4.7 Article

Effects of drying methods and conditions on antimicrobial activity of edible chitosan films enriched with galangal extract

期刊

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 43, 期 1, 页码 125-132

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2009.09.006

关键词

Active packaging; Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; Functional group interaction; Hot air drying; Low-pressure superheated steam drying; Natural antimicrobial agent; Staphylococcus aureus; Transmission electron microscopy; Vacuum drying

资金

  1. Thailand Research Fund (TRF)
  2. Commission on Higher Education, Thailand
  3. International Foundation for Science (IFS) in Sweden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this work was to study the effects of drying methods and conditions (i.e., ambient drying, hot air drying at 40 degrees C, vacuum drying and low-pressure superheated steam drying within the temperature range of 70-90 degrees C at an absolute pressure of 10 kPa) as well as the concentration of galangal extract on the antimicrobial activity of edible chitosan films against Staphylococcus aureus. Galangal extract was added to the film forming solution as a natural antimicrobial agent in the concentration range of 0.3-0.9 g/100 g. Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectra and swelling of the films were also evaluated to investigate interaction between chitosan and the galangal extract. The antimicrobial activity of the films was evaluated by the disc diffusion and viable cell count method, while the morphology of bacteria treated with the antimicrobial films was observed via transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The antimicrobial activity, swelling and functional group interaction of the antimicrobial films were found to be affected by the drying methods and conditions as well as the concentration of the galangal extract. The electron microscopic observations revealed that cell wall and cell membrane of S. aureus treated by the antimicrobial films were significantly damaged. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据