| Literature DB >> 33171895 |
Lindani Koketso Ncube1, Albert Uchenna Ude1, Enoch Nifise Ogunmuyiwa2, Rozli Zulkifli3, Isaac Nongwe Beas4.
Abstract
Plastics have remained the material of choice, and after serving their intended purpose, a large proportion ends up in the environment where they persist for centuries. The packaging industry is the largest and growing consumer of synthetic plastics derived from fossil fuels. Food packaging plastics account for the bulk of plastic waste that are polluting the environment. Additionally, given the fact that petroleum reserves are finite and facing depletion, there is a need for the development of alternative materials that can serve the same purpose as conventional plastics. This paper reviews the function of packaging materials and highlights the future potential of the adoption of green materials. Biopolymers have emerged as promising green materials although they still have very low market uptake. Polylactic acid (PLA) has emerged as the most favoured bioplastic. However, it is limited by its high cost and some performance drawbacks. Blending with agricultural waste and natural fillers can result in green composites at low cost, low greenhouse gas emissions, and with improved performance for food packaging applications. The continent of Africa is proposed as a rich source of fibres and fillers that can be sustainably exploited to fabricate green composites in a bid to achieve a circular economy.Entities:
Keywords: biodegradable; bioplastics; composites; food packaging; polylactic acid
Year: 2020 PMID: 33171895 PMCID: PMC7664184 DOI: 10.3390/ma13214994
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1EU Waste Management Hierarchy. Adapted from [18].
Figure 2Bioplastics material coordinate system. Adapted from [51].
Figure 3Share of biodegradable and non-biodegradable bioplastics production capacities (2015 to 2019). Data from [64].
Figure 4Global production capacities of bioplastics in 2019. Adapted from [65].
Figure 5Mechanical properties of biopolymers and fossil-based polymers [28].
Figure 6World production capacity for PLA (2010 to 2019). Data from [64].
Figure 7Lifecycle of PLA bioplastic [83].
Some PLA based composites.
| 1. Filler | 2. Composite Fabrication Process | 3. Observation | 4. Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hemp fibres | Twin extruder, compression and injection moulding |
− Increased tensile strength, young’s modulus and impact strength − Fibre treatments with alkali and saline increased tensile and impact strength | [ |
| Fine grain filler of native cellulose | Melt-mixing |
− Good dispersion of the filler giving an aesthetic appearance, creamy colour and glossy surface − Good thermal stability | [ |
| Ceramic food waste from grinding egg shells and mussel shells | Melt-mixing |
− High filler amounts of 140 over 100 parts of PLA − Thermoplastic, biodegradable and low carbon footprint composites − Composites do not release volatiles typical of fossil-based plastics that are hormone disruptors or priority air pollutants that pose public health | [ |
| Silver skin (waste from roasting coffee beans) | Melt-mixing |
− Up to 30%wt% of filler content can be added − Increase in young’s modulus | [ |
| Waste from wine production (grape skins, seeds and stalk fragments) | Molding |
− Up to 20% of filler can be added − High elastic modulus and impact strength but lower tensile strength − Increase in moisture absorption with increase in filler content | [ |
| Cocoa bean shells | Solution casting |
− Improved physical properties of the composites − Low levels of food migration and improved barrier properties | [ |
Comparison of PLA properties to other common polymers used in food packaging. Data from [52,53,111,112,113].
| Property/Polymer | LDPE | PET | PLA | PP | PS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strength (MPa) | 10–12 | 55–79 | 37–66 | 15–27 | 24–60 |
| Elongation at Break (%) | 300–500 | 15–165 | 0.5–9.2 | 100–600 | 1.6–2.5 |
| Oxygen barrier (permeation at 30 °C [*10−10 cm3(STP)·cm/cm2·S·cm Hg]) | 6.9 | 0.04 | 3.3 | 1.5 | 2.6 |
| Moisture vapour transmission rate (g-mil/10in.2/24 h) | 1.0–1.5 | 2 | 18–22 | 0.5 | 10 |
| Water absorbance (%) | 0.005–0.015 | 0.1–0.2 | 3.1 | 0.01–0.1 | 0.01–0.4 |
| Thermal properties [Glass Transition Temperature-Tg (°C)] | −110 | 73 | 55 | −20 | 90 |
| Transparency (Clarity) | High | Excellent | High | Poor | Excellent |
| Carbon dioxide barrier (permeation) | 28 | 0.2 | 10.2 | 5.3 | 10.5 |
| Chemical resistance | Good | Good | Poor | Good | Good |