4.7 Article

Wood cellulose films regenerated from NaOH/urea aqueous solution and treated by hot pressing for food packaging application

Journal

FOOD BIOSCIENCE
Volume 50, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fbio.2022.102177

Keywords

Wood pulps; Cellulose films; Regeneration; Hot pressing; Food packaging

Funding

  1. Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Nature et Technologies
  2. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  3. Mitacs Accelerate
  4. [2021 -PR -283095]
  5. [39173]
  6. [FR68649]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study demonstrates the feasibility of using cellulose films made from 'green' solvent as biodegradable packaging materials. Different wood origins do not have a significant impact on the structure of cellulose films, but hot pressing can efficiently remove moisture and improve the performance of regenerated films.
Cellulose films made from 'green' solvent provide the possibility to mitigate environmental pollution caused by non-degradable plastic packaging. Herein, regenerated cellulose films were prepared from five wood pulps in NaOH/urea aqueous solution, dried either at ambient conditions or by hot pressing, and tested as biodegradable packaging materials. The results revealed that different wood origins did not cause much difference in the structure of cellulose films. However, hot-pressing could not only efficiently remove water from wet films, but also significantly improve the tensile strength and water vapor barrier property of regenerated films. The RC-P -HP film had the tensile strength of 85.00 +/- 3.26 MPa, Young's modulus of 6.45 +/- 0.36 GPa, and water vapor permeability of 3.59 +/- 0.14 x 10- 7 gm- 1h- 1Pa- 1, and exhibited the similar capacity as the commercial plastic wrap during the preservation of cherry tomatoes for up to 16 days. Therefore, this study demonstrates a feasible strategy to fabricate wood cellulose films for biodegradable food packaging.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available