Next generation bioplastics based on renewable resources and their potential applications

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), Page numbers to be added.

Abstract

Challenges associated with the recyclability and end-of-life management of plastics are leading to a search for more environmentally friendly alternatives. The amount of conventional plastic that is recycled represents a tiny percentage of what is made. Most is sent to landfills or simply accumulates in the environment, which presents a challenge due to the generation of micro- and nanoplastics. Next-generation bioplastics have emerged as an option in recent years. Polyhydroxyalkanoates, polylactic acid, thermoplastic starch, lignocellulosic biocomposites, protein-based materials, seaweed, among others, can be regarded as promising alternatives to conventional plastics. These materials are innovative; some, such as polylactic acid and thermoplastic starch, are already established in the market, while others have recently gained ground in various sectors, including lignocellulosic biocomposites in the automotive industry and bioplastics based on marine algae for food packaging. However, this transition should not be limited to replacement. The study analyzes recent advances in next-generation bioplastics, including classification and potential applications. The study also explores key challenges and regulatory perspectives.

Download PDF

Full Article

Next Generation Bioplastics Based on Renewable Resources and Their Potential Applications

Nanci Ehman ,^a,* Pamela S. Cuenca,^b María E. Vallejos,^a and M. Cristina Area ^a

DOI: 10.15376/biores.21.2.Ehman

Keywords: Biobased; Biodegradable; Polylactic acid; Thermoplastic starch; Cellulose derivatives; Seaweed-based materials; Protein-based materials; Polyhydroxyalkanoates

Contact information: a: PROCYP, IMAM, UNaM-CONICET, Félix de Azara 1552, Posadas, Argentina; b: GPE, IMAM, UNaM-CONICET, Félix de Azara 1552, Posadas, Argentina;

* Corresponding author: nanciehman@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION

The end-of-life of assorted plastic materials has increasingly become a source of concern due to their environmental repercussions. Nevertheless, even with these drawbacks, the demand for and production of plastics worldwide continues to grow (Fig.1). Approximately 90% of global plastic production currently is based on fossil resources (European Bioplastics 2024). As shown in Fig. 1 (European Bioplastics 2024; OECD 2022; Plastics Europe 2024), from the beginning, there was a significant annual growth in fossil plastic production. Nowadays, production has reached almost 500 million tons, and it is expected to continue growing (OECD 2024).

The most significant production increases are expected to occur in Asia, mainly in China and India (Dokl et al. 2024). The increase in production is due to the characteristics of plastics: inexpensive, resistant (durable), lightweight, moldable, good stability, and suitable mechanical properties. Some application sectors include the packaging industry (bags/sacks, bottles, wrapping, rigid or flexible) with high growth forecast, automotive (dashboards, fuel system parts, electrical components, interior parts), healthcare and medical (bags, tubing, gloves, implants), construction (pipes, flooring, insulation panels, window frames), electronics (laptops, phones, wire insulation, connectors), textile (sportswear, handbags, shoes, raincoats, jackets), agriculture (greenhouse and mulch films, drip irrigation systems), and aerospace (cabin interiors, aircraft windows, structural plane components) (Plastics Technology 2025).

Fig. 1. Plastics and bioplastics production. Figure elaborated using data extracted from (European Bioplastics 2024; OECD 2022; Plastics Europe 2024)

Plastics are divided into thermoplastics (once formed, can be remolded) and thermosets (once formed, cannot be remolded). Thermoplastic materials include polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), styrene acrylonitrile, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polyamide, polyethylene terephthalate, polyvinylchloride, and polycarbonate. Fossil-based PE in all types (HDPE: high-density polyethylene, LDPE: low-density polyethylene, LLDPE: linear low-density polyethylene, ULDPE: ultra low-density polyethylene, etc.) is the most produced thermoplastic (26.2% from total produced) (Plastics Europe 2024). Final applications for PE derivatives include thin films, packaging containers, molded parts, bottles, liquid tanks, boxes, pipes, cables, toys, laboratory equipment, health and medical accessories, irrigation, mulch films, etc. (Burelo et al. 2023). PE can be obtained from fossil resources or from biomass; the latter is called bioPE and is considered to be a bioplastic. The second most produced thermoplastic is PP (19% of total production) (Plastics Europe 2024) and is usually applied to produce films, bags, food packaging, car parts, houseware, etc. (Sutkar and Dhulap 2025).

The plastic manufacturing industry transforms resins into rigid or flexible options according to the final applications. Some processing options include injection, extrusion, compression, blown, or rotational molding, calendering, thermoforming, casting, and 3D printing. The applications are diverse, and in some cases, plastics are for single use. From the total plastic generated globally, 50% ends up in landfills, 22% are either lost during collection or openly dumped, and only 9% undergoes proper recycling (OECD 2022). With global recycling rates below 10%, it is important to find new solutions, such as the use of bioplastics. Bioplastics are materials that meet one or both requirements: being biobased (obtained from biomass), and/or biodegradable (material that can be converted into water, carbon dioxide, and compost by microorganisms in the environment).

Currently, bioplastics account for less than 1% of plastics production. However, there are reasons to expect increasing trends (Fig.1), especially when considering emerging regulations alongside conventional ones (European Bioplastics 2024). In recent years, next-generation bioplastics have emerged as an excellent option to reduce plastic pollution (Ehman and Area 2021), and specifically, some biobased and biodegradable options have a promising landscape. These include polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), thermoplastic starch (TPS), protein-based (from algae or animal origin), and cellulose-based materials.

BIOPLASTICS CLASSIFICATION

Figure 2 illustrates a gross classification of bioplastics based on their origin. Bioplastics can be classified according to their origin and degradability: fossil-based but biodegradable, biobased but non-biodegradable, or biobased and biodegradable (Ponce de León et al. 2025). The bioplastics industry is currently operating at just 60% of its production capacity. The market segments involve flexible and rigid packaging (45% of total applications), fibers, consumer goods, automotive and transport, agricultural, electrical, electronics, and coatings or adhesives, among others (European Bioplastics 2024). The bioplastics have attracted attention for their potential to mitigate environmental impact, although their integration into existing waste management systems remains complex.

The group of biobased bioplastics is composed of those whose carbon comes partially or totally from biomass (ASTM D6866, biobased content must be ≥50%) (ASTM D6866 2022), and whose chemical structure does not meet certified biodegradation standards (insufficient mineralization according to EN 13432 or ASTM D6400) (UNE 2001, ASTM D6400 2021).

Fig. 2. Bioplastics according to source and biodegradation

BioPE is obtained from ethylene monomer. The monomer can be produced from bioethanol, a product obtained by fermentation of different biological feedstocks (sugar cane, sugar beet, crops, wheat or other grains, and lignocellulosic materials) (Mendieta et al. 2020). Subsequent polymerization of ethylene yields different types of bioPE with properties similar to those of the conventional version (Siracusa and Blanco 2020). Biopolypropylene (bioPP) is obtained from isobutanol (also produced by fermentation), and the monomer is then synthesized by dehydration to bio-butylene. Finally, polymerization of bio-butylene produces bioPP (Siracusa and Blanco 2020). Biopolyethylene terephthalate (bioPET) is produced through the polymerization of two biobased monomers: biobased monoethylene glycol (from sugar cane) and terephthalic acid (a monomer obtained from p-xylene: isobutanol production via fermentation from biomass, followed by the three-step catalytic conversion of isobutanol to p-xylene via dehydration, dimerization, and dehydrocyclization). BioPET is highly versatile, as it can be processed and recycled using the same systems as standard PET (Louw et al. 2024). Biopoly(ethylene-co-isosorbide terephthalate) (bioPEIT) is a biobased polymer obtained from isosorbide (a biobased monomer derived from cellulose and starch), biobased ethylene glycol (from biobased bioethanol), and furanoic acid. Polymer is an excellent option for improving the mechanical and thermal properties of bioPET (Li et al. 2025).

Thermosets can also be obtained from biobased resources. Biobased epoxy resins have been produced from plant oils, linseed oil, lignin, vanillin, eugenol, resveratrol, tannic acid, magnolol, ferulic acid, etc. (Zhang et al. 2024). The cured epoxy resins derived from aromatic biobased compounds have been found to exhibit improved heat resistance compared to conventional epoxy resins (Bu et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2024). Biopolyurethane (bioPUR) was also previously produced by a one-pot method from biobased polyol (from thermomechanical liquefaction of pinewood shavings and Stipa tenacissima grass) (Silva et al. 2023).

Also, when a fossil-based material (biobased content <50%, ASTM D6866 2022) complies with certified biodegradability according to EN 13432 (UNE 2001), ASTM D6400 (2021), or ISO 17088 (2021) (≥90% mineralization in industrial composting), it is considered biodegradable. Polycaprolactone (PCL) is an aliphatic, petroleum-derived, biodegradable, and biocompatible polyester. PCL is degraded by microorganisms under different environmental conditions (soil, compost, aquatic). Biocompatibility enables the use of PCL in biomedical applications (Ntrivala et al. 2025). Polybutylene succinate (PBS) is synthesized by polycondensation between succinic acid and butanediol. PBS exhibits higher mechanical properties (tensile strength, flexural modulus) but similar thermal behavior to LDPE (Jiang and Zhang 2017). Polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) is an aliphatic-aromatic copolyester that shows higher chain stiffness than entirely aliphatic polyesters such as PCL and PBS due to the presence of terephthalic groups. The applications involve the packaging and agriculture sectors (Jiang and Zhang 2017). PBAT and PBS have been combined with PLA to form ternary blends that improve processability and mechanical properties for 3D printing and blown film extrusion (Chuakhao et al. 2024). Also, blending PBAT with PLA, PS, PBS, PHBV, and PHB improves mechanical and thermal properties without compromising the biodegradability of the mixture. However, in some cases, polymer incompatibilities have been reported, which is why plasticizers and compatibilizers such as malleated PBAT, epoxy-based chain extender Joncryl® ADR 4368, and dicumyl peroxide bis(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl) have been used (Dammak et al. 2020). Poly (vinyl alcohol) (PVOH) is obtained from a fossil source but is biodegradable (Asano 2024). PVOH, which is a water-soluble and non-toxic polymer, presents good chemical and mechanical stability, tuned hydrophilicity, emulsifying and adhesive properties, and excellent film- and fiber-forming ability (Filimon et al. 2025). The applications of PVOH include films for packaging, adhesives, sizing agents in textiles, coatings in the paper industry, wound dressings, drug delivery, tissue engineering, cement or concrete formulations (Asano 2024).

A third classification consists of biobased and biodegradable polymers. Biobased and biodegradable polymers are those renewable polymers that meet biodegradability criteria and offer technical improvements over conventional bioplastics (bio-based content ≥50%: ASTM D6866 (2022), and certified biodegradability: EN 13432 (UNE 2001) or ASTM D6400 (2022). Biobased and biodegradable options can be considered next-generation bioplastics for single-use applications because they can replace fossil-based plastics exhibiting similar physical, mechanical, thermal, and barrier properties but with high biodegradation.

NEXT-GENERATION BIOPLASTICS

A general classification involves two main categories: biomass-based bioplastics and those made from biological monomers, such as PLA (Pooja et al. 2023). Biomass-based sources (Fig. 3) include those derived from animal and vegetal proteins, polysaccharides, and microorganisms (most promising: PHAs).

Polysaccharides are naturally produced biopolymers that play essential roles in living organisms, serving as energy storage molecules and contributing to structural integrity. Polysaccharides from higher plants (starch and lignocellulosic) are the most used to produce bioplastics (Gamage et al. 2024). Polysaccharides also form a part of the structural component of the macroalgal cell wall and can be extracted using various techniques (Krishnan et al. 2024). Polysaccharide-based bioplastics have become promising alternatives to petroleum-derived plastics, demonstrating good film-forming performance with inherent biodegradability and susceptibility to enzymatic, microbial, and environmental degradation. In many cases, they are biocompatible, low-cost, widely available, present minimal environmental pollution at the end of their life cycle, rapidly degrade, or are even recyclable (Junaid et al. 2025). The most common derivatives of lignocellulosic products include biocomposites, although newer options involving chemical modifications to the main components (cellulose, lignin, hemicelluloses, extractives) are being explored.

Proteins are another option, and production involves extraction and purification followed by crosslinking, which can be physical, chemical, or enzymatic. Crosslinking modifies the mechanical and functional properties of protein-based bioplastics (Perez-Puyana et al. 2024). Animal protein sources have emerged as an excellent option because they can be obtained from cheese-production processes or from expired dairy products. The milk from cows and goats is composed primarily of 80% casein and 20% whey protein. In cheese production, casein is a key component; it coagulates, while the remaining whey is typically discarded (Chalermthai et al. 2019).

The third option is the microorganisms. PHAs accumulate in intracellular granules as typical intracellular products of secondary cellular metabolism. They serve as energy and carbon reserves, electron sinks, and protectors against stress when there is a high intracellular energy load, ample availability of natural sources of exogenous carbon, and a lack of additional growth factors such as nitrogen or phosphate sources. Therefore, PHAs increase, and the formation of catalytically active biomass is inhibited (Mukherjee and Koller 2023).

Fig. 3. Classification according to origin, routes, and obtained product for bioplastics from biomass

Poly(lactic acid)

PLA is a biobased and industrially compostable (EN 13432 and ASTM D6400 standards) polymer derived from lactic acid. This building block molecule is produced by microbial fermentation or chemical synthesis (Ramezani Dana and Ebrahimi 2023). There are two established routes for the synthesis of PLA from lactic acid: ring-opening polymerization and polycondensation.

Ring-opening polymerization occurs through cationic, anionic, coordination, or free-radical polymerization. Condensation polymerization, on the other hand, involves the elimination of small molecules such as water (Maharana et al. 2009). There are three forms of lactic acid: L-lactic acid, D-lactic acid, and racemic mixtures. Optically pure individual components are considered more valuable than racemic mixtures. Optically highly pure L-lactic acid is the most used form and the primary precursor of PLA. Then, the addition of optically pure D-lactic acid can modify the mechanical properties of PLA (Huang et al. 2021).

Based on D-lactic acid content, PLA is divided into three categories: poly(D-lactic acid) (PDLA), poly(L-lactic acid) (PLLA), and poly(DL-lactic acid) (PDLLA). PDLA is amorphous, and PLLA is semicrystalline. By increasing PLA crystallinity and decreasing molecular chain mobility, the elongation at break of the material decreases, while its tensile strength and modulus increase (Wu et al. 2023). PLLA has low D-content (<5%) (Wang et al. 2015), better thermal properties (Wu et al. 2023), and higher tensile and burst strength (Pölöskei et al. 2020). PLLA is recommended for injection molding and 3D printing. Commercial options (NatureWorks Ltd.) are 3100HP and 3260HP (both with D-content < 2%), 3251D (D-content: 1.4), 4032D (D-content: 1.4-2%) (Standau et al. 2020).

Figure 4 shows different PLA grades from NatureWorks (Mihai and Gendron 2016; Piontek et al. 2020; Standau et al. 2020; Xie et al. 2021; NatureWorks 2025a). Different grades are observed, with one showing an increase in melt flow rate (MFR, corresponding to a decrease in PLA’s molecular weight) and the other showing an increase in the crystalline melting temperature (which in turn reflects a decrease in the D isomer).

Fig. 4. NatureWorks PLA products and their common processing. Adapted from (Mihai and Gendron 2016; Piontek et al. 2020; Standau et al. 2020; Xie et al. 2021; NatureWorks 2025a)

The range follows from the amorphous component to the semicrystalline (low D content). For lower MFR (MFR<10), processability includes extrusion applications, stretch blow molding, bottle-grade fiber melt spinning, 3D printing monofilaments, oriented films, thermoforming, and, at some temperatures, foaming applications.

Then, as the MFR increases, applications shift towards injection molding (MFR>10), melt flow fiber, and spinning (MFR>30) (Mihai and Gendron 2016; NatureWorks 2025a; Piontek et al. 2020; Standau et al. 2020; Xie et al. 2021).

PLA is the most produced bioplastic in the world (910.000 tons per year, 37.1% of the total bioplastics produced). Packaging, textiles, medical supplies, agricultural products, and electronics are among the main applications of PLA (European Bioplastics 2024). This wide versatility is due to its properties. PLA has a specific gravity of 1.20 to 1.25 g/cm³, melting temperatures between 120 and 170 ºC, hardness of 80 to 90 HRA, elongations up to 10%, tensile strength between 50 and 70 MPa, etc. (Farah et al. 2016; Aloyaydi and Sivasankaran 2020; NatureWorks 2025b). Furthermore, the material is industrially compostable, biocompatible, and safe for food contact (Priyanka et al. 2023).

Poly(hydroxyalkanoates)

PHAs are a biobased, biocompatible, and biodegradable polyester family produced by microorganisms. The family group can be divided into two categories: short-chain (5 or fewer carbon atoms) and long-chain PHAs (6 to 14 carbon atoms) (Mai et al. 2024). The length of the chains confers the physical, mechanical, and biological characteristics. PHAs’ family is composed of those molecules with short-chain polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) and polyhydroxybutyrate‑co‑valerate (PHBV), and those with long-chain molecules such as polyhydroxyoctanoate (PHO), and polyhydroxybutyrate‑co‑hexanoate (PHBH).

Short-chain PHAs are typical thermoplastics with high tensile strength, low elongation at break, and crystallinity (excepting those with a high fraction of 4-hydroxybutyrate monomer, which is achiral). Long-chain PHAs are potential flexible elastomers and adhesive resins with low crystallinity, melting points close to room temperature (below the boiling point of water), and a remarkably low glass transition temperature, also below the freezing point of water (Koller et al. 2025).

The PHAs are produced from different prokaryotic microorganisms (Koller et al. 2010) (Fig. 5). PHB is the most representative molecule from the PHA family. It is highly crystalline and has limited processability. The limited processability is attributed to the proximity of the decomposition temperature (≈ 270 °C) to the melting point (≈ 180 °C).

However, these characteristics can be modified through the addition of alternative monomeric units, such as (R)-3-hydroxyvalerate (3HV) or achiral blocks 4-hydroxybutyrate (4HB), and 5-hydroxyvalerate (5HV). The achiral and building blocks confer potentially desirable characteristics to the polymer. The addition of building blocks into polyester chains requires expensive co-substrates (precursors) (Koller et al. 2010). These precursors are often toxic to the PHA-producing strain, and the dosage must be controlled. Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV), poly(3-hydroxy-butyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) (PHBHHX), and poly (-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-4-hydroxybutyrate) (P3HB4HB) are the main PHAs copolymers (Koller et al. 2010).

Carbon sources for PHAs production have been widely studied, and the type of PHA obtained depends primarily on the source used. The sources involve gases (methane, carbon dioxide), n-alcohols (methanol, ethanol, glycerol, octanol), n-alkanes (hexane, octane, dodecane), carbohydrates (glucose, fructose, sucrose, maltose, lactose, xylose, starch, cellulose), and n-alkanoic acids (acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, valeric acid, hexanoic acid, lauric acid, oleic acid) (Zhou et al. 2023).

Fig. 5. Images obtained by transmission electron microscopy of PHA granules accumulated inside the cytoplasm of different cyanobacteria. Extracted from (Pham et al. 2024). CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-nd/4.0/)

Thermoplastic Starch

TPS, or plasticized starch, is a next-generation bioplastic manufactured by plasticizing starch (corn, potato, tapioca, etc.) with plasticizers under high temperature and shear pressure. Starch plasticization is performed to improve its processability. Pure starch is not considered a thermoplastic polymer due to the strong inter- and intramolecular hydrogen bonds in amylose and amylopectin molecules. Therefore, when it is combined with plasticizers at temperatures between 90 and 180 ºC and low shear stress, the granular starch is destroyed by breaking hydrogen bonds, along with partial depolymerization of the starch backbone. As a result, the TPS melts and exhibits viscoelastic behavior, enabling processability during extrusion, injection, or blown molding (Zhang et al. 2014a). Plasticizers are added to pure starch in small quantities to ensure successful plasticization; below a minimum amount, there is what is called antiplasticization (which increases Young’s modulus and tensile strength, and decreases elongation), resulting in a more brittle material. Water, polyols, sugars, glycols, urea, amides, and amino acids can be used as plasticizers (Zhang and Han 2006).

TPS has potential as a next-generation bioplastic. It is biobased, biodegradable, non-toxic, presents easy processability, and is biocompatible. TPS exhibits oxygen barrier properties comparable to those of LDPE and ethyl vinyl alcohol, but poor mechanical properties (Müller et al. 2009; Bastarrachea et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2014a).

Moisture absorption and retrogradation are also significant challenges in the material. These lower values limit the application of plasticized starch in industry. To overcome these challenges, some options include selecting starch sources with a higher amylose content, using more efficient plasticizers, adding nanoclay or fiber, and blending with other polymers (Zhang et al. 2014b). The amylose/amylopectin ratio influences mechanical properties, film-forming capacity, oxygen and water vapor permeability, moisture absorption, and retrogradation (Zhang et al. 2014b).

Applications of TPS are in medical and pharmaceutical fields, packaging solutions, agriculture, and the food industry. Flexible TPS can be produced by solvent casting and extrusion-blown molding, whereas rigid TPS items can be made using extrusion-injection molding, thermoforming, and trough foams techniques (Surendren et al. 2022).

Lignocellulosic Biomass Derivatives

For years, lignocellulosic biomass components have been an alternative to conventional plastics. Paper and cardboard packaging, molded pulp, cellulose acetate, and microcrystalline cellulose have played a key role in numerous applications. However, the use of lignocellulosic derivatives shows additional potential through new products.

Derivatives of lignocellulosic components can be divided into their primary components: cellulose, lignin, hemicellulose, and extractives. Cellulose-based products involve several materials, including fiber pulp, cellulose acetate, methyl cellulose, regenerated cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, microcrystalline cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, nanocellulose (Peranidze et al. 2023), biocomposites, and glucose as a precursor for ethylene (Mendieta et al. 2020), lactic, succinic, itaconic, levulinic, and glucaric acids (Deng et al. 2016).

Lignin-based derivatives include lignin nanoparticles, phenolic resins, polyurethanes, epoxy thermosets, biocomposites, nanocomposites, foams, and adhesives (Alinejad et al. 2019). Hemicellulose-based derivatives can involve xylans and galactomannans with modified structure (Bigand et al. 2011). The xylose is a precursor for 2,5-furandicarboxylic and muconic acids, whereas arabinose is a precursor for ferulic, gallic, and coumaric acids; mannose is a precursor for lactic and succinic acids; and galactose is a precursor for lactic and itaconic acids (Deng et al. 2016). Finally, extractives-based derivatives are terpenes and condensed polyphenols (resins and adhesives). These include abietic acid (polyesters), phenols (epoxy monomers), oleic (plasticizers), gallic acid (crosslinkers), and stearyl alcohol (compatibilizer) (Fernández Sosa et al. 2024).

Cellulose is the most abundant polymer. It consists of D-glucopyranose units (10,000 to 15,000 units) linked by a covalent β-1,4-glycosidic bond via the -OH groups of the C4 and C1 carbon atoms, forming a linear, high-molecular-weight homopolymer. The -OH groups form intra- and intermolecular bonds, resulting in a semicrystalline structure. The molecular structure can adopt four crystalline forms (I, II, III, and IV) depending on the material source and the treatments applied. Cellulose I is sourced from plants, algae, tunicates, and bacteria. Cellulose II, the most stable form, can be produced by either regeneration or mercerization. Cellulose II has a monoclinic structure and is used to produce cellophanes, Rayon, and Tencel. Alkaline treatments of cellulose I and II obtain cellulose III. Cellulose IV is obtained by thermal treatment of cellulose III (Peranidze et al. 2023).

Nanocellulose

Nanocellulose refers to all varieties of cellulose-based nanomaterials obtained by bottom-up and top-down methods. The bottom-up method involves building the nanostructure from small molecules, as is the case with bacterial cellulose, while the top-down method starts with macroscale cellulose and uses various chemical or mechanical methods to produce a nanomaterial (Dufresne 2012). This review only discusses nanocellulose obtained through top-down methods (these allow the valorization of lignocellulosic biomass). Nanocellulose obtained by the top-down method is divided mainly into three types: cellulose nanocrystals, nanofibrillated cellulose, and microfibrillated cellulose.

Cellulose nanocrystals (CNC), also named as nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC), are a type of cellulose nanowhiskers presenting a pure crystalline structure, 3 to 10 nanometers (nm) wide and an aspect ratio >5 (TAPPI 2012). CNC can be produced by top-down processes from lignocellulosic resources (cellulose pulps, dissolving pulps, microcrystalline cellulose, or agricultural or industrial wastes). The conventional method for producing CNC involves acid hydrolysis (with strong mineral acids) treatment followed by ultrasonication. This treatment results in a highly crystalline nanostructure (Dagnino et al. 2025).

Nanofibrillated cellulose (NFC), also called cellulose nanofibrils (CNFs), is a type of cellulose that contains both crystalline and amorphous regions, with a width of 5 to 30 nm and an aspect ratio of > 50 (TAPPI 2012). NFCs are obtained by pure mechanical treatment or a combination of chemical and mechanical treatments. Oxidation of pulps with NaClO and NaBr, catalyzed by 2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidin-1-yl)oxyl (TEMPO), has been widely studied as a pretreatment to produce CNFs. The TEMPO-oxidation introduces carboxylate groups by substitution of -OH groups, thereby enhancing surface charge, dispersibility, and mechanical strength (Saito and Isogai 2004). In some cases, pure mechanical treatment results in a suspension with a majority of microfibrillated material and a smaller amount of nanofibrillar material. This material is called microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) or, in some cases, cellulose microfibril (CMF) (Lavoine et al. 2012). Figure 6 shows the methodology to produce MFC by mechanical fibrillation using a simple disk refiner.

Fig. 6. Methodology to produce MFC using a disk refiner

The suspension contains fibrils of different sizes; in addition, residual fiber is observed, indicating the coexistence of various sizes in the system. In addition to the disc refiner for micro- and nanofibrillation, other widely used equipment includes a high-pressure homogenizer, a MASUKO grinder, high-speed agitation with an Ultraturrax, and a colloid mill (Boufi et al. 2016).

Nanocellulose derivatives have high potential for use in several applications due to their surface functionalization, high reactivity, excellent mechanical strength, high hydrophilicity, and biocompatibility.

Cellulose-based thermoplastic composites

Cellulose-based biocomposites are materials that combine a thermoplastic matrix with lignocellulosic fibers or nanofibers, either as is or chemically modified. Also, other components can be added to optimize the mixture according to the final application: cellulose, nanocellulose (Ehman et al. 2025), silanes, maleic anhydride, and isocyanates (Lu et al. 2005), glycerol, sorbitol, citrate, or cellulose esters (Ahokas et al. 2025; Immonen et al. 2021), melt flow modifiers (Mazzanti and Mollica 2020), thermal retardants, calcium carbonate, kaolin clay, titanium oxide (Gwon et al. 2012), UV stabilizers, colors, pigments, antioxidants, and water repellence additives. Cellulose/nanocellulose primarily acts as a biobased mechanical reinforcement agent, enhancing dimensional stability, stiffness, tensile, impact, and compression strength (Table 1).

Table 1. Changes of Polymer Properties after Cellulose/nanocellulose Addition

The addition of 40% lignocellulosic fiber fillers to virgin or recycled HDPE, PP, or LDPE has increased mechanical strength (Samadam et al. 2022; Rodríguez-Fabià et al. 2023; Albedah et al. 2024). The strengths further increase with the addition of coupling agents or compatibilizers, as these agents improve matrix-fiber adhesion, leading to greater mechanical stability and reduced water absorption (Méndez et al. 2007). which may not be beneficial in extrusion lines. In some cases, some lubricants can also be added to increase the MFR. Fatty acids, esters, stearates, and silicones are common lubricants (Mazzanti and Mollica 2020). Factors from the masterbatch that influence the rheological behavior of biocomposites are cellulose fiber load and sizes, matrix molecular weight, temperature, lubricants, coupling additives, and other additives (Mazzanti and Mollica 2020).

A challenge in cellulose-based biocomposites is water absorption due to the hydrophilic nature of cellulose and its limited compatibility with polar polymers (Mohammed et al. 2022). Surface modification of cellulose/nanocellulose (physical and chemical) or the incorporation of water-repellent additives, such as hydrophobic agents, are some options to reduce water absorption. This aspect is interesting for applicability, especially if the biocomposite will be in contact with water or humidity.

In extrusion lines, cellulose fibers must be dried before the extrusion line entrance, and pulling a vacuum on the compounding extruder can help reduce moisture and volatile components that cause odor and, in some cases, color changes in the biocomposites (Markarian 2024a).

Protein-based Bioplastics

In the current market, with widespread interest in PHAs and PLA production, as well as new alternatives based on cellulose and starch, proteins have re-emerged with new options that can be adapted to the market. This is of considerable importance, as many organic wastes contain substantial amounts of protein, offering a strategic opportunity for their valorization. Protein-based bioplastics are produced from plant and animal resources. Emerging options include proteins derived from microalgae and insects, even industrial waste (Pastrana-Pastrana et al. 2025). Examples can be found in the oil industry (soybeans, canola, rapeseed, sunflower, peanuts, sesame, black cumin and cottonseed), dairy industry (cheese whey), animal processing (porcine blood plasma, fish skin gelatin, chicken feather keratin, fish myofibrillar protein), and cereal-based byproducts (corn gluten meal, rice protein, wheat dried distillers ‘grain, brewery spent grain) (Qazanfarzadeh and Kumaravel 2023). Proteins can be combined with other renewable materials to obtain maximized properties for flexible packaging (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7. Protein-based films reinforced with nanocellulose obtained in PROCYP. Film image courtesy Eng. Agustina Ponce de León

Proteins are composed of amino acids. They are synthesized and broken down by enzymes, and to obtain water-resistant protein bioplastics, it is necessary to cross-link amino acids with a specific enzyme (Basit et al. 2025). In addition, proteins can be combined with plasticizers, such as glycerol. The range of potential raw materials suitable to produce protein-based bioplastics is extensive. They produce biodegradable, edible, flexible, and thermoformable films (Cruz et al. 2022).

Table 2 summarizes the types, sources, commercial options, applications, and some advantages and limitations when protein-based materials are used. Protein films exhibit high biodegradability and good mechanical properties, though these are lower than those of many polysaccharide-based polymers such as starch and cellulose derivatives. Protein can form a good barrier to vapor permeation, but it has high water solubility, which limits its application in humid environments. It has good forming capacity and, being biocompatible, can be used in edible films for food (Bhaskar et al. 2023; Purewal et al. 2023).

Table 2. Advantages and Limitations of Protein-based Bioplastics

Like polysaccharide-based biopolymers, protein films offer ecological benefits, but their cost and scalability challenges pose threats that hinder market expansion. The evaluation of costs associated with whey protein bioplastics was around 4 USD/Kg, lower than PHB costs (5-11 USD/Kg) but higher than conventional plastic values (1.20 to 2 USD/Kg) (Chalermthai et al. 2020; Tassinari et al. 2023). A sensitivity analysis for whey protein bioplastic production concluded that the unit plastic selling price was the most sensitive parameter, followed by the amount of feedstock whey protein concentrate, and the number of batches in the process (Chalermthai et al. 2020).

Seaweed-based Materials

As renewable resources, seaweeds are a potential source for producing next-generation bioplastics due to their non-toxicity, biodegradability in the environment, antioxidant properties, and ability to form films (Kajla et al. 2024). Seaweed has a high content of hydrocolloids (agar, carrageenan, and alginate, which have gelling and film-forming properties) and a low content of cellulose and starch, but lacks lignin. The selection of seaweed species to use as a source depends on the characteristics searched: green seaweeds contain mainly starch and ulvan (a sulfated polysaccharide), brown seaweeds have mainly alginate, and red seaweed contain carrageenan and agar (Torrejon et al. 2025).

ADVANCES IN APPLICATIONS

The applications of next-generation plastics are currently being studied as replacements for conventional plastics. Some are still under investigation, while others are already emerging products on the market. This section provides the latest developments for each option.

Progress in PLA and PHAs Solutions

PLA has gained a place in the market with industrially compostable (packaging sector) and durable applications (good in automotive and electronics). The leading producers of PLA worldwide are NatureWorks LLC (USA), TotalEnergies Corbion (The Netherlands and Thailand), BASF SE (Germany), Futamura Group (Japan), and Biome Bioplastics (UK). Around early 2028, a collaboration between Emirates Biotech (UAE) and Sulzer is also expected to produce around 80,000 t/year of PLA. TotalEnergies Corbion, in partnership with Useon, announced the production of expanded PLA (EPLA) molded products for foam packaging applications. NatureWorks also announced a new grade of biaxially oriented PLA (BOPLA). BOPLA stretches up to 7 times its transverse axis in equipment designed initially for PP and can be used for food packaging (Markarian 2025).

Current applications for PLA include food packaging, the medical sector, textile fibers, 3D printing, agricultural solutions, thermoforming, construction, automotive, and toys, among others. The characteristics of PLA define its specific applications; for example, PDLA is used in 3D printing, and PLLA in medical implants. PLA has been used in the manufacture of 3D printing filaments, combined with reinforcing additives such as cellulose, pigments to impart color, additives to improve thermal resistance, and even minerals to reduce cost. Some objects that can be obtained include medical orthotic components, architectural prototypes, and custom-specified parts (Futerro 2025).

PLA/PHB blends have been applied to cosmetic packaging and even bottle caps. Despite the higher production cost of PLA compared to fossil-based plastics, companies have increased production for specific applications. Such a trend also has been observed, on a smaller scale, in the production of PHAs. In the flexible solutions space, Lummus and RWDC Industries have made progress in PHA production and are preparing the technology for global licensing (Eldridge 2024). Some applications for PHAs include medical devices, drug delivery systems, food packaging films, cosmetics, and agricultural solutions. The main characteristic of PHAs is their biodegradability in both soil and marine environments. However, their mechanical properties and thermal resistance are low; therefore, the incorporation of additives is necessary. In these cases, it is crucial to evaluate the influence of additives on biodegradation. A previous study on the biodegradation of 3D structures formed with PHB and cellulose fibers demonstrated that the addition of 20% thermomechanical cellulose fibers does not negatively affect their biodegradation (Ehman et al. 2021).

TPS in Agriculture and Food Packaging

The ease of processing and rapid biodegradation of TPS make it a good option in flexible and rigid applications. Table 3 summarizes some commercially available TPS-based products. These include pouches, bags, edible films, silage wraps, and mulch films are the commonly found options. Novamont (Italy) is the largest producer of TPS, with the MATER-Bi® family. The MATER-Bi® line of products is designed for packaging, agriculture, and waste-separation bags (Novamont 2025). The product is organized into series and grades, each for certain applications. For example, MATER-Bi® EF04P pellets (MFI:4g/10min) are recommended for flexible film blowing applications (Novamont 2019), while Mater-Bi® SE52F0 pellets (MFI:3g/10min) are recommended for sheet extrusion and thermoforming applications, including plates and food trays (Novamont 2025). A product with a higher MFI value, such as Mater-Bi® EI02A2 (MFI:17g/10min), is applied for injection molding applications (Novamont 2019b).

Table 3. Some Commercially Available TPS Products

Another producer of TPS bioplastics is AGRANA STARCH (Europe, USA), with its family composite product AGENACOMP®, a combination of AMITROPLAST® (TPS) and biodegradable polymers (e.g., PBAT) for flexible packaging films, injection mulch films, or 3D printing. The manufacturer demonstrated that a film composed of 50% TPS and 50% PBAT is biodegradable under home compost conditions (28 ºC or lower) (AGRANA STARCH 2021). The AGENACOMP® family includes several products: F30 (comparable to PE, recommended for mulch films), F40 (biobased content 33%), F50 (biobased content 40%), F51 (biobased content >50%), and F61 (biobased content >60%) (AGRANA STARCH 2025). AMITROPLAST® is also recommended for injection molding: food trays, cutlery, agricultural clips and guides, sanitary products, 3D printing, and plant plots (AGRANA STARCH 2021).

NuPlastiQ CG®, a family of products manufactured by BioLogiQ (Asia and USA) are based on TPS and recommended for blending with several biodegradable and non-biodegradable polymers: PLA, PHAs, PBAT, LLDPE, and PP. The differences between the different NuPlastiQ CG® marketed products are based on MFI (determined by ASTM D1238), for example, the NuPlastiQ CG® 1000 has an MFI of 6 g/10 min (170 ºC, 21.6 Kg) while the NuPlastiQ CG® 2040 has an MFI of 0.6 g/10 min (150 ºC, 10 Kg) (BioLogiQ 2025). A higher MFI is recommended for injection molding applications, while a lower MFI is ideal for extrusion and blow molding.

Rodenburg Bioplastics (The Netherlands) produces Solanyl®, FlourPlast® (masterbatches), and Optinyl® (compatibilizers). Solanyl® is based on TPS from starch recovered from secondary streams of the potato processing industry and on resources derived from grain, root, or seed flour. Solanyl® C1 is recommended for injection or compression molding; C2 for sheet or profile extrusion; and C8 for blown or cast film extrusion (Rodenburg Biopolymers 2025). BIOTEC (Germany) also produces the Bioplast GS family from potato starch, including TPS-based formulations combined with other polymers. Bioplast includes series for flexible film production, vertical form/film seals, blown film extrusion, coextrusion, flexible applications dedicated as core layers in coextrusion, etc. (BIOTEC 2025). Biome Bioplastics (UK) offers TPS resins derived from potato starch for mono- and co-ex blown film lines, injection molding, sheet extrusion, thermoforming, and coatings (Biome Bioplastics 2025). Cardia Bioplastics (Australia) designs hybrid TPS formulations to increase the biobased carbon content in conventional polymers. For example, Cardia BiohybridTM BL-F02, a homogeneous blend of TPS and PE, is recommended for thin- and thick-gauge film and blown-molding applications. Also, a Cardia Compostable B-F12 version is a blend of TPS and PBAT (Cardia Bioplastics 2025).

Lignocellulosic Biocomposites

The production of biocomposites combining polymers with lignocellulosic materials has increased in recent years. Cellulose fibers, nanocellulose, and lignin are versatile when combined with HDPE, LDPE, PP, PLA, PHAs, and other polymers. Masterbatches based on high cellulose fiber loads are currently combined with virgin or recycled PP and PLA.

Skylo processes plastic and paper waste from industries and municipalities, then separates it into different fractions. The paper waste is subsequently converted into reinforcing additives for masterbatches used in the plastics industry. Syklocomp pellets are composed of 60 to 70% recycled cellulose fibers (Skylo 2025). FlexForm Technologies produces biocomposites based on PP and 50% natural fibers from annual crops to produce automotive parts, including doors, consoles, ceilings, and other panels (FlexForm Technologies 2025). Norske Skog produces pellets composed of 60% thermomechanical fibers from Norway spruce, combined with rPP and PLA, in a 300 ton/year pilot plant for injection molding, 3D printing, and extrusion applications. UPM also produces UPM Formi biocomposite, with 50% of cellulose filler content and PLA for injection molding, extrusion, and 3D printing applications (Markarian 2024a).

Depending on the type of matrix polymer used, biocomposite pellets can be used for short- or long-term products. In some cases, the goal is to reduce water absorption for a specific application. In these cases, the OH groups in cellulose can be chemically modified by esterification or grafting with hydrophobic reagents (Markarian 2024a). UPM developed a combination of thermoplastics and thermosets, such as BioMotion^TM, a renewable functional filler. These additives are produced inside UPM biorefinery (Germany), an establishment that also produces renewable monoethylene glycol and monopropylene glycol from hardwoods. The additive can be incorporated into thermoplastics as a masterbatch for injection molding, compression molding, blow molding, thermoforming, film blowing, and 3D printing (Markarian 2024a; UPM 2025). Lignin powder was also combined with PLA at 30% on a pilot scale (adapted for KraussMaffei Extrusion) to produce pellets with enhanced flexural, tensile modulus, and thermal properties. Lignin Industries produces Renol® lignin masterbatches for combination with LDPE, polypropylene, and ABS in applications such as flexible packaging, electronics, and construction (Markarian 2025).

Additives used in biocomposites are mainly derived from fossil sources. Therefore, a challenge for producers of next-generation bioplastics is to develop bio-based, biodegradable solutions. The need has been observed in PLA, which requires additives to enhance its melt strength for plastic conversion processes, as well as its flexibility and impact strength for end-use applications. For example, in PLA and other bioplastics, some options include BYK’s SCONA TPPL-grafted PLA and BioStrength Arkema (Markarian 2024a). Ourobio (USA) uses residual sugars and proteins from food and agricultural processing streams as raw materials to co-produce PHAs and biodegradable pigments in a fermentation bioreactor.

The researchers found that during PHA production, a secondary reaction occurred: the proteins were converted into pigment precursors and, ultimately, into indigo pigments. The microbes can be modified to produce a full palette of colors. Indigo and its derivatives are thermostable at the temperatures used in plastics processing, and in initial benchtop twin-screw extruder tests, they were able to blend the pigments into PHA mixtures, producing red, blue, and purple, along with the PHAs. Therefore, an alternative pigment emerges to replace existing inorganic ones (Markarian 2024b).

Success Stories from Lab to the Market: Protein and Seaweed-based

Flexible and rigid packaging, edible films, and paper coatings are some of the most common applications of protein-based plastics (Fig. 8). Several producers of protein-based plastics have transitioned from laboratory scale to market, achieving success stories but also facing challenges that remain.

Xampla (UK) uses plant-based proteins (peas, potatoes, and rapeseed) to produce water-soluble edible films and paper coating (Morro^TM). Morro is ready to replace polyvinyl alcohol plastic films with dishwasher tablets and detergent pods, and food container films. Furthermore, it can be used as a coating on paperboard (Xampla 2025). Traceless (Germany) produces a plastic-replacement product made from proteins extracted from vegetal waste (Traceless®). The product can be processed in standard injection molding machines, achieving good flowability at low temperatures to produce rigid packaging, as a coating on paper, and in familiar cast- and blow-film production lines (Traceless 2025). CareTips® pellets are made by Lactips (France) from casein and are suitable for injection molding, blown extrusion, and extrusion (Lactips 2025).

Notpla, B’Zeos, Noriware, and Kelpi are successful examples of seaweed-based packaging. Notpla has redesigned liquid packaging solutions through encapsulation with a completely edible material (NotPla 2025).

Fig. 8. (a) Solutions from casein and whey proteins, (b) films prepared from the solutions, and (c) strawberries coated with solutions. Extracted from (Fematt-Flores et al. 2022): CC BY license. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

TOWARDS A PARADIGM SHIFT IN BIOPLASTICS

The paradigm shift in next-generation bioplastics not only involves replacing materials, but also reconfiguring an entire system: production, consumption, and waste management. The participation of all stakeholders (society, industry, and government) is crucial. Innovation and industry through development of scalable technologies and products, society from knowledge and responsible practices, and finally government using regulatory frameworks, development of integral systems (promoting circularity), and incentives to the society and industry.

Reconfiguration Instead of Replacement

Bioplastics have been developed as replacements for conventional plastics, reducing the use of fossil resources while maintaining their properties. Now, considering the possibility that bioplastics can act as a catalyst to reorganize or reconfigure systems opens new horizons in systems design. One strategy for achieving this reconfiguration is to consider the current challenges associated with bioplastics. The first significant challenge for bioplastics production is that higher production costs are incurred to achieve products with properties similar to those of a fossil based one. The replacement strategy focuses on scaling up production and supporting it with regulations or subsidies to balance prices. However, if the goal includes system reconfiguration, it should head towards expanding the functionality of the bioplastic. Bioplastics should not only replicate the role of fossil plastics but also provide new properties. For example, expanded functionality at the end of the life cycle, such as controlled biodegradation in single-use options, nutrient release in agriculture, and integration with the human body in medical solutions.

Another challenge is environmental problems associated with fossil-based, non-biodegradable plastics. Replacement is the use of biobased, compostable, or biodegradable plastics. Reconfiguration is the design of a closed production cycle (waste is reintegrated into the process, emissions are minimized, and new value chains are fostered through circularity). This approach transforms the linear model into a circular one. In the case of single-use packaging, it is not enough to choose biodegradable options; it is important also to consider packaging designed for industrial composting, single-material recycling, and resource recovery (compost, energy). If the material returns to the soil or water, then one should aim for controlled biodegradation in environments that provide nutrients. For example, such a strategy could be used for difficult-to-manage medical and agricultural waste. Functional reconfigurations could involve implants that degrade in the body, bioabsorbable sutures, mulching films that nourish the soil, and slow-release fertilizer capsules.

Challenges posed by fossil dependence are addressed through biobased sources. But the reconfiguration promotes the integration of agro/forest-industrial wastes into existing production lines. It diversifies raw material sources and leverages previously discarded byproducts.

The Role of Innovation in the Paradigm Shift

Innovation in the reconfiguration of the system for the inclusion of bioplastics encompasses not only technological and productive development but also influences of actors in society, including political and regulatory aspects. In this respect, it is possible to visualize the most critical actors in each case: research centers (universities, institutes), the government, society, and the productive sector. Innovation appears in the development of new bioplastics, the use of new resources, and the optimization of methodologies to produce these products.

Innovation also allows for the reconfiguration of industrial processes, making them more flexible in producing these products, developing technologies, creating infrastructure or systems proper at the end of the product life cycle, and generating public-private partnerships.

The government can improve consumer trust by using transparent labeling, controlling greenwashing, using regulatory frameworks, and evaluating producers and consumer responsibility. Finally, it promotes and educates citizens, enabling them to participate actively in the transition.

Investment and Flexibility in Industry

The opportunities for conventional plastics industries to produce bioplastics can follow a temporal distribution and will depend on the level of investment required. In some cases, existing machinery can be used, with only modifications to the operating conditions; therefore, this is considered a short-term change. For example, HDPE films can be converted into PLA.

In the medium term, modifications to current equipment are required, while in medium- to long-term scenarios, adaptation involves both adjustments and the incorporation of existing machinery. This group, for example, could include industries that use recycled resins and wish to incorporate lignocellulosic fibers. In that case, they will require specific equipment for fiber drying and additional hopper systems to feed the materials into the extruder. Finally, in the long term, plastic substitutions require the development of more complex, automated, custom-designed equipment.

Regulatory Perspectives: What’s Regulated and What’s Missing

Currently, regulatory perspectives present several challenges, including a lack of specific definitions, inconsistent international standards, poor management of materials after their useful life, and environmental concerns.

The standards differ across countries and even jurisdictions, creating confusion among consumers. This aspect is more evident in low-income countries, underscoring the need to develop international standards. The EU has demonstrated a rational integration in the development of terms and definitions among its member countries. Some countries use these definitions in their regional regulations.

Also, the lack of knowledge about the components involved in bioplastic materials is another existing gap, particularly regarding the damage to the environment and the human body. The EU has regulations on the import of components containing bioplastics and conventional plastics into its member states. In other countries, regulations are more focused on food packaging. Many countries base their rules on EU standards and even FDA guidelines.

The inefficient handling of materials at the end of their useful life cycle is another existing problem. Inadequate composting or recycling systems, especially in low-income countries, limit the effectiveness of bioplastics systems. In some cases, problems arise from inconsistent labeling rules that lead to greenwashing and contamination of recycling streams. Policies that integrate bioplastics into circular-economy strategies could create an efficient system. Governments are exploring Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, subsidies to communes, and education to address this problem. This last point is of relative importance considering a growing market for bioplastics.

SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

The evaluation of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for next-generation materials is particularly relevant because it enables a comprehensive assessment of their overall sustainability, avoiding conclusions based solely on their biobased and biodegradable characteristics. In LCA, the environmental impact categories are expressed as specific category indicators (like characterization factors) for quantification. Several studies have evaluated the LCAs of next-generation plastics such as PLA, PHAs, TPS, cellulose-based biocomposites, etc., against conventional plastics, assessing the different impacts such as global warming potential (GWP) or carbon footprint, eutrophication, potential acidification, photochemical oxidant formation, aquatic/terrestrial ecotoxicity, human toxicity, cumulative energy demand, abiotic resource use, biotic resource use, and ozone depletion potential (Banerjee and Ray 2022).

An interesting study in the packaging sector was conducted by Desole et al. 2024, who evaluated fresh pasteurized milk bottles using LCA analysis. The evaluation compared a PET (bottle: PET, cap: HDPE, and label: LDPE) and PLA (bottle: PLA, cap: PLA, and label: PLA) options (500 mL bottle). The cradle-to-gate impacts showed that the PLA bottle reduced cumulative energy demand (by 30.9%) and net GWP (by 9.7%) compared to the fossil-based bottle. These advantages depend largely on how biogenic carbon is accounted for and the agricultural impacts associated with corn cultivation. When agricultural emissions are included and CO₂ credits are excluded, the environmental superiority of PLA decreases significantly (with the GWP being 15% higher for the PLA bottle), revealing that its performance is not inherently better than PET, that it is necessary to optimize the processes, and that the actual sustainability of biopolymers depends as much on agriculture as on the methodological decisions of the LCA. The effect of process optimization is also observed in PHAs, where the material shows good end-of-life performance. However, its cradle-to-gate impact can be high if biotechnological processes are not optimized, leading to high energy consumption (Desole et al. 2024).

A comparative study between PLA and PHAs demonstrated that PLA generally shows better cradle-to-gate results because its industrial production is more optimized and consumes less energy. However, its dependence on crops can increase impacts on land use and eutrophication. PHAs stand out for their actual biodegradability in natural environments and for their excellent end-of-life performance. On the contrary, their production is more expensive and energy-intensive, which can increase their environmental footprint in the early stages (Álvarez-Chávez et al. 2012).

Another interesting study was performed by Surendren et al. (2024), who evaluated the comparative LCA of different plasticization and co-plasticization processes of corn starch. The aim was to identify how plasticizers affect the environmental performance of the entire process. The analysis considered both the production of the plasticizing agents and the energy stages involved in starch transformation. The cradle-to-gate analysis evaluated for 4 routes: 1) used glycerol and water as plasticizers (conventional ones), 2) used glycerol, water, and urea (co-plasticizer), 3) used glycerol, water, and citric acid (co-plasticizer), and 4) used glycerol, water, and succinic anhydride (co-plasticizer). Glycerol-citric acid and glycerol-succinic anhydride systems exhibited environmental profiles like those of the traditional glycerol process, positioning them as viable alternatives from a sustainability perspective. However, the glycerol-urea process resulted in significant environmental impacts, primarily associated with its elaboration and additional energy consumption. The energy sensitivity analysis also showed that qualitative reductions in energy consumption significantly decrease the impacts on GWP, carcinogenicity, ecotoxicity, and fossil fuel depletion. Therefore, the results showed that plasticizer selection and energy efficiency are critical variables in the sustainable design of starch-based materials (Surendren et al. 2024).

Cradle-to-gate LCA was also performed in a protein system (Chalermthai et al. 2021). An LCA analysis of whey protein obtained from dairy wastes evaluated the impacts associated with several process stages: obtaining the residual whey, protein recovery and purification, chemical modification or polymerization, and shaping of the bioplastic. The study focused on the environmentally advantageous alternative of using whey protein as a raw material, rather than conventional dairy waste management, and finally, the production of plastics derived from fossil fuels. The analysis considered GWP, energy use, eutrophication, acidification, and toxicity. The use of whey to produce biopolymers has significantly reduced the environmental burden associated with its disposal as waste. However, the pretreatment, protein purification, and polymerization processes have significant impacts, primarily due to energy consumption, and therefore require optimization (Chalermthai et al. 2021).

Lignocellulosic biocomposites LCAs have been extensively studied in recent years due to a growing interest from the industry to incorporate lignocellulosic fibers as a reinforcement agent in thermoplastic matrices. Foroughi et al. (2021) identified that cellulose can be positioned as a low-carbon material. However, its performance depends critically on the biomass source, the energy intensity of processing, forest or agricultural management, and integration into circular systems. In nanocellulose production, the authors found that the most significant impacts are primarily concentrated in the cultivation/extraction stages, the chemical/mechanical pretreatments, and in the energy-intensive refining processes (Foroughi et al. 2021). Banerjee and Ray (2022) noted that lignocellulosic fibers incorporated into fossil and biobased polymers have significantly lower environmental impacts than synthetic reinforcements. The reason is attributed to their renewable origin and, in many cases, their availability as industrial byproducts. The authors reported that these lignocellulosic fibers can improve the environmental performance of thermoplastic composites by lowering the carbon footprint per functional unit, particularly when combined with biobased matrices. However, their sustainability also depends on factors such as the type of pretreatment, the biomass source, and the processing efficiency (optimize the energy and water consumption) (Banerjee and Ray 2022).

FUTURE OUTLOOK

Despite numerous studies on next-generation bioplastics, some challenges and gaps remain. In PLA bioplastics, improving end-of-life management, reducing the agricultural impact of carbon sources, and achieving greater energy efficiency in production are some current challenges. These issues can be addressed by improving regulations for recycling and composting management systems, optimizing production processes through integration, such as the application of biorefineries, and using agricultural or forestry biomass waste as a carbon source. In the case of PHAs, it is still important to reduce the impact of pretreatment/biomass and process energy. This will enable future profitability during scale-up and reduce product costs, making it more competitive. For biomass-derived bioplastics, challenges related to production and polymer properties still need to be addressed. Reducing energy and water consumption, along with enhancing fractionation, extraction, and purification, can be achieved through integrated systems such as biorefineries, which not only produce bioplastics but also generate other high-value products. The moisture resistance in biomass-derived bioplastics, such as starch or cellulose derivatives, can be increased by mixing them with other more hydrophobic polymers or through chemical modifications.

FINAL REMARKS

Next-generation bioplastics are a key alternative for reducing the consumption of fossil-based plastics. Despite the promising biobased and biodegradable options, it is essential to understand that this shift isn’t simply about replacement, but rather a paradigm shift across the entire supply chain and involving all stakeholders.

The materials offer advantages in carbon footprint, but their impact on agriculture remains significant. Furthermore, the availability of composting and recycling infrastructure is limited, reducing their true environmental potential, which demonstrates the need for a shift in the current paradigm. Optimizing processes, using lignocellulosic waste as raw material, incorporating renewable energy into production, and implementing more robust end-of-life management systems are viable solutions.

Challenges remain, but collaborative action between society, regulatory bodies, and industry will enable significant changes and improved management to support the growing market for these materials.

REFERENCES CITED

AGRANA STARCH (2021). “Thermoplastic starch made in Austria,” <https://www.agrana-bioplastics.com/> (Dec. 20, 2025).

AGRANA STARCH (2025). “AGENACOMP® your home-compostable bio-based polymer for flexible packaging,” <https://www.agrana-bioplastics.com/products/#agenacomp> (Dec. 20, 2025)

Ahokas, P., Kunnari, V., Majoinen, J., Harlin, A., and Mäkelä, M. (2025). “Plasticizer mixing improved regenerated cellulose films as an alternative to plastics,” ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 13(28), 10771-10779. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.5c00491

Albedah, A., Abdo, H. S., Mohammed, S. M. A. K., Bouiadjra, B. A. B., Al-Ghurabi, E. H., and Alothman, O. Y. (2024). “Potential of recycled polypropylene: A study on effect of natural fiber on the morphology and properties of biocomposite,” Journal of King Saud University – Science 36(5), article 103167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2024.103167

Alinejad, M., Henry, C., Nikafshar, S., Gondaliya, A., Bagheri, S., Chen, N., Singh, S., Hodge, D., and Nejad, M. (2019). “Lignin-based polyurethanes: Opportunities for bio-based foams, elastomers, coatings and adhesives,” Polymers 11(7), article 1202. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym11071202

Aloyaydi, B. A., and Sivasankaran, S. (2020). “Low-velocity impact characteristics of 3D-printed poly-lactic acid thermoplastic processed by fused deposition modeling,” Transactions of the Indian Institute of Metals 73(6), 1669-1677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12666-020-01952-6

Álvarez-Chávez, C. R., Edwards, S., Moures-Eraso, R., and Geiser, K. (2012). “Sustainability of bio-based plastics: General comparative analysis and recommendations for improvement,” Journal of Cleaner Production 23(1), 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.003

Asano, S. (2024). “Polyvinyl alcohol: A comprehensive overview,” Advanced Materials Science Research 7(5), 199-200.

ASTM D6400 (2021). “Standard specification for labeling of plastics designed to be aerobically composted in municipal or industrial facilities,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM D6866 (2022). “Standard test methods for determining the biobased content of solid, liquid, and gaseous samples using radiocarbon analysis,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

Banerje, R., and Ray, S. S. (2022). “Sustainability and life cycle assessment of thermoplastic polymers for packaging: A review on fundamental principles and applications,” Macromolecular Materials and Engineering 307(6), article 2100794. https://doi.org/10.1002/mame.202100794

Basit, M., Saleem, A., Zehra, S. M., Zahra, T., and Majeed, T. (2025). “Separating facts and fictions for biodegradability of bioplastics,” Discover Sustainability 6(1), article 947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01062-7

Bastarrachea, L., Dhawan, S., and Sablani, S. S. (2011). “Engineering properties of polymeric-based antimicrobial films for food packaging: A review,” Food Engineering Reviews 3(2), 79-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12393-011-9034-8

Bhaskar, R. Z., Zo, S. M., Narayanan, K. B., Purohit, S. D., Gupta, M. K., and Han, S. S. (2023). “Recent development of protein-based biopolymers in food packaging applications: A review,” Polymer Testing 124, article 108097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2023.108097

Bigand, V., Pinel, C., Da Silva Perez, D., Rataboul, F., Huber, P., and Petit-Conil, M. (2011). “Cationisation of galactomannan and xylan hemicelluloses,” Carbohydrate Polymers 85(1), 138-148. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.02.005

BioLogiQ (2025). “Products NuPlastiQ® BioPolymers,” <https://www.biologiq.com/products/> (Dec. 20, 2025).

Biome Bioplastics (2025). “Product ranges. Intelligent plastics, naturally,”

< https://biomebioplastics.com/product-ranges/> (Dec 20, 2025)

BIOTEC (2025). “Our Products,” <https://www.biotec.de/company/> (Dec. 20, 2025).

Boufi, S., González, I., Delgado-Aguilar, M., Tarrés, Q., Pélach, M. Á., and Mutjé, P. (2016). “Nanofibrillated cellulose as an additive in papermaking process: A review,” Carbohydrate Polymers 154, 151-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.07.117

Bu, M., Zhang, X., Zhou, T., and Lei, C. (2022). “Fully bio-based epoxy resins derived from magnolol and varying furan amines: Cure kinetics, superior mechanical and thermal properties,” European Polymer Journal 180, article 111595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2022.111595

Burelo, M., Hernández-Varela, J. D., Medina, D. I., and Treviño-Quintanilla, C. D. (2023). “Recent developments in bio-based polyethylene: Degradation studies, waste management and recycling,” Heliyon 9(11), article e21374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21374

Cardia Bioplastics (2025). “Products,” <https://www.cardiabioplastics.com/products/> (Dec. 20, 2025).

Chalermthai, B., Ashraf, M. T., Bastidas-Oyanedel, J. R., Olsen, B. D., Schmidt, J. E., and Taher, H. (2020). “Techno-economic assessment of whey protein-based plastic production from a co-polymerization process,” Polymers 12(4), article 847. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12040847

Chalermthai, B., Chan, W. Y., Bastidas-Oyanedel, J. R., Taher, H., Olsen, B. D., and Schmidt, J. E. (2019). “Preparation and characterization of whey protein-based polymers produced from residual dairy streams,” Polymers 11(4), article 722. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym11040722

Chalermthai, B., Giwa, A., Schmidt, J. E., and Taher, H. (2021). “Life cycle assessment of bioplastic production from whey protein obtained from dairy residues,” Bioresource Technology Reports 15, article 100695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2021.100695

Chuakhao, S., Rodríguez, J. T., Lapnonkawow, S., Kannan, G., Müller, A. J., and Suttiruengwong, S. (2024). “Formulating PBS/PLA/PBAT blends for biodegradable, compostable packaging: The crucial roles of PBS content and reactive extrusion,” Polymer Testing 132, article 108383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2024.108383

Cruz, R. M. S., Krauter, V., Krauter, S., Agriopoulou, S., Weinrich, R., Herbes, C., Scholten, P. B. V., Uysal-Unalan, I., Sogut, E., Kopacic, S., Lahti, J., Rutkaite, R., and Varzakas, T. (2022). “Bioplastics for food packaging: environmental impact, trends and regulatory aspects,” Foods 11(19), article 3087. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11193087

Dagnino, E.P., Ehman, N., and Area, M.C. (2025). “Recent advances in cellulose nanocrystal production from green methods,” Processes 13(3), article 790. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13030790

Dammak, M., Fourati, Y., Tarrés, Q., Delgado-Aguilar, M., Mutjé, P., and Boufi, S. (2020). “Blends of PBAT with plasticized starch for packaging applications: Mechanical properties, rheological behaviour and biodegradability,” Industrial Crops and Products 144, article 112061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.112061

Deng, W., Wang, Y., and Yan, N. (2016). “Production of organic acids from biomass resources,” Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 2, 54-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2016.10.002

Desole, M. P., Gisario, A., Fedele, L., and Barletta, M. (2024). “Life cycle assessment (LCA) and multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) of eco-friendly packaging for dairy products and fourth range,” Procedia CIRP 122, 927-932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2024.02.032

Dokl, M., Copot, A., Krajnc, D., Fan, Y. Van, 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

Dufresne, A. (2012). Nanocellulose: From Nature to High Performance Tailored Materials, Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, Berlin/Boston. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110254600

Ehman, N., and Area, M. C. (2021). “Bioplastics are revolutionizing the packaging industry,” BioResources 16(3), 4663-4666. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.16.3.4663-4666

Ehman, N., Ponce De León, A., Felissia, F., Vallejos, M., Area, M. C., and Chinga-Carrasco, G. (2021). “Biocomposites of polyhydroxyalkanoates and lignocellulosic components: A focus on biodegradation and 3D printing,” in: Bioplastics for Sustainable Development, Springer Singapore, Singapore, 325-345. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1823-9_13

Ehman, N., Rodríguez‐Fabià, S., Andreassen, E., Persson, A. M. R., and Chinga‐Carrasco, G. (2025). “Effect of thermomechanical pulp fibers and clay on the characteristics of high‐ and low‐density polyethylene biocomposites,” Polymer Composites 46(11), 10460-10473. https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.29632

Eldridge, D. (2024). “Pushing the envelope of bio-based plastics,” Film & Sheet Extrusion, January/February: 15-23.

European Bioplastics (2024). “Bioplastics market development update 2024,” <https://www.european-bioplastics.org/bioplastics-market-development-update-2024/> (Oct. 15, 2025)

Farah, S., Anderson, D. G., and Langer, R. (2016). “Physical and mechanical properties of PLA, and their functions in widespread applications — A comprehensive review,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 107, 367-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2016.06.012

Fematt-Flores, G. E., Aguiló-Aguayo, I., Marcos, B., Camargo-Olivas, B. A., Sánchez-Vega, R., Soto-Caballero, M. C., Salas-Salazar, N. A., Flores-Córdova, M. A., and Rodríguez-Roque, M. J. (2022). “Milk protein-based edible films: Influence on mechanical, hydrodynamic, optical and antioxidant properties,” Coatings 12(2), article 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12020196

Fernández Sosa, E. I., Ehman, N., Felissia, F. E., Chaves, M. G., and Area, M. C. (2024). “Progress and potentialities in wood extractives-based materials for active food packaging applications,” Food Bioscience 60, article 104489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2024.104489

Filimon, A., Dobos, A. M., Onofrei, M. D., and Serbezeanu, D. (2025). “Polyvinyl alcohol-based membranes: A review of research progress on design and predictive modeling of properties for targeted application,” Polymers 17(8), article 1016. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym17081016

FlexForm Technologies. (2025). “FlexForm is the lightweight champion of the world,” <https://flexformtech.com/Auto/> (Oct. 30, 2025).

Foroughi, F., Ghomi, E. R., Dehaghi, F. M., Borayek, R., and Ramakrishna, S. (2021). “A review on the life cycle assessment of cellulose: From properties to the potential of making it a low carbon material,” Materials 14(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14040714

Futerro (2025). “For a more sustainable future,” <https://www.futerro.com/about-pla/pla-vs-traditional-plastics/> (Nov. 15, 2025).

Gamage, A., Thiviya, P., Liyanapathiranage, A., Dilini Wasana, M. L., Jayakodi, Y., Bandara, A., Manamperi, A., Dassanayake, R. S., Evon, P., Merah, O, and Madhujith, T. (2024). “Polysaccharide-based bioplastics: Eco-friendly and sustainable solutions for packaging,” Journal of Composites Science 8(10), article 413. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs8100413

Gwon, J. G., Lee, S. Y., Chun, S. J., Doh, G. H., and Kim, J. H. (2012). “Physical and mechanical properties of wood–plastic composites hybridized with inorganic fillers,” Journal of Composite Materials 46(3), 301-309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998311413690

Huang, S., Xue, Y., Yu, B., Wang, L., Zhou, C., and Ma, Y. (2021). “A review of the recent developments in the bioproduction of polylactic acid and its precursors optically pure lactic acids,” Molecules 26(21), article 6446. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26216446

Immonen, K., Willberg-Keyriläinen, P., Ropponen, J., Nurmela, A., Metsä-Kortelainen, S., Kaukoniemi, O.-V., and Kangas, H. (2021). “Thermoplastic cellulose-based compound for additive manufacturing,” Molecules 26(6), article 1701. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26061701

ISO (2021). “Plastics — Organic recycling — Specifications for compostable plastics (ISO 17088:2021),” < https://www.iso.org/standard/74994.html> (Feb 20, 2026)

Jiang, L., and Zhang, J. (2017). “Biodegradable and biobased polymers,” in: Applied Plastics Engineering Handbook, Elsevier, pp. 127-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-39040-8.00007-9

Junaid, P. M., Saikumar, A., Islam, R. U., Patel, M. K., Eranda, D. H. U., Islam, M., Zaide, S., and Badwaik, L. S. (2025). “Polysaccharide-based biopolymers: Exploring film fabrication techniques, molecular interactions, and their potential food applications,” Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops & Foods 17(4), 257-283. https://doi.org/10.15586/qas.v17i4.1581

Kajla, P., Chaudhary, V., Dewan, A., Bangar, S. P., Ramniwas, S., Rustagi, S., and Pandiselvam, R. (2024). “Seaweed-based biopolymers for food packaging: A sustainable approach for a cleaner tomorrow,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 274, article 133166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.133166

Krishnan, L., Ravi, N., Mondal, A. K., Akter, F., Kumar, M., Ralph, P., and Kuzhiumparambil, U. (2024). “Seaweed-based polysaccharides – Review of extraction, characterization, and bioplastic application,” Green Chemistry 26, 5790-5823. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3GC04009G

Koller, M., Atlić, A., Dias, M., Reiterer, A., and Braunegg, G. (2010). “Microbial PHA production from waste raw materials,” in: Plastics from Bacteria, Springer Nature, 85-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03287-5_5

Koller, M., Heeney, D., and Mukherjee, A. (2025). “Biodegradability of polyhydroxy-alkanoate (PHA) biopolyesters in nature: A review,” Biodegradation 36(4), article 76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10532-025-10164-y

Lactips. (2025). “CareTips®: 100% natural and designed to build a sustainable future,” <https://www.lactips.com/en/natural-polymer/> (Nov. 15, 2025).

Lavoine, N., Desloges, I., Dufresne, A., and Bras, J. (2012). “Microfibrillated cellulose – Its barrier properties and applications in cellulosic materials: A review,” Carbohydrate Polymers 90(2), 735-764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.05.026

Li, D., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Xu, Y., Zhang, X., and Hakkarainen, M. (2025). “Designing biobased poly(ethylene- co -isosorbide terephthalate) copolyesters with tunable properties and degradability,” Biomacromolecules 26(4), 2304-2316. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.4c01630

Louw, J., Farzad, S., and Görgens, J. F. (2024). “Production of biobased polyethylene terephthalate and its precursors for diversification in the global sugarcane industry,” 210, article 109404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2024.109404

Lu, J. Z., Negulescu, I. I., and Wu, Q. (2005). “Maleated wood-fiber/high-density-polyethylene composites: Coupling mechanisms and interfacial characterization,” Carbon 12(1), 125-140.

Maharana, T., Mohanty, B., and Negi, Y. S. (2009). “Melt–solid polycondensation of lactic acid and its biodegradability,” Progress in Polymer Science 34(1), 99-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2008.10.001

Mai, J., Kockler, K., Parisi, E., Chan, C. M., Pratt, S., and Laycock, B. (2024). “Synthesis and physical properties of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA)-based block copolymers: A review,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 263, article 130204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.130204

Markarian, J. (2024a). “Earth story: Innovations in natural fibres and fillers,” Compounding World (May), 15-22.

Markarian, J. (2024b). “The development of pigments with purpose,” Compounding World (September), 17-25.

Markarian, J. (2025). “Widening scope for bioplastic materials,” Compounding World (November), 27-32.

Mazzanti, V., and Mollica, F. (2020). “A review of wood polymer composites rheology and its implications for processing,” Polymers 12(10), article 2304. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12102304

Méndez, J., Vilaseca, F., Pélach, M. Á., López, J., Barberá, L., Turon, X., Gironés, J., and Mutjé, P. (2007). “Evaluation of the reinforcing effect of ground wood pulp in the preparation of polypropylene-based composites coupled with maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene,” Journal of Applied Polymer Science 105, 3588-3596. https://doi.org/10.1002/app

Mendieta, C. M., Vallejos, M. E., Felissia, F. E., Chinga-Carrasco, G., and Area, M. C. (2020). “Review: Bio-polyethylene from wood wastes,” Journal of Polymers and the Environment 28, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-019-01582-0

Mihai, M., and Gendron, R. (2016). “Extrusion foaming of polylactide,” in: Polymeric Foams: Innovations in Processes, Technologies, and Products, L. Shau-Tarng (ed.), CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.

Mohammed, M., Rahman, R., Mohammed, A. M., Adam, T., Betar, B. O., Osman, A. F., and Dahham, O. S. (2022). “Surface treatment to improve water repellence and compatibility of natural fiber with polymer matrix: Recent advancement,” Polymer Testing 115, article 107707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2022.107707

Mukherjee, A., and Koller, M. (2023). “Microbial polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) biopolymers – Intrinsically natural,” Bioengineering 10(7), article 855. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10070855

Müller, C. M. O., Laurindo, J. B., and Yamashita, F. (2009). “Effect of cellulose fibers addition on the mechanical properties and water vapor barrier of starch-based films,” Food Hydrocolloids 23(5), 1328-1333. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2008.09.002

NatureWorks (2025a). “Resources Technical Documents”, <https://www.natureworksllc.com/resources?tags=fbf5e27a42144a05aaced0d2fdc23667> (Dec. 10, 2025)

NatureWorks. (2025b). “IngeoTM Biopolymer 4043D Technical Data Sheet,” <https://www.natureworksllc.com/resources?query=4043D> (Dec. 10, 2025)

NotPla (2025). “The liquid packaging revolution”, <https://www.notpla.com/> (Dec. 10, 2025)

Novamont (2019a). “Technical data sheet Mater-Bi® EF04P,” <https://www.esenttia.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/EF04P-versione-2.0-EN.pdf> (Dec. 20, 2025)

Novamont. (2019b). “Technical data-sheet Mater-Bi® EI02A2,” < https://www.esenttia.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/EI02A2-versione-1.0-EN.pdf> (Dec.20, 2025)

Novamont (2025). “MATER-BI can provide unique solutions to specific environmental challenges across a wide range of application sectors,” <https://www.novamont.com/eng/mater-bi-sectors-of-application> (Dec. 20, 2025)

Ntrivala, M. A., Pitsavas, A. C., Lazaridou, K., Baziakou, Z., Karavasili, D., Papadimitriou, M., Ntagkopoulou, C., Balla, E., and Bikiaris, D. N. (2025). “Polycaprolactone (PCL): the biodegradable polyester shaping the future of materials – A review on synthesis, properties, biodegradation, applications and future perspectives,” European Polymer Journal 234, article 114033. DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2025.114033

OECD. (2022). Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/de747aef-en

OECD. (2024). Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Pastrana-Pastrana, Á. J., Rodríguez-Herrera, R., Solanilla-Duque, J. F., and Flores-Gallegos, A. C. (2025). “Plant proteins, insects, edible mushrooms and algae: more sustainable alternatives to conventional animal protein,” Journal of Future Foods 5(3), 248-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfutfo.2024.07.004

Peranidze, K., Safronova, T. V., and Kildeeva, N. R. (2023). “Electrospun nanomaterials based on cellulose and its derivatives for cell cultures: Recent developments and challenges,” Polymers 15(5), article 1174. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15051174

Perez-Puyana, V. M., Cortés-Triviño, E., Jiménez-Rosado, M., Romero, A., and Martínez, I. (2024). “Pea protein-based bioplastics crosslinked with Genipin: Analysis of the crosslinking evolution,” J. Polym. Environ. 32, 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-023-02973-0

Pham, T. T. H., Nguyen, T. L. A., Duong, T. T., Doan, O. T., Tran, H. T. T., and Tran, L. T. T. (2024). “Selection of microalgae and cyanobacteria to produce polyhydroxy-alkanoates (PHAs) – A case study in Vietnam,” Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 10, article 100808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2024.100808

Piontek, A., Vernaez, O., and Kabasci, S. (2020). “Compatibilization of poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and bio-based ethylene-propylene-diene-rubber (EPDM) via reactive extrusion with different coagents,” Polymers 12(3), article 605. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12030605

Plastics Europe (2024). “Plastics – the fast Facts 2024,” <https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-fast-facts-2024/> (Oct. 10, 2025)

Plastics Technology (2025). “Which industries rely most on plastic? A deep dive,” <https://www.plastics-technology.com/articles/which-industries-rely-most-on-plastic-a-deep-dive> (Oct. 10, 2025)

Pölöskei, K., Csézi, G., Hajba, S., and Tábi, T. (2020). “Investigation of the thermoformability of various D‐Lactide content poly(lactic acid) films by ball burst test,” Polymer Engineering & Science 60(6), 1266-1277. https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.25378

Ponce de León, A., Ehman, N., Curi, L. M., Vallejos, M. E., and Area, M. C. (2025). “Exploring the potential of nanocellulose-reinforced polyhydroxyalkanoate biocomposites for single-use food packaging. A review,” Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites. https://doi.org/10.1177/07316844251350230

Pooja, N., Chakraborty, I., Rahman, Md. H., and Mazumder, N. (2023). “An insight on sources and biodegradation bioplastics: A review,” 3 Biotech 13, article 220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-023-03638-4

Priyanka, S., Namasivayam S., K. R., Bharani R. S., A., and John, A. (2023). “Biocompatible green technology principles for the fabrication of food packaging material with noteworthy mechanical and antimicrobial properties – A sustainable developmental goal towards the effective, safe food preservation strategy,” Chemosphere 336, article 139240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139240

Purewal, S. S., Kaur, A., Bangar, S.P., Singh, P., and Singh, H. (2023). “Protein-based films and coatings: An innovative approach,” Coatings 14(1), article 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14010032

Qazanfarzadeh, Z., and Kumaravel, V. (2023). “Hydrophobisation approaches of protein-based bioplastics,” Trends in Food Science & Technology 138, 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2023.06.002

Ramezani Dana, H., and Ebrahimi, F. (2023). “Synthesis, properties, and applications of polylactic acid‐based polymers,” Polymer Engineering & Science 63(1), 22-43. https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.26193

Rodenburg Biopolymers. (2025). “Products,” Rodenburg Biopolymers, <https://biopolymers.nl/biopolymer/> (Dec. 20, 2025).

Rodríguez-Fabià, S., Zarna, C., and Chinga-Carrasco, G. (2023). “A comparative study of kraft pulp fibres and the corresponding fibrillated materials as reinforcement of LDPE- and HDPE-biocomposites,” Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing 173, article 107678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2023.107678

Saito, T., and Isogai, A. (2004). “TEMPO-mediated oxidation of native cellulose. The effect of oxidation conditions on chemical and crystal structures of the water-insoluble fractions,” Biomacromolecules 5(5), 1983-1989. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm0497769

Samadam, A., Vallepalli, R., Neeraj Kumar, K., Sreekanth, M., and Raman Goud, R. (2022). “Mechanical properties evaluation and behaviour of cellulose-HDPE composite,” Materials Today: Proceedings 62, 3405-3410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.271

Silva, T. A. R., Marques, A. C., Dos Santos, R. G., Shakoor, R. A., Taryba, M., and Montemor, M. F. (2023). “Development of biopolyurethane coatings from biomass-derived alkylphenol polyols—A green alternative,” Polymers 15, article 2561. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15112561

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

Skylo (2025). “Syklocomp offers advanced technology for reinforced materials,” < https://syklo.com/products/biocomposite/> (Oct. 10, 2025)

Standau, T., Long, H., Murillo Castellón, S., Brütting, C., Bonten, C., and Altstädt, V. (2020). “Evaluation of the zero shear viscosity, the d-content and processing conditions as foam relevant parameters for autoclave foaming of standard polylactide (PLA),” Materials 13(6), article 1371. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13061371

Surendren, A., Hasan, Y., Mohanty, A. K., Abbassi, B., and Misra, M. (2024). “Comparative environmental life cycle assessment on corn starch plasticization and co-plasticization processes,” Sustainability 16(17), article 7406. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177406

Surendren, A., Mohanty, A. K., Liu, Q., and Misra, M. (2022). “A review of biodegradable thermoplastic starches, their blends and composites: Recent developments and opportunities for single-use plastic packaging alternatives,” Green Chemistry 24(22), 8606-8636. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2GC02169B

Sutkar, P. R., and Dhulap, V. P. (2025). “Advancements in polypropylene biodegradation: A comprehensive microbial and analytical review,” Sustainable Chemistry for the Environment 9, article 100213. DOI: 10.1016/j.scenv.2025.100213

TAPPI (2012). “TAPPI WI-3021: Standard terms and their definitions for cellulose nanomaterial,” Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry.

Tassinari, G., Bassani, A., Spigno, G., Soregaroli, C., and Drabik, D. (2023). “Do biodegradable food packaging films from agro-food waste pay off? A cost-benefit analysis in the context of Europe,” Science of The Total Environment 856, article 159101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159101

Torrejon, V. M., Fernando, S., Roy, U. K., Onwukwe, U., and Anguilano, L. (2025). “Transforming seaweed into bioplastics: A review of cultivation, harvesting and processing methods,” Applied Phycology 6(1), 52-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/26388081.2024.2435035

Traceless (2025). “An innovative natural biomaterial technology,” <https://www.traceless.eu/materials> (Nov. 30, 2025).

UNE (2001). “Envases y embalajes. Requisitos de los envases y embalajes valorizables mediante compostaje y biodegradación. Programa de ensayo y criterios de evaluación para la aceptación final del envase o embalaje (UNE-EN 13432:2001),” < https://www.une.org/encuentra-tu-norma/busca-tu-norma/norma?c=N0024465> (Feb 20, 2026)

UPM (2025). “BioMotionTM RFF Product Portfolio,” <https://www.upmbiochemicals.com/renewable-functional-fillers/current-product-range/> (Nov. 30, 2025).

Wang, Y., Zhang, H., Li, M., Cao, W., Liu, C., and Shen, C. (2015). “Orientation and structural development of semicrystalline poly(lactic acid) under uniaxial drawing assessed by infrared spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction,” Polymer Testing 41, 163-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2014.11.010

Wu, Y., Gao, X., Wu, J., Zhou, T., Nguyen, T. T., and Wang, Y. (2023). “Biodegradable polylactic acid and its composites: Characteristics, processing, and sustainable applications in sports,” Polymers 15(14), article 3096. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15143096

Xampla (2025). “Morro^TM Materials,” <https://xampla.com/morro-materials/> (Nov. 30, 2025).

Xie, S., Sun, Z., Liu, T., Zhang, J., Li, T., Ouyang, X., Qiu, X., Luo, S., Fan, W., and Lin, H. (2021). “Beyond biodegradation: Chemical upcycling of poly(lactic acid) plastic waste to methyl lactate catalyzed by quaternary ammonium fluoride,” Journal of Catalysis 402, 61-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcat.2021.08.032

Zhang, Y., and Han, J. H. (2006). “Plasticization of pea starch films with monosacchar-ides and polyols,” Journal of Food Science 71(6). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00075.x

Zhang, Y., Liu, X., Wan, M., Zhu, Y., and Zhang, K. (2024). “Recent development of functional bio-based epoxy resins,” Molecules 29(18), article 4428. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29184428

Zhang, Y., Rempel, C., and Liu, Q. (2014a). “Thermoplastic starch processing and characteristics—A review,” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 54(10), 1353-1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2011.636156

Zhang, Y., Rempel, C., and McLaren, D. (2014b). “Thermoplastic starch,” in: Innovations in Food Packaging, Elsevier, pp. 391-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394601-0.00016-3

Zhou, W., Bergsma, S., Colpa, D. I., Euverink, G.-J. W., and Krooneman, J. (2023). “Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) synthesis and degradation by microbes and applications towards a circular economy,” Journal of Environmental Management 341, article 118033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118033

Article submitted: January 2, 2026; Peer review completed: January 31, 2026; Revised version received: February 24, 2026; Accepted: February 26, 2026; Published: March 6, 2026.

DOI: 10.15376/biores.21.2.Ehman