IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Mapping of HABs Contaminated In Green
Characteristics of crab shells and green mussel Shells (Perna viridis) in Semarang Bay
Churun A’in, Suryanti Suryanti and
shells as potential chitosan material from Haeruddin Haeruddin

- Bioacumulation of Heavy Metals Pb and

Karangantu, Banten, Indonesia Hg in Green Shells (Perna viridis) in
Pasuruan Waters Based on Different
Seasons
To cite this article: G Pratama et al 2023 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1137 012033 W Isroni and N Maulida

- Effect of microplastics and natural

microparticles on green Mussel (Perna
viridis)
A R Putri, N P Zamani and D G Bengen
View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 175.176.3.165 on 06/12/2023 at 23:55

MARBIOUTICOM-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1137 (2023) 012033 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1137/1/012033

Characteristics of crab shells and green mussel shells as

potential chitosan material from Karangantu, Banten,
Indonesia

G Pratama1,3, A Munandar1, D Surilayani1, J A Rizky1, A N Hasanah1,

S Haryati1, B A Meata1, D F E Nuryadin1 and R P Aditia1,2*
1
Department of Fisheries Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Sultan Ageng
Tirtayasa, Serang, Indonesia
2
Center of Excellence for Local Food Innovation, University of Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa,
Indonesia.
3
Laboratory of Big Data and Instrumentation Marine Science, Department of Marine Science,
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Serang, Indonesia
*E-mail: rifki.prayoga@untirta.ac.id
Abstract. Shells are a waste of crab (Portunus pelagicus) and green mussels (Perna viridis)
waste in Karangantu. That is a problem for the environment with a large number. One solution
is to use it as a raw material for chitosan. This study aims to see the potential of crab shells and
green mussel shells as well as raw materials for chitosan biomaterials. This research used shell
waste of P. pelagicus and P. viridis (3 replications). The stages of the method of this research
include the preparation of raw materials, manufacture of chitosan, and analysis product.
Parameters measured in this study include yield, moisture, ash, degree of deacetylation, and
viscosity. The results showed that the yield, ash, and viscosity of green mussels shells were
higher than that of crab shells, but the moisture and degree of deacetylation were lower. These
results indicate that crab shells are better than clam shells, although the yield is lower as a
potential for making chitosan from waste in Karangantu.

1. Introduction
The crab shell waste produced is quite a lot, which can reach around 40-60% of the total weight of the
crab [1]. Green mussel shell waste is approximately 67–70% of the total weight of the whole shellfish.
Both waste shells can impact negatively the environment in Karangantu [2]. The two wastes can cause
odors and environmental aesthetics that are not good [3]. The impact can pollute the aquatic
environment, so it must be utilized to solve ecological problems [2]. One solution was to create the
raw material chitosan. These wastes contain 20-30% chitin compounds that can be used to become
chitosan [3]. The crab shell has quite a lot of chitin which can reach the range of 18.70-32.20% [4].
The chitin content in green mussel shells ranges from 14-35% [5].
Chitin and chitosan are biopolymers, containing the most nitrogen (N) in nature [6]. The presence
of high N in the polymer makes chitin and chitosan very attractive in the industrial sector. The price of
chitosan with a good standard in the world market reaches US$ 7.5/10 g [3]. Chitin was obtained from
the process of demineralization and deproteinization stages [7]. Chitosan was obtained by
deacetylation of chitin with a high concentration of an alkaline solution [8]. This research intended to
see the potential of crab shells and green mussel shells as well as raw materials for chitosan
biomaterials from Karangantu.

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
MARBIOUTICOM-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1137 (2023) 012033 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1137/1/012033

2. Material and methods

2.1. Materials
Shells from crab and green mussels were obtained from Karangantu, Serang. The ingredients used are
aquadest, HCl (Merck), NaOH (Merck), and CH3COOH (Merck). The tools used are a hammer mill
(Maksindo), hotplate (Cimarec), furnace (Yamato FM 38), viscometer (Brookfield DV-E), and Fourier
Transform Infra-Red (FTIR) (Shimadzu, IR Prestige21).

2.2. Material preparations

Both shells were washed with water to cut off meat, mucus, and other impurities. After that, both
materials were dried in the sun to dry. After drying, the material was crushed using a hammer mill [4].

2.3. Chitosan preparation

Both shells were washed first using water. Furthermore, remove the minerals (demineralization) by
soaking the material with 0.5 N HCl (with a ratio of 1:7 (w/v)) for one day at room temperature. Then
the immersion was heated at a temperature of 90°C for 1 hour. The next process was deproteinization
by soaking NaOH 1 N (with a ratio of 1:10 (w/v)) for one day at room temperature. Further, it was
heated at a temperature of 90°C for 1 hour. Neutralization was conducted by washing material using
aquadest to pH 7. After that, chitin will be produced. The chitin was soaked in 3 N NaOH 3 N in a
ratio of 1:5 for one day. The next step was to soak a material with NaOH 1.5 N (with a ratio of 1:10
(w/v)), then heat it at 130°C for 3 hours. Furthermore, the neutralization process with distilled water
until the pH was neutral. The chitosan obtained was then dried using an oven at a temperature of 30-
40°C for 24 hour [9].

2.4. Evaluation of chitosan

Evaluation tests of chitosan consist of yield, moisture and ash content, degree deacetylation, and
viscosity. The yield was obtained by comparison of the final weight with the initial weight of chitosan
[4]. The moisture determines using an oven (temperature of 105ºC for 4 hours), while the ash content
by a furnace (the temperature of 600ºC for 6 hours) [10]. The degree of deacetylation was obtained
from the FTIR results [11]. The viscometer is used to determine viscosity [7].

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Yield of chitosan

Based on the results of the study, it was found that the yield of chitosan from green mussel shells
(11.60%) was higher than that of crab shells (6.51%) (Table 1). However, both values are still below
the standard (13.8%). It is influenced by reagent concentration, temperature, reaction time, and particle
size [6]. Based on the particle size, green mussel shells are lower than crab shells so that the cross-
sectional area is higher which causes easier penetration of reagents [12]. Therefore, to get a high yield,
it is necessary to increase the time and concentration of the reagents so that all shell components can
be converted into chitosan optimally [8].

Table 1. Chitosan parameter

Parameter Crab shells Green mussels shell Standard [13]
Yield (%) 6.51±0.22 11.60±0.61 13.8
Moisture (%) 8.35±0.04 7.69±0.48 <10
Ash (%) 0.56±0.24 1.89±0.01 <2
Degree of
88.29±0.31 48.68±0.44 ˃70
deacetylation (%)
Viscosity (cPs) 30.40±0.41 71.00±0.13 200-700

2
MARBIOUTICOM-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1137 (2023) 012033 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1137/1/012033

3.2. Moisture
The value of moisture obtained in all types of chitosan has met the quality standard (<10%). The
moisture content of chitosan is not affected by the amount of material, material ratio, and processing
time but is influenced by drying time, drying process, amount of chitosan dried, area of drying, and
means of drying carried out [1]. In the two types of chitosan produced, the values were not
significantly different between chitosan from crabs (8.35%) and green mussels (7.69%). That's
because the entire extraction process was carried out using the same method. Low moisture is obtained
from good drying results [9]. In addition, the high moisture in chitosan is not of interest in a variety of
industries because it affects its resistance to microorganisms [3].

3.3. Ash
The chitosan ash content obtained in this study was low, by 0.56% for crabs and 1.89% for green
mussels. Both values are still by the standard of chitosan (<2%). Although low, the mineral content of
green mussel shells is high compared to the mineral content of crab shells, resulting in decreased
moisture. The mineral content in green mussel shells is 33.56% while in crab shells is 19.97%. It can
be seen during the demineralization process with the addition of HCl causing a lot of air bubbles (CO2)
[14]. The low content of ash contained shows a complete demineralization process [15]. The small
value of ash content in chitosan indicates that the deacetylation process removes acetyl groups and can
remove inorganic minerals [8].

3.4. Degree deacetylation

In the results of the degree of deacetylation, the chitosan content of green mussels (48.68%) was lower
than that of crabs (88.29%). The degree of deacetylation in crabs was included in the standard, but not
for green mussels. It was influenced by the levels of chitin contained in both materials. The chitin
content in green mussels ranges from 14-35%, while in crabs it ranges from 50-60% [6]. The small
degree of deacetylation in green mussel shells was also due to the high density of chitin polymer
chains compared to crab shells [5].

3.5. Viscosity
The results showed that the viscosity values of the two materials were low and were not included in
the standard (Table 1). Factors that affect the value of chitosan viscosity are the ratio of the volume of
the base solution to the chitin used during the deacetylation process and the length of time the
demineralization process takes [11]. The temperature used during the deacetylation process can also
cause the breakdown of the primary molecular chain so that the molecular weight and viscosity of the
polymer decrease with increasing temperature [8]. The high value of viscosity indicates good chitosan,
but the high or low viscosity value depends on the application of chitosan [3].

4. Conclusion
Chitosan from crab shells is better than green mussel shells. It can be seen from the higher degree of
deacetylation for crab shells, although the yield is lower. So, the crab shells from Karangantu were
potential for the chitosan materials.

5. References
[1] Rochima E 2014 Jurnal Akuatika Indonesia 5(1) 71–82.
[2] Mamon MAC, Añano JAP, Abanador LC, Agcaoili GJT, Sagum CB, Pagliawan RLH, Tapere
JMB, Agravante JBM, Arevalo JHG, Minalang AJA 2016 Asian Pacific Journal of
Reproduction 5(3) 240–6 Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apjr.2016.03.002
[3] Santos VP, Marques NSS, Maia PCSV, de Lima MAB, Franco L de O, de Campos-Takaki GM
2020 International Journal of Molecular Sciences 21(12) 1–17.
[4] Tobing MTL, Prasetya NBA, Khabibi 2011 Kimia Sains dan Aplikasi 14(3) 83–8.
[5] Cadano JR, Jose M, Lubi AG, Maling JN, Moraga JS, Shi QY, Vegafria HM, VinceCruz-
Abeledo 2021 Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28(10) 11954–61.
[6] Kou GS, Peters LM, Mucalo MR 2021 International Journal of Biological Macromoleculs 169

3
MARBIOUTICOM-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1137 (2023) 012033 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1137/1/012033

85–94 Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.12.005

[7] Kirbuanandan S 2016 International Journal of MediPharm Research 2(1) 54–69.
[8] Danarto YC, Distantina S 2016 AIP Conference Proceedings 1710 030028
[9] Suptijah P 2004 Buletin Teknologi Hasil Perikananan 7(1) 56–67.
[10] Kirbuanandan S 2021 Journal of Research in Chemistrym 2(2) 64–70.
[11] Vino AB, Ramasamy P, Shanmugam V, Shanmugam A 2012 Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical
Biomedicine. 2(1) 334–41.
[12] Liao Z, Jiang Y, Sun Q, Fan M, Wang J, Liang H 2019 PLoS ONE 14(7) 1–37.
[13] Protan Laboratories 1987 Cation Polymer for Recovery Valuable by Products from Processing
Waste Burgess (USA: Protan Laboratories)
[14] Zhang X, Wang Y, Ju N, Ai Y, Liu Y, Liang J, Hu Z, Guo R, Xu W, Zhang W, Q Y, Niu D,
Liang Q, SUn H, Yang Y 2021 ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering 9(26) 8813–23.
[15] Wibisono Y, Dwijaksara NLB, Widayatno WB, Wismogroho AS, Amal MI, Rochman NT,
Nishimura T, Noviyanto A 2018 Journal of the Korean Ceramic Society 55(6) 570–5.

6. Acknowledgment
Special thanks to the LPPM-UNTIRTA for the related grant with scheme “PDP”