Cellulose

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 2303–2319 | Cite as

Development of high throughput, high precision synthesis platforms and characterization methodologies for toxicological studies of nanocellulose

  • Georgios Pyrgiotakis
  • Wing Luu
  • Zhenyuan Zhang
  • Nachiket Vaze
  • Glen DeLoid
  • Laura Rubio
  • W. Adam C. Graham
  • David C. Bell
  • Douglas Bousfield
  • Philip Demokritou
Original Paper
  • 116 Downloads

Abstract

Cellulose is the most abundant natural polymer, is readily available, biodegradable, and inexpensive. Recently, interest is growing around nano-scale cellulose due to the sustainability of these materials, the novel properties, and the overall low environmental impact. The rapid expansion of nanocellulose uses in various applications makes the study of the toxicological properties of these materials of great importance to public health regulators. However, most of the current toxicological studies are highly conflicting, inconclusive, and contradictory. The major reason for these discrepancies is the lack of standardized methods to produce industry-relevant reference nanocellulose and relevant characterization that will expand beyond the traditional cellulose characterization for applications. In order to address these issues, industry-relevant synthesis platforms were developed to produce nanocellulose of controlled properties that can be used as reference materials in toxicological studies. Herein, two types of nanocellulose were synthesized, cellulose nanofibrils and cellulose nanocrystals using the friction grinding platform and an acid hydrolysis approach respectively. The nanocellulose structures were characterized extensively regarding their physicochemical properties, including testing for endotoxins and bacteria contamination.

Keywords

Cellulose nanomaterials Nanocellulose Ultra-fine friction grinder Acid hydrolysis Toxicology Nanotoxicology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Research reported in this publication was supported by the HSPH Center for Nanotechnology and Nanotoxicology and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (under award number, NIH grant # U24ES026946) as part of the Nanotechnology Health Implications Research (NHIR) Consortium. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The engineered nanomaterials used in the research presented in this publication have been synthesized and characterized by the Engineered Nanomaterials Resource and Coordination Core of the NHIR consortium. Dr. Z. Zhang was supported by the ORISE fellowship from the Department of Defense and the US Air Force. The ENM characterization was performed in part at the Harvard Center for Nanoscale Systems (CNS), a member of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN), which is supported by the National Science Foundation under NSF award no. ECS-0335765.

Supplementary material

10570_2018_1718_MOESM1_ESM.docx (531 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 530 kb)

References

  1. Abdul Khalil HPS, Bhat AH, Ireana Yusra AF (2012) Green composites from sustainable cellulose nanofibrils: a review. Carbohyd Polym 87:963–979.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.08.078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alwis KU, Milton DK (2006) Recombinant factor C assay for measuring endotoxin in house dust: comparison with LAL, and (1 → 3)-β-d-glucans. Am J Ind Med 49:296–300.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aulin C, Johansson E, Wågberg L, Lindström T (2010) Self-organized films from cellulose I nanofibrils using the layer-by-layer technique. Biomacromol 11:872–882.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm100075e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beltran-Huarac J, Zhang Z, Pyrgiotakis G et al (2018) Development of reference metal and metal oxide engineered nanomaterials for nanotoxicology research using high throughput and precision flame spray synthesis approaches. NanoImpact 10:26–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camarero-Espinosa S, Endes C, Mueller S et al (2016) Elucidating the potential biological impact of cellulose nanocrystals. Fibers 4:21.  https://doi.org/10.3390/fib4030021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Catalán J, Ilves M, Järventaus H et al (2015) Genotoxic and immunotoxic effects of cellulose nanocrystals in vitro. Environ Mol Mutagen 56:171–182.  https://doi.org/10.1002/em.21913 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen L, Wang Q, Hirth K et al (2015) Tailoring the yield and characteristics of wood cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) using concentrated acid hydrolysis. Cellulose 22:1753–1762.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-015-0615-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen H, Zhao R, Wang B et al (2017) The effects of orally administered Ag, TiO2 and SiO2 nanoparticles on gut microbiota composition and colitis induction in mice. NanoImpact 8:80–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clift MJD, Foster EJ, Vanhecke D et al (2011) Investigating the interaction of cellulose nanofibers derived from cotton with a sophisticated 3D human lung cell coculture. Biomacromol 12:3666–3673.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm200865j CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen J, Deloid G, Pyrgiotakis G, Demokritou P (2012) Interactions of engineered nanomaterials in physiological media and implications for in vitrodosimetry. Nanotoxicology 7:417–431.  https://doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2012.666576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen JM, Derk R, Wang L et al (2014) Tracking translocation of industrially relevant engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) across alveolar epithelial monolayers in vitro. Nanotoxicology 8:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2013.879612 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen JM, Beltran-Huarac J, Pyrgiotakis G, Demokritou P (2018) Effective delivery of sonication energy to fast settling and agglomerating nanomaterial suspensions for cellular studies: implications for stability, particle kinetics, dosimetry and toxicity. NanoImpact 10:81–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De France KJ, Hoare T, Cranston ED (2017) Review of hydrogels and aerogels containing nanocellulose. Chem Mater 29:4609–4631.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.7b00531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deloid GM, Cohen JM, Pyrgiotakis G et al (2015) Advanced computational modeling for in vitro nanomaterial dosimetry. Part Fibre Toxicol 12:32.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-015-0109-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deloid GM, Cohen JM, Pyrgiotakis G, Demokritou P (2017a) Preparation, characterization, and in vitro dosimetry of dispersed, engineered nanomaterials. Nat Protoc 12:355–371.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2016.172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deloid GM, Wang Y, Kapronezai K et al (2017b) An integrated methodology for assessing the impact of food matrix and gastrointestinal effects on the biokinetics and cellular toxicity of ingested engineered nanomaterials. Part Fibre Toxicol 14:40.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-017-0221-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ding JL, Ho B (2010) Endotoxin detection–from limulus amebocyte lysate to recombinant factor C. Subcell Biochem 53:187–208.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9078-2_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dufresne A (2012) Nanocellulose: potential reinforcement in composites. Nat Polym Nanocompos 2:1–32Google Scholar
  19. Eichhorn SJ, Dufresne A, Aranguren M et al (2009) Review: current international research into cellulose nanofibres and nanocomposites. J Mater Sci 45:1–33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-009-3874-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Endes C, Camarero-Espinosa S, Mueller S et al (2016) A critical review of the current knowledge regarding the biological impact of nanocellulose. J Nanobiotechnol 14:78.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-016-0230-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farcas MT, Kisin ER, Menas AL et al (2016) Pulmonary exposure to cellulose nanocrystals caused deleterious effects to reproductive system in male mice. J Toxicol Environ Health Part A 79:984–997.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2016.1211045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frost RL, Keeffe EC (2009) Raman spectroscopic study of the sulfite-bearing minerals scotlandite, hannebachite and orschallite: implications for the desulfation of soils. J Raman Spectrosc 40:244–248.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jrs.2089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. George J, Sabapathi SN (2015) Cellulose nanocrystals: synthesis, functional properties, and applications. Nanotechnol Sci Appl.  https://doi.org/10.2147/NSA.S64386 Google Scholar
  24. Gorbet MB, Sefton MV (2005) Endotoxin: the uninvited guest. Biomaterials 26:6811–6817.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.04.063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guo Z, Martucci NJ, Moreno-Olivas F et al (2017) Titanium dioxide nanoparticle ingestion alters nutrient absorption in an in vitro model of the small intestine. NanoImpact 5:70–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Habibi Y, Lucia LA, Rojas OJ (2010) Cellulose nanocrystals: chemistry, self-assembly, and applications. Chem Rev 110:3479–3500.  https://doi.org/10.1021/cr900339w CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanif Z, Ahmed FR, Shin SW et al (2014) Size- and dose-dependent toxicity of cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) on human fibroblasts and colon adenocarcinoma. Colloids Surf B 119:162–165.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.04.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hannukainen KS, Suhonen S, Savolainen K, Norppa H (2012) Genotoxicity of nanofibrillated cellulose in vitro as measured by enzyme comet assay. Toxicol Lett 211:S71.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2012.03.276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Henriksson M, Henriksson G, Berglund LA, Lindström T (2007) An environmentally friendly method for enzyme-assisted preparation of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) nanofibers. Eur Polym J 43:3434–3441.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2007.05.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herner JD, Green PG, Kleeman MJ (2006) Measuring the trace elemental composition of size-resolved airborne particles. Environ Sci Technol 40:1925–1933.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es052315q CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. International Food Information Council (IFIC), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2004) Food additives and ingredients—overview of food ingredients, Additives & Colors. In: fda.gov. https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAdditivesIngredients/ucm094211.htm. Accessed 20 Feb 2018
  32. Khan A, Huq T, Khan RA et al (2014) Nanocellulose-based composites and bioactive agents for food packaging. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 54:163–174.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2011.578765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lam E, Hrapovic S, Majid E et al (2012a) Catalysis using gold nanoparticles decorated on nanocrystalline cellulose. Nanoscale 4:997–1002.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C2NR11558A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lam E, Male KB, Chong JH et al (2012b) Applications of functionalized and nanoparticle-modified nanocrystalline cellulose. Trends Biotechnol 30:283–290.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2012.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lavoine N, Bras J, Desloges I (2014) Mechanical and barrier properties of cardboard and 3D packaging coated with microfibrillated cellulose. J Appl Polym Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1002/app.40106 Google Scholar
  36. Li Y, Boraschi D (2016) Endotoxin contamination: a key element in the interpretation of nanosafety studies. Nanomedicine 11:269–287.  https://doi.org/10.2217/nnm.15.196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liu F, Avena-Bustillos RJ, Chiou B-S et al (2017) Controlled-release of tea polyphenol from gelatin films incorporated with different ratios of free/nanoencapsulated tea polyphenols into fatty food simulants. Food Hydrocolloids 62:212–221.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2016.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ludueña L, Fasce D, Alvarez VA, Stefani PM (2011) Nanocellulose from rice husk following alkaline treatment to remove silica. BioResources 6:1440–1453.  https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.6.2.1440-1453 Google Scholar
  39. McClements DJ, Deloid G, Pyrgiotakis G et al (2016) The role of the food matrix and gastrointestinal tract in the assessment of biological properties of ingested engineered nanomaterials (iENMs): state of the science and knowledge gaps. NanoImpact 3–4:47–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2016.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miller FA, Wilkins CH (1952) Infrared spectra and characteristic frequencies of inorganic ions. Biomacromol 24:1253–1294Google Scholar
  41. Missoum K, Belgacem M, Bras J (2013) Nanofibrillated cellulose surface modification: a review. Materials 6:1745–1766.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ma6051745 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moon RJ, Martini A, Nairn J et al (2011) Cellulose nanomaterials review: structure, properties and nanocomposites. Chem Soc Rev 40:3941–3994.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C0CS00108B CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morais JPS, de de Souza Filho M, de Souza Filho MSM et al (2013) Extraction and characterization of nanocellulose structures from raw cotton linter. Carbohyd Polym 91:229–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Morris DD, Crowe N, Moore JN, Moldawer LL (1992) Endotoxin-induced production of interleukin 6 by equine peritoneal macrophages in vitro. Am J Vet Res 53:1298–1301Google Scholar
  45. Nair SS, Zhu JY, Deng Y, Ragauskas AJ (2014) Characterization of cellulose nanofibrillation by micro grinding. J Nanopart Res 16:3276.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-014-2349-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nakamoto K (2008) Infrared and Raman spectra of inorganic and coordination compounds. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nallanthighal S, Chan C, Bharali DJ et al (2017) Particle coatings but not silver ions mediate genotoxicity of ingested silver nanoparticles in a mouse model. NanoImpact 5:92–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nyström G, Mihranyan A, Razaq A et al (2010) A nanocellulose polypyrrole composite based on microfibrillated cellulose from wood. J Phys Chem B 114:4178–4182.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp911272m CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. O’Connor B, Berry R, Goguen R (2014) Commercialization of cellulose nanocrystal (NCC™) production. In: Bowman D, Hull M (eds) Nanotechnology environmental health and safety, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Waltham, pp 225–246Google Scholar
  50. Okahisa Y, Yoshida A, Miyaguchi S, Yano H (2009) Optically transparent wood–cellulose nanocomposite as a base substrate for flexible organic light-emitting diode displays. Compos Sci Technol 69:1958–1961.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2009.04.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ong KJ, Shatkin JA, Nelson K et al (2017) Establishing the safety of novel bio-based cellulose nanomaterials for commercialization. NanoImpact 6:19–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Padberg J, Bauer W, Gliese T (2016) The influence of fibrillation on the oxygen barrier properties of films from microfibrillated cellulose. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 31(4):548–560.  https://doi.org/10.3183/NPPRJ-2016-31-04-p548-560 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pal AK, Dhimiter B, Cohen J, Demokritou P (2015) Implications of in vitrodosimetry on toxicological ranking of low aspect ratio engineered nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 9:871–885.  https://doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2014.986670 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Paunonen S (2013) Strength and barrier enhancements of cellophane and cellulose derivative films: a review. BioResources 8:3098–3121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Posteck MT, Moon RJ, Bilodeau M, Rudie AW (2013) Production and applications of cellulose nanomaterials. TAPPI Press, Peachtree CornersGoogle Scholar
  56. Pyrz WD, Buttrey DJ (2008) Particle size determination using TEM: a discussion of image acquisition and analysis for the novice microscopist. Langmuir 24:11350–11360.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la801367j CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Robertson G, Olson J, Allen P et al (1999) Measurement of fiber length, coarseness, and shape with the fiber quality analyzer. Tappi J 82(10):93–98Google Scholar
  58. Roman M (2015) Toxicity of cellulose nanocrystals: a review. Ind Biotechnol 11:25–33.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2014.0024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Saito T, Isogai A (2004) TEMPO-mediated oxidation of native cellulose. The effect of oxidation conditions on chemical and crystal structures of the water-insoluble fractions. Biomacromol 5:1983–1989.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm0497769 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Saito T, Nishiyama Y, Putaux JL et al (2006a) Homogeneous suspensions of individualized microfibrils from TEMPO-catalyzed oxidation of native cellulose. Biomacromol 7:1687–1691.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm060154s CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Saito T, Okita Y, Nge TT et al (2006b) TEMPO-mediated oxidation of native cellulose: microscopic analysis of fibrous fractions in the oxidized products. Carbohyd Polym 65:435–440.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2006.01.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Saito T, Kimura S, Nishiyama Y (2007) Cellulose nanofibers prepared by TEMPO-mediated oxidation of native cellulose. Biomacromol 8:2485–2491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Salas C, Nypelö T, Rodriguez-Abreu C et al (2014) Nanocellulose properties and applications in colloids and interfaces. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 19:383–396.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2014.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schoepf JJ, Bi Y, Kidd J et al (2017) Detection and dissolution of needle-like hydroxyapatite nanomaterials in infant formula. NanoImpact 5:22–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2016.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shatkin JA, Kim B (2015) Cellulose nanomaterials: life cycle risk assessment, and environmental health and safety roadmap. Environ Sci Nano 2:477–499.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C5EN00059A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shi Z, Phillips GO, Yang G (2013) Nanocellulose electroconductive composites. Nanoscale 5:3194–3201.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c3nr00408b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shvedova AA, Kisin ER, Yanamala N et al (2016) Gender differences in murine pulmonary responses elicited by cellulose nanocrystals. Part Fibre Toxicol 13:3941.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-016-0140-x Google Scholar
  68. Siqueira G, Bras J, Dufresne A (2010) Cellulosic bionanocomposites: a review of preparation, properties and applications. Polymers 2:728–765.  https://doi.org/10.3390/polym2040728 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Siró I, Plackett D (2010) Microfibrillated cellulose and new nanocomposite materials: a review. Cellulose 17:459–494.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-010-9405-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tajvidi M, Gardner DJ, Bousfield DW (2016) Cellulose nanomaterials as binders: laminate and particulate systems. J Renew Mater 4:365–376.  https://doi.org/10.7569/JRM.2016.634103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Taniguchi T, Okamura K (1998) New films produced from microfibrillated natural fibres. Polym Int 47:291–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0126(199811)47:3<291:AID-PI11>3.0.CO;2-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Torcello-Gómez A, Foster TJ (2016) Influence of interfacial and bulk properties of cellulose ethers on lipolysis of oil-in-water emulsions. Carbohyd Polym 144:495–503.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Usov I, Nyström G, Adamcik J et al (2015) Understanding nanocellulose chirality and structure–properties relationship at the single fibril level. Nat Commun 6:7564.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8564 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vartiainen J, Pöhler T, Sirola K et al (2011) Health and environmental safety aspects of friction grinding and spray drying of microfibrillated cellulose. Cellulose 18:775–786.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-011-9501-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wang QQ, Zhu JY, Reiner RS et al (2012) Approaching zero cellulose loss in cellulose nanocrystal (CNC) production: recovery and characterization of cellulosic solid residues (CSR) and CNC. Cellulose 19:2033–2047.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-012-9765-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wei H, Rodriguez K, Renneckar S (2014) Environmental science and engineering applications of nanocellulose-based nanocomposites. Environ Sci Nano 1(4):302–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. World Health Organization (2012) Test for sterility. In: The international pharmacopoeia, pp 245–254Google Scholar
  78. Yanamala N, Farcas MT, Hatfield MK et al (2014) In vivo evaluation of the pulmonary toxicity of cellulose nanocrystals: a renewable and sustainable nanomaterial of the future. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2:1691–1698.  https://doi.org/10.1021/sc500153k CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yao M, McClements DJ, Zhao F et al (2017) Controlling the gastrointestinal fate of nutraceutical and pharmaceutical-enriched lipid nanoparticles: from mixed micelles to chylomicrons. NanoImpact 5:13–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2016.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zhao Y, Simonsen J, Cavender G et al (2016) Nano-cellulose edible coatings and uses thereof. Google PatentsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgios Pyrgiotakis
    • 1
  • Wing Luu
    • 2
  • Zhenyuan Zhang
    • 1
  • Nachiket Vaze
    • 1
  • Glen DeLoid
    • 1
  • Laura Rubio
    • 1
  • W. Adam C. Graham
    • 4
  • David C. Bell
    • 3
    • 4
  • Douglas Bousfield
    • 2
  • Philip Demokritou
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Nanotechnology and NanotoxicologyHarvard T. H. Chan School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Chemical and Biological EngineeringUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  3. 3.Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied SciencesHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.Center for Nanoscale SystemsHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations