Nanotecnología para Bioplásticos - Oportunidades, Desafíos y Estrategias - ScienceDirect

3/5/2018 Nanotecnología para bioplásticos: oportunidades, desafíos y estrategias - ScienceDirect
contorno Descargar Exportar
Tendencias en Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos

Volumen 22, Número 11 ,noviembre de 2011, páginas 611-617
Nanotecnología para bioplásticos: oportunidades, desafíos y

estrategias
Jose M. Lagaron , Amparo Lopez-Rubio
Mostrar más
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2011.01.007 Obtenga derechos y contenido
Los últimos años han sido testigos de una tremenda expansión de los desarrollos de
investigación y tecnología en el campo de la nanotecnología, lo que ha resultado en
desarrollos significativos de aplicaciones en las áreas de alimentos y agricultura. Este es
particularmente el caso del campo del envasado de alimentos, donde los avances significativos
en la nanoreformación de materiales de origen biológico proporcionan un terreno más sólido
para aumentar la competitividad técnica y económica de los polímeros renovables para
diferentes aplicaciones. Sin embargo, aún queda un largo camino por recorrer, no solo en el
desarrollo de materiales y paquetes de minimización del consumo de energía, sino también en
la comercialización generalizada de estos nuevos biopolímeros nanoestructurados y la
caracterización completa de cualquier posible impacto toxicológico y ambiental. En este papel,
Artículo anterior Artículo siguiente
Introducción
En las últimas décadas ha habido un aumento significativo en la cantidad de plásticos que se
utilizan en diversos sectores, particularmente en aplicaciones de envasado de alimentos. De
https://www-sciencedirect-com.etechconricyt.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0924224411000082?_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_origin=gateway&_docanchor=&md5=b84294
hecho, la mayor aplicación para plásticos en la actualidad es el envasado, y dentro del nicho
de envasado, el envasado de alimentos es la mayor aplicación de plásticos exigentes (
Lagaron & López-Rubio, 2010).) Esto es así, porque los plásticos aportan enormes ventajas,
como termoestabilidad, flexibilidad en propiedades térmicas y mecánicas, permiten procesos
integrados (es decir, pueden formarse, envasarse y sellarse los paquetes de plástico dentro de
la línea de producción), ligereza y bajo precio . Sin embargo, los polímeros también tienen una
serie de limitaciones para ciertas aplicaciones en comparación con materiales más
tradicionales como metales y aleaciones o cerámica. La principal limitación es su
permeabilidad inherente al transporte de componentes de bajo peso molecular que conduce a
problemas como la oxidación de alimentos por la penetración de oxígeno, la migración de
elementos tóxicos del plástico y el reventado de componentes alimenticios en el envase con
las consiguientes pérdidas en la calidad alimentaria y atributos de seguridad. Entre estos, la
migración potencial más allá de los límites legales de los constituyentes de polímeros y
aditivos es tal vez el problema más ampliamente reconocido con respecto a la seguridad de los
alimentos envasados. A pesar de esto, los materiales plásticos continúan expandiéndose y
reemplazando el uso convencional de cartón, latas de acero estañado y vidrio que, en el caso
de los dos últimos materiales, se han usado típicamente como sistemas monocapa en
aplicaciones alimentarias. Inicialmente, la mayoría de los embalajes de plástico estaban
hechos de materiales semirrígidos o flexibles monocapa, pero a medida que las ventajas de
los envases de plástico se establecían y desarrollaban, los requisitos cada vez más exigentes
de los productos alimentarios, junto con los avances significativos en formulaciones de
envases poliméricos más complejas. Esto dio como resultado estructuras multicomponente
complejas, tales como los denominados sistemas multicapa basados en envases ampliamente
utilizados en la actualidad, que en muchos casos pueden hacer uso de capas metalizadas.
Aún así, hay ventajas significativas en términos de costos, estrategias de empaquetado
ecológico (que consiste en reducir el consumo de materiales de embalaje por unidad de
envase) y otros problemas, como la facilidad de reciclado para el desarrollo de formulaciones
de envasado más sencillas y menos preocupadas por el medio ambiente. Como resultado,
durante las últimas décadas se han llevado a cabo grandes esfuerzos en el desarrollo de
materiales y en las estrategias de mezcla para reducir la complejidad de las estructuras de
envasado de alimentos al tiempo que se adapta el rendimiento. estrategias de empaquetado
envase) y otros problemas, como la facilidad de reciclaje en el desarrollo de formulaciones de
envasado más sencillas y menos preocupadas por el medio ambiente. Como resultado,
envasado de alimentos al tiempo que se adapta el rendimiento. estrategias de empaquetado
envase) y otros problemas, como la facilidad de reciclaje en el desarrollo de formulaciones de
envasado más sencillas y menos preocupadas por el medio ambiente. Como resultado,
envasado de alimentos al tiempo que se adapta el rendimiento.
Although packaging can help reduce organic waste by preserving foods, the substantial
increase in the use of plastics has also raised a number of environmental concerns from a
waste management point of view. As a result, there has been a strong research interest,
pushed by authorities at national and international levels, and a concomitant industrial growing
activity in the development and use of biodegradable and/or biobased materials. The term
“biodegradable” refers to materials that can disintegrate or break down naturally into biogases
and biomass (mostly carbon dioxide and water) as a result of being exposed to a microbial
environment and humidity, such as the ones found in soil, hence reducing plastic waste,
whereas “biobased” sustainable materials, apart from being typically biodegradable albeit not
necessarily, consume carbon dioxide during their production, hence creating the potential for
the new concept of “carbon neutral materials” (Haugaard et al., 2001; Lagaron, Gimenez, &
Sanchez-Garcia, 2008; Petersen et al., 1999).
Amongst biobased materials, three families are usually considered: Polymers directly extracted
from biomass, such as the polysaccharides chitosan, starch, carrageenan and cellulose;
proteins such as gluten, soy and zein; and various lipids. A second family makes use of
biomass-derived monomers but uses classical chemical synthetic routes to obtain the final
biodegradable and/or renewable polymers, including thermoplastics and thermosets such as
those obtained derived from vegetable oils. In regard to thermoplastics, this is the case of
polylactic acid (PLA) and the non-biodegradable sugar cane ethanol-derived biopolyethylene
(Haugaard et al., 2001; Lagaron et al., 2008; Petersen et al., 1999). The third family makes use
of polymers produced by natural or genetically modified micro-organisms such as
polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) and polypeptides such as the elastin-like polymers (Reguera
et al., 2003). Amongst non-biobased materials, i.e. using either petroleum-based monomers or
mixtures of biobased- and petroleum-based monomers, there are also a number of
biodegradable resins such as polycaprolactones (PCL), polyvinyl-alcohol (PVOH) and its
copolymers with ethylene (EVOH) and some biopolyesters. Nevertheless, it seems clear that
although biodegradability can help reduce plastic waste, from a “green house” perspective,
biobased sustainable materials, the so-called bioplastics, are currently considered the way to
go and may be the only alternative in the future as fossil resources become exhausted.
Moreover, in order to reduce energy consumption during the production of bioplastics and
potential competition with agricultural resources for foods and also to provide additional raw
material sources, the exploitation of food by-products is also the current trend. Food processing
effluents or solid wastes are only partially exploited and are mostly disposed in landfill sites
where, since they are amenable to putrefaction, they have to be treated according to the
restrictions identified by, for instance, the international Landfill Directive (Awarenet, 2004).
These by-products have rarely been used as a source of high added-value components such
as food ingredients, but they present great potential value for their use in the production of
bioplastics (Beccari et al., 2009).
In spite of the significant potential of bioplastics to substitute petroleum-based materials to help

reduce environmental impacts, these materials still present a number of property and
processing shortcomings that preclude their use in many applications, particularly in the food
packaging field. The reasons for this are generally related to their lower barrier properties to
gases and vapours, their strong water sensitivity, lower thermal resistance, lower shelf-life
stability due to ageing, migration and a number of processability issues still associated to the
use of bioplastics (Haugaard et al., 2001). In this context, nanotechnology brings in significant
opportunities to minimize the latter drawbacks. The main aim of the present paper is to give an
overview of the main existing nanotechnologies for food biopackaging applications, describing
their current situation. Furthermore, the challenges and possible strategies needed to develop
improved and commercially viable biobased nanocomposites are also exposed.
Nanotechnology for packaging applications

Nanotechnology, by definition, is the creation and subsequent utilization of structures with at
least one dimension in the nanometre length scale (i.e. less than 100 nm) that creates novel
properties and phenomena otherwise not displayed by either isolated molecules or bulk
materials (Shonaike & Advani, 2003). Since Toyota researchers in the late 1980s found that
mechanical, thermal and barrier properties of nylon–nanoclay composite material improved
dramatically by reinforcing with less than 5% of nanoclay, extensive research work has been
performed in the study of nanocomposites for food packaging applications (Okada, Kawasumi,
Kurauchi, & Kamigaito, 1987). The term nanocomposite refers to composite materials
containing typically low additions of some kind of nanoparticles. Specifically in the food
biopackaging sector, nanocomposites usually refer to materials containing, typically, 1–7 wt.-%,
of modified nanoclays (Lagaron et al., 2005). For reinforcing purposes, a good interaction
between matrix and filler is highly desired, which is often one of the major challenges faced
when developing new nanocomposite materials. It has been observed that the interactions
matrix–filler significantly improve when reducing the size of the reinforcing agent, always
considering that both phases are compatible and that the filler is properly dispersed
(de Azeredo, 2009). Macroscopic reinforcing components usually contain defects, which
become less important as the particles of the reinforcing component are smaller (Ludueña,
Alvarez, & Vasquez, 2007). Therefore, shifting from micro- to nanosized particles incorporated
into the polymeric matrices leads to better performance of the composite materials, although it
can also lead to increased agglomeration of the filler particles.
Moreover, the high surface-to-volume ratio of many nanoscale structures which favours this
improved performance of composite materials, also becomes ideal for applications that involve
chemical reactions and drug delivery. Examples of their usefulness include the controlled
and/or burst release of substances in active and functional food packaging technologies and
energy storage applications in, for instance, intelligent food packaging (Lopez-Rubio, Gavara, &
Lagaron, 2006; Shonaike & Advani, 2003).
Nanoclays
Amongst the various existing nanotechnologies available, the one that has attracted more
attention in the bioplastics field is the nanoclay-based nanocomposites. It has been broadly
reported in the scientific literature that the addition of low loadings of nanolayered clay particles,
i.e. nanoclays, with thickness in the nanometre scale and with high aspect ratios, to
biopolymers can have a profound enhancing effect over some material properties, such as
mechanical properties, thermal stability, UV–vis protection, conductivity, processability and gas
and vapour barrier properties (Cabedo, Giménez, Lagaron, Gavara, & Saura, 2004; Cyras,
Manfredi, Ton-That, & Vázquez, 2008; Lagaron et al., 2005, 2008; Park, Lee, Park, Cho, & Ha,
2003; Petersson & Oksman, 2006; Sanchez-Garcia, Hilliou, & Lagaron, 2010; Xu, Ren, &
Hanna, 2006; Yu, Lin, Yeh, & Lin, 2003). Moreover, the addition of low amounts of
nanoadditives does not alter to a significant extent, inherently good properties of polymeric
matrixes such as transparency and flexibility (Marras, Kladi, Tsivintzelis, Zuburtikudis, &
Panayiotou, 2008; Sanchez-Garcia, Hilliou, et al., 2010; Sanchez-Garcia, Lagaron, & Hoa,
2010; Wan, Qiao, Zhang, & Zhang, 2003). Important issues associated to the use of
bioplastics, such as the non-intended migration of plastic components to foods, can also be
potentially reduced by the use of these nanoclays and, since more recently, they also offer
great advantages in the formulation of active packaging technologies based on bioplastics such
as more efficient antioxidant, oxygen scavenging or antimicrobial biopackaging, which has
more direct implications in increasing packaged foods quality and safety (Busolo, Ocio, &
Lagaron, 2009; Lagaron, Gimenez, & Cabedo, 2007; Lopez-Rubio et al., 2006; Sanchez-
Garcia, Ocio, Gimenez, & Lagaron, 2008).
Fig. 1 shows, as an example, that the performance of biopolyesters, in terms of oxygen barrier,
is already significantly improved by melt compounding addition of food-contact complying
nanoclays (Sanchez-Garcia, Gimenez, & Lagaron, 2007). Although in comparison with PLA,
the PLA nanocomposite approaches more closely the barrier performance of the petroleum-
based polyester counterpart polyethylene terephthalate (PET), it does not yet outperform the
polyester oxygen barrier and further optimization work is required. On the other hand, the
nanoclay-based PHB does already outperform PET (Sanchez-Garcia et al., 2007) and, hence,
this microbial biopolymer has a good potential in food packaging applications.
Download full-size image
Fig. 1. Oxygen permeability of PLA, PHB and PET and of their nanocomposites (Sanchez-Garcia et al.,
2007).
As the worldwide production capacity of biopolyesters continues to grow, their cost will soon be
comparable to their petroleum-based counterparts. Currently, it is estimated that the
consumption of petroleum-based plastics amounts to ca. 52 million tons/year vs. only ca.
750,000 tons/year for bioplastics. Ideally, the biopolymers cost should be below 2 €/kg for mass
replacement of their petroleum-based counterparts. Food-contact complying nanoclays, on the
other hand, are currently mass produced. Depending on the grade, their cost can be below
10 €/kg (information provided by NanoBioMatters S.L., Spain), fact that together with the
recommended low dosages, i.e. typically below 5 wt.-%, convert these nanoadditives in truly
accessible commodities for food biopackaging applications.
Other nanofillers
Most applications of nanocomposites in bioplastics for packaging have made use of laminar
clays, but also, to some extent, of carbon nanotubes (Sanchez-Garcia, Lagaron, et al., 2010)
and nanoparticles of metals and oxides (Travan et al., 2009). However, there are other types of
reinforcing elements such as biodegradable cellulose nanowhiskers (CNW) and nanostructures
obtained by electrospinning, which are very promising in a number of application fields (Huang,
Zhang, Kotaki, & Ramakrishna, 2003; Lopez-Rubio et al., 2007; Olsson et al., 2010; Sanchez-
Garcia, Gimenez, & Lagaron, 2008; Torres-Giner, Gimenez, & Lagaron, 2008). The use of
biobased nanofillers to reinforce bioplastics has the additional value of generating fully
biobased formulations. These nanobiofillers (CNW and electrospun nanofibers) have a very
large surface to mass ratios (up to 103 higher than a microfiber), excellent mechanical strength
(this is true for the CNW and for some reinforced electrospun fibres), flexibility, lightness and, in
same cases, edibility since they can be made of food hydrocolloids (Capadona et al., 2009;
Helbert, Cavaillé, & Dufresne, 1996; Rojas, Montero, & Habibi, 2009). As previously
commented for the clay-based nanocomposites, the resulting properties of nanocomposites
with cellulose fibres are strongly related to the dimensions and aspect ratio of the fibres
(shifting from micro- to nanosized fibres improvements in optical and mechanical properties
have been observed), as well as to the compatibility with the polymer matrix (Dubief, Samain, &
Dufresne, 1999; Hubbe, Rojas, Lucia, & Sain, 2008; Siaueira, Bras, & Dufresne, 2009). Aspect
ratios are mainly related to the origin of the cellulose used and to the nanowhisker preparation
conditions (Azizi Samir, Alloin, & Dufresne, 2005). The advantage of application of these
nanomaterials has already been considered in the controlled release of bioactive substances in
the pharmaceutical and biomedical fields and can also be applied as reinforcing fillers
(Sanchez-Garcia & Lagaron, 2010). Other uses include the controlled release of active and
bioactive compounds in food packaging applications, as well as for the nanoencapsulation of
functional added-value food additives (Fernandez, Torres-Giner, & Lagaron, 2009; Lopez-
Rubio, Sanchez, Sanz, & Lagaron, 2009).
Challenges and strategies

In the bioplastics field the two main challenges are associated with functionality, specifically
generating reproducible performance of bioplastics as petroleum-based counterparts, and
achieving truly positive life-cycle analysis, i.e. achieving the goal of carbon neutral materials or
minimizing fossil energy consumption. In these issues, as the physicist Richard P. Feynman
(1959) anticipated, “there is plenty of room at the bottom”, i.e. there is no doubt that
nanotechnology will play a significant role, due to the potential property enhancements that can
be achieved incorporating nanoparticles. Since more recently, there is also the debate of
potential competition between the use of crops for foods and to obtain biobased products, in
what has been claimed as the cause for recent increases in the price of foods. The latter issue
is perhaps not so relevant when it comes to bioplastics, since consumption of food competing
resources to make biobased plastics is currently very small (Carus & Piotrowski, 2009). In any
case, as bioplastics demand and production grows bigger in the future, this issue can surely be
minimized by, for instance, valorisation of food by-products and by optimization of microbial-
based plastics (Awarenet, 2004; Beccari et al., 2009).
Regarding nanoparticles, it is reckoned that to achieve the level of performance associated to

the use of nanotechs a high dispersion should be achieved in the bioplastic matrix. Hence,
nanoparticles dispersion still remains a challenge for the full delivery of the expected properties
as announced by the early modelling work. There are several technologies to achieve
nanodispersion in biopackaging materials being the most common, in situ polymerization,
dispersion in solution and dispersion via melt-blending. Despite the two formers being more
efficient in achieving nanodispersion in most cases, the latter route, less efficient in achieving
dispersion, is without doubt the most demanded technology from an applied viewpoint, because
it makes use of industry available machinery and processes to convert plastics into final
articles. Other emerging processing routes to achieve nanodispersion are ball milling, multiple
nanolayer extrusion and vapour deposition nanocoatings.
As stated above most nanocomposite technologies in the market today make use of chemical
or otherwise modified commodity layered 2:1 or 1:1 phyllosilicates, the so-called nanoclays. A
chemical and/or physical modification is needed to both compatibilize highly hydrophilic clays
with the more organic apolar chemical constitution of most thermoplastic biopolyesters and to
increase the clay intergallery space (basal space between adjacent layers), hence facilitating
both intercalation and exfoliation, i.e. nanodispersion, of the clay laminar components in the
matrix during compounding. In the food chain, special caution is needed because the
modifications should comply with the stringent migration regulations, i.e. functional barrier
status, and preferably make use of food-contact approved substances as valid modifiers.
Currently, many of the existing nanoadditives, such as those modified with some ammonium
salts which are commercially available, do not comply with, for instance, the current European
food-contact directive issued by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (Commission
Directive 2007/19/CE, 2007).
Therefore, it is a very important concern that most of the nanocomposite formulations (first
generation nanocomposites, i.e. containing standard or general purpose organic-modified
nanoclays) in the market are currently making use of ammonium salts as organophilic chemical
modifiers, which have been devised to enhance the properties of engineering polymers in
structural applications. However, for food packaging applications, as mentioned above, only
food-contact approved materials and additives should be used, and should do so below their
corresponding threshold specific migration levels. Thus, second generation nanocomposites,
specifically designed to comply with current regulations and, at the same time, be cost effective
and specifically formulated to target particular materials (including biopolymers), materials
properties or production technologies are more suitable for the food biopackaging market. In
essence, second generation nanocomposites refer to materials with targeted specifications
rather than wide spectrum generic formulations.
In general, there is a lack of knowledge about the impact of nanomaterials when inserted into
bioplastics during service. For instance, very little is known about their stability during
processing and potential toxicity issues related to decomposition and/or migration and also as
to how they will affect the actual inherent bioplastic migration levels and the current
establishment of afterlife disposal channels such as incineration, composting or recycling.
However, and regarding this issue, the prospects for natural additives such as food-contact
complying nanoclays, essentially microparticles, and nanobiofibers due to edibility and/or
resorbability or biocompatibility may not be of so much concern in biopackaging. For instance,
regarding the afterlife disposal, we have found out in our research that nanoclays in
biodegradable matrices do not delay biodegradation during composting, since it is a process
that occurs from the outside towards the inside and that the nanoclays, due to their inherent
high surface energy, re-attach to each other to become microparticles of soil once the polymer
matrix disappears (Lagaron & Fendler, 2009). Similarly, several studies have demonstrated that
addition of nanoclays to various synthetic polymers led to enhanced or accelerated degradation
in comparison with the kinetics observed for the neat polymers (Kumanayaka, Parthasarathy, &
Jollands, 2010; Qin, Zhao, Zhang, Chen, & Yang, 2003; Tidjani & Wilkie, 2001). As a result,
nanocomposites containing nanoclays can be regarded, in this sense, as more environmentally

friendly materials, even when the matrix is a synthetic polymer. When the disposal route is
incineration, it has been observed that, at elevated temperatures a gradual decomposition of
the surfactant in the surface of the nanoclays takes place with the consequent removal of the
polymeric matrix molecules from the exfoliated particles, leading to aggregation of these layers
which result in non-colloidal microcomposite particles (Huang, Lewin, Tang, Fan, & Wang,
2008).
Regarding inherent nanoparticle hazard assessment, due to their small size, nanoparticles are
generally much more reactive than their corresponding macro-counterparts. But it is also true
that as a result of this, much smaller filler loadings are typically required, and hence added to
the matrix, to achieve the desired properties. The large surface area of nanoparticles allows a
greater contact with cellular membranes, as well as greater capacity for absorption and
migration (Li & Huang, 2008). Therefore, assessment of the effects of nanoparticles in food
packaging materials such as migration to foods, and potential bioaccumulation needs to be
considered in the expected dosages. Currently, data on toxicity and oral exposure of
nanoparticles are extremely limited and controversial when it comes to the studied dosages. In
addition, the small size of many nanoparticles causes them to take on unique chemical and
physical properties that are different from their macroscale chemical counterparts. This implies
that their toxicokinetic and toxicity profiles cannot be extrapolated from data on their equivalent
non-nanoforms. Thus, the risk assessment of nanoparticles has to be performed on a case-by-
case basis (Munro, Haighton, Lynch, & Tafazoli, 2009). However, it is also very important to
differentiate between three-dimensional nanoparticles (spherical or otherwise 3D nanoparticles
such as nanometals), which are capable of penetrating the cell membranes, bi-dimensional
nanoparticles (nanofibers, with only nanodimensions in the 2D cross-section), which are less
likely to penetrate cell walls and the least concerned, one dimensional nanoparticles (nanoclays
with only one nanodimension in the thickness direction). Thus, nanoclays should be considered
aside because in essence they are heat stable microparticles, which remain such all along the
process of production and commercialization and to a significant extent also as two-
dimensional microparticles within the biopolymer matrix during service. In any case, the general
risk assessment of migration products resulting from packaging materials has and continues to
pose a difficult challenge. As a general rule, nanocomposites within the European Union must
comply with the EFSA total migration limit of 10 mg/dm2, with the functional barrier stringent
migration level of 0.01 mg/kg of food or food simulant and/or with the specific migration levels
for their constituents in case they comprise food-contact components (Commission Directive
2007/19/CE that modifies Directive 2002/72/CE). Some studies have shown that upon melting
nanocomposite plastic films, some clay accumulation appears to occur at the surface of the
materials generating a clay-containing barrier (Hao, Lewin, Wilkie, & Wang, 2006; Lewin &
Tang, 2008). However, information about actual migration to food or food simulants is very
scarce. In a recent study, Schmidt et al. (2009) characterized the migration and size of migrated
particles from PLA nanocomposites in a fatty food stimulant (ethanol). The previous authors
used an analytical platform consisting of asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation (AF4)

coupled with multi-angle light scattering (MALS) and inductively coupled plasma mass
spectrometry (ICP-MS). Even though an increase in total migration was observed for the
nanocomposite in comparison with the neat PLA matrix, the migration levels were below the
total migration limit and no traces of nanoclays were detected in the migrate. These results
confirm the theoretical predictions by Šimon, Chaudhry, and Bakos (2008), who concluded that
considering a polymer matrix with low dynamic viscosity that did not interact with the
nanoparticles, only very small particles with a diameter of about 1 nm were expected to
migrate. In another study dealing with migration into foods, starch/clay nanocomposites were
characterized and, although an increase in the silica content was observed in the vegetables
tested, which was ascribed to certain nanoclay migration, the overall migration limit after
contact with common simulants did comply with actual regulations and European directives on
biodegradable materials (Avella et al., 2005). Mauricio-Iglesias, Peyron, Guillard, and Gontard
(2010) used the aluminium and silicon content in several food simulants as potential markers to
follow the migration of montmorillonite nanoclay particles from wheat gluten nanocomposites.
The main conclusion obtained was that the greatest migration of these elements occurred in
the low pH food simulant, being the total migration below the limit established by EFSA. In view
of the results, it seems clear that the current evidence suggests that no specific relevant issues
are to be expected with nanoclays in food contact but more research is needed in this area, not
only investigating the migration and potential toxicity of nanoclays, but more importantly also of
other nanoparticles used in food packaging structures.
Finally, it is envisaged that the potential strategies to overcome the above and other pending
issues will come from focussing the research efforts and political strategies on the following
items:
- Boosting the creation of nanotechnology industry-based platforms with solid knowledge
of the problems to solve and of the legislation and commercialization barriers ahead.
Open innovation and collaborative action towards more rapid product development will
strongly benefit the area. Development and commercialization of commodity products
are a must. Thus, nanotechnology will only contribute to widespread the use of
bioplastics through the balancing of their properties if they become a commodity in terms
of pricing and volumes. This could significantly happen in developing countries since the
raw materials availability for bioderived products is vast and venture capital grows
interest.
- Focussing R&D efforts in order to provide real value for nanobiocomposites, i.e.
developing the underpinning science and technology to understand and control the
composition/properties/processing/aging relationship of nanobiocomposites.
- Developing new bioplastics and tailor-made reinforcing nanobioadditives that make use
of only biobased products and resources, particularly derived from valorization of food
by-products.
- Establishing clear and knowledge-based legislation worldwide that defines nanoproducts

and enables a clear assessment of the liability of existing ones in the various application
fields and that provides concise guidelines for the clearance route of new developments.
It might be that there is no need to change legislation to accommodate many existing
nanomaterials and, therefore, it is all related to complying with the current global
legislation for most of these. But then this has to be clearly stated to industries and
society to boost implementation. According to FDA, it is products on a case-by-case
scenario and not technologies what is to be regulated, and perhaps this should be the
right approach.
- Deepening our understanding regarding the life-cycle analysis of nanobiocomposites.
- Deepening our understanding about the potential toxicity of current and under
development nanomaterials and of their nanobiocomposites. This should be carried out
through the characterization of the stability of nanobiocomposites during processing and
shelf-life, full migration studies and assessment of issues related to the various disposal
channels.
Artículos especiales Artículos recomendados Citando artículos ( 74 )
References
Avella et al., 2005 M. Avella, J.J. De Vlieger, M.E. Errico, S. Fischer, P. Vacca, M.G. Volpe
Biodegradable starch/clay nanocomposite films for food packaging applications
Food Chemistry, 93 (2005), pp. 467-474
Article Download PDF View Record in Scopus
Awarenet, 2004 Awarenet. (2004). Handbook for the prevention and minimisation of waste and valorisation of
byproducts in European agro-food industries. Deposito legal: BI-223-04.
de Azeredo, 2009 H.M.C. de Azeredo

Nanocomposites for food packaging applications
Food Research International, 42 (2009), pp. 1240-1253
Azizi Samir et al., 2005 M.A.S. Azizi Samir, F. Alloin, A. Dufresne

Review of recent research into cellulosic whiskers, their properties and their application in
nanocomposite field
Biomacromolecules, 6 (2005), pp. 612-626
CrossRef View Record in Scopus
Beccari et al., 2009 M. Beccari, L. Bertin, D. Dionisi, F. Fava, S. Lampis, M. Majone, et al.
Exploiting olive oil mill effluents as a renewable resource production of biodegradable polymers
through a combined anaerobic–aerobic process
Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology, 84 (2009), pp. 901-908
Busolo et al., 2009 Busolo, M. A., Ocio, M. J., Lagaron, J. M. (2009). Development of antimicrobial PLA
nanocomposites with silver containing layered nanoclays for packaging and coating applications.
Annual Technical Conference (ANTEC), Conference Proceedings, pp. 236–239.
Cabedo et al., 2004 L. Cabedo, E. Gimenez, J.M. Lagaron, R. Gavara, J.J. Saura
Development of EVOH–kaolinite nanocomposites
Polymer, 45 (15) (2004), pp. 5233-5238
Commission Directive, 2007 Commission Directive 2007/19/CE

Amending Directive 2002/72/EC relating to plastic materials and articles intended to come into
contact with food
(2007)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do%3Furi=OJ:L:2007:091:0017:0036:EN: PDF
Capadona et al., 2009 J.R. Capadona, K. Shanmuganathan, S. Trittschuh, S. Seidel, S.J. Rowan, C. Weder
Polymer nanocomposites with nanowhiskers isolated from microcrystalline cellulose
Biomacromolecules, 10 (4) (2009), pp. 712-716
Carus and Piotrowski, 2009 M. Carus, S. Piotrowski

Land use for bioplastics
Bioplastics Magazine, 4 (2009), pp. 45-49
[04,09]
Cyras et al., 2008 V.P. Cyras, L.B. Manfredi, M.T. Ton-That, A. Vázquez
Physical and mechanical properties of thermoplastic starch/montmorillonite nanocomposite films
Carbohydrate Polymers, 73 (2008), pp. 55-63
Dubief et al., 1999 D. Dubief, E. Samain, A. Dufresne

Polysaccharide microcrystals reinforced amorphous poly(b-hydroxyoctanoate) nanocomposite
materials
Macromolecules, 32 (18) (1999), pp. 5765-5771
Fernandez et al., 2009 A. Fernandez, S. Torres-Giner, J.M. Lagaron

Novel route to stabilization of bioactive antioxidants by encapsulation in electrospun fibers of zein
prolamine
Food Hydrocolloids, 23 (5) (2009), pp. 1427-1432
Feynman, 1959 R.P. Feynman

There is plenty of room at the bottom
Annual Meeting of the American Physical Society, Caltech, California, 29th December 1959
(1959)
http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html
Hao et al., 2006 J. Hao, M. Lewin, C.A. Wilkie, J. Wang

Additional evidence for the migration of clay upon heating of clay-polypropylene nanocomposites
from X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS)
Polymer Degradation and Stability, 91 (2006), pp. 2482-2485
Haugaard et al., 2001 V.K. Haugaard, A.M. Udsen, G. Mortensen, L. Hoegh, K. Petersen, F. Monahan
Food biopackaging, in biobased packaging materials for the food industry – status and perspectives”
C.J. Weber (Ed.), A European concerted action (2001), pp. 13-14
Copenhagen
View Record in Scopus
Helbert et al., 1996 W. Helbert, C.Y. Cavaillé, A. Dufresne

Thermoplastic nanocomposites filled with wheat straw cellulose whiskers. Part I: processing and
mechanical behaviour
Polymer Composites, 17 (4) (1996), pp. 604-611
Huang et al., 2008 N. Huang, M. Lewin, Y. Tang, C. Fan, J. Wang

Studies on the migration in PA6-OMMT nanocomposites: effect of annealing on migration as
evidenced by ARXPS (angle resolved X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy)
Polymers for Advanced Technologies, 19 (2008), pp. 993-1001
Huang et al., 2003 Z.M. Huang, Y.Z. Zhang, M. Kotaki, S. Ramakrishna

A review on polymer nanofibers by electrospinning and their applications in nanocomposites
Composites Science and Technology, 63 (15) (2003), pp. 2223-2253
Hubbe et al., 2008 M.A. Hubbe, O.J. Rojas, L.A. Lucia, M. Sain
Cellulosic nanocomposites: a review
Bioresources, 3 (3) (2008), pp. 929-980
Kumanayaka et al., 2010 T.O. Kumanayaka, R. Parthasarathy, M. Jollands

Accelerating effect of montmorillonite on oxidative degradation of polyethylene nanocomposites
Polymer Degradation and Stability, 95 (2010), pp. 672-676
Lagaron et al., 2005 J.M. Lagaron, L. Cabedo, D. Cava, J.L. Feijoo, R. Gavara, E. Gimenez
Improving packaged food quality and safety. Part 2: nanocomposites
Food Additives and Contaminants, 22 (2005), pp. 994-998

Lagaron and Fendler, 2009 J.M. Lagaron, A. Fendler

High water barrier nanobiocomposites of metil cellulose and chitosan for film and coating
applications
Journal of Plastic Film and Sheeting, 25 (1) (2009), pp. 47-59
Lagaron et al., 2007 Lagaron, J. M., Gimenez, E., Cabedo, L. (2007). Preparing laminar nanocomposites that
contain intercalated organic materials, useful e.g. for reinforcing plastic packaging and for controlled release
of pharmaceuticals. Patent number WO2007074184-A1.
Lagaron et al., 2008 J.M. Lagaron, E. Gimenez, M.D. Sanchez-Garcia

Thermoplastic nanobiocomposites for rigid and flexible food packaging applications
E. Chiellini (Ed.), Environmentally compatible food packaging, Woodhead Publishing Ltd, Cambridge (2008)
Lagaron and Lopez-Rubio, 2010 J.M. Lagaron, A. Lopez-Rubio

Latest developments and future trends in food packaging and biopackaging
M. Laura Passos, C.P. Ribeiro (Eds.), Innovation in food engineering new techniques and products, 978-1-
4200-8606-5, CRC Press (2010)
Lewin and Tang, 2008 M. Lewin, Y. Tang

Oxidation-migration cycle in polypropylene-based nanocomposites
Macromolecules, 41 (2008), pp. 13-17
Li and Huang, 2008 S.D. Li, L. Huang

Pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of nanoparticles
Molecular Pharmaceutics, 5 (4) (2008), pp. 496-504
Lopez-Rubio et al., 2006 A. Lopez-Rubio, R. Gavara, J.M. Lagaron

Bioactive packaging: turning foods into healthier foods through biomaterials
Trends in Food Science and Technology, 17 (10) (2006), pp. 567-575
Lopez-Rubio et al., 2007 A. Lopez-Rubio, J.M. Lagaron, M. Ankerfors, T. Lindstrom, D. Nordqvist, A. Mattozzi, et al.
Enhanced film forming and film properties of amylopectin using micro-fibrillated cellulose
Carbohydrate Polymers, 68 (4) (2007), pp. 718-727
Lopez-Rubio et al., 2009 A. Lopez-Rubio, E. Sanchez, Y. Sanz, J.M. Lagaron

Encapsulation of living bifidobacteria in ultrathin PVOH electrospun fibers
Biomacromolecules, 10 (2009), pp. 2823-2829
Ludueña et al., 2007 L.N. Ludueña, V.A. Alvarez, A. Vasquez

Processing and microstructure of PCL/clay nanocomposites
Materials Science and Engineering: A, 460 (2007), pp. 121-129
Marras et al., 2008 S.I. Marras, K.P. Kladi, I. Tsivintzelis, I. Zuburtikudis, C. Panayiotou
Biodegradable polymer nanocomposites: the role of nanoclays on the thermomechanical
characteristics and the electrospun fibrous structure
Acta Biomaterialia, 4 (3) (2008), pp. 756-765
Mauricio-Iglesias et al., 2010 M. Mauricio-Iglesias, S. Peyron, V. Guillard, N. Gontard

Wheat gluten nanocomposite films as food-contact materials: migration tests and impact of a novel
food stabilization technology (high pressure)
Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 116 (2010), pp. 2526-2535
Munro et al., 2009 I.C. Munro, L.A. Haighton, B.S. Lynch, S. Tafazoli
Technological challenges of addressing new and more complex migrating products from novel food
packaging materials
Food Additives and Contaminants, 26 (12) (2009), pp. 1534-1546
Okada et al., 1987 A. Okada, M. Kawasumi, T. Kurauchi, O. Kamigaito

Synthesis of nylon 6-clay hybrid O
Polymer Preprint, 28 (1987), pp. 447-448
Olsson et al., 2010 R.T. Olsson, R. Kraemer, A. Lopez-Rubio, S. Torres-Giner, M.J. Ocio, J.M. Lagaron
Extraction of microfibrils from bacterial cellulose networks for electrospinning of anisotropic
biohybrid fiber yarns
Park et al., 2003 H.M. Park, W.K. Lee, C.Y. Park, W.J. Cho, C.S. Ha
Environmentally friendly polymer hybrids: part I. Mechanical, thermal, and barrier properties of the
thermoplastic starch/clay nanocomposites
Journal of Materials Science, 38 (2003), pp. 909-915
Petersen et al., 1999 K. Petersen, P.K. Nielsen, G. Bertelsen, M. Lawther, M.B. Olsen, N.H. Nilsson, et al.
Potential of biobased materials for food packaging
Trends in Food Science and Technology, 10 (1999), pp. 52-68
Petersson and Oksman, 2006 L. Petersson, K. Oksman
Biopolymer based nanocomposites: comparing layered silicates and microcrystalline cellulose as

nanoreinforcement
Composites Science and Technology, 66 (2006), pp. 2187-2196
Qin et al., 2003 H. Qin, C. Zhao, S. Zhang, G. Chen, M. Yang

Photo-oxidative degradation of polyethylene/montmorillonite nanocomposite
Polymer Degradation and Stability, 81 (3) (2003), pp. 497-500
Reguera et al., 2003 J. Reguera, J.M. Lagaron, M. Alonso, V. Reboto, B. Calvo, J.C. Rodriguez-Cabello
Thermal behavior and kinetic analysis of the chain unfolding and refolding and of the concomitant
nonpolar solvation and desolvation of two elastin-like polymers
Rojas et al., 2009 O.J. Rojas, G.A. Montero, Y. Habibi

Electrospun nanocomposites from polystyrene loaded with cellulose nanowhiskers
Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 113 (2) (2009), pp. 927-935
Sanchez-Garcia et al., 2007 M.D. Sanchez-Garcia, E. Gimenez, J.M. Lagaron

Novel PET nanocomposites of interest in food packaging applications and comparative barrier
performance with biopolyester nanocomposites
Journal of Plastic Film and Sheeting, 23 (2) (2007)
pp. 133–148
Sanchez-Garcia et al., 2008 M.D. Sanchez-Garcia, E. Gimenez, J.M. Lagaron

Morphology and barrier properties of solvent cast composites of thermoplastic biopolymers and
purified cellulose fibers
Carbohydrate Polymers, 71 (2) (2008), pp. 235-244
Sanchez-Garcia et al., 2010 M.D. Sanchez-Garcia, L. Hilliou, J.M. Lagaron

Nanobiocomposites of carrageenan, zein, and mica of interest in food packaging and coating
applications
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 58 (2010), pp. 6884-6894
Sanchez-Garcia and Lagaron, 2010 M.D. Sanchez-Garcia, J.M. Lagaron

On the use of plant cellulose nanowhiskers to enhance the barrier properties of polylactic acid
Cellulose, 17 (5) (2010), pp. 987-1004
Sanchez-Garcia et al., 2010 M.D. Sanchez-Garcia, J.M. Lagaron, S.V. Hoa
Effect of addition of carbon nanofibers and carbon nanotubes on properties of thermoplastic

biopolymers
Composites Science and Technology, 70 (7) (2010), pp. 1095-1105
Sanchez-Garcia et al., 2008 M.D. Sanchez-Garcia, M.J. Ocio, E. Gimenez, J.M. Lagaron
Novel polycaprolactone nanocomposites containing thymol of interest in antimicrobial film and
coating applications
Journal of Plastic Film and Sheeting, 24 (3–4) (2008), pp. 239-251
Schmidt et al., 2009 B. Schmidt, J.H. Petersen, C. Bender Koch, D. Plackett, N.R. Johansen, V. Katiyar, et al.
Combining asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation with light scattering and inductively coupled
plasma mass spectrometric detection for characterization of nanoclay used in biopolymer
nanocomposites
Food Additives and Contaminants, 26 (12) (2009), pp. 1619-1627
Shonaike and Advani, 2003 G.O. Shonaike, S.G. Advani (Eds.), Advanced polymeric materials – Structure property
relationships, CRC Press, Boca Raton (2003)
Siaueira et al., 2009 G. Siaueira, J. Bras, A. Dufresne

Cellulose whiskers versus microfibrils: influence of the nature of the nanoparticle and its surface
functionalization on the thermal and mechanical properties of nanocomposites
Šimon et al., 2008 P. Šimon, Q. Chaudhry, D. Bakos

Migration of engineered nanoparticles from polymer packaging to food – a physicochemical view
Journal of Food and Nutrition Research, 47 (3) (2008), pp. 105-113
Tidjani and Wilkie, 2001 A. Tidjani, C.A. Wilkie

Photo-oxidation of polymeric-inorganic nanocomposites: chemical thermal stability and fire
retardancy investigations
Polymer Degradation and Stability, 74 (1) (2001), pp. 33-37
Torres-Giner et al., 2008 S. Torres-Giner, E. Gimenez, J.M. Lagaron

Characterization of the morphology and thermal properties of zein prolamine nanostructures
obtained by electrospinning
Food Hydrocolloids, 22 (2008), pp. 601-614
Travan et al., 2009 A. Travan, C. Pelillo, I. Donati, E. Marsich, M. Benincasa, T. Scarpa, et al.
Non-cytotoxic silver nanoparticle-polysaccharide nanocomposites with antimicrobial activity

Wan et al., 2003 C. Wan, X. Qiao, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhang

Effect of different clay treatment on morphology and mechanical properties of PVC-clay
nanocomposites
Polymer Testing, 22 (2003), pp. 453-461
Xu et al., 2006 Y. Xu, X. Ren, M.A. Hanna

Chitosan/clay nanocomposite film preparation and characterization
Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 99 (4) (2006), pp. 1684-1691
Yu et al., 2003 Y.H. Yu, C.Y. Lin, J.M. Yeh, W.H. Lin
Preparation and properties of poly(vinyl alcohol)–clay nanocomposite materials
Polymer, 44 (12) (2003), pp. 3553-3560
View Abstract
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Acerca de ScienceDirect Acceso remoto Carrito de compras Contacto y asistencia

Términos y condiciones Política de privacidad
Las cookies son utilizadas por este sitio. Para obtener más información, visite la página de cookies .
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier BV o sus licenciantes o contribuidores. ScienceDirect® es una marca registrada de
Elsevier BV

Nanotecnología para Bioplásticos - Oportunidades, Desafíos y Estrategias - ScienceDirect

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Nanotecnología para Bioplásticos - Oportunidades, Desafíos y Estrategias - ScienceDirect

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

3/5/2018 Nanotecnología para bioplásticos: oportunidades, desafíos y estrategias - ScienceDirect

contorno Descargar Exportar

Tendencias en Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos

Nanotecnología para bioplásticos: oportunidades, desafíos y

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2011.01.007 Obtenga derechos y contenido

Artículo anterior Artículo siguiente

In spite of the significant potential of bioplastics to substitute petroleum-based materials to help

Nanotechnology for packaging applications

Download full-size image

Challenges and strategies

Regarding nanoparticles, it is reckoned that to achieve the level of performance associated to

nanocomposites containing nanoclays can be regarded, in this sense, as more environmentally

used an analytical platform consisting of asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation (AF4)

- Establishing clear and knowledge-based legislation worldwide that defines nanoproducts

- Deepening our understanding regarding the life-cycle analysis of nanobiocomposites.

Artículos especiales Artículos recomendados Citando artículos ( 74 )

de Azeredo, 2009 H.M.C. de Azeredo

Azizi Samir et al., 2005 M.A.S. Azizi Samir, F. Alloin, A. Dufresne

Commission Directive, 2007 Commission Directive 2007/19/CE

Carus and Piotrowski, 2009 M. Carus, S. Piotrowski

Dubief et al., 1999 D. Dubief, E. Samain, A. Dufresne

Fernandez et al., 2009 A. Fernandez, S. Torres-Giner, J.M. Lagaron

Feynman, 1959 R.P. Feynman

Hao et al., 2006 J. Hao, M. Lewin, C.A. Wilkie, J. Wang

Helbert et al., 1996 W. Helbert, C.Y. Cavaillé, A. Dufresne

Huang et al., 2008 N. Huang, M. Lewin, Y. Tang, C. Fan, J. Wang

Huang et al., 2003 Z.M. Huang, Y.Z. Zhang, M. Kotaki, S. Ramakrishna

Kumanayaka et al., 2010 T.O. Kumanayaka, R. Parthasarathy, M. Jollands

Food Additives and Contaminants, 22 (2005), pp. 994-998

Lagaron and Fendler, 2009 J.M. Lagaron, A. Fendler

Lagaron et al., 2008 J.M. Lagaron, E. Gimenez, M.D. Sanchez-Garcia

Lagaron and Lopez-Rubio, 2010 J.M. Lagaron, A. Lopez-Rubio

Lewin and Tang, 2008 M. Lewin, Y. Tang

Li and Huang, 2008 S.D. Li, L. Huang

Lopez-Rubio et al., 2006 A. Lopez-Rubio, R. Gavara, J.M. Lagaron

Lopez-Rubio et al., 2009 A. Lopez-Rubio, E. Sanchez, Y. Sanz, J.M. Lagaron

Ludueña et al., 2007 L.N. Ludueña, V.A. Alvarez, A. Vasquez

Mauricio-Iglesias et al., 2010 M. Mauricio-Iglesias, S. Peyron, V. Guillard, N. Gontard

Okada et al., 1987 A. Okada, M. Kawasumi, T. Kurauchi, O. Kamigaito

Petersson and Oksman, 2006 L. Petersson, K. Oksman

Biopolymer based nanocomposites: comparing layered silicates and microcrystalline cellulose as

Qin et al., 2003 H. Qin, C. Zhao, S. Zhang, G. Chen, M. Yang

Rojas et al., 2009 O.J. Rojas, G.A. Montero, Y. Habibi

Sanchez-Garcia et al., 2007 M.D. Sanchez-Garcia, E. Gimenez, J.M. Lagaron

Sanchez-Garcia et al., 2008 M.D. Sanchez-Garcia, E. Gimenez, J.M. Lagaron

Sanchez-Garcia et al., 2010 M.D. Sanchez-Garcia, L. Hilliou, J.M. Lagaron

Sanchez-Garcia and Lagaron, 2010 M.D. Sanchez-Garcia, J.M. Lagaron

Sanchez-Garcia et al., 2010 M.D. Sanchez-Garcia, J.M. Lagaron, S.V. Hoa

Effect of addition of carbon nanofibers and carbon nanotubes on properties of thermoplastic

Siaueira et al., 2009 G. Siaueira, J. Bras, A. Dufresne

Šimon et al., 2008 P. Šimon, Q. Chaudhry, D. Bakos

Tidjani and Wilkie, 2001 A. Tidjani, C.A. Wilkie

Torres-Giner et al., 2008 S. Torres-Giner, E. Gimenez, J.M. Lagaron

Biomacromolecules, 10 (6) (2009), pp. 1429-1435

Wan et al., 2003 C. Wan, X. Qiao, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhang

Xu et al., 2006 Y. Xu, X. Ren, M.A. Hanna

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Acerca de ScienceDirect Acceso remoto Carrito de compras Contacto y asistencia

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi