| Literature DB >> 34203404 |
Maria Râpă1, Maria Stefan2, Paula Adriana Popa2, Dana Toloman2, Cristian Leostean2, Gheorghe Borodi2, Dan Cristian Vodnar3, Magdalena Wrona4, Jesús Salafranca4, Cristina Nerín4, Daniel Gabriel Barta3, Maria Suciu2, Cristian Predescu1, Ecaterina Matei1.
Abstract
The electrospun nanosystems containing poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV) and 1 wt% Fe doped ZnO nanoparticles (NPs) (with the content of dopant in the range of 0-1 wt% Fe) deposited onto polylactic acid (PLA) film were prepared for food packaging application. They were investigated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive X-ray (EDX), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR), X-ray diffraction (XRD), antimicrobial analysis, and X-ray photoelectron spectrometry (XPS) techniques. Migration studies conducted in acetic acid 3% (wt/wt) and ethanol 10% (v/v) food simulants as well as by the use of treated ashes with 3% HNO3 solution reveal that the migration of Zn and Fe falls into the specific limits imposed by the legislation in force. Results indicated that the PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fex electrospun nanosystems exhibit excellent antibacterial activity against the Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC-27853) due to the generation of a larger amount of perhydroxyl (˙OOH) radicals as assessed using electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy coupled with a spin trapping method.Entities:
Keywords: Fe-doped ZnO nanoparticles; PHBV; PLA; antimicrobial; compositional analysis; electrospinning; food packaging; migration
Year: 2021 PMID: 34203404 PMCID: PMC8272170 DOI: 10.3390/polym13132123
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Size distribution of ZnO:Fex nanoparticles.
Zetasizer parameters for Fe-doped ZnO nanoparticles determined from DLS analysis.
| Fe-Doped ZnO | Average Z (nm) | Size | Intensity | Pdi | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peak 1 (nm) | Peak 2 (nm) | Peak 1 (%) | Peak 2 (%) | |||
| ZnO:Fe0 | 780.1 | 900.2 ± 1.5 | 5280 ± 126 | 95.8 | 4.2 | 0.347 |
| ZnO:Fe0.3 | 818.6 | 805.4 ± 48.8 | 5201 ± 387 | 94.7 | 5.3 | 0.338 |
| ZnO:Fe0.5 | 460.0 | 608.8 ± 76.8 | 4143 ± 653 | 86.8 | 13.3 | 0.456 |
| ZnO:Fe0.7 | 443.0 | 670.0 ± 0.3 | 5021 ± 0 | 98.0 | 1.7 | 0.388 |
| ZnO:Fe1 | 444.5 | 685.3 ± 21.6 | 4882 ± 197 | 98.1 | 1.9 | 0.384 |
Figure 2SEM images for ZnO:Fex nanostructures: (a) ZnO:Fe0 and (b) ZnO:Fe0.7.
Figure 3TEM images for ZnO:Fex nanostructures: (a) ZnO:Fe0 and (b) ZnO:Fe0.7.
Figure 4SEM images for PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fex nanostructures: (a) PLA/PHBV, (b) PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0, (c) PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0.3, (d) PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0.5, (e) PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0.7, and (f) PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe1.
Elemental chemical composition of PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fex nanostructures determined from EDX analysis.
| Nanostructures | C (wt% ± 2σ *) | O (wt% ± 2σ) | Cu (wt% ± σ) | Zn (wt% ± σ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLA/PHBV | 59.1 ± 0.3 | 40.8 ± 0.3 | 0.1 ± 0.01 | 0 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0 | 59.0 ± 0.3 | 40.0 ± 0.3 | 0.1 ± 0.01 | 1.0 ± 0.01 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0.3 | 56.9 ± 0.3 | 42.5 ± 0.3 | 0.2 ± 0.01 | 0.7 ± 0.01 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0.5 | 58.7 ± 0.3 | 40.5 ± 0.3 | 0.2 ± 0.01 | 0.5 ± 0.01 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0.7 | 59.0 ± 0.3 | 40.4 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.01 | 0.2 ± 0.01 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe1 | 60.0 ± 0.3 | 39.5 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.01 | 0.1 ± 0.01 |
* (±2σ) wt% calculated automatically within the software, should not be taken as absolute measurement of precision.
Figure 5EDS mapping of PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe1%.
Figure 6X-ray diffraction patterns of PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fex samples compared with ZnO NPs, PLA film, and PHBV nanofibers.
The degree of crystallinity (Xc) for PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fex samples.
| Sample | Xc (%) |
|---|---|
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0 | 8.34 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0.3 | 8.43 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0.5 | 10.16 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0.7 | 10.44 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe1 | 8.42 |
Figure 7Normalized FT-IR spectra for PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fex electrospun nanosystems compared with those for PLA film and PHBV nanofibers in the range of 3500–750 cm−1.
Figure 8XPS spectra of PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0.3 sample: (a) C 1s and (b) Zn 2p.
Specific migration of Zn and Fe in 3% (wt/v) acetic acid, 10% (v/v) ethanol, and, after the treatment of ash with 3% (v/v) HNO3, 2 h at 70 °C.
| Sample | 3% ( | 10% ( | Ash Treated with 3% ( | Theoretical Content | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zn, mg/kg | Fe, mg/kg | Zn, mg/kg | Fe, mg/kg | Zn, mg/kg | Fe, mg/kg | Zn, mg/kg | Fe, mg/kg | |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0 | 2.917 | <LOD | 0.233 | <LOD | <LOD | 0.538 | 16.00 | 0 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0.3 | 2.722 | <LOD | 0.700 | <LOD | <LOD | 0.534 | 9.97 | 0.03 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0.5 | 1.830 | 0.022 | 0.048 | <LOD | <LOD | 0.727 | 9.95 | 0.05 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0.7 | 1.009 | 0.026 | 0.038 | <LOD | <LOD | 1.143 | 9.93 | 0.07 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe1 | 0.796 | 0.035 | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | 1.423 | 9.90 | 0.10 |
Cell number (CFU) at different successive dilution for ZnO:Fe samples.
| Sample | 1:10 | 1:100 | 1:1000 |
|---|---|---|---|
| PLA | 33 | 2 | 0 |
| PLA/PHVB | 10 | 7 | 1 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0.7% | 7 | 5 | 4 |
| PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe1% | 11 | 8 | 4 |
Figure 9The experimental and simulated spectra of PLA/PHBV/ZnO:Fe0.3% in DMSO suspension in the presence of DMPO.