Polymer Degradation and Stability 133 (2016) 174e181

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Polymer Degradation and Stability

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/polydegstab

A renewable and compostable polymer for reducing consumption of

non-degradable plastics
Bahareh Bahramian, Ali Fathi, Fariba Dehghani*
The University of Sydney, School of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Poly(propylene carbonate) (PPC) is a biodegradable and partially renewable polymer that is synthesized
Received 22 July 2016 from CO2. PPC is a suitable alternative to non-degradable polymers and a possible option for effectively
Received in revised form recycling CO2. In this study, the properties of PPC are compared with other commercial polymers. It is
23 August 2016
demonstrated that while the mechanical properties of PPC are comparable to non-degradable poly-
Accepted 27 August 2016
ethylene, its permeability to oxygen and water vapor are remarkably lower. PPC degradation in compost
Available online 29 August 2016
soil is nearly 9% within six months that is comparable with biodegradable polymers such as Eco-Flex.
Meanwhile, PPC is chemically stable when exposed to a broad range of simulated media such as low
Keywords:
Poly(propylene carbonate)
or high pH as negligible mass loss and molecular weight deductions are detected after six months
Biodegradable polymer exposure to these media. Therefore, PPC is deemed to be an ideal polymer for food packaging and many
Compostable other applications such as biomedical devices. The application of PPC can significantly reduce the
Packaging disposal of non-degradable polymers in landfills and minimize the reliance on fossil fuel based polymers.
© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
The broad use and application of non-degradable plastics in
recent decades has led to major environmental issues, such as the
lowering capacity of landfills, and the exposure of the ecosystem to
hazardous pollutants [1,2]. As a results of this impact many coun-
tries has banned to use non-degradable polymer for food pack-
aging. Introducing biodegradable plastics, like Poly (propylene
carbonate) (PPC), is deemed as a promising solution. Poly (pro-
pylene carbonate) (PPC) degrades enzymatically into water and CO2
that are non-hazardous. The polymer is synthesized by copoly-
merization of CO2 and propylene oxide [3]. Converting CO2, that
attributes to the global warming into a biodegradable plastic with
favorable properties can mitigate some of environmental issues
arise from using non-degradable polymers [4,5].
PPC is produced in commercial scale by several companies such
as Novomer and AZO-materials as a binder, plasticizer, and adhe-
sive [5]. PPC can also be used for the fabrication of agricultural
mulches because of its biodegradability, transparency, and re-
sistivity to moisture [6]. Our recent study showed the superior
properties of PPC when compared to polyester based polymers
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fariba.dehghani@sydney.edu.au (F. Dehghani).
such as poly (lactic acid), for biomedical applications [7]. PPC's
degradation products are not acidic; this benign degradation
behavior in the body eradicates the risk of inflammation. However,
the broad commercial application of PPC as a plastic has been
obstructed due to the low glass transition temperature (25e45
C)
of the polymer [8].
In the previous attempts to increase the glass transition tem-
perature of PPC, the polymer was composited with different fillers
such as starch and cellulose [9,10]. For instance, the mechanical
properties of PPC-starch blends are comparable with polyesters and
their composition can be tuned and varied for different applications
[7,11]. The addition of filler generally decreases the elongation at
break, whilst enhancing the overall tensile strength. Low molecular
interaction between PPC and the filler might result in heteroge-
neous distribution of the filler within the polymer structure and
thus might be due to low elongation strength of the composite.
However, PPC-starch blends have increased water sorption and
hydrolysis and a tensile strength that is 20% greater than that of
pure PPC [12]. This effect is attributed to a hydrogen bonding that
exists between the hydroxyl groups of starch and the carbonyl
groups of PPC [7]. The interaction between PPC and starch can be
improved by using less polar derivatives of starch such as starch
acetate (SA) [13]. The tensile strength of PPC- 20 wt% SA is 50%
higher than neat PPC. In yet another study, the tensile strength of
PPC was increased from 1.8 to 19 MPa and its Young's modulus was

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2016.08.014
0141-3910/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 B. Bahramian et al. / Polymer Degradation and Stability 133 (2016) 174e181
enhanced from 201 to 1414 MPa by the addition of 1 wt% cellulose
nanocrystals (CNCs) [14].
In recent years Cardia Bioplastics has introduced a new type of
biodegradable plastic bag that is fabricated from a blend of PPC and
starch [15]. However, the hurdle for the broad application of this
composite is the high level of metal based catalyst residue in PPC;
the acceptable threshold for metal catalyst according to the stan-
dards for compostable and biodegradable polymers is 150 ppm
[16]. We have recently developed a novel solvent free process that
tackled this issue and efficiently removed the level of metal resi-
dues to below the accepted level for composting [17]. With this
advancement, we are able to access several pathways for the future
and wide-ranging applications of PPC and its derivatives. The aim of
current study is therefore to assess the practical feasibility of using
PPC as an alternative plastic in different commodity products. To
this end, the physico-mechanical properties of PPC alone and its
composites are systematically compared with commercially avail-
able plastics, e.g. low density polyethylene (LDPE), polybutyrate
adipate terephthalate (Eco-Flex), and polyethylene/starch blend
(commercial name: BLFO2). Primarily, the mechanical strength,
biodegradability, chemical stability and high resistivity to oxygen
and water penetration were measured.
2. Experimental
2.1. Materials
Poly(propylene carbonate) resin with the molecular weight of
463 KDa and poly dispersity of 2.03 was kindly supplied by Growth
Technology International Pty Ltd. Eco-Flex and PE/Starch blend
(70% starch) with the commercial name of BLFO2 were supplied by
Cardia Bioplastics Ltd. LDPE was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich.
Buffer solutions of pH 4, pH 7 and pH 10 were purchased from
Ajax Finechem. Edible olive oil was used as fatty food simulated
media. Cellulose powder (~50 mm), soluble starch powder
(~200 mm) and Dimethylacetamide (DMAC) were purchased from
Sigma-Aldrich. Sodium chloride was supplied form Merck and the
mature compost soil from Landtasia Organic Farms.
2.2. Preparation of polymer films
Thin films of each polymer (thickness 500e1000 mm) were
prepared by hot melt compression above their melting tempera-
ture (130
C for PPC, 150
C for Eco-Flex, LDPE and BLFO2, PPC-St
50-50, PPC-Cell 75-25) and under the pressure of 10 kPa for PPC,
2 kPa for Eco-Flex, LDPE and BLFO2, and 7 kPa for PPC-St 50-50,
PPC-Cell 75-25 in a period of 60 min for PPC, PPC-St 50-50, PPC-Cell
75-25, and 20 min for Eco-Flex, LDPE and BLFO2.
2.3. Mechanical properties
The tensile test was conducted according to ASTM standard
using dumbbell shaped samples that were cut from polymer films
(thickness 500e1000 mm). Universal testing instrument (Instron
5543) equipped with a 100 N load cell was used to measure tensile
strength of these samples. In addition, the tear resistance of spec-
imens were determined using Universal testing instrument (Ins-
tron 5543) equipped with a 100 N load cell. This test was conducted
using standard trouser-shaped test specimens [18].
2.4. Barrier properties
oxygen transmission rate (OTR): Mocon Ox-Tran 2/21 instrument
was used to conduct OTR analysis for thin films of polymers
(~500 mm) according to ASTM D3985-05. The test area for the
175
samples was 5 cm2 and Mocon self-adhesive foil masks were used
on both sides of films to seal each test specimen. Pure Oxygen were
applied in 30
C and dry condition (<3% relative humidity).
water vapor transmission rate (WVTR): Mocon Permatran W 3/31
was applied to test WVTR of thin films (~500 mm) of polymers ac-
cording to ASTM F 1249-06. The test area of samples was nearly
5 cm2. The analysis was conducted at 37.8
C (estimated tempera-
ture uncertainty ±0.5
C) and 90% RH for a period of 2 days.
2.5. Chemical resistance to food simulated media
Polymer samples with the dimension of 5 mm  5 mm were
immersed in various food simulated media such as acidic (pH 4),
neutral (pH 7) and basic (pH 10) buffers, 50% ethanol/water solu-
tion and edible olive oil for a period of 6 months at ambient con-
dition. The media was changed on a weekly basis and samples were
kept in sterile conditions to avoid the effect of microbial contami-
nation on degradation. The samples were removed from buffer
solutions at different time intervals and washed by milliQ water to
remove all media residues and then were dried. The samples
incubated in olive oil were washed by ethanol prior to milliQ water
to remove the residual of oil. Subsequently, the weight loss of
samples at each time point was recorded. Three samples were
collected at each condition to acquire statistically valid data.
2.6. Soil burial biodegradation
Soil burial biodegradation test was conducted in pots contained
10 cm mature compost soil made from food and garden organics
(containing active fungi, yeast, actinomycetes and Photosynthetic
Bacteria) sandwiched between 10 cm layers of wood chips to
maintain the moisture content. Polymer films (thickness
800e1000 mm) with the dimension of 4 cm  4 cm were buried in
the middle part of the mature compost soil. The pots were main-
tained in a controlled temperature and moisture incubator
(T ¼ 40
C, RH ¼ 60e70%). The relative humidity of the chamber
was controlled by using supersaturated sodium chloride solution
and measured on a regular basis [19]. To avoid water loss by
evaporation, known amount of water was added to the soil every
other day. Samples were removed from the soil to assess their
biodegradation rate in predetermined time intervals of up to 6
months. After removal from the soil, samples were washed with
milliQ water twice to remove soil residue and dirt and dried in
vacuum oven until observing a constant weight. The degree of
biodegradation of samples at each stage was assessed by measuring
their weight loss, surface morphology, molecular weight, tensile
properties and chemical structure.
2.7. Gel permeation chromatography (GPC)
The molecular weight of samples from biodegradation test was
measured using the Gel Permeation Chromatography on a Shi-
madzu CBM-20A system with an Agilent Polargel-M guard column
and three Phenomenex Phenogel columns using dimethyl acet-
amide (Containing LiBr 0.03% w/w to avoid precipitation of the
polymer) as a mobile phase at a flow rate of 1.0 ml/min at 50
C. The
system was equipped with a Shimadzu RID-10A differential
refractive index detector and Wyatt MiniDawn TREOS light scat-
tering. The GPC system was calibrated with narrow polystyrene
(PS) standards (PDI < 1.1).
2.8. Nuclear magnetic response (1HNMR)
Chemical structure of PPC during the biodegradation test was
determined by proton nuclear magnetic response (1HNMR)
176 B. Bahramian et al. / Polymer Degradation and Stability 133 (2016) 174e181

spectroscopy. Solutions of PPC in chloroform-d1(CDCL3) were 200

analyzed using a Burker NMR spectrometer (Varian 400 MR). The
180
A **
final molar ratio of functional groups was calculated based on the
integration of peaks. 160

Tensile Modulus (Mpa)

140

2.9. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) 120

100
The surface morphology of PPC films from biodegradation and
chemical resistance tests was observed by the SEM (Zeiss ULTRA 80
Plus SEM) at 15 kV. Prior to this analysis PPC samples were 60
mounted on aluminum stubs, using conductive carbon paint, and
40
then gold sputtered using the Emitech K550X sputter coater.
20

2.10. Statistical analysis 0

Eco-Flex BL-FO2
BLFO2 LDPE PPC
Data is reported as mean ± STD. One way analysis of variance 16
(ANOVA) is performed using Excel for single comparisons. Statis- B **
tical significance was accepted at p < 0.05 and indicated in the
14 **
Figures as * (p < 0.05), ** (p < 0.01) and *** (p < 0.001). 12

Ultimate Strength (MPa)

10
3. Results and discussion
8
The mechanical properties, degradation rate, permeability to
oxygen and moisture and resistivity to chemicals are the main 6
characteristics that commonly are measured for assessing the
application of a polymer, particularly for food packaging. We 4
measured these properties of PPC and compared them with poly-
mers such as LDPE and Eco-Flex that are broadly used. 2

0
3.1. Mechanical properties Eco-Flex BL-FO2
BLFO2 LDPE PPC
120
The mechanical properties are critical in the selection of poly- C
mers for different applications. Any impact during the handling,
100
*
shipment and storage of food may affect the safety and the quality
Tear Resistance (N/mm)

of the final product. An important parameter in food packaging is

tensile strength as it determines the maximum load a material can 80
withstand under elongation until it ruptures. The results in Fig. 1A
demonstrate that the tensile modulus of PPC was three-fold higher 60 **
than biodegradable Eco-Flex polymer and it was within the same
range as non-degradable LDPE. The ultimate strength of PPC was
significantly higher than LDPE and Eco-Flex (Fig. 1B). Additionally, 40
the durability of the polymers against the tear force and growth of
any crack under tension force are of great importance. The results 20
presented in Fig. 1C show that the tear resistance of PPC was nearly
five-fold higher than LDPE and significantly higher than BLFO2.
0
These data confirmed that PPC films have comparably better tensile LDPE
Eco-Flex PPC PE BLFO2
properties than the most commonly used biodegradable and non-
degradable polymers. Fig. 1. A) Tensile modulus, B) ultimate strength, and C) tear resistance of different
polymers.

3.2. Barrier properties

The barrier property of a material used in packaging or medical
devices plays a critical role on a product's shelf life. For example,
small molecules, such as oxygen and water vapor may permeate
through a polymer and adversely impact on the safety and the
quality of the contents [20]. Our study illustrates the superior
barrier properties of PPC. The results in Fig. 2 demonstrate that the
oxygen transmission rate (OTR) and water vapor transmission rate
(WVTR) through PPC were lower than LDPE and Eco-Flex. There-
fore, application of PPC for food packaging can potentially reduce
the risk of food oxidation and preserve food quality by reducing the
rate of water loss or absorption.
3.3. Chemical resistance in food simulated media
It is pivotal to determine the chemical resistance of a polymer,
particularly, a packaging material in different simulated conditions.
For instance, the residue of polymer degradation might have a
negative impact on food safety and quality [20]. Our previous study
demonstrated slow degradation of PPC compared to PLA in buffer
solution [7]. Upon the addition of enzymes such as a-amylase and
lipase in the buffer solution the degradation of PPC was only 9%
within eight weeks [20]. In this study, food simulated media are
used to further examine the degradation of PPC and its chemical
 B. Bahramian et al. / Polymer Degradation and Stability 133 (2016) 174e181
Fig. 2. Comparison of A) OTR and B) WVTR of PPC with other commercial polymers.
resistance [21]. PPC films were placed in different media such at pH
4, 7 and 10, 50% (v%) ethanol and edible oil. The physico-chemical
properties of samples were then analyzed by using gravimetric
technique, SEM, GPC and NMR analyses.
After six months incubation at ambient conditions, no signifi-
cant mass loss was observed for PPC, as well as commercial LDPE
and Eco-Flex (p > 0.05) when exposed to different media. On the
other hand, the results in Fig. 3 show that while mass loss for BLFO2
films was negligible in fatty media, it was nearly 7% within six
months period in other media such as acidic, alkaline, and alco-
holic. This mass loss is due to the hydrophilic nature of starch in the
structure of BLF2.
In addition, results in Fig. 4 demonstrate negligible effect on
surface morphology of PPC after this test. GPC analysis showed that
the molecular weight of PPC did not change within this period of
incubation in food simulated media (p > 0.05). PPC therefore can be
used alone or as a coating polymer for packaging a broad range of
8 average molecular weight of PPC was decreased and the PDI was
7 elevated. As an illustration, after six months the PPC molecular
6
weight Loss (%)
5 mentations of random units from the large polymer chains. The
4
pH4
3 pH7
2
pH10
x 50% Ethanol
1 * Olive Oil
0 films in Fig. 7. E endorsed the appearance of erosion on the surface
0 50 100 150 200
Time (day)
Fig. 3. Degradation of BLFO2 films in various media within six months period.
177
food products. The hydrophobic nature of PPC and its chemical
resistance make this polymer more suitable for packaging
compared to renewable and natural based polymers such as starch.
3.4. Soil burial biodegradation
The biodegradation and composting rate of a polymer is gov-
erned by several factors such as molecular weight, surface area,
concentration and type of additives, bacteria composition and
condition of the soil [22]. Previous studies reported 4% mass loss of
PPC films (MW ¼ 50e65 KDa, thickness ~ 40e50 mm) buried under
enriched garden soil for six months [23]. However, the result of
another study in the standard composting condition for a 300 mm
film of PPC with high molecular weight of 670 KDa demonstrated
considerable decomposition of 63% after nearly three months [22].
Such a broad discrepancy in the degradation rate reported for PPC
most likely due to different experimental conditions, i.e. variation
in PPC characteristics, types of soil, microorganisms and enzymes
presented in different studies. Accordingly, we assessed the
biodegradation rate of PPC and other polymers at standard condi-
tion to avoid any inconsistency. The degradation behavior of these
polymers were compared in two different soil types including
sterilized garden soil and compost soil at a controlled temperature
and moisture content (40
C, 50% RH). In the case of sterilized
garden soil, less than 10% mass loss was measured for BLFO2
(p < 0.01), and no degradation was observed for PPC, LDPE and Eco-
Flex after six-month burial at the same temperature and relative
humidity condition (p > 0.05). The small degradation rate for BLFO2
was solely due to hydrolysis of starch.
The degradation of PPC and other polymer samples was signif-
icant when they buried under non sterile compost soil. As the re-
sults in Fig. 5 demonstrate, the mass loss of BLFO2 films was nearly
80 wt% after six months due to the presence of starch in their
structure that is a hydrophilic and biodegradable polymer. None-
theless, no significant mass loss was observed for pure LDPE films.
In addition, mass loss of PPC films was nearly 8% within six months,
which was slightly lower than the biodegradable Eco-Flex. PPC
degradation rate in soil was comparable with the value acquired
from our previous study using a buffer solution that contained
enzymes (110 U/L from Rhizopus oryzae). It can be concluded that
the soil composition and its microbial level have paramount im-
pacts on the PPC biodegradation rate. Therefore, the enzymatic
reaction plays a key role in breaking the PPC polymer structure and
its degradation.
Gel permeation chromatography (GPC) was conducted to
investigate the impact of degradation on the average molecular
weight and poly-dispersity index (PDI) of PPC films. As shown in
Fig. 6 and Table 1, the GPC chromatogram of PPC was gradually
broadened by increasing the degradation period. In addition,
weight was reduced nearly 15%. These results confirmed the
breakdown of PPC in the molecular level and showed the seg-
microscopic images of polymer films at different time points during
the biodegradation test are presented in Fig. 7. As it was anticipated,
the degradation of polyethylene films during six months period
was negligible. However, the surface of BLFO2 films was substan-
tially degraded and both PPC and Eco-flex films were degraded
gradually during this period. Furthermore, the SEM images of PPC
of these samples after six months.
1
HNMR analysis was conducted on PPC films at different time
intervals post-soil burial degradation study to further study PPC
degradation mechanism. The results in Fig. 8 demonstrate chemical
178 B. Bahramian et al. / Polymer Degradation and Stability 133 (2016) 174e181

Fig. 4. SEM images of the PPC films A) before incubation and after 6 months incubation in B) acidic, C) basic and D) 50% ethanol E) fatty food simulated media.

90 Table 1
Molecular weight and PDI of the PPC films before and after soil burial
80 LDPE biodegradation.
PPC
70 Eco-Flex PPC sample Mw PDI
Weight Loss (%)

x BLFO2
60 Control (month 0) 463,746 3.26
Second months 417,026 4.69
50 Third months 409,809 5.58
Sixth month 394,721 6.23
40

30

20 The 1H NMR spectra of PPC samples showed that after degradation,

the ratio of b/d was significantly decreased. The biodegradation of
10
PPC is due to the breakdown of the carbonate linkages in the
0 polymer backbone. The gradual reduction in the ratio of in-
0 50 100 150 200 tegrations at (4.18, b), and (3.56, d) endorsees the carbonate linkage
Time (Day)
breakdown in the polymer backbone. For example, b/d ratio was
Fig. 5. The weight loss of polymer films in compost soil as a function of time.
decreased from 14.41 at first day to 13.50 and 12.11 after one and six
months, respectively.
A tensile test was conducted to assess the impact of degradation
on the mechanical strength of PPC films. As depicted in Fig. 9, PPC
PPC (Month 0) tensile modulus decreased nearly 45% after six months degradation
Month 2
Month 3 in soil. In fact, this drop of mechanical strength was attributed to
Month 6
the gradual reduction of molecular weight and the degradation of
PPC chemical structure. The conversion of large molecular chains
with carbonate linkages to the short chains with ether linkages has
a direct impact on the mechanical properties of PPC.

3.5. Effect of addition of renewable natural polymers on the

properties of PPC

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 We attempted to blend PPC with cellulose and starch, two

RetenƟon
RetentionTime (min)
Time (min) renewable natural polymers, to promote the mechanical properties
of PPC and to enhance its degradation rate. Our preliminary results
Fig. 6. GPC chromatograms of PPC samples before and after soil burial biodegradation.
showed that homogenous blends were achievable when the com-
positions of starch and cellulose microparticles in PPC were below
50 wt% and 25 wt%, respectively. These compositions are the
shifts of PPC after biodegradation: 1H NMR (CDCl3), 1.31 (3H, CH3),
maximum amount of starch and cellulose that could be added to
4.18 (2H, CH2CH), 4.98 (1H, CH2CH) for carbonate structure (n) [24],
PPC to maintain homogeneity, desirable mechanical properties and
and 1.14 (3H, CH3), 3.56 (2H, CH2CH), 3.40 (1H, CH2CH) for ether
also higher degradation rate. The addition of both starch and cel-
structure (m) [25]. The ratio of integrations at (4.18, b) and (3.56, d)
lulose to PPC enhanced the tensile modulus of PPC remarkably as
were compared to assess the effect of biodegradation on PPC films.
depicted in Fig. 10. However, these natural polymers had negligible
 B. Bahramian et al. / Polymer Degradation and Stability 133 (2016) 174e181 179

Fig. 7. The images of A) PPC, B) LDPE, C) Eco-flex, D) BLFO2 and E) SEM images of PPC films at different time points of soil burial.

Fig. 8. 1H NMR spectra of PPC in A) day 1 and B) month 6 of soil burial.

180 B. Bahramian et al. / Polymer Degradation and Stability 133 (2016) 174e181

250 forth. Therefore, these blends could not be used for the applications
** in which the high tear force is critical. However, the lower amount
200 of starch in composite may have less impact on this property of PPC.
Tensile Modulus (MPa)

For instance, the tear resistance of PPC-10% starch is 42.4 ± 0.18 N/

mm, more than four-fold higher than the PPC- 50% starch blend.
150
We examined the presence of starch and cellulose on the PPC
chemical resistance when placed in different media. The results in
100 Fig. 11 show that degradation of PPC films that contained 50 wt%
starch and 25 wt% cellulose were 1% and 3%, respectively during six
50 months in various aqueous media such as acidic, basic, neutral and
alcoholic. However, the degradation of both blends in oil was
negligible. Nevertheless, pure PPC films were chemically resistant
0
PPC Month 3 Month 6

Fig. 9. Tensile modulus of PPC films during the biodegradation test.

5
pH4
pH7 A
impact on the ultimate strength of PPC. On the other hand, as 4 pH10
x 50% Ethanol

weight Loss (%)

shown in Fig. 10C, the presence of starch and cellulose had an
adverse effect on the tear resistance of PPC. In fact, the addition of 3 * Olive Oil

50% starch significantly decreased the tear resistance of PPC to one

2
1000
900 A ** * 1
800
Tensile Modulus (MPa)

700 0
600 0 50 100 150 200
500 Time (day)
5
400 pH4
pH7 B
300
4 pH10
200 x 50% Ethanol
weight Loss (%)

100
3 * Olive Oil
0
PPC PPC-St 50-50 PPC-Cell 75-25
18 2
16
B *
14 1
Ultimate Strength (MPa)

12
10 0
0 50 100 150 200
8
Time (day)
6
Fig. 11. Degradation of A) PPC-St 50e50 and B) PPC-Cell 75-25 films in various media
4
in six months period.
2
0
PPC PPC-St 50-50 PPC-Cell 75-25 60
PPC
80 PPC-Cell 75-25
C ** 50 x PPC-St 50-50
Weight Loss (%)

**
Tear Resistance (N/mm)

60 40

30
40

20

20
10

0 0
PPC PPC-St 50-50 PPC-Cell 75-25 0 50 100 150 200
Time (Day)
Fig. 10. A)Tensile Modulus, B) Ultimate Strength, and C) Tear Resistance of PPC and PPC
composites with natural polymers. Fig. 12. The weight loss of polymer films in compost soil as a function of time.
 B. Bahramian et al. / Polymer Degradation and Stability 133 (2016) 174e181
to these environments within six months of soaking. Therefore, for
food packaging applications, it should be noted that the addition of
starch and cellulose to PPC slightly decreased its chemical stability.
However, PPC can be used as a thin film coating on the surface of
PPC-starch to maintain the chemical stability.
The addition of starch and cellulose increased the degradation
rate of PPC in soil after six months to 50% and 20%, respectively as
depicted in Fig. 12. Indeed, the presence of these hydrophilic fillers
reduces the water contact angle of samples and consequently in-
creases their hydrophilicity. Therefore, the water penetrates into
the bulk of the polymer and accelerates the degradation rate of
starch and cellulose in soil compared to PPC.
4. Conclusion
We demonstrated that PPC is a favorable biodegradable polymer
for a broad range of applications. The mechanical properties of PPC
are higher than biodegradable Eco-Flex and comparable to LDPE.
Moreover, PPC has excellent barrier properties that are pivotal to
prolonging the shelf life of many products. In addition to its com-
parable physical properties with other plastics in the market, PPC is
chemically resistant to different simulated media. Therefore, it can
be used for the storage of a broad range of products. Its soil burial
biodegradation rate in simulated landfill conditions is comparable
with biodegradable Eco-Flex. Finally, we demonstrated that by the
addition of natural polymers such as starch and cellulose, PPC can
be carefully tuned for desirable applications. Accordingly, biode-
gradable PPC can be contemplated as an alternative to non-
degradable plastics, particularly for packaging of food and
biomedical products. Most importantly, the application of this
polymer will contribute significantly to reducing non-degradable
plastic waste and eliminating our reliance on fossil-based
polymers.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support of Australian
Research Council (Grant Number: LP120200489) and Growth
Technology International Pty Ltd. BB also acknowledges the
Australian Government for scholarship award and technical sup-
ports for polymer films preparation from Dr. Shao-Cong Dia in the
School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering and
Mr. Hadi Sabouri for GPC analysis in the School of Chemistry at the
University of Sydney.
References
[1] K. Leja, G. Lewandowicz, Polymer biodegradation and biodegradable polymers
- a review, Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 19 (2) (2010) 255e266.
[2] http://www.epa.gov/waste, Access Date 25/04/2014.
181
[3] S.B. Khan, K. Akhtar, J. Seo, H. Han, M.A. Ru, Effect of nano-filler dispersion on
the thermal, mechanical and water sorption properties of green environ-
mental polymer, Chin. J. Polym. Sci. 30 (5) (2012) 735e743.
[4] C. Song, Global challenges and strategies for control, conversion and utiliza-
tion of CO2 for sustainable development involving energy, catalysis, adsorp-
tion and chemical processing, Catal. Today 115 (1e4) (2006) 2e32.
[5] Y. Qin, X. Wang, Carbon dioxide-based copolymers: environmental benefits of
PPC, an industrially viable catalyst, Biotechnol. J. 5 (11) (2010) 1164e1180.
[6] S. Kasirajan, M. Ngouajio, Polyethylene and biodegradable mulches for agri-
cultural applications: a review, Agron. Sustain. Dev. 32 (2) (2012) 501e529.
[7] I. Manavitehrani, A. Fathi, Y. Wang, P.K. Maitz, F. Dehghani, Reinforced
poly(propylene carbonate) composite with enhanced and tunable character-
istics, an alternative for poly(lactic acid), ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 7 (40)
(2015) 22421e22430.
[8] G.A. Luinstra, E. Borchardt, Material Properties of Poly(propylene carbonates),
2012, pp. 29e48.
[9] X.C. Ge, X.H. Li, Q. Zhu, L. Li, Y.Z. Meng, Preparation and properties of biode-
gradable poly(propylene carbonate)/starch composites, Polym. Eng. Sci. 44
(11) (2004) 2134e2140.
[10] X.C. Ge, Q. Zhu, Y.Z. Meng, Fabrication and characterization of biodegradable
poly(propylene carbonate)/wood flour composites, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 99 (3)
(2006) 782e787.
[11] I. Manavitehrani, A. Fathi, H. Badr, S. Daly, A. Negahi Shirazi, F. Dehghani,
Biomedical applications of biodegradable polyesters, Polymers 8 (1) (2016)
20.
[12] X.C. Ge, X.H. Li, Q. Zhu, L. Li, Y.Z. Meng, Preparation and properties of biode-
gradable poly(propylene carbonate)/starch composites, Polym. Eng. Sci. 44
(11) (2004) 2134e2140.
[13] S. Zeng, S. Wang, M. Xiao, D. Han, Y. Meng, Preparation and properties of
biodegradable blend containing poly (propylene carbonate) and starch acetate
with different degrees of substitution, Carbohydr. Polym. 86 (3) (2011)
1260e1265.
[14] X. Hu, C. Xu, J. Gao, G. Yang, C. Geng, F. Chen, Q. Fu, Toward environment-
friendly composites of poly(propylene carbonate) reinforced with cellulose
nanocrystals, Compos. Sci. Technol. 78 (0) (2013) 63e68.
[15] C. Changping, J. Scheirs, Polymer/thermoplastic starch compositions, Google
Patents, 2011.
[16] A. Standard, Biodegradable Plastics-biodegradable Plastics Suitable for Com-
posting and Other Microbial Treatments, Standard Australia, Australia, 2006.
[17] B. Bahramian, Y. Ma, R. Rohanizadeh, W. Chrzanowski, F. Dehghani, A new
solution for removing metal-based catalyst residues from a biodegradable
polymer, Green Chem. 18 (2016) 3740e3748.
[18] I.S.O. Standard, Plastics e Film and Sheeting e Determination of Tear Resis-
tance e Part 1: Trouser Tear Method, 1983. English version of ISO 6383-1:
1983.
[19] H. Nyqvist, Saturated salt solutions for maintaining specified relative hu-
midities, Int. J. Pharm. Tech. Prod. Mfr. 4 (2) (1983) 47e48.
[20] V. Siracusa, P. Rocculi, S. Romani, M.D. Rosa, Biodegradable polymers for food
packaging: a review, Trends Food. Sci. Technol. 19 (12) (2008) 634e643.
[21] K. Bhunia, S.S. Sablani, J. Tang, B. Rasco, Migration of chemical compounds
from packaging polymers during microwave, conventional heat treatment,
and storage, Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 12 (5) (2013) 523e545.
[22] G.A. Luinstra, Poly(propylene carbonate), old copolymers of propylene oxide
and carbon dioxide with new interests: catalysis and material properties,
Polym. Rev. 48 (1) (2008) 192e219.
[23] L.C. Du, Y.Z. Meng, S.J. Wang, S.C. Tjong, Synthesis and degradation behavior of
poly(propylene carbonate) derived from carbon dioxide and propylene oxide,
J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 92 (3) (2004) 1840e1846.
[24] Q. Zhu, Y.Z. Meng, S.C. Tjong, Y.M. Zhang, W. Wan, Catalytic synthesis and
characterization of an alternating copolymer from carbon dioxide and pro-
pylene oxide using zinc pimelate, Polym. Int. 52 (5) (2003) 799e804.
[25] X. Zhong, F. Dehghani, Solvent free synthesis of organometallic catalysts for
the copolymerisation of carbon dioxide and propylene oxide, Appl. Catal. B 98
(3e4) (2010) 101e111.