4.7 Article

Food packaging composite film based on chitosan, natural kaolinite clay, and Ficus. carica leaves extract for fresh-cut apple slices preservation

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.123430

关键词

Chitosan film; Food packaging; Composite film

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a novel antioxidant and biodegradable food packaging film was developed by combining natural kaolinite clay (KC) and Ficus leaf extract (FLE) with chitosan. The Chitosan/KC/FLE film outperformed other films in terms of structural, physical, and functional aspects. These results suggest that Chitosan/KC/FLE film has the potential to be employed as a food packaging material in the food industry.
The problem of environmental plastic contamination is one of the most serious issues facing our world today. The majority of the packaging materials used to preserve food are made of plastic which is considered an environ-mental issue. Natural kaolinite clay (KC) and Ficus leaf extract (FLE) were combined with chitosan in this work to create a novel antioxidant and biodegradable food packaging film. Chitosan/KC/FLE film was compared to chitosan film, Chitosan/KC, and Chitosan/FLE films in terms of structural, physical, and functional aspects. The addition of FLE and/or KC significantly improved the light and moisture barrier characteristics, mechanical properties, and antioxidant capabilities of chitosan film. Moreover, KC addition had a remarkable impact on the water vapor permeability and the biodegradability of the chitosan film. Because of the synergistic action of FLE and KC, the Chitosan/KC/FLE film delivered strong barrier and antioxidant capabilities. Furthermore, Chitosan/ KC/FLE film was tested as packaging material on fresh-cut apple slices and demonstrated good food preservation regarding the weight loss, browning index, and total phenolic content of the fruit. According to our findings, Chitosan/KC/FLE film might be employed as a possible food packaging material in the food industry.

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