Advertisement

Potentials of Fibrous and Nonfibrous Materials in Biodegradable Packaging

  • Kartick K. SamantaEmail author
  • S. Basak
  • S. K. Chattopadhyay
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes book series (EFEPP)

Abstract

Packaging is a, essential requirement for fruits, vegetables, agricultural crops, food products, and other commodities to provide the requisite protection from physical damage, contamination, deterioration; to increase shelf life; and facilitate need-based supply from the producer to the consumer. The packaging material should be physically and mechanically strong and should not add any foul odor to the packed product. In the past, for packaging of the above-mentioned products as well as various industrial goods has been made of traditional to advanced materials such as metal and glass; ordinary, coated, and laminated paper; corrugated paper box; gunny sack; textile bag; bamboo slit; wooden box; biodegradable film; nonbiodegradable plastic/film; composite; and nanocopmosite/biocomposite, all of which have been widely used. During the past 50 years, synthetic polymers have been found to steadily replace traditional packaging materials because of their advantages of low cost, low density, inertness, resistance to microbial growth, thermoplasticity, and transparency. However, their usage currently is being partially restricted because they are not totally recyclable and/or biodegradable and thus lead to serious environmental problem. This has resulted in the development of biodegradable polymers/films such as starch, polylactic acid, protein-based film, poly-beta-hydroxyalkanoates (PHB), etc. It has been possible to enhance physico-mechanical and functional properties of such polymers by incorporating organic and inorganic nanoparticles such as silver, titanium, chitosan, cellulose, clay, starch, silica, and zein. Similarly, traditional to coated/laminated paper/paper board, jute fabric, and the corrugated fibre board have been utilized for conventional to high-end packaging.

Keywords

Biodegradable packaging Fibrous Jute Nanocopmosite Paper box 

References

  1. Annual Institute Report of Central Institute for Research on Cotton Technology (2013–2014) In: Chattopadhyay SK (ed) Preface, P(i) (2014)Google Scholar
  2. Avella M, De Vlieger JJ, Errico ME, Fischer S, Vacca P, Volpe MG (2005) Biodegradable starch/clay nanocomposite films for food packaging applications. Food Chem 93:467–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azeredo HMC (2009) Nanocomposites for food packaging applications. Food Res Int 42:1240–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berthet MA, Angellier-Coussy H, Chea V, Guillard V, Gastaldi E, Gontard N (2015) Sustainable food packaging: valorising wheat straw fibres for tuning PHBV-based composites properties. Compos A 72:139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen Y, Liu C, Chang PR, Cao X, Anderson DP (2009) Bionanocomposites based on pea starch and cellulose nanowhiskers hydrolyzed from pea hull fibre: effect of hydrolysis time. Carbohydr Polym 76(4):607–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen J, Zhang Y, Sun J (2011) An overview of the reducing principle of design of corrugated box used in goods packaging. Procedia Environ Sci 10:992–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen W, Wang X, Tao Q, Wang J, Zheng Z, Wang X (2013) Lotus-like paper/paperboard packaging prepared with nano-modified overprint Varnish. Appl Surf Sci 266:319–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cherian BM, Leão AL, Souza SF, Costa LMM, Olyveira GM, Kottaisamy M, Nagarajan ER, Thomas S (2011) Cellulose nanocomposites with nanofibres isolated from pineapple leaf fibers for medical applications. Carbohydr Polym 86:1790–1798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis G, Song JH (2006) Biodegradable packaging based on raw materials from crops and their impact on waste management. Ind Crops Prod 23:147–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dogan N, McHugh TH (2007) Effects of microcrystalline cellulose on functional properties of hydroxyl propyl methyl cellulose microcomposite films. J Food Sci 72(1):E16–E22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. El-Wakil NA, Hassan EA, Abou-Zeid RE, Dufresne A (2015) Development of wheat gluten/nanocellulose/titanium dioxide nanocomposites for active food packaging. Carbohydr Polym 124:337–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feichtinger M, Zitz U, Fric H, Kneifel W, Domig KJ (2015) An improved method for microbiological testing of paper-based laminates used in food packaging. Food Control 50:548–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galic K, Scetar M, Kurek M (2011) The benefits of processing and packaging. Trends Food Sci Technol 22:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gallstedt M, Hedenqvist MS (2006) Packaging-related mechanical and barrier properties of pulp–fiber–chitosan sheets. Carbohydr Polym 63:46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guazzotti V, Limbo S, Piergiovanni L, Fengler R, Fiedler D, Gruber L (2015) A study into the potential barrier properties against mineral oils of starch-based coatings on paperboard for food packaging. Food Packag Shelf Life 3:9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guillaume C, Pinte J, Gontard N, Gastaldi E (2010) Wheat gluten-coated papers for bio-based food packaging: Structure, surface and transfer properties. Food Res Int 43:1395–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gurav SP, Bereznitski A, Heidweiller A, Kandachar PV (2003) Mechanical properties of paper-pulp packaging. Compos Sci Technol 63:1325–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haafiz MKM, Hassan A, Zakaria Z, Inuwa IM (2014) Isolation and characterization of cellulose nanowhiskers from oilpalm biomass microcrystalline cellulose. Carbohydr Polym 103:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hakovirta M, Aksoy B, Hakovirta J (2015) Self-assembled micro-structured sensors for food safety in paper based food packaging. Mater Sci Eng, C. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2015.04.020 Google Scholar
  20. Indian Standard, IS: 7406 (Part 1) (1984) Specification for jute bags for packing fertilizer, part 1: laminated bags manufactured from 407 g/m2, 85 × 39 Tarpaulin fabricGoogle Scholar
  21. Indian Standard, IS: 7406-2 (1986) Specification for jute bags for packing fertilizer, part 2: laminated bags manufactured from 380 g/m2, 68 × 39 Tarpaulin fabricGoogle Scholar
  22. Indian Standard (IS) 12626 (1989) Laminated jute bags for packing milk powder—specificationGoogle Scholar
  23. Indian Standard, IS 2566 (1993) Textiles—B-twill jute bags for packing foodgrains—specificationGoogle Scholar
  24. Indian Standard, IS 1943 (1995) Textiles—A-twill jute bags-specificationGoogle Scholar
  25. Indian Standard, IS 9685 (2002) Textiles—sand bags—specificationGoogle Scholar
  26. Indian Standard (IS) 12650 (2003) Textiles—jute bags for packing 50 kg foodgrains—specification (second revision)Google Scholar
  27. Indian Standard (IS) 15138 (2010) Textiles—jute bags for packing 50 kg sugar—specificationGoogle Scholar
  28. Indian Standard, IS 12269 (2013) Ordinary Portland Cement, 53 grade—specificationGoogle Scholar
  29. Lavoine N, Givord C, Tabary N, Desloges I, Martel B, Bras J (2014) Elaboration of a new antibacterial bio-nano-material for food-packaging by synergistic action of cyclodextrin and microfibrillated cellulose. Innov Food Sci Emerging Technol 26:330–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li J, Wei X, Wang Q, Chen J, Chang G, Kong L, Su J, Liu Y (2012) Homogeneous isolation of nanocellulose from sugarcane bagasse by high pressure homogenization. Carbohydr Polym 90:1609–1613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lim LT, Auras R, Rubino M (2008) Processing technologies for poly(lactic acid). Prog Polym Sci 33:820–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lu Y, Weng L, Zhang L (2004) Morphology and properties of soy protein isolate thermoplastics reinforced with chitin whiskers. Biomacromolecules 5:1046–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mahalik NP, Nambiar AN (2010) Trends in food packaging and manufacturing systems and technology. Trends Food Sci Technol 21:117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Majeed K, Jawaid M, Hassan A, Bakar AA, Khalil HPSA, Salema AA, Inuwa I (2013) Potential materials for food packaging from nanoclay/natural fibres filled hybrid composites. Mater Des 46:391–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mensitieri G, Maio ED, Buonocore GG, Nedi I, Oliviero M, Sansone L, Iannace S (2011) Processing and shelf life issues of selected food packaging materials and structures from renewable resources. Trends Food Sci Technol 22:72–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morais JPS, Rosa MF, Filho MMS, Nascimento LD, Nascimento DM, Cassales AR (2013) Extraction and characterization of nanocellulose structures from raw cotton linter. Carbohydr Polym 91:229–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Muthu SS, Li Y, Hu JY, Mok PY (2009) An exploratory comparative study on eco-impact of paper and plastic bags. JFBI 1(4):307–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Muthu SS, Li Y, Hu JY, Mok PY (2011) Carbon footprint of shopping (grocery) bags in China, Hong Kong and India. Atmos Environ 45:469–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. National Agricultural Innovation Project (2012) Final Technical Report of National Agricultural Innovation Project on “Synthesis and characterization of nano-cellulose and its application in biodegradable polymer composite to enhance their performance”, Central Institute for Research on Cotton Technology, Mumbai, Year 2012, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  40. Nayak P, Swain S (2002) Plastics and pollution: biodegradable polymers. Popular Plast. Packaging 47(10):66–78Google Scholar
  41. Neto WPF, Silverio HA, Dantas NO, Pasquini D (2013) Extraction and characterization of cellulose nanocrystals from agro-industrial residue—Soy hulls. Ind Crops Prod 42:480–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pathare PB, Opara UL (2014) Structural design of corrugated boxes for horticultural produce: a review. Biosyst Eng 125:128–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Qian X, Shen J, Yu G and An X (2010) Influence of pulp fiber substrate on conductivity of polyaniline-coated paper prepared by in situ polymerization. Bioresource 5: 899–907Google Scholar
  44. Rhim JW, Lee JH, Hong SI (2007) Increase in water resistance of paperboard by coating with poly(lactide). Packag Technol Sci 20:393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosa MF, Medeiros ES, Malmonge JA, Gregorski KS, Wood DF, Mattoso LHC, Glenn G, Orts WJ, Imam SH (2010) Cellulose nanowhiskers from coconut husk fibers: Effect of preparation conditions on their thermal and morphological behavior. Carbohydr Polym 81:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Salehudin MH, Salleh E, Mamat SNH, Muhamad II (2014) Starch based active packaging film reinforced with empty fruit bunch (EFB) cellulose nanofiber. Procedia Chem 9:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Santos RM, Neto WPF, Silvério HA, Martins DF, Dantas NO, Pasquini D (2013) Cellulose nanocrystals from pineapple leaf, a new approach for there use of this agro-waste. Ind Crops Prod 50:707–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Savadekar NR, Mhaske ST (2012) Synthesis of nano cellulose fibers and effect on thermoplastics starch based films. Carbohydr Polym 89:146–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Savadekara NR, Karandea VS, Vigneshwaran N, Bharimalla AK, Mhaske ST (2012) Preparation of nano cellulose fibers and its application in kappa-carrageenan based film. Int J Biol Macromol 51:1008–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shah AA, Hasan F, Hameed A, Ahmed S (2008) Biological degradation of plastics: a comprehensive review. Biotechnol Adv 26:246–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Silverio HA, Neto WPF, Dantas NO, Pasquini D (2013) Extraction and characterization of cellulose nanocrystals from corncob for application as reinforcing agent in nanocomposites. Ind Crops Prod 44:427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Siracusa V, Rocculi P, Romani S, Rosa MD (2008) Biodegradable polymers for food packaging: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol 19:634–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Song YS, Begley T, Paquette K, Komolprasert V (2003) Effectiveness of polypropylene film as a barrier to migration from recycled paperboard packaging to fatty and high-moisture food. Food Addit Contam 20:875–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sorrentino A, Gorrasi G, Vittoria V (2007) Potential perspectives of bio nanocomposites for food packaging applications. Trends Food Sci Technol 18(2):84–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sozer N, Kokini JL (2009) Nanotechnology and its applications in the food sector. Trends Biotechnol 27(2):82–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II-Section 3-Sub-section (II), Ministry of Textile-Order dated 13th Feb 2015Google Scholar
  57. Vigneshwaran N, Ammayappan L, Huang Q (2011) Effect of gum arabic on distribution behavior of nanocellulose fillers in starch film. DOI, Appl Nanosci. doi: 10.1007/s13204-011-0020-5 Google Scholar
  58. Yoshino T, Isobe S, Maekawa T (2002) Influence of preparation conditions on the physical properties of Zein films. J Am Oil Chem Soc 79:345–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Youssef AM, El-Samahy MA, Rehim MHA (2012) Preparation of conductive paper composites based on natural cellulosic fibers for packaging applications. Carbohydr Polym 89:1027–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Youssef AM, Kamel S, El-Samahy MA (2013) Morphological and antibacterial properties of modified paper by PS nanocomposites for packaging applications. Carbohydr Polym 98:1166–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhang Y, Chen J, Wu Y, Sun J (2011) Analysis on hazard factors of the use of corrugated carton in packaging low-temperature yogurt during logistics. Procedia Environ Sci 10:968–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kartick K. Samanta
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. Basak
    • 2
  • S. K. Chattopadhyay
    • 2
  1. 1.Chemical and Bio-Chemical Processing DivisionICAR-National Institute of Research on Jute and Allied Fibre TechnologyKolkataIndia
  2. 2.ICAR-Central Institute for Research on Cotton TechnologyMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations