Nurafi Razna Suhaima, N. E. Suyatma, D. Hunaefi, A. Jayanegara
{"title":"Comparison of fish and mammalian gelatin film properties: A meta-analysis","authors":"Nurafi Razna Suhaima, N. E. Suyatma, D. Hunaefi, A. Jayanegara","doi":"10.3934/agrfood.2022029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Edible films (EF) are continuously developed as food packaging alternatives due to their biodegradable properties. EF can be made from polysaccharides, proteins, lipids, and composite components. The use of raw materials certainly affects the properties of EF. Some studies reported that mammalian gelatin films were significantly different from fish gelatin films. However, there have been different results among individual studies. Therefore, the present study would like to obtain a valid conclusion across different studies using a meta-analysis approach. Study selection was performed with the PRISMA guideline. There were six relevant studies and 28 data used for meta-analysis. The statistical analysis was calculated by using Hedges*d. The results show that fish gelatin films had significantly lower (p < 0.05) tensile strength, elastic modulus, water vapor permeability, and transparency compared to mammalian gelatin films. Besides, there were two additional factors that are also discussed such as different film fabrication methods and gelatin concentration. Those seasonal factors were conducted by using subgroup analysis and meta-regression, respectively. The results described that the film production method, i.e., casting and compression molding significantly effect (p < 0.05) the tensile strength and elongation at break. Slightly different from the method, gelatin concentration was significantly affected (p < 0.05) the tensile strength, elongation at break, and water vapor permeability.","PeriodicalId":44793,"journal":{"name":"AIMS Agriculture and Food","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AIMS Agriculture and Food","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3934/agrfood.2022029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Edible films (EF) are continuously developed as food packaging alternatives due to their biodegradable properties. EF can be made from polysaccharides, proteins, lipids, and composite components. The use of raw materials certainly affects the properties of EF. Some studies reported that mammalian gelatin films were significantly different from fish gelatin films. However, there have been different results among individual studies. Therefore, the present study would like to obtain a valid conclusion across different studies using a meta-analysis approach. Study selection was performed with the PRISMA guideline. There were six relevant studies and 28 data used for meta-analysis. The statistical analysis was calculated by using Hedges*d. The results show that fish gelatin films had significantly lower (p < 0.05) tensile strength, elastic modulus, water vapor permeability, and transparency compared to mammalian gelatin films. Besides, there were two additional factors that are also discussed such as different film fabrication methods and gelatin concentration. Those seasonal factors were conducted by using subgroup analysis and meta-regression, respectively. The results described that the film production method, i.e., casting and compression molding significantly effect (p < 0.05) the tensile strength and elongation at break. Slightly different from the method, gelatin concentration was significantly affected (p < 0.05) the tensile strength, elongation at break, and water vapor permeability.
期刊介绍:
AIMS Agriculture and Food covers a broad array of topics pertaining to agriculture and food, including, but not limited to: Agricultural and food production and utilization Food science and technology Agricultural and food engineering Food chemistry and biochemistry Food materials Physico-chemical, structural and functional properties of agricultural and food products Agriculture and the environment Biorefineries in agricultural and food systems Food security and novel alternative food sources Traceability and regional origin of agricultural and food products Authentication of food and agricultural products Food safety and food microbiology Waste reduction in agriculture and food production and processing Animal science, aquaculture, husbandry and veterinary medicine Resources utilization and sustainability in food and agricultural production and processing Horticulture and plant science Agricultural economics.