Advertisement

Nanocellulose: Insight into Health and Medical Applications

  • Nadia HalibEmail author
  • Ishak Ahmad
Reference work entry

Abstract

Discovering biomaterials of renewable and sustainable has become primary goal among researchers as a way to mitigate environmental impact. One of those abundantly present is cellulosic materials. Agricultural waste such as banana rachis, wheat straw, cassava bagasse, and coconut husk have been identified as a reliable resources in the production of cellulose fibers, a natural fillers for composite applications. Due to its high strength and stiffness, biodegradable, and biocompatible, this material has found its way in health and medical applications. Crystalline nanocellulose offers several advantages as pharmaceutical excipient that favors the extended and control release of the drugs. Whereas cellulose fiber has been incorporated and used as reinforce material for various hydrogel and composites in the development of biomaterial implants that are used as cell scaffolds or in vitro tissue reconstruction including skins replacements for burnings and wounds dressing, blood vessel growth, gum and bone reconstruction, and cardiac valve and blood stent. This chapter will focus on those development and potential applications.

References

  1. 1.
    Klemm D, Schumann D, Kramer F, Heßler N, Hornung M, Schmauder HP, Marsch S (2006) Nanocelluloses as innovative polymers in research and application. Adv Polym Sci 205:49–96Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Henriksson M, Berglund LA (2007) Structure and properties of cellulose nanocomposite films containing melamine formaldehyde. J Appl Polym Sci 106:2817–2824Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iwamoto S, Nakagaito AN, Yano H (2007) Nano-fibrillation of pulp fibers for the processing of transparent nanocomposites. Appl Phys A Mater Sci Process 89:461–466Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jonas R, Farah LF (1998) Production and application of microbial cellulose. Polym Degrad Stab 59:101–106Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dufresne A (2012) Nanocellulose. From nature to high performance tailored materials. Berlin/Boston, Walter de Gruyter GmbHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klemm D, Kramer F, Moritz S, Lindström T, Ankerfors M, Gray D, Dorris A (2011) Nanocelluloses: a new family of nature-based materials. Angew Chem Int Ed 50:5438–5466Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Siró I, David P (2010) Microfibrillated cellulose and new nanocomposite materials: a review. Cellulose 17:459–494Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hubbe MA, Rojas OJ, Lucia LA, Sain M (2008) Cellulosic nanocomposites: a review. Bioresources 3:929–980Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levis SR, Deasy PB (2001) Production and evaluation of size reduced grades of microcrystalline cellulose. Int J Pharm 213:13–24Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Habibi Y, Lucia LA, Rojas OJ (2010) Cellulose nanocrystals: chemistry, self-assembly, and applications. Chem Rev 110:3479–3500Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalia S, Dufresne A, Cherian BM, Kaith BS, Avérous L, Njuguna J, Nassiopoulos E (2011). Cellulose-based bio- and nanocomposites: a review. Int J Polym Sci 2011:Article ID 837875Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olyveira GM, Acasigua GAX, Costa LMM, Scher CR, Filho LX, Pranke P, Basmaji P (2013) Human dental pulp stem cell behavior using natural nanotolith/bacterial cellulose scaffolds for regenerative medicine. J Biomed Nanotechnol 9:1–8Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Takata T, Wang H-L, Miyauchi M (2001) Migration of osteoblastic cells on various guided bone regeneration membranes. Clin Oral Impl Res 12:332–338Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    He X, Xiao Q, Lu C, Wang Y, Zhang X, Zhao J, Zhang W, Zhang X, Deng Y (2004) Uniaxially aligned electrospun all-cellulose nanocomposite nanofibers reinforced with cellulose nanocrystals: scaffold for tissue engineering. Biomacromolecules 15:618–627Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Favi PM, Benson RS, Neilsen NR, Hammonds RL, Bates CC, Stephens CP, Dhar MS (2013) Cell proliferation, viability, and in vitro differentiation of equine mesenchymal stem cells seeded on bacterial cellulose hydrogel scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C 33:1935–1944Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jackson JK, Letchford K, Wasserman BZ, Ye L, Hamad WY, Burt HM (2011) The use of nanocrystalline cellulose for the binding and controlled release of drugs. Int J Nanomedicine 6:321–330Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Müller A, Ni Z, Hessler N, Wesarg F, Müller FA, Kralisch D, Fischer D (2013) The biopolymer bacterial nanocellulose as drug delivery system: investigation of drug loading and release using the model protein albumin. J Pharm Sci 102:579–592Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kolakovic R, Peltonen L, Laukkanen A, Hirvonen J, Laaksonen T (2012) Nanofibrillar cellulose films for controlled drug delivery. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 82:308–315Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gama M, Gatenholm P, Klemm D (2013) Bacterial nanocellulose: a sophisticated multifunctional material. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, p 263Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klemm D, Schumann D, Udhardt U, Marsch S (2001) Bacterial synthesized cellulose – artificial blood vessels for microsurgery. Prog Polym Sci 26:1561–1603Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang Y, Wei X, Li J, Wang F, Wang Q, Kong L (2013) Homogeneous isolation of nanocellulose from cotton cellulose by high pressure homogenization. J Mater Sci Chem Eng 1:49–52Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Abraham E, Deepa B, Pothen LA, Cintil J, Thomas S, John MJ, Anandjiwala R, Narine SS (2013) Environmental friendly method for the extraction of coir fibre and isolation of nanofiber. Carbohydr Polym 92:1477–1483Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cherian BM, Leão AL, de Souza SF, Thomas S, Pothan LA, Kottaisamy M (2010) Isolation of nanocellulose from pineapple leaf fibres by steam explosion. Carbohydr Polym 81:720–725Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Julie Chandra CS, George N, Narayanankutty SK (2016) Isolation and characterization of cellulose nanofibrils from arecanut husk fibre. Carbohydr Polym 142:158–166Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mathew AP, Oksman K, Karim Z, Liu P, Khan SA, Naseri N (2014) Process scale up and characterization of wood cellulose nanocrystals hydrolysed using bioethanol pilot plant. Ind Crop Prod 58:212–219Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Surip SN, Wan Jaafar WNR, Azmi NN, Anwar UMK (2012) Microscopy observation on nanocellulose from kenaf fibre. Adv Mater Res 488–489:72–75Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kalita E, Nath BK, Deb P, Agan F, Islam MR, Saikia K (2015) High quality fluorescent cellulose nanofibers from endemic rice husk: isolation and characterization. Carbohydr Polym 122:308–313Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chen Y, Wu Q, Huang B, Huang M, Ai X (2015) Isolation and characteristics of cellulose and nanocellulose from lotus leaf stalk agro-waste. Bioresources 10(1):684–696Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li J, Wei X, Wang Q, Chen J, Chang G, Kong L, Su J, Liu Y (2012) Homogeneous isolation of nanocellulose from sugarcane bagasse by high pressure homogenization. Carbohydr Polym 90:1609–1613Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ansel HC, Allen LV Jr, Popovich NG (1999) Pharmaceutical dosage forms and drug delivery systems. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kumar V, Kothari SH (1999) Effect of compressional force on the crystallinity of directly compressible cellulose excipients. Int J Pharm 177:173–182Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thoorens G, Krier F, Leclercq B, Carlin B, Evrard B (2014) Microcrystalline cellulose, a direct compression binder in a quality by design environment – a review. Int J Pharm 473:64–72Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    USP37-NF32 (2014) Excipient performance. U.S. Pharmacopeia, pp 752–769Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Carlin B (2008) Direct compression and the role of filler-binders. In: Augsburger LL, Augsburger LL, Hoag SW, Hoag SW (eds) Pharmaceutical dosage forms: tablets. Informa, New York, pp 173–216Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dammström S, Salmén L, Gatenholm P (2005) The effect of moisture on the dynamic properties of bacterial cellulose/glucuronoxylan nanocomposites. Polymer 46:10364–10371Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Azwa ZN, Yousif BF, Manalo AC, Karunasena W (2013) A review on the degradability of polymeric composites based on natural fibres. Mater Des 47:424–442Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shlieout G, Arnold K, Muller G (2002) Powder and mechanical properties of microcrystalline cellulose with different degrees of polymerization. AAPS PharmSciTech 3:E11Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Suzuki T, Nakagami H (1999) Effect of crystallinity of microcrystalline cellulose on the compactability and dissolution of tablets. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 47:225–230Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Das K, Ray D, Bandyopadhyay NR, Sengupta S (2010) Study of the properties of microcrystalline cellulose particles from different renewable resources by XRD, FTIR, nanoindentation, TGA and SEM. J Polym Environ 18:355–363Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Landín M, Martínez-Pacheco R, Gómez-Amoza JL, Souto C, Concheiro A, Rowe RC (1993) Effect of batch variation and source of pulp on the properties of microcrystalline cellulose. Int J Pharm 91:133–141Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dybowski U (1997) Does polymerisation degree matter? Manuf Chem Aerosol News, pp 19–21Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    FMC (2013) Fun facts about Avicel1 microcrystalline cellulose also known as cellulose gel. http://www.fmcbiopolymer.com/Food/Home/News/FiftyYearso-fAvicel.aspx. Accessed 18 Aug 2017
  43. 43.
    Rubinstein MH (1988) Tablets. In: Aulton ME, Aulton ME (eds) Pharmaceutics: the science of dosage form design. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 304–321Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Saigal N, Baboota S, Ahuja A, Ali J (2009) Microcrystalline cellulose as a versatile excipient in drug research. J Young Pharm 1:6–12Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pesonen T, Paronen P (1990) The effect of particle and powder properties on the mechanical properties of directly compressed cellulose tablets. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 16:31–54Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Westermarck S, Juppo AM, Kervinen L, Yliruusi J (1999) Microcrystalline cellulose and its microstructure in pharmaceutical processing. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 48:199–206Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bolhuis GK, Chowhan ZT (1996) Materials for direct compaction. In: Alderborn G, Alderborn G, Nyström C, Nyström C (eds) Pharmaceutical powder compaction technology. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp 419–500Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ferrari F, Bertoni M, Bonferoni MC, Rossi S, Caramella C, Nyström C (1996) Investigation on bonding and disintegration properties of pharmaceutical materials. Int J Pharm 136:71–79Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Doelker E (1993) Comparative compaction properties of various microcrystalline cellulose types and generic products. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 19:2399–2471Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lahdenpää E, Niskanen M, Yliruusi J (1997) Crushing strength, disintegration time and weight variation of tablets compressed from three Avicelä PH grades and their mixtures. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 43:315–322Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chamsai B, Sriamornsak P (2013) Novel disintegrating microcrystalline cellulose pellets with improved drug dissolution performance. Powder Tech 233:278–285Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sun CC (2008) Mechanism of moisture induced variations in true density and compaction properties of microcrystalline cellulose. Int J Pharm 346:93–101Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Amidon GE, Houghton ME (1995) The effect of moisture on the mechanical and powder flow properties of microcrystalline cellulose. Pharm Res 12:923–929Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nokhodchi A (2005) An overview of the effect of moisture on compaction and compression. Pharm Technol:46–66Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Patel S, Kaushal AM, Bansal AK (2006) Compression physics in the formulation development of tablets. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 23:1–65Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ph.Eur.8.0 (2014) Microcrystalline cellulose. European Pharmacopoeia, pp 1824–1828Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mohd Amin MCI, Abadi AG, Ahmad N, Katas H, Jamal JA (2012) Bacterial cellulose film coating as drug delivery system: physicochemical, thermal and drug release properties. Sains Malays 41(5):561–568Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Halib N, Mohd Amin MCI, Ahmad I, Abrami M, Fiorentino S, Farra R, Grassi G, Musiani F, Lapasin R, Grassi M (2014) Topological characterization of a bacterial cellulose – acrylic acid polymeric matrix. Eur J Pharm Sci 62:326–333Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Censi R, Di Martino P, Vermonden T, Hennink WE (2012) Hydrogels for protein delivery in tissue engineering. J Control Release 161(2):680–692Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hestrin S, Schramm M (1954) Biochem J 58:345Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Huang Y, Zhu C, Yang J, Nie Y, Chen C, Sun D (2014) Recent advances in bacterial cellulose. Cellulose 21:1–30Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lin N, Dufresne A (2014) Nanocellulose in biomedicine: current status and future prospect. Eur Polym J 59:302–325Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Martin JD, Clift E, Foster J, Vanhecke D, Studer D, Wick P et al (2011) Investigating the interaction of cellulose nanofibers derived from cotton with a sophisticated 3D human lung cell coculture. Biomacromolecules 12:3666–3673Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yanamala N, Farcas MT, Hatfield MK, Kisin ER, Kagan VE, Geraci CL, Shvedova AA (2014) In vivo evaluation of the pulmonary toxicity of cellulose nanocrystals: a renewable and sustainable nanomaterial of the future. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2(7):1691–1698Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Vartiainen J, Pöhler T, Sirola K, Pylkkänen L, Alenius H, Hokkinen J, Tapper U, Lahtinen P, Kapanen A, Putkisto K, Hiekkataipale P, Eronen P, Ruokolainen J, Laukkanen A (2011) Health and environmental safety aspects of friction grinding and spray drying of microfibrillated cellulose. Cellulose 18:775–786Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cullen RT, Searl A, Miller BG, Davis JMG, Jones AD (2000) Pulmonary and intraperitoneal inflammation induced by cellulose fibres. J Appl Toxicol 20:49–60Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Stefaniak AB, Seehra MS, Fix NR, Leonard SS (2014) Lung biodurability and free radical production of cellulose nanomaterials. Inhal Toxicol 26(12):733–749Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Chen YM, Xi T, Zheng Y, Guo T, Hou J, Wan Y, Gao C (2009) In vitro cytotoxicity of bacterial cellulose scaffold for tissue engineered bone. J Bioact Compat Polym 24:137–145Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Jeong SI, Lee SE, Yang H, Jin YH, Park CS, Park YS (2010) Toxicologic evaluation of bacterial synthesized cellulose in endothelial cells and animals. Mol Cell Toxicol 6:373–380Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kim G-D, Yang H, Park HR, Park C-S, Park YS, Lee SE (2013) Evaluation of immunoreactivity of in vitro and in vivo models against bacterial synthesized cellulose to be used as a prosthetic biomaterial. Biochip J 7:201–209Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Dugan JM, Gough JE, Eichhorn SJ (2013) Bacterial cellulose scaffolds and cellulose nanowhiskers for tissue engineering. Nanomedicine 8:287–298Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Miyamoto T, Takahashi S, Ito H, Inagaki H, Noishiki Y (1989) Tissue biocompatibility of cellulose and its derivatives. J Biomed Mater Res 23:125–133Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Märtson M, Viljanto J, Hurme T, Laippala P, Saukko P (1999) Is cellulose sponge degradable or stable as implantation material? An in vivo subcutaneous study in the rat. Biomaterials 20:1989–1995Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Helenius G, Bäckdahl H, Bodin A, Nannmark U, Gatenholm P, Risberg B (2006) In vivo biocompatibility of bacterial cellulose. J Biomed Mater Res A 76:431–438Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Andrade FK, Silva JP, Carvalho M, Castanheira EMS, Soares R, Gama M (2011) Studies on the hemocompatibility of bacterial cellulose. J Biomed Mater Res A 98:554–566Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Rosamond W, Flegal K, Furie K, Go A, Greenlund K, Haase N, Hailpern S, Ho M, Howard V, Kissela B, American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee (2008) Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2008 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation 117(4):e25–e146Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Fink H, Ahrenstedt L, Bodin A, Brumer H, Gatenholm P, Krettek A, Risberg B (2011) Bacterial cellulose modified with xyloglucan bearing the adhesion peptide RGD promotes endothelial cell adhesion and metabolism – a promising modification for vascular grafts. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 5(6):454–463Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hamilton, D., & Vorp, D. (2004). Encyclopedia of biomaterials and biomedical engineering. Online Version, 2551–2561Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Backdahl 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(9):2141–2149Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Esguerra M, Fink H, Laschke MW, Jeppsson A, Delbro D, Gatenholm P, Menger MD, Risberg B (2010) Intravital fluorescent microscopic evaluation of bacterial cellulose as scaffold for vascular grafts. J Biomed Mater Res A93(1):140–149Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Fink H, Faxalv L, Molnar GF, Drotz K, Risberg B, Lindahl TL, Sellborn A (2010) Real-time measurements of coagulation on bacterial cellulose and conventional vascular graft materials. Acta Biomater 6(3):1125–1130Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Bodin A, Ahrenstedt L, Fink H, Brumer H, Risberg B, Gatenholm P (2007a) Modification of nanocellulose with a xyloglucan-RGD conjugate enhances adhesion and proliferation of endothelial cells: implications for tissue engineering. Biomacromolecules 8(12):3697–3704Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Bodin A, Backdahl H, Fink H, Gustafsson L, Risberg B, Gatenholm P (2007b) Influence of cultivation conditions on mechanical and morphological properties of bacterial cellulose tubes. Biotechnol Bioeng 97(2):425–434Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Ratliff CR, Fletcher KR (2007) Skin tears: a review of the evidence to support prevention and treatment. Ostomy Wound Manage 53(3):32–42Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Singer AJ, Dagum AB (2008) Current management of acute cutaneous wounds. N Engl J Med 359(10):1037–1046Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Roberts MJ (2007) Preventing and managing skin tears: a review. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 34(3):256–259Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Solway DR, Consalter M, Levinson DJ (2010) Microbial cellulose wound dressing in the treatment of skin tears in the frail elderly. Wounds 22(1):17–19Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Sibbald RG, Woo KY (2008) The biology of chronic foot ulcers in persons with diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 24(Suppl 1):25S–30SGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Hinchliffe RJ, Valk GD, Apelquist J, Armstrong DG, Bakker K, Game FL, Hartemann-Heurtier A, Londahl M, Price PE, van Houtum WH, Jeffcoate WJ (2008) A systemic review of the effectiveness of interventions to enhance the healing of chronic ulcers of the foot in diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 24(1 Suppl):119S–144SGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Jeffcoate WJ, Price P, Harding KG (2004) Wound healing and treatments for people with diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 20(1 Suppl):78S–89SGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Robson MC, Hill DP, Wooske ME, Steel DL (2000) Wound healing trajectories as predictors of effectiveness of therapeutic agents. Arch Surg 135(7):773Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Alvarez OM, Patel M, Brooker J, Markowitz L (2004) Effectiveness of a biocellulose wound dressing for the treatment of chronic venous ulcers: results of a single center randomized study involving 24 patients. Wounds 16:224–233Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Schoen FJ, Levy RJ (1999) Tissue heart valves: current challenges and future research perspectives. J Biomed Mater Res 47:439–465Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Mori Y, Tokura H, Yoshikawa M (1997) Properties of hydrogels synthesized by freezing and thawing aqueous polyvinyl alcohol solutions and their applications. J Mater Sci 32:491–496Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Gordon MJ (1999) Controlling the mechanical properties of PVA hydrogels for biomedical applications. MESc thesis, University of Western OntarioGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Stauffer SR, Peppas NA (1992) Poly(vinyl alcohol) hydrogels prepared by freezing-thawing cyclic processing. Polymer 33:3932–3935Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Wan WK, Campbell G, Zhang ZF, Hui AJ, Boughner DR (2002) Optimizing the tensile properties of polyvinyl alcohol hydrogel for the construction of a bioprosthetic heart valve stent. J Biomed Mater Res 63:854–861Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Mohammadi H, Boughner D, Millon LE, Wan WK (2009) Design and simulation of a poly(vinyl alcohol) – bacterial cellulose nanocomposite mechanical aortic heart valve prosthesis. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med 223(6):697–711Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Kralisch D, Hessler N, Klemm D, Erdmann R, Schmidt W (2010) White biotechnology for cellulose manufacturing – the HoLiR concept. Biotechnol Bioeng 105(4):740–747Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Basic Sciences and Oral Biology, Faculty of DentistryUniversiti Sains Islam MalaysiaPandan IndahMalaysia
  2. 2.School of Chemical Science and Food Technology, Faculty of Science and TechnologyUniversiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaBangiMalaysia

Personalised recommendations