ArticleScientific reports2026
Preparation and identification of chitosan and chitosan nanoparticles from crab byproducts.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was designed to extract chitosan from blue crab shells and prepare chitosan nanoparicles via combination of chemical extraction process with mechanical ball-milling method. The size and surface charge of the NPs were evaluated in chitosan nanoparicles using dynamic light scattering (DLS). The prepared crab chitosan and chitosan nanoparicles were evaluated for their characteristics using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray Diffraction (XRD), Scanning Electron Microscopy coupled with Energy Dispersive X-ray analysis (SEM-EDX), Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) and viscosity measurements compared with commercial chitosan products. The DLS results of crab chitosan nanoparicles appeared to be the optimal chitosan nanoparicles with minimum particle size (192.74 ± 3.25 nm), zeta potential (25.15 ± 1.19 mV) smallest PDI (0.228 ± 0.011) in comparison with commercial nanoparicles had a particle size (245.47 ± 3.21 nm), zeta potential (32.24 ± 0.72 mV) smallest PDI (0.191 ± 0.055), respectively. The FTIR and XRD analyses indicated that α-chitosan mainly formed an amorphous structure along with a higher deacetylation degree. There are no diffraction peaks at 2θ ≈ 10°, showing that chitin was effectively deacetylated with a negligible content of residual chitin. Chitosan nanoparicles from crab had a particle size of about 84 nm based on Debye-Scherrer equation that is comparable to commercial nanoparticles. Crab chitosan nanoparicles has been shown to possess distinctly rough flake-like surfaces, while CS NP is compact spheres to cubes with reduced pore dimensions, as confirmed by SEM and TEM analyses. EDX with low residual mineral contents confirmed good purities of prepared materials. Rheological analysis indicated that chitosan extracted from crabs exhibited greater viscosity (31.707 to 42.849 mPa·s) than commercial chitosan (17.818 to 24.024 mPa·s), indicating a higher molecular weight and more significant intermolecular interactions. The overall chitosan yield was 11.02% of the crab shell dry weight. The findings suggest that blue crab shell waste is a value-added product. .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.