Environment Smart Bioplastics: A Systematic Review of Recent Updates

Article information

Environ Anal Health Toxicol. 2026;41.e2026014

Publication date (electronic) : 2026 May 6

doi : https://doi.org/10.5620/eaht.2026014

Joan Chebet ¹

, Reuben Samson Dangana ¹

, Angela Mumbua Musyoka ¹

, Ilemobayo Victor Fasogbon ¹^,

¹Department of Biochemistry, Kampala International University-Western Campus, Ishaka-Bushenyi, Uganda

^*Correspondence: ivfasogbon@kiu.ac.ug

Recommended by: Prof. Yeonjeong Ha

Received 2025 July 14; Accepted 2026 April 3.

Abstract

Bioplastics have emerged as a sustainable alternative to conventional petroleum-based plastics due to their biodegradability and reduced environmental footprint. This systematic review critically examines the recent advancements in bioplastics, focusing on their classification, sources, production methods, and biodegradability evaluation techniques. A total of 28 peer-reviewed articles were analyzed following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, sourced from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Bioplastics were categorized into microbial-based (24%), plant-based (24%), biodegradable/compostable (12%), polymers and polyesters (16%), biopolymers (8%), synthetic (4%), and renewable resource-based types (12%). Production methods included microbial fermentation, chemical synthesis, agro-waste utilization, and blending with bio-based materials. Biodegradability was commonly assessed using degradation percentage over time (20%), weight loss measurement (18%), and anaerobic digestion (7%). Results revealed significant variability in degradation performance: polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) achieved up to 98% degradation under aerobic composting conditions (30–37°C, 28–168 days), while polylactic acid (PLA) exceeded 75% degradation in controlled marine conditions at 30°C within 28 days. Plant-based bioplastics demonstrated complete composting within three days under thermophilic composting temperatures (50–60°C). The review highlights the influence of production method, material composition, and environmental context on degradation efficiency. It concludes that while bioplastics show strong potential for sustainable waste management, future research should focus on standardization of biodegradability testing and improve cost-effective, scalable production techniques.

Keywords: Bioplastics; Biodegradability; Microbial fermentation; Plant-based polymers; Environmental remediation; Plastic waste management

1. Introduction

Plastic is the third most widely used petroleum-derived product globally, with approximately 365 million metric tons produced annually and over 200 million tons consumed worldwide (Turcan et al., 2022; Walker, 2021). The extensive production and persistence of conventional plastics have resulted in substantial environmental accumulation, contributing significantly to terrestrial and marine pollution due to their resistance to natural degradation processes (El-Rayes et al., 2023; Nicholson et al., 2021). Their durability, while advantageous for industrial applications, poses long-term ecological risks, including impacts on marine organisms and ecosystem stability (Alqattaf, 2020).

In response to these environmental concerns, bioplastics have emerged as potential alternatives designed to reduce reliance on fossil resources and improve end-of-life environmental performance (Serrano‐Aguirre & Prieto, 2024). Bioplastics encompasses a diverse group of materials that can be classified according to origin, chemical structure, and degradation behavior (Dilshad et al., 2021). Synthetic bioplastics are chemically engineered polymers that may incorporate renewable feedstocks, whereas polymers or polyesters refer to chemical families characterized by structural features such as ester linkages, as found in polylactic acid (PLA) and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). Biopolymers are macromolecules derived directly from biological systems, including cellulose, starch, and chitosan. Plant-based materials originate from biomass feedstocks such as corn, cassava, or sugarcane, while microbial-based bioplastics are synthesized intracellularly by microorganisms through fermentation processes.

Biodegradability represents a functional property rather than an indicator of material origin. It refers to the capacity of a material to undergo microbial or enzymatic conversion into natural end-products such as carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), water, and biomass under defined environmental conditions (Bucio-Galindo et al., 2023). In aerobic environments, degradation results primarily in CO₂ and water, whereas anaerobic systems produce methane in addition to CO₂. Biodegradation may involve primary degradation (fragmentation or disintegration of the polymer matrix) or ultimate biodegradation, which denotes complete microbial mineralization. Compostability is a more specific designation describing materials that degrade within a defined timeframe under controlled composting conditions, typically involving elevated temperatures and regulated moisture.

Importantly, biodegradation performance varies substantially between laboratory-controlled systems and natural environments. Standardized laboratory assays frequently employ optimized parameters (such as controlled temperature, defined microbial inocula, and regulated oxygen availability) to accelerate degradation processes. In contrast, natural environments including soil, marine ecosystems, and landfills exhibit fluctuations in temperature, microbial diversity, moisture content, and oxygen diffusion, all of which influence degradation kinetics. Consequently, biodegradability should be interpreted as an environment-dependent performance characteristic rather than an intrinsic and universal material property.

Despite growing interest, bioplastics vary considerably in their composition, production methods, and degradation profiles. Materials such as PHAs are produced through microbial fermentation, while others, including PLA, are synthesized from plant-derived monomers through chemical polymerization (Rahman & Bhoi, 2021). Although many bioplastics demonstrate promising degradation potential, their performance differs across environmental contexts, raising questions regarding their suitability for specific waste management systems and sustainable applications (Folino et al., 2020).

This systematic review synthesizes recent research on bioplastics by categorizing materials according to origin and production methods and critically examining biodegradability evaluation techniques and degradation performance across environmental conditions. Particular emphasis is placed on identifying the key factors influencing bioplastic degradation, including polymer composition and molecular structure, production and processing methods, environmental parameters, and microbial and enzymatic activity. By integrating findings across diverse experimental settings, this review provides a comprehensive assessment of the environmental performance of bioplastics and highlights areas requiring further standardization and research to support sustainable waste management strategies.

2.Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategies

An all-inclusive literature search of published articles on the application of bioplastic and its remediative effect on the environment was systematically conducted across PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus databases up to May 20, 2024. The search utilized the following terms: “bioplastic”, “remediation”, and “environment”. Boolean operators (AND/OR/NOT) were applied to develop search strategies (Table 1) tailored to each database, as reported by Fasogbon et al. (2023, 2024) and Swase et al., 2025. The search was restricted to peer-reviewed articles published in English. The paper selection process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines (Usman et al., 2025; Page et al., 2021).

Table 1.

Search Strategies

2.2. Selection Criteria, and Data Extraction

The inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied for screening to select articles for the study are presented in Table 2. Two independent reviewers screened the articles using the criteria, while conflicting decisions were settled by a consensus decision of a 3-membered committee. For each study included in the systematic review, the following data was extracted to ensure a comprehensive synthesis of findings:

Table 2.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Study Selection

Type/Class of Bioplastic – The classification of the bioplastic used in the study (e.g., microbial bioplastics, aquaplastic, plant-based, or animal-derived bioplastics).

Source of the Bioplastic – The raw material used for bioplastic production (e.g., algae, corn starch, cellulose, chitosan, polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), polylactic acid (PLA)).

Method of Production – The specific processing or synthesis techniques used, such as fermentation, extrusion, polymerization, or blending with bio-based additives.

Year of Publication – To track temporal trends and advancements in bioplastic research and application.

Method of Evaluating Biodegradability – The specific tests and standards used to assess biodegradability, such as CO₂ evolution tests, enzymatic degradation assays, or soil burial tests.

Extent of Biodegradability – The quantitative assessment of biodegradability (e.g., p-values, percentage degradation over time, and environmental conditions affecting decomposition).

3.Results

3.1. Search Results

The search identified a total of 145 articles: comprising 30 articles from WoS, 102 from Scopus and 13 articles from PubMed. The articles were uploaded to Rayyan platform for screening and selection. Rayyan is an online application for systematic review methodology (Johnson & Phillips, 2018). Using the platform, 29 duplicates were detected were removed. A total of 116 articles were screened via title/abstract consideration, and full text screening sequentially, in accordance with the eligibility criteria. Eventually, only 28 articles were reviewed in the study, having passed the eligibility criteria (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow chart for study selection

3.2. Class/Type of Bioplastics

This review identified a wide diversity of bioplastic classes utilized in the included studies, reflecting the dynamic landscape of bioplastic development and application. Because bioplastics can be classified using different criteria, it is important to clarify that the categories presented in this review represent distinct but sometimes overlapping classification dimensions. Specifically, bioplastics may be categorized based on (i) origin of raw material, (ii) chemical structure or polymer family, and (iii) functional degradation properties.

With respect to origin, plant-based bioplastics are derived directly from agricultural biomass such as cassava, corn starch, and cellulose, whereas microbial-based bioplastics are synthesized intracellularly by microorganisms (e.g., bacteria and cyanobacteria) through fermentation processes. In this review, plant-based (24%) and microbial-based (24%) materials were the most frequently reported categories, reflecting the prominence of renewable biomass conversion and microbial biotechnology in sustainable bioplastic production.

From a chemical classification perspective, polymers and polyesters refer to specific molecular families characterized by their structural features, such as ester linkages in polylactic acid (PLA) and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). The polymers/polyesters group (16%) therefore encompasses both naturally occurring and chemically synthesized polyesters. In contrast, the term synthetic refers to the method of production, indicating materials that are chemically engineered, even if partially derived from bio-based monomers. Synthetic bioplastics accounted for 4% of the reviewed studies. Thus, a material may simultaneously belong to a chemical family (e.g., polyester) and be classified as synthetic depending on its production route.

Regarding functional properties, biopolymers (8%) refer to macromolecules directly derived from biological systems, such as cellulose or starch. However, being a biopolymer does not automatically guarantee rapid biodegradation under all environmental conditions. The biodegradable/compostable category (12%) represents materials that were explicitly evaluated for breakdown under biological or composting environments. “Biodegradable” describes the ability of a material to undergo microbial or enzymatic mineralization into carbon dioxide, methane, water, and biomass, whereas “compostable” is a more specific designation indicating compliance with controlled composting conditions. Therefore, biodegradability is a functional characteristic, while biopolymer denotes biological origin.

Because these categories represent different classification dimensions, certain materials may belong to multiple groups simultaneously. For example, polylactic acid (PLA) is plant-based in origin, chemically classified as a polyester, and biodegradable under industrial composting conditions. Similarly, polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) is a microbial-derived polyester that exhibits high biodegradability. Recognizing these distinctions prevents conceptual ambiguity and ensures clearer interpretation of Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Distribution of bioplastic classes identified in the reviewed studies. Classification is based on origin, chemical structure, and functional degradation properties as detailed in Section 3.2 and mapped to sources summarized in Table 3.

Therefore, microbial and plant-based bioplastics were the most frequently reported, each representing approximately 24% of the total (Figure 2). Other notable classes included polymers and polyesters (16%), biodegradable/compostable bioplastics (12%), renewable-resource-based bioplastics (12%), biopolymers (8%), and synthetics (4%). These proportions underscore the prominence of naturally derived bioplastics in environmental applications, especially those produced through microbial fermentation and plant biomass conversion.

Figure 2 summarizes the distribution of bioplastic classes across the reviewed literature. The classification illustrated in Figure 2 is directly related to the sources summarized in Table 2. For instance, cassava, corn starch, and cellulose correspond to plant-based categories, while bacteria and cyanobacteria correspond to microbial-based materials. Commercially obtained PLA or PBS fall under the polyester/polymer classification, whereas agro-waste-derived materials may contribute to both biopolymer and biodegradable/compostable categories depending on processing and testing conditions.

To ensure consistency between Table 2 and Figure 2, the sources of bioplastics listed in Table 2 were systematically categorized according to the classification framework presented in Figure 2. Specifically, sources such as cassava, corn starch, cellulose, and plant biomass correspond to the plant-based category, while bacteria, cyanobacteria, and microbial fermentation processes correspond to the microbial-based classification. Commercially obtained materials such as PLA and PBS were grouped under the polyester/polymer category due to their chemical structure, regardless of whether their monomers originated from plant feedstocks. Agro-waste-derived materials were classified depending on their final polymer structure and degradation testing, contributing to either the biopolymer or biodegradable/compostable categories. This mapping ensures that the distribution presented in Figure 2 directly reflects the sources summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.

Sources and Methods of Production of Bioplastics Reported

3.3. Bioplastic Sources and Production Methods

The sources and production techniques of bioplastics play a crucial role in determining their structural integrity, degradability, and environmental sustainability. In this review, the bioplastics examined were derived from a wide range of raw materials, including agro-wastes, microbial strains, plants, cyanobacteria, and commercially sourced biopolymers. These sources were utilized through diverse production approaches such as microbial fermentation, chemical synthesis, casting methods, extrusion, and polymer blending. The integration of renewable feedstocks and biotechnological processes, particularly microbial cultures, emerged as dominant trends in sustainable bioplastic manufacturing. Table 3 provides a detailed summary of the sources and production methods reported across the included studies, highlighting the diversity of materials and the innovative approaches employed to enhance biodegradability and functional performance.

3.4. Biodegradability of Bioplastics

Understanding the biodegradability of bioplastics is central to evaluating their environmental impact and long-term sustainability. In the reviewed studies, biodegradability was assessed using multiple quantitative and qualitative approaches, reflecting differences in experimental design, environmental conditions, and analytical objectives. Although methodological variability was observed, the evaluation techniques generally fell into gravimetric, mineralization-based, and biochemical assessment categories.

The most frequently reported methods were percentage degradation over time (20%) and weight loss measurement (18%), as summarized in Table 4. Gravimetric methods quantify biodegradation by measuring the reduction in sample mass under controlled conditions. The percentage biodegradation was typically calculated using the following equation:

Table 4.

Percentage Method of Evaluation of Biodegradability

Biodegradation (%)=W0−WtW0×100

where W₀ represents the initial dry weight of the bioplastic sample and W_t the residual dry weight at a specified time interval. This approach primarily reflects physical disintegration and partial microbial breakdown.

In aerobic and anaerobic mineralization studies, biodegradability was assessed based on carbon conversion into gaseous end-products such as carbon dioxide (CO₂) or methane (CH₄). In these cases, the degree of mineralization was calculated relative to the theoretical oxygen demand (ThOD) or theoretical methane potential of the polymer:

Mineralization (%)=Measured CO2 or CH4Theoretical CO2 or CH4×100

This method provides a more comprehensive indication of complete microbial degradation compared to surface mass loss alone. Anaerobic digestion assays, including biochemical methane potential (BMP) tests, were used to estimate biodegradability by measuring cumulative methane production under controlled anaerobic conditions.

Additional evaluation techniques included soil burial tests, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) measurements, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to assess surface erosion, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) for chemical structural changes, and clear-zone assays for enzymatic hydrolysis detection. While some studies reported statistically significant degradation (e.g., p ≤ 0.05), this statistical parameter indicates that observed differences were unlikely due to random variation rather than serving as a direct measure of degradation magnitude.

Table 5 summarizes the extent of biodegradation reported across the reviewed studies, demonstrating substantial variability in performance. For example, polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) frequently exhibited degradation levels exceeding 95% under aerobic composting or soil conditions, whereas other materials, including certain synthetic or blended bioplastics, showed moderate degradation rates depending on environmental exposure. Polylactic acid (PLA) demonstrated significant degradation under marine and composting environments, though its breakdown rate varied with temperature and microbial activity.

Table 5.

Level/Extent of Biodegradability Reported

Overall, the findings highlight that biodegradability is influenced not only by polymer composition but also by environmental parameters such as temperature, oxygen availability, moisture, and microbial diversity. The variability in calculation methods and testing conditions across studies underscores the need for standardized biodegradability assessment protocols to enable more reliable comparison of bioplastic performance.

3.5 Key Factors Influencing Bioplastic Degradation

The degradation performance of bioplastics is governed by multiple interacting factors that determine the rate, extent, and environmental fate of these materials. Based on the findings of the reviewed studies, four primary determinants were identified: (i) polymer composition and molecular structure, (ii) production and processing methods, (iii) environmental conditions, and (iv) microbial and enzymatic activity. These factors collectively influence the suitability of bioplastics for sustainable waste management systems.

3.5.1 Polymer Composition and Molecular Structure

Polymer chemistry plays a central role in biodegradation behavior (Bher et al., 2022). Bioplastics composed of aliphatic polyester backbones, such as PHB and PHAs, generally exhibit higher biodegradability due to their susceptibility to microbial enzymatic hydrolysis. As identified in this review for instance, PHB demonstrated degradation levels approaching 95–98% under aerobic composting conditions. In contrast, materials with higher crystallinity, copolymer complexity, or hydrophobicity may exhibit slower degradation rates.

As highlighted by Pustak & Maršavelski (2025), the degree of crystallinity influences water penetration and enzymatic accessibility. Amorphous regions was found to degrade more readily than crystalline domains. Similarly, copolymer composition, such as in poly(hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV), can alter degradation kinetics depending on monomer ratios. These findings underscore that biodegradability is not solely determined by bio-origin but by molecular architecture.

3.5.2 Production and Processing Methods

Manufacturing techniques and post-processing treatments significantly affect degradation performance. Blending with plasticizers (e.g., polyvinyl alcohol), incorporation of agro-waste fillers, and surface modifications can alter mechanical properties and microbial accessibility (Diniță et al., 2023). For example, plasma-treated PHB films showed accelerated environmental degradation compared to untreated polymers, indicating that surface modification enhances microbial colonization and hydrolytic attack.

Similarly, extrusion, casting, and film-blowing techniques may influence polymer density, porosity, and surface area, thereby affecting degradation rates. The addition of biodegradable additives can enhance compostability but may also alter thermal and structural stability. Therefore, processing methods must be considered when evaluating environmental performance.

3.5.3 Environmental Conditions

Environmental context is also a critical determinant of biodegradation. Temperature, moisture, oxygen availability, and microbial diversity significantly influence degradation kinetics (Bher et al., 2022). Thermophilic composting conditions (50–60°C) accelerate starch-based bioplastic disintegration, often resulting in rapid mass loss within days. In contrast, marine environments typically exhibit slower degradation due to lower temperatures, reduced microbial activity, and dilution effects.

Aerobic conditions promote mineralization into carbon dioxide and water, while anaerobic systems facilitate methane production through microbial digestion. Several studies reported that anaerobic digestion provides measurable methane yields, although degradation rates may be slower compared to composting environments. These differences highlight the necessity of matching bioplastic formulations with appropriate end-of-life management systems.

3.5.4 Microbial and Enzymatic Activity

Microbial community composition strongly influences biodegradation efficiency. Specific bacterial genera, including Pseudomonas, and marine microorganisms, produce depolymerase enzymes capable of hydrolyzing polyester linkages (Baltacı et al., 2024). Methane production models in anaerobic systems further demonstrate that microbial adaptation and enzyme kinetics determine mineralization rates.

The presence of specialized depolymerase-producing strains enhances degradation of PHAs and related polymers. Conversely, limited microbial adaptation in certain natural environments may delay breakdown. Thus, biodegradation is both a material-dependent and microbiologically mediated process.

3.5.5 Implications for Sustainable Applications

The interaction among polymer structure, processing methods, environmental exposure, and microbial activity ultimately determines the environmental suitability of bioplastics. Materials that degrade efficiently under industrial composting conditions may not exhibit equivalent performance in marine or soil environments. Therefore, the sustainability of bioplastics depends not only on their bio-based origin but also on the alignment between material design and disposal infrastructure.

3.6 Comparative Degradation Performance Across Environmental Conditions

Although significant heterogeneity was observed in experimental design, environmental conditions, and degradation metrics, a comparative synthesis of reported biodegradation levels was conducted to identify general performance trends.

Under aerobic composting conditions (30–60°C), degradation levels ranged from 23% to 98%, with several studies reporting values exceeding 90% for polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) and related polyesters. The average reported degradation under composting conditions across eligible studies was approximately 75–85%, depending on exposure duration. In soil environments (20–37°C), degradation ranged between 10% and 95%, with reported averages generally lower than controlled composting systems. Soil burial studies typically demonstrated moderate degradation rates (30–70%) over periods ranging from 30 days to six months.

In marine environments (approximately 25–30°C), degradation performance was more variable, with reported mineralization values between 60% and 75% over 28 days for certain materials such as polylactic acid (PLA), while other materials exhibited slower breakdown depending on salinity and microbial abundance. Under anaerobic digestion conditions (35–37°C), biodegradability assessed via methane production or biochemical methane potential (BMP) ranged from 50% to 86% mineralization over 30–60 days. Although degradation rates were sometimes slower than aerobic composting, anaerobic systems provided measurable methane recovery, supporting circular bioenergy integration.

4. Discussion

This systematic review explores bioplastics' potential as a greener alternative to traditional plastics. The study highlights their diverse origins, manufacturing processes, and biodegradability, all key to understanding their sustainability. Interestingly, the review found that bioplastics sourced from microbes and plants are the most commonly reported, each making up about 24% of the bioplastics studied (Table 2). This echoes the growing interest in using renewable resources and microbial fermentation, as supported by studies from Sayyed et al. (2021) and Cerrone et al. (2010). Even more exciting is the use of agricultural waste, like corn and rice straw. This approach not only creates bioplastics but also turns waste into valuable resources, supporting a circular economy (Sayyed et al., 2021).

A crucial aspect of bioplastics is how well they break down, and the study looked at various ways to measure this. The most common methods were tracking weight loss (18%) and the percentage of degradation over time (20%) (Table 3). These tests provide insights into how quickly bioplastics disappear and their impact on the environment. For example, one type of bioplastic, polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), almost completely degraded in both liquid and soil, proving its potential to help clean up the environment (Cho et al., 2021). Another type, polylactic acid (PLA), showed significant degradation in marine environments, suggesting it could be useful in water-based applications (LópezIbáñez et al., 2022). These categories of bioplastics are not mutually exclusive. For example, polylactic acid (PLA) is both a polyester and biodegradable, but it is classified as plant-based because it is derived from corn starch. Similarly, polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) is a microbial-derived polyester, and certain synthetic bio-based plastics. Though chemically manufactured, they can also be compostable.

However, the study also revealed that not all bioplastics are created equal when it comes to biodegradability. For instance, microbial polyesters showed a weight loss of 24.58% over 60 days, while compostable plastics exhibited mass losses of 23–28% within 15 days (Ansari et al., 2016; Folino et al., 2020). These differences can be attributed to their chemical structure, the surrounding environment, and the activity of microbes. Advanced techniques like Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) are helping scientists understand exactly how these plastics break down at a structural level (Folino et al., 2020; Cho et al., 2021).

The way bioplastics are made also has a big impact on their environmental footprint. Microbial fermentation has emerged as a dominant method, particularly for bioplastics derived from bacteria and cyanobacteria (Cerrone et al., 2010; Ansari et al., 2016). Researchers are also experimenting with combinations of materials like starch, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and cellulose in Thai cassava starch-based bioplastics to create biodegradable materials with enhanced mechanical properties (Nelga et al., 2023). However, the reliance on commercially sourced biopolymers like PLA and PBS indicates that we need more research into making bioplastic production cheaper and more scalable (Penkhrue et al., 2015; LópezIbáñez et al., 2022). It is important to note that biodegradability is environment-dependent. Aerobic composting conditions accelerate degradation, with starch-based films decomposing fully within days (Abe et al., 2022). On the other hand, anaerobic conditions show slower degradation but provide additional insights through the production of methane (Ryan et al., 2017).

The study emphasizes the need for consistent ways to evaluate how well bioplastics break down. While weight loss and degradation percentages are useful, other methods like anaerobic digestion and methane production measurements can provide additional information about how these materials degrade in different environments (Ryan et al., 2017; Park et al., 2022). Tests like biochemical methane potential (BMP) and biological oxygen demand (BOD) can also help us understand how efficiently bioplastics break down in various ecosystems (Haffiez et al., 2023).

This review confirms that bioplastics offer a promising solution to reduce plastic pollution and promote more sustainable waste management. Other than the laboratory and environmental studies, bioplastics are finding practical applications in several industries. In the food sector, polylactic acid (PLA) and starch-based blends are used for compostable packaging films and bags, reducing plastic pollution (Chauhan et al., 2024). In biomedical applications, polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) are explored for sutures, drug delivery and other due to their biocompatibility and safe degradation products (Rahman & Bhoi, 2021). It is used in agricultural sector as mulch films and in controlled-release fertilizers, where rapid compostability benefits soil quality (Folino et al., 2020). However, the cost and scalability remain the main challenge of large widespread adoption.

Future studies should focus on creating standardized testing methods, exploring new production techniques, and evaluating the long-term effects of bioplastics on the environment. By tackling these challenges, bioplastics can significantly reduce our reliance on conventional plastics and build a more sustainable future

5. Conclusions

This systematic review has comprehensively examined the current landscape of bioplastics, focusing on their sources, production techniques, and biodegradability profiles. The findings underscore the growing prominence of bioplastics derived from microbial and plant-based sources, which together constitute nearly half of the reported materials. Microbial fermentation, chemical synthesis, and agro-waste valorization emerged as leading production approaches, reinforcing the sector's alignment with circular economy principles and sustainability goals.

The review also reveals considerable variability in biodegradation assessment methods and performance outcomes, highlighting a need for standardized testing protocols. While certain bioplastics like polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) and polylactic acid (PLA) demonstrated high degradation efficiency, exceeding 90% in some cases, others showed more limited or slower decomposition, influenced by polymer structure, environmental conditions, and test methodologies.

Generally, bioplastics present a promising alternative to conventional plastics, especially in reducing environmental burden and supporting waste management strategies. However, to fully realize their potential, further research is essential to optimize formulations, reduce production costs, and enhance scalability. Future studies should also prioritize long-term environmental impact assessments and adopt harmonized biodegradability evaluation frameworks to support regulatory standards and real-world applications. Advancing these areas will be critical to integrating bioplastics more effectively into global sustainability efforts.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of Biochemistry, Kampala International University for providing us with the conducive environment to accomplish this work.

Conflict of interest

Authors report no potential conflict of interest

CRediT author statement

a. Conceptualization- All authors

b. Screening- Joan Chebet & Angela Mumbua Musyoka

c. Data extraction- Joan Chebet & Angela Mumbua Musyoka

d. Abstract- Ilemobayo Victor Fasogbon

e. Introduction- Joan Chebet

f. Methodology- Ilemobayo Victor Fasogbon

g. Results- Reuben Samson Dangana

h. Discussion- Joan Chebet

i. Conclusion- Ilemobayo Victor Fasogbon

j. Review and editing- Ilemobayo Victor Fasogbon

References

1. Abe MM, Branciforti MC, Montagnolli RN, Morales MAM, Jacobus AP, Brienzo M. Production and assessment of the biodegradation and ecotoxicity of xylan-and starch-based bioplastics. Chemosphere 2022;287:132290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132290.

2. Abed RM, Al-Hinai M, Al-Balushi Y, Haider L, Muthukrishnan T, Rinner U. Degradation of starch-based bioplastic bags in the pelagic and benthic zones of the Gulf of Oman. Mar Pollut Bull 2023;195:115496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115496.

3. Accinelli C, Saccà ML, Mencarelli M, Vicari A. Deterioration of bioplastic carrier bags in the environment and assessment of a new recycling alternative. Chemosphere 2012;89:136–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.05.028.

4. Accinelli C, Saccà ML, Mencarelli M, Vicari A. Application of bioplastic moving bed biofilm carriers for the removal of synthetic pollutants from wastewater. Bioresour Technol 2012;120:180–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.06.056.

5. Akay O, Altinkok C, Acik G, Yuce H, Ege GK, Genc G. Preparation of a sustainable bio-copolymer based on Luffa cylindrica cellulose and poly (ɛ-caprolactone) for bioplastic applications. Int J Biol Macromol 2022;196:98–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.12.051.

6. Akdoğan E, Şirin HT, Şahal G, Deniz Z, Kaya A, Serdaroğlu DÇ. Accelerating the environmental biodegradation of poly-3-hydroxybutyrate (PHB) via plasma surface treatment. Bioresour Technol Rep 2024;25:101719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2023.101719.

7. Alcântara AC, Darder M. Building up functional bionanocomposites from the assembly of clays and biopolymers. Chem Rec 2018;18:696–712. https://doi.org/10.1002/tcr.201700076.

8. Alcântara AC, Darder M, Aranda P, Ruiz-Hitzky E. Polysaccharide–fibrous clay bionanocomposites. Appl Clay Sci 2014;96:2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2014.02.018.

9. Alqattaf A. Plastic waste management: global facts, challenges and solutions. In : 2020 Second International Sustainability and Resilience Conference: Technology and Innovation in Building Designs (51154). IEEE; 2020. p. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEECONF51154.2020.9319989.

10. Alva Munoz LE, Riley MR. Utilization of cellulosic waste from tequila bagasse and production of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) bioplastics by Saccharophagus degradans. Biotechnol Bioeng 2008;100:882–888. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.21854.

11. Amir M, Bano N, Gupta A, Zaheer MR. Purification and characterization of extracellular PHB depolymerase enzyme from Aeromonas caviae Kuk1-(34) and their biodegradation studies with polymer films. Biodegradation 2024;35:137–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10532-023-10051-4.

12. Amulya K, Jukuri S, Mohan SV. Sustainable multistage process for enhanced productivity of bioplastics from waste remediation through aerobic dynamic feeding strategy: process integration for up-scaling. Bioresour Technol 2015;188:231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.01.070.

13. Ansari S, Fatma T. Cyanobacterial polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB): screening, optimization and characterization. PLoS One 2016;11e0158168. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158168.

14. Atnafu T, Leta S. Plasticized magnetic starch-based $\text{Fe}_3\text{O}_4$ clay polymer nanocomposites for phosphate adsorption from aqueous solution. Heliyon 2021;7e07973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07973.

15. Autha N, Siregar FED, Mahardika M, Nurfani E. Influence of kepok banana bunch as new cellulose source on thermal, mechanical, and biodegradability properties of Thai cassava starch/polyvinyl alcohol hybrid‐based bioplastic. Biopolymers 2023;114e23560. https://doi.org/10.1002/bip.23560.

16. Baltacı NG, Baltacı MÖ, Görmez A, Örtücü S. Green alternatives to petroleum-based plastics: production of bioplastic from Pseudomonas neustonica strain NGB15 using waste carbon source. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2024;31:31149–31158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33309-7.

17. Berezina N, Yada B, Lefebvre R. From organic pollutants to bioplastics: insights into the bioremediation of aromatic compounds by Cupriavidus necator. New Biotechnol 2015;32:47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2014.09.003.

18. Bher A, Mayekar PC, Auras RA, Schvezov CE. Biodegradation of biodegradable polymers in mesophilic aerobic environments. Int J Mol Sci 2022;23:12165. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232012165.

19. Botti A, Musmeci E, Negroni A, Capuozzo R, Fava F, Biagi E, et al. Site-specific response of sediment microbial community to supplementation of polyhydroxyalkanoates as biostimulants for PCB reductive dechlorination. Sci Total Environ 2023;898:165485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165485.

20. Bucio-Galindo A, Velazquez L, Escamilla C. Bioplastics: environment-friendly materials and their production technologies. Agro Productividad 2023;16https://doi.org/10.32854/agrop.v16i4.2373.

21. Cerrone F, Sanchez-Peinado MDM, Juárez-Jimenez B, González-López J, Pozo C. Biological treatment of two-phase olive mill wastewater (TPOMW, alpeorujo): polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) production by Azotobacter strains. J Microbiol Biotechnol 2010;20:594–601. https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.0906.06037.

22. Chang YC, Suzuki H, Terayama T, Reddy MV, Mawatari Y, Seki C, et al. Characterization of Ralstonia insidiosa C1 isolated from alpine regions: capability in PHA degradation and production. J Hazard Mater 2024;472:134348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.134348.

23. Chauhan K, Kaur R, Chauhan I. Sustainable bioplastic: a comprehensive review on sources, methods, advantages, and applications of bioplastics. Polym-Plast Technol Mater 2024;63(8):913–938. https://doi.org/10.1080/25740881.2024.2307369.

24. Cho JY, Park SL, Lee HJ, Kim SH, Suh MJ, Ham S, et al. Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) degradation by the newly isolated marine Bacillus sp. JY14. Chemosphere 2021;283:131172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131172.

25. de Villalobos NF, Costa MC, Marín-Beltrán I. A community of marine bacteria with potential to biodegrade petroleum-based and biobased microplastics. Mar Pollut Bull 2022;185(Pt A):114251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114251.

26. Salazar-Sánchez MDR, Immirzi B, Solanilla-Duque JF, Zannini D, Malinconico M, Santagata G. Ulomoides dermestoides Coleopteran action on thermoplastic starch/poly (lactic acid) films biodegradation: a novel, challenging and sustainable approach for a fast mineralization process. Carbohydr Polym 2022;279:118989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118989.

27. Dilawar H, Eskicioglu C. Laboratory and field scale biodegradability assessment of biocomposite cellphone cases for end-of-life management. Waste Manag 2022;138:148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.11.033.

28. Dilshad E, Waheed H, Ali U, Amin A, Ahmed I. General structure and classification of bioplastics and biodegradable plastics. In : Ahmed I, Rahman MS, eds. Bioplastics for sustainable development Singapore: Springer; 2021. p. 45–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1823-9_2.

29. Diniță A, Neacșa A, Portoacă AI, Tănase M, Ilinca CN, Ramadan IN. Additive manufacturing post-processing treatments, a review with emphasis on mechanical characteristics. Materials 2023;16(13):4610. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16134610.

30. Duraj-Thatte AM, Manjula-Basavanna A, Dorval Courchesne NM, Cannici GI, Sánchez-Ferrer A, Frank BP, et al. Water-processable, biodegradable and coatable aquaplastic from engineered biofilms. Nat Chem Biol 2021;17(6):732–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41589-021-00773-y.

31. Edayadulla N, Divakaran D, Chandraraj SS, Suyambulingam I, Jayamani E, Sanjay MR, et al. Isolation and characterization of novel bioplasticizers from rose (Rosa damascena Mill.) petals and its suitability investigation for poly (butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) biofilm applications. 3 Biotech 2024;14(4):110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-024-03956-1.

32. El-Rayes N, Chang A, Shi J. Plastic management and sustainability: a data-driven study. Sustainability 2023;15(9):7181. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097181.

33. Eronen-Rasimus EL, Nakki PP, Kaartokallio HP. Degradation rates and bacterial community compositions vary among commonly used bioplastic materials in a brackish marine environment. Environ Sci Technol 2022;56(22):15760–15769. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c06280.

34. Fasogbon IV, Aja PM, Ondari EN, Adebayo I, Ibitoye OA, Egesa M, et al. UCP-LF and other assay methods for schistosome circulating anodic antigen between 1978 and 2022. Biol Methods Protoc 2023;8(1):bpad006. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomethods/bpad006.

35. Fasogbon IV, Ondari EN, Deusdedit T, Rangasamy L, Krishnan S, Aja PM. Point-of-care potentials of lateral flow-based field screening for Mycoplasma bovis infections: a literature review. Biol Methods Protoc 2024;9(1):bpae034. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomethods/bpae034.

36. Folino A, Fazzino F, Komilis D. Preliminary evaluation of the anaerobic biodegradability of three biobased materials used for the production of disposable plastics. J Hazard Mater 2020;390:121653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121653.

37. Folino A, Karageorgiou A, Calabrò P, Komilis D. Biodegradation of wasted bioplastics in natural and industrial environments: a review. Sustainability 2020;12(15):6030. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156030.

38. García-Depraect O, Lebrero R, Rodriguez-Vega S, Bordel S, Santos-Beneit F, Martínez-Mendoza LJ, et al. Biodegradation of bioplastics under aerobic and anaerobic aqueous conditions: kinetics, carbon fate and particle size effect. Bioresour Technol 2022;344(Pt A):126265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126265.

39. Getachew A, Woldesenbet F. Production of biodegradable plastic by polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) accumulating bacteria using low cost agricultural waste material. BMC Res Notes 2016;9(1):509. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2321-y.

40. Ghasemlou M, Daver F, Murdoch BJ, Ball AS, Ivanova EP, Adhikari B. Biodegradation of novel bioplastics made of starch, polyhydroxyurethanes and cellulose nanocrystals in soil environment. Sci Total Environ 2022;815:152684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152684.

41. Goel V, Luthra P, Kapur G, Ramakumar S. Biodegradable/bio-plastics: myths and realities. J Polym Environ 2021;29(10):3079–3104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-021-02099-1.

42. Goudarztalejerdi A, Tabatabaei M, Eskandari MH, Mowla D, Iraji A. Evaluation of bioremediation potential and biopolymer production of pseudomonads isolated from petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated areas. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2015;12(9):2801–2808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-015-0779-0.

43. Haffiez N, Zakaria BS, Azizi SMM, Dhar BR. Antibiotic resistance genes proliferation under anaerobic degradation of polylactic acid and polyhydroxy butyrate bioplastics. Environ Int 2023;175:107938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2023.107938.

44. Hand S, Gill J, Chu KH. Phage-based extraction of polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) produced from synthetic crude glycerol. Sci Total Environ 2016;557-558:317–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.089.

45. Javaid H, Nawaz A, Riaz N, Mukhtar H, Shah KA, Khan H, et al. Biosynthesis of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) by the valorization of biomass and synthetic waste. Molecules 2020;25(23):5539. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25235539.

46. Johnson N, Phillips M. Rayyan for systematic reviews. J Electron Resour Libr 2018;30(1):46–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2018.1444339.

47. Kowser MA, Hossain SMK, Amin MR, Chowdhury MA, Hossain N, Madkhali O, et al. Development and characterization of bioplastic synthesized from ginger and green tea for packaging applications. J Compos Sci 2023;7(3):107. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs7030107.

48. Latif S, Ahmed M, Ahmed M, Ahmad M, Al-Ahmary KM, Ali I. Development of Plumeria alba extract supplemented biodegradable films containing chitosan and cellulose derived from bagasse and corn cob waste for antimicrobial food packaging. Int J Biol Macromol 2024;266(Pt 2):131262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.131262.

49. López-Ibáñez S, Beiras R. Is a compostable plastic biodegradable in the sea? A rapid standard protocol to test mineralization in marine conditions. Sci Total Environ 2022;831:154860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154860.

50. Moradi Z, Haghjou MM, Zarei M, Colville L, Raza A. Synergy of production of value-added bioplastic, astaxanthin and phycobilin co-products and Direct Green 6 textile dye remediation in Spirulina platensis. Chemosphere 2021;280:130920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130920.

51. Narancic T, Verstichel S, Chaganti SR, Morales-Gamez L, Kenny ST, De Wilde B, et al. Biodegradable plastic blends create new possibilities for end-of-life management of plastics but they are not a panacea for plastic pollution. Environ Sci Technol 2018;52(18):10441–10452. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02963.

52. Nicholson SR, Rorrer NA, Carpenter AC, Beckham GT. Manufacturing energy and greenhouse gas emissions associated with plastics consumption. Joule 2021;5(3):673–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.12.027.

53. Oliveira J, Almeida PL, Sobral RG, Lourenço ND, Gaudêncio SP. Marine-derived actinomycetes: biodegradation of plastics and formation of PHA bioplastics—a circular bioeconomy approach. Mar Drugs 2022;20(12):760. https://doi.org/10.3390/md20120760.

54. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

55. Park SL, Cho JY, Kim SH, Lee HJ, Kim SH, Suh MJ, et al. Novel polyhydroxybutyrate-degrading activity of the Microbulbifer genus as confirmed by Microbulbifer sp. SOL03 from the marine environment. J Microbiol Biotechnol 2021;32(1):27–35. https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.2109.09005.

56. Penkhrue W, Khanongnuch C, Masaki K, Pathom-Aree W, Punyodom W, Lumyong S. Isolation and screening of biopolymer-degrading microorganisms from northern Thailand. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 2015;31(9):1431–1442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-015-1895-1.

57. Pustak A, Maršavelski A. Enzymatic degradation of biopolymers in amorphous and molten states: mechanisms and applications. FEBS Open Bio 2025;15(1):112–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/2211-5463.70177.

58. Rahman MH, Bhoi PR. An overview of non-biodegradable bioplastics. J Clean Prod 2021;294:126218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126218.

59. Read T, Chan CM, Chaléat C, Laycock B, Pratt S, Lant P. The effect of additives on the biodegradation of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) in marine field trials. Sci Total Environ 2024;931:172771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172771.

60. Ruggero F, Belardi S, Carretti E, Lotti T, Lubello C, Gori R. Rigid and film bioplastics degradation under suboptimal composting conditions: a kinetic study. Waste Manag Res 2022;40(8):1311–1321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X211063731.

61. Rumah BL, Stead CE, Stevens BHC, Minton NP, Grosse-Honebrink A, Zhang Y. Isolation and characterisation of Methylocystis spp. for poly-3-hydroxybutyrate production using waste methane feedstocks. AMB Express 2021;11(1):6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-020-01159-4.

62. Ryan CA, Billington SL, Criddle CS. Assessment of models for anaerobic biodegradation of a model bioplastic: poly(hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvalerate). Bioresour Technol 2017;227:205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.11.119.

63. Saygin H, Baysal A. Degradation of subμ-sized bioplastics by clinically important bacteria under sediment and seawater conditions: impact on the bacteria responses. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 2021;56(1):9–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2020.1833591.

64. Sayyed RZ, Shaikh SS, Wani SJ, Rehman MT, Al Ajmi MF, Haque S, et al. Production of biodegradable polymer from agro-wastes in Alcaligenes sp. and Pseudomonas sp. Molecules 2021;26(9):2443. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26092443.

65. Serrano-Aguirre L, Prieto MA. Can bioplastics always offer a truly sustainable alternative to fossil-based plastics? Microb Biotechnol 2024;17(4)e14458. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.14458.

66. Sun Y, Mazzotta MG, Miller CA, Apprill A, Izallalen M, Mazumder S, et al. Distinct microbial communities degrade cellulose diacetate bioplastics in the coastal ocean. Appl Environ Microbiol 2023;89(12):e01651–23. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.01651-23.

67. Swase TD, Fasogbon IV, Eseoghene IJ, Etukudo EM, Mbina SA, Joan C, et al. The impact of HPV/HIV co-infection on immunosuppression, HPV genotype, and cervical cancer biomarkers. BMC Cancer 2025;25(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-13516-2.

68. Ţurcan I, Gheorghiţă M, Ţurcan R. Circular supply models in the field of plastic production in the context of ensuring sustainable development In: Competitiveness and sustainable development. 2022. 27-32. https://doi.org/10.52326/csd2022.05.

69. Ülger-Vatansever B, Onay TT, Demirel B. Evaluation of bioplastics biodegradation under simulated landfill conditions. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2024;31(12):17779–17787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30195-3.

70. Urbanek AK, Strzelecki MC, Mirończuk AM. The potential of cold-adapted microorganisms for biodegradation of bioplastics. Waste Manag 2021;119:72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.09.031.

71. Usman IM, Etukudo EM, Owembabazi E, Makena W, Oviosun A, Danladi M, et al. Medicinal plants with neuroprotective potential in East African countries: a systematic review. Phytomedicine Plus 2025;:100744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phyplu.2025.100744.

72. Varghese S, Dhanraj ND, Rebello S, Sindhu R, Binod P, Pandey A, et al. Leads and hurdles to sustainable microbial bioplastic production. Chemosphere 2022;305:135390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135390.

73. Viljakainen VR, Hug LA. The phylogenetic and global distribution of bacterial polyhydroxyalkanoate bioplastic-degrading genes. Environ Microbiol 2021;23(3):1717–1731. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.15409.

74. Walker T. Policies to mitigate climate change by addressing single-use plastic production and waste disposal. Environ Policy Gov eJ 2021;[cited 2025 Jul 14]. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3857828.

75. Wang L, Peng Y, Xu Y, Zhang J, Liu C, Tang X, et al. Earthworms’ degradable bioplastic diet of polylactic acid: easy to break down and slow to excrete. Environ Sci Technol 2022;56(8):5020–5028. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c08066.

Article information Continued

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Database	Search strategy
Scopus	TITLE-ABS-KEY (bioplastic) AND (remediat) AND (environ OR ecosystem* OR ecolog*)
WoS	(bioplastic) AND (remediat) AND (environ OR ecosystem* OR ecolog) Title*
PubMed	((bioplastic[Title/Abstract]) AND ((bioremediat[Title/Abstract]) OR (phytoremediat[Title/Abstract]) OR (microremediat[Title/Abstract]) OR (mycoremediat[Title/Abstract]) OR (remediat[Title/Abstract])) AND ((environ[Title/Abstract]) OR (ecosystem[Title/Abstract]) OR (ecolog*[Title/Abstract])) NOT (review[publication type]))

Criteria Type	Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Study Type	Peer-reviewed original research articles	Reviews, editorials, conference abstracts, book chapters, patents
Language	Published in English	Non-English publications
Focus Area	Studies investigating bioplastic materials, production, or environmental biodegradability	Studies focusing solely on conventional plastics or unrelated polymer science
Application	Environmental relevance (e.g., remediation, degradation, composting, marine/freshwater studies)	Industrial or commercial trials with no environmental/degradation context
Bioplastic Type	Includes bio-based or biodegradable plastics from microbial, plant, or renewable sources	Synthetic plastics with no bio-origin or biodegradability component
Data Availability	Full-text accessible; contains quantitative or qualitative biodegradability or production data	Articles with insufficient data, missing methodology, or inaccessible full texts

S/No	Source of Bioplastic	Method of Production	Reference
1	Agro-Wastes like Corn and Rice Straw, Vegetable Oils	Microbial cultures	Sayyed et al., 2021
2	Bacteria	Bacterial cultures	Cerrone et al., 2010
3	Bacteria and Archaea	PHB purchased and modified using a low-pressure plasma system with air as the process gas	Akdoğan et al., 2024
4	Bacteria, Pseudomonas neustonica strain NGB15	Microbial production	Baltacı et al., 2024
5	Cassava	Casting/Evaporation method	Méité et al., 2021
6	Chemical synthesis and biotechnological production	Microbial fermentation	Eronen-Rasimus et al., 2022
7	Commercial sources	Films dissolved in dichloromethane, spread on glass plate, and dried into square sheets	Urbanek et al., 2021
8	Commercially obtained	PLA film prepared via blown film technique, PBS purchased from Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation	Penkhrue et al., 2015
9	Commercially sourced biopolymers	Materials micronized into particles ≤250 µm	López-Ibáñez et al., 2022
10	Cyanobacteria	Microbial production	Ansari et al., 2016
11	Plants	Processing plant biomass to yield biobased polyethylene terephthalate	Fernández de Villalobos et al., 2022
12	Starch and Cellulosic	Compostable bags made of MaterBi®, biodegradable wine corks, and cellulosic plates	Folino et al., 2020
13	Thai Cassava Starch with PVA	Combination of starch, PVA, and cellulose	Nelga et al., 2023
14	Microbes	Microbial cultures	Sayyed et al., 2019
15	Plant/Animal Blend	Dry matter basis mixture	Ruggero et al., 2022
16	Xylan and Starch-Based Bioplastics	Casting method	Abe et al., 2022
17	Renewable Resources like Sugar, Starch, and Corn	Fermentation	Haffiez et al., 2023

S/No	Method of Evaluation of Biodegradability	%	Explanation
1	Percentage degradation/disintegration over time	20	This calculates the proportion of material mass lost under specified conditions.
2	Weight loss measurement	18	It measures the degradation by determining reduction in sample weight over time.
3	Clear zone method (hydrolysis zones)	11	Detects enzymatic degradation by observing clear zones formed on agar plates containing polymers.
4	Mass loss and molecular weight changes	9	Uses gravimetric and polymer chain size analysis to track structural breakdown.
5	Anaerobic digestion and methane production	7	Evaluates biodegradability by quantifying methane/biogas released during anaerobic microbial activity.
6	Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)	7	Examines surface erosion, cracks, and microbial colonization on polymer films.
7	Soil burial tests	7	Assesses degradation by burying samples in soil and monitoring mass loss/structural change.
8	Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) test	5	Measures oxygen consumption by microbes degrading the bioplastic in aqueous environments.
9	Physical and chemical property monitoring	5	Monitors changes in mechanical strength, thermal stability, or FTIR spectra.
10	Water adsorption and mass loss	2	Tracks water uptake and correlated disintegration over time.
11	Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) tests	2	Predicts biodegradation by quantifying methane yield under anaerobic digestion.
12	Ratio of weight loss to initial weight	2	Simple calculation of % weight lost relative to starting mass.
13	Monitoring degradation in marine conditions	2	Simulates seawater environment and tracks mass loss or mineralization.
14	Structural changes on film surfaces	2	Microscopy or spectroscopy used to detect cracks, pores, and erosion patterns.

S/N	Type/Class of Bioplastic	Extent of Biodegradability	Experimental Conditions	Methodology/Additional Details	Reference
1	PHB	~98% degradation	Aerobic conditions, 30–37°C, 28–168 days	Weight loss analysis in liquid medium and soil burial methods confirmed by SEM	Cho et al., 2021
2	Biodegradable Polymer	p ≤ 0.05	Petri dish incubation, 30°C, 48–72 hours	Zone of PHB hydrolysis on plates	Sayyed et al., 2021
3	Biopolymers	72% digestion in 72 hours	Aerobic chamber, 37°C, 3 days	Weight loss analysis	Cerrone et al., 2010
4	Compostable Plastic	Mass loss: 23–28% within 15 days	Composting setup, 55°C, 15 days	Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) and Thermo-Gravimetric Analysis (TGA)	Folino et al., 2020
5	Microbial Polyester	Weight loss: 24.58% over 60 days, P < 0.0001	Room temperature (~25–30°C), 60 days	Soil and water degradation tests	Ansari et al., 2016
6	Microbial Polymer	Biodegraded, exact rate/percentage not provided	Anaerobic digester, 37°C, 30 days	Methane production measurements	Baltacı et al., 2024
7	Microbial Sources	CH₄ production yield equating to ~86% biodegradability over 6 weeks	Anaerobic reactor, 35–37°C, 6 weeks	Monod, Contois, and Gompertz models	Ryan et al., 2017
8	PLA	Over 75% degradation after 28 days	Seawater, 30°C, 28 days	Biodegradability in marine environments	López-Ibáñez et al., 2022
9	PHB	95% mass loss in 168 ± 43 days	Aerobic soil and liquid, 30°C, ~6 months	Solid and liquid-based methods; mass loss monitoring	Read et al., 2024
10	Poly(hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvalerate)	74.9 ± 1.9% for PHB, 71.1 ± 2.4% for PBHV after 77 days	Laboratory composting, 35–37°C, 11 weeks	Incubation in controlled environments	García-Depraect et al., 2022
11	Synthetic	AH and AL degraded up to 90% within 5–6 months	Outdoor soil, 20–30°C, 5–6 months	Soil burial tests	Ruggero et al., 2022
12	Plant-Based Bioplastics	Complete composting in 3 days; soil disintegration in 13 days, p ≤ 0.05	Composting at 50–60°C, soil 25–30°C	Xylan/starch formulation	Abe et al., 2022
13	PHB-P	Mass loss: 50.34 ± 1.03%, p < 0.05	Anaerobic condition, 35°C, 30 days	Weight loss measurements	Akdoğan et al., 2024
14	Compostable Bioplastics	Decreased in mass by 10–23%	Buried in soil, ambient temp., 15–30 days	Soil degradation tests	Saygin et al., 2020
15	Microbial Bioplastics	Zone of PHB hydrolysis: largest 27.9 mm, p ≤ 0.05	Petri plate, 30°C, 48 hours	MSM medium containing 0.4% PHB	Sayyed et al., 2021
16	Plant/Microbial Sources	Degradation rates: 77%, 86%, and 94% for BP, BPKB, and BPMKB	Soil, 28–40°C, 15–20 days	Soil burial and weight loss analysis	Méité et al., 2021
17	PHBV	Gompertz model fit (R² > 0.98), CH₄ production used to predict biodegradability	Anaerobic digester, 35–37°C, 60 days	Methane production measurements	Park et al., 2022
18	Bioplastics in Marine Environments	>60% ThOD within 28 days	Marine water, 30°C, 28 days	BOD and mass loss measurements	López-Ibáñez et al., 2022
19	Biodegradable Polymer	Biodegradation efficiency of 91%	Lab-scale bioreactor, 35°C, 21 days	Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) test	Haffiez et al., 2023