Advertisement

Cellulose

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 5919–5937 | Cite as

Biomass-based edible film with enhanced mass barrier capacity and gas permeable selectivity

  • Bo Sun
  • Weijun Wang
  • Min Zhang
  • Mohini Sain
Original Paper
  • 98 Downloads

Abstract

Edible films with desired mass transport properties have been receiving much attention for commercial packaging. In this paper, a modified nanofiltration setup using dialysis membrane was developed for the preparation of biomass-based edible (BE) film. The prepared films are effective barriers to oxygen by discriminating the molecular size and relative affinity between gas and film polymer matrix. Compared to the control film (co-blended film without the use of modified nanofiltration setup), the BE film possessed an enhanced gas/water vapor barrier effect and mechanical strength. In addition, the gas permeable selectivity [permeability ratio of CO2–O2 (\({{{\text{P}}_{{({\text{CO}}_{2} )}} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\text{P}}_{{({\text{CO}}_{2} )}} } {{\text{P}}_{{\left( {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right)}} }}} \right. \kern-0pt} {{\text{P}}_{{\left( {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right)}} }}\))] was improved, which is beneficial for inhibiting the respiration rate. This was further confirmed by the fruits [Apricots (cv. Beijing Crystal)] respiration experiments. SEM results revealed a more uniform and smooth surface of the BE film with a compact lamellar cross section structure caused by the suction effect of the dialysis membrane. An increased optical transmittance (T600) and decreased swelling capacity were further obtained.

Graphical abstract

Three-dimensional modeling of schematic diagram for the enhanced gas selectivity (\({{{\text{P}}_{{({\text{CO}}_{2} )}} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\text{P}}_{{({\text{CO}}_{2} )}} } {{\text{P}}_{{\left( {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right)}} }}} \right. \kern-0pt} {{\text{P}}_{{\left( {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right)}} }}\)) of the BE film is presented, and the pore-suction layer is the functional layer. A modified nanofiltration setup was developed by using dialysis membrane for the preparation of biomass-based edible (BE) film. The prepared film, constitutes of methylcellulose (continuous phase) and cellulose nanocrystals (discontinuous phase), has a compact lamellar cross section structure with improved optical transmittance (T600). The BE film can be appraised as an effective barrier to mass transportation by discriminating the molecular size and relative affinity between the gas and polymer matrix. The improved mechanical strength/gas permeable selectivity [permeability ratio of CO2–O2 (\({{{\text{P}}_{{({\text{CO}}_{2} )}} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\text{P}}_{{({\text{CO}}_{2} )}} } {{\text{P}}_{{\left( {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right)}} }}} \right. \kern-0pt} {{\text{P}}_{{\left( {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right)}} }}\))] is beneficial for modifying the package’s quality and its headspace atmosphere.

Keywords

Biomass-based edible (BE) film Nanofiltration setup Dialysis membrane Mass barrier capacity Gas permeable selectivity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by National Natural Science Foundation of China (31501440), Hebei Provincial Scientific and Technological Cooperation & Development Foundation between Province and University of 2018, Tianjin Science and Technology Commissioner Program (16JCTPJC45300), Tianjin International Training Program for Excellent Postdoctoral Fellows of 2015, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2015M571268).

References

  1. Al-Ati T, Hotchkiss JH (2003) The role of packaging film permselectivity in modified atmosphere packaging. J Agric Food Chem 51(14):4133–4138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arora A, Padua G (2010) Nanocomposites in food packaging. J Food Sci 75(1):43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrieta MP, Fortunati E, Dominici F, Rayón E, López J, Kenny JM (2014) PLA-PHB/cellulose based films: mechanical, barrier and disintegration properties. Polym Degrad Stab 107:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aulin C, Gällstedt M, Lindström T (2010) Oxygen and oil barrier properties of microfibrillated cellulose films and coatings. Cellulose 17(3):559–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen J, Jiang Q, Yang G, Wang Q, Fatehi P (2017) Ultrasonic-assisted ionic liquid treatment of chemithermomechanical pulp fibers. Cellulose 24(3):1483–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiumarelli M, Hubinger MD (2014) Evaluation of edible films and coatings formulated with cassava starch, glycerol, carnauba wax and stearic acid. Food Hydrocoll 38:20–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi Y, Simonsen J (2006) Cellulose nanocrystal-filled carboxymethyl cellulose nanocomposites. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 6(3):633–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choo K, Ching YC, Chuah CH, Julai S, Liou N-S (2016) Preparation and characterization of polyvinyl alcohol-chitosan composite films reinforced with cellulose nanofiber. Materials 9(8):644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cussler EL, Hughes SE, Ward WJ, Aris R (1988) Barrier membranes. J Membr Sci 38(2):161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dhakal HN, Sarasini F, Santulli C, Tirillò J, Zhang Z, Arumugam V (2015) Effect of basalt fibre hybridisation on post-impact mechanical behaviour of hemp fibre reinforced composites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 75:54–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dufresne A (2013) Nanocellulose: a new ageless bionanomaterial. Mater Today 16(6):220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freeman BD (1999) Basis of permeability/selectivity tradeoff relations in polymeric gas separation membranes. Macromolecules 32(2):375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fukuzumi H, Saito T, Iwata T, Kumamoto Y, Isogai A (2008) Transparent and high gas barrier films of cellulose nanofibers prepared by TEMPO-mediated oxidation. Biomacromol 10(1):162–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gain O, Espuche E, Pollet E, Alexandre M, Dubois P (2005) Gas barrier properties of poly (ε-caprolactone)/clay nanocomposites: influence of the morphology and polymer/clay interactions. J Polym Sci B: Polym Phys 43(2):205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galus S, Kadzińska J (2016) Whey protein edible films modified with almond and walnut oils. Food Hydrocoll 52:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giannou V, Kessoglou V, Tzia C (2003) Quality and safety characteristics of bread made from frozen dough. Trends Food Sci Technol 14(3):99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gontard N, Thibault R, Cuq B, Guilbert S (1996) Influence of relative humidity and film composition on oxygen and carbon dioxide permeabilities of edible films. J Agric Food Chem 44(4):1064–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greener I, Fennema O (1989) Barrier properties and surface characteristics of edible, bilayer films. J Food Sci 54(6):1393–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen N, Blomfeldt T, Hedenqvist M, Plackett D (2012) Properties of plasticized composite films prepared from nanofibrillated cellulose and birch wood xylan. Cellulose 19(6):2015–2031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hossain KMZ, Jasmani L, Ahmed I, Parsons AJ, Scotchford CA, Thielemans W, Rudd CD (2012) High cellulose nanowhisker content composites through cellosize bonding. Soft Matter 8(48):12099–12110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jahan MS, Saeed A, He Z, Ni Y (2011) Jute as raw material for the preparation of microcrystalline cellulose. Cellulose 18(2):451–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiang G, Zhang M, Feng J, Zhang S, Wang X (2017) High oxygen barrier property of poly(propylene carbonate)/polyethylene glycol nanocomposites with low loading of cellulose nanocrytals. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 5(12):11246–11254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kader AA, Zagory D, Kerbel EL, Wang CY (1989) Modified atmosphere packaging of fruits and vegetables. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 28(1):1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kanmani P, Rhim JW (2014) Physical, mechanical and antimicrobial properties of gelatin based active nanocomposite films containing AgNPs and nanoclay. Food Hydrocoll 35(3):644–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuo P-Y, de Assis Barros L, Yan N, Sain M, Qing Y, Wu Y (2017) Nanocellulose composites with enhanced interfacial compatibility and mechanical properties using a hybrid-toughened epoxy matrix. Carbohyd Polym 177:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lin H, Freeman BD (2004) Gas solubility, diffusivity and permeability in poly (ethylene oxide). J Membr Sci 239(1):105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lu P, Hsieh Y-L (2010) Preparation and properties of cellulose nanocrystals: rods, spheres, and network. Carbohyd Polym 82(2):329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mahadevaiah, Shivakumara LR, Demappa T, Singh V (2016) Mechanical and barrier properties of hydroxy propyl methyl cellulose edible polymer films with plasticizer combinations. J Food Process Preserv 41(4):e13020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mujica-Paz H, Gontard N (1997) Oxygen and carbon dioxide permeability of wheat gluten film: effect of relative humidity and temperature. J Agric Food Chem 45(10):4101–4105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Otoni CG, Avena-Bustillos RJ, Azeredo H, Lorevice MV, Moura MR, Mattoso LH, McHugh TH (2017) Recent advances on edible films based on fruits and vegetables-a review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 16(5):1151–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ouyang M, Muisener R, Boulares A, Koberstein J (2000) UV-ozone induced growth of a SiOx surface layer on a cross-linked polysiloxane film: characterization and gas separation properties. J Membr Sci 177(1–2):177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Park H, Chinnan M (1990) Properties of edible coatings for fruits and vegetables. Paper No. 90-6510, St. Joseph, MIGoogle Scholar
  33. Park J, Paul D (1997) Correlation and prediction of gas permeability in glassy polymer membrane materials via a modified free volume based group contribution method. J Membr Sci 125(1):23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Petersson L, Oksman K (2006) Biopolymer based nanocomposites: comparing layered silicates and microcrystalline cellulose as nanoreinforcement. Compos Sci Technol 66(13):2187–2196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pinotti A, García M, Martino M, Zaritzky N (2007) Study on microstructure and physical properties of composite films based on chitosan and methylcellulose. Food Hydrocoll 21(1):66–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rico-Pena DC, Torres JA (1990) Edible methylcellulose-based films as moisture-impermeable barriers in sundae ice cream cones. J Food Sci 55(5):1468–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Robeson LM (2008) The upper bound revisited. J Membr Sci 320(1):390–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodionova G, Lenes M, Eriksen Ø, Gregersen Ø (2011) Surface chemical modification of microfibrillated cellulose: improvement of barrier properties for packaging applications. Cellulose 18(1):127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salame M (1986) Prediction of gas barrier properties of high polymers. Polym Eng Sci 26(22):1543–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shen J, Kaur I, Baktash MM, He Z, Ni Y (2013) A combined process of activated carbon adsorption, ion exchange resin treatment and membrane concentration for recovery of dissolved organics in pre-hydrolysis liquor of the kraft-based dissolving pulp production process. Biores Technol 127:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sun B, Hou Q, Liu Z, He Z, Ni Y (2014) Stability and efficiency improvement of ASA in internal sizing of cellulosic paper by using cationically modified cellulose nanocrystals. Cellulose 21(4):2879–2887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sun B, Zhang M, Hou Q, Liu R, Wu T, Si C (2016) Further characterization of cellulose nanocrystal (CNC) preparation from sulfuric acid hydrolysis of cotton fibers. Cellulose 23(1):439–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sun B, Zhang M, Shen J, He Z, Fatehi P, Ni Y (2017) Applications of cellulose-based materials in sustained drug delivery systems. Curr Med Chem 24:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sun B, Zhang M, Ni Y (2018) Use of sulfated cellulose nanocrystals towards stability enhancement of gelatin-encapsulated tea polyphenols. Cellulose.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-018-1918-9 Google Scholar
  45. Syverud K, Stenius P (2008) Strength and barrier properties of MFC films. Cellulose 16(1):75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Willige RWG, Linssen JPH, Voragen AGJ (2000) Influence of food matrix on absorption of flavour compounds by linear low-density polyethylene: proteins and carbohydrates. J Sci Food Agric 80(12):1779–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vasudevan R (2017) ‘Controlled humidity chambers to maintain red roses’ freshness and improve their shelf life. Honors Research Projects. 561Google Scholar
  48. Wang W, Zhang Y, Ye R, Ni Y (2015) Physical crosslinkings of edible collagen casing. Int J Biol Macromol 81:920–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wasswa J, Tang J, X-H Gu, X-Q Yuan (2007) Influence of the extent of enzymatic hydrolysis on the functional properties of protein hydrolysate from grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) skin. Food Chem 104(4):1698–1704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wihodo M, Moraru CI (2013) Physical and chemical methods used to enhance the structure and mechanical properties of protein films: a review. J Food Eng 114(3):292–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Xu X, Liu F, Jiang L, Zhu J, Haagenson D, Wiesenborn DP (2013) Cellulose nanocrystals vs. cellulose nanofibrils: a comparative study on their microstructures and effects as polymer reinforcing agents. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 5(8):2999–3009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yang Q, Fukuzumi H, Saito T, Isogai A, Zhang L (2011) Transparent cellulose films with high gas barrier properties fabricated from aqueous alkali/urea solutions. Biomacromol 12(7):2766–2771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yang YH, Bolling L, Priolo MA, Grunlan JC (2013) Super gas barrier and selectivity of graphene oxide-polymer multilayer thin films. Adv Mater 25(4):503–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yun JH, An DS, Lee KE, Jun BS, Lee DS (2006) Modified atmosphere packaging of fresh produce using microporous earthenware material. Packag Technol Sci 19(5):269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang N, Xu J, Gao X, Fu X, Zheng D (2017) Factors affecting water resistance of alginate/gellan blend films on paper cups for hot drinks. Carbohyd Polym 156:435–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zimmermann T, Bordeanu N, Strub E (2010) Properties of nanofibrillated cellulose from different raw materials and its reinforcement potential. Carbohyd Polym 79(4):1086–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Food Nutrition and SafetyTianjin University of Science and Technology, Ministry of EducationTianjinChina
  2. 2.Center for Biocomposites and Biomaterials ProcessingUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations