Advertisement

Constrained Mixture Design to Optimize Formulation and Performance of Foams Based on Cassava Starch and Peanut Skin

  • Caroline Martins MachadoEmail author
  • Patrícia Benelli
  • Isabel Cristina Tessaro
Original paper

Abstract

Foams composed of cassava starch, peanut skin, and glycerol were developed by thermal expansion process. A constrained mixture design was applied to evaluate the effect of components on flexural mechanical properties and water absorption capacity (WAC). The interaction between cassava starch and peanut skin exhibited a significant antagonistic effect in WAC. Effects of the concentration of cassava starch, glycerol and the interactions between cassava starch–glycerol and peanut skin–glycerol were significant to mechanical properties. Desirability function was applied to optimize the formulation in order to obtain less hydrophilic, more flexible and more resistant foams. Optimized formulation consisted of 23.71% (w/w) peanut skin and 12.68% (w/w) glycerol, based on solids content (cassava starch + peanut skin). Optimized foam showed experimental values similar to those predicted, validating the fitted models for defined constraints. This foam showed an important improvement in hydrophilicity indicated by a decrease in WAC, compared to cassava starch-based foams without peanut skin.

Keywords

Desirability function Starch foams Flexural mechanical properties Hydrophilicity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Laboratory of Analysis of Physical Properties of Food (LAPFA) and Chemical Engineering Department from Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) by technical support and to CAPES-Brazil for financial support.

References

  1. 1.
    Palma-Rodríguez HM, Berrios JDJ, Glenn G et al (2016) Effect of the storage conditions on mechanical properties and microstructure of biodegradable baked starch foams. CYTA J Food 14:415–422.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19476337.2015.1117142 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aygün A, Uslu MK, Polat S (2017) Effects of starch sources and supplementary materials on starch based foam trays. J Polym Environ 25:1163–1174.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-016-0886-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergel BF, da Luz LM, Santana RMC (2017) Comparative study of the influence of chitosan as coating of thermoplastic starch foam from potato, cassava and corn starch. Prog Org Coatings 106:27–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.porgcoat.2017.02.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ago M, Ferrer A, Rojas OJ (2016) Starch-based biofoams reinforced with lignocellulose nanofibrils from residual palm empty fruit bunches: water sorption and mechanical strength. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 4:5546–5552.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b01279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Soykeabkaew N, Thanomsilp C, Suwantong O (2015) A review: starch-based composite foams. Compos A 78:246–263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.08.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meng L, Liu H, Yu L et al (2019) How water acting as both blowing agent and plasticizer affect on starch-based foam. Ind Crops Prod 134:43–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.03.056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cinelli P, Chiellini E, Lawton JW, Imam SH (2006) Foamed articles based on potato starch, corn fibers and poly(vinyl alcohol). Polym Degrad Stab.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2005.07.001 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Uslu M, Polat S (2012) Effects of glyoxal cross-linking on baked starch foam. Carbohydr Polym 87:1994–1999.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pornsuksomboon K, Holló BB, Szécsényi KM, Kaewtatip K (2016) Properties of baked foams from citric acid modified cassava starch and native cassava starch blends. Carbohydr Polym 136:107–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.09.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chiarathanakrit C, Riyajan S-A, Kaewtatip K (2018) Transforming fish scale waste into an efficient filler for starch foam. Carbohydr Polym 188:48–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.01.101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaewtatip K, Chiarathanakrit C, Riyajan SA (2018) The effects of egg shell and shrimp shell on the properties of baked starch foam. Powder Technol 335:354–359.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2018.05.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaewtatip K, Tanrattanakul V, Phetrat W (2013) Preparation and characterization of kaolin/starch foam. Appl Clay Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2013.07.011 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cruz-Tirado JP, Tapia-Blácido DR, Siche R (2017) Influence of proportion and size of sugarcane bagasse fiber on the properties of sweet potato starch foams. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cruz-Tirado JP, Vejarano R, Tapia-Blácido DR et al (2019) Biodegradable foam tray based on starches isolated from different Peruvian species. Int J Biol Macromol 125:800–807.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.12.111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cruz-Tirado JP, Vejarano R, Tapia-Blácido DR et al (2019) The addition of sugarcane bagasse and asparagus peel enhances the properties of sweet potato starch foams. Packag Technol Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2429 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Debiagi F, Marim BM, Mali S (2015) Properties of Cassava Bagasse and polyvinyl alcohol biodegradable foams. J Polym Environ 23:269–276.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-014-0705-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Debiagi F, Kobayashi RKT, Nakazato G et al (2014) Biodegradable active packaging based on cassava bagasse, polyvinyl alcohol and essential oils. Ind Crops Prod 52:664–670.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.11.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matsuda DKM, Verceheze AES, Carvalho GM et al (2013) Baked foams of cassava starch and organically modified nanoclays. Ind Crops Prod 44:705–711.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.08.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mello LRPF, Mali S (2014) Use of malt bagasse to produce biodegradable baked foams made from cassava starch. Ind Crops Prod 55:187–193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2014.02.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vercelheze AES, Oliveira ALM, Rezende MI et al (2013) Physical properties, photo- and bio-degradation of baked foams based on cassava starch, sugarcane bagasse fibers and montmorillonite. J Polym Environ 21:266–274.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-012-0455-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Salgado PR, Schmidt VC, Molina Ortiz SE et al (2008) Biodegradable foams based on cassava starch, sunflower proteins and cellulose fibers obtained by a baking process. J Food Eng 85:435–443.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kasemsiri P, Dulsang N, Pongsa U et al (2016) Optimization of biodegradable foam composites from cassava starch, oil palm fiber, chitosan and palm oil using Taguchi method and grey relational analysis. J Polym Environ 25:378–390.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-016-0818-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sanhawong W, Banhalee P, Boonsang S, Kaewpirom S (2017) Effect of concentrated natural rubber latex on the properties and degradation behavior of cotton-fiber-reinforced cassava starch biofoam. Ind Crops Prod 108:756–766.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.07.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaisangsri N, Kerdchoechuen O, Laohakunjit N (2014) Characterization of cassava starch based foam blended with plant proteins, kraft fiber, and palm oil. Carbohydr Polym 110:70–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.03.067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Davis JP, Dean LL (2016) Peanut composition, flavor and nutrition. In: Stalker HT, Wilson RF (eds) Peanuts: genetics, processing, and utilization. Elseveir, Amsterdam, pp 289–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    USDA (2018) World Agricultural ProductionGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pandey R, Patel S, Pandit P et al (2018) Colouration of textiles using roasted peanut skin- an agro processing residue. J Clean Prod 172:1319–1326.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lorenzo JM, Munekata PES, Sant’Ana AS et al (2018) Main characteristics of peanut skin and its role for the preservation of meat products. Trends Food Sci Technol 77:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Arya SS, Salve AR, Chauhan S (2016) Peanuts as functional food: a review. J Food Sci Technol 53:31–41.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-015-2007-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ma Y, Kerr WL, Swanson RB et al (2014) Peanut skins-fortified peanut butters: effect of processing on the phenolics content, fibre content and antioxidant activity. Food Chem 145:883–891.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.08.125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    USDA (2016) Peanut research. In: Agric. Res. Serv. https://www.ars.usda.gov/southeast-area/dawson-ga/peanut-research/docs/chemistry/. Accessed 15 Jan 2018
  32. 32.
    Sun Q, Sun C, Xiong L (2013) Mechanical, barrier and morphological properties of pea starch and peanut protein isolate blend films. Carbohydr Polym 98:630–637.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.06.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chiellini E, Cinelli P, Ilieva VI et al (2009) Environmentally compatible foamed articles based on potato starch, corn fiber, and poly(vinyl alcohol). J Cell Plast 45:17–32.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0021955X08099932 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Polat S, Uslu MK, Aygün A, Certel M (2013) The effects of the addition of corn husk fibre, kaolin and beeswax on cross-linked corn starch foam. J Food Eng 116:267–276.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.12.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Andersen PJ, Kumar A, Hodson SK (1999) Inorganically filled starch based fiber reinforced composite foam materials for food packaging. Mater Res Innov 3:2–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s100190050118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Machado CM, Benelli P, Tessaro IC (2017) Sesame cake incorporation on cassava starch foams for packaging use. Ind Crops Prod 102:115–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cornell JA (2002) Experiments with mixtures. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Martins CMR (2002) Proposta metodológica para otimização experimental de formulações: um estudo de caso no setor alimentício. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Escola de EngenhariaGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nandi S, Guha P (2018) Modelling the effect of guar gum on physical, optical, barrier and mechanical properties of potato starch based composite film. Carbohydr Polym 200:498–507.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.08.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Neto BdB, Scarminio IS, Bruns RE (2010) Como fazer experimentos, 4th edn. Bookman, Porto AlegreGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bezerra MA, Santelli RE, Oliveira EP et al (2008) Response surface methodology (RSM) as a tool for optimization in analytical chemistry. Talanta 76:965–977.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2008.05.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    ASTM (2002) Standard test methods for flexural properties of unreinforced and reinforced plastics and electrical insulating materials (D 790-02)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    ABNT (1999) Papel e cartão: Determinação da capacidade de absorção de água—Método de Cobb; NBR NM ISO 535:1999Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Galdeano MC, Grossmann MVE, Mali S et al (2009) Effects of production process and plasticizers on stability of films and sheets of oat starch. Mater Sci Eng C 29:492–498.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2008.08.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Laohakunjit N, Noomhorm A (2004) Effect of plasticizers on mechanical and barrier properties of rice starch film. Starch/Staerke 56:348–356.  https://doi.org/10.1002/star.200300249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vieira MGA, Da Silva MA, Dos Santos LO, Beppu MM (2011) Natural-based plasticizers and biopolymer films: a review. Eur Polym J 47:254–263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2010.12.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ketkaew S, Kasemsiri P, Hiziroglu S et al (2017) Effect of oregano essential oil content on properties of green biocomposites based on cassava starch and sugarcane bagasse for bioactive packaging. J Polym Environ 26:311–318.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-017-0957-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hammann F, Schmid M (2014) Determination and quantification of molecular interactions in protein films: a review. Materials (Basel) 7:7975–7996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Liu C-C, Tellez-Garay AM, Castell-Perez ME (2004) Physical and mechanical properties of peanut protein films. LWT Food Sci Technol 37:731–738.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2004.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lawton JW, Shogren RL, Tiefenbacher KF (2004) Aspen fiber addition improves the mechanical properties of baked cornstarch foams. Ind Crops Prod 19:41–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6690(03)00079-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yang W, Shimizu I, Ono T, Kimura Y (2015) Preparation of biodegradable foam from walnut shells treated by subcritical water. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 90:44–49.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.4451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Vercelheze AES, Fakhouri FM, Dall’Antônia LH et al (2012) Properties of baked foams based on cassava starch, sugarcane bagasse fibers and montmorillonite. Carbohydr Polym 87:1302–1310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.09.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vargas-Torres A, Palma-Rodriguez HM, Berrios JDJ et al (2017) Biodegradable baked foam made with chayotextle starch mixed with plantain flour and wood fiber. J Appl Polym Sci 134:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1002/app.45565 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Romero-Bastida CA, Tapia-Blácido DR, Méndez-Montealvo G et al (2016) Effect of amylose content and nanoclay incorporation order in physicochemical properties of starch/montmorillonite composites. Carbohydr Polym 152:351–360.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.07.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Basiak E, Lenart A, Debeaufort F (2018) How glycerol and water contents affect the structural and functional properties of starch-based edible films. Polymers (Basel) 10:412.  https://doi.org/10.3390/polym10040412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kaewtatip K, Thongmee J (2012) Studies on the structure and properties of thermoplastic starch/luffa fiber composites. Mater Des 40:314–318.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.03.053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline Martins Machado
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patrícia Benelli
    • 1
  • Isabel Cristina Tessaro
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemical Engineering DepartmentUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGSPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations