Received: 26 May 2021 Revised: 15 October 2021
DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.12870
COMPREH ENSIVE REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND FOOD SAFETY
Sustainable edible packaging systems based on active
compounds from food processing byproducts: A review
Imen Hamed Anita Nordeng Jakobsen
Department of Biotechnology and Food
Science, NTNU - Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Trondheim,
Norway
Correspondence
Anita Nordeng Jakobsen and Jørgen Ler-
fall, Department of Biotechnology and
Food Science, NTNU - Norwegian Uni-
versity of Science and Technology, 7491
Trondheim, Norway.
Email: anita.n.jakobsen@ntnu.no and
jorgen.lerfall@ntnu.no
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
© 2021 The Authors. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Institute of Food Technologists
198 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/crf3
Accepted: 19 October 2021
Jørgen Lerfall
Abstract
The global food processing industries represent a challenge and a risk to the envi-
ronment due to the poor handling of residues, which are often discarded as waste
without being used in further sidestreams. Although some part of this biomass
is utilized, large quantities are, however, still under- or unutilized despite these
byproducts being a rich resource of valuable compounds. These biowastes con-
tain biopolymers and other compounds such as proteins, polysaccharides, lipids,
pigments, micronutrients, and minerals with good nutritional values and active
biological properties with applications in various fields including the develop-
ment of sustainable food packaging.
This review offers an update on the recent advancement of food byproducts recy-
cling and upgrading toward the production of food packaging materials, which
could be edible, (bio)degradable, and act as carriers of biobased active agents
such as antimicrobials, antioxidants, flavoring additives, and health-promoting
compounds. This should be a global initiative to promote the well-being of
humans and achieve sustainability while respecting the ecological boundaries
of our planet.
Edible films and coatings formulations based on biopolymers and active
compounds extracted from biowastes offer great opportunities to decrease the
devastating overuse of plastic-based packaging. It has become evident that
a transition from a fuel-based to a circular bio-based economy is potentially
beneficial. Therefore, the exploitation of food discards within the context of a
zero-waste biorefinery approach would improve waste management by mini-
mizing its generation, reduce pollution, and provide value-added compounds.
Most importantly, the development of edible packaging materials from food
byproducts does not compete with food resources, and it also helps decrease our
dependency on petroleum-based products.
Practical Application Almost 99% of current plastics are petroleum-based, and
their continuous use has been devastating to the planet as plastic-derived compo-
nents have been detected in all trophic levels. Besides, the increasing amounts of
Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2022;21:198–226.
Edible active packaging from food byproducts 199

food by-products are a socioeconomic and environmental challenge, and halving

food loss and waste and turning it into valuable products has become necessary to
achieve sustainability and economic circularity. The development of new pack-
aging systems such as edible materials could be one of the solutions to limit the
use of persistent plastics. Edible films and coatings by-products-based could also
enhance food packaging performance due to their compounds’ bioactivities.

KEYWORDS
biopolymer, circular bioeconomy, edible active packaging, food byproduct, sustainability

1 INTRODUCTION bioactive compounds that include proteins, lipids, pig-

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), about one third, that is, 1.3 billion tonnes per year
of all edible food intended for human consumption is lost
throughout the food chain (FAO, 2011). The global vol-
ume of food wastage goes up to 1.6 billion tonnes when
inedible parts are included (Goossens et al., 2020). This
2011 FAO study offers a broad indication and cannot be
replicated due to a certain number of assumptions that
were made due to a lack of data. Therefore, for a more
precise assessment, a recent report by FAO (2019) intro-
duced two new indices that measure food lost in the supply
chain before it reaches the retail level (Food Loss Index)
and food wasted by consumers or retailers (Food Waste
Index). FAO (2019) reported that around 14% of the world’s
food is lost globally, and estimates for the Food Waste
Index are still under preparation by the United Nations
Environment Programme. These indices will help moni-
tor progress toward one of the targets of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG) namely SDG target 12.3, which
aims to halve the global food waste per capita and to reduce
the overall food loss. SDG were introduced in 2015 by the
United Nations and are expected to be reached by 2030.
Seventeen goals with 169 targets were identified to help
achieve a better and more sustainable future for people and
the planet (https://sdgs.un.org/goals).
Generation of byproducts from food processing is
inevitable and disposal is one of the major challenges
(Fierascu et al., 2020). Food biowastes are recognized
as a serious environmental and socioeconomical threat
when not properly managed. Residual raw materials are
usually thrown into landfills, burned, or simply left out
to spoil. If not treated well, these residues could release
toxic pollutants and be converted to greenhouse gasses
(carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrogenous compounds)
(Ishangulyyev et al., 2019). Food biowastes can also create
other ecological hazards such as leachate production.
However, residual materials have also been shown to
be highly nutritive since they can be a rich source of
ments, phenolic molecules, micronutrients, and dietary
fibers. Moreover, these residues have properties such as
antioxidant, antimicrobial, antiviral, anti-inflammatory,
immunostimulant, and prebiotic activities (Guil-Guerrero
et al., 2016; Faustino et al., 2019).
To address the issues related to the food packaging
sector regarding the excessive use of petrochemical plas-
tics, innovative solutions have been investigated includ-
ing the use of biowaste-based materials. Recycling could
also be a solution; however, it is limited due to technical
and economic challenges. Around 9% of the wasted plas-
tics worldwide have been recycled, 12% have been incin-
erated, and 79% have accumulated in landfills or directly
discarded in the environment (Geyer et al., 2017). There-
fore, it has become important to move toward renewable,
nonfood resource alternatives, as not only plastic materi-
als are persistent in the environment but they also rep-
resent a great risk to the fauna and flora. Plastics have
been observed in the digestive tract of organisms from dif-
ferent terrestrial, freshwater, and marine food-webs (Jâms
et al., 2020). The next generation of food packaging should
therefore be based on new materials, which have inher-
ent edibility or (bio)degradability. Edible packaging sys-
tems, which are made using only food-grade compounds
should have bioactive properties (antimicrobial, antioxi-
dant, and antibrowning) in addition to other attributes
including functional (barrier to water, vapors, oxygen,
carbon dioxide, and ultraviolet (UV) light), mechanical
(strength), and physical (opacity and color) characteristics
(Silva-Weiss et al., 2013). Edible packaging should proba-
bly not completely replace conventional ones as they are
meant to be used as primary packaging together with
nonedible materials as secondary packaging to provide
proper handling and hygienic conditions (de Azeredo,
2012; Bharti et al., 2020). To make the whole packaging
system sustainable, bio-based and biodegradable plastics
as secondary packaging would be preferred over persistent
plastics. Commercialization on a large-scale of sustain-
able packaging remains challenging because conventional
200
(petrochemical-based) plastics have a well-established and
mature technology for their production and management
(Filiciotto & Rothenberg, 2021). The complete removal of
conventional packaging is still in its infancy and to achieve
that goal sustainability assessment is a field that should
be investigated more to ensure that this substitution by
“greener” materials will be safer, beneficial, and will not
lead to unintended consequences in the long-term (Geras-
simidou et al., 2021).
Change of mindset concerning food production and con-
sumption has become critical to decrease global hunger
and avoid an environmental collapse. Therefore, the tran-
sition to a circular and bio-based economy is important
and is being encouraged by policy-makers such as the
United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
and the European Green Deal to support more companies
and start-ups to acknowledge their creation of more sus-
tainable businesses (European Commission, 2019; United
Nations, 2015).
This study reviews the different biological byproducts
that are generated by the food processing industries and
their possible applications in the food packaging sec-
tor. The sometimes-confused plastic materials terminol-
ogy is explained along with the effects of persistent plas-
tics on the environment. The development of innovative
biowaste-based materials as active edible food packaging is
extensively reviewed as well as their creation and proper-
ties. Furthermore, future trends and challenges for their
utilization are explored.
2 BYPRODUCTS AND COPRODUCTS:
DEFINITIONS AND REGULATIONS
The distinction between by- and coproducts is not always
made and there may be many definitions. As stated by the
Commission of the European Communities “there is not
a black and white distinction, but rather a wide variety
of technical situations with widely differing environmen-
tal risks and impacts and a number of grey zones.” How-
ever, it is necessary to identify clearly the biomass con-
cerned to handle it properly and in some countries the law
provides two clear meanings (Figure 1). The term coprod-
ucts often concerns the products that are intended for
human consumption, while byproducts will not be valued
as suitable for human consumption and are mainly used in
sidestreams for production of bioenergy and animal feed.
Byproducts resulting from processing of animals (livestock
and poultry industries) are categorized further into three
groups based on their origin and potential risk to humans,
animals, and the environment (Penven et al., 2013). Cat-
egory 1 is represented by animal parts that are not eligi-
ble for either food or feed use and are risk materials such
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
as brains, bone marrow, and spinal cords. Those byprod-
ucts are for disposal only. Category 2 are of lesser risk,
although still not suitable as feed, but they could be used
for other purposes including organic fertilizers or compost.
Category 3, which represents no risks, can be used as ani-
mal feed and petfood (Aspevik et al., 2017). There are also
byproducts from other food processing industries such as
fisheries and aquaculture (frames, heads, skin, tails, and
viscera), dairy (whey), cereals (bran), vegetables, and fruits
(peels, pomaces, bagasses, stones, pits, grape skins, and
seeds) that are considered as secondary products gener-
ated during the manufacturing of primary products. These
products find many applications as food and feed and are
also utilized in cosmetics and as nutraceuticals (Kasapidou
et al., 2015).
The term food wastes is used when liquid or solid
residues obtained from food processing are discarded
as undesirable materials. However, when these wastes
have the potential to be recovered and revalorized in the
food chain they might be called “food byproducts” to
denote the possible development of new products with
a market value (Galanakis, 2012). The European Union
project FUSIONS considers wastes as byproducts “only
if the following conditions are met: (a) further use of
the substance or object is certain; (b) the substance or
object can be used directly without any further process-
ing other than normal industrial practice; (c) the sub-
stance or object is produced as an integral part of a pro-
duction process; and (d) further use is lawful, that is, the
substance or object fulfils all relevant product, environ-
mental and health protection requirements for the specific
use and will not lead to overall adverse environmental or
human health impacts” (Östergren et al., 2014).
3 FOOD BYPRODUCT ORIGINS
Industries and scientific communities are giving special
attention to byproducts of food processing because they
have been shown to contain large amounts of valuable
compounds that could be recovered and used as biologi-
cally active ingredients as replacement for synthetic com-
ponents. This approach contributes to food chain sustain-
ability and system circularity (Schieber, 2017). Despite, the
diversity of byproduct applications, the focus in this review
is on the potential development of active edible packag-
ing. Consistent with that, byproducts were categorized into
three groups depending on their source: marine, agricul-
tural, and animal. Table 1 summarizes the biopolymers and
bioactive compounds that could be extracted from food
byproducts and used in the development of edible pack-
aging.
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
FIGURE 1 Byproducts generated during food processing (modified from Aspevik et al., 2017)
3.1 Marine processing byproducts
3.1.1 Residual materials from fish and
shellfish
Food discard amounts vary depending on origin, species,
and processing techniques. Seafood byproducts are
formed throughout the supply chain starting with by-
catch/harvesting, onboard processing, other processing,
transport, storage, retailers, and finally consumption. Most
residues are generated during the capture and processing
steps (Ghosh et al., 2016). For shellfish such as crustaceans
and molluscs, byproducts could reach 80% that include
mainly heads and shells (Suresh et al., 2018). Discards
from finfish generally constitute 25%–50% of the raw
material (Rustad et al., 2011). Canning operations of fish
such as tuna could result in 70% waste consisting of dark
meat, belly flaps, head, backbone, and skin (Sasidharan
& Venugopal, 2020). In Norway, for aquaculture and wild
caught pelagic fish, the degree of byproducts utilization
could reach 91% and 100%, respectively (Richardsen
et al., 2017), while wild captured white fish that generates
about the same amount of byproducts (319,000 tonnes) as
salmon aquaculture (400,842 tonnes) has only 44% uti-
lization (Hjellnes et al., 2020). Stevens et al. (2018) showed
that the best way to use fish byproducts, in terms of food
security, environmental, and economic benefits would be
to maintain their food grade quality and maximize edible
201
yield so that they could be used as food in domestic and
export markets. Then, the rest of these byproducts that
could not be used for direct consumption could be further
processed into other high-value products for human use
such as protein powders, oil supplements, nutraceuticals,
and pharmaceuticals. This strategic use of byproducts
could result in the increase of food production from
aquaculture by 61% and a possible increased byproduct
revenue by approximatively 800%.
3.1.2 Residual materials from algae
The seaweed industry for human consumption is grow-
ing globally. It is estimated to be worth US$ 5.5–6 billion
annually, with US$ 5 billion destined for humans and the
rest used for a wide range of application such as food and
feed supplements, fertilizers, cosmetics, and pharmaceuti-
cals (Tedesco & Stokes, 2017). Macroalgae are a source of
proteins (5%–47%), lipids (1%–5%), polysaccharides (15%–
76%), and minerals (7%–36%). Other compounds with bio-
logical and biochemical functions are found in seaweeds
as well including pigments and polyphenols. Polysaccha-
rides from seaweeds have been used in various industries
commonly as hydrocolloids and the most prevalent are
alginates (brown macroalgae), and carrageenans and agar
(red macroalgae). The minor storage polysaccharides are
fucoidans and laminarin (brown macroalgae), xylans and
202 Edible active packaging from food byproducts

TA B L E 1 Biobased materials from food byproducts that could be used in active edible packaging
Food byproduct origin Discarded parts Biopolymers1 Bioactive compounds2 References
Marine Fish Head, trimmings (skin, fins, Myofibrillar Omega-3 mainly EPA Nawaz et al. (2020)
bones, scales, and muscle), and Proteins and DHA Olsen et al.
viscera (liver, kidney, and roe) Collagen Peptides (2014)
Gelatin Protein hydrolysates Khalili Tilami
Iodine, and Sampels
Vitamin D (2018)
Selenium
PhosphorusCalcium
Crustaceans Shells Chitin AstaxanthinCalcium Tan et al. (2020)
carbonate
Algae Remaining biomass after Carrageenans Omega-3 mainly EPA Leandro et al.
compounds extraction or Agar and DHA (2020)
drifted biomass at coastal Alginate Proteins and peptides Pardilhó et al.
regions Polyphenols (2021)
Pigments (β-carotene, Mathiot et al.
astaxanthin, (2019)
fucoxanthin)
Polysaccharides
(xylans, fucoidans,
laminarin, floridean
starch, and ulvans)
VitaminsMinerals
Agricultural Vegetable and Peels, seeds, pulps, pomaces, Cellulose Polyphenols, for Bas-Bellver et al.
fruits bagasses, grape skins, and Pectin example, (2020)
stones/pits Starch anthocyanins Ni and Dumont
Proteins Pigments et al.
Essential oilsDietary (2017)Macagnan
fibers et al. (2015)
Dilucia et al.
(2020)
Cereals Brans, husks, bewers’ spent Starch PhytosterolsPolyphenols ElMekawy et al.
grain, and corn cobs Cellulose MineralsVitamins (2013)
Hemicellulose Verni et al. (2019)
Lignin
Animal Meat Skin, blood, bones, meat Collagens PUFAVitamins Toldrá et al. (2016)
trimmings, fatty tissues, horns, Gelatin Jayathilakan
hoofs, feet, skull, feathers, et al. (2012)
tripe, liver, lung, heart, kidney,
and tongue
Dairy Liquid obtained after milk Whey Water-soluble Ryder et al. (2017)
curdling Casein VitaminsLactose Mazorra-
Manzano et al.
(2020)
Abbreviations: DHA, docosahexaenoic acid; EPA, eicosapentaenoic acid; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acids.
1
Biopolymers refers to the compounds with filmogenic properties that constitute the base of edible films/coatings.
2
Bioactive compounds refer to the compounds that are used in association with biopolymer-based materials due to their proven activities such as antimicrobial,
antioxidant, antiviral, anti-inflammatory, immunostimulant, and prebiotic.

floridean starch (red macroalgae), and ulvans and xylans
(green macroalgae) (Lourenço-Lopes et al., 2020; Leandro
et al., 2020). Polysaccharides from macroalgae have been
used for the formulation of edible packaging either alone
or combined with other biopolymers (Ganesan et al., 2018;
Patel, 2019). The seaweed industry generates a consider-
able quantity of biowastes with potential use for the pro-
duction of fiber, glycerol, biofertilizers, and organic acids.
The composition of seaweed residues depends on their ini-
tial composition and the type of compounds extracted dur-
ing the industrial processing (Barbot et al., 2016). Seaweed
wastes are also obtained from biomass that drifts ashore
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
and is accumulated on the beach. These are usually sent
to landfill or are left abandoned to degrade and eventu-
ally cause problems related to disease vectors and methane
release by anaerobic degradation. This untapped resource
is a potential source of bioactives including natural pig-
ments. Therefore, the appropriate management of these
industrial and/or shortline seaweed wastes could provide
economic returns with new products (Pardilhó et al., 2021).
The cultivation at an industrial scale of cyanobacteria
and microalgae has been well-established, and bioprod-
ucts originating from them are available on the market as
food supplements, nutraceuticals, cosmetics, and also as
feed for aquaculture and possibly other production ani-
mals (Bhalamurugan et al., 2018; Hernández et al., 2018).
To be economically viable, it is better to use a sustainable
biorefinery model that consists in the further use of the rest
of the biomass, which is still rich in high-value compounds
after recovery of the primary product (Mishra et al., 2019;
Mobin & Alam, 2017).
Cyanobacteria and microalgae have been investigated
for their use as part of active packaging. With stress con-
ditions, they adapt by storing biopolymers such as lipids,
proteins, pigments, polysaccharides including starch, and
other metabolites, for example, vitamins and minerals
(Mathiot et al., 2019). However, most of the species have
been studied for the production of bioplastics mainly
based on polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), which are natu-
rally accumulated by microalgae. Although, PHA-based
materials are biodegradable and they are not edible (Abdo
& Ali, 2019; Hempel et al., 2011; Rumin et al., 2020; Zeller
et al., 2013). Compared to seaweed-based edible packaging,
the information is limited regarding the use of microal-
gae in edible films and coatings. Edible materials were
produced after the incorporation of microalgae with other
biopolymers. To achieve that, the whole microalgal cell
could be used or compounds could be extracted such as
protein concentrates from Spirulina platensis or Chlorella
vulgaris (de Oliveira et al., 2018; Moghaddas Kia et al., 2018;
Morales-Jiménez et al., 2020; Stejskal et al., 2020; Tais Car-
doso et al., 2017).
3.2 Agricultural processing byproducts
3.2.1 Residual materials from vegetable and
fruits
Processing of vegetables and fruits for beverages (juices,
ciders, wines, and coffees), ready-to-eat precuts, and
foods (jams, olive oils, and sauces) generates a sub-
stantial amount of residues in the form of peels, seeds,
pulps, pomaces, and stones/pits. These byproducts are
rich in bioactive compounds including biopolymers such
as polysaccharides (starch, cellulose, pectin) and proteins
203
(Bas-Bellver et al., 2020; Ni & Dumont, 2017). Fruit and
vegetable wastes have a good potential for application in
the preparation of edible films and coatings. Biowastes
could reach 20%–40% of processed materials. For instance,
annually grape and wine processing generates around 5–
9 million metric tonnes (MMT) of solid waste, and can-
ning and freezing of fruits and vegetables generate approx-
imately 6 MMT of residues (Sagar et al., 2018). The bioac-
tive components present in the discarded parts are rich in
valuable compounds and sometimes even more; the peels
of citrus fruits, grapes, and apples, and the seeds of man-
goes, avocados, longans, and jackfruits have been reported
to contain >15% more phenolics than in the pulp (Ben-
Othman et al., 2020). Packaging prepared using byproducts
from fruit and vegetable processing wastes offers a feasi-
ble alternative to reduce the production cost of edible films
and coatings and to add value to food byproducts. Besides,
due to their recognized biological properties namely
dietary fibers (oligosaccharides), antioxidants (polyphe-
nols and pigments), and antimicrobials (essential oils),
these residual components can enhance food packaging
performance (Dilucia et al., 2020; Macagnan et al., 2015).
3.2.2 Residual materials from cereals
Cereals, which are processed by the milling and brewing
industries, result in large amounts of byproducts such as
brans, husks, bewers’ spent grains, and corn cobs. Despite
being highly nutritive, cereal byproducts are mostly used
as feed or as substrates for bio-refineries or even just
discarded. Bioactive compounds from cereal byproducts
include lipids, proteins, minerals, and vitamins; plus phy-
tosterols, polyphenols, starch, and dietary fibers such as
hemicellulose (β-glucans and arabinoxylans), cellulose,
and lignin (ElMekawy et al., 2013; Verni et al., 2019). Some
applications of cereal brans in food products include baked
items in which brans are incorporated to increase the fiber
contents. However, their utilization is limited (5%–10%)
due to their negative impact on overall acceptability caused
by textural changes and some cases of bitterness (Hemdane
et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2020; Luithui et al., 2019). Various
methods have been investigated to improve their incorpo-
ration into food items (Grasso, 2020).
3.3 Animal processing byproducts
3.3.1 Residual materials from the meat
industry
Slaughtering results in large volumes of byproducts that
are both nonedible such as skin, blood, bones, meat trim-
mings, fatty tissues, horns, hoofs, feet, skulls, feathers,
204
and viscera or edible such as tripe, liver, lung, heart, kid-
ney, and tongue (Toldrá et al., 2016). Valorization of these
residues increases the profitability of the meat industry as
it was estimated that 11.4% and 7.5% of the income from
beef and pork, respectively, come from byproducts (Jay-
athilakan et al., 2012). The use of byproducts that are still
considered edible in some countries could help decrease
malnutrition since these parts, usually discarded, contain
good amounts of essential nutrients such as proteins, min-
erals, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and vitamins, which are
similar to those in muscle tissues. The nonedible residues
have also found many industrial applications as animal
feed or for humans as well; for example, skin/hide and
feathers are used in the leather and textile industries.
As for the food sector gelatins, derived from collagens,
which are abundant in animal skin, bones, and hooves,
are used as gelling, stabilizing, thickening, and texturiz-
ing agents in confectionery, yogurt products, and dessert
creams (Saha & Bhattacharya, 2010). Although most com-
mercial gelatins have mammalian origins, mainly pigs and
cattle, other sources include fish and even chicken feet
(Santana et al., 2020). Gelatin is an important biopolymer
used for edible packaging. When used alone it showed
good barrier properties; however, due to its hygroscopic
nature, combinations with other biopolymers are preferred
to improve the functional properties of packaging and the
shelf-life of food products (Hanani et al., 2014; Ramos et al.,
2016).
3.3.2 Residual materials from the dairy
industry
The dairy industry transforms raw milk into an array of
products that include cheese, yogurt, butter, cream, ghee,
condensed milk, dried milk, and ice cream and generates
various byproducts such as whey and buttermilk. These
dairy residues have high nutritive value and have many
applications (Rafiq & Rafiq, 2019).
From these dairy byproducts, large volumes of proteina-
ceous waste specifically caseins and whey are produced. In
bovine milk, caseins are the most abundant group of pro-
teins, comprising ∼80% of the total protein (Ryder et al.,
2017). Whey protein concentration increases when derived,
for example, from cheese or yogurt manufacturing. Whey
is the liquid obtained after milk curdling. Besides proteins,
it also contains water-soluble vitamins and lactose. The
cheese sector produces more whey than any other dairy
industry. For each kilogram of cheese, ∼8–9 L of whey
is generated, which represents globally 180–190 million
tonnes/year. When advanced technologies are available in
factories, whey is transformed into valuable coproducts
such as whey powder, protein concentrates, isolates, and
lactose. It is estimated that ∼50% of the whey produced
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
worldwide is recovered and used for multiples applications
(foods, nutritionals, and pharmaceuticals). However, large
volumes are discarded daily without any prior treatment
(Mazorra-Manzano et al., 2020). Milk proteins are ideal for
the production of biomaterials since they have good barrier
and filmogenic properties (Campos et al., 2011).
4 PLASTIC PACKAGING
TERMINOLOGY
Before discussing the potential use of food processing
byproducts in developing new packaging materials, the
diverse and sometimes confusing definitions of packag-
ing, namely plastics, need to be explained. European Bio-
plastics (2016) gave clear definitions of the various types
of plastics, which are often confused due to their inter-
changeable use. Plastics could be either fossil-based or bio-
based and in both groups, there are non-(bio)degradable
and (bio)degradable materials. Biodegradability depends
on the chemical structure rather than on the type of
resource that was used to make the material. Biodegrada-
tion of plastics is done through the enzymatic action of nat-
urally occurring microorganisms during which materials
are broken down to basic elemental components such as
water, gas (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen, and sulfur),
and biomass (Folino et al., 2020). This process depends on
the surrounding environment (location, temperature, and
humidity), on the material and on the application. Plas-
tic may also be degradable if its breakdown is catalyzed
by sunlight (photodegradable) or water (hydrodegrad-
able). Compostable plastics, which are usually mixed with
biodegradable ones, require controlled conditions in com-
posting facilities to breakdown through a biological pro-
cess that also involves microorganisms without leaving
any toxic residues, which should lead to nutrients being
returned to the soil (Ciriminna & Pagliaro, 2020). Degrad-
able or compostable plastic materials are not necessar-
ily biodegradable with ambient environmental conditions
(Lambert & Wagner, 2017). Bioplastics, which are often
mistakenly thought to be fully biodegradable, could be
divided in three categories: bio-based and nonbiodegrad-
able, bio-based and biodegradable, and fossil-based and
biodegradable. Bio-based and (bio)degradable could even
be edible when all the ingredients used are food-grade
(Gutt & Amariei, 2020), and this will be discussed in
more details in the following sections. The prefix “bio”
does not necessarily mean eco-friendly, and sometimes the
term is used for marketing reasons. Therefore, to ensure
environmental sustainability, further testing and ecotoxic-
ity assessments must be done. Eventually, the authorities
should standardize rules to have consistent definitions and
labeling as “compostable and/or (bio)degradable plastics”
to avoid misleading the public with false environmental
claims (Haider et al., 2019).
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
5 THE BIOWASTE-BASED VERSUS
PLASTIC-BASED FOOD PACKAGING
ECONOMY
Globally, the production of plastics reached 407 MMT in
2015 according to Rabnawaz et al. (2017). The packaging
industry alone uses a substantial share of these materials
(∼44%), and nearly 99% of these plastics are petroleum-
based (Rabnawaz et al., 2017). Undoubtedly, plastic mate-
rials are useful and convenient due to their valuable char-
acteristics, such as transparency, permeability, flexibility,
tensile strength, thermal performance, ease of steriliza-
tion, and affordable costs (Luzi et al., 2019). However, their
excessive usage is not sustainable and has been shown to
eventually be catastrophic to the planet. Plastics withstand
degradation due to their backbone structure, which con-
tain stable carbon–carbon bonds that lead to global envi-
ronmental pollution and threaten the life of various organ-
isms (Rabnawaz et al., 2017). Not only does it take hundreds
of years for synthetic plastics to degrade but they also leak
out into the environment, and it is estimated that 8 MMT
of plastics find their way into the ocean each year (Guillard
et al., 2018). Once in the ocean, plastic materials spread and
slowly degrade until they become micro- and nanoplastics,
which are ingested by various species including marine
mammals, fish, crustaceans, mollusk, zooplankton, and
phytoplankton causing a negative impact on their phys-
iological functions (Kögel et al., 2020). Considering that
∼70% of the world’s oxygen is produced by photosynthe-
sizing marine organisms (seaweeds and microalgae), this
could have major consequence on climate change and
global warming (Lamberti et al., 2020). Bioaccumulation
has also been reported and due to trophic transfers, human
health is of concern since people consume plastic parti-
cles via the uptake of terrestrial and aquatic food products,
drinking water, and by inhalation (Carbery et al., 2018).
Consequently, the transitioning of food packaging from
a linear economy to a circular bio-based economy is impor-
tant (Figure 2). The bioeconomy tries to convert renew-
able biological resources into economically viable prod-
ucts (food, feed, bioenergy, and other bio-based materials).
It addresses issues that include natural resources deple-
tion, increasing global food demand, and climate change
with the goal of developing new, low emission, resource-
efficient, and sustainable materials (Ravindran & Jaiswal,
2016). The bioeconomy generated 2.2 trillion euros in
Europe with 18.6 million people employed in 2014 (Teigis-
erova et al., 2019). The next generation of food packaging
should be from nonfood renewable resources to avoid con-
cerns related to food security (Guillard et al., 2018). Edi-
ble polymers with short-lifespan should be investigated as
packaging replacements.
205
6 EDIBLE PACKAGING
The difference between films and coatings consists in
their manufacture and application (Figure 3). Edible films
are dried, preformed thin sheets usually between 50 and
250 μm thick that are used to wrap the food products, or
which could be turned into pouches and bags, as well as
applied between layers of foodstuffs. Whereas edible coat-
ings even if they are also defined as thin layers of edi-
ble materials are applied as a liquid of varying viscos-
ity onto the surface or between layers of the product by
spraying, dipping, or brushing. They are allowed to dry on
the food product to do their targeted functions (Coma &
Bartkowiak, 2019; Pascall & Lin, 2013).
Edible films and coatings have been used to improve
the gas and moisture barriers and to protect the product
from damage including mechanical, chemical, and micro-
biological contamination. They can also enhance sensory
perceptions and extend the shelf-life, especially of perish-
able products such as seafood (Dehghani et al., 2018). Their
use in association with bioactive compounds such as vita-
mins, minerals, and polyphenols could lead to additional
functions (Falguera et al., 2011). Other benefits of these edi-
ble packaging are their environmental friendliness, as they
are derived from renewable sources. Food products can
be eaten without the need to unpack and throw away the
package (Trinetta, 2016). Biodegradable materials are not
necessarily edible. Thus, edible packaging is made using
only food-grade components, that is, plasticizers and any
other additives for the film-forming matrix and the sol-
vent must be generally recognized as safe, a formal process
established by the US FDA (Otoni et al., 2017).
6.1 Edible packaging composition
Edible packaging should have at least two components:
a biopolymer-based matrix able to form a cohesive struc-
ture and a solvent, which is usually water. The biopolymers
extracted from biomasses are polysaccharides, proteins,
and lipids (Otoni et al., 2017). Additives are often intro-
duced to the formulation to improve mechanical, func-
tional, organoleptic, and nutritional characteristics. For
example, the incorporation of plasticizers increases flexi-
bility, the addition of active compounds improves quality
(antibrowning agents), extends shelf-life (antioxidants and
antimicrobials), enhances sensory properties (flavor, color,
and texture), and adds health benefits (prebiotics, pro-
biotics, vitamins, and minerals) (Guimaraes et al., 2018).
Byproducts from food processing have many components
known for their filmogenic properties that include chitin
and their derivatives from crustacean shells, polysaccha-
rides (alginates, carrageenan, and agar) from seaweeds,
whey protein from cheese production, corn zein from
206
FIGURE 2 A comparison of (a) linear and (b) circular economy of food packaging
ethanol production, collagen and gelatin from animal
skins, and potato starch from potato chip waste. There are
also many other functional ingredients found in vegetable
and fruit peels and pomaces from agri-food processing
plants and beverage production; for example, grape skins
from the wine industry are abundant in anthocyanins (Jan-
jarasskul & Krochta, 2010; Kalli et al., 2018).
6.1.1 Biopolymers
The choice of packaging materials depends on the char-
acteristics of the food, for example, light sensitivity and
acidity, desired properties such as appearance and bar-
rier functions, and environmental factors, for example,
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
relative humidity and temperature to which products are
exposed during distribution and storage (Chen et al.,
2019). Based on the biopolymer, edible packaging could
be divided into three categories: hydrocolloids, lipids, and
composites (Velickova et al., 2015). Hydrocolloids, com-
posed of hydrophilic polymers, include proteins from
gelatin, corn zein, soybean, wheat, caseins, peanut, and
rice and polysaccharides (starch, pectin, carrageenan, algi-
nate, cellulose derivatives, and chitosan). Lipids include
oils (palm, cocoa, lard, butter, coconut, and fatty acids
(FA), waxes (beeswax, jojoba, and paraffin), resins (chicle
and olibanum), and essential oils and extracts, for exam-
ple, mint, cinnamon, and oregano (Shit & Shah, 2014).
Polysaccharide- and protein-based packaging have effi-
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
FIGURE 3 Preparation steps of active edible films and coatings
cient gas barrier and mechanical properties but have a poor
moisture barrier, and thus allow movement of water vapor
across the film, which may avoid water condensation,
which is needed for microbial spoilage. On the other hand,
packaging composed of lipids is efficient against mois-
ture movement but shows reduced mechanical strength
and increased oxygen permeability (Bharti et al., 2020). To
overcome these limitations, combinations could be made,
which result in the formation of composites, also called
207
multi-component films, that contain both hydrocolloids
and lipids (Senturk Parreidt et al., 2018).
6.1.2 Plasticizers
Edible films and coatings are too fragile and brittle due to
extensive interactions between polymeric chains, mainly
hydrogen, hydrophobic, disulfide, and electrostatic inter-
208
actions. To make them more processable, plasticizers,
which come between the polymers and decrease polymer–
polymer interactions, are added (Suhag et al., 2020).
Hence, plasticizers are usually necessary to maintain the
film or coating integrity. Films prepared without plasti-
cizers are stiff and have high tensile strength, while plas-
ticizers increase flexibility, stretchability, and toughness
(Thakur et al., 2019). Commonly used food-grade plasti-
cizers are mono-, di-, or oligosaccharides (e.g., glucose,
fructose-glucose syrups, sucrose, and honey), polyols (e.g.,
glycerol, sorbitol, glyceryl derivatives, and polyethylene
glycols), and lipids and their derivatives (e.g., phospho-
lipids, FA, oils and waxes) (Sothornvit & Krochta, 2005).
6.1.3 Active compounds
Active agents have been used to enhance the shelf-life,
quality, and safety of food products by inhibiting food
oxidation and growth of spoilage microorganisms
such as Pseudomonas, Klebsiella, Lactobacillus spp.,
pathogenic microorganisms including Staphylococcus
aureus, Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria
monocytogenes, Bacillus cereus, and molds and yeasts such
as Aspergillus and Candida (Ahmed et al., 2017; Vilela
et al., 2018). The use of edible films and coatings as carriers
of bioactive compound such as antimicrobials (phenolic
compounds, organic acids, nisin, and bacteriocin) and
antioxidants (plant extracts and essential oils) could be
more effective than the direct incorporation into the food
formulation, which is characterized by an immediate but
short-term action (Eça et al., 2014; Valdés et al., 2017). The
incorporation into packaging materials could however
maintain the bioactive compound activity for a prolonged
period of time due to a more gradually release on the food
surface (Benbettaïeb et al., 2019).
Edible packaging could also enhance sensorial proper-
ties by introducing some flavoring, coloring, sweetener,
spice, or seasoning agents. Moreover, the market value
could be improved by the addition of health-promoting
components such as prebiotics, probiotics, vitamins, and
minerals (Senturk Parreidt et al., 2018).
6.2 Edible film- and coating-forming
procedures
6.2.1 Edible film-forming methods
The same equipment used for conventional plastics could
also be applied to produce edible films (García-Cruz et al.,
2020). The two main processes that have been used are
solvent casting (wet process) and extrusion (dry process).
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
Casting involves three steps: (1) production of a film-
forming solution by solubilizing biopolymers in a suit-
able solvent (water, ethanol, lactic acid, or acetic acid)
with the addition of appropriate plasticizers and bioac-
tives, (2) pouring the solution into leveled predefined
molds (acrylic, silicon, teflon, or glass), and (3) drying
of the cast solution at ambient or with controlled con-
ditions using a hot air oven, microwave, or tray or vac-
uum driers (Suhag et al., 2020), which results in the for-
mation of a film that could be peeled from the surface
(Shahidi & Hossain, 2020; Šuput et al., 2015). Uniform
and defect-free films (no mechanical damage and air bub-
bles) are necessary to optimize functionalities; therefore,
degassing is done first using centrifugation, ultrasonica-
tion, or vacuum degassing. A final moisture content of 5%–
8% is desired to produce a film without any tearing and
wrinkling (Tavassoli-Kafrani et al., 2016).
The wet process, also known as bench casting, is ade-
quate for laboratory work and consists, as mentioned ear-
lier, in pouring a film-forming solution on rimmed or
plain plates with production of a final film thickness that
varies depending on the materials used. Nevertheless, at
the industrial scale, a continuous casting could be done in
which the film is prepared on continuous carriers such as
steel belt conveyors or a disposable mold such as release
paper that offers an effective control system to regulate the
film thickness (de Moraes et al., 2013; Rossman, 2009).
Extrusion is based on the thermoplastic behavior of
polymers when plasticized and heated above their glass-
transition temperature (Verbeek & van den Berg, 2010).
This process is called “dry” since it can operate without
water or any other solvent. It can also produce a large vari-
ety of forms that are not possible using the solvent casting
method. However, the standard extrusion conditions are
restricted to certain polymers that are temperature toler-
ant and have a low moisture content (Kamal, 2019). Other
processing methods such as injection molding and thermo-
pressing are often combined with extrusion to produce the
final films (Mellinas et al., 2016).
6.2.2 Edible coating-forming methods
Edible coatings are thin layers of edible material applied
directly to the food surface by dipping, spraying, or brush-
ing (Dhall, 2013). Dipping is done by immersing food
products into the coating-forming solution for a specified
amount of time, followed by draining and drying before the
coated products are ready to be stored. Multiple dippings
may be necessary to ensure a full coverage of the product
due to the draining effect that makes it difficult to have
a good adhesion on the product surface. Thus, this tech-
nique is more appropriate for irregularly shaped products.
TA B L E 2 Effects of polysaccharides-based active edible packaging on food preservation
Film/coating
biopolymer-based Packaged food and
material Active agents storage conditions Shelf-life extension Reported effects Reference
Chitosan coating – Sweet cherries From 5 days to 25 days – Antimicrobial effects against Tokatlı and Demirdöven
(Prunus avium L.) at 4◦ C fungi (yeasts and molds) and (2020)
Stored at 4◦ C for 25 From 1 day to 10 bacteria (total MC aerobic
days and at 20◦ C for days at 20◦ C bacteria, total PC aerobic
15 days compared to bacteria, and total coliform
uncoated fruits bacteria)
– Chitosan extracted from
shrimp wastes (CH) had
Edible active packaging from food byproducts

higher antimicrobial activity

than the commercial chitosan
(C); CH < 2 log CFU/g,
C = 4.69 log CFU/g
– Reduction of respiratory rate
at both storage temperature

Chitosan film
Chitosan coating and film
– Sea bream (Sparus From 5 days (vacuum
aurata) fillets
vacuum packed at 4
± 1◦ C for 20 days
Sonneratia caseolaris - In vitro analysis for Until the end of
(L.) Engler leaves the films
extract - Bananas stored
atroom temperature
for 4 days
Inhibition of spoilage bacteria Izci et al. (2018)
packed) to 15 days Improved quality indicators
(vacuum packed + especially TVB-N
chitosan film)
– Introduction of leaves extract Nguyen et al. (2020)
storage period reduced transparency of
chitosan films, which
provided good light barrier
properties to visible light and
its oxidative action
– Antibacterial effects against
foodborne pathogens
(Staphylococcus aureus and
Pseudomonas aeruginosa)
improved greatly with the
addition of leaves extract
– Delay of bananas decay during
storage due to the
combination between chitosan
and natural extracts

(Continues)
209
 210

TA B L E 2 (Continued)
Film/coating
biopolymer-based Packaged food and
material Active agents storage conditions Shelf-life extension Reported effects Reference
Chitosanand alginate Resveratrol Smoked sea bass NA – Antioxidant potential of Martínez et al. (2018)
coatings (Dicentrarchus resveratrol
labrax) fillets – Delay of chemical
Vacuum packed and deterioration comparing to
stored at 4 ± 0.5◦ C control groups with the lowest
for 5 weeks TBARS values associated with
chitosan coatings and
resveratrol
– Chitosan had a higher
antibacterial effect than
alginate displaying near
complete inhibition of MC,
PC, and anaerobic bacteria
– Protective potential of alginate
against oxidation

Chitosan film Clove essential oil and Pork patties From 6 days for the – Nisin alone was not effective Venkatachalam and
nisin stored at 4 ± 2◦ C for control groups to 12 against lipid oxidation Lekjing (2020)
15 days days for chitosan – Synergistic effects of nisin and
wrapped samples clove essential oil combination
with added with chitosan-based film,
bioactive provided efficient
compounds antimicrobial and antioxidant
activities
– Extended sensory
characteristics

(Continues)
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
TA B L E 2 (Continued)
Film/coating
biopolymer-based Packaged food and
material Active agents storage conditions Shelf-life extension Reported effects Reference
Chitosan coating Hydrogen peroxide, Queso Fresco cheese NA – Enhanced control of Listeria Brown et al. (2018)
lauric arginate, Vacuum-sealed and monocytogene
acidified calcium stored at 7◦ C for 35 – Listericidal and listeristatic
sulfate with lactic days activities noticed through 35
acid, and sodium days of storage mainly with
caprylate the addition of hydrogen
peroxide and mixture of lauric
arginate + sodium caprylate
Edible active packaging from food byproducts

– Chitosan coatings without

antimicrobial additives were
more effective than controls
but inhibition of L.
monocytogenes growth did not
occur beyond 7 days

Pectin coating – Plum fruits (Prunus NA – Pectin-based coating was Panahirad et al. (2020)
domestica cv. highly efficient in maintaining
“Golden drop”) the antioxidative capacity by
stored at 19 ± 2◦ C lowering polyphenol oxidase
for 8 days activity and increasing
peroxidase activity
– Nutritional values enhanced
due to higher contents of
ascorbic acid, total phenolics,
anthocyanin, and flavonoid

Chitosan film Trachyspermum ammi Chicken filletsstored Until the end of the – Antimicrobial activities Karimnezhad et al. (2017)
essential oil at 4◦ C for 12 days storage period improved considerably with
the introduction of essential
oil
– Higher inhibitory effects on
total aerobic, total PC, and
coliform bacteria in
comparison to the use of
chitosan alone

(Continues)
211
 212

TA B L E 2 (Continued)
Film/coating
biopolymer-based Packaged food and
material Active agents storage conditions Shelf-life extension Reported effects Reference
Chitosan and carrageenan – Longan (Dimocarpus NA – Minimal quality changes and Lin et al. (2018)
coatings longan) fruitsstored quantity losses were observed
at 28◦ C for 4 days for coated fruits
– Chitosan coatings had lower
water vapor permeability than
carrageenan coatings, thus
weight loss decrease was
higher with chitosan
– Reduction in respiratory rate
with chitosan/carrageenan
coatings, which slowed down
the fruits metabolism and
prolonged their shelf-life

Carrageenan film Olive leaves extract Lamb meatstored at NA – Excellent antioxidant activity Martiny et al. (2020)
7◦ C for 48 h of olive leaves extract due to
their high phenolics content
– Highly effective antimicrobial
effects toward Escherichia coli,
total aerobic MC counts, and
total coliforms.
– Lower water vapor
permeability values for
carrageenan films than
commercial PVC, which
increased food preservation

(Continues)
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
TA B L E 2 (Continued)
Film/coating
biopolymer-based Packaged food and
material Active agents storage conditions Shelf-life extension Reported effects Reference
Agar film Fish protein Flounder (Paralichthys NA – Extension of fillets shelf-life Da Rocha et al. (2018)
hydrolysate or clove orbignyanus) fillets when clove essential oil and
essential oil storage at 5◦ C for15 protein hydrolysate were
days added, which led to improved
biochemical and
microbiological parameters
Edible active packaging from food byproducts

– Better results were reported for

the addition of clove essential
oil than protein hydrolysate in
terms of water solubility
– Better mechanical properties
of agar-protein hydrolysate
films
– The growth of total aerobic
mesophiles and
H2 S-producing
microorganisms was delayed
comparing to films made up
with agar alone

Chitosan film Orange (Citrus Deepwater pink From 7 days – Incorporation of essential oil Alparslan and Baygar (2017)
sinensis (L.) shrimp (uncoated samples) increased significantly the
Osbeck) peel (Parapenaeus to 10 days (coated antioxidant and antimicrobial
essential oil longirostris with chitosan activities of edible films
Lucas, 1846) alone) and 15 days – Maintenance of sensory
vacuum packaged at (addition of orange characteristics throughout the
4 ± 1◦ C for 15 days peel extract) storage period for wrapped
samples with chitosan and
natural extract
– Delay of melanosis in wrapped
shrimps

Note: Active agents (-) reported effects were given by the biopolymer(s) activity.
Abbreviations: MC; mesophilic; PC, psychrophilic; TBARS, thiobarbituric acid reactive substance; TVB-N, total volatile basic nitrogen.
213
214 Edible active packaging from food byproducts

TA B L E 3 Effects of proteins-based active edible packaging on food preservation

Film/coating Packaged food
biopolymer-based Active and storage Shelf-life
material agents conditions extension Reported effects Reference
Whey protein isolate Laurel and Cooked NA – The oxidative stability of meatballs Akcan et al.
film sage meatballs was enhanced due to high amounts (2017)
extracts frozen at −18 ± of phenolic compounds
1˚C for 60 days – Antioxidant effects were maintained
during storage period
– Delay of lipid oxidation due to
protein films that acted as oxygen
barrier
– Sensory scores and acceptability
were reduced when antioxidant
extract concentrations increased

Soybean protein oven Curry power Boneless chicken NA – Production of flavored films Di Giorgio et al.
bags prepared by breastsCooked – Antioxidant activities due to the (2019)
heat sealing the in oven addition of curry
films – Transfer of the curry flavor to the
meat during cooking
– Edible bags simulated chicken skin
giving a favorable crispiness to the
final product after cooking

Gelatin film Plant extracts Beef NA – Mechanical properties of gelatin Gallego et al.
(Cae- pattiesstored at films improved with the addition of (2016)
salpinia 4◦ C for 12 days extracts, that is, tensile strength was
decapetala reduced and film elongation
or Cae- increased
salpinia – Natural extracts significantly
spinosa) reduced water vapor permeability,
thus improved moisture barrier
properties
– Plant extracts are used to provide
color and opacity to polymeric
films, which improve light barrier
properties and protect food from
light, especially ultraviolet radiation
– Lipid oxidation occurred at a lower
rate with natural compounds than
synthetic antioxidant BHA
– Caesalpinia spinosa was more
effective than Caesalpinia
decapetala due to its higher
polyphenol concentrations

Fish myofibrillar Catechin– Bluefin tuna From 2 days – Improved inhibition of oxidation Kaewprachu
protein film Kradon (Thunnus (unwrapped) and microbial growth associated et al. (2017)
leaves thynnus) slices to 8 days with the addition of natural extracts
extract stored at 4 ± (wrapped) – Organoleptic properties maintained
(Careya 1◦ C for 10 days for 8 days when edible films were
sphaerica used, while acceptability was only 4
Roxb.) days for the control groups

(Continues)
Edible active packaging from food byproducts 215

TA B L E 3 (Continued)
Film/coating Packaged food
biopolymer-based Active and storage Shelf-life
material agents conditions extension Reported effects Reference
Gelatin film Garlic peel Rainbow trout From 5 days – Antimicrobial (total viable count, Uçak (2019)
extract (Oncorhynchus (control) to 10 enterobacteriaceae, and
mykiss) fillets days psychrophilic bacteria), antioxidant
stored at 4 ± (wrapped (PV and TBARS) and sensory effects
1◦ C for 10 days fillets) (color, odor, texture, and overall
acceptance) were enhanced with
gelatin-based films enriched with
garlic peel extract

Corn-zein coating Carvacrol Peanutsstored at NA – Zein-based edible coatings were Afshari et al.
and thymol 25◦ C for 90 able to prevent aflatoxin formation (2018)
days (AFB1 and AFB2)
– Using carvacrol and
thymolseparately yielded better
results than their combination
– Excellent oxygen, moisture barriers,
and antimicrobial effects of zein
coatings

Abbreviations: BHA, butylated hydroxyanisole; TBARS, thiobarbituric acid reactive substance; PV, peroxide value.

Spraying methods such as air spray atomization or elec-
trostatic spraying are used to coat the products with a low
viscous coating solution that exits through the nozzle to
form atomized droplets over the targeted food surface area.
Brushing is done by spreading the coating solution on the
food surface (Atieno et al., 2019; Dhumal & Sarkar, 2018).
7 APPLICATIONS OF EDIBLE FOOD
PACKAGING FROM INDUSTRIAL
BYPRODUCTS
Food packaging technologies are an evolving area that
depends on consumers’ lifestyle changes, market devel-
opments, and the need to reduce the environmental
burden of food production while enhancing quality and
safety (Carlucci et al., 2015). Currently, the development of
“green” packaging materials and solutions that include the
use of edible materials will help to tackle the issues related
to the use of traditional packaging, to achieve sustainabil-
ity, and foster recycling in the food sector. Several studied
packaging systems using renewable resources, notably
inexpensive underutilized food processing byproducts that
have certain sensory, physicochemical, and mechanical
characteristics that are not found in packaging with
conventional polymers (Han et al., 2018). The most recent
research regarding active edible packaging obtained from
various sources of byproducts is summarized in Tables 2–4,
which showed the effectiveness of polysaccharides, pro-
teins, and composite-based edible packaging on food
preservation, the extension of shelf-life, and the improve-
ment of sensory and functional characteristics. In all the
studies, the compounds that constitute edible packaging
materials were either directly extracted from byproducts
or purchased food-grade chemical ingredients, which are
also abundant in biowastes. In general, promising packag-
ing concepts were found, as food shelf-life and quality were
extended and improved, especially when natural com-
pounds such as essential oils, plant extracts, and pigments
were added. Barrier properties were enhanced when
blends of polymers with different properties were used
rather than individual biopolymers. Edible films/coatings
remained sensitive to heat and humidity compared to con-
ventional plastics. Improving their formulation and using
them in association with secondary biodegradable packag-
ing should be investigated, especially taking into account
the full chain from production, storage, and distribution,
to disposal with realistic environmental conditions. Most
of these materials will probably end up in landfills or in
nature; thus, data on their decomposition pathways and
their time frame are needed to determine the sustain-
ability of the packaging system and establish eco-friendli
ness.
8 EDIBLE/BIODEGRADABLE
PACKAGING ON THE MARKET
Some of these research concepts have been translated
into actual products by several start-ups (Figure 4) that
216 Edible active packaging from food byproducts

TA B L E 4 Effects of composites-based active edible packaging on food preservation

Film/coating
biopolymer- Packaged food
based and storage Shelf-life
material Active Agents conditions extension Reported effects Reference
Modified starch- – In vitro NA – Inhibitory activity against Listeria Escamilla-García
chitosan innocua et al. (2017)
film – -Improved barrier and mechanical
properties than films made from
individual biopolymers

Cassava starch- Rosemary Tomatoes Until the end – Reduction of weight loss in coated Araújo et al.
chitosan pepper (Lycopersicon of the samples due to efficacy as moisture (2018)
coating (Lippia esculentum storage barriers
sidoides Mill.)stored period – Firmness maintained throughout
Cham.) at 25◦ C for 12 storage
essential oil days – Delay of ripening in the coated
and tomatoes
pomegranate – Better results were obtained when
peel extract the formulation contained both
essential oil and peel extracts

Chitosan- – Tomatoes Until the end – Antifungal properties against Olicón-

Opuntia (Lycopersicon of the Rhizopus stolonifer in vitro and in Hernándeza
ficus-indica esculentum) storage situ et al. (2019)
mucilage film stored at period – Maintenance of color, texture, and
room firmness of filmed tomatoes
temperature comparable to initial storage
for 30 days conditions with the absence of
phytopathogenic fungi
– The contrary was observed in
unfilmed samples with the
development of fungal mycelia

Alginate-pectin Ascorbic acid Mangoes Until the end – Shelf-life and quality enhanced with Silva et al. (2018)
coating (Mangifera of the coatings
indica L.) cv. storage – Better aspect of the samples due to
“Espada” period ascorbic acid addition, which acts as
stored at 8 ± an antibrowning agent, thus color
1◦ C for 16 retention was improved
days
Kappa- – Grapevines NA – Addition of carrageenan improved Wahjuningsih
carrageenan- (Vitis vinifera the mechanical and moisture et al. (2019)
jicamastarch L.)stored at barriers of the coatings
coating room – Stronger inhibition of the oxidation
temperature process compared to uncoated fruits
for 9 days
Quinoa protein- – Strawberries From 7 to 12 – Reduced growth of mold and yeast Valenzuela et al.
chitosan (Fragaria × days compared to uncoated strawberries (2015)
coating ananassa) – On day 15, fungal decay damage was
stored at 0 ± 100% in uncoated strawberries while
0.5◦ C for 15 only 36.7% for coated samples
days – Coatings with only chitosan gave
better results as fungal damage was
18.3% at the end of the storage
period

(Continues)
Edible active packaging from food byproducts 217

TA B L E 4 (Continued)
Film/coating
biopolymer- Packaged food
based and storage Shelf-life
material Active Agents conditions extension Reported effects Reference
Chitosan-gelatin Cinnamon In vitro NA – Higher antimicrobial effects were Guo et al. (2019)
film essential oil reported (>98%) especially when
essential oil was added to the films
formulation than commercial
preservatives
– Gelatin improved film mechanical,
thermal, and barrier properties
including good UV protection
– Decreased hydrophilicity due to oil
introduction, which reduced the
water vapor transmission

Gelatin-chitosan In vitro NA – DHA-enriched films caused better Cai et al. (2019)

film Docosahexaenoic brightness and improved visual
acid algal oil quality
powder – DHA addition could improve
ultraviolet barrier property and
mechanical strength by producing
films with good flexibility and
deformability
– Improving edible film properties
could enhance ω−3 PUFA delivery
to food systems

Chitosan- ε-Polylysine and In vitro NA – Natural ε-PL and astaxanthin Xu et al. (2020)
Gelatin astaxanthin showed strong antibacterial and
film extracted antioxidant properties against
from shrimp spoilage bacteria and oxidation of
(Litopenaeus corn oil
vannamei) – Good compatibility of the films
shells various constituents after using
scanning electronic microscopy and
atomic force microscopy,
homogeneous and compact
structures were observed

Carboxymethyl Ascorbic acid Carrots (Daucus Until the end – Improved water vapor resistance of Kowalczyk et al.
cellulose- carota L.) of the coated carrots due to wax (2020)
Candelilla stored at 5 ± storage incorporation
wax coating 1◦ C for 21 period – Reduction of polyphenol oxidase
days activity associated with the ascorbic
acid antioxidant action
– Fresh-like characteristics
maintained through the storage
period

Note: Active agents (-) reported effects were given by the biopolymer(s) activity.
Abbreviations: DHA, docosahexaenoic acid; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acids.

challenge the presence of persistent plastics by proposing
more sustainable solutions to food packaging (Vimal &
Ghosh, 2021). For example, Loliware (USA) (https://www.
loliware.com/the-straw) is working toward replacing plas-
tic straws by introducing seaweed-based straws. Skipping
Rocks Lab (UK) (https://www.notpla.com/) developed
an edible material named Notpla from plants and algae
for water, beverages, and sauces packaging. Besides the
possibility of eating the material along with the product,
there is also the possibility of letting the package biode-
218
FIGURE 4 Market examples of edible and eco-friendly packaging
grade, which should take 4–6 weeks. Evoware (Indonesia)
specializes in wrappings and sachets for instant coffee
and dry seasoning that could either be eaten or dissolved.
WikiCells are edible packaging resembling pearls con-
taining any foodstuff or drink, which mimic fruit and
vegetable skins. These products have been commercialized
by Incredible Foods (USA) (https://incrediblefoods.com).
Lactips (France) (https://www.lactips.com) is a com-
pany that produces casein-based materials. Do Eat
(Belgium) (https://www.ecolotec.com/do-eat) offers
edible packaging materials based on potato starch
and water, and they come in various forms such as
verrines, sandwich rings, cupcake holders, and food
bags. Other companies are emerging with innovative
designs, to name just a few: Scoby (Poland) (https:
//www.makegrowlab.com/scobypackaging), Semperfresh
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
(UK) (https://www.agricoat.co.uk/industries/processors/
semperfresh), Apeel (USA) (https://www.apeel.com),
and This Too Shall Pass by Tomorrow Machine (Swe-
den) (https://trendland.com/future-packaging-concepts).
Besides packaging in the food and beverage industries,
new concepts are being introduced in many different areas.
For instance, the design studio PriestmanGoode (UK) has
been working on a project “Get Onboard: Reduce. Reuse.
Rethink” for the aviation industry in which in-flight
meal trays could be made from biodegradable and edible
materials such as brans, husks, coffee grounds, leaves, and
algae (Patel, 2019).
Nonedible materials from food processing wastes, which
could be biodegradable and/or compostable are also being
developed. For example, an eco-friendly Six Pack Ring
called E6PR (Mexico) (https://www.e6pr.com/) is pro-
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
duced from beer brewing remains, namely wheat and bar-
ley. E6PR is used to limit plastics and protect marine
wildlife since the can holders that end up in oceans
are deadly to animals. MarinaTex (UK) (https://www.
marinatex.co.uk) is another material made from sea-
weed extracts and fish processing wastes. This new mate-
rial is home compostable, could also biodegrade within
6 weeks, and does not release any chemicals into the
soil when decomposing. The Bioplastic Skin project (Ice-
land) (https://valdissteinars.com/Bioplastic-Skin) trans-
formed byproducts namely skins from the meat indus-
try into packaging that could be used to wrap each meat
product within biomaterials that originated from the same
animal.
9 FOOD AND PACKAGING FUTURE
CHALLENGES
The global population is growing, and it is expected to
reach 10 billion by 2057 according to the Worldome-
ter (https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/).
More food is needed to meet the increased demand of >50%
by midcentury for food in general, and by nearly 70%
for animal-based food products. However, with contin-
uous pressure on agriculture and marine resources to
meet global food security, the effects have been disastrous
including issues related to biodiversity preservation, land
degradation, and natural resource depletion at a worry-
ing speed, climate change, water scarcity, and a rise of the
global temperature (FAO et al., 2018). Production, process-
ing, consumption, and disposal must change to a more sus-
tainable lifestyle to meet these socioeconomic and envi-
ronmental challenges (Bahar et al., 2020). How can soci-
ety feed this growing population with decreasing agricul-
tural lands and at the same time mitigate the environmen-
tal impacts? The World Resources Institute has identified
22 solutions that could help reach these goals such as a
shift in dietary habits to less resource-intensive produc-
tion and reduction of food loss and waste (Searchinger
et al., 2019). For the latter, a wide range of approaches
have been investigated including packaging, which is cru-
cial to keep food fresher for a longer time (Searchinger
et al., 2019) and to improve the shelf-life of foods in gen-
eral (Pereira de Abreu et al., 2012). Because of recent alarm-
ing reports about the detrimental ecological impacts from
the regular use of plastic packaging materials (Beaumont
et al., 2019), the ongoing search for biodegradable includ-
ing active edible packaging materials has been acceler-
ated. Food-grade compounds extracted from biomass have
been incorporated into the formulation of ‘‘green’’ pack-
aging. However, to avoid competing with food production,
residual biomass from food processing could be used. The
219
generation of industrial biowastes is inevitable and they
constitute a rich resource of biopolymers and other bioac-
tive compounds (Faustino et al., 2019). Consequently, their
use in packaging technology for the development of new
materials represents a great way to deal simultaneously
with the inconvenient disposal of these byproducts and
the recovery of high-added-value compounds with func-
tional properties. Edible packaging is actively involved
in preserving food quality, extending their shelf-life, and
adding nutritional/functional values, and sensory charac-
teristics to food products. As shown in Tables 2–4, for-
mulations have been tailored to the type of food prod-
uct. For example, highly perishable food would require
packaging with an effective water barrier, while ready-
to-eat food could be packed with highly soluble films.
Thus, it is important to investigate various formulations
and to characterize their effects to have the most suit-
able application of any edible active packaging (Matheus
et al., 2020). Although edible packaging has obvious advan-
tages over conventional materials as broadly discussed
in this review, it still suffers from some limitations that
impede massive commercialization at this time. The disad-
vantages have been related to barrier issues, allergic reac-
tions, cost, scale-up of production, and religious or diet
habits that restrict animal-based films and coatings (Dhall,
2013). For instance, to overcome barrier problems cross-
linking (chemical, enzymatic, and/or physical), nanocom-
posites, and blending with hydrophobic biopolymers have
been used, and to reduce the cost of production food pro-
cessing byproducts have been exploited. To achieve indus-
trial production, more appropriate machinery and equip-
ment have been tested and to avoid accidental inges-
tion better labeling has been used (Mellinas et al., 2020;
Milani & Tirgarian, 2020). To some extent, improvements
have been made, which have allowed some edible pack-
aging concepts/materials to be successfully used commer-
cially. Yet, the total replacement of petroleum-based mate-
rials is still minimal, and further research is needed to
ensure a sustainable plastic-free packaging industry in the
future.
10 CONCLUSIONS
Industrial food processing results in large amounts of
byproducts, and their valorization has led to various appli-
cations such as in food research and development. Active
edible food packaging concepts based on residual biomass
could actively participate in improving food security and
environmental sustainability by avoiding the usage of food
resources and restricting the widespread use of persis-
tent petrochemical plastics. Food byproducts offer a read-
ily available, inexpensive, and underutilized biomass with
220
a large potential to produce cheaper films and coatings,
which could allow them to compete with their petroleum-
based counterparts. These sustainable underutilized bio-
materials are fully (bio)degradable, are effective in con-
trolling quality deterioration, enhancing food shelf-life,
and conferring extra bioactive functions to foodstuffs.
These characteristics respond to the need to achieve sus-
tainability and circularity in the economy. More effort is
needed to benefit fully from sustainable packaging sys-
tems such as by standardizing tests for their recyclabil-
ity, (bio)degradability or compostability, extending their
utilization, increasing public awareness, providing effec-
tive infrastructure to deal with their recovery, offering
clear labeling, and detailed information concerning their
appropriate disposal. Furthermore, to support a transition
toward these new materials, life cycle and risk assessments
should be implemented to determine their impact on such
issues as the unwanted release of toxic plastic degradation
products in the environment and the fate of their compo-
nents with realistic conditions.
AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
The present review was partly funded by the Optimal
Utilization of Marine Food Resources (OPTiMAT) project
from the Department of Biotechnology and Food Science
of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU).
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
AU T H O R CO N T R I B U T I O N S
Conceptualization, investigation, methodology, writing-
original draft, and writing-review & editing: Imen Hamed.
Conceptualization, methodology, supervision, validation,
writing-original draft, and writing-review & editing:
Anita Nordeng Jakobsen. Conceptualization, methodol-
ogy, supervision, validation, writing-original draft, and
writing-review & editing: Jørgen Lerfall.
ORCID
Imen Hamed https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8417-7716
Anita Nordeng Jakobsen https://orcid.org/0000-0003-
1114-0175
Jørgen Lerfall https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6243-0880
REFERENCES
Abdo, S. M., & Ali, G. H. (2019). Analysis of polyhydroxybutrate and
bioplastic production from microalgae. Bulletin of the National
Research Centre, 43(1), 97.
Afshari, A., Piroozehpoor, M., Jamshidi, A., Azizzadeh, M., & Sarafan
Sadeghi, A. (2018). Effect of novel zein coating combined with dif-
ferent antioxidants (thymol and carvacrol) on the aflatoxin pro-
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
duction of peanut. Journal of Nutrition, Fasting and Health, 6, 23–
29.
Ahmed, I., Lin, H., Zou, L., Brody, A. L., Li, Z., Qazi, I. M., Pavase, T.
R., & Lv, L. (2017). A comprehensive review on the application of
active packaging technologies to muscle foods. Food Control, 82,
163–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.06.009
Akcan, T., Estévez, M., & Serdaroğlu, M. (2017). Antioxidant pro-
tection of cooked meatballs during frozen storage by whey pro-
tein edible films with phytochemicals from Laurus nobilis L. and
Salvia officinalis. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 77, 323–331.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.11.051
Alparslan, Y., & Baygar, T. (2017). Effect of chitosan film coating com-
bined with orange peel essential oil on the shelf life of deepwa-
ter pink shrimp. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 10(5), 842–853.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-017-1862-y
Araújo, J. M. S., de Siqueira, A. C. P., Blank, A. F., Narain, N., &
de Aquino Santana, L. C. L. (2018). A cassava starch-chitosan
edible coating enriched with Lippia sidoides Cham. essential oil
and pomegranate peel extract for preservation of Italian toma-
toes (Lycopersicon esculentum mill.) stored at room temperature.
Food and Bioprocess Technology, 11(9), 1750–1760. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11947-018-2139-9
Aspevik, T., Oterhals, Å., Rønning, S. B., Altintzoglou, T., Wubshet,
S. G., Gildberg, A., Afseth, N. K., Whitaker, R. D., & Lindberg, D.
(2017). Valorization of proteins from co- and by-products from the
fish and meat industry. Topic in Current Chemistry, 375, 53. https:
//doi.org/10.1007/s41061-017-0143-6
Atieno, L., Owino, W., Ateka, E. M., & Ambuko, J. (2019). Influence of
coating application methods on the postharvest quality of cassava.
International Journal of Food Science, 2019, 1–16. https://doi.org/
10.1155/2019/2148914
Bahar, N. H., Lo, M., Sanjaya, M., Van Vianen, J., Alexander, P., Ick-
owitz, A., & Sunderland, T. (2020). Meeting the food security chal-
lenge for nine billion people in 2050: What impact on forests?
Global Environmental Change, 62, 102056. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.gloenvcha.2020.102056
Barbot, Y. N., Al-Ghaili, H., & Benz, R. (2016). A review on the val-
orization of macroalgal wastes for biomethane production. Marine
Drugs, 14(6), 120.
Bas-Bellver, C., Barrera, C., Betoret, N., & Seguí, L. (2020). Turn-
ing agri-food cooperative vegetable residues into functional pow-
dered ingredients for the food industry. Sustainability, 12(4),
1284.
Beaumont, N. J., Aanesen, M., Austen, M. C., Börger, T., Clark, J. R.,
Cole, M., Hooper, T., Lindeque, P. K., Pascoe, C., & Wyles, K. J.
(2019). Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine
plastic. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 142, 189–195. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022
Benbettaïeb, N., Debeaufort, F., & Karbowiak, T. (2019). Bioactive edi-
ble films for food applications: Mechanisms of antimicrobial and
antioxidant activity. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition,
59(21), 3431–3455. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2018.1494132
Ben-Othman, S., Jõudu, I., & Bhat, R. (2020). Bioactives from agri-
food wastes: Present insights and future challenges. Molecules,
25(3), 510. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25030510
Bhalamurugan, G. L., Valerie, O., & Mark, L. (2018). Valuable bio-
products obtained from microalgal biomass and their commer-
cial applications: A review. Environmental Engineering Research,
23(3), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2017.220
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
Bharti, S. K., Pathak, V., Alam, T., Arya, A., Basak, G., & Awasthi, M.
G. (2020). Materiality of edible film packaging in muscle foods:
A worthwhile conception. Journal of Packaging Technology and
Research, 4, 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41783-020-00087-9
Brown, S. R., Kozak, S. M., & D’Amico, D. J. (2018). Applications
of edible coatings formulated with antimicrobials inhibit Listeria
monocytogenes growth on Queso Fresco. Frontiers in Sustainable
Food Systems, 2, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00001
Cai, L., Shi, H., Cao, A., & Jia, J. (2019). Characterization of
gelatin/chitosan ploymer films integrated with docosahexaenoic
acids fabricated by different methods. Scientific Reports, 9, 8375.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44807-x
Campos, C. A., Gerschenson, L. N., & Flores, S. K. (2011). Develop-
ment of edible films and coatings with antimicrobial activity. Food
and Bioprocess Technology, 4(6), 849–875.
Carbery, M., O’Connor, W., & Palanisami, T. (2018). Trophic trans-
fer of microplastics and mixed contaminants in the marine food
web and implications for human health. Environment Inter-
national, 115, 400–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.03.
007
Cardoso, T., Demiate, I. M., & Danesi, E. D. G. (2017). Biodegrad-
able films with Spirulina platensis as coating for Cambuci peppers
(Capsicum sp.). American Journal of Food Technology, 12, 236–244.
https://doi.org/10.3923/ajft.2017.236.244
Carlucci, D., Nocella, G., De Devitiis, B., Viscecchia, R., Bimbo, F.,
& Nardone, G. (2015). Consumer purchasing behaviour towards
fish and seafood products. Patterns and insights from a sample
of international studies. Appetite, 84, 212–227. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.appet.2014.10.008
Chen, H., Wang, J., Cheng, Y., Wang, C., Liu, H., Bian, H., Pan,
Y., Sun, J., & Han, W. (2019). Application of protein-based films
and coatings for food packaging: A Review. Polymers, 11(12), 2039.
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym11122039
Ciriminna, R., & Pagliaro, M. (2020). Biodegradable and compostable
plastics: A critical perspective on the dawn of their global adop-
tion. Chemistry Open, 9(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/open.
201900272
Coma, V., & Bartkowiak, A. (2019). Potential of chitosans in the devel-
opment of edible food packaging. In L. A. M. van den Broek, &
C. G. Boeriu (Eds.), Chitin and chitosan: Properties and applica-
tions (pp. 349–369). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781119450467.ch14
Da Rocha, M., Alemán, A., Romani, V. P., López-Caballero, M.
E., Gómez-Guillén, M. C., Montero, P., & Prentice, C. (2018).
Effects of agar films incorporated with fish protein hydrolysate
or clove essential oil on flounder (Paralichthys orbignyanus) fillets
shelf-life. Food Hydrocolloids, 81, 351–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.foodhyd.2018.03.017
de Azeredo, H. M. C. (2012). Edible coatings. In S. Rodrigues, & F. A.
N. Fernandes (Eds.), Advances in fruit processing technologies (pp.
345–355). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b12088
de Moraes, J. O., Scheibe, A. S., Sereno, A., & Laurindo, J. B. (2013).
Scale-up of the production of cassava starch-based films using
tape-casting. Journal of Food Engineering, 119(4), 800–808. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2013.07.009
de Oliveira, Á. M. F., Araújo, R. H. C. R., de Medeiros Teod, A. E. M.,
de Lima, J. F., de Freitas, E. F. Q., dos Santos, J. J. F., Lima Santos,
B. G. F., Onias, E. A., Silva Rodrigues, M. H. B., de Araújo Alves, K.,
& Oliveira, L. M. (2018). Postharvest quality of ‘Prata Anã’ bananas
221
treated with microalgae coating. Journal of Experimental Agricul-
ture International, 27, 1–11.
Dehghani, S., Hosseini, S. V., & Regenstein, J. M. (2018). Edible films
and coatings in seafood preservation: A review. Food Chemistry,
240, 505–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.07.034
Dhall, R. K. (2013). Advances in edible coatings for fresh fruits and
vegetables: A review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutri-
tion, 53(5), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2010.541568
Dhumal, C. V., & Sarkar, P. (2018). Composite edible films and coat-
ings from food-grade biopolymers. Journal of Food Science and
Technology, 55(11), 4369–4383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-018-
3402-9
Di Giorgio, L., Salgado, P. R., & Mauri, A. N. (2019). Flavored oven
bags for cooking meat based on proteins. LWT - Food Science and
Technology, 101, 374–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.11.002
Dilucia, F., Lacivita, V., Conte, A., & Nobile, M. A. D. (2020). Sus-
tainable use of fruit and vegetable by-products to enhance food
packaging performance. Foods, 9(7), 857. https://doi.org/10.3390/
foods9070857
EC (European Commission). (2019). The European Green Deal. Com-
munication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels.
Eça, K. S., Sartori, T., & Menegalli, F. C. (2014). Films and edible coat-
ings containing antioxidants: A review. Brazilian Journal of Food
Technology, 17(2), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1590/bjft.2014.017
ElMekawy, A., Diels, L., De Wever, H., & Pant, D. (2013). Valoriza-
tion of cereal based biorefinery byproducts: reality and expec-
tations. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(16), 9014–9027.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es402395g
Escamilla-García, M., Reyes-Basurto, A., García-Almendárez,
B. E., Hernández-Hernández, E., Calderón-Domínguez,
G., Rossi-Márquez, G., & Regalado-González, C. (2017).
Modified starch-chitosan edible films: Physicochemical
and mechanical characterization. Coatings, 7(12), 224.
https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings7120224
European Bioplastics. (2016). Fact sheet, European Bioplastics:
What are the bioplastics? European Bioplastics, Berlin, Ger-
many. https://docs.european-bioplastics.org/2016/publications/
fs/EUBP_fs_what_are_bioplastics.pdf
Falguera, V., Quintero, J. P., Jiménez, A., Muñoz, J. A., & Ibarz, A.
(2011). Edible films and coatings: Structures, active functions and
trends in their use. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22(6),
292–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2011.02.004
FAO., IFAD., UNICEF., WFP., & WHO. (2018). The state of food secu-
rity and nutrition in the world 2018. Building climate resilience for
food security and nutrition. FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/i9553en/
i9553en.pdf
FAO. (2011). Global food losses and food waste-Extent, causes and
prevention. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2697e.pdf
FAO. (2019). The state of food and agriculture 2019. Moving forward
on food loss and waste reduction. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/
ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf
Faustino, M., Veiga, M., Sousa, P., Costa, E. M., Silva, S., & Pin-
tado, M. (2019). Agro-food byproducts as a new source of natu-
ral food additives. Molecules, 24(6), 1056. https://doi.org/10.3390/
molecules24061056
Fierascu, R. C., Sieniawska, E., Ortan, A., Fierascu, I., & Xiao, J.
(2020). Fruits by-products—A source of valuable active principles.
222
A short review. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 8,
319. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00319
Filiciotto, L., & Rothenberg, G. (2021). Biodegradable plastics: Stan-
dards, policies, and impacts. Chemsuschem, 14(1), 56. https://doi.
org/10.1002/cssc.202002044
Folino, A., Karageorgiou, A., Calabrò, P. S., & Komilis, D. (2020).
Biodegradation of wasted bioplastics in natural and industrial
environments: A review. Sustainability, 12(15), 6030. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su12156030
Galanakis, C. M. (2012). Recovery of high added-value components
from food wastes: Conventional, emerging technologies and com-
mercialized applications. Trends in Food Science & Technology,
26(2), 68–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2012.03.003
Gallego, M. G., Gordon, M. H., Segovia, F., & Pablos A., & M,
P. (2016). Gelatine-based antioxidant packaging containing Cae-
salpinia decapetala and Tara as a coating for ground beef patties.
Antioxidants, 5(2), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox5020010
Ganesan, A. R., Shanmugam, M., & Bhat, R. (2018). Produc-
ing novel edible films from semi refined carrageenan (SRC)
and ulvan polysaccharides for potential food applications.
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 112, 1164–
1170.
García-Cruz, H. I., Jaime-Fonseca, M. R., Von Borries-Medrano, E., &
Vieyra, H. (2020). Extrusion parameters to produce a PLA-starch
derived thermoplastic polymer. Revista Mexicana de Ingeniería
Química, 19, 395–412. https://doi.org/10.24275/rmiq/Poly1529
Gerassimidou, S., Martin, O. V., Chapman, S. P., Hahladakis, J. N., &
Iacovidou, E. (2021). Development of an integrated sustainability
matrix to depict challenges and trade-offs of introducing bio-based
plastics in the food packaging value chain. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, 286, 125378.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and
fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7), e1700782.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782
Ghosh, P. R., Fawcett, D., Sharma, S. B., & Poinern, G. E. J. (2016).
Progress towards sustainable utilisation and management of food
wastes in the global economy. International Journal of Food Sci-
ence, 2016, 3563478. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3563478
Goossens, Y., Schmidt, T. G., & Kuntscher, M. (2020). Evaluation of
food waste prevention measures—The use of fish products in the
food service sector. Sustainability, 12(16), 6613. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su12166613
Grasso, S. (2020). Extruded snacks from industrial by-products: A
review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 99, 284–294. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.03.012
Guil-Guerrero, J. L., Ramos, L., Moreno, C., Zúñiga Paredes, J. C.,
Carlosama-Yepez, M., & Ruales, P. (2016). Antimicrobial activity of
plant-food by-products: A review focusing on the tropics. Livestock
Science, 189, 32–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2016.04.021
Guillard, V., Gaucel, S., Fornaciari, C., Angellier-Coussy, H., Buche,
P., & Gontard, N. (2018). The next generation of sustainable food
packaging to preserve our environment in a circular economy
context. Frontiers in Nutrition, 5, 121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.
2018.00121
Guimaraes, A., Abrunhosa, L., Pastrana, L. M., & Cerqueira, M. A.
(2018). Edible films and coatings as carriers of living microorgan-
isms: A new strategy towards biopreservation and healthier foods.
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 17(3), 594–
614. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12345
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
Guo, Y., Chen, X., Yang, F., Wang, T., Ni, M., Chen, Y., Yang, F.,
Huang, D., Fu, C., & Wang, S. (2019). Preparation and characteri-
zation of chitosan-based ternary blend edible films with efficient
antimicrobial activities for food packaging applications. Journal
of Food Science, 84(6), 1411–1419. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.
14650
Gutt, G., & Amariei, S. (2020). The use of edible films based on
sodium alginate in meat product packaging: An eco-friendly alter-
native to conventional plastic materials. Coatings, 10(2), 166. https:
//doi.org/10.3390/coatings10020166
Haider, T. P., Völker, C., Kramm, J., Landfester, K., & Wurm, F. R.
(2019). Plastics of the future? The impact of biodegradable poly-
mers on the environment and on society. Angewandte Chemie
International Edition, 58(1), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.
201805766
Han, J. W., Ruiz-Garcia, L., Qian, J. P., & Yang, X. T. (2018). Food
packaging: A comprehensive review and future trends. Compre-
hensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 17(4), 860–877.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12343
Hanani, Z. N., Roos, Y. H., & Kerry, J. P. (2014). Use and application
of gelatin as potential biodegradable packaging materials for food
products. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 71,
94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.04.027
Hemdane, S., Jacobs, P. J., Dornez, E., Verspreet, J., Delcour, J. A.,
& Courtin, C. M. (2016). Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) bran in
bread making: A critical review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food
Science and Food Safety, 15(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-
4337.12176
Hempel, F., Bozarth, A. S., Lindenkamp, N., Klingl, A., Zauner,
S., Linne, U., Linne, U., Steinbüchel, A., & Maier, U. G. (2011).
Microalgae as bioreactors for bioplastic production. Microbial Cell
Factories, 10(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2859-10-81
Hernández, D., Molinuevo-Salces, B., Riaño, B., Larrán-García, A.
M., Tomás-Almenar, C., & García-González, M. C. (2018). Recov-
ery of protein concentrates from microalgal biomass grown in
manure for fish feed and valorization of the by-products through
anaerobic digestion. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 2, 28.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00028
Hjellnes, V., Rustad, T., & Falch, E. (2020). The value chain of the
white fish industry in Norway: History, current status and pos-
sibilities for improvement—A review. Regional Studies in Marine
Science, 36, 101293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2020.101293
Ishangulyyev, R., Kim, S., & Lee, S. H. (2019). Understanding food
loss and waste—Why are we losing and wasting food? Foods, 8(8),
297. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8080297
Izci, L., Ekici, F., & Günlü, A. (2018). Coating with chitosan film of sea
bream (Sparus aurata) fillets: Determining shelf life in refrigerator
conditions. Food Science and Technology, 38(1), 54–59. https://doi.
org/10.1590/1678-457x.38416
Jâms, I. B., Windsor, F. M., Poudevigne-Durance, T., Ormerod, S. J.,
& Durance, I. (2020). Estimating the size distribution of plastics
ingested by animals. Nature Communications, 11, 1594. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41467-020-15406-6
Janjarasskul, T., & Krochta, J. M. (2010). Edible packaging materials.
Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 1, 415–448. https:
//doi.org/10.1146/annurev.food.080708.100836
Jayathilakan, K., Sultana, K., Radhakrishna, K., & Bawa, A. S. (2012).
Utilization of byproducts and waste materials from meat, poul-
try and fish processing industries: A review. Journal of Food
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
Science and Technology, 49(3), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13197-011-0290-7
Kaewprachu, P., Osako, K., Benjakul, S., Suthiluk, P., & Rawdkuen,
S. (2017). Shelf life extension for bluefin tuna slices (Thunnus thyn-
nus) wrapped with myofibrillar protein film incorporated with
catechin-Kradon extract. Food Control, 79, 333–343. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.04.014
Kalli, E., Lappa, I., Bouchagier, P., Tarantilis, P. A., & Skotti, E.
(2018). Novel application and industrial exploitation of winery by-
products. Bioresources and Bioprocessing, 5(1), 46. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s40643-018-0232-6
Kamal, I. (2019). Edible films and coatings: Classification, prepa-
ration, functionality and applications—A review. An Archive of
Organic and Inorganic Chemical Science, 4(2), 501–510.
Karimnezhad, F., Razavilar, V., Anvar, A. A., & Eskandari, S. (2017).
Study the antimicrobial effects of chitosan-based edible film con-
taining the Trachyspermum ammi essential oil on shelf-life of
chicken meat. Microbiology Research, 8(2), 7226. https://doi.org/
10.4081/mr.2017.7226
Kasapidou, E., Sossidou, E., & Mitlianga, P. (2015). Fruit and veg-
etable co-products as functional feed ingredients in farm animal
nutrition for improved product quality. Agriculture, 5(4), 1020–
1034. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture5041020
Khalili Tilami, S., & Sampels, S. (2018). Nutritional value of fish:
Lipids, proteins, vitamins, and minerals. Reviews in Fisheries
Science & Aquaculture, 26(2), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23308249.2017.1399104
Kögel, T., Bjorøy, Ø., Toto, B., Bienfait, A. M., & Sanden, M. (2020).
Micro-and nanoplastic toxicity on aquatic life: Determining fac-
tors. Science of the Total Environment, 709, 136050. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136050
Kowalczyk, D., Skrzypek, T., & Łupina, K. (2020). Effect of car-
boxymethyl cellulose/candelilla wax edible coating incorporated
with ascorbic acid on the physicochemical and sensory qualities of
prepackaged minimally processed carrots (Daucus carota L.) dur-
ing cold storage. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 44(9),
e14713. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.14713
Lambert, S., & Wagner, M. (2017). Environmental performance of
bio-based and biodegradable plastics: The road ahead. Chem-
ical Society Reviews, 46(22), 6855–6871. https://doi.org/10.1039/
C7CS00149E
Lamberti, F. M., Román-Ramírez, L. A., & Wood, J. (2020). Recycling
of bioplastics: Routes and benefits. Journal of Polymers and the
Environment, 28, 2551–2571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-020-
01795-8
Leandro, A., Pacheco, D., Cotas, J., Marques, J. C., Pereira, L., &
Gonçalves, A. M. (2020). Seaweed’s bioactive candidate com-
pounds to food industry and global food security. Life, 10(8), 140.
https://doi.org/10.3390/life10080140
Lee, D., Kim, M. J., Kwak, H. S., & Kim, S. S. (2020). Characteristics
of bread made of various substitution ratios of bran pulverized by
hammer mill or jet mill. Foods, 9(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/
foods9010048
Lin, M. G., Lasekan, O., Saari, N., & Khairunniza-Bejo, S. (2018).
Effect of chitosan and carrageenan-based edible coatings on post-
harvested longan (Dimocarpus longan) fruits. CyTA - Journal of
Food, 16(1), 490497. https://doi.org/10.1080/19476337.2017.1414078
Lourenço-Lopes, C., Fraga-Corral, M., Jimenez-Lopez, C., Pereira,
A. G., Garcia-Oliveira, P., Carpena, M., Prieto, M. A., & Simal-
Gandara, J. (2020). Metabolites from macroalgae and its appli-
223
cations in the cosmetic industry: A circular economy approach.
Resources, 9(9), 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9090101
Luithui, Y., Nisha, R. B., & Meera, M. S. (2019). Cereal by-products as
an important functional ingredient: Effect of processing. Journal of
Food Science and Technology, 56(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13197-018-3461-y
Luzi, F., Torre, L., Kenny, J. M., & Puglia, D. (2019). Bio-and
fossil-based polymeric blends and nanocomposites for packaging:
Structure-property relationship. Materials, 12(3), 471. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ma12030471
Macagnan, F. T., dos Santos, L. R., Roberto, B. S., de Moura, F.
A., Bizzani, M., & daSilva, L. P. (2015). Biological properties of
apple pomace, orange bagasse and passion fruit peel as alterna-
tive sources of dietary fibre. Bioactive Carbohydrates and Dietary
Fibre, 6(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcdf.2015.04.001
Rafiq, S. M., & Rafiq, S. I. (2019). Milk by-products utilization. In S.
A. Ibrahim, T. Zimmerman, & R. Gyawali (Eds.), Current issues
and challenges in the dairy industry (pp. 31–38). IntechOpen. https:
//www.intechopen.com/chapters/67442
Martínez, O., Salmerón, J., Epelde, L., Vicente, M. S., & Vega, C.
(2018). Quality enhancement of smoked sea bass (Dicentrarchus
labrax) fillets by adding resveratrol and coating with chitosan and
alginate edible films. Food Control, 85, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.foodcont.2017.10.003
Martiny, T. R., Pacheco, B. S., Pereira, C. M., Mansilla, A., Astorga-
España, M. S., Dotto, G. L., Moraes, C. C., & Rosa, G. S. (2020). A
novel biodegradable film based on κ-carrageenan activated with
olive leaves extract. Food Science & Nutrition, 8, 3147–3156. https:
//doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.1554
Matheus, J. R. V., Miyahira, R. F., & Fai, A. E. C. (2020). Biodegradable
films based on fruit puree: A brief review. Critical Reviews in Food
Science and Nutrition, 61, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.
2020.1772715
Mathiot, C., Ponge, P., Gallard, B., Sassi, J. F., Delrue, F., & Le Moigne,
N. (2019). Microalgae starch-based bioplastics: Screening of ten
strains and plasticization of unfractionated microalgae by extru-
sion. Carbohydrate Polymers, 208, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.carbpol.2018.12.057
Mazorra-Manzano, M. A., Robles-Porchas, G. R., González-
Velázquez, D. A., Torres-Llanez, M. J., Martínez-Porchas,
M., García-Sifuentes, C. O., González-Córdova, A. F., &
Vallejo-Córdoba, B. (2020). Cheese whey fermentation by
its native microbiota: Proteolysis and bioactive peptides
release with ACE-inhibitory activity. Fermentation, 6(1), 19.
https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation6010019
Mellinas, C., Ramos, M., Jiménez, A., & Garrigós, M. C. (2020).
Recent trends in the use of pectin from agro-waste residues as a
natural-based biopolymer for food packaging applications. Mate-
rials, 13(3), 673. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13030673
Mellinas, C., Valdés, A., Ramos, M., Burgos, N., Garrigos, M. D. C.,
& Jiménez, A. (2016). Active edible films: Current state and future
trends. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 133, 1–15. https://doi.
org/10.1002/app.42631
Milani, J. M., & Tirgarian, B. (2020). An overview of edible protein-
based packaging: Main sources, advantages, drawbacks, recent
progressions and food applications. Journal of Packaging Technol-
ogy and Research, 4, 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41783-020-
00086-w
Mishra, S., Roy, M., & Mohanty, K. (2019). Microalgal bioenergy pro-
duction under zero-waste biorefinery approach: Recent advances
224
and future perspectives. Bioresource Technology, 292, 122008. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122008
Mobin, S., & Alam, F. (2017). Some promising microalgal species for
commercial applications: A review. Energy Procedia, 110, 510–517.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.177
Moghaddas Kia, E., Ghasempour, Z., & Alizadeh, M. (2018).
Fabrication of an eco-friendly antioxidant biocomposite: Zedo
gum/sodium caseinate film by incorporating microalgae (Spir-
ulina platensis). Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 135(13), 46024.
https://doi.org/10.1002/app.46024
Morales-Jiménez, M., Gouveia, L., Yáñez-Fernández, J., Castro-
Muñoz, R., & Barragán-Huerta, B. E. (2020). Production, prepa-
ration and characterization of microalgae-based biopolymer as a
potential bioactive film. Coatings, 10(2), 120. https://doi.org/10.
3390/coatings10020120
Nawaz, A., Li, E., Irshad, S., Xiong, Z., Xiong, H., Shahbaz, H. M.,
& Siddique, F. (2020). Valorization of fisheries by-products: Chal-
lenges and technical concerns to food industry. Trends in Food Sci-
ence & Technology, 99, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.02.
022
Nguyen, T. T., Dao, U. T. T., Bui, Q. P. T., Bach, G. L., Thuc, C. H., &
Thuc, H. H. (2020). Enhanced antimicrobial activities and phys-
iochemical properties of edible film based on chitosan incorpo-
rated with Sonneratia caseolaris (L.) Engl. leaf extract. Progress in
Organic Coatings, 140, 105487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.porgcoat.
2019.105487
Ni, N., & Dumont, M. J. (2017). Protein-based hydrogels derived from
industrial byproducts containing collagen, keratin, zein and soy.
Waste and Biomass Valorization, 8(2), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12649-016-9684-0
Olicón-Hernández, D. R., Acosta-Sánchez, Á., Monterrubio-López,
R., & Guerra-Sánchez, G. (2019). Chitosan and Opuntia ficus-
indica mucilage as the base of a polymeric edible film for the pro-
tection of tomatoes against Rhizopus stolonifer. TIP Revista Espe-
cializada en Ciencias Químico-Biológicas, 22(1), 1–9. https://doi.
org/10.22201/fesz.23958723e.2019.0.194
Olsen, R. L., Toppe, J., & Karunasagar, I. (2014). Challenges and real-
istic opportunities in the use of by-products from processing of fish
and shellfish. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 36(2), 144–151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.01.007
Östergren, K., Gustavsson, J., Hansen, J., Møller, H., Research, O.,
Anderson, G., Bellettato, C., Canali, M., Falasconi, L., Gaiani, S.,
Vittuari, M., Salhofer, S., Linzner, R., & Caspar, B. (2014). Fusions
definitional framework for food waste. https://www.eu-fusions.
org/phocadownload/Publications/FUSIONS%20Definitional%
20Framework%20for%20Food%20Waste%202014.pdf
Otoni, C. G., Avena-Bustillos, R. J., Azeredo, H. M., Lorevice, M. V.,
Moura, M. R., Mattoso, L. H., & McHugh, T. H. (2017). Recent
advances on edible films based on fruits and vegetables—A review.
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 16(5),
1151–1169. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12281
Panahirad, S., Naghshiband-Hassani, R., & Mahna, N. (2020). Pectin-
based edible coating preserves antioxidative capacity of plum fruit
during shelf life. Food Science and Technology International, 26(7),
583–592 https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013220916559
Pardilhó, S. L., Machado, S., Bessada, S. M. F., Almeida, M. F.,
Oliveira, M. B., & Dias, J. M. (2021). Marine macroalgae waste
from northern Portugal: A potential source of natural pigments?
Waste and Biomass Valorization, 12, 239–249. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12649-020-01016-2
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
Pascall, M. A., & Lin, S. J. (2013). The application of edible polymeric
films and coatings in the food industry. Food Processing & Technol-
ogy, 4, e116. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7110.1000e116
Patel, P. (2019). Edible packaging. ACS Central Science, 5, 1907–1910.
Penven, A., Perez-Galvez, R., & Bergé, J. P. (2013). By-products from
fish processing: Focus on French industry. In R. P. Galvez, & J-P
Berge (Eds.), Utilization of fish waste (pp. 1–26). CRC Press. https:
//archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00148/25916/23949.pdf
Pereira de Abreu, D. A., Cruz, J. M., & Paseiro Losada, P.
(2012). Active and intelligent packaging for the food indus-
try. Food Reviews International, 28(2), 146–187. https://doi.org/10.
1080/87559129.2011.595022
Rabnawaz, M., Wyman, I., Auras, R., & Cheng, S. (2017). A roadmap
towards green packaging: The current status and future outlook
for polyesters in the packaging industry. Green Chemistry, 19(20),
4737–4753. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7GC02521A
Ramos, M., Valdes, A., Beltran, A., & Garrigós, M. C. (2016). Gelatin-
based films and coatings for food packaging applications. Coat-
ings, 6(4), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings6040041
Ravindran, R., & Jaiswal, A. K. (2016). Exploitation of food industry
waste for high-value products. Trends in Biotechnology, 34(1), 58–
69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.10.008
Richardsen, R., Ragnar, N., Strandheim, G., & Marthinussen, A.
(2017). Analyse marint restråstoff, 2016 - Tilgang og anvendelse
av marint restråstoff i Norge. SINTEF Ocean report, OC2017,
A-095.
Rossman, J. M. (2009). Commercial manufacture of edible films. In
M. E. Embuscado, & K. C. Huber (Eds.), Edible films and coat-
ings for food applications (pp. 367–390). Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-0-387-92824-1_14
Rumin, J., Nicolau, E., Junior, R. G. D. O., Fuentes-Grünewald, C., &
Picot, L. (2020). Analysis of scientific research driving microalgae
market opportunities in Europe. Marine Drugs, 18(5), 264. https:
//doi.org/10.3390/md18050264
Rustad, T., Storrø, I., & Slizyte, R. (2011). Possibilities for the utilisa-
tion of marine by-products. International Journal of Food Science &
Technology, 46(10), 2001–2014. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.
2011.02736.x
Ryder, K., Ali, M. A., Carne, A., & Billakanti, J. (2017). The
potential use of dairy by-products for the production of non-
food biomaterials. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and
Technology, 47(8), 621–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2017.
1322875
Sagar, N. A., Pareek, S., Sharma, S., Yahia, E. M., & Lobo, M. G. (2018).
Fruit and vegetable waste: Bioactive compounds, their extraction,
and possible utilization. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science
and Food Safety, 17(3), 512–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.
12330
Saha, D., & Bhattacharya, S. (2010). Hydrocolloids as thickening
and gelling agents in food: A critical review. Journal of Food
Science and Technology, 47(6), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13197-010-0162-6
Santana, J. C., Gardim, R. B., Almeida, P. F., Borini, G. B., Quispe, A.
P., Llanos, S. A., Heredia, J. A., Zamuner, S., Gamarra, F. M. C.,
Farias, T. M. B., Ho, L. L., & Berssaneti, F. T. (2020). Valorization
of chicken feet by-product of the poultry industry: High qualities
of gelatin and biofilm from extraction of collagen. Polymers, 12(3),
529. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12030529
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
Sasidharan, A., & Venugopal, V. (2020). Proteins and co-products
from seafood processing discards: Their recovery, functional prop-
erties and applications. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 11, 5647–
5663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-019-00812-9
Schieber, A. (2017). Side streams of plant food processing as a source
of valuable compounds: Selected examples. Annual Review of
Food Science and Technology, 8, 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-food-030216-030135.
Searchinger, T., Waite, R., Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Dumas, P.,
Matthews, E., & Klirs, C. (2019). Creating a sustainable food future:
A menu of solutions to feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050. Final
report. World Resources Institute. https://research.wri.org/sites/
default/files/2019-07/WRR_Food_Full_Report_0.pdf
Senturk Parreidt, T., Müller, K., & Schmid, M. (2018). Alginate-based
edible films and coatings for food packaging applications. Foods,
7(10), 170. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods7100170
Shahidi, F., & Hossain, A. (2020). Preservation of aquatic food using
edible films and coatings containing essential oils: A review. Criti-
cal Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10408398.2020.1812048
Shit, S. C., & Shah, P. M. (2014). Edible polymers: Challenges and
opportunities. Journal of Polymers, 2014, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.
1155/2014/427259
Silva, F. A., Finkler, L., & Finkler, C. L. L. (2018). Effect of edible coat-
ings based on alginate/pectin on quality preservation of minimally
processed ‘Espada’mangoes. Journal of Food Science and Technol-
ogy, 55(12), 5055–5063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-018-3444-z
Silva-Weiss, A., Ihl, M., Sobral, P. D. A., Gómez-Guillén, M. C.,
& Bifani, V. (2013). Natural additives in bioactive edible films
and coatings: Functionality and applications in foods. Food Engi-
neering Reviews, 5(4), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12393-013-
9072-5
Sothornvit, R., & Krochta, J. M. (2005). Plasticizers in edible films
and coatings. In J. H. Han (Ed.), Innovations in food packaging (pp.
403–433). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
012311632-1/50055-3
Stejskal, N., Miranda, J. M., Martucci, J. F., Ruseckaite, R. A., Barros-
Velázquez, J., & Aubourg, S. P. (2020). Quality enhancement of
refrigerated hake muscle by active packaging with a protein con-
centrate from Spirulina platensis. Food and Bioprocess Technology,
13, 1110–1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-020-02468-z
Stevens, J. R., Newton, R. W., Tlusty, M., & Little, D. C. (2018). The rise
of aquaculture by-products: Increasing food production, value,
and sustainability through strategic utilisation. Marine Policy, 90,
115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.12.027
Suhag, R., Kumar, N., Petkoska, A. T., & Upadhyay, A. (2020). Film
formation and deposition methods of edible coating on food prod-
ucts: A review. Food Research International, 136, 109582. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109582
Šuput, D. Z., Lazić, V. L., Popović, S. Z., & Hromiš, N. M. (2015). Edible
films and coatings: Sources, properties and application. Food and
Feed Research, 42(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.5937/FFR1501011S
Suresh, P. V., Kudre, T. G., & Johny, L. C. (2018). Sustainable valoriza-
tion of seafood processing by-product/discard. In R. R. Singhania,
R. A. Agarwal, R. P. Kumar, & R. K. Sukumaran (Eds.), Waste to
wealth (pp. 111–139). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-
7431-8_7
Tan, Y. N., Lee, P. P., & Chen, W. N. (2020). Microbial extraction of
chitin from seafood waste using sugars derived from fruit waste-
225
stream. AMB Express, 10(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-020-
0954-7
Tavassoli-Kafrani, E., Shekarchizadeh, H., & Masoudpour-Behabadi,
M. (2016). Development of edible films and coatings from alginates
and carrageenans. Carbohydrate Polymers, 137, 360–374. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.10.074
Tedesco, S., & Stokes, J. (2017). Valorisation to biogas of macroal-
gal waste streams: A circular approach to bioproducts and bioen-
ergy in Ireland. Chemical Papers, 71(4), 721–728. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11696-016-0005-7
Teigiserova, D. A., Hamelin, L., & Thomsen, M. (2019). Review of
high-value food waste and food residues biorefineries with focus
on unavoidable wastes from processing. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 149, 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2019.05.003
Thakur, R., Pristijono, P., Scarlett, C. J., Bowyer, M., Singh, S. P.,
& Vuong, Q. V. (2019). Starch-based films: Major factors affect-
ing their properties. International Journal of Biological Macro-
molecules, 132, 1079–1089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.
03.190
Tokatlı, K., & Demirdöven, A. (2020). Effects of chitosan edible film
coatings on the physicochemical and microbiological qualities
of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.). Scientia Horticulturae, 259,
108656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108656
Toldrá, F., Mora, L., & Reig, M. (2016). New insights into meat by-
product utilization. Meat Science, 120, 54–59. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.021
Trinetta, V. (2016). Edible packaging. In reference module in food sci-
ence. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.03210-8
Uçak, I. (2019). Physicochemical and antimicrobial effects of gelatin-
based edible films incorporated with garlic peel extract on the
rainbow trout fillets. Progress in Nutrition, 21(1), 232–240. https:
//doi.org/10.23751/pn.v21i1.8222
UN (United Nations). (2015). Resolution adopted by the General
Assembly on 25 September 2015. Transforming our world: The
2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://www.un.org/
ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E
Valdés, A., Ramos, M., Beltrán, A., Jiménez, A., & Garrigós, M. C.
(2017). State of the art of antimicrobial edible coatings for food
packaging applications. Coatings, 7(4), 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/
coatings7040056
Valenzuela, C., Tapia, C., López, L., Bunger, A., Escalona, V., & Abu-
goch, L. (2015). Effect of edible quinoa protein-chitosan based
films on refrigerated strawberry (Fragaria×ananassa) quality.
Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 18(6), 406–411. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ejbt.2015.09.001
Velickova, E., Winkelhausen, E., Kuzmanova, S., Moldao-Martins,
M., & Alves, V. D. (2015). Characterization of multilayered and
composite edible films from chitosan and beeswax. Food Science
and Technology International, 21(2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1082013213511807
Venkatachalam, K., & Lekjing, S. (2020). A chitosan-based edible film
with clove essential oil and nisin for improving the quality and
shelf life of pork patties in cold storage. RSC Advances, 10(30),
17777–17786. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RA02986F
Verbeek, C. J., & van den Berg, L. E. (2010). Extrusion processing
and properties of protein-based thermoplastics. Macromolecular
Materials and Engineering, 295(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/
mame.200900167
226
Verni, M., Rizzello, C. G., & Coda, R. (2019). Fermentation biotech-
nology applied to cereal industry by-products: Nutritional and
functional insights. Frontiers in Nutrition, 6, 42. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fnut.2019.00042
Vilela, C., Kurek, M., Hayouka, Z., Röcker, B., Yildirim, S., Antunes,
M. D. C., Nilsen-Nygaard, J., Pettersen, M. K., & Freire, C. S. (2018).
A concise guide to active agents for active food packaging. Trends
in Food Science & Technology, 80, 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tifs.2018.08.006
Vimal, K., & Ghosh, T. (2021). Edible food packaging: An introduc-
tion. In K. Vimal, & T. Ghosh (Eds.), Nanotechnology in edible food
packaging: Food preservation practices for a sustainable future (pp.
1–23). Springer.
Wahjuningsih, S. B., Rohadi Susanti, S., & Setyanto, H. Y. (2019). The
effect of k-carrageenan addition to the characteristics of jicama
starch-based edible coating and its potential application on the
grapevine. International Journal of Advanced Science, Engineering
and Information Technology, 9, 405–410. http://doi.org/10.18517/
ijaseit.9.2.8089
Edible active packaging from food byproducts
Xu, J., Wei, R., Jia, Z., & Song, R. (2020). Characteristics and bioac-
tive functions of chitosan/gelatin-based film incorporated with ε-
Polylysine and astaxanthin extracts derived from by-products of
shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei). Food Hydrocolloids, 100, 105436.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.105436
Zeller, M. A., Hunt, R., Jones, A., & Sharma, S. (2013). Bioplastics and
their thermoplastic blends from Spirulina and Chlorella microal-
gae. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 130(5), 3263–3275. https:
//doi.org/10.1002/app.39559
How to cite this article: Hamed, I., Jakobsen, A.
N., & Lerfall, J. (2022). Sustainable edible packaging
systems based on active compounds from food
processing byproducts: A review. Compr Rev Food
Sci Food Saf. 21,198–226.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12870