Next Article in Journal
Three-Dimensional Magneto-Elastic Analysis of Functionally Graded Plates and Shells
Previous Article in Journal
Experimental Factors Affecting Anisotropic Electrical Conductivity in Carbon/Epoxy Laminates Using a Solid Electrode-Based Two-Probe Method
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
J. Compos. Sci.
Volume 9
Issue 5
10.3390/jcs9050213
jcs-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 Effect of the Addition of Maguey Bagasse in the Production of Bioplastics Based on Corn and Potato Starch

by
Luz Adriana Arias Hernández
1,
María Maldonado Santoyo
2,
Lucia Delgadillo Ruiz
3,
Rudy Solís Silván
4,
Felícitas Calderón Vega
1,
Gilberto Carreño Aguilera
1,
Shaula Melissa Reducindo Ruiz
5,
Julián González Trinidad
5,
Arturo Berumen Cervantes
6,
Arturo Agustín Ortiz Hernández
7 and
Eladio Delgadillo Ruiz
1,*
1
División de Ingenierías, Universidad de Guanajuato, Av. Juárez 77, Col. Centro, Guanajuato C.P. 36000, Guanajuato, Mexico
2
Centro de Innovación Aplicada en Tecnologías Competitivas, Omega 201, Col. Industrial Delta, León C.P. 37545, Guanajuato, Mexico
3
Unidad Académica de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, Av. Preparatoria s/n, Col. Agronómica, Zacatecas C.P. 98068, Zacatecas, Mexico
4
Tecnológico Nacional de México, Campus Comalcalco, Carretera vecinal Comalcalco-Paraiso km. 2, Rancho Occidente 3ra. Sección, Comalcalco C.P. 86650, Tabasco, Mexico
5
Unidad Académica de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Luz y la Materia, Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, Av. Marie Curie 1, Blvd. El bote s/n, Col. Ciudad Argentum, Ejido la Escondida, Zacatecas C.P. 98047, Zacatecas, Mexico
6
Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial, Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Guanajuato, Carretera Guanajuato-Puentecillas km. 10.5, Puentecillas, Guanajuato C.P. 36262, Guanajuato, Mexico
7
Unidad Académica de Física, Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, Av. Preparatoria s/n, Col. Agronómica, Zacatecas C.P. 98068, Zacatecas, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Compos. Sci. 2025, 9(5), 213; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9050213
Submission received: 23 March 2025 / Revised: 23 April 2025 / Accepted: 25 April 2025 / Published: 28 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Biocomposites)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Synthetic plastic impacts the environment due to its slow degradation and the generation of microplastics, driving the development of bioplastics. This study evaluated the use of bagasse fiber combined with corn and potato starch to improve the physical and mechanical properties of bioplastics. Five bioplastic mixtures (Am1 to Am5) were prepared with corn starch, glycerin, acetic acid, maleic anhydride, and agave bagasse. Am1 was prepared without bagasse, and the others were prepared with different amounts of bagasse (0, 10, 30, 50, and 70 g). Bioplastics made from potato starch (Ap1 to Ap5) were also produced under the same conditions and were assessed using the thermogravimetric (TGA) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) tests. Analysis of variance showed significant differences (p < 0.001) in the moisture, Young’s modulus, and stress of the bioplastics. The corn-based bioplastics exhibited lower moisture values (7.26% and 5.51%) compared to the potato-based ones (9.68% to 8.89%). Young’s modulus and stress increased in the corn-based (Am5 = 4.59 MPa) and potato-based (Ap5 = 3.53 MPa) bioplastics with higher amounts of bagasse. Furthermore, TGA and SEM revealed the surface morphology and the effects of processing, and based on their results, it was found that agave bagasse improved the mechanical and thermal properties of bioplastics, especially corn-based ones, suggesting its potential as a material with a lower environmental impact.

1. Introduction

Synthetic plastics developed from petroleum derivatives cover multiple needs and demands due to their properties [1,2,3]. These demands have increased their consumption and production, causing severe environmental and health consequences for living beings. These problems are primarily a result of the waste of this long-degradability solid [4,5] and its microplastic generation [6,7,8]. Recent studies have shown the presence of these elements in seawater, as well as lakes and rivers, a product of their persistence in the environment, which causes damage to aquatic fauna and flora [9,10,11]. Microplastics have caused a worldwide solid residue problem, and government standards have been created to minimize their impact [3,4]. The use of biodegradable materials is considered an alternative of great benefit. These biodegradable materials have been defined as materials created based on natural polymers derived from vegetable products (potato, corn, wheat, soy, etc.) [12]. Even though it is common to find definitions that include other types of substances, one of the most popular describes them as materials of biological and/or biodegradable origin [13]. Biopolymers can be divided into three sub-groups: polymers based on renewable resources (starch and cellulose); biodegradable polymers based on bio-derivate monomers (vegetable oils and lactic acid); and biopolymers synthesized by micro-organisms that can be processed with the same technology as conventional thermoplastic materials, such as extrusion, injection, or blowing [14,15,16], using elements obtained from potential renewable sources [17], such as polyhydroxyalkanoate compounds (PHAs) [18]. They are categorized according to their renewable origin and their ability to comply with biodegradability and compostability standards in plastic products. Additionally, the unique physical and mechanical properties of these biopolymers, according to different studies, can be attributed to their materials, impacting their use in the food and medical industries with the combination of their functionality and sustainability. Throughout our investigation, the importance and potential of polymers are emphasized while considering the current pollution problem, highlighting the continuous innovation in the biopolymer field and its crucial significance in searching for more sustainable solutions [19]. PHA is a type of thermoplastic that can be mixed easily with conventional existing plastics. PHA can help improve residue management practices when using organic waste as a raw material, allowing for the simultaneous synthesis of products made from elements with a natural origin. An essential aspect of the scope in developing new bioplastic materials is their use; this may vary from application in mulch agriculture [20,21,22] and quilting to their use in food packaging [23,24].
Bioplastics may be reinforced or enhanced using materials to improve their physical or mechanical properties [25,26]. In some cases, bioplastic’s solubility is affected by the nature of the main component. Bardisso et al. [27] reported on the incorporation of fibers, resins, or elements of an oily nature to decrease a material’s solubility. Bagasse, in general, has been incorporated into the creation of different plastic bagasse types of vegetable origin, such as sugar cane bagasse [28,29,30]. Specifically, Salmiana maguey bagasse has been used as a component in construction as well as in livestock feed, given its nutritional character according to bromatological studies that have been conducted [31,32]. This investigation focused on bioplastic development using corn and potato starch as the primary glycerol plasticizer and integrating Salmiana maguey bagasse residues, which were incorporated to analyze their effects on some properties.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials Used in the Bioplastics’ Development

The raw materials used were corn starch (Best Ingredients), potato starch (Best Ingredients, Santa Catarina, NL, Mexico), acetic acid (Karal, León de los Aldama, Gto, Mexico), glycerin (Karal, Gto, Mexico), maleic anhydride (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA), and Salmiana maguey bagasse from the mezcal region in Pinos Municipality, Zacatecas State, México (22°17′50″ N, 101°34′30″ W). It should be mentioned that the bagasse was obtained only after being washed with distilled water to eliminate dust and residue. The next step was drying at room temperature and grinding until the particle size was decreased. Finally, the bagasse was sieved until a particle size smaller than 200 mm was obtained.

2.2. Bioplastic Elaboration

Several mixtures consisting of various proportions of the mentioned raw materials, including potato starch, were generated, creating bioplastics at an experimental level. The mixtures were obtained using one-spindle extrusion equipment under controlled-temperature conditions.
A total of 5 bioplastics were obtained, to which the same proportions of the raw materials were added: corn starch (AM), glycerin (G), acetic acid (AA), maleic anhydride (ANM), and Salmiana maguey bagasse (B), as observed in Table 1. The sample named Am1 was the mixture that did not contain bagasse. In bioplastics Am2, Am3, Am4, and Am5, the components were the same in all the samples, but the amounts of bagasse varied, with 10, 30, 50, and 70 g, respectively.
Table 2 shows the results of the developed bioplastics with potato starch and the components of the developed bioplastics. Ap1 references the mixture that did not contain bagasse. Bioplastics Ap2, Ap3, Ap4, and Ap5 had the same components, but the bagasse amount varied, with 10, 30, 50, and 70 g, respectively. Both bioplastics were obtained in the form of a rectangular-shaped strip 90 cm long, 20 cm wide, and 1 mm thick.
Research has shown that the most common plasticizer used for bioplastic development with corn starch is glycerin. In this study, a higher proportion of acetic acid was used, as shown in Table 1 and Table 2. Anhydrides have been shown to generate greater stabilization properties. In addition to these properties, starches can be used to develop thermoplastics [33,34,35]. The interaction of the starch with the non-watery plasticizer proportion prevents the material from becoming fragile, according to what has been reported in the literature [26].

2.3. Humidity Percentage

To determine the humidity percentage, 2 g of each plastic sample was weighed (4 repetitions). Afterward, they were dried for 24 h at 50 °C. Finally, they were weighed again, and the corresponding calculations were performed.

2.4. Water Absorption Percentage

The water absorption determination procedure consisted of weighing 2 g (4 repetitions) of the bioplastics, to which 20 mL of distilled water was added. After 24 h of water contact, they were removed from the solution, and the remaining water was weighed to determine the water absorption of the bioplastic samples [36] through the corresponding calculations.

2.5. Water Solubility

To determine the water solubility percentage in the samples, 20 mL of distilled water was added, and they were kept at room temperature for 48 h. After this time, the water was carefully removed, and the samples were weighed and then dried at 50 °C for 24 h to determine (via the respective calculations) their solubility [36].

2.6. Mechanical Properties

Mechanical tests were performed using the ASTM-D638 method with a speed of testing of 50 mm/min via QUASAR universal testing equipment (Instrum Galdabini, Cardano al Campo, Italy). Using the method utilized for plastics, an analysis of 5 specimens for each mixture was performed [37].

2.7. Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA)

In the thermogravimetric analysis, the tests were carried out using a Q500 model thermogravimetric analyzer (TA Instruments, New Castle, DE, USA) with a heating ramp from 30 to 50 °C. This was performed at a heating rate of 10 °C min−1 in a nitrogen atmosphere using 42 to 64 mg samples.

2.8. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)

SEM was employed using JEOL JSM 6010-LA (Akishima, Japan). The conditions involved backscattered electrons, an accelerating voltage of 20 kV, pressure of 60 Pa × 100, and working distances of 10 and 9 mm.

2.9. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)

A Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Nicolet, Waltham, MA, USA) was used, with 16 scans, a resolution of 4 cm−1, and a wavenumber range of 4000–400 cm−1.

2.10. Statistical Analysis

In both designs, the treatments were administered four times each, assuring the results’ repeatability and sturdiness. This allowed us to evaluate with greater precision the type of starch and the proportion of the components affecting the bioplastic properties, such as the capability to retain humidity, water absorption, and solubility.
The obtained results were evaluated using variance analysis (ANOVA) since they complied with the requested statistical postulates for the parametric analysis: normality, homoscedasticity, and independence of the data.
The compliance of these postulates allowed us to reliably compare the response variables (humidity, water absorption, and solubility) among the different bioplastic formulas: corn starch with glycerin (G), acetic acid (AA), maleic anhydride (AM), Salmiana maguey bagasse (B), and potato starch with the same additives.

3. Results

3.1. Bioplastic Humidity Percentage

The variance analysis results show highly significant differences (p < 0.001) among the different bioplastic proportions (Am1, Am2, Am3, Am4, and Am5) regarding the humidity percentage (%) variable, with a confidence level of 95%. Also, the multiple mean contrast LSD shows significant differences, indicated by different letters, among the different bioplastic proportions obtained. It is worth highlighting that the highest humidity values were demonstrated in bioplastic Am1 (7.26%, ±Q1 = 7.12, Q2 = 7.47), whose composition characteristic was that it did not have bagasse, followed by sample Am5 (6.47%, Q1 = 6.25, Q2 = 6.76), which had the highest amount of bagasse, as observed in Figure 1. In contrast, the bioplastic values for Am2 (6.20%, ± Q1 = 6.04, Q2 = 6.36), Am3 (5.91%, ± Q1 = 5.64, Q2 = 6.22), and Am4 (5.51%, ± Q1 = 5.31, Q2 = 6.76) showed the lowest humidity values.
For the potato starch bioplastic, the variance analysis showed highly significant differences (p < 0.001) among the different bioplastic proportions (Ap1, Ap2, Ap3, Ap4, and Ap5) regarding the humidity percentage (%) variable, with a confidence level of 95%. Regarding the LSD, the multiple mean contrast results show significant differences, indicated by different letters, among the bioplastic proportions obtained (Figure 2). The highest humidity values were demonstrated in bioplastic Ap2 (9.68 %, ±Q1 = 9.47, Q2 = 10.05), whose composition characteristic, in this case, was 10 g bagasse. It was observed that samples Ap3, Ap4, and Ap5 had average values close to each other, of 8.94, 8.91, and 8.89%, respectively, which were lower than that of bioplastic Ap1 (9.13%), which had no bagasse.
Comparatively, the analysis results of the potato and corn starch bioplastic show lower values in the corn starch than in the potato bioplastic. This indicates increased water retention, which could be attributed to greater sensibility in humid environments.

3.2. Bioplastics’ Water Absorption

The potato bioplastic absorption results after 24 h of water contact are shown in Figure 3. The variance analysis results indicate significantly large differences (p < 0.001) and also show that the LSD multiple mean contrast showed no significant differences among the treatments, indicated by the same letters, with a confidence level of 95%. The most significant water absorption mean was attributed to bioplastic Am5 (51.92%, ±Q1 = 51.0, Q2 = 53.40), which contained the highest amount of bagasse, followed by mixtures Am3, Am1, and Am2. The lowest average was observed for mixture Am4 (48.32%, ±Q1 = 47.60, Q2 = 49.50).
For the potato bioplastics, the variance analysis showed highly significant differences regarding the water absorption variable (%), with a confidence level of 95%, as indicated by the same letters according to the LSD multiple mean contrasts for all the obtained bioplastics (Ap1, Ap2, Ap3, Ap4, and Ap5). It can be observed (Figure 4) that bioplastic Ap4 (26.55%, ±Q1 = 24.60, Q2 = 28.70) showed a slightly lower solubility mean than the rest of the bioplastics (Ap1: 27.45%, ±Q1 = 26.90, Q2 = 28.30; Ap2: 28.05%, ±Q1 = 24.90, Q2 = 30.10; Ap3: 27.62%, ±Q1 = 25.80, Q2 = 30.70; Ap5: 27.12%, ±Q1 = 25.90, Q2 = 29.0).

3.3. Bioplastics’ Water Solubility

Regarding the variance analysis, highly significant differences (p < 0.001) were observed among the different bioplastic mixture proportions with regard to the water solubility percentage (%), with a 95% confidence level, for both the corn starch-based (Figure 5) and potato starch-based (Figure 6) bioplastics. As can be observed in Figure 5, the highest mean was found for the Am2 bioplastic (48.50%, ±Q1 = 45.7, Q2 = 50.2), followed by bioplastic Am1 (46.82%, ± Q1 = 45.4, Q2 = 49.3), with very close mean values for bioplastics Am3, Am4, and Am5. In contrast, the results for the potato bioplastics (Figure 6) show that the highest mean was found for bioplastic Ap4 (26.55%, ±Q1 = 24.6, Q2 = 28.7). The highest value was found for bioplastic Ap2 (28.05%, ±Q1 = 24.9, Q2 = 30.1), which, although lower than that of bioplastic Am2, coincides with the corn and potato bioplastics with the same components (plasticizers and bagasse).

3.4. Bioplastics’ Mechanical Properties

The mechanical properties were determined by analyzing the tension (MPa), deformation (%), and Young’s modulus (MPa) of the potato and corn bioplastics. The results are shown in Table 3.

3.5. Thermal Properties

The results obtained from the thermogravimetric studies are shown in Table 4 for the corn-based bioplastics and in Table 5 for the potato-based bioplastics, where the mass changes (%) with respect to the various temperature change intervals (%/°C) are presented. For each bioplastic, four temperature intervals were determined, where the initial and final temperature ranges varied for both corn and potato bioplastics.
In addition, the thermograms of corn starch bioplastics Am1 and Am5, as well as potato starch bioplastics Ap1 and Ap5, are shown representatively in Figure 7.

3.6. Scanning Electron Microscope of the Bioplastics

Figure 8 shows the images obtained in the SEM analysis of the corn bioplastics, illustrating their surface morphology. A relevant difference was observed in the bioplastic that did not contain bagasse (Figure 8a), in which a rough surface with visible pores and cracks could be distinguished, in contrast to bioplastics Am2, Am3, Am4, and Am5, which contained bagasse (Figure 8b–e).
Figure 9 shows the SEM images corresponding to the surface morphology of potato bioplastics, where it can be observed that cracks, hollows, and rough surfaces predominated in most cases. These hollows were more noticeable in the Ap1 sample, which differed from the others because it did not contain bagasse, except for the Ap4 sample, where a mostly smooth surface was observed.

3.7. FTIR

In the spectra obtained, in general, for both the corn (Am1, Am2, Am3, Am4, and Am5) and potato (Ap1, Ap2, Ap3, Ap4, and Ap5) bioplastics (Figure 10), a broad and intense band at 3400 cm−1 can be highlighted, attributable to the hydroxyl group characteristics of starch and glycerin [13] and closely related to their hygroscopic aspects. The band at 2900 cm−1 shows interactions due to C-H stretching. A band at 1240 cm−1 can be observed, which may be related to the elongation vibrational frequency of the C-O single bond elongation present in the starch structures of both corn and potato. The ranges between 1000 and 1030 cm−1 are due to the C-O stretching of glycerin or starch. A higher intensity in the peak in the bandwidth at 3000 cm−1 is observed for the Am5 sample, which contained the highest percentage of water absorption, indicating its hydrophilic characteristic.

4. Discussion

Analyzing bioplastics’ physical properties allows us to understand the interactions among the starch’s polymeric matrix, the main component, and the plasticizer [38,39]. To be able to process the starch and form a bioplastic material, it is necessary to break down and melt the original semicrystalline structure. Glycerol is considered the most commonly used plasticizer [40,41,42], and its behavior in starch thermo-plastification processes is of great importance due to its lubricant action, which facilitates the mobility of the polymeric chains [41,42,43]. The integration of bagasse could interfere with the exposed groups in the chain formed between glycerol and starch, facilitating or limiting water absorption [26]. The process conditions, such as the temperature and plasticizer content, influence the granular starch’s transformation [44]. In this case study, the bioplastics’ proportions obtained from the starches and plasticizer were kept constant, while the bagasse, the element that varies in proportion, was expected to determine the effects on the bioplastics’ characteristics. In this study, it was generally observed that the incorporation of maguey bagasse in both bioplastics obtained from potato starch and corn starch had diverse effects on the experimental results. These differences may have been influenced by the difference in the amylase and amylopectin proportions in the respective starches, for which the proportions were very similar (the corn starch proportions were 28% amylose and 72% amylopectin, and in potato starch, the proportions were 21% amylose and 79% amylopectin) [42].
It is essential to highlight that humidity determination is important for defining physical properties, such as durability or decomposing ability [45]. The potato bioplastics’ humidity percentages decreased in the presence of Salmiana maguey bagasse, showing more significant humidity percentages for the bioplastic without bagasse (sample Am1). When comparing the results among the corn and potato starch bioplastics, the latter showed lower mean values. It was reported that the polysaccharides and some proteins in biopolymers are hydrophilic due to the presence of hydroxyl groups [46]. Riatz et al. developed a biopolymer using wheat and rice straw as a polymeric matrix, incorporating orange bagasse. The amount of bagasse used varied, and the authors observed a decrease in the humidity content as the amount of orange bagasse increased [46]. This tendency has been observed in different studies in which natural elements have been incorporated as reinforcements. When they contain lignin, these elements tend to present lower humidity values when in contact with water, as the hydroxyl groups reduce [38,44].
Regarding the water absorption percentages obtained for the corn-based bioplastics, the greatest value was attributed to the bioplastic with the greatest bagasse content, Am5 (52%). Comparing the corn-based bioplastics’ water absorption results with those of the potato-based bioplastics, lower values were observed for the latter, with average means between 26.5 and 28% water absorption. These variations in the percentages may be related to the differences in the proportions of amylose (300 to 3000 glucose units) and amylopectin (2000 to 200,000 glucose units) [45] that exist in potato and corn starch, as mentioned above. In the case of potato starch, the amount of amylopectin (79%) is higher than that of amylose (21%). Swelling power is a measure of the increase in mass of insolubilized starch as a result of the absorption of water by the hydroxyl groups of the amylose and amylopectin polymers. Hynes et al. also observed higher water absorption with corn starch-based bioplastics compared to rice starch- and tapioca-based bioplastics [47]. In addition, Schultz et al. [30] concluded that increases in bioplastics’ water absorption may be related to the type of bagasse incorporated, as the cellulose content may vary. Regarding this behavior, Schultz et al. mentioned that when higher interaction between the starch and bagasse fibers exists, more compact structures are formed, which reduce the spaces between the molecules, but the incorporated bagasse fibers tend to be more hydrophilic [30]. When analyzing bioplastics’ water solubility, the solubility percentages in potato starch are lower than in corn bioplastics. Sirivechphongkul et al. [38] referenced the increase in the lignin concentration, which makes bioplastics more water-soluble.
It has been reported that bagasse, as a natural fiber, contributes to improved mechanical properties [30,48,49,50]. In terms of the results regarding the mechanical properties, Salmiana maguey bagasse improved the performance of the bioplastics, increasing their tensile strength when the bagasse content increased, with values of 2.3 MPa for Am1 (0% bagasse) to 4.6 MPa. For bioplastic Am5, with a greater bagasse content (70% bagasse), the values obtained in this study are higher than those reported by Imoisile et al., who developed potato-based bioplastics by varying the amount of glycerol as a plasticizer, obtaining a maximum tension value of 0.89 MPa with a mixture of 12 g of potato starch and 2.5 mL of glycerol [51]. Fitch-Vargas et al. (2019) [29] found an improvement in bioplastics’ mechanical properties using modified corn starch or acetylation, glycerol as a plasticizer, and sugar cane bagasse, with a range of tensile strength values from 5.6 to 35 MPa for proportions of sugar cane bagasse between 0 and 20%, respectively [29].
The thermal stability of the corn starch (Table 4) and potato starch (Table 5) bioplastics, obtained and analyzed using TGA, for and generally showed four changes.
The first change observed was in the temperature range between 30 and 170 °C, with a mass loss rate of 0.020–0.053%/°C for the corn bioplastics and of 0.035–0.66%/°C for the potato bioplastics, corresponding to the dehydration process or water loss in bioplastics with mass loss values between 2.6 and 6.85% for Am and between 4.92 and 9.30% for potato bioplastics. This first phase is attributable to the loss of water, which coincides with the results of several studies on other bioplastics [49,52,53,54]. For example, Takkar et al. developed three potato starch-based bioplastics using glycerol and sorbitol as plasticizers and varying inorganic components, such as charcoal, calcium sulfate, and aluminum. They found that the first phase of thermal degradation occurred from room temperature to 100 °C, which was associated with volatile compounds and water evaporation, followed by a second phase within the range of 100 to 200 °C, which was related to the humidity of the plastic films formed [55]. The second change was observed in the 160–250 °C range, with mass loss rates between 0.078 and 0.141%/°C and between 0.091 and 0.117%/°C for corn and potato bioplastics, respectively. This can be attributed to the beginning of the decomposition process of bioplastics, causing the loss of some components, mainly the plasticizer and agave. Likewise, it was also observed that the addition of agave improved the stability of the materials.
In the third change detected, there was a slight shift in the temperature range for the corn-based bioplastic (250–290 °C), with a mass loss rate of 0.538–0.711%/°C and mass loss between 21.71 and 28.45%. For the potato-based bioplastics, the temperature range was 240–270 °C, with a mass loss rate of 0.281–1.215%/°C, and mass loss of 8.42–36.44%. Chowdhury et al. attributed cellulose degradation to temperature ranges close to 300 °C [56]. With this change, the decomposition of the main component, starch, begins to be observed in all the materials, with its full degradation achieved in the last change observed at a Tmáx of 295 °C. This is congruent with what is reported in the literature, which reports melting temperature values for corn starch, potato starch, and agave fructans close to 197, 168, and 170 °C, respectively. The fourth change is characterized by the highest loss of %mass/°C and coincides with the results of several authors on the development of bioplastics based on starches from different sources [52,53,54].
SEM studies of corn bioplastics with respect to morphology indicate that bagasse allows for good coupling between the components, which is reflected in the mechanical properties. The plasticizer, which, in this case, was mainly glycerin, plays an important role in the smooth surfaces observed in the SEM images of bioplastics Am2 to Am5 [54]. Regarding this behavior, Mohammed et al. developed wheat starch-based bioplastics by varying the plasticizer composition, observing in their SEM images that the higher the plasticizer content, the smoother the visualized morphology due to good traction between the plasticizer and the polymeric matrix [43]. This is similar to corn bioplastics, which present smoother morphology, confirming good integration of the components and improved mechanical properties.
Enwere et al. noted that the peaks and interactions observed in IR reveal interactions during development that have an effect on properties, such as the moisture content and mechanical properties [13]. From an experimental perspective, this study provides a foundational understanding of the materials’ behavior and can assist in finding more alternative variables to improve the properties of bioplastics developed in the future. This study will also help to determine the user’s approach to the developed materials, with the characteristics of the bagasse defining the most suitable material for applications such as food wrappers [44,46] and mulch that benefits the soil during degradation [20,57,58,59].

5. Conclusions

Regarding the obtained bioplastic humidity percentage results, the values decreased as the bagasse amount increased in corn- and potato-based bioplastics. However, the corn-based bioplastics showed lower humidity values than the potato-based ones. Incorporating Salmiana maguey bagasse improved the mechanical properties, including the tensile strength and Young’s modulus, of the bioplastics, which was accomplished for both types of developed bioplastics. The values for both the water absorption and water solubility percentages were greater for the corn-based bioplastics. In addition, SEM studies and TGA analysis indicated that the combination of corn starch-based elements gave the bioplastics greater thermal and mechanical stability due to greater compatibility of the components. These preliminary studies provide insights for improvement when developing new materials, regarding their properties and potential use according to the specific characteristics obtained. However, importantly, the continuation of this research will contribute to the development of bioplastics with lower environmental impacts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.A.A.H., M.M.S., J.G.T. and E.D.R.; methodology, L.A.A.H., M.M.S., A.B.C. and E.D.R.; formal analysis, G.C.A., A.A.O.H., R.S.S. and S.M.R.R.; investigation, L.A.A.H., L.D.R. and E.D.R.; resources, R.S.S. and E.D.R.; data curation, R.S.S., L.A.A.H. and F.C.V.; writing—original draft preparation, L.A.A.H., F.C.V. and A.B.C.; writing—review and editing, E.D.R., L.D.R., J.G.T. and S.M.R.R.; visualization, E.D.R.; supervision, L.A.A.H. and E.D.R.; project administration, A.B.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Universidad de Guanajuato “Convocatoria Institucional de Investigación Científica 2025”.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Center for Applied Innovation in Competitive Technologies and the Perlita Laboratory technicians at the University of Guanajuato. The authors acknowledge Raúl Miranda Avilés and M.C. Cristina Daniela Moncada Sánchez for their support in the SEM analysis at the Laboratory of Research and Characterization of Minerals and Materials (LICAMM-UG).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Costa, J.P.; Avellan, A.; Mouneyrac, C.; Duarte, A.; Rocha-Santos, T. Plastic additives and microplastics as emerging contaminants: Mechanisms and analytical assessment. Trends Anal. Chem. 2024, 158, 116898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nayanathara-Thathsarani-Pilapitiya, P.G.C.; Ratnayake, A.S. The world of plastic waste: A review. Clean. Mater. 2024, 11, 100220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pathak, G.; Nichter, M.; Hardon, A.; Moyer, E.; Latkar, A.; Simbaya, J.; Pakasi, D.; Taqueban, E.; Love, J. Plastic pollution and the open burning of plastic waste. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2023, 80, 102648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tasseron, P.F.; Van Emmerikk, T.H.M.; Vriend, P.; Hauk, R.; Alberti, F.; Mellink, Y.; Ploeg, M.V.D. Defining plastic pollution hotspots. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 934, 173294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Horton, A.A. Plastic pollution: When do we know enough? J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 422, 126885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ihenetu, S.C.; Li, G.; Mo, Y.; Jacques, K.J. Impacts of microplastics and urbanization on soil health: An urgent concern for sustainable development. Green Anal. Chem. 2024, 8, 100095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cole, M.; Lindeque, P.; Halsband, C.; Galloway, T.S. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 2588–2597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, K.; Tian, R.; Jiang, J.; Xiao, M.; Wu, K.; Kuang, Y.; Deng, P.; Zhao, X.; Jiang, F. Moisture loss inhibition with biopolymer films for preservation of fruits and vegetables: A review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024, 263, 130337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ghannem, S.; Bacha, O.; Fkiri, S.; Kanzari, S.; Aydi, A.; Touaylia, S. Soil and sediment organisms as bioindicators of pollution. Ecologies 2024, 5, 679–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Olmo-Gilabert, R.; Fagiano, V.; Alomar, C.; Rios-Fuster, B.; Compa, M.; Deudero, S. Plastic webs, the new food: Dynamics of microplastic in a Mediterranean food web, key species as pollution sources and receptors. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 918, 170719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mansfiel, I.; Reynolds, S.J.; Lynch, I.; Matthews, T.J.; Sadler, J.P. Birds as bioindicators of plastic pollution in terrestrial and freshwater environments: A 30-year review. Environ. Pollut. 2024, 348, 123790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Zhang, W.; Zhang, T.; Zhong, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.; Wang, X.W.; Zhou, L.; Zhou, X. Dynamic borate ester bond reinforced hydroxyethyl cellulose/corn starch crosslinked film for simple recycling and regeneration. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024, 279, 135231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Enwere, C.F.; Okafor, I.S.; Adeleke, A.A.; Petrus, N.; Jakada, K.; Olosho, A.O.; Ikubanni, P.P.; Paramasivam, P.; Ayuba, S. Production of bioplastic film from wildcocoyam (Caladium bicolor) starch. Results Eng. 2024, 24, 103132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alucho-Pasto, J.; Ramos-Naranjo, S.; Saltos-Segura, D. Tecnologías para el desarrollo de biopolímeros, como una alternativa en la sustitución del plástico. Alimentos. Aliment. Cienc. Ingeniería 2021, 28, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Valero-Valdivieso, M.F.; Ortegón, Y.; Uscategui, Y. Biopolymers: Progress and prospects. Dyna 2013, 80, 171–180. [Google Scholar]
  16. Xu, J.; Sagnelli, D.; Faisal, M.; Perzon, A.; Taresco, V.; Mais, M.; Giosafatto, C.V.L.; Hebelstrup, K.H.; Ulvskov, P.; Jørgensen, B.; et al. Amilose/cellulose nanofiber composites for all-natural, fully biodegradable and flexible bioplastic. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 253, 117277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Delgado-Villaseñor, A.K.; Maldonado-Santoyo, M. Circularidad para los plásticos: Reciclado post-uso vs fabricación de plásticos biodegradables. Rev. Electrónica Divulg. Investig. 2021, 21, 60–71. [Google Scholar]
  18. Tennakon, P.; Chandika, P.; Yi, M.; Jung, W.K. Marine-derived biopolymers as potential bioplastic, an eco-friendly alternative. IScience 2023, 26, 106404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Villada, H.S.; Acosta, H.A.; Velazco, R.J. Biopolímeros naturales usados en empaques biodegradables. Temas Agrar. 2007, 12, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Arias-Hernández, L.A.; Juaristi-Videgaray, E.; Mares-Martínez, H.E.; Solís-Silván, R.; Maldonado-Santoyo, M.; Calderón-Vega, F.; Valdés-Vázquez, J.F.; Delgadillo-Ruiz, E. Valoración de acolchados ecoplásticos utilizados para reducir la evaporación en suelos agrícolas. Cienc. Nicolaita 2024, 91, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Delgadillo-Ruiz, E.; Vázquez Rodríguez, G.; Tirado Torres, D.; Robles Buenrostro, M.F.; Pérez Gallegos, D.O.; Hernández Moreno, J.D.; Arias Hernández, L.A. Efecto de la implementación de acolchados en los componentes del balance hídrico superficial. Jóvenes Cienc. 2022, 16, 1–9. Available online: https://www.jovenesenlaciencia.ugto.mx/index.php/jovenesenlaciencia/article/view/3837 (accessed on 28 December 2024).
  22. Delgadillo-Ruiz, E.; Castorena-Padilla, C.; Peña-Vázquez, F.; Exiga-Soria, A.R.; Ramírez-Siorda, G.Y.; Arias-Hernández, L.A.; Delgadillo-Ruiz, L. Clasificación de acolchados y su implementación en la retención de humedad del suelo. Jóvenes Cienc. 2022, 6, 1–9. Available online: https://www.jovenesenlaciencia.ugto.mx/index.php/jovenesenlaciencia/article/view/3838 (accessed on 28 December 2024).
  23. Chen, J.; Chen, X.; Guo, J.; Zhu, R.; Liu, M.; Kuang, X.; He, W.; Lu, Y. Agricultural, ecological, and social insights: Residual mulch film management capacity and policy recommendations based on evidence in Yunnan Province, China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rajeswari, A.; Christy, J.S.; Swathi, E.; Pius, A. Fabrication of improved cellulose acetate-based biodegradable films for food packaging applications. Environ. Chem. Ecotoxicol. 2020, 2, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Khalid-Hossain, S.M.; Amin, M.R.; Kowser, M.A.; Chowdhury, M.A.C.; Hossain, N. Development and characterization of eco-friendly starch-based plastic reinforcing tea for packaging applications. Curr. Res. Green Sustain. Chem. 2023, 7, 100374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Agunsoye, J.O.; Aigbodion, V.S. Baggasse filled recycled polyethylene bio-composites: Morphological and mechanical properties study. Results Phys. 2013, 3, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bardisso, M.L.; Salvatierra, L.M.; Giordano, R.M.; Pérez, L.M. Obtención y caracterización de biomateriales de interés tecnológico formulados a base de polímeros naturales y subproductos industriales. Energeia 2016, 14, 4–14. [Google Scholar]
  28. Józó, M.; Várdai, R.; Bartos, A.; Móczó, J.; Pukánszky, B. Preparation of biocomposites with natural reinforcements: The effect of native starch and sugarcane bagasse fiber. Molecules 2022, 27, 6423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fitch-Vargas, P.R.; Camacho-Hernández, I.L.; Rodriguez-González, F.J.; Martínez-Bustos, F.; Calderón-Castro, A.; Zazueta-Morales, J.J.; Aguilar-Palazuelos, E. Effect of compounding and plastic processing methods on the development of bioplastics based on acetylated starch reinforced with sugarcane bagasse cellulose fibers. Ind. Crops Prod. 2023, 192, 116084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Schutz, F.G.; Goncalves, S.A.; Vercelino-Alves, R.M.; Vieira, R.P. A review of starch-based biocomposites reinforced with plant fiber. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024, 261, 129916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Delgadillo-Ruiz, L.; Bañuelos-Valenzuela, R.; Esparza-Ibarra, E.L.; Gutiérrez-Bañuelos, H.; Cabral-Arellano, F.J.; Muro-Reyes, A. Evaluación del perfil de nutrientes de bagazo de agave como alternativa de alimento para rumiantes. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agrícolas 2015, 11, 2099–2103. [Google Scholar]
  32. Iñiguez-Covarrubias, G.; Díaz-Teres, R.; Sanjuan-Dueñas, R.; Anzaldo-Hernández, J.; Rowell, R.M. Utilization of by-products from the tequila industry. Part 2: Potential value of Agave tequilana weber azul leaves. Bioresour. Technol. 2001, 77, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Jalalvandi, E.; Majid, R.A.; Ghanbari, T. Processing, morphological, thermal and absorption behavior of PLA/thermoplastic starch/montmorillonite nanocomposites. Int. J. Mater. Metall. Eng. 2012, 6, 1128–1132. [Google Scholar]
  34. Aguirre-Loredo, R.Y.; Velazquez, G.; Gutiérrez, M.C.; Castro-Rosas, J.; Ralgel-Vargas, E.; Gómez-Aldapa, C.A. Effect of airflow presence during the manufacturing of biodegradable films form polymers with different structural conformation. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2018, 17, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ashok, A.; Abhijith, R.; Rejeesh, C.J. Material characterization of starch derived bio degradable plastics and its mechanical property estimation. Mater. Today Proc. 2018, 5, 2163–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Otolá-González, C.M.; Álvarez-Castillo, E.; Flores, S.; Gerschenson, N.; Bengoechea, C. Effect of plasticizer composition on the properties of injection molded cassava starch-based bioplastics. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2023, 40, 101218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. ASTM-D638; The Definitive Guide to Practice Plastic Tensile Testing. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1890.
  38. Sirivechphongkul, K.; Chiarasumran, N.; Saisriyoot, M.; Thanapimmetha, A.; Srinophakun, P.; Iamsaard, K.; Lin, Y.T. Agri-biodegradable mulch films derived from lignin in empty fruit bunches. Catalysts 2022, 12, 1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cedeño-Sares, L.A.; Armijos-Cabrera, G.; Arias-Toro, D.; Bravo-Bravo, V.P. Efecto del glicerol como plastificante en películas de almidón de maíz modificado. J. Sci. Res. 2023, 8, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hernando, H.; Marpongahtun; Julianti, E.; Nuryawan, A.; Amaturrahim, S.A.; Rahman-Piliang, A.F.; Yanhar, M.R.; Goei, R.; Soykeabkaew, N.; Afdhal-Saputra, A.M.; et al. Impact of grycerol on oil palm trunk starch bioplastics enhanced with citric-acid epoxidized palm oil oligomers. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2024, 10, 100839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nasir, N.N.; Othman, S.A. The physical and mechanical properties of corn-based bioplastic films with different starch and glycerol content. J. Phys. Sci. 2021, 32, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cavalcanti-Azebedo, L.; Rovani, S.; Santos, J.J.; Batista-Dias, D.; Souza-Nascimiento, S.; Freire-Oliveira, F.; Silva, L.; Alves-Fungaro, D. Biodegradable films derived from corn and potato starch and study effect of silicate extracted from sugarcane waste ash. Appl. Polym. Mater. 2020, 2, 2160–2169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mohammed, A.A.B.A.; Hasan, Z.; Borhana-Omaran, A.A.; Elfaghi, A.M.; Khattak, M.A.; Ilyas, R.A.; Sapuan, S.M. Effect of various plasticizers in different concentrations on physical, thermal, mechanical and structural properties of wheat starch-based films. Polymers 2022, 15, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Gamage, A.; Thiviya, P.; Liyanapathiranage, A.; Wasana, M.L.D.; Jayakodi, Y.; Bandara, A.; Manamperi, A.; Dassanayake, R.S.; Evon, P.; Merah, O. Polysaccharide-based bioplastics: Eco-friendly and sustainable solutions for packaging. J. Compos. Sci. 2024, 8, 413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kasirajan, S.; Ngouajio, M. Polyethylene and biodegradable mulches for agricultural applications: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 501–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Riaz, S.; Maan, A.A.; Butt, M.S.; Iqbal-Khan, M.K. Valorization of agricultural residues in the development of biodegradable active packaging fims. Ind. Crops Prod. 2024, 215, 118587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hynes-Navasingh, R.; Gurunathan, M.K.; Nikolova, M.P.; Królczyk, B. Sustainable bioplastics for food packaging produced from renewable natural sources. Polymers 2023, 15, 3760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mohomane, S.M.; Motaung, T.E. Effect of sugarcane bagasse, softwood, and cellulose on the mechanical, thermal and morphological properties of PP/PE blend. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shaik, A.S.; Schuster, J.; Shaik, Y.P.; Kazmi, M. Manufacturing of biocomposites for domestic applications using bio-based filler materials. J. Compos. Sci. 2022, 6, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Santos-Ventura, E.M.; Escalante-Alvarez, M.E.; González-Nuñez, R.G.; Esquivel-Alfaro, M.; Sulbarán-Rangel, B. Polypropilene composites reinforced with lignocellulose nanocrystals of corncob: Thermal and mechanical properties. J. Compos. Sci. 2024, 8, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Imoisili, P.E.; Jen, T.C. Synthesis and characterization of bioplastic films from potato peel starch; effect of glycerol as plasticizer. Mater. Today Proc. 2024, 105, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Moaveni, R.; Ghane, M.; Soltani, P.; Zamani, A.; Ramamoorthy, S.K. Production of polymeric films from orange and ginger waste for packaging application and investigation of mechanical and thermal characteristics of biofilms. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Marichelvam, M.K.; Jawaid, M.; Asim, M. Corn and rice starch-based bio-plastic as alternative packing materials. Fibers 2019, 7, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Jayalath, U.T.; Samaraweera, H.; Samarasinghe, A. Development and characterization of gelatin-starch bioplastics: A comparative study of cassava, corn and rice-based alternatives. Sustain. Chem. Environ. 2025, 9, 100190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Takkar, A.; Patel, B.; Sahu, S.K.; Yadav, V.K.; Patel, R.; Sahoo, D.K.; Joshi, M.; Patel, A. Potato starch bioplastic films reinforced with organic and inorganic fillers: A sustainable packaging alternative. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2025, 306, 141630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chowdhury, M.; Hossain, N.; Noman, T.I.; Hasan, A.; Shafiul, A.; Abul, K.M. Biodegradable, physical and microbial analysis of tamarind seed starch infused eco-friendly bioplastic by different percentage of Arjuna powder. Results Eng. 2022, 13, 100387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kowser, A.M.; Mahmud, H.; Chowdhury, M.A.; Hossain, N.; Mim, J.J.; Islam, S. Fabrication and characterization of corn starch-based bioplastic for packaging application. Results Mater. 2025, 25, 100662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fatima, S.; Khan, M.R.; Ahmand, I.; Sadiq, M.B. Recent advances in modified starch based biodegradable food packaging: A review. Helyon 2024, 10, e27453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Reid, E.V.; Samuelson, M.B.; Blanco-Canqui, H.; Drijiber, R.; Kadoma, I.; Wortman, S.E. Biodegradable and biobased mulch residues had limited impacts on soil properties but reduced yield of the following crop in a low fertility soil. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2022, 37, 490–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcs 09 00213 g001
Figure 1. Corn starch-based bioplastic humidity percentages (%). Am1, Am2, Am3, Am4, and Am5 represent corn starch (Am) with bagasse amounts varying from 0 to 10, 30, 50, and 70 g, respectively. Different letters indicate differences in treatment (p < 0.05).
Figure 1. Corn starch-based bioplastic humidity percentages (%). Am1, Am2, Am3, Am4, and Am5 represent corn starch (Am) with bagasse amounts varying from 0 to 10, 30, 50, and 70 g, respectively. Different letters indicate differences in treatment (p < 0.05).
Jcs 09 00213 g001
Jcs 09 00213 g002
Figure 2. Potato starch-based bioplastic humidity percentages (%). Ap1, Ap2, Ap3, Ap4, and Ap5 represent potato starch (Ap) with bagasse amounts ranging from 0 to 10, 30, 50, and 70 g, respectively. Different letters indicate differences in treatment (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Potato starch-based bioplastic humidity percentages (%). Ap1, Ap2, Ap3, Ap4, and Ap5 represent potato starch (Ap) with bagasse amounts ranging from 0 to 10, 30, 50, and 70 g, respectively. Different letters indicate differences in treatment (p < 0.05).
Jcs 09 00213 g002
Jcs 09 00213 g003
Figure 3. Corn starch-based bioplastic water absorption percentages (%). Am1, Am2, Am3, Am4, and Am5 represent corn starch (Am) with bagasse amounts ranging from 0 to 10, 30, 50, and 70 g, respectively. Different letters indicate differences in treatment (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Corn starch-based bioplastic water absorption percentages (%). Am1, Am2, Am3, Am4, and Am5 represent corn starch (Am) with bagasse amounts ranging from 0 to 10, 30, 50, and 70 g, respectively. Different letters indicate differences in treatment (p < 0.05).
Jcs 09 00213 g003
Jcs 09 00213 g004
Figure 4. Bioplastic solubility percentages (%) of potato starch-based bioplastics. Ap1, Ap2, Ap3, Ap4, and Ap5 represent potato starch (Ap) with bagasse amounts ranging from 10 to 30, 50, and 70 g, respectively. Different letters indicate differences in treatment (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Bioplastic solubility percentages (%) of potato starch-based bioplastics. Ap1, Ap2, Ap3, Ap4, and Ap5 represent potato starch (Ap) with bagasse amounts ranging from 10 to 30, 50, and 70 g, respectively. Different letters indicate differences in treatment (p < 0.05).
Jcs 09 00213 g004
Jcs 09 00213 g005
Figure 5. Corn starch-based bioplastics water solubility percentage (%). Am1, Am2, Am3, Am4, and Am5 represent corn starch (Am) with bagasse amounts ranging from 0 to 10, 30, 50, and 70 g, respectively. Different letters indicate differences in treatment (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Corn starch-based bioplastics water solubility percentage (%). Am1, Am2, Am3, Am4, and Am5 represent corn starch (Am) with bagasse amounts ranging from 0 to 10, 30, 50, and 70 g, respectively. Different letters indicate differences in treatment (p < 0.05).
Jcs 09 00213 g005
Jcs 09 00213 g006
Figure 6. Potato starch-based bioplastics water solubility percentage (%). Ap1, Ap2, Ap3, Ap4, and Ap5 represent potato starch (Ap) with bagasse amounts ranging from 0 to 10, 30, 50, and 70 g, respectively. Different letters indicate differences in treatment (p < 0.05).
Figure 6. Potato starch-based bioplastics water solubility percentage (%). Ap1, Ap2, Ap3, Ap4, and Ap5 represent potato starch (Ap) with bagasse amounts ranging from 0 to 10, 30, 50, and 70 g, respectively. Different letters indicate differences in treatment (p < 0.05).
Jcs 09 00213 g006
Jcs 09 00213 g007
Figure 7. TGA of corn starch-based bioplastics: (a) Am1 and (b) Am5. TGA of potato starch-based bioplastics: (c) Ap1 and (d) Ap5.
Figure 7. TGA of corn starch-based bioplastics: (a) Am1 and (b) Am5. TGA of potato starch-based bioplastics: (c) Ap1 and (d) Ap5.
Jcs 09 00213 g007
Jcs 09 00213 g008
Figure 8. SEM images of corn starch-based bioplastics: (a) Am1; (b) Am2; (c) Am3; (d) Am4; (e) Am5.
Figure 8. SEM images of corn starch-based bioplastics: (a) Am1; (b) Am2; (c) Am3; (d) Am4; (e) Am5.
Jcs 09 00213 g008
Jcs 09 00213 g009
Figure 9. SEM images of potato starch-based bioplastics: (a) Ap1; (b) Ap2; (c) Ap3; (d) Ap4; (e) Ap5.
Figure 9. SEM images of potato starch-based bioplastics: (a) Ap1; (b) Ap2; (c) Ap3; (d) Ap4; (e) Ap5.
Jcs 09 00213 g009
Jcs 09 00213 g010
Figure 10. FTIR images of corn starch-based (Am1, Am2, Am3, Am4, and Am5) and potato starch-based bioplastics (Ap1, Ap2, Ap3, Ap4, and Ap5).
Figure 10. FTIR images of corn starch-based (Am1, Am2, Am3, Am4, and Am5) and potato starch-based bioplastics (Ap1, Ap2, Ap3, Ap4, and Ap5).
Jcs 09 00213 g010
Table 1. The component proportions used to obtain bioplastics developed with corn starch. Corn starch—AM; glycerin—G; acetic acid—AA; maleic anhydride—ANM; and Salmiana maguey bagasse—B.
Table 1. The component proportions used to obtain bioplastics developed with corn starch. Corn starch—AM; glycerin—G; acetic acid—AA; maleic anhydride—ANM; and Salmiana maguey bagasse—B.
BioplasticAM
(g)		G
(g)		AA
(g)		ANM
(g)		B
(g)
Am165030050200
Am2650300502010
Am3650300502030
Am4650300502050
Am5650300502070
Table 2. The component proportions used to obtain bioplastics developed with potato starch. Potato starch—AP; glycerin—G; acetic acid—AA; maleic anhydride—ANM; and Salmiana maguey bagasse—B.
Table 2. The component proportions used to obtain bioplastics developed with potato starch. Potato starch—AP; glycerin—G; acetic acid—AA; maleic anhydride—ANM; and Salmiana maguey bagasse—B.
BioplasticAP
(g)		G
(g)		AA
(g)		ANM
(g)		B
(g)
Ap165030050200
Ap2650300502010
Ap3650300502030
Ap4650300502050
Ap5650300502070
Table 3. The corn- and potato-based bioplastics’ mechanical properties.
Table 3. The corn- and potato-based bioplastics’ mechanical properties.
BioplasticTension (MPa)Deformation (%)Young’s Modulus (MPa)
Am12.30 ± 0.1410.34 ± 0.6338.60 ± 4.15
Am22.11 ± 0.239.86 ± 0.2631.34 ± 1.43
Am33.15 ± 0.3412.67 ± 1.4740.53 ± 5.52
Am44.20 ± 0.2415.62 ± 1.6050.47 ± 1.81
Am54.59 ± 0.2516.09 ± 1.3357.46 ± 4.83
Ap12.52 ± 0.1612.40 ± 1.6725.78 ± 2.15
Ap22.09 ± 0.3010.86 ± 1.3522.49 ± 2.20
Ap33.02 ± 0.2114.22 ± 0.89 30.33 ± 3.89
Ap43.37 ± 0.2415.90 ± 0.9534.77 ± 2.28
Ap53.53± 0.3816.17 ± 0.8140.90 ± 4.63
Table 4. The changes observed in the TGA analysis for corn starch-based bioplastics.
Table 4. The changes observed in the TGA analysis for corn starch-based bioplastics.
Observed ChangesChange Interval (°C)Loss Weight (%)
TiTfAm1Am2Am3Am4Am5
1301602.633.846.855.516.23
216025012.689.596.015.617.02
325029021.5328.4521.9222.5721.71
429050063.1658.1265.2266.3165.04
Table 5. The changes observed in the TGA analysis for potato starch-based bioplastics.
Table 5. The changes observed in the TGA analysis for potato starch-based bioplastics.
Observed ChangesChange Interval (°C)Loss Weight (%)
TiTfAp1Ap2Ap3Ap4Ap5
1301706.779.295.738.414.92
21702408.185.496.254.716.34
324027018.1911.3636.4427.738.42
427050066.8673.8651.5859.1580.34
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

Arias Hernández, L.A.; Maldonado Santoyo, M.; Delgadillo Ruiz, L.; Solís Silván, R.; Calderón Vega, F.; Aguilera, G.C.; Reducindo Ruiz, S.M.; González Trinidad, J.; Berumen Cervantes, A.; Hernández, A.A.O.; et al. The Effect of the Addition of Maguey Bagasse in the Production of Bioplastics Based on Corn and Potato Starch. J. Compos. Sci. 2025, 9, 213. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9050213

AMA Style

Arias Hernández LA, Maldonado Santoyo M, Delgadillo Ruiz L, Solís Silván R, Calderón Vega F, Aguilera GC, Reducindo Ruiz SM, González Trinidad J, Berumen Cervantes A, Hernández AAO, et al. The Effect of the Addition of Maguey Bagasse in the Production of Bioplastics Based on Corn and Potato Starch. Journal of Composites Science. 2025; 9(5):213. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9050213

Chicago/Turabian Style

Arias Hernández, Luz Adriana, María Maldonado Santoyo, Lucia Delgadillo Ruiz, Rudy Solís Silván, Felícitas Calderón Vega, Gilberto Carreño Aguilera, Shaula Melissa Reducindo Ruiz, Julián González Trinidad, Arturo Berumen Cervantes, Arturo Agustín Ortiz Hernández, and et al. 2025. "The Effect of the Addition of Maguey Bagasse in the Production of Bioplastics Based on Corn and Potato Starch" Journal of Composites Science 9, no. 5: 213. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9050213

APA Style

Arias Hernández, L. A., Maldonado Santoyo, M., Delgadillo Ruiz, L., Solís Silván, R., Calderón Vega, F., Aguilera, G. C., Reducindo Ruiz, S. M., González Trinidad, J., Berumen Cervantes, A., Hernández, A. A. O., & Delgadillo Ruiz, E. (2025). The Effect of the Addition of Maguey Bagasse in the Production of Bioplastics Based on Corn and Potato Starch. Journal of Composites Science, 9(5), 213. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9050213

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop