| Literature DB >> 31936509 |
Wenping Li1,2,3, Mingsong Chen1,2,3, Yanchen Li1,2,3, Jingmeng Sun1,2,3, Yi Liu1,2,3, Hongwu Guo1,2,3.
Abstract
As a byproduct from the soybeanEntities:
Keywords: adhesive; antifungal; soy meal
Year: 2020 PMID: 31936509 PMCID: PMC7023225 DOI: 10.3390/polym12010169
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Experimental formulation details for soy meal samples.
| Sample Number | Type of Preservative | Amount of Preservative(g) |
|---|---|---|
| K | — | — |
| A1 | Nano-Ag/TiO2 | 0.5 |
| A2 | Nano-Ag/TiO2 | 1 |
| A3 | Nano-Ag/TiO2 | 2 |
| A4 | Nano-Ag/TiO2 | 3 |
| B1 | Nano-Ag/TiO2 & ZPT | 0.5 |
| B2 | Nano-Ag/TiO2 & ZPT | 1 |
| B3 | Nano-Ag/TiO2 & ZPT | 2 |
| B4 | Nano-Ag/TiO2 & ZPT | 3 |
| C1 | 4-Cumylphenol | 0.5 |
| C2 | 4-Cumylphenol | 1 |
| C3 | 4-Cumylphenol | 2 |
| C4 | 4-Cumylphenol | 3 |
The mass ratio of Nano-Ag/TiO2 & ZPT is 1:1.
Degree of mold growth on the surface of samples at 28 °C and 95% RH for 15 days.
| Time (Day) | Degree of Mold Growth | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | |
|
|
| ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
Blank stands for absence of growth. + infected area < 25%, ++ 25% < infected area < 50%, +++ 50% < infected area < 75%, ++++ 75% < infected area < 100%, +++++ 100% of adhesive surface was covered by microorganisms. ++++++ Change in mycelium color.
Figure 1All soy meal samples were conditioned at 28 °C and 95% RH for 15 days.
Figure 2SEM of the different soy meal (SM) samples after 15 days of cultivation at 28 °C and 95% RH: (a) (SM/5% preservative A), (b) (SM/5% preservative B), (c) (SM/5% preservative C), and (d) (SM).
Solid content and initial viscosity.
| Adhesive Code | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | |
| Solid content(%) | 26.77 | 26.91 | 27.15 | 27.32 | 27.46 | 27.12 | 27.42 | 27.68 | 27.83 | 26.83 | 26.85 | 27.45 | 27.61 |
| Initial viscosity (mPa·s) | 38,432 | 31,063 | 30,913 | 30,471 | 30,226 | 49,697 | 50,149 | 50,685 | 51,092 | 34,193 | 37,152 | 37,639 | 38,273 |
Figure 3FTIR spectrum of the different new-made soy meal samples: K (SM adhesive), A4 (SM/5% preservative A), B4 (SM/5% preservative B), and C4 (SM/5% preservative C).
Figure 4Interactions between soy protein and 4-cumylphenol.
Figure 5TG and differential TG curves of the different new-made soy meal samples: K (SM adhesive), A4 (SM/5% preservative A), B4 (SM/5% preservative B), and C4 (SM/5% preservative C).
Figure 6TG and differential TG curves of the different soy meal samples on the 15th day: K (SM adhesive), A4 (SM/5% preservative A), B4 (SM/5% preservative B), and C4 (SM/5% preservative C).