
The main purposes of feed additives administration are to increase feed quality, feed utilization, and the performance and health of animals. For many years, antibiotic-based feed additives showed promising results; however, their administration in animal feeds has been banned due to some public concerns regarding their residues in the produced milk and meat from treated animals. Some microorganisms have desirable properties and elicit certain effects, which makes them potential alternatives to antibiotics to enhance intestinal health and ruminal fermentation. The commonly evaluated microorganisms are some species of bacteria and yeasts. Supplementing microorganisms to ruminants boosts animal health, feed digestion, ruminal fermentation, animal performance (meat and milk), and feed efficiency. Moreover, feeding microorganisms helps young calves adapt quickly to consume solid feed and prevents thriving populations of enteric pathogens in the gastrointestinal tract which cause diarrhea. Lactobacillus, Streptococcus, Lactococcus, Bacillus, Enterococcus, Bifidobacterium, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and Aspergillus oryzae are the commonly used microbial feed additives in ruminant production. The response of feeding such microorganisms depends on many factors including the level of administration, diet fed to animal, physiological status of animal, and many other factors. However, the precise modes of action in which microbial feed additives improve nutrient utilization and livestock production are under study. Therefore, we aim to highlight some of the uses of microorganisms-based feed additives effects on animal production, the modes of action of microorganisms, and their potential use as an alternative to antibiotic feed additives.
Citation: Ahmed E. Kholif, Anuoluwapo Anele, Uchenna Y. Anele. Microbial feed additives in ruminant feeding[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(3): 542-571. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024026
[1] | Mulugeta H. Woldemariam, Giovanni Belingardi, Ermias G. Koricho, Daniel T. Reda . Effects of nanomaterials and particles on mechanical properties and fracture toughness of composite materials: a short review. AIMS Materials Science, 2019, 6(6): 1191-1212. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2019.6.1191 |
[2] | Worraphol Nansu, Gareth Ross, Sukunya Ross, Nungruthai Suphrom, Sararat Mahasaranon . Developments of pH responsive biodegradable monitoring film based on poly(vinyl alcohol) incorporated with Sappan heartwood extract for food packaging applications. AIMS Materials Science, 2023, 10(3): 465-483. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2023026 |
[3] | Neerajkumar Wayzode, Vinod Suryawanshi . Mechanical properties of graphene nanoplatelets reinforced glass/epoxy composites manufactured using resin film infusion process. AIMS Materials Science, 2023, 10(4): 693-709. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2023038 |
[4] | Pedro Folhento, Manuel Braz-César, Rui Barros . Cyclic response of a reinforced concrete frame: Comparison of experimental results with different hysteretic models. AIMS Materials Science, 2021, 8(6): 917-931. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2021056 |
[5] | Harikrishnan Pulikkalparambil, Jyotishkumar Parameswaranpillai, Jinu Jacob George, Krittirash Yorseng, Suchart Siengchin . Physical and thermo-mechanical properties of bionano reinforced poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate), hemp/CNF/Ag-NPs composites. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(3): 814-831. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.3.814 |
[6] | Ashhad Imam, Keshav K Sharma, Virendra Kumar, Neeraj Singh . A review study on sustainable development of ultra high-performance concrete. AIMS Materials Science, 2022, 9(1): 9-35. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2022002 |
[7] | José Luis Del Rosario-Arellano, Gloria Ivette Bolio-López, Alex Valadez-González, Luis Zamora-Peredo, Noé Aguilar-Rivera, Isaac Meneses-Márquez, Pablo Andrés-Meza, Otto Raúl Leyva-Ovalle . Exploration of cassava clones for the development of biocomposite films. AIMS Materials Science, 2022, 9(1): 85-104. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2022006 |
[8] | Ruaa Al-Mezrakchi, Ahmed Al-Ramthan, Shah Alam . Designing and modeling new generation of advanced hybrid composite sandwich structure armors for ballistic threats in defense applications. AIMS Materials Science, 2020, 7(5): 608-631. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2020.5.608 |
[9] | Yong X. Gan . A review of electrohydrodynamic casting energy conversion polymer composites. AIMS Materials Science, 2018, 5(2): 206-225. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2018.2.206 |
[10] | Alessandro De Luca, Francesco Caputo . A review on analytical failure criteria for composite materials. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(5): 1165-1185. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.5.1165 |
The main purposes of feed additives administration are to increase feed quality, feed utilization, and the performance and health of animals. For many years, antibiotic-based feed additives showed promising results; however, their administration in animal feeds has been banned due to some public concerns regarding their residues in the produced milk and meat from treated animals. Some microorganisms have desirable properties and elicit certain effects, which makes them potential alternatives to antibiotics to enhance intestinal health and ruminal fermentation. The commonly evaluated microorganisms are some species of bacteria and yeasts. Supplementing microorganisms to ruminants boosts animal health, feed digestion, ruminal fermentation, animal performance (meat and milk), and feed efficiency. Moreover, feeding microorganisms helps young calves adapt quickly to consume solid feed and prevents thriving populations of enteric pathogens in the gastrointestinal tract which cause diarrhea. Lactobacillus, Streptococcus, Lactococcus, Bacillus, Enterococcus, Bifidobacterium, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and Aspergillus oryzae are the commonly used microbial feed additives in ruminant production. The response of feeding such microorganisms depends on many factors including the level of administration, diet fed to animal, physiological status of animal, and many other factors. However, the precise modes of action in which microbial feed additives improve nutrient utilization and livestock production are under study. Therefore, we aim to highlight some of the uses of microorganisms-based feed additives effects on animal production, the modes of action of microorganisms, and their potential use as an alternative to antibiotic feed additives.
Packaging can be defined as materials that are used to contain or temporarily contain, handle, protect, or transport articles and are generally disposed of as waste after usage [1]. In the food processing industry, packaging is a crucial process for preserving food quality and safety, providing food protection, presenting food, and preventing food degradation by physical, chemical, or biological contamination [2,3,4,5]. Kim et al. [6] also mentioned that food packaging that is successful in the market should have high quality and safety standards and should meet the requirements of governmental regulations and policies.
Different food packaging applications affect the selection of materials that are used as food packaging. The selection of food packaging materials highly depends on the nature of the food to be packed [6,7]. Paine & Paine [8] listed several vital factors that must be considered when selecting packaging materials. The guidelines proposed by Paine & Paine [8] for the food packaging designer or manufacturer to consider while selecting suitable materials for a product include packaging production methods, display requirements, economic considerations, marketing needs, specific product characteristics, and packaging material properties. Some food packaging materials have antimicrobial functions, good mechanical and thermal properties, suitable optical properties, ecofriendliness, and good barrier properties, including gas, vapor, and aroma barrier properties [9]. Figure 1 shows the general properties of food packaging materials.
The barrier properties of food packaging, including permeability by gas, water vapor, and aroma, are one of the most crucial properties for consideration in the selection of food packaging materials [10]. Given that food packaging acts as a protective layer for food, food packaging materials should at least have good resistance to gases and moisture from the environment [11]. The ultimate goal for food packaging is to maintain the quality of the food within the designed shelf-life by providing a sufficient barrier [12]. If the packaging lacks a good oxygen barrier or moisture barrier property, the food becomes rancid after oxidization and acquires an unpleasant smell or taste. Rancidity is caused by the oxidation of oils and fats through two main pathways: oxidation by oxygen and hydration by water [13,14]. Aroma is another basic element of food. Aroma scalping occurs if the packaging has a poor aroma barrier, in this case, either the food aroma diffuses out or is affected by aromas from the environment through the packaging materials and causes flavor changes [15,16].
Improvements in nanotechnology, especially in nanomaterials, can greatly improve the barrier properties of packaging materials [17]. The industrial application of nanocomposites has great potential to improve barrier properties because the production cost of nanocomposites is very low [18]. Sangroniz et al. [19] investigated packaging material exhibiting chemical recyclability while possessing the desired mechanical and barrier properties.
Food safety is a crucial issue and a basic human right [20]. If we ignore food safety and allow food to be spoiled by microorganisms or pathogens, it will be unsafe to consume and may cause illness if consumed [21]. Thus, food safety and food quality are issues of concern for consumers and food industries. These issues also reflect the need for an antimicrobial packaging system wherein an antimicrobial agent is incorporated into packaging materials or polymers to prevent microorganisms from contaminating food [22]. In general, an antimicrobial agent prolongs food preservation and makes food safe to consume by deteriorating the growth kinetics of microorganisms [23]. Some common antimicrobial nanocomposites are chitosan, silver nanoparticles, nanoclays, silica, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, and copper [22,24].
Different types of packaging materials, namely, glass, metal, plastics, wood, and paper/paperboard, are available on the market [1,11]. The pros and cons of different food packaging materials are listed in Table 1.
Type of materials | Pros | Cons | References |
Glass | Recyclable Inert to a variety of foods |
Heavy and fragile Expensive to transport |
[25,26] |
Metal | Long shelf life Resistant to heat |
Expensive May be corroded |
[27,28] |
Plastic | Difficult to break Can be shaped into various forms |
Poor heat resistance Nonbiodegradable |
[25,29] |
Wood | Sturdy Easy to repair |
Only used as pallets and crates | [1] |
Paper/paperboard | Easily printable surfaces Low cost Lightweight |
Weak barrier against water Used for dry products only |
[4,27] |
Parkesine, a cellulose derivative invented by Alexander Parkes, is the first manmade plastic and was publically presented at the 1862 Great International Exhibition in London [6,30,31]. Since then, plastics have been developed and diversified [6]. The plastics that are used today are predominantly made from crude oil or natural gas and are also known as petroleum-based plastics [32]. Plastics are good choices for food packaging given their cheapness, easy processability, light weight, good resistance to oil and chemicals, excellent gas and water vapor barrier properties, and easily reusability and recyclability in terms of sustainability [1,3,5,6,33]. Some conventional petroleum or fossil-based plastics used in packaging include polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polystyrene (PS), and other plastics, such as bioplastic polylactide (PLA) [1,33,34].
Polyethylene (PE) and PP are of the most common and generally used materials in food packaging because they possess excellent chemical and moisture resistance; moreover, they are easy to process and cheap [11,25,35]. PE consists of two basic categories, namely HDPE and LDPE, wherein HDPE plastics have numerous short side branches and a tightly packed structure, whereas LDPE have numerous long branches [25]. Although they are good chemical and moisture barriers, they are relatively permeable to oxygen and are thus poor odor barriers [36]. PE also has relatively lower heat resistance than other plastics, and PE films melt at relatively low temperatures [37].
PET is an emerging material that has been used in food packaging for the last several years [25,38] because it has higher heat resistance and mechanical strength than many plastics [37]. Moreover, it is an inert material that possesses good gas and moisture barrier properties and can be modified to present specific properties that are suitable for various packaging applications [11,38]. This characteristic makes PET a good option as a packaging material.
PLA is a promising biobased and biodegradable polymer that can be used as a food packaging material [33,39]. PLA is ideal for fresh organic packaging because it has good breathing properties [1]. However, pure PLA exhibits some limitations, such as water permeability, brittleness, and easy degradation under significant increases in temperature [1,39]. Compositing PLA with other components can confer PLA with increased tensile strength and water resistance, antimicrobial properties, and reduced processing costs [33,40,41].
However, these plastics are mostly nonbiodegradable, nonrenewable, and noncompostable, therefore causing major environmental and disposal issues worldwide [5]. They are the most challenging packaging materials to recycle [1]. Traditional plastics are so durable that they are not readily degraded in their ambient surroundings; they persist in the environment because polymers require numerous or even hundreds of years to decompose in the normal natural environment [42]. According to a report from the OECD Environment Directorate [32], over 60% of plastic waste comes from packaging. Singh et al. [42] stated that 90% of plastic solid wastes are recyclable, but 80% of them are sent to landfills, 8% are incinerated, and only 7% are recycled. The landfill disposal of HDPE also causes serious consequences because it produces greenhouse gases [42].
Food packaging should be natural and environmentally friendly [43]. Bioplastics or biopolymers from renewable resources have attracted growing interest from industries as a solution to the environmental problems and limited resources of petroleum-based polymers [2,33]. In 2018, the bioplastics used in the packaging market accounted for approximately 65% of the global bioplastic production [44]. Some currently produced and applied biopolymers based on renewable resources include PLA, cellulose, and starch, which are biopolymers that are directly obtained from argowastes [33]. However, "biobased" does not equal "biodegradable" or compostable [45,46,47]. Biobased products include raw materials that are renewable and can be replenished via natural processes [48]. Biodegradable products include polymers that can be degraded by microorganisms within a certain period of time in the environment [48]. Compostable bioplastics are a subset of biodegradable plastic. Therefore, all compostable bioplastics are biodegradable but not all biodegradable bioplastics are compostable [49]. Table 2 shows the different types of bioplastics found on the market.
Types of bioplastic | Properties | Examples | References |
Polymers from biomass | Compostable | Starch-based, cellulose-based, protein-based | [50,51] |
Polymers from bio-derived monomers | Biodegradable or recyclable | PLA, bio-based PE, bio-based PET, bio-based PP | [52,53,54,55] |
Polymers from microbial fermentation | Biodegradable | Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) | [56] |
Polymers from both bio-derived monomers and petroleum-based monomers | Biodegradable or recyclable | poly(butylene succinate) (PBS), poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT), Pro-oxidant Additive Containing (PAC) plastic | [53,57] |
However, if used alone for packaging purposes, biopolymers or bioplastics show some limitations due to their poor water barrier properties, brittleness, high vapor permeability, and low heat deflection temperatures [3,5,6]. Thus, biopolymers are strengthened with nanofillers to enhance their mechanical properties, barrier properties, and heat [3,5]. Bioplastics also have some limitations in terms of production costs, functionality, and compatibility with other polymers in recycling streams [6,58].
As mentioned above, bioplastics alone have some limitations, including low water and chemical resistance, low heat resistance, and brittleness. The strength of bioplastics can be enhanced through several ways, including physical and chemical crosslinking. Some research has done on the physical treatments, including heat, dehydrothermal, and ultrasonic treatments, of protein-based bioplastics [59,60]. However, this review focuses on the reinforcement of bioplastics through chemical crosslinking. Several potential additives can be used as fillers for bioplastics: nanoclays, cellulose, silica, silver nanoparticles, and metal oxides (zinc, magnesium, and titanium oxides) [3,5]. These additives are in the micro- to nanosized form. Nanofillers can enhance the mechanical properties, barrier properties, and heat resistance of bioplastic nanocomposites compared with those of virgin bioplastics [3]. Chakravartula et al. [61] produced an edible composite film based on pectin/alginate/whey protein concentrate. Although nanofiller reinforcement can greatly improve bioplastic performance, we should not forget about the environmental and human health safety concerns posed by these nanomaterials during their application [62,63].
Nanoclay or layered silicates are one of the most commonly used and researched agents for food packaging [5]. Nanoclays have the advantages of ubiquity in nature, easy processing, excellent performance, and cheapness [5,64]. Nanoclays have been successfully used as nanofillers in food packaging materials because they enhance the barrier properties of nanocomposites, improve mechanical properties and water resistance, decrease water vapor permeability, and confer flame retardance [64,65,66]. Mohanty & Swain [3] stated that nanoclay composites can be classified into three categories, namely intercalated, exfoliated, and tactoid. Exfoliated nanoclay has been proven to exhibit the best properties as the result of the optimal interaction between polymer and clay [3,5]. Montmorillonite is the most widely used nanoclay in food packaging because its high surface area and aspect ratio make it an excellent reinforcing filler [5,62].
Cellulose is among the most abundant polymers in nature that can readily be derived from available biomass [33,67]. Nanocellulose is also suitable for use in bioplastic reinforcement because cellulose can produce high strength-to-weight ratio nanomaterials and has an expected lower cost than other nanomaterials while also being biodegradable and environmentally friendly [5,67]. Farahhanim et al. [68] stated that cellulose has an encouraging prospect for enhancing the mechanical and thermal properties of polymers. Two main types of cellulose nanostructures can be applied as reinforcement in food packaging materials, namely, cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) and nanofibers (CNFs) [5,69]. Xu et al. [70] reported that CNCs and CNFs can reinforce polymer nanocomposites and that CNFs possess higher strength and moduli than CNCs because of the more significant aspect ratio and fiber entanglement but reduced strain-at-failure shown by CNFs.
Bacterial cellulose (BC) is synthesized from microorganisms [69,71]. It has several advantages over plant-based cellulose, such as short harvest time, easy cultivation, and zero lignin and hemicellulose content [72,73,74]. Given these properties, BC is ecofriendly because it does not require harsh chemicals for purification [69]. Zhao et al. [71] stated that the main drawback of BC in industrial application is its high production cost because its yield is highly affected by medium content, culture condition, and bacteria used.
Silver nanoparticles are widely known for their antimicrobial properties, which they exert by degrading cell membranes and causing bacterial death [3,5]. Studies on applying silver nanoparticles in food packaging materials have found positive results for the inhibition of bacterial growth and the extension of food shelf-life [62,75,76]. Metal oxides, such as magnesium oxide [77,78], zinc oxide, and titanium dioxide, can act as antimicrobial agents when applied in food packaging materials [3,5,62,63]. These oxides also have been recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as safe for food application [62].
PLA is a type of compostable and biocompatible thermoplastic originating from renewable resources, such as corn, sugarcane, and potato starch; it is widely used in packaging applications [1,2,47,79]. PLA is limited by its high brittleness, low deformation at peak, low melt strength, and weak gas barrier relative to polyolefin [2]. Thus, PLA must be modified to improve its properties. Several materials, such as plasticizers, polymers, nanoclays, carbon nanotubes, and starch, have been blended into PLA matrixes [2]. PLA is also frequently blended with other biobased and or biodegradable polymers, such as PHAs, to improve stiffness and strength and to reduce [47,80]. Genovese et al. [81] reported that polymers with triblock ABA architecture, wherein A is PLA and B is an ad hoc synthesized random biobased aliphatic copolyester poly(propylene/neopentyl glycol succinate), show improved mechanical and barrier properties. The B block facilitates composting. Figure 2 shows the general structure of PLA.
Starch is one of the least expensive biomaterials [82]. It is also abundant, biodegradable, and renewable, and its possibility of blending with conventional polymers has garnered wide interest in the bioplastic market [2,33,83]. Blending starch with a nonbiodegradable plastic can also promote the biodegradability of the plastic [5,84]. Native starch lacks thermoplastic properties [83]. Thermoplastic starch (TPS) can be obtained through the addition of plasticizers under heating after starch destruction [2,5,83]. Starch is often used as a filler for other bioplastics to reduce production cost [2]. Blending with nanoclay improves the properties, including mechanical properties, thermal stability, and water resistance, of TPS [83]. Sun et al. [84] also discovered that starch films reinforced with calcium carbonate nanoparticles show significant improvements in tensile strength, elongation, and Young's modulus. Fibers can also enhance the mechanical properties, gas barrier properties, moisture resistance, and thermal stability of TPS [83,85]. Figure 3 shows the general structure of starch.
Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), which are environmentally friendly, biodegradable biobased polymers that can be produced via bacterial fermentation, have drawn considerable attention recently [86,87]. The properties of these biopolymers are very similar to those of traditional fossil fuel-based plastics, such as PP and PE; given these properties, PHAs have great commercial potential to replace conventional plastics [86,88,89]. However, PHAs face some drawbacks in commercial applications because they are brittle, thermosensitive, and ductile and possess limited processing malleability and poor gas barrier properties [90,91]. Mannina et al. [86] also reported that the production cost of PHAs is one of the most important factors to consider in the industrial production of PHAs for competition with conventional plastic. Various polymers and nanofillers, such as carbon nanotubes, nanoclays, cellulose, metal oxides, and bioactive glasses, are composited with PHAs to improve their performances significantly [9,90,91]. The most popular commercially applied PHA is poly(3-hydroxybutyrate), which is used in various industries as food packaging and films and in the medical field [48]. Figure 4 shows the general structure of PHA.
Polybutylene succinate (PBS) is a biodegradable polymer that is produced through the condensation of succinic acid and 1, 4-butanediol [92,93]. PBS has high crystallinity, great mechanical properties and thermal stability, and good dyeing properties and is thus suitable for processing through conventional methods, such as injection molding and extrusion [48,88]. These properties also make PBS a suitable replacement for HDPE and PP in various applications, such as housewares, agriculture, and packaging [88,94]. PBS has very good flexibility [2,94,95,96], and many studies have blended PLA and PBS to enhance their properties [95,96,97,98,99]. Soccio et al. [100] blended inedible wheat flour with various amounts of PBS-based green copolymer to obtain the polymer with the best mechanical performance. Quattrosoldi et al. [101] improved the thermal stability, flexibility, and compostability of PBS by adding different amounts of Pripol 1009. These studies showed that PBS has high potential for production as a packaging material if its physical properties undergo further improvement. Figure 5 shows the general structure of PBS.
Furandicarboxylic acid (FDCA) is a new emerging biobased polymer that has attracted considerable interest from the scientific and industrial fields [102]. It was identified by the US Department of Energy as a top value-added chemical derived from biomass [103]. FDCA can be synthesized via several methods, including oxidative production from biobased 5-hydroxymethylfurfural through electrochemical, catalytic, or noncatalytic and biocatalytic processes [104]. A completely biobased alternative to PET, namely poly(ethylene furanoate) (PEF), a composite produced from FDCA, has been recently developed [105]. Terzopoulou et al. [106] found that PEF can start undergoing commercialization in 2023 and will reach a market value of $129.3 million by 2025 given its similarity to PET. Guidotti et al. [107] also reported that biobased poly(pentamethylene furanoate), one of the composites produced from FDCA, has outstanding physical properties and excellent barrier and mechanical properties, which are the main factors for consideration when selecting packaging materials. However, the use of FDCA remains limited due to its high price and bottlenecked industrial production [108].
A report on global plastic analysis by Geyer et al. [109] stated that the cumulative plastic waste produced from primary and recycled plastics in 1950–2015 reached 6300 million tons. According to the report, 60% of plastic wastes are sent to landfills, 12% are incinerated, and only 9% are recycled. The packaging industry accounted for the highest amount of plastic waste or 54% (141 million tons) of the plastic waste generated in 2015 [109].
Since the mass production of plastics began decades ago, most plastic products have been disposed of as trash [110]. "Our World in Data" also shows the fate of global plastic waste from 1950 to 2015. Recycling started increasing in 1988 when only 0.60% of plastic waste was recycled; in 2015, 19.50% of plastic waste was recycled [111]. Figure 6 shows the global share of plastic waste by disposal method.
Although plastic waste is well known to be an emerging waste that can cause environmental pollution, the extent of this problem has yet to be realized. "The Star Online" reported that Malaysia is now one of the world's worst offenders in plastic pollution; in Malaysia, most plastics are simply dumped, a small portion is incinerated, and only 2% of plastic waste is recycled [112]. This scenario was exacerbated when Malaysia imported approximately half a million metric ton of plastic waste in the first half of 2018 [113]. A dataset in "Our Word in Data" showed that total plastic waste generation in Malaysia reached 2.03 million ton per year in 2010 and that 55% of the plastic waste was inadequately managed, accounting for 2.94% of the global mismanaged waste in 2010 [111]. Recently, some recycling factories in Malaysian cities have been found to operate illegally by burning plastic waste [114], and 139 plastic recycling factories all over Malaysia were shut down by the authorities in July 2019 [115]. Burning plastic causes air pollution, and the toxic fumes that are released from burning plastic pose a threat to human and animal health [116]. Other illegal plastic waste facilities in Malaysia use environmentally harmful techniques that may result in environmental impacts [113,117].
Based on the report "Biobased Building Blocks and Polymers—Global Capacities, Production and Trends 2018–2023" [118], the total production volume of bioplastics or biopolymers has reached 7.5 million tons, which account for 2% of the total production volume of petrochemical polymers. The report also stated that the production of biobased polymers will continuously increase with the expected CAGR of approximately 4% until 2023 and that its share in the total polymer and plastics market will remain constant at approximately 2% of the market. A report from European Bioplastics [119] further categorized bioplastics as biobased/nonbiodegradable and biodegradable. The total capacity of bioplastics in 2018 in this report is only 2.112 million tons, whereas that in the previous report is 7.5 million tons because European Bioplastics excluded polyurethane (PUR) given the absence of reliable data on the actual volumes of PUR [119].
Figure 7 depicts the global production capacities of bioplastics in 2018–2023. Figure 8 shows the global production capacities of bioplastics in 2018 by material type.
Along with the rise of plastic use worldwide, the sustainability issue has attracted growing attention as the United Nations urged all the countries to achieve the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 17 SDGs not only focus on development, but also people and environment. With the continuous increase in the global population, the agricultural sector has continued expanding and producing agricultural waste [120]. Those biomasses can be utilized and converted into resources, including bioplastics. Bioplastics are promising but are not the only solution to plastic pollution [121]. According to European Bioplastics [122], the current feedstock used to produce bioplastics relies on less than 0.02% of the global agricultural area. Several studies are investigating the use of using agricultural waste in the production of bioplastics [123,124,125,126].
Bioplastics have considerable potential as replacements of fossil-based plastics in many applications, such as food packaging. They have been applied in several food packaging industries. Molenveld et al. [1] reported that PLA and bio-PE are used as bottles to contain fruits, milk, and dairy products. PLA, starch blends, and cellophane are applied as films, trays/dishes, and containers to store food, such as fruit and vegetables, meats, fish, cheese, and eggs. Bioplastics can be used as single-use plastic materials. For example, Evoware, which produces seaweed-based packaging had produced edible grade-food wraps, coffee sachets, and dry seasoning sachets [127].
The authors would like to acknowledge Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia for FRGS/1/2018/TK05/UKM/02/4 grant and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for the GUP-2017-041 grant for conducting related research.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] |
Xu Q, Qiao Q, Gao Y, et al. (2021) Gut microbiota and their role in health and metabolic disease of dairy cow. Front Nutr 8: 701511. https://doi.org/10.3389/FNUT.2021.701511 ![]() |
[2] |
Ban Y, Guan LL (2021) Implication and challenges of direct-fed microbial supplementation to improve ruminant production and health. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 12: 109. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-021-00630-x ![]() |
[3] |
Anee IJ, Alam S, Begum RA, et al. (2021) The role of probiotics on animal health and nutrition. J Basic Appl Zool 82: 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41936-021-00250-x ![]() |
[4] |
Elghandour MMY, Salem AZM, Castañeda JSM, et al. (2015) Direct-fed microbes: A tool for improving the utilization of low quality roughages in ruminants. J Integr Agric 14: 526-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60834-0 ![]() |
[5] |
Abd El-Hack ME, El-Saadony MT, Salem HM, et al. (2022) Alternatives to antibiotics for organic poultry production: types, modes of action and impacts on bird's health and production. Poult Sci 101: 101696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.101696 ![]() |
[6] | Oyebade Ikusika O, Haruzivi C, Conference Mpendulo T (2022) Alternatives to the use of antibiotics in animal production. Antibiotics and Probiotics in Animal Food - Impact and Regulation . London, UK: IntechOpen Limited. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105922 |
[7] |
Humayun Kober AKM, Rajoka MSR, Mehwish HM, et al. (2022) Immunomodulation potential of probiotics: a novel strategy for improving livestock health, immunity, and productivity. Microorganisms 10: 388. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10020388 ![]() |
[8] |
Ayalew H, Zhang H, Wang J, et al. (2022) Potential feed additives as antibiotic alternatives in broiler production. Front Vet Sci 9: 916473. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.916473 ![]() |
[9] |
Mehdi Y, Létourneau-Montminy MP, Gaucher ML, et al. (2018) Use of antibiotics in broiler production: Global impacts and alternatives. Anim Nutr 4: 170-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2018.03.002 ![]() |
[10] |
Kim SW, Less JF, Wang L, et al. (2019) Meeting global feed protein demand: challenge, opportunity, and strategy. Annu Rev Anim Biosci 7: 221-243. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-030117-014838 ![]() |
[11] |
Ma F, Xu S, Tang Z, et al. (2021) Use of antimicrobials in food animals and impact of transmission of antimicrobial resistance on humans. Biosaf Health 3: 32-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bsheal.2020.09.004 ![]() |
[12] |
Kochhar S, Strutt M, Philpott-Howard J (2004) Essential microbiology. BMJ 328: 0404142. https://doi.org/10.1136/sbmj.0404142 ![]() |
[13] |
Pazos M, Peters K (2019) Peptidoglycan. Subcellular Biochemistry . New York: Springer 127-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18768-2_5 ![]() |
[14] | Van Amersfoort ES, Kuiper J (2007) Receptors, mediators, and mechanisms involved in bacterial sepsis and septic shock. Endotoxins . CRC Press 403-426. https://doi.org/10.3109/9781420020595-21 |
[15] |
Duarte ME, Tyus J, Kim SW (2020) Synbiotic effects of enzyme and probiotics on intestinal health and growth of newly weaned pigs challenged with Enterotoxigenic F18+Escherichia coli. Front Vet Sci 7: 573. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00573 ![]() |
[16] |
Seo JK, Kim SW, Kim MH, et al. (2010) Direct-fed microbials for ruminant animals. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 23: 1657-1667. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2010.r.08 ![]() |
[17] |
Parvez S, Malik KA, Ah Kang S, et al. (2006) Probiotics and their fermented food products are beneficial for health. J Appl Microbiol 100: 1171-1185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.02963.x ![]() |
[18] |
Hassan AA, Salem AZM, Kholif AE, et al. (2016) Performance of crossbred dairy Friesian calves fed two levels of Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Intake, digestion, ruminal fermentation, blood parameters and faecal pathogenic bacteria. J Agric Sci 154: 1488-1498. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859616000599 ![]() |
[19] |
Kim EY, Kim YH, Rhee MH, et al. (2007) Selection of Lactobacillus sp. PSC101 that produces active dietary enzymes such as amylase, lipase, phytase and protease in pigs. J Gen Appl Microbiol 53: 111-117. https://doi.org/10.2323/jgam.53.111 ![]() |
[20] |
Sharma AN, Kumar S, Tyagi AK (2018) Effects of mannan-oligosaccharides and Lactobacillus acidophilus supplementation on growth performance, nutrient utilization and faecal characteristics in Murrah buffalo calves. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 102: 679-689. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12878 ![]() |
[21] |
Abdel-Aziz NA, El-Adawy M, Mariezcurrena-Berasain MA, et al. (2015) Effects of exogenous enzymes, Lactobacillus acidophilus or their combination on feed performance response and carcass characteristics of rabbits fed sugarcane bagasse. J Integr Agric 14: 544-549. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60827-3 ![]() |
[22] |
Arsène MMJJ, Davares AKLL, Andreevna SL, et al. (2021) The use of probiotics in animal feeding for safe production and as potential alternatives to antibiotics. Vet World 14: 319-328. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2021.319-328 ![]() |
[23] | Adjei-Fremah S, Ekwemalor K, Worku M, et al. (2018) Probiotics and ruminant health. Probiotics-Current Knowledge and Future Prospects . London, UK: InTech 133-150. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72846 |
[24] |
Lambo MT, Chang X, Liu D (2021) The recent trend in the use of multistrain probiotics in livestock production: an overview. Animals 11: 2805. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11102805 ![]() |
[25] |
Nagaraja TG, Titgemeyer EC (2007) Ruminal acidosis in beef cattle: The current microbiological and nutritional outlook. J Dairy Sci 90: E17-E38. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-478 ![]() |
[26] |
Nocek JE, Kautz WP (2006) Direct-fed microbial supplementation on ruminal digestion, health, and performance of pre- and postpartum dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 89: 260-266. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72090-2 ![]() |
[27] |
Aphale D, Natu A, Laldas S, et al. (2019) Administration of Streptococcus bovis isolated from sheep rumen digesta on rumen function and physiology as evaluated in a rumen simulation technique system. Vet World 12: 1362-1371. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2019.1362-1371 ![]() |
[28] |
Azzaz HH, Kholif AE, Murad HA, et al. (2022) A newly developed strain of Enterococcus faecium isolated from fresh dairy products to be used as a probiotic in lactating Holstein cows. Front Vet Sci 9: 989606. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.989606 ![]() |
[29] |
Liu ZL, Chen YJ, Meng QL, et al. (2023) Progress in the application of Enterococcus faecium in animal husbandry. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 13: 1168189. https://doi.org/10.3389/FCIMB.2023.1168189/BIBTEX ![]() |
[30] |
Emmanuel DGV, Jafari A, Beauchemin KA, et al. (2007) Feeding live cultures of Enterococcus faecium and Saccharomyces cerevisiae induces an inflammatory response in feedlot steers. J Anim Sci 85: 233-239. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-216 ![]() |
[31] |
Hanchi H, Mottawea W, Sebei K, et al. (2018) The genus Enterococcus: between probiotic potential and safety concerns—an update. Front Microbiol 9: 1791. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01791 ![]() |
[32] |
Cabral L da S, Weimer PJ (2024) Megasphaera elsdenii: its role in ruminant nutrition and its potential industrial application for organic acid biosynthesis. Microorganisms 12: 219. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12010219 ![]() |
[33] |
Susanto I, Wiryawan KG, Suharti S, et al. (2023) Evaluation of Megasphaera elsdenii supplementation on rumen fermentation, production performance, carcass traits and health of ruminants: a meta-analysis. Anim Biosci 36: 879-890. https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.22.0258 ![]() |
[34] |
Muya MC, Nherera FV, Miller KA, et al. (2015) Effect of Megasphaera elsdenii NCIMB 41125 dosing on rumen development, volatile fatty acid production and blood β-hydroxybutyrate in neonatal dairy calves. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 99: 913-918. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12306 ![]() |
[35] |
Azzaz HH, El-Sherbiny M, Murad HA, et al. (2019) Propionibacteria in ruminant's diets: an overview. J Appl Sci 19: 166-172. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2019.166.172 ![]() |
[36] |
Michalak M, Wojnarowski K, Cholewińska P, et al. (2021) Selected alternative feed additives used to manipulate the rumen microbiome. Animals 11: 1542. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061542 ![]() |
[37] |
Chiquette J, Allison MJ, Rasmussen MA (2008) Prevotella bryantii 25A used as a probiotic in early-lactation dairy cows: Effect on ruminal fermentation characteristics, milk production, and milk composition. J Dairy Sci 91: 3536-3543. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0849 ![]() |
[38] |
Betancur-Murillo CL, Aguilar-Marín SB, Jovel J (2022) Prevotella: a key player in ruminal metabolism. Microorganisms 11: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11010001 ![]() |
[39] |
Hamdon HA, Kholif AE, Mahmoud GB, et al. (2020) Enhancing the utilization of palm leaf hay using Bacillus subtilis and Phanerochaete chrysosporium in the diet of lambs under desert conditions. Ann Anim Sci 20: 1395-1409. https://doi.org/10.2478/aoas-2020-0052 ![]() |
[40] |
Du R, Jiao S, Dai Y, et al. (2018) Probiotic Bacillus amyloliquefaciens C-1 improves growth performance, stimulates GH/IGF-1, and regulates the gut microbiota of growth-retarded beef calves. Front Microbiol 9: 2006. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02006 ![]() |
[41] |
Astuti WD, Ridwan R, Fidriyanto R, et al. (2022) Changes in rumen fermentation and bacterial profiles after administering Lactiplantibacillus plantarum as a probiotic. Vet World 15: 1969-1974. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2022.1969-1974 ![]() |
[42] |
Chen B, Peng M, Tong W, et al. (2020) The quorum quenching bacterium Bacillus licheniformis T-1 protects Zebrafish against Aeromonas hydrophila infection. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 12: 160-171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-018-9495-7 ![]() |
[43] |
Devyatkin V, Mishurov A, Kolodina E (2021) Probiotic effect of Bacillus subtilis B-2998D, B-3057D, and Bacillus licheniformis B-2999D complex on sheep and lambs. J Adv Vet Anim Res 8: 146-157. https://doi.org/10.5455/javar.2021.h497 ![]() |
[44] |
Ahmed MH, Elghandour MMY, Salem AZM, et al. (2015) Influence of Trichoderma reesei or Saccharomyces cerevisiae on performance, ruminal fermentation, carcass characteristics and blood biochemistry of lambs fed Atriplex nummularia and Acacia saligna mixture. Livest Sci 180: 90-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.06.019 ![]() |
[45] |
Alugongo GM, Xiao J, Wu Z, et al. (2017) Review: Utilization of yeast of Saccharomyces cerevisiae origin in artificially raised calves. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 8: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-017-0165-5 ![]() |
[46] |
Bayat AR, Kairenius P, Stefański T, et al. (2015) Effect of camelina oil or live yeasts (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on ruminal methane production, rumen fermentation, and milk fatty acid composition in lactating cows fed grass silage diets. J Dairy Sci 98: 3166-3181. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-7976 ![]() |
[47] |
Bhatt RS, Sahoo A, Karim SA, et al. (2018) Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and rumen bypass-fat supplementation on growth, nutrient utilisation, rumen fermentation and carcass traits of lambs. Anim Prod Sci 58: 530-538. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN14950 ![]() |
[48] |
Hernández A, Kholif AE, Elghandour MMY, et al. (2017) Effectiveness of xylanase and Saccharomyces cerevisiae as feed additives on gas emissions from agricultural calf farms. J Clean Prod 148: 616-623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.070 ![]() |
[49] |
Nasiri AH, Towhidi A, Shakeri M, et al. (2019) Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on milk production, insulin sensitivity and immune response in transition dairy cows during hot season. Anim Feed Sci Technol 251: 112-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.03.007 ![]() |
[50] |
Thrune M, Bach A, Ruiz-Moreno M, et al. (2009) Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on ruminal pH and microbial fermentation in dairy cows. Livest Sci 124: 261-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.02.007 ![]() |
[51] |
Sallam SMA, Abdelmalek MLR, Kholif AE, et al. (2020) The effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae live cells and Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on the lactational performance of dairy cows. Anim Biotechnol 31: 491-497. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495398.2019.1625783 ![]() |
[52] |
Azzaz HH, Kholif AE, Abd El Tawab AM, et al. (2020) A newly developed tannase enzyme from Aspergillus terreus versus commercial tannase in the diet of lactating Damascus goats fed diet containing pomegranate peel. Livest Sci 241: 104228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104228 ![]() |
[53] |
Azzaz HH, Kholif AE, Murad HA, et al. (2021) A new pectinase produced from Aspergillus terreus compared with a commercial pectinase enhanced feed digestion, milk production and milk fatty acid profile of Damascus goats fed pectin-rich diet. Ann Anim Sci 21: 639-656. https://doi.org/10.2478/aoas-2020-0083 ![]() |
[54] | Dagnaw Fenta M, Gebremariam AA, Mebratu AS (2023) Effectiveness of probiotic and combinations of probiotic with prebiotics and probiotic with Rumenotorics in experimentally induced ruminal acidosis sheep. Vet Med Res Rep 14: 63-78. https://doi.org/10.2147/VMRR.S396979 |
[55] |
Beauchemin KA, Yang WZ, Morgavi DP, et al. (2003) Effects of bacterial direct-fed microbials and yeast on site and extent of digestion, blood chemistry, and subclinical ruminal acidosis in feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 81: 1628-1640. https://doi.org/10.2527/2003.8161628x ![]() |
[56] |
Weiss WP, Wyatt DJ, McKelvey TR (2008) Effect of feeding propionibacteria on milk production by early lactation dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 91: 646-652. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0693 ![]() |
[57] | Zhang F, Nan X, Wang H, et al. (2020) Research on the applications of calcium propionate in dairy cows: A review. Animals 10: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10081336 |
[58] | Kung L (2006) Direct-fed microbial and enzyme feed additives. Direct-fed microbial, enzyme and forage additive compendium . Miller Publishing 69-77. https://cdn.canr.udel.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/DirectFedMicrobialsandEnzymes.pdf |
[59] |
Vieco-Saiz N, Belguesmia Y, Raspoet R, et al. (2019) Benefits and inputs from lactic acid bacteria and their bacteriocins as alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters during food-animal production. Front Microbiol 10: 57. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00057 ![]() |
[60] |
Dicks L, Botes M (2010) Probiotic lactic acid bacteria in the gastro-intestinal tract: health benefits, safety and mode of action. Benef Microbes 1: 11-29. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2009.0012 ![]() |
[61] |
Hammes WP, Hertel C (2006) The genera lactobacillus and carnobacterium. The Prokaryotes . New York, NY: Springer US 320-403. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-30744-3_10 ![]() |
[62] | Manga JAM, Zangué SCD, Tatsadjeu LN, et al. (2019) Producing probiotic beverage based on raffia sap fermented by Lactobacillus fermentum and Bifidobacterium bifidum. Research on Crops 20: 629-634. https://doi.org/10.31830/2348-7542.2019.092 |
[63] |
Gaggìa F, Mattarelli P, Biavati B (2010) Probiotics and prebiotics in animal feeding for safe food production. Int J Food Microbiol 141: S15-S28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.02.031 ![]() |
[64] |
Afonso ER, Parazzi LJ, Marino CT, et al. (2013) Probiotics association in the suckling and nursery in piglets challenged with Salmonella typhimurium. Braz Arch Biol Technol 56: 249-258. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-89132013000200010 ![]() |
[65] |
Hoseinifar SH, Sun YZ, Wang A, et al. (2018) Probiotics as means of diseases control in aquaculture, a review of current knowledge and future perspectives. Front Microbiol 9: 2429. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02429 ![]() |
[66] |
Feldmann H (2012) Yeast cell architecture and functions. Yeast . Weinheim, Germany: Wiley 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527659180.ch2 ![]() |
[67] | Stewart GG (2017) The structure and function of the yeast cell wall, plasma membrane and periplasm. Brewing and Distilling Yeasts . Cham: Springer International Publishing 55-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69126-8_5 |
[68] |
Shurson GC (2018) Yeast and yeast derivatives in feed additives and ingredients: Sources, characteristics, animal responses, and quantification methods. Anim Feed Sci Technol 235: 60-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.11.010 ![]() |
[69] | Kassa T, Diffe Z (2022) The role of direct-fed microbes to ruminants: a review. Glob J Anim Sci Res 10: 1-13. http://www.gjasr.com/index.php/GJASR/article/view/108 |
[70] |
Ogunade IM, Lay J, Andries K, et al. (2019) Effects of live yeast on differential genetic and functional attributes of rumen microbiota in beef cattle. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 10: 68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-019-0378-x ![]() |
[71] |
Amin AB, Mao S (2021) Influence of yeast on rumen fermentation, growth performance and quality of products in ruminants: A review. Animal Nutrition 7: 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2020.10.005 ![]() |
[72] |
Sallam SMA, Kholif AE, Amin KA, et al. (2020) Effects of microbial feed additives on feed utilization and growth performance in growing Barki lambs fed diet based on peanut hay. Anim Biotechnol 31: 447-454. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495398.2019.1616554 ![]() |
[73] |
El Jeni R, Villot C, Koyun OY, et al. (2024) Invited review: “Probiotic” approaches to improving dairy production: Reassessing “magic foo-foo dust”. J Dairy Sci 107: 1832-1856. https://doi.org/10.3168/JDS.2023-23831 ![]() |
[74] |
Du W, Wang X, Hu M, et al. (2023) Modulating gastrointestinal microbiota to alleviate diarrhea in calves. Front Microbiol 14: 1181545. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1181545 ![]() |
[75] |
Boyd J, West JW, Bernard JK (2011) Effects of the addition of direct-fed microbials and glycerol to the diet of lactating dairy cows on milk yield and apparent efficiency of yield. J Dairy Sci 94: 4616-4622. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3984 ![]() |
[76] |
Ma ZZ, Cheng YY, Wang SQ, et al. (2020) Positive effects of dietary supplementation of three probiotics on milk yield, milk composition and intestinal flora in Sannan dairy goats varied in kind of probiotics. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 104: 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13226 ![]() |
[77] |
Abd El Tawab AM, Kholif AE, Hassan AM, et al. (2020) Feed utilization and lactational performance of Friesian cows fed beet tops silage treated with lactic acid bacteria as a replacement for corn silage. Anim Biotechnol 31: 473-482. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495398.2019.1622556 ![]() |
[78] |
Hamdon HA, Kassab AY, Vargas-Bello-Pérez E, et al. (2022) Using probiotics to improve the utilization of chopped dried date palm leaves as a feed in diets of growing Farafra lambs. Front Vet Sci 9: 1048409. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.1048409 ![]() |
[79] |
Kholif AE, Hamdon HA, Gouda GA, et al. (2022) Feeding date-palm leaves ensiled with fibrolytic enzymes or multi-species probiotics to Farafra ewes: intake, digestibility, ruminal fermentation, blood chemistry, milk production and milk fatty acid profile. Animals 12: 1107. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12091107 ![]() |
[80] |
Kholif AE, Gouda GA, Patra AK (2022) The sustainable mitigation of in vitro ruminal biogas emissions by ensiling date palm leaves and rice straw with lactic acid bacteria and Pleurotus ostreatus for cleaner livestock production. J Appl Microbiol 132: 2925-2939. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.15432 ![]() |
[81] |
Titi HH, Dmour RO, Abdullah AY (2008) Growth performance and carcass characteristics of Awassi lambs and Shami goat kids fed yeast culture in their finishing diet. Anim Feed Sci Technol 142: 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.06.034 ![]() |
[82] |
Domínguez-Vara IA, González-Muñoz SS, Pinos-Rodríguez JM, et al. (2009) Effects of feeding selenium-yeast and chromium-yeast to finishing lambs on growth, carcass characteristics, and blood hormones and metabolites. Anim Feed Sci Technol 152: 42-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.03.008 ![]() |
[83] |
Maggioni D, De Araujo Marques J, Perotto D, et al. (2009) Bermuda grass hay or sorghum silage with or without yeast addition on performance and carcass characteristics of crossbred young bulls finished in feedlot. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 22: 206-215. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2009.80224 ![]() |
[84] |
Tripathi MK, Karim SA (2011) Effect of yeast cultures supplementation on live weight change, rumen fermentation, ciliate protozoa population, microbial hydrolytic enzymes status and slaughtering performance of growing lamb. Livest Sci 135: 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.06.007 ![]() |
[85] |
Milewski S, Zaleska B (2011) The effect of dietary supplementation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae dried yeast on lambs meat quality. J Anim Feed Sci 20: 537-545. https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/66208/2011 ![]() |
[86] |
Milewski S, Zaleska B, Bednarek D, et al. (2012) Effect of yeast supplements on selected healthpromoting properties of lamb meat. Bull Vet Inst Pulawy 56: 315-319. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10213-012-0056-7 ![]() |
[87] |
Rufino LDA, Pereira OG, Ribeiro KG, et al. (2013) Effect of substitution of soybean meal for inactive dry yeast on diet digestibility, lamb's growth and meat quality. Small Rumin Res 111: 56-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2012.09.014 ![]() |
[88] | Maamouri O, Selmi H, M'hamdi N (2014) Effects of yeast (Saccharomyces Cerevisiae) feed supplement on milk production and its composition in Tunisian holstein friesian cows. Sci Agric Bohemica 45: 170-174. https://doi.org/10.2478/sab-2014-0104 |
[89] |
Rodriguez MP, Mariezcurrena MD, Mariezcurrena MA, et al. (2015) Influence of live cells or cells extract of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on in vitro gas production of a total mixed ration. Ital J Anim Sci 14: 3713. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2015.3713 ![]() |
[90] |
Velázquez-Garduño G, Mariezcurrena-Berasain MA, Salem AZM, et al. (2015) Effect of organic selenium-enriched yeast supplementation in finishing sheep diet on carcasses microbiological contamination and meat physical characteristics. Ital J Anim Sci 14: 443-447. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2015.3836 ![]() |
[91] |
Geng C, Ren L, Zhou Z, et al. (2016) Comparison of active dry yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and yeast culture for growth performance, carcass traits, meat quality and blood indexes in finishing bulls. Anim Sci J 87: 982-988. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12522 ![]() |
[92] |
Xiao JX, Alugongo GM, Chung R, et al. (2016) Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products on dairy calves: Ruminal fermentation, gastrointestinal morphology, and microbial community. J Dairy Sci 99: 5401-5412. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10563 ![]() |
[93] |
Malekkhahi M, Tahmasbi AM, Naserian AA, et al. (2016) Effects of supplementation of active dried yeast and malate during sub-acute ruminal acidosis on rumen fermentation, microbial population, selected blood metabolites, and milk production in dairy cows. Anim Feed Sci Technol 213: 29-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.12.018 ![]() |
[94] |
Elghandour MMY, Vázquez JC, Salem AZM, et al. (2017) In vitro gas and methane production of two mixed rations influenced by three different cultures of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Appl Anim Res 45: 389-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2016.1204304 ![]() |
[95] |
Ambriz-Vilchis V, Jessop NS, Fawcett RH, et al. (2017) Effect of yeast supplementation on performance, rumination time, and rumen pH of dairy cows in commercial farm environments. J Dairy Sci 100: 5449-5461. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-12346 ![]() |
[96] |
Kholif AE, Abdo MM, Anele UY, et al. (2017) Saccharomyces cerevisiae does not work synergistically with exogenous enzymes to enhance feed utilization, ruminal fermentation and lactational performance of Nubian goats. Livest Sci 206: 17-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2017.10.002 ![]() |
[97] |
Dias ALG, Freitas JA, Micai B, et al. (2018) Effect of supplemental yeast culture and dietary starch content on rumen fermentation and digestion in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 101: 201-221. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13241 ![]() |
[98] |
Magrin L, Gottardo F, Fiore E, et al. (2018) Use of a live yeast strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in a high-concentrate diet fed to finishing Charolais bulls: effects on growth, slaughter performance, behavior, and rumen environment. Anim Feed Sci Technol 241: 84-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2018.04.021 ![]() |
[99] |
Bach A, López-García A, González-Recio O, et al. (2019) Changes in the rumen and colon microbiota and effects of live yeast dietary supplementation during the transition from the dry period to lactation of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 102: 6180-6198. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-16105 ![]() |
[100] |
Liu YZ, Lang M, Zhen YG, et al. (2019) Effects of yeast culture supplementation and the ratio of non-structural carbohydrate to fat on growth performance, carcass traits and the fatty acid profile of the longissimus dorsi muscle in lambs. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 103: 1274-1282. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13128 ![]() |
[101] |
Ferreira G (2019) Short communication: Production performance and nutrient digestibility of lactating dairy cows fed diets with and without addition of a live-yeast supplement. J Dairy Sci 102: 11057-11060. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17265 ![]() |
[102] |
Peng QH, Cheng L, Kang K, et al. (2020) Effects of yeast and yeast cell wall polysaccharides supplementation on beef cattle growth performance, rumen microbial populations and lipopolysaccharides production. J Integr Agric 19: 810-819. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(19)62708-5 ![]() |
[103] |
Rodríguez-Gaxiola MA, Domínguez-Vara IA, Barajas-Cruz R, et al. (2020) Effect of enriched-chromium yeast on growth performance, carcass characteristics and fatty acid profile in finishing Rambouillet lambs. Small Rumin Res 188: 106118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2020.106118 ![]() |
[104] |
Elaref MY, Hamdon HAM, Nayel UA, et al. (2020) Influence of dietary supplementation of yeast on milk composition and lactation curve behavior of Sohagi ewes, and the growth performance of their newborn lambs. Small Rumin Res 191: 106176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2020.106176 ![]() |
[105] |
Torres R de NS, Paschoaloto JR, Júnior GA de A, et al. (2022) Meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of yeast as a feed additive on beef cattle performance and carcass traits. Livest Sci 260: 104934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2022.104934 ![]() |
[106] |
Polovyi I, Vovk S, Petryshyn M (2023) Effect of yeast probiotic supplements in the diet of young ewes on the metabolic activity of rumen microbiota. J Anim Feed Sci 32: 198-204. https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/157536/2023 ![]() |
[107] |
Chen YY, Wang YL, Wang WK, et al. (2020) Beneficial effect of Rhodopseudomonas palustris on in vitro rumen digestion and fermentation. Benef Microbes 11: 91-99. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2019.0044 ![]() |
[108] |
Oetzel GR, Emery KM, Kautz WP, et al. (2007) Direct-fed microbial supplementation and health and performance of pre- and postpartum dairy cattle: A field trial. J Dairy Sci 90: 2058-2068. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-484 ![]() |
[109] |
Apás AL, Dupraz J, Ross R, et al. (2010) Probiotic administration effect on fecal mutagenicity and microflora in the goat's gut. J Biosci Bioeng 110: 537-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2010.06.005 ![]() |
[110] |
Signorini ML, Soto LP, Zbrun M V, et al. (2012) Impact of probiotic administration on the health and fecal microbiota of young calves: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of lactic acid bacteria. Res Vet Sci 93: 250-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.05.001 ![]() |
[111] |
Melara EG, Avellaneda MC, Valdivié M, et al. (2022) Probiotics: Symbiotic Relationship with the Animal Host. Animals 12: 719. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12060719 ![]() |
[112] |
Collins JW, La Ragione RM, Woodward MJ, et al. (2009) Application of prebiotics and probiotics in livestock. Prebiotics and Probiotics Science and Technology . New York, NY: Springer 1123-1192. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79058-9_30 ![]() |
1. | Estefanía Álvarez-Castillo, Manuel Felix, Carlos Bengoechea, Antonio Guerrero, Proteins from Agri-Food Industrial Biowastes or Co-Products and Their Applications as Green Materials, 2021, 10, 2304-8158, 981, 10.3390/foods10050981 | |
2. | Rabi Ibrahim Saleh, Mirae Kim, Seung Yeop Baek, Chaenyung Cha, Chitosan-functionalized silica nanoparticles as a multifunctional coating material for improved water repellency, antimicrobial activity and mechanical strength of degradable bioplastics, 2022, 29, 0969-0239, 7691, 10.1007/s10570-022-04745-w | |
3. | Anna Czajka, Radosław Bulski, Anna Iuliano, Andrzej Plichta, Kamila Mizera, Joanna Ryszkowska, Grafted Lactic Acid Oligomers on Lignocellulosic Filler towards Biocomposites, 2022, 15, 1996-1944, 314, 10.3390/ma15010314 | |
4. | I Kamaruddin, A Dirpan, F Bastian, The novel trend of bacterial cellulose as biodegradable and oxygen scavenging films for food packaging application : An integrative review, 2021, 807, 1755-1307, 022066, 10.1088/1755-1315/807/2/022066 | |
5. | Ika Zuwanna, Medyan Riza, Sri Aprilia, Yanna Syamsuddin, Biocomposite based on whey protein isolate with the addition silica from rice husk ash, 2022, 63, 22147853, S147, 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.056 | |
6. | Syed Riaz Ahmed, Fiaz Rasul, Aqsa Ijaz, Zunaira Anwar, Zarsha Naureen, Anam Riaz, Ijaz Rasul, 2022, 9781119904908, 789, 10.1002/9781119905301.ch29 | |
7. | Xianhui Zhao, Ying Wang, Xiaowen Chen, Xinbin Yu, Wei Li, Shuyang Zhang, Xianzhi Meng, Zhi-Min Zhao, Tao Dong, Alexander Anderson, Antony Aiyedun, Yanfei Li, Erin Webb, Zili Wu, Vlastimil Kunc, Arthur Ragauskas, Soydan Ozcan, Hongli Zhu, Sustainable bioplastics derived from renewable natural resources for food packaging, 2023, 6, 25902385, 97, 10.1016/j.matt.2022.11.006 | |
8. | Roger Arthur Sheldon, The E factor at 30: a passion for pollution prevention, 2023, 25, 1463-9262, 1704, 10.1039/D2GC04747K | |
9. | Liqaa Hamid, Irene Samy, 2022, Chapter 8, 978-1-80355-075-6, 10.5772/intechopen.100907 | |
10. | Aina Aqila Arman Alim, Siti Salwa Mohammad Shirajuddin, Farah Hannan Anuar, Shahid Hussain, A Review of Nonbiodegradable and Biodegradable Composites for Food Packaging Application, 2022, 2022, 2090-9071, 1, 10.1155/2022/7670819 | |
11. | Tarakeshwar Senapati, Sukhendu Dey, Apurba Ratan Ghosh, Palas Samanta, 2022, Chapter 89-1, 978-981-16-4921-9, 1, 10.1007/978-981-16-4921-9_89-1 | |
12. | Abel Saka, Kumaran Subramanian, JuleLeta Tesfaye, Lamessa Gudata, N. Nagaprasad, Krishnaraj Ramaswamy, 2023, Chapter 21, 978-981-19-5040-7, 401, 10.1007/978-981-19-5041-4_21 | |
13. | Utkarsh Chadha, Preetam Bhardwaj, Senthil Kumaran Selvaraj, Kaviya Arasu, S. Praveena, A. Pavan, Mayank Khanna, Prabhpreet Singh, Shalu Singh, Arghya Chakravorty, Badrish Badoni, Murali Banavoth, Prashant Sonar, Velmurugan Paramasivam, José Agustín Tapia Hernández, Current Trends and Future Perspectives of Nanomaterials in Food Packaging Application, 2022, 2022, 1687-4129, 1, 10.1155/2022/2745416 | |
14. | Vasanti Suvarna, Arya Nair, Rashmi Mallya, Tabassum Khan, Abdelwahab Omri, Antimicrobial Nanomaterials for Food Packaging, 2022, 11, 2079-6382, 729, 10.3390/antibiotics11060729 | |
15. | Subhankar Das, Manjula Ishwara Kalyani, From trash to treasure: review on upcycling of fruit and vegetable wastes into starch based bioplastics, 2022, 1082-6068, 1, 10.1080/10826068.2022.2158470 | |
16. | Naghmeh Arabzadeh, Elaheh Kowsari, Seeram Ramakrishnab, 2022, Chapter 83-1, 978-981-16-4921-9, 1, 10.1007/978-981-16-4921-9_83-1 | |
17. | Victor Manuel Perez-Puyana, Mercedes Jiménez-Rosado, Antonio Guerrero, Inmaculada Martínez, Alberto Romero, 2023, 9780323905459, 313, 10.1016/B978-0-323-90545-9.00011-2 | |
18. | Jaegyeong Lee, Dongil Kim, Hyosun Lee, Saira Nayab, Ji Hoon Han, Effect of initiator on the catalytic performance of zinc(II) complexes supported by aminomethylquinoline and aminomethylpyridine derived ligands in stereoselective ring opening polymerization of rac-lactide, 2022, 216, 02775387, 115696, 10.1016/j.poly.2022.115696 | |
19. | Beata Michaliszyn-Gabryś, Janusz Krupanek, Mariusz Kalisz, Jonathan Smith, Challenges for Sustainability in Packaging of Fresh Vegetables in Organic Farming, 2022, 14, 2071-1050, 5346, 10.3390/su14095346 | |
20. | Anupam Agarwal, Bushra Shaida, Mayuri Rastogi, Nakshatra Bahadur Singh, Food Packaging Materials with Special Reference to Biopolymers-Properties and Applications, 2023, 6, 2522-5758, 117, 10.1007/s42250-022-00446-w | |
21. | Renato Poli Mari, Jéssica Jenifer Sornas, Andrea C. K. Bierhalz, Polysaccharide-based films reinforced with nanocellulose isolated from raw and bleached cotton, 2023, 30, 0969-0239, 1657, 10.1007/s10570-022-04980-1 | |
22. | Carolina Caicedo, Alma Berenice Jasso‐Salcedo, Lluvia de Abril Alexandra Soriano‐Melgar, Claudio Alonso Díaz‐Cruz, Enrique Javier Jiménez‐Regalado, Rocio Yaneli Aguirre‐Loredo, 2023, 9781119160137, 383, 10.1002/9781119160182.ch18 | |
23. | Célia Boukoufi, Ariane Boudier, Philippe Maincent, Jean Vigneron, Igor Clarot, Food-inspired innovations to improve the stability of active pharmaceutical ingredients, 2022, 623, 03785173, 121881, 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2022.121881 | |
24. | Fitriani Fitriani, Sri Aprilia, Nasrul Arahman, Muhammad Roil Bilad, Hazwani Suhaimi, Nurul Huda, Properties of Biocomposite Film Based on Whey Protein Isolate Filled with Nanocrystalline Cellulose from Pineapple Crown Leaf, 2021, 13, 2073-4360, 4278, 10.3390/polym13244278 | |
25. | Ana Arias, Gumersindo Feijoo, Maria Teresa Moreira, Technological feasibility and environmental assessment of polylactic acid-nisin-based active packaging, 2022, 33, 22149937, e00460, 10.1016/j.susmat.2022.e00460 | |
26. | Roger A. Sheldon, Dean Brady, Green Chemistry, Biocatalysis, and the Chemical Industry of the Future, 2022, 15, 1864-5631, 10.1002/cssc.202102628 | |
27. | Lismet Lazo, Gisela M. Melo, María Luján Auad, Mauricio Filippa, Martin A. Masuelli, Synthesis and Characterization of Chanar Gum Films, 2022, 6, 2504-5377, 10, 10.3390/colloids6010010 | |
28. | Yuanze Sun, Xinfei Li, Xiaomin Li, Jie Wang, Deciphering the Fingerprint of Dissolved Organic Matter in the Soil Amended with Biodegradable and Conventional Microplastics Based on Optical and Molecular Signatures, 2022, 56, 0013-936X, 15746, 10.1021/acs.est.2c06258 | |
29. | Edina Rusen, Gabriela Isopencu, Gabriela Toader, Aurel Diacon, Adrian Dinescu, Alexandra Mocanu, Improved degradability and mechanical properties of bacterial cellulose grafted with PEG derivatives, 2023, 0969-0239, 10.1007/s10570-023-05163-2 | |
30. | Petra Balaban, Adis Puška, INFLUENCE OF PACKAGING PROCESS ON MECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FLEXIBLE PACKAGING MATERIALS, 2022, 1, 28129709, 65, 10.46793/adeletters.2022.1.2.5 | |
31. | Andrés Leobardo Puebla-Duarte, Irela Santos-Sauceda, Francisco Rodríguez-Félix, Rey David Iturralde-García, Daniel Fernández-Quiroz, Ingrid Daniela Pérez-Cabral, Carmen Lizette Del-Toro-Sánchez, Active and Intelligent Packaging: A Review of the Possible Application of Cyclodextrins in Food Storage and Safety Indicators, 2023, 15, 2073-4360, 4317, 10.3390/polym15214317 | |
32. | Sweta Sinha, An overview of biopolymer-derived packaging material, 2024, 15, 2041-2479, 193, 10.1177/20412479241226884 | |
33. | Adegoke Adetunji, Mariana Erasmus, Green Synthesis of Bioplastics from Microalgae: A State-of-the-Art Review, 2024, 16, 2073-4360, 1322, 10.3390/polym16101322 | |
34. | Uwei Kong, Nurul Fazita Mohammad Rawi, Guan Seng Tay, The Potential Applications of Reinforced Bioplastics in Various Industries: A Review, 2023, 15, 2073-4360, 2399, 10.3390/polym15102399 | |
35. | E. Y. Melesse, Y. A. Filinskaya, I. A. Kirsh, Ali Y. Alkhair, O. A. Bannikova, Food packaging Bio-based plastics: Properties, Renewable Biomass resources, Synthesis, and Applications, 2023, 85, 2310-1202, 199, 10.20914/2310-1202-2023-3-199-212 | |
36. | Ronan Farrell, Yvonne J. Cortese, Declan M. Devine, Noel Gately, Margarita Rueda, Lorena Rodriguez, Romina Pezzoli, The function and properties of common food packaging materials and their suitability for reusable packaging: The transition from a linear to circular economy, 2024, 9, 26660865, 100429, 10.1016/j.crgsc.2024.100429 | |
37. | Worraphol Nansu, Gareth Ross, Sukunya Ross, Nungruthai Suphrom, Sararat Mahasaranon, Developments of pH responsive biodegradable monitoring film based on poly(vinyl alcohol) incorporated with Sappan heartwood extract for food packaging applications, 2023, 10, 2372-0484, 465, 10.3934/matersci.2023026 | |
38. | Mukhtar Iderawumi Abdulraheem, Gholamreza Abdi, Nafeesa Farooq Khan, Abdul Wahab, Kasahun Gudeta, Chandan Singh, Oluwadamilola Oluwatoyin Hazzan, 2024, chapter 9, 9798369310946, 245, 10.4018/979-8-3693-1094-6.ch009 | |
39. | Farah Ayuni Mohd Hatta, Qurratu Aini Mat Ali, Mohd Izhar Ariff Mohd Kashim, Rashidi Othman, Sahilah Abd Mutalib, Nurul Hafizah Mohd Nor, Recent Advances in Halal Bioactive Materials for Intelligent Food Packaging Indicator, 2023, 12, 2304-8158, 2387, 10.3390/foods12122387 | |
40. | Mangal Mangal, Chebrolu Venkateswara Rao, Tamal Banerjee, Bioplastic: an eco‐friendly alternative to non‐biodegradable plastic, 2023, 72, 0959-8103, 984, 10.1002/pi.6555 | |
41. | Marzieh Baneshi, Alberta N.A. Aryee, Marcia English, Martin Mkandawire, Designing Plant-Based Smart Food Packaging Solutions for Prolonging Consumable Life of Perishable Foods, 2024, 5, 2772753X, 100769, 10.1016/j.focha.2024.100769 | |
42. | Daofen Huang, Haoran Dong, Xing Li, Long Li, Junmin Deng, Junyang Xiao, Jie Dong, Shuangjie Xiao, Transformation of dissolved organic matter leached from biodegradable and conventional microplastics under UV/chlorine treatment and the subsequent effect on contaminant removal, 2024, 480, 03043894, 135994, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.135994 | |
43. | Jie Wang, Minghao Jia, Long Zhang, Xiaona Li, Xiaokai Zhang, Zhenyu Wang, Biodegradable microplastics pose greater risks than conventional microplastics to soil properties, microbial community and plant growth, especially under flooded conditions, 2024, 931, 00489697, 172949, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172949 | |
44. | Rui M.S. Cruz, Irene Albertos, Janira Romero, Sofia Agriopoulou, Theodoros Varzakas, 2024, 108, 9780443293924, 135, 10.1016/bs.afnr.2023.10.003 | |
45. | Emiru Melesse, Y. A. Filinskaya, Ali Alkhair, O. A. Bannikova, Marjen Eyeberdiyeva, Overall Review the Current Tend and Difficulties of Antimicrobial compounds in Composite Food Packaging Applications, 2022, 84, 2310-1202, 204, 10.20914/2310-1202-2022-3-204-213 | |
46. | Sunita Adak, Ramalingam Kayalvizhi, Moumita Bishai, Samuel Jacob, Debajyoti Kundu, Advancements in microbial production of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) from wastes for sustainable active food packaging: An eclectic review, 2024, 60, 18788181, 103288, 10.1016/j.bcab.2024.103288 | |
47. | Usman Lawal Usman, Sushmita Banerjee, Nakshatra Bahadur Singh, 2024, Chapter 116-1, 978-981-99-3516-1, 1, 10.1007/978-981-99-3516-1_116-1 | |
48. | Andreas Panou, Ioannis Karabagias, Biodegradable Packaging Materials for Foods Preservation: Sources, Advantages, Limitations, and Future Perspectives, 2023, 13, 2079-6412, 1176, 10.3390/coatings13071176 | |
49. | Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Fatma Abd El Gawad, Elsayed A.E. Ali, Sangeetha Karunanithi, Puput Yugiani, Prem Prakash Srivastav, Nanotechnology: Current applications and future scope in food packaging systems, 2024, 13, 27722759, 100131, 10.1016/j.meafoo.2023.100131 | |
50. | Erhan Ada, Yigit Kazancoglu, Çisem Lafcı, Banu Y. Ekren, Cansu Çimitay Çelik, Identifying the Drivers of Circular Food Packaging: A Comprehensive Review for the Current State of the Food Supply Chain to Be Sustainable and Circular, 2023, 15, 2071-1050, 11703, 10.3390/su151511703 | |
51. | Emine Gizem Acar, Buse Sezer, Gurbuz Gunes, 2024, 9780128035818, 10.1016/B978-0-323-95486-0.00052-1 | |
52. | S Priyanka, Karthick Raja Namasivayam S, Arvind Bharani R. S., Arun John, Biocompatible green technology principles for the fabrication of food packaging material with noteworthy mechanical and antimicrobial properties-- A sustainable developmental goal towards the effective, safe food preservation strategy, 2023, 336, 00456535, 139240, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139240 | |
53. | Anna Pakulska, Edyta Bartosiewicz, Sabina Galus, The Potential of Apple and Blackcurrant Pomace Powders as the Components of Pectin Packaging Films, 2023, 13, 2079-6412, 1409, 10.3390/coatings13081409 | |
54. | Fath Al, Ghendis Ayu, Gina Hasibuan, Nisaul Dalimunthe, Vikram Alexander, The effect of glycerol and sago starch addition on the characteristics of bioplastic based on orange peel pectin, 2024, 30, 1451-9372, 359, 10.2298/CICEQ231214007A | |
55. | Asma M. Tatagar, Javed I. Moodi, Gulamnabi L. Vanti, Bahubali Murgunde, Development of sustainable ternary bionanocomposite film reinforced with nanocellulose and nanoclay for microbial efficacy, 2024, 59, 0022-2461, 6334, 10.1007/s10853-024-09568-7 | |
56. | Patrícia S. Ferreira, Sónia M. Ribeiro, Rita Pontes, João Nunes, Production methods and applications of bioactive polylactic acid: a review, 2024, 22, 1610-3653, 1831, 10.1007/s10311-024-01729-z | |
57. | Paula Camarena-Bononad, Pedro A. V. Freitas, Chelo González-Martínez, Amparo Chiralt, Maria Vargas, Influence of the Purification Degree of Cellulose from Posidonia oceanica on the Properties of Cellulose-PLA Composites, 2024, 5, 2673-4176, 807, 10.3390/polysaccharides5040050 | |
58. | Maria G. Bauer, Fabio Henkel, Ufuk Gürer, Oliver Lieleg, Bio‐Based and Degradable Food Packaging Materials: Where Are They?, 2024, 2196-7350, 10.1002/admi.202400645 | |
59. | Naghmeh Arabzadeh, Elaheh Kowsari, Seeram Ramakrishnab, 2025, Chapter 83, 978-981-97-4617-0, 151, 10.1007/978-981-97-4618-7_83 | |
60. | Tarakeshwar Senapati, Sukhendu Dey, Apurba Ratan Ghosh, Palas Samanta, 2025, Chapter 89, 978-981-97-4617-0, 339, 10.1007/978-981-97-4618-7_89 | |
61. | Farhang Hameed Awlqadr, Ammar B. Altemimi, Qausar Hamed AlKaisy, Syamand Ahmed Qadir, Aryan Mahmood Faraj, Tablo Azad H.Slih, Rawaa H. Tlay, Tarek Gamal Mohamed Abd El-Maksoud, Franscesco Cacciola, Advancements in Nanotechnology for Enhanced Food Safety and Hygiene: Pathogen Detection, Smart Packaging, and Preservation Applications, 2024, 9, 2411-7706, 95, 10.24017/science.2024.2.8 | |
62. | Deepti Katiyar, Rajnandani Singh, Shreya Dixit, Debaprasad Ghosh, Rashmi Saxena Pal, 2025, Chapter 6, 978-3-031-78556-6, 145, 10.1007/978-3-031-78557-3_6 | |
63. | A. Anli Dino, G. Kishore, Samuel Lalthazuala Rokhum, Gurunathan Baskar, Bioplastic production using waste macroalgal biomass: A holistic review on challenges, prospects, economic viability and sustainability analysis, 2025, 13, 22133437, 116108, 10.1016/j.jece.2025.116108 | |
64. | Paula Camarena-Bononad, Pedro A. V. Freitas, Amparo Chiralt, Maria Vargas, Use of Cellulose Fibres from Posidonia oceanica to Obtain Chitosan Biocomposites and Poly(lactic Acid) Laminates, 2025, 6, 2673-4176, 27, 10.3390/polysaccharides6020027 | |
65. | Walter Leal Filho, Jelena Barbir, Madhavi Venkatesan, Amanda Lange Salvia, Andrea Dobri, Neda Bošković, João Henrique Paulino Pires Eustachio, Ian Ingram, Maria Alzira Pimenta Dinis, Policy Gaps and Opportunities in Bio-Based Plastics: Implications for Sustainable Food Packaging, 2025, 14, 2304-8158, 1955, 10.3390/foods14111955 |
Type of materials | Pros | Cons | References |
Glass | Recyclable Inert to a variety of foods |
Heavy and fragile Expensive to transport |
[25,26] |
Metal | Long shelf life Resistant to heat |
Expensive May be corroded |
[27,28] |
Plastic | Difficult to break Can be shaped into various forms |
Poor heat resistance Nonbiodegradable |
[25,29] |
Wood | Sturdy Easy to repair |
Only used as pallets and crates | [1] |
Paper/paperboard | Easily printable surfaces Low cost Lightweight |
Weak barrier against water Used for dry products only |
[4,27] |
Types of bioplastic | Properties | Examples | References |
Polymers from biomass | Compostable | Starch-based, cellulose-based, protein-based | [50,51] |
Polymers from bio-derived monomers | Biodegradable or recyclable | PLA, bio-based PE, bio-based PET, bio-based PP | [52,53,54,55] |
Polymers from microbial fermentation | Biodegradable | Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) | [56] |
Polymers from both bio-derived monomers and petroleum-based monomers | Biodegradable or recyclable | poly(butylene succinate) (PBS), poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT), Pro-oxidant Additive Containing (PAC) plastic | [53,57] |
Type of materials | Pros | Cons | References |
Glass | Recyclable Inert to a variety of foods |
Heavy and fragile Expensive to transport |
[25,26] |
Metal | Long shelf life Resistant to heat |
Expensive May be corroded |
[27,28] |
Plastic | Difficult to break Can be shaped into various forms |
Poor heat resistance Nonbiodegradable |
[25,29] |
Wood | Sturdy Easy to repair |
Only used as pallets and crates | [1] |
Paper/paperboard | Easily printable surfaces Low cost Lightweight |
Weak barrier against water Used for dry products only |
[4,27] |
Types of bioplastic | Properties | Examples | References |
Polymers from biomass | Compostable | Starch-based, cellulose-based, protein-based | [50,51] |
Polymers from bio-derived monomers | Biodegradable or recyclable | PLA, bio-based PE, bio-based PET, bio-based PP | [52,53,54,55] |
Polymers from microbial fermentation | Biodegradable | Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) | [56] |
Polymers from both bio-derived monomers and petroleum-based monomers | Biodegradable or recyclable | poly(butylene succinate) (PBS), poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT), Pro-oxidant Additive Containing (PAC) plastic | [53,57] |