Nanocelluloses: hazard characteristics and possible risks (literature review)

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Nanocelluloses (NCs) have broad application prospects in medicine as implants, cell scaffolds and dressings, in the production of composite materials and coatings, electronics, food and pharmaceutical products. The main types of NCs include nanofibrous (NFC), nanocrystalline (NCC) cellulose isolated from natural, predominantly plant materials, and bacterial nanocellulose (BNC) obtained by microbial synthesis. The production process of NC can include many factors potent of affecting their toxicological characteristics, such as residual amounts of chemicals and enzyme preparations used in the isolation and modification of NC, contamination of NC from natural sources with mycotoxins, heavy metals, pesticides, and dioxins. In the case of NCs of microbial origin, the question of the safety of the respective producer strains remains open, most of which are genetically modified. Special attention deserves the ability of NC to exhibit toxicity to living organisms, different from their chemical counterpart in its traditional form. Expanding the range of products containing NC in close contact with human, primarily food products, packaging materials, pharmacological preparations and medical materials, requires a thorough assessment of the possible risks associated with the impact of NC on the human body.

The purpose of the research is to review the literature over 2010 to 2021 on the potential risks associated with the toxic effects of NC on living organisms through various exposure routes.

Information is provided on toxicity in in vitro systems, in particular, the ability to induce oxidative stress and inflammation. There are presented results of studies on inhalation and oral toxicity in vivo, data on carcinogenicity, immune cell response to NC and its ability to induce immunological tolerance. Based on the results of a comparative analysis of the studies, various NC types were found to have little effect on cell viability d and acute toxicity in vivo, however, the conflicting results of studies of the pro-inflammatory and immunological effects of different NCs indicate the need for further long-term studies to establish the maximum inactive doses of NC, primarily, with their inhalation and oral intake.

Contribution. All co-authors made an equal contribution to the research and preparation of the article for publication.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments. The search and analytical work were carried out using the funds of the state assignment grant as part of the Basic Research Program (subject of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation No. 0410-2022-0003).

Received: August 5, 2022 / Accepted: December 8, 2022 / Published: March 25, 2023

About the authors

Ivan V. Gmoshinski

Federal Research Centre of Nutrition, Biotechnology and food Safety, Department of food toxicology and nanotechnology safety evaluation

Author for correspondence.
Email: gmosh@ion.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3671-6508

MD, PhD, DSci., Leading Researcher at the Laboratory of Food Toxicology and Safety Assessment of Nanotechnology, Federal Research Centre of Nutrition, Biotechnology and food Safety. Department of food toxicology and nanotechnology safety evaluation, Moscow, 109240, Russian Federation.

e-mail: gmosh@ion.ru

Russian Federation

Vladimir A. Schipelin

Federal Research Centre of Nutrition, Biotechnology and food Safety, Department of food toxicology and nanotechnology safety evaluation

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0015-8735
Russian Federation

Sergey A. Khotimchenko

Federal Research Centre of Nutrition, Biotechnology and food Safety, Department of food toxicology and nanotechnology safety evaluation; First Moscow State Medical University named after I.M. Sechenov of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University), Department of Food Hygiene and Toxicology

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5340-9649
Russian Federation

References

  1. Dhali K., Ghasemlou M., Daver F., Cass P., Adhikari B. A review of nanocellulose as a new material towards environmental sustainability. Sci. Total Environ. 2021; 775: 145871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145871
  2. Fastmarkets. Nanocellulose: Packaging Applications and Markets. Available at: https://www.fastmarkets.com/forest-products/special-studies/nanocellulose?utm_ss=nanocellulose+applications+and+markets
  3. Sharma A., Thakur M., Bhattacharya M., Mandal T., Goswami S. Commercial application of cellulose nano-composites – a review. Biotechnol. Rep. (Amst.). 2019; 21: e00316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2019.e00316
  4. de Amorim J.D.P., de Souza K.C., Duarte C.R., da Silva Duarte I., de Assis Sales F.R., Silva G.S., et al. Plant and bacterial nanocellulose: production, properties and applications in medicine, food, cosmetics, electronics and engineering. A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2020; 18(3): 851–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-00989-9
  5. Thomas P., Duolikun T., Rumjit N.P., Moosavi S., Lai C.W., Bin Johan M.R., et al. Comprehensive review on nanocellulose: Recent developments, challenges and future prospects. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2020; 110: 103884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103884
  6. Vasconcellos V.M., Farinas C.S., Ximenes E., Slininger P., Ladisch M. Adaptive laboratory evolution of nanocellulose-producing bacterium. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2019; 116(8): 1923–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.26997
  7. Stoudmann N., Schmutz M., Hirsch C., Nowack B., Som C. Human hazard potential of nanocellulose: quantitative insights from the literature. Nanotoxicology. 2020; 14(9): 1241–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2020.1814440
  8. Bonwick G., Bradley E., Lock I., Romero R. Bio-based materials for use in food contact applications. In: Report to the Food Standards Agency. York, UK: Fera Science Ltd.; 2019.
  9. Michelin M., Gomes D.G., Romaní A., Polizeli M.L.T.M., Teixeira J.A. Nanocellulose production: exploring the enzymatic route and residues of pulp and paper industry. Molecules. 2020; 25(15): 3411. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25153411
  10. Karim Z., Afrin S., Husain Q., Danish R. Necessity of enzymatic hydrolysis for production and functionalization of nanocelluloses. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2017; 37(3): 355–70. https://doi.org/10.3109/07388551.2016.1163322
  11. Gmoshinskiy I.V., Shipelin V.A., Khotimchenko S.A. Nanomaterials in food products and their package: Comparative analysis of risks and advantages. Analiz riska zdorov’yu. 2018; (4): 133–41. https://doi.org/10.21668/health.risk/2018.4.16.eng
  12. Endes C., Camarero-Espinosa S., Mueller S., Foster E.J., Petri-Fink A., Rothen-Rutishauser B., et al. A critical review of the current knowledge regarding the biological impact of nanocellulose. J. Nanobiotechnology. 2016; 14(1): 78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-016-0230-9
  13. Male K.B., Leung A.C.W., Montes J., Kamen A., Luong J.H.T. Probing inhibitory effects of nanocrystalline cellulose: inhibition versus surface charge. Nanoscale. 2012; 4(4): 1373–9. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2nr11886f
  14. Sunasee R., Carson M., Despres H.W., Pacherille A., Nunez K.D., Ckless K. Analysis of the immune and antioxidant response of cellulose nanocrystals grafted with β-cyclodextrin in myeloid cell lines. J. Nanomater. 2019; 2019: 4751827. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4751827
  15. Sultan S., Mathew A.P. 3D printed scaffolds with gradient porosity based on a cellulose nanocrystal hydrogel. Nanoscale. 2018; 10(9): 4421–31. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7nr08966j
  16. Leppiniemi J.P., Lahtinen A., Paajanen R., Mahlberg S., Metsa-Kortelainen T., Pinomaa H., et al. 3D-printable bioactivated nanocellulosealginate hydrogels. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2017; 9(26): 21959–70. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.7b02756
  17. Endes C., Mueller S., Kinnear C., Vanhecke D., Foster E.J., Petri-Fink A., et al. Fate of cellulose nanocrystal aerosols deposited on the lung cell surface in vitro. Biomacromolecules. 2015; 16(4): 1267–75. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.5b00055
  18. Jeong S.I., Lee S.E., Yang H., Jin Y.H., Park C.S., Park Y.S. Toxicologic evaluation of bacterial synthesized cellulose in endothelial cells and animals. Mol. Cell Oxicol. 2010; 6(4): 373–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13273-010-0049-7
  19. Moreira S., Silva N.B., Almeida-Lima J., Rocha H.A., Medeiros S.R., Alves C. Jr., et al. BC nanofibres: in vitro study of genotoxicity and cell proliferation. Toxicol. Lett. 2009; 189(3): 235–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.06.849
  20. De Lima A., Cândido P., Fregonezi N.F., José A., Carvalho F., Trovatti E. TEMPO-oxidized cellulose nanofibers in vitro cyto-genotoxicity studies. BioNanoScience. 2020; 10: 766–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12668-020-00763-9
  21. Dong S., Hirani A.A., Colacino K.R., Lee Y.W., Roman M. Cytotoxicity and cellular uptake of cellulose nanocrystals. Nano LIFE. 2012; 02(03): 1241006. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793984412410061
  22. Mahmoud K.A., Mena J.A., Male K.B., Hrapovic S., Kamen A., Luong J.H.T. Effect of surface charge on the cellular uptake and cytotoxicity of fluorescent labeled cellulose nanocrystals. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2010; 2(10): 2924–32. https://doi.org/10.1021/am1006222
  23. Catalan J., Ilves M., Jarventaus H., Hannukainen K.S., Kontturi E., Vanhala E., et al. Genotoxic and immunotoxic effects of cellulose nanocrystals in vitro. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2015; 56(2): 171–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/em.21913
  24. Hanif Z., Ahmed F.R., Shin S.W., Kim Y.K., Um S.H. Size- and dose-dependent toxicity of cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) on human fibroblasts and colon adenocarcinoma. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 2014; 119: 162–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.04.018
  25. Pereira M.M., Raposo N.R.B., Brayner R., Teixeira E.M., Oliveira V., Quintao C.C.R, et al. Cytotoxicity and expression of genes involved in the cellular stress response and apoptosis in mammalian fibroblast exposed to cotton cellulose nanofibers. Nanotechnology. 2013; 24(7): 075103. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/24/7/075103
  26. Čolić M., Mihajlović D., Mathew A., Naseri N., Kokol V. Cytocompatibility and immunomodulatory properties of wood based nanofibrillated cellulose. Cellulose. 2015; 22(1): 763–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-014-0524-8
  27. Endes C., Schmid O., Kinnear C., Mueller S., Camarero-Espinosa S., Vanhecke D., et al. An in vitro testing strategy towards mimicking the inhalation of high aspect ratio nanoparticles. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 2014; 11: 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-014-0040-x
  28. Menas A.L., Yanamala N., Farcas M.T., Russo M., Friend S., Fournier P.M., et al. Fibrillar vs crystalline nanocellulose pulmonary epithelial cell responses: cytotoxicity or inflammation? Chemosphere. 2017; 171: 671–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.12.105
  29. Ventura C., Lourenco A.F., Sousa-Uva A., Ferreira P.J.T., Silva M.J. Evaluating the genotoxicity of cellulose nanofibrils in a co-culture of human lung epithelial cells and monocyte-derived macrophages. Toxicol. Lett. 2018: 291: 173–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2018.04.013
  30. Vartiainen J., Pöhler T., Sirola K., Pylkkänen L., Alenius H., Hokkinen J., et al. Health and environmental safety aspects of friction grinding and spray drying of microfibrillated cellulose. Cellulose. 2011; 18(3): 775–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-011-9501-7
  31. Clift M.J.D., Foster E.J., Vanhecke D., Studer D., Wick P., Gehr P., et al. Investigating the interaction of cellulose nanofibers derived from cotton with a sophisticated 3D human lung cell coculture. Biomacromolecules. 2011; 12(10): 3666–73. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm200865j
  32. Lopes V.R., Sanchez-Martinez C., Strømme M., Ferraz N. In vitro biological responses to nanofibrillated cellulose by human dermal, lung and immune cells: surface chemistry aspect. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 2017; 14(1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-016-0182-0
  33. Ilves M., Vilske S., Aimonen K., Lindberg H.K., Pesonen S., Wedin I., et al. Nanofibrillated cellulose causes acute pulmonary inflammation that subsides within a month. Nanotoxicology. 2018; 12(7): 729–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2018.1472312
  34. Bhattacharya K., Kiliç G., Costa P.M., Fadeel B. Cytotoxicity screening and cytokine profiling of nineteen nanomaterials enables hazard ranking and grouping based on inflammogenic potential. Nanotoxicology. 2017; 11(6): 809–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2017.1363309
  35. Kovacs T., Naish V., O’Connor B., Blaise C., Gagne F., Hall L., et al. An ecotoxicological characterization of nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC). Nanotoxicology. 2010; 4(3): 255–70. https://doi.org/10.3109/17435391003628713
  36. Aimonen K., Suhonen S., Hartikainen M., Lopes V.R., Norppa H., Ferraz N., et al. Role of surface chemistry in the in vitro lung response to nanofibrillated cellulose. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2021; 11(2): 389. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11020389
  37. de Lima R., Feitosa L.O., Maruyama C.R., Barga M.A., Yamawaki P.C., Vieira I.J., et al. Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cellulose nanofibers. Int. J. Nanomedicine. 2012; 7: 3555–65. https://doi.org/10.2147/ijn.s30596
  38. Hannukainen K.S., Suhonen S., Savolainen K., Norppa H. Genotoxicity of nanofibrillated cellulose in vitro as measured by enzyme comet assay. Toxicol. Lett. 2012; 211: S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2012.03.276
  39. Donaldson K., Murphy F.A., Duffin R., Poland C.A. Asbestos, carbon nanotubes and the pleural mesothelium: a review of the hypothesis regarding the role of long fibre retention in the parietal pleura, inflammation and mesothelioma. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 2010; 7: 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8977-7-5
  40. Shatkin J.A., Kim B. Cellulose nanomaterials: life cycle risk assessment, and environmental health and safety roadmap. Environ. Sci.: Nano. 2015; (2): 477–99. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5EN00059A
  41. Hadrup N., Bram K., Berthing T., Wol H., Bengtson S., Kofoed C., et al. Pulmonary effects of nano fibrillated celluloses in mice suggest that carboxylation lowers the inflammatory and acute phase responses. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2019; 66: 116–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2019.01.003
  42. Park E.J., Khaliullin T.O., Shurin M.R., Kisin E.R., Yanamala N., Fadeel B., et al. Fibrous nanocellulose, crystalline nanocellulose, carbon nanotubes, and crocidolite asbestos elicit disparate immune responses upon pharyngeal aspiration in mice. J. Immunotoxicol. 2018; 15(1): 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547691x.2017.1414339
  43. Dobrovolskaia M.A., Shurin M., Shvedova A.A. Current understanding of interactions between nanoparticles and the immune system. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2016; 299: 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2015.12.022
  44. Li Y., Fujita M., Boraschi D. Endotoxin contamination in nanomaterials leads to the misinterpretation of immunosafety results. Front. Immunol. 2017; 8: 472–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2017.00472
  45. ISO 29701:2010. Nanotechnologies — Endotoxin test on nanomaterial samples for in vitro systems — Limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) test. Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/45640.html
  46. Becklake M.R. Asbestos-related diseases of lung and other organs – their epidemiology and implications for clinical practice. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1976; 114(1): 187–227. https://doi.org/10.1164/arrd.1976.114.1.187
  47. Catalán J., Rydman E., Aimonen K., Hannukainen K.S., Suhonen S., Vanhala E., et al. Genotoxic and inflammatory effects of nanofibrillated cellulose in murine lungs. Mutagenesis. 2017; 32(1): 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/gew035
  48. Yanamala N., Farcas M.T., Hatfield M.K., Kisin E.R., Kagan V.E., Geraci C.L., et al. In vivo evaluation of the pulmonary toxicity of cellulose nanocrystals: a renewable and sustainable nanomaterial of the future. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2014; 2(7): 1691–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/sc500153k
  49. Shvedova A.A., Kisin E.R., Yanamala N., Farcas M.T., Menas A.L., Williams A., et al. Gender differences in murine pulmonary responses elicited by cellulose nanocrystals. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 2016; 13(1): 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-016-0140-x
  50. Farcas M.T., Kisin E.R., Menas A.L., Gutkin D.W., Star A., Reiner R.S., et al. Pulmonary exposure to cellulose nanocrystals caused deleterious effects to reproductive system in male mice. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A. 2016; 79(21): 984–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2016.1211045
  51. Shatkin J.A., Oberdorster G. Comment on Shvedova et al. Gender differences in murine pulmonary responses elicited by cellulose nanocrystals. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 2016; 13(1): 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-016-0170-4
  52. Kobayashi N., Izumi H., Morimoto Y. Review of toxicity studies of carbon nanotubes. J. Occup. Health. 2017; 59(5): 394–407. https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.17-0089-ra
  53. Silva-Carvalho R., Silva J.P., Ferreirinha P., Leitão A.F., Andrade F.K., Gil da Costa R.M., et al. Inhalation of bacterial cellulose nanofibrils triggers an inflammatory response and changes lung tissue morphology of mice. Toxicol. Res. 2019; 35(1): 45–63. https://doi.org/10.5487/tr.2019.35.1.045
  54. Ede J.D., Ong K.J., Goergen M., Rudie A., Pomeroy-Carter C.A., Shatkin J.A. Risk analysis of cellulose nanomaterials by inhalation: current state of science. Nanomaterials (Basel). 201; 9(3): 337. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano9030337
  55. Sai T., Fujita K. A review of pulmonary toxicity studies of nanocellulose. Inhal. Toxicol. 2020; 32(6): 231–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/08958378.2020.1770901
  56. Lopes V.R., Strømme M., Ferraz N. In vitro biological impact of nanocellulose fibers on human gut bacteria and gastrointestinal cells. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2020; 10(6): 1159. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10061159
  57. DeLoid G.M., Cao X., Molina R.M., Silva D.I., Bhattacharya K., Ng K.W., et al. Toxicological effects of ingested nanocellulose in in vitro intestinal epithelium and in vivo rat models. Environ. Sci. Nano. 2019; 6(7): 2105–15. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9en00184k
  58. O’Connor B., Berry R., Goguen R. Commercialization of cellulose nanocrystal (NCCTM) production: a business case focusing on the importance of proactive ehs management. In: Nanotechnology Environmental Health and Safety: Risks, Regulation, and Management. Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc.; 2014.
  59. Ong K.J., Shatkin J.A., Nelson K., Ede J.D., Retsina T. Establishing the safety of novel bio-based cellulose nanomaterials for commercialization. NanoImpact. 2017; 6: 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.03.002
  60. Adewuyi A., Otuechere C.A., Adebayo O.L., Anazodo C., Pereira F.V. Renal toxicological evaluations of sulphonated nanocellulose from Khaya sengalensis seed in Wistar rats. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2018; 284: 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2018.02.015
  61. Otuechere C.A., Adewuyi A., Adebayo O.L., Ebigwei I.A. In vivo hepatotoxicity of chemically modified nanocellulose in rats. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 2020; 39(2): 212–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0960327119881672
  62. Toyokuni S. Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity risk of carbon nanotubes. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2013; 65(15): 2098–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2013.05.011
  63. Pitkanen M., Kangas H., Laitinen O., Sneck A., Lahtinen P., Peresin M.S., et al. Characteristics and safety of nano-sized cellulose fibrils. Cellulose. 2014; 21: 3871–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-014-0397-x
  64. Čolić M., Tomić S., Bekić M. Immunological aspects of nanocellulose. Immunol. Lett. 2020; 222: 80–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imlet.2020.04.004
  65. Kollar P., Zavalova V., Hosek J., Havelka P., Sopuch T., Karpisek M., et al. Cytotoxicity and effects on inflammatory response of modified types of cellulose in macrophage-like THP-1 cells. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2011; 11(8): 997–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2011.02.016
  66. Hua K., Ålander E., Lindström T., Mihranyan A., Strømme M., Ferraz N. Surface chemistry of nanocellulose fibers directs monocyte/macrophage response. Biomacromolecules. 2015; 16(9): 2787–95. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.5b00727
  67. Nordli H.R., Pukstad B., Chinga-Carrasco G., Rokstad A.M. Ultrapure wood nanocellulose—assessments of coagulation and initial inflammation potential. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2019; 2(3): 1107–18. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsabm.8b00711
  68. Rashad A., Suliman S., Mustafa M., Pedersen T.Ø., Campodoni E., Sandri M., et al. Inflammatory responses and tissue reactions to wood-Based nanocellulose scaffolds. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 2019; 97: 208–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.11.068
  69. Nishiguchi T., Taguchi A. Thixotropic, cell-infiltrative nanocellulose hydrogel that promotes in vivo tissue remodeling. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2020; 6(2): 946–58. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.9b01549
  70. Wang X., Chang C.H., Jiang J., Liu Q., Liao Y.P., Lu J., et al. The crystallinity and aspect ratio of cellulose nanomaterials determine their pro-inflammatory and immune adjuvant effects in vitro and in vivo. Small. 2019; 15(42): e1901642. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201901642
  71. Sunasee R., Araoye E., Pyram D., Hemraz U.D., Boluk Y., Ckless K. Cellulose nanocrystal cationic derivative induces NLRP3 inflammasome-dependent IL-1β secretion associated with mitochondrial ROS production. Biochem. Biophys. Rep. 2015; 4: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrep.2015.08.008
  72. Guglielmo A., Sabra A., Elbery M., Cerveira M.M., Ghenov F., Sunasee R., et al. A mechanistic insight into curcumin modulation of the IL-1β secretion and NLRP3 S-glutathionylation induced by needle-like cationic cellulose nanocrystals in myeloid cells. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2017; 274: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2017.06.028
  73. Osorio M., Cañas A., Puerta J., Díaz L., Naranjo T., Ortiz I., et al. Ex vivo and in vivo biocompatibility assessment (blood and tissue) of three-dimensional bacterial nanocellulose biomaterials for soft tissue implants. Sci. Rep. 2019; 9(1): 10553. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46918-x
  74. Xi Loh E.Y., Fauzi M.B., Ng M.H., Ng P.Y., Ng S.F., Ariffin H., et al. Cellular and molecular interaction of human dermal fibroblasts with bacterial nanocellulose composite hydrogel for tissue regeneration. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2018; 10(46): 39532–43. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.8b16645
  75. Kim G.D., Yang H., Park H.R., Park C.S., Park Y.S., Lee S.E. Evaluation of immunoreactivity of in vitro and in vivo models against bacterial synthesized cellulose to be used as a prosthetic biomaterial. BioChip J. 2013; 7: 201–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13206-013-7302-9
  76. Tomić S., Kokol V., Mihajlović D., Mirčić A., Čolić M. Native cellulose nanofibrils induce immune tolerance in vitro by acting on dendritic cells. Sci. Rep. 2016; 6: 31618. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31618
  77. Tomić S., Ilić N., Kokol V., Gruden-Movsesijan A., Mihajlović D., Bekić M., et al. Functionalization-dependent effects of cellulose nanofibrils on tolerogenic mechanisms of human dendritic cells. Int. J. Nanomedicine. 2018; 13: 6941–60. https://doi.org/10.2147/ijn.s183510
  78. Erdem J.S., Alswady-Hoff M., Ervik T.K., Skare Ø., Ellingsen D.G., Zienolddiny S. Cellulose nanocrystals modulate alveolar macrophage phenotype and phagocytic function. Biomaterials. 2019; 203: 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.02.025
  79. Ferrer A., Pal L., Hubbe M. Nanocellulose in packaging: advances in barrier layer technologies. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017; 95: 574–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.11.012
  80. Fink H., Hong J., Drotz K., Risberg B., Sanchez J., Sellborn A. An in vitro study of blood compatibility of vascular grafts made of bacterial cellulose in comparison with conventionallyused graft materials. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A, 2011; 97A(1): 52–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.33031

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Gmoshinski I.V., Schipelin V.A., Khotimchenko S.A.


СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 37884 от 02.10.2009.