Soy Protein- and Starch-Based Green Composites/Nanocomposites: Preparation, Properties, and Applications

  • Rekha Rose Koshy
  • Siji K. Mary
  • Laly A. PothanEmail author
  • Sabu ThomasEmail author
Part of the Advanced Structured Materials book series (STRUCTMAT, volume 75)


With the environmental appeal around the planet for a sustainable development, there is the need to develop new materials from renewable resources, which can be degraded in a short time in the environment, thereby maintaining the proper balance of the carbon cycle. Biopolymers from various natural botanical resources can act as a substitute for petroleum-based synthetic polymers because of their low cost, ease of availability, and biodegradability along with other organic wastes to soil humic materials. Materials which are biodegradable and fully sustainable are termed as “Green Composites”. This development not only solves the white pollution problem but also stops the overdependence on petroleum products. Development of Green Composites made from soy protein and starch has been a great challenge for the scientific community, since these materials do not possess all the desirable characteristics of the synthetic polymers, being mostly often, highly hydrophilic and also presenting poor mechanical properties to be used as engineering’s materials. Cellulose macro- and nano-fibers can be used as reinforcement in composite materials to enhance mechanical, thermal, and biodegradation properties of the composites. In this chapter we will be dealing mainly with the preparation, properties, and applications of cellulose fiber-reinforced green composites based on soy protein and starch.


Green composites Biopolymers Soy protein Starch 


  1. Bai H, Xu J, Liao P, Liu X (2012) Mechanical and water barrier properties of soy protein isolate film incorporated with gelatin. J Plast Film Sheeting 29(2):174–188Google Scholar
  2. Behera AK, Avancha S, Basak RK, Sen R, Adhikari B (2012) Fabrication and characterizations of biodegradable jute reinforced soy based green composites. Carbohydr Polym 88(1):329–335Google Scholar
  3. Boufi S, Kaddami H, Dufresne A (2014) Mechanical performance and transparency of nanocellulose reinforced polymer nanocomposites. Macromol Mater Eng 299(5):560–568Google Scholar
  4. Bourtoom T, Chinnan MS (2009) Improvement of water barrier property of rice starch–chitosan composite film incorporated with lipids. Food Sci Technol Int 15(2):149–158Google Scholar
  5. Castano J, Rodriguez-Llamazares S, Carrascoa C, Bouza R (2012) Physical, chemical and mechanical properties of pehuen cellulosic husk and its pehuen-starch based composites. Carbohydr Polym 90:1550–1556Google Scholar
  6. Chabba S, Matthews GF, Netravali aN (2005) Green composites using cross-linked soy flour and flax yarns. Green Chem 7(8):576–581Google Scholar
  7. Chan RT (2012). A study on the extrusion of soy protein film incorporated with soy-derived cellulose fibers. ThesisGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen G, Liu H (2008) Electrospun cellulose nanofiber reinforced soybean protein isolate composite film. J Appl Polym Sci 110(2):641–646Google Scholar
  9. Chen L, Remondetto GE, Subirade M (2006) Food protein-based materials as nutraceutical delivery systems. Trends Food Sci Technol 17(5):272–283Google Scholar
  10. Chen CX, Chang PR, Stumborg M, Huneeault MA (2008) Green composites reinforced with hemp nanocrystals in plasticized starch. J Appl Polym Sci 109:3804–3810Google Scholar
  11. Cherian BM, Leao AL, de Souza SF, Costa LMM, de Olyveira GM, Kottaisamy M, Nagarajan ER, Thomas S (2011) Cellulose nanocomposites with nanofibres isolated from pineapple leaf fibers for medical applications. Carbohydr Polym 86(4):1790–1798Google Scholar
  12. Chien KB, Shah RN (2012) Novel soy protein scaffolds for tissue regeneration: material characterization and interaction with human mesenchymal stem cells. Acta Biomater 8(2):694–703Google Scholar
  13. Chinma CE, Ariahu CC, Alakali JS (2013). Effect of temperature and relative humidity on the water vapour permeability and mechanical properties of cassava starch and soy protein concentrate based edible films. J Food Sci Technol. doi:  10.1007/s13197-013-1227-0
  14. Chiumarelli M, Hubinger MD (2014) Evaluation of edible films and coatings formulate with cassava starch, glycerol, carnauba wax and stearic acid. Food Hydrocolloids 38:20–27Google Scholar
  15. Chung YL, Ansari S, Estevez L, Hayrapetyan S, Giannelis EP, Lai HM (2010) Preparation and properties of biodegradable starch–clay nanocomposites. Carbohydr Polym 79:391–396Google Scholar
  16. Ciannamea EM, Stefani PM, Ruseckaite Ra (2014) Physical and mechanical properties of compression molded and solution casting soybean protein concentrate based films. Food Hydrocolloids 38:193–204Google Scholar
  17. Deepa B, Abraham E, Cherian BM, Bismark A, Blaker JJ, Pothan LA, Leao AL, de Souza SF, Kottaisamy M (2011) Structure, morphology and thermal characteristics of banana nano fibers obtained by steam explosion. Bioresour Technol 102(2):1988–1997Google Scholar
  18. Dufresne A (2010) Processing of Polymer Nanocomposites Reinforced with Polysaccharide Nanocrystals. Molecules 15:4111–4128Google Scholar
  19. Echeverría I, Eisenberg P, Mauri AN (2014) Nanocomposites fi lms based on soy proteins and montmorillonite processed by casting. J Membr Sci 449:15–26Google Scholar
  20. Espitia PJP, Du W-X, Avena-Bustillos R de J, Soares N de FF, McHugh TH (2014). Edible films from pectin: Physical-mechanical and antimicrobial properties—a review. Food Hydrocolloids 35:287–296Google Scholar
  21. Fagundes C, Palou L, Monteiro AR, Pérez-Gago MB (2014) Effect of antifungal hydroxypropyl methylcellulose-beeswax edible coatings on gray mold development and quality attributes of cold-stored cherry tomato fruit. Postharvest Biol Technol 92:1–8Google Scholar
  22. Fernandes EM, Pires RA, Mano JF, Reis RL (2013) Bionanocomposites from lignocellulosic resources: properties, applications and future trends for their use in the biomedical field. Prog Polym Sci 38(10–11):1415–1441Google Scholar
  23. Flores S, Fama L, Rojas AM, Goyanes S, Gerschenson L (2007) Physical properties of tapioca-starch edible films: influence of film making and potassium sorbate. Food Res Int 40:257–265Google Scholar
  24. Flores-Hernández C et al (2014) All green composites from fully renewable biopolymers: chitosan-starch reinforced with keratin from feathers. Polymers 6(3):686–705Google Scholar
  25. Ghanbarzadeh B, Oleyaei SA, Almasi H (2014) Nano-structured materials utilized in biopolymer based plastics for food packaging applications. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 54(2):1–78Google Scholar
  26. Ghidelli C, Mateos M, Rojas-Argudo C, Pérez-Gago MB (2014) Extending the shelf life of fresh-cut eggplant with a soy protein–cysteine based edible coating and modified atmosphere packaging. Postharvest Biol Technol 95:81–87Google Scholar
  27. Gironès J, López JP, Mutj P, Carvalho AJF, Curvelo AAS, Vilaseca F (2012) Natural fiber- reinforced thermoplastic starch composites obtained by melt processing. Compos Sci Technol 72:858–863Google Scholar
  28. González A, Strumia MC, Ines C, Igarzabal A (2011) Cross-linked soy protein as material for biodegradable films: synthesis, characterization and biodegradation. J Food Eng 106:331–338Google Scholar
  29. Guerrero P, de la Caba K (2010) Thermal and mechanical properties of soy protein films processed at different pH by compression. J Food Eng 100(2):261–269Google Scholar
  30. Guerrero P, Retegi a, Gabilondo N, de la Caba K (2010) Mechanical and thermal properties of soy protein films processed by casting and compression. J Food Eng 100(1):145–151Google Scholar
  31. Guerrero P, Nur Hanani Za, Kerry JP, de la Caba K (2011) Characterization of soy protein-based films prepared with acids and oils by compression. J Food Eng 107(1):41–49Google Scholar
  32. Gupta P, Nayak KK (2014) Characteristics of protein-based biopolymer and its application. Polym Eng Sci 4(2):3721–3735Google Scholar
  33. Huang X, Netravali A (2009) Biodegradable green composites made using bamboo micro/nano-fibrils and chemically modified soy protein resin. Compos Sci Technol 69(7–8):1009–1015Google Scholar
  34. Ibrahim H, Farag M, Megahed H, Mehanny S (2014) Characteristics of starch-based biodegradable composites reinforced with date palm and flax fibers. Carbohydr Polym 101:11–19Google Scholar
  35. Ifuku S, Morooka S, Morimoto M, Saimoto H (2010) Acetylation of chitin nanofibers and their transparent nanocomposite films. Biomacromolecules 11:1326–1330Google Scholar
  36. Imam M, Bania KK, Maji TK (2013) Green jute-based cross-linked soy flour nanocomposites reinforced with cellulose whiskers and nanoclay. Ind Eng Chem Res 52:6969–6983Google Scholar
  37. John Wiley & Sons (2014) Cellulose based composites: new green nanomaterials (Google eBook)Google Scholar
  38. Jong L, Peterson SC (2008) Effects of soy protein nanoparticle aggregate size on the viscoelastic properties of styrene–butadiene composites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 39(11):1768–1777Google Scholar
  39. Kalia S, Dufresne A, Cherian BM, Kaith BS, Averous L, Njuguna J, Nassiopoulos E (2011).Cellulose based bio and nano composites-a review. Int J Polym Sci.
  40. Katerinopoulou K, Giannakas A, Grigoriadi K, Barkoula NM, Ladavos A (2014) Preparation and characterization of acetylated corn starch-(PVOH)/clay nanocomposite films. Carbohydr Polym 102:216–222Google Scholar
  41. Kim JT, Netravali AN (2011) Development of aligned-hemp yarn-reinforced green composites with soy protein resin: effect of pH on mechanical and interfacial properties. Compos Sci Technol 71(4):541–547Google Scholar
  42. Kobayashi S, Takada K, Nakamura R (2014) Processing and characterization of hemp fiber textile composites with micro-braiding technique. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 59:1–8Google Scholar
  43. Kokoszka S, Debeaufort F, Hambleton A, Lenart A, Voilley A (2010) Protein and glycerol contents affect physico-chemical properties of soy protein isolate-based edible films. Innovative Food Sci Emerg Technol 11(3):503–510Google Scholar
  44. Kumar R, Choudhary V, Mishra S, Varma IK, Mattiason B (2002) Adhesives and plastics based on soy protein products. Ind Crops Prod 16(3):155–172Google Scholar
  45. Kumar P, Sandeep KP, Alavi S, Truong VD (2011) A review of experimental and modeling techniques to determine properties of biopolymer-based nanocomposites. J Food Sci 76(1):2–14Google Scholar
  46. La Mantia FP, Morreale (2011) Green composites: a brief review. Compos A 42:579–588Google Scholar
  47. Li Y, Li N, Gao J (2013) Tooling design and microwave curing technologies for the manufacturing of fiber-reinforced polymer composites in aerospace applications. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 70(1–4):591–606Google Scholar
  48. Lin M-F, Thakur VK, Tan EJ, Lee PS (2011a) Dopant induced hollow BaTiO3 nanostructures for application in high performance capacitors. J Mater Chem 21:16500–16504Google Scholar
  49. Lin M-F, Thakur VK, Tan EJ, Lee PS (2011b) Surface functionalization of BaTiO3 nanoparticles and improved electrical properties of BaTiO3/polyvinylidene fluoride composite. RSC Adv 1:576–578Google Scholar
  50. Liang K, Gao Q, Shi SQ (2013) Kenaf fiber/soy protein based biocomposites modified with poly(carboxylic acid) resin. J Appl Polym Sci 128(2):1213–1218Google Scholar
  51. Liu Y, Du H, Liu L and Leng J (2014). Shape memory polymers and their composites in aerospace applications: a review. Smart Mater Struct 23(2):22Google Scholar
  52. Lodha P, Netravali AN (2005) Characterization of stearic acid modified soy protein isolate resin and ramie fiber reinforced green composites. Compos Sci Technol 65(7–8):1211–1225Google Scholar
  53. Lopez O, Garcia MA, Villar MA, Gentili A, Rodriguez MS, Alberteng L (2014) Thermo-compression of biodegradable thermoplastic corn starch films containing chitin and chitosan. Food Sci Technol 57:106–115Google Scholar
  54. Lu Y, Weng L, Zhang L (2004) Morphology and properties of soy protein isolatethermoplastics reinforced with chitin whiskers. Biomacromolecules 5:1046–1051Google Scholar
  55. Mariano M, Kissi NE, Dufresne A (2014) Cellulose nanocrystals and related nanocomposites: review of some properties and challenges. J Polym Sci B Polym Phys 52:791–806Google Scholar
  56. Marques AP, Reisa RL, Hunt JA (2002) The biocompatibility of novel starch-based polymers and composites: in vitro studies. Biomaterials 23:1471–1478Google Scholar
  57. Maruthi Y, Sudhakar H, Rao US, Babu PK, Rao KC, Subha MCS (2014) Blend membranes of sodium alginate and soya protein for pervaporation dehydration of isopropanol. Adv Polym Sci Technol 4(2):12–21Google Scholar
  58. Mitra B (2014) Environment friendly composite materials: biocomposites and green composites. Defence Sci J 64(3):244–261Google Scholar
  59. Neethirajan S, Jayas DS (2011) Nanotechnology for the food and bioprocessing industries. Food Bioprocess Technol 4:39–47Google Scholar
  60. Nur Hanani ZA, Roos YH, Kerry JP (2014) Use and application of gelatin as potential biodegradable packaging materials for food products. Int J Biol Macromol 71:1–9Google Scholar
  61. Ong S-Y, Wu J, Moochhala SM, Tan M-H, Lu J (2008) Development of a chitosan-based wound dressing with improved hemostatic and antimicrobial properties. Biomaterials 29(32):4323–4332Google Scholar
  62. Pan H, Jiang B, Chen J, Jin Z (2014) Blend-modification of soy protein/lauric acid edible films using polysaccharides. Food Chem 151:1–6Google Scholar
  63. Privas E, Leroux F, Navard P (2013) Preparation and properties of blends composed of lignosulfonated layered double hydroxide/plasticized starch and thermoplastics. Carbohydr Polym 96:91–100Google Scholar
  64. Ramaraj B (2007) Crosslinked poly(vinyl alcohol) and starch composite films: study of their physico-mechanical, thermal and swelling properties. J Appl Polym Sci 103:1127–1132Google Scholar
  65. Reddy N, Yang Y (2011) Completely biodegradable soyprotein–jute biocomposites developed using water without any chemicals as plasticizer. Ind Crops Prod 33(1):35–41Google Scholar
  66. Riveros CG, Mestrallet MG, Quiroga PR, Nepote V, Grosso NR (2013) Preserving sensory attributes of roasted peanuts using edible coatings. Int J Food Sci Technol 48(4):850–859Google Scholar
  67. Rossi Marquez G, Di Pierro P, Esposito M, Mariniello L, Porta R (2013) Application of transglutaminase-crosslinked whey protein/pectin films as water barrier coatings in fried and baked foods. Food Bioprocess Technol 7(2):447–455Google Scholar
  68. Routray M, Rout SN, Mohanty GC, Nayak PL (2013) Preparation and characterization of soy protein isolate films processed by compression and casting. J Chem Pharm Res 5(11):752–761Google Scholar
  69. Sareena C, Sreejith MP, Ramesan MT, Purushothaman E (2014) Biodegradation behaviour of natural rubber composites reinforced with natural resource fillers—monitoring by soil burial test. J Reinf Plast Compos 33(5):412–429Google Scholar
  70. Silva NHCS, Vilela C, Marrucho IM, Freire CSR, Neto CP, Silvestre AJD (2014) Protein-based materials: from sources to innovative sustainable materials for biomedical applications. J Mater Chem B 2(24):3715–3740Google Scholar
  71. Singha AS, Thakur VK (2008a) Effect of fibre loading on urea-formaldehyde matrix based green composites. Iran Polym J 17:861–873Google Scholar
  72. Singha AS, Thakur VK (2008b) Synthesis and characterization of pine needles reinforced RF matrix based biocomposites. J Chem 5:1055–1062Google Scholar
  73. Singha AS, Thakur VK (2008c) Saccaharum cilliare fiber reinforced polymer composites. E-J Chem 5:782–791Google Scholar
  74. Singha AS, Thakur VK (2008d) Fabrication and study of lignocellulosic hibiscus sabdariffa fiber reinforced polymer composites. Bioresources 3:1173–1186Google Scholar
  75. Singha AS, Thakur VK (2009a) Morphological, thermal, and physicochemical characterization of surface modified pinus fibers. Int J Polym Anal Charact 14(3):271–289Google Scholar
  76. Singha AS, Thakur VK (2009b) Fabrication and characterization of H. sabdariffa fiber-reinforced green polymer composites. Polym-Plast Technol Eng 48:482–487Google Scholar
  77. Singha AS, Thakur VK (2009c) Grewia optiva fiber reinforced novel, low cost polymer composites. J Chem 6:71–76Google Scholar
  78. Singha AS, Thakur VK (2009d) Fabrication and characterization of S. cilliare fibre reinforced polymer composites. Bull Mater Sci 32:49–58Google Scholar
  79. Singha AS, Thakur VK (2009e) Synthesis, characterization and analysis of Hibiscus Sabdariffa fibre reinforced polymer matrix based composites. Polym Polym Compos 17:189–194Google Scholar
  80. Singha AS, Thakur VK, Mehta IK, Shama A, Khanna AJ, Rana RK, Rana AK (2009a) Surface-modified Hibiscus sabdariffa fibers: physicochemical, thermal, and morphological properties evaluation. Int J Polym Anal Charact 14(8):695–711Google Scholar
  81. Singha AS, Thakur VK, Mishra BN (2009b) Study of Grewia optiva fiber reinforced urea-formaldehyde composites. J Polym Mater 26:81–90Google Scholar
  82. Siqueira G, Bras J, Dufresne A (2010) Cellulosic bionanocomposites: a review of preparation. Prop Appl Polym 2(4):728–765Google Scholar
  83. Siro I, Plackett D (2010) Microfibrillated cellulose and new nanocomposite materials: a Review. Cellulose 17:459–494Google Scholar
  84. Sirviö JA, Kolehmainen A, Liimatainen H, Niinimäki J, Hormi OEO (2014) Biocomposite cellulose-alginate films: promising packaging materials. Food Chem 1513:43–51Google Scholar
  85. Slavutskya AM, Bertuzz MA (2014) Water barrier properties of starch films reinforced with cellulose nanocrystals obtained from sugarcane bagasse. Carbohydr Polym 110:53–61Google Scholar
  86. Slomkowski S, Penczek S, Duda A (2014) Polylactides-an overview. Polym Adv Technol 25(5):436–447Google Scholar
  87. Song Y, Zheng Q (2014) Ecomaterials based on food proteins and polysaccharides. Polym Rev 54(3):514–571Google Scholar
  88. Song F, Tang D, Wang X, Wang Y (2011) Biodegradable Soy Protein Isolate-Based Materials: a Review. Biomacromolecules 12(10):3369–3380Google Scholar
  89. Souza AC, Benze R, Ferrão ES, Ditchfield C, Coelho ACV, Tadini CC (2012) Cassava starch biodegradable films: influence of glycerol and clay nanoparticles content on tensile and barrier properties and glass transition temperature. Food Sci Technol 46:110–117Google Scholar
  90. Soykeabkaew N, Supaphol P, Rujiravanit R (2004) Preparation and characterization of jute- and flax-reinforced starch-based composite foams. Carbohydr Polym 58:53–63Google Scholar
  91. Thakur VK, Kessler MR (2014a) Free radical induced graft copolymerization of ethyl acrylate onto SOY for multifunctional materials. Mater Today Commun. doi:  10.1016/j.mtcomm.2014.09.003
  92. Thakur VK, Kessler MR (2014b) Synthesis and characterization of AN-g-SOY for sustainable polymer composites. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2:2454–2460Google Scholar
  93. Thakur VK, Thakur MK (2014a) Recent trends in hydrogels based on psyllium polysaccharide: a review. J Clean Prod 82:1–15Google Scholar
  94. Thakur VK, Thakur MK (2014b) Recent advances in graft copolymerization and applications of chitosan: a review. ACS Sustaina Chem Eng 2:2637–2652Google Scholar
  95. Thakur VK, Thakur MK (2014c) Processing and characterization of natural cellulose fibers/thermoset polymer composites. Carbohydr Polym 109:102–117Google Scholar
  96. Thakur VK, Singha AS, Kaur I, Nagarajarao RP, Liping Y (2010a) Silane functionalization of Saccaharum cilliare fibers: thermal, morphological, and physicochemical study. Int J Polym Anal Charact 15(7):397–414Google Scholar
  97. Thakur VK, Singha AS, Mehta IK (2010b) Renewable resource-based green polymer composites: analysis and characterization. Int J Polym Anal Charact 15(3):137–146Google Scholar
  98. Thakur VK, Singha AS, Thakur MK (2012a) Rapid synthesis of MMA grafted pine needles using microwave radiation. Polym-Plast Technol Eng 51:1598–1604Google Scholar
  99. Thakur VK, Singha AS, Thakur MK (2012b) Graft copolymerization of methyl acrylate onto cellulosic biofibers: synthesis, characterization and applications. J Polym Environ 20:164–174Google Scholar
  100. Thakur VK, Singha AS, Thakur MK (2012c) Biopolymers based green composites: mechanical, thermal and physico-chemical characterization. J Polym Environ 20:412–421Google Scholar
  101. Thakur VK, Singha AS, Thakur MK (2012d) Modification of natural biomass by graft copolymerization. Int J Polym Anal Charact 17:547–555Google Scholar
  102. Thakur VK, Singha AS, Thakur MK (2012e) In-air graft copolymerization of ethyl acrylate onto natural cellulosic polymers. Int J Polym Anal Charact 17:48–60Google Scholar
  103. Thakur VK, Thakur MK, Gupta RK (2013a) Development of functionalized cellulosic biopolymers by graft copolymerization. Int J Biol Macromol 62:44–51Google Scholar
  104. Thakur VK, Thakur MK, Gupta RK (2013b) Synthesis of lignocellulosic polymer with improved chemical resistance through free radical polymerization. Int J Biol Macromol 61:121–126Google Scholar
  105. Thakur VK, Thakur MK, Gupta RK (2013c) Rapid synthesis of graft copolymers from natural cellulose fibers. Carbohydr Polym 98:820–828Google Scholar
  106. Thakur VK, Thakur MK, Gupta RK (2013d) Graft copolymers from cellulose: Synthesis, characterization and evaluation. Carbohydr Polym 97:18–25Google Scholar
  107. Thakur VK, Thakur MK, Gupta RK (2013e) Graft copolymers from natural polymers using free radical polymerization. Int J Polym Anal Charact 18:495–503Google Scholar
  108. Thakur VK, Thakur MK, Gupta RK (2014a) Review: raw natural fiber-based polymer composites. Int J Polym Anal Charact 19:256–271Google Scholar
  109. Thakur VK, Thakur MK, Raghavan P, Kessler MR (2014b) Progress in green polymer composites from lignin for multifunctional applications: a review. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2(5):1072–1092Google Scholar
  110. Thakur VK, Thunga M, Madbouly SA, Kessler MR (2014c) PMMA-g-SOY as a sustainable novel dielectric material. RSC Adv 4:18240–18249Google Scholar
  111. Thakur VK, Grewell D, Thunga M, Kessler MR (2014d) Novel composites from eco-friendly soy flour/SBS triblock copolymer. Macromol Mater Eng 299:953–958Google Scholar
  112. Unalan IU, Cerri G, Marcuzzo E, Cozzolino CA, Farris S (2014) Nanocomposite films and coatings using inorganic nanobuilding blocks (NBB): current applications and future opportunities in the food packaging sector. R Soc Chem 4:29393–29428Google Scholar
  113. Venkatesan J, Bhatnagar I, Kim SK (2014) Chitosan-alginate biocomposite containing fucoidan for bone tissue engineering. Marine drugs 12(1):300–316Google Scholar
  114. Wan YZ, Luo H, He F, Liang H, Huang Y, Li XL (2009) Mechanical, moisture absorption, and biodegradation behaviours of bacterial cellulose fiber-reinforced starch biocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 69:1212–1217Google Scholar
  115. Wang Y, Cao X, Zhang L (2006) Effects of cellulose whiskers on properties of soy protein thermoplastics. Macromol Biosci 6(7):524–531Google Scholar
  116. Wang Z, Sun X, Lian Z, Wang X, Zhou J, Ma Z (2013) The effects of ultrasonic/microwave assisted treatment on the properties of soy protein isolate/microcrystalline wheat-bran cellulose film. J Food Eng 114(2):183–191Google Scholar
  117. Wang Z, Zhou J, Wang X, Zhang N, Sun X, Ma Z (2014) The effects of ultrasonic/microwave assisted treatment on the water vapor barrier properties of soybean protein isolate-based oleic acid/stearic acid blend edible films. Food Hydrocolloids 35:51–58Google Scholar
  118. Wihodo M, Moraru CI (2013) Physical and chemical methods used to enhance the structure and mechanical properties of protein films: a review. J Food Eng 114(3):292–302Google Scholar
  119. Woehl MA, Canestraro CD, Mikowski A, Sierakowski MR (2010) Bionanocomposites of thermoplastic starch reinforced with bacterial cellulose nanofibers: effect of enzymatic treatment on mechanical properties. Carbohydr Polym 80:866–873Google Scholar
  120. Xu YX, Kim KM, Hanna MA, Nag D (2005) Chitosan–starch composite film: preparation and characterization. Ind Crops Prod 21:185–192Google Scholar
  121. Xu B, Lin Z, Huo Z, Cao L, Wang Y, Gaosun W, Mai K, Wang Y (2014). Preparation and characterization of polypropylene composites with nonmetallic materials recycled from printed circuit boards. J Thermoplast Compos Mater. doi: 10.1177/0892705713518788
  122. Yang S, Huang C (2008) Plasma treatment for enhancing mechanical and thermal properties of biodegradable PVA/starch blends. J Appl Polym Sci 109:2452–2459Google Scholar
  123. Yoon SD, Park Mi-Hwa, Byun Hun-Soo (2012) Mechanical and water barrier properties of starch/ PVA composite films by adding nano-sized poly(methyl methacrylate-co- acrylamide) particles. Carbohydr Polym 87(1):676–686Google Scholar
  124. Yuan Y, Sun Y, Wan Z, Yang X, Wu J, Yin S, Wang J, Guo J (2014) Chitin microfibers reinforce soy protein gels cross-linked by transglutaminase. J Agric Food Chem 62:4434–4442Google Scholar
  125. Zhang H, Mittal G (2010) Biodegradable protein-based films from plant resources: a review. Environ prog Sustain Energy 29(2):203–220Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ChemistryBishop Moore CollegeMavelikaraIndia
  2. 2.School of Chemical SciencesMahatma Gandhi UniversityKottayamIndia
  3. 3.International and Inter University Centre for Nanoscience and NanotechnologyMahatma Gandhi UniversityKottayamIndia

Personalised recommendations