| Literature DB >> 28475151 |
Jessica I Lozano-Navarro1, Nancy P Díaz-Zavala2, Carlos Velasco-Santos3, Ana L Martínez-Hernández4, Beatriz I Tijerina-Ramos5, Margarita García-Hernández6, José L Rivera-Armenta7, Ulises Páramo-García8, Adriana I Reyes-de la Torre9.
Abstract
Natural extracts possess several kinds of antioxidants (anthocyanins, betalains, thymol, carvacrol, and resveratrol) that have also demonstrated antimicrobial properties. In order to study these properties, extracts from cranberry, blueberry, beetroot, pomegranate, oregano, pitaya, and resveratrol (from grapes) were obtained. Growth inhibition tests of mesophilic aerobes, coliforms, and fungi were conducted in films prepared from the extracts in accordance with Mexican Official Norms (NOM). Optical properties such as transparency and opacity, mechanical properties, and pH were also analyzed in these materials. The films with beetroot, cranberry, and blueberry extracts demonstrated the best antimicrobial activity against various bacteria and fungi in comparison with unmodified chitosan-starch film. This study shows that the addition of antioxidants improved the antimicrobial performance of these films. It was also found that antimicrobial properties are inherent to the films. These polymers combined with the extracts effectively inhibit or reduce microorganism growth from human and environmental contact; therefore, previous sterilization could be unnecessary in comparison with traditional plastics. The presence of extracts decreased transmittance percentages at 280 and 400 nm, as well as the transparency values, while increasing their opacity values, providing better UV-VIS light barrier properties. Despite diminished glass transition temperatures (Tg), the values obtained are still adequate for food packaging applications.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial activity; chitosan–starch; natural extracts; optical and mechanical properties
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28475151 PMCID: PMC5454910 DOI: 10.3390/ijms18050997
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Results of previous contamination tests.
| Code Sample | Aerobic Mesophilic Bacteria (CFU) | Coliforms (CFU) | Fungi (CFU) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test 1 | Test 2 | Average Value | Test 1 | Test 2 | Average Value | Test 1 | Test 2 | Average Value | |
| QS2 | 1 | 4 | 2.5 ± 2.12 | <1 | 2 | 1 ± 1.41 | 10 | 3 | 6.5 ± 4.95 |
| QSA0.5 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 |
| QSA2 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 ± 0 |
| QSA5 | 1 | 1 | 1 ± 0 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | 9 | 14 | 11.5 ± 3.54 |
| QSAm0.5 | <1 | 1 | 0.5 ± 0.71 | 1 | <1 | 0.5 ± 0.71 | 1 | 2 | 1.5 ± 0.71 |
| QSAm2 | <1 | <1 | 0 ± 0 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | <1 | 1 | 0.5 ± 0.71 |
| QSAm5 | <1 | <1 | 0 ± 0 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | <1 | 1 | 0.5 ± 0.71 |
| QSB0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 ± 0 | 1 | <1 | 0.5 ± 0.71 | <1 | 17 | 8.5 ± 12.02 |
| QSB2 | 2 | <1 | 1 ± 1.41 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | <1 | 0 | <1 ± 0 |
| QSB5 | 3 | 1 | 2 ± 1.41 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | 1 | 5 | 3 ± 2.83 |
| QSG0.5 | 2 | 3 | 2.5 ± 0.71 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | 8 | 3 | 5.5 ± 3.54 |
| QSG2 | <1 | 26 | 13 ± 18.38 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 ± 0 |
| QSG5 | <1 | 31 | 15.5 ± 21.92 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | 6 | 7 | 6.5 ± 0.71 |
| QSO0.5 | <1 | 1 | 0.5 ± 0.71 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | 3 | 2 | 2.5 ± 0.71 |
| QSO2 | 10 | <1 | 5 ± 7.07 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | 3 | 5 | 4 ± 1.41 |
| QSO5 | 3 | 27 | 15 ± 16.97 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | 4 | 11 | 7.5 ± 4.95 |
| QSP0.5 | <1 | 2 | 1 ± 1.41 | <1 | 2 | 1 ± 1.41 | 2 | <1 | 1 ± 1.41 |
| QSP2 | <1 | 1 | 0.5 ± 0.71 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 ± 1.41 |
| QSP5 | 1 | 3 | 2 ± 1.41 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | 10 | 1 | 5.5 ± 6.36 |
| QSR0.5 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | <1 | 1 | 0.5 ± 0.71 |
| QSR2 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | 1 | 1 | <1 ± 0 |
| QSR5 | <1 | 1 | 0.5 ± 0.71 | <1 | <1 | <1 ± 0 | 2 | 1 | 1.5 ± 0.71 |
Q: chitosan; S: starch; A: cranberry; Am: blueberry; B: beetroot; G: pomegranate; O: oregano; P: pitaya/dragon fruit; R: resveratrol; and CFU: colony-forming units; numbers refer to the weight percentage of extract used in each film.
Results of antimicrobial tests.
| Code Sample | Aerobic Mesophilic Bacteria | Coliforms | Fungi | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approved Test | Inhibition Zone, mm | Approved Test | Inhibition Zone, mm | Approved Test | Inhibition Zone, mm | |
| QS2 | 0/6 | 0 ± 0 | 1/6 | 2 ± 0.89 | 2/6 | 1.333 ± 0.52 |
| QSA0.5 | 5/6 | 2.333 ± 0.52 | 4/6 | 2.333 ± 0.52 | 3/6 | 1.333 ± 0.52 |
| QSA2 | 5/6 | 2.5 ± 0.55 | 4/6 | 2.5 ± 0.55 | 3/6 | 3.5 ± 1.22 |
| QSA5 | 4/6 | 2.5 ± 0.55 | 5/6 | 2.5 ± 0.55 | 5/6 | 8 ± 2.76 |
| QSAm0.5 | 2/6 | 3.667 ± 0.52 | 4/6 | 1.5 ± 0.55 | 1/6 | 6.167 ± 2.40 |
| QSAm2 | 4/6 | 9.333 ± 1.03 | 3/6 | 3.333 ± 0.52 | 4/6 | 6.5 ± 2.35 |
| QSAm5 | 4/6 | 9.5 ± 0.84 | 4/6 | 3.5 ± 0.55 | 4/6 | 7 ± 2.76 |
| QSB0.5 | 4/6 | 1.167 ± 0.41 | 1/6 | 2.667 ± 0.82 | 4/6 | 7 ± 2.76 |
| QSB2 | 4/6 | 1.333 ± 0.52 | 1/6 | 2.833 ± 0.98 | 5/6 | 7.333 ± 2.58 |
| QSB5 | 4/6 | 2.5 ± 0.55 | 1/6 | 3 ± 0.89 | 5/6 | 7.5 ± 2.59 |
| QSG0.5 | 2/6 | 2.333 ± 0.82 | 1/6 | 1.833 ± 0.75 | 2/6 | 7.333 ± 2.58 |
| QSG2 | 5/6 | 4 ± 0.89 | 3/6 | 2.167 ± 0.75 | 0/6 | 7.333 ± 2.58 |
| QSG5 | 6/6 | 4.167 ± 0.98 | 4/6 | 2.167 ± 0.75 | 1/6 | 7.667 ± 2.58 |
| QSO0.5 | 3/6 | 4 ± 0.89 | 2/6 | 1.5 ± 0.55 | 2/6 | 1.5 ± 0.55 |
| QSO2 | 5/6 | 4.167 ± 0.75 | 4/6 | 1.5 ± 0.55 | 3/6 | 1.667 ± 0.52 |
| QSO5 | 6/6 | 4.167 ± 0.98 | 4/6 | 2 ± 0.63 | 4/6 | 1.667 ± 0.52 |
| QSP0.5 | 5/6 | 4 ± 0.89 | 1/6 | 1.833 ± 0.41 | 4/6 | 1.833 ± 0.41 |
| QSP2 | 3/6 | 3.5 ± 0.84 | 1/6 | 1.333 ± 0.52 | 3/6 | 1.333 ± 0.52 |
| QSP5 | 1/6 | 3.333 ± 0.82 | 2/6 | 1.333 ± 0.52 | 0/6 | 1.333 ± 0.52 |
| QSR0.5 | 2/6 | 1.833 ± 0.98 | 5/6 | 6.5 ± 2.35 | 3/6 | 2.5 ± 0.84 |
| QSR2 | 3/6 | 1.833 ± 0.75 | 2/6 | 7.167 ± 2.79 | 3/6 | 6.833 ± 2.93 |
| QSR5 | 4/6 | 2 ± 0.89 | 4/6 | 8 ± 2.76 | 3/6 | 7.167 ± 2.78 |
“Approved test” means that the films could inhibit microorganism growth in its periphery during the test period. The inhibition zone indicated for each film is related to the positive results shown during antimicrobial activity.
Average film thickness.
| Sample | Average Thickness, mm | Sample | Average Thickness, mm |
|---|---|---|---|
| QS2 | 0.164 ± 0.013 | QSG2 | 0.226 ± 0.009 |
| QSA0.5 | 0.194 ± 0.011 | QSG5 | 0.254 ± 0.025 |
| QSA2 | 0.214 ± 0.019 | QSO0.5 | 0.190 ± 0.01 |
| QSA5 | 0.238 ± 0.013 | QSO2 | 0.202 ± 0.013 |
| QSAm0.5 | 0.212 ± 0.015 | QSO5 | 0.194 ± 0.005 |
| QSAm2 | 0.244 ± 0.017 | QSP0.5 | 0.266 ± 0.021 |
| QSAm5 | 0.248 ± 0.043 | QSP2 | 0.216 ± 0.011 |
| QSB0.5 | 0.154 ± 0.005 | QSP5 | 0.272 ± 0.033 |
| QSB2 | 0.162 ± 0.018 | QSR0.5 | 0.184 ± 0.011 |
| QSB5 | 0.226 ± 0.015 | QSR2 | 0.174 ± 0.005 |
| QSG0.5 | 0.236 ± 0.011 | QSR5 | 0.238 ± 0.011 |
Precision = 0.01 mm.
Transmittance percentages (%T) at 280 nm and 400 nm, transparency, and opacity of each film.
| Sample | %T at 280 nm | % T at 400 nm | Transparency | Opacity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QS2 | 10.2442 ± 0.71 | 30.8092 ± 2.34 | 9.74382 ± 0.19 | 0.07681 ± 0.01 |
| QSA0.5 | 0.0866 ± 0.070 | 3.94262 ± 1.78 | 7.03310 ± 0.52 | 0.12132 ± 0.0017 |
| QSA2 | 0.9668 ± 0.39 | 11.7966 ± 1.54 | 6.61022 ± 0.19 | 0.11328 ± 0.0084 |
| QSA5 | 0.5295 ± 0.12 | 16.8562 ± 1.90 | 6.50092 ± 0.20 | 0.11983 ± 0.0074 |
| QSAm0.5 | 1.0697 ± 0.33 | 16.5411 ± 1.85 | 6.98136 ± 0.21 | 0.13173 ± 0.02 |
| QSAm2 | 0.2182 ± 0.18 | 8.8739 ± 1.33 | 5.59052 ± 0.09 | 0.20691 ± 0.01 |
| QSAm5 | 0.3032 ± 0.15 | 7.9730 ± 0.82 | 5.39832 ± 0.26 | 0.21030 ± 0.02 |
| QSB0.5 | 2.0982 ± 0.78 | 25.4562 ± 3.24 | 10.3050 ± 0.27 | 0.07983 ± 0.02 |
| QSB2 | 0.2811 ± 0.13 | 11.4734 ± 2.14 | 9.34763 ± 0.24 | 0.11238 ± 0.01 |
| QSB5 | 0.0566 ± 0.05 | 1.1172 ± 0.22 | 4.80696 ± 0.29 | 0.33784 ± 0.02 |
| QSG0.5 | 0.4638 ± 0.15 | 12.8224 ± 0.54 | 6.37701 ± 0.07 | 0.13510 ± 0.01 |
| QSG2 | 0.9107 ± 0.22 | 17.0909 ± 1.57 | 6.8277 ± 0.051 | 0.13645 ± 0.01 |
| QSG5 | 0.1769 ± 0.23 | 1.6192 ± 0.82 | 5.18060 ± 0.67 | 0.25293 ± 0.01 |
| QSO0.5 | 2.0135 ± 0.47 | 17.5357 ± 2.39 | 7.83758 ± 0.25 | 0.08531 ± 0.0039 |
| QSO2 | 0.4690 ± 0.18 | 19.3792 ± 1.36 | 8.50917 ± 0.13 | 0.07273 ± 0.0058 |
| QSO5 | 0.2167 ± 0.29 | 5.6792 ± 1.50 | 8.21114 ± 0.08 | 0.10168 ± 0.0064 |
| QSP0.5 | 0.2437 ± 0.40 | 3.2979 ± 0.40 | 5.9859 ± 0.18 | 0.17956 ± 0.02 |
| QSP2 | 0.0272 ± 0.029 | 0.1323 ± 0.10 | 6.7034 ± 0.52 | 0.20245 ± 0.02 |
| QSP5 | 0.1623 ± 0.10 | 0.1195 ± 0.12 | 4.0516 ± 0.38 | 0.55747 ± 0.07 |
| QSR0.5 | 8.7779 ± 2.05 | 27.2905 ± 3.38 | 8.4157 ± 0.25 | 0.09657 ± 0.0077 |
| QSR2 | 10.9962 ± 4.31 | 26.4296 ± 9.05 | 6.6499 ± 0.81 | 0.09698 ± 0.02 |
| QSR5 | 4.7594 ± 0.22 | 31.5367 ± 3.17 | 7.0720 ± 0.16 | 0.09806 ± 0.01 |
pH values of each reagent necessary for the film synthesis.
| Compound | pH |
|---|---|
| Acetic acid at 1% ( | 2.60 ± 0.028 |
| Chitosan at 2% ( | 4.46 ± 0 |
| Starch at 2% ( | 5.82 ± 0.014 |
| Cranberry extract | 2.86 ± 0.028 |
| Blueberry extract | 3.29 ± 0.014 |
| Beetroot extract | 4.31 ± 0.014 |
| Pomegranate extract | 3.11 ± 0.014 |
| Oregano extract | 5.24 ± 0 |
| Pitaya extract | 5.14 ± 0.014 |
| Resveratrol extract | 4.93 ± 0.014 |
pH values of chitosan–starch films at day 1 and day 15.
| Sample | Day 1 | Day 15 |
|---|---|---|
| pH Meter | pH Meter | |
| QS2 | 4.57 ± 0.007 | 5.29 ± 0.021 |
| QSA0.5 | 4.73 ± 0.007 | 5.86 ± 0.014 |
| QSA2 | 4.70 ± 0.007 | 5.54 ± 0.007 |
| QSA5 | 4.68 ± 0.014 | 5.33 ± 0.028 |
| QSAm0.5 | 4.11 ± 0.007 | 4.58 ± 0.014 |
| QSAm2 | 4.07 ± 0.007 | 4.47 ± 0.028 |
| QSAm5 | 4.02 ± 0.007 | 4.34 ± 0.007 |
| QSB0.5 | 4.83 ± 0.007 | 5.88 ± 0.007 |
| QSB2 | 4.78 ± 0.007 | 5.60 ± 0.028 |
| QSB5 | 4.62 ± 0.014 | 5.59 ± 0.007 |
| QSG0.5 | 4.52 ± 0.021 | 6.14 ± 0.014 |
| QSG2 | 4.41 ± 0 | 6.02 ± 0.035 |
| QSG5 | 4.31 ± 0.014 | 5.97 ± 0.007 |
| QSO0.5 | 4.81 ± 0.007 | 5.89 ± 0.014 |
| QSO2 | 4.77 ± 0.014 | 5.58 ± 0.035 |
| QSO5 | 4.62 ± 0.014 | 5.52 ± 0.007 |
| QSP0.5 | 4.01 ± 0.007 | 5.26 ± 0.007 |
| QSP2 | 4.04 ± 0.014 | 5.46 ± 0.014 |
| QSP5 | 4.09 ± 0.014 | 4.83 ± 0.014 |
| QSR0.5 | 4.65 ± 0.007 | 5.92 ± 0.021 |
| QSR2 | 4.62 ± 0.007 | 5.88 ± 0.007 |
| QSR5 | 4.59 ± 0.007 | 5.77 ± 0.028 |
Multi-factor ANOVA interpretation.
| Factor | Statistical Implication | Conclusion | |
|---|---|---|---|
| AOX | <0.0005 | Reject null hypothesis of no difference in means. | At least one mean pH is significantly different from the rest because of the type of antioxidant that was incorporated into the film. |
| % AOX | 0.002 | Reject null hypothesis of no difference in means. | At least one mean pH is significantly different from the rest because of the content of antioxidant (% |
| Day | <0.0005 | Reject null hypothesis of no difference in means. | The mean pH measured on day 1 is significantly different from that measured on day 15. |
| AOX and % AOX | 0.991 | Do not reject null hypothesis of no interaction between the factors. | The effect of the type of antioxidant on the mean pH does not significantly depend on its content (% |
| AOX and day | <0.0005 | Reject null hypothesis of no interaction between the factors. | The effect of the type of antioxidant on the mean pH significantly depends on the day when the pH is measured. |
| % AOX and day | 0.175 | Do not reject null hypothesis of no interaction between the factors. | The effect of the content of antioxidant (% |
| AOX, % AOX and day | <0.0005 | Reject null hypothesis of no interaction among the factors. | There is a significant effect of the combination of the three factors in the mean pH values. |
AOX: antioxidant; % wt: weight percentage.
Figure 1Effect of the concentration extract, type of antioxidant, and measurement day on the pH values of the films. Each data point represents the mean ± standard deviation (SD); Analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey test, p < 0.05.
Storage modulus (E’), tan delta (tan δ), and glass transition temperature (Tg) of the films.
| Sample | Storage Modulus (E’) | Tan δ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average Value (MPa) | Average Value | |||
| 50 ° | 100 °C | |||
| QS2 | 4753 | 3093 | 185.2 | 0.5405 |
| QSA0.5 | 3001 | 1967 | 158.4 | 0.330 |
| QSA2 | 3868 | 2633 | 90.1 | 0.166 |
| QSA5 | 2982 | 2065 | 87.1 | 0.151 |
| QSAm5 | 2214 | 497.17 | 104 | 0.361 |
| QSG5 | 2407 | 665 | 102 | 0.331 |
| QSO5 | 494 | 250 | 93.3 | 0.459 |
| QSP0.5 | 1668 | 838 | 102.1 | 0.321 |
| QSP5 | 925 | 376 | 95.3 | 0.364 |
| QSR5 | 441 | 179 | 88.6 | 0.542 |
Figure 2Storage modulus (E’) of the chitosan–starch films: (a) QS2; (b) QSA5; (c) QSAm5; (d) QSG5; (e) QSO5; (f) QSP0.5; (g) QSR5.
Figure 3Tan delta (tan δ) of the chitosan–starch films: (a) QS2; (b) QSA5; (c) QSAm5; (d) QSG5; (e) QSO5; (f) QSP0.5; (g) QSR5.