| Literature DB >> 34067109 |
Rut Fernández-Marín1, Muhammad Mujtaba2, Demet Cansaran-Duman2, Ghada Ben Salha1, Mª Ángeles Andrés Sánchez1, Jalel Labidi1, Susana C M Fernandes3.
Abstract
Herein, the effect of three deterpenated fractions from Origanum majorana L. essential oil on the physicochemical, mechanical and biological properties of chitosan/β-chitin nanofibers-based nanocomposite films were investigated. In general, the incorporation of Origanum majorana L. original essential oil or its deterpenated fractions increases the opacity of the nanocomposite films and gives them a yellowish color. The water solubility decreases from 58% for chitosan/β-chitin nanofibers nanocomposite film to around 32% for the nanocomposite films modified with original essential oil or its deterpenated fractions. Regarding the thermal stability, no major changes were observed, and the mechanical properties decreased. Interestingly, data show differences on the biological properties of the materials depending on the incorporated deterpenated fraction of Origanum majorana L. essential oil. The nanocomposite films prepared with the deterpenated fractions with a high concentration of oxygenated terpene derivatives show the best antifungal activity against Aspergillus niger, with fungal growth inhibition of around 85.90%. Nonetheless, the only nanocomposite film that does not present cytotoxicity on the viability of L929 fibroblast cells after 48 and 72 h is the one prepared with the fraction presenting the higher terpenic hydrocarbon content (87.92%). These results suggest that the composition of the deterpenated fraction plays an important role in determining the biological properties of the nanocomposite films.Entities:
Keywords: Origanum majorana L. essential oil; beta-chitin nanofibers; biological properties; chitosan; deterpenated fractions; nanocomposite films
Year: 2021 PMID: 34067109 PMCID: PMC8124804 DOI: 10.3390/polym13091507
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Identification and composition of the nanocomposite films.
| Samples | Samples Identification | β-CHNF | Fractions and |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| CSNF | 0.5 | - |
|
| CSNF-F1 | 0.5 | 0.25 |
|
| CSNF-F2 | 0.5 | 0.25 |
|
| CSNF-F3 | 0.5 | 0.25 |
|
| CSNF-OM | 0.5 | 0.25 |
* % v/v and % w/v, chitosan (CS) based.
Figure 1The general appearance of the films. (A) CSNF; (B) CSNF-F1; (C) CSNF-F2; (D) CSNF-F3; (E) CSNF-OM.
Thickness, moisture content and water solubility of the nanocomposite films.
| Samples | Thickness (μm) | Moisture | Water Solubility % |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 41.33 ± 1.97 a | 54.98 ± 2.48 a | 57.87 ± 4.78 a |
|
| 45.00 ± 3.03 b | 40.41 ± 7.96 b | 32.53 ± 1.30 b |
|
| 41.83 ± 5.34 a | 45.20 ± 9.03 b | 34.56 ± 3.07 b |
|
| 44.33 ± 4.41 b,c | 53.79 ± 1.48 b | 49.27 ± 3.60 b |
|
| 42.83 ± 5.19 c | 42.72 ± 7.45 b | 32.37 ± 4.87 b |
The values are averages ± standard deviation (thickness n = 6; moisture content, water solubility n = 3). Different letters in the same column depict significant differences between samples (Duncan‘s test, p < 0.05).
Color and opacity of nanocomposite films.
| Samples | L* | a* | b* | ΔE | Opacity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 91.83 ± 0.69 a | 1.23 ± 0.11 a | 6.02 ± 0.69 a | 1.73 ± 0.56 a | 4.76 ± 0.42 a |
|
| 90.20 ± 0.23 a | 1.35 ± 0.12 a | 11.02 ± 0.51 b | 6.68 ± 1.05 b | 7.08 ± 0.78 b |
|
| 91.95 ± 0.47 b | 0.91 ± 0.06 b | 6.84 ± 1.07 a | 2.21 ± 1.05 a | 7.47 ± 0.77 b |
|
| 91.42 ± 1.12 a | 1.23 ± 0.36 a | 7.13 ± 2.09 a | 2.85 ± 2.21 a | 7.90 ± 0.35 b |
|
| 91.97 ± 0.33 b | 0.94 ± 0.05 b | 6.56 ± 0.83 a | 1.94 ± 0.83 a | 6.61 ± 0.53 b |
The values were mean ± standard deviation (L*, a*, b* and ΔE n = 10; opacity n = 3). Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences between nanocomposite films (Duncan‘s test, p < 0.05).
Figure 2UV-Vis spectra (700–250 nm) of the nanocomposites films.
Figure 3ATR-FTIR spectra of the nanocomposite films.
Figure 4The water contact angle of nanocomposite films.
Figure 5Cross-section and surface images of scanning electron microscopy of (A) CSNF; (B) CSNF-F1; (C) CSNF-F2; (D) CSNF-F3; (E) CSNF-OM films.
Figure 6TGA and dTGA curves of the nanocomposite films.
Mechanical properties of the films (TS: tensile strength; YM: Young’s modulus; E: elongation).
| Samples | TS (MPa) | YM (MPa) | E % |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 15.25 ± 1.86 a | 328.25 ± 18.67 a | 44.87 ± 8.12 a |
|
| 17.88 ± 5.32 b | 310.98 ± 61.05 b | 64.40 ± 14.64 b |
|
| 11.52 ± 3.97 b,c | 77.09 ± 11.77 c | 67.92 ± 33.13 b |
|
| 12.20 ± 3.56 c | 153.39 ± 48.92 d | 46.90 ± 15.01 a,c |
|
| 11.49 ± 3.27 b,c | 133.89 ± 33.38 d | 50.66 ± 12.62 b,c |
The values represent average ± standard deviation (mechanical properties, n = 8). Superscript letters in the same column indicate significant differences among the films (Duncan’s test, p < 0.05).
Figure 7Effect of CSNF, CSNF-F1, CSNF-F2, CSNF-F3 and CSNF-OM nanocomposite films on the growth of Aspergillus niger. The error bar represents the standard deviation (n = 3). Superscript letters in the bars indicate significant differences among the films (Duncan´s test, p < 0.05).
Figure 8Cell viability of the nanocomposite films. The error bar corresponds to standard deviation (SD, n = 4). Letters in the bars with the same color denote significant differences among the different films and the same cell culture time (Duncan’s test, p < 0.05).