Abstract
Plastic pollution is one of the most pressing challenges societies face today. In response to this concern, the purpose of this study was to formulate a biodegradable alternative material from wine industry by-product (grape pomace) and gelatin, and to develop specific single-use products such as disposable spoons. The material was produced by the solution casting method, utilizing unrefined grape pomace and gelatin, along with glycerol and acetic acid. A 3² full factorial design was employed to evaluate the formulations by varying the amounts of grape pomace (20.00, 25.00, and 30.00 g) and gelatin (6.25, 12.50, and 25.00 g). The resulting composites were characterized for mechanical hardness, solubility, moisture content, and biodegradability after 45 days of burial in agricultural soil. Furthermore, consumer acceptance of the fabricated spoons was assessed through a survey and a focus group of 30 university students, followed by a preliminary pilot-scale economic feasibility analysis. The experimental run with high levels of grape pomace and gelatin reached a hardness of 84.27 N, while the run with low levels registered 12.73 N. Additionally, the biodegradability test demonstrated that the material decomposes in agricultural soil. After 45 days of burial under conditions of 40.00 % moisture content and 25 °C, all experimental runs lost at least 50.00 % of their initial weight. Spoons were fabricated from an alternative material and evaluated through a focus group composed of 30 university students, in which 86.70 % of participants expressed a positive purchase intention, and 63.30 % were totally willing to modify their consumption habits and switch from conventional plastics to products made from the grape pomace-gelatin material. Finally, the economic feasibility of the project was evaluated, resulting in an Internal Rate of Return of 57.00 %, surpassing the Minimum Acceptable Rate of Return of 32.47 %, indicating the project’s profitability. The significant difference (ANOVA, n = 3, P ≤ 0.05) in hardness highlights the material’s potential for adaptation to different applications. The results suggest that the formulated material has potential for application in disposable cutlery, offering a sustainable alternative to conventional plastics. The significant difference (ANOVA, n = 3, P ≤ 0.05) in hardness highlights the material’s potential for adaptation to different applications. The results suggest that the formulated material has potential for application in disposable cutlery, offering a sustainable alternative to conventional plastics.
1 Introduction
Materials made from agro-industrial by-products have the potential to replace conventional plastics in the food industry. The accelerated production and uncontrolled accumulation of plastics have caused severe environmental damage (OECD, 2022), including air, water, and soil pollution (Bansal and Sharma, 2021); harm to wildlife that may suffer from choking or entanglement (Muñoz-Pérez et al., 2023); and potential risks to human health from the ingestion of microplastics (Rodrigues et al., 2022). Single-use plastics (SUPs) are a major contributor to this pollution, accounting for approximately one-third of global plastic waste (Borg et al., 2022). These products, such as packaging, bottles, and disposable cutlery, are widely used in the food industry due to their low cost and good mechanical and barrier properties (Surendren et al., 2022). However, their useful life is extremely short, often just a few minutes, as they are used once and then discarded (Borg et al., 2022). Despite their brief use, SUPs can persist in the environment for hundreds of years, making them a long-lasting source of pollution (Idris et al., 2023).
Conversely, the global consumption of wine generates large substantial by-products, with grape pomace among the most abundant (Da porto et al., 2022). Each year, approximately 13 million tons of grape pomace are produced worldwide (Organización Internacional de la Viña y el Vino, 2023). Much of this waste is often disposed of in landfills -leading to soil and groundwater contamination- or incinerated. Although incineration prevents microbial infestations, it carries negative environmental impacts due to the release of greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants (Abreu et al., 2024).
By-products present significant opportunities for valorization as they are rich sources of polysaccharides and proteins (Zuñiga-Martínez et al., 2022). Grape pomace has high potential as a raw material, as it contains polysaccharides similar to those successfully used in sustainable material production (Li et al., 2024). Specifically, grape pomace contains between 9.00 and 11.00% soluble dietary fiber, including pectin (Chakka and Babu, 2022), which has been used alongside starches to produce films with excellent physical properties (Tien et al., 2023). Furthermore, it contains between 26.00 and 78.00% insoluble dietary fiber—mainly cellulose and hemicellulose (Chakka and Babu, 2022)—as well as lignin ranging from 16.80 to 24.20% (Spinei and Oroian, 2021). These components have been previously associated with enhanced mechanical, antioxidant, and antimicrobial properties in bioplastics (Adilah et al., 2018; Zubair et al., 2024). In addition to agro-waste, gelatin is a widely used forming agent (Zainazor et al., 2020). Blending gelatin with polysaccharides enhances mechanical strength and structural stability (Khan and Sadiq, 2021; Shi et al., 2022), as demonstrated in robust composite films developed in previous studies (Jridi et al., 2014; Thongsrikhem et al., 2022).
While previous studies have successfully developed gelatin-polysaccharide composites, they frequently rely on refined or isolated polysaccharides (e.g., pure starch, cellulose, or extracted pectin). This reliance requires additional, costly extraction steps and can result in high water solubility, limiting their structural applications. Grape pomace offers a distinct advantage: rather than isolating a single polymer, it provides a highly complex, unrefined matrix. Formulating composites with these unrefined natural fillers requires careful consideration of their physical properties. Recent studies demonstrate that bio-derived particulate additives significantly reinforce biodegradable polymer matrices (Anto et al., 2024; Bani et al., 2025). In this context, a uniform and adequately small particle size distribution—such as the 420 μm targeted in this study (Lizárraga-Chaidez et al., 2024)—maximizes the interfacial surface area between the filler and the matrix.
Furthermore, the reinforcement effect in these byproduct-based composites is heavily driven by molecular interactions (Asiyanbi et al., 2017). Based on previous literature, it is hypothesized that the lignocellulosic fraction of grape pomace provides abundant hydroxyl groups that could form non-covalent bonds -such as hydrogen bonds, electrostatic forces, and hydrophobic effects- with the amino acid side chains of the gelatin protein (Babu et al., 2024; Thivya et al., 2024). If present, such structural reorganization would, in theory, create a highly ordered, compact three-dimensional network. This type of molecular crosslinking is anticipated to enhance the hardness and rigidity of the composite while decreasing its water solubility (Medronho et al., 2012), thereby overcoming a major limitation of gelatin-based materials for rigid food-industry applications.
Beyond physicochemical performance, the successful transition of these renewable and nontoxic materials (Arif et al., 2022) into the market heavily depends on consumer perception (Fletcher et al., 2021) and commercial viability. Market research plays a critical role in evaluating expectations for price, quality, and functionality (Guiné et al., 2020) and mitigating the risks associated with new ventures (Natarajarathinam and Nepal, 2012). Furthermore, assessing economic feasibility is fundamental to determining whether experimental formulations can transition to large-scale production and to establishing the necessary budget for implementation (Guasco-Aucacama and Luna-Altamirano, 2022).
To address the above, the purpose of this study was to formulate a biodegradable composite using unrefined grape pomace and gelatin for rigid food-industry applications (disposable spoons). Additionally, it aimed to validate the commercial and practical viability of this material through a multidisciplinary approach integrating physicochemical characterization, consumer acceptance evaluation, and a preliminary pilot-scale economic feasibility analysis.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Raw materials
Grape (Vitis vinifera) pomace of the Tempranillo variety was donated by Viñedos Azteca, a Mexican company dedicated to grape cultivation and wine production. The grape pomace was washed and then dried in a universal oven (Memmert, UFE 800, Germany) at 61 ± 2 °C for 12 h until a constant weight was achieved. The dried by-product was ground using a coffee grinder and then sieved through a mesh to obtain a uniform particle size of 420 μm (Lizárraga-Chaidez et al., 2024). The Autonomous University of Querétaro (UAQ) provided the distilled water, while the gelatin (280 blooms), glycerol, and acetic acid (5.00% w/v) were purchased from a local supermarket in the city of Querétaro, Mexico.
2.2 Experimental design
A 32 full factorial design was employed to evaluate the formulations. The two independent variables were the amounts of grape pomace and gelatine. Grape pomace was evaluated at three levels: 20.00 g, 25.00 g and 30.00 g; gelatine was evaluated at three levels: 6.25 g, 12.50 g and 25.00 g. The primary response variable associated with this design was the mechanical hardness (N) of the material, while secondary response variables included solubility (%) and moisture content (%). Glycerol and acetic acid were kept constant across all formulations at 5.00 mL and 7.50 mL, respectively.
The selected formulation levels were defined based on preliminary tests. At lower levels, the resulting materials were highly porous and broke easily. In contrast, higher levels resulted in mixtures with excessive viscosity, hindering proper handling and casting. Therefore, the selected levels represent a balance between structural integrity and processability.
To describe the relationship between the independent variables (grape pomace and gelatin) and the response variable (hardness), a first-order polynomial regression Equation (1) was fitted.
To ensure the adequacy of the proposed first-order linear model, a full response surface analysis was initially considered. The interaction term between grape pomace and gelatin was evaluated but excluded from the final model as it was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Furthermore, despite the 3-level factorial design allowing for curvature estimation, the quadratic terms were also found to be non-significant (p > 0.05). Consequently, the linear response surface assumption was confirmed to be adequate, yielding the simplified first-order polynomial regression presented in Equation (1).
2.3 Preparation of grape pomace and gelatin material
The material was produced according to the procedure reported by Salazar López et al. (2021) with some modifications. Gelatin was dissolved in 40.00 mL of boiled distilled water. Once fully dissolved, glycerol, acetic acid, and grape pomace were added and well mixed. The final mixture was adjusted to a total volume of 100.00 mL with distilled water. The resulting solution was then poured into rectangular PLA molds (20 × 90 × 2 mm) and square PLA molds (20 × 20 × 2 mm). The solution remained at room temperature until a gel was formed. Once gelled, the material was removed from the molds and dried in a convection oven (Froilabo, Air Expert AE60, France) at 80 ± 2 °C for 9 h. Prior to characterization, all samples were stored in the dark at 25 ± 2 °C.
2.4 Material characterization
2.4.1 Hardness
First, the samples (20 × 90 × 2 mm) were conditioned to ensure consistent moisture content prior to mechanical testing. Samples were stored in a desiccator containing saturated sodium chloride solution to maintain a controlled relative humidity of 75.00% (Sängerlaub et al., 2018). This intermediate relative humidity condition was selected to minimize variability associated with the moisture sensitivity of the material formulations, while avoiding excessive plasticization at high humidity or excessive brittleness at low humidity. During conditioning, the sample weight was periodically monitored until no further mass increase was observed, indicating moisture equilibrium. Based on this stabilization criterion, a conditioning period of 7 days was established.
Mechanical resistance was then comparatively evaluated using a CT3 Texture Analyzer (AMETEK Brookfield, USA). Samples were placed on a two-support platform with a span length of 50.00 mm, and a TA7 blade probe was applied at a speed of 0.50 mm/s with an activation load of 0.50 N until sample fracture occurred. The maximum force required to fracture the material was recorded as hardness (N). All formulations were analyzed under 183 identical testing conditions. Finally, a linear regression model was fitted to assess the 184 relationship between material composition and the measured hardness values.
2.4.2 Solubility
The solubility of the material was assessed using the method proposed by Riaz et al. (2024) 188 with some modifications. To ensure precise control of sample thickness, the biopolymeric 189 solutions were cast into standardized square PLA molds (20 × 20 × 2 mm). The square 190 samples were first dried in a convection oven (Froilabo, ASir Expert AE60, France) at 100 ± 2,191 °C for 24 h and weighed to record the initial dry weight (Wi). Then, the samples were 192 immersed in 50.00 mL of distilled water and maintained under static conditions (no agitation) 193 at room temperature for 24 h. After this period, the samples were carefully filtered and subjected to a rigorous drying protocol before final weighing; they were dried again in the 195 convection oven at 100 ± 2 °C for 24 h to obtain the final weight (Wf). All solubility tests 196 were performed in triplicate (n = 3) for each experimental run to ensure statistical reliability. 197 Solubility was calculated using the following Equation (2), and the results were reported 198 as a percentage.
2.4.3 Moisture content
The moisture content was determined in accordance with the PROY-NOM-211-SSA1-2002 205 standard. First, porcelain crucibles were prepared and weighed to record the initial weight 206 (W1). Then, 6.00 g of the sample were added to the crucible, and the total weight (crucible + 207 sample) was recorded as W2. The crucibles containing the sample were dried at 100 °C for 208 4 h in a convection oven (Froilabo, Air Expert AE60, France). After drying, the crucibles 209 were cooled in a desiccator for 30 min and weighed to obtain the final weight (W3). The 210 moisture content was calculated using the following Equation (3), and the results were 211 reported as a percentage.
2.4.4 Biodegradability
The biodegradability of the material was evaluated following the method described by Verma et al. (2024) with some modifications. The samples (20 × 20 × 2 mm) were dried in a 218 convection oven (Froilabo, Air Expert AE60, France) at 100 ± 2 °C until a constant weight 219 was achieved (W1). Then, the samples were placed in polystyrene boxes filled with 220 agricultural soil from a horticultural field and buried at a depth of 7 cm. For 45 days, the 221 buried samples were kept at 25 ± 2 °C and sprayed with water every 2 days to maintain a 222 moisture content of approximately 40.00%. Every 5 days, the samples were carefully 223 unearthed, cleaned, and dried in the oven at 100 ± 2 °C to record weight loss. 224 Biodegradability was calculated using the following Equation ( 4), where W1 was the initial weight of the sample, and W2 was the weight after 45 days. Results are reported as a percentage of weight loss.
2.5 Statistical analysis
All experimental runs were performed in independent triplicates (n = 3 per formulation), yielding a total dataset of N = 27 observations for a 32 factorial design. Descriptive results were expressed as mean values ± standard deviation. For reliable statistical inference, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the subsequent linear regression model utilized the full dataset of 27 observations, providing 24 degrees of freedom for residual error to adequately evaluate the main formulation effects. Mean comparisons were conducted using Tukey’s test with a significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Minitab (version 22.2.0) and RStudio (version 2023.03.1 + 446) were used for the statistical data analysis.
2.6 Material application
After characterizing the experimental runs, one was selected based on its hardness, appearance, and ease of handling during molding. Due to the rigidity of the selected material, its potential for use in disposable cutlery was identified.
Spoons were fabricated by pouring the selected formulation into silicone molds. No external pressure was applied during molding, as the material conformed to the mold geometry under gravity. After approximately 10 min, the material acquired a gel-like consistency, allowing manual demolding without structural damage. The spoons were then dried at room temperature (25 °C) for 24 h. Although slight shrinkage was observed during drying, the spoon prototypes maintained their original shape without noticeable deformation. Thickness uniformity was achieved through the fixed geometry of the silicone mold and by completely filling each mold cavity with the same volume of material.
2.6.1 Market research
2.6.1.1 Survey on consumer habits regarding conventional and biodegradable SUPs
A survey was designed to identify consumers’ consumption habits. The instrument consisted of 16 multiple-choice questions divided into sections covering demographic data, knowledge of key terms, and consumption habits regarding conventional and biodegradable single-use plastics (Questionnaire S1). The survey was conducted using the Google Forms platform and distributed to the general population. Data collection took place over 2 weeks.
All procedures involving humans were conducted in accordance with institutional ethical guidelines. Prior to participating in both the survey and the focus group, individuals were informed about the study’s purpose and their voluntary informed consent was obtained. Data collection was strictly anonymous, and no personally identifiable information was recorded, ensuring complete participant confidentiality. Because this study involved standard, noninvasive market research and product evaluation without the collection of sensitive personal data, biological samples, or psychological testing, it was deemed exempt from formal ethical board review.
2.6.1.2 Focus group assessing consumer acceptance of the grape pomace–gelatin (GPG) material
A focus group was conducted with 30 volunteer UAQ students (Questionnaire S2), including 15 from the Faculty of Arts and 15 from the Faculty of Engineering. The purpose was to assess their perception of the GPG material. Each participant received a GPG spoon and a cup of yogurt and was asked to observe, touch, smell, and use the spoon to consume the yogurt. Afterward, they completed a 5-point Likert-scale survey evaluating purchase intention and willingness to replace conventional plastic products, comprising 5 items (Questionnaire S3). The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics in IBM SPSS software (version 31), including frequency and percentage analysis. Additionally, a word cloud of participants’ opinions was generated using software.
2.6.2 Economic feasibility analysis
For the economic feasibility analysis, fixed and variable costs, as well as fixed assets, were estimated. Also, the unit cost of the GPG spoon and its selling price were calculated. Based on this information, an initial investment was determined, and the option of financing the project through a loan was considered. Finally, the project’s viability was evaluated using financial indicators such as the Internal Rate of Return and the Minimum Acceptable Rate of Return.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Characterization of GPG material
The GPG material was formulated using a 32 factorial design. Table 1 shows the factors along with their corresponding coded and real levels.
Table 1
| Factors | Factor levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | 1 | |
| Factorial design | |||
| Grape pomace (g) | 20.00 | 25.00 | 30.00 |
| Gelatin (g) | 6.25 | 12.50 | 25.00 |
Factorial design with coded and real levels of grape pomace and gelatin.
3.1.1 Hardness of GPG material
The hardness results are presented in Table 2. The table shows the experimental runs, their corresponding levels of grape pomace and gelatin, and the corresponding experimental response values. It also includes the estimated hardness values and their corresponding confidence intervals, calculated from the linear regression model discussed in the following section (3.1.1.1).
Table 2
| Independent variables | Experimental results | Estimated results | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run | Grape pomace | Gelatin | Hardness Y | Hardness Ŷ | Confidence intervals |
| (g) | (g) | (N) | (N) | 95.00% | |
| M1 | 20.00 | 6.25 | 12.73 ± 1.57g | 13.11 | 9.25, 16.98 |
| M2 | 20.00 | 12.50 | 33.51 ± 1.81de | 29.60 | 26.35, 32.85 |
| M3 | 20.00 | 25.00 | 61.62 ± 0.28b | 62.57 | 58.37, 66.76 |
| M4 | 30.00 | 6.25 | 28.75 ± 0.57e | 27.11 | 23.24, 30.97 |
| M5 | 30.00 | 25.00 | 84.27 ± 3.15a | 76.56 | 72.37, 80.76 |
| M6 | 25.00 | 12.50 | 39.88 ± 0.33c | 36.59 | 34.45, 38.69 |
| M7 | 25.00 | 6.25 | 18.55 ± 1.47f | 20.11 | 17.14, 23.07 |
| M8 | 25.00 | 25.00 | 62.66 ± 3.22b | 69.56 | 66.18, 72.95 |
| M9 | 30.00 | 12.50 | 36.82 ± 2.43cd | 43.59 | 40.34, 46.84 |
Experimental and estimated hardness values of GPG material.
Results are expressed in Mean ± S.D. (n = 3).
Means that do not share a letter are significantly different according to Tukey’s test at p ≤ 0.05.
The experimental run with low levels of grape pomace and gelatin (M1) exhibited the lowest hardness, at 12.73 N. In contrast, run M5, with high levels of grape pomace and gelatin, exhibited a significantly higher hardness (p ≤ 0.05) of 84.27 N, representing an approximate increase of 6.6 times compared to M1.
The hardness values obtained in this study were lower than those reported by Salazar López et al. (2021), who observed a hardness of 190.00 N in their material. This difference may be attributed to variations in formulation. Salazar’s study included coffee by-products, gelatin, and also corn starch, a polysaccharide that enhanced the mechanical strength of the material by forming a more structured matrix (Gutiérrez et al., 2018).
It is essential to note that the experimental results presented in this study are limited to the nine combinations evaluated. Therefore, a linear regression model was used to predict values and to analyze the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
Gelatin acts as the primary continuous matrix; upon cooling, its molecules undergo a structural reorganization into helical networks stabilized by non-covalent bonds (Goudie et al., 2023). To counteract the inherent brittleness of its network, glycerol was incorporated as a plasticizer. Due to its low molecular weight, glycerol easily inserts between protein and polysaccharide chains, increasing the intermolecular distance, weakening direct polymerpolymer interactions, and thereby providing the matrix with the necessary flexibility (Suderman et al., 2018). It is hypothesized that the significant increase in hardness observed in formulations with high proportions of forming agents (such as M5 and M8) can be attributed to potential fiber reinforcement and matrix continuity effects provided by the grape pomace. The literature suggests that the insoluble fiber fraction, primarily cellulose, may contribute to the formation of a three-dimensional network supported by intra- and interchain hydrogen bonds (Díaz-Montes, 2022).
While direct experimental characterization of these structural interactions was not performed in this study, matrix continuity in similar composite systems is often achieved through noncovalent interactions, including hydrogen bonding, electrostatic forces, and hydrophobic effects between the hydroxyl groups of the pomace polysaccharides and the amino acids’ side chains of gelatin (Babu et al., 2024; Thivya et al., 2024). Such phytochemical interactions are theorized to induce a structural reorganization where protein chains modify their shape to fit more efficiently with polysaccharide chains (Thivya et al., 2024). Consequently, if this highly crosslinked matrix forms as literature suggests, it would facilitate efficient stress transfer across the material, providing a plausible mechanism for the enhanced mechanical rigidity and reduced water solubility observed in the experimental results.
3.1.1.1 Linear regression model and estimated hardness values
A linear regression model was fitted to analyze the effects of grape pomace and gelatin on the material’s hardness. The mathematical expression of the model is given in Equation (5), where Y represents hardness, X₁ represents grape pomace, and X₂ represents gelatin.
Table 3 presents the results of the linear regression model, including R2, adjusted R2, and the analysis of variance (ANOVA), providing an overview of the model’s performance. Although the lack-of-fit test was significant (p < 0.001), the high R2 (95.17%) and adjusted R2 (94.76%) indicate that the first-order linear model provides a highly accurate representation of the material’s hardness, effectively capturing the main effects of the components.
Table 3
| ANOVA | Coeff | Std. Error | t value | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −31.40 | 6.36 | −4.93 | 4.97E−05 |
| X1 | 1.399 | 0.24 | 5.82 | 5.32E−06 |
| X2 | 2.638 | 0.13 | 20.95 | <2E−16 |
| R2 = 95.17% | R2 adj = 94.76% |
| ANOVA | Df | Sum Sq | Mean Sq | F value | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | 1 | 881.20 | 881.20 | 33.87 | 5.32E−06 |
| X2 | 1 | 11,414.00 | 11,414.00 | 438.73 | <2.2E−16 |
| Residuals | 24 | 624.40 | 26.00 | ||
| Lack-of-fit | 6 | 555.20 | 92.50 | 24.07 | <0.001 |
| Pure error | 18 | 69.20 | 3.80 | ||
| Total | 26 | 12,919.60 |
Coefficients and ANOVA results of the linear regression model.
The results demonstrated that both grape pomace and gelatin directly affected the material’s hardness. The coefficient for X₁ indicated that for each gram of grape pomace added, hardness increased by 1.399 N, while the coefficient for X₂ showed that for each gram of gelatin added, hardness increased by 2.638 N. These findings suggested that gelatin had a greater impact on hardness compared to grape pomace. The intercept coefficient of −31.4 N is a mathematical artifact resulting from linear extrapolation outside the experimental domain evaluated in this study. It does not carry a physical meaning, as negative hardness is physically impossible. Instead, this constant is strictly a mathematical requirement to accurately fit the regression model within the specific operational ranges of grape pomace (20.00–30.00 g) and gelatin (6.25–25.00 g) tested. The coefficient of determination of 95.17% indicated that the model explained approximately 95.00% of the variability in the hardness data.
The ANOVA results demonstrated that the linear regression model was statistically significant (p < 0.05), confirming a direct relationship between the independent variables (grape pomace and gelatin) and the dependent variable (hardness). Table 2 lists the estimated hardness values derived from Equation (5) and includes confidence intervals for the estimated hardness, representing the range within which the true hardness values are expected to fall based on the regression model. The width of these intervals and the differences observed between the experimental and estimated values can be attributed to the model’s degree of fit and inherent experimental uncertainty. The primary sources of this variability include the natural compositional heterogeneity of the grape pomace, which, as an unrefined agroindustrial raw material, exhibits slight variations in its solution-casting and convective drying processes. Despite these natural sources of experimental uncertainty, the differences remained within an acceptable range, suggesting that the model adequately represented the overall trend of response (Jarantow et al., 2023).
3.1.2 Solubility and moisture content of GPG material
Solubility and moisture content were key properties for evaluating the performance of the GPG material. Table 4 presents the experimental runs, their respective levels of grape pomace and gelatin, and the results for these physical properties. Run M1 exhibited the highest solubility at 25.05%. In contrast, runs M3, M5, and M8 showed significantly lower results (p ≤ 0.05), with values of 16.41, 15.16, and 13.94%, respectively. According to the literature, this study hypothesizes that the observed decrease in solubility is driven by increased hydrogen bonding between the hydroxyl groups of the grape pomace polysaccharides and the gelatin protein matrix. While this requires future spectroscopic confirmation, comparable polysaccharide-gelatin composite systems analyzed via spectroscopy in recent literature have confirmed that such non-covalent interactions occur and significantly enhance the molecular network (Derkach et al., 2022). This strong intermolecular crosslinking is known to result in a more compact structure that reduces water affinity and, consequently, solubility.
Table 4
| Independent variables | Experimental results | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run | Grape pomace (g) | Gelatin (g) | Solubility % | Moisture content % | Weight loss % |
| M1 | 20.00 | 6.25 | 25.05 ± 1.57a | 9.12 ± 1.22a | 57.00 |
| M2 | 20.00 | 12.50 | 22.62 ± 0.40b | 6.71 ± 1.05bcd | 59.00 |
| M3 | 20.00 | 25.00 | 16.41 ± 0.08d | 5.55 ± 0.30cd | 62.00 |
| M4 | 30.00 | 6.25 | 20.73 ± 0.14bc | 7.14 ± 0.83abc | 59.00 |
| M5 | 30.00 | 25.00 | 15.16 ± 0.15de | 5.10 ± 0.37cd | 64.00 |
| M6 | 25.00 | 12.50 | 20.68 ± 0.52bc | 6.04 ± 0.32cd | 56.00 |
| M7 | 25.00 | 6.25 | 20.96 ± 1.06bc | 8.63 ± 0.86ab | 56.00 |
| M8 | 25.00 | 25.00 | 13.94 ± 1.13e | 4.93 ± 0.25d | 62.00 |
| M9 | 30.00 | 12.50 | 20.22 ± 0.20c | 5.93 ± 0.74cd | 56.00 |
Solubility, moisture content and weight loss of GPG material.
Results are expressed in Mean ± S.D. (n = 3).
Means that do not share a letter are significantly different according to Tukey’s test at p ≤ 0.05.
Adilah et al. (2018) reported solubility values between 20.00 and 23.00%, which are comparable to those observed in runs M2, M4, M6, M7, and M9. This similarity may be attributed to the use of mango peel, a by-product rich in polysaccharides similar to those found in grape pomace. In contrast, Mroczkowska et al. (2021) reported a higher solubility of 41.00%, possibly due to the incorporation of potato starch into their formulation, a polysaccharide with high water affinity. In this context, lower solubility values are advantageous, as water resistance is essential for materials used in the food industry. Regarding moisture content, runs M1, M4, and M7 exhibited the highest results at 9.12, 7.14, and 8.63%, respectively. These runs differed significantly (p ≤ 0.05) from the remaining experimental runs. It was observed that materials containing low amounts of grape pomace and gelatin exhibited higher moisture content. This trend may be attributed to fewer molecular interactions in the material solution, which allow for greater water absorption into the matrix (Borja and Müller Sánchez, 2016). A similar phenomenon was observed by Wu et al. (2019). In their study, they concluded that increasing the amount of forming agents in the formulation leads to more molecular interactions, reducing the number of free functional groups available to bind water molecules and thereby decreasing the material’s moisture content.
3.1.3 Biodegradation of GPG material
The physical appearance of the experimental runs after 5, 20, and 45 days of burial in agricultural soil is shown in Figure 1. During the test, changes in shape, color, and hardness were observed. After 5 days of burial, superficial microbial growth appeared on the samples. By day 20, all samples exhibited extensive microbial coverage. After 45 days, visible signs of degradation became evident, particularly in M3, M5, and M8, where fragment loss was observed. These samples also exhibited an increase in size during the test due to water absorption from the soil, which caused material expansion. Over time, all samples became more fragile, indicating a progressive loss of structural integrity.
Figure 1
At the end of the 45-day period, all samples had lost more than 50.00% of their initial weight. Table 4 presents the weight loss values for each experimental run. M8 exhibited a weight loss of 62.00%, whereas M1 lost 57.00% of its initial weight. This degradation may be attributed to microbial activity and the presence of water in the soil (Verma et al., 2024). Figure 2 illustrates the projected degradation time of M1 and M8 when buried in soil with 40.00% relative humidity. Based on the observed trends, M1 is expected to completely degrade in approximately 75 days (Figure 2a), while M8 is projected to degrade in 65 days (Figure 2b). The difference in degradation rates may be associated with variations in their formulations. Run M8 contained higher proportions of film-forming agents than Run M1, thereby increasing its moisture absorption capacity, promoting microbial growth, and accelerating degradation (Zoungranan et al., 2020). Hernández-Lozano et al. (2025) developed a material from mango by-products that completely degraded within 45 days when buried in soil at 60.00% relative humidity. Similarly, Salazar López et al. (2021) reported that a material produced from coffee by-products degraded within 5 days in soil at 100.00% relative humidity. These findings suggest that soil moisture is an important factor influencing the degradation rate of materials derived from agro-industrial by-products.
Figure 2
3.2 Material application
After characterization, run M8 was selected as the best option for producing products intended for the food industry. M8 exhibited tactile rigidity comparable to that of common SUPs, such as cutlery and packaging. Additionally, it was easy to handle during molding using the solution-casting method.
The proposed application of M8, illustrated in Figure 3, included the production of disposable spoons and cylindrical food packaging. The resulting products displayed well-defined shapes, smooth surfaces, and the necessary rigidity to use without breaking. Moreover, they showed no odor or taste, a crucial property for food-contact applications. During the focus group, participants were instructed to smell the GPG spoons and use them to consume yogurt to stimulate a real-world application. Preliminary descriptive observations indicated that the spoons did not negatively interfere with the sensory experience of consuming the yogurt. However, while these initial observations are promising for food-contact applications, rigorous sensory testing methodologies are required to definitively validate the material’s odor and taste neutrality.
Figure 3
Table 5 lists various biodegradable materials reported in the literature. For each material, the table provides details such as the raw material used, degradation time, application, and the corresponding reference. Similarly, Table 6 presents different commercially available biodegradable spoons. For each product, the table includes the raw material used, physical characteristics, degradation time, cost per unit, and reference.
Table 5
| Raw material | Degradation time | Application | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corn starch, mango peel, and gelatin | 5 days | Spoons | Ponce et al. (2021) |
| Corn husk | Not specified | Burger packaging | Castrillón et al. (2021) |
| Banana peel, tapioca starch, and glycerol | After 60 days, 35.00–39.00% of initial weight was lost | Plant pot | Mohd Rafee et al. (2019) |
| Mango peel, glycerol, and vinegar | 45 days | Potentially food packaging | Hernández-Lozano et al. (2025) |
| Potato peel, corn starch, gelatin, and glycerol | After 6 months, 80.00% of initial weight was lost | Potentially packaging | Masurkar et al. (2024) |
Biodegradable materials reported in the literature.
Table 6
| Raw material | Characteristics | Degradation time | Unit price (MXN) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cardboard | Strong and smooth | 3–5 weeks | $ 0.62 | Ecotensil |
| Seaweed | Strong and non-soggy | Not specified | $ 2.00 | Notpla |
| Rice, soy, corn, and tapioca | Firm and heat-resistant | 14 days | $ 24.00 | TwentyFifty |
| Agave bagasse | High strength | 180 days | $ 0.80 | Vitabag |
Biodegradable spoons available on the market.
The GPG material was qualitatively compared to the materials and spoons presented in Tables 5, 6 revealing differences in color, texture, and shape.
The GPG spoon and cylindrical packaging exhibited a homogeneous dark color, contrasting with the earthy tones of the literature-reported materials and the lighter colors of commercial products. In terms of texture, the material fabricated in this study had a matte, porous surface. In contrast, literature-reported materials tended to have rough surfaces, whereas commercial products exhibited smooth, uniform textures. Regarding shape, the GPG products had welldefined finishes and visually outperformed the literature-reported materials, which had irregular shapes. However, commercial products stood out due to their optimized designs. In addition to their visual appearance, commercial biodegradable spoons exhibited strength and firmness, properties also observed in the GPG spoons during handling and use. The unit price of the GPG spoons compared with that of commercial biodegradable spoons is discussed in a later section (3.2.2.3).
The material produced in this study presents different potential applications depending on its hardness. Runs M3, M5, and M8, exhibiting the highest hardness, have the potential to be used in the production of single-use products, such as disposable cutlery and packaging. Runs M2, M6, and M9, with intermediate hardness, could be employed as temporary plant pots, as they would gradually degrade in the soil without affecting plant growth. Regarding the runs with lower hardness, such as M1, M4, and M7, their water-absorbing capacity makes them suitable as moisture retainers for soils requiring water conservation. These applications demonstrate the material’s versatility, particularly in its mechanical properties.
Regarding the by-product valorization fraction, grape pomace serves as the primary structural component, representing 66.70% (25.00 g) of the solid biopolymer matrix relative to the gelatin forming (12.50 g) in the selected M8 formulation. At the regional scale, the state of Querétaro alone generates approximately 750 tons of grape pomace annually, providing a substantial, highly scalable feedstock for valorization. In terms of plastic substitution potential, the economic feasibility model projects a pilot-scale production of 260, 000 biodegradable spoons per year. This translates to the direct substitution of 260,000 conventional single-use plastic units annually, demonstrating tangible industrial applicability. Finally, the lifecycle benefit is most pronounced in the material end-of-life stage. While conventional single-use plastic cutlery can persist in the environment for up to 400 years, the extrapolated biodegradation data indicate that the M8 formulation completely degrades in soil in approximately 65 days. This drastic reduction in environmental persistence is coupled with the avoidance of greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants that would otherwise be released through the traditional incineration of grape pomace by-product (Abreu et al., 2024).
3.2.1 Market research results
This section presents the results of the market research, including the consumer habits survey and the focus group on the acceptance of the GPG material.
3.2.1.1 Survey findings
3.2.1.1.1 Demographic data
A total of 230 responses were obtained. Approximately 66.00% of the participants were women (Figure 4a), 47.00% were between 18 and 35 years old (Figure 4b), 56.50% held a university degree (Figure 4c), and 45.70% reported a monthly income between $8,000.00 and $23,999.00 MXN (Figure 4d).
Figure 4
3.2.1.1.2 Knowledge of key terms
Participants were surveyed about their understanding of specific concepts related to biodegradable products. Among them, 62.60% demonstrated a correct understanding of the term “product made from by-products,” associating it with the use of agro-industrial byproducts. Additionally, 74.70% accurately understood the term “biodegradable,” linking it to a product’s ability to integrate into the environment and be decomposed by microorganisms. Participants also recognized the environmental benefits of using biodegradable products. The three most frequently cited advantages were lower environmental impact, waste reduction, and rapid degradation. These findings are consistent with a study by Verbytskyi et al. (2024) conducted in Europe, in which 89.50% of respondents reported familiarity with the term “biodegradable” and identified reducing environmental impact as the main advantage of such products. Taken together, these results suggest a growing global awareness of alternative products as a response to environmental concerns.
3.2.1.1.3 Consumption habits of conventional SUPs
According to the survey, 57.00% of participants reported that food packaging is the SUP they purchase most often (Figure 5a). Although 34.80% of participants try to avoid buying SUPs, many still use them regularly. Figure 5b shows that most participants purchase these items every month. In a survey conducted by Nuno et al. (2025), plastic bags were identified as the most purchased SUP, with 25.00–28.00% of consumers buying them almost every day. These findings indicate that SUPs remain widely consumed despite growing awareness of their environmental impact. The consumption of SUPs is mainly associated with social events, 58.70% of participants use them at parties, and 33.00% for takeout or delivery (Figure 5c). The most valued aspects of SUPs are price, durability, and quality. In contrast, characteristics such as design, texture, and color are less relevant, suggesting that consumers prioritize functionality and cost over aesthetics.
Figure 5
3.2.1.1.4 Consumption habits of biodegradable SUPs
Fifty-three percent of participants reported that the biodegradable SUPs they purchase most often are trash bags, followed by disposable plates and cutlery at 23.90% (Figure 6a). Similarly, Goerg et al. (2024) found that shopping bags were the most commonly purchased biodegradable product among German consumers. Eighty percent of respondents identify whether a SUP is biodegradable by checking the packaging label (Figure 6b), looking for phrases and symbols indicating biodegradability. Verbytskyi et al. (2024) reported that the majority of their survey participants confirmed that accessible, understandable label information can significantly influence their decision to purchase biodegradable products. Additionally, 86.60% of participants do not recognize any biodegradable product brands, indicating a lack of market awareness (Figure 6c). Similar trends were observed by Ruf et al. (2022), who reported that brands of biodegradable products are often unknown to consumers.
Figure 6
Regarding purchase frequency, 46.10% of participants buy biodegradable SUPs once a month, while 42.60% do not purchase them at all (Figure 6d). The main factors limiting their purchase are a lack of information, high cost, and uncertainty about where to buy them. Similar barriers have been reported in previous studies. Rentería et al. (2024) noted that respondents do not purchase biodegradable products due to limited availability and a limited variety of designs, whereas Verbytskyi et al. (2024) reported that participants cite high prices, limited product choice, and lack of awareness as the main reasons.
The survey results show that most participants have a general understanding of biodegradable products and their environmental benefits. However, despite this awareness, many struggle to identify genuinely biodegradable products on the market. Most participants rely on label claims without checking the raw materials used. These findings indicate the need for educational campaigns to help consumers recognize authentic biodegradable products. Such initiatives could promote more informed purchasing decisions and encourage wider adoption of sustainable alternatives (Rentería et al., 2024).
3.2.1.2 Focus group findings
The results of the focus group, conducted with participants aged 19 to 31, of whom 66.70% were female and 33.30% were male, provided relevant insights into consumer purchase intentions for products made from grape pomace and gelatin. As illustrated in Figure 7a, 86.70% of participants expressed a favorable intention to purchase the GPG spoon. In the case of the GPG packaging, the response showed a slight decrease (participants were only shown the spoons during the focus group, not the packaging). A total of 76.60% stated they would buy it (Figure 7b). The reasons given by those unwilling to purchase the GPG packaging included the perception that its thickness might be unattractive and concerns about its ability to adequately preserve food.
Figure 7
The willingness to pay for a pack of 25 GPG spoons priced at $30.00 MXN was evaluated. The results were positive; 90.00% of participants stated they would “definitely buy it,” while the remaining 10.00% said they would “possibly buy it.”
A pack of 25 disposable spoons in Mexico typically costs around $20.00 MXN. This indicates that students are willing to pay approximately $10.00 MXN more for GPG spoons. These findings align with the study by Notaro et al. (2022), which found that Italian consumers were willing to pay €2.60 more for biodegradable cups. Likewise, Herrmann et al. (2022) and Kesgin et al. (2025) reported that consumers interested in biodegradability are generally willing to pay a premium for sustainable packaging.
Participants’ awareness that the product degrades in soil within less than a year significantly influenced their purchasing decisions. Figure 8a indicates that approximately 60.00% of participants stated that this feature “influences a lot,” while 3.30% reported that it “does not influence” their decision. The main reasons for this influence are illustrated in Figure 9a, which shows a word cloud generated from their responses. On the other hand, those who indicated that this property does not affect their decision argued that they prioritize the product’s functionality over its degradability.
Figure 8
Figure 9
The willingness to change consumption habits and replace conventional SUP products with those made from GPG material was evident. As shown in Figure 8b, 63.30% of participants expressed being “fully willing” to switch from conventional plastic to GPG material, while 3.30% reported a “neutral” stance.
Students highlighted two main motivations for changing their consumption habits: the perceived quality of the spoon and, more importantly, its ecological value, which they associated with environmental care (Figure 9b). These findings align with those reported by Moshood et al. (2022), who found that young Malaysian consumers’ intention to transition from synthetic to biodegradable plastics is strongly driven by environmental concerns. In addition, they noted the relevance of hedonic motivations, such as novelty-seeking and a spirit of adventure, as younger consumers tend to enjoy experimenting with innovative products (Moshood et al., 2022). Taken together, these results suggest that younger generations are likely to lead the transition to biodegradable products due to their environmental awareness.
The focus group results indicate that participants have a positive perception of the spoon made from grape pomace and gelatin. They responded favorably to its color, texture, shape, and hardness. The participants also expressed a strong intention to purchase the product and showed a significant willingness to change their consumption habits by replacing traditional plastic disposable items with GPG products. These findings suggest that developing singleuse products from by-products is not only functionally viable but also acceptable to potential consumers.
3.2.2 Economic feasibility results
Economic feasibility was evaluated using a preliminary pilot-scale and university spin-off model. Fixed costs at this initial stage included the salaries of two operators. Because this pilot phase assumes production within an academic incubator laboratory at the University, facility rent and additional utility services were not initially strictly parameterized. It is crucial to note that this represents a baseline feasibility model. Transitioning to a full commercial-scale operation will definitely require incorporating standard industrial expenses- specifically equipment depreciation, industrial utility rates, rigorous quality control costs, scheduled maintenance, and standard industrial labor rates- which will predictably adjust the final Total Unit Cost (TUC).
3.2.2.1 Fixed costs
Fixed costs included only the salaries of two employees. Since production would take place in a laboratory at the Autonomous University of Querétaro, no rent or additional service expenses were considered. Total fixed costs amounted to $2,008.92 MXN per month, equivalent to $24,107.02 MXN per year. Based on an estimated annual production of 260,000 spoons (200 weekly packages of 25 units), the unit fixed cost (UFC) was calculated at $0.09 MXN per spoon.
3.2.2.2 Variable costs
Variable costs included raw materials such as grape pomace, gelatin, glycerol, acetic acid, and distilled water, as well as packaging bags and labels. Figure 10 illustrates the unit cost of each raw material. In total, the unit variable cost (UVC) was estimated at $0.57 MXN per spoon.
Figure 10
3.2.2.3 Total costs and selling price
As shown in Figure 10, the total unit cost (TUC) was estimated at $0.66 MXN per spoon, resulting from the sum of the unit fixed cost ($0.09 MXN) and the unit variable cost ($0.57 MXN). Considering the sale of a 25-unit pack at $30.00 MXN, the selling price per spoon would be $1.20 MXN, allowing a projected profit of $0.54 MXN per unit.
Compared with the biodegradable spoons presented in Table 6, the GPG spoon showed a competitive selling price per unit. This value was lower than the reported price for seaweed-based spoons and was considerably lower than that for spoons manufactured from rice, soy, corn, and tapioca. In addition, the selling price of the GPG spoon was comparable to agave bagasse spoons, which are also commercialized in the Mexican market, indicating that its price falls within the range of biodegradable spoon alternatives currently available in Mexico.
3.2.2.4 Fixed assets, initial investment, and loan
To determine the initial investment for the project, the total value of fixed assets ($112,000.00 MXN), fixed costs ($24,107.02 MXN), and variable costs ($15,000.00 MXN) were considered. This resulted in a total required investment of $151,107.00 MXN. To finance this amount, a baseline scenario was modeled assuming a $12,000 MXN loan. This was projected as a standard commercial bank loan for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Mexico, with an annual interest rate of 15.00% and fixed monthly amortizations over a 3-year term. This representative financing model would provide the necessary capital to launch the pilot-scale project.
3.2.2.5 Project viability
To calculate the Minimum Acceptable Rate of Return (MARR), a standard additive risk build-up approach was used. This method sums the base economic rates with specific project risk premiums using economic indicators for 2025 in Mexico (Banxico, 2024). The calculation steps incorporated:
Project Inflation rate: 4.20%
Risk-free investment rate (28-day CETES): 10.96%
Exchange rate risk premium: 17.00%
Secondary sector growth premium: 0.30%
The MARR = 4.21% + 10.96% + 17.00% + 0.30% = 32.47%
The calculated MARR of 32.47% represents the absolute minimum return rate the project must achieve to be considered financially viable in light of current macroeconomic risks (Sullivan et al., 2014). The financial analysis of the baseline scenario resulted in an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 57.00%, which safely exceeds the calculated MARR.
Relying solely on a deterministic baseline scenario is insufficient to fully evaluate the project’s financial resilience due to inherent market volatilities. To address byproductmaterial price variability, an alternative conservative scenario was modeled. In this scenario, it was assumed that the unit Variable Cost (UVC) originally estimated at $0.57 MXN per spoon experiences a 15.00% increase due to market fluctuations in the prices of key forming agents, such as gelatin and glycerol. Under these conservative conditions, the projected profit margin decreases; however, the recalculated Internal Rate of Return (IRR) remains at 45.00%. Given that this stress-tested IRR still securely exceeds the Minimum Acceptable Rate of Return (MARR) of 32.47% established for this project, the economic feasibility of the GPG biodegradable spoons is highly resilient against moderate raw-material price shocks. Future studies should expand this analysis to include demand uncertainty and to provide detailed production-scale comparisons for commercial manufacturing.
4 Conclusion
Wine industry by-products and gelatin have the potential to be transformed into a biodegradable material with practical applications in the food industry. The GPG material exhibited suitable physical properties for producing disposable cutlery and degraded in soil within a short period of time. Feedback from the focus group indicated strong consumer willingness to adopt eco-friendly products. Complementing these findings, the preliminary economic feasibility analysis revealed favorable financial indicators at a baseline pilot scale. However, it is imperative to explicitly acknowledge that the present study demonstrates laboratory-scale feasibility. The successful fabrication of GPG material was achieved using a manual solution casting method; thus, its true industrial scalability -including compatibility with continuous manufacturing processes like extrusion or injection molding, and large batch quality consistency- remains unverified. Taken together, while these laboratory results support the material’s preliminary viability and position it as a promising sustainable alternative, further engineering studies focused on industrial-scale trials are strictly required to validate its full commercial readiness.
Despite these results, certain limitations of this initial proof-of-concept study must be acknowledged. The evaluation of the material’s thermal behavior has not yet been performed, which limits the understanding of its stability under different temperature conditions. Furthermore, while the material exhibits suitable tactile rigidity and limited short-term solubility for disposable cutlery, a comprehensive evaluation of its barrier properties is essential for broader food-contact applications. The soil burial test relied on natural indigenous microbial flora; therefore, future standardized compostability testing with controlled microbial activity is recommended to definitively establish degradation kinetics. Additionally, the final shape of the product is limited by mold availability, which could be addressed by using 3D printing to produce customized molds. Challenges in labeling and product personalization also need to be considered, potentially through specialized marking techniques. Future research should include spectroscopic analyses to confirm the material’s classification and molecular crosslinking. Water vapor permeability and resistance must be rigorously assessed to determine the material’s shelf-life efficacy. While preliminary consumer interaction showed no adverse sensory effects, formal sensory evaluation panels and specific migration tests are necessary to strictly validate the material’s odor and taste neutrality for commercial food-contact applications. Before any commercial implementation, strict migration safety regulations must be met to guarantee that no compounds transfer from the biocomposite to the food. Economically, while the preliminary pilot-scale financial indicators are favorable, a comprehensive Techno-Economic Analysis (TEA) is a necessary future step. Addressing these limitations will strengthen the application of the material in the food industry and enhance its potential as a sustainable alternative to conventional plastics.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
Ethical approval was not required for the studies involving humans. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
P-ZA: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. M-SM: Funding acquisition, Resources, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft. H-ML: Validation, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources. H-LS: Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation. A-RA: Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision. F-SR: Methodology, Resources, Validation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Acknowledgments
We thank Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología for a scholarship to the graduate student Paredes-Zitácuaro L.; we are also grateful to the Autonomous University of Querétaro for kindly lending the facilities to carry out the research.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. During the preparation of this rebuttal letter and the revised manuscript, the authors used AI-assisted technologies (e.g., large language models) solely to improve the English language, grammar, and overall readability of the texts. The authors thoroughly reviewed and edited all generated text and take full and sole responsibility for the scientific content and accuracy of the submitted work.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AbreuT.SousaP.GonçalvesJ.HontmaN.TeixeiraJ.CâmaraJ. S.et al. (2024). Grape pomace as a renewable natural biosource of value-added compounds with potential food industrial applications. Beverage10:45. doi: 10.3390/beverages10020045
2
AdilahA. N.JamilahB.NoranizanM. A.HananiZ. A. N. (2018). Utilization of mango peel extracts on the biodegradable films for active packaging. Food Packag. Shelf Life16, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.fpsl.2018.01.006
3
AntoT.RajendranR. C.AgarwalA.JayamaniE.NatarajanV. D. (2024). Investigation of mechanical properties of 3D printed biodegradable polylactic acid reinforced with paper microcrystalline cellulose. Appl. Sci. Eng. Progress17, 7540–7540. doi: 10.14416/j.asep.2024.08.007,
4
ArifZ. U.KhalidM. Y.SheikhM. F.ZolfagharianA.BodaghiM. (2022). Biopolymeric sustainable materials and their emerging applications. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.10:108159. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2022.108159
5
AsiyanbiT. T.Bio-SaweW.IdrisM. A.HammedA. M. (2017). Gelatin-polysaccharide based materials: A review of processing and properties. International food research. Journal24, S313–S319.
6
BabuA.ShamsR.DashK. K.ShaikhA. M.KovácsB. (2024). Proteinpolysaccharide complexes and conjugates: structural modifications and interactions under diverse treatments. J. Agric. Food Res.18:101510. doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101510
7
BaniO.AgarwalA.RichardHeinrich (2025). Banana stem and chicken eggshells as a filler of polyester composites for particleboard application. Discov. Mater.5:110. doi: 10.1007/s43939-025-00297-5
8
BansalM.SharmaJ. G. (2021). Plastic pollution by covid−19 pandemic: an urge for sustainable approaches to protect the environment. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol.15, 1083–1093. doi: 10.22207/JPAM.15.3.36
9
Banxico, banco central, Banco de México (2024). Available online at: https://www.banxico.org.mx/
10
BorgK.LennoxA.KaufmanS.TullF.PrimeR.RogersL.et al. (2022). Curbing plastic consumption: a review of single-use plastic behaviour change interventions. J. Clean. Prod.344:131077. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131077
11
BorjaF. d.’ A.Müller SánchezA. J. (2016). Polímeros con alta densidad de puentes de hidrógeno. Madrid: Ciencia y tecnología de polímeros.
12
CastrillónH. D. C.AguilarC. M. G.ÁlvarezB. E. A. (2021). Circular economy strategies: use of corn waste to develop biomaterials. Sustainability13:8356. doi: 10.3390/su13158356
13
ChakkaA. K.BabuA. S. (2022). Bioactive compounds of winery by-products:extraction techniques and their potential health benefits. Applied Food Research2:100058. doi: 10.1016/j.afres.2022.100058
14
Da PortoC.NatolinoA.ScaletM. (2022). Improved sustainability in wine industry byproducts: a scale-up and economical feasibility study for high-value compounds extraction using modified sc-co2. ACS Omega7, 33845–33857. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.2c02631,
15
DerkachS. R.Voron’koN. G.KuchinaY. A. (2022). Intermolecular Interactions in the Formation of Polysaccharide-Gelatin Complexes: A Spectroscopic Study. Polymers, 14: 2777. doi: 10.3390/polym14142777
16
Díaz-MontesE. (2022). Polysaccharides: Sources, Characteristics, Properties, and Their Application in Biodegradable Films. Polysaccharides, 3, 480–501. doi: 10.3390/polysaccharides3030029
17
EcoTensil (n.d.). Biodegradable & Compostable Paper Cutlery. Available online at: https://ecotensil.com/pages/cutlery-biodegradable-paper-spoons (Accessed May 13, 2026)
18
FletcherC. A.NiemenojaK.HuntR.AdamsJ.DempseyA.BanksC. E. (2021). Addressing stakeholder concerns regarding the effective use of bio-based and biodegradable plastics. Resources10:95. doi: 10.3390/resources10100095
19
GoergS. J.HempelC.PondorferA. (2024). Stated purchase of bio-based products: personal and regional factors in Germany. Clean. Circ. Bioecon.8:100087. doi: 10.1016/j.clcb.2024.100087
20
GoudieK. J.McCreathS. J.ParkinsonJ. A.DavidsonC. M.LiggatJ. J. (2023). Investigation of the influence of pH on the properties and morphology of gelatin hydrogels. Journal of Polymer Science, 61, 2316–2332. doi: 10.1002/pol.20230141
21
Guasco-AucacamaC. V.Luna-AltamiranoK. A. (2022). Estudio de factibilidad para la creación de una empresa de consultoría integral para las Pymes en el Cantón Cañar Autores/as. Dominio de las ciencias8:51. doi: 10.23857/dc.v8i1.2541
22
GuinéR. P. F.FlorençaS. G.BarrocaM. J.AnjosO. (2020). The link between the consumer and the innovations in food product development. Foods (Basel, Switzerland),9(9), 13179. doi: 10.3390/foods9091317,
23
GutiérrezT. J.OllierR.AlvarezV. A. (2018). “Surface properties of thermoplastic starch materials reinforced with natural fillers,” in Functional Biopolymers, eds. ThakurV. K.ThakurM. K. (Berlin: Springer International Publishing), 131–158.
24
Hernández-LozanoL. C.BergerP.Cachutt-AlvaradoC.Domínguez-SoberanesJ. (2025). Sustainable solutions: biodegradable polymers derived from mango residues. Polymer319:127980. doi: 10.1016/j.polymer.2024.127980
25
HerrmannC.RheinS.SträterK. F. (2022). Consumers’ sustainability-related perception of and willingness-to-pay for food packaging alternatives. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.181:106219. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106219
26
IdrisS. N.AmeliaT. S. M.BhubalanK.LazimA. M. M.ZakwanN. A. M. A.JamaluddinM. I.et al. (2023). The degradation of single-use plastics and commercially viable bioplastics in the environment: a review. Environ. Res.231:115988. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.115988,
27
JarantowS. W.PisorsE. D.ChiuM. L. (2023). Introduction to the use of linear and nonlinear regression analysis in quantitative biological assays. Curr. Protocols3:e801. doi: 10.1002/cpz1.801,
28
JridiM.HajjiS.AyedH. B.LassouedI.MbarekA.KammounM.et al. (2014). Physical, structural, antioxidant and antimicrobial properties of gelatin– chitosan composite edible films. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.67, 373–379. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.03.054,
29
KesginM.CanA. S.DingL.LeggM.SchulerD. (2025). Legacy matters: encouraging willingness to pay a premium for environmentally friendly off-premises food packaging. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.126:104037. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.104037
30
KhanM. R.SadiqM. B. (2021). Importance of gelatin, nanoparticles and their interactions in the formulation of biodegradable composite films: a review. Polym. Bull.78, 4047–4073. doi: 10.1007/s00289-020-03283-4
31
LiS.RenY.HouY.ZhanQ.JinP.ZhengY.et al. (2024). PolysaccharideBased composite films: promising biodegradable food packaging materials. Foods13. doi: 10.3390/foods13223674,
32
Lizárraga-ChaidezM.Abadía-GarcíaL.de JesúsM. S.LeonardoH. M.Mendoza-SánchezM. (2024). Optimization of the green extraction process of antioxidants derived from grape pomace. Sustain. Chem. Pharm.37:101396. doi: 10.1016/j.scp.2023.101396,
33
MasurkarS.Arif AttarS.RuikarS. (2024). Production and biodegradability studies of edible bioplastics from potato Peel waste. Bull. Pure Appl. Sci.110121, 110–121.
34
MedronhoB.RomanoA.MiguelM. G.StigssonL.LindmanB. (2012). Rationalizing cellulose (in)solubility: reviewing basic physicochemical aspects and role of hydrophobic interactions. Cellulose19, 581–587. doi: 10.1007/s10570-011-9644-6
35
Mohd RafeeS. N. A.LeeY. L.JamalludinM. R.Abdul RazakN.MakhtarN. L.IsmailR. I. (2019). Effect of different ratios of biomaterials to banana peels on the weight loss of biodegradable pots. Acta Technologica Agriculturae22, 1–4. doi: 10.2478/ata-2019-0001
36
MoshoodT. D.NawanirG.MahmudF.MohamadF.AhmadM. H.AbdulGhaniA. (2022). Why do consumers purchase biodegradable plastic? The impact of hedonics and environmental motivations on switching intention from synthetic to biodegradable plastic among the young consumers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.64:102807. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102807
37
MroczkowskaM.CullitonD.GermaineK.NevesA. (2021). Comparison of mechanical and physicochemical characteristics of potato starch and gelatine blend bioplastics made with gelatines from different sources. Clean Technol.3, 424–436. doi: 10.3390/cleantechnol3020024
38
Muñoz-PérezJ. P.LewbartG. A.Alarcón-RualesD.SkehelA.CobosE.RiveraR.et al. (2023). Galápagos and the plastic problem. Front. Sustain.4. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2023.1091516
39
NatarajarathinamM.NepalB. (2012). A holistic approach to market assessment for a manufacturing company in an emerging economy. Ind. Mark. Manag.41, 1142–1151. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.05.003
40
NotaroS.LoveraE.PalettoA. (2022). Consumers’ preferences for bioplastic products: a discrete choice experiment with a focus on purchase drivers. J. Clean. Prod.330:129870. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129870
41
Notpla (n.d.). Compostable ice cream spoon | plastic-free cutlery. Available online at: https://www.notpla.com/ice-cream-spoons
42
NunoA.DuncanE. M.DiasD.dos SantosY.Ramilo-HenryM.MatildeE. (2025). Understanding plastic pollution at a remote tropical island (Príncipe island, gulf of guinea): consumer behaviour and management preferences. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci.81:103982. doi: 10.1016/j.rsma.2024.103982
43
OECD (2022). Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options. Paris: OECD Publishing.
44
Organización Internacional de la Viña y el Vino (2023). Perspectivas de la producción mundial de. Available online at: https://www.oiv.int/sites/default/files/documents/Perspectivas_de_la_producción_mundial_de_vino_Primeras_estimaciones_OIV_de_2023.pdf (Accessed October 4, 2025)
45
PonceB. A.Salazar LópezR.Vidal SilvaI. M.Maldonado AstudilloY. I.Jiménez HernándezJ.Flores CasamayorV.et al. (2021). Efecto de la adición de subproductos agroindustriales en las propiedades físicas de un biopolímero almidón-gelatina. Biotecnia, 23, 52–61. doi: 10.18633/biotecnia.v23i1.1324
46
Proyecto de Norma Oficial Mexicana PROY-NOM-211-SSA1-2002 (n.d.). Determinacion de humedad y solidos totales en alimentos por secado en estufa. Available online at: http://legismex.mty.itesm.mx/normas/ssa1/ssa1211p-03.pdf (Accessed January 20, 2025)
47
RenteríaA. S.ChocotecoJ. A.Mojarro MagañaM.Sandoval PérezS.Chávez NavarroY.Candelario RamírezF. (2024). Attitudes, perceptions and willingness to pay for biodegradable disposable products: an investigation in the south region of Jalisco, Mexico. Int. J. Sustain. Eng.17, 150–158. doi: 10.1080/19397038.2024.2321206
48
RiazS.MaanA. A.ButtM. S.KhanM. K. I. (2024). Valorization of agricultural residues in the development of biodegradable active packaging films. Ind. Crop. Prod.215:118587. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2024.118587
49
RodriguesA. C. B.de JesusG. P.WakedD.GomesG. L.SilvaT. M.YariwakeV. Y.et al. (2022). Scientific evidence about the risks of micro and nanoplastics (Mnpls) to human health and their exposure routes through the environment. Toxics10:308. doi: 10.3390/toxics10060308,
50
RufJ.Emberger-KleinA.MenradK. (2022). Consumer response to bio-based products – a systematic review. Sustainable Prod. Consumption34, 353–370. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2022.09.022
51
Salazar LópezR.Francisco PonceB. A.Vidal SilvaI. M.Maldonado AstudilloY. I.Jiménez HernándezJ.Flores CasamayorV.et al. (2021). Efecto de la adición de subproductos agroindustriales en las propiedades físicas de un biopolímero almidón-gelatina. Biotecnia23, 52–61. doi: 10.18633/biotecnia.v23i1.1324
52
SängerlaubS.SeibelK.MiesbauerO.PantA.KieseS.RodlerN.et al. (2018). Functional properties of foamed and/or stretched polypropylene-films containing sodium chloride particles for humidity regulation. Polym. Test.65, 339–351. doi: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.12.002
53
ShiX.-D.HuangJ.-J.WuJ.-L.CaiX.-X.TianY.-Q.RaoP.-F.et al. (2022). Fabrication, interaction mechanism, functional properties, and applications of fish gelatin-polysaccharide composites: a review. Food Hydrocoll.122:107106. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.107106
54
SpineiM.OroianM. (2021). The potential of grape pomace varieties as a dietary source of pectic substances. Foods10:867. doi: 10.3390/foods10040867,
55
SudermanN.IsaM. I. N.SarbonN. M., The effect of plasticizers on the functional properties of biodegradable gelatin-based film: A review, Food Bioscience, (2018). 24, 111–119. doi: 10.1016/j.fbio.2018.06.006
56
SullivanW. G.WicksE. M.KoellingC. P. (2014). Engineering Economy. 16th Edn Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
57
SurendrenA.MohantyA. K.LiuQ.MisraM. (2022). A review of biodegradable thermoplastic starches, their blends and composites: recent developments and opportunities for single-use plastic packaging alternatives. Green Chem.24, 8606–8636. doi: 10.1039/d2gc02169b
58
ThivyaP.GururajP. N.ReddyN. B. P.RajamR. (2024). Recent advances in protein-polysaccharide based biocomposites and their potential applications in food packaging: a review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.268:131757. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.131757,
59
ThongsrikhemN.TaokaewS.SriariyanunM.KirdponpattaraS. (2022). Antibacterial activity in gelatin-bacterial cellulose composite film by thermally crosslinking with cinnamaldehyde towards food packaging application. Food Packag. Shelf Life31:100766. doi: 10.1016/j.fpsl.2021.100766
60
TienN. N. T.NguyenH. T.LeN. L.KhoiT. T.RichelA. (2023). Biodegradable films from dragon fruit (Hylocereus polyrhizus) peel pectin and potato starches crosslinked with glutaraldehyde. Food Packag. Shelf Life37:101084. doi: 10.1016/j.fpsl.2023.101084
61
TwentyFifty (n.d.). Available online at: https://www.2050eco.world/products#anchors-lp0qlvy05 (Accessed May 13, 2026)
62
VerbytskyiS.Muižniece-BrasavaS.MinorovaA.PatseraN.KozachenkoO.NedorizaniukL. (2024). Biodegradable food packaging: institutional and social aspects. ПРОДОВОЛЬЧІ РЕСУРСИ12, 8–15. doi: 10.31073/foodresources2024-23-01
63
VermaP.RaniR.DasD.RaiK. K.GogoiP.BadwaikL. S. (2024). Transformation of banana peel into biodegradable film added with starch and carboxymethyl cellulose and its characterization. Sustain. Chem. Pharm.37:101356. doi: 10.1016/j.scp.2023.101356
64
Vitabag (n.d.). Available online at: https://www.vitabag.mx/compostable (Accessed May 13, 2026)
65
WuH.LeiY.ZhuR.ZhaoM.LuJ.XiaoD.et al. (2019). Preparation and characterization of bioactive edible packaging films based on pomelo peel flours incorporating tea polyphenol. Food Hydrocoll.90, 41–49. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.12.016
66
ZainazorT.FisalA.GohE. G.Che SulaimanN. F.SarbonN. M. (2020). Emerging of bio-nano composite gelatine-based film as bio-degradable food packaging: a review. Food Res.4, 944–956. doi: 10.26656/fr.2017.4(4).365,
67
ZoungrananY.LyndaE.Dobi-BriceK. K.TchiriouaE.BakaryC.YannickD. D. (2020). Influence of natural factors on the biodegradation of simple and composite bioplastics based on cassava starch and corn starch. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.8:104396. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2020.104396
68
ZubairM.RaufZ.FatimaS.UllahA. (2024). Lignin-derived bionanocomposites as functional food packaging materials. Sustain. Food Technol.2, 945–966. doi: 10.1039/D4FB00105B
69
Zuñiga-MartínezB. S.Domínguez-AvilaJ. A.Robles-SánchezR. M.Ayala-ZavalaJ. F.Villegas-OchoaM. A.González-AguilarG. A. (2022). Agro-industrial fruit byproducts as health-promoting ingredients used to supplement baked food products. Foods (Basel, Switzerland)11:3181. doi: 10.3390/foods11203181,
Summary
Keywords
alternative material, biodegradability, consumer acceptance, economic feasibility, gelatin, grape pomace, hardness
Citation
Paredes-Zitacuaro LA, Mendoza-Sanchez M, Huerta-Manzanilla EL, Hernandez-Lopez MS, Amaro-Reyes A and Flores-Sosa AR (2026) Grape pomace-gelatin alternative material with application in disposable cutlery: characterization, consumer perception and economic feasibility. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 10:1853574. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2026.1853574
Received
12 April 2026
Revised
26 May 2026
Accepted
29 May 2026
Published
26 June 2026
Volume
10 - 2026
Edited by
Okta Bani, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Indonesia
Reviewed by
Pramod Kumar Sinha, University of South Africa, South Africa
M. M. Pragalyaashree, Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, India
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Paredes-Zitacuaro, Mendoza-Sanchez, Huerta-Manzanilla, Hernandez-Lopez, Amaro-Reyes and Flores-Sosa.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Magdalena Mendoza-Sanchez, mendozasan.mag@gmail.com; magdalena.mendoza@uaq.mx
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.