4.1 Article

Synergetic Effects of Pulsed Electric Field and Ozone Treatments on the Degradation of High Molecular Weight Chitosan

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD ENGINEERING
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages 775-784

Publisher

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/ijfe-2014-0100

Keywords

synergetic effect; PEF; ozone; degradation; chitosan

Funding

  1. Chinese National Science Fund [61001057, 21376094, 31301559]
  2. Chinese National 863 project [2011AA100801]
  3. Science and Technology Program of Guangdong, China [2008A024200002, 2009B090200031]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China [2013ZM0025]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A synergetic method integrating both pulsed electric field (PEF) and ozone treatment was developed as a novel approach to investigate the degradation of high molecular weight chitosan (M-w = 4.5 x 10(5) Da). A device integrating both components was designed and assembled for the experiments. Results showed that the highest degradation percentage of chitosan was achieved with PEF/ozone co-treatment generated at experimental conditions of 1.2 L/min of ozone flow rate, 100 mL/min of 0.6% (w/v) chitosan solution flow rate, and 26.7 kV/cm of PEF intensity. The degradation percentage after 60 min PEF treatment was 24.89%, whereas it was improved to 94.89% by ozone treatment for 60 min. Combining the two treatments resulted in enhanced degradation percentage of 99.56%, with low molecular weights sample (M-w < 2,500 Da) obtained. FTIR analysis demonstrated that the amide structure of the degradation products was minimally affected by the co-treatment. XRD pattern indicated that the crystallinity of the degradation products decreased. In addition, it could complete dissolve in water after 60 min PEF/ozone co-treatment. These results demonstrated the synergetic PEF/ozone co-treatment as an effective method for degradation of high molecular weight chitosan.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available