Edible nanofiller for development of

edible bio-nanocomposite film: A review

Ruzanna Ahmad Shapii

 Outline
Introduction
Types of edible nanofiller
Mechanical properties
Barrier properties
Performance of edible nanofiller
Recent application of edible
nanofiller
Conclusion
Recommendation
 Introduction
Edible film is a thin layer of edible material applied on
food products for preservation, distribution and marketing.
Edible film made up from biopolymer material which is
environmental friendly and non-toxic food barrier
property.
Advantage of edible film:
Non-toxic
Non-pollutant
Easy to decompose
However, it has poor mechanical and barrier properties
compared to conventional synthetic film.
Implementation of nanotechnology into biopolymer
materials has the potential to improve the lack properties
of biopolymer. This material known as bio-
nanocomposite.
 Introduction
Bio-nanocomposite consists of biopolymer
matrix reinforced with nanofiller having
dimensions smaller than 100nm.
Application of nanofiller into edible film matrix
may enhance mechanical strength, barrier
properties and other desired properties.
Nanofiller has dimension less than 100nm thus it
is easier to migrate from food package into
food tissue.
Inorganic nanofiller such as silver, magnesium
oxide and zinc oxide may cause harm to human
health.
Therefore, it is very important to identify
organic nanofiller from natural sources as
 Types of edible nanofiller: Cellulose

Sources

Ramie
Grass fiber
Coconut
fiber
Cotton fiber

1. It has high strength, stiff,

light weight, biodegradable
and renewable.
2. However, separation of plant
fibers into smaller elementary
constituent
Picture retrieved is very challenging
from: http://chemeng.mcmaster.ca/faculty/emily-
Types of edible nanofiller: Chitin
1. Sources: crab shell, shrimp Shrimp or crab shell

shell
Acid treatment to
2. Treatment of chitin under acid dissolve calcium
hydrolysis will produce carbonate

chitin nanocrystal (rodlike Alkaline treatment to

appearance). dissolve protein

3. Mechanical treatment of
chitin will produce chitin Chitin flakes

nanofibers (fibrillar in
Acid hydrolysis or
appearance) mechanical
4. It can enhance strength of treatment

starch-based materials,
Nano-sized chitin
exhibit antifungal, and
improve barrier
 Types of edible nanofiller: Chitosan

1. Sources: crab shell, shrimp Chitin

shell, chitin flake
2. It is non toxic, Deacetylation
biodegradable, under alkaline
solution
biofunctional,
biocompatible, and exhibit
antimicrobial properties. Chitosan
3. Unlike chitin, chitosan is easily
soluble in aqueous acidic Undergo further
solution thus it is widely used ionic gelation
in many applications.
Nano-sized
chitosan
 Mechanical properties
Addition of nanofiller into edible film may increase the
contact surface area within biopolymer matrix.

filler

matrix
microcomposit nanocomposite
e
Good affinity between filler and matrix can enhance
mechanical properties of edible film.
Tensile strength of bio-nanocomposite was found
to be higher than biocomposite although the same
amount of filler was used.
Addition of nanosized filler has the potential to improve
film strength but not film elasticity [1].
 Mechanical properties: size of
nanofiller
Large surface area of nanofiller has the ability to
improve filler-matrix interaction, thus increase
mechanical strength of composite.
Tiny size nanofiller tend to occupy the empty
pores of matrix.
Smaller size nanofiller used will increase the
tensile strength of film[2]. Example of
nanochitosan and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose
Nanofiller Tensile strength of
(HPMC): size film
85 nm 62.6 MPa
221 nm <40 MPa
 Mechanical properties: Effect of
nanofiller amount
Increasing amount of nanofiller can improve the tensile
strength of edible film but decrease the elongation of film.
Chang et al [3] found that varied amount of nanochitosan
(0-6 wt%) into potato starch can increase tensile
strength from 2.84 MPa to 10.8 Mpa while
elongation at break decrease from 59.3% to 22.7%.
However, adding more nanochitosan (>6wt%) will lead to
the agglomeration of nanofillers which reduced the
rigidity and strength of edible film.
agglomerati
on

Edible film Edible film

containing containing
4% 8%
nanochitosa nanochitos
n an

Figure from: Chang, P.R. et al., 2010. Food Chemistry, 120(3), pp.736740.
 Barrier properties
Food packaging material must be able to protect food from
moisture, gas and other volatile materials.
However, typical edible film has low barrier properties
due to the porous structure.
Nanofiller has more ability to fill in the empty spaces of
porous structure in edible film compared to microfiller.
Good affinity and molecular interaction between nanofiller and
matrix produce more compact structure of edible film[4].

Without With
nanofiller nanofiller
Figure from: Rhim, J.-W., Park, H.-M. & Ha, C.-S., 2013. Progress in Polymer Science, 38(10-11),
 Barrier properties
Compact structure of edible film create more difficult and
longer pathway of water, gas and volatile materials
to travel thus improve their barrier properties.
Good dispersion of nanofiller in matrix will lead to tortuous
pathway [3][5].

a) Unfilled
b) Filled with
nanofiller

Tortuous pathway forcing water vapor, gas, and volatile

materials to travel through film in longer path [6].

Figure from: Duncan, T. V, 2011. Journal of colloid and interface science, 363(1), pp.124.
Performance of edible nanofiller in
food packaging application
Improved mechanical strength
Good barrier properties (water vapor, CO2, O2)
High thermal stability
Act as antioxidant carrier
Able to inhibit microbial growth
Protect food from excessive dehydration and
nutrition losses
Easily to degrade
Non toxic and reduce potential harm to human
health.
Recent application of nanofiller as
edible film

Cellulose Chitin Chitosan

Potato Carrageena HPMC

starch n film[11] film[2]
film[7] Thermoplas Potato
Agar film[8] tic starch starch
Alginate- film[12] film[3]
acerola Fish gelatin
film[9] film[13]
Gelatin
film[10]
Mango
[5]
 Conclusion
Application of edible nanofiller from natural
sources may produce non-toxic edible film.
It can reduces potential of adverse effect on
human health.
Furthermore, it have potential to replace
conventional plastic because their sources are
renewable and environmental friendly.
The studies on edible nanofiller are still new
but it may promise many benefits to food
packaging development.
 Recommendation
Chitosan and cellulose has bright future as nanofiller
because of their performance and renewable.
They can be easily found from waste such as coconut
husk fiber and shrimp shell which are abundant in many
country.
However, there are still lack of information on potential
nanofiller and its application.
Detail study on the properties of nanofiller and
bionanocomposite must be continued in order to produce
efficient and safe packaging material.
Scientist should also study on toxicity of nanofiller before
applied to the food or human. We must avoid any
potential dangers that give adverse effect to human
health.
 Reference
1. J. Antoniou, F. Liu, H. Majeed, and F. Zhong, Food Hydrocoll., vol. 44, pp.
309319, 2015.
2. M. R. De Moura, F. a. Aouada, R. J. Avena-Bustillos, T. H. McHugh, J. M.
Krochta, and L. H. C. Mattoso, J. Food Eng., vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 448453,
2009.
3. P. R. Chang, R. Jian, J. Yu, and X. Ma, Food Chem., vol. 120, no. 3, pp. 736
740, Jun. 2010.
4. J.-W. Rhim, H.-M. Park, and C.-S. Ha, Prog. Polym. Sci., vol. 38, no. 1011,
pp. 16291652, Oct. 2013.
5. H. M. C. Azeredo, L. H. C. Mattoso, D. Wood, T. G. Williams, R. J. Avena-
Bustillos, and T. H. McHugh, J. Food Sci., vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 3135, 2009.
6. T. V Duncan, J. Colloid Interface Sci., vol. 363, no. 1, pp. 124, Nov. 2011.
7. N. Vigneshwaran, L. Ammayappan, and Q. Huang, Appl. Nanosci., vol. 1,
no. 3, pp. 137142, 2011.
8. J. P. Reddy and J.-W. Rhim, Carbohydr. Polym., vol. 110, pp. 4808, Sep.
2014.
9. H. M. C. Azeredo, K. W. E. Miranda, M. F. Rosa, D. M. Nascimento, and M. R.
de Moura, LWT - Food Sci. Technol., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 294297, Apr. 2012.
10. J. George and Siddaramaiah, Carbohydr. Polym., vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 2031
2037, Feb. 2012.
11. S. Shankar, J. P. Reddy, J.-W. Rhim, and H.-Y. Kim, Carbohydr. Polym., vol.
117, pp. 46875, Mar. 2015.
12. A. M. Salaberria, R. H. Diaz, J. Labidi, and S. M. Fernandes, Food Hydrocoll.,