| Literature DB >> 30109077 |
Xinwei Cao1, Bo Zhu1, Yichuan Gao1, Jianli Liu1, Weidong Gao1, Xiaoling Gai2, Wei Bao3,4.
Abstract
In this paper, composite films composed of soya bean protein isolate (SPI) and polyacrylamide (PAM) were prepared under variations of ultrasonic power, treatment time and heating temperature. The effects of the major processing parameters related to ultrasonic-assisted treatment were evaluated and optimized through the single-factor analysis and Box-Behnken design (BBD), respectively, when the tensile strength of composite films was considered as the response value. The single-factor analysis was carried out to study the effects of ultrasonic power, treatment time and heating temperature on the viscosity and cohesion of the slurry and the tensile strength of SPI/PAM composite films, which also provided a reasonable data range of each factor for further optimization. Experiment results indicated that these three factors play a significant role in the tensile strength of films. Then BBD was applied to optimize the treatment conditions of these three factors, using the tensile strength of films as the response value. According to the interactive second-order polynomial model of three factors and the three-dimensional response surface, the maximum tensile strength of films was obtained under the optimal condition. To verify the reliability of the model, the experiment with the optimal condition was conducted, and results demonstrated that the observed tensile strength was in agreement with the predicated one. Also, the morphology and water solubility of the films showed that the film can be coated on the yarns evenly and removed clearly.Entities:
Keywords: polyacrylamide; process optimization; response surface method; soya bean protein isolate; tensile strength; ultrasonic treatment
Year: 2018 PMID: 30109077 PMCID: PMC6083683 DOI: 10.1098/rsos.180213
Source DB: PubMed Journal: R Soc Open Sci ISSN: 2054-5703 Impact factor: 2.963
Figure 1.Viscosity and cohesion force of the slurry and the mechanical property of SPI/PAM films at different ultrasonic power.
Figure 2.Viscosity and cohesion of slurry and the mechanical property of SPI/PAM films at different treatment times.
Figure 3.Viscosity and cohesion of slurry and the mechanical property of SPI/PAM films at different heating temperatures.
Factors and levels of Box–Behnken design experiment.
| code level | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| codes | factors | −1.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| X1 | ultrasonic power (W) | 500 | 550 | 600 |
| X2 | treatment time (min) | 50 | 55 | 60 |
| X3 | heating temperature (°C) | 85 | 90 | 95 |
Design table and results of Box–Behnken design experiment.
| run | X1 | X2 | X3 | Y1 tensile strength (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 550.00 | 55.00 | 90.00 | 12.6110 |
| 2 | 500.00 | 55.00 | 85.00 | 7.2061 |
| 3 | 550.00 | 55.00 | 90.00 | 12.3251 |
| 4 | 550.00 | 50.00 | 95.00 | 9.2584 |
| 5 | 550.00 | 50.00 | 85.00 | 7.5807 |
| 6 | 600.00 | 55.00 | 85.00 | 10.1325 |
| 7 | 550.00 | 55.00 | 90.00 | 12.2300 |
| 8 | 600.00 | 60.00 | 90.00 | 12.9305 |
| 9 | 600.00 | 55.00 | 95.00 | 12.7338 |
| 10 | 550.00 | 60.00 | 95.00 | 11.7941 |
| 11 | 600.00 | 50.00 | 90.00 | 10.7117 |
| 12 | 550.00 | 60.00 | 85.00 | 8.1030 |
| 13 | 500.00 | 55.00 | 95.00 | 8.8652 |
| 14 | 500.00 | 60.00 | 90.00 | 9.4789 |
| 15 | 500.00 | 50.00 | 90.00 | 8.4784 |
| 16 | 550.00 | 55.00 | 90.00 | 12.4723 |
| 17 | 550.00 | 55.00 | 90.00 | 12.1293 |
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) table for response surface quadratic model by Box–Behnken experimental design. (R2 = 0.9929, R2(adj) = 0.9838.)
| source | sum of squares | d.f. | mean square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| model | 64.06 | 9 | 7.12 | 108.89 | <0.0001a |
| X1 | 19.47 | 1 | 19.47 | 297.81 | <0.0001a |
| X2 | 4.93 | 1 | 4.93 | 75.35 | <0.0001a |
| X3 | 11.59 | 1 | 11.59 | 177.30 | <0.0001a |
| X1X2 | 0.37 | 1 | 0.37 | 5.68 | 0.0487a |
| X1X3 | 0.22 | 1 | 0.22 | 3.39 | 0.1079 |
| X2X3 | 1.01 | 1 | 1.01 | 15.50 | 0.0056a |
| (X1)2 | 2.07 | 1 | 2.07 | 31.71 | 0.0008a |
| (X2)2 | 6.60 | 1 | 6.60 | 100.96 | <0.0001a |
| (X3)2 | 15.48 | 1 | 15.48 | 236.81 | <0.0001a |
| residual | 0.46 | 7 | 0.065 | ||
| lack of fit | 0.31 | 3 | 0.10 | 2.82 | 0.1708 |
| pure error | 0.15 | 4 | 0.037 | ||
| cor total | 64.52 | 16 |
aSignificant at 95% confidence degree (p < 0.05).
Figure 4.The three-dimensional response surface for the tensile strength of prepared films. (a) Effects of ultrasonic power and treatment time on the tensile strength of films; (b) effects of ultrasonic power and heating temperature on the tensile strength of films; and (c) effects of treatment time and heating temperature on the tensile strength of films.
Predicted and experimental response values led by optimal parameters after optimization with response surface method.
| tensile strength (MPa) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ultrasonic power (W) | treatment time (min) | heating temperature (°C) | predicted | experimental |
| 577.78 (580) | 57.22 (57) | 93.11 (93) | 13.4075 | 13.2948 |
Figure 5.The scanning electron micrographs of SPI/PAM composite films at the optimum conditions.