ArticleDiscover nano2026
Sustainable chitosan nanocomposite films reinforced bio silica for UV protective and active food packaging.
Article in Discover nano, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chitosan was integrated with rice husk-derived bio-silica nanoparticles, including both silica-based nanocellulose (NC) and pure silica nanoparticles (SiO₂), to develop environmentally friendly active packaging films designated as CS@NC-SiO₂, valorizing agricultural waste within a circular-economy framework. The bio-silica Particles were prepared by citric-acid pretreatment followed by calcination at 600 °C. Films containing 0.25-1 wt% SiO₂, with and without NC, were systematically evaluated, and both the nanoparticles and the resulting nanocomposites were characterized by SEM, EDX, TEM, FTIR, and XRD. The optimized CS@NC-SiO₂ film, loaded with 0.75% SiO₂, exhibited marked improvements in several key properties. It recorded char residue 51% at 700 °C (compared with 39% for pure chitosan). The water contact angle increased to 94.6°, and water-vapor permeability fell to 1.146 g/(h·m·atm). it showed better mechanical properties than the pure chitosan film: tensile strength rose to 25.37 MPa, elongation at break to 27%, and Young's modulus to 593 MPa. The same film provided strong UV protection (UPF 57.8% (3.0% UVA and 1.8% UVB transmission) and showed high antibacterial activity (98.12% inhibition of Escherichia coli and 61.70% inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus. The CPS
Indexed as
Identifiers
42911290What 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.