Ultraviolet (UV) light is a type of electromagnetic radiation that is usually divided into three fractions: UVC (100–280 nm/4.43–12.4 eV), UVB (280–315 nm/ 3.94–4.43 eV), and UVA (315–400 nm/ 3.10–3.94 eV). The wavelength of the UV radiation is slightly shorter than that of visible light (400–780 nm), but the photons that are associated with UV radiation carry much more energy (3.1–12.4 eV). UV light can negatively affect drug products/medicines, jeopardizing their quality. For instance, UV and visible light can accelerate the oxidation of fats and oils [
1]. It also affects vitamins (A, B
2, B
12, D, E and K). Since the main source of UV radiation is the sun, a ubiquitous source, it is very important to find appropriate solutions to protect goods. Typically, light-sensitive products are packaged into opaque or dark-coloured packaging to avoid photodegradation. However, nowadays, consumers like to be able to see and inspect a certain food or beverage product before buying it. The consumer feels an increased sense of security if they can see the product in its true unaltered form [
2]. Consequently, UV-shielding and transparent packaging are of increasing interest. In this work, the development of coatings with carbon quantum dots made using two different approaches is explored. The first one uses microwave-assisted synthesis, while the other is performed in an autoclave using a conventional oven. The size and dispersion of the carbon quantum dots in the liquid matrix and the way that these two parameters relate to the UV light absorption capacity are investigated. Additionally, the impact of the withdraw rate applied in the dip-coating process on colour variations (CIELAB) and UV-shielding is determined. The trade-off between colour and UV shielding is discussed. The best results for UV performance in the UV range of 280–400 nm were 95.9% and 97.9% for microwave-assisted synthesis (5 min) and the conventional oven (300 min), respectively.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.R.F.S., M.F.R.P.A., P.M.V. and P.F.; methodology, M.R.F.S.; validation, M.R.F.S., M.F.R.P.A.; formal analysis, M.R.F.S., M.F.R.P.A.; investigation, M.R.F.S.; resources; writing—original draft preparation, M.R.F.S.; writing—review and editing, M.R.F.S., M.F.R.P.A., M.H.F., P.M.V. and P.F.; visualization, M.R.F.S. and P.F.; supervision, P.M.V., P.F.; project administration, P.F.; funding acquisition, M.H.F., P.M.V., P.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by CLEVER project No POCI 01-0247-FEDER-039699 co-financed by FEDER. The authors also thank the support of CICECO-Aveiro Institute of Materials, UIDB/50011/2020, UIDP/50011/2020 & LA/P/0006/2020, financed by national funds through the FCT/MEC (PIDDAC). MRFS and PF are thankful to FCT for the PhD grant SFRH/BO/145661/2019 and FCT Investigator grant IF/00300/2015, respectively.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
| Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).