Polymer Testing 116 (2022) 107803

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Polymer Testing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/polytest

Overview of the mechanical, thermal and barrier properties of biobased

and/or biodegradable thermoplastic materials
Herman de Beukelaer, Marieke Hilhorst, Yarek Workala, Evelien Maaskant, Wouter Post *
Wageningen Food and Biobased Research, Bornse Weilanden 9, 6708 WG, Wageningen, the Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study gives an overview of the most relevant processing and performance properties of a wide selection of
Biopolymers biobased and biodegradable plastic materials that are currently commercially available. It provides the most
Biodegradable polymers extensive and up-to-date scientific overview of critical properties of biobased and biodegradable plastics. Ma­
Mechanical properties
terials that are tested include fully biobased polymers (polylactic acid, polyethylene, polyamide 10,10 and a
Thermal properties
Barrier properties
range of polyhydroxy alkanoates), partially biobased polymers (polybutylene succinate, polybutylene succinate
adipate, cellulose acetate, cellulose acetate propionate, polyethylene terephthalate, polytrimethylene tere­
phthalate, an isosorbide based polycarbonate, a thermoplastic urethane and a starch based blend) and a number
of fossil-based materials (polycaprolactone, polybutylene adipate terephthalate, polyglycolic acid and poly­
propylene). The mechanical (tensile, flexural, impact resistance and hardness), thermal (glass transition tem­
perature, melting temperature, melt-flow index and haul-off force) and barrier (oxygen transmission rate, water
vapour transmission rate) properties of all these materials were measured and are presented in a comprehensive
overview. This overview shows that the majority of functionalities that are currently being offered by fossil based
polymers can be met by biobased alternatives and by biodegradable materials if this is considered to be
favourable at end-of-life.

1. Introduction lead to an increased market uptake of biobased plastics in the years to

come.
In 2018 the European commission presented their European Strategy In general biobased plastics can be either direct molecular copies of
for Plastics in a Circular Economy in which one of the key ambitions is the polymer that they are aiming to replace (drop-in plastics) or new
the decoupling of plastic materials and products from fossil feedstock polymers that have their own unique molecular build-up which is
[1]. To realize these ambitions and maintain the advantages that plastic largely governed by the source material that is used as feedstock [7].
materials bring to applications such as food packaging products, These new polymers give rise to a specific set of material properties, and
clothing and building materials it will be crucial to recycle the upon being processed into plastics this leads to different product func­
fossil-based plastics that are already on the market in a much more tionalities compared to the current fossil based state-of-the-art [8]. Some
efficient manner. However, even in the most optimal configuration of of these new polymers outperform fossil based plastics or bring new
recycling infrastructure it will be impossible to fully close the loop and functionalities to the table. One of the most prominent examples of a
therefore the input of virgin plastic material into the technosphere is new functionality is the ability to be converted to water, carbon dioxide
inevitable [2]. In order to prevent new fossil based plastics from entering and minerals by fungi or bacteria, i.e. material biodegradation [9].
the system, plastics from biobased feedstock will have to be used instead For a successful transition to a circular biobased materials economy
[3,4]. In the past decades many new production routes to produce it is crucial that it is clear which functional requirements new bio-based
plastic materials from biobased resources were developed and at present plastics can fulfil compared to those materials and products that are used
these materials are approaching the market [5,6]. Although the current in todays linear and fossil based materials economy. Upon introducing
market volume is lower than one percent it is expected that continued new materials into existing value chains, much resistance is typically
developments and legislation impacting the use of fossil resources will observed from stakeholders in these value chains as the use of new

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (W. Post).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2022.107803
Received 1 July 2022; Received in revised form 6 September 2022; Accepted 22 September 2022
Available online 4 October 2022
0142-9418/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
H. de Beukelaer et al. Polymer Testing 116 (2022) 107803

materials poses risks and uncertainties in both the production and offset The 21 polymer types selected in this study can be subdivided into 6
of their products. In order to demonstrate which functionalities a new different categories based on whether they are made from (partially)
plastic material can fulfil and what its drawbacks and benefits are, biobased or fossil-based resources and whether they are reported to be
suppliers generate detailed technical datasheets that show the me­ susceptible for biodegradation. The polymers included in this study,
chanical, thermal and barrier properties of their products which are categorized in their respective category, are depicted in Fig. 1.
typically determined following ISO, ASTM or other certified standard Fig. 1 shows that this study includes eight fully biobased polymers of
methodologies. Nevertheless, data presented in individual datasheets which three are not susceptible to biodegradation being: high-density
and academic studies remains difficult to compare as typically only a polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and a poly­
selected number of material properties are reported and the interna­ amide 10,10 (PA). Four polymer types that are both fully biobased and
tional standards most often indicate a range of test conditions to be used. biodegradable in various environments were included in this study being:
On top of that, the data generated by material characterization will al­ polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), poly (3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydrox­
ways vary based on the type of equipment used, environmental condi­ yvalerate) (PHBV), poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate)
tions and even the experimentalists performing the measurements. (PHBH) and polylactic acid (PLA). Multiple polymers within the PHA
To overcome these issues and aid the biobased plastics transition, family have been selected (PHB, PHBV, PHBH) as they belong to a highly
this study gives an overview of the most relevant mechanical, thermal versatile class of polymers with a wide range of mechanical, thermal and
and barrier properties of the 20 most prominent biobased and biode­ barrier properties. For this reason two different PHBH polymers with 6%
gradable polymer types that are currently commercially available. In and 11% of hexanoate co-monomer embedded in their backbone
2018, Jost already published an overview of properties relevant for respectively were included as well. It is important to note that the
packaging applications of 16 biobased plastics [10]. This study reports a biodegradation of materials is a system property which results from the
more extensive overview by investigating a wider range of materials and interaction between the material properties of the plastic and the biotic
properties that are also relevant for other applications such as textiles, and abiotic conditions of the environment in which it biodegrades. This
foams and rigid plastics. In total 21 different plastic polymers with a implies that the environment in which biodegradation occurs always
broad range of properties and functionalities were selected as repre­ needs to be taken into account [11,12]. For example, PHB, PHBV and
sentative materials for the polymer class they belong to. It has to be PHBH are certified biodegradable in various environments such as soil,
noted that many more specific polymer modifications exist within the sea and both home and industrial composting [13]. PLA on the other hand
biobased plastics domain, each with its own unique set of properties. is only certified biodegradable under industrial composting conditions,
However, the authors believe the selection in this study will give a good but in this specific environment its biodegradation rate is faster than any
general depiction of the differences that exist between different classes other commercially available biodegradable polymer up to date [14].
of biobased plastics resulting in the most extensive, coherent and Fig. 1 furthermore shows cellulose acetate propionate (CAP), poly­
up-to-date overview of critical properties of biobased and biodegradable ethylene terephthalate (PET), polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT), an
plastics that is currently available in scientific literature. isosorbide based polycarbonate (PC) and a thermoplastic urethane

Fig. 1. Overview of the 21 polymers that are investigated in this study categorized based on the nature of the feedstock used for production and their susceptibility to
biodegradation in a relevant timescale and environment.

2
H. de Beukelaer et al. Polymer Testing 116 (2022) 107803

(TPU) as materials that are only in part made of biobased feedstock and Sumitomo Demag IntElect 2 with a screw speed of 250 rpm. Tensile bars
are not biodegradable. Cellulose acetate (CA), polybutylene succinate were produced conform ISO527-2 and impact bars were produced
(PBS), polybuytlene succinate adipate (PBSA) and a specific thermo­ conform ISO 294. Sheets with a thickness of 100 μm were prepared via
plastic starch based blend material (TPBblend) represent those materials sheet extrusion using a Dr. Collin teach line E20T single screw extruder
that are partially biobased and biodegradable in specific environments. with a 15 cm wide sheet die and a screw speed within the range of 30–60
Polycaprolactone (PCL), polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) and rpm. The respective maximum temperatures for drying, injection
polyglycolic acid (PGA) are materials that biodegrade in soil and under moulding and sheet extrusion for each material are depicted in Table 2.
composting conditions that are currently made from fossil-based re­
sources. Even though polypropylene (PP) is both fossil based and non-
biodegradable it is included in this work as it is one of the most used 2.3. Mechanical characterization
industrial plastic material in the world today and as such it is valuable to
compare its properties with those of the biobased and biodegradable Tensile tests were performed following ISO 527-2 using a Zwick
materials investigated. In addition, it is anticipated that it will be Z010 all-round tester which was equipped with a Zwick Multi-extens
possible to produce PP, PCL, PGA and PBAT from biobased feedstock in extensometers. Prior to testing the samples were climatized for at least
the upcoming decades as many research initiatives on these topics are 1 week at 20 ◦ C and 50% relative humidity (RH). Samples were tested at
currently on-going within both industry and academia [15]. an initial speed of 1 mm/min in order to determine the elastic properties
after which the test speed was accelerated to 100 mm/min to identify
2. Experimental the plastic deformation of the materials. The materials with an elonga­
tion at break below 15% were also tested at 10 mm/min and this in­
2.1. Materials formation is shown in supplementary information S1.The distance
between the clamps was set at 55 mm and extensometer distance was set
The polymers that were characterized in this study and their supplier at 25 mm. A total number of 5 samples were tested per investigated
are depicted in Table 1. material.
3-point bending tests were performed following ISO 178 using a
Zwick Z010 all-round tester. Prior to testing the samples were climatized
2.2. Material processing for at least 1 week at 20 ◦ C and 50% RH. The injection moulded samples
are placed on a support with a distance of 64 mm and a radius of 5 mm.
All moisture sensitive polymers were dried least 8 h in a Gerco two- The nose radius was 5 mm. Samples were tested at an initial speed of 2
chamber dry-air desiccant dryer (TTM 2/100 ES, Gerco Kunstofftechnik mm/min in order to determine the elastic properties after which the test
GmbH, Warendorf, Germany) to achieve moisture contents below 250 speed was accelerated to 10 mm/min to identify the plastic deformation
ppm prior further processing. Injection moulding was performed with a of the materials up to a maximum of 12%. A total number of 5 samples
were tested per investigated material.
Table 1 The Charpy impact tests were performed following ISO 179-1eU for
Overview of biobased and biodegradable polymers tested in this study. unnotched and ISO 179-1eA for notched samples using a Ceast 9050
Abbreviation Polymer type Commercial Supplier impact tester. Prior to testing the samples were climatized for at least 1
name week at 20 ◦ C and 50% RH. Notched samples were prepared using a
CA Cellulose acetate Biograde® C FKUR notch with a radius of 0.25 mm (Notch A). The samples are subjected to
9550 an energy of 4J. The force of the impact is measured and the impact
CAP Cellulose acetate TREVA™ Eastman
resistance of the sample is calculated. A total number of 5 samples were
propionate TR6011NAT
HDPE High density I’m green™ Braskem
tested per investigated material.
polyethylene SHA7260 Shore hardness tests were performed following ISO 868 using both a
LDPE Low density polyethylene I’m green™ Braskem Zwick Shore A and Symex Shore D tester. Prior to testing the samples
STN7006
PA Polyamide 10,10 VESTAMID® Evonik
Terra DS16 Table 2
PBAT Poly(butylene adipate- ecoflex® F Blend BASF Drying and maximum processing temperatures for the commercial available
co-terephthalate) C1200 biobased and biodegradable plastics included in this study.
PBS Poly(butylene succinate) BioPBS™ FZ91 PTTMCC
Polymer Drying Injection moulding Sheet extrusion
PBSA Poly(butylene succinate- BioPBS™ FD92 PTTMCC
temperature (◦ C) temperature (◦ C) temperature (◦ C)
co-adipate)
PC Polycarbonate DURABIO™ 3D Mitsubishi CA 83 220 220
containing isosorbide print filament Chemical CAP 83 225 225
PCL Polycaprolactone Capa™ 6500 Ingevity HDPE – 190 255
PET Poly(ethylene RAMAPET N180 Indorama LDPE – 195 200
terephthalate) PA 83 220 220
PGA Poly(glycolic acid) Extrusion grade PJCHEM PBAT 83 190 190
PHB Poly(hydroxybutyrate) ENMAT Y3000 PHARADOX by PBS 83 195 190
Helian Polymers PBSA 83 195 190
PHBH6 Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate- Aonilex® X131A Kaneka PC 83 235 235
co-3-hydroxy-hexanoate) PCL 40 160 160
PHBH11 Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate- Aonilex® X151A Kaneka PET 120 280 285
co-3-hydroxy-hexanoate) PGA 120 228 240
PHBV2 Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate- ENMAT Y1000 PHARADOX by PHB 83 180 180
co-3-hydroxy-valeriate) Helian Polymers PHBH6 83 170 170
PLA Poly(lactic acid) Luminy® LX175 Total Corbion PHBH11 83 170 170
PP Polypropylene DH789.01 Braskem PHBV2 83 180 180
PTT Poly(trimethylene Sorona® 3301 DuPont PLA 83 190 190
terephthalate) NC010 PP – 220 220
TPSblend Starch-based blend Solanyl® C1201 Rodenburg PTT 83 235 235
Biopolymers TPSblend – 170 170
TPU Thermoplastic Urethane ECO D12T90E Lubrizol TPU – 200 205

3
H. de Beukelaer et al. Polymer Testing 116 (2022) 107803

were climatized for at least 1 week at 20 ◦ C and 50% RH. The samples samples) were then weighed at least once every 48 h for a period of 2
were placed on a flat surface after which the tester was placed on the weeks to determine the weight gain rate over time due to water vapour
sample for 15 s after which the shore value was recorded. A total number transmission.
of 5 samples were tested per investigated material.
3. Results
2.4. Thermal characterization
3.1. Mechanical properties
Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) was performed to determine
the glass transition temperature (Tg) and melting temperature (Tm) of The modulus, strength and elongation of all 21 polymers were
the plastics following ISO 11357 using a PerkinElmer DSC 8000 which determined in both tensile and bending mode. Where testing in tensile
was cooled by a liquid nitrogen cooling system. Large volume (60 μl) mode only comprises tensile stresses, testing in bending mode comprises
stainless steel cups were used to hold the sample and used as a reference. a combination of compressive and tensile stresses. Table 3 shows the
Granulate samples of each of the materials was dried (according to the Young’s modulus, yield strength, elongation at yield, tensile strength,
temperature described in Table 2) prior to testing and placed into a and elongation at break and Fig. 2 shows a graphical representation of
stainless steel cup and then hermetically sealed. The samples were the Young’s modulus versus the elongation at break of all polymers. All
measured within a temperature range of − 90 ◦ C - 300 ◦ C with a heating these properties were derived from mechanical testing in tensile mode.
rate of 10 ◦ C/min and quench cooling. A total number of 2 samples were The results show that a wide range of mechanical properties is covered
tested per investigated material. by the biobased and/or biodegradable plastic portfolio. For example
The melt flow index (MFI) was measured following ISO 1133 using a TPU, PBAT, PBS, and PBSA show elastic properties whereas PGA, PHB,
Zwick MFlow tester. Granulate sample was added to a preheated barrel PHBV and PLA are more stiff and brittle materials.
with a die. The temperature setting of the machine ranged from 160 ◦ C Upon comparing the results in Table 3 and Fig. 2 with the technical
to 280 ◦ C and was based on the processing temperature of the respective datasheets that are supplied by the polymer producers a couple of de­
polymer. The temperature setting for each polymer is depicted in viations can be observed [16,17]. First it was observed that a relatively
Table 7. The tested material was pre-heated for 4 min to melt the ma­ low elongation at break is measured for the LDPE specimen. LDPE is
terial after which the standardized weight of 2.16 kg was put on the typically used for plastic film products because of its high intrinsic
sample causing the material to be pushed through the die. Material was toughness. Often specific additives are added to the LDPE compound so
collected on regular time intervals and weighed in order to calculate the that the film formation properties are optimized. These additives are
MFI. A total number of 3 samples were tested per investigated material. also suspected of creating defects upon processing via injection
Heat deflection temperature (HDT) testing was performed following moulding, and the presence of these defects can lead to the low elon­
ISO 75-2 using a Ray-Ran HDT/Vicat tester. The samples were placed on gation at break of LDPE reported in this study. In addition, the crystal­
the supports with a span of 64 mm after which a force of 0.45 MPa (for lization kinetics of a polymer during injection moulding processing are
HDT-B) was applied to the sample. Subsequently the samples were different from those during film blowing and sheet extrusion which
submerged into an oil bath that was heated with a rate of 120 ◦ C/h until might also yield different mechanical properties [18]. Although LDPE is
the sample is bend past the set deflection of 0.2%. A total number of 2 optimized for processing via sheet extrusion, mechanical testing was
samples were tested per investigated material. performed on injection moulded specimens in this overview, as this al­
The melt strength was determined by measuring the haul-off force lows for better direct comparison to the other polymers in this study.
which was measured using a Göttfert G25 rheometer, equipped with a Nevertheless, an additional tensile test was performed on the LDPE sheet
haul-off system. Granulate sample was added to a barrel that was pre-
heated to a temperature ranging from 160 ◦ C to 260 ◦ C based on the
processing temperature of the respective polymer. The temperature Table 3
setting for each polymer is depicted in Table 7. The granulate was Tensile properties of commercial available biobased and biodegradable plastics
pressed through a die with a length of 30 mm and a diameter of 2 mm included in this study. N.o. indicates that the specific property could not be
measured. The standard deviation is given between brackets.
with a fixed speed of 10 mm/min. The strand coming out of the die was
led over the haul-off system and rolled up on the roller with a speed of Polymer Young’s Yield Elongation Tensile Elongation
modulus strength at yield (%) strength at break (%)
12 mm/s. The speed was then increased with 2.4 mm/s2 whilst the force
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
on the spindle is recorded. After breakage of the strand a duplicate test
was performed. After testing the maximum force was calculated from CA 4388 n.o. n.o. 44.2 [0.6] 4.3 [0.5]
[106]
the results.
CAP 2483 [22] n.o. n.o. 58.2 [5.0] 3.0 [0.6]
HDPE 924 [17] 24.5 [0.2] 9.4 [0.1] 24.5 [0.2] 617 [121]
2.5. Barrier property analysis LDPE 254 [8] n.o. n.o. 21.6 [0.4] 40 [3]
PA 1374 [47] n.o. n.o. 48.3 [0.6] 58 [3]
PBAT 80 [2] 8.7 [0.1] 28.2 [0.5] 23.4 [1.1] 486 [32]
Oxygen transmission rate tests (OTR) were performed on extruded
PBS 631 [10] 35.9 [0.3] 16.2 [0.4] 42.2 [0.3] 275 [14]
100 μm thick sheets using a Mocon Oxtran 2/21 according to ASTM PBSA 285 [5] 17.4 [0.2] 15.4 [0.5] 29.5 [0.2] 405 [17]
3985. Each material was analysed twice. A concentration of 100% ox­ PC 2106 [30] 61.4 [0.1] 6.3 [0] 61.4 [0.1] 103 [12]
ygen concentration as permeant gas and a sample area 50 cm2 were PCL 445 [7] 18.1 [0.2] 12.4 [0.3] 30.9 [1.4] 1247 [103]
used. Samples were tested at 23 ◦ C and at 3 different conditions of PET 2273 [34] 59.4 [0.3] 4.3 [0] 59.4 [0.3] 736 [106]
PGA 7311 n.o. n.o. 141.4 2.5 [0.4]
relative humidity (0%RH, 50%RH and 85%RH). [353] [3.0]
The water vapour transmission rate tests (WVTR) were performed PHB 3510 [39] n.o. n.o. 43.9 [0.4] 1.6 [0.1]
extruded 100 μm thick sheets according to ASTM E96. Each material was PHBH6 1546 [12] 31.3 [0.2] 5.6 [0.1] 31.3 [0.2] 15 [5]
analysed thrice. Samples were clamped between the lid and the bottom PHBH11 796 [30] 19.8 [0.3] 6.7 [0.4] 19.8 [0.3] 12 [3]
PHBV2 3469 [59] n.o. n.o. 40.2 1.6 [0.7]
of an aluminium cuvette. A relative humidity of 0% was created inside
[11.7]
the headspace of the cuvette using silica gel. The cuvettes were then PLA 3435 [86] 74.4 [0.2] 2.7 [0.1] 74.4 [0.2] 7.8 [2]
placed within an environment with a constant temperature of 23 ◦ C and PP 1729 [18] 39.4 [0.2] 8.0 [0.1] 39.4 [0.2] 140 [110]
a relative humidity of 85%. These settings were selected as they repre­ PTT 2014 [41] 58.3 [0.2] 3.8 [0.1] 58.3 [0.2] 493 [163]
sent the conditions for dry food packaging which is among the products TPSblend 1446 [23] 30.2 [0.6] 2.9 [0.1] 30.2 [0.6] 5.8 [1.9]
TPU 40 [2] n.o. n.o. 36.7 [1.8] 286 [12]
for which this property is most crucial. The cuvettes (including the

4
H. de Beukelaer et al. Polymer Testing 116 (2022) 107803

not yet achieved upon termination of the test, the deformation at break
reached the limit value of 12% deformation for over half of the samples
tested in this study. It can be observed that, in general, the flexural
modulus is lower as compared to the Young’s modulus. Although these
values should be theoretically identical and reflect the isotropic elastic
behaviour, the viscoelastic nature of plastic materials yields a small
difference in the values that are obtained experimentally. This is in well-
agreement with academic literature and material datasheets. As flexural
properties are mainly relevant for load bearing applications, the values
reported in Table 4 are less relevant for these elastic materials than the
values reported on the tensile properties shown in Table 3.
Besides tensile and bending tests, the impact resistance and hardness
of all polymers was measured (see Table 5). Of the 21 polymers tested,
12 did not break in the unnotched impact test which indicates that their
impact resistance is at least higher than 100 kJ/m2. However, in the
notched impact resistance test only three polymers (PBAT, LDPE and
Fig. 2. Young’s modulus versus elongation at break for all polymers.
TPU) did not break. Upon assessing the hardness of the materials
investigated it becomes clear that for these type of plastics the Shore D
material that was prepared for the WVTR and OTR measurements. This hardness is substantially more distinctive than the Shore A in which
measurement shows a substantially higher elongation at break (393.2% most specimen reach the maximum value of 100.
± 71.5%) for the LDPE film which corresponds to the datasheet supplied
by the producer [16]. Second, it is noted that the elongation at break of
PHBH11 is also lower than the value of 320% that is reported in the 3.2. Thermal properties
datasheet supplied by the producer [17]. This is attributed to the fact
that this plastic grade has undergone further development while this Common thermal properties such as the glass transition temperature
study was being executed to improve the properties towards applica­ (Tg), melting temperature (Tm) and heat deflection temperature (HDT)
tions that require a high toughness. Additional mechanical tests were are very important parameters for both the processing of these polymers
performed on the optimized compound (Aonilex 151C) and these results as well as the application window of products made out of these mate­
indeed show a much higher elongation at break (191.2% ± 96.4%) than rials. Table 6 shows an overview of these thermal properties for all
the values reported in Table 3. An extensive comparison all data polymers.
measured in this work and data supplied by polymer producer data In contrast to the Tg, Tm and HDT-B, the melt flow index (MFI) and
sheets is reported in supplementary information 2. melt strength haul-off are parameters that are mainly impacting the
Table 4 shows the flexural modulus, flexural strength and deforma­ material processing conditions. Table 7 gives an overview of these
tion at break of the 21 materials characterized in this study. The processing properties as well as the respective measurement conditions
measured values are complemented with their standard deviation in per test for all polymers. In addition, Fig. 3 shows a graphical repre­
brackets. In line with the tensile properties, a wide range of flexural sentation of the MFI versus melt strength. The measurement conditions,
properties is observed among the tested materials. For stiff and brittle mainly temperature, have a strong effect on the measured properties for
materials, the strength at break is typically higher than the tensile both the MFI and melt strength. Therefore it is important to take those
strength as the flexural test method is less defect sensitive compared to into account when interpreting and comparing data with values re­
tensile testing. The elastic materials on the other hand have a lower ported in other studies or material data sheets. A higher MFI indicates
measured flexural strength compared to their tensile strength. As the
maximum extension that can be obtained by these samples is typically Table 5
Impact properties of commercial available biobased and biodegradable plastics
included in this study. Samples that did not break (impact resistance >100 kJ/
Table 4 m2) are indicated by d.n.b.. The standard deviation is given between brackets.
Flexural properties of commercial available biobased and biodegradable plastics
Polymer Charpy Impact Charpy Impact Hardness Hardness
included in this study. The standard deviation is given between brackets.
Resistance Resistance Shore A Shore D
Polymer Flexural modulus Flexural strength Deformation at break Unnotched (kJ/ Notched (kJ/m2)
(MPa) (MPa) (%) m2)

CA 4550 [149] 69.4 [1.1] 4.9 [0.4] CA 16.8 [6.7] 1.8 [0] 100 [0] 83.4 [0.2]
CAP 1961 [14] 75.3 [0.8] >12 CAP d.n.b. 2.5 [0.4] 100 [0] 77.9 [0.2]
HDPE 855 [11] 26.2 [0.1] >12 HDPE d.n.b. 3.6 [0] 100 [0] 57.4 [0.2]
LDPE 176 [2] 9.8 [0] >12 LDPE d.n.b. d.n.b. 98 [0] 45.5 [0.4]
PA 1339 [9] 62.9 [0.4] >12 PA d.n.b. 6.8 [0.5] 100 [0] 74.5 [0.5]
PBAT 80 [4] 5.3 [0] >12 PBAT d.n.b. d.n.b. 96.1 [0.2] 34.7 [0.3]
PBS 602 [12] 35 [0.2] >12 PBS d.n.b. 12.6 [0.2] 96.1 [0.2] 65.1 [0.2]
PBSA 266 [4] 16.3 [0.2] >12 PBSA d.n.b. 31.1 [28.4] 98 [0] 53.5 [0.4]
PC 2305 [31] 91.3 [0.2] >12 PC d.n.b. 1.3 [0] 100 [0] 82.2 [0.4]
PCL 428 [19] 22.4 [0.1] >12 PCL d.n.b. 15.5 [0.6] 98 [0] 54.6 [0.2]
PET 2337 [16] 88.2 [0.3] >12 PET d.n.b. 3.1 [0.1] 100 [0] 76.1 [0.2]
PGA 6741 [236] 217.4 [4.8] 6.9 [3.1] PGA 32.1 [4] 2.3 [0.8] 100 [0] 90 [0.4]
PHB 3542 [12] 65.8 [1.1] 2.3 [0.1] PHB 6.2 [0.4] 1.9 [0.4] 97.9 [0.2] 78 [0.4]
PHBH6 1356 [33] 43.7 [0.6] 9.9 [0.7] PHBH6 37.4 [6] 2.6 [0.2] 98 [0] 66.7 [0.4]
PHBH11 723 [88] 26.7 [0.8] 9.4 [2] PHBH11 67.7 [13.8] 4.2 [0.2] 100 [0] 54.3 [1]
PHBV2 3433 [23] 65.2 [1.2] 2.3 [0.1] PHBV2 6.6 [0.3] 2.3 [0.1] 97.5 [0] 79.5 [0.4]
PLA 3198 [34] 107.9 [0.6] 8.2 [1.4] PLA 15.3 [1.7] 2.1 [0.6] 100 [0] 81.8 [0.3]
PP 1567 [36] 52 [0.6] >12 PP 62.4 [16.9] 3.4 [0.1] 96 [0] 67.9 [0.2]
PTT 2207 [33] 80.8 [2.2] >12 PTT d.n.b. 3.1 [0.2] 100 [0] 75.2 [0.8]
TPSblend 1442 [70] 41.5 [0.5] 9.3 [1.3] TPSblend 39.2 [8.5] 1.2 [0.2] 100 [0] 70.8 [0.3]
TPU 46 [3] 3.3 [0.1] >12 TPU d.n.b. d.n.b. 92.9 [0.2] 40.6 [0.2]

5
H. de Beukelaer et al. Polymer Testing 116 (2022) 107803

Table 6
Thermal properties of commercial available biobased and biodegradable plastics
included in this study. The standard deviation is given between brackets, n.o.
indicates no melting temperature observed, i.e. the material is fully amorphous.
Polymer Glass transition Melting Heat deflection
temperature (◦ C) temperature (◦ C) temperature B (◦ C)

CA 118 231 90.5 [3.3]

CAP 138 n.o. 105.7 [0.8]
HDPE < − 90 132 60.2 [0.1]
LDPE < − 90 116 43.4 [0.4]
PA 44 202 146.7 [1.7]
PBAT − 25 121 39.4 [0.8]
PBS − 30 118 84.5 [1.1]
PBSA − 47 92 53.5 [0.2]
PC 98 n.o. 86.7 [0.5]
PCL − 62 70 55 [0.2]
PET 76 245 72.5 [0.4]
PGA 44 230 199.2 [1] Fig. 3. MFI versus melt strength Haul-Off for all polymers that have a
PHB 5 182 138.4 [0.4]
measurable melt strength (i.e. > 1 mN).
PHBH6 3 152 97.5 [1.9]
PHBH11 1 121 65.8 [2.5]
PHBV2 6 180 141.7 [0.2] strength of these materials is below 1 mN.
PLA 51 145 53.9 [0.4]
PP − 4 166 90 [1.2]
PTT 46 232 53.5 [0.1]
3.3. Barrier properties
TPSblend 50 149 47 [0.3]
TPU − 17 153 38.6 [0.4]
Lastly, the barrier properties for oxygen and water vapour, which are
highly relevant for food packaging applications, were measured and the
results are depicted in Table 8 [19,20]. The water vapour transmission
Table 7
Processing properties and settings of commercial available biobased and
rate (WVTR) is measured at 23 ◦ C and 85% RH and the oxygen trans­
biodegradable plastics included in this study (n.m. indicates that the melt mission rate (OTR) is measured at 25 ◦ C and three different humidity
strength could not be measured accurately). The standard deviation is given conditions being 0, 50, and 85% RH relatively. The water vapour
between brackets. gradient between the inside and outside of a packed product differs
Polymer Melt Flow Index Melt Strength Haul-Off
strongly depending on the application. One can easily understand that
the difference in RH is different for dry food packaging and water bot­
Value (g/10min) Settings (◦ C/kg) Value (mN) Settings (◦ C)
tles, and that therefore multiple measurement conditions are reported in
CA 1.14 [0.03] 220/2.16 162.5 [0.4] 220 both academic literature and compound data sheets which makes it
CAP 1.08 [0.01] 220/2.16 298.7 [9.8] 220 difficult to compare individual materials tested in different studies.
HDPE 16.53 [0.26] 190/2.16 5.8 [2.1] 170
LDPE 0.61 [0.01] 190/2.16 130.4 [0.4] 190
Fig. 4 shows a comparison of the OTR under dry conditions (0% RH)
PA 0.87 [0.3] 220/2.16 174.4 [9.9] 220 and the WVTR for all polymers except CAP. CAP is excluded in this
PBAT 2.77 [0.03] 190/2.16 25.6 [0.8] 190 comparison due to its significantly higher OTR and WVTR as compared
PBS 4.29 [0.14] 190/2.16 51.4 [5.4] 190
PBSA 3.29 [0.01] 190/2.16 105.4 [3] 190
PC 11.5 [1.33] 230/2.16 7.7 [1.1] 230 Table 8
PCL 16.56 [0.48] 160/2.16 n.m. 160 Barrier properties of commercial available biobased and biodegradable plastics
PET 19.14 [2] 280/2.16 4.6 [0.4] 280 included in this study. The standard deviation is given between brackets.
PGA 26.32 [1.23] 228/2.16 n.m. 228
Polymer Water Vapour Oxygen Transmission Rate
PHB 7.06 [1.82] 180/2.16 n.m. 180
Transmission Rate
PHBH6 2.00 [0.33] 170/2.16 20.6 [6.5] 170
PHBH11 3.34 [0.27] 170/2.16 4.5 [1.2] 170 WVTR [g/m2.day] OTR [mlO2/ OTR [mlO2/ OTR [mlO2/
PHBV2 10.71 [0.42] 180/2.16 n.m. 180 (23 ◦ C, 85% ΔRH) m2.day.bar] m2.day.bar] m2.day.bar]
PLA 3.69 [0.11] 190/2.16 18.3 [1.1] 190 (25 ◦ C, 0% (25 ◦ C, 50% (25 ◦ C, 85%
PP 33.04 [7.85] 220/2.16 3.3 [0.9] 200 RH) RH) RH)
PTT 11.48 [0.59] 230/2.16 0.9 [0.3] 230
CA 111.9 [1.6] 265 [6] 219 [1] 308 [6]
TPSblend 14.21 [1.42] 170/2.16 25.4 [7.2] 170
CAP 311.5 [1.9] 3489 [70] 2628 [171] 2610 [149]
TPU 2.11 [0.05] 200/2.16 42.4 [2.7] 200
HDPE 0.9 [0.1] 710 [40] 703 [38] 696 [37]
LDPE 1.5 [0.1] 1624 [14] 1586 [12] 1571 [12]
PA 7.3 [0.3] 139 [3] 108 [2] 111 [2]
that the material flows more easily during processing, and hence larger PBAT 26.6 [1.9] 439 [7] 477 [3] 516 [4]
and more complex products can be made via injection moulding. It has PBS 36.6 [2.3] 105 [1] 123 [1] 140 [1]
to be noted that an MFI measurement only yields a single measurement PBSA 65.5 [7.0] 325 [7] 359 [6] 397 [7]
point and does not account for the shear thinning effect that is observed PC 8.6 [0.3] 32 [1] 27 [1] 25 [1]
PCL 47.2 [0.2] 526 [13] 544 [18] 561 [24]
in polymers upon high shear levels that are exerted during processing
PET 6.9 [0.1] 36 [1] 31 [1] 30 [1]
operations such as injection moulding. As is observed upon measuring PGA 1.6 [0.1] 0.01 [0.01] 0.11 [0.01] 0.39 [0.01]
these properties it is observed that individual polymers typically possess PHB 5.5 [0.1] 22 [2] 20 [2] 23 [3]
either a high MFI or a high melt strength, although for some polymers PHBH6 7.9 [0.8] 59 [1] 63 [1] 71 [1]
PHBH11 11.6 [0.1] 103 [2] 114 [1] 127 [1]
low values are reported for both properties. A high melt strength implies
PHBV2 5.5 [0.3] 23 [1] 21 [1] 22 [1]
that a material can be deformed in the melt phase which allows for PLA 35.5 [1.0] 180 [2] 161 [2] 155 [2]
complex processing operations such as film cast extrusion, film blowing, PP 1.0 [0.1] 558 [2] 549 [4] 552 [2]
foaming and fibre spinning. For PCL, PGA, PHB and PHBV no melt PTT 4.7 [0.2] 28 [2] 25 [2] 25 [0]
strength could be determined as the molten strain already breaks before TPSblend 70.2 [2.3] 181 [3] 155 [2] 229 [8]
TPU 49.7 [1.6] 697 [21] 730 [18] 763 [18]
a relevant value can be recorded. It is therefore anticipated that the melt

6
H. de Beukelaer et al. Polymer Testing 116 (2022) 107803

OTR values of PET as representatives for the current state of the art for
packaging products, the results in this work clearly indicate that the
majority of the investigated polymers cannot be used as direct biobased
or biodegradable alternative for this product category. However it is
interesting to note that PHB and especially PGA display a combination of
relatively low WVTR and OTR values. The outstanding barrier proper­
ties of these polymers compared to other polyesters in the same family (i.
e. PLA, PHBV and PHBH) can be explained due to the absence of side
groups which allows the polymer chains to pack together thereby
creating a much higher molecular density [26,27]. Nevertheless, the
processing of these polymers into complex plastic products such as
packaging films is expected to be complicated as is indicated by the
processing parameters depicted in Table 7. In addition PGA is currently
only being produced from fossil feedstock.
Asides from newly developed biobased and/or biodegradable poly­
Fig. 4. OTR at 0% RH (dry conditions) versus WVTR for all polymers except mers, this work also reports on biobased drop-in polymers. The results
CAP of which both the OTR and WVTR value fall far outside the for the biobased drop-in polymers that were obtained in this study (i.e.
graph boundaries. LDPE, HDPE, PTT and PET) show mechanical, thermal and barrier
properties that are comparable to their fossil based counterparts. This is
to all other polymers in this study. It can be immediately seen that the not surprising, as these materials are completely identical from a
polyolefins (PP, LDPE, and HDPE) possess low WVTR values due to the chemical point of view. The only difference between biobased drop-in
hydrophobic nature of these polymers. In contrast, these polyolefins polymers and fossil based polymers is the feedstock that is used to
possess relatively high OTR values. produce its monomers. These monomers are subsequently converted
All OTR values in Fig. 4 are measured under dry conditions, i.e. a RH into polymers using similar processes as used for fossil based polymers.
of 0%. However, the presence of moisture can strongly affect the OTR of The new biobased polymers are based on different biobased monomers
a polymer. Often it is stated that for most polymers the OTR increases and therefore yield polymers with alternative molecular structures,
with increasing RH. This is attributed to the plasticization effect that morphologies and properties. In order for these materials to fulfil the
moisture has on the polymer matrix. As a result, the free volume of the quality requirements for plastic products both polymer blending and
polymer matrix increases and hence the OTR increases as well [21]. compounding are frequently employed strategies. Blends of biobased
However, in this study we also observe polymers that show no effect of polymers are reported to optimize processing conditions [28–30], me­
RH on the OTR or even show an decrease in OTR with increasing RH. chanical properties [31–34] and biodegradation rates [35–37]. To
Polymers that show a clear decrease in OTR (>10%) with increasing further optimize the processing characteristics and mechanical proper­
RH are, for example, PTT, PLA, PET, PA, PC, and CAP. This effect has ties of these materials plasticizers [38–40], crosslinking agents [41–43]
also been reported in literature for multiple polymers such as PLA [22, and natural and mineral fillers [44–46] can be used. Asides from
23], PET [23,24], and aromatic polyamides [25]. This effect is attrib­ impacting the properties of biobased polymers, natural and mineral
uted to the hydrophobicity of these polymers. A more detailed fillers are also used to reduce the overall costs of these materials. This is
description on the effect of oxygen diffusivity (D) and solubility (S), and an important consideration as currently practically all biobased poly­
hence permeability, for these hydrophobic polymers is given elsewhere mers have higher production costs which is reflected in higher market
[23]. prices. However, it is anticipated that as market volumes increase in the
upcoming decades, the overall production costs will drop and the market
4. Discussion prices of biobased polymers will become more competitive with their
fossil based counterparts [47].
The results generated by this study give an extensive overview of the
wide range of mechanical, thermal and barrier properties that can be 5. Conclusions
obtained by biobased or biodegradable polymers. A substantial amount
of these properties are also reported in the material datasheets generated This study gives an overview of the most relevant processing and
by the suppliers. A comparative overview of the results reported in this performance properties of a wide selection of biobased and biodegrad­
work and that available in the publicly available datasheets is given in able plastic materials that are currently commercially available. In doing
Supplementary Information 2. Asides from the aforementioned dis­ so, this study reports the most extensive, coherent and up-to-date
crepancies that were observed for the toughness of LDPE and PHBH11, overview of critical properties of biobased and biodegradable plastics
the results are comparable with the data supplied by the polymer de­ that is available in scientific literature. The overview also shows that the
velopers. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that apparent high differences majority of functionalities that are currently being offered by fossil
exist between the elongation at break values of a number of relatively based polymers (represented by HDPE, LDPE, PET and PP in this study)
tough materials (strain at break >100%) such as TPU. As the moment of can be met by biodegradable alternatives if this is considered to be a
fracture of these tough polymers is highly dependent on exact testing favourable EOL scenario. Nevertheless, research and development ef­
speed and processing conditions of the sample, such differences are forts have to be allocated to enable the production of some of these
frequently observed upon comparing individual experiments. However, materials (e.g. PCL, PBAT and PGA) from biobased feedstock in order to
for most applications the absolute length of the polymer elastic defor­ realize the ambition to decouple from fossil based resources for the
mation region is not relevant and it suffices to state that fracture occurs production of plastic materials.
well after its yield point. These observations in combination with the
absence of a substantial amount of data in the available datasheets and Author statement
the fact that different standard methods are used throughout, demon­
strates the comparative value of the present work. Herman de Beukelaer: Validation, Formal analysis, Conceptuali­
Plastic packaging comprises one of the most important applications zation, Writing.
areas for polymers. When taking the WVTR values of PE and PP and the Marieke Hilhorst: Validation, Formal analysis.
Yarek Workala: Validation, Formal analysis.

7
H. de Beukelaer et al. Polymer Testing 116 (2022) 107803

Evelien Maaskant: Conceptualization, Writing. [19] J. Nilsen-Nygaard, et al., Current status of biobased and biodegradable food
packaging materials: impact on food quality and effect of innovative processing
Wouter Post: Conceptualization, Writing.
technologies, Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 20 (2) (2021) 1333–1380.
[20] N.M. Stark, L.M. Matuana, Trends in sustainable biobased packaging materials: a
Declaration of competing interest mini review, Mater. Today Sustain. 15 (2021).
[21] J.M. Lagaron, et al., Mechanisms of moisture sorption in barrier polymers used in
food packaging: amorphous polyamide vs. High-barrier ethylene-vinyl alcohol
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial copolymer studied by vibrational spectroscopy, Macromol. Chem. Phys. 204 (4)
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence (2003) 704–713.
the work reported in this paper. [22] T. Dong, et al., Thermal and barrier properties of stretched and annealed
polylactide films, Polym. Sci. 57 (6) (2015) 738–746.
[23] R. Auras, B. Harte, S. Selke, Effect of water on the oxygen barrier properties of poly
Data availability (ethylene terephthalate) and polylactide films, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 92 (3) (2004)
1790–1803.
[24] I. Uysal Unalan, et al., Graphene oxide bionanocomposite coatings with high
Data will be made available on request. oxygen barrier properties, Nanomaterials 6 (12) (2016) 244.
[25] Y.S. Hu, et al., Effect of water sorption on oxygen-barrier properties of aromatic
Acknowledgements polyamides, J. Polym. Sci. B Polym. Phys. 43 (11) (2005) 1365–1381.
[26] P.K. Samantaray, et al., Poly(glycolic acid) (PGA): a versatile building block
expanding high performance and sustainable bioplastic applications, Green Chem.
This research project has been carried out by Wageningen Food & 22 (13) (2020) 4055–4081.
Biobased Research and funded by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture [27] K.J. Jem, B. Tan, The development and challenges of poly (lactic acid) and poly
(glycolic acid), Adv. Indus. Eng. Poly. Res. 3 (2) (2020) 60–70.
Nature and Food Quality, in the context of “KB 34 Circular and climate
[28] M.P. Arrieta, et al., Development of flexible materials based on plasticized
neutral society” under grant number KB-34-010-001. In addition, this electrospun PLA-PHB blends: structural, thermal, mechanical and disintegration
project has received funding from the Bio-Based Industries Joint Un­ properties, Eur. Polym. J. 73 (2015) 433–446.
dertaking under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and [29] A. Boonprasertpoh, D. Pentrakoon, J. Junkasem, Investigating rheological,
morphological and mechanical properties of PBS/PBAT blends, J. Metal Mater.
innovation program under grant number 745785. Min. 27 (1) (2017) 1–11.
[30] N. Mallegni, et al., Poly(lactic acid) (PLA) based tear resistant and biodegradable
Appendix A. Supplementary data flexible films by blown film extrusion, Materials 11 (1) (2018).
[31] A.R. de Matos Costa, et al., Properties of biodegradable films based on poly
(Butylene succinate) (pbs) and poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) (pbat)
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. blends, Polymers 12 (10) (2020) 1–17.
org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2022.107803. [32] R. Muthuraj, M. Misra, A.K. Mohanty, Binary blends of poly(butylene adipate-co-
Terephthalate) and poly(butylene succinate): a new matrix for biocomposites
applications, in: AIP Conference Proceedings, 2015.
References [33] S. Su, M. Duhme, R. Kopitzky, Uncompatibilized PBAT/PLA blends:
manufacturability, miscibility and properties, Materials 13 (21) (2020) 4897.
[1] European Commission, European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy. [34] F. Wu, M. Misra, A.K. Mohanty, Super toughened poly(lactic acid)-based ternary
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the blends via enhancing interfacial compatibility, ACS Omega 4 (1) (2019)
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 1955–1968.
European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [35] H.T. Oyama, D. Tanishima, R. Ogawa, Biologically safe poly(l-lactic acid) blends
[2] M.T. Brouwer, et al., Predictive model for the Dutch post-consumer plastic with tunable degradation rate: microstructure, degradation mechanism, and
packaging recycling system and implications for the circular economy, Waste mechanical properties, Biomacromolecules 18 (4) (2017) 1281–1292.
Manag. 71 (2018) 62–85. [36] S. Yang, et al., Characterization and biodegradation behavior of bio-based poly
[3] Ellen McArthur Foundation The New Plastics Economy, Rethinking the Future of (lactic acid) and soy protein blends for sustainable horticultural applications,
Plastics & Catalysing Action, 2017. Green Chem. 17 (1) (2015) 380–393.
[4] J.-G. Rosenboom, R. Langer, G. Traverso, Bioplastics for a circular economy, Nat. [37] M. Puchalski, et al., Molecular and supramolecular changes in polybutylene
Rev. Mater. 7 (2) (2022) 117–137. succinate (PBS) and polybutylene succinate adipate (PBSA) copolymer during
[5] R. Hatti-Kaul, et al., Designing biobased recyclable polymers for plastics, Trends degradation in various environmental conditions, Polymers 10 (3) (2018) 251.
Biotechnol. 38 (1) (2020) 50–67. [38] A. Alhanish, M. Abu Ghalia, Developments of biobased plasticizers for compostable
[6] M. Beltran, et al., Food plastic packaging transition towards circular bioeconomy: a polymers in the green packaging applications: a review, Biotechnol. Prog. 37 (6)
systematic review of literature, Sustainability 13 (7) (2021). (2021).
[7] K. Iffland, et al., Definition, Calculation and Comparison of the “Biomass [39] K. Chaochanchaikul, P. Pongmuksuwan, Influence of ozonized soybean oil as a
Utilization Efficiency (BUE)” of Various Bio-Based Chemicals, Polymers and Fuels, biobased plasticizer on the toughness of polylactic acid, J. Polym. Environ. 30 (3)
Hürth, 2015. (2022) 1095–1105.
[8] K. Molenveld, H. Bos, Biobased Plastics 2020, W.F.B. Research., Wageningen, [40] M.W. Halloran, et al., Highly flexible polylactide food packaging plasticized with
2020. nontoxic, biosourced glycerol plasticizers, ACS Appl. Poly. Mater. 4 (5) (2022)
[9] W. Post, et al., Effect of mineral fillers on the mechanical properties of 3608–3617.
commercially available biodegradable polymers, Polymers 13 (3) (2021) 394. [41] G.C. Liu, et al., Fully biobased and supertough polylactide-based thermoplastic
[10] V. Jost, Packaging related properties of commercially available biopolymers - an vulcanizates fabricated by peroxide-induced dynamic vulcanization and interfacial
overview of the status quo, Express Polym. Lett. 12 (5) (2018) 429–435. compatibilization, Biomacromolecules 15 (11) (2014) 4260–4271.
[11] M. Van Der Zee, Methods for evaluating the biodegradability of environmentally [42] S. Rojas-Lema, et al., Improved performance of environmentally friendly blends of
degradable polymers, in: Handbook of Biodegradable Polymers, 2020, pp. 1–21. biobased polyethylene and kraft lignin compatibilized by reactive extrusion with
[12] G.E. Luckachan, C.K.S. Pillai, Biodegradable polymers- A review on recent trends dicumyl peroxide, Macromol. Mater. Eng. 306 (9) (2021).
and emerging perspectives, J. Polym. Environ. 19 (3) (2011) 637–676. [43] D. Yuan, et al., Crosslinked bicontinuous biobased polylactide/natural rubber
[13] Institute Nova, Biodegradable polymer in various environments, in: Renewable materials: super toughness, "net-like"-structure of NR phase and excellent
Carbon, N. Institute, 2021. interfacial adhesion, Polym. Test. 38 (2014) 73–80.
[14] M. van der Zee, K. Molenveld, The Fate of (Compostable) Plastic Products in a Full [44] I. Armentano, et al., Nanocomposites based on biodegradable polymers, Materials
Scale Industrial Organic Waste Treatment Facilit, 2020. Wageningen. 11 (5) (2018) 795.
[15] G.-Q. Chen, M.K. Patel, Plastics derived from biological sources: present and future: [45] M. Barletta, et al., Effect of micro-lamellar talc on dimensional accuracy and
a technical and environmental review, Chem. Rev. 112 (4) (2012) 2082–2099. stability in injection molding of PLA/PBSA blends, Poly. Plas. Technol. Mater. 58
[16] Braskem, Low density polyethylene STN7006, in Official Braskem Website www. (7) (2019) 776–788.
braskem.com.br. 2021. [46] A. Kwaśniewska, et al., The influence of kaolin clay on the mechanical properties
[17] Kaneka Corporation, KANEKA Biodegradable Polymer PHBHTM, Kaneka and structure of thermoplastic starch films, Polymers 12 (1) (2020).
Corporation, Osaka, Japan, 2017. [47] P. Skoczinski, et al., Bio-based Building Blocks and Polymers – Global Capacities,
[18] J.M. Haudin, S.A.E. Boyer, Crystallization of polymers in processing conditions: an Production and Trends 2020 – 2025, Nova Institute, 2021, p. 338.
overview, Int. Polym. Process. 32 (5) (2017) 545–554.