| Literature DB >> 36234547 |
David Choque-Quispe1,2,3,4, Yudith Choque-Quispe3,4,5, Carlos A Ligarda-Samanez2,3,4,6, Diego E Peralta-Guevara1,3,4,5, Aydeé M Solano-Reynoso3,4,7, Betsy S Ramos-Pacheco1,2,3,4, Fredy Taipe-Pardo2,3,4, Edgar L Martínez-Huamán1,6,8, John Peter Aguirre Landa9, Henrry W Agreda Cerna9, Julio C Loayza-Céspedes10, Miluska M Zamalloa-Puma11, Genaro Julio Álvarez-López12, Alan Zamalloa-Puma11, Elibet Moscoso-Moscoso3,4,6, Yadyra Quispe-Quispe3.
Abstract
The cellulose from agroindustrial waste can be treated and converted into nanocrystals or nanofibers. It could be used to produce biodegradable and edible films, contributing to the circular economy and being environmentally friendly. This research aimed to develop an edible film elaborated with activated cellulose nanocrystals, native potato starch, and glycerin. The activated cellulose nanocrystals were obtained by basic/acid digestion and esterification with citric acid from corn husks. The starch was extracted from the native potato cultivated at 3500 m of altitude. Four film formulations were elaborated with potato starch (2.6 to 4.4%), cellulose nanocrystals (0.0 to 0.12%), and glycerin (3.0 to 4.2%), by thermoforming at 60 °C. It was observed that the cellulose nanocrystals reported an average size of 676.0 nm. The films mainly present hydroxyl, carbonyl, and carboxyl groups that stabilize the polymeric matrix. It was observed that the addition of cellulose nanocrystals in the films significantly increased (p-value < 0.05) water activity (0.409 to 0.447), whiteness index (96.92 to 97.27), and organic carbon content. In opposition to gelatinization temperature (156.7 to 150.1 °C), transparency (6.69 to 6.17), resistance to traction (22.29 to 14.33 N/mm), and solubility in acidic, basic, ethanol, and water media decreased. However, no significant differences were observed in the thermal decomposition of the films evaluated through TGA analysis. The addition of cellulose nanocrystals in the films gives it good mechanical and thermal resistance qualities, with low solubility, making it a potential food-coating material.Entities:
Keywords: cellulose nanocrystals; edible film; potato starch; tensile strength; water activity; whiteness index
Year: 2022 PMID: 36234547 PMCID: PMC9565820 DOI: 10.3390/nano12193421
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.719
Formulation of biodegradable films.
| Formulation | Starch (S) (%) | NCCA (%) | Glycerin (G) (%) | Water (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1-C | 2.60 | 0.12 | 3.00 | 94.28 |
| M2-C | 3.20 | 0.08 | 3.40 | 93.32 |
| M3-C | 3.80 | 0.04 | 3.80 | 92.36 |
| M4-S | 4.40 | 0.00 | 4.20 | 91.40 |
Figure 1Films elaboration diagram.
Figure 2(a) Corn husk cellulose and acid hydrolysis reaction, (b) formation of citric anhydride, (c) esterification reaction and cellulose citrate (NCCA).
Figure 3SEM images (a) cellulose, (b) NCCA.
a of raw material and films.
| Material |
| ± | SD | CV (%) | * | T (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cellulose | 0.404 | ± | 0.001 | 0.21 | 20.7 | |
| NCCA | 0.398 | ± | 0.004 | 1.06 | 23.4 | |
| S | 0.252 | ± | 0.003 | 1.23 | 20.0 | |
| M1-C | 0.447 | ± | 0.003 | 0.66 | a | 20.4 |
| M2-C | 0.424 | ± | 0.004 | 0.83 | b | 20.8 |
| M3-C | 0.421 | ± | 0.005 | 1.26 | b | 20.9 |
| M4-S | 0.409 | ± | 0.007 | 1.62 | c | 21.0 |
Where , is the arithmetic mean; SD is the standard deviation; CV; variability coefficient. * Evaluated through an ANOVA and Tukey’s test at 5% significance, for n = 5.
Figure 4Main effects for (a) a, (b) yellowness index, (c) whiteness index, (d) transparency, (e) traction.
Color L*, a*, b*, YI, and WI of raw material and films.
| Material |
|
|
| ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ± | SD | CV (%) | * |
| ± | SD | CV (%) | * |
| ± | SD | CV (%) | * | |
| Cellulose | 69.46 | ± | 0.19 | 0.27 | 0.04 | ± | 0.01 | 13.32 | 10.56 | ± | 0.09 | 0.88 | |||
| NCCA | 84.10 | ± | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.94 | ± | 0.01 | 0.61 | 4.84 | ± | 0.02 | 0.32 | |||
| S | 92.10 | ± | 0.01 | 0.01 | −0.02 | ± | 0.01 | 34.64 | 2.79 | ± | 0.01 | 0.21 | |||
| M1-C | 97.36 | ± | 0.02 | 0.02 | a | 0.11 | ± | 0.01 | 9.09 | a | 0.71 | ± | 0.02 | 2.14 | a |
| M2-C | 97.22 | ± | 0.02 | 0.02 | b | 0.08 | ± | 0.01 | 6.93 | b | 0.64 | ± | 0.01 | 1.81 | b |
| M3-C | 97.07 | ± | 0.02 | 0.02 | c | 0.04 | ± | 0.01 | 13.32 | c | 0.46 | ± | 0.01 | 2.17 | c |
| M4-S | 96.96 | ± | 0.01 | 0.01 | d | 0.03 | ± | 0.01 | 17.32 | c | 0.48 | ± | 0.01 | 2.08 | c |
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Cellulose | 21.73 | ± | 0.24 | 1.10 | 67.69 | ± | 0.20 | 0.30 | 24.14 | ± | 0.20 | 0.84 | |||
| NCCA | 8.22 | ± | 0.03 | 0.37 | 83.36 | ± | 0.07 | 0.08 | 8.57 | ± | 0.06 | 0.73 | |||
| S | 4.32 | ± | 0.01 | 0.21 | 91.63 | ± | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.48 | ± | 0.00 | 0.14 | |||
| M1-C | 1.05 | ± | 0.02 | 2.13 | a | 97.27 | ± | 0.01 | 0.01 | a | 5.65 | ± | 0.01 | 0.21 | a |
| M2-C | 0.94 | ± | 0.02 | 1.82 | b | 97.14 | ± | 0.02 | 0.02 | b | 5.52 | ± | 0.02 | 0.39 | b |
| M3-C | 0.69 | ± | 0.01 | 2.17 | c | 97.03 | ± | 0.02 | 0.02 | c | 5.40 | ± | 0.02 | 0.38 | c |
| M4-S | 0.71 | ± | 0.01 | 2.09 | c | 96.92 | ± | 0.01 | 0.01 | d | 5.29 | ± | 0.01 | 0.22 | d |
Where , is the arithmetic mean; SD is the standard deviation; CV; variability coefficient. * Evaluated through an ANOVA, different letters indicate significant differences, determined through Tukey’s test at 5% significance, for n = 5.
Film transparency.
| Film | Transmittance (%) | Transparency (nm/mm) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ± | SD | CV (%) | * |
| ± | SD | CV (%) | * | |
| M1-C | 77.75 | ± | 0.55 | 0.70 | a | 6.17 | ± | 0.04 | 0.70 | a |
| M2-C | 79.80 | ± | 0.66 | 0.83 | a | 6.33 | ± | 0.05 | 0.83 | a |
| M3-C | 83.43 | ± | 0.59 | 0.70 | b | 6.67 | ± | 0.05 | 0.70 | b |
| M4-S | 84.33 | ± | 0.39 | 0.46 | c | 6.69 | ± | 0.03 | 0.46 | c |
Where , is the arithmetic mean; SD is the standard deviation; CV; variability coefficient. * Evaluated through an ANOVA, different letters indicate significant differences, determined through Tukey’s test at 5% significance, for n = 5.
Figure 5Transparency of films on images.
Film solubility.
| Film | Ultrapure Water | Ethanol (96% | Sodium Hydroxide (0.10 M) | Acetic Acid (0.18 M) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ± | SD | CV (%) | * |
| ± | SD | CV (%) | * |
| ± | SD | CV (%) | * |
| ± | SD | CV (%) | * | |
| M1-C | 38.06 | ± | 1.00 | 2.63 | a | 39.48 | ± | 0.65 | 1.64 | a | 42.34 | ± | 0.40 | 0.94 | a | 9.53 | ± | 0.24 | 2.55 | a |
| M2-C | 38.78 | ± | 1.12 | 2.89 | a,b | 39.53 | ± | 0.65 | 1.65 | a | 38.27 | ± | 0.25 | 0.67 | b | 8.87 | ± | 0.39 | 4.38 | b |
| M3-C | 40.64 | ± | 0.65 | 1.59 | b | 42.25 | ± | 0.47 | 1.10 | b | 38.51 | ± | 0.46 | 1.19 | b | 8.91 | ± | 0.05 | 0.58 | a,b |
| M4-S | 40.11 | ± | 0.41 | 1.01 | a,b | 42.36 | ± | 0.38 | 0.89 | b | 37.70 | ± | 0.46 | 1.22 | b | 9.02 | ± | 0.20 | 2.17 | a,b |
Where , is the arithmetic mean; SD is the standard deviation; CV; variability coefficient. * Evaluated through an ANOVA, different letters indicate significant differences, determined through Tukey’s test at 5% significance, for n = 5.
Figure 6Organic carbon content in raw materials and films.
Figure 7(a) FTIR spectrum for raw materials, (b) FTIR spectrum for films.
Film thickness and traction.
| Film | Thickness (mm) | Traction (N/mm) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ± | SD | CV (%) | * |
| ± | SD | CV (%) | * | |
| M1-C | 0.12 | ± | 0.01 | 4.68 | a | 14.33 | ± | 0.50 | 3.49 | a |
| M2-C | 0.12 | ± | 0.01 | 4.68 | a | 17.30 | ± | 0.17 | 0.98 | b |
| M3-C | 0.15 | ± | 0.01 | 6.67 | a | 18.24 | ± | 0.89 | 4.88 | b |
| M4-S | 0.14 | ± | 0.01 | 4.22 | a | 22.29 | ± | 0.96 | 4.32 | c |
Where , is the arithmetic mean; SD is the standard deviation; CV; variability coefficient. * Evaluated through an ANOVA, different letters indicate significant differences, determined through Tukey’s test at 5% significance, for n = 3.
DSC thermal transitions for raw material and films.
| Material | Tp (°C) | ΔH (J/g) | Tg (°C) | ΔH (J/g) | Tm (°C) | ΔH (J/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cellulose | --- | --- | 131.4 | 1.11 | 148.1 | 16.03 |
| NCCA | --- | --- | 133.4 | 1.21 | 148.5 | 21.40 |
| S | 66.1 | 5.31 | 132.9 | 9.66 | 153.4 | 2804.90 |
| M1-C | --- | --- | 141.3 | 0.07 | 150.1 | 11.49 |
| M2-C | --- | --- | 142.1 | 0.45 | 150.4 | 16.07 |
| M3-C | --- | --- | 142.3 | 0.71 | 154.9 | 17.41 |
| M4-S | --- | --- | 142.3 | 0.84 | 156.7 | 19.06 |
Figure 8DSC thermogram, (a) raw materials, (b) films.
Figure 9TGA thermogram for (a) raw materials, (b) films.
Weight loss and decomposition temperature.
| Material | First Stage | Second Stage | Third Stage | Fourth Stage | Residue (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight Loss (%) | T (°C) | Weight Loss (%) | T (°C) | Weight Loss (%) | T (°C) | Weight Loss (%) | T (°C) | ||
| Cellulose | 11.23 | 80.0 | 65.77 | 352 | 11.55 | 590 | 11.45 | ||
| NCCA | 7.784 | 80.0 | 85.83 | 362 | 4.07 | 590 | 2.316 | ||
| Starch | 5.72 | 110 | 55.95 | 312 | 17.12 | 590 | 21.21 | ||
| M1-C | 17.17 | 99 | 38.06 | 220 | 35.78 | 320 | 4.04 | 590 | 4.94 |
| M2-C | 14.87 | 100 | 40.23 | 220 | 35.68 | 319 | 5.41 | 590 | 3.81 |
| M3-C | 14.01 | 98 | 44.50 | 220 | 30.93 | 318 | 5.71 | 590 | 4.85 |
| M4-S | 13.08 | 99 | 39.67 | 220 | 38.03 | 320 | 4.91 | 590 | 4.31 |