Surface Properties of Gelatin Films

Abstract

Contact angle measurements for water, glycerol, formamide, ethylene glycol, diiodomethane, α-bromonaphthalene, tricresyl phosphate, dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), and bromoform on polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) covered with adsorptive and gelatinized gelatin films were made. Adsorption was performed from solutions in the 0−25 g/L concentration range. A gelatinized gelatin film was created from solutions of 40−100 g/L concentrations. It was found that the biggest changes of the contact angles were up to monolayer coverage of the PMMA surface. For all liquids (besides water) the contact angle was almost constant above the gelatin concentration 50 g/L. Very high contact angles (∼134°) were obtained for water on a gelatinized gelatin film obtained from a solution of 100 g/L concentration. From the obtained contact angles, the Lifshitz−van der Waals components and the values of the electron−acceptor and electron−donor parameters of the acid−base components of the films were calculated for the glycerol−ethylene glycol−diiodomethane three-liquid system. It was found that the water contact angle strongly influenced the Lifshitz−van der Waals component and acid−base parameters of the gelatin film surface free energy. The systems involving water gave different results than those without water. It was found that the values of the gelatin film surface free energy components and parameters cannot be explained only on the basis of the functional group's orientation in gelatin molecules. To find an explanation, back-calculations of the contact angle for water, formamide, α-bromonaphthalene, tricresyl phosphate, dimethylsulfoxide, and bromoform were made. The authors found a good agreement between the calculated and measured values of the contact angle for all liquids studied, besides water and, partially, DMSO. To explain the obtained results of the measured contact angles, four models of hydratation of gelatin films were presented.

Characterization of chitosan–whey protein films at acid pH

“…The upward surface (that richer in protein) is more hydrophobic than the downward surface (which is richer in chitosan). Similar surface differences were observed for pure protein films, such as soy protein (Yin, Tang, Wen, & Yang, 2007) or gelatin films (Białopiotrowicz & Janczuk, 2002), and may be related to the affinity of the protein to the air-liquid interface (see Fig. 3).…”

Tuning the mechanical and physicochemical properties of cross‐linked protein films

“…The development of these noncytotoxic films has become a novel area of research, and different proteins have been exploited as the main component. These include gelatin, collagen, casein, whey protein, corn zein, wheat gluten, soy protein, and mung bean protein and peanut protein …”

Effects of carbohydrate/protein ratio on the microstructure and the barrier and sorption properties of wheat starch–whey protein blend edible films

“…On the contrary, the angle measured on the surface exposed to air during film drying is related to the natural self‐organisation of the biopolymer molecules exposed to air when film forming solution was dried . Białopiotrowicz and Janczuk also displayed that the richer in protein content the surface is, the more hydrophobic is the surface, but this depends on the nature of the protein, its composition in hydrophobic amino acids and its solubility in the solvent used for preparing the film‐forming solution.…”