4.7 Article

Use of endospore-forming bacteria as an active oxygen scavenger in plastic packaging materials

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ifset.2011.06.008

关键词

PET; Active packaging; Oxygen scavengers; Bacillus; Microorganisms; Spores

资金

  1. FWO Vlaanderen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The incorporation of active oxygen scavengers in polymer packaging materials is essential to allow packaging of oxidation sensitive products. Opposed to the currently available chemical oxygen scavengers, systems based upon natural and biological components could have advantages towards consumer perception and sustainability. A modelsystem for a new oxygen scavenging poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) bottle is proposed using an endospore-forming bacteria genus Bacillus amyloliquefaciens as the active ingredient. Spores were incorporated in poly(ethylene terephthalate, 1,4-cyclohexane dimethanol) (PETG), an amorphous PET copolymer having a considerable lower processing temperature and higher moisture absorption compared to PET. To asses spore viability after incorporation, a method was optimized to extract spores from PETG using a chloroform/water mixture. Samples were also analyzed using a Live/Dead BacLight Bacterial Viability kit. It was shown that endospores were able to survive incorporation in PETG at 210 degrees C. Incorporated spores could actively consume oxygen for minimum 15 days, after an activation period of 12 days at 30 C under high humidity conditions. Industrial relevance: The study describes a modelsystem for the use of incorporated spores genus Bacillus amyloliquefaciens as an active oxygen scavenger in PET multilayer bottles using PETG as the middle layer material. Industrially, oxygen scavengers using incorporated viable spores as the active compound could have advantages towards consumer perception, recyclability, safety, material compatibility, production costs, ... compared to currently available chemical oxygen scavengers. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据