| Literature DB >> 35566863 |
Xiaomeng Lu1, Zhizhou Chen1,2, Qianyun Ma1, Jianlou Mu1, Xiaoyuan Li1, Han Liu1.
Abstract
This work was dedicated to improving the utilization rate of yellow peach peel (YPP), with the addition of sodium alginate (SA) and glycerol (G) to prepare a biodegradable antioxidant film. First, the formulation of the film was optimized via response surface methodology (RSM) combined with the multi-index comprehensive evaluation method, considering physical properties including tensile strength (TS), elongation at break (E%), water solution (WS) and light transmittance (T). The RSM results displayed the best process condition was 2.50% of YPP, 0.60% SA and 0.80% of G (based on water) and compared with pure YPP film and YPP-SA film, the optimized (YPP-SA-G) film presented excellent properties with TS of 21.52 MPa, E of 24.8%, T of 21.56% on 600 nm, and WS of 41.61%, the comprehensive evaluation score of the film was 0.700. Furthermore, the films were characterized by Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, scanning electron microscope (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). FTIR analysis showed the main interaction of hydrogen between YPP, SA and G make the film has excellent compatibility, and the SEM images displayed that the film was dense and compacted with a little roughness. In addition, the optimized film had excellent thermal stability, suggested by TGA and XRD showed that the film's crystal structure has been changed significantly when the SA and G were mixed in. The TPC and the ability of DPPH radical scavenging of the YPP-SA-G film was 17.68 mg·g-1 of GAE and 18.65%, then potential packaging applications were evaluated using soybean oil and the YPP-SA-G antioxidant film significantly decreased peroxide value (POV) to delay oil oxidation during storage. Therefore, the YPP-SA-G film is expected to provide a new theoretical basis for the use of food processing by-products and the packaging industry.Entities:
Keywords: RSM; antioxidant film; oil package; sodium alginate; yellow peach peel
Year: 2022 PMID: 35566863 PMCID: PMC9105129 DOI: 10.3390/polym14091693
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1The schematic of the film-forming process.
Experiment factor, level and coding.
| Factors | Code | Coding Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| YPP(%) | X1 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 3.0 |
| SA (%) | X2 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 |
| G(%) | X3 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 |
Proximate composition of yellow peach peel (YPP) flour.
| Parameters Evaluated | YPP Flour |
|---|---|
| Moisture | 11.50% |
| Total dietary fiber | 52.20% |
| Pectin | 27.30% |
| Protein | 9.11% |
| Crude fat | 4.52% |
| Total phenolic content | 19.20 GAE mg·g−1 |
| DPPH | 18.90% |
Fruits peel based edible films with their applications.
| Fruit Name | Matrix | Applied on Food Items | Beneficial Effects | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pomegranate peel flour | Mung bean protein | - | Increased total phenolic content; antioxidant activity, antibacterial capacity compared to the control film | [ |
| Pomegranate peel flour | Fish Gelatin | - | Increased total phenolic content; antioxidant activity, antibacterial capacity of the film | [ |
| Apple flour | CMC | Beef product | An inhibition of lipid oxidation, and efficient suppression of the growth of microbes on raw beef patties. | [ |
| Orange Peel Powder | Gelatin | Cupcake | Increase in peroxide value by 3.60–4.80 (mL eq./kg fat) in refrigerated storage for 1 week and decrease in microbial growth | [ |
Experiment design and responses.
| Run | YPP(%) | SA (%) | G (%) | Ts/MPa | E/% | T/% (600 nm) | WS/% | Comprehensive Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 17.31 | 14.50 | 23.06 | 47.85 | 0.452 |
| 2 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 20.48 | 21.69 | 26.15 | 40.25 | 0.691 |
| 3 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 1.0 | 20.81 | 22.40 | 22.61 | 45.29 | 0.506 |
| 4 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 19.38 | 13.27 | 22.94 | 44.06 | 0.694 |
| 5 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 20.51 | 21.50 | 24.23 | 44.65 | 0.362 |
| 6 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 12.68 | 24.22 | 24.32 | 41.77 | 0.665 |
| 7 | 3.0 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 20.98 | 18.41 | 23.77 | 44.55 | 0.399 |
| 8 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 22.51 | 21.30 | 22.47 | 45.73 | 0.497 |
| 9 | 3.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 14.94 | 19.20 | 19.06 | 43.09 | 0.445 |
| 10 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 16.68 | 24.30 | 23.18 | 41.14 | 0.667 |
| 11 | 3.0 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 16.40 | 19.80 | 24.30 | 53.53 | 0.492 |
| 12 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 20.98 | 18.41 | 23.76 | 44.55 | 0.353 |
| 13 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 18.04 | 17.20 | 21.46 | 44.30 | 0.721 |
| 14 | 3.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 21.74 | 21.10 | 23.90 | 43.23 | 0.426 |
| 15 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 18.68 | 17.09 | 10.96 | 44.13 | 0.684 |
| 16 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 19.53 | 14.60 | 24.50 | 35.65 | 0.384 |
| 17 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 18.39 | 8.02 | 20.85 | 54.42 | 0.305 |
Regression model analysis of variance table.
| Sources of Variance | Quadratic Sum | Degree of Freedom | Mean Square | F Value | Significant | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 0.31 | 9 | 0.035 | 28.37 | 0.0001 | ** |
| A-Yellow peach peel | 0.016 | 1 | 0.016 | 13.06 | 0.0086 | ** |
| B-Sodium alginate | 0.011 | 1 | 0.011 | 8.69 | 0.0215 | * |
| C-Glycerol | 0.012 | 1 | 0.012 | 10.18 | 0.0153 | * |
| AB | 0.000156 | 1 | 1.526 × 10−4 | 0.13 | 0.7316 | |
| AC | 0.00011 | 1 | 1.103 × 10−4 | 0.090 | 0.7730 | |
| BC | 0.004422 | 1 | 4.422 × 10−3 | 3.61 | 0.0994 | |
| A2 | 0.20 | 1 | 0.2 | 159.34 | <0.0001 | ** |
| B2 | 0.011 | 1 | 0.011 | 9.08 | 0.0196 | * |
| C2 | 0.043 | 1 | 0.043 | 35.32 | 0.0006 | ** |
“**”represented extremely significant (p < 0.01); “*”represented signifificant (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Response surface of environmental factors; Response face and Contour map between components.
Predicted and experimental data for the responses at the optimum point.
| Index | Thickness/(mm) | TS/(MPa) | E(%) | T(%) 600 nm | WS (%) | Comprehensive Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predict value | 0.067 ± 0.007 | 21.03 ± 0.65 | 25.90 ± 0.12 | 22.46 ± 0.50 | 41.93 ± 0.61 | 0.701 |
| Experiment value | 0.066 ± 0.005 | 21.52 ± 1.10 | 24.80 ± 0.50 | 21.56 ± 0.92 | 41.61 ± 0.74 | 0.700 |
Figure 3FTIR curves of various films (YPP, YPP–SA, YPP–SA–G).
The physical properties of the YPP, YPP-SA, YPP-SA-G films.
| Index | Thickness (mm) | TS (MPa) | E% | T (600 nm) | WS (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YPP-SA-G film | 0.066 ± 0.005 a | 21.52 ± 1.10 b | 24.8 ± 0.50 a | 21.56 ± 0.92 b | 41.61 ± 0.74 c |
| YPP-SA film | 0.063 ± 0.002 b | 25.21 ± 0.89 a | 5.90 ± 0.50 c | 25.65 ± 0.63 a | 45.73 ± 0.82 b |
| YPP film | 0.062 ± 0.003 b | 9.60 ± 0.24 c | 7.90 ± 0.35 b | 25.52 ± 0.65 a | 48.04 ± 1.41 a |
Different superscript letters (a, b, c) in the same column indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 4The micrographs of YPP-SA-G film. (a) 2000× magnification (Surface); (b) 2000× magnification (Cross section); (c) 500× magnification (Surface); (d) 500× magnification (Cross section).
Figure 5XRD patterns of various film and component.
Figure 6(a) TGA and (b) DTG curves of various films (YPP, YPP-SA, YPP-SA-G).
Antioxidant capacity and thermal properties of all prepared samples.
| Index | TPC (GAE mg·g−1) | DPPH (%) | Residue (%) | 1 DTG (°C) | 2 DTG (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YPP-SA-G film | 17.68 ± 0.01 b | 18.65 ± 0.11 a | 20.20 | 223 | 332 |
| YPP-SA film | 17.80 ± 0.02 a | 18.45 ± 0.21 ab | 26.03 | 234 | 299 |
| YPP film | 17.82 ± 0.01 a | 18.35 ± 0.01 b | 21.71 | 214 | 301 |
Different superscript letters (a, b) in the same column indicate significant differences (p < 0.05): “1” “2” represented the temperature corresponding to the maximum decomposition rate of the two stages.
Figure 7WCA of various films (YPP, YPP-SA, YPP-SA-G).
Figure 8(a) Weight loss of oil bags made from YPP-SA-G film for 10 days storage; (b) The changes in peroxide value of soybean oil during 30 days storage.