journal article·2021-10-27Open access

Enzyme- and Relative Humidity-Responsive Antimicrobial Fibers for Active Food Packaging

Zeynep Aytac, Jie Xu, Suresh Kumar Raman Pillai, Brian D. Eitzer, Tao Xu, Nachiket Vaze, Kee Woei Ng, Jason C. White, Mary B. Chan-Park, Yaguang Luo, Philip Demokritou

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces· Volume 13· Issue 42

Abstract

Active food packaging materials that are sustainable, biodegradable, and capable of precise delivery of antimicrobial active ingredients (AIs) are in high demand. Here, we report the development of novel enzyme- and relative humidity (RH)-responsive antimicrobial fibers with an average diameter of 225 ± 50 nm, which can be deposited as a functional layer for packaging materials. Cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs), zein (protein), and starch were electrospun to form multistimuli-responsive fibers that incorporated a cocktail of both free nature-derived antimicrobials such as thyme oil, citric acid, and nisin and cyclodextrin-inclusion complexes (CD-ICs) of thyme oil, sorbic acid, and nisin. The multistimuli-responsive fibers were designed to release the free AIs and CD-ICs of AIs in response to enzyme and RH triggers, respectively. Enzyme-responsive release of free AIs is achieved due to the degradation of selected polymers, forming the backbone of the fibers. For instance, protease enzyme can degrade zein polymer, further accelerating the release of AIs from the fibers. Similarly, RH-responsive release is obtained due to the unique chemical nature of CD-ICs, enabling the release of AIs from the cavity at high RH. The successful synthesis of CD-ICs of AIs and incorporation of antimicrobials in the structure of the multistimuli-responsive fibers were confirmed by X-ray diffraction and Fourier transform infrared spectrometry. Fibers were capable of releasing free AIs when triggered by microorganism-exudated enzymes in a dose-dependent manner and releasing CD-IC form of AIs in response to high relative humidity (95% RH). With 24 h of exposure, stimuli-responsive fibers significantly reduced the populations of foodborne pathogenic bacterial surrogates Escherichia coli (by ∼5 log unit) and Listeria innocua (by ∼5 log unit), as well as fungi Aspergillus fumigatus (by >1 log unit). More importantly, the fibers released more AIs at 95% RH than at 50% RH, which resulted in a higher population reduction of E. coli at 95% RH. Such biodegradable, nontoxic, and multistimuli-responsive antimicrobial fibers have great potential for broad applications as active and smart packaging systems.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications · Nanocomposite Films for Food Packaging · Proteins in Food Systems

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

Affiliations

Center for Nanotechnology and Nanotoxicology, Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, United States

School of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 637457 Singapore

Department of Analytical Chemistry, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, Connecticut 06504, United States

School of Materials Science and Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 639798 Singapore

Environmental Chemistry and Materials Centre, Nanyang Environment and Water Research Institute, 637141 Singapore

Environmental Microbiology and Food Safety Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, Maryland 20705, United States

Funding

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health · U.S. Department of Energy · Nanyang Technological University · U.S. Department of Agriculture

References (47)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-410.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4 ↗
2. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Estimates of the Global Burden of Foodborne Diseases: Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group 2007–2015, 2015. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/199350.
3. 10.1038/s41538-018-0021-910.1038/s41538-018-0021-9 ↗
4. 10.1111/1541-4337.1234310.1111/1541-4337.12343 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.tifs.2008.07.00310.1016/j.tifs.2008.07.003 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.10707410.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107074 ↗
7. 10.3389/fnut.2020.0014010.3389/fnut.2020.00140 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.04.09510.1016/j.foodchem.2017.04.095 ↗
9. 10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c0591710.1021/acssuschemeng.0c05917 ↗
10. 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b0326710.1021/acs.jafc.8b03267 ↗
11. 10.1111/1541-4337.1217410.1111/1541-4337.12174 ↗
12. 10.7150/ijbs.5.50010.7150/ijbs.5.500 ↗
13. Petruzzi L. · 2017
14. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2011.11.01110.1016/j.foodhyd.2011.11.011 ↗
15. 10.1039/c2bm00041e10.1039/c2bm00041e ↗
16. Comi, G. Spoilage of Meat and Fish in the Microbiological Quality of Food Foodborne Spoilers; Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, 2017; pp 179–210.10.1016/B978-0-08-100502-6.00011-X ↗
17. Sperber W. · 200910.1007/978-1-4419-0826-1 ↗
18. Jay J. M. · 2008
19. 10.1016/S0032-9592(03)00258-910.1016/S0032-9592(03)00258-9 ↗
20. 10.1021/acs.biomac.9b0172410.1021/acs.biomac.9b01724 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.11.04110.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.11.041 ↗
22. 10.3303/CET133229610.3303/CET1332296 ↗
23. 10.1002/app.4485810.1002/app.44858 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.12524910.1016/j.foodchem.2019.125249 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.tifs.2019.10.00210.1016/j.tifs.2019.10.002 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.gaost.2019.03.00110.1016/j.gaost.2019.03.001 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.ejps.2019.10516210.1016/j.ejps.2019.105162 ↗
28. 10.1021/cg05050010.1021/cg050500 ↗
29. 10.1007/s10570-018-1718-210.1007/s10570-018-1718-2 ↗
30. Bullerman, L. Spoilage-Fungi in Food–An Overview, 2003.10.1016/B0-12-227055-X/01129-9 ↗
31. 10.1080/10601325.2017.132246910.1080/10601325.2017.1322469 ↗
32. Topala C. M. · Rev. Chim. · 2016 · 67 · 842
33. 10.3389/fmicb.2017.0270010.3389/fmicb.2017.02700 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2019.02.05910.1016/j.colsurfb.2019.02.059 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2021.11162510.1016/j.colsurfb.2021.111625 ↗
36. 10.1007/s11356-016-7136-910.1007/s11356-016-7136-9 ↗
37. 10.1002/app.2944710.1002/app.29447 ↗
38. 10.1021/jf400440b10.1021/jf400440b ↗
39. Pimpang P. · Chiang Mai J. Sci. · 2018 · 45 · 2005
40. 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b0263210.1021/acs.jafc.6b02632 ↗
41. 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b0636210.1021/acs.jafc.8b06362 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.02.02910.1016/j.actbio.2017.02.029 ↗
43. 10.1039/c5ra22748h10.1039/c5ra22748h ↗
44. 10.1007/s13197-016-2365-y10.1007/s13197-016-2365-y ↗
45. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.04.11110.1016/j.foodchem.2016.04.111 ↗
46. 10.1007/s00253-011-3152-310.1007/s00253-011-3152-3 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.mycmed.2014.01.06310.1016/j.mycmed.2014.01.063 ↗