| Literature DB >> 34201884 |
Valentino Bervia Lunardi1, Felycia Edi Soetaredjo1,2, Jindrayani Nyoo Putro1, Shella Permatasari Santoso1,2, Maria Yuliana1, Jaka Sunarso3, Yi-Hsu Ju4,5, Suryadi Ismadji1.
Abstract
The 'Back-to-nature' concept has currently been adopted intensively in various industries, especially the pharmaceutical industry. In the past few decades, the overuse of synthetic chemicals has caused severe damage to the environment and ecosystem. One class of natural materials developed to substitute artificial chemicals in the pharmaceutical industries is the natural polymers, including cellulose and its derivatives. The development of nanocelluloses as nanocarriers in drug delivery systems has reached an advanced stage. Cellulose nanofiber (CNF), nanocrystal cellulose (NCC), and bacterial nanocellulose (BC) are the most common nanocellulose used as nanocarriers in drug delivery systems. Modification and functionalization using various processes and chemicals have been carried out to increase the adsorption and drug delivery performance of nanocellulose. Nanocellulose may be attached to the drug by physical interaction or chemical functionalization for covalent drug binding. Current development of nanocarrier formulations such as surfactant nanocellulose, ultra-lightweight porous materials, hydrogel, polyelectrolytes, and inorganic hybridizations has advanced to enable the construction of stimuli-responsive and specific recognition characteristics. Thus, an opportunity has emerged to develop a new generation of nanocellulose-based carriers that can modulate the drug conveyance for diverse drug characteristics. This review provides insights into selecting appropriate nanocellulose-based hybrid materials and the available modification routes to achieve satisfactory carrier performance and briefly discusses the essential criteria to achieve high-quality nanocellulose.Entities:
Keywords: drug delivery; drug release; functionalization; nanocellulose
Year: 2021 PMID: 34201884 PMCID: PMC8272055 DOI: 10.3390/polym13132052
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1The number of publications in the area of nanocellulose and nanocellulose for biomedical engineering indexed by Scopus from 2010-until recent (10 June 2021) (a); data representation of annual publication of nanocellulose in various categories of biomedical engineering within the last decades (b); data analysis performed on Scopus using the terms nanocellulose and nanocellulose for “x” (x refer to biomedical engineering, drug delivery, tissue engineering, wound healing, implants, Antibacterial/antimicrobial, and cardiovascular).
Figure 2Schematic of cellulose production from wood plant and structural chemistry of exhibiting arrangement betwixt individual fibers.
Figure 3Schematic representation nanocrystalline cellulose fabrication by chemical treatment ((a) transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of rod-like cellulose nanocrystals [38], reprinted with permission; transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of cellulose nano whisker reprinted with permission from [25]. Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V.; (b) transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of spherical cellulose nanocrystal reprinted with permission from [43]. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V.).
Figure 4Schematic representation of cellulose nanofibers fabrication by mechanical treatment (scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of micro fibrillated cellulose reprinted with permission from ref. [50]; Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Ltd.; scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of cellulose nanofibers reprinted with permission from ref. [51]. Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Ltd.).
Figure 5Schematic production of bacteria cellulose through extracellular secretion (scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of 3-D dimensional network of bacteria cellulose [58], reprinted with permission; (c) scanning electron microscopy (TEM) images bacteria cellulose pellicle, reprinted with permission from ref. [59]. Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd.)
Summary of the characteristics of various types of nanocelluloses.
| Types | Nanocrystalline Cellulose (NCC) | Cellulose Nanofibers (CNF) | Bacterial Cellulose | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | ||||
| Common names | Cellulose whisker, cellulose nanowhisker, cellulose nanowire, and cellulose nanorod or spherical cellulose nanocrystals | Cellulose nanofibril, micro fibrillated cellulose, Nanofibrillar cellulose, Nanofibrillated cellulose, and cellulose microfibril | Microbial cellulose (MC), bacterial nanocellulose (BC), and bio-cellulose (BC) | |
| Morphological structure | Needles like shape, elongated rod-like shape, and spindle shape | Smooth, extended, and flexible chain | Twisted ribbons like shape | |
| Structure of Nanocellulose | Crystalline domains | amorphous and crystalline domains | Crystalline domains | |
| Chain Length | 500–15,000 | 4000–10,000 | ||
| Crystallinity (%) | 54–88 | - | 84–88 | |
| Other Impurities and contaminant | Possible to contain hemicellulose, lignin, and pectin | Possible to contain hemicellulose, lignin, and pectin | Contain no hemicellulose, lignin, and pectin | |
| Size (Length and Diameter) | Diameter: 5–30 nm and Length: 100–500 nm | Diameter: 1–100 nm and Length: 500–2000 nm | Diameter 20–100 nm and several micrometric lengths | |
| Process System | Top-down system | Top-down system | Bottom-up system | |
| Tensile strength (Gpa) | 7.5–7.7 | 13 | 0.2–0.3 | |
| Modulus Young (Gpa) | 110–220 | Approximately 15 | 18–20 | |
| Density (gr/cm3) | 1.6 | 1.42 | 1.1 | |
| Characteristics | Homogenous nanorod form, exceptional aspect ratio (length to diameter), appreciable specific surface area (SSA), biocompatibility, liquid crystalline attribute, inferior breaking expansion, high young’s modulus, hydrophilicity, outstanding mechanical stiffness, tunable surface characteristic due to the reactive hydroxyl group and low density | Extended length with excellent aspect proportion (length to diameter), superlative surface area, hydrophilicity, biocompatibility and adjustable characteristic through surface modification afforded by high extensive of hydroxyl groups in CNF. | High crystallinity of nanocellulose (84–88%) and polymerization grade, high water uptake capacity (exceeding 100 times of its weight), remarkable surface area (high aspect proportion of fiber), outstanding tensile strength (young modulus 15–18 Gpa), and flexibility, foldability, moldability, mechanical stability, highly biocompatible material, non-cytotoxic, un-genotoxic and high porosity | |
Summary of waste-based sources for nanocellulose production and its characteristic.
| Waste Residue Sources | Nanocellulose Isolation Technique | Nanocellulose Characteristics | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretreatment | Treatment | |||
| WASTE BASED FOREST RESIDUE | ||||
| Birch and Spruce sawdust | Hot water treatment and subsequent delignification; TEMPO oxidation | Mechanical defibrillation |
CNF | [ |
| Medium-density fiberboard | Soxhlet extraction (Ethanol and toluene), NaOH, and recurrent bleaching | Acid hydrolysis (H2SO4) | NCC | [ |
| Eucalyptus sawdust | Hot water treatment, alkaline delignification, O2 residual delignification, TEMPO-mediated Oxidation | High pressure homogenization | CNF | [ |
| Pinecone biomass | Alkali treatment followed with acidification (NaClO2:CH3COOH) | Mechanical grinding. | CNF | [ |
| Logging residues | Alkaline and bleaching pretreatment | Acid hydrolysis (H2SO4) | NCC | [ |
| Bamboo log chips | Pretreatment with glycerol; and screw extrusion | Mechanical refining/Milling treatment assisted by H2SO4 (0.15%) as a catalyst | CNF | [ |
| WASTE BASED ALGAE RESIDUE | ||||
|
| - | TEMPO Oxidation; | CNF | [ |
| Red algae | - | Acid hydrolysis (H2SO4) | NCC | [ |
|
| Methanol pretreatment (Soxhlet extraction) followed by bleaching, alkaline pretreatment, and neutralization | Acid hydrolysis (H2SO4) | NCC | [ |
| Industrial kelp ( | Two stages of bleaching pretreatment (Chlorine dioxide followed with hydrogen peroxide) | Acid hydrolysis (H2SO4) | NCC | [ |
| Dealginate kelp residue | Na2CO3 (2% wt) treatment, residual sodium alginate extraction by NaOH (2% wt); Ultrasonic irradiation; NaClO2 (0.7% wt) buffer solution bleaching treatment and delignification | Acid hydrolysis (H2SO4) | NCC | [ |
|
| Bleaching method | Acid hydrolysis (HCl) followed with Ultrasonic irradiation | CNF | [ |
|
| Soxhlet Extraction (Ethanol: Toluene) Bleaching treatment, delignification (5% KOH solution) | Acid hydrolysis (H2SO4) followed with neutralization (NaOH) | NCC | [ |
|
| Alkali and bleaching pretreatment | Acid hydrolysis (H2SO4) | NCC | [ |
| WASTE BASED AGRICULTURAL RESIDUE | ||||
| Waste sugarcane bagasse | Acidification and alkaline pretreatment | Acid hydrolysis (H2SO4) | NCC | [ |
| Jute dried stalks | Alkali treatment followed by steam explosion; sodium chlorite bleaching | Acid hydrolysis (oxalic acid) followed by steam explosion. | CNF | [ |
| Coconut husk | Ultrasonic-aided solvent submersion. Delignification and Bleaching Pretreatment, followed by TEMPO-mediated Oxidation (TEMPO/NaClO/NaClO2; pH = 4.8) | Ultrasonication | CNF | [ |
| Citrus waste | Alkaline and Bleaching Pretreatment | Enzymatic hydrolysis and ultrasonication | CNF | [ |
| Raw rice husk | Size Reduction, Soxhlet extraction (toluene and ethanol); Acidification (NaClO2 and CH3COOH); and delignification (5% KOH) | High pressure homogenization and high-intensity ultrasonication processes (500 W,40 min). | CNF | [ |
| Corn cobs | - | One pot synthesis via mechanochemical esterification |
CNF | [ |
| Kenaf bast fiber | Delignification and three stage of bleaching pre-treatments | Mechanical grinder | CNF | [ |
| Passion Fruit Peels | Alkaline and bleaching pretreatment | Acid hydrolysis (H2SO4) followed with ultrasonication | NCC | [ |
| WASTE BASED INDUSTRIAL BY PRODUCT | ||||
| Olive industry solid waste | Pretreatment including pulping and bleaching | Acid hydrolysis (H2SO4) | NCC | [ |
| Lime residues | Autoclaving pretreatment | High shear and high-pressure homogenization | CNF | [ |
| Recycled Tetra Pak Food Packaging Wastes | Delignification and bleaching pretreatment | Acid hydrolysis (H2SO4) followed with ultrasonication | NCC | [ |
| Waste paper | Deinking method and alkaline pretreatment | Acid hydrolysis (H2SO4) followed with ultrasonication | NCC | [ |
| Discarded cigarette filters | Ethanol extraction, alkaline pretreatment, and bleaching pretreatment, | Acid hydrolysis (H2SO4) followed with ultrasonication | NCC | [ |
| Recycled Paper Mill Sludge | Ozonation pretreatment | Acid hydrolysis (Maleic acid) | NCC | [ |
| Citrus Pulp of Floater (CPF) | Alkaline and bleaching pretreatment with autoclave | Enzymatic hydrolysis | n.d | [ |
| Sweet lime pulp waste | Blending and acid hydrolysis (H2SO4) | BNC | [ | |
Abbreviation: D: Diameter; L: Length; W: Width; TS: Thermal Stability; Y: Yield; L/D: Aspect Ratio; CrI: Crystallinity Index; l: Lateral size; σ: Tensile strength; E: Young Modulus.
Recent study of bacteria cellulose production.
| Bacteria Cultivation | Source of Carbon and Its Concentration | Culture Medium | Fermentation Conditions | Yield (g/L) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Glucose | GY Broth | Static; 28 °C; 9 days | 6.17 ± 0.02 | [ |
| Mannitol | 8.77 ± 0.04 | ||||
| Xylitol | 1.36 ± 0.05 | ||||
|
| Glycerol | Hestrin–Schramm (HS) liquid media | Static; 28 °C; 15 days | ~6.9 | [ |
| Glucose | ~4.05 | ||||
| Sorbitol and Mannitol | ~1.65–3.41 | ||||
|
| Glucose | Hestrin–Schramm (HS) liquid media | Static; 30 °C; 7 days | ~2.2 | [ |
| Sucrose | ~1.6 | ||||
| Galactose | ~1.4 | ||||
| Maltose and Mannitol | ~0.1–0.2 | ||||
|
| Glucose | Standard Hestrin–Schramm (HS) Medium | Static; 28 °C; 8 days | 2.80 | [ |
| Sucrose | 1.68 | ||||
| Fructose | 0.38 | ||||
|
| Date syrup | Yamanaka | 150 rpm; 28 °C; 7 days, | ~1.15 | [ |
| glucose | ~0.85 | ||||
| mannitol, | ~1.4 | ||||
| sucrose | ~1.45 | ||||
| food-grade sucrose | ~0.7 | ||||
| Date syrup | Hestrin–Schramm | ~0.65 | |||
| glucose | ~0.7 | ||||
| mannitol, | ~1.05 | ||||
| sucrose | ~1.5 | ||||
| food-grade sucrose | ~1.1 | ||||
| Date syrup | Zhou | ~0.9 | |||
| glucose | ~1 | ||||
| mannitol, | ~1.85 | ||||
| sucrose | ~1.65 | ||||
| food-grade sucrose | ~1.15 |
Figure 6Simplified mechanisms of chemical synthesis nanocellulose; (a) acid-based chemical modification; (b) oxidation based chemical modification.
The influence of chemical functionalization on morphological nanocellulose.
| Methods | Reagents | Aided Reagents | Operation Parameter | Sources of Cellulose | Mechanical Technique | Yield (%) | Morphology (nm) | CI%) | Zeta Potential (mV) | Surface Charge Density (mmol/g) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mineral Acids | H2SO4 | - | 52% H2SO4 50 °C; 60 min | Passion Fruit Peels | Ultrasonication | 58.1 | NCC | 77.96 | −25 | - | [ |
| - | 63% H2SO4 50 °C; 90 min | Microcrystalline Cellulose | Ultrasonication | 30% | NCC | - | −46.1 | - | [ | ||
| - | - | Filter Paper | - | - | NCC | 85 | - | -SO3H | [ | ||
| H2SO4/HCl | - | H2SO4:HCl:H2O (3:1:6); Ultrasonic 50 hZ; 10 h | Microcrystalline Cellulose | Ultrasonication | - | S-CNC (D:10–180 nm) | - | - | - | [ | |
| ClSO3H (Post-sulfonation) | - | ClSO3H in 50 mL DMF; RT; 2 h | Sulfated NCC | Ultrasonication | 79.31 | NCC | 88% | −66.1 | -SO3H | [ | |
| H3PO4 | - | 73.9% H3PO4; 100 °C; 90 min | Filter Paper | Blending | 76–80 | NCC | 81 | - | -PO3
| [ | |
| - | 10.7 M H3PO4; 100 °C; 30 min | Cellulose Biotethanol Residue | Homogenizer | NCC | 83 | −27 | -PO3
| [ | |||
| - | 10.7 M H3PO4; 100 °C; 30 min | CNF | 81 | −23 | -PO3
| ||||||
| H3PO4 in molten Urea | - | 10.7 M H3PO4; 150 °C; 30 min | NCC | 83 | −34 | -PO3
| |||||
| - | CNF | 86 | −24 | -PO3
| |||||||
| HCl | - | 2.5 M HCl; 105 °C; 40 min | Filter Paper | Blending | - | NCC | 79% | - | - | [ | |
| Organic Acids | Acetic Acid | H2SO4 | 80 °C; 3 h | Bleached eucalyptus kraft pulp | - | 81 | NCC | 80 | −33 | -SO3H | [ |
| HCl | 105 °C; 9 h | Cotton | Blending | 30 | NCC | - | - | - | [ | ||
| Formic Acid | 6M HCl | 80 °C; 4 h | Microcrystalline Cellulose | - | - | NCC | 88 | −1.7 | Formate | [ | |
| 0.015 M FeCl3 | 90 °C; 6 h | Bleached eucalyptus kraft pulp | - | 75 | NCC | 75 | −6.53 | Formate | [ | ||
| Lactic Acid | HCl | 150 °C; 3 h | Cotton | Blending | - | NCC | 80 | - | Lactate | [ | |
| Butyric Acid | 0.027 M HCl | 105 °C; 9 h | Cotton | Blending | 20 | NCC | - | - | Butyrate | [ | |
| Maleic Acid (MA) | - | 70% MA; 100 °C; 45 min | Bleached eucalyptus kraft pulp | - | 12% | NCC | - | -33 | -COOH | [ | |
| - | 60% MA; 120 °C; 2 h | Bleached eucalyptus kraft pulp | Microfluidizer | 3% | L: 329.9; h = 15.9 | - | −46.9 | -COOH | [ | ||
| 84% | CNF | - | −45.2 | -COOH | |||||||
| Oxalic Acid (OA) | - | 8.75% OA; 110 °C; 15 min | Filter paper | Sonication | 93.77 | NCC | - | −36 | -COOH, 0.29 | [ | |
| - | 70% OA; 100 °C; 1 h | Bleached eucalyptus kraft pulp | - | 24.7 | NCC | 80 | −42.5 | -COOH | [ | ||
| - | 30% OA; 100° C; 30 min | Celery | Sonication | 76.8 | CNF | 49 | −32.9 | -COOH | [ | ||
| Malonic Acid | - | 80% wt of Malonic Acid; 140 °C; 3 h | Ramie Cellulose | Blending | 5% | NCC | - | - | -COOH | [ | |
| 0.025 M HCl | 19.8% | 75 | - | -COOH | |||||||
| Malic acid | - | 80% wt of Malic Acid; 140 °C; 3 h | 3.4% | - | - | -COOH, (1.617) | |||||
| 0.05 M HCl | 20% | 78 | - | -COOH | |||||||
| Citric Acid | - | 80% wt of Citric Acid; 140 °C; 3 h | 5.1 | - | - | -COOH | |||||
| 0.05 M HCl | 20.5 | 78 | - | -COOH, (1.884) | |||||||
| - | 80% wt of Citric Acid; 100 °C; 4 h | Bleached Baggase Pulp | Ultrasonication | 32 | NCC, | 78 | −122.9 | -COOH, 0.65 | [ | ||
| - | - | CNF, | 69 | 190.3 | -COOH, 0.3 | ||||||
| Oxidation Treatment | TEMPO/NaCl | - | TEMPO (0.094 mmol)-NaBr (1.57 mmol)- NaClO (1.24 M); 10 °C; 45 min | Nanocrystalline Cellulose | Ultrasonication | - | NCC, | 80% | - | - | [ |
| - | TEMPO (0.1 mmol mmol)-NaBr (1 mmol)- NaClO (5 mmol/g cellulose); Ambient condition; 1.5 h | HBKP | Ultrasonication | - | CNF | 85% | - | -COOH; | [ | ||
| TEMPO/O2/Laccase | 50 mM TEMPO, 5 U mL–1 laccase; 96 h | HBKP | Ultrasonication | - | CNF, | - | - | -COOH; | |||
| Sequential Periodate-Chlorite Oxidation | 1 M Acetic Acid (2) | (1). 46 mmol NaIO4; 50 °C;4.5 h followed by (2). 12 g NaClO2l 50 °C; 40 h | Hardwood Pulp | Homogenizer (5 passes; 80 MPa) | - | CNF, | - | −128 | -COOH | [ | |
| APS Oxidation | - | 1 M APS; 75 °C; 16 h | Cotton Linters | - | 34.4 | CNF, | 63.8 | - | -COOH (0.16); | [ |
Figure 7Illustrative representation of conjugated doxorubicin onto NCCs through chemical bonding (this picture is re-drawn from Tortorella et al. [160]. Copyright © Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH). Abbreviations: NCCs = cellulose nanocrystals, DAC = cellulose dialdehyde, GABA = c-amino butyric acid, HBA = 4-hydroxy benzyl alcohol, EDC HCl = 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl) carbodiimide hydrochloride, NHS = N-hydroxy succinimide, DMAP = 4-dimethylamino pyridine, NPC = 4-nitrophenyl chloroformate, DIPEA = N,N-diisopropyl-N-ethylamine, anh. DMF = anhydrous dimethylformamide, DOXONH2 = doxorubicin, * is repetitive monomer molecules.
Figure 8Schematic representation of the polymer grafting technique (a). CuAAC “click” reaction for NCC-gPEEP synthesis (this picture is redrawn from Wang et al. [162], Copyright 2010 Royal Society of Chemistry); (b) polymer-grafted cellulose fibrils (pNIPAm-g-TOCNs) via Passerini one-pot reaction (this figure is redrawn from Khine et al. [164]. Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society).
Figure 9Schematic representation of the surfactant and nanocrystalline cellulose mechanism and its effect on drug adsorption (this figure is re-drawn from Bundjaja et al. [26]. Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V.).
Figure 10(A) The route fabrication of single membrane and double-membrane microsphere hydrogel with its optical microscope of single membrane SA/CNCC microsphere hydrogel and SA/CNCC double-membrane microsphere hydrogel (this figure is reprinted with permission from ref. [177]. Copyright © 2016 American Chemical Society); (B) schematic illustration of dual drug release mechanism from a double-layer membrane hydrogel constructed from Cationic NCC and Alginate (this figure is redrawn from Lin et al. [177]. Copyright © 2016 American Chemical Society).
Figure 11Construction pathway of (I) cellulose nanocrystal (β)CD-g-CN grafted β-cyclodextrin; (II) complex inclusion between Pluronic polymers and (β)CD-g-CN; (III) supramolecular hydrogels comprising an in situ inclusion between (β)CD-g-CN/Pluronic and α-CD (a) hydrogel CN-CD/F68-2 and its and its morphological evidence, (b) hydrogel CN-CD/F108-2 and its morphological evidence, (c) water, (d) drug-loaded hydrogel CN-CD/F108-2-Dox. This figure is reprinted with permission from [178]. Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society.
Figure 12Schematic illustration of possible locking effect of the drug via host–guest inclusion in supramolecular hydrogel constructed from cyclodextrin and chemically modified nanocrystalline cellulose (this picture is redrawn from [178]. Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society.)
Figure 13Schematic illustration of the swelling mechanism of hydrogel fabricated from TEMPO-mediated CNFs and alginate towards drug release (this figure is redrawn from [181]. Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V.).
Figure 14(A) Synthesis pathway and morphological structure of different ratio of NFC/Gelatin RNFC/Gelatin: (a,b) NGDC1/9; (c,d) NGDC3/7; (e,f) NGDC5/5. Surface (a–c); cross-section (b,d,f); (B) the influence of morphological structure of NFC/Gelatin Cryogel towards drug loading (left side) and release efficiency (right side) (This figure is reprinted with permission from [174]. Copyright © 2019 American Chemical Society).
Figure 15(A). Preparation route of CNF-based foams and its morphological, structural characteristic: (a): CNF-based foams cross-section morphological image; (b) cell structure image of CNF/LA loaded with riboflavin (the arrow points to riboflavin). (B) elongated diffusional pathways of the drug in foam-based CNFs (this figure is redrawn from Svagan et al. [189]. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V.).
Figure 16Preparation route of sponge-based TOCNFs via crosslinking of bPEI and TOCNFs with CA as a crosslinker; arrow (a) is cross-linking process, and arrow (b) is auxiliary carboxyl addition (this figure is reprinted with permission from ref. [193]. Copyright © 2017 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.).
Figure 17(a) Magnetic NCC-based nanocarrier with pH-responsive capability construction. The nanocellulose was undergoing tosylation, which reacted with tosyl chloride for tris(2-aminoethyl)amine (AMFC) functionalization, incorporating amino moieties for electrostatic interaction improvement, which connected into the methotrexate (MTX, anticancer drug) carboxyl groups (MTX@AMFC@MNPs); and (b) schematic illustration of pH-responsive and localization of cancer treatment that benefited from the structural similarity between folic acid and MTX, which assists the folate-receptor-mediated cell internalization (this figure is redrawn from [195]. Copyright 1987 Royal Society Of Chemistry).