This research investigates bio-based green nanocomposites prepared by melt-mixing PLA and PBAT in a 70/30 weight ratio with nanoclay and copper oxide (CuO) as the nanoparticles. The study evaluated the effect of CuO on the electromagnetic interference shielding effectiveness (EMI SE), mechanical, thermal, and material dispersion properties of nanocomposites with and without nanoclay, even though CuO is generally used at less than 2% to improve the antimicrobial resistance of nanocomposites. The SEM image was used to evaluate the dispersion level of PBAT in PLA matrix. In the EMI study, the hybrid composition of 70/30/3/0.4 shows higher SE across the entire frequency range of the X-band (8.4 to 12.4 GHz). 5 parts (parts per hundred resin) nanoclay-based composites, the tensile strength increased from 31.0 MPa to 32.5 MPa, and elongation from 4.6 % to 30.2 %, along with improved thermal stability in the TGA analysis compared to the 70/30 blend. Nanocomposites with 0.4 and 0.8 parts CuO showed tensile properties comparable to the 70/30 blend, but a marginal decrease was observed with 1.2 parts. CuO-based composition showed lower thermal stability in the TGA analysis. The FTIR analysis indicates the absence of a chemical reaction or hydrogen bonding within the materials.
FolinoAPangalloDCalabròPS. Assessing bioplastics biodegradability by standard and research methods: current trends and open issues. J Environ Chem Eng2023; 11(2): 109424.
2.
ConfenteIScarpiDRussoI. Marketing a new generation of bio-plastics products for a circular economy: the role of green self-identity, self-congruity, and perceived value. J Bus Res2020; 112: 431–439.
3.
SinghNOgunseitanOAWongMH, et al.Sustainable materials alternative to petrochemical plastics pollution: a review analysis. Sustain. Horizons2022; 2: 100016.
4.
PoppJLaknerZHarangi-RákosM, et al.The effect of bioenergy expansion: food, energy, and environment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2014; 32: 559–578.
5.
EscobarNBritzW. Metrics on the sustainability of region-specific bioplastics production, considering global land use change effects. Resour Conserv Recycl2021; 167: 105345.
6.
GerassimidouSMartinOVChapmanSP, et al.Development of an integrated sustainability matrix to depict challenges and trade-offs of introducing bio-based plastics in the food packaging value chain. J Clean Prod2021; 286: 125378.
7.
MoshoodTDNawanirGMahmudF, et al.Sustainability of biodegradable plastics: new problem or solution to solve the global plastic pollution?Curr. Res. Green Sustain. Chem2022; 5: 100273.
8.
SpierlingSRöttgerCVenkatachalamV, et al.Bio-based plastics - a building block for the circular economy?Proced CIRP2018; 69: 573–578.
9.
MoshoodTDNawanirGMahmudF, et al.Biodegradable plastic applications towards sustainability: a recent innovations in the green product. Clean Eng Technol2022; 6: 100404.
10.
PischeddaATosinMDegli-InnocentiF. Biodegradation of plastics in soil: the effect of temperature. Polym Degrad Stabil2019; 170: 109017.
11.
ZhongYGodwinPJinY, et al.Biodegradable polymers and green-based antimicrobial packaging materials: a mini-review. Adv Ind Eng Polym Res2020; 3(1): 27–35.
12.
ColwellJPrattSLantP, et al.Hazardous state lifetimes of biodegradable plastics in natural environments. Sci Total Environ2023; 894: 165025.
13.
PinaevaLGNoskovAS. Biodegradable biopolymers: real impact to environment pollution. Sci Total Environ2024; 947: 174445.
14.
AndrewJJDhakalHN. Sustainable biobased composites for advanced applications: recent trends and future opportunities – a critical review. Compos. Part C Open Access2022; 7: 100220.
15.
KumarMMohantySNayakSK, et al.Effect of glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) on the thermal, mechanical and morphological property of biodegradable PLA/PBAT blend and its nanocomposites. Bioresour Technol2010; 101(21): 8406–8415.
16.
KostBBaskoMBednarekM, et al.The influence of the functional end groups on the properties of polylactide-based materials. Prog Polym Sci2022; 130: 101556.
17.
WuFMisraMMohantyAK. Challenges and new opportunities on barrier performance of biodegradable polymers for sustainable packaging. Prog Polym Sci2021; 117: 101395.
18.
FeketeIRonkayFLendvaiL. Highly toughened blends of poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and natural rubber (NR) for FDM-based 3D printing applications: the effect of composition and infill pattern. Polym Test2021; 99: 107205.
19.
TolchaDAWoldemichaelDE. Development and characterization of short glass fiber reinforced-waste plastic composite filaments for 3D printing applications. Heliyon2023; 9(11): e22333.
20.
LendvaiL. Lignocellulosic agro-residue/polylactic acid (PLA) biocomposites: rapeseed straw as a sustainable filler. Clean Mater2023; 9: 100196.
21.
NordinNMBuysYFAnuarH, et al.Development of conductive polymer composites from PLA/TPU blends filled with graphene nanoplatelets. Mater Today Proc2019; 17: 500–507.
22.
ChenWQiCLiY, et al.The degradation investigation of biodegradable PLA/PBAT blend: thermal stability, mechanical properties and PALS analysis. Radiat Phys Chem2021; 180: 109239.
23.
NofarMSalehiyanRCiftciU, et al.Ductility improvements of PLA-based binary and ternary blends with controlled morphology using PBAT, PBSA, and nanoclay. Composites Part B2020; 182: 107661.
24.
WangXPengSChenH, et al.Mechanical properties, rheological behaviors, and phase morphologies of high-toughness PLA/PBAT blends by in-situ reactive compatibilization. Composites Part B2019; 173: 107028.
25.
FreitasALPLTonini FilhoLRCalvãoPS, et al.Effect of montmorillonite and chain extender on rheological, morphological and biodegradation behavior of PLA/PBAT blends. Polym Test2017; 62: 189–195.
26.
TábiTAgeyevaTKovácsJG. Improving the ductility and heat deflection temperature of injection molded Poly(lactic acid) products: a comprehensive review. Polym Test2021; 101: 107282.
27.
UrquijoJAranburuNDagréouS, et al.CNT-induced morphology and its effect on properties in PLA/PBAT-based nanocomposites. Eur Polym J2017; 93: 545–555.
28.
WahbiMLitkeQLevinD, et al.Compatibilization of PLA/PBAT blends with epoxidized canola oil for 3D printing applications. Mater Adv2024; 5(12): 5194–5203.
29.
KumarRAlexYNayakB, et al.Effect of poly (ethylene glycol) on 3D printed PLA/PEG blend: a study of physical, mechanical characterization and printability assessment. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2023; 141: 105813.
30.
LudwiczakJFrąckowiakSLelukK, Study of thermal, mechanical and barrier properties of biodegradable PLA/PBAT films with highly oriented MMT. Materials2021; 14: 7189.
31.
BumbudsanpharokeNHarnkarnsujaritNChongcharoenyanonB, et al.Enhanced properties of PBAT/TPS biopolymer blend with CuO nanoparticles for promising active packaging. Food Packag Shelf Life2023; 37: 101072.
32.
PopescuVProdanDCucS, et al.Antimicrobial poly (lactic Acid)/Copper nanocomposites for food packaging materials. Materials2023; 16: 1415.
33.
MastalyginaEEOlkhovAAVorontsovNV, et al.Influence of copper-based fillers on structural and mechanical properties of polylactic acid composites. J Compos Sci2022; 6: 386.
34.
AhmedWSirajSAl-MarzouqiAH. 3D printing PLA waste to produce ceramic based particulate reinforced composite using abundant silica-sand: Mechanical properties characterization. Polymers2020; 12(11): 2579.
35.
WangX-XZhengQZhengY-J, et al.Green EMI shielding: dielectric/magnetic ‘genes’ and design philosophy. Carbon N Y2023; 206: 124–141.
36.
KoEKimTAhnJ, et al.Synergic effect of HNT/oMMT Bi-filler system for the mechanical enhancement of PLA/PBAT film. Fibers Polym2021; 22(8): 2163–2169.
37.
ScaffaroRMaioAGulinoEF, et al.The effects of nanoclay on the mechanical properties, carvacrol release and degradation of a PLA/PBAT blend. Materials2020; 13(8): 983.
38.
BottaLTitoneVMistrettaMC, et al.PBAT based composites reinforced with microcrystalline cellulose obtained from softwood almond shells. Polymers2021; 13: 2643.
39.
DingYFengWLuB, et al.PLA-PEG-PLA tri-block copolymers: effective compatibilizers for promotion of the interfacial structure and mechanical properties of PLA/PBAT blends. Polymer2018; 146: 179–187.
40.
SignoriFColtelliM-BBroncoS. Thermal degradation of poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) (PBAT) and their blends upon melt processing. Polym Degrad Stabil2009; 94(1): 74–82.
41.
DengYYuCWongwiwattanaP, et al.Optimising ductility of poly (lactic acid)/poly (butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) blends through co-continuous phase morphology. J Polym Environ2018; 26: 3802–3816.
42.
BhiogadeAKannanM. Studies on thermal and degradation kinetics of cellulose micro/nanoparticle filled polylactic acid (PLA) based nanocomposites. Polym Polym Compos2021; 29(9): S85–S98.
43.
TselanaBMMuniyasamySOjijoVO, et al.Melt processible biodegradable blends of polyethylene glycol plasticized cellulose diacetate with polylactic acid and polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate. J Polym Environ2023; 31(11): 4891.
44.
LiuLZachariahMRStoliarovSI, et al.Enhanced thermal decomposition kinetics of poly (lactic acid) sacrificial polymer catalyzed by metal oxide nanoparticles. RSC Adv2015; 5(123): 101745–101750.
45.
RajARithikPSudheerPS, et al.Effect of compatibilizer and nanosilica on the mechanical, thermal, and degradation kinetic properties of polypropylene/polylactic acid blends. Polyolefins J2024; 11(1): 43–59.
46.
WangX-XShuJ-CCaoW-Q, et al.Eco-mimetic nanoarchitecture for green EMI shielding. Chem Eng J2019; 369: 1068–1077.
47.
KashiSGuptaRKBaumT, et al.Dielectric properties and electromagnetic interference shielding effectiveness of graphene-based biodegradable nanocomposites. Mater Des2016; 109: 68–78.
48.
Rincón-IglesiasMSaladoMLanceros-MendezS, et al.Magnetically active nanocomposites based on biodegradable polylactide, polycaprolactone, polybutylene succinate and polybutylene adipate terephthalate. Polymer (Guildf)2022; 249: 124804.
49.
ChuakhaoSRodríguezJTLapnonkawowS, et al.Formulating PBS/PLA/PBAT blends for biodegradable, compostable packaging: the crucial roles of PBS content and reactive extrusion. Polym Test2024; 132: 108383.
50.
WangL-FRhimJ-WHongS-I. Preparation of poly(lactide)/poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) blend films using a solvent casting method and their food packaging application. LWT--Food Sci Technol2016; 68: 454–461.
51.
VinodhiniJPitchanMKBhowmikS, et al.Effect of different filler reinforcement on poly-ether-ether-ketone based nanocomposites for bearing applications. J Compos Mater2020; 54: 4709–4722.
52.
CorreaJPBacigalupeAMaggiJ, et al.Biodegradable PLA/PBAT/clay nanocomposites: morphological, rheological and thermomechanical behavior. j renew mater2016; 4(4): 258–265.
53.
Sarath KumarPJayanarayananKBalachandranM. Performance comparison of carbon fiber reinforced polyaryletherketone and epoxy composites: mechanical properties, failure modes, cryo‐thermal behavior, and finite element analysis. J Appl Polym Sci2022; 139: e52494.
54.
WangBJinYKangK, et al.Investigation on compatibility of PLA/PBAT blends modified by epoxy-terminated branched polymers through chemical micro-crosslinking. E-Polymers2020; 20(1): 39–54.
55.
NofarMHeuzeyM-CCarreauPJ, et al.Effects of nanoclay and its localization on the morphology stabilization of PLA/PBAT blends under shear flow. Polymer2016; 98: 353–364.
56.
SoorajVBhagavatulaSGKKannanM. Modifying the mechanical, viscoelastic, thermal, and degradation properties of PLA/PBAT blends with nanoclay and PEG. J Appl Polym Sci. 2025; 142(26): 1–19 (e57087).
57.
HeHLiuBXueB, et al.Study on structure and properties of biodegradable PLA/PBAT/organic-modified MMT nanocomposites. J Thermoplast Compos Mater2022; 35: 503–520.
