A Review on Replacing Food Packaging Plastics with Nature-Inspired Bio-Based Materials

Abstract

Food packaging is critical to delaying food spoilage, maintaining food quality, reducing food waste, and ensuring food safety. However, the environmental problems associated with petroleum-based packaging materials have led to a search for sustainable alternatives. Bio-based materials are emerging as such alternatives, but they have limitations such as low mechanical strength and poor moisture resistance. Fortunately, nature's insights guide solutions to these challenges, propelling the evolution of high-performance bio-based packaging. These new food packaging materials are characterized by impact resistance, superhydrophobicity, self-healing capabilities, dynamic controlled release, high mechanical strength, and real-time freshness monitoring. Nature-inspired strategies not only focus on enhancing material performance but also introduce innovative design concepts that effectively avoid the homogenization of food packaging and inspire researchers to develop diverse, cutting-edge solutions. Overcoming the existing problems of bio-based materials and endowing them with breakthrough properties are key drivers for their replacement of food packaging plastics. This review provides insights into the application of biomimetics in enhancing the functionality of bio-based materials and clearly articulates the key drivers for the replacement of plastic food packaging by bio-based materials. By systematically integrating existing research findings, this paper identifies the challenges facing nature-inspired food packaging innovations and points the way to their future development.

Keywords: biodegradable solutions; biomimetic design; food packaging.

Figure 8

(I) (a) Appearance of the spider silk-inspired film. (b) Schematic of the film lifting a 5.8 kg weight. (c) Schematic of the re-formation of a new film after the shredded film is dissolved in hot water. (d) Degradability of the film [116]. (II) (a) Schematic of the pearl-layer-inspired film preparation process and the formation of bricks and mortar structure. (b) Scanning electron microscope image of the tensile fracture surface of the film (bricks and mortar structure formed). (c) Schematic of the bionic film lifting a 2 kg and 5 kg weight. (d) Photographs of the storage results of cherry tomatoes packaged in a composite film at different times (0 d and 14 d) and the control group [120]. The above pictures have been reproduced with permission.

Figure 8

(I) (a) Appearance of the spider silk-inspired film. (b) Schematic of the film lifting a 5.8 kg weight. (c) Schematic of the re-formation of a new film after the shredded film is dissolved in hot water. (d) Degradability of the film [116]. (II) (a) Schematic of the pearl-layer-inspired film preparation process and the formation of bricks and mortar structure. (b) Scanning electron microscope image of the tensile fracture surface of the film (bricks and mortar structure formed). (c) Schematic of the bionic film lifting a 2 kg and 5 kg weight. (d) Photographs of the storage results of cherry tomatoes packaged in a composite film at different times (0 d and 14 d) and the control group [120]. The above pictures have been reproduced with permission.

Figure 1

Trends of research article publications in the field of alternative plastic packaging for food in the last decade (data from the Web of Science with themes of “alternative plastic packaging for food”).

Figure 2

(I) (a) The process of extracting and synthesizing the design of cushioning structures of cuttlefish bones, spider webs, and grapefruit peels [39]; (b) cross-sectional images of orange peels, which provide practical structural references for tile classification and the definition of connectivity rules [40]; (c) the three-layer structure of a cat’s paw (epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous layer in that order), with the subcutaneous layer being the main energy-absorbing layer [41]. (II) (a) Photographs of grapefruit layering; (b) the composite material wrapped strawberries; (c) Performance of composite sponges in resistance to injury tests; (d) changes in the appearance of strawberries wrapped in composites during a 21-day storage test; (e) changes in quail eggs packed in composite sponge after damage resistance test [42]. The above pictures have been reproduced with permission.

Figure 3

(I) (a) Swan feather-inspired composite film preparation process. (b,c) Laser confocal microscopy images of composite membranes with swan feather surface texture [48]. (II) (a) Water adhesion and hydrophobicity of rose petals. (b) Schematic representation of the water adhesion and hydrophobicity of the bionic composite membrane (SNF/ATA-10). (c) Water contact angles of bionic films with common commercial beverages, from left to right, plain milk, orange juice, coffee, and electrolyte water. (d) Effect of different packaging on the freshness of cherry tomatoes [49]. The above pictures have been reproduced with permission.

Figure 4

(a) Schematic of CNF straws, CFS straws and commercial paper straws after simultaneous immersion in aqueous methyl blue; (b) schematic of CFS straws and commercial paper straws after immersion in commercial beverages such as water, tea, milk, and coffee at 0 °C and 65 °C for 30 min, respectively; (c) schematic of the dissolved state of CFS straws and commercial paper straws after soaking in NaOH/urea solution, freezing and thawing four times [65]. The above pictures have been reproduced with permission.

Figure 5

(I) (a) Uncoated cups containing honey (left) and cups with superhydrophobic coating (right) before pouring. (b) Photographs of uncoated cups containing honey (left) and cups with superhydrophobic coating (right) after pouring. (c) Photographs of sticky raw eggs on uncoated bread (right) and sticky raw eggs on bread with superhydrophobic coating (left) before pouring. (d) Photographs of sticky raw eggs on uncoated bread (right) and sticky raw eggs on bread with superhydrophobic coating (left) after pouring. (e) Effect of coatings on the repulsion of various droplets [67]. (II) Photographs of honey in a control cup (right) and a cup coated with a superhydrophobic coating (left): (top) before pouring; (middle) during pouring; (bottom) after pouring [68]. The above pictures have been reproduced with permission.

Figure 6

(a) Physical images of leaves and microscopic images of leaf stomata. (b) The surface SEM images of Cur-PS/CS. (c) Cherry preservation characteristics of different films at different times (2–5 d) [70]: (i) Cur-PS/CS, (ii) Chitosan (CS), (iii) commercial PE film, (iv) control group. The red box emphasizes the freshness preservation of the Cur-PS/CS group.

Figure 7

(a) Raw and difference images of fluorescence sensor arrays for blank control and three vegetables after different storage days [95]. (b) Images of films reacting with volatile ammonia (top) and reversibility of color change in films after repeated treatment with ammonia and acetic acid (bottom) [96]. (c) Fatigue testing of films and stabilization of microstructure after testing [97]. The above pictures have been reproduced with permission.