4.6 Article

Microstructure of protein-coated paper as affected by physico-chemical properties of coating solutions

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2006.12.079

关键词

coated paper; wheat gluten; caseinates; corn gluten meal; impregnation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wheat gluten (WG), calcium caseinate (CC) and corn gluten meal (CGM), were selected as protein raw material to prepare coating solutions. Different concentrations of protein (10-20%, w/w) and deposited solution layer (50-500 mu m) were used to obtain coated papers with thicknesses varying between 143(+/- 3) and 227(+/- 8) mu m. As expected, the thicknesses of coated paper increased with coating weight, but, for a given coating weight, different thicknesses were observed according to the raw material used and its concentration in the coating solution. A phenomenon involving a penetration of coating solution inside paper was suspected with WG-based solutions. The microstructure of coated papers was analyzed by SEM, OM and AFM and differences in structure and morphology were observed between the three raw materials. The percentages of coating agent impregnated inside paper were also calculated from the apparent density of coated paper and the density of self-supported films prepared in the same conditions but deposited on an inert and smooth Plexiglas (R) support. These percentages of impregnation ranged from 4.8 to 63.3% and increased as following: CC < CGM < WG. Contact angle measurements were carried out in order to describe the behaviour of a coating solution drop just after its deposition on paper. Resulting absorption rates indicated significant differences as a function of the nature of coating agent and confirmed results obtained for the percentage of impregnation. To explain differences in the behaviour of coating solutions, it was finally concluded that not only their viscosity must be taken into account but also their affinity toward paper. (C) 2007 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

4.6
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