Advertisement

pp 1-21 | Cite as

Recent Developments in Food-Based Bioplastics Production

  • Babuskin SrinivasanEmail author
  • Garima Kulshreshtha
Chapter
  • 3 Downloads
Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series

Abstract

The problem of pollution has been rising all over the world right now, and plastics are the one that plays major role in it, which has been in daily use like packaging materials, carry bags, manufacturing of different types of materials, etc. Among them around, 40% are particularly used for the production of food packaging materials. A feasible way to solve this issue is to gradually decrease the consumption of plastics prepared of petrochemical origin and subsequently substitute it with plastics made up of biodegradable materials. The transformation process of bioplastics materials (starch, polyhydroxyalkanoates, cellulose, and polylactide) for food packaging applications by employing traditional plastic manufacturing techniques such as injection molding, extrusion, and compression molding has been discussed in this chapter. Active packaging is one of the latest packaging techniques which contain active ingredients in them utilized to scavenge free radicals or eradicate undesirable organisms, thereby extending the shelf life of the product. The application of bioplastics materials in the production of active packaging has also been reviewed and discussed in this chapter.

Keywords

Active packaging Barrier Bioplastics Food packaging Polyhydroxyalkanoates 

Abbreviations

HDPE

High-density polyethylene

HPMC

Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose

HSAC

α-Hydroxysulfonic acid cellulose

LDPE

Low-density polyethylene

MOI

2-Methacryloyloxyethyl isocyanate

PBAT

Poly(butylene adipate-co-terphthalate)

PBS

Poly(butylene succinate)

PCL

Poly(ε-caprolactone)

PE

Polyethylene

PEG

Polyethylene glycol

PET

Poly(ethylene terephthalate)

PHA

Polyhydroxy alkanoate

PHB

Polyhydroxy butyrate

PHBV

Polyhydroxybutyrate-valerate

PLA

Polylactic acid

PP

Polypropylene

PS

Polystyrene

PTT

Poly(trimethylene terephthalate)

PUR

Polyurethane

PVC

Polyvinyl chloride

TFA

Trifluoroacetic acid

TPS

Thermoplastic starch

1 Introduction

Plastics produced from petrochemical sources are in use for a long time in different kinds of applications like packaging, automotive, healthcare, and electronic devices. They are non-avoidable owing to the economic advantage it offers and its versatility, robustness, and aesthetic qualities. In the current scenario, some of the frequently utilized polymers in packaging applications are polyethylene (PE, 29%), polypropylene (PP, 19%), polyvinyl chloride (PVC, 13%), polystyrene (PS, 7%), poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET, 7%), polyurethane (PUR, 6%), and others. However usages of such polymers have created immense negative impact in the atmosphere, because of their toxic nature after incineration, non-biodegradability and pollution of water bodies [1].

1.1 Global Production and Impact

The demand for polymers in food packaging applications has been constantly on the rise owing to the increase in consumption of convenience foods. Global trades in processed foods have reached more than two trillion US dollars, and packaged foods contribute for half the quantity of that. When compared with other packaging materials like metal, paper, and board, plastic packaging occupies a major share of it (40%) [2]. The packaging materials employed in food industries have very short lifetime, cannot always be recycled, and after their utilization, majority of them accumulate in the landfills and water bodies, causing serious ecological concerns. It has been identified that only less than 3% of the plastic bags (500 billion) that are distributed in the market every year are recycled [3]. The plastic packaging materials used are frequently contaminated by biological substances and by foodstuff, thereby making it complicated for recycling process.

A feasible way to solve this issue is to replace non-natural polymers with eco-friendly materials particularly for packaging applications. However there are stiff challenges faced in using biodegradable polymers owing to their processability, cost, and functional properties when compared with synthetic polymers. The biodegradable polymers can be produced by utilizing natural resources like plants, animals, and microorganisms or from other renewable resources and are degraded by the enzymatic action of fungi, yeast, and bacteria; and they are compostable by acting as fertilizers and soil conditioner. Some of the important examples are polylactic acid, cellulose, starch, chitosan, lignin, and proteins [4].

2 Classification of Bioplastics

The bioplastics are categorized into four sections depending on their method of synthesis, source, and chemical composition.

Based on their chemical composition, source, and synthesis method, bioplastics can be classified into four categories (shown in Fig. 1): (1) polymers derived straightly from biomass (e.g., protein, starch, cellulose); (2) polymers produced through chemical synthesis by utilizing bioderived monomers (e.g., bio PE, PHB, PLA); (3) polymers produced from microbial fermentation (e.g., polyhydroxyalkanoates); and (4) polymers produced through chemical synthesis by utilization of both petroleum-based and bio-derived monomers (e.g., PTT, PBS) [6].
Fig. 1

Resources of biodegradable polymers (with permission from [5])

Bioplastics made out of starch, cellulose, PLA, and PHAs have gained commercial importance in recent times, due to their ease in processing using existing processing equipment, good functional properties, and they can be manufactured in bulk at competitive costs [6].

2.1 Starch

Starch is a polysaccharide containing vast numbers of glucose units linked together by glycosidic bonds which are made up usually of amylopectin (75–80%) and amylose (20–25%). Starch is produced as reserve material in plants such as corn, rice, cassava, oat, wheat, barley, soybean, and potatoes in granule form, varying in size (0.5–175 μm) and in composition. They are hydrophilic, and the water content of starch varies with relative humidity. In starch, the amylopectin contributes for crystalline areas and the amylose for amorphous areas. Due to the hydrophilic nature and processability, there are limitations regarding application of starch as a packaging material. This problem can be solved by adding plasticizers like carboxylic acid, sorbitol, or glycerol or by blending with polymers like polyols, epoxides, or poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL).

The polymers have distinct chemical structures and it causes immiscibility issues when blended with starch; this can be solved by an alternative approach of grafting vinyl and acrylic monomers on the starch polymer chain, thereby enhancing its hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity; this may depend on the processing condition. A number of essential characteristics such as flexibility or elongation and hardness can be adjusted by modifying the concentrations of plasticizers added.

Flexibility of a blended polymer can be easily enhanced by increasing the plasticizer content. When compared to pure starch or chemically modified starch, thermoplastic starch provides finer phase dispersion in the blend system [7, 8]. Thermoplastic starch can be produced by blending glycerol with starch subsequent to the gelatinization process. Though TPS has excellent oxygen barrier properties, due to their hydroscopic nature, they can’t be used for packaging liquid food and high moisture-containing products. Thermal and mechanical properties of thermoplastic starch can be increased by adding aliphatic polyesters like PHBV, PLA, PCL, etc., and the strength of the plastics may vary depending on the polymer blend [9]. Thermoplastic materials from starch can be utilized for manufacturing plates, food wrappings, and food containers and cups [10].

Thermoplastic starch was blended with talc nanoparticles, and by thermo-compressing, the films’ packaging bags were made. The maximum strength was obtained for films added with 3 wt% of talc; however, the films displayed poor water vapor barrier and mechanical properties when compared to plain starch films. Corn starch can be used to produce 100% biodegradable polymers when blended with plasticizers, and the resin manufactured can be transformed into injection-molded pieces, loose-fill packaging material, and films [11].

The films made up of starch are odorless, colorless, and tasteless, and they have showed low humidity and less permeability to oxygen [12]. When compared with plain starch film, films made by blending PCL (up to 10% wt) with citric acid and glycerol being added as compatibilizers displayed good water vapor barrier property and also lowered the glass transition temperature [13].

Biodegradable films can be also manufactured by utilizing oxidized or acetylated arracacha starch. Due to the high transparency displayed by films produced from acetylated starch, also because of their good physicochemical properties, these can be used for food packaging applications [14].

The biodegradable packaging film was produced by blending sugar palm starch with plasticizers like sorbitol, glycerol, etc. Water vapor permeability values were observed in the increased range of 4.855 × 10−10 to 8.70 × 10−10 g−1 s−1 Pa−1 irrespective of the plasticizer types in films [15]. Starch can be transformed into foamed material through water steam, thereby substituting polystyrene foam for packaging purposes. The processed material can be transformed into trays and disposable dishes by pressing. The products produced were nontoxic and easily biodegradable in the microbial environment within short period of time leaving CO2 and water as by-products [16]. Novament produces its own starch blends, and it is one of leading company in manufacturing starch-based products [4].

2.1.1 Starch Composites

Starch-based polymers have displayed deprived mechanical properties and high water vapor permeability when compared with synthetic plastics. Microcrystalline cellulose (MC), carbon nanotubes, carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), nanoclays, fibers, etc. were added to starch-based polymers to improve their properties [8, 17]. The polymer blends produced by blending PLA, PCL, and starch have shown better biodegradation in natural environment when compared to pure PLA [18].

2.2 Cellulose

Cellulose is formed from linear chain of glucose molecules linked by highly polar and hydrophilic glycosidic β(1–4) bonds, and it is the most commonly found biopolymer in nature. Cellulose acts as structural component in plant materials, fungi, sea animals, and some amoeba [19]. As cellulose-based films are cost-effective and completely biodegradable, they offer immense scope in replacing petrochemical based plastics [20].

As cellulose are hydrophilic in nature, it encompasses a high crystalline structure and poor solubility, and it is difficult to use them as such for food packaging. But this can be solved by manufacturing cellulose derivatives through esterification reactions where cellulose are derivatized in the solvated state, thereby making it fit for packaging applications. The additives of cellulose esters like cellulose (tri)acetate and cellulose (di)acetate were previously added to convert them into thermoplastic materials. Cellulose ethers like ethyl cellulose when added with plasticizers could be utilized for molding and extrusion applications. A cellophane film was produced by dissolving cellulose in carbon-disulfide and sodium hydroxide mixture to make cellulose xanthate and then recasting them in sulfuric acid solution to produce cellophane film, suitable for food packaging applications [21].

Cellulose acetate-based nanocomposites comprising modified montmorillonite, triethyl citrate (plasticizer), and thymol (antimicrobial) have shown real promise to use it them for food packaging applications [22]. Modified form of cellulose like hydroxypropyl methylcellulose with silver nanoparticle matrix has also shown good ability to use it for food packaging [23]. The modification of cellulose fibers with other polymers or plasticizers increases their tensile strength and mechanical properties, e.g., PVA reinforced cellulose fiber showed increased tensile strength, thereby making composite films more suitable for packaging [24]. Dicarboxylic cellulose and α-hydroxysulfonic acid cellulose (HSAC) both modified cellulose fibers can be transformed into nature-friendly film materials. They have exhibited good mechanical properties like 9.6 GPa modulus and 47.0 MPa tensile strength [25].

Trifluroacetic acids (TFA), which are naturally organic and completely biodegradable, have the ability to transform agro-wastes abundant in cellulose to bioplastics material through aging them in TFA solution [26]. The mechanical property of biopolymers (brittle and rigid, soft and stretchable) varies according to the type of plant species and their chemical composition. Cellulose in TFA solutions can be blended with vegetable waste solutions to attain plasticization, and these plasticized materials are having the ability to replace petrochemical-based plastics [27]. Cellulose acetate, a cellulose derivative produced commercially worldwide, has the great capability to be used for food packaging applications (baked food, fresh food). So far many studies were carried out by adding cellulose fibers to starch-based films [28, 29], PLA (Sanchez-Garcia and Lagaron [30], and PHBV films [31]; it has been proved that they can be potentially be utilized for food packaging applications.

Cellulose fibers can be blended with PLA to produce biopolymer matrix material, but there exists the challenge of uniformly distributing the cellulose fibers in PLA matrix [32]. The hydroxyl groups present on the surface of cellulose fibers sometimes will join together and form agglomerate that results in crack formation and composite breakdown. The addition of surfactants [33], silylation [34], grafting [35], and acetylation [36] were followed to improve the dispersion mechanism, and significant progress has been achieved.

2.3 Polylactic Acid (PLA)

PLA is a completely biodegradable polymer manufactured from both fossil and renewable resources, and it’s proven to have potential to replace commercial polymers like HDPE, LDPE, PS, and PET [37]. Bacterial fermentation of corn or cane sugar is performed to manufacture lactic acid (LA), which is then converted to PLA through ring opening polymerization of LA with the use of a catalyst (shown in Fig. 2). This mechanism has been followed because normal method of polymerization generates more water, where its presence may degrade the formed polymer chain. By adding hydroxylic compounds, it is possible to control the molecular weight of PLA, and PLAs with high molecular weight are certified as GRAS (generally regarded as safe) by US FDA. It is an odorless, colorless, glossy, stiff, low-toxicity polymer, suitable for direct food contact, and this biodegradable polyester has highest melting temperatures, around 160–190°C [39].
Fig. 2

Synthesis of Polylactic acid (PLA) from d and l-lactic acids (with permission from [38])

The PLAs can structurally be classified into three types, namely, poly(d,l-lactide) (PDLLA), poly(d-lactide) (PDLA), and poly(l-lactide) (PLLA) [40]. Among these, PDLLA is fully amorphous, where the others PDLA and PLLA are semicrystalline. Poly(d,l-lactide) with 90% l-lactide has been widely used for producing packaging materials [41].

PLA is having performance similar to that of PET, so it is feasible to use PLA as a potential substituent for PET in products like pouches, films and bottles, etc. Because of its brittle nature, less elongation (<10%) at break, deprived gas barrier properties, and high modulus and hydrophilic character, primarily its application has been limited to thermoformed packaging [42]. As PLAs have low melt strength, to process them into extruded sheets, foam and films’ higher melt strength is required [43].

The PLA has better thermal properties when compared with other biopolymers like poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL), PHA, and polyethylene glycol (PEG). The PLA has long crystallization rate, as it takes more period of time to form helical packing structure. The PLA needs to be modified and blended with further biodegradable polymers to use it for a wide variety of packaging applications. Conventional techniques such as blow molding, injection molding, film extrusion, fiber spinning, and thermoforming can be used for processing the blended PLAs [44]. The PLA majorly can be used for producing disposable tableware and especially for packaging foods having short shelf life like juices, yogurt, vegetables and fruits, etc.

For enhancing the properties like ductility and to accelerate crystallization, the PLAs are needed to be blended with fillers or other additives to form PLA composite films. So far many materials like nanoclays [45], plasticizers [46], starch [47], and carbon nanotubes [48] were blended in making PLA matrix. The significant improvements in thermal and mechanical properties were achieved when 2-methacryloyloxyethyl isocyanate (MOI) was blended with PLA [49]. The produced PLA-MOI, when compared with pure PLA, had 20 times higher percentage of elongation. Jiang and Zhang [50] blended PLA with other bioplastics like PBS, PHA, PCL, thermoplastic starch, and PBAT and achieved improved toughness and ductility.

In a recent study carried out by Bandera et al. [51], a latex-coated paper which is suitable for food packaging has been prepared by blending PLA with montmorillonite, surfactants, plasticizers, water, and chloroform via emulsion/solvent evaporation method. Improved water vapor transmission rate (up to 85%) was achieved in coated papers and the latex material is nontoxic, so it can securely be used for food packaging applications.

The properties of PLA may differ considerably from amorphous to semicrystalline based on d-lactide/l-lactide enantiomers ratio. In PLA the amorphous one, having 12% d-lactide enantiomer has the properties similar to polystyrene and can easily be processed via thermoforming. It has been effectively employed in food packaging sector under the name Natureworks-PLA manufactured by Natureworks-LLC (Blair, NB). Currently this has been in use for packaging of short shelf life products [52].

The water vapor and oxygen barrier properties of PLA were enhanced by coating PLA with PEO-Si/SiOx (polyethylene oxide), PCL-Si/SiOx (polycaprolactone), and MAP; these PLA films can potentially be employed for packaging medium shelf life products (vegetables, cheeses, fresh meat, processed meat) [53]. Also significant improvement in oxygen barrier and water vapor properties were achieved for number of polymers (nano-fibrillated cellulose film, PLA film, PHB, PLA-coated board) quoted with thin layer of AlOx (25 nm) Hirvikorpi et al. [54].

2.4 Genetically Modified or Naturally Occurring Organism-Based Bioplastics

Bacteria synthesize polymers like PHB and PHA via fermentation of starch or glucose, and further they are extracted by using solvents like methylene chloride and chloroform [55]. The properties of PHA like tensile strength, chain length, and brittleness depends upon the type of microorganism, carbon source used, and the monomer unit composition [56].

The melting point of PHAs ranges from 40 to 180°C based upon monomers involved in synthesis. PHAs when combined with starch or other bioplastics can effectively be used for packaging applications [57]. Poly(d-3-hydroxybutyrate) (PHB) is one of the monomers of PHA; apart from its brittleness, it has almost similar mechanical properties of PP [58, 59]. The huge crystalline domain is responsible for the brittle nature of PHB, as it has high Tg and crystallinity [60].

As the melting temperature (175–180°C) of PHB is similar to isotactic polypropylene (iPP), it can be used for intermediate bulk containers and shrink packaging [55]. Though the cost is high, it degrades in microbial environment in the shorter period (5–6 weeks) of time giving out CO2 and water as by-products under aerobic condition and, under anaerobic condition, it produces methane [61].

2.5 Multilayer Film Systems

In recent times, an alternative strategy of developing multilayer film systems based on PLA and PLA has emerged as the latest trend in improving the technological properties of biopolymers [62].

3 Active Packaging

The emergences in innovative packaging techniques are due to demand from consumer for palatable, mildly processed, and ready-to-eat foods with good quality and long shelf life. The ultimate goal of food packaging technology is to avoid food spoilage during farm to fork and also to eradicate hazards leading to foodborne illness. Recent changes in lifestyle where the consumer has less time to prepare meals have propelled the food packaging sector to develop new and inventive food packaging methods.

Latest techniques in the area of food packaging are intelligent packaging, active packaging, and bioactive packaging, which have shown significant promise in maintaining the freshness and extending the shelf life, thereby improving the quality and safety of food products [63].

Active packaging is an inventive concept which refers to the utilization of active materials including moisture absorbent, scavengers, and antimicrobial- and antioxidant-releasing systems that are used in food-enveloping environment to enhance the performance of packaging systems [64].

The major aims of active packaging are to prevent moisture infusion and microbial attack, reduce oxidation, regulate respiratory process, etc. It can be achieved with the help of CO2 scavengers/emitters, time-temperature sensors, biosensors, aroma emitters, ripeness indicators, ethylene scavengers, and prolonged release of antioxidants into the package during storage period.

A range of compounds such as organic acids including propionate, benzoate, sorbate and bacteriocins (pediocin and nisin), enzymes like lysozyme, fungicides, and metals were tested previously in food packaging for their antimicrobial activity [65, 66, 67]. For example, in Japan they have incorporated Ag-substituted zeolite as antimicrobial agent in packaging films. The Ag-ions have wide antimicrobial spectrum, and in active packaging films they inhibit variety of metabolic enzymes. However, there are some limitations that exist such as Ag-zeolite is costly and so far there are few descriptions reported regarding their application as packaging material. LDPE films comprising potassium sorbate have shown very good inhibitory effect against yeast cells. Currently, there are two commercial biocidal films available in the market; one is chlorine dioxide and the other one is a chlorinated phenoxy compound. The biocidal agent in both films resides in the polymer spaces and is released upon food contact or in response to changes in the environment.

3.1 Antimicrobial Packaging Concept

The antimicrobial agent may be coated onto films, or it can be directly incorporated into polymer material or packaging films to produce antimicrobial packaging films. The utilization of active antimicrobial compounds included in packaging material could be one approach for controlling bacterial pathogens in the food packaging system. This would ensure microbial food safety for consumer and also helps in extension of food’s shelf life.

The mechanism of action in antimicrobial film may be migrating or non-migrating, it depends on the interaction between food matrix and the packaging. The antimicrobial agents can be infused in vapor or gradually diffused through food surface for migrating film applications, whereas it can be applied over the surface for non-migrating film applications. The release of active antimicrobial compounds in the food packaging should be tightly regulated and controlled; otherwise it might pose a safety risk to consumers.

3.1.1 Bacteriocins

Bacteriocins are peptidicantimicrobials which are synthesized mostly by lactic acid-producing bacteria and show bactericidal activity against major food pathogens. Bacteriocins can be used in antimicrobial packaging to improve product quality, safety, and shelf life as their use in food has been well recognized by the US FDA, WHO, and FAO. For example, the population of lactic acid bacteria has been reduced many folds in ham and sliced cheese stored at refrigerated temperatures, when they were applied with antimicrobial agent like immobilized bacteriocins lacticin 3,147 and nisin, thereby extending the shelf life. In a different study, low-density polyethylene film coated with sonorensin, a subfamily of bacteriocins, effectively reduced growth of Gram-positive food spoilage bacterial pathogens like Listeria monocytogenes and S. aureus in chicken meat and tomato samples [68]. Recently, Emiliano et al. demonstrated that triticale flour films with bacteriocin like substance effectively controlled the growth of Listeria innocua in food packaging containers [69]. Natamycin-based anti-fungal coating is commercially available under the brand name SANICO® to be used in cheese and sausages [70].

3.1.2 Enzymes

Enzyme immobilization can be employed as an effective system for antimicrobial-based food packaging. Lysozyme has been permitted to be used as antimicrobial agent by the US FDA, and its use as a food additives falls under Directive 94/2/EC. Lysozyme is a single peptide protein which targets and destroys the glyosidic linkages in the peptidoglycans of Gram-positive bacteria. Cellulose triacetate (CTA) films immobilized with lysozyme have reduced M. lysodeikticus cell numbers by 7 log cycles (equivalent mass) within 24 h, suggesting its potential for food packaging applications [71]. In a different study, lysozyme-chitosan composite films incorporated with 60% lysozyme have reduced Streptococcus faecalis and E. coli by 3.8 and 2.7 log cycles (equivalent mass), respectively [72]. The covalent immobilization of lysozyme over the surface of ethanol vinyl alcohol copolymers have reduced the growth of Gram-positive Listeria monocytogenes (1.08 log reduction for an equivalent mass of covalently immobilized lysozyme) with no migration of lysozyme from the films, suggesting utilization of these films for food packaging applications [73]. The antimicrobial membranes attained from polyamide 11(PA11) and nano-hybrid composed of halloysite nanotubes (HNTs) filled with lysozyme were effective as antimicrobial pads for chicken meat storage. The membrane filled with 5.0 wt% of HNTs-lysozyme reduced the growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa for up to 13 days of storage at 4°C [74]. Antilisterial films of lysozyme based on zein were developed with a consumer-controlled and pH-triggered release mechanism. During transportation the antimicrobial stress is increased over pathogens in consumer-controlled release mechanisms [75].

3.1.3 Plants Extracts and Phytochemicals

A great interest has been shown in the utilization of plant extracts for edible polymer-based food packaging applications. Incorporation of phytochemicals into polymer-based packaging material has shown to improve its physiochemical properties. For example, incorporation of clove, star anise, and cinnamon extracts into hydrolyzed gelatin film has reduced their water vapor permeability and improved tensile strength. In a different study, incorporation of grape seed extract (GSE) into soybean protein isolate films resulted in bactericidal effects against food safety pathogens including Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli 0157:H7, and Salmonella typhimurium [76, 77, 78]. Antimicrobial activity of plant-based antimicrobial films may be attributed due to the high phenolic content containing components like carvacrol, thymol, and eugenol. For example, thymol and carvacrol (8 wt%) have shown promising application as active additives in polypropylene (PP) films with dual response of controlled antioxidant and antimicrobial release into food material. Thus, they can be able to replace synthetic antioxidants employed in PP film formulations [79]. Nanocomposite antimicrobial films prepared using LDPE and carvacrol have displayed remarkable oxygen barrier property and thermal stability with significant antimicrobial activity against Pseudomonas stains [79]. In another study, five chitosan-based films containing carvacrol showed antimicrobial activity against Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli, Listeria innocua, and Salmonella enteritidis. The minimal vapor inhibitory concentration obtained for S. enteritidis was 1.08 × 10−7 g mL−1 (Kmass = 1.01 × 10−4), and for B. subtilis, E. coli, and L. innocua, it was 4.62 × 10−8 g mL−1 (Kmass = 1.13 × 10−6), respectively. Carvacrol-activated active films have displayed antimicrobial effect at their vapor phase against bacterial pathogens [80].

3.1.4 Essential Oils

Essential oil incorporation into packaging system reduces transparency and improves the antimicrobial and water barrier properties. Essential oils extracted from plants and spices such as cumin, fennel, laurel, mint, sage, savory, garlic, clove, and cinnamon are rich source of antimicrobial compounds. Major antimicrobial action mechanisms include disruption of phospholipid bilayer of cell membrane, disruption of enzyme activity, effect on protein synthesis, and production of hydrogen peroxide [81, 82]. Antimicrobial properties of garlic, rosemary, and oregano essential oils dispersed in whey protein isolate (WPI) films were tested against Salmonella enteritidis, Lactobacillus plantarum, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Listeria monocytogenes by means of assay of zone of inhibition. Results indicated that the films incorporated with oregano oil (2%) were observed to be effective against bacteria when compared with other spices [83]. In a different study, essential oil of rosemary has been incorporated in chitosan films, and it showed effective antibacterial activity against bacteria like Streptococcus agalactiae and Listeria monocytogenes [84]. Biodegradable trays (polyvinyl alcohol and cassava bagasse) containing oregano and clove essential oils were manufactured by two methods: direct incorporation (6.5–10.0%) and surface coating (2.5–7.5%); high antimicrobial activities were observed for surface-coated trays against spoilage yeasts, molds, and Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria [85]. Electrospun polyvinyl alcohol/β-cyclodextrin(PVA/CEO/β-CD)/cinnamon essential oil nanofibrous antimicrobial film has shown effective antimicrobial activity against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus with MBC of approximate 7–8 mg/mL and MIC of 0.9−1 mg/mL [86]. Dextrin-based nanosponges incorporated with coriander essential oil (CEO) have shown significant bactericidal effect against food safety pathogens. Authors reported that whole essential oils incorporated in nanosponges (CD-NS) displayed efficient ability in controlling the oil release, while restraining bacterial growth, hence providing a promising strategy in overcoming the inefficiency of present antimicrobial food packages [87].

3.2 Antioxidant Release

Antioxidants are utilized into active packaging films to maintain oxidation stability of lipids and to prolong shelf life of dried products and O2-sensitive foods. Natural, synthetic, and nanoparticle-based antioxidants have been successfully developed into multiple layer films. The synthetic antioxidants like thioester, butylated hydroxytoluene, and organophosphates sometimes migrate into food products, thereby creating potential toxicity issues, and due to this, the usage of such antioxidants are restricted in active packaging [88]. Hence, such artificial additives are currently replaced with natural alternatives like essential oils and plant extracts which exhibit antioxidant properties. The oxidative damage caused to foods can be reduced by employing edible-coated films which does it by reducing the oxygen transmission rate. The selection of bioactive compound depends on its compatibility with the packaging. For example, food packaging material ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH) matrix incorporated with antioxidants like quercetin, ferulic acid, green tea extract, and ascorbic acid had significantly decreased water permeability. Moreover, green tea extract incorporated films has shown great protection against lipid oxidation [89]. In a different study, cassava starch films comprising rosemary extracts have shown better barrier properties against UV light and good antioxidant activity [90]. Solvent casting method was used to incorporate oregano, rosemary, and thyme essential oils (EOs) into polylactic acid resin (PLA, concentration 10% w/w) to produce antioxidant packaging films. Addition of EOs significantly reduced lipid oxidation and improved the shelf life of the product [91]. An active packaging material of κ-carrageenan incorporated with different amounts of mulberry polyphenolic extract (MPE) has improved water vapor, UV light barrier, antioxidant, and pH-sensitive activity of the films [92].

One of the major advantages of using antioxidant incorporated packaging films rather than antioxidants directly added to food is that the active antioxidant materials incorporated in packaging could be able to provide a controlled release of them into food, when compared to constant usage of antioxidants during storage [93]. Taken together, sometimes direct coating of antioxidants over the surface of packaging material and/or food may result in sensory disapproval. Hence, when packaging materials are produced by incorporating antioxidants in the packaging matrix, it may aid in improving food safety and quality by reducing direct accumulation of chemicals.

4 Conclusion

Nowadays due to recent advancements in technologies and awareness among people to conserve our planet, there is a great potential for using bioplastics as food packaging materials. Most of bioplastics are currently employed in the production of loose film which is having potential to be used for service packaging such as cutlery, cups, carry bags, and plates and for recent packaging like active packaging (antimicrobial, antioxidant), intelligent packaging, modified atmospheric packaging, etc. Over the last few years, there were much efforts undertaken to enhance the functional properties like flexibility, functionality, biodegradability, stability, and processability of bioplastics through physical, biological, and chemical treatment such as blending, compounding, copolymerization, and fermentation. The bioplastics developed by improving the functional properties may have almost same properties like petroleum-based plastics, but due the high developmental costs involved, the cost of production of biopolymers are still high. More investigations are needed in the future toward the development of cost effective intelligent and smart packaging systems, which can be able to provide information related to properties of the food within the package (microbiological safety, quality, shelf life, nutritional value). The smart packaging systems not only provide information regarding food to customers; they also act as potential barrier in safeguarding the food and ensuring the integrity of food properties. On the other note, it is also expected that more support is needed from the governments, particularly in the developed countries to cut down the large price difference between biodegradable packaging and conventional plastic packaging.

References

  1. 1.
    Bayer IS, Guzman-Puyol S, Heredia-Guerrero JA, Ceseracciu L, Pignatelli F, Ruffilli R, Cingolani R, Athanassiou A (2014) Direct transformation of edible vegetable waste into bioplastics. Macromolecules 47:5135–5143.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ma5008557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rydz J, Musioł M, Zawidlak-Węgrzyńska B, Sikorska W (2018) Present and future of biodegradable polymers for food packaging applications. In: Biopolymers for food design. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 431–467.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811449-0.00014-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Malathy AN, Santhosh KS, Nidoni U (2014) Recent trends of biodegradable polymer: biodegradable films for food packaging and application of nanotechnology in biodegradable food packaging. Curr Trends Tech Sci 3:73–79Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Babu RP, O’Connor K, Seeram R (2013) Current progress on bio-based polymers and their future trends. Prog Biomater 2(8):1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-0517-2-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reddy MM, Vivekanandhan S, Misra M, Bhatia SK, Mohanty AK (2013) Biobased plastics and bionanocomposites: current status and future opportunities. Prog Polym Sci 38:1653–1689.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2013.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mittal V (2012) Polymers from renewable resources. In: Mittal V (ed) Renewable polymers synthesis, processing, and technology. Scrivener, Salem, pp 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118217689.ch1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berruezo M, Ludueña LN, Rodriguez E, Alvarez VA (2014) Preparation and characterization of polystyrene/starch blends for packaging applications. J Plast Film Sheet 30(2):141–161.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2F8756087913504581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Girones J, Lopez JP, Mutje P, Carvalho AJF, Curvelo AAS, Vilaseca F (2012) Natural fiber-reinforced thermoplastic starch composites obtained by melt processing. Compos Sci Technol 72:858–863.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2012.02.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lu DR, Xiao CM, Xu SJ (2009) Starch-based completely biodegradable polymer materials. Express Polym Lett 6:366–375.  https://doi.org/10.3144/expresspolymlett.2009.46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rejak A, Wójtowicz A, Oniszczuk T, Niemczuk D, Nowacka M (2014) Evaluation of water vapor permeability of biodegradable starch-based films. TEKA Comm Motor Energetics Agric 14:89–94Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Briassoulis D (2004) An overview on the mechanical behaviour of biodegradable agricultural films. J Polym Environ 12:65–81.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOOE.0000010052.86786.efCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    The DP, Debeaufort F, Voilley A, Luu D (2009) Biopolymer interactions affect the functional properties of edible films based on agar, cassava starch and arabinoxylan blends. J Food Eng 90:548–558.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.07.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ortega-Toro R, Collazo-Bigliardi S, Talens P, Chiralt A (2016) Influence of citric acid on the properties and stability of starch-polycaprolactone based films. J Appl Polym Sci 133:1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1002/app.42220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Medina OJ, Pardo VOHC, Ortiz CA (2012) Modified arracacha starch films characterization and its potential utilization as food packaging. Vitae 19(2):186–196. http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0121-40042012000200005&lng=pt&tlng=enGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanyang ML, Sapuan SM, Jawaid M, Ishak MR, Sahari J (2015) Effect of plasticizer type and concentration on tensile, thermal and barrier properties of biodegradable films based on sugar palm (Arenga pinnata) starch. Polymers 7:1106–1124.  https://doi.org/10.3390/polym7061106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Siracusa V, Rocculi P, Romani S, Rosa MD (2008) Biodegradable polymers for food packaging: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol 19:634–643Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muller CMO, Laurindo JB, Yamashita F (2011) Effect of nanoclay incorporation method on mechanical and water vapor barrier properties of starch-based films. Ind Crop Prod 33:605–610.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2010.12.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liao H, Wu C (2009) Preparation and characterization of ternary blends composed of polylactide, poly(ε-caprolactone) and starch. Mater Sci Eng 515:207–214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2009.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kamel S, Ali N, Jahangir K, Shah SM, El-Gendy AA (2008) Pharmaceutical significance of cellulose: a review. Express Polym Lett 11:758–778.  https://doi.org/10.3144/expresspolymlett.2008.90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    El Halal SLM, Colussi R, Deon VG, Pinto VZ, Villanova FA, Carreño NLV, Zavareze EDR (2015) Films based on oxidized starch and cellulose from barley. Carbohydr Polym 133:644–653.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.07.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pawar PA, Purwar AH (2013) Biodegradable polymers in food packaging. Am J Eng Res 2:151–164Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rodríguez FJ, Torres A, Peñaloza Á, Sepúlveda H, Galotto MJ, Guarda A, Bruna J (2014) Development of an antimicrobial material based on a nanocomposite cellulose acetate film for active food packaging. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess 31:342–353.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2013.876105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Moura MR, Mattoso LHC, Zucolotto V (2012) Development of cellulose-based bactericidal nanocomposites containing silver nanoparticles and their use as active food packaging. J Food Eng 109:520–524.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2011.10.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Laxmeshwar SS, Kumar DJM, Viveka S, Nagaraja GK (2012) Preparation and properties of biodegradable film composites using modified cellulose fibre-reinforced with PVA. ISRN Polym Sci 154314:8.  https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/154314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sirviö JA, Liimatainen H, Niinimäki J, Hormi O (2013) Sustainable packaging materials based on wood cellulose. RSC Adv 3:16590–16596.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RA43264ECrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim BR, Suidan MT, Wallington TJ, Du X (2000) Biodegradability of trifluoroacetic acid. Environ Eng Sci 17:337–342.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2000.17.337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Macedo MJ, Moura I, Oliveira M, Machado AV (2015) Development of bioplastics from agro-wastes. In: Abstract in MATERIAIS 2015, Porto, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dias AB, Müller CMO, Larotonda FDS, Laurindo JB (2011) Mechanical and barrier properties of composite films based on rice flour and cellulose fibers. LWT Food Sci Technol 44:535–542.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2010.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Müller CMO, Laurindo JB, Yamashita F (2009) Effect of cellulose fibers addition on the mechanical properties and water vapor barrier of starch-based films. Food Hydrocoll 23:1328–1333.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2008.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sanchez-Garcia M, Lagaron J (2010) On the use of plant cellulose nanowhiskers to enhance the barrier properties of polylactic acid. Cellulose 17:987–1004.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-010-9430-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Petersson L, Oksman K (2006) Biopolymer based nanocomposites: comparing layered silicates and microcrystalline cellulose as nanoreinforcement. Compos Sci Technol 66:2187–2196.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2005.12.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Siqueira G, Bras J, Dufresne A (2010) Cellulosic bionanocomposites: a review of preparation. Polymers 2:728–765.  https://doi.org/10.3390/polym2040728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Oksman K, Mathew AP, Bondeson D, Kvien I (2006) Manufacturing process of cellulose whiskers/polylactic acid nanocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 66:2776–2784.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2006.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pei A, Zhou Q, Berglund LA (2010) Functionalized cellulose nanocrystals as biobased nucleation agents in poly(L-lactide) (PLLA) – crystallization and mechanical property effects. Compos Sci Technol 70:815–821.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2010.01.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pracella M, Haque MM-U, Alvarez V (2010) Functionalization, compatibilization and properties of polyolefin composites with natural fibers. Polymers 2:554.  https://doi.org/10.3390/polym2040554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Braun B, Dorgan JR (2009) Single-step method for the isolation and surface functionalization of cellulosic nanowhiskers. Biomacromolecules 10:334–341.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm8011117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Peelman N, Ragaert P, De Meulenaer B, Adons D, Peeters R, Cardon L, Van Impe F, Devlieghere F (2013) Review: application of bioplastics for food packaging. Trends Food Sci Technol 32(2):128–141.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2013.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Auras R, Harte B, Selke S (2004) An overview of polylactides as packaging materials. Macromol Biosci 4:835–864Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Auras R, Singh SP, Singh JJ (2005) Evaluation of oriented poly(lactide) polymers vs. existing PET and oriented PS for fresh food service containers. J Packag Technol Sci 18:207.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tang Z, Chen X, Pang X, Yang Y, Zhang X, Jing X (2004) Stereoselective polymerization of rac-lactide using a monoethylaluminum Schiff base complex. Biomacromolecules 5:965–970.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm034467oCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vasanthan N, Ly O (2009) Effect of microstructure on hydrolytic degradation studies of poly (L-lactic acid) by FTIR spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry. Polym Degrad Stabil 94:1364–1372.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2009.05.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Okamoto K, Ichikawa T, Yokohara T, Yamaguchi M (2009) Miscibility, mechanical and thermal properties of poly(lactic acid)/polyester-diol blends. Eur Polym J 45:2304–2312.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2009.05.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lim LT, Auras R, Rubino M (2008) Processing technologies for poly(lactic acid). Prog Polym Sci 33:820–852.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2008.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rasal RM, Janorkar AV, Hirt DE (2010) Poly(lactic acid) modifications. Prog Polym Sci 35:338–356.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2009.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bordes P, Pollet E, Averous L (2009) Nano-biocomposites: biodegradable polyester/nanoclay systems. Prog Polym Sci 34:125–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2008.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pillin I, Montrelay N, Grohens Y (2006) Thermo-mechanical characterization of plasticized PLA: is the miscibility the only significant factor? Polymer 47:4676–4682.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2006.04.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yokesahachart CC, Yoksan R (2011) Effect of amphiphilic molecules on characteristics and tensile properties of thermoplastic starch and its blends with poly(lactic acid). Carbohydr Polym 83:22–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.07.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wu CS, Liao HT (2007) Study on the preparation and characterization of biodegradable polylactide/multi-walled carbon nanotubes nanocomposites. Polymer 48:4449–4458.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2007.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chen B, Shih C, Chen AF (2012) Ductile PLA nanocomposites with improved thermal stability. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 43:2289–2295.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2012.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jiang L, Zhang J (2011) Biodegradable and biobased polymers. In: Kutz M (ed) Applied plastics engineering handbook – processing and materials. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 145–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-39040-8.00007-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bandera D, Meyer VR, Prevost D, Zimmermann T, Boesel LF (2016) Polylactide/montmorillonite hybrid latex as a barrier coating for paper applications. Polymers 8(3):75–83.  https://doi.org/10.3390/polym8030075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mallet B, Lamnawar K, Maazouz A (2014) Improvement of blown film extrusion of poly (lactic acid): structure–processing–properties relationships. Polym Eng Sci 54(4):840–857.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.23610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Iotti M, Fabbri P, Messori M, Pilati F, Fava P (2009) Organic-inorganic hybrid coatings for the modification of barrier properties of poly(lactic acid) films for food packaging applications. J Polym Environ 17(1):10–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-009-0120-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hirvikorpi T, Vähä-Nissi M, Nikkola J, Harlin A, Karppinen M (2011) Thin Al2O3 barrier coatings onto temperature-sensitive packaging materials by atomic layer deposition. Surf Coat Technol 205:5088–5092.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2011.05.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Koller I, Owen AJ (1996) Starch-filled PHB and PHB/HV copolymer. Polym Int 39:175–181.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Modi SJ (2010) Assessing the feasibility of poly-(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-valerate) (PHBV) and poly-(lactic acid) for potential food packaging applications. Thesis, Ohio State University. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1268921056
  57. 57.
    Tharanathan RN (2003) Review e biodegradable films and composite coatings: past, present and future. Trends Food Sci Technol 14:71–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(02)00280-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Castilho LR, Mitchell DA, Freire DMG (2009) Production of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) from waste materials and by-products by submerged and solid-state fermentation. Bioresour Technol 100:5996–6009.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.03.088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rai R, Roy I (2011) Polyhydroxyalkanoates: the emerging new green polymers of choice. In: Sharma SK, Mudhoo A (eds) A handbook of applied biopolymer technology. Synthesis, degradation and applications. Royal Society of Chemistry, London, pp 79–101Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Barham PJ, Keller A (1986) The relationship between microstructure and mode of fracture in polyhydroxybutyrate. J Polym Sci 24:69–77.  https://doi.org/10.1002/polb.1986.180240108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Haugaard VK, Danielsen B, Bertelsen G (2003) Impact of polylactate and poly(hydroxybutyrate) on food quality. Eur Food Res Technol 216:233–240.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-002-0651-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Boufarguine M, Guinault A, Miquelard-Garnier G, Sollogoub C (2013) PLA/PHBV films with improved mechanical and gas barrier properties. Macromol Mater Eng 2013(298):1065.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mame.201200285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dobrucka R, Cierpiszewski R (2014) Active and intelligent packaging food-research and development-a review. Pol J Food Nutr Sci 64(1):7–15.  https://doi.org/10.2478/v10222-012-0091-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    López-Rubio A, Almenar E, Hernandez-Muñoz P, Lagarón JM, Catalá R, Gavara R (2004) Overview of active polymer-based packaging technologies for food applications. Food Rev Intl 20(4):357–387.  https://doi.org/10.1081/FRI-200033462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Han JH, Floros JD (1997) Casting antimicrobial packaging films and measuring their physical properties and antimicrobial activity. J Plast Film Sheet 13(4):287–298.  https://doi.org/10.1177/875608799701300405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ming X, Weber GH, Ayres JW, Sandine WE (1997) Bacteriocins applied to food packaging materials to inhibit Listeria monocytogenes on meats. J Food Sci 62(2):413–415.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1997.tb04015.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Padgett T, Han IY, Dawson PL (1998) Incorporation of food-grade antimicrobial compounds into biodegradable packaging films. J Food Prot 61(10):1330–1335.  https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-61.10.1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Chopra L, Singh G, Kumar Jena K, Sahoo DK (2015) Sonorensin: a new bacteriocin with potential of an anti-biofilm agent and a food biopreservative. Sci Rep 5:13412.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Salvucci E, Rossi M, Colombo A, Pérez G, Borneo R, Aguirre A (2019) Triticale flour films added with bacteriocin-like substance (BLIS) for active food packaging applications. Food Packag Shelf Life 19:193–199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2018.05.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Majid I, Thakur M, Nanda V (2018) Innovative and safe packaging technologies for food and beverages: updated review. In: Innovations in technologies for fermented food and beverage industries. Springer, Cham.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74820-7_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Appendini P, Hotchkiss JH (1997) Immobilization of lysozyme on food contact polymers as potential antimicrobial films. Packag Technol Sci 10(5):271–279.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1522(199709/10)10:5<271::AID-PTS412>3.0.CO;2-RCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Park SI, Daeschel MA, Zhao Y (2004) Functional properties of antimicrobial lysozyme-chitosan composite films. J Food Sci 69(8):M215–M221.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.tb09890.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Muriel-Galet V, Talbert JN, Hernandez-Munoz P, Gavara R, Goddard JM (2013) Covalent immobilization of lysozyme on ethylene vinyl alcohol films for nonmigrating antimicrobial packaging applications. J Agric Food Chem 61(27):6720–6727.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf401818uCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bugatti V, Vertuccio L, Viscusi G, Gorrasi G (2018) Antimicrobial membranes of bio-based PA 11 and HNTs filled with lysozyme obtained by an electrospinning process. Nano 8(3):139.  https://doi.org/10.3390/nano8030139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Boyacı D, Yemenicioğlu A (2018) Expanding horizons of active packaging: design of consumer-controlled release systems helps risk management of susceptible individuals. Food Hydrocoll 79:291–300.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.12.038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Hong Y-H, Lim G-O, Song KB (2009) Physical properties of gelidium corneum–gelatin blend films containing grapefruit seed extract or green tea extract and its application in the packaging of pork loins. J Food Sci 74(1):C6–C10.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.00987.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kakaei S, Shahbazi Y (2016) Effect of chitosan-gelatin film incorporated with ethanolic red grape seed extract and Ziziphora clinopodioides essential oil on survival of Listeria monocytogenes and chemical, microbial and sensory properties of minced trout fillet. LWT Food Sci Technol 72:432–438.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LWT.2016.05.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kanmani P, Rhim J-W (2014) Antimicrobial and physical-mechanical properties of agar-based films incorporated with grapefruit seed extract. Carbohydr Polym 102:708–716.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CARBPOL.2013.10.099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ramos M, Jiménez A, Peltzer M, Garrigós MC (2012) Characterization and antimicrobial activity studies of polypropylene films with carvacrol and thymol for active packaging. J Food Eng 109(3):513–519.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JFOODENG.2011.10.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kurek M, Moundanga S, Favier C, Galić K, Debeaufort F (2013) Antimicrobial efficiency of carvacrol vapour related to mass partition coefficient when incorporated in chitosan based films aimed for active packaging. Food Control 32(1):168–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODCONT.2012.11.049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Calo JR, Crandall PG, O’Bryan CA, Ricke SC (2015) Essential oils as antimicrobials in food systems – a review. Food Control 54:111–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODCONT.2014.12.040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Hammer KA, Carson CF, Riley TV (1999) Antimicrobial activity of essential oils and other plant extracts. J Appl Microbiol 86(6):985–990.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.1999.00780.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Seydim AC, Sarikus G (2006) Antimicrobial activity of whey protein based edible films incorporated with oregano, rosemary and garlic essential oils. Food Res Int 39(5):639–644.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2006.01.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Abdollahi M, Rezaei M, Farzi G (2012) Improvement of active chitosan film properties with rosemary essential oil for food packaging. Int J Food Sci Technol 47(4):847–853.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2011.02917.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Debiagi F, Kobayashi RKT, Nakazato G, Panagio LA, Mali S (2014) Biodegradable active packaging based on cassava bagasse, polyvinyl alcohol and essential oils. Ind Crop Prod 52:664–670.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.11.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Wen P, Zhu DH, Wu H, Zong MH, Jing YR, Han SY (2016) Encapsulation of cinnamon essential oil in electrospun nanofibrous film for active food packaging. Food Control 59:366–376.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Silva F, Caldera F, Trotta F, Nerín C, Domingues FC (2019) Encapsulation of coriander essential oil in cyclodextrin nanosponges: a new strategy to promote its use in controlled-release active packaging. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 56:102177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2019.102177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Gómez-Estaca J, López-de-Dicastillo C, Hernández-Muñoz P, Catalá R, Gavara R (2014) Advances in antioxidant active food packaging. Trends Food Sci Technol 35(1):42–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2013.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    López-De-Dicastillo C, Gómez-Estaca J, Catalá R, Gavara R, Hernández-Muñoz P (2012) Active antioxidant packaging films: development and effect on lipid stability of brined sardines. Food Chem 131(4):1376–1384.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Piñeros-Hernandez D, Medina-Jaramillo C, López-Córdoba A, Goyanes S (2017) Edible cassava starch films carrying rosemary antioxidant extracts for potential use as active food packaging. Food Hydrocoll 63:488–495.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2016.09.034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Zeid A, Karabagias IK, Nassif M, Kontominas MG (2019) Preparation and evaluation of antioxidant packaging films made of polylactic acid containing thyme, rosemary, and oregano essential oils. J Food Process Preserv 43(10):e14102.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.14102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Liu Y, Qin Y, Bai R, Zhang X, Yuan L, Liu J (2019) Preparation of pH-sensitive and antioxidant packaging films based on κ-carrageenan and mulberry polyphenolic extract. Int J Biol Macromol 134:993–1001.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.05.175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Mastromatteo M, Mastromatteo M, Conte A, Del Nobile MA (2010) Advances in controlled release devices for food packaging applications. Trends Food Sci Technol 21(12):591–598.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2010.07.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial ChemistryArba Minch UniversityArba MinchEthiopia
  2. 2.Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations