journal article·2012-02

Moisture sorption and plasticization of bloodmeal-based thermoplastics

Casparus J. R. Verbeek, Nicolas J. Koppel

Journal of Materials Science· Volume 47· Issue 3
Publisher page

Abstract

Sorption characteristics, thermo-mechanical and mechanical properties of bloodmeal-based thermoplastics have been investigated between water activities (a w) of 0.2 and 0.8, using water and tri-ethylene glycol (TEG) as plasticizers. Three different mass ratios of TEG to water were used, 1:1, 1:2 and 5:6 with a total plasticizer content of 60 parts per hundred parts bloodmeal. It was found that the equilibrium moisture content and mechanical properties were highly dependent on relative humidity suggesting that material properties may vary during use. The BET and Flory–Huggins equations gave the best fit for desorption and adsorption, respectively, but a significant difference was observed between adsorption and desorption behaviour below a water activity of 0.6, which was thought to be due to changes in intermolecular interactions. The monolayer adsorption capacity (0.05 g/g) was unaffected by the TEG content, using the BET sorption isotherm. The water activity required to form a monolayer (a wl) was also independent of the amount of TEG, but was different for adsorption and desorption (about 0.5 and 0.2, respectively). Increasing TEG did not have a strong influence on the equilibrium moisture content, especially at low water activity. Dynamic mechanical analysis revealed that the glass transition temperature decreased almost linearly with increasing water activity, ranging between 3 and 85 °C, however, above a water activity of 0.6 a second transition was observed, most likely due to phase separation. Depending of TEG content, tensile strength increased from about 10 to 15 MPa at a water activity of 0.4, where after a drastic decrease was observed. A similar trend was observed for elongation at break. At low water activity (below 0.4) elongation was less than 3%, increasing between 30 and 50% at higher water activities. It was concluded that 10–15 wt% represented a critical point above which mechanical properties becomes very sensitive to the relative humidity of the environment.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Nanocomposite Films for Food Packaging · Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites · biodegradable polymer synthesis and properties

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (30)

Show source-provided references
1. Verbeek CJR, van den Berg LE (2009) Macromol Mater Eng 295(1):1010.1002/mame.200900167 ↗
2. Verbeek C, van den Berg LE (2011) J Polym Environ 19:1. doi: 10.1007/s10924-010-0232-x10.1007/s10924-010-0232-x ↗
3. Verbeek CJR, Viljoen C, Pickering KL, van den Berg LE (2009) NZ Patent NZ551531
4. Vanin FM, Sobral PJA, Menegalli FC, Carvalho RA, Habitante AMQB (2005) Food Hydrocolloid 19(5):89910.1016/j.foodhyd.2004.12.003 ↗
5. Zhang Y, Han J (2008) J Food Sci 73(7):E313. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.00867.x10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.00867.x ↗
6. Su J-F, Huang Z, Zhao Y-H, Yuan X-Y, Wang X-Y, Li M (2009) Ind Crops Prod 31(2):266
7. Hernandez-Izquierdo VM, Krochta JM (2008) J Food Sci 73(2):3010.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00636.x ↗
8. Maria Martelli S, Moore G, Silva Paes S, Gandolfo C, Laurindo JB (2006) Lebensm Wiss Technol 39(3):29210.1016/j.lwt.2004.12.014 ↗
9. Cho SY, Rhee C (2002) Lebensm Wiss Technol 35(2):15110.1006/fstl.2001.0829 ↗
10. Verbeek CJR, van den Berg LE (2009) Recent Pat Mater Sci 2(3):17110.2174/1874465610902030171 ↗
11. Sharma S, Hodges JN, Luzinov I (2008) J Appl Polym Sci 110(1):459. doi: 10.1002/app.2860110.1002/app.28601 ↗
12. Swain SN, Rao KK, Nayak PL (2004) J Appl Polym Sci 93(6):259010.1002/app.20729 ↗
13. Zhang J, Mungara P, Jane J (2001) Polymer 42(6):256910.1016/S0032-3861(00)00624-8 ↗
14. Pommet M, Redl A, Guilbert S, Morel M-H (2005) J Cereal Sci 42(1):8110.1016/j.jcs.2005.02.005 ↗
15. Ortiz MER, San Martin-Martinez E, Padilla LPM (2008) Starch-Starke 60(10):577. doi: 10.1002/star.20080021210.1002/star.200800212 ↗
16. Hochstetter A, Talja RA, Helén HJ, Hyvönen L, Jouppila K (2006) Lebensm Wiss Technol 39(8):89310.1016/j.lwt.2005.06.013 ↗
17. Kristo E, Biliaderis CG (2006) Food Hydrocolloid 20(7):105710.1016/j.foodhyd.2005.11.008 ↗
18. Mali S, Sakanaka LS, Yamashita F, Grossmann MVE (2005) Carbohydr Polym 60(3):28310.1016/j.carbpol.2005.01.003 ↗
19. Perdomo J, Cova A, Sandoval AJ, García L, Laredo E, Müller AJ (2009) Carbohydr Polym 76(2):30510.1016/j.carbpol.2008.10.023 ↗
20. Fabra MJ, Talens P, Chiralt A (2009) Food Hydrocolloid 24(4):38410.1016/j.foodhyd.2009.11.004 ↗
21. Cassini AS, Marczak LDF, Noreña CPZ (2006) J Food Eng 77(1):19410.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.05.059 ↗
22. Brett B, Figueroa M, Sandoval A, Barreiro J, Müller A (2009) Food Biophys 4(3):151. doi: 10.1007/s11483-009-9112-010.1007/s11483-009-9112-0 ↗
23. Jangchud A, Chinnan MS (1999) Lebensm Wiss Technol 32(2):8910.1006/fstl.1998.0498 ↗
24. Srinivasa PC, Ramesh MN, Kumar KR, Tharanathan RN (2003) Carbohydr Polym 53(4):43110.1016/S0144-8617(03)00105-X ↗
25. Alix S, Philippe E, Bessadok A, Lebrun L, Morvan C, Marais S (2009) Bioresour Technol 100(20):474210.1016/j.biortech.2009.04.067 ↗
26. Sopade PA, Ajisegiri ESA, Chukwu O, Abass AB (2010) J Food Process Eng 33:38510.1111/j.1745-4530.2007.00190.x ↗
27. Al-Muhtaseb AH, McMinn WAM, Magee TRA (2002) Food Bioprod Process 80(2):11810.1205/09603080252938753 ↗
28. Kim SD, Chakravarti S, Tian J, Bell P (2010) Polymer 51(10):219910.1016/j.polymer.2010.03.018 ↗
29. Jonquières A, Perrin L, Arnold S, Lochon P (1998) J Membr Sci 150(1):12510.1016/S0376-7388(98)00221-X ↗
30. Mo XQ, Sun XZ (2001) J Am Oil Chem Soc 78(8):86710.1007/s11746-001-0357-1 ↗