Correction: Bodea et al. Optimization of Moist and Oven-Dried Bacterial Cellulose Production for Functional Properties. Polymers 2021, 13, 2088
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
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
The authors wish to make a change to the published paper []. 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).
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. Polymers2021, 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).
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)
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).
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.
