Antimicrobial, Physicochemical, Mechanical, and Barrier Properties of Tapioca Starch Films Incorporated with Eucalyptus Extract

محورهای موضوعی :

M. Rojhan ¹ ( Biopolymer Research Group, Food Science and Technology Division, Agriculture Department, Damghan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Damghan, Semnan, Iran )
L. Nouri ² ( Biopolymer Research Group, Food Science and Technology Division, Agriculture Department, Damghan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Damghan, Semnan, Iran )

تاریخ دریافت : 1392/09/16 تاریخ پذیرش : 1397/08/07 تاریخ انتشار : 1392/06/10

کلید واژه: Mechanical Properties, Antimicrobial, WVP, Eucalyptus extract, Tapioca Starch film,

چکیده مقاله :

Starch is found in abundance in nature and it is one of the raw materials used for food packagingbecause of the low price, biodegradability, good mechanical and barrier properties. The recycling ability ofcoating materials was significantly increased by using edible films and coating in comparison to traditionalpackaging and it could be an alternative for synthetic films. In this research, the effect of eucalyptus extract(Aqueous Extract) was investigated on tapioca starch films. Tapioca starch films were prepared by castingmethod with addition of eucalyptus extract and a mixture of sorbitol/glycerol (weight ratio of 3 to 1) asplasticizers. Eucalyptus extract incorporated to the tapioca starch films were dried at different concentrations(0, 15, 25, and 35 of total solid) under controlled conditions. Physicochemical properties such as waterabsorption capacity (WAC), water vapor permeability (WVP) and mechanical properties of the films wereevaluated. Results showed that by increasing the concentration of eucalyptus extract, tensile strength wasincreased from 20.60 to 15.68 (MPa), also elongation was increased from 19.31 to 23.57 (%) at break andYoung’s modulus was decreased from 800.31 to 500.32 (MPa). Also incorporation of eucalyptus extract in thestructure of biopolymer increased permeability of water vapor of starch films. Tapioca starch filmsincorporated with eucalyptus extract exhibited excellent antimicrobial activity against E. Coli. In summary,eucalyptus extract improves functional properties of tapioca starch films and this types of films can be used infood packaging.

منابع و مأخذ:

1. Janjarasskul T., Krochta J.M., Edible
2. packaging materials, Annual Review of Food
3. Science and Technology, 1, 2010. pp. 415ââ‚‌“448
4. Pelissari F.M., Grossmann M.V.E.,
5. Yamashita F., Pineda E.A., Antimicrobial,
6. mechanical, and barrier properties of cassava
7. starchââ‚‌“chitosan films incorporated with oregano
8. essential oil, Journal of Agricultural and Food
9. Chemistry, 57, 2009. pp. 7499ââ‚‌“7504
10. Cagri A., Ustunol Z., Ryser E.T.,
11. Antimicrobial edible films and coatings, Journal of
12. Food Protection, 67 (2004), pp. 833ââ‚‌“848
13. S. Burt, Essential oils: Their antibacterial
14. properties and potential applications in foods: A
15. review, International Journal of Food
16. Microbiology, 94 (2004), pp. 223ââ‚‌“253
17. Rojas-Graü M.A., Avena-Bustillos R.J.,
18. Friedman M., Henika P.R., Martin-Belloso O.,
19. McHugh T.H., Mechanical, barrier, and
20. antimicrobial properties of apple puree edible
21. films containing plant essential oils, Journal of
22. Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54, 2006. pp.
23. ââ‚‌“9267
24. Souza A.C., Goto G.E.O., Mainardi J.A.,
25. Coelho A.C.V., Tadini C.C., Cassava starch
26. composite films incorporated with cinnamon
27. essential oil: Antimicrobial activity,
28. microstructure, mechanical and barrier properties,
29. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 54, 2, 2013,
30. Pages 346-352.
31. Brooker, Kleinig, Polyphenols in the
32. leaves of eucalyptus: A chemotaxonomic surveyââ‚‌”
33. II. : The sections renantheroideae and renantherae.
34. Hillis W. E., Phytochemistry, 6, 2, 1967. Pages
35. -274.
36. Abdorreza M. N., Cheng L. H., Karim A.
37. A., Effects of plasticizers on thermal properties
38. and heat sealability of sago starch films. Food
39. Hydrocolloids. 2011;25(1):56. doi: DOI:
40. 1016/j.foodhyd.2010.05.005.
41. ASTM. Standard Test Method for
42. Tensile Properties of Thin Plastic Sheeting D882ââ‚‌“
43. Annual book of ASTM standards.
44. Philadelphia, PA2010.
45. Kiatkamjornwong S., Chomsaksakul W.,
46. Sonsuk M., Radiation modification of water
47. absorption of cassava starch by acrylic
48. acid/acrylamide. Radiation Physics and Chemistry.
49. , 59(4):413. doi: 10.1016/s0969-
50. x(00)00297-8.
51. Torabi Z., MohammadiNafchi A., The
52. Effects of SiO2 Nanoparticles on Mechanical and
53. Physicochemical Properties of Potato Starch
54. Films. Journal of Chemical Health Risks, 2013.
55. (1) 127.
56. Maizura M., Fazilah A., Norziah M.,
57. Karim A., Antibacterial Activity and Mechanical
58. Properties of Partially Hydrolyzed Sago Starchââ‚‌“
59. Alginate Edible Film Containing Lemongrass Oil.
60. Journal of Food Science. 2007;72(6):C324. doi:
61. 1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00427.x.
62. Laohakunjit N., Noomhorm A., 2004.
63. Effect of plasticizers on mechanical and barrier
64. properties of rice starch film. Starch/Staerke.
65. ;56(8):348.
66. McHugh T. H., Avena-Bustillos R.,
67. Krochta J., 1993. Hydrophilic Edible Films:
68. Modified Procedure for Water Vapor Permeability
69. and Explanation of Thickness Effects. Journal of
70. Food Science. 1993;58(4):899. doi:
71. 1111/j.1365-2621.1993.tb09387.x.
72. Pavlath A., Orts W., 2009. Edible Films
73. and Coatings: Why, What, and How? In: Huber
74. KC, Embuscado ME, eds. Edible Films and
75. Coatings for Food Applications: Springer New
76. York; 2009:1.
77. Sothornvit R., Krochta J., 2000. Oxygen
78. permeability and mechanical properties of films
79. from hydrolyzed whey protein. Journal of
80. Agricultural and Food Chemistry,48,3913-3916
81. Kanatt S. R., Rao M. S., Chawla S. P.,
82. Sharma A., 2012. Active chitosanââ‚‌“polyvinyl
83. alcohol films with natural extracts. Food
84. Hydrocolloids. 2012;29:290-7.
85. Safari Maznabi H., Mohammadi Nafchi
86. A., 2013. Investigation of the Effects of Rosemary
87. Extract on Barrier and Colorimetric Properties of
88. Mungbean Starch Films. Journal of Chemical
89. Health Risks 3(2): 47-52