Professional Documents
Culture Documents
C
and complete gelatinization was achieved at 76e77
C. Fish gelatin
was dissolved in distilled water at 60
C for 30 min until a clear
solution was obtained. Fish gelatin solution was added to gelati-
nized sago starch at 60
C and stirring was continued for 30 min,
followed by addition of plasticizer with constant stirring for
another 30 min. The mixture was then cooled to roomtemperature.
The solution mixture (95 g) was cast onto polyacrylic plates
(16 cm 16 cm 3 mm) and dried in a ventilated oven at 35
C for
24 h. The dry lms obtained were peeled off and stored in a desic-
cator containing saturated sodium bromide (NaBr) solution with
56% (RH) at 30
C until for further analysis. Control lms were
prepared in the same way without the addition of sh gelatin. Each
lm formulation was prepared in triplicates.
2.5. Viscosity of lm forming solutions
Viscosity of sago starch/gelatin solutions was measured using
a digital viscometer (Model DV-E, Brookeld, middle Boro) with
speed 100 rpm and LV spindle no. 2 for all samples and values are
expressed in (centipoises, cP). The measurement was conducted at
room temperature (28
C). The spindle was immersed into the
solution for about 3 min for thermal equilibrium between solution
and spindle with continued shearing. Five readings of viscosity
were recorded for each solution, and average values were taken.
Tests were run in triplicate.
2.6. Determination of pH of lm forming solution
Measurement of pH value of sago starch and sago starch/gelatin
lm forming solutions was taken using a pH meter (Mettler Toledo,
FE20. China).
2.7. Film thickness and light absorption
Thickness of the lms was measured using a manual microm-
eter (Mitutoyo, Japan) with an accuracy of 0.001 mm. Six different
positions of the samples were measured and average thickness was
calculated. Films prepared were observed visually for homogeneity
without phase separation and with uniform colour.
The light barrier properties of the lms were measured by
exposing the lms to light absorption at wavelength 550 nm. Film
transparency was measured according to the method of Bao, Xu,
and Wang (2009) by placing rectangular lm samples into a spec-
trophotometer test cell directly. Absorbance was recorded using an
UV-160A uvevis spectrophotometer (Shimadzu, Japan). The
transparency (T) of lms was calculated according to the following
equation:
T A
550
/x
where A
550
is the absorbance at 550 nm and x is the lm thickness
(mm). According to this equation, a higher value of T would indicate
A.A. Al-Hassan, M.H. Norziah / Food Hydrocolloids 26 (2012) 108e117 109
a lower degree of transparency. Tests were run in triplicates for
each type of lm.
2.8. Tensile strength and elongation tests
The mechanical properties of lms prepared were evaluated by
conducting tensile strength and elongation-at-break (EAB) tests
according to ASTMD882-00 method (ASTM, 2000a). Filmspecimen
strips (14 cm 2 cm) were cut and conditioned in a desiccator
containing saturated sodium bromide solution with 56% (RH) at
30
C for 48 h prior to testing. Films were tested for sorption
isotherm in 2 h interval and equilibrium was achieved in 6 h in
most ratios where water content in the lms did not change up to
24 h. Tensile strength and EAB were performed as a tension test
using a Texture analyzer TA XT2 (Stable Microsystems, Surrey, UK)
with a load cell of 30 kg and crosshead speed of 60 mm/min. The
samples were mounted between grips with initial grip gap of
100 mm and lm width of 2 cm. The results of tensile and elon-
gation tests were expressed by MPa and percentage (%), respec-
tively. Each test trial per lm consisted of ve replicate
measurements.
2.9. Water vapor permeability
Water vapor permeability (WVP) of the lms was determined
according to the ASTM E96-00 method (ASTM, 2000b). Gas
permeation cells with diameter 4.5 cm and height 2.8 cm were
used. Glass permeation cell contained 25 g silica gel (0% RH) that
was dried in oven at 120
C for 1 day initially and the headspace for
the cell was 1.0 cm fromthe opening of the cell. The test lms were
sealed on top of the permeation cells. These cells were then placed
in a desiccator containing distilled water (100% RH) and kept at
30
C. The cells were weighed at 24 h intervals over a 7-day period.
The cells were recorded to the nearest 0.0001 g and plotted as
a function of time. The slope of each line was calculated by linear
regression (r
2
0.99). The measured WVP of the lms was deter-
mined as follows:
WVP (WVTR L)/DP
where WVTR is the water vapor transmission rate (g m
2
h
1
)
through a lm, calculated fromthe slope of the straight line divided
by the exposed lm area (m
2
), L is the mean lm thickness (mm),
and DP is the partial water vapor pressure difference (Pa) across the
two sides of the lm. For each type of lm, WVP measurements
were replicated three times for each batch of lms.
2.10. Moisture sorption isotherm
The sorption isotherm of sago starch and sago starch/gelatin
lms was determined at 30
C for 48 h.
Samples were then hermetically sealed and heated from0 to 200
C
at 3
C/min. The reference was an empty pan and the equipment
was calibrated with indium (T
m
156.6
C, and enthalpy
DH 28.3 J/g). The transition temperature (T
m
) was calculated as
the temperature where the endothermic peak occurs, and the
enthalpy (DH) of the transition was calculated as the area over the
endothermic peak. The glass transition temperature (T
g
) was
calculated using a TA Instrument Universal analysis 2000 software
as the shifting down of the reversible heat ow curve.
2.13. Statistical analyses
SPSS 12.0 was used in this study to analyze the data. One-way
variance analysis was carried out using Duncans test with con-
dence level as p 0.05.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Amylose content
The amylose content in the sago starch was found to be in the
range of 32e34%. Most native starches like corn, tapioca, potato and
sago have high percentage of amylopectin. Generally, most starches
contain 15e30% amylose (Wong, Muhammad, Dzulkiy, Saari, &
Ghazali, 2007).
3.2. Protein content and amino acids prole
Protein content of sh gelatin was found to be 81.3% soluble
protein. Therefore sago starch/sh gelatin lms contained different
protein mixtures which are 21.6%, 16.3%, 13.0%, and 10.9% (w/w)
protein in 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 and 5:1 lm ratios, respectively. Amino acids
composition of the sh gelatin is shown in Table 1. The result shows
that the gelatin has high contents of glutamic acid, glycine, alanine
and arginine. Proline and hydroxyproline are present in low
amounts (5.72 and 5.94 residues/100) compared to bovine-hide
and tuna skin gelatins as reported by (Gmez-Estaca, Montero,
A.A. Al-Hassan, M.H. Norziah / Food Hydrocolloids 26 (2012) 108e117 110
Fernndez-Martn, & Gmez-Guilln, 2009). They reported proline
content of 12.7 and 10.7 residues/100 and hydroxyproline of (8.3
and 7.8 residues/100 residues) for bovine-hide and tuna skin
gelatin respectively.
3.3. Viscosity and pH of lm forming solutions
The pH of the lm forming solutions ranged between pH 4.54
and 4.61. The viscosity of lm forming solutions of sago starch/sh
gelatin added with either sorbitol or glycerol increased signicantly
(p < 0.05) with decreasing gelatin protein content in the samples.
Film samples 2:1 and 3:1 with glycerol added showed higher
viscosity than those added with sorbitol of the same lm ratio,
however as the gelatin content decreased in lm ratios of 4:1 and
5:1, there was no signicant difference between lms added with
sorbitol or glycerol (Fig. 1). Moreover, signicant difference was
observed in comparing sago starch/sh gelatin lm forming solu-
tions to sago starch lm forming solution plasticized as controls
with either glycerol or sorbitol. Sago starch lm forming solutions
showed higher viscosity from other sago starch/sh gelatin lm
forming solution. Dickinson (1998) reported that pro-
teinepolysaccharides interaction between two biopolymers is
made up from an average over the large number of different
intermolecular forces arising between the various segments and
side-chains on the two macromolecules. Depending on the aqueous
environmental conditions and the distribution of the different
kinds of groups (charged, hydrophobic, hydrogen bonding, etc.).
The overall proteinepolysaccharide interaction maybe net attrac-
tive or net repulsive.
3.4. Thickness and light absorption of lms
Thickness of sago starch/sh gelatin lms ranged between 0.05
and 0.07 mm for all lms with plasticizers. Films of sago starch/sh
gelatin prepared were transparent and homogeneous. All lms
were found to be exible and easily removed from the acrylic plate
with the exception of lms (2:1) that contain glycerol which was
found to be soft, sticky and easily shrink when removed from
casting plates and left outside for short time at lab environment
(RH% z 65) and this was due to being more hygroscopic with
higher protein content than other lms. This observation was
similarly reported by Thomazine, Carvalho, and Sobral (2005) in
those lms with glycerol tend not to be as strong and are more
stretchable than lms that contain sorbitol.
The UVeVis absorption of sago starch/sh gelatin lms and sago
starch lms plasticized with 25% glycerol or sorbitol is shown in
Table 2. Higher transparency values indicate higher absorbance
values. The results showed that no signicant differences in the
level of light absorption at 550 nmwere found in both control lms
with either plasticizer. Glycerol plasticized lms exhibited higher
absorbance values compared to sorbitol plasticized lms. In glyc-
erol plasticized sago starch/sh gelatin lms, further increase of
gelatin concentration did not have any signicant effects on the
degree of transparency or light absorption, however all lms
exhibited signicantly higher absorbance than control. In general,
all sago starch/sh gelatin lms with glycerol showed signicantly
higher light absorbance (p < 0.05) compared to lms with sorbitol.
Higher light absorbance of lms could be an excellent barrier to
prevent light-induced lipid oxidation when applied in food system
(Gomez-Guillen, Ihlb, Bifanib, Silvab, & Montero, 2007).
3.5. Mechanical properties of starchegelatin lms
The tensile strength (TS), percentage of elongation-at-break (%
EAB) and Youngs modulus (E) values of the starch (as control) and
sago starch/sh gelatin edible lms prepared in this study are
Fig. 1. Viscosity of lm forming solutions of different ratios of sago starch and sh
gelatin plasticized with 25% glycerol [ ] or 25% sorbitol [ ].
Table 2
Mechanical properties, Youngs modulus and transparency of sago starch/sh
gelatin lms plasticized with 25% glycerol or 25% sorbitol.
Films
(starch:
gelatin)
TS (MPa) % EAB Youngs
modulus,
(E)(N/m
2
) 10
7
Transparency
1:0 (G) 9.87 0.64
a
17.11 6.11
ad
6.17 0.01
a
1.34 0.09
a
1:0 (S) 25.03 0.88
b
4.33 0.78
e
59.35 0.01
b
1.24 0.10
a
2:1 (G) 1.28 0.25
c
102.31 20.78
c
0.12 0.04
c
2.00 0.18
b
3:1 (G) 1.57 0.30
cd
95.15 10.99
bc
0.16 0.03
c
1.91 0.02
b
4:1 (G) 1.70 0.08
d
84.14 2.77
b
0.20 0.01
c
2.12 0.09
b
5:1 (G) 1.67 0.12
d
93.11 12.34
bc
0.18 0.02
c
1.85 0.17
b
2:1 (S) 10.27 0.90
ae
11.94 2.07
a
0.91 0.09
d
0.86 0.06
c
3:1 (S) 17.59 1.71
f
19.04 1.00
d
1.47 0.14
e
1.43 0.04
ad
4:1 (S) 18.06 0.55
f
5.53 0.42
e
1.71 0.05
f
1.20 0.09
ae
5:1 (S) 13.44 0.73
g
11.76 2.98
a
1.20 0.10
g
1.60 0.18
d
Values were given as mean standard deviation. Values with the same superscript
letters within a column are not signicantly different (p < 0.05). G: glycerol; S:
sorbitol; TS: tensile strength; EAB: Elongation-at-break.
Table 1
Amino acids composition in gelatin sample.
Amino acids Residues/100 residues
Aspartic acid 6.20
Glutamic acid 11.61
Serine 4.21
Histidine 0.67
Glycine 21.08
Threonine 4.24
Arginine 7.36
Alanine 16.63
Tyrosine 0.32
Valine 3.12
Methionine 2.06
Phenylalanine 2.12
Isoleucine 1.46
Leucine 2.74
Lysine 4.43
Hydroxyproline 5.94
Proline 5.72
A.A. Al-Hassan, M.H. Norziah / Food Hydrocolloids 26 (2012) 108e117 111
shown in Table 2. Films with glycerol at all sago starch/sh gelatin
ratios showed lower tensile strength (between 1.28 MPa and
1.67 MPa) than the sago starch control lmwith glycerol (9.87 MPa)
and lms of the same ratios that contain sorbitol (varied from
10.27 MPa to 18.06 MPa). According to Sothornvit and Krochta
(2001) glycerol is a smaller molecular weight and more hygro-
scopic (at constant a
w
from adsorption and desorption isotherms)
compared to sorbitol and therefore, glycerol increase its effective-
ness as plasticizer. Glycerol contributes more plasticization effect
compared to sorbitol when used at the same mass content in
protein, polysaccharides and proteinepolysaccharides based lms.
Thus protein, polysaccharides and proteinepolysaccharides based
lms with glycerol are more stretchable and exible due to the
plasticization effect that increases the mobility of polymer chains.
Plasticizers have been used to overcome the brittleness of lms
resulting from high intermolecular forces by increasing the
mobility of polymer chains which makes lms stretchable and
exible. Films with sorbitol at all ratios had signicantly lower
(p < 0.05) TS than lms containing sago starch (1:0) with sorbitol
only (25.03 MPa). However, in all formulations, the presence of
protein signicantly reduced the TS as a result of the interaction
between hydroxyl groups between starch and protein that may
reduce the interaction between starch chains since polyols did not
vary in all samples. Polyols such as sorbitol are often cited as good
plasticizers due to their ability to reduce intermolecular hydrogen-
bonding while increasing intermolecular spacing (Vanin et al.,
2005). Sorbitol interacts with water by hydrogen bonding due to
the present of more hydroxyl groups in the molecule (Mali,
Sakanaka, Yamashita, & Grossmann, 2005). Garcia, Martino, and
Zaritzky (2000b) reported that the chances of sorbitol to interact
with polymeric starch chains are higher than glycerol due to
sorbitol being more similar to the molecular structure of glucose
units therefore; lms plasticized with sorbitol presented higher
intermolecular forces and showed a lower capacity to interact with
water. Higher tensile strength leads to stronger lms. It was
observed that reducing the gelatin content in lms with glycerol
(ratio from 2:1 to 5:1) did not have much effect on the TS values. In
general, for lms with sorbitol, tensile strength increased signi-
cantly from lm ratios of 2:1 to of 4:1, however for a lm ratio of
5:1, the tensile strength was much lower. This indicated that tensile
strength increased with decreasing content of gelatin from 21.6% to
13.0%. However with further reduction in gelatin content, no
further increase in TS was observed for lms with sorbitol in the
ratios used in this study. Arvanitoyannis, Psomiadou, Nakayama,
Aiba, and Yamamoto (1997) reported that tensile strength and
elongation-at-break are greatly affected by preparation tempera-
ture and relative humidity of conditioning. From the results
(Table 2), in general % elongation-at-break (% EAB) increased with
gelatin content in lms with glycerol with highest % EAB value
(102.31%) for a starch to gelatin ratio of (2:1) which indicated that
in these lms, gelatin seemed to act as a plasticizer which enhanced
lmexibility and reduced brittleness. Su, Huang, Yuan, Wang, and
Li (2010) concluded that glycerol is a small size molecule plasticizer
that can penetrate between the polymer chains, and weaken the
interaction between polysaccharides and proteins as in carbox-
ymethyl cellulose and soy protein isolate lms. Moreover,
increasing the concentration of glycerol at constant poly-
saccharideseprotein composition reduces the mechanical proper-
ties. However, for sago starch/sh gelatin lms with sorbitol, no
trend was observed in % EAB (varied from 5.53 to 19.04%). Varying
gelatin content in the lms had both negative and positive effects
on % EAB. Samples with sorbitol with ratios of 3:1 and 4:1 showed
the highest (19.04%) and the lowest % EAB (5.53%), respectively. In
general, the % EAB depends as TS on many factors in a mixed system
between polysaccharides and protein including the hydroxyl
groups that are available for forming hydrogen bonding between
gelatinestarchepolyolewater. Sorbitol has higher molecular
weight with more hydroxyl groups than glycerol, which may react
with starch and gelatin molecules and give less plasticizing affect
compare to glycerol. Mali et al. (2005) reported that glycerol-con-
taining lms of cassava starch affected the mechanical properties
and resulted in the lowest values for tensile stress due to its
hygroscopic character that tends to provide additional water into
the lm matrix. Moreover, they reported that lower molecular
weight of the plasticizer such glycerol has a plasticization affect
than the higher molecule ones like sorbitol when used at the same
mass basis where the number of moles of glycerol incorporated in
the lms would be higher than the sorbitol ones. Pranoto, Lee, and
Park (2007) reported that the polysaccharide macromolecules with
relatively long chains can cross-link with gelatin, leading to
increased TS, and also possibly macromolecular relaxation leading
to increase % EAB. Chambi and Grosso (2006) concluded that the
mechanical properties of lms are largely associated with distri-
bution and density of intermolecular and intra-molecular interac-
tions, which depend on the arrangements, and orientation of
polymer chains in the network.
Youngs modulus (E) signicantly decreased with incorporation
of protein in all lms with either plasticizer (Table 2). Control lms
(1:0) showed the highest in Youngs modulus (6.17 Pa) and
(59.35 Pa) for glycerol and sorbitol lms, respectively. Higher TS
and lower % EAB results in higher Youngs modulus. However,
generally Youngs modulus (E) increased with decrease in protein
content (from 21.6% to 13.0%) with highest E value for lm ratio of
4:1 in both types of lms. However, when the protein content was
decreased further to 10.9% (in lm ratio of 4:1) E values did not
increase further in both types of lms. The addition of more protein
showed lower E values compared to lms with no protein added in
both cases with glycerol or sorbitol. The ndings of this study
suggested that among the different formulations plasticized with
glycerol or sorbitol; there was a certain level where the interaction
between the two biopolymers i.e. starch and protein that affected
TS, % EAB and Youngs modulus (E). However, no linear trend was
observed in TS, % EAB and E with different ratios when protein
content was increased in all samples with either plasticizers. Values
obtained in this study showed that there might be an optimum
level of interactions between polysaccharides and protein that may
affect TS and % EAB as in (4:1) and (5:1) with both glycerol or
sorbitol. Pranoto et al. (2007) reported that there was an optimum
level for interaction between polysaccharides and gelatin where
gelatin was the major and dominant phase in the lm system they
used, and concluded that 2% was found to be beyond the optimum
level of interaction between polysaccharides and gelatin. Fonkwe,
Narsimhan, and Cha (2003) reported that the polysaccharides
could form networks with gelatin molecules between anionic
domains of the polysaccharides and cationic domains of the gelatin,
which strengthen the lm structures as a result. Lee, Shim, and Lee
(2004) found that TS was improved by increasing the gellan
(polysaccharides) to gelatin ratio, with highest TS at the lm made
from gellan indicating that there is a certain level of optimum
interaction between polysaccharides and gelatin in general. Thus,
concluded that the strength and exibility of the composite lms
could be modied by changing the ratio of polysaccharides to
protein. Tolstoguzov (1994) reported that interactions in gelatin/
water or gelatin/starch/water/polyol systems are between hydroxyl
groups of starch chains, starchewater and starchepolyol mole-
cules, as well as between polyolepolyol or waterepolyol molecules.
The possibilities of gelatin or starch hydrogen-bonding within the
blends are greatly enhanced by the introduction of comparatively
small molecules such as water and polyols. Mali et al. (2005)
reported lower stress and Youngs Modulus values were obtained
A.A. Al-Hassan, M.H. Norziah / Food Hydrocolloids 26 (2012) 108e117 112
with lms plasticized with glycerol, indicating that glycerol exerted
a more effective plasticization.
3.6. Water vapor permeability of lms
As shown in Fig. 2, water vapor permeability (WVP) of different
ratios of starch/gelatin lms plasticized with glycerol did not show
any signicant differences. There was no clear trend observed in
WVP for lms with sorbitol. However, higher WVP was observed
with the incorporation of sorbitol into lms compared to glycerol
for sh gelatinesago starch lms. Control starch lms exhibited
higher WVP with glycerol added compared to sorbitol however,
both types of lms with either sorbitol or glycerol added showed
lower WVP. Adding gelatin to starch lms leads to interaction with
starch chains breaking the intact network of starch inter chain
hydrogen-bonding. Since gelatin is more hygroscopic than starch,
the afnity for water molecules will be higher in these lms and
therefore resulting in higher water diffusion giving lms with
higher WVP. The results also showed that increasing protein
content in the lms i.e. varying the starch to gelatin ratio from 5:1
to 2:1 did not affect the WVP of both lms with added sorbitol or
glycerol. This result is in contrast with results obtained by
Jongjareonrak, Benjakul, Visessanguan, and Tanaka (2006) who
reported that higher WVP was found with gelatin lms containing
greater protein content. McHugh, Avena-Bustillos, and Krochta
(1993) also reported that since gelatin contained a wide range of
hydrophilic amino acids, lms with a higher amount of protein and
thickness could absorb more water molecules from the environ-
ment. Thus, the lmwith higher protein content was most likely to
be hygroscopic, compared with that containing the lower protein
content. Bourtoom, Chinnan, Jantawat, and Sanguandeekul (2006)
concluded that plasticizers modify the protein network structure
and increase the water vapor permeability (WVP) of edible water-
soluble sh proteins lm when both plasticizers sorbitol or glyc-
erol increased from 25% to 75%. Plasticizers modify the molecular
organization of the protein network and increase the free volume
resulting in less dense network that results in more lms that are
permeable to water. The hydrophilicity nature of plasticizer mole-
cules could be the cause of permeability increase with an increase
in plasticizer. Hydrophilic plasticizers such glycerol and sorbitol are
known to enhance the water vapor permeability of hydrocolloid-
based lms. Arvanitoyannis, Nakayama, and Aiba (1998) reported
that increasing the total plasticizer content (water and polyols) in
the polymer matrix results in a proportional increase of water
vapor transfer rate. However, they reported that sorbitol showed
higher WVP than glycerol in hydroxypropyl starch and gelatin lms
produced by both methods of high temperature casting and drying
(60