, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 4323–4335 | Cite as

Microfibrillated cellulose (MFC): pullulan bionanocomposite films

  • Carlo A. Cozzolino
  • Guido Cerri
  • Antonio Brundu
  • Stefano FarrisEmail author
Original Paper


The aim of this work was to develop and characterize microfibrillated cellulose (MFC)/pullulan bionanocomposites. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy suggested that the affinity between the two polymers resulted in new hydrogen bonding of the nanocomposite materials compared to pristine pullulan. At the same time, an increase in crystallinity was observed proportional to the amount of MFC used, as shown by the X-ray analyses. Accordingly, final films showed improved mechanical properties proportionally to the filler loading, with impressive elastic modulus and tensile strength of ~4.50 GPa and ~60 MPa, respectively, for the sample containing 10 % MFC. However, as demonstrated by the moisture sorption isotherms, the addition of MFC did not help reduce the amount of water adsorbed by the samples. In addition, the oxygen and water vapor permeability data clearly showed that final films still suffered high relative humidity values, whereas their barrier performance toward oxygen was excellent under dry conditions, with O2 permeability coefficients (P′O 2) comparable with those of common high barrier films/coatings. Finally, while the nanocomposites in the form of films had high haze values (from 23 to 40 %), the same nanocomposites in the form of coatings were decidedly more transparent, which suggests that their use as thin layers could be more suitable when the “see-through” capability must be preserved, for example in food packaging applications.


Films Food packaging Microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) Nanocomposites Physical properties Pullulan 

Supplementary material

10570_2014_433_MOESM1_ESM.doc (244 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 244 kb)


  1. Aulin C, Gällstedt M, Lindström T (2010) Oxygen and oil barrier properties of microfibrillated cellulose films and coatings. Cellulose 17:559–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azeredo HM, Mattoso LH, Wood D, Williams TG, Avena-Bustillos RJ, McHugh TH (2009) Nanocomposite edible films from mango puree reinforced with cellulose nanofibers. J Food Sci 74:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azeredo HM, Mattoso LH, Avena-Bustillos RJ, Filho GC, Munford ML, Wood D, McHugh TH (2010) Nanocellulose reinforced chitosan composite films as affected by nanofiller loading and plasticizer content. J Food Sci 75:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belbekhouche S, Bras J, Siqueira G, Chappey C, Lebrun L, Khelifi B, Marais S, Dufresne A (2011) Water sorption behavior and gas barrier properties of cellulose whiskers and microfibrils films. Carbohyd Polym 83:1740–1748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell LN, Labuza TP (2000) Practical aspects of moisture sorption isotherm measurement and use, 2nd edn. Egan Press, Egan, MNGoogle Scholar
  6. Berglund L (2006) New concepts in natural fibres composites. 27th Risø international symposium on material science. Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  7. Cabiaca A, Guillon E, Chambon F, Pinel C, Rataboul F, Essayem N (2011) Cellulose reactivity and glycosidic bond cleavage in aqueous phase by catalytic and non catalytic transformations. Appl Catal a-gen 402:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiellini E (ed) (2008) Environmentally compatible food packaging. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  9. Chinga-Carrasco G, Syverud K (2012) On the structure and oxygen transmission rate of biodegradable cellulose nanobarriers. Nanoscale Res Lett 7:192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chinga-Carrasco G, Miettinen A, Luengo Hendriks CL, Gamstedt EK, Kataja M (2011) Structural characterisation of kraft pulp fibres and their nanofibrillated materials for biodegradable composite applications. In: Nanocomposites and polymers with analytical methods: book 3, ISBN 979-953-307-136-6, pp 243–260Google Scholar
  11. Cozzolino CA, Blomfeldt TOJ, Nilsson F, Piga A, Piergiovanni L, Farris S (2012) Dye release behavior from polyvinyl alcohol films in a hydro-alcoholic medium: influence of physicochemical heterogeneity. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 403:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cozzolino CA, Nilsson F, Iotti M, Sacchi B, Piga A, Farris S (2013) Exploiting the nano-sized features of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) for the development of controlled release packaging. Colloid Surf B 110:208–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farris S, Introzzi L, Piergiovanni L (2009) Evaluation of a bio-coating as a solution to improve barrier, friction and optical properties of plastic films. Packag Technol Sci 22:69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farris S, Introzzi L, Fuentes-Alventosa JM, Santo N, Rocca R, Piergiovanni L (2012) Self-assembled pullulan-silica oxygen barrier hybrid coatings for food packaging applications. J Agric Food Chem 60(3):782–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farris S, Uysal Unalan I, Introzzi L, Fuentes-Alventosa JM, Cozzolino CA (2014) Pullulan-based films and coatings for food packaging: present applications, emerging opportunities, and future challenges. J App Polym Sci 131:40539–40551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Faruk O, Bledzki AK, Fink HP, Sain M (2012) Biocomposites reinforced with natural fibers: 2000–2010. Prog Polym Sci 37:1552–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. French AD (2014) Idealized powder diffraction patterns for cellulose polymorphs. Cellulose 21:885–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuentes-Alventosa JM, Introzzi L, Santo N, Cerri G, Brundu A, Farris S (2013) Self-assembled nanostructured biohybrid coatings by an integrated ‘sol-gel: intercalation’ approach. RSC Adv 3:25086–25096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen NML, Blomfeldt TOJ, Hedenqvist MS, Plackett DV (2012) Properties of plasticized composite films prepared from nanofibrillated cellulose and birch wood xylan. Cellulose 19:2015–2031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herrick FW, Casebier RL, Hamilton JK, Sandberg KR (1983) Microfibrillated cellulose: morphology and accessibility. J Appl Polym Sci Appl Polym Symp 37:797–813Google Scholar
  21. Hinterstoisser B, Salmén L (2000) Application of dynamic 2D FTIR to cellulose. Vib Spectrosc 22:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu YS, Mehta S, Schiraldi DA, Hiltner A, Baer E (2005) Effect of water sorption on oxygen-barrier properties of aromatic polyamides. J Polym Sci Pol Phys 43:1365–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hult EL, Iversen T, Sugiyama J (2003) Characterization of the supermolecular structure of cellulose in wood pulp fibres. Cellulose 10:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hult EL, Iotti M, Lenes M (2010) Efficient approach to high barrier packaging using microfibrillar cellulose and shellac. Cellulose 17:575–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Introzzi L, Fuentes-Alventosa JM, Cozzolino CA, Trabattoni S, Tavazzi S, Bianchi CL, Schiraldi A, Piergiovanni L, Farris S (2012a) ‘Wetting enhancer’ pullulan coating for anti-fog packaging applications. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 4:3692–3700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Introzzi L, Blomfeldt TOJ, Trabattoni S, Tavazzi S, Santo N, Schiraldi A, Piergiovanni L, Farris S (2012b) Ultrasound-assisted pullulan/montmorillonite bionanocomposite coating with high oxygen barrier properties. Langmuir 28:11206–11210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iotti M, Gregersen ØW, Moe S, Lenes M (2011) Rheological studies of microfibrillar cellulose water dispersions. J Polym Environ 19:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jonoobi M, Harun J, Mathew AP, Oksman K (2010) Mechanical properties of cellulose nanofiber (CNF) reinforced polylactic acid (PLA) prepared by twin screw extrusion. Compos Sci Technol 70:1742–1747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaushik A, Singh M, Verma G (2010) Green nanocomposites based on thermoplastic starch and steam exploded cellulose nanofibrils from wheat straw. Carbohyd Polym 82:337–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khalil HPSA, Bhat AH, Yusra IAF (2012) Green composites from sustainable cellulose nanofibrils: a review. Carbohyd Polym 87:963–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klemm D, Kramer F, Moritz S, Lindström T, Ankerfors M, Gray D, Dorris A (2011) Nanocelluloses: a new family of nature-based materials. Angew Chem Int Ed 50:5438–5466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kristo E, Biliaderis CG (2006) Water sorption and thermo-mechanical properties of water/sorbitol-plasticized composite biopolymer films: caseinate–pullulan bilayers and blends. Food Hydrocolloid 20:1057–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kristo E, Biliaderis CG (2007) Physical properties of starch nanocrystal-reinforced pullulan films. Carbohyd Polym 68:146–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kurek M, Guinault A, Voilley A, Galić K, Debeaufort F (2014) Effect of relative humidity on carvacrol release and permeation properties of chitosan based films and coatings. Food Chem 144:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lacroix M (2009) Mechanical and permeability properties of edible films and coatings for food and pharmaceutical applications. In: Embuscado ME, Huber KC (eds) Edible films and coatings for food applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 347–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lavoine N, Desloges I, Dufresne A, Bras J (2012) Microfibrillated cellulose: its barrier properties and applications in cellulosic materials: a review. Carbohyd Polym 90:735–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leathers TD (2003) Biotechnological production and applications of pullulan. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 62:468–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. López-Rubio A, Lagaron JM, Ankerfors M, Lindström T, Nordqvist D, Mattozzi A, Hedenqvist MS (2007) Enhanced film forming and film properties of amylopectin using micro-fibrillated cellulose. Carbohydr Polym 68:718–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lu J, Wang T, Drzal LT (2008) Preparation and properties of microfibrillated cellulose polyvinyl alcohol composite materials. Compos A 39:738–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mali S, Sakanaka LS, Yamashita F, Grossmann MVE (2005) Water sorption and mechanical properties of cassava starch films and their relation to plasticizing effect. Carbohydr Polym 60:283–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marcovich NE, Reboredo MM, Aranguren MI (1996) FTIR spectroscopy applied to woodflour. Compos Interfaces 4:119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Minelli M, Baschetti MG, Doghieri F, Ankerfors M, Lindström T, Siró I, Plackett D (2010) Investigation of mass transport properties of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) films. J Membrane Sci 358:67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moon RJ, Martini A, Nairn J, Simonsen J, Youngblood J (2011) Cellulose nanomaterials review: structure, properties and nanocomposites. Chem Soc Rev 40:3941–3994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ninan N, Muthiah M, Park I-K, Elain A, Thomas S, Grohens Y (2013) Pectin/carboxymethyl cellulose/microfibrillated cellulose composite scaffolds for tissue engineering. Carbohyd Polym 98:877–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peng XW, Ren JL, Zhong LX, Sun RC (2011) Nanocomposite films based on xylan-rich hemicelluloses and cellulose nanofibers with enhanced mechanical properties. Biomacromolecules 12:3321–3329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pereda M, Amica G, Rácz I, Marcovich NE (2011) Structure and properties of nanocomposite films based on sodium caseinate and nanocellulose fibers. J Food Eng 103:76–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Quirijns EJ, van Boxtel AJB, van Loon WKP, van Straten G (2005) Sorption isotherms, GAB parameters and isosteric heat of sorption. J Sci Food Agric 85:1805–1814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Segal L, Creely JJ, Martin AE, Conrad CM (1959) An empirical method for estimating the degree of crystallinity of native cellulose using the X-ray diffractometer. Text Res J 29:786–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shingel KI (2002) Determination of structural peculiarities of dextran, pullulan and γ-irradiated pullulan by Fourier-transform IR spectroscopy. Carbohyd Res 337:1445–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Siqueira G, Bras J, Dufresne A (2010) Cellulosic bionanocomposites: a review of preparation, properties and applications. Polymers 2:728–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Siró I, Plackett D (2010) Microfibrillated cellulose and new nanocomposite materials: a review. Cellulose 17:459–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sorrentino A, Gorrasi G, Vittoria V (2007) Potential perspectives of bio-nanocomposites for food packaging applications. Trends Food Sci Technol 18:84–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sothornvit R, Rhim JW, Hong SI (2009) Effect of nano-clay type on the physical and antimicrobial properties of whey protein isolate/clay composite films. J Food Eng 91:468–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Syverud K, Stenius P (2009) Strength and barrier properties of MFC films. Cellulose 16:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Syverud K, Chinga-Carrasco G, Toledo J, Toledo PG (2011) A comparative study of Eucalyptus and Pinus radiata pulp fibres as raw materials for production of cellulose nanofibrils. Carbohyd Polym 84:1033–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tilley RJD (2011) Colour and the optical properties of materials, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, p 42Google Scholar
  57. Tingaut P, Zimmermann T, Lopez-Suevos F (2009) Synthesis and characterization of bionanocomposites with tunable properties from poly(lactic acid) and acetylated microfibrillated cellulose. Biomacromolecules 11:454–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tong Q, Xiao Q, Lim LT (2008) Preparation and properties of pullulan–alginate–carboxymethylcellulose blend films. Food Res Int 41:1007–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trovatti E, Fernandes SCM, Rubatat L, da Silva Perez D, Freire CSR, Silvestre AJD, Neto CP (2012) Pullulan–nanofibrillated cellulose composite films with improved thermal and mechanical properties. Compos Sci Technol 72:1556–1561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Turbak AF, Snyder FW, Sandberg KR (1983) Microfibrillated cellulose, a new cellulose product: properties, uses, and commercial potential. J Appl Polym Sci: Appl Polym Symp 37:815–827Google Scholar
  61. Vieira AP, Santana SAA, Bezerra CWB, Silva HAS, Chaves JAP, de Melo JCP, da Silva Filhod EC, Airoldi C (2011) Epicarp and Mesocarp of Babassu (Orbignya speciosa): characterization and application in copper phtalocyanine dye removal. J Braz Chem Soc 22(1):21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wu J, Zhong F, Li Y, Shoemaker CF, Xia W (2013) Preparation and characterization of pullulanechitosan and pullulanecarboxymethyl chitosan blended films. Food Hydrocolloid 30:82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Xiao Q, Lim LT, Tong Q (2012) Properties of pullulan-based blend films as affected by alginate content and relative humidity. Carbohyd Polym 87:227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yuen S (1974) Pullulan and its applications. Process Biochem 9:7–9Google Scholar
  65. Zhang Z, Britt IJ, Tung MA (2001) Permeation of oxygen and water vapor through EVOH films as influenced by relative humidity. J Appl Polym Sci 82:1866–1872CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlo A. Cozzolino
    • 1
  • Guido Cerri
    • 2
  • Antonio Brundu
    • 2
  • Stefano Farris
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.DeFENS, Department of Food, Environmental and Nutritional Sciences—Packaging DivisionUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Natural and Territorial ScienceUniversity of SassariSassariItaly

Personalised recommendations