food packaging: a comprehensive review and future trends

Food Packaging: A Comprehensive Review andFuture TrendsJia-Wei Han , Luis Ruiz-Garcia, Jian-Ping Qian, and Xin-Ting Yang

Abstract: Innovations in food packaging systems will help meet the evolving needs of the market, such as consumerpreference for “healthy” and high-quality food products and reduction of the negative environmental impacts of foodpackaging. Emerging concepts of active and intelligent packaging technologies provide numerous innovative solutions forprolonging shelf-life and improving the quality and safety of food products. There are also new approaches to improvingthe passive characteristics of food packaging, such as mechanical strength, barrier performance, and thermal stability.The development of sustainable or green packaging has the potential to reduce the environmental impacts of foodpackaging through the use of edible or biodegradable materials, plant extracts, and nanomaterials. Active, intelligent, andgreen packaging technologies can work synergistically to yield a multipurpose food-packaging system with no negativeinteractions between components, and this aim can be seen as the ultimate future goal for food packaging technology.This article reviews the principles of food packaging and recent developments in different types of food packagingtechnologies. Global patents and future research trends are also discussed.

Keywords: antimicrobial, antioxidant, food packaging, food safety, nanotechnology

IntroductionFood packaging is used to protect food from environmental

contamination and other influences (such as odors, shocks, dust,temperature, physical damage, light, microorganisms, and humid-ity), and it is key to ensuring the quality and safety of food,while also extending shelf-life and minimizing food losses andwastage (Carocho, Morales, & Ferreira, 2015; Narayanan, Lo-ganathan, Valapa, Thomas, & Varghese, 2017; Ribeiro-Santos,Andrade, Melo, & Sanches-Silva, 2017; Robertson, 2012). Theuse of food packaging can be traced back to the 18th century(Gupta and Dudeja 2017). In the 20th century, many advance-ments in packaging technology appeared, including intelligent orsmart packaging (IOSP; time-temperature indicators (TTIs), gasindicators, microwave doneness indicators, radiofrequency identi-fication (RFID), and others), and active packaging (AP; such asoxygen scavengers, moisture absorbers, and antimicrobials) (Brody,Bugusu, Han, Sand, & McHugh, 2008). These innovations furtherimproved food quality, food safety, and shelf-life.

CRF3-2017-0249 Submitted 12/16/2017, Accepted 2/1/2018. Authors Han,Qian, and Yang are with the National Engineering Research Center for InformationTechnology in Agriculture, Room 1017, Building A, Beijing Nongke Masion, 11#Shuguang Huayuan Middle Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100097, China. AuthorRuiz-Garcia is with the Dept. de Ingenierıa Agroforestal. E.T.S.I. Agronomica, Al-imentaria y Biosistemas, Univ. Politecnica de Madrid, 28040 Spain. Authors Han,Qian, and Yang are with the National Engineering Laboratory for Agri-product QualityTraceability, Beijing Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, Beijing, 100097,China. Author Han is with the Faculty of Information Technology, Beijing Univ.of Technology, Beijing, 100124, China. Direct inquiries to authors Qian and Yang(E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]).

Oxidation, microbial spoilage, and metabolism are the maincauses of deterioration of many foods, such as apples, bananas, ki-wifruit, pears, tomatoes, and mangoes, during production, trans-port, processing, storage, and marketing. These processes are di-rectly related to the loss of food quality (including safety), influenceconsumer buying decisions, and impact consumer health, and thusaffect the overall economics of the food industry (Fernandez-Pan,Carrion-Granda, & Mate, 2014; Nerın, Tovar, & Salafranca, 2008;Sanches-Silva et al., 2014; Zhao, Han, Yang, Qian, & Fan, 2016).The negative effects of oxidation on the nutritional and organolep-tic characteristics of food include the following: (1) it decreases thenutritional value of food due to the destruction of essential fattyacids, proteins, and lipid-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K); (2) itdecreases the energy (or caloric) content of food; (3) it producesrancidity (off-flavors); and (4) it produces color changes (darken-ing of fats and oils, degradation of pigments) (Nerın et al., 2008).The presence of pathogenic microorganisms increases the risk offood-borne diseases in humans and thus presents a problem forpublic health (Carbone, Donia, Sabbatella, & Antiochia, 2016;Gram et al., 2002; Krepker et al., 2017). The U.S. Centers forDisease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that approximately76 million people in the United States develop food-borne dis-eases every year (causing 5,000 deaths and 325,000 hospitaliza-tions) (Morris, 2011), which directly increases medical costs,causes deaths, and increases the economic burden of lost work,especially for low-income families (Scharff, 2010).

To delay oxidation, control foodborne pathogens, and meet thegrowing demand of consumers for safe and high-quality prod-ucts, considerable effort has been devoted to in-depth studies ofactive food packaging and the development of new active food

860 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety � Vol. 17, 2018C© 2018 Institute of Food Technologists®

doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12343

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0024-6695

Food packaging: Review and future trends . . .

packaging technologies, which can include utilization of antioxi-dant properties (Brahmi et al., 2016; Hafsa et al., 2016; Tongnu-anchan, Benjakul, & Prodpran, 2013; Wannes et al., 2010), an-timicrobial properties (Choi, Singh, & Lee, 2016; Peng & Li,2014; Souza, Goto, Mainardi, Coelho, & Tadini, 2013; Yun et al.,2015), or both (Jouki, Yazdi, Mortazavi, & Koocheki, 2014; Sal-gado, Lopezcaballero, Gomezguillen, Mauri, & Montero, 2013;Shojaee-Aliabadi et al., 2013). AP can effectively improve foodquality (including safety) and extend shelf-life by positively af-fecting the headspace of a packaged product and/or the productitself (for example, releasing an antimicrobial or antioxidant com-pound), but this packaging technique cannot provide visual infor-mation indicative of the shelf-life, safety, or quality of food, andit cannot warn about possible current or future problems. Foodpackaging innovations have gradually led to the development of in-telligent packaging, which can convey detailed information aboutthe condition of a packaged food or its environment throughout alogistical chain, as well as provide early warning to the consumerfrom the food manufacturer (Vanderroost, Ragaert, Devlieghere,& Meulenaer, 2014). Thus, currently available intelligent packag-ing technologies can accomplish diverse functions such as mon-itoring, identifying, processing, recording, tracing, and commu-nicating information, which promote decision-making efficiency,extend shelf-life, and communicate information about the stateand/or quality of the product through the supply chain (Yam,Takhistov, & Miltz, 2005).

As mentioned above, packaging acts as a physical barrier toprotect food from external factors, so the stability of packagingmaterials is absolutely vital for enhancing food quality and safetyand increasing shelf-life, as well as ensuring that packaging mate-rials can fulfill their role in providing sturdy, attractive, econom-ical, and convenient products to consumers (Gupta and Dudeja2017). Therefore, all food packaging materials must be rigorouslytested by food safety agencies such as the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration (FDA), the Brazil National Health SurveillanceAgency (ANVISA), and the European Commission (EC), whichare responsible for ensuring the safety of food packaging materi-als and additives before they can be used in food (Ribeiro-Santoset al., 2017). As the amount of packaging consumed increases,the environmental impacts of food packaging materials have grad-ually become a major issue worldwide, especially for companiesand producers. To achieve sustainability in food packaging, pro-mote recycling of packaging material, and alleviate environmen-tal pollution, several studies have been devoted to creating newpackaging innovations based on renewable resources that are eco-friendly, biodegradable, or compostable (Goffin et al., 2011; Lic-ciardello, 2017; Peelman et al., 2013; Siracusa, Rocculi, Romani,& Rosa, 2008; Narayanan and others 2017). However, providingeco-friendly packaging alternatives without compromising the keyfeatures of the packaging (such as barrier properties, mechanicalproperties, and extended product shelf-life) will require contin-ued innovation and the development of new sustainable packagingtechnologies in the coming decades.

The goals of this article were to review the current commercialapplications of food packaging technology and present an overviewof research innovations and trends regarding different types of foodpackaging. Some challenging issues must be addressed to maintainand improve food quality and safety, increase consumer trust andacceptance of new packaging technologies, and reduce the harm-ful impacts of packaging waste and food loss on the environment.These issues are discussed with the goal of providing useful futuredirections for research in the field of food packaging technology.

Food Packaging TrendsChanges in consumer demand, industrial production trends

(such as mildly preserved, fresh, tasty, and convenient food prod-ucts with enhanced shelf-life and controlled quality), retailingpractices (such as transregional and transnational long-distancesales of food), and customer lifestyles (such as a fast-paced lifestyleresulting in less time spent shopping for fresh food at the marketand cooking) are the main forces driving the evolution of noveland innovative packaging techniques that maintain and monitorfood safety and quality, extend shelf-life, and reduce the environ-mental burden of food packaging (Dainelli, Gontard, Spyropou-los, Zondervan-van den Beuken, & Tobback, 2008). In the past20 years, IOSP, AP, and sustainable or green packaging (SOGP)have been developed in response to market developments, changesin consumer preferences, and the need to reduce the environmen-tal impact of food production while maintaining food quality andsafety. Figure 1 shows the yearly trend of the total number ofpublications on IOSP, AP, and SOGP over the past 20 years. Thenumber of peer-reviewed publications on food packaging innova-tions has increased steadily. For the past two decades, the researchinterest in IOSP has lagged far behind the interest in AP, whichcan be attributed to AP providing protection beyond traditionalprotection and inert barriers to the external environment; it offersa relatively large number of possible methods of decreasing foodwaste and loss. The following sections present detailed introduc-tions and reviews for each type of food packaging (see Figure 2).

IOSPIOSP is capable of monitoring the condition of packaged food

or its environment by using sensors or indicators (such as elec-tronic, chemical, and mechanical triggers). IOSP can be used tomonitor, sense, record, trace, and convey information about thequality of food, and it can be used with decisions concerning shelflife, safety, and quality, as well as alert people to possible problemswith food (Yam et al., 2005). IOSP systems contain smart devices(small labels or tags), which can be printed onto or incorporatedinto food packaging materials to acquire information about thefood’s quality, store that information, and transfer it to the stake-holders (manufacturers, retailers, and consumers) (Dainelli et al.,2008; Fang, Zhao, Warner, & Johnson, 2017; Restuccia et al.,2010 ). The most commonly used smart devices in IOSP canbe classified as indirect or direct indicators of food quality (seeFigure 2). Indirect indicators cannot provide direct informationto help consumers judge the quality and edibility of food. How-ever, they can indirectly evaluate the effects of the environmentsurrounding the food on the shelf-life and quality of food whichmight lead to a hidden danger for consumers. Foods that havedeteriorated or carry small amounts of a toxin, but which do notyet exhibit detectable signs of spoilage, may harm immunosup-pressed populations, especially children and the elderly (Wang,Lu, & Gunasekaran, 2017). Direct indicators can directly presentsome information about the freshness, edibility, quality, and safetyof food to consumers. These devices must usually be placed insidethe primary packaging so that they have direct contact with the at-mosphere surrounding the food or with the food itself. Therefore,direct indicators have become a main future direction of researchin this area.

TTIs. The shelf-lives of many food products are very sensitiveto temperature variation, which is a major cause of deteriorationand economic loss in these perishable goods during transporta-tion, handling, distribution, storage, and consumption. To limitpathogenic microorganism growth or toxin formation for most

C© 2018 Institute of Food Technologists® Vol. 17, 2018 � Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 861


Figure 1–Number of publications in the past 20 y concerning different types of food packaging. Publication counts were obtained using Scopus.Queries were used to search the Title, Abstract, and/or Keywords.

perishable products in our diets and include a wide range of nat-ural, processed, raw, and cooked foods of both animal and plantorigin, the FDA has defined these foods as TCS (time and temper-ature control for safety) foods that requires time and temperaturecontrol to ensure their quality and safety (FDA, 2013). However,uncontrolled temperature fluctuations are almost inevitable for allgoods throughout the supply chain, and such fluctuations may leadconsumers to make incorrect judgments regarding the sell-by oruse-by dates of products based on the ideal label of the expirationdate on the product package (Wang et al., 2015b, 2017). Therefore,temperature monitoring is vital to provide consumers with nec-essary information about food quality and safety throughout theprocess of food circulation. To address this issue, TTIs have beendeveloped to monitor time- and temperature-dependent changesin product quality and/or safety; TTIs are typically indirect indi-cators and are commonly used in the food industry because theyare relatively small, cost-effective, and user-friendly compared toother temperature-monitoring devices (Taoukis & Labuza, 1989).TTIs are generally attached onto individual consumer packagesor shipping containers, and they can be classified into three typesbased on their capabilities: (1) critical temperature indicators (theseonly show whether a product has been exposed to a temperatureabove, or sometimes below, a reference temperature); (2) criticalTTIs (these indicate the cumulative effect of the time-temperaturechanges on product quality or safety when a product has been ex-posed to a temperature above a reference temperature); and (3)full history indicators (continuous monitoring of the manner inwhich the temperature varies with time throughout a product’shistory) (Singh, 2000; Taoukis, Fu, & Labuza, 1991). The ba-sic working principles of TTIs are the identification of irreversibleresponses in the form of enzymatic, electronic, chemical, nanopar-ticle, or biological changes after a product is exposed to a highertemperature (Fang et al., 2017; Kerry, O’Grady, & Hogan, 2006).Electronics-based TTIs are defined as an electronic device that canpresent a warning about the quality of a product by using a thermalsensor that converts temperature signals to electrical signals, afterwhich it converts electrical signals to a final visual output (Wang

et al., 2015b). Because the read-out devices for electronics-basedTTIs are complex and specialized, TTIs are generally expensiveand inconvenient, or they may require some training on the partof consumers, which leads to reduced market acceptance (by theproduct producer, consumer, and retailer) and limits the scope ofcommercial applications. However, compared with other types ofTTIs, electronics-based TTIs have relatively high precision and aregenerally superior technologies for monitoring and recording thethermal history of a product. Moreover, most kinds of electronics-based TTIs are environmentally friendly and can be recycled. Withthe development of electronics-based TTIs, some novel electronicTTIs have been invented that do not require professional read-outdevices or trained personnel to conduct the test (Haarer, Gueta-Neyroud, & Salman, 2012; Jensen, Debord, & Hatchett, 2013).This technology provides more convenience to consumers andincreases the market demand for intelligent packaging. However,to facilitate the application of electronics-based TTIs in the globalmarket without compromising precision and safety, TTIs must besmaller, lower in cost, and made from recyclable electronics.

For other types of TTIs (such as nanoparticle-based, enzyme-based, chemistry-based, and biology-based), an irreversible colorchange is the main way to determine the thermal history of theproduct. The color change can indicate time- and temperature-dependent changes in the quality and/or safety of the product.These types of TTIs are generally stuck on or incorporated intothe product packaging by printing or coating, and they have alower cost, are more convenient to read and are smaller thanelectronics-based TTIs. The size, shape, and surface morphologyof metal nanoparticles change is based on the time/temperaturescenario to which they are exposed; nanoparticles exhibit an ir-reversible color change when exposed to a particular tempera-ture for a given length of time, and this property makes themextremely useful for TTIs. Lim, Gunasekaran, and Imm (2012)developed a gelatin/AuNP (gold nanoparticle)-based thermal his-tory indicator (THI), which showed a clear color signal after6 hr of exposure at 30 °C. The intensity of the color signal wasproportional to the duration of exposure. Moreover, the color

862 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety � Vol. 17, 2018 C© 2018 Institute of Food Technologists®


Figure 2–Classification of different types of food packaging systems (Ahmed et al., 2017; Dainelli et al., 2008).

Figure 3–A VitsabCheckPoint R© TTI label based on substrate hydrolysis catalyzed by an enzyme (https://vitsab.com/index.php/tti-label/, accessedon 24 November 2014, with permission).

intensity of the AuNPs was maximal at a gelatin concentrationof 2%. However, the gelatin/AuNP-based TTIs were designedspecifically for low-temperature storage, and they have several dis-advantages compared to alginate/AuNP-based THIs, includinglower color-change sensitivity, a narrower range of temperaturemonitoring, and the inability to prepare solid-like THI matrices.Because of these characteristics, Wang et al. (2017) developed aplasmonic THI that takes advantage of the localized surface plas-

mon resonance of AuNPs synthesized in situ in alginate, which canbe made into a solid hydrogel by adding divalent calcium ions andis more suitable for certain end-use applications. In enzyme-basedTTIs, the hydrolysis reaction of an enzyme with a substrate causesdifferent degrees of color change depending on the real time-temperature history. The observed color of a TTI can reveal thecumulative effect of time and temperature, and that informationcan be used to implement a dynamic evaluation of the product’s


https://vitsab.com/index.php/tti-label/


remaining shelf-life. For example, Figure 3 shows a TTI label(Vitsab Checkpoint R©) that is a typical example of enzyme-basedTTIs. The TTI label can be activated by applying gentle pres-sure on the “window” to initiate an enzymatic reaction betweenthe enzyme and substrate. The TTI window in the center of thewords “Check Point” changes color from green to orange to redto indicate various stages of thermal exposure. A homogeneousgreen color in the “window” indicates mixing of the enzymeand substrate minipouches, which in turn indicates perfect ship-ping and storage conditions for the packaged foods. If the “CheckPoint” is yellow to light orange, it indicates that the TTI label hasreached its preset time-temperature response time and the prod-uct is no longer acceptable (Fang et al., 2017). Chemical TTIsare based on many different chemical reactions (such as polymer-ization, photochromic, and oxidation reactions), and they presenta distinct color change due to accumulation of changes in timeand temperature. Currently, some examples of chemistry-basedTTIs include Fresh-Check R©, HEATmarker

R©(N.J., U.S.A.), and

OnVuTM (Ciba Specialty Chemicals, Inc., Switzerland). Their op-eration principles and performance characteristics can be obtainedby visiting the official websites of the product manufacturers. Theoperation principles of biology-based TTIs are generally based ona change in pH under certain conditions, especially at a certaintemperature, which leads to a color change that reveals the cumu-lative effect of time and temperature (Wang et al., 2015b). Despiteactive research into indirect indicators, such indicators have manyproblems, such as increasing the cost of the entire supply chain,introducing safety issues due to potential undesirable migration ofchemical components, having questionable accuracy and reliabil-ity under uncontrolled conditions (such as impact, compression,and vibration), and facing certain legislative restrictions in Eu-rope (Dainelli et al., 2008). Therefore, to expand the range ofapplications for indirect indicators in the global market, futuredevelopments should be directed towards improving the stabilityand sensitivity of indicators to real time-temperature history, suchas by using nontoxic and even edible biopolymers to indicate thethermal history of a product with an irreversible color change.Improvements can also be made to the legal regulations governingintelligent packaging.

RFID. RFID is based on wireless communication (magneticfield or electromagnetic wave) that can provide real-time infor-mation about temperature, relative humidity, and nutritional andsupplier information as the product moves through the supplychain, thus increasing traceability and ensuring food safety andquality (Bibi, Guillaume, Gontard, & Sorli, 2017). RFID is moreconvenient for product identification than traditional labels andbarcodes, has a relatively large data storage capacity, has a longerreading range (up to dozens or even more than 100 m of distance),and does not require visual contact. RFID tags can be embeddedin an item, placed inside food packing, or injected into the bodiesof animals (Ruiz-Garcia & Lunadei, 2011). Therefore, RFID tagsare now considered to be a replacement for barcodes. However,because of their relatively high cost (roughly $(US) 0.2 to 0.3 pertag), their usage is limited, and some companies have found thatmoving to RFID technology is unaffordable (Bibi et al., 2017;Fang et al., 2017). To overcome these obstacles, future studies areexpected to be aimed at reducing the cost of RFID tags as muchas possible.

Each RFID tag can be classified as passive, semipassive, or activeaccording to its power supply mode. Passive tags do not containonboard power sources and are powered by electromagnetic in-duction in magnetic fields, which is produced near the reader (Bai

et al., 2017). In comparison with the other two types of tags,passive tags have a relatively short reading distance, and few tagscan be read simultaneously; however, this type of tag has a longoperational life in addition to being small, light, and low-cost, sothese tags are potential candidates for developing low-cost devices(Bibi et al., 2017). Semipassive tags have a local power source thatis used only for powering the chip. These tags still rely on thereader for electromagnetic wave emission, and most of the timethey remain dormant except when awakened by the reader. Thus,the power source is inactive most of the time, which increases thelifespan of the tags. In contrast to passive tags, semipassive tags havea wider working range. Active tags have an embedded battery thatis used to power the chip and to broadcast signals to the reader.Compared with the other two types of tags, these tags have thewidest reading range (more than 50 m), and many tags can beread simultaneously. However, the widespread use of active tags islimited, because they are more expensive than passive or semipas-sive tags and have a limited lifespan (depending on battery life).Figure 4 shows the basic RFID systems and different operatingfrequencies. To add new functionalities to RFID tags, differenttypes of sensors (such as TTIs, humidity sensors, and gas sensors)have been integrated into RFID tags, which can be used for sens-ing, communicating, and monitoring food packaging headspace.These tags provide real-time data about food quality, safety, andhistory through the supply chain. RFID tags coupled to sensorsare also a major driving force for the application of RFID tech-nology in intelligent packaging systems. Passive tags provide onlyinformation about identification and tracking; for sensing applica-tions, it is necessary to use semipassive or active tags (Ruiz-Garcia& Lunadei, 2011). However, the integration of sensors into RFIDtags also faces some challenges, such as the impact that increasingthe cost of tags may have on the final cost of food products, whichcould lead to decreased sales. Furthermore, researchers must de-termine how to meet the functional requirements of RFID sensortags and avoid direct contact between food and the tags by op-timizing the elements used in the tags (such as antennae, chipsor sensors)? In addition, the operational life of RFID tags is lim-ited because the sensors require power to function properly. All ofthese challenges should be studied in the future with the goal offacilitating widespread adoption of RFID tags in food packaging.

Gas indicators. The gas composition within food packagingchanges due to the activity of the food product (such as respirationand transpiration of fresh horticultural produce, as well as spoilagedue to microorganisms), the nature of the package (such as thegas permeability of the packaging material), and the environmen-tal conditions (temperature or package leaks), and it is directlyrelated to the integrity, shelf-life, quality, and safety of packagedfood products (Fang et al., 2017; Yam et al., 2005). To monitorchanges in gas composition inside the package and thereby pro-vide a means of monitoring the quality and safety of food products,different types of gas indicators are used in food packaging in theform of package labels or package printing films that detect oxy-gen, ethanol, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), water vapor, carbon dioxide,or other gas components. Oxygen can cause deleterious effects onfood quality through oxidative rancidity, changes in color, and mi-crobial spoilage; therefore, oxygen indicators are used widely infood packaging (Fang et al., 2017). In general, a gas indicator alsoprovides an irreversible and visible color change on the packagingto respond to changes in gas composition. Wilhelm and Wolfbeis(2010) presented two different absorption-based opto-chemicalindicators for oxygen, which consist of leuco dyes (leuco indigoand leuco thioindigo) incorporated into two kinds of polymer



Figure 4–Radiofrequency identification technology (Bibi et al., 2017; Fang et al., 2017).

matrices, poly(styrene-co-acrylonitrile) (PSAN, with 30 wt%acrylonitrile) and polymer hydrogel D4 (a linear polyurethane).The results showed that LI-D4 (leuco indigo incorporated intoa highly oxygen-permeable hydrogel polymer) induces an irre-versible color change (from pale yellow to deep blue) that indicatesthe presence of air (oxygen) within a few minutes, which is im-portant for detecting leaks in food packed under a modified atmo-sphere. However, the LTI-PSAN indicator (leuco thioindigo in-corporated into PSAN) required several hours to gradually changeits color from yellow to red after exposure to air. This study pro-vided a cost-effective means of visually detecting and monitoringthe seal status and quality deterioration of packaged foods, in-cluding fish and meat. In addition, a reversible oxygen indicatorwas produced by DryPak Industries, which can be inserted into acontainer and changes color from pink to blue when the oxygenconcentration is greater than 0.5%. This oxygen indicator is ex-tremely similar to the Ageless Eye R© product sold by Mitsubishi GasChemical Company. However, the two oxygen indicators cannotindicate the time of exposure under different oxygen concentra-tions (the color transition from blue to pink occurs at an oxygenconcentration of less than 0.1%). Chatterjee and Sen (2015) de-veloped a carbon dioxide indicator to respond to the presence ofcarbon dioxide via a color change from red to yellow. Other appli-cations of carbon dioxide indicators include measuring the degreeof fermentation in kimchi products during storage and distribu-tion and displaying the concentration of carbon dioxide insidemodified atmosphere packaging (MAP) (Ahvenainen, Eilamo, &

Hurme, 1997; Hong & Park, 2000). In the near future, RFIDcoupled with gas indicators is likely to become an important tech-nique used to realize real-time dynamic monitoring of changes ingas composition inside food packaging during the entire supplychain. However, to integrate gas indicators into RFID tags, gasindicators must be read automatically and changed into electricalsignals, which is one of the most challenging problems facing foodtechnology researchers.

Direct indicators. After food packaging, volatile compoundscan be generated within the package due to enzymatic reactions,microbial growth, or chemical changes in the fresh food product.These changes are directly related to the freshness, spoilage status,and edibility of packaged food. The quality and safety of pack-aged food products can be evaluated directly based on the levels ofthese volatile compounds. Evaluation of quality and safety basedon concentrations of volatile compounds is the basic operationalprinciple of direct indicators. Compared with indirect indicators,direct indicators can provide more precise and targeted informa-tion about quality attributes by responding to changes in packaging(such as maturation indicators for fresh fruits and vegetables basedon the detection of a volatile aroma compound, or a fish freshnessindicator based on the detection of volatile amines). Achievingdynamic responses to changes in volatile compounds is a majortrend in the field of intelligent-packaging research (Dainelli et al.,2008). Kuswandi, Maryska, Jayus Abdullah, and Heng (2013) de-veloped a simple and low-cost on-package color indicator by us-ing bromophenol blue (BPB) with a cellulose membrane (highly



pH-sensitive in the range of pH 3.0 to 4.6). This indicator can beused for real-time visual monitoring of the freshness of packagedguavas, and it can be used to assess their period of salability underan ambient temperature in the range of 28 °C to 30 °C. Duringthe development of the guava, the freshness indicator will changecolor from blue to green to indicate over-ripe fruit as a result ofthe manner in which the change in pH caused by volatile organiccompounds (such as acetic acid) in the package headspace affectsthe BPB/cellulose membrane. Microbial growth is the main rea-son for the spoilage of most seafood products, and it leads to a pHchange in the package headspace because of the formation of NH3

and other volatile amines. Ma, Du, and Wang (2017) developeda shrimp freshness indicator based on a biosensor film by incor-porating curcumin (Cur) into a tara gum (TG)/polyvinyl alcohol(PVA) film, which can be used to monitor shrimp spoilage. Thebiosensor film induces a reversible color change on the packag-ing to reflect an increase in pH caused by the release of NH3.However, this study did not determine the relationship betweenthe color change and NH3 levels in shrimp or the level of shrimpspoilage. Chung, Le, Tran, and Nguyen (2017) designed a battery-free smart sensor tag by transforming a fully passive RFID tag, andthis smart sensor can be used to predict the quality of packagedfish by accurately monitoring the temperature and concentrationsof H2S or NH3 in the fish packaging. The novel smart-sensingtag module was powered by an energy harvesting circuit, whichcan collect sufficient RF energy from the reader by using RFenergy coupling within a maximum distance of 30 cm. The de-sign and implementation of the battery-free smart-sensor tag haspromoted the development of RFIDs coupled with gas indica-tors, and it has helped researchers to overcome the limitations ofwired power supplies or batteries by decreasing the size of thesensing devices and the manpower requirements to check andreplace batteries. However, most freshness indicators have beentested and operated at room temperature, so their accuracy, stabil-ity, and reliability under conditions of low temperature and/orvibration during transportation, handling, and distribution areunknown.

Pathogen indicators are a common type of direct indicatorthat can be used to directly detect the presence of contaminat-ing bacteria or pathogens as a result of the growth and pro-liferation of spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms in foodpackaging, especially for meat products (Fang et al., 2017; Yamet al., 2005). Typically, a pathogen indicator is placed inside thefood package or integrated into the packaging material, whichgreatly reduces the risk of foodborne diseases. The Food Sen-tinel SystemTM (Pasadena, CA, U.S.A.) is a commercially availablepathogen indicator that utilizes barcode-based biosensors, whichcan detect and reflect the presence of pathogens in food packages(Goldsmith, Goldsmith, Woodaman, Park, & Ayala, 1999; Realini& Marcos, 2014). The basic operating principle of this system re-lies on biochemical reactions of a specific antibody with the targetpathogens (such as Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli 0157:H7, andListeria monocytogenes). The antibodies react when they encountera target pathogen, which causes the formation of a localized darkbar on the barcode, and the barcode becomes unreadable uponscanning. Toxin Alert (Ontario, Canada) developed the ToxinGuardTM pathogen indicator, which incorporates antibodies intoplastic packaging films (polyvinylchloride or polyolefin films) todetect pathogens (Bodenhamer 2005). However, the indicator isnot sufficiently sensitive to detect very low levels of pathogensthat can cause disease (Yam et al., 2005). Additionally, very fewcommercial pathogen indicators are available for intelligent pack-

aging in the global market, especially in the developing world.Therefore, to improve the accuracy, sensitivity, and reliability ofpathogen indicators and to broaden their application scope with-out undue impacts on the safety and final costs of food products,further research and development in the field of pathogen indica-tors is required.

APExcess water (such as condensation), oxidation, and microbial

growth (such as pathogenic microorganisms, including bacteriaand fungi) are the main causes of the loss of food quality and safetyduring production, processing, transport, and storage because theyconsiderably limit the shelf-lives of products and increase the riskof foodborne illness; thus, excess water in food packaging is amajor global concern (Krepker et al., 2017; Sanches-Silva et al.,2014). To extend food stability, preserve the original organolep-tic properties of food, maintain food safety, reduce wastage, andminimize the risk of food-borne diseases, the food industry hasbeen forced to develop new ways to reduce the effects of oxi-dation and microbial spoilage on food quality (including safety)and economic losses. As a result of these efforts, AP has emergedas a novel and promising food packaging technology to satisfythe demands of modern society and consumers. It is also a pop-ular topic for researchers around the world (Carrizo, Taborda,Nerın, & Bosetti, 2016; Dobrucka & Cierpiszewski, 2014; El-samahy, Saa, Abdel Rehim, & Mohram, 2017; Sen, Irem, Basturk,& Kahraman, 2017; Woranuch, Yoksan, & Akashi, 2015). Activefood packaging is designed to foster desirable interactions withthe packaged food by incorporating active substances intended tobe released into the food or absorbed into or from the packagedfood or the environment surrounding the food (European Com-mission, 2004, 2009). The substances responsible for the activefunctions of the packaging (the “active” components) can be di-rectly incorporated into the packaging material or onto its surface,in multilayer structures or in particular elements associated withthe packaging such as sachets, self-adhesive labels, or bottle caps(Ahmed et al., 2017; Dainelli et al., 2008). According to the Euro-pean Union legislation for food contact material (FCM) (such asRegulations 1935/2004/EC and 450/2009/EC) (European Com-mission, 2004, 2009), the active substances should not mislead theconsumer (such as masking spoiled food), and they should be ade-quately labeled using the words “do not eat” or a symbol to preventthe nonedible part from being mistaken for part of the food (suchas loose sachets). Before they may be used commercially, the ac-tive materials must be approved and authorized by the U.S. FDAor EC based on evaluation and tests, such as migration testing,which includes overall migration tests and specific migration tests,and which sometimes includes dedicated tests for semisolid food(Lopez-Cervantes, Sanchez-Machado, Pastorelli, Rijk, & Paseiro-Losada, 2003). AP can be classified into two main types: activescavenging packaging (such as moisture absorbers, carbon diox-ide absorbers/scavengers, and antioxidant packaging) and activereleasing packaging (such as carbon dioxide-emitting/generatingpackaging and antimicrobial packaging) (Figure 5). The followingsections provide a detailed introduction to different types of APand their commercial applications.

Moisture absorbers. Moisture absorbers are the most well-known examples of active scavenging packaging and mostly relyon the adsorption of water by incorporating absorbing sub-stances (such as silica gel, molecular sieves, calcium oxide, andnatural clays) into a sachet for use with the packaging (Dainelliet al., 2008). Tray-formatted (overwrap and modified atmosphere)



Figure 5–Schematic diagram for active food packaging systems.

Table 1–Commercially available moisture absorber packaging materials for food applications (Realini & Marcos, 2014; Suppakul et al., 2003).

Year Commercial name Manufacturer Forms

1977∗ MiniPax R© Multisorb Technologies, Inc., USA. Sachet1980∗ Dri-Loc R© Novipax LLC, UK Absorbent pads1987∗ StripPax R© Multisorb Technologies, Inc., USA. Sachet1991 Thermarite R© Sealed Air Corporation, USA Absorbent sheets2003∗ ToppanTM Toppan Printing Co., Japan Absorbent sheets2005∗ Linpac Linpac Packaging Ltd., UK Absorbent tray2005 Sorb-it R© Healthy Culinary Products, USA. Sachet2008∗ DesiMax R© Multisorb Technologies, Inc., USA. Absorbent sheets2011∗ 2-in-1TM Glad Products Company, USA Sachet2012∗ Fresh-R-Pax R© Maxwell Chase Technologies, USA. Absorbent tray2013∗ TenderPac R© Sealpac, Germany Dual-compartment system2015∗ PichitTM Okamoto Industries, Inc., Japan Sachet2016∗ Pad-Loc Fresh R© Novipax LLC, UK Absorbent padsNS∗ Peaksorb R© Peakfresh Products Ltd., Australia Absorbent sheetsNS∗ MoistCatchTM Kyodo Printing Co., Ltd., Japan Absorbent padsNS∗ MeatGuard McAirlaid Inc., USA Absorbent padsNS∗ Nor R©Absorbit Nordenia International AG, USA Microwavable film

“NS”: unknown year; “∗”: still commercially available.

drip-absorbing pads, which consist of a super-absorbent polymerlocated between two layers of a microporous or nonwoven poly-mer, are the most commonly used moisture absorbers in freshmeat product applications (Kerry et al., 2006; Realini & Marcos,2014; Suppakul, Miltz, Sonneveld, & Bigger, 2003). The pre-ferred polymers used for this purpose are polyacrylate salts andgraft copolymers of starch (Rooney, 1995). Moisture absorbersare an effective way of controlling excess water accumulation in-side the packages of foods with high water content (such as meat,fish, poultry, and fresh produce), which is important for inhibitingbacterial growth, impairing mold growth, and enhancing productpresentation (Realini & Marcos, 2014). To make the active sys-tem invisible and to avoid accidental swallowing by the consumer,moisture absorbers are typically incorporated into the packagingmaterial as absorbing pads or trays for meat and fish packaging

(Dainelli et al., 2008). Some commercial moisture absorbers arelisted in Table 1.

Carbon dioxide absorbers/scavengers. Carbon dioxide (CO2)efficiently inhibits surface growth by a range of aerobic bacte-ria and fungi by reducing relative oxygen levels and/or exertingdirect antimicrobial effects (at concentrations of CO2 between10% and 80%) in food packaging. CO2 is thus often used as aflushing gas in MAP systems to help maintain freshness and pro-long shelf-life, especially for fresh meat, poultry, fish, and cheesepackaging (Dong, 2016; Vermeiren, Devlieghere, Beest, Kruijf,& Debevere, 1999). However, for some CO2-producing foods(such as fresh horticultural products and fermented foods), excessCO2 accumulation in a package may cause high levels of CO2

dissolution into foods and may increase the pressure (or volume)of the package due to low CO2 permeation through the packaging



Table 2–Thermodynamic properties of chemical and physical CO2 absorption under standard state conditions at 25 °C (Dong, 2016).

Chemical absorbers Physical absorbers

Reaction Adsorption capacity (mol/g) a Adsorbents Adsorption capacity (mmol/g)b

CaO(s)+ CO2(g) →CaCO3(s) 1.78 × 10−2 Activated carbon �2.0Ca(OH)2(s)+CO2(g)→ CaCO3(s)+H2O(l) 1.35 × 10−2 Zeolite 4A �3.0MgO(s)+CO2(g) →MgCO3(s) 2.48 × 10−2 Zeolite 5A �4.0Mg(OH)2+ CO2(g) →MgCO3(s)+H2O(l) 1.72 × 10−2 Zeolite 13X �4.2Na2CO3(s)+CO2(g)+H2O(l) →2NaHCO3(s) 9.43 × 10−3 Zeolite exudates �3.7aAdsorption capacity is based on the mass of the absorbent.bAdsorption capacity is affected by the pore volume, pore size distribution, and surface area of physical adsorbents.

Table 3–Some commercial CO2 absorbers used for food applications (Coma, 2008; Dong, 2016).

Year Commercial name Manufacturer Form Descriptions

2003∗ ATCO R© CO-450 Standa Industrie, France Sachets Ca(OH)2(s)+CO2(g) → CaCO3(s)+H2O(l)2008∗ LitholymeTM Allied Healthcare Products, Inc., USA Granules CO2 +H2O→H2CO3 +2NaOH →Na2CO3 +2H2O+Energy

→Na2CO3 +Ca(OH)2 →CaCO3 + 2NaOH2017∗ Ageless R© E Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Inc., Japan Sachets Ca(OH)2(s)+CO2(g) → CaCO3(s)+H2O(l)NS∗ Freshlock R© Multisorb Technologies Inc., USA Sachets Ca(OH)2(s)+CO2(g) → CaCO3(s)+H2O(l)NS∗ EMCO R© EMCO Packaging Systems, Kent, UK Sachets 2NaCl+CO2+NH3+H2O→Na2CO3+3/2H2O2→Na2CO3+3/2H2O+3/4O2NS∗ Zeolite 4A Wako Pure Chemical Industries Ltd., Japan Beads Physical absorbersNS∗ Active carbon Junsei Chemical Co.,Ltd., Japan Powder Physical absorbers


film, which leads to undesirable changes in product quality, suchas changes in the flavor and texture of products or/and the de-velopment of undesirable anaerobic glycosis in fruits, and packagecollapse (Dong, 2016; Suppakul et al., 2003). Pears are sensitive toinjury by CO2 at concentrations higher than 2% (Watkins, 2000).Additionally, some commodities, such as potato, lettuce, onion,cucumber, cauliflower, artichoke, apricot, peach, apple, and car-rot, show various symptoms of CO2 injury, such as discoloration,off-flavor development and internal tissue breakdown, when thelevel of CO2 exceeds 5% (Watkins, 2000). Caplicec and Fitzgeralda(1999) found that slightly reducing the CO2 concentration pro-moted the growth of lactic acid bacteria and improved the qualityof some fermented foods. In cases where reducing the level ofCO2 in food packaging can improve food quality, CO2 absorberscan be an effective means of preserving food quality and packageintegrity.

The removal or absorption of CO2 from a gaseous phase can betheoretically achieved by physical adsorption, by cryogenic con-densation, by membrane separation, and by a chemical reactionwith an alkaline solution (Dong, 2016). However, the latter 2 tech-nologies are unsuitable for food packaging applications because ofvarious requirements, such as refrigeration equipment and high-pressure equipment, which are often applied in manufacturing andpower plants. Therefore, nonharmful chemical and physical ab-sorbers have become the two major methods for CO2-scavengingin food packages. These absorbers can be enclosed in a sachet andplaced in the food package, or they can be fabricated as a coatingor sheet (see Table 2). Table 3 presents some of the commercialCO2 absorbers used in food packaging applications. Aday, Caner,and Rahvalı (2011) used EMCO R© as CO2 absorbers to evaluatethe effect of CO2 scavengers on the quality of air-packaged straw-berries, and their results showed that CO2 absorbers effectivelyreduced the incidence of mold decay, which retarded senescenceand preserved the taste and nutritional content of the strawberries.Wang et al. (2015a) indicated that a CO2 scavenger using sodiumcarbonate and/or sodium glycinate as a CO2 absorbent was ben-eficial in maintaining the color, texture, and flavor of shiitakemushrooms and inhibiting bacterial growth inside the package.Moreover, Veasna et al. (2012) reported that chilling injuries in

eggplants can be delayed or prevented in a polyethylene film bagat 4 °C by using a CO2 scavenger (Ageless

R©). CO2 adsorption

can be affected by the presence of other gas absorbers that maycompete against each other, especially moisture absorbers. Marx,Joss, Hefti, Pini, and Mazzotti (2013) observed that physical CO2

sorption on the adsorbent can be enhanced by the presence of asmall amount of moisture, but it was inhibited by a large amountof moisture. Compared to zeolites, activated carbon compoundscontaining hydrophobic groups achieve more stable CO2 adsorp-tion in the presence of moisture, and moisture generally has littleeffect on their CO2 absorption (Sjostrom & Krutka, 2010; Xuet al., 2013). However, very few studies have collected quantita-tive data regarding the effect of moisture on the CO2 adsorptionproperties of activated carbon materials. Therefore, to accommo-date the CO2 production characteristics of food and meet therequirements of a dynamic food supply chain, the selection anddesign of CO2 absorbers should depend strongly on the type offood and the package conditions, in addition to adsorption ca-pacity. Future studies should be directed toward characterizing thedynamics of the interactions between the food, the packaging ma-terial, the absorber device and the environment in terms of CO2

permeation, absorption, dissolution, and production, which willlead to the development of optimal CO2 absorbers that preservefood with high quality and package soundness (Dong, 2016).

Carbon dioxide-emitting/generating packaging. As mentionedabove, relatively high levels of CO2 have direct antimicrobial effectson some microorganisms, mainly as a result of the high solubility ofCO2 in foods, especially at low temperatures (Chaix, Guillaume, &Guillard, 2014). Therefore, a high CO2 concentration is includedin the MAP system for chill-stored nonrespiring foods that are sus-ceptible to microbial spoilage (Dong, 2016). In the case of oxygenscavenger packs, oxygen removal creates a partial vacuum that mayresult in the collapse of flexible packaging. Additionally, when apackage is flushed with a mixture of gases including CO2 and O2,the CO2 dissolves in the product and can create a partial vac-uum, as well as consume oxygen due to the release of CO2 frominserted sachets based on either ferrous carbonate or a mixtureof sodium bicarbonate and ascorbic acid (Rooney, 1995). How-ever, the concentration of CO2 is dynamically changed, and loss



Table 4–Commercially available carbon dioxide emitters for food packaging applications (Fang et al., 2017; Realini & Marcos, 2014; Suppakul et al.,2003).

Year Commercial name Manufacturer Form

1988 VerifraisTM packagea SARL Codimer, France Sachets containing sodium bicarbonate/ascorbate2012∗ FreshPax R© Ma Multisorb Technologies Inc., USA Sachets2015∗ UltraZap R© Xtenda Pak pads Paper Pak Industries, Canada CO2 emitter and antimicrobial pad2017∗ Ageless R© Ga Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Inc., Japan SachetsNS∗ Microspheres Bernard Technologies, Inc. SachetsNS∗ Superfresh Vrtdal Plastindustri AS, Norway Box system with CO2 emitterNS∗ CO2

R© Fresh Pads CO2 Technologies, USA CO2 emitter padNS∗ Freshilizer R© Ca, CWa and CV Toppan Printing Co., Japan SachetsNS∗ Vitalon R© Ga Toagosei Chemical Co., Japan SachetsNS∗ Standa Standa Industrie, France Gel in sachets in contact with the foodaCombined actions of CO2 generating and O2 scavenging.“NS”: unknown year; “∗”: still commercially available.

occurs because CO2 dissolves in the meat and penetrates into theexternal environment through the packaging material (the perme-ability of CO2 through most plastic films is 3 to 5 times higher thanthat of oxygen) (Coma, 2008; Ozdemir & Floros, 2004). There-fore, CO2 emitters are beneficial and necessary for maintainingthe desired CO2 concentration in the packaging and ensuringthe efficacy of a MAP system. Table 4 presents the commercialnames, manufacturers, and forms of commercially available CO2

emitters that can be used to control CO2 concentrations in foodpackages. Microspheres

R©(Bernard Technologies, Inc., U.S.A.) can

produce a controlled and sustained release of chlorine dioxide gaswhen they interact with moisture (exposure to humidity greaterthan 80%) and light, which results in high activity against a broadspectrum of microorganisms, including actively growing vegeta-tive cells and spores. Microspheres

R©have been used to reduce

food safety risks for meat, poultry, fish, dairy, confectioneries, andbaked goods (Coma, 2008). The VerifraisTM package technology(SARL Codimer, Paris, France) consists of a standard MAP traythat has been successfully used to prolong the storage life of freshmeats. A porous sachet containing sodium bicarbonate/ascorbateis placed under the perforated false bottom of the tray, and it emitsCO2 when the exudates of the packaged meat drop onto thesachet. It has the dual effect of suppressing microorganisms andavoiding package collapse (Kerry et al., 2006). CO2

R©FreshPads

(CO2 Technologies, U.S.A.) are used for poultry, seafood, andmeat packaging, and they have a CO2-emitting process similar tothat utilized by VerifraisTM.

A recent study on the effect of vacuum or MAP in combinationwith a CO2 emitter on the quality parameters of cod loins (Gadusmorhua) was conducted by Hansen, Moen, Rødbotten, Berget,and Pettersen (2016). The CO2 emitters were prepared by adding0.304 g NaHCO3 and 0.237 g citric acid to a liquid absorberpad (Absorbent Pad Dri-Loc, Friedrichsdorf, Germany), whichalso functioned as a liquid absorbent pad. This study showed thatthe initial freshness was better preserved by adding a CO2 emit-ter to both the vacuum and the MAP, and the shelf-life of the“MAP + CO2 emitter” (approximately 13 days) was about 6 dayslonger compared to “Vacuum” (approximately 7 days). Addition-ally, CO2 emitters can help reduce the gas-to-product-volumeratio and subsequent reduction of the packaging headspace com-pared to optimal MAP, thus improving the transport efficiencyof the MAP without causing packaging collapse or compromis-ing quality and shelf-life (Hansen, Mørkøre, Rudi, Olsen, & Eie,2007, 2009). As shown in Table 4, some commercial CO2 emittershave dual functions because they contain combinations of CO2

emitters and O2 scavengers. However, very few studies have re-ported the development of films that can generate CO2, scavenge

O2, or perform both functions. Producing films with this capabil-ity is a top priority for manufacturers of CO2 emitters. Althoughthis concept is still in the initial stage of research, a recent study wasconducted to evaluate the effectiveness of three different antimi-crobial packaging structures in controlling the quality of a ready-to-eat meat product (Chen & Brody, 2013). Cooked ham sampleswere packaged into three different antimicrobial packaging struc-tures, including an oxygen barrier bag and an antimicrobial filmwith the capacity of generating CO2 or allyl isothiocyanate (AIT)or scavenging molecular O2. Samples in the packaging structureswith an O2 scavenger or a CO2 generator can effectively controlthe bacterial populations, particularly Listeria populations, and thepackaging structures with the AIT generator only exhibited lim-ited antimicrobial effects. The combination of the three antimicro-bial packaging systems showed synergistic antimicrobial activities(Fang et al., 2017).

Antioxidant packaging. High levels of oxygen in food packagescan facilitate microbial growth (such as aerobic bacteria, molds,and insects), oxidation of lipids and pigments, and loss of O2-sensitive nutrients such as vitamins A, C, and E, which lead tochanges in flavor (typical of rancidity), color, texture, and nutri-tive value. These changes can render the product unacceptablefor human consumption and may even result in the formation oftoxic aldehydes due to the degradation of polyunsaturated fattyacids (PUFAs) that have been positively correlated with the pre-vention of cardiovascular disease (Fang et al., 2017; Gomez-Estaca,Lopez-De-Dicastillo, Hernandez-Munoz, Catala, & Gavara, 2014;Harris, 2007; Realini & Marcos, 2014). Additionally, oxygen hasa considerable effect on the respiration rate and ethylene pro-duction rate of respiring foodstuffs such as fruits and vegetables(Lopez Rubio et al., 2004). Therefore, the removal of O2 fromthe package headspace is crucial to improve the quality and safetyof oxygen-sensitive food products, and it has long been a goal offood-packaging scientists. Although vacuum packaging or MAPcombined with a good oxygen barrier in the packaging film caneffectively limit the presence of oxygen, such techniques do notcompletely remove the oxygen inside the package because O2

permeates from the exterior through the packaging film, becauseof residual O2 at the time of packing, or because of poor sealing(Ahmed et al., 2017; Coma, 2008). Antioxidants can be directlyadded to food formulations by using certain processing steps suchas spraying, immersion, or mixing, which may cause changes infood quality parameters (color or taste) and may affect consumeracceptance of the product. Furthermore, such methods may en-counter the following limitation: once the active compounds areconsumed in the reaction, the protection ceases, and the quality ofthe food degrades more quickly (Mastromatteo, Conte, & Nobile,



2010). In these cases, active antioxidant packaging represents aninnovative strategy to improve the stability of oxidation-sensitivefood products and thus extend their shelf-life by incorporatingantioxidant agents in a polymer. Compared to the direct additionof antioxidants to food, Mastromatteo et al. (2010) and Bolumar,Andersen, and Orlien (2011) present some advantages of this tech-nology, such as lower demand for active compounds, localizedactivity for antioxidant agents, the controllability of antioxidantrelease, and the exclusion of certain processing steps. AntioxidantAP systems can be classified as oxygen scavengers (independentantioxidant devices) and antioxidant packaging materials (Gomez-Estaca et al., 2014).

Oxygen scavengers containing antioxidant agents that are sepa-rate from the food product are added to a conventional “passive”package, which can be used to packaging systems in differentforms (labels, pads, or sachets) (Gomez-Estaca et al., 2014). Cur-rently, O2 scavengers based on the oxidation of fine powders ofiron and ferrous oxide are the most effective and commonly usedscavengers available commercially. However, to prevent metallictastes from being imparted to foods, nonmetallic oxygen scav-engers such as ascorbic acid, sulfites, catechol, ascorbate salts, andenzymes such as ethanol oxidase or glucose oxidase have alsobeen utilized (Ahmed et al., 2017; Brody et al., 2008). To pre-vent scavengers from acting prematurely because of the ubiquitouspresence of oxygen, specialized mechanisms can be used to inducethe scavenging effect. For example, photosensitive dyes irradiatedby using ultraviolet (UV) light activate the process of O2 removal,whereas elevated moisture can trigger the scavenging reactions ofiron-based scavengers (Lopez Rubio et al., 2004). Furthermore,to avoid ingestion of the active substance in the sachet followingaccidental rupture, the current trend in commercial applicationshas been to incorporate O2 scavengers into the packaging material(Suppakul et al., 2003). Some previous articles have extensively re-viewed the uses and applications of oxygen scavenging packaging(Brody et al., 2008; Gomez-Estaca et al., 2014; Suppakul et al.,2003). Some commercially available O2 scavengers that could beused to control O2 levels and objectionable odors in food pack-aging are shown in Table 5. Additional examples of commerciallyavailable O2 scavengers can be found in Table 4.

Antioxidant packaging materials are being developed by incor-porating antioxidant agents into the packaging film walls (a poly-mer matrix) or within the product containers to exert their modeof action by reducing the presence of reactive oxygen species insidethe headspace and/or by releasing antioxidant compounds into thefood product or the headspace surrounding it (Ahmed et al., 2017;Gomez-Estaca et al., 2014). To choose the most appropriate activematerial for each type of food, the affinity of the food product andthe active materials should be evaluated (Granda-Restrepo et al.,2009). In addition, some authors have observed that antioxidantactivity does not always increase linearly with increasing amountsof incorporated antioxidant (Bentayeb, Rubio, Batlle, & Nerin,2007; Lopez-de-Dicastillo, Alonso, Catala, Gavara, & HernandezMunoz, 2010) and it may even decrease in some cases (Samra,Chedea, Economou, Calokerinos, & Kefalas, 2011; Zuta, Simp-son, Zhao, & Leclerc, 2007). This finding can be attributed to aninteraction between the antioxidant compounds and the polymermatrix, or a reduction in activity due to an excessive antioxidantconcentration. Further investigation must be carried out to con-trol the diffusion/release rate of the active compounds from/intothe practical packaging of foods, which will allow the agent con-centration in the headspace or the food products to be controlled.Furthermore, the manufacturing process of an antioxidant pack-

aging material is selected by considering the properties of theantioxidant compounds and the types of polymer. If the antiox-idant activity of the packaging material is activated by migratingantioxidant agents into the foods, the antioxidant agents releasedmust be permitted as food additives and should follow the relevantregulations in accordance with their maximum permissible con-centration (Fang et al., 2017).

Antioxidant packaging material is produced by intimately mix-ing the antioxidant agents (or the active substance that producethe antioxidant agents) with the packaging material through thefollowing procedures: (1) dissolving both into a suitable solventprior to the application of the solution to a substrate via coatingtechnologies, (2) melting the polymer and slotting and mixingthe agent into the melted polymer by using extrusion technolo-gies, or (3) immobilizing the antioxidant agents on the surfaceof the film (Ahmed et al., 2017; Gomez-Estaca et al., 2014).Traditionally, synthetic antioxidants such as butylated hydrox-yanisole (BHA), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), tertiary butylhydroquinone (TBHQ), propyl gallate (PG), and organophos-phate and thioester compounds have been used extensively toenhance the shelf-lives of food products by providing oxidativestability. Torres-Arreola, Soto-Valdez, Peralta, Cardenas-Lopez,and Ezquerra-Brauer (2007) reported that incorporation of BHTinto low-density polyethylene delayed lipid oxidation and pro-tein denaturation. However, the presence of synthetic antioxi-dants in food can have potential toxic and carcinogenic effects,and strict statutory controls are required. To avoid potential risksand meet the consumer need for safe natural foods, natural an-tioxidants such as plant extracts, tocopherol, or essential oils fromherbs and spices can be used as alternatives to synthetic antiox-idants, and will likely be utilized widely in food packaging toconfer antioxidant activity (Barbosa-Pereira, Aurrekoetxea, An-gulo, Paseiro-Losada, & Cruz, 2014; Realini & Marcos, 2014). Inaddition to having preservative roles, plant extracts and essentialoils in the packaging also provide health benefits to the consumerthrough their antioxidant and antimicrobial activities in the hu-man body once ingested (Ahmed et al., 2017; Fang et al., 2017).Gutierrez, Echeverrıa, Ihl, Bifani, and Mauri (2012) incorpo-rated a water extract of Murta leaves into carboxymethylcellulose–montmorillonite (CMC-MMT) nanocomposite films. Comparedto the CMC control film, the antioxidant capacity of the filmswas increased more than 18-fold according to the ABTS (2,2-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid radical) radical-scavenging assay. Yang, Lee, Won, and Song (2016) reported thatpork meat wrapped with DP (distiller dried grains with solubles)protein films containing green tea extract (GTE), oolong tea ex-tract (OTE), and black tea extract (BTE) had less lipid oxidationthan did the control, as measured by the DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazyl-hydrate radical) and ABTS radical-scavengingassays. Among the tea extracts, the DP film containing GTE hadthe greatest antioxidant activity. However, the incorporation of anantioxidant into films and coatings might influence their mechan-ical, optical, or barrier properties. Siripatrawan and Harte (2010)noticed that the incorporation of green tea extract into chitosanfilms lowered their water vapor permeability (WVP) and improvedtheir mechanical properties, and Wang et al. (2014) observed thatextracts from Lycium barbarum fruit, which contains carotenoids,flavonoids, and polysaccharides, improved the WVP of chitosanfilms due to bonding with the hydroxyl and amino groups ofthe matrix, but they decreased the elongation and tensile strength(TS) limit of the film. Peng, Wu, and Li (2013) also found a sim-ilar result with the addition of extracts from black or green tea.



Table 5–Commercially available O2 scavengers for food packaging applications (Ahmed et al., 2017; Fang et al., 2017; Kerry et al., 2006).

Year Commercial name Manufacturer Form Description

1994∗ O-Buster Hsaio Sung Non-OxygenChemical Co., Ltd., Taiwan

Sachets Based on iron oxidation

1998 Darex R© W.R. Grace & Co., USA Bottle and bottlecrowns

Based on ascorbate/metallic salt oxidation

1999 OxbarTM Constar International Inc.,Plymouth, USA

Film multilayer Based on cobalt catalysis/nylon polymer

2000∗ ShelfplusTM CIBA, USA Film multilayer Based on iron oxidation2001∗ Shelfplus R© O2 Albis Plastic GmbH, Germany Masterbatch Based on iron oxidation, Shelfplus R© O2 is simply mixed

with well-established packaging materials such as PE,PP, PA, or EVA

2003 ActiTUFTM M & G Finanziaria s.r.l.,Alessandria, Italy

Barrier resins Oxygen sensitive

2005∗ FreshPax R© Multisorb Technologies Inc.,USA

Sachets A palladium metal and hydrogen gas-based oxygenabsorber, which irreversibly absorbs oxygen insidesealed packaging to less than 0.01% and maintainsthis level

2009 Oxy-GuardTM Clariant Ltd., Switzerland Sachets Based on iron oxidation2009∗ FreshMax R© Multisorb Technologies Inc.,

USALabels Based on iron oxidation

2011 ZERO2TM 02 Control B.V., Netherlands Film The scavenger is activated by ultraviolet light2014∗ OxyRxTM Mullinix Packages Inc., USA Plastic containers Providing an active barrier to oxygen for use in storing

and dispensing bulk foods2015∗ Amosorb 2000 Colormatrix Holdings,

Inc. USAFilm multilayer Based on iron oxidation

2017∗ Cryovac R©OS Systems Cryovac Div., Sealed AirCorporation, USA

Film Incorporates a polymer-based oxygen scavenger into thepackaging film

2017∗ Cryovac R© OS2000TM Cryovac Div., Sealed AirCorporation, USA

Film The scavenger is activated by ultraviolet light and canreduce headspace oxygen levels from 1% to ppmlevels in 4–10 d

2017∗ Ageless R© Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Co.,Japan

Sachets/ labels Based on iron oxidation, the scavengers are designed toreduce oxygen levels to less than 0.1%.

NS∗ Oxycap Standa Industries, France Sachets/bottlecrowns

Based on iron oxidation

NS∗ OxyCatchTM Kyodo Printing Co., Ltd., Japan Sachets Integrates a high concentration of a ceriumoxide-lineage oxygen absorber and activates withoutthe involvement of water

NS∗ FreshilizerTM Toppan Printing Co., Japan Sachets Based on iron oxidationNS∗ Daraform R© W.R. Grace & Co., USA Sachets Based on ascorbic acid oxidationNS∗ Bioka R© Bioka Ltd., Kantvik, Finland Sachets and film

LaminatesBased on enzymatic oxidation

NS∗ ATCO R© Standa Industrie, France Labels The labels are able to scavenge levels of oxygen as highas 100–200 cm3

NS∗ ATCO R©DE 10S/100OS/200 OS

Emco Packaging Systems, UK Labels DE 10S labels used in sliced cooked meat packagesscavenge between 10 and 20 ccs of oxygen, 100 OSand 200 OS labels used in larger capacity packagingscavenge between 100 and 200 ccs of oxygen

NS∗ Oxysorb R© Pillsbury Co., USA Sachets Based on ascorbic acid oxidation, the scavenger is highlydependent on water activity and may be ineffective infrozen foods that contain little bound water

NS∗ OMAC R© Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Inc.,Japan

Films Based on cerium oxide, supports high temperatures andis suitable for retort and hot fill of meat and fishproducts

NS∗ Aegis HFX Resin andOXCE Resin

Honeywell International Inc.,USA

Barrier nylon resins Oxygen scavenging nylon


Therefore, the effects of incorporated antioxidant agents on themechanical and physical properties of films and coatings should beevaluated before adding antioxidants (Ganiari and others 2017).To obtain the optimal formulation with the highest antioxidantactivity and the best physical properties for active food packaging,Dicastillo and others (2016) developed a cross-linked methylcel-lulose (MC) film (an active film based on maqui berry extract) byadding glutaraldehyde (GA), which decreased the water solubil-ity, swelling, and WVP of MC films. The release of antioxidantsubstances from the active materials increased with the concen-tration of GA. Furthermore, a cross-linking effect was induced tohydroxypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC) films containing ascorbicor citric acid, which resulted in better mechanical properties andlower WVP and oxygen permeability (OP) (Atares, Perez-MasiA,& Chiralt, 2011). The use of antioxidant nanoparticles with en-larged contact area, compared to conventional antioxidant agents,

might allow for a reduction of the amount of active substances,which would efficiently reduce and/or avoid the effect of activesubstances on the natural properties of the base packaging material(Fang et al., 2017). In the past few years, to meet environmentalconcerns and minimize waste disposal problems, incorporation ofnatural antioxidants into biodegradable films is being investigatedas a new method of preventing food oxidation (Contini and others2014; Rodriguez-Aguilera and Oliveira 2009).

Antimicrobial packaging. One of the main reasons for the de-terioration of food quality is microbial growth, which leads todiscoloration, off-flavor development, textural changes, and theloss of nutritive value, and thus reduces the shelf-life of foodsand increases the risk of food-borne illness (Biji and others2015; Malhotra, Keshwani, & Kharkwal, 2015). As mentionedabove, moisture absorbers, CO2 emitters, and antioxidant pack-aging all have antimicrobial effects when incorporated into food



packaging systems. Antimicrobial AP extends the lag period andslows the growth of microorganisms in order to extend shelf-lifeand maintain food quality and safety (Han, 2000). Antimicrobialfood packaging materials can be classified into 2 types. One typeof antimicrobial food packaging is used in direct contact withthe food surface, so that antimicrobial agents can be evaporated(volatile substances) or migrated (volatile substances) into the foodproduct. This 1st type of antimicrobial food packaging is suitablefor vacuum-packed products or those wrapped with film. Theother type of antimicrobial food packaging is used without mak-ing direct contact with the food surface and includes technologieslike MAP (Fang et al., 2017; Kerry et al., 2006; Realini and Marcos2014). Although a large number of antimicrobial agents has beentested for the purpose of inhibiting the growth of microorganismsin foods, such as ethanol, carbon dioxide, silver ions, chlorine diox-ide, antibiotics, bacteriocins, organic acids, essential oils, and spices(Jayasena and Jo 2013; Malhotra et al., 2015; Suppakul et al., 2003),antimicrobial packaging has very limited commercial availability,except for silver-based antimicrobial materials, which are com-monly used in many countries such as the United States and Japan(Realini and Marcos 2014). Mulla and others (2017) chemicallymodified the surface of linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE)by chromic acid treatment, coated the surface with clove essentialoil, and assessed the antimicrobial properties of the resulting ma-terial. The composite films improved the UV-barrier property ofthe material and exhibited strong antimicrobial activity against L.monocytogenes and Salmonella typhimurium (Salmonella enterica subsp.enterica) in packed chicken samples for 21 d of refrigerated storage,but the melting and crystallization temperatures of the films withincorporated oil were significantly lower than the neat and etchedLLDPE films. Although many essential oils show promise becauseof their effects against microorganisms, some limitations have alsobeen identified in the application of essential oils in antimicrobialAP (Jayasena and Jo 2013). For example, Hyldgaard and others(2012) reported that the antimicrobial potency of essential oil con-stituents depends on the pH, temperature, and level of microbialcontamination present in the food. In practice, much higher con-centrations of essential oils were required to achieve antimicrobialeffects in foods in comparison with those required at laboratory-scale (Malhotra et al., 2015). In addition, the use of essential oilsmay cause negative sensory effects because of their intense aroma,which partially limits their use as preservatives in food. To alleviatethese problems, lower levels of essential oils can be combined withother antimicrobial compounds and/or preservative technologiessuch as MAP, high hydrostatic pressure, or low-dose irradiationto obtain a synergistic effect without compromising antimicrobialactivity (Jayasena and Jo 2013). Several authors have reported thatbetter results can be obtained by incorporating the volatile com-ponents of essential oils into films or edible coatings, and betterresults can also be obtained through the encapsulation of essentialoils in polymers with edible and biodegradable coatings, sachets,or nanoemulsions (Donsi and others 2011; Noshirvani and others2017; Ozogul and others 2017; Pola and others 2016).

Although an increasing effort has recently been devoted tothe development of antimicrobial packaging solutions, there areconsiderable differences in the ways antimicrobials are used atlaboratory-scale and in real-time applications, and, together withregulatory issues and technical constraints, these differences aresome of the main factors limiting the commercialization of an-timicrobial packaging systems (Realini and Marcos 2014; Malho-tra et al., 2015). Some of these differences in the characteristicsof antimicrobials at laboratory-scale and in real-application envi-

ronments may be attributed to the fact that real food systems havemore salt, less water, and lower levels of nutrients, carbohydrates,fats, and proteins, which are found to interact with antimicrobials(Burt 2004; Busatta and others 2008; Grower and others 2004).To successfully implement antimicrobial packaging solutions inthe market, it is essential to select the right package for the an-timicrobial agent and the environmental conditions faced by aparticular food product. A multidisciplinary approach involvingresearchers from all fields of biotechnology, particularly microbi-ology, food technology, engineering, and materials science, will benecessary to create antimicrobials with a promising future in thefood packaging industry (Malhotra et al., 2015). Several types ofantimicrobial packaging have been commercialized (Ahmed et al.,2017; Fang et al., 2017; Suppakul et al., 2003).

SOGPWith constantly increasing environmental concerns and regula-

tions, reducing the environmental burden of food packaging hasbecome a major force driving innovation in food packaging ma-terials, in addition to satisfying the growing consumer demand forhigh-quality, safe food (Davoudi and Sturzaker 2017; Licciardello,2017). Indeed, it is unquestionable that all types of food packag-ing have an environmental impact that varies with their life cycles(Huang & Ma, 2004; Ingrao et al., 2015, 2017). This environmen-tal impact is especially dependent on the manner in which the rawmaterials for the packaging were produced and processed, as wellas the end-of-life phase of the packaging, which may include recy-cling, incineration, or landfill disposal (Licciardello, 2017). SOGP,which is designed to be environmentally friendly, has become afocus among researchers aiming to minimize the environmentalimpact of the entire product-packaging chain and improve theenvironmental sustainability of food packaging systems (Peelmanet al., 2013). As reported by Peelman et al. (2013), SOGP can beachieved at three levels. First, on the level of raw materials, the useof recycled materials and renewable resources reduces CO2 emis-sions and dependency on fossil resources. Second, on the level ofthe production process, SOGP utilizes lighter and thinner pack-aging that is produced using relatively energy-efficient processes.Third, on the level of waste management, reuse or recycling offood packaging that is biodegradable and/or compostable can con-tribute to alleviating the problem of municipal solid waste. In thepast decade, the pace of bioplastic development and applicationin food packaging has increased because of interest from the foodpackaging and distribution industry, which has taken up the chal-lenge of replacing traditional synthetic polymers in at least someapplications. According to the European Bioplastics Organization,bioplastics are plastics based on renewable resources (biobased)or plastics that are biodegradable and/or compostable. However,not all biopolymers are biodegradable. For example, polyethylene(“green-PE”) and polyethylene terephthalate (“bio-PET”) are ob-tained from renewable resources and are chemically identical toconventional polymers (Licciardello, 2017). To date, a wide rangeof biodegradable biopolymers have been used in food packaging,including polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), polylactic acid (PLA),zein, soy protein isolate, starches, cellulose, gluten, whey proteinisolate, and chitosan (Peelman et al., 2013). However, several majorlimitations restrict the application of bioplastics in food packag-ing materials, including their high cost compared to conventionalplastics, brittleness, thermal instability, low melt strength, difficultheat sealability, high water vapor, high oxygen permeability, badprocessability, and poor impact resistance (Cyras, Soledad, &Analıa, 2009; Jamshidian, Tehrany, Imran, Jacquot, & Desobry,



2010; Mensitieri et al., 2011; Rhim, Hong, & Ha, 2009). To im-prove the properties of bioplastics (especially their barrier capacitiestoward gases and water), different strategies and techniques havebeen investigated, such as coating biobased films, incorporationof nanoparticles or biopolymer cellulose, and chemical/physicalmodification, such as crosslinking (Peelman et al., 2013). For ex-ample, Hirvikorpi, Vaha-Nissi, Nikkola, Harlin, and Karppinen(2011) reported that a thin (25 nm) and highly uniform Al2O3

coating can significantly improve the oxygen and water vapor bar-rier performance of several materials (PLA-coated board, PLAfilm, nano-fibrillated cellulose film, PHB) by using the atomiclayer deposition (ALD) technique. Sanchez-Garcia, Lopez-Rubio,and Lagaron (2010) showed that the addition of mica-based nan-oclays to PLA reduced their UV transmittance. Sanuja, Agalya,and Umapathy (2014) demonstrated that incorporation of nanomagnesium oxide and clove essential oil into a chitosan matrixincreased its tensile strength (TS), elongation limit, and water bar-rier performance. Rodrıguez, Galotto, Guarda, and Bruna (2012)developed cellulose acetate films with organic montmorillonite asa nanofiller, which reduced the transmission rates of oxygen andwater through the film by 50% and 10%, respectively, comparedto those of cellulose acetate films without nanofillers. This reduc-tion can be attributed to the fact that the polymer molecules wereconfined between the dispersed nanoparticles, which provided atortuous path and thus forced the water and gas molecules to travela longer path to diffuse through the film (Peelman et al., 2013).Some biopolymer-based nanocomposites and their enhanced ma-terial properties, processing methods, and levels of incorporationwere reported recently by Mihindukulasuriya and Lim (2014).Mu et al. (2012) revealed that the addition of dialdehyde car-boxymethyl cellulose (DCMC) as a cross-linker to a glycerol-plasticized gelatin edible film caused a significant improvement inits optical, physical, thermal, and mechanical properties comparedwith those of the untreated film. Garavand, Rouhi, Razavi, Cac-ciotti, and Mohammadi (2017) reported that using carboxylic acidsand calcium ions as crosslinking agents can improve the physio-chemical, thermal, and mechanical properties of most biopoly-mers such as alginate, pectin, whey proteins, chitosan, starch,and gelatin. From environmental, cost, and health perspectives,the crosslinking approach is a more cost-effective and efficientmethod of improving the permeability and/or thermomechanicalattributes of film-forming biopolymers compared to nanotechnol-ogy, especially for naturally occurring crosslinking agents, such assome nanoparticles, which can induce intracellular damage, pul-monary inflammation, and vascular disease when they migrateinto food (Das, Saxena, & Dwivedi, 2008; Echegoyen & Nerin,2013). However, more studies are needed to better understandthe advantages and disadvantages of nanomaterials, enhance theirpositive effects on health, safety, and the environment, and de-crease the tendency for migration of undesired nanoparticles infood product (Mihindukulasuriya & Lim, 2014).

Another important issue in SOGP is packaging reduction,which has 2 meanings. First, avoid excessive packaging or over-packaging by reducing the amount of packaging materials usedwithout compromising the appearance of packaged products. Sec-ond, reduce the weight and thickness of packaging without af-fecting product shelf-life standards. Avoiding overpackaging canimprove environmental sustainability and reduce the cost of prod-uct processing, which can lower the price of the product. Thesefeatures are undoubtedly very beneficial for consumers and smalland medium-sized companies. High-weight food packaging di-rectly increases the costs of processing, transport, and distribution

and results in a relatively severe environmental burden; such foodsinclude carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in PET bottles,glass bottles, and aluminum cans (Amienyo, Gujba, Stichnothe,& Azapagic, 2013; Bonamente et al., 2016; Cimini and Moresi2016). Several different strategies can be used to reduce the weightof packaging, such as reducing the packaging thickness, changingthe package geometry, and utilizing alternative materials. How-ever, for most beverage products, CO2 content is the key pa-rameter determining the taste and shelf-life of the product; thus,minimization of packaging weight should not affect the CO2 re-tention performance/CO2 barrier performance or shelf-life stan-dards of the product (Licciardello, 2017). Packaging thickness canbe reduced by innovation and development to produce new andimproved packaging materials with better barrier performance,enhanced mechanical performance, and/or other superior func-tional properties. Although nanotechnologies have not yet reachedwidespread application in food packaging, because of toxicologi-cal concerns and technical limitations, they have great promise asraw materials that could be used to develop packaging materialswith improved performance and reduced thickness (Mihindukula-suriya & Lim, 2014; Wyser et al., 2016). Additionally, a close-knitcollaboration between producers and food packaging scientists isneeded to synergistically address food packaging sustainability.

Future TrendsImplementation of the ultimate packaging

IOSP is used to monitor the condition of packaged food orthe environment surrounding the food and to convey food qual-ity and safety information to stakeholders (such as manufacturers,retailers, and consumers) in food supply chains, which facilitatesdecision-making about the freshness and edibility of foods (Eu-ropean Commission 2004; Ghaani, Cozzolino, Castelli, & Farris,2016; Restuccia et al., 2010). However, intelligent packaging doesnot directly improve the quality and safety of foods or extend shelf-life. AP is intended to extend the shelf-life of packaged food orto maintain or improve its properties based on the interactionsbetween active compounds and food and/or packaging headspace(European Commission 2004). Therefore, the combination of in-telligent packaging and AP will be an important issue for foodpackaging innovation in the future. To improve environmentalsustainability, future developments in food packaging should bedirected towards the “ultimate” packaging, which will combineall of the benefits of IOSP, AP, and SOGP.

Safety and economic issuesAlthough technological innovations in food packaging can en-

hance the safety and quality of food products, safety concernsand limitations must be considered. Such concerns and limita-tions include the migration of active and intelligent substances,accidental leakage of active components from a sachet, and hu-man ingestion of active and intelligent substances. Sachets used inpackages should be clearly marked “do not eat,” or they shouldbe replaced by directly incorporating active components into oronto the package. Natural extracts can also be used to improvefood safety. The overall tendency for migration of compoundsfrom active and intelligent packaging to packaged foods must beinvestigated prior to the use of any new type of packaging ma-terials, and a threshold of regulation must be established by theU.S. FDA and EC regarding maximum levels of transfer of activematerials and nanoparticles to food products (Ahvenainen, 2003;Chaudhry et al., 2008). Furthermore, the commercial applicationof innovative food packages might cause an increase in individual



product unit costs and prices, especially during the early phases ofproduct introduction, which may directly affect consumer behav-ior and acceptance (Mihindukulasuriya & Lim, 2014). From themanufacturer’s point of view, the profit margins of food are rela-tively low compared to those of other consumer products (Dainelliet al., 2008). Therefore, the use of innovative packages in the foodindustry should be based on proper cost-benefit analyses to justifytheir implementation (Restuccia et al., 2010). Further research anddevelopment in the field of packaging materials represents a viablepath toward lower product cost without affecting improvementsin food shelf life.

Integral performance evaluation of packaging innovationsFood waste (or loss) can cause unnecessary environmental im-

pacts in addition to carrying ethical concerns, especially for house-hold food waste. A survey carried out in Europe estimated theavoidable food losses over the whole food value chain at approxi-mately 280 kg per person per year (Gustavsson, Cederberg, Sones-son, & van Otterdijk, 2011), 45% of which was generated at thehousehold level. As Beretta, Stoessel, Baier, and Hellweg (2013)reported, most of the losses occurring at the harvesting, storage,transportation, and processing levels are unavoidable, and they areusually less relevant from an environmental point of view becausethey can be used for feeding. Losses occurring in households andin restaurants are mainly avoidable; also, wasted materials do nofind alternative use and are usually entirely lost. Williams, Wik-strom, Otterbring, Lofgren, and Gustafsson (2012) found that 20%to 25% of household food wastes are associated with food pack-aging. Therefore, packaging innovations can reduce the environ-mental impact of food waste by prolonging shelf-life and reducingwaste along the distribution chain and at the household level (Lic-ciardello, 2017). Additionally, secondary shelf-life extension (afterpackage-opening) should receive future research attention becauseit is very helpful for reducing food waste at the household level(Manfredi, Fantin, Vignali, & Gavara, 2015). However, to assess theequilibrium between technological innovation and environmentalprotection, the environmental impact of packaging innovationsand food losses should also be examined by using the life-cycleassessment (LCA) methodology (including raw material extractionand processing, packaging manufacture, transport, and retail, anddisposal of food and packaging, even at the household level) inaddition to evaluating the impact on food shelf-life or packagingcharacteristics such as optical, physical, thermal, and mechanicalproperties.

ConclusionsFood packaging technologies are improving continuously

in response to lifestyle changes and the ever-increasing de-mand for high-quality and safe foods. Food packaging helps extendshelf-life and maintain the sensory properties, quality, and safetyof packaged food, and researchers studying packaging seek topromote environmental sustainability. However, additional effortshould be focused on overcoming the technical constraints andhigh costs associated with these technologies, which have beenthe main factors preventing wider implementation and the de-velopment of additional commercial applications for new typesof packaging materials in the food packaging industry. However,advances in nanotechnology offer great potential for overcomingexisting challenges associated with packaging materials and costreduction. Finally, to increase the safety and effectiveness of newfood packaging technologies and ensure the sustainable growth ofmodern societies, continuous research and development should be

performed based on collaboration between government regulatoryagencies, industries, consumers, and multidisciplinary experts.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors express thanks for financial support from the Na-

tional Natural Science Foundation of China (31671593) andthe FP7 International Research Staff Exchange Scheme Project(PIRSES-GA-2013-612659). We thank Professor Chun-JiangZhao for kind suggestions regarding production of the graphicsin Figure 1 and 2. The authors declare that there are no conflictsof interest regarding the publication of this manuscript.

Author ContributionsJ. Han was responsible for searching and interpreting the

literature, and writing the manuscript; L. Ruiz-Garcia and J.Qian were responsible for checking grammar and formatting themanuscript; X. Yang gave valuable assistance regarding major re-visions of the manuscript.

References

Aday, M. S., Caner, C., & Rahvalı, F. (2011). Effect of oxygen and carbondioxide absorbers on strawberry quality. Postharvest Biology and Technology,62, 179–187.

Ahmed, I., Lin, H., Zou, L., Brody, A. L., Li, Z., Qazi, I. M., . . . Liangtao,L. (2017). A comprehensive review on the application of active packagingtechnologies to muscle foods. Food Control, 82, 163–178.

Ahvenainen, R. (2003). Active and intelligent packaging: An introduction. InR. Ahvenainen (Ed.), Novel food packaging techniques (pp. 5–21). Cambridge,UK: Woodhead Publishing Ltd.

Ahvenainen, R., Eilamo, M., & Hurme, E. (1997). Detection of impropersealing and quality deterioration of modified-atmosphere-packed pizza by acolour indicator. Food Control, 8, 177–184.

Amienyo, D., Gujba, H., Stichnothe, H., & Azapagic, A. (2013). Life cycleenvironmental impacts of carbonated soft drinks. The International Journal ofLife Cycle Assessment, 18, 77–92.

Atares, L., Perez-MasiA, R., & Chiralt, A. (2011). The role of someantioxidants in the HPMC film properties and lipid protection in coatedtoasted almonds. Journal of Food Engineering, 104, 649–656.

Bai, H. W., Zhou, G. H., Hu, Y. N., Sun, A. D., Xu, X. L., Liu, X. J., & Lu,C. H. (2017). Traceability technologies for farm animals and their productsin China. Food Control, 79, 35–43.

Barbosa-Pereira, L., Aurrekoetxea, G. P., Angulo, I., Paseiro-Losada, & Cruz,J. M. (2014). Development of new active packaging films coated withnatural phenolic compounds to improve the oxidative stability of beef. MeatScience, 97, 249–254.

Bentayeb, K., Rubio, C., Batlle, R., & Nerin, C. (2007). Directdetermination of carnosic acid in a new active packaging based on naturalextract of rosemary. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 389, 1989–1996.

Beretta, C., Stoessel, F., Baier, U., & Hellweg, S. (2013). Quantifying foodlosses and the potential for reduction in Switzerland. Waste Management, 33,764–773.

Bibi, F., Guillaume, C., Gontard, N., & Sorli, B. (2017). A review: RFIDtechnology having sensing aptitudes for food industry and their contributionto tracking and monitoring of food products. Trends in Food Science &Technology, 62, 91–103.

Biji, K. B., Ravishankar, C. N., Mohan, C. O., & Srinivasa Gopal, T. K.(2015). Smart packaging systems for food applications: a review. Journal ofFood Science and Technology, 52, 6125–6135.

Bodenhamer, W. T. 2005. Method and apparatus for selective biologicalmaterial detection. US Patent 6841392. (Toxin Alert, Inc., Canada).

Bolumar, T., Andersen, M. L., & Orlien, V. (2011). Antioxidant activepackaging for chicken meat processed by high pressure treatment. FoodChemistry, 129, 1406–1412.

Bonamente, E., Scrucca, F., Rinaldi, R., Merico, M. C., Asdrubali, F., &Lamastra, L. (2016). Environmental impact of an Italian wine bottle: Carbonand water footprint assessment. Science of the Total Environment, 560–561,274–283.



Brahmi, F., Abdenour, A., Bruno, M., Silvia, P., Alessandra, P., Danilo, F.,. . . Mohamed, C. (2016). Chemical composition and in vitro,antimicrobial, insecticidal and antioxidant activities of the essential oils ofmentha pulegium, l. and mentha rotundifolia, (l.) huds growing in Algeria.Industrial Crops and Products, 88, 96–105.

Brody, A. L., Bugusu, B., Han, J. H., Sand, C. K., & McHugh, T. H. (2008).Innovative food packaging solutions. Journal of Food Science, 73, R107–16.

Burt, S. (2004). Essential oils: their antibacterial properties and potentialapplications in foods-a review. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 94,223–253.

Busatta, C., Vidal, R. S., Popiolski, A. S., Mossi, A. J., Dariva, C.,Rodrigues, M. R., Corazza, F. C., Corazza, M. L., Vladimir, Oliveira J, &Cansian, R. L. (2008). Application of origanum majorana, L. essential oil asan antimicrobial agent in sausage. Food Microbiology, 25, 207–211.

Caplicec, E., & Fitzgeralda, G. F. (1999). Food fermentations: Role ofmicroorganisms in food production and preservation. International Journal ofFood Microbiology, 50, 131–149.

Carbone, M., Donia, D. T., Sabbatella, G., & Antiochia, R. (2016). Silvernanoparticles in polymeric matrices for fresh food packaging. Journal of KingSaud University - Science, 28, 273–279.

Carocho, M., Morales, P., & Ferreira, I. C. F. R. (2015). Natural foodadditives: Quo vadis?. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 45, 284–295.

Carrizo, D., Taborda, G., Nerın, C., & Bosetti, O. (2016). Extension of shelflife of two fatty foods using a new antioxidant multilayer packagingcontaining green tea extract. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies,33, 534–541.

Chaix, E., Guillaume, C., & Guillard, V. (2014). Oxygen and carbon dioxidesolubility and diffusivity in solid food matrices: A review of past and currentknowledge. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 13,261–286.

Chatterjee, C., & Sen, A. (2015). Sensitive colorimetrisc sensors for visualdetection of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Journal of Materials ChemistryA, 3, 5642–5647.

Chaudhry, Q., Scotter, M., Blackburn, J., Ross, B., Boxall, A., Castle, L.,. . . Watkins, R. (2008). Applications and implications of nanotechnologiesfor the food sector. Food Additives and Contaminants, 25, 241–258.

Chen, J., & Brody, A. L. (2013). Use of active packaging structures to controlthe microbial quality of a ready-to-eat meat product. Food Control, 30,306–310.

Choi, W. S., Singh, S., & Lee, Y. S. (2016). Characterization of edible filmcontaining essential oils in hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and its effect onquality attributes of ‘formosa’ plum (prunus salicina, l.). LWT - Food Scienceand Technology, 70, 213–222.

Chung, W. Y., Le, G. T., Tran, T. V., & Nguyen, N. H. (2017). Novelproximal fish freshness monitoring using batteryless smart sensor tag. Sensorsand Actuators B, 248, 910–916.

Cimini, A., & Moresi, M. (2016). Carbon footprint of a pale lager packed indifferent formats: Assessment and sensitivity analysis based on transparentdata. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 4196–4213.

Coma, V. (2008). Bioactive packaging technologies for extended shelf life ofmeat based products. Meat Science, 78, 90–103.

Contini, C., Alvarez R, O’Sullivan, M., Dowling, D. P., Gargan, S. O., &Monahan, F. J. (2014). Effect of an active packaging with citrus extract onlipid oxidation and sensory quality of cooked turkey meat. Meat Science, 96,1171–1176.

Cyras, V. P., Soledad, C. M., & Analıa, V. (2009). Biocomposites based onrenewable resource: Acetylated and non-acetylated cellulose cardboardcoated with polyhydroxybutyrate. Polymer, 50, 6274–6280.

Dainelli, D., Gontard, N., Spyropoulos, D., Zondervan-van den Beuken, E.,& Tobback, P. (2008). Active and intelligent food packaging: Legal aspectsand safety concerns. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(Suppl1):S103–S112.

Das, M., Saxena, N., & Dwivedi, P. D. (2008). Emerging trends ofnanoparticles application in food technology: Safety paradigms.Nanotoxicology, 3, 10–18.

Davoudi, S., & Sturzaker, J. (2017). Urban form, policy packaging andsustainable urban metabolism. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 120,55–64.

Dicastillo, C. L. D., Bustos, F., Guarda, A., & Galotto, M. J. (2016).Cross-linked methyl cellulose films with murta fruit extract for antioxidantand antimicrobial active food packaging. Food Hydrocolloids, 60, 335–344.

Dobrucka, R., & Cierpiszewski, R. (2014). Active and intelligent packagingfood - Research and development - A review. Polish Journal Of Food AndNutrition Sciences, 64, 7–15.

Dong, S. L. (2016). Carbon dioxide absorbers for food packagingapplications. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 57, 146–155.

Donsı, F., Annunziata, M., Sessa, M., & Ferrari, G. (2011).Nanoencapsulation of essential oils to enhance their antimicrobial activity infoods. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 44, 1908–1914.

Echegoyen, Y., & Nerin, C. (2013). Nanoparticle release from nanosilverantimicrobial food containers. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 62, 16–22.

Elsamahy, M. A., Saa, M., Abdel Rehim, M. H., & Mohram, M. E.(2017). Synthesis of hybrid paper sheets with enhanced air barrier andantimicrobial properties for food packaging. Carbohydrate Polymers, 168,212–219.

European Commission. (2004). Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004. OfficialJournal of the European Union, L338/4(1935), 4–17.

European Commission. (2009). Regulation (EC) No. 450/2009. OfficialJournal of European Union, L 135(450), 3–11.

Fang, Z., Zhao, Y., Warner, R. D., & Johnson, S. K. (2017). Active andintelligent packaging in meat industry. Trends in Food Science & Technology,61, 60–71.

Fernandez-Pan, I., Carrion-Granda, X., & Mate, J. I. (2014). Antimicrobialefficiency of edible coatings on the preservation of chicken breast fillets.Food Control, 36, 69–75.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2013). Recommendations of theUnited States Public Health Service, National Technical InformationService Publication PB2013-110462. Available from: Retrieved fromhttps://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/ucm374275.htm

Ganiari, S., Choulitoudi, E., & Oreopoulou, V. (2017). Edible and activefilms and coatings as carriers of natural antioxidants for lipid food. Trends inFood Science and Technology, 68, 70–82.

Garavand, F., Rouhi, M., Razavi, S. H., Cacciotti, I., & Mohammadi, R.(2017). Improving the integrity of natural biopolymer films used in foodpackaging by crosslinking approach: A review. International Journal ofBiological Macromolecules, 104, 687–707.

Ghaani, M., Cozzolino, C. A., Castelli, G., & Farris, S. (2016). An overviewof the intelligent packaging technologies in the food sector. Trends in FoodScience & Technology, 51, 1–11.

Goffin, A. L., Raquez, J. M., Duquesne, E., Siqueira, G., Habibi, Y.,Dufresne, A., & Dubois, P. (2011). From interfacial ring-openingpolymerization to melt processing of cellulose nanowhisker-filledpolylactide-based nanocomposites. Biomacromolecules, 12, 2456–2465.

Goldsmith, R. M., Goldsmith, C., Woodaman, J. G., Park, D. L., & Ayala, C.E. 1999. Food sentinel system TM. World Intellectual PropertyOrganization. WO/1999/ 014598 Patent.

Gomez-Estaca, J., Lopez-De-Dicastillo, C., Hernandez-Munoz, P., Catala,R., & Gavara, R. (2014). Advances in antioxidant active food packaging.Trends in Food Science & Technology, 35, 42–51.

Gram, L., Ravn, L., Rasch, M., Bruhn, J. B., Christensen, A. B., & Givskov,M. (2002). Food spoilage—Interactions between food spoilage bacteria.International Journal of Food Microbiology, 78, 79–97.

Granda-Restrepo, D. M., Soto-Valdez, H., Peralta, E., Troncoso-Rojas, R.,Vallejo-Cordoba, B., Gamez-Meza, N., & Graciano-Verdugo, A. Z. (2009).Migration of alpha-tocopherol from an active multilayer film into wholemilk powder. Food Research International, 42, 1396–1402.

Grower, J. L., Cooksey, K., & Getty, K. J. (2004). Development andcharacterization of an antimicrobial packaging film coating containing nisinfor inhibition of listeria monocytogenes. Journal of Food Protection, 67,475–479.

Gupta, R. K., & Dudeja, P. 2017. Chapter 46 Food packaging. In: FoodSafety in the 21st Century. p 547–53.

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., & van Otterdijk, R. 2011.Global food losses and food waste; Extent, causes and prevention.Gothenburg (Sweden), and FAO, Rome (Italy): Swedish Institute for Foodand Biotechnology (SIK).

Gutierrez, M. Q., Echeverrıa, I., Ihl, M., Bifani, V., & Mauri, A. N. (2012).Carboxymethylcellulose–montmorillonite nanocomposite films activatedwith murta (ugni molinae, turcz) leaves extract. Carbohydrate Polymers, 87,1495–1502.

Haarer, D., Gueta-Neyroud, T., & Salman, H. 2012. Time temperatureindicator. Chinese Patent 101652645B.

Hafsa, J., Smach, M. A., Khedher, M. R. B., Charfeddine, B., Limem, K.,Majdoub, H., & Rouatbi, S. (2016). Physical, antioxidant and antimicrobialproperties of chitosan films containing eucalyptus globulus, essential oil.LWT - Food Science and Technology, 68, 356–364.


https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/ucm374275.htm

https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/ucm374275.htm


Han, J. H. (2000). Antimicrobial food packaging. Food Technology, 54, 56–65.Hansen, A. A., Moen, B., Rødbotten, M., Berget, I., & Pettersen, M. K.(2016). Effect of vacuum or modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) incombination with a CO2, emitter on quality parameters of cod loins (Gadusmorhua). Food Packaging and Shelf Life, 9, 29–37.

Hansen, A. A., Mørkøre, T., Rudi, K., Olsen, E., & Eie, T. (2007). Qualitychanges during refrigerated storage of ma-packaged pre -rigor, fillets offarmed Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua, L.) using traditional MAP, CO2,emitter, and vacuum. Journal of Food Science, 72, M423–M430.

Hansen, A. A., Mørkøre, T., Rudi, K., Rødbotten, M., Bjerke, F., & Eie, T.(2009). Quality changes of prerigor filleted Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.)packaged in modified atmosphere using CO2 emitter, traditional MAP, andvacuum. Journal of Food Science, 74, M242–M249.

Harris, W. S. (2007). Omega-3 fatty acids and cardiovascular disease: A casefor omega-3 index as a new risk factor. Pharmacological Research, 55,217–223.

Hirvikorpi, T., Vaha-Nissi, M., Nikkola, J., Harlin, A., & Karppinen, M.(2011). Thin Al2O3, barrier coatings onto temperature-sensitive packagingmaterials by atomic layer deposition. Surface and Coatings Technology, 205,5088–5092.

Hong, S. I., & Park, W. S. (2000). Use of color indicators as an activepackaging system for evaluating kimchi fermentation. Journal of FoodEngineering, 46, 67–72.

Huang, C. C., & Ma, H. W. (2004). A multidimensional environmentalevaluation of packaging materials. Science of the Total Environment, 324,161–172.

Hyldgaard, M., Mygind, T., & Meyer, R. L. (2012). Essential oils in foodpreservation: mode of action, synergies, and interactions with food matrixcomponents. Frontiers in Microbiology, 3, 1–24.

Ingrao, C., Gigli, M., & Siracusa, V. (2017). An attributional life cycleassessment application experience to highlight environmental hotspots inthe production of foamy polylactic acid trays for fresh-food packaging usage.Journal of Cleaner Production, 150, 93–103.

Ingrao, C., Lo Giudice, A., Bacenetti, J., Mousavi Khaneghah, A., Sant’Ana,A. D. S., Rana, R., & Siracusa, V. (2015). Foamy polystyrene trays forfresh-meat packaging: Lifecycle inventory data collection and environmentalimpact assessment. Food Research International, 76, 418–426.

Jamshidian, M., Tehrany, E. A., Imran, M., Jacquot, M., & Desobry, S.(2010). Poly-lactic acid: Production, applications, nanocomposites, andrelease studies. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 9,552–571.

Jayasena, D. D., & Jo, C. (2013). Essential oils as potential antimicrobial agentsin meat and meat products: a review. Trends in Food Science and Technology,34, 96–108.

Jensen, T., Debord, W. K., & Hatchett, J. 2013. Perishable product electroniclabel. Chinese Patent 1759303B.

Jouki, M., Yazdi, F. T., Mortazavi, S. A., & Koocheki, A. (2014). Quince seedmucilage films incorporated with oregano essential oil: Physical, thermal,barrier, antioxidant and antibacterial properties. Food Hydrocolloids, 36, 9–19.

Kerry, J. P., O’Grady, M. N., & Hogan, S. A. (2006). Past, current andpotential utilisation of active and intelligent packaging systems for meat andmuscle-based products: A review. Meat Science, 74, 113–130.

Krepker, M., Shemesh, R., Poleg, Y. D., Kashi, Y., Vaxman, A., & Segal, E.(2017). Active food packaging films with synergistic antimicrobial activity.Food Control, 76, 117–126.

Kuswandi, B., Maryska, C., Jayus Abdullah, A., & Heng, L. Y. (2013). Realtime on-package freshness indicator for guavas packaging. Journal of FoodMeasurement and Characterization, 7, 29–39.

Licciardello, F. (2017). Packaging, blessing in disguise. review on its diversecontribution to food sustainability. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 65,32–39.

Lim, S., Gunasekaran, S., & Imm, J. Y. (2012). Gelatin-templated goldnanoparticles as novel time-temperature indicator. Journal of Food Science, 77,N45–N49.

Lopez-Cervantes, J., Sanchez-Machado, D. I., Pastorelli, S., Rijk, R., &Paseiro-Losada, P. (2003). Evaluating the migration of ingredients fromactive packaging and development of dedicated methods: A study of twoiron-based oxygen absorbers. Food Additives and Contaminants, 20,291–299.

Lopez-de-Dicastillo, C., Alonso, J., Catala, R., Gavara, R., & HernandezMunoz, P. (2010). Improving the antioxidant protection of packaged foodby incorporating natural flavonoids into ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer(EVOH) films. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 58, 10958–10964.

Lopez Rubio, A., Almenar, E., Hernandez Munoz, P., Lagaron, J. M., Catala,R., & Gavara, R. (2004). Overview of active polymer-based packagingtechnologies for food applications. Food Reviews International, 20, 357–387.

Ma, Q., Du, L., & Wang, L. (2017). Tara gum/polyvinyl alcohol-basedcolorimetric nh3 indicator films incorporating curcumin for intelligentpackaging. Sensors and Actuators B, 244, 759–766.

Malhotra, B., Keshwani, A., & Kharkwal, H. (2015). Antimicrobial foodpackaging: Potential and pitfalls. Frontiers in Microbiology, 6, 611.https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00611.

Manfredi, M., Fantin, V., Vignali, G., & Gavara, R. (2015). Environmentalassessment of antimicrobial coatings for packaged fresh milk. Journal ofCleaner Production, 95, 291–300.

Marx, D., Joss, L., Hefti, M., Pini, R., & Mazzotti, M. (2013). The role ofwater in adsorption-based CO2 capture systems. Energy Procedia, 37,107–114.

Mastromatteo, M., Conte, A., & Nobile, M. A. D. (2010). Advances incontrolled release devices for food packaging applications. Trends in FoodScience & Technology, 21, 591–598.

Mensitieri, G., Di, M. E., Buonocore, G. G., Nedi, I., Oliviero, M.,Sansone, L., & Lannace, S. (2011). Processing and shelf life issues of selectedfood packaging materials and structures from renewable resources. Trends inFood Science & Technology, 22(2-3), 72–80.

Mihindukulasuriya, S. D. F., & Lim, L. T. (2014). Nanotechnologydevelopment in food packaging: A review. Trends in Food Science &Technology, 40(2), 149–167.

Morris, J. (2011). How safe is our food?. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 17,126–128.

Mu, C., Guo, J., Li, X., Lin, W., & Li, D. (2012). Preparation and propertiesof dialdehyde carboxymethyl cellulose crosslinked gelatin edible films. FoodHydrocolloids, 27, 22–29.

Mulla, M., Ahmed, J., Al-Attar, H., Castro-Aguirre, E., Arfat, Y. A., &Auras, R. (2017). Antimicrobial efficacy of clove essential oil infused intochemically modified lldpe film for chicken meat packaging. Food Control,73, 663–671.

Narayanan, M., Loganathan, S., Valapa, R. B., Thomas, S., & Varghese, T. O.(2017). Uv protective poly(lactic acid)/rosin films for sustainable packaging.International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 99, 37–45.

Nerın, C., Tovar, L., & Salafranca, J. (2008). Behaviour of a new antioxidantactive film versus oxidizable model compound. Journal of Food Engineering,84, 313–320.

Noshirvani, N., Ghanbarzadeh, B., Gardrat, C., Rezaei, M. R., Hashemi,M., Coz, C. L., & Coma, V. (2017). Cinnamon and ginger essential oils toimprove antifungal, physical and mechanical properties ofchitosan-carboxymethyl cellulose films. Food Hydrocolloids, 70, 36–45.

Ozdemir, M., & Floros, J. D. (2004). Active food packaging technologies.Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 44, 185–193.

Ozogul, Y., Yuvka I., Ucar, Y., Durmus, M., Kosker, A. R., Oz, M., &Ozogul, F. (2017). Evaluation of effects of nanoemulsion based on herbessential oils (rosemary, laurel, thyme and sage) on sensory, chemical andmicrobiological quality of rainbow trout (oncorhynchus mykiss) filletsduring ice storage. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 75, 677–684.

Peelman, N., Ragaert, P., Meulenaer, B. D., Adons, D., Peeters, R., Cardon,L., . . . Devlieghere, F. (2013). Application of bioplastics for foodpackaging. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 32, 128–141.

Peng, Y., & Li, Y. (2014). Combined effects of two kinds of essential oils onphysical, mechanical and structural properties of chitosan films. FoodHydrocolloids, 36, 287–293.

Peng, Y., Wu, Y., & Li, Y. (2013). Development of tea extracts and chitosancomposite films for active packaging materials. International Journal ofBiological Macromolecules, 59, 282–289.

Pola, C. C., Medeiros, E. A. A., Pereira, O. L., Souza, V. G. L., Otoni, C. G.,Camilloto, G. P., & Soares, N. F. F. (2016). Cellulose acetate active filmsincorporated with oregano (origanum vulgare) essential oil and organophilicmontmorillonite clay control the growth of phytopathogenic fungi. FoodPackaging and Shelf Life, 9, 69–78.

Realini, C. E., & Marcos, B. (2014). Active and intelligent packaging systemsfor a modern society. Meat Science, 98, 404–419.

Restuccia, D., Spizzirri, U. G., Parisi, O. I., Cirillo, G., Curcio, M., Iemma,F., . . . Picci, N. (2010). New EU regulation aspects and global market ofactive and intelligent packaging for food industry applications. Food Control,21, 1425–1435.

Rhim, J. W., Hong, S. I., & Ha, C. S. (2009). Tensile, water vapor barrierand antimicrobial properties of PLA/nanoclay composite films. Food Scienceand Technology International, 42, 612–617.


https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00611


Ribeiro-Santos, R., Andrade, M., Melo, N. R. D., & Sanches-Silva, A.(2017). Use of essential oils in active food packaging: Recent advancesand future trends. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 61, 132–140.

Robertson, G. L. (2012). Food packaging: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). BocaRaton: CRC Press: Taylor & Francis Group.

Rodriguez-Aguilera, R., & Oliveira, J. C. (2009). Review of designengineering methods and applications of active and modified atmospherepackaging systems. Food Engineering Reviews, 1, 66–83.

Rodrıguez, F. J., Galotto, M. J., Guarda, A., & Bruna, J. E. (2012).Modification of cellulose acetate films using nanofillers based onorganoclays. Journal of Food Engineering, 110, 262–268.

Rooney, M. L. (1995). Active packaging in polymer films. In M. L. Rooney(Ed.). Active food packaging (pp. 74–110). Glasgow: Blackie Academic andProfessional.

Ruiz-Garcia, L., & Lunadei, L. (2011). The role of RFID in agriculture:Applications, limitations and challenges. Computers and Electronics inAgriculture, 79, 42–50.

Salgado, P. R., Lopezcaballero, M. E., Gomezguillen, M. C., Mauri, A. N.,& Montero, M. P. (2013). Sunflower protein films incorporated with cloveessential oil have potential application for the preservation of fish patties.Food Hydrocolloid, 33, 74–84.

Samra, M. A., Chedea, V. S., Economou, A., Calokerinos, A., & Kefalas(2011). Antioxidant/prooxidant properties of model phenolic compounds:Part I. studies on equimolar mixtures by chemiluminescence and cyclicvoltammetry. Food Chemistry, 125, 622–629.

Sanches-Silva, A., Costa, D., Albuquerque, T. G., Buonocore, G. G., Ramos,F., Castilho, M. C., . . . Costa, H. S. (2014). Trends in the use of naturalantioxidants in active food packaging: A review. Food Additives andContaminants, 31, 374–395.

Sanchez-Garcia, M. D., Lopez-Rubio, A., & Lagaron, J. M. (2010). Naturalmicro and nanocomposites with enhanced barrier properties and novelfunctionalities for food biopackaging application. Trends in Food Science &Technology, 21, 528–536.

Sanuja, S., Agalya, A., & Umapathy, M. J. (2014). Studies on magnesiumoxide reinforced chitosan bionanocomposite incorporated with clove oil foractive food packaging application. International Journal of Polymeric Materials,63, 733–740.

Scharff, R. L. (2010). Health-related costs from foodborne illness in the UnitedStates. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University.

Sen, F., Irem, Uzunsoy, Basturk, E., & Kahraman, M. V. (2017).Antimicrobial agent-free hybrid cationic starch/sodium alginatepolyelectrolyte films for food packaging materials. Carbohydrate Polymers,170, 264–270

Shojaee-Aliabadi, S., Hosseini, H., Mohammadifar, M. A., Mohammadi, A.,Ghasemlou, M., Ojagh, S. M., . . . Khaksar, R. (2013). Characterization ofantioxidant-antimicrobial kappa-carrageenan films; containing saturejahortensis essential oil. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 52,116–124.

Singh, R. P. (2000). Scientific principles of shelf-life evaluation. In D. Man &A. J. Jones (Eds.), Shelf-life evaluation of food (2nd ed., pp. 3–22).Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.

Siracusa, V., Rocculi P., Romani S., & Rosa, M. D. (2008). Biodegradablepolymers for food packaging: A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology,19, 634–643.

Siripatrawan, U., & Harte, B. R. (2010). Physical properties and antioxidantactivity of an active film from chitosan incorporated with green tea extract.Food Hydrocolloids, 24, 770–775.

Sjostrom, S., & Krutka, H. (2010). Evaluation of solid sorbents as a retrofittechnology for CO2 capture. Fuel, 89, 1298–1306.

Souza, A. C., Goto, G. E. O., Mainardi, J. A., Coelho, A. C. V., & Tadini, C.C. (2013). Cassava starch composite films incorporated with cinnamonessential oil: Antimicrobial activity, microstructure, mechanical and barrierproperties. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 54, 346–352.

Suppakul, P., Miltz, J., Sonneveld, K., & Bigger, S. W. (2003). Activepackaging technologies with an emphasis on antimicrobial packaging and itsapplications. Journal of Food Science, 68, 408–420.

Taoukis, P. S., Fu, B., & Labuza, T. P. (1991). Time temperature indicators.Food Technology, 45, 70–82.

Taoukis, P. S., & Labuza, T. P. (1989). Applicability of time-temperatureindicators as shelf life monitors of food products. Journal of Food Science, 54,783–788.

Tongnuanchan, P., Benjakul, S., & Prodpran, T. (2013). Physico-chemicalproperties, morphology and antioxidant activity of film from fish skingelatin incorporated with root essential oils. Journal of Food Engineering, 117,350–360.

Torres-Arreola, W., Soto-Valdez, H., Peralta, E., Cardenas-Lopez, J. L., &Ezquerra-Brauer, J. M. (2007). Effect of a low-density polyethylene filmcontaining butylated hydroxytoluene on lipid oxidation and protein qualityof sierra fish (Scomberomorus sierra) muscle during frozen storage. Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry, 55, 6140–6146.

Vanderroost, M., Ragaert, P., Devlieghere, F., & Meulenaer, B. D. (2014).Intelligent food packaging: The next generation. Trends in Food Science &Technology, 39, 47–62.

Veasna, H., Hwang, Y. S., Choi, J. M., Ahn, Y. J., Lim, B. S., & Chun, J. P.(2012). 1-Methylcyclopropene and carbon dioxide absorber reduce chillinginjury of eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) during MAP storage. Journal ofBio-Environment Control, 21, 50–56.

Vermeiren, L., Devlieghere, F., Beest, V. M., Kruijf, N. D., & Debevere, J.(1999). Developments in the active packaging of foods. Trends in Food Science& Technology, 10, 77–86.

Wang, H. J., An, D. S., Rhim, J., & Lee, D. S. (2015a). A multi-functionalbiofilm used as an active insert in modified atmosphere packaging for freshproduce. Packaging Technology and Science, 28, 999–1010.

Wang, Q., Tian, F., Feng, Z., Fan, X., Pan, Z., & Zhou, J. (2014).Antioxidant activity and physicochemical properties of chitosan filmsincorporated with Lycium barbarum fruit extract for active food packaging.International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 50, 458–464.

Wang, S., Liu, X., Yang, M., Zhang, Y., Xiang, K., & Tang, R. (2015b).Review of time temperature indicators as quality monitors in foodpackaging. Packaging Technology and Science, 28, 839–867.

Wang, Y. C., Lu, L., & Gunasekaran, S. (2017). Biopolymer/goldnanoparticles composite plasmonic thermal history indicator to monitorquality and safety of perishable bioproducts. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 92,109–116.

Wannes, W. A., Mhamdi, B., Sriti, J., Jemia, M. B., Ouchikh, O., Hamdaoui,G., . . . Marzouk, B. (2010). Antioxidant activities of the essential oils andmethanol extracts from myrtle (myrtus communis var. italica l.) leaf, stemand flower. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 48, 1362–1370.

Watkins, C. B. (2000). Responses of horticultural commodities to highcarbon dioxide as related to modified atmosphere packaging. HortTechnology,10, 501–506.

Williams, H., Wikstrom, F., Otterbring, T., Lofgren, M., & Gustafsson, A.(2012). Reasons for household food waste with special attention topackaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24(3), 141–148.

Wilhelm, S., & Wolfbeis, O. S. (2010). Irreversible sensing of oxygen ingress.Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 153, 199–204.

Woranuch, S., Yoksan, R., & Akashi, M. (2015). Ferulic acid-coupledchitosan: Thermal stability and utilization as an antioxidant forbiodegradable active packaging film. Carbohydrate Polymers, 115, 744–751.

Wyser, Y., Adams, M., Avella, M., Carlander, D., Garcia, L., Pieper, G., . . .Weiss, J. (2016). Outlook and challenges of nanotechnologies for foodpackaging. Packaging Technology and Science, 29, 615–648.

Xu, D., Xiao, P., Zhang, J., Li, G., Xiao, G., Webley, P. A., & Zhai, Y. C.(2013). Effects of water vapour on CO2, capture with vacuum swingadsorption using activated carbon. Chemical Engineering Journal, 230, 64–72.

Yam, K. L., Takhistov, P. T., & Miltz, J. (2005). Intelligent packaging:Concepts and applications. Journal of Food Science, 70, R1–R10.

Yang, H. J., Lee, J. H., Won, M., & Song, K. B. (2016). Antioxidant activitiesof distiller dried grains with solubles as protein films containing tea extractsand their application in the packaging of pork meat. Food Chemistry, 196,174–179.

Yun, J., Fan, X., Li, X., Jin, T. Z., Jia, X., & Mattheis, J. P. (2015). Naturalsurface coating to inactivate salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium andmaintain quality of cherry tomatoes. International Journal of Food Microbiology,193, 59–67.

Zhao, C. J., Han, J. W., Yang, X. T., Qian, J. P., & Fan, B. L. (2016). Areview of computational fluid dynamics for forced-air cooling process.Applied Energy, 168, 314–331.

Zuta, P. C., Simpson, B. K., Zhao, X., & Leclerc, L. (2007). The effect ofα-tocopherol on the oxidation of mackerel oil. Food Chemistry, 99, 800–807.


food packaging: a comprehensive review and future trends

Documents