Next Article in Journal
Comparative Study on the Anti-Corrosion Performance of Epoxy Coatings Containing BIB and HFTC
Previous Article in Journal
A Theoretical and Experimental Study of the Effects of (Mo, Ti, Ni) Microalloying on the Structure, Stability, Electronic Properties, and Corrosion Resistance to Chlorinated Molten Salts of B2-FeAl
Previous Article in Special Issue
Development of Innovative Environmental Safety: Bioactives Against Pathogenic Bacteria Red Pectin Films from Hibiscus sabdariffa Flos Extract for Circular Economy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Coatings
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/coatings15030270
coatings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Micro- and Nanofibrillated Cellulose Coatings as Barriers Against Water and Oil in Food Packaging Paper: A Sustainable Alternative to Plastic Coatings

by
Marcin Dubowik
1,*,
Kamila Przybysz
2,
Jacek Dańczak
2,
Aneta Lipkiewicz
2,
Marta Gajadhur
3,
Beata Górska
1,
Ewelina Pawłowska
1,
Robert Drozd
4 and
Piotr Przybysz
2,5
1
Lukasiewicz Research Network—Lodz Institute of Technology, Packaging Department, 19/27 M. Sklodowskiej-Curie Str., 90-570 Lodz, Poland
2
Natural Fibers Advanced Technologies (NFATech), 42A Blekitna Str., 93-322 Lodz, Poland
3
Department of Printing Technologies, Institute of Mechanics and Printing, Faculty of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology, 2 Konwiktorska Street, 00-217 Warsaw, Poland
4
GRAW Ltd., 2 Kolejowa Str., 95-035 Ozorków, Poland
5
Faculty of Wood Technology, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, 159 Nowoursynowska Str., 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Coatings 2025, 15(3), 270; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15030270
Submission received: 31 December 2024 / Revised: 19 February 2025 / Accepted: 21 February 2025 / Published: 24 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Coatings and Films for Food Packing and Storage, 2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This research investigates the effectiveness of micro- and nanofibrillated cellulose (M-NFC) coatings compared to traditional synthetic coatings in enhancing the barrier properties of paper. Papers were coated at various grammages (1.2, 1.8, and 2.9 g/m2) and tested for properties such as hydrophobicity, lyophobicity, and surface smoothness. Paper coated with 2.9 g/m2 M-NFC showed water absorbency of 10.5 g/m2 and castor oil absorbency of 9.6 g/m2, which were lower than for commercially available WBB-coated paper (respectively, 12.2 and 14.8 g/m2). The coatings were evaluated through microscopic analysis and physical testing methods including Cobb and Cobb–Unger absorbency tests and wettability measurements. The results indicate that M-NFC coatings provide a sustainable alternative with competitive barrier properties suitable for short-term use products, showcasing potential reductions in synthetic material usage, especially in food packaging.

1. Introduction

Current market challenges necessitate significant technological advancements in paper manufacturing and processing. Recent trends driven by legislation, societal pressure, and marketing have led to new solutions aligned with market demands [1,2,3,4,5]. One key area of development involves creating functional hydrophobic coatings and coatings that enhance strength properties, directly addressing market needs [6]. Paper, made from cellulose fibers, is highly hygroscopic and hydrophilic [7,8]. The unmodified paper absorbs moisture easily [9,10], making resistance to wetting crucial for packaging, money, or leaflets. To meet market demands, paper is treated to enhance hydrophobicity through surface coatings [11,12,13]. This is increasingly important due to rising ecological awareness and legislative support, positioning hydrophobic-coated paper as a potential alternative to single-use plastic packaging [14]. Paper must exhibit various functional properties, including mechanical strength like tensile strength, bending strength, and abrasion resistance [15,16,17]. Stronger paper packaging is essential for protecting products during use or transport [17,18]. However, increased recycling rates, especially in developed countries, have led to deteriorating strength properties in recycled paper [19,20,21,22]. This has spurred interest in surface modification processes to create durable packaging from weaker, cheaper papers, making it competitive with more expensive paper-based and plastic packaging [23].

The Coating Process as an Operation Developing Specific Desired Properties of Paper

Currently, numerous studies are being conducted to develop paper with barrier properties that are more environmentally friendly. Traditional synthetic coatings, such as PE and PP, have been widely used due to their excellent barrier properties against water, fats, and oils [24,25]. However, these coatings are difficult to process in modern paper mills and are not biodegradable, leading to social and legislative stigmatization [26,27]. Despite efforts to make these coatings more eco-friendly, issues with recyclability and compostability remain unresolved [28,29,30]. Water-based barrier coatings (WBBCs) are alternative methods used for enhancing paper’s hydrophobicity. These multi-component water dispersions primarily consist of water-based polymers like latexes and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) [27,31]. They also include waxes, fillers, surface modifiers, and thickening agents to improve barrier properties [31,32,33]. While WBBC coatings are more environmentally friendly than synthetic materials, their full recyclability and compostability are not always possible, with microplastics remaining in waste paper and compost [27,34,35]. Bioplastic-based coatings, such as thermoplastic starch (TPS), polylactic acid (PLA), polyethylene succinate (PBS), and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), are gaining attention due to ecological pressure and consumer preference for sustainable materials [23,27,34,36]. TPS, derived from renewable resources like corn and potatoes, is compostable and recyclable but has limited durability and chemical resistance [37,38,39,40,41]. PLA and PBS offer biodegradability and good barrier properties, but their production is costly, and their functional stability is limited, affecting their economic viability [42,43,44,45,46,47,48]. PHAs, produced through bacterial fermentation, are biodegradable and safe for food contact, but their high cost and complex production process limit their competitiveness [49,50,51,52,53,54]. Wax-based emulsions, both synthetic and natural, provide good hydrophobicity without significantly altering paper strength properties [11,55,56,57,58,59]. However, synthetic waxes hinder full biodegradability, and natural waxes, while more eco-friendly, face recycling challenges and instability at high temperatures [23,59,60,61,62]. Despite extensive research, many of these solutions still struggle with cost issues and recycling difficulties.
MFC-based coatings are increasingly popular in the packaging industry due to their biodegradability, recyclability, and excellent barrier properties against water, fats, and gases [63,64,65]. These coatings, made from renewable wood and non-toxic materials, enhance the strength of paper products and can be combined with biopolymers or additives [66,67,68]. Despite their advantages, challenges such as high production costs and maintaining barrier properties under non-standard conditions persist [69]. Research aims to create economically viable, market-ready solutions that meet consumer and legislative requirements. MFC coatings can be enhanced with biopolymers, nanoparticles, or essential oils, each offering unique benefits and challenges [70,71,72]. For instance, biopolymer composites like PHA and chitosan improve barrier properties but may complicate recycling [70,73,74]. Nanoparticle coatings provide high barrier properties but raise safety concerns [66,75,76,77,78]. Essential oil coatings offer antibacterial and antifungal properties but are costly [79,80,81]. Despite these challenges, MFC-based coatings are promising due to their ecological benefits and potential to replace plastic coatings, supporting sustainable development and environmental protection.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Commercially available coated papers like WBBC-coated paper, silicone-based coating, and PE-based coating were provided by Bag-Druk (Lodz, Poland), a paper product manufacturer. These papers were subjected to testing to obtain reference values and to compare the results for these papers with the results for M-NFC-coated paper using exactly the same measurement techniques. These papers were characterized based on the provided specification sheets and performed tests (See Table 1).
The substrate paper for the coating process consisted of commercially available paper made from bleached sulfate pulp, specifically designed for the coating process using typical coating agents. This paper was characterized by the following parameters:
  • Grammage [g/m2]: 60.
  • Thickness: 78.
  • Breaking length: 6450 m.
  • Bendtsen roughness: 523 mL/min.
The M-NFC used in the studies is a commercially available product manufactured by NFATech (Lodz, Poland). It is a mixture of micro and nanocellulose fibers obtained through enzymatic treatment and mechanical processing using a specialized disc mill dedicated to the disintegration of cellulose fibers into MFC and NFC. This material was supplied in the form of a high-viscosity suspension with the following parameters:
  • Consistency: 5% (note that in papermaking, “consistency” typically refers to fiber concentration, not total solids content).
  • Water retention value (WRV): 810%.
  • Cellulose content: above 99.5%.
  • Alpha-cellulose content: above 80%.
  • Hemicellulose content: below 0.1% (undetectable).
  • Lignin content: below 0.1% (undetectable).
  • Average degree of polymerization: 420.
  • Dynamic viscosity: 820–860 mPa·s.

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Coating Process

The coating process was conducted using the ProCoater300, a technical-scale coater designed and built as a prototype by NFATech (Lodz, Poland). This coater enables the application of coatings using multiple methods. Within the scope of this study, the coating process was conducted using a rod-coating module. Coating rods from RD Specialties (Webster, NY, USA), numbered 6, 9, and 12, were used, which allowed the application of coatings with theoretical grammages of 0.76, 1.14, and 1.52 g/m2, respectively. However, since the coating process was not conducted on a flat glass surface as in laboratory studies, but rather the paper was passed between a pressing roller and the coating rod, the actual grammages were higher than the theoretical values indicated. The grammage of the coating was determined individually for each sample after the coating process. The coater was also equipped with a paper-drying system consisting of contact drying (from the uncoated side) and non-contact drying (hot air blow). Before winding, the paper was additionally subjected to cooling. After the coating process, the coated paper exhibited a dryness of 92%–94%. The operating parameters of the coater were as follows:
  • Coating speed: 15 m/min.
  • Pressure of the coating rod: 100 N/m.
  • Paper tension: 100 N/m.
  • Heating plate temperatures: 100 °C for the first section, 120 °C for the second section, and 130 °C for the third section.
  • Drying hot air temperature: 70 °C.
  • Hot airflow: 150 m3/min.

2.2.2. Evaluation of Coated Paper Properties

To evaluate the properties of coated paper, the assessment was conducted using the following research techniques:

Smoothness

The analysis was performed using two methods:
  • The Bendtsen method, according to ISO 8791-2:2013. The measurement was performed by a Bendtsen Roughness & AP Tester at 5000 mL/min from Messmer Buchel (Veenendaal, The Netherlands).
  • A microscopic surface analysis, according to ISO 25178:2021. Measurements were conducted using the VHX-7000 digital microscope from Keyence (Osaka, Japan) equipped with a VHZ100UR lens and an OP-72404 lighting attachment. The same microscope was also used to assess the surface condition of the paper after the coating process with M-NFC.

Absorbency

Surface absorbency was conducted using the Cobb method, according to ISO 535:2023. In addition to water absorbency, an analysis of castor oil absorbency was also performed, described as the Cobb–Unger method. For this purpose, the same apparatus as the water surface absorbency test (Cobb test) was used, but the water was replaced with castor oil. The test was conducted at a temperature of 23 ± 0.5 °C.

Wettability Analysis

In addition to absorbency, a wettability analysis for water and castor oil was also performed. This was conducted using the OCA 15 goniometer from DataPhysics (Stuttgart, Germany).
All tests were conducted for paper that had been conditioned in a constant temperature and humidity environment (23 °C, 50% RH) in accordance with ISO 187:2022. The wetting angle and free surface energy were evaluated using dedicated dpiMax software version 2.2.217 with an SFE module. SFE was calculated using the Ownes, Wendt, Rabel, and Kaelble model.

3. Results

During the test-coating process, paper with three different average coating grammages of 1.2, 1.82, and 2.86 g/m2 was manufactured. For the obtained papers, roughness tests, water absorbency (Cobb method), and castor oil absorbency (Cobb–Unger method) were conducted. The results are presented in Table 2, which includes average values and standard deviations (in parentheses) for each property. Each parameter was tested 12 times, with the two extreme results discarded from the analysis.
Additionally, surface wettability measurements were conducted. The results are presented in Table 3. Measurements were made directly after the application of a droplet to the paper surface (time below 50 ms). This was necessary because the wetting angle for isopropanol was initially very low and rapidly decreased within less than 3 s. To calculate the surface free energy, measurements were made for water and isopropanol, as these liquids were directly available in the goniometer software library version 2.2.127. Furthermore, measurements were also conducted for castor oil to determine the surface lyophobic properties, aiming to obtain analogous results to those for water absorbency. Values of contact angle and free surface energy are presented in Table 3.
This detailed measurement setup allows for a comprehensive understanding of the surface characteristics of the coated papers under study, providing insights into their potential applications and performance under various conditions.
Both silicon- and PE-coated papers showed much lower free surface energy (respectively 26.80 and 25.08 mN/m). Much higher values were measured for WBB-coated, which indicates that this paper should be wetted more easily. Moreover, the surfaces of PE- and silicon-coated papers were much smoother due to the fact the coating created a uniform layer. In the case of WBB-coated paper, there is no uniform coating, allowing liquid to possibly access a much higher area of fibers. This is confirmed by microscopic photographs of the paper surfaces presented in Figure 1.
In the case of base paper and paper coated with M-NFC, there is a trend indicating that an increase in M-NFC coating grammage leads to a decrease in free surface energy, meaning lower wetting of paper. This is reflected in lower free surface energy. However, changes in the wetting angle were lower for paper coated with M-NFC.
The results indicated a large variance in the outcomes for papers coated with M-NFC at grammages of 1.2 and 1.8 g/m2, while much more uniform results were observed for the coating at a grammage of 2.9 g/m2. These findings suggested that there were issues with the uniformity of the coating. To verify this possibility, photographs of the paper surface were taken to visually assess the quality of the coating and the presence of discontinuities. The visual analysis was performed using the same microscope that was used for the surface roughness analysis.
This approach allowed for a detailed inspection of the paper coating surface, enabling the identification of any coating irregularities that might affect the functional properties of the coated paper (See Figure 2).
These observations highlight the impact of coating grammage on the uniformity and effectiveness of the barrier properties of the paper. The higher grammage appears to offer better coverage, significantly reducing the susceptibility of the paper to liquid penetration, which is crucial for its intended applications in environments where moisture or oil resistance is required. This visual assessment confirms the need for precise control over the coating process to ensure consistent quality and performance of the coated paper.
The conducted studies suggest that M-NFC coatings are interesting alternatives to the synthetic material coatings traditionally used. The results achieved in terms of hydrophobicity and lyophobicity were comparable to those of commercially available papers with WBBC coatings, and in terms of lyophobicity, they were even slightly better. However, it should be noted that this difference is not statistically significant. The M-NFC coating allows for high hydrophobicity and lyophobicity due to the creation of a very compact and smooth surface, which temporarily limits the penetration of water and fats. It is important to note, however, that discontinuities in the coating lead to the penetration of both water and fat.

4. Discussion

The conducted studies suggest that M-NFC coatings are interesting alternatives to synthetic material coatings traditionally used. The results achieved in terms of hydrophobicity and lyophobicity were comparable to those of commercially available papers with WBBC coatings, and in terms of lyophobicity, they were even slightly better. However, it should be noted that this difference is not statistically significant. The M-NFC coating allows for high hydrophobicity and lyophobicity due to the creation of a very compact and smooth surface, which temporarily limits the penetration of water and fats. It is important to note, however, that discontinuities in the coating lead to the penetration of both water and fat.
Given the high cost of M-NFC and its limited availability in industrial quantities, it is advisable for further research to reanalyze coating mixtures where M-NFC serves as an additive to coatings based on other natural polymers, such as starch. It can be expected that the hydrophobic and lyophobic actions of the applied mixtures will not be as long-lasting as in the case of coatings using PE or silicones. However, in the era of high consumption of products that are packaged in single-use packaging and whose use time is short (at the level of hours or sometimes even less than 1 h), M-NFC coatings represent very interesting alternatives and may contribute to a real reduction in the use of synthetic materials, especially for food packaging.
The obtained results also confirm the appropriateness of conducting a multi-aspect analysis of the roughness of the barrier papers studied. Due to the characteristics of both measurement methods used, they present significantly different information about the surface structure of the paper sample. The Bendtsen roughness method presents roughness in a global context because the result pertains to a relatively large surface area (10 cm2). In contrast, the optical method provides a local view of roughness. The differences in the portrayal of the roughness of the tested samples are well demonstrated by the results of the aforementioned research. In a global context, paper with a WBBC coating is theoretically less rough than paper coated with 1.8 g/m2 of M-NFC. However, locally, WBBC-coated paper exhibits greater roughness. The observed difference stems from the characteristics of the surface studied (the WBB coating consists of “suspended” very fine mineral particles that create a rough structure on a micro-scale—resembling sandpaper of very low grit), as perfectly confirmed by the microscopic images taken. This observation suggests that both methods of measuring surface roughness complement each other and provide a broader view of the surface structure of the coating.
These observations regarding the rather unique structure of WBBC-coated papers are also confirmed by wetting angle studies. For WBBC-coated papers, relatively large wetting angles were obtained, resulting from the interaction particles that created a rough structure locally. The micro-rough surface structure of WBBC-coated paper causes the simultaneous occurrence of Cassie–Baxter and Wenzel effects, which, depending on the type of liquid wetting the surface, occur in different proportions. This nuanced understanding allows for a more detailed characterization of the performance and potential applications of these barrier coatings.

5. Conclusions

This research leads to several important conclusions. The use of M-NFC coatings enables high levels of hydrophobicity and lyophobicity comparable to current commercial papers with WBBC coatings. Although the hydrophobicity and lyophobicity obtained for paper coated with M-NFC are lower than for synthetic material coatings, they appear sufficient for applications that do not require prolonged barrier properties, considering the use time of the paper product, which is often at the level of hours or even minutes. However, for other applications, such as packaging for medications stored in refrigerators or coolers, the current coating solutions are not yet suitable. Modifications to the “base coating” that provide a full range of functionalities for these applications still need to be developed. The barrier properties obtained result from the high smoothness and compactness of the coating, which will disintegrate upon prolonged contact with water—a positive aspect for recycling papers with such coatings. To achieve a comprehensive understanding of the surface characteristics of the paper sample under study, a multi-faceted analysis is recommended, such as assessing its roughness using two different measurement methods and/or through optical analysis of the surface structure. These findings underline the potential of M-NFC as a sustainable coating alternative, promoting environmental sustainability by potentially reducing reliance on synthetic coatings and improving the recyclability of paper products.

6. Patents

This work led to the patent application P.449744.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.D., K.P. and P.P.; methodology, A.L., K.P. and J.D.; software analysis, P.P.; validation, M.D., J.D. and M.G.; formal analysis, M.D.; investigation, K.P., A.L., J.D., E.P. and R.D.; resources, P.P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.D. and P.P.; writing—review and editing, K.P., M.G., J.D., E.P. and B.G.; visualization, P.P.; supervision, M.D. and P.P.; funding acquisition, P.P. and B.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Centre of Research and Development, grant numbers POIR.01.02.00-0104/17 and POIR.01.01.01-00-1290/19, and the APC was funded by the Lukasiewicz Research Network—Lodz Institute of Technology.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We extend our gratitude to Bag-Druk for providing commercial samples of coated papers, which were subjected to rigorous testing. The results of these tests have been utilized in the preparation of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Drozd Robert was employed by the company GRAW, Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
M-NFCmicro- and nanofibrillated cellulose
PEpolyethylene
PPpolypropylene
WBBCwater-based barrier coatings
PVApolyvinyl alcohol
FDAFood and Drug Administration
BFRBundesinstitut für Risikobewertung
TPSthermoplastic starch
PLApolylactic acid
PBSpolyethylene succinate
PHAspolyhydroxyalkanoates
BDO1-4-butanediol
PHBpolyhydroxybutyrate
PHBVpolyhydroxybutyrate vinyl
PHBHpolyhydroxybutylohydroxyl
MFCmicrofibrillated cellulose
MD/CDmachine direction
CDcross direction
WRVwater retention value

References

  1. Lamenta, Z.A.; Grzybowska, K. Impact of the European Green Deal on Business Operations—Preliminary Benchmarking. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kiessling, T.; Hinzmann, M.; Mederake, L.; Dittmann, S.; Brennecke, D.; Böhm-Beck, M.; Knickmeier, K.; Thiel, M. What potential does the EU Single-Use Plastics Directive have for reducing plastic pollution at coastlines and riversides? An evaluation based on citizen science data. Waste Manag. 2023, 164, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. European Parliament. How the EU Wants to Achieve a Circular Economy by 2050. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20210128STO96607/how-the-eu-wants-to-achieve-a-circular-economy-by-2050 (accessed on 3 October 2024).
  4. European Commision. European Green Deal: Putting an End to Wasteful Packaging, Boosting Reuse and Recycling. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7155?fbclid=IwAR17DTjpv2Z22Wf8tQ73xYvoQ7yjuvXVeT8kZhrYDEri9eMkrz4XJrS-eAA (accessed on 30 August 2024).
  5. Unver, H. The European Green Deal and Sustainable Business Growth. Visions Europe. Available online: https://visionsforeurope.eu/v4e-articles/the-european-green-deal-and-sustainable-business-growth/ (accessed on 2nd December 2024).
  6. Zhou, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhang, L.; Li, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y. A novel bio-based flame retardant for cotton fabrics: Preparation, characterization, and flame retardancy. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2023, 231, 128916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Smook, G.A. Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technology; Angus Wilde Publications: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  8. Samyn, P. Wetting and hydrophobic modification of cellulose surfaces for paper applications. J. Mater. Sci. 2013, 48, 6455–6498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yang, L.; Liu, J.; Gu, L. Detailed insights to liquid absorption and liquid-paper interaction. In Advances in Pulp and Paper Research, Cambridge 2013; I’Anson, S.J., Ed.; FRC: Manchester, UK, 2018; pp. 585–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Huq, T.; Salmieri, S.; Khan, A.; Khan, R.A.; Le Tien, C.; Riedl, B.; Fraschini, C.; Bouchard, J.; Uribe-Calderon, J.; Kamal, M.R.; et al. Nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) reinforced alginate-based biodegradable nanocomposite film. Carbohydr. Polym. 2012, 90, 1757–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Basak, S.; Dangate, M.S.; Samy, S. Oil- and water-resistant paper coatings: A review. Prog. Org. Coat. 2023, 186, 107938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fardim, P. Paper and Surface Chemistry–Part 2: Coating and Printability; SSRN: Rochester, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cordt, C.; Daeg, J.; Elle, O.; Geissler, A.; Biesalski, M. Innovative Paper Coatings: Regenerative Superhydrophobicity through Self-Structuring Aqueous Wax-Polymer Dispersions. Coatings 2024, 14, 1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liu, W.; Liu, H.; Liu, K.; Du, H.; Liu, Y.; Si, C. Paper-based products as promising substitutes for plastics in the context of bans on non-biodegradables. BioResources 2020, 15, 7309–7312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Oloyede, O.O.; Lignou, S. Sustainable paper-based packaging: A consumer’s perspective. Foods 2021, 10, 1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Teck Kim, Y.; Min, B.; Won Kim, K. General Characteristics of Packaging Materials for Food System. In Innovations in Food Packaging; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; pp. 13–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kumar, P.; Kishore, A.; Tripathi, S.; Lavanya; Chaudhary, V.; Gaikwad, K.K. Innovative strategies to improve the properties of paper with bio-sourced material and its application in food packaging: A review. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2024, 14, 178–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gurav, S.; Bereznitski, A.; Heidweiller, A.; Kandachar, P. Mechanical properties of paper-pulp packaging. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2003, 63, 1325–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. European Paper Recycling Council (EPRC). The Paper Value Chain Reached a 70.5% Recycling Rate in 2022. CEPI 2023. Available online: https://www.cepi.org/press-release-the-paper-value-chain-reached-a-705-recycling-rate-in-2022/ (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  20. World Economic Forum. Top 25 Recycling Facts and Statistics for 2022. World Economic Forum 2022. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/06/recycling-global-statistics-facts-plastic-paper/ (accessed on 14 November 2024).
  21. Deshwal, G.K.; Panjagari, N.R.; Alam, T. An overview of paper and paper-based food packaging materials: Health safety and environmental concerns. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 56, 4391–4403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Lipkiewicz, A.; Małachowska, E.; Dubowik, M.; Przybysz, P. Impact of shredding degree on papermaking potential of recycled waste. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 96325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kunam, P.K.; Ramakanth, D.; Akhila, K.; Gaikwad, K.K. Bio-based materials for barrier coatings on paper packaging. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2024, 14, 12637–12652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Bajpai, P. Coating. In Biermann’s Handbook of Pulp and Paper; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 159–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Webb, H.K.; Arnott, J.; Crawford, R.; Ivanova, E. Plastic degradation and its environmental implications with special reference to poly(ethylene terephthalate). Polymers 2013, 5, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chaudhuri, S. Paper Cups Become a Target in the Fight Against Plastic. Wall Street J. 2018. Available online: https://www.wsj.com/articles/scrutiny-of-paper-coffee-cups-stacks-up-1540810800 (accessed on 31 October 2018).
  27. Triantafillopoulos, N.; Koukoulas, A.A. The future of single-use paper coffee cups: Current progress and outlook. BioResources 2020, 15, 7260–7287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. de Resende, T.M.; da Costa, M.M. Biopolymers of sugarcane. In Sugarcane Biorefinery, Technology and Perspectives; Santos, F., Rabelo, S.C., De Matos, M., Eichler, P., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 229–254. ISBN 9780128142363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, R.S.; Chai, Y.H.; Olugu, E.U.; Salleh, M.N.; Ahmad, S. Evaluation of mechanical performance and water absorption properties of modified sugarcane bagasse high-density polyethylene plastic bag green composites. Polym. Polym. Compos. 2021, 29 (Suppl. S9), S1134–S1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Garrison, T.F.; Murawski, A.; Quirino, R.L. Bio-Based Polymers with Potential for Biodegradability. Polymers 2016, 8, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Eriksson, M. The Influence of Pigment Additives on the Barrier Properties of Dispersion Coatings. Master’s Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2022. (TRITA-CBH-GRU). Available online: https://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1692262&dswid=6045 (accessed on 21 October 2024).
  32. Sharma, K.M. Surface Phenomena and Additives in Water-Based Coatings and Printing Technology; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2013; p. 6. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bakker, S.; Aarts, J.; Esteves, A.C.C.; Metselaar, G.A.; Schenning, A.P.H.J. Water Barrier Properties of Resin-Stabilized Waterborne Coatings for Paperboard. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2022, 307, 2100829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mujtaba, M.; Lipponen, J.; Ojanen, M.; Puttonen, S.; Vaittinen, H. Trends and challenges in the development of bio-based barrier coating materials for paper/cardboard food packaging; a review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 10, 158328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rastogi, V.K.; Samyn, P. Bio-Based Coatings for Paper Applications. Coatings 2015, 5, 887–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jahangiri, F.; Mohanty, A.K.; Misra, M. Sustainable biodegradable coatings for food packaging: Challenges and opportunities. Green Chem. 2024, 26, 4934–4974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cheng, H.; Chen, L.; McClements, D.J.; Yang, T.; Zhang, Z.; Ren, F.; Miao, M.; Tian, Y.; Jin, Z. Starch-based biodegradable packaging materials: A review of their preparation, characterization and diverse applications in the food industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 114, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Surendren, A.; Mohanty, A.K.; Liu, Q.; Misra, M. A review of biodegradable thermoplastic starches, their blends and composites: Recent developments and opportunities for single-use plastic packaging alternatives. Green Chem. 2022, 24, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, H.; Qi, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Chi, J.; Cheng, S. Starch and its derivatives for paper coatings: A review. Prog. Org. Coat. 2019, 135, 213–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Khan, B.; Niazi, M.B.K.; Samin, G.; Jahan, Z. Thermoplastic Starch: A Possible Biodegradable Food Packaging Material—A Review. J. Food Process Eng. 2016, 40, e12447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ni, S.; Zhang, H.; Dai, H.; Xiao, H. Starch-Based Flexible Coating for Food Packaging Paper with Exceptional Hydrophobicity and Antimicrobial Activity. Polymers 2018, 10, 1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Castro-Aguirre, E.; Iñiguez-Franco, F.; Samsudin, H.; Fang, X.; Auras, R. Poly(lactic acid)—Mass Production, Processing, Industrial Applications, and End of Life. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2016, 107, 333–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sundar, N.; Ananda Kumar, S.; Pavithra, A.; Ghosh, S. Studies on Semi-crystalline Poly Lactic Acid (PLA) as a Hydrophobic Coating Material on Kraft Paper for Imparting Barrier Properties in Coated Abrasive Applications. Prog. Org. Coat. 2020, 145, 105682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Abdenour, C.; Eesaee, M.; Stuppa, C.; Chabot, B.; Barnabé, S.; Bley, J.; Tolnai, B.; Guy, N.; Nguyen-Tri, P. Water Vapor and Air Barrier Performance of Sustainable Paper Coatings Based on PLA and Xanthan Gum. Mater. Today Commun. 2023, 36, 106626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rhim, J.W.; Kim, J.H. Properties of Poly(lactide)-Coated Paperboard for the Use of 1-Way Paper Cup. J. Food Sci. 2009, 74, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Thurber, H.; Curtzwiler, G.W. Suitability of Poly(butylene succinate) as a Coating for Paperboard Convenience Food Packaging. Int. J. Biobased Plast. 2020, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hamdani, S.S.; Emch, H.; Isherwood, J.; Khan, A.; Kumar, V.; Alford, A.; Wyman, I.; Sharma, R.; Mayekar, P.; Bher, A.; et al. Waterborne Poly(Butylene Succinate)-Coated Paper for Sustainable Packaging Applications. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 33064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kathuria, A.; Zhang, S. Sustainable and Repulpable Barrier Coatings for Fiber-Based Materials for Food Packaging: A Review. Front. Mater. 2022, 9, 929501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Israni, N.; Shivakumar, S. Polyhydroxyalkanoates in packaging. In Biotechnological Applications of Polyhydroxyalkanoates; Kalia, V.C., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 363–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tyagi, P.; Salem, K.S.; Hubbe, M.A.; Pal, L. Advances in barrier coatings and film technologies for achieving sustainable packaging of food products—A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 115, 461–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pracella, M.; Mura, C.; Galli, G. Polyhydroxyalkanoate Nanocomposites with Cellulose Nanocrystals as Biodegradable Coating and Packaging Materials. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2021, 4, 1234–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yeo, J.C.C.; Muiruri, J.K.; Fei, X.; Wang, T.; Zhang, X.; Xiao, Y.; Thitsartarn, W.; Tanoto, H.; He, C.; Li, Z. Innovative biomaterials for food packaging: Unlocking the potential of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) biopolymers. Biomater. Adv. 2024, 163, 213929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wu, F.; Misra, M.; Mohanty, A.K. Challenges and New Opportunities on Barrier Performance of Biodegradable Polymers for Sustainable Packaging. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2021, 117, 101395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Stublić, K.; Ranilović, J.; Ocelić Bulatović, V.; Kučić Grgić, D. Advancing Sustainability: Utilizing Bacterial Polyhydroxyalkanoate for Food Packaging. Processes 2024, 12, 1886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Viswanathan, S.S. Wax-based artificial superhydrophobic surfaces and coatings. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2020, 602, 125132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yadav, S.; Khan, A.; Hamdani, S.S.; Rabnawaz, M. Degradable Polymeric Waxes for Paper Coating Applications. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. 2024, 3, 03072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Woch, J.; Małachowska, E.; Korasiak, K.; Lipkiewicz, A.; Dubowik, M.; Chrobak, J.; Iłowska, J.; Przybysz, P. Barrier Dispersion-Based Coatings Containing Natural and Paraffin Waxes. Molecules 2022, 27, 930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Khan, A.; Hamdani, S.S.; Duncan, E.; Rabnawaz, M. High-Performance Synthetic Waxes for a Sustainable Packaging. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2024, 4, 04229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nowacka, M.; Rybak, K.; Wiktor, A.; Mika, A.; Boruszewski, P.; Woch, J.; Przybysz, K.; Witrowa-Rajchert, D. The quality and safety of food contact materials—Paper and cardboard coated with paraffin emulsion. Food Control 2018, 93, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fei, T.; Walker, J.A.; Vickerman, K.L.; Stanley, L.M.; Jarboe, D.; Wang, T. Synthesis and characterization of soybean oil-based waxes and their application as paraffin substitute for corrugated coating. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2018, 58, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tambe, C.; Graiver, D.; Narayan, R. Moisture resistance coating of packaging paper from biobased silylated soybean oil. Prog. Org. Coat. 2016, 101, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lee, E.J.; Lim, K.-H. Preparation of eco-friendly wax-coated paper and its rheological and water-resistant characteristics. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2021, 38, 2479–2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lavoine, N.; Desloges, I.; Khelifi, B.; Bras, J. Impact of different coating processes of microfibrillated cellulose on the mechanical and barrier properties of paper. J. Mater. Sci. 2014, 49, 2879–2893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mascarenhas, A.R.P.; Scatolino, M.V.; Dias, M.C.; Martins, M.A.; de Melo, R.R.; Mendonça, M.C.; Tonoli, G.H.D. Association of cellulose micro/nanofibrils and silicates for cardboard coating: Technological aspects for packaging. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 188, 115667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sharma, M.; Aguado, R.; Murtinho, D.; Valente, A.J.M.; Ferreira, P.J.T. Micro-/Nanofibrillated Cellulose-Based Coating Formulations: A Solution for Improving Paper Printing Quality. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 2853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Chen, H.; Wang, B.; Li, J.; Ying, G.; Chen, K. High-strength and super-hydrophobic multilayered paper based on nano-silica coating and micro-fibrillated cellulose. Carbohydr. Polym. 2022, 288, 119371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Kumar, V.; Koppolu, V.R.; Bousfield, D.; Toivakka, M. Substrate role in coating of microfibrillated cellulose suspensions. Cellulose 2017, 24, 1247–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mayrhofer, A.; Kopacic, S.; Bauer, W. Extensive Characterization of Alginate, Chitosan and Microfibrillated Cellulose Cast Films to Assess their Suitability as Barrier Coating for Paper and Board. Polymers 2023, 15, 3336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Li, T.; Chen, C.; Brozena, A.H.; Zhu, J.Y.; Xu, L.; Driemeier, C.; Dai, J.; Rojas, O.J.; Isogai, A.; Wågberg, L.; et al. Developing fibrillated cellulose as a sustainable technological material. Nature 2021, 590, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Mármol, G.; Gauss, C.; Fangueiro, R. Potential of Cellulose Microfibers for PHA and PLA Biopolymers Reinforcement. Molecules 2020, 25, 4653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Martins, N.C.T.; Freire, C.S.R.; Neto, C.P.; Silvestre, A.J.D.; Causio, J.; Baldi, G.; Sadocco, P.; Trindade, T. Antibacterial Paper Based on Composite Coatings of Nanofibrillated Cellulose and ZnO. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2013, 417, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lavoine, N.; Desloges, I.; Manship, B.; Bras, J.; Sillard, C.; Marais, S. Antibacterial Paperboard Packaging Using Microfibrillated Cellulose. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 5590–5600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Balan, T.; Guezennec, C.; Nicu, R.; Ciolacu, F.; Bobu, E. Improving Barrier and Strength Properties of Paper by Multi-Layer Coating with Bio-Based Additives. Cellulose Chem. Technol. 2015, 49, 607–615. [Google Scholar]
  74. Huq, T.; Khan, A.; Brown, D.; Dhayagude, N.; He, Z.; Ni, Y. Sources, Production and Commercial Applications of Fungal Chitosan: A Review. J. Bioresour. Bioprod. 2022, 7, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Krol, L.F.; Beneventi, D.; Alloin, F.; Chaussy, D. Microfibrillated Cellulose-SiO2 Composite Nanopapers Produced by Spray Deposition. J. Mater. Sci. 2015, 50, 4095–4103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Jia, M.; Zhang, X.; Weng, J.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, M. Protective Coating of Paper Works: ZnO/Cellulose Nanocrystal Composites and Analytical Characterization. J. Cult. Herit. 2019, 38, 64–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pang, X.; Chen, Y.Z.; Zhang, Z.J. Study on the Antibacterial Paper Coated by ZnO/MFC for Food Packaging. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2015, 731, 457–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Du, J.; Tang, J.; Xu, S.; Ge, J.; Dong, Y.; Li, H.; Jin, M. ZnO Nanoparticles: Recent Advances in Ecotoxicity and Risk Assessment. Drug Chem. Toxicol. 2018, 43, 322–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lavoine, N.; Desloges, I.; Bras, J. Microfibrillated Cellulose Coatings as New Release Systems for Active Packaging. Carbohydr. Polym. 2014, 103, 528–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Zhang, J.; Guo, Z.; Chen, S.; Dong, H.; Zhang, X.; Qin, Y.; Yao, C.; Xu, F. High-Barrier, Strong, and Antibacterial Paper Fabricated by Coating Acetylated Cellulose and Cinnamaldehyde for Food Packaging. Cellulose 2021, 28, 4371–4384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wang, B.; Zhao, M.Z.; Huang, L.Y.; Zhang, L.J.; Yu, X.J.; Liu, Y.; Li, J. Exploring Cinnamaldehyde: Preparation Methods, Biological Functions, Efficient Applications, and Safety. Food Rev. Int. 2024, 41, 615–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Coatings 15 00270 g001
Figure 1. Paper surfaces of commercially available packaging papers used as references for research results: (a) WBB-coated, (b) silicon-coated, and (c) PE-coated.
Figure 1. Paper surfaces of commercially available packaging papers used as references for research results: (a) WBB-coated, (b) silicon-coated, and (c) PE-coated.
Coatings 15 00270 g001
Coatings 15 00270 g002
Figure 2. Paper surface of (a) uncoated paper: This sample serves as a control, showcasing the natural texture and properties of the base paper without any modifications. (b) Paper coated with a grammage of 1.2 g/m2: In this image, numerous uncoated areas are visible, accounting for approximately 15% of the paper’s surface. These uncoated regions are responsible for the penetration of liquids (water, castor oil) into the paper, indicating inconsistencies in the coating application at this grammage. (c) Paper coated with a grammage of 2.9 g/m2: This image shows the paper almost fully coated. In the upper right corner of the image, there are a few small uncoated areas, but they constitute less than 5% of the paper’s surface, demonstrating a more uniform and complete coverage compared to the lighter-coated sample.
Figure 2. Paper surface of (a) uncoated paper: This sample serves as a control, showcasing the natural texture and properties of the base paper without any modifications. (b) Paper coated with a grammage of 1.2 g/m2: In this image, numerous uncoated areas are visible, accounting for approximately 15% of the paper’s surface. These uncoated regions are responsible for the penetration of liquids (water, castor oil) into the paper, indicating inconsistencies in the coating application at this grammage. (c) Paper coated with a grammage of 2.9 g/m2: This image shows the paper almost fully coated. In the upper right corner of the image, there are a few small uncoated areas, but they constitute less than 5% of the paper’s surface, demonstrating a more uniform and complete coverage compared to the lighter-coated sample.
Coatings 15 00270 g002
Table 1. Properties of reference-coated papers.
Table 1. Properties of reference-coated papers.
PropertyWBBC-CoatedSilicon-CoatedPE-Coated
Grammage [g/m2]425744
Thickness [µm]565052
Breaking length MD/CD [m]4750/28004900/24503550/1400
Bendtsen roughness [mL/min]2165138
Table 2. Surface properties of analyzed papers and papers coated using M-NFC.
Table 2. Surface properties of analyzed papers and papers coated using M-NFC.
SampleBendtsen Roughness
(ISO 8791-2), mL/min		Optical Roughness, Sa
(ISO 25178), µm		Water
Absorbency
Cobb60, g/m2		Castor Oil
Absorbency,
Cobb–Unger, g/m2
WBB-coated2168.4512.214.8
(21)(0.33)(2.7)(2.0)
Silicon-coated511.470.81.1
(4)(0.30)(0.6)(0.2)
PE-coated383.230.40.8
(4)(0.17)(0.2)(0.2)
Base paper5237.3733.446.2
(33)(0.73)(2.9)(2.3)
M-NFC-coated 1.2 g/m23186.4419.530.3
(51)(1.28)(6.9)(7.4)
M-NFC-coated 1.8 g/m22654.6714.116.2
(70)(1.37)(4.5)(4.6)
M-NFC-coated 2.9 g/m21853.2210.59.6
(75)(0.31)(2.0)(2.0)
Table 3. Surface wettability measurements for investigated papers.
Table 3. Surface wettability measurements for investigated papers.
SampleContact Angle, °Dispersive Free Surface Energy, mN/mPolar Free Surface Energy, mN/m
WaterIsopropanolCastor Oil
WBB-coated127.4630.3677.5833.635.01
(0.06)(0.06)(0.16)
Silicon-coated110.4323.1180.1726.650.15
(0.09)(0.08)(0.12)
PE-coated80.4524.2776.4811.8013.28
(0.09)(0.21)(0.16)
Base paper116.519.4588.9132.911.77
(0.03)(0.02)(0.13)
M-NFC-coated 1.2 g/m2113.449.1186.6531.140.91
(0.08)(0.04)(0.07)
M-NFC-coated 1.8 g/m2111.648.2187.4130.180.54
(0.12)(0.08)(0.12)
M-NFC-coated 2.9 g/m2111.447.3186.8829.920.44
(0.07)(0.05)(0.13)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dubowik, M.; Przybysz, K.; Dańczak, J.; Lipkiewicz, A.; Gajadhur, M.; Górska, B.; Pawłowska, E.; Drozd, R.; Przybysz, P. Micro- and Nanofibrillated Cellulose Coatings as Barriers Against Water and Oil in Food Packaging Paper: A Sustainable Alternative to Plastic Coatings. Coatings 2025, 15, 270. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15030270

AMA Style

Dubowik M, Przybysz K, Dańczak J, Lipkiewicz A, Gajadhur M, Górska B, Pawłowska E, Drozd R, Przybysz P. Micro- and Nanofibrillated Cellulose Coatings as Barriers Against Water and Oil in Food Packaging Paper: A Sustainable Alternative to Plastic Coatings. Coatings. 2025; 15(3):270. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15030270

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dubowik, Marcin, Kamila Przybysz, Jacek Dańczak, Aneta Lipkiewicz, Marta Gajadhur, Beata Górska, Ewelina Pawłowska, Robert Drozd, and Piotr Przybysz. 2025. "Micro- and Nanofibrillated Cellulose Coatings as Barriers Against Water and Oil in Food Packaging Paper: A Sustainable Alternative to Plastic Coatings" Coatings 15, no. 3: 270. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15030270

APA Style

Dubowik, M., Przybysz, K., Dańczak, J., Lipkiewicz, A., Gajadhur, M., Górska, B., Pawłowska, E., Drozd, R., & Przybysz, P. (2025). Micro- and Nanofibrillated Cellulose Coatings as Barriers Against Water and Oil in Food Packaging Paper: A Sustainable Alternative to Plastic Coatings. Coatings, 15(3), 270. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15030270

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop