4.7 Article

Encapsulation of Phlorotannin in Alginate/PEO blended nanofibers to preserve chicken meat from Salmonella contaminations

期刊

FOOD PACKAGING AND SHELF LIFE
卷 21, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fpsl.2019.100346

关键词

Phlorotannin; Electrospinning; S. enteritidis; Sodium alginate; Seaweeds; Salmonellosis

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20170070]
  2. Jiangsu Province Research Fund [NY-013]
  3. Jiangsu University Research Fund [11JDG050]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biodegradable polymer based nanofibers with natural antimicrobial agents for food preservation applications have gained great attention recently. Here, we fabricated sodium alginate (SA) and poly(ethyleneoxide) (PEO) blended nanofibers encapsulated with phlorotannin (Ph) via electrospinning process. The optimum blending ratio to produce quality nanofibers was found to be 50:50:10 (SA/PEO/Ph). Various physicochemical and mechanical properties of nanofibers were also determined. The SEM studies revealed that smooth, bead free nanofibers were obtained from SA/PEO/Ph blend with an average diameter of 331 nm. FTIR study exhibited the firm encapsulation of phlorotannin within nanofibers. Subsequently, the preservation capacity of active nanofibers was assessed against S.enteritidis on chicken at 4 and 25 degrees C. The cell count drastically decreased from 6.20 to 3.28 Log CFU/g at 4 degrees C and decreased from 8.80 to 2.53 Log CFU/g at 25 degrees C. In addition, sensory evaluation was conducted and compared with sodium nitrite and found that use of SA/PEO/Ph nanofibers significantly increased the shelf life of chicken without altering their sensory quality. Finally, the mechanism of action of phlorotannin on bacteria was analyzed and found that the main targets of phlorotannin were cell membrane, ATP, protein and DNA. Thus, the current study suggested that nanofibers containing phlorotannin could effectively improve the shelf life of preserved chicken for a prolonged period.

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