The current challenges of the primary food packaging market involve the lowest environmental impact. Biobased and biodegradable sources emerge as change strategies, implying a short life period and easy degradation in the natural ecosystem. Researchers have focused on materials that meet these requirements, merging high efficiency with the final properties. Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) and nanocellulose biocomposites are some of the most promising. PHAs are biodegradable bioplastics produced by bacteria with the potential to replace conventional fossil fuel plastics currently used in food packaging. However, some properties of PHAs need to be improved. Combining PHAs with nanocellulose is an emerging strategy to meet specific packaging requirements. The synergistic effect could enhance container features, for example, improved dimensional stability and mechanical properties. The combined components may also present high biodegradation under normal conditions. This study analyzes the current situation of nanocellulose reinforcement in PHA matrices for single-use packaging. It emphasizes the biodegradable feature of PHAs and the mechanical properties, challenges, and potential opportunities of nanocellulose-reinforced PHA bionanocomposites.
ArijeniwaVFAkinsemoluAAChukwugozieDC, et al.Closing the loop: a framework for tackling single-use plastic waste in the food and beverage industry through circular economy- a review. J Environ Manag2024; 359: 120816.
3.
DeyADhumalCVSenguptaP, et al.Challenges and possible solutions to mitigate the problems of single-use plastics used for packaging food items: a review. J Food Sci Technol2021; 58(9): 3251–3269.
ShanmugamVMensahRAFörsthM, et al.Circular economy in biocomposite development: state-of-the-art, challenges and emerging trends. Compos Part C Open Access2021; 5: 100138.
6.
NiaounakisM. Definitions of terms and types of biopolymers. In: Niaounakis M Biopolymers: Applications and Trends. Norwich, NY: William Andrew, 2015, pp. 1–90.
7.
ZhaoXWangYChenX, et al.Sustainable bioplastics derived from renewable natural resources for food packaging. Matter2023; 6: 97–127.
8.
AbeMMMartinsJRSanvezzoPB, et al.Advantages and disadvantages of bioplastics production from starch and lignocellulosic components. Polymers (Basel)2021; 13: 2484.
9.
Roy ChongJWTanXKhooKS, et al.Microalgae-based bioplastics: future solution towards mitigation of plastic wastes. Environ Res2022; 206: 112620.
10.
AtiweshGMikhaelAParrishCC, et al.Environmental impact of bioplastic use: a review. Heliyon2021; 7(9): e07918.
11.
IslamMXayachakTHaqueN, et al.Impact of bioplastics on environment from its production to end-of-life. Process Saf Environ Prot2024; 188: 151–166.
12.
FolinoAPangalloDCalabròPS. Assessing bioplastics biodegradability by standard and research methods: current trends and open issues. J Environ Chem Eng2023; 11(2): 109424.
13.
AhsanWAHussainALinC, et al.Biodegradation of different types of bioplastics through composting—a recent trend in green recycling. Catalysts2023; 13(2): 294.
14.
IdrisSNAmeliaTSMBhubalanK, et al.The degradation of single-use plastics and commercially viable bioplastics in the environment: a review. Environ Res2023; 231(Pt 1): 115988.
15.
FindrikEMeixnerO. Drivers and barriers for consumers purchasing bioplastics – a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod2023; 410: 137311.
16.
FilhoWLBarbirJAbubakarIR, et al.Consumer attitudes and concerns with bioplastics use: an international study. PLoS One2022; 17(4): e0266918.
17.
FilhoWLSalviaALBonoliA, et al.An assessment of attitudes towards plastics and bioplastics in Europe. Sci Total Environ2021; 755(Pt 1): 142732.
18.
KongUMohammad RawiNFTayGS. The potential applications of reinforced bioplastics in various industries: a review. Polymers (Basel)2023; 15(10): 2399.
19.
GhasemlouMBarrowCJAdhikariB. The future of bioplastics in food packaging: an industrial perspective. Food Packag Shelf Life2024; 43: 101279.
20.
SiddiquiSAYangXDeshmukhRK, et al.Recent advances in reinforced bioplastics for food packaging – a critical review. Int J Biol Macromol2024; 263: 130399.
21.
Uysal-UnalanISogutERealiniCE, et al.Bioplastic packaging for fresh meat and fish: current status and future direction on mitigating food and packaging waste. Trends Food Sci Technol2024; 152: 104660.
European Bioplastics. Bioplastics market development update 2023. Report. Berlin, Germany: European Bioplastics, 2023.
24.
JabeenNMajidINayikGA. Bioplastics and food packaging: a review. Cogent Food Agric2015; 1(1): 1117749.
25.
KumarRLalnundikiVShelareSD, et al.An investigation of the environmental implications of bioplastics: recent advancements on the development of environmentally friendly bioplastics solutions. Environ Res2024; 244: 117707.
26.
EmadianSMOnayTTDemirelB. Biodegradation of bioplastics in natural environments. Waste Manag2017; 59: 526–536.
27.
BaidurahS. Methods of analyses for biodegradable polymers: a review. Polymers (Basel)2022; 14(22): 4928.
28.
Pascoe OrtizS. Are bioplastics the solution to the plastic pollution problem?PLoS Biol2023; 21(3): e3002045.
29.
PlackettDSiróI. Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) for food packaging. In: LagarónJ-M (ed). Multifunctional and Nanoreinforced Polymers for Food Packaging. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing, 2011, pp. 498–526.
30.
NaserAZDeiabIDarrasBM. Poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), green alternatives to petroleum-based plastics: a review. RSC Adv2021; 11: 17151–17196.
31.
GreeneJP. Degradation and biodegradation standards for biodegradable food packaging materials. Reference Module in Food Science (Elsevier)2019. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.22437-2.
32.
RameshMRajeshkumarLBhuvaneswariV, et al.Introduction to natural materials for food packaging. In: ParameswaranpillaiJJayakumarARadhakrishnanEK, et al. (eds). Natural Materials for Food Packaging Application. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2023, pp. 1–21.
33.
Di PaoloLAbbateSCelaniE, et al.Carbon footprint of single-use plastic items and their substitution. Sustainability (Basel)2022; 14: 16563.
34.
TanDWangYTongY, et al.Grand challenges for industrializing polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). Trends Biotechnol2021; 39(9): 953–963.
35.
AbitbolTRivkinACaoY, et al.Nanocellulose, a tiny fiber with huge applications. Curr Opin Biotechnol2016; 39: 76–88.
36.
NairSSZhuJYDengY, et al.Characterization of cellulose nanofibrillation by micro grinding. J Nanopart Res2014; 16: 2349.
37.
StarkNMMatuanaLM. Trends in sustainable biobased packaging materials: a mini review. Mater Today Sustain2021; 15: 100084.
38.
SatyanarayanaKGArizagaGGCWypychF. Biodegradable composites based on lignocellulosic fibers-An overview. Prog Polym Sci2009; 34: 982–1021.
39.
MuRHongXNiY, et al.Recent trends and applications of cellulose nanocrystals in food industry. Trends Food Sci Technol2019; 93: 136–144.
40.
SilvaFAGSDouradoFGamaM, et al.Nanocellulose bio-based composites for food packaging. Nanomaterials (Basel)2020; 10(10): 2041.
41.
AhankariSSSubhedarARBhadauriaSS, et al.Nanocellulose in food packaging: a review. Carbohydr Polym2021; 255: 117479.
42.
QasimUOsmanAIAl-MuhtasebAH, et al.Renewable cellulosic nanocomposites for food packaging to avoid fossil fuel plastic pollution: a review. Environ Chem Lett2021; 19: 613–641.
43.
LiJZhangFZhongY, et al.Emerging food packaging applications of cellulose nanocomposites: a review. Polymers (Basel)2022; 14(19): 4025.
44.
PerumalABNambiarRBMosesJA, et al.Nanocellulose: recent trends and applications in the food industry. Food Hydrocoll2022; 127: 107484.
45.
VatanseverEArslanDNofarM. Polylactide cellulose-based nanocomposites. Int J Biol Macromol2019; 137: 912–938.
46.
NazrinASapuanSMZuhriMYM, et al.Nanocellulose reinforced thermoplastic starch (TPS), polylactic acid (PLA), and polybutylene succinate (PBS) for food packaging applications. Front Chem2020; 8: 213.
47.
ZaabaNFJaafarMIsmailH. Tensile and morphological properties of nanocrystalline cellulose and nanofibrillated cellulose reinforced PLA bionanocomposites: a review. Polym Eng Sci2020; 61: 22–38.
48.
BangarSPWhitesideWS. Nano-cellulose reinforced starch bio composite films- A review on green composites. Int J Biol Macromol2021; 185: 849–860.
49.
CatañoFAMoreno-SernaVCamentA, et al.Green composites based on thermoplastic starch reinforced with micro- and nano-cellulose by melt blending - a review. Int J Biol Macromol2023; 248: 125939.
50.
UsureluCDBadilaSFroneAN, et al.Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) nanocomposites with cellulose nanocrystals. Polymers (Basel)2022; 14(10): 1974.
51.
JeffriNINurul FazitaMRLehCP, et al.Potential of polyhydroxyalkanoate and nanocellulose from oil palm trunk as raw materials for additive manufacturing: a review. Polym Compos2023; 44(1): 8–22.
52.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ2021; 372: n71.
53.
SaniMAAzizi-LalabadiMTavassoliM, et al.Recent advances in the development of smart and active biodegradable packaging materials. Nanomaterials (Basel)2021; 11(5): 1331.
54.
EhmanNPonce de LeónAFelissiaFE, et al.Towards biodegradable barrier packaging: production of films for single-use primary food liquid packaging. Bioresources2022; 17: 5215–5233.
55.
SarkarSAparnaK. Food packaging and storage. In: SinghP (ed). Research Trends in Home Science and Extension. New Delhi: AkiNik Publications, 2020, pp. 27–51.
56.
Plastics Europe. Plastics – the facts 2022. Report. Brussels, Belgium: Plastics Europe, 2022.
57.
SiracusaVBlancoI. Bio-Polyethylene (Bio-PE), Bio-Polypropylene (Bio-PP) and Bio-Poly(ethylene terephthalate) (Bio-PET): recent developments in bio-based polymers analogous to petroleum-derived ones for packaging and engineering applications. Polymers (Basel)2020; 12(8): 1641.
58.
BauerA-STackerMUysal-UnalanI, et al.Recyclability and redesign challenges in multilayer flexible food packaging-A review. Foods2021; 10(11): 2702.
59.
TamizhduraiPMangeshVLSanthoshS, et al.A state-of-the-art review of multilayer packaging recycling: challenges, alternatives, and outlook. J Clean Prod2024; 447: 141403.
60.
KumarVSehgalRGuptaR. Blends and composites of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) and their applications. Eur Polym J2021; 161: 110824.
61.
HashemzehiMMesicBSjöstrandB, et al.A comprehensive review of nanocellulose modification and applications in papermaking and packaging: challenges, technical solutions, and perspectives. Bioresources2022; 17(2): 3718–3780.
62.
AndrewJJDhakalHN. Sustainable biobased composites for advanced applications: recent trends and future opportunities – a critical review. Compos Part C Open Access2022; 7: 100220.
63.
De GisiSGadaletaGGorrasiG, et al.The role of (bio)degradability on the management of petrochemical and bio-based plastic waste. J Environ Manag2022; 310: 114769.
64.
NumataKAbeHDoiY. Enzymatic processes for biodegradation of poly(hydroxyalkanoate)s crystals. Can J Chem2008; 86(6): 471–483.
65.
BátoriVÅkessonDZamaniA, et al.Anaerobic degradation of bioplastics: a review. Waste Manag2018; 80: 406–413.
66.
EckelFVan OpdenboschDSchandlKS, et al.Dependency of tensile properties and biodegradation on molecular mass during hydrolysis of poly(butylene succinate). npj Mater Degrad2024; 8: 97.
67.
UrbanekAKRymowiczWStrzeleckiMC, et al.Isolation and characterization of Arctic microorganisms decomposing bioplastics. AMB Express2017; 7: 148.
68.
MeereboerKWMisraMMohantyAK. Review of recent advances in the biodegradability of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) bioplastics and their composites. Green Chem2020; 22: 5519–5558.
69.
FolinoAKarageorgiouACalabròPS, et al.Biodegradation of wasted bioplastics in natural and industrial environments: a review. Sustainability (Basel)2020; 12(15): 6030.
70.
SilvaRRAMarquesCSArrudaTR, et al.Biodegradation of polymers: stages, measurement, standards and prospects. Macromolecules (Washington, DC, US)2023; 3: 371–399.
71.
SudeshKIwataT. Sustainability of biobased and biodegradable plastics. CLEAN Soil Air Water2008; 36(5-6): 433–442.
72.
VolovaTGPrudnikovaSVVinogradovaON, et al.Microbial degradation of polyhydroxyalkanoates with different chemical compositions and their biodegradability. Microb Ecol2017; 73(2): 353–367.
73.
AltaeeNEl-HitiGAFahdilA, et al.Biodegradation of different formulations of polyhydroxybutyrate films in soil. SpringerPlus2016; 5: 762.
74.
SiracusaVRocculiPRomaniS, et al.Biodegradable polymers for food packaging: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol2008; 19(12): 634–643.
75.
FinoreIFeolaARussoL, et al.Thermophilic bacteria and their thermozymes in composting processes: a review. Chem Biol Technol Agric2023; 10: 7.
76.
BarrenaRFontXGabarrellX, et al.Home composting versus industrial composting: influence of composting system on compost quality with focus on compost stability. Waste Manag2014; 34(7): 1109–1116.
García-DepraectOLebreroRRodriguez-VegaS, et al.Biodegradation of bioplastics under aerobic and anaerobic aqueous conditions: kinetics, carbon fate and particle size effect. Bioresour Technol2022; 344(Pt B): 126265.
79.
SeggianiMCinelliPVerstichelS, et al.Development of fibres-reinforced biodegradable composites. Chem Eng Trans2015; 43: 1813–1818.
80.
WuCS. Characterization and biodegradation evaluation of biocapsules composed of polyester/natural product composites. Polym Plast Technol Eng2016; 55: 391–402.
81.
VielTManfraLZupoV, et al.Biodegradation of plastics induced by marine organisms: future perspectives for bioremediation approaches. Polymers (Basel)2023; 15: 2673.
82.
Dilkes-HoffmanLSLantPALaycockB, et al.The rate of biodegradation of PHA bioplastics in the marine environment: a meta-study. Mar Pollut Bull2019; 142: 15–24.
83.
ReadTChaléatCLaycockB, et al.Lifetimes and mechanisms of biodegradation of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) in estuarine and marine field environments. Mar Pollut Bull2024; 209: 117114.
84.
BriassoulisDPikasiABriassoulisC, et al.Disintegration behaviour of bio-based plastics in coastal zone marine environments: a field experiment under natural conditions. Sci Total Environ2019; 688: 208–223.
LabatutRAAngenentLTScottNR. Conventional mesophilic vs. thermophilic anaerobic digestion: a trade-off between performance and stability?Water Res2014; 53: 249–258.
87.
TezelUTandukarMHajayaMG, et al.Transition of municipal sludge anaerobic digestion from mesophilic to thermophilic and long-term performance evaluation. Bioresour Technol2014; 170: 385–394.
88.
KangJ-HKangS-WKimW-J, et al.Anaerobic Co-digestion of bioplastics and food waste under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions: synergistic effect and biodegradation. Fermentation2022; 8: 638.
89.
WangSLydonKAWhiteEM, et al.Biodegradation of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate- co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) plastic under anaerobic sludge and aerobic seawater conditions: gas evolution and microbial diversity. Environ Sci Technol2018; 52: 5700–5709.
90.
LavagnoloMCPoliVZampiniAM, et al.Biodegradability of bioplastics in different aquatic environments: a systematic review. J Environ Sci2024; 142: 169–181.
91.
RuggeroFGoriRLubelloC. Methodologies to assess biodegradation of bioplastics during aerobic composting and anaerobic digestion: a review. Waste Manag Res2019; 37(10): 959–975.
92.
PiresJRASouzaVGLFuciñosP, et al.Methodologies to assess the biodegradability of bio-based polymers—current knowledge and existing gaps. Polymers (Basel)2022; 14: 1359.
93.
KijchavengkulTAurasRRubinoM, et al.Biodegradation and hydrolysis rate of aliphatic aromatic polyester. Polym Degrad Stabil2010; 95(12): 2641–2647.
94.
FortunatiELuziFPugliaD, et al.Investigation of thermo-mechanical, chemical and degradative properties of PLA-limonene films reinforced with cellulose nanocrystals extracted from Phormium tenax leaves. Eur Polym J2014; 56: 77–91.
95.
Cabrera-GarcíaPMarreroMDBenítezAN. Disintegration and marine biodegradability of biocomposite using Pennisetum setaceum fiber and PLA as matrix. Polym Degrad Stabil2024; 230: 111026.
96.
TosinMBarbaleMChinagliaS, et al.Disintegration and mineralization of mulch films and leaf litter in soil. Polym Degrad Stabil2020; 179: 109309.
97.
SalomezMGeorgeMFabreP, et al.A comparative study of degradation mechanisms of PHBV and PBSA under laboratory-scale composting conditions. Polym Degrad Stabil2019; 167: 102–113.
HerreraDAGMojicevicMVenkateshC, et al.Unveiling the potential of bacterial isolates from plastic-polluted environments: enhancement of polyhydroxybutyrate biodegradation. Biotechnol Environ2024; 1: 9.
100.
Colli-GongoraPEMoo-TunNMHerrera-FrancoPJ, et al.Assessing the effect of cellulose nanocrystal content on the biodegradation kinetics of multiscale polylactic acid composites under controlled thermophilic composting conditions. Polymers (Basel)2023; 15: 3093.
101.
LucasNBienaimeCBelloyC, et al.Polymer biodegradation: mechanisms and estimation techniques. Chemosphere2008; 73: 429–442.
102.
BennNZitomerD. Pretreatment and anaerobic co-digestion of selected PHB and PLA bioplastics. Front Environ Sci2018; 5: 93.
103.
HedgeSDiazCADellEM, et al.Investigation of process parameters on the anaerobic digestion of a poly(hydroxyalkonate) film. Eur Polym J2021; 148: 110349.
104.
AbeMMBrancifortiMCBrienzoM. Biodegradation of hemicellulose-cellulose-starch-based bioplastics and microbial polyesters. Recycling2021; 6(1): 22.
105.
SangronizAZhuJ-BTangX, et al.Packaging materials with desired mechanical and barrier properties and full chemical recyclability. Nat Commun2019; 10: 3559.
106.
WangQXuYXuP, et al.Crystallization of microbial polyhydroxyalkanoates: a review. Int J Biol Macromol2022; 209(Part A): 330–343.
107.
XuPWangQYuM, et al.Enhanced crystallization and storage stability of mechanical properties of biosynthesized poly (3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanate) induced by self-nucleation. Int J Biol Macromol2021; 184: 797–803.
108.
YanZHuangYZhaoW, et al.Effect of a self-assembled nucleating agent on the crystallization behavior and spherulitic morphology of poly(lactic acid). ACS Omega2023; 8(46): 44093–44105.
109.
XuPZhongWWangY, et al.Enhanced crystallization and storage stability of mechanical properties of poly(hydroxyalkanoate)s in the presence of hydrazide compounds with different configurations. Int J Biol Macromol2022; 218: 368–374.
110.
ShazleenSSYasim-AnuarTATIbrahimNA, et al.Functionality of cellulose nanofiber as bio-based nucleating agent and nano-reinforcement material to enhance crystallization and mechanical properties of polylactic acid nanocomposite. Polymers (Basel)2021; 13(3): 389.
111.
SeoaneITCerruttiPVazquezA, et al.Ternary nanocomposites based on plasticized poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) and nanocellulose. Polym Bull2019; 76: 967–988.
112.
FerriMChiromitoEMSde CarvalhoAJF, et al.Fine tuning of the mechanical properties of bio-based PHB/nanofibrillated cellulose biocomposites to prevent implant failure due to the bone/implant stress shielding effect. Polymers (Basel)2023; 15(6): 1438.
113.
AydemirDGardnerDJ. The effects of cellulosic fillers on the mechanical, morphological, thermal, viscoelastic, and rheological properties of polyhydroxybutyrate biopolymers. Polym Compos2020; 41: 3842–3856.
114.
ShazleenSSSabaruddinFAAndoY, et al.Optimization of cellulose nanofiber loading and processing conditions during melt extrusion of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) bionanocomposites. Polymers (Basel)2023; 15: 671.
115.
KucielSMazurKJakubowskaP. Novel biorenewable composites based on poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) with natural fillers. J Polym Environ2019; 27: 803–815.
116.
CodreanuABaltaCHermanH, et al.Bacterial cellulose-modified polyhydroxyalkanoates scaffolds promotes bone formation in critical size calvarial defects in mice. Materials (Basel)2020; 13(6): 1433.
117.
PopaMSFroneANRaduIC, et al.Microfibrillated cellulose grafted with metacrylic acid as a modifier in poly(3-hydroxybutyrate). Polymers (Basel)2021; 13(22): 3970.
118.
GiubiliniASciancaleporeCMessoriM, et al.New biocomposite obtained using poly(3‐hydroxybutyrate‐co‐3‐hydroxyhexanoate) (PHBH) and microfibrillated cellulose. J Appl Polym Sci2020; 137: 48953.
119.
ValentiniFDorigatoARigottiD, et al.Polyhydroxyalkanoates/fibrillated nanocellulose composites for additive manufacturing. J Polym Environ2019; 27: 1333–1341.
120.
MohammadalipourMKarbasiSBehzadT, et al.Effect of cellulose nanofibers on polyhydroxybutyrate electrospun scaffold for bone tissue engineering applications. Int J Biol Macromol2022; 220: 1402–1414.
121.
ZhangBHuangCZhaoH, et al.Effects of cellulose nanocrystals and cellulose nanofibers on the structure and properties of polyhydroxybutyrate nanocomposites. Polymers (Basel)2019; 11(12): 2063.
122.
MohammadalipourMBehzadTKarbasiS, et al.Osteogenic potential of PHB-lignin/cellulose nanofiber electrospun scaffold as a novel bone regeneration construct. Int J Biol Macromol2023; 250: 126076.
123.
FreitasPAVBarrrasaHVargasF, et al.Atomization of microfibrillated cellulose and its incorporation into poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) by reactive extrusion. Appl Sci2022; 12(4): 2111.
124.
PanaitescuDMFroneANNicolaeCA, et al.Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) nanocomposites modified with even and odd chain length polyhydroxyalkanoates. Int J Biol Macromol2023; 244: 125324.
125.
LiDZhouJMaX, et al.Synthesis of a novel biocomposite of poly (3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) reinforced with acetylated cellulose nanocrystals. Cellulose (Lond)2019; 26: 8729–8743.
126.
SchmidtABittmann-HennesBMonteroB, et al.Green bionanocomposites based on polyhydroxybutyrate and filled with cellulose nanocrystals: melting processing and characterization. J Polym Environ2023; 31: 4801–4816.
127.
GiubiliniAMessoriMBondioliF, et al.3D-Printed poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate)-cellulose-based scaffolds for biomedical applications. Biomacromolecules2023; 24(9): 3961–3971.
128.
GiubiliniASiqueiraGClemensFJ, et al.3D-Printing nanocellulose-poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) biodegradable composites by fused deposition modeling. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng2020; 8(27): 10292–10302.
129.
RastogiVKSamynP. Novel processing of polyhydroxybutyrate with micro- to nanofibrillated cellulose and effect of fiber morphology on crystallization behaviour of composites. Express Polym Lett2020; 14: 115–133.
130.
JoJJeongS-YLeeJ, et al.Green and sustainable hot melt adhesive (HMA) based on polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) and silanized cellulose nanofibers (SCNFs). Polymers (Basel)2022; 14: 5284.
131.
A G Soares da SilvaFMatosMDouradoF, et al.Development of a layered bacterial nanocellulose-PHBV composite for food packaging. J Sci Food Agric2023; 103(3): 1077–1087.
132.
OpricăMGUşureluCDFroneAN, et al.Opposite roles of bacterial cellulose nanofibers and foaming agent in polyhydroxyalkanoate-based materials. Polymers (Basel)2022; 14(24): 5358.
133.
FangCShaoTJiX, et al.High mechanical property and antibacterial poly (3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate)/functional enzymatically-synthesized cellulose biodegradable composite. Int J Biol Macromol2023; 225: 776–785.
134.
LeeJHikimaYSekiguchiT, et al.Thermal, rheological, and mechanical properties of cellulose nanofiber (CNF) and poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) (PHBH) biopolymer nanocomposites. Cellulose (Lond)2022; 29: 3901–3913.
135.
BoeyJYLeeCKTayGS. Factors affecting mechanical properties of reinforced bioplastics: a review. Polymers (Basel)2022; 14(18): 3737.
136.
MusaLKrishna KumarNAbd RahimSZ, et al.A review on the potential of polylactic acid based thermoplastic elastomer as filament material for fused deposition modelling. J Mater Res Technol2022; 20: 2841–2858.
137.
AigajeERiofrioABaykaraH. Processing, properties, modifications, and environmental impact of nanocellulose/biopolymer composites: a review. Polymers (Basel)2023; 15: 1219.
138.
DittmannBSchmidPKemmerD. Role of food contact materials in the safety assessment of potentially hazardous substances and in the dietary exposure of infants. Glob Pediatr2022; 2: 100013.
139.
XuYWuZLiA, et al.Nanocellulose composite films in food packaging materials: a review. Polymers (Basel)2024; 16(3): 423.
LerchMFenglerRMbogG-R, et al.Food simulants and real food – what do we know about the migration of PFAS from paper-based food contact materials?Food Packag Shelf Life2023; 35: 100992.
145.
SimoneauC. Guidelines on testing conditions for articles in contact with foodstuffs (with a focus on kitchenware). Report, A CRL-NRL-FCM Publication. 1st ed.Luxembourg: Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009.
146.
MERCOSUR/GMC/RES. No 40/15. Reglamento Técnico MERCOSUR sobre materiales, envases y equipamientos celulósicos destinados a estar en contacto con alimentos2015. https://normas.mercosur.int/public/normativas/3192 (accessed 18 June 2024).
GB 9685-2016. National Food Safety Standard: Standard for Uses of Additives in Food Contact Materials and Articles. Beijing, China: National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People’s Republic of China (NHFPC), 2016.
JanbadeAVTandonR. Paper and paper board for food packaging applications- Review of standard regulations. IPPTA Q J Indian Pulp Pap Tech - A2017; 29(4): 120–122.
156.
Código Alimentario Argentino. Capítulo IV: Utensilios, Recipientes, Envases, Aparatos y Accesorios. CABA, Argentina: Comisión Nacional de Alimentos - CONAL, 2021, pp. 1–260.
CrutchikDFranchiOCaminosL, et al.Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) production: a feasible economic option for the treatment of sewage sludge in municipal wastewater treatment plants?Water (Lond 1974)2020; 12(4): 1118.
160.
ChalermthaiBAshrafMTBastidas-OyanedelJ-R, et al.Techno-economic assessment of whey protein-based plastic production from a Co-polymerization process. Polymers (Basel)2020; 12(4): 847.
161.
RajendranNRungeTBergmanRD, et al.Techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment of cellulose nanocrystals production from wood pulp. Bioresour Technol2023; 377: 128955.
162.
Rosales-CalderonOPereiraBArantesV. Economic assessment of the conversion of bleached eucalyptus Kraft pulp into cellulose nanocrystals in a stand-alone facility via acid and enzymatic hydrolysis. Bio2021; 15(6): 1775–1788.
163.
BaleaAFuenteETarrésQ, et al.Influence of pretreatment and mechanical nanofibrillation energy on properties of nanofibers from Aspen cellulose. Cellulose (Lond)2021; 28: 9187–9206.
QinZNgWEdeJ, et al.Nanocellulose and its modified forms in the food industry: applications, safety, and regulatory perspectives. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf2024; 23: e70049.
168.
StoudmannNSchmutzMHirschC, et al.Human hazard potential of nanocellulose: quantitative insights from the literature. Nanotoxicology2020; 14(9): 1241–1257.
169.
EndesCCamarero-EspinosaSMuellerS, et al.A critical review of the current knowledge regarding the biological impact of nanocellulose. J Nanobiotechnol2016; 14: 78.
170.
IkunoYTsujinoHHagaY, et al.Impact of degradation of polyethylene particles on their cytotoxicity. Microplastics2023; 2: 192–201.
