Efficacy of Biopolymer/Starch Based Antimicrobial Packaging for Chicken Breast Fillets

Food contamination leading to the spoilage and growth of undesirable bacteria, which can occur at any stage along the food chain, is a significant problem in the food industry. In the present work, biopolymer polybutylene succinate (PBS) and polybutylene succinate/tapioca starch (PBS/TPS) films incorporating Biomaster-silver (BM) and SANAFOR® (SAN) were prepared and tested as food packaging to improve the lifespan of fresh chicken breast fillets when kept in a chiller for seven days. The incorporation of BM and SAN into both films demonstrated antimicrobial activity and could prolong the storability of chicken breast fillets until day 7. However, PBS + SAN 2%, PBS/TPS + SAN 1%, and PBS/TPS + SAN 2% films showed the lowest microbial log growth. In quality assessment, incorporation of BM and SAN into both film types enhanced the quality of the chicken breast fillets. However, PBS + SAN 1% film showed the most notable enhancement of chicken breast fillet quality, as it minimized color variation, slowed pH increment, decreased weight loss, and decelerated the hardening process of the chicken breast fillets. Therefore, we suggest that the PBS + SAN and PBS/TPS + SAN films produced in this work have potential use as antimicrobial packaging in the future.


Introduction
Over the years, the food industry has faced huge food waste, especially with perishable foods. The whole process of food contamination leads to food spoilage, consequently leading to limited shelf life and low product quality. This can be seen through the changes in texture, color, and nutritive value, as well as microbial growth [1]. The storability of chicken fillets is often short term owing to their susceptibility to microbial spoilage [2]. High protein and moisture contents in the meat serve as a competent substrate for microbial growth. With the presence of oxygen, the lipid content of the chicken fillet enhances the oxidation reaction, further deteriorating the quality of the meat [3]. Thus, it depicts a higher risk for human consumption and economic loss for producers [4].

Sampling and Storage
The chicken breast fillet samples, weighing approximately 30 ± 3 g, were placed on the laminated kraft paper tray. The trays were covered with the same lamination film, then kept for 7 days at 4 • C. The procedure was carried out in triplicate for each sample. Microbiological analysis and quality assessment were conducted on days 0, 1, 3, 5, and 7 during storage. The analyses on the initial day (day 0) were carried out upon freshly bought chicken fillets with no treatment applied.

Microbiological Analysis
Microbiological analysis was determined by total plate count (TPC) according to CLSI (2010). The chicken breast fillets were cut into smaller pieces with a weight of around 25 g. Each sample was then moved to stomacher bags that were filled with 225 mL of 0.1% sterilized peptone solution, followed by 60 s homogenization within the stomacher (Tekma Lab Blender 80, Seward Medical, UK). Suitable serial dilution was then applied to the peptone water (0.1%) contained in each sample. Afterwards, about 0.1 mL of the diluted homogenates were evenly distributed on Plate Count Agar (Oxoid, UK) using an L-shaped rod. Then, the inoculated plates underwent incubation for 18-24 h at 37 • C. The TPC was counted for each sample as log CFU/g, representing the logarithms of colony-forming units per gram [4].

Quality Assessment 2.5.1. pH Analysis
The pH values of the chicken samples were examined following the AOAC method. Approximately 10 g sample were mixed with 100 mL distilled water and then the filtrate was collected for pH measurement using a pH meter (Mettler-Toledo International Inc., Columbus, OH, USA).

Weight Loss
The changes in the weight of the chicken breast fillet samples were recorded on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 upon storage. The weight loss was presented as lost percentage in respect to the initial weight of the samples [4].

Texture Analysis
The texture of the chicken breast fillet samples was analyzed with a texture analyzer (TA.HDplusC, Stable Micro Systems Ltd., Godalming, UK), and the texture was described in terms of hardness. Three different positions were located for each sample with perpendicular measurements to the chicken breast fillet surface, whereas the mean values were analyzed in triplicate measurement from the fillet samples to obtain an average value of the hardness [23].

Color Analysis
The measurement of color for the chicken breast fillets was performed with a chroma meter (CR-410, Konica Minolta, Japan). Values of a* (redness), b* (yellowness), and L* (lightness) were used to characterize color. Three different positions were located for each sample with perpendicular measurements to the chicken breast fillet surface [24]. The mean values (a*, b*, and L*) were analyzed in triplicate measurement from the fillet samples to obtain an average value of the hardness [25].

Overall Visual Quality
The overall observation of the chicken breast fillet samples throughout the storage was conducted with a camera (Apple iPhone 6 Plus, Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA).

Statistical Analysis
Triplicate work was conducted for all analyses in this study, and the collected data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA to obtain the values of mean ± standard deviation. Meanwhile, the statistical differences were regarded as significant as if p < 0.05 (Duncan's multiple range test). All statistical evaluations for the results were performed using Minitab 18.0 Statistical software.

Total Plate Count (TPC)
The TPC of the chicken breast fillet samples stored in the PP container and PBS film laminated tray during storage at 4 • C for seven days is shown in Figure 1. Meanwhile, the TPC of the chicken breast fillet samples stored in the PP container and PBS/TPS film laminated tray during storage at 4 • C for seven days is shown in Figure 2.
The initial TPC of the chicken samples without any treatment (day 0) was 4.17 log CFU/g. Based on Figure 1, the log CFU/g value increased in all treatments during storage at 4 • C up to seven days, with values between 4.17 and 7.41 log CFU/g. The limit of acceptability for meat product is 7.00 log CFU/g [26]. Among all samples, the untreated PBS and PBS + BM 1.5% exceeded the acceptability limit on the third day of storage. However, the PP container (control) surpassed the acceptability limit on the fifth day. The untreated PBS and PBS + BM 1.5% films showed higher TPC than the control throughout the seven days, as PBS showed low gas barrier properties [27] that may induce microbial growth. The incorporation of 3% BM and 1% SAN into the PBS improved the film antimicrobial activity, and the lifespan of chicken samples stored in PBS + BM 3% and PBS + SAN 1% films could be extended up to seven days. Meanwhile, the chicken sample stored in the PBS + SAN 2% film showed the significantly lowest (p < 0.05) TPC and was still acceptable on day 7, indicating that 2% SAN exhibits the highest antimicrobial properties compared to the others.
As illustrated in Figure 2, the log CFU/g value increased in all treatments during storage at 4 • C up to seven days with values between 4.17 and7.25 log CFU/g. The addition of TPS on both untreated and treated films resulted in lower log values than the control from day 3 storage onwards. This further indicates that the addition of TPS to PBS made it partially compatible polymer blends [11]. Among all the samples, the PP container (control) exceeded the acceptability limit on the fifth day of storage; however, other treatments for chicken samples were still acceptable up to seven days. Among the treated films, the incorporation of 1% and 2% SAN into PBS/TPS enhanced the antimicrobial activity by exhibiting the significantly lowest (p < 0.05) log value compared to the others up to seven days.
Appendini and Hotchkiss [28] stated that the introduction of antimicrobials into the packaging is to avoid surface growth on foods, such as the spoilage that may occur primarily on the surface of intact meat. The antimicrobials were gradually released from the packaging film, which may be better compared to the dipping and spraying technique. The techniques of directly adding preservatives may cause rapid diffusion of the antibacterial agent into food and denaturize its active sites, which ultimately lowers the reactivity with bacteria. However, antimicrobial-incorporated packaging allows antimicrobial agents to migrate slowly and continuously from the container to the food surface, which helps enhance the high concentration of antimicrobial agents over a longer period [2]. They also discovered that as the storage temperature rises, the movement of active chemicals from film to food accelerates. We did not observe this effect in the present study since our chicken samples were stored at 4 • C, and the interactions between coating materials, target bacteria, antimicrobial agents, and the food matrix themselves could differ, therefore influencing active compound release rates.
As reported by Warsiki and Bawardi [29], antibacterial packaging materials could be made from tapioca starch films containing antimicrobial ZnO nanoparticles. After integration with 2% ZnO, the film showed an inhibition index of around 7.67 mm against E. coli. PBS with 10 wt.% thymol was also effective for inhibiting E. coli growth [12]. Cardoso et al. [30] tested the antimicrobial efficiency of oregano essential oil (OEO)-filled poly (butylene adipate co-terephthalate) active films for fish fillet preservation at 7 • C. All formulations except 2.5 g OEO showed improved fillet shelf life reaching up to 10 days. The polylactic acid-based composite films containing 50% cinnamon oil presented antimicrobial behavior against Salmonella Typhimurium and Listeria monocytogenes when inoculated in chicken samples for 16 days of storage in refrigerated conditions [31]. Chitosan films incorporated with 2% ethanolic propolis extract and 1-2% cellulose nanoparticle was also a viable option in slowing microbial development as well as protein and lipid oxidation in minced beef meat [32].
In this study, the antimicrobial agents BM and SAN were effective in PBS and PBS/TPS films. The antimicrobial mechanism of BM silver ion technology is based on the release of silver ions into the moisture layer that naturally exists on a product's surface, then permeates through bacterial cell walls, deactivating essential energy-producing metabolic enzymes and stopping bacteria from growing [33]. However, the mechanism by which SAN inhibits bacteria growth has not been elucidated.
Overall, the log value of the PBS/TPS films with antimicrobial agents was lower than in the PBS films with antimicrobial agents. Furthermore, SAN was shown to have lower microbial growth and was more effective than BM in both PBS and PBS/TPS films. This study concluded that PBS with 2% SAN and PBS/TPS with 1% SAN or 2% SAN were more effective in serving as antimicrobial packaging. Overall, the log value of the PBS/TPS films with antimicrobial agents was lower than in the PBS films with antimicrobial agents. Furthermore, SAN was shown to have lower microbial growth and was more effective than BM in both PBS and PBS/TPS films. This study concluded that PBS with 2% SAN and PBS/TPS with 1% SAN or 2% SAN were more effective in serving as antimicrobial packaging.  Overall, the log value of the PBS/TPS films with antimicrobial agents was lower than in the PBS films with antimicrobial agents. Furthermore, SAN was shown to have lower microbial growth and was more effective than BM in both PBS and PBS/TPS films. This study concluded that PBS with 2% SAN and PBS/TPS with 1% SAN or 2% SAN were more effective in serving as antimicrobial packaging.

pH Value
The pH changes in value for the chicken samples stored in PBS and PBS/TPS film laminated tray during storage at 4 • C for seven days are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. The pH value shown by the chicken samples initially in this study without any treatment (day 0) was 6.15 ± 0.06. agents BM and SAN to prohibit enzyme activity [37] and low oxidation rates occurred during storage [34]. When compared to unpackaged poultry, samples packed with chitosan/montmorillonite bionanocomposites incorporating ginger essential oil showed a 1.2 to 2.6 log CFU/g reduction in microbial count and were able to maintain their color and pH values [38]. Therefore, the pH values of chicken samples were correlated with the total plate count and color. Overall, the lowest pH values were obtained for the chicken breast fillets samples stored in PBS + SAN 1% and PBS/TPS + BM 3% films.

Weight Loss
The weight loss of the chicken breast fillet samples stored in the PBS and PBS/TPS film laminated tray during storage at 4 °C for seven days is shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. Based on both figures, the weight loss increased (p < 0.05) throughout seven days of the storage period for all samples, with values between 3.18 and 6.83% ( Figure 5) and 2.83 and 6.83% ( Figure 6).
The weight loss of the chicken samples in PBS and PBS/TPS film incorporating BM and SAN exhibited a slight increase throughout the period of storage compared to the control sample. The results show that chicken samples stored in PBS + SAN 1% and PBS + BM 1.5% film ( Figure 5) and PBS/TPS + BM 3% film ( Figure 6) recorded the lowest weight loss on day 7 (5.52 ± 0.04%, 5.95 ± 0.02%, and 5.78 ± 0.03%, respectively) compared to the chicken samples stored in the PP container (control) and other films. The increase in weight loss throughout storage was due to the moisture loss from the chicken breast fillets and further resulted in the hardening of the meat texture [34]. As reported by Amjadi et al.
[39], the chicken fillets wrapped with ZnO nanoparticles and chitosan nanofiber-filled  Our findings show that as the storage period increased, the pH value of the chicken samples increased. However, the pH values of the chicken samples in PBS and PBS/TPS films incorporating BM and SAN were slightly increased compared to the control sample. The chicken samples stored in PP container (control) showed the highest pH value (7.09 ± 0.03) at the end of storage, and a pH value above 7 is considered to indicate negative sensory attributes [34].
Similar trends of pH increment throughout the storage period of chicken and beef were also observed in recent studies by Rashidaie et al. [35] and Katiyo et al. [36]. The accumulated alkali nitrogenous components such as amines and ammonia produced by either microbial or endogenous enzymes could cause an increased pH value, which subsequently leads to the meat color darkening [36,37]. Therefore, the low pH increment of chicken samples stored in the treated films in this study might be contributed to the low color variation of chicken samples, as discussed earlier in this study. The slow pH increment in chicken samples stored in treated films might be due to the ability of antimicrobial agents BM and SAN to prohibit enzyme activity [37] and low oxidation rates occurred during storage [34]. When compared to unpackaged poultry, samples packed with chitosan/montmorillonite bionanocomposites incorporating ginger essential oil showed a 1.2 to 2.6 log CFU/g reduction in microbial count and were able to maintain their color and pH values [38]. Therefore, the pH values of chicken samples were correlated with the total plate count and color. Overall, the lowest pH values were obtained for the chicken breast fillets samples stored in PBS + SAN 1% and PBS/TPS + BM 3% films.

Weight Loss
The weight loss of the chicken breast fillet samples stored in the PBS and PBS/TPS film laminated tray during storage at 4 • C for seven days is shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. Based on both figures, the weight loss increased (p < 0.05) throughout seven days of the storage period for all samples, with values between 3.18 and 6.83% ( Figure 5) and 2.83 and 6.83% ( Figure 6).
The weight loss of the chicken samples in PBS and PBS/TPS film incorporating BM and SAN exhibited a slight increase throughout the period of storage compared to the control sample. The results show that chicken samples stored in PBS + SAN 1% and PBS + BM 1.5% film ( Figure 5) and PBS/TPS + BM 3% film ( Figure 6) recorded the lowest weight loss on day 7 (5.52 ± 0.04%, 5.95 ± 0.02%, and 5.78 ± 0.03%, respectively) compared to the chicken samples stored in the PP container (control) and other films. The increase in weight loss throughout storage was due to the moisture loss from the chicken breast fillets and further resulted in the hardening of the meat texture [34]. As reported by Amjadi et al. [39], the chicken fillets wrapped with ZnO nanoparticles and chitosan nanofiber-filled gelatin-based nanocomposite exhibited less weight loss than the control at the end of the 12th day of storage.

Weight Loss
The weight loss of the chicken breast fillet samples stored in the PBS and PBS/TPS film laminated tray during storage at 4 °C for seven days is shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. Based on both figures, the weight loss increased (p < 0.05) throughout seven days of the storage period for all samples, with values between 3.18 and 6.83% ( Figure 5) and 2.83 and 6.83% ( Figure 6).
The weight loss of the chicken samples in PBS and PBS/TPS film incorporating BM and SAN exhibited a slight increase throughout the period of storage compared to the control sample. The results show that chicken samples stored in PBS + SAN 1% and PBS + BM 1.5% film ( Figure 5) and PBS/TPS + BM 3% film ( Figure 6) recorded the lowest weight loss on day 7 (5.52 ± 0.04%, 5.95 ± 0.02%, and 5.78 ± 0.03%, respectively) compared to the chicken samples stored in the PP container (control) and other films. The increase in weight loss throughout storage was due to the moisture loss from the chicken breast fillets and further resulted in the hardening of the meat texture [34]. As reported by Amjadi et al.
[39], the chicken fillets wrapped with ZnO nanoparticles and chitosan nanofiber-filled gelatin-based nanocomposite exhibited less weight loss than the control at the end of the 12th day of storage.  The weight loss values of chicken breast fillets stored in PP container and PBS film laminated tray during storage at 4 °C for seven days. Note: PP: polypropylene microwavable container (control); PBS: PBS film (untreated); PBS + BM 1.5%: PBS film + 1.5% Biomaster silver; PBS + BM 3%: PBS film + 3% Biomaster silver; PBS + SAN 1%: PBS film + 1% SANAFOR; PBS + SAN 2%: PBS film + 2% SANAFOR. Error bars indicate standard deviation (n = 3). The different A-F capital letters are significantly different (p < 0.05) among treatment for each day. The different a-d lowercase letters are significantly different (p < 0.05) among storage day for each sample.

Texture Analysis
The texture of the chicken breast fillet samples was analyzed in terms of hardness. The lowest hardness of chicken fillets stored in the treated films might have been due to their lower weight loss, as discussed in Section 3.4, indicating that the treated films decreased the loss of weight, and then enhanced the texture of the chicken samples during storage at 4 °C. Based on Figure 7, the results show that the chicken samples stored in PBS + SAN 1% film recorded the lowest hardness value (131.48 ± 0.04) at the end of storage. Meanwhile, Figure 8 shows that the chicken samples stored in PBS/TPS + SAN 2% film had the lowest hardness value (130.57 ± 0.03).

Texture Analysis
The texture of the chicken breast fillet samples was analyzed in terms of hardness.

Color Changes and Overall Visual Quality
In contemporary packing technologies, one of the primary assumptions is that the desired color would be preserved for as long as possible [40]. The overall visual quality of the chicken breast fillet samples stored in the PP container and PBS film laminated tray during storage at 4 °C for seven days is shown in Table 2. Table 2 shows that chicken samples stored in a tray laminated with PBS + SAN 1% film had the most pleasant appearance compared to the chicken samples stored in the PP container and other films. The chicken sample was still fresh on day 3 of storage and the color variation was not significant as compared to the other chicken samples, and no bad odor was detected once the lid was opened. The color (L*, a*, and b* values) of the chicken fillet samples kept in the PP container and PBS film laminated tray during storage at 4 °C for seven days is shown in The lowest hardness of chicken fillets stored in the treated films might have been due to their lower weight loss, as discussed in Section 3.4, indicating that the treated films decreased the loss of weight, and then enhanced the texture of the chicken samples during storage at 4 • C. Based on Figure 7, the results show that the chicken samples stored in PBS + SAN 1% film recorded the lowest hardness value (131.48 ± 0.04) at the end of storage. Meanwhile, Figure 8 shows that the chicken samples stored in PBS/TPS + SAN 2% film had the lowest hardness value (130.57 ± 0.03).

Color Changes and Overall Visual Quality
In contemporary packing technologies, one of the primary assumptions is that the desired color would be preserved for as long as possible [40]. The overall visual quality of the chicken breast fillet samples stored in the PP container and PBS film laminated tray during storage at 4 • C for seven days is shown in Table 2. Table 2 shows that chicken samples stored in a tray laminated with PBS + SAN 1% film had the most pleasant appearance compared to the chicken samples stored in the PP container and other films. The chicken sample was still fresh on day 3 of storage and the color variation was not significant as compared to the other chicken samples, and no bad odor was detected once the lid was opened. The color (L*, a*, and b* values) of the chicken fillet samples kept in the PP container and PBS film laminated tray during storage at 4 • C for seven days is shown in Figure 9. In this study, the initial L*, a*, and b* values of the chicken fillets without any treatment (day 0) were 56.02 ± 0.21, 12.01 ± 0.08, and 10.29 ± 0.12, respectively. According to Figure 9, the L* (lightness) and a* (redness) values for each chicken sample decreased (p < 0.05) gradually throughout the seven-day storage period storage. However, the chicken fillets presented increased (p < 0.05) b* (yellowness) values over the period of storage. The L* values were between 36.50 and 58.06, the a* values were between 7.00 and 11.33, and the b* values were between 10.33 and 15.29. The decrease in L* and a* values for all chicken fillets throughout the storage period of seven days indicates that the chicken darkened throughout the storage. The L* value of chicken samples stored in PBS film incorporated with BM and SAN was able to slow down the chicken darkening during the seven-day storage period compared to the PP container (control) and untreated PBS. The PBS + SAN 1% film exhibited the highest (p < 0.05) L* value, followed by PBS + SAN 2%, PBS + BM 3%, and PBS + BM 1.5% films. The PBS + SAN 1% also showed the highest (p < 0.05) a* value on day 7. The chicken samples stored in PBS + SAN 1% film recorded the lowest b* value (p < 0.05) compared to the chicken samples in other films.
The overall visual quality of the chicken breast fillet samples stored in the PP container and PBS/TPS film laminated tray during storage at 4 • C for seven days is shown in Table 3. Based on Table 3, the chicken samples stored in PBS/TPS + SAN 1% and PBS/TPS + SAN 2% had the most appealing appearance compared to the chicken samples in the PP container and other films. The chicken fillets were still fresh on the third day of storage, and the color variation did not significantly change. The color (L*, a*, and b* values) of the chicken fillet samples kept in the PP container and PBS/TPS film laminated tray during storage at 4 • C for seven days is shown in Figure 10.
According to Figure 10 From the color analysis, it can be concluded that chicken breast fillets stored in PBS + SAN 1% and PBS/TPS + SAN 2% showed the least significant color variation throughout the seven days of the storage period compared to the chicken breast fillets stored in the PP container and other films. Both of these films are the most efficient for slowing the darkening behavior of chicken breast fillets resulting from the accumulation of ammonia and amines and retaining the red color of the chicken breast fillets [36].

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the PBS/TPS + BM 1.5%

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the PBS/TPS + BM 3%

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the PBS/TPS + SAN 1%

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the PBS/TPS + SAN 2%

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the

Conclusions
In conclusion, the addition of TPS to PBS film showed a lower microbial log growth than PBS film alone. With antimicrobial agents BM and SAN being added to the packaging material, it further aids in monitoring the microbial growth and enhances the storability of chicken breast fillets up to seven days. However, the incorporation of 2% SAN into PBS film and 1% or 2% SAN into PBS/TPS films showed the highest potential as an antimicrobial property in reducing the log value compared to other film packaging. The quality assessment proved that the incorporation of BM and SAN into the films can enhance the quality of chicken breast fillets by minimizing the color variation, slowing pH increment, decreasing weight loss, and decelerating the hardening process of the chicken breast fillets throughout storage. The PBS + SAN 1% and PBS/TPS + SAN 2% films exhibited the least color variation. The PBS + SAN 1% and PBS/TPS + BM 3% films showed the least pH increment. The PBS + SAN 1%, PBS + BM 1.5%, and PBS/TPS + BM 3% films showed the least weight loss. The PBS + SAN 1% and PBS/TPS + SAN 2% films exhibited the least hardness. However, the most notable enhancement of the chicken breast fillets' quality was observed in the PBS film incorporated with 1% SAN, as it recorded the least color variation, pH increment, weight loss, and hardness. Therefore, it has potential to be used as new antimicrobial packaging material for chicken fillets and could be an alternative to plastic packaging.