Advertisement

Bio-nanocomposites in Packaging: Business Model for Products’ Commercialisation

  • Hezekiah Oladimeji
  • Shalini SinghEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The business potential of nanotechnology is expected to alleviate global social challenges as this emerging technology is expected to serve as an important driving force in modernistic agriculture for sustainable food production. Nanotechnology has the prospect to transform the packaging system of the food industry through improved packaging methods for better food quality and customer satisfaction. However, the difficulty lies in commercialising these inventions to put them to use. Notwithstanding the potential risks associated with nanotechnology-based products, this chapter explores the essential elements for the successful commercialisation of engineered nanomaterials. It focuses on bridging the link between the innovation, development and markets in the commercialisation of food packaging products from bio-nanocomposites. Critical factors that could be considered in the management decision-making for the commercialisation of bio-nanocomposite applications were identified. It is expected that, within a global market, a thorough understanding and adoption of these identified factors for successful commercialisation of active packaging technologies will yield system-based solution.

Keywords

Food packaging Nanocomposite Commercialisation 

References

  1. Aithal P, Aithal S (2016) A new model for the commercialisation of nanotechnology products and services. Int J Comput Res Dev 1(1):84–93Google Scholar
  2. Alfadul S, Altahir O, Khan M (2017) Application of nanotechnology in the field of food production. Acad J Sci Res 5(7):143–154Google Scholar
  3. Amadi-Echendu J, John A (2008) On the commercialization of trailing knowledge and IP. In: Proceedings of PICMET’08 conference, Cape Town, PaperID 08R0018Google Scholar
  4. Amadi-Echendu J, Rosetlola R (2011) Technology commercialization factors, frameworks and models. In: Proceedings of first international technology management conference, pp 144–148Google Scholar
  5. Amagasa M, Ishikawa A, Shiga T, Tomizawa G, Tatsuta H, Mieno R (1993) The max-min Delphi method and fuzzy delphi method via fuzzy integration. Fuzzy Sets Syst 35:241–253Google Scholar
  6. Andreev G, Minashkin V, Nevskii I, Putilov V (2009) Nanotechnology-derived materials: potential risk in preparation and use. Russ J Gen Chem 79(9):1974–1981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Azerendo H, Mattoso L, McHugh T (2011) Nanocomposites in food packaging – a review. In: Reddy B (ed) Advances in diverse industrial applications of nanocomposites. InTech Publisher, RijekaGoogle Scholar
  8. Bandarian R (2007) Evaluation of commercial potential of a new technology at the early stage of development with fuzzy logic. J Technol Manag Innov 2(4):73–85Google Scholar
  9. Bisgaard S (1997) Designing experiments for tolerancing assembled products. Technometrics 39(2):142–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borzouei H, Mirdamadi S, Hosseini S (2011) Affective factors in commercialisation of nanotechnology in Iran’s agricultural sector. Ann Biol Res 2(6):56–61Google Scholar
  11. Box E, Bisgaard S (1987) The scientific context of quality improvement. Qual Prog 6:54–61Google Scholar
  12. Bradley L, Castle L, Chaudhry Q (2011) Applications of nanomaterials in food packaging with a consideration of opportunities for developing countries. Trends Food Sci Technol 22:604–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buckley J (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 17:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bumbudsanpharoke N, Ko S (2015) Nano-food packaging: an overview of market, migration research, and safety regulations. J Food Sci 80(5):910–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chaudhry Q, Castle L (2011) Food applications of nanotechnologies: an overview of opportunities and challenges for developing countries. Trends Food Sci Technol 22:595–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Craig B, Richard M, Grant E, Darren M (2013) The commercialization of nanotechnology: the five critical success factors to a nanotech-enabled whole product. In: Tsuzuki T (ed) Nanotechnology commercialization. Pan Stanford Publishing, Canberra, pp 171–204Google Scholar
  17. Csutora R, Buckley JJ (2001) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis: the lambda-max approach. Fuzzy Sets Syst 120:181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cummins P (2007) Models for the 1762 Arakan earthquake and tsunami: the potential for giant tsunamigenic earthquakes in the northern Bay of Bengal. Nature 449:75–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Detcharat S, Pongpun A, Tarathorn K (2013) A hybrid multi-factors decision model for technological innovation capability assessment: research on Thai automotive parts firms. Int J Eng Technol Innov 3(1):20–37Google Scholar
  20. Echeveste M, Amaral C, Rozenfeld H (2007) A support tool for the selection of statistical techniques for industrial product development and improvement processes. In: Loureiro G, Curran R (eds) Complex systems concurrent engineering. Springer, London.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-976-7_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garg P, Ghatmale P, Tarwadi K, Chavan S (2017) Influence of nanotechnology and the role of nanostructures in biomimetic studies and their potential applications. Biomimetics 2:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gholami-Rostam N, Mahdavinejad M, Gholami-Rostam M (2015) Commercializing usage of nano-insulating materials in building industry and future architecture. Procedia Mater Sci 11:644–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glen JC (2006) Nanotechnology: future military environmental health considerations. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 73(2):128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansen SL, Heggelund R, Besora P, Mackevica A, Boldrin A, Baun A (2016) Nanoproducts: what is actually available to European consumers. Environ Sci Nano 3(1):169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hassanali A, Zahra (2015) Prioritization effective factors on commercialization of products using fuzzy AHP APPROACH (Empirical evidence: knowledge-based business of incubators centers of Iran north region). Surv Methodol 5(2):1746–1751Google Scholar
  26. Hernandez T, Bennison D (2000) The art and science of retail location decision. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 28(8):357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ho Y, Wang H (2002) Applying Fuzzy Delphi method to select the variables of a sustainable urban system dynamics model. J Architect 41(2):453–468 TaipeiGoogle Scholar
  28. Hobson D (2009) Commercialization of nanotechnology. WIRES Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 1(1):2–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Honarvar Z, Hadian Z, Mashayekh M (2016) Nanocomposites in food packaging applications and their risk assessment for health. Electron Phys 8(6):2531–2538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hosseini S, Esmaeeli S, Ansari B (2011) Challenges in commercialisation of nano and biotechnologies in agricultural sector of Iran. Afr J Biotechnol 10(34):6516–6521Google Scholar
  31. Hsu Y, Lee C, Kreng V (2010) The application of Fuzzy Delphi method and Fuzzy AHP in lubricant regenerative technology selection. Expert Syst Appl Elsevier 37:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Inigo F, Siavash H, Mika S (2017) Current and future business models for 3D printing applications. In: Ballardini M, Norrgard M, Partanen J (eds) 3D Printing, intellectual property and innovation: insights from law and technology. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 33–62Google Scholar
  33. Ishikawa A, Amagasa M, Shiga T, Tomizawa G, Tatsuta H, Mieno R (1993) The max-min delphi method and Fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration. Fuzzy Sets Syst 35:241–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jayaramudu J, Reddy G, Varaprasad K, Sadiku A, Ray S, Rajulu V (2013) Preparation and properties of biodegradable films from sterculiaurens short fibre/cellulose green composites. Carbohydr Polym 93:622–627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Jeremy C, Glenn V, Theodore J (2003) Futures research methodology ver. 2.0. American Council for the United Nations University the Millennium Project, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Kahraman C (2008) Multi-factors decision making and fuzzy sets. In: Kahraman C (ed) Fuzzy multi-factors decision making. Springer Theory and applications with recent developments, vol. 16, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  37. Kamolkittiwong, Phruksaphanrat (2015) An analysis of drivers affecting green supply chain management implementation in electronics industry in Thailand. J Econ Bus Manag 3(9):864–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kanmani P, Rhim J (2014) Physiochemical properties of gelatin/silver nanoparticle antimicrobial composite films. Food Chem 148:162–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Keller-McNulty S, Nakhleh CW, Singpurwalla ND (2005) A paradigm for masking (camouflaging) information. Int Statist Rev 73:331–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kim S, Lee J, Lim H, So D, Kim K (2010) Korean experience in nanotechnology industrialization. Tech Monitor 1(1–2):21–29Google Scholar
  41. Koç E, Burhan H (2015) An application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in a real world problem of store location selection. Adv Manage Appl Econ 5(1):41–50Google Scholar
  42. Kumar S, Luthra S, Haleem A, Mangla S, Garg D (2015) Identification and evaluation of critical factors to technology transfer using AHP approach. Int Strateg Manage Rev 3:24–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kumar V, Jain PK (2003) Commercialization of new technologies in India: an empirical study of perceptions of technology institutions. Technovation 23:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuo J, Chi S, Kao S (2002) A decision support system for selecting convenience store location through integration of fuzzy AHP and artificial neural network. Comput Ind 47:199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lan S, Sheng T (2014) The study on key factors of influencing consumers’ purchase of green buildings: application of two-stage fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Int Bus Res 7(6):49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lee C, Lee S, Jhon M, Shin J (2013) Factors influencing nanotechnology commercialisation: an empirical analysis of nanotechnology firms in South Korea. J Nanopart Res 15:1444–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Levi-Jakšić M, Rakoćevićm S (2012) Innovative management and business performance. In: Proceedings of the XIII international symposium, SerbiaGoogle Scholar
  48. Linstone HA, Turoff M (2002) The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, Reading ISBN 0-201-04294-0Google Scholar
  49. Lo C, Wang C, Chien P, Hung C (2012) An empirical study of commercialisation performance on nanoproducts. Technovation 32(3–4):168–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lopez R (2013) Applications and issues in the fields of nanotechnology, information technology, neurotechnology, and biotechnology. Int J Bus Soc Sci 4(8):39–50Google Scholar
  51. Lu J, Jeng S, Wang K (2009) Review of statistical methods for quality improvement and control in nanotechnology. J Qual Technol 41(2):148–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ludhiyani A, Pathak R, Joshi S (2011) Business implications of recent developments in nanotechnology for micro scale devices. Intellect Econ 1(9):117–134Google Scholar
  53. Luthra S, Kumar S, Garg D, Haleem A (2015a) Barriers to renewable and sustainable energy technologies adoption: Indian perspective. Renew Sust Energ Rev 41:762–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Luthra S, Garg D, Haleem A (2015b) An analysis of interactions among critical success factors to implement green supply chain management towards sustainability: an Indian perspective. Resour Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.12.006i
  55. Macharis C, Verbeke A, De Brucker K (2004) The strategic evaluation of new technologies through multicriteria analysis: the advisors case. Res Transport Econ 8:443–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mackevica A, Revilla P, Brinch A, Hansen S (2016) Current uses of nanomaterials in Biocidal products and treated articles in the EU. Environ Sci Nano 3(5):1195–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mahboudi M, Ananthan B (2010) Effective factors in technology transfer in the pharmaceutical industries of iran: a case study. J Knowl Manag 3(1&2):98–110Google Scholar
  58. Mahdjoubi D (1997) The linear model of technological innovation: background and taxonomy, UTexas working paperGoogle Scholar
  59. Majeed K, Jawaid M, Hassan A, Bakar A, Khalil A, Salema A, Inuwa A (2013) Potential materials for food packaging from nanoclay/natural fibres filled hybrid composites. Mater Des 46:391–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mansoori GA, Soelaiman TA (2005) Nanotechnology – an introduction for the standards community. J ASTM Int 2(6):1–21Google Scholar
  61. Marinova R, Phillimore J (2003) Models of innovation. In: Shavinina V (ed) International handbook on innovation. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  62. Maurizio A, Jan J, Errico M, Sabine F, Paolo V, Volpe M (2005) Biodegradable starch/clay nanocomposite films for food packaging applications. Food Chem 93:467–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mazzola L (2003) Commercializing nanotechnology. Nat Biotechnol 21(10):1137–1143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Mensitieri G, Di Maio E, Buonocore G, Nedi I, Oliviero M, Sansone L, Iannace S (2011) Processing and shelf life issues of selected food packaging materials and structures from renewable resources. Trends Food Sci Technol 22(2–3):72–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Meredith J, Raturi A, Amoako-Gyampah K, Kaplan B (1989) Alternative research paradigms in operations. J Oper Manag 8:297–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Millet I, Wedley W (2002) Modelling risk and uncertainty with the analytic hierarchy process. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 11:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mohannak K, Samtani A (2014) A factors based approach for evaluating innovation commercialisation. In: DRUID society 2014 conference on entrepreneurship – organization – innovation, 16–18 June 2014, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark. Accessed 15 Apr 2017Google Scholar
  68. Murray T, Pipino L, Gigch J (1985) A pilot study of fuzzy set modification of Delphi. Hum Syst Manag 5:76–80Google Scholar
  69. Nogueira P, Paino M, Zucolotto V (2013) Nanosilver: properties, application and impacts on health and environment. Vigilância Sanitária em Debate 1(4):57–68Google Scholar
  70. Noorderhaben N (1995) Strategic decision making. Addison-Wesley, WorkinghamGoogle Scholar
  71. Oladimeji H, Singh S (2013) Operational research modeling approaches for commercialization of nano-engineered materials. In: Kanny M (ed) Advances in composites, biocomposites and nanocomposites. Manipal University Press, Manipal, pp 395–411Google Scholar
  72. Othman S (2014) Bionanocomposite materials for food packaging applications: types of biopolymer and nano-sized filler. Agric Agric Procedia 2:296–303Google Scholar
  73. Parcon P (2006) Develop your decision making skills. Lotus Press, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  74. Priya P, Venkatesh A (2012) Integration of analytic hierarchy process with regression analysis to identify attractive locations for market expansion. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 19(3–4):143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rafieian F, Shahedi M, Keramat J, Simonsen J (2014) Thermomechanical and morphological properties of nanocomposite films from wheat gluten matrix and cellulose nanofibrils. J Food Sci 79:100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ramanathan R (2001) A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. J Environ Manag 63:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Reynolds G (2007) FDA recommends nanotechnology research, but not labelling. www.foodproductiondaily.com. Accessed 22 Nov 2017
  78. Rhim J, Park H, Ha C (2013) Bio-nanocomposites for food packaging applications. Prog Polym Sci 38:1629–1652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rockefeller Foundation (2005) Nanotechnology and the poor: opportunities and risks. Meridian Institute, DillonGoogle Scholar
  80. Roco M (2004) Nanotechnology’s future. Forum Sect Sci Am 295(2):21Google Scholar
  81. Romig AD, Baker AB, Johannes J, Zipperian T, Eijkel K, Kirchhoff B, Mani HS, Rao CNR, Walsh S (2007) An introduction to nanotechnology policy: opportunities and constraints for emerging and established economies. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 74(9):1634–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rosa J, Rose A (2007) Report on interviews on the commercialization of innovation. Statistics. Canada. ISBN 978-0-662-46359-7Google Scholar
  83. Rossi M, Passeri D, Sinibaldi A, Angjellari M, Tamburri E, Sorbo A, Carata E, Dini L (2017) Nanotechnology for food packaging and food quality assessment. Adv Food Nutr Res 82:149–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Rothwell R (1992) Successful industrial innovation critical factors for the 1990s. R&D Manag 22(3):221–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rouhi J, Mahmud S, Naderi N, Raymond C, Mahmood M (2013) Physical Properties of fish gelatin-based bio-nanocomposite films incorporated with ZnO nanorods. Nanoscale Res Lett 8:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schichl H (2004) Models and the history of modeling. In: Kallrath J (ed) Modeling languages in mathematical optimization. Applied optimization, vol 88. Springer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  87. Sekhon B (2010) Nanotechnology. Sci Appl 3(1):1–15Google Scholar
  88. Sekhon B (2014) Nanotechnology in agri-food production: an overview. Nanotechnol Sci Appl 7:31–53CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. Shapira P, Gök A, Salehi F (2016) Graphene enterprise: mapping innovation and business development in a strategic emerging technology. J Nanopart Res 18:269–281CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  90. Shen Y, Chang S, Lin G, Yu H (2010) A hybrid selection model for emerging technology. Elsevier Technol Forecast Soc Chang 77:151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Singh T, Shukla S, Kumar P, Wahla V, Bajpal V (2017) Application of nanotechnology in food science: perception and overview. Front Microbiol 8:1501–1508CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. Soleimanpour M, Hosseini S, Mirdamadi S, Sarafrazi A (2011) Challenges in commercialisation of nanotechnology in agriculture sector of Iran. Ann Biol Res 2(4):68–75Google Scholar
  93. Sonker AS, Richa R, Pathak J, Rajneesh R, Pandey A, Chatterjee A, Sinha RP (2017) Bionanotechnology: past, present and future. In: Sinha R, Richa JP (eds) New approaches in biological research. Nova Science Pub Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  94. Stefanovska L, Polenakovikj R, Dzidrov M (2016) Summary of innovation models on a company level – creating a framework for an innovation model that will increase a company’s innovation activity. Sci Proc Sci Tech Union Mech Eng 26(212):47–50Google Scholar
  95. Tang X, Kumar P, Alavi S, Sandeep P (2012) Recent advances in biopolymers and biopolymer-based nanocomposites for food packaging materials. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 52:426–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Uldrich J, Newberry D (2003) The next big thing is really small: how nanotechnology will change the future of your business. Crown Business/Random House Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  97. USEPA (2009) Environmental protection agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139FGoogle Scholar
  98. Van Laarhoven P, Pedrycz W (1983) A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst 11:229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Werner B, Koontz J, Goddard J (2017) Hurdles to commercial translation of next generation active food packaging technologies. Curr Opin Food Sci 16(8):40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wikle C, Royle J (2004) Spatial statistical modeling in biology, in modern biometry. In: Wilson S (ed) Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). Eolss Publishers, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  101. Will J, Bertrand M, Fransoo C (2002) Operations management research methodologies using quantitative modeling. Int J Oper Prod Manag 22(2):241–264.  https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570210414338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Yousuf M (2007) Using experts’ opinions through Delphi technique. Pract Assess Res Eval 12(4):1–8 http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=4 Google Scholar
  103. Zahir S (1999) Clusters in group: decision making in the vector space formulation of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 112:620–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Zhigljavsky A (2011) Stochastic global optimization. In: International encyclopedia of statistical science. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1521–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Ziamou PZ (2002) Commercialization of new technologies: consumers’ response to a new interface. J Prod Manage 19:365–374Google Scholar
  106. Zuniga P, Correa P (2013) Technology transfer from public research organizations: concepts, markets, and institutional failures. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business Administration, College of Social & Management SciencesCALEB UniversityLagosNigeria
  2. 2.Department of Operations and Quality ManagementDurban University of TechnologyDurbanSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations