Agronomy for Sustainable Development

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 501–529 | Cite as

Polyethylene and biodegradable mulches for agricultural applications: a review

  • Subrahmaniyan Kasirajan
  • Mathieu NgouajioEmail author
Open Access
Review Article


The use of plastic mulch in agriculture has increased dramatically in the last 10 years throughout the world. This increase is due to benefits such as increase in soil temperature, reduced weed pressure, moisture conservation, reduction of certain insect pests, higher crop yields, and more efficient use of soil nutrients. However, disposing of used plastic films, which cause pollution, has led to development of photodegradable and biodegradable mulches. Here we review the use of plastic mulches in agriculture, with special reference to biodegradable mulches. Major topics discussed are (1) history of plastic mulch and impact on crop yield and pest management, (2) limitations of polyethylene mulches and potential alternatives, (3) biodegradable and photodegradable plastic mulches, (4) field performance of biodegradable mulches, and (5) use of biodegradable plastic mulches in organic production. We found that (1) despite multiple benefits, removal and disposal of conventional polyethylene mulches remains a major agronomic, economic, and environmental constraint; (2) early use of photodegradable plastic mulch during the 1970s and 1980s, wrongly named biodegradable mulch films, discouraged adoption of new biodegradable mulch films because they were too expensive and their breakdown was unpredictable; (3) biodegradable plastic films are converted through microbial activity in the soil to carbon dioxide, water, and natural substances; (4) polymers such as poly(lactic acid), poly(butylene adipate-coterephthalate), poly(ε-caprolactone), and starch-based polymer blends or copolymers can degrade when exposed to bioactive environments such as soil and compost; (5) with truly biodegradable materials obtained from petroleum and natural resources, opportunity for using biodegradable polymers as agricultural mulch films has become more viable; and (6) the source of polymer and additives may limit use of some biodegradable mulches in organic production. More knowledge is needed on the effect of biodegradable mulches on crop growth, microclimate modifications, soil biota, soil fertility, and yields.


Plasticulture Plastic mulch Polymers Biodegradable mulch Biodegradation 


1. Introduction …..........…………………………………..2

2. History of plastic mulch .................................................3

2.1. General uses of plastic mulches ...............................6

2.2. Plastic mulch and yield quality ................................8

2.3. Plastic mulch and pest management .......................8

3. Limitations of polyethylene plastic mulch and alternatives .........................................................9

3.1. Limitations of polyethylene plastic mulch .............9

3.2. Alternatives to polyethylene plastic mulch ...........13

4. Biodegradable and photodegradable plastic mulches ....14

4.1. Photodegradable plastic mulch .............................15

4.2. Biodegradable plastic mulch .................................16

4.3. Biodegradation process .........................................23

5. Field performance of biodegradable mulch in crop production ................................................................28

6. Biodegradable plastic mulch in organic production .......32

7. Conclusion ....................................................................34

8. Acknowledgement ........................................................34

1 Introduction

Benefits of mulching on growth and yield of annual and perennial crops have long been recognized (Magistad et al. 1935; Shonbeck and Evanylo 1998; Weber 2003). Mulching with organic or inorganic materials aims to cover soils and forms a physical barrier to limit soil water evaporation, control weeds, maintain a good soil structure, and protect crops from soil contamination. Natural mulches are those derived from animal and plant materials. If properly used, they can offer all the benefits of other types of mulches. Natural mulches help in maintaining soil organic matter and tilth (Tindall et al. 1991) and provide food and shelter for earthworms and other desirable soil biota (Doran 1980). However, natural materials are not often available in adequate amounts, their quality is inconsistent, and they require more labor for spreading. Natural mulches do not always provide adequate weed control; they may carry weed seeds and often retard soil warming in spring, a condition that can delay growth and ripening in warm season vegetables (Hill et al. 1982; Schultz 1983). Straw mulches often contaminate the soil with weed seeds and deplete the seedbed nitrogen due to their high carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio. Organic materials that have a high C/N ratio such as grain straw may temporarily immobilize soil nitrogen as they decompose (Mooers et al. 1948), although humified organic matter accumulated from long-term straw mulching sometimes results in net mineralization of N (Ferguson 1957). Natural mulch harbors pests such as termites, slugs, snails, earwigs, etc. Natural mulches are reported to reduce soil temperature and evaporation, but do not invariably cause higher yields (Kwon 1988; Subrahmaniyan and Zhou 2008). Therefore, natural mulches could not be used efficiently in crop production during all the seasons. To overcome some of the problems outlined above, paper and plastic mulches have been developed for use in agriculture.

Paper mulches attracted a good deal of attention in the early 1920s. They were not adapted for commercial vegetable production because of their short life, as well as the cost of material and labor, which was not mechanized (Hopen and Oebker 1976). Thus, the trend has been toward using synthetic mulches such as films made of formulations of paper, which includes combinations of paper and polyethylene, foils and waxes. Petroleum and resin mulches were also developed for arid climates at the same time. Synthetic mulches including thin sheets of plastic, paper, and petroleum materials present increased benefits over natural mulches. Of these mulches, only those made of polyethylene are still widely used today in the agricultural industry (Fig. 1). Plastic film used as mulch has revolutionized the age-old technique of mulching. Waggoner et al. (1960) described microclimatic changes caused by various mulches (polyethylene film, straw, paper, and aluminum films) and concluded that polyethylene film mulch was the most effective method of mulching.
Fig. 1

Fresh market tomato production using raised beds covered with polyethylene mulch

2 History of plastic mulch

Plastics are man-made long-chain polymeric molecules (Scott 1999). The word plastic comes from the Greek word “plastikos,” which means “able to be molded into different shapes” (Joel 1995). The plastics we use today are made from inorganic and organic raw materials, such as carbon, silicon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and chloride. The basic materials used for making plastics are extracted from oil, coal, and natural gas (Seymour 1989). According to the American Society for Plasticulture, plasticulture is “the use of plastic in agriculture,” which includes but is not limited to plastic mulch films, drip irrigation tape, row covers, low tunnels, high tunnels, silage bags, hay bale wraps, and plastic trays and pots used in transplant and bedding plant production (Lamont and Orzolek 2004). Plasticulture is the technology of the use of plastics in the agricultural sector. Tar-coated paper mulches began to be used in the late 1800s, long before polyethylene was available (Rivise 1929). The science of plasticulture had its beginning as early as 1924 when Warp (1971) developed the first glass substitute for widespread agricultural use. British scientists first made polyethylene as a sheet film in 1938 (Masey 1972). The earliest method using organic and inorganic materials to modify the microclimate of crops was mulching (Jaworski et al. 1974). These materials soon gave way to various types of polyethylene films, which revolutionized protected cropping as demonstrated by Emmert (1957) in Kentucky and Hall and Besemer (1972) in California. The history of plasticulture dates back to 1948 when polyethylene was first used as a greenhouse film by professor Emmert at the University of Kentucky in order to replace more expensive glass (Anderson and Emmert 1994; Jensen 2004). Emmert is considered by many to be the father of agricultural plastic development in the USA. He detailed the principles of plastic technology with his research on greenhouses, mulches, and row covers (Emmert 1957). Glasshouses in Northern Europe that were used for vegetable production prior to the 1950s underwent a shift to production of high value ornamental crops such as flowers and potted plants (Wittwer and Castilla 1995). During this time period, Emmert began research growing crops in plastic covered structures with the use of mulch and row covers at the University of Kentucky (Emmert 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957). These developments during the early 1950s gave rise to a new system of vegetable production known worldwide as plasticulture. The largest volumes of agricultural plastics used today are in the form of plastic films.

Plastics were first introduced on a commercial scale in 1939 (Byrdson 1970). These include polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, and ethylene vinylacetate. Polyethylene plastic is made from polyethylene resin, which is in the form of pellets. The pellets are heated and processed into bendable sheets of plastic film. The widespread use of polyethylene (the principal type of plastic used today) is due to easy processibility, excellent chemical resistance, high durability, flexibility, and freedom from odor and toxicity (Clarke 1987; Garnaud 1974). The most commonly used mulch films include low-density polyethylene, linear low-density polyethylene, and high-density polyethylene (Fleck-Arnold 2000). Linear low-density polyethylene resins have high puncture resistance and mechanical stretch properties. High-density polyethylene resins have reliable moisture and vapor barriers. An ideal plastic mulch film should be flexible and rigid enough for easy removal from various growing environments. The main polyethylene used in mulches is low-density polyethylene. Typical plastic mulch used in the USA is 0.6 to 2.0 mils (0.0152 to 0.0508 mm) thick in rolls 610 to 1,463 m long and a width of 122 to 152 cm (Lamont 2005; Ngouajio et al. 2007).

Plastic mulch films were first used in the late 1950s in university research and have been used commercially for vegetable production since the early 1960s (Hussain and Hamid 2003; Lamont 2004a, b). Plastic mulch is now used worldwide to protect crops from unfavorable growing conditions such as severe weather, insects, and birds. Utilization of plastics in agriculture started in the developed countries and is now spreading to the developing countries. Early utilization of plastic was in cold regions, and plastic was mainly used for protection from the cold. Now plastic is used in all kind of climates, soils, and seasons for its numerous benefits in addition to enhanced soil temperatures. The use of covering techniques started with a simple system such as mulching, and then row covers and small tunnels were developed and finally plastic houses.

Up to 2008, the only comprehensive published data differentiating the use of agricultural plastics in the USA into categories was done by Amidon Recycling for the American Plastic Council (Amidon 1994). This study reported the 11 most commonly used plastics in different application, and approximately 66.5% of agricultural plastics are used for nursery containers, 28.8% for various types of plastic films, and 4.7% for pesticide containers. The estimated consumption of agricultural plastics in the USA has increased steadily from 519 million lb in 1994 to 850 million lb in 1998 and to 1,000 million lb in 2001 (Lawrence 2007). Hussain and Hamid (2003) reported that global plastic consumption in agriculture and related areas accounted for 2.48 million tons (1 ton = 2,000 lb) of plastics annually. In Western Europe, plastic films are the major type of plastic used in plasticulture. In 1997, out of 700,000 tons of total plastics used in agriculture in Western Europe, 500,000 tons or 71% were plastic films, of which greenhouse films accounted for 50%, and mulch and silage films were approximately 25% each (Hussain and Hamid 2003). Low-density polyethylene was the most commonly used plastic. Western Europe used 570,000 tons of low-density polyethylene per annum, of which 350,000 tons were used in the form of film and tubing (Hussain and Hamid 2003).

Plastic mulch has made a tremendous increase in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) production, which is called as white revolution in China (Hu et al. 1995). Likewise the use of plastic mulch in field crops such as corn (Zea mays L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum), and rice (Oryza sativa) has been successful in many countries. Plastic mulch is reported to be useful to overcome abiotic stresses in many crops in China. Film mulching with varying specifications is currently used in northern China, covering about 7 million ha of field crops. Plastic film mulching has been used in cultivating peanut, corn, cotton, vegetable, and fruit crops (Hu et al. 1995; Luo 1992; Han and Wan 1995). Commercially, plastic mulches have been used for the production of vegetables since the 1960s (Lamont 2005). Today, production of fresh market vegetables on raised beds covered with plastic mulch and drip irrigated has become a standard for most growers worldwide. The world consumption of low-density polyethylene mulching films in horticulture is at present around 700,000 tons/year (Espi et al. 2006). In 1999, for example, over 30 million acres of agricultural land (over 185,000 acres in the USA) were covered with plastic mulch, and the figure has increased significantly since (Miles et al. 2005). It is estimated that 1 million tons of mulch film is used worldwide every year in agriculture (Halley et al. 2001). In the USA alone, 130,000 tons of mulch film was used in 2004 (Warnick et al. 2006). Fresh market vegetables that are grown mainly on plastic mulch include bell pepper (Capsicum annuum), muskmelon (Cucumis melo), eggplant (Solanum melongena), slicing cucumber (Cucumis sativus), summer squash (Cucurbita pepo), tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), and watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) (Ngouajio et al. 2008).

2.1 General uses of plastic mulches

Plastic mulch was first noted for its ability to increase soil temperature in the 1950s (Emmert 1957). Plastic mulches alter the crop microclimate by changing the soil energy balance (Liakatas et al. 1986; Tarara 2000). Modification of the crop microclimate results in changes in soil temperature that may affect plant growth and yield (Cooper 1973; Dıaz-Perez and Batal 2002; Ibarra-Jimenez et al. 2006; Lamont 2005). Heating properties of plastic such as reflectivity, absorptivity, and transmittance and their interaction with solar radiation have a direct effect on the soil temperature under the plastic mulch (Schales and Sheldrake 1963). The use of clear plastic mulch in cold areas or seasons increases soil temperature and promotes germination and emergence of many crops (Peterson and Robbins 1970). Soil temperature can be altered in regions of substantially high or low temperatures to encourage faster plant development. Different types and colors of plastic mulch have characteristic optical properties that change the levels of light radiation reaching the soil, causing increases or decreases in the soil temperature. Black and clear mulches have shown the greatest soil warming potential among the various mulch colors (Ham et al. 1993). Plant growth requires radiation as a source of energy for photosynthesis, the means by which the radiation from the sun is converted to chemical energy (Rajapakse and Kelly 1994). Higher soil temperatures increase nutrient availability, enhance nutrient uptake by roots, increase the number and activity of soil microorganisms, and speed up plant germination and growth (Tindall et al. 1991; Farias-Larios et al. 1998). Munguia et al. (1998) found that net radiation is higher in the plastic mulch than in non-plastic mulch environment. This is important because it relates the spectral properties of the plastic mulch to surrounding environment. The physical characteristics of plastic mulches were shown to directly influence soil and root temperatures (Ruiz et al. 2002). Rangarajan and Ingall (2001) found that air temperatures were also significantly higher for mulch treatments compared to bare soil. Kwabiah (2004) reported maximum air temperatures up to 20°F (11°C) higher under plastic mulch than on bare soil plots. Mulching avoids the fluctuations in temperature in the first 20–30-cm depth in soils. This favors root development, and the soil temperature in the planting bed is raised, promoting faster crop development and earlier harvest. When the crop canopy covers the surface of the mulch bed, soil temperatures among different mulch colors are approximately equal (Lamont 2004a, b). Clear mulches that increase soil temperatures are particularly beneficial in situations where warm season vegetable crops are being grown in locations with a short and cool growing season (Waterer 2010). The majority of reports on plastic mulches show that increased root-zone temperature is one of the main benefits associated with the use of plastic mulches. Additional studies also show that, depending on the crop species, geographical region, or time of the year, plastic mulches create high zone-temperature conditions that may be deleterious to growth and yield of vegetables (Dıaz-Perez and Batal 2002; Ibarra-Jimenez et al. 2008; Lamont 2005).

Plastic mulches directly affect the microclimate around the plant by modifying the radiation budget of the surface and decreasing the soil water loss (Liakatas et al. 1986). The plastic film is a barrier preventing soil water evaporation and funneling excess rainfall away from the root zone thus keeping the moisture regime in the root zone at more stable levels. This can reduce irrigation demands and help prevent water- or nutrient-related physiological disorder, such as blossom end rot (McCraw and Motes 1991). Evaporation can be significantly reduced depending on the type of mulch (Chakraborty and Sadhu 1994). The water economy achieved by plastic mulching is substantial; all reserves are available for the plants, and consequently, the nutrient supply is also more constant (Lippert et al. 1964). Plastic film mulch promotes early yields and reduces N leaching (Bhella 1988).

Plastic mulch protects the soil from water and wind erosion and hail damage (Garnaud 1974). The dominant advantage of using polyethylene mulch is its ability to aid in the retention of nutrients within the root zone, thereby permitting more efficient nutrient utilization by the crop (Cannington et al. 1975). Constant moisture content, higher temperature, and better aeration of the soil all tend to favor higher microbial biomass in the soil thus ensuring more complete nitrification (Hankin et al. 1982). Plastic mulching has been reported to change the composition of microbial communities (Chen et al. 1998) and increase microbial biomass C in semi-arid soil under wheat (Li et al. 2004). Zhang et al. (2002) reported that plastic mulching management reduced microbial biomass C and N during corn growth stage. Plastic film mulching can increase soil temperature (Liu et al. 2003; Peng et al. 1999), and higher temperatures can favor not only N mineralization (Wilson and Jefferies 1996) but also plant N uptake (Liu et al. 2003).

The benefits of polyethylene mulch to crop production are well documented and include greater root growth and nutrient uptake (Wein et al. 1993), earlier ripening and a higher yield of fruit (Abdul-Baki et al. 1992), and improved fruit quality and a lower incidence of viral diseases (Singh 1992) than plants grown without mulch. A controversial benefit, challenged by some researchers, is the improvement of plant development, yields, and fruit ripening due to the reflective properties of particular plastics (Decoteau et al. 1988; Lee et al. 1996). Changes in light availability and spectral distribution can activate photosynthetic and photo-morphogenetic mechanisms to alter plant growth and development, improving marketable fruit quality and yields (Ballare et al. 1995).

2.2 Plastic mulch and yield quality

Over the last several decades, vegetable production has shown significant yield increases in many areas of the world. The utilization of plastic mulch in combination with drip irrigation has played a major role in the increases in production of tomato, pepper, eggplant, watermelon, muskmelon, cucumber, and squash, among other vegetables. There are, however, few reports on utilization of plastic mulches in broccoli [Brassica oleracea (Plenck) var. italic)] (Brown et al. 1987; Csizinszky and Martin 1988; White 1988).

Coventry et al. (2003) found that reflective mulch increased soluble solids content, total phenolics (aromatic compounds which serve as anti-microbial protection), flavanols, and anthocyanins (water-soluble pigments related to flavonoids properties) content in Ontario wine grapes. Reflective mulch was also found to increase soluble solids in plums (Kim et al. 2008). Kasperbauer and Loughrin (2004) showed that altering the color of plastic mulch could alter anthocyanins content in butterbean. Strawberries that ripened over red plastic mulch were significantly higher in aroma and flavor compounds (Loughrin and Kasperbauer 2002). Antonious and Kasperbauer (2002) found that the use of yellow and black mulches resulted in higher concentrations of phenolics in carrot. Also, the use of yellow and white mulches resulted in higher β-carotene (organic compounds with orange pigments in plants) and ascorbic acid (water soluble sugar acid with antioxidant properties) content in carrots when compared to other colored mulches and bare soil treatments.

2.3 Plastic mulch and pest management

Plastic mulches provide a range of weed control levels, depending on the amount of light transmission through the mulch (Decoteau et al. 1988). Plastic mulch reduced weed emergence by 64% to 98% during the growing season (Egley 1983). Black mulches are more effective for weed control, but typically provide less soil warming than clear mulch (Ashworth and Harrison 1983). Schales (1989) found that non-mulched plots required 225–270 more man days for hand weeding a hectare than plots using plastic mulch. Wavelength selective or infra-red transmitting mulches combine the soil warming of the clear mulch with the weed control of the black mulch, but at a cost premium (Lamont 2005).

Reflected energy not only affects plant growth and development but reportedly influences the behavior of insects surrounding the plants (Csizinszky et al. 1995; Decoteau et al. 1989; Schalk et al. 1989). Mulches may also protect the crop from insect pests or diseases (Summers and Stapleton 2002; Ngouajio et al. 2008). Reflective plastic mulch can be used to manage silver leaf whitefly populations equal to that provided by treatment with imidacloprid (Summers and Stapleton 2002). Since many insects use visual cues to find host plants, interference with these cues can cause increased attraction or repulsion to the plastic mulched fields and, thus, crops contained within those fields (Csizinszky et al. 1995). Greater numbers of western flower thrips (Franklinielh occidentalis) are attracted to low UV reflective white, blue, and yellow colors (Matteson et al. 1992). Lower thrips counts were reported on red, green, black, and highly UV reflective substrates (Matteson et al. 1992). Aphids also demonstrate attraction to certain colors, like yellow, green, and bare soil, and repulsion to other colors, such as silver (Webb et al. 1994; Brown et al. 1993; Barro 1991). In recent years, there has been increased attention to the use of colored plastic mulches in preventing or delaying the onset of various insect-vectored diseases. The use of reflective mulch greatly reduced the number of aphid vectors and delayed the spread of bean yellow mosaic virus and cucumber mosaic virus (Jones 1991).

3 Limitations of polyethylene plastic mulch and alternatives

3.1 Limitations of polyethylene plastic mulch

Most mulch films are currently produced from petroleum-based plastics, usually polyethylene, and cause a considerable waste disposal problem (Halley et al. 2001). Perhaps a major limitation to commercial uses of plastic mulches is the disposal of the plastic film after use, which causes an environmental pollution problem. The dramatic increase in production and lack of biodegradability of commercial polymers, particularly commodity plastics used in agriculture and packaging industry, focused public attention on a potentially huge environmental accumulation and pollution problem that could persist for centuries (Albertsson et al. 1987). Removal of the plastic is time-consuming (about 16 h/ha) and despite the use of machines still requires hand labor (McCraw and Motes 1991). The residual film if left in the field may interfere with root development of the subsequent crop. Plastic requires pickup and disposal at the end of the season and its manufacture and disposal entail significant environmental costs (Schonbeck 1995). Normally the useful life of mulching exceeds the duration of crop cycles, and it is usually left in the soil afterward. Although the part exposed to the light undergoes photo-degradation and contributes to the plastic’s decomposition for photodegradable mulches (Gonzalez et al. 2002), the rest of the material is simply broken into pieces during soil preparation for a new crop, some pieces being buried and some remaining on the soil surface. The buried pieces are more difficult to decompose since they are less affected by light and high temperatures, creating serious soil problems whose environmental repercussion has not been fully evaluated.

By the beginning of the 1970s, mulching of vegetable and fruit crops was already widely practiced. The relatively low price of plastic materials did not encourage retrieval and recycling. However, because of the vast amounts of plastic involved, researchers began to develop plastic films, which would self-destruct by suitable chemical modifications (De Carsalade 1986). Carnell (1978) outlined four methods for removal of plastic mulch namely discing, burning, physical removal, removal, and storage of the plastic mulch. The plastic waste is disposed off through landfilling, incineration, and recycling. Because of their persistence in the environment, several communities are now more sensitive to the impact of discarded plastic on the environment, including deleterious effects on wildlife and on the aesthetic qualities of cities and forests. Improperly disposed plastic materials are a significant source of environmental pollution, potentially harming life. In addition, the burning of polyvinylchloride plastics produces persistent organic pollutants known as furans and dioxins (Jayasekara et al. 2005). Because of the high costs related to the regular process of gathering and discarding films and the recycling process, plastic films are often discarded in a dump or burned with the subsequent emission of toxic substances both to the atmosphere and to the soil (De Prisco et al. 2002).

Although recycling may be an option, polyethylene mulches used in vegetable production are contaminated with too much dirt and debris to be recycled directly from the field (Hemphill 1993). Plastic films with more than 5% contaminants by weight will not be accepted for recycling (Clarke 1996). In reality, contaminants in agricultural plastics can be up to 40–50% by weight from pesticides, fertilizers, soil and debris, moist vegetation, silage juice water, and UV additives (Amidon 1994; Hussain and Hamid 2003; Levitan and Barro 2003; Rollo 1997), especially in mulch film and drip irrigation tape, which are by far the most difficult components to be recycled (Lamont 2004b). Brooks (1996) found that the contamination level (moisture and soil content) of uncleaned plastic mulch film was 36%. Furthermore, most of the agricultural plastics may be photodegraded due to exposure to UV light, which make them unacceptable as recyclable feedstocks (Levitan and Barro 2003). Between 1992 and 2008, 95 million lb of high-density polyethylene pesticide containers were recycled in the USA, while only 1% of agricultural plastic film and nursery container was recycled (Kotrba 2008). The low amount of agricultural plastic film recycled is due to the high level of contamination.

The use of polyethylene mulch in the production of agricultural commodities in Australia is experiencing increasing economic, environmental, and social pressures. The problem of disposal of spent polyethylene is compounded by a key recommendation of the National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Strategy (CEPA 1992) for a 50% reduction by the year 2000 (based on the per capita amount in 1991) of the quantity of waste destined for landfill. As a result, some rural municipalities have already taken drastic action. For example, the Bowen Shire Council of the central Queensland coast does not accept spent polyethylene mulch at the land-fill site. Attempts to recycle the material have been hampered by practical difficulties and high costs. At best, the price of dumping spent polyethylene mulch is expected to rise significantly in the next 3–5 years. At worst, disposal at landfills will be completely banned and illegal dumping will attract massive fines (Olsen and Gounder 2001).

The widespread applications of plastics are not only due to their favorable mechanical and thermal properties but also mainly due to the stability and durability (Rivard et al. 1995). Because of their durability and visibility in litter, plastics (polymers) have attracted more public and media attention than any other component of the solid waste stream. In 1993, the total world demand for plastics was over 107 million tons, and it was estimated at about 146 million tons in 2000. The plastic industry in Pakistan is growing at an average annual growth rate of 15%. The estimated figure of plastic waste generation across the Pakistan is 1.32 million tons per annum. This considerable content of plastic in the solid waste generated in Pakistan is of great concern. Plastic waste is released during all stages of production, and at post consumption, every plastic product is a waste (Sabir 2004). As Mulder (1998) discovered, in underdeveloped countries, plastics are almost completely recycled, as the return on investment is positive in their economic situation. This appears to be positive at the onset, but the open systems by which the plastics are recycled allow the emission of toxic gases at crucial levels.

Polyethylene mulches contain nearly as much potential energy per unit weight as oil (20,000 Btu/lb) and could be incinerated to produce heat or electricity (Hemphill 1993; Lamont 2005). However, most power plants and incinerators are not designed to burn dirt- and debris-covered plastic, and operators are reluctant to make attempts to do so (J. Wilhoit, personal communication). Plastics, which generally have inherently high heating energy (more than that of coal but less than that of fuel oil), can be used as fuel for energy-recovery incineration to generate electricity (Table 1). High-efficiency incinerators capable of burning at 1,000–1,200°C or higher are recommended to ensure complete combustion and less pollutant emissions (Garthe 2004). The downside of this technology is the cost of the initial investment because an incinerator with steam turbines, generators, and a scrubber system, which reduces pollutant emissions, often costs several millions. Low-density polyethylene is the dominant plastic in mulch film applications, while ethylene vinyl acetate, ethylene butyl acrylate, and their copolymers or blends are used for special purposes in crops with high market values, such as strawberry and asparagus (Espi et al. 2006). Researchers at Pennsylvania State University have tested “fuel nuggets” made of compressed plastic mulches as supplemental fuel in coal fired burners (Garthe et al. 2003). However, the technology is yet to be used commercially. In 1994, Amidon Recycling estimated that less than 5% of agricultural plastics was recycled, and about the same amount was incinerated for energy recovery (Amidon 1994; Levitan and Barro 2003).
Table 1

Energy yield of various materials (Garthe 2004)


Heat of combustion (Btu/lb)

Fuel oil










Bituminous coal


Pine wood


Oak wood






Average municipal solid waste (MSW)


Yard waste


Food waste


1 Btu = 1.055 kJ

Landfilling is accepted by some communities as proper disposal (Garthe 2004). Landfill tipping fee for agricultural plastics ranges typically from $38 to $120/ton depending on the level of contamination of the plastics (EPC 2006). Many landfill operators reject plastic mulch film as unsuitable landfill material due to its level of contamination. One of the main criticisms of landfilling is the fact that wastes in the landfills, including plastics, either do not degrade or degrade at a very slow rate. Once the plastic product is used and disposed of, if it ends up in the landfill, then it will slowly degrade, due to the design of the landfill to prevent material decomposition (Narayan 2001). Once the landfill is capped, moisture and air inside are minimized to prevent contamination of groundwater from decomposing substances (Lee and Jones-Lee 2007). Local availability of landfill space is also an issue. The number of landfills in the USA decreased substantially from 7,924 in 1988 to 1,754 in 2006 (EPA 2008). However, the capacity has remained relatively constant at the national level, since the new landfills are much larger than those in the past, but the availability and capacity at the local or regional level has changed substantially due to regional centralization. This may increase the transportation costs and hence disposal expense for growers.

On-site burning without energy recovery or open burning has been a common way for disposing of agricultural plastic wastes. Because of high transportation cost and landfill tipping fees, farmers consider on-site burning to be economically more favorable (Lawrence 2007). In 2003, it was estimated that more than 50% of agricultural plastics in New York and Pennsylvania were burned on-site (Levitan and Barro 2003). Due to the low burning temperature of 400–600°F (200–315°C) or less and incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons, on-site burning of mulch films contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides usually generates air pollutants, especially dioxins (EPA 2006; Garthe 2004; Lawrence 2007; Levitan and Barro 2003). Dioxins are known as endocrine disruptors and carcinogens (Levitan and Barro 2003). Besides dioxins and related compounds, exposure to fine particles (diameter < 2.5 mm) from open burning has been associated with many health effects, such as increased risk of stroke, asthmatic attacks, decreased lung function, respiratory diseases, and premature death (Dockery and Pope 1994; Hong et al. 2002). Therefore, several states in the USA such as Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Oregon, and Wyoming prohibit open burning of several materials including plastics (FLDEP 2005; IDDEQ 2007; MDEQ 1994; ORDEQ 2006; WDEQ 2005). On the other hand, recent reports indicate that the state of New York only bans open burning within city or village limits, and open burning of agricultural plastics was still allowed in the state of Pennsylvania (NYDEC 2008). Disposal of agricultural plastics by on-site dumping is not recommended since seepage of water that has been in contact with buried agricultural plastics caused by irrigation or rainfall can contaminate groundwater with various agrochemicals (Clarke 1996).

The use of machines to pull up the mulch films from the beds requires that the crops must be removed and the bed must be clean. Environmental issues of using plastic mulch films include pesticide runoff and, most importantly, film disposal. According to Durham (2003) and Rice et al. (2001), plastic mulch films increase the runoff of water after rainfall or irrigation, which means that more of the pesticides and other chemicals applied over the plastic mulch films run off the field to surface waters, such as nearby river or lake, or ground water. Environmental and economic issues of removal and disposal of used agricultural plastic vary depending on the modes of disposal, such as landfilling, open burning, onsite dumping, recycling, or incineration (Kijchavengkul 2010). Currently, the majority of the used agricultural plastics in New York and Pennsylvania are managed by landfilling, on-site dumping or burying, on-site stock piling, or on-site burning (Lawrence 2007; Levitan and Barro 2003; Parish et al. 2000; Rollo 1997). According to a survey of Pennsylvania vegetable growers, 66% of participating growers said they disposed of used agricultural plastics by on-site burning, 27% by landfilling, and 25% by burying, dumping, or piling on-site (Garthe 2004).

Regarding the financial aspects, using plastic mulch films increases the cost for vegetable production due to material costs of $400–625/ha for normal black plastic mulch film (Lamont 2004b), machines and labor for film application and removal, and also material hauling and landfill tipping fee. The cost of lifting, baling, and disposing polyethylene mulch following cropping depends on the integrity of the film, the length of rows, soil type, distance between bed centers, and availability of suitable machinery; it typically varies from $150 to $240/ha in major vegetable production areas of Australia (Olsen and Gounder 2001).

3.2 Alternatives to polyethylene plastic mulch

Paper-based mulches have been used in agriculture since 1914, when paper was used to reduce weed pressure in sugar cane fields (Smith 1931). Asphalt-impregnated paper mulches were successfully used in pineapple (Ananas comosus) production in the 1920s in Hawaii, increasing quality and yields (Smith 1931). Paper mulches have since been evaluated with varying results. Newspaper mulches represent an available and cost-effective resource and have been frequently trialed (Shogren 2000). Paper mulches have been considered as an alternative to plastic but suffer from very rapid degradation and usually begin to break apart just a few weeks after exposure to soil, rain, and wind (Anderson et al. 1995; Shogren 1999, 2000). Although thicker paper and fiber mats can be used to lengthen lifetimes, these can be very expensive to use. Munn (1992) reported increased yields with shredded newspaper compared with straw mulches in corn and soybean (Glycine max). Recently, Sanchez et al. (2008) reported success when using shredded newspapers as weed-suppressing mulch in organic high-tunnel cucumber production. However, some paper mulches deteriorate rapidly under field conditions, reducing their effectiveness (Shogren 2000). Several trials have used paper mulches with polyethylene, wax, or vegetable oil coatings used to slow degradation of mulches in the field (Miles et al. 2003; Shogren 1999; Shogren and David 2006; Vandenberg and Tiessen 1972). Growers interested in using paper mulch on a larger scale may want to lay mulch and drip irrigation tape with a conventional plastic layer and plant using a water wheel transplanter. Miles et al. (2006) used traditional mulch laying equipment, though hand transplanted, to test the performance of several starch and paper-based mulches for organically managed lettuce (Lactuca sativa), broccoli (B. oleracea var. italica), bell pepper, and watermelon in the Pacific northwestern USA with variable results. A mulch mat is made from recycled paper. However, current research indicates that mats do not biodegradable easily and can only partially prevent weed growth (Halley et al. 2001).

Another strategy for reducing plastic mulch waste has been double cropping, which allows growing two (or more) crops on the same mulch (Ngouajio and Ernest 2004). One of the advantages of double cropping is the reduction of the total volume of used agricultural plastic. Unfortunately, this technique cannot be used efficiently in all crops and environments (Ngouajio et al. 2008). More recently, studies have tested the performance of biodegradable materials applied as slurries. These include foam mulches, hydraulic mulches, and hydramulch (Warnick et al. 2006). Those materials are fully degradable but are expensive, difficult to handle, and require specialized equipment for application. Also, they do not provide the level of weed suppression and soil warming generally achieved with plastic mulch (Warnick et al. 2006). In the area of new technologies, preliminary studies have shown that baling used plastic may allow growers to reduce the volume and therefore the cost of disposal. Photodegradable plastics, mulch mats, and biodegradable plastics have been considered by technologists to replace the petroleum-based plastics (Halley et al. 2001). The use of biodegradable or photodegradable mulch films may satisfy growing needs to find an alternative to petroleum-based products (Debeaufort et al. 1998; Guilbert et al. 1996) and to reduce labor cost to remove the mulch products after use.

4 Biodegradable and photodegradable plastic mulches

Researchers worldwide are interested in the area of biopolymer development. The German government has stringent regulations in place regarding acceptable emission levels. In 1990, the German government published a call for research and development of biodegradable thermoplastics (Grigat et al. 1998). For this reason, many German material scientists and engineers have focused their work on environmentally stable biodegradable plastics. Various materials have been created by these researchers, including the Bayer BAK line which was introduced in extrusion and injection molding grades in 1996. Novamont, an Italian company, introduced the Mater-Bi line for similar reasons. Queen Mary University in London, England has a plastics department, which is actively working on biocomposite development (Hogg 2001). As a whole, all European nations are expected to follow the European Packaging directive, which expects a material recovery of packaging waste. Organic recovery (composting spent materials) is the most commonly applied waste reduction method (Schroeter 1998). European nations are also expected to incorporate 15% (w/w) of recycled plastics into the manufacture of packaging materials. Germany aims to better that level, as they set tier goal in 2001 for a 60% incorporation of recycled plastics into new packaging materials (Fomin 2001).

European nations are the front runners of biopolymer research, but impressive developmental work has occurred and continues to occur in other geographical areas. The Chinese government is responsible for a large population on a small land base. Therefore, the preservation of space and responsible disposal of waste are key considerations. For these reasons, Chinese researchers are focusing on refinement of microbially produced polyhydroxyalkanoates. North American researchers, including those at the University of Saskatchewan, are also interested in biopolymer development, as the agricultural industry will benefit from the potential value added processing (Kolybaba et al. 2003).

4.1 Photodegradable plastic mulch

An alternative solution for reducing waste from polyethylene mulches is to develop photodegradable or biodegradable mulches (Sorkin 2006). In the 1960s and 1970s, scientists started to investigate the possibility of using bio-photodegradation as a self-destructive disposal technique for plastic film (Ennis 1987). Photodegradable mulch films have been tested intermittently for more than 20 years (Hemphill 1993). Results have been variable, with many films degrading prematurely (Greer and Dole 2003; Halley et al. 2001). Furthermore, the ability of photodegradable mulches, which are manufactured with petroleum-based ingredients, to degrade into carbon dioxide and water has been questioned (Zhang et al. 2008).

Work on biodegradable starch-based film (Otey and Westoff 1980) and photodegradable polyolefin polymer and polyethylene polymer films (Carnell 1980) was under way. However, resulting mulches have been quite variable in their rate of degradation (Chu and Matthews 1984). Recently, newer photodegradable products have shown more satisfactory degradation characteristics when tested in different regions of the USA. Three major commercial products were Plastigone, an ultraviolet-activated, time-controlled degradable plastic; Biolan, an agricultural mulch film designed to photodegrade according to a predetermined schedule into harmless particles, which then biodegrade into carbon dioxide; and Agplast, a photodegradable material made by Lecofilms (Clough and Reed 1989; Sanders et al. 1989; Kostewicz and Stall 1989; Johnson 1989; Lamont and Marr 1990).

Photodegradable plastics are those reported to degrade by photo-initiated chemical reactions. The problem with these plastics is the continual use of nonrenewable petroleum-based resources and their questionable ability to decompose to carbon dioxide (CO2) and H2O incompletely in the soil without light emission (Halley et al. 2001). There have been a lot of reports on preparation, property, and application of degradable polymeric materials, but few reports are related to the agricultural application of degradable mulching films (Scott 1999; Chiellini et al. 2002; Fernando et al. 2002). Photo-biodegradable polyethylene films containing starch have been developed and used in agriculture. They are better able to raise temperature, preserve moisture, and raise yield than common polyethylene films and can be degraded environmentally after use. The photo-biodegradation induction periods of four kinds of photo-biodegradable polyethylene films range from 46 to 64 days, which basically satisfies the needs of agricultural cultivation. All photo-biodegradable polyethylene films can be degraded to stage V, in which almost no film exists on the surface of the ridges 2–3 months or so after the induction periods. The photo-biodegradable polyethylene films buried in soil have also good degradability (Wang et al. 2004).

Photodegradable plastic mulches have been effective but have proven to be unreliable as well as expensive to use (Greer and Dole 2003). The photodegradable materials consist usually of polyethylene with additives that enhance degradation in sunlight. However, degradation is inhibited by crops that cover the mulch as they grow because exposure to ultraviolet light is reduced or prevented (Greer and Dole 2003). Degradation is also slower in areas that receive less solar radiation (Greer and Dole 2003). Oxo-biodegradable materials (polymer to which small amount of salt has been added to speed up the oxidative process) behave similarly to photodegradable materials, i.e., the buried part does not suffer degradation and needs to be exposed to light and air because the degradation of oxo-biodegradable plastics is a result of oxidative and cell-mediated phenomena, either simultaneously or successively.

An alternative to photodegradable plastics may be the use of biodegradable films, made of corn starch and other biodegradable polymers (Martin-Closas et al. 2003), since they are broken down by the action of humidity and microorganisms, decomposing completely into CO2 and water (Albertsson and Huang 1995).

The development of environmentally degradable polymeric materials and plastics (EDPs) was initiated among several other attempts in the early 1980s to address an emerging global plastic waste problem, following decades of fast development and explosive growth of plastic utilization (Selke 1996; Scott 1999). Some synthetic plastics like polyester polyurethane, polyethylene with starch blend, are biodegradable, although most commodity plastics used now are either non-biodegradable or take decades to degrade. This has raised growing concern about degradable polymers and promoted research activity worldwide to either modify current products to promote degradability or to develop new alternatives that are degradable by any or all of the following mechanisms: biodegradation, photodegradation, environmental erosion, and thermal degradation (Kawai 1995). EDPs comprise new kinds of plastic items, which are designed to exhibit a significant degradation resulting in environmentally compatible end products, namely CO2, water, and cell biomass within an acceptable time frame (Scott and Gilead 1995). Degradation of EDPs occurs through various mechanisms and their combination (photolytic, thermal, mechanical, hydrolytic, oxidative, biological) with the ultimate degradation exclusively carried out by biological processes, known as “mineralization” (Vert et al. 1992; Doi and Fukuda 1994).

4.2 Biodegradable plastic mulch

Suitable alternative methods for the disposal of plastic films include the use of biodegradable materials (Malinconico et al. 2002, 2008; Imam et al. 2005; Kyrikou and Briassoulis 2007; Tzankova Dintcheva and La Mantia 2007; Kijchavengkul et al. 2008a, b). At the end of their life, biodegradable materials can be integrated directly into the soil where microflora transforms them into carbon dioxide or methane, water, and biomass. Because biodegradable materials do not produce wastes that require disposal, they could represent a sustainable ecological alternative to low-density polyethylene films (Immirzi et al. 2003; Russo et al. 2004, 2005; Kapanen et al. 2008).

Plastics are resistant against microbial attack, since during their relatively short time of presence in nature, evolution has not yet design new enzyme structures capable of degrading synthetic polymers (Mueller 2006). Nowadays, a wide variety of petroleum-based synthetic polymers are produced worldwide to the extent of approximately 140 million tons/year, and remarkable amounts of these polymers are introduced in the ecosystem as industrial waste products (Shimao 2001). Early use of photodegradable plastic mulch during the 1970s and 1980s, wrongly named degradable mulch films, discouraged the current use and implementation of new biodegradable mulch films because they were too expensive and their breakdown was unpredictable. Moreover, their use increased the costs of weed control and the cost of pick up and removal of mulch films that broke down prematurely in the field (Giacomell et al. 2000). Biodegradable plastics, as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials, are “degrad-able plastic in which the degradation results from the action of naturally occurring microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi and algae” (Mooney 2009).

Early attempts to develop plastic mulches that breakdown in the field after crop harvest have shown that degradable polymers may produce micro fragments that remain in the soil for a long period of time (Feuilloley et al. 2005). A truly biodegradable material should be destroyed by soil microorganisms, bioassimilated, or mineralized (Feuilloley et al. 2005; Gross and Kalra 2002; Vert et al. 2002). Starch-based polymers have shown enhanced biodegradability but remain too expensive and sometimes too heavy for agricultural applications (Feuilloley et al. 2005; Halley et al. 2001; Olsen and Gounder 2001). Biodegradable plastics opened the way for new considerations of waste management strategies since these materials are designed to degrade under environmental conditions or in municipal and industrial biological waste treatment facilities (Augusta et al. 1992; Witt et al. 1997). Biodegradable mulch films can biodegrade in the field after plowing, thus eliminating film recovery and disposal (Kyrikou and Briassoulis 2007; Kijchavengkul et al. 2008a).

With material properties similar to those of conventional plastics (Hocking and Marchessault 1994; Steinbuchel and Fuchtenbusch 1998), biodegradable plastics (polyesters) have been developed successfully over the last few years. These include polyhydroxyalkanoates, polylactides, polycaprolactone, aliphatic polyesters, polysaccharides, and copolymer or blend of these. The most important are poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) and poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate). Bioplastics (biopolymers) obtained from growth of microorganisms or from plants which are genetically engineered to produce such polymers are likely to replace currently used plastics at least in some of the fields (Lee 1996).

Efforts have been made to develop environmentally compatible plastic products by incorporating renewable polymers as an alternative to petroleum-derived chemical (Fishman et al. 1994; Bozell 2001). The renewable polymers are relatively inexpensive, environmentally friendly, and also naturally biodegradable. Particularly, plant material derived from renewable crops, by-products, or their industrially processed wastes offer a good source of fiber for applications. Ongoing research cooperation between USDA laboratories and the University of Pisa, Italy has yielded several composite blends of polyvinyl alcohol and lignocellulosic fibers derived from the wastes from industrially processed sugarcane, apple, and oranges (Chiellini et al. 2001). Particularly, polyvinyl alcohol is well suited for blends with natural polymers since it is highly polar and can also be manipulated in water solutions (Lahalih et al. 1987; Coffin et al. 1996; Chiellini et al. 2001). Globally, efforts are being made to develop bioplastics from renewable polymers for use as mulch film.

Biodegradable plastics have been developed from early 1980s particularly biodegradable aliphatic polyesters (e.g., polyhydroxybutyrate or polylactic acid) or starch–polymer blends. However, the high cost of these polyesters prevents their commercialization. Also the starch–polymer blends are actually not 100% biodegradable. Starch-based mulch films have become popular in current research because starch is an inexpensive and abundant natural polymer that can produce a film structure (Liu 2005; Guilbert and Gontard 2005). Halley et al. (2001) developed a biodegradable film from a blend of starch and biodegradable polyester polymers. Acceptable behaviors of the films have been achieved for general uses. Otey et al. (1974) investigated the development of degradable mulch film from gelatinized corn starch, polyethylene, and polyethylene–acrylic acid polymers and from starch–poly(vinyl acetate) blending with poly(vinyl chloride). Good film blowing and casting performance was achieved (Halley et al. 2001).

Polyesters play a predominant role as biodegradable plastics due to their potentially hydrolysable ester bonds. As shown in Fig. 2 below, the polyester family is made of two major groups—aliphatic (linear) polyesters and aromatic (aromatic rings) polyesters. Biodegradable polyesters which have been developed commercially or are in commercial development are polyhydroxyalkanoates, polyhydroxybutyrate, polyhydroxyhexanoate, polyhydroxyvalerate, polylactic acid, polycaprolactone, polybutylene succinate (PBS), polybutylene succinate adipate, aliphatic–aromatic copolyesters, polyethylene terephthalate, polybutylene adipate/terephthalate, and polymethylene adipate/terephthalate (Anonymous 2002).
Fig. 2

Biodegradable polyester family. PHA polyhydroxyalkanoates, PHB polyhydroxybutyrate, PHH polyhydroxyhexanoate, PHV polyhydroxyvalerate, PLA polylactic acid, PCL polycaprolactone, PBS polybutylene succinate, PBSA polybutylene succinate adipate, AAC aliphatic–aromatic copolyesters, PET polyethylene terephthalate, PBAT polybutylene adipate/terephthalate, PTMAT polymethylene adipate/terephthalate

Polyhydroxyalkanoates are naturally occurring bacterial products from which plastics can be made (Reemmer 2009). Polyhydroxyalkanoates’ key properties are their biodegradability, apparent biocompatibility, and their manufacture from renewable resources. The global interest in polyhydroxyalkanoates is high as they are used in various packaging materials, medical devices, disposable personal hygiene, and also agricultural applications as a substitute for synthetic polymers like polypropylene, polyethylene, etc. (Ojumu et al. 2004; Lee 1996). In the past 10 years, several biodegradable plastics have been introduced into the market. However, none of them is efficiently biodegradable. For this reason, none of the products has gained widespread use (Anonymous 1999). At present, biodegradable plastic represents just a tiny market as compared with the conventional petrochemical material. Bioplastics will comparatively prove cheaper when oil prices will continue to hike up. Although not in use today, plastic mulches could be made from polylactic acid a biodegradable polymer derived from lactic acid. This is one form of vegetable-based bioplastic. This material biodegrades quickly under composting conditions and does not leave toxic residue. However, bioplastic can have its own environmental impacts, depending on the way it is produced (Kathiresan 2003).

PBS is one of the commercially used biodegradable plastics with a range of desirable properties, including good mechanical properties, the ability to be melt-processed, biodegradability, and environmental compatibility (Kim et al. 2006). The biodegradability of PBS has been demonstrated in a liquid culture (Pranamuda et al. 1995; Li et al. 2005), in compost (Yang et al. 2004 and Zhao et al. 2005), and in soil (Bahari et al. 1998; Suhartini et al. 2002). Nowadays, materials such as polylactic acid, PBS, polycaprolactone, or polybutylene adipate/terephthalate (commercially supplied by BASF under the trade name Ecoflex®) are being adopted as biodegradable mulch sheets (Kyrikou and Briassoulis 2007; Shah et al. 2008). Polylactic acid produced from biorenewable resources, such as corn, has recently been gaining attention for sustainability reasons because the term “biorenewable” refers to materials made from biomass with absorbed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (Auras et al. 2004). However, its most important property is its biodegradability.

Polybutyleneadipate-co-terephthalate, an oil-based aliphatic–aromatic copolyester polymer, was used to produce biodegradable mulch films with various colors and thicknesses (Kijchavengkul et al. 2006, 2008a, b). The adipate/terephthalate polymer’s basic chemical structure is shown in Fig. 3. Laboratory tests with corn starch as a control confirmed the biodegradability of the films (Kijchavengkul et al. 2006, 2008a). Currently, it is used as a sheet, fiber, and modifier for plastics (Muller et al. 2001). Feuilloley et al. (2005) studied the biodegradability of three different commercial mulch films including Mater-bi (Novamont, Novara, Italy) film supplied by Deltalene, with a 50-μm-thick film made of polycaprolactone/starch blend (60:40, w/w); Ecoflex (BASF, Ypsilanti, MI, USA) with a 60-μm-thick film made of an aliphatic/aromatic polyester; and Actimais (SMS Trioplast, Pouance, France) a 36-μm-thick film made of polyethylene with pro-oxidant additives. The first conclusions from the study are that a very low degree of biodegradation of the commercial polyethylene films is achieved from these tests and that crosslinked polyethylene micro-fragments are remaining in soil for a very long period of time.
Fig. 3

Structure of poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) (PBAT) and 1,4 butanediol (B), terephthalic acid (T), and adipic acid (A) components

Due to increases in economic and environmental concerns over removal and disposal of mulch films, much research has focused on using biodegradable materials, such as polylactic acid, adipate/terephthalate, copolymers of PHB, and starch based polymers, as mulch films. Some of the polymeric mulch materials that are commercially available and currently under research are given in Table 2.
Table 2

Polymeric mulch materials commercially available and currently under research

Types of plastic mulch

CA or UR






Rollo (1997), Lamont (1999), Hussain and Hamid (2003)




Espi et al. (2006)




Espi et al. (2006)




Espi et al. (2006)

Blends of LDPE or LLDPE with EVA



Amin (2001)




Kijchavengkul et al. (2008a, b)




Anonymous (2008)

PHB copolymers



Kelly (2008)

Copolymer of PCL and starch



Rangarajan and Ingall (2006)

Starch based polymer



Halley et al. (2001)

Vegetable oil coated kraft paper



Shogren and David (2006)

CA commercially available, UR under research, LDPE low-density polyethylene, LLDPE linear low-density polyethylene, EVA ethylene vinyl acetate, EBA ethylene butyl acrylate, PLA poly(lactide) or poly(lactic acid), PBAT poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate), PHB poly(hydroxylbutyrate), PCL poly(ɛ-caprolactone)

Starch has been widely used as a raw material in film production because of increasing prices and decreasing availability of conventional film-forming resins (Otey et al. 1977). Starch is a natural polymer that can readily be cast into films via a process called gelatinization. The chemistry of these plastics has been designed so that after a period in the field, the combination of exposure to UV light and microbial activity causes these mulches to “fall apart” (Feuilloley et al. 2005). Starch is also useful for making agricultural mulch films because it degrades into harmless products when placed in contact with soil microorganisms (Chandra and Rustgi 1998). High amylose content in starch is known to lead to strong and flexible films (Wolff et al. 1951; Moore and Robinson 1968; Lourdin et al. 1995; Palviainen et al. 2001) because of its strong gelation properties and helical linear polymer structure (Juliano 1985; Elliasson et al. 2001; Liu and Han 2005). High amylose content in starch is known to lead to strong and flexible films (Wolff et al. 1951; Moore and Robinson 1968; Lourdin et al. 1995; Palviainen et al. 2001) because of its strong gelation properties and helical linear polymer structure (Juliano 1985; Elliasson et al. 2001; Liu and Han 2005).

The starch molecule has two important functional groups, the –OH group that is susceptible to substitution reactions and the C–O–C bond that is susceptible to chain breakage. The hydroxyl group of glucose has a nucleophilic character. By reaction of its –OH group, modification of various properties can be obtained. One example is the reaction with silane to improve its dispersion in polyethylene (Huang et al. 1990). A method was developed (Boggs 1959) to incorporate starch as a filler and crosslinking agent in diisocyanate-modified polyesters to yield elastomers. Otey et al. (1974) in a study on starch-based films found that a starch polyvinyl alcohol film could be coated with a thin layer of water-resistant polymer to produce a degradable agricultural mulching film. Starch-based polyethylene films were formulated (Otey et al. 1980, 1987) and consisted of up to 40% starch, urea, ammonia, and various portions of low-density polyethylene and poly(ethylene-co-acrylic acid). Three techniques were used to incorporate large amounts of starch as filler into disposable polyvinyl chloride plastics (Westhoff et al. 1974). These films appear to be useful for a variety of agricultural applications (Otey et al. (1975).

The distribution of amylose and amylopectin inside a starch granule is well ordered. However, during heating in the presence of water, the packing of the two polymers becomes chaotic. This loss of internal order occurs at different temperatures, depending on the starch type. With persistent warming in water, the natural granules swell and finally their structure is destroyed, releasing the polymers into the water (Thomas and Atwell 1999). Starch degradation process proceeds very slowly: First, dextrins are formed and these in turn undergo hydrolysis to maltose disaccharide, to be eventually broken down into two glucose molecules. Starch is a strongly hygroscopic, chemically neutral substance. It swells greatly in water, due to penetration of water molecules into its branched structure. As mentioned above, long boiling makes it dissolve in water or in weak acids, as well as in solutions with hydroxides of potassium, rubidium, cesium, or francium and concentrated solutions of chloral hydrate. Soluble starch (amylum solubile) is obtained as a result of long boiling of starch with water or weak acid; link cleavage at the amylopectin chain branching sites is then observed, and eventually a water-soluble product is formed. It is employed as an indicator in chemical analysis (iodometry) (Kohlmunzer 1993). Studies on starch include examination of water absorption, chemical modifi cation of molecules, behavior under agitation, and high-temperature thermomechanical abrasion resistance. Although starch is a polymer, its strength under stress appears to be low. At temperature above 150°C, the glycoside bonds start cracking and over 250°C starch granules subside endothermally. At low temperatures, however, some reorganization of hydrogen bonds is observed together with straightening of the molecule chains during the cooling process (retrogradation). In some extreme cases, under 10°C, precipitation is reported. Starch may be hot water soluble and formed in thin films; its molecular orientation causes brittleness in both foils and solid packages. Both amylose and amylopectin consist of glucopyranosis molecules, yet the structural differences between these two polymers determine their different properties. Amylose is mostly a linear polymeric molecule, consisting of α-1,4-linked d-glucopyranose (Fig. 4). The molecular weight of amylose varies from 500 anhydroglucose units in high-amylose maize starch to more than 6,000 anhydroglucose units in potato starch (Kohlmunzer 1993). Recent research suggests that amylose also contains some branchings. For purposes of simplification, the polymer structure is presented as a normal chain, but amylose is often characterized with a helix structure. The helix structure contains C–H bonds due to which it is hydrophobic, allowing a type of additive complexes with free fatty acids, fatty acid glycerides, some alcohols, and iodine to be generated (Thomas and Atwell 1999). Iodine addition proves to be an important diagnostic method for starch characterization. Amylose absorbs up to 20% iodine and stains blue. Bonding with lipids, especially mono- and diglycerides, is a well-known property of amylose helix. The configuration and structural indivisibility of amylose–lipid complexes are affected by numerous factors such as temperature, pH, fatty acid structure, or glyceride, as well as by the contact time and/or agitation time between an amylose “carrier” and a linked molecule. A developing complex can change the features of starch. Bonding of amylose to fats or to food emulsifiers such as mono- and diglycerides can change the starch gelatinization temperature or the textural and viscous profiles of the formed mass and can impede the retrogradation process. After starch granules have been boiled, amylose possesses a gel formation capacity that allows rebinding of the dissolved amylose polymers. This property is noticeable in the behavior of some kinds of amylose-rich starch (wheat, rice, and high-amylose maize).
Fig. 4

Amylose (top) and amylopectin (bottom) structures (De Graaf et al. 2003)

Amylopectin, dominant in most starch kinds, is a branched polymer of substantially larger size than amylose. Amylopectin consists of α-1,4-bonded glucose segments, linked by α-1,6 bonds at the branching sites (Fig. 4). Estimates are that around 4–6% of bonds in a standard amylopectin molecule appear to be α-1,6 links, which results in over 20,000 branchings in a molecule, although the branchings are not large. Studies suggest a bimodal size distribution of polymer chains, namely small and large chains. Small chains have an average degree of polymerization of about 15, whereas the bigger chains have degree of polymerization values of around 45. This unique configuration contributes to the crystalline nature of amylopectin and to ordered arrangements of amylopectin molecules within the starch granule. The branched chains of amylopectin behave just like those of amylose, but in the case of amylopectin, whole chains or more often their fragments can be twisted spirally (Thomas and Atwell 1999; Mitrus 2004).

The water-soluble synthetic polymer, polyvinyl alcohol has excellent compatibility with starch, and blends are expected to have good film properties. Several such blends have been developed and tested for biodegradable packaging applications and appear to have potential for use as agricultural mulch film (Tudorachi et al. 2000). Polylactic acid is linear aliphatic polyester produced by poly-condensation of naturally produced lactic acid or by the catalytic ring opening of the lactide group. Lactic acid is produced (via starch fermentation) as a co-product of corn wet milling. The ester linkages in polylactic acid are sensitive to both chemical hydrolysis and enzymatic chain cleavage. Polylactic acid is often blended with starch to increase biodegradability and reduce costs. However, the brittleness of the starch–polylactic acid blend is a major drawback in many applications. To remedy this limitation, a number of low molecular weight plasticisers such as glycerol, sorbitol, and triethyl citrate are used. A number of companies produce polylactic acid, such as Cargill Dow LLC. Polylactic acid produced by Cargill Dow was originally sold under the name Eco Polylactic acid, but now is known as NatureWorks Polylactic acid, which is actually a family of polylactic acid polymers that can be used alone or blended with other natural-based polymers (Developing Products that Protect the Environment 2007). PBS is a biodegradable synthetic aliphatic polyester with properties similar to those of PET. PBS is generally blended with other compounds to make its use economical. PBS has excellent mechanical properties and can be applied to a range of end applications via conventional melt processing techniques.

Oxo-biodegradable materials behave similarly to photodegradable materials, i.e., the buried part does not suffer degradation and needs to be exposed to light and air because the degradation of oxo-biodegradable plastics is a result of oxidative and cell-mediated phenomena, either simultaneously or successively. Films made out of copolyester, sometimes with starch as an additive, are another option available in the market, but in opinion of Le Moine (2003), these materials are still in the process of technical and commercial development. The need to develop a plastic mulch with physical, mechanical, and optical performances equivalent to the conventional polyethylene mulch and yet biodegradable over a specific time frame would represent a significant tool to farmers especially vegetable growers.

4.3 Biodegradation process

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) define degradation as “an irreversible process leading to a significant change of the structure of a material, typically characterized by a loss of properties (e.g. integrity, molecular weight, structure or mechanical strength) and/or fragmentation.” A general statement regarding the breakdown of polymer materials is that it may occur by microbial action, photodegradation, or chemical degradation. All three methods are classified under biodegradation, as the end products are stable and found in nature. Many biopolymers are designed to be discarded in landfills, composts, or soil. The materials will break down, provided that the required microorganisms are present. Autochthonous soil biota and water are generally all that is required, adding to the appeal of microbially reduced plastics (Selin 2002).

Biodegradation is a degradation process resulting from the action of naturally occurring microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, and algae (ASTM 2004). It is the intrinsic chemical structure of the polymer that makes it biodegradable. To be biodegradable, some parts of the polymer main chain must be similar to naturally occurring substances; therefore, microbes can use their existing enzymes to break the polymer chain at those specific locations and use them as a source of energy. For example, microorganisms break down starch to use the glucose, which is broken down to two molecules of pyruvic acid, which can be further fermented into lactic acid or aerobically converted into CO2 to generate energy. Portions of polymers that are small enough are transferred into microbial cells and consumed as a food source. Chemical structures of pyruvic acid and lactic acid are similar to that of polylactic acid (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5

Chemical structures of pyruvic acid, lactic acid, PLA, and PGA

Weak links present in the chain also can facilitate attack by particular microorganisms. In the case of the polyolefin and vinyl families, the main chain of the polymer consists of carbon atoms, which make the polymer very stable to degradation or biodegradation. On the other hand, ester bonds in biodegradable polyesters, such as adipate/terephthalate, polylactic acid, and poly(hydroxyalkanoates), make those polymers susceptible to chemical degradation involving hydrolysis. Hydrolysis creates random main chain scission, which causes rapid molecular weight reduction. This reaction accelerates the biodegradation since smaller molecules are more susceptible to enzymatic reactions. Therefore, the chemical structure of the polymer is the main factor determining whether the polymer can or cannot biodegrade and its biodegradation or erosion mechanism. Generally, there are two modes of erosion for biodegradable polymers, surface erosion and bulk erosion (Chandra and Rustgi 1998). In surface erosion, microorganisms start consuming polymers enzymatically from the surface in, thereby causing early slow reduction in molecular weight due to solely enzymatic reaction. In bulk erosion, a polymer starts to degrade throughout its cross section, since water can diffuse through the polymer in the amorphous regions and cause hydrolysis reactions that cleave the polymer main chain and reduce the size of the polymer molecule, causing rapid reduction in molecular weight in an early stage (Auras et al. 2004). The low molecular weight oligomers can diffuse out of the polymer bulk to its surface and then are consumed by the microbes. Bulk erosion can occur only in polymers with hydrolyzable functional groups in the main chain, such as polylactic acid and adipate/terephthalate. Biodegradability of these biodegradable polymers in composting conditions and soil burial conditions is affected by two factors, exposure conditions (biotic or abiotic) and polymer characteristics (Kale et al. 2007; Stevens 2003).

Biodegradation is governed by different factors (Fig. 6) that include polymer characteristics, type of organism, and nature of pretreatment. The polymer characteristics such as its mobility, tacticity, crystallinity, molecular weight, type of functional groups and substituents present in its structure, and plasticizers or additives added to the polymer all play an important role in its degradation (Artham and Doble 2008; Gu et al. 2000). The biodegradation process can be affected by photodegradation. In the case of biodegradable mulch film designed to biodegrade by hydrolysis and/or microbial breakdown of the polymer chain as a food source, solar exposure during the season can affect biodegradation in two ways. First, the main chain scission from photodegradation reduces the number average molecular weight, which provides greater accessibility to the polymer chain by moisture and microorganisms (Gopferich 1998; Kijchavengkul et al. 2008a; Albertsson 1992; Stevens 2003). These smaller plastic molecules can be more easily hydrolyzed or utilized by microbes. Second, in the case of aliphatic aromatic polyesters, photodegradation can result in both main chain scission and crosslinking (Osawa 1992; Schnabel 1992). During degradation, exoenzymes from microorganisms break down complex polymers yielding smaller molecules of short chains, e.g., oligomers, dimers, and monomers, that are smaller enough to pass the semi-permeable outer bacterial membranes and then to be utilized as carbon and energy sources. The process is called depolymerization. When the end products are CO2, H2O, or CH4, the degradation is called mineralization (Frazer 1994; Hamilton et al. 1995).
Fig. 6

Factors affecting biodegradation (Kijchavengkul and Auras 2008)

While biodegradable mulch films are in use over the soil beds in fields, they must endure several types of atmospheric degradation, particularly photodegradation from UV exposure (Kyrikou and Briassoulis 2007). Photodegradation can affect these films in two ways. First, it can cause random main chain scission, either via Norrish I or Norrish II mechanisms (Fig. 7).
Fig. 7

Norrish I and II reactions: (1) and (2) = free radicals generated from Norrish I, (3) = terminal double bond compound, and (4) = methyl ketone compound (Kijchavengkul 2010)

This main chain scission poses a threat to mulch film application since it can cause a reduction of mechanical properties, such as tensile strength, and a decrease in film integrity, which is necessary to provide soil protection and prevent weed growth. The chromophoric carbonyl groups present in biodegradable polyesters in high amounts make these films susceptible to photodegradation. Since the mulch films are mainly used outdoors, the oxidation (photooxidation) process always follows after the free radicals are formed in an auto-oxidation process (Kyrikou and Briassoulis 2007; Hussain and Hamid 2003). Second, photodegradation can cause crosslinking within the film, due to the recombination of generated free radicals from Norrish I (Rivaton and Gardette 1998; Buxbaum 1968; Kijchavengkul et al. 2008a). The crosslinking reaction of the polymer structure causes the film to lose its ductility; the film becomes more brittle, which is undesirable due to being unpredictable. Mulch films should possess ductility in order to allow the film to stretch when winds blow and lift it up from the soil surface.

During degradation, the polymer is first converted to its monomers, and then these monomers are mineralized. Most polymers are too large to pass through cellular membranes, so they must first be depolymerized to smaller monomers before they can be absorbed and biodegraded within microbial cells. The initial breakdown of a polymer can result from a variety of physical and biological forces (Swift 1997). Physical forces, such as heating/cooling, freezing/thawing, or wetting/drying, can cause mechanical damage such as the cracking of polymeric materials (Kamal and Huang 1992). The growth of many fungi can also cause small-scale swelling and bursting, as the fungi penetrate the polymer solids (Griffin 1980). Synthetic polymers, such as polycaprolactone (Toncheva et al. 1996; Jun et al. 1994), are also depolymerized by microbial enzymes, after which the monomers are absorbed into microbial cells and biodegraded (Goldberg 1995). Abiotic hydrolysis is the most important reaction for initiating the environmental degradation of synthetic polymers (Gopferich 1998) like polycarboxylates (Winursito and Matsumura, 1996), poly(ethylene terephthalate) (Heidary and Gordon 1994), polylactic acid and their copolymers (Hiltunen et al. 1997; Nakayama et al. 1996), poly(α-glutamic acids) (Fan et al. 1996), and polydimethylsiloxanes, or silicones (Xu et al. 1998).

Generally, an increase in molecular weight results in a decline of polymer degradability by microorganisms. In contrast, monomers, dimers, and oligomers of a polymer's repeating units are much easily degraded and mineralized. High molecular weights result in a sharp decrease in solubility making them unfavorable for microbial attack because bacteria require the substrate to be assimilated through the cellular membrane and then further degraded by cellular enzymes. At least two categories of enzymes are actively involved in biological degradation of polymers: extracellular and intracellular depolymerases (Doi 1990; Gu et al. 2000). In biodegradable mulch films, the crosslinked structures limit the segmental mobility of the plastic molecules as well as the accessibility of the water and microbes to the polymer chain. Consequently, under such conditions, the biodegradation process is inhibited after the film is plowed into the soil (Kijchavengkul et al. 2008a).

It is important to note that biodeterioration and degradation of polymer substrate can rarely reach 100%, and the reason is that a small portion of the polymer will be incorporated into microbial biomass, humus, and other natural products (Atlas and Bartha 1997; Narayan 1993). Dominant groups of microorganisms and the degradative pathways associated with polymer degradation are often determined by the environmental conditions. When O2 is available, aerobic microorganisms are mostly responsible for destruction of complex materials, with microbial biomass, CO2, and H2O as the final products. In contrast, under anoxic conditions, anaerobic consortia of microorganisms are responsible for polymer deterioration. The primary products will be microbial biomass, CO2, CH4, and H2O under methanogenic (anaerobic) conditions (Barlaz et al. 1989) which is shown in Fig. 8. The list of different microorganisms degrading different groups of plastics is given in Table 3.
Fig. 8

General mechanism of plastic biodegradation under aerobic conditions (Mueller 2006)

Table 3

List of microorganisms reported to degrade various types of plastics




Synthetic plastics


Brevibacillus borstelensis

Hadad et al. (2005)

Rhodococcus rubber

Sivan et al. (2006); Gilan et al. (2004)


Penicillium simplicissimum YK

Yamada-Onodera et al. (2001)

Comamonas acidovorans TB-35

Akutsu et al. (1998)

Curvularia senegalensis

Howard (2002)

Fusarium solani

Aureobasidium pullulans

Cladosporium sp.

Pseudomonas chlororaphis

Zheng et al. (2005)

Polyvinyl chloride

Pseudomonas putida AJ

Anthony et al. (2004)

Ochrobactrum TD

Pseudomonas fluorescens B-22

Mogilnitskii et al. (1987)

Aspergillus niger van Tieghem F-1119

Plasticized polyvinyl chloride

Aureobasidium pullulans

Webb et al. (2000)


Thermomonspora fusca

Kleeberg et al. (1998)

Natural plastics


Schlegelella thermodepolymerans

Elbanna et al. (2004)


Pseudomonas lemoignei

Jendrossek et al. (1995)


Pseudomonas indica K2

Elbanna et al. (2004)


Streptomyces sp. SNG9

Mabrouk and Sabry (2001)



Ralstonia pikettii T1


Acidovorax sp. TP4

Wang et al. (2002)


Alcaligenes faecalis

Kasuya et al. (1999)



Pseudomonas stutzeri

Poly(ethylene succinate)

Poly(ethylene adipate)

Comamonas acidovorans


Alcaligenes faecalis

Kita et al. (1997)


Schlegelella thermodepolymerans

Romen et al. (2004)

Caenibacterium thermophilum


Clostridium botulinum

Abou-Zeid et al. (2001)

Clostridium acetobutylicum


Clostridium botulinum

Abou-Zeid et al. (2001)

Clostridium acetobutylicum


Fusarium solani

Benedict et al. (1983)

Polylactic acid

Fusarium moniliforme

Torres et al. (1996)

Penicillium roquefort

Pranamuda et al. (1997)

Amycolatopsis sp.

Pranamuda and Tokiwa (1999)

Bacillus brevis

Tomita et al. (1999)

Rhizopus delemer

Fukuzaki et al. (1989)

Polymer blends


Aspergillus niger

Lee et al. (1991)

Penicillium funiculosm

Phanerochaete chrysosporium


Streptomyces sp.

Lee et al. (1991)

Many sources clearly indicate that polyethylene is not directly oxidizable (Costa et al. 1998; Maaroufi 1993) or is inert (Albertsson et al. 1987) and not biodegradable (Arnaud et al. 1994). Two preliminary treatments (heat and ultraviolet light) are essential to modify its chemical structure. These are found to oxidize (introduce oxygen in the form of hydroxyls, carbonyls, peroxides), degrade (reduce the molecular weight or increase it by crosslinking reactions), and destructure (modify the crystalline structure) the polyethylene. The biodegradation process begins once the biodegradable material is in increased contact with microorganism-rich environments, such as after plowing (soil burial) or in a compost pile. Microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, and algae degrade the film by using it as their food source (ASTM 2004; Chandra and Rustgi 1998; Kale et al. 2007; Gopferich 1998). Carbon removal from a starch polyethylene blend was low compared to pure starch, and the rate of removal was higher under aerobic conditions. Chandra and Rustgi (1997) obtained similar results for the biodegradation of maleated linear low-density polyethylene starch blends in a soil environment composed of a mixed fungal inoculum consisting of Aspergillus niger, Penicillium funiculom, Chaetomium globosum, Gliocladium virens, and Pullularia pullulans. Biodegradation of starch polyethylene films containing a pro-oxidant and 6% starch showed evidence of polyethylene degradation in the presence of lignin degrading bacteria of the genus Streptomyces and also in the presence of the white-rot fungus Phanerochaete chrysosporium (Lee et al. 1991). However, the rate of degradation of starch-filled polyethylene depended on the starch content and was very sensitive to the environmental conditions and other ingredients in the formulation (Albertsson and Karlsson 1993).

Blends of starch and polycaprolactone are assumed to be completely biodegradable since each component in the blend is readily biodegradable as well as compostable (Tokiwa and Iwamoto 1994). Biodegradability of different grades of the commercial aliphatic polyester, Bionolle™, has been studied in activated sludge, soils, and compost (Nishioka et al. 1994). Grade 1000 is a poly(butylene succinate), grade 3000 is a poly(butylene succinate-co adipate), grade 6000 is a poly(ethylene succinate), and grade 7000 is poly(ethylene succinate–coadipate). Bionolle™ 3000 was degraded more easily than Bionolle™ 1000 and Bionolle™6000. Molds did not degrade Bionolle™ 6000, and some Gram-negative bacteria did not degrade Bionolle™ 1000. Furthermore, the products were shown to be non-toxic to the earthworm, Eisena fetida. Blending of Bionolle with low-cost starch has been investigated in order to improve its cost competitiveness while maintaining other properties at an acceptable level. It has been shown that the addition of starch filler significantly improved the rate of degradation of the Bionolle™ component (Ratto et al. 1999). A study of the biodegradation of cellulose, a polycaprolactone starch blend, and an aliphatic–aliphatic copolyester was undertaken in a ring test (Pagga et al. 2001) involving several laboratories using standards like ISO 14951. Based on the biological oxygen demand and CO2 released, the cellulose was more degraded than the polycaprolactone–starch blend which in turn was more degraded (on average) than the copolyester.

The first stage of degradation of polylactic acid (2 weeks) is via hydrolysis to water-soluble compounds and lactic acid, follow by rapid metabolism of these products into CO2, water, and biomass by a variety of microorganisms. There have been reports on the degradation of polylactic acid oligomers (molecular weight ∼1,000) by Fusarium moniliforme and Penicillium roquefort (Torres et al. 1996) and the degradation of polylactic acid by Amycolatopsis sp. (Pranamuda et al. 1997; Pranamuda and Tokiwa 1999) and by Bacillus brevis (Tomita et al. 1999). Additionally, enzymatic degradation of low molecular weight polylactic acid (molecular weight ∼2,000) has been shown using esterase-type enzymes such as Rhizopus delemer lipase (Fukuzaki et al. 1989).

Abe et al. (2010) isolated a microorganism possessing the ability to degrade one of the promising biodegradable plastics, PBS, and investigated the degradation characteristics of the microorganism in soil environments. Fungal strain WF-6, belonging to Fusarium solani, that had not been reported could be isolated from farmland as the PBS-degrading microorganism. Strain WF-6 degraded 2.8% of the PBS in a 14-day experimental run in a sterile soil environment, as determined by CO2 evolution. Furthermore, it was ascertained that the degradability of strain WF-6 was enhanced by co-culturing with the newly isolated bacterial strain Stenotrophomonas maltophilia YB-6, which itself does not show PBS-degrading activity.

In general, it is possible to classify EDPs according to the mechanism of the first degradation stage as “hydro-biodegradable” when this mechanism of the first stage proceeds through hydrolytic processes, either mediated or not by exoenzymes, and as “oxo-biodegradable” when it proceeds via thermally or photophysically induced oxidation, either mediated or not by exoenzymes (Scott 1999). The second step of the degradation process mineralization occurs when living organisms (commonly microorganisms) digest the organic products of plastic degradation under aerobic or anaerobic conditions and convert them to common inherent digestion products. This is in fact the basis of virtually all standard biodegradation tests in which the amount of produced CO2 (or CH4 under anaerobic conditions) is monitored (Andrady, 1994). Measurement of released CO2 and comparison with the theoretical amount based on the carbon content in the original plastic sample give direct evidence of the extent and rate of degradation.

5 Field performance of biodegradable mulch in crop production

Olsen and Gounder (2001) found slightly higher soil temperatures for polyethylene and biodegradable polymer mulches than paper mulch, but yields of peppers were similar for all three materials. Biodegradable plastics made out of starch have been sold in Spain for the past several years and show promising results in terms of the desired rate of degradation of the films and high yields. One advantage of this biodegradable mulch is the degradation into nontoxic compounds, but its main disadvantage is the high cost, around three- to four-fold the polyethylene cost.

The study on the feasibility of using degradable plastic films for horticultural crops production indicated that the silver and black bio-/photo-degradable polyethylene films containing 20% starch degraded after 56, 83, 38, and 33 days when they were mulched in fall, winter, spring, and summer. The more starch incorporated, the faster the films degraded. No difference was observed in yield as well as the heavy metal (Pb, Ni, Cu, Cd, and Cr) contents in the edible part of the crops of cabbage, mustard, and head lettuce that were grown in the soil without or incorporated with debris of degradable polyethylene films in six consecutive years. Similar results were also obtained in another trial on cantaloupe and paddy for four consecutive years. No difference was observed in head weight and qualities (vitamin C, total soluble solids, and crude fiber) either among the treatments or the control. The weight losses for Bioflex, Bioplastics, and Green choice were 58.4%, 47.9%, and 11.3%, respectively, after 40 days (Yang and Wu 2001). Four formulations of plastic mulch, two photodegradable (black and clear) and two photo-biodegradable (black and clear), were evaluated in melon crop “hybrid Laguna” and compared with two conventional plastics (black and clear), as control treatments as well as bare soil. The response of degradable mulches was similar to the conventional ones, and all the plastic mulches excelled the control treatment. It was observed that all the plastic mulches caused precocity of 5 days in emergency, 6 days in flowering, and 3 days in harvest compared to the bare soil (Quezada et al. 2003).

A study comparing the effect of photodegradable black and clear plastic mulches and conventional polyethylene mulch on quality and yield of muskmelon showed premature degradation of the clear film (Quezada et al. 2003). At 35 days after planting, the clear biodegradable mulch had lost 91% of tensile properties; however, in the same treatment, photodegradable black films lasted until the end of the season showing only 70% degradation. Degradation of the conventional polyethylene mulch at the end of the season was only 12%. Total soluble solids were not affected by film color, type of plastic mulch, or cropping system. Compared with bare soil, fruit yield was significantly greater in all cases with photodegradable plastic mulches, especially black plastic film mulch.

The photo-biodegradable polyethylene films containing starch are similar to polyethylene films in their ability to raise soil temperature, preserve moisture, or increase yield. In addition, photo-biodegradable polyethylenes can be degraded environmentally after field service. The induction periods of four kinds of photo-biodegradable polyethylene films range from 46 to 64 days, which basically satisfies the needs of agricultural cultivation. All photo-biodegradable polyethylene films can be degraded to stage V, in which almost no film exists on the surface of the ridges after 2–3 months or so after the induction periods. The photo-biodegradable polyethylene films buried in soil have also good degradability (Wang et al. 2004).

Eleven types of plastic mulch were tested: polyethylene 15 and 30 μm thick, five biodegradable plastics of thickness 12, 13, 15, 20, and 25 μm, different colors (black and green), and finally, four photo-degradable plastics in black and 15 μm thick. Significant differences were observed between the plastics in relation to harvest grouping and yield. There were no differences in relation to average weight of tomato fruit, and only small effects in relation to industrial quality parameters. The biggest differences were in degradation of the different materials, being the highest in plastics from vegetable compounds (corn and potato starch, etc.). Photo-degradable plastics have the disadvantage that shaded areas do not degrade because they are not exposed to light (Armendariz et al. 2006).

The results of the study on the behavior of four biodegradable materials and one linear low-density polyethylene in the open-air cultivation of a Spanish melon cultivar in Mediterranean environmental conditions during the normal growing season for this crop revealed that the use of biodegradable materials produced similar yields than linear low-density polyethylene. However, the biodegradable materials had disappeared 5–6 months after laying, whereas linear low-density polyethylene remained in the ground (Lopez et al. 2007).

Results of the experiment conducted with two biodegradable mulches (black and white), each with two thicknesses (35 and 25 μm) with conventional low-density polyethylene mulch of 25 μm as a control, indicated that soil temperature under the biodegradable mulches was greater than that under the low-density polyethylene mulch during the first week. Starting the second week, soil temperature dropped gradually under all the biodegradable mulches. The drop in temperature was the greatest with the white mulch. Due to premature breakdown of the white biodegradable mulches, weed pressure was high, resulting in smaller plants with low yield in 2007. However, tomato growth, yield, and fruit quality from the black biodegradable mulch were equivalent to that in the low-density polyethylene mulch (Ngouajio et al. 2008).

A field experiment was performed in an organic tomato crop for processing under continental Mediterranean conditions to evaluate the feasibility of substituting the currently used mulch production techniques in organic farming, polyethylene, paper mulch, and bare soil (control), with a biodegradable plastic mulch. Plant growth, estimated as the total dry weight produced, was similar for the biodegradable plastic mulch and polyethylene treatments and higher than the paper mulch and the control. The highest production, both in terms of total fruit weight and as number of fruit per plant, was found with the biodegradable mulch and polyethylene mulches. Early fruit development was enhanced in plants cultivated with polyethylene and biodegradable mulch and delayed in the control and paper mulch treatments. Differences between treatments in fruit quality (soluble solids, color, and shape) were small and negligible. All mulch treatments were successful at controlling weeds. At the end of the cropping period, all treatments showed a good covering of the soil surface, but in the buried part of the mulches, the paper was much degraded and the biodegradable mulch showed incipient biodegradation symptoms. Mechanical analyses indicated that the biodegradable mulch had initially a lower resistance and elongation percentage at break point than polyethylene. At the end of the cropping period, the polyethylene had a lower average decay (38%) than the biodegradable mulch (45%). These results showed that the biodegradable mulch tested was a good alternative to polyethylene and paper mulches for organic tomato production (Martin-Closas et al. 2008).

A transparent biodegradable film and a transparent biodegradable spray coating were compared with a commercial transparent low-density polyethylene film. The laboratory radiometric tests showed that the biodegradable mulching materials had a lower solar transmissivity in comparison to the low-density polyethylene film. The capacity to reduce the long wave infrared thermal losses was higher for the biodegradable mulches: The long wave infrared transmissivity coefficient was 53.9% for the low-density polyethylene film, 12.1% for the biodegradable film, and 8.2% for the spray coating. The increase of the growing medium temperature allowed the harvest of the snapdragon (Antirrhinum majus) grown in the mulched trays 7 days before that of the flowers grown in the unmulched trays. At the end of the crop cycle, the disposal of the biodegradable mulching materials was carried out by fragmenting and mixing them with plant residue and the growing medium. The residue biodegraded in almost 1 month for the spray coating and in about 12 months for the biodegradable film (Schettini et al. 2007).

Tachibana et al. (2009) developed a mulch sheet made by inflation molding of polylactic acid, Ecoflex, and modified starch, which all have different biodegradabilities. A field test on mandarin oranges (Citrus reticulata) was carried out over 2 years. The mechanical properties of the mulch sheet were weakened with time during the field test, but the quality of the mandarin oranges increased. This advantage for the growth of mandarin oranges is derived from the difference in the degradability of the materials. In this study, as modified starch is most of the degradable material in the mulch sheet, the degradation of modified starch formed some voids in the mulch sheet. The degradation of modified starch induced the controlled effect of moisture regain by the soil, and the change was suitable for the growth of mandarin oranges. It was confirmed that the mulch sheet includes theoretical biomass carbon ratios and the lack of biobased modified starch decreased the biomass carbon ratios after use in the mandarin orange grove. The evaluation method of the biomass carbon ratio is applicable for the degraded material.

Anzalone et al. (2010) evaluated the weed control efficiency of several biodegradable mulches as alternatives to black polyethylene mulch. The treatments were rice straw, barley (Hordeum vulgare) straw, maize harvest residue, absinthe wormwood plants (Artemisia absinthium), black biodegradable plastic, brown kraft paper, polyethylene, herbicide, manual weeding, and unweeded control. Most weed species were controlled by the mulching materials except that purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) was controlled only by paper mulch. The other species were well controlled by polyethylene and biodegradable plastic and also by some of the natural mulch treatments. Best weed control and lowest weed biomass were achieved with paper followed by polyethylene and biodegradable plastic. Tomato yield was the highest for polyethylene followed by paper, manual weeding, biodegradable plastic, and rice straw and was clearly related to weed control. Paper, biodegradable plastic, and rice straw are potential substitutes for polyethylene and herbicides.

Waterer (2010) studied the field performance of several colors of corn-starch-based biodegradable mulches for the production of warm season vegetable crops (sweet corn, zucchini, cantaloupe, pepper, and eggplant) over three cropping seasons. There were no appreciable differences in the soil temperatures or crop growth and yield responses on the biodegradable mulches as compared with the same color of standard low-density polyethylene mulch. The biodegradable mulches were easy to apply and were readily incorporated into the soil at the end of the growing season. Although the clear and to a lesser extent the wavelength selective forms of biodegradable mulch tended to break down well before the end of the growing season, this early failure did not negatively impact the performance of any of the crops tested, as long as supplemental weed control was provided. Supplemental weed control would be more important for slow-growing, erect crops like peppers and eggplants than for the more robust and sprawling crops like corn, cucurbits, and sweet potato. Although the biodegradable mulches are more expensive than the corresponding standard polyethylene-based plastics, this added cost is more than offset by the costs to remove and dispose of the standard plastic mulches.

6 Biodegradable plastic mulch in organic production

As an alternative to the disposal inconvenience associated with non-degradable mulch films, photodegradable plastic mulches were developed by adding additives to promote controlled degradation (Bonora and De Corte 2003). Recently, Feuilloley et al. (2005) have shown that under normal agricultural conditions, even in temperate-warm climates, polyethylene with additives for degradation does not biodegrade but produces micro-fragments. Other more environmentally friendly alternatives for mulching, like the use of materials of plant origin (e.g., straw), or paper, carry associated disadvantages (Martin-Closas et al. 2003) and have poorer agronomical properties. Currently, since there is not yet an equivalent biodegradable alternative, the use of polyethylene mulching is allowed in organic production in Europe (Regulation CEE 2092/91).

In the mid-1990s, biodegradable polymers were introduced in the plastic market. They offer a promising alternative to traditional non-biodegradable polymers when recycling is impractical or not economical. Mater-Bi is a starch-based biopolymer that combines characteristics of the traditional plastic materials with a biodegradation rate analogous to paper (Bastioli et al. 1990). The material initially available was adapted to temperate-cold climates and low radiation and degraded relatively quickly; nevertheless, previous studies have shown that black mulch containing Mater-Bi is a good alternative to polyethylene in organic production under the Mediterranean continental climate (Martín-Closas et al. 2003). In order to adapt the biodegradable material to a wider range of environmental conditions, another Mater-Bi has been designed for milder or warmer climates, high radiation, or for intermediate crop cycles (Guerrini 2005). From the above review, it is understood that, in the absence of biodegradable alternatives, the polyethylene mulching has been allowed in organic production in many areas. Oil-derived polymers are currently not acceptable for organic production in the USA (Corbin et al. 2009). To meet the National Organic Program standards, biodegradable mulches need to be derived from plant-based polymers and free of genetically modified organisms. Additionally, the process of developing the mulch (resin, additive, etc.) should be acceptable by the National Organic Program. Irrespective of the source of polymers, biodegradable plastic films now available commercially are ultimately degraded into water and carbon dioxide. The biodegradation process does not leave any compounds with side effects on the environment.

The breakdown of degradable plastics has been categorized into disintegration and mineralization. Disintegration occurs when the plastic materials disintegrate and are no longer visible, but the polymer still maintains a finite chain length. Mineralization occurs when microorganisms metabolize the polymer chains after the initial oxidation process to carbon dioxide, water, and biomass. Oxo-degradable polymers break down into small fragments over time but are not considered biodegradable since they do not meet the degradation rate or the residual-free content specified in the ASTM D6400 standards. The plastics do disintegrate but leave small plastic fragments in the compost, which violates the ASTM D6400 standards. Biodegradable polymers are those that are capable of undergoing decomposition into carbon dioxide, methane, water, inorganic compounds, or biomass by the actions of microorganisms. Microorganisms present in the disposal environments consume the carbon product to extract chemical energy for their life processes. The process has the following steps:
  • Breaking of the material (carbohydrates, carbon product) into small molecules by secretion of enzymes or by the environment (temperature, humidity, sunlight) does it

  • Transport of small molecules inside microorganism cell

  • Oxidation of small molecules (again inside the cell) to oxygen and water and release of energy that is utilized by the microorganism for its life processes in a complex biochemical process involving participation of three metabolically interrelated processes (tricarboxylic acid cycle, electron transport, and oxidative phosphorylation)

Based on the information presented above, truly biodegradable plastic mulches should be compatible with organic production standards.

7 Conclusion

This review has covered the major concerns about the degradable plastic mulch applications in agriculture like its types, uses, and degradability. Environmental degradability of plastics is a multifaceted complex process that is strongly influenced by the nature of the plastics as well as biotic and abiotic conditions to which they are exposed. There is an increasing interest in the use of plastic mulching for protected cultivation. Mulching area has increased at least 50% globally since 1991. Although the concept of degradable mulches sounds attractive, early versions of degradable plastics had problems. They either broke down too quickly leaving the crop unprotected or too slowly resulting in problems with persistent small fragments of residual mulch. Biodegradable polymers (especially those derived from plant sources) begin their lifecycle as renewable resources, usually in the form of starch or cellulose. The biopolymers are formed into the specific end products and used by a consumer. Ideally, the biopolymer will be disposed in a biowaste collection and later composted. This process will ultimately leave behind carbon dioxide and water, which are environmentally friendly byproducts. Hence, the choice of suitable type of biodegradable plastic mulch become very crucial in mineralization of the fragments buried into soil. In addition, the effect of biodegradable plastic mulch in crop production with regards to microclimate modification, soil physical, chemical and biological properties, soil moisture, weed control, soil nutrients, and pest and disease management needs to be studied extensively. Currently, the materials and technology to develop biodegradable mulch films for agricultural application exist. The major limitation remains the high cost of those materials that prevent their adoption by farmer.



Funding for Dr. Subrahmaniyan Kasirajan fellowship at Michigan State University was provided by the Fulbright program. We thank Drey Clark for assistance with internal review of this manuscript.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.


  1. Abdul-Baki A, Spence C, Hoover R (1992) Black polyethylene mulch doubled yield of fresh-market field tomatoes. HortSci 27:787–789Google Scholar
  2. Abe M, Kobayashi K, Honma N, Nakasaki K (2010) Microbial degradation of poly(butylene succinate) by Fusarium solani in soil environments. Polym Degrad Stab 95(2):138–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abou-Zeid DM, Müller RJ, Deckwer WD (2001) Anaerobic biodegradation of natural and synthetic polyesters, Dissertation, Technical University Braunschweig, Germany. Web. Accessed 16 Dec 2011
  4. Akutsu Y, Nakajima-Kambe T, Nomura N, Nakahara T (1998) Purification and properties of a polyester polyurethane degrading enzyme from Comamonas acidovorans TB-35. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:62–67Google Scholar
  5. Albertsson AC (1992) Biodegradation of polymers. In: Hamid SH, Amin MB, Maadhah AG (eds) Handbook of polymer degradation. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 345–363Google Scholar
  6. Albertsson AC, Huang SJ (1995) Degradable polymers, recycling and plastics waste management. Marcel Drekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Albertsson AC, Karlsson S (1993) Aspects of biodeterioration of inert and degradable polymers. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 31:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Albertsson AC, Andersson SO, Karlsson S (1987) The mechanism of biodegradation of polyethylene. Polym Degrad Stab 18:73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Amidon (1994) Use and disposal of plastics in agriculture. Prepared by Amidon Recycling for the American Plastics CouncilGoogle Scholar
  10. Amin AR (2001) LDPE/EPDM multilayer films containing recycled LDPE for greenhouse applications. J Polym Environ 9(1):25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Anderson RG, Emmert EM (1994) The father of plastic greenhouses. The 25th National Agricultural Plastics CongressGoogle Scholar
  12. Anderson DF, Garisto MA, Bourrut JC, Schonbeck MW, Jaye R, Wurzberger A, DeGregorio R (1995) Evaluation of a paper mulch made from recycled materials as an alternative to plastic film mulch for vegetables. J Sustain Agric 7:39–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Andrady AL (1994) Assessment of environmental biodegradation of synthetic polymers. Macromol J Sci Rev Macromol Chem Phys 34:25–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Anonymous (1999) Ecological assessment of ECM plastics. Report by Chem Risk—a service of Mc Laren Hart Inc. MicrotechResearch, Ohio, p 14Google Scholar
  15. Anonymous (2002) Biodegradable plastics—developments and environmental impacts. Web Accessed 10 Oct 2011
  16. Anthony SD, Meizhong L, Christopher EB, Robin LB, David LF (2004) Involvement of linear plasmids in aerobic biodegradation of vinyl chloride. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:6092–6097Google Scholar
  17. Antonious GF, Kasperbauer MJ (2002) Color of light reflected to leaves modifies nutrient content of carrot roots. Crop Sci 42:1211–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Anzalone A, Cirujeda A, Aibar J, Pardo G, Zaragoza C (2010) Effect of biodegradable mulch materials on weed control in processing tomatoes. Weed Technol 24(3):369–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Armendariz R, Macua JI, Lahoz I, Santos A, Calvillo S (2006) The use of different plastic mulches on processing tomatoes. In: Ashcroft WJ (ed) Proc. 9th IS on the processing tomato. Acta Hort. 724, pp 199–202Google Scholar
  20. Arnaud R, Dabin P, Lemaire J, Al-Malaika S, Chohan S, Coker M, Scott G, Fauve A, Maarooufi A (1994) Photooxidation and biodegradation of commercial photodegradable polyethylenes. Polym Degrad Stab 46:211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Artham T, Doble M (2008) Biodegradation of aliphatic and aromatic polycarbonates. Macromol Biosci 8(1):14–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ashworth S, Harrison H (1983) Evaluation of mulches for use in the home garden. HortSci 18:180–182Google Scholar
  23. ASTM (2004) ASTM D6400-04 standard specification for compostable plastics. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  24. Atlas RM, Bartha R (1997) Microbial ecology: fundamentals and applications, 4th edn. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo ParkGoogle Scholar
  25. Augusta J, Müller RJ, Widdecke H (1992) Biodegradable polymers—testing methods and assessment standards. Chem Ing Tech 64:410–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Auras R, Harte B, Selke S (2004) An overview of polylactides as packaging materials. Macromol Biosci 4:835–864PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Bahari K, Mitomo H, Enjoji T, Yohii F, Makuuchi K (1998) Radiation crosslinked poly(butylene succinate) foam and its biodegradation. Polym Degrad Stab 62(3):551–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ballare CL, Scopel AL, Sanchez RA (1995) Plant photomorphogenesis in canopies, crop growth and yield. HortSci 30(6):1172–1180Google Scholar
  29. Barlaz MA, Ham RK, Schaefer DM (1989) Mass-balance analysis of anaerobically decomposed refuse. J Environ Eng 115:1088–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Barro PJ (1991) Attractiveness of four colours of traps to cereal aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in South Australia. J Aust Ent Soc 30:263–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Bastioli C, Bellotti V, Gilli G (1990) The use of agricultural commodities as a source of new plastic materials. Proc. Biodegradable packagings and agricultural films. APRIA Conference. Paris, France, 10–11 May, p.1–36Google Scholar
  32. Benedict CV, Cameron JA, Samuel J (1983) Polycaprolactone degradation by mixed and pure cultures of bacteria and a yeast. J Appl Pol Sci 28:335–342Google Scholar
  33. Bhella HS (1988) Tomato response to trickle irrigation and black polyethylene mulch. Amer J Soc Hort Sci 113(4):543–546Google Scholar
  34. Boggs W (1959) Method of preparing polyurethane starch reaction products and product thereof. U.S. Patent No. 2,908,657, 13 October 1959Google Scholar
  35. Bonora M, De Corte D (2003) Additives for controlled degradation of agricultural plastics: ENVIROCARE TM. Macromol Symp 197:443–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Bozell JJ (ed) (2001) Chemical and materials from renewable resources. ACS Symp Ser 784, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. Brooks TW (1996) Method and apparatus for recycling previously used agricultural plastic film mulch. U.S. Patent no. 5510076Google Scholar
  38. Brown JE, Osborn MC, Bryce HM (1987) Effects of planting methods, row covers, and black plastic mulch on production and economic returns of muskmelon intercropped with broccoli. HortSci 22:1091–1109Google Scholar
  39. Brown JE, Dangler JM, Woods FM, Tilt KM, Henshaw MD, Griffey WA, West MS (1993) Delay in mosaic virus onset and aphid vector reduction in summer squash grown on reflective mulches. HortSci 28(9):895–896Google Scholar
  40. Buxbaum LH (1968) The degradation of poly(ethylene terephthalate. Angew Chem Int Edit 7:182–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Byrdson JA (1970) Plastic materials, 2nd edn. Illiffe Books, London, p 597Google Scholar
  42. Cannington F, Duggings RB, Roan RG (1975) Florida vegetable production using plastic film mulch with drip irrigation. Proc Nat Agr Plastics Congr 12:11–15Google Scholar
  43. Carnell D (1978) Photodegradable plastic mulch in agriculture. Proc Nat Agr Plastics Congr 14:143–148Google Scholar
  44. Carnell D (1980) Photodegradable mulch eliminates costly removal steps. Proc Natl Agr Plastics Congr 15:94–96Google Scholar
  45. CEPA (Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency) (1992) National waste minimisation and recycling strategy. Commonwealth Government, Canberra, p 14Google Scholar
  46. Chakraborty RC, Sadhu MK (1994) Effect of mulch type and color on growth and yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Indian J Agric Sci 64(9):608–612Google Scholar
  47. Chandra R, Rustgi R (1997) Biodegradation of maleated linear low-density polyethylene and starch blends. Polym Degrad Stab 56:185–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Chandra R, Rustgi R (1998) Biodegradable polymers. Prog Polym Sci 23:1273–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Chen XS, Guo SF, Wang JK, Zhang J (1998) Effect of mulching cultivation with plastic film on soil microbial population and biological activity. Chin J Appl Ecol 9:435–439Google Scholar
  50. Chiellini E, Cinelli P, Grillo F, Kenawy ER, Lazzeri A (2001) Gelatin-based blends and composites. Morphological and thermal mechanical characterization. Biomacromolecules 2:806–811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Chiellini E, Cinelli P, Antone SD, Ilieva VI (2002) Environmentally degradable polymeric materials (EDPM) in agricultural applications—an overview. Polimery 47(7–8):538–544Google Scholar
  52. Chu C, Matthews DL (1984) Photodegradable plastic mulch in central New York. HortSci 19:497–498Google Scholar
  53. Clarke AD (1987) Some plastic industry developments, their impact on plastic film for agricultural application. Plasticulture 74:15–26Google Scholar
  54. Clarke SP (1996) Recycling farm plastic films fact sheet. Accessed 23 Apr 2011
  55. Clough GH, Reed GL (1989) Durability and efficiency of photodegradable mulches in drip-irrigated vegetable production systems. Proc Natl Agr Plastics Congr 21:42–45Google Scholar
  56. Coffin R, Fishman ML, Ly TV (1996) Thermomechanical properties of blends of pectin and poly(vinyl alcohol). J Appl Polym Sci 61(1):71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Cooper AJ (1973) Root temperature and plant growth: a review. Commonwealth Agriculture Bureaux, SloughGoogle Scholar
  58. Corbin A, Miles CA, Hayes D, Dorgan J, Roozen J (2009) Suitability of biodegradable plastic mulches in certified organic production. HortSci 44:1040–1041Google Scholar
  59. Costa L, Luda MP, Trossarelli L, BrachdelPrever EM, Crova M, Gallinaro P (1998) In vivo UHMWPE biodegradation of retrieved prosthesis. Biomaterials 19:1371–1380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Coventry JM, Fisher KH, Strommer, JN Reynolds AG (2003) Reflective mulch to enhance berry quality in Ontario wine grapes. VII International Symposium on Grapevine Physiology and Biotechnology. Acta Hort 689Google Scholar
  61. Csizinszky AA, Martin FG (1988) Relation of hollow-stem in broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. Italica Group) to N and K rates in plastic mulch culture. HortSci 23(3):827Google Scholar
  62. Csizinszky AA, Schuster DJ, Kring JB (1995) Color mulches influence yield and insect pest populations in tomatoes. Amer Soc Hort Sci 120(5):778–784Google Scholar
  63. De Carsalade B (1986) Plastics and mulching of crops. Plasticulture 72:31–36Google Scholar
  64. De Graaf RA, Karman AP, Janssen LPB (2003) Material properties and glass transition temperatures of different thermoplastic starches after extrusion processing. Starch 55:80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. De Prisco N, Immirzi B, Malinconico M, Mormile P, Petti L, Gatta G (2002) Preparation, physico-chemical characterization and optical analysis of polyvinyl alcohol-based films suitable for protected cultivation. J Appl Polym Sci 86:622–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Debeaufort F, Quezada-Gallo JA, Voilley A (1998) Edible films and coatings: tomorrow's packagings: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 38(4):299–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Decoteau DR, Kasperbauer MJ, Daniels DD, Hunt PG (1988) Plastic mulch colour effects on reflected light and tomato plant growth. Sci Hortic 34:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Decoteau DR, Kasperbauer MJ, Hunt PG (1989) Mulch surface color affects yield of fresh market tomatoes. Amer Soc Hort Sci 114(2):216–219Google Scholar
  69. Dıaz-Perez JC, Batal KD (2002) Colored plastic film mulches affect tomato growth and yield via changes in root-zone temperature. J Amer Soc Hortic Sci 127:127–135Google Scholar
  70. Dockery DW, Pope CA III (1994) Acute respiratory effects of particulate air pollution. Annual Review of Public Health 15:107–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Doi Y (1990) Microbial polyesters. VCH, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. Doi Y, Fukuda K (eds) (1994) Biodegradable plastics and polymers. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1994Google Scholar
  73. Doran JW (1980) Microbial changes associated with residue management with reduced tillage. Soil Sci Soc Amer J 44:518–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Durham S (2003) Plastic mulch: harmful or helpful? Agricultural Research. July 2003. Accessed 22 Sep 2011
  75. Egley GH (1983) Weed seed and seedling reductions by soil solarization with transparent polyethylene sheets. Weed Sci 31:404–409Google Scholar
  76. Elbanna K, Lütke-Eversloh T, Jendrossek D, Luftmann H, Steinbüchel A (2004) Studies on the biodegradability of polythioester copolymers and homopolymers by polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA)-degrading bacteria and PHA depolymerases. Arch Microbiol 182(2–3):212–225Google Scholar
  77. Elliasson A, Tatham A, Dendv DAV, Dobraszczyk BJ (eds) (2001) Cereal starches and proteins. Cereals and cereals products: chemistry and technology. Aspen, Gaithersburg, pp 68–89Google Scholar
  78. Emmert EM (1954) University of Kentucky builds a greenhouse covered with polyethylene. Ag News Letter 22:92–93Google Scholar
  79. Emmert EM (1955) Low cost plastic greenhouses. Kentucky Ag. Ex. Station Progress Report no. 28Google Scholar
  80. Emmert EM (1956) Plastic row covering. Kentucky Farm and Home Science. Spring 2(2):6–7Google Scholar
  81. Emmert EM (1957) Black polyethylene for mulching vegetables. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 69:464–469Google Scholar
  82. Ennis RS (1987) Plastigone, a new time controlled photodegradable plastic mulch film. Proc Natl Agr Plastics Congr 20:83–90Google Scholar
  83. EPA (2006) An inventory of sources and environmental releases of dioxin-like compounds in the United States for the years 1987, 1995, and 2000. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  84. EPA (2008) Municipal solid waste generation, recycling and disposal in the United States: 2006 facts and figures. Accessed 23 Apr 2011
  85. EPC (2006) An inventory of agricultural film plastics for the central coast recycling market development zone. Environmental Planning Consultant, San JoseGoogle Scholar
  86. Espi E, Salmeron A, Fontecha A, Garcia Y, Real AI (2006) Plastic films for agricultural applications. Journal of Plastic Film and Sheeting 22:85–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Fan K, Gonzalez D, Sevoian M (1996) Hydrolytic and enzymatic degradation of poly (g-glutamic acid) hydrogels and their application in slow-release systems for proteins. J Environ Polym Degrad 4:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Farias-Larios J, Orozco-Santos M, Perez J (1998) Effect of plastic mulch, floating row covers and microtunnels on insect population and yield of muskmelon. Proc Natl Agri Plast Congr 27:76–83Google Scholar
  89. Ferguson WS (1957) Note on the effect of stubble and straw residue on the availability of nitrogen. Can J Soil Sci 37:145–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Fernando WC, Suyama K, Itoh K, Tanaka H, Yamamoto H (2002) Degradation of an acylated starch-plastic mulch film in soil and impact on soil microflora. Soil Sci Plant Nutrition 48(5):701–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Feuilloley P, Cesar L, Benguigui L, Grohens Y, Pillin I, Bewa H, Lefaux S, Jamal M (2005) Degradation of polyethylene designed for agricultural purposes. J Polym Environ 13:349–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Fishman ML, Friedman R, Huang SJ (eds) (1994) Polymers from agricultural coproducts. ACS Symp Ser 575, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  93. FLDEP (2005) Open burning, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Chapter 62–256 of Florida Administrative CodeGoogle Scholar
  94. Fleck-Arnold JE (2000) Plastic mulch films—additives and their effects. Proc Natl Agr Plast Congr 29:310–314Google Scholar
  95. Fomin VA (2001) Biodegradable polymers, their present state and future prospects. Progress In Rubber and Plastics Technology 17(3):186–204Google Scholar
  96. Frazer AC (1994) O-Methylation and other transformations of aromatic compounds by acetogenic bacteria. In: Drake HL (ed) Acetogenesis. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 445–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Fukuzaki H, Yoshida M, Asano M, Kumakura M (1989) Synthesis of copoly (D, L-lactic acid) with relative low molecular weight and in vitro degradation. Eur Polym J 25:1019–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Garnaud JC (1974) The intensification of horticultural crop production in the Mediterranean basin by protected cultivation. FAO of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  99. Garthe J (2004) Managing used agricultural plastics. In: Lamont W (ed) Production of vegetables, strawberries, and cut flowers using plasticulture. Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service (NRAES), IthacaGoogle Scholar
  100. Garthe JW, Miller BG, Wasco RS, Lamont WJ, Orzolek MD (2003) Used agricultural plastic as a coal fuel supplement. Proc 20th Natl Agr Plastics Congr 53–57Google Scholar
  101. Giacomell GA, Garrison SA, Jensen M, Mears DR, Paterson JW, Roberts WJ, Wells OS (2000) Advances of plasticulture technologies 1977–2000. The 15th International Congress for Plastics in Agriculture, Hershey, PAGoogle Scholar
  102. Gilan I, Hadar Y, Sivan A (2004) Colonization, biofilm formation and biodegradation of polyethylene by a strain of Rhodococcus ruber. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 65:97–104Google Scholar
  103. Goldberg D (1995) A review of the biodegradability and utility of poly (caprolactone). J Environ Polym Degrad 3:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Gonzalez A, Lopez J, Garcia J, Hernandez MD, Rodriguez R, Fernandez JA, Franco JA (2002) Comportamiento de acolchados biodegradables en cultivo de melon al aire libre. Seminario de tecnicosy especialistas en horticultura. Ministerio de agricultura pescay alimentacion 85–90Google Scholar
  105. Gopferich A (1998) Mechanisms of polymer degradation and elimination. In: Domb AJ, Kost J, Wiseman DM (eds) Handbook of biodegradable polymers. Harwood Academic, Amsterdam, pp 451–471Google Scholar
  106. Greer L, Dole JM (2003) Aluminum foil, aluminum-painted, plastic, and degradable mulches increase insect-vectored viral diseases of vegetables. HortTechnol 13:276–284Google Scholar
  107. Griffin GJL (1980) Synthetic polymers and the living environment. Pure Appl Chem 52:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Grigat E, Kock R, Timmermann R (1998) Thermoplastic and biodegradable polymers of cellulose. Polym Degrad Stab 59:223–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Gross R, Kalra B (2002) Biodegradable polymers for the environment. Science 297:803–880PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Gu JD, Ford TE, Mitton DB, Mitchell R (2000) Microbial degradation and deterioration of polymeric materials. In: Revie W (ed) The Uhlig corrosion handbook, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, pp 439–460Google Scholar
  111. Guerrini S (2005) Presentación de materiales biodegradables MATER-BI para acolchado. II Jornada Técnica de Materiales Biodegradables.: Los acolchados biodegradables como alternativa al uso del polietileno.15 Diciembre. Murcia. EspañaGoogle Scholar
  112. Guilbert S, Gontard N (2005) Agro-polymers for edible and biodegradable films: review of agricultural polymeric materials, physical and mechanical characteristics. In: Han JH (ed) Innovations in food packaging. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 263–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Guilbert S, Gontard N, Gorris LGM (1996) Prolongation of the shelf-life of perishable food products using biodegradable films and coatings. Lebensm Wiss U Technol 29:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Hadad D, Geresh S, Sivan A (2005) Biodegradation of polyethylene by the thermophilic bacterium Brevibacillus borstelensis. J Appl Microbiol 98:1093–1100Google Scholar
  115. Hall BJ, Besemer ST (1972) Agricultural plastics in California. HortSci 7:373–378Google Scholar
  116. Halley P, Rutgers R, Coombs S, Kettels J, Gralton J, Christie G, Jenkins M, Beh H, Griffin K, Jayasekara R, Lonergan G (2001) Developing biodegradable mulch films from starch-based polymers. Starch 53:362–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Ham JM, Kluitenberg GJ, Lamont WJ (1993) Optical properties of plastic mulches affect the field temperature regime. J Amer Soc Hortic Sci 118(2):188–193Google Scholar
  118. Hamilton JD, Reinert KH, Hogan JV, Lord WV (1995) Polymers as solid waste in municipal landfills. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 43:247–251Google Scholar
  119. Han YX, Wan X (1995) A preliminary analysis on agricultural effects of cotton field mulched with plastic film. Gansu Agric Sci Tech 8:14–16Google Scholar
  120. Hankin L, Hill DE, Stephens GR (1982) Effect of mulch on bacterial populations and enzyme activity in soil and vegetable yields. Plant Soil 64:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Heidary S, Gordon B (1994) Hydrolyzable poly(ethylene terephthalate). J Environ Polym Degrad 2:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Hemphill DD (1993) Agricultural plastics as solid waste: what are the options for disposal? HortTechnology 3:70–73Google Scholar
  123. Hill DE, Hankin L, Stephens GR (1982) Mulches: their effect on fruit set, timing and yields of vegetables. Connecticut Agric Exp Sta Bull 805:15Google Scholar
  124. Hiltunen K, Seppala JV, Itavaara M, Harkonen M (1997) The biodegradation of lactic acid-based poly (ester-urethanes). J Environ Polym Degrad 5:167–173Google Scholar
  125. Hocking PJ, Marchessault RH (1994) Biopolyesters. In: Griffin GJL (ed) Chemistry and technology of biodegradable polymers. Blackie Academic, New York, pp 48–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Hogg P (2001) Plastics, rubber, and composites at Queen Mary. Plastics, Rubber, and Composites 30(5):193–194Google Scholar
  127. Hong YC, Lee JT, Kim H, Ha EH, Schwartz J, Christiani DC (2002) Effects of air pollutants on acute stroke mortality. Environ Heal Perspect 110(2):187–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Hopen JH, Oebker NF (1976) Vegetable crop responses to synthetic mulches. Univ. of Illinois, Spec. Publ. 42Google Scholar
  129. Howard GT (2002) Biodegradation of polyurethabe: a review. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 49(4):245–252Google Scholar
  130. Hu W, Shufen D, Qingwei S (1995) High yield technology for groundnut. International Arachis Newsletter 15:20–30Google Scholar
  131. Huang JC, Shetty AS, Wang MS (1990) Biodegradable plastics: a review. Adv Polym Technol 10(1):23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Hussain I, Hamid H (2003) Plastics in agriculture. In: Andrady AL (ed) Plastics and the environment. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 185–209Google Scholar
  133. Ibarra-Jimenez L, Quezada-Martin R, Cedeno-Rubalcava B, Rio AJD, de la RosaIbarra M (2006) Watermelon response to plastic mulch and row covers. Eur J Hortic Sci 71:262–266Google Scholar
  134. Ibarra-Jimenez, Zermeno-Gonzalez A, Lozano-Del Rio J, Cedeno-Rubalcava B, Ortega-Ortiz H (2008) Changes in soil temperature, yield and photosynthetic response of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) under coloured plastic mulch. Agrochimica 52:263–272Google Scholar
  135. IDDEQ (2007) Open outdoor burning guidelines. Dept of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Idaho. Accessed 23 Apr 2011
  136. Imam SH, Cinelli P, Gordon SH, Chiellini E (2005) Characterization of biodegradable composite films prepared from blends of poly (vinyl alcohol), cornstarch and lignocellulosic fiber. J Polym Environ 13(1):47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Immirzi B, Malinconico M, Romano G, Russo R, Santagata G (2003) Biodegradable films of natural polysaccharides blends. J Materials Sci Letters 22(20):1389–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Jaworski CA, Johnson AW, Chalfant RB, Sumner DR (1974) A system approach for production of high value vegetables on southeastern coastal plain soils. Georgia Agric Res 16(2):12–15Google Scholar
  139. Jayasekara R, Harding I, Bowater I, Lornergan G (2005) Biodegradability of selected range of polymers and polymer blends and standard methods for assessment of biodegradation. J Polym Environ 13:231–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Jendrossek D Backhaus M, Andermann M (1995) Characterization of the extracellular poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) depolymerase of Comamonas sp and its structural gene. Can J Microbiol 41(S1):160–169Google Scholar
  141. Jensen MH (2004) Plasticulture in the global community—view of the past and future. American Society for Plasticulture, BellefonteGoogle Scholar
  142. Joel FR (1995) Polymer science and technology: introduction to polymer science, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 4–9Google Scholar
  143. Johnson H (1989) Plastigone photodegradable film performance in California. Proc Natl Agr Plastics Congr 21:1–6Google Scholar
  144. Jones RAC (1991) Reflective mulch decreased the spread of two non-persistently aphid transmitted viruses to narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus angustifoliirs). Ann Appl Biol 118:79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Juliano BO (1985) Rice properties and processing. Food Rev Intl 1:423–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Jun HS, Kim BO, Kim YC, Chang HN, Woo SI (1994) Synthesis of copolyesters containing poly(ethylene terephthalate) and poly(e-caprolactone) units and their susceptibility to Pseudomonas sp. Lipase. J Environ Polym Degrad 2:9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Kale G, Auras R, Singh SP, Narayan R (2007) Biodegradability of polylactide bottles in real and simulated composting conditions. Polym Test 26:1049–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Kamal MR, Huang B (1992) Natural and artificial weathering of polymers. In: Hamid SH, Ami MB, Maadhan AG (eds) Handbook of polymer degradation. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 127–168Google Scholar
  149. Kapanen A, Schettini E, Vox G, Itavaara M (2008) Performance and environmental impact of biodegradable films in agriculture: a field study on protected cultivation. J Polym Environ 16(2):109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Kasperbauer MJ, Loughrin JH (2004) Crop ecology, management and quality: butterbean seed yield, color, and protein content are affected by photomorphogenesis. Crop Sci 22:2123–2126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Kasuya T, Nakajima H, Kitamoto K (1999) Cloning and characterization of the bipA gene encoding ER chaperone BiP from Aspergillus oryzae. J Biosci Bioeng 88(5):472–478Google Scholar
  152. Kathiresan K (2003) Polythene and plastics-degrading microbes from the mangrove soil. Rev Biol Trop 51:3–4Google Scholar
  153. Kawai F (1995) Breakdown of plastics and polymers by microorganisms. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 52:151–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. Kelly P (2008) Mirel: compostable biobased plastics for a sustainable future. The 34th National Agricultural Plastics Congress. American Society for Plasticulture, TampaGoogle Scholar
  155. Kijchavengkul T (2010) Design of biodegradable aliphatic aromatic polyester films for agricultural applications using response surface methodology. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  156. Kijchavengkul T, Auras R (2008) Perspective: compostability of polymers. Polym Intl 57(6):793–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Kijchavengkul T, Auras R, Rubino M, Ngouajio M, Fernandez RT (2006) Development of an automatic laboratory-scale respirometric system to measure polymer biodegradability. Polym Test 25:1006–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Kijchavengkul T, Auras R, Rubino M, Ngouajio M, Fernandez RT (2008a) Assessment of aliphatic-aromatic copolyester biodegradable mulch films. Part I: field study. Chemosphere 71:942–953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Kijchavengkul T, Auras R, Rubino M, Ngouajio M, Fernandez RT (2008b) Assessment of aliphatic-aromatic copolyester biodegradable mulch films. Part II: laboratory simulated conditions. Chemosphere 71:1607–1616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Kim HS, Kim HJ, Lee JW, Choi IG (2006) Biodegradability of bio-flour filled biodegradable poly(butylene succinate) bio-composites in natural and compost soil. Polym Degrad Stab 91(5):1117–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Kim EJ, Choi DG, Jin SN (2008) Effect of pre-harvest reflective mulch on growth and fruit of plum (Prunus domestica L.). XXVII International Horticultural Congress—IHC2006: International Symposium on Enhancing Economic and Environmental Sustainability of Fruit Production in a Global Economy. Acta Horticulturae 772Google Scholar
  162. Kita K, Mashiba S, Nagita M, Ishimaru K, Okamoto K, Yanase H, Kato N (1997) Cloning of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) depolymerase from a marine bacterium, Alcaligenes faecalis AE122, and characterization of its gene product. Biochim Biophys Acta Gene Struct Express 1352(1):113–122Google Scholar
  163. Kleeberg I, Hetz C, Kroppenstedt RM, Deckwer WD (1998) Biodegradation of aliphatic-aromatic copolyesters by Thermomonospora fusca and other thermophilic compost isolates. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:(5)1731–1735Google Scholar
  164. Kohlmunzer S (1993) Farmakognozja. PZWL, Warszawa (in Polish)Google Scholar
  165. Kolybaba M, Tabil LG, Panigrahi S, Crerar WJ, Powell T, Wang B (2003) Biodegradable polymers: past, present, and future. SAE/ASAE Annual Intersectional Meeting Sponsored by the Red River Section of ASAE Quality Inn & Suites 301 3rd Avenue North Fargo, North Dakota, USA October 3–4, 2003Google Scholar
  166. Kostewicz SR, Stall WM (1989) Degradable mulches with watermelons under north Florida conditions. Proc Natl Agr Plastics Congr 21:17–21Google Scholar
  167. Kotrba R (2008) What to do with the remnants of a plastic culture. Biomass April 2008. Accessed 23 Apr 2011
  168. Kwabiah AB (2004) Growth and yield of sweet corn (Zea mays L.) cultivars in response to planting date and plastic mulch in a short-season environment. Scientia Horiculturae 102:147–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Kwon (1988) The effect of different mulching materials on soil conditions with reference to red pepper production. ASPAC Food Fertilizer technology centre Extn Bulletin 277:11–24Google Scholar
  170. Kyrikou I, Briassoulis D (2007) Biodegradation of agricultural plastic films: a critical review. J Polym Environ 15(2):125–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Lahalih SM, Akashah SA, AlHajjar FH (1987) Development of degradable slow release multinutritional agricultural mulch film. Ind Eng Chem Res 26:2366–2372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Lamont W (1999) Vegetable production using plasticulture. Accessed 23 Apr 2011
  173. Lamont W (2004a) Plastic mulches. In: Lamont W (ed) Production of vegetables, strawberries, and cut flowers using plasticulture. Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service (NRAES), IthacaGoogle Scholar
  174. Lamont W (2004b) Plasticulture: an overview. In: Lamont W (ed) Production of vegetables, strawberries, and cut flowers using plasticulture. Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service (NRAES), IthacaGoogle Scholar
  175. Lamont WJ (2005) Plastics: modifying the microclimate for the production of vegetable crops. HortTechnology 15:477–481Google Scholar
  176. Lamont WJ, Marr CW (1990) Muskmelons, honeydews and watermelons on conventional and photodegradable plastic mulches with drip irrigation in Kansas. Proc Natl Agr Plastics Congr 22:33–39Google Scholar
  177. Lamont W, Orzolek M (2004) Plasticulture glossary of terms. The American Society for Plasticulture, BellefonteGoogle Scholar
  178. Lawrence MJ (2007) A novel machine to produce fuel nuggets from non-recyclable plastics. Agricultural and Biological Engineering. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University ParkGoogle Scholar
  179. Le Moine B (2003) Mulch films: towards a new generation of rapidly decaying plastics. Plasticulture 122:7–103Google Scholar
  180. Lee SY (1996) Bacterial polyhydroxyalkanoates. Biotechnol Bioeng 49:1–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Lee GF, Jones-Lee A (2007) Flawed technology of subtitle D landfilling of municipal solid waste. Accessed 23 Apr 2011
  182. Lee B, Pometto AL, Fratzke A, Bailey TB (1991) Biodegradation of degradable plastic polyethylene by Phanerochaete and Streptomyces species. Appl Environ Microbiol 57:678–685PubMedGoogle Scholar
  183. Lee GH, Bunn JM, Han YJ, Decoteau DR (1996) Determination of optimum levels of light irradiation needed to control ripening of tomatoes. Transac ASAE 39(1):169–175Google Scholar
  184. Levitan L, Barro A (2003) Recycling agricultural plastics in New York state. Environmental Risk Analysis Program, Cornell Center for the Environment, Cornell University, Ithaca. Accessed 23 Apr 2011
  185. Li FM, Song QH, Jjemba PK, Shi YC (2004) Dynamic of microbial biomass C and soil fertility in cropland mulched with plastic film in a semiarid agro-ecosystem. Soil Biol Biochem 36:1893–1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Li H, Chang J, Cao A, Wang J (2005) (2005) In vitro evaluation of biodegradable poly(butylene succinate) as a novel biomaterial. Macromol Biosci 5:433–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Liakatas A, Clark JA, Monteith JL (1986) Measurements of the heat balance under plastic mulches part I. Radiation balance and soil heat flux. Agri For Meteorology 36:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Lippert LF, Takatori FH, Wilding FL (1964) Soil moisture under bands of petroleum and polyethylene mulches. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 85:541–546Google Scholar
  189. Liu Z (2005) Edible films and coatings from starches. In: Han JH (ed) Innovations in food packaging. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 318–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Liu Z, Han JH (2005) Film-forming mechanism of starch. J Food Sci 70:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. Liu XJ, Wang JC, Lu SH, Zhang FS, Zeng XZ, Ai YW, Peng BS, Christie P (2003) Effects of non-flooded mulching cultivation on crop yield, nutrient uptake and nutrient balance in rice-wheat cropping systems. Field Crops Res 83:297–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. Lopez J, Gonzalez A, Fernandez JA, Banon S (2007) Behaviour of biodegradable films used for mulching in melon cultivation. In: Hanafi A, Schnitzler WH (eds) Proc. VIIIth IS on Protected Cultivation in Mild Winter Climates. Acta Hort 747, pp 125–130Google Scholar
  193. Loughrin JH, Kasperbauer MJ (2002) Aroma of fresh strawberries is enhanced by ripening over red versus black mulch. J Agric Food Chem 50:161–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Lourdin D, Valle GD, Colonna P (1995) Influence of amylose content on starch films and foams. Carbohydr Polym 27:261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Luo JJ (1992) A study on effects of radiation, temperature and soil water of corn planted outside plastic film cover. Gansu Agric Sci Tech 2:6–9Google Scholar
  196. Maaroufi A (1993) Etude de la biodégradation de films de polyéthylène photo(bio)dégradables. Ph.D., University Blaise Pascal Clermont Ferrand II, Clermont-FerrandGoogle Scholar
  197. Mabrouk MM, Sabry SA (2001) Degradation of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) and its copolymer poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) by a marine Streptomyces sp. SNG9. Microbiol 156:323–335Google Scholar
  198. Magistad OC, Farden CA, Baldwin WA (1935) Bagasse and paper mulches. J Amer Soc Agron 27:813–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. Malinconico M, Immirzi B, Massenti S, La Mantia FP, Mormile P, Petti L (2002) Blends of polyvinylalcohol and functionalized polycaprolactone. A study of the melt extrusion and post-cure of films suitable for protected cultivation. J Material Sci 37:4973–4978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Malinconico M, Immirzi B, Santagata G, Schettini E, Vox G, Scarascia Mugnozza G (2008) Chapter 3: an overview on innovative biodegradable materials for agricultural applications. In: Moeller HW (ed) Progress in polymer degradation and stability research. Nova Science, New York, pp 69–114Google Scholar
  201. Martin-Closas L, Soler J, Pelacho AM (2003) Effect of different biodegradable mulch materials on an organic tomato production system. Ktbl schrift 414:78–85Google Scholar
  202. Martin-Closas L, Bach MA, Pelacho AM (2008) Biodegradable mulching in an organic tomato production system. In: Prange RK, Bishop SD (eds) Proc. XXVII IHC-S11 Sustain through Integr and Org Hort. Acta Hort 767, pp 267–273Google Scholar
  203. Martín-Closas L, Soler J, Pelacho AM (2003) Effect of different biodegradable mulch materials on an organic tomato production system. In: Biodegradable materials and natural fiber composites. KTBL Darmstadt Schrift 414:78–85Google Scholar
  204. Masey PH, Jr (1972) Current utilization and new developments in agricultural plastics in U.S.A. In Proc. 5th Internat. Coll. Budapest, HungaryGoogle Scholar
  205. Matteson N, Teny I, Ascoli-Christensen A, Gilbert C (1992) Spectral efficiency of the western flower thrips, Frankiniella occidentdis. J Insect Physiol 38(6):453–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. McCraw D, Motes JE (1991) Use of plastic mulch and row covers in vegetable production. Cooperative Extension Service. Oklahoma State University. OSU Extension Facts F-6034Google Scholar
  207. MDEQ (1994) Michigan open burning guide. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, LansingGoogle Scholar
  208. Miles C, Garth L, Sonde M, Nicholson M (2003) Searching for alternatives to plastic mulch. Accessed 23 Apr 2011
  209. Miles C, Garth L, Sonde M, Nicholson M (2005) Searching for alternatives to plastic mulch. Accessed 23 Apr 2011
  210. Miles C, Reed J, Klinger E, Nelson, L, Smith T, Kolker K, Cross C (2006) Alternatives to plastic mulch in vegetable production systems. Accessed 23 Apr 2011
  211. Mitrus M, (2004) Influence of barothermal treatment on physical properties of biodegradable starchy biopolymers. Ph.D. thesis, Lublin Agricultural University, PolandGoogle Scholar
  212. Mogilnitskii GM, Sagatelyan RT, Kutishcheva TN, Zhukova SV, Kerimov SI, Parfenova T (1987). Disruption of the protective properties of the polyvinyl chloride coating under the effect of microorganisms. Prot Met (Engl. Transl.) 23:173–175Google Scholar
  213. Mooers CA, Washko JB, Young JB (1948) Effects of wheat straw, Lespedeza sericea hay, and farmyard manure as soil mulches on the conservation of moisture and the production of nitrates. Soil Sci 66:307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. Mooney BP (2009) The second green revolution? Production of plant-based biodegradable plastics. Biochem J 418:219–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. Moore CO, Robinson JW (1968) Method for coating fruits. AE Staley Manufacturing Co. U.S. Patent 3,368,909Google Scholar
  216. Mueller RJ (2006) Biological degradation of synthetic polyesters—enzymes as potential catalysts for polyester recycling. Process Biochem 41:2124–2128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. Mulder KF (1998) Sustainable production and consumption of plastics? Technol Forecast Soc Chang 58:105–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  218. Muller RJ, Kleeberg I, Deckwer WD (2001) Biodegradation of polyesters containing aromatic constituents. J Biotechnol 86(2):87–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. Munguia J, Quezada R, Zermeno A, Pena V (1998) Plastic mulch effect on the special distribution of solutes and water in the soil profile and relationship with growth and yield of muskmelon crop. Proc Natl Agr Plast Congr 27:173–177Google Scholar
  220. Munn DA (1992) Comparisons of shredded newspaper and wheat straw as crop mulches. HortTechnol 2:361–366Google Scholar
  221. Nakayama A, Kawasaki N, Arvanitoyannis I, Aiba S, Yamamoto N (1996) Synthesis and biodegradation of poly(γ-butyrolactone-co-L-lactide). J Environ Polym Degrad 4:205–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  222. Narayan R (1993) Biodegradation of polymeric materials (anthropogenic macromolecules) during composting. In: Hoitink HAJ, Keener HM (eds) Science and engineering of composting: design, environmental, microbiological and utilization aspects. Renaissance, Washington, pp 339–362Google Scholar
  223. Narayan R (2001) Drivers for biodegradable/compostable plastics and role of composting waste management and sustainable agriculture. ORBIT 2001 Conference, Seville, Spain, Spanish Waste ClubGoogle Scholar
  224. Ngouajio M, Ernest J (2004) Light transmission through colored polyethylene mulches affects weed populations. HortSci 39(6):1302–1304Google Scholar
  225. Ngouajio M, Goldy R, Zandstra B, Warncke D (2007) Plasticulture for Michigan Vegetable Production. Extension Bulletin E-2980 January 2007. Michigan State University, East Lansing, p 20Google Scholar
  226. Ngouajio M, Auras R, Fernandez RT, Rubino M, Counts JW, Kijchavengkul T (2008) Field performance of aliphatic–aromatic copolyester biodegradable mulch films in a fresh market tomato production system. HortTechnology 18(4):605–610Google Scholar
  227. Nishioka M, Tuzuki T, Wanajyo Y, Oonami H, Horiuchi T (1994) In: Doi Y, Fukuda K (eds) Biodegradable plastics and polymers. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 584–90Google Scholar
  228. NYDEC (2008) Dangers of open burning. Accessed 23 Apr. 2011
  229. Ojumu TV, Yu J, Solomon BO (2004) Production of polyhydroxyalkanoates, a bacterial biodegradable polymer. Afr J Biotechnol 3:18–24Google Scholar
  230. Olsen JK, Gounder RK (2001) Alternatives to polyethylene mulch film: a field assessment of transported materials in capsicum (Capsicum annuum L.). Aust J Expt Agr 41:93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  231. ORDEQ (2006) Oregon open burning guide. States of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  232. Osawa Z (1992) Photoinduced degradation of polymers. In: Hamid SH, Amin MB, Maadhah AG (eds) Handbook of polymer degradation. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 169–217Google Scholar
  233. Otey FH, Westoff RP (1980) Biodegradable starch-based plastic films for agricultural applications. Proc Natl Agr Plastics Congr 15:90–93Google Scholar
  234. Otey F, Mark A, Mehitrette C, Russell C (1974) Starch-based film for degradable agricultural mulch. Ind Eng Chem Prod Res Dev 13:90–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  235. Otey FH, Westhoff RP, Russell CR (1975) Starch based plastics and films. Proc. Tech. Symp. Nonwoven Product Technol. International Nonwoven Disposables Association, Miami Beach, FL, March 1975Google Scholar
  236. Otey FH, Westhoff RP, Russell CR (1977) Biodegradable films from starch and ethyl-acrylic acid copolymer. Ind Eng Chem Prod Res Dev 16(4):305–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  237. Otey F, Westoff RP, Doane WM (1980) Starch based blown films. Ind Eng Chem Prod Res Dev 19:592–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  238. Otey F, Westoff RP, Doane WM (1987) Starch based blown films 2. Ind Eng Chem Prod Res Dev 19:1659–1666Google Scholar
  239. Pagga U, Schefer A, Muller RJ, Pantkem M (2001) Determination of the aerobic biodegradability of polymeric material in aquatic batch tests. Chemosphere 42:319–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  240. Palviainen P, Heinämäki J, Myllärinen P, Lahtinen R, Yliruusi J, Forssell P (2001) Corn starches as film formers in aqueous-based film coating. Pharm Develop Technol 6:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  241. Parish RL, Bracy RP, McCoy JE (2000) Evaluation of field incineration of plastic mulch. J Veg Crop Prod 6(1):17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  242. Peng S, Shen K, Wang X, Liu J, Luo X, Wu L (1999) A new rice cultivation technology: plastic film mulching. Int Rice Res Newsl 24:9–10Google Scholar
  243. Peterson LE, Robbins MLR (1970) Early vegetables produced with plastic mulches and mini-greenhouses. Iowa Farm Sci 2:607–608Google Scholar
  244. Pranamuda H, Tokiwa Y (1999) Degradation of poly (l-lactide) by strains belonging to genus Amycolatopsis. Biotechnol Lett 21:901–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  245. Pranamuda H, Tokiwa Y, Tanaka H (1995) Microbial degradation of an aliphatic polyester with a high melting point, poly(tetramethylene succinate). Appl Environ Microbiol 61:1828–1832PubMedGoogle Scholar
  246. Pranamuda H, Tokiwa Y, Tanaka H (1997) Polylactide degradation by an Amycolatopsis sp. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:1637–1640PubMedGoogle Scholar
  247. Quezada R, De La Rosa M, Munguia J, Ibarra L, Cedeno B (2003) Differences in the degradation of padded photodegradable films, caused by the management of melon cultivation (Cucumis melo L.). Phyton, Intl J Exp Bot 72:135–142Google Scholar
  248. Rajapakse NC, Kelly JW (1994) Problems of reporting spectral quality and interpreting phytochrome-mediated responses. HortSci 29:1404–1407Google Scholar
  249. Rangarajan A, Ingall B (2001) Mulch color effects radicchio quality and yield. HortSci 36(7):1240–1243Google Scholar
  250. Rangarajan A, Ingall B (2006) Biodegradable mulch product testing 2006. Department of Horticulture, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  251. Ratto J, Stenhouse PJ, Auerbach M, Mitchell J, Farrell R (1999) Processing, performance and biodegradability of a thermoplastic aliphatic polyester/starch system. Polymer 40:6777–6788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  252. Reemmer J (2009) Advances in the synthesis and extraction of biodegradable poly-hydroxyalkanoates in plant systems—a review. Basic Biotechnology 5:44–49Google Scholar
  253. Rice PJ, McConnell LL, Heighton LP, Sadeghi AM, Isensee AR, Teasdale JR, Abdul-Baki AA, Harman-Fetcho JA, Hapeman CJ (2001) Runoff loss of pesticides and soil: a comparison between vegetative mulch and plastic mulch in vegetable production systems. J Environ Qual 30(5):1808–1821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  254. Rivard C, Moens L, Roberts K, Brigham J, Kelley S (1995) Starch esters as biodegradable plastics: effects of ester group chain length and degree of substitution on anaerobic biodegradation. Enz Microbial Tech 17:848–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  255. Rivaton A, Gardette JL (1998) Photo-oxidation of aromatic polymers. Angew Makromol Chem 261/262:173–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  256. Rivise CW (1929) Mulch paper. Paper Trade J 89:55–57Google Scholar
  257. Rollo KL (1997) Agricultural plastics—boon or bane? Accessed 23 April 2011
  258. Romen F, Reinhardt S, Jendrossek D (2004) Thermotolerant poly(3-hydroxybutyrate)-degrading bacteria from hot compost and characterization of the PHB depolymerase of Schlegelella sp. KB1a. Arch Microbiol 182:157–164Google Scholar
  259. Ruiz JM, Hernandez J, Castilla N, Luis R (2002) Effect of soil temperature on K and Ca concentrations on ATPase and pyruvate kinase activity in potato roots. HortSci 37:325–328Google Scholar
  260. Russo R, Giuliani A, Immirzi B, Malinconico M, Romano G (2004) Alginate/polyvinylalcohol blends for agricultural applications: structure–properties correlation, mechanical properties and greenhouse effect evaluation. Macromolecular Symposia (Current Topics in Polymer Science and Technology) 218:241–250Google Scholar
  261. Russo R, Malinconico M, Petti L, Romano G (2005) Physical behaviour of biodegradable alginate–poly (vinyl alcohol) blend film. J Polym Sci: Part B: Polymer Physics 43:1205–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  262. Sabir I (2004) Plastic Industry in Pakistan., Accesses 16 Dec 2010
  263. Sanchez E, Lamont WJ, Orzolek MD (2008) Newspaper mulches for suppressing weeds for organic high-tunnel cucumber production. HortTechnol 18:154–157Google Scholar
  264. Sanders DC, Prince CA, David PP (1989) Photodegradable plastics in North Carolina. Proc Natl Agr Plastics Congr 21:11–16Google Scholar
  265. Schales FD (1989) Survey results on plastic mulch use in the United States. Proc Nat Agr Plastics Congr 21:95–101Google Scholar
  266. Schales FD, Sheldrake R (1963) Mulch effects on soil conditions and tomato plant response. Proc Natl Agr Plast Congr 4:78–90Google Scholar
  267. Schalk HJ, Matzeit V, Schiller B, Schell J, Gronenborn B (1989) Wheat dwarf virus, a geminivirus of graminaceous plants needs splicing for replication. EMBO J 8:359–364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  268. Schettini E, Vox G, Lucia BD (2007) Effects of the radiometric properties of innovative biodegradable mulching materials on snapdragon cultivation. Sci Hortic 112:456–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  269. Schnabel W (1992) Polymer degradation: principles and practical applications. Hanser, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  270. Schonbeck MW (1995) Mulching practices and innovations for warm season vegetables in Virginia and neighboring states. 1. An informal survey of growers. VA Assoc. Biol. Farming, Blacksburg, 24 ppGoogle Scholar
  271. Schroeter J (1998) Creating a framework for the widespread use of biodegradable polymers. Polym Deg Stab 59:377–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  272. Schultz W (1983) Matching mulches. Org Gard 30(6):50Google Scholar
  273. Scott G (1999) Polymers and the environment. Royal Society of Chemistry, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  274. Scott G, Gilead D (eds) (1995) Degradable polymers: principles and applications. Kluwer Academic/Chapman and Hall (1995)Google Scholar
  275. Selin FJ (2002) Lactic acid formed into biodegradable polymer. Adv Mater Process 160(5):13Google Scholar
  276. Selke S (1996) Biodegradation and packaging (2nd ed.). Pira International ReviewsGoogle Scholar
  277. Seymour RB (1989) Polymer science before & after 1989: notable developments during the lifetime of Maurtis Dekker. J Macromol Sci Chem 26:1023–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  278. Shah AA, Hasan F, Hameed A, Ahmed S (2008) Biological degradation of plastics: a comprehensive review. Biotechnol Adv 26(3):246–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  279. Shimao M (2001) Biodegradation of plastics. Curr Opinion Biotechnol 12:242–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  280. Shogren RL (1999) Preparation and characterization of a biodegradable mulch: paper coated with polymerized vegetable oils. J Appl Polym Sci 73:921–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  281. Shogren RL (2000) Biodegradable mulches from renewable resources. J Sustain Agric 16:33–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  282. Shogren RL, David M (2006) Biodegradable paper/polymerized vegetable oil mulches for tomato and pepper production. J Appl Hort 8:12–14Google Scholar
  283. Shonbeck MW, Evanylo GK (1998) Effects of mulches on soil properties and tomato production I. Soil temperature, soil moisture and marketable yield. J Sustain Agric 13:55–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  284. Singh SP (1992) Studies on mulching of vegetable crops—a review. Advances in Horticulture and Forestry 2:115–143Google Scholar
  285. Sivan A, Szanto M, Pavlov V (2006) Biofilm development of the polyethylene-degrading bacterium Rhodococcus ruber. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 72:346–352Google Scholar
  286. Smith A (1931) Effect of paper mulches on soil temperature, soil moisture, and yields of crops. Hilgardia 61:592–601Google Scholar
  287. Sorkin L (2006) New biodegradable mulch is cheaper than plastic when removal and disposal costs are also considered. Growing for Market. May 810Google Scholar
  288. Steinbuchel A, Fuchtenbusch B (1998) Bacteria and other biological systems for polyester production. TIBTECH 16:419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  289. Stevens ES (2003) What makes green plastics green? Biocycle 24:24–27Google Scholar
  290. Subrahmaniyan K, Zhou WJ (2008) Soil temperature associated with degradable, non-degradable plastic and organic mulches and their effect on biomass production, enzyme activities and seed yield of winter rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). J Sust Agric 32:611–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  291. Suhartini M, Mitomo H, Yohii F, Nagasawa N, Kume T (2002) Radiation crosslinking of poly(butylene succinate) in the presence of inorganic material and its biodegradability. J Polym Environ 9:163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  292. Summers CG, Stapleton JJ (2002) Use of UV reflective mulch to delay the colonization and reduced the severity of Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) infestations in cucurbits. Crop Prot 21:921–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  293. Swift G (1997) Non-medical biodegradable polymers: environmentally degradable polymers. In: Domb AJ, Kost K, Wiseman DM (eds) Handbook of biodegradable polymers. Harwood Academic, Amsterdam, pp 473–511Google Scholar
  294. Tachibana Y, Maeda T, Ito O, Maeda Y, Kunioka M (2009) Utilization of a biodegradable mulch sheet produced from poly(lactic acid)/Ecoflex®/modified starch in mandarin orange groves. Int J Mol Sci 10:3599–3615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  295. Tarara JM (2000) Microclimate modification with plastic mulch. HortSci 35(2):222–228Google Scholar
  296. Thomas D, Atwell A (1999) Starches. Eagan, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  297. Tindall JA, Beverly RB, Radcliffe DE (1991) Mulch effect on soil properties and tomato growth using micro-irrigation. Agron J 83:1028–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  298. Tokiwa Y, Iwamoto A (1994) In: Doi Y, Fukuda K (eds) Biodegradable plastics and polymers. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 190–199Google Scholar
  299. Tomita K, Kuraki Y, Nagai K (1999) Isolation of thermophiles degradating poly (L-lactic acid). J Biosci Bioeng 8:752–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  300. Toncheva V, Bulcke AVD, Schacht E, Mergaert J, Swings J (1996) Synthesis and environmental degradation of polyesters based on poly (ε-caprolactone). J Environ Polym Degrad 4:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  301. Torres A, Li S, Roussos S, Vert M (1996) Screening of microorganisms for biodegradation of poly (lactic acid) and lactic acid-containing polymers. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:2393–2397PubMedGoogle Scholar
  302. Tudorachi CN, Cascaval M, Rusu M, Pruteanu M (2000) Testing of polyvinyl alcohol and starch mixtures as biodegradable polymeric materials. Polymer Test 19(7):785–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  303. Tzankova Dintcheva N, La Mantia FP (2007) Durability of a starch-based biodegradable polymer. Polym Degrad Stabil 92:630–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  304. Vandenberg J, Tiessen H (1972) Influence of wax-coated and polyethylene-coated paper mulch on growth and flowering of tomato. HortSci 7:464–465Google Scholar
  305. Vert M, Fejen J, Albertsson AC, Scott G, Chiellini E (eds) (1992) Biodegradable polymers and plastics. Royal Society of Chemistry, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  306. Vert M, Santos ID, Ponsart S, Alauzet N, Morgat JL, Coudane J, Garreau H (2002) Degradable polymers in a living environment: where do you end up? Polym Int 51:840–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  307. Waggoner PE, Miller PM, De Roo HC (1960) Plastic mulching: principles and benefits. Conn. Agric. Expt. Station Bull. 634Google Scholar
  308. Wang Y, Inagawa Y, Saito T, Kasuya K, Doi Y, Inoue Y (2002) Enzymatic hydrolysis of bacterial poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxypropionate)s by poly(3-hydroxyalkanoate) depolymerase from Acidovorax sp. TP4. Biomacromolecules 3(4):828–834Google Scholar
  309. Wang YZ, Yang KK, Wang XL, Zhou Q, Zheng CY, Chen ZF (2004) Agricultural application and environmental degradation of photo-biodegradable polyethylene mulching films. J Polym Environ 12:7–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  310. Warnick JP, Chase CA, Rosskopf EN, Simonne EH, Scholberg JM (2006) Weed suppression with hydramulch, a biodegradable liquid paper mulch in development. Renewable Agr Food Systems 21:216–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  311. Warp H (1971) Historical development of plastics for agriculture. Proc Nat Agr Plastics Cong 10:1–7Google Scholar
  312. Waterer D (2010) Evaluation of biodegradable mulches for production of warm season vegetable crops. Can J Plant Sci 90:737–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  313. WDEQ (2005) Smoke management. Air Quality Division Standards and Regulations, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, CheyenneGoogle Scholar
  314. Webb SE, Kok-Yokomi ML, Voegtlin DJ (1994) Effect of trap color on species composition of date aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) caught over watermelon plants. Flor Entomol 77(1):146–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  315. Webb JS, Nixon M, Eastwood IM, Greenhalgh M, Robson GD, Handley PS (2000) Fungal colonization and biodeterioration of plasticized polyvinyl chloride. Appl Environ Microbiol 66(8):3194–3200Google Scholar
  316. Weber CA (2003) Biodegradable mulch films for weed suppression in the establishment year of matted-row strawberries. HortTechnol 13:665–668Google Scholar
  317. Wein HC, Minotti PL, Grubinger VP (1993) Polyethylene mulch stimulates early root growth and nutrient uptake of transplanted tomatoes. J Amer Soc HortScience 118(2):207–211Google Scholar
  318. Westhoff P, Otey FH, Mehltretter CL, Russell CR (1974) Starc-filled polyvinyl-chloride plastics—preparation and evaluation. Ind Eng Chem Res Dev 13(2):123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  319. White JM (1988) Effect of plastic mulch beds, nitrogen fertility, and plant-populations on broccoli. HortSci 23:829Google Scholar
  320. Wilson DJ, Jefferies RL (1996) Nitrogen mineralization, plant growth and goose herbivory in an arctic coastal ecosystem. J Ecol 84:841–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  321. Winursito I, Matsumura S (1996) Biodegradability, hydrolytic degradability, and builder performance in detergent formulations of partially dicarboxylated alginic acid. J Environ Polym Degrad 4:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  322. Witt U, Muller RJ, Deckwer WD (1997) Biodegradation behaviour and material properties of aliphatic/aromatic polyesters of commercial importance. J Environ Polymer Degrad l5:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  323. Wittwer SH, Castilla N (1995) Protected cultivation of horticultural crops worldwide. HortTechnol 5(1):83–87Google Scholar
  324. Wolff IA, Davis HA, Cluskey JE, Gundrum LJ, Rist CE (1951) Preparation of films from amylose. Ind Eng Chem 43:915–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  325. Xu S, Lehmann RG, Miller JR, Chandra G (1998) Degradation of silicone polymer as influenced by clay minerals. Environ Sci Technol 32:1199–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  326. Yamada-Onodera K, Mukumoto H, Katsuyaya Y, Saiganji A, Tani Y (2001) Degradation of polyethylene by a fungus, Penicillium simplicissimum YK. Polym Degrad Stab 72:323–327Google Scholar
  327. Yang SR, Wu CH (2001) Degradable plastic films for agricultural applications in Taiwan. Macromol Symp 144(1):101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  328. Yang HS, Yoon JS, Kim MN (2004) Effect of storage of a mature compost on its potential for biodegradation of plastics. Polym Degrad Stab 84(3):411–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  329. Zhang CE, Liang YL, He XB (2002) Effect of plastic film cover cultivation on soil microbial biomass. Acta Ecol Sin 22:508–512Google Scholar
  330. Zhang Y, Han JH, Kim GN (2008) Biodegradable mulch film made of starch-coated paper and its effectiveness on temperature and moisture content of soil. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 39:1026–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  331. Zhao JH, Wang XQ, Zeng J, Yang G, Shi FH, Yan Q (2005) Biodegradation of poly(butylene succinate) in compost. J Appl Polym Sci 97:2273–2278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  332. Zheng Y, Yanful EK, Bassi AS (2005) A review of plastic waste biodegradation. Crit Rev Biotechnol 25(4)243–250Google Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag, France 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Krishi Vigyan Kendra (Farm Science Centre)Tamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityVridhachalamIndia
  2. 2.Department of HorticultureMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations