| Literature DB >> 34947221 |
Sylwia Grabska-Zielińska1, Magdalena Gierszewska1, Ewa Olewnik-Kruszkowska1, Mohamed Bouaziz2.
Abstract
The aim of this work was to obtain and characterize polylactide films (PLA) with the addition of poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) as a plasticizer and chloroformic olive leaf extract (OLE). The composition of OLE was characterized by LC-MS/MS techniques. The films with the potential for using in the food packaging industry were prepared using a solvent evaporation method. The total content of the phenolic compounds and DPPH radical scavenging assay of all the obtained materials have been tested. Attenuated Total Reflectance-Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR-ATR) allows for determining the molecular structure, while Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) indicated differences in the films' surface morphology. Among other crucial properties, mechanical properties, thickness, degree of crystallinity, water vapor permeation rate (WVPR), and color change have also been evaluated. The results showed that OLE contains numerous active substances, including phenolic compounds, and PLA/PEG/OLE films are characterized by improved antioxidant properties. The OLE addition into PLA/PEG increases the material crystallinity, while the WVPR values remain almost unaffected. From these studies, significant insight was gained into the possibility of the application of chloroform as a solvent for both olive leaf extraction and for the preparation of OLE, PLA, and PEG-containing film-forming solutions. Finally, evaporation of the solvent from OLE can be omitted.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidants; extract; food packaging; olive leaves; polylactide films
Year: 2021 PMID: 34947221 PMCID: PMC8706180 DOI: 10.3390/ma14247623
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Phenolic compounds identified by LC-MS/MS using the negative ionization mode of Chemlali olive leaf cultivar extract, including LC-MS/MS parameters and MRM transitions.
| N° | TR | M | Exp. a
| Chemical Formula | λmax | Main Fragments via | Proposed Compound |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7.5 | 170.0215 | 169.0145 | C7H6O5 | 230; 270 | 125.0243; 124.0168; 97.0294; 73.0190 | Gallic acid |
| 2 | 11.8 | 154.063 | 153.0562 | C8H10O3 | 230; 278 | 123.0453; 109.0291 | Hydroxytyrosol |
| 3 | 18.0 | 180.0425 | 179.0351 | C9H8O4 | 295; 324 | 135.0450; 134.0370; 89.0339 | Caffeic acid |
| 4 | 19.5 | 640.2003 | 639.1933 | C29H36O16 | 230; 280; 324 | 621.1823; 179.0351;1 61.0247 | β-hydroxyverbascoside III |
| 5 | 20.38 | 610.1534 | 609.1471 | C27H30O16 | 357 | 463.0883; 301.0352; 300.0276; 178.9986; 151.0033 | Quercetin 3- |
| 6 | 21.1 | 624.2054 | 623.1986 | C29H36O15 | 234; 276 | 461.1652; 315.1071; 179.0349; 161.0242 | Verbascoside |
| 7 | 21.29 | 448.1006 | 447.0938 | C21H20O11 | 346 | 285.0393; 284.0317; 197.0611; 175.0397; 133.0288 | Luteolin 7- |
| 8 | 21.8 | 702.2371 | 701.2294 | C31H42O18 | 232; 282 | 539.1762; 437.1430; 377.1238;345.0972; 307.0832; 275.0561; 223.0610; 179.0561; 149.0250; 139.0389; 113.0254 | Oleuropein hexoside I |
| 9 | 22.0 | 624.2054 | 623.1986 | C29H36O15 | 234; 278 | 461.1666; 315.1054; 179.0345; 161.0244 | Isoverbascoside |
| 10 | 23.0 | 432.1056 | 431.098 | C21H20O10 | 337 | 269.0453; 268.0376; 117.0348 | Apigenin 7- |
| 11 | 24.2 | 540.1843 | 539.1771 | C25H32O13 | 230; 280 | 403.1236; 377.1241; 371.0979; 327.0880; 307.0822; 275.0920; 223.0610; 179.0703; 165.0560; 149.0245; 139.0401 |
|
| 12 | 24.7 | 540.1843 | 539.1774 | C25H32O13 | 230; 280 | 403.1262; 377.1263; 371.1002; 327.0915; 307.0842; 275.0578; 223.0629; 179.0703; 165.0573; 149.0260; 139.0412 |
|
| 13 | 25.7 | 558.2309 | 557.224 | C26H38O13 | 280 | 513.2345; 345.1194; 327.1088; 227.1290; 185.1185; 183.0662; 121.0661 | 6′- |
| 14 | 26.3 | 926.3056 | 925.2991 | C42H54O23 | 240; 284 | 893.2633; 763.2456; 745.2360; 693.2030; 539.1765; 521.1655; 377.1239; 307.0823 | Jaspolyoside III |
TR—time retention [min]; M—molar mass [g/mol]; λmax—wavelength of maximum absorbance; m/z—the mass-to-charge ratio of the ion.
The total content of phenolic compounds (TP) and the free radical scavenging activity (RSA) of PLA films.
| Specimen | TP [mg/mL] | |
|---|---|---|
| PLA/PEG | - | 22.30 ± 2.06 |
| PLA/PEG/1OLE | 0.349 ± 0.071 | 56.26 ± 0.70 * |
| PLA/PEG/3OLE | 0.498 ± 0.106 | 56.53 ± 1.35 * |
| PLA/PEG/5OLE | 0.637 ± 0.061 a | 56.90 ± 3.16 *# |
a—Statistically significant difference vs. PLA/PEG/1OLE; *—Statistically significant difference vs. PLA/PEG (control); #—Statistically significant difference vs. PLA/PEG/1OLE.
Figure 1The FTIR-ATR spectra of the control samples (PLA/PEG (a) and OLE (b)) and polylactide films with the addition of olive leaf extract (c).
Figure 2The mechanical properties: (A) Young modulus, (B) maximum force at break, (C) maximum deformation, and (D) thickness of the obtained films; *—statistically significant difference vs. control sample (PLA/PEG); ns—no statistically significant difference vs. control sample (PLA/PEG).
Water Vapor Permeation Rate (WVPR) and the degree of crystallinity () of PLA/PEG and OLE containing PLA/PEG films.
| Specimen | WVPR [g∙m−2∙h−1] | |
|---|---|---|
| Control | 42.75 ± 0.48 | - |
| PLA/PEG | 10.49 ± 0.81 a | 0.72 |
| PLA/PEG/1OLE | 10.26 ± 0.65 ab | 1.55 |
| PLA/PEG/3OLE | 9.07 ± 0.33 ab | 1.76 |
| PLA/PEG/5OLE | 11.01 ± 1.61 ab | 1.61 |
a—statistically significant difference vs. control sample; b—no statistically significant difference vs. PLA/PEG.
Color (L, a, b, and ΔE) parameters of PLA-based films.
| Colour Parameter | Conditions | PLA/PEG | PLA/PEG/1OLE | PLA/PEG/3OLE | PLA/PEG/5OLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry |
|
|
|
| |
|
| Dry | 86.46 ± 0.05 | 66.64 ± 1.14 | 62.78 ± 0.90 | 50.28 ± 0.60 |
| HCl * | 89.68 ± 0.12 | 72.60 ± 0.27 | 75.24 ± 1.14 | 58.70 ± 0.39 | |
| Water * | 89.42 ± 0.16 | 79.56 ± 0.08 | 67.52 ± 0.50 | 61.48 ± 0.84 | |
| NaOH * | 89.32 ± 0.07 | 71.34 ± 0.45 | 72.26 ± 0.79 | 70.02 ± 0.60 | |
|
| Dry | 0.76 ± 0.05 | −4.06 ± 0.08 | −0.30 ± 0.13 | 5.34 ± 0.10 |
| HCl * | 0.74 ± 0.10 | −4.26 ± 0.08 | −4.04 ± 0.08 | −0.70 ± 0.17 | |
| Water * | 0.82 ± 0.04 | −3.34 ± 0.05 | −2.80 ± 0.14 | −2.72 ± 0.19 | |
| NaOH * | 1.12 ± 0.04 | −2.62 ± 0.04 | −3.12 ± 0.15 | −1.02 ± 0.04 | |
|
| Dry | −12.68 ± 0.10 | 29.08 ± 0.85 | 30.42 ± 0.16 | 28.64 ± 0.63 |
| HCl * | −13.36 ± 0.05 | 17.12 ± 0.29 | 15.34 ± 1.03 | 19.68 ± 0.18 | |
| Water * | −13.28 ± 0.07 | 10.98 ± 0.07 | 20.84 ± 0.05 | 20.80 ± 0.15 | |
| NaOH * | −13.88 ± 0.07 | 19.64 ± 0.54 | 22.78 ± 0.22 | 20.00 ± 1.07 | |
| ΔE | Dry | - | 46.50 ± 0.32 | 49.20 ± 0.30 | 55.12 ± 0.23 |
| HCl * | - | 35.30 ± 0.19 | 32.51 ± 0.52 | 45.32 ± 0.20 | |
| Water * | - | 26.52 ± 0.04 | 40.71 ± 0.25 | 44.22 ± 0.43 | |
| NaOH * | - | 38.23 ± 0.26 | 40.66 ± 0.19 | 39.06 ± 0.63 |
*—after immersing in HCl/Water/NaOH media.
Figure 3Color intensity (A) and Yellowness index (B) of PLA/PEG and PLA/PEG/OLE films.
Figure 4SEM images of PLA/PEG and PLA/PEG films with olive leaf extract addition: surface in 1000× magnification (A), and cross-section in 1000× (B) and 2500× (C) magnification.