| Literature DB >> 35160586 |
Ester F Ferreira1, Cláudia Mouro1, Lúcia Silva1,2, Isabel C Gouveia1.
Abstract
The connection with textiles is one of the oldest traditions in humanity, and in the historical scenario, textiles and clothing deal with material culture. Therefore, preservation is of the utmost importance to keep this important heritage. Packaging and protection of museological textiles is imperative due to the risks that these articles suffer, mainly concerning the attack of microorganisms that promote the acceleration of their degradation, and it is still necessary to create a proper packing material. In the present work we describe a bibliographic review about the museological scenario, focused on the packaging for preservation of textile articles, as well as the techniques usually used in preventive material conservation. Future perpsctives for the improvement in the conservation of museological textiles are also given. This research aims to produce a sustainable material based on polycaprolactone (PCL), with and without antimicrobial function by incorporating Lavandula luisieri essential oil (EO), in the form of a non-woven substrate for museological packaging. A comparison was made with the most frequently used materials, such as raw cotton and a non-woven polyester. The results demonstrated that both PCL and PCL + EO obtained a good characterization for museological application with good breaking strength and excellent whiteness index. In addition, PCL + EO showed a high bacterial reduction when compared with other protective materials frequently used in museums. Therefore, these findings emphasize the potential use of this material as an innovative protective antibacterial museological packaging solution, able to safeguard and preserve textile museum and clothing collections for longer and for future generations.Entities:
Keywords: Lavandula luisieri; bioactive packaging; electrospinning; museum-textiles; polycaprolactone
Year: 2022 PMID: 35160586 PMCID: PMC8838177 DOI: 10.3390/polym14030597
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Photo of the contamination test.
Chemical composition of Lavandula luisieri oil.
| RI | Compound | % |
|---|---|---|
| 922 | 1,2,5,5-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclopentadiene | 0.1 |
| 936 | α-Pinene | 2.4 |
| 950 | Camphene | 3.0 |
| 963 | Verbenene | 0.1 |
| 973 | Sabinene | 0.1 |
| 978 | β-Pinene | 0.4 |
| 989 | β-Myrcene | 0.1 |
| 1015 | 1,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopenten-4-one | 0.2 |
| 1024 | 0.2 | |
| 1030 | Limonene | 0.3 |
| 1032 | 1,8-Cineole | 23.3 |
| 1038 | β- | 0.8 |
| 1048 | β- | 0.0 |
| 1060 | γ-Terpinene | 0.1 |
| 1075 | 0.2 | |
| 1079 | 3,4,4-trimethylcyclohex-2-en-1-one | 0.7 |
| 1083 | 0.2 | |
| 1085 | 3,4,5,5-tetramethylcyclopent-2-en-1-one | 0.2 |
| 1088 | Fenchone | 0.8 |
| 1099 | Linalool | 2.2 |
| 1124 | α-Campholenal | 0.1 |
| 1140 | 0.1 | |
| 1143 | Camphor | 1.1 |
| 1163 | 10.2 | |
| 1165 | δ-Terpineol | 1.2 |
| 1168 | Lavandulol | 1.3 |
| 1177 | Terpinen-4-ol | 0.3 |
| 1177 | Limonen-4-ol | 0.1 |
| 1184 | 0.1 | |
| 1190 | α-Terpineol | 0.3 |
| 1192 | Myrtenal | 0.1 |
| 1206 | Verbenone | 1.6 |
| 1255 | Linalool acetate | 0.1 |
| 1265 | 25.8 | |
| 1289 | Lavandulyl acetate | 5.3 |
| 1376 | α-Copaene | 0.2 |
| 1380 | Geranyl acetate | 2.0 |
| 1387 | β-Cubenene | 0.1 |
| 1453 | α-Humulene | 0.1 |
| 1486 | β-Selinene | 0.6 |
| 1493 | α-Selinene | 1.0 |
| 1523 | δ-cadinene | 1.1 |
| 1541 | Selina-3,7(11)-diene | 2.5 |
| 1637 | 1.5 |
Figure 2Well plate test and MIC of Lavandula luisieri oil.
Figure 3Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) images of the nanofibers of the PCL and PCL + EO samples.
Figure 4FTIR-ATR analysis of the PCL, PCL + EO, and EO.
Characterization and spectrophotometric comparison of produced and control materials.
| Spectrophotometric Comparison of Materials | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cotton | Non-Woven Polyester | PCL | PCL + EO | |
| Color Appearance |
|
|
|
|
| RGB | 230.000 | 227.000 | 241.000 | 242.000 |
| Reflectance (%/R) | 58.046 ± 1.604 | 52.630 ± 0.711 | 90.250 ± 2.021 | 89.052 ± 1.417 |
| Color strength (K/S) | 0.152 ± 0.016 | 0.213 ± 0.009 | 0.005 ± 0.002 | 0.007 ± 0.002 |
| L* | 91.388 ± 0.386 | 92.014 ± 0.251 | 97.618 ± 0.871 | 97.534 ± 0.528 |
| a* | 0.198 ± 0.152 | −0.736 ± 0.043 | −0.118 ± 0.053 | −0.184 ± 0.005 |
| b* | 8.846 ± 0.684 | 3.850 ± 0.092 | 0.634 ± 0.164 | 0.926 ± 0.118 |
| Whiteness Index | 16.865 ± 0.684 | 32.253 ± 4.062 | 93.073 ± 3.398 | 92.751 ± 2.404 |
Characterization and comparison of materials using the tensile strength test. (Data shown as mean ± SD).
| Young’s Modulus (MPa) | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Elongation at Break (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raw Cotton | 577.511 ± 57.440 | 33.759 ± 3.103 | 5.860 ± 0.446 |
| Non-woven Polyester | 17.399 ± 3.006 | 4.257 ± 0.337 | 25.203 ± 5.822 |
| PCL | 83.547 ± 83.030 | 1.834 ± 1.640 | 2.233 ± 0.475 |
| PCL + EO | 69.275 ± 22.015 | 1.139 ± 0.298 | 1.678 ± 0.228 |
Bacterial reduction in materials compared to raw cotton for S. aureus and P. aeruginosa. Correspondence between percentage of bacterial reduction and the respective CFU/mL. (Values reported as mean ± SD).
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CFU/mL | Bacterial Reduction (%) | CFU/mL | Bacterial Reduction (%) | |
| Raw Cotton | 9.03 × 107 | - | 6.00 × 106 | - |
| Non-woven Polyester | 4.32 × 106 | 95.22% | 3.25 × 105 | 94.59% |
| PCL | 2.03 × 107 | 77.51% | 8.07 × 105 | 86.56% |
| PCL+EO | 6.02 × 105 | 99.33% | 4.25 × 104 | 99.29% |
Contamination test result.
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| CFU/mL | CFU/mL | |
| Control | 4.30 × 108 | 1.01 × 108 |
| Raw Cotton | No growth | No growth |
| Dyed Cotton | No growth | No growth |
| Raw Cotton | No growth | No growth |
| Contaminated Dyed Cotton | 1.98 × 105 | 3.13 × 105 |
| Raw Cotton | No growth | No growth |
| Non-woven Ppolyester | No growth | No growth |
| Dyed Cotton | No growth | No growth |
| Non-woven Polyester | No growth | No growth |
| Contaminated Dyed Cotton | 1.80 × 105 | 3.92 × 106 |
| Non-woven Polyester | No growth | No growth |
| PCL | No growth | No growth |
| Dyed Cotton | No growth | No growth |
| PCL | No growth | No growth |
| Contaminated Dyed Cotton | 1.52 × 106 | 2.29 × 105 |
| PCL | No growth | No growth |
| PCL + EO | No growth | No growth |
| Dyed Cotton | No growth | No growth |
| PCL + EO | No growth | No growth |
| Contaminated Dyed Cotton | 8.02 × 105 | 3.97 × 104 |
| PCL + EO | No growth | No growth |