sustainable packaging essay

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Sustainable Paper-Based Packaging: A Consumer’s Perspective

Associated data.

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Over the last two decades, there has been growing interest from all stakeholders (government, manufacturers, and consumers) to make packaging more sustainable. Paper is considered one of the most environmentally friendly materials available. A qualitative study investigating consumers’ expectations and opinions of sustainable paper-based packaging materials was conducted where 60 participants took part in focus group sessions organized in two stages. In the first stage, participants expressed their opinions about currently available packages in the market and their expectations about a sustainable packaging material. In the second stage of the study, they evaluated five paper-based prototype packages for two product categories (biscuits and meat). Too much plastic and over-packaging were the key issues raised for current packages. Price and quality were the main driving forces for consumers’ purchase intent. While participants were impressed by the sustainable nature of the prototypes, the design did not necessarily meet their expectations, and they were not willing to pay more for a sustainable package. The key message that emerged from the discussions was the “3Rs”—Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle”—which should be the main points to consider when designing a sustainable packaging.

1. Introduction

The role of packaging in the safe delivery and transportation of products across the food chain cannot be overemphasized. To prevent food waste and loss, a good food package should ensure that food quality and safety is maintained from transportation through to storage of the product [ 1 ]. However, a major disadvantage of packaging is that it adds to the world’s environmental footprint because it is always discarded immediately after the product is used [ 2 ]. The main types of materials used for food packaging include paper (including cardboard), wood, glass, metal, and various types of plastics.

Over the last two decades, there has been growing interests from governments, manufacturers, and consumers to make packaging more sustainable. Recent research in packaging focused on sustainability and how to make packaging materials more eco-friendly [ 3 , 4 ]. Technically, sustainable packaging has been defined as a packaging with a relatively low environmental impact based on life-cycle assessments (LCA) [ 5 ]. However to the average consumer, a sustainable package can be considered “a packaging design that evokes explicitly or implicitly the eco-friendliness of the packaging” [ 6 ].

Paper as a packaging material is experiencing a revival, as consumers perceive it as a high-value and environmentally friendly material [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Paper has the advantage of being bio-based, biodegradable, and recyclable. Studies from the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (Germany) showed a significantly lower impact of paper-based packaging on the environment compared to many other materials. Globally, paper-based packaging has the potential to tackle marine debris and lead to a lower impact of packaging in the environment. This is especially necessary as the amount of packaging used is steadily increasing due to small portion packaging, urbanization, and a growing worldwide population.

In food packaging, there are various opportunities for more paper and a reduced polymer content; however, the technology has to be adapted to the production process, and the material composition has to fit to the product requirements. The possibilities of paper packaging are progressing, and solutions for barrier properties and formability are being addressed.

While life-cycle assessments (LCAs) show the sustainability value of packaging, it is important to understand consumer opinion and perception of these packages if marketing is to be successful. This is because consumer opinions and beliefs of a package which influence choice and purchase are not determined by LCA results [ 7 , 10 ]. The success of environmentally friendly packages is largely dependent on consumers as they are the ones who determine whether or not to buy the packages [ 11 ]. To increase consumer acceptability and purchase of sustainable packages, a detailed understanding of their opinions and perceptions of environmentally friendly packaging is needed [ 2 ].

A recent review by Ketelsen et al. [ 11 ] found only 21 out of 46 studies reviewed were focused on consumer responses to environmentally friendly packaging, showing that this area of research is not very well explored and demonstrating the need for more research in this area.

While some studies previously focused on the effect on perceived product quality of sustainable packaging [ 12 , 13 ], others focused on the influence of the design and labelling elements on consumer perceptions on environmentally friendly packaging [ 6 , 13 ]. Ertz et al. [ 13 ], in their study investigating the influence of environmental information on the reaction of 321 Canadian consumers, found that consumer perception of product quality was enhanced when environmental claims and labelling cues were well defined on the product packaging. However, when an environmental label was not accompanied by detailed self-declared environmental claims, the perception of product quality was not significantly enhanced.

Consumer awareness of the environmental impact of food packaging has been studied [ 9 , 14 , 15 ]. Participants who took part in focus group discussions and a survey in Italy considering labelling information on packaging stated that there was currently no information about environmentally friendly characteristics on packages and showed a high interest in having information about the sustainable characteristics of the packaging [ 15 ]. In their study on consumer responses to packaging design, Steenis et al. [ 9 ] reported that having sustainability cues on packaging was a key factor in determining how packages differed as evaluated by university students in the Netherlands.

A study conducted by Scott and Vigar-Ellis [ 16 ] on consumer understanding, perceptions, and behaviors in relation to environmentally friendly packaging in South Africa found that consumers had limited knowledge of what environmentally friendly packaging is, how to differentiate it from other packaging, as well as what benefits different packaging had. South African consumers stated that labels, images, and logos were the most important features used in helping them identify the environmentally friendly packaging. The packaging material and its color were other features used to judge packaging sustainability.

Consumer preference and willingness to buy or purchase products with environmentally friendly packaging was previously relatively well studied with conflicting results [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. In a study conducted by Rokka and Uusitalo [ 17 ], where they compared green packaging with several product attributes and how these attributes affect consumer environmental choice, they found that one-third of the consumers participating in the study agreed that one of the most important criteria in their choice was the environmentally labelled packaging. Jerzyk [ 22 ] explored the attributes of sustainable packaging that have a positive impact on consumer behaviour and how purchasing intentions can be influenced when the packaging is sustainable among Polish and French students. They reported that sustainable packaging is not the most important factor when buying a product and that students are not willing to lose any of the functional and quality characteristics of the products because of the sustainable nature of the packaging. Concern for the environment and beliefs was shown to have an impact on purchase intent of eco-friendly packaging. Previous studies showed that consumers that are generally concerned about the environment are more likely to buy sustainable packaging [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ].

In most cases, studies focused on environmentally friendly packaging in general rather than on specific packaging solutions [ 6 , 7 , 16 , 22 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. Very few studies, however, focused on specific packaging for specific products such as paper packaging for cereal bars [ 13 ], glass packaging for foods [ 21 ] and for milk [ 29 ], and various packaging materials for tomato soup products [ 9 ]. This shows that existing knowledge on consumer responses to specific sustainable packaging solutions is limited. Thus, Ketelsen et al. [ 11 ] recommended that future research should focus on specific packaging solutions rather than environmentally friendly packaging in general to provide a deeper understanding of consumer opinions and acceptability of specific solutions. Focus groups, surveys, and interviews are some of the methodologies that were previously used to explore consumer insights in research. Focus groups which are generally used at the earlier stages of consumer research were used by several authors as they have the main advantage of allowing freedom of expression and open discussions from participants [ 30 , 31 , 32 ]. In light of this, the objectives of this study were to: (i) understand consumer perception of currently available food packaging; (ii) design sustainable paper-based packages for biscuit and meat products based on consumer opinions and expectations of sustainable paper-based packaging over a series of participatory focus group sessions; (iii) understand consumer opinions of the paper-based packages developed as well as evaluate and assess the characteristics and suitability of the packages. The rest of paper is divided into the following sections: research methodology and data analysis, findings of the study, and discussion of practical implications along with limitations of this research.

2. Materials and Methods

The design process of the paper-based packages was intended to be in collaboration with consumers over a series of qualitative participatory focus group workshops. To achieve this, the study was divided into two stages, with Stage 1 aimed at understanding consumer expectations from sustainable paper-based packages in general and Stage 2 involved evaluation of the prototype packages designed based on findings and information obtained from Stage 1.

2.1. Procedure

Focus groups took place in a discussion room where participants were comfortably seated around a table so that they could see each other to allow for good interactions and discussions. Following best practices for conducting focus groups [ 30 ], each focus group session was made up of 6–8 participants, equally distributed in terms of age with two-thirds of the group being female due to the higher ratio of females:males that took part in the study. At the beginning of each session, the moderator gave an overview and stated the purpose of the study and what the role of the moderator would be. Participants were encouraged to share their opinions and were assured that there were no right or wrong answers to the questions being discussed. A pre-approved semi-structured focus group guide was used to direct the conversation. The focus group sessions lasted for approximately 2 h and were facilitated by two researchers: one moderating the session and the other taking notes. All sessions were audio- and video-recorded and transcribed verbatim for further analysis.

2.1.1. Stage 1

Nine focus groups were conducted with a total of 60 participants. To get participants acquainted and comfortable with each other, foster interactions, and get them thinking about the topic to be discussed, participants were asked to introduce themselves and mention what they normally recycle. The discussions began by asking the group about their opinions of current food packaging materials available on the market. This was followed by questions around expectations and possible downsides of sustainable packaging materials. Participants were then asked to discuss considerations when buying a product. Two currently available packages (one biscuit and one meat package: Figure 1 ) were presented to the participants. They were asked to open, manipulate, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the packages. Next, participants were presented with samples of the proposed sustainable paper-based packaging material ( Figure 2 ) and asked to give their opinions on the characteristics of the materials. Finally, participants were asked for their willingness to buy or pay more for sustainable packaging.

Examples of currently available packages discussed in Stage 1: ( a ) B0: Biscuit package; ( b ) M0: meat package.

Examples of new paper-based packaging materials discussed in Stage 1.

2.1.2. Stage 2

A total of 56 participants from the first stage returned for the second stage of the study with a total of eight focus group sessions conducted. In this stage, participants were required to evaluate the paper-based packages partially designed based on their suggestions from Stage 1. The new paper-based prototype packages were presented one at a time to participants who were asked to discuss their opinions about them in terms of the design, material, etc. Participants were then asked to discuss if the packages met their expectations of a sustainable packaging material and the benefits and negatives compared to the current packages on the market. Next, they were asked to assess the ease of separation of the packaging film/barrier from the sustainable parts of the packaging. Finally, they were asked about their purchase intent of the products and how the percentage of sustainable material present in the package will influence their purchasing decision. In total, five new paper-based prototypes were developed and discussed during the session: two for the biscuits and three for the meat products ( Table 1 ). In a life cycle assessment (LCA) performed on the paper-based trays with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) coating, the results showed that the paperboard tray has the smallest climate change impact compared to plastic crystalline polyethylene terephthalate (CPET) trays and recycled plastic recycled polyethylene terephthalate (rPET) trays. For the meat packages, a life cycle analysis screening was performed and showed that if the new-paper based packaging is recycled, while the expanded polystyrene (EPS) (M0) tray is not, the paper-based tray has the lower environmental impact (considering the paper tray is recycled ten times).

Biscuit and meat packages discussed in Stage 2.

2.2. Participants

Participants for the study were recruited from across Berkshire, UK. Recruitment emails were sent using the University of Reading general circulation list, and the volunteer databases of the Sensory Science Centre and Nutrition Unit of the Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University of Reading, UK. Advertisement posters were placed on various social media platforms, local shops around Reading, UK, and on notice boards within the University of Reading, UK. Interested participants were required to complete an eligibility screener. To be eligible for the study, participants had to be: above 18 years old; not allergic or intolerant to wheat, gluten, and/or dairy; interested in food packaging; available to take part in both stages of the study. The study was conducted between April and November 2019 and approved by the School of Chemistry, Food, and Pharmacy Research Ethics committee, University of Reading, UK (study number: 11/19). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the focus group sessions.

Demographic characteristics of the participants who took part in the study are presented in Table 2 . A total of 60 participants took part in the study in Stage 1 with 56 returning for Stage 2. The majority of the participants were female (66.7% in Stage 1 and 71.4% in Stage 2) with the mean ages of 47 and 47.6 in Stages 1 and 2, respectively. The median age of participants was 49 in both stages with an age range of 19–71 years old. More than 60% of the participants were White British and less than 4% of Black/Caribbean/Mixed ethnicity. Almost all participants (95%) who took part in the study considered themselves environmentally conscious.

Demographic characteristics of focus group participants.

2.3. Data Analysis

The transcribed data and notes taken during the sessions were analyzed using content analysis. The procedure followed was similar to that used by [ 31 ]. Two researchers extracted recurring themes from the transcripts of all focus groups individually, with the summary of key findings obtained by comparing the results of each researcher. For a result to be included, it had to have been mentioned in at least four out of nine (Stage 1) or eight (Stage 2) of the sessions [ 31 , 33 ].

The results of the focus group discussions are presented by summarizing common themes that emerged from the focus group sessions, although the participants discussed each package individually. Some comments from the discussions are included to show how participants reflected on some of the themes.

3.1. Stage 1

3.1.1. opinions on available packages currently in the market.

The main themes highlighted by the participants in all sessions were the amount and type of packaging used to package foods. Participants stated that there was too much packaging and over-packaging of foods, most of which is unnecessary, with one participant saying, “you don’t have to have individual wrappings for everything” and another, “why have a wrapping around a coconut?”. The second point mentioned was that there was too much plastic (especially single-use plastics) packaging and black trays used to package products: “why use plastic except [when] absolutely necessary?”; “the amount of plastic being used is shocking and too much”. Some participants stated that the reason being given for too much packaging was to protect the food for consumers which is what consumers want because they are wary of contamination. Other participants argued that consumers are constantly being told that but were wondering if it is what consumers actually want or what supermarkets need: “are shops just trying to pawn the waste to consumers to increase profits?”; “the packaging is to help the shops, not the world or consumer”. Confusion on how to handle packages with more education needed was another theme highlighted across the focus group sessions: “most consumers do not understand how recycling works; do packages need to be washed before disposing them in the recycling bin?”; “clearer directions from manufacturers on how to dispose packaging is necessary”; “more universal methods of disposing packages are necessary”. Some participants felt that glass was more sustainable than plastic packaging, but others argued that the production process of glass actually makes it less sustainable which showed that consumers were confused about sustainability in terms of food packaging: “glass is not necessarily more sustainable because the cost of production of recycling glass is 80% more than using fresh products”. Participants called for full transparency of the packaging process; “we don’t have the full story”; “consumers need information on things like the carbon footprint of packaging materials”.

Overall, participants agreed that a cultural change is needed; consumers need to be more flexible with their requests on how foods are packaged; manufacturers need to change consumer attitudes and perspectives; and governments need to introduce laws which will help reduce the amount of packaging being used and give consumers no choice but to adapt. The ban on free plastic bags introduced by the UK government some years ago was highlighted as an example of how the government can help change consumer attitudes, with participants stating that more people now take their reusable bags (bags for life) with them when going to shop which has led to a sharp decline in the number of plastic bags being used. In summary, participants agreed that the “3Rs”—Reduce, Reuse and Recycle—need to be the mantra to make food packages more sustainable and environmentally friendly.

3.1.2. Considerations When Buying a Product

Price was the main driving force considered by participants when buying a product and was closely followed by the product quality, with comments such as: “the first thing I think of is whether I am getting value for money”; “for me if I am buying anything, the quality of the product is at the forefront and then I consider whether I can afford it”. For most of the participants, how the product is packaged was the last thing considered during purchasing. Most people stated that they only considered that when they got home. When asked if they considered sustainability of the packaging material when making a purchase, very few consumers stated that it was on their list of considerations, with most saying that they only considered the packaging sustainability after the purchase and that it was not a driving force at the point of purchase. Other factors that influence purchase intent mentioned by participants included personal choice, habit, how much time they had to shop, and what or if alternatives were available: “if I had a choice, I will go for something in a glass instead of plastic because I feel glass is more sustainable, but sometimes you don’t have a choice”; “I sometimes try to find products in more sustainable packaging, but sometimes they are not available and because I need it urgently, I end up buying anything I see”; “it depends on how much time I have got; if I had enough time, I would look around for products packaged in a sustainable way but if I didn’t, I would just shove things into my basket without thinking of how they are packaged”. Others said, “it depends on the cost; if loose fruits were slightly more expensive than fruits packaged in a plastic bag but within my budget, I would buy the loose fruits, but if they were over my budget, I would buy the packaged fruit”; “when I go for my weekly shopping, I generally go for brands I am used to within my price range without considering the packaging”. Overall, most of the participants agreed that price and convenience trump environmental friendliness when making a purchasing decision.

3.1.3. Expectations from a Sustainable Packaging

When asked to discuss expectations from a sustainable package, the main themes mentioned by participants were functionality in terms of maintaining product quality (e.g., freshness) and shelf life: “it should do its work of keeping the product safe and maintaining its quality”; durability: “It should be strong, stress-resistant, and able to keep the product intact without splitting or breaking until I get to my destination”; aesthetic value: “the design should be very attractive and stand out from other less sustainable packages”; must be recyclable or biodegradable: “a sustainable package should be easy to recycle and would be better if it was 100% recyclable”; “there is no point in me buying an attractive package if it is not recyclable”; minimal amount of packaging should be used: “do not over package products; use just enough packaging required to maintain product quality and safety”. A key point mentioned was that packages need to be clearly labeled for sustainability; “the sustainability message needs to be clear so consumers can easily see that the package is more sustainable that other packages”. Other points mentioned were that packages should be resealable (though this is product-dependent) and reusable, and that they should meet the standard requirements for the product that the packaging is being used for (e.g., oxygen and moisture barriers) and transparent where possible: “if I am buying a fresh product like meat or vegetable, I would like to be able to see what I am buying so I am sure it hasn’t gone bad”. The key characteristics outlined for a sustainable package were functionality, clear information, aesthetic value, and product shelf life. In summary, consumers expect a sustainable package to do everything a standard package would do and not be harmful to the environment (environmentally friendly) at the same time. Participants, however, agreed that this was a lot to ask, and there were some limitations in the ability of some sustainable packaging such as paper to keep foods fresh for a long period.

3.1.4. Opinions on Currently Available Biscuit and Meat Packages Discussed in the Study

Participants were presented with a biscuit and a meat package currently available on the market ( Figure 1 ) and asked to express their opinions of the packages. Results from the discussions were grouped into themes and presented based on those themes rather than on individual packages. Key themes that emerged were packaging material, design, size, functionality, and labelling. Participant responses were both positive and negative.

In terms of packaging material, participants commented on the flimsy nature of the outer wrapper of the biscuit package and the fact that it was made from foil-like material which was considered a negative with comments such as: “the wrapper rips up easily” and “oh you’ve got foil inside”. The inner packaging of the biscuit, a black plastic tray, was considered in a negative light and was said to be pretty standard. Most participants disliked the feel of the polystyrene packaging of the meat including the single-use plastic lid; “this packaging is not recyclable”. Both the biscuit and meat packages were considered harmful to the environment as they are not biodegradable, neither can they be reused or recycled. There were several suggestions on how the packages could made more environmentally friendly, with comments such as: “instead of the black plastic tray, the biscuits could be in a cardboard box”; “polystyrene! Can’t it be cardboard?”; “why not use paper packaging and have a window on the lid so the product is visible to consumers?”.

When it came to the design of the packages, participants had varying opinions on the biscuit package. While some loved the red color, found it attractive, and said it made it look expensive, others said the red color made it look cheap and unappealing and was designed to deceive the consumer; “design looks dull”; “red color of the package is designed to make us think it is a special product; if a different color was used, it won’t be as appealing”. Most participants loved the fact that the image of the product was on the packaging and that the product was not visible, stating that the images were a true reflection of the product inside. This was, however, disputed by others who felt the image was not a true reflection of the product. A small subset of participants loved the meat package and felt it gave the product a positive outlook, with comments such as: “gives the product a sense of freshness”; “looks like a packaging used in a Deli”; “looks like a product from a local butcher”; “love the transparent lid”. Most participants, however, did not like the design of the meat package and found it unappealing and unattractive, with several comments such as: “looks very boring and dodgy”; “looks cheap and nasty”; “don’t like the white color; white puts me off”; “I won’t buy this if I had an option”.

When discussing the size of the packages, participants found the size of the biscuit package generally acceptable when compared to the number of biscuits in the package and did not have much to say about it, with a few participants commenting that the packaging could be reduced a little if the biscuit was packed in a different way: “stacking the biscuits side by side like you have in some biscuits like digestive may reduce the amount of packaging used”; “instead of a separate outer foil and inner black tray, using a paper tray with a well-sealed top would have been better and reduced the amount of packaging”. On the other hand, the meat was said to have been over-packed, with comments such as “too much packaging”; “there is too much empty space in the package”; and “the package is too big for the amount of product inside” mentioned by participants.

Another theme highlighted was “package function vs. products inside”. Participants stated that the biscuit package was not very functional and did not perform the function of retaining the quality of the product: “the package is not protecting the biscuits; there are too many broken biscuits in my pack”; “package is too loose”. Participants had little or nothing to say on the functionality of the meat package but had a lot to say about the labelling, with many comments related to the size and descriptions on the label: “label occupies too much space covering the product and making it not visible to the consumer”; “disposal information not visible enough”; “label should be more visible”; “different signs on the label is very confusing and unclear”. Similar comments on the clarity of the label were made about the biscuit packaging. Participants found labelling instructions both very confusing and difficult to understand. Overall, participants preferred the biscuit package over the meat package mainly because they found the design of the biscuit package more appealing but felt both packages were not environmentally friendly and were “over-packed/over-wrapped”, and they felt that the volume of the meat package could be reduced by up to 40%.

3.1.5. Opinions on Proposed Paper-Based Packaging Materials

The key themes that came out of the conversations around opinions on the proposed paper-based packages ( Figure 2 ) were appearance, material characteristics and feel, functionality, ethical qualities, and emotional draw. The appearance of the packaging material was generally described as “looks natural”, “biodegradable” and “recyclable” which are all positive comments and characteristics expected from a sustainable packaging material. Other characteristics mentioned included: “shiny outer coating”, “looks flimsy and cheap”, “doesn’t look sturdy enough for transporting?”, “looks boring and unappealing”. Some participants worried that on the surface, the materials did not look strong enough to withstand stress: “is it strong? If you got a leak would it break?”.

On touching and manipulating the material, participants described the packages as “stretchy and flexible”, “a lot stronger than it looks”, “strong paper: not very easy to tear” and “leak proof”. Functionality was discussed in terms of the protection and preservation that the material will offer to the product packaged in it. The materials were described as “durable”, “will retain its shape with moisture”, “can be used to package both the biscuit and the meat as well as many other food products”, and “the shiny barrier or coating will cope with greasy products”.

Ethical issues mentioned were centered around the sustainability value of the products. Though participants generally agreed that the packages had environmentally friendly characteristics and commented that the packages “could be marketed as eco-friendly versions of similar products”, there were concerns around it being a single-use package with comments such as: “it is not reusable” and “it’s a one-off use package”. There were discussions around the amount of the packaging that would be recycled, with most consumers happy to separate the non-recyclable barrier from recyclable materials and satisfied if more than 50% of the package was recyclable, while others stated that “it gets confusing if not completely recyclable”. In addition, participants were worried that though the package was recyclable, it can still end up in the landfill if it is contaminated by the product inside, and they wondered at what point it gets past the stage of recycling due to contamination. Another concern about the packages was what the cost of production was, compared to current packages, as that could affect the sustainability characteristic of the package in the long run, especially as it is not reusable. The final theme discussed was around the emotional response the packages drew from consumers, with most having a positive emotional pull: “makes me feel better that part if not all of the package is recyclable”. This may have a positive impact on consumer attitudes towards sustainability.

Finally, given that most sustainable packages generally cost more than their non-sustainable counterparts, consumers were asked if they would be willing to pay more for the packages made from the sustainable paper-based material presented. While consumers welcomed the idea of replacing the current packages with the new packages, most of them were unwilling to pay more for the product saying that they expected the companies to bear the cost and could not understand why they should be charged more for doing what is right and helping the environment: “doesn’t make sense that we have to pay to be green—so consumers shouldn’t have to pay more for it”; “the increased price needs to be justified”; “companies should take it as their social responsibility”. Very few participants across the focus groups were happy to pay a maximum of 10% more for the sustainable packages but suggested that “companies must ‘sell’ it to the consumer—give incentives” and governments should make legislations forcing companies to use more sustainable packages and could introduce taxes/fines if other non-sustainable materials are used. Participants would like to see more government initiatives and incentives to reduce the use of less sustainable packaging materials: “make plastics less lucrative”.

In conclusion, consumers felt that everyone (government, manufacturers, and consumers) had a part to play if the change to sustainable packaging is to be successful.

3.2. Stage 2

Following evaluation of the paper-based package prototypes ( Table 1 ) and comparing them to the old existing packages, the following themes emerged: appearance, material characteristics, design and size, functionality, target population/market, and price/purchase intent.

3.2.1. Packaging Material Characteristics

Appearance, strength, and feel were the main packaging material characteristics discussed. In terms of appearance, the B2 prototype package was described as more appealing and preferred than the B1 package with comments such as “quite attractive—catches the eye” and “looks classy, like a quality product”. On the other hand, statements such as “looks cheap and unappealing” were used to describe package B1. Comparing the current biscuit package (B0) to the prototypes, participants found B0 more attractive than both B1 and B2. When discussing the appearance of the meat packages, prototypes M2 and M3 were more preferred than M1, with M1 described as looking “very amateurish”, “cheap and unattractive” and “shocking!” while M2 and M3 were described as “looking very basic in a good way”. Similar to the biscuit packages, participants preferred the appearance of the existing meat package (M0) with comments such as “it looks neater than the others”. One of the positive comments for the prototype meat packages, however, was that they looked more natural and environmentally friendly than M0.

Discussions around the strength of the packages revealed that participants found the B2 package to be “more sturdy” than B1, which was described as “very flimsy”. B2 was considered to be “more rigid and stronger” than B0. The tray strength of meat prototype package M3 was said to be the “most rigid” of all the three prototype packages with M1 and M2 described as “very flimsy” and “less sturdy” than M3, respectively. The lid strength of the three prototypes were also discussed, with participants mentioning that the lids of M1 and M3 were “stronger” and “won’t tear easily” when compared to the M3 lid, which they felt “may be easy to tear compared to the other ones”. “Looks easily breakable” and “not as strong as the paper packages” were some of the ways the M0 package was described by participants.

The final characteristic mentioned was the feel of the packages. In general, participants loved the cardboard feel of all biscuit and meat paper-based prototypes. However, the “bumpy” feel of package B2 was preferred to the smooth feel of B1 with participants stating that the “bumpy” feel of B2 gave it a “better grip” and made it easier to hold than B1. One participant described the feel of B1 as “feels cheap—don’t like it”. Statements used to describe the meat paper-based packages included: “feels natural”, “has a homemade feel, like something from the butchers”.

3.2.2. Design and Size

All the biscuit and meat prototype packages were considered too big for the amount of the product they contained. While in the case of the biscuit packages, participants found the size of B0 great and just right for the amount of biscuits it contained, they said that the M0 package was too big for the portion of meat inside. Comments for the paper-based packages include “definitely a waste of space”; “why use so much packaging?”; “the fact that it is supposed to be a more sustainable package doesn’t mean it should be this big; “what a waste!”. On another note, participants felt that the shape of biscuit packages B1 and B2 needed to be modified, as the shape limited the number of biscuits that the packages could accommodate, referring to it as “not deep enough”. Participants felt that the packages were too big, with comments such as: “packaging probably cost twice the price of the biscuits”. On the other hand, while participants loved the shape of the M3 package and described M2 as “looks like a proper tray—with less packaging”, participants found the shape of the M1 package to be “too big”, “funny”, and “not well-defined”. The light weight of the paper-based prototypes was loved, with participants saying: “it is very light so will be easy to carry”.

In terms of the design, the white and red color contrast of packages B1 and B2 was loved and preferred when compared to the “all red” color of B0. In addition, participants preferred the foldable pack design of B1 and B2 to the flat design of B0, though some participants found the double pack design very confusing and felt it would be better to separate the two packs. However, the “bumpy” design of B2 was favored to the smooth design of B1. When discussing the meat packages, participants found all three prototypes, M1, M2, and M3 too plain-looking. The lid of the meat packages was discussed, with participants disliking the non-transparent paper lid of M3 because it made it impossible to see the contents of the package. Suggestions mentioned included: “put a window for product visibility”, but some participants disagreed, saying: “I need to see everything to know how the product inside looks like; a window doesn’t work for me”. Finally, participants were not impressed with the shiny barrier in the paper-based prototypes and found it off-putting, as they felt it made the packages less sustainable and more difficult to recycle with comments such as: “outer package says sustainable but inside says a different thing” and “can’t tell if it is paper or plastic”.

3.2.3. Functionality

All paper-based prototype packages were said to be very difficult to open compared to B0 and M0. It was suggested that “a side flap and indicator for opening” be added, just as was present in M0 that needed to be included in the design to guide consumers on where to open the packages. However, for the biscuit packages, participants found B2 a bit easier to open than B1, which they attributed to the “bumpy” nature of the tray which made it firmer to hold. The difficulty in opening the packages was seen as a positive by the participants in some way, as they felt it meant the packages were tightly sealed, improving their preservation characteristics and making them more stress-resistant. B1 and B2 packages were said to offer more protection to the biscuits than B0 due to their rigidity and foldable design, with participants saying the B2 “bumpy” design offered more protection than the smooth B1. On the other hand, participants found it difficult to split both packages, with most splits resulting in broken biscuits and opened seals, which participants found unacceptable. It was suggested that single packs would be better than duo packs and be more functional overall. Participants were nervous about contamination in M1, M2, and M3 packages, with worries that the M2 lid was touching the product which could lead to contamination, unlike in the case of M1 and M3. There were concerns over the protection of the products inside the paper-based packages if they got wet due to rain or cold storage in the case of the meat packages, with comments such as: “what happens when it gets wet or soggy?”.

Though worried about the sustainability aspect of the barrier in M1, M2, and M3 packages, participants found it very functional in keeping the product safe. Participants found separating the barrier of the paper-based packages from the paper material difficult to varying degrees. For the biscuit packages, B2 was easier to separate than B1 while for the meat packages, M2 was the most difficult to separate. However, participants made it clear that they were unwilling to be saddled with the responsibility of separating the barrier before disposing the package. Some of the reasons given include: “it is a hassle”; “trying to separate the barrier in the meat package can lead to contamination”; and “if I am eating the biscuit on the go, you cannot expect me to separate the barrier”. Participants felt that the design and shape of the new prototypes were not very functional for the products, as they led to too much packaging with little content inside. They suggested that the shape of the biscuit packages should be changed to something such as a rectangle, which will reduce the amount of packaging used while increasing the number of biscuits inside. It was suggested that the black plastic tray design of B0 be retained, with the plastic replaced by a paper-based tray. A major functionality missing from the paper-based prototype packages according to participants was the inability to reseal the packages after opening, with many saying that the lid should be made resealable for storage purposes.

3.2.4. Target Population/Market

Target population/market was one of the themes to emerge from the biscuit packaging discussions. While participants felt that the target market/population of the B0 package was very clear, they found the double pack of B1 and B2 to be very confusing, and the target market/population not clearly defined. It was obvious that B0 was targeted towards “family or party use”, but B1 and B2 were described as having no clear target, with questions and statements such as: “is it an on-the-go product?”; “package and content is too much to be an on-the-go snack”; “is it designed for one time consumption?”; “is this aimed at younger people?”; “I cannot imagine it as a snack pack, looks more like a lunch box”; “doesn’t stand out, no clear message or target”. These questions and comments clearly show the confusion of the participants. In terms of where the B1 and B2 products could be sold, airports, cinemas, street corner shops, and canteens were the suggested possible places, though the location would be dependent on the target market.

3.2.5. Price/Purchase Intent

Price/purchase intent was a key theme highlighted during the discussions. While the B0 package was considered better value for money, B1 and B2 were not, with many participants saying they would probably buy them once but would not buy them again. Participants said they were generally not tempted to buy the biscuits in the new paper-based packaging but recommended the duo pack be separated into two packs and sold as single packs to improve the purchasing value with comments such as: “better to separate the two packs, think you will sell more” expressed by several participants. The M2 package was considered good value for money, but M1 was thought to be unacceptable to be introduced into the market. Participants were more open to buying the M2 and M3 packages with preference for the M2 because of the transparent lid but unwilling to buy M1 package.

With regards to purchase intent, similar to Stage 1, participants were generally not willing to pay more to be sustainable, but some were happy to pay “5 to 10%” more for the new sustainable paper-based packages, mostly because of their dislike of the polystyrene in the M0 package and black plastic tray of the biscuit package.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to understand consumers’ expectations and opinions of sustainable paper-based packaging materials and to evaluate and assess the characteristics and suitability of the developed paper-based prototype packages. The findings from this study contribute to existing knowledge on consumer opinions and reactions to sustainable packaging materials [ 2 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 15 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 35 , 36 ]. While past studies focus mainly on surveys, interviews, and general conversations around consumer opinions and attitudes to available sustainable packages, this study goes further by involving consumers in the design process of paper-based packages not currently available on the market, with consumers having the opportunity to interact physically with the packages, which is missing from some studies [ 2 , 7 ].

One of the main points highlighted for both the old and prototype biscuit and meat packages assessed in this study was the use of excessive packaging or over-packaging of the products which participants found off-putting. Previous studies carried out in several countries including the UK showed that consumers have a negative reaction to the over-packaging of foods [ 7 , 14 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. Though the prototype packages in this study were made from sustainable paper-based materials, participants felt the oversized nature of the packages was a form of wastage and was considered bad for the environment, suggesting that the amount of packaging used should always be commensurate to the product they contain. A study investigating consumer perception of the environmental benefit of several ecological consumption patterns found that consumers believed avoiding unnecessary packaging had a strong positive impact on the environment [ 38 ]. In another study conducted by Lea and Worsley [ 40 ] examining Australians’ food-related environmental beliefs, minimal use of packaging by food manufacturers was said to be the most important way to help save the environment. Hanssen et al. [ 39 ] investigated the environmental profile of ready-to-eat meals and found that over 50% of the participants thought that the manufacturers used too much packaging. On the contrary, in another study, when asked what made a package environmentally friendly, consumers did not consider the amount of packaging as an important factor [ 41 ]. The varying positions suggest differences in consumer perception and opinions of what environmentally friendly means. As manufacturers consider moving to more sustainable packaging options, size should be an important aspect to bear in mind, as consumers consider over-sized packaging a negative characteristic of a sustainable package.

Too much plastic packaging was mentioned as a major problem in today’s food packaging, with participants discussing the negative impact of these plastics on the environment. On the other hand, participants found the paper-based prototypes as a more sustainable packaging solution to the plastic and polystyrene packages currently used for the biscuit and meat products assessed in the study. The result of this study corresponds with the findings of previous research where paper and plastic were ranked by consumers as the most and least environmentally friendly materials, respectively, when comparing plastic, paper, glass, and metal [ 7 , 9 ]. Consumers who took part in a study in Sweden highlighted the negative environmental impact of plastic packaging, with paper reported to be more environmentally friendly [ 8 ].

Consumers are, however, still unclear as to what the most sustainable packaging is, with their judgements being mostly subjective and based on their personal perception rather than the sustainability characteristics of the product. Discussions around sustainability in the current study showed that while some participants considered paper-based packaging to be the most sustainable packaging, others felt glass was more sustainable in the ease of recycling. This was, however, disputed by other participants who stated that the cost of recycling glass made it less sustainable and environmentally friendly than assumed. These conversations reflect the limited knowledge that consumers have on what a sustainable product is and the confusion they face when determining what a sustainable product is. Participants agreed that consumers need to be better informed and educated on the production process of packaging to help them make informed decisions. van Dam [ 10 ] and Allegra et al. [ 42 ] reported that consumers rated paper-based packaging as the most environmentally friendly material. A survey of Swedish consumers revealed that consumers based their judgement of the environmental impact of food packaging on their perception but were also aware of the flaws in their judgement [ 7 ]. These results show that there is a need for better guidance to ensure that the noble intentions of consumers to be sustainable are not unknowingly thwarted by their decisions. In general, participants defined a sustainable product based on 3Rs—Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle—which are important processes within the Circular Economy [ 3 ]. In previous studies conducted in USA, UK, Germany and China [ 41 ], Denmark [ 43 ], and Sweden [ 7 ], consumers defined a package as environmentally friendly if it was recyclable and reusable, and used the minimal amount of packaging material.

Poor communication of disposal labels was another theme to come out of the focus group discussions. Participants stated that they found disposal information and communications on packages difficult to understand, which meant they ended up not disposing the packages in the right manner in some cases, and most people found this very frustrating. Results from the study highlight the challenges that consumers face as a result of poor disposal information by the manufacturers, which may lead to the benefits of the packages being lost on consumers. A study conducted by [ 44 ] on the consumer “attitude-behavioral” intention gap in relation to sustainability found that the positive environmental impact of packages is generally poorly communicated to consumers, impacting their ability to make informed decisions. The authors further underscored the importance of communication in increasing consumer awareness and knowledge of environmental aspects of a product and their influence on the consumer purchase decision. The consumer “attitude-behavioral” intention gap was further reinforced by [ 11 ] who acknowledged that consumers’ sustainable intentions to act in a sustainable way, while honorable, do not normally translate to their actual behavior. Fernqvist et al. [ 8 ] stated that poor communication of the added benefit of a product may influence consumer expectations and future purchase intent negatively.

Similar to previous studies [ 15 , 28 , 30 , 34 , 44 ], price and product quality were found to be the main driving force of consumer purchase intent. In the current study, participants stated that packaging was not on their list of considerations when purchasing a product despite 95% of them saying they considered themselves environmentally conscious individuals and would like to see more sustainable packages on the market. Participants said that they are creatures of habit and would normally stick to familiar brands and only think of the package after purchase or when they got to their destination. Participants further stated that convenience and price trump everything else. More than 80% of consumers cited the environmental status of a food packaging as one of the main factors that influences their selection of a food product but the extent to which this factor influences their decision is unclear. According to Bech-Larsen [ 34 ], while consumers are concerned about the effects of packaging on the environment, that concern seldom influences their purchasing decision because there are more important factors considered; consumers are not good at distinguishing between packaging; and their purchasing process is habitualized. Several studies showed that sustainability comes secondary to other factors such as price, convenience, product quality, and shelf life, and thus is not a major driver of purchase [ 41 , 45 ].

Participants expect sustainable packages to have all the functionality of a package and be sustainable. Developing a package from a sustainable material such as paper, particularly for sensitive foods, might prove to be a challenging undertaking for the food industry, as it may be difficult to achieve a sustainable package that provides the required functionalities while maintaining the quality characteristics of the product inside. Participants were not wowed by the design and functionality of the paper-based packages studied. The main functions of a packaging identified by Lindh [ 46 ] were protection, communication, and facilitation of handling (which includes easy-to-open status, re-sealability, size, functional weight, shape, easy-to-grip status, etc.), and participants in this study felt the paper-based packaging did not meet most of these criteria. While they found the biscuit prototype packages innovative and different, the packaging did not perform the basic function of protecting the biscuits, with several broken pieces found inside the packages. In general, they felt the design of the packages were not eye-catching or attractive enough and stated that environmentally friendly packaging needs to stand out from other packaging on the shelf if it is to attract consumers. For the meat packages, the ability to see and judge the quality of the product inside was of particular importance to participants who preferred the M2 over the M3 package because even though they had exactly the same design, unlike M3, the M2 package had a transparent lid. Participants, however, stated that the requirement of a transparent lid is mainly applicable for fresh products (e.g., meat, fish, etc.) and does not apply to dry foods such as biscuits. A growing trend in the food industry is a shift away from just showing product images on the package to using transparent packaging materials, which allow consumers to see exactly what they are buying [ 47 ]. Previous studies showed that transparent packaging increases expected freshness, expected quality, and purchase intent in various food categories [ 48 , 49 ]. This suggests that transparent packaging has an effect on consumer behavior [ 47 ]. Participants also found the color of the meat packaging too plain and dull and were not tempted to buy these products. In addition to text and pictures, color has been shown to affect consumers’ preference for environmentally friendly products [ 8 ]. Magnier and Schoormans [ 2 ] in their study investigating consumer reactions to sustainable packaging across two countries and products found that attractiveness and visual appearance were important factors to consider when designing environmentally friendly packaging, as this was strongly correlated with increased preference and purchase intent.

Though previous studies [ 7 , 27 , 41 ] showed that environmentally conscious consumers are often willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products, most participants in this study, though they considered themselves environmentally conscious, were unwilling to pay more for the sustainable paper-based packaging. A few people were, however, willing to pay 10–15 pence more for the sustainable paper-based packaging but stated that the packaging did not currently meet their expectations in terms of design and functionality and would have to do so if they were to pay more.

The findings of our study corresponds with the study of Ertz et al. [ 13 ], where consumers were unwilling to pay more for more sustainable packaging, and Barber [ 13 , 50 ], where only 28% of consumers were willing to pay more for environmentally friendly “green” wine packaging. Krystallis and Chryssohoidis [ 51 ] found that consumers are unwilling to pay more for packaging that they do not believe meets their standards. While most studies show that consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable packaging, the amount they are willing to pay varies between studies and is difficult to measure because of the difference in packaging products studied and how the cost is presented.

This study is not without its limitations. Firstly, not all of the information obtained during Stage 1 was considered in the development of the paper-based prototypes as a result of the technology used and the geometries that could be realized with the paper-based material. The prototypes developed did not have any labelling information, so this aspect was not considered in Stage 2 of the study. On another note, more than 65% of the participants that took part in the study were female which may have biased the results of the study. Previous studies showed that females have a more positive attitude towards the environment and care more about sustainable food packaging than males [ 23 , 28 ].

5. Conclusions

This study provides further understanding of consumer responses and opinions to sustainable paper-based packaging. While the results of this study highlight key consumer opinions of a sustainable paper-based package within the UK population, we recognize that findings may differ with a larger sample size or different demographic within the UK or in other parts of the world due to cultural and regional differences regarding sustainability perception of consumers. Focus groups have been reported as a good way to gain insights into consumer opinions regarding issues which can then be analyzed using a more quantitative methodology in the future [ 8 ]. The result of this study shows that participants who took part in the study are (i) aware of the environmental impacts of food packages; (ii) concerned about the negative impact of the unsustainable packages on the environment, and (iii) desire a change in the type and amount of materials used in food packaging. This study further confirms that price and quality remain key driving forces for consumers’ purchase intent. Participants did not like the paper-based packages evaluated in this study but found the biscuit design interesting and innovative. Overall, the paper-based packages did not meet participants’ expectations, but they all agreed that the design was headed in the right direction. To validate the results of this study, a quantitative study with 130 participants was conducted with results corresponding with this study [ 49 ]. In summary, the key message that emerged from the discussions was the “3Rs”—Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle —which should be the main points to consider when designing a sustainable packaging. In addition, a cultural change is needed across all stakeholders (government, manufacturers, and consumers) if success is to be achieved.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all our industrial partners for their invaluable insights during the project and in particular Matthias Klauser and Johannes Rauschnabel from Syntegon Technology GmbH (formerly Bosch Packaging Technology) for working on the development of packages B1, B2, M2, and M3; Alexander Lenske and Marek Hauptmann from IVV-Fraunhofer for the development of M1 package; Veerle Carlier from the Colruyt Group and Efrat Ben Hamo from the Strauss Group for supplying M0 and B0 products, respectively. We would also like to thank Xirui Zhou and Erin Wallace for their help during the focus group sessions, James Hall for providing audio-visual support, and the volunteers who took part in the study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.O.O. and S.L.; methodology, O.O.O. and S.L.; software, O.O.O. and S.L.; validation, O.O.O. and S.L.; formal analysis, O.O.O. and S.L.; investigation, O.O.O. and S.L.; resources, O.O.O. and S.L.; data curation, O.O.O.; writing—original draft preparation, O.O.O.; writing—review and editing, O.O.O. and S.L.; visualization, O.O.O. and S.L.; supervision, S.L.; project administration, S.L.; funding acquisition, S.L. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research was funded by the European Institute of Innovation & Technology—EIT Food, grant number 19136: “InPaper: Innovative paper-based packaging technology and pack styles for food production”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the School of Chemistry, Food, and Pharmacy Ethics Committee of University of Reading (study number: 11/19 and date of approval: 25 April 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Sustainability in packaging: Inside the minds of global consumers

Sustainability remains a key topic for the packaging value chain, but there are few (if any) insights into consumer perceptions globally—especially now that the COVID-19 pandemic is also influencing consumer sentiment and behavior. To better understand this influence, we launched a survey across ten countries to explore consumers’ attitudes toward sustainable packaging , building on our earlier work focusing on consumer sentiment in the United States.

About the authors

Responses from the approximately 10,000 consumers who took part in the survey have uncovered three main findings. First, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers now place significantly more value on food safety and hygiene. This is a key element of the next normal in packaging , whereby packaging suppliers will have to rethink materials and design requirements.

Second, consumers see sustainability as being increasingly important as we emerge from COVID-19: marine litter is top of mind in Europe and Japan, while pollution is more of a concern in other Asian countries and the Americas. Across the globe, a vast majority of consumers claim to be willing to pay more for sustainable packaging.

Third, consumers around the world disagree on what packaging type is most sustainable; however, they do agree on what are the least sustainable options. Thus, to respond effectively to these evolving consumer sentiments, a granular view will be needed. In this article, we suggest three critical questions that packaging players need to answer to get started on creating an actionable fact base on which to build their future strategy.

To better understand this influence, we launched a survey across ten countries to explore consumers’ attitudes toward sustainable packaging, building on our earlier work focusing on consumer sentiment in the United States.

COVID-19’s impact on sustainability in packaging

Ahead of the COVID-19 crisis, sustainability  was top of mind across the whole packaging value chain. Consumers were becoming acutely aware of the packaging sector’s environmental footprint , and, in turn, rising public awareness sparked responses from legislators around the world. With sustainability increasingly part of their value proposition, fast-moving-consumer-goods (FMCG) and retail companies promised swift action and made bold commitments to improving the recycling potential of their packaging. This combination of downstream pull from consumers along with FMCG companies responding to the regulatory push had a profound impact on upstream players in the packaging industry: they were expected to help meet commitments. However, during the early stages of the pandemic, hygiene concerns  took priority over the drive to eradicate single-use packaging in several jurisdictions. This evolution in consumer sentiment is also reflected in our survey, which indicates that the pandemic has heightened concerns around food safety, especially in the hardest-hit countries (Exhibit 1).

The next normal of sustainability in packaging

As we enter the next normal, pressure on sustainability is building once again. FMCG manufacturers and retailers continue to innovate with new packaging formats designed to improve recyclability—notably with the use of recycled content such as post-consumer resin (PCR)—as they approach their own sustainability commitments and also respond to consumer expectations, critical nongovernmental organization voices, and regulatory pressure.

New regulation is currently expanding on multiple fronts: no longer is it confined to just a few countries or regions. Today, sustainability regulation has become much more of a global phenomenon, even if the level of regulation varies. At the same time, consumer concerns remain: when we asked consumers about their perceptions of packaging sustainability compared with pre-COVID-19 times, only 4 to 11 percent of consumers globally said that they are now less concerned. Consumers are generally more concerned in developing economies such as India (87 percent of consumers are more concerned), Indonesia (80 percent), and Brazil (65 percent). Nevertheless, consumers in more developed economies are also showing higher awareness around sustainability issues: for example, 48 percent of US consumers are more concerned. However, what consumers are concerned about differs depending on region (Exhibit 2).

In all countries surveyed, the overwhelming majority of respondents claim to be willing to pay more for sustainable packaging across end-use areas. In food service, for example, highest willingness to pay is in China, where 86 percent of consumers say they are willing to pay “a lot” or “a bit more” for sustainable packaging, followed by Indonesia, the United States, and Brazil (75 percent, 68 percent, and 66 percent, respectively). In Germany, Italy, India, and the United Kingdom, around 56 to 59 percent say they are willing to pay “a lot” or “a bit more” for sustainable food-service packaging. Willingness to pay more for green in food service appears lowest in Japan and France, where 48 percent of consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable packaging. At the same time, better labeling on the packaging (explaining its sustainable attributes) and increased availability would encourage 23 to 61 percent of the surveyed consumers to buy more green packaging. 1 The wide percentage range reflects variation among individual countries surveyed. Taken together, these facts plainly suggest that a clearly communicated sustainability benefit is a strong value proposition for packaging suppliers.

Substrate view: What does the global consumer prefer?

It is often wondered what packaging substrate is seen as the most sustainable by consumers. Our survey indicates that consumers around the world disagree about what they view as the most sustainable packaging materials, but their perception is quite aligned on what they regard as the most unsustainable materials (Exhibit 3).

Paper-based cartons rank quite high for sustainability in the United States and among surveyed countries in Europe, as does glass. However, this is not the case in Brazil, China, and Indonesia where both types of packaging are ranked much lower. Compostable plastic films have a strong global recognition as being sustainable.

Packaging combining plastic, paper, and aluminum foil (for example, flexible packaging) ranks lowest from a consumer perspective across all surveyed countries. Additionally, aluminum foils, plastic bottles (even with recycled content), and metal containers rank on the lower part of the spectrum.

Would you like to learn more about our Sustainability Practice ?

Three critical questions to consider.

Packaging suppliers should take a strategic look at their portfolios and assess them with three key questions in mind:

• What are the substrate shifts you can foresee in your focus markets based on anticipated consumer perception and regulatory changes?
• What is the resulting value at stake (that is, where are you most exposed given this and your market position)?
• What are the potential growth opportunities for which you would be uniquely positioned to provide winning solutions?

Answering these three questions will help to create an actionable fact base. Based on this, packaging suppliers should update and enhance their product- and technology-strategy road map with relevant sustainability narratives. Doing so will help to identify growth opportunities and the partners needed to deliver them and provide insight into areas of risk in instances where volumes might move to alternative substrates if no solution can be developed.

Consumer sentiments seem to be shifting continuously, most recently with heightening focus on food safety and hygiene. Understanding consumers’ sentiments and preferences around sustainability at a granular level will be a key early indicator for the value chain as to future regulatory pressure and instances where large packaging-substrate shifts could occur. Proactively identifying these sentiments and potential shifts could allow packaging suppliers to stay on top of trends as they develop and to become a thought partner by supporting customers in revamping their packaging portfolio—ultimately creating significant growth opportunities.

Daniel Eriksson is a senior analyst in McKinsey’s Stockholm office, where Oskar Lingqvist is a senior partner. David Feber is a partner in the Detroit office, where Daniel Nordigården is an associate partner. Anna Granskog is a partner in the Helsinki office.

The authors wish to thank Maimouna Diakhaby, Maximilian Fischer, Anne Grimmelt, Matt Rogers, and Jeremy Wallach for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Sustainability in packaging: Inside the minds of US consumers

Graphic-paper producers: Boosting resilience amid the COVID-19 crisis

The drive toward sustainability in packaging—beyond the quick wins

Sustainable packaging design and the consumer perspective: a systematic literature review

• Review Article
• Published: 07 November 2023
• Volume 2024 , pages 77–111, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Generoso Branca   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2481-8822 1 ,
• Riccardo Resciniti 2 &
• Barry J. Babin 3  

1756 Accesses

5 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Sustainable packaging is gaining increasing prominence as a factor in consumer decision-making. This research aims to review and synthesise the literature addressing sustainable attributes and eco-friendly cues of consumer goods packaging. A systematic literature review was performed: 52 scientific articles published between 2010 and 2020 in peer-reviewed academic journals were included. Furthermore, a bibliometric analysis for bibliographic coupling was conducted. The review identifies four main research themes: consumers’ knowledge and understanding of sustainable packaging; studies that investigate green packaging following a holistic approach; studies employing an analytical approach to identifying relevant package cues; and consumers’ attitudes and behaviours towards eco-friendly packaging. The research integrates and enriches previous reviews analysing the topic of sustainable packaging from a different perspective. In addition, it provides a classification and rationalisation of recent articles, which the literature still lacks, bringing out relevant insights and avenues for future research. Finally, the review details the analysis of attributes and cues from an analytical point of view. Companies and practitioners may exploit the insights of this research to arrive at a sustainable packaging design effective and appreciated by consumers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

To Pack Sustainably or Not to Pack Sustainably? A Review of the Relationship between Consumer Behaviour and Sustainable Packaging

What Stops Designers from Designing Sustainable Packaging?—A Review of Eco-design Tools with Regard to Packaging Design

Eco-Design and Sustainable Packaging: Challenges, Trends and Perspectives in the Food Sector

Aagerup, U., Frank, A. S., & Hultqvist, E. (2019). The persuasive effects of emotional green packaging claims. British Food Journal, 121 (12), 3233–3246. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2019-0652 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Afif, K., Rebolledo, C., & Roy, J. (2022). Drivers, barriers and performance outcomes of sustainable packaging: A systematic literature review. British Food Journal, 124 (3), 915–935. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2021-0150 .

Arboretti, R., & Bordignon, P. (2016). Consumer preferences in food packaging: CUB models and conjoint analysis. British Food Journal, 118 (3), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2015-0146 .

Bangsa, A. B., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2020). Linking sustainable product attributes and consumer decision-making: Insights from a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 245 , 118902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118902 .

Barber, N. (2010). Green wine packaging: Targeting environmental consumers. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 22 (4), 423–444. https://doi.org/10.1108/17511061011092447 .

Barchiesi, M. A., Castellan, S., & Costa, R. (2018). In the eye of the beholder: Communicating CSR through color in packaging design. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24 (7), 720–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1224771 .

Baruk, A. I., & Iwanicka, A. (2016). The effect of age, gender and level of education on the consumer’s expectations towards dairy product packaging. British Food Journal, 118 (1), 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2015-0248 .

Binninger, A. S. (2017). Perception of naturalness of food packaging and its role in consumer product evaluation. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 23 (3), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2014.885868 .

Boesen, S., Bey, N., & Niero, M. (2019). Environmental sustainability of liquid food packaging. Is there a gap between Danish consumers’ perception and learnings from life cycle assessment? Journal of Cleaner Production, 210 , 1193–1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.055 .

Borin, N., Cerf, D. C., & Krishnan, R. (2011). Consumer effects of environmental impact in product labelling. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28 (1), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761111101976 .

Branca, G., Resciniti, R., & Loureiro, S. M. C. (2023). Virtual is so real! Consumers’ evaluation of product packaging in virtual reality. Psychology & Marketing, 40 , 596–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21743 .

Brennan, L., Langley, S., Verghese, K., Lockrey, S., Ryder, M., Francis, C., Phan-Le, N. T., & Hill, A. (2021). The role of packaging in fighting food waste: A systematised review of consumer perceptions of packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281 , 125276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125276 .

Chevtchouk, Y., Veloutsou, C., & Paton, R. A. (2021). The experience—Economy revisited: An interdisciplinary perspective and research agenda. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 30 (8), 1288–1324. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2019-2406 .

Childs, M. (2017). Brand extension feedback effects: What do we know and where should we go? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 26 (7), 671–689. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-01-2016-1087 .

Cho, Y. N. (2015). Different shades of green consciousness: The interplay of sustainability labeling and environmental impact on product evaluations. Journal of Business Ethics, 128 , 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2080-4 .

Cho, Y. N., & Baskin, E. (2018). It’s a match when green meets healthy in sustainability labelling. Journal of Business Research, 86 , 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.050 .

Cousté, N. L., Martos-Partal, M., & Martinez-Ros, E. (2012). The power of a package product claims drive purchase decisions. Journal of Advertising Research, 52 (3), 364–375. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-52-3-364-375 .

De Feo, G., Ferrara, C., & Francesca Minichini, F. (2022). Comparison between the perceived and actual environmental sustainability of beverage packagings in glass, plastic, and aluminium. Journal of Cleaner Production, 333 , 130158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130158 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Donato, C., Barone, A. M., & Romani, S. (2021). The satiating power of sustainability: The effect of package sustainability on perceived satiation of healthy food. British Food Journal, 123 (13), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2020-1094 .

Donato, C., & D’Aniello, A. (2022). Tell me more and make me feel proud: The role of eco-labels and informational cues on consumers’ food perceptions. British Food Journal, 124 (4), 1365–1382. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2021-0416 .

Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133 , 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 .

Dopico-Parada, A., López-Miguens, M. J., & Álvarez-González, P. (2021). Building value with packaging: Development and validation of a measurement scale. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 63 , 102685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102685 .

Elgaaïed-Gambier, L. (2016). Who buys overpackaged grocery products and why? Understanding consumers’ reactions to overpackaging in the food sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 135 , 683–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2491-2 .

Ertz, M., François, J., & Durif, F. (2017). How consumers react to environmental information. An experimental study. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 29 (3), 162–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2016.1273813 .

Fajardo, T. M., & Townsend, C. (2016). Where you say it matters: Why packages are a more believable source of product claims than advertisements. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26 (3), 426–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.11.002 .

Felix, R., González, E. M., Castaño, R., Carrete, L., & Gretz, R. T. (2022). When the green in green packaging backfires: Gender effects and perceived masculinity of environmentally friendly products. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46 , 925–943. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12738 .

Ferrara, C., Zigarelli, V., & De Feo, G. (2020). Attitudes of a sample of consumers towards more sustainable wine packaging alternatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 271 , 122581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122581 .

Fink, A. (2009). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper (3rd ed.). Sage.

Google Scholar  

Ghaffar, A., Islam, T., Khan, H., Kincl, T., & Sharma, A. (2023). A sustainable retailer’s journey to sustainable practices: Prioritizing the customer and the planet. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 74 , 103388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103388 .

Gosselt, J. F., van Rompay, T., & Haske, L. (2019). Won’t get fooled again: The effects of internal and external CSR ECO-Labeling. Journal of Business Ethics, 155 , 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3512-8 .

Granato, G., Fischer, A. H. R., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2022). The price of sustainability: How consumers trade-off conventional packaging benefits against sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 365 , 132739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132739 .

Hanss, D., & Böhm, G. (2012). Sustainability seen from the perspective of consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36 (6), 678–687. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01045.x .

Herbes, C., Beuthner, C., & Ramme, I. (2018). Consumer attitudes towards biobased packaging. A cross-cultural comparative study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194 (1), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.106 .

Herbes, C., Beuthner, C., & Ramme, I. (2020). How green is your packaging–A comparative international study of cues consumers use to recognize environmentally friendly packaging. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 44 (3), 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12560 .

Herédia-Colaço, V. (2023). Pro-environmental messages have more effect when they come from less familiar brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 32 (3), 436–453. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-12-2021-3782 .

Jerzyk, E. (2016). Design and communication of ecological content on sustainable packaging in young consumers’ opinions. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 22 (6), 707–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2015.1121435 .

Karana, E. (2012). Characterization of ‘natural’ and ‘high-quality’ materials to improve perception of bio-plastics. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37 , 316–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.034 .

Kemper, J. A., & Ballantine, P. W. (2019). What do we mean by sustainability marketing? Journal of Marketing Management, 35 (3–4), 277–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1573845 .

Ketelsen, M., Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2020). Consumers’ response to environmentally-friendly food packaging–A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 254 , 120123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120123 .

Kitz, R., Walker, T., Charlebois, S., & Music, J. (2022). Food packaging during the COVID-19 pandemic: Consumer perceptions. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46 , 434–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12691 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Koch, J., Frommeyer, B., & Schewe, G. (2022). Managing the transition to eco-friendly packaging—An investigation of consumers’ motives in online retail. Journal of Cleaner Production, 351 , 131504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131504 .

Koenig-Lewis, N., Palmer, A., Dermody, J., & Urbye, A. (2014). Consumers’ evaluations of ecological packaging. Rational and emotional approaches. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37 , 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.009 .

Lindh, H., Olsson, A., & Williams, H. (2016). Consumer perceptions of food packaging: Contributing to or counteracting environmentally sustainable development? Packaging Technology and Science, 29 , 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2184 .

Lindh, H., Williams, H., Olsson, A., & Wikström, F. (2016). Elucidating the indirect contributions of packaging to sustainable development. A terminology of packaging functions and features. Packaging Technology and Science, 29 (4–5), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2197 .

Lisboa, A., Vitorino, L., & Antunes, R. (2022). Gen Zers’ intention to purchase products with sustainable packaging: An alternative perspective to the attitude-behaviour gap. Journal of Marketing Management, 38 (9–10), 967–992. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2022.2083214 .

Louis, D., Lombart, C., & Durif, F. (2021). Packaging-free products: A lever of proximity and loyalty between consumers and grocery stores. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60 , 102499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102499 .

Lu, S., Yang, L., Liu, W., & Jia, L. (2020). User preference for electronic commerce overpackaging solutions: Implications for cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258 , 120936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120936 .

Magnier, L., & Crié, D. (2015). Communicating packaging eco-friendliness: An exploration of consumers’ perceptions of eco-designed packaging. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 43 (4/5), 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-04-2014-0048 .

Magnier, L., & Schoormans, J. (2015). Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging: The interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44 , 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.09.005 .

Magnier, L., Schoormans, J., & Mugge, R. (2016). Judging a product by its cover. Packaging sustainability and perceptions of quality in food products. Food Quality and Preference, 53 , 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.06.006 .

Mai, L. W. (2014). Consumers’ willingness to pay for ethical attribute. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 32 (6), 706–721. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-08-2013-0139 .

Mancini, P., Marchini, A., & Simeone, M. (2017). Which are the sustainable attributes affecting the real consumption behaviour? Consumer understanding and choices. British Food Journal, 119 , 1839–1853. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-11-2016-0574 .

Molina-Besch, K. (2016). Prioritization guidelines for green food packaging development. British Food Journal, 118 (10), 2512–2533. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2015-0462 .

Monnot, E., Parguel, B., & Reniou, F. (2015). Consumer responses to elimination of overpackaging on private label products. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 43 (4/5), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-03-2014-0036 .

Monnot, E., Reniou, F., Parguel, B., & Elgaaïed-Gambier, L. (2019). Thinking outside the packaging box: Should brands consider store shelf context when eliminating overpackaging? Journal of Business Ethics, 154 , 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3439-0 .

Nguyen, A. T., Parker, L., Brennan, L., & Lockrey, S. (2020). A consumer definition of eco-friendly packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252 , 119792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119792 .

Nordin, N., & Selke, S. (2010). Social aspect of sustainable packaging. Packaging Technology and Science, 23 (6), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.899 .

Norton, N., Oloyede, O. O., Lignou, S., Wang, Q. J., Vásquez, G., & Alexi, N. (2023). Understanding consumers’ sustainability knowledge and behaviour towards food packaging to develop tailored consumer-centric engagement campaigns: A Greece and the United Kingdom perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 408 , 137169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137169 .

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10 , 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Pancer, E., McShane, L., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2017). Isolated environmental cues and product efficacy penalties: The color green and eco-labels. Journal of Business Ethics, 143 , 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2764-4 .

Prakash, G., Choudhary, S., Kumar, A., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Khan, S. A. R., & Panda, T. K. (2019). Do altruistic and egoistic values influence consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions towards eco-friendly packaged products? An empirical investigation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50 , 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.011 .

Prakash, G., & Pathak, P. (2017). Intention to buy eco-friendly packaged products among young consumers of India. A study on developing nation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141 , 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.116 .

Qayyum, A., Jamil, R. A., & Sehar, A. (2022). Impact of green marketing, greenwashing and green confusion on green brand equity. Spanish Journal of Marketing – ESIC . https://doi.org/10.1108/SJME-03-2022-0032 .

Rees, W., Tremma, O., & Manning, L. (2019). Sustainability cues on packaging: The influence of recognition on purchasing behaviour. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235 , 841–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.217 .

Resciniti, R. (2020). 2020: A new Journal for a true marketing. Italian Journal of Marketing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-020-00007-4 .

Ruokamo, E., Räisänen, M., & Kauppi, S. (2022). Consumer preferences for recycled plastics: Observations from a citizen survey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379 (2), 134720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134720 .

Scott, L., & Vigar-Ellis, D. (2014). Consumer understanding, perceptions and behaviours with regard to environmentally friendly packaging in a developing nation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38 (6), 642–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12136 .

Sekki, S., Kauppinen-Räisänen, H., Kylkilahti, E., & Autio, M. (2023). Packaging journey from retail to home: How the meaning of sustainability for colour transforms. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 51 (13), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-12-2021-0579 .

Seo, J., & Scammon, D. (2017). Do green packages lead to misperceptions? The influence of package colors on consumers’ perceptions of brands with environmental claims. Marketing Letters, 28 , 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-017-9420-y .

Shimul, A. S., & Cheah, I. (2023). Consumers’ preference for eco-friendly packaged products: Pride vs guilt appeal. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 41 (2), 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-05-2022-0197 .

Singh, G., & Pandey, N. (2018). The determinants of green packaging that influence buyers’ willingness to pay a price premium. Australasian Marketing Journal, 26 (3), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2018.06.001 .

Skard, S., Jørgensen, S., & Pedersen, L. J. T. (2020). When is sustainability a liability, and when is it an asset? Quality inferences for core and peripheral attributes. Journal of Business Ethics, 173 , 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04415-1 .

Smith, K. T., & Brower, T. R. (2012). Longitudinal study of green marketing strategies that influence Millennials. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 20 (6), 535–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2012.711345 .

Spack, J. A., Board, V. E., Crighton, L. M., Kostka, P. M., & Ivory, J. D. (2012). It’s easy being green: The effects of argument and imagery on consumer responses to green product packaging. Environmental Communication, 6 (4), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2012.706231 .

Steenis, N. D., van der Lans, I. A., van Herpen, E., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2018). Effects of sustainable design strategies on consumer preferences for redesigned packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 205 , 854–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.137 .

Steenis, N. D., van Herpen, E., van der Lans, I. A., Ligthart, T. N., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2017). Consumer response to packaging design. The role of packaging materials and graphics in sustainability perceptions and product evaluations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162 , 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.036 .

Su, D. N., Duong, T. H., Dinh, M. T. T., Nguyen-Phuoc, D. Q., & Johnson, L. W. (2021). Behavior towards shopping at retailers practicing sustainable grocery packaging: The influences of intra-personal and retailer-based contextual factors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279 , 123683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123683 .

Tran Dinh, M. T., Su, D. N., Tran, K. T., Luu, T. T., Duong, T. H., & Johnson, L. W. (2022). Eco-designed retail packaging: The empirical conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379 (2), 134717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134717 .

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Palminder, S. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by mean of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 (3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 .

Trivedi, R. H., Patel, J. D., & Acharya, N. (2018). Causality analysis of media influence on environmental attitude, intention and behaviors leading to green purchasing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196 , 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.024 .

Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84 (2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 .

Venter, K., van der Merwe, D., de Beer, H., Kempen, E., & Bosman, M. (2011). Consumers’ perceptions of food packaging. An exploratory investigation in Potchefstroom, South Africa. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35 (3), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00936.x .

Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (4), 629–635.

Wei, W., Kim, G., Miao, L., Behnke, C., & Almanza, B. (2018). Consumer inferences of corporate social responsibility (CSR) claims on packaged foods. Journal of Business Research, 83 , 186–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.046 .

Wikström, F., Verghese, K., Auras, R., Olsson, A., Williams, H., Wever, R., Grönman, K., Kvalvåg Pettersen, M., Møller, H., & Soukka, R. (2018). Packaging strategies that save food: A research agenda for 2030. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23 (3), 532–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12769 .

Williams, H., Lindström, A., Trischler, J., Wikström, F., & Rowe, Z. (2020). Avoiding food becoming waste in households—The role of packaging in consumers’ practices across different food categories. Journal of Cleaner Production, 265 , 121775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121775 .

Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M., & Gustafsson, A. (2012). Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24 , 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.044 .

Wood, S., Robinson, S., & Poor, M. (2018). The efficacy of green package cues for mainstream versus niche brands. How mainstream green brands can suffer at the shelf. Journal of Advertising Research, 58 (2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2018-025 .

Zeng, T. (2022). Impacts of consumers’ perceived risks in eco-design packaging on food wastage behaviors. British Food Journal, 124 (8), 2512–2532. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2021-0603 .

Zeng, T., Deschênes, J., & Durif, F. (2020). Eco-design packaging: An epistemological analysis and transformative research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276 , 123361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123361 .

Zeng, T., & Durif, F. (2020). The impact of eco-design packaging on food waste avoidance: A conceptual framework. Journal of Promotion Management, 26 (5), 768–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1729320 .

Zeng, T., Durif, F., & Robinot, E. (2021). Can eco-design packaging reduce consumer food waste? An experimental study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162 , 120342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120342 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Law, Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods, University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy

Generoso Branca

Professor of International Management and Marketing, Department of Law, Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods, University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy

Riccardo Resciniti

Phil B. Hardin Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing, Analytics, and Professional Sales, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA

Barry J. Babin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Generoso Branca .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 31.9 kb)

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Branca, G., Resciniti, R. & Babin, B.J. Sustainable packaging design and the consumer perspective: a systematic literature review. Ital. J. Mark. 2024 , 77–111 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-023-00084-1

Download citation

Received : 17 February 2022

Accepted : 22 October 2023

Published : 07 November 2023

Issue Date : March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-023-00084-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sustainability
• Eco-friendly
• Green marketing
• Consumer decision making
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Guides & E-books

LAST ARTICLE

Our 2024 Guide to Sustainable Packaging

These days, maybe you aren’t as surprised when you buy something without excessive styrofoam or plastic padding for the product you purchased anymore – as more companies are starting to recognize the importance of sustainable packaging.

Sometimes referred to as eco-friendly packaging materials or eco-friendly packaging solutions, minimal packaging can help to ensure less waste and keep our world plastic free at the time when we need to preserve our resources the most.

👉 In this article, we'll explain sustainable packaging, the importance of compostable bags and boxes for eco-friendly packaging options, and a focus on compostable mailers is more than ever in 2024.

What is sustainable packaging?

Sustainable packaging is when products are packaged in eco-friendly materials to avoid excessive waste or greenhouse gas emissions by mitigating the use of materials such as styrofoam and plastic.

Sustainable packaging isn’t just used for deliveries, but for any materials that are packaged and need to be stored, shelved, or transported. 

👉 Basically, anything that is biodegradable or recyclable that won’t contribute to landfill can be considered sustainable packaging. For instance, compostable packaging 

Why is it important that people become aware of the importance and transition to use sustainable packaging?

Why is sustainable packaging important?

Sustainable packaging has never been more important than it is now, as the world continues to struggle in the fight against climate change. You may be wondering how excessive waste from packaging could be contributing to global warming – and it’s because the production and disposal of typical packaging creates massive amounts of greenhouse gasses that pollute the atmosphere.

It isn’t the plastic itself that is most detrimental to the environment, though the production of plastic does create greenhouse gas emissions.

👉 While recycling classic packaging could help to reduce the problem, sustainable packaging is ultimately the better choice for the environment in the long-run.

The Impact of Plastic on the Environment

Instead of plastic, many opt to use products like aluminum, glass, and paper – but these are difficult to rework into sustainable packaging. In addition to this, the problem with classic packaging isn’t just the excessive use of plastic – but other materials that are also non-biodegradable that are used as padding for packaged products.

For instance, bubble-wrap and styrofoam are often used as padding in packaging and are also non-biodegradable materials. This means that styrofoam takes hundreds of years before it is fully destroyed. 

💡 In fact, a whopping 141 million tonnes of plastic packaging is produced a year, amounting to 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions – highlighting the need for sustainable packaging to take the place of these non-biodegradable and excessive greenhouse gas habits. 

What are some examples of sustainable packaging?

There are a lot of innovative types of sustainable packaging that have taken the market by storm: such as compostable packaging – which can actually benefit the environment by being used for compost after it has been used as packaging. 

Common Eco Friendly Packaging Solutions

However, more commonly – sustainable packaging will consist of recycled cardboard materials and other biodegradable materials derived from seaweed, peanuts, bamboo, or even mushrooms.

Through the use of these biodegradable or recyclable materials, the packaging can then be shredded or melted to use for new packaging again – unlike classic plastic packaging, which isn’t fully biodegradable and is difficult to completely recycle. 

💡 Even when sustainable packaging claims to use recycled packaging, that plastic packaging can only be burned and re-formed so many times before it inevitably ends up in the landfill.

This is why so many companies opt for compostable packaging instead – as they can order all of the materials to be made in bulk for more than just packaging, but for things like cutlery and compostable to-go containers for those in the food industry. Given the advances in technology, most people won’t even be aware of the difference between classic and sustainable packaging – but the planet ultimately will. 

Additional Eco Friendly Packaging Options & Packaging Materials

Other types of sustainable packaging include the use of biodegradable packing peanuts, cornstarch packaging, instead of styrofoam, corrugated cardboard wrap that mitigates the use of classic plastic bubble wrapping, air pillows made from recycled materials, utilizing available recycled cardboard and paper, using mushroom or seaweed packaging for molded products instead of plastic, using organic textiles to protect products, and using edible films instead of plastic – such as when you remove the film from a new iPhone.  

Sustainable packaging is clearly the better choice for the environment, but will it be just as beneficial for your business?

Can sustainable packaging be good for your business? 

The truth is, sustainable packaging isn’t just good for the environment – but it could be good for business, as more and more customers are voting on their preference on sustainable packaging for their products.

💡 Think about it: no one wants to feel guilty when doing their Christmas shopping that they’re going to throw away even more trash than they already plan to throughout the holiday season.

Classic plastic packaging will emit harmful chemicals as it attempts to biodegrade, whereas sustainable packaging won’t do that. In addition to ensuring the health and safety of customers, those who purchase products with sustainable packaging can also make use of packaging and reuse it themselves if they don’t opt to recycle it.

👉 For instance, let’s say someone needs a cardboard box to ship something they sold online – the sustainable packaging can then be reused again.

These are all the reasons how sustainable packaging can benefit the environment and the consumer, but what about the business itself?

How Eco-Friendly Packaging Benefits Your Business

First of all, sustainable packaging is versatile as in any and every business can find a way to make use of it. In other words, whether it’s a new laptop or a pair of boots – there are sustainable alternatives to make your shipment more sustainable. 

💡 In addition to the adaptability of sustainable packaging, opting for biodegradable materials can help to improve the image of your brand – as sustainable packaging will demonstrate your company’s commitment to sustainability and protecting the environment.

Also, the use of sustainable packaging can help to reduce the cost of transportation of your products – as some countries like the U.K. have now implemented a plastic tax on any imported goods containing plastic. Therefore, if you’d like to see your company go global – going biodegradable may be the way to go in order to avoid hefty fees. 

Implementing the use of sustainable packaging can attract new customers that wouldn’t have found your company otherwise. For instance, someone may be in the market for a pair of shoes and would’ve purchased one pair – but decided to purchase a different pair instead as the website to that shoe company promised to deliver using sustainable packaging. Had this customer not been set on using sustainable packaging, they may not have found the other shoe business at all. 

Which companies have already discovered the benefits of sustainable packaging?

Are there companies that already implement sustainable packaging? 

Sustainable packaging may seem new to you, but it’s been the new norm for a lot of companies these days. Here are just a few of your favorite retailers that are always sure to use sustainable packaging for their products.

Thrive Market

This popular U.S. online food retailer that caters to all dietary needs like paleo, whole 30, and vegans – makes sure that all deliveries are made with 100% sustainable packaging .

💡 In place of traditional lightweight poly mailers, Thrive Market makes use of eco-friendly and compostable mailers for the stickers, shipping, and to ensure quality brands for their customers – all while avoiding landfills and excess energy use.

Thrive Market accomplishes this as it uses all recyclable and reusable materials for it’s packaging, such as bamboo to wrap products instead of classic bubble wrap, maximizing the space of the box by packing a dozen or more items into each shipment, avoiding the use of air travel entirely, and investing into carbon offset projects to make all of their shipments carbon neutral.

Calvin Klein

The international company that owns Calvin Klein, PVH – is determined to transition to entirely sustainable packaging by 2025. PVH is already well on its way, with almost 75% percent of their packaging being fully recyclable and working towards becoming zero waste by the year 2030. They’ve already saved over 200 tons of plastic each year through their efforts to use sustainable packaging.

Patagonia is already one of Greenly’s top picks in terms of sustainable fashion, but they also do a superb job on sustainable packaging their clothes for customers. The company values recycling immensely – demonstrating so by making sure to use almost 70% of recyclable materials for their clothing. Patagonia packages their already-sustainable clothes into 100 percent recyclable paper, so that customers can properly recycle their packaging once they have opened their new garments.

How can you incorporate sustainable packaging into your business or daily life?

Maybe you think that sustainable packaging only applies to large businesses that ship their products, but think again. Odds are, you’re using things in your life that can be replaced with sustainable packaging on a daily basis. 

For instance, while it is most prevalent during the holiday season – think of how much wrapping paper and plastic you use to wrap your holiday gifts every year. This is probably the time of year when you “package” things the most, but it applies to birthdays or any holiday with gift-giving as well. 

💡 The best thing you can do when wrapping your presents this year is to use recyclable, paper wrapping and recyclable materials for the “ribbon” of the present. If you think they aren’t as attractive as classic holiday wrapping, think again.

Think back to the last time you received a gift in a non-recyclable plastic gift bag or with wrapping paper – where did it end up? Probably in the trash, or sitting in your closet just waiting to be thrown in the trash. Therefore, it’s best to stick to sustainable wrapping whenever you give gifts if you want to advocate for the importance of sustainable packaging. 

Even in your day-to-day life, you’re probably packaging things like medicine, food, groceries, or papers to carry around with you. Why use a plastic folder or a plastic bag? Choose to opt for reusable glass containers, reusable bags, or aluminum (but make sure you recycle it, since aluminum usually ends up in landfill!) wrapping instead of using plastic wrap. 

Last but not least, whenever you order something online – try to opt for the companies that are committed to sustainability and incorporate sustainable packaging into their deliveries. Implementing the practice of sustainable packaging in your own life will inevitably make a difference, but it’s important to not contribute to the excessive use of non-biodegradable packaging as well. 

Overall, sustainable packaging will only become more prevalent as we inch towards a zero-waste world – making it imperative for businesses, households, and everyone in between to reduce their packaging waste in whichever way they can.

What about Greenly? 

If reading this article about sustainable packaging has made you interested in reducing your carbon emissions to further fight against climate change – Greenly can help you!

Greenly can help you make an environmental change for the better, starting with a carbon footprint assessment to know how much carbon emissions your company produces.

More articles

What is Global Warming?

This article explores the primary causes of global warming, its effects on the planet, and the urgent need for action.

Greenhouse gases by sector: who is polluting the most?

In this article we'll take a closer look at the detailed breakdown of greenhouse gases data per sector. We'll explore the actions that both individuals and companies can take to help reduce emissions across these sectors.

Climate Change in 2024: Where Do We Stand?

Where does climate change in 2024 stand, and how can we continue to improve in the fight against climate change?

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• PubMed/Medline
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Sustainable and bio-based food packaging: a review on past and current design innovations.

1. Introduction

2. sustainable food packaging design.

• A focus on real demand and problems and try to find solutions with social, environmental, and economic benefits altogether.
• A shift in the design dynamics from the application requirements up, thinking in terms of functions and services rather than the product itself.
• Consideration of realistic and updated life-cycle and process thinking, having an integrated view of the supply chain, thus taking into account the product manufacturing, distribution, consumption and end-of-life.
• Inclusion of users, stakeholders, and different experts in the design process as much as possible.
• Research and innovation need to be grounded on justifiable priorities within the available time frame and scope of the project.

3. Strategies to Improve Barrier and Hydrophobicity Properties for Food Packaging

3.1. enhanced gas and water vapor barrier properties, 3.2. enhanced hydrophobicity, 3.3. enhanced uv-light barrier characteristics, 4. active and intelligent food packaging, 4.1. active materials and packaging systems, 4.2. intelligent and smart food packaging, 5. biobased packaging, 5.1. bioadhesives for food packaging, 5.2. biobased inks and dyes in the food industry.

6. Conclusions

Author contributions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• UN. World Population Prospects 2022—Summary of Results ; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• FAO. The Future of Food and Agriculture Trends and Challenges ; FAO: Roma, Italy, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chakori, S.; Aziz, A.A.; Smith, C.; Dargusch, P. Untangling the Underlying Drivers of the Use of Single-Use Food Packaging. Ecol. Econ. 2021 , 185 , 107063. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Atta, O.M.; Manan, S.; Shahzad, A.; Ul-Islam, M.; Ullah, M.W.; Yang, G. Biobased Materials for Active Food Packaging: A Review. Food Hydrocoll 2022 , 125 , 107419. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wohner, B.; Pauer, E.; Heinrich, V.; Tacker, M. Packaging-Related Food Losses and Waste: An Overview of Drivers and Issues. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 264. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Sasaki, Y.; Orikasa, T.; Nakamura, N.; Hayashi, K.; Yasaka, Y.; Makino, N.; Shobatake, K.; Koide, S.; Shiina, T. Determination of the Most Environmentally Friendly Packaging for Peach during Transportation by Modeling the Relationship between Food Loss Reduction and Environmental Impact. J. Food Eng. 2022 , 331 , 111120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blakeney, M. Chapter 1: Food Loss and Waste and Food Security. In Food Loss and Food Waste ; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2019; pp. 1–26. ISBN 9781788975391. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bishop, G.; Styles, D.; Lens, P.N.L. Environmental Performance of Bioplastic Packaging on Fresh Food Produce: A Consequential Life Cycle Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 317 , 128377. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kan, M.; Miller, S.A. Environmental Impacts of Plastic Packaging of Food Products. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022 , 180 , 106156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• WEF. The New Plastics Economy–Rethinking the Future of Plastics. Industry Agenda ; WEF: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brivio, E.; Petsa, I.; McPhie, T. Single-Use Plastics: New EU Rules to Reduce Marine Litter. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_3927 (accessed on 23 November 2022).
• Plastics Europe. Plastics-the Facts 2022 ; Plastics Europe: Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandara, R.; Indunil, G.M. Food Packaging from Recycled Papers: Chemical, Physical, Optical Properties and Heavy Metal Migration. Heliyon 2022 , 8 , e10959. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hosen, M.D.; Hossain, M.S.; Islam, M.A.; Haque, A.N.M.A.; Naebe, M. Utilisation of Natural Wastes: Water-Resistant Semi-Transparent Paper for Food Packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 2022 , 364 , 132665. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Markevičiūtė, Z.; Varžinskas, V. Plant-Origin Feedstock Applications in Fully Green Food Packaging: The Potential for Tree-Free Paper and Plant-Origin Bio-Plastics in the Baltic Sea Region. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 7393. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garrido-Romero, M.; Aguado, R.; Moral, A.; Brindley, C.; Ballesteros, M. From Traditional Paper to Nanocomposite Films: Analysis of Global Research into Cellulose for Food Packaging. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2022 , 31 , 100788. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gonçalves de Moura, I.; Vasconcelos de Sá, A.; Lemos Machado Abreu, A.S.; Alves Machado, A.V. Bioplastics from Agro-Wastes for Food Packaging Applications. In Food Packaging ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 223–263. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mostafa, N.A.; Farag, A.A.; Abo-dief, H.M.; Tayeb, A.M. Production of Biodegradable Plastic from Agricultural Wastes. Arab. J. Chem. 2018 , 11 , 546–553. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Zhang, J.; Hori, N.; Takemura, A. Optimization of Agricultural Wastes Liquefaction Process and Preparing Bio-Based Polyurethane Foams by the Obtained Polyols. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019 , 138 , 111455. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yun, D.; Liu, J. Recent Advances on the Development of Food Packaging Films Based on Citrus Processing Wastes: A Review. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022 , 9 , 100316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rajinipriya, M.; Nagalakshmaiah, M.; Robert, M.; Elkoun, S. Importance of Agricultural and Industrial Waste in the Field of Nanocellulose and Recent Industrial Developments of Wood Based Nanocellulose: A Review. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2018 , 6 , 2807–2828. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Otles, S.; Kartal, C. Food Waste Valorization. In Sustainable Food Systems from Agriculture to Industry ; Galanakis, C.M., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 371–399. [ Google Scholar ]
• Six, L.; Velghe, F.; Verstichel, S.; de Meester, S. Sustainability Considerations on the Valorization of Organic Waste. In Biotransformation of Agricultural Waste and By-Products ; Poltronieri, P., D’Urso, O.F., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 287–307. ISBN 9780128036488. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jõgi, K.; Bhat, R. Valorization of Food Processing Wastes and By-Products for Bioplastic Production. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2020 , 18 , 100326. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vilaplana, F.; Strömberg, E.; Karlsson, S. Environmental and Resource Aspects of Sustainable Biocomposites. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2010 , 95 , 2147–2161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Springle, N.; Li, B.; Soma, T.; Shulman, T. The Complex Role of Single-Use Compostable Bioplastic Food Packaging and Foodservice Ware in a Circular Economy: Findings from a Social Innovation Lab. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022 , 33 , 664–673. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gioia, C.; Giacobazzi, G.; Vannini, M.; Totaro, G.; Sisti, L.; Colonna, M.; Marchese, P.; Celli, A. End of Life of Biodegradable Plastics: Composting versus Re/Upcycling. ChemSusChem 2021 , 14 , 4167–4175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moshood, T.D.; Nawanir, G.; Mahmud, F.; Mohamad, F.; Ahmad, M.H.; AbdulGhani, A. Sustainability of Biodegradable Plastics: New Problem or Solution to Solve the Global Plastic Pollution? Curr. Res. Green Sustain. Chem. 2022 , 5 , 100273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, G.X.; Huang, D.; Ji, J.H.; Völker, C.; Wurm, F.R. Seawater-Degradable Polymers—Fighting the Marine Plastic Pollution. Adv. Sci. 2021 , 8 , 2001121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Suwanmanee, U.; Varabuntoonvit, V.; Chaiwutthinan, P.; Tajan, M.; Mungcharoen, T.; Leejarkpai, T. Life Cycle Assessment of Single Use Thermoform Boxes Made from Polystyrene (PS), Polylactic Acid, (PLA), and PLA/Starch: Cradle to Consumer Gate. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013 , 18 , 401–417. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saibuatrong, W.; Cheroennet, N.; Suwanmanee, U. Life Cycle Assessment Focusing on the Waste Management of Conventional and Bio-Based Garbage Bags. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 158 , 319–334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cheroennet, N.; Pongpinyopap, S.; Leejarkpai, T.; Suwanmanee, U. A Trade-off between Carbon and Water Impacts in Bio-Based Box Production Chains in Thailand: A Case Study of PS, PLAS, PLAS/Starch, and PBS. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 167 , 987–1001. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Banar, M.; Cokaygil, Z. A Comparative Life Cycle Analysis of Two Different Juice Packages. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2008 , 25 , 549–555. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tsiropoulos, I.; Faaij, A.P.C.; Lundquist, L.; Schenker, U.; Briois, J.F.; Patel, M.K. Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Bio-Based Plastics from Sugarcane Ethanol. J. Clean. Prod. 2015 , 90 , 114–127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Civancik-Uslu, D.; Puig, R.; Hauschild, M.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P. Life Cycle Assessment of Carrier Bags and Development of a Littering Indicator. Sci. Total Environ. 2019 , 685 , 621–630. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zabaniotou, A.; Kassidi, E. Life Cycle Assessment Applied to Egg Packaging Made from Polystyrene and Recycled Paper. J. Clean. Prod. 2003 , 11 , 549–559. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, L.; Pelton, R.E.O.; Smith, T.M. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Fossil and Bio-Based Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottles. J. Clean. Prod. 2016 , 137 , 667–676. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Abejón, R.; Bala, A.; Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Aldaco, R.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P. When Plastic Packaging Should Be Preferred: Life Cycle Analysis of Packages for Fruit and Vegetable Distribution in the Spanish Peninsular Market. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020 , 155 , 104666. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ferrara, C.; Migliaro, V.; Ventura, F.; de Feo, G. An Economic and Environmental Analysis of Wine Packaging Systems in Italy: A Life Cycle (LC) Approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2023 , 857 , 159323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Casson, A.; Giovenzana, V.; Frigerio, V.; Zambelli, M.; Beghi, R.; Pampuri, A.; Tugnolo, A.; Merlini, A.; Colombo, L.; Limbo, S.; et al. Beyond the Eco-Design of Case-Ready Beef Packaging: The Relationship between Food Waste and Shelf-Life as a Key Element in Life Cycle Assessment. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2022 , 34 , 100943. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Razza, F.; Innocenti, F.D.; Dobon, A.; Aliaga, C.; Sanchez, C.; Hortal, M. Environmental Profile of a Bio-Based and Biodegradable Foamed Packaging Prototype in Comparison with the Current Benchmark. J. Clean. Prod. 2015 , 102 , 493–500. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bishop, G.; Styles, D.; Lens, P.N.L. Environmental Performance Comparison of Bioplastics and Petrochemical Plastics: A Review of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Methodological Decisions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021 , 168 , 105451. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Accorsi, R.; Battarra, I.; Guidani, B.; Manzini, R.; Ronzoni, M.; Volpe, L. Augmented Spatial LCA for Comparing Reusable and Recyclable Food Packaging Containers Networks. J. Clean. Prod. 2022 , 375 , 134027. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Briassoulis, D.; Pikasi, A.; Hiskakis, M. Recirculation Potential of Post-Consumer /Industrial Bio-Based Plastics through Mechanical Recycling—Techno-Economic Sustainability Criteria and Indicators. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2021 , 183 , 109217. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Briassoulis, D.; Pikasi, A.; Hiskakis, M. End-of-Waste Life: Inventory of Alternative End-of-Use Recirculation Routes of Bio-Based Plastics in the European Union Context. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019 , 49 , 1835–1892. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ribeiro, T.B.; Oliveira, A.L.; Costa, C.; Nunes, J.; Vicente, A.A.; Pintado, M. Total and Sustainable Valorisation of Olive Pomace Using a Fractionation Approach. Appl. Sci. 2020 , 10 , 6785. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Urbina, L.; Eceiza, A.; Gabilondo, N.; Corcuera, M.Á.; Retegi, A. Valorization of Apple Waste for Active Packaging: Multicomponent Polyhydroxyalkanoate Coated Nanopapers with Improved Hydrophobicity and Antioxidant Capacity. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2019 , 21 , 100356. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bibi, F.; Guillaume, C.; Gontard, N.; Sorli, B. A Review: RFID Technology Having Sensing Aptitudes for Food Industry and Their Contribution to Tracking and Monitoring of Food Products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017 , 62 , 91–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gustavo, J.U.; Pereira, G.M.; Bond, A.J.; Viegas, C.V.; Borchardt, M. Drivers, Opportunities and Barriers for a Retailer in the Pursuit of More Sustainable Packaging Redesign. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 187 , 18–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Muller, J.; González-Martínez, C.; Chiralt, A. Combination of Poly(Lactic) Acid and Starch for Biodegradable Food Packaging. Materials 2017 , 10 , 952. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shlush, E.; Davidovich-Pinhas, M. Bioplastics for Food Packaging. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022 , 125 , 66–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, X.; Huang, L.; Zhang, C.; Deng, Y.; Xie, P.; Liu, L.; Cheng, J. Research Advances in Chemical Modifications of Starch for Hydrophobicity and Its Applications: A Review. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020 , 240 , 116292. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ashter, S.A. Additives and Modifiers for Biopolymers. In Introduction to Bioplastics Engineering ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 153–178. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jariyasakoolroj, P.; Leelaphiwat, P.; Harnkarnsujarit, N. Advances in Research and Development of Bioplastic for Food Packaging. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2020 , 100 , 5032–5045. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ortega, F.; Versino, F.; López, O.V.; García, M.A. Biobased Composites from Agro-Industrial Wastes and by-Products. Emergent Mater. 2022 , 5 , 873–921. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chakrapani, G.; Zare, M.; Ramakrishna, S. Biomaterials from the Value-Added Food Wastes. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2022 , 19 , 101181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benucci, I.; Lombardelli, C.; Mazzocchi, C.; Esti, M. Natural Colorants from Vegetable Food Waste: Recovery, Regulatory Aspects, and Stability—A Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2022 , 21 , 2715–2737. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ding, X.; Dai, R.; Chen, H.; Shan, Z. Gelatin as Green Adhesive for the Preparation of a Multifunctional Biobased Cryogel Derived from Bamboo Industrial Waste. Carbohydr. Polym 2021 , 255 , 117340. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Song, Y.; Chen, S.; Chen, Y.; Xu, Y.; Xu, F. Biodegradable and Transparent Films with Tunable UV-Blocking Property from Lignocellulosic Waste by a Top-down Approach. Cellulose 2021 , 28 , 8629–8640. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Espinosa, E.; Rincón, E.; Morcillo-Martín, R.; Rabasco-Vílchez, L.; Rodríguez, A. Orange Peel Waste Biorefinery in Multi-Component Cascade Approach: Polyphenolic Compounds and Nanocellulose for Food Packaging. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022 , 187 , 115413. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Castillo, L.A.; López, O.; Ninago, M.D.; Versino, F.; Barbosa, S.E.; García, M.A.; Villar, M.A. Composites and Nanocomposites Based on Starches. Effect of Mineral and Organic Fillers on Processing, Structure, and Final Properties of Starch. In Starch-Based Materials in Food Packaging ; Villar, M.A., Barbosa, S.E., García, M.A., Castillo, L.A., López, O., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 125–151. ISBN 9780128122570. [ Google Scholar ]
• Versino, F.; López, O.V.; García, M.A. Green Biocomposites for Packaging Applications. In Biocomposite Materials Design and Mechanical Properties Characterization ; Sultan, M.T.H., Majid, M.S.A., Azmi, M.R.M.J., Iskandar, A., Saba, N., Eds.; Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2021; pp. 1–30. ISBN 9789813340916. [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission. Ecodesign Your Future: How Ecodesign Can Help the Environment by Making Products Smarter. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4d42d597-4f92-4498-8e1d-857cc157e6db (accessed on 13 December 2022).
• Verghese, K.; Lewis, H.; Lockrey, S.; Williams, H. Packaging’s Role in Minimizing Food Loss and Waste Across the Supply Chain. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2015 , 28 , 603–620. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wikström, F.; Verghese, K.; Auras, R.; Olsson, A.; Williams, H.; Wever, R.; Grönman, K.; Kvalvåg Pettersen, M.; Møller, H.; Soukka, R. Packaging Strategies That Save Food: A Research Agenda for 2030. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019 , 23 , 532–540. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heller, M.C.; Selke, S.E.M.; Keoleian, G.A. Mapping the Influence of Food Waste in Food Packaging Environmental Performance Assessments. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019 , 23 , 480–495. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Cai, J.; Zhang, D.; Zhou, R.; Zhu, R.; Fei, P.; Zhu, Z.Z.; Cheng, S.Y.; Ding, W.P. Hydrophobic Interface Starch Nanofibrous Film for Food Packaging: From Bioinspired Design to Self-Cleaning Action. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2021 , 69 , 5067–5075. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pardo-Figuerez, M.; López-Córdoba, A.; Torres-Giner, S.; Lagaron, J.M. Superhydrophobic Bio-Coating Made by Co-Continuous Electrospinning and Electrospraying Polyethylene Terephthalate Films Proposed as Easy Emptying Transparent Food Packaging. Coatings 2018 , 8 , 364. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Zhang, Y.; Bi, J.; Wang, S.; Cao, Q.; Li, Y.; Zhou, J.; Zhu, B.W. Functional Food Packaging for Reducing Residual Liquid Food: Thermo-Resistant Edible Super-Hydrophobic Coating from Coffee and Beeswax. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2019 , 533 , 742–749. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lindh, H.; Williams, H.; Olsson, A.; Wikström, F. Elucidating the Indirect Contributions of Packaging to Sustainable Development: A Terminology of Packaging Functions and Features. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016 , 29 , 225–246. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wikström, F.; Williams, H.; Venkatesh, G. The Influence of Packaging Attributes on Recycling and Food Waste Behaviour—An Environmental Comparison of Two Packaging Alternatives. J. Clean. Prod. 2016 , 137 , 895–902. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Vanderroost, M.; Ragaert, P.; Devlieghere, F.; de Meulenaer, B. Intelligent Food Packaging: The next Generation. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2014 , 39 , 47–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mendy, T.K.; Misran, A.; Mahmud, T.M.M.; Ismail, S.I. Application of Aloe Vera Coating Delays Ripening and Extend the Shelf Life of Papaya Fruit. Sci. Hortic. 2019 , 246 , 769–776. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Agamuthu, P.; Visvanathan, C. Extended Producers’ Responsibility Schemes for Used Beverage Carton Recycling. Waste Manag. Res. 2014 , 32 , 1–3. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Geueke, B.; Groh, K.; Muncke, J. Food Packaging in the Circular Economy: Overview of Chemical Safety Aspects for Commonly Used Materials. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 193 , 491–505. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Palombini, F.L.; Cidade, M.K.; de Jacques, J.J. How Sustainable Is Organic Packaging? A Design Method for Recyclability Assessment via a Social Perspective: A Case Study of Porto Alegre City (Brazil). J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 142 , 2593–2605. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaiser, K.; Schmid, M.; Schlummer, M. Recycling of Polymer-Based Multilayer Packaging: A Review. Recycling 2018 , 3 , 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Körner, I.; Redemann, K.; Stegmann, R. Behaviour of Biodegradable Plastics in Composting Facilities. Waste Manag. 2005 , 25 , 409–415. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Changwichan, K.; Silalertruksa, T.; Gheewala, S.H. Eco-Efficiency Assessment of Bioplastics Production Systems and End-of-Life Options. Sustainability 2018 , 10 , 952. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• López, O.V.; Versino, F.; Villar, M.A.; García, M.A. Agro-Industrial Residue from Starch Extraction of Pachyrhizus Ahipa as Filler of Thermoplastic Corn Starch Films. Carbohydr. Polym. 2015 , 134 , 324–332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Versino, F.; López, O.; García, M.A. Sunflower Oil Industry By-Product as Natural Filler of Biocomposite Foams for Packaging Applications. J. Polym. Environ. 2021 , 29 , 1869–1879. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bascón-Villegas, I.; Pereira, M.; Espinosa, E.; Sánchez-Gutiérrez, M.; Rodríguez, A.; Pérez-Rodríguez, F. A New Eco-Friendly Packaging System Incorporating Lignocellulose Nanofibres from Agri-Food Residues Applied to Fresh-Cut Lettuce. J. Clean. Prod. 2022 , 372 , 133597. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• dos Santos, J.W.S.; Garcia, V.A.d.S.; Venturini, A.C.; de Carvalho, R.A.; da Silva, C.F.; Yoshida, C.M.P. Sustainable Coating Paperboard Packaging Material Based on Chitosan, Palmitic Acid, and Activated Carbon: Water Vapor and Fat Barrier Performance. Foods 2022 , 11 , 4037. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pandey, S.; Sharma, K.; Gundabala, V. Antimicrobial Bio-Inspired Active Packaging Materials for Shelf Life and Safety Development: A Review. Food Biosci. 2022 , 48 , 101730. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amin, U.; Khan, M.K.I.; Maan, A.A.; Nazir, A.; Riaz, S.; Khan, M.U.; Sultan, M.; Munekata, P.E.S.; Lorenzo, J.M. Biodegradable Active, Intelligent, and Smart Packaging Materials for Food Applications. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2022 , 33 , 100903. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manfredi, M.; Fantin, V.; Vignali, G.; Gavara, R. Environmental Assessment of Antimicrobial Coatings for Packaged Fresh Milk. J. Clean. Prod. 2015 , 95 , 291–300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jafarzadeh, S.; Jafari, S.M.; Salehabadi, A.; Nafchi, A.M.; Uthaya Kumar, U.S.; Khalil, H.P.S.A. Biodegradable Green Packaging with Antimicrobial Functions Based on the Bioactive Compounds from Tropical Plants and Their By-Products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020 , 100 , 262–277. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, S.; Barkauskaite, S.; Jaiswal, A.K.; Jaiswal, S. Essential Oils as Additives in Active Food Packaging. Food Chem. 2021 , 343 , 128403. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zindani, D.; Kumar, K.; Davim, J.P. Sustainability Manufacturing Systems Design. In Encyclopedia of Renewable and Sustainable Materials ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 512–518. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karwasz, A.; Dostatni, E.; Diakun, J.; Grajewski, D.; Wichniarek, R.; Stachura, M. Estimating the Cost of Product Recycling with the Use of Ecodesign Support System. Manag. Prod. Eng. Rev. 2016 , 7 , 33–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Döhler, N.; Wellenreuther, C.; Wolf, A. Market Dynamics of Biodegradable Bio-Based Plastics: Projections and Linkages to European Policies. EFB Bioeconomy J. 2022 , 2 , 100028. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dang, S.; Chu, L. Evaluation Framework and Verification for Sustainable Container Management as Reusable Packaging. J. Bus Res. 2016 , 69 , 1949–1955. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hellström, D.; Saghir, M. Packaging and Logistics Interactions in Retail Supply Chains. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2007 , 20 , 197–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bernstad Saraiva, A.; Pacheco, E.B.A.V.; Gomes, G.M.; Visconte, L.L.Y.; Bernardo, C.A.; Simões, C.L.; Soares, A.G. Comparative Lifecycle Assessment of Mango Packaging Made from a Polyethylene/Natural Fiber-Composite and from Cardboard Material. J. Clean. Prod. 2016 , 139 , 1168–1180. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meherishi, L.; Narayana, S.A.; Ranjani, K.S. Sustainable Packaging for Supply Chain Management in the Circular Economy: A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 237 , 117582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Padhi, S.S.; Pati, R.K.; Rajeev, A. Framework for Selecting Sustainable Supply Chain Processes and Industries Using an Integrated Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 184 , 969–984. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Navaranjan, N.; Fletcher, G.C.; Summers, G.; Parr, R.; Anderson, R. Thermal Insulation Requirements and New Cardboard Packaging for Chilled Seafood Exports. J. Food Eng. 2013 , 119 , 395–403. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yin, D.; Mi, J.; Zhou, H.; Wang, X.; Tian, H. Fabrication of Branching Poly (Butylene Succinate)/Cellulose Nanocrystal Foams with Exceptional Thermal Insulation. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020 , 247 , 116708. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tyagi, P.; Salem, K.S.; Hubbe, M.A.; Pal, L. Advances in Barrier Coatings and Film Technologies for Achieving Sustainable Packaging of Food Products—A Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021 , 115 , 461–485. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Majid, I.; Nayik, A.; Dar, M.; Nanda, V. Novel Food Packaging Technologies: Innovations and Future Prospective. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2018 , 17 , 454–462. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Zimmermann, L.; Dombrowski, A.; Völker, C.; Wagner, M. Are Bioplastics and Plant-Based Materials Safer than Conventional Plastics? In Vitro Toxicity and Chemical Composition. Environ. Int. 2020 , 145 , 106066. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weinstein, J.E.; Dekle, J.L.; Leads, R.R.; Hunter, R.A. Degradation of Bio-Based and Biodegradable Plastics in a Salt Marsh Habitat: Another Potential Source of Microplastics in Coastal Waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020 , 160 , 111518. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Emadian, S.M.; Onay, T.T.; Demirel, B. Biodegradation of Bioplastics in Natural Environments. Waste Manag. 2017 , 59 , 526–536. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Magni, S.; Bonasoro, F.; della Torre, C.; Parenti, C.C.; Maggioni, D.; Binelli, A. Plastics and Biodegradable Plastics: Ecotoxicity Comparison between Polyvinylchloride and Mater-Bi ® Micro-Debris in a Freshwater Biological Model. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 720 , 137602. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ortega, F.; Sobral, P.; Jios, J.L.; Arce, V.B.; García, M.A. Starch Nanocomposite Films: Migration Studies of Nanoparticles to Food Simulants and Bio-Disintegration in Soil. Polymers 2022 , 14 , 1636. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abe, M.M.; Branciforti, M.C.; Nallin Montagnolli, R.; Marin Morales, M.A.; Jacobus, A.P.; Brienzo, M. Production and Assessment of the Biodegradation and Ecotoxicity of Xylan- and Starch-Based Bioplastics. Chemosphere 2022 , 287 , 132290. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bandyopadhyay-Ghosh, S.; Ghosh, S.B.; Rodriguez, A.; Sain, M.M. Biosynthesis, Microstructural Characterisations and Investigation of In-Vitro Mutagenic and Eco-Toxicological Response of a Novel Microbial Exopolysaccharide Based Biopolymer. J. Polym. Environ. 2018 , 26 , 365–374. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shruti, V.C.; Kutralam-Muniasamy, G. Bioplastics: Missing Link in the Era of Microplastics. Sci. Total Environ. 2019 , 697 , 134139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Konstantoglou, A.; Folinas, D.; Fotiadis, T. Investigating Food Packaging Elements from a Consumer’s Perspective. Foods 2020 , 9 , 1097. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Herpen, E.; van den Broek, E.; van Trijp, H.C.M.; Yu, T. Can a Virtual Supermarket Bring Realism into the Lab? Comparing Shopping Behavior Using Virtual and Pictorial Store Representations to Behavior in a Physical Store. Appetite 2016 , 107 , 196–207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Herbes, C.; Beuthner, C.; Ramme, I. Consumer Attitudes towards Biobased Packaging—A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 194 , 203–218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tischner, U.; Hora, M. Sustainable Electronic Product Design. In Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 443–482. ISBN 9780081021583. [ Google Scholar ]
• Han, J.W.; Ruiz-Garcia, L.; Qian, J.P.; Yang, X.T. Food Packaging: A Comprehensive Review and Future Trends. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018 , 17 , 860–877. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lamba, A.; Garg, V. Recent Innovations in Food Packaging: A Review. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. Int. 2019 , 4 , 123–129. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mujtaba, M.; Lipponen, J.; Ojanen, M.; Puttonen, S.; Vaittinen, H. Trends and Challenges in the Development of Bio-Based Barrier Coating Materials for Paper/Cardboard Food Packaging; a Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022 , 851 , 158328. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guillard, V.; Gaucel, S.; Fornaciari, C.; Angellier-Coussy, H.; Buche, P.; Gontard, N. The Next Generation of Sustainable Food Packaging to Preserve Our Environment in a Circular Economy Context. Front. Nutr. 2018 , 5 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Marano, S.; Laudadio, E.; Minnelli, C.; Stipa, P. Tailoring the Barrier Properties of PLA: A State-of-the-Art Review for Food Packaging Applications. Polymers 2022 , 14 , 1626. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zabihzadeh Khajavi, M.; Ebrahimi, A.; Yousefi, M.; Ahmadi, S.; Farhoodi, M.; Mirza Alizadeh, A.; Taslikh, M. Strategies for Producing Improved Oxygen Barrier Materials Appropriate for the Food Packaging Sector. Food Eng. Rev. 2020 , 12 , 346–363. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blanke, M.M. Reducing Ethylene Levels along the Food Supply Chain: A Key to Reducing Food Waste? J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014 , 94 , 2357–2361. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Giacinti Baschetti, M.; Minelli, M. Test Methods for the Characterization of Gas and Vapor Permeability in Polymers for Food Packaging Application: A Review. Polym. Test 2020 , 89 , 106606. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ameer, A.; Seleshe, S.; Kang, S.N. Effect of Modified Atmosphere Packaging Varying in CO 2 and N 2 Composition on Quality Characteristics of Dry Fermented Sausage during Refrigeration Storage. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2022 , 42 , 639–654. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Turan, D. Water Vapor Transport Properties of Polyurethane Films for Packaging of Respiring Foods. Food Eng. Rev. 2021 , 13 , 54–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kwon, S.; Orsuwan, A.; Bumbudsanpharoke, N.; Yoon, C.; Choi, J.; Ko, S. A Short Review of Light Barrier Materials for Food and Beverage Packaging. Korean J. Packag. Sci. Technol. 2018 , 24 , 141–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Csapó, J.; Prokisch, J.; Albert, C.; Sipos, P. Effect of UV Light on Food Quality and Safety. Acta Univ. Sapientiae Aliment. 2019 , 12 , 21–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Duncan, S.E.; Hannah, S. Light-Protective Packaging Materials for Foods and Beverages. In Emerging Food Packaging Technologies ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 303–322. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassar, J.R.; Ouyang, B.; Krishnamurthy, K.; Demirci, A. Microbial Decontamination of Food by Light-Based Technologies: Ultraviolet (UV) Light, Pulsed UV Light (PUV), and UV Light-Emitting Diodes (UV-LED). In Food Safety Engineering ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 493–521. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yadav, M.; Liu, Y.-K.; Chiu, F.-C. Fabrication of Cellulose Nanocrystal/Silver/Alginate Bionanocomposite Films with Enhanced Mechanical and Barrier Properties for Food Packaging Application. Nanomaterials 2019 , 9 , 1523. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Nguyen, H.L.; Tran, T.H.; Hao, L.T.; Jeon, H.; Koo, J.M.; Shin, G.; Hwang, D.S.; Hwang, S.Y.; Park, J.; Oh, D.X. Biorenewable, Transparent, and Oxygen/Moisture Barrier Nanocellulose/Nanochitin-Based Coating on Polypropylene for Food Packaging Applications. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021 , 271 , 118421. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, T.; Tran, T.H.; Hwang, S.Y.; Park, J.; Oh, D.X.; Kim, B.S. Crab-on-a-Tree: All Biorenewable, Optical and Radio Frequency Transparent Barrier Nanocoating for Food Packaging. ACS Nano 2019 , 13 , 3796–3805. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kiryukhin, M.; Lau, H.H.; Goh, S.H.; Teh, C.; Korzh, V.; Sadovoy, A. A Membrane Film Sensor with Encapsulated Fluorescent Dyes towards Express Freshness Monitoring of Packaged Food. Talanta 2018 , 182 , 187–192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Q.; Chen, W.; Zhu, W.; McClements, D.J.; Liu, X.; Liu, F. A Review of Multilayer and Composite Films and Coatings for Active Biodegradable Packaging. NPJ Sci. Food 2022 , 6 , 18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, F.; Misra, M.; Mohanty, A.K. Challenges and New Opportunities on Barrier Performance of Biodegradable Polymers for Sustainable Packaging. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2021 , 117 , 101395. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arrieta, M.P.; Peponi, L.; López, D.; López, J.; Kenny, J.M. An Overview of Nanoparticles Role in the Improvement of Barrier Properties of Bioplastics for Food Packaging Applications ; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; ISBN 9780128043028. [ Google Scholar ]
• Souza, V.G.L.; Mello, I.P.; Khalid, O.; Pires, J.R.A.; Rodrigues, C.; Alves, M.M.; Santos, C.; Fernando, A.L.; Coelhoso, I. Strategies to Improve the Barrier and Mechanical Properties of Pectin Films for Food Packaging: Comparing Nanocomposites with Bilayers. Coatings 2022 , 12 , 108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bizymis, A.P.; Giannou, V.; Tzia, C. Improved Properties of Composite Edible Films Based on Chitosan by Using Cellulose Nanocrystals and Beta-Cyclodextrin. Appl. Sci. 2022 , 12 , 8729. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, Y.; Sun, H.; Yang, B.; Fan, B.; Zhang, H.; Weng, Y. Enhancement of Mechanical and Barrier Property of Hemicellulose Film via Crosslinking with Sodium Trimetaphosphate. Polymers 2021 , 13 , 927. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Petronilho, S.; Oliveira, A.; Domingues, M.R.; Nunes, F.M.; Coimbra, M.A.; Gonçalves, I. Hydrophobic Starch-Based Films Using Potato Washing Slurries and Spent Frying Oil. Foods 2021 , 10 , 2897. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alias, A.R.; Wan, M.K.; Sarbon, N.M. Emerging Materials and Technologies of Multi-Layer Film for Food Packaging Application: A Review. Food Control 2022 , 136 , 108875. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Messin, T.; Marais, S.; Follain, N.; Guinault, A.; Gaucher, V.; Delpouve, N.; Sollogoub, C. Biodegradable PLA/PBS Multinanolayer Membrane with Enhanced Barrier Performances. J. Membr. Sci. 2020 , 598 , 117777. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hossain, K.M.Z.; Parsons, A.J.; Rudd, C.D.; Ahmed, I.; Thielemans, W. Mechanical, Crystallisation and Moisture Absorption Properties of Melt Drawn Polylactic Acid Fibres. Eur. Polym. J. 2014 , 53 , 270–281. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, W.; Wang, S.; Wang, W.; Qin, C.; Wu, M. Facile Preparation of Reactive Hydrophobic Cellulose Nanofibril Film for Reducing Water Vapor Permeability (WVP) in Packaging Applications. Cellulose 2019 , 26 , 3271–3284. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pankaj, S.K.; Bueno-Ferrer, C.; Misra, N.N.; O’Neill, L.; Tiwari, B.K.; Bourke, P.; Cullen, P.J. Dielectric Barrier Discharge Atmospheric Air Plasma Treatment of High Amylose Corn Starch Films. LWT 2015 , 63 , 1076–1082. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luque-Agudo, V.; Hierro-Oliva, M.; Gallardo-Moreno, A.M.; González-Martín, M.L. Effect of Plasma Treatment on the Surface Properties of Polylactic Acid Films. Polym. Test 2021 , 96 , 107097. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goiana, M.L.; de Brito, E.S.; Alves Filho, E.G.; Miguel, E.d.C.; Fernandes, F.A.N.; de Azeredo, H.M.C.; Rosa, M.d.F. Corn Starch Based Films Treated by Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021 , 183 , 2009–2016. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hoque, M.; McDonagh, C.; Tiwari, B.K.; Kerry, J.P.; Pathania, S. Effect of Cold Plasma Treatment on the Packaging Properties of Biopolymer-Based Films: A Review. Appl. Sci. 2022 , 12 , 1346. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bahrami, R.; Zibaei, R.; Hashami, Z.; Hasanvand, S.; Garavand, F.; Rouhi, M.; Jafari, S.M.; Mohammadi, R. Modification and Improvement of Biodegradable Packaging Films by Cold Plasma; a Critical Review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022 , 62 , 1936–1950. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cunha, A.G.; Gandini, A. Turning Polysaccharides into Hydrophobic Materials: A Critical Review. Part 1. Cellulose. Cellulose 2010 , 17 , 875–889. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, C.; Shao, R.; Wang, G.; Sun, S. Hierarchical Hydrophobic Surfaces with Controlled Dual Transition between Rose Petal Effect and Lotus Effect via Structure Tailoring or Chemical Modification. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2021 , 622 , 126661. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, D.; Huang, J.; Guo, Z. Tomato-Lotus Inspired Edible Superhydrophobic Artificial Lotus Leaf. Chem. Eng. J. 2020 , 400 , 125883. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Allred, T.P.; Weibel, J.A.; Garimella, S. The Petal Effect of Parahydrophobic Surfaces Offers Low Receding Contact Angles That Promote Effective Boiling. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2019 , 135 , 403–412. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luís, Â.; Domingues, F.; Ramos, A. Production of Hydrophobic Zein-Based Films Bioinspired by the Lotus Leaf Surface: Characterization and Bioactive Properties. Microorganisms 2019 , 7 , 267. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• de Oliveira Gama, R.; Bretas, R.E.S.; Oréfice, R.L. Control of the Hydrophilic/Hydrophobic Behavior of Biodegradable Natural Polymers by Decorating Surfaces with Nano- and Micro-Components. Adv. Polym. Technol. 2018 , 37 , 654–661. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gonçalves, I.; Lopes, J.; Barra, A.; Hernández, D.; Nunes, C.; Kapusniak, K.; Kapusniak, J.; Evtyugin, D.; Lopes da Silva, J.A.; Ferreira, P.; et al. Tailoring the Surface Properties and Flexibility of Starch-Based Films Using Oil and Waxes Recovered from Potato Chips Byproducts. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020 , 163 , 251–259. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruzi, M.; Celik, N.; Onses, M.S. Superhydrophobic Coatings for Food Packaging Applications: A Review. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2022 , 32 , 100823. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guzman-Puyol, S.; Tedeschi, G.; Goldoni, L.; Benítez, J.J.; Ceseracciu, L.; Koschella, A.; Heinze, T.; Athanassiou, A.; Heredia-Guerrero, J.A. Greaseproof, Hydrophobic, and Biodegradable Food Packaging Bioplastics from C6-Fluorinated Cellulose Esters. Food Hydrocoll. 2022 , 128 , 107562. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohammadian, E.; Alizadeh-Sani, M.; Jafari, S.M. Smart Monitoring of Gas/Temperature Changes within Food Packaging Based on Natural Colorants. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020 , 19 , 2885–2931. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nikvarz, N.; Khayati, G.R.; Sharafi, S. Preparation of UV Absorbent Films Using Polylactic Acid and Grape Syrup for Food Packaging Application. Mater. Lett. 2020 , 276 , 128187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guzman-Puyol, S.; Hierrezuelo, J.; Benítez, J.J.; Tedeschi, G.; Porras-Vázquez, J.M.; Heredia, A.; Athanassiou, A.; Romero, D.; Heredia-Guerrero, J.A. Transparent, UV-Blocking, and High Barrier Cellulose-Based Bioplastics with Naringin as Active Food Packaging Materials. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022 , 209 , 1985–1994. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gonçalves, I.; Hernández, D.; Cruz, C.; Lopes, J.; Barra, A.; Nunes, C.; da Silva, J.A.L.; Ferreira, P.; Coimbra, M.A. Relevance of Genipin Networking on Rheological, Physical, and Mechanical Properties of Starch-Based Formulations. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021 , 254 , 117236. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Oliveira, G.; Gonçalves, I.; Barra, A.; Nunes, C.; Ferreira, P.; Coimbra, M.A. Coffee Silverskin and Starch-Rich Potato Washing Slurries as Raw Materials for Elastic, Antioxidant, and UV-Protective Biobased Films. Food Res. Int. 2020 , 138 , 109733. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cheng, H.; Xu, H.; Julian McClements, D.; Chen, L.; Jiao, A.; Tian, Y.; Miao, M.; Jin, Z. Recent Advances in Intelligent Food Packaging Materials: Principles, Preparation and Applications. Food Chem. 2022 , 375 , 131738. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chen, S.; Wu, M.; Lu, P.; Gao, L.; Yan, S.; Wang, S. Development of PH Indicator and Antimicrobial Cellulose Nanofibre Packaging Film Based on Purple Sweet Potato Anthocyanin and Oregano Essential Oil. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020 , 149 , 271–280. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jamróz, E.; Kulawik, P.; Krzyściak, P.; Talaga-Ćwiertnia, K.; Juszczak, L. Intelligent and Active Furcellaran-Gelatin Films Containing Green or Pu-Erh Tea Extracts: Characterization, Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Potential. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019 , 122 , 745–757. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tracey, C.T.; Predeina, A.L.; Krivoshapkina, E.F.; Kumacheva, E. A 3D Printing Approach to Intelligent Food Packaging. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022 , 127 , 87–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Digvijay, P.; Onkar, S. Smart Packaging Market by Type: Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2021–2030 ; Allied Market Research: Pune, India, 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission. Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on Materials and Articles Intended to Come into Contact with Food and Repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/1935/oj (accessed on 13 December 2022).
• Azevedo, A.G.; Barros, C.; Miranda, S.; Machado, A.V.; Castro, O.; Silva, B.; Saraiva, M.; Silva, A.S.; Pastrana, L.; Carneiro, O.S.; et al. Active Flexible Films for Food Packaging: A Review. Polymers 2022 , 14 , 2442. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rivero, S.; Giannuzzi, L.; García, M.A.; Pinotti, A. Controlled Delivery of Propionic Acid from Chitosan Films for Pastry Dough Conservation. J. Food Eng. 2013 , 116 , 524–531. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• López, O.; Giannuzzi, L.; Zaritzky, N.E.; García, M.A. Potassium Sorbate Controlled Release from Corn Starch Films. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2013 , 33 , 1583–1591. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Villarruel, S.; Giannuzzi, L.; Rivero, S.; Pinotti, A. Changes Induced by UV Radiation in the Presence of Sodium Benzoate in Films Formulated with Polyvinyl Alcohol and Carboxymethyl Cellulose. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2015 , 56 , 545–554. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Dey, A.; Neogi, S. Oxygen Scavengers for Food Packaging Applications: A Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019 , 90 , 26–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liang, J.; Wang, J.; Li, S.; Xu, L.; Wang, R.; Chen, R.; Sun, Y. The Size-Controllable Preparation of Chitosan/Silver Nanoparticle Composite Microsphere and Its Antimicrobial Performance. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019 , 220 , 22–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ortega, F.; Giannuzzi, L.; Arce, V.B.; García, M.A. Active Composite Starch Films Containing Green Synthesized Silver Nanoparticles. Food Hydrocoll. 2017 , 70 , 152–162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Passaretti, M.G.; Ninago, M.D.; Paulo, C.I.; Petit, A.; Irassar, E.F.; Vega, D.A.; Armando, V.M.; Lopez, O.V. Biocomposites Based on Thermoplastic Starch and Granite Sand Quarry Waste. J. Renew. Mater. 2019 , 7 , 393–402. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Youssef, A.M.; El-Sayed, S.M. Bionanocomposites Materials for Food Packaging Applications: Concepts and Future Outlook. Carbohydr. Polym. 2018 , 193 , 19–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Castillo, L.A.; Farenzena, S.; Pintos, E.; Rodríguez, M.S.; Villar, M.A.; García, M.A.; López, O. Active Films Based on Thermoplastic Corn Starch and Chitosan Oligomer for Food Packaging Applications. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2017 , 14 , 128–136. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dima, J.B.; Sequeiros, C.; Zaritzky, N. Chitosan from Marine Crustaceans: Production, Characterization and Applications. In Biological Activities and Application of Marine Polysaccharides ; InTech: London, UK, 2017; pp. 39–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Varghese, S.A.; Siengchin, S.; Parameswaranpillai, J. Essential Oils as Antimicrobial Agents in Biopolymer-Based Food Packaging—A Comprehensive Review. Food Biosci. 2020 , 38 , 100785. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• 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 ]
• Bof, M.J.; Jiménez, A.; Locaso, D.E.; García, M.A.; Chiralt, A. Grapefruit Seed Extract and Lemon Essential Oil as Active Agents in Corn Starch–Chitosan Blend Films. Food Bioproc. Tech. 2016 , 9 , 2033–2045. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kanmani, P.; Rhim, J.W. Development and Characterization of Carrageenan/Grapefruit Seed Extract Composite Films for Active Packaging. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2014 , 68 , 258–266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bof, M.J.; Laurent, F.E.; Massolo, F.; Locaso, D.E.; Versino, F.; García, M.A. Bio-Packaging Material Impact on Blueberries Quality Attributes under Transport and Marketing Conditions. Polymers 2021 , 13 , 481. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhang, W.; Jiang, W. Antioxidant and Antibacterial Chitosan Film with Tea Polyphenols-Mediated Green Synthesis Silver Nanoparticle via a Novel One-Pot Method. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020 , 155 , 1252–1261. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Abdollahi, M.; Rezaei, M.; Farzi, G. A Novel Active Bionanocomposite Film Incorporating Rosemary Essential Oil and Nanoclay into Chitosan. J. Food Eng. 2012 , 111 , 343–350. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Romani, V.P.; Prentice-Hernández, C.; Martins, V.G. Active and Sustainable Materials from Rice Starch, Fish Protein and Oregano Essential Oil for Food Packaging. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017 , 97 , 268–274. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reyes, L.M.; Landgraf, M.; Sobral, P.J.A. Gelatin-Based Films Activated with Red Propolis Ethanolic Extract and Essential Oils. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2021 , 27 , 100607. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, M.; Yu, H.; Xie, Y.; Guo, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Qian, H.; Yao, W. Fabrication of Eugenol Loaded Gelatin Nanofibers by Electrospinning Technique as Active Packaging Material. LWT 2021 , 139 , 110800. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Darie-Niţă, R.N.; Vasile, C.; Stoleru, E.; Pamfil, D.; Zaharescu, T.; Tarţău, L.; Tudorachi, N.; Brebu, M.A.; Pricope, G.M.; Dumitriu, R.P.; et al. Evaluation of the Rosemary Extract Effect on the Properties of Polylactic Acid-Based Materials. Materials 2018 , 11 , 1825. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Huang, X.; Ge, X.; Zhou, L.; Wang, Y. Eugenol Embedded Zein and Poly(Lactic Acid) Film as Active Food Packaging: Formation, Characterization, and Antimicrobial Effects. Food Chem. 2022 , 384 , 132482. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ren, J.; Li, Y.; Lin, Q.; Li, Z.; Zhang, G. Development of Biomaterials Based on Plasticized Polylactic Acid and Tea Polyphenols for Active-Packaging Application. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022 , 217 , 814–823. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lamarra, J.; Giannuzzi, L.; Rivero, S.; Pinotti, A. Assembly of Chitosan Support Matrix with Gallic Acid-Functionalized Nanoparticles. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2017 , 79 , 848–859. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mariño-Cortegoso, S.; Stanzione, M.; Andrade, M.A.; Restuccia, C.; Rodríguez-Bernaldo de Quirós, A.; Buonocore, G.G.; Barbosa, C.H.; Vilarinho, F.; Silva, A.S.; Ramos, F.; et al. Development of Active Films Utilizing Antioxidant Compounds Obtained from Tomato and Lemon By-Products for Use in Food Packaging. Food Control 2022 , 140 , 109128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• 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 ]
• Wu, H.; Li, T.; Peng, L.; Wang, J.; Lei, Y.; Li, S.; Li, Q.; Yuan, X.; Zhou, M.; Zhang, Z. Development and Characterization of Antioxidant Composite Films Based on Starch and Gelatin Incorporating Resveratrol Fabricated by Extrusion Compression Moulding. Food Hydrocoll. 2023 , 139 , 108509. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Talón, E.; Trifkovic, K.T.; Nedovic, V.A.; Bugarski, B.M.; Vargas, M.; Chiralt, A.; González-Martínez, C. Antioxidant Edible Films Based on Chitosan and Starch Containing Polyphenols from Thyme Extracts. Carbohydr. Polym. 2017 , 157 , 1153–1161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lombo Vidal, O.; Barros Santos, M.C.; Batista, A.P.; Andrigo, F.F.; Baréa, B.; Lecomte, J.; Figueroa-Espinoza, M.C.; Gontard, N.; Guillard, V.; Rezende, C.M.; et al. Active packaging films containing antioxidant extracts from green coffee oil by-products to prevent lipid oxidation. J. Food Eng. 2021 , 136 , 110744. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaikwad, K.K.; Singh, S.; Lee, Y.S. Oxygen Scavenging Films in Food Packaging. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2018 , 16 , 523–538. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uruchaya, S.; Promsorn, J.; Bumbudsanpharoke, N.; Chonhenchob, V.; Harnkarnsujarit, N. Polyesters Incorporating Gallic Acid as Oxygen Scavenger in Biodegradable Packaging. Encycl. Renew. Sustain. Mater. 2022 , 14 , 5296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• di Giuseppe, F.; Coffigniez, F.; Aouf, C.; Guillard, V.; Torrieri, E. Activated Gallic Acid as Radical and Oxygen Scavenger in Biodegradable Packaging Film. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2022 , 31 , 100811. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Juan-Polo, A.; Maestre Pérez, S.E.; Monedero Prieto, M.; Sánchez Reig, C.; Tone, A.M.; Herranz Solana, N.; Beltrán Sanahuja, A. Oxygen Scavenger and Antioxidant LDPE/EVOH/PET-Based Films Containing β-Carotene Intended for Fried Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) Packaging: Pilot Scale Processing and Validation Studies. Polymers 2022 , 14 , 3550. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lamarra, J.; Calienni, M.N.; Rivero, S.; Pinotti, A. Electrospun Nanofibers of Poly(Vinyl Alcohol) and Chitosan-Based Emulsions Functionalized with Cabreuva Essential Oil. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020 , 160 , 307–318. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Castro Coelho, S.; Nogueiro Estevinho, B.; Rocha, F. Encapsulation in Food Industry with Emerging Electrohydrodynamic Techniques: Electrospinning and Electrospraying—A Review. Food Chem. 2021 , 339 , 127850. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ortega, F.; García, M.A.; Arce, V.B. Nanocomposite Films with Silver Nanoparticles Synthesized in Situ: Effect of Corn Starch Content. Food Hydrocoll. 2019 , 97 , 105200. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nafchi, A.M.; Nassiri, R.; Sheibani, S.; Ariffin, F.; Karim, A.A. Preparation and Characterization of Bionanocomposite Films Filled with Nanorod-Rich Zinc Oxide. Carbohydr. Polym. 2013 , 96 , 233–239. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sarwar, N.; Humayoun, U.; Kumar, M.; Zaidi, S.F.A.; Yoo, J.H.; Ali, N.; Jeong, D.I.; Lee, J.H.; Yoon, D.H. Citric Acid Mediated Green Synthesis of Copper Nanoparticles Using Cinnamon Bark Extract and Its Multifaceted Applications. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 292 , 125974. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ortega, F.; Arce, V.B.; Garcia, M.A. Nanocomposite Starch-Based Films Containing Silver Nanoparticles Synthesized with Lemon Juice as Reducing and Stabilizing Agent. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021 , 252 , 117208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hu, Q.; Fang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Ma, N.; Zhao, L. Effect of Nanocomposite-Based Packaging on Postharvest Quality of Ethylene-Treated Kiwifruit (Actinidia Deliciosa) during Cold Storage. Food Res. Int. 2011 , 44 , 1589–1596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, D.S. Carbon Dioxide Absorbers for Food Packaging Applications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016 , 57 , 146–155. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abreu, A.S.; Oliveira, M.; de Sá, A.; Rodrigues, R.M.; Cerqueira, M.A.; Vicente, A.A.; Machado, A.V. Antimicrobial Nanostructured Starch Based Films for Packaging. Carbohydr. Polym. 2015 , 129 , 127–134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Almasi, H.; Forghani, S.; Moradi, M. Recent Advances on Intelligent Food Freshness Indicators; an Update on Natural Colorants and Methods of Preparation. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2022 , 32 , 100839. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Soltani Firouz, M.; Mohi-Alden, K.; Omid, M. A Critical Review on Intelligent and Active Packaging in the Food Industry: Research and Development. Food Res. Int. 2021 , 141 , 110113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moradi, M.; Tajik, H.; Almasi, H.; Forough, M.; Ezati, P. A Novel PH-Sensing Indicator Based on Bacterial Cellulose Nanofibers and Black Carrot Anthocyanins for Monitoring Fish Freshness. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019 , 222 , 115030. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ezati, P.; Tajik, H.; Moradi, M.; Molaei, R. Intelligent PH-Sensitive Indicator Based on Starch-Cellulose and Alizarin Dye to Track Freshness of Rainbow Trout Fillet. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019 , 132 , 157–165. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, S.; Xiong, Y.; Zou, Y.; Dong, Q.; Ding, F.; Liu, X.; Li, H. A Novel Colorimetric Indicator Based on Agar Incorporated with Arnebia Euchroma Root Extracts for Monitoring Fish Freshness. Food Hydrocoll. 2019 , 90 , 198–205. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, H.; Li, B.; Ding, F.; Ma, T. Improvement of Properties of Smart Ink via Chitin Nanofiber and Application as Freshness Indicator. Prog. Org. Coat. 2020 , 149 , 105921. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Materon, E.M.; Wong, A.; Gomes, L.M.; Ibáñez-Redín, G.; Joshi, N.; Oliveira, O.N.; Faria, R.C. Combining 3D Printing and Screen-Printing in Miniaturized, Disposable Sensors with Carbon Paste Electrodes. J. Mater. Chem. C Mater. 2021 , 9 , 5633–5642. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bautista, L.; Molina, L.; Niembro, S.; García, J.M.; López, J.; Vílchez, A. Emerging Nanotechnologies in Food Science. In Emerging Nanotechnologies in Food Science ; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 149–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• Negi, Y.S.; Ruchir, P.; Kulshreshta, A. Intelligent Packaging Systems for Food Applications. Available online: https://packaging360.in/insights/intelligent-packaging-systems-for-food/ (accessed on 25 November 2022).
• Azeredo, H.M.C.; Correa, D.S. Smart Choices: Mechanisms of Intelligent Food Packaging. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2021 , 4 , 932–936. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghaani, M.; Cozzolino, C.A.; Castelli, G.; Farris, S. An Overview of the Intelligent Packaging Technologies in the Food Sector. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016 , 51 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ye, Y.; Guo, H.; Sun, X. Recent Progress on Cell-Based Biosensors for Analysis of Food Safety and Quality Control. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019 , 126 , 389–404. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fronczek, C.F.; Yoon, J.Y. Detection of Foodborne Pathogens Using Biosensors. In Antimicrobial Food Packaging ; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 153–166. ISBN 9780128007235. [ Google Scholar ]
• Papkovsky, D.B.; Dmitriev, R.I. Biological Detection by Optical Oxygen Sensing. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013 , 42 , 8700. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, H.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B.; Yang, C. Novel PH-Sensitive Films Containing Curcumin and Anthocyanins to Monitor Fish Freshness. Food Hydrocoll. 2020 , 100 , 105438. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, D.; Zhang, M.; Chen, H.; Bhandari, B. Freshness Monitoring Technology of Fish Products in Intelligent Packaging. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021 , 61 , 1279–1292. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Balbinot-Alfaro, E.; Craveiro, D.V.; Lima, K.O.; Costa, H.L.G.; Lopes, D.R.; Prentice, C. Intelligent Packaging with PH Indicator Potential. Food Eng. Rev. 2019 , 11 , 235–244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khairunnisa, A.; Suyatma, N.E.; Adawiyah, D.R. Development of Smart TTI Label Based on Kinetics Diffusion of Vegetable Oils Blends for Cold Supply Chain Monitoring. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science ; Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 335. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rahman, A.T.M.M.; Kim, D.H.; Jang, H.D.; Yang, J.H.; Lee, S.J. Preliminary Study on Biosensor-Type Time-Temperature Integrator for Intelligent Food Packaging. Sensors 2018 , 18 , 1949. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Kim, Y.A.; Jung, S.W.; Park, H.R.; Chung, K.Y.; Lee, S.J. Application of a Prototype of Microbial Time Temperature Indicator (TTI) to the Prediction of Ground Beef Qualities during Storage. Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2012 , 32 , 448–457. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Choi, D.Y.; Jung, S.W.; Kim, T.J.; Lee, S.J. A Prototype of Time Temperature Integrator (TTI) with Microbeads-Entrapped Microorganisms Maintained at a Constant Concentration. J. Food Eng. 2014 , 120 , 118–123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mataragas, M.; Bikouli, V.C.; Korre, M.; Sterioti, A.; Skandamis, P.N. Development of a Microbial Time Temperature Indicator for Monitoring the Shelf Life of Meat. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2019 , 52 , 89–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gao, T.; Tian, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Sun, D.W. Modelling, Responses and Applications of Time-Temperature Indicators (TTIs) in Monitoring Fresh Food Quality. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020 , 99 , 311–322. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, K.; Kim, E.; Lee, S.J. New Enzymatic Time-Temperature Integrator (TTI) That Uses Laccase. J. Food Eng. 2012 , 113 , 118–123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jhuang, J.R.; Lin, S.; Chen, L.C.; Lou, S.N.; Chen, S.H.; Chen, H.H. Development of Immobilized Laccase-Based Time Temperature Indicator by Electrospinning Zein Fiber. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2020 , 23 , 100436. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jhuang, J.R.; Lou, S.N.; Lin, S.; Chen, S.H.; Chen, L.C.; Chen, H.H. Immobilizing Laccase on Electrospun Chitosan Fiber to Prepare Time-Temperature Indicator for Food Quality Monitoring. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2020 , 63 , 102370. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, C.X.; Hsu, H.H.; Chang, Y.H.; Chen, S.H.; Lin, S.; Lou, S.N.; Chen, H.H. Expanding the Applicability of an Innovative Laccase TTI in Intelligent Packaging by Adding an Enzyme Inhibitor to Change Its Coloration Kinetics. Polymers 2021 , 13 , 3646. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, D.; Hou, S.; Chen, J.; Sun, Y.; Ye, X.; Liu, D.; Meng, R.; Wang, Y. Development and Characterization of an Enzymatic Time-Temperature Indicator (TTI) Based on Aspergillus Niger Lipase. LWT 2015 , 60 , 1100–1104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chuang, W.-P.; Hsieh, B.-C. Development of a Gallic Acid Based Time Temperature Indicator with Adjustable Activation Energy. Food Control 2023 , 144 , 109396. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ye, B.; Chen, J.; Ye, H.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Q.; Yu, H.; Fu, L.; Wang, Y. Development of a Time–Temperature Indicator Based on Maillard Reaction for Visually Monitoring the Freshness of Mackerel. Food Chem. 2022 , 373 , 131448. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jelinek, R.; Ritenberg, M. Polydiacetylenes-Recent Molecular Advances and Applications. RSC Adv. 2013 , 3 , 21192–21201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, S.; Kim, J.Y.; Chen, X.; Yoon, J. Recent Progress in Stimuli-Induced Polydiacetylenes for Sensing Temperature, Chemical and Biological Targets. Chem. Commun. 2016 , 52 , 9178–9196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dory, Y.L.; Caron, M.; Duguay, V.O.; Chicoine-Ouellet, L.; Fortin, D.; Baillargeon, P. Preparation and Single Crystal Structure Determination of the First Biobased Furan-Polydiacetylene Using Topochemical Polymerization. Crystals 2019 , 9 , 448. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Qian, X.; Städler, B. Recent Developments in Polydiacetylene-Based Sensors. Chem. Mater. 2019 , 31 , 1196–1222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Suppakul, P.; Kim, D.Y.; Yang, J.H.; Lee, S.B.; Lee, S.J. Practical Design of a Diffusion-Type Time-Temperature Indicator with Intrinsic Low Temperature Dependency. J. Food Eng. 2018 , 223 , 22–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vivaldi, F.; Melai, B.; Bonini, A.; Poma, N.; Salvo, P.; Kirchhain, A.; Tintori, S.; Bigongiari, A.; Bertuccelli, F.; Isola, G.; et al. A Temperature-Sensitive RFID Tag for the Identification of Cold Chain Failures. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2020 , 313 , 112182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Talegaonkar, S.; Sharma, H.; Pandey, S.; Mishra, P.K.; Wimmer, R. Bionanocomposites: Smart Biodegradable Packaging Material for Food Preservation. In Food Packaging ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 79–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drago, E.; Campardelli, R.; Pettinato, M.; Perego, P. Innovations in Smart Packaging Concepts for Food: An Extensive Review. Foods 2020 , 9 , 1628. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Restuccia, D.; Spizzirri, U.G.; Parisi, O.I.; Cirillo, G.; Curcio, M.; Iemma, F.; Puoci, F.; Vinci, G.; Picci, N. New EU Regulation Aspects and Global Market of Active and Intelligent Packaging for Food Industry Applications. Food Control 2010 , 21 , 1425–1435. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zuo, J.; Feng, J.; Gameiro, M.G.; Tian, Y.; Liang, J.; Wang, Y.; Ding, J.; He, Q. RFID-Based Sensing in Smart Packaging for Food Applications: A Review. Future Foods 2022 , 6 , 100198. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Musso, Y.S.; Salgado, P.R.; Mauri, A.N. Smart Gelatin Films Prepared Using Red Cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.) Extracts as Solvent. Food Hydrocoll. 2019 , 89 , 674–681. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salgado, P.R.; di Giorgio, L.; Musso, Y.S.; Mauri, A.N. Recent Developments in Smart Food Packaging Focused on Biobased and Biodegradable Polymers. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021 , 5 , 630393. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Halonen, N.; Pálvölgyi, P.S.; Bassani, A.; Fiorentini, C.; Nair, R.; Spigno, G.; Kordas, K. Bio-Based Smart Materials for Food Packaging and Sensors—A Review. Front. Mater. 2020 , 7 , 82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Echeverría, I.; López-Caballero, M.E.; Gómez-Guillén, M.C.; Mauri, A.N.; Montero, M.P. Active Nanocomposite Films Based on Soy Proteins-Montmorillonite-Clove Essential Oil for the Preservation of Refrigerated Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus Thynnus) Fillets. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018 , 266 , 142–149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Y.; Rehmani, N.; Alsubaie, L.; Kim, C.; Sismour, E.; Scales, A. Tapioca Starch Active Nanocomposite Films and Their Antimicrobial Effectiveness on Ready-to-Eat Chicken Meat. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2018 , 16 , 86–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, W.; Zhang, C.; Chi, H.; Li, L.; Lan, T.; Han, P.; Chen, H.; Qin, Y. Development of Antimicrobial Packaging Film Made from Poly(Lactic Acid) Incorporating Titanium Dioxide and Silver Nanoparticles. Molecules 2017 , 22 , 1170. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Zhang, Y.; Zhou, L.; Zhang, C.; Show, P.L.; Du, A.; Fu, J.; Ashokkumar, V. Preparation and Characterization of Curdlan/Polyvinyl Alcohol/ Thyme Essential Oil Blending Film and Its Application to Chilled Meat Preservation. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020 , 247 , 116670. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seydim, A.C.; Sarikus-Tutal, G.; Sogut, E. Effect of Whey Protein Edible Films Containing Plant Essential Oils on Microbial Inactivation of Sliced Kasar Cheese. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2020 , 26 , 100567. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Valencia-Sullca, C.; Vargas, M.; Atarés, L.; Chiralt, A. Thermoplastic Cassava Starch-Chitosan Bilayer Films Containing Essential Oils. Food Hydrocoll. 2018 , 75 , 107–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhai, X.; Li, Z.; Zhang, J.; Shi, J.; Zou, X.; Huang, X.; Zhang, D.; Sun, Y.; Yang, Z.; Holmes, M.; et al. Natural Biomaterial-Based Edible and PH-Sensitive Films Combined with Electrochemical Writing for Intelligent Food Packaging. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018 , 66 , 12836–12846. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Göksen, G.; Fabra, M.J.; Ekiz, H.I.; López-Rubio, A. Phytochemical-Loaded Electrospun Nanofibres as Novel Active Edible Films: Characterization and Antibacterial Efficiency in Cheese Slices. Food Control 2020 , 112 , 107133. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Y.C.; Lu, L.; Gunasekaran, S. Biopolymer/Gold Nanoparticles Composite Plasmonic Thermal History Indicator to Monitor Quality and Safety of Perishable Bioproducts. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2017 , 92 , 109–116. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Fernandes, B.C.N.; de Mello Aquilino, M.; Prata, A.S. Biodegradable Thermoactive Packaging Using Phase Change Material Particles on Cellulosic Materials. Cellulose 2021 , 28 , 6427–6437. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, L.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, L.; Wang, Y. Anthocyanin-Based PH-Sensitive Smart Packaging Films for Monitoring Food Freshness. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022 , 9 , 100340. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bi, F.; Zhang, X.; Bai, R.; Liu, Y.; Liu, J.; Liu, J. Preparation and Characterization of Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Packaging Films Based on Chitosan and Proanthocyanidins. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019 , 134 , 11–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, K.; Park, H.; Baek, S.; Han, S.; Kim, D.; Chung, S.; Yoon, J.Y.; Seo, J. Colorimetric Array Freshness Indicator and Digital Color Processing for Monitoring the Freshness of Packaged Chicken Breast. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2019 , 22 , 100408. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hashim, S.B.H.; Tahir, H.E.; Lui, L.; Zhang, J.; Zhai, X.; Mahdi, A.A.; Ibrahim, N.A.; Mahunu, G.K.; Hassan, M.M.; Xiaobo, Z.; et al. Smart Films of Carbohydrate-Based/Sunflower Wax/Purple Chinese Cabbage Anthocyanins: A Biomarker of Chicken Freshness. Food Chem. 2023 , 399 , 133824. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pirsa, S.; Karimi Sani, I.; Pirouzifard, M.K.; Erfani, A. Smart Film Based on Chitosan/Melissa Officinalis Essences/ Pomegranate Peel Extract to Detect Cream Cheeses Spoilage. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2020 , 37 , 634–648. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ezati, P.; Rhim, J.-W. PH-Responsive Chitosan-Based Film Incorporated with Alizarin for Intelligent Packaging Applications. Food Hydrocoll. 2020 , 102 , 105629. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lyu, J.S.; Choi, I.; Hwang, K.S.; Lee, J.Y.; Seo, J.; Kim, S.Y.; Han, J. Development of a BTB−/TBA+ Ion-Paired Dye-Based CO 2 Indicator and Its Application in a Multilayered Intelligent Packaging System. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2019 , 282 , 359–365. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deshwal, G.K.; Panjagari, N.R.; Badola, R.; Singh, A.K.; Minz, P.S.; Ganguly, S.; Alam, T. Characterization of Biopolymer-Based UV-Activated Intelligent Oxygen Indicator for Food-Packaging Applications. J. Packag. Technol. Res. 2018 , 2 , 29–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhai, X.; Li, Z.; Shi, J.; Huang, X.; Sun, Z.; Zhang, D.; Zou, X.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, J.; Holmes, M.; et al. A Colorimetric Hydrogen Sulfide Sensor Based on Gellan Gum-Silver Nanoparticles Bionanocomposite for Monitoring of Meat Spoilage in Intelligent Packaging. Food Chem. 2019 , 290 , 135–143. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bumbudsanpharoke, N.; Kwon, S.; Lee, W.; Ko, S. Optical Response of Photonic Cellulose Nanocrystal Film for a Novel Humidity Indicator. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019 , 140 , 91–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Choudhary, A.; Prasad, E. Bioplastic Market Outlook 2020–2027. In Bioplastic Market by Biodegradable Type and Application: Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2020–2027 ; Allied Market Research: Pune, India, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jabeen, N.; Majid, I.; Nayik, G.A.; Yildiz, F. Bioplastics and Food Packaging: A Review. Cogent. Food Agric. 2015 , 1 , 1117749. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohammed, A.; Gaduan, A.; Chaitram, P.; Pooran, A.; Lee, K.Y.; Ward, K. Sargassum Inspired, Optimized Calcium Alginate Bioplastic Composites for Food Packaging. Food Hydrocoll. 2023 , 135 , 108192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ashfaq, A.; Khursheed, N.; Fatima, S.; Anjum, Z.; Younis, K. Application of Nanotechnology in Food Packaging: Pros and Cons. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022 , 7 , 100270. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, J.; Euring, M.; Ostendorf, K.; Zhang, K. Biobased Materials for Food Packaging. J. Bioresour. Bioprod. 2022 , 7 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garrido, T.; Etxabide, A.; Leceta, I.; Cabezudo, S.; de La Caba, K.; Guerrero, P. Valorization of Soya By-Products for Sustainable Packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 2014 , 64 , 228–233. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumari, S.V.G.; Pakshirajan, K.; Pugazhenthi, G. Recent Advances and Future Prospects of Cellulose, Starch, Chitosan, Polylactic Acid and Polyhydroxyalkanoates for Sustainable Food Packaging Applications. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022 , 221 , 163–182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nielsen, C.; Rahman, A.; Rehman, A.U.; Walsh, M.K.; Miller, C.D. Food Waste Conversion to Microbial Polyhydroxyalkanoates. Microb. Biotechnol. 2017 , 10 , 1338–1352. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amini, M.; Yousefi-Massumabad, H.; Younesi, H.; Abyar, H.; Bahramifar, N. Production of the Polyhydroxyalkanoate Biopolymer by Cupriavidusnecator Using Beer Brewery Wastewater Containing Maltose as a Primary Carbon Source. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020 , 8 , 103588. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alsafadi, D.; Al-Mashaqbeh, O. A One-Stage Cultivation Process for the Production of Poly-3-(Hydroxybutyrate-Co-Hydroxyvalerate) from Olive Mill Wastewater by Haloferax Mediterranei. N. Biotechnol. 2017 , 34 , 47–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lammi, S.; le Moigne, N.; Djenane, D.; Gontard, N.; Angellier-Coussy, H. Dry Fractionation of Olive Pomace for the Development of Food Packaging Biocomposites. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018 , 120 , 250–261. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, M.; Xie, L.; Yin, Z.; Khanal, S.K.; Zhou, Q. Biorefinery Approach for Cassava-Based Industrial Wastes: Current Status and Opportunities. Bioresour. Technol. 2016 , 215 , 50–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Domingos, I.; Ferreira, J.; Cruz-Lopes, L.; Esteves, B. Polyurethane Foams from Liquefied Orange Peel Wastes. Food Bioprod. Process. 2019 , 115 , 223–229. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abol-Fotouh, D.; Hassan, M.A.; Shokry, H.; Roig, A.; Azab, M.S.; Kashyout, A.E.H.B. Bacterial Nanocellulose from Agro-Industrial Wastes: Low-Cost and Enhanced Production by Komagataeibacter saccharivorans MD1. Sci. Rep. 2020 , 10 , 3491. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Valencia, G.A.; de Andrade, C.J.; Ienczak, J.L.; Monteiro, A.R.; Gutiérrez, T.J. Bio-Valorization of Waste ; Shah, S., Venkatramanan, V., Prasad, R., Eds.; Environmental and Microbial Biotechnology; Springer: Singapore, 2021; ISBN 978-981-15-9695-7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsang, Y.F.; Kumar, V.; Samadar, P.; Yang, Y.; Lee, J.; Ok, Y.S.; Song, H.; Kim, K.H.; Kwon, E.E.; Jeon, Y.J. Production of Bioplastic through Food Waste Valorization. Environ. Int. 2019 , 127 , 625–644. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, M.; Arshadi, M.; Javi, F.; Lawrence, P.; Davachi, S.M.; Abbaspourrad, A. Green and Facile Preparation of Hydrophobic Bioplastics from Tea Waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 276 , 123353. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chiarathanakrit, C.; Riyajan, S.A.; Kaewtatip, K. Transforming Fish Scale Waste into an Efficient Filler for Starch Foam. Carbohydr. Polym. 2018 , 188 , 48–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ocaña, R. Degradación Ambiental y En Condiciones Adversas de Adhesivos Estructurales: Análisis y Consideraciones Técnicas Para Su Aplicación Industrial. Doctoral Thesis, E.T.S.I. Diseño Industrial (UPM), Madrid, Spain, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Toenniessen, M. Packaging Materials: Adhesives for Food Packaging Applications. Available online: https://ilsi.eu/publication/packaging-materials-10-adhesives-for-food-packaging-applications/ (accessed on 20 December 2022).
• Ortiz-Fernández, A.; Ríos-Soberanis, C.R.; Chim-Chi, Y.A.; Moo-Huchin, V.M.; Estrada-León, R.J.; Pérez-Pacheco, E. Optimization of Biodegradable Starch Adhesives Using Response Surface Methodology. Polym. Bull. 2021 , 78 , 3729–3749. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dohr, C.A.; Hirn, U. Influence of Paper Properties on Adhesive Strength of Starch Gluing. Nord. Pulp Paper Res. J. 2022 , 37 , 120–129. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Norström, E.; Demircan, D.; Fogelström, L.; Khabbaz, F.; Malmström, E. Green Binders for Wood Adhesives. In Applied Adhesive Bonding in Science and Technology ; InTech: London, UK, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferdosian, F.; Pan, Z.; Gao, G.; Zhao, B. Bio-Based Adhesives and Evaluation for Wood Composites Application. Polymers 2017 , 9 , 70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Solt, P.; Konnerth, J.; Gindl-Altmutter, W.; Kantner, W.; Moser, J.; Mitter, R.; van Herwijnen, H.W.G. Technological Performance of Formaldehyde-Free Adhesive Alternatives for Particleboard Industry. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2019 , 94 , 99–131. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bacigalupe, A.; Escobar, M.M. Soy Protein Adhesives for Particleboard Production—A Review. J. Polym. Environ. 2021 , 29 , 2033–2045. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, W.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, L.; Zhu, Z.; Xu, Z. Improving the Adhesion-to-Fibers and Film Properties of Corn Starch by Starch Sulfo-Itaconation for a Better Application in Warp Sizing. Polym. Test 2021 , 98 , 107194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heinrich, L.A. Future Opportunities for Bio-Based Adhesives-Advantages beyond Renewability. Green Chem. 2019 , 21 , 1866–1888. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ebnesajjad, S.; Landrock, A.H. Material Surface Preparation Techniques. In Adhesives Technology Handbook ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 35–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watcharakitti, J.; Win, E.E.; Nimnuan, J.; Smith, S.M. Modified Starch-Based Adhesives: A Review. Polymers 2022 , 14 , 2023. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gadhave, R.V.I.; Gadhave, C.R. Adhesives for the Paper Packaging Industry: An Overview. Open J. Polym. Chem. 2022 , 12 , 55–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Liang, J.; Du, G.; Zhou, X.; Wang, H.; Lei, H. Development and Characterization of a Bayberry Tannin-Based Adhesive for Particleboard. Bioresources 2017 , 12 , 6082–6093. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ji, X.; Guo, M. Preparation and Properties of a Chitosan-Lignin Wood Adhesive. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2018 , 82 , 8–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tenorio-Alfonso, A.; Sánchez, M.C.; Franco, J.M. Preparation, Characterization and Mechanical Properties of Bio-Based Polyurethane Adhesives from Isocyanate-Functionalized Cellulose Acetate and Castor Oil for Bonding Wood. Polymers 2017 , 9 , 132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Monroy, Y.; Rivero, S.; García, M.A. Sustainable Panels Design Based on Modified Cassava Starch Bioadhesives and Wood Processing Byproducts. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019 , 137 , 171–179. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Monroy, Y.; Seré, P.; Rivero, S.; García, M.A. Sustainable Panels Based on Starch Bioadhesives: An Insight into Structural and Tribological Performance. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020 , 148 , 898–907. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schwarzenbrunner, R.; Barbu, M.C.; Petutschnigg, A.; Tudor, E.M. Water-Resistant Casein-Based Adhesives for Veneer Bonding in Biodegradable Ski Cores. Polymers 2020 , 12 , 1745. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, X.; Li, J.; Luo, J.; Li, K.; Gao, Q.; Li, J. A Novel Eco-Friendly Blood Meal-Based Bio-Adhesive: Preparation and Performance. J. Polym. Environ. 2018 , 26 , 607–615. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zeng, Y.; Xu, P.; Yang, W.; Chu, H.; Wang, W.; Dong, W.; Chen, M.; Bai, H.; Ma, P. Soy Protein-Based Adhesive with Superior Bonding Strength and Water Resistance by Designing Densely Crosslinking Networks. Eur. Polym. J. 2021 , 142 , 110128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maaßen, W.; Oelmann, S.; Peter, D.; Oswald, W.; Willenbacher, N.; Meier, M.A.R. Novel Insights into Pressure-Sensitive Adhesives Based on Plant Oils. Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2015 , 216 , 1609–1618. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mahieu, A.; Vivet, A.; Poilane, C.; Leblanc, N. Performance of Particleboards Based on Annual Plant Byproducts Bound with Bio-Adhesives. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2021 , 107 , 102847. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, S.; Xia, P.; Wang, S.; Liang, J.; Sun, Y.; Yue, P.; Gao, X. Packaging Films Formulated with Gelatin and Anthocyanins Nanocomplexes: Physical Properties, Antioxidant Activity and Its Application for Olive Oil Protection. Food Hydrocoll. 2019 , 96 , 617–624. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, H.; Lei, Y.; Lu, J.; Zhu, R.; Xiao, D.; Jiao, C.; Xia, R.; Zhang, Z.; Shen, G.; Liu, Y.; et al. Effect of Citric Acid Induced Crosslinking on the Structure and Properties of Potato Starch/Chitosan Composite Films. Food Hydrocoll. 2019 , 97 , 105208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, R.; Ghoshal, G.; Goyal, M. Biodegradable Composite Films/Coatings of Modified Corn Starch/Gelatin for Shelf Life Improvement of Cucumber. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021 , 58 , 1227–1237. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Olomo, V.D. Influence of Processing Variables on Some Physico-Chemical Properties and Quality of Manioc Starch-Based Adhesives. Open J. Polym. Chem. 2022 , 12 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Monroy, Y.; Rivero, S.; García, M.A. Microstructural and Techno-Functional Properties of Cassava Starch Modified by Ultrasound. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2018 , 42 , 795–804. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Toenniessen, M. ILSI Europe Report Series: Adhesives for Food Packaging ; International Life Sciences Institute Europe (ILSI): Bruxelles, Belgium, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Altan, A.; Akıncı, E.; Arca, M. Comparing the Performances of Aqueous Solution of Boric Acid / Borax and Powder Boric Acid/Borax in Corrugated Board Production Process. Biol. Chem. Res. 2019 , 6 , 150–154. [ Google Scholar ]
• Romero Zaliz, L.; Labombarda, J.; Wildner Fox, C. Etiquetado de Botellas Retornables de Vidrio. Available online: https://www.tecnicomadhesivos.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Tecnicom_Etiquetado-de-Botellas-Retornables-de-Vidrio.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
• Luque, G.C.; Stürtz, R.; Passeggi, M.C.G.; Gugliotta, L.M.; Gonzalez, V.D.G.; Minari, R.J. New Hybrid Acrylic/Collagen Nanocomposites and Their Potential Use as Bio-Adhesives. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2020 , 100 , 102624. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Phan, K.; Raes, K.; van Speybroeck, V.; Roosen, M.; de Clerck, K.; de Meester, S. Non-Food Applications of Natural Dyes Extracted from Agro-Food Residues: A Critical Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 301 , 126920. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iqbal, S.; Ansari, T.N. Extraction and Application of Natural Dyes. In Sustainable Practices in the Textile Industry ; Rather, L.J., Shabbir, M., Haji, A., Eds.; Scrivener Publishing LLC: Beverly, MA, USA, 2021; Volume 4, pp. 218–233. ISBN 978-1-119-81891-5. [ Google Scholar ]
• The Business Research Company. Synthetic Dye and Pigment Global Market Report. 2022. Available online: https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/synthetic-dye-and-pigment-global-market-report (accessed on 27 December 2022).
• Echegaray, N.; Guzel, N.; Kumar, M.; Guzel, M.; Hassoun, A.; Lorenzo, J.M. Recent Advancements in Natural Colorants and Their Application as Coloring in Food and in Intelligent Food Packaging. Food Chem. 2023 , 404 , 134453. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ezati, P.; Rhim, J.-W. Starch and Agar-Based Color-Indicator Films Integrated with Shikonin for Smart Packaging Application of Shrimp. ACS Food Sci. Technol. 2021 , 1 , 1963–1969. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Viera, I.; Pérez-Gálvez, A.; Roca, M.; Barros, L.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Green Natural Colorants. Molecules 2019 , 24 , 154. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lin, W.S.; He, P.H.; Chau, C.F.; Liou, B.K.; Li, S.; Pan, M.H. The Feasibility Study of Natural Pigments as Food Colorants and Seasonings Pigments Safety on Dried Tofu Coloring. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2018 , 7 , 220–228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jurić, S.; Jurić, M.; Król-Kilińska, Ż.; Vlahoviček-Kahlina, K.; Vinceković, M.; Dragović-Uzelac, V.; Donsì, F. Sources, Stability, Encapsulation and Application of Natural Pigments in Foods. Food Rev. Int. 2022 , 38 , 1735–1790. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Teixeira, V.M.C.; da Silva, R.F.G.; Gonçalves, O.H.; Pereira, C.; Barros, L.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R.; Bona, E.; Leimann, F.V. Chemometric Approaches to Evaluate the Substitution of Synthetic Food Dyes by Natural Compounds: The Case of Nanoencapsulated Curcumin, Spirulina, and Hibiscus Extracts. LWT 2022 , 154 , 112786. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Escalante-Aburto, A.; Trujillo-de Santiago, G.; Álvarez, M.M.; Chuck-Hernández, C. Advances and Prospective Applications of 3D Food Printing for Health Improvement and Personalized Nutrition. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021 , 20 , 5722–5741. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, J.H.; Won, D.J.; Kim, H.W.; Park, H.J. Effect of Particle Size on 3D Printing Performance of the Food-Ink System with Cellular Food Materials. J. Food Eng. 2019 , 256 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qiu, L.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B.; Chitrakar, B.; Chang, L. Investigation of 3D Printing of Apple and Edible Rose Blends as a Dysphagia Food. Food Hydrocoll. 2023 , 135 , 108184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Derossi, A.; Caporizzi, R.; Azzollini, D.; Severini, C. Application of 3D Printing for Customized Food. A Case on the Development of a Fruit-Based Snack for Children. J. Food Eng. 2018 , 220 , 65–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, C.; Zhang, M.; Guo, C. 4D Printing of Mashed Potato/Purple Sweet Potato Puree with Spontaneous Color Change. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2020 , 59 , 102250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghazal, A.F.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B.; Chen, H. Investigation on Spontaneous 4D Changes in Color and Flavor of Healthy 3D Printed Food Materials over Time in Response to External or Internal PH Stimulus. Food Res. Int. 2021 , 142 , 110215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chen, C.; Zhang, M.; Guo, C.; Chen, H. 4D Printing of Lotus Root Powder Gel: Color Change Induced by Microwave. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2021 , 68 , 102605. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ozcan, A.; Arman Kandirmaz, E. Natural Ink Production and Printability Studies for Smart Food Packaging. Color Res. Appl. 2020 , 45 , 495–502. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Latos-Brozio, M.; Masek, A. The Application of Natural Food Colorants as Indicator Substances in Intelligent Biodegradable Packaging Materials. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020 , 135 , 110975. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Li, S.; Jiang, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Li, R.; Jiang, Y.; Alomgir Hossen, M.; Dai, J.; Qin, W.; Liu, Y. Facile Fabrication of Sandwich-like Anthocyanin/Chitosan/Lemongrass Essential Oil Films via 3D Printing for Intelligent Evaluation of Pork Freshness. Food Chem. 2022 , 370 , 131082. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Alizadeh-Sani, M.; Moghaddas Kia, E.; Ghasempour, Z.; Ehsani, A. Preparation of Active Nanocomposite Film Consisting of Sodium Caseinate, ZnO Nanoparticles and Rosemary Essential Oil for Food Packaging Applications. J. Polym. Environ. 2021 , 29 , 588–598. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rachmelia, D.; Imawan, C. Time Temperature Indicator Label Using Black Corn Extract and Chitosan Matrix. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018 , 1120 , 012041. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yousefi, H.; Su, H.-M.; Imani, S.M.; Alkhaldi, K.; Filipe, C.D.M.; Didar, T.F. Intelligent Food Packaging: A Review of Smart Sensing Technologies for Monitoring Food Quality. ACS Sens. 2019 , 4 , 808–821. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Erna, K.H.; Felicia, W.X.L.; Rovina, K.; Vonnie, J.M.; Huda, N. Development of Curcumin/Rice Starch Films for Sensitive Detection of Hypoxanthine in Chicken and Fish Meat. Carbohydr. Polym. Technol. Appl. 2022 , 3 , 100189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boccalon, E.; Viscusi, G.; Lamberti, E.; Fancello, F.; Zara, S.; Sassi, P.; Marinozzi, M.; Nocchetti, M.; Gorrasi, G. Composite Films Containing Red Onion Skin Extract as Intelligent PH Indicators for Food Packaging. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2022 , 593 , 153319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, W.; Wu, Z.; Xie, F.; Tang, S.; Fang, J.; Wang, X. 3D Printed Nanocellulose-Based Label for Fruit Freshness Keeping and Visual Monitoring. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021 , 273 , 118545. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cerreti, M.; Liburdi, K.; del Franco, F.; Esti, M. Heat and Light Stability of Natural Yellow Colourants in Model Beverage Systems. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2020 , 37 , 905–915. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yusuf, M.; Shabbir, M.; Mohammad, F. Natural Colorants: Historical, Processing and Sustainable Prospects. Nat. Prod. Bioprospect. 2017 , 7 , 123–145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Coultate, T.; Blackburn, R.S. Food Colorants: Their Past, Present and Future. Color. Technol. 2018 , 134 , 165–186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dufossé, L. Current and Potential Natural Pigments From Microorganisms (Bacteria, Yeasts, Fungi, Microalgae). In Handbook on Natural Pigments in Food and Beverages: Industrial Applications for Improving Food Color ; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 337–354. ISBN 9780081003923. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vankar, P.S.; Shukla, D. Natural Dyeing with Anthocyanins from Hibiscus Rosa Sinensis Flowers. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2011 , 122 , 3361–3368. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Versino, F.; Ortega, F.; Monroy, Y.; Rivero, S.; López, O.V.; García, M.A. Sustainable and Bio-Based Food Packaging: A Review on Past and Current Design Innovations. Foods 2023 , 12 , 1057. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12051057

Versino F, Ortega F, Monroy Y, Rivero S, López OV, García MA. Sustainable and Bio-Based Food Packaging: A Review on Past and Current Design Innovations. Foods . 2023; 12(5):1057. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12051057

Versino, Florencia, Florencia Ortega, Yuliana Monroy, Sandra Rivero, Olivia Valeria López, and María Alejandra García. 2023. "Sustainable and Bio-Based Food Packaging: A Review on Past and Current Design Innovations" Foods 12, no. 5: 1057. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12051057

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals