| Literature DB >> 31762990 |
Reza Ghadermazi1, Saeid Hamdipour1, Kambiz Sadeghi2, Rojin Ghadermazi3, Asghar Khosrowshahi Asl1.
Abstract
Edible films and coating materials are commonly used as appropriate packaging materials to extend the shelf life of fresh food. Due to all their properties, edible film and coating materials have been received much attention. They are biodegradable, edible, and good barrier against environmental parameters; thereby, they could carry and deliver food additives protecting food quality. Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), a cellulose derivatives, can act as an excellent film-forming agent for coating food produces. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the HPMC properties and investigate the effects of various additives on its film-forming properties, such as rheological behavior, water vapor, and gas permeability, as well as mechanical, optical, antioxidant, and antimicrobial properties, with a focus on the recent progress and outputs, which has been recently published. Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose is prone to be commonly used as an advanced film-forming and coating materials for the sake of well miscibility with a wide range of organic and inorganic materials. However, this polymer requires further improvements regarding moisture susceptibility and thermal properties.Entities:
Keywords: additives; edible film; hydroxypropyl methylcellulose; permeability
Year: 2019 PMID: 31762990 PMCID: PMC6848826 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.1206
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 2.863
Figure 1Chemical structure of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and schematic of food and drug protected by HPMC coating containing antioxidant compounds (Source: Ghadermazi, Keramat, & Goli, 2015)
Properties of HPMC films containing different additives
| Additives | η | T (°C) | RH% | d (µm) | TS (MPa) | E % | EM (MPa) | WVP × 10NR10 (g/m s Pa) | OP (ml µm/m2 d kPa) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H | NR | 20 | 50 | 30 | 34 | 6.63 | 1,900 | NR | NR | Möller, Grelier, Pardon, and Coma ( |
| 3% SM (w/v) | NR | 10 | 75 | 0.5 | NR | NR | NR | 0.94 | NR | Villalobos et al. ( |
| 2.1% SM + 0.9% SP (w/v) | NR | 10 | 75 | 0.5 | NR | NR | NR | 1.48 | NR | Villalobos et al. ( |
| H | NR | Room | 65 | 30 | 28.5 | 9.6 | NR | 3.33 | NR | Dogan and McHugh ( |
| 3.3% MCC (3 µm) | NR | Room | 69 | 40 | 37.2 | 4.88 | NR | 3.88 | NR | Dogan and McHugh ( |
| H | NR | 23 | 50 | 0.54 | 61 | 16 | 1,656 | NR | 159 | Brindle and Krochta ( |
| 75% WPI | NR | 23 | 50 | NR | 7.8 | 47 | 182 | NR | NR | Brindle and Krochta ( |
| 63% G | NR | 23 | 50 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 616 | Brindle and Krochta ( |
| 63% GL + WPI | NR | 23 | 50 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 110 | Brindle and Krochta ( |
| H | NR | 23 | 30 | NR | 28.3 | 8.1 | 900 | 2.2 | NR | de Moura et al. ( |
| CS/TPP (85 nm) | NR | 23 | 30 | NR | 62.6 | 11.1 | 1,264 | 0.92 | NR | de Moura et al. ( |
| H | NR | 20 | 54.4 | 44 | 59 | 0.1 | 1,697 | 8 | NR | Sánchez‐González et al. ( |
| 2% TTO | NR | 20 | 54.4 | NR | 42 | 0.11 | 956 | 5.2 | NR | Sánchez‐González et al. ( |
| H | NR | 20 | 50 | 47 | 63 | 13 | 2,334 | 4.2 | NR | Pastor et al. ( |
| 50% G | NR | 20 | 50 | 56 | 16 | 50 | 421 | 8.8 | NR | Pastor et al. ( |
| 1% N | NR | 20 | 50 | 70 | 43 | 26 | 856 | 4.9 | NR | Pastor et al. ( |
| 1% N + 50% G | NR | 20 | 50 | 58 | 20 | 31 | 722 | 9.5 | NR | Pastor et al. ( |
| H | NR | 21 | 33 | 26 | 35.6 | 4.9 | NR | 4.7 | NR | Bilbao‐Sáinz, Avena‐Bustillos, Wood, Williams, and McHugh ( |
| H | NR | 10 | 58 | 2.5 | 55 | 7 | 2,550 | 4.6 | NR | Jiménez, Fabra, Talens, and Chiralt ( |
| Starch + G | NR | 25 | 53% | 257 | 10 | 27 | 270 | 0.36 | 0.504 | Jiménez et al. ( |
| Starch + G + CA | NR | 25 | 53% | 229 | 8 | 12 | 320 | 0.30 | 0.792 | Jiménez et al. ( |
| 33.3% G | NR | 23 | 50 | NR | 15.2 | 70.7 | 274.6 | 20.28 | 232 | Navarro‐Tarazaga et al. ( |
| H | NR | 25 | 53% | NR | 24.5 | 10.4 | 1,312 | 23.11 | 10.26 | Jiménez et al. ( |
| 50% starch | NR | 25 | 53% | NR | 13 | 9.4 | 670 | 23.61 | 0.97 | Jiménez et al. ( |
| 60% BW 12% + SA + 9.3% G | NR | 23 | 50 | NR | 2.9 | 3.52 | 195.4 | 8.75 | 337 | Navarro‐Tarazaga et al. ( |
| H | 0.1272 | 20 | 53NR75 | 55 | 75 | 9 | 1,884 | 160 | 92 | Atarés et al. ( |
| AA | 0.121 | 20 | 53NR75 | 53 | 63 | 5.9 | 1,651 | 101 | 29.2 | Atarés et al. ( |
| CA | 0.130 | 20 | 53NR75 | 53 | 55 | 4.5 | 1,669 | 90 | 19.46 | Atarés et al. ( |
| GO | 0.143 | 20 | 53NR75 | 62 | 41 | 6 | 1,227 | 17 | 122 | Atarés et al. ( |
| H | 0.00441 | 20 | 54.4 | 1.6 | 56 | 7.9 | 643 | 7.1 | NR | Sánchez‐González, Chiralt, et al. ( |
| 2% BO | 0.0044 | 20 | 54.4 | 1.1 | 39 | 2.9 | 444 | 3.1 | NR | Sánchez‐González, Chiralt, et al. ( |
| 2% LO | 0.0043 | 20 | 54.4 | 5.6 | 40 | 3.9 | 397 | 4.1 | NR | Sánchez‐González, Chiralt, et al. ( |
| 2% TTO | 0.0043 | 20 | 54.4 | 2.3 | 34 | 4.2 | 365 | 5.73 | NR | Sánchez‐González, Chiralt, et al. ( |
| H | NR | 24 | 30 | 34 | 28.3 | 8.1 | 900 | 8.9 | NR | De Moura, Mattoso, and Zucolotto ( |
| H | NR | 25 | 50 | NR | 77 | 8 | NR | 1.85 | NR | Byun et al. ( |
| Sh + LA 20:1 | NR | 25 | 50 | NR | 70 | 7 | NR | 1.62 | NR | Byun et al. ( |
| Sh + SA 100:1 | NR | 25 | 50 | NR | 50 | 5.5 | NR | 1.91 | NR | Byun et al. ( |
| 05% Sh | NR | 25 | 50 | NR | 55 | 4.5 | NR | 1.45 | NR | Byun et al. ( |
| H | NR | 40 | 75 | 60 | NR | NR | NR | 0.18 | NR | Laboulfie et al. ( |
| 20% SA | NR | 40 | 75 | 60 | 35 | 3 | 2,100 | 0.08 | NR | Laboulfie et al. ( |
| 13% PEG200 | NR | 40 | 75 | 60 | 25 | 6 | 1,600 | 0.03 | NR | Laboulfie et al. ( |
| H | NR | NR | NR | NR | 26.7 | 31 | 500 | 0.81 | NR | Sánchez‐González, Saavedra, and Chiralt ( |
| 5 Logs CFU/cm2 LAB | NR | 5 | 75 | NR | 31.1 | 33 | 381 | 2.95 | NR | Sánchez‐González et al. ( |
| H | NR | 20 | 50 | 8.2 | 64.5 | 4.3 | 2,492 | 6.13 | 449,280 | Akhtar et al. ( |
| 4% G | NR | 20 | 50 | 9.5 | 57.9 | 5.64 | 2,204 | 6.59 | 345,600 | Akhtar et al. ( |
| 4% NRC + 0.8% G | NR | 20 | 50 | 4.3 | 39.9 | 8.72 | 1,102 | 16.68 | 43,200 | Akhtar et al. ( |
| 40% TP + 40% G | NR | 25 | 75 | 220 | NR | NR | 13.9 | 0.37 | NR | Villacrés, Flores, and Gerschenson ( |
| G | NR | 25 | NR | 155.6 | 18.88 | 46.35 | NR | 0.00028 | NR | Rubilar et al. ( |
| G + WPI + 0.5% oil + SDS | NR | 25 | NR | 155.7 | 8.59 | 35.94 | NR | 0.00032 | NR | Rubilar et al. ( |
| G + WPI + 1% oil | NR | 25 | NR | 156.6 | 4.81 | 33.40 | NR | 0.00023 | NR | Rubilar et al. ( |
| H + G | NR | 25 | 50% | 0.104 | 10.89 | 51.24 | 29.23 | 0.025 | 405.80 | Klangmuang and Sothornvit ( |
| Nanoclay + G | NR | 25 | 50% | 0.118 | 16.34 | 48.19 | 53.86 | 0.026 | 421.44 | Klangmuang and Sothornvit ( |
| Beeswax + G | NR | 25 | 50% | 0.142 | 12.79 | 56.19 | 30.89 | 0.019 | 538.42 | Klangmuang and Sothornvit ( |
| Beeswax clay + G | NR | 25 | 50% | 0.115 | 10.29 | 46.42 | 39.99 | 0.013 | 454.56 | Klangmuang and Sothornvit ( |
| 50% G | NR | 25 | 50 | 135.4 | 27.3 | 23.6 | 537.5 | 23.0 | 488.8 | Ghadermazi et al. ( |
| 20% CEO | NR | 25 | 50 | 130.0 | 12.3 | 17.9 | 478.9 | 17.7 | 393.0 | Ghadermazi et al. ( |
| 20% OEO | NR | 25 | 50 | 115.2 | 7.2 | 19.8 | 202.1 | 16.1 | 235.9 | Ghadermazi et al. ( |
| 20% SEO | NR | 25 | 50 | 122.6 | 9.2 | 20.8 | 255.6 | 14.9 | 287.4 | Ghadermazi et al. ( |
| H | NR | 23 | 50 | 32.1 | 61.04 | 29.51 | 618.84 | 1,115,740 | NR | Hay et al. ( |
| 75% Na‐P | NR | 23 | 50 | 32.1 | 50.46 | 21.72 | 708.17 | 568,287 | NR | Hay et al. ( |
| H | NR | 25 | 58 | 58 | 20.8 | 2.5 | 1,120.7 | NR | NR | Bodini et al. ( |
| 70% starch | NR | 25 | 58 | 62 | 16.6 | 2.2 | 905.9 | NR | NR | Bodini et al. ( |
| H | NR | NR | NR | 500 | 38.1 | NR | NR | 0.3 | 1,212.9 | Osman et al. ( |
| Al2O3‐NPs | NR | NR | NR | 500 | 31.6 | NR | NR | 0.15 | 6,929 | Osman et al. ( |
| SiO2‐NPs | NR | NR | NR | 510 | 43.17 | NR | NR | 1.5 | 14,000 | Osman et al. ( |
Abbreviation: NR, not reported.
η = apparent viscosity of film dispersions; T = temperature; RH = relative humidity. These environments were equilibrated before analysis. d = thickness; TS = tensile strength; E = elongation; EM = elastic modulus; WVP = water vapor permeability; OP = oxygen permeability.
H = HPMC; SM = sorbitan monostearate; SP = sucrose palmitate; MCC = microcrystalline cellulose; WPI = whey protein isolate; G = glycerol; CS/TPP = chitosan/tripolyphosphate nanoparticles; TTO = tea tree essential oils; N = nisin; BW = beeswax; SA = stearic acid; AA = ascorbic acid; CA = citric acid; GO = ginger essential oil; BO = bergamot essential oils; LO = lemon essential oils; LA = lauric acid; SH = shellac; PEG = polyethylene glycol; LAB = lactic acid bacteria; NRC = natural red color; TP = tapioca starch; CEO = clove essential oil; OEO = oregano essential oil; SEO = sage essential oil; Na‐P = amylose–sodium palmitate inclusion complexes; NFC = TEMPO‐oxidized nano‐fibrillated cellulose; Al2O3‐NPs = aluminum oxide nanoparticles; SiO2‐NPs = silica oxide nanoparticles.
Figure 2Effect of tea tree EO (TTEO) on the HPMC film morphology (a) net HPMC film, (b) HPMC + 0.5 TTEO, (c) HPMC + 1 TTEO, and (d) HPMC + 2 TTEO (Source: Sánchez‐González et al., 2009)
Figure 3Optical microscopic images of the HPMC/hydroxypropyl starch films in the presence of different plasticizers. The scale bar equals to 80 μm, and other images have same scale (Source: Zhang et al., 2018)
Figure 4Effect of zein nanoparticles (ZNP) at different concentration of on the visual appearance of HPMC films: (a) net HPMC film, (b) HPMC + 0.018 ZNP, (c) HPMC + 0.036 ZNP, (d) HPMC + 0.155 ZNP, and HPMC + 0.268 ZNP (e) (Source: Gilbert et al., 2018)
Figure 5Solubility of the blending HPMC/Na‐Palm films soaked for 2 hr at pH 4, 7, and 10. A: 100% HPMC film, B: 75/25% HPMC/Na‐Palm film, C: 50/50% HPMC/Na‐Palm film, D: 25/75% HPMC/Na‐Palm film (Source: Hay et al., 2018)
Figure 6Inhibition zone of blends active films against bacteria of food origin F1 = HPMC film, F6 = HPMC + 104 IU Nisaplin®, F9 = HPMC + 30% glycerol + 104 IU Nisaplin,® F10 = HPMC + 50% glycerol + 104 IU Nisaplin® (Source: Imran et al., 2010)