Food Packaging and Shelf Life 24 (2020) 100485

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Packaging and Shelf Life

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fpsl

Heat sealable soluble soybean polysaccharide/gelatin blend edible films for T

food packaging applications
Chang Liu, Jiao Huang, Xuejing Zheng, Shujie Liu, Kuakua Lu, Keyong Tang, Jie Liu*
School of Materials Science and Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan 450001, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The present study aimed to develop heat sealable soybean polysaccharide (SSPS)/gelatin blend films intended to
Edible film be used as edible food packaging materials. The films were fabricated by solution casting method using SSPS/
Soluble soybean polysaccharide gelatin blends and plasticized by glycerol. The results indicated that the heat sealability, stretchability and
Gelatin resistance to fracture of the films were significantly improved by blending SSPS with gelatin. The incorporation
Heat seal
of gelatin into SSPS films also increased the thermal stability but decreased the water solubility, rigidity and
Food packaging
water vapor permeability of the films. ATR-FTIR spectra and DSC results indicated strong interactions between
SSPS and gelatin. The studies of optical properties, SEM, AFM, and XRD revealed that SSPS and gelatin were
compatible to a certain degree in this blend system. Packaging tests confirmed that the blend films have showing
potential as edible material in food packaging.

1. Introduction
A large part of materials currently used for food packaging are non-
degradable synthetic plastics produced from non-renewable fossil re-
sources. Their increasing production, application, discard and accu-
mulation have been regarded as serious threats to our society and the
environment. In an attempt to protect the environment and reduce the
cost of controlling plastic pollution, many countries and districts are
starting to gradually reduce the use of single-use plastics in food
packages. Among the various promising solutions, the production of
films from bio-based renewable resources, such as naturally derived
proteins and polysaccharides, provides an important class of eco-
friendly packaging materials to replace non-renewable synthetic plas-
tics (Cazón, Velazquez, Ramírez, & Vázquez, 2017).
Soluble soybean polysaccharide (SSPS), a polysaccharide extracted
from soy cotyledons, has the potential in producing bio-based films for
food packaging applications. The major component of SSPS composed
of short-chain homogalacturonan and long-chain rhamnogalacturonan
backbones with a number of branches, including sugar chains of β-1,4-
galactans and α-1,3- or α-1,5-arabinans (Nakamura, Furuta, Maeda,
Takao, & Nagamatsu, 2002). SSPS has excellent water solubility, anti-
oxidative property, good film-forming ability, emulsifying property,
and nutritional value. Thus, it has found increased application in the
past several years mainly in food and beverage industry. For example,
SSPS has been used to stabilize acid milk dispersions and lactoferrin-
coated orange oil emulsions (Nakamura, Furuta, Kato, Maeda, &
Nagamatsu, 2003; Zhao, Wei, Wei, Yuan, & Gao, 2015). Recently, SSPS
films cast from aqueous solution were studied with a view to develop
suitable candidate for food packaging applications. It was found that
SSPS could be used to produce free-standing films with acceptable
physical properties (Tajik et al., 2013). Further studies have been per-
formed to address the influence of ZnO, essential oil, nanoclay, nano-
TiO2, nano-SiO2 on the structure and properties of SSPS films
(Alipoormazandarani, Ghazihoseini, & Nafchi, 2015; Ghazihoseini,
Alipoormazandarani, & Nafchi, 2015; Salarbashi et al., 2013, 2016;
Salarbashi et al., 2017; Salarbashi, Tafaghodi, & Bazzaz, 2018; Shaili,
Abdorreza, & Fariborz, 2015). On the basis of the highly water solu-
bility and excellent film forming property of SSPS, the influence of SSPS
edible coating on the quality of fruits has been investigated (Dyshlyuk,
Babich, Belova, & Prosekov, 2017). The results of these studies strongly
suggested that SSPS has the property of being a useful film-forming
agent for production of food packaging films.
In some practical food packaging applications, edible films are
preferred to be processed into soluble pouches, bags, packets or sachets
to contain powdered substances, such as seasoning and flavoring ad-
ditives for instant foods, instant coffee, coconut powder, milk powder,
noodles, beverage mixes, edible dyes, tea leaf, and other food additives
(Das & Chowdhury, 2016). The most prominent advantage of using
such a packaging system is that the edible packages carrying pre-
weighed quantity of products could be put in use directly without waste

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: liujie@zzu.edu.cn (J. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2020.100485
Received 4 November 2019; Received in revised form 3 February 2020; Accepted 10 February 2020
2214-2894/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Liu, et al.
disposal problem. This is similar to the use of capsules as drug delivery
vehicles. To achieve this goal, good sealability and sufficient seal
strength of the films are important to avoid the failure of the pouches or
sachets and the release of the packed substances. Heat sealing, which
allows for the binding of two films by pressing them between plates or
jaws under heating condition, is widely used in packaging industry to
produce containers due to its simplicity and cost-effectiveness. Un-
fortunately, our preliminary studies have shown that neat SSPS films
exhibited poor heat sealability which limits their further applications as
packaging materials. Alipoormazandarani et al. (2015) have found that
the seal strength of SSPS film was enhanced through the incorporation
of halloysite nanoclay, and therefore the SSPS/nanoclay films are
considered as heat sealable materials and may have potential applica-
tions in packaging industries. In addition to this report, there have been
very limited studies on the development of heat sealable SSPS-based
edible films.
Gelatin is a bio-based protein obtained from animal collagen by a
hydrolysis reaction. There have been many studies aimed at producing
gelatin-based blend films with different properties, and have demon-
strated that gelatin is an excellent film-forming material (Suderman,
Isa, & Sarbon, 2018). Gelatin could form a physically crosslinked net-
work in the blend systems which may give strong and flexible films
when plasticized suitably. For instance, gelatin has been blended with
chitosan (Hosseini, Rezaei, Zandi, & Ghavi, 2013), starch (Fakhouri,
Martelli, Caon, Velasco, & Mei, 2015), soy protein isolate (Cao, Fu, &
He, 2007), and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (Nur Hazirah, Isa, &
Sarbon, 2016) etc. to achieve improved performance in packaging ap-
plications. Additionally, heat sealability of gelatin-based films has been
extensively studied (Nur Hanani, O’Mahony, Roos, Oliveira, & Kerry,
2014; Tulamandi et al., 2016). It was found that gelatin generally
presents better heat sealability than those of other common biopoly-
mers due to its inherent chemical structure (Abedinia, Ariffin, Huda, &
Nafchi, 2018).
In order to develop an edible and heat sealable SSPS-based film for
food packaging application, this research aims to evaluate the effects of
different ratios of SSPS/gelatin on the heat sealing, mechanical,
thermal, barrier, and optical properties of blend films. The films were
prepared by blending SSPS and gelatin in different weight ratios and
plasticized with glycerol. Additionally, the films were examined by
attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR)
spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy
(SEM), and atomic force microscopy (AFM). We expected that the ad-
dition of gelatin could widen the application of SSPS-based films in food
packaging.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Materials
SSPS (molecular weight 470∼520 kDa, measured by size exclusion
chromatography (SEC)) was kindly provided by JinJing Bio. Co. Ltd.
(Pingdingshan city, Henan, China). Type A porcine skin gelatin with
bloom value of approximately 300 g was obtained from Sigma Aldrich
(St. Louis, MO, USA). Glycerol was purchased from Aladdin Reagent Co.
Ltd. (Shanghai, China). De-ionized water was produced by a Milli-Q
water purification system (Millipore, Bedford, MA, USA).
2.2. Preparation of the films
All films with different blending weight ratio of SSPS and gelatin
were prepared using conventional solvent casting technique. SSPS was
stirred into de-ionized water at 85 °C for 30 min to achieve a clear so-
lution. Gelatin solution was obtained by dissolving gelatin powder in
de-ionized water and stirred at 60 °C for 30 min. For the preparation of
blend solution, gelatin solution was slowly added into the SSPS solution
to make a final solid content of 5.0 % (w/v) and heated at 60 °C for 2 h
2
Food Packaging and Shelf Life 24 (2020) 100485
with gently stirring. Glycerol was used as a plasticizer to achieve the
concentration of 40 wt.% of total solid. Then, a fixed amount of blend
solution was cast onto leveled plastic Petri dishes (diameter =24 cm)
and dried at 50 °C for 12 h. Afterwards, the films were peeled off from
the dishes and stored over silica gel in a desiccator for 7 d before
analysis, unless otherwise stated. SSPS/gelatin blend films with weight
ratios of 100/0, 80/20, 60/40, 40/60, 20/80, 0/100 were coded as
S100G0, S80G20, S60G40, S40G60, S20G80, and S0G100, respectively.
The thickness of the films was measured with an electronic digital
micrometer (model 5130, G-CRAFT, Zhejiang, China).
2.3. Characterization
2.3.1. Attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR)
spectroscopy
The ATR-FTIR spectra of different films were recorded with a Model
Equinox 55 FTIR spectrometer (Bruker Co., Ettlingen, Germany), using
a horizontal ATR Trough plate crystal cell (45° ZnSe,
80 mm × 10 mm×4 mm) (PIKE Technology Inc., Madison, WI, USA).
For each spectrum, 32 scans were continuously collected in the range of
800−4000 cm−1 at a resolution of 4 cm−1.
2.3.2. X-ray diffraction (XRD)
An X-Ray diffractometer (Empyrean, PANalytical, Netherlands) was
used to obtain XRD patterns of different films. Each sample was scanned
over a diffraction angle 2θ from 5 to 60° using Cu Kα radiation (λ
=1.5418 Å), 40 kV and 30 mA with a scan rate of 0.05°/s.
2.3.3. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)
DSC measurements were conducted on a DSC 204 instrument
(Netzsch, Germany). 3∼5 mg of samples were accurately weighed into
aluminium crucibles and the analyses were performed under nitrogen
flow. In order to avoid the potential effect of moisture evaporation on
glass transition of polymers, the samples were first heated from 20 to
130 °C at a heating rate of 10 °C/min, then cooled to 5 °C at 20 °C/min,
and subsequently reheated from 5 to 300 °C at 10 °C/min. DSC data of
each film were collected during the 2nd heat run.
2.3.4. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
Surface and cross-section morphologies of the films were observed
by SEM (Phenom proX, Phenom-World BV, Netherlands). Films were
immersed in liquid nitrogen for about 5 min and then fractured with
tweezers before SEM analysis. The specimens were mounted on alu-
minum stub using conductive tape and sputtered with a thin layer of
gold for SEM observation at an acceleration voltage of 20 kV.
2.3.5. Atomic force microscopy (AFM)
The 3D surface topography of representative films was recorded by
atomic force microscopy in tapping-mode using a Keysight’s 5500
(N9410S, Keysight Technologies Canada Inc., Canada) atomic force
microscope. All images of 256 × 256 pixels were acquired by scanning
square areas of 5 μm × 5 μm with a scan speed of 0.3 line/s.
2.3.6. Mechanical properties
The mechanical properties of films were measured in tensile mode
using a SMSTA.XTPLUS texture analyzer (Stable Micro System, UK).
Films were cut into dumbbell-shaped specimens and then conditioned
at 25 ± 1 °C and 50 ± 2 % relative humidity for 7 d in an environ-
mental chamber (BH-TH-50, SH Guangpin (Bogong) Test Equipment
Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China) before testing. The initial grip
separation was set at 30 mm and the specimens were pulled apart at a
crosshead speed of 10 mm/min. Five replicates of each film were tested.
2.3.7. Optical properties
The transmittance of the films was recorded with a TU-1901 UV/vis
spectrophotometer (Purkinje General Instrument Co. Ltd., Beijing,
C. Liu, et al.
China). The transparency value was then calculated as follows:
Transparency value = log T600nm/ L (1)
where T600nm is the transmittance of film specimens at 600 nm, L is the
average thickness of the specimens (mm). The lower the transparency
value, the higher transparency of the films.
2.3.8. Water vapor permeability (WVP)
WVP of films was evaluated by the modified method of ASTM
standard E96-05 (Yu, Yang, Liu, & Ma, 2009). The films were cut into
circular samples and sealed onto a circular test cups (diameter 45 mm)
containing 50 mL of de-ionized water, with a distance of 2 cm between
the film and water surface. The test cups were placed into a desiccator
over silica gel (0 % RH) at 20 °C. The weight of the cups was recorded at
intervals of 24 h over a 7-d period. The WVP value of the films was
calculated using Eq. (2):
WVTR × L
WVP =
(2)
P×A
where WVTR represents water vapor transmission rate obtained from
the slope of plot of weight loss vs. time. ΔP is the the water vapor
pressure difference across the film (kPa), and A is the area of the film
(m2).
2.3.9. Water solubility
The water solubility of the films at 25 °C was assessed according to
the method of Kurt, Toker, and Tornuk (2017) with slight modifica-
tions. Films were cut into rectangle pieces (20 mm × 20 mm) and dried
at 105 °C to constant weight (Wi). The samples were immersed in 50 mL
of de-ionized water for 15 h. Then, the solution containing the films was
filtered through stainless steel mesh, and the insoluble matter was dried
at 105 °C for 24 h. The dry residue was weighed (Wr) and the film water
solubility was calculated as follows:
Wi Wr
Water solubility(%) = × 100
Wi (3)
2.3.10. Equilibrium moisture content (EMC)
The as-prepared films, vacuum dried at 60 °C for 24 h, were placed
inside a desiccator maintained at 59 % RH provided by a saturated
solution of NaBr at 20 °C for 7 d. After drying in an oven at 110 °C for
20 h, the dry weight of samples was determined to calculate the EMC
value according to the following equation:
Weq Wd
EMC (%) = × 100
Wd (4)
where Weq is the weight of the sample when reached equilibrium, Wd is
the dry weight of the sample.
2.3.11. Heat seal strength
Films were cut into strips of 20 mm × 70 mm. Two strips were faced
together, and an area of 20 × 10 mm2 near the edge of the strip was
heat sealed using a heat sealing machine (HST-H6, Labthink
Instruments Co. Ltd., China) at 150 ± 1 °C for 1.50 s of dwell time, and
the heat seal pressure was 300 kPa, as shown in Fig. S1. The width of
the heat-sealed area was 10 mm. After heat sealing, specimens were
conditioned at 25 ± 1 °C and 50 ± 2 % RH for 48 h before the testing.
The peel strength of the heat-sealed samples was determined according
to Standard ASTM F-88 with slight modifications (American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM, 2005), using SMSTA.XTPLUS texture
analyzer (Stable Micro System, UK), at 25 ± 1 °C and 50 ± 2 % RH.
Each leg of the sealed film was clamped to the machine and peeled open
at 180° angle (Fig. S1). The initial distance between the clamps (grip
length) was 5.0 cm. The crosshead speed was set at 1 mm/s. Seal
strength (N/m) was calculated as follows: seal strength = (the max-
imum load required to cause seal failure/seal width).
3
Food Packaging and Shelf Life 24 (2020) 100485
2.3.12. Packaging tests
A series of 3-side sealed pouches were fabricated from the neat SSPS
(S100G0) and S60G40 blend films (100 mm × 50 mm), using the same
heat sealing machine and conditions mentioned above. Two kinds of
dry powders, instant coffee and coconut powders, were transferred
manually into the 2-side sealed semi-finished pouches and the whole
pouches were heat sealed immediately with each pouch containing
3.0 g of powder. Subsequently, the sealed pouches containing powders
were stored at 25 ± 1 °C over silica gel for 7 d. In order to test the
solubility of the edible pouches in hot water, these pouches were put
into hot water (95 ± 2 °C) under gently stirring.
2.3.13. Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using a commercial SPSS pro-
gram (SPSS 13.0, SPSS INC., Chicago, Illinois, USA). The data were
expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and p < 0.05 was taken
as the minimal level of significance. One-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) approach was applied and means were compared using
Duncan’s multiple range tests.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Thickness and optical properties
All the films produced are flexible, self-supporting, and transparent
(Fig. S2), with thickness ranging between 105.2 and 124.8 μm (Table
S1). The incorporation of gelatin has no significant effect on the
thickness of the films (p > 0.05). Similar results were presented for the
starch/gelatin film containing different plasticizers (Fakhouri et al.,
2015).
Since colorless and transparent films are preferred in practical food
packaging applications, measurements of the color and transparency of
the SSPS/gelatin films were performed and the results are shown in
Table S1 and 1. In the UV range from 200 to 280 nm, all films show
good UV barrier properties, which thus help to retard lipid oxidation
and discoloration in packaged food products. This result has also been
reported for other polysaccharide/gelatin blend films (Soo & Sarbon,
2018). The transparency value of the SSPS/gelatin films ranged from
0.385 to 1.043, which is similar to the value reported for gelatin/
chitosan blend edible films (Hosseini et al., 2013). With the increase of
gelatin weight fraction from 0 % to 20 %, the transparency value in-
creased from 0.663 to 1.043. This may be due to the presence of in-
soluble particles in the blend film, or the occurance of micro-phase
separation phenomena (Núñez-Flores et al., 2013). With further in-
crease in gelatin weight fraction from 20 % to 100 %, the films became
more transparent. Cao et al. (2007) reported a similar trend for soy
protein isolate/gelatin composite films with an increase in the gelatin
weight fraction. Anyhow, the transparency results confirm that all films
are clear enough for food packaging. The SSPS/gelatin films are more
transparent than the commonly used commercial synthetic food
packaging films such as low density polyethylene (LDPE) (transparency
value 4.26) and oriented polypropylene (transparency value 1.57)
(Guerrero, Nur Hanani, Kerry, & de la Caba, 2011; Ramos et al., 2013).
3.2. ATR-FTIR spectroscopy
ATR-FTIR spectra of the SSPS/gelatin films are shown in Fig. 1A.
The spectrum of neat gelatin film shows several characteristic bands at
approximately 3295 cm−1 (amide A, NeH stretching), 1633 cm−1
(amide I, C]O stretching), 1542 cm−1 (amide II, NeH bending and
CeN stretching), and 1235 cm−1 (amide III, in-plane vibration of CeN
and NeH groups of bound amide) (Hosseini et al., 2013; Kumar,
Shukla, Baul, Mitra, & Halder, 2018; Staroszczyk, Pielichowska, Sztuka,
Stangret, & Kołodziejska, 2012). The spectrum of neat SSPS film shows
broad band at 3305 cm−1 (hydroxyl groups), which are capable of in-
teracting with hydroxyl and amino groups in protein by creating
C. Liu, et al.
Fig. 1. (A) ATR-FTIR spectra, (B) second-derivative ATR-FTIR spectra, (C) XRD patterns, and (D) DSC thermograms in the range of 5−180 °C of SSPS/gelatin films
with different weight ratios.
hydrogen bonds. The strong peak observed at 1031 cm−1 is related to
the CeO stretching vibrations of glycoside structure (Salarbashi et al.,
2017). Especially, the bands at 1740 cm-1 and 1615 cm−1 are derived
from carbonyl (C]O) stretching vibration, which indicate the presence
of ester groups in SSPS. Similar bands have also been observed in other
works (Salarbashi et al., 2018). The spectra of blend films generally
retain the characteristic peaks of SSPS and gelatin in proportion to their
weight ratio. However, subtle differences in the position of the char-
acteristic peaks clearly indicate the bonding of components in the blend
films. The absorption bands near 3305 cm−1 become sharper and shift
to lower wavenumbers with increasing weight fraction of gelatin. This
phenomena has been considered to be related to the formation of water-
mediated hydrogen bonds (Yakimets et al., 2007). At the same time, the
peak observed at 1031 cm−1 of neat SSPS shifts to 1036 cm−1 after
incorporation of gelatin. The main characteristic bands of gelatin amide
I, II and III are also shift to higher frequencies after blending with SSPS,
which may be related to the alternations in secondary structure of ge-
latin polypeptide chains in blend films.
Second-derivative FTIR spectrum can be used to resolve overlapping
peaks in FTIR spectra. Fig. 1B shows the comparison of second-deri-
vative ATR-FTIR spectra of neat SSPS and gelatin films with blend film
of S60G40 in the range of 1800−1200 cm−1. The peaks at 1695 cm−1,
1660 cm−1 and 1628 cm−1, assigned to carboxyl groups, free-fold α-
helix, and imide residues of gelatin, can be observed in the spectrum of
blend film (Nakamura et al., 2002; Staroszczyk, Sztuka, Wolska,
Wojtasz-Pająk, & Kołodziejska, 2014). The disappearance of a strong
peak in the spectrum of blend film at 1549 cm−1, corresponding to
single α-helix peak in the region of amide II band, indicates that the
interactions between formulation components may affect the helical
structure of gelatin (Taravel & Domard, 1995). Overall, the spectra
4
Food Packaging and Shelf Life 24 (2020) 100485
changes suggest the presence of strong interactions between gelatin and
SSPS.
3.3. X-ray diffraction
The XRD characterization of the films was carried out and the re-
sults are shown in Fig. 1C. The neat SSPS film exhibits semi-crystalline
structure with two neighboring bumps centered at around 2θ = 22.8°
and 15.7°, revealing that the film has a short-range order structure. The
XRD pattern of neat gelatin film shows only one broad diffraction peak,
confirming it to be an amorphous polymer. Similar results have been
reported in the literature regarding gelatin films prepared by solution
casting process (Nagahama et al., 2009; Sang et al., 2017). However,
some studies have reported that a sharp strong peak at about 2θ = 7°,
corresponding to the triple helix structure, can be observed in the XRD
patterns of gelatin films (Alexandre, Lourenço, Bittante, Moraes, &
Sobral, 2016). The absence of such a peak in the present diffractograms
could be explained by the low triple helix content as a result of the high
drying temperature (50 °C in the present study) (Badii, MacNaughtan,
Mitchell, & Farhat, 2015). This temperature is much higher than the
gelation temperature of gelatin (∼32 °C), thus the biopolymer chains
are difficult to regenerate the helix structure during the drying process.
Additionally, the presence of the diffraction peak observed at about
2θ = 15.7° of blend films S80G20, S60G40, S40G60 was likely the re-
sult of slight separation phase of the two components. With the increase
in gelatin weight fraction, this peak gradually weakened, illustrating
that the incorporation of amorphous gelatin suppressed the crystalline
peak of SSPS and resulted into an amorphous matrix of the two com-
ponents. This implies an improved compatibility between SSPS and
gelatin, which is mainly due to the strong hydrogen bonding interaction
C. Liu, et al.
between SSPS and gelatin molecules (Chen, Wang, Mao, Liao, & Hsieh,
2008). A study conducted by Nagahama et al. (2009) reported a similar
reduction of XRD peak intensity ratio when gelatin was added to chit-
osan membranes.
3.4. Thermal properties
DSC has been used as a powerful tool to characterize the thermal
transition of polymers in various forms. Fig. 1D shows the DSC ther-
mograms in the range of 5−180 °C of SSPS/gelatin films of different
compositions. All films exhibit step-like endothermic transitions cor-
responding to the glass transition of the biopolymers. Glass transition
temperature (Tg) is an important characteristic of amorphous polymeric
materials affecting their properties and potential application fields.
However, it has been reported that the glass transitions of plasticized
polysaccharides are sometimes difficult to detect by DSC technique
(Avérous, Fringant, & Moro, 2001). For neat SSPS film plasticized with
glycerol, the glass transition appeared with a weak magnitude and the
Tg was observed at temperature of 17.8 °C. Similar Tg values have also
been reported by other researchers (Shaili et al., 2015; Tajik et al.,
2013). For S80G20, S60G40, and S40G60, subtle glass transition events
were visible and these samples exhibited two Tg values corresponding
to two phases: a SSPS-rich one and a gelatin-rich one. The Tg values of
gelatin were gradually increased from 49.2 to –54.4 °C with increasing
gelatin weight fraction in the blend films. At the same time, the melting
peak gradually moved to higher temperatures with increasing gelatin
fraction in blends (see Fig. S4), which indicated that the SSPS/gelatin
blend films are capable of withstanding higher sealing temperatures
compared to neat SSPS film. Worthy to note is that, the blend film
G80S20 appeared primarily miscible since only a single Tg (54.0 °C) was
observed and the glass transition of SSPS has disappeared. Furthermore,
the strong interactions between gelatin and SSPS, including hydrogen
bonding and electrostatic interaction, may have led to greater steric
hindrance which notably limited the movements of the macro-
molecules. The strong interaction could minimize the free volume and
intermolecular distance in films, thereby increasing the Tg of gelatin
(Mohajer, Rezaei, & Hosseini, 2017; Núñez-Flores et al., 2013). These
DSC results agree with the XRD patterns of the blend films, which ex-
hibited diminished crystalline peak of SSPS. Additionally, the thermal
degradation behavior of the films was also assessed by thermo-
gravimetry analysis (Supplementary, Fig. S3 & Table S2).
3.5. Water solubility, equilibrium moisture content and water vapor
permeability
Water solubility is an important property of edible films that affects
their future applications. From Table 2, the water solubility of neat
gelatin film is relatively low (31.5 %), that is basically in agreement
with the value reported by other researchers for bovine hide gelatin
film (∼34.3 %), being inferior to those of fish gelatin films (Gómez-
Estaca, Montero, Fernández-Martín, & Gómez-Guillén, 2009; Núñez-
Flores et al., 2013). The neat SSPS and S80G20 films were completely
soluble in water under the above-mentioned experimental conditions.
However, the addition of 40 % gelatin in the film formulation produced
a remarkable improvement in water resistance. The water solubility of
blended films was continuously reduced with an increase in weight
fraction of gelatin. Additionally, the decrease of water solubility in
blend films was accompanied by slightly decreases in equilibrium
moisture content and water vapor permeability. This may be explained
considering that the incorporation of gelatin may help to establish more
compact polymeric matrices, thus permitting the free volume to de-
crease in the blend film, and produced decrease tendencies in EMC and
WVP values. It is generally accepted that there is a relationship between
free hydroxyl groups and equilibrium moisture content, because these
5
Food Packaging and Shelf Life 24 (2020) 100485
groups may provide polymer-water bonding sites within the films. The
EMC (at 20 °C and 59 % RH) and WVP data reported here revealed a
reduction in hydrophilicity of the SSPS film upon addition of gelatin.
These results were consistent with those observed in the DSC and TG
studies, as discussed above. The WVP value of S80G20 was slightly but
significantly (p < 0.05) higher than those of neat SSPS and gelatin
films, this result may be related to a micro-phase separation phenom-
enon (Núñez-Flores et al., 2013), which can also be observed in optical
studies. The decrease in WVP values upon addition of more gelatin in
SSPS would be beneficial for improving the stability of packed food
products, since efficient barrier ability against water vapor is of quite
importance in controlling moisture content inside food packages.
3.6. Microstructure of the films
The SEM micrographs of surface and cross-section of SSPS, gelatin
and their blend films are shown in Fig. 2. Neat SSPS film exhibits fairly
smooth, homogeneous surface and compact cross-section structure
without distinct pores and cracks, which are comparable with those
observed by Tajik et al. (2013) on glycerol-plasticized SSPS films. In the
case of neat gelatin film (Fig. 2 F2), the micrograph also shows a con-
tinuous, flat and smooth surface, this is associated with the better
physical properties of gelatin film. On the other hand, some cracks can
be observed, which is attributed to the brittle nature of gelatin matrix at
low temperatures. From the micrographs of blend films, there is only
slight variation on the microstructure of all formulations of the blend
films. S80G20 and S60G40 films have slightly rough surfaces, and a few
micro-sized agglomerates can be seen on the surfaces of these samples.
This may be due to the conformation and association of gelatin chain
within the SSPS matrix, since the protein chains tend to reorganize
themselves during drying (Acosta, Jiménez, Cháfer, González-Martínez,
& Chiralt, 2015). Meanwhile, it should be noted that all the blend films
display relatively continuous and dense cross-section structure, in-
dicating compatibility of the SSPS/gelatin blends.
Topographical imaging was performed by AFM to assess the surface
roughnesses of three representative films. The representative 3-D
images, for scanning areas of 5 μm × 5 μm, of the surfaces of neat SSPS,
gelatin and S80G20 films are shown in Fig. 2A3, B3, and F3, respec-
tively. The addition of 20 % gelatin in the SSPS led to obvious increase
in the roughness of the films, manifested by the increase of average
surface roughness (Sa) from 0.48 nm (S100G0) to 3.38 nm (S80G20),
and the root mean square roughness (Sq) showed a similar trend. The Sa
value of S0G100 was 1.76 nm. The AFM results revealed that the
morphology of the resulting film was affected by the addition of gelatin,
which induced the formation of small clusters on the surface of the film
when the weight excess of SSPS was too great. These observations,
together with the above SEM, optical, DSC and WVP results, demon-
strating that though there exists compatibility to a certain extent be-
tween SSPS and gelatin, slightly phase separation still occurs which
results in a two phase morphology. Similar results have also been re-
ported for gelatin/agar and gelatin/pectin blend systems (Farris et al.,
2011; Mohajer et al., 2017).
3.7. Mechanical properties
The mechanical strength and flexibility are important character-
istics of films to keep the integrity of food packages. The tensile strength
(TS), elongation at break (EAB) and elastic modulus (EM) of the SSPS/
gelatin films are presented in Table 2. The neat SSPS film showed TS
and EAB values of 2.57 ± 0.39 MPa and 41.2 ± 8.25 %, respectively,
being in the same range reported in other studies (Tajik et al., 2013).
The TS values for the blend films are between the values of neat SSPS
and gelatin films. The blend films with low gelatin fraction (S80G20
and S60G40) exhibited slightly increase of TS with the increase in the
C. Liu, et al.
Fig. 2. SEM photographs of (A1-F1) surface and (A2-F2) cross-section of (A1, A2) S100G0, (B1, B2) S80G20, (C1, C2) S60G40, (D1, D2) S40G60, (E1, E2) S20G80,
and (F1, F2) S0G100 films; AFM images of (A3) S100G0, (B3) S80G20, and (F3) S0G100 films.
weight fraction of gelatin, while significant increases (p < 0.05) were
observed in TS when more gelatin was added to SSPS films. This could
be attributed to the increased interaction between the two biopolymers
and formation of compact structure of blend films indicated by FTIR,
SEM, and DSC. According to Sivarooban, Hettiarachchy, and Johnson
(2008)) and Arfat, Benjakul, Prodpran, and Osako (2014), the dis-
tribution and density of intra- and intermolecular interactions between
biopolymers and plasticizers (including water) play important roles in
determining the mechanical properties of blend films. In the present
study, the incorporation of more gelatin further increased molecular
mobility and formed more homogeneous film matrix, led to increased
continuity in the film network of blend films. In addition to that, such
an increase in film mechanical properties may be related to the film
composition. Specifically, gelatin tends to be continuous phase with
increasing weight fraction of gelatin. Due to the formation of gelatin
physical network containing triple-helix junctions, the blend films ex-
hibited an improved strength to tolerate external forces. Moreover, it is
interesting to note that the addition of gelatin caused a significant
6
Food Packaging and Shelf Life 24 (2020) 100485
increase in EAB, while a significant decrease in EM was observed. This
result is in agreement with Ahmad et al. (2015) who reported that the
addition of gelatin in rice flour films simultaneously increased TS and
EAB.
3.8. Seal strength
Sufficient seal strength of packaging material are required in order
to prevent the leakage of the products inside the package during sto-
rage, processing, or handling (Kim & Ustunol, 2006). Poor heat seal
property has long been recognized as a major drawback for edible films
(Li, Kennedy, Jiang, & Xie, 2006). Preliminary study showed that
heating temperature of 150 ± 1 °C, dwell time of 1.5 s, and pressure of
300 kPa could provide sufficient melting and fusion for SSPS/gelatin
films. Seal strength of SSPS, gelatin and their blend films are shown in
Fig. 3. SSPS film shows substantially lower (p < 0.05) seal strength
(50 N/m) when compared with neat gelatin film (590 N/m). This re-
markable difference is believed to be related to their quite different
C. Liu, et al.
Fig. 3. Heat seal strength of SSPS/gelatin films with different weight ratios.
Shown results are mean values ± standard deviation (n = 5). NS means no
significant difference and asterisk indicates significant difference (p < 0.05).
chemical composition and aggregation structure (Abedinia et al.,
2018). The seal strength significantly increased (p < 0.05) from 50 to
150 N/m with increasing weight fraction of gelatin in blend films from
0 % to 20 %, and dramatically increased to 640 N/m with the addition
of gelatin up to 60 %. However, further increase in the gelatin fraction
did not produce significant increase (p > 0.05) in the seal strength.
These results suggested that the interaction between the two biopoly-
mers might be enhanced after heat pressing (Kim & Ustunol, 2006). The
SSPS/gelatin blend films developed in this study exhibit comparable
seal strength results to the typical synthetic polymer (> 678 N/m, for
LDPE), and are much higher than those of carrageenan films
(109∼181 N/m) (Farhan & Hani, 2017), chitosan-based films
(110.7 N/m) (Prateepchanachai, Thakhiew, Devahastin, &
Fig. 4. (A, C) Instant coffee powder and (B, D) coconut powder packaged in heat-sealed edible pouches made from (A, B) S100G0 and (C, D) S60G40 films; photos
captured during the dissolution tests in hot water (95 ± 2 °C): (E) coconut powder in S100G0 pouch; (F) coconut powder in S60G40 pouch.
7
Food Packaging and Shelf Life 24 (2020) 100485
Soponronnarit, 2019), and starch-based films (375 N/m) (Das &
Chowdhury, 2016).
3.9. Packaging tests
Photographs of instant coffee powder and coconut powder packaged
in two different pouches made from neat SSPS and S60G40 films are
shown in Fig. 4A-D. All dry powders packaged in these pouches exhibit
their original colors due to the excellent transparency of the films in the
visible range, as shown by the results listed in Table 1. The in-
corporation of gelatin does not affect the see-through property of the
SSPS film. Fig. 4E and F exhibit the photos captured during the dis-
solution of the SSPS/gelatin pouches containing coconut powder in hot
water. From these photos, it is evident that both of the pouches were
getting dissolved within several seconds (< 30 s) and released the
packaged powder very quickly, which means that the addition of ge-
latin does not affect the rapid hot-water solubility of the SSPS films
under the current experimental conditions.
4. Conclusions
In order to develop practical edible packages from soluble soybean
polysaccharide, it is important to improve the physical properties of its
films, such as the tensile strength, thermal stability and heat seal
strength. As a solution, gelatin was incorporated into SSPS films to
prepare blend films by a solution casting method in the present work.
Experimental results suggested that SSPS and gelatin are partially
compatible to form blend films. The addition of gelatin greatly in-
creased the heat seal strength, tensile strength, thermal stability and
stretchability of the SSPS films, while reducing their permeability and
water solubility. The results of optical tests showed high UV barrier
property and good see-through property for all the blend films. The
packaging test indicated that SSPS/gelatin edible blend films are po-
tential candidates for fabricating quick-dissolving packages for pow-
dered food and beverage products.
C. Liu, et al. Food Packaging and Shelf Life 24 (2020) 100485

Table 1
Light transmittances and transparency values of the SSPS/gelatin films.
Films Light transmittance (%) at different wavelengths Transparency value

200 nm 280 nm 350 nm 400 nm 500 nm 600 nm

S100G0 0.00 9.68 ± 3.95bc 55.04 ± 5.74e 69.22 ± 3.83e 79.18 ± 2.05d 83.4 ± 1.30c 0.663 ± 0.096b
S80G20 0.00 7.26 ± 0.27c 49.00 ± 1.03f 62.30 ± 1.45f 71.82 ± 1.23e 76.68 ± 0.95d 1.043 ± 0.098a
S60G40 0.00 8.08 ± 4.93c 60.88 ± 5.37d 73.86 ± 2.68d 81.32 ± 1.19c 84.40 ± 0.87c 0.579 ± 0.127bc
S40G60 0.00 11.46 ± 1.67abc 71.86 ± 1.40c 80.52 ± 0.74c 85.44 ± 0.36b 87.68 ± 0.33b 0.520 ± 0.046c
S20G80 0.00 13.66 ± 3.74ab 77.90 ± 2.08b 83.34 ± 0.84b 86.48 ± 0.54b 88.08 ± 0.5b 0.554 ± 0.086bc
S0G100 0.00 14.14 ± 1.39a 84.52 ± 0.56a 87.22 ± 0.77a 89.06 ± 0.90a 90.04 ± 0.68a 0.385 ± 0.030d

Results for each film are presented as means ± SD (n = 5). Mean values in the same column with different letters (a, b, c…) are significantly different (p < 0.05).

Table 2
Film water solubility, equilibrium moisture content (EMC), water vapor permeability (WVP), and mechanical properties of SSPS/gelatin films.
Films Water solubility (%) EMC (%) WVP (g mm/m2 kPa h) Tensile strength (TS) (MPa) Elongation at break (EAB) (%) Elastic modulus (EM) (MPa)

S100G0 100a 15.6 ± 0.1a 2.478 ± 0.170ab 2.57 ± 0.39e 41.20 ± 8.25e 11.7 ± 0.7a
S80G20 100a 15.3 ± 3.2a 2.509 ± 0.156a 2.59 ± 0.48e 86.40 ± 20.28d 10.3 ± 0.6a
S60G40 55.2 ± 0.2b 14.9 ± 2.9a 2.386 ± 0.324bc 2.90 ± 0.39de 139.30 ± 14.81c 7.5 ± 0.6b
S40G60 38.1 ± 0.6c 11.2 ± 0.4b 2.034 ± 0.057 cd 4.75 ± 0.99bc 253.20 ± 43.80b 7.5 ± 0.6bc
S20G80 33.8 ± 0.2d 11.8 ± 0.2b 1.926 ± 0.048d 5.20 ± 0.50b 252.70 ± 34.24b 6.9 ± 0.5bc
S0G100 31.5 ± 0.2e 11.2 ± 0.5b 2.278 ± 0.138bc 6.08 ± 1.01a 317.70 ± 58.87a 6.4 ± 0.5 cd

Results for each film are presented as means ± SD (n = 5). Mean values in the same column with different letters (a, b, c…) are significantly different (p < 0.05).

CRediT authorship contribution statement
Chang Liu: Investigation, Writing - original draft. Jiao Huang:
Investigation, Writing - original draft. Xuejing Zheng: Visualization,
Resources. Shujie Liu: Investigation. Kuakua Lu: Investigation.
Keyong Tang: Validation, Visualization. Jie Liu: Supervision,
Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank to Ms. Fang Wang for heat sealing experiments,
Prof. Xinchang Pang for AFM tests, and Prof. Jie Chen (JiangNan
University) for SEC tests. This work was supported by the Science and
Technology Department of Henan Province, China [grant number
172102410022]; the Education Department of Henan Province, China
[grant number 17HASTIT009], and National Natural Science
Foundation of China [grant numbers 51673177, 51473150].
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2020.100485.
References
Abedinia, A., Ariffin, F., Huda, N., & Nafchi, A. M. (2018). Preparation and character-
ization of a novel biocomposite based on duck feet gelatin as alternative to bovine
gelatin. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 109, 855–862. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.11.051.
Acosta, S., Jiménez, A., Cháfer, M., González-Martínez, C., & Chiralt, A. (2015). Physical
properties and stability of starch-gelatin based films as affected by the addition of
esters of fatty acids. Food Hydrocolloids, 49, 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodhyd.2015.03.015.
Ahmad, et al. (2015). Optical and thermo-mechanical properties of composite films based
on fish gelatin/rice flour fabricated by casting technique. Progress in Organic Coatings,
84, 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.porgcoat.2015.02.016.
Alexandre, E. M. C., Lourenço, R. V., Bittante, A. M. Q. B., Moraes, I. C. F., & Sobral, P. J.
D. A. (2016). Gelatin-based films reinforced with montmorillonite and activated with
nanoemulsion of ginger essential oil for food packaging applications. Food Packaging
and Shelf Life, 10, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2016.10.004.
Alipoormazandarani, N., Ghazihoseini, S., & Nafchi, A. M. (2015). Preparation and
characterization of novel bionanocomposite based on soluble soybean polysaccharide
and halloysite nanoclay. Carbohydrate Polymers, 134, 745–751. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.carbpol.2015.08.059.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2005). Standard test method for seal
strength of flexible barrier materials. Designation F88. Annual book of ASTM standards.
Philadelphia: American Society for Testing Materials.
Arfat, Y. A., Benjakul, S., Prodpran, T., & Osako, K. (2014). Development and char-
acterisation of blend films based on fish protein isolate and fish skin gelatin. Food
Hydrocolloids, 39, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2013.12.028.
Avérous, L., Fringant, C., & Moro, L. (2001). Plasticized starch-cellulose interactions in
polysaccharide composites. Polymer, 42(15), 6565–6572. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0032-3861(01)00125-2.
Badii, F., MacNaughtan, W., Mitchell, J. R., & Farhat, I. A. (2015). The effect of drying
temperature on physical properties of thin gelatin films. Drying Technology, 32(1),
30–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/07373937.2013.808206.
Cao, N., Fu, Y., & He, J. (2007). Preparation and physical properties of soy protein isolate
and gelatin composite films. Food Hydrocolloids, 21(7), 1153–1162. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodhyd.2006.09.001.
Cazón, P., Velazquez, G., Ramírez, J. A., & Vázquez, M. (2017). Polysaccharide-based
films and coatings for food packaging: A review. Food Hydrocolloids, 68, 136–148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2016.09.009.
Chen, C., Wang, F., Mao, C., Liao, W., & Hsieh, C. (2008). Studies of chitosan: II.
Preparation and characterization of chitosan/poly(vinyl alcohol)/gelatin ternary
blend films. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 43(1), 37–42. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2007.09.005.
Das, M., & Chowdhury, T. (2016). Heat sealing property of starch based self-supporting
edible films. Food Packaging and Shelf Life, 9, 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.
2016.05.002.
Dyshlyuk, L., Babich, O., Belova, D., & Prosekov, A. (2017). Comparative analysis of
physical and chemical properties of biodegradable edible films of various composi-
tions. Journal of Food Process Engineering, 40(1), e12331. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jfpe.12331.
Fakhouri, F. M., Martelli, S. M., Caon, T., Velasco, J. I., & Mei, L. H. I. (2015). Edible films
and coatings based on starch/gelatin: Film properties and effect of coatings on quality
of refrigerated Red Crimson grapes. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 109, 57–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2015.05.015.
Farhan, A., & Hani, N. M. (2017). Characterization of edible packaging films based on
semi-refined kappa-carrageenan plasticized with glycerol and sorbitol. Food
Hydrocolloids, 64, 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2016.10.034.
Farris, et al. (2011). Gelatin-pectin composite films from polyion-complex hydrogels.
Food Hydrocolloids, 25(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2010.05.006.
Ghazihoseini, S., Alipoormazandarani, N., & Nafchi, A. M. (2015). The effects of nano-
SiO2 on mechanical, barrier, and moisture sorption isotherm models of novel soluble
soybean polysaccharide films. International Journal of Food Engineering, 11(6),
833–840. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijfe-2015-0148.
Gómez-Estaca, J., Montero, P., Fernández-Martín, F., & Gómez-Guillén, M. C. (2009).
Physico-chemical and film-forming properties of bovine-hide and tuna-skin gelatin: A
comparative study. Journal of Food Engineering, 90(4), 480–486. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.07.022.
Guerrero, P., Nur Hanani, Z. A., Kerry, J. P., & de la Caba, K. (2011). Characterization of
soy protein-based films prepared with acids and oils by compression. Journal of Food
Engineering, 107(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2011.06.003.

8
C. Liu, et al.
Hosseini, S. F., Rezaei, M., Zandi, M., & Ghavi, F. F. (2013). Preparation and functional
properties of fish gelatin-chitosan blend edible films. Food Chemistry, 136(3-4),
1490–1495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.09.081.
Kim, S.-J., & Ustunol, Z. (2006). Thermal properties, heat sealability and seal attributes of
whey protein isolate/lipid emulsion edible films. Journal of Food Science, 66,
985–990. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2001.tb08223.x.
Kumar, S., Shukla, A., Baul, P. P., Mitra, A., & Halder, D. (2018). Biodegradable hybrid
nanocomposites of chitosan/gelatin and silver nanoparticles for active food packa-
ging applications. Food Packaging and Shelf Life, 16, 178–184. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.fpsl.2018.03.008.
Kurt, A., Toker, O. S., & Tornuk, F. (2017). Effect of xanthan and locust bean gum sy-
nergistic interaction on characteristics of biodegradable edible film. International
Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 102, 1035–1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijbiomac.2017.04.081.
Li, B., Kennedy, J. F., Jiang, Q. G., & Xie, B. J. (2006). Quick dissolvable, edible and heat
sealable blend films based on konjac glucomannan-gelatin. Food Research
International, 39(5), 544–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2005.10.015.
Mohajer, S., Rezaei, M., & Hosseini, S. F. (2017). Physico-chemical and microstructural
properties of fish gelatin/agar bio-based blend films. Carbohydrate Polymers, 157,
784–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.10.061.
Nagahama, et al. (2009). Preparation and characterization of novel chitosan/gelatin
membranes using chitosan hydrogel. Carbohydrate Polymers, 76(2), 255–260. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2008.10.015.
Nakamura, A., Furuta, H., Maeda, H., Takao, T., & Nagamatsu, Y. (2002). Structural
studies by stepwise enzymatic degradation of the main backbone of soybean soluble
polysaccharides consisting of galacturonan and rhamnogalacturonan. Bioscience,
Biotechnology, and Biochemistry, 66(6), 1301–1313. https://doi.org/10.1271/bbb.66.
1301.
Nakamura, A., Furuta, H., Kato, M., Maeda, H., & Nagamatsu, Y. (2003). Effect of soybean
soluble polysaccharides on the stability of milk protein under acidic conditions. Food
Hydrocolloids, 17(3), 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268-005X(02)00095-4.
Núñez-Flores, et al. (2013). Physical and functional characterization of active fish gelatin
films incorporated with lignin. Food Hydrocolloids, 30(1), 163–172. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodhyd.2012.05.017.
Nur Hanani, Z. A., O’Mahony, J. A., Roos, Y. H., Oliveira, P. M., & Kerry, J. P. (2014).
Extrusion of gelatin-based composite films: Effects of processing temperature and pH
of film forming solution on mechanical and barrier properties of manufactured films.
Food Packaging and Shelf Life, 2(2), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2014.09.
001.
Nur Hazirah, M. A. S. P., Isa, M. I. N., & Sarbon, N. M. (2016). Effect of xanthan gum on
the physical and mechanical properties of gelatin-carboxymethyl cellulose film
blends. Food Packaging and Shelf Life, 9, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2016.
05.008.
Prateepchanachai, S., Thakhiew, W., Devahastin, S., & Soponronnarit, S. (2019).
Improvement of mechanical and heat-sealing properties of edible chitosan films via
addition of gelatin and CO2 treatment of film-forming solutions. International Journal
of Biological Macromolecules, 131, 589–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.
2019.03.067.
Ramos, et al. (2013). Effect of whey protein purity and glycerol content upon physical
properties of edible films manufactured therefrom. Food Hydrocolloids, 30(1),
110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2012.05.001.
Salarbashi, et al. (2013). Characterization of soluble soybean polysaccharide film in-
corporated essential oil intended for food packaging. Carbohydrate Polymers, 98(1),
1127–1136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.07.031.
Salarbashi, et al. (2016). Development of new active packaging film made from a soluble
Food Packaging and Shelf Life 24 (2020) 100485
soybean polysaccharide incorporating ZnO nanoparticles. Carbohydrate Polymers,
140, 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.12.043.
Salarbashi, et al. (2017). Eco-friendly soluble soybean polysaccharide/nanoclay Na+
bionanocomposite: Properties and characterization. Carbohydrate Polymers, 169,
524–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.04.011.
Salarbashi, D., Tafaghodi, M., & Bazzaz, B. S. F. (2018). Soluble soybean polysaccharide/
TiO2 bionanocomposite film for food application. Carbohydrate Polymers, 186,
384–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.12.081.
Sang, et al. (2017). Electrospun gelatin/sodium bicarbonate and poly(lactide-co-ε-ca-
prolactone)/sodium bicarbonate nanofibers as drug delivery systems. Materials
Science and Engineering C, 81, 359–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2017.08.
007.
Shaili, T., Abdorreza, M. N., & Fariborz, N. (2015). Functional, thermal, and antimicrobial
properties of soluble soybean polysaccharide biocomposites reinforced by nano TiO2.
Carbohydrate Polymers, 134, 726–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.08.
073.
Sivarooban, T., Hettiarachchy, N. S., & Johnson, M. G. (2008). Physical and antimicrobial
properties of grape seed extract, nisin, and EDTA incorporated soy protein edible
films. Food Research International, 41(8), 781–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodres.2008.04.007.
Soo, P. Y., & Sarbon, N. M. (2018). Preparation and characterization of edible chicken
skin gelatin film incorporated with rice flour. Food Packaging and Shelf Life, 15, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2017.12.009.
Staroszczyk, H., Pielichowska, J., Sztuka, K., Stangret, J., & Kołodziejska, I. (2012).
Molecular and structural characteristics of cod gelatin films modified with EDC and
TGase. Food Chemistry, 130(2), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.
07.047.
Staroszczyk, H., Sztuka, K., Wolska, J., Wojtasz-Pająk, A., & Kołodziejska, I. (2014).
Interactions of fish gelatin and chitosan in uncrosslinked and crosslinked with EDC
films: FT-IR study. Spectrochimica Acta Part A, Molecular and Biomolecular
Spectroscopy, 117, 707–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2013.09.044.
Suderman, N., Isa, M. I. N., & Sarbon, N. M. (2018). The effect of plasticizers on the
functional properties of biodegradable gelatin-based film: A review. Food Bioscience,
24, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2018.06.006.
Tajik, et al. (2013). Soluble soybean polysaccharide: A new carbohydrate to make a
biodegradable film for sustainable green packaging. Carbohydrate Polymers, 97(2),
817–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.05.037.
Taravel, M. N., & Domard, A. (1995). Collagen and its interaction with chitosan: II.
Influence of the physicochemical characteristics of collagen. Biomaterials, 16(11),
865–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(95)94149-F.
Tulamandi, et al. (2016). A biodegradable and edible packaging film based on papaya
puree, gelatin, and defatted soy protein. Food Packaging and Shelf Life, 10, 60–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2016.10.007.
Yakimets, et al. (2007). Effect of water content on the structural reorganization and
elastic properties of biopolymer films: A comparative study. Biomacromolecules, 8(5),
1710–1722. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm070050x.
Yu, J., Yang, J., Liu, B., & Ma, X. (2009). Preparation and characterization of glycerol
plasticized-pea starch/ZnO-carboxymethylcellulose sodium nanocomposites.
Bioresource Technology, 100(11), 2832–2841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.
2008.12.045.
Zhao, J., Wei, T., Wei, Z., Yuan, F., & Gao, Y. (2015). Influence of soybean soluble
polysaccharides and beet pectin on the physicochemical properties of lactoferrin-
coated orange oil emulsion. Food Hydrocolloids, 44, 443–452. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.foodhyd.2014.10.025.