A MINOR PROJECT REPORT ON

MANUFACTURING, ECONOMICS AND

PROPERTIES OF BIODEGRADABLE
GREEN PLASTIC FROM POTATO STARCH

Submitted for the partial fulfilment of the Third Year (Sixth

Semester) Bachelor of Technology (Chemical Technology) specialization
in Pulp and Paper Technology during the academic year 2020-2021.

Submitted by

1)Mayuri Bezalwar 2)Arti Bhade

Under the Guidance of

Dr. Sanjib Sen

Dr .Jaykumar Bhasarkar

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY

RASHTRASANT TUKADOJI MAHARAJ NAGPUR UNIVERSITY
LAXMINARAYAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY , NAGPUR
2020-2021
 DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY
RASHTRASANT TUKADOJI MAHARAJ NAGPUR
UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR
2020-2021

Certificate
This is to certify that the minor project entitled “Manufacturing
, economics and properties of biodegradable green plastic from
potato starch ” submitted by Miss. Mayuri Bezalwar & Miss. Arti
Bhade are being submitted for the partial fulfilment of the Third Year
(Sixth Semester) Bachelor of Technology (Chemical Technology)
specialization in Pulp and Paper Technology during the academic year
2020-2021.

GUIDE

Dr. Sanjib Sen

(Prof. and Head of the Department)
Dr. Jaykumar Bhasarkar
(Asst. Prof. of the Department)

Date: - …………………
Place: - Nagpur.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to convey our heartful thanks to our respected director

of our institute Dr. R. B. Mankar sir our guide Prof. Dr. Sanjib Sen Sir,
Head of Department of Pulp and Paper Technology and Asst. Prof. Dr.
Jaykumar Bhasarkar sir. It gives us immense pleasure to express our
deepest sense of gratitude and sincere thanks to our highly respected guide
, for their encouraging guidance, valuable suggestion that has played a
major role in the formulation and successful completion of this minor
project “Manufacturing, Economics And Properties of biodegradable
green plastic from potato starch ”. Their useful suggestion for this whole
work and co-operative behavior are sincerely acknowledge. We would also
like to convey our thanks to the institute librarian staff for their cooperative
behavior

We wish to thank all teaching staff of the institute, the DTB

operator, our family members, friends and all those who contributed
directly or indirectly in completion of this minor project.

Date: - ………………
Place: -Nagpur

( ) ( )
Miss. Mayuri Bezalwar Miss. Arti Bhade
INDEX

SR.NO TOPIC NAME PAGE NO

01 INTRODUCTION

02 LITERATURE SURVEY

03 PRODUCTION OF BIOPLASTIC

04 KINETICTS OF REACTION

05 ECONOMICS

06 CONCLUSION

07 REFERENCE

08 APPENDIX
 LIST OF FIGURES

Sr. No Name of Figure

Fig.1 A sea turtle found in the Pacific Ocean had this debris in its stomach,
according to The Ocean Cleanup, a foundation.
Fig.2 A dead albatross chick found on Midway Atoll in the Pacific Ocean with
plastic debris in its stomach.
Fig.3 A dolphin with a plastic bag trailing from its fin swims in the Fernando de
Noronha Archipelago in Brazil.
Fig.4 A plastic band restricts the growth of a blue striped grunt fish in the
Caribbean Sea.
Fig.5 Process of recycling of plastic.

Fig.6 How is plastic recycled.

Fig.7 Schematic representation of the structure of a starch granule

Fig.8 Sucrose-starch biosynthesis pathway.

Fig.9 Illustration of the starch biosynthesis pathway in potato tubers. and represent
putative transporters.
Fig.10 Structure of amylose and amylopectin.

Reaction of starch and glycerol producing gelatinized starch (TPS)

Fig .11 Thermoplastic starch.
Fig.12 Reaction of amylose and amylopectin.

Fig.13 PEF treatment.

Fig.14 Bioplastic in four different types

Fig .15 Swelling test of synthesized potato starch bioplastic in different solvent

Fig 16 flow chart for bioplastic

Fig . 17 Comparison of different types of plastic properties

 LIST FOF TABLES

Sr. No Name of Table

Table No 1 Solubility test of synthesized potato starch bioplastic in different solvents

Table No 2 Swelling test of synthesized Potato starch bioplastic in different solvents

Table No.3 Energy required from non-renewable sources and CO₂ emissions for different
types of plastics currently on the market

Table No.4 Eutrophication and acidification for different types of plastics currently on the
market

Table No.5 . Pros and Cons of Petro based and Biobased Plastics

LIST OF GRAPHS

Graph No .1
WAXS pattern for waxy potato starch (B type crystals)

Graph No. 2 WAXS pattern for corn starch (A type crystals)

Graph No.3 WAXS patterns for TPS where the lower curve has been aged compared with
the upper curve

Graph No. 4 FTIR analysis of Synthesized Bioplastic (Potato starch )

Graph No .5 The WVTR (a), Ts (b), and transparency (c) of the potato starch films with
nano-SiO₂ of different sizes.

Graph No.6 TG-DTG curve of bioplastic

 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

1. UK – United Kingdom
2. PCBs – Polychlorinated biphenyls
3. PVC – Polyvinyl chloride
4. US – United states
5. EU – European Union
6. LDPE – Low density polyethylene
7. FDA – Food and drug administration
8. ADP – Adenosine diphosphate glucose
9. SS – Starch synthesis
10. SBE – Starch branching enzymes
11. DBE – Debranching enzymes
12. MOS – Malt oligosaccharides
13. GBSS – Granular bound starch synthase
14. cDNA – Complementary deoxyribo-nucleic acid
15. UDP – Uridine diphosphate glucose
16. C-3 – Carbon 3
17. ATP – Adenosine triphosphate
18. TPS – thermoplastic starch
19. SEM – Scanning electron microscope
20. LCST – Lower critical solution temperature
21. WAXS – Wide angle X-ray scattering
22. Mf-TM – Moderated force thermomechanometry
23. DMA – Dynamic mechanical analysis
24. TSDC – Thermally stimulated depolarization current
25. FTIR – Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy
26. KBr – Potassium bromide
27. N-H – Nitrogen-Hydrogen
28. C-H – Carbon-Hydrogen
29. O-H – Oxygen-Hydrogen
30. WVTR – Water vapor transmission rate
31. OTR – Oxygen transmission rate
32. CDTR – Carbon dioxide transmission rate
33. AMTG – Accurate magnetic thickness gauge
34. SiO2 – Silicon dioxide
35. UV – Ultraviolet
36. LCA – Life cycle analysis
37. 1,4-DB – 1,4-dichlorobenzene
38. C2H4 – Ethylene
39. PLA – Poly laticacid
40. PHA – Poly hydroxyalkanoates
41. PET – Poly ethylene terephthalate
42. PS – Poly styrene
43. PV-OH – Poly vinyl alcohol
44. HDPE – High density poly ethylene
45. PCL – Poly caprolactone
46. PE – Poly ethylene
47. FWO – Flynn-wall-ozawa
48. PA – Poly amide
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
In today’s world we cannot imagine the life without plastics, from milk jigs soda bottles to
clothing and car parts, it is part our life. The plastic which are using today are from fossil
fuels. Fossil fuel provide both power and the law materials that transform crude oil into
common plastics such as polystyrene, polyethylene and polypropylene, but the sustainability
of their production has increasingly been called into question global reserves of oil are
expected to run dying in approximately 80 years, natural gas in 70 years and coal in 700 years
, but economic impact of their depletion could hit much sooner as the resource finish, price
will go a reality that has not escaped the attention of policy maker. Traditional manufacturing
of plastics uses a large amount of fossil fuel. Automobiles trucks, jet and power plant account
for more than 90% of the output from crude oil refineries, but plastic consume the bulk of
reminder, and the main problem will plastic it is not degradable and it stays in the earth crust
more than 100 years and spoils the fertility of soil. In a recent year there are many researchers
which are fighting for the ban of uses of plastic, but people will stop using them only when
there is another product in the market which is compatible with plastic. To replace plastic, we
need another product which has all properties of plastic eco-friendly and which is degradable
such a product is green plastic.

How much plastic is being used every year throughout the world?

The world now produces more than 380 million tons of plastic every year, which could end
up as pollutants, entering our natural environment and oceans.

Of course, not all of our plastic waste ends up in the ocean, most ends up in landfills: it's
estimated that the share of global plastic waste that enters the ocean is around 3%. In 2010
the year for which we have the latest estimates-that was around 8 million tones.

Most of the plastic materials we produce are less dense than water and should therefore float
at the ocean surface. But our best estimates of the amount of plastic afloat at sea are orders of
magnitude lower than the amount of plastic that enters our oceans in a single year, as we
show in the visualization, it's far lower than 8 million tons and instead in the order of 10s to
100s of thousands of tones. One of the most widely-quoted estimates is 250,000 tons.

If we currently pollute our oceans with millions of tons of plastic each year, we must have
released tens of millions of tons in recent decades. Why then do we find at least 100 times
less plastics in our surface waters?

This discrepancy is often referred to as the 'missing plastic problem'. It's a conundrum we
need to address if we want to understand where plastic waste could end up, and what its
impacts might be for wildlife and ecosystems. [1]Management of Plastic Wastes

Management of Plastic Wastes

Management of plastic waste Plastic Wastes
Landfilling
Approximately 10% of household waste is plastics and mostly end up on the landfill Even
though landfilling is the commonest waste management conventional approach in many
countries, however, scarcity of space for landfills is becoming a major problem. For
example, historically, landfilling was attractive in the UK because it is relatively cheap and
simple without necessarily requiring treatment, cleaning or separation. In 1999, 65% (8.4
million tonnes per annum) of the overall household waste recoverable plastics were sent to
landfill in Western Europe, but at present in the UK, plastic waste landfilling is the least
favoured waste management option. There is a growing environmental and public health
concern about the potential effects of landfills because of the types and quantities of toxic
chemicals and their potential for leaching at landfill sites. It is now a government policy in
the UK to reduce the amount of wastes landfilled which has been difficult to materialize as
an estimated 60% of England's municipal wastes is still sent to the landfills compared to an
estimated of 20% and 37% in Germany and France, respectively.
Environmental pollution and risks to public health can be reduced if the landfills are well-
managed, although there are possibilities of soil and groundwater contamination by
disintegrated plastic by-products and additives that can persist in the environment on long-
term basis.

Plastic incineration
An alternative to landfilling of plastic waste is incineration, but growing concerns exist
about the potential atmospheric release of hazardous chemicals during the process. For
instance, plastic waste fumes release halogenated additives and polyvinyl chloride, while
furans, dioxins, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are released from incineration of
plastics into the environment. The disadvantage of combustion of plastics is the air
pollution caused by the noxious fumes released into the atmospheres. The combustion
heater of the flue systems is permanently damaged by plastics during plastic incineration
and the products of this plastic combustion are detrimental to both humans and the
environment. Compounds of low molecular weight can vaporize directly into the air
thereby polluting the air and based on their varieties, some may form a combustible
mixture, while others may oxidize in solid form.
Incineration of plastics is usually accompanied with the formation of charka, and the coking
extent is dependent on the conditions of incineration. Gaseous release in the process of
plastic and plastic composite products incineration are very dangerous. The compounds
release during the incineration of PVC and the health effects of these compounds. In t he
process of incineration of plastics, soot, ashes and different powders are produced, which
eventually settles on plants and soil, with the potential to migrate to the aquatic
environment. Rainfall can make some of these toxic compounds to sink into the soil,
contaminate the ground water or absorbed by plants growing on this soil, thus, becoming
incorporated into the food chain. Some of these plastic incineration products can
chemically react with water and the resulting compounds can alter the pH thereby change
the functioning of aquatic ecosystems.

Due to the potential pollution impact on the environment, plastic incineration is less
employed for waste management in comparison to recycling and landfilling. Notable
exceptions to this are European countries like Sweden and Denmark, as well as Japan, with
massive incinerator facilities for managing municipal solid waste including plastics.
However, countries like Hungary has enacted regulations. Regulation of the Ministry of
Agriculture on waste incineration, which allow for only licensed plastic waste incineration
plants to incinerate plastics, while all other forms of burning plastic waste are banned. An
advantage of plastic incineration is the recovery of energy from the plastic wastes.

Recycling of plastic
Reprocessing of recovered plastic scraps or wastes into usable products is called plastic
recycling. Most plastics are non-biodegradable in nature hence, the fundamental work is
reduction of waste emissions, effective management and recycling of resulting wastes.
Recycling of plastics is a major aspect of the worldwide efforts in minimizing the yearly 8
million tonnes of plastics in the waste stream entering the Earth's ocean. According to
Hopewell, plastic recycling terminology is complex due to varieties of recovery activities
and recycling.
There are four main categories of recycling which are:
 Primary (which involves the mechanical reprocessing of plastics into a new product
with equivalent properties)
 Secondary (which involves the mechanical reprocessing of plastics into a product
with lower properties)
 Tertiary (which involves the recovery of the chemical constituents of the plastics)
 Quaternary (which involves energy recovery from the plastics).
In comparison to the lucrative metal recycling but similar to the low value of glass
recycling, recycling of plastics is often more challenging because of low density and low
value. Also, there are several technical issues to deal with when recycling plastic. Melting
together of different plastic types often cause phase-separation similar to oil and water, and
they set in these layers. The resulting phase boundaries is responsible for structural
weakness in the final product(s), which has limited the application of this polymer blends.
This is the case with polyethylene and polypropylene, which are the two plastics commonly
manufactured, and therefore has limited their use for recycling. Of recent, block
copolymers have been proposed as a form of macromolecular welding flux or molecular
stitches in other to overcome this challenge of phase-separation during plastic recycling.
There can be increase in the percentage of plastics with the possibility of full recycling
instead of the large quantity generated as wastes if package good manufacturers reduce
their mixing of packaging materials and eliminate contaminants. In view of this, a design
guide has been issued by the Association of Plastics Recyclers for recyclability of plastics.
There has been an increase in the volume of post-consumer plastics recycled since 1990,
although it is still incomparable to other items like corrugated fibreboard (approximately
70%) and newspaper (approximately 80%). For example, in US, the post-consumer plastic
wastes generated in 2008 was approximately 33.6 million tons, out of which 6.5% (2.2
million tons) were recycled, while 8% (2.6 million tons) and 86% (28.9 million tons) were
burned and landfilled, respectively.
Some governments use policy to encourage postconsumer recycling, such as the EU
Directive on packaging and packaging waste. This subsequently led Germany to set-up
legislation for extended producer responsibility that resulted in the die (Green Dot) scheme
to implement recovery and recycling of packaging. In the UK, producer responsibility was
enacted through a scheme for generating and trading packaging recovery notes, plus more
recently a landfill levy to fund a range of waste reduction activities. As a consequence of all
the above trends, the market value of recycled polymer and hence the viability of recycling
have increased markedly over the last few years, Globally in 2015, about 9% of the 6.3
billion tons plastic wastes generated had been recycled, while 12% and 79% were
incinerated and landfilled, respectively . However, in 2016, the global rate of recycling
grew to about 14% of the total generated plastic waste. Major contributors to this increment
include countries like Japan, where plastic waste recycling rose from 39% (1996) to 83%
(2014) according to their Plastic Waste Management Institute.

Environmental pollution by plastic wastes

Distribution of plastic waste is associated with human populations. Increase in human
population has led to increase demands for plastics and plastic products. Indiscriminate
disposal of wastes from plastics and plastic products can lead to environmental pollution
which is evident in several ways including environmental natural beauty deterioration ,
entanglement and death of aquatic organisms , sewage system blockage in towns and cities
especially in developing countries , resulting in creating conducive environment for
breeding mosquitoes and other disease causing vectors and production of foul smells ,
reduction in water percolation and normal agricultural soils aeration thus causing reduced
productivity in such lands [2].
How much of the plastic is discarded and going as waste?
While plastic has many valuable uses, we have become addicted to single-use or disposable
plastic with severe environmental consequences. Around the world, one million plastic
drinking bottles are purchased every minute, while 5 trillion single-use plastic bags are used
worldwide every year. In total, half of all plastic produced is designed to be used only once
and then thrown away. Plastic waste is now so ubiquitous in the natural environment that
scientists have even suggested it could serve as a geological indicator of the Anthropocene
era
Researchers estimate that more than 8.3 billion tonnes of plastic have been produced since
the early 1950s. About 60% of that plastic has ended up in either a landfill or the natural
environment. We’re seeing some other worrying trends. Since the 1950s, the rate of plastic
production has grown faster than that of any other material. We’ve also seen a shift away
from the production of durable plastic, and towards plastics that are meant to be thrown away
after a single use. More than 99% of plastics are produced from chemicals derived from oil,
natural gas and coal, all of which are dirty, non-renewable resources. If current trends
continue, by 2050 the plastic industry could account for 20% of the world’s total oil
consumption.
Only 9% of all plastic waste ever produced has been recycled. About 12% has been
incinerated, while the rest 79% has accumulated in landfills, dumps or the natural
environment. Cigarette butts whose filters contain tiny plastic fibres were the most common
type of plastic waste found in the environment in a recent global survey. Drink bottles, bottle
caps, food wrappers, grocery bags, drink lids, straws and stirrers were the next most common
items. Many of us use these products every day, without even thinking about where they
might end up .If current trends continue, our oceans could contain more plastic than fish by
2050.The global volume of plastic waste continues to grow, and some of the biggest
producers don’t manage their waste effectively[3].
How does plastic impact wildlife and human health?

There have been many documented incidences of the impact of plastic on ecosystems and
wildlife. Peer-reviewed publications of plastic impacts date back to the 1980s
An analysis by Rochman reviews the findings of peer-reviewed documentation of the impacts
of marine plastic debris on animal life the results of this study are presented
Nonetheless, despite many documented cases, it's widely acknowledged that the full extent of
impacts on ecosystems is not yet known.
There are three key pathways by which plastic debris can affect wildlife:

Entanglement - the entrapping, encircling or constricting of marine animals by plastic

debris.
Entanglement cases have been reported for at least 344 species to date, including all marine
turtle species, more than two-thirds of seal species, one-third of whale species, and one
quarter of seabirds. Entanglement by 89 species of fish and 92 species of invertebrates has
also been recorded.
Entanglements most commonly involve plastic rope and netting and abandoned fishing gear.
However, entanglement by other plastics such as packaging have also been recorded.

Ingestion - Ingestion of plastic can occur unintentionally, intentionally, or indirectly through

the ingestion of prey species containing plastic. It has been documented for at least 233
marine species, including all marine turtle species, more than one-third of seal species, 59%
of whale species, and 59% of seabirds. Ingestion by 92 species of fish and 6 species of
invertebrates has also been recorded.

The size of the ingested material is ultimately limited by the size of the organism. Very small
particles such as plastic fibers can be taken up by small organisms such as filter-feeding
oysters or mussels; larger materials such as plastic films, cigarette packets, and food
packaging have been found in large fish species; and in extreme cases, documented cases of
sperm whales have shown ingestion of very large materials including 9m of rope, 4.5m of
base, two flowerpots, and large amounts of plastic sheeting

Ingestion of plastics can have multiple impacts on organism health Large volumes of plastic
can greatly reduce stomach capacity, leading to poor appetite and false sense of satiation.
Plastic can also obstruct or perforate the gut, cause ulcerative lesions, or gastric rupture. This
can ultimately lead to death.
In laboratory settings, biochemical responses to plastic ingestion have also been observed.
These responses include oxidative stress, metabolic disruption, reduced enzyme activity, and
cellular necrosis.

Interaction-interaction includes collisions, obstructions, abrasions or use as substrate. There

are multiple scenarios where this can have an impact on organisms. Fishing gear, for
example, has been shown to cause abrasion and damage to coral reef ecosystems upon
collision. Ecosystem structures can also be impacted by plastics following interference of
substrate with plastics (impacting on light penetration, organic matter availability and oxygen
exchange) [1].

What happens when animals and fish consume the plastic?

According to the United Nations, at least 800 species worldwide are affected by marine
debris, and as much as 80 percent of that litter is plastic. It is estimated that up to 13 million
metric tons of plastic ends up in the ocean each year-the equivalent of a rubbish or garbage
truck load's worth every minute. Fish, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals can become
entangled in or ingest plastic debris, causing suffocation, starvation, and drowning. Humans
are not immune to this threat: While plastics are estimated to take up to hundreds of years to
fully decompose, some of them break down much quicker into tiny particles, which in turn
end up in the seafood we eat.

Fig 1: A sea turtle found in the Pacific Ocean had this debris in its stomach, according to The Ocean
Cleanup, a foundation.

Research indicates that half of sea turtles worldwide have ingested plastic. Some starve after
doing so, mistakenly believing they have eaten enough because their stomachs are full. On
many beaches, plastic pollution is so pervasive that it's affecting turtles' reproduction rates by
altering the temperatures of the sand where incubation occurs.

A recent study found that sea turtles that ingest just 14 pieces of plastic have an increased risk
of death. The young are especially at risk because they are not as selective as their elders
about what they eat and tend to drift with currents, just as plastic does.

Fig 2: A dead albatross chick found on Midway Atoll in the Pacific Ocean with plastic debris
in its stomach.

Plastic waste kills up to a million seabirds a year. As with sea turtles, when seabirds ingest
plastic, it takes up room in their stomachs, sometimes causing starvation. Many seabirds are
found dead with their stomachs full of this waste. Scientists estimate that 60 percent of all
seabird species have eaten pieces of plastic, a figure they predict will rise to 99 percent by
2050.
Fig 3: A dolphin with a plastic bag trailing from its fin swims in the Fernando de Noronha
Archipelago in Brazil.

While dolphins are highly intelligent and thus unlikely to eat plastic, they are susceptible to
contamination through prey that have ingested synthetic compounds.

Plastic in our oceans affects creatures large and small. From seabirds, whales, and dolphins,
to tiny seahorses that live in coral reefs and schools of fish that reside on those same reefs and
nearby mangroves.

Fig 4: A plastic band restricts the growth of a blue striped grunt fish in the Caribbean Sea.

Plastic waste can encourage the growth of pathogens in the ocean. According to a recent
study, scientists concluded that corals that come into contact with plastic have an 89 percent
chance of contracting disease, compared with a 4 percent likelihood for corals that do not.

Unless action is taken soon to address this urgent problem, scientists predict that the weight
of ocean plastics will exceed the combined weight of all of the fish in the seas by 2050.[4]

7 Challenges for plastic recycling

Despite their significant value, most end-of-life plastic products are currently incinerated. By
understanding the properties of different types of plastic, we can recycle much more than we
do today and create a circular economy for this valuable resource. Below, is an explanation of
the challenges facing plastic recycling and how we can help you manage them.

1. INCREASING KNOWLEDGE

The term plastic is in fact, a collective name for several hundred different kinds of material.
Due to lack of knowledge, different types of plastic are often combined in manufacturing
processes, which makes recycling them much more difficult. This often leads to plastics
being incinerated. which is a major waste of valuable resources. We have the tools and
knowledge to create circular recycling for plastics. From product design to waste sorting and
collection, we can keep more plastic in circulation. We can help you with training and by
sharing our knowledge. By collaborating on an analysis of your business, we can set goals
and create clear action plans.

2. FINDING VALUE

As virgin raw materials are sometimes cheaper, we must find the added value that plastic
recycling creates. Highlighting your recycling work and objectives for customers and other
stakeholders can positively affect both sustainability communication and sales.

3. DESIGN FOR RECYCLING

A great many products are manufactured in ways that make the plastic content difficult to
separate and, therefore, recycle. For example, different plastic types may be combined or
other materials, such as glue and metal screws, bonded or fixed to the plastic. By considering
these issues at the design stage, it becomes easier to disassemble products into waste fractions
that do not contain residues of other material. This requires specific expertise and knowledge
of materials. Stena Recycling can offer both training and guidance so that the plastic content
in end-of-life products can be returned into circulation and used to manufacture new
products.

4. CORRECT SORTING

Plastic is a complex material and each type has unique properties that affect its color, shape,
structure and melting point. Therefore, it is important to sort plastic into different categories
so that it can be kept as pure as possible. Stena Recycling can help, not only with collection
but also with advice about of what to consider when sorting waste.

5. INCREASING AVAILABILITY

A stable supply of recycled plastic raw materials is vital to increasing its use among
manufacturers. We have developed two completely new processes at the Stena Nordic
Recycling Center that enable us to recycle more plastic and increase the availability of
recycled material on the market. One process recycles soft plastic (LDPE) into plastic pellets
that can be used to make plastic bags and garbage sacks. The second process recycles the
plastic from electronic products so that more of it can be returned into circulation. We also
have a large international network that allows us to find the right kind of recycled plastic to
suit your needs.

6. RESPECTING MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

However important recycling is, your business comes first. We understand how pressurized
manufacturing can be and find efficient approaches to recycling that don't interfere with your
pro duction processes. For example, there should never be holdups because the sorting
containers are full. Therefore, we always ensure that waste is collected and taken away at
exactly the right time.
7. COLLABORATION

Effecting real change takes collaborative work. Not only between our customers and
ourselves. but throughout the product chain - raw material suppliers, subcontractors and
manufacturers. This type of collaboration already exists in the steel industry, for example, but
not in plastics.[5]

Why recycling of plastic is so hard?

As you've seen, recycling plastic offers myriad environmental benefits. You might ask
yourself why we do not recycle all plastic. The reason is that recycling plastic is a complex
process. For example, a number of plastic contaminants cannot be used in the food industry
out of food safety concerns. Furthermore, exporting products made from recycled plastic to
the US is subject to strict regulations. It is the responsibility of the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to determine if and how recycled materials can be used in relation to
food products. That means products have to meet the FDA's specifications with regard to
composition, additives and properties. If that is the case, your product is deemed "FDA
COMPLIANT." Certain plastics are not available in every color. For example, it is hard to
make a properly transparent product using recycled plastic. This is because plastic made from
different types of plastic waste can never be fully transparent.
The recycling process: The recycling of plastic starts with the user People at home can
separate plastic from their other waste. Subsequent separation is virtually impossible plastic it
is important that the raw materials are properly separated to ensure these resources can be
used effectively in the production processes of new products. After being collected, the
plastic waste is transported to the waste processor's collection point. The quality of the waste
is monitored there. Next, the different types of plastic are sent to a sorting installation. It sorts
the plastic and removes any contaminants and other material, such as metal and paper. After
being sorted, the different types of plastic are shredded, washed and then melted down into
raw mater for the production of new plastic products.[6]

Fig 5: Process of recycling of plastic [7]

Fig 6: How is plastic recycled [8]
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE SURVEY
Starch, a megadalton-size glucose polymer is a prominent storage carbohydrate in many
higher plants. With many genes encoding starch biosynthesis enzymes known, starch has
become very amenable for (bio) engineering in plant. Moreover, bacterial and other foreign
genes involved in glycogen biosynthesis and other glucose polymers such as mutant, dextran,
and alternan have also been applied to alter starch characteristics with varying success. Starch
synthesis involves a number of enzymes, including soluble starch synthases, starch branching
enzymes, starch debranching enzymes and disproportioning enzymes. Various SSs are
involved in the elongation of the glucan chains by transferring glucose residues from ADP-
glucose to the non-reducing end of the growing glucan chains. SBEs introduce the α−1,6
linkages by simultaneous cleavage of some short α−1,4 linked glucan chains and connecting
them to other chains, thus providing amylopectin molecules as well as increasing the number
of non-reducing ends for further elongation by various SSs isoforms. DBEs seem to trim the
irregularly arranged glucan chains to maintain glucan branches in amylopectin molecules in a
regular order, thus enabling formation of semi-crystalline structures. Disproportionation
enzymes cleave short malt oligosaccharides (MOS) producing glucose units which can either
be used for the ADP-glucose synthesis or as an energy source for plant metabolism. Higher
plant SSs possess multiple isoforms which are grouped based on their amino acid sequence
similarities. All the SSs appear to share the same overall structure, consisting of a glass
domain (substrate-binding site), a typical transit peptide and different motifs. SSs are further
classified into three distinctly localized groups in the plastids, i.e., exclusively granule-
bounded (Granular-Bound Starch synthase, GBSS) exclusive or nearly exclusive activity in
the soluble phase; and those present in both the granule and soluble phase. Moreover, in
potato SSs are further subdivided into four subclasses based upon cDNA and amino acid
sequence similarities, i.e. GBSS (~60 coda), SS-I (~57 kDa), SS-II (~77 kDa), and SS-III
(~110–140 kDa). Nevertheless, GBSS-I has been further subdivided into GBSS-Ia and
GBSS-Ib isoforms. Since different SSs contribute to starch biosynthesis, a better knowledge
of the relationships among SSs enzymes involved will definitely provide guidelines for plant
geneticists, biotechnologists, and breeders to modify starch properties as demanded by
various sections. In this review, the function and contributions of different SSs isoforms with
an emphasis on potato SSs are discussed.[9]

Sucrose to starch conversion

The polyglucan starch is made up of two glucose polymers, amylose and the more highly
branched amylopectin. Amylose is a linear polymer of glucose units held together entirely by
α−1,4 glycosidic bonds, whereas amylopectin is a highly-branched polysaccharide consisting
of α−1,4 linked glucose with α−1.6 linkages at the branch points. Sucrose to starch
conversion is a relatively complicated pathway involving many known SSs as well as a
number of sugar transporters. Plasmalemma-bound transporters and/or diffusion not only
transport hexose sugars but also translocate Apo plastic sucrose directly to the cytosol. In
developing storage organs (e.g., potato tubers) sucrose present in the phloem is metabolized
in different ways. Apo plastic or cytosolic invertases convert sucrose molecules to glucose
and fructose. Alternatively, sucrose is converted to UDP-glucose (UDP-Glc). A part of Apo
plastic sucrose, upon entry into the cytosol, is transported to vacuoles by endocytosis. The
starch biosynthesis in higher plants takes place in a specialized compartment, plastids, which
relies on translocation of precursors from the cytosol through the plastid envelop. Glucose-6-
phosphate and ADP-glucose (ADP-Glc) transporters are actively involved in transferring
these important nucleotide precursor molecules into plastids. In potato tubers and once inside
the amyloplasts, Glc-6P is subsequently converted to glucose-1-phosphate and ADP-Glc by
phosphoglucomutases and ADP-glucose pyro phosphorylase respectively. In plants, at least
five independent-conserved classes of genes encode SSs. These SSs use ADP-Glc produced
by AGPase as a substrate to catalyze the formation of new glycosidic linkages by transferring
glucose moieties of ADP-Glc to the non-reducing end of an existing α−1,4 glucan chain. [10]

Fig 7: Schematic representation of the structure of a starch granule, with alternating

amorphous and semi-crystalline regions constituting the growth rings. The glucose residues
are connected through α−1,4 and α−1,6 linkages. In potato starch one out of 200–300 glucose
units of amylopectin are phosphorylated. Phosphate groups can be attached to the C-3 or the
C-6 of a glucose residue. The position of the phosphate group with respect to the α−1,6
branch point is arbitrary.

Fig 8: Sucrose-starch biosynthesis pathway

Fig. 9: Illustration of the starch biosynthesis pathway in potato tubers. and represent putative
transporters

Chemical Reaction in formation of bioplastic from starch

Bioplastics are sustainable, largely biodegradable and biocompatible. A simple bioplastic is
formed with the following equation:

Biopolymer(s) + plasticizer(s)+ other additive(s) = BIOPLASTIC

A bioplastic is formed from starch, gelatin/agar, sorbitol, glycerol (glycerin). These

ingredients are heated to just below boiling (95°C) in a hot plate and later dried in an oven.
“Starch is used in its raw state or further processed by bacterial fermentation to produce
biobased monomers, which are polymerized into bioplastics”. Potato starch is one of the
suitable resources for film formation and has a potential use for packaging. Food packaging
has especially been one of the most quickly developed markets for starch-based bioplastics.
When heated, water disrupts starch molecules “When dried, the disordered polymer chains
become entangled and a neat film is formed”. “The granules swell and burst, the semi
crystalline structure is lost and the smaller amylose molecules start leaching out of the
granule, forming a network that holds water and increasing the mixture’s viscosity. This
process is called gelatinization. During cooking, the starch becomes a paste and increases
further in viscosity. During cooling or prolonged storage of the paste, the semi crystalline
structure partially recovers and the starch thickens, expelling water”. The process of “heating,
mixing and shear stress” breakdown starch granules, “making it a thermoplastics material
with interesting tensile properties (modulus and strength) and gas barrier properties”. Vinegar
(acetic acid) helps the gelatin and glycerin get together.[11]

Fig 10: Structure of amylose and amylopectin

Fig 11: Reaction of starch and glycerol producing gelatinized starch (TPS) Thermoplastic
starch
Formation of soluble starch or thermoplastic starch requires disruption of starch granules and
their supramolecular structures, dissociation of complexes with lipids and melting of crystals
with the assistance of added water. Shows an environmental scanning electron microscope
(SEM) image of corn starch granules. Though there is bound water within starch that varies
with ambient humidity, water is typically added. A water concentration of 25% w/w will give
a gelatinization temperature with a range of 60-70 °C. Gelatinization is assisted by shear. An
extruder, either a twin-screw or single-screw, is suitable for continuous shear processing.
Alternatively, batch mixers with a wiping action can be used. A starch solution can be formed
by thoroughly mixing starch with cold water to form a uniform suspension. The suspension
will be a milky color with a relatively high viscosity. The suspension can then be heated
without coagulation. Gradual heating produces a clear solution of increased viscosity. If the
solution is stored for several days it will gradually become opalescent through to milky.
Starch solutions are not stable because hydrogen bonds within and between starch molecules
are more stable than the hydrogen bonds with water that keep the starch in solution.
Formation of starch–starch hydrogen bonds accompany ordering of starch molecules into
crystalline structures different from the original starch granules. The ordering can be
considered as a lyophilic liquid crystalline behavior. Excessive heating of a starch in water
solution will cause the starch to flocculate. This will be experienced as a continuous increase
in viscosity until gelation and then formation of a strengthening gel structure. This gelation is
consistent with lower critical solution temperature (LCST) behavior. LCST behavior is
observed with solutions/solubility of other highly hydrogen bonding polymers in water, such
as poly (methacrylic acid).
Conversion of starch into a packaging material requires disruption of the starch granules and
their constitutive crystals into a flowable thermoplastic. High amylose corn starch is the
major source of amylose-rich starch and it can have amylose contents of up to 80 %. Starch
can be processed in an extruder if it is first equilibrated with water and any other plasticizers,
normally alcohols such as glycerol. Water must diffuse into the granules and hydrogen bond
with the starch. Upon heating the granules undergo restructuration and the crystals melt to
form a uniform viscous starch fluid. Processing, strength and stability of the starch is assisted
by addition of a hydrophilic polymer such as poly (vinyl alcohol), poly(oxyethylene),
poly(caprolactam) or poly(vinylpyrrolidone). After formation of a starch film the added
polymer stabilizes the amorphous structure by hydrogen bonding with the starch. This
prevents recrystallization of the starch to form V-type crystals in a process called
retrogradation. Another way to limit retrogradation is to use substituted starch such as
hydroxyethyl, hydroxypropyl or acetoxy starches. The substituents interrupt the structural
regularity of the starch and thereby restrict crystallization. The viscosity increases
considerably as the molecules are freed from their ordered superstructures and the gelatinous
mass becomes transparent. The gelatinized starch is amorphous and referred to as
thermoplastic starch (TPS) since it can be reprocessed so long as water content is retained or
replenished. The glass transition temperature of starch is uncertain, but likely to be about -50
to -10 °C with the water content suitable for gelatinization and subsequent processing. TPS
has properties expected of any thermoplastic though water content is required for them to be
revealed. TPS has a glass transition temperature, it can flow under shear when heated and it
can slowly crystallize. TPS sheets are transparent, though depending on the extent of shear
mixing there can be traces of starch granules recognizable as faint outlines. These are called
ghost granules and they disturb the clarity of sheets and films of TPS, which is a problem for
some packaging applications.[12]
Fig 12: Reaction of amylose and amylopectin

Fig 13: PEF treatment

Properties

Starch crystal structures are characterized using wide-angle X-ray scattering (WAXS). A
Kratky powder camera is used on starch specimens that have been cryo-ground into powder.
WAXS pattern for waxy potato starch with diffraction peaks characteristic of B type crystals;
camera type: powder, source 0.154 nm, power 4.0 kW, aperture 200 µm, range 5 -35°, count
time 10 s-1, interval 0.05 data/°.

The modulus of TPS compositions is typically high compared with synthetic

thermoplastics. Elastic properties at low strain are measurable however TPS has low,
moisture dependent, elongation at break. The high modulus of TPS has dependence upon
moisture, other plasticizers, fillers and recrystallization. TPS has high strength, that is break
stress for brittle materials or yield stress for ductile materials, due to inter- and intra-
molecular hydrogen bonding, and strong adhesion to blended polymers and fillers. Fracture
of starch materials tend to be brittle and increasingly brittle with time due to moisture and
recrystallization.
Dynamic mechanical properties (modulated force thermomechanometry (mf-TM)) is used
for detection of damping peaks, elastic and loss modulus changes with temperature. Mf-TM
was performed using a Perkin-Elmer Diamond DMA in tensile mode. A synthetic frequency
consisting of 0.5, 1, 2, 10, 20 Hz was applied with constant amplitude of 10 µm. Fourier
analysis deconvoluted the data into the five constituent frequencies. A tan () curve is shown
for each heating rate scan since these curves showing the best resolution. Examples of storage
and loss curves are shown for heating at 10 °C·min-1. The specimen was coated with paraffin
oil and a higher heating rate than normally used for mf-TM (typically 2 °C·min-1 used) to
minimize moisture loss during the scan. The damping curves in show a phase change at
about 90 °C interpreted to be due to melting of crystals formed by retrogradation

GRAPH 1: WAXS pattern for waxy potato starch (B type crystals)

 GRAPH 2: WAXS pattern for corn starch (A type crystals)

GRAPH 3: WAXS patterns for TPS where the lower curve has been aged compared with the
upper curve

TPS sheets are often brittle and mf-TM is performed better using single cantilever bend
mode instead of tensile mode. The specimen was coated with paraffin oil prior to clamping in
the instrument to minimize moisture loss during the scan. The glass transition denoted by the
peak of loss modulus or damping factor is at a higher temperature than that since at the
slower scan rate loss of moisture during the scan made the specimen more brittle with higher
glass transition temperature. Scans were performed at 1, 2, 5 and 10 °C·min-1 and 10 °C gave
the best scan though with highest thermal lag. Thermomechanical analysis requires a
compromise between moisture loss and thermal lag of the instrument.

Dielectric properties of TPS are a sensitive to changes in structure due to the density of
polar groups and water content. Thermally stimulated depolarization current (TSDC) has
been used to study the dielectric relaxations in cassava starch on semi-crystalline and
amorphous variations. Three secondary relaxation modes were detected and interpreted as
due to short-range orientations of polar groups or to main chain restricted motion. Moisture
plasticization contributed to relaxation Vogel-Tammann-Fulcher parameters that confirmed
cooperative relaxation. A heterogeneous amorphous phase resulted in a bimodal distribution
of relaxation times.

Vapor transmission – oxygen, moisture, other volatiles, tends to be low compared with
other polymers due to density of hydrogen bonds and polarity to restrain diffusion of small
molecules. Vapor transmission is dependent upon moisture content and any crystal structures
remaining or formed. Moisture sorption is a problem; however, moisture does not readily
pass through TPS sheets.

 Some are stiff and brittle.

 Some are rubbery and moldable.
 Properties may be manipulated by blending polymers or genetic modifications.
 Degrades at 185°C.
 Moisture resistant, water insoluble, optically pure, impermeable to oxygen.
 Must maintain stability during manufacture and use but degrade rapidly when
disposed of or recycle [13]

Fig 14: Basics about bioplastic

 Characterization of synthesized bioplastic

1 Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)

FTIR spectroscopy was used to investigate the interaction between different species and
changes in chemical composition of the mixtures. The FTIR spectra of bioplastic film from
potato starch were recorded in spectrometer using KBr pellet method.

2 Swelling tests
Swelling test is generally conducted to check whether developed materials retains the original
properties after formation by following the procedure . A pre-weighed piece of sample was
used to check the protuberance and other morphological changes. The sample was immersed
in various solvents such as water, chloroform and methanol medium in different test tubes for
about 2 hours and the results were recorded accordingly.

3 Solubility tests
The bioplastic material prepared was studied for their solubility. The solubility test was
carried out to check persistence of these bioplastic materials by following the procedure of .
The sample was cut into small pieces and was inserted into different test tubes containing
different solvents - ammonia, acetic acid, acetone, sulphuric acid and ethyl alcohol. The
solvents were chosen in such a way that the activity of material with parameters like high
acidic solvent, polar solvent, non-polar solvent and weak acid were determined.

RESULT

FTIR analysis of synthesized bioplastic from potato starch

The result of FTIR analysis of the sample showed that FTIR spectrum of the sample was
obtained at the wavelength in the range of (400-4000nm). The results of the study also
showed that the peak at 716cm was due to primary amine that produce 2 N-H stretch
absorptions, peak at 857cm was attributed to the -1 alkane C-H bonds, stretching at 2096 cm¹
was due to carboxylic O-H stretch.

Graph 4 : FTIR analysis of Synthesized Bioplastic (Potato starch )

Solubility test of synthesized bioplastic from potato starch

The results of the study revealed that the material was insoluble in water which makes it more
eligible to be a bioplastic material. It was also insoluble in acetone (polar solvent), ethyl
alcohol (non-polar solvent), acetic acid (polar solvent) and partially soluble in ammonia
(polar solvent) and completely soluble in sulphuric acid (strongly acidic solvent). Solubility
plays a major role in selecting a sustainable biomaterial for bioplastic because if the material
is soluble in water and other solvents then it cannot be accounted as bioplastic. Results from
the solubility test showed that the material is insoluble in water and other organic solvents
which makes it more efficient to produce bioplastic at low cost.

Table 1 : Solubility test of synthesized potato starch bioplastic in different solvents

Swelling test of synthesized bioplastic from banana peels and potato starch

The results of the study showed that there was not much change in sample when it was
soaked in chloroform and methanol, but slight increase in weight was observed when it was
kept in water medium . The results from swelling test show that low amount of engorgement
in water which is more desirable to be a bioplastic material.

Fig 15 : Swelling test of synthesized potato starch bioplastic in different solvent

Table 2 : Swelling test of synthesized Potato starch bioplastic in different solvents[23]

Physical Properties of the Films

Water Vapor Transmission Rate

Water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) was measured gravimetrically in accordance

standards. The films were covered on the top of the weighing bottle containing 3 g anhydrous
CaCl₂ and then fixed with a rubber band. The weighing bottles were placed in a constant
temperature and humidity chamber (25 °C) for 24 h. WVTR was calculated as follows :

WVTR = mf-mi/DxS (1)

where “mf” is the weight of the final bottle, and “mi” is the weight of the initial bottle, D is
the time, S is the effective area of the films, m².

Thickness, Oxygen Transmission Rate (OTR), Carbon Dioxide Transmission Rate

(CDTR) and Water Resistance of the Films

The thickness of the films was measured using a hand-held micrometer with a precision of
0.01 mm as the mean of measurements obtained at 10 random points . The method described
by Moreno was modified to measure the solubility and moisture absorption of the films.
Their specific methods were described in the supplementary material.

Tensile Strength

The films were cut into rectangular strips (5 cm x 2 cm). A texture analyzer with the AMTG
probe was used to determine the tensile strength of the films as an average of 6 measurements
for each film. The initial distance of separation and speed were adjusted to 30 mm and 10
mm/s, respectively.
Optical Property

The transparency and light transmission of the films were measured using an ultraviolet
visible spectrophotometer by scanning the samples at wavelengths in the 200-800 nm range,
with air as reference.

RESULT

Water Vapor Transmission Rate Analysis

The WVTR could represent moisture transport through films. This measurement was a key
factor for maintaining the good quality of food against water adsorption and desorption in
food packaging. The WVTRs of the films decreased because of the increase in nano-SiO₂
size. The SEM image of the films showed compact structures when nano-SiO₂ particles with
different sizes were added. The phenomenon was ascribed to the hydrogen bonds between the
oxygen atoms of nano-SiO₂ and potato starch matrix. In addition, the good dispersion of
nano-SiO₂ in the potato starch matrix provided curving paths for water molecules to across
the films . In a previous study, the WVTR was also affected by the degree of crystallinity,
size of the nano-particles, free volume, and macro-voids . The 100 nm nano-SiO₂/potato
starch films obtained the lowest WVTR (789.41 g/m²-d), which was ascribed to the decrease
in crystallinity of the 100 nm nano-SiO₂ to a greater extent. The small size of nano-SiO₂ was
found to facilitate the dispersion in the films, resulting in a low WVTR.

Tensile Strength Analysis

The control potato starch films exhibited a lower tensile strength (15.1 MPa) than that of the
nano-SiO₂/potato starch films. The incorporation of the nano-SiO₂ significantly affected the
tensile strength of the potato starch films. The matrix of the potato starch films could be
strengthened by O-Si-O bonding, hydrogen bonding, or electrostatic attraction with the
incorporation of nano-SiO₂ . The optimal tensile strength was obtained when the 100 nm
nano-SiO₂ was used. The 100 nm nano-SiO₂ was well adsorbed and bonded with potato
starch in the formation of the films, thus improving the interphase adhesion strength between
the matrix and the nano-SiO₂. In addition, the smaller nano-SiO₂ was more prone to
agglomeration in the dispersion, indicating that their high surface energy led to the
aggregation of nano-SiO₂ and destroyed the original integrity of the films. This finding agrees
with the SEM results. This reinforcing effect of nano-SiO₂ was consistent with the previous
study.

Optical Property Analysis

The spectroscopic images of the films with nano-SiO₂ of different sizes from 200 to 800 nm
were present . The transmittance of the films gradually increased as the wavelength
increased. The addition of nano-SiO₂ caused low transmittance, indicating that the nano-
SiO₂/potato starch films could resist against UV light, restraining the deterioration of food
caused by UV radiation. Notably, the UV light barrier values presented in this study for the
nano-SiO₂/potato starch films prepared using 100 nm nano-SiO₂ were higher than those other
films. Only 30% UV light could pass through the 100 nm films at 600 nm. The result
indicated that the 100 nm nano-SiO₂ could be uniformly distributed in the potato starch
matrix. The size of nano-SiO₂ could affect the transmittance of the films, which was
consistent with the findings .
Graph 5 : The WVTR (a), Ts (b), and transparency (c) of the potato starch films with nano-
SiO₂ of different sizes.

Thickness

The thicknesses of the films ranged from 0.087 to 0.091mm. No significant difference was
observed between the different films . Many studies reported that film thickness could affect
the properties of the films . This finding showed that the thicknesses of the films with nano-
SiO₂ of different sizes in the present study showed no significant difference to accurately
investigate their properties.

CDTR and OTR Analysis

Many degradation reactions in foods occur because of oxygen, which changes the nutritional
and sensory value of food, shortening their shelf life. Oxidation mainly led to these reactions,
such as vitamins loss, enzymatic browning, and fat rancidity. Therefore, the functions of
packaging materials for reducing the deteriorative effects of oxygen were of great concern .
The starch films had the advantage of a lower OTR than that of synthetic film .The gas
transmission rate (OTR and CDTR) decrease with the addition of nano-SiO₂. During
packaging, O₂ and CO₂ would first dissolve on the high-pressure side of the films. The
difference in pressure could cause the gas molecules to be stuck in the torque hole, leading to
a violent movement of the macromolecular chains of the films. O₂ and CO₂ would gradually
penetrate along this channel and finally be released from the side with low partial pressure.
This occurrence indicated that dispersed nano-SiO₂ changed the micropore structure of the
potato starch films and that the Si-O-Si groups in the films could control the exchange of O₂
and CO₂. Meanwhile, OTR and CDTR decreased with an increase in nano-SiO₂ size. The
OTR and CDTR of the 100 nm films were 111.54 g/m²-d and 902.47 g/m².d, respectively,
which could inhibit the respiration of fruits and vegetables in the package. The reason might
be that the nano-SiO₂ particles with a smaller size and a larger surface area were severely
agglomerated to reduce hydrogen bonds, leading to the increased gas permeabilities of the
films, also reported that the gas permeabilities decreased, which was caused by the
dispersibility of the nano-SiO₂.

Water Resistance

The moisture absorption and solubility of the films were markedly decreased with an
increase in size of the nano-SiO₂. The intermolecular hydrogen bonds between nano-SiO₂ and
potato starch increased the cohesiveness of the film matrix by the formation of a network
structure. Therefore, nano-SiO₂ enhanced the moisture absorption and solubility of the films.
Furthermore, the100nm nano-SiO₂ was uniformly distributed in the potato starch matrix,
resulting in a good interaction between the nano-SiO₂ and the potato starch. This effect
indicated that the total void volume of the water molecules was reduced in the
microstructures of the films. This result was consistent with SEM and FTIR. Consequently,
the nano-SiO₂/potato starch films (100 nm) exhibited the optimal barrier and water resistance
properties, which the moisture absorption (18.4%) and solubility (52.7%) were lower than
other films [24].

Bioplastics and Petroleum-based Plastics: How to Compare?

If on the one hand, the real biodegradation of a plastic represents an extremely delicate
problem, certainly a key aspect in assessing the applicability or not of bioplastics is the
impact on the environment resulting from their use, during the entire life cycle from
production to final disposal (cradle to grave). This type of analysis is called Life Cycle
Analysis (LCA) and is based on finding some factors considered crucial in assessing the
impact that a particular product can have on the environment. Among the most important
factors or indices of environmental impact there are:

Abiotic depletion: the characterization factor is the potential of abiotic depletion of the
extraction of those minerals and fossil fuels. The unit of the characterization factor is kg of
antimony (Sb) equivalents per kg of extracted mineral.

Global warming: the characterization factor is the potential of global warming of each
greenhouse gas emission to the air. The unit of the characterization factor is kg of carbon
dioxide (CO₂) equivalents per kg of emission.

Human toxicity: the characterization factor is the potential of human toxicity of toxic
substances emitted to the air, water, or/and soil. The unit of the characterization factor is kg
of 1,4-dichlorobenzene (1,4-DB) equivalents per kg of emission.
Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity: the characterization factor is the potential of fresh water
aquatic toxicity of each substance emitted to the air, water, or/and soil. The unit of this factor
is kg of 1,4-DB equivalents per kg of emission.

Marine aquatic ecotoxicology: the characterization factor is the potential of marine aquatic
toxicity of each substance emitted to the air, water, or/and soil. The unit of this factor is kg of
1,4-DB equivalents per kg of emission.

Terrestrial ecotoxicity: the characterization factor is the potential of terrestrial toxicity of

each substance emitted to the air, water, or/and soil. The unit of this factor is kg of 1,4 -DB
equivalents per kg of emission.

Photochemical oxidation: the characterization factor is the potential of photochemical ozone

formation of each substance emitted to the air. The unit of this factor is kg of ethylene (C₂H4)
equivalents per kg of emission.

Acidification: the characterization factor is the acidification potential for each acidifying
emission to the air. The unit of this factor is kg of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) equivalents per kg of
emission.
Eutrophication: the characterization factor is the potential of eutrophication of each
eutrophying emission to the air, water, and soil. The unit of this factor is kg of phosphate ion
(PO4-) equivalents per kg of emission.

Tables 3 and 4 show a collection of LCA literature data each LCA characterizes and
compares the environmental impact of various bioplastics (thermoplastic starch (TPS),
polylactic acid (PLA), and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) and traditional plastics (high and
low density polyethylene, Nylon 6, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS),
polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) and polycaprolactone(PCL)) with an approach cradle to grave.
The comparison is given on the basis of some of the most important indices of environmental
impact cited above.

Table 3:
Energy required from non-renewable sources and CO₂ emissions for different types of
plastics currently on the market

Energy requirements,
Types of plastic MJ/Kg Global warming CO 2 eq/Kg

From non-renewable sources

HDPE 80 4.84
LDPE 80.6 5.04
Nylon 6 120 7.64
PET 77 4.93
PS 87 5.98
PVOH 120 2.7
PCL 83 3.1
From renewable sources
TPS 25.4 1.14
TPS+15%
PVOH 24.9 1.73
TPS+60% PCL 52.3 3.6
PLA 57 3.84
PHA 57 NA
 Table 4:
Eutrophication and acidification for different types of plastics currently on the market

Types of plastic Acidification SO2 eq Ertrophication PO 4 eq

Pellets
LDPE (1 Kg) 17.4 1.1
TPS (1 Kg) 10.9 4.7
Starch foam (1 Kg) 20.8 2.8
Starch film (1 Kg) 10.4 1.1
Loose fills
Starch foam (1m3=10 Kg) 276 39
PS foam (1m3=4Kg) 85 8
Films and bag
TPS (100m2) 239 103
Starch-polyester(100m2) 26.5 2.8
PE (100m2) 236 15

Overall, the data reported in Tables 3 and 4 show how the production and use of bioplastics is
more advantageous compared to conventional plastics from the energy demand and emissions
of greenhouse gases point of view. On the contrary, they have a strong impact on the
environment for acidification of soil and the eutrophication, mainly because of the use of
fertilizers and chemicals in the cultivation of renewable raw materials used for the production
of bioplastics. However, it should be pointed out that the presence of non-biodegradable
copolymers in bioplastics decrees a significant increase in energy demand and CO2 emissions
compared to bioplastics. Indeed, in an attempt to improve the performance of mechanical
biopolymers, non-biodegradable copolymers are added thus reducing the biodegradable
power of the obtained material. It is important to stress that the results of above LCA were
obtained using the incineration with energy recovery as final provision: this choice is not
particularly favorable to bioplastics mainly for their low calorific value.

The analysis of LCA data, always show that bioplastics have some indices of environmental
impact lesser than those of other traditional plastics, while other indices are in favor of the
latter; hence, the need to determine an index of overall environmental impact where all
indices can be incorporated and adequately weighed.

To that end, there are various methods for weighting factors of environmental impact, aimed
precisely to the determination of a single global index. One of the methods most often u sed in
the LCA is called “distance-to-target” which deals directly a pair of plastics to compare (for
example PLA and PE) providing a single index of environmental impact on the pair
itself.[14]
Table 5 : Pros and Cons of Petro based and Biobased Plastics [25]

Factor affecting the biodegradability of bioplastic

Biodegradation is the process of degradation of large polymer molecules by groups of living

organisms, some of which break down the polymer chain into oligomers and monomers.
Others are able to use these products, converting them to simpler waste com‐ pounds, and
still others are able to use the excreted wastes. Microbial degraders and their metabolic
enzymes are among the environmental agents that participate in the degradation process,
which results in a conversion of the carbon in the polymer chains into smaller biomolecules
or into carbon dioxide and water.

The biodegradation rate is strongly influenced by several polymer properties, such as the
presence of branching and additional functional groups that promote higher hydrophilicity;
the relative share of crystal‐ line and amorphous regions; the presence of polar covalent
bonds, such as ester or amide bonds, instead of carbon–carbon bonds; the molecular weight
and length of the carbon chain; the size and form of the substrate (powder, fibers, pellets,
films); environmental agents like UV, pH, temperature, and moisture; and the enzyme
characteristics .[15]

How long does it take for bioplastic to decompose?

How long it takes for biodegradable bags to decompose depends on a range of factors. If
they're placed in a microbe rich environment to help it break down, biodegradable plastic
bags can take anywhere from only a few months to a few years to fully break down. To
compare, traditional plastic bags, on the other hand, take hundreds of years to fully
decompose.
The issue is where biodegradable bags end up. Properly disposing biodegradable plastic bags
and ensuring they end up in the right environment for decomposing is the only way to ensure
they're able to break down fully.

Plastics Break Down in Water: Biodegradable materials are designed to be broken down by
natural organisms like fungi, bacteria, and other microorganisms. Some places biodegradable
plastics can't break down include the marine environment like the ocean. That's why you
might find biodegradable-labelled bags floating around still intact.

Plastics Break Down in Landfills: Not all biodegradable plastics decompose in landfills.
When you're making your purchasing decisions for biodegradable products, look for
biodegradable plastics that have specific labels stating that they're landfill biodegradable'.
Since the majority of the plastics we throw away end up in landfills, the smartest decision to
reduce your ecological footprint is to use landfill-biodegradable bags.[16]

Table 6 : Environmental Impacts of Bioplastics [25]

 CHAPTER 3: PRODUCTION OF BIOPLASTIC

Equipment
Apparatus

 Eye protection

 Grater

 Beakers, 400 cm3

 Large pestle and mortar

 Beaker, 250 cm3

 Large watch glass

 Bunsen burner

 Heat resistant mat

 Tripod

 Gauze

 Stirring rod

 Petri dish or white tile

 Universal indicator paper

 Teat pipettes

 Measuring cylinder, 25 cm3

 Measuring cylinder, 10 cm3

 Access to a tea strainer Fig 16: flow chart for bioplastic

 Access to a balance

Chemicals

 Dilute hydrochloric acid, 0.1 M, about 10 cm 3

 Dilute sodium hydroxide, 0.1 M (IRRITANT), about 10 cm3

 Potatoes, 100 g

 Distilled water, about 500 cm3

 Access to:

o Potato starch, either extracted in the first part or 2.5 g of bought potato starch (see note 6
below)

o Food coloring

o Propane-1,2,3-triol (glycerol), 2 cm3

Health, safety and technical notes

1. Read the standard health and safety guidance.

2. Wear eye protection throughout.

3. Dilute hydrochloric acid, HCl(aq) – see CLEAPSS Hazard HC047a and CLEAPSS Recipe
Book RB043.

4. Dilute sodium hydroxide, NaOH(aq), (IRRITANT at this concentration) –

see CLEAPSS Hazard HC091a and CLEAPSS Recipe Book RB085.

5. If access to a balance is difficult get students to use a heaped spatula of starch rather than 2.5
g.

6. Even if students are extracting their own starch, it is worth having some commercial potato
starch available in case they do not extract enough.

7. If a drying cabinet is available, it is useful for drying out the plastic films. It takes about 90
mins at 100 °C.

Procedure
Extracting the starch

1. Grate about 100 g of potato. The potato does not need to be peeled, but it should be
clean. Put the potato into the mortar.

2. Add about 100 cm3 of distilled water to the mortar, and grind the potato carefully.

3. Pour the liquid off through the tea strainer into the beaker, leaving the potato behind
in the mortar.

4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 twice more.

5. Leave the mixture to settle in the beaker for five minutes.

6. Decant the water from the beaker, leaving behind the white starch which should have
settled in the bottom. Put about 100 cm3 of distilled water in with the starch and stir
gently. Leave to settle again and then decant the water, leaving the starch behind.
Making the plastic film
1. Put 22 cm3 of water into the beaker and add 4 g of the potato starch slurry from the
previous step (or 25 cm3 water and 2.5 g of commercial potato starch), 3 cm 3 of
hydrochloric acid and 2 cm3 of propane-1,2,3-triol.

2. Put the watch glass on the beaker and heat the mixture using the Bunsen burner.
Bring it carefully to the boil and then boil it gently for 15 mins. Do not boil it dry. If it
looks like it might, stop heating.

3. Dip the glass rod into the mixture and dot it onto the indicator paper to measure the
ph. Add enough sodium hydroxide solution to neutralize the mixture, testing after
each addition with indicator paper. You will probably need to add about the same
amount as you did of acid at the beginning (3 cm 3).

4. You can then add a drop of food coloring and mix thoroughly.

5. Pour the mixture onto a labelled petri dish or white tile and push it around with the
glass rod so that there is an even covering.

6. Repeat the process, but leave out the propane-1,2,3-triol.

7. Label the mixtures and leave them to dry out. It takes about one day on a radiator or
sunny windowsill, or two days at room temperature. Alternatively, use a drying
cabinet. It takes about 90 mins at 100 °C.

NOTES:

This activity can be used simply as a practical to enhance the teaching of polymers or
plastics. It can be used to introduce further work on biopolymers and bioplastics
and/or it can be used as an example of the effects of plasticizers. A similar process is
used in industry to extract starch, which is then used in a number of products
including food and packaging.

If students extract their own potato starch then they can use that. It is a wet slurry
rather than a dry powder so they need about 4 g with about 22 cm 3 water. If they do
not have enough then they can add a bit of bought potato starch to the mix.
If access to a balance is difficult, then get students to use a heaped spatula of starch
rather than 2.5 g.

If access to 10 cm3 measuring cylinders is difficult, then get students to use four
pipette squirts of hydrochloric acid and three squirts of propane-1,2,3-triol.
If you have a drying cabinet, the mixture should dry in about 90 mins at 100 °C.
Warn students not to let the mixture boil dry, or it ‘pops’ and has a tendency to jump
out of the beaker. For this reason, students should wear eye protection at all stages.
While using food coloring is optional, it does enhance the product and the color it
gives makes the plastic film look more like plastic. Only one drop is needed or the
film is too dark.

If students use too much water then their polymer won’t solidify and remains a liquid.
Starch is made of long chains of glucose molecules joined together. Strictly it contains
 two polymers: amylose which is straight-chained and amylopectin which is branched.
When starch is dried from an aqueous solution it forms a film due to hydrogen
bonding between the chains. However, the amylopectin inhibits the formation of the
film. Reacting the starch with hydrochloric acid breaks down the amylopectin,
forming more satisfactory film. This is the product that students make without
propane-1,2,3-triol. The straight chains of the starch (amylose) can line up together
and although this makes a good film, it is brittle because the chains are too good at
lining up. Areas of the film can become crystalline, which causes the brittleness.

we should be able to see a difference in the two films that they make. The one without
the propane-1,2,3-triol is far more brittle, the one with it shows more plastic
properties

Adding propane-1,2,3-triol makes a difference due to its hydroscopic (water

attracting) properties. Water bound to the propane-1,2,3-triol gets in amongst the
starch chains and stops the crystalline areas from forming, preventing the brittleness
and resulting in more ‘plastic’ properties, thus acting as a plasticizer. This can be
explained to students without mentioning water – just that the propane-1,2,3-triol acts
as a plasticizer.[17]

COMPARING NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC WITH BIOPLASTIC

Normal Plastic (Non-Biodegradable Plastic):

 Plastic which does not decompose naturally in the environment causes pollution and
are also harmful to the living being are called the non-biodegradable plastic.

 After formation, regular plastics hold carbon. When they are disposed of and begin to
decompose or when they are melted, that carbon is then released into the atmosphere.

 Methane and other forms of pollutants could also be released from traditional plastic
when they are recycled and burned.

 These types of plastic do not degrade easily or by the action of natural agents. They
are harmful to the environment.

Bio-degradable Plastic:

 Biodegradable plastic is plastic that decomposes naturally in the environment. This is

achieved when microorganisms in the environment metabolize and break down the
structure of biodegradable plastic. The end result is one which is less harmful to the
environment than traditional plastics.

 Biodegradable plastics do not release carbon, because no carbon is involved in the

 manufacturing process. Biodegradable plastics do not contain polluting materials.

 One of the many positive aspects of biodegradable plastics is that they are able to be
broken down by naturally occurring bacteria, which again will be beneficial to the
environment.[18]

Fig 17: Comparison of different types of plastic properties

 CHAPTER 4: KINETICS OF REACTION

Thermogravimetry analysis

The thermogravimetry analysis refers to ASTME1131 [22] Thermal decomposition of

bioplastic was analyzed using a thermogravimetry (Mettler Toledo TGA/DSCI simultaneous
analyzer). The 10 mg sample was heated from 30°C to 800°C with a heating rate of 10°C/min
in the presence air with a flow rate of 50 ml/min. The thermogravimetric (TG), derivative
thermogravimetric (DTG) can identify the thermal decomposition that occurs in bioplastic
through the loss of weight.

Kinetic Reaction

The kinetic reaction of thermal decomposition of bioplastic can be analyzed using the
thermogravimetric method. The kinetic reaction behavior was obtained from the loss of mass
towards the temperature. The activation energy (E) of bioplastic was calculated by using the
kinetic calculation of Arrhenius method according to Acikalin. The following reaction
scheme can illustrate the combustion of biomass:

The fraction of biomass combustion (or conversion) α. is defined as follows:

α = (mo−mt)/ (mo−mf) (1)

Where mm and mi refer to the initial mass of biomass, the final value of time t and mass m at
the end of the combustion, respectively. The degree of combustion, dα/dt, is a linear function
of constantly determined temperature (k), and reaction model (sample temperature
conversion function), f(α):

dα / dt = kf(α) (2)

Replace the constant rate (k) using the Arrhenius equation, and enter the heating rate (ß =
dT/dt) in the non-isothermal case, so that equation 2 will be:

dα /dt = [A/ β]×[ e (− ERT) ]×f(α) (3)

Where A is the pre-exponential factor, R is constant gas (8.314 J K mol ¹), E is activation
energy. and T is a constant temperature. Determine the value of n to derive equation 3, so that
equation 4 will be:

dα/(1-α)n = [A/β]×e(-ERT)×dt (4)

Equation 4 is the expression used as the basic model in the calculation method for kinetic
analyses of TG data. The activation energy and the pre-exponential factor of each active
combustion stage are calculated from the corresponding slope (-E/R) and the interception of
each final plot(in (A /b)), respectively.
Heating value

The heating value of bioplastic was conducted by using IKA type C2000 basic adiabatic
bomb calorimetric. The sample about 0.25 g was heated from a temperature of 25°C to
270°Cwas applied for 15 min with 75% moisture and an oxygen pressure of ± 30 bars. The
heating value obtained from the process of the device is J/g unit, by the standard of ASTM D
240. The heating value is calculated by using the measurement of the temperature of the
water which increases due to heat. The bioplastic samples were wrapped in paper and burned
in the bomb calorimetric. The heating value of the paper wrap without bioplastic was also
measured to subtract the heat value of the paper-wrapped bioplastic sample so that the
heating value of the bioplastic was obtained from the subtraction. The heating value of solid
bioplastic can be determined by using bomb calorimetric.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Thermogravimetry Analysis

Thermogravimetric analysis is a method used to study the reaction of thermal decomposition

between weight change and temperature which are lost due to the effect of temperature on the
material. The result of the thermal analysis is in the form of a curve called a thermogram.
Thermal decomposition is a process of changing the form of a sample into a simpler form
which is influenced by many factors such as temperature, heating rate, pressure, moisture,
residence time, particle size, and material composition .

Thermal decomposition involves changes in the weight of the polymer . The thermal
decomposition of the polymer refers to an increase in temperature that either has or has not
experienced any chemical changes and also serves to find out various chemical mechanisms
which experience the underlying structural changes, polymer morphology effect, additive
reaction path and filler interaction . The mechanism of the thermal decomposition of starch-
based bioplastic is shown in graph .

Graph 6 :TG-DTG
curve of bioplastic
Stage 1 is the reduction weight caused by the release of moisture or water until 10.7% b/b
that occurred at 30°-130°C for 12 min. In this stage, the very light volatile matter compounds
also lost and the initial stage of the thermal decomposition process occurs due to evaporation
of the water

Stage 2 is the process of releasing volatile matter that occurred at 130°C-380°C for 25 min.
This stage is the main thermal decomposition stage because a high level of material lost
since starch contains amylose particles which can form carbohydrate lipids: carbon,
hydrogen, and oxygen in the volatile starch . Starch starts to decomposed thermally at the
temperature of 300°C . The process of this stage triggers the rapid thermal decomposition
with a large mass loss and runs rapidly due to the considerable amount of oxygen.

Stage 3 is the stage after the release of volatile matter in the samples occurred at the
temperature of 380˚C-530°C for 16 min. The fixed carbon content of bioplastic was relatively
low. i.e.,20.17% (b/b). In this stage, the charcoal is flammable as it is surrounded by volatile
matter and oxygen diffused on the surface of the charcoal, which burn the charcoal and
volatile matter simultaneously. This stage occurs after the release of volatile matter which
leaves or forms carbon

Stage 4 is the last stage of the thermal decomposition process in bioplastic that occurred at
530°C-800°C for 23 min. This process does not produce ash, since it has been fully
decomposed in the thermal decomposition process shown in the TG-DTG graphic of the low
thermal decomposition reaction, since the residue of the charcoal is surrounded by the
combustion ash marked by the flat TG graph , thus indicating the slowly confined mass.

This research used a fitting model approach. The fitting model is a kinetic method which
involves a single heating rate. The Acikalin method is used for determining the activation
energy in this study.

Kinetics is a science that discusses the rate and reaction mechanism. According to Arrhenius,
activation energy is the minimum energy required to start a chemical reaction (combustion).
There are two ways to convert bioplastic into energy (heat), thermochemically and
biochemically or biologically. The conversion of bioplastic into thermochemical energy can
be performed by pyrolysis, gasification, and combustion . This research used combustion
method. The combustion process is the process in which the combustion process occurs due
to a reaction of bioplastic and oxygen to convert the solid bioplastic into the energy .

The activation energy determination using Flynn-Wall-Ozawa (FWO) method for potato
starch was 203.60 kJ/mol .The activation energy determination using Coats–Redfern methods
for potato starch is 204.8 kJ/mol. The amylose content in potato starch for 16.88%.[19]
 CHAPTER 5 : ECONOMICS
Market Demand for Bioplastics The importance of the bioplastics was not known for the past
two decades. However, recently the bioplastics have become an integral part of our society.
The continuous research and developmental activities towards bioplastics and growing
awareness towards environmental conservation have led to a remarkable growth of the overall
bioplastics market. Further, the stringent regulatory reforms by the several governments
towards the reduction of plastic usage have augmented the demand for bioplastics. At present,
the contribution of bioplastics products in the total plastics market is around only 1 per cent.
However, the results of European Bioplastics’ annual market data update, presented at 12th
European Bioplastics Conference held on 29 November 2017 in Berlin, confirmed that steady
growth of the global bioplastics industry.

The capacity of the global bioplastics production is 2.05 million tons in 2017 and it is expected
to be increased to 2.44 million tons in 2022. The growth rate of bioplastics is around 20-25 per
cent per year but the growth rate for conventional plastics is only 4-9 per cent per year. The
European bio-plastics market reported that the global bioplastics market is to be growing at
more than 20% per year. The only disadvantage of the global bioplastics market is high
production cost over conventional plastics; however, it can be overcome by the technology
advancement. Moreover, the increasing price of crude oil has also boosted the manufacturer
towards the production of bioplastics over petroleum-based plastics. The developing countries
like India, China, etc., also promoting the bioplastics by providing incentives coupled with
contract manufacturing which is also further expected to contribute to the growth of the
bioplastics market.

At present, the drop-in’s bioplastics are dominant in the bioplastics market. Around 56 per cent
of the global bioplastics production is only the drop-in bio-based plastics , bio-PET, bio-PA
and bio-PE. While considering the individual types, the drop-in biobased PET is dominating in
the bioplastics market over other types of bioplastics, which is followed by the starch-based
bioplastics. However, the PLA and PHA based plastics production are expected to increase in
the bioplastics market due to its superior quality and valid end-of-life options. In terms of
application, the global biodegradable plastics market is segmented into packaging, textile,
agriculture, electronic, medical, building construction, injection molding and a number of other
segments. Among them, the packaging industry is the largest field which contributes to 60 per
cent of global bioplastics production. [20]
 CHAPTER 6 : CONCLUSION

In this project we discussed the concern regarding the rising demand of plastic and its
negative effect on environment . The concern regarding disposal of the waste plastic in
landfills and ocean and its effect on the animals and aquatic life , many case studies have
been concerned regarding this all over the world as the plastic demand and disposal is a
global issue . As over the year plastic has be the inevitable part of life we can’t eradicate it
completely as it has become one of our need although some countries have taken a step
forward to ban a certain grade of plastic but the demand and problem related other grade
remains the same so we with the help of new technology and inventions opt for and better
and sustainable alternative that is bioplastic .

There have been years of research regarding the same and improving its strength and qualities
of the bio-based plastic and making it more reliable for people to use . The bioplastic we
discussed is made from potato starch by doing various chemical and mechanical treatments
on it and as we know that the basis of this plastic is potato starch therefore this plastic is
biodegradable and environmentally friendly . We have also discussed the conversion of
sucrose to starch , chemical reaction in formation of bioplastic from starch , the properties of
bioplastic and comparing it with petroleum-based plastic and the parameter we need to asses
it . This project also has information about the factor which affect the biodegradability of the
bioplastic and its decomposition . This project is not only is about the production of bioplastic
but also about its decomposition and environmental effect. We also studied the production of
bioplastic and the film making process of it , the kinetic of the reaction which researcher
concern the most was also discussed, the thermogravimetric analysis and its stages were the
important parameter . The economics regarding demand-supply-production and cost
estimation was also discussed . [a]

To conclude this series about bioplastics and the biodegradability of plastic products and
packaging, I want to discuss the future of what I consider to be one of the only viable
alternatives to plastics derived from non-renewable resources: durable bioplastics.
The key word here is durable, because biodegradable plastics of any composition are not the
long-term sustainable solution we need. When you compost a biodegradable plastic cup, that
polymer can no longer be reused and maintained, meaning all of the energy and material
inputs are lost in the soil. They can make sense in certain circumstances, particularly in
countries that have large volumes of organic landfill waste. India is a prime example, where
about 50-60 percent of the waste sent to landfills is organic and could be composted, but only
as a short-term waste-reduction strategy.
Durable bioplastics that can be recycled present us with a more viable opportunity to mitigate
our dependence on oil-based plastics, but realistically offsetting our dependence on petroleum
polymer first requires decreasing the overall demand for plastic. We consumed about 300
million tons of plastic in 2015 alone. To put that into perspective, in 2013 the production
capacity for bioplastics across the world was 1.6 million metric tons, covering about 600,000
hectares of land (one hectare = 2.47 acres). It doesn’t take long to see how much additional
farmland we would need to grow enough bioplastic feedstock to match the current plastic
demand.
Without a decrease in demand, it should be obvious how this could affect food production
across the world. Take, for example, the issues caused by the rise of corn-derived ethanol in
the United States. In 2000, 90 percent of the corn grown in the U.S. was used for food and
livestock feed . Greater demand for feedstocks such as corn and sugarcane for bioplastic
production would only compound this problem, invading food production even more. The
only way to mitigate this is by reducing the consumption of and demand for all plastics.
Reducing demand is challenging because of plastic’s ubiquity. Still, consumers,
manufacturers and government entities can help decrease its use. By educating the public, for
example, we can build a larger population of conscious consumers who read labels and make
more sustainable purchasing decisions. Government incentives, such as taxing materials or
banning certain forms of plastic packaging, can be even more effective. Manufacturers can
even increase production efficiencies while reducing their use of plastic by making lighter
product packaging.
With a more manageable demand for plastic, shifting to bioplastics and plastics sourced from
renewable raw materials becomes far more viable. This would also give us the opportunity to
develop a more comprehensive bioplastic recycling infrastructure, something clearly lacking
today. Today, most bioplastics are seen as contaminants to the recycling stream, meaning
consumers still can’t place them in their blue bins for recycling. But as plant-based plastic
becomes more popular with manufacturers, the incentives to develop recycling processes for
them increase. By building that recycling infrastructure, we could maintain the bioplastics we
produce and limit the need for new polymer altogether. Eventually, we could considerably
(and sustainably) mitigate our use of petroleum-based plastics.
We have a plastic obsession, and it’s not going to disappear. Still, the need to reduce our
consumption of finite, non-renewable raw materials is only going to intensify as the years
progress. The answer doesn’t lie in plastics that biodegrade, which has extremely limited (and
short-term) applications. Durable bioplastics that can be recycled and reprocessed over and
over again give us an opportunity to finally transition the plastic market away from oil
humanity’s favorite unsustainable, non-renewable resource once and for all.[21]
 REFERENCE

1. https://ourworldindata.org>plastic-pollution
2. https://clinmedjournals.org>artical>ijtra>interaction
3. https://www.unep.org>interaction>beat-plastic-pollution
4. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/articles/2018/09/24/plastic-pollution-affects sea-life-throughout the
5. https://stenarecycling.com/insights/ archive/7-challenges/
6. https://rompagroup.com/news/why-is-plastic-so-hard-to-recycle.aspx
7. https://dst.gov.in/dst-supports-technologies-plastic-recycling
8. https://cen.acs.org/environment/sustainability/ Periodic-graphics-plastic-
recycled/ 96/117
9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii /S2405580817300493
10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/amylose
11. https://depadchile.cl/diy-wooden -05wpm/gelatin-bioplastic.html
12. https://dergipark.org.t
13. https://Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer
Science 2017 Vol II WCECS 2017, October 25-27, 2017, San Francisco, USA
Study of the Physical Properties and Biodegradability of Potato-Starch Based
Plastics
14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/133135576/Bioplasriche ESPA
15. https://plastic-degradation-by-Extremophilic-bacteria.pdf
16. https://www.biogone.com.au/biodegradable-bags-decompose//
17. (i) http://www.greenlightproducts.co.uk
(ii) http://www.friendlypackaging.org.uk
(iii) http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/factsheets/plastics.pdf
18. https://en.m.wikipedia.org
19. https://reserchgate/thermogravimetric-and-kinetics-analysis-of-cassava-starch-
based-bioplastic
20. www.cwejournal.org
21. https://sustinablebrands.com
22. [a]self-compose
23. https://reserchgate.com/International-journal-of-scientific-and-technology-reserch
volume-9
24.Article Preparation and Characterization of Potato Starch Film with Various
Size of Nano-SiO2
25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276060634
Bioplastics - Biobased plastics as renewable and/or biodegradable alternatives
to Petro plastics
APPENDIX