| Literature DB >> 32605286 |
Bàrbara Micó-Vicent1,2, Valentin Viqueira1, Marina Ramos3, Francesca Luzi4, Franco Dominici4, Luigi Torre4, Alfonso Jiménez3, Debora Puglia4, María Carmen Garrigós3.
Abstract
In this work, polyester-based nanocomposites added with laminar nanoclays (calcined hydrotalcite, HT, and montmorillonite, MMT) loaded with lemon waste natural dye (LD) and essential oil (LEO) were prepared and characterized. The optimal conditions to synthetize the hybrid materials were obtained by using statistically designed experiments. The maximum LD adsorption with HT was found using 5 wt% of surfactant (sodium dodecyl sulfate), 5 wt% of mordant (aluminum potassium sulfate dodecahydrate) and 50% (v/v) ethanol. For MMT, 10 wt% of surfactant (cetylpyridinium bromide), 5 wt% of mordant, 1 wt% of (3-aminopropyl) triethoxysilane and 100% distilled water were used. LEO adsorption at 300 wt% was maximized with MMT, 10 wt% of surfactant and 50 °C following an evaporation/adsorption process. The obtained hybrid nanofillers were incorporated in a polyester-based matrix (INZEA) at different loadings (3, 5, and 7 wt%) and the obtained samples were characterized in terms of thermal stability, tensile behavior, and color properties. HT_LEM-based samples showed a bright yellow color compared to MMT_LEM ones. The presence of lemon hybrid pigments in INZEA-based systems produced a remarkable variation in CIELAB color space values, which was more visible with increasing the nanofillers ratio. A limited mechanical enhancement and reduced thermal stability was observed with the nanopigments addition, suggesting a limited extent of intercalation/exfoliation of MMT and HT in the polymer matrix. MMT_LEM pigments showed higher thermal stability than HT_LEM ones. A significant increase in Young's modulus of nanocomposites loaded with hybrid LEO was observed compared to the biopolymer matrix. The LEO inclusion into the nanoclays efficiently improved its thermal stability, especially for MMT.Entities:
Keywords: bionanocomposites; essential oils; experimental design; lemon waste; nanoclays; natural pigments
Year: 2020 PMID: 32605286 PMCID: PMC7407885 DOI: 10.3390/polym12071451
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Independent variables and selected levels used in the 24−1 fractional experimental design.
| Independent Variables | −1 | +1 |
|---|---|---|
| Nanoclay structure | MMT | HT |
| Surfactant concentration (wt%) | 5 | 10 |
| Mordant concentration (wt%) | 5 | 10 |
| Silane concentration (wt%) | 0 | 1 |
24−1 fractional experimental design matrix, additional experiments performed with water as solvent and lemon dye adsorbed over the initially added dye (%).
| Experiment | Nanoclay | Surfactant (wt%) * | Mordant (wt%) | Silane (wt%) | Adsorbed dye (%) | Solvent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HT | 10 | 10 | 1 | 99.78 | 50% ( |
| 2 | MMT | 10 | 10 | 0 | 98.99 | |
| 3 | HT | 5 | 10 | 0 | 99.84 | |
| 4 | MMT | 5 | 10 | 1 | 98.97 | |
| 5 | HT | 10 | 5 | 0 | 99.88 | |
| 6 | MMT | 10 | 5 | 1 | 98.94 | |
| 7 | HT | 5 | 5 | 1 | 99.94 | |
| 8 | MMT | 5 | 5 | 0 | 98.87 | |
| 2w | MMT | 10 | 10 | 0 | 99.45 | Distilled water |
| 4w | MMT | 5 | 10 | 1 | 99.44 | |
| 6w | MMT | 10 | 5 | 1 | 99.59 | |
| 8w | MMT | 5 | 5 | 0 | 99.38 |
* Cetylpyridinium bromide (CPB) was used for montmorillonite (MMT) and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) for hydrotalcite (HT).
21•31 fractional experimental design matrix and responses obtained for lemon essential oil (LEO) adsorption at 100 wt%.
| Sample Code | Independent Variables | Response | Solvent | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nanoclay | Surfactant (wt%) * | Absorbance 220 nm | Absorbance 265 nm | ||
| HT.EO.1 | HT | 1 | 4.39 | 3.73 | 50% ( |
| HT.EO.2 | HT | 5 | 4.45 | 2.30 | |
| HT.EO.3 | HT | 10 | 4.47 | 2.11 | |
| MMT.EO.1 | MMT | 1 | 5.16 | 4.23 | Distilled water |
| MMT.EO.2 | MMT | 5 | 4.58 | 3.27 | |
| MMT.EO.3 | MMT | 10 | 3.98 | 2.13 | |
* CPB was used for MMT and SDS for HT.
Experimental tests performed with 300 wt% LEO, MMT and 10 wt% of CPB.
| Sample Code | Dispersion Conditions | Temperature (°C) | LEO (wt%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| EO.WO_300 | Open vessel, water | Ambient/Room | 300 |
| EO.WC.T50_300 | Closed vessel, water | 50 | 300 |
| EO.WC.T100_300 | Closed, water * | 100 | 300 |
* Water was used in the first step with CPB and MMT. No solvent was used for LEO addition to the clay paste.
Variance analysis for lemon dye synthesis performance.
| Factor | Sum of Squares | DF | Mean Square | F-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A (Nanoclay) | 0.1875 | 1 | 0.1875 | 860.35 |
|
| C (Mordant) | 0.0004 | 1 | 0.0004 | 1.77 | 0.3145 |
| D (Silane) | 0.0002 | 1 | 0.0002 | 0.72 | 0.4858 |
| AB (Nanoclay-Surfactant) | 0.0054 | 1 | 0.0054 | 24.77 |
|
| AC (Nanoclay-Mordant) | 0.0154 | 1 | 0.0154 | 70.66 |
|
| Total Error | 0.0004 | 2 | 0.0002 | ||
| Total (corr.) | 1.6982 | 7 | |||
| R2 (%) = 99.97 | |||||
| Adj R2 (%) = 99.91 | |||||
Figure 1Pareto (a) and interactions (b) plots obtained to maximize the adsorption of lemon dye into the nanoclays.
Figure 2Interactions plot between type of nanoclay (HT and MMT) and surfactant concentration (SDS for HT or CPB, for MMT at 1, 5, 10 wt%) with limonene absorption at 220 nm (left) and 265 nm (right), in the separated solvents.
Figure 3Maximum absorption at 265 nm obtained for separated solvents from EO.WO_300, EO.WC.T50_300 and EO.WCT100_300 samples (Table 4).
Figure 4Polyester-based matrix (INZEA)-based bio-nanocomposites obtained at different lemon hybrid pigments loading (3, 5, and 7 wt%).
CIELAB parameters for INZEA bio-nanocomposites with MMT and HT lemon hybrid pigments (m ± SD; n = 3).
| Formulation | L* | a* | b* | ∆E* | Gloss (°) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White Control | 99.47 ± 0.00 | −0.08 ± 0.01 | −0.08 ± 0.01 | - | 121 ± 0 |
| INZEA | 81.66 ± 0.32 | 0.65 ± 0.05 | 5.11 ± 0.04 | 18.56 ± 0.3 | 68 ± 3 |
| INZEA 3%MMT | 75.98 ± 0.50 | 1.17 ± 0.06 | 8.01 ± 0.29 | 24.87 ± 0.56 | 69 ± 3 |
| INZEA 3%MMT_LEM | 73.72 ± 0.73 | 0.40 ± 0.07 | 18.07 ± 0.30 | 31.51 ± 0.74 | 54 ± 4 |
| INZEA 3%HT | 84.53 ± 0.89 | 0.26 ± 0.08 | 4.46 ± 0.07 | 15.62 ± 0.87 | 66 ± 3 |
| INZEA 3% HT_LEM | 77.38 ± 0.51 | 3.32 ± 0.31 | 31.10 ± 0.86 | 38.37 ± 1.01 | 55 ± 3 |
| INZEA 5%MMT | 78.70 ± 0.76 | 0.84 ± 0.08 | 8.08 ± 0.22 | 22.34 ± 0.78 | 65 ± 4 |
| INZEA 5%MMT_LEM | 67.42 ± 0.29 | 0.54 ± 0.06 | 20.13 ± 0.07 | 37.89 ± 0.21 | 64 ± 1 |
| INZEA 5% HT | 86.09 ± 0.12 | 0.16 ± 0.04 | 4.36 ± 0.07 | 14.11 ± 0.13 | 62 ± 2 |
| INZEA 5% HT _LEM | 73.52 ± 0.33 | 5.22 ± 0.14 | 33.53 ± 0.51 | 42.80 ± 0.35 | 55 ± 1 |
| INZEA 7%MMT | 79.50 ± 0.74 | 0.90 ± 0.07 | 8.83 ± 0.16 | 21.89 ± 0.66 | 60 ± 5 |
| INZEA 7%MMT_LEM | 62.37 ± 0.38 | 0.85 ± 0.04 | 20.80 ± 0.04 | 42.58 ± 0.03 | 53 ± 1 |
| INZEA 7% HT | 86.22 ± 0.19 | 0.14 ± 0.04 | 4.22 ± 0.08 | 13.93 ± 0.19 | 57 ± 1 |
| INZEA 7% HT _LEM | 71.18 ± 0.33 | 6.09 ± 0.35 | 35.87 ± 0.57 | 46.16 ± 0.69 | 50 ± 1 |
Mechanical parameters for INZEA bio-nanocomposites with MMR lemon hybrid pigment (MMT_LEM) and HT lemon hybrid pigment (HT_LEM) nanofillers at 3 different concentrations (m ± SD; n = 5).
| Formulation | σb (MPa) | εb (%) | E (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|
| INZEA | 38 ± 1 | 250.5 ± 5.0 | 1365 ± 71 |
| INZEA 3%MMT | 35 ± 2 | 194.1 ± 17.2 | 1328 ± 38 |
| INZEA 3%MMT_LEM | 27 ± 10 | 18.1 ± 15.7 | 1504 ± 226 |
| INZEA 3%HT | 26 ± 1 | 56.3 ± 11.9 | 1275 ± 71 |
| INZEA 3%HT_LEM3 | 35 ± 2 | 10.6 ± 1.3 | 1275 ± 49 |
| INZEA 5%MMT | 34 ± 2 | 10.5 ± 1.1 | 1281 ± 123 |
| INZEA 5%MMT_LEM | 33 ± 3 | 11.1 ± 1.9 | 1212 ± 37 |
| INZEA 5%HT | 34 ± 2 | 8.8 ± 1.4 | 1195 ± 48 |
| INZEA 5%HT_LEM | 30 ± 2 | 5.6 ± 0.9 | 1311 ± 52 |
| INZEA 7%MMT | 34 ± 1 | 7.2 ± 0.3 | 1331 ± 28 |
| INZEA 7%MMT_LEM | 32 ± 4 | 7.5 ± 1.4 | 1397 ± 226 |
| INZEA 7%HT | 33 ± 2 | 8.2 ± 0.6 | 1219 ± 29 |
| INZEA 7%HT_LEM | 33 ± 3 | 4.4 ± 0.3 | 1649 ± 396 |
Figure 5(a) TG (a) and DTG (b) results obtained for HT, MMT and lemon hybrid pigments (HT-LEM and MMT-LEM).
Figure 6TG (a) and DTG (b) profiles and DSC curves, cooling (c) and 2nd heating (d) for INZEA containing MMT and HT functionalized with lemon hybrid pigments.
Mechanical parameters obtained for INZEA bio-nanocomposites with MMT and HT lemon-hybrid essential oil (EO) (m ± SD; n = 5).
| Formulation | σb (MPa) | εb (%) | E (MPa) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| INZEA |
| 38 ± 1 | 250.5 ± 5.0 | 1365 ± 71 |
| INZEA 7%MMT | 34 ± 1 | 7.2 ± 0.3 | 1331 ± 28 | |
| INZEA_7MMT.EO.3 |
| 33 ± 3 | 10.0 ± 1.0 | 2249 ± 19 |
| INZEA 7%HT | 33 ± 2 | 8.2 ± 0.6 | 1219 ± 29 | |
| INZEA_7HT.EO.3 |
| 35 ± 3 | 8.0 ± 1.0 | 2193 ± 28 |
σb (MPa): Strength at break; εb (%) at σb: Strain at break; E (MPa): Young’s Modulus.
Figure 7TGA results for pure LEO (a) and HT and MMT samples functionalized with 100 wt% LEO (b).
Mechanical parameters for INZEA bio-nanocomposites with MMT samples functionalized with 300 wt% LEO (m ± SD; n = 5).
| Formulation | σb (MPa) | εb (%) | E (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|
| INZEA | 38 ± 1 | 250.5 ± 5.0 | 1365 ± 71 |
| INZEA+7%EO.WC.T50_300 | 36 ± 3 | 7.0 ± 1.0 | 1898 ± 42 |
| INZEA+7%EO.WC.T100_300 | 35 ± 2 | 7.0 ± 1.0 | 1889 ± 44 |
| INZEA+7%EO.W0_300 | 35 ± 2 | 6.0 ± 1.0 | 1764 ± 34 |
σb (MPa): Strength at break; εb (%) at σb: Strain at break; E (MPa): Young’s Modulus.
Figure 8TGA results obtained for lemon hybrid EO systems with MMT at 300 wt% of LEO.
Figure 9Visual images of samples and TGA results obtained for INZEA-based bio-nanocomposites including MMT hybrid samples functionalized with 300 wt% LEO.