Next Article in Journal
Assessing the Social and Environmental Impact of a Clothing Reuse Business Model: The Case of Circular Thrift—An Innovative, Community-Based Startup
Previous Article in Journal
Study on the Spatial Matching Between Public Service Facilities and the Distribution of Population—An Example of Shandong Province
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 17
10.3390/su17177867
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Comparison of the Properties of Compostable and Conventional LDPE Films

by
Katarzyna Krupińska
* and
Małgorzata Korzeniowska
*
Department of Functional Food Product Development, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Science, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Chełmońskiego St. 37, 51-630 Wrocław, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(17), 7867; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177867
Submission received: 17 July 2025 / Revised: 13 August 2025 / Accepted: 21 August 2025 / Published: 1 September 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This article analyses the results of a study into the physical and mechanical properties of conventional LDPE (low-density polyethylene) plastic film and two types of biodegradable films. Compostable packaging offers considerable potential as an alternative to traditional plastics, contributing to the development of environmentally friendly materials. The study into this area provides valuable knowledge that responds to both current environmental protection needs and to associated legal requirements. Bioplastics have a wide range of applications in the packaging industry; however, there is a lack of research on their usability in contact with all types of food. A significant part of this article focuses on the analysis of the results of the environmental resistance of bioplastics and on their preliminary compostability assessment.

1. Introduction

Increased environmental awareness among the public and stricter waste management regulations are contributing to an intensive search for alternative packaging materials. Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) plastic material is commonly used in the production of packaging films. It is characterised by desirable properties such as strength, flexibility, weather resistance, lightness, and safety in use [1]. However, its resistance to degradation poses a serious threat to the environment. Plasticisers (e.g., adipates, polymers, trimellitates, diisononyl ester of 1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid, citrates, and phthalates), which are intended to improve the properties of plastics, lead to bioaccumulation when they enter the environment [2,3].
In response to the above challenges, films made from biodegradable materials are becoming increasingly popular. If the decomposition of the material used leads to the formation of humus as a natural fertiliser, it can be considered compostable. It does not generate ecotoxic substances [4,5]. Despite its ecological potential, the practical application of this type of material for contact with food requires a detailed examination of its physical, mechanical, chemical, and sensory properties, as well as a comparison with the parameters of conventional films.
This study analysed and compared the properties of two types of compostable films with LDPE film. In the following phase, a bacteriostatic additive was included in the compostable film matrix in order to ensure greater safety of the packaged food product. The assessment included tensile strength, thickness, and other relevant factors that may affect the suitability of the materials for use in the production of food packaging. This study aimed to determine the extent to which the tested compostable films can be a functional alternative to traditional packaging materials.

2. Materials and Methods

Two biocompostable materials and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) were tested. W-Natural CP 101 is a raw material for film production, registered by Vinçotte as compostable. It is a compound made from renewable resources of modified thermoplastic corn starch (TPS) and other biodegradable polyesters, such as PLA (polylactide). Another granulated substance was a biological material based on PBAT (poly(butylene adipate terephthalate)), thermoplastic INZEA F38, produced by NUREL S.A. (Zaragoza, Spain).
BRALEN+ FA 03–01 is a low-density polyethylene. Film made from this granulated substance is characterised by flexibility and good tear resistance.
The bacteriostatic additive BIOMASTERBATCH PLA 10641/AB has been certified with the ‘OK COMPOST’ compliance mark by AIB-VINÇOTTE International.
At the premises of the cooperating entity, packaging films in the form of sleeves were obtained, as a result of the technological process (blown film production), from three types of raw materials: LDPE Bralen+ FA 03–01 and two compostable materials. The thickness of each of the produced test films was 100 µm, 120 µm, and 150 µm, all of which were 200 mm in width. The film sleeves were cut into samples in the form of strips, which were 8.1 mm wide and 13 mm long. The test conditions were adjusted to the capabilities of the INSTRON 5566 Universal Testing Machine on which the tests were performed. The process of each test was recorded in the form of a graph and digital data. Each test was conducted until the sample was broken.
Film samples produced using the material PE Bralen+ FA 03–01 and the compostable raw material W-Natural CP 101 (referred to as BIO in the study) were subjected to the following analyses: sensory analysis and overall migration determination in the presence of 10% ethanol, 3% acetic acid, and isooctane—the PE Bralen+ FA 03–01 sample, overall migration determination in the presence of 10% and 95% ethanol, 3% acetic acid, isooctane—the W-Natural CP 101 (BIO) sample. The further range of tests included the oxygen permeability (OP) (50 by weight ± 3%, temp. 23.0 ± 0.5 °C), carbon dioxide permeability (CDP) (0% by weight, temp. 23.0 ± 0.5 °C), and water vapour permeability (WVP) (90% by weight, temp. 38.0 ± 0.5 °C).
The differences in water vapour permeability (WVP) testing conditions arise from the application of distinct standardised methods designed to simulate various environmental and usage scenarios. The WVP measurement at 90% relative humidity (RH) and 38.0 ± 0.5 °C corresponds to elevated humidity and temperature conditions, which reflect more demanding environments that the films may encounter during use or storage. In contrast, the measurement at 85% ± 3% RH and 23.0 ± 0.5 °C represents more standard laboratory or room conditions. All permeability tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM F1249-20 “Standard Test Method for Water Vapour Transmission Rate Through Plastic Film and Sheeting Using a Modulated Infrared Sensor” [6], which allows precise determination of water vapour transmission rates under controlled temperature and humidity. Oxygen and carbon dioxide permeability were measured following ASTM F1927-20 [7] and ASTM F2476-20 [8], respectively. Global migration and sensory analyses were performed according to DIN 10955:2004 [9] and PN-EN 1186 parts 3 and 14 [10,11]. Migration tests were also carried out in compliance with relevant EU legislation, including Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 and its subsequent amendments [12,13,14,15,16]. In summary, the variation in WVP testing parameters reflects the need to assess barrier properties under different environmental conditions and regulatory requirements, thereby providing a comprehensive evaluation of the tested films’ performance.
Compostable film samples produced from the raw material INZEA F38 with a bacteriostatic additive (4%) were subjected to sensory analysis and overall migration determination in the presence of 10% ethanol, 3% acetic acid, isooctane, and 95% ethanol. Further tests included the oxygen permeability (OP) (50% by weight at 23.0 ± 0.5 °C), water vapour permeability (WVP) (85 by weight ± 3% at temp. 23.0 ± 0.5 °C), and carbon dioxide permeability (CDP) (0% by weight, temp. 23.0 ± 0.5 °C).
The experiments included a preliminary study on the compostability of 150 micron thick compostable and polyethylene films, their resistance to UVA-340 light, and their tear resistance according to Elmendorf. For each exposure time, film samples were cut lengthwise and crosswise to the dimensions of the tray (approximately 75 cm × 26 cm). The segregated samples were evaluated in terms of the physical and mechanical properties of the film after 24 h, 7 days, and 14 days of exposure.
The results obtained were subjected to a statistical analysis (p = 0.95), in which a unifactorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed, and significant differences between the means were assessed using Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT).

3. Results

Based on the tests performed, it was found that the film made from the material by NUREL was significantly more brittle compared to the other two materials analysed. A significant difference in elongation at break was observed between the compostable BIO material films and the LDPE or films produced from the NUREL material. Sample results of tensile strength measurements recorded at the test station are presented in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3.
The relatively large variation in mechanical properties among the ten tested specimens is attributed to small but significant differences in film thickness (0.145–0.180 mm), which directly affect the calculated tensile stress. Even slight variations in thickness can significantly influence mechanical performance, especially in thin films. In addition, biodegradable and compostable films are inherently more heterogeneous than conventional LDPE, showing variations in crystallinity, phase separation, and dispersion of natural fillers or other additives. These microstructural features make such materials more sensitive to local imperfections and environmental factors such as moisture content, which may further contribute to tensile strength and elongation variability. Similar effects have been widely reported in the literature and are considered typical for biodegradable films [17,18,19,20], indicating that the observed scatter reflects the nature of the materials rather than experimental error.
The film, produced from the NUREL material, demonstrated the highest mechanical strength. With the same force, a film thickness of 120 µm is sufficient, whereas a thickness of 150 µm is required for LDPE film (see Figure 4).
The data presented in Figure 5 demonstrated that film produced from the NUREL material was found to be the least tensile of all the materials analysed. The tensility of the material was observed to increase with thickness, reaching values of 0.71 mm, 11.41 mm, and 12.49 mm, respectively. BIO was the film with the highest tensility, and its values decreased with increasing thickness (135.79 mm, 100.25 mm, and 97.97 mm, respectively).
The 150 µm film made from the NUREL material does not differ significantly from 100 µm and 120 µm LDPE materials in terms of energy at maximum force. It was determined that further study on the film made from the NUREL material was necessary, given the findings of mechanical property measurements that demonstrated comparable characteristics to those of LDPE.
A further study showed a decrease in the mechanical strength of the compostable film made from NUREL material with the use of a bacteriostatic additive (44.31 N vs. 29.2 N; see Figure 4 and Figure 6). Despite this observation, it is still more durable at a thickness of 150 µm compared to the LDPE films (see Figure 6).
The addition of a bacteriostatic additive to the compostable film made from the NUREL material also resulted in a reduction in tensile strength. While the deformation values remained largely unchanged (see Figure 7 and Figure 8 for the film without an additive and with an additive, respectively), the test results indicated that the tensile strength of the films with thicknesses of 100 µm and 120 µm was approximately twenty times lower, and for the 150 µm films nearly six times lower, than that of the LDPE films (see Figure 5 and Figure 9).
Lower energy consumption was observed for the NUREL + D material (see Figure 10) for all the thicknesses of film that were tested. This is a significant factor from an economic perspective as it signifies the potential for the more straightforward introduction of compostable film packaging.
The aim of the sensory analysis of materials intended for contact with food was to provide a qualitative description of their specific odour qualitatively and/or to indicate its intensity, which was registered on an ordinal scale from 0 to 4. The following scale was used to assess the intensity of odour/taste: ‘0′—imperceptible, ‘1′—barely perceptible (difficult to identify), ‘2′—weakly perceptible, ‘3′—distinct perceptible, ‘4′—very perceptible. The sensory analysis of the compostable film, made from the material by NUREL, containing a bacteriostatic additive, confirmed its suitability for contact with food. In the following phase of the study, it is identified as PBAT (see Table 1). The study was conducted in accordance with the standard DIN 10955:2004 Sensory Analysis—Testing of Packaging Materials and Packages for Food Products. A two-sided contact method was applied using the immersion technique (2 dm2/200 mL of water) under controlled climatic conditions for 10 days at 40 °C. The sensory evaluation method employed was the extended triangle test.
The results of the overall migration of the tested film samples are presented in Table 2.
According to the requirements of Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 of 14 January 2011 (OJ EU L12 of 15.01.2011), the overall migration limit is 10 mg/dm2. All results of the tested W-Natural CP 101 film samples are above the permissible overall migration limit.
The results of the overall migration tests of the NUREL material containing a bacteriostatic additive indicate that it can be used in contact with all types of food (as the results were below 10 mg/dm2).
Obtaining information on the ability of the film to create effective barriers against various types of gases and water vapour is crucial for ensuring the quality and safety of food products. The results obtained are presented in Table 3.
Lower oxygen permeability values were observed in the compostable film (W-Nature CP 101) compared to the LDPE film. The aforementioned compostable film also demonstrated superior barrier properties with respect to carbon dioxide (CO2) permeability. However, the film made from W-Nature CP 101 was characterised by significantly higher water vapour permeability than the LDPE film.
In our tests, the compostable film containing a bacteriostatic additive (PBAT) demonstrated superior barrier properties, with lower oxygen and carbon dioxide permeability, compared to LDPE, which is traditionally used in packaging production. The oxygen permeability for PBAT was 150.29 cm3/(m2·24 h), and for CO2 it was 807.9 cm3/(m2·24 h). For LDPE, these values ranged from 2174.1 to 3492.1 cm3/(m2·24 h) for oxygen, and from 8103.3 to 12,834.5 cm3/(m2·24 h) for carbon dioxide (see Table 3).
In the experiment, due to the use of the NUREL material containing a bacteriostatic additive, the water vapour permeability of the compostable film was reduced to 61.7 g/(m2·24 h) (see Table 3), compared to the W-Nature CP 101 material which had a permeability of 228.6 ± 34.3 g/(m2·24 h).
Two types of samples were used for Elmendorf tear strength testing: conventional low-density polyethylene (LDPE) film and compostable film containing a bacteriostatic additive (NUREL + D). Both types of film were tested before ageing and at 24 h, 7-day, and 14-day intervals.
The results presented in Table 4 indicate that the LDPE film is more resistant in the crosswise direction (7.90 N) than in the longitudinal direction (4.03 N). These values gradually decrease after 24 h, 7 days, and 14 days of exposure, reaching values of 5.69 N in the crosswise direction and 2.04 N in the lengthwise direction at the end of the experiment. Prior to ageing, the compostable film is less resistant to tearing in both directions compared to the LDPE film.
The observed decrease in the lengthwise strength and increase in the crosswise strength of compostable film subjected to UV ageing may be attributed to the degradation of the polymers that form the film. UV radiation can cause the breakdown of chemical bonds in the polymer structure, leading to a reduction in the length of polymer chains and a decrease in the lengthwise strength of the material. The increase in lengthwise strength may be attributed to the formation of additional bonds between polymer chains as a consequence of UV radiation. This phenomenon is called secondary crystallisation, which involves an increase in the degree of order of the polymer molecules [21,22,23].
Following a 14-day exposure to UVA-340 light (see Table 4), a decline in strength was observed in both directions (lengthwise and crosswise) for both types of film. It can be concluded that the tested compostable packaging will decompose at a faster rate in the environment due to its greater accessibility to microorganisms (with a strength of 0.25 N and 1.37 N) compared to LDPE film packaging (with a strength of 2.04 N and 5.69 N in both directions).
As part of the continuation of the study, tensile tests were carried out on the film after exposing the film samples to UVA-340 light.
Following a 14-day exposure to UV light, the compostable packaging was found to be significantly more brittle in comparison to LDPE (see Figure 11 and Figure 12). A significant difference in elongation at break was observed between LDPE and the compostable film.
The compostable film demonstrated greater mechanical strength in comparison to LDPE after 24 h and after 7 days of exposure to UV light. Following a 14-day period, the mechanical strength of the aforementioned film is observed to decrease in comparison to LDPE film (Figure 13).
Following exposure to UV light for 24 h, 7 days, and 14 days, a reduction in energy consumption is expected for compostable packaging. The highest energy consumption is observed for PE packaging after 24 h and 7 days in comparison with compostable packaging. Following a 24 h period, the difference between the two materials is most pronounced, reaching 876.8 [mJ] for the LDPE film, and 47.2 [mJ] for the compostable film (see Figure 14). The energy at maximum force was obtained by integrating the force–displacement curve recorded during tensile testing on the INSTRON 5566 universal testing machine. Samples were securely clamped using metal strips wrapped around the specimen ends to prevent slippage during the test. Each test was conducted until specimen failure, with continuous recording of force and displacement. The energy corresponds to the area under the force–displacement curve up to the maximum load, representing the mechanical work absorbed by the sample until the peak force was reached. This calculation was performed automatically by the testing software, and the data were exported in CSV format. Specimen dimensions (length, width, thickness) were precisely measured and used to calculate stress and strain values corresponding to the maximum force. This methodology is consistent with established approaches in the literature for determining material toughness and energy absorption during tensile testing [24,25].

4. Discussion

In the course of our tests, the compostable blown film made from INZEA F38 by NUREL demonstrated the highest mechanical strength. When exposed to an equivalent force, it can be used at a thickness of 120 µm, whereas LDPE film is required to have a minimum thickness of 150 µm when exposed to an identical force. The implementation of the aforementioned solution will facilitate a reduction in material consumption while ensuring that equivalent results are attained in relation to the strength of food packaging. It has been demonstrated that the film produced from NUREL material is characterised by minimal tensile flexibility. A significant difference in elongation at break was observed between films made from compostable BIO material and LDPE or the material made by NUREL. It is evident that the high tensile strength of the BIO film (manufactured from W-Natural CP 101) may pose significant challenges in opening packaging made from this film in the case of a single perforation, which is a conventional method in packaging. Rejak [26,27], conducting a study on the physicochemical properties of thermoplastic starch, concluded that it is possible to produce a biodegradable film that is resistant to elongation and puncturing. However, its physical characteristics and quality do not allow it to be considered a competitive product for packaging made of traditional plastic, which was also confirmed by the study conducted.
It is vital to note that a thickness of 120 microns for the film made from the NUREL material will result in reduced energy consumption, a factor that is of significant economic importance and will facilitate opening potential packaging.
The knowledge of oxygen transmission rates (OTRs) enables superior packaging design, ensuring the protection of contents against the deleterious effects of oxidation. Scientific publications emphasise the importance of low oxygen permeability in food preservation [28,29]. The lower oxygen transmission values exhibited by the tested compostable film, fabricated from W-Nature CP 101, in comparison to the LDPE film tests, suggest its high performance as a barrier, which is advantageous for storing food that requires limited oxygen access.
As with oxygen, the permeation of carbon dioxide (CO2) has a significant impact on the quality of stored food. The findings of our study demonstrate that the compostable film that was examined exhibits superior barrier properties in this regard.
A high water vapour transmission rate (WVTR) may result in moisture loss in food products and changes in texture, which, in turn, affects consumer acceptance. Insufficient permeability may lead to the occurrence of condensation in the packaging, which can subsequently promote the growth of bacteria and mould. In the tested samples, the film fabricated from W-Nature CP 101 revealed a substantially elevated water vapour permeability in comparison to the LDPE film. As demonstrated in the relevant scientific data, polyethylene film exhibits a low water vapour permeability as a consequence of the hydrophobic character of its macromolecular composition [30].
It is evident that W-Nature CP 101 compostable film should not be used in contact with any type of food due to the results obtained exceeding the permissible overall migration limit.
The addition of a bacteriostatic additive within the compostable film made from the NUREL material resulted in a reduction in its elongation capacity. The findings indicate that the utilisation of the examined compostable film, incorporating a bacteriostatic additive during the manufacturing process of packaging, will facilitate its opening with a single perforation.
In the study conducted by Roy et al. [31], it was established that functional PBAT-based packaging films have the capacity to protect and extend the shelf life of a variety of food products, such as meat, vegetables, fruit, and other food products. This type of packaging can also delay the spoilage process of fruit, thanks to its barrier properties, among other factors. The addition of antibacterial substances into the composition of natural polymer-based materials has been demonstrated to enhance the properties of films, thereby extending the shelf life of packaged foodstuffs. It is also vital to limit or control the exchange of gases and water vapour between the environments on both sides of the film packaging [32,33].
Polyethylene film has a low water vapour permeability, as reported by Sikora and Majewski [30] and as confirmed by the results of our study (2.36 g/(m2·24 h)) (see Table 3).
A number of studies have been conducted across the globe with the aim of evaluating the biodegradation of LDPE samples. The resistance of polyethylene to this process is related to its hydrophobicity and high molecular weight, as well as the absence of functional groups recognisable by microbial enzyme systems [34]. The mineralisation rate resulting from long-term biodegradation experiments on UV-irradiated samples indicates that polyethylene takes over 100 years to mineralise completely [35]. As was also observed in the course of our tests, the substance exhibited a greater degree of resistance to UV light exposure. Following a 14-day exposure period, the mechanical strength of the film made from compostable material was found to be lower in comparison to LDPE film and also appeared to be significantly more brittle than the LDPE film. As the ageing time increases, the tension and deformation of the film decrease, as was noted in earlier studies of biodegradable films by Nowak and Podsiadło [36,37].
The Elmendorf tear test is a technique widely used for the assessment of the mechanical properties of materials [38,39]. Kissin and Yury [40] claimed that this is one of the most significant tests for the final application of blown film. In our experiment, a decline in the tensile strength of both films was observed over time. As Liu and Ba [21] determined, LDPE blown film generally shows average tear resistance, a conclusion that is confirmed by the results of our study.

5. Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn from the study conducted:
  • The reduction in LDPE packaging in the environment is a possibility.
  • The W-Nature CP 101 compostable film is not appropriate for the manufacture of food packaging.
  • The use of INZEA F38 (by NUREL) with a bacteriostatic additive in the production of compostable film packaging will result in easier opening compared to traditional LDPE film.
  • Compostable film manufactured from INZEA F38 (by NUREL) is deemed suitable for the production of packaging intended for all types of food.
  • Despite the possibility of producing packaging from thinner, compostable film while maintaining the same tensile properties as LDPE film, the production costs of such packaging remain higher than those of conventional packaging.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.K. and M.K.; methodology, K.K. and M.K. validation, K.K. and M.K.; formal analysis, K.K.; investigation, K.K.; resources, K.K. and M.K.; data curation, K.K.; writing—original draft preparation, K.K.; writing—review and editing, K.K. and M.K.; visualization, K.K. and M.K. supervision, M.K.; funding acquisition, M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The fifth edition of the implementation doctorate programme—Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Department of Functional Food Product Development, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Wroclaw, Poland.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

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

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Andrady, A.L.; Neal, M.A. Applications and Societal Benefits of Plastics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 1977–1984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Koch, H.M.; Calafat, A.M. Human Body Burdens of Chemicals Used in Plastic Manufacture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 2063–2078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Oehlmann, J.; Schulte-Oehlmann, U.; Kloas, W.; Jagnytsch, O.; Lutz, I.; Kusk, K.O.; Wollenberger, L.; Santos, E.M.; Paull, G.C.; Van Look, K.J.W.; et al. A Critical Analysis of the Biological Impacts of Plasticizers on Wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 2047–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Żakowska, H. Opakowanie a Środowisko, Wymagania, Standardy, Projektowanie, Znakowanie; Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warszawa, Poland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  5. Marsh, K.; Bugusu, B. Food packaging—Roles, materials, and environmental issues. J. Food Sci. 2007, 72, R39–R55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. ASTM F1249-20; Standard Test Method for Water Vapor Transmission Rate Through Plastic Film and Sheeting Using a Modulated Infrared Sensor. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
  7. ASTM F1927-20; Standard Test Method for Determination of Oxygen Gas Transmission Rate, Permeability, and Permeance at Controlled Relative Humidity Through Barrier Materials Using a Coulometric Detector. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
  8. ASTM F2476-20; Standard Test Method for the Determination of Carbon Dioxide Gas Transmission Rate (CO2TR) Through Barrier Materials Using an Infrared Detector. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
  9. DIN 10955:2004; Sensory Analysis—Testing of Packaging Materials and Packages for Food Products. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.: Berlin, Germany, 2004.
  10. PN-EN 1186-3:2005; Materials and Articles in Contact with Foodstuffs—Plastics—Part 3: Test Methods for Overall Migration into Aqueous Food Simulants by Total Immersion. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2005. Available online: https://standards.globalspec.com/std/14561480/en-1186-3 (accessed on 21 July 2023).
  11. PN-EN 1186-14:2005; Materials and Articles in Contact with Foodstuffs—Plastics—Part 14: Test Methods for Overall Migration from Plastics Intended to Come into Contact with Fatty Foods Using Substitute Tests with Iso-Octane and 95% Ethanol as Food Simulants. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2005. Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/f2589591-a9c0-429a-80f0-8bf7fd2a02fb/pren-1186-14 (accessed on 21 July 2023).
  12. Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 of 14 January 2011 on Plastic Materials and Articles Intended to Come into Contact with Food; Official Journal of the European Union L 12; European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 1–89.
  13. Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1416 of 24 August 2016 Amending REGULATION (EU) No 10/2011 as Regards Certain Restrictions on the Use of Bisphenol A; Official Journal of the European Union L 230; European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 1–3.
  14. Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/752 of 28 April 2017 Amending Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 as Regards Testing Conditions for Migration from Plastic Materials; Official Journal of the European Union L 113; European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 1–5.
  15. Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/37 of 10 January 2019 Amending Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 Regarding Testing Conditions for Migration; Official Journal of the European Union L 9; European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 1–3.
  16. Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1245 of 2 September 2020 Amending Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 as Regards Migration Testing Conditions; Official Journal of the European Union L 288; European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 1–4.
  17. Sikora, J.; Majewski, Ł.; Puszka, A. Modern Biodegradable Plastics—Processing and Properties: Part I. Materials 2020, 13, 1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fabijański, M.; Gołofit, T. Influence of Processing Parameters on Mechanical Properties and Degree of Crystallization of Polylactide. Materials 2024, 17, 3584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lang, H.; Chen, X.; Tian, J.; Chen, J.; Zhou, M.; Lu, F.; Qian, S. Effect of Microcrystalline Cellulose on the Properties of PBAT/Thermoplastic Starch Biodegradable Film with Chain Extender. Polymers 2022, 14, 4517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Titone, V.; Correnti, A.; La Mantia, F.P. Effect of Moisture Content on the Processing and Mechanical Properties of a Biodegradable Polyester. Polymers 2021, 13, 1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yousif, E.; Haddad, R. Photodegradation and Photostabilization of Polymers, Especially Polystyrene: Review. SpringerPlus 2013, 2, 398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  22. Andrady, A.L.; Heikkilä, A.M.; Pandey, K.K.; Bruckman, L.S.; White, C.C.; Zhu, M.; Zhu, L. Effects of UV Radiation on Natural and Synthetic Materials. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2023, 22, 1177–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  23. North, M.J.; Jenkins, J.M. The mechanisms of the secondary crystallisation process in polymers: A narrative review. Polymer 2025, 321, 128122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sritham, E.; Phunsombat, P.; Chaishome, J. Tensile properties of PLA/PBAT blends and PLA fibre-reinforced PBAT composite. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 192, 03014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tang, D.; Zhang, C.; Weng, Y. Effect of multi-functional epoxy chain extender on the weathering resistance performance of Poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) (PBAT). Polym. Test. 2021, 99, 107204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rejak, A. Badania właściwości fizycznych skrobiowych folii biodegradowalnych. Acta Agrophysica 2007, 9, 747–754. [Google Scholar]
  27. Avérous, L.; Halley, P.J. Biocomposites based on plasticized starch. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2009, 3, 329–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Siracusa, V. Food packaging permeability behaviour: A report. Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2012, 1, 302029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Russo, G.M.; Simon, G.P.; Incarnato, L. Correlation between rheological, mechanical, and barrier properties in new copolyamide-based nanocomposite films. Macromolecules 2006, 39, 3855–3864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sikora, J.W.; Majewski, Ł.; Puszka, A. Modern Biodegradable Plastics-Processing and Properties Part II. Materials 2021, 14, 2523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Roy, S.; Ghosh, T.; Zhang, W.; Rhim, J.-W. Recent Progress in PBAT-Based Films and Food Packaging Applications: A Mini-Review. Food Chem. 2024, 437, 137822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pająk, P.; Rożnowski, J. Skrobia ziemniaczana i inne biopolimery jako alternatywa dla tworzyw sztucznych—Przepisy prawne, możliwości i wyzwania dla branży opakowaniowej. Żywność 2024, 31, 23–46. [Google Scholar]
  33. Siracusa, V.; Rocculi, P.; Romani, S.; Rosa, M.D. Biodegradable polymers for food packaging: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 19, 634–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chiellini, E.; Corti, A.; Swift, G. Biodegradation of thermally-oxidized, fragmented low-density polyethylenes. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2003, 81, 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ohtake, Y.; Kobayashi, T.; Asabe, H.; Murakami, N. Studies on Biodegradation of LDPE—Observation of LDPE Films Scattered in Agricultural Fields or in Garden Soil. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 1998, 60, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nowak, W.; Podsiadło, H. Wpływ promieniowania na wybrane właściwości folii biodegradowalnych. Acta Poligraphica 2018, 12, 65–69. [Google Scholar]
  37. Bonilla, J.; Atarés, L.; Vargas, M.; Chiralt, A. Effect of essential oils and homogenization conditions on properties of chitosan-based films. Food Hydrocoll. 2013, 30, 203–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Krishnaswamy, R.K.; Sukhadia, A.M. Orientation Characteristics of LLDPE Blown Films and Their Implications on Elmendorf Tear Performance. Polymer 2000, 41, 9205–9217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shirin, S.; Khorshidi, N. Investigate the Effect of Short Chain Branching and Lamellar Thickness on Mechanical and Optical Properties of Linear Low-Density Polyethylene by Successive Self-Nucleation/Annealing (SSA) Technique. Int. J. Polym. Anal. Charact. 2003, 28, 307–324. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kissin, Y.V. Elmendorf Tear Test of Polyethylene Films: Mechanical Interpretation and Model. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2011, 296, 729–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 07867 g001
Figure 1. Tensile strength of a 150 µm thick film made from compostable BIO raw material (W-Natural CP 101), n = 10 (denotes ten parallel specimens tested under identical conditions).
Figure 1. Tensile strength of a 150 µm thick film made from compostable BIO raw material (W-Natural CP 101), n = 10 (denotes ten parallel specimens tested under identical conditions).
Sustainability 17 07867 g001
Sustainability 17 07867 g002
Figure 2. Tensile strength of a 150 µm thick film made from the raw material Bralen+ FA 03–01 (the reference test), n = 10 (denotes ten parallel specimens tested under identical conditions).
Figure 2. Tensile strength of a 150 µm thick film made from the raw material Bralen+ FA 03–01 (the reference test), n = 10 (denotes ten parallel specimens tested under identical conditions).
Sustainability 17 07867 g002
Sustainability 17 07867 g003
Figure 3. Tensile strength of a 150 µm thick film made from the compostable raw material INZEA F38 (by NUREL), n = 10 (denotes ten parallel specimens tested under identical conditions).
Figure 3. Tensile strength of a 150 µm thick film made from the compostable raw material INZEA F38 (by NUREL), n = 10 (denotes ten parallel specimens tested under identical conditions).
Sustainability 17 07867 g003
Sustainability 17 07867 g004
Figure 4. The maximum film force (LDPE—the reference test; 100, 120, and 150 µm are the film thicknesses designated for BIO, LDPE, and the NUREL materials, respectively). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Figure 4. The maximum film force (LDPE—the reference test; 100, 120, and 150 µm are the film thicknesses designated for BIO, LDPE, and the NUREL materials, respectively). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Sustainability 17 07867 g004
Sustainability 17 07867 g005
Figure 5. The elongation of the film material at maximum force (LDPE—the reference test; 100, 120, and 150 µm are the film thicknesses designated for BIO, LDPE, and the NUREL materials, respectively). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Figure 5. The elongation of the film material at maximum force (LDPE—the reference test; 100, 120, and 150 µm are the film thicknesses designated for BIO, LDPE, and the NUREL materials, respectively). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Sustainability 17 07867 g005
Sustainability 17 07867 g006
Figure 6. The maximum film force (LDPE—the reference test; N + D—the compostable film with a bacteriostatic additive; 100, 120, 150 µm—film thicknesses). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Figure 6. The maximum film force (LDPE—the reference test; N + D—the compostable film with a bacteriostatic additive; 100, 120, 150 µm—film thicknesses). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Sustainability 17 07867 g006
Sustainability 17 07867 g007
Figure 7. The deformation of films during the process of elongation at maximum force (LDPE—the reference test; 100, 120, 150 µm—film thicknesses for the Bio, LDPE, and the NUREL material, respectively). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Figure 7. The deformation of films during the process of elongation at maximum force (LDPE—the reference test; 100, 120, 150 µm—film thicknesses for the Bio, LDPE, and the NUREL material, respectively). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Sustainability 17 07867 g007
Sustainability 17 07867 g008
Figure 8. The deformation of films during the process of elongation at maximum force (LDPE—the reference test; N + D—the compostable film with a bacteriostatic additive; 100, 120, 150 µm—film thicknesses). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Figure 8. The deformation of films during the process of elongation at maximum force (LDPE—the reference test; N + D—the compostable film with a bacteriostatic additive; 100, 120, 150 µm—film thicknesses). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Sustainability 17 07867 g008
Sustainability 17 07867 g009
Figure 9. The elongation of the film material at maximum force (LDPE—the reference test; N + D—the compostable film with a bacteriostatic additive; 100, 120, 150 µm—film thicknesses). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Figure 9. The elongation of the film material at maximum force (LDPE—the reference test; N + D—the compostable film with a bacteriostatic additive; 100, 120, 150 µm—film thicknesses). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Sustainability 17 07867 g009
Sustainability 17 07867 g010
Figure 10. Energy parameter results at maximum force (LDPE—the reference test; N + D—the compostable film containing a bacteriostatic additive; 100, 120, 150 µm—film thicknesses). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Figure 10. Energy parameter results at maximum force (LDPE—the reference test; N + D—the compostable film containing a bacteriostatic additive; 100, 120, 150 µm—film thicknesses). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Sustainability 17 07867 g010
Sustainability 17 07867 g011
Figure 11. Tensile strength of LDPE film after 14 days.
Figure 11. Tensile strength of LDPE film after 14 days.
Sustainability 17 07867 g011
Sustainability 17 07867 g012
Figure 12. Tensile strength of compostable film after 14 days.
Figure 12. Tensile strength of compostable film after 14 days.
Sustainability 17 07867 g012
Sustainability 17 07867 g013
Figure 13. Maximum force (LDPE—the reference test; K—the compostable film with a bacteriostatic additive; 24 h, 7 days, and 14 days—exposure time to UV light). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Figure 13. Maximum force (LDPE—the reference test; K—the compostable film with a bacteriostatic additive; 24 h, 7 days, and 14 days—exposure time to UV light). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Sustainability 17 07867 g013
Sustainability 17 07867 g014
Figure 14. Energy at maximum force (LDPE—the reference test; K—the compostable film with a bacteriostatic additive; 24 h, 7 days, 14 days—exposure time to UV light). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Figure 14. Energy at maximum force (LDPE—the reference test; K—the compostable film with a bacteriostatic additive; 24 h, 7 days, 14 days—exposure time to UV light). The colours of the bars indicate statistically homogeneous groups.
Sustainability 17 07867 g014
Table 1. Sensory characteristics of the LDPE film samples, the compostable film made from W-Nature CP 101, and the compostable film produced from the NUREL material containing a bacteriostatic additive (PBAT).
Table 1. Sensory characteristics of the LDPE film samples, the compostable film made from W-Nature CP 101, and the compostable film produced from the NUREL material containing a bacteriostatic additive (PBAT).
Sample IdentificationReference SubstanceContact ConditionsResult
Test Time Temperature Flavour Odour
PE Bralen+ FA 03–01Water10 days40 °C ± 1 °C10
W-Natural CP 1010.51
PBAT10
Table 2. Overall migration of LDPE film and compostable films made from the following materials: W-Nature CP 101, and the NUREL material with the bacteriostatic additive (PBAT).
Table 2. Overall migration of LDPE film and compostable films made from the following materials: W-Nature CP 101, and the NUREL material with the bacteriostatic additive (PBAT).
Sample IdentificationModel FluidsContact ConditionsMigration Level
(mg/dm2) [Intermediate Results]
Test Time Temperature
PE Bralen+ FA 03–0110% Ethanol10 days
40 °C ± 1 °C1.4 ± 0.2 (1)
[1.4; 1.4; 1.5]
3% Acetic acid1.2 ± 0.1 (1)
[1.1; 1.2; 1.2]
Isooctane2 days20 °C ± 1 °C1.7 ± 0.2 (1)
[1.6; 1.6; 1.8]
W-Natural CP 10110% Ethanol10 days40 °C ± 1 °C11.4 ± 1.4 (1)
[11.2; 11.3; 11.6]
3% Acetic acid223.1 ± 26.8 (1)
[211.3; 223.9; 234.0]
95% Ethanol68.2 ± 8.2 (1)
[67.7; 68.2; 68.6]
Isooctane2 days20 °C ± 1 °C7.8 ± 0.9 (1)
PBAT10% Ethanol10 days40 °C ± 1 °C<0.5 (2)
3% Acetic acid<0.5 (2)
95% Ethanol5.5 ± 0.7 (1)
Isooctane2 days20 °C ± 1 °C<0.5 (2)
(1) The expanded uncertainty was estimated for the coefficient k = 2 at a confidence interval of 95%. (2) Limit of quantitation.
Table 3. Permeability of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and water vapour for LDPE film, compostable film made from W-Nature CP 101, and compostable film made from the NUREL material with a bacteriostatic additive (PBAT).
Table 3. Permeability of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and water vapour for LDPE film, compostable film made from W-Nature CP 101, and compostable film made from the NUREL material with a bacteriostatic additive (PBAT).
Test NameUnitMean Values ± Uncertainty (1)
LDPEW-Nature CP 101PBAT
Oxygen permeability ratingcm3/(m2·24 h)2174.1 (2)
3492.1 (2)		340.8 ± 61.3150.29 ± 22.54
Carbon dioxide permeability rating8103.3 (2)
12,834.5 (2)		3458.0 ± 518.7807.9 ± 121.2
Water vapour permeability ratingg/(m2·24 h)2.36 (2)
3.63 (2)		228.6 ± 34.361.07 ± 9.16
(1) expanded uncertainty (k = 2, 95% confidence interval). (2) due to significant differences in film thickness affecting the dispersion of results, only partial measurement results are provided without a mean value.
Table 4. Tear resistance of LDPE film, and the compostable film made from the NUREL material with a bacteriostatic additive.
Table 4. Tear resistance of LDPE film, and the compostable film made from the NUREL material with a bacteriostatic additive.
Tested PropertyTest MethodExposure TimeLDPENUREL + D
ResultDeviationResultStandard Deviation
Elmendorf tear strength:
lengthwise, N
crosswise, N		PN-EN ISO 6383-2:2005prior to the ageing4.03
7.90		0.35
0.09		2.70
1.58		0.14
0.06
after 24 h3.21
7.84		0.31
0.21		2.22
2.33		0.11
0.25
after 7 days3.35
7.42		0.36
0.33		0.26
1.85		0.03
0.16
after 14 days2.04
5.69		0.27
0.31		0.25
1.37		0.08
0.09
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Krupińska, K.; Korzeniowska, M. Comparison of the Properties of Compostable and Conventional LDPE Films. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7867. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177867

AMA Style

Krupińska K, Korzeniowska M. Comparison of the Properties of Compostable and Conventional LDPE Films. Sustainability. 2025; 17(17):7867. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177867

Chicago/Turabian Style

Krupińska, Katarzyna, and Małgorzata Korzeniowska. 2025. "Comparison of the Properties of Compostable and Conventional LDPE Films" Sustainability 17, no. 17: 7867. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177867

APA Style

Krupińska, K., & Korzeniowska, M. (2025). Comparison of the Properties of Compostable and Conventional LDPE Films. Sustainability, 17(17), 7867. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177867

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop