4.5 Article

Valorization of cactus biomass to manufacture sustainable packaging films: moisture sorption behavior and influence of citric acid as crosslinking agent

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13399-023-04391-7

关键词

Packaging; Peleg's model; Guggenheim Anderson De-boer (GAB) model; Moisture sorption; Isotherm model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A cactus mucilage-gelatin bio-composite film was made using a solution casting method. The effects of citric acid as a crosslinking agent at different concentrations on the film's moisture sorption characteristics and mechanical properties were studied. Results showed that incorporating citric acid reduced the film's moisture content, swelling ratio, water vapor permeability, and moisture sorption tendency. The film with 0.5% citric acid exhibited the best crystallinity and highest tensile strength, making it suitable for food packaging applications.
Cactus mucilage-gelatin (CF/GTN)-based bio-composite film was fabricated via solution casting method. Citric acid (CA) as a crosslinking agent in a concentration of 0.5%, 1%, 3%, and 5% was used, and its influences on moisture sorption characteristics and mechanical properties of the film were studied. Sorption kinetics and sorption isotherm of developed films were obtained using Peleg and Guggenheim Anderson De-boer (GAB) model at 30 degrees C for 11.3%, 32.4%, 51.4%, and 75.7% relative humidity. Incorporating CA reduces the film's moisture content, swelling ratio, water vapor permeability, and moisture sorption tendency. Equilibrium moisture content was lowest for 5% CA films for all humidity conditions. Guggenheim's monolayer (c(g)) and multilayer constant (k) decreases with an increasing degree of crosslinking. The regression coefficient (R-2) and the coefficient of determination (R-2) show the goodness of the GAB and Peleg models. The film with 0.5% CA has better crystallinity and the highest tensile strength among all the films, depicting its suitability for food packaging applications.

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

4.5
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