Next Article in Journal
A Systematic Review of New Trends in Ionic Liquids Applied to Electrolytes on Polysaccharides
Previous Article in Journal
Debenzylation of Benzyl-Protected Methylcellulose
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Polysaccharides: Sources, Characteristics, Properties, and Their Application in Biodegradable Films

Unidad Professional Interdisciplinaria de Biotecnología, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Av. Acueducto s/n, Barrio La Laguna Ticoman, Ciudad de México 07340, Mexico
Submission received: 20 May 2022 / Revised: 18 June 2022 / Accepted: 24 June 2022 / Published: 27 June 2022

Abstract

:
Biodegradable films emerge as alternative biomaterials to conventional packaging from fossil sources, which, in addition to offering protection and increasing the shelf life of food products, are ecologically sustainable. The materials mostly used in their formulation are based on natural polysaccharides, plasticizing agents, and bioactive components (e.g., antimicrobial agents or antioxidants). The formulation of biodegradable films from polysaccharides and various plasticizers represents an alternative for primary packaging that can be assigned to specific food products, which opens the possibility of having multiple options of biodegradable films for the same product. This review describes the main characteristics of the most abundant polysaccharides in nature and highlights their role in the formulation of biodegradable films. The compilation and discussion emphasize studies that report on the mechanical and barrier properties of biodegradable films when made from pure polysaccharides and when mixed with other polysaccharides and plasticizing agents.

1. Introduction

Polysaccharides are the most abundant natural polymer on Earth, which are composed of 10 or more repeating units of monomeric sugars that are linked by glycosidic bonds [1]. These biological macromolecules have vital functions (e.g., structure and energy production) in the organisms that possess them; however, their importance for human beings is due to their functional properties demonstrated, e.g., as antitumor and antioxidant agents, as well as regulators of intestinal flora [2].
In the industry, polysaccharides are valuable because they are a potential replacement for petroleum-based polymers; however, it is known that their application has not been fully exploited, despite their versatility [3]. The study by Souza et al. [4] revealed that the use and application of these natural materials has grown by 17% in recent years (2017–2021), which is equivalent to a world market of up to 10 billion USD; in addition, it is expected that, at the end of this decade (2030), this market will be more than 22 billion USD. In this sense, there is interest in testing alternative polysaccharide extraction processes that improve yields or provide purer extractions, as well as alternative sources (e.g., residues) to extract new polysaccharides [4].
The conventional extraction of soluble polysaccharides is by water extraction, while, for non-soluble ones, mixtures of different organic solvents are used (e.g., ethanol, methanol, and acetone) that allow modifying the loads and carrying out the extraction. However, new methodologies and processes (such as ultrasonic-assisted extraction, microwave extraction, supercritical fluid extraction, and enzymatic extraction) have been tested, due to the advantages they bring in terms of improvements in extraction yield, time reduction, compound purity, and even environmental friendliness [2,5].
On the other hand, there is evidence that the extraction method significantly affects the properties and functionality of polysaccharides, in such a way that the application options are expanded. For example, polysaccharides with thermal stability can be subjected to hydrolysis to obtain molecules with a lower molecular weight, polysaccharides with biological activity can be used as food supplements, and polysaccharides with high viscosity are good candidates as food additives or film formers [5].
A biodegradable film is considered a primary packaging made of biodegradable polymers, particularly polysaccharides, which has advantages over synthetic packaging [6]; specifically, it can preserve of quality and extend the shelf life of the minimally processed products [7,8] without damaging or altering the environment [9]. Therefore, this review provides an overview of the current state of the art of biodegradable films, paying special attention to the polysaccharides used for their formulation. In addition, the characteristics that biodegradable films must meet to be functional materials are described. The last section exposes the positive or negative changes that biodegradable films present when they are made with a mixture of polysaccharides and plasticizing agents.

2. Sources and Characteristics of Polysaccharides

Natural polysaccharides are synthesized to fulfill various biological functions (e.g., energetic and structural) in the organisms and microorganisms that produce them [1]. Figure 1 shows some examples of natural polysaccharides and their sources. Most natural polysaccharides are found in plants in the form of energy reserves; they can be synthesized by algae, bacteria, fungi, and yeasts or extracted from the exoskeleton of arthropods [10].

2.1. Plant Polysaccharides

Plant polysaccharides are macromolecules composed of identical or different monosaccharides linked by α or β glycosidic bonds [11]. This class of polysaccharides is divided into two categories according to their functionality, storage, and structure; the first category encompasses polymers that are part of the energy reserves of plants, while the second category encompasses those that are part of the cell walls in such a way that they confer rigidity and flexibility to the plant [12]. Some plant polysaccharides are described below.
  • Starch is a homopolysaccharide made up of glucose units, which form linear amylose chains linked by α-(1–4) bonds and branched amylopectin chains that are connected to amylose by α-(1–6) bonds [13]. Starch is the main storage carbohydrate of green plants, which has been isolated and used as a raw material for the manufacture of drugs, plastics, paints, and cardboard. Commercially, starch is mainly extracted from corn; however, there are other grains and tubers (e.g., rice, wheat, cassava, and potato) that are alternative sources of extraction. The functionality of starch is based on its properties of viscosity, water retention, and gel formation. However, there is research showing that these properties are influenced by the physical (e.g., particle size) and chemical (i.e., proportion of amylopectin and amylose) characteristics of the starch granules; therefore, it is very common to seek to modify the starch properties natives through physical, chemical, or enzymatic processes [14]. Starch is the most studied natural polymer because it is a promising candidate due to its availability, low price, and high biodegradability [15].
  • Cellulose is the most abundant, economic, and available carbohydrate polymer in the world because it can be extracted from plants or their waste [16]. Cellulose is a polysaccharide made up of a linear chain of glucose linked by β-(1–4) bonds. The hydroxyl groups present in its structure are responsible for the intermolecular hydrogen bonds that are formed, resulting in a compact and crystalline structure; however, these links can cause an irregular three-dimensional conformation causing amorphous regions in the molecule [17]. Cellulose is used in health areas for its antibacterial activity, however, its main application is in the generation of materials and matrices [16].
  • Pectin is a polysaccharide found in the cell walls of terrestrial plants, mainly in the skin of fruits and vegetables (e.g., citrus). It is made up of a galacturonic acid backbone linked by α-(1–4) bonds, which may have substitutions of rhamnose units by α-(1–2) bonds, with side-chains composed of arabinose, xylose, or galactose [18]. Pectin is soluble in water and has a high viscosity, which is appreciated for generating gels; particularly in the food industry, these properties allow it to act as a food additive in the production of jams, jellies, and confectionery [19].
  • Gums are highly branched complex carbohydrates composed of various sugars such as arabinose, galactose, rhamnose, and mannose; however, they can also be mixed with proteins or resins, characterized by having colloidal properties [20]. Gums are mainly extracted from plants, seeds, trees, and shrubs (e.g., Arabic, karaya, and cashew gums; however, they are also produced by bacteria. Gums are gelling, thickening, emulsifying, and stabilizing agents, with applications in the food, textile, pharmaceutical, cosmetic product, coating, encapsulant, and film industries [21].

2.2. Algal Polysaccharides

Polysaccharides are the most abundant macromolecules in the structure of algae, since they are found as mucopolysaccharides, i.e., structural and energy storage molecules [22]. Although between 4% and 76% of the dry weight of algae corresponds to polysaccharides, the content varies depending on the species of algae; for example, green algae have lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose, brown algae have only cellulose, and red algae are made of dietary fiber [23]. Some polysaccharides found in algae are described below.
  • Agar is a thermoreversible material composed of a linear chain of galactopyranose units linked by (1–4) bonds [24]. This gelatinous substance has gelling, thickening, texturizing, and stabilizing properties, and it is mainly used in the food industry (e.g., beverages, confectionery, dairy products, and dressings) and in bacteriological and biotechnological processes (e.g., culture media) [25].
  • Carrageenans and galactans are extracted polysaccharides from marine red algae with very similar characteristics. Galactans are composed of a chain of galactoses linked by (1–6) bonds with (1–3) branches [26], while carrageenans have their main chain of galactoses linked by (1–3) bonds and branches with (1–4) links [27]. Both polysaccharides are used as gelling and thickening agents in the food industry due to their rheological properties. In addition, they are important in the medical, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic areas due to their antiviral, antitumor, and anticoagulant activity [28].
  • Alginate is a heteropolysaccharide that is extracted mainly from brown algae, consisting of guluronic and mannuronic acids [29]. It is characterized by its resistance and flexibility, which give it high viscosity and stability, as well as gelling properties [30]. In addition, it is valued for its antibacterial activity, biodegradability, nontoxicity, and biocompatibility. Its industrial application is directed particularly toward the generation of particles, matrix materials, encapsulants, or biocontrol agents [29].

2.3. Animal Polysaccharides

Animal polysaccharides are considered natural biopolymers due to their biodegradability, biocompatibility, nontoxicity, and non-antigenicity. Furthermore, these biological macromolecules play a structural and storage role in animals, since they are part of the tissues and cell matrix, and they are a source of energy. These polysaccharides can be divided into chitins and glycosaminoglycans [31,32]; the major animal polysaccharides are described below.
  • Chitin is a nitrogenous polysaccharide made up of N-acetyl-d-glucosamine that is extracted from the external skeletons of crustaceans (e.g., crabs, lobsters, and krill), invertebrate animals (e.g., octopuses, clams, and snails), insects (e.g., scorpions, ants, and spiders), and some fungi [33]. This polysaccharide has a crystalline structure; however, its association with protein molecules produces amorphous zones, which makes its application extensive. For example, chitin is used as an enzyme immobilizer, as well as for the generation of biosensors, excipients, and drug vehicles, due to its gel-forming properties [34].
  • When chitin reaches 50% deacetylation it becomes a semicrystalline material called chitosan. This polymer is the only one with pseudo-natural cationic characteristics [34]. In addition, the structural and chemical change of chitin to chitosan makes it totally soluble, biodegradable, biocompatible, and antimicrobial; thus, its application varies a little with respect to chitin. Studies have demonstrated its use as a flocculant, purifier, gel former, carrier, and microbial biocontrol agent [35].
  • Hyaluronic acid is made up of disaccharides of N-acetylglucosamine and glucuronic acid linked by (1–3) and (1–4) bonds, and it is found in the body tissues and fluids of vertebrate animals and some bacteria [36]. This polysaccharide is of commercial interest due to its antigenic potential and viscoelastic properties; in particular, the pharmaceutical, dermatological, and cosmetic industries use it as a preservative, healing, and anti-wrinkle agent [37].

2.4. Bacterial Polysaccharides

Bacterial polysaccharides are natural biopolymers made up of monosaccharide chains, which, depending on the type of chain, have rheological, biological, and physicochemical properties. These molecules are valued for their viscous, thickening, stabilizing, and gelling properties, in addition to their antitumor, anti-inflammatory, and antimicrobial activities [38]. The production of bacterial polysaccharides can be carried out in two ways, extracellularly and intracellularly, depending on the substrates and requirements of the bacteria [39]; the most commercially important bacterial polysaccharides are described below.
  • Dextran is an exopolysaccharide generally synthesized by lactic acid bacteria. Its structure is made up of glucose linked by α-(1–6) bonds and branches with α-(1–2), α-(1–3), or α-(1–4) links. Commercial dextran is produced by Leuconostoc mesenteroides (generally recognized as safe, GRAS); therefore, its application is mainly directed toward food products (e.g., bakery and confectionery) taking advantage of its gelling, texturizing, and emulsifying properties. However, the properties of dextran are a function of the producing strain (e.g., Lactococcus, Lactobacillus, and Streptococcus) and the structural and physicochemical characteristics they possess [40,41].
  • Gellan, commercially known as gellan gum, is a polysaccharide with a linear structure of acetylated tetrasaccharide units synthesized by Sphingomonas elodea. Its rheological properties give it a gelling action, which is why it is used in the formation of matrices, tissue engineering, and encapsulation [42,43].
  • Xanthan, commercially known as xanthan gum, is a heteropolysaccharide of pentasaccharide units synthesized by Xanthomonas campestris. It is important for the textile, medical, and food industries for its stabilizing, thickening, and gelling properties [44]. It is a gum with wide applications, since its stability and characteristics depend on pH and temperature; however, its synthesis is limited by high production costs [45].
  • Levan is a polymer made up of fructose linked by β-(2–6) bonds and branches with β-(2–1) links [46]. The structure and molecular weight of the polymer depend on the producing organism (e.g., Acetobacter, Bacillus, and Pseudomonas) and the fermentation conditions (e.g., pH, temperature, and sucrose concentration); hence, each type of levan has its own functional properties, stability, viscosity, and immunogenic activity. Its application is directed toward the food industry as a texture and flavor enhancer, prebiotic, and stabilizer; in addition, it is used as a coating for nanoparticles [47].

2.5. Fungal Polysaccharides

Fungal polysaccharides are found in the cell wall or are formed from energetic processes in edible fungi and yeasts [48]. They are polymeric molecules with linear and branched structures that are composed of homo- and heteropolysaccharides that can be joined by β-(1–3), β-(1–6), or α-(1–3) bonds, resulting in complex structures with different characteristics. For example, the antitumor activity of these polysaccharides is known to be influenced by the spatial conformation of the molecule, the degree of branching, and the molecular mass [49]. Some fungal polysaccharides are described below.
  • Elsinan is an extracellular polysaccharide made up of α-(1–3) and α-(1–4) linked maltotriose and maltotetraose units produced by Elsinoe spp. when exposed to a medium with maltose, glucose, fructose, sucrose, and starch. Elsinan is soluble in water and insoluble in organic solvents, and it exhibits high viscosity; thus, its main function is to form films [50].
  • Pullulan is a linear homopolysaccharide synthesized by Aureobasidium pullulans; it is made up of maltotriose and maltotetraose units with α-(1–3), α-(1–4), and α-(1–6) bonds, with a three-dimensional structure similar to maltodextrin and amylopectin [50]. In industry, it is used as a substitute for gelatin due to its rheological characteristics, with the capability of forming gels, coatings, films, and encapsulates; in addition, it is a dietary prebiotic and a stabilizer [47].
  • β-Glucan is a dietary fiber located in the cell wall of algae, bacteria, yeasts, and fungi, particularly Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Its structure is made up of glucose monomers linked through β-(1–3) glycosidic bonds in bacteria and algae, β-(1–3) and β-(1–4) bonds in bacteria, or β-(1–3) and β-(1–6) in yeasts and fungi. This polysaccharide may be soluble or insoluble in water depending on its structure and molecular weight; its applications stem from its hypocholesterolemic effect, viscosity, and resistance to acidic pH [18,51].
  • Galactan is a polysaccharide made up of galactoses linked by β-(1–4) and sometimes β-(1–6) bonds [52], produced not only by fungi, but also by algae, animals, plants, and other microorganisms. Galactan is important in the pharmaceutical industry due to its antithrombotic, anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral activities, while the food industry uses it as a food supplement [53].

3. Biodegradable Films

Biodegradable films and coatings are solid matrices formed by crosslinking between polymers and additives (e.g., plasticizers and crosslinking agents) [54,55]; however, it is important to identify the difference between both. Coatings are generated directly on the product by spraying or immersion techniques, while films are pre-generated before covering the product [56] by casting, extrusion, or electrospinning techniques [57]. The main method for the generation of biodegradable films is the casting technique [58], in which a dispersion between compounds (i.e., polymers and additives) is generated with a volatile solvent, which is poured into a smooth mold and left to stand until the solvent evaporates [59].

Characteristics and Properties of Biodegradable Films

Biodegradable films are an alternative that the packaging industry has targeted, particularly for food packaging. Therefore, the function of biodegradable films is not to completely replace synthetic packaging, but to mitigate the environmental impact generated by solid waste [60] and provide a benefit to food by intervening in its useful life [6,61]. Therefore, biodegradable films must meet the following requirements and characteristics so that they can be functional [58,62]:
(1)
prevent or mitigate mechanical damage,
(2)
prevent or reduce lipid oxidation,
(3)
prevent or reduce microbial spoilage,
(4)
control oxygen absorption,
(5)
generate a selective barrier to carbon dioxide and water vapor,
(6)
regulate the generation of ethylene to delay senescence,
(7)
regulate the release of food additives (e.g., antioxidants, dyes, and flavors).
Biodegradable films require at least one polymeric component, based on lipids (e.g., waxes, fatty acids, and acylglycerol), proteins (e.g., caseins, whey protein, and zeins), polysaccharides (e.g., cellulose, starch, and gums), or their mixtures [9]. In addition, additives (such as plasticizers and surfactants) to modify the intermolecular bonds between polymers can be incorporated, or even bioactive compounds with fungicide, herbicide, and antioxidant capacity (e.g., natural extracts) to inhibit the development and spread of pathogenic microorganisms [63,64,65,66]. Accordingly, the thickening, gelling, and emulsifying properties of the dispersion, the texture of the matrix during polymerization, the cohesion and assembly when dehydrated, and the organoleptic and mechanical characteristics in the final film are improved [55,67,68,69,70,71]. However, not all polymers have the intrinsic properties suitable for use in the production of biodegradable films [72].
Polysaccharides are the most used polymers in the formulation of packaging materials for food preservation, due to their low cost and accessibility; however, the choice of polysaccharides in the formulation of biodegradable films is preferred due to the easy modification of nature hydrophilic with additives, which is reflected in its mechanical and barrier properties [9].
The efficiency of barrier properties such as water vapor permeability (WVP), ethylene content, and oxygen level maintain control of the transfer of ambient moisture and volatile components (e.g., aromas and flavors) [73], which influence the food preservation [74], dehydration of fresh products, hydration of dry products, or oxidation of polyunsaturated fats in food [9]. On the other hand, mechanical properties such as tensile strength (TS), elongation at break (EB), and young modulus (E) are related to the integrity and brittleness of films during handling and storage [75]. Some investigations reported that mechanical properties improved with the incorporation of hydrophobic additives (e.g., glycerol or sorbitol) [76]. Physicochemical characteristics such as color, opacity, luminosity, morphology, and roughness are directly related to the type and concentration of polysaccharides, as well as the film-making method [77,78]. However, the need to understand the behavior of polysaccharides and additives to improve the properties and functionality of biodegradable films is reflected in the increasing number of reported studies, as shown in the next section.

4. Biodegradable Films Based on Polysaccharides

According to the Scopus database [79], studies on biodegradable films have had an average annual increase of 13% in the last decade, highlighting a 24% increase in publications last year (2021). According to published studies [79], polysaccharides are the most widely used materials for the generation of biodegradable films, due to their affordable cost, variety of extraction sources, and functional properties. Current studies that have characterized biodegradable films from different sources (i.e., plants, animals, bacteria, algae, and fungi) are grouped in Table 1. When analyzing the mechanical and barrier properties, different results can be observed, apparently without any relationship; however, each study followed its own methodology where the type and concentration of polysaccharides or additives may have varied.

4.1. Biodegradable Films Based on Starches

Starch-based biodegradable films are the most studied because they are considered isotropic, colorless, tasteless, odorless, nontoxic, and biologically degradable [162]; however, the hydrophilic nature of starch requires proper formulation to generate functional films (i.e., mechanical strength) with control over water content and WVP [15]. However, the source of production has an influence on the mechanical and barrier properties, due to the fact that, by their nature, starch films have good WVP, but mechanical properties depend on the crystallinity of the starch used [9].
For example, La Fuente et al. [83], Shrestha and Dhungana [80], and Sama and Yuliasih [106] evaluated biodegradable films based on cassava, sorghum, and potato starch, respectively. Although the results did not show a trend in TS, E, EB, and WVP, the cassava starch-based films had the highest E and EB results, while the potato starch films stood out for presenting higher values of TS. This variation can be seen more clearly in the studies by Cabrera Canales et al. [93] and La Fuente et al. [97], who evaluated native starch from two sources (achira and potato, respectively), and the results showed significantly differences in the mechanical properties; however, the barrier properties were numerically similar. According to Horstmann et al. [163], the composition of starch was varied in terms of proportion of amylose and amylopectin and their branches, proteins, lipids, ash, and moisture content; this approach generated variations in morphology, granule size, solubility, and functional properties (e.g., gelatinization and pasting). Therefore, any variation in the composition of the starch positively or negatively affects its properties.
The source from which the starch is obtained is not the only variable that influences the mechanical and barrier properties. There are studies [164,165] showing that the addition of plasticizers and surfactants such as glycerol, sorbitol, and Tween generates changes in the three-dimensional networks that allow the formation of biodegradable films, affecting their hydrophobicity, permeability, and mechanical resistance. The study by Karki et al. [105] evaluated biodegradable films of potato waste starch with glycerol and sorbitol, and they reported significant variation in the mechanical properties; sorbitol improved the TS of the films, while glycerol benefited EB. Previous studies conducted comprehensive evaluations of plasticizers and their effect on biodegradable films. For example, Sanyang et al. [166] noted that the mechanical properties in sugar palm starch films varied according to the type of plasticizer (i.e., glycerol, sorbitol, or mixture of both). For example, films plasticized with sorbitol presented higher TS and films plasticized with glycerol presented higher EB percentage; however, both plasticizers had an anti-plasticizer effect, which was previously reported when used in high concentrations, particularly in starch films [167]. While the biodegradable films plasticized with glycerol and a glycerol–sorbitol mixture presented similar WVP results, films plasticized with sorbitol presented the lowest WVP of the three, in direct relation to concentration [166]. Specifically, a lower concentration of sorbitol led to a lower WVP due to the interactions generated because of the structure and compactness of the polymer matrix [168].
It has been shown that starches can be physically or chemically modified to improve their film-forming properties [83], in such a way that the acetylation, acid–alcohol hydrolysis, ozone, or hydrothermal methods can be used to reorganize the molecular structure, modify the gelatinization temperature, or improve the solubility of starches [169,170]. Shrestha et al. [80] evaluated biodegradable films of native and modified sorghum starch in three different ways (i.e., hydrothermal treatment, acetylation, and acid–alcohol hydrolysis). In general terms, the hydrothermal and acetylated films improved the mechanical properties of the native starch films; that is, the hydrothermal film had the highest TS values, while the acetylated film had the highest EB percentage of all films. These results were related to the alterations suffered by the starches when they were modified; the improvement of the acetylated films was related to the increase in the degree of solubility and swelling power, whereas the hydrothermal treatment increased the water binding capacity [80].
Cabrera Canales et al. [93] used other types of treatments such as hydrolyzation, succination, or a mixture of both to modify achira starch and generate different biodegradable films. The study showed that the modified starch films improved the TS and the EB compared to the native starch film, which was related to the increase in crystalline areas due to the effect of chemical modifications of starches that caused greater matrix mobility [93]. However, in the modified films, a decrease in E was observed as a consequence of the generation of short chains (by hydrolysis), the remaining granules (by succination), or the little interaction with hydroxyl groups (both processes) between each starch [171,172,173]. Furthermore, the WVP had significant variations since the hydrolyzed films presented lower values and the hydrolyzed–succinated films had higher values, since the water adsorption, crystallinity, and interstitial spaces depended on the interactions generated between the modified chains of each starch and the plasticizing agent [174,175].

4.2. Biodegradable Films Based on Celluloses and Derivates

Celluloses are used in various food packaging materials because they are versatile, low-cost, and nontoxic, and they have excellent mechanical properties. For example, cellophane is the most widely used cellulose derivative in packaging; however, its formulation with synthetic materials classifies it as a highly polluting material [176]. There are other natural derivatives of cellulose that are used in the formulation of biodegradable films, such as carboxymethyl cellulose, cellulose regenerate, and some cellulose esters (e.g., cellulose acetate, palmitate, and octanoate). Films generated with cellulose or their derivatives are flexible and moderately resistant, with efficient WVP; however, these properties vary depending on the hydrophobicity and crystallinity modification caused by the incorporated additives [9].
For example, Leppänen et al. [82] evaluated different types of celluloses in the formation of biodegradable films and found that the mechanical properties varied greatly. In general, regenerated cellulose films had the highest E values but the lowest EB values, while cellulose octanoate films had the highest EB values and the lowest E values. These results showed the great influence of the methodologies used to generate biodegradable films, since each one was made in a different way; however, it was also shown that the addition of a plasticizer such as glycerol did not improve the mechanical properties.
Zabihollahi et al. [84], Peighambardoust et al. [85], and Rincón et al. [86] evaluated biodegradable films of carboxymethyl cellulose. Analyzing the WVP results, it is evident that the Peighambardoust et al. [85] presented the highest value, while the biodegradable films of Rincón et al. [86] presented the lowest value; however, it can be noted that the results of the mechanical properties were similar, despite the fact that the methodologies, proportion of polysaccharide, and addition of plasticizer were totally different. These findings suggest that none of these variables is totally influential with respect to the resistance and versatility of the biodegradable cellulose films; even the films with glycerol resulted in lower TS and higher EB than the films that did not contain the plasticizer. This effect was reported by Hidayati et al. [177], who evaluated the effect of glycerol on carboxymethyl cellulose films and noted that, as the concentration increased, the TS decreased while the EB increased. The authors [177] established that the hydrophilic properties of glycerol decreased the intermolecular force of the carboxymethyl cellulose molecules, which allowed the matrix to elongate (higher EB) but, as a result, become more susceptible to rupture by an external force (TS). It has been reported [178,179] that the combination of carboxymethyl cellulose with other polysaccharides (e.g., chitosan and starch) can increase the TS of biodegradable films by increasing their concentration; however, EB and WVP tend to decrease. This is justified by the modification of the crystallinity of the pure matrix (a single polysaccharide), which, when mixed, increases its amorphous zones due to the disorganization of the chains, making them resistant, due to the increase in the interaction between functional groups (e.g., hydroxyl and carboxyl groups), but not very flexible, due to the lack of mobility of the chains [178].

4.3. Biodegradable Films Based on Pectins

Pectin-based biodegradable films are the natural material proposals that have presented the most disadvantages, due to their fragile nature and poor WVP and mechanical properties; however, these films have a positive influence with the addition of plasticizing agents [100]. For example, Shafie et al. [98] and Gouveia et al. [100] generated biodegradable pectin films; in the first study, no plasticizer was used, while, in the second study. glycerol was evaluated. The films with glycerol showed an evident increase in ST, but a decrease in EB. Such an effect is contrary to what happens to cellulose films with the addition of glycerol (Section 4.2); however, it is not a recurrent result in pectin films. In previous studies [180], the effect of increasing glycerol concentration in pectin films was evaluated, and the results were consistent with a decrease in TS and an increase in EB (as in cellulose-based biodegradable films).
In addition, the studies by Aitboulahsen et al. [99] and Gouveia et al. [100] tested various plasticizers to evaluate the variation in mechanical and permeability properties. The results showed that sorbitol was able to increase the TS and GE of the biodegradable pectin films, compared to glycerol, natural deep eutectic solvent, and choline chloride; however, the positive effect of sorbitol on the mechanical properties is not specific to biodegradable pectin films, as the study by Ballesteros-Mártinez et al. [181] also reported the highest TS values in sweet potato starch films. The authors [181] suggested that, in the first instance, any plasticizer can modify the density of the film; that is, as the plasticizer is incorporated, the matrix becomes less dense, which causes an increase in the movement of the chains and, therefore, their elasticity (EB). On the other hand, the results of the ST are related to the interaction of the plasticizer with the polymeric chains; glycerol, having a smaller molecular size, more easily establishes itself in the intermolecular spaces, whereas sorbitol maintains bonds with the polysaccharide surface while avoiding interference with the hydrogen bonds that must be formed to generate resistance [182].
The studies by Jovanović et al. [101] Dash et al. [102] showed that the incorporation of a second polysaccharide in the formulation of pectin-based films also had a positive effect on the mechanical properties and the WVP; in addition, the incorporation of a plasticizer into the mixture improved the TS and the E, which, as in cellulose films, was due to the increase in the amorphous zones of the polymer matrix and the intermolecular interaction between glycerol and this matrix [178].

4.4. Biodegradable Films Based on Gums

Gums are defined as hydrocolloids due to their properties as emulsifiers, stabilizers, texturizers, thickeners, coating agents, and film generators; however, their potential application depends on the type of gum and its source [183]. The gums most used as film-forming agents are guar, gellan, xanthan, Persian, konjac glucomannan, and Arabic gums; however, the study carried out by Pedreiro et al. [184] established that their main application is as a coating (see Section 3) applied directly (by immersion or dipping) on the surface of foods (e.g., tomatoes, guavas, mangoes, and mushrooms) Because they are GRAS, they can perfectly incorporate bioactive compounds (e.g., extracts or antimicrobial agents) and extend the shelf life of products [184].
When comparing the studies that reported the use of gums in the formulation of biodegradable films shown in Table 1, the values of some mechanical properties were lower compared to those reported for biodegradable films of starches and cellulose. Reports have suggested that, for the WVP and mechanical properties to be improved in gum-based films, additives must be incorporated [9].
Kirtil et al. [89] reported lower values of TS, E, and EB in their biodegradable guar gum films compared to the values reported by Leppänen et al. [82] for their cellulose octanoate-based films. However, the variation in the plasticizing agents or the incorporation of a second polysaccharide in the formulation considerably improved the mechanical properties; for example, the biodegradable films of tragacanth gum reported by Janani et al. [108] had increased TS values up to 36% and increased EB values up to 650% upon adding polyvinyl alcohol as a second film former. Mohsin et al. [153] elaborated composite films of guar and gellan gums, while Gao et al. [90] varied the plasticizing agent (Tween-20) in their guar gum films; in both studies, the TS results were reported higher than any starch film in Table 1. In addition, the study by Zhu et al. [161] showed that the incorporation of gelatin as a third polysaccharide in films of xanthan gum–curdlan gum increased TS and EB by up to 43%, however, to obtain a significant improvement, the proportion of gelatin had to be up to 90%.
On the other hand, the studies in Table 1 also showed that gum-based biodegradable films generally maintain the lowest WVP values, which is important for the application of the films in food models. During the respiration processes of natural foods such as fruits and vegetables, sugars undergo an oxidation process in the presence of oxygen, resulting in the release of carbon dioxide, water, and, in some cases, ethylene [185]. In the application of biodegradable films, a WVP is sought (depending on the respiration rate of the product) that ensures that water vapor will be released to delay the maturation of the product [186].

4.5. Biodegradable Films Based on Agars

Agar is easy to extract, safe, and cheap, making it a profitable polysaccharide for biodegradable film formation [187]. The formation of the agar matrix results from the intermolecular interaction of hydrogens of agarose with water molecules; in addition, its properties allow it to interact with bioactive substances such as antimicrobials [188]. According to Mostafavi and Zaeim [189], the greatest limitations of biodegradable agar films are their fragility, low elasticity, high solubility, low thermal stability, and high permeability; therefore, one solution is to incorporate other polysaccharides and plasticizing agents. However, the studies in Table 1 showed that, in general, the mechanical (i.e., TS and EB) and barrier properties are relatively low (compared to starch films). Furthermore, the incorporation of plasticizers does not significantly increase the values. For example, Campa-Siqueiros et al. [109] developed agar films with high TS and E values but low E values; however, upon adding glycerol in the formulation, the values of TS and E decreased.
It is important to highlight that the studies reported the highest values of E; however, the addition of glycerol, polyglycol, or different polysaccharides (e.g., alginate, carboxymethyl cellulose, and gellan gum) did not generate a linear variation in the values. Therefore, the results depended on the interactions generated during the formation of the matrix.

5. Concluding Remarks

Packaging made from biodegradable materials or obtained from renewable sources, such as biodegradable films, have become a viable alternative in product packaging. Biodegradable films based on polysaccharides and plasticizers can assume the role of a primary container and even act as a bioactive container if some antioxidant and antimicrobial components or extracts with some functional activities are incorporated. The initial idea of the knowledge of the mechanical and barrier properties results in the application to biodegradable films. Ideally, the film should be resistant enough for handling during the packaging processes; in addition, the WVP defines the product to which it can be applied. For example, in products with a high respiration rate, it is required that the WVP be high so that the steam generated by the post-harvest metabolism of the food is released into the environment to delay maturation. On the other hand, the characteristics of polysaccharides influence their availability to interact with bioactive components, in such a way that the generated biodegradable films can serve as antimicrobial barriers while delaying the degradation of highly perishable products.
Lastly, it can be said that biodegradable polysaccharide-based films have unique characteristics depending on the polymeric materials, plasticizers, bioactive agents, concentrations, and formation techniques; therefore, the incorporation or mixture of these variables results in multiple options that can serve as packaging even for the same food. However, although some polysaccharide-based films are marketed, packaging based on synthetic or hybrid materials (mixtures of synthetic and biodegradable materials) continue to lead the market; therefore, biodegradable films continue to be an attractive area for further exploration and contribution.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sadaf, A.; Zoheb, K. Polysaccharides. In Polysaccharide-Based Nanocomposites for Gene Delivery and Tissue Engineering; Showkat, A.B., Zoheb, K., Mohammad, J., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 1–14. ISBN 9780128212301. [Google Scholar]
  2. Simayi, Z.; Rozi, P.; Yang, X.; Ababaikeri, G.; Maimaitituoheti, W.; Bao, X.; Ma, S.; Askar, G.; Yadikar, N. Isolation, Structural Characterization, Biological Activity, and Application of Glycyrrhiza Polysaccharides: Systematic Review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 183, 387–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Qianlong, L.; Shanyong, W.; Xuchen, J.; Caoxing, H.; Zhouyang, X. The Application of Polysaccharides and Their. Polymers 2020, 12, 1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. de Souza, M.A.; Vilas-Boas, I.T.; Leite-da-Silva, J.M.; Abrahão, P.d.N.; Teixeira-Costa, B.E.; Veiga-Junior, V.F. Polysaccharides in Agro-Industrial Biomass Residues. Polysaccharides 2022, 3, 95–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wu, H.; Shang, H.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, H.; Wu, H. Comparison of Different Extraction Methods of Polysaccharides from Cup Plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.). Process. Biochem. 2020, 90, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bourtoom, T.; Chinnan, M.S. Preparation and Properties of Rice Starch-Chitosan Blend Biodegradable Film. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 41, 1633–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Acevedo-Fani, A.; Soliva-Fortuny, R.; Martín-Belloso, O. Nanoemulsions as Edible Coatings. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2017, 15, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tahir, H.E.; Xiaobo, Z.; Mahunu, G.K.; Arslan, M.; Abdalhai, M.; Zhihua, L. Recent Developments in Gum Edible Coating Applications for Fruits and Vegetables Preservation: A Review. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 224, 115141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cazón, P.; Velazquez, G.; Ramírez, J.A.; Vázquez, M. Polysaccharide-Based Films and Coatings for Food Packaging: A Review. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 68, 136–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ahmed, S.; Kanchi, S.; Kumar, G. Handbook of Biopolymers-Advances and Multifaceted Applications; Pan Stanford Publishing Pte. Ltd.: Singapore, 2019; ISBN 9789814800174. [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, H.; Jia, Y.; Guo, Q. Polysaccharides and Polysaccharide Complexes as Potential Sources of Antidiabetic Compounds: A Review. In Studies in Natural Products Chemistry, 1st ed.; Atta-ur-Rahman, Ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; Volume 67, pp. 199–220. ISBN 9780128194836. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kikuchi, J.; Yamada, S. Gut Microbe Transformation of Natural Products: Plant. Polysaccharides Are Metabolized by Animal Symbionts. In Comprehensive Natural Products III, 3rd ed.; Liu, H.-W., Begley, T.P., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 519–528. ISBN 9780081026915. [Google Scholar]
  13. Pérez, S.; Bertoft, E. The Molecular Structures of Starch Components and Their Contribution to the Architecture of Starch Granules: A Comprehensive Review. Starch/Staerke 2010, 62, 389–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bello Perez, L.A.; Agama-Acevedo, E. Starch. In Starch-Based Materials in Food Packaging—Processing, Characterization and Applications; Villar, M.A., García, M.A., Castillo, L.A., López, O.V., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; ISBN 9780128094396. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chivrac, F.; Angellier-Coussy, H.; Guillard, V.; Pollet, E.; Avérous, L. How Does Water Diffuse in Starch/Montmorillonite Nano-Biocomposite Materials? Carbohydr. Polym. 2010, 82, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Esa, F.; Tasirin, S.M.; Rahman, N.A. Overview of Bacterial Cellulose Production and Application. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2014, 2, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Sun, S.; Sun, S.; Cao, X.; Sun, R. The Role of Pretreatment in Improving the Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Lignocellulosic Materials. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 199, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Mudgil, D. The Interaction between Insoluble and Soluble Fiber. In Dietary Fiber for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease—Fibers’s Interaction Between Gut Micoflora, Sugar Metabolism, Weight Control and Cardiovascular Health; Samaan, R.A., Ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 35–59. ISBN 9780128051306. [Google Scholar]
  19. Flutto, L. Pectin: Properties and Determination. In Encyclopedia of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 2nd ed.; Caballero, B., Ed.; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003; pp. 4440–4449. ISBN 9780122270550. [Google Scholar]
  20. Patten, A.M.; Vassão, D.G.; Wolcott, M.P.; Davin, L.B.; Lewis, N.G. Trees: A Remarkable Biochemical Bounty. Compr. Nat. Prod. II Chem. Biol. 2010, 3, 1173–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Aires da Silva, D.; Melo Aires, G.C.; da Silva Pena, R. Gums—Characteristics and Applications in the Food Industry. In Innovation in the Food Sector through the Valorization of Food and Agro-Food By-Products; Novo de Barros, A., Gouvinhas, I., Eds.; Intech Open: London, UK, 2021; pp. 1–24. ISBN 9781838806835. [Google Scholar]
  22. Usman, A.; Khalid, S.; Usman, A.; Hussain, Z.; Wang, Y. Algal Polysaccharides, Novel Application, and Outlook. In Algae Based Polymers, Blends, and Composites: Chemistry, Biotechnology and Materials Science; Zia, K.M., Zuber, M., Ali, M., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 115–153. ISBN 9780128123607. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kraan, S. Algal Polysaccharides, Novel Application, and Outlook. In Carbohydrates-Comprehensive Studies on Glycobiology and Glycotechnology; Chang, C.-F., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2012; pp. 489–532. ISBN 9789535108641. [Google Scholar]
  24. BeMiller, J.N. Carrageenans. In Carbohydrate Chemistry for Food Scientists, 3rd ed.; BeMiller, J.N., Ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 279–291. ISBN 9780128120699. [Google Scholar]
  25. Sousa, A.M.M.; Rocha, C.M.R.; Gonçalves, M.P. Agar. In Handbook of Hydrocolloids; Phillips, G.O., Williams, P.A., Eds.; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 731–765. ISBN 9780128201046. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bonechi, C.; Consumi, M.; Donati, A.; Leone, G.; Magnani, A.; Tamasi, G.; Rossi, C. Biomass: An Overview. In Bioenergy Systems for the Future; Dalena, F., BAsile, A., Rossi, C., Eds.; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; ISBN 9780081010310. [Google Scholar]
  27. Chrity, E.J.S.; Rajeswari, A.; Pius, A. Biopolymer Applications in Cosmeceutical Industries. In Biopolymers and Their Industrial Applications; Thomas, S., Gopi, S., Amalraj, A., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 219–243. ISBN 9780128192405. [Google Scholar]
  28. Thomas, N.V.; Kim, S.K. Fucoidans from Marine Algae as Potential Matrix Metalloproteinase Inhibitors. In Advances in Food and Nutricion Research, 1st ed.; Kim, S.-K., Ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 72, pp. 177–193. ISBN 9780128002698. [Google Scholar]
  29. Radoor, S.; Karayil, J.; Jayakumar, A.; Radhakrishnan, E.K.; Parameswaranpillai, J.; Siengchin, S. Alginate-Based Bionanocomposites in Wound Dressings. In Bionanocomposites in Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine; Ahmed, S., Annu, Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 351–375. ISBN 9780128212806. [Google Scholar]
  30. Angra, V.; Sehgal, R.; Kaur, M.; Gupta, R. Commercialization of Bionanocomposites. In Bionanocomposites in Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine; Ahmed, S., Annu, Eds.; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 587–610. ISBN 9780128212806. [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhao, W.; Liu, W.; Li, J.; Lin, X.; Wang, Y. Preparation of Animal Polysaccharides Nanofibers by Electrospinning and Their Potential Biomedical Applications. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2015, 103, 807–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Li, Q.; Niu, Y.; Xing, P.; Wang, C. Bioactive Polysaccharides from Natural Resources Including Chinese Medicinal Herbs on Tissue Repair. Chin. Med. 2018, 13, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Daraghmeh, N.H.; Chowdhry, B.Z.; Leharne, S.A.; Al Omari, M.M.; Badwan, A.A. Chitin. In Profiles of Drug Substances, Excipients and Related Methodology; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 36, pp. 35–102. ISBN 9780123876676. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rinaudo, M. Chitin and Chitosan: Properties and Applications. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2006, 31, 603–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jiang, T.; James, R.; Kumbar, S.G.; Laurencin, C.T. Chitosan as a Biomaterial: Structure, Properties, and Applications in Tissue Engineering and Drug Delivery. In Natural and Synthetic Biomedical Polymers, 1st ed.; Kumbar, S.G., Laurencin, C.T., Deng, M., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 91–113. ISBN 9780123969835. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kuo, J.-W.; Prestwich, G.D. Hyaluronic Acid. In Comprehensive Biomaterials; Ducheyne, P., Ed.; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 2, pp. 239–259. ISBN 9780080552941. [Google Scholar]
  37. Aronson, J.K. Hyaluronic Acid. In Meyler’s Side Effects of Drugs, 6th ed.; Aronson, J.K., Ed.; Elsevier B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 862–863. ISBN 9780444537164. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kaur, R.; Panwar, D.; Panesar, P.S. Biotechnological Approach for Valorization of Whey for Value-Added Products. In Food Industry Wastes: Assessment and Recuperation of Commodities, 2nd ed.; Kosseva, M.R., Webb, C., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 275–302. ISBN 9780128171219. [Google Scholar]
  39. Angelin, J.; Kavitha, M. Exopolysaccharides from Probiotic Bacteria and Their Health Potential. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 162, 853–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Díaz-Montes, E.; Yáñez-Fernández, J.; Castro-Muñoz, R. Characterization of Oligodextran Produced by Leuconostoc Mesenteroides SF3 and Its Effect on Film-Forming Properties of Chitosan. Mater. Today Commun. 2021, 28, 102487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Díaz-Montes, E. Dextran: Sources, Structures, and Properties. Polysaccharides 2021, 2, 554–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. BeMiller, J.N. Hydrocolloids. In Gluten-Free Cereal Products and Beverages-Food Science and Technology; Arendt, E.K., Dal Bello, F., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 203–215. ISBN 9780123737397. [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhang, Z.; Ortiz, O.; Goyal, R.; Kohn, J. Biodegradable Polymers. In Principles of Tissue Engineering, 4th ed.; Lanza, R., Langer, R., Vacanti, J., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 441–473. ISBN 9780123983589. [Google Scholar]
  44. Bhat, I.M.; Wani, S.M.; Mir, S.A.; Masoodi, F.A. Advances in Xanthan Gum Production, Modifications and Its Applications. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2022, 42, 102328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lo, Y.M.; Argin-Soysal, S.; Hsu, C.H. Bioconversion of Whey Lactose into Microbial Exopolysaccharides. In Bioprocessing for Value-Added Products from Renewable Resources; Yang, S.-T., Ed.; Elsevier B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 559–583. ISBN 9780444521149. [Google Scholar]
  46. Meyer, D. Health Benefits of Prebiotic Fibers. In Advances in Food and Nutrition Research; Henry, J., Ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; Volume 74, pp. 47–91. ISBN 9780128022269. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kırtel, O.; Avşar, G.; Erkorkmaz, B.A.; Öner, E.T. Microbial Polysaccharides as Food Ingredients. In Microbial Production of Food Ingredients and Additives; Holban, A.M., Grumezescu, A.M., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 347–383. ISBN 9780128115206. [Google Scholar]
  48. Giavasis, I. Bioactive Fungal Polysaccharides as Potential Functional Ingredients in Food and Nutraceuticals. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2014, 26, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Xiao, Z.; Zhou, W.; Zhang, Y. Fungal Polysaccharides. In Advances in Pharmacology; Du, G., Ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 87, pp. 277–299. ISBN 9780128201855. [Google Scholar]
  50. Park, J.K.; Khan, T. Other Microbial Polysaccharides: Pullulan, Scleroglucan, Elsinan, Levan, Alternant, Dextran. In Handbook of Hydrocolloids, 2nd ed.; Phillips, G.O., Williams, P.A., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Cambridge, UK, 2009; pp. 592–614. ISBN 9781845694142. [Google Scholar]
  51. Douglas, C.M. Fungal β(1,3)-D-Glucan Synthesis. Med. Mycol. Suppl. 2001, 39, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Waldron, K.W.; Faulds, C.B. Cell Wall Polysaccharides: Composition and Structure. Compr. Glycosci. From Chem. Syst. Biol. 2007, 1–4, 181–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pierre, G.; Delattre, C.; Laroche, C.; Michaud, P. Galactans and Its Applications. In Polysaccharides; Ramawat, G., Mérillon, J.M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1–37. ISBN 9783319037516. [Google Scholar]
  54. Montalvo, C.; López-Malo, A.; Palou, E. Películas Comestibles de Proteína: Características, Propiedades y Aplicaciones. Temas Sel. Ing. Aliment. 2012, 6, 32–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Shit, S.C.; Shah, P.M. Edible Polymers: Challenges and Opportunities. J. Polym. 2014, 2014, 427259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Guimarães, A.; Abrunhosa, L.; Pastrana, L.M.; Cerqueira, M.A. Edible Films and Coatings as Carriers of Living Microorganisms: A New Strategy towards Biopreservation and Healthier Foods. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018, 17, 594–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Li, M.; Ye, R. Edible Active Packaging for Food Application: Materials and Technology. In Biopackaging; Masuelli, M.A., Ed.; Taylor & Francis Group, LLC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; pp. 1–19. ISBN 9781315152349. [Google Scholar]
  58. Díaz-Montes, E.; Castro-Muñoz, R. Edible Films and Coatings as Food-Quality Preservers: An Overview. Foods 2021, 10, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bölgen, N. Biodegradable Polymeric Micelles for Drug Delivery Applications. In Stimuli Responsive Polymeric Nanocarriers for Drug Delivery Applications: Types and Triggers; Hamdy Makhlouf, A.S., Abu-Thabit, N.Y., Eds.; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 635–651. ISBN 9780081019979. [Google Scholar]
  60. Contreras, C.B.; Charles, G.; Toselli, R.; Strumia, M.C. Antimicrobial Active Packaging. In Biopackaging; Masuelli, M.A., Ed.; Taylor & Francis Group, LLC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; pp. 36–58. ISBN 9781315152349. [Google Scholar]
  61. Escobar, R.; Sala, A.; Silvera, C.; Harispe, R.; Márquez, R. Películas Biodegradables y Comestibles Desarrolladas En Base a Aislado de Proteínas de Suero Lácteo: Estudio de Dos Métodos de Elaboración y Del Uso de Sorbato de Potasio Como Conservador. Rev. Lab. Tecnol. Urug. Innotec 2009, 33–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tharanathan, R.N. Biodegradable Films and Composite Coatings: Past, Present and Future. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2003, 14, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Enriquez, M.; Velasco, R.; Ortíz, V. Composición Y Procesamiento De Películas Biodegradables Basadas En Almidón. Biotecnol. Sect. Agropecu. Y Agroind. 2012, 10, 182–192. [Google Scholar]
  64. Voet, D.; Voet, J.G.; Pratt, C. Fundamentos de Bioquímica-La Vida a Nivel Molecular, 2nd ed.; Editorial Medica Panamericana: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2009; ISBN 9789500623148. [Google Scholar]
  65. Córsico, B.; Falomir Lockhart, L.J.; Franchini, G.R.; Scaglia, N. Análisis Estructural y Funcional de Macromoléculas; Univerdidad Nacional de La Plata: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2013; ISBN 9789503410578. [Google Scholar]
  66. Wypych, G. Handbook of Plasticizers; ChamTec Published: New York, NY, USA, 2004; ISBN 1895198291. [Google Scholar]
  67. Guilbert, S.; Gontard, N. Agro-Polymers for Edible and Biodegradable Films. Review of Agricultural Polymeric Materials, Physical and Mechanical Characteristics. In Innovations in Food Packaging; Han, J.H., Ed.; Academic Press, Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005; pp. 263–276. ISBN 9780123116321. [Google Scholar]
  68. Piculell, L.; Nilsson, S.; Viebke, C.; Zhang, W. Gelation of (Some) Seaweed Polysaccharides. In Food Hydrocolloids-Structures, Properties and Functions; Nishinari, K., Doi, E., Eds.; Springer Science+Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 35–44. ISBN 9781461360599. [Google Scholar]
  69. López-Munguía, C.A.; Brito de la Fuente, E.; Galindo, F.E. Biopolímeros. In Biotecnología Alimentaria; García, G.M., Quintero, R.R., López-Munguía, C.A., Eds.; Editorial Limusa, S.A. de C.V.: Mexico City, Mexico, 2004; pp. 423–451. ISBN 9681845226. [Google Scholar]
  70. Milani, J.; Maleki, G. Hydrocolloid in Food Industry. Food Ind. Process.–Methods Equip. 2012, 3, 17–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pérez, A.G. Lípidos. In Química II-Un Enfoque Constructivista, 1st ed.; Quintanar, D.E., Ed.; Pearson Educación de México, S.A. de C.V.: Mexico City, Mexico, 2007; pp. 195–212. ISBN 9789702608448. [Google Scholar]
  72. Briassoulis, D. An Overview on the Mechanical Behaviour of Biodegradable Agricultural Films. J. Polym. Environ. 2004, 12, 65–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Siracusa, V.; Rocculi, P.; Romani, S.; Rosa, M.D. Biodegradable Polymers for Food Packaging: A Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 19, 634–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wihodo, M.; Moraru, C.I. Physical and Chemical Methods Used to Enhance the Structure and Mechanical Properties of Protein Films: A Review. J. Food Eng. 2013, 114, 292–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. da Rocha, M.; de Souza, M.M.; Prentice, C. Biodegradable Films: An Alternative Food Packaging. In Food Packaging and Preservation; Grumezescu, A.M., Holban, A.M., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 307–342. ISBN 9780128115169. [Google Scholar]
  76. Kim, K.M.; Marx, D.B.; Weller, C.L.; Hanna, M.A. Influence of Sorghum Wax, Glycerin, and Sorbitol on Physical Properties of Soy Protein Isolate Films. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2003, 80, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Atarés, L.; Chiralt, A. Essential Oils as Additives in Biodegradable Films and Coatings for Active Food Packaging. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 48, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hernandez-Izquierdo, V.M.; Krochta, J.M. Thermoplastic Processing of Proteins for Film Formation—A Review. J. Food Sci. 2008, 73, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Elsevier, B.V. Scopus. Available online: https://www.scopus.com (accessed on 6 May 2022).
  80. Shrestha, B.; Dhungana, P.K.; Adhikari, B.; Dhital, S. Evaluation of Modified Sorghum Starches and Biodegradable Films. J. Food Sci. Technol. Nepal 2018, 10, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Gahruie, H.H.; Eskandari, M.H.; Van der Meeren, P.; Hosseini, S.M.H. Study on Hydrophobic Modification of Basil Seed Gum-Based (BSG) Films by Octenyl Succinate Anhydride (OSA). Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 219, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Leppänen, I.; Vikman, M.; Harlin, A.; Orelma, H. Enzymatic Degradation and Pilot-Scale Composting of Cellulose-Based Films with Different Chemical Structures. J. Polym. Environ. 2020, 28, 458–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. La Fuente, C.I.A.; de Souza, A.T.; Tadini, C.C.; Augusto, P.E.D. Ozonation of cassava starch to produce biodegradable films. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 141, 713–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Zabihollahi, N.; Alizadeh, A.; Almasi, H.; Hanifian, S.; Hamishekar, H. Development and Characterization of Carboxymethyl Cellulose Based Probiotic Nanocomposite Film Containing Cellulose Nanofiber and Inulin for Chicken Fillet Shelf Life Extension. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 160, 409–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Peighambardoust, S.J.; Zahed-Karkaj, S.; Peighambardoust, S.H.; Ebrahimi, Y.; Peressini, D. Characterization of Carboxymethyl Cellulose-Based Active Films Incorporating Non-Modified and Ag or Cu-Modified Cloisite 30B and Montmorillonite Nanoclays. Iran. Polym. J. (Engl. Ed.) 2020, 29, 1087–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Rincon, E.; Serrano, L.; Balu, A.M.; Aguilar, J.J.; Luque, R.; Garcia, A. Effect of Bay Leaves Essential Oil Concentration on the Properties of Biodegradable Carboxymethyl And. Materials 2019, 12, 2356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Otoni, C.G.; Lodi, B.D.; Lorevice, M.V.; Leitão, R.C.; Ferreira, M.D.; de Moura, M.R.; Mattoso, L.H.C. Optimized and Scaled-up Production of Cellulose-Reinforced Biodegradable Composite Films Made up of Carrot Processing Waste. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 121, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Gao, W.; Wu, W.; Liu, P.; Hou, H.; Li, X.; Cui, B. Preparation and Evaluation of Hydrophobic Biodegradable Films Made from Corn/Octenylsuccinated Starch Incorporated with Different Concentrations of Soybean Oil. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 142, 376–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Kirtil, E.; Aydogdu, A.; Svitova, T.; Radke, C.J. Assessment of the Performance of Several Novel Approaches to Improve Physical Properties of Guar Gum Based Biopolymer Films. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2021, 29, 100687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Gao, X.; Guo, C.; Li, M.; Li, R.; Wu, X.; Hu, A.; Hu, X.; Mo, F.; Wu, S. Physicochemical Properties and Bioactivity of a New Guar Gum-Based Film Incorporated with Citral to Brown Planthopper, Nilaparvata Lugens (Stål) (Hemiptera: Delphacidae). Molecules 2020, 25, 2044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Tripathi, J.; Ambolikar, R.; Gupta, S.; Jain, D.; Bahadur, J.; Variyar, P.S. Methylation of Guar Gum for Improving Mechanical and Barrier Properties of Biodegradable Packaging Films. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 14505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Nandi, S.; Guha, P. Modelling the Effect of Guar Gum on Physical, Optical, Barrier and Mechanical Properties of Potato Starch Based Composite Film. Carbohydr. Polym. 2018, 200, 498–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Cabrera Canales, Z.E.; Rodríguez Marín, M.L.; Gómez Aldapa, C.A.; Méndez Montealvo, G.; Chávez Gutiérrez, M.; Velazquez, G. Effect of Dual Chemical Modification on the Properties of Biodegradable Films from Achira Starch. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2020, 137, 49411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Yousuf, B.; Wu, S.; Gao, Y. Characteristics of Karaya Gum Based Films: Amelioration by Inclusion of Schisandra Chinensis Oil and Its Oleogel in the Film Formulation. Food Chem. 2021, 345, 128859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Hasan, M.; Lai, T.K.; Gopakumar, D.A.; Jawaid, M.; Owolabi, F.A.T.; Mistar, E.M.; Alfatah, T.; Noriman, N.Z.; Haafiz, M.K.M.; Abdul Khalil, H.P.S. Micro Crystalline Bamboo Cellulose Based Seaweed Biodegradable Composite Films for Sustainable Packaging Material. J. Polym. Environ. 2019, 27, 1602–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Tripathi, J.; Ambolikar, R.; Gupta, S.; Variyar, P.S. Preparation and Characterization of Methylated Guar Gum Based Nano-Composite Films. Food Hydrocoll. 2022, 124, 107312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. La Fuente, C.I.A.; Castanha, N.; Maniglia, B.C.; Tadini, C.C.; Augusto, P.E.D. Biodegradable Films Produced from Ozone-Modified Potato Starch. J. Packag. Technol. Res. 2020, 4, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Shafie, M.H.; Yusof, R.; Samsudin, D.; Gan, C.Y. Averrhoa Bilimbi Pectin-Based Edible Films: Effects of the Linearity and Branching of the Pectin on the Physicochemical, Mechanical, and Barrier Properties of the Films. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 163, 1276–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Aitboulahsen, M.; El Galiou, O.; Laglaoui, A.; Bakkali, M.; Hassani Zerrouk, M. Effect of Plasticizer Type and Essential Oils on Mechanical, Physicochemical, and Antimicrobial Characteristics of Gelatin, Starch, and Pectin-Based Films. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2020, 44, e14480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gouveia, T.I.A.; Biernacki, K.; Castro, M.C.R.; Gonçalves, M.P.; Souza, H.K.S. A New Approach to Develop Biodegradable Films Based on Thermoplastic Pectin. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 97, 105175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Jovanović, J.; Ćirković, J.; Radojković, A.; Mutavdžić, D.; Tanasijević, G.; Joksimović, K.; Bakić, G.; Branković, G.; Branković, Z. Chitosan and Pectin-Based Films and Coatings with Active Components for Application in Antimicrobial Food Packaging. Prog. Org. Coat. 2021, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Dash, K.K.; Ali, N.A.; Das, D.; Mohanta, D. Thorough Evaluation of Sweet Potato Starch and Lemon-Waste Pectin Based-Edible Films with Nano-Titania Inclusions for Food Packaging Applications. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 139, 449–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Tabatabaei, S.D.; Ghiasi, F.; Hashemi Gahruie, H.; Hosseini, S.M.H. Effect of Emulsified Oil Droplets and Glycerol Content on the Physicochemical Properties of Persian Gum-Based Edible Films. Polym. Test. 2022, 106, 107427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Pak, E.S.; Ghaghelestani, S.N.; Najafi, M.A. Preparation and Characterization of a New Edible Film Based on Persian Gum with Glycerol Plasticizer. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 57, 3284–3294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Karki, D.B.; Kc, Y.; Khanal, H.; Bhattarai, P. Analysis of Biodegradable Films of Starch from Potato Waste. Asian Food Sci. J. 2020, 14, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Saman, W.R.; Yuliasih, I. Sugiarto Production of Biodegradable Film Based on Sweet Potato Starch with Hydroxypropylation-Crosslinking. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 472, 012009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Amini, A.M.; Razavi, S.M.A. Physicochemical Characterisation of Salvia Macrosiphon Gum Based Edible Films Incorporated with Various Fatty Acids. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 162, 1494–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Janani, N.; Zare, E.N.; Salimi, F.; Makvandi, P. Antibacterial Tragacanth Gum-Based Nanocomposite Films Carrying Ascorbic Acid Antioxidant for Bioactive Food Packaging. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 247, 116678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Campa-Siqueiros, P.I.; Vargas-Arispuro, I.; Quintana-Owen, P.; Freile-Pelegrín, Y.; Azamar-Barrios, J.A.; Madera-Santana, T.J. Physicochemical and Transport Properties of Biodegradable Agar Films Impregnated with Natural Semiochemical Based-on Hydroalcoholic Garlic Extract. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 151, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Radovanović, N.; Malagurski, I.; Lević, S.; Gordić, M.; Petrović, J.; Pavlović, V.; Mitrić, M.; Nešić, A.; Dimitrijević-Branković, S. Tailoring the Physico-Chemical and Antimicrobial Properties of Agar-Based Films by in Situ Formation of Cu-Mineral Phase. Eur. Polym. J. 2019, 119, 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Roy, S.; Rhim, J.W.; Jaiswal, L. Bioactive Agar-Based Functional Composite Film Incorporated with Copper Sulfide Nanoparticles. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 93, 156–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Roy, S.; Rhim, J.W. Agar-Based Antioxidant Composite Films Incorporated with Melanin Nanoparticles. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 94, 391–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wang, X.; Guo, C.; Hao, W.; Ullah, N.; Chen, L.; Li, Z.; Feng, X. Development and Characterization of Agar-Based Edible Films Reinforced with Nano-Bacterial Cellulose. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 118, 722–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Basumatary, K.; Daimary, P.; Das, S.K.; Thapa, M.; Singh, M.; Mukherjee, A.; Kumar, S. Lagerstroemia Speciosa Fruit-Mediated Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles and Its Application as Filler in Agar Based Nanocomposite Films for Antimicrobial Food Packaging. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2018, 17, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Malagurski, I.; Levic, S.; Nesic, A.; Mitric, M.; Pavlovic, V.; Dimitrijevic-Brankovic, S. Mineralized Agar-Based Nanocomposite Films: Potential Food Packaging Materials with Antimicrobial Properties. Carbohydr. Polym. 2017, 175, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Mohajer, S.; Rezaei, M.; Hosseini, S.F. Physico-Chemical and Microstructural Properties of Fish Gelatin/Agar Bio-Based Blend Films. Carbohydr. Polym. 2017, 157, 784–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  117. Shankar, S.; Rhim, J.W. Preparation and Characterization of Agar/Lignin/Silver Nanoparticles Composite Films with Ultraviolet Light Barrier and Antibacterial Properties. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 71, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Hou, X.; Xue, Z.; Xia, Y.; Qin, Y.; Zhang, G.; Liu, H.; Li, K. Effect of SiO2 Nanoparticle on the Physical and Chemical Properties of Eco-Friendly Agar/Sodium Alginate Nanocomposite Film. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 125, 1289–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Roy, S.; Kim, H.J.; Rhim, J.W. Effect of Blended Colorants of Anthocyanin and Shikonin on Carboxymethyl Cellulose/Agar-Based Smart Packaging Film. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 183, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Roy, S.; Kim, H.J.; Rhim, J.W. Synthesis of Carboxymethyl Cellulose and Agar-Based Multifunctional Films Reinforced with Cellulose Nanocrystals and Shikonin. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. 2021, 3, 1060–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Roy, S.; Rhim, J.W. Carrageenan/Agar-Based Functional Film Integrated with Zinc Sulfide Nanoparticles and Pickering Emulsion of Tea Tree Essential Oil for Active Packaging Applications. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 193, 2038–2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Huang, D.; Zhang, Z.; Zheng, Y.; Quan, Q.; Wang, W.; Wang, A. Synergistic Effect of Chitosan and Halloysite Nanotubes on Improving Agar Film Properties. Food Hydrocoll. 2020, 101, 105471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Lee, H.; Rukmanikrishnan, B.; Lee, J. Rheological, Morphological, Mechanical, and Water-Barrier Properties of Agar/Gellan Gum/Montmorillonite Clay Composite Films. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 141, 538–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Qiao, D.; Tu, W.; Zhong, L.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, B.; Jiang, F. Microstructure and Mechanical/Hydrophilic Features of Agar-Based Films Incorporated with Konjac Glucomannan. Polymers 2019, 11, 1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  125. Roy, S.; Rhim, J.W. Preparation of Pectin/Agar-Based Functional Films Integrated with Zinc Sulfide Nano Petals for Active Packaging Applications. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2021, 207, 111999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Rukmanikrishnan, B.; Lee, J. Montmorillonite Clay and Quaternary Ammonium Silane-Reinforced Pullulan/Agar-Based Nanocomposites and Their Properties for Packaging Applications. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 191, 956–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Saedi, S.; Shokri, M.; Roy, S.; Rhim, J.W. Silver Loaded Aminosilane Modified Halloysite for the Preparation of Carrageenan-Based Functional Films. Appl. Clay Sci. 2021, 211, 106170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Saedi, S.; Shokri, M.; Priyadarshi, R.; Rhim, J.W. Silver Ion Loaded 3-Aminopropyl Trimethoxysilane -Modified Fe3O4 Nanoparticles for the Fabrication of Carrageenan-Based Active Packaging Films. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2021, 208, 112085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Saedi, S.; Rhim, J.W. Synthesis of Fe3O4@SiO2@PAMAM Dendrimer@AgNP Hybrid Nanoparticles for the Preparation of Carrageenan-Based Functional Nanocomposite Film. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2020, 24, 100473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Nouri, A.; Yaraki, M.T.; Lajevardi, A.; Rahimi, T.; Tanzifi, M.; Ghorbanpour, M. An Investigation of the Role of Fabrication Process in the Physicochemical Properties of κ-Carrageenan-Based Films Incorporated with Zataria Multiflora Extract and Nanoclay. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2020, 23, 100435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. de Lima Barizão, C.; Crepaldi, M.I.; Junior, O.d.O.S.; de Oliveira, A.C.; Martins, A.F.; Garcia, P.S.; Bonafé, E.G. Biodegradable Films Based on Commercial κ-Carrageenan and Cassava Starch to Achieve Low Production Costs. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 165, 582–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Saedi, S.; Shokri, M.; Rhim, J.W. Preparation of Carrageenan-Based Nanocomposite Films Incorporated with Functionalized Halloysite Using AgNP and Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate. Food Hydrocoll. 2020, 106, 105934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Martiny, T.R.; Pacheco, B.S.; Pereira, C.M.P.; Mansilla, A.; Astorga–España, M.S.; Dotto, G.L.; Moraes, C.C.; Rosa, G.S. A Novel Biodegradable Film Based on κ-Carrageenan Activated with Olive Leaves Extract. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8, 3147–3156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Martiny, T.R.; Raghavan, V.; de Moraes, C.C.; da Rosa, G.S.; Dotto, G.L. Bio-Based Active Packaging: Carrageenan Film with Olive Leaf Extract for Lamb Meat Preservation. Foods 2020, 9, 1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Roy, S.; Rhim, J.W. Preparation of Carrageenan-Based Functional Nanocomposite Films Incorporated with Melanin Nanoparticles. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2019, 176, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Yadav, M.; Chiu, F.C. Cellulose Nanocrystals Reinforced κ-Carrageenan Based UV Resistant Transparent Bionanocomposite Films for Sustainable Packaging Applications. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 211, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Liu, Y.; Qin, Y.; Bai, R.; Zhang, X.; Yuan, L.; Liu, J. Preparation of PH-Sensitive and Antioxidant Packaging Films Based on κ-Carrageenan and Mulberry Polyphenolic Extract. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 134, 993–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Kassab, Z.; Aziz, F.; Hannache, H.; Ben Youcef, H.; El Achaby, M. Improved Mechanical Properties of K-Carrageenan-Based Nanocomposite Films Reinforced with Cellulose Nanocrystals. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 123, 1248–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Roy, S.; Shankar, S.; Rhim, J.W. Melanin-Mediated Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticle and Its Use for the Preparation of Carrageenan-Based Antibacterial Films. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 88, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Nur Hanani, Z.A.; Aelma Husna, A.B. Effect of Different Types and Concentrations of Emulsifier on the Characteristics of Kappa-Carrageenan Films. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 114, 710–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Rosa, G.S.; Vanga, S.K.; Gariepy, Y.; Raghavan, V. The Effect of Drying on the Mechanical Properties and Structure of Biodegradable Films. In IDS 2018, Proceedings of the 21st International Drying Symposium Proceedings, Valencia, Spain, 11–14 September 2018; Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València: Valencia, Spain, 2018; pp. 675–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Roy, S.; Rhim, J.W. Fabrication of Copper Sulfide Nanoparticles and Limonene Incorporated Pullulan/Carrageenan-Based Film with Improved Mechanical and Antibacterial Properties. Polymers 2020, 12, 2665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Nouri, A.; Yaraki, M.T.; Ghorbanpour, M.; Wang, S. Biodegradable κ-Carrageenan/Nanoclay Nanocomposite Films Containing Rosmarinus Officinalis L. Extract for Improved Strength and Antibacterial Performance. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 115, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Soltanzadeh, M.; Peighambardoust, S.H.; Ghanbarzadeh, B.; Amjadi, S.; Mohammadi, M.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Hamishehkar, H. Active Gelatin/Cress Seed Gum-Based Films Reinforced with Chitosan Nanoparticles Encapsulating Pomegranate Peel Extract: Preparation and Characterization. Food Hydrocoll. 2022, 129, 107620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Ge, L.; Zhu, M.; Li, X.; Xu, Y.; Ma, X.; Shi, R.; Li, D.; Mu, C. Development of Active Rosmarinic Acid-Gelatin Biodegradable Films with Antioxidant and Long-Term Antibacterial Activities. Food Hydrocoll. 2018, 83, 308–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Roy, S.; Rhim, J.W. Gelatin/Agar-Based Functional Film Integrated with Pickering Emulsion of Clove Essential Oil Stabilized with Nanocellulose for Active Packaging Applications. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2021, 627, 127220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Roy, S.; Rhim, J.W. Preparation of Gelatin/Carrageenan-Based Color-Indicator Film Integrated with Shikonin and Propolis for Smart Food Packaging Applications. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2021, 4, 770–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Díaz-Montes, E.; Yáñez-Fernández, J.; Castro-Muñoz, R. Dextran/Chitosan Blend Film Fabrication for Bio-packaging of Mushrooms (Agaricus Bisporus). J. Food Process. Preserv. 2021, 45, e15489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Kaya, M.; Ravikumar, P.; Ilk, S.; Mujtaba, M.; Akyuz, L.; Labidi, J.; Salaberria, A.M.; Cakmak, Y.S.; Erkul, S.K. Production and Characterization of Chitosan Based Edible Films from Berberis Crataegina’s Fruit Extract and Seed Oil. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 45, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Darbasi, M.; Askari, G.; Kiani, H.; Khodaiyan, F. Development of Chitosan Based Extended-Release Antioxidant Films by Control of Fabrication Variables. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 104, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Davidović, S.; Miljković, M.; Tomić, M.; Gordić, M.; Nešić, A.; Dimitrijević, S. Response Surface Methodology for Optimisation of Edible Coatings Based on Dextran from Leuconostoc Mesenteroides T3. Carbohydr. Polym. 2018, 184, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Lin, C.C.; Chiu, J.Y. Glycerol-Modified γ-PGA and Gellan Composite Hydrogel Materials with Tunable Physicochemical and Thermal Properties for Soft Tissue Engineering Application. Polymer 2021, 230, 124049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Mohsin, A.; Zaman, W.Q.; Guo, M.; Ahmed, W.; Khan, I.M.; Niazi, S.; Rehman, A.; Hang, H.; Zhuang, Y. Xanthan-Curdlan Nexus for Synthesizing Edible Food Packaging Films. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 162, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Sapper, M.; Wilcaso, P.; Santamarina, M.P.; Roselló, J.; Chiralt, A. Antifungal and Functional Properties of Starch-Gellan Films Containing Thyme (Thymus Zygis) Essential Oil. Food Control. 2018, 92, 505–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Rivera-Hernández, L.; Chavarría-Hernández, N.; López Cuellar, M.d.R.; Martínez-Juárez, V.M.; Rodríguez-Hernández, A.I. Pectin-Gellan Films Intended for Active Food Packaging: Release Kinetics of Nisin and Physico-Mechanical Characterization. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 58, 2973–2981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Rukmanikrishnan, B.; Ismail, F.R.M.; Manoharan, R.K.; Kim, S.S.; Lee, J. Blends of Gellan Gum/Xanthan Gum/Zinc Oxide Based Nanocomposites for Packaging Application: Rheological and Antimicrobial Properties. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 148, 1182–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Eskandarinia, A.; Kefayat, A.; Rafienia, M.; Agheb, M.; Navid, S.; Ebrahimpour, K. Cornstarch-Based Wound Dressing Incorporated with Hyaluronic Acid and Propolis: In Vitro and in Vivo Studies. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 216, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Nawab, A.; Alam, F.; Haq, M.A.; Lutfi, Z.; Hasnain, A. Mango Kernel Starch-Gum Composite Films: Physical, Mechanical and Barrier Properties. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 98, 869–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Hernández-García, E.; Vargas, M.; Chiralt, A. Thermoprocessed Starch-Polyester Bilayer Films as Affected by the Addition of Gellan or Xanthan Gum. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 113, 106509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Sapper, M.; Talens, P.; Chiralt, A. Improving Functional Properties of Cassava Starch-Based Films by Incorporating Xanthan, Gellan, or Pullulan Gums. Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2019, 2019, 5367164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Zhu, Y. Fabrication and Characterization of the Enhanced Tensile Strength Xanthan/Curdlan/Gelatin Blend Films for Food-Packaging Applications. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 657, 012078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Flores, S.; Famá, L.; Rojas, A.M.; Goyanes, S.; Gerschenson, L. Physical Properties of Tapioca-Starch Edible Films: Influence of Filmmaking and Potassium Sorbate. Food Res. Int. 2007, 40, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Horstmann, S.W.; Lynch, K.M.; Arendt, E.K. Starch Characteristics Linked to Gluten-Free Products. Foods 2017, 6, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  164. Tadros, T. Surfactants. In Encyclopedia of Colloid Interface Science; Tadros, T., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 1242–1290. ISBN 9783642206641. [Google Scholar]
  165. Díaz-Montes, E.; Castro-Muñoz, R. Trends in Chitosan as a Primary Biopolymer for Functional Films and Coatings Manufacture for Food and Natural Products. Polymers 2021, 13, 767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Sanyang, M.L.; Sapuan, S.M.; Jawaid, M.; Ishak, M.R.; Sahari, J. Effect of Plasticizer Type and Concentration on Tensile, Thermal and Barrier Properties of Biodegradable Films Based on Sugar Palm (Arenga pinnata) Starch. Polymers 2015, 7, 1106–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Luk, E.; Sandoval, A.J.; Cova, A.; Müller, A.J. Anti-Plasticization of Cassava Starch by Complexing Fatty Acids. Carbohydr. Polym. 2013, 98, 659–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Muscat, D.; Adhikari, B.; Adhikari, R.; Chaudhary, D.S. Comparative Study of Film Forming Behaviour of Low and High Amylose Starches Using Glycerol and Xylitol as Plasticizers. J. Food Eng. 2012, 109, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Zhu, F. Structure, Physicochemical Properties, Modifications, and Uses of Sorghum Starch. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2014, 13, 597–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Olayinka, O.O.; Adebowale, K.O.; Olu-Owolabi, B.I. Effect of Heat-Moisture Treatment on Physicochemical Properties of White Sorghum Starch. Food Hydrocoll. 2008, 22, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Li, M.; Liu, P.; Zou, W.; Yu, L.; Xie, F.; Pu, H.; Liu, H.; Chen, L. Extrusion Processing and Characterization of Edible Starch Films with Different Amylose Contents. J. Food Eng. 2011, 106, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Ren, L.; Jiang, M.; Tong, J.; Bai, X.; Dong, X.; Zhou, J. Influence of Surface Esterification with Alkenyl Succinic Anhydrides on Mechanical Properties of Corn Starch Films. Carbohydr. Polym. 2010, 82, 1010–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Chung, Y.; Lai, H. Properties of Cast Films Made of HCl-Methanol Modified Corn Starch. Starch-Stärke 2007, 59, 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Cheng, L.H.; Karim, A.A.; Seow, C.C. Effects of Acid Modification on Physical Properties of Konjac Glucomannan (KGM) Films. Food Chem. 2007, 103, 994–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Chen, P.; Xie, F.; Zhao, L.; Qiao, Q.; Liu, X. Effect of Acid Hydrolysis on the Multi-Scale Structure Change of Starch with Different Amylose Content. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 69, 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  176. Huang, K.; Wang, Y. Recent Applications of Regenerated Cellulose Films and Hydrogels in Food Packaging. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2022, 43, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Hidayati, S.; Zulferiyenni; Maulidia, U.; Satyajaya, W.; Hadi, S. Effect of Glycerol Concentration and Carboxy Methyl Cellulose on Biodegradable Film Characteristics of Seaweed Waste. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Tavares, K.M.; de Campos, A.; Luchesi, B.R.; Resende, A.A.; de Oliveira, J.E.; Marconcini, J.M. Effect of Carboxymethyl Cellulose Concentration on Mechanical and Water Vapor Barrier Properties of Corn Starch Films. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 246, 116521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Hu, D.; Wang, H.; Wang, L. Physical Properties and Antibacterial Activity of Quaternized Chitosan/Carboxymethyl Cellulose Blend Films. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 65, 398–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Pasini Cabello, S.D.; Takara, E.A.; Marchese, J.; Ochoa, N.A. Influence of Plasticizers in Pectin Films: Microstructural Changes. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2015, 162, 491–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Ballesteros-Mártinez, L.; Pérez-Cervera, C.; Andrade-Pizarro, R. Effect of Glycerol and Sorbitol Concentrations on Mechanical, Optical, and Barrier Properties of Sweet Potato Starch Film. NFS J. 2020, 20, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Orsuwan, A.; Sothornvit, R. Effect of Banana and Plasticizer Types on Mechanical, Water Barrier, and Heat Sealability of Plasticized Banana-Based Films. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2018, 42, e13380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Salehi, F. Characterization of New Biodegradable Edible Films and Coatings Based on Seeds Gum: A Review. J. Packag. Technol. Res. 2019, 3, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Pedreiro, S.; Figueirinha, A.; Silva, A.S.; Ramos, F. Bioactive Edible Films and Coatings Based in Gums and Starch: Phenolic Enrichment and Foods Application. Coatings 2021, 11, 1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Brizzolara, S.; Manganaris, G.A.; Fotopoulos, V.; Watkins, C.B.; Tonutti, P. Primary Metabolism in Fresh Fruits During Storage. Front. Plant. Sci. 2020, 11, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  186. Ortiz, A.; León, K.; Villalba, O.; Johana, K.; Isabel, C.; Pasos, V. Evaluación de La Permeabilidad Al Vapor de Agua de Películas de Proteína de Lactosuero/Quitosano y Su Efecto Sobre La Respiración En Banano Recubierto. Innotec 2016, 11, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Sousa, A.M.M.; Souza, H.K.S.; Liu, L.S.; Gonçalves, M.P. Alternative Plasticizers for the Production of Thermo-Compressed Agar Films. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2015, 76, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  188. da Rocha, M.; Alemán, A.; Romani, V.P.; López-Caballero, M.E.; Gómez-Guillén, M.C.; Montero, P.; Prentice, C. Effects of Agar Films Incorporated with Fish Protein Hydrolysate or Clove Essential Oil on Flounder (Paralichthys orbignyanus) Fillets Shelf-Life. Food Hydrocoll. 2018, 81, 351–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  189. Mostafavi, F.S.; Zaeim, D. Agar-Based Edible Films for Food Packaging Applications-A Review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 159, 1165–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Natural polysaccharides classified according to their origin. Adapted from [1].
Figure 1. Natural polysaccharides classified according to their origin. Adapted from [1].
Polysaccharides 03 00029 g001
Table 1. Properties of biodegradable films based on polysaccharides.
Table 1. Properties of biodegradable films based on polysaccharides.
Polysaccharide(s) or Derivate(s)Plasticizer(s) or Additive(s)Mechanical PropertiesBarrier PropertiesReference
TS
(MPa)
E
(MPa)
EB
(%)
WVP
(10−10 g·m−1·s−1·Pa−1)
Plant polysaccharide(s)
Acid alcohol sorghum starchGlycerol~1.0–1.4nr~5.0–6.0nr[80]
Acetylated sorghum starchGlycerol~0.2–2.8nr~4.0–19.0nr[80]
Basil seed gumGlycerol21.3nr25.9237.0[81]
Basil seed gum modifiedGlycerol26.5–46.4nr23.8–36.9120.0–215.0[81]
Butylated hemicellulosesnr~40.0–50.0~40.0–55.0~9.0–10.0nr[82]
Cassava starchGlycerol2.451.843.82.8[83]
Carboxymethyl celluloseGlycerol32.3nr35.6861.7[84]
Carboxymethyl celluloseGlycerol20.0nr30.4~2830.0[85]
Carboxymethyl cellulosenr~37.5nr~26.0~3.4[86]
Carboxymethyl cellulose/cellulose nanofiberGlycerol20.2–23.1nr22.8–46.61083.3–1421.7[84]
Carboxymethyl cellulose/inulinGlycerol7.3–21.9nr20.2–37.8935.0–1125.0[84]
Carboxymethyl cellulose/cellulose nanofiber/inulinGlycerol16.4–23.8nr34.6–41.3978.3–1540.0[84]
Carrot flournr~3.0<0.1 *<0.1nr[87]
Carrot flour/hydroxypropyl methylcellulosenr~3.0–7.0~0.4–0.6 *~1.0–2.0~0.4–0.7[87]
Cellulose regeneratednr~70.0~98.0~6.0nr[82]
Cellulose acetatenr~80.0~80.0~22.5nr[82]
Cellulose carbamateGlycerol~45.0~80.0~10.0nr[82]
Cellulose palmitatenr~10.0~10.0~27.5nr[82]
Cellulose octanoatenr~10.0~10.0~117.5nr[82]
Corn/octenylsuccinated starchGlycerol4.4nr45.72.9[88]
Guar gumGlycerol5.38.964.838.6[89]
Guar gumTween-2041.9 *nr1.8nr[90]
Guar gumGlycerol18.046.7 *31.6nr[91]
Guar gum/potato starchGlycerol8.3nr8.6<0.1[92]
Hydrolyzed achira starchGlycerol9.5388.124.12.1[93]
Hydrolyzed-succinated achira starchGlycerol10.5513.442.83.2[93]
Hydrothermal sorghum starchGlycerol~0.7–6.5nr~7.0–14.0nr[80]
Hydroxypropyl methylcellulosenr~67.0~1.8 *~14.0~0.2[87]
Karaya gumGlycerol6.5nr8.058.5[94]
Lemang bamboo microcrystalline celluloseGlycerol17.2–41.9129.0–253.08.7–27.12.5–4.9[95]
Methylated guar gumGlycerol3.47.2 *40.1nr[96]
Methylcellulosenr~70.0~80.0~17.5nr[82]
Methylated guar gumGlycerol5.6–11.325.0–47.4 *36.0–49.4nr[91]
Microcrystalline celluloseGlycerol13.7–35.7116.0–206.018.0–23.13.0–5.4[95]
Native achira starchGlycerol1.1532.75.92.7[93]
Native potato starchGlycerol3.945.181.02.4[97]
Native sorghum starchGlycerol~0.5–4.2nr~2.0–10.5nr[80]
Nanocellulosenr~110.0~115.0~12.5nr[82]
Ozonated potato starchGlycerol3.3–4.261.1–64.119.2–28.42.6–3.0[97]
Ozonated cassava starchGlycerol3.8–5.571.2–82.037.4–39.53.1–3.5[83]
Pectinnr6.8–7.327.2–33.618.9–21.8nr[98]
PectinGlycerol9.6nr14.56180.0[99]
PectinSorbitol50.0nr18.04020.0[99]
PectinGlycerol14.2–18.4nr0.6–1.314.5–15.5[100]
PectinNatural deep eutectic solvent10.7–14.3nr0.5–1.222.0–24.8[100]
PectinCholine chloride3.0–10.5nr0.5–0.818.3–27.1[100]
Pectin/gelatinGlycerol16.9132.473.0nr[101]
Pectin/potato starchnr22.3305.413.02.8[102]
Persian gumGlycerol<0.1nr~45.0–50.0130.0–150.0[103]
Persian gumGlycerol~0.8–16.0~5.0–375.0~3.0–60.0nr[104]
Potato waste starchGlycerol~3.0–17.0nr~4.0–12.0nr[105]
Potato waste starchSorbitol~4.0–24.0nr~2.0–9.0nr[105]
Potato starchnr5.1nr33.7nr[106]
Succinated achira starchGlycerol7.5321.982.32.6[93]
Salvia macrosiphon seed gumGlycerol4.2nr39.1~50.0[107]
Semantan bamboo microcrystalline celluloseGlycerol25.8–43.174.0–152.06.6–22.12.2–4.6[95]
Tragacanth gumnr~11.0nr~1.0nr[108]
Tragacanth gum/polyvinyl alcoholnr~12.0–15.0nr~5.0–7.5nr[108]
Algae polysaccharide(s)
Agarnr~900.0~30.0 *~8.5nr[109]
AgarGlycerol~500.0–650.0~16.2–22.5 *~15.0–19.0nr[109]
AgarGlycerol22.01.0 *8.33.17[110]
AgarGlycerol34.91.2 *12.010.7[111]
AgarGlycerol34.81.2 *11.811.6[112]
AgarGlycerol28.0–55.5nr13.0–27.50.8–0.9[113]
AgarGlycerol47.3nr14.0nr[114]
AgarPolyglycerol0.4278.518.3nr[115]
AgarGlycerol18.7361.729.993.6[116]
AgarGlycerol40.31.4 *19.419.9[117]
Agar/alginateGlycerol45.2nr33.0~0.9[118]
Agar/carboxymethyl celluloseGlycerol60.42.0 *14.722.1[119]
Agar/carboxymethyl celluloseGlycerol44.91.6 *16.07.1[120]
Agar/k-carrageenanGlycerol45.43.0 *2.56.6[121]
Agar/carboxymethyl cellulose/cellulose nanocrystalsGlycerol57.52.6 *10.08.1[120]
Agar/chitosanGlycerol~35.0–48.0nr~15.0–21.0nr[122]
Agar/gellan gumGlycerol29.9nr29.519.0[123]
Agar/gellan gum/montmorilloniteGlycerol35.3–44.0nr19.9–24.116.6–18.1[123]
Agar/gelatinGlycerol3.7–13.621.6–186.838.9–45.17145.5–201.0[116]
Agar/konjac glucomannanGlycerol~35.0–47.0nr~20.0–38.0nr[124]
Agar/ligninGlycerol44.11.5 *16.118.5[117]
Agar/pectinGlycerol50.32.3 *4.74.8[125]
Agar/pullulanGlycerol23.8nr37.231.7[126]
Agar/pullulan/montmorilloniteGlycerol31.4–37.1nr28.2–35.227.2–30.4[126]
Agar/pullulan/montmorillonite/quaternary ammonium silaneGlycerol39.7nr26.922.0[126]
Agar/nano celluloseGlycerol22.1nr10.80.9[113]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol44.61.5 *11.016.2[127]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol65.92.9 *4.418.0[128]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol54.92.7 *8.116.7[129]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol17.0–19.1nr29.5–63.81.2–2.8[130]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol19.259.64.4382.0[131]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol43.31.5 *11.216.6[132]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol10.0nr29.80.4[133]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol11.840.529.20.7[134]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol57.03.3 *4.417.2[135]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol38.3nr21.50.9[136]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol22.6nr14.50.8[137]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol~49.0~1.5 *~85.0nr[138]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol57.03.3 *4.417.2[139]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol7.4nr32.01.5[140]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol/Tween-207.4–11.5nr19.1–43.61.3–1.5[140]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol/Tween-404.0–9.4nr37.4–49.81.6–2.1[140]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol/Tween-808.5–12.6nr23.5–40.61.3–1.5[140]
k-CarrageenanGlycerol37.7–54.4nr56.9–80.7120.1–142.1[141]
k-Carrageenan/cassava starchGlycerol12.2–25.94.8–27.08.4–26.4301.0–448.0[131]
k-Carrageenan/cellulose nanocrystalsGlycerol38.4–52.7nr22.9–28.30.5–0.9[136]
k-Carrageenan/cellulose nanocrystalsGlycerol~59.0–85.0~1.7–2.7 *~67.0–77.0nr[138]
k-Carrageenan/pullulanGlycerol54.03.4 *2.710.0[142]
k-Carrageenan/nanoclayGlycerol~16.0nr~20.04.0[143]
GelatinGlycerol6.1715.040.9121.8[144]
GelatinGlycerol1.9nr91.76.4[99]
GelatinSorbitol5.8nr93.32.1[99]
GelatinGlycerol18.7103.1117.1~5.5[145]
GelatinGlycerol1.89.176.7248.3[116]
Gelatin/agarGlycerol69.12.4 *8.65.9[146]
Gelatin/k-carrageenanGlycerol43.93.5 *3.26.1[147]
Gelatin/cress seed gum/chitosan nanoparticlesGlycerol7.8–9.423.2–45.519.7–34.1109.0–179.3[144]
Animal, bacterial, and fungal polysaccharide(s)
ChitosanGlycerol/Calcium chloride1.12.838.5601.7[148]
Chitosan/dextranGlycerol/Calcium chloride1.5–2−51.7–6.536.2–87.7655.0–993.3[148]
ChitosanGlycerol~17.5~775.0 *~5.0nr[149]
ChitosanGlycerol23.5nr33.41.7[150]
ChitosanGlycerol/Tween-8014.2–37.7nr15.2–59.22.2–3.1[150]
DextranSorbitol0.7–7.59.1–1755.01.0–134.5<0.2[151]
Gellan gumGlycerolnr~6.5 *~1.0nr[152]
Gellan gumGlycerol2.5 *nr55.8<0.1[153]
Gellan gum/cassava starchGlycerol24.0–40.01.3 *2.1–4.917.2–18.6[154]
Gellan gum/guar gumGlycerol2.9–3.0 *nr61.2–68.0<0.1[153]
Gellan gum/pectinGlycerol27.00.3 *41.31.6[155]
Gellan gum/poly(γ-glutamic acid)Glycerol~5.5–13.0~10.0–50.0~1.0–2.5nr[152]
Gellan gum/xanthan gumGlycerol22.1nr30.038.3[156]
Hyaluronic acid/corn starchGlycerol6.3nr41.7nr[157]
Xanthan gumGlycerol~17.0nr~20.0nr[153]
Xanthan gumGlycerol7.4–8.754.3–68.76.3–14.62.6–3.7[158]
Xanthan gum/cassava starchGlycerol14.00.7 *3.031.7[159]
Xanthan gum/cassava starchGlycerol4.0–10.036.0–160.012.0–34.07.1–14.0[160]
Xanthan gum/curdlan gumGlycerol27.8nr12.9nr[161]
Xanthan gum/curdlan gum/gelatinGlycerol30.3–38.2nr14.4–18.9nr[161]
Xanthan gum/curdlan gumGlycerol~18.0–27.5nr~2.5–17.5nr[153]
Xanthan gum/maize starchGlycerol9.00.5 *11.037.2[159]
nr: not reported. * Data represented in units of GPa.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Díaz-Montes, E. Polysaccharides: Sources, Characteristics, Properties, and Their Application in Biodegradable Films. Polysaccharides 2022, 3, 480-501. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/polysaccharides3030029

AMA Style

Díaz-Montes E. Polysaccharides: Sources, Characteristics, Properties, and Their Application in Biodegradable Films. Polysaccharides. 2022; 3(3):480-501. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/polysaccharides3030029

Chicago/Turabian Style

Díaz-Montes, Elsa. 2022. "Polysaccharides: Sources, Characteristics, Properties, and Their Application in Biodegradable Films" Polysaccharides 3, no. 3: 480-501. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/polysaccharides3030029

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop