4.7 Article

Properties of Paperboard Coated with Natural Polymers and Polymer Blends: Effect of the Number of Coating Layers

期刊

FOODS
卷 12, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods12142745

关键词

paperboard; agar; chitosan; barrier properties; grease resistance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, coated paperboard was developed and characterized using the tape casting technique, with different ratios of agar-agar/chitosan and different numbers of coating layers. Applying a 0:100 coating significantly reduced water absorption capacity by approximately 15%. The water vapor permeability was reduced by 10 to 60% compared to uncoated paperboard, except for two layers coated with 0:100. The tensile index was higher in the machine direction than in the cross-section, and paperboard coated only with chitosan showed superior properties.
Paper is one of the packaging materials that presents a biodegradable character, being used in several areas; however, its barrier properties (gases and fat) and mechanics are reduced, which limits its application. Coating papers with synthetic polymers improve these properties, reducing their biodegradability and recyclability. The objective of this work was to develop and characterize coated paperboard, using the tape casting technique, with different ratios of film form agar-agar/chitosan (AA:CHI, 100:0, 50:50, and 0:100) and different numbers of coating layers (operating times for application of 14.25 min and 28.5 min for one and two layers, respectively). A significant reduction in water absorption capacity was found by applying a 0:100 coating (approximately 15%). Considering all coating formulations, the water vapor permeability reduced by 10 to 60% compared to uncoated paperboard, except for two layers coated with 0:100. The tensile index (independent of AA:CHI) was higher in the machine direction (22.59 to 24.99 MPa) than in the cross-section (11.87-13.01 MPa). Paperboard coated only with chitosan showed superior properties compared to the other formulation coatings evaluated.

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