Advertisement

Journal of Polymers and the Environment

, Volume 27, Issue 12, pp 2853–2866 | Cite as

Development of a Cassava Starch-Based Foam Incorporated with Grape Stalks Using an Experimental Design

  • Juliana Both EngelEmail author
  • Alan Ambrosi
  • Isabel Cristina Tessaro
Original Paper
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

Concern about pollution caused by the incorrect disposal of plastic materials has led to an increasing interest in packaging made from natural resources and biodegradable materials. In this context, cassava starch-based foams incorporated with Cabernet Sauvignon grape stalks, one of the main residues from the wine industry, were prepared by thermal expansion, a simple and fast process. Grape stalks in small granulometries can provide a homogeneous matrix and help improve foam resistance. Glycerol, a by-product of the biodiesel production process, was added to improve the batter processability and the flexibility of the foams. Therefore, the influence of formulation parameters, such as the percentage of glycerol and grape stalks addition, and the particle size of the stalks was studied using a central composite experimental design. The desirability function of Statistica software was used to obtain a formulation that presented better properties for the foams. Results showed that the formulation with 13.6 wt% glycerol, 18.4 wt% grape stalks in the smallest particle size analyzed (Ø < 0.18 mm) was able to improve mechanical and humidity related properties and density of the foams. These results indicate that the foams developed in this study could be used as a substitute for EPS trays.

Keywords

Grape stalks Cassava starch Foam Central composite experimental design Desirability function 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Salton winery—Brazil for the Cabernet Sauvignon grape stalks donation and the financial support received from CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level Personnel, Brazil), CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, Brazil) and FAPERGS (Research Support Foundation of the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil). In particular thanks to the Programa Ciência sem Fronteiras and CAPES CSF-PVE’s Project, Process Number: 88881.068177/2014-01.

Supplementary material

10924_2019_1566_MOESM1_ESM.docx (291 kb)
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 290 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Medina-Jaramillo C, Ochoa-Yepes O, Bernal C, Famá L (2017) Active and smart biodegradable packaging based on starch and natural extracts. Carbohydr Polym 176:187–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.08.079 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ross AS (2012) Starch in foods. Food Carbohydr Chem.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118688496.ch7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stevens ES, Klamczynski A, Glenn GM (2010) Starch-lignin foams. Express Polym Lett 4:311–320.  https://doi.org/10.3144/expresspolymlett.2010.39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kale G, Kijchavengkul T, Auras R et al (2007) Compostability of bioplastic packaging materials: an overview. Macromol Biosci 7:255–277.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mabi.200600168 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chiarathanakrit C, Riyajan SA, Kaewtatip K (2018) Transforming fish scale waste into an efficient filler for starch foam. Carbohydr Polym 188:48–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.01.101 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lopez-Gil A, Silva-Bellucci F, Velasco D et al (2015) Cellular structure and mechanical properties of starch-based foamed blocks reinforced with natural fibers and produced by microwave heating. Ind Crops Prod 66:194–205.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2014.12.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pornsuksomboon K, Holló BB, Szécsényi KM, Kaewtatip K (2016) Properties of baked foams from citric acid modified cassava starch and native cassava starch blends. Carbohydr Polym 136:107–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.09.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mitrus M, Moscicki L (2014) Extrusion-cooking of starch protective loose-fill foams. Chem Eng Res Des 92:778–783.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2013.10.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stoffel F, Weschenfelder EF, Camassola M et al (2019) Influence of plasticizers in enzymatic degradation and water resistance of starch foam trays obtained by thermal expansion. J Polym Environ 27:739–746.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-019-01387-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Trongchuen K, Ounkaew A, Kasemsiri P et al (2018) Bioactive starch foam composite enriched with natural antioxidants from spent coffee ground and essential oil. Starch/Staerke 70:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/star.201700238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    FAO (2017) Food and agriculture organization 2017. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. Accessed 1 July 2019
  12. 12.
    Xu Y, Scales A, Jordan K et al (2017) Starch nanocomposite films incorporating grape pomace extract and cellulose nanocrystal. J Appl Polym Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1002/app.44438 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu L, Dean K, Li L (2006) Polymer blends and composites from renewable resources. Prog Polym Sci 31:576–602.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2006.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaewtatip K, Chiarathanakrit C, Riyajan SA (2018) The effects of egg shell and shrimp shell on the properties of baked starch foam. Powder Technol 335:354–359.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2018.05.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rabello M (2000) Aditivação de polímeros. Editora Artlibler, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhou C-H, Beltramini JN, Fan Y-X, Lu GQ (2008) Chemoselective catalytic conversion of glycerol as a biorenewable source to valuable commodity chemicals. Chem Soc Rev 37:527–549.  https://doi.org/10.1039/B707343G CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Machado CM, Benelli P, Tessaro IC (2017) Sesame cake incorporation on cassava starch foams for packaging use. Ind Crops Prod 102:115–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vercelheze AES, Oliveira ALM, Rezende MI et al (2012) Properties of baked foams based on cassava starch, sugarcane bagasse fibers and montmorillonite. J Polym Environ 87:1302–1310.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-012-0455-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mali S, Grossmann MVE, Yamashita F (2010) Starch films: production, properties and potential of utilization. Semin Agrar 31:137–156.  https://doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2010v31n1p137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chang YP, Abd Karim A, Seow CC (2006) Interactive plasticizing-antiplasticizing effects of water and glycerol on the tensile properties of tapioca starch films. Food Hydrocolloid 20:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2005.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Machado CM, Benelli P, Tessaro IC (2019) Constrained mixture design to optimize formulation and performance of foams based on cassava starch and peanut skin. J Polym Environ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-019-01518-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mali S, Debiagi F, Grossmann MVE, Yamashita F (2010) Starch, sugarcane bagasse fibre, and polyvinyl alcohol effects on extruded foam properties: a mixture design approach. Ind Crops Prod 32:353–359.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2010.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Salgado PR, Schmidt VC, Ortiz SEM et al (2008) Biodegradable foams based on cassava starch, sunflower proteins and cellulose fibers obtained by a baking process. J Food Eng 85:435–443.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vercelheze AES, Oliveira ALM, Rezende MI et al (2013) Physical properties, photo- and bio-degradation of baked foams based on cassava starch, sugarcane bagasse fibers and montmorillonite. J Polym Environ 21:266–274.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-012-0455-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sadegh-Hassani F, Mohammadi Nafchi A (2014) Preparation and characterization of bionanocomposite films based on potato starch/halloysite nanoclay. Int J Biol Macromol 67:458–462.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.04.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Soykeabkaew N, Supaphol P, Rujiravanit R (2004) Preparation and characterization of jute-and flax-reinforced starch-based composite foams. Carbohydr Polym 58:53–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2004.06.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vargas-Torres A, Palma-Rodriguez HM, Berrios JDJ et al (2017) Biodegradable baked foam made with chayotextle starch mixed with plantain flour and wood fiber. J Appl Polym Sci 45565:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1002/app.45565 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    IBRAVIN (2017) Instituto Brasileiro do Vinho. Safra de uva 2017 é recorde no Rio Grande do SulGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guerra CC, Mandelli F, Tonietto J et al (2009) Conhecendo o essencial sobre uvas e vinhos. Embrapa Uva e Vinho 69Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    González-Centeno MR, Rosselló C, Simal S et al (2010) Physico-chemical properties of cell wall materials obtained from ten grape varieties and their byproducts: grape pomaces and stems. LWT—Food Sci Technol 43:1580–1586.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2010.06.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spigno G, Pizzorno T, De Faveri DM (2008) Cellulose and hemicelluloses recovery from grape stalks. Bioresour Technol 99:4329–4337.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.08.044 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bustamante MA, Pérez-Murcia MD, Paredes C et al (2007) Short-term carbon and nitrogen mineralisation in soil amended with winery and distillery organic wastes. Bioresour Technol 98:3269–3277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.07.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Garcia-Perez JV, García-Alvarado MA, Carcel JA, Mulet A (2010) Extraction kinetics modeling of antioxidants from grape stalk (Vitis vinifera var. Bobal): influence of drying conditions. J Food Eng 101:49–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Spatafora C, Barbagallo E, Amico V, Tringali C (2013) Grape stems from Sicilian Vitis vinifera cultivars as a source of polyphenol-enriched fractions with enhanced antioxidant activity. LWT—Food Sci Technol 54:542–548.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2013.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mazzaferro LS, Cuña MM, Breccia JD (2011) Production of xylo-oligosaccharides by chemoenzymatic treatment of agricultural by-products. BioResources 6:5050–5061.  https://doi.org/10.15376/BIORES.6.4.5050-5061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mugodo K, Magama PP, Dhavu K (2017) Biogas production potential from agricultural and agro-processing waste in south Africa. Waste Biomass Valoriz 8:2383–2392.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-017-9923-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Deiana AC, Sardella MF, Silva H et al (2009) Use of grape stalk, a waste of the viticulture industry, to obtain activated carbon. J Hazard Mater 172:13–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.06.095 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fiori L, Florio L (2010) Gasification and combustion of grape marc: comparison among different scenarios. Waste Biomass Valoriz 1:191–200.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-010-9025-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Portinho R, Zanella O, Féris LA (2017) Grape stalk application for caffeine removal through adsorption. J Environ Manage 202:178–187.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brereton RG (2003) Chemometrics: data analysis for the laboratory and chemical plant. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Myers RH, Montgomery DC (2009) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments (wiley series in probability and statistics). Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Araujo PW, Brereton RG (1996) Experimental design III. Quantification Trends Anal Chem 15:156–163Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Arismendi C, Chillo S, Conte A et al (2013) Optimization of physical properties of xanthan gum/tapioca starch edible matrices containing potassium sorbate and evaluation of its antimicrobial effectiveness. LWT—Food Sci Technol 53:290–296.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2013.01.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Maran JP, Sivakumar V, Sridhar R, Thirugnanasambandham K (2013) Development of model for barrier and optical properties of tapioca starch based edible films. Carbohydr Polym 92:1335–1347.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.09.069 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Maniglia BC, Domingos JR, de Paula RL, Tapia-Blácido DR (2014) Development of bioactive edible film from turmeric dye solvent extraction residue. LWT—Food Sci Technol 56:269–277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2013.12.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kasemsiri P, Dulsang N, Pongsa U et al (2017) Optimization of biodegradable foam composites from cassava starch, oil palm fiber, chitosan and palm oil using taguchi method and grey relational analysis. J Polym Environ 25:378–390.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-016-0818-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Debiagi F, Mali S, Grossmann MVE, Yamashita F (2011) Biodegradable foams based on starch, polyvinyl alcohol, chitosan and sugarcane fibers obtained by extrusion. Braz Arch Biol Technol 54:1043–1052.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-89132011000500023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    AOAC (2005) Official methods of analysis, 18th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Van Soest PJ (1963) Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. II. A rapid method for the determination of fiber and lignin. J AOAC 46:829–835.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.10.078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Prates ER (2007) Técnicas de Pesquisa em Nutrição Animal. Porto Alegre—UFRGSGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vázquez-Ovando A, Rosado-Rubio G, Chel-Guerrero L, Betancur-Ancona D (2009) Physicochemical properties of a fibrous fraction from chia (Salvia hispanica L.). LWT—Food Sci Technol 42:168–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2008.05.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    ABNT (1999) Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. NBR NM-ISO 535. Papel e cartão—Determinação da capacidade de absorção de água—Método de CobbGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    ASTM (2003) American Society for testing and materials. D790-03-standard test method for flexural properties of unreinforced and reinforced plastics and electrical insulation materials (D 790-03), pp 1–11Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Prozil SO, Evtuguin DV, Lopes LPC (2012) Chemical composition of grape stalks of Vitis vinifera L. from red grape pomaces. Ind Crops Prod 35:178–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2011.06.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kaisangsri N, Kerdchoechuen O, Laohakunjit N (2014) Characterization of cassava starch based foam blended with plant proteins, kraft fiber, and palm oil. Carbohydr Polym 110:70–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.03.067 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Spigno G, Maggi L, Amendola D et al (2013) Influence of cultivar on the lignocellulosic fractionation of grape stalks. Ind Crops Prod 46:283–289.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.01.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mello LRPF, Mali S (2014) Use of malt bagasse to produce biodegradable baked foams made from cassava starch. Ind Crops Prod 55:187–193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2014.02.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pujol D, Liu C, Fiol N et al (2013) Chemical characterization of different granulometric fractions of grape stalks waste. Ind Crops Prod 50:494–500.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.07.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Segurola J, Allen NS, Edge M, Mc Mahon A (1999) Design of eutectic photoinitiator blends for UV/visible curable acrylated printing inks and coatings. Prog Org Coat 37:23–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9440(99)00052-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mali S, Sakanaka LS, Yamashita F, Grossmann MVE (2005) Water sorption and mechanical properties of cassava starch films and their relation to plasticizing effect. Carbohydr Polym 60:283–289.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2005.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mali S, Grossmann MVE, García MA et al (2006) Effects of controlled storage on thermal, mechanical and barrier properties of plasticized films from different starch sources. J Food Eng 75:453–460.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.04.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Glenn GM, Orts WJ, Nobes GAR (2001) Starch, fiber and CaCo3 effects on the physical properties of foams made by a baking process. Ind Crops Prod 14:201–212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6690(01)00085-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lawton JW, Shogren RL, Tiefenbacher KF (2004) Aspen fiber addition improves the mechanical properties of baked cornstarch foams. Ind Crops Prod 19:41–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6690(03)00079-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Shogren RL, Lawton JW, Tiefenbacher KF (2002) Baked starch foams: Starch modifications and additives improve process parameters, structure and properties. Ind Crops Prod 16:69–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6690(02)00010-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gontard N, Guilbert S, Cuq J-L (1993) Water and glycerol as plasticizers affect mechanical and water vapor barrier properties of an edible wheat gluten film. J Food Sci 58:206–211.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1993.tb03246.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cruz-Tirado JP, Siche R, Cabanillas A et al (2017) Properties of baked foams from oca (Oxalis tuberosa) starch reinforced with sugarcane bagasse and asparagus peel fiber. Procedia Eng 200:178–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Pelissari FM, Yamashita F, Grossmann MVE (2011) Extrusion parameters related to starch/chitosan active films properties. Int J Food Sci Technol 46:702–710.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.02533.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ribba L, Garcia NL, Daccorso N, Goyanes S (2017) Disadvantages of starch-based materials, feasible alternatives in order to overcome these limitations. In: Villar MA, Barbosa SE, García MA, Castillo LA, López OV (eds) Starch-based materials in food packaging—processing, characterization. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Vogler EA (1998) Structure and reactivity of water at biomaterial surfaces. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 74:69–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8686(97)00040-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lee SY, Eskridge KM, Koh WY, Hanna MA (2009) Evaluation of ingredient effects on extruded starch-based foams using a supersaturated split-plot design. Ind Crops Prod 29:427–436.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2008.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Andersen PJ, Hodson SK (1998) Systems for molding articles which include a hinged starch bound cellular matrix. US Patent 5.705.203.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Shogren R, Lawton J, Doane W, Tiefenbacher K (1998) Structure and morphology of baked starch foams. Polymer (Guildf) 39:6649–6655.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-3861(97)10303-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Matsuda DKM, Verceheze AES, Carvalho GM et al (2013) Baked foams of cassava starch and organically modified nanoclays. Ind Crops Prod 44:705–711.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.08.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lourdin D, Bizot H, Colonna P (1997) ‘Antiplasticization’ in starch—glycerol films? J Appl Polym Sci 63:1047–1053.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4628(19970222)63:8%3c1047:AID-APP11%3e3.0.CO;2-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Zhang Y, Han JH (2010) Crystallization of high-amylose starch by the addition of plasticizers at low and intermediate concentrations. J Food Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01404.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juliana Both Engel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alan Ambrosi
    • 2
  • Isabel Cristina Tessaro
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Membrane Separation Processes – LASEM, Laboratory of Packaging Technology and Membrane Development – LATEM, Department of Chemical EngineeringUniversidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul (UFRGS)Porto AlegreBrazil
  2. 2.Laboratory of Membrane Separation Processes – LABSEM, Department of Chemical Engineering and Food Engineering – EQAUniversidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)FlorianópolisBrazil

Personalised recommendations