International Journal of Food

Engineering
Volume 3, Issue 4 2007 Article 3

Improvement in Food Packaging Industry with

Biobased Nanocomposites
Zahra Akbari Talat Ghomashchi
Shahin Moghadam

Chemical Engineering Faculty, Amirkabir University, Tehran, Iran, zakbari@gmail.com

Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran,
talatgh@ut.ac.ir

Department of Chemistry, Tarbiat Moallem University, Tehran, Iran, sh mogh@yahoo.com

Copyright 2007
c The Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved.
Improvement in Food Packaging Industry with
Biobased Nanocomposites
Zahra Akbari, Talat Ghomashchi, and Shahin Moghadam

Abstract

Nanotechnology will become one of the most powerful forces for innovation in the food pack-
aging industry. One such innovation is biobased nanocomposite technology, which holds the key
to future advances in flexible packaging. Biobased nanocomposites are produced from incorpora-
tion of nanoclay into biopolymers (or Edible films). Advantages of biobased nanocomposites are
numerous and possibilities for application in the packaging industry are endless. A comprehensive
review of biobased nanocomposite applications in food packaging industry should be necessary
because nanotechnology is changing rapidly and the food packaging industry is facing new chal-
lenges. This provides a general review of previous works. Many of the works reported in the
literature are focused on the production and the mechanical properties of the biobased nanocom-
posites. Little attention has been paid to gas permeability of biobased nanocomposites. In regard
to extensive research on Edible film, this article suggests investigating the replacement of biobased
nanocomposites instead of Edible films in different areas of food packaging.

KEYWORDS: nanotechnology, food packaging, nanocomposite, permeability, edible film

 Akbari et al.: Biobased Nanocomposite for Food Packaging

1. INTRODUCTION

Biobased nanocomposites are a new class of materials in food packaging

industry with improved barrier and mechanical properties as compared to
those of neat biopolymers. They are biodegradable and they are also produced
from renewable resources. So, these make them environment friendly. It
should be noted that barrier properties and especially mechanical properties of
biobased nanocomposite films are stronger than Edible films and synthetic
polymeric films. Unlike Edible films, they could not have been consumed as a
part of food.
Biobased nanocomposites can be used to extend the shelf-life of the
fresh products such as fruits and vegetables by controlling of respiratory
exchange. Also it can improve the quality of fresh, frozen, and processed
meat, poultry, and seafood products by retarding moisture loss, reducing lipid
oxidation and discoloration, enhancing product appearance, and reducing oil
uptake by battered and breaded products during frying.
Biobased nanocomposite is interface between two important subjects
in food packaging industry, namely Edible films and nanocomposites.
Therefore, this paper starts with short explanations about Edible films and
nanocomposites. Furthermore, a literature review about biobased
nanocomposites is presented. The last objective of this review is to explain a
procedure for the replacement of biobased nanocomposites instead of Edible
films in food packaging industry.

2. EDIBLE FILMS

Edible films are defined as a thin layer of edible material formed on food as a
coating. Additionally, Edible films can carry antioxidants (Han, 2001) and
antimicrobials (Pena and Torres, 1991), while traditional packaging materials
can not compete in these aspects. Edible films are used to extend the shelf life
of food and maintain its quality by inhibiting the migration of moisture,
oxygen, carbon dioxide, aromas and lipids (Quintavalla and Vicini, 2002).
Other favorable aspects of Edible films are: completely biodegradable
(Guilbert et al., 1996; Arvanitoyannis et al., 1996) can be a part of a food and
can reduce the consumption of naphtha-based polymeric films (Parra et al.,
2004). The properties of the edible films which have been mostly evaluated
are mechanical properties and specially gas permeability properties
(Robertson, 1993).
A major component of Edible films is the plasticizer. The addition of a
plasticizer agent to Edible films is required to overcome film brittleness,
caused by high intermolecular forces. Plasticizers reduce these forces and
increase the mobility of polymer chains, thereby improving flexibility and
extensibility of the film. On the other hand, plasticizers generally decrease gas,
water vapor and solute permeability of the film and can decrease elasticity and
cohesion (Parra et al., 2004).

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007 1

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 3 [2007], Iss. 4, Art. 3

Type of degradation reactions in food systems determines optimum

gases composition in food packaging. For example, oxygen is involved in
many degradation reactions in foods, such as fat and oil rancidity,
microorganism growth, enzymatic browning and vitamin loss. Thus, many
packaging strategies seek to exclude oxygen in packaging to protect the food
product (Gontard et al., 1996). On the other hand, the permeability of Edible
film to oxygen and carbon dioxide is essential for respiration in living tissues
such as fresh fruits and vegetables. So, moderate barrier materials are more
appropriate. If an Edible film with the appropriate permeability is chosen, a
controlled respiratory exchange can be established and thus the preservation of
fresh fruits and vegetables can be prolonged. So the main characteristics to
consider in the selection of Edible film are their oxygen, carbon dioxide and
water vapor permeability (Ayranci and Tunc, 2002). The success of Edible
films for fresh products totally depends on the control of internal gas
composition (Park, 1999). Semi-permeable coatings can create a modified
atmosphere (MA) (Nisperos, 1990; Baldwin 1994) similar to controlled
atmosphere (CA) storage, with less expense incurred. However, the
atmosphere created by coatings can change in response to environmental
conditions, such as temperature and humidity, due to combined effects on fruit
respiration and coating permeability (Baldwin 1994; McHugh and Krochta,
1995). Types of deteriorative reactions, required gas composition and some
case study have been summarized in Table 1 for important areas of food
industry.
Edible films have been prepared by casting solutions of proteins,
carbohydrates and lipids, in different combinations and compositions (Kester
and Fennema, 1986; Krochta, 1992). Edible films which are made of proteins
are most attractive. Firstly, they are supposed to provide nutritional value
(Gontard, and Guilbert, 1994). Secondly, protein-based films have impressive
gas barrier properties compared with those from lipids and polysaccharides.
For example, oxygen permeability of soy protein-based films (when they are
not moist) was 500, 260, 540 and 670 times lower than that of low-density
polyethylene, methylcellulose, starch and pectin, respectively. On the other
hand, their mechanical properties are also better than those of polysaccharide
and fat based films because proteins have a specific structure which confers a
wider range of functional properties, especially high intermolecular binding
potential. In addition, Proteins, such as casein, whey proteins and corn zein,
have also been used in Edible film formulation as a moisture barrier since
these proteins are abundant, cheap and readily available. Therefore,
incorporation of nanoclay in Edible films, especially protein based, can greatly
improve their properties.

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol3/iss4/art3 2
 Akbari et al.: Biobased Nanocomposite for Food Packaging

Table 1. Basic information for design of edible packaging in different foods

with some case study

Food Degradation Required gas Types of Edible film

reaction composition

Fruits High respiration Oxygen (1-5%) Mango(Polysaccharide)

rate, water loss, CO2 (0-5%) apple (whey,CMC),
Microbial growth Cherry, Kiwi (CMC,
soy protein),
strawberry
(Polysaccharide),
Avacado(CMC),
Apricot (MC)
Carrot (starch),

Vegetables High respiration Oxygen (1-5%) Mushroom(MC), green

rate, water No CO2 pepper and cauliflower
loss, Microbial (MC),
growth

Meat
Red meat Photooxidation of Oxygen (70- Meat(corn zein, casein)
the pigment, 80%), CO2 pork(starch/alginate)
Microbial growth (30-20%)

Other meat Photooxidation of Low oxygen, poultry(corn zein, agar

the pigment, High CO2 casein), chicken(CMC)
Microbial growth

Fish
low fat Autolysis caused CO2 (40%), fish (carrageenan)
by intrinsic Oxygen (30%)
enzymes,

high fat metabolic activity CO2 (40-60%),

of microorganisms, Nitrogen
and oxidation (60-40%)

Egg Bacteria growth ------ lipids

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007 3

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 3 [2007], Iss. 4, Art. 3

Bread Fungal growth, Low oxygen Rice (Ethyl cellulose,

staling, and pectin)
moisture absorption
/ desorption

Frozen food Degradation of Low oxygen Frozen salmon (whey),

pigments and Beef (colagen), meat
vitamins, oxidation (hydroxypropylated
of lipids, and high amylose starch),
destabilization of frozen strawberries
proteins. (chitosan)

Fried foods Oxidative reaction Low oxygen Fried potato (hydroxyl

propyl methyl
cellulose),
Starchy product(corn
zein), cereal (gelatine,
gellan gum, and
carrageenan)

3. NANOCOMPOSITES

The large industrial demand for polymers has lead to an equally large interest
in polymer composites to enhance their properties. Clay-polymer
nanocomposites are among the most successful nanotechnological materials
today. This is because they can simultaneously improve material properties
without significant trade-offs. Nanocomposites are polymer systems
containing inorganic particles with at least one dimension in the nanometer
range (Gilmer et al., 2002). Because the nanoparticles are so small and their
aspect ratios (largest dimension/smallest dimension) are very high, even at
such low loadings, certain polymer properties can be greatly improved without
the detrimental impact on density, transparency, and processability associated
with conventional reinforcements like talc or glass (Lei et al., 2006). Nano-
sized particles are carbon black, fumed silicate, nano-oxides, carbon nanotubes
and nanoclays. Nanotube-based nanocomposites are used for electrostatic
dissipation applications; nanoscale oxides and metals are used for abrasion-
resistant films; and nanoclay-based nanocomposites are used for barrier
packaging applications (Scott and Wood, 2003). Some of the improved
properties of nanoconposite are:
Improved durability due to increased strength (Angles and Dufresne, 2001;
Wang et al., 2003)
Better barrier properties, e.g. for packaging (Alexandra and Dubois, 2000)

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol3/iss4/art3 4
 Akbari et al.: Biobased Nanocomposite for Food Packaging

Better optical properties due to extremely small size of nanoparticles (Wan et

al., 2003)
Easier processing due to lower viscosity (Schartel et al., 2005)
Good recycling properties (McGlashan and Halley, 2003)
Preparations methods of nanocomposite are solution included
intercalation, in-situ Polymerization and melt processing. Melt processing is
done simultaneously when the polymer is being processed through an
extruder, injection molder, or other processing machine. The polymer pellets
and clay are pressed together using shear forces to help with exfoliation and
dispersion. With in-situ polymerization, clay is added directly to the liquid
monomer during the polymerization stage. In the last method, clay is added to
a polymer solution using solvents to integrate the polymer and clay molecules.

3.1. NANOCOMPOSITE PERMEABILITY

Many factors should be taken into consideration in designing food packaging.

One of the very important factors is gas permeability. Gases have different
permeability which is determined by gas molecule dimension (dynamic
diameter) and gas molecule shape. Nitrogen has the smallest permeability rate;
oxygen has bigger while carbon dioxide has the biggest. The gas permeation
can be described mathematically by Fick's first law. The flux (J), the net
amount of gas that diffuses through unit area per unit time, which is
proportional to the concentration gradient can be defined in one direction as
follows (Park, 1999):

C (1)
J = D.
X
gr ml m2
Where, J is the flux ( or ), D is the diffusivity coefficient ( ), C
m 2 .s m 2 .s s
is the concentration gradient of the gas and X is the thickness of the neat
polymeric film (m) (Crank, 1975; Jost 1960; Landrock and Proctor, 1952;
Chang, 1981). With the two assumptions, (1) the diffusion is in steady state
and (2) there is a linear gradient through the film, the flux (J) is given by:
C C1 Q (2)
J = D. 2 =
X A.t
Where, Q is the amount of gas diffusing through the film (g or ml), A is area
of the film (m2) and t is the time (s). After application of Henry's law, the
driving force is expressed in terms of partial pressure differential of gas and a
rearrangement of terms yields the following equation in terms of permeability.
Q D.S (P2 P1 ) P.P (3)
= =
A.t X X
Where, S is the Henry's law solubility coefficient (mole/atm), p is partial
pressure difference of the gas across the film (Pa) and P is the permeability of

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007 5

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 3 [2007], Iss. 4, Art. 3

neat polymeric film ((ml or g) m/m2.s.Pa). Then, the permabilities of O2, CO2
and H2O vapor can be calculated from the following equation:
Q. X (4)
p=
A.t.P
The gaseous barrier property improvement that can result from incorporation
of relatively small quantities of nanoclay materials is shown to be substantial.
Further data reveals the extent to which both the amount of clay incorporated
in the polymer (Thomassin et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2005) and the aspect ratio
of the filler (Xu et al., 2006) contributes to overall barrier performance.
As mentioned above, Nanocomposites are constructed by dispersing a
filler material into nanoparticles that form flat platelets. Different types of
fillers are utilized; the most common is montmorillonite, layered smectite clay.
These platelets are then distributed into a polymer matrix creating multiple
parallel layers which force gases to flow through the polymer in a torturous
path, forming complex barriers to gases and water vapor. As more tortuosity is
present in a polymer structure, higher barrier properties will result (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Definition of the tortuosity factor

Simple models (Yano et al., 1993; Liu et al., 2003) have been developed to
predict the gas permeability through a polymer matrix in the presence of sheet-
shaped barriers such as nanoclays, which obstruct the passage of permeant
through the matrix. Several important parameters were considered, including
the volume fraction of nanocaly ( ) and the aspect ratio of the barrier (L/W),
with higher aspect ratios providing greater barrier improvement according to
the following equation (Kim et al., 2005):
P 1 (5)
=
p 1 + (L / 2W )
Where P and p are the permeability coefficients of the nanocomposite and the
d'
neat polymer, respectively. The term = = 1 + (L / 2W ) is called the
d

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol3/iss4/art3 6
 Akbari et al.: Biobased Nanocomposite for Food Packaging

tortuosity factor (Yano et al., 1993). L and W are length and thickness of the
silicate layers respectively.
The permeability coefficient of nanocomposite films is determined
using two factors: diffusion and solubility coefficients. Effectively, more
diffusion of nanoparticles throughout a polymer significantly reduces its
permeability. The degree of dispersion of the nanoparticles within the polymer
relates to improvement in mechanical and barrier properties in the resulting
nanocomposite films over those of polymer films.
Such excellent barrier characteristics have resulted in considerable
interest in nanoclay composites in food packaging applications, both flexible
and rigid. Specific examples include packaging for processed meats, cheese,
confectionery, cereals and boil-in-the-bag foods.

4. BIOBASED NANOCOMPOSITE FILM

Biobased nanocomposites are composed of biopolymer, nanoclay and usually

compatibilizing agents. Major component of biobased nanocomposites is
biopolymers. Biopolymers have great commercial potential for bioplastic and
Edible films, but some of the properties such as brittleness, low heat distortion
temperature; high gas permeability and low melt viscosity for further
processing restrict their use in a wide range of applications (Sinha and
Bousmina et al., 2005). As mentioned before, modification of biopolymers
with nanotechnology is an effective way to improve their properties.
Biopolymers derived from renewable resources are broadly classified
according to method of production. This gives the following three main
categories (Petersen et al., 1997):
1. Biopolymers directly extracted/removed from natural materials (mainly
plants) such as hydrocolloids (polysaccharides and proteins). The most
frequently utilized polysaccharides were cellulose and starch (and their
derivatives), chitosan, seaweed extracts (carrageenans and alginates), exudate
(arabic gum), seed (guar gum), xanthan and gellan gum and pectin. Proteins
include collagen, gelatin, casein, whey proteins, corn zein, wheat gluten and
soy proteins.
2. Biopolymers produced by classical chemical synthesis from renewable
bioderived monomers like polylactate (PLA).
3. Biopolymers produced by microorganisms or genetically transformed
bacteria like Polyhydroxyalkanoates.
Hence, biopolymers which can be used in biobased nanocomposites
formulation are numerous.
The utilization of special compatibilizing agents (modifier) between
the two basic materials (biopolymer and nanoclay) for the preparation of
biobased nanocomposite is necessary. Layered silicates are characterized by a
periodic stacking of mineral sheets with a weak interaction between the layers
and a strong interaction within the layer. The space in-between the layers is
occupied by cations. By cation exchange reactions between the clay and

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007 7

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 3 [2007], Iss. 4, Art. 3

organic cations (such as alkyl ammonium salts), the layered silicate can be
transformed into organically modified clay. The inter-layer distance will
increase by using voluminous modifiers. If this modifier is compatible with
biopolymer as well, a homogeneously and nanoscaled distribution
(exfoliation) of the clay sheets can be effected in the polymer matrix. The pure
clay shows an interlayer distance of 1.26 nm. It has been proven by XRD
analysis that most of the layers are indeed swollen after the modification
reaction. The inter-layer distance changes to 2.34 nm, an increase of nearly
100% compared to the pure clay.
A comprehensive review of biobased nanocomposite film applications
in food packaging industry is necessary. Therefore, continuing this section,
several studies which are concentrated on biobased nanocomposites have been
presented.
Avella (2005) investigated on mechanical properties of biodegradable
starch/clay nanocomposite films for food packaging applications. Starch is
composed of a mixture of two substances, an essentially linear polysaccharide-
amylose and a highly branched polysaccharide-amylopectin. Both forms of
starch are polymers of a-D-Glucose. Starch/clay nanocomposite films were
obtained by homogeneously dispersing montmorillonite nanoparticles in
different starch-based materials via polymer melt processing techniques. The
results show that in the case of starch/clay material, a good intercalation of the
polymeric phase into clay interlayer galleries, together with an increase of
mechanical parameters, such as modulus and tensile strength.
Biopolymers like starch present some drawbacks, such as the strong
hydrophilic behavior (poor moisture barrier) and poorer mechanical properties
than the conventional non-biodegradable plastic films used in the food
packaging industries (McGlashan and Halley, 2003; Park et al., 2003; Park et
al., 2002). So, Incorporation of nanoclay in biopolymers like starch can
improve its properties such as barrier and mechanical properties (Vaia, 2000).
The most commonly used nanoclays include montmorillonite, a 2:1
phyllosilicate (Chiou et al., 2005).
Kampeerapappun et al (2006) investigated on preparation of cassava
starch/ montmorillonite composite film. Cassava is an abundant and cheap
agricultural source of starch. This research was focused on the exploitation of
chitosan as a compatibilising agent in order to homogeneously disperse the
clay particles in a starch matrix. Mixtures of cassava starch, montmorillonite
(MMT), chitosan, glycerol as a plasticizer, and distilled water adjusted to pH 3
by acetic acid addition was well mixed with a homogenizer and gelatinized by
heating to temperatures of 7080 C. The obtained homogeneous starch
solution was cast onto an acrylic mold and allowed to dry in open air. The
preparation of starch/montmorillonite composite film also achieved an
improvement in the physical properties including reduced surface wettability,
a decrease in water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) and moisture absorption.
The WVTR value of the biobased nanocomposite film is decreased from 2000
g m-2 day-1 (0 % wt MMT) to 1082 g m-2 day-1 (10 % wt MMT). At a fixed

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol3/iss4/art3 8
 Akbari et al.: Biobased Nanocomposite for Food Packaging

amount of MMT (10 wt%), the moisture absorption values decrease

significantly from 125% to 95%, 83%, 74%, and 61% with respect to the
chitosan contents of 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 wt%, respectively.
Chiou et al (2005) has examined the effects of incorporating various
montmorillonite nanoclays into starch by rheology. The nanoclays included
the hydrophilic Cloisite NaC clay as well as the more hydrophobic Cloisite
30B, 10A, and 15A clays. Frequency sweep and creep results for wheat
starchnanoclay samples at room temperature indicated that the Cloisite NaC
samples formed more gel-like materials than the other nanoclay samples.
When the various wheat starchnanoclay samples were heated to 95 0C, the
Cloisite NaC samples exhibited a large increase in modulus. In contrast, the
more hydrophobic nanoclay samples had comparable modulus values to the
neat starch sample. One of the major problems with granular starch
composites is their limited processability, due to the large particle sizes (5100
lm). Therefore, it is very difficult to make blown thin films of starch for
packing applications. For this reason, thermo plastic starch (TPS) has been
developed by gelatinizing granular starch with 610 wt% moisture in the
presence of heat and pressure (Sinha and Bousmina, 2005).
Park et al (2003) has shown that the tensile strength of TPS was
increased from 2.6 to 3.3 MPa with the presence of 5 wt% sodium
montmorillonite, while the elongation at break was increased from 47 to 57%.
Also the relative water vapor diffusion coefficient of TPS was decreased to
65% and the temperature at which the composite lost 50% mass was increased
from 305 to 336 0C.
Huang et al (2006) investigated on preparation of high mechanical
performance MMT urea and formamide-plasticized thermoplastic cornstarch
(UFTPCS) biodegradable nanocomposites. It was revealed that UFTPCS were
intercalated into the layers of MMT successfully, and layers of MMT were
fully exfoliated and so formed the exfoliated nanocomposites with MMT. This
manufacturing process is simple and environmentally friendly.
Song et al (2006) studied compressive properties of epoxidized
soybean oil/clay nanocomposites by. Strain-rate and nanoclay weight effects
on the compressive properties of the nanocomposites were experimentally
determined. A phenomenological strain-rate-dependent material model was
presented to describe the stressstrain response. The model agrees well with
the experimental data at both large and small strains as well as high and low
strains rates.
Zengshe et al (2005) prepared epoxidized soybean oil (ESO)/clay
nanocomposites with triethylenetetramine (TETA) as a curing agent. Results
have shown that the ESO/clay nanocomposites are thermally stable at
temperatures lower than 180 C, with the maximum weight loss rate after
325 C. The nanocomposites with 510 wt% clay content possess storage
modulus ranging from 2.0106 to 2.70106 Pa at 30 C. The Young's modulus
(E) of these materials varies from 1.20 to 3.64 MPa with clay content ranging
from 0 to 10 wt%. The ratio of epoxy (ESO) to hydrogen (amino group of

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007 9

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 3 [2007], Iss. 4, Art. 3

TETA) greatly affects dynamic and tensile mechanical properties. At higher

amount of TETA, nanocomposites exhibit stronger tensile and dynamic
properties.
Miyagawa et al (2005) reported the preparation of novel biobased
nanocomposites from functionalized vegetable oil and organically-modified
layered silicate clay. They used anhydride-cured epoxidized linseed oil / or
octyl epoxide linseedate /diglycidyl ether of bisphenol epoxy matrix for the
preparation of nanocomposites. MMT is modified by methyl, tallow, bis (2-
hydrpxyethl) quaternary ammonium. It could be concluded from both the
TEM micrographs and XRD data that clay nanoplatelets were completely
exfoliated. Homogeneous dispersion and complete exfoliation result in the
excellent improvement for elastic modulus of clay nanocomposites.
Wibowo et al (2005) have investigated on cellulose acetate (CA)
nanocomposites. They were fabricated using extrusion followed by
compression molding or injection molding. Improvements in tensile strength
by approximately 38%, tensile modulus by approximately 33%, were observed
after adding (5 wt %) clay to fabricated CA plastic matrix. Incorporating a
small amount of appropriate compatibilizer is expected to enhance miscibility
of CA matrix and clay nanofillers and thus further improve mechanical and
thermal properties of the nanocomposites. Edible films or biobased
nanocomposites based on cellulose have been extensively applied to delay loss
of quality in fresh products such as tomatoes, cherries, fresh beans,
strawberries, mangoes and bananas. Cellulose derivatives such as hydroxyl
propyl cellulose, methylcellulose, carboxyl methyl cellulose and ethyl
cellulose are widely reported as Edible films and coatings in the scientific
literature.
Gindl et al (2005) produced cellulose based nanocomposite films with
different ratio of cellulose by means of partial dissolution of microcrystalline
cellulose powder in lithium chloride/N,N-dimethylacetamide and subsequent
film casting. Mechanical and structural properties of the biobased
nanocomposites were measured. The films are isotropic, transparent to visible
light, highly crystalline. Results have shown that, by varying the cellulose
ratio, the mechanical performance of the nanocomposites can be tuned.
Depending on the composition, a tensile strength up to 240 MPa, an elastic
modulus of 13.1 GPa, and a failure strain of 8.6% were observed.
Petersson et al (2006) compared the mechanical and barrier properties
of two different types of biopolymer based nanocomposites. The two
nanoreinforcements chosen for this study were bentonite a layered silicate and
microcrystalline cellulose (MCC). The polymer matrix was poly lactic acid
(PLA). PLA is linear aliphatic thermoplastic polyester. The PLA/bentonite
nanocomposite showed a 53% increase in tensile modulus and a 47% increase
in the yield strength compared to pure PLA. The PLA/S-MCC system on the
other hand showed no increase in tensile modulus and only a 12% increase in
yield strength compared to pure PLA. These results were lower than expected.
Also, the bentonite nanocomposite is able to reduce the oxygen permeability

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol3/iss4/art3 10
 Akbari et al.: Biobased Nanocomposite for Food Packaging

of the PLA while the MCC nanocomposite drastically increased the oxygen
permeability of the PLA.

Table 2. Comparison of the oxygen permeability of nanocomposite films and

conventional synthetic polymer films

Type of Test Permeability Unit Ref

polymer condition (neat polymer/
nanocomposite)

EVOH* 45C,0%RH 3.5/less than1 cm 3 m

* 3.6 * 10 5 (Cebacedo,2004)
2
m dayatm

PET --- 7.45/3.75 cm 3 mm (Ke , 2005)

m 2d 0 .1atm

ml.mm
PLA STP 200/71 (Maiti, 2003)
m 2 day.Mpa

(Frunchi, 2006)
m2
PP STP 9.04/3.4 s .Pa
*7.5*1018

Butyl 30C 1.3/0.0247 ---- (Takahashi,2006)

rubber
(Guilbert, 1996)
Pectin 25C,27%RH 57.5/--- ml.mm
m 2 dayatm
MC 25C,42%RH 4/--- (Guilbert, 1996)
ml.mm
m 2 dayatm
Wheat 25C,92%RH 190/--- (Guilbert, 1996)
Gluten ml.mm
m 2 dayatm

Chitosan 25C,91%RH 91.4/--- (Guilbert, 1996)

ml.mm
m 2 dayatm
*
EVOH: Ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer, PLA: Polylactide, PET: Poly ethylene
terephthalate, MC: Methyl cellulose, HDPE: High Density, poly ethylene, PP: Polypropylene

In spite of the fact that exact determination of gas permeability through

a biobased nanocomposite film is critical for food packaging industry, but
many of the researches reported in the literature indicated that there are a few
documents about measurement of gas permeability and effect of nanoclay on
it. Results illustrated in Table 2 reveal this fact. In regard to extensive

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007 11

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 3 [2007], Iss. 4, Art. 3

researches on Edible films in different areas of food packaging industry,

therefore there is more information about most kinds of biopolymer which
have been used in formulation of Edible films. Table 3 indicates that many
papers have been published about the utilization of Edible films in various
areas of food packaging industry. But little attention has been paid to
application of biopolymers for production of biobased nanocomposites.

Table 3. Different type of biopolymer for preparation of Edible films and

Biobased nanocomposites in various areas food packaging industry

Type of Edible film Biobased

biopolymer nanocomposite

Lipid and Carnauba wax (Mcgrath et al., 1955; Epoxidized soy bean
Gago et al., 2005; Baldwin, 1999), oil/OMM (Song et
oil based Bees wax (Mcgrath et al., 1955; Gago al., 2006), Vegetable
et al., 2005), Paraffin wax (Mcgrath et oil / modified layered
al., 1955). Mineral oil (Mcnally, silicate (Miyagawa et
1955), Vegetable oil (Seleeth et al., al., 2005)
1965). Monoglycerides (Brissey et al.,
1961; Schneide, 1972), diglycerides
(Brissey et al., 1961; Schneide, 1972)
triglycerides (Schneide, 1972),
acetoglycerides (Woodmansee and
Abbott, 1958; aykes, 1959; Dawson et
al., 1962; Zabic et al., 1963; Stemmler
et al., 1979; Hirasa, 1991), acetylated
glycerol monostearate (Stuchell and
krochta, 1995; Jokay et al., 1967; Roth
and Mehltretter, 1967).

Polysaccharide Starch and starch derivative: Hydroxy Chitosan/glassy

based propylated starch (Jokay et al., 1967; carbon electrode (Lu
Roth and Mehltretter, 1967) et al., 1999; Misra et
Alginates (Berlin, 1975; Mountney al., 2006), Chitosan
and Winter, 1961; Nelson 1963; /layered silicate
Hartel, 1966), Carragineen (Stoloff et (Hedenqvist et al.,
al., 1948; Allinaham, 1949; Pearce 2006),
and Lavees, 1949; Meyer et al., 1959), Cellulose/ organoclay
Dextran (Toulmin, 1959 a,b), (Misra et al., 2006;
Cellulose ethers: Methylcellulose Gindl and Keckes,

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol3/iss4/art3 12
 Akbari et al.: Biobased Nanocomposite for Food Packaging

(Nelson and Fennema, 1991; Bauer 2005; Wibowo et al.,

and Neuser 1969), hydroxypropyl 2005; Petersson et al,.
cellulose, hydroxylpropylmethyl 2006), starch /MMT
cellulose (Balasubramaniam 1994; (Park et al., 2003;

Anon, 1993), and carboxymethyl Chen and Evann,

cellulose [Baldwin, 1994; Funk et al., 2005; Huang et al.,
1971), Agar (Ayres, 1956; Nateajan 2006; Park et al.,
and Sheblon, 1995). 2002, 2003; Avella et
al., 2005)

Collagen (Smits, 1985; Mullen, 1971; Whey protein isolate

Protein based Maser, 1987), Gelatin (Rice, 1994; (Hedenqvist et al.,
Harvard and Harmony, 1986; Morris 2006),
and parker, 1895; Klose et al., 1952;
Childs, 1957).
Milk protein: whey (Takahashi et al.,
2006; Heine et al., 1979; Keil et al.,
1960; Chen, 1995; Mate and Krochta,
1995; Morean and Rosenberg, 1993;
Rosenberg and young, 1993; Young et
al., 2003, Sheu and Rosenberg, 1994),
casein (Stemmler M and H, 1974).
Cereal protein: Corn zeins (Hargen,
1995; Clark and Ralow, 1949; Herald,
1996), Wheat gluten (Gennadois and
Weller, 1992), soy protein isolate
(Stuchell et al., 1994; Roy et al.,
1995).

As mentioned before, to select biobased nanocomposite packaging

materials, it is very important to know deteriorative reactions in food products.
Deteriorative chemical changes in foods include nonenzymatic browning, lipid
hydrolysis, lipid oxidation, protein denaturation, protein cross linking,
hydrolysis of proteins and oligo and polysaccharides, polysaccharide
synthesis, degradation of natural pigments and glycolytic changes. After
recognition of degradation reaction in food product (refer to Table 1), required
gas composition is determined approximately. Then, optimum rate of gas
permeability can be calculated. So, base on this information, type of
biopolymer will be selected (Table 3). In regard to type of biopolymer,
amount of nanoclay, optimum thickness of biobased nanocomposite film, type
of compatibilizing agents and also preparation method should be determined.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007 13

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 3 [2007], Iss. 4, Art. 3

5. CONCLUSION

Packaging has developed into an essential technology in the handling and

commercialization of foodstuffs to provide, by maintaining or even increasing,
the required levels of quality and safety. There are high hopes in food and
packaging: longer shelf life, safer packaging, better traceability of products
and healthier food is only a few of the expected improvements. This paper
gathers a number of significant results where nanotechnology was
satisfactorily applied to improve packaged food quality and safety by
increasing the barrier and mechanical properties of biopolymer based
nanocomposite. Also researches on biobased nanocomposites have been
published indicating that the science of biobased nanocomposites for food
packaging industry is still in its infancy.

REFERENCES

1. Han, J. H., Edible and biodegradable films/coatings carrying bioactive

agents. Available from: www.den.davis, 2001.

2. Pena, D. C. R. AND Torres, J. A., Sorbic acid and potassium sorbate

permeability of an edible methylcellulose-palmitic acid films: water
activity and pH effects. Journal of Food Science, 1991, 56(2), 497499.

3. Quintavalla, Q. and Vicini, L. Antimicrobial food packaging in meat

industry. Meat Science, 2002, 62, 373380.

4. Guilbert, S., Gontard, N. and Gorris L., Prolongation of the Shelf life of
Perishable Food Products using Biodegradable Films and Coatings.
Lebensm Wiss Technol, 1996, 29, 1017.

5. Arvanitoyannis, I., Psomiadou, E. and Nakayama, A., Edible films made

from sodium caseinate, starches, sugars or glycerol; Part 1. Carbohydrate.
Polymer, 1996, 31, 179192.

6. Parra. D.F., Tadini. C.C., Ponce. P., Luga .A.B., Mechanical properties
and water vapor transmission in some blends of cassava starch Edible
films. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2004, 58, 475481.

7. Robertson, L.R., Food packaging: principle and practice. Marcel Dekker

Inc, 1993.
8. Gontard, N., Thibault, R., Cuq, B., and Guilbert, S., Influence of relative
humidity and film composition on oxygen and carbon dioxide

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol3/iss4/art3 14
 Akbari et al.: Biobased Nanocomposite for Food Packaging

permeabilities of Edible films. Journal of Agricultural and Food

Chemistry, 1996, 44, 10641069.

9. Ayranci .E, Tunc. S., A method for the measurement of the oxygen
permeability and the development of Edible films to reduce the rate of
oxidative reactions in fresh foods. Food chemistry, 2002, 80(3), 423-431.

10. Park, H.J., Development of advanced edible coating for fruits. Trends in
Food Science & Technology, 1999, 10, 254-260.

11. Nisperos-Carriedo, M.O., Shaw, P.E., Baldwin, E.A., Changes in volatile

flavor components in Pineapple orange juice as influenced by the
application of lipid and composite films. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 1990, 38, 13821387.

12. Baldwin, E.A., Nisperos, M.O., Shaw, P.E., Burns, J.K., Effect of coatings
and prolonged storage conditions on fresh orange flavor volatiles, degrees
Brix, and ascorbic acid levels. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 1995, 43, 13211331.

13. McHugh, T.H., Krochta, J.M., Permeability properties of Edible films. In:
Krochta, J.M., Baldwin, E.A., Nisperos Carriedo, M.O. (Eds.), Edible
Coatings and Films to Improve Food Quality, 1994, Technomic
Publishing, Lancaster: Basel, pp. 139187.

14. Kester, J. J. and Fennema, O., Edible films and coatings: A review. Food
Technology, 1986, 40 (12), 4759.

15. Krochta, J. M., Control of mass transfer in foods with edible coatings and
films. In: Singh, R. P. and Wirakartakusumah, M. A. (Eds), Advances in
Food Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc, 1992, 517538.

16. Gontard, N., and Guilbert, S., Biopackaging: Technology and properties of
edible and/or biodegradable material of agricultural origin. In:
MATHLOUTHI, M. (Ed), Food Packaging and Preservation. London:
Blackie Academic & Professional, 1994, 159181.

17. Gilmer et al, Polymer/clay nanocomposite having improved gas barrier

comprising a clay material with a mixture of two or more organic cations
and a process for preparing same, 2002, US patent: 6486253.

18. S.G. Lei, S.V. Hoa, M. T. Ton-That., Effect of clay types on the
processing and properties of polypropylene nanocomposites. Composites
Science and Technology, 2006, 66, 12741279.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007 15

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 3 [2007], Iss. 4, Art. 3

19. Scott, A. and Wood, A., Big firms bulk up on nanoscale materials.
Chemical Week. Retrieved February 16, 2004, from
www.findarticles.com.

20. Angles, M.N., Dufresne A., Plasticized starch/tunicin whiskers

nanocomposite materials. 2. Mechanical behavior. Macromolecules, 2001,
34, 29212931.

21. Wang, K. K., Koo, C.M., Chung, I.J., Physical properties of polyethylene/
silicate nanocomposite blown films, J. Appl. Polym. Sci, 2003, 89, 2131
2136.

22. Alexandra. M. and Dubois P., Polymer-layered silicate nanocomposites:

preparation, properties and uses of a new class of materials. Mater Sci
Eng, 2000, 28, 163.

23. Wan. C., Qiao. X., Zhang. Y., Zhang. Y., Effect of different clay treatment
on morphology and mechanical properties of PVC-clay nanocomposites.
Polymer Testing, 2003, 22,453461.

24. Schartel. B., Potschke. P., Knoll. U., Abdel-Goad. M., Fire behavior of
polyamide 6/multiwall carbon nanotube nanocomposites. Eur Polym J,
2005, 41(5), 10611070.

25. McGlashan. S. A. and Halley. P. J., Preparation and characterization of

biodegradable starch-based nanocomposite materials. Polymer
International, 2003, 52, 17671773.

26. Thomassin. J.M., Pagnoulle. C., Bizzari. D., Caldarella. G., Germain. A.,
Jrme. R., Improvement of the barrier properties of Nafion by fluoro-
modified montmorillonite. Solid State Ionics, 2006.

27. Kim. J.K., Hu. C., Ricky, Woo. S.C., LSham, M., Moisture barrier
characteristics of organoclayepoxy nanocomposites. Composites Science
and Technology, 2005, 65, 805813.
28. Xu. B., Zheng. Q., Song. Y., Shangguan, Y., Calculating barrier properties
of polymer/clay nanocomposites: Effects of clay layers, Polymer, 2006,
47, 29042910.

29. Crank, J., The Mathematics of Diffusion. Oxford University Press, 1975,
London.

30. Jost, W., Diffusion in Solids, Liquids, Gases. Academic Press Inc., 1960,
Pub, New York.

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol3/iss4/art3 16
 Akbari et al.: Biobased Nanocomposite for Food Packaging

31. Landrock, A.H. and Proctor, B.E., Gas Permeability of Films. Modern
Packaging, 1952, 6,131-201.

32. Chang, R., Physical Chemistry with Applications to Biological Systems,

1981, Macmillan Pub. Co., Inc, New York, pp. 83-89.

33. Yano, K., Usuki, A., Okada, A., Kurauchi, T., Kamigaito, O., Synthesis
and properties of polyimideclay hybrid. J Polym Sci , 1993, 31,2493
2498.

34. Liu, W., Hoa, S.V., Pugh, M., Effects of morphology of organoclay
modified epoxy nanocomposites on mechanical performance. In: ICCM-
14, 2003, San Diego, Paper No. 1407.

35. Kim, J.K., Hu, C., Ricky, S.C., Woo, M.L., Sham, Moisture barrier
characteristics of organoclayepoxy nanocomposites. Composites Science
and Technology, 2005, 65, 805813.

36. Cabedo, L., Gimenez, E., Lagaron, J.M., Gavara, R., Saura, J.J.,
Development of EVOH-kaolinite nanocomposites. Polymer, 2004, 45,
52335238.

37. Ke, Z., and Yongping, B., Improve the gas barrier property of PET film
with montmorillonite by in situ interlayer polymerization. Materials
Letters, 2005, 59, 3348 3351.

38. Maiti, P., Batt, C.A., Giannelis, E.P., Renewable plastics: synthesis and
properties of PHB nanocomposites. Polym Mater Sci Eng, 2003, 88, 58
59.

39. Frounchi, M., Dadbin, S., Salehpour, Z., Noferesti, M., Gas barrier
properties of PP/EPDM blend nanocomposites. Journal of Membrane
Science, 2006.
40. Takahashi, S., Goldberg, H.A., Feeney, C.A., Karim, D.P., Farrell, M.,
OLeary, K., Paul, D.R., Gas barrier properties of butyl rubber/vermiculite
nanocomposite coatings. Polymer, 2006, 47, 30833093.

41. Guilbert, S., Gontard, N., Gorris, L.G. M., Prolongation of the Shelf-life of
Perishable Food Products using Biodegradable Films and Coatings,
Lebensm.-WissuTechnol, 1996, 29, 1017.

42. Park, H.M., Lee, W.K., Park, C.Y., Cho, W.J., Ha, ,C.S., Environmentally
friendly polymer hybrids Part I Mechanical, thermal, and barrier properties
of thermoplastic starch/clay nanocomposites. J. Material science, 2003,
38(50), 909 915.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007 17

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 3 [2007], Iss. 4, Art. 3

43. Chen, B., and Evans, J.R.G., Thermoplastic starchclay nanocomposites

and their characteristics. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2005, 61, 455463.

44. Huang, M., Yu, J., Ma, X., High mechanical performance MMT-urea and
formamide-plasticized thermoplastic corn starch biodegradable
nanocomposites. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2006, 63, 393399.

45. Petersson, L., and Oksman, K., Biopolymer based nanocomposites:

Comparing layered silicates and microcrystalline cellulose as
nanoreinforcement. Composites Science and Technology, 2006.

46. Ray,S.S., and Bousmina, M., Biodegradable polymers and their layered
silicate nanocomposites: In greening the 21st century materials world.
Progress in Materials Science, 2005, 50, 9621079.

47. Petersen, K., Nielsen, V., Bertelsen, G., Lawther, M., Olsen, M.B.,
Nilsson, N. H., Mortensen, G., Potential of biobased materials for food
packaging. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 1999, 10, 52-68.

48. Avella, M., De Vlieger, J.J., Errico, M.E., Fischer, S., Vacca, P., Volpe,
M. G., Biodegradable starch/clay nanocomposite films for food packaging
applications. Food Chemistry, 2005, 93,467474.

49. McGlashan, S. A., and Halley, P. J., Preparation and characterization of

biodegradable starch-based nanocomposite materials. Polymer
International, 2003, 52, 17671773.

50. Park, H. M., Lee, W.K., Park, C.Y., Cho, W.J., Ha, C.S, Environmentally
friendly polymer hybrids Part 1. Mechanical, thermal, and barrier
properties of thermoplastic starch/clay nanocomposites. Journal of
Materials Science, 2003, 38, 909915.

51. Park, H.M., Li, X., Jin, C. Z., Park, C. Y., Cho, W. J., Ha, C. S.,
Preparation and properties of biodegradable thermoplastic starch/clay
hybrids. Macromolecular Materials and Engineering, 2002, 287, 553558.

52. Vaia, R. A., In Pinnavaia, T. J. and Beall, G. W., (Eds.), Polymerclay

nanocomposites, 2000, New York, Wiley, 229266.

53. Chiou, B.S., Yee, E., Glenn, G.M., Orts, W.J., Rheology of starchclay
nanocomposites. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2005, 59, 467475.

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol3/iss4/art3 18
 Akbari et al.: Biobased Nanocomposite for Food Packaging

54. Kampeerapappun, P., Ahtong, D., Pentrakoon, D., Srikulkit, K.,

Preparation of cassava starch/ montmorillonite composite film.
Carbohydrate Polymers, 2006.

55. Gindl, W., Keckes, J., All cellulose nanocomposites. Polymer, 2005, 46,
1022110225.

56. Liu, Z., Erhan, S.Z., Xu, J., Preparation, characterization and mechanical
properties of epoxidized soybean oil/ clay nanocomposites, Polymer,
2005, 46(3), 10119-10127.

57. Chiou, B.S., Yee, E., Glenn, G.M., Orts, W.J., Rheology of starchclay
nanocomposites. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2005, 59, 467475.

58. Wibowo, A.C., Misra, M., Park, H.M., Drzal, L.T., Schalek, R., Mohanty,
A.K., Biodegradable nanocomposites from cellulose acetate: Mechanical,
morphological, and thermal properties. Composites, 2005.

59. Mcgrath, E. P., Packaging costs cut, quality protected by wax-coating

frozen meats. Food Engineering, 1955, 27 (8), 5051, 77.

60. Perez gago, M.B., Serra, M., Alonso. M., Mateos, M., del Ro.M.A., Effect
of whey protein- and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose-based edible
composite coatings on color change of fresh-cut apples. Postharvest
Biology and Technology, 2005, 36, 7785.

61. Baldwin, E.A., Burns, J.K., Kazokas, W., Brecht, J.K., Hagenmaier, R.D.,
Bender, R.J., Pesis, E., Effect of two edible coatings with different
permeability characteristics on mango (Mangifera indica L.) ripening
during storage. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 1999, 17, 215226.

62. Mcnally, E.H., A comparison of methods to prevent weight loss in frozen

poultry. Poultry Science, 1955, 34, 12101211.

63. Sleeth, R.B., and Furgal, H. P., Method of coating freeze-dried meat. 1965,
U.S. Patent 3,165,416.

64. Brissey, G. E., and Hill, R.C., Prevention of casing sticking to meat. 1961,
U.S. Patent 2,982,660.

65. Schneide, J., Process for preserving meat. 1972, U.S. Patent 3,667,970.

66. Woodmansee, C.W., and Abbott, O. J., Coating subscalded broiler parts in
order to afford protection against dehydration and skin darkening in fresh
storage. Poultry Science, 1958, 37, 13671373.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007 19

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 3 [2007], Iss. 4, Art. 3

67. Ayres, J.C., Use of coating materials or film impregnated with

chlortetracycline to enhance color and storage life of fresh beef. Food
Technology, 1959, 13, 512515.

68. Dawson, L. E., Zabik, M., Sobel, N., An edible coating for poultry meat
preservation. Poultry Science, 1962, 41, 1640.

69. Zabik, M.E. and Dawson, L.E., The acceptability of cooked poultry
protected by an edible acetylated monoglyceride coating during fresh and
frozen storage. Food Technology, 1963, 17, 8791.

70. Stemmler, M., and Stemmler, H., Method for preserving freshly
slaughtered meat. 1974, U.S. Patent 3,851,077.

71. Heine, C., Wust, R., Kamp, B.,1979, U.S. Patent 4,137,334.

72. Hirasa, K., Moisture loss and lipid oxidation in frozen fish: Effect of a
casein-acetylated monoglyceride edible coating. M.S. thesis, University of
California Davis, 1991, CA.

73. Stuchell, Y.M., and Krochta, J. M., Edible coatings on frozen King
salmon: effect of whey protein isolate and acetylated monoglycerides on
moisture loss and lipid oxidation. Journal of Food Science, 1995, 60, 28
31.

74. Jokay, L., Nelson, G.E., POWELL, E. L., Development of edible

amylaceous coatings for foods. Food Technology, 1967, 21, 10641066.

75. Roth, W.B., and Mehltretter, C. L., Some properties of hydroxypropylated

amylomaize starch films. Food Technology, 1967, 21, 7274.

76. Allen, L., Nelson, A. I., Steinberg, M. P., Mc Gill, J.N., Edible corn-
carbohydrate food coatings. I. Development and physical testing of a
starchalgin coating. Food Technology, 1963, 17, 14371442.

77. Berlin, A., Calcium alginate films and their application for meats used for
freezing. Chemical Abstracts, 1957, 51, 17007.

78. Mountney, G. J., and Winter, A. R., The use of a calcium alginate film for
coating cut-up poultry. Poultry Science, 1961, 40, 2834.

79. Allen, L., Nelson, A. I., Stenberg, M. P., Mc Gill, J.N., Edible corn-
carbohydrate food coatings. II. Evaluation on fresh meat products. Food
Technology, 1963, 17, 14421446.

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol3/iss4/art3 20
 Akbari et al.: Biobased Nanocomposite for Food Packaging

80. Hartal, D., The development and evaluation of carbohydrate- alginate food
coatings. M.S. thesis, 1966, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.

81. Stoloff, L. S., Puncochar, J. F., Crowther, H. E., Curb mackerel fillet
rancidity. Food Industries, 1948, 20, 11301132, 1258.

82. Allingham, W. J., Preservative coatings for foods. 1949, U.S. Patent
2,470,281.

83. Pearace, J.A., and Lavers, C.G., Frozen storage of poultry. V. Effects of
some processing factors on quality. Canadian Journal of Research, 1949,
27, 253265.

84. Meyer, R.C., Winter, A.R., Weiser, H. H., Edible protective coatings for
extending the shelf life of poultry. Food Technology, 1959, 13, 146148.

85. Toulmin, H. A., JR, Method of preserving shrimp. 1959, U.S. Patent
2,758,929.

86. Toulmin, H. A., JR. Method of preserving shrimp. 1956, U.S. Patent
2,758,930.

87. Novak, L. J., Food preservation. 1957, U.S. Patent 2,790,720.

88. Toulmin, H. A., JR. Method of preserving food products. 1957, U.S.
Patent 2,790,721.

89. Nelson, K. L., and Fennema, O. R., Methylcellulose films to prevent lipid
migration in confectionery products. Journal of Food Science, 1991, 56,
504509.

90. Bauer, C.D., and Neuser, G. L., Edible meat coating composition. 1969,
U.S. Patent 3,483,004.

91. Anon, Food gums stick it out in dry mix glazes. Prepared Foods, 1993,
162 (1), 53.

92. Balasubramaniam, V. M., Chinnan, M. S., Malkiarjunan, P., Phillips, R.D.,

Role of Edible films in oil penetration and moisture retention during deep-
fat frying of foods. Presented at the International Winter Meeting of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1994, Paper No. 94-6550.
Atlanta, GA.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007 21

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 3 [2007], Iss. 4, Art. 3

93. Baldwin, E. A., Edible coatings for fresh fruits and vegetables: Past,
present, and future. In: Krochta, J. M., Baldwin, E.A. and Nisperos -
Carriedo, M. (Eds), Edible Coatings and Films to Improve Food Quality.
Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company, 1994, Inc., 2564.

94. Funk, K., Yadrick, M.K., Conklin, M. A., Chicken skillet-fried or roasted
with and without an edible coating. Poultry Science, 1971, 50, 634640.

95. Natrajan, N., and Sheldon, B.W., Evaluation of bacteriocin- based

packaging and Edible film delivery systems to reduce Salmonella in fresh
poultry. Poultry Science, 1995, 74 (Suppl. 1), 31.

96. Smits, J.W., The sausage coextrusion process. In: Krol, B., Van Roon, R.
S., Houben, J. H., (Eds), Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Trends in Modern Meat Technology. 1985, Wageningen, the Netherlands:
Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, 6062.

97. Mullen, J.D., Film formation from nonmeat coagulable simple proteins
with filler and resulting product. 1971, U.S. Patent 3,615,715.

98. Maser, F., Essbare Folie aus Kollagen mit einem an Gluten, insbesondere
Weizen-gluten. Verfahren zu ihrer Herstellung und Verwendund der Folie
zur Umhullung von Lebensmitteln., 1987, European Patent O 244 661.

99. Rice, J., Whats new in Edible films? Food Processing, 1994, 55 (7), 61
62.

100. Harvard, C., and Harmony, M. X., Improved process of preserving

meat, fowls, fish. 1986, U.S. Patent 90,944.

101. Morris, A., and Papker, J. A., Preservative coating for foods. 1895,
U.S. Patent 556,471.

102. Klose, A. A., Mecchi, E. P., Hanson, H. L., Use of antioxidants in the
frozen storage of turkeys. Food Technology, 1952, 6, 308311.

103. Childes, W. H., Coated sausage and method of preparing same. 1957,
U.S. Patent 2,811,453.

104. Keil, H. L., Hagen, R. F., Flaws, R.W., Coating composition method of
applying same to a food and coated food product. 1960, U.S. Patent
2,953,462.

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol3/iss4/art3 22
 Akbari et al.: Biobased Nanocomposite for Food Packaging

105. Chen, H., Individually quick packaging of particulate foods using milk
protein based coating formulations. Presented at the Annual International
Meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, IL,
1995, ASAE Paper No. 95-6168.

106. Mate, J. I., and Krochta, J. M., Effect of WPI coatings on the oxygen
uptake of dry roasted peanuts. Paper No. 12E-5. Presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Institute of Food Technologists, 1995, Anaheim, CA, 156.

107. Moreau, D. L., and Rosenberg, M., Microstructure and fat

extractability in microcapsules based on whey proteins or mixtures of
whey proteins and lactose. Food Structure, 1993, 12, 457468.

108. Rosenberg, M., and Young, S.L., Whey proteins as microencapsulating

agents. Microencapsulation of anhydrous milkfat structure evaluation.
Food Structure, 1993, 12, 3141.

109. Young, S. L., Sarda, X., and Rosenberg, M., Microencapsulating

properties of whey proteins. 1. Microencapsulation of anhydrous milk fat.
Journal of Dairy Science, 1993, 76, 28682877.

110. Young, S. L., Sarada, X., Rosenberg, M., Microencapsulating

properties of whey proteins. 2. Combination of whey proteins with
carbohydrates. Journal of Dairy Science, 1993, 76, 28782885.

111. Sheu, T.Y., and Rosenberg, M., Microencapsulation by spray drying

ethyl caprylate in whey protein and carbohydrate wall systems. Journal of
Food Science, 1995, 60, 98103.

112. Hargens-Madsen, M. R., Use of edible coatings and tocopherols in the

control of warmed-over flavor. M.S. thesis, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, NE, 1995.

113. Herald, T. J., Hachmeister, K. A., Hunang, S., Bowers, J. A., Corn zein
packaging materials for cooked turkey. Journal of Food Science, 1996, 61,
415417, 421.

114. Clark, R. L., Ralow, R.C., Zein: versatile packaging resin. Modern
Packaging, 1949, 22, 122125, 154, 156.

115. Gennadios, A., and Weller, C.L., Tensile strength increase of wheat
gluten films. Presented at the International Winter Meeting of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Nashville, TN, 1992, Paper
No. 92-6517.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007 23

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 3 [2007], Iss. 4, Art. 3

116. Stuchell, Y.M., and Krochta, J. M., Enzymatic treatments and thermal
effects on edible soy protein films. Journal of Food Science, 1994, 59,
13321337.

117. Roy, S., Weller, C. L., Zeecc, M.G., Testin, R. F., Effect of heat on the
physical and molecular properties of wheat gluten films. Presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Institute of Food Technologists, Anaheim, CA,
1995, Paper No. 12E-14.

118. Song, B., Chen, W., Liu, Z., Erhan, S., Compressive properties of
epoxidized soybean oil/clay nanocomposites. International Journal of
Plasticity, 2006, 22(8), 1549-1568.

119. Miyagawa, H., Misra, M., Drazal, L.T., Mohanty, A.K., Novel
biobased nanocomposites from functionalized vegetable oil and
organically modified layered silicate clay. Polymer, 2005, 46, 44553.

120. Xin, Y., Xiaogang,G., Tong, Z., Studies on electrochemical behavior

of bromide at a chitosanmodified glassy carbon electrode. Electroanalysis,
2001, 13,923926.

121. Lu, G., Yao, X., Wu, X., Zhan, T., Determination of the total iron by
chitosan-modified glassy carbon electrode. Microchem J, 2001, 69, 8187.

122. Pan, J.R., Huang, C., Chen, S., Chung, Y.C., Evaluation of a modified
chitosan biopolymer for coagulation of colloidal particles. Colloids
Surface, 1999, 147,35964.

123. Misra, M., Park, H., Mohanty, A.K., Drzal, L.T., Injection molded
green nanocomposite materials from renewable resources. Paper presented
at GPEC-2004.

124. Hedenqvist, M.S., Backman, A., Gallstedt, M., Boyd, R.H., Gedde,
U.W., Morphology and diffusion properties of whey/montmorillonite
nanocomposites. Composites Science and Technology, 2006.

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol3/iss4/art3 24