1. What key properties of the biofabric you investigated make it particularly suitable for structural components in architecture?
Bacterial cellulose has an unusual combination of properties for a naturally produced material. At the microstructural level, it forms a dense network of nanofibers held together by hydrogen bonds, resulting in a high tensile strength-to-weight ratio, far surpassing plant-based cellulose sheets of similar thickness. In thin sections, it remains flexible enough to form double-curved shapes without cracking. However, when layered or reinforced, it transforms into a much stiffer, more load-capable material. Its tunability allows for applications such as interior partitions, acoustic panels, suspended ceiling modules, or flexible formwork. Moreover, its surface texture enables strong bonding with coatings, resins, or secondary materials, which expands design potential. Aesthetically, its ageing properties (e.g. color and texture shifts over time) were initially explored through the fashion collection "Harvesting Biofabrics", exhibited at Good Design_7 Izmir, 2022.
2. What production and fabrication techniques were used to produce the biofabric at a scale applicable to construction?
We began with modular fermentation systems, stackable trays that allowed us to grow uniform bacterial cellulose sheets. Thickness was controlled by adjusting growth duration and nutrient concentration. Post-harvest, the wet sheets were pressed to remove water and air-dried under tension to prevent shrinkage. For shaping, we used laser cutting to ensure geometrical precision. To scale up, we laminated multiple layers with natural fiber interlayers, achieving 1:10 models and potentially panels of up to 1.5 × 3 meters. This format aligns with standard construction panel sizes, simplifying integration into existing building systems. We are also exploring extrusion-based 3D printing and digital fabrication strategies.
3. Which technical challenges emerged when attempting to scale biofabric production to meet conventional construction demands, and how did you address them?
One major challenge was maintaining uniform sheet thickness, since inconsistencies lead to warping during drying. We optimized this by improving nutrient flow, stabilizing pH and temperature, and introducing gentle agitation. Another issue was microbial contamination, addressed via sanitation protocols and filtered nutrient inputs. Drying posed a further challenge: large sheets distorted unless tensioned drying frames and adjusted pressing cycles were used. We are currently developing AI-assisted environmental monitoring to catch issues early.
4. How does the biofabric’s mechanical performance (e.g. tensile strength, compression resistance) compare with traditional building materials like concrete or timber?
Bacterial cellulose isn't comparable to concrete, which excels in compression, but its tensile strength rivals engineered wood products. Reinforced forms can reach 200-250 MPa, on par with high-density fiberboards and certain softwoods. Its high elongation at break makes it suitable for seismic-resistant interiors or impact-prone zones. While compressive strength is lower, lamination strategies are under way to improve this, especially for secondary structural applications like cladding and acoustic skins.
5. Could you describe the material testing protocols used to assess durability, load-bearing capacity, and environmental resilience of the biofabric?
We adapted ASTM International Standards for testing tensile strength, bending strength, internal bond strength, and modulus of elasticity across various biofilm forms. Durability was assessed under indoor and outdoor conditions for up to 30 days. Further tests include accelerated UV exposure, moisture cycling (90% humidity to dry), and compression tests. We also perform edge-impact tests to simulate real-world handling stress, since failure often occurs at connection points.
6. How have you integrated considerations of moisture sensitivity, biodegradation rates, or UV exposure into your material lifecycle analysis?
Moisture absorption weakens bacterial cellulose, so for exterior use (e.g., shading systems), we applied natural waxes to prolong life (10+ years). Uncoated, it biodegrades in 90–180 days under composting. To mitigate UV degradation, we are experimenting with natural pigments (e.g., iron oxides, plant-based dyes), which may reduce tensile loss by up to 40%. Pigments combined with coatings have shown promising outdoor durability.
7. In terms of supply chain, what sourcing strategies or regional networks did you rely on to ensure consistent quality and availability of biofabric feedstocks?
Our approach emphasized local, low-carbon sourcing. We collaborated with food and beverage industries in Manisa and İzmir to reclaim their organic byproducts as nutrient sources. Multiple partnerships reduce shortage risks, while regional sourcing keeps transport-related emissions low. Additionally, we're developing a network of regional "wetlabs" to foster community engagement, regenerative sourcing, and culturally specific practices, in line with post-extractivist design futures.
8. What environmental assessment tools or metrics did you use to quantify the ecological footprint of biofabric production and usage in construction?
We conducted a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) using the CML 2001 method (ISO 14040:2006), covering impact areas like global warming potential, resource depletion, acidification, and eutrophication. Notably, current LCA tools overlook biofabrication-specific phases like microbial fermentation and sterilization. To address this, we developed an AI-assisted LCA mobile app (Figure 15) to include these novel processes and enhance precision in evaluating environmental impact.
9. How have you navigated regulatory, certification or building-code hurdles when proposing biofabric as a construction material?
We targeted interior, non-load-bearing applications to bypass strict structural codes. This allowed us to install pilot panels in public and commercial settings under the category of innovative interior finishes. In parallel, we initiated dialogues with local authorities and certification bodies to raise awareness and co-develop viable certification paths for load-bearing uses.
10. Can you walk us through the process of adapting biofabric prototypes into full-scale architectural elements, what technical modifications were necessary?
We addressed seam reinforcement by laminating smaller sheets into cohesive units. To limit shrinkage and warping, we employed gradual moisture removal with tensioned frames. Since laser cutters and 3D printers have size limits, we developed tiling methods and are now investigating robotic fabrication. We also designed edge-framing profiles to integrate panels with standard cladding systems.
11. How do you envision the potential for hybrid material systems incorporating biofabric alongside conventional composites or assemblies?
We see strong potential in hybrid panels that combine bacterial cellulose with cork, hemp mats, or light timber frames. These assemblies improve acoustic performance and structural integrity, while staying aligned with circular design principles. We're also tailoring fermentation to adapt bacterial cellulose properties based on desired performance outcomes.
12. Looking forward, what technical developments or industrial innovations are needed to bring biofabric fully into mainstream architectural use?
The next step is semi-automated fermentation systems for consistent scaling. We also need standardized testing protocols to gain industry trust. Biobased resins could remove the need for petrochemical binders, enhancing biodegradability. Lastly, parametric design and robotic assembly will enable architectural precision on par with high-end industrial processes.
