| Literature DB >> 31775217 |
Yongliang Zhuang1, Shiyan Ruan1, Hanghang Yao1, Yun Sun1.
Abstract
Different composite films composed of tilapia skin collagen (TSC) with Pachyrhizus starch (PS) or rambutan peel phenolics (RPP) were prepared, and the physical properties of these films were determined. The effects of PS and RPP on TSC films were investigated, and our results indicated that PS and RPP could improve the physical properties of TSC films. Opacity and film thickness showed an enhanced trend with increasing PS and RPP contents in TSC films, whereas solubility in water, elongation-at-break (EAB), and water vapor permeability (WVP) showed declining trends. TSC film with 10% PS and 0.5% RPP had the highest tensile strength, and the tensile strength dropped drastically when the content of PS and RPP increased. The light transmittances of the films could decrease with the incorporation of PS and RPP. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) demonstrated that the addition of PS and RPP improved the thermal stability of TSC films. In addition, X-ray diffraction indicated that the crystallinity of the films decreased and the amorphous structure of the films tended to become more complex with the addition of PS and RPP. As shown by fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) analysis, PS and RPP can strongly interact with TSC, resulting in a modification of its structure. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis showed that there was a good compatibility between TSC, PS, and RPP. The results indicated that TSC film incorporated with 10% PS and 0.5% RPP was an effective method for improve the physical properties of the film. TSC-PS-RPP composite films can be used not only in biomedical applications, but also as active food packaging materials.Entities:
Keywords: collagen; composite films; phenolics; properties; starch
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31775217 PMCID: PMC6950419 DOI: 10.3390/md17120662
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 5.118
Figure 1Solubility of the different composite films in water: (A) tilapia skin collagen (TSC) film; (B) tilapia skin collagen with Pachyrhizus starch (TSC–PS) (10%); (C) TSC–PS (50%); (D) tilapia skin collagen with Pachyrhizus starch and rambutan peel phenolics (TSC–PS–RPP) (0.5%); (E) TSC–PS–RPP (2%). All values are mean ± standard deviation. Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
The water vapor permeability of the different composite films: (A) TSC film; (B) TSC–PS (10%); (C) TSC–PS (50%); (D) TSC–PS–RPP (0.5%); (E) TSC–PS–RPP (2%).
| Sample | WVP × 10−14 (kg·m/(m2·s·Pa)) |
|---|---|
| A | 8.89 ± 0.17 a |
| B | 8.41 ± 0.20 b |
| C | 7.83 ± 0.14 c |
| D | 8.21 ± 0.18 b |
| E | 7.96 ± 0.12 b,c |
Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Film thickness, tensile strength, and elongation-at-break values of the different composite films: (A) TSC film; (B) TSC–PS (10%); (C) TSC–PS (50%); (D) TSC–PS–RPP (0.5%); (E) TSC–PS–RPP (2%).
| Sample | Film Thickness (μm) | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Elongation-at-Break (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 55.33 ± 1.53 a | 45.33 ± 1.70 a | 14.41 ± 0.77 a |
| B | 53.33 ± 0.58 b | 44.05 ± 1.65 a | 11.30 ± 0.89 b |
| C | 53.67 ± 1.15 b | 30.21 ± 1.22 b | 9.06 ± 0.53 c |
| D | 49.00 ± 0.00 c | 50.97 ± 2.20 a | 12.62 ± 1.01 ab |
| E | 53.67 ± 1.15 b | 46.48 ± 0.66 a | 11.72 ± 0.59 b |
All values are mean ± standard deviation, and different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 2FTIR Spectra of the different composite films: (A) TSC film; (B) TSC–PS (10%); (C) TSC–PS (50%); (D) TSC–PS–RPP (0.5%); (E) TSC–PS–RPP (2%).
Figure 3Opacity value (a) and light transmittance (b) of the different composite films: (A) TSC film; (B) TSC–PS (10%); (C) TSC–PS (50%); (D) TSC–PS–RPP (0.5%); (E) TSC–PS–RPP (2%). All values are mean ± standard deviation, and different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) thermogram of the different composite films: (A) TSC film; (B) TSC–PS (10%); (C) TSC–PS (50%); (D) TSC–PS–RPP (0.5%); (E) TSC–PS–RPP (2%).
Figure 5X-ray diffraction patterns of the different composite films: (A) TSC film; (B) TSC–PS (10%); (C) TSC–PS (50%); (D) TSC–PS–RPP (0.5%); (E) TSC–PS–RPP (2%).
Figure 6SEM images of the different composite films: (A) TSC film; (B) TSC–PS (10%); (C) TSC–PS (50%); (D) TSC–PS–RPP (0.5%); (E) TSC–PS–RPP (2%). The enclosed parts represent the residue on the surface of the film.