| Literature DB >> 35215577 |
Shiou Xuan Tan1, Andri Andriyana1,2, Hwai Chyuan Ong3, Steven Lim4,5, Yean Ling Pang4,5, Gek Cheng Ngoh6.
Abstract
Petroleum-based plastics are associated with environmental pollution problems owing to their non-biodegradable and toxic properties. In this context, renewable and biodegradable bioplastics possess great potential to replace petroleum-based plastics in mitigating these environmental issues. Fabrication of bioplastic films involves a delicate mixture of the film-forming agent, plasticizer and suitable solvent. The role of the plasticizer is to improve film flexibility, whereas the filler serves as a reinforcement medium. In recent years, much research attention has been shifted toward devising diverse methods for enhancing the performance of bioplastics, particularly in the utilization of environmentally benign nanoparticles to displace the conventional hazardous chemicals. Along this line, this paper presents the emergence of nanofillers and plasticizers utilized in bioplastic fabrication with a focus on starch-based bioplastics. This review paper not only highlights the influencing factors that affect the optical, mechanical and barrier properties of bioplastics, but also revolves around the proposed mechanism of starch-based bioplastic formation, which has rarely been reviewed in the current literature. To complete the review, prospects and challenges in bioplastic fabrication are also highlighted in order to align with the concept of the circular bioplastic economy and the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals.Entities:
Keywords: bioplastic fabrication; mechanism; nanofiller; plasticizer; starch-based bioplastic
Year: 2022 PMID: 35215577 PMCID: PMC8874690 DOI: 10.3390/polym14040664
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Classifications of bioplastics based on feedstock.
Figure 2Structure of amylose and amylopectin in starch. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [28]. Copyright 2015 Elsevier Ltd.
Figure 3Fabrication routes of PLA. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [41]. Copyright 2015 Elsevier Ltd.
List of nanofillers incorporated in starch-based films with the reported findings or properties enhancement.
| Nanofiller | Proposed Application | Findings/Enhancement as Compared to the Control Film | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Layered silicates | |||
| Nanoclay | Food packaging film | Reduction of water vapour permeability (WVP) by 14% | [ |
| Nanoclay | Packaging material | Improvement of tensile strength from 5.2 to 6.3 MPa | [ |
| Nanosilica (nano-SiO2) | Packaging material | TPS film with hydrophilic nano-SiO2 had lower retrogradation rate than that with hydrophobic nano-SiO2. | [ |
| MMT | Packaging material | Improvement of tensile strength by 32% with MMT loading of 5 wt.% | [ |
| Organic nanofillers | |||
| Cellulose nanofibers (CNF) | Packaging material | Improvement of tensile strength by 33% with CNF loading of 3 wt.% | [ |
| Cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) | Packaging film | Reduction of water absorption and water solubility by 21% and 50% with CNC loading of 20 wt.%, respectively | [ |
| Cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) | Food packaging film | Improvement of tensile strength by 56% with CNC loading of 10 vol.% | [ |
| Chitosan | Packaging film | Improvement of tensile strength by 17% with chitosan loading of 10 wt.% | [ |
| Chitosan | Packaging film | Optimum tensile strength of ~6.79 MPa at TPS/chitosan ratio of 4:6 | [ |
| Inorganic nanofillers | |||
| Zinc oxide (ZnO) nanorods | Food packaging film | Improvement of tensile strength (47 to 90 MPa) and Young’s modulus (2.1 to 3.2 MPa) | [ |
| Silver nanoparticles (Ag-NP) | Active packaging film | Improvement of tensile strength (2.8 to 9.0 MPa) and Young’s modulus (50 to 530 MPa) | [ |
| Ag-NP | Food packaging film | Reduction of WVP by 16% | [ |
| Ag-NP/nanoclay | Food packaging film | Reduction of WVP by 33% | [ |
| Carbonaceous fillers | |||
| Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) | For packaging and electroconductive applications | Improvement of tensile strength by 327% and Young’s modulus by 2484% at MWCNT loading of 0.5 wt.% | [ |
| Multi-walled carbon nanotubes functionalized with cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (MWCNT-CTAB) | Production of conductive film | Improvement of 2,2′-azino-bis-(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) radical scavenging activity (from ~2.5% to 30.2% after 1.5 h) | [ |
| Multi-walled carbon nanotubes functionalized with ascorbic acid (MWCNT-AA) | As adsorbent for removal of methylene blue (MB) dye from aqueous solution | Enhancement of thermal stability | [ |
| Multi-walled carbon nanotubes functionalized with ascorbic acid (MWCNT-AA) | As adsorbent for removal of methylene range (MO) dye from aqueous solution | Enhancement of thermal stability | [ |
| Multi-walled carbon nanotubes functionalized with fructose (MWCNT-Fr) | As adsorbent for dye removal from aqueous solution | Film was too brittle for tensile test | [ |
| Multi-walled carbon nanotubes functionalized with Valine (MWCNT-Valine) | As adsorbent for removal of copper ions from aqueous solution | Enhancement of thermal stability | [ |
| Graphene oxide (GO) | Food packaging film | Improvement of tensile strength (from 57.97 to 76.09 MPa) and Young’s modulus (from 20.59 to 35.91 MPa). | [ |
Advantages and disadvantages of plasticizers.
| Plasticizer | Examples | Advantages | Disadvantages | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetable oil | Biodegradable | Edible vegetable oil competes with food supply | [ | |
| IL | 1-allyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride | Non-volatile due to negligible vapour pressure | Difficult to prepare | [ |
| DES | Deep eutectic salts based on choline chloride | Cheaper to produce | Sometimes biodegradable | [ |
Figure 4Epoxidation of Jatropha oil. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [36]. Copyright 2017 MDPI.
Optimum reaction conditions for fabrication of starch-based bioplastics using solvent-casting technique.
| Sources of Starch | Filler; Starch to Filler Ratio | Filler; Optimum Loading | Plasticizer; Optimum Loading | Processing Temperature (°C) | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Young’s Modulus (MPa) | Elongation at Break (%) | Moisture Uptake (%) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corn | - | CNC; 10 wt.% | Glycerol; 3 wt.% | 70 | 26.80 | 898 | 4.20 | 10 | [ |
| Avocado seed | Chitosan; 7:3 | - | Glycerol; | 90 | 5.10 | 36.36 | 14.03 | - | [ |
| Cassava peel | - | MCC Avicel PH101; | Sorbitol; 20 wt.% | 70 | 9.12 | - | - | 70 * | [ |
| Cassava | - | Nanoclay; | Glycerol; 1.5 vol.% | 80 | 13.50 | 47 | - | - | [ |
| Cassava | - | ZnO; 0.6 wt.% | Glycerol; 25 wt.% | 85 ± 5 | 22.30 | - | 220 * | - | [ |
| Jackfruit seed | Chitosan; 8:2 | - | Sorbitol; 25 wt.% | 88.82 | 13.52 | - | - | - | [ |
| Sago | - | Chitosan; 20 wt.% | Sorbitol; 25 wt.% | 70 | 46.71 | - | 0.32 | 130.31 | [ |
| Durian seed | - | Chitosan; 15 wt.% | Sorbitol; 45 wt.% | 70 | 10.63 | 129.51 | 8.21 | - | [ |
| Yellow pumpkin | Chitosan; 6:4 | - | Castor oil; 15 wt.% | - | 6.79 | 6.09 | 13.45 | - | [ |
| Mango seed | - | Clay; 6 wt.% | Glycerol; 25 wt./v% | - | 5.66 | - | 43.43 | 32.28 | [ |
* denotes for values estimated from charts presented in the original reference.