ArticleUltrasonics sonochemistry2026
Comparative effects of ultrasound, ultraviolet, and microwave treatments on the structure-property relationships of cactus polysaccharide-gelatin composite films.
Article in Ultrasonics sonochemistry, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biodegradable polysaccharide-protein films are promising alternatives to petroleum-based packaging but often lack adequate structural stability and functionality. Although ultrasound (US), ultraviolet (UV), and microwave (MW) treatments have been individually applied to improve biopolymer films, a systematic comparison on the same film system remains unreported. Here, cactus polysaccharide (CP) was extracted fromOpuntiaspp. with high purity (91.69% polysaccharides, 117.15 μg/g protein, 1.03 mg/g phenolics). CP-gelatin films were fabricated and treated with US (200 W, 20 kHz, 30 min), UV (254 nm, 30 W, 30 min), or MW (300 W, 2450 MHz, intermittent heating). Effects of these physical fields technologies on the structural, physicochemical, mechanical, and functional properties of the films were systematically evaluated. Compared with UV and MW treatments, US treatment resulted in significantly lower moisture content (6.38% vs. 7.09% and 6.78%), water solubility (65.34% vs. 71.51% and 68.22%), swelling index (99.0% vs. 117.7% and 108.5%), and water vapour permeability (1.81 × 10
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.