Correction: Bodea et al. Optimization of Moist and Oven-Dried Bacterial Cellulose Production for Functional Properties. Polymers 2021, 13, 2088

Ioana M. Bodea; Florin I. Beteg; Carmen R. Pop; Adriana P. David; Mircea Cristian Dudescu; Cristian Vilău; Andreea Stănilă; Ancuța M. Rotar; Giorgiana M. Cătunescu

doi:10.3390/polym13213821

,

and

¹

Department of Preclinical and Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania

²

Department of Food Science, Faculty of Food Science and Technology, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania

³

Department of Technical and Soil Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Science and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania

⁴

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, 400114 Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Polymers2021, 13(21), 3821;https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13213821

This article belongs to the Topic Sustainable Polymer Technologies

Version Notes

Order Reprints

The authors wish to make a change to the published paper [1]. In Table 2 and Table 3, the units of Fiber Diameter have been changed from “µm” to “nm”. Also, in the footnotes of Tables 4 and 5, the units of Fiber Diameter have been changed from “µm” to “nm”. The mistake was due to the authors’ oversight. To avoid misleading readers, we would like to update the data in the article. The authors apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Table 2. The properties of bacterial cellulose (BC) of interest for biomedical purposes at different fermentation conditions based on a Box–Behnken design for response surface methodology (RSM).

Table 3. Model parameters (coded coefficients), p values, and goodness-of-fit statistics obtained by response surface methodology (RSM) for each of the 6 response variables (Yi).

The manuscript will be updated, and the original will remain online on the article webpage: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/13/13/2088.

Reference

Bodea, I.M.; Beteg, F.I.; Pop, C.R.; David, A.P.; Dudescu, M.C.; Vilău, C.; Stănilă, A.; Rotar, A.M.; Cătunescu, G.M. Optimization of Moist and Oven-Dried Bacterial Cellulose Production for Functional Properties. Polymers 2021, 13, 2088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Table 2. The properties of bacterial cellulose (BC) of interest for biomedical purposes at different fermentation conditions based on a Box–Behnken design for response surface methodology (RSM).

	Independent Variables			Response—Dependent Variables												Desir
	X₁ Harvest (d)	X₂ Inoculum Volume (mL)	X₃ BC Type	Y₁ Thickness * (mm)		Y₂ Half-Swelling Time (h)		Y₃ Drug Half-Release Time (h)		Y₄ Tensile Strength σ (MPa)		Y₅ Young’s Modulus E (MPa)		Y₆ Fiber Diameter (nm)
	X₁ Harvest (d)	X₂ Inoculum Volume (mL)	X₃ BC Type	exp	pred **	exp	pred **	exp	pred **	exp	pred **	exp	pred **	exp	pred **
1	6	1	dry	1.68 ± 0.16 ^bc	1.62	1.25 ± 0.5 ^bc	1.11	4.95 ± 0.77 ^de	5.63	7.61 ± 0.21 ^ab	7.88	128.92 ± 30.37 ^b	118.19	51.34 ± 6.99 ^a	50.18	0.40
2	18	1	dry	2.67 ± 0.67 ^ab	2.81	1.92 ± 0.89 ^ab	1.89	3.68 ± 0.32 ^e	5.36	10.34 ± 3.69 ^a	9.85	139.34 ± 22.35 ^b	142.08	41.40 ± 3.87 ^de	42.40	0.48
3	12	3	dry	2.09 ± 0.15 ^ab	1.93	0.99 ± 0.38 ^c	1.50	12.78 ± 3.45 ^a	10.28	10.04 ± 1.90 ^a	8.86	117.86 ± 28.18 ^b	133.85	46.00 ± 7.61 ^bcd	46.33	0.57
4	6	5	dry	1.34 ± 0.15 ^c	1.05	1.22 ± 0.6 ^bc	1.11	9.12 ± 1.60 ^b	8.88	7.08 ± 2.78 ^abc	7.88	143.99 ± 36.54 ^a	160.75	47.11 ± 8.77 ^abc	47.82	0.41
5	18	5	dry	2.28 ± 0.23 ^ab	2.23	2.12 ± 0.84 ^a	1.89	8.25 ± 1.61 ^bcd	8.61	9.22 ± 3.33 ^a	9.85	209.39 ± 23.85 ^c	184.64	45.78 ± 6.05 ^bcd	44.90	0.53
6	6	1	moist	1.68 ± 0.16 ^bc	1.62	2.47 ± 0.20 ^a	2.52	5.93 ± 0.58 ^bcde	3.81	3.02 ± 0.64 ^d	2.45	16.03 ± 2.97 ^c	13.26	49.30 ± 4.18 ^ab	50.54	0.29
7	18	1	moist	2.67 ± 0.67 ^ab	2.81	2.53 ± 0.28 ^a	2.54	3.77 ± 1.76 ^e	3.54	4.64 ± 0.32 ^bcd	4.42	26.38 ± 15.22 ^c	37.15	43.67 ± 4.19 ^cde	42.75	0.41
8	12	3	moist	2.09 ± 0.15 ^ab	1.93	2.68 ± 0.18 ^a	2.53	5.97 ± 2.25 ^bcde	8.46	2.91 ± 0.83 ^d	3.44	21.59 ± 11.90 ^c	5.60	45.49 ± 2.64 ^bcde	44.83	0.54
9	6	5	moist	1.34 ± 0.15 ^c	1.05	2.49 ± 0.38 ^a	2.52	5.38 ± 1.95 ^cde	7.06	2.61 ± 0.38 ^d	2.45	12.44 ± 0.73 ^c	9.18	45.12 ± 6.03 ^bcde	44.48	0.36
10	18	5	moist	2.28 ± 0.23 ^ab	2.23	2.47 ± 0.08 ^a	2.54	8.60 ± 2.81 ^bc	6.79	4.00 ± 0.55 ^cd	4.42	21.82 ± 2.47 ^c	33.07	40.60 ± 4.99 ^e	41.56	0.57
p-value ***				0.992		0.824		0.853		0.897		0.971		0.912

Where exp—experimental values; pred—values predicted by the RSM model; desir—overall desirability (0…1); *—the thickness was measured for the entire batch, before drying (n = 6); ** the predicted value resulted from the model optimizing the BC properties; *** Mann–Whitney two-tailed test (α = 0.001) of the experimental data versus the values predicted by the model optimizing the BC properties. Note: The data are presented as mean ± SD. Different letters (a–e within the same column show significant differences among the samples (Fisher (LSD), p < 0.05).

Table 3. Model parameters (coded coefficients), p values, and goodness-of-fit statistics obtained by response surface methodology (RSM) for each of the 6 response variables (Yi).

		Y₁ Thickness (mm)		Y₂ Half-Swelling Time (h)		Y₃ Drug Half-Release Time (h)		Y₄ Tensile Strength σ (MPa)		Y₅ Young’s Modulus E (MPa)		Y₆ Fiber Diameter (nm)		Desirability
		coef	p	coef	p	coef	p	coef	p	coef	p	coef	p	coef	p
intercept	b0	1.926 ***	0.000	2.013 ***	0.000	9.370 ***	0.000	6.149 ***	0.000	69.720 ***	0.000	45.580 ***	0.000	0.553 ***	0.000
linear	b1	0.591 ***	0.002	0.203 *	0.054	−0.135	0.793	0.985 **	0.012	11.940 **	0.025	−2.677 ***	0.000	0.066 ***	0.000
	b2	−0.289 ***	0.000	NA	NA	1.627 ***	0.004	NA	NA	9.620 *	0.066	−0.889 *	0.132	0.0339 ***	0.000
	b3 (dry)	NA	NA	−0.514 ***	0.000	0.911 *	0.056	2.711 ***	0.000	64.120 ***	0.000	0.747	0.156	0.0216 ***	0.000
interaction	b12	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	1.215 **	0.044	0.0166 ***	0.000
	b13	NA	NA	0.191 *	0.068	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	−0.017 ***	0.000
	b23	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	11.660 **	0.028	0.924 *	0.118	−0.0219 ***	0.000
square	b11	NA	NA	NA	NA	−3.16 *	0.010	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
	b22	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	17.600 *	0.129	NA	NA	−0.123 ***	0.000
	b33	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
R²		0.70	-	0.61	-	0.47	-	0.73	-	0.90	-	0.59	-	0.995	-
Lack-of-fit		-	0.954	-	0.638	-	0.455	-	0.886	-	0.440	-	0.590	-	-
The model		-	0.000	-	0.000	-	0.003	-	0.000	-	0.000	-	0.000	-	0.000

Note: The explanatory variables were coef—coded coefficients, X₁: harvest (d), X₂: inoculum volume (mL), X₃: membrane type. A stepwise selection of terms was used with α ≤ 0.15 for a hierarchical model; NA—not applicable, the parameter was removed from the model. * significant at p < 0.15, ** significant at p < 0.05, *** significant at p < 0.01.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Correction: Bodea et al. Optimization of Moist and Oven-Dried Bacterial Cellulose Production for Functional Properties. Polymers 2021, 13, 2088

Reference

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics