Sugar Palm Starch-Based Composites for Packaging Applications

  • M. L. SanyangEmail author
  • R. A. Ilyas
  • S. M. Sapuan
  • R. Jumaidin


Non-biodegradable petroleum-based plastics are still the most dominant material used by the food industry for packaging applications. Consequently, the widespread usage of these conventional plastics has led to serious negative environmental impacts. Numerous studies were conducted over the years to substitute these packaging plastics with eco-friendly materials in order to arrest the ongoing plastic waste disposal problems. Against this background, the current chapter presents a review of recent works on sugar palm starch-based films and different modification techniques employed to improve their performance as effective biopackaging material.


Sugar palm starch Packaging Blend Biocomposites Nanocomposites 


  1. Aguirre A, Borneo R, León AE (2013) Properties of triticale protein films and their relation to plasticizing–antiplasticizing effects of glycerol and sorbitol. Ind Crops Prod 50:297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmadi R, Kalbasi-Ashtari A, Oromiehie A, Yarmand MS, Jahandideh F (2012) Development and characterization of a novel biodegradable edible film obtained from psyllium seed (Plantago ovata Forsk). J Food Eng 109(4):745–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angellier H, Choisnard L, Molina-Boisseau S, Ozil P, Dufresne A (2004) Optimization of the preparation of aqueous suspensions of waxy maize starch nanocrystals using a response surface methodology. Biomacromol 5(4):1545–1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arockianathan PM, Sekar S, Sankar S, Kumaran B, Sastry TP (2012) Evaluation of biocomposite films containing alginate and sago starch impregnated with silver nano particles. Carbohyd Polym 90(1):717–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arvanitoyannis IS (1999) Totally and partially biodegradable polymer blends based on natural and synthetic macromolecules: preparation, physical properties, and potential as food packaging materials. Mater Chem Phys C 39(2):205–271Google Scholar
  6. Cano A, Jiménez A, Cháfer M, Gónzalez C, Chiralt A (2014) Effect of amylose: amylopectin ratio and rice bran addition on starch films properties. Carbohyd Polym 111:543–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cha DS, Chinnan MS (2004) Biopolymer-based antimicrobial packaging: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 44(4):223–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiumarelli M, Hubinger MD (2014) Evaluation of edible films and coatings formulated with cassava starch, glycerol, carnauba wax and stearic acid. Food Hydrocolloids 38:20–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. da Rosa Zavareze E, Pinto VZ, Klein B, El Halal SLM, Elias MC, Prentice-Hernández C, Dias ARG (2012) Development of oxidised and heat–moisture treated potato starch film. Food Chem 132(1):344–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dai L, Qiu C, Xiong L, Sun Q (2015) Characterisation of corn starch-based films reinforced with taro starch nanoparticles. Food Chem 174:82–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dias AB, Müller CM, Larotonda FD, Laurindo JB (2010) Biodegradable films based on rice starch and rice flour. J Cereal Sci 51(2):213–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edhirej A, Sapuan SM, Jawaid M, Zahari NI (2017) Effect of various plasticizers and concentration on the physical, thermal, mechanical, and structural properties of cassava‐starch‐based films. Starch‐Stärke 69(1–2)Google Scholar
  13. Fang J, Fowler P (2003) The use of starch and its derivatives as biopolymer sources of packaging materials. J Food Agric Environ 1:82–84Google Scholar
  14. Florido HB, de Mesa PB (2003) Sugar palm [Arenga Pinnata (Wurmb.) Merr.]. Res Info Ser Ecosyst 15(2):1–7Google Scholar
  15. Fonseca LM, Gonçalves JR, El Halal SLM, Pinto VZ, Dias ARG, Jacques AC, da Rosa Zavareze E (2015) Oxidation of potato starch with different sodium hypochlorite concentrations and its effect on biodegradable films. LWT-Food Sci Technol 60(2):714–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghasemlou M, Khodaiyan F, Oromiehie A (2011) Physical, mechanical, barrier, and thermal properties of polyol-plasticized biodegradable edible film made from kefiran. Carbohyd Polym 84(1):477–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Głowińska E, Datta J (2015) Structure, morphology and mechanical behaviour of novel bio-based polyurethane composites with microcrystalline cellulose. Cellulose 22(4):2471–2481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. González A, Igarzabal CIA (2013) Soy protein–Poly (lactic acid) bilayer films as biodegradable material for active food packaging. Food Hydrocolloids 33(2):289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gutiérrez TJ, Morales NJ, Pérez E, Tapia MS, Famá L (2015) Physico-chemical properties of edible films derived from native and phosphated cush-cush yam and cassava starches. Food Packag Shelf Life 3:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haafiz MM, Hassan A, Zakaria Z, Inuwa IM, Islam MS, Jawaid M (2013) Properties of polylactic acid composites reinforced with oil palm biomass microcrystalline cellulose. Carbohydr Polym 98(1):139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hietala M, Mathew AP, Oksman K (2013) Bionanocomposites of thermoplastic starch and cellulose nanofibers manufactured using twin-screw extrusion. Eur Polymer J 49(4):950–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hizukuri S, Kaneko T, Takeda Y (1983) Measurement of the chain length of amylopectin and its relevance to the origin of crystalline polymorphism of starch granules. Biochim Biophys Acta (BBA) Gen Subj 760(1):188–191Google Scholar
  23. Imam SH, Wood DF, Abdelwahab MA, Chiou BS, Williams TG, Glenn GM, Orts WJ (2012) Chemistry, microstructure, processing, and enzymatic degradation. In: Ahmed J, Tiwari BK, Imam SH, Rao MA (eds) Starch-based polymeric materials and nanocomposites: chemistry, processing, and applications, CRS Press, Boca Raton, pp 5–32Google Scholar
  24. Imran M, El-Fahmy S, Revol-Junelles AM, Desobry S (2010) Cellulose derivative based active coatings: effects of nisin and plasticizer on physico-chemical and antimicrobial properties of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose films. Carbohydr Polym 81(2):219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ishak MR, Sapuan SM, Leman Z, Rahman MZA, Anwar UMK, Siregar JP (2013) Sugar palm (Arenga pinnata): its fibres, polymers and composites. Carbohydr Polym 91(2):699–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jouki M, Khazaei N, Ghasemlou M, HadiNezhad M (2013) Effect of glycerol concentration on edible film production from cress seed carbohydrate gum. Carbohydr Polym 96(1):39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jumaidin R, Sapuan SM, Jawaid M, Ishak MR, Sahari J (2016) Characteristics of thermoplastic sugar palm Starch/Agar blend: thermal, tensile, and physical properties. Int J Biol Macromol 89:575–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jumaidin R, Sapuan SM, Jawaid M, Ishak MR, Sahari J (2017) Effect of agar on flexural, impact, and thermogravimetric properties of thermoplastic sugar palm starch. Curr Org Synth 14:200–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kiziltas A, Gardner DJ, Han Y, Yang HS (2014) Mechanical properties of microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) filled engineering thermoplastic composites. J Polym Environ 22(3):365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klein B, Vanier NL, Moomand K, Pinto VZ, Colussi R, da Rosa Zavareze E, Dias ARG (2014) Ozone oxidation of cassava starch in aqueous solution at different pH. Food Chem 155:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koshy RR, PothAn LA, Thomas S (2013) Starch-based bionanocomposite: processing techniques. In: Dufresne A, Thomas S, Pothen LA (eds) Biopolymer nanocomposites: processing, properties, and applications. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp 203–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Liu Z, Han JH (2005) Film‐forming characteristics of starches. J Food Sci 70(1)Google Scholar
  34. Ma X, Yu J (2004) The plastcizers containing amide groups for thermoplastic starch. Carbohydr Polym 57(2):197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maran JP, Sivakumar V, Sridhar R, Thirugnanasambandham K (2013) Development of model for barrier and optical properties of tapioca starch based edible films. Carbohydr Polym 92(2):1335–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martucci JF, Ruseckaite RA (2010) Three-layer sheets based on gelatin and poly (lactic acid), part 1: preparation and properties. J Appl Polym Sci 118(5):3102–3110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mihindukulasuriya SDF, Lim LT (2014) Nanotechnology Development in food packaging: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol 40:149–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moreno O, Pastor C, Muller J, Atarés L, González C, Chiralt A (2014) Physical and bioactive properties of corn starch–Buttermilk edible films. J Food Eng 141:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Müller CM, Laurindo JB, Yamashita F (2009) Effect of cellulose fibers addition on the mechanical properties and water vapor barrier of starch-based films. Food Hydrocolloids 23(5):1328–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ng HM, Sin LT, Tee TT, Bee ST, Hui D, Low CY, Rahmat AR (2015) Extraction of cellulose nanocrystals from plant sources for application as reinforcing agent in polymers. Compos B Eng 75:176–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Osés J, Fernández-Pan I, Mendoza M, Maté JI (2009) Stability of the mechanical properties of edible films based on whey protein isolate during storage at different relative humidity. Food Hydrocolloids 23(1):125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Razavi SMA, Amini AM, Zahedi Y (2015) Characterisation of a new biodegradable edible film based on sage seed gum: Influence of plasticiser type and concentration. Food Hydrocolloids 43:290–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reis MO, Zanela J, Olivato J, Garcia PS, Yamashita F, Grossmann MVE (2014) Microcrystalline cellulose as reinforcement in thermoplastic starch/poly (butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) films. J Polym Environ 22(4):545–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rhim JW, Park HM, Ha CS (2013) Bio-nanocomposites for food packaging applications. Prog Polym Sci 38(10):1629–1652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sahari J, Sapuan SM, Zainudin ES, Maleque MA (2012) A new approach to use Arenga pinnata as sustainable biopolymer: effects of plasticizers on physical properties. Procedia Chemistry 4:254–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sahari J, Sapuan SM, Zainudin ES, Maleque MA (2013a) Mechanical and thermal properties of environmentally friendly composites derived from sugar palm tree. Mater Des 49:285–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sahari J, Sapuan SM, Zainudin ES, Maleque MA (2013b) Thermo-mechanical behaviors of thermoplastic starch derived from sugar palm tree (Arenga pinnata). Carbohydr Polym 92(2):1711–1716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sahari J, Sapuan SM, Zainudin ES, Maleque MA (2014) Physico-chemical and thermal properties of starch derived from sugar palm tree (Arenga pinnata). Asian J Chem 26(4):955Google Scholar
  49. Sanchez-Garcia MD, Gimenez E, Lagaron JM (2008) Morphology and barrier properties of solvent cast composites of thermoplastic biopolymers and purified cellulose fibers. Carbohydr Polym 71(2):235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sanyang ML, Sapuan SM, Jawaid M, Ishak MR, Sahari J (2015a) Effect of plasticizer type and concentration on dynamic mechanical properties of sugar palm starch-based films. Int J Polym Anal Charact 20(7):627–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sanyang ML, Sapuan SM, Jawaid M, Ishak MR, Sahari J (2015b) Effect of plasticizer type and concentration on tensile, thermal and barrier properties of biodegradable films based on sugar palm (Arenga pinnata) starch. Polymers 7(6):1106–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sanyang ML, Sapuan SM, Jawaid M, Ishak MR, Sahari J (2016a) Development and characterization of sugar palm starch and poly (lactic acid) bilayer films. Carbohydr Polym 146:36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sanyang ML, Sapuan SM, Jawaid M, Ishak MR, Sahari J (2016b) Effect of plasticizer type and concentration on physical properties of biodegradable films based on sugar palm (Arenga pinnata) starch for food packaging. J Food Sci Technol 53(1):326–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sanyang ML, Sapuan SM, Jawaid M, Ishak MR, Sahari J (2016c) Recent developments in sugar palm (Arenga pinnata) based biocomposites and their potential industrial applications: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 54:533–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sanyang ML, Sapuan SM, Jawaid M, Ishak MR, Sahari J (2016d) Effect of sugar palm-derived cellulose reinforcement on the mechanical and water barrier properties of sugar palm starch biocomposite films. BioResources 11(2):4134–4145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Siqueira G, Bras J, Dufresne A (2010) Cellulosic bionanocomposites: a review of preparation, properties and applications. Polymers 2(4):728–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Slavutsky AM, Bertuzzi MA (2014) Water barrier properties of starch films reinforced with cellulose nanocrystals obtained from sugarcane bagasse. Carbohydr Polym 110:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sreekala MS, Kumaran MG, Joseph R, Thomas S (2001) Stress-relaxation behaviour in composites based on short oil-palm fibres and phenol formaldehyde resin. Compos Sci Technol 61(9):1175–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Srikaeo K, Boonrod C, Rahman MS (2016) Effect of storage temperatures on the head rice yield in relation to glass transition temperatures and un-freezable water. J Cereal Sci 70:164–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Talja RA, Helén H, Roos YH, Jouppila K (2007) Effect of various polyols and polyol contents on physical and mechanical properties of potato starch-based films. Carbohydr Polym 67(3):288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tang XZ, Kumar P, Alavi S, Sandeep KP (2012) Recent advances in biopolymers and biopolymer-based nanocomposites for food packaging materials. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 52(5):426–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Teacă CA, Bodîrlău R, Spiridon I (2013) Effect of cellulose reinforcement on the properties of organic acid modified starch microparticles/plasticized starch bio-composite films. Carbohydr Polym 93(1):307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Teixeira EDM, Pasquini D, Curvelo AA, Corradini E, Belgacem MN, Dufresne A (2009) Cassava bagasse cellulose nanofibrils reinforced thermoplastic cassava starch. Carbohydr Polym 78(3):422–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tester RF, Karkalas J, Qi X (2004) Starch—composition, fine structure and architecture. J Cereal Sci 39(2):151–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tian H, Xu G, Yang B, Guo G (2011) Microstructure and mechanical properties of soy protein/agar blend films: effect of composition and processing methods. J Food Eng 107(1):21–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Villacrés RAE, Flores SK, Gerschenson LN (2014) Biopolymeric antimicrobial films: study of the influence of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, tapioca starch and glycerol contents on physical properties. Mater Sci Eng C 36:108–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weber CJ, Haugaard V, Festersen R, Bertelsen G (2002) Production and applications of biobased packaging materials for the food industry. Food Addit Contam 19(S1), 172–177Google Scholar
  68. Wittaya T (2009) Microcomposites of rice starch film reinforced with microcrystalline cellulose from palm pressed fiber. Int Food Res J 16(4):493–500Google Scholar
  69. Wittaya T (2012) Rice starch-based biodegradable films: properties enhancement. INTECH Open Access PublisherGoogle Scholar
  70. Wu M, Wang LJ, Li D, Mao ZH, Adhikari B (2013) Effect of flaxseed meal on the dynamic mechanical properties of starch-based films. J Food Eng 118(4):365–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Xie F, Flanagan BM, Li M, Sangwan P, Truss RW, Halley PJ et al (2014) Characteristics of starch-based films plasticised by glycerol and by the ionic liquid 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate: a comparative study. Carbohydr Polym 111:841–848Google Scholar
  72. Yoshimoto Y, Takenouchi T, Takeda Y (2002) Molecular structure and some physicochemical properties of waxy and low-amylose barley starches. Carbohydr Polym 47(2):159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhang Y, Rempel C (2012) retrogradation and antiplasticization of thermoplastic starch. Thermoplast Elastomers 118–19Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. L. Sanyang
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. A. Ilyas
    • 1
  • S. M. Sapuan
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. Jumaidin
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratory of Biocomposite Technology, Institute of Tropical Forestry and Forest ProductsUniversiti Putra MalaysiaSelangorMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing EngineeringUniversiti Putra MalaysiaSelangorMalaysia
  3. 3.Department of Structure and Material, Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringUniversitiTeknikal Malaysia MelakaMelakaMalaysia

Personalised recommendations