Next Article in Journal
Study on the Characteristics of Gas–Liquid Two-Phase Flow in Shale Gas Horizontal Wells—Taking Changning Block as an Example
Previous Article in Journal
Modeling and Optimization of Transient Wellbore Temperature in Shale Oil Horizontal Wells Considering Variable Fluid Property and Multi-Source Heat Generation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/pr14091480
processes-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

The Influence of Cellulose Fiber Content on the Mechanical Properties of Composites Based on Modified Thermoplastic Starch

by
Mariusz Fabijański
* and
Jacek Garbarski
Polymer Processing Department, Faculty of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology, 85 Narbutta Street, 02-524 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2026, 14(9), 1480; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr14091480
Submission received: 23 March 2026 / Revised: 28 April 2026 / Accepted: 30 April 2026 / Published: 2 May 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Materials Processes)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study presents the results of evaluating composites based on modified thermoplastic starch (TPS) with BWW40 and FD600/30 cellulose fibers at varying mass contents. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of filler type and quantity on mechanical properties and water absorption. Test samples were prepared using the injection molding method. It was shown that increasing fiber content led to a reduction in strength of approximately 36% for BWW40 fibers and approximately 37% for FD600/30 fibers at maximum fill. Similar results were observed for elongation at break. Young’s modulus increased by approximately 15% for BWW40 fibers and approximately 13% for FD600/30 fibers. Water absorption also increased with increasing fiber content, which is due to the hydrophilic nature of both the starch matrix and the reinforcing phase. The main conclusion drawn from the conducted research is that by properly selecting the type and content of fibers, it is possible to consciously shape the stiffness and dimensional stability of such composites while maintaining their biodegradability. The results obtained allow for a better assessment of the application potential of these materials in the context of developing sustainable material solutions.

1. Introduction

Thermoplastic starch (TPS) is currently one of the most important materials in the group of biodegradable materials, ranking second in terms of popularity and range of applications, second only to polylactide (PLA) [1,2,3,4]. Compared to PLA, TPS is characterized by the ability to fully biodegrade in various environments, including soil and water conditions, which makes it particularly attractive from the perspective of development and the circular economy [5,6,7,8,9,10].
Despite these advantages, the use of sole TPS is significantly limited by its relatively low mechanical properties, limited service life, and high hygroscopicity, leading to dimensional instability and deterioration of operating parameters in conditions of increased humidity [11,12,13,14,15]. Consequently, this material requires modification to improve processing and functional properties, most often by introducing other polymers, plasticizers, compatibilizers, or various types of functional additives [16,17,18,19,20,21].
It should be emphasized, however, that the use of many commonly used modifying components can lead to a change in the environmental impact of the resulting material [22,23,24,25]. In particular, some of the compositions lose their biodegradability in natural conditions, retaining it only under controlled industrial composting conditions. Such materials are currently available on the market and constitute a significant segment of materials defined as compostable [26,27,28,29,30,31,32].
An alternative direction of development is modification with the use of organic and mineral fillers, which enable the improvement of selected mechanical, barrier, and processing properties while maintaining the material’s environmentally friendly nature [33,34,35,36]. This approach is consistent with current research trends aimed at designing biodegradable composites with an optimized balance between functional properties and degradability in the natural environment [37,38,39,40,41].
Given the limitations of thermoplastic starch-based materials, it is reasonable to explore modifications that will improve mechanical and functional properties without significantly reducing environmental impact. A particularly promising solution seems to be the use of fully biodegradable fillers of natural origin, capable of performing a reinforcing function while maintaining compatibility with the matrix [42,43,44,45]. In this context, cellulose fibers constitute an attractive modifying component due to their availability, low density, favorable strength-to-weight ratio, and complete biodegradability [46,47,48,49,50,51,52].
The aim of this work was to develop mixtures based on modified thermoplastic starch with finely cut cellulose fiber, and then to evaluate the effect of the introduced filler on the processing and mechanical properties of the resulting materials. A significant novelty of this work is the use of varying degrees of filling the polymer matrix with finely cut cellulose fiber and the analysis of the associated technological limitations.
Furthermore, this research provides new insights into the technological and processing limitations that arise when incorporating natural fibers into thermoplastic starch (TPS). This innovative approach involves obtaining a material with decent strength characteristics while maintaining the system’s full biodegradability, which is a direct response to the shortage of mechanically stable and fully natural “bio-bio” composites. This research also contributes to the extensive research on processing stability, which is crucial for the commercialization of TPS-based composites.

2. Research Materials and Methodology

In this study, a thermoplastic starch (TPS)-based material was used, which is a composition of polymers obtained from renewable raw materials of natural origin. This material is characterized by the ability to biodegrade under composting conditions without leaving persistent residues. The material used in the study is manufactured by Grupa Azoty (Tarnów, Poland) and offered under the trade name Envifill MB 173. It has a density of 1.25 g/cm3 and a melt flow rate (MFR) of 30 g/10 min (determined at 190 °C and a load of 2.16 kg). Its tensile strength is 50 MPa, and the relative elongation at break was determined to be 2.46% [53].
Cellulose fibers of various morphologies, supplied by Rettenmaier Poland Sp. z o.o., (Poland) were used as fillers. Two types of fibers offered under the trade names Arbocel BWW40 [52] and Arbocel FD600/30 [54] were used in the research.
Arbocel BWW40 is characterized by an average fiber length of about 200 µm and a diameter of about 20 µm [53], while Arbocel FD600/30 has shorter fibers with an average length of about 45 µm and a diameter of about 25 µm [55]. The use of two types of fibers with different geometric parameters allowed the assessment of the effect of their dimensions on the processing and functional properties of the obtained TPS-based composites.
The test samples were produced by injection molding using a Ponar Żywiec UT90 (Żywiec, Poland) UT series horizontal screw injection molding machine designed for thermoplastics processing. The machine is equipped with a five-point, two-lever mold clamping system and a screw plasticizing system directly driven by a high-torque hydraulic motor, enabling stable processing of high-viscosity materials with a high fill rate. The test samples were prepared in accordance with current standards. For the tensile test, the sample complies with ISO 527-1 [56] and 527-2 [57].
The molding process also utilized peripheral equipment, including an injection mold with replaceable mold inserts, a thermostat for mold temperature control, a DARwag electronic scale, a KC100/200 dryer (Wodzisław Śląski, Poland), and a plastics recycling mill for the reprocessing of sprues and defective moldings.
The Envifill MB173 base material with added cellulose fibers was pre-dried in a drawer dryer at 80 °C for 48 h to reduce moisture content, which could negatively impact process stability and product properties. After drying, the mixtures were homogenized in a rotary mixer until a uniform distribution of the components was achieved. The percentages of individual components in the tested materials were as follows:
-
100% wt. polymer;
-
90% wt. polymer and 10% wt. filler;
-
80% wt. polymer and 20% wt. filler;
-
70% wt. polymer and 30% wt. filler;
-
60% wt. polymer and 40% wt. filler.
Using previously established injection molding machine settings, a series of samples were produced for further analysis. Monitoring key process variables such as barrel temperature, pressure, and individual times ensured high quality and production repeatability, allowing for the production of uniformly constructed parts.
Figure 1 shows samples containing BWW40 cellulose fibers. A slight change in the material’s color was observed with increasing filler content. However, this effect is minor due to the naturally light, almost white color of the cellulose fibers used. Consequently, increasing their content in the composite does not lead to significant visual differences, but only to a subtle clouding of the molded parts’ surface.
Figure 2 shows samples containing FD600/30 cellulose fibers. Unlike the composites with BWW40 fibers, a more pronounced color change was observed with increasing filler content. The fibers used are characterized by a natural shade tending toward brown, which significantly affects the final appearance of the material, giving it a darker, more natural tone.
Before testing to determine mechanical properties, all samples were conditioned at a constant temperature of 23 °C and 50% humidity for 120 h. Mechanical properties were assessed in a static tensile test according to ISO 527-2 [57] using a Heckert Fu1000e tensile testing machine (Chemnitz, Germany) equipped with a 10 kN load cell. The test involved static tensile testing of standardized samples at a constant speed of 2 mm/min, in accordance with relevant industry standards. During the test, the force and elongation at break were continuously monitored and recorded.
Hardness testing was performed using the Shore “D” scale in accordance with ISO 868 [58] using an electronic hardness tester from XINGWEIQIANG (Huizhou, China). Impact strength was determined using the Charpy impact tester and a Wolfgang Ohst (Rathenow, Germany) pendulum impactor in accordance with ISO 179-1 [59]. Water absorption was also measured in accordance with ISO 62 [60].

3. Results and Discussion

The injection process was continuously monitored through systematic mass measurements of the samples. This enabled the assessment of process stability and the homogeneity of the produced materials. Regular mass monitoring also allowed for the fast detection of any irregularities in sample quality and immediate correction of injection parameters.
Table 1 summarizes the average mass of the samples as a function of the cellulose fiber content in the composite. Analysis of the obtained results indicates a weak but repeatable upward trend: the mass of the samples increased with increasing filler content for both BWW40 and FD600/30 fibers.
For composites containing BWW40 fibers at a maximum filler content of 40% wt., the average sample weight increased by 1.93 g compared to the unfilled material (Table 1). In the case of FD600/30 fibers with the highest filler content, the weight increase was smaller and amounted to 1.53 g compared to the reference sample (Table 1).
The observed differences can be interpreted as a result of different morphological parameters of the fibers used, such as length, diameter, and the related bulk density, as well as the way the fibers were packed in the polymer matrix. The longer BWW40 fibers could enable more efficient mass transfer of water into the volume of the molded part, reducing shrinkage during processing and leading to a larger increase in the final weight of the samples.
In the case of shorter FD600/30 fibers, this effect was less pronounced, which may be due to a different degree of dispersion, a smaller structural effect on the TPS matrix, or differences in material densification during injection.
The results of the mechanical properties tested in the static tensile test are summarized in Table 2 as mean values with corresponding standard deviations. This paper does not include full stress–strain curves due to their nearly identical, linear progression across the entire strain range until failure. All analyzed samples exhibited elastic deformation and brittle fracture, with no distinct flow region. The repeatability of the curve shapes and the lack of significant qualitative differences in the deformation mechanism justified limiting the presentation of results to numerical parameters such as modulus of elasticity, tensile strength, and elongation at break. This approach allows for a clear comparison of the effect of filler type and content on the mechanical properties of the composites, without the need for additional analogous graphs.
Analysis of the mechanical results indicates that the introduction of both types of cellulose fibers into the TPS matrix leads to a systematic change in the material’s mechanical characteristics. The trends observed for both fillers are qualitatively similar, but differ in the intensity of the effect. Figure 3 presents a comparison of the tensile strength of individual composites depending on the fiber type and its content.
For both types of analyzed fibers, a clear, almost linear, decreasing trend in tensile strength was observed with increasing matrix filler content. For composites based on modified starch with the addition of BWW40 fibers, the strength decreased from 57.44 MPa (for pure TPS) to 36.84 MPa, which represents a reduction of approximately 36%. A similar trend was observed for systems with FD 600/30 fibers, where this value dropped to 3.64 MPa, demonstrating a 37% decrease compared to the reference sample (sample with fillers).
In the 10–30% wt. composites with FD600/30 fibers exhibit slightly higher strength values than the corresponding composites with BWW40. This may suggest better dispersion of shorter fibers in the matrix and a lower tendency to form stress concentrators. At 40% wt., the filling levels for both systems become virtually identical, indicating that at such high loading, the filler content itself becomes the decisive factor, regardless of its morphology. Compared to the reference sample (pure polymer), the overall strength loss for composites with these fibers (FD600/30) is also approximately 36%.
For elongation at break, in both cases, a systematic decrease in deformability is observed with increasing fiber content, which confirms the progressive stiffening of the material (Figure 4, Table 2). For composites with BWW40 fibers, the decrease is from 2.46% to 1.38% w stosunku do próbki refencyjnej.
This is a reduction of approximately 43%. For FD 600/30 fibers, the decrease is approximately 44%, from an elongation value of 2.46% to 1.36%. In general, composites with FD 600/30 fibers exhibit a slightly greater loss of strain capacity at high fill levels. This may be due to the greater number of shorter fibers per unit volume, which increases the number of interfaces and potential crack initiation sites. However, the longer BWW40 fibers may partially bridge developing microcracks, limiting the rate of damage propagation [61,62,63].
A different trend was observed for Young’s modulus (Figure 5, Table 2). In both systems, it increased with increasing fiber content, confirming their stiffening function. In the case of composites with BWW40 fibers, the modulus increased from 2321 MPa to 2675 MPa compared to the reference sample (pure polymer), i.e., by approximately 15%, while in the case of FD600/30 fibers, it increased to 2621 MPa, i.e., by approximately 13% compared to the sample with zero fiber content. The slightly larger increase in stiffness of BWW40 fibers can be attributed to their longer length (approximately 200 µm), which promotes more effective stress transfer and the formation of a reinforcing structure.
In summary, both types of cellulose fibers act primarily as a stiffening agent in the TPS matrix, leading to an increase in elastic modulus at the expense of lower tensile strength and elongation at break. Longer fibers (BWW40) more effectively increase composite stiffness, while shorter fibers (FD600/30) maintain slightly better strength at moderate fill levels but more strongly limit deformability at high dispersed phase fractions. The obtained results confirm the typical compromise between stiffness and strength of this type of composite (so-called lignocellulosic composites), while maintaining the fully biodegradable nature of the developed materials (Table 2).
The results of hardness and impact strength measurements are presented in Table 3 and Figure 6 and Figure 7. Analysis of the Shore D hardness and impact strength test results indicates a significant effect of both filler content and filler type on the utility properties of TPS-based composites.
When determining the hardness of both fiber types, a general trend of increasing hardness with increasing filler content was observed. For composites with BWW40 fibers, the hardness increased from 58.85 Sh D to 61.40 Sh D at 40% wt., representing a hardness increase of approximately 4.3% compared to the reference sample.
In the initial range, for 10% wt. filler, a slight decrease in hardness was observed, which may be due to local structural inhomogeneities or the plasticizing effect of low fiber content. However, a systematic increase in hardness occurred starting from 20% wt. filler (Table 3, Figure 6).
For FD600/30 fibers, the increase was more uniform, from 58.85 Sh D to 62.50 Sh D at 40% wt., with values for all filler levels being slightly higher than those for BWW40 fibers (Figure 6). In the case of FD600/30 fibers, this increase is 6.2% compared to the reference sample.
The increased hardness is a direct result of the presence of a stiff cellulose phase, which limits the mobility of polymer chains in the TPS matrix. The slightly higher values for the shorter FD600/30 fibers may result from their more uniform distribution in the matrix and a greater number of interaction points per unit volume of the material.
The impact strength results are presented in Figure 7 and Table 3. This characteristic is critical in the selection of structural materials, and the low value often excludes composites from many practical applications. In this study, the effect of both filler types on impact strength was clearly noticeable.
A sharp decline in this property was noted with increasing filler content. For the pure matrix (reference material), impact strength was 50.5 kJ/m2 (compared to the catalog value of 55.0 kJ/m2). Even at 10 wt.%, a drastic reduction occurred: to 17.25 kJ/m2 for BWW40 fibers and to 13.23 kJ/m2 for FD600/30. At maximum fill (40% wt.), these parameters dropped to 6.78 kJ/m2 and 7.88 kJ/m2, respectively, representing a reduction in impact strength of approximately 85–87% compared to the base material. This significant deterioration in impact strength likely results from the formation of numerous interfaces at the fiber-polymer interface and the initiation of microcracks at the fiber ends. An additional factor may be the weakening of the TPS structure continuity at high dispersed phase content. Importantly, at 40% wt. fill, composites with shorter fibers (FD600/30) exhibit slightly higher impact strength than those with longer fibers (BWW40). This may be due to the more isotropic distribution of short fibers in the matrix, while longer fibers act as stronger stress concentrators under dynamic loading.
The obtained results confirm the classic compromise in the properties of lignocellulosic composites, with a clear trend of increasing elastic modulus with increasing cellulose fiber content, which is due to their stiffness and load-bearing capacity. At the same time, an opposite trend of decreasing tensile strength and elongation at break is observed with higher fibrous phase contents, which is associated with poorer adhesion at the interface and greater susceptibility to crack initiation. Consequently, the observed trends indicate increasing material brittleness with increasing cellulose fiber content.
Changes in water absorption of TPS composites with BWW40 and FD600/30 fibers are presented in Table 4, and the rate curves are shown in the graphs in Figure 8 and Figure 9. Analysis of sample mass changes after 24 h and 168 h of exposure to an aqueous environment allows us to assess the effect of the type and content of cellulose fibers on the water absorption of TPS-based composites.
For all fill levels of the BWW40 fiber composites, a gradual increase in sample weight over time is observed. This indicates water penetration into the bulk of the material. A clear correlation is visible: the higher the fiber content, the greater the water absorption. A weight increase is observed after just 24 h, but after 168 h, the process intensifies, suggesting gradual diffusion of water into the composite structure. The increase in water absorption with increasing BWW40 fiber content is due, among other things, to the hydrophilic nature of cellulose and the presence of hydroxyl groups that favor water molecule binding. Furthermore, additional phase boundaries can form in the composite, facilitating moisture migration. The tests were repeated on five samples for each composition to ensure high statistical reliability of the obtained results and to determine the standard deviation. This approach allowed for a reliable assessment of the repeatability of the manufacturing process and minimized the impact of potential gross errors on the final data interpretation.
A similar trend is observed for composites containing shorter FD600/30 fibers (Table 4, Figure 9). The sample mass increases both after 24 h and after 168 h. For most fill levels, the mass increase is comparable to that of BWW40 fibers, although in the 10–20% wt. case, the values are slightly lower, which may indicate a more compact composite structure with shorter fibers. Shorter fibers can create a more uniform microstructure, but their greater number per unit volume increases the total surface area in contact with water, which promotes sorption at high fill levels.
Comparing the two composites, water absorption increases with exposure time and fiber content. The differences between BWW40 and FD600/30 are small at low fill levels (10–20% wt.), while at 30–40% wt., FD600/30 fibers exhibit slightly higher absorbency. These subtle differences between BWW40 and FD600/30 fibers are moderate and result primarily from different fiber geometries and their packing within the matrix.
Generally, for a material such as modified thermoplastic starch, water can weaken fiber-TPS adhesion, increase fiber volume due to swelling, and initiate microcracks. This phenomenon is important for biodegradation processes, where water initiates the hydrolysis of the polysaccharide matrix and allows microorganisms to penetrate the material. The water absorption capacity of composites containing 30–40% wt. fiber can therefore accelerate the initiation of the biodegradation process in the natural environment. This means that increasing filler content, despite compromising some mechanical properties, can be beneficial from an environmental perspective, increasing the material’s susceptibility to degradation.
The tested composites show a relationship typical for lignocellulosic materials: an increase in hydrophilicity and water absorption promotes the activation of degradation processes, which may be a significant advantage in the design of fully biodegradable material systems.
The final stage of the research was a qualitative assessment of the stability of TPS-based composites with added cellulose fibers after exposure to water at approximately 100 °C for 10 min. The aim of the experiment was to determine the materials’ resistance to short-term exposure to high temperatures in an aqueous environment, simulating intensive use conditions.
Thermoplastic starch, as a material with a polysaccharide structure, is highly sensitive to heat and moisture. Contact with water at 100 °C causes the matrix to soften and interchain interactions to weaken, leading to sample deformation. The degree of deformation was clearly visible visually, but it did not lead to a significant loss of integrity or significant change in the geometry of the molded parts. This indicates that, despite its susceptibility to heat and moisture, the composite structure retained its overall dimensional stability.
The highest deformations were observed for samples without filler and for composites containing 10% wt. FD600/30 fibers and 20% wt. BWW40 fibers. In these cases, the share of the reinforcing phase was probably insufficient to effectively limit the deformability of the TPS matrix under conditions of intense thermal and humidity interactions.
The extent of deformation depended on the type and content of the filler used. The largest deformations were observed for samples without filler and for composites containing 10% wt. FD600/30 fibers and 20% wt. BWW40 fibers. In these variants, the reinforcement phase content was likely insufficient to effectively limit the deformability of the soft TPS matrix.
The lowest deformation susceptibility was observed in samples containing 30% wt. FD 600/30 fibers, suggesting that, at a sufficiently high filler content, cellulose fibers may serve a stabilizing function, limiting swelling and excessive loosening of the matrix structure. It can be assumed that this filler content creates a more effective stiffening network, capable of partially compensating for the effects of heat.
Additionally, samples containing FD600/30 fibers exhibited a color change upon exposure to water, becoming lighter. This may indicate a modification of the fiber’s surface properties or partial structural transformations due to exposure to high temperatures and water. The observed changes are shown in Figure 10.
In summary, this study confirmed that TPS is a material sensitive to heat at high temperatures in an aqueous environment. Although the observed deformations did not lead to significant changes in the sample geometry, their presence indicates limited thermal and moisture stability of the individual composites. Appropriate selection of the type and content of cellulose fibers can partially improve the composites’ resistance to such impacts, which is crucial when designing products using this material.

4. Conclusions

The conducted research allowed us to assess the effect of the type and content of cellulose fibers (BWW 40 and FD 600/30) on the properties of composites based on modified thermoplastic starch, covering mechanical, physical, processing, and water resistance at elevated temperatures. It was demonstrated that the addition of lignocellulosic fillers effectively modified the material’s properties while maintaining its biodegradable nature.
Increasing fiber content led to an increase in the elastic modulus and hardness, confirming their stiffening effect. Simultaneously, a decrease in tensile strength, elongation at break, and impact strength was observed, indicating increased composite brittleness. This phenomenon results from limited adhesion at the interface and the presence of microcracks. At lower fill levels, fiber geometry was a significant factor, while at higher fill levels, their total share in the material structure dominated. Water absorption tests confirmed that increasing fiber content enhances water absorption, which is related to the hydrophilic nature of the components and leads to a weakening of interfacial interactions. This also promotes biodegradation. The composites were sensitive to hot water (~100 °C), but the observed deformations did not result in loss of material integrity. Adequate fill levels, especially with a 30% FD 600/30 addition, limited the extent of deformation.
The obtained results indicate that TPS composites with cellulose fibers constitute a promising group of materials with adjustable properties, depending on the type and amount of filler. Despite their limited resistance to moisture and elevated temperatures, they can be used in short-term products, especially packaging.
From a sustainability perspective, these materials align with the concept of a circular economy, relying on renewable and biodegradable raw materials and enabling processing using conventional methods. Appropriate composition optimization allows us to obtain materials with a favorable compromise between functional and environmental properties, constituting an alternative to selected petrochemical materials.
Continuing research on the presented material systems is fully justified, both from research and application perspectives. Further work should focus on a detailed explanation of the mechanisms of interactions at the interface between cellulose fibers and the polymer matrix, with particular emphasis on the nature and strength of interfacial adhesion. A key direction of development will be to determine the effect of fiber surface modification on improving component compatibility and limiting the initiation of microcracks in interfacial areas. Furthermore, analyses at the micro- and nanostructural levels seem essential, which will allow for the precise definition of stress transfer mechanisms and material degradation kinetics under real-world operating conditions. The presented results provide a foundation with significant research and implementation potential in the field of modern biocomposites.

Author Contributions

M.F.: data collection, formal analysis, sample preparation, and investigation; J.G.: literature review, validation, manuscript preparation, and critical analysis of results. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

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

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Gautam, B.P.S.; Qureshi, A.; Gwasikoti, A.; Kumar, V.; Gondwal, M. Global scenario of plastic production, consumption, and waste generation and their impacts on environment and human health. In Advanced Strategies for Biodegradation of Plastic Polymers; Soni, R., Debbarma, P., Suyal, D.C., Goel, R., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Dilshad, E.; Waheed, H.; Ali, U.; Amin, A.; Ahmed, I. General structure and classification of bioplastics and biodegradable plastics. In Bioplastics for Sustainable Development; Kuddus, M., Roohi, Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 61–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Santhosh, R.; Ahmed, J.; Thakur, R.; Sarkar, P. Starch-based edible packaging: Rheological, thermal, mechanical, microstructural, and barrier properties—A review. Sustain. Food Technol. 2024, 2, 307–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Garbarski, J.; Fabijański, M. Application of a Filler in the Form of Micronized Chalcedonite to Biodegradable Materials Based on Thermoplastic Starch as an Element of the Sustainable Development of Polymeric Materials. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Alassmy, Y.A.; Abduljawad, M.M.; Al-shamrani, K.M.; Alnafisah, M.S.; Mustapha El Hariri Nokab, M.H.; Pour, Z.A.; Gomes, D.R.; Yolcu, S.; Sebakhy, K.O. A green/sustainable organocatalytic pathway for the preparation of esterified supercritical CO2-dried potato starch products. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2023, 140, 10.e53585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Zhu, W.; Zhang, D.; Liu, X.; Ma, T.; He, J.; Dong, Q.; Cai, J. Improving the hydrophobicity and mechanical properties of starch nanofibrous films by electrospinning and cross-linking for food packaging applications. LWT 2022, 169, 114005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Mukaila, T.; Adeniyi, A.; Bello, I.; Sarker, N.C.; Monono, E.; Hammed, A. Optimizing film mechanical and water contact angle properties via PLA/starch/lecithin concentrations. Clean. Circ. Bioeconomy 2024, 8, 100095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Żołek-Tryznowska, Z.; Jeznach, A.; Bednarczyk, E.; Murawski, T.; Piłczyńska, K.; Sikora, S.; Tryznowski, M. Effect of hydrophobic nano-silica content on the surface properties of corn-starch films. Ind. Crops Prod. 2024, 214, 118582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Fabijański, M. Mechanical strength and flammability of polylactide. Przem. Chem. 2019, 94, 4. [Google Scholar]
  10. Trinh, B.M.; Chang, C.C.; Mekonnen, T.H. Facile fabrication of thermoplastic starch/poly (lactic acid) multilayer films with superior gas and moisture barrier properties. Polymer 2021, 223, 123679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Fabijański, M.; Garbarski, J. Mechanical properties of thermoplastic starch filled with calcium carbonate. Przem. Chem. 2023, 102, 829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Rydz, J.; Sikorska, W.; Musioł, M. Biosynthesis and Biodegradation—Eco-Concept for Polymer Materials. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 2674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  13. Saavedra-Rojas, F.A.; Bhandari, S.; Lopez-Anido, R.A. Environmental Durability of Bio-Based and Synthetic Thermoplastic Composites in Large-Format Additive Manufacturing. Polymers 2024, 16, 787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  14. Karbhari, V.; Chin, J.; Hunston, D.; Benmokrane, B.; Juska, T.; Morgan, R.; Lesko, J.; Sorathia, U.; Reynaud, D. Durability gap analysis for fiber-reinforced polymer composites in civil infrastructure. J. Compos. Constr. 2003, 7, 238–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Garbarski, J.; Fabijański, M. Strength of the thermoplastic starch/polylactide mixture. Przem. Chem. 2024, 103, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Khan, B.; Khan Bilal Niazi, M.; Samin, G.; Jahan, Z. Thermoplastic starch: A possible biodegradable food packaging material—A review. Food Process Eng. 2017, 40, e12447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Domínguez-Solera, E.; Gadaleta, G.; Ferrero-Aguar, P.; Navarro-Calderón, Á.; Escrig-Rondán, C. The Biodegradability of Plastic Products for Agricultural Application: European Regulations and Technical Criteria. Clean Technol. 2025, 7, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Folino, A.; Pangallo, D.; Calabrò, P.S. Assessing Bioplastics Biodegradability by Standard and Research Methods: Current Trends and Open Issues. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2023, 11, 109424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Fabijański, M.; Garbarski, J. Physical properties of the mixture polylactide/thermoplastic starch. Przem. Chem. 2023, 102, 954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Airinei, D.N.; Modrogan, C.; Orbuleț, O.D.; Dǎncilǎ, A.M.; Boşomoiu, M.; Matei, C. Biodegradable Thermoplastic Materials with Application in the Manufacture of Bags Without Synthetic Polymers. Polymers 2025, 17, 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Lee, W.S.; Lee, T.G. Development of biodegradable bag materials as a sustainable alternative to conventional plastic bags. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2024, 138, 332–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Mohery, M.; Mindil, A.; Soliman, M. Assessing the adverse impacts of biodegradable plastic bags: Chemical elements and radionuclides considerations. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2024, 12, 111887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Makroo, H.A.; Naqash, S.; Saxena, J.; Sharma, S.; Majid, D.; Dar, B.N. Recovery and characteristics of starches from unconventional sources and their potential applications: A review. Appl. Food Res. 2021, 1, 100001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Wei, D.; Lv, S.; Liu, J.; Zuo, J.; Mu, Y.; Liu, L.; He, T.; Zeng, Q. Esterification modified corn starch composite with chitosan and PVP for enhanced mechanical properties and antimicrobial freshness preservation of starch-based films. React. Funct. Polym. 2024, 202, 105991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Swetha, T.A.; Bora, A.; Mohanrasu, K.; Balaji, P.; Rathinam Raja, R.; Ponnuchamy, K.; Muthusamy, G.; Arun, A. A comprehensive review on polylactic acid (PLA) Synthesis, processing and application in food packaging. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2023, 234, 123715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Yusoff, N.H.; Pal, K.; Narayanan, T.; Gomes de Souza, F. Recent trends on bioplastics synthesis and characterizations: Polylactic acid (PLA) incorporated with tapioca starch for packaging applications. J. Mol. Struct. 2021, 1232, 129954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Kiattijiranon, P.; Auras, R.A.; Sane, A. Enhanced functional properties for packaging applications using sodium alginate/starch bilayer and multilayer films. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. 2024, 6, 4642–4650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Tan, S.X.; Andriyana, A.; Ong, H.C.; Lim, S.; Pang, Y.L.; Ngoh, G.C. Roles of nanofillers and plasticizers towards sustainable starch-based bioplastic fabrication. Polymers 2022, 14, 664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  29. Żołek-Tryznowska, Z.; Cudna, K.; Tryznowski, M. Comparative Study of Seal Strength and Mechanical Behavior of Untreated and Corona-Treated Polymer Films. Processes 2025, 13, 3190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Szramowski, H.; Krzemiński, M.P. Comparative Analysis of Primers and Alternative Polypropylene Pre-Treatment Techniques. J. Adhes. 2024, 100, 867–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Stepczyńska, M.; Śpionek, A. Plasma Modification Effects of Thermoplastic Starch (TPS) Surface Layer: Film Wettability and Sterilization. Materials 2025, 18, 2156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  32. Rytlewski, P.; Stepczyńska, M.; Moraczewski, K.; Malinowski, R.; Karasiewicz, T.; Sikorska, W.; Żenkiewicz, M. Flax fibers reinforced polycaprolactone modified by triallyl isocyanurate and electron radiation. Polym. Compos. 2019, 40, 481–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Cheng, H.; Chen, L.; McClements, D.J.; Yang, T.; Zhang, Z.; Ren, F.; Miao, M.; Tian, Y.; Jin, Z. Starch-based biodegradable packaging materials: A review of their preparation, characterization and diverse applications in the food industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 114, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Fabijański, M.; Garbarski, J.; Szymaniak, Z. Modifying Polylactide with Powdered Cork Filler. Materials 2025, 18, 5606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  35. Muthuraj, R.; Misra, M.; Mohanty, A.K. Biodegradable compatibilized polymer blends for packaging applications: A literature review. J. Appl. Polim. 2018, 135, 45726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Degli Innocenti, F.; Tony Breton, T. Intrinsic Biodegradability of Plastics and Ecological Risk in the Case of Leakage. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 9239–9249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Suleman, A.; Bora, J.; Kalita, A.J.; Chetia, B. Starch-based nanocomposite for food packaging applications. In Engineering Applications of Polymer-Based Nanocomposites; Visakh, P.M., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Kesari, A.K.; Mandava, S.; Munagala, C.K.; Nagar, H.; Aniya, V. DES-ultrasonication processing for cellulose nanofiber and its compounding in biodegradable starch-based packaging films through extrusion. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 188, 115566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Huang, X.; Chen, L.; Liu, Y. Effects of ultrasonic and ozone modification on the morphology, mechanical, thermal and barrier properties of corn starch films. Food Hydrocoll. 2024, 147, 109376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Roschhuk, V.; Laorenza, Y.; Klinmalai, P.; Harnkarnsujarit, N. Active TPS/PBAT Blown Films Incorporating Sodium Lactate for Improved Oxygen Barrier, Antimicrobial Activity, and Cheese Preservation. Foods 2026, 15, 763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  41. Vieira, E.F.; Amaral, T.; Domingues, V.F.; Delerue-Matos, C. Hydrophobicity Strategies of Starch-Based Films: Recent Advances and Perspectives. Polymers 2026, 18, 490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Moreno-Bohorquez, E.; Arias-Tapia, M.J.; Jaramillo, A.F. Recent Advances in Thermoplastic Starch (TPS) and Biodegradable Polyester Blends: A Review of Compatibilization Strategies and Bioactive Functionalities. Polymers 2026, 18, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Zhu, F. Isolation, Composition, Structure, Properties, Modifications, and Uses of Yam Starch. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2015, 14, 357–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Gil-Trujillo, E.; Lomelí-Ramírez, M.G.; Silva-Guzmán, J.A.; Anzaldo-Hernández, J.; Vargas-Radillo, J.J.; Barrientos-Ramírez, L.; Cisneros-López, E.O.; Jiménez-Amezcua, R.M.; Kronemberger, F.d.A.; Hupsel, A.L.; et al. Eco-Friendly Thermoplastic Starch Nanocomposite Films Reinforced with Microfibrillated Cellulose (MFC) from Fraxinus uhdei (Wenz.) Lingelsh. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 12925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Shamsabadi, O.D.; Soltanolkottabi, F. Green nanocomposite of (starch/polylactic acid/cellulose nanofiber) thermoplastic. Polym. Polym. Compos. 2024, 32, 09673911241294213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Montero, B.; Rico, M.; Barral, L.; Bouza, R.; López, J.; Schmidt, A.; Bittmann-Hennes, B. Preparation and characterization of bionanocomposite films based on wheat starch and reinforced with cellulose nanocrystals. Cellulose 2021, 28, 7781–7793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Freitas, P.A.; Arias, C.I.L.F.; Torres-Giner, S.; González-Martínez, C.; Chiralt, A. Valorization of rice straw into cellulose microfibers for the reinforcement of thermoplastic corn starch films. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Midhun, C.D.M.; dos Santos Rosa, D.; Camani, P.H.; Kumar, A.S.; Kv, N.; Begum, P.S.; Dinakaran, D.; John, E.; Baby, D.; Thomas, M.M.; et al. Thermoplastic starch nanocomposites using cellulose-rich Chrysopogon zizanioides nanofibers. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 191, 572–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Babaee, M.; Jonoobi, M.; Hamzeh, Y.; Ashori, A. Biodegradability and mechanical properties of reinforced starch nanocomposites using cellulose nanofibers. Carbohydr. Polym. 2015, 132, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  50. Ghanbari, A.; Tabarsa, T.; Ashori, A.; Shakeri, A.; Mashkour, M. Thermoplastic starch foamed composites reinforced with cellulose nanofibers: Thermal and mechanical properties. Carbohydr. Polym. 2018, 197, 305–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  51. Ul-Islam, M.; Habis, F.; Fatima, A.; Saidi, A.K.A.; Shehzad, A.; Koofan, F.; Almashli, F.; Kashoob, A.A.A.; Ullah, M.W.; Khan, S.; et al. Sustainable antibacterial and wound-healing hydrogels: Croton confertus-loaded bacterial cellulose composites. Mater. Adv. 2026, 7, 4293–4306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Holguín Posso, A.M.; Macías Silva, J.C.; Castañeda Niño, J.P.; Mina Hernandez, J.H.; Fajardo Cabrera de Lima, L.d.P. Characterization and Implementation of Cocoa Pod Husk as a Reinforcing Agent to Obtain Thermoplastic Starches and Bio-Based Composite Materials. Polymers 2024, 16, 1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Grupa Azoty. Available online: https://tarnow.grupaazoty.com/upload/1/files/2022/envifill/m/envifill%20MB%20173.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2026).
  54. Deffner & Johann. Available online: https://www.chempoint.com/products/j-rettenmaier/natural-and-synthetic-fibers/arbocel-fibers/bww-40?srsltid=AfmBOor-8GS-1NNyVeWgAG1UhPIHfl5rlxDM9TGcE1vO85x1fsLFbx3K (accessed on 27 February 2026).
  55. SpecialChem. Available online: https://www.specialchem.com/polymer-additives/product/jrs-rettenmaier-arbocel-fd-600-30 (accessed on 27 February 2026).
  56. ISO 527-1:2019; Plastics—Determination of Tensile PropertiesPart 1: General Principles. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
  57. ISO 527-2: 2025; Plastics—Determination of Tensile PropertiesPart 2: Test Conditions for Moulding and Extrusion Plastics. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2025.
  58. ISO 868:2003; Plastics and Ebonite—Determination of Indentation Hardness by Means of a Durometer (Shore Hardness). International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
  59. ISO 179-1:2010; Plastics—Determination of Charpy Impact Properties. Part 1: Non-Instrumented Impact Test. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
  60. ISO 62:2008; Plastics—Determination of Water Absorption. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
  61. Ondiek, W.; Ridzuan, A.; Iwamoto, M.; Macadre, A.; Goda, K. Comparative Analysis of Mechanical and Morphological Properties of Cordenka and Ramie Fiber-Reinforced Polypropylene Composites. Materials 2024, 17, 5519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Jonoobi, M.; Harun, J.; Mathew, A.P.; Oksman, K. Mechanical properties of cellulose nanofiber (CNF) reinforced polylactic acid (PLA) prepared by twin screw extrusion. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2010, 70, 1742–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Jörg, M. Industrial Applications of Natural Fibres: Structure, Properties and Technical Applications; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
Processes 14 01480 g001
Figure 1. View of polymer samples with BBW40 cellulose fibers. (a) material without filler, (b) 10% wt. fiber, (c) 20% wt. fiber, (d) 30% wt. fiber, (e) 40% wt. fiber.
Figure 1. View of polymer samples with BBW40 cellulose fibers. (a) material without filler, (b) 10% wt. fiber, (c) 20% wt. fiber, (d) 30% wt. fiber, (e) 40% wt. fiber.
Processes 14 01480 g001
Processes 14 01480 g002
Figure 2. View of polymer samples with FD600/30 cellulose fibers. (a) material without filler, (b) 10% wt. fiber, (c) 20% wt. fiber, (d) 30% wt. fiber, (e) 40% wt. fiber.
Figure 2. View of polymer samples with FD600/30 cellulose fibers. (a) material without filler, (b) 10% wt. fiber, (c) 20% wt. fiber, (d) 30% wt. fiber, (e) 40% wt. fiber.
Processes 14 01480 g002
Processes 14 01480 g003
Figure 3. Comparison of the tensile strength results of individual composites.
Figure 3. Comparison of the tensile strength results of individual composites.
Processes 14 01480 g003
Processes 14 01480 g004
Figure 4. Comparison of elongation at break results for individual composites.
Figure 4. Comparison of elongation at break results for individual composites.
Processes 14 01480 g004
Processes 14 01480 g005
Figure 5. Comparison of results from the determination of Young’s modulus for individual composites.
Figure 5. Comparison of results from the determination of Young’s modulus for individual composites.
Processes 14 01480 g005
Processes 14 01480 g006
Figure 6. Comparison of hardness changes for individual composites.
Figure 6. Comparison of hardness changes for individual composites.
Processes 14 01480 g006
Processes 14 01480 g007
Figure 7. Comparison of impact strength changes for individual composites.
Figure 7. Comparison of impact strength changes for individual composites.
Processes 14 01480 g007
Processes 14 01480 g008
Figure 8. Change in mass during the water absorption test for composites with BWW40 fiber depending on the fiber content.
Figure 8. Change in mass during the water absorption test for composites with BWW40 fiber depending on the fiber content.
Processes 14 01480 g008
Processes 14 01480 g009
Figure 9. Change in mass during the water absorption test for composites with FD600/30 fiber depending on the fiber content.
Figure 9. Change in mass during the water absorption test for composites with FD600/30 fiber depending on the fiber content.
Processes 14 01480 g009
Processes 14 01480 g010
Figure 10. View of the pure TPS sample and the samples containing BWW40 and FD600/30 fibers after exposure to water at 100 °C for 10 min.
Figure 10. View of the pure TPS sample and the samples containing BWW40 and FD600/30 fibers after exposure to water at 100 °C for 10 min.
Processes 14 01480 g010
Table 1. Average sample weight values depending on the filler content.
Table 1. Average sample weight values depending on the filler content.
Average Weight of Samples, g
Filler content0% wt.10% wt.20% wt.30% wt.40% wt.
BBW4024.00 ± 0.0124.76 ± 0.0225.12 ± 0.0225.44 ± 0.1225.93 ± 0.07
FD600/3024.78 ± 0.0624.87 ± 0.0725.31 ± 0.0225.53 ± 0.05
Table 2. Summary of the results of mechanical properties determined in the static tensile test for individual composites.
Table 2. Summary of the results of mechanical properties determined in the static tensile test for individual composites.
Filler Content0% wt.10% wt.20% wt.30% wt.40% wt.
BWW40
Tensile strength, MPa57. 44 ± 1.6647.28 ± 1.0146.20 ± 1.2140.20 ±2.3836.84 ±2.01
Elongation at break, %2.46 ± 0.152.0 ± 0.141.97 ± 0.131.65 ± 0.111.38 ± 0.10
Young’s modulus, MPa2321 ± 742363 ± 512344 ± 532437 ± 582675 ± 66
FD600/30
Tensile strength, MPa57. 44 ± 1.6648.26 ± 1.33 47.48 ± 0.9042.56 ± 2.0536.40 ± 1.69
Elongation at break, %2.46 ± 0.152.06 ± 0.142.0 ± 0.141.63 ± 0.111.38± 0.10
Young’s modulus, MPa2321 ± 742338 ± 682369 ± 702604± 832621 ± 84
Table 3. Summary of hardness and impact strength results for individual composites.
Table 3. Summary of hardness and impact strength results for individual composites.
Filler Content0% 10% 20%30% 40%
BWW40
Hardness, Sh D58.85 ± 0.5357.90 ± 0.69160.45 ± 0.3961.35 ± 0.5161.40 ± 0.75
Impact strength, kJ/m250.50 ± 15.1217.25 ± 2.0514.45 ± 0.778.43 ± 0.966.78 ± 0.78
FD600/30
Hardness, Sh D58.85 ± 0.5360.10 ± 0.77 60.15 ± 0.7761.25 ± 0.7762.50 ± 0.58
Impact strength, kJ/m250.50 ± 15.1213.23 ± 1.5012.40 ± 0.578.90 ± 0.957.88 ± 0.94
Table 4. Change in water absorption value over 168 h for individual composite types.
Table 4. Change in water absorption value over 168 h for individual composite types.
Filler Content0% wt.10% wt.20% wt.30% wt. 40% wt.
BWW40
Mass, g—0 h10.49 ± 0.0910.70 ± 0.0710.87 ± 0.0611.04 ± 0.0811.19 ± 0.06
Mass, g—24 h10.51 ± 0.0910.74 ± 0.0610.92 ± 0.0611.11 ± 0.0911.10 ± 0.02
Mass, g—168 h10.55 ± 0.0910.82 ± 0.0711.04 ± 0.0811.27 ± 0.0711.53 ± 0.03
FD600/30
Mass, g—0 h10.49 ± 0.0210.71 ± 0.0210.76 ± 0.0710.94 ± 0.0711.08 ± 0.08
Mass, g—24 h10.51 ± 0.0110.79 ± 0.0210.80 ± 0.0811.04 ± 0.0811.18 ± 0.02
Mass, g—168 h10.55 ± 0.0210.84 ± 0.0210.91 ± 0.0911.23 ± 0.0811.44 ± 0.03
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

Fabijański, M.; Garbarski, J. The Influence of Cellulose Fiber Content on the Mechanical Properties of Composites Based on Modified Thermoplastic Starch. Processes 2026, 14, 1480. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr14091480

AMA Style

Fabijański M, Garbarski J. The Influence of Cellulose Fiber Content on the Mechanical Properties of Composites Based on Modified Thermoplastic Starch. Processes. 2026; 14(9):1480. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr14091480

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fabijański, Mariusz, and Jacek Garbarski. 2026. "The Influence of Cellulose Fiber Content on the Mechanical Properties of Composites Based on Modified Thermoplastic Starch" Processes 14, no. 9: 1480. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr14091480

APA Style

Fabijański, M., & Garbarski, J. (2026). The Influence of Cellulose Fiber Content on the Mechanical Properties of Composites Based on Modified Thermoplastic Starch. Processes, 14(9), 1480. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr14091480

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