Next Article in Journal
Wearable and Stretchable SEBS/CB Polymer Conductive Strand as a Piezoresistive Strain Sensor
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Translucency and Thickness of Lithium Disilicate-Reinforced Glass-Ceramic Veneers on the Degree of Conversion of a Purely Light-Curing Bonding Resin: An In Vitro Study
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Physical, Mechanical, and Structural Properties of the Polylactide and Polybutylene Adipate Terephthalate (PBAT)-Based Biodegradable Polymer during Compost Storage

All-Russian Dairy Research Institute, Lyusinovskaya Street, 35, 7, 115093 Moscow, Russia
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2023, 15(7), 1619;
Submission received: 20 February 2023 / Revised: 17 March 2023 / Accepted: 22 March 2023 / Published: 24 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Circular and Green Polymer Science)


Today, packaging is an integral part of any food product, preserving its quality and safety. The use of biodegradable packaging as an alternative to conventional polymers reduces the consumption of synthetic polymers and their negative impacts on the environment. The purpose of this study was to analyze the properties of a biodegradable compound based on polylactide (PLA) and polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT). Test samples were made by blown extrusion. The structural, physical, and mechanical properties of the PLA/PBAT material were studied. The property variations during compost storage in the lab were monitored for 365 days. The physical and mechanical properties were measured in accordance with the GOST 14236-2017 (ISO 527-2:2012) standard. We measured the tensile strength and elongation at rupture. We used attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared microscopy (ATR-FTIR) to analyze the changes in the material structure. This paper presents a comparative analysis of the strengths of a biodegradable material and grade H polyethylene film (manufactured to GOST 10354-82). PLA/PBAT’s longitudinal and transverse tensile strengths are 14.08% and 32.59% lower than those of LDPE, respectively. Nevertheless, the results indicate that, given its physical and mechanical properties, the PLA/PBAT material can be an alternative to conventional PE film food packaging. The structural study results are in good agreement with the physical and mechanical tests. Micrographs clearly show the surface deformations of the biodegradable material. They increase with the compost storage duration. The scanning microscopy (SEM) surface analysis of the original PLA/PBAT films indicated that the PLA structure is similar to that of a multilayer shell or sponge, which is visible at medium and especially high magnification. We conclude that PLA/PBAT-based biodegradable materials are potential substitutes for conventional PE polymer films.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The wide range of polymer packaging in use has led to serious problems with the proper recycling and disposal of large-scale polymer waste generated at the end of the packaged product lifecycle, negatively affecting the environment [1]. With depleting fossil resources and a deteriorating environment, we should re-think natural resource extraction.
The United Nations [1] and its partners and European research and technology organizations (RTOs) [2] believe that the climate, environmental protection, and the efficient utilization of natural resources are highly important for building a sustainable, circular economy. One trend is using alternative, biological raw materials for the production of biodegradable polymers [3].
To prevent polymer waste accumulation outdoors, plastic products should be recyclable or biodegradable [4]. There is high demand for biodegradable polymers that quickly decompose when exposed to the elements and bacteria but have consumer properties similar to those of conventional polymers [5]. Using the proper materials, we can manufacture highly flexible films with high impact toughness and elongation at break (more than 500%), good fusibility (melting point at 115–125 °C), and good biodegradability [6,7].
There are technologies available to minimize waste, such as low-waste manufacturing [8], biodegradable materials and compositions [9], advanced waste collection, sorting, and recycling processes [10], polymer production waste recycling, etc. [11]. Today, 80% of the polymer waste is polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The chemical properties of these materials are such that these substances are not suitable for composting and are resistant to microorganisms that could otherwise accelerate the decomposition.
The most promising materials are polylactic acid (PLA), polybutylene succinate (PBS), polybutylene succinate adipate (PBSA), polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT), polyhydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvalerate (PHBV), and their compounds [12,13,14,15]. The biodegradation rate greatly depends on the ambient temperature and humidity [8]. For example, PLA shows a high biodegradation rate at temperatures well above room temperature. This makes the substance very suitable for industrial-grade composting. Although its biodegradation rate in soil and bodies of water is higher than those of PE, PP, and PET, it can still accumulate in such media for several decades [16]. Other biodegradable polymers, such as PBS and PBSA, have much higher biodegradation rates in soil than PE, PP, and PET polymers, although they are generally not certified as such because their lifecycle durations in food packaging do not always meet certification standards [17]. In this regard, PHA and PBAT are among the few polymers that are certified as biodegradable in all environments, including marine, and therefore, they have great utilization potential [18,19]. Scientists note the prospects of using PHBV as a biodegradable polymer in the medical industry and as a basis for the creation of composites [14,15,20,21]. Pavel Brdlík and his colleagues studied the possibility of the biodegradation of a material based on PHBV CaCO3 and the natural plasticizer acetyl tributyl citrate (ATBC) in various ratios. The results showed the prospects of such materials. The rate of biodegradation increased to 90% within 90 days, depending on the composting conditions [15].
Polymer manufacturing innovations can lead to more sustainable [22,23] medical products [24,25] and packaging [26], as these are the two primary uses of synthetic polymers. Studies of PLA [12,13,27] and PBAT [1,6,28] have focused on the properties and structures of biodegradable materials, while the applications of such materials as food packaging are not well investigated. It should be noted that many polyesters cannot be used as dairy and food product packaging because of their properties. They are applied as coatings on biodegradable polymer substrates, increasing the resistance to grease and moisture. Such materials are suitable for packaging any product, even with >15.0% humidity [29,30,31].
Scientists from all over the world are engaged in the development of biodegradable packaging materials for food [32,33,34,35]. The use of biodegradable materials for the production of disposable tableware, plates, spoons, cups, and other products has already been successfully implemented in various countries. For example, PBAT and aliphatic PCL are used in the creation of films (mulch and containers), filaments, thermoformed and injection-molded products, blown bottles, and packaging materials for products with a short service life, as well as for the production of biodegradable disposable food bags and other bags [35,36,37,38,39,40]. However, it should be noted that there is no ideal solution for food packaging at the moment. Food products are complex systems that require a set of special physico-chemical, microbiological, sanitary and hygienic, and operational characteristics, and based on this, the use of biopolymers can be significantly limited [33,36,37,38,40]. For dairy products, this problem is even more urgent, since milk is a living composite system with different acidity and complex biochemical properties, which, during storage, can have a negative impact on the safety of the product in biodegradable compositions [41].
The key purpose of polymer packaging is the preservation of dairy and food products throughout their life cycle, which is necessary [11,42,43,44,45,46]. The packaging should also be environment-friendly. It should be noted that the introduction of various components into the polymer can be a risk factor for packaged product safety [42,44,45,47]. This is especially true for special diets and baby food [41,42,44,46]. Another point of interest is functional packaging [48,49,50,51]. This is especially promising for solid food products. Making functional packaging from polymer films will reduce the risk of contamination during packaging and preserve the product throughout its entire lifecycle [52,53,54,55].
The purpose of this study was to study the changes in the physico-mechanical and morphological properties of a biodegradable compound material based on PLA and PBAT during compost storage and its potential use as packaging for milk and dairy products.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Polybutylene Adipate Terephthalate

PBAT is a fully biodegradable polyester with two types of dimers: BT and BA (Figure 1). The first dimer forms a rigid matrix consisting of 1,4-butanediol and terephthalic acid monomers. The other dimer is the flexible part consisting of 1,4-butanediol and adipic acid monomers [56], resulting in high flexibility and elasticity [56]. BASF, the largest manufacturer (Ludwigshafen, Germany), makes PBAT under the Ecoflex® brand name (e.g., Ecoflex F Blend C1200). This polymer has a 1.26 g/mol density, 52.1 kg/mol number average molecular weight (M n), and a 2.0 polydispersity index.

2.2. Polylactic Acid (Polylactide)

Polylactic acid or polylactide (PLA) is one of the most important biodegradable polymers. PLA has been extensively studied for a wide range of applications, such as disposable household items, food packaging, agricultural films, drug delivery systems, and implantable medical devices [57,58,59].
PLA is a biodegradable and renewable aliphatic polyester [60]. It is made by the direct polycondensation of lactic acid. PLA can also be obtained by the ring-opening polymerization of cyclic lactide. PLA has two optically active and crystallizable isomeric forms: PDLA and PLLA (Figure 2).
A previous study [61] notes that the l-to-d isomer ratio affects PLA’s final properties. A statistically organized poly(DL-lactide) (PDLLA) complements such pure PLA stereoisomers as poly(l-lactide) (PLLA) and poly(d-lactide) (PDLA). PDLLA is usually amorphous because it lacks the chain regularity required for crystallization. Pure PLLA and pure PDLA are semi-crystalline. LA has some promising properties as a food packaging material, such as the high modulus of elasticity, strength, and transparency (in its amorphous state). It is also easy to manufacture [58]. However, it has some disadvantages, such as high brittleness, a low deformation temperature, and a low crystallization rate. These could be critical for certain types of product packaging [62,63,64].
NatureWorks (Minnetonka, MN, USA), a major manufacturer, produces PLA under the Ingeo™ brand name (e.g., Ingeo™ Biopolymer 2003D). Its density is 1.24 g/mol, its number average molecular weight (M n) is 127.0 kg/mol, its polydispersity index is 1.6, and the D-isomer content is approximately 4.4%.
For tests, PBAT/PLA mixtures are often prepared by melt mixing. Interetherification can occur between the two polyesters at elevated temperatures when interacting for long periods, resulting in increased bendability [65].
The biodegradation of polymers is a complex process with several stages [66]. In the initial stage of PLA degradation, the polymer is split into monomers or low-molecular-weight oligomers, where the ester bonds are hydrolytically degraded. The effect of microorganisms on composting leads to a great reduction in the molecular weight of the material [66,67,68]. PLA composting is more efficient in combined hydrolysis and microbial activity processes [69]. The elevated temperatures during composting also accelerate PLA hydrolysis, especially above 50 °C [70]. Polymer mixtures have different morphologies depending on their composition. It also affects the biodegradation process [71]. Additionally, different biodegradable polymers decompose at different rates [72,73]. A previous study [73,74] showed that PLA/PBAT mixtures decompose at a lower rate than PLA or PBAT. As noted above, several factors affect the decomposition rate, such as the temperature, the moisture content of the compost, and its microbiological composition [75,76,77].

2.3. PLA/PBAT Mixture-Based Biodegradable Films

The materials we used are polymeric biodegradable films based on a PLA/PBAT mixture (CO-PLAS Bio 1002) manufactured by Eurotex, Timashevsk, Russia. This substance is a biopolymer compound compliant with GOST EN 13432-2015 (IDT EN 13432:2000) with high thermal stability, strength, and gas permeability. The thickness of the biodegradable film was 20 microns.
The CO-PLAS Bio 1002 biopolymer compound was processed with the standard blown film extrusion process and equipment and a standard LDPE head. The temperature was 140–165 °C.
We believe that the materials we investigated can be widely used in the dairy and food industry as packaging materials in many form factors and can become a good alternative to conventional polymers.

2.4. Composting Conditions

A study of changes in the degradation rate of the tested film materials was carried out under laboratory conditions without the use of industrial composting. The temperature conditions of the experiment were 20 ± 2 °C, with humidity of 65–80%. Under the above conditions, layering was carried out in compost, consisting of classical soil and a composting accelerator, which includes at least 30% wheat bran, sodium bicarbonate, and 5% soil microorganisms.
To simulate composting conditions, a soil mixture with the following composition was used: nitrogen—at least 230 mg/L; phosphorus—at least 300 mg/L; and potassium—at least 350 mg/L.

2.5. Methods

We tracked the weight changes with an AND GR-300 analytical balance, Special I accuracy class (GOST 24104-01).
We measured tensile strength (MPa) and elongation at break (%). For longitudinal and transverse tests, we used a Shimadzu EZ-LX universal testing machine compliant with GOST 14236-2017 (ISO 527-2:2012). The max range of the load cell is 2000 N, and the stroke is 920 mm. The TRAPEZIUM X software processed the measurements. The number of conducted series of the experiment was 3; the number of repetitions in the series was 10.
We estimated the particle size with bright-field microscopy using an Axio Lab.A1 transmitted light optical microscope with an Axiocam 105 color camera at 1000× final magnification. The IR spectra of the PLA/PBAT composite samples were recorded with a Bruker Lumos FTIR spectrometer and microscope macromodule in the 4000–600 cm−1 range. The samples were analyzed with a Vega 3 scanning electron microscope (Tescan, Czech Republic). Before the examination, the samples were platinum-coated to a ~20 nm thickness.

3. Results

The appearances of a biodegradable film sample before and after the compost storage are shown in Figure 3.
As we can see in Figure 3, the biodegradable film sample is highly degraded after composting for 90 days. This is confirmed by the changes in the weight of 1 m2 of the sample, tensile strength, and elongation at break, as presented in Table 1, which shows changes in the weight of 1 m2 of the PLA/PBAT biodegradable material after composting for 90 days.
The table shows that the 1 m2 weight greatly decreases soon after the very beginning of the experiment. The weight drop is 7.4% at 30 days of storage, 14.8% at 60 days, and 29.6% at 90 days. We analyzed the results of 20 repeated measurements at each storage stage.
This is because soil microorganisms break the PLA macromolecules and form identical size chains. Subsequently, an equilibrium is reached, when the decomposition is relatively slow.
Many factors may intensify this process. For example, heating PLA initiates the thermochemical destruction of chemical bonds, which reach their equilibrium value. With this feature, the thermodestruction process can be defined analytically with the Arrhenius equation, which accounts for the thermal effects on the polymer bond decay rate [74,78].
As reported in the available sources, depending on the storage conditions and composition, the weight change can range from 25% to complete decomposition in 90 to 545 days of compost storage [78]
By analyzing the results, we can conclude that the composting storage of the polymer samples results in weight changes, but these changes depend significantly on the structure and composition of the material, and some external factors.
Food systems, particularly milk-based foods, are an extremely “capricious” object of packaging; therefore, the basic problem of the new biodegradable packaging of dairy products is to ensure and confirm the stability of such packaging in the full process from its production to the consumer’s table, since modern packaging is an integral component of food products. Among the criteria that allow us to assess the presence of changes in the packaging material with traceability of the packaging life cycle are physical and mechanical indicators. Polyethylene films, including those for dairy products, have been comprehensively studied [79,80,81,82,83,84,85]; the authors of this article obtained data on changes in (or the immutability of) their properties under natural and critical conditions, for example, when exposed to low temperatures and ultraviolet radiation [86,87].
In the present study, they were used for a comparative assessment of the initial physical and mechanical parameters of samples of the studied materials. It is shown that, in general, the levels of the obtained indicators are sufficient for the use of the selected biodegradable films as packaging.
Before the compost storage of the PLA/PBAT biodegradable material samples, we tested their physical and mechanical properties and compared them with those of conventional PE-based polymers. We plotted the physical and mechanical property changes vs. the changes in the force (H) applied to the samples at the moment of failure and the strain (relative elongation at rupture) of the samples, expressed in %. The results are shown in Table 2.
The data indicate that the strain variations in the PE film and the PLA/PBAT-based film are identical. The force vs. elongation curve features the three deformation stages typical for the given polymer: elastic (reversible) deformation; necking; and oriented polymer deformation.
The longitudinal tensile strength of the PE film and the PLA/PBAT-based biodegradable film is 32.59% less than that of the LDPE film and increases by 14.08% in the transverse direction. The relative elongation at rupture in the longitudinal direction is increased by 8.8%, and in the transverse direction, it is decreased by 59.40%. It should be noted that the values for all the polymer film samples are compliant with regulations (GOST 10354-82 for grade H polyethylene films). The significant variation in elongation values can be eliminated as required for specific product packaging by adding flexibilizers that increase the elasticity or organic modifiers [88,89,90].
We tracked the changes in the physical and mechanical parameters (δ, MPa; ε, %) to estimate the PLA/PBAT-based biodegradable film destruction rate variations. The results are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.
The results show that the physical and mechanical properties of the samples decrease sharply relative to their original values. Table 3 lists the results. The values are in good agreement with the available data [91,92].
The data show that after 60 days of composting, the tensile strength of the PLA/PBAT-based material decreases by more than 50% compared to the reference samples. The relative elongation at break decreases almost twofold. By comparing the results with the weight changes, we can summarize them as follows: PLA/PBAT-based materials have good properties that result in accelerated biodegradation.
To assess the surface changes, we performed microscopic studies on the PLA/PBAT film after composting. The photos are shown in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8.
The photos show that the material is a mixed heterogeneous compound. The PLA particles are crystalline, while the PBAT particles are more dispersed and have no ordered structure. The small dark inclusions are the pigment. There are no signs of mechanical degradation on the surface before composting.
The surfaces feature multiple cracks. Note that the cracks are distributed unevenly. This may be attributed to the initially irregular structure of the composite. The fine PBAT particles are more susceptible to degradation after composting in natural conditions (20 °C, RH under 80%). The surface cracks are not through-cracks. The lateral slice has translucent areas, indicating a density decrease. There may be several reasons for this: oxidation, microorganism activity, etc.
The surface features multiple cracks. The higher-magnification images show transparent cracks and some through-cracks. The comparison of the samples after 180 and 365 days of composting indicates a significant increase in the number of cracks on virtually the entire surface. Through-holes can be detected even at the lowest magnifications. The dark spots in the photos are the residual soil/compost. The results are in good agreement with the physical and mechanical test results. Figure 9 shows the results of spectroscopic tests with Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR).
Multiple spectra were obtained for each sample: 5 before composting, 6 after 180 days of composting, and 8 after 365 days of composting, for a total of 19 spectra.
The absorption bands at 2920 cm−1 and 2850 cm−1 are blurred after 180 days of composting. A 2959 cm−1 band appears after 365 days.
The spectra demonstrate significant differences in the 1460 to 1380 cm−1 range. The intensity of the bands in this range decreases as the composting period increases. Presumably, composting destroys some bonds, as indicated in the table for the 1455, 1411, and 1392 cm−1 bands (Table 4).
Additionally, the intensity of the narrow peaks between 1300 and 1000 cm−1 and at 1709 cm−1 decreases with the composting time.
The IR spectrum of the composted PLA/PBAT film in the entire 690 to 4000 cm−1 range shows strong deviations from the reference sample spectrum. This indicates the destructive processes occurring in this compound, especially after 365 days of composting. The data presented in [78,93,94] also reveal significant fluctuations in the bonds of groups, which clearly describes the course of destructive processes.
We performed microstructural studies to evaluate the surface changes in the biodegradable material samples after composting. Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12 present PLA/PBAT surface photos taken with a scanning electron microscope.
The surface analysis shows significant changes in the surface structure after composting for 365 days (Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11).
The structural studies before composting indicate that higher magnification reveals noticeable microcracks that do not go deep into the material and do not affect its strength, as confirmed by the physical and mechanical tests. No significant changes in the structure of the surface layers were observed.
After composting for 180 days, there are noticeable, significant changes. The surface has numerous cracks going deep into the body. The cracks are micellar due to the material heterogeneity.
At 10,000× magnification, translucent areas around the cracks and fractures become noticeable. This indicates a decrease in the density, which can be attributed to oxidation, microorganism activity, etc. According to the available literature, the extensive degradation of PLA begins at elevated humidity and temperatures above 50 °C, while PBAT begins to decompose at lower temperatures (20 °C and RH 80%). At 5000× magnification, the surface shows depressions and pits. This indicates the different degradation rates of the film components. The data obtained correlate well with the results of physical and mechanical tests and with data reported by scientists who conducted similar studies [78,95]. Depending on the composting conditions and the composition of polymer compost, the dynamics of biodegradation differ, but the general trend persists [93,94,95].
After composting for 365 days, the degradation is significantly accelerated: there are cracks and delamination over the entire surface.

4. Conclusions

The physical and mechanical properties of the biodegradable film deteriorate dramatically after 60 days of composting. There is a 53.26–57.60% decrease in the tensile strength and an 88.91–93.28% decrease in the relative elongation at break (depending on the direction). The relative elongation at break decreases almost twofold.
Microscopic studies indicate that, after 365 days of composting, the surface has a large number of cracks and through-holes on virtually the entire surface. The data are in good agreement with the physical and mechanical test results.
The analysis of the IR spectra of the PLA/PBAT material before and after composting showed that the entire 690 to 4000 cm−1 range strongly deviates from the reference sample spectrum. Significant spectral differences were found in the 1460 to 1380 cm−1 range. The intensity of the bands in this range decreases with the progression of the composting period. The peaks indicate destructive processes in the compound, especially after 365 days of composting.
The scanning electron microscopy examination of the surface after 365 days of composting revealed significant changes. The biodegradable film surface features numerous cracks going deep into the material on virtually the entire surface.
The dynamics of changes in the physical and mechanical parameters of the polymer biodegradable film indicate a relatively small time range in which these materials can be used as packaging for dairy products. These may be fermented milk products, such as cottage cheese, with a limited shelf life.
The obtained complex data on the changes in the structures of the surfaces of the samples under study indicate the dynamic processes of their decomposition, which creates the real prospect of minimizing environmental risks for the purpose of environmental protection associated with the disposal of packaging.

Author Contributions

Writing—reviewing and editing, D.M.; writing—preparation of the original project, O.F. and D.M.; conceptualization, O.F.; examination, D.M.; research, O.F. and D.M.; methodology, O.F.; visualization, D.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


The study was carried out as part of the implementation of the State task of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Take Action for the Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: (accessed on 11 May 2022).
  2. Impact through Research: Applied Research for Europe’s Future. Available online: (accessed on 11 May 2022).
  3. European Bioplastic. The Plastics Strategy—The Contribution of Bioplastics to a Sustainable Plastics Circular Economy; European Bioplastic: Berlin, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  4. Post, W.; Kuijpers, L.J.; Zijlstra, M.; Van Der Zee, M.; Molenveld, K. Effect of Mineral Fillers on the Mechanical Properties of Commercially Available Biodegradable Polymers. Polymers 2021, 13, 394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Reichert, C.L.; Bugnicourt, E.; Coltelli, M.-B.; Cinelli, P.; Lazzeri, A.; Canesi, I.; Braca, F.; Martínez, B.M.; Alonso, R.; Agostinis, L.; et al. Bio-Based Packaging: Materials, Modifications, Industrial Applications and Sustainability. Polymers 2020, 12, 1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Jian, J.; Xiangbin, Z.; Xianbo, H. An overview on synthesis, properties and applications of poly(butylene-adipate-co-terephthalate)—PBAT. Adv. Ind. Eng. Polym. Res. 2020, 3, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Garifullina, L.I.; Li, N.I.; Garipov, R.M.; Minnakhmetova, A.K. Biodegradation of polymer film materials (review). Bull. Technol. Univ. 2019, 22, 47–53. [Google Scholar]
  8. Van Velzen, E.T.; Jansen, M.; Brower, M.; Feil, A.; Molenveld, K.P. Recycling Efficiency of Used Plastic Packaging. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference of the Society for the Processing of Polymers, Lyon, France, 25–29 July 2016; pp. 25–29. [Google Scholar]
  9. Olkhov, A.A.; Goldstrakh, M.A.; Shibryaeva, L.S.; Tertyshnaya, Y.V.; Jordansky, A.L. Promising biomaterials based on polyhydroxybutyrate and double ethylene propylene phosphopolymer for the transport of physiological media: Phase structure. Perspect. Mater. 2015, 10, 56–63. [Google Scholar]
  10. Salikov, P.Y. Pyrolysis utilization of used polyethylene terephthalate products. Ecol. Ind. Russ. 2014, 3, 16–20. [Google Scholar]
  11. Pryanichnikova, N.S. Edible packaging: Transport for functional and bioactive compounds. Milk River 2020, 4, 32–34. [Google Scholar]
  12. Van den Over, M.; Molenveld, K. Replacing fossil fuel-based plastic products with bio-based plastic products—Technical feasibility. New Biotechnol. 2017, 37, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ailes, A.; Martin, A.N. Expanding Bioplastics: Sustainable Business Innovation in the Chemical Industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 45, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kiruthika, A.V. PHBV based blends and composites. In Biodegradable Polymers, Blends and Composites; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 283–308. [Google Scholar]
  15. Brdlík, P.; Borůvka, M.; Běhálek, L.; Lenfeld, P. The Influence of Additives and Environment on Biodegradation of PHBV Biocomposites. Polymers 2022, 14, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lunt, J. Large-scale production, properties and commercial applications of polylactic acid polymers. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 1998, 59, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Puchalski, M.; Szparaga, G.; Biela, T.; Gutowska, A.; Sztajnowski, S.; Krucińska, I. Molecular and Supramolecular Changes in Polybutylene Succinate (PBS) and Polybutylene Succinate Adipate (PBSA) Copolymer during Degradation in Various Environmental Conditions. Polymers 2018, 10, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Barron, A.; Sparks, T.D. Commercial Marine-Degradable Polymers for Flexible Packaging. iScience 2020, 23, 101353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dilkes-Hoffman, L.S.; Lant, P.A.; Laycock, B.; Pratt, S. The rate of biodegradation of PHA bioplastics in the marine environment: A meta-study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 142, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ponjavic, M.; Malagurski, I.; Lazic, J.; Jeremic, S.; Pavlovic, V.; Prlainovic, N.; Maksimovic, V.; Cosovic, V.; Atanase, L.I.; Freitas, F.; et al. Advancing PHBV Biomedical Potential with the Incorporation of Bacterial Biopigment Prodigiosin. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 1906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xu, J.; Lei, Z.; Liu, S.; Chen, J.; Gong, G.; Cai, X. Preparation and characterization of biodegradable electrospinning PHBV/PBAT/TiO2 antibacterial nanofiber membranes. J. Eng. Fibers Fabr. 2022, 17, 15589250221136566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hobbs, C.E. Recent Advances in Bio-Based Flame Retardant Additives for Synthetic Polymeric Materials. Polymers 2019, 11, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Maraveas, C. Production of Sustainable and Biodegradable Polymers from Agricultural Waste. Polymers 2020, 12, 1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Qu, H.; Fu, H.; Han, Z.; Sun, Y. Biomaterials for bone tissue engineering scaffolds: A review. RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 26252–26262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Mochane, M.J.; Motsoeneng, T.S.; Sadiku, E.R.; Mokhena, T.C.; Sefadi, J.S. Morphology and properties of electrospun PCL and its composites for medical applications: A mini review. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Khajavi, M.Z.; Ebrahimi, A.; Yousefi, M.; Ahmadi, S.; Farhoudi, M.; Alizade, A.M.; Taslich, M. Strategies for the production of improved oxygen barrier materials suitable for the food packaging sector. Food Eng. 2020, 12, 346–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Van Der Zee, M. Methods for Evaluating the Biodegradability of Environmentally Degradable Polymers; Smither Rapra: Shawburry, UK, 2014; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  28. Quecholac-Piña, X.; Hernández-Berriel, M.D.C.; Mañón-Salas, M.D.C.; Espinosa-Valdemar, R.M.; Vázquez-Morillas, A. Degradation of plastics under anaerobic conditions: A short review. Polymers 2020, 12, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Loong-Tak, L. Biodegradable food packaging. Milk Process. 2011, 6, 61–67. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kirsh, I.; Frolova, Y.; Bannikova, O.; Beznaeva, O.; Tveritnikova, I.; Myalenko, D.; Romanova, V.; Zagrebina, D. Research of the Influence of the Ultrasonic Treatment on the Melts of the Polymeric Compositions for the Creation of Packaging Materials with Antimicrobial Properties and Biodegrability. Polymers 2020, 12, 275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Prudnikova, S.V.; Volkova, T.G. The Ecological Role of Polyhydroxyalkanoates, An Analogue of Synthetic Plastics: Patterns of Biodegradation in the Natural Environment and Interaction with Microorganisms; Krasnoyarsk Writer: Krasnoyarsk, Russia, 2012; p. 184. [Google Scholar]
  32. Fabra, M.J.; López-Rubio, A.; Lagaron, J.M. Biopolymers for food packaging applications. In Smart Polymers and Their Applications; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 476–509. [Google Scholar]
  33. Tang, X.Z.; Kumar, P.; Alavi, S.; Sandeep, K.P. Recent advances in biopolymers and biopolymer-based nanocomposites for food packaging materials. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2012, 52, 426–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Véronique, C. Bioactive packaging technologies for extended shelf life of meat-based products. Meat Sci. 2008, 78, 90–103. [Google Scholar]
  35. Othman, S.H. Bio-nanocomposite Materials for Food Packaging Applications: Types of Biopolymer and Nano-sized Filler. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2014, 2, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Al-Itry, R.; Lamnawar, K.; Maazouz, A. Improvement of thermal stability, rheological and mechanical properties of PLA, PBAT and their blends by reactive extrusion with functionalized epoxy. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2012, 97, 1898–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vroman, I.; Tighzert, L. Biodegradable polymers. Materials 2009, 2, 307–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Mahalik, N.P. Advances in Packaging Methods, Processes and Systems. Challenges 2014, 5, 374–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Marsh, K.; Bugusu, B. Food Packaging—Roles, Materials, and Environmental Issues. J. Food Sci. 2007, 72, R39–R55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rydz, J.; Musioł, M.; Zawidlak-Węgrzyńska, B.; Sikorska, W. Present and future of biodegradable polymers for food packaging applications. In Biopolymers for Food Design; Academic Press: Waltham, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 431–467. [Google Scholar]
  41. Fedotova, O.B. About biodegradable packaging and prospects for its use. Dairy Ind. 2020, 1, 10–12. [Google Scholar]
  42. Radaeva, I.A.; Illarionova, E.E.; Turovskaya, S.N.; Ryabova, A.E.; Galstyan, A.G. Principles of quality assurance of domestic milk powder. Food Ind. 2019, 9, 54–57. [Google Scholar]
  43. Pryanichnikova, N.S. Protective coatings for food products. Modern achievements of biotechnology. Equipment, technologies and packaging for the implementation of innovative projects in the food and biotechnology industry. In Proceedings of the Materials of the VII International Scientific and Practical Conference, Pyatigorsk, Russia, 20–24 October 2020; pp. 86–89. [Google Scholar]
  44. Pryanichnikova, N.S.; Fedotova, O.B. The use of qualimetric design techniques in the creation of functional coatings on food products. Modern biotechnology: Current issues, innovations and achievements. In Proceedings of the Collection of Abstracts of the All-Russian, Online Conference with International Participation. Online, 21 October 2020; pp. 141–143. [Google Scholar]
  45. Khurshudyan, S.A.; Pryanichnikova, N.S.; Ryabova, A.E. Food quality and safety. Transformation of concepts. Food Ind. 2022, 3, 8–10. [Google Scholar]
  46. Yurova, E.A.; Filchakova, S.A. Evaluation of the quality and storage capacity of functional dairy products. Milk Process. 2019, 10, 6–11. [Google Scholar]
  47. Fedotova, O.B. Specific features of the evaluation of the organoleptic properties of packaging. Milk Process. 2017, 6, 6–8. [Google Scholar]
  48. Preservation of Soy Protein-Based Meat Analogues by Using PLA/PBAT Antimicrobial Packaging Film. Available online: (accessed on 17 March 2022).
  49. Christina, C.C.; Trinh, B.M.; Mekonnen, T.H. Robust multiphase and multilayer starch/polymer (TPS/PBAT) film with simultaneous oxygen/moisture barrier properties. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2021, 593, 290–303. [Google Scholar]
  50. Andrady, A.L. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1596–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kobzeva, T.V.; Yurova, E.A. Evaluation of quality indicators and identification characteristics of milk powder. Dairy Ind. 2016, 3, 32–35. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kruchinin, A.G.; Illarionova, E.E.; Turovskaya, S.N.; Bigaeva, A.V. A study of the effect of protein profile on structural and mechanical parameters of dairy biosystems with intermediate moisture content. Food Process. Ind. 2023, 1, 59–62. [Google Scholar]
  53. Strizhko, M.N. Technological aspects of analogues dairy systems based on vegetable raw materials. Food Process. Ind. 2023, 1, 36–40. [Google Scholar]
  54. Zobkova, Z.S.; Fursova, T.P.; Zenina, D.V. Protein ingredients selection, enriching and modifying the oxidum drinks structure. Top. Issues Beverage Ind. 2018, 2, 64–69. [Google Scholar]
  55. Galstyan, A.G.; Aksenova, L.M.; Lisitsyn, A.B.; Oganesyants, L.A.; Petrov, A.N. Modern approaches to storage and effective processing of agricultural products for obtaining high-quality food products. Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. 2019, 89, 539–542. [Google Scholar]
  56. Kijchavengkul, T.; Auras, R.; Rubino, M.; Selke, S.; Ngouajio, M.; Fernandez, R.T. Biodegradation and hydrolysis rate of aliphatic aromatic polyester. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2010, 95, 2641–2647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Garrison, T.F.; Murawski, A.; Quirino, R.L. Bio-Based Polymers with Potential for Biodegradability. Polymers 2016, 8, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Su, S.; Kopitzky, R.; Tolga, S.; Kabasci, S. Polylactide (PLA) and its blends with poly (butylene succinate) (PBS): A brief review. Polymers 2019, 11, 1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Gupta, A.P.; Kumar, V. New emerging trends in synthetic biodegradable polymers—Polylactide: A critique. Eur. Polym. J. 2007, 43, 4053–4074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Farah, S.; Anderson, D.G.; Langer, R. Physical and mechanical properties of PLA, and their functions in widespread applications—A comprehensive review. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2016, 107, 367–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Saeidlou, S.; Huneault, M.A.; Li, H.; Park, C.B. Poly (lactic acid) crystallization. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2012, 37, 1657–1677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wang, R.; Wang, S.; Zhang, Y.; Wan, C.; Ma, P. Toughening modification of PLLA/PBS blends via in situ compatibilization. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2009, 49, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ikada, Y.; Jamshidi, K.; Tsuji, H.; Hyon, S.H. Stereocomplex formation between enantiomeric poly (lactides). Macromolecules 1987, 20, 904–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. D’Ambrosio, R.M.; Michell, R.M.; Mincheva, R.; Hernández, R.; Mijangos, C.; Dubois, P.; Müller, A.J. Crystallization and Stereocomplexation of PLA-mb-PBS Multi-Block Copolymers. Polymers 2018, 10, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Kim, Y.J.; Park, O.O. Miscibility of biodegradability and mixtures of poly(butylene succinate)/poly(butylene terephthalate). Polym. Environ. 1999, 7, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Leejarkpai, T.; Suwanmanee, U.; Rudeekit, Y.; Mungcharoen, T. Biodegradable kinetics of plastics under controlled composting conditions. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 1153–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Stloukal, P.; Pekařová, S.; Kalendova, A.; Mattausch, H.; Laske, S.; Holzer, C.; Chitu, L.; Bodner, S.; Maier, G.; Slouf, M.; et al. Kinetics and mechanism of the biodegradation of PLA/clay nanocomposites during thermophilic phase of composting process. Waste Manag. 2015, 42, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gorrasi, G.; Pantani, R. Effect of PLA grades and morphologies on hydrolytic degradation at composting temperature: Assessment of structural modification and kinetic parameters. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2013, 98, 1006–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ghorpade, V.M.; Gennadios, A.; Hanna, M.A. Laboratory composting of extruded poly(lactic acid) sheets. Bioresour. Technol. 2001, 76, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tokiwa, Y.; Jarerat, A. Biodegradation of poly(l-lactide). Biotechnol. Lett. 2004, 26, 771–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Olkhov, A.A.; Mastalygina, E.E.; Ovchinnikov, V.A.; Monakhova, T.V.; Vetcher, A.A.; Iordanskii, A.L. Thermo-Oxidative destruction and biodegradation of nanomaterials from composites of Poly (3-hydroxybutyrate) and Chitosan. Polymers 2021, 13, 3528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tabasi, R.Y.; Ajji, A. Selective degradation of biodegradable blends in simulated laboratory composting. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2015, 120, 435–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Iovino, R.; Zullo, R.; Rao, M.A.; Cassar, L.; Gianfreda, L. Biodegradation of poly (lactic acid)/starch/coir biocomposites under controlled composting conditions. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2008, 93, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Weng, Y.X.; Jin, Y.J.; Meng, Q.Y.; Wang, L.; Zhang, M.; Wang, Y.Z. Biodegradation behavior of poly (butylene adipate-co-terephthalate)(PBAT), poly (lactic acid)(PLA), and their blend under soil conditions. Polym. Test. 2013, 32, 918–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hernández-López, M.; Correa-Pacheco, Z.N.; Bautista-Baños, S.; Zavaleta-Avejar, L.; Benítez-Jiménez, J.J.; Sabino-Gutiérrez, M.A.; Ortega-Gudiño, P. Bio-based composite fibers from pine essential oil and PLA/PBAT polymer blend. Morphological, physicochemical, thermal and mechanical characterization. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2019, 234, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chen, W.; Qi, C.; Li, Y.; Tao, H. The degradation investigation of biodegradable PLA/PBAT blend: Thermal stability, mechanical properties and PALS analysis. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 2021, 180, 109239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zheng, Y.; Jia, X.; Zhao, Z.; Ran, Y.; Du, M.; Ji, H.; Pan, Y.; Li, Z.; Ma, X.; Liu, Y.; et al. Innovative natural antimicrobial natamycin incorporated titanium dioxide (nano-TiO2)/poly (butylene adipate-co-terephthalate)(PBAT)/poly (lactic acid)(PLA) biodegradable active film (NTP@ PLA) and application in grape preservation. Food Chem. 2023, 400, 134100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kalita, N.K.; Bhasney, S.M.; Mudenur, C.; Kalamdhad, A.; Katiyar, V. End-of-life evaluation and biodegradation of Poly (lactic acid)(PLA)/Polycaprolactone (PCL)/Microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) polyblends under composting conditions. Chemosphere 2020, 247, 125875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Fellows, P.J. Packaging. In Food Processing Technology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 713–781. [Google Scholar]
  80. Selke, S.; Hernandez, R.J. Packaging: Polymers for Containers. In Encyclopedia of Materials: Science and Technology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  81. Wypych, G. HDPE high density polyethylene. In Handbook of Polymers; ChemTec Publishing: Scarborough, ON, Canada, 2012; pp. 150–156. [Google Scholar]
  82. Abdel-Bari, E.M.; Zaikov, G.E. Polymer films. In Production Technologies, Destruction and Stabilization, Application, Recycling; Profession: St. Petersburg, FL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  83. Zaikov, G.E. Why polymers age. Soros Educ. J. 2000, 12, 48–55.84. [Google Scholar]
  84. Zaikov, T.E. Destruction and Stabilization of Polymers: Tutorial; House of the Moscow Institute of Fine Chemical Technology Named after M.V. Lomonosov: Moscow, Russia, 1990; p. 151. [Google Scholar]
  85. White, D.L. Polypropylene and Other Polyolefins; Translated from English; Profession: St. Petersburg, FL, USA, 2006; p. 256. ISBN 5939131050. [Google Scholar]
  86. Fedotova, O.B.; Pryanichnikova, N.S. Research of the polyethylene packaging layer structure change in contact with a food product at exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Food Syst. 2021, 4, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Fedotova, O.B.; Myalenko, D.M. The research of physical and mechanical indicators of filled food soot of polyethylene film for dairy and food products after exposingto its pulse uv radiation. Bull. KSAU 2020, 7, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mastalygina, E.E.; Shatalova, O.V.; Kolesnikova, N.N.; Popov, A.A.; Krivandin, A.V. Modification of isotactic polypropylene with additives of low-density polyethylene and powdered cellulose. Mater. Sci. 2015, 7, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kryzhanovsky, V.K. Engineering Selection and Identification of Plastics; Scientific Foundations and Technologies: Moscow, Russia, 2009; p. 234. ISBN 978-5-91703-012-8. [Google Scholar]
  90. Coles, R.; McDowell, D.; Kirwan, M.D. Food Packaging; Makhotina, L.G., Ed.; Translated from English; Profession: St. Petersburg, FL, USA, 2008; p. 416. [Google Scholar]
  91. Dammak, M.; Fourati, Y.; Tarrés, Q.; Delgado-Aguilar, M.; Mutjé, P.; Boufi, S. Blends of PBAT with plasticized starch for packaging applications: Mechanical properties, rheological behaviour and biodegradability. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 144, 112061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Aversa, C.; Barletta, M.; Cappiello, G.; Gisario, A. Compatibilization strategies and analysis of morphological features of poly (butylene adipate-co-terephthalate)(PBAT)/poly (lactic acid) PLA blends: A state-of-art review. Eur. Polym. J. 2022, 173, 111304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kale, G.; Auras, R.; Singh, S.P. Comparison of the degradability of poly(lactide) packages in composting and ambient exposure conditions. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2007, 20, 49–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kale, G.; Auras, R.; Singh, S.P.; Narayan, R. Biodegradability of polylactide bottles in real and simulated composting conditions. Polym. Test. 2007, 26, 1049–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Janczak, K.; Dąbrowska, G.B.; Raszkowska-Kaczor, A.; Kaczor, D.; Hrynkiewicz, K.; Richert, A. Biodegradation of the plastics PLA and PET in cultivated soil with the participation of microorganisms and plants. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2020, 155, 105087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. PBAT chemical structure (m, n—number of repeating links).
Figure 1. PBAT chemical structure (m, n—number of repeating links).
Polymers 15 01619 g001
Figure 2. PLLA chemical structure (n—number of repeating links).
Figure 2. PLLA chemical structure (n—number of repeating links).
Polymers 15 01619 g002
Figure 3. PLA/PBAT-based biodegradable film samples in compost: (a) the compost chamber, (b) the PLA/PBAT sample before the test, (c) the PLA/PBAT sample after soil storage for 90 days, (d) the PLA/PBAT sample after soil storage for 180 days, (e) the PLA/PBAT sample after soil storage for 365 days.
Figure 3. PLA/PBAT-based biodegradable film samples in compost: (a) the compost chamber, (b) the PLA/PBAT sample before the test, (c) the PLA/PBAT sample after soil storage for 90 days, (d) the PLA/PBAT sample after soil storage for 180 days, (e) the PLA/PBAT sample after soil storage for 365 days.
Polymers 15 01619 g003
Figure 4. Changes in the tensile strength (MPa) of the biodegradable PLA/PBAT-based film after composting for 60 days.
Figure 4. Changes in the tensile strength (MPa) of the biodegradable PLA/PBAT-based film after composting for 60 days.
Polymers 15 01619 g004
Figure 5. Changes in the relative elongation at break (%) of the biodegradable PLA/PBAT-based film after composting for 60 days.
Figure 5. Changes in the relative elongation at break (%) of the biodegradable PLA/PBAT-based film after composting for 60 days.
Polymers 15 01619 g005
Figure 6. Surface photos of the PLA/PBAT material before composting (various magnifications).
Figure 6. Surface photos of the PLA/PBAT material before composting (various magnifications).
Polymers 15 01619 g006
Figure 7. Surface photos of the PLA/PBAT material after composting for 180 days (various magnifications).
Figure 7. Surface photos of the PLA/PBAT material after composting for 180 days (various magnifications).
Polymers 15 01619 g007
Figure 8. Surface photos of the PLA/PBAT material after composting for 365 days (various magnifications).
Figure 8. Surface photos of the PLA/PBAT material after composting for 365 days (various magnifications).
Polymers 15 01619 g008aPolymers 15 01619 g008b
Figure 9. IR spectra of the PLA/PBAT composite samples in the 4000–600 cm−1 range (blue: before composting; red: after 180 days of composting; green: after 365 days of composting).
Figure 9. IR spectra of the PLA/PBAT composite samples in the 4000–600 cm−1 range (blue: before composting; red: after 180 days of composting; green: after 365 days of composting).
Polymers 15 01619 g009
Figure 10. SEM images of the PLA/PBAT film surface before composting.
Figure 10. SEM images of the PLA/PBAT film surface before composting.
Polymers 15 01619 g010aPolymers 15 01619 g010b
Figure 11. SEM images of the PLA/PBAT film surface after composting for 180 days.
Figure 11. SEM images of the PLA/PBAT film surface after composting for 180 days.
Polymers 15 01619 g011
Figure 12. SEM images of the PLA/PBAT film surface after composting for 365 days.
Figure 12. SEM images of the PLA/PBAT film surface after composting for 365 days.
Polymers 15 01619 g012aPolymers 15 01619 g012b
Table 1. Experimental results: 1 m2; weight, g.
Table 1. Experimental results: 1 m2; weight, g.
Sample No.Experimental Results: 1 m2; Weight, g
0 Days30 Days60 Days90 Days
Weight drop, %07.414.829.6
Table 2. Physical and mechanical test results.
Table 2. Physical and mechanical test results.
Actual Results
δ, MPa21.1716.9714.2719.36
ε, %466.60817.63507.8331.9
Table 3. Decrease in the physical and mechanical properties of the biodegradable PLA/PBAT-based film after soil storage.
Table 3. Decrease in the physical and mechanical properties of the biodegradable PLA/PBAT-based film after soil storage.
PropertySoil Storage Period, days
Reduction in δ (MPa) relative to the reference sample, %:
Reduction in ε (%) relative to the reference sample, %:
Table 4. IR spectral bands.
Table 4. IR spectral bands.
Band, cm−1Functional Group
1455Phenylene (C6H4)
1270CH in CH2 and CH groups *
1251CH in CH2 and CH groups *
1016Phenylene (C6H4)
935C-O *
* Reference data [66,88].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Myalenko, D.; Fedotova, O. Physical, Mechanical, and Structural Properties of the Polylactide and Polybutylene Adipate Terephthalate (PBAT)-Based Biodegradable Polymer during Compost Storage. Polymers 2023, 15, 1619.

AMA Style

Myalenko D, Fedotova O. Physical, Mechanical, and Structural Properties of the Polylactide and Polybutylene Adipate Terephthalate (PBAT)-Based Biodegradable Polymer during Compost Storage. Polymers. 2023; 15(7):1619.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Myalenko, Dmitry, and Olga Fedotova. 2023. "Physical, Mechanical, and Structural Properties of the Polylactide and Polybutylene Adipate Terephthalate (PBAT)-Based Biodegradable Polymer during Compost Storage" Polymers 15, no. 7: 1619.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop