ArticleMicrobial biotechnology2019
Improved bacterial nanocellulose production from glucose without the loss of quality by evaluating thirteen agitator configurations at low speed.
Article in Microbial biotechnology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Bacterial nanocellulose: engineering, production, and applications.Bioengineered · 2021Review
- Improved bacterial nanocellulose production from glucose without the loss of quality by evaluating thirteen agitator configurations at low speed.Microbial biotechnology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thirteen agitator configurations were investigated at low speed in stirred-tank reactors (STRs) to determine if improved crude bacterial nanocellulose (BNC) productivity can be achieved from glucose-based media while maintaining high BNC quality using Komagataeibacter xylinus ATCC 23770 as a model organism. A comparison of five single impellers showed the pitched blade (large) was the optimal impeller at 300 rpm. The BNC production was further increased by maintaining the pH at 5.0. Among the single helical ribbon and frame impellers and the combined impellers, the twin pitched blade provided the best results. The combined impellers at 150 rpm performed better than the single impellers, and after optimizing the agitation conditions, the twin pitched blade (large) and helical ribbon impellers performed the best at 100 rpm. The performances of different agitators at low speed during BNC production were related to how efficiently the agitators improved the oxygen mass transfer coefficient. The twin pitched blade (large) was verified as providing the optimum performance by an observed crude BNC production of 1.97 g (L×d)
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.