Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 May 29;17(11):1518.
doi: 10.3390/polym17111518.

Eugenol@Montmorillonite vs. Citral@Montmorillonite Nanohybrids for Gelatin-Based Extruded, Edible, High Oxygen Barrier, Active Packaging Films

Achilleas Kechagias  1 , Areti A Leontiou  1 , Yelyzaveta K Oliinychenko  2 , Alexandros Ch Stratakos  2 , Konstatninos Zaharioudakis  1 , Charalampos Proestos  3 , Emmanuel P Giannelis  4 , Nikolaos Chalmpes  4 , Constantinos E Salmas  4   5 , Aris E Giannakas  1
Affiliations

Eugenol@Montmorillonite vs. Citral@Montmorillonite Nanohybrids for Gelatin-Based Extruded, Edible, High Oxygen Barrier, Active Packaging Films

Achilleas Kechagias et al. Polymers (Basel). .

Abstract

In the context of the circular economy, the valorization of bio-derived waste has become a priority across various production sectors, including food processing and packaging. Gelatin (Gel), a protein which can be recovered from meat industry byproducts, offers a sustainable solution in this regard. In this study, pork-derived gelatin was used to develop novel edible active packaging films, designed for meat products. Glycerol (Gl) was used as a plasticizer. Two types of montmorillonite-based nanohybrids were employed as both reinforcing agents and carriers of antioxidant/antibacterial compounds: eugenol-functionalized montmorillonite (EG@Mt) and citral-functionalized montmorillonite (CT@Mt). The active films were formulated as Gel/Gl/xEG@Mt and Gel/Gl/xCT@Mt, where x = 5, 10, or 15 wt.%. Controlled-release kinetics showed that EG@Mt released up to 95% of its adsorbed eugenol, whereas CT@Mt released up to 55% of its adsorbed citral. The films were evaluated using the DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) assay and tested for antibacterial activity against Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes. Results demonstrated that the Gel/Gl/xEG@Mt films exhibited superior antioxidant and antibacterial performance compared to the Gel/Gl/xCT@Mt films. All formulations were impermeable to oxygen. Although the incorporation of EG and CT slightly reduced cell viability, values remained above 80%, indicating non-toxicity. In conclusion, the film containing 15 wt.% EG@Mt achieved an oxygen transmission rate of zero, an effective concentration (EC60) of 9.9 mg/L to reach 60% antioxidant activity, and reduced E. coli and L. monocytogenes populations by at least 5.8 log CFU/mL (p < 0.05), bringing them below the detection limit. Moreover, it successfully extended the shelf life of fresh minced pork by two days.

Keywords: active packaging; citral; edible packaging; eugenol; gelatin; high oxygen barrier; minced pork; montmorillonite; shelf life.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
EG and CT desorption isotherm kinetic plots (in triplicates) for EG@Mt (left part (a–c) plots) and CT@Mt (right part (d–f) plots) nanohybrids at 70 °C ((a,d) plots), 90 °C ((b,e) plots), and 110 °C ((c,f) plots). Line plots show the simulation plots according to the pseudo-second-order kinetic model.
Figure 2
Figure 2
ln(1/k2) values as a function of (1/T) plots for (a) EG@Mt and (b) CT@Mt nanohybrids.
Figure 3
Figure 3
XRD plots of (1) Mt as received, (2) dried Mt, (3) EG@Mt nanohybrid, and (4) CT@Mt nanohybrid.
Figure 4
Figure 4
(a) FTIR plots of (1) pure EG, (2) pure Mt, and (3) EG@Mt nanohybrid, (b) FTIR plots of (1) pure CT, (2) pure Mt, and (3) CT@Mt nanohybrid.
Figure 5
Figure 5
HR-SEM images of (a–c) pure Mt, (d–f) EG@Mt nanohybrid, and (g–i) CT@Mt nanohybrid.
Figure 6
Figure 6
XRD patterns in the 2θ range of 2° to 30° for: (a) (1) Gel/Gl film, (2) Gel/Gl/5Mt film, and (3) Gel/Gl/10Mt film; (b) (1) Gel/Gl film, (2) Gel/Gl/5EG@Mt film, (3) Gel/Gl/10EG@Mt film, and (4) Gel/Gl/15EG@Mt film; (c) (1) Gel/Gl film, (2) Gel/Gl/5CT@Mt film, and (3) Gel/Gl/10CT@Mt film.
Figure 7
Figure 7
FTIR plots of (1) Gel/Gl, (2) Gel/Gl/5Mt, (3) Gel/Gl/5EG@Mt, and (4) Gel/l/5CT@Mt films.
Figure 8
Figure 8
HR-SEM images of (a) pure Gel/Gl film, (b) Gel/Gl/5Mt film, (c) Gel/Gl/10Mt film, (d) Gel/Gl/5EG@Mt active film, (e) Gel/Gl/10EG@Mt active film, (f) Gel/Gl/15EG@Mt active film, (g) Gel/Gl/5CT@Mt active film, and (h) Gel/Gl/10CT@Mt active film.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Stress–strain curves for (1) Gel/Gl, (2) Gel/Gl/5Mt, (3) Gel/Gl/10Mt, (4) Gel/Gl/5EG@Mt, (5) Gel/Gl/10EG@Mt, (6) Gel/Gl/15EG@Mt, (7) Gel/Gl/5CT@Mt, and (8) Gel/Gl/10CT@Mt film.
Figure 10
Figure 10
HaCaT skin cell viability in direct contact with films for 24 h. Different letters (A, B, C, D and E) indicate statistically significant differences between the different groups (p < 0.05). Error bars represent the standard deviation. See also Table S3 in the Supplementary Materials.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Mean populations of Listeria monocytogenes (a) and Escherichia coli (b) in Gel/Gl/xMt, Gel/Gl/xEG@Mt, and Gel/Gl/xCT@Mt films. Data are presented as log10 transformations. Different letters (A, B, C, and D) indicate statistically significant differences between the groups (p < 0.05). Error bars represent the standard deviation. The detection limit for each bacterial population was 1.0 log CFU/mL. See also Table S4 in the Supplementary Materials.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Minced pork wrapped in (a) Gel/Gl/15EG@Mt and (b) Gel/Gl/10CT@Mt active films after six days of storage at 4 ± 1 °C.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Otto S., Strenger M., Maier-Nöth A., Schmid M. Food Packaging and Sustainability—Consumer Perception vs. Correlated Scientific Facts: A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021;298:126733. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126733. - DOI
    1. Han J.-W., Ruiz-Garcia L., Qian J.-P., Yang X.-T. Food Packaging: A Comprehensive Review and Future Trends. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018;17:860–877. doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12343. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Han J.H. Chapter 1—A Review of Food Packaging Technologies and Innovations. In: Han J.H., editor. Innovations in Food Packaging. 2nd ed. Academic Press; San Diego, CA, USA: 2014. pp. 3–12. Food Science and Technology.
    1. Ahmed M.W., Haque M.A., Mohibbullah M., Khan M.S.I., Islam M.A., Mondal M.H.T., Ahmmed R. A Review on Active Packaging for Quality and Safety of Foods: Current Trends, Applications, Prospects and Challenges. Food Packag. Shelf Life. 2022;33:100913. doi: 10.1016/j.fpsl.2022.100913. - DOI
    1. Rontogianni A., Chalmpes Ν., Nikolaraki E., Botzolaki G., Androulakis A., Stratakis A., Zygouri P., Moschovas D., Avgeropoulos A., Karakassides M.A., et al. Efficient CO2 hydrogenation over mono- and bi-metallic RuNi/MCM-41 catalysts: Controlling CH4 and CO products distribution through the preparation method and/or partial replacement of Ni by Ru. J. Chem. Eng. 2023;474:145644. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2023.145644. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources