Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 1541–1552 | Cite as

Use of bacterial cellulose in degraded paper restoration. Part I: application on model papers

  • Sara M. SantosEmail author
  • José M. Carbajo
  • Nuria Gómez
  • Ester Quintana
  • Miguel Ladero
  • Arsenio Sánchez
  • Gary Chinga-Carrasco
  • Juan C. Villar
Original Paper


The disappearance of bibliographic heritage is one of the biggest problems facing libraries. One of the most common methods used to restore paper, lining, is to apply a reinforcing layer to the document. This study focuses on lining papers with bacterial cellulose (BC) sheets from Gluconacetobacter sucrofermentans. For this purpose, several model papers have been selected. They have been characterized before and after the lining with this BC and a specific Japanese paper (JP) to compare both materials. Taking into account the differences between bacterial and vegetal cellulose is expected that the results may be similar to other BC and JP. The samples have been characterized before and after an aging process. There are no significant differences in some of the characteristics studied. Nevertheless, BC-lined papers present higher gloss values and b* coordinate. The wettability decreases with both BC and JP. However, in papers lined with BC, the wettability decreases more markedly and independently of the model paper used. This is related to the sealing of the surface structure by BC, which also leads to a reduction of air permeability. When the lined papers go through an aging process, there are no significant changes in any characteristic, except in b* and L* color coordinates. Additionally, the wettability rate decreases in all cases. This study indicates that papers lined with BC are stable over time. Finally, the use of BC as reinforcing material may offer advantages for specific conservation treatments, being more suitable for certain types of paper than JP.


Wettability Aging Process Bacterial Cellulose Bacterial Cellulose Production Mechanical Pulp 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors wish to thank the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation for funding this study via Project CTQ 2010-17702, and the Madrid Regional Government via Project RETO PROSOST P2013-MAE2907.


  1. 1.
    Bielecki S, Krystynowicz A, Turkiewicz M, Kalinowska H (2005) Bacterial cellulose. In: Steinbuchel A (ed) Biotechnology of polymer: from synthesis to patents. Wiley, Weinheim, pp 381–434Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Iguchi M, Yamanaka S, Budhiono A (2000) Bacterial cellulose: a masterpiece of nature’s arts. J Mater Sci 35:261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ramana KV, Tomar A, Singh L (2000) Effect of various carbon and nitrogen sources on cellulose synthesis by Acetobacter xylinum. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 16:245–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Santos SM, Carbajo JM, Villar JC (2013) The effect of carbon and nitrogen sources on bacterial cellulose production and properties from Gluconacetobacter sucrofermentans CECT 7291 focused on its use in degraded paper restoration. BioResources 8:3630–3645Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jonas R, Farah LF (1998) Production and application of microbial cellulose. Polym Degrad Stab 59:101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yamanaka S, Ishihara M, Sugiyama J (2000) Structural modification of bacterial cellulose. Cellulose 7:213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brett CT (2000) Cellulose microfibrils in plants: biosynthesis, deposition and integration into the cell wall. Int Rev Cytol 199:161–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nakagaito AN, Nogi M, Yano H (2010) Displays from transparent films of natural nanofibers. MRS Bull 35:214–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Castro C, Zuluaga R, Putaux JL, Caro G, Mondragon I, Gañán P (2011) Structural characterization of bacterial cellulose produced by Gluconacetobacter swingsii sp. from Colombian agroindustrial wastes. Carbohydr Polym 84:96–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brown RM Jr (1989) Bacterial Cellulose. In: Kennedy JF, Phillips GO, Williams PA (eds) Cellulose: structural and functional aspects. Ellis Horwood Ltd, New York, pp 145–151Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Watanabe K, Eto Y, Takano S, Nakamori S, Shibai H, Yoshinaka S (1993) A new bacterial cellulose substrate for mammalian cell culture. Cytotechnology 13:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sokolnicki AM, Fischer RJ, Harrah TP, Kaplan D (2006) Permeability of bacterial cellulose membranes. J Membr Sci 272:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Czaja WK, Young DJ, Kawecki M, Brown RM (2007) The future prospects of microbial cellulose in biomedical applications. Biomacromolecules 8:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wan W, Millon L (2005) Poly (vinyl alcohol)-bacterial cellulose nanocomposite, US Patent 2005/0037082 A1Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bäckdahl H, Helenius G, Bodin A, Nannmark U, Johansson BR, Risberg B, Gatenholm P (2006) Mechanical properties of bacterial cellulose and interactions with smooth muscle cells. Biomaterials 27:2141–2149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yano S, Maeda H, Nakajima M, Hagiwara T, Sawaguchi T (2008) Preparation and mechanical properties of bacterial cellulose nanocomposites loaded with silica nanoparticles. Cellulose 15:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pommet M, Juntaro J, Heng JYY, Mantalaris A, Lee AF, Wilson K, Kalinka G, Shaffer MSP, Bismarck A (2008) Surface modification of natural fibers using bacteria: depositing bacterial cellulose onto natural fibers to create hierarchical fiber reinforced nanocomposites. Biomacromolecules 9:1643–1651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Surma-Ślusarska B, Danielewicz D, Presler S (2008) Properties of composites of unbeaten birch and pine sulphate pulps with bacterial cellulose. Fibres Text East Eur 16:127–129Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sánchez Hernampérez A (1999) Políticas de conservación en bibliotecas. Arco Libros, MadridGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smook GA (1990) Handbook for pulp and paper technologists. TAPPI Press, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sjöström E, Westermark U (1999) Chemical composition of wood and pulps: basic constituents and their distribution. In: Sjöström E, Alen R (eds) Analytical methods in wood chemistry, pulping, and papermaking. Springer, New York, pp 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lindström T (2009) Sizing. In: Ek M, Gellerstedt G, Henriksson G (eds) Pulp and paper chemistry and technology, vol 3., De Gruyter, Stockholm, Sweden, pp 275–318Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baty JW, Maitland CL, Minter W, Hubbe MA, Jordan-Mowery SK (2010) Deacidification for the conservation and preservation of paper-based works: a review. BioResources 5:1955–2033Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ahn K, Rosenau T, Potthast A (2013) The influence of alkaline reserve on the aging behavior of book papers. Cellulose 20:1989–2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ardelean E, Bobu E, Niculescu GH, Groza C (2011) Effects of different consolidation additives on ageing behavior of archived document paper. Cellul Chem Technol 45:97–103Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bansa H, Ishii R (1997) The effect of different strengthening methods on different kinds of paper. Restaurator 18:51–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hestrin S, Schramm M (1954) Synthesis of cellulose by Acetobacter xylinum. 2. Preparation of freeze-dried cells capable of polymerizing glucose to cellulose. Biochem J 58:345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chinga-Carrasco G, Kauko H, Myllis M, Timonen J, Wang B, Zhou M, Fossum JO (2008) New advances in the 3D characterization of mineral coating layers on paper. J Microsc 232:212–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Owen A, Fiske B, Barrett T, McClintock TK, Volent P, Nicholson K, Kruth L, Rodger S (1988) Lining. Chap. 29 in paper conservation catalog. American Institute for Conservation Book and Paper Group, Washington D.C. Accessed 22 Mar 2013
  30. 30.
    Torres FG, Troncoso OP, Torres C, Grande CJ (2013) Cellulose based blends, composites and nanocomposites. In: Sabu T, Visakh PM, Mathew, Aji P (eds) Advances in natural polymers. Composites and nanocomposites. Springer, New York, pp 21–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yamauchi T, Murakami K (2001) Porosity and gas permeability. In: Borch J, Lyne MB, Mark RE (eds) Handbook of physical testing of paper, vol 2. Springer, New York, pp 267–302Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Swain PS, Lipowsky R (1998) Contact angle on heterogeneous surfaces: a new look at Cassie’s and Wenzel’s laws. Langmuir 14:6772–6780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tåg CM, Pykönen M, Rosenholm JB, Backfolk K (2009) Wettability of model fountain solutions: the influence on topo-chemical and physical properties of offset paper. J Colloid Interface Sci 330:428–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hubbe MA, Pawlak JJ, Koukoulas AA (2008) Paper’s appearance: a review. BioResources 3:627–665Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Karlovits M, Gregor-Svetec D (2011) Comparison of durability between UV inkjet and conventional offset prints exposed to accelerated ageing. JGED 2:10–15Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van der Reyden D, Baker M, Hoffman C (1993) Effects of aging and solvent treatments on some properties of contemporary tracing papers. JAIC 31:177–206Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Santos SM, Carbajo JM, Quintana E, Ibarra D, Gómez N, Ladero M, Eugenio ME, Villar JC (2015) Characterization of purified bacterial cellulose focused on its use on paper restoration. Carbohydr Polym 116:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yousefi H, Faezipour M, Hedjazi S, Mousavi MM, Azusa Y, Heidari AH (2013) Comparative study of paper and nanopaper properties prepared from bacterial cellulose nanofibres and fibres/ground cellulose nanofibres of canola straw. Ind Crop Prod 43:732–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Moutinho I, Figueiredo M, Ferreira PJ (2004) Influência dos agentes de colagem superficial na estrutura do papel: uma análise química. In: Jiménez L, Villar JC (eds) Proceedings of III CIADICYP. INIA, Madrid, pp 377–383Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Etzler FM, Buche M, Bobalek JF, Weiss MA (1995) Surface free energy of paper and inks: printability issues, papermakers conference. TAPPI Press, Chicago, pp 383–394Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ferreira PJT, Moutinho IMT, Figueiredo MML (2008) How paper topography affects contact angle measurement. In: Turrado J (ed) V Congreso Iberoamericano de Investigación en Celulosa y Papel CIADICYP 2008. Grafisma, Guadalajara, pp 66–69Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Andersson C, Jonhed A, Järnström L (2008) Composition and film properties of temperature responsive, hydrophobically modified potato starch. Starch 60:539–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara M. Santos
    • 1
    Email author
  • José M. Carbajo
    • 1
  • Nuria Gómez
    • 1
  • Ester Quintana
    • 1
  • Miguel Ladero
    • 2
  • Arsenio Sánchez
    • 3
  • Gary Chinga-Carrasco
    • 4
  • Juan C. Villar
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Cellulose and PaperForest Research Center, INIAMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Chemical EngineeringUniversidad Complutense de MadridMadridSpain
  3. 3.Restoration LaboratoryBiblioteca Nacional de EspañaMadridSpain
  4. 4.Paper and Fiber Research Institute (PFI)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations