4.7 Article

Effects of plasticizers on the physicochemical properties of kappa-carrageenan films extracted from Eucheuma cottonii

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.05.105

关键词

Carrageenan; Eucheuma cottonii; Plasticizer

资金

  1. Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE)
  2. Universiti Putra Malaysia through FRGS [62675-87513]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The physicochemical properties of kappa-carrageenan films extracted from Eucheuma cottonii (E. cottonii) incorporated with different concentrations and types of plasticizers were studied. Glycerol, sorbitol, and polyethylene glycol-300 (PEG-300) in the range of 10-60% were used as plasticizers. The results showed that the thickness and moisture content (MC) of films increased significantly (p <= 0.05) with the increase in plasticizer concentration. Sorbitol-plasticized films had the lowest values. Sorbitol-plasticized films have better mechanical properties and the lowest water vapor permeability (WVP), solubility and water uptake ratio (WUR) compared with glycerol and PEG-plasticized films (p <= 0.05). Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectra showed the intermolecular reactions between kappa-carrageenan and the plasticizers in the films. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) observations indicated that sorbitol-plasticized films have a compact structure, even at the highest concentration. The melting temperature (Tm) of films decreased (p <= 0.05) with an increase in the plasticizer concentration. Here, the glycerol-plasticized films had the lowest values. X-ray diffraction (XRD) showed broad and narrow peaks of the un-plasticized K-carrageenan film at 2 theta = 20.0 degrees and 2 theta = 8.4 degrees, respectively. The intensity of the broad peak increased and the narrow peak disappeared as the concentration of plasticizers increased. In conclusion, films from E. cottonii successfully produced with sorbitol as the plasticizer exhibited good physical properties as packaging films. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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