| Literature DB >> 35458283 |
Zhuolun Jiang1, To Ngai1.
Abstract
The application of cellulose in the food packaging field has gained increasing attention in recent years, driven by the desire for sustainable products. Cellulose can replace petroleum-based plastics because it can be converted to biodegradable and nontoxic polymers from sustainable natural resources. These products have increasingly been used as coatings, self-standing films, and paperboards in food packaging, owing to their promising mechanical and barrier properties. However, their utilization is limited because of the high hydrophilicity of cellulose. With the presence of a large quantity of functionalities within pristine cellulose and its derivatives, these building blocks provide a unique platform for chemical modification via covalent functionalization to introduce stable and permanent functionalities to cellulose. A primary aim of chemical attachment is to reduce the probability of component leaching in wet and softened conditions and to improve the aqueous, oil, water vapor, and oxygen barriers, thereby extending its specific use in the food packaging field. However, chemical modification may affect the desirable mechanical, thermal stabilities and biodegradability exhibited by pristine cellulose. This review exhaustively reports the research progress on cellulose chemical modification techniques and prospective applications of chemically modified cellulose for use in food packaging, including active packaging.Entities:
Keywords: biodegradable polymers; cellulose; chemical modification; food packaging
Year: 2022 PMID: 35458283 PMCID: PMC9032711 DOI: 10.3390/polym14081533
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1(a) Common sources of cellulose; (b) Chemical structure of cellulose; (c) Life cycle of cellulosic food packaging [15].
Figure 2(Trans)esterification and crosslinking reaction schemes of cellulose and cellulose derivatives.
Figure 3(a) Hierarchical structure of wood, showing: the middle lamella (ML), the primary wall (P), the outer (S1), middle (S2), and inner (S3) layers of secondary wall, the warty layer (W), cellulose (C), hemicellulose (H), lignin (L), microfibril (MF), elementary fibril (EF), crystalline domain (Cr) and amorphous domain (Am) [65]; (b) Methods to manufacture cellulose fibers with various sizes [17].
Extraction methods and properties of cellulose from diverse natural sources.
| Cellulose Source | Extraction Method | Fiber Size | Crystallinity | Functionality | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| kenaf bast fiber | disintegration, refining, cryo-crushing and cylinder homogenization | CNF, diameter: 10–30 nm | 81% | –OH | [ |
| blender homogenization | BNF, fiber size: n.d. a | 91.8% | –OH | [ | |
| tunicin cellulose | TEMPO b-mediated | CMF, diameter: 10–20 nm | n.d. | –OH and sodium carboxylate groups (0.31 mmol/g) | [ |
| wood pulp filter paper | blender homogenization, refining, freeze-drying | CNC, fiber size: n.d. | 85% | –OH and sulfate groups | [ |
| commercial never-dried CNC suspension in water | - | CNC, length: 64 nm, width: 7 nm | 72% | –OH and sulfate groups | [ |
| wheat straw CMF | blender homogenization | CNF, diameter: 10–40 nm | 89% | –OH | [ |
| softwood pulp dissolved with sulfite | carboxymethylation and cylinder homogenization | CMF, diameter: 5–15 nm | n.d. | –OH and sodium carboxylate groups (586 μ-equiv./g) | [ |
| softwood and hardwood bleached kraft pulp | TEMPO-mediated | TOCN c, length: several μm, diameter: 3–4 nm | 75% | -OH and sodium carboxylate groups | [ |
| spruce/pine ( | enzymatic treatment and cylinder homogenization | CNF, diameter: 20 nm | n.d. | -OH and sulfate groups | [ |
| CMC from cotton linters | CNC: acid hydrolysis using sulfuric acid and freeze-dried, regenerated cellulose: treated by | CNC (length: 300 nm, diameter: 10 nm), regenerated cellulose (length: 100 μm) | 80% | CNC: –OH and sulfate groups (70 mmol kg−1) | [ |
a Not detected; b 2,2,6,6-Tetramethyl-1-piperidinyloxy; c TEMPO-oxidized CNF.
Esterification of cellulose using C2–C6 acylants, reaction degree, and the associated packaging forming methods.
| Cellulose | Acylation Process | Packaging Type and Its Formation | Reaction Degree | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| softwood cellulose pulp; CMF | acetic acid or acetic anhydride as acylant with or without sulfuric acid as catalyst, reacted at 60–70 °C for 0.5–4 h with or without toluene as solvent | CA coating or film; CA solution was coated on paper via the hand lay-up technique or solvent-casted in air | DS = 0.21–0.32 for C2-CMF CES | [ |
| CMF | oxalic acid as esterifying agent, reacted at 90 °C for 0.25–4 h in DI water | C2-CES coating; C2-CES aqueous suspension was deposited on filter paper through vacuum filtration, then oven-dried | carboxyl group content of 0.21–0.43 mmol/g fibrils | [ |
| CNC extracted from bamboo waste pulp | butyric anhydride as acylant and iodine as catalyst, reacted at 105–110 °C for 30 min without solvent | C4-CES film or coating; C4-CES solution was solvent-casted or coated on mung bean seeds | DS = 2.1 | [ |
| cotton cellulose | acetic, propionic or butyric anhydride as acylant with trifluoroacetic acid as solvent/catalyst, reacted at 50 °C for 1 h | C2, C3, C4 (or their mixture)-CES films or coatings; CES solution was solvent-casted or coated on white paper with a bar coater | DS = 2.7–3 | [ |
| CMF from wood pulp | hexanoyl chloride as acylant and activated by mechanical ball milling, reacted at RT for 1–12 h in DMF | C6-CES film; C6-CES solution was solvent-casted, dried in an air-circulating oven at 60 °C and treated at 60 °C under vacuum for another 8 h | DS = 0.25–0.45 (3 h of milling time, 1–4 mL of acylant) | [ |
Overview of C2–C6 CES materials in food packaging applications.
| Cellulose Packaging | Additives | Packaging Properties | Food Packaging | Ref. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barrier Properties | Mechanical Properties | Other Properties | ||||
| kraft paper (CA as coating) | 2–8 mL of CIN ( | oil resistance: kit number 12; WA, WVP and OTR of the CIN-CA-coated paper markedly decreased by 96.2%, 76.8%, and million times, respectively | dry and wet σ was increased from 55.8 and 2.3 MPa to 88.2 and 12.9 MPa, respectively, compared with kraft paper | good cytocompatibility, high antioxidation with 8% CIN, excellent antibacterial performance with 6% CIN | extend beef’s shelf-life by 4–5 d at 4 °C | [ |
| CA-coupled cellulose cardboard (food-grade resin as coating) | 10% ( | n.d. a | n.d. | good cytocompatibility in the release test, excellent antibacterial performance | preserved cooked pasta for up to 30 days at 4 °C | [ |
| CA film | 10–50 wt% PEG, 1–5 wt% MMTCTAB-MMT or 0.05 wt% G- AgNPs | 3 wt% CTAB-MMT-incorporated CA film showed the lowest WVTR of 5.84 g/m2 24 h; 0.05% G-AgNP-incorporated CA film showed an increased degree of water swelling from 0.28 to 0.44–0.62 | ε of 20 wt% PEG-incorporated CA film (CAP20) was increased from 3.8% to 31.0%, while σ decreased from 43.3 MPa to 32.6 MPa compared with CA film | CAP20 film incorporated with CTAB-MMT showed slightly increased thermal stability, good antimicrobial properties, and no cytotoxicity; G-AgNP-incorporated CA film showed strong antibacterial activity and no cytotoxicity | n.d. | [ |
| CA film | 0.1–1% of carotenoids (lycopene, norbixin and zeaxanthin) ( | 0.1 wt% carotenoids: WVP = 0.035 g × mm m−2 h−1 kPa−1 for norbixin, 0.023 g × m m−2 h−1 kPa−1 for zeaxanthin and 0.022 g × mm m−2 h−1 kPa−1 for lycopene | 0.1 wt% lycopene or zeaxanthin: ε increased from 3.9% to 15%, while ε of 0.1 wt% norbixin-CA film remained unchanged; σ increased from 65.3 MPa to 84, 104 and 86 MPa, respectively, for norbixin-, lycopene- and zeaxanthin-loaded films | films with norbixin or lycopene displayed better light protection for sunflower oil; films with norbixin showed the best UV protection for vitamin B2; film with 0.1% zeaxanthin showed 50 °C lower Td-onset (200 °C) compared with CA film and the films with other carotenoids | n.d. | [ |
a Not detected.
Figure 4WVTR of CMF film, cellulose ester packaging and LPDE film [5,96,102,105,109].
Figure 5(a) Mechanical strength (ε vs. σ) of cellulose and cellulose esters with various chain lengths and DS values; (b) mechanical strength (ε vs. σ) of cellulose and cellulose esters compared with poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and petroleum-derived plastics [116].
Figure 6Strategies for cellulose ester-based packaging manufacture.
Esterification of cellulose using C2–C20 acylants, reaction degree, and the associated packaging forming methods.
| Cellulose | Acylation Process | Packaging Type and Its Formation | Reaction Degree | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| unbleached eucalyptus CNF; wheat bran and maize bran residue cellulose; cellulose sheet; softwood cellulose; CMC; α-cellulose | C6–C20 acyl chlorides as acylants, pyridine, sulfuric acid or DMAP as catalyst, reacted at 50–130 °C in DMAc, DMAc/LiCl or cosolvent of toluene and pyridine for hours | C6–C20 films; | DS = 0.19–3 | [ |
| BNF, α-cellulose | C2–C12 carboxylic acids or C8–C18 acyl chlorides as acylants, reacted at 50–130 °C for 2 h in pyridine or pyridine/tosyl chloride | C2–C12 cellulose ester papers or C8–C18 cellulose ester films; wet cellulose cakes or films were hot-pressed at 90–110 °C | DS = 0.64–3 (DS of cellulose esters decreased with increasing substituent chain length from C2 to C12) | [ |
| C6–C16 acyl chlorides as acylants and pyridine as catalyst, reacted in DMAc, DMAc/LiCl or pyridine at RT–100 °C for hours or days | C6–C16 cellulose ester-coated paper; cellulose ester suspension or solution was spray- or bar-coated on paperboard via air brush or bar coater | DS = 0.62–2.9 | [ | |
| premade CNF film | lauroyl, palmitoyl or stearoyl chloride as acylant, reacted in pyridine at 100 °C | C12-, C16- and C18-cellulose ester films; one-sided acylation using a brush and reacted at 100 °C; immersion acylation at 100 °C for 90 min | immersion modification resulted in a higher DS (0.91–1.8) than one-sided modification (0.37–0.55) | [ |
| oat straw CNF | acetic, butyric, hexanoic or 2-dodecen-1-yl-succinnic anhydride as acylant, reacted at 80 °C in an oven for 2 h with a 10 kg weight on top | C2–C16 cellulose ester nanopapers; CNF wet cake was immersed in acylant liquid for 2 d, then put in an oven at 80 °C for 2 h under hot pressing | DS of cellulose esters decreased from 0.38 to 0.1 with increasing substituent chain length from C2 to C16 | [ |
Overview of cellulose ester (C2–C18) materials in food packaging applications.
| Cellulose Packaging | Packaging Properties | Ref. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barrier Properties | Mechanical Properties | Other Properties | ||
| C11-CEM film | higher WCA (101°) and lower WA (6%) than original CNF film (54°, 95%), lower WVP at 3.4 × 10−9 g⋅m−1 s−1 Pa−1 than pristine CNF film (9.0 × 10−9 g⋅m−1 s−1 Pa−1) | decreased σ and E (47 MPa, 2075 MPa) compared with that of neat CNF film (57, 3847 MPa), while the ε was slightly increased (6.2% | Td-onset was increased slightly to 350 °C compared with that of CNF (343 °C) | [ |
| C18-CEL film | WVTRs of isostearic-, oleic- and modified TOFA- cellulose ester films were markedly reduced to 21.7, 22.4 and 43.4 g/m2 24 h, poor oxygen resistance (too high for the sensor) | isostearic CEL film showed the highest ε of 101% (twice that of the original cellulose film), while oleic CEL film and modified TOFA CEL film had lower εs (57% and 45%) | Td-onset of C18-CELs (327~340 °C) was 7~22 °C higher than that of unmodified cellulose (320 °C) | [ |
| C18-CEL film (DS = 0.3–3) | C18-CEL (DS = 0.3) film absorbed less water (13.9%) than pristine CMC film (28.9%), while C18-CEL (DS = 3) did not show significant WA, C18-CEL3 film had higher WCA (110°) than C18-CEL0.3 film (102°), WVPs of C18-CEL3 and C18-CEL0.3 films were decreased to 5 × 10−12 and 75 × 10−12 g m−1 s−1 Pa−1, respectively, compared with 158 × 10−12 g m−1 s−1 Pa−1 for neat CMC film | C18-CEL0.3 film had higher mechanical strength (σ = 28.5 MPa, E = 1118 MPa, ε = 12.7%) than C18-CEL3 film (σ = 5.5 MPa, E = 286 MPa, ε = 2.5%), but both substituted films had decreased mechanical strength compared with unmodified CMC film (σ = 169.2 MPa, E = 7230 MPa, ε = 15.9%) | C18-CEL0.3 film exhibited moisture-responsiveness, while C18-CEL3 film showed thermal responsiveness, the C18-CEL3 film displayed a distinct Tm at 55 °C, while no Tm was found for the C18-CEL0.3 film, reversible changes in the C18-CEL3 film volumes were observed when varying the temperature | [ |
| C6-, C8-, C10-, C12-, C14- and C18-cellulose ester films (DS = 0.8–1.3) | WCA was increased from 66° to 90°, WVP was decreased from 6 to 1.6 cc × mm m−2 d−1 kPa−1 for C6 to C18, which was markedly lower than 20–25 cc × mm m−2 d−1 kPa−1 for pristine CNF film, C6–C18 cellulose ester films all exhibited poor oxygen resistance | C6-CES, C10-CEM and C12-CEM films had higher E (550–600 MPa) compared with other cellulose ester films, C8-CEM (DS = 1.3) film had the highest ε (90%), C12-CEM (DS = 0.9) film had the highest σ (35 MPa); the other cellulose ester films had lower σ (20–24 MPa) | cellulose ester films were transparent, flexible and heat-sealable, melted at 170–225 °C, and were able to be squeezed through a 2-mm rod die | [ |
| C11-CEM-coated paper | WCA decreased from 117° to 101° with coating grammage increasing from 0.97 to 6.25 g m−2, WVTR decreased from 441 to 192 g/m2 24 h with increasing coating grammage, compared with 622 g/m2 24 h of uncoated paper | slightly increased ε an nonsignificant change in tensile index | PHGH and MPA were attached to C11-CEM-coated paper, giving the paper desirable antimicrobial performance | [ |
| C6- and C16-cellulose ester-coated paper (DS = 1.6–2.9) | WCA was enhanced to 95–123°, WVTR of C16-CEL-coated paper (100–300 g/m2 24 h) was considerably lower than that of C6-CES-coated paper (400–1020 g/m2 24 h) | cellulose ester-coated paper showed slightly enhanced σ (12.4–12.7 MPa) compared with uncoated paper (11.8 MPa) | C16-CEL-coated paper showed higher Td-onset (350 °C) than C6-CES-coated paper (320 °C). C6-CES and C16-CEL powder became liquid at 160 °C and 220 °C, respectively, in an oven | [ |
| C12-, C16- and C18-cellulose ester films, DS (immersion method) = 0.9–1.8, DS (one-sided method) = 0.37–0.55 | WCA of one-sided acylated film: 105–121°, WCA of immersion-acylated film: 113°, WVP of one-sided acylated film did not show any decrease compared with that of unmodified CNF films (WVP = 0.057 ng s−1 m−1 Pa−1), WVP of immersion-acylated film decreased to 0.006–0.021 ng s−1 m−1 Pa−1 | mechanical strength of one-side-acylated film was comparable to that of the original CNF film, immersion-acylated film showed much weaker mechanical strength | thermal stability was increased for immersion-acylated films, whereas that of one-side-acylated films was similar to pristine CNF film (Td-onset = 245 °C) | [ |
| C2-, C4-, C6- and C16-cellulose ester nanopapers (DS = 0.1–0.38) | WCA was enhanced from 32° to 119° from C2 to C16 and was 24° for the neat CNF nanopaper, C16-CEL paper floated on the water surface for several weeks, while pristine CNF paper sank | C2-CES nanopaper had the highest E, and C16-CEL nanopaper had the lowest E, C16-CEL had the highest wet strength, which was 7- fold greater than that of the reference CNF nanopaper | n.d. a | [ |
a Not detected.
Influence of packaging manufacturing technologies on properties of cellulose ester-based packaging (DS = 0.2–2.8).
| Technology | Smoothness | WCA a | WVP | TS | Efficiency | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| self-standing film | ‘4–5’ b | 84–107°, ‘2–3’ | reduced 62–90%, ‘4–5’ | decreased 18%, ‘4’ | ‘2’ | [ |
| physical bar coating on paperboard | ‘3–4’ | 100–124°, ‘3–4’ | reduced 29~69%, ‘2–4’ | no change, ‘5’ | ‘1’ | [ |
| chemical brush coating on film | ‘4’ | 109°, ‘3’ | no change, ‘1’ | decreased 32%, ‘3’ | ‘4’ | [ |
| spray coating on paperboard | ‘1’ | 152°, ‘5’ | no change, ‘1’ | n.d. c | ‘3’ | [ |
| chemical immersion coating on film | ‘3’ | 114°, ‘3’ | reduced 63~90%, ‘4–5’ | decreased 68~80%, ‘1–2’ | ‘5’ | [ |
a WCA of neat cellulose film or paperboard is 15–57°; b With increasing number, cellulose ester-based packaging displays poorest (‘1’) or best (‘5’) performance for each parameter, and ‘2–4’ is the extent between them; c Not detected.
Influence of crosslinking on water sensitivity and mechanical strength of cellulose packaging (after vs. before).
| Parameters | Crosslinker | Water Solubility (WS)/WA | WVTR/WVP | σ, ε | Ref. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cellulose | ||||||
| sorbitol plasticized nanocellulose-coated filter paper | CAC | n.d. a | WVP: reduced by 88% | no change in σ; ε: 3.7% | [ | |
| HPMC | CAC | WS: reduced by 74% | WVP: reduced by 43% | n.d. a | [ | |
| CMCS | UV irradiation | WS: reduced by 21% | WVTR: reduced by 99% | σ: 46.8 MPa | [ | |
| DACNF | gelatin | WA: 44% | WVP: reduced by 99.9% | wet σ: 15.4 MPa | [ | |
| CMCS | DMTMM | WS: 18% | WVP: reduced by 40% | σ: 55 MPa | [ | |
a Not detected.
Crosslinking of cellulose derivatives, reaction degree, and the associated packaging forming methods.
| Cellulose | Crosslinking Process | Packaging Type and Its Formation | Reaction Degree | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEG400 plasticized HPMC | CAC as crosslinker and NaH2PO4 as catalyst, reacted in a mixture of DI water and ethanol with homogenization for 15 min, dried at 60 °C for 60 min and cured at 190 °C for 15 min | CAC-HPMC film; cured at high temperature | crosslinking rate ranged between 0% and 65% with a CAC content of 0–15% ( | [ |
| CMCS | photo-crosslinking via UV irradiation at RT for 30–180 min with SB as photo-initiator or chemical crosslinking with saturated GLA vapor plus gelatin as synergistic crosslinkers at 80 °C for 30–180 min | CMCS/SB/UV or CMCS/GLA/gelatin film; films were prepared by the casting method at 45 °C for 18 h | photo-crosslinked film treated with 20 wt% SB and irradiated for 180 min, or chemically-crosslinked film modified with 0.2 g gelatin and exposed to GLA vapor for 90 min were found to have optimized crosslinking degrees | [ |
| DACNF | gelatin as crosslinker, reacted in DI water at 60 °C for 3 h | G-DACNF film; vacuum filtration and solvent casting | crosslinking degree = 57% | [ |
| gelatin plasticized CMCS | DMTMM as crosslinker for CMCS, reacted in DI water at RT for 2 h | DMTMM-CMCS film; films were prepared by the casting method at 40 °C overnight | optimum crosslinking degree was achieved in the presence of 5 wt% DMTMM and 50 wt% glycerol | [ |
Overview of crosslinked cellulose materials in food packaging applications.
| Cellulose Packaging | Additives | Packaging Properties | Ref. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barrier Properties | Mechanical Properties | Other Properties | |||
| BTCA, TCA, SA crosslinked paper | - | n.d. a | wet tensile index of BTCA crosslinked (27 mN/g) and TCA crosslinked paper (16.5 mN/g) were markedly enhanced compared with 1.3 mN/g of pristine paper, while papers treated with SA showed little wet strength enhancement | n.d. | [ |
| CAC-CNC-coated filter paper (three layers of coating) | sorbitol | modified paper showed increased WA (37%) compared with uncoated filter paper (29%), WVP and OP of modified paper was considerably decreased to 0.5 g mm kPa−1 m−2 day−1 and 2 mL µm m−2 day−1 kPa−1 compared with 4 g mm kPa−1 m−2 day−1 and 197 mL µm m−2 day−1 kPa−1 of uncoated filter paper | modified paper had a nearly unchanged σ, a reduced E (from 570 to 310 MPa) and increased ε (from 2.5% to 3.7%) compared with the control filter paper | Td-onset decreased from 311 °C to 288 °C | [ |
| CAC-HPMC film | PEG400 | increasing CAC content decreased WS of films, with an optimum CAC content of approximately 14%; 5 wt% CAC ( | n.d. | CAC-HPMC films were transparent | [ |
| CMCS/SB/UV or CMCS/GLA/gelatin film | - | WS of CMCS/SB/UV and CMCS/GLA/gelatin films was reduced to 57.1% and 50.1%, respectively, compared with 78.2% for pristine CMCS film, WVP of CMCS/SB/UV film was markedly decreased to 9 × 10−7 g m−1 s−1 Pa−1 compared with 8.19 × 10−5 g m−1 s−1 Pa−1 for neat CMCS film, while CMCS/GLA/gelatin showed a smaller WVP decrease (to 50 × 10−7 g m−1 s−1 Pa−1) | σ of CMCS/SB/UV and CMCS/GLA/gelatin films were considerably enhanced to 46.8 MPa and 33.7 MPa, respectively, compared with 14.2 MPa of unmodified CMCS film. However, the ε of the CMCS films decreased from 19.9% to 9.1% and 13.8% after crosslinking with SB/UV or GLA/gelatin, respectively | both crosslinked films were noncytotoxic | [ |
| G-DACNF film | - | G-DACNF displayed greatly decreased WA when immersed in DI water for 1 h, resulting in a weight increase of only 44%, while the neat CNF film weight increased by 167% | G-DACNF film exhibited a much higher wet mechanical strength (ε: 23.2%, wet σ: 15.4 MPa, wet E: 94 MPa) compared with unmodified CNF film (6.7%, 0.9 MPa, 26 MPa) | G-DACNF films were transparent | [ |
| DMTMM- CMCS film | gelatin (added or not) | 5 wt% DMTMM-CMCS showed the lowest WS (18.1%); while CMCS completely dissolved in water within 4 h, the 10 wt% DMTMM-CMCS film showed a decreased WVP and oil absorption (0.68 × 10−7 g m−1 h−1 Pa−1 and 0.29%); however, the addition of glycerol increased the water sensitivity of the DMTMM-CMCS films | σ was enhanced from 32 MPa to 54.9 MPa, while the ε decreased from 30.1% to 25.4% with the addition of 5 wt% DMTMM compared with neat CMCS film. With the addition of glycerol, the optimum σ and ε values (52.3 MPa, 37.3%) were achieved in the presence of 5 wt% DMTMM and 50 wt% glycerol | DMTMM-CMCS films were transparent with optical transmittance of 80–90% | [ |
a Not detected.