| Literature DB >> 34069259 |
Mohd Salahuddin Mohd Basri1,2,3, Brenda Liew Min Ren1, Rosnita A Talib1, Rabitah Zakaria1, Siti Hasnah Kamarudin4.
Abstract
Dry mangosteen leaves are one of the raw materials used to produce marker ink. However, research using this free and abundant resource is rather limited. The less efficient one-factor-at-a-time (OFAT) approach was mostly used in past studies on plant-based marker ink. The use of statistical analysis and the regression coefficient model (mathematical model) was considered essential in predicting the best combination of factors in formulating mangosteen leaf-based marker ink. Ideally, ink should have maximum color lightness, minimum viscosity, and fast-drying speed. The objective of this study to study the effect of glycerol and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) on the color lightness and viscosity of mangosteen-leaves-based marker ink. The viscosity, color lightness, and drying properties of the ink were tested, the significant effect of glycerol and CMC (responses) on ink properties was identified and the prediction model on the optimum value of the responses was developed by using response surface methodology (RSM). The microstructure of mangosteen leaves was analyzed to study the surface morphology and cell structure during dye extraction. A low amount of glycerol used was found to increase the value of color lightness. A decrease in CMC amounts resulted in low viscosity of marker ink. The optimum formulation for the ink can be achieved when the weight percents of glycerol, benzalkonium chloride, ferrous sulphate, and CMC are set at 5, 5, 1, and 3, respectively. SEM micrographs showed the greatest amount of cell wall structure collapse on samples boiled with the lowest amount of glycerol.Entities:
Keywords: RSM; color lightness; mangosteen leaves; marker ink; optimization; viscosity
Year: 2021 PMID: 34069259 PMCID: PMC8156445 DOI: 10.3390/polym13101581
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Factors and levels.
| Factor | Unit | Notation | Levels | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −2 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||
| CMC | wt % | V1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Glycerol | wt % | V2 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 |
Total number of experimental runs for full factorial design and RSM based on five-level factors
| Factors | Levels | Total Number of Experimental Runs | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full Factorial Design | RSM | ||
| 2 | 5 | 25 | 14 |
| 3 | 5 | 125 | 20 |
| 4 | 5 | 625 | 30 |
| 5 | 5 | 3125 | 54 |
Design matrix.
| Sample | Coded Factor | Uncoded Factor | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 | V2 | V1 | V2 | |
| S1 | −2 | 0 | 5 | 3 |
| S2 | 0 | 2 | 15 | 5 |
| S3 | 1 | −1 | 20 | 2 |
| S4 | −1 | 1 | 10 | 4 |
| S5 | −2 | 0 | 5 | 3 |
| S6 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
| S7 | −1 | −1 | 10 | 2 |
| S8 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
| S9 | 2 | 0 | 25 | 3 |
| S10 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
| S11 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
| S12 | 0 | −2 | 15 | 1 |
| S13 | 1 | −1 | 20 | 2 |
| S14 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
| S15 | −2 | 0 | 5 | 3 |
| S16 | −1 | −1 | 10 | 2 |
| S17 | −1 | −1 | 10 | 2 |
| S18 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
| S19 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 4 |
| S20 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
| S21 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
| S22 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
| S23 | 1 | −1 | 20 | 2 |
| S24 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 4 |
| S25 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
| S26 | −1 | 1 | 10 | 4 |
| S27 | 0 | −2 | 15 | 1 |
| S28 | 0 | 2 | 15 | 5 |
| S29 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
| S30 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
| S31 | 2 | 0 | 25 | 3 |
| S32 | 0 | −2 | 15 | 1 |
| S33 | −1 | 1 | 10 | 4 |
| S34 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
| S35 | 2 | 0 | 25 | 3 |
| S36 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 4 |
| S37 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
| S38 | 0 | 2 | 15 | 5 |
| S39 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
Figure 1Fabrication process of mangosteen-leaves-based marker ink.
Design matrix and response value for the viscosity and color lightness test.
| Sample | Glycerol (V1) | CMC | Glycerol (V1) | CMC | Viscosity | Color |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | −2 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 0.0221 | 24.70 |
| S2 | 0 | 2 | 15 | 5 | 0.7278 | 25.83 |
| S3 | 1 | −1 | 20 | 2 | 0.0132 | 27.20 |
| S4 | −1 | 1 | 10 | 4 | 0.2320 | 25.11 |
| S5 | −2 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 0.0163 | 24.73 |
| S6 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 | 0.1137 | 25.79 |
| S7 | −1 | −1 | 10 | 2 | 0.0076 | 24.93 |
| S8 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 | 0.1090 | 25.78 |
| S9 | 2 | 0 | 25 | 3 | 0.0091 | 28.80 |
| S10 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 | 0.1117 | 25.62 |
| S11 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 | 0.1098 | 25.58 |
| S12 | 0 | −2 | 15 | 1 | 0.0045 | 25.83 |
| S13 | 1 | −1 | 20 | 2 | 0.0111 | 27.16 |
| S14 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 | 0.1083 | 25.80 |
| S15 | −2 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 0.0203 | 24.78 |
| S16 | −1 | −1 | 10 | 2 | 0.0109 | 25.14 |
| S17 | −1 | −1 | 10 | 2 | 0.0084 | 24.99 |
| S18 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 | 0.1042 | 25.61 |
| S19 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 4 | 0.1595 | 27.40 |
| S20 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 | 0.0948 | 25.78 |
| S21 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 | 0.1077 | 25.84 |
| S22 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 | 0.1064 | 25.85 |
| S23 | 1 | −1 | 20 | 2 | 0.0211 | 27.13 |
| S24 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 4 | 0.1571 | 27.48 |
| S25 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 | 0.1063 | 25.74 |
| S26 | −1 | 1 | 10 | 4 | 0.2245 | 25.09 |
| S27 | 0 | −2 | 15 | 1 | 0.0045 | 25.70 |
| S28 | 0 | 2 | 15 | 5 | 0.7082 | 25.85 |
| S29 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 | 0.1037 | 25.63 |
| S30 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 | 0.1083 | 25.72 |
| S31 | 2 | 0 | 25 | 3 | 0.0096 | 28.78 |
| S32 | 0 | −2 | 15 | 1 | 0.0045 | 25.62 |
| S33 | −1 | 1 | 10 | 4 | 0.2173 | 25.22 |
| S34 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 | 0.0973 | 25.72 |
| S35 | 2 | 0 | 25 | 3 | 0.0100 | 28.78 |
| S36 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 4 | 0.1344 | 27.00 |
| S37 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 | 0.0960 | 25.73 |
| S38 | 0 | 2 | 15 | 5 | 0.6262 | 25.72 |
| S39 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3 | 0.1083 | 25.76 |
Estimated effects and coefficient for glycerol and CMC on the color lightness.
| Term | Notation | Coefficient | Std. Error of Coefficient |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | 25.7739 | 0.03071 | 0.000 | |
| Glycerol | V1 | 1.0331 | 0.02135 | 0.000 |
| CMC | V2 | 0.0347 | 0.02135 | 0.113 |
| Glycerol*Glycerol | V1* V1 | 0.2607 | 0.01545 | 0.000 |
| CMC*CMC | V2* V2 | 0.0098 | 0.01545 | 0.529 |
| R2 = 0.9873 R2 (adj) = 0.9858 | ||||
Estimated effects and coefficient for glycerol and CMC on the viscosity test
| Term | Notation | Coefficient | Std. Error of Coefficient |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | 0.0938 | 0.01191 | 0.000 | |
| Glycerol | V1 | −0.0073 | 0.00828 | 0.382 |
| CMC | V2 | 0.1431 | 0.00828 | 0.000 |
| Glycerol*Glycerol | V1* V1 | −0.0235 | 0.00599 | 0.000 |
| CMC*CMC | V2* V2 | 0.0593 | 0.00599 | 0.000 |
| R2 = 0.9292 R2 (adj) = 0.9209 | ||||
Figure 2Contour plot for the effect of glycerol and CMC concentration on the color lightness of mangosteen-leaves-based marker ink.
Figure 3Contour plot for the effect of glycerol and CMC concentration on the viscosity of mangosteen-leaves-based marker ink.
Figure 4Optimization plot for glycerol and CMC.
Experimental validation for mangosteen-leaves-based marker ink properties.
| Sample | Color Lightness (L*) | Viscosity (Pa.s) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental Value | Predicted Value | Error (%) | Experimental Value | Predicted Value | Error (%) | |
| SV1 | 24.99 | 24.75 | 0.97 | 0.0144 | 0.0143 | 0.70 |
| SV2 | 24.80 | 24.75 | 0.20 | 0.0152 | 0.0143 | 6.29 |
| SV3 | 24.83 | 24.75 | 0.32 | 0.0172 | 0.0143 | 20.28 |
| 0.50 | 9.09 | |||||
Figure 5SEM micrographs of dry mangosteen leaves at 100× (left) and 500× (right) magnification.
Figure 6SEM micrographs of (a,b) boiled dry mangosteen leaves without glycerol, (c,d) sample S35, (e,f) sample S19, and (g,h) sample S26 at 100× and 500× magnification.
Figure 7Weight loss as a function of time of sample S35, S19, and S26.
Figure 8Weight loss as a function of time of sample S35, S19, and S26.