, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 2425–2435 | Cite as

A comparative study on the starch-based biocomposite films reinforced by nanocellulose prepared from different non-wood fibers

  • Qifeng Chen
  • Yayun Liu
  • Guangxue ChenEmail author
Original Research


Nanocellulose was extracted from three kinds of non-wood fibers (bamboo, cotton linter, and sisal) by TEMPO-mediated oxidation and high pressure homogenization. Starch-based composite films containing different kinds of nanocellulose with different content (0–10 wt%) were prepared via solution casting method. The morphology and structure of the three kinds of nanocellulose and their respective effects on the composite films were compared by various characterizations. The impacts of nanocellulose content on the thermal stability and mechanical properties of the composite films were also evaluated. The study found that morphology and chemical composition of the nanocellulose obtained from different sources were almost the same, but there were slight differences in their size and crystallinity. Bamboo nanocellulose had the highest aspect ratio, which enabled it to provide the greatest reinforcing effects on the mechanical properties and barrier properties of the composite films. The addition of nanocellulose improved the mechanical properties of the films but reduced their elongation at break and thermal stability. This study paves the route for choosing the most effective non-wood nanocelluloe source and mixed ratio to produce food packaging with the best performance.

Graphical abstract


Nanocellulose Starch Biocomposite films Green packaging 



This work was supported by the Science and Technology Project of Guangdong Province (No. 2017B090901064), the Science and Technology Project of Guangzhou (No. 201607020045).


  1. Abdul Khalil HP, Davoudpour Y, Islam MN, Mustapha A, Sudesh K, Dungani R, Jawaid M (2014) Production and modification of nanofibrillated cellulose using various mechanical processes: a review. Carbohydr Polym 99:649–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. And MNA, Dufresne A (2008) Plasticized starch/tunicin whiskers nanocomposites. 1. Structural analysis. Macromolecules 33:8344–8353Google Scholar
  3. Babaee M, Jonoobi M, Hamzeh Y, Ashori A (2015) Biodegradability and mechanical properties of reinforced starch nanocomposites using cellulose nanofibers. Carbohydr Polym 132:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Besbes I, Alila S, Boufi S (2011) Nanofibrillated cellulose from TEMPO-oxidized eucalyptus fibres: effect of the carboxyl content. Carbohydr Polym 84:975–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonilla J, Atarés L, Vargas M, Chiralt A (2013) Properties of wheat starch film-forming dispersions and films as affected by chitosan addition. J Food Eng 114:303–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carvalho AJF (2008) Chapter 15—starch: major sources, properties and applications as thermoplastic materials. In: Monomers polymers & composites from renewable resources, pp 321–342Google Scholar
  7. Chen J, Long Z, Wang J, Wu M, Wang F, Wang B, Lv W (2017) Preparation and properties of microcrystalline cellulose/hydroxypropyl starch composite films. Cellulose 24:4449–4459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chirayil CJ, Joy J, Mathew L, Mozetic M, Koetz J, Thomas S (2014) Isolation and characterization of cellulose nanofibrils from Helicteres isora plant. Ind Crops Prod 59:27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deepa B, Abraham E, Cordeiro N, Mozetic M, Mathew AP, Oksman K, Faria M, Thomas S, Pothan LA, Universitet LT, Matematik IFRT, Materialvetenskap (2015) Utilization of various lignocellulosic biomass for the production of nanocellulose: a comparative study. Cellulose 22:1075–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Faradilla RHF, Lee G, Rawal A, Hutomo T, Stenzel MH, Arcot J (2016) Nanocellulose characteristics from the inner and outer layer of banana pseudo-stem prepared by TEMPO-mediated oxidation. Cellulose 23:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. French AD (2014) Idealized powder diffraction patterns for cellulose polymorphs. Cellulose 21:885–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. French AD, Santiago Cintrón M (2013) Cellulose polymorphy, crystallite size, and the Segal Crystallinity Index. Cellulose 20:583–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. García NL, Ribba L, Dufresne A, Aranguren MI, Goyanes S (2010) Physico-mechanical properties of biodegradable starch nanocomposites. Macromol Mater Eng 294:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jiang F, Hsieh Y (2015) Self-assembling of TEMPO oxidized cellulose nanofibrils as affected by protonation of surface carboxyls and drying methods. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 4:1041–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karimi S (2014) A comparative study on characteristics of nanocellulose reinforced thermoplastic starch biofilms prepared with different techniques. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 29:41–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaushik A, Kaur R (2016) Thermoplastic starch nanocomposites reinforced with cellulose nanocrystals: effect of plasticizer on properties. Compos Interfaces 23:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaushik A, Singh M, Verma G (2010) Green nanocomposites based on thermoplastic starch and steam exploded cellulose nanofibrils from wheat straw. Carbohydr Polym 82:337–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khalil HPSA, Bhat AH, Yusra AFI (2012) Green composites from sustainable cellulose nanofibrils: a review. Carbohydr Polym 87:963–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li M, Li D, Wang LJ, Adhikari B (2015) Creep behavior of starch-based nanocomposite films with cellulose nanofibrils. Carbohydr Polym 117:957–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mandal A, Chakrabarty D (2011) Isolation of nanocellulose from waste sugarcane bagasse (SCB) and its characterization. Carbohydr Polym 86:1291–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Max J, Chapados C (2004) Infrared spectroscopy of aqueous carboxylic acids: comparison between different acids and their salts. J Phys Chem A 108:3324–3337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montero B, Rico M, Rodríguez-Llamazares S, Barral L, Bouza R (2016) Effect of nanocellulose as a filler on biodegradable thermoplastic starch films from tuber, cereal and legume. Carbohydr Polym 157:1094–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peressini D, Bravin B, Lapasin R, Rizzotti C, Sensidoni A (2003) Starch–methylcellulose based edible films: rheological properties of film-forming dispersions. J Food Eng 59:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sacui IA, Nieuwendaal RC, Burnett DJ, Stranick SJ, Jorfi M, Weder C, Foster EJ, Olsson RT, Gilman JW (2014) Comparison of the properties of cellulose nanocrystals and cellulose nanofibrils isolated from bacteria, tunicate, and wood processed using acid, enzymatic, mechanical, and oxidative methods. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 6:6127–6138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saito T, Kimura S, Nishiyama Y, Isogai A (2007) Cellulose nanofibers prepared by TEMPO-mediated oxidation of native cellulose. Biomacromolecules 8:2485–2491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Santana JS, Do Rosário JM, Pola CC, Otoni CG, Camilloto GP, Cruz RS (2016) Cassava starch-based nanocomposites reinforced with cellulose nanofibers extracted from sisal. J Appl Polym Sci 134:1–9Google Scholar
  27. Savadekar NR, Mhaske ST (2012) Synthesis of nano cellulose fibers and effect on thermoplastics starch based films. Carbohydr Polym 89:146–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Segal L, Creely JJ, Martin AE Jr, Conrad CM (1959) Crystallinity of native cellulose using the X-ray diffractometer. Text Res J 10:786–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shimizu M, Saito T, Fukuzumi H, Isogai A (2014) Hydrophobic, ductile, and transparent nanocellulose films with quaternary alkylammonium carboxylates on nanofibril surfaces. Biomacromolecules 15:4320–4325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shinoda R, Saito T, Okita Y, Isogai A (2012) Relationship between length and degree of polymerization of TEMPO-oxidized cellulose nanofibrils. Biomacromolecules 13:842–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tabarsa T, Sheykhnazari S, Ashori A, Mashkour M, Khazaeian A (2017) Preparation and characterization of reinforced papers using nano bacterial cellulose. Int J Biol Macromol 101:334–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Xu X, Liu F, Jiang L, Zhu JY, Haagenson D, Wiesenborn DP (2013) Cellulose nanocrystals vs. cellulose nanofibrils: a comparative study on their microstructures and effects as polymer reinforcing agents. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 5:2999–3009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhao G, Liu Y, Fang C, Min Z, Zhou C, Chen Z (2006) Water resistance, mechanical properties and biodegradability of methylated-cornstarch/poly(vinyl alcohol) blend film. Polym Degrad Stab 91:703–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhou YM, Fu SY, Zheng LM, Zhan HY (2012) Effect of nanocellulose isolation techniques on the formation of reinforced poly(vinyl alcohol) nanocomposite films. Express Polym Lett 6:794–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Pulp and Paper EngineeringSouth China University of TechnologyGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations