| Literature DB >> 34940309 |
Edgar Franco1, Rosmery Dussán1, Diana Paola Navia2, Maribel Amú2.
Abstract
Films were fabricated using a mixture of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)/cassava starch and incorporated citric acid in a concentration range between 5% and 40%. The films were annealed through thermal treatment in a temperature range between 30 °C and 90 °C with 0.3% glutaraldehyde incorporated as the crosslinking agent. This study presents the results of an experimental design analyzed using the response surface methodology. The multiple regression analysis allowed us to obtain the second-order models, which relate the annealing factors and citric acid concentration to Maximum Tensile Strength (MTS), Young's Modulus (YM), and the Maximum Elongation at Break (MEB). The optimization and validation of the obtained model were carried out with error values below 10.08% for all the response variables, indicating that the response surface methodology and optimization were correct. Finally, as a complementary analysis, the differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) tests were carried out, which revealed a higher packaging of the heat-treated films and verified their crosslinking.Entities:
Keywords: annealing; cassava starch; crosslinked; polyvinyl alcohol; response surface analysis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34940309 PMCID: PMC8700802 DOI: 10.3390/gels7040249
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gels ISSN: 2310-2861
Results of mechanical properties in central composite design.
| Run | Independent Variables | Maximum Tensile Strength (MPa) | Young’s Modulus | Maximum Elongation at Break (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citric Acid (%) | Annealing (°C) | ||||
| 1 | 22.50 | 90.00 | 39.40 | 1237.79 | 2.62 |
| 2 | 22.50 | 60.00 | 21.61 | 437.05 | 126.88 |
| 3 | 22.50 | 60.00 | 20.96 | 352.69 | 254.24 |
| 4 | 22.50 | 60.00 | 23.03 | 541.89 | 81.32 |
| 5 | 34.87 | 38.78 | 12.83 | 4.39 | 330.81 |
| 6 | 22.50 | 60.00 | 18.69 | 363.62 | 142.10 |
| 7 | 40.00 | 60.00 | 8.28 | 1.34 | 477.50 |
| 8 | 10.12 | 38.78 | 31.46 | 1008.85 | 40.66 |
| 9 | 34.87 | 81.21 | 22.24 | 451.44 | 63.12 |
| 10 | 22.50 | 60.00 | 22.13 | 504.90 | 91.96 |
| 11 | 5.00 | 60.00 | 47.09 | 1899.20 | 22.79 |
| 12 | 10.12 | 81.21 | 46.77 | 1808.60 | 2.58 |
| 13 | 22.50 | 30.00 | 18.70 | 349.10 | 147.18 |
Analysis of variance of mechanical properties in central composite design.
| Source | Maximum Tensile Strength (MPa) | Young’s Modulus | Maximum Elongation at Break (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SSR | 1730 | 4,526,291 | 199,931 |
| 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0090 | |
| SSE | 30.4900 | 46794 | 36,369 |
| Lack of fit | 0.2020 | 0.5190 | 0.4020 |
| R2 | 0.9827 | 0.9898 | 0.8461 |
Analysis of variance for regression coefficients of mechanical properties.
| Variable |
| Maximum Tensile Strength (MPa) | Young’s Modulus | Maximum Elongation at Break (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E | E | E | |||||
|
| 58.4200 | <0.0001 * | 2354.0000 | <0.0001 * | −428.0000 | 0.0030 * | |
| Linear | |||||||
|
|
| −1.5910 | <0.0001 * | −101.9000 | <0.0001 * | 10.8000 | 0.0020 * |
|
|
| −0.5880 | <0.0001 * | −21.2400 | <0.0001 * | 14.1100 | 0.0410 * |
| Quadratic | |||||||
|
|
| 0.0208 | 0.0050 * | 1.5790 | <0.0001 * | 0.2740 | 0.1690 |
|
|
| 0.0086 | 0.0020 * | 0.3629 | 0.0010 * | −0.1016 | 0.1380 |
| Interaction | |||||||
|
|
| −0.0056 | 0.2000 | −0.3360 | 0.0680 | −0.2190 | 0.1550 |
* Significantly different at p < 0.05; p: Parameters; E: Estimated coefficient value.
Figure 1Maximum tensile strength response surface graphs. (a) 3D response surface graph and (b) contour plot.
Figure 2Young’s modulus response surface graphs. (a) 3D response surface graph and (b) contour plot.
Figure 3Maximum elongation at break response surface graphs. (a) 3D response surface graph and (b) contour plot.
Optimization conditions for mechanical properties of the film.
| Response Variable | Minimum | Maximum | Goal | Objective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum Tensile Strength (MPa) | 8.28 | 47.09 | Objective | 40.00 |
| Young Modulus (MPa) | 1.34 | 1899.20 | Objective | 1000.00 |
| Maximum Elongation at Break (%) | 2.63 | 477.57 | Objective | 40.00 |
Figure 4Optimized model solution for mechanical properties of the film.
Experimental validation of mechanical properties at the optimal conditions for the films.
| Response Variable | Predicted Value | Experimental Value * | Error ** (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum Tensile Strength (MPa) | 31.09 | 33.11 ± 1.15 | 7.96 |
| Young’s Modulus (MPa) | 1003.84 | 1007.12 ± 13.76 | 0.33 |
| Maximum Elongation at Break (%) | 62.72 | 56.98 ± 2.23 | 10.08 |
* Experimental values were obtained under the following conditions: Citric acid (12%)—Annealing 50 °C. ** Error = [(experimental value−predicted value)/experimental value)] × 100.
Figure 5DSC thermograms of PVA, starch/PVA and starch/PVA HT.
Figure 6FTIR spectra of PVA, starch, starch/PVA and starch/PVA HT.
Code variables in experimental design for film preparation.
| Code Variables | Citric Acid | Annealing |
|---|---|---|
| (%) | (°C) | |
| −1 | 5.00 | 30.00 |
| 0 | 22.50 | 60.00 |
| 1 | 40.00 | 90.00 |