. No decomposition temperature or service temperature is printed in the sources read.
    rating: unknown
    conditions:
      basis: general statement in the review; no temperature or test method given
    source: rincon2025
    where: Section 1 (Introduction), crystallinity paragraph
  - environment: Biodegradation in the environment
    headline: The review lists biodegradability as a property of BC, with no degradation rate given.
    effect: The review lists biocompatibility, non-toxicity and biodegradability for BC (refs 10 to 13). It gives no degradation rate, test medium or time.
    rating: unknown
    conditions:
      basis: general statement in the review; no test condition given
    source: rincon2025
    where: Section 1 (Introduction), paragraph on biocompatibility and biodegradability
  - environment: Water, wet pellicle at room conditions
    headline: Wikipedia gives a water retention value of 1000% for BC, but no ageing data for wet or humid storage.
    effect: Wikipedia gives a water retention value of 1000% for bacterial cellulose and 60% for plant cellulose. It does not state how humid storage or ageing changes the strength of BC.
    rating: unknown
    conditions:
      basis: water retention as stated by Wikipedia; no storage or ageing test given
    source: wiki-bc
    where: Macro structure section, sentence on water retention
risks:
  hazards:
    - text: The review describes BC as biocompatible, non-toxic and biodegradable, as a general statement with no hazard classification and no test method.
      ghs: []
      source: rincon2025
      where: Section 1 (Introduction), refs 10 to 13
    - text: 'No GHS classification for bacterial cellulose was found. The Avantor safety data sheet for cellulose powder (CAS 9004-34-6) gives the signal word Warning and the hazard statement May form combustible dust concentrations in air, with no hazard symbol. It states Other hazards which do not result in GHS classification: None.'
      ghs: []
      source: avantor-cellulose-sds
      where: Section 2 (Hazard(s) identification), Label Elements and Other hazards rows; this SDS is for cellulose powder, not for bacterial cellulose
    - text: The same cellulose powder SDS states Dust may form explosive mixture with air in its fire-fighting section, and says to avoid generation and spreading of dust in its handling section.
      ghs: []
      source: avantor-cellulose-sds
      where: Section 5 (Fire-fighting measures), General Fire Hazards row; Section 7 (Handling and storage), precautions for safe handling
  failure_risks:
    - mode: Lower tensile strength and Young's modulus in agitated culture
      trigger: Agitated (stirred or shaken) culture used instead of static culture
      consequence: The review states that agitated culture gives lower BC crystallinity, lower tensile strength, higher water-holding capacity and lower Young's modulus than static culture.
      severity: moderate
      source: rincon2025
      where: Section 2.2, first paragraph (refs 14, 47, 57, 3, 59 and 60)
    - mode: Low strength, stiffness and fragility from some agro-industrial substrates
      trigger: Some agricultural or agro-industrial waste substrates used as the culture medium
      consequence: The review states that low mechanical strength is obtained for some agrowastes, and that BC stiffness and high fragility make it unsuitable for certain applications. It also states that toughness is not sufficient for applications needing impact resistance.
      severity: moderate
      source: rincon2025
      where: Section 4.2 (Discussion), list of quality issues 2 to 4
  side_effects: []
  handling:
    - text: BC may absorb unwanted compounds and be coloured, so strict purification is needed; the review says this limits use in medicine, pharmaceutics and cosmetics.
      source: rincon2025
      where: Section 4.2 (Discussion), quality issue 1 and the paragraph on absorption
  mitigations:
    - text: Alkali purification partly removes amorphous cellulose and improves mechanical properties and thermal stability, per the review.
      source: rincon2025
      where: Section 2.1, purification paragraph (refs 29, 16 and 59)
uses:
  - application: electronics-and-chips
    device: Substrate for electronic paper (research)
    example: Wikipedia says microbial cellulose is an area of active research for electronic paper, because its microfibril structure can be impregnated with conductive dopants and electrochromic dyes.
    source: wiki-bc
    where: Current research and future applications section
  - application: electronics-and-chips
    device: Acoustic or filter membrane in hi-fidelity loudspeakers and headphones
    example: Wikipedia says BC has been used as an acoustic or filter membrane in hi-fidelity loudspeakers and headphones marketed by the Sony Corporation, because of its high sonic velocity and low dynamic loss.
    source: wiki-bc
    where: Commercial products section
supply:
  - subject: Glucose and sucrose (carbon source for BC)
    abundance: Glucose and sucrose are the most commonly used carbon sources for BC production, per Wikipedia. The review describes agricultural and agro-industrial wastes as low-cost culture substrates, including corncob, sugarcane bagasse, molasses and sweet potato residues.
    producers: []
    critical_lists: []
    recycling: Not found in any source we hold.
    substitutes: []
    source: wiki-bc
    where: Fermentation section; Table 2 of the review (rincon2025) lists the substrates
  - subject: Commercial bacterial cellulose producers and products
    abundance: 'Zhong (2020) names these commercial producers and products: Hainan Yeguo Foods Co. Ltd. (production and application development), CPKelco (Cellulon liquid cellulose, AxCel PX dry powder), San-Ei Gen (Sun Artist), Kusano Sakko (Fibnano) and Nanollose Ltd. (BC converted to viscose-rayon fibre). Zhong also says nata de coco is so far the main commercial product of BC. The review prints no production share by country.'
    producers: []
    critical_lists: []
    recycling: Not found in any source we hold.
    substitutes: []
    source: zhong2020
    where: Industrial Production of BC and Textile sections of the review
documents:
  - title: 'Review of bacterial cellulose production using agricultural and agroindustrial wastes: Physical and mechanical properties (Int J Agric & Biol Eng 18(5), 2025, open access)'
    type: paper
    url: https://ijabe.org/index.php/ijabe/article/download/9466/pdf/32886
    year: 2025
  - title: Effect of Drying Methods on the Thermal and Mechanical Behavior of Bacterial Cellulose Aerogel (Gels 2024, 10(7):474)
    type: paper
    url: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11276278/
    year: 2024
  - title: Industrial-Scale Production and Applications of Bacterial Cellulose (Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 2020)
    type: paper
    url: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2020.605374/full
    year: 2020
  - title: Safety Data Sheet, Baker-flex Cellulose, Avantor Performance Materials (version 1.0, revision date 11-18-2014)
    type: sds
    url: https://www.physics.purdue.edu/primelab/safety/MSDS/SDS/cellulose%20%20-%20Baker.pdf
    year: 2014
  - title: Set-Up of Bacterial Cellulose Production From the Genus Komagataeibacter and Its Use in a Gluten-Free Bakery Product as a Case Study (Frontiers in Microbiology, 2019)
    type: paper
    url: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01953/text
    year: 2019
gaps:
  - No manufacturer datasheet, NASA or ESA document, or ASTM or ISO standard for bacterial cellulose was read in this run; all mechanical values come from one review and one encyclopedia.
  - The review does not print a test method or specimen condition for the Table 3 values from ref 40; the values are recorded as the review prints them.
  - The review states that the crystallinity index depends on the measurement method (refs 62 and 67); no method is given for the crystallinity ranges.
  - The review's introduction gives two tensile ranges, 20 to 300 MPa and 80 to 800 MPa; both are recorded and not reconciled.
  - Table 3 rows for refs 34 and 58 (G. xylinus and K. saccharivorans) print tensile and Young's modulus values whose labels are unclear in the text layout, so they are left out.
  - The review prints no unit for the degree of polymerization; it is recorded as a pure number.
  - Density of bacterial cellulose was not found in any source read.
  - Melting point, glass transition and decomposition temperature for BC were not found in any source read.
  - No UV, humidity-ageing, chemical-resistance, radiation or vacuum data for BC were found.
  - No space flight, space-application or ground test of BC was found in any source read.
  - 'No GHS classification for bacterial cellulose was found: the PubChem record for CID 16211199 printed no GHS section in this run, and the only SDS read is for cellulose powder, not BC.'
  - Country production shares and critical-mineral lists for BC were not found; the company producers in the supply section come from Zhong (2020), and no USGS or EU list was checked for its carbon sources.
  - No absolute tensile strength in MPa for BC was found in the Zhong 2020 review, which calls wet tensile strength very high without a number. The tensile values in the 2024 Gels paper are for dried or composite forms and were not recorded.
  - Proposed living-category type Microbial biopolymers is not in src/data/taxonomy.ts; the closest existing type, bio-grown-building-materials, is used.
  - Water-holding values from the three sources that give them (Wikipedia, Zhong 2020 and Vigentini 2019) use different units and test methods, so they are recorded side by side and not reconciled.
sources:
  rincon2025:
    title: 'Review of bacterial cellulose production using agricultural and agroindustrial wastes: Physical and mechanical properties'
    id: Rincon A, Restrepo GM, Hoyos FE. Int J Agric & Biol Eng 18(5), October 2025
    url: https://ijabe.org/index.php/ijabe/article/download/9466/pdf/32886
    year: 2025
    kind: paper
    license: open access (ijabe), linked not reproduced
  wiki-bc:
    title: Bacterial cellulose, Wikipedia
    id: 'Wikipedia article, Bacterial cellulose (sections: Properties and characterization, Macro structure, Fermentation production, Commercial products, Current research and future applications, Challenges/limitations)'
    url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_cellulose
    year: 2026
    kind: web
    license: CC BY-SA 4.0, linked not reproduced
  wiki-cellulose:
    title: Cellulose, Wikipedia
    id: Wikipedia article, Cellulose, Structure and properties section
    url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose
    year: 2026
    kind: web
    license: CC BY-SA 4.0, linked not reproduced
  wiki-komagataeibacter:
    title: Komagataeibacter, Wikipedia
    id: Wikipedia article, Komagataeibacter, lead section
    url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komagataeibacter
    year: 2026
    kind: web
    license: CC BY-SA 4.0, linked not reproduced
  gels2024:
    title: Effect of Drying Methods on the Thermal and Mechanical Behavior of Bacterial Cellulose Aerogel
    id: Gels 2024, 10(7):474, published 18 July 2024 (MDPI)
    url: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11276278/
    year: 2024
    kind: paper
    license: open access (PMC), linked not reproduced
  zhong2020:
    title: Industrial-Scale Production and Applications of Bacterial Cellulose
    id: Zhong C. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, review article, published 22 December 2020
    url: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2020.605374/full
    year: 2020
    kind: paper
    license: open access (Frontiers), linked not reproduced
  avantor-cellulose-sds:
    title: Safety Data Sheet, Baker-flex Cellulose (Avantor Performance Materials), SDS_US SDS000001576
    id: Version 1.0, revision date 11-18-2014; product Baker-flex Cellulose, CAS 9004-34-6
    url: https://www.physics.purdue.edu/primelab/safety/MSDS/SDS/cellulose%20%20-%20Baker.pdf
    year: 2014
    kind: datasheet
    license: linked not reproduced
  vigentini2019:
    title: Set-Up of Bacterial Cellulose Production From the Genus Komagataeibacter and Its Use in a Gluten-Free Bakery Product as a Case Study
    id: Vigentini I, Fabrizio V, Dellaca F, Rossi S, Azario I, Mondin C, Benaglia M, Foschino R. Frontiers in Microbiology 10, 2019 (abstract read)
    url: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01953/text
    year: 2019
    kind: paper
    license: open access (Frontiers), linked not reproduced
license: CC-BY-4.0
updated: '2026-11-01'
review:
  status: draft
  method: assistant
  checked_values: 32
  unreachable: 1
  caveats: 3
  note: Values read by an AI assistant from the 2025 review PDF, three Wikipedia pages, a 2024 Gels paper (PMC), a 2020 Frontiers review, a 2019 Frontiers Microbiology abstract and an SDS for cellulose powder. Eight sources in total. The PubChem cellulose record printed no GHS section in the deepen run and was not used for hazards.
story:
  recipe:
    line: Bacterial cellulose is a linear polymer of glucose units held together by beta-1,4 glycosidic bonds, with the repeat unit (C6H10O5)n (Wikipedia, Cellulose). Komagataeibacter xylinus, the type species of the genus, forms it outside the cell as a gelatinous mat at the surface of the culture (Wikipedia, Bacterial cellulose and Komagataeibacter).
    parts:
      - name: Carbon
        symbol: C
        role: Carbon atoms in each glucose unit of the repeat unit.
      - name: Hydrogen
        symbol: H
        role: Hydrogen atoms in each glucose unit of the repeat unit.
      - name: Oxygen
        symbol: O
        role: Oxygen atoms in each glucose unit of the repeat unit, including the ring oxygen and hydroxyl groups.
  risk_groups:
    - title: For people
      level: 0
      verdict: No hazard classification found
      lead: No safety data sheet or GHS classification for bacterial cellulose was read in this run. The review describes BC as biocompatible and non-toxic, but that is a general statement, not a test result.
      points:
        - label: The material
          line: The 2025 review lists BC's biocompatibility, non-toxicity and biodegradability (refs 10 to 13) without a classification or test method.
        - label: Purity
          line: The review says BC may absorb unwanted compounds and be coloured, so strict purification is needed before medical, pharmaceutical or cosmetic use.
    - title: If the material fails
      lead: The sources read describe weakness that comes from culture conditions and purification, not from a single failure test.
      points:
        - label: Agitated culture
          line: Agitated culture gives lower tensile strength and lower Young's modulus than static culture, per the review (Section 2.2).
        - label: Stiffness and fragility
          line: The review says some BC is stiff and fragile, and its toughness is not sufficient for applications needing impact resistance (Section 4.2).
    - title: Handling and storage
      points:
        - label: Drying
          line: Drying can change the morphology, mechanical properties and thermal stability of BC, per the review (Section 2.1).
        - label: Purification
          line: Alkali purification partly removes amorphous cellulose and improves mechanical properties and thermal stability (refs 16, 29 and 59).
  why: Bacterial cellulose (BC) is a cellulose polymer that Komagataeibacter bacteria form outside their cells. Wikipedia reports that BC holds water at 1000% against 60% for plant cellulose, and that it has a crystallinity index above 60%. The 2025 review reports crystallinity of 74% to 96%. BC is studied for membranes, wound dressings and audio diaphragms, and it is already used in some of these. Its mechanical values change with the culture medium and agitation, so one value does not describe the material.
  uses:
    - where: Electronic paper (research)
      line: Wikipedia reports active research on microbial cellulose as a substrate for electronic paper, where conductive dopants and electrochromic dyes can be placed in the microfibril structure.
    - where: Loudspeaker and headphone membranes
      line: Wikipedia reports that BC has been used as an acoustic or filter membrane in hi-fidelity loudspeakers and headphones marketed by Sony, because of its high sonic velocity and low dynamic loss.
    - where: Food
      line: Wikipedia says BC has been the base of nata de pina and nata de coco, and an additive in kombucha diet drinks in Japan.
    - where: Wound dressings
      line: Wikipedia names Biofill and XCell as commercial microbial cellulose wound products; XCell is made by Xylos Corporation and mainly treats venous ulcers.
  can_do:
    - label: Water holding
      benchmark: water_retention_value
      value: 1000 percent
      line: Wikipedia gives a water retention value of 1000% for bacterial cellulose, against 60% for plant cellulose.
    - label: Strength
      benchmark: ultimate_tensile_strength
      value: 40 to 76.2 MPa
      line: In Table 3 of the 2025 review, Komagataeibacter strains give tensile strengths from 40 MPa approx. to 76.2 MPa, depending on the culture medium and agitation (ref 40).
    - label: Stiffness
      benchmark: elastic_modulus
      value: 3.2 to 10.8 GPa
      line: The same table gives Young's modulus values from 3.2 GPa approx. to 10.8 GPa for these strains and media. The review's introduction gives 10 to 65 GPa, and Wikipedia gives 15 GPa across the sheet plane.
    - label: Yield
      benchmark: bacterial_cellulose_yield
      value: 15.30 g/L
      line: In a Wikipedia table, Acetobacter xylinum BRCS gave 15.30 g/L of BC from glucose with ethanol and oxygen in 50 h, and G. hansenii PJK gave 2.50 g/L in 72 h.
  compare: 'BC and plant cellulose share the same repeat unit, but BC forms a purer, more crystalline network: Wikipedia gives a crystallinity index above 60%, and the 2025 review gives 74% to 96%. Wikipedia also gives water retention of 1000% for BC against 60% for plant cellulose. The sources read give no mechanical value for plant cellulose under the same test, so the strength and stiffness of BC cannot be ranked against it here. Within BC, the Table 3 values change with strain, culture medium and agitation.'
  compare_rows:
    - label: Water retention
      benchmark: water_retention_value
    - label: Tensile strength
      benchmark: ultimate_tensile_strength
    - label: Young's modulus
      benchmark: elastic_modulus
  handling:
    - Purify the BC before medical, pharmaceutical or cosmetic use, since the review says absorbed compounds and colour limit those uses.
    - Record the culture medium, agitation and drying method with each strength value, because the review shows these change the result.
    - Treat the 1000% water retention as a Wikipedia figure with no test method given.
  good_for:
    - 'Water holding: Wikipedia gives 1000% water retention for BC, against 60% for plant cellulose.'
    - 'Strength in standard medium: the 2025 review''s Table 3 gives 76.2 MPa tensile strength for Komagataeibacter CCUG73629 (K29) in HS medium.'
    - 'Audio membranes: Wikipedia reports BC membranes in Sony hi-fi loudspeakers and headphones.'
  watch_out:
    - 'Strength depends on culture: agitated culture gives lower tensile strength and lower Young''s modulus than static culture, per the 2025 review.'
    - 'Reported moduli differ by source: the review''s introduction gives 10 to 65 GPa, its Table 3 gives 3.2 to 10.8 GPa, and Wikipedia gives 15 GPa across the sheet.'
    - 'Cost: Wikipedia says the current price of bacterial cellulose remains too high to make it commercially attractive and viable on a large scale.'
    - No space flight, radiation, vacuum or hazard data for BC were found in the sources read.
  verdict: Bacterial cellulose is a high-purity, water-holding biopolymer whose strength depends on how it is grown. The sources read support it for research and for niche food, audio and medical uses. They give no space-flight, radiation or hazard data, so it should not be treated as a flight-qualified structural material.