View Article |
Effect of graphene oxide and cellulose nanofiber towards mechanical properties of polylactic acid based active packaging using response surface methodology
Mohd Harfiz Salehudin1, Ida Idayu Muhamad2.
A simple preparation of functional nanoscale graphene oxide (GO) via synthetic route was done using modified Hummer’s
Method whilst cellulose nanofiber from oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber was prepared using acid hydrolysis method. An active
polylactide based nanocomposite film was prepared by incorporation of cellulose nanofiber (CNF), graphene oxide (GO) and
essential oil (EO). In determining of factor influences the mechanical properties (tensile strength, elongation percentage and
Young’s modulus), the response surface methodology (RSM) Box Behnken Design (BBD) were used. The factors considered
were the ratio (wt.%) of GO and CNF as an additive and 5 wt.% of EO was set as minimum. The mechanical properties that
interpreted as tensile strength, percent elongation and Young’s modulus were the response variables investigated. The ratio of
EO wt.% (C) is found to be the most significant factor that influences the tensile strength of the nanocomposite. In the case of
elongation percentage (%E) the percentage of cellulose nanofiber CNF (A) gave the most significant effect, where in Young’s
modulus, EO wt.% (C) is the most significant effect, followed by wt.% of GO (B). Validation of optimization by carrying out the
confirmation run high degree of prognostic ability of response surface methodology. The results showed that the optimized
formulation provided a mechanical strength (tensile strength, percentage elongation and Young’s Modulus) pattern that is similar
to the predicted curve, which indicated that the optimal formulation could be obtained using RSM.
Affiliation:
- Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia
- Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia
Toggle translation
|
|
Indexation |
Indexed by |
MyJurnal (2019) |
H-Index
|
0 |
Immediacy Index
|
0.000 |
Rank |
0 |
Indexed by |
Scopus (SCImago Journal Rankings 2016) |
Impact Factor
|
0 |
Rank |
Q4 (Analytical Chemistry) |
Additional Information |
0.152 (SJR) |
|
|
|