| Literature DB >> 29329275 |
Jessica I Lozano-Navarro1, Nancy P Díaz-Zavala2, Carlos Velasco-Santos3, José A Melo-Banda4, Ulises Páramo-García5, Francisco Paraguay-Delgado6, Ricardo García-Alamilla7, Ana L Martínez-Hernández8, Samuel Zapién-Castillo9.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to analyze the properties of a series of polysaccharide composite films, such as apparent density, color, the presence of functional groups, morphology, and thermal stability, as well as the correlation between them and their antimicrobial and optical properties. Natural antioxidants such as anthocyanins (from cranberry; blueberry and pomegranate); betalains (from beetroot and pitaya); resveratrol (from grape); and thymol and carvacrol (from oregano) were added to the films. Few changes in the position and intensity of the FTIR spectra bands were observed despite the low content of extract added to the films. Due to this fact, the antioxidants were extracted and identified by spectroscopic analysis; and they were also quantified using the Folin-Denis method and a gallic acid calibration curve, which confirmed the presence of natural antioxidants in the films. According to the SEM analysis, the presence of natural antioxidants has no influence on the film morphology because the stretch marks and white points that were observed were related to starch presence. On the other hand, the TGA analysis showed that the type of extract influences the total weight loss. The overall interpretation of the results suggests that the use of natural antioxidants as additives for chitosan-starch film preparation has a prominent impact on most of the critical properties that are decisive in making them suitable for food-packing applications.Entities:
Keywords: chitosan-starch; composite films; film properties; natural antioxidants; polysaccharides
Year: 2018 PMID: 29329275 PMCID: PMC5793618 DOI: 10.3390/ma11010120
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Visual evaluation of film coloration and average RGB values at day 1 and 15.
| Film (1) | Coloration | Average RGB Day 1 | Average RGB Day 15 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | Day 15 | Red | Green | Blue | Red | Green | Blue | |
| QS2 | Light yellow | Light yellow | 159 ± 11.239 | 160 ± 11.532 | 158 ± 15.099 | 137 ± 45.28 | 140 ± 45.177 | 125 ± 48.445 |
| QSA0.5 | Slightly pink | Yellow | 148 ± 11.239 | 148 ± 7.024 | 140 ± 9.165 | 153 ± 30.138 | 139 ± 28.827 | 89 ± 33.501 |
| QSA2 | Slightly pink | Light brown | 146 ± 11.15 | 144 ± 7.767 | 137 ± 7.211 | 132 ± 24.986 | 94 ± 29.137 | 25 ± 31.764 |
| QSA5 | Pink | Reddish-brown | 143 ± 18.52 | 140 ± 13.051 | 131 ± 4.725 | 122 ± 40.501 | 54 ± 45.236 | 16 ± 41.218 |
| QSAm0.5 | Slightly brown | Yellow | 150 ± 10.0167 | 150 ± 10.0167 | 139 ± 9.539 | 157 ± 76.839 | 109 ± 78.619 | 29 ± 80.894 |
| QSAm2 | Light brown | Light brown | 145 ± 31.214 | 142 ± 32.036 | 130 ± 33.645 | 103 ± 53.799 | 42 ± 34.559 | 26 ± 29.67 |
| QSAm5 | Brown | Reddish-brown | 144 ± 30.643 | 136 ± 39.803 | 120 ± 47.721 | 88 ± 60.002 | 39 ± 51.643 | 27 ± 49.729 |
| QSB0.5 | Pink | Yellow | 166 ± 14.012 | 70 ± 25.515 | 85 ± 24.758 | 135 ± 20.404 | 119 ± 29.67 | 69 ± 4.509 |
| QSB2 | Pinkish-red | Brown | 146 ± 13.748 | 33 ± 35.218 | 47 ± 32.516 | 136 ± 31.973 | 92 ± 37.634 | 26 ± 38.314 |
| QSB5 | Wine red | Reddish-brown | 99 ± 27.622 | 23 ± 30.643 | 20 ± 31.005 | 108 ± 31.973 | 52 ± 37.634 | 21 ± 38.314 |
| QSG0.5 | Slightly yellow | Light yellow | 152 ± 12.055 | 153 ± 7 | 145 ± 9.504 | 150 ± 32.959 | 136 ± 36.115 | 86 ± 46.09 |
| QSG2 | Light pink | Light brown | 157 ± 9.504 | 147 ± 9.073 | 136 ± 9.073 | 136 ± 29.137 | 92 ± 39.715 | 23 ± 42.532 |
| QSG5 | Pink | Reddish-brown | 155 ± 14.295 | 146 ± 10 | 135 ± 8.544 | 108 ± 31.214 | 37 ± 39.576 | 19 ± 43.143 |
| QSO0.5 | Slightly yellow | Light yellow | 157 ± 18.877 | 157 ± 18.77 | 146 ± 17.691 | 148 ± 22.912 | 146 ± 22.185 | 130 ± 26.083 |
| QSO2 | Light yellow | Light brown | 147 ± 25.515 | 145 ± 26.058 | 133 ± 24.515 | 128 ± 18.175 | 123 ± 19.425 | 98 ± 26.633 |
| QSO5 | Yellow | Light brown | 139 ± 23.065 | 133 ± 23.007 | 109 ± 25.514 | 131 ± 17.473 | 122 ± 13 | 86 ± 6.506 |
| QSP0.5 | Pink | Brown | 148 ± 14 | 146 ± 8.505 | 136 ± 8.082 | 150 ± 13.051 | 79 ± 19.008 | 22 ± 16.093 |
| QSP2 | Pinkish-red | Reddish-brown | 148 ± 17.039 | 145 ± 14.12 | 139 ± 13.428 | 115 ± 23.544 | 44 ± 34.597 | 28 ± 32.129 |
| QSP5 | Fuchsia-red | Dark red | 147 ± 20.008 | 146 ± 14.012 | 141 ± 10.692 | 71 ± 38.436 | 31 ± 36.846 | 29 ± 36.295 |
| QSR0.5 | Slightly yellow | Light yellow | 156 ± 19.757 | 156 ± 20.297 | 154 ± 19.218 | 135 ± 32.078 | 136 ± 35.921 | 121 ± 47.57 |
| QSR2 | Slightly brown | Light brown | 147 ± 15.275 | 148 ± 15.716 | 143 ± 15.275 | 140 ± 40.951 | 136 ± 43.108 | 116 ± 47.71 |
| QSR5 | Slightly brown | Light brown | 150 ± 15.822 | 151 ± 15.395 | 146 ± 15.947 | 134 ± 38.423 | 131 ± 40.501 | 107 ± 49.426 |
(1) Where: Q = chitosan, S = starch, A = cranberry, Am =blueberry, B = beetroot, G = pomegranate, O = oregano, P = pitaya/dragon fruit, R= resveratrol; numbers mean the weight percentage of extract used in each film.
Figure 1Coloration of films 15: (a) QS2 day 1; (b) QS2 day 15; (c) QSA2 day 1; (d) QSA2 day 15; (e) QSAm2 day 1; (f) QSAm2 day 15; (g) QSB2 day 1; (h) QSB2 day 15; (i) QSG2 day 1; (j) QSG2 day 15; (k) QSO2 day 1; (l) QSO2 day 15; (m) QSP2 day 1; (n) QSP2 day 15; (o) QSR2 day 1; and (p) QSR2 day 15.
Apparent density values of the films.
| Sample | Apparent Density (g/cm3) | Sample | Apparent Density (g/cm3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| QS2 | 0.0835 ± 0.0001 | QSG2 | 0.0713 ± 0.0002 |
| QSA0.5 | 0.1034 ± 0.00004 | QSG5 | 0.1087 ± 0.0002 |
| QSA2 | 0.0933 ± 0.00035 | QSO0.5 | 0.0757 ± 0.0002 |
| QSA5 | 0.1051 ± 0.000055 | QSO2 | 0.0677 ± 0.00007 |
| QSAm0.5 | 0.0908 ± 0.00031 | QSO5 | 0.0641 ± 0.0002 |
| QSAm2 | 0.0916 ± 0.0009 | QSP0.5 | 0.0711 ± 0.0001 |
| QSAm5 | 0.0847 ± 0.00044 | QSP2 | 0.0752 ± 0.00004 |
| QSB0.5 | 0.0907 ± 0.0005 | QSP5 | 0.0646 ± 0.0002 |
| QSB2 | 0.0754 ± 0.00039 | QSR0.5 | 0.0649 ± 0.00007 |
| QSB5 | 0.0814 ± 0.00039 | QSR2 | 0.0816 ± 0.00003 |
| QSG0.5 | 0.0984 ± 0.00026 | QSR5 | 0.0807 ± 0.00009 |
Figure 2FTIR spectra of (a) QS2 vs. (b) QSA0.5; (c) QSAm0.5; (d) QSB0.5; (e) QSG0.5; (f) QSO0.5; (g) QSP0.5 and (h) QSR0.5.
Figure 3FTIR spectra of (a) QS2 vs. (b) QSA2; (c) QSAm2; (d) QSB2; (e) QSG2; (f) QSO2; (g) QSP2; and (h) QSR2.
Figure 4FTIR spectra of (a) QS2 vs. (b) QSA5; (c) QSAm5; (d) QSB5; (e) QSG5; (f) QSO5; (g) QSP5; and (h) QSR5.
Figure 5UV spectrum of (a) QS2; (b) QSA0.5; (c) QSA2; (d) QSA5; (e) QSAm0.5; (f) QSAm2; (g) QSAm5; (h) QSB0.5; (i) QSB2; (j) QSB5; (k) QSG0.5; (l) QSG2; and (m) QSG5.
Figure 6UV spectrum of (a) QS2; (b) QSO0.5; (c) QSO2; (d) QSO5; (e) QSP0.5; (f) QSP2; (g) QSP5; (h) QSR0.5; (i) QSR2; and (j) QSR5.
Wavelength of antioxidant characteristic peaks for each film.
| Film | Wavelength, nm | Film | Wavelength, nm |
|---|---|---|---|
| QS2 | ------ | QSG2 | 264.32 ± 0 |
| QSA0.5 | 274.99 ± 1.48 | QSG5 | 264.89 ± 2.10 |
| QSA2 | 275.70 ± 1.23 | QSO0.5 | 269.16 ± 3.58 |
| QSA5 | 273.71 ± 1.54 | QSO2 | 262.90 ± 0.65 |
| QSAm0.5 | 262.61 ± 0.74 | QSO5 | 262.47 ± 1.92 |
| QSAm2 | 267.59 ± 0.49 | QSP0.5 | 266.74 ± 0.98 |
| QSAm5 | 273.14 ± 5.16 | QSP2 | 267.31 ± 0 |
| QSB0.5 | 261.76 ± 0.74 | QSP5 | 261.48 ± 2.46 |
| QSB2 | 267.73 ± 1.13 | QSR0.5 | 262.76 ± 0.25 |
| QSB5 | 262.33 ± 1.07 | QSR2 | 267.73 ± 0.43 |
| QSG0.5 | 265.46 ± 1.72 | QSR5 | 267.31 ± 0 |
Figure 7Calibration curve of gallic acid.
Antioxidant capacity of each film (mg/mg equivalent to gallic acid).
| Film | Antioxidant Capacity, mg/mg | Film | Antioxidant Capacity, mg/mg |
|---|---|---|---|
| QS2 | ------ | QSG2 | 0.20984 ± 2.64 × 10−6 |
| QSA0.5 | 0.21001 ± 4.85 × 10−5 | QSG5 | 0.20997 ± 2.15 × 10−5 |
| QSA2 | 0.20991 ± 1.61 × 10−5 | QSO0.5 | 0.21003 ± 2.73 × 10−5 |
| QSA5 | 0.20992 ± 6.65 × 10−5 | QSO2 | 0.21020 ± 1.46 × 10−4 |
| QSAm0.5 | 0.20998 ± 6.23 × 10−5 | QSO5 | 0.21003 ± 6.92 × 10−6 |
| QSAm2 | 0.20997 ± 4.69 × 10−5 | QSP0.5 | 0.20997 ± 3.48 × 10−6 |
| QSAm5 | 0.20999 ± 6.37 × 10−5 | QSP2 | 0.21002 ± 4.06 × 10−5 |
| QSB0.5 | 0.20994 ± 9.18 × 10−5 | QSP5 | 0.21008 ± 6.67 × 10−5 |
| QSB2 | 0.21004 ± 7.27 × 10−6 | QSR0.5 | 0.20995 ± 5.63 × 10−5 |
| QSB5 | 0.20998 ± 9.18 × 10−5 | QSR2 | 0.21005 ± 5.82 × 10−6 |
| QSG0.5 | 0.21003 ± 2.73 × 10−5 | QSR5 | 0.21005 ± 5.58 × 10−5 |
Figure 8Scanning electronic micrograph (SEM) of (a) QS2; (b) QSA5; (c) QSAm5; and (d) QSB5 at 500×.
Figure 9Scanning electronic micrograph (SEM) of (a) QSG5; (b) QSO5; (c) QSP0.5; and (d) QSR5 at 500×.
Figure 10Thermograms of QSAm2, QSAm5, QSB2, QSB5 and QSO5 films.
Weight loss percentage at 135°, 320° and 600 °C of each film.
| Sample | Weight Loss Percentage at 135 °C | Weight Loss Percentage at 320 °C | Weight Loss Percentage at 600 °C |
|---|---|---|---|
| QSAm2 | 10.208 ± 0.2 | 57.712 ± 0.2 | 90.52 ± 0.2 |
| QSAm5 | 9.812 ± 0.2 | 53.782 ± 0.2 | 88.571 ± 0.2 |
| QSB2 | 8.264 ± 0.2 | 55.290 ± 0.2 | 96.519 ± 0.2 |
| QSB5 | 7.212 ± 0.2 | 51.424 ± 0.2 | 97.465 ± 0.2 |
| QSO5 | 17.920 ± 0.2 | 65.787 ± 0.2 | 90.507 ± 0.2 |
| QSP0.5 | 9.216 ± 0.2 | 59.783 ± 0.2 | 96.054 ± 0.2 |
Experimental design of chitosan-starch films with natural antioxidants.
| Number | Sample (1) | Number | Sample (1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | QS2 | 12 | QSG2 |
| 2 | QSA0.5 | 13 | QSG5 |
| 3 | QSA2 | 14 | QSO0.5 |
| 4 | QSA5 | 15 | QSO2 |
| 5 | QSAm0.5 | 16 | QSO5 |
| 6 | QSAm2 | 17 | QSP0.5 |
| 7 | QSAm5 | 18 | QSP2 |
| 8 | QSB0.5 | 19 | QSP5 |
| 9 | QSB2 | 20 | QSR0.5 |
| 10 | QSB5 | 21 | QSR2 |
| 11 | QSG0.5 | 22 | QSR5 |
(1) Where: Q = chitosan, S = starch, A = cranberry, Am =blueberry, B = beetroot, G = pomegranate, O = oregano, P = pitaya/dragon fruit, R= resveratrol; numbers mean the weight percentage of extract used in each film.