| Literature DB >> 35685700 |
Hajer Aloui1, Khawla El Ouazari1, Khaoula Khwaldia1.
Abstract
Novel composite films made of sodium caseinate (NaCas) and two functional compounds from date seed co-products, i.e. furfural and date seed oil (DSO), were produced. The effects of furfural and DSO contents on the barrier, mechanical and optical properties of NaCas films were assessed using a two-factor, five-level central composite design. Increasing DSO content increased contact angle values of NaCas films and decreased their solubility indicating an increase in their hydrophobicity. Moreover, increasing furfural concentration increased tensile strength (TS) of NaCas films due to crosslink formation between furfural and NaCas' primary amine groups. On the other hand, furfural and DSO incorporation conferred good light barrier properties to the resulting films. Overall, a furfural content of 0.69% and 1.76% DSO were selected as the optimum factor levels producing maximum contact angle (69.85°) and TS (36.47 MPa) and minimum solubility (16.95%) with overall desirability of 0.98. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35685700 PMCID: PMC9131730 DOI: 10.1039/d2ra01604d
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Experimental domain and variable levels related to furfural and DSO concentrations (%, w/w)
| Variable levels | Independent variables | |
|---|---|---|
| Furfural concentration (%, w/w) | DSO concentration (%, w/w) | |
| −1.41 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| −1 | 0.22 | 0.29 |
| 0 | 0.75 | 1.00 |
| +1 | 1.28 | 1.71 |
| +1.41 | 1.50 | 2.00 |
Central composite design and experimental responses
| Exp | Variables | Responses | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Contact angle ( | Solubility ( | TS ( | % | Transparency ( | |
| 1 | 0.22 | 0.29 | 48.25 | 17.90 | 45.77 | 60.82 | 0.18 |
| 2 | 1.28 | 0.29 | 54.15 | 19.30 | 46.46 | 115.03 | 0.42 |
| 3 | 0.22 | 1.71 | 64.48 | 10.91 | 24.59 | 108.06 | 0.32 |
| 4 | 1.28 | 1.71 | 65.65 | 10.38 | 43.51 | 36.57 | 0.71 |
| 5 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 60.10 | 12.55 | 16.31 | 126.28 | 0.24 |
| 6 | 1.50 | 1.00 | 59.95 | 14.34 | 47.35 | 10.62 | 0.76 |
| 7 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 52.95 | 22.22 | 47.82 | 148.49 | 0.24 |
| 8 | 0.75 | 2.00 | 73.25 | 14.86 | 35.50 | 16.910 | 0.41 |
| 9 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 63.75 | 24.13 | 44.16 | 81.970 | 0.27 |
| 10 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 63.74 | 25.90 | 43.87 | 80.870 | 0.27 |
| 11 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 62.71 | 22.94 | 44.25 | 80.480 | 0.29 |
Factors: X1, furfural concentration (%, w/w); X2, DSO concentration (%, w/w).
Responses: TS, tensile strength; % E, elongation at break.
Analysis of variance for the studied experimental responses
| Source of variation | Sum of square | Degrees of freedom | Mean square | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Regression | 446.6254 | 292.2687 | 9.70073 × 102 | 2.29990 × 104 | 0.3643 | 5 | 89.3251** | 58.4537** | 1.94015 × 102 | 4.59981 × 103*** | 0.0729*** |
| Residual | 30.9933 | 12.3200 | 1.01709 × 102 | 2.39105 × 103 | 0.0062 | 5 | 6.1987 | 2.4640 | 2.03420 × 10 | 4.78209 × 102 | 0.0012 |
| Lack of fit | 30.2791 | 7.8831 | 1.01631 × 102 | 2.38985 × 103 | 0.0059 | 3 | 10.0930* | 2.6277 | 3.38770 × 10 | 7.96618 × 102*** | 0.0020 |
| Pure error | 0.7142 | 4.4369 | 7.88667 × 10−2 | 1.19407 | 0.0003 | 2 | 0.3571 | 2.2184 | 3.94333 × 10−2 | 5.97033 × 10−1 | 0.0001 |
| Total | 477.6187 | 304.5887 | 1.07178 × 103 | 2.53901 × 104 | 0.3705 | 10 | |||||
Regression coefficients of predicted second-order polynomial models
| Variables | Contact angle ( | Solubility ( | TS ( | % | Transparency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept linear | 63.400*** | 24.323*** | 44.093*** | 81.107*** | 0.277*** | |
| Furfural concentration |
| 1.212 | 0.601 | 11.227*** | −49.648*** | 0.241*** |
| DSO concentration |
| 9.977*** | −4.653** | −7.346*** | −56.092*** | 0.119** |
| Quadratic |
| −5.090** | −11.563*** | −10.595*** | 2.115 | 0.221** |
|
| −2.365 | −0.965** | 9.115* | −12.850** | 0.075 | |
| Interaction |
| −2.015 | −6.648 | −0.765*** | 16.365*** | 0.046 |
|
| 0.935 | 0.960 | 0.905 | 0.906 | 0.983 | |
| Adjusted | 0.870 | 0.919 | 0.810 | 0.812 | 0.967 |
Fig. 11H NMR (a) and 13C NMR (b) spectra of furfural extracted from date co-products and standard furfural from Sigma.
Fig. 2GC-FID chromatogram of DSO.
Fatty acid profiles of DSO expressed as percentage of total oil composition
| Fatty acids | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|
| Lauric acid (C12 : 0) | 31 |
| Myristic acid (C14 : 0) | 12 |
| Palmitic acid (C16 : 0) | 9 |
| Stearic acid (C18 : 0) | 3 |
| Oleic acid (C18 : 1) | 38 |
| Linoleic acid (C18 : 2) | 7 |
Thermal parameters determined from TG and DTG curves
| Films | Thermogravimetric parameters | Residue at 700 °C (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Stage I, | Stage II, | Stage III, | ||
| Neat NaCas | 162 | 93 | 256 | 304 | 16.0 |
| NaCas/1% DSO (Exp 5) | 191 | 128 | 263 | 311 | 16.0 |
| NaCas/0.75% furfural (Exp 7) | 170 | 107 | 255 | 312 | 16.5 |
| NaCas/0.75% furfural/2% DSO (Exp 8) | 170 | 104 | 260 | 309 | 17.2 |
Fig. 3(a) TG and (b) DTG curves of neat NaCas films and NaCas composite films incorporating furfural and/or DSO.
Fig. 4ATR-FTIR spectra of (a) furfural and DSO and (b) NaCas-based films.
Fig. 5Scanning electron microscopy images (×600) of (a) neat NaCas film, (b) NaCas composite film incorporating 0.75% (w/w) of furfural (Exp 7), (c) NaCas composite film incorporating 1% (w/w) of DSO (Exp 5) and (d) NaCas composite film incorporating 0.75% (w/w) of furfural and 1% (w/w) of DSO (Exp 9).
Fig. 6Response surface plots of contact angle (a) and solubility (b) as a function of furfural (X1) and DSO (X2) concentrations.
Fig. 7Response surface plots of tensile strength (a) and elongation at break (b) as a function of furfural (X1) and DSO (X2) concentrations.
Fig. 8Response surface plot of transparency as a function of furfural (X1) and DSO (X2) concentrations.