Mechanical Behavior Optimization of Chitosan Extracted from Shrimp Shells as a Sustainable Material for Shopping Bags
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Preparation of Chitosan
2.1.2. Preparation of Fillers
2.1.3. Preparation of Composites
2.1.4. Egyptian Plastic Bags
2.2. Methods
3. Results
3.1. Comparison of Extension Measurement Methods for Young Modulus Evaluation
3.2. Chitosan Biodegradable Bags vs. Conventional Plastic bags
3.3. Optimization of Chitosan Composite Materials
4. Conclusions
- No significant differences were observed between the optical and crosshead extension measurement used for plastic bag specimens (ANOVA). This observation validated the latter method, which was used for tests on chitosan.
- Plastic bags presented isotropic behavior, being vertical specimens more resistant (double fracture strength) and less ductile (half strain at break) than horizontal specimens.
- Results obtained for pure chitosan indicated that this biodegradable material could withstand mechanical stresses but perhaps, at least with casting manufacturing, would not be ductile enough for the proposed use. This last property was not enhanced by the majority of fillers used, especially by chitin which overall, worsened all the mechanical performances.
- Rice straw specimens presented lower ductility than pure chitosan. However, this filler enhanced both resistance and modulus of pure chitosan especially in the case of ground chitosan with the highest rice straw dosage. Further studies are needed to understand whether this enhancement was due to the matrix or the filler dosage.
- Whiskers appeared to have an overall positive effect in all tensile properties analyzed, being dosages from 5% to 25%, an optimum range for improving yield and fracture strength together with Young’s modulus, while not decreasing, or even enhancing pure chitosan ductility properties.
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jambeck, J.R.; Geyer, R.; Wilcox, C.; Siegler, T.R.; Perryman, M.; Andrady, A.; Narayan, R.; Law, K.L. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 2015, 347, 768–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abou Hagra, A. Together for A Sustainable Future, UNIDO. Chamber of trade; for technical affairs; Federation of Egyptian Industries: Cairo, Egypt, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Butler, B.L.; Vergano, P.J.; Testin, R.F.; Bunn, J.M.; Wiles, J.L. Mechanical and Barrier Properties of Edible Chitosan Films as Affected by Composition and Storage. J. Food Sci. 1996, 61, 953–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rhim, J.-W.; Lee, S.-B.; Hong, S.-I. Preparation and Characterization of Agar/Clay Nanocomposite Films: The Effect of Clay Type. J. Food Sci. 2011, 76, N40–N48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ahmed, J.; Mulla, M.; Arfat, Y.A.; Thai T, L.A. Mechanical, thermal, structural and barrier properties of crab shell chitosan/graphene oxide composite films. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 71, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vilela, C.; Pinto, R.J.B.; Coelho, J.; Domingues, M.R.M.; Daina, S.; Sadocco, P.; Santos, S.A.O.; Freire, C.S.R. Bioactive chitosan/ellagic acid films with UV-light protection for active food packaging. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 73, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, M.; Eckroth, D. The Wiley Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Elhussieny, A.; Faisal, M.; D’Angelo, G.; Samy, I.; Everitt, N.M. Experimental investigation for degradation: Chitosan and nano chitosan films with natural fillers. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Advanced Science (ICAS4), Hurghada, Egypt, 7–10 November 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Azizi Samir, M.A.S.; Alloin, F.; Dufresne, A. Review of recent research into cellulosic whiskers, their properties and their application in nanocomposite field. Biomacromolecules 2005, 6, 612–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bhardwaj, R.; Mohanty, A.K.; Drzal, L.T.; Pourboghrat, F.; Misra, M. Renewable resource-based green composites from recycled cellulose fiber and poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) bioplastic. Biomacromolecules 2006, 7, 2044–2051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Faisal, M.; Elhussieny, A.; Ali, K.A.; Samy, I.; Everitt, N.M. Extraction of degradable biopolymeric materials from shrimp shell wastes by two different Methods. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Materials Chemistry (MC13), Liverpool, UK, 10–13 July 2017. [Google Scholar]
- International Organization for Standardization. Plastics—Determination of Tensile Properties Part 3: Test Conditions for Films and Sheets; BS EN ISO 527-3; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- International Organization for Standardization. Plastics—Determination of Tensile Properties Part 4: Test Conditions for Isotropic and Orthotropic Fibre-Reinforced Plastic Composites; BS EN ISO 527-4; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- BSI Standards. Plastics—Determination of Tensile Properties Part 1: General Principles; BS EN ISO 527-1; BSI Standards: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- BSI Standards. Plastics—Determination of Tensile Properties Part 2: Test Conditions for Moulding and Extrusion Plastics; BS EN ISO 527-2; BSI Standards: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Sample | Specimen ID |
---|---|
Chitosan | Chitosan |
Chitosan + chitin Whiskers (5%) | CsWh5 |
Chitosan + chitin Whiskers (25%) | CsWh25 |
Chitosan + chitin Whiskers (35%) | CsWh35 |
Chitosan + Chitin (5%) | CsCh5 |
Chitosan + Chitin (15%) | CsCh15 |
Chitosan + Chitin (25%) | CsCh25 |
Chitosan + Chitin (35%) | CsCh35 |
Chitosan + Rice straw (25%) | CsRs25 |
Chitosan + Rice straw (35%) | CsRs35 |
Chitosan + nano Rice straw (25%) | CsnRs25 |
Chitosan + nano Rice straw (35%) | CsnRs35 |
Chitosan (ground shells) + Rice straw (50%) | Cs(g)Rs50 |
Chitosan + Chitin (25%) + Rice straw (25%) | CsCh25Rs25 |
Specimen ID | Young Modulus (MPa) | |
---|---|---|
Optical Extensometer | Crosshead | |
EH1 | 176 | 192 |
EH2 | 201 | 199 |
EH3 | 199 | 198 |
Mean | 197 | 191 |
Standard error | 2.05 | 6.39 |
ANOVA, p-value = 0.562 |
Material Tested | Yield Strength | Fracture Strength | Young Modulus | Strain at Break |
---|---|---|---|---|
(MPa) | (MPa) | (MPa) | (%) | |
EV | 10.39 ± 0.79 | 22.06 ± 1.59 | 179.4 ± 4.2 | 304.70 ± 17.88 |
EH | 9.84 ± 0.65 | 11.01 ± 1.16 | 205.9 ± 5.1 | 617.92 ± 50.66 |
Chitosan | 18.73 ± 2.57 | 21.08 ± 2.16 | 995.3 ± 68.5 | 15.93 ± 2.73 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
D’Angelo, G.; Elhussieny, A.; Faisal, M.; Fahim, I.S.; Everitt, N.M. Mechanical Behavior Optimization of Chitosan Extracted from Shrimp Shells as a Sustainable Material for Shopping Bags. J. Funct. Biomater. 2018, 9, 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb9020037
D’Angelo G, Elhussieny A, Faisal M, Fahim IS, Everitt NM. Mechanical Behavior Optimization of Chitosan Extracted from Shrimp Shells as a Sustainable Material for Shopping Bags. Journal of Functional Biomaterials. 2018; 9(2):37. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb9020037
Chicago/Turabian StyleD’Angelo, Giacomo, Amal Elhussieny, Marwa Faisal, I. S. Fahim, and Nicola M. Everitt. 2018. "Mechanical Behavior Optimization of Chitosan Extracted from Shrimp Shells as a Sustainable Material for Shopping Bags" Journal of Functional Biomaterials 9, no. 2: 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb9020037
APA StyleD’Angelo, G., Elhussieny, A., Faisal, M., Fahim, I. S., & Everitt, N. M. (2018). Mechanical Behavior Optimization of Chitosan Extracted from Shrimp Shells as a Sustainable Material for Shopping Bags. Journal of Functional Biomaterials, 9(2), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb9020037