Environmental fate and ecotoxicological impacts of bioplastics: Degradation pathways and emerging knowledge gaps

Abstract

Plastic waste is one of the most concerning issues for the environment in the world. Many researchers are seeking sustainable solutions by replacing petroleum-based plastic with bio-based plastic. Bioplastic is synthesized from natural resources, and it can degrade in different ecosystems. Therefore, it could serve as alternative to combat the harmful impacts of conventional plastic. This review explores different bio-based polymers such as polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), polybutylene succinate (PBS), starch blends (SB), and cellulose-based bioplastics (CB). These polymers can be used for many industrial applications, including agriculture, automobiles, textiles, packaging, and medical. To give insight into the procedure of bioplastic manufacture, various processes are analyzed in this review, including the solvent casting technique, extrusion techniques, injection molding, and 3D printing. The products of bioplastics such as micro-nano plastic, monomers, and oligomers released after degradation are critically analyzed and the toxicity of bioplastic on different ecosystems has been discussed. A research gap was also identified, as most toxicological studies of bioplastic do not include the LC₅₀/LD₅₀ threshold.

Full Article

Environmental Fate and Ecotoxicological Impacts of Bioplastics: Degradation Pathways and Emerging Knowledge Gaps

Noshabah Tabassum  ,a^,* It Ee Lee  ,^b,c* Iqra Safdar  ,^a Maria Qayyum,^a Amna Bashir  ,^d Tanzeela Tahir,^a Qamar Wali  ,^b,c and Hammad Khan ^e

Plastic waste is one of the most concerning issues for the environment in the world. Many researchers are seeking sustainable solutions by replacing petroleum-based plastic with bio-based plastic. Bioplastic is synthesized from natural resources, and it can degrade in different ecosystems. Therefore, it could serve as alternative to combat the harmful impacts of conventional plastic. This review explores different bio-based polymers such as polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), polybutylene succinate (PBS), starch blends (SB), and cellulose-based bioplastics (CB). These polymers can be used for many industrial applications, including agriculture, automobiles, textiles, packaging, and medical. To give insight into the procedure of bioplastic manufacture, various processes are analyzed in this review, including the solvent casting technique, extrusion techniques, injection molding, and 3D printing. The products of bioplastics such as micro-nano plastic, monomers, and oligomers released after degradation are critically analyzed and the toxicity of bioplastic on different ecosystems has been discussed. A research gap was also identified, as most toxicological studies of bioplastic do not include the LC₅₀/LD₅₀ threshold.

DOI: 10.15376/biores.21.3.Tabassum

Keywords: Toxicity; Biodegradable material; Polymer categories; Applications of bioplastics; Environmental impact; Sustainable materials; Green polymers

Contact information: a: Department of Environmental Sciences, Fatima Jinnah Women University, The Mall, Rawalpindi, Pakistan; b: Faculty of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering, Multimedia University, 63100 Cyberjaya, Malaysia; c: Centre for Smart Systems and Automation, COE for Robotics and Sensing Technologies, Multimedia University, 63100 Cyberjaya, Selangor, Malaysia; d: Department of Chemistry, Fatima Jinnah Women University, The Mall, Rawalpindi, Pakistan; e: Civil Engineering Department, The University of Lahore, Defense Road, Lahore, Pakistan;

* Corresponding author: noshabatabassum@fjwu.edu.pk, ielee@mmu.edu.my

Graphical Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Plastic, a manufactured material derived from polymers, is extensively used because of its strength, reasonable cost, and efficiency. There are two main categories of plastics: bio-based (obtained from biomass raw materials) and oil-based (obtained from petroleum-based substances). Oil-based plastics are one of the most common materials in the present-day world. However, their manufacturing is responsible for environmental problems (Tulamandi et al. 2016). Globally, cumulative plastic manufacturing has reached 8300 million tons, with annual growth of 415 million tons each year, while 6300 million tons of plastic build up as waste. Of these, ~883 million tons of plastic are recycled, ~883 million tons are sent for incineration, and ~4542 million tons are set free into the environment or landfills (Adelaja and Daramola 2022). Based on historical trend analysis, the annual global use of plastic is predicted to rise from 464 million tons in 2020 to approximately 884 million tons by 2050 (Dokl et al. 2024).

Contamination from the growth of plastic waste in the environment causes escalating damage to both the ecosystem and human health (Hopewell et al. 2009) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. The environmental impacts of plastic (adapted and modified from Ali et al. 2023a)

Recent advances in the research of next generation bioplastic produced from renewable resources have been reviewed by Ehman et al. 2026), who outlined the categories of biopolymers along with their potential industrial applications. These types of plastics are also a major source of carbon footprints and growing climate change. Additionally, they can be persistent and dwell in the surroundings for many years due to their non-biodegradable properties. This is the main reason for polluted oceans, landfills, and ecosystems (Wilson 2015). In recent years, bioplastics have risen as a viable option to tackle these environmental or ecological problems created by conventional plastics (Abbott et al. 2012). Bioplastics are innovative materials, obtained from sources that are renewable materials, including biomass, plant starch, and microbes, with some other combinations. Wood and wood-derived bioresources such as saw dust, wood flour, and pulp industry byproducts also serve as a great biomass source because it contains high quantities of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin (Chinthapalli et al. 2019). The components are widely explored as raw material, reinforcing agents, and additives for bioplastic manufacturing. These lignocellulosic components help in enhancing the characteristics of bioplastics (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Major sources of bioplastic production (Jabeen et al. 2024, CC BY-NC 4.0)

The growth of bioplastics has created a potential pathway to minimize the need for fossil fuels as well as reduce ecological problems (Rodríguez et al. 2020). Biodegradable plastics, with the help of microorganisms, heat, sunlight, and moisture, can break down or decompose naturally into simpler molecules (Chauhan et al. 2024). Biodegradable polymers can play a pivotal role in the prevention of plastic waste buildup. Main types of bioplastics are composed of cellulose-, starch-, aliphatic polyester-, lignin-, protein-, and chitin-based polymers. Several studies have assessed the effect of biodegradable and degradable plastics on the composting of green waste and compost quality (Emadian et al. 2017). Bio-based non-biodegradable plastics, such as bio-based polyethylene (bio-PE) and bio-based polyethylene terephthalate (bio-PET), are identical to their petroleum-based counterparts even though they are made from biogenic resources (Cui et al., 2023).

Classification helps to clear up common misconceptions around terms such as “biobased” and “biodegradable.” Not all manufactured items with the term “bio” are necessarily sustainable. This significant divergence between biodegradable and non-biodegradable bioplastics accentuates the diversity of materials available and their alignment with specific industrial needs. It also emphasizes how crucial it is that users carefully select bioplastics according to their desired end-of-life (EOL) outcomes and environmental performance. Regardless of the application of single use packaging or long-term products, bioplastics play a progressively crucial role in the transition toward a circular, decarbonized bio-based economy because studies have confirmed that poor disposal of bioplastic can cause formation of microplastic and nano plastic.

The bioplastic production capacity increased from 1.9 million tonnes in 2022 to 2.3 million tonnes in 2025, showing an increasing amount of demand for environmentally friendly solutions. Various types of bioplastics contribute differently to global production. PLA-based bioplastics hold the largest share, followed by PHA based bioplastics in global bioplastic production (European Bioplastics 2025) (Fig. 3). By observing current trends of the world, bioplastic production capacity by 2030 is forecasted to reach 4.69 million tonnes, expecting a considerable increase from the 2025 market share (Fig. 4).

Fig. 3. Global bioplastic production capacity trends based on reported data estimated from 2022 and 2025 (European Bioplastics 2025)

Fig. 4. Predicted global production capacity of bioplastic for 2030 (European Bioplastics 2025)

As global production of bioplastics continues to grow rapidly, it is becoming increasingly important to consider this development within a broader framework of sustainable material design (Arias et al. 2018). Merely replacing petroleum-based plastics with bio-based alternatives is not sufficient to achieve true environmental sustainability. A deeper transformation is needed one that reimagines how materials are extracted, used, and eventually returned to natural or industrial ecosystems (Udayakumar et al. 2021).

A recent review article gave comprehensive information of biopolymer classifications, bioplastic production method, industrial techniques and their application which give an insight knowledge about bioplastic industries (Ehman et al. 2026). In comparison, this research deeply analyzes the bioplastic production techniques its influence in biodegradation behavior, integrates degradation pathway with end-of-life pathway, environmental leakage (system failure of circular bioeconomy), environmental fate, exposure routes, and ecotoxicological impacts, thereby providing comprehensive environmental evaluation of bioplastics. Distinct attention is given to ecotoxicological impacts and potential formation of microplastics and nanoplastics. This research also emphasizes some critical research gaps which were not previously discussed in review articles.

BIOPLASTIC CATEGORIES AND THEIR APPLICATIONS

Bioplastics are categorized into three fundamental divisions based on their composition. However, it is important to emphasize that not all bio-based plastics are biodegradable. These categories include fossil resource-based but biodegradable plastics, biobased biodegradable plastics, and biobased but non-biodegradable plastics. The biodegradability property and source of raw materials are the foundation of categorizing bioplastics. Bioplastics include polysaccharide-based, protein-based, and polyester-based versions, all having different advantages in durability, flexibility, and decomposition, as shown in Table 1.

Comparative Analysis of Biopolymer Categories

The radar chart (Fig. 5) describes the comparative performance evaluation of multiple biopolymer categories across seven key factors, each evaluated on a scale of 0 to 10. This illustration reveals the strengths, limitations, and compromises, which helps in determining the suitability of the material for specific applications. The figure demonstrates the diverse patterns of biopolymers (Clarke et al. 2024). Every polymer has limitations in performance, revealing that the selection of material depends on the specification of the application. The evaluation shows that the chemically synthesized biopolymers, such as PLA, PHA, PHBV, Bio-PE, and Bio-PET, display elevated scores in mechanical integrity, including thermal stability, tensile strength, barrier properties, as well as processability (García-Chumillas et al. 2024). As demonstrated, PLA shows notable mechanical properties, making it a great sources for demanding applications. Such performance helps to explain why it is the most produced bioplastic in the world, i.e. 910,000 tons per year (Ehman et al. 2026). In contrast to natural polymers, its score for biodegradation is low, and its cost efficiency evaluation is between normal and low (Acharjee et al. 2024). It shows strong barrier properties and processability, approaching the performance of traditional plastics despite being generated from biobased materials (Liang et al. 2024).

Natural polymers, such as starch-, cellulose-, protein-, and chitosan-based materials, score high in biodegradability and cost efficiency, but they are lower in thermal stability, tensile strength, and barrier properties. Starch-based polymers excel in biodegradability and affordability but have limitations in water absorption and barrier performance, while chitosan-based materials achieve better barrier scores with moderate biodegradability (Strnad and Zemljič 2023). Blends and composites, including hybrids and additive-enhanced materials, achieve higher overall scores, particularly in tensile strength and barrier performance (Yang et al. 2025). Trade-offs are evident: higher durability and barrier performance in synthetic polymers often come at the expense of biodegradability and cost efficiency, whereas natural polymers are more water sensitive. Optimizing these trade-offs is essential to maximizing performance across all criteria.

Fig. 5. Comparative properties of biopolymer categories (scale 0-10)

BIOPLASTIC AND CIRCULAR BIOECONMY DESIGN

Bioplastic materials are strongly linked with circular bioeconomy because of their renewable biomass and sustainable biological end of life pathway. The circular bioeconomy concept integrates the bioresources, new technologies, and sustainable consumption practices to reduce waste production and mitigate biodegradation patterns. According to the framework of circular bioeconomy products derived from natural resources are expected to circulate through manufacturing, usage, recycling and reintegration into natural environment. Bioplastic products can only be regarded as circular when their manufacturing, utilization, and end of life management simultaneously lower ecological impacts against traditional plastics. Achieving this need careful assessment of biomass sourcing, energy uptake during production, product longevity and biodegradation behavior (Sokra and Meta 2026).

This approach provides a reliable framework for determining design choices that are both environmentally responsible and functional. It does this by statistically assessing environmental effects at every step of a material’s life, from the extraction of raw materials to end-of-life (Sivakanthan et al. 2020). However, the non-integrated infrastructure poses a significant challenge to circularity. Whereas some naturally derived polymers are engineered for industrial composting, several parts of the world lack the basic amenities to process them effectively. The environmental potential is undermined because of this disconnect between innovative sustainable materials and municipal waste management infrastructures (Sunil Badgujar et al. 2024). Therefore, it is critical in advance to work out matters of local infrastructure and consumer behavior through context-sensitive solutions.

BIOPLASTIC MANUFACTURING PATH AND BIODEGRADABLE BEHAVIOR

Bioplastics are sourced from renewable resources and can produced from different processes, depending on the material, and biodegradation properties. The production phase involves specific extraction and drying methods to maximize efficiency and the quality of the product. They are mostly grouped into three principal categories: natural polymers (starch), polymers synthesis through microbes (PHA, PLA), and biobased synthetic biodegradable polymers (PBAT, PBS).

Bioplastics From Starch

Starch from plant sources is extracted through a process of wet milling, in which raw materials were submerged in water for a few hours. Then the material is crushed and separated into different components including starch, fibers, and protein (Abe et al. 2021). After the extraction of starch, it goes through the process of gelatinization, which involves the presence of heat and water so that the starch granules swell and are converted into a thick gel form. Plasticizer (glycerol or sorbitol) is added to reduce its brittleness, enhancing its elasticity and strength (Müller et al. 2012). Furthermore, the processed starch mixture is cast into different shapes and dried by using a hot air oven or vacuum drying. Vacuum drying is used when the material is sensitive to heating and or to maintain the structural integrity of synthetic bioplastic (Geyer et al. 2017). The bioplastic product produced through this method also shows complete biodegradation (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Scheme for producing starch-based bioplastic and its impact (adapted from Ali et al. 2023a)

Microbial Fermentation-Based Bioplastics (PLA and PHA)

PLA and PHA are produced starting with microbial fermentation of sugars derived from crops such as corn or cassava (Bugnicourt et al. 2014). For the synthesis of PHA polymers during the fermentation, bacteria are provided with unbalanced nutrients (less nitrogen and phosphorus), which triggers the accumulation of intracellular PHA granules. These are extracted from the cells through methods such as solvent extraction, chemical disruption, enzymatic digestion and (high-pressure homogenization. By contrast, PLA cannot be directly produced from the bacteria. Rather, the sugar is converted into lactic acid monomers, which are afterward polymerized into PLA (Yoon and Oh 2022) (Fig. 7). As it can be composted in an industrial setting, it has become increasingly prevalent in applications like food packaging, textile packaging, 3D printing, disposable cutlery, wound dressings and surgical sutures. Its limitations include slow disintegration in natural conditions and brittleness (Ilyas et al. 2021; Mukherjee et al. 2023)

What makes PHAs attractive is their capacity to biodegrade in a variety of situations, including marine conditions. This makes them well suited for products that are susceptible to littering. However, their high cost of manufacturing and limited availability still prevent extensive usage (Li et al. 2016; Sharma et al. 2021). Their degradation depends on specific conditions such as enzymatic microbial actions and temperature. In natural environments, partial degradation may facilitate the synthesis of micro and nano plastics, regulating movement and ecological interactions.

Fig. 7. Schematic diagram showing bio-based bioplastic production modified (Martins and Gupta 2024, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Bio-Based Polyesters (PBAT)

PBAT is manufactured through the polycondensation method of 1,4-butanediol, adipic acid, and terephthalic acid using metallic catalysts to polymerize aliphatic and aromatic monomers into a flexible polymer chain. Its environmental degradation depends on enzymatic hydrolysis, where edaphic bacteria esterases enzyme to degrade polymer chain into carbon dioxide, water, and biomass. Although complete mineralization of PBAT is certified as an industrial composting system, its biodegradation under natural conditions is markedly slower and mostly dependent on microbial abundance and temperature. If incomplete biodegradation occurs, it can generate residual terephthalic acid or microplastic fragments that temporarily remain in the ecosystem before complete mineralization occurs (Kim et al. 2024).

Bio-Based Polyesters (PBS)

PBS (polybutylene succinate) can be made through the step-growth polymerization of succinic acid and 1,4-butanediol, using titanium-based catalysts to link the monomers into a highly crystalline polyester (Xu and Guo 2010). The breakdown of PBS is mainly through surface erosion facilitated by microbial enzymes such as lipases and esterases, which mineralize it into water and carbon dioxide. Although it is more thermally stable than other bioplastics, its high crystallinity results in slower degradation in soil or marine environments compared to PBAT. Industrial composting is preferred to achieve rapid mineralization. In natural conditions, its fate is largely affiliated by moisture and temperature, as moisture is required to start hydrolysis that helps microbes to colonize and break the polymer chains.

Industrial Manufacturing Techniques for Bioplastics

Numerous techniques are used to synthesize bioplastics, each contributing unique benefits depending on the raw material and proposed applications, as shown in the Table. 2. Below are some of the most common techniques used in the manufacturing of bioplastics (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8. Bioplastic production techniques

Solution Casting

The solvent casting technique is the most common technique used at the laboratory scale. This method involves the process of dissolution of polymer in volatile solvent with some other additives in a homogenous solution which is then poured onto the plates (petri plate, Teflon plates, etc.). The drying process can be done at room temperature or at a controlled temperature up to 40 °C (de Moraes et al. 2013) (Fig. 9). The major environmental footprint can be attributed to the large surface area of film and toxicity of evaporated solvent used during formation. Compared to traditional molding techniques to achieve even spreading of bioplastic mixture across a large area, the polymer must be highly diluted with large volume of solvent (Cheerarot and Saikrasun 2023). This large surface to volume ratio creates a vast exposed reactive area which facilitates the rapid evaporation of toxic solvents acting as a wide “escape route” for chemical leakage with simultaneously enhances the adsorption of toxic pollutants from the surrounding environment (Saleem et al. 2025). This results in a high concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the atmosphere, which must be managed safely by using energy intensive ventilation systems (Islam et al. 2024).

Starch-based films synthesized in this manner can be mineralized completely in soil or water within 28 to 40 days. In contrast, industrial bioplastics such as PLA may take 90 to 120 days even under controlled conditions (Ghasemlou et al. 2024). Their tendency to fragment easily can promote the faster release of biodegradable microplastics (BMPs) into the environment. Although BMPs eventually mineralize, their short-term presence can still pose risk to aquatic and soil ecosystems. Solution casting facilitates incorporation of additives such as glycerol or sorbitol. However, if these plasticizers or additives are not fully bound to the polymer matrix, they may leach into soil or water, potentially altering pH or toxicity (Costa and Lackner 2025).

Fig. 9. Schematic diagram of bioplastic production through the solution casting technique (modified from Ilyas et al. 2022)

Injection Molding

When this technique is used for polymer processing, the bioplastic material is injected into mold under controlled conditions, such as high pressure, temperature, and filling amount. The mold is specifically designed for the desired shape product (Yin et al. 2020) (Fig. 10). Injection molded bioplastics exhibit slow surface erosion due to their low surface-to-volume ratio and compact structural density. High crystallinity serves as a physical barrier against moisture and microbes, resulting in long term persistence in natural soil or marine environments for years full mineralization of such dense materials generally requires industrial composting. These materials are reported to degrade into microplastics in natural environments, resulting in long-term ecological risks before complete mineralization (Dotson et al. 2024).

Extrusion

Extrusion is the most used method to manufacture plastic on an industrial scale. It is a continuous process in which the material, usually in pellet form, is introduced into a fixed barrel where it moves from different units, such as mixing of material, heating, compression, and pressure drop (Emin and Schuchmann 2017). The material undergoes both physical and chemical modification. The material is softened by heating, and it is transported to the end of the die through the rotating screw, which changes the shape of the material as it passes through the die (Bouvier and Campanella 2014). After extrusion, the bioplastic is cooled and hardened. Bioplastic based on gluten from wheat was manufactured by using this technique (Fig.10).

The polymer industry depends greatly on the extrusion process. It is a flexible method with an extensive range of extruder designs such as single screw extrusion, twin screw extrusion, and blown film extrusion. Since the screws in the extruder machines are separated, an array of configurations is achievable as well, and screws can be designed based on the nature of the material (Logié et al. 2017).

Extrusion produces bioplastic materials with a slightly lower density and thinner profile compared to injection molding. This results in a more homogeneous structure, which facilitates faster degradation in natural environments. In contrast, injection-molded bioplastics tend to exhibit minimal degradation under natural conditions. However, due to variations in bioplastic composition across different products, industrial composting or incineration is often considered a more effective end-of-life management option (Cheng et al. 2024).

3D Printing

3D printing creates bioplastics with a unique environmental fate characterized by porous, layered structures that speed up degradation compared to injection molding (Fig. 10). Because the process builds objects layer-by-layer, it leaves microscopic gaps and a high surface area that allow moisture and microbes to penetrate the “bulk” of the item more easily (Andanje et al. 2023).

Fig. 10. Visual representation of industrial techniques used for bioplastic manufacturing, adapted and modified from Britti Bacalhau et al. (2017) and Ma et al. (2024). a. Extrusion technique b. Injection molding technique c. Blown film extrusion technique d. 3D printing

BIODEGRADABILITY AND ITS IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Biodegradation of bioplastics is a fundamental aspect of life cycle evaluation and is increasingly recognized by the world’s industrial sectors. Biodegradable polymers usually undergo degradation through two main stages fragmentation and microbial adsorption. Fragmentation is the breakdown of polymers into small pieces, which provide a large surface area for microbial colonialization. Microbial adsorption is the attachment of microorganisms on the polymer surface. It is an important step to start enzymatic degradation of polymer chain into monomer or oligomers ultimately resulting in complete mineralization (Bátori et al. 2018). The time of biodegradation is determined by factors such as its functional groups, structure, crystalline nature, size of polymer chain, etc. Over 90 different types of microbial actions cause the breakdown of polymers in distinct ecosystems. However, plants or bio-based plastics are considered more beneficial than conventional plastic, but their long-term environmental impacts are still under research (Laface et al. 2023).

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: BIOPLASTICS VS. FOSSIL-BASED PLASTICS

This section reviews the findings of research on the impact of bioplastics and compares them with conventional plastics, as shown in Table 3. Greenhouse gas emission result indicates that the bioplastic PEF releases less emission compared to the petrochemical PET (Eerhart et al. 2015). In addition, eutrophication potential data indicates that bioplastics have higher potential than traditional plastics. Bioplastics’ contribution toward the stratospheric ozone layer has been found to be lower than that of conventional plastic (Weiss et al. 2012).

Table 3. Environmental Impact of Bioplastic Compared to Conventional Plastic

END-OF-LIFE (EOL) PATHWAYS

Biodegradability and recyclablility are usually considered as the primary advantages of the bioplastics, but their true end-of-life (EOL) performance is far more complicated. The labelling of an item as “biodegradable” or “compostable” cannot guarantee environmental safety unless the methods or procedures of their disposals are adequately supported by local infrastructure. The critical EOL pathway for bioplastics includes industrial composting, aerobic digestion, anerobic digestion, physical recycling, chemical recycling, energy from waste incineration, and controlled disposal in landfills (Briassoulis et al. 2019; Spierling et al. 2020).

The actual waste management systems and the theoretical biodegradation capacity of bioplastics are very different (Fig. 11). For instance, a considerable proportion of these materials continue to enter uncontrolled landfill due to littering, inefficient segregation practices, limiting industrial composting capacity, high cost of processing, and confusion with traditional plastic during sorting. Common polymers such as PLA, PBAT, and PBS degrade well under certified industrial composting but do not break down well in unmanaged landfills or home compost bins (Von Vacano et al. 2023).

Ultimately, the true sustainability of a bioplastic does not rest on its chemistry alone. What matters is how well the material is integrated into existing waste management systems in the real world (Molina-Besch 2022).

Fig. 11. Preferred and actual end-of-life pathways for mainstream bioplastics

LEAKAGE BASED FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENT BEHAVIOR OF BIOPLASTICS

The environmental behavior of bioplastics can be understood through an environmental leakage pathway that integrates production, consumption, leakage, transport mechanism, and transformation pathway. In the early stage, the characteristics of materials defined during the manufacturing such as crystalline structure, material density, and composition additive play a critical role in determining the ecological response. Bioplastic consumed for single use applications such as packaging are often discarded rapidly during the consumption phase, thereby increasing the risk of leakage into the natural environment. This release follows the path of littering, improper landfill management, wastewater effluent, and surface runoff. These occurrences reflect the failure of managed systems within circular bioeconomy frameworks that allow material escape in natural ecosystem (Tyagi et al. 2022). Once materials escape, they can be transported, crossing different environmental compartments including soil, freshwater, and marine systems within these environments. The bioplastics undergo transformation processes driven by both biotic mechanisms such as microbial degradation, and abiotic factors including ultraviolet radiation and hydrolysis. This transformation process may result in partial degradation, resulting in the formation of micro- and nano-scale particles and soluble intermediates (monomers, oligomers) with altered mobility and bioavailability. Organisms therefore may encounter bioplastic through ingestion, physical contact, or environmental assimilation, potentially driving environmental impacts determined by both exposure routes as well as transformation derivative (Zhang et al. 2025). This framework highlights that environmental risk cannot be fully predicted by summing the combined effects of material properties, environmental conditions, and leakages across system (Fig. 12).

Fig. 12. Leakage based pathway of bioplastic degradation (system failure of circular bioeconomy)

BIOPLASTIC DEGRADATION AND ITS TOXICITY

Recent studies have indicated that the biodegradable plastics (BPs), upon degradation in a brief period, may undergo incomplete mineralization and depolymerize quickly due to their unstable structure (Hu et al. 2025). Incomplete polymer degradation may result in formation of microplastics (MPS) or nano plastics (NPs), monomers, and oligomers. These can cause threats to environmental health. Lab research indicates that the MPs and NPs generated from bioplastics can be consumed by organisms such as earthworms, tadpoles, and zebrafish (Scalia et al. 2025). Almost 99% of PLA particles that are consumed get removed from the body within a week. A small percentage of them may break down into smaller parts in the digestive system and can pass to other organs, and when consumed by humans, they can cause serious health issues (Ali et al. 2023b). Studies showed that 2%(w/w) PLA micro-nano plastic was fed to the juvenile perch for about 6 months led to reduced locomotion and fewer anti-predator responses (König Kardgar et al. 2023). When zebrafish were exposed to 10 mg/L PLA particles for 15 days, the gut microbiota was affected. The exposure also induced neurotoxicity and stress in larvae of dragonflies and tadpoles (Li and Chen 2024). They are also responsible for reproductive problems in ascidians, demonstrating measurable ecological risks even at low concentrations. Studies also indicated that elevated PBAT (MPs) concentration (5%) has reported to reduce soil pH by 5.1% due to release of acidic monomer (adipic acid) (Cao et al. 2024). Similarly, high dose of PBS (MPs) has been reported to reduce root length of Triticum aestivum by 15 to 20% (Chen et al. 2024). Other reported data about the bioplastic toxicity after biodegradation are shown in Table 4.

RESEARCH GAPS

Published toxicity studies generally have focused on short-term, high-concentration micro(nano)plastic exposures with an emphasis on polylactic acid, while often overlooking a wider variety of oligomers and monomers. The behaviors and ecotoxicity of the released particles or chemicals from bioplastics are far more complex than those derived from conventional plastics, and the chronic effects of nano(micro)plastics and low-dose exposures remain poorly characterized. There are review papers and research articles that discuss the toxic profile and environmental impact of bioplastics, but they focus on discussing the endpoint, including oxidative stress, developmental toxicity, and do not systematically represent the LC₅₀/LD₅₀ toxicology threshold specifically for bioplastics.

CONCLUSION

This review has explored the raw material, categories, properties, applications, and environmental impacts of bioplastics and compared them with conventional plastics. Bioplastics generally are regarded as a sustainable alternative to traditional fossil fuel-based plastics due to their renewable source, biodegradability (in many cases), and lower environmental impacts. Bioplastics have several applications in different sectors, such as industrial, pharmaceutical, agriculture, food packaging, electronics, and cutlery. The emerging techniques, along with the conventional ones, have been used for particular materials. This review has shown that bioplastics also provide several advantages to the environment, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. But some bioplastics (e.g. PLA) show non-biodegradability in marine ecosystems, whereas others, such as PBAT PCL, and PBS, show the formation of microplastics and nanoplastics, acidic monomers, and oligomers that have toxic effects on living organisms. Crucially, this review has emphasized the need to frame bioplastics within a circular design context, rather than treating biodegradability or renewable sourcing as standalone credentials. It has been argued here that achieving meaningful impact requires simultaneous attention to performance, scalability, end-of-life infrastructure, and the regulatory landscape Hence, bioplastics are not completely free from environmental impacts and show certain negative effects and limitations. Therefore, further research is required to fully comprehend the life cycle of bioplastics and its toxicity in terms of LC50/LD50 toxicology threshold.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This review article is funded by the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), Malaysia under the 2023 Translational Research Program for the Energy Sustainability Focus Area (Project ID: MMUE/240001) and the 2024 ASEAN IVO (Project ID: 2024-02). Additional support was provided by the Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan under the project TDF04-478: Developmental Growth and Commercialization of Green Plastics: A Novel Approach to Pollution Reduction.

REFERENCES

Abbott, A. P., Ballantyne, A. D., Conde, J. P., Ryder, K. S., and Wise, W. R. (2012). “Salt-modified starch: Sustainable, recyclable plastics,” Green Chemistry 14(5), article 1302. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2gc16568f

Abe, M. M., Martins, J. R., Sanvezzo, P. B., Macedo, J. V., Branciforti, M. C., Halley, P., Botaro, V. R., and Brienzo, M. (2021). “Advantages and disadvantages of bioplastics production from starch and lignocellulosic components,” Polymers 13(15), article 2484. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13152484

Acharjee, S. A., Gogoi, B., Bharali, P., Sorhie, V., and Alemtoshi, B. W. (2024). “Recent trends in the development of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) based bio composites by blending with different bio-based polymers,” Journal of Polymer Research 31(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10965-024-03947-z

Acquavia, M. A., Pascale, R., Martelli, G., Bondoni, M., and Bianco, G. (2021). “Natural polymeric materials: A solution to plastic pollution from the agro-food sector,” Polymers 13(1), article 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13010158

Adelaja, O. A., and Daramola, O. E. (2022). “Preparation and characterization of low-density polyethylene-chitosan nanoparticles biocomposite as a source of biodegradable plastics,” European Journal of Advanced Chemistry Research 3(1), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejchem.2022.3.1.85

Ali, S. S., Abdelkarim, E. A., Elsamahy, T., Al-Tohamy, R., Li, F., Kornaros, M., Zuorro, A., Zhu, D., and Sun, J. (2023a). “Bioplastic production in terms of life cycle assessment: A state-of-the-art review,” Environmental Science and Ecotechnology 15(July), article 100254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2023.100254

Ali, W., Ali, H., Gillani, S., Zinck, P., and Souissi, S. (2023b). “Polylactic acid synthesis, biodegradability, conversion to microplastics and toxicity: a review,” Environmental Chemistry Letters 21(3), 1745-1759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01564-8

Andanje, M. N., Mwangi, J. W., Mose, B. R., and Carrara, S. (2023). “Biocompatible and biodegradable 3D printing from bioplastics: A review,” Biocompatible and Biodegradable 3D Printing from Bioplastics: A Review 15(10), article 2355. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15102355

Arias, E., Oria, R., and López-Buesa, P. (2018). “Determination of acceptability and shelf life of fresh-cut pear by digital image analysis,” Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization 12(4), 2916-2926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11694-018-9907-0

Babu, R. P., O’Connor, K., and Seeram, R. (2013). “Current progress on bio-based polymers and their future trends,” Progress in Biomaterials 2(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-0517-2-8

Balavairavan, B., and Saravanakumar, S. S. (2021). “Characterization of ecofriendly poly (vinyl alcohol) and green banana peel filler (GBPF) reinforced bio-films,” Journal of Polymers and the Environment 29(9), 2756-2771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-021-02056-y

Bano, S., Aslam, A. A., Khan, A., Shabbir, A., Qayyum, F., Wahab, N., Jabar, A., Islam, I. U., and Ng, S. L. (2024). “A mini-review on polyhydroxyalkanoates: Synthesis, extraction, characterization, and applications,” Process Biochemistry 146, 250-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2024.07.033

Bátori, V., Åkesson, D., Zamani, A., Taherzadeh, M. J., and Sárvári Horváth, I. (2018). “Anaerobic degradation of bioplastics: A review,” Waste Management 80, 406-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.09.040

Bioplastic vs. Traditional Plastic: Which Path Leads to a Sustainable Future? (2025, February20). Bio leader® Biodegradable Tableware. https://www.bioleaderpack.com/bioplastic-vs-traditional-plastic/

Bouvier, J.-M., and Campanella, O. H. (2014). Extrusion Processing Technology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118541685

Braskem. (2024). Braskem. Braskem.com.br. https://www.braskem.com.br/home-en

Briassoulis, D., Pikasi, A., and Hiskakis, M. (2019). “End-of-waste life: Inventory of alternative end-of-use recirculation routes of bio-based plastics in the European Union context,” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 49(20), 1835-1892. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2019.1591867

Britti Bacalhau, J., Mumic Cunha, T., and Afonso, C. R. M. (2017). “Effect of Ni content on the hardenability of a bainitic steel for processing of plastics,” Proceedings of the 24^th ABCM International Congress of Mechanical Engineering. https://doi.org/10.26678/abcm.cobem2017.cob17-1174

Bugnicourt, E., Cinelli, P., Lazzeri, A., and Alvarez, V. (2014). “Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA): Review of synthesis, characteristics, processing and potential applications in packaging,” Express Polymer Letters 8(11), 791-808. https://doi.org/10.3144/expresspolymlett.2014.82

Cao, Z., Kim, C., Li, Z., and Jung, J. (2024). “Comparing environmental fate and ecotoxicity of conventional and biodegradable plastics: A critical review,” Science of the Total Environment 951, article 175735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175735

Chauhan, K., Kaur, R., and Chauhan, I. (2024). “Sustainable bioplastic: A comprehensive review on sources, methods, advantages, and applications of bioplastics,” Polymer-Plastics Technology and Materials 63(8), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/25740881.2024.2307369

Cheng, J., Gao, R., Zhu, Y., and Lin, Q. (2024). “Applications of biodegradable materials in food packaging: A review,” Alexandria Engineering Journal 91, 70-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2024.01.080

Chen, Y., Li, Y., Liang, X., Lu, S., Ren, J., Zhang, Y., Han, Z., Gao, B., and Sun, K. (2024). “Effects of microplastics on soil carbon pool and terrestrial plant performance,” Carbon Research 3(1), article 37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44246-024-00124-1

Chinthapalli, R., Skoczinski, P., Carus, M., Baltus, W., de Guzman, D., Käb, H., Raschka, A., and Ravenstijn, J. (2019). “Biobased building blocks and polymers—Global capacities, production and trends, 2018–2023,” Industrial Biotechnology 15(4), 237-241. https://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2019.29179.rch

Clarke, R. W., Rosetto, G., Uekert, T., Curley, J. B., Moon, H., Knott, B. C., McGeehan, J. E., and Knauer, K. M. (2024). “Polyhydroxyalkanoates in emerging recycling technologies for a circular materials economy,” Materials Advances 5(17), 6690-6701. https://doi.org/10.1039/d4ma00411f

Costa, P., and Lackner, M. (2025). “Biodegradable microplastics: Environmental fate and persistence in comparison to micro- and nanoplastics from traditional, non-degradable polymers,” Macromol—A Journal of Macromolecular Research 5(2), 29-29. https://doi.org/10.3390/macromol5020029

Cui, Y., Deng, C., Fan, L., Qiu, Y., and Zhao, L. (2023). “Progress in the biosynthesis of bio-based PET and PEF polyester monomers,” Green Chemistry 25(15), 5836-5857. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3GC00104K

De Moraes, J. O., Scheibe, A. S., Sereno, A., and Laurindo, J. B. (2013). “Scale-up of the production of cassava starch-based films using tape-casting,” Journal of Food Engineering 119(4), 800-808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2013.07.009

Dotson, K. W., Pisano, K., and Renegar, D. A. (2024). “Surface erosion equations for degradation analysis of several common three-dimensional shapes of plastic materials,” Journal of Polymers and the Environment 32(11), 5606-5628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-024-03291-9

Dokl, M., Copot, A., Krajnc, D., Fan, Y. V., Vujanović, A., Aviso, K. B., Tan, R. R., Kravanja, Z., and Čuček, L. (2024). “Global projections of plastic use, end-of-life fate and potential changes in consumption, reduction, recycling and replacement with bioplastics to 2050,” Sustainable Production and Consumption 51, 498–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.09.025

Eerhart, A. J. J. E., Patel, M. K., and Faaij, A. P. C. (2015). “Fuels and plastics from lignocellulosic biomass via the furan pathway: An economic analysis,” Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 9(3), 307-325. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1537

Ehman, N., Cuenca, P. S., Vallejos, M. E., and Area, M. C. (2026). “Next generation bioplastics based on renewable resources and their potential applications,” BioResources 21(2), 5543-5575. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.21.2.ehman

Emadian, S. M., Onay, T. T., and Demirel, B. (2017). “Biodegradation of bioplastics in natural environments,” Waste Management 59(0956-053X), 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.006

Emin, M. A., and Schuchmann, H. P. (2017). “A mechanistic approach to analyze extrusion processing of biopolymers by numerical, rheological, and optical methods,” Trends in Food Science & Technology 60(Feb.), 88-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.10.003

García-Chumillas, S., Guerrero-Murcia, T., Nicolás-Liza, M., Monzó, F., Simica, A., Simó-Cabrera, L., and Martínez-Espinosa, R. M. (2024). “PHBV cycle of life using waste as a starting point: From production to recyclability,” Frontiers in Materials 11, article 1405483. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2024.1405483

Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., and Law, K. L. (2017). “Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made,” Science Advances 3(7) e1700782. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782

Ghasemlou, M., Barrow, C. J., and Adhikari, B. (2024). “The future of bioplastics in food packaging: An industrial perspective,” Food Packaging and Shelf Life 43, article 101279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2024.101279

González-Pleiter, M., Tamayo-Belda, M., Pulido-Reyes, G., Amariei, G., Leganés, F., Rosal, R., and Fernández-Piñas, F. (2019). “Secondary nanoplastics released from a biodegradable microplastic severely impact freshwater environments,” Environmental Science: Nano 6(5), 1382-1392. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8en01427b

Gross, R. A. (2002). “Biodegradable polymers for the environment,” Science 297(5582), 803-807. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.297.5582.803

Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R., and Kosior, E. (2009). “Plastics recycling: Challenges and opportunities,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364(1526), 2115-2126. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0311

Hu, L., He, L., Cai, L., Wang, Y., Wu, G., Zhang, D., Pan, X., and Wang, Y.-Z. (2024). “Deterioration of single-use biodegradable plastics in high-humidity air and freshwaters over one year: Significant disparities in surface physicochemical characteristics and degradation rates,” Journal of Hazardous Materials 465, article 133170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.133170

Hu, L., Zhang, Y., Zhang, M., Chen, Q., Zhou, Y., Fu, J., Zhang, D., and Pan, X. (2025). “A review on the release and environmental effects of biodegradable plastic degradation products,” Environmental Sciences Europe 37(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-025-01140-7

Ilyas, R. A., Aisyah, H. A., Nordin, A. H., Ngadi, N., Zuhri, M. Y. M., Asyraf, M. R. M., Sapuan, S. M., Zainudin, E. S., Sharma, S., Abral, H., Asrofi, M., Syafri, E., Sari, N. H., Rafidah, M., Zakaria, S. Z. S., Razman, M. R., Majid, N. A., Ramli, Z., Azmi, A., and Bangar, S. P. (2022). “Natural-fiber-reinforced chitosan, chitosan blends and their nanocomposites for various advanced applications,” Polymers 14(5), article 874. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14050874

Ilyas, R. A., Sapuan, S. M., Harussani, M. M., Hakimi, M. Y. A. Y., Haziq, M. Z. M., Atikah, M. S. N., Asyraf, M. R. M., Ishak, M. R., Razman, M. R., Nurazzi, N. M., Norrrahim, M. N. F., Abral, H., and Asrofi, M. (2021). “Polylactic acid (PLA) biocomposite: Processing, additive manufacturing and advanced applications,” Polymers 13(8), article 1326. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13081326

Islam, M., Xayachak, T., Haque, N., Lau, D., Bhuiyan, M., and Pramanik, B. K. (2024). “Impact of bioplastics on environment from its production to end-of-life,” Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188(188), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2024.05.113

Jabeen, M., Kainat Tarıq, and Syed Ubaid Hussain. (2024). “Bioplastic: An alternative to plastic in the modern world: A systemized review,” Environmental Research and Technology 7(4), 614-625. https://doi.org/10.35208/ert.1467590

Jafarzadeh, S., Jafari, S. M., Salehabadi, A., Nafchi, A. M., Uthaya Kumar, U. S., and Khalil, H. P. S. A. (2020). “Biodegradable green packaging with antimicrobial functions based on the bioactive compounds from tropical plants and their by-products,” Trends in Food Science & Technology 100(June), 262-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.04.017

Kim, J.-H., Hong, W., and Oh, S.-W. (2018). “Effect of layer-by-layer antimicrobial edible coating of alginate and chitosan with grapefruit seed extract for shelf-life extension of shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) stored at 4 °C,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 120(Part B), 1468-1473.

Kim, Y., Choe, S., Cho, Y., Moon, H., Shin, H., Seo, J., and Myung, J. (2024). “Biodegradation of poly(butylene adipate terephthalate) and poly(vinyl alcohol) within aquatic pathway,” The Science of the Total Environment 2024, article 176129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.176129

König Kardgar, A., Ghosh, D., Sturve, J., Agarwal, S., and Almroth, B. C. (2023). “Chronic poly(L-lactide) (PLA)- microplastic ingestion affects social behavior of juvenile European perch (Perca fluviatilis),” Science of The Total Environment 881, article 163425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163425

Kumar, N., Pratibha, Neeraj, Ojha, A., Upadhyay, A., Singh, R., and Kumar, S. (2021). “Effect of active chitosan-pullulan composite edible coating enriched with pomegranate peel extract on the storage quality of green bell pepper,” LWT 138(March), article 110435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2020.110435

Laface, F., Pedà, C., Giommi, C., Scozzafava, S., Rizzo, C., Malara, D., Greco, S., and Romeo, T. (2023). “A glimpse into the future: A suitable methodological approach for the detection and identification of micro-bioplastics in biota,” The Science of the Total Environment 899(Nov.), article 165613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165613

Li, Z., Yang, J., and Loh, X. J. (2016). “Polyhydroxyalkanoates: Opening doors for a sustainable future,” NPG Asia Materials 8(4), e265-e265. https://doi.org/10.1038/am.2016.48

Li, Z., and Chen, Y. (2024). “Behavioral effects of polylactic acid microplastics on the tadpoles of Pelophylax nigromaculatus,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 285, article 117146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2024.117146

Liang, X., Cha, D. K., and Xie, Q. (2024). “Properties, production, and modification of polyhydroxyalkanoates,” Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances 21, article 200206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2024.200206

Logié, N., Valle, G. D., Rolland-Sabaté, A., Descamps, N., and Soulestin, J. (2017). “How does temperature govern the mechanisms of starch changes during extrusion?” Carbohydrate Polymers 184, 57-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.12.040

Ma, J., Cao, Y., Fan, L., Xie, Y., Zhou, X., Ren, Q., Yang, X., Gao, X., and Feng, Y. (2023). “Degradation characteristics of polybutylene adipate terephthalic acid (PBAT) and its effect on soil physicochemical properties: A comparative study with several polyethylene (PE) mulch films,” Journal of Hazardous Materials 456, article 131661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.131661

Ma, T., Zhang, Y., Ruan, K., Guo, H., He, M., Shi, X., Guo, Y., Kong, J., and Gu, J. (2024). “Advances in 3D printing for polymer composites: A review,” InfoMat. https://doi.org/10.1002/inf2.12568

Martins, F., and Gupta, R. K. (2024). “Bacteria for bioplastics: Progress, applications, and challenges,” ACS Omega 9(8), article 3c07372. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c07372

Mohamad, N., Mohamad Mazlan, M., Amin, M., Talib, R. A., Kian, L. K., and Sapuan, S. M. (2021). “Characterization of active polybutylene succinate films filled with essential oils for food packaging application,” 30(2), 585-596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-021-02198-z

Molina-Besch, K. (2022). “Use phase and end-of-life modeling of biobased biodegradable plastics in life cycle assessment: A review,” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 24, 3253-3272 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-022-02373-3

Mostafa, N. A., Farag, A. A., Abo-dief, H. M., and Tayeb, A. M. (2018). “Production of biodegradable plastic from agricultural wastes,” Arabian Journal of Chemistry 11(4), 546-553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2015.04.008

Mukherjee, C., Varghese, D., Krishna, J. S., Boominathan, T., Rakeshkumar, R., Dineshkumar, S., Brahmananda Rao, C. V. S., and Sivaramakrishna, A. (2023). “Recent advances in biodegradable polymers – Properties, applications and future prospects,” European Polymer Journal 192, article 112068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2023.112068

Müller, C. M. O., Laurindo, J. B., and Yamashita, F. (2012). “Composites of thermoplastic starch and nanoclays produced by extrusion and thermopressing,” Carbohydrate Polymers 89(2), 504-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.03.035

Murcia Valderrama, M. A., van Putten, R.-J., and Gruter, G.-J. M. (2020). “PLGA barrier materials from CO₂. The influence of lactide co-monomer on glycolic acid polyesters,” ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2(7), 2706-2718. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.0c00315

Mushtaq, M., Gani, A., Gani, A., Punoo, H. A., and Masoodi, F. A. (2018). “Use of pomegranate peel extract incorporated zein film with improved properties for prolonged shelf life of fresh Himalayan cheese (Kalari/kradi),” Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 48(Aug.), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2018.04.020

Onanong Cheerarot, and Sunan Saikrasun. (2023). “Effects of different preparation methods (solvent casting and melt blending) on properties of chitosan-filled polylactic acid biocomposite films,” Journal of Elastomers & Plastics 55(8), 1173–1198. https://doi.org/10.1177/00952443231198468

Rodríguez, G. M., Sibaja, J. C., Espitia, P. J. P., and Otoni, C. G. (2020). “Antioxidant active packaging based on papaya edible films incorporated with Moringa oleifera and ascorbic acid for food preservation,” Food Hydrocolloids 103(June), article 105630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.105630

Saharan, R., and Kharb, J. (2022). “Exploration of bioplastics: A review,” Oriental Journal of Chemistry 38(4), 840-854. https://doi.org/10.13005/ojc/380403

Saleem, J., Moghal, Z. K. B., Tahir, F., Al-Ansari, T., and McKay, G. (2025). “Assessing environmental impacts of various solvent-dissolution routes for the pelletization of mixed plastic waste,” Environmental Technology & Innovation 37, article 103903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2024.103903

Samrot, A. V., Samanvitha, S. K., Shobana, N., Renitta, E. R., Senthilkumar, P., Kumar, S. S., Abirami, S., Dhiva, S., Bavanilatha, M., Prakash, P., Saigeetha, S., Shree, K. S., and Thirumurugan, R. (2021). “The synthesis, characterization, and applications of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) and PHA-based nanoparticles,” Polymers 13(19), article 3302. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13193302

Scalia, F., Capparucci, F., Amico, M. D., Marino, M., Lamparelli, E. P., Longhitano, L., Giallongo, S., Falleti, R., Rappa, F., Iaria, C., Marino, F., Della Porta, G., Marino Gammazza, A., Bucchieri, F., Santoro, A., Cappello, F., and Szychlinska, M. A. (2025). “Toxic effects of biodegradable polylactic acid nanoplastics on developing zebrafish (Danio rerio),” Scientific Reports 15(1), article 38145. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-21849-y

Sharma, V., Sehgal, R., and Gupta, R. (2021). “Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA): Properties and modifications,” Polymer 212, article 123161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2020.123161

Sinan, M. (2020). “Bioplastics for sustainable development: General scenario in India,” Current World Environment 15(1), 24-28. https://doi.org/10.12944/cwe.15.1.05

Siracusa, V., and Blanco, I. (2020). “Bio-polyethylene (Bio-PE), bio-polypropylene (Bio-PP), and bio-poly(ethylene terephthalate) (Bio-PET): Recent developments in bio-based polymers analogous to petroleum-derived ones for packaging and engineering applications,” Polymers 12(8), article 1641. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12081641

Sivakanthan, S., Rajendran, S., Gamage, A., Madhujith, T., and Mani, S. (2020). “Antioxidant and antimicrobial applications of biopolymers: A review,” Food Research International 136, article 109327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109327

Sokra, I., and Meta, H. (2026). “Bioplastics in the circular bioeconomy: Production pathways, biodegradation mechanisms, and environmental implications,” Journal of Agriculture and Technology 2(2), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30986584.

Strnad, S., and Zemljič, L. F. (2023). “Cellulose–chitosan functional biocomposites,” Polymers 15(2), article 425. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15020425

Sunil Badgujar, Asthana, S., Ravindra Kanawade, Suthar, K., Solanki, A., Nagaraj, K., Mahaveer Singh Bilkhu, Harekrushna Sutar, and Panda, S. R. (2024). “Blown film extrusion process for polybags: Technical overview and applications,” Advances in Chemical Engineering and Science 14(04), 188-201. https://doi.org/10.4236/aces.2024.144012

Tamayo-Belda, M., Pulido-Reyes, G., González-Pleiter, M., Martín-Betancor, K., Leganés, F., Rosal, R., and Fernández-Piñas, F. (2022). “Identification and toxicity towards aquatic primary producers of the smallest fractions released from hydrolytic degradation of polycaprolactone microplastics,” Chemosphere 303, article 134966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134966

Tong, H., Zhong, X., Duan, Z., Yi, X., Cheng, F., Xu, W., and Yang, X. (2022). “Micro- and nanoplastics released from biodegradable and conventional plastics during degradation: Formation, aging factors, and toxicity,” Science of the Total Environment 833, article 155275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155275

Tulamandi, S., Rangarajan, V., Rizvi, S. S. H., Singhal, R. S., Chattopadhyay, S. Kr., and Saha, N. C. (2016). “A biodegradable and edible packaging film based on papaya puree, gelatin, and defatted soy protein,” Food Packaging and Shelf Life 10(December 2016, Pages 60-71), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2016.10.007

Tyagi, P., Agate, S., Velev, O. D., Lucia, L. A., and Pal, L. (2022). “A critical review of the performance and soil biodegradability profiles of biobased natural and chemically synthesized polymers in industrial applications,” Environmental Science & Technology 56(4), 2071-2095. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04710

Ubeda, S., Aznar, M., Rosenmai, A. K., Vinggaard, A. M., and Nerín, C. (2020). “Migration studies and toxicity evaluation of cyclic polyesters oligomers from food packaging adhesives,” Food Chemistry 311, article 125918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.125918

Udayakumar, G. P., Muthusamy, S., Selvaganesh, B., Sivarajasekar, N., Rambabu, K., Banat, F., Sivamani, S., Sivakumar, N., Hosseini-Bandegharaei, A., and Show, P. L. (2021). “Biopolymers and composites: Properties, characterization and their applications in food, medical and pharmaceutical industries,” Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9(4), 105322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105322

Von Vacano, B., Mangold, H., Vandermeulen, G. W. M., Battagliarin, G., Hofmann, M., Bean, J., and Künkel, A. (2023). “Sustainable design of structural and functional polymers for a circular economy,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 62(12), article 202210823. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202210823

Wang, L., Peng, Y., Xu, Y., Zhang, J., Zhang, T., Yan, M., and Sun, H. (2022). “An in situ depolymerization and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry method for quantifying polylactic acid microplastics in environmental samples,” Environmental Science & Technology 56(18), 13029-13035. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c02221

Wang, M., Li, Q., Shi, C., Jia Lv, Xu, Y., Yang, J., Shae Linn Chua, Jia, L., Chen, H., Liu, Q., Huang, C., Huang, Y., Chen, J., and Fang, M. (2023). “Oligomer nanoparticle release from polylactic acid plastics catalysed by gut enzymes triggers acute inflammation,” Nature Nanotechnology 18(4), 403-411. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-023-01329-y

Wei, X.-F., Bohlén, M., Lindblad, C., Hedenqvist, M., and Hakonen, A. (2021). “Microplastics generated from a biodegradable plastic in freshwater and seawater,” Water Research 198, article 117123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117123

Weiss, M., Haufe, J., Carus, M., Brandão, M., Bringezu, S., Hermann, B., and Patel, M. K. (2012). “A review of the environmental impacts of biobased materials,” Journal of Industrial Ecology 16, S169–S181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00468.x

Wilson, D. C. (2015). “Global waste management outlook,” United Nations Environment Program.

Xu, J., and Guo, B.-H. (2010). “Poly (butylene succinate) and its copolymers: Research, development, and industrialization,” Biotechnology Journal 5(11), 1149-1163. https://doi.org/10.1002/biot.201000136

Yang, J., Wang, H., Lou, L., and Meng, Z. (2025). “A review of chitosan-based electrospun nanofibers for food packaging: From fabrication to function and modeling insights,” Nanomaterials 15(16), article 1274. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano15161274

Yin, P., Dong, X., Zhou, W., Dongdong Zha, Xu, J., Guo, B., and Li, P. (2020). “A novel method to produce sustainable bio composites based on thermoplastic corn-starch reinforced by polyvinyl alcohol fibers,” RSC Advances 10(40), 23632-23643. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0ra04523c

Yoon, J., and Oh, M. K. (2022). “Strategies for biosynthesis of C1 gas-derived polyhydroxyalkanoates: A review,” Bioresource Technology 344, article 126307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126307

Yu, J., and Chen, L. X. L. (2008). “The greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy requirement of bioplastics from cradle to gate of a biomass refinery,” Environmental Science & Technology 42(18), 6961-6966. https://doi.org/10.1021/es7032235

Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., Li, X., Wang, W., Wang, P., Cheng, R., Liu, Y., Yu, C., and Wang, Y. (2025). “Environmental risks and regulatory gaps in bioplastics: A critical review of degradation pathways and ecosystem impacts,” Journal of Hazardous Materials: Plastics 2025, article 100010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazmp.2025.100010

Article submitted: March 13, 2026; Peer review completed: April 4, 2026; Revisions accepted: May 4, 2026; Published: May 7, 2026.

DOI: 10.15376/biores.21.3.Tabassum