(Agronomy and Food Science - Packaging and Recycling) Kata Galic, Mia Kurek, Nasreddine Benbettaieb, Frederic Debeaufort, Mario Scetar - Packaging Materials and Processing For PDF

Packaging Materials and Processing for
Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics

SCIENCES
Agronomy and Food Science, Field Directors –
Jack Legrand and Gilles Trystram
Packaging and Recycling, Subject Head – Frédéric Debeaufort
Packaging Materials and

Processing for Food,
Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
Coordinated by
Frédéric Debeaufort
Kata Galić
Mia Kurek
Nasreddine Benbettaieb
Mario Ščetar
First published 2021 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as
permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced,
stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers,
or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the
CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the
undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

27-37 St George’s Road 111 River Street
London SW19 4EU Hoboken, NJ 07030
UK USA
www.iste.co.uk www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2021

The rights of Frédéric Debeaufort, Kata Galić, Mia Kurek, Nasreddine Benbettaieb and Mario Ščetar to
be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020951536
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78945-039-2
ERC code:
LS9 Applied Life Sciences, Biotechnology, and Molecular and Biosystems Engineering
LS9_5 Food sciences (including food technology, food safety, nutrition)
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Frédéric DEBEAUFORT, Kata GALIĆ, Mia KUREK, Nasreddine BENBETTAIEB and
Mario ŠČETAR
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Frédéric DEBEAUFORT, Kata GALIĆ, Mia KUREK, Nasreddine BENBETTAIEB and
Mario ŠČETAR
Introduction to Food Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

Frédéric DEBEAUFORT and Kata GALIĆ
Chapter 1. Wood-based Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Frédéric DEBEAUFORT
1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Wood as a raw material for food packaging: characteristics,
requirements, limitations and regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3. Pallets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4. Boxes, crates and trays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5. Barrels and casks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.6. Wood package–food interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
vi Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
Chapter 2. Papers and Boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2. Pulp and cellulose extraction for paper-based materials. . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.1. Mechanical and thermomechanical pulping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2.2. Chemi-mechanical pulping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2.3. Chemical pulping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.2.4. Recycled paper pulping and non-wood pulping . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2.5. Pulp bleaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2.6. Pulp properties and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3. Paper production and properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3.1. Paper sheet processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3.2. Types of paper for packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.3.3. Paper-based bags, sacks and spiral wound containers . . . . . . . . 32
2.4. Paperboards and containerboards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.4.1. Paperboard processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.4.2. Paperboard types and properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.5. Corrugated paperboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.5.1. Corrugated board history and economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.5.2. Corrugated board processing and characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.5.3. Corrugated board sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.6. Regulations and safety concerns of papers and boards . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Chapter 3. Glass Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.2. Composition and properties of glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2.1. Glass composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2.2. Chemical and functional properties of glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.3. Glass manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.3.1. Collection of raw materials and mixing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3.2. Melting in furnace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3.3. Shaping/molding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.3.4. Annealing and surface treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.4. Bottle design and terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.5. Lifecycle, recycling and safety concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Contents vii
Chapter 4. Metal Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.2. Metal packaging types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.3. Composition and properties: metals and alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.3.1. Steel-based (iron-based) and tin-plated steel materials . . . . . . . . 79
4.3.2. Tin-free steel or ECCS (electrolytic chromium
oxide-coated steel) materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.3.3. Stainless steel for food packaging materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.3.4. Aluminum-based materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.4. Can manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.4.1. Three-piece can-making process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.4.2. Two-piece can manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.4.3. Can end making and seaming onto can bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.5. Can surface treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.6. Food–can interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4.7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Chapter 5. Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Mario ŠČETAR
5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.2. Plastic materials and processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.3. Plastic films for packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.3.1. Plastic classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.3.2. Plastic packaging shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5.4. Properties of plastic packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.4.1. General properties of plastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.4.2. Barrier properties of plastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
5.4.3. Food packaging interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.5. Plastic packaging innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.6. Plastic waste management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.7. Legislation for food contact materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Chapter 6. Multilayer Packaging Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Mario ŠČETAR
6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.2. Multilayer materials and their production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
6.2.1. Adhesive lamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.2.2. Extrusion and coextrusion lamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
viii Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
6.2.3. Thermal lamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

6.2.4. Metallized films . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
6.3. Properties of laminates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.3.1. Barrier properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.3.2. Interaction between packaging material and food . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6.4. Packaging application of laminates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6.5. Environmental and waste management issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
6.6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Chapter 7. Bio-based Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Mia KUREK and Nasreddine BENBETTAIEB
7.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
7.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
7.2.1. Bio-based plastics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
7.2.2. Biodegradable plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.2.3. Compostable materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.3. Classification of bio-based materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.3.1. Polymers directly extracted from biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.3.2. Polymers produced by chemical synthesis from biomass
monomers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
7.3.3. Polymers produced directly by natural or genetically
modified organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
7.3.4. Petrochemical-based polymers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
7.4. Industrial relevance and future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
7.5. List of abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
7.6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Chapter 8. Active and Intelligent Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Nasreddine BENBETTAIEB
8.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
8.2. Active packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
8.2.1. Scavenger systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
8.2.2. Releaser/emitter systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
8.2.3. Other active packaging systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
8.3. Intelligent packaging: concepts and commercial applications . . . . . . 202
8.3.1. Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
8.3.2. Sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
8.3.3. Data carriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
8.3.4. Providing more convenience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
8.3.5. Controlling theft, counterfeiting and tampering . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Contents ix
8.4. Consumer safety and related regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

8.5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Chapter 9. Packaging Caps and Closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Kata GALIĆ
9.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
9.2. Closure types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
9.2.1. Closures to retain internal pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
9.2.2. Closures to contain and protect contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
9.2.3. Closures to maintain a vacuum inside the container . . . . . . . . . 228
9.2.4. Closures to secure contents inside a container . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
9.3. Specialized types of closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
9.3.1. Dispensing and metering closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
9.3.2. Tamper-evident closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
9.3.3. Child-resistant closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
9.3.4. Easy-open closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
9.4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Chapter 10. Auxiliary Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Mia KUREK and Mario ŠČETAR
10.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
10.2. Coatings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
10.2.1. Coatings on metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
10.2.2. Coatings on plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
10.2.3. Coatings on paper and glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
10.2.4. Surface treatments and coating application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
10.3. Adhesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
10.4. Printing inks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
10.5. Interaction between packaging and contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
10.5.1. Permeation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
10.5.2. Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
10.6. Future trends and challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
10.7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Chapter 11. Food Packaging Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Kata GALIĆ
11.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
11.2. Packaging operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
11.2.1. Food wrapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
11.2.2. Food bagging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
x Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
11.2.3. Form-fill-seal packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

11.2.4. Blister packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
11.3. Packaging for thermally processed food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
11.3.1. Canning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
11.3.2. Retortable pouches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
11.3.3. Aseptic packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
11.3.4. Ohmic heating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
11.3.5. Infrared treated pre-packaged food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
11.3.6. Radiofrequency treated pre-packaged food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
11.3.7. Microwavable packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
11.4. Packaging for non-thermally processed food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
11.4.1. High hydrostatic pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
11.4.2. Pulsed electric fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
11.4.3. Irradiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
11.4.4. Pulsed light technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
11.5. Packaging with atmosphere modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
11.5.1. Vacuum and vacuum skin packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
11.5.2. Inert atmosphere packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
11.5.3. Controlled atmosphere packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
11.5.4. Modified atmosphere packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
11.7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Chapter 12. Packaging Marking and Labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

Mia KUREK
12.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
12.2. Labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
12.3. Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
12.3.1. Food labeling requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
12.3.2. Food packaging symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
12.4. Material and label production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
12.4.1. Self-adhesive (pressure-sensitive) labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
12.4.2. In-mold labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
12.4.3. Sleeves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
12.4.4. “Smart” and digital labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
12.5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Contents xi
Chapter 13. Food Packaging Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

Kata GALIĆ
13.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
13.2. Food packaging material selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
13.2.1. Fresh and chilled food packaging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
13.2.2. Shelf stable and frozen food packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
13.2.3. Dried food packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
13.2.4. Beverages packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
13.2.5. Snack and confectionary food packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
13.4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
List of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
Preface
Frédéric Debeaufort1, Kata Galić2, Mia Kurek2,
Nasreddine Benbettaieb1 and Mario Ščetar2
1
Institute of Technology, University of Burgundy, Dijon, France
2
Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Packaging today has a significant impact on our society, as well as on our

economic sector.
A huge variety of packaging materials, commonly used in food, pharmaceuticals,

cosmetics, etc., all with different characteristics, are available. These include
so-called traditional (wood, glass, paper-based, metal) materials and “novel”
(polymers, bio-based materials, edible, active, etc.) materials. Polymers are put in a
special group when they are considered as a source of many different single
(monofilm) and complex (laminate) materials. From this, it is obvious that the
selection of the optimal packaging material for a specific food product is a task that
is harder than ever. Furthermore, the proper selection of packaging is of great
importance to food manufacturers when considering the economy, marketing,
logistics, distribution, consumer demands and environmental impact of the
packaging.
This book provides the most comprehensive and current information in the field
of food packaging. It can serve as a valuable source for not only food science and
technology students and professionals, but also packaging technicians and engineers
who need to know the characteristics of different packaging materials and their
applications, as well as what can happen to food when it is in contact with these
materials.
Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics,

coordinated by Frédéric DEBEAUFORT, Kata GALIĆ, Mia KUREK, Nasreddine BENBETTAIEB
and Mario ŠČETAR. © ISTE Ltd 2021
xiv Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
The book is divided into 13 chapters. The first four chapters cover traditional
packaging materials starting with wood (Chapter 1), followed by paper and
cardboard (Chapter 2), and then glass (Chapter 3) and metal (Chapter 4). Among the
so-called “novel” packaging materials, plastics are covered in two chapters
(Chapters 5 and 6), while Chapter 6 is devoted to complex materials (laminates).
The following chapters deal with bio-based materials (Chapter 7) and active and
smart packaging (Chapter 8), while important parts of packaging, such as caps and
closures and auxiliary materials, are covered in Chapters 9 and 10, respectively. At
the end of each chapter a possible food–packaging interaction is given. All chapters
are presented with a comprehensive list of references. Information on different food
packaging methods is presented in Chapter 11, while the marking and labeling of
packaging can be found in Chapter 12. The book ends with Chapter 13, where
information on the dependence of packaging material selection on the characteristics
of food products (fresh, frozen, chilled, dried, etc.) is presented.
November 2020
Acknowledgements
Frédéric Debeaufort1, Kata Galić2, Mia Kurek2,
Nasreddine Benbettaieb1 and Mario Ščetar2
1
2
The authors of this book sincerely thank Professor Audrey Bentz, a colleague
from the IUT of Dijon-University, Burgundy, for her careful and efficient
proofreading and for improving the English with a lot of kindness.

Introduction to Food Packaging
Frédéric Debeaufort1 and Kata Galić 2
1
2
I.1. Introduction
Packaging is one of the aspects that is part of the daily life of modern companies.
It provides many services in support of the product and the various users, whether
the packaging company, logisticians, users or consumers. Often disparaged when it
is emptied of its contents, the packaging, apparently banal to quote some, is the fruit
of human intelligence at the service of all.
Today, packaging is the result of the use of various modern technologies over
long development processes (computer-aided design – CAD, 2D/3D digital printing,
connected packaging, sustainable packaging and industry 4.0). The packaging world
generates sophisticated jobs that require training and learning and schools need to
meet this challenge. The packaging industry is “ahead” of many other industries; we
are talking about industry 4.0 with high technicality in packaging, its mechanization
and its level of robotization, without forgetting the numerous patents filed. Indeed,
since 2012, patents filed by the packaging industry (all sectors combined) have
represented 2.7% of total patents, that is, twice as much as the economic activity of
the sector (1.3%) (CNE 2020). The baby boom and easier access to products,
For a color version of all figures in this book, see www.iste.co.uk/debeaufort/packaging.zip.

xviii Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
especially food, thanks to the development of large stores (retailing, supermarkets),

have been a source of innovation in terms of packaging materials and machines, in
order to mass supply products at the right time and at the lowest cost. The arrival of
plastic in the 1960s allowed innovation in the processes for implementing packaging
associated with functionalities. The arrival of mass distribution in the 1970s
accelerated innovations serving the consumer. The integration of use by the user or
the consumer is a source of creativity for the benefit of the population, in particular,
for the elderly, if it is easy to open, for example. Finally, the regulations, the quest
for traceability and the fight against counterfeiting have made it possible to generate
packaging and processes for branding and identification purposes.
The global packaging market consumption in 2020 covers five main materials:
paper and boards (31.06%), plastic (flexible 24.85% and rigid 22.28%), metal
(12.64%), glass (6.81%) and others (2.35%), with approximately 70% of all
packaging used in the food industry (WPO 2008; ALL4PACK 2016). In 2015, the
global packaging industry value was US$839 billion and is predicted to reach
US$998 billion in 2020 (ALL4PACK 2016). The global packaging machine market
should grow at an average annual rate of 4.9% in the coming years, reaching a value
of US$42 billion in 2018, US$48 billion in 2020 and an estimated 55 billion in 2025
according to Technavio (2020).
I.2. Definition
The definition of “packaging” in EU Directive 94/62/EC (European Commission

1994) is presented as “all products made of any materials of any nature to be used
for the containment, protection, handling, delivery and presentation of goods, from
raw materials to processed goods, from the producer to the user or the consumer”.
The International Packaging Institute (in the Glossary of Packaging Terms,

1988) defined packaging as the enclosure of products, items or packages in a
wrapped pouch, bag, box, cup, tray, can, tube, bottle or other container to perform
one or more of the following functions: containment, protection, preservation,
communication, utility and performance (Robertson 2013). Other definitions of
packaging include a system that coordinates the preparation of goods for transport,
distribution, storage, retailing and end use, a way to ensure its delivery to the
consumer in a safe and sound condition. This also includes a techno-commercial
function in order to optimize the costs of delivery while maximizing the profits
(Coles 2011).
Introduction to Food Packaging xix
The Glossary of the International Trade Centre (ITC 2020), in the packaging
sector, gives the following definitions:
(i) Pack (noun): Bundle of items wrapped up, tied together or

otherwise contained for carrying; (ii) Pack (verb): To put items into a
box, bundle, bag, bale, wrap, etc. for storage or transportation;
(iii) Package (noun): A sealed wrapping or box containing either a
retail-sale quantity of a product (consumer package) or a product or a
number of items or smaller packages in transport quantities, for
transportation and storage (transport package), and (iv) Packaging, the
general term for the function, materials and overall concept of a
coordinating system of the preparation of goods for handling,
shipment, storage and marketing. Distribution and use at optimum
cost, and compatible with the requirements of the product.
Thus, packaging serves as a material-handling tool (containing the desired

amount of food within a single container or gathering several identical units into
aggregates), a processing aid (e.g. sterilization of food products in metal cans) and
protection for items from damage and waste, which is an important marketing tool.
I.3. Levels of packaging
Packaging can be distinguished in regard to its “levels” (Figure I.1). A primary

package (e.g. metal can, glass bottle and plastic wrap or pouch) is the most
important as it is in direct contact with the product, providing the major protective
barrier. The primary package is the one that the consumer usually purchases in
supermarkets. A secondary package contains different numbers of primary
packages, for example, a plastic pouch containing unidose packed sweets or biscuits.
A tertiary package, also known as the transport package, is made up of a number of
secondary packages that facilitate national and international trade. In other words, it
represents the exact number of secondary packages put on a pallet to fill the space
most economically. A quaternary package facilitates the handling of tertiary
packages and is usually a large metal container (up to 40 m in length) that can
accommodate many pallets during transport by ships or trains. When required, the
conditions inside the container (temperature, humidity, gas composition and light) can
be regulated. Traceability is at the forefront of food safety and is particularly
important for perishables such as fresh fruits and vegetables, chilled meats and
frozen foods. This also presents the source of innovation of real-time loggers aimed
xx Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
at delivering real-time distribution chain insights from any location (monitoring

in-transit shipments, temperature, security and location details).
Figure I.1. Levels of packaging
I.4. Functions of packaging
Packaging, as an essential element of the product–packaging pair, fulfills various

functions, such as the provision of a product to users and consumers, its
conservation, its protection and its transport, whether this product is consumed by
households, artisans or manufacturers.
Throughout history, packaging has enabled humans to free themselves from both
time and space:
– Time, because, thanks to the conservation of a packaged product, humans are
no longer obliged to immediately consume what they have just produced.
– Space, because, with the transportability and therefore the availability of the
packaged product anywhere, modern humans consume where they want. With
packaging, the place of production is separated from the place of consumption.
Four main functions of packaging are thus emphasized: containment, protection,

convenience and communication (Figure I.2), which are interrelated, and must all be
considered in the package development process (Robertson 2013).
Introduction to Food Packaging xxi
Figure I.2. Packaging functions
Containment
In order to perform its basic function successfully, the package must contain the
product before it is transferred from one place to another. In case this task is not
fulfilled (e.g. due to damage of the package), this can result in content spillages,
economic losses and, in some cases, serious damage to the environment.
Protection
Product protection is the most important function of packaging. The package

must protect the product from any external condition leading to damage
(mechanical, poor environmental conditions, contamination and infestation) during
handling, distribution and storage.
Thus, packaging is designed to ensure that the product reaches the consumer in
good condition, through its entire journey from the manufacturer to the ultimate
consumer.
xxii Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
Where required, packaging can also provide additional product protection. This
is achieved through cushioning using different materials (such as sheets of
corrugated paperboard, shredded paper, foam polystyrene or wrappings).
Food safety and quality is ensured through tamper-proof packaging. Special

child-resistant closures, on items such as household chemicals (cleaning liquids,
detergents, etc.) and pharmaceuticals, are developed to protect this vulnerable
population. It is evident that packaging technology has made a huge contribution to
improving food science and food safety and the reduction of food spoilage, as well
as food waste.
Communication
The expression “a package must protect what it sells and sell what it protects” is
applied to all packaging levels, from the primary to quaternary package, helping all
involved actors to perform their tasks. Package communication helps consumers to
select a product among a number of similar ones, and get all relevant information. It
serves as an important marketing and selling tool that often influences the consumer
when making their buying choice. It also ensures that warehouses and distribution
centers are efficient in carrying and storing secondary and tertiary packages, based
on the details on the attached labels. When international trade is involved and
different languages are spoken, the use of adequate and clear symbols on the
distribution packaging is essential.
Convenience
Convenience characteristics, which are much appreciated by consumers, include

those which enable easy access to products, simplify usage or consumption and
make it easy to hold, open or reclose. Appropriate packaging levels (secondary,
tertiary and quaternary) facilitate the transport of packaged goods in interstate and
international trade (Scholderer and Grunert 2005; Robertson 2013).
Packaging materials are often taken for granted as not-so-important actors in food
protection. Consumers often do not even think about all of the above-mentioned
principal packaging roles, not to mention all of the newly designed special
functionalities of packaging materials that the broad population is not familiar with.
Packaging is more than just a plastic bag leftover after its use.
Introduction to Food Packaging xxiii
I.5. Introduction to packaging materials
Apart from not being toxic, important requirements for food packaging materials
also include: a) sanitary protection; b) barrier (moisture, gas, odor, light, fat)
protection; c) resistance to impact; d) transparency; e) tamper-proofness; f) ease of
opening and reclosing; g) ease of disposal; h) size, shape, weight limitations;
i) appearance, printability; j) low cost; and k) special features.
The most common food packaging materials are: plastic (monofilms, laminates),
glass, paper and board, metal and wood. Each of these materials offers specific
advantages and disadvantages that have to be considered in order to select an
adequate material for the specific food product.
Considered as a protective barrier or for carriage purposes, packaging has been

known as such and used throughout history, even in Egyptian times. Some of the
best examples of packaging can be found in nature, such as chestnuts, egg shells and
orange skins (Figure I.3).
Figure I.3. Packaging in nature
It has been found that the first forms of packaging used by humans were flax and
banana leaves, and animal products such as leather and stomachs, which are still
used today. Some of the packaging-related developments throughout history are
presented in Table I.1.
xxiv Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
Year Package development

− 1809, Nicolas Appert (France) produced hermetically sealed glass jars to
thermally preserve food
1800–1850s
− 1813, In England, handmade cans of “patent preserved meats” were produced
− 1824, Canned foods were used by the British Navy
− 1875, Sardines were first packed in cans
1870s
− 1879, Robert Gair (USA) produced the first machine-made folding carton
1880s − 1884, The first cereal was packaged in a folding box (Quaker® Oats)
1890s − 1892, William Painter (USA), patented the Crown cap for glass bottles
1900s − 1906, Paraffin wax-coated paper milk containers were sold by G.W. Maxwell
1910s − 1915, Pure-Pak® filled with milk was commercialized
− 1921, Zinc compounds in enamel cans were used
1920s
− 1923, Frozen foods in cartons with wax paper wrappers were commercialized
− 1935, American brewers began to sell canned beer
1930s
− 1939, Ethylene was polymerized commercially
− 1940, Carbonated soft drink canning began
1940s
− 1946, Saran (PVDC) was used as a moisture barrier
− 1950, Cellophane was commercialized and used for packaging
− 1950, Aluminum foil containers were developed
1950s − Polypropylene (PP) was invented
− The retort pouch for heat-processed foods was developed
− 1956, Tetra Pak® launched its tetrahedral shape multilayer form for milk
− 1960, Easy-open cans were introduced
− 1965, Beverage cans made from aluminum were introduced
1960s − 1965, Tin-free steel (TFS chromium) cans were developed
− 1967, Ring-pull openers were developed for canned drinks
− Tetra Pak launched Tetra Brik® Aseptic (TBA) system for UHT milk
− The bar code system for retail packaging was introduced (USA)
− Boil-in-the-bag frozen meals and bag-in-box systems were developed
− MAP retail packs were introduced (USA, Scandinavia and Europe)
1970s
− 1973, PET bottles were used for colas and other carbonated drinks
− 1973, Antimicrobial wrappers were used to extend food shelf life
− 1976, Iron-based O2 scavengers were commercialized
− Packaging was produced for microwave use and modified atmosphere
1980s packaging (MAP) was developed for ready-to-eat fresh fruits and vegetables
− 1986, The first use of the terms “Smart packaging” and “Interactive packaging”
− 1997, Ethanol-generating films or sachets were patented
1990s
− Shrink-sleeve plastic labels for glass bottles were used
− 2006, Nanotechnology was used to modify the internal surface properties of
squeezable plastic bottles
2000–2010
− 2007, The world’s first 100% recycled PET bottle was used for fruit drinks
− Polylactic acid (PLA) bottles were used for water
Table I.1. Some developments in packaging during the

past 200 years (Coles 2011; Robertson 2013)
Introduction to Food Packaging xxv
I.6. Sociological, psychological and economical aspects of packaging
Packaging strongly influences the consumer’s perception of the packed products,

consciously or unconsciously, and thus their consumption behavior and habits.
People have different lifestyles, which lead to differences in their perceptions of the
products they need. Some people who are trying to have a healthy lifestyle may
prefer certain products that are perceived as low fat and calorie restricting, whereas
most consumers are mainly influenced by the price, which is related to color and
shape attractiveness (Deng and Kahn 2009). Food products and their marketing are
everywhere we look, on the way to school or work, on the sports courts, on TV and
other media. Looking at shelves filled with various food items, color and product
identification originating from the package design have significantly more impact on
the choice of the product than its positioning on the shelves. The packaging of
fast-moving consumer goods has changed frequently and dramatically for years,
especially since the 1960s, as producers have fought for positioning, brand
recognition and customer loyalty. In this context, it has become crucial to
understand more about how consumers perceive and respond to changes in
packaging. Package design and impressions play an important part in consumption
patterns, and when consumers’ impressions do not match expectations, disappointment
and dissatisfaction may not only have an immediate impact on sales and
profitability, but also lead to long-term damage to brand credibility.
I.6.1. Packaging characteristics and consumer behavior
“The clothes do not make the man”. It is by the external appearance that we
recognize an object or a person. This expression reflects the significant influence of
packaging on stimulating the purchase of a product. Does improving the packaging
of a product have an impact on its image? How do you measure the psychological
impact of this approach? How strong is the impact of health and nutrition claims? Is
there any effect on sales because of it?
The goods have been able to dominate the thoughts of the consumer to influence
the act of purchase. Ranging from playful to functional, without forgetting the
humorous or tendentious (misguided), the packaging of the product takes on all its
finery to seduce the buyer. A determining factor in marketing action, the criteria for
choosing product packaging, is of paramount importance for brands. The visual
aspect associated with the functional parameters of a product determines the sale.
But that is not enough, because it is necessary to play on the psychology of the
client.
xxvi Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
To succeed in a marketing sector, it is important to study the habits of the

consumer, since the goal is to encourage them to buy products. It is not an automatic
mechanism beforehand, but it is possible to maneuver so that it becomes one. To
achieve this, we must bring together a set of ingredients, each subtler than the next,
which interact in the cerebral cortex of the individual, potential consumer. Science
has demonstrated this through Pavlov’s conditioning experience (Wells 2014). It is
therefore necessary to do some work to arouse the intention to buy. As previously
presented, the marketing function of packaging as a communication tool is the key
to selling the product.
However, packaging is the first thing consumers see when they are ready to buy
a product. It is the last opportunity for the company to communicate about the
product it markets. This moment is therefore decisive and deserves special attention.
Successful packaging knows how to attract the attention of the consumer in the
hubbub that surrounds it and responds, quickly and easily, to questions that arise. In
any case, even if the packaging of competing products is adequate, in this context,
the consumer will abandon them, for lack of having really seen them.
To attract the attention of the consumer, to retain them and to make them take
the product in their hands, the packaging uses several techniques, among which are
the color, the images, the typography, the brand, the design and the finish.
The color black is associated with luxury products, white with household
products, green with organic or natural products and almost transparent sky blue
with water bottles. It can be interesting to break these codes to surprise the
consumer. Carbonated water is thus found in red bottles, and do not go unnoticed in
a department usually filled with blue bottles.
Images easily convey a message. They do not need to be translated. Sparkling,

bright white teeth on a tube of toothpaste immediately speaks to the consumer. It is
also the most frequently used technique for products intended for children. This is
the reason why brands invest so much in mascots, so that young people can
spontaneously associate with a product.
Typography also plays an essential role. For example, elegant typography helps
visually reinforce the luxurious character of the product it describes. Typography
that resembles handwriting instead gives it an authentic appearance. The labels of
some jars of jam are based on this relationship.
The brand and its logo are signs that are immediately recognized by the
consumer when they have been the subject of intensive publicity. This is why they
appear prominently on packaging. They speak to consumers as much as images.
Introduction to Food Packaging xxvii
The design, in other words, the shape of the product offered to consumers, is
fundamental to the perception they may have of it, in particular, with regard to its
practicality or its playfulness.
The finish adds to the impression given by the product. Varnished, shiny
packaging is interpreted as going hand in hand with a quality product. The use of
cheap-looking packaging must therefore be clearly explained to the consumer if the
product it contains is exceptional.
For instance, the consumer perceptions of packed foods are influenced by the
shape and size of the packaging. For example, elongated containers are often seen as
larger than equivalent wide and short containers. In addition, people generally
underestimate the changes in package volume, especially when packaging changes
along two or three spatial dimensions as opposed to just one dimension (Ordabayeva
and Chandon 2013). Over the past several decades, people have become accustomed
to the supersized packaging in many product categories that reflect a sense of
affluence and abundance. The supersizing trend has been especially pronounced in
the food industry, where supersized fast food and snack portions have become the
norm in many places. However, unforeseen negative side effects are beginning to
take their toll. In addition to increased waste disposal issues, supersizing is
considered to have contributed to over-consumption, weight gain and a rise in
obesity to epidemic proportions. Public health authorities in Western countries have
therefore become concerned about the influence of supersizing on consumer health.
I.6.2. Packaging trends
According to McTigue Pierce (2020) from Packaging Digest, future trends for
packaging will satisfy both the consumer’s wishes and food industry requirements.
That is:
– Sustainable packaging, or even reaching a zero-waste packaging concept, is in

preparation, because companies must promote packaging that is both safe for the
consumer and respectful to the environment, e.g. recyclable packaging (paper, glass
and metal materials, see Chapters 2, 3 and 4, respectively), bio-sourced and
biodegradable packaging (bio-based packaging, see Chapter 7).
– Transparency towards consumers, because they demand honesty regarding the
composition of food products as well as their containers (additives, endocrine
disruptors) and the way they are made. Traditional packaging is reinvented to adopt
a clear and precise formulation and, where appropriate, transparent information that
reveals what is inside.
xxviii Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
– Sophistication, and therefore a visible (marketing) message, refined with bold

and simple, but sophisticated, colors and large print to communicate trust and
respect (packaging marking and labeling, see Chapter 12).
– Consistency with the brand image of the product.
– State-of-the-art packaging, because consumers love their smart devices, and
the increased use of technology, in turn, puts pressure on companies to offer “smart
packaging” (active and intelligent packaging, see Chapter 8).
Sustainability, branding and “smart” packaging technologies resonate with

global packaging professionals, based on the leading stories from early 2020. For
example, using paper-based bags made from recycled paper with a transparent
window made from polylactic acid biopolymer film, with an easy handling design
and simple print information could satisfy almost all of the previous trends.
Green packaging has become attractive both for consumers and retailers in the
past decade and is also in line with increasing consumer awareness of environmental
sustainability. Packaging does not only serve to protect the main product, but is also
expected to be environmentally friendly to reduce environmental problems due to
packaging waste (Auliandri et al. 2018). The purchase intention of young consumers
towards green packaging was positively affected by attitude, personal norms and the
willingness to pay. The environmental concern positively influenced the purchase
intention through the mediation of attitude. According to Kaufmann et al. (2012),
the consumers’ green purchasing behavior directly depends on demographic
variables (age, gender, income level, education level, ethnicity, occupation), and
could also be influenced by sociological/psychological variables such as altruism,
environmental awareness, environmental concern and attitude, the belief about
product safety for use and availability of product information and product
availability, the perceived consumer effectiveness, the collectivism and the
transparency/fairness in trade practices (customer care, product adulteration, unfair
pricing, black marketing, misleading advertising, deceptive packaging).
The business sector needs to consider green packaging as one of the company’s
competitive strategies, as well as a substitute for recycling and waste, but also to the
circular economy.
I.6.3. Packaging and the circular economy
Unlike the current linear economy, the circular economy forms a cycle. It is
based on a model of reasoned production, of a change in consumption influenced by
the population, and seeks to revive products by various means (repairing, recycling
Introduction to Food Packaging xxix
and transformation). Its simple objective is to produce goods and services while
subscribing to a logic of sustainable development. Three areas apply to the circular
economy, one of the key players of which is the packaging industry. The first area
concerns supply and economic players (sustainable supply, eco-design, etc.). The
second area is based on consumer demand and behavior (responsible consumption,
duration of use). Finally, the last area concerns waste management, with the concept
of recycling. There are seven pillars that make up the circular economy, which are
divided into three areas (supply of economic players, consumer demand and
behavior and waste management): supply, eco-design, industrial and territorial
ecology, economy of functionality, responsible consumption, increased usage time
and waste prevention. Packaging industries can and must contribute to all of the
seven pillars of the circular economy. The circular economy has become a goal for
many governments, especially in Western countries. For example, France aims to
double the rate of the incorporation of recycled plastic by 2025 (i.e. more than
400,000 tons for the packaging sector), to make 100% of plastic packaging reusable,
recyclable or compostable by 2025, to use 100% recycled glass bottles by 2030 and
90% recycled cans by 2025 in the brewery sector, which means that 100% of French
people will be affected by sorting instructions in 2022 (ANIA 2020).
The packaging industries have been practicing the circular economy for a very
long time, long before European regulations forced them to do so. The results of
material recycling are there to bear witness to this. Indeed, the packaging world has
worked significantly in this area in the past, without it being called the circular
economy, and is still working on the subject: it is a great opportunity for each link in
the value chain of the packaging industry to highlight its good practices (whether for
primary, secondary or tertiary packaging). They often feature a lot of bottlenecks,
especially passing from laboratory to pilot and industrial scale that needed to be
resolved. The industries are engaged in this approach not because of ideology, but
often because it makes economic sense and, more recently, ecological sense. It also
answers consumer wishes.
The annual production of household waste in the world today exceeds 2 billion
tons per year (ANIA 2020), 44% of which is from food or plant sources, and almost
70% is related to packaging. This is the reason why many countries defined
regulations for dealing with packaging and packaging waste. The European
parliament published the first directive 94/62/EC (European Commission 1994)
specifying the first rules for packaging material recycling and waste management
early. On December 2, 2015, the European Commission put forward a plan to
support the EU’s transition to a circular economy. On March 4, 2019, the
Commission reported on the complete execution of the action plan. All 54 actions
included in the 2015 plan have now been delivered or are being implemented. This
xxx Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
will help to boost Europe’s competitiveness, modernize its economy and industry to
create jobs, protect the environment and generate sustainable growth (European
Commission 2020). Many items in this plan concern the packaging sector.
The circular economy, for the packaging sector, is not limited to recycling; it
covers all stages of the life of the packaged product, namely: design, production,
distribution and use, without forgetting recovery of the packaging. It includes the
notions of anchoring in the territories and proximity. It includes resource savings
(material, water, energy), in particular, by the eco-design of the product and
packaging, the optimization of the use of all resources, the reuse of packaging
(especially in business to business), the prevention of packaging waste, the reduction
of product losses (also by reducing food waste), the improvement of recyclability
and the closure of material flows by its reuse. It also includes any initiative allowing
changes in behavior and/or market codes for the best in packaging.
The packaging activities must be mainly local and not easily outsourced. The
packaging sector is an emblematic example of a circular economy, where production
and recycling generate economic activities synonymous with territorial roots. The
packaging industry is generally an economic activity that meets the needs of
principals who are in proximity. The reasons for this proximity are historical as well
as economic.
There are many details linking the world of packaging and the circular economy.
This is a complicated step, especially in a society where this type of operation is not
yet the standard. However, the priority of large organizations is no longer based on
renewable energies or on the rational use of resources. We must now decide to
consider the origin of the problem at its source. If “ecological” packaging does not
exist as such, it is up to companies to make strategic choices according to the
objectives that they wish to achieve (avoid waste, reduce the carbon footprint, etc.).
There are no good or bad practices. A company that does not use plastic will not
necessarily have a lower ecological impact than another company that uses it,
especially if the latter integrates a circular approach to its activity and continues to
optimize its services or products. The development of new materials and
technologies by the packaging industry may contribute to a better circular and
ecological economy for the food industry.
I.7. References
ALL4PACK (2016). Packaging: Market and challenges in 2016. The global

marketplace for packaging, processing, printing & handling. Trade Show, Paris.
Introduction to Food Packaging xxxi
ANIA (Association Nationale des Industries Alimentaires) (2020). Economie

circulaire et gestion des emballages : les entreprises alimentaires en action
[Online]. Available: https://www.ania.net/developpement-durable/economie-
circulaire-et-gestion-des-emballages-les-entreprises-alimentaires-en-action and
https://ania.net/Livret-dengagements-emballages-ANIA-oct2019.pdf [Accessed
13 April 2020].
Auliandri, T.A., Thoyib, A., Rohman, F., and Rofiq, A. (2018). Does green
packaging matter as a business strategy? Exploring young consumers’
consumption in an emerging market. Problems and Perspectives in Management,
16(2), 376–384.
CNE (Conseil National de l’Emballage) (2020). L’emballage en France [Online].
Available: https://conseil-emballage.org/lemballage-en-france/ [Accessed 13
April 2020]
Coles, R. (2011). Introduction. In Food and Beverage Packaging Technology, Coles,
R. and Kirwan, M. (eds). Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Chichester.
Deng, X. and Kahn, B.E. (2009). Is your product on the right side? The “Location
Effect” on perceived product heaviness and package evaluation. Journal of
Marketing Research, 46(6), 725–738.
European Commission (1994). Packaging and packaging waste. European
Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC [Online]. Available: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31994L0062.
European Commission (2020). Internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and
SMEs: Sustainability and circular economy [Online]. Available:
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/sustainability/circular-economy_en [Accessed
18 April 2020].
ITC (International Trade Centre) (2020). Packaging. The Glossary of the International
Trade Centre [Online]. Available: http://www.intracen.org/packaging/glossary/P/
[Accessed 8 April 2020].
Kaufmann, H.R., Panni, M.F., Khan, A., and Orphanidou, Y. (2012). Factors
affecting consumers’ green purchasing behavior: An integrated conceptual
framework. Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 14(31), 50–69.
Lee, S.M. (1989). Dictionary of Composite Materials Technology. Technomic
Publishing Company, Lancaster.
McTigue Pierce, L. (2020). How packaging trends will shape 2020. Packaging
Digest [Online]. Available: https://www.packagingdigest.com/packaging-design/
how-packaging-trends-will-shape-2020-2020-02-27 [Accessed 20 April 2020].
xxxii Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
Ordabayeva, N. and Chandon, P. (2013). Predicting and managing consumers’

package size impressions. Journal of Marketing, 77, 123–137.
Robertson, G.L. (2013). Food Packaging: Principles and Practice, 3rd edition. CRC
Press, Boca Raton.
Scholderer, J. and Grunert, K.G. (2005). Consumers, food and convenience: The
long way from resource constraints to actual consumption patterns. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 26(1), 105–128.
Wells, V.K. (2014). Behavioural psychology, marketing and consumer behaviour: A
literature review and future research agenda. Journal of Marketing Management,
30(11–12), 1119–1158.
WPO (2008). Market statistics and future trends in global packaging. World Packaging
Organisation [Online]. Available: www.worldpackaging.org [Accessed 6 April
2020].
1
Wood-based Packaging
1.1. Introduction
Wood packaging is used to pack, transport, handle, preserve, present and add
value to many food products and sectors (fruits and vegetables, fish and seafood,
wines and spirits, oils, cheese and dairy, raw meat, cured meat and delicatessen,
bread and bakery, dried fruits, etc.). There is a special focus on wood barrels and
casks, which are considered as the primary packaging for both the storage and the
aging of many beverages, such as wine, whiskey, sherry and cognac.
Wood packaging represents only between 9 and 12% of the tonnage of the
overall production of packaging materials and only 2–3% of the value. Nevertheless,
wood is substantially less expensive than other raw packaging materials, and, unlike
alternative materials, such as plastics, wood is a sustainable resource (FEFPEB
2020). Wooden packaging is reusable, repairable and recyclable. At the end of its
life, it becomes a renewable energy source. Finally, wood is the only raw material
that is endlessly renewable. It is an essential part of the circular economy.
Wood packaging material, sometimes referred to as non-manufactured wood

packing (NMWP) or solid wood packing material (SWPM), is both hardwood
(deciduous trees like oak, maple or hornbeam) and softwood (evergreen trees,

First Edition. Frédéric Debeaufort, Kata Galić, Mia Kurek, Nasreddine Benbettaieb and Mario ščetar.
© ISTE Ltd 2021. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2 Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
mainly conifers and poplars). Wood packaging materials are different from wooden
products, for example, plywood, particle board, oriented strand board, veneer and
wood wool. These are created by using glue, heat and pressure, or a combination of
these methods. Wood packaging materials are used to support, protect and carry
goods. Different examples of wood packaging materials include pallets, crates,
boxes, cases, bins, reels, drums, load boards, skids, pallet collars and containers.
The wood packaging manufacturing sector includes four major separate areas:
pallets, light packaging, cooperage and industrial packaging. Wood packaging is
often not considered as packaging by the consumer because it is almost invisible in
shops, as it is mainly used in tertiary packaging, dunnage and transport packaging
(pallets, boxes). On the other hand, crates or trays are often used for the
transportation and storage of fruits, vegetables and cheese, and wood barrels are
used for storing and aging wines and distilled beverages such as whiskey or cognac.
Wood boxes, which are also considered as secondary packaging, are often used for
luxury packaging, for instance, for wine bottles.
Packaging is one of the most important parts of the wood industry, and there is
an increasing demand for wooden packaging these days, as awareness is rising about
the negative environmental impact of the use of plastic. The upcoming stringent
government regulation for plastic packaging has had a positive impact on the wood
packaging market. The global wood packaging market is predicted to grow by
US$5.42 billion during the 2019–2023 period, with a compound annual growth rate
(CAGR) estimated from 4 to 6.6%, and it is estimated that Europe will contribute to
about 35% of this growth. In the wood packaging market, pallets represent more
than 65% of the value, reaching about US$60 billion in 2018, and more than 90% of
these pallets are made from wood (Parobek et al. 2019; Technavio 2020). One of the
key trends for this market is the growing innovation in wooden pallets. Indeed,
distribution centers, production units and manufacturing units are focusing on reducing
the cost of shipping during the export and import of goods, which also includes the
costs of trade packaging, sanitization, floor spacing, utilization and labor during
storage and transportation. Wood packaging, such as pallets and wooden boxes, is a
cost-effective option when compared to other products, such as plastic pallets.
1.2. Wood as a raw material for food packaging: characteristics,

requirements, limitations and regulations
The term “wood” refers to the solid fabric of trees and shrubs. Wood is thus a
renewable natural resource. There are two types of wood, coming from two different
types of trees: hardwoods and softwoods (mainly conifers), which are distinguished
by the shape of their leaves. The multitude of properties wood has, some common to
Wood-based Packaging 3
both hardwood and softwood and some specific to the different types (depending on
their structure and chemical composition), allows for great diversity in its use.
Wood is mainly composed of cellulose (40–50%), which constitutes the basic

structure and absorbs the tensile forces that are exerted on the tree. Cellulose is a
polysaccharide, made up of a long chain of linked glucose molecules. The remaining
parts of the wood consist of hemicellulose and lignin. These two substances serve as
filling and support material and absorb the pressure forces. Hemicellulose is also a
polysaccharide, but its branched chains are made up of different sugars, rather than
just glucose. Its chains are also shorter and less solid than the long chains of
cellulose. Lignin is the component that gives wood its strength. Chemically, lignin is
made up of many different constituent parts. Most are phenols, that is, chemical
structures with aromatic rings. Lignin is incorporated into the wall of plant cells and
is responsible for the transformation of cells into wood, also known as lignification.
In the cell wall, lignin fills the space and binds together other components, such as
cellulose and hemicellulose. Without lignin, plants would not be able to rise several
meters above the ground. Wood contains high-molecular-weight compounds, which
are considered as biopolymers (cellulose, lignin), as well as extractable and volatile
compounds, most of which are soluble in aqueous solutions, hydro-alcoholic
solutions, or beverages. These influence the properties of the wood, such as the
acidity, hygroscopicity, color, odor, mechanical properties and durability.
The interaction of these three materials creates the mechanical properties of

wood and determines its flexibility and resistance. As wood has different
compositions depending on the species of tree, the types of wood are distinguished
by their structure. Because of these differences, each wood has specific properties
that make it suitable for one application rather than another. When it comes to food
contact and packaging applications, only a limited number of species are allowed to
be used (ISPM15 2013). These are birch, fir, Douglas fir, acacia, poplar, alder,
aspen, hornbeam, chestnut, ash, olive, maritime pine, scots pine, sycamore and oak.
However, solid foods are restricted to poplar, beech, walnut and elm. There is a lack
of references on the authorization of resinous and tropical woods for contact with
food, the well-established use of properly cured softwood without health problems
notwithstanding. Fruit and vegetable pallets and boxes, or tables used to cure cheese
are good examples of this.
The main limitations of wood for contact with food and food packaging are
related to the risk of splinters, which create risks in handling and ingestion, and
hygroscopicity and porosity, which makes wood susceptible to the absorption of
chemical compounds, and thus increases microbial contamination and chemical
risks. Moreover, the heterogeneous structure of wood (e.g. cellular structure and
fiber orientation) depends on genetics, species and climatic conditions, which make
it variable as a raw material, meaning the selection and processes must be adapted.
The main argument for not using wood is that it is difficult to clean. Wooden
cutting boards, for example, tolerate less cleaning than plastic ones and can be
quickly ruined in the dishwasher. Unlike plastic and steel, wood is also a porous
material. This means that bacteria can enter the wood and survive until they are
released, contaminating food the next time the board is used (Kim et al. 2017).
Several studies have confirmed that pathogenic bacteria can survive in wood. It has
also been demonstrated that bacteria that have been absorbed into wood can be
released again when the wood becomes damp (Aviat et al. 2016). Other studies have
also shown that the effect of certain disinfectants (including quaternary ammonium
compounds) is lower on wood than on plastic and that the bacteria count remains
high, even after washing. The study by Deza et al. (2007) showed that the bacteria
count on wood is not reduced by rinsing with water, while the same procedure can
reduce the bacteria count on plastic by 99%.
Wood is likely to interact with foodstuffs both bacteriologically and chemically.

However, very few problems have been encountered up until now in actual use. Wood
is also a material that can have a desired effect in agri-food technology (aging spirits
in wooden barrels, maturing cheese with wooden churns, etc.). The assessment of
the suitability of wooden equipment or articles that will be in contact with food must
therefore take into account their use, and the interactions desired.
Wood has a number of obvious advantages compared with plastic or steel. Wood
absorbs impacts better than many other materials, ensuring that objects are less
likely to skate across its surface, meaning, in the case of cutting boards, that knives
slip less, which increases safety and reduces wear on the knives. Wood has good
resistance to compressive and tensile forces, high flexural strength, the ability to
split, hardness and low thermal and electrical conductivity. Wooden shelving has the
property of being able to absorb and release moisture (from 7 to 20% water content),
which is of great significance when maturing cheese, for example (Gaglio et al.
2018). There are also arguments in favor of wood from a hygienic point of view.
The main argument is that bacteria die more quickly on wood than on other surfaces.
The first scientific studies to show that wood is not necessarily less hygienic than
plastic were released in 1994. The studies showed that fewer bacteria were
demonstrated on wooden boards than on plastic ones. There has since been
speculation that the reduced survival of bacteria in wooden materials may be due to
them drying out. Several studies have shown that bacteria die quickly in wood,
while surviving well on other materials like plastic or glass. However, other studies
found no difference in bacteria survival rates on wood and other materials. In
contrast to Schonwalder et al. (2002), who wrote that the effect of disinfectants is
lower on wood than on plastic, another group later found that bacteria on wood can
be more easily killed with disinfectants than bacteria on glass or plastic. The
hygienic properties of a veneer were also investigated and found to be similar to
those of plastic and stainless steel. The transfer of bacteria from wood to food has
also been tested, and the studies showed less transfer from wood than from plastic.
Whether wood has an antimicrobial effect itself has long been a subject of
discussion. Some studies have compared different types of wood, and some
indications have been found that bacteria survive less on some types of wood,
especially pine, than on others, and that this effect is regardless of the age of the
wood (Filip et al. 2012; Fink et al. 2013). Extracts of some hardwoods (especially
white ash and also, to some extent, cherry and oak, but not many others) have also
shown an antimicrobial effect in model trials. Other studies have showed that
bacteria have a better survival rate on hardwood than on softwood types, but it is not
known whether this is due to the wood itself or to the pre-treatment that the
softwood has been exposed to Aviat et al. (2016) and Kim et al. (2017).
All restrictions and obligations for the use of wood for food and non-food
packaging are shown in regulations and directives by the European Commission:
– 995/2010, dated October 20, 2010, dealing with illegally harvested timber and
timber products that are prohibited in the EU market, that is, the obligations of
operators who place timber and timber products on the market;
– 2005/15/EC, dated February 28, 2005, concerning the European requirements
for the import of wood packaging material and dunnage, regarding, particularly, the
phytosanitary measures (plant health and biosecurity) and hygiene detailed in the
ISPM-15 (2013) procedures (heat-treated or fumigated woods, stamp marking,
debarking, etc.);
– and, of course, the general regulation for food packaging, the regulation on
materials and articles intended to come into contact with food 1935/2004, dated
October 27, 2004, and 10/2011, dated January 14, 2011.
Sanitation of wood materials for food packaging and for coming into contact
with food is the most important operation involved. Indeed, the wood surface could
carry and transfer microbial and chemical contamination to foods. The treatments
applied to wood and wood materials for packaging uses are heat treatments,
washing, steam heating, super steam pasteurization, radiation and microwave
technology. The cleaning and sanitation efficacy of the wood surface and bulk (due
to the porosity) depends on the origin of the wood, the thickness and the exposure to
potentially harmful environments.
1.3. Pallets
All pallets are made from the cores of trees. However, because the lumber used
to make pallets is a mixture of hardwood and softwood, the pallet producers usually
cannot specify the type of wood. The production of pallets accounts for 43% of the
hardwood and 15% of the softwood usage in the USA and is almost the same in
Europe. However, there are two species of wood used to manufacture pallets that are
found in high proportions. These are oak and pine.
The cheapest pallets are made of softwood and are often considered to be
expendable, to be discarded as trash along with other wrapping elements at the end
of the trip. These are simple stringer pallets and are liftable from two sides. Wooden
pallets can pose serious bio-hazard risks as they are susceptible to bacterial and
chemical contamination, such as E. coli in food and produce transportation, and
even insect infestation, and thus, there is a need for ISPM-15 (2013), which is also
adopted by the US government (Early 2012). Nevertheless, the risk is very well
controlled.
Wooden pallet construction specifications can depend on many different aspects:

the pallet’s intended use: general, FDA (Food and Drug Administration of USA),
storage, chemical or export; the expected load weight; the type of wood desired:
recycled, hard, soft, kiln-dried or combo (new and recycled); and even the type of
fasteners desired to hold the pallet together: staples or nails (NWPCA 2014). Pallet
design and dimensions depend on the countries and transportation requirements
(Figure 1.1). The most produced and used pallet in the EU is the Europallet, of
which the dimensions 800 x 1200 are adapted to the dimensions of truck trailers for
optimized filling. The entry corresponds to the direction where the forks of the
handling equipment can be inserted. Each piece of the pallet has a specific function,
for instance, the mechanical resistance to handling, carriage, stacking, etc. (Figure
1.2). For special carriage or storage in bulk, or large amounts of some food products,
such as apples, pallet boxes or pallet crates are also used (Figure 1.3).
Figure 1.1. Pallet types (adapted from

https://www.homestratosphere.com/types-of-pallets/)
Figure 1.2. Pallet components and structure

Figure 1.3. Pallet box and pallet crates
The process of pallet manufacturing is quite simple (Figure 1.4). Pallet cants
from local sawmills are trimmed to the proper length, ripped into boards and sawn
into the proper-sized deck boards and stringers for the type of pallet needed. Next,
notches can be cut into stringers to allow four-way entry with forklifts or two-way
entry with pallet jacks. If the pallet is going to be used for international shipping or
in sanitary applications, the wood may be treated prior to assembly. Finally, the
wood pieces are assembled. This can be done by hand with pneumatic nailers and
staplers (for small orders, typically less than 200 units) or, more commonly, by
automated machines that can nail together and produce pallets at high volumes.
Pallets are submitted to tests of strength (bending, forklifting, compression,

stacking, shearing, corner loads, impact, load, stiffness, etc.), durability (moisture
content, fungi contamination, etc.) and compatibility with production lines,
according to the standards ISO8611 (2011a, 2011b, 2011c) and EC 2005/15/EC
(European Commission 2005).
Figure 1.4. Pallet assembly (adapted from http://jusworx.co.za/)

1.4. Boxes, crates and trays
Crates and trays are open boxes, baskets or packing cases, used especially to
transport fragile goods such as fruits and vegetables or glass containers. Crates are
usually large, whereas trays are of medium or small size. Wooden boxes are closed
crates. Fruits and vegetables are still mainly packed, carried and displayed on shelves
in wooden trays or light crates (Figure 1.5). Their function is similar to a gasket, not
to increase preservation or shelf life, but to carry and display fragile food products.
Figure 1.5. Wooden trays/crates for fruits and vegetables
Wooden crates have often been used to carry and deliver bottles of milk, wine,
water and other beverages (Figure 1.6). They are still widely used for added value
beverages (wine), or for heavy fruits and vegetables, such as melons or apples.
Figure 1.6. Boxes and crates for wine or milk bottles
1.5. Barrels and casks
Wooden barrels were, for a long time, the general packaging for the
transportation and storage of water, wine, vinegar, rum, salted meats or salted fish,
fruits, etc., for example, on big sailboats. They have been used for centuries to store
and transport wine, and to this day are used for the fermentation and aging of the
majority of red wines – and a good number of white wines too. Oak barrels are now
vital in wine production.
In the past, cherry, pine, walnut, chestnut and other wood have been made into
barrels or casks and have been used to age wine, but none compare to oak. Put
simply, wine and oak have an affinity for one another. Oak takes a wine and “calms”
it down, matures it, makes it soft on the palate and beautiful to drink. But by no
means assume that this means that oak “tames” a wine into being boring: it also
makes the wine more interesting and gives it complexity and depth that cannot evolve
on its own. A French barrel costs roughly $900 to $1,000 and an American oak
barrel costs roughly $400. According to a recent research by Future Market Insights
(2020), the global wine barrel market is expected to register a CAGR of 4.7% during
the forecast period 2017–2027. The global wine barrel market was estimated to be
valued at about US$3.2 billion in 2016 and was expected to reach US$5.3 billion
by the end of 2027. The value of barrels and casks remains quite interesting after they
have been used for wine-making. The “aged” barrels are usually sold to smaller
production wineries or to whiskey or cognac producers to age distilled alcohols.
The manual manufacturing of barrels is today only operated in the craft industry,
which always dominates the market in France and Italy. Nowadays, the profession
of cooper is still exercised, but with significant machine assistance, in particular, for
the hard and tedious work (stave assembly, tightening, etc.). Typically, a good
cooper can make one barrel per day, and a quality barrel is used for about five years
in higher-end wineries, where they are used to age the winery’s top wines for the
first two years.
Figure 1.7. Main stages of wood barrels and casks manufacturing
The steps of barrel and cask manufacturing are schematized in Figure 1.7. First,
tree trunks with zero to few defects (wood knots) are required; usually oak is
preferred (Vivas 2002). Wood maturation is a very important step prior to its use.
Wood is slowly dried in the open air for one to two years, to decrease the water
content to 14–15%, as well as to eliminate the most astringent tannins and refine the
aromatic profile. The water content of the wood allows us to ensure that the future
barrel is watertight. Trunks are cut in the form of logs, which are split into quarters
and, finally, shaped into staves. The next stage, the pinking step, really deals with
barrel-making. It consists of mounting the mature staves manually, joined in a
truncated cone in a metal ring. Provisional rings, adjusted with a flush and a
hammer, hold the staves together. The barrel is then heated on an oak wood brazier
for bending. Once its final shape has been obtained, there comes the very important
stage of heating once more, in order to cook the wood in-depth and give it all the
aromatic qualities that will allow it to match the wine or other beverage. A groove is
carved at either end of the barrel, in which the end pieces, called the counter and the
chants, are embedded. Rings of wood or strips of metal maintain the strength of the
barrel enough that it can be moved by rolling or rocking. The tightness of each
barrel is checked after manufacture by introducing pressurized hot water. It will
comply if it does not reveal any leaks. Each different piece constituting a barrel or
cask has a specific function related to watertightness, carriage, mechanical
resistance, opening or cleaning (Figure 1.8).
Figure 1.8. Wood barrel and cask structure

The barrel’s wood composition, size and volume, and its method of manufacture,
in particular, heating, have a great influence on the taste of the wine during its aging.
A finished standard barrel has a weight close to 45 kg, for a size of about
90 centimeters long and a diameter of 60 to 70 centimeters, corresponding to a volume
of 225 liters, which is the traditional cask volume used in French wine production
(Boakes 2001). According to the countries and uses targeted, the volume of wood
barrels and casks is different, and adapted to both product and function (Figure 1.9).
For wine production, barrels with volumes ranging from 200 to 250 liters are usually
preferred, whereas cognac production uses more 300-liter casks, 450- to 650-liter
casks are used to age sherry and port, and the biggest (700 to 982 liters) are used for
beer or fruit fermentation. In North America, the 700-liter cask called a “gorda” is
preferred for the marrying or vatting of whiskies. For instance, some producers of
Modena-type balsamic vinegars use different-size casks made of different woods
(oak, cherry, chestnut or pear) changing from one to another according to the
volume of vinegar reduction (evaporation) and the taste the wood imparts onto the
final vinegar (Figure 1.10).
Firkin
Firkin Quarter Rundlet
Quarter Rundlet Tierce
Tierce British
British American
American Hogshead
Hogshead Barrique
Barrique
41LL
41 50LL
50 70
70 LL 160
160 LL barrel
barrel standard
standard 225–300
225-300 LL 225
225 LL
Dsiepnsing
Dispensing Scotch
Scotch Wine
Wine Wine, rum,
Wine, rum, American
American forfor
wine, 300 L
wine,
Ale,
160
160 LL barrel
barrel
ale, Vinegar
vinegar whisky,
whisky, transport
transport slated goods
slated goods Ale and lager
Ale and lager 200 L whiskies, wine
whiskies, wine for Cognac
300 L
Vinegar
vinegar transport
transport storage 200 L and beer
and beer
storage Whisty and for Cognac
Whisky and
spirits ageing
spirits aging
Puncheon
Puncheon Butt
Butt Pipe
Pipe Drum
Drum Gorda
Gorda Tun
Tun
450L L
450 500 L
500 L 650650LL 650
650LL 700
160 L
L 982L L
982
Sherry,
Sherry,port
port Sherry, water
Sherry, water PortPrt wine
wine storage
storage Madeirawine
Madeira wine Whiskymarrying
Whisky marrying Beer
Beerfermentation,
fermentation,
wines
wines andvatting
and vatting spirit
spiritmarrying
marrying
Figure 1.9. Size and functions

of casks and barrels
Oak
Cherry
Chestnut
Different
Juniper wood origins and
barrel size
Ash tree
for different balsamic
Mulberry vinegar tastes
Locust tree
Figure 1.10. Casks and barrels for balsamic vinegar

aging at Midolini Balsameria (© F Debeaufort)
1.6. Wood package–food interactions
If wood packaging has limited uses due to the risks of splinters and transferring
toxins, as described in section 1.2, wood packaging could also interact with food in a
beneficial way. Wood has been safely used for centuries in direct contact with food.
Fruit and vegetables, as well as fresh and smoked fish have been stored in wooden
crates. In cheese- and wine-making, wooden boards and barrels have been
indispensable in traditional production (Aviat et al. 2016).
In some countries, the use of wooden vats or boxes, or the practice of ripening
cheese blocks or wheels on wooden shelves, is considered critical in moisture
exchange and in defining the final texture and flavor of the cheese. The use of
wooden shelves is also required in the specifications of many PDO (Protected
Designation of Origin) cheeses. This example of cheese displays the fact that wood
packaging can contribute not only to the packaging but also to the food-making
process. The limitations and regulations on the use of wood in contact with food are
discussed in section 1.2. Cheeses with bloomy or washed rinds (complex surface
microflora) promote the development of a biofilm on the surface of the wood. The
composition of biofilms is determined by the type of cheese and its microflora, and
by the cleaning or disinfection of the wood (Imhoff et al. 2017). The biofilms
formed can have a major technological role in the manufacture of cheese, such as
acidification, in the case of wooden boxes, or colonization with a surface flora, in
the case of wooden shelves. In addition to these symbiotic properties, the material of
the wood itself may have interesting properties in terms of food safety. Its
hygroscopic properties allow rapid drying, which inhibits microbial growth. Some
species of wood have antimicrobial properties, probably linked to the presence of
polyphenols. The most effective antimicrobial species are oak and pine. For
example, spruce shelving, which is widely used for ripening cheeses, is less
effective than oak, but much better than plastic in preventing unwanted or
contaminating bacterial growth (Milling et al. 2005). Colonization with an adequate
biofilm inhibits the establishment and growth of Listeria monocytogenes, probably
due to nutritional competition (Guillier et al. 2008).
For centuries, wood has been considered natural packaging for the ripening of
various food products, especially cheese. New food safety regulations are
contributing to the substitution of wood by other materials, such as polypropylene,
high‐density polyethylene or stainless steel. However, the replacement of wooden
utensils with utensils of other materials changes the characteristics of cheeses,
affecting the traditional flavor and texture, often not positively (Galinari et al. 2014).
This can also be observed in other food products.
In the factories making dried egg pasta such as screw-shaped pasta (Fuslilli) and
spirals (spirali), wooden trays are used to dry the fresh pasta. Only a part of these trays
are in direct contact with the pasta. Even if wood is now gradually being replaced by
plastic, Filip et al. (2012) showed that the total number of microorganisms (CFU/
20 cm²) was significantly lower on the wooden frames, compared to the plastic
frames, and that 30% of swabs sampled from the plastic frames exceeded 200
CFU/20 cm², whereas for the wooden frames it was only 3% of the swabs.
Wood contributes to the aroma and taste of cheese, but it is one of the key
parameters in the quality of the taste of some fermented beverages. Swaffield et al.
(1997) studied the effect of the biofilms on wood in cider production. This study
identified bacteria (lactic acid and acetic acid bacteria) and yeasts that they isolated
from wooden cider fermentation vats. They concluded that these kinds of stable
biofilms could positively influence the organoleptic profiles of cider when well
controlled.
Of course, wood is a fundamental contact material for wine production, and

particularly, the fermentation and aging steps. Wood is used as a tool to develop the
characteristics of fruity grapes (or hide imperfections such as dilution or vegetable
notes), while seeking to avoid possible defects such as notes of sap or dryness, for
example (Delabre et al. 2011). In general, wooden barrels allow the natural
widening of the aromatic palette of wines (the wood offering aromas of vanilla,
spices, toast, etc.), the strengthening of the wines’ structure (enrichment in tannins)
and sweetness on the palate. Unlike the stainless steel tank, the micropores in wood
allow a little air to pass through. Thanks to this micro-oxygenation, the wine can
continue to breathe to “round” its tannins and reduce the primary aromas, allowing
new aromas to be expressed. The barrel, which is in contact with the wine, also
releases its own tannins, which make it possible to intensify and stabilize the color
of a wine. Its aromas will contribute to the complexity of the wine by bringing notes
of wood, toasted almonds, toasted bread, cloves or vanilla (oak, for example,
contains vanillin). The use of wood barrels or casks must be reasonable, in order to
supplement the initial quality of the harvest and to not mask the intrinsic quality of
the pressed grape. Indeed, more and more winegrowers are opposing the fashion of
“all new oak barrels”, which, by insisting excessively on artificial wood, will
denature and standardize wines. This excessive insistence sometimes gives us the
impression of drinking plank juice; the barrel has soaked the wine with so many
aromatic woody notes. The quality and manufacturing process of the wood barrel
creates a high variation of flavor and aromatic compounds that are transferred into
the wine in order to make it high or low quality. However, the specifics of any
particular barrel company’s method or stave selection process are less significant
than the fact that, by these various methods, coopers are trying to produce more
consistent barrels that have a more predictable sensory impact on the wines aged in
them (Phillips 2016). Wine-making and aging in wooden barrels are unique skills
mastered by generations of winemakers. It is a century-old collaboration between
coopers and winegrowers, which is accompanied by a scientific approach in
understanding the interactions between the wood and the wine (Barrera-Garcia et al.
2006). A stopper made from cork, which is made from the bark of the trunk of the
cork oak, could also affect wine quality, particularly due to its permeability to
oxygen, alcohol, sulfur dioxide and aroma compounds (Karbowiak et al. 2010).
Natural stoppers are presented and discussed in Chapter 9.
1.7. References
Aviat, F., Gerhards, C., Rodriguez-Jerez, J.J., Michel, V., Le Bayon, I., Ismail, R.,
and Federighi, M. (2016). Microbial safety of wood in contact with food: A
review. Comp. Rev. Food Sci. Food Safety, 15(3), 491–505.
Barrera-García, D., Gougeon, R.D., Debeaufort, F., Voilley, A., and Chassagne, D.
(2006). Transfer of volatile phenols at oak wood/wine interface in a model
system. Dev. Food Sci., 43, 449–452.
Boakes, J. (2001). Making a Barrel Paperback. Dalesman Publishing Company Ltd,

Skipton, North Yorkshire, UK.
Delabre, S., Pic, L., Bonnefond, C., and Granes, D. (2011). Le bois en vinification :
quels bénéfices dans le sud de la France ? Bois en vinification, 12, 1–2.
Deza, M.A., Araujo, M., and Garrido M.J. (2007). Efficacy of neutral electrolyzed
water to inactivate Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Pseudomonas
aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus on plastic and wooden kitchen cutting
boards. J. Food. Prot., 70(1), 102–108.
Early, R. (2012). Raw materials. In Food Hygiene Auditing, Chesworth N. (ed.).
Springer, Tyne and Wear, UK.
European Commission (2004). Materials and articles intended to come into contact
with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC. Regulation
1935/2004 [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/
?uri=CELEX%3A32004R1935.
European Commission (2005). Amending Annex IV to Directive 2000/29/EC on
protective measures against the introduction into the community of organisms
harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the community.
Council Directive 2005/15/EC [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32005L0015.
European Commission (2010). The obligations of operators who place timber and
timber products on the market. Regulation 995/2010 [Online]. Available:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32010R0995.
European Commission (2011). Plastic materials and articles intended to come into
contact with food. Commission Regulation 10/2011 [Online]. Available:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32011R0010.
FEFPEB (European Federation of Wooden Pallet and Packaging Manufacturers)
(2020). Properties of Wood [Online]. Available: https://www.fefpeb.eu/wooden-
packaging/properties-of-wood [Accessed 23 March 2020].
Filip, S., Fink, R., Oder, M., and Jevsnik, M. (2012). Hygienic acceptance of wood
in food industry. Wood Sci. Technol., 46(4), 657–665.
Fink, R., Filip, S., Oder, M., and Jevsnik, M. (2013). Wood in food industry –
Potential applications and its limitations. Microb. Pathogens Strat. Combating
Them: Sci., Technol. Educ., 188–194.
Food and Agriculture Organization (2013). FAO ISPM-15: Wood packaging
material in international trade, Regulation. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations and International Plant Protection Convention, Rome.
Future Market Insights (2020). Wooden Plywood Packaging Market – Wooden &
Plywood Packaging Market: Global Industry Analysis 2014–2018 and Opportunity
Assessment 2019–2029 [Online]. Available: https://www.futuremarketinsights.
com/reports/wooden-plywood-packaging-market [Accessed 23 March 2020].
Gaglio, R., Cruciata, M., Scatassa, M.L., Tolone, M., Mancuso, I., Cardamone, C.,
Corona, O., Todaro, M., and Settanni, L. (2018). Influence of the early bacterial
biofilms developed on vats made with seven wood types on PDO Vastedda della
valle del Belice cheese characteristics. Int. J. Food. Microbiol., 291, 91–103.
Galinari, E., Escarião da Nóbrega, J., de Andrade, N.J., and de Luces Fortes
Ferreira, C.L. (2014). Microbiological aspects of the biofilm on wooden utensils
used to make a Brazilian artisanal cheese. Braz. J. Microbiol., 45(2), 713–720.
Guillier, L., Stahl, V., Hezard, B., Notz, E., and Briandet, R. (2008). Modelling the
competitive growth between Listeria monocytogenes and biofilm microflora of
smear cheese wooden shelves. Int. J. Food Microb., 128(1), 51–57.
Imhof, R., Schwendimann, L., and Riva Scettrini, P. (2017). Sanitising wooden
boards used for cheese maturation by means of a steam-mediated heating
process. J. Consumer Prot. Food Safety, 12, 255–263.
International Standard Organization (2011a). ISO 8611/2011-1, Pallets for materials
handling – Flat pallets – Part 1: Test methods [Online]. Available:
https://www.iso.org/standard/.
International Standard Organization (2011b). ISO 8611/2011-2, Part 2: Performance
requirements and selection of tests [Online]. Available:
International Standard Organization (2011c). ISO 8611/2011-3, Pallets for materials
handling – Flat pallets – Part 3: Maximum working loads [Online]. Available:
Karbowiak, T., Brachais, L., Alinc, J.-B., Gougeon, R.D., Debeaufort, F., Voilley,
A., and Chassagne, D. (2010). White wines oxidation and the role of cork. Crit.
Rev. Food Sci. Nut., 50, 20–52.
Kim, K.J., Ryu, J.A., and Eom, T.J. (2017). Characteristics of the heat treated wood
packaging materials according to international standards for phytosanitary
measures and verifiability of heat treatment. Wood Res., 64(4), 647–658.
Milling, A., Kehr, R., Wulf, A., and Smalla, K. (2005). Survival of bacteria on wood
and plastic particles: Dependence on wood species and environmental
conditions. Holzforschung, 59(1), 72–81.
National Wooden Pallet and Container Association (2014). NWPCA Uniform

Standard for Wood Pallets [Online]. Available: www.palletcentral.com
[Accessed 23 March 2020].
Parobek, J., Loucanova, E., Nosalova, M., and Dovcikova, A. (2019). Perception of
wood-based packaging innovation applying smart solutions. In Proceedings of
the 12th WoodEMA Annual International Scientific Conference on Digitalisation
and Circular Economy: Forestry and Forestry-based Industry Implications,
Chobanova, R. (ed.). WoodEma, Zagreb, Croatia.
Phillips, C. (2016). New barrel technology uses science to produce more consistent
product. Wine Business Monthly, 5, 18–23.
Schonwalder, A., Kehr, R., Wulf, A., and Small K. (2002). Wooden boards affecting
the survival of bacteria? Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff, 60(4), 249–257.
Swaffield, C.H., Scott, J.A., and Jarvis, B. (1997). Observations on the microbial
ecology of traditional alcoholic cider storage vats. Food Microbiol., 14(4),
353–361.
Technavio (2020). Global Wood Packaging Market 2019–2023 [Online]. Available:
https://www.technavio.com/report/global-wood-packaging-market-industry-
analysis [Accessed 23 March 2020].
Vivas, N. (2002). Manuel de la tonnellerie, 2nd edition. Editions Ferret (ed.),
Bordeaux, France.
2
Papers and Boards

Paper and paper-based materials are the oldest and most versatile packaging
materials available on the market today. Paper and cardboard are the leading
materials used in packaging, in France and worldwide. This lead is also true in terms
of turnover. Worldwide, half of the paper produced is used as packaging material.
Globally, about 420 million tons of paper-based packaging are produced, nearly
90 million tons in Europe in 2018 (PaperIndustryWorld 2020). In France, no less
than 4.5 million tons are produced for transformation into the most varied packaging
systems, affecting all industrial and commercial sectors – which represents a
turnover of more than 2 billion euros. Fiber-based solutions, cartons, wrapping paper
and corrugated cardboard are doing well in the packaging sector – particularly in
high-end products and transport packaging – thanks to their moderate costs and,
above all, their sustainable and ecological image. Paper and cardboard packaging
dominates, however, in terms of volume, plastics are the most significant. Today,
this major industrial sector revolves around three families of products: paper
packaging, flat (or compact, as opposed to corrugated cardboard) and corrugated
paper. While there may be common applications, these types of materials are mostly
still used for secondary packaging (Cofepac 2020).

The primary purpose of packaging is to protect and preserve products. To ensure

this protection, it is imperative to find the optimal combination between the different
packaging materials. Depending on the product, plastic or cardboard is often used. It
is also not uncommon to find multi-material packaging containing at least two types
of material, including paper or cardboard. In most cases, we know of corrugated
boxes which are packed with filling and padding materials depending on the product
and content. These cartons and packaging materials are particularly prevalent in
e-commerce, which also concerns the food industry. More and more customers are
ordering their food online, a quick, convenient and, above all, sustainable solution
with corrugated packaging materials.
The main advantages of using papers and boards for commercial packaging
include: excellent print quality for most boards, very good mechanical protection for
products, relatively low production and processing costs and ease of recycling.
Paper is made from cellulose fibers found in wood and grasses, making it renewable
and sustainable. The process of making virgin paper involves cutting down trees to
create virgin pulp, as well as using chemicals such as bleach. Paper and cardboard
can be recycled up to seven times before being mixed with new fibers or virgin
paper pulp. It is therefore important to recycle paper and cardboard to reduce its
environmental impact.
Even if the invention of writing paper is attributed to the Egyptians 3 millennia

BCE, it was not paper in the modern sense of the word – that is, obtained from
vegetable fibers – but papyrus. It was in the year 105 CE that paper was discovered
in China, during the reign of Emperor Hoti. Ts’ai Lun, the Minister of Agriculture,
designed a paper pulp made from old rags, bark and crushed vegetable fibers
dispersed in water (Cartonnage-Paulet 2020). At the beginning of the 20th century
with the development, in particular, of trade and transport, the production and
distribution of goods and food products required better protection of articles. A cheap
and easy solution was to use boxes and thick paper bags. The transition from the sale
of bulk products to the sale of packaged products also required that packaging offer
not only protection but also a means of communication through its display
(marketing). It has become more important to enable consumers to recognize
products in-store. Paper-based materials lend themselves very well to printing and
display and therefore responded to this demand from consumers and manufacturers
very early on. Traditional thick paper was no longer sufficient. This led to the
development of the first machines for making flat and corrugated cardboard in the
USA in the 1920s. Cardboard, however, was a French invention, in 1751, attributed
to a pupil of René-Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur, with Edward Healey and Edward
Allen obtaining a patent, in 1856, having invented the first cardboard machine in the
UK (Cartonnage-Paulet 2020).
Papers and Boards 21
A leader in the packaging world, paper and cardboard form the basis of a
diversified range of packaging products, from simple folding paper, to cardboard
cases, including large bags, the “American box”, corrugated boxes and laminated
packaging materials.
Wrapping papers can be unbleached or bleached, rubbed, primed, coated or

combined with other materials and take a variety of forms: kraft bags for wrapping
fruit and vegetables, crystal or parchment paper, technical and specialist papers
(covers for yoghurt jars, sheet metal dividers or coffee bags, parchment paper, etc.).
Paper is the base raw material for the manufacture of all carton types (CartonPro
2020). The flat cardboard generally has an interior wood or gray color and can be
coated or uncoated. It is a material perfectly suited to automated production lines,
capable of performing a wide range of different tasks, for example, acting as a
barrier to grease, humidity and the air. Its uses, as it is or in combination with other
materials, are very diverse: pastry boxes, cases for perfume, boxes for cigarettes,
tubes or barrels for heavy products, blister packs or displays for distribution, bricks
for milk, etc. Kraft papers, primarily, are the essential components of corrugated
cardboard, a “sandwich” packaging material formed by assembling several sheets of
these papers. Unbleached or white, light grammage or high density, resistant to
bursting, humidity or compression, these papers constitute a wide range, which
allows the manufacture of high-resistance industrial packaging, transport pallets,
displays for mass distribution or microgroove packaging for consumer products. The
highest usage rates of waste paper as raw material are found in the paper and
cardboard packaging sector. Thus, constantly demonstrating innovation, developing
new applications by combining with other materials, cardboard paper, made from
renewable raw materials (wood and recovered paper), demonstrates daily that it is
the packaging material of the future.
2.2. Pulp and cellulose extraction for paper-based materials
Paper is made from cellulose fibers extracted from trees, recycled paper and
plant fibers such as cereal straw. Today, about 97% of the world’s paper and board
is made from wood pulp, of which more than 80% comes from spruce, firs and pines
(softwood). Hardwoods, such as birch, aspen and others found in temperate climates
(mainly Europe), are also used as raw material for corrugated board or for printing
and writing papers. On the other hand, eucalyptus, native to Australia and New
Zealand, has been successfully cultivated in countries with hot climates (Portugal, for
Europe) as a raw material for a high-quality paste; this allows the manufacture of a
wide range of papers, including specialist papers. Softwoods, however, offer longer
fibers (on average 3 mm versus 1 mm for hardwoods). These long cellulose fibers
are therefore preferred for paper and cardboard requiring higher mechanical strength
characteristics. Wood composition and fiber characteristics affect the quality of the
pulp (cellulose fibers) and the yield of extraction (Table 2.1).
Composition (%) and

Softwood Hardwood
fiber characteristics
Cellulose 42–44 43–47
Lignin 25–30 17–26
Hemicellulose hexosanes 15 5–8
Hemicellulose pentosanes 10–15 15–35
Waxes, resins, fats 1–10 0.5–2
Fiber length (mm) 2–3.5 0.9–1.2
Fiber diameter (µm) 20–50 20–30
Table 2.1. Wood composition and fiber characteristics

(Otenio et al. 2004; Iggesund 2020)
Chemically pure cellulose consists of long molecules made up of glucose units

linked by β-(1→4) bonds. Glucose units are made up of carbon, hydrogen and
oxygen atoms. These molecules are held together side by side by hydrogen bonds to
form sheets, which in turn are stacked in tight layers to form “microfibrils”. The
microfibrils group together in bundles, with groups of these bundles forming the
cellulose fiber, the basis of the pulp. Several processes are used to extract these
cellulose fibers, depending on the origin of the raw material, the nature of the wood
and the recycling of waste paper and cardboard. Pulp production can be integrated
with paper production, or the pulp can be produced in a separate pulp mill. Pulp is
produced using chemical (lignin dissolution-based process) and/or mechanical
processes (fiber separation using either a shredder or a refiner), coupled, or not, with
heat treatments.
Depending on the process under consideration and the origin of the raw material,
the wood that arrives at a pulp mill can take different forms. It can be received in the
form of round branches of wood (short logs, bolts) with its bark, or in the form of
bark-peeled wood chips of about 1 to 3 cm. If bolts, branches or logs (trunks) of
round wood are used, they must be debarked before any other operation. Debarking
is usually done by tumbling the logs in large steel drums where wash water can be
applied. These debarked logs are then shredded in a chipper if the pulping process
requires chemical digestion. The chips are then sorted by size, cleaned and
temporarily stored for the subsequent manufacture of pulp.
2.2.1. Mechanical and thermomechanical pulping
There are many mechanical processes, which can be classified into four main
categories: stone ground wood (SGW), pressure ground wood (PGW), refined
mechanical pulp (RMP) and temperature treated mechanical pulp (TMP).
Mechanical processes that use a rotating abrasive wheel transform wood logs
into fibers, either at atmospheric pressure (SGW) or under pressure (PGW). The
friction between the grinding wheel and the wood causes a local rise in temperature,
reaching the glass-transition point of the lignin (about 175°C), which separates from
the cellulose fibers. At this temperature, it is possible to considerably reduce
inter-fiber cohesion forces, which enables dissociation between the cellulose fibers.
Once the fibers are separated, the pulp is removed from the surface of the grinding
wheel by rinsers and is collected in a tank before being purified (Petit-Conil 1999).
As mechanical grinding produces pulps that are not very resistant, mechanical chip
treatments have been developed in an attempt to produce longer, more resistant
fibers.
Other mechanical processes are for wood chips, which use disk refiners without
chemical wood treatment, and without heat treatment (RMP) or with heat treatment
using steam (TMP) before being transformed into fibers (Petit-Conil 1999). The
RMP process is based on the use of disks with special rotating blades and grooves to
separate the fibers of the initial structure of the wood chip. As they pass through the
blades of the disks, the chips undergo repeated cycles of compression and
expansion. These cycles carried out in the presence of water cause energy
absorption, leading to the mechanical breakdown of the bonds that hold the fibers
together. This process is more energy-consuming than the SGW process, but the
quality of the fiber is much better. The mechanical properties of the pastes can be
improved by subjecting the chips – before mechanical treatment – to heat treatment,
with steam, generally between 110 and 130°C, in the TMP process; often referred to
as the thermomechanical process. The first stage of defibration under pressure
(2–3 bar) makes it possible to obtain a coarse pulp and therefore requires a second
mechanical treatment called refining. The latter is carried out under pressure or at
atmospheric pressure.
2.2.2. Chemi-mechanical pulping
Mechanical processes on chips, using refiners, but with prior chemical treatment of
the wood, are known as chemi-mechanical pulping (CMP) or chemi-thermomechanical
pulping (CTMP) processes. Therefore, mechanical, thermal and chemical treatments
are combined to improve pulp quality for use in higher grades of paper (Bajpai 2012).
The chemical treatment promotes defibration and makes the lignin more
hydrophilic. After mechanical treatment, the fibers are longer, more flexible and
therefore have better characteristics (reduced opacity). The name given to the paper
pulp – CTMP or CMP – and the efficacy of pulp extraction (size of the yield)
depends on the significance of the chemical treatment (temperature, pressure and
duration). CTMP paste is generally produced at 120 to 130°C for 15 to 30 minutes;
for CMP paste, the temperature is higher (150 to 170°C) for a period of time that
may be longer than one hour. The yield of CTMP paste is then close to 90%, while
that of the CMP paste is between 80 and 90%. The chemicals used are mainly
sulfur-containing, such as sodium sulfite (1 to 5% compared to wood) used alone or
with soda (pH = 9–10). Chemical treatment produces a higher-quality pulp than
TMP, but the energy and water demands are higher.
2.2.3. Chemical pulping
Chemical pulps represent the majority of the world’s pulp production to date.
They are used in almost all grades of paper and board. The main purpose of this
process is to dissolve and extract lignin from the cell wall and thus produce perfectly
individualized fibers without mechanical damage. As most of the components of
non-fibrous wood are removed with this technology, yields are typically in the range
of 40–55%.
In the manufacture of chemical pulp, the wood chips and the chemicals in
aqueous solution are cooked together in a pressure vessel (digester), which can
operate batchwise or continuously. In batch cooking, the digester is filled with chips
through an upper opening, digestion chemicals are added and the contents cooked at
high temperatures (150–175°C) and pressures for long periods of time (several
hours). Once cooking is complete, the delignified pulp is discharged from the
digester and stored in a temporary retention tank. The sequence is then repeated.
During continuous digestion, the previously steamed chips are fed into the digester
at a continuous rate. Chips and chemicals are mixed together in the impregnation
zone at the top of the digester and then passed through the upper cooking zone, the
lower cooking zone and the wash zone, before being blown into the blowing tank.
The kraft or sulfate process is the alkaline process. It is the most widely used in
the world for many lignocellulosic materials (wood, annual plants). It is based on the
use of soda and sodium sulfate. The chemical treatment of the chips is carried out at
170–175°C for a period of 2–5 hours, depending on the origin of the wood. The
cooking is carried out in a vertical reactor where the chips are immersed in various
cooking liquors. During cooking, sodium sulfate is hydrolyzed into soda, NaHS and
H2S. The various sulfur compounds present react with the lignin to give more
soluble thiolignins. Soda also plays a delignification role, which is associated with
that of sulfate and its derivatives.
The acid or sulfite pulp process is only used for softwoods. It is based on the
reaction between lignin and calcium, sodium, ammonium or magnesium sulfite.
Ammonium bisulfite is preferred for softwoods with a high resin content. Sodium
bisulfite is interesting because it dissolves resins and has the advantage of containing
a higher content of sulfur dioxide. Therefore, it is used for woods rich in phenolic
compounds (such as flavones) which can combine with lignin and thus become
insoluble. Calcium bisulfite promotes the formation of insoluble resins that are
difficult to remove from pulp.
2.2.4. Recycled paper pulping and non-wood pulping
In the recycled pulp (known as secondary fiber) process, pulp from previously
manufactured products (e.g. cardboard, writing paper) is recovered by hydration and
agitation (Bajpai 2018). Secondary fibers include any fibrous material that has
undergone a manufacturing process and that is recycled as a raw material. However,
secondary fibers have less strength and binding potential than virgin fibers. The
fibrous material is introduced into a large reservoir, or pulper, and mixed by a rotor.
The pulper may contain hot water or pulping chemicals to help dissolve the paper
matrix. Debris and impurities are removed by wire filtration (debris accumulates on
the wires) before being eliminated (EPA 2001).
Non-wood pulp is made from fibers other than wood. Non-woody fibers used for
papermaking include straws and grasses (e.g. flax, rice), bagasse (sugarcane), hemp,
flax, ramie, kenaf, cotton and fibers extracted from leaves. The pulping of these
fibers can be carried out by mechanical means at high temperatures or by using the
kraft or modified soda process. The production of non-wood pulp remains uncommon
(EPA 2001).
2.2.5. Pulp bleaching
Paper pulps are either bleached or thinned, depending on the intended end
product. Since all the components of wood are present and the cellulose is white in
color, the brown color of these pulps comes mainly from the colored groups
(chromophores) of the lignin. In addition, the mechanical preparation conditions are
suitable for coloring: high temperatures, atmospheric oxidation, mechanical action,

etc. The purpose of bleaching is not to extract the lignin but to modify its chemical
structure by eliminating the chromophores.
For mechanical pulps (SGW, PGW, RMP and TMP), the chemicals commonly
used are oxidizing or reducing agents and, in this case, are hydrogen peroxide and
sodium hydrosulfite or dithionite.
Unbleached chemical or chemi-mechanical paper pulps (kraft) can be used in

certain categories of paper or cardboard such as kraft packaging bags, however, in large
part, it is necessary to bleach them for introduction into superior quality such as
papers intended for printing. Unbleached pulp still contains a quantity of lignin. The
bleaching of these pastes consists of removing this residual lignin completely, while
trying to limit the degradation of the polysaccharides. This operation takes place in
several stages, constituting a bleaching sequence. In general, a bleaching sequence
consists of the alternation of oxidation stages of lignin followed by its extraction
with alkaline agents. Each bleaching step is followed by washing to remove
materials dissolved by the action of bleaching agents on the pulp and prevent the
materials from consuming chemical reagents in the next step. The most effective
oxidizing agent on lignin, which does not affect cellulose, is chlorine, but this is
gradually being replaced by chlorine dioxide, which is more expensive but has much
less impact on the environment.
In the case of recycled pulp, bleaching is associated with ink removal. The
trituration and purification of the printed papers does not make it possible to obtain a
pulp of white cellulosic fibers. Due to the presence of ink, the paste thus prepared
has a gray appearance and its use in the manufacture of certain grades of printing
paper will only be possible if residual ink is removed. The main technique used is
the flotation process that is based on the differences in density of the fibers and ink
particles to achieve their separation. The fibrous suspension is treated with chemical
agents that facilitate the separation of the ink particles by foaming (flotation).
2.2.6. Pulp properties and uses
According to the process used for cellulose and pulp extraction, the pulp quality
for paper-making varies (Table 2.2). The pulp characteristics determine the type of
paper and thus the type of cardboard able to be produced (Bajpai 2010, 2012, 2018).
Compared to mechanical pulping, chemical pulping is more expensive and

produces a lower yield (50% vs. 90% for TMP or RMP). It requires large amounts
of chemicals, even if 99% are reusable. However, chemical pulp manufacture
consumes less energy and the product has high stiffness and brightness and low
opacity and yellowing.
Pulp grades
Pulp type Uses
(and origin)
Sulfite pulp (softwood
Printing papers
Chemical and hardwood)
pulps Kraft pulp (softwood Bleached-printing papers, paperboards,
and hardwood) unbleached-heavy packaging papers
Chemically Dissolving pulp (softwood Viscose, rayon, cellophane,
dissolved pulp and hardwood) acetate fibers and films
Cold-caustic process Newsprint and groundwood
Semi-chemical (softwood and hardwood) printing paper
pulp Neutral sulfite Newsprint and groundwood
process (hardwood) printing paper
Stone groundwood pulp
Corrugating medium
SGW (softwood)
Refined mechanical pulp Newsprint and groundwood
Mechanical RMP (softwood) printing paper
pulps Thermo-mechanical pulp Newsprint and groundwood printing
TMP (softwood) paper, paperboard front panels
Chemi-mechanical pulp
Printing papers
CTMP (softwood)
Table 2.2. Pulp grades and uses (adapted from Bajpai 2012)
2.3. Paper production and properties
2.3.1. Paper sheet processing
The production of paper can vary considerably depending on the type of paper
produced and the raw materials used in the process. Nonetheless, most paper and
paperboard production processes include the following key aspects: stock
preparation, paper machine processes and optional finishing processes.
Stock preparation is the process in which different types of pulp fibers are mixed
with water and various chemicals to form a fiber slurry. The cellulose (fiber) content
of the slurry ranges usually from 0.3 to 7%, according to the thickness (50 µm to
-
1.2 mm) and grammage (12 to 600 g.m ²) of the paper or paperboard expected (Riley
2012; Piergiovanni and Limbo 2016). Among the chemicals added to cellulose
fibers are acids and bases for pH control; water-repellent sizing agents (binding
agents); mechanical strength additives, either when dry (starches) or in the presence
of humidity (polymers); fillers providing shine, luminosity or opacity (kaolins,
TiO2); and antifoaming agents. A cleaning step during the preparation of the stock
aims to remove contaminants and impurities from the fibers (Castle et al. 1997;
Zheng et al. 2001). The fiber slurry goes to the entrance of the paper machine, which
could be in another factory or not.
The production of a sheet of paper is carried out using a “paper machine”. The
most common method for making paper or paperboard is the Fourdrinier technique
(Riley 2012). Various stages transform a suspension of fibers dispersed in water into
a continuous, homogeneous, resistant fibrous sheet that is adapted to the
requirements of its use. The paper machine has three main parts (Figure 2.1).
Formation of the sheet is carried out by draining the fibrous suspension, after it has
been poured onto the fabric of the flat table. The wet sheet obtained, containing
about 80% water, is compressed between two or more rollers. Pressing reduces the
amount of water to about 40%. The compacting of the sheet and the multiplication
of the inter-fiber contacts allows better cohesion of the fibers and therefore better
mechanical strength of the sheet thus formed. The sheet then enters the drying
section. Drying paper is an energy-intensive process. It is usually carried out by
conduction, where the paper is in contact with a metal cylinder heated by steam.
Sometimes, convection can be used. In this case, hot air is blown onto the sheet.
Infrared radiation ramps can also be used for heating the sheet by radiative energy.
The most common process, however, consists of passing the continuous sheet of wet
paper from cylinder to cylinder until its humidity is about 6%. The sheet is kept in
contact with the dryers by rolls made of cotton felt or artificial fabrics. It then leaves
the “dryer” section to undergo, if necessary, one or more finishing treatments
(Garcia Cerrillos and Mangin 2007).
There are different finishing treatments, depending on the type of paper and its
intended use. These treatments can be summarized in three processes: sizing,
coating and calendering or supercalendering (Bajpai 2010, 2012).
– Sizing gives the surface of the paper resistance to liquids, a property necessary
for writing or printing. The most common types of sizing are pigments and starches,
although animal glue and glycerol can also be used (for art and specialty papers or
banknotes). Sizing presses are located after the drying step; rollers deposit size onto
the wet paper, and this is followed by a drying step (Figure 2.1).
– Coating involves covering one or both sides of the paper with a “layer”,
generally composed of mineral pigments such as calcium carbonate, talc or kaolin.
This process aims to improve the surface of the paper by increasing its
impermeability against liquids, oils, gases and chemicals, increasing its adhesion
characteristics and by reducing friction wear. Coatings can be classified as aqueous,
organic solvent-based or extrusion. Aqueous coatings, used for base papers, contain
water soluble binders. They are applied in liquid form and are followed by a drying
step. Common aqueous binders are casein, starch, proteins, acrylics and polyvinyl
acetates. Solvent coatings are used in situations where the binders are not soluble in
water and are also used with specialty papers. With solvent casting, the drying is
faster and less energy-consuming, but fire risks exist. High-solids and extrusion
coatings are used for specialty papers where resistance to chemicals, gases or liquids
is required. High-solids coatings are applied (monomers) in a molten or liquid state
and then polymerized by heat, UV or electron beam treatments.
– Once the chemical processes are complete, physical processes, such as
calendering (or supercalendering, at higher pressure), cockling and embossing, can
be used to create the desired surface texture on the paper. Calendering involves
passing the paper through a stack of several steam-heated cast iron cylinders. The
finished paper is usually heavily sized and has the characteristics rather associated
with high-quality paper. This process aims to improve the surface of the paper,
making it more efficient for use in printing or providing more specific surface
properties.
Over the past few decades, the paper industry has gradually evolved towards
ever-larger and ever-faster paper machines. A modern paper machine produces a
10 m-wide and, on average, 120 km-long sheet every hour. A total of 90% of the
production cost of the sheet of paper is due to the hot pressing and drying
operations.
Figure 2.1. Paper sheet processing by the Fourdrinier method

2.3.2. Types of paper for packaging
The following list of paper types gives a general description of different paper
products available for packaging purposes.
Greaseproof papers and parchment paper are derived from chemical pulps and
packed tightly to prevent absorption of fluids. The paper very often has a special
polymer-based coating to further enhance grease resistance. Poly-coated kraft paper
is different from parchment paper, but it can also be used to resist grease penetration
(Riley 2012).
Glassine paper (or parchment paper) has a glassy, smooth surface, is transparent
and has a high density. It is obtained following a supercalender, during which it is
carefully moistened with water and then dried on a cylinder at high temperature and
pressure. This results in a very strong cohesion between the fibers, as well as almost
zero porosity. The addition of titanium dioxide makes the paper opaque, and it is
frequently plasticized to increase its toughness (Robertson 2013).
Wax papers provide a barrier against the penetration of liquids and vapors. Wax
can be applied to many types of paper, including greaseproof papers and glassine.
When the wax is applied during the finishing step, the barrier properties obtained are
significantly superior to those obtained by adding wax to the slurry (Robertson
2013).
Kraft paper is one of the strongest papers available. It is used when maximum
strength is needed. Kraft paper can be used for paper bags in the grocery store, void
fill, cushioning, interleaving and a variety of other uses. The long fibers in kraft
paper make it strong but poor for printing.
Bleached kraft paper is ideal for marketing when the appearance of the packed
product counts. Kraft paper is necessarily coated and smoothed prior to being
printed on.
Tissue paper is a term commonly used to refer to a lighter, liquid absorbent

paper. It is often used as void fill packaging in baskets and smaller objects.
Label paper is similar to book/printable paper, often coated to allow for better
printing quality. It can be coated on one or both sides and is used primarily for the
labeling of other kinds of packaging.
Pouch papers are virgin kraft papers treated with plasticizers to make them more
pliable; common uses include wrapping for soap and butter.
Containerboard paper is a kraft board made for the liners of corrugated board.
Containerboard is a strong board that is composed of long cellulose fibers, mainly
coming from pulp produced by chemical processing of softwoods.
The properties of the main papers used for food packaging are summarized in
Table 2.3.
Grammage
Type Source Applications
(g.m-2)
High mechanical
Chemical pulp (sulfite
resistance, bags,
Kraft process, pine fibers), 70–300
corrugated board,
bleached or not
laminates
Chemical pulp (sulfite
Printing, bags,
Sulfite process, pine and 35–300
labels, laminates
eucalyptus fibers)
Fat resistant, for
Greaseproof Highly beaten pulp 70–150 confectionary and
butter or cheese
Oil and fat resistant,
Highly beaten and
Glassine 40–150 glassy, smooth surface
calendered pulp
and almost transparent
Oil, fat and moisture
Vegetable Chemical pulp treated
12–75 resistant (stronger
parchment with sulfuric acid
when wet)
Different sources,
For cushioning, as food
Tissue including recycled, 20–50
absorbent paper, napkins
usually bleached
Table 2.3. Characteristics and applications of packaging papers
2.3.3. Paper-based bags, sacks and spiral wound containers
Several forms of packaging can be obtained from paper: bags, sacks, wound
containers and laminated brick packaging for beverages (laminates are detailed in
Chapter 6).
Paper bags cover a wide range of uses, from grocery bags, often available for
fruits and vegetables, to those that are artistically designed. Three main types are
used: flat, satchel, strip window and self-opening satchel (SOS); these are illustrated
in Figure 2.2. Flat bags are the simplest, two-dimensional in shape. The gussets
present in satchel bags allow easier handling and opening for filling. Some can have
a window allowing the content to be displayed. The windows are made,
increasingly, of PLA (polylactic acid biopolymer) instead of polypropylene, to keep
the bag sustainable and biodegradable. They are very often used for baguettes, for
example. In SOS bags, which can be sealed, the internal side is laminated with a
plastic film to prevent water, grease and gas transfers, and is thus more
impermeable. They are used, for instance, for roasted meats, such as chicken.
Figure 2.2. Example of wound container and different paper-based bags
Sacks are mainly designed and used for heavy contents (more than 5 kg) and are
usually made of kraft papers with several plies, very often including a plastic ply
inside to reduce water penetration. These are used for flour and other powdered
foods and ingredients, for animal feed, etc. There is a wide range of sack designs,
open mouth sacks, gusseted or not, etc.
Spiral wound containers are very often composite packaging that consists of at
least four plies of paper and paper laminates wound together (Figure 2.2). The body
is mainly composed of kraft paper plies with the internal and external surface made
of plastic or aluminum ply and printed paper, respectively. The
plies are glued together. Spiral wound containers are sealed (seamed) at the ends to
provide quasi-hermetic packaging. These are very often used for snacks such as
Pringles® or for fragile biscuits.
2.4. Paperboards and containerboards
2.4.1. Paperboard processing
Paper is qualified as paperboard or cardboard when the grammage is greater than

250 g.m-2.
Cardboard is obtained either by the Fourdrinier method (identical to that for

making paper sheets) or by the vat and cylinder method (Smook 1992).
The manufacture of cardboard using the Fourdrinier method differs from that of
paper by the successive deposits of several layers of slurry, of different composition,
onto the draining table (Figure 2.3), making it possible to obtain the desired qualities
of the paperboard (mechanical resistance, folding, etc.).
Figure 2.3. Three-ply paperboard Fourdrinier table
The vat–cylinder method involves injecting the slurry between two forming
wires before it is drained under vacuum. This fiber sheet is transferred onto the
underside of continuously moving felt. The felt then passes over the next vat where
a second layer is added to the first, and so on, until the final specification is achieved
(Figure 2.4). Different pulp fibers, for example, chemical, mechanical and recycled,
can be added via the individual vats to build up a multilayer structure.
Figure 2.4. Vat–cylinder paperboard method
2.4.2. Paperboard types and properties
The paperboard/cardboard sheets are mainly intended for the manufacture of

containers, obtained by folding, with a thickness between 300 and 1100 μm. They
are cut and grooved in order to be folded and are often delivered flat, to be mounted
prior to the filling operation.
Several types of cartons are used for food packaging:
Homogeneous coated and/or sulfate bleached board (SBB) is made exclusively

from bleached chemical pulp (Figure 2.5). It is usually coated (one side or both) and
has medium density, with excellent printing properties that meet the requirements of
the packaging industry (Iggesund 2020). It can be die-cut, grooved, hot-stamped and
embossed. Pure and hygienic, it is ideal for packaging food products that are
sensitive to taste and aroma such as chocolate, cheese, coffee, tea, reheatable foods
and frozen foods (Robertson 2013). It can also be used for rolled materials used to
make bricks for liquid products (see Chapter 6).
Coating
Bleached chemical pulp
Virgin mechanical
(unbleached) pulp
Bleached chemical pulp

Coating
SBB FBB
Sulfate bleached board Folding boxboard
Figure 2.5. Structure of SBB and FBB multi-ply

paperboard (adapted from Iggesund 2020)
Wood interior paperboard or folding box board (FBB) is best suited for folding.
FBBs are made from bleached or unbleached mechanical pulp, sandwiched between
two layers of chemical pulp (Iggesund 2020). The chemical pulp front is bleached
and coated. The back of the sheet is often cream colored, and the back layer can be
thicker or coated with kaolin; the product is then often referred to as White Back
Folding Box Board (FBB). Combining mechanical pulp on the inside with outer
layers of chemical pulp increases the stiffness and strength of the board, despite its
low density.
Coated solid unbleached board (SUB) or sulfate unbleached solid board (SUS) is
made from 100% virgin, unbleached chemical pulp. It consists of two to three layers
of mineral or synthetic pigment coating on top and one layer on the back to facilitate
printing. It is also known as coated unbleached kraft (CUK). Recycled fibers are
sometimes used to replace unbleached chemical pulp (Emblem and Emblem 2012;
Robertson 2013).
White lined chip board (WLC) is typically made from recycled fibers. It usually
has two or three layers of coating on the printing surface, consisting of bleached
chemical pulp. The second layer is made from bleached chemical or mechanical
pulp, while the middle layers (usually three in total) are made from unbleached
recycled pulp from mixed waste paper or waste cardboard. WLC is used for dry
products, breakfast cereals and frozen or chilled products (Robertson 2013). The use
of fibers from recycled paper greatly reduces the suitability of the cardboard for
contact with food, due to the risk of migration of printing products (mineral oils).
A number of steps are involved in converting the cardboard into a compatible

material for food packaging. Coatings and laminates are applied to obtain specific
barrier properties. The wax deposit provides a very effective water barrier, used, for
example, in the manufacture of yogurt pots. The glassine coating allows better
resistance to grease, and the polymer deposits by extrusion make it more
impermeable and facilitate heat-sealing. During folding, the cardboard is subjected
to complex stresses (IggeSund 2020). Paperboard shaping capacity depends on its
rigidity, its resistance to delamination of folds and its deformability (stretching), as
shown in Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.6. Folding capacity of monoply and multi-ply board
The possible uses of paperboard as packaging are numerous but depend on the
type of paperboard (Table 2.4). Primary packaging is in direct contact with the
product, and secondary packaging contains the primary package. The most common
example of such a structure is breakfast cereals, with a plastic bag inside a WLC
folding carton (Kiviranta 2008, pp. 55–75). Indeed, where primary packaging based
on paperboard is concerned, higher purity is required for consumer safety because it
is in direct contact with food.
Carton styles follow the ECMA (European Carton Makers Association)

requirements that state: the glue flap should never be on the front face; the carton
should open squarely when erected from the flat state to be shaped prior to use; no
end with a glue flap at the base before being shaped definitively; unglued
paperboards must be supplied flat; the fiber direction of the board should be at 90°
to the major crease; and so on. The carton folding is designed according to the
dimensions required for the product to pack, the type of opening, the method of
filling (vertical or horizontal), the gluing method (hot melt or water-based adhesive),
the mechanical resistance required, the side exposed to consumer, etc. (Figure 2.7).
The creasing steps are of key importance in the carton-making technology, and thus
the capacity of folding is crucial.
Product Requirements Type of paperboard

Direct contact with food Purity, cleanliness, runnability FBB
Strength, barrier, purity,
Frozen food SBS, SUS
cleanliness, runnability
Indirect contact with food Runnability WLC
Printability, purity,
Confectionery FBB, SBS, SBB
cleanliness, odor and taint free
Beverage carriers Strength SUS
Cosmetics Printability and appearance FBB, SBS
Printability, runnability,
Tobacco products FBB, SBS
cleanliness, odor and taint free
Pharmaceuticals Identification, runnability FBB, WLC
Runnability, cleanliness,
Milk, juices LPB
purity and strength
Table 2.4. Applications and required properties of paperboards
Board types are defined according to the standard DIN 19303, which is a
combination of two letters and one figure. The first letter describes the type of board
surface treatment: A refers to cast-coated, B to pigment-coated and U to uncoated.
The second letters give information about the main origin of the pulp used for the
board: Z is related to bleached chemical pulp; N to unbleached chemical pulp; C to
mechanical pulp; T to secondary(recycled)-fiber pulp with white, cream or brown
reverse; and D to secondary-fiber pulp with gray reverse. For the D grades, the
figure describes the density of the bulk of the paper from more than 1.45 cm3/g
(grade D1) to less than 1.3 cm3/g (grade D3). For grades different from D, the figure
defines the color of the reverse side: 1 for white, 2 for cream and 3 for brown.
The different packaging types obtained from paperboard are bottle wrap carton,
trays and carton containers (boxes). All of these container types and folding design
styles were defined and encoded by the ECMA (Poças 2020). This describes the
shape, dimensions (height/depth, width and length), type of paper, etc. (Figure 2.7).
Figure 2.7. Process of paperboard folding and examples of carton design
(adapted from Alexir Packaging 2020; Poças 2020)
Papers and Boards
39
2.5. Corrugated paperboard
2.5.1. Corrugated board history and economy
Invented in 1856 to make hats, corrugated paper – ancestor of corrugated

cardboard – was the result of the work of two Britons, Edward Healey and Edward
Allen. At the time, they had a simple, manual corrugating machine. The first use of
this material as a packaging tool was in the USA in 1871, to wrap fragile objects
such as bottles. At this time, they only used single-sided cardboard. Soon after, the
American Oliver Long came up with the idea of combining corrugated paper with a
paperboard to make the cardboard more solid (double face).
The main applications of corrugated cardboard are in packaging. Often criticized

and considered unnecessary, it is nevertheless essential and constitutes a key factor
of the sustainable development of shipping and delivery of goods. Indeed, thanks to
this material, almost all products reach the user in a perfect state of preservation.
The development of e-commerce was mainly possible thanks to the tertiary
packaging made of corrugated cardboard, which allows product protection, its
transport and its easy and hygienic delivery. In figures, in 2018, the European
corrugated cardboard industry was producing about 48 billion m2 of corrugated
board every year (almost enough to cover the area of Denmark). More than 40% of
corrugated packaging is used to package food products, and it protects more than
75% of European goods (FEFCO 2020). At European level, this concerns about 400
companies and almost 100,000 employees.
2.5.2. Corrugated board processing and characteristics
A sandwich material, corrugated cardboard consists of assembly by the gluing of

flat cover papers (liners) held equidistantly by corrugated-shaped fluting papers
(medium) whose profile thickness varies from approximately 1 mm to 8 mm and
whose average weight is 575 g.m². Fluting/corrugating machines are very technical
and can produce up to 450 meters of corrugated board per minute (Figure 2.8). The
principle assembly between the layers of fluted paper and paperboard, or rigid paper,
is done by gluing the flutes. A corrugator is a set of machines designed to bring
together three, five or seven sheets of paper to form single-, double- or triple-wall
board in a continuous process. The sheets of paper are unrolled, heated, fluted and
then glued on top (Carton Ondulé de France 2020). Three sheets of paper
(containerboard) are unrolled simultaneously on the corrugator: the inner liner, the
outer liner and, in the middle, the medium (also called fluting).
Figure 2.8. Corrugating machine for corrugated board (adapted from Watkins 2012)
The medium sheet is given a “wave”. This corrugation is obtained by pressing

the sheet, under heat, through grooved metal rolls. This process gives the paper its
fluted shape in the single facer. Starch is applied to the tips of the flutes on one side;
the outer liner and the inner liner are glued to the tips of the corrugated medium
sheet of paper, from the outer and the inner side, respectively. The fluted sheet is
then placed on the liner (flat paperboard) to form a single-sided corrugated
cardboard. The settings at their disposal make it possible to vary the corrugations of
the flutes, according to intended use. To form a double face, the tops of the flutes
opposite the liner are glued and then deposited on a liner again. This operation can
be repeated as many times as the number of layers desired to form double-, triple-layer
cardboard, etc. (Table 2.5). Converting corrugated board includes all the processes
of transformation from a flat board to a finished product (mainly packaging). These
processes consist of printing, die-cutting, folding and gluing.
Liners contribute to the mechanical strength of the packaging and serve as a

communication and/or information medium (Table 2.5). The flutes ensure the
rigidity of the packaging as well as maximum elasticity since they serve as shock
absorbers in the event of impact (Carton Ondulé de France 2020). To offer
maximum use, corrugated cardboard comes in many shapes, sizes, thicknesses,
mechanical strengths, surface treatments (waterproofing, etc.). Number of layers,
height and width of flutes and number of flutes per meter are factors to take into
account for conception and uses of corrugated containers (Table 2.5) The FEFCO
code defines three main classes for corrugated board. Class I is a single wall and is
dedicated to containment, class II (single wall) is for loading and class III is double
wall for loading and additional protection (against moisture, shocks, etc.). The
FEFCO code also gives information on the closure made by gluing, taping, stitching
or belting.
42
Flute Stacking Puncture Flat Surface printing

Flute height (mm) Flutes per meter Cushion
type strength resistance crush ability
A 4.5–4.7 105–125 Best Good Best Poor Poor
C 3.5–3.7 120–145 Good Best Good Fair Fair
B 2.1–2.9 150–185 Fair Fair Fair Good Good
E 1.1–1.2 290–320 Poor Poor Poor Fair Very good
F 0.7–0.9 400–440 Poor Poor Poor Poor Excellent
Table 2.5. Corrugated board type, flute characteristics and mechanical properties
(adapted from Watkins 2012; Carton Ondulé de France 2020)
Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
Corrugated board specifications include thickness, grammage, bursting/puncture

resistance, edge crush resistance and stacking strength resistance, flat crash
resistance (flute surface resistance to pressure), compression resistance of the box,
bending resistance and water absorption resistance. All of these are regulated due to
transportation concerns.
2.5.3. Corrugated board sustainability
A ton of corrugated cardboard emits 538 kg of CO2 equivalent over its entire
lifecycle, reflecting the efforts of corrugated cardboard manufacturers to minimize
its environmental impact. In the case of aluminum and plastic, these emissions are
four to six times higher. Corrugated cardboard is therefore part of an almost closed
material loop that optimizes the use of natural resources. Corrugated cardboard is
made from cellulose fibers, 89% of which are recycled from paper and cardboard;
the remaining 11% are new fibers injected into the circuit to maintain the quality and
technical characteristics of the finished product. These new fibers come from
sawmill waste and forest by-products. Cardboard has the highest recycling rate,
reaching 95% in France. This rate is among the highest in Europe, taking into
account all packaging.
2.6. Regulations and safety concerns of papers and boards
Food contact materials (FCM) are defined by the European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA 2015) as “all materials and articles intended to come into contact
with food”. FCM are estimated to be the largest source of food contamination. Apart
from plastics, the most commonly used FCM are made of printed paper and board.
FCM are thus routinely involved throughout the production, processing, packaging,
transport, storage, preparation and serving of food and beverages (EFSA 2015;
European Union 2015). Regulation (EC) 1935/2004 outlines 17 FCM groups
including plastics, paper and boards, glass, as well as printing inks, coatings and
adhesives used in product finishing. Unlike their plastic counterparts, these are not
covered by a specific European regulation (Poças and Hogg 2007). The Council of
Europe has compiled resolutions for several non-plastic FCM including paper and
boards. These policy statements are meant to serve as guidance in cases where no
specific regulation is adopted for a particular FCM group. Resolution ResAp 2002-1
(Council of Europe 2009) is completed by five Technical Documents, the first of
which contains a list of additives that may be used in the manufacture of paper and
board materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs (Van
Bossuyt et al. 2016). Over 6,000 unique substances can be used in the manufacture
of printed paper and board FCM, mainly related to coating processes, printing and
gluing. The vast majority of them are considered non-evaluated, pointing out an
important knowledge gap in the safety evaluation (migration, toxicity level, etc.) of
these substances.
When safety is ensured, avoiding the chemical contamination of potential toxic

compounds due to their transfer from the packaging to the food, any other transfer
should be considered and accepted. Food quality is obtained mainly by avoiding
changes to organoleptic properties and the loss of nutritive compounds. These
organoleptic changes may be produced by the interaction between the packaging and
the food, adding new off-odors (Vera et al. 2020). This type of contamination may
come simply from the composition of the material used or may be derived from the
degradation products after the manufacturing process, like irradiation or high-
temperature exposure, all of them producing a negative effect on the quality of the
food (Czerny and Buettner 2009; Osorio et al. 2019).
2.7. References
Alexir Packaging (2020). Alexir Corporated [Online]. Available:

http://www.alexir.co.uk/.
Bajpai, P. (2010). Environmentally Friendly Production of Pulp and Paper. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken.
Bajpai, P. (2012). Biotechnology for Pulp and Paper Processing: More
Comprehensive Coverage of All Aspects of Biotechnology in the Pulp and Paper
Industries. Springer, Berlin.
Bajpai, P. (2018). Biotechnology for Pulp and Paper Processing: Up-to-Date with
Current and Emerging Technologies. Springer, Berlin.
Cartonnage-Paulet (2020). Histoire du carton [Online]. Available: http://www.
cartonnages-paulet.fr/le-carton/histoire-du-carton.html [Accessed 29 June 2020].
Carton Ondulé de France (2020). Fédération Carton Ondulé de France [Online].
Available: https://www.cartononduledefrance.org/.
CartonPro (2020). Histoire du carton [Online]. Available: https://www.carton.pro/
page.html?chapter=1&id=13 [Accessed 29 June 2020].
Castle, L., Damant, A.P., Honeybone, C.A., Johns, S.M., Jickells, S.M., Sharman, M.,
and Gilbert, J. (1997). Migration studies from paper and board food packaging
materials. Part 2. Survey for residues of dialkylamino benzophenone UV-cure
ink photoinitiators. Food Additives and Contaminants, 14(1), 45–52.
Cofepac (Comité français de l’emballage papier carton) (2020). L’emballage papier-

carton : les produits [Online]. Available: http://www.cofepac.org/all_page.asp?
page=37&lg=fr [Accessed 1 August 2020].
Council of Europe (2009). Policy statement concerning paper and board materials
and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs. Resolution
ResAP(2002)1 [Online]. Available: https://rm.coe.int/16804e4794 [Accessed 10
November 2020].
Czerny, M. and Buettner, A. (2009). Odor-active compounds in cardboard. J. Agric.
Food Chem., 57(21), 9979–9984.
Deutsches Institut für Normung (2011). Paperboard – Terms and grades. DIN 19303
[Online]. Available: https://www.din.de/en.
ECMA (European Carton Makers Association) (2020). European Carton Makers
Association [Online]. Available: https://www.ecma.org/ [Accessed 2 August
2020].
EFSA (European Food Safety Agency) (2015). Food contact materials [Online].
Available: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/foodcontactmaterials.
Emblem, A. and Emblem, H. (2012). Packaging Technology, Fundamentals,
Materials and Processes. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Oxford.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency of the United States) (2001). Available and
emerging technologies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the pulp and
paper manufacturing industry [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2015-12/documents/pulpandpaper.pdf [Accessed 30 July 2020].
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency of the United States) (2008). Pulp, paper
and paperboard effluent guidelines [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/eg/
pulp-paper-and-paperboard-effluent-guidelines [Accessed 30 July 2020].
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32011R0010.
FEFCO (2020). European Federation of Corrugated Board Manufacturers [Online].
Available: https://www.fefco.org/.
Garcia Cerrillos, B. and Mangin, N. (2007). Papiers et cartons au contact des
denrées alimentaires. Les Techniques de l’Ingénieur, F 1315, 1–8.
Iggesund (2020). Iggesund Holmen Group [Online]. Available: https://

www.iggesund.com/.
Kiviranta, A. (2008). Paper and Board Grades. Fapet Oy, Helsinki.
Osorio, J., Aznar, M., and Nerin, C. (2019). Identification of key odorant
compounds in starch-based polymers intended for food contact materials. Food
Chem., 285, 39–45.
Otenio, D., Escabasse, J.-Y., and Podd, B. (2004). Packaging Materials 6: Paper
and Board for Food Packaging Applications. ILSI, Brussels.
PaperIndustryWorld (2020). What is the role of fibre based packaging in the global
packaging market? [Online]. Available: https://www.paperindustryworld.com/
what-is-the-role-of-fibre-based-packaging/ [Accessed 28 June 2020].
Petit-Conil, A. (1999). Procédés papetiers – fabrication des pâtes. Les Techniques de
l’Ingénieur, J 6900 V1, 2–12.
Piergiovanni, L. and Limbo, S. (2016). Food Packaging Materials. Springer
International Publishing, London.
Poças, M.-F. (2020). FITNess. Online course “paper and paperboard” in Fitness
Erasmus Project. Food packaging open courseware for higher education and staff of
companies [Online]. Available: https://fitness.agroparistech.fr/fitness/lectures/.
Poças, M.F. and Hogg, T. (2007). Exposure assessment of chemicals from
packaging materials in foods: A review. Trends Food Sci. Tech., 18, 219–230.
Pulpandpaper-Technology (2020). Pulping [Online]. Available: https://www.pulp
andpaper-technology.com/ [Accessed 30 July 2020].
Riley, A (2012). Paper and paperboard packaging. In Packaging Technology,
Fundamentals, Materials and Processes, Emblem, A. and Emblem, H. (eds).
Woodhead Publishing Limited, Oxford.
Robertson, G.L. (2013). Food Packaging – Principles and Practice. CRC Press,
Boca Raton.
Smook, G.A. (1992). Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists. Angus Wilde
Publications, Inc, Vancouver.
Van Bossuyt, M., Van Hoeck, E., Vanhaecke, T., Rogiers V., and Mertens, B.
(2016). Printed paper and board food contact materials as a potential source of
food contamination. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 81, 10–19.
Vera, P., Canellas, E., and Nerin, C. (2020). Compounds responsible for off-odors in
several samples composed by polypropylene, polyethylene, paper and cardboard
used as food packaging materials. Food Chem., 309, 125792.
Watkins, T. (2012). Corrugated board packaging. In Packaging Technology,

Fundamentals, Materials and Processes, Emblem, A. and Emblem, H. (eds).
Woodhead Publishing Limited, Oxford.
Zheng, M.-H., Bao, Z.-C., Zhang, B., and Xu, X.-B. (2001). Polychlorinated
dibenzo-pdioxins and dibenzofurans in paper making from a pulp mill in China.
Chemosphere, 44(6), 1335–1337.
3
Glass Packaging
Each glass bottle we open embodies a tradition that dates back several millennia.
Glass is one of the oldest materials and is closely linked to historical and cultural
techniques. Glass is used in crafts, architecture and for the preservation and
packaging of precious foods. However, each glass bottle also represents a decision
for the future, because glass protects the environment and preserves our natural
resources. Around 1,500 BCE, the Egyptians manufactured the first hollow glass
containers, which then served as containers for ointments or oils (Henderson 2013).
The benefits of glass packaging are clear: it is sustainable, inert, fully and
infinitely recyclable, reusable and refillable and safe for storing food and drinks. Glass
is always a safe choice to use for packaging products, particularly for beverages and
liquids in the food and pharmaceutical industry. However, when glass is used to
make jars or vials, and not bottles, it is most commonly used to contain cosmetics
and perfumes. The impermeable and inert nature of glass makes it a safe form of
protective packaging. In addition to being an excellent barrier against the external
environment, glass containers do not interact with or alter the taste, odor or
composition of the products they contain. However, its brittleness and heavy weight
remain real disadvantages for the carriage, transportation and worker safety involved

in glass packaging. Glass packaging provides optimum long-term conservation of

the original qualities and virtues of bioproducts. Seventy-six percent of European
citizens recognize that glass is the most environmentally friendly packaging material
(FEVE 2020). This increased by 50% in the last decade. Glass is clearly considered
the best packaging material for beauty, fragrance and medical products, with a 2018
study finding that more than three in four consumers prefer it over plastic/PET or
metal. Indeed, although the use of plastic in packaging has largely increased in the
last three decades, consumer research consistently indicates that consumers attach a
high-quality perception to glass-packaged products (Balzarotti et al. 2015).
The world production of glass containers and bottles has a linear growth of about
8% every five years, increasing from about 50 million tons in 2015 to almost
61 million tons in 2020. It represents about 21.5 million tons in Europe and about
78 billion units. Glass is the leading packaging material for spirits, wines and beer,
while it is increasingly gaining a share in the food, water and dairy sectors. It is the
second leading packaging material in Europe in terms of volume and one of the most
promising growing sectors of the packaging industry. A total of 50,000 direct jobs
were involved in the glass packaging sector in 2019, and up to 250,000 indirect jobs
(VerreOnLine 2020).
3.2. Composition and properties of glass
3.2.1. Glass composition
Glass can be defined either as a hard, fragile (brittle) and transparent material,
mainly based on silicate, or as a non-crystalline solid exhibiting the glass-transition
phenomenon. This definition is common, and it was also used by scientists until the
19th century. Before the 20th century, in fact, silicate glasses (soda-lime glasses)
were practically the only transparent materials that we knew how to produce
industrially. Glass has been defined by the ASTM (2010) as “an amorphous,
inorganic product of fusion that has been cooled to a rigid condition without
crystallising”. Although glass is often regarded as a synthetic material, it was formed
naturally from common elements in the Earth’s crust (VerreOnLine 2020).
The two main types of glass container used in food packaging are bottles (70%)
and jars (30%), whereas in the pharmaceutical industry, vials, bottles/flasks and
ampoules dominate. The food industry uses mostly clear glass (85%), whereas the
cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries prefer opaque or amber glass, in order to
provide better protection against light. The addition of metal oxides is mainly
responsible for these differences in transparency and color. Today’s glass containers
Glass Packaging 51
are lighter as well as stronger. Glass packaging weight was reduced by 25–50% over
the last 50 years, after formulas and processes were optimized (Robertson 2013).
The raw materials for glassware come from mines or quarries and must be
melted or chemically reduced to their oxides at temperatures above 1,500°C. The
main ingredient of glass is silica, derived from sand, flint or quartz. Silica is melted
at very high temperatures (>1,700°C) to form molten silica glass. For most glass,
silica is combined with other raw materials in various proportions. To lower the
fusion temperature (down to 850°C) and viscosity of molten silica, some alkali
fluxes (commonly sodium and potassium carbonates) are added. Calcium and
magnesium carbonates (limestone and dolomite) prevent glass from dissolving in
water and are also considered as structure stabilizers. By adding about 25% of
sodium oxide to silica, the melting point is reduced from 1,723 to 850°C, however
such glasses are easily soluble in water. The addition of lime (calcium oxide or
CaO), supplied by limestone, renders the glass insoluble again. However, when
added in too high an amount, it induces a devitrification, which corresponds to a loss
of amorphous structure that could shift it to crystalline.
To give glass specific physical properties such as clarity and brilliance, additives
can be added. For instance, alumina increases hardness and durability and boron
allows the formation of borosilicate glass, which reduces the leaching of sodium
(which is loosely combined with the silicon) and is of great interest for uses in
pharmaceutical and chemical industries.
The composition of glass is not a single one, but a mixture, whose composition is
adapted to the target use, the color and properties required. It is the combination of
alkali oxides, metal oxides and silica dioxides, associated with additives. Its formula
could be expressed as aX2O + bYO + 6SiO2, where a and b are the number of
molecules, X is an atom of an alkali metal (i.e. Na, K, etc.) and Y is an atom of a
bivalent metal (i.e. Ca, Pb, etc.). The soda-lime glass is mainly composed of
Na2O + CaO + 6SiO2. Potash-lead glass is made with K2O, PbO and 6SiO2. The
optimum composition for soda-lime glass is about 75% silica, 10% lime and 15%
soda, but even this is liable to devitrification during certain mechanical forming
operations to be satisfactory. Bottle glass often contains about 2% alumina
(aluminum oxide, or Al2O3). The typical composition of a food glass container is
given in Table 3.1 (Piergiovanni and Limbo 2016). Borosilicate glass, also called
Pyrex®, is mostly used for pharmaceuticals and chemistry/laboratory usages, or for
culinary purposes. The mixture in borosilicate glass binds all the chemicals more
tightly together, leading to a much higher melting point and a higher chemical and
mechanical resistance. Borosilicate glass has a higher proportion of silicone dioxide
than soda-lime glass (80.6% in borosilicate glass and 69% in soda-lime glass), 13%
of boron oxide B2O3 (maximum 1% in soda-lime glass), but a much lower content of
sodium oxide Na2O (4%) and aluminum oxide Al2O3 (2.4%). The composition of
lead glass is similar to soda-lime glass, but lead oxide replaces calcium oxide and it
is mainly used for homeware crystal, such as luxury Champagne or Cognac glasses
and carafes or wine decanters (Gul et al. 2018).
Components Content (% weight)

SiO2 from sand (99.8%) 71–75
Na2O mainly from soda ash (Na2CO3 89%) and cullet (67%) 12–14
CaO mainly from aragonite (CaCO3 49%) and cullet (49%) 9–10.5
Al2O3 mainly from feldspar (7.6%) and cullet (9.2%) 0.15–1.3
Fe2O3 from sand (0.1%) 0.04–0.1
TiO2 < 0.01
SO3 0.2–0.3
K2O 0.03–0.3
MgO 0.2–4
Table 3.1. Composition (% of weight) of a typical soda-lime glass for food packaging
(adapted from Boyd et al.1994; Seward and Vascott 2005)
Color or UV barrier agents Metal oxides

Colorless, UV absorbing CeO2, TiO2
Blue Co3O4, Cu2O + CuO
Purple Mn2O3, NiO
Green Cr2O3, Fe2O3 + Cr2O3 + CuO
Brown MnO, MnO + Fe2O3, TiO2 + Fe2O3, MnO + CeO2
Amber Na2S
Yellow CdS, CeO2 + TiO2
Orange CdS + Se
Red CdS + Se, Au, Cu, Sb2S3
Black Co3O4 (+ Mn, Ni, Fe, Cu, Cr oxides)
Table 3.2. Metal oxides used to color a typical soda-lime glass

for food packaging (adapted from Robertson 2013)
Glass Packaging 53
Due to the absence of a crystalline structure (fully amorphous), glass is

homogeneous and free from any stresses and it is optically isotropic. The optical
properties of glass relate to the degree of penetration of light and the subsequent
effect of that transmission as a function of wavelength (Dias et al. 2010; Robertson
2013). In order to control the transmission of light through glass packaging, bottles,
flasks, bulbs, etc. are colorful. The absorption of light, not only in the visible but
also in the UV and IR regions of the spectrum, can thus be modulated by the
addition of metal oxides. Most transition-metal oxides (e.g. cobalt, nickel,
chromium, iron, etc.) absorb at specific wavelengths and allow the tuning of light
transmissions, as well as giving glass a specific color (Figure 3.1). Their thermal
stability is also compatible with the glass-making process (Table 3.2). The presence
of iron oxides in glass produces a green color, owing to the absorption bands in the
UV and IR regions, particularly appreciated for beer bottles. The three main colors
of glass used to produce containers for food and pharmaceutics are flint or clear,
amber or brown and green.
Figure 3.1. Light transmission though glass packaging for food and pharmaceutical
applications (adapted from Dias et al. 2010; Robertson 2013)
3.2.2. Chemical and functional properties of glass
Although made of natural raw materials, glass is often considered a synthetic

material. Constituted mainly of silica, it is often associated with other compounds,
for example, with sodium or potassium carbonates, calcium and magnesium
carbonates. These carbonates are mainly used to modify the manufacturing
conditions, in particular, the melting temperature, as well as influence its physical

properties (Robertson 2013). Likewise, lead is often added to bring clarity and
shininess to the glass but may induce greater flexibility and fragility. Aluminum
oxides, on the other hand, increase the hardness and durability of glass. Boron, added
up to 6% in borosilicate glasses, prevents the leaching of sodium silicates present in
glass when in contact with acid solutions.
Glass can be corroded in three ways:

– etching corresponds to an attack by alkaline compounds, which gradually
destroys the silica network, which then releases the other constituents of the glass.
This is what happens in dishwashers in the presence of detergents, for example, and
what induces the whitening of flint glass containers;
– leaching corresponds to an acid attack on the glass, and the hydrogen ions are
exchanged with the alkalis or with the other positively charged ions;
– finally, weathering occurs under very extended storage conditions inducing
surface blooming. Weatherization refers to a milky, hazy or crystalline (snowflake)
residue (mainly refers to humidity-induced deterioration).
90% of the glass produced for packaging is soda-lime glass. Used industrially to
make small bottles or flasks, this glass does not need an exceptional chemical
resistance, nor particular thermal resistance. In the opposite case, where a thermal
resistance and a high resistance to acids are expected, borosilicate glass such as
Pyrex® is used.
Glass is neither a liquid nor a solid. It exists in a glassy state for the expected
uses. The glassy state is a state where the molecules are organized randomly but
with enough cohesion to obtain the mechanical rigidity expected for a solid. It is
actually an extremely viscous liquid that behaves like a solid and has its properties.
During its manufacture, the cooling of glass paste results in a reversible change in
viscosity until it reaches a value so high that the glass becomes rigid and brittle
(Lehman 2001).
The completely amorphous structure of glass, therefore without a crystalline

zone, makes it a homogeneous material, which can be optically isotropic
(Piergiovanni and Limbo 2016). This isotropy allows it to be transparent with a very
high degree of light transmission. The spectrum of light transmission through glass
depends on the reflection on its surface and its optical absorbance. It ranges from
150 nm in the UV to almost 6,000 nm in the infrared. The addition of metal oxides,
such as cobalt, nickel, iron or chromium, increases the absorption of light on certain
wavelengths, in particular, the UV range. The chemical composition of glass allows
Glass Packaging 55
it to keep its optical properties in many circumstances. Apart from degradation by

chemical action (etchings, leaching or weathering) in the presence of acids or
alkalis, the glass loses its transparency when it is bombarded by high-energy
radiation over long periods.
At room temperature, glass appears to be a solid but is, in fact, an undercooled

liquid, which can flow so slowly that it is not visible on a human timescale. Its basic
structure is a tetrahedron of silica and oxygen, which brings stiffness and brittleness.
From a mechanical point of view, glass is a very brittle material; it breaks under the
effect of tensile stress or bending stress (Gul et al. 2018). The ultimate tensile or
bending stress of a glass fracture determines when the container, or the bottle, will
break. The rupture of a glass bottle can be favored by micro-cracks, which occur
when the glass is not handled with care, in particular, on industrial packaging lines
(Robertson 2013). The mechanical resistance of the glass can be improved by
modifying its chemical composition, either by adding compounds which increase its
hardness, or by adding compounds which increase its flexibility. The mechanical
strength of glass is the measure of the fracture resistance capacity when a force is
applied. Glass deforms elastically until it breaks. This means that the deformation is
linear with the stress applied. Young’s modulus, which characterizes this elastic
behavior, is of the order of 70 to 100 GPa for packaging glass (Nielsen et al. 2009).
The analysis of a glass fracture or break is an important element to consider for

packaging. The mechanical resistance of glass packaging can be questioned mainly
in four situations of use. The first case is related to internal pressure, for example,
when packaging carbonated or fermented drinks. This also occurs during heat
treatment operations such as the sterilization of milk bottles or jars. The second
reason for failure may be due to the excessive vertical pressure, for example, when
stacking pallets (Gul et al. 2018). The third case, which is the most often observed,
is mainly due to an impact or shock during the rapid movement of glass containers
throughout the filling process or transport and storage operations. Finally, the last
reason for breakage is due to the weakening of certain parts of the bottle, influenced
by its shape and design (angular shape, thinness, etc.), or by the presence of micro-
defects (scratches, microcracks, abrasions, etc.).
The ability of glass to withstand large or sudden changes in temperature depends

on its thermal resistance (Piergiovanni and Limbo 2016). Indeed, during the
manufacture of glass, in particular, during cooling, tensile stresses are set up on the
outer surfaces, whereas compressional stresses occur on the inner surfaces. A very
rapid rise in temperature therefore induces surface compression as well as internal
tensions. In general, very rapid cooling is more damaging than sudden heating. The
evaluation of the thermal resistance of a glass package is generally determined

empirically. The glass container is successively immersed in boiling water and then
in ice water, and thereafter the number of cracks or microcracks is determined.
To sum up its properties, glass absorbs, refracts and transmits light. Its
amorphous structure (having no definite crystalline parts) makes it easy to fuse and
mold as many times as possible. There is no sharp melting point. Glass does not
react with water and other atmospheric agents – but is affected by alkalis. The
characteristics of glass, both physical and chemical, vary considerably with the
addition of other materials. For instance, if B2O3 is added, glass becomes alkali
resistant. Glass is easy to clean, is resistant to stains and can be easily colored. Glass
has a considerable compressive strength up to certain point, but does not deform.
Indeed, deformation at low range induces breaks and it is thus a highly brittle
packaging. Its thermal conductivity is low (Gul et al. 2018).
Glass containers have several characteristics that make them ideal for food,
beverage and pharmaceutical packaging. They are impervious to moisture, gases,
odors and microorganisms. They are inert and do not react with or migrate into food
products. They have filling speeds comparable to those of cans in industrial packing
lines. They are suitable for heat processing (sterilization) when hermetically sealed.
They are transparent to microwaves. They are reusable and recyclable. Glass can be
molded into a variety of shapes and colors. Glass bottles and containers are
transparent and display the contents. They are rigid and allow stacking without
container damage. They can be directly printed on or use paper labels. They are
perceived to add value to the product by the customer.
However, the main disadvantages of glass as a packaging container are also

numerous. Glass has higher weight and hence, transportation costs more than other
types of packaging containers. It has a lower resistance than other materials to
fractures, scratches and thermal shock. Due to its brittleness, potentially serious
hazards arise from glass splinters or fragments in food. Glass permeability to
UV light favors food oxidation. However, this latter problem can be overcome by
incorporating various oxides, sulfides or selenides to color glass and block out the
incident UV radiation.
3.3. Glass manufacturing
Glass manufacturing takes place in several stages: some are common and some
are specific to give the final shape to the packaging. The process can be summarized
in five steps (Figure 3.2). The first step consists of mixing the raw materials and
melting them to obtain a glass paste. The shaping (forming) step will depend on the
Glass Packaging 57
object that we want to obtain. Then, an annealing step is necessary to stabilize the
structure, before applying surface treatments (Shelby 2005).
Figure 3.2. Glass bottle or container process (adapted from VerreAvenir 2020)
3.3.1. Collection of raw materials and mixing
The collection of raw materials depends on the type of the glass. Soda-lime glass
preparation needs chalk (CaO), soda ash (Na2O) and clean sand (SiO2), whereas for
borosilate glass, boron is added. Up to 50% of cullets, in the form of waste glass or
broken glass, are added to increase the fusibility as well as to prevent the loss of
alkali through volatilization. For flint glass, decolorizers are added to eliminate, for
instance, the yellowish tint of ferric oxides or the greenish tint of ferrous oxides.
Cobalt oxide, manganese oxide and nickel oxide are the most used decolorizers. On
the other hand, when glass has to be colored to stop or decrease visible and UV light
transmission, some metal oxides are added (see section 3.2.1).
3.3.2. Melting in furnace
The glass is produced in a furnace made of refractory materials, resistant to both

the high temperatures involved and to the erosion caused by the glass melting bed.
Obviously, these refractories must minimize heat loss to the outside.
The elaboration of the glass consists in transforming the vitrifiable mixture into a
homogeneous liquid mass of a suitable viscosity to be shaped. It includes several
steps. The first step is the fusion of raw materials, where the vitrifiable mixture is
transformed into a liquid mass without unmolten ingredients (Shelby 2005). Second,
the chemical homogenization of the liquid mass is carried out by controlling the
convection currents in the molten glass and the refining corresponds to the release of
gas bubbles at the end of melting. Then, during the thermal conditioning, in the part
of the oven called the work basin, the temperature required to feed the glass to the
feeder openings is obtained. This temperature is much lower than the refining
temperature.
The melting temperature is about 1,550°C and the output varies between 50 and
500 tons of glass per day depending on the oven. Thanks to the progress made and
the use of cullets, the consumption of energy per ton of glass produced has
decreased significantly from 1,600 kWh in the 1970s to about 1,100 kWh today.
3.3.3. Shaping/molding
The glass is brought from the work basin to the machine through refractory
channels called feeders. Upon exit from the work basin, the glass is still hot enough
to be shaped by the machines. The feeders allow the glass to be conditioned at the
temperature corresponding to the correct working viscosity. The temperature of the
parisons or gobs (drop of semi-liquid glass paste) distributed to the machines must
be precise, to the nearest degree, but it is also advisable to have within this parison
an almost perfect thermal homogeneity (within a few degrees). This temperature
regulation of the feeders is imperative to obtain good manufacturing of products.
The gobs (200 per minute) are distributed to the shaping sections of the machine by
slides. Their temperature, depending on the weight and the shaping technique, is
between 1,100 and 1,230°C (Verallia 2020; VerreOnLine 2020).
Several manufacturing processes (shaping) for bottles, flasks and jars are used,
depending on the type of packaging required. All operate in pretty much the same
way. The glass-forming machine has several sections (up to 12 sections). Each
section has several molds used successively:
– one ring mold, which will definitively fix the shape and the dimensions of the
packaging ring (bottle neck or jar screw, for example);
– one blank mold for the formation of the packaging preform/blank, which will
be transferred to the finishing mold;
– one finishing mold in which, by blowing the blank/preform, the article takes
its final form.
Glass Packaging 59
Preform formation can be obtained either by blowing the parison after the
formation of the ring (blow–blow process, Figure 3.3) or by pressing the parison
with a punch (press-and-blow process, Figure 3.4).
The press-and-blow process was first developed for the manufacture of

wide-opening packaging, and provided to be superior in terms of the distribution of
glass, whereas the blow–blow process is used for articles with narrow openings and
seems to be essential for obtaining light packaging.
For each article, specific molds are developed and are very expensive, which
partly explains the mass production of glass packaging. Different materials are
used to build these molds: “gray” cast iron, sometimes treated on the surface;
copper-based alloys (their thermal conductivity is superior to cast iron and is
advantageous for better temperature control during production at high speed) and
finally, nickel alloys of a high hardness for less wear (VerreOnLine 2020).
3.3.3.1. Blow–blow process

The principle of the blow–blow process is presented in Figure 3.3.
The parison arrives at the center of the funnel and enters the blank mold
(loading). The rough bottom is placed on the funnel and closes the mold.
Compressed air is injected through it. The glass is pushed down into the ring mold
and onto the punch (compression). To warm up the unblocking, the punch goes
down and the rough bottom is removed, as well as the funnel. The blank bottom is
placed in the low position on the mold. During these operations, the imprint in the
glass of the punch heats up: it is the “cracking” of the uncork. When the roughing
bottom is in the base position, air is “blown” through the base of the punch and
comes to “pierce” the glass and press it against the walls of the roughing mode
(drilling). The blank is held by the ring mold and is transferred into the finishing
mold. The blank warms up (cracking) and lengthens under its own weight before
being inflated. The inflation head is positioned on top of the finishing mold and
compressed air is blown into the blank to give it its final shape. The finishing mold
opens, and the bottle is extracted by pliers. The bottle is held by the grippers in a
flow of ventilation air and then it is released and evacuated by a conveyor to the
annealing arch (Misaglass 2020; VerreOnLine 2020).
Figure 3.3. Blow–blow processing of glass bottles (adapted from Wikibooks 2020)
3.3.3.2. Press-and-blow process

The principle of the press-and-blow process is presented in Figure 3.4.
This is the only process that allows us to make wide opening items. It is
sometimes used to produce light bottles (blown press for narrow opening). Here, the
blank is pressed instead of blown, which provides better control of the distribution
of the glass and the possibility of increased lightening. Manufacturing follows the
following stages. The parison arrives at the center of the funnel in the blank mold
(loading). The roughing base is put in place on the roughing mold, and the punch
begins to rise (start of pressing). The punch rises completely and presses the glass,
which fills the space between the punch and the mold (main step of pressing). The
blank is then transferred to the finishing mold. This process has some drawbacks.
The punches, which are very hot, must not release micro-particles, which would
increase the risk of a subsequent breakage of the manufactured articles and food
Glass Packaging 61
contamination. This therefore implies the use of materials resulting from the latest
advances in metallurgy, as well as controlling the temperatures of the punches. The
operating costs are higher, and the production rates are often lower for the narrow
opening process (Misaglass 2020; VerreOnLine 2020).
Figure 3.4. Press-and-blow processing (adapted from Misaglass 2020)
3.3.3.3. The manufacture of glass packaging from drawn tubes for

pharmaceuticals
From these tubes, ampoules, pill boxes and vials are made for the pharmaceutical
industry. Specialized machines, generally vertical and with a carousel, heat the tubes
with torches to form the tips of the ampoules, the necks or the bottoms of the bottles
and pill boxes. Production rates reach 5,000 items per hour. Glass tubes are
produced in two ways: the Danner process, generally for tubes with a diameter
above 25 mm, or the Vello process, for tubes with a smaller diameter (VerreOnLine
2020).
3.3.3.4. Manufacturing processes for cups

This type of packaging is widely used for the condiment market, including
mustard, sauces, pickles, etc. Two main processes are used.
In the “pressed process”, the parison falls into a mold, then a punch descends to
squeeze the glass and form the article. The pressing table includes 12 to 36 molds.
The punch control is either hydraulic or pneumatic. Multi-parent systems exist (with
up to four cavities filled simultaneously). The mold is generally made of stainless

steel for the manufacturing of cups.
In the Hartford 28 pressed-blown-rolled process, the preform is pressed and then

rotated in the finishing mold during inflation, which makes it possible to have no
trace of the mold. The article, after manufacture, is cut and flame finished at the
right height. This process is often preferred for high-quality or high-value articles
such a perfume glass vials (VerreOnLine 2020).
3.3.4. Annealing and surface treatments
After manufacture, the glass packaging which has been brutally cooled (faster
cooled outside than inside) presents stresses and tensions within the walls of the
bottles or jars. The purpose of annealing is to reduce these tensions to a level which
no longer presents a risk of breakage when the articles are used. In the annealing
arch, the temperature first rises above the annealing temperature (with the annealing
point corresponding to a relaxation of the stresses in 15 minutes and depending on
the composition of the glass: approximately 560°C for the classical soda-lime glass).
All the stresses created during manufacturing are canceled. Then, a slow and
controlled cooling down to a temperature below the strain point (corresponding to a
relaxation of the stresses in four hours) makes it possible to obtain articles whose
outer skin has very high compression allowances. These articles therefore have
better resistance, both to thermal shock and to the resistance of internal pressure
(Robertson 2013; VerreOnLine 2020).
The mechanical resistance depends, above all, on whether or not there is a

presence of surface defects, which the glassmaker will seek to avoid by using
protective surface treatments. They are of two types: hot or cold surface treatments
(Misaglass 2020).
The “hot” treatment (560°C) is deposited in the vapor phase, between the
manufacturing machine and the annealing arch. Its purpose is to coat the outer
surface of the glass packaging in order to increase its hardness and to allow a good
application of the second treatment, which is deposited after the annealing arch. The
hot treatments consist of tin oxide (SnO2) or titanium (TiO2) generally deposited
from tin or titanium tetrachloride (a thickness of about 5 nm). For returnable or
reusable items, a type of surface treatment (with TiO2) is a better choice (although
more expensive). In fact, during washing with soda, the surface treatment lasts
longer and increases the number of re-uses (Shelby 2005; Emblem and Emblem
2012).
Glass Packaging 63
The “cold” spray treatment, for the most effective products, consists of
depositing a lubricant (anti-scratch), facilitating slipping during the packaging
processes and reducing the formation of scratches. This lubricant is generally based
on polyethylene (thickness of about 1 micron). Some conditioners request a
“fleeting” treatment based on oleic acid being deposited in the vapor phase. In
bottling, various treatments based on ester wax and fatty acid ester derived from
polyoxyethylene glycol are also used (Shelby 2005; Emblem and Emblem 2012).
3.4. Bottle design and terminology
Glass containers are engineered along very specific design principles. Container
size, orifice diameter, neck length and other attributes, as well as the ratios between
such morphological characteristics, are determined largely by basic principles, such
as the frequency of access, the amount of contents removed with each access and the
type of content (bulk solid, liquid, semi-liquid, etc.). Most bottle shapes are closely
associated and identified with a certain product (trademark identification or
region/indication origin products) or products as “form follows function” to a large
degree in bottle shapes and styles. Wine, beer, sodas and mineral water are prime
examples of products which are very closely identified with distinct bottle shapes
that are rarely used for other products (Emblem and Emblem 2012).
The different parts of a bottle respond to functional properties and are described
in Figure 3.5. The neck is the narrowest part of the bottle, where the opening for
pouring is. When the neck has a smooth tube inside (finish), it is designed to
welcome a natural or synthetic cork stopper. When the finish neck is screwed or
finished by a flat sealing surface with a ring, the bottle may be closed by screw caps
or with a capsule, such as for beer bottles or the wire of a Champagne bottle. The
neck ring (or transfer bead) has a horizontal ridge at the base of the finish, used for
transferring the bottle from one part of the production process to the next. It is also
called a “crown”. In the past, it was used for anchoring the cork to the bottle with
strings or for a better grip for sealing wax. The bottle shoulder is the link between
the neck and the body. The shoulder is important for pouring and settling. The slope
of the shoulder is one factor in determining how quickly a product will be dispensed
when the bottle is inverted. It is the shape of the shoulder that very often
distinguishes the different types of wine origin. The body is the biggest part of the
bottle, that fixes the final volume of liquid contained within. The main part of the
bottle is where the sidewalls are usually (but not always) vertical. The body supports
the label, which should be as large as possible. The bottom is the entire lower part of
the bottle below the sidewalls. The bottom includes the heel, base and push-up. It
allows the bottle to keep a vertical position. The heel joins the sidewall to the
bottom-bearing surface and may have a small recessed spot that serves as a
registration device for labeling and decorating equipment. The bottom may have
letters and symbols molded into it that indicates the number of the mold cavity that
produced the container and the manufacturer. The manufacturer symbol is called a
“punt mark”. The bottom may also have a small projection that serves as a
registration device for labeling and decorating equipment. The device can also take
the form of a small recess along the heel of the container. The push-up is an inward
dome in the center of the base. The resulting ring around the outside of the bottom
ensures stability, providing an even bearing surface, which the bottle rests on. The
push-up is exaggerated on some bottles, such as wine bottles. This is a punt, that is
more or less hollowed out, useful for allowing the wine to be served elegantly by the
sommelier (wine waiter). Sometimes a special feature is a mold in the glass bottom,
for positioning labels in fast labeling operations. The push-up allows bottles to be
given a better resistance to internal pressure, like for carbonated beverages,
sparkling wines (Champagne) and beers (SHA 2020).
In jars and wide-opening glass containers, the anatomy is almost the same as for
bottles, except the neck and shoulder are smaller; the finish is adapted to specific
closers (very often screw type). The mouth (finished open part) at the top of the jar
permits an overflow capacity where the maximum volume of the jar can be filled or
emptied (including solids) as fast and easily as possible. The base ring is usually
given a stippled finish in the mold to mask scratches that occur during handling.
Concentrating abrasions on the high points of this raised pattern prevent the
container from being weakened. The base is inside and underneath the heel and
surrounds the push-up.
The standard capacity of a wine bottle is 0.75 liters, but for beer, there is no
specific standard capacity. Beer bottle volume varies according to consumer habits.
For instance, in France, Spain, Germany or Belgium, it is mainly 25 or 33 cl,
whereas pint (56.8 cl UK or 47.3 cl US) or half pint bottles are preferred by English,
Irish and American consumers. Every type of wine has its own bottle (Figure 3.6.),
and the volume can also vary (Table 3.3) (SHA 2020). The most common shape for
wine is that of Bordeaux wine bottles, which have straight sides and distinct
shoulders. This typical shape widely inspires the bottle design of many wines from
the new world (South America, California, South Africa). Instead of name
indications related to the village, or “chateau” in Bordeaux, the other wines that are
bottled refer to the grape variety, such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Malbec,
Sauvignon, etc. (Rosa 2019). Usually, the color of the bottle is dark green or brown
for red wine and light green or transparent for white wine.
Glass Packaging 65
Figure 3.5. Bottles and jar characteristics
The other famous wine bottle is the one used for Burgundy wines or Albeisa
(Italian wine). Champagne and sparkling wine (Crémant, Prosecco, etc.) require a
particular bottle because it must resist the high pressure of the sparkling wines
(6 atm). The shape is similar to the Burgundy bottle, but is also heavier and thicker,
with a hollow bottom. The color is usually green, both light and dark. In Alsace, the
bottles also look like the Burgundy bottle, but with a short neck, whereas Tokaji
bottles have very long necks. Port wines, Chianti and marsala have very characteristic
bottles. The typical bottles for port, madeira and sherry have a bulb in the neck,
which is intended to trap excess sediment when pouring. The marsala bottle is very
similar to the port bottle, but it is taller and thinner and the color is typically dark
brown or black. The typical bottle for the white wines from the Côtes de Provence
(France) or for Verdicchio wine (Italy) is a mix between an amphora vessel and a
bowling pin. The glass for this type of bottle is typically transparent (light green for
Verdicchio). The Bocksbeutel type is completely different from the other wine bottle
shapes; it is a flattened ellipsoid. The glass is dark green in color. It is used for the
red wines from the Franconia region, some Portuguese wines and any Orvieto wines.
This shape is protected under the European Union. It is often copied and preferred
for some spirits, such as Cognac or Armagnac or grappa. Some bottles have a
specific volume and shape, like for Tokaji, whose volume is 0.5 liters, or for
Clavelin, whose volume is 0.62 liters. This bottle is short, stocky and heavily built.
The Clavelin is the only bottle legally authorized for Vin Jaune. For special events,
and particularly for Champagne and Bordeaux, bigger bottles are also used, from
0.2 liters (piccolo) to 18 liters (Melchior) corresponding to 24 standard bottles
(Rosa 2019; Winerylovers 2020).
Number of Volume
Bottle name 0.75-liter (liters)
bottles
Piccolo (for marketing, flight) 0.2
Chopine (Champagne, red wine) 1/3 0.25
Fillette (Champagne) 1/2 0.375
Tokaji (Hungarian wine) 2/3 0.5
Clavelin (only Vin Jaune-Jura) 0.62
Magnum (Champagne and Bordeaux) 2 1.5
Double Magnum (only Bordeaux) 4 3
Jeroboam (Champagne and other sparkling wines) 4 3
Jeroboam (only Bordeaux) 6 4.5
Methuselah (Champagne and other sparkling wines) 8 6
Methuselah (only Bordeaux) 12 9
Salmanazar 12 9
Balthazar 16 12
Nebuchadnezzar 20 15
Melchior 24 18
Table 3.3. Wine bottle volumes and related names

Glass Packaging 67
Figure 3.6. Variety of bottle design (adapted from WineryLovers 2020)
3.5. Lifecycle, recycling and safety concerns
Glass is the only packaging material generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the
FDA (GPI 2020). Made from natural raw materials, glass is impermeable and
nonporous, which protects its contents from degradation and tampering. In addition,
glass is chemically inert, which preserves its contents from moisture and oxygen,
and ensures that the freshness and flavor of its contents is maintained along with the
product’s shelf life. With GRAS classification, glass containers require no leaching
or extraction testing. The FDA requires all other packaging options to predict the
amount of migrating foreign substances that will be consumed and sets limits on the
amount consumed when products are packaged in anything other than glass. The
only limitation in terms of risks for the consumer, apart from risks related to
splinters or breaks, is the migration of heavy metals used, such as oxides, in glass
containers. These metals are lead, chromium and cadmium, whose maximum
migrations limits are defined in standards and European Community directives
(ISO 7086-1:2019; 84/500/EEC, 1935/2004a, 2023/2006). Dealing with lead and
cadmium, the specific migration limits (SML) are from 0.8 to 2 and from 0.07 to
0.2, respectively. These SML values depend on the type of glass container, shape,
volume surfaces, etc. (Table 3.4).
Category of glass and ceramic packaging Lead Cadmium

Category 1: non-fillable objects and fillable objects, whose
internal depth, measured between the lowest point and the
horizontal plane passing through the upper edge, is lower
than or equal to 25 mm.
Specific migration limits in mg/dm² 0.8 0.07
Category 2: fillable objects other than those covered by
categories 1 and 3.
Specific migration limits in mg/L 4 0.3
Category 3: cooking utensils; packaging and containers of
storage with a capacity greater than 3 liters (all glass or
ceramic objects intended for use in the oven, including the
microwave, which include labeling information (logo or user
instructions for the consumer)), providing for their use in a
conventional oven or in a microwave; and objects for which
consumers can reasonably be expected to use in a
microwave oven: these include fillable cookware such as
mugs, bowls and plates.
Specific migration limits in mg/L 1.5 0.1
Oral contact (concerns any object decorated externally on
20 mm width measured from the outer edge).
Specific migration limits in mg/item 2 0.2
Table 3.4. Specific migration limits of lead and cadmium of glass containers
Glass packaging containers (jars and bottles) can be infinitely reused up to

breakage if glass packaging is well cleaned and/or sanitized.
Glass Packaging 69
The European glass packaging manufacturing industry is truly a model of the

circular economy, by recycling used bottles and jars to make new ones. Once
produced, glass is one of the rare materials that can be recycled 100% and endlessly,
without losing quality. Recycled glass should not be considered as waste, but as a
precious resource to reduce the removal of virgin raw materials. In the EU, over
70% of all post-consumer glass packaging is recycled. A plant in Reims (France)
uses up to 90% cullet in glass manufacturing because of the area’s high-quality
recovery and recycling methods of glass bottles (Lonsway 2006). Glass represented
23% of the packaging waste by mass (Tallentire and Steubing 2020). The primary
production of glass included virgin material and energy inputs, water consumption,
emissions to air and water, and waste production, based on European averages. One
ton of recycled glass represents a reduction of virgin raw materials by 0.66 tons of
sand and 0.1 tons of limestone, as well as an energy saving of 1.46 MWh and
avoiding the release of 0.46 tons of CO2 (GPI 2020). Glass packaging waste
management is governed by the overall directive 94/62/EC (European Commission
1994, 2004b), which is related to all packaging material waste (Tencati et al. 2016).
A recent survey of 8,000 people in 11 European countries showed a great

disparity in recycling behavior depending on the age or the region concerned.
The oldest people seem to be the most aware of the infinite recyclability of glass.
The 60+ age group claims to recycle almost all of their packaging and outperforms
the 18–29 age group. It seems that the lifestyle of this young generation may be a
cause of their lack of understanding of the infinitely recyclable nature of glass. It
appears that women are less aware of the environmental properties of glass and men
use more glass-packaged products than women. Despite this, glass packaging
remains the material of choice for its environmental qualities: in Switzerland, 93%
claim to recycle glass, followed by Italy (91%), Germany (89%), Spain (77 %) and
France (74%) (Klaiman et al. 2016).
Glass recycling is organized in a loop and involves many players. Local

authorities organize glass collection points and install special containers and bins
available to the public. Consumers sort their glass packaging after use and place
them in glass containers or tubs. Collectors empty containers and bins and transport
the glass to processing centers. Glass caterers clear the glass of all the impurities it
contains and transform it into cullet. Glassmakers use cullet prepared by caterers to
recreate glass packaging. The conditioners fill the new packaging and put it back
into the distribution channel. In Europe, they contribute financially to the systems
put in place to collect and recycle packaging (VerreAvenir 2020).
The quantity, as well as the quality, of the glass collected depends on the
recycling chain. By putting the packaging used in glass tubs or containers, the
consumer contributes to the fact that used glass is recycled 100% and infinitely.
Only glass packaging can be recycled, that is, food bottles, jars and pots. Jars with a
metal frame and/or removable seals are also recyclable. Pharmaceutical bottles are
recyclable, as well as perfume bottles and glass cosmetic jars. Culinary glass
(transparent Pyrex® dishes) should not be placed in the containers because they are
made from transparent ceramic and not glass. These objects have a higher melting
temperature than glass and deteriorate the quality of food glass packaging
production. The initial sorting by consumers is a fundamental step in the efficiency
and quality of recycled glass.
After collection, the glass undergoes a series of sorting in the treatment center. A
first sorting eliminates ferrous (steel) or non-ferrous metals (aluminum, etc.) by
magnetic detection. Optical laser sorting identifies and extracts infusible materials
(ceramics, Pyrex®). Blowing allows the extraction of the light elements: the caps,
the paper (labels). The glass is then transformed into cullet, calibrated at the request
of the glassmakers, to recreate the glass packaging. The only limit to recycling glass
is color. Depending on the country (France, Italy and Spain), the collection is
organized in a mixture and is made up of glass of different colors: green, brown,
colorless. With this glass, you can only recreate colored glass. With a complementary
sorting (used in Sweden, Germany and other northern countries), the de-mixing
allows the separation of colored glass from colorless glass, which also allows the
production of new packages with a clear tint (Lehmann et al. 2020).
3.6. References
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) (2010). Standard terminology
of glass and glass products. ASTM Standard C162–05.
Balzarotti, S., Maviglia, B., Biassoni, F., and Ciceri, M.R. (2015). Glass vs. plastic:
Affective judgments of food packages after visual and haptic exploration.
Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2251–2258.
Boyd, D.C., Danielson, P.S., and Thompson, D.A. (1994). Glass. In Kirk-Othmer
Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 4th edition, Kroschwitz, J. (ed.).
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Dias, D.A., Smith, T.A., Ghiggino, K.P., and Scollary, G.R. (2010). Wine bottle
colour and oxidative spoilage. Project UM 0902, University of Melbourne
[Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236230297_
Wine_Bottle_Colour_and_Oxidative_Spoilage [Accessed 1 April 2020].
Glass Packaging 71
European Commission (1984). The approximation of the laws of the Member

States relating to ceramic articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs.
Council Directive 84/500/EEC [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A31984L0500.
European Commission (1994). Packaging and packaging waste. European Parliament
and Council Directive 94/62/EC [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31994L0062.
European Commission (2004a). Materials and articles intended to come into contact
European Commission (2014b). Amending Directive 94/62/EC (1994). on
packaging and packaging waste. Directive 2004/12/EC. [Online]. Available:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32004L0012.
European Commission (2006). Good manufacturing practice for materials and
articles intended to come into contact with food. Commission Regulation
2023/2006 [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
?uri=celex%3A32006R2023.
FEVE (The European Container Glass Federation) (2020). The European glass
container Industry [Online]. Available: https://feve.org/about-glass/european-
glass-container-industry/ [Accessed 30 March 2020].
GPI (Glass Packaging Institute) (2020). Lifecycle assessment [Online]. Available:
https://www.gpi.org/life-cycle-assessment [Accessed 30 March 2020].
Gul, K., Wani H.M., Singh, P., Wani I.A., and Wani A.A. (2018). Testing glass as a
food packaging material. In Food Packaging Materials – Testing & Quality
Assurance, Singh, P., Wani, A.A., and Langowski, H.-C. (eds). CRC Press, Boca
Raton.
Henderson, J. (2013). Ancient Glass. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2019). Glass hollowware in
contact with food – Release of lead and cadmium. ISO 7086-1:2019 [Online].
Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/67562.html.
Klaiman, K., Ortega, D.L., and Garnache, C. (2016). Consumer preferences and
demand for packaging material and recyclability. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 115, 1–8.
Lehman, R. (2001). Method of recycling batches of mixed color cullet into amber,
green or flint glass with selected properties. US Patent US 6,230,521 B1.
Lehmann, S., Fisher, M., Rosin, A., Gerdes, T., and Frenkel W. (2020). The
feasibility of CO₂-laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy for fast lead
determination in glass cullet. Int. J. Appl. Glass Sci., 11, 369–379.
Lonsway, M. (2006). Glass packaging a clear choice. Food Quality and Safety from
Farm to Fork [Online]. Available: https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/
article/glass-packaging-a-clear-choice/.
Misaglass (2020). Understand the production process of glass bottle manufacturer.
Available: http://www.misaglass.com/glass-bottle-manufacturer-production-process/
Nielsen, J.H., Olesen, J.F., and Stang, H. (2009). The fracture process of tempered
soda-lime-silica glass. Exp. Mechanics, 49, 855–870.
Piergiovanni, L. and Limbo, S. (2016). Food Packaging Materials. Springer
International Publishing, London.
Robertson, G.L. (2013). Food Packaging – Principles and Practice. CRC Press,
Boca Raton.
Rosa, S. (2019). Guide Hachette des vins 2019. Hachette Livre, Vanves.
Seward, T.P. and Vascott, T. (eds) (2005). High Temperature Glass Melt Property
Database for Process Modeling. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
SHA (Society of Historical Archeology) (2020). Historic glass bottle identification
& information website [Online]. Available: https://sha.org/bottle/ [Accessed 30
March 2020].
Shelby, J.E. (2005). Introduction to Glass Science and Technology, 2nd edition. The
Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge.
Tallentire, C.W. and Steubing, B. (2020). The environmental benefits of improving
packaging waste collection in Europe. Waste Manag., 103, 426–436.
Tencati, A., Pogutz, S., Moda, B., Brambilla, M., and Cacia, C. (2016). Prevention
policies addressing packaging and packaging waste: Some emerging trends.
Waste Manag., 56, 35–45.
Verallia (2020). A propos du verre : processus de fabrication [Online]. Available:
https://www.verallia.com/a-propos-du-verre/processus-de-fabrication [Accessed
1 April 2020].
VerreAvenir (2020). Les différentes étapes de la fabrication du verre d’emballage
[Online]. Available: http://www.verre-avenir.fr/Le-verre-d-emballage/Les-
differentes-etapes-de-la-fabrication-du-verre-d-emballage [Accessed 3 April
2020].
Glass Packaging 73
VerreOnLine (2020). Le verre creux : la fabrication et la transformation [Online].

Available: http://www.verreonline.fr/v_creu/fabr_vc3.php [Accessed 1 April 2020].
Wikibooks (2020). Fichier: Glass forming process blow-blow.svg [Online].
https://fr.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Fichier:Glass_Forming_Process_Blow-Blow.svg
WineryLovers (2020). Wine bottle shapes: Why are they so different? WineryLovers
[Online]. Available: http://winerylovers.club/wine-bottle-shapes/ [Accessed 30
March 2020].
4
Metal Packaging
Metal packaging for food products is part of our daily universe. While cans seem
to be mainly dedicated to canned foods and beverages, this packaging is naturally
associated with the ideas of robustness and durability. The range of products
packaged in light metal packaging is very extensive. The main sectors that use this
packaging are canned products, drinks, dairy products, non-canned food products
(using metal closures, metallized films, laminates, etc.), as well as non-food
products, such as chemical and industrial products (paints, varnishes, lubricants,
etc.), cosmetics, biological products and medicines, and clogging in general.
Convenient for transport and storage, metal packaging is also in use thanks to the
development of easy opening devices. Finally, and this is an important point today,
metal boxes are easily recyclable and are indeed largely recycled. These strong
advantages of metal boxes are added to a primary condition, which is the good
compatibility of foods, in their diversity, and packaging materials. The properties of
the base materials, most usually steel or aluminum, and their shaping methods make
it possible to ensure gas, light and microorganism impermeability in a very reliable
manner (Pelletier 2000; Robertson 2013). This is necessary for the prolonged
storage of canned food for up to several years.
Tinplate is one of the oldest packaging materials and was originally used for
round, square and rectangular boxes (Emblem and Emblem 2012). The first

commercial manufacture of tin cans began in England in 1699 and in France in

1720, where it was used for household utensils, such as plates. Around the middle of
the 18th century, the Dutch navy first used food cooked in fat and packaged in tin
cans (Thorne 1986). In the early 1800s, Napoleon Bonaparte offered a prize for the
first person capable of developing a means of preserving food under all conditions
and over long periods for his navy (Emblem and Emblem 2012). Thus, the first tin
cans produced industrially for foodstuffs were proposed and patented in August
1810 by Peter Durant, based on the invention of Nicolas Appert, who developed the
sterilization process for a product in its packaging (in glass bottles, then in metal) for
long-term preservation.
According to the North American Packaging Alliance, frozen products require

almost 70% more energy than foods stored in metal. Tins are very light and can
reduce CO2 emissions by up to 60% during transport compared to heavier materials
(such as glass). The sustainability of metal packaging is therefore one of the main
factors driving the growth of the global metal packaging market. Metal packaging
materials such as aluminum and steel are the two most used raw materials for
packaging because of the systems dedicated to their recycling and recovery. Steel
and aluminum can be easily separated from other waste and can be 100% recycled
without any loss of material quality. Steel is generally separated using magnets,
while aluminum is separated using eddy current technology. The metal boxes are
light, unbreakable and offer mechanical protection and strong barriers for the
conservation and transport of food products. Thus, the durability of metal packaging
is one of its main advantages, which consistently stimulates market growth. The
metal packaging market in 2018 was nearly USD 24 billion, with an annual growth
rate estimated at more than 3% for the next five years. However, in the early 2010s,
the market seemed to be saturated (Parisi 2013, p. 420). The market is moderately
concentrated, with some very large players such as Amcor, Ball, Crown, Sonoco and
Ardagh Group (Technavio 2020). A third of companies in the metal packaging
sector are American. One of the main market trends that explains this growth is the
advent of resealable boxes. Resealable boxes are integrated with a flat plastic
opening mechanism. They can be easily opened and closed with a simple rotary
movement, which allows them to be opened and closed effortlessly. With the
growing demand for resealable boxes, several suppliers of metal packaging offer this
functionality.
4.2. Metal packaging types
In Europe, almost 100 billion units of metal packaging are produced each year
for the beverage, food, health and beauty, household and industrial markets. This
Metal Packaging 77
means that, on average, every EU citizen consumes four units weekly (Metal
Packaging Europe 2020). Many types and formats of metal packaging are available
for the food industry, the best-known of which are cans. Some cans are illustrated in
Figure 4.1.
Food cans: with a proven safety and sustainability record, food cans offer
unrivalled performance throughout the supply chain, and this is true for virtually
every product. The storage of food cans saves up to 70% of energy over the whole
supply chain. Cans need significantly less secondary packaging compared to
alternative packaging due to the natural strength of metal. Cans and food cans consist
of either two or three separate components (“two-piece” or “three-piece”),
composed of a cylinder (body) and one or two ends (lids). The lids are always
attached (seamed) after the cans are filled with the foodstuff. The size of food cans
ranges from very small (50 grams), up to catering pack size (5–20 kg). Tinplate is
still preferred for this kind of packaging.
Beverage cans and bottles: canned beverages are a perfect fit for active,
outdoor and on-the-go lifestyles. Beverage cans are lightweight, yet unbreakable.
They are impact-resistant, puncture-resistant and can withstand extreme temperatures
and pressure. Cans provide a total barrier against light, gas and oxygen, and thus
preserve their contents perfectly in order to deliver safe products. They also chill
faster than other packaging. The sound of opening a beverage can is a unique feature
guaranteeing product freshness. Beverage cans are most often two-piece type
packaging. Beverage cans and bottles are almost all made from aluminum.
Closures, lids and crown corks: tinplate closures combine the advantages of
metal with other materials. Products are often sealed with tinplate screw caps to
keep them completely airtight, preventing the entry of air and guaranteeing taste
neutrality. In the food industry, tinplate closures are particularly popular for
products such as baby food, processed fruits and vegetables, jams, dairy products
and delicacy sauces. The versatile aluminum screw cap is an all-rounder: it fits on
all bottles, resealable or non-resealable, and covers all beverages such as alcoholic,
water and juice. Thanks to the thread, the containers can be opened and closed as
often as desired. Screw caps made of aluminum, often called aluminum roll-on
closures, are rolled onto the bottle thread when closing and only then do they get
their thread. Like all metal closures, they are 100% airtight and can be printed to suit
the content. Closures and corks are detailed in Chapter 9.
Drums and pails: drums and pails are, in essence, large three-piece steel or
stainless steel cans. They are not subjected to any other process after they are filled.
Usually, for foodstuffs (concentrated juice, fruit flesh, oils and fats, for instance),
they are aseptically filled. Drums usually contain large volumes, ranging from 100
to 250 liters, the most common being 220 liters, while pails usually refer to a
volume of 5–25 liters.
Aerosols: aerosol cans are not very common in food applications (whipped
cream, for example), but are used very often for cosmetics, body care products,
insecticides and lubricants. Aerosol cans are either three-piece or two-piece cans.
Trays and foils: rigid and semi-rigid aluminum trays for food applications are
made of rolled aluminum and aluminum alloys, with a thickness ranging from 70 to
300 µm. Aluminum foil is mainly used for wrapping food in catering, or at home.
Tubes: only tubes with contents needing minimal interaction with oxygen or light
are metal-based, and others are plastic-based. Some food pastes (tomato paste,
mayonnaise, harissa, spread or concentrated milk) are packaged in metal tubes, but
they are more commonly used for cosmetic and health care products (toothpaste,
sunscreen, etc.). Metallic tubes are extruded from a slug of metal (usually
aluminum).
Figure 4.1. Illustration of the variety of types of

food packaging from metal-based materials
4.3. Composition and properties: metals and alloys
Three main classes of metallic materials for food packaging applications are
currently available on the market: aluminum, coated plates (tinplate, tin-free steel,
polymer-coated and steels) and stainless steel plates. Minor metals are also used in
the manufacture of metallic packaging for food (nickel, copper, titanium). For
Metal Packaging 79
instance, copper is used as a wire electrode during the welding of tinplate containers,
but does not become part of the finished product (Robertson 2013).
4.3.1. Steel-based (iron-based) and tin-plated steel materials
Tin, steel and chromium steel are used as composite materials in the form of
tinplate and electrolytically chromium-coated steel (ECCS), the latter being
somewhat unhelpfully referred to as tin-free steel (TFS).
The material used will be different depending on whether it is for:

– drums (or other industrial packaging such as jerry cans and vats): they are
more than 0.49 mm thick and are made from commercial sheet metal;
– light packaging (cans, cans, buckets, etc., with a capacity of less than 40 liters
or 50 kg): their thickness is generally less than 0.49 mm. They are made from tin or
black iron. For certain applications, however, it is possible to seek to replace the
tinplate with iron without tin (chromed iron, for example) or stainless steel, which is
considered a very inert material, which is only used for the packaging of very
corrosive products and/or very expensive goods (Kleniewski 1995).
Iron, steel and stainless steel are often confused. Iron is a chemical element used
in the composition of the other two metals. Steel and stainless steel are produced
mainly from iron, but contain other components and are differentiated by their
carbon content and that of other metals. Iron ore, coal, lime and ferroalloys are
needed to make steel: aluminum, chromium, manganese, silicon, titanium,
vanadium, etc. These give steel specific characteristics that are suited to its various
uses: architecture, machine tools, food packaging, etc. Manufacturing also requires a
lot of water for cooling the installations, as the melting temperature exceeds
1,500°C. Steel can be made in two types of factories: in a blast furnace, from iron
ore and coke (almost pure carbon extracted from coal), or in an electric furnace,
from recovered steel (recycled steel). The use of 20%–40% of recycled steel enables
saving about 60%–70% of the energy and up to 80% of the water and air necessary
to produce steel for can production, compared to raw matter (Selke 1994). The
composition of the steel ranges from 0.03% to 2% carbon, which is the most
important alloying element, strongly affecting the strength of the can. The properties
of steel are obtained either by adjusting the carbon content (the less carbon, the more
deformable, but not very resistant, the steel), by the application of a subtle
metallurgy, combining control of the chemical composition at the steelworks and the
steel manufacturing process (thermomechanical rolling treatments), or by a possible
thin metallic or organic coating (A3M 2020). Usually, the higher the carbon in steel,
the higher the manganese content, in order to maintain weldability properties. The
aluminum and silicon contents of the steel vary according to the type of calming
used (processing step consisting of preventing the bubbling of the molten steel in the
vat). Phosphorus and nitrogen play the role of stiffening agents: they are, however,
not present in steel unless they have been intentionally added in order to make
tinplate for special uses, such as packaging that must withstand strong internal
pressures (Selke 1994; Robertson 2013). In the presence of corrosive media, the
phosphorus content must be reduced, as this element reduces the corrosion
resistance. In general, the chemical composition of the steel has an impact on the
tinplate’s corrosion resistance to acidic food products. Thus, the fewer traces of
non-metals in the steel, the better the natural resistance to corrosion.
Four types of steel are defined for the manufacture of tin cans for food uses.
Tinplate steel, intended for highly corrosive products, must be low in both non-metal
and residual metallic elements, and it is type L (low metalloid) steel (Kleniewski
1995). For moderately corrosive food products such as vegetables or meat, MR type
steel could be used. MR steel has a higher content of carbon, aluminum, phosporus
and copper because the risk of residual elements able to migrate into the food is
reduced and the latter are efficient in preventing corrosion. The other two grades of
steel are between these two (Table 4.1).
Composition (maximum content %)

Type Properties Applications
C Al Si Mn P S Cu
High corrosion
L High purity resistance, acidic 0.13 0.08 0.01 0.60 0.01 0.05 0.06
foods
Dedicated for
D Non-aging steel severe drawing 0.12 0.06 0.02 0.60 0.02 0.05 0.20
operations
Nitrogenized For high-strength
N steel for higher containers, such as 0.13 0.06 0.01 0.60 0.01 0.05 0.06
rigidity drums or can ends
For foods that are
Most widely not too corrosive
MR 0.13 0.08 0.01 0.60 0.02 0.05 0.20
used for tinplate such as meat or
vegetables
Table 4.1. Properties and composition of the maingrades of steel used

for the production oftinplate (adapted from Robertson 2013)
Metal Packaging 81
Tinplate remains the main raw material used to make packaging and metal
boxes. It is made of mild steel with a carbon content of less than 0.08%, which is
covered with a layer of tin. This “sandwich” alloy of steel and tin has a good
hardness and guarantees a high resistance to corrosion. It is a non-toxic alloy, which
is why it is used massively in food packaging (Boite Aluminium 2020).
Tinplate should readily lend itself to shaping and must offer sufficient strength
during the intended use. The steel will, therefore, be chosen to be more or less stiff,
depending on the case (the stiffness corresponds to the resistance to deformation by
bending). Suitability to deformation is therefore the main criterion for choosing steel,
according to its mechanical characteristics. The stiffness is assessed by measuring
the depth of penetration of an indenter under a large load compared to the
penetration made by a preload and expressed in Rockwell units. Single reduction
tinplate is produced from a strip of cold rolled steel which is annealed and surface-
hardened. The final thickness is between 0.1 and 0.49 mm, and the hardness varies
from class T50 to T65 on the Rockwell scale. Double reduction tinplate is obtained
after first cold rolling and annealing, then undergoing a second cold thickness
reduction of approximately 30%. The steel obtained is generally stiffer than that in
simple reduction, which makes it possible to use thinner iron without losing the
strength of the packaging. Their mechanical characteristics are anisotropic, and it is
necessary to take this into account for the direction of rolling. The thicknesses of
double reduction tinplate that is usually made ranges from 0.14 to 0.29 mm and is
preferred for cans (Kleniewski 1995; Roberston 2013; ISO 11949 2016).
We are all familiar with tin cans, which are used for holding many types of food
and beverages; these containers are actually manufactured from sheet steel that is
coated with a thin layer of tin known as tinplate. Tinplating mainly aims to prevent
the corrosion of steel from the internal contents (food), or the external environment
(a moist atmosphere). Tinplating can produce a whitish-grey color that is preferable
when a dull or matte appearance is desired. It can also produce a shiny, metallic look
when more luster is preferred. Tin offers a decent level of conductivity, making tin
plating useful in the manufacturing of various electronic components. Tin is also
FDA and EC regulations approved for use in the food service industry (Sharretts-
Platting 2020).
Today, tinplating is obtained by electrolytic deposition. This process replaced the

traditional hot tinning technique (used until the 1980s), which consisted of dipping
the steel sheets into a bath of molten tin. Tinning by either method is preceded by a
thorough cleaning (descaling (also known as pickling) and degreasing, followed by
washing) to prepare the surface. Electrolytic tinplate is obtained either by alkaline
tinning from tetravalent tin baths, or by acidic tinning from bivalent tin baths. The
deposit of tin acquires its shine only after the coating is melted by a heat treatment at
a temperature higher than the melting point of tin (usually between 260 and 280°C).
The tinning rate is expressed in grams per square meter (g/m²) and, single-sided,
varies from 0.4 to 1.25 (Klienewski 1995). After the tinplating step, the coating is
passivated, and then lightly oiled (Robertson 2013). Post-treatment is usually not
required at the conclusion of the tinplating process. Passivation, which is the
application of a light coating of protective material, may be used in special plating
applications to provide additional corrosion protection or enhance the reactive
properties of the tin. A heat treatment may also be used to prevent hydrogen
embrittlement, which is a weakening of the metal caused by exposure to hydrogen.
Research into new high-performance materials, while reducing the level of tin, has
resulted in a new generation of LTS (low tin steel) iron with a low tin coating. The
materials undergo an original development of the coating, for example, by
optimizing the deposition of chromium and chromium oxide from the passivation, or
even by using a layer of nickel. The schematic structure of tinplate and tin-free steel
is given in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2. Representation of the multi-layered structure of tinplate

and tin-free steel (ECCS) (adapted from Robertson 2013)
Metal Packaging 83
4.3.2. Tin-free steel or ECCS (electrolytic chromium oxide-coated steel)

materials
Chromed iron (tin-free steel or TFS, standardized under the name of ECCS:
electrolytic chromium- or chromium oxide-coated steel) is obtained from a steel
sheet or strip which, this time, is coated with a film of chromium and chromium
oxides, much less than a micrometer thick. This process is very similar to the electro
tinning, but uses chromium ions instead of tin ions. Requirements for single and
double cold-reduced electrolytic chromium-/chromium oxide-coated steel (ECCS) in
the form of sheets or coils are specified in ISO 11950 (2016). Single cold-reduced
ECCS is generally specified in nominal thicknesses that are multiples of 0.005 mm,
from 0.150 mm up to and including 0.600 mm. Double cold-reduced ECCS is
generally specified in nominal thicknesses that are multiples of 0.005 mm, from
0.100 mm up to and including 0.360 mm. The structure of ECCS is described in
Figure 4.2.
4.3.3. Stainless steel for food packaging materials
Some metals, such as stainless steel, are inert, whereas others are non-corrosive
if they are well-coated. This is an important property because it ensures that
containers will last for a long time and will be easy to clean (Chemseal Inc. 2020).
Metals such as stainless steel do not corrode easily. Reactive chromium forms a
passive coating which creates a surface barrier to corrosion. This barrier is resistant
and protects the surfaces of metal containers. Indeed, an addition of metallic
chromium of at least 10.5% to the steel makes it possible to achieve this
performance (Kleniewski 1995). There are many advantages to using stainless steel
in the processing and preservation of food and beverages. The number one
advantage of stainless steel is its resistance to corrosion. Stainless steel also has very
good durability and heat resistance. Due to the corrosion resistance, its surface
hardness and its quality surface finish (smooth surface), it is easy to clean and
maintain, which is essential for reusable packaging. However, despite its many
advantages, stainless steel remains little-used because of its uncompetitive price for
single-use food packaging, despite the fact that it is 100%, and almost infinitely,
recyclable. However, stainless steel is gaining market shares in the transport of food
products in large quantities or volumes from 50 to 10,000 liters (drums, tanks, etc.).
There are approximately 100 grades of stainless steel suitable for packaging
materials. These metal alloys come in five main groups, which include precipitation-
hardening, duplex, martensitic, ferritic and austenitic stainless steel. 304 stainless steel
has a metallic composition of up to 24% chromium. This metallic alloy may be made
of manganese, carbon or nickel. This alloy has a property of perfect anti-corrosion that
makes it ideal for food products. 316 or 318 stainless steel is almost the same as the
304 stainless steel metallic alloy, but is preferred in the food industry for both
packaging and processing. It has an addition of up to 3% of molybdenum.
Molybdenum reduces chloride-related corrosion and adds extra strength, which makes
it possible to store mild salts and even some meat products (Chemseal Inc. 2020).
4.3.4. Aluminum-based materials
Compared to tinplate and ECCS, aluminum is a lighter, thinner, more ductile

(deformable) material, but cannot be welded easily. From the principle of reducing
waste and also the cost of the raw material, over the past three decades, a
considerable effort has been made to reduce the thickness of this metal. This
reduction was possible thanks to the development of new aluminum alloys and the
optimization of the manufacturing processes for aluminum foils and cans (Robertson
2013). Coors Company pioneered the use of aluminum cans in 1959. From this start,
there has been a steady growth in the production of sodas, energy drinks, sparkling
waters and, increasingly, craft beers. Aluminum cans became the most sustainable
beverage packaging and are infinitely recyclable (The Aluminum Association 2010).
Aluminum foil is used in food containers, bins, bottle caps, soft packages for liquids
or bulk food stuffs, capsules (such as the coffee capsule for Nespresso®), bottle
stops, doypacks, medication tablet blister sheets, tubes, bottles, cans and many other
types of containers.
The aluminum used to manufacture light metal packaging is used in a relatively

pure form. Only manganese and magnesium are added to improve its resistance
properties. Aluminum is the third most abundant element on earth in bauxites (soils
or minerals rich in aluminum in various forms). Aluminum oxide (alumina) is
extracted from the minerals present in bauxite before the start of the smelting
process (Page 2012). This process requires considerable electrical energy to produce
aluminum on a commercial scale. The primary aluminum and the aluminum from
the recycling channels are then mixed and moved into an oven to purify the liquid
metal. It is then filtered (through a ceramic filter) to be cleaned before being cast
into ingots, before being rolled into sheets. The faces of the ingot are pre-ground
(scalped) to remove surface imperfections and to provide clean surfaces for rolling.
The metal is then reheated and hot rolled to an intermediate thickness. It is then left
to cool in the air for two to three days, at which point it is completely soft. The final
cold rolling takes place to obtain the defined thickness and hardness without the
need for an additional heat treatment.
Aluminum packaging uses different types of alloys which are processed by hot
rolling and then cold rolling into strips or coils. The composition of the alloy varies
Metal Packaging 85
according to the manufacturing or shaping processes of the finished products. The

production techniques for aluminum packaging call upon three technological
disciplines: shaping, surface treatment and coatings (Kleniewski 1995). Most uses of
aluminum for food packaging require special properties (resistance to acids, for
example) that pure metal cannot guarantee. Thus, other compounds are added to
give these aluminum alloys resistance or improve the shaping characteristics
(deformability, ductility) and modulate the resistance to corrosion. However, these
alloys all contain a very high aluminum content, often greater than 90% (Table 4.2).
Alloys are identified by four-digit numbers, where the first digit corresponds to the
area of use, which depends on the elements added. Commercially pure (unalloyed)
aluminum (e.g. 1xxx) contains different levels of impurities, Fe and Si being the
most common. It is used for the manufacture of aluminum foil and extruded
containers. The 3xxx alloy family contains manganese (Mn) and the 5xxx series
contains 4% to 5% magnesium (Mg) and 0.5% Mn, producing a very rigid material,
suitable for the manufacturing of cans. The 8xxx series covers a wider range of
composition and applications (Reboul and Baroux 2011).
Composition (maximum content %)

Applications Type
Mn Mg Fe Cu Cr Zn Ti Si
Foils and flexible tubes 1050 0.05 0.05 0.40 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.25
Beverage cans, three-
3104 1.4 1.30 0.70 0.25 - 0.25 0.10 0.60
piece bodies and ends
Two-piece bodies and
5042 0.50 4.00 0.35 0.15 0.10 0.25 0.10 0.20
easy-opening ends
Easy-opening beverage
5182 0.50 5.00 0.35 0.15 0.10 0.25 0.10 0.20
cans and tabs
Pilfer-proof caps 8011 0.20 0.05 1.00 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.90
Foils for laminations 8079 – – 1.3 0.05 – 0.10 – 0.30
Table 4.2. Properties and composition of the main grades of

aluminum alloys (adapted from Robertson 2013)
Copper greatly reduces the corrosion resistance of aluminum and leads to a

higher rate of general corrosion. Zinc has little influence on corrosion resistance in
most environments, tending to reduce the resistance of alloys to acidic media and
increase their resistance to alkalis. Silicon also slightly decreases corrosion
resistance, depending on its shape and location in the alloy microstructure. Iron also
reduces corrosion resistance and is probably the most common cause of pitting in
aluminum alloys, but a high iron content increases the burst strength of cans.
Titanium has little influence on the corrosion resistance of aluminum alloys. On the
contrary, manganese, magnesium and chromium generally have a beneficial
influence on the corrosion resistance of aluminum-based packaging (Robertson
2013).
4.4. Can manufacturing
The following two basic methods are mainly encountered in the manufacturing
of cans: either the three-piece can (comprising of a cylindrical body rolled from a
sheet of tinned steel with the side welded and two ends joined mechanically by
crimping), or the two-piece box (comprising of a seamless cylindrical box body
obtained by stamping and, after filling, the crimped cover). The box format is often
characterized by the geometric relationship between diameter and height. This
relationship can be described as (Figure 4.1):
– tall cans whose height is greater than the diameter (e.g. beer cans);
– short cans whose height is equal to or slightly less than the diameter (e.g. tuna
cans);
– shallow cans whose height is significantly less than the diameter or the width
(e.g. sardine cans);
– tube-type cans whose height gives the shape of a bottle (for instance, metal
bottles for oils, aerosols for whipped cream, or tubes for tomato paste or
mayonnaise).
4.4.1. Three-piece can-making process
Three-piece cans, which were the first to be developed in the middle of the
19th century, consist of a cylindrical body, rolled from a piece of flat metal with a
longitudinal weld joint (usually formed by welding or soldering), together with two
can ends, which are seamed onto each end of the body. Three-piece welded cans for
food, drink and cosmetics and industrial cans, as well as aerosols, are only
constructed from steel-based materials. Indeed, thin gage aluminum cannot be
welded by this process. Most of these cans are made from tinplate, as ECCS or TFS
is difficult to weld consistently without first removing the metallic coating (Page
2012). Three-piece cans may be made in almost any practical combination of height
and diameter. This process is particularly suitable for making cans with mixed
specifications, as it is relatively simple to change the specification of the cans being
made (MPMA 2020).
Metal Packaging 87
The making process of the three-piece welded cans consists of 12 steps and is
illustrated in Figure 4.3 (MPMA 2020).
Figure 4.3. Three-piece can manufacturing

(adapted from MPMA 2020)
1) Steel or tinplate strips arrive at the can manufacturing plant in large coils.
2) Strips are cut into large sheets. 3) Lacquer is applied to the side of the sheet that
will become the internal surface. This special lacquer is used to protect the can from
corrosion and from any possibility of interaction between the contents and the metal.
4) The lacquered sheets are dried and/or cured in an oven. 5) The large sheets are cut
into small sheets, one for each can body. 6) The small sheets are rolled into
cylinders (when an oval or an almost rectangular parallelepiped shape, for sardine
cans, for instance, is required, the shaping occurs after welding). 7) The cylinder
edges are welded by squeezing them together while passing an electric current
through them. This heats the metal sufficiently for a sound joint to be made. 8) The
inside surface of the weld is sprayed with lacquer and then cured by blowing heated
air onto the outside of the cans. 9) The cans are passed through a flanger where the
top and bottom of the can are flanged outwards to accept the ends (or lids). 10) Plain
ends (ends, lids or easy-opening ends) are seamed to the can bodies to close one end
of every can. 11) The cans are passed through a beader where the walls of the cans
have circumferential beads formed in them to give added strength. Indeed, forming
circumferential beads in the can body wall significantly increases the hoop strength,
to resist the implosion of the can during the further sterilization processes. 12) Each
can is tested at each stage of manufacture, and at the final stage, cans pass through a
pressure tester, which automatically rejects any cans with pinholes or fractures. The
finished can bodies are then transferred to the warehouse to be automatically
palletized before being dispatched to filling plants or food factories.
Two of the critical steps in this process relate to the welding and seaming. The
seaming step is discussed in section 4.4.3. The area of the weld is left without
coating or print to ensure that a sound weld is made. The two longitudinal edges
dedicated to the weld overlap by approximately 0.4 mm (Page 2012). Electric
resistance spot welding is often used where alternating current passing through the
metal seam heats up the material. The tinplate is then sufficiently softened to be
squeezed together to form a sound joint. Each peak of electric current creates a spot
of weld. A series of overlapping spots is created to form a continuous weld along the
cylindrical can body (Emblem and Emblem 2012). A stripe coating is sometimes
applied over the weld area at this time. This welding process can only generate
bodies of a circular cross section, therefore, where non-round – that is, square,
rectangular, slightly tapered, etc. – bodies are required, the circular body must be
reshaped after the completion of the welding process.
4.4.2. Two-piece can manufacture
Two-piece cans are made from a disk of metal which is reformed into a cylinder
with an integral end. A loose end is seamed to this body to close the can. The
operation of reforming sheet metal without changing its thickness is called
“drawing” (DR). The operation of reforming a two-piece can into one of smaller
diameter, and therefore with a greater height, without changing its thickness, is
called “re-drawing” (DRD). The operation of thinning the walls of a two-piece can
by passing through circular dies is called “ironing”. Drawn and ironed cans are
referred to as “DWI” or “D&I” cans. The DWI process is used for making cans
Metal Packaging 89
where the height is greater than the diameter, and is particularly suited to making
large volumes of cans of the same basic specifications.
The differences between DRD and DWI are related to the drawing steps, and
also to the coating. Drawn and redrawn (DRD) cans are used for food (particularly
processed fish products) and are made from steel or aluminum. In most cases, the
metal is coated internally and externally and printed, if necessary, before the
can-forming operation, as the presence of these materials on the metal surface
provides some degree of lubrication to aid the forming. Lubricants, such as waxes,
may need to be added to the outside surface to enhance the drawing steps. The DRD
process may also be used to form taper wall flanged cans, as well as aluminum or
steel taper thin wall trays, to which heat sealed foil lids are applied (Emblem and
Emblem 2012). DWI cans are used for food, drink and aerosol cans and are
normally made from uncoated aluminum or tinplate. However, DWI processed food
cans are only made from tinplate, as thin wall aluminum cans do not have sufficient
strength to withstand the external pressure imposed during the heat process cycle. In
DWI manufacturing, the coil is uncoated because subsequent wall thinning (ironing)
operations are so severe that the coating would be stripped off of the metal surface.
Because of this, a water-soluble synthetic lubricant is applied to the coil before the
cup blanking or drawing operation. The application of coatings and print (where
appropriate) later in the process are an integral part of the DWI can-making process
(Page 2012).
The manufacturing process of the two-piece draw and wall-ironed cans (DWI)
can be organized into 14 main steps and illustrated in Figure 4.4 (MPMA 2020):
1) An aluminum or steel strip arrives at the can manufacturing plant in large
coils. 2) The strip is lubricated with a thin film of liquid and then fed continuously
through a cupping press, which blanks and draws thousands of shallow cups every
minute. 3) Each cup is rammed through a series of tungsten carbide rings. This is the
drawing and ironing process, which redraws the cup to a smaller diameter and thins
the walls while increasing the height. 4) Trimmers remove the surplus irregular edge
and cut each can to a precise height. The surplus metal is recycled. 5) The trimmed
can bodies are passed through highly efficient washers and then dried. This removes
all traces of lubricant in preparation for internal and external coating. 6) The clean
cans are coated externally with a clear or pigmented base coat which forms a good
surface for the printing inks. 7) The cans pass through a hot air oven to dry the
lacquer. 8) The next step is a highly sophisticated printer or decorator which applies
the print design in up to six colors, plus a varnish. 9) A coat of varnish is also
applied to the base of each can by the rim coater. 10) The cans pass through a
second oven, which dries the ink and varnish. 11) The inside of each can is sprayed
with lacquer. This special lacquer is used to protect the can from corrosion and from
any possibility of interaction between the contents and the metal. 12) Lacquered
internal surfaces are dried in an oven. 13) The cans are passed through a necker
flanger, where the diameter of the wall is reduced (necked-in). The tops of the cans
are flanged outwards to accept the ends after the cans have been filled. 14) Every
can is tested at each stage of manufacture and at the final stage they pass through a
light tester, which automatically rejects any cans with pinholes or fractures. The
finished can bodies are then transferred to the palletization before being sent to the
customers (the food industry or filling industry).
Figure 4.4. Processing flowchart of the two-piece can

making (DWI process, adapted from MPMA 2020)
Tubes and aerosols made of aluminum (Page 2012) are a special case of
two-piece metal packaging. Indeed, it is not possible to produce these tall and
Metal Packaging 91
narrow packages (bottles, aerosols, tubes) in steel by a stamping-stretching process

by impact. In this process, a very thick metal disk with a diameter equal to the
finished product is cut before being stamped. The disk is then placed at the bottom
of a die and a punch strikes (stamps) the cold metal at high speed. Many passages
are made during stamping. The cold metal is expelled from the die and slides along
the punch until the end reaches the desired length (Figure 4.5). The same process is
used to form foldable tubes, but the base of the mold (drawing die) allows the
formation of the nozzle of the tube. As the forming (deep drawing) process hardens
the wall of the tube, it is usually necessary to soften it using a posterior heat
treatment (annealing) so that the tube can be folded or rolled up after filling. The
other manufacturing steps, including coating and printing, are similar to those used
for DWI beverage cans. The rim, however, is replaced by a forming process to shape
the top of the aerosol (a flange on which will be crimped an aerosol valve
mechanism, a rolled edge to accept a crown end or a screw neck to accept a roll-on
pilfer-proof cap).
Figure 4.5. Processing of two-piece impact cold extrusion process for aerosols
in aluminum (adapted from Emblem and Emblem 2012)
4.4.3. Can end making and seaming onto can bodies
The can ends or lids for mechanical double stitching are made of aluminum,
tinplate or tin-free steel. Aluminum and TFS are always coated on both sides with
organic lacquer or a laminated film while the metal is always in the form of a coil or
flat sheet. The end or lid of the box is of a complex design, developed for optimal
deformation behavior (Robertson 2013). This deformation is necessary during the
seaming step and also very important during the subsequent operations of filling,
seaming, heat treatment and storage (stacking). This depends on the thickness of the
metal sheet, the precise contour of the expansion rings and the milling depth. It is
important that the ends can deform under internal and external pressure, but
reversibly. The edges of the lids are stamped on presses from a sheet of tin
(generally of high hardness). After stamping, the edges are shaped to match the
lower or upper edges of the body of the can. A coating or seal is then applied to the
hollow of the cover (Figure 4.6). The sealant used is based on natural or synthetic
rubber and is dissolved in water or a solvent. The purpose of the sealant allows the
formation of a hermetic seal between the layers of crimped metal.
Figure 4.6. Can end making (adapted from Page 2012; Robertson 2013)
The seam operation in can manufacturing and can filling is a crucial step of the
can quality and consumer safety. In the field of packaging, seaming is the operation
that concerns metal cans (canned food, drink cans, etc.). It allows the attachment of
the body (in general, cylindrical) to one or two ends (in general, circular). It is the
mechanical assembly of two parts of rigid metallic sheets or foils without the use of
welding, gluing or tapping: the two sheets are folded or rolled so that they fit
together. This technique must guarantee the airtightness of the closed metal package.
Neither the sealing compound, nor the interlocked can body and end, are able to
form a hermetic seal; they must complement each other. The double seam must be
correctly formed. The compound, notwithstanding its resilience and ability to fill
Metal Packaging 93
voids in the double seam, cannot compensate for an improperly formed seam
(AFDO 2011).
The double seam is uniformly used for food and beverage cans today. A double
seam is a simple and proven way to provide a hermetic seal. This process is
completed on as many as 500 billion cans annually. However, while the end goal is
simple, the process can still appear to be very complex (Crown Inc. 2020). In the
seaming process (Figure 4.7), it is first necessary to deposit or fit an end or a lid onto
the body of the can. The body and the cover must be perfectly adjusted. The parts
are put into compression on a mandrel, and then a knurling wheel (called the first
pass) rolls the edge of the box up with the edge of the end or lid. Then, a second
pass (second roll) wheel tightens this winding to ensure a perfect seal. Modern
multi-head seamers reach rates of up to 1,000 boxes per minute.
The body flange and the curl of the end interlock during the double seaming
operation to form a strong mechanical structure. Each double seam consists of three
thicknesses of the can end and two thicknesses of the can body with an appropriate
sealing compound distributed throughout the folded metal to form a hermetic seal
(Figure 4.7). In the first stage of the seaming operation, the curl of the end is
interlocked (sometimes referred to as engaged) with the flange of the can body. The
actual interlocking is performed with a roll that has a specially contoured groove.
The first operation seam should not be too loose or too tight, since there is no way to
correct a faulty first operation seam during the remaining seaming steps. A good
quality first operation seam has the body hook approximately parallel to the cover
hook, the edge of the flange of the body (which becomes the body hook) well tucked
down into the cover hook radius, and the curl of the cover adjacent to, if not actually
touching, the body wall of the can. The second stage (second roll) has a flatter
groove profile than the first operation roll. The flatter profile is designed to press the
preformed hooks together, to iron out wrinkles in the cover hook, to distribute the
sealing compound in the seam, and, specifically, to develop the double seam
tightness. The tightness or compactness of the finished double seam is a function of
the adjustment of the second roll, which has to be adjusted to tighten the finished
double seam. If the correct roll profiles are not used, or the rolls are excessively
worn, the desired seam structure and tightness cannot be achieved. During the
double seaming operation, considerable pressure is exerted on the can end, the can
body and the sealing compound. The compound should be enclosed by the double
seam. The compression by the seaming rolls will cause the sealing compound to
flow and fill voids in the seam, thereby blocking potential leakage paths.
Adjustment of 1st roll seaming 2nd roll seaming End of seaming

the end over the operation operation operation
can body
Can end
Lining Lining
(cover, in
compound compound
this case)
Flange on
the can
body
Seam
thickness
Body hook Seam height

Cover (or length or
(end) width)
Countersink depth hook
Figure 4.7. Seaming process and seam characteristics

(adapted from AFDO 2011; Robertson 2013)
Seaming defects could occur and need to be well-controlled (AFDO 2011).

Indeed, the quality of the seam is crucial for the preservation of the food and for the
product and consumer safety. A smooth projection of a double seam below the
bottom of a normal seam is identified as a droop. Vees are irregularities in the
double seam due to insufficient and sometimes no overlap of the cover hook with
the body hook, usually in small areas of the seam. The cover hook metal protrudes
below the seam at the cover hook radius in a “V” shape. A sharp seam refers to a
sharp edge at the top inside portion of the seam, at any point around it. The
condition results from a portion of the cover being forced over the top of the
seaming chuck lip during double seaming. The sharp seam is very often the first
indication of a cut over. A cut over is a seam that is sharp enough to fracture the
metal at the top inside portion of the seam. A jumped seam is a portion of a double
seam that is adjacent to the juncture area of a soldered side seam can that is not
Metal Packaging 95
rolled tight enough. It is caused by the seaming rolls jumping after passing over the
lap. This situation does not occur with welded or two-piece cans. Seam bumps are
most often found on the packer’s end of two-piece cans and three-piece welded side
seam cans. The defect is found in a relatively small area of the double seam, up to
32 millimeters long, where seam thickness suddenly increases from 0.08 millimeters
or more. The increase in thickness is accompanied by a cover hook that is pulled
away from the body wall and, when viewed in cross-section, a distorted body hook.
A deadhead is an incomplete seam caused by the chuck spinning in the countersink
of the end during the seaming operation. This seam defect is also known as a
“spinner”, “skidder” or “slip”. A false seam is a seam, or portion of a seam, that is
entirely unhooked and in which the folded cover hook is compressed against the
folded body hook. The damaged end curls result when the end curl is flattened in
one or more spots, causing the curl to fold back on itself. The can body buckling is a
condition found directly under the finished seam where the can appears to be
buckled or twisted. A cocked body occurs when the can body blank was out of
square at the time of manufacturing, causing an unevenness at the lap or juncture.
This is a can manufacturing defect that could result in double seam dimensions that
vary excessively around the circumference of the can. A misassembly, sometimes
referred to as a misplaced cover, is the result of the can body and end being
improperly aligned in the closing machine. Therefore, the seam is completely
disconnected partway around the can. A cut seam is a fractured double seam
wherein the outer layer of the seam is fractured. This is a common problem with
soldered side seams at the juncture area where the double seam crossed the side
seam and there was excess solder at the side seam lap. Fractured embossed or
debossed codes result when the metal of the end has been cut through at the code
mark. Fractured embossed or debossed codes are often caused by misalignment.
4.5. Can surface treatments
Iron and steel cans were originally covered with tinplate to prevent oxidation.
The steel boxes used today for light-colored fruit and fruit juices still use a tin
coating without any additional organic coating. Indeed, the oxidation of tin delays
the oxidative degradation of foods, such as fruit browning (Blunden and Wallace
2003). In boxes without an organic coating, the dissolution of tin (non-lacquered
boxes) provides electrochemical protection to steel or iron (Coles and Kirwan 2011).
However, most acidic foods and beverages will corrode the tin and, eventually, the
iron, which will become accessible. Steel corrosion induces pitting of the metal and
can also lead to the production of hydrogen, swelling and potential damage. In
aluminum cans, a thin film of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) is formed when the
aluminum is exposed to air or water. Although this coating does not flake, its
solubility increases at low and high pH, and also at high concentrations of NaCl
(Oldring and Nehring 2007). Once the box is sealed, the regeneration of the coating
depends on the presence of oxygen in the box, which is generally limited. Without
the oxide layer, aluminum corrosion occurs. Thus, without an organic coating, the
shelf life of aluminum may be insufficient.
For steel and aluminum cans, an additional organic coating is necessary. The
first organic can liners were made from porcelain wood oil and natural resins.
Today, mainly synthetic resins (which started to be developed in the 1940s) are
used, because they allow more flexibility for high-speed manufacturing (LaKind
2013).
The key function of the coating is to ensure that food or drink does not corrode
the metal. Due to the consumer’s expectation of a long shelf life, the coating must be
strong enough to protect the integrity of the box during the manufacturing, filling
and sterilization processes (Page 2010). Interactions between the food and the metal
can affect the taste. Although organoleptic problems may seem secondary,
unpleasant tastes can make the consumer reject the product (Huber et al. 2002). In
Europe, the migration of components from packaging materials into contact with
food should not cause organoleptic changes or unacceptable changes in the
composition of the food. Coatings are also applied to improve the visual appearance
of the box and the product (Lakind 2013). For example, the interactions between
sulfur compounds in food (proteins, preservatives or pesticide residues) and metal
can lead to the formation of spots of iron sulfide or tin sulfide, which induces
rejection from the consumers (Robertson 2006).
Several types of can-coating resins are commercially available, including

oleoresinous compounds (natural waxes, natural oil-based coatings derived from
fossil gums) and synthetic resins (acrylic, epoxy, phenolic, polyester and vinyl
resins). Each resin can be produced from several raw materials (natural substances
or monomers) and the final polymer is generally mixed to obtain the desired
attributes adapted to each can and lacquer combination. Resin mixtures are
identified by a double chemical family name (e.g. epoxy-amino), the second resin
having a concentration of less than 50% (LaKind 2013). Other agents are often
added to create the desired properties (e.g. coatings with a dispersion of TiO2 are
white); release agents are added to coatings to improve the removal of meat and fish
from boxes (Robertson 2013). The different coatings authorized and used for
lacquering cans, as well as their functional properties, are given in Table 4.3. The
safety of these coatings is an important aspect to take into consideration, and is
highly regulated.
Polyester Polyester
Lacquers Epoxy Acrylic Phenolic Vinyl organosol Oleoresins
laminates coatings
Most widely Universal Internal and
Drawn cans,
used coating. lacquer for beer external coating
Easy-open ends. Shallow drawn Initially used for
Universal and beverage for two-piece
Drums and Often used over cans. Easy-open all types of cans,
Applications golden coating cans. Side seam and three-piece
pails an and standard but now only
for three-piece stripe in high cans and ends
epoxy-phenolic ends very limited use
and shallow- solids form for meat, fish
base coat
drawn cans welded cans and vegetables
Extrusion coated
High-MW
or laminated
epoxy resins Polyester resins
High-MW Low cost, film of Synthetic
cross-linked PVC dispersed in cross-linked
epoxy resins poor polypropylene, modification of
with phenolic an appropriate with phenolic or
cross-linked flexibility, polyester or natural oils and
resins or solvent and amino resins.
Properties with amino or excellent polyamide. fatty acids,
anhydride stabilized with Very good
acrylate resins. resistance to Good golden-colored,
hardeners. Very low-MW epoxy chemical
Waterborne aggressive fabricability; inexpensive
good chemical resin resistance. Good
coatings foods superior coating
resistance and fabricability
corrosion
fabricability
resistance
Corrosion
      
resistance
Ease of
      
fabrication
Ease of
      
application
Metal Packaging
97
98
Polyester Polyester
Properties Epoxy Acrylic Phenolic Vinyl organosol Oleoresins
laminates coatings
Universality of
food       
applications
Organoleptic
properties and       
appearance
Table 4.4. Properties and composition of can lacquers (adapted from LaKind 2013; Robertson 2013)
Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
Metal Packaging 99
The classes and characteristics of the resins summarized in Table 4.4 are
described as follows:
Acrylics: these resins are not intended for applications where they come into
contact with food because they can impart undesirable tastes due to the possible
migration of one of their components, ethyl acrylate. Acrylic varnishes are too brittle
to resist the manufacture of boxes, in particular, the process for boxes drawn by
stamping. Thus, acrylic resins are mainly used for the external coating of boxes
(Robertson 2016).
Epoxy: the use of epoxy coatings in the manufacture of cans began in the 1950s.
These resins (bisphenol A diglycidyl ethers) are produced by condensation.
Compared to the oleoresins that preceded the use of epoxies, the epoxy resins
provided significantly greater flexibility. Currently, epoxy-based resins account for
95% of the coating of aluminum and steel boxes. Only a very small percentage of
epoxy resins do not use BPA as the starting monomer. Its flexibility, good adhesion
to metal surfaces, chemical resistance and compatibility with most foods and drinks
explain its success compared to other resins (Lakind 2013). Despite the excellent
mechanical properties of epoxy resins (Robertson 2013), they resist the drawing and
redrawing processes very poorly. Epoxy resins do not impart flavor to food and
retain their appearance.
Oleoresins: oleoresins are derived from the fusion of gums and natural rosins
mixed with drying oils. Until 1965, oleoresins were the only coatings used in cans,
before being replaced by epoxy resins (Oldring and Nehring 2007). Oleoresins are
used primarily for fruit drinks, fruits and vegetables (Robertson 2006). Oleoresins
are less resistant to corrosion, but can withstand the various methods of can
manufacturing despite poor adhesion to the metal and a long hardening time. Due to
its low resistance to corrosion, the use of oleoresin is limited to non-aggressive
foods (e.g. dry beans), but it can induce color and taste changes when it is in the
presence of sulfur compounds (Robertson 2013). The bis-phenol A crisis has
renewed interest in these resins in recent years.
Phenolic: phenolic resins are obtained by condensation of one or more phenols

with one or more aldehydes. They are very resistant to corrosion, but have limited
uses due to their low deformability, which limits their suitability for high production
rates (Oldring and Nehring 2007). Instead, phenolic compounds are used as a
cross-linking agent with other resins to improve the corrosion resistance of very
aggressive foods. The percentage of incorporation in mixtures must remain low
because phenolic compounds impart flavor and odor to certain foods (LaKind 2013).
Polyester: polyester resins are produced by the condensation of an acid with one
or more alcohols or epoxides, followed by copolymerization with one or more
cross-linking agents (Robertson 2006). Polyester resins fail with aggressive or acidic
foods (Oldring and Nehring 2007) due to the hydrolytic attack of the ester bond at
an acidic pH. This severely limits their use, although the flexibility range is the
widest and adapts to all manufacturing processes. Polyester resins do not impart
taste or smell to food and beverages, but can absorb aromas or small molecular
weight compounds. A polyester multilayer system (PET) is only widely used in
Japan (Hanlon et al. 1998). These laminate coatings are compatible with all
processes that do not require welding (three-piece boxes). The laminates are easily
applied and have a low capacity for absorbing aromas compared to other polyesters.
Vinyl: vinyl resins are generally used in mixture with alkyd, epoxy and phenolic
resins because they do not resist corrosion, but are flexible. They are generally
applied to an underlying epoxy coating because they do not adhere well to the metal
substrate. Even though they do not give taste to food or drink, they are little used,
because they do not resist thermal sterilization treatments (Robertson 2013). In the
form of an organosol (dispersion of PVC in a solvent and mixed with an epoxy
resin), vinyl resins allow improved chemical resistance, thermal stability and
adhesion (Robertson 2006).
4.6. Food–can interactions
European Regulation 1935/2004 (or “framework regulation”) of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 defines the general requirements
which apply to materials and articles intended to come into contact directly or
indirectly with foodstuffs, food products and beverages placed on the community
market, to ensure a high level of consumer protection. This regulation obviously
applies to metallic packaging.
In the absence of a harmonized regulation applicable to metals and alloys in the

EU and subject to respecting the principle of mutual recognition, certain metals and
alloys are covered by the regulations of each country (Table 4.5).
Uncoated stainless steels and articles made exclusively of stainless steel must
comply with the criteria for chemical composition, but criteria are not provided in
terms of release limits. Other steels, uncoated aluminum and aluminum alloys, tin
and tinplate and objects made of these metal alloys must only comply with the
chemical composition, but criteria are also not provided in terms of release limits.
The end products concerned are packaging (tins for canned food, beverage cans,
capsules, aerosols, covers, thin foil, cups, trays, tubes, staples) or reusable items
Metal Packaging 101
(household items, household appliances, industrial equipment in the food industry).

When organic coatings are applied to aluminum, steels or their alloys, the
recommendations must comply with Article 3 of EU Regulation 1935/2004
(European Commission 2004), modified for bis-phenol A (BPA) in epoxy resins in
1895/2005 (European Commission 2005) and 2018/213 (European Commission
2018) and for plastics (polyester coatings) in 10/2011 (European Commission 2011),
fully described in Chapter 5, which is dedicated to plastics.
Substitutive
Country Regulation
recommendations
Practical guide of COE on
Belgium
metals
Finland KTM decision no. 268/92
Decrees of 28/06/1912, 15/11/1945,
France DGCCRF guidance website
13/01/1976 and 27/08/1987
Greece Decision no. 232/98
Hungary Regulation no. 17/1999 VI.16
Ministerial decrees (DM) of 21/03/1973,
Italy 18/02/1984, 01/06/1988, 13/07/1995,
18/04/2000 and 21/12/2010
Packaging and consumer products
The Netherlands
edition 40-07/2014 Chapter 4
Sweden Code of 09/06/2003 Appendix 3
Table 4.5. National regulations regarding metals for packaging

(adapted from Fitness Erasmus project 2020)
4.7. References
A3M (Alliance des minerais, minéraux et métaux) (2020). [Online]. Available:

http://www.a3m-asso.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/comment-fabrique-acier.pdf.
AFDO (Association of Food and Drug Officials) (2011). A guide to can defects and
basic components of double seam containers. Guide, AFDO, York, PA.
Blunden, S. and Wallace, T. (2003). Tin in canned food: A review and understanding
of occurrence and effect. Food Chem. Toxicol., 41, 1651–1662.
Boite Aluminium (2020). Les boites métal durable [Online]. Available:
https://www.boitealuminium.com/boite-en-fer-blanc/ [Accessed 1 July 2020].
Chemseal Inc. (2020). The benefits of stainless-steel containers to the food industry
[Online]. Available: https://www.chemsealinc.net/blog/the-benefits-of-stainless-
steel-containers-to-the-food-industry/ [Accessed 6 July 2020].
Coles, R. and Kirwan, M.J. (2011). Food and Beverage Packaging Technology,
2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Hoboken, NJ.
Crown Inc. (2020). All about cans: Double seaming is simply made [Online].
Available: https://www.crowncork.com/news/all-about-cans/double-seaming-made-
simple-part-1 [Accessed 1 July 2020].
1935/2004 [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32004R1935.
European Commission (2005). The restriction of use of certain epoxy derivatives in
materials and articles intended to come into contact with food. Commission
Regulation 1895/2005 [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:32005R1895.
European Commission (2018). The use of bisphenol A in varnishes and coatings
intended to come into contact with food and amending Regulation (EU) No 10/2011
as regards the use of that substance in plastic food contact materials. Commission
Regulation 2018/213 [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/
2018/213/oj.
Fitness Erasmus Project (2020). Food packaging open courseware for higher
education and staff of companies [Online]. Available: https://fitness.
agroparistech.fr/fitness/lectures/.
Hanlon, J., Kelsey, R., and Forcinio, H. (1998). Handbook of Package Engineering,
3rd edition. Technomic Publishing Company Inc., Lancaster, PA.
Huber, M., Ruiz, J., and Chastellain, F. (2002). Off-flavour release from packaging
materials and its prevention: A foods company’s approach. Food Additives &
Contaminants, 19, 221–228.
International Standard Organization (2016a). ISO 11949/2016 Cold-reduced tinmill
products – Electrolytic tinplate [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/.
Metal Packaging 103
International Standard Organization (2016b). ISO 11950/2016. Requirements for

single and double cold-reduced electrolytic chromium/chromium oxide-coated
steel (ECCS) in the form of sheets or coils [Online]. Available:
Kleniewski, A. (1995). Emballages métalliques. Les Techniques de l’Ingénieur,
A9760, 1–24 [Online]. Available: https://www.techniques-ingenieur.fr/base-
documentaire/genie-industriel-th6/conception-d-emballage-42133210/emballages-
metalliques-a9760/.
LaKind, J.S. (2013). Can coatings for foods and beverages: Issues and options. Int.
J. Technol. Policy Manag., 13, 80–95.
Metal Packaging Europe (2020). The best of metal [Online]. Available:
https://www.metalpackagingeurope.org/metal-packaging [Accessed 1 July 2020].
MPMA (Metal Packaging Manufacturer Association) (2020). How cans are made
[Online]. Available: https://www.mpma.org.uk/information/how-cans-are-made/
[Accessed 1 July 2020].
Oldring, P.K.T. and Nehring, U. (2007). Packaging materials – 7. Metal packaging
for foodstuffs. ILSI Europe Report Series, 1–44.
Page, B. (2012) Rigid metal packaging. In Packaging Technology: Fundamentals,
Materials and Processes. Emblem, A. and Emblem, H. (eds). Woodhead
Publishing Limited, Oxford.
Parisi, S. (2013). Food Industry and Packaging Materials: Performance-oriented
Guidelines for Users. Smithers Group Company Shawbury, Shrewsbury.
Pelletier, Y. (2000). Revêtements intérieurs pour emballages métalliques. Les
Techniques de l’Ingénieur, F1310, 1 – 12 [Online]. Available: https://
www.techniques-ingenieur.fr/.
Reboul, M.C. and Baroux, B. (2011). Metallurgical aspects of corrosion resistance
of aluminium alloys. Materials and Corrosion, 62, 215–233.
Robertson, G.L. (2006). Food Packaging: Principles and Practice, 2nd edition.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Robertson, G.L. (2013) Food Packaging – Principles and Practice, 3rd edition.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Selke, S. (1994). Packaging and the Environment: Alternatives, Trends and
Solutions. CRC Press, Boca-Raton, FL.
Sharretts Plating (2020). Surface treatments [Online]. Available:
https://www.sharrettsplating.com/blog/the-tin-plating-process-a-step-by-step-
guide/ [Accessed 1 July 2020].
Technavio (2020). Global Wood Packaging Market 2019–2023 [Online]. Available:

https://www.technavio.com/report/global-metal-packaging-market-analysis-
share-2018?tnplus [Accessed 8 June 2020].
The Aluminum Association (2020). The aluminum advantage [Online]. Available:
https://www.aluminum.org/product-markets/aluminum-cans [Accessed 4 July
2020].
Thorne, S. (1986). The History of Food Preservation. Parthenon Publishing Group,
London.
5
Plastics
Mario Ščetar
Due to ease of processing, low costs and available raw materials for their
production, plastics are considered to be one of the most commonly used packaging
materials. Plastics are widely used in almost all industrial segments, such as
construction and civil engineering, automotive, electronics, aerospace, the
prevention and control of corrosion and finally, the packaging industry. Plastics are
materials with extensive possibilities when it comes to their properties; thus, in this
chapter, the focus will be on their use as packaging materials in different areas such
as food, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.
The raw material used for the production of plastics is oil, which has been treated
by refining processes. Therefore, it is important to emphasize that the price of plastic
as a finalized material is related to the market price of oil.
According to Grand View Research (2020), the global plastics market was
estimated to be worth $568.9 billion in 2019, and it is expected to grow with a
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.2% from 2020 to 2027. In terms of
revenue, polyethylene (PE) dominated the market with a share of 25.7% in 2019.
This high share is attributed to the growing demand for packaging, which includes
plastic foils and bags, as well as containers and bottles.

5.2. Plastic materials and processes
Plastic polymers are synthetic substances and materials made of macromolecules

(polymer molecules). Synthetic polymers are composed of the most common
structural units – monomers. Plastics are formed by chemical reaction – polymerization
(initiated by heat, pressure and catalysts) that involves joining several small
molecules together into a chain, in order to form a large molecule. Molecules are then
merely arranged in succession. The product retains the same composition as the
starting materials, and no secondary products are eliminated. If the starting material
consists of identical molecules, the product is known as a homopolymer, while if
it consists of different molecules, it is known as a copolymer.
Plastics are divided into two basic types: thermosets and thermoplastics.
Thermoset plastics are characterized as materials that, during a curing process
(heating and shaping), sustain a permanent change (cross-linking) to their molecular
structure. This means that once cured, they cannot be re-melted. Thermoplastics are
materials that soften on heating but their chemical structure remains unchanged
when either heated or shaped. Thermoplastic materials (e.g. polyolefins) are
commonly used for food packaging manufacturing (Vujković et al. 2007).
Commercial thermoplastics are classified according to their performance as a

“commodity” (low performance, like monofilms: polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP),
polystyrene (PS) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC)). Others are classified as
“engineering” materials (polycarbonate (PC), polyamide (PA) and polyethylene
terephthalate (PET)), or “advanced” materials (highest performance, like liquid
crystal polymers (LCP), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) and polyether ether ketone
(PEEK)). Commercial laminates, which may contain up to as many as eight different
layers, are designed for a particular product. Laminations of different materials may
be formed by various processes (bonding with a wet adhesive, dry bonding of layers
with a thermoplastic adhesive, hot melt laminating where one or both layers exhibit
thermoplastic properties, as well as special extrusion techniques). Such structured
plastic films may be further bonded to papers or metal foils to produce more
complex laminates (see Chapter 6).
Increased barrier properties are obtained via incorporation of high barrier layers
such as ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH), polyvinyl alcohol (PVAL), polyvinylidene
chloride (PVDC) and polyamide (PA).
The polymeric material is defined as a polymer with added low molecular weight
compounds (additives) in order to ease processing (Hahladakis et al. 2018).
Plastics 107
Depending on the desired application, additives often vary. Examples of additives

used are given in Table 5.1.
Most widely used production processes for plastic are continuous and offer high
performance in all stages of production operations. Two well-known processes
include: extrusion and calendering. Different processes correspond to the
development or modification of certain procedures with the introduction of
additional techniques, or by improving a stage of the original process. Which
procedure will be used essentially depends on the materials to be produced.
Additives Application
Antistatics Prevent electrostatic charging of the packaging
Colorants Soluble/insoluble (pigments), inorganic/organic, used to
color plastics
Flame retardants Modify the combustion behavior of plastics
Fillers (glass fiber, Extend the plastics and reduce their cost, improve the
chalk, graphite, carbon qualities of the plastic
black)
Lubricants Facilitate the processing of plastics
Plasticizers Modify certain properties of a plastic: increase resilience,
improve flexibility, durability and stretchability of
polymeric films
Stabilizers Protect against atmospheric oxidation and UV radiation
Table 5.1. Plastics additives with processing

properties and application (Vujković et al. 2007)
Extrusion is the best-known process for the production of plastic (see

Figure 5.1).
Thermoplastic pellets drop from the hopper onto the turning screw. Plastic pellets
melt as the turning screw pushes them forward by the heaters. Then, molten polymer
is forced through the shaping die, under pressure, to form the final product
(extrudate), as shown in Figure 5.1. This process is used in the production of films,
coatings and tubes (Parisi 2013).
Pellets Hopper
Polymer
Screw Heaters Barrel Nozzle
Figure 5.1. Extrusion of plastics
Calendering is a continuous process of producing infinitely long films,

according to the principle of passing the softened polymeric material between roller
systems with adjustable spacing. Feedstock is passed through a series of rolls to
reduce thickness to the desired gage. Calendering requires expensive equipment but
results in high production rates. The process is important to achieve a good surface
finish and high gage accuracy.
A typical calendering process consists of five main components: plasticizing

unit, calender, cooling unit, accumulator and windup station. An example of a
three-roll calendering system is shown in Figure 5.2. Typical materials produced by
calendering processes are rubber or rubbery thermoplastics, such as plasticized
polyvinyl chloride (PVC), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and polystyrene
(PS), although also some grades of polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) may
also be used.
Polymer
Extruder
3-roll calender Cooling
Take-off unit
Figure 5.2. Calender with three-roll system

Plastics 109
Extrusion and calendering are processes used to produce film-type materials,

while for rigid forms, the most well-known forming processes used are compression
molding, injection molding, blow molding and thermoforming.
In the molding process, polymers are shaped and forced to enter a dedicated
mold with a certain shape. The newly shaped forms of a particular material are
successively cooled and therefore separated from the connected molds, which are
then separated after the process is completed.
Compression molding is a process in which a casting (thermoplastics or

thermosets) polymer and additives are placed in a preheated mold cavity (lower
movable mold half). Also heated, the upper movable mold half closes the lower
cavity by applying pressure so the fluid polymer assumes the shape of a mold, as
shown in Figure 5.3. In the end, a sample is ejected by the ejector pin.
Materials commonly processed by compression molding are (Kopeliovich 2018):

– epoxies (EP);
– urea-formaldehyde (UF);
– melamine formaldehyde (MF);
– phenolics (PF).
Figure 5.3. Compression molding
Injection molding is carried out to create different shapes. During this process,
the ram retracts and plastic pellets (thermoplastics and some thermosets) drop from
the hopper into the barrel. The ram forces the plastic into the heating chamber
(around the spreader) where the plastic melts. As it moves forward, molten plastic is
forced under pressure (injected) into the mold (die) cavity where it assumes the
shape of the mold (Figure 5.4).
Materials commonly used in injection molding are (Kopeliovich 2018):

– polypropylene (PP);
– polycarbonate (PC);
– acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS);
– nylon 6 (N6) (polyamide).
Figure 5.4. Injection molding
Blow molding is a process in which air is blown into the closed mold of a
certain mold shape, such as a heated hollow thermoplastic tube, as is shown in
Figure 5.5. This is accomplished in two steps: (1) fabricate a starting tube of molten
polymer (parison) and (2) inflate the tube to a desired final shape.
Materials for blow molding are (Kopeliovich 2018):

– low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE);
– polyvinyl chloride (PVC);
– polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
Plastics 111
Figure 5.5. Blow molding
Thermoforming is a process of shaping a flat thermoplastic sheet or film. Using

a mold, the sample is heated and formed into the desired shape. Heating is usually
accomplished by radiant electric heaters, located on one or both sides of a starting
plastic sheet or film. A vacuum is used in order to assure adequate alignment of a
sample to mold (Figure 5.6).
Materials which may be processed by the thermoforming method are

(Kopeliovich 2018):
– polystyrene (PS);
– polyvinyl chloride (PVC);
– low-density polyethylene (LDPE);
– high-density polyethylene (HDPE).
Figure 5.6. Vacuum thermoforming
5.3. Plastic films for packaging
5.3.1. Plastic classes
Plastic films for packaging need to be flexible and stretchable, lightweight,

resistant to breakage, have low-temperature formability yet strong heat sealability,
and must be versatile in their barrier properties to oxygen, moisture and light.
By classification, plastic films can be unoriented, cast (uniaxially oriented) or

biaxially oriented (Table 5.2), and are defined as sheet materials with thickness
values of less than 0.254 mm. Thicker films are referred to as sheets (Ebnesajjad
2013).
Film Properties Usage

Casting or blown film processes, easily
heat sealed, good heat stability, low
flexural moduli, excellent puncture Polyethylene (PE)
Unoriented resistance, excellent impact strength,
Polypropylene (PP)
low moisture permeability, poor
barriers to gases (oxygen and carbon
dioxide)
Oriented in the machine direction, with
Cast different surface properties on each
(uniaxially side, good moisture and barrier Polypropylene (PP)
oriented) properties, scuff resistance, clear and
glossy, high tensile strength
Plastics 113
Polypropylene (PP)
Stretched in both machine and Heat-shrinkable films in shrink
transverse directions, glossy, wrap applications
Biaxially transparent, increased toughness, Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
oriented increased stiffness, enhanced clarity, Polyamide (PA)
and enhanced barrier properties to Polystyrene (PS)
water vapor and oxygen
Packaging films, tapes, labels,
industrial films
Table 5.2. Classes of plastic films used for packaging (Ebnesajjad 2013)
The process of orienting or stretching the film under carefully controlled

temperatures can improve certain properties. It causes a change in the orientation of
the molecules and results in a much firmer film, with increased strength and barrier
properties. The film itself can be stretched in one or two directions with a
compaction frame – a device that engages the edges of the weave in clamps that
move outward to stretch the sheet in the direction of the cross machine. Stretching in
the direction of the machine is done by changing the tension of the film windings.
For ambiguous orientation, the film is slightly stretched in the transverse direction
(Figure 5.7). Although the strength and barrier properties have been improved by
orientation, the materials treated in this way are still not completely impermeable to
oxygen, light and moisture.
Figure 5.7. Biaxial orientation of polymeric film

5.3.2. Plastic packaging shapes
Different shapes (such as bags, sachets, pouches and overwraps) can be made
from plastic films (Table 5.3). Plastic bags are formed via a number of operations:
folding, cutting and sealing. Pouches may be formed either from one or two reels, by
folding the film vertically or horizontally using the “Form, Fill, Seal” (FFS) packing
machine. With the wrapping, the packages go through a heated tunnel. If a
transverse seal is made then there are no end seals. The film shrinks over the ends
of the package or product, depending on the width of the film used.
The most common ways of using film wrapping (see also Chapter 11) are for:
– shrink wrap and cling films;
– stretch wrap;
– skin packaging (heating the film and creating a vacuum);
– blister packaging (thermoforming with a vacuum or with pressure).
Plastic Uses
Rigid containers Bottles, jars, pots, tubs and trays
Bags, sachets, pouches and heat-sealable, flexible
Flexible films
lidding materials, tamper-evident
Plastic combined with paperboard Liquid (milk, juices, etc.) packaging lamination
Expanded or foamed Insulation rigidity
Lids and caps Closures
Bands External tamper-evidence
Films Stretch and shrink wraps
Films used as labels for bottles and jars Flat glued labels or heat-shrinkable sleeves
Table 5.3. Plastic forms used in food packaging (Coles et al. 2003)
Flexible materials include wraps, pouches or bags with a thickness equal to or

less than 0.127 mm, while semi-rigid materials are thicker than 0.127 mm. They are
usually formed as sheets. Rigid materials include trays, bottles, boxes or crates, and
are composed of thick or rigid polymers. They are used for beverages, pasteurized
products, pickles, instant coffee, sauces, powdered milk and creams (Ebnesajjad
2013).
Plastics 115
Material Properties Usage

Polyethylene Most common and least expensive, used Wide range of applications
(PE) as a layer for heat sealability depending on the particular type
Heat sealable, inert, odor-free and
Low-density shrinks when heated. It is a good Food wrapping, stretch film,
polyethylene moisture barrier, but has a relatively high containers (milk, oil, grains,
(PE-LD or gas permeability, it is sensitive to oils, spices, salt), lids for food,
LDPE) and has poor odor resistance. It is less squeeze bottles
expensive than most films
Stronger, thicker, less flexible and more
High-density brittle than low-density polythene
polyethylene (LDPE). It has lower permeability to Butter containers, milk and fruit
(PE-HD or gases and moisture, and a higher juice bottles, jugs
HDPE) softening temperature (121°C), so can
therefore be sterilized with heat
Virtually unbreakable and chemically Oily and dairy products, bottle
Polypropylene
resistant, with good heat resistant caps and closures, preserves the
(PP)
qualities. It has good resistance to oil flavors of dried herbs and spices
Polyethylene Jars (jelly, jam, peanut butter),
terephthalate Glass-like clarity, excellent gas-barrier beverage bottles, microwavable
(PET) properties food trays, pharmaceutical
products
Polystyrene Provides a crystal appearance and the Suitable for packaging fresh
(PS) stiffness of glass in a plastic container. produce, shrink wrap and trays
and oriented Good oxygen barrier. (meat), disposable cups and plates,
polystyrene OPS film: clarity, rigidity, low cost, and containers for
(OPS) thinness and high gas permeability confectionaries
High gas and water vapor barrier Part of laminated films, used in
Polyamide (PA) properties, and greater strength and lidding and pouches (meat and
stiffness meat products)
Suitable for transporting and
Polyvinyl dispensing containers (drinking
Offers clarity, durability and chemical
chloride water, cooking oil, blister packs,
resistance
(PVC) chemicals and personal care
items)
Household wraps (Saran wrap)
Polyvinylidene Excellent gas and moisture barrier
and coated films (food, drugs,
chloride (PVDC) properties, and heat sealability
cosmetics)
Table 5.4. Plastic materials properties and applications

Rigid packaging is defined as being “unable to bend or be forced out of shape” or

“simply not flexible” (EPAC 2020). Rigid packaging offers structure, stability and
support for products and is known for its strength. Examples of rigid packaging
materials include plastic bottles and boxes. The most common plastics dominating
the packaging market are listed in Table 5.4.
The global rigid plastic packaging market (Allied Market Research 2019) is
projected to reach $340,434.7 million by 2026, growing at a CAGR of 5.6% from
2019 to 2026. Rigid plastic packaging involves the utilization of plastic materials for
packaging purposes. Plastic packaging is used in end-user industries such as food
and beverages, personal care, household items and healthcare items.
Bottles are made via extrusion blow molding (Figure 5.5). Blow molding is
usually used for milk bottles (made from HDPE). First, a preform is stretched and
blow molded. This results in biaxial orientation of the polymer molecules, which
leads to increased strength, clarity, gloss and gas barrier properties. For example, to
make PET bottles for carbonated beverages, injection stretch blow molding is used.
Screw caps and pressure fit closures with accurate profiles are made via injection
molding. Packaging on in-line thermoform, fill and seal machines can be combined
with thermoforming (Figure 5.6). Thermoforming is used to make trays from
extruded foam sheets. Insulated boxes are produced by injection molding, for
example, for the distribution of fresh fish. The rotary casting process is used to make
plastic containers for bulk material in the food industry for the distribution of
ingredients. Plastics such as HDPE and LDPE are used in this process (Coles et al.
2003).
Rigid and semi-rigid thermoformed containers are used for packaging different
products. Examples include a range of dairy products, single-serving containers,
packages for fresh sandwiches, chocolate and confectionery products, etc.
5.4. Properties of plastic packaging
Due to many favorable properties, as well as the low price, plastic packaging is
dominating the global market. Depending on plastic usage, different general or
specific characteristics are required.
Plastics 117
5.4.1. General properties of plastic
Optical properties, such as gloss, affect the appearance of the packaging. Each
package should be stable and attractive, and highly transparent. This property often
defines consumers’ preferences in choosing one packed item over another. In
general, amorphous polymers are transparent and this transparency is greater when
the degree of crystallinity is lower.
Tensile strength and elongation are significant properties for plastic packaging,
and are especially important during operations at the fill and seal packaging
machines.
Films should be able to withstand the tension of passing through the molding
machine without breaking or stretching, while the formed shapes should withstand
the force it takes to put the weight of the product in place, without resulting in
deformation.
Impact strength is a measure that describes a material’s resistance to breakage

in the event of a sudden impact that may occur during transport or handling, such as
if the product falls.
Tear strength provides information regarding tear resistance during molding on

machines and subsequent handling.
Surface friction affects the ease with which packaging materials will go through
the whole system of withdrawal to the line of packaging. It also has an impact on the
stability of palletized cargo during the transport of primary and secondary
packaging. Surface friction can be modified by the addition of additives during the
film production phase.
The density of the plastic material can change, for example, due to changes in
crystallinity, solvent absorption or loss of plasticizer, and varies depending on the
temperature.
Viscoelasticity is the main parameter in deciding which plastic to use for a

specific product. Plastic materials have a certain degree of permanent deformation
which is critical for storage of product-filled containers that are stacked on
pallets.
Heat sealability is one of the essential properties in flexible packaging such as

in bags, sachets and blister packs, as well as for semi-rigid forms such as those that
are thermoformed. The temperature at which the seal softens and begins to flow
must be compatible with what can be achieved by a combination of temperature,

pressure and time spent on the jaws of the packaging machine, in order to achieve
hermetically sealed packages (Emblem and Emblem 2012).
5.4.2. Barrier properties of plastic
Barrier properties are determined by the rate of mass transport through the
plastic.
Most barrier requirements of packaging materials are related to oxygen, carbon

dioxide, moisture, grease/oil, aroma and UV light.
Permeability to gases is expressed in terms of the volume of gas or vapor that

can permeate per unit area, per unit time or per unit thickness at a specified
temperature and relative humidity as in equation [5.1]:
∙
= ∙ = [5.1]
∙ ( )
where:
P is the permeability coefficient (cm3 m-1 d-1 bar-1);
D is the diffusion coefficient (cm2 s-1);
S is the solubility coefficient (cm3 cm-3 Pa-1, at 273.15 K and 1.013 105 Pa);
Q is the quantity (mL or cm3) of permeant transferred by a unit of area, A (m2),

in a time t (d-1);
X is the thickness of material (m);
∆p = (p1-p2) is the partial pressure difference (Pa).
The rate of permeation at which a gas or vapor passes through a polymer consists
of three processes: absorption of the permeating species into the polymer, diffusion
through the polymer, desorption of the permeating species from the polymer surface,
and removal. Test methods for gas permeation measurements can be divided into three
categories: (1) total pressure or volume increase methods; (2) isostatic steady-state
methods; and (3) quasi-isostatic methods. The most commonly used are isostatic and
steady-state methods (Abdellatief and Welt 2012).
Plastics 119
Factors that affect the permeability of a polymer are the solubility (S) and
diffusivity (D) of the small molecule in the polymer, such as chain packing and side
group complexity, polarity, crystallinity, orientation, fillers, humidity and
plasticization. Diffusion is the rate of movement of a molecule through the polymer.
The penetrant dissolves in the film matrix at the high concentration side; it diffuses
through the material driven by the concentration gradient and evaporates from the
other surfaces. The diffusion depends on size, shape and polarity of the penetrant
and the polymer-chain segmental motion within the film matrix. The latter is
influenced by interchain attractive forces like hydrogen bonding and van der Waals’
interactions, the degree of cross-linking and crystallinity.
Diffusion is driven by a concentration gradient between the two sides of the

polymer film. It can be described by Fick’s law in equation [5.2]:
=− [5.2]
where:
J is the flux through the film (mol m-2 s-1);
D is the diffusion coefficient (m2 s-1);
C is the concentration of the permeant (mol m-3);
is the concentration gradient of the permeant across a thickness;
X is the thickness of the film (m).
The permeability coefficient is defined as equation [5.3]:

∙
= [5.3]
∙ ( )
where units of = cm ∙ cm ∙ cm ∙s ∙ Pa
or by equation [5.4]:
= (∆ ) [5.4]
The term P/X is called the permeability or permeance.

Besides the oxygen permeability coefficient, the water vapor permeability

coefficient (WVP) is another critical parameter for food packaging materials. In
general, water preferentially permeates through the hydrophilic portion of the film.
Thus, films prepared from hydrophilic polymers are expected to allow a higher rate
of water vapor transmission than those prepared from hydrophobic polymers (Galić
et al. 2018, Katiyar et al. 2015). The water vapor permeability of flexible plastic
packaging materials is commonly measured gravimetrically, by the so-called cup
method (also known as the desiccant or water method) (ASTM E96-80).
The WVTR (water vapor transmission rate) is the steady-state rate at which water
vapor permeates through a film at specified conditions of temperature and relative
humidity. The WVTR is determined using equation [5.5]:
= = [5.5]
∙
where:
G is the weight change (g);
t is the time (h);
G/t is the slope of the straight line (g h-1);
A is the test area (m2);
WVTR is the rate of water vapor transmission (g h-1 m-2).
Permeance (R) is calculated as follows in equation [5.6]:
= = [5.6]
∆ ∙( )/
where:
Δp is the vapor pressure difference;
psat is the saturation vapor pressure at test temperature;
RH1 is the relative humidity at the source (%) (the test chamber for the desiccant
method; the dish for the water method);
RH2 is the relative humidity at the vapor sink (%).

Plastics 121
The water vapor permeability coefficient (WVP) is then calculated using

equation [5.7]:
∙
WVP = [5.7]
∆
where:
X is the film thickness (m);
the SI unit used for WVP is g.m-2. s-1.Pa-1.
Factors affecting permeability are the chemical structure of the polymer, the
physical structure of the polymer, the chemical structure of the permeant, the
permeant concentration, temperature and humidity.
The chemical nature of the polymers is the most important parameter

determining the ultimate barrier. Polymer chains must “move aside” or “open up” to
allow permeation. The weaker the forces holding the chains together, the more
rapidly permeation will occur. These chain-to-chain interactions are determined in
large part by the chemical nature of the backbone.
Changes in moisture content and weight loss might occur if the product is not
packed in a proper packaging material (water vapor permeability barrier); for
example, hygroscopic foods like biscuits require protection from what makes them
soggy. Loss of water in chilled and frozen food (drying out, dehydration or
evaporation) may eventually result in loss of quality and is related to weight loss
(Coles et al. 2003).
5.4.3. Food packaging interactions
Packaging materials may contain a variety of chemical substances that could

migrate into the packaged food. They fall into one of two classes:
1) known substances needed to make the packaging (monomers and starting
substances, catalysts, solvents and suspension media, additives);
2) known or unknown isomers, impurities, reaction products and breakdown
products of these ingredients.
Migration is defined as a diffusion process that is subject to both kinetic and

thermodynamic control (described by Fick’s law). Diffusion is a function of time,
temperature, thickness of the material, amount of migrant in the material, the

partition coefficient and the distribution coefficient.
By definition, migration can be global or specific.
Global migration is the summary of all packaging components which can be

transferred into the food, under controlled conditions.
Specific migration relates to one individual and identifiable compound only,

either with a particular toxicological interest, or as a labeled compound used in
experiments designed to elucidate the extent or mechanism of migration.
Migration is measured according to Commission Regulation 2016/1416 (Annex

III: Food simulants), amending and correcting Regulation 10/2011 on plastic
materials and articles intended to come into contact with food (European
Commission 2016). As food itself is a very complex system containing proteins,
carbohydrates, fats, micro and macro elements, migration tests are made on so-
called food simulants aimed at stimulating food with certain properties (hydrophilic
or hydrophobic, acidic, containing alcohol or fats and oils). Currently used food
simulants are given in Table 5.5.
Migration is strongly influenced by the type of packed food and the conditions of
storage (temperature and relative humidity). Thus, it increases with increased
contact time, increased contact/storage temperature, higher levels of additives, etc.
in the packaging material and in the intimacy of the contact with aggressive
foodstuffs.
Food simulant Abbreviation

Ethanol 10% (v/v) Food simulant A
Acetic acid 3% (w/v) Food simulant B
Ethanol 20% (v/v) Food simulant C
Ethanol 50% (v/v) Food simulant D1
Any vegetable oil containing
Food simulant D2
1% unsaponifiable matter
Poly(2,6-diphenyl-p-phenylene oxide),
Food simulant E
particle size 60–80 mesh, pore size 200 nm
Table 5.5. List of food simulants

(Regulation (EU) No. 2016/1416)
Plastics 123
According to Commission Regulation 10/2011 (European Commission 2011),

the overall migration of the components into a food may not exceed the overall
migration limit (OML) of 60 mg/kg food, or 10 mg/dm2 of the contact material.
Flavor scalping can be defined as the transport of food constituents into

packaging. If a chemical compound present in the food has a high affinity for the
packaging material, it will tend to be absorbed into or adsorbed onto the packaging
until equilibrium concentrations have been established in the food and packaging.
Scalping does not result in a direct risk for the safety of the food, or in the
introduction of unpleasant odors or flavors. The loss of volatile compounds that
contribute to its characteristic taste affects the perceptible quality of the product
itself.
With a certain combination of packaging and flake-sensitive foods, the

introduction of an effective barrier layer can reduce the problem. Such food
packaging systems must be carefully designed and tested for a high level of
sensitivity, to ensure that permeation through the barrier is kept to a minimum
(Coles et al. 2003). Factors such as RH, temperature, duration of storage and the
presence of other food components can also affect the solubility of aroma
compounds in packaged foods. Sorption of organic molecules can also change the
mechanical properties of polymer films such as tensile strengths, modulus of
elasticity and elongation at break (Farhoodi et al. 2009).
Light interaction with packaged food (exposure of packaged foods to both

ultraviolet radiation and visible light) causes an oxidative deterioration of lipids,
vitamins, proteins and colorants in foods, leading to the formation of off-flavors,
nutrient losses, and discoloration. Factors influencing these deteriorative effects
include the intensity of light, the duration of light exposure and light transmittance
of the packaging material. Polymer materials offer some protection against lipid
oxidation by filtering out ultraviolet radiation to varying degrees. Pigmenting,
labeling or the direct printing of plastic containers can reduce this problem for
sensitive food products. Usually, the modification of plastic materials may be
accomplished by the addition of dyes, or the application of coatings, which absorb
light at specific wavelengths (Robertson 2013). Barrier characteristics to light, water
vapor and oxygen of some polymeric films are presented in Table 5.6.
Barrier
Packaging material
Water vapor Oxygen Light
(0.025 mm thickness)
(g/m2 24 h) (cm3/m2 24 h) (%)
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 1.5–5 8–25 90
Polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC) 0.5–1 2–4 90
Polypropylene (PP) 5–12 2000–4500 80
High-density polyethylene (HDPE) 7–10 1600–2000 –
Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) 10–20 6500–8500 65
Linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) 15.5–18.5 200 –
Ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVAC) 40–60 12500 55–75
Ethylene-vinyl alcohol (EVOH) 1000 0.5 90
Polyamide (PA) 300–400 50–75 88
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 15–20 100–150 88
Polystyrene (PS) 70–150 4500–6000 92
Table 5.6. Barrier characteristics of some polymers (Ščetar et al. 2010)
5.5. Plastic packaging innovation
While the most common packaging material – PE, is losing market share of late,
PP and PET continue to increase with their applications. PVC currently has only a
minimal share as a polymer for rigid plastic packaging, and PS has also lost its share
compared to PP. Other polymers, including bioplastics and barriers such as
ethylene-vinyl alcohol (EVOH), are also increasing market share. Conventional
types of packaging are being replaced by innovative and flexible options designed to
meet new consumer needs.
Manufacturers have already reached a stage where PET bottles cannot be made
with much thinner walls. Therefore, the next step in this process is to replace plastic
bottles with lightweight, flexible bags from mono materials whose main goal is to
reduce packaging waste (Plastemart 2016).
New functions as an added value of packaging materials have been introduced as

active packaging technologies, including oxygen removal and intelligent functions,
control of package headspace (see Chapter 8), edibility and biodegradability (see
Chapter 7).
Plastics 125
5.6. Plastic waste management
A simplified form of the Möbius strip (Figure 5.8) is used for marking material
in order to ease material identification and recyclability of used packaging. In
addition to indicating that the packaging is recyclable, this symbol identifies the
main material that the packaging is made of by a number in the middle of the strip.
The numbering and abbreviation system was established by the Commission
Decision 97/129/EC (European Commission 1997).
Figure 5.8. Recycling packaging symbols with Möbius strip (Fidel Fillaud 2015)
On products and packaging, the conditions for affixing the Möbius strip are
defined by the international standard ISO 14021:2016 (2016). With the increasing
trends in recycling materials and their possible use in food contact, there are
recommendations that, for these materials, the percentage (X%) of recycled material
used in packaging material production must be indicated in the middle of the
Möbius strip.
Types of packaging placed on the EU market and all packaging waste are
covered in Directive 94/62/EC. The same directive regulates heavy metals and
chemicals present in packaging. For example, the concentration levels of lead,
cadmium, mercury and hexavalent chromium are regulated as follows:
– 600 mg/kg by weight two years after the date referred to in the directive;
– 250 mg/kg by weight three years after the date referred to in the directive;
– 100 mg/kg by weight five years after the date referred to in the directive.
In general, the sum of the concentration levels of heavy metals present in

packaging or packaging components shall not exceed 100 mg/kg by weight (Cheng
2019).
Most plastics may cause environmental pollution as they are obtained from fossil
fuels and are not biodegradable. Thus, they remain in the environment as pollutants
(Alavi 2015).
Generally, three possibilities for recycling exist: mechanical, chemical and

energy recovery.
Relatively speaking, the cheapest and simplest recycling method is the

mechanical recycling of plastic. More expensive is chemical recycling (feedstock
recycling) in a process called depolymerization; monomers as a base unit may then
be used in manufacturing new polymer material.
Renewable energy can be obtained from plastics in different ways: by burning

waste (combustion) in incinerators, where the heat of plastic waste burned at high
temperature is used to produce electricity or steam; also, by the production of
alternative fuels from plastic waste (pyrolysis and gasification), where the obtained
fuel is used in various production processes and in power plants themselves
(Kopeliovich 2018).
In 2019, the EU Commission proposed an EU-wide target of 55% on recycling

plastic packaging (by 2025). The indicator is defined as the share of recycled
packaging waste in all generated packaging waste. Packaging waste covers wasted
material that was used for the containment, protection, handling, delivery and
presentation of goods, from raw materials to processed goods, from the producer to
the user or the consumer, excluding production residues (Eurostat 2020).
Nowadays, due to growing environmental concerns, the scientific community

has focused on researching bio-based sustainable plastic packaging materials. The
most promising bio-polymers for future packaging applications are cellulose,
chitosan, polylactic acid (PLA) and polyhydroxyl alkanoates (PHA) (Alavi 2015;
Siracusa 2012). More information on these materials is provided in Chapter 7.
5.7. Legislation for food contact materials
Legislation for food contact materials (FCMs) determines the safety and
suitability of consumer goods (food packaging materials, children’s toys, etc.) for
human use.
Development and harmonization of experimental approaches to produce reliable

data for risk assessment, as well as the monitoring of target contaminants in
Plastics 127
packaging materials, are given at European level. According to Regulation EC No.

1935/2004 (European Parliament, Council of the European Union 2004), FCMs
should be manufactured in such a way that they do not transfer constituents to food
in quantities that would: endanger human health, bring about an unacceptable
change in the composition of food or bring about a deterioration in the organoleptic
characteristics of food. Regulation (EC No. 1935/2004) also prescribes an
international symbol for food-safe material: it features a wine glass and a fork, as
shown in Figure 5.9.
Figure 5.9. Food contact materials symbol (Regulation EC No. 1935/2004

(European Parliament, Council of the European Union 2004))
5.8. References
Abdellatief, A. and Welt, B.A. (2012). Comparison of new dynamic accumulation

method for measuring oxygen transmission rate of packaging against the
steady-state method described by ASTM D3985. Packag. Technol. Sci., 26,
281–288.
Alavi, S., Thomas, S., Sandeep, K.P., Kalarikkal, N., Varghese, J., and Yaragalla, S.
(2015). Polymers for Packaging Applications. Apple Academic Press, Florida.
Allied Market Research (2019). Rigid plastic packaging market by material
(Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), Polypropylene (PP), High-Density Polyethylene
(HDPE), and others) and end-user industry (food & beverages, personal care,
household, healthcare, and others): Global opportunity analysis and industry
forecast, 2019–2026 [Online]. Available at: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/
rigid-plastic-packaging-market [Accessed 15 June 2020].
ASTM E96-80 (1980). ASTM Standard Test Method E96 – 80, Water Vapor
Transmission of Materials.
Cheng, V. (2019). Packaging materials regulations in the European Union [Online].

Available at: https://www.compliancegate.com/european-union-packaging-materials-
regulations/ [Accessed 17 July 2020].
Coles, R., McDowell, D., and Kirwan, M.J. (2003). Food Packaging Technology.
Blackwell, Florida.
Ebnesajjad, S. (2013). Plastic Films in Food Packaging, Materials, Technology, and
Applications. Elsevier, New York.
Emblem, A. and Emblem, H. (2012). Packaging Technology – Fundamentals,
Materials and Processes. Elsevier, New York.
EPAC (2020). Rigid packaging vs. flexible packaging: Is one really better? [Online].
Available at: https://epacflexibles.co.uk/rigid-packaging-vs-flexible-packaging-
is-one-really-better/ [Accessed 22 July 2020].
European Commission (1994). Packaging and packaging waste. European
Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC [Online]. Available: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31994L0062.
European Commission (1997). Establishing the identification system for
packaging materials pursuant to European Parliament and Council Directive
94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste. Commission Decision
97/129/EC [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
?uri=celex%3A31997D0129.
European Commission (2016). Amending and correcting Regulation (EU) No 10/2011
on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food.
Commission Regulation 2016/1416 [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R1416.
European Parliament, Council of the European Union (2004). Regulation (EC) No
1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on
materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing
Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC.
Eurostat (2020). Recycling rate of packaging waste by type of packaging [Online].
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/cei_wm020_
esmsip2.htm [Accessed 9 July 2020].
Farhoodi, M., Emam-Djomeh, Z., Oromiehie, A., and Ehsani, M.R. (2009).
Influence of menthol absorption on the mechanical properties of PET bottles.
Iranian Polymer Journal, 18, 227–232.
Plastics 129
Fidel Fillaud (2015). Plastics: How to identify recyclable packaging? [Online].

Available at: https://www.fidel-fillaud.com/en/news/tip-of-the-month/plastics-
how-to-identify-recyclable-packaging-xpa1445.html [Accessed 2 July 2020].
Galić, K., Kurek, M., and Ščetar, M. (2018). Barrier Properties of Plastic Polymers.
Reference Module in Food Science. Elsevier, New York.
Grand View Research (2020). Plastic market size, share & trends analysis report
by product (PE, PP, PU, PVC, PET, Polystyrene, ABS, PBT, PPO, Epoxy
Polymers, LCP, PC, Polyamide), by application, by region, and segment
forecasts, 2020–2027 [Online]. Available at: https://www.grandviewresearch.com
/industry-analysis/global-plastics-market [Accessed 3 July 2020].
Hahladakis, J.N., Velis, C.A., Weber, R., Iacovidou, E., and Purnell, P. (2018). An
overview of chemical additives present in plastics: Migration, release, fate and
environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. J. Hazard.
Mater., 344, 179–199.
ISO 14021:2016 (2016). Environmental labels and declarations – Self-declared
environmental claims (Type II environmental labelling).
Kopeliovich, D. (2018a). Compression molding [Online]. Available at:
https://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=compression_molding_of_
polymers) [Accessed 13 July 2020].
Kopeliovich, D. (2018b). Injection molding [Online]. Available at:
https://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=injection_molding_of_polymers)
Kopeliovich, D. (2018c). Plastics recycling [Online]. Available at:
https://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=plastics_recycling [Accessed
13 July 2020].
Kopeliovich, D. (2018d). Thermoforming [Online]. Available at:
https://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=thermoforming) [Accessed 13
July 2020].
Kopeliovich, D. (2018e). Blow molding [Online]. Available at:
https://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=blow_molding) [Accessed 13
July 2020].
Parisi, S. (2013). Food Industry and Packaging Materials – Performance-oriented
Guidelines for Users. Smithers Rapra, Ohio.
Plastemart (2016). Trends shift from rigid packaging to flexible packaging [Online].
Available at: http://www.plastemart.com/plastic-technical-articles/trends-shift-
from-rigid-packaging-to-flexible-packaging/2229 [Accessed 14 July 2020].
Robertson, G.L. (2013). Food Packaging Principles and Practice. CRC Press,
Boca Raton.
Ščetar, M., Kurek, M., and Galić, K. (2010). Trends in meat and meat products
packaging – A review. Croat. J. Food Sci. Technol., 2(1), 32–48.
Siracusa, V. (2012). Food packaging permeability behaviour: A report. International
Journal of Polymer Science, 1–11.
Vujković, I., Galić, K., and Vereš, M. (2007). Ambalaža za pakiranje namirnica,
Tectus, Zagreb.
6
Multilayer Packaging Materials

Mario Ščetar
Laminate is a product made by bonding together two or more layers or materials

in order to create a new material with desirable properties.
Today’s trend and desirable target for the packaging industry is to use less
material (surface area and thickness) and to create less waste for disposal, while still
extending the shelf life of the product.
Demand for laminated packaging foils is frequently increasing with the adoption
of high-quality packaging solutions by the food, beverage and pharmaceutical
industries. These industries use laminated packaging foils in almost all applications
of primary packaging. Thus, manufacturers are focused on developing high-quality
and high-grade films that will be easy to produce (and cheaper), using simplified
production processes. Strict regulations on the use of plastic material for laminated
packaging foils can also be expected to prevent the growth of the global market
(environmental pollution) (Fact.MR n.d.).

6.2. Multilayer materials and their production
Multilayer materials (laminates), as the term implies, have a multilayered

structure and can be composed of plastic film only or composed of different
materials (plastic, paper and/or thin metal foils). Commercial laminates can have up
to 9 (or even 12) different layers. Lamination is the process of bringing two or more
webs – paper, film, foil or other flexible material that is unwound from a roll and
passed through a machine – together and bonding them either with an adhesive or by
heating, as shown in Figure 6.1. Structural barriers for food packaging often contain
components used for either bonding or sealing, each with specific properties. The
most common include (Ebnesajjad 2013):
– poly(vinylidene chloride) (PVDC), which acts as a barrier, sealant and bonding
agent;
– ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) serving as a bonding layer;
– polyamide (PA) acting as a barrier layer;
– metallized film or additives such as aluminum and silicon oxide, providing an
additional barrier.
PP = polypropylene, PA = polyamide, PE = polyethylene
Figure 6.1. Multilayer material with combined properties from different monofilms
In the production of food packaging materials, the following lamination

techniques are considered to be the most widely used:
– adhesive lamination (dry bonding or wet bonding);
– extrusion and coextrusion coating;
– thermal lamination.
Multilayer Packaging Materials 133
6.2.1. Adhesive lamination
Adhesive lamination can be performed in two ways: as dry bonding or as wet

bonding.
During the wet bonding process, the adhesive is printed onto the substrate and
the foil is then laminated onto this substrate, which subsequently passes under a UV
curing station. The printed adhesive bonds the foil to the substrate, and the excess is
then stripped off (Figure 6.2).
Figure 6.2. Wet bonding lamination
During dry bonding, the adhesive is printed onto the substrate, which then
passes under a UV curing station, making the adhesive tacky. The foil is laminated
onto the substrate where it bonds to the adhesive and the excess is then stripped off
(Figure 6.3).
Figure 6.3. Dry bonding lamination

6.2.2. Extrusion and coextrusion lamination
Extrusion coating and extrusion lamination are processes that involve the use of
various materials, in combination, in order to form a single complex structure.
The schema of extrusion coating is given in Figure 6.4. In this process, an

extruder forces the melted thermoplastic resin through a horizontal slot-die, onto a
moving web of substrate. The resulting product is a permanently coated web
structure. Extrusion lamination is a similar process, where resin is extruded between
two substrates and acts as a bonding agent. Inside a processing line, the substrates
and melt are nipped at a bonding station.
The finished product is wound as a permanently bonded multilayer laminated

structure, as shown in Figure 6.4. Most plastic films require a primer coating in the
extrusion process before use (BOBST n.d.).
Figure 6.4. Lamination by extrusion
Coextrusion lamination is mainly used for the production of tubular and flat
films (Figure 6.4). This process is used to produce sheets and films that are suitable
for food packaging. The molten polymers from different extruders are molded and
combined. The melt flow then expands on the matrix and becomes so thin that it can
be evenly shaped as a coextruded film. The problem with coextrusion is the
simultaneous processing of polymers of different rheological properties, which
directly affect the quality of the product (Wagner 2010).
A three-layer coextrusion (Figure 6.5) can combine many different

characteristics of plastic materials in the extrusion process and can significantly
reduce production costs. This technology is therefore applied on a large scale
nowadays.
Figure 6.5. Three-layer coextrusion process
6.2.3. Thermal lamination
The main principle of the thermal lamination process is that the adhesion of
different layers of flexible plastic is performed by heat and pressure, without using
any chemical adhesion coatings. This lamination method is highly desirable for food
packaging where the use of additional chemicals can cause migration and odor
problems.
Thermal lamination has many advantages such as: prevention of unwanted taste
and odor transmission; the final material is free of diluents and similar chemicals;
the process is also free of dangerous vapors that contribute to atmospheric pollution.
Furthermore, there is no need for a curing period after production, the process is
suitable for hot-fill applications, no stress cracking is observed and good material
resistance is obtained. The process enables various possibilities for producing
recyclable laminates with excellent gas and moisture barrier properties. Most
combinations are the result of a mix of different materials (such as PE/PET and
PE/PA) that are used due to their specific properties. It is important to emphasize
that the nature of such multilayer materials makes them less suitable for recycling.
However, there is the possibility of developing specific laminates consisting of three
layers of PE, while retaining the properties required. This also results in a laminate
that is easily recyclable and can therefore be re-used (KIVO n.d.).
6.2.4. Metallized films
Metallized film can be described as a plastic film that has been coated on one or
both sides with a very thin layer of metal (Figure 6.6). The benefits of both metal
and plastic films are made use of, which results in much more versatility in
application. Direct vacuum metallizing with aluminum on plastic films results in a
significant increase in barrier properties. It can also make an opaque barrier to light
and offer a highly reflective, glossy appearance.
Metallized (met) films are composed of biaxially oriented polypropylene

(BOPP), polyester (PET), polyamide (PA) and cast polypropylene (OPP) and are
manufactured by means of high-speed vapor deposition. The vacuum-deposited
metal thickness need only be a few micrometers to ensure high barrier properties
(Table 6.1).
Permeability
Material
O2 CO2 N2 Water vapor
(μm)
3 2. .
cm /m d bar g/m2.d
PET/PE 100 450 1 1.2
(12/75) (23oC; 0% RH) (23oC; 0% RH) (23oC; 0% RH) (23oC; 85% RH)
PET/met/PE <1 2 <1 0.2
PET/Alu/PE < 0.1
< 0.1 o
(12/9/75) (23 C; 85% RH)
OPA/PE 35 200 8 2
OPA/met/PE 3 0.7
(15/75) (75% RH) (23oC; 85% RH)
OPP/PE 1,200 3,500 250 0.8
OPP/met/PE 40 0.3
(20/40) (23oC; 0% RH) (23oC; 85% RH)
OPP/Alu/PE < 0.1 < 0.1
(20/9/75) (23oC; 0% RH) (23oC; 85% RH)
Table 6.1. Barrier properties comparison for metallized

and non-metallized films (Galić et al. 2009)
Figure 6.6. Metallized film laminate with associated layers
6.3. Properties of laminates
As already stated, laminates are produced in such a way in order that the final
product holds desirable properties for a particular application. This is mostly evident
in their barrier properties.
6.3.1. Barrier properties
When measuring and calculating barrier properties of multilayer materials

(laminates), they are considered as a number of membranes in series. The case of
three layers in series is shown in Figure 6.7 (Galić et al. 2018).
Figure 6.7. Three layers in series
The total thickness (XT) is described as:
XT = X1 + X2 + X3 [6.1]
Assuming steady state flux, the rate of permeation (Q) through each layer must
be constant, that is
QT = Q1 = Q2 = Q3 [6.2]
Likewise, the areas (A) will also be constant:

AT = A1 = A2 = A3 [6.3]
Therefore, by substituting data for multilayered materials in the equation that

describes barrier of monolayer plastic material
Q P
 A  p  [6.4]
t X
Permeation through the multilayer materials can be written as
QT X T
 p1  p4 pi [6.5]
t
Since
(p1 – p4) = (p1 – p2) + (p2 – p3) + (p3 – p4) [6.6]
Therefore, equation [6.5] becomes
QT X T QT X 1 X 2 X 3
 [   ]
tAT PT tAT P1 P2 P3
[6.7]
and [6.8]
X T X1 X 2 X 3
  
PT P1 P2 P3
[6.8]
or [6.9]
XT
PT 
 X1   X 2   X 3 
 P    P    P 
1 2 3
[6.9]
If the individual thicknesses and permeability coefficients are known for each
layer, provided that the P coefficients are independent of pressure, then equation [6.9]
can be used to calculate P for any multilayer material. If they are not, then different
permeability coefficients will be obtained depending on the positioning of the layers.
As packaging films are almost always used in humid conditions, the oxygen
permeability is dependent on the humidity. In such cases, equation [6.9] cannot be
used directly since p2 (P of the center layer) will depend on the average partial
pressure at the center. Since the partial pressure of water vapor will not be constant
across the multilayer, an expression for transmission rate (TR = Q/At) must be
modified to include a term for the partial pressure difference and the thickness:
G
WVTR  p [6.10]
t ←A
Since the area A and time t will be the same for all three layers, the equilibrium
WVTR between the outside and center layers can be expressed as:
Q1 Q
X1
 p1  p2   X2  p2  p3  [6.11]
2
Similarly, the equilibrium WVTR between the center and the inside layer will be:
Q2 Q
X2
 p2  p3   3  p3  p4 
X3
[6.12]
The average partial pressure of the center layer (pc) will be:
p2  p3
pC  [6.13]
2
Simultaneous linear solution of equations [6.11] and [6.12] for p2 and p3 and
substitution in equation [6.13] yields [6.14], that is equal to the average partial
pressure of the center layer:
X X  X X 
p1  2 2 3   p4  2 2 1 
Q Q Q
 2 Q1 
Pc  
2 3 
[6.14]
 X 3 X 2 X1 
2  
 Q3 Q2 Q1 
Knowing the pc, the Pc of the center layer can be determined experimentally at
this partial pressure and equation [6.9] can be used to calculate the overall
permeability of the multilayer material.
6.3.2. Interaction between packaging material and food
Food packaging material is a frequent source of off-flavors found in food

products (Reineccius 2013). Off-flavor problems attributed to residues of solvents
are often reported after long storage periods. This may be related to the production
of the material, to trace residues in recycled materials or to solvents/resins used in
adhesives, etc. Even though these substances are mostly released in trace levels and
generally do not pose a health risk, their appearance is not accepted by consumers
(Robertson 2013). In order to avoid a negative impact on those food products that
are frequently complained about by unsatisfied consumers, there are thresholds for
such substances. A threshold is defined as the lowest concentration of a compound
where an inherent property is detected by a certain proportion of a given group of
consumers (usually 50%) (Robertson 2013). Toluene, p-tertiary butyl phenol, ethyl
acetate, isopropanol, methyl ethyl ketone, hexanal and hexane are the most
commonly reported substances. For example, it is common for extrusion conditions
of low-density polyethylene (LDPE) to affect the flavor of the packed product,
probably caused by volatile compounds, such as saturated and unsaturated
hydrocarbons and aromatic hydrocarbons (Potts et al. 1990). Compounds with C3
and C4 alkyl benzenes were reportedly responsible for an “intense plastic off-flavor”
described as candle grease, musty, rancid, soapy and pungent (Mathlouthi 1994).
“High” levels of toluene from laminated pouches, used for fruity soft drinks, also
originate from the adhesive used for lamination of the multilayer structure.
The migration issue of polymer materials is described in Chapter 5, and

adhesive and ink migration is described in Chapter 10.
6.4. Packaging application of laminates
Laminated films are used in a wide range of flexible packaging applications, such
as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, cosmetics, foods (snacks, sugar,
seasoning, noodles, beverages and biotic liquid packaging) and many more, as
shown in Table 6.2.
Primary packaging sub-type Film, sheet

Primary packaging type Flexibles
Snack foods, dry foods, dry powders,
End use
herbs, spices, pasta, noodles, seasonings
Cosmetics, personal care, food, beverages
Market – segment (non-alcoholic), pharmaceuticals, beauty,
personal care, health
Table 6.2. Laminates used in packaging applications (Wapo 2020)

Food Product Structures Properties

OPA/PE Seal strength,
Dry foods
OPA/OPA/PE moisture barrier
BOPP/BOPP
BOPP/CPP
Biscuits and Seal strength,
PET/PE/BOPP
chocolate moisture barrier
OPP/OPPmet
PET/OPPmet
PET/BOPP Seal integrity, high packing
Candies
PET/CPP speed, moisture barrier
Tea PETmet Odor barrier, good seal strength
Coffee PET/PE/Alu/PE High moisture barrier, good seal
(instant) PET/Alu/PE strength and integrity
PETmet
Potato PET/PE High seal strength and integrity,
chips PET/PE/PETmet/PE gas retention, moisture barrier
BOPP/PETmet/PE
PE/PE
Rice and PAP/CPP High seal strength and
pasta OPP/CPP integrity
OPP/PE
PET/Alu/PE
Frozen PET/PE/PE High seal strength and integrity,
food PETmet/PE gas retention, moisture barrier
OPP/PETmet/PE
OPPmet/Cold seal
BOPPmet White High seal strength and integrity,
Ice cream
BOPP White gas retention, moisture barrier
Two sided acrylic
PAP/PE
PAP/PE/PVDC
Good seal strength
Desserts PAP/Alu/PE
and integrity
PETmet/PE
PAP/OPPmet/PE
PET = poly(ethylene terephthalate), PETmet = metallized poly(ethylene terephthalate), PE =

polyethylene, OPP = oriented polypropylene, OPA = oriented polyamide, OPPmet =
metallized oriented polypropylene, BOPP = biaxially oriented polypropylene, Alu =
aluminum foil, CPP = cast polypropylene, BOPPmet = metallized biaxially oriented
polypropylene, PAP = paper, PVDC = poly(vinylidene chloride).
Table 6.3. Example of laminates used for food packaging (TECHNOCRAFT 2019)
Extrusion coating and laminating can be configured for a variety of applications

including liquid packaging, aseptic drink containers, flexible packaging, toothpaste
tubes, medical packaging, industrial wraps, insulation backed materials and
plastic-coated tablecloths, as well as sacks for products as diverse as cement, cereal
grain, and dry chemicals (BOBST n.d.).
Thermal laminates can be used in common applications including juice bags,

Bag-in-Box, drum bags and deep freeze applications. These are often used for filling
with liquids such as syrup, juices, wine and oils, as well as for foods that are filled
hot and used by the food processing industry (KIVO n.d.).
OPPmet application is a drop-in foil replacement for traditional paper–

polyethylene–foil–polyethylene (PAP/PE/PE) packets and stand-up packaging
(SUP), used for salty snacks, dried soups, oatmeal, seasonings, hot cocoa, dried
cheese, rice, mixes and powdered beverages. It is also used as a substitute for foil
packaging structures for nutritional bars.
PETmet films are a foil-replacement solution for coffee, dried fruits, nuts and
powdered nutritional or energy drink packaging. It is also a good option for
replacing foil in a lidded application for dairy foods, like yogurt and ice cream,
although challenges may arise depending on the packaging equipment used
(Williamson 2018).
Some of the typical laminate structures for food packaging, with important
properties, are listed in Table 6.3.
6.5. Environmental and waste management issues
Although laminates offer a diverse range of applications as well as tailored

material properties, there is the huge problem of separating extruded and coextruded
layers of polymeric materials. Thus, they pose a problem in terms of their disposal
and ability to be recycled. 4% of non-recycled material consists of laminated,
flexible plastic packages, concentrated in the sorted and graded films in an amount
of 10–15%. These laminated flexible packages are made up of several different
polymers and materials, so, by their nature, they cannot be recycled in a circular way
into new flexible films.
All of this prevents progress towards a more economical circular economy of

plastic packaging. Although laminated, flexible plastic packaging has an important
role in our society in protecting the quality of food products and making such food
products stable, long enough to allow production and worldwide distribution,
manufacturers need to check whether laminates are really needed in their production
or whether they cannot be avoided. A separate method of integration into the current
collection and recycling system should be then provided.
As a result of environmental issues, laminates should be redesigned in order for

them to be identified and sorted much more easily. Therefore, the need for laminates
in the supply chain is recognized, and it is accepted that, unfortunately, these
packages still cannot be recycled.
In any case, where possible, it would be beneficial to apply materials that are
crucial for improving the quality of recycled plastics, making novel and circularly
recyclable packaging for the above-mentioned reasons (van Velzen et al. 2020). Of
course, such changes should also take into account the practical applications of the
material for specific purposes, in order to protect quality and ensure safety of the
packaged product.
6.6. References
BOBST (n.d.). Extrusion coating & laminating process. BOBST [Online]. Available:
https://www.bobst.com/usen/products/extrusion-coating-laminating/process/
Ebnesajjad, S. (2013). Plastic Films in Food Packaging. Materials, Technology, and
Applications. William Andrew, Oxford.
Fact.MR (n.d.). Laminated packaging films market forecast, trend analysis &
competition tracking – Global market insights 2018 to 2026 [Online]. Available:
https://www.factmr.com/report/2724/laminated-packaging-films-market [Accessed
25 July 2020].
Galić, K., Ćurić, D., and Gabrić, D. (2009). Shelf life of packaged bakery goods – A
review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr., 49(5), 405–426.
Galić, K., Kurek, M., and Ščetar, M. (2018). Barrier properties of plastic polymers.
Reference Module in Food Science. Elsevier, 1–21.
KIVO (n.d.). Thermal lamination. KIVO Group [Online]. Available:
https://www.kivo.nl/en/processes/thermal-lamination/ [Accessed 24 July 2020].
Mathlouti, M. (1994). Food Packaging and Preservation. Springer Science &
Business Media, Berlin.
Potts, M.W., Baker, S.L., Hansse, M., and Hughes, M.M. (1990). Relative taste
performance of plastics in food packaging. J. Plast. Film Sheeting, 6, 31–43.
Reineccius, G. (2013). Source Book of Flavors. Springer Science & Business Media,
Berlin.
Robertson, G.L. (2013). Food Packaging Principles and Practice. CRC Press,
Boca Raton.
TECHNOCRAFT (2019). Techno plast & prints. Technocraft Group [Online].
Available: https://www.technokraftgroup.com/cosmo-films.php [Accessed 25
July 2020].
van Velzen, U.T., de Weert, L., and Molenveld, K. (2020). Flexible laminates within
the circular economy. Wageningen Food & Biobased Research [Online].
Available: https://edepot.wur.nl/519019 [Accessed 25 July 2020].
Wagner, J.R. (2010). Multilayer Flexible Packaging: Technology and Applications
for Food, Personal Care and Over-the-Counter Pharmaceutical Industries.
Elsevier, Burlington.
Wapo (2020). Laminated packaging film. Wapo [Online]. Available: https://www.web
packaging.com/en/portals/wapo/assets/11063957/laminated-packaging-film/ [Accessed
25 July 2020].
Williamson, T. (2018). Metallized films for foil replacement. Packaging Strategies
[Online]. Available: https://www.packagingstrategies.com/articles/90483-metallized-
films-for-foil-replacement [Accessed 25 July 2020].
7
Bio-based Materials
Mia Kurek1 and Nasreddine Benbettaieb2
1
2
These days, plastics are materials that are used for food packaging applications,
to great extent. Currently, synthetic plastic materials are mostly made from
petrochemical sources; a detailed description is given in Chapter 5. The bio-based
economy refers to the use of renewable natural resources like crops or trees for fuel
and, most recently, for the production of various materials such as packaging foils,
in the biomedical field for tissue engineering or even for furniture making. When
debating about materials, the largest problem is not their usage or performance, but
is hidden in their lifecycle assessment (LCA). When it comes to disposal and waste
management of conventional materials, then it becomes a significant concern. Rules
about the prevention and reduction of packaging waste are covered under different
international standards (EN 13428:2004; ISO 18602:2013). If this is not possible,
reuse is proposed as a good alternative (EN 13429:2004; ISO 18603:2013), followed
by recycling (EN 13430:2004; ISO 18604:2013), composting (EN 13432:2004;
ISO 18606:2013) or incineration with energy recovery (EN 13431:2004; ISO 18605:
2013). Even though in some sectors the reuse of biomass (reproducing or recycling)
has been done for several decades – for example, for pulp and paper or textile – in
most scenarios, it is just done at the beginning. Plastic waste is one of many types of
waste that takes too long to decompose. In answer to the greater issue and with a

growing demand for sustainability, there has been a global shift to bio-based
chemicals. So, biodegradable, bio-based and compostable materials are capturing
market share. Agricultural waste is a large pool of untapped biomass resources.
According to European Bioplastics, it is estimated that the global production capacity of
biobased plastics will increase by approximately 25% (from 2.05 million tonnes in 2017
to 2.44 in 2022) (European Bioplastics 2017). The global biodegradable material
market was valued at $3.02 billion in 2018 and is expected to reach more than
$6 billion by the end of 2025, growing at a CAGR of 14% between 2019 and 2025
(Research Reports World 2014). Generally, countries that occupy the largest part of
the global market include the UK, China, USA, Brazil and India, with the following
most prominent companies: Novamont S.p.A., Plantic, Natureworks, Corbion N.V.,
Biome Technologies plc, Eastman Chemical Company and Danimer Scientific. The
market is segmented depending on the type (polylactic acid (PLA), polybutylene
adipate terephthalate (PBAT), polybutylene succinate (PBS), polyhydroxy
alkanoates (PHA), starch blends, and others) and application of bio-based plastics
for food purposes. These materials have found applications in agriculture, food
packaging, shrink films, disposable tableware and 3D printing. The greatest
industrial relevance is still on carrier bags. Even though the first knowledge of this
kind of material dates back to the 1920s, large-scale production is far from
straightforward. Among the proposed materials, PLA and starch blends are the most
significant on an industrial level. The global PLA market in 2018 was valued at
$673.88 million, with major stakeholder players NatureWorks, Corbion, Pyramid
and Hitachi (NKWood Research 2019). Production schemes often include initial
demonstrations for proof-of-concept in an academic setting and then the transition to
industrial scale. To date, the production costs are significantly higher than that of
petroleum-based plastics that can be produced cheaply and at higher volumes. A
conservative approach to production methods for bioplastics rarely matches and
technical performance is often far away from that of conventional plastics. However,
they are quite advantageous selling solutions as more consumers are looking for
greener products with a lower environmental footprint, compared to the products
used traditionally. It must be pointed out, however, that even though “greener than
the conventional”, bio-based polymers should not be viewed as a complete solution
to plastic waste, as they still require robust waste management and degradation
protocols. This means that efforts should be focused on responsible behavior:
reducing the consumption of products that generate waste materials that take a long
time to completely break down; and on waste management, since these are the two
most important features to think about for both petrochemical and bio-based
polymers.
Bio-based Materials 147
7.2. Definitions
Understanding the meaning of the term biodegradability is critical in

understanding the issues surrounding biodegradation.
First of all, it must be elucidated that bio-based materials can be (Figure 7.1):
– non-biodegradable (bio-polyethylene (bioPE), bio-polyethylene terephthalate
(bioPET), etc.);
– biodegradable (polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalcanoate (PHA),
polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB));
– compostable (chitosan, thermoplastic starch, etc.).
This means that bio-based materials are not always biodegradable or
compostable. Just as important, not all biodegradable so-called bioplastics are
bio-based. Some, such as PLA or PHA, are biodegradable or compostable under
appropriate conditions. BioPE, bioPU and bioPET are neither biodegradable nor
compostable. Conversely, some biodegradable or compostable polymers are
petrochemical based, such as polycaprolactone (PCL) or PBS. Abbreviations of all
materials mentioned in this chapter are given in section 7.5.
Figure 7.1. Schematic view of the biodegradability of polymers depending

on their source (adapted from European Bioplastics 2017)
7.2.1. Bio-based plastics
According to the EN 16575:2014 standard, bio-based means that a material is

made of plastic and is based on renewable and natural raw materials. Bio-based
stocks such as corn, potatoes, rice, soy, sugarcane, wheat and vegetable oil can be
transformed through chemical or biological processes. Over the last decade, they
have found use in various sectors (Table 7.1).
The main materials belonging to this group are produced:

– from starch: PLA – bio-based and biodegradable;
– through microbial synthesis: PHB – bio-based and biodegradable;
– produced from sugarcane: bioPE – bio-based and not-biodegradable.
Bio-based applications Used materials

Packaging foils and trays, production of Natural fibers, bio-based plastics
paper and paper-based materials and polymers
Natural fibers, bio-based plastics
Engineering, furniture, textile engineering
and polymers
Natural fibers, bio-based plastics
Sports accessories, car industry, toy industry
and polymers
Personal care and hygiene products,
Bio-surfactants, nutraceutical algae
biomedical field, cleaning substrates, edible
and bio-lubricants
additives, bio-based fuel
Cellulose-based, non-edible biomass
Production of bioenergy and biofuels
and agricultural waste
Table 7.1. Application sectors of bio-based materials

(adapted from Overbeek and Hoes 2018)
Bio-based content is measured following guidelines given in the ASTM D6866-20

standard. Its principle relies on calculating the ratio between: a) fractions of the
carbon content newly made up of biological materials or agricultural resources
versus b) fossil carbon content. By measuring the presence of carbon-14 in the
material, it is possible to differentiate between renewably sourced materials and
carbon compounds sourced from long-dead, non-renewable petroleum. This is
because carbon-14 is absorbed by plants while they are alive and then they decay
over a few thousand years. Bio-based polymers have a lower carbon footprint than
petrochemical equivalents or alternatives.
7.2.2. Biodegradable plastics
Polymers are considered to be biodegradable if they can degrade into water, carbon
dioxide and biomass, through exposure to naturally occurring microorganisms
(fungi, bacteria or algae). Methane may also be produced in anaerobic conditions

(e.g. buried in landfill sites). Biodegradable plastics are produced using natural plant
material (such as corn, fruit peels, starch and plants). They can be broken down by
microorganisms, but this does not necessarily mean that they create non-harmful and
soil-enriched compostable material. This must be confirmed. A non-negligible
aspect is the esthetic appearance of these products. As they are made from
renewable sources, they often lack transparency or have a strong odor that is not
always well accepted among consumers.
When classifying a plastic as biodegradable, the environmental conditions and

time frame must be specified as per accepted industry standards. The issue of being
biodegradable or non-biodegradable could harm the perception that consumers have
of bio-based plastics and their waste behavior, as they may feel uncertain about how
to deal with their end-of-life options. The rate of biodegradation of different
materials and its efficiency can vary on an exponential scale. Some examples are
given in Table 7.2. Controlled environments are easily managed compared to
natural environments that are much more complex. Even though the majority of
biodegradable plastics have been designed to degrade in the aerobic environment of
an industrial composting plant, they can also be disposed of in landfill due to
deficient management practices, misinformation and lack of infrastructure,
especially in developing countries (Rujnić-Sokele and Pilipović 2017). It should also
be noted that many products are partly bio-based, the so-called “hybrids”. This term
denotes the partial content of biodegradable polymers and partial non-
biodegradables. For example, in the starch/bioPET blend, the bioPET is the non-
biodegradable part, while starch is the biodegradable part. However, when mixed
(blended), they do not satisfy the biodegradability conditions so can only be
considered as a pre-stage of the transition towards bio-based materials and economy.
Biodegradation occurs in three main stages:

1. Abiotic-deterioration and biotic-deterioration
Breakdown of polymers mainly occurs by physical and chemical degradations

(combination of mechanical, light, thermal and chemical processes) and rarely by
the action of biological reagents, that is, enzymes from microorganisms.
2. Bio-fragmentation
Fragments of polymers are cut into shorter chains that become more sensitive to
microbial consumption. It is truly important that the degradation process does not
stop at fragmentation, as this results in accumulation of microplastics.
3. Microbial assimilation and mineralization
Fragmented monomers assimilated in microorganisms are generated by cellular

biomass, carbon dioxide or methane, depending on the availability of oxygen.
To ensure the integrity of products labeled as “biodegradable”, different

standards have been established and are given in Table 7.3.
Temperature Time Biodegradation

Material
(°C) (Days) (%)
35 75 21
Polylactic acid, PLA 55 45 70
52 56 80
37 277 12.5
Polycaprolactone, PCL 55 150 62
55 75 92
35 139 2
Polybutylene succinate, PBS
55 50 0
Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3- 35 100 80
hydroxyvalerate) PHBV 35 30 90
55 50 90
Polyhydroxybutyrate, PHB
35 225 100
Table 7.2. Variations in biodegradation efficiency in some materials depending on

degradation time and temperature (adapted from Quecholac-Piña et al. 2020)
It can be taken from these standards that a minimum of 70% (for anaerobic) or
90% (for aerobic) of the material should have biodegraded within 30 days (for
anaerobic), or six months (for aerobic), or the duration of the testing procedure.
Degradation conditions
Country of issue
Anaerobic Aerobic
ASTM D5511-18 ASTM D6400
US standards
ASTM D5526-18 ASTM D6868
EU Standards EN 13432:2000 EN 14046:2004
Australia AS 4736-2006 AS 4736-2006
Table 7.3. Standards used for the determination of biodegradation

Even though proper waste management considers the responsible disposal of any
wasted material, it is fairly possible that some originally non-harmful materials may
end up in seas, rivers or soil. Biodegradation can occur in different environmental
conditions; generally, materials can be degraded in a marine environment, soil or
water. As each environment offers different temperatures and microorganisms for
biodegradation, its speed may vary from one environment to another. What is
important is that after degradation, the resting material does not adversely affect the
given environment.
It must be noted that oxo-degradable plastics do not enter into this category and
do not meet composability or bioplastics standards (European Bioplastics 2017).
These materials contain an additive that promotes their abiotic degradation until they
reach a size that can be degraded biotically. They take too long to break down and
leave plastic fragments that are not capable of being consumed by microorganisms.
7.2.3. Compostable materials
According to EN 1343:2000, compostable polymers can be broken down in an

industrial composting plant by at least 95% within 12 weeks. In the US, according to
ASTM D6400, compostable polymers should disintegrate for more than 90% of the
original dry weight after 84 days. Both specifications require that
biodegradable/compostable products completely decompose in a composting setting
in a specific time frame, leaving no harmful residues behind.
In calculating the residues, packaging as a whole (with all components, inks and
additives) must be taken into account.
Compostable materials are often used for agricultural mulch films, food service
and containers.
7.3. Classification of bio-based materials
Bio-based materials are usually classified based on the source of raw materials.
7.3.1. Polymers directly extracted from biomass
Polymers directly extracted from biomass are made of molecules that are
naturally present in the environment and are often treated as agricultural waste. This
eco-friendly packaging option is used in edible food coatings or sachets, which can
either be eaten or composted. They are also frequently used in the pharmaceutical
industry as supporting matrices for encapsulation of active ingredients, medical and
specific drug-releasing systems. For the food industry, they also serve as supporting
matrices for the incorporation of functional ingredients in the design of novel
functional food. For example, they can be used as coatings/beads for the
incorporation of probiotic bacteria in chocolate and sweets. The most relevant actors
in the food packaging industry are starch-based materials and regenerated cellulose
(cellophane).
Usually, polymers which are directly extracted from biomass are classified either
according to their structural material or depending on its source – animal source,
marine source or agricultural source. They are composed of hydrocolloids –
polysaccharides, proteins or hydrophobic compounds (lipids, waxes and resins) or
their mixtures. In the carbohydrate group, there is a hidden subgroup that is very
important for packaging design – natural fibers. They can be extracted from various
plants such as wood, bamboo, cotton, hemp and wool.
Apart from the great natural character, it is also important that these molecules
are extracted from the non-edible parts of food products or from the by-products and
waste, thus not competing with food resources. For example, films made from milk
proteins, discharged in cheese-making, can serve as wrappers for cheese products,
and films which are made from a combination of fibroin protein from silk and chitin
from shrimp shells (Shrilk, made by scientists at Wyss Institute, Harvard University
in 2011). This is a promising step towards replacing aluminum foil. In addition to
conventional shapes and types, such as films and cups, new initiatives include
production for various food service utensils and items. One great example is the
invention of bottle ring holders that aim to keep together and carry six or eight
bottles in a pack made from by-products of the beer industry (wheat and barley).
Due to the different desirable characteristics, biomaterials are intensively

investigated for the preparation of edible films and coatings.
The largest market of edible films is the film strip market. Another important
usage is the decorative shapes that provide color and flavor in foods. These can also
be used to deliver nutrients and other active ingredients. Extensive research studies
have been conducted over past decades on the development of edible films and coatings
as carriers of various active/functional (antioxidant, antimicrobial, enzymes, etc.)
substances and as intelligent food packaging indicators. The most important value of
this applications is improving the product shelf life and developing novel functional
products with added nutritional and/or health value. However, the environmental
aspects of a product as a whole remain quite debatable, since, if applied as edible
coatings, these materials become an integral part of a food item. Consequently, most
applications require additional packaging materials for retailing purposes.
Various polymers have been used for centuries as waxes for cheese ripening and
storage and waxes on fruits, as well as to coat sausages etc. Due to growing interest
in packaging-free concepts, novel ideas were principally created in the molecular
gastronomy sector. For example, two-layered packaging, made from chitosan,
alginate and calcium ions, keeps liquid food together by forming an electrostatic gel.
Likewise, a drop of water can be caught in an edible drop so the consumer will just
toss it in his/her mouth or it can be filled with a larger volume so that the consumer
could drink it by using a straw. Straws can now be made of natural molecules,
making them completely eco-friendly and, if needed, edible even. For example, the
US brand Loliware makes flavored straws from alginate and agar that, unlike paper
straws that get soggy, behave like plastic for 24 hours once they become wet, and
can even be eaten. There are also trials for edible wrappers (Evoware, Indonesia)
that are essentially made from seaweed and are used for burgers, instant noodle
seasoning sachets and coffee pouches. The takeaway message is that the natural
concept of bio-based material sources can be designed for use in different areas of
the food industry, altogether making a step towards a circular economy.
General properties – Apart from lipids, materials made from natural molecules
are made primarily from highly hydrophilic, crystalline, very brittle and rarely
sealable materials. This raises the biggest issue regarding bio-based materials – they
are difficult to scale up to pilot and industrial level. Natural polymers are unstable
biological systems, and reactions with them and with external parameters can be
expected, resulting in molecular changes over time (Cuq et al. 1997). In order to
produce films, the addition of plasticizers, surfactants or other additives, as well as
cross-linking agents, is almost always required (Vieira et al. 2011). Fast
degradability can be considered as a positive characteristic from a biodegradation
point of view, but it also means shorter applicability for food storage. Besides fast
degradability, their main advantage is that they act as an excellent gas barrier in dry
environments (for example for dehydrated food). The main events that occur during
storage are: the reorganization of the film matrix (plasticizer migration, protein
aggregation, starch crystallization, etc.); chemical and biochemical processes (lipid
oxidation, non-enzymatic browning, degradation of active compounds, etc.); or
enzymatic (proteolysis) degradation of film components, and microbial growth.
Microbial growth remains an important issue because it affects the physicochemical
properties (mechanical, solubility, barrier, optical) of the films. It can also reduce the
functionality and even impact product safety (Cuq et al. 1997).
Hydrocolloid films can be produced by either wet or dry processing (Figure 7.2)
(Blanco-Pascual and Gómez-Estaca 2016).
Figure 7.2. Schematic representation of some of the methods of production of

bio-based packaging materials from polymers of natural origin extracted
from biomass (adapted from Blanco-Pascual and Gómez-Estaca 2016)
Wet processing includes solvent casting or direct coating application on the food
surface (dipping and spraying), while dry processing is based on the thermoplastic
behavior in extrusion and compression molding (Hernandez-Izquierdo and Krochta
2009). Spraying is preferred for larger surface areas, while dipping is more
convenient for irregularly shaped food items. As thermoplastic processing is adapted
to synthetic materials, the versatile nature of natural macromolecules requires the
precise optimization of barrel temperature, high pressure, moisture content
(preferably low), plasticizer concentration and residence time (Blanco-Pascual and
Gómez-Estaca 2016; Guerrero and de la Caba 2016). Scientists continue to optimize
these methods as they have fairly shorter processing times and significantly higher
production efficiency.
Over the past few decades, numerous research and scientific studies were carried
out on improvements to stability and on the use of naturally issued bio-based polymers.
A lot of work has been done on the different molecules, but only a few of them
present significant relevance for industrial applications. Thus, only those that
already have proof-of-concept, or reach at least Technology Readiness Level 6
(TRL6), will be described in detail within dedicated subsections. Technical

challenges still need to be overcome before edible packaging can enjoy more
widespread use.
7.3.1.1. Proteins
Protein-based films and coatings can be made from plants (wheat, soy, corn zein,
silk, etc.) or animal proteins (casein, whey, meat, feather keratin, gelatin, etc.)
Generally, protein films are characterized by poor water and moisture resistance
and brittleness. In order to overcome these issues, they often require one, or a
combination, of the following modifications: denaturation and aggregation,
plasticization and chemical cross-linking with aldehydes (mainly formaldehyde and
glutaraldehyde) and sugars. Water is considered to be the best plasticizer for
hydrocolloid-based films, followed by glycerol, sorbitol, oleic and linoleic acids,
sugars, etc. They are heteropolymers composed of various amino acids, joined
together by peptide bonds which are amide linkages formed by the condensation
reaction of amino acids, offering great structural complexity (secondary, tertiary and
quaternary). The structure of different molecules is shown in Figure 7.3.
Figure 7.3. Chemical structure of some protein-based films: a) casein and b) gelatin
This property provides them with great functional diversity and application
diversity in the food and non-food packaging sectors, in reconstructive surgery,
tissue engineering, etc. (Guilbert and Cuq 2005). Blending technology uses them as
reinforcement agents. They are also well known for improving the barrier properties
of blended materials (in combination with carbohydrate polymers) and they facilitate
the effective incorporation of bioactive and functional ingredients. In interfacial
engineering technology, they serve as natural emulsifiers to create nano-sized
emulsions with a lower fat content, or as preventing agents for flocculation of oil
droplets under acidic conditions in the stomach (Sekhon 2010). In non-food packaging
applications, they could be used to produce various commercial products like
shopping bags, mulch films, sanitary products, etc. The most common examples are
given in Table 7.4.
Film type Source Packaging characteristics

Water-soluble, brittle, UV light-resistant,
Milk protein, available as
good barrier against oxygen and water vapor
calcium and sodium caseinates
Casein (in low-moisture environments), good barrier
and derived as a by-product
against microbiological contamination,
from the dairy industry
possibility of thermomechanical processing
Good barrier against oxygen and solutes,
Extracted from animal
Collagen hydrophilic, poor mechanical strengths,
connective tissues
biocompatible and non-toxic
Glossy appearance, low water solubility,
Corn zein Extracted from corn
greaseproof, hydrophobic, brittle
Amphiphilic behavior, plasticized films show
Produced from collagen by good mechanical properties, odorless and
thermal denaturation, from tasteless, transparent, highly hygroscopic,
Gelatin
animal skin and bones (bovine, high content of amino acids glycine,
porcine and fish sources) proline and hydroxyproline, poor water
vapor barrier
Poor mechanical strength and
Soy protein Extracted from soybeans
high-water sensitivity
Poor mechanical strength, biocompatible,
soluble in alcohol, brittle, shiny,
Wheat
Extracted from wheat effective oxygen but poor water vapor
gluten
barriers, frequently cross-linked
with glutaraldehyde or heat cured
Table 7.4. Some of the most commonly used protein-based

hydrocolloids used as edible films, with main characteristics
7.3.1.1.1. Casein
Casein, Figure 7.3(a), is a water-soluble milk protein, naturally available as
calcium and sodium caseinates and derived as a by-product from the dairy industry.
These proteins have a very complex structure that provides them with different
functionalities (Pérez Gago 2012). Because of high brittleness, films made from
casein require the addition of plasticizers, such as glycerol (Cho et al. 2014). They
can resist UV light due to the presence of amino acids that can form disulfide bonds
and result in even better properties than low-density polyethylene (LDPE) or
orientated polypropylene (OPP) (Guerrero et al. 2011). In a dry environment, due to
the presence of hydroxyl and amino groups, they form good barriers against oxygen
and to other non-polar molecules (Saez-Orviz et al. 2017). They are mainly
produced by wet methods, but there is also the possibility of thermomechanical
processing. For example, Belyamani et al. (2014) produced sodium caseinate films
by injection, compression molding and blowing extrusion. In order to overcome
mechanical and barrier imperfections, casein films may be chemically modified by
alkali-treatments through cross-linking, or they might be mixed with other
hydrocolloids such as gelatin, pectin or others (Chambi et al. 2006; Wihodo et al.
2013). In the non-edible sector, casein is used as a natural glue in the manufacturing
of fabrics, adhesives, plastics and protective coatings.
7.3.1.1.2. Whey proteins

Whey comprises 20% of milk protein. It is derived as a by-product during cheese
manufacturing. Films can be obtained either from concentrates (WPC) or isolates
(WPI). Whey protein and its derivatives have a broad range of characteristics, such
as being antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and effective in the management of various
human health conditions. It is also used as a food additive and in terms of packaging
materials, it is used as an encapsulation agent, in edible coating, in active packaging
and for tailored delivery systems (Patel 2015). Whey protein films are transparent,
flexible and have good water, gas, aroma and oil barrier properties. Thermal
degradation denatures whey protein, resulting in a more cohesive and stronger film
than native proteins (Perez Gago et al. 1999). It is used as a coating in order to
improve the availability of iron in iron-fortified foods (Martin and de Jong 2012).
Whey protein microcapsules are used to protect antioxidants, drugs and vitamins such
as folic acid (Pérez-Masiá et al. 2015). They have also been shown to be good
carriers of volatile aroma compounds, which could be released when submitted to a
triggering effect at an exact place and time (Wicochea-Rodríguez et al. 2019).
Layer-by-layer (whey protein isolate/xanthan gum) microencapsulation was shown
to enhance the survivability of Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Lactobacillus paracasei
under simulated gastrointestinal juice and thermal conditions (Xiao et al. 2020). WP
coatings are used as clear and glossy coatings with good mechanical properties on
paper and various plastic materials (PP, LDPE, polyvinyl chloride, PVC), and as
replacements for conventional petrochemically sourced oxygen barrier materials,
such as poly (ethylene-co-vinyl alcohol) (EVOH) and are currently being routed to
commercialization. Besides being renewable, they can be removed from a
multilayered material (delaminated) by enzymatic removal so they also enhance the
recyclability of those materials, contributing to end-of-life product management
(Bugnicourt et al. 2019). There was significant progress in scaling up within two
European projects: WHEYLAYER and WHEYLAYER2. Whey was also shown to
serve as molecules for engineering other materials, namely PHB, which is produced
via microbial fermentation of surplus whey derived from the cheese industry (EU
Wheypack project).
7.3.1.1.3. Gelatin
Gelatin, Figure 7.3(b), is a complex polypeptide, water-soluble protein obtained
from bone collagen or connective animal tissue. It is a low-cost material used in the
food and food packaging sector, pharmaceutical industry and cosmetics industry. It
is well known for its use in capsules, for the delivery of a liquid or powdered
medicine. It is also often used for culinary purposes due to its gel-forming properties
at approximately 35°C, as a thickener and as a food additive. Two types are mainly
used: bovine and fish gelatin. Both types have a large number of various
side-suspended groups that can facilitate covalent (with glutaraldehyde or genipin)
and enzymatic (transglutaminases) cross-linking and derivatization, which is an
important feature in overcoming its moisture sensitivity issue. Gelatin is quite a
processable material but its film properties hardly compare to the performance of
plastic packaging (Pena et al. 2013). It was extensively studied as an edible coating
for meat and fish products, and fruits and vegetables (Ramos et al. 2016). In order to
decrease its brittleness, it is often plasticized by adding water, glycerol, fatty acids
and polyethylene glycol. Gelatin films are transparent and typically exhibit good gas
barriers. Several attempts of blending it with other polymers have been completed in
order to reduce its water sensitivity. So far, it has been blended with PLA in a
multilayer sheet manufacture by thermo-molding (Martucci and Ruseckaite 2010) or
in a multilayered structure prepared by dip coating (Pena et al. 2009). In
combination with inorganic fillers like montmorillonite or cellulose nanofibers, it
can also be used as good support for the creation of nanobiocomposites (Wastwood
et al. 2010).
7.3.1.2. Polysaccharides, gums and fibers

Polysaccharides are long chains of branched or unbranched carbohydrate
molecules that have great film-forming properties (Figure 7.4). All of the common
polysaccharides contain glucose, such as the monosaccharide unit. The main
characteristic of polysaccharide-based films is that they are a good barrier against

the transport of oxygen and carbon dioxide and a low barrier against water vapor. In
addition, their tensile strength is quite good, approaching that of synthetic polymers.
The biggest mechanical concern is the low elongation at break that is far from the
desirable values found for synthetic polymers. Some of the most common examples
are given in Table 7.5.
Figure 7.4. Structural formula of some polysaccharides: a) alginate;

b) chitosan; c) starch; d) cellulose; and e) pectin
Polymer Source Packaging characteristics

Extracted from the Soluble in weak acids, good barrier against
exoskeleton of crabs, oxygen and carbon dioxide but very
Chitosan
shrimps and shells in the hydrophilic, flexible, durable, strong, tough and
form of chitin hard to break
Produced by and refined
Very soluble in water and tends to form lumps
from various genera of
Sodium with insufficient shear, forms gel and films in
brown algae or by some
alginate the presence of divalent cations (usually Ca2+
bacteria as
ions), low tensile strength, clear and transparent
exopolysaccharide
Isolated from plant roots,
Tensile properties of starch are suitable for the
stalks, crop seeds and
Starch production of packing materials, and glycerol is
crops such as rice, corn,
added to the starch as a plasticizer
wheat, tapioca and potato
Great foaming properties, increased solubility in

organic solvents with improved sealability,
Cellulose Isolated from plant cells
water sensitive but a good gas barrier in
low-moisture environments
Great gelling properties, hydrophilic and has a
tendency to form gel in acidic conditions or in
Pectin Extracted from plants the presence of divalent cations, biocompatible,
selective gas permeability, poor water vapor
barrier and low mechanical properties
Table 7.5. Some of the most commonly used polysaccharide-based

hydrocolloids used as edible films, with main characteristics
Gums are complex hydrocolloids of different molecular weights that change

structural conformation after dissolving in water. They are usually considered to be
non-starch, water-soluble polysaccharides with commercial importance (BeMiller
2008). They are made of linked sugar monomers of two or more different sugars.
During the solvation and because of the abundance of free -OH groups, complex
molecules unwind, imbibe water and cause thickening. They can be solvent cast to
make films with various tensile strength, clarity, and solubility. Their main functions
include thickening, gelling, film forming and foaming/emulsification. They can be
linear or branched, forming from two- up to six-fold helixes; linear are of greater
industrial relevance as they have better film-forming properties.
Fibers are used for processing of different packaging but mostly as additives to
improve some polymer properties, such as better mechanical resistance. Their main
disadvantage is their hydrophilic nature which makes it difficult to bind fibers with
hydrophobic polymers, so it is necessary to use chemical or physical treatments to
improve the interface between natural fibers and polymers. Materials known for their
high fiber content are paper and board. Most fibers come from wood sources;
however, there are also different widely-used types that come mainly from
agricultural residues, such as straw (of wheat, rye, barley and rice), sugar cane
bagasse, cotton, flax, bamboo, corn husks and so on. When using fibers, there are two
precursors used: straw and bagasse. Bagasse presents a fibrous residue that remains
after crushing the substrate to extract its juices, while straws are considered to be a
residue of agricultural production, mainly burned directly in the fields.
7.3.1.2.1. Cellulose and derivatives

Cellulose is the most abundant, cheap (while raw material) natural polymer
which is the major component of plant cells. Cellulose fibers have been used as a
major component of paper for centuries. It has also been widely used since the 19th
century to make cellophane films, viscose fibers and other derivatives. In its raw
form, cellulose is highly crystalline, fibrous and insoluble but has poor mechanical
properties. Due to its hygroscopic nature, it swells rapidly which limits its
film-forming capacity. It is used in food production, food packaging, as a lubricant,
for medical purposes, paper and textile sizing, as glue and in cell culture production.
To overcome this hurdle, cellulose is often modified.
Two main groups of its derivatives are ethers and esters. Their production
requires two steps: a) alkalization and etherification for ethers and b) acidification
and esterification for esters. The chemical structures are given in Table 7.6.
Cellulose R=H
CMC R=H or CH2CO2H
HPC R=H or CH2CH(OH)CH3
MC R=H or CH3
HPMC R=H or CH3 or CH2CH(OH)CH3
Cellulose acetate
Cellophane
Table 7.6. Structural differences in various cellulose derivatives
In etherification, different groups are substituted for the -OH groups of sugar,
such as methyl, hydroxypropyl or ethyl groups, to make hydroxypropyl cellulose
(HPC), hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (HPMC), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC)
or methyl cellulose (MC). The addition of functional groups results in an increased
non-polar character and relatively high resistance to fats and oils. Depending on the
degree of substitution, chain length and degree of polymerization, the resulting
material has great foaming properties, increased solubility in organic solvents and
improved sealability. However, modifications significantly impact its

biodegradability; a higher degree of substitution means a larger number of ether
linkages and therefore lower biodegradability (Andersson 2008). Apart from HPC,
cellulose ethers are non-thermoplastic so they do not provide heat-sealable
properties, which is an important feature when they are applied as functional
coatings. These materials have been used extensively as food coatings and for the
production of water-soluble and edible wrappers (Majid et al. 2018). The addition of
hydrophobic compounds, such as fatty acids, is a commonly proposed method for
increasing the moisture barrier.
The esterification process includes the reaction of an organic or inorganic acid

substituent with the three hydroxyls of an anhydro glucose unit (Kuusipalo et al.
2008). Two main representatives of this group are cellulose acetate (CA) and
cellophane. The main advantage of CA is that it can be processed thermoplastically,
which is applicable to injection molding and extrusion, while cellophane cannot.
Cellophane is a regenerated cellulose, produced with aggressive chemicals like
NaOH, H2SO4 or CS2. It is transparent and is widely used for food packaging, for
example, confectionery. It is a pseudoplastic material, so once folded it does not fold
back. Because of its highly sensitive nature to moisture, it is often coated with
nitrocellulose wax (NC-W) or polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC).
Microcrystalline cellulose, nano-fibrillated cellulose and ligno-nanocellulose are

different cellulose derivatives, designed and used as natural performance enhancers
for various bio-based packaging materials. In different formulations, they have been
shown to improve barrier properties, surface wettability, as well as the mechanical
and thermal properties of composite materials.
7.3.1.2.2. Chitosan
Chitosan, Figure 7.4(b), is a natural polymer, produced commercially by
deacetylation of chitin, which is the structural element in the exoskeleton of
crustaceans (such as crabs, shrimps, oysters and other mollusk shells) and cell walls
of fungi. It can either be extracted or enzymatically deacetylated (van den Broek et al.
2020), but this process affects its quality. In commercial chitosan, the deacetylation
degree varies from 60 to 100% with a molecular weight from 3.8 to 20 kDa. It has a
huge number of amino groups (the molecular formula is poly-β-(1 → 4)-2-amino-
deoxy-d-glucopyranose) that makes it impossible to solubilize in water, but it is
easily soluble in a weak acidic medium (e.g. 1% (v/v) acetic acid). Owing to its
structure, it was recognized as a promising polymer that can be spun into fibers, cast
into films or precipitated in various microstructures (van den Broek et al. 2020). It is
also the most widely used polymer for the development of nanocarrier systems
(Kashyap et al. 2015). The majority of applications are in biomaterials,
in pharmaceuticals as a wound-healing agent, in cosmetics, as a flocculent clarifier,

as a gas-selective membrane in agriculture and for food packaging and preservation,
as an antimicrobial agent or as a carrier of functional compounds in bio-based edible
films and coatings. In the food packaging field, its main use is in edible film or
coatings. The antimicrobial activity of chitosan is due to the protonation of NH2 to
NH3+ which then associates with polyanions to form complexes and bind to anionic
sites on microbial cell walls (Goy et al. 2009). Chitosan films are flexible, durable,
strong, tough and hard to break. They decrease the respiratory rate of food and also
inhibit microbial growth. They provide a great gas barrier, particularly under low-
moisture conditions. They are either made alone or are mixed with other
hydrocolloids.
7.3.1.2.3. Starch
Of the polysaccharide family, starch – Figure 7.4(c) – is the most abundant,
renewable and commercially applied biopolymer. It is made by most green plants
as an energy source and is recovered from stalks, roots or seeds by wet grinding,
sieving and drying. Major plant sources are potato, cassava, corn, tapioca, wheat
and rice. Starch is made of linear amylose and branched amylopectin, whose ratio
plays an important role in processing (Table 7.7). The amylose content may vary
from 20 to 25%, while the amylopectin content varies from 75 to 80% in weight,
depending on the type of plant. Amylopectin is a far greater molecule than
amylose. It is a crystalline material that undergoes spontaneous destructurization
when treated with water and subjected to heat and shear (Versino et al. 2016). In
other words, it can be thermomechanically processed. It is commonly named
thermoplastic starch (TPS) when it is processed at high temperatures in the
presence of plasticizers, such as water and glycerol. Its tensile properties are
suitable for the production of packing materials when glycerol, sorbitol, urea
lipids or other polyols are added as plasticizers (Nafchi et al. 2013). The main
disadvantages of TPS that limit usage are retrogradation, migration of plasticizers
and unsatisfactory mechanical properties, particularly in wet environments and
during aging, its fragile nature caused by its relatively low glass transition
temperature and the lack of relaxation. Depending on processing temperatures, the
type of additives, cross-linking and other reinforcements, different physical,
mechanical and thermal properties were addressed (Nafchi et al. 2013). For trade
applications, TPS is regularly modified in reactive extrusion processes and is
mixed with eco-friendly polyesters, polycaprolactone, cellulose acetate, polylactides,
etc. (Nafchi et al. 2013).
Amylose Amylopectin
Table 7.7. Chemical structure of amylose and amylopectin
7.3.1.3. Waxes, oils, and lipids

Waxes, oils and lipids are mostly included in composite systems to improve
water resistance, or as plasticizers. Triglycerides, acetylated monoglycerides, fatty
alcohols, fatty acid esters of sucrose, fatty acids, oils (vegetable, animal and
mineral), beeswax, candelilla wax and carnauba wax are the most commonly used in
the manufacture of edible coatings and films.
7.3.2. Polymers produced by chemical synthesis from biomass monomers
There are a wide variety of bio-based molecules available for producing

polymers with the use of classical chemical polymerization reactions. For a long
time, research and development was focused on polyesters. Among them, PLA,
bioPE and bioPET have been widely used as packaging.
7.3.2.1. Polylactic acid

Polylactic acid, PLA, is a linear aliphatic polyester synthesized from the lactic
acid monomer, a basic chemical produced by fermentation from carbohydrate
feedstock. During the fermentation process, one molecule of glucose is converted
into two molecules of lactic acid. Lactic acid (LA) is optically active and has two
enantiomeric forms, L- and D-lactic acids. PLA can be prepared by the direct
condensation of lactic acid through azeotropic dehydration, followed by
condensation and by the ring-opening polymerization of the cyclic lactide dimer.
The direct polycondensation of lactic acid at elevated temperatures, with water
removal via vacuum, results in prepolymer PLA chains with low molecular weight
(several thousand molecular mass units). These polycondensates do not solidify at
room temperature but remain in a highly viscous liquid state. This brittle polymer is,
for the most part, unusable unless external coupling agents are employed to increase
its chain length. In azeotropic dehydrative condensation, it is possible to produce

high molecular weight PLA without chain extenders or adjuvants. However, its
major drawbacks are fast degradation and hydrolysis, in addition to toxic catalysts.
Finally, in order to produce high molecular materials, the ring-opening
polymerization (ROP) of lactides and cyclic dimers of lactic acid have to be used.
These intermediates (cyclic dimers of lactic acid) on the other hand, result from the
depolymerization of low molecular weight PLA-polycondensates (Kabasci 2020)
(Figure 7.6).
Figure 7.6. Three processes for synthesis of PLA
According to commonly-adopted and more specific nomenclature, the

polycondensation products of LA are called polylactic acid, and the products
prepared by the ROP of lactides are called polylactides. Regarding the effectiveness
of biological production, L-lactic acid has superior productivity compared to
D-lactic acid, which presents a small amount. Therefore, poly (L-lactide) (PLLA) is
more commonly commercialized (Nakajima et al. 2017).
Pure homopolymers, composed of one of the two optical isomers L or D, are

optically active and able to crystallize. The properties of polylactides vary, to a large
extent, depending on the ratio and distribution of the two isomers and the molecular
weight (MW) of the polymer. PLA can either be amorphous or semi-crystalline,
depending on the percentage of L or D forms and thermal history. Poly (L-lactide)
and poly (D-lactide) are semi-crystalline polymers, while poly (L,D-lactide) is
amorphous. For amorphous PLAs, the glass transition temperature (Tg) determines
the upper use temperature for most commercial applications. For semi-crystalline
PLAs, both the Tg, which is approximately 57°C, and melting temperature (Tm),
ranging from 130 to 180°C (depending on the structure), are important. They are key
parameters for determining the use of temperature across various applications
(Robertson 2016).
Next to cellulose, starch and their derivatives, PLA is the bio-based resin with
the largest production quantity in the world. Compared to these natural polymers,
PLA is a thermoplastic material with a high modulus (approximately 3.5 GPa) and
strength (60–70 MPa), and it can be processed using conventional techniques and
equipment. However, its brittleness and low elongation at break point are major
drawbacks that limit its application. To overcome these limitations, extensive
research and material development efforts have been undertaken concerning the
addition of plasticizers, polymer blends and nucleation agents (Kabasci 2020).
Plasticizers decrease the Tg of PLA, which results in lower stress at yield and higher
elongation at break at room temperature, that is, improved flexibility of films and
sheets.
Today, there are several PLA resins available for different applications such as
extrusion, injection molding and melt spinning.
Several companies in Belgium, China, Japan, Switzerland and The Netherlands

have installed small PLA production capacities. NatureWorks LLC (USA) and Total
Corbion (The Netherlands) remain the world’s only large-scale commercial
producers of PLA. Though PLA prices have fallen significantly in the past years,
they are still not competitive with commodity plastics. NatureWorks LLC had
assumed it would reach cost parity with PET and PS due to an increased economy
by 2015. In terms of its end-of-life fate, PLA can be recycled and degraded. It is
even compostable at high temperatures, degrading to lactic acid, which can be
metabolized naturally. Degradation of PLA is primarily due to the hydrolysis of
ester linkages, which occur more or less randomly along the backbone of the
polymer. The hydrolysis of PLA through the backbone ester groups is considered
slow, and under conditions of ambient moisture and temperature, it can take several
years. However, it is possible to accelerate the process by subjecting PLA to
temperatures above 50°C. Even so, PLA is still considered to degrade slowly
compared to organic waste in commercial facilities (Lambert and Wagner 2017).
Lifecycle assessment has shown reductions of up to 40% in greenhouse gas

emissions and up to 25% in non-renewable-energy use for PLA, compared with those
for petrochemical-derived polymers such as polyethylene (PE) or PET. However,
the production of PLA might have other environmental impacts, including the use of
water and fertilizer, which are more difficult to compare with the impacts of
fossil-fuel extraction, purification and storage. Another substantial hurdle is to
replace virgin crops (such as maize or sugar cane) with lignocellulosic or waste
biomass (Zhu et al. 2016).
7.3.2.2. Bio-polyethylene
Polyethylene (PE), by annual production volume, is the most important
conventional plastic material. It is extensively used in a wide range of applications,
especially packaging and construction. Conventional PE is produced by the radical
polymerization of the monomer ethylene, which is produced from oil feedstock.
Alternatively, bio-based ethylene (Figure 7.7) can be prepared by the catalytic
dehydration of bioethanol, which can be made by fermentation of various
feedstocks, including sugar cane, sugar beet and wheat grain. Bio-based
polyethylene (bioPE) can then be produced using existing polymerization reactors.
BioPE is chemically identical to its fossil-based counterpart and can be used in the
same applications (foils, films, kitchenware, bags, etc.). In addition, it has a
complete infrastructure for processing and recycling, just like PE.
Figure 7.7. Production processes of bio-based PE, PP and PET
From BioPE, it is possible to produce all the PE types: high-density polyethylene

(HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and linear low-density polyethylene
(LLDPE).
Like PE, bioPE consists of short repeating monomer units that have strong
inter-chain hydrogen bonding, making a highly hydrophobic polymer that limits
enzyme susceptibility; this is so that only the polymer surface, with a limited
number of free chain ends, is available for microbial action (Lambert and Wagner
2017). Thus, the downside of bioPE is that it is not biodegradable.
The two largest producers of bioethanol from sugar cane in the world are based
in Brazil because of favorable geographical conditions, resulting in high yields of
sugar cane per hectare. It was there that ethylene and PE production from biomass
became economically attractive. The Brazilian petrochemical company, Braskem,
and the US company, Dow Chemical, have built their large-scale production facility
of bioPE for many applications, including packaging (food and cosmetics), toys and
automotive parts (Storz and Vorlop 2013). The environmental footprint for this
bio-based material is favorable. One ton of bioPE produced captures 2.5 t of carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere (Kabasci 2020). Thus, many companies will probably
switch to bioPE to lower their carbon footprint and increase their impact in the
circular economy. Hence, the price and availability of the raw materials are the key
criteria for siting a bioPE plant.
7.3.2.3. Bio-poly(ethylene-terephthalate)
Poly(ethylene-terephthalate) (PET) is a thermoplastic polyester produced by the
polycondensation of ethylene glycol (EG) and terephthalic acid (TPA). PET is one
of the most employed plastics and is predominantly used in fiber (textiles) and
packaging (bottles and food containers) applications. PET production comprises two
steps. The first is the esterification of TPA with EG, and the second is
polycondensation, in which PET is formed via a transesterification reaction.
Bio-based ethylene glycol (bio-EG) production starts from bioethanol, followed by
dehydration to ethylene, oxidation to ethylene oxide and finally hydration to EG.
Provided bio-based ethylene is available, the production of bio-EG is
straightforward and can be done in existing plants. However, the production of
bio-based TPA is not as simple. Many processes have been developed and
demonstrated on a small scale but none have reached a larger, commercial scale so far
(Dodds and Humphreys 2013). The bio-PET used today is partly bio-based, made of
bio-based EG and petroleum-derived TPA. The Coca-Cola Company applied this
process for the production of their PlantBottle, which was launched in 2009 and was
made of partly bio-based PET (bio-EG as 30% of the total PET weight and the
remaining 70% is the petroleum-derived TPA). Their express goal is to switch to a
fully bio-based bottle by 2025. Meanwhile, other large food producers use the
PlantBottle for their products, and their competitor, Pepsi, announced plans to
introduce their first fully bio-based bottle; however, they have only provided
lab samples of the new bottle so far. In The Netherlands, Avantium is developing a
100% bio-based polyester replacement for PET, poly(ethylene furanoate) (PEF). It can
be prepared from EG and 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid (FDCA), a dicarboxylic acid that
is structurally comparable with PET and can be produced from renewable resources
(Storz and Vorlop 2013). The bioPET has an identical chemical structure to the
petrochemical-PET, that is, it can be recycled but is not biodegradable. However, the
lifecycle assessment of the present generation of bio-PET shows a reduction of
20–50% in the emission of greenhouse gases in comparison to petrochemical-derived
PET and, thus, the advantageous switch to manufacturing this kind of product.
An advantage of developing bio-derived monomers as direct substitutes, like

those used in the production of PET and polyethylene, is that the processing and
applications of the resulting polymers are identical, thereby simplifying their
adoption and accelerating their uptake. This is particularly important for PET, one of
the few polymers for which large-scale recycling infrastructures exist, and lifecycle
assessment indicates positive contributions to its sustainability if it is recycled (Zhu
et al. 2016).
7.3.3. Polymers produced directly by natural or genetically modified

organisms
7.3.3.1. Polyhydroxyalkanoates
Polyhydroxyalkanoates, PHAs, are a group of renewably sourced microbial
polyesters obtained through the fermentation of sugar and lipids by a very wide range
of microorganisms, including the genera Alcaligenes, Bacillus and Pseudomonas.
PHAs are accumulated intra-cellularly and serve as carbon and energy reserves.
They occur naturally and can be harvested with excellent yields from
microorganisms directly, without the need for intermediate monomer isolation.
Biosynthesis is achieved by culturing bacteria under growth-limiting conditions and
results in the accumulation of considerable quantities of the polymer in the
cytoplasm. Under controlled fermentation conditions, some compounds can
accumulate up to 90% of their dry mass as polymers (Robertson 2016). PHAs are
commercially produced using energy-rich feedstock, transformed into the fatty acids
which the bacteria feed on. In addition, hemicellulose hydrolysates, glycerol and
methanol are very promising carbon sources for the sustainable production of PHAs.
During the industrial production of PHAs, after a few “feast–famine” cycles, the
cells are isolated and lysed. The polymer is extracted from the remains of the cells,
purified and processed into pellets or powder. In addition to using pure feedstock as
a source of energy for PHA production, there are ongoing efforts to use energy-rich
wastewater as feedstock and thus as PHAs. Nowadays, it is possible to design
bacterial strains to produce PHAs with desired properties. Production of PHAs can
be improved by using genetic modification, either by increasing the number of

PHA-producing bacteria or by modifying plants to start making PHAs (Nakajima
et al. 2017).
PHAs are a group of microbial polyesters (Figure 7.8) that are biocompatible,
fully biodegradable and optically active. Due to such characteristics, they are
suitable for the production of packaging materials (Zhu et al. 2016). PHA molecules
extracted from bacterial cells have a sufficiently high molecular mass which exhibit
characteristics similar to PE and polypropylene (PP). PHAs mainly consist of
3-hydroxyalkanoates as monomeric building blocks. In general, two groups of PHAs
can be distinguished: short-chain-length (scl) and medium-chain-length (mcl) PHAs.
In the case of scl-PHAs, the monomers consist of three to five carbon atoms, while
mcl-PHAs contain 6 to 14 carbon atom monomers. Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) is
the PHA type most widely synthesized in nature and is classed as a short-chain-
length PHA. Using a special growth bacterial medium, 3-hydroxybutyrate (HB) and
3-hydroxyvalerate (HV) can be associated to form a random copolymer poly(3HB-
co-3HV) or PHBV. The latter has good chemical and moisture resistance, good O2
and aroma barrier properties.
Figure 7.8. Different types of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs)
The simplest PHA, P3HB, is very crystalline (up to 60%) and shows thermal and
mechanical properties that can be compared to PP and PE. However, the flexibility
is two orders of magnitude lower compared to PP (Storz and Vorlop 2013). By
changing the ratio of HV to HB, the resulting copolymer has the same properties as
PP and LDPE in terms of flexibility, tensile strength and melting point.
PHA-depolymerase detected in several bacteria and fungi in soil can decompose

PHAs, and in an aerobic environment, the degradation produces CO2 and CH4.
PHAs can also be compostable, as seen in composting trials, up to 85% within seven
weeks (Robertson 2016). Several commercial PHA grades, optimized for a broad
range of applications, including injection molded items, films, foams and fibers, are
currently available. However, PHAs are still among the most expensive bio-based
plastics. An important cost is the energy required for the intensive extraction and
purification steps, which is also adversely contradicts the principles of green

chemistry. Although there is a high cost for PHA production, current advances in
fermentation, extraction and purification technology, in addition to the development
of superior bacterial strains, are likely to reduce the price of PHAs, which remains
close to PLA and other aliphatic polyesters. Processing PHAs is challenging
compared to conventional petroleum-derived polymers because of their sensitivity to
thermal degradation, and slow solidification due to slow crystallization. The
degradation temperature of PHAs is approximately 180°C, which is near the
optimum processing temperature for polyester (Nakajima et al. 2017).
7.3.3.2. Bacterial cellulose

Bacterial cellulose (BC) is an extracellular naturally occurring polysaccharide. It
is produced in a highly pure form by some bacteria, including the genera of
Gluconacetobacter, Acetobacter, Agrobacterium, etc. The yield and properties of
BC depend on several factors, including the bacterial strain used, the composition of
the culture medium and the operational conditions applied during the cultivation
process. The composition of the culture medium determines the material
morphology and the physical properties of the resulting material, which affects the
range of possible applications. Microorganisms can be genetically modified to
produce BC with desired properties. Furthermore, agro-industrial waste can be used
as a growth medium so it is economical. To ensure favorable production yields and
controlled costs, attention needs to be given to the species and genetic modification
of the bacteria used, feedstock type, composition and the type of reactor used for the
production process. This kind of polymer is considered to have many potential
applications in the food packaging industry but so far remains to be exploited and no
BC films have been commercialized for food packaging as yet. But for further
application, films of BC can be prepared by air-drying a gel sheet on a flat surface
using the heat press method (temperature 150°C, pressure 49 kPa). Recent research
studies displayed the potential of BC as a reinforcement in nanocomposites. BC has
advantages when compared with conventional cellulose, since it is crystalline in
nature, can be obtained in a pure form and does not contain lignin, pectin or
hemicellulose. It also possesses specific chemical and physical properties which are
better for certain purposes than plant-derived cellulose. The advantages are stable
mechanical strength and very low gas permeability in its dry state, which offers
applications such as in food packaging, in addition to its non-toxicity, edibility and
biodegradability (Shi et al. 2014).
7.3.4. Petrochemical-based polymers
7.3.4.1. Polycaprolactone
Polycaprolactone, PCL, is a semi-crystalline petrochemical polymer created by the
ring-opening polymerization of ε-caprolactone, which is produced by the oxidation of
cyclohexanone, produced by catalytic oxidation of cyclohexane (Figure 7.9).
Figure 7.9. Synthesis of polycaprolactone
PCL is a thermoplastic polymer with good processing stability, high flexibility,

good chemical resistance to water and organic solvents, and a hydrophobic nature;
however, there is a problem with its low melting point (59–64°C). The Tg of this
polymer is approximately -60°C (Robertson 2016). Moreover, microorganisms
(and fungi) easily degrade PCL due to the presence of hydrolytically labile
aliphatic ester linkages, and its degradation time is a few months because of its
high crystallinity. It is not used for food applications but if mixed with low-cost
natural biopolymers like starch, it is possible to obtain a good biodegradable
material at a low price, typically used for trash bags. With a PCL content of up to
20%, starch-PCL films have proved the O2 barrier properties while improving
water barrier properties (Robertson 2016). PCL also finds its use as a plasticizer in
PVC. PCL exhibits very good processing stability, high flexibility, good resistance
to water and organic solvents, and a hydrophobic nature, but its problem is in its
low melting point. Blending PCL with PLA increases the brittleness of the
obtained film, as well as increasing its barrier properties proportional to the amount
of PLA added (Rydz et al. 2018).
7.3.4.2. Polybutylene succinate and copolymers

Traditionally, polybutylene succinate, PBS, is synthesized via the
polycondensation of 1,4-butanediol (1.4 BDO) and succinic acid (Figure 7.10). This
is later commercially manufactured through the catalytic hydrogenation of maleic
anhydride (which is derived from the oxidation of butane or benzene) to succinic
anhydride, followed by hydration to produce succinic acid. Succinic acid can also be
prepared through the microbial fermentation of renewable raw materials such as

starch and xylose using bacterial strains Actinobacillus succinogenes (Rydz et al.
2018). After the hydrolytic degradation of PBS, succinic acid, used as a substrate, is
one of the compounds involved in the natural cycle of metabolism (Krebs cycle) in
the human body. While BDO is produced by a commercial process using
petrochemical-based feedstocks, various industrial processes, based on renewable
resources, have been developed and are being commercialized. PBS is
biodegradable via ester linkages, and it possesses excellent mechanical properties
that allow it to be processed through conventional melt techniques. Its applications
include mulch film, packaging film and bags.
Figure 7.10. Synthesis of polybutylene succinate (PBS)
Copolymers are also commercially available, for example, adipic acid poly
(butylene succinate-co-adipate) (PBSA) is available under the trade name
BionolleTM. This copolymer is produced through the polycondensation reactions of
EG and 1.4 BDO, and aliphatic dicarboxylic acids such as adipic acid (Robertson
2016).
To improve the utility properties of PBS, new aliphatic aromatic polyester

(PBST) can be created through chemical polymerization between terephthalic acid,
BDO and succinic acids. Aliphatic–aromatic copolyesters and blends combine the
good functional properties of aromatic polyesters with the biodegradability of
aliphatic polyesters. Additionally, combining the properties of two types of
polyesters can match them to specific applications in the packaging industry (Rydz
et al. 2018).
7.3.4.3. Poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate)

Poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate), PBAT, is a linear statistical aliphatic–
aromatic copolyester composed of two co-monomers: a rigid unit consisting of
1,4-butanediol (1,4-BDO) and terephthalic acid monomers, and a flexible unit
consisting of (1,4-BDO) and adipic acid monomers (Figure 7.11).
PBAT is available on the market under the trade names Ecoflex (a product of
BASF) and Origo-Bi (a product of Novamont, formerly Eastar-Bio/Eastman). PBAT
exhibits good mechanical and thermal properties when the content of terephthalic
acid is greater than 35%. However, if the content of terephthalic acid increases even
more, the biodegradation rate decreases, especially in relation to the number of
aromatic units, which makes materials more resistant against microorganisms
(Kijchavengkul et al. 2010).
Figure 7.11. Structure of PBAT
PBAT is widely used for products that are short-lived, such as compostable,
disposable food sacks and bags for fresh meats, vegetables and fruits. For some
applications, PBAT is blended with cellulose, starch or biodegradable polyesters
such as PHA or PLA. Cellulose is mixed with PBAT to improve hydrophobicity, as
well as the mechanical and thermal properties of compounded products. The blends
of modified starch or PLA with PBAT are commercially available, respectively,
under the trade names Ecobras (Columbia) and Ecovio (BASF, Germany), and they
are used for the production of thermoformed and injection molded films (Rydz et al.
2018). The packaging from Ecovio is considered to be fully biodegradable
(compostable) after use. Finally, in order to increase the benefits of PBAT,
petrochemical terephthalic acid sources can be replaced with 2,5-furanodicarboxylic
acid from renewable sources.
7.3.4.4. Poly(glycolic acid)

Poly(glycolic acid), PGA, is another polymer that can be produced not only from
petrochemicals, but also from renewable-derived monomers. It can be prepared from
glycolic acid by polycondensation or ROP (Figure 7.12). PGA is a rigid,
hydrolyzable, linear, aliphatic polyester with high crystallinity (45–55%) and high
Tm (220–225°C), and a Tg range between 35 and 40°C (Robertson 2016). PGA has
higher barrier properties against gas (CO2 and O2) and excellent mechanical
strength. The targeted packaging applications of PGA include its use as a protective
layer in multilayer packaging systems, such as PET bottles for carbonated soft
drinks and beer (Coles and Kirwan 2011; Robertson 2016). In other packaging
applications, PGA multilayer designs have been shown to enhance the gas and
moisture barrier of bio-based polymers such as PLA. In addition, according to the
Kureha Corporation website, and as reported by Kwiecien et al. (2014), the
production of PGA for packaging applications, marketed under the trade name
Kuredux, has been identified as biodegradable. Its biodegradation occurs in compost
over one month and is considered safe for composting because its degradation
product is a natural metabolite-glycolic acid.
Figure 7.12. Synthesis of Poly(glycolic acid)
7.4. Industrial relevance and future trends
The past century was marked by plastic materials because of their widespread
ease of use. However, due to their environmental impact, consumer perceptions
changed towards plastic packaging, together with changes in the European
legislative regarding plastic packaging and waste; there has been a significant
increase in scientific and industrial interest in the use of bio-based food packaging
materials. The future focuses on compostable, semi-durable and durable bioplastics.

It is difficult to estimate how long it will take for bio-based packaging to become a
leading material, or indeed if this will ever actually happen; however, its entry into
the packaging market is significant. In a nutshell, biopolymer-driven innovations,
with the same properties as traditional plastic, will revolutionize the packaging
industry. Smart and intelligent sensors, active antioxidant and antimicrobial
packaging, with innovative formulations of active ingredients, could allow
biodegradable food packaging to prolong the shelf-life of food. This would therefore
reduce food waste, helping the world packaging market fight the problems of fossil
fuel depletion, health hazards and solid waste management. To put it simply: ideal
packaging is yet to come.
7.5. List of abbreviations
Abbreviation Full name

BC Bacterial Cellulose
BioPE Bio-Polyethylene
BioPET Bio-Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate)
BioPU Bio-Polyurethane
CA Cellulose Acetate
CMC Carboxymethyl Cellulose
EVOH Ethylene Vinyl Alcohol
HPC Hydroxypropyl Cellulose
HPMC Hydroxypropyl Methyl Cellulose
LDPE Low-Density Polyethylene
MC Methyl Cellulose
NC-W Nitrocellulose Wax
OPP Oriented Polypropylene
P3HB Poly-3-Hydroxy Butyrate
PBAT Polybutylene Adipate Terephthalate
PBS Polybutylene Succinate
PBSA Adipic Acid Poly(Butylene Succinate-co-Adipate)
PCL Polycaprolactone
PGA Poly(Glycolic Acid)
PHA Polyhydroxy Alkanoate
PHB Polyhydroxy Butyrate
PHBV Poly(3-Hydroxybutyrate-co-3-Hydroxyvalerate
PLA Polylactic Acid
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
PVDC Polyvinylidene Chloride
TPA Terephthalic Acid
TPS Thermoplastic Starch
WPC Whey Protein Concentrate
WPI Whey Protein Isolate
7.6. References
Andersson, C. (2008). New ways to enhance the functionality of paperboard by

surface treatment – A review. Pack. Technol. Sci., 21(6), 339–373.
ASTM D5511-18 (2018). Standard test method for determining anaerobic
biodegradation of plastic materials under high-solids anaerobic-digestion
conditions.
ASTM D5526-18 (2018). Standard test method for determining anaerobic
biodegradation of plastic materials under accelerated landfill conditions.
ASTM D6400 (2019). Standard specification for labeling of plastics designed to be
aerobically composted in municipal or industrial facilities.
ASTM D6866-20 (2020). Standard test method for determining the biobased
content of solid, liquid, and gaseous samples using radiocarbon analysis.
ASTM D6868 (2019). Standard specification for labeling of end items that
incorporate plastics and polymers as coatings or additives with paper and other
substrates designed to be aerobically composted in municipal or industrial
facilities.
Australian Standard AS 4736-2006 (2006). Biodegradable plastic-biodegradable
plastics suitable for composting and other microbial treatment – Australian
capital territory.
Belyamani, I., Prochazka, F., Assezat, G., and Debeaufort, F. (2014). Mechanical
and barrier properties of extruded film made from sodium and calcium
caseinates. Food Pack. Shelf-Life, 2(2), 65–72.
BeMiller, J.N. (2008). Gums and related polysaccharides. In Glycoscience,
Fraser-Reid, B.O., Tatsuta, K., and Thiem, J. (eds). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Blanco-Pascual, N. and Gómez-Estaca, J. (2016). Production and processing of
edible packaging stability and applications. In Edible Food Packaging Materials
and Processing Technologies, Ribeiro Cerqueira, M.A.P., Pereira, R.N.C.,
da Silva Ramos, O.L., Teixeira, J.A.C., and Vicente, A.A. (eds). CRC Press,
Boca Raton.
van den Broek, L.A.M., Boeriu, C.G., and Stevens, C.V. (2020). Chitin and
Chitosan: Properties and Applications. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Bugnicourt, E., Brzoska, N., Kucukpinar, E., Philippe, S., Forlin, E., Bianchin, A.,
and Schmid, M. (2019). Dispersion and performance of a nanoclay/whey protein
isolate coating upon its upscaling as a novel ready-to-use formulation for
packaging converters. Polymer, 11, 1410.
Chambi, H. and Grosso, C. (2006). Edible films produced with gelatin and casein
cross-linked with transglutaminase. Food Res. Int., 39, 458–466.
Cho, S.W., Skrifvars, M., Hemanathan, K., Mahimaisenan, P., and Adekunte, K.
(2014). Regenerated cellulose fibre reinforced casein films: Effect of plasticizer
and fibres on the film properties. Macromolec. Res., 22, 701–709.
Coles, R. and Kirwan, M.J. (2011). Food and Beverage Packaging Technology.
Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken.
Cuq, B., Gontard, N., and Guilbert, S. (1997). Thermoplastic properties of fish
myofibrillar proteins: Application to biopackaging fabrication. Polymer, 38,
4071–4078.
Dodds, D. and Humphreys, B. (2013). Production of aromatic chemicals from
biobased feedstock. In Catalytic Process Development for Renewable Materials,
Imhof, P. and Waal, J.-K. (eds). Wiley-VCH, Weinheim.
EN 13428:2004 (2004). Packaging – Requirements specific to manufacturing and
composition – Prevention by source reduction.
EN 13429:2004 (2004). Packaging – Reuse.
EN 13430:2004 (2004). Packaging – Requirements for packaging recoverable by
material recycling
EN 13431:2004 (2004). Packaging – Requirements for packaging recoverable in the

form of energy recovery, including specification of minimum inferior calorific
value.
EN 13432:2000 (2004). Packaging – Requirements for packaging recoverable through
composting and biodegradation. Test scheme and evaluation criteria for the final
acceptance of packaging.
EN 14046:2004 (2004). Evaluation of the ultimate aerobic biodegradability and
disintegration of packaging materials under controlled composting conditions.
EN 16575:2014 (2014). Bio-based products – Vocabulary.
European Bioplastics (2017). Oxo-degradable plastics [Online]. Available at:
https://www.european-bioplastics.org/bioplastics/standards/oxo-degradables/
EU WheyPack (2020). EU WheyPack Project: Reduction of CO2 emissions by the
PHB use obtained from whey: Demonstration in dairy products packaging
(2014–2017) Available at: www.wheypack.eu [Accessed 1 June 2020].
Gnanasekaran, D. (2019). Green Biopolymers and their Nanocomposites. Springer,
Basel.
González, A., Strumia, M.C., and Alvarez Igarzabal, C.I. (2011). Cross-linked soy
protein as material for biodegradable films: Synthesis, characterization and
biodegradation. J. Food Eng., 106, 331–338.
Goy, R.C., De Britto, D., and Asis, O.B.G. (2009). A review of the antimicrobial
activity of chitosan. Polímeros, 19(3), 241–247.
Guerrero, P. and de la Caba, K. (2016). Protein-based films and coatings. In Edible Food
Packaging Materials and Processing Technologies, Ribeiro Cerqueira, M.A.P.,
Pereira, R.N.C., da Silva Ramos, O.L., Teixeira, J.A.C., and Vicente, A.A.
(eds). CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Guerrero, P., Stefani, P.M., Ruseckaite, R.A., and de la Caba, K. (2011). Functional
properties of films based on soy protein isolate and gelatin processed by
compression molding. J. Food Eng., 105, 65–72.
Guilbert, S. and Cuq, N. (2005). Material formed from proteins. In Handbook of
Biodegradable Polymers, Bastioli, C. (ed.). Rapra Technology Limited, UK.
Hernandez-Izquierdo, V.M. and Krochta, J.M. (2008). Thermoplastic processing of
proteins for film formation – A review. J. Food Sci., 73(2), R30–R39.
ISO 18602:2013 (2013). Packaging and the environment – Optimization of the
packaging system.
ISO 18603:2013 (2013). Packaging and the environment – Reuse.
ISO 18604:2013 (2013). Packaging and the environment – Material recycling.

ISO 18605:2013 (2013). Packaging and the environment – Energy recovery.
ISO 18606:2013 (2013). Packaging and the environment – Organic recycling.
Kabasci, S. (2020). Biobased plastics. In Plastic Waste and Recycling, Letcher, T.M.
(ed.). Academic Press, London.
Kashyap, P.L., Xiang, X., and Heiden, P. (2015). Chitosan nanoparticle based
delivery systems for sustainable agriculture. Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 77, 36–51.
Kijchavengkul, T., Auras, R., Rubino, M., Selke, S., Ngouajio, M., and Fernandez, R.T.
(2010). Biodegradation and hydrolysis rate of aliphatic aromatic polyester.
Polym. Deg. Stab., 95(12), 2641–2647.
Kuusipalo, J., Savolainen, A., Laiho, E., and Penttinen, T. (2008). Extrusion coating
and products. Papermaking Sci. Technol., 106–166.
Kwiecień, I., Adamus, G., Bartkowiak, A., and Kowalczuk, M. (2014). Synthesis
and structural characterization at the molecular level of oligo(3-hydroxybutyrate)
conjugates with antimicrobial agents designed for food packaging materials.
Designed Monomers Polym., 17(4), 311–321.
Lambert, S. and Wagner, M. (2017). Environmental performance of bio-based and
biodegradable plastics: The road ahead. Chem. Soc. Rev., 46(22), 6855–6871.
Li, X., Fang, Y., Phillips, G.O., and Al-Assaf, S. (2013). Improved sugar beet
pectin-stabilized emulsions through complexation with sodium caseinate.
J. Agric. Food Chem., 61, 1388–1396.
Majid, I., Nayik, G.A., Dar, S.M., and Nanda, V. (2016). Novel food packaging
technologies: Innovations and future prospective. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci., 17, 4.
Martin, A.H. and de Jong, G.A.H. (2012). Enhancing the in vitro Fe(2+)
bioaccessibility using ascorbate and cold-set whey protein gel particles. Dairy
Sci. Technol., 92, 133–149.
Martucci, J.F. and Ruseckaite, R.A. (2010). Three-layer sheets based on gelatin and
poly(lactic acid), part 1: Preparation and properties. J. App. Polym. Sci., 118,
3102–3110.
Nafchi, A.M., Moradpour, M., Saeidi, M., and Alias, A.K. (2013). Thermoplastic
starches: Properties, challenges, and prospects. Starch, 65, 61–72.
Nakajima, H., Dijkstra, P., and Loos, K. (2017). The recent developments in
biobased polymers toward general and engineering applications: Polymers that
are upgraded from biodegradable polymers, analogous to petroleum-derived
polymers, and newly developed. Polymers, 9(10).
Nieto, M.B. (2016). Edible film and packaging using gum polysaccharides. In
Edible Food Packaging Materials and Processing Technologies, Ribeiro
Cerqueira, M.A.P., Pereira, R.N.C., da Silva Ramos, O.L., Teixeira, J.A.C., and
Vicente, A.A. (eds). CRC Press, Boca Raton.
NKWOOD Research (2019). Global polylactic acid market forecast 2019–2027.
Overbeek, G. and Hoes, A.C. (2018). Biovoices – Connecting biobased forces for a
sustainable world, Deliverable 3.1: Synthesis of market perspectives to develop
bio-based value chains [Online]. Available at: https://www.biovoices.eu/ [Accessed
20 July 2020].
Patel, S. (2015). Emerging trends in nutraceutical applications of whey protein and
its derivatives. J. Food Sci. Technol., 52(11), 6847–6858.
Peña, C., Martin, M.D., Retegi, A., de la Caba, K., Ruseckaite, R., and Mondragon, I.
(2009). Gelatin films: Renewable resource for food packaging. V International
Conference on Science and Technology of Composite Materials: COMATCOMP
09. Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain.
Pérez-Gago, M.B. (2012). Protein-based films and coatings. In Edible Coatings and
Films to Improve Food Quality, Baldwin, E.A., Hagenmaiier, R., and Bai, J.
(eds). Taylor & Francis Group, USA.
Pérez-Gago, M.B., Nadaud, P., and Krochta, J.M. (1999). Water vapor permeability,
solubility, and tensile properties of heat-denatured versus native whey protein
films. J. Food Sci., 64, 1034–1037.
Pérez-Masiá, R., López-Nicolás, R., Periago, M.J., Ros, G., Lagaron, J.M., and
López-Rubio, A. (2015). Encapsulation of folic acid in food hydrocolloids
through nanospray drying and electrospraying for nutraceutical applications.
Food Chem., 168, 124–133.
Quecholac-Piña, X., Hernández-Berriel, M.C., Mañón-Salas, M.C., Espinosa-
Valdemar, R.M., and Vázquez-Morillas, A. (2020). Degradation of plastics
under anaerobic conditions: A short review. Polymer, 12(1), 109.
Ramos, M., Valdés, A., Beltrán, A., and Garrigós, M.-C. (2016). Gelatin-based films
and coatings for food packaging applications. Coatings, 6, 41.
Research Reports World (2014). Global biodegradable materials market report,
history and forecast 2014–2025, breakdown data by manufacturers, key regions,
types and application [Online]. Available at: https://www.researchreportsworld.com/
global-biodegradable-materials-market-14391088 [Accessed 23 June 2020].
Press, Boca Raton.
Rujnić-Sokele, M. and Pilipović, A. (2017). Challenges and opportunities of

biodegradable plastics: A mini review. Waste Manag. Res., 35, 132–140.
Rydz, J., Musioł, M., Zawidlak-Węgrzyńska, B., and Sikorska, W. (2018). Present
and future of biodegradable polymers for food packaging applications. In
Biopolymers for Food Design, Grumezescu, A. and Holban, A.M. (eds). Elsevier,
London.
Saez-Orviz, S., Laca, A., Rendueles, M., and Díaz, M. (2017). Approaches for
casein film uses in foodstuff packaging. Afinidad – Barcelona, 74(577), 26–29.
Sekhon, B.S. (2010). Food nanotechnology – An overview. Nanotechnol. Sci.
Applications, 3, 1–15.
Shi, Z., Zhang, Y., Phillips, G.O., and Yang, G. (2014). Utilization of bacterial
cellulose in food. Food Hydrocolloid., 35, 539–545.
Storz, H. and Vorlop, K.-D. (2013). Bio-based plastics: Status, challenges and
trends. Landbauforschung-Ger, 63, 321–332.
Versino, F., Lopez, O.V., Garcia, M.A., and Zaritzky, N.E. (2016). Starch based
films and food coatings: An overview. Starch, Special Issue: Starch Research in
Latin America, 68(11–12), 1026–1037.
Vieira, M.G.A., da Silva, M.A., dos Santos, L.O., and Beppu, M.M. (2011). Natural-
based plasticizers and biopolymer films: A review. Europ. Polym. J., 47,
254–263.
Westwood, M., Gunning, A., and Parker, R. (2010). Temperature-dependent growth
of gelatin−poly (galacturonic acid) multilayer films and their responsiveness to
temperature, pH, and NaCl. Macromolecules, 43, 10582–10593.
Wicochea-Rodríguez, J.D., Chalier, P., Ruiz, T., and Gastaldi, E. (2019). Active
food packaging based on biopolymers and aroma compounds: How to design and
control the release. Frontiers Chem.,7, 398.
Wihodo, M. and Moraru, C.I. (2013). Physical and chemical methods used to
enhance the structure and mechanical properties of protein films: A review.
J. Food Eng., 114, 292–302.
Xiao, Y., Han, C., Yang, H., Liu, M., Meng, X., and Liu, B. (2020). Layer (whey
protein isolate)-by-layer (xanthan gum) microencapsulation enhances
survivability of L. bulgaricus and L. paracasei under simulated gastrointestinal
juice and thermal conditions. Int. J. Biolog. Macromol., 148, 238–247.
Zhu, Y., Romain, C., and Williams, C.K. (2016). Sustainable polymers from
renewable resources. Nature, 540(7633), 354–362.
8
Active and Intelligent Packaging

Nasreddine Benbettaieb
Social and economic evolution such as changes in consumer demand, improved

standards of living, increase in industrial production, retail practices, new marketing
targets and customer lifestyles are the main forces driving the evolution of novel and
innovative packaging techniques. The main aims are maintaining and monitoring
food safety and quality, and increasing the shelf life of food packaging (Dainelli et
al. 2008). Therefore, the function of food packaging has evolved from simple
preservation methods towards new aspects such as convenience, securing the
integrity of the packaging, point of purchase marketing, material reduction, safety
and environmental issues (Han 2014). Active and intelligent packaging can,
respectively, maintain or monitor food quality and safety, as presented in Figure 8.1.
The design and manufacture of adequate active and intelligent packaging

technology is quite challenging from an industrial point of view. In addition,
traditional packaging is no longer sufficient, as today’s society has become
increasingly complex. Like conventional packaging, new packaging must serve a
number of important functions, including the containment and protection of food,
maintaining its sensory quality, safety and security, and communicating information
to consumers. More functions that can secure the integrity of packaging are
considered very important, including antimicrobial packaging, freshness indicators,

time–temperature integrators and electronic coding systems. Improved security for

the user and boosting differentiation and marketing are other advantages of active
and intelligent packaging; customer satisfaction and loyalty become important
parameters that guide consumers when shopping. Increased competition space on
supermarket shelves is often a driving force behind new packaging developments
(Ahvenainen 2003). Over the last 10 years, the increasing changes to consumer
lifestyle, related to rapid urbanization and the expanded use of personal items with
advanced integrated innovation, have been an influencing factor in the market
growth of active and intelligent packaging. The evolution of the generations of
consumers also influences this development, as they are becoming increasingly
well-connected and expect improvements worthy of the evolution of modern
technologies, taking into account ecological, practical and esthetic dimensions.
Figure 8.1. Schematic view of packaging functions (adapted from Yam et al. 2005)
As defined in the European Regulation 450/2009 (European Commission 2009)

and 1935/2004 (European Commission 2004), active packaging systems are
intended to change packaging conditions, in order to extend shelf life and ensure
food safety. Active packaging was also designed to deliberately incorporate
components into food packaging that would release or absorb substances into or
from packaged food, or the environment surrounding the food.
Intelligent packaging (also more loosely described as smart packaging) is

packaging that informs the manufacturer, retailer and consumer about the state of some
of the properties of the food within the packaging, or within the environment in
which it is kept (Han et al. 2018). As defined in the European Regulation 450/2009
and 1935/2004 (European Commission 2004, 2009), intelligent packaging systems
Active and Intelligent Packaging 185
are intended to monitor the quality of the food product or its surrounding
environment and predict or measure the shelf life better than a best before date.
They have the ability to communicate the conditions of the packaged food or the
environment by providing information about different factors during transportation
and storage, without any interaction with the product.
Considering the market share and perspectives of active and intelligent

packaging, among innovations, the global market for this type of packaging was
estimated at US$5.3 billion in 2017 and should reach US$7.8 billion in 2021,
according to an average annual growth rate of +8%. The more mature active
packaging market has great opportunities for technological development, while the
intelligent packaging market faces strong growth prospects. Technologies that are
used for accessing and storing information, verifying the authenticity of products or
manufacturing conditions, and delivering messages to consumers and investors are
increasingly numerous, thanks to intelligent packaging (ALL4PACK 2016).
The intelligent packaging market has witnessed continuous growth in the past few
years and is projected to grow even further during the forecast period 2020–2026.
After comprehensive analysis, industry and research have together introduced a new
research study: “Global (United States, China, and the European Union) Intelligent
Packaging Market Research Report 2020–2026” (Patel 2020). Some of the
prominent key players (main manufacturers, distributors and downstream client
companies) covered in the intelligent packaging market are Jones Packaging, 3M,
DuPont, BASF, Intelligent Packaging, and Amcor and Campden Bri. The report on
the intelligent packaging worldwide market highlights key market events like
technological innovations, product releases, business plans and development
strategies of players, along with industry-oriented growth factors.
8.2. Active packaging
Food packaging is used to protect food from environmental contamination, in

order to safeguard the quality of the food, which in turn extends shelf life and
reduces food waste. Oxidation, microbial spoilage and metabolism are the main
factors for the deterioration of many foods during processing, transport, storage,
marketing and at home with end-users. These processes are directly related to the loss
of food quality, which can influences consumer buying decisions and impacts consumer
health, thus affecting the overall economics of the food supply chain (Zhao et al.
2016). Oxidation has many negative effects on the nutritional and organoleptic
characteristics of food, such as decreasing nutritional value in terms of the
destruction of essential fatty acids, proteins and lipid-soluble vitamins (A, D, E and
K); producing rancidity; and changing the natural colors of foods (degradation of
pigments, darkening of fats and oils) (Nerín et al. 2008).
Furthermore, the presence of pathogenic microorganisms increases the risk of

foodborne diseases in humans and thus presents a problem for public health. To
delay oxidation, control foodborne pathogens and respond to growing consumer
demand for safe, high-quality food, different strategies have been developed in food
packaging technology. Active packaging can effectively improve food quality and
safety and extend shelf life by positively affecting the headspace of a packaged
product, and/or the product itself, using different absorbing and releasing systems
that involve physical, chemical or biological actions.
The first group of active packaging concerns gas absorbing/emitting packaging

that use sachets or pads to absorb gases (such as oxygen, water vapor and ethylene)
from the package headspace or to emit gases (such as carbon dioxide and ethanol) to
the package headspace, so that a favorable internal environment and an extended
shelf life can be achieved (Figure 8.2). Controlled release packaging (Figure 8.2) is
another group of technologies that use packaging materials as a delivery system to
release active compounds (such as antimicrobials, antioxidants, enzymes, flavors,
nutraceuticals) to protect against oxidation and microbial spoilage, and therefore
improve food quality (Yam et al. 2005). Most of the focus within this group has
been on antimicrobial and antioxidant packaging that incorporate active compounds
into their structure (direct addition, surface immobilization or coating) (Han et al.
2018). Antimicrobial polymers (natural or modified) can also be used as active
packaging for food and pharmaceutical applications.
Figure 8.2. Classification of different types of active packaging systems for food
Other active packaging systems include microwave susceptors and modifiers,

changing gas permeability, removing properties, including catalyzing food
component removal (lactose and cholesterol) and temperature control systems that
include self-heating and self-cooling.
Excepting the use of natural or modified antimicrobial polymers, active

packaging can be divided into two types: scavengers/absorbers or releasers/emitters
(Figure 8.3).
Figure 8.3. Sachet, pad and film scavenging or emitting systems
These systems can take the form of sachets and pads, or active materials. Sachets
and pads are placed inside the packaging headspace or at the surface of the
packaging itself. Active materials, on the other hand, incorporate the scavenging or
releasing systems, or the active agent, into the packaging material, for example,
extruded or coated on the plastic film.
8.2.1. Scavenger systems
8.2.1.1. Oxygen scavengers/absorbers

The presence of oxygen in packed food is a critical factor that compromises shelf
life. Oxygen present in food packaging accelerates spoilage and chemical
deterioration and thus contributes to food wastage. The presence of oxygen, if not
desired, may result from inadequate or insufficient evacuation and/or gas flushing
during the packaging process, from an existing presence in the food itself or from
the packaging headspace (Robertson 2016). Oxygen may also derive from other
sources such as oxygen permeation through packaging material, or may be
introduced because of small leakages or microperforations in the packaging
material, as a result of poor sealing (Kruijf et al. 2002).
High levels of oxygen present in food packages may cause food deterioration
such as off-flavors (rancidity as a result of lipid oxidation), color changes
(discoloration of pigments), nutrient losses (oxidation of vitamin E, β-carotene,
ascorbic acid), microbial growth and a decrease in the respiration rate. The removal
of the residual oxygen using absorbing systems can minimize the deterioration and
quality loss of oxygen-sensitive food products considerably. The combined use of
oxygen scavengers with vacuum sealing, or by gas atmosphere modification in the
packaging (N2, CO2), assures the elimination of oxygen from the package headspace
and dissolved in the product (Realini and Marcos 2014).
Structurally, the oxygen scavenging system can take the form of a sachet or pad
with an incorporated active ingredient, which is placed inside the packaging
headspace. There are different oxygen scavenging technologies commercialized on
the market, which are mainly based on iron powder oxidation, oxidation of
photosensitive coloring matter, ascorbic acid oxidation, enzymatic oxidation using
glucose oxidase, unsaturated fatty acids or immobilized yeast on a solid substrate
(Floros et al. 1997). The most widely used mechanism today, however – and one of
the most effective – is based on the oxidation of iron and ferrous salts using a sachet,
pads, strips or labels containing iron powder (Figure 8.4). These systems are
incorporated into, or attached to the inside of the packaging, but are separate
elements. These are also used in the closures of alcoholic and non-alcoholic
beverages to eliminate both the residual oxygen in the headspace and that which has
permeated the packaging.
Figure 8.4. Oxygen scavenger systems based on the oxidation of iron and ferrous
salts; sachet containing iron powder (Multisorb Technologies 2020)
Ageless®, developed by the Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company in Japan, produced

the most commercially available oxygen scavengers based on iron oxidation. This
system is used for dry and moist food according to the water activity (aw) level.
Furthermore, using oxygen scavenger sachets allows the O2 concentration in the
headspace to be reduced to less than 0.01%, much lower than the typical residual O2
levels achievable by vacuum or gas flushing (0.3–3%) (Robertson 2016). In addition
to the Ageless® system, there are other commercially available oxygen scavenger
systems, including TCO® (ATCO/Standa Industrie, France) which is used for wet
and dry food, FreshPax® (Multisorb Technologies, USA) which is used for either
moist or semi-moist foods (aw > 0.7) and for dehydrated or dry foods (aw < 0.7),
FreshMax® and FreshCard® (Multisorb Technologies) which are used for sausages,
meat and pizza, Freshilizer® (Toppan Printing) which is used for nuts or chocolate,
and O-Buster (Hsaio Sung Non-Oxygen Chemical Company) which is used for
dried and oily foods, as well as for fatty foods. These systems also make use of
finely divided iron powder with excipients (salts and minerals to provide moisture
content) and can reduce residual oxygen levels to approximately 0.01%.
Iron and iron salts (powder) react with water within foods to produce a reaction
that moisturizes the iron metal in the product packaging, and irreversibly converts it
to a stable oxide (Kerry et al. 2006). Oxygen scavenger systems that are based on
iron oxidation reactions are explained by the following equation:
[8.1]
The selection of oxygen scavengers (shape, size, ability to absorb oxygen, time
to reach equilibrium) depends on several interrelated factors, which include: the
nature and characteristics of each food (weight, shape, size, liquid, solid, dry, fat,
water content, water activity, etc.), the amount of O2 dissolved in the food, the
desired shelf life of the food, the initial level of O2 in the headspace and the O2
permeability of packaging materials (Pereira de Abreu et al. 2012).
Scavenger systems based on sachets and pads have several drawbacks: they
cannot be used in beverages or food containing high levels of aqueous liquids,
because they become inactive when wet. They also cannot be used in packaging
made from flexible films. In the latter case, the film may cling to the sachet and
isolate it from the product, preventing it from functioning (Kerry et al. 2006). In
order to overcome this problem, the sachet can be glued to the inner wall of the
packaging or the active ingredients incorporated into a label, which can be inserted
into the inside wall of the packaging (Suppakul et al. 2003). New trends in
commercial applications involve incorporating oxygen scavengers into the

packaging material. This is to avoid negative perceptions in consumers caused by
the presence of a non-edible with the food, or to eliminate the risk of accidental
rupture of the sachets and unintentional consumption of their contents (Kerry et al.
2006). In the case of vacuum packs for cheese and meat, where the presence of O2 is
a primary cause of quality loss, sachets cannot be incorporated into the close-fitting
packaging.
Innovation in food packaging technology consists of developing an alternative

method whereby O2 absorbers are incorporated into the plastic components of the
packaging film, tray or box. Iron, ascorbic acid and low-molecular-weight
ingredients are extruded or coated in the polymer (polyethylene, polypropylene,
polyamide, EVA, etc.). Examples of these are manufactured by Shelfplus® O2
(Albis Plastic, Germany), OxbarTM (Constar International, USA) and Amosorb 2000
(ColorMatrix, USA).
Cryovac®, the food packaging division of Sealed Air Corporation, developed a

UV light-activated oxygen scavenging film, whose structure comprises an oxygen
scavenger layer extruded into a multilayer film; this can reduce headspace oxygen
levels from 1% to ppm levels in one week, which is comparable to oxygen
scavenging sachets (Realini and Marcos 2014). A similar UV light-activated oxygen
scavenging polymer, ZERO2TM, developed by the CSIRO Division of Food Science
and Technology in Australia, in collaboration with VisyPak, forms a layer within a
multilayer packaging structure. Applications include the reduction of discoloration
of sliced meats.
Bioka (RPC Bebo) has launched a rigid oxygen scavenging system consisting of
a high-barrier container made from PP/ethylene vinyl alcohol/PP for the ready-meal
market, containing an enzyme-based oxygen scavenger film using a glucose
oxidase/catalase reaction (Realini and Marcos 2014). In the same way, OxyVac®
(Nutricepts) produced an enzyme-based oxygen scavenger for MAP foods with
aw > 0.65, as well as cheese products.
Darex® (W.R. Grace, USA) manufactures bottle crowns using

ascorbate/metallic salt oxidation. Recently, a rapid oxygen scavenger system has
been developed using a catalytic system with palladium. Palladium is coated onto
polyethylene terephthalate/SiOx films using magnetron sputtering technology
(Yildirim et al. 2018). This oxygen scavenger film was able to remove up to 2.5%
(in volume) of residual oxygen in food packages, when hydrogen was included in
the modified atmosphere of the packaging. This system does not have commercial
application as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Food Contact
Materials stated that palladium should not be in direct contact with food. Rather, it
should be incorporated in a passive structure, impermeable to liquids, which
prevents migration at detectable levels.
In another approach developed to remove O2 from beverages, such as beer after

it is capped, a multilayer barrier liner is fitted into crown caps and plastic and metal
closures. The active ingredients consist of ascorbic acid that is oxidized to
dehydroascorbic acid, while sodium sulfite is oxidized to sodium sulfate (Robertson
2016).
8.2.1.2. Carbon dioxide scavengers

Carbon dioxide (CO2) efficiently inhibits the surface growth of a range of
aerobic bacteria and fungi by reducing oxygen levels, and/or by direct antimicrobial
effects (at CO2 concentrations between 10% and 80%) in food packaging. CO2 is
often used as a flushing gas in MAP systems to maintain the freshness of some
foods, particularly fresh meat, poultry, fish and cheese, in order to prolong their
shelf life (Han et al. 2018). However, for some CO2-producing foods, such as fresh
horticultural products and fermented foods, increases in CO2 levels allow their
dissolution into foods and may decrease the volume of the package. This decrease in
pressure inside the packaging leads to undesirable changes in product quality, such
as changes in the flavor and texture of products and/or the development of
undesirable anaerobic glycolysis in fruits (Han et al. 2018). In addition, reducing
the CO2 concentration in some fermented foods promotes the growth of lactic acid
bacteria and improves organoleptic quality. Furthermore, some fruits and vegetables
(potato, lettuce, onion, cucumber, apricot, peach, apple and carrot) have negative
reactions to CO2 exposure at levels higher than 5%; these include discoloration,
off-flavor development and internal tissue breakdown. In such cases, reducing the level
of CO2 in food packaging can improve food quality. CO2 absorbers can thus be an
effective means of preserving food quality and packaging integrity (Han et al. 2018).
Carbon dioxide scavengers, consist of either a chemical absorbent such as silica

gel or calcium hydroxide (equation [8.2]), or a physical absorbent such as zeolite or
active carbon powder (Robertson 2016):
CO2 +Ca(OH)2 CaCO3 + H2O

[8.2]
These absorbers can be enclosed in a sachet and placed in the food package.
ATCO CO2 – manufactured by Standa Industries in France and by Emco Packaging
Systems in the UK – is a sachet capable of absorbing carbon dioxide produced from
a mixture of sodium hydroxide, calcium and potassium and is used for CO2-sensitive
products. Ageless Eye (Mitsubishi Gas Chemical, Japan) is another carbon dioxide
absorbent recommended for the conservation of roasted coffee, with higher CO2
absorption capacities available. CO2 absorber systems can be fabricated as a coating
or sheet.
8.2.1.3. Ethylene absorbers

Ethylene acts as a phytohormone and is produced during the ripening stage of
fruit and vegetables; the effects can either be positive or negative. Positive effects
include catalyzing the ripening process (initiating and accelerating ripening).
Negative effects include increasing the respiration rate, which accelerates softening
and senescence, increasing chlorophyll degradation and promoting a number of
post-harvest disorders; these include reducing the shelf life of fresh or minimally
processed fruits and vegetables (Robertson 2016).
Ethylene scavengers are used to preserve ethylene-sensitive fruits and vegetables

such as apples, kiwis, apricots, mangos, bananas, tomatoes, onions, carrots and
asparagus (Pereira de Abreu et al. 2012) (Figure 8.5). When ethylene is removed
from the immediate environment, the ripening and deterioration processes of plant
products are slowed, and storage life is extended.
Figure 8.5. Ethylene absorber sachets to stop ripening of ethylene-sensitive fruits
Several ethylene scavenging systems have been reported in literature, but the
most available and commercialized absorbers are potassium permanganate sachets.
The main mechanism of the action of ethylene scavengers is the use of KMnO4 (in
powder form inside a separate sachet) that oxidizes ethylene (C2H4) to carbon
dioxide and water through the following reaction (Robertson 2016):
3C2H4 +12KMnO4 12MnO2+ 12KOH+6CO2

[8.3]
Commercial permanganate-based sachets with the ability to absorb ethylene

include: Evert-Fresh Green Bags™ (Evert-Fresh, USA), Epax™ (IMPAK, USA),
PEAKfresh® (USA), Retarder®, Profresh® and Biofresh® packaging systems. All
of these systems are used for fresh produce and flowers (Kerry et al. 2006).
Potassium permanganate oxidizes both ethylene acetate and ethanol. KMnO4

changes color from purple to brown after reacting with ethylene, thus, it could also
be an indicator of the absorbing capacity of residual ethylene (Pereira de Abreu et
al. 2012). Potassium permanganate sachets cannot be used in direct contact with
food because of their toxicity. To overcome this drawback, another ethylene
scavenger system has been developed. Years ago, a few packaging films were
commercialized, which used finely dispersed minerals capable of absorbing C2H4.
These minerals were some kinds of clay (e.g. zeolite, silicates), activated carbon,
cristobalite (SiO2), etc. that were mixed together with a small amount of metal oxide
and then dispersed into a plastic film (Robertson 2016). PEAKfresh® and
Evert-Fresh commercialized an ethylene absorption system based on zeolites
dispersed into polymeric material. PEAKfresh® is a polyethylene bag impregnated
with minerals, developed to absorb ethylene and moisture generated during fruit
respiration. Evert-Fresh has the ability to absorb ethylene, ammonia and carbon
dioxide. PEAKfresh® and Evert-Fresh also provide a controlled humidity
atmosphere to absorb moisture generated by the respiration of fruits or vegetables
(Kerry, O’Grady, & Hogan, 2006). They act as C2H4-absorbing agents, increasing
the shelf life of fresh fruits and vegetables. Profresh is an additive made with
monolayer or multilayer low-density polyethylene (LDPE), or high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) that is able to absorb ethylene, ethanol and ethyl acetate,
keeping food fresh for a long time (Kerry et al. 2006).
8.2.1.4. Moisture absorbers

The presence of high levels of water inside food packaging often promotes the
growth of microorganisms, causing softening of dry, crunchy products such as pasta
and cookies. It also causes caking and hardening in milk powder or freeze-dried
coffee, and wetting of hygroscopic products such as sweets and candies (Kruijf et
al. 2002). In addition, it is well known that food stability is closely related to the
water activity (aw) of a product, which is affected by the relative humidity in the
headspace of the packed food. In such cases, high relative humidity in the headspace
causes susceptibility to temperature fluctuations during transport or storage. This
can encourage the formation of condensation and therefore the fogging of plastic
packaging (Kruijf et al. 2002).
There are two distinct methods used for regulating the moisture content of
packaged foodstuffs. The mechanism of action is based on an absorption process. In
this process, excess liquid water can be removed, or the relative humidity in the
headspace can be controlled.
Liquid absorbers (pads, sheets): excess water can be controlled by applying

drip-absorbent sheets, usually composed of two layers of microporous polymeric
materials (e.g. polyethylene, polypropylene), which enclose a layer of
superabsorbent hygroscopic polymers, capable of absorbing up to 500 times its own
weight of water (Janjarasskul and Suppakul 2018; Kruijf et al. 2002). Typical
superabsorbent polymers include polyacrylate salts, carboxymethyl cellulose and
graft copolymers of starch, which have a very strong affinity for water (Robertson
2016). The sheets can be used as pads (Figure 8.6) under, for example, whole/sliced
fresh poultry and meat to absorb drips of water, prevent microbial and mold growth
and improve product presentation. Similar sheets are used for the absorption of
melting ice water in seafood packaging that has been transported by air.
Figure 8.6. Moisture absorber pads for fish and meat (adapted from
Wholesalegroup, 2020)
Relative humidity regulators (sachets or tags): sachets or tags containing

dehydrating agents are used to regulate humidity in a wide range of products, such
as cheeses, meats, nuts and spices (Pereira de Abreu et al. 2012).
Deciding which moisture absorbers to use will depend on: the size and weight of
the food and its initial water activity; water vapor transmission from the package;
the temperature and humidity of storage; food sensitivity to moisture; and the length
of commercial life.
To prevent any adverse effects during the absorption process that could alter the
color of the food surface, which is in contact with absorber, new solutions have been
developed. For example, a lack of oxygen on the side of meat that is in contact with
the moisture absorber can produce a color change in the product from red to brown.
To avoid this, the Sirane Company commercializes moisture absorber pads with a
surface permeable to oxygen, which keeps the meat red, while absorbing excess liquid.
Some examples of commercial liquids and moisture absorbers include:
Supa-Loc®, Lite-Loc®Plus consisting of cellulose-based absorbent pads,

composed of different layers for meat and fish products (Sealed Air Corporation
2020).
Dri-Fresh® Resolve® is an absorbent pad used to completely eliminate surface

discoloration on red meat (Sirane 2020).
Humidipak responds continuously to adapt to changes in humidity and

temperature, either by the addition or absorption of moisture in order to maintain a
certain level of relative humidity (RH) inside of the food package, for the duration
of its shelf life. This system is available in virtually any RH level, from 10% to 95%
RH. It is marketed on the basis of weight, volume and water activity of food
(Süd-Chemie 2020).
NatraSorb® M is a moisture-absorbing bag made from magnesium and

aluminum silicate with strong moisture-absorbing capabilities without swelling or
any apparent, substantial deterioration (Multisorb Technologies 2020).
Liquid and moisture absorbers are aimed at products such as meats, fresh fish
and seafood, cheeses, spices, baked goods, candies, pizza, frozen and dried food,
and some cut or sliced fruits and vegetables.
8.2.1.5. Flavor/odor absorbers

Some commercial products have been developed to eliminate undesirable
compounds or compounds that release odors. Retarder®, which is marketed as an
ethylene absorber, is used to absorb undesirable odors. Minipax manufactured a
system that combines clay with activated carbon or silica, in a 50/50 or 60/40 ratio,
which has both drying and odor-absorption capabilities. EKA Noble commercializes
BHM powder for incorporation into packaging materials, particularly paper and
cardboard. It has the ability to absorb the undesirable odors produced from
aldehydes (Pereira de Abreu et al. 2012).
Volatile amines, formed due to protein breakdown in fish muscle, can also be
removed by incorporating acidic compounds, like citric acid, in polymers. ANICO
bags (Japan) made from film containing ferrous salt and an organic acid, such as
citric acid or ascorbic acid, are capable of oxidizing the amines, thus removing
volatile amines (Biji et al. 2015).
8.2.2. Releaser/emitter systems
8.2.2.1. Carbon dioxide emitters

As previously mentioned, relatively high levels of CO2 have direct antimicrobial
effects on many microorganisms. Therefore, a high CO2 concentration is included in
MAP systems for chill-stored non-respiring foods that are susceptible to microbial
spoilage (Lee 2016). In the same way, other sachets are available using either
ascorbic acid and ferrous carbonate or ascorbic acid with sodium bicarbonate to
absorb O2 and generate an equivalent volume of CO2. This type of active packaging
is used for fresh products where an increased concentration of CO2, combined with
decreased O2 concentration, reduces the respiration rate and thus increases the
product shelf life (Robertson 2016).
Moreover, in the case of MAP systems, when a package is flushed with a

mixture of gases, including CO2 and O2, the CO2 dissolves in the product and
penetrates into the external environment through the packaging material (the
permeability of CO2 through most plastic films is three to five times higher than that
of oxygen). In this case, the concentration of CO2 is dynamically changed and a loss
in CO2 occurs (Han et al. 2018). Therefore, CO2 emitters are beneficial and
necessary for maintaining desired CO2 concentrations in packaging and ensuring the
efficacy of a MAP system (Robertson 2016).
With regard to commercialization, there are different CO2 emitter sachets and
pads already on the market today.
VerifraisTM (SARL Codimer, France), FreshPax (Multisorb Technologies, USA)

and Ageless® (Mitsubishi Gas Chemical, Japan) manufacture a sachet containing
sodium bicarbonate/ascorbate, which use the dual action of CO2 generating and O2
scavenging used for many food products (Figure 8.7). Alongside the sachet system,
CO2 emitter pads have also been commercialized; the most widely available system
is CO2® Fresh-Pads (CO2 Technologies, USA) which are used for meat, poultry
and seafood packaging. Drip losses from muscle are absorbed into pads and react
with the citric acid and sodium bicarbonate present, resulting in carbon dioxide
generation. Active CO2 pads have also been commercialized in Sweden (Cellcomb)
and Germany (McAirlaid’s). The principle is based on CO2‐pad-emitter concepts
(Figure 8.7) (Yildirim et al. 2018). Paper Pak Industries have launched
UltraZap®XtendaPak pads, a more evolved version of CO2 generators. They are
designed to act as absorbent pads for fresh meat, poultry and fish, with double the
antimicrobial effect due to the incorporation of a CO2 emitter and an antimicrobial
substance. A recent CO2 emitter pad has been developed by a Norwegian company,
Vartdal Plastindustri, for use in fish fillet packaging, as well as for meat packaging
(Realini and Marcos 2014).
Figure 8.7. CO2 emitter sachets and pads
Although the most widely available carbon dioxide emitters – intended for
commercial use – are in the form of sachets and absorbent pads, films that
incorporate carbon dioxide emitters have also been developed. The CO2 emitter
market is likely to continue in this direction (Kerry et al. 2006). Although research
into this concept is still in its early stages, active packaging structures, for
controlling the microbial quality of ready-to-eat meat products, have recently been
tested by Chen and Brody (2013). Cooked ham samples were packed into three
antimicrobial packaging structures, including a nylon/EVOH/polyethylene oxygen
barrier bag and an antimicrobial film (3-Phase Activ-PolymerTM, CSP Technologies,
USA), with the ability to generate CO2 or allyl isothiocyanate, or for scavenging O2.
Packaging structures with O2 scavengers or CO2 generators proved to control
bacterial populations, particularly Listeria, while the allyl isothiocyanate generator
had only limited antimicrobial effects (Realini and Marcos 2014).
8.2.2.2. Ethanol emitters

Ethanol has been widely used as an antimicrobial agent to prevent the spoilage of
fruit by mold. A novel and innovative method of generating ethanol vapor has been
developed in Japan. The system is formed by sachets containing water (10%) and
ethanol (55%), which are adsorbed onto SiO2 powder (35%) and inserted into a
paper-ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer sachet (Robertson 2016). The sachet
contents absorb moisture from food and releases ethanol vapor. The main drawback
of this technology, first, is the high cost of ethanol and, second, the formation of
off-flavors and off-odor in the food. To mask the odor of alcohol, some sachets
containing traces of vanilla or other flavorings were added.
8.2.2.3. Ethylene emitters

In the case of climacteric fruits, harvested at an immature stage, some ethylene
releaser systems have been developed to accelerate ripening. Bazzano et al. (2016)
developed an active polymeric packaging film containing an inclusion complex of
α-cyclodextrin. This was done to control the release of ethylene so that fruits that are
typically harvested at a slightly immature stage, for example bananas, pears or
apples, can reach consumers at the right stage of maturity.
8.2.2.4. Antioxidant packaging as releasing systems

After the growth of microorganisms, the oxidation of fats is one of the most
important mechanisms leading to food spoilage.
An alternative to oxygen scavenging systems, for the prevention of food

oxidation through active packaging, is the incorporation of antioxidants into
packaging materials (Realini and Marcos 2014).
Antioxidants can be added directly to food formulations by using different

processes such as spraying, immersion or mixing, which may cause changes in food
quality parameters (color or taste) and may affect consumer acceptance of the
product (Han et al. 2018). In addition, today, there is a preference for the exclusion
of additives in foods. In this way, active packaging represents an innovative strategy
to incorporate antioxidants into a polymer to prevent oxidative processes and extend
shelf life (Realini and Marcos 2014). There are several advantages of this
technology compared to the direct addition of antioxidants such as: lower amounts
of active substances required; localized activity; controlled release of antioxidants;
and elimination of processing steps, such as mixing, immersion or spraying
(Bolumaret al. 2011).
Active agents can be applied to the packaging systems in different forms: coating
or immobilization on the packaging material surface, or incorporated into the
polymer matrix or multilayer films. They can act either by a direct or indirect
contact mechanism with the foodstuff:
– The effect of direct contact with the foodstuff and then controlled diffusion in
the food product is called a release mechanism. In this case, the active agent is
incorporated into the packaging; it migrates into the food through diffusing and
partitioning and then the effect decreases over time.
– The effect of direct contact between the packaging and the food (active agent
attached or confined in the packaging materials). In this case, the active agent is
chemically or physically immobilized on the packaging, and the desired effect is
reached by the contact surface without diffusion.
– The effect occurs by evapo-release in the headspace atmosphere within the
packaging (active agents have to be volatile), without direct contact between active
packaging and the foodstuff.
In all of the cases mentioned, antioxidant packaging is intended to prevent or
slow down the oxidation reactions that affect the quality of food. However, radicals
such as hydroxyl and superoxide originate from oxygen and are the main initiators
of oxidation. Thus, oxidation can be avoided by eliminating radicals as soon as they
are formed (Pereira de Abreu et al. 2012). Some antioxidants can react efficiently
with the radicals by trapping them, thus avoiding further oxidation. In such cases,
neither high-barrier nor vacuum packaging materials are required to avoid oxidation,
only the presence of a radical scavenger is needed to protect the food against the
oxidation process (Pereira de Abreu et al. 2012).
Traditionally, synthetic antioxidants such as butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT),

butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and propyl gallate (PG) have been used extensively
to enhance the shelf life of food products by providing oxidative stability. However,
the presence of synthetic antioxidants in food can have potential toxic and
carcinogenic effects, and strict statutory controls are required. To avoid potential
risks and respond to the consumer need for safe, healthy foods, natural antioxidants
can be used as alternatives to synthetic antioxidants, and will likely be used in food
packaging to assure antioxidant activity (Benbettaïeb et al. 2019; Han et al. 2018).
The main natural antioxidants that could be used in active films are organic acids
such as ascorbic and citric acids, phenolic compounds such as phenolic acids,
coumarins, flavonoids, tannins, essential oil compounds and volatile phenols
(thymol, carvacrol, eugenol, cinnamaldehyde, etc.), plant extracts, phospholipids,
tocopherols (α, β, γ or δ) and carotenoids (β-carotene, β-cryptoxanthin and lycopene)
(Benbettaïeb et al. 2019).
8.2.2.5. Antimicrobial packaging materials as releasing systems

Microbial growth decreases shelf life and increases the risk of foodborne illness.
Traditional methods of preserving foods from the effects of microbial growth
include thermal treatment, drying, freezing, refrigeration, irradiation, MAP and the
addition of antimicrobial agents or salts (Kerry et al. 2006). However, some of these
techniques cannot be applied to food products, for example fresh meat and fish, as
well as seafood (Quintavalla and Vicini 2002).
Antimicrobial food packaging acts to extend the lag phase and reduce the growth
phase of microorganisms, thus extending shelf life and maintaining product quality
and safety.
Antimicrobial packaging can take several forms: addition of sachets or pads

containing antimicrobial agents; incorporation/dispersion of antimicrobial agents
directly into polymers; coating or adsorbing antimicrobial agents onto polymer
surfaces; immobilization of antimicrobial agents to polymers by ionic or covalent
linkages; and use of polymers that are naturally antimicrobial (Kerry et al. 2006;
Pereira de Abreu et al. 2012; Suppakul et al. 2003).
A large number of agents with antimicrobial properties (e.g. ethanol, carbon

dioxide, Ag ions, chlorine dioxide, antibiotics, organic acids, essential oils and
spices) have been tested for the purpose of inhibiting microorganism growth that can
lead to deterioration of foodstuffs (Han et al. 2018). However, few of these systems
are commercially available.
Active and antimicrobial packaging that involves gas scavenging/releasing

systems (sachets and pads) has been reported. Antimicrobial packaging involving
the use of active materials and coatings have had relatively few commercial
successes. The exception is in Japan, where Ag-substituted zeolite is the most
common antimicrobial agent, added as a thin coating onto food contact plastic film
at levels of 1–3%. Ag ions inhibit a range of metabolic enzymes and have strong
antimicrobial activity (Vermeiren et al. 1999). Agion® antimicrobial,
MicrobeGuard’s antimicrobial paper, FoodTouch® and Ciba® IRGAGUARD® B
antimicrobials are based on the incorporation of silver zeolite into the food contact
material (PP, HDPE, LDPE, etc.), which then exerts its action onto the surface of the
food to inhibit the growth of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, molds and
yeasts (Pereira de Abreu et al. 2012). These are specifically designed to release Ag
ions, which are able to disrupt replication of the microorganisms’ RNA and
therefore prevent microbial growth. In the EU, silver zeolite should not be used in
food contact material to extend shelf life but can be incorporated directly into the
food matrix. In contrast, this system has a long history of use as antimicrobial
packaging for beverages in the USA.
Microban® systems (USA) have become commercially available in the UK

recently. These products contain triclosan, an antimicrobial compound allowed for
use in cosmetics such as soap, shampoo and toothpaste. The use of triclosan (2,4,4-
trichloro-2-hydroxydiphenylether) in food contact applications, however, is not yet
regulated at the EU level (Kerry et al. 2006).
8.2.3. Other active packaging systems
8.2.3.1. Microwave susceptors

Packaging materials that absorb microwave energy and convert it to heat are
called susceptors (see also Chapter 11). They qualify as active packaging because
they enhance performance by achieving localized effects such as the browning and
crisping of food (Robertson 2016). Microwave susceptors consist of aluminum or
stainless steel deposited on substrates, such as polyester films or paperboard, and
serve to dry, crisp and ultimately brown microwavable food (Figure 8.8). Modifiers
for microwave heating consist of a series of antenna structures, which alter the way
microwaves arrive at the food, thereby resulting in even heating, surface browning
and crisping (Gill and Ahvenainen 2003).
Figure 8.8. Aluminum microwave susceptors (Sirane 2020)
8.2.3.2. Temperature control: self-heating and self-cooling packages

As consumer demand for convenience food is constantly increasing, the use of
self-heating active packaging in ready meals is an important future application.
The concept of self-heating packaging is based on an exothermic chemical

reaction that generates heat (Robertson 2016). In most cases, the reaction is between
CaO (or MgO) and a water-based solution (Figure 8.9).
Figure 8.9. Example of a self-heating package
Self-heating cans have been commercially available for decades and are
particularly popular in Japan for sake, coffee, tea and ready meals.
Another concept for self-heating packaging is based on the electrochemical

reaction between Mg and H2O, as follows (Robertson 2016):
Mg+2H2O Mg(OH)2 + H2 + heat

[8.4]
Self-cooling cans have been commercialized in Japan, using an endothermic

reaction based on the dissolution of ammonium nitrate and ammonium chloride in
water.
8.3. Intelligent packaging: concepts and commercial applications
As previously defined, the aim of intelligent packaging is to monitor the product

and transmit information to consumers. This can be information about the state of
the package and its contents, time of manufacture or storage conditions. Depending
on whether it is simple or reactive intelligent packaging, this can be part of the
primary (outside or inside), secondary or tertiary packaging (Müller and Schmid
2019). An intelligent packaging system is first an extension of the communication
function of traditional packaging. It is also a system capable of detecting, sensing
and recording external or internal changes within the product’s environment (Figure
8.10) throughout the entire supply chain (Yam et al. 2005).
Figure 8.10. Communication functions in intelligent packaging systems
It is widely accepted that intelligent packaging systems fall into four categories
(Figure 8.11):
Indicators: more convenience and inform consumers about food quality.
Sensors: definite quantification of the analytes in foods.
Data carriers: specifically intended for storage, distribution and traceability.
Providing more convenience, and controlling theft, counterfeiting and

tampering: new value-added functions (microwave “doneness” indicators and
thermochromic inks for protection against theft, etc.).
A subdivision according to the following types is also possible (Müller and

Schmid 2019):
Environmental conditions: this system monitors the conditions that can lead to
changes in the quality characteristics of the food. Examples of these types are
time–temperature and gas leakage indicators. Depending on the monitoring factor,
these systems can be placed outside or inside the packaging.
Quality indicator: this is used for the direct monitoring of the quality attributes
of the food itself. Examples are biosensors and freshness sensors/indicators. These
are usually located inside the packaging.
Data carriers: these systems are only used to store and transfer data, while
indicators and sensors are used to monitor the external environment and display the
information afterwards.
Figure 8.11. Different categories of intelligent packaging systems
8.3.1. Indicators
Indicators determine the presence or absence of a substance, the extent of a

reaction between different substances or the concentration of a particular substance.
Despite the large variety of indicators, all of them can effectively be grouped into
three categories: time–temperature indicators, quality or freshness indicators, and
integrity or gas concentration indicators (Hogan and Kerry 2008). All of them fall
within the main category of “product quality and value-improving systems”, which
are undoubtedly the most widely used devices for food packaging applications
(Ghaani et al. 2016).
8.3.1.1. Time–temperature indicators

Time–temperature indicators (TTIs) are the first generation of indicators
intended to monitor any detrimental change in temperature, over time, along the
food supply chain (Han et al. 2018). TTIs are typically small tags or labels attached
onto shipping containers or individual consumer packages. These labels provide
visual indications of temperature history during distribution and storage. The labels
usually respond by displaying visually distinct changes that are temperature
dependent, such as an increase in color intensity and diffusion of a dye along a
straight path. Their use is essentially for meat and poultry products, where
monitoring of the cold distribution chain, microbial safety and quality is of vital
importance (Realini and Marcos 2014).
The basic idea underlying visual indicators is that the quality of food deteriorates
more rapidly at higher temperatures because chemical and biochemical reactions, as
well as microbial growth, favor higher temperatures. The indicators change color in
response to cumulative exposure to temperature. TTIs available on the market are
based on physical or chemical responses, which depend on acid–base reactions or
polymerization towards time and temperature. In contrast, biochemical and
biological responses are based on biological changes such as microorganisms,
spores or enzymes, in relation to time and temperature (Kerry et al. 2006). Different
examples according to the nature of the response are presented below.
Chemical TTIs
OnVu™: indicators contain benzopyridines (pigment that changes color over

time in relation to temperature). When activated by UV light during packaging, it
becomes dark blue (Realini and Marcos 2014). It then discolors gradually depending
on the ambient temperature (Biji et al. 2015). The drop in color intensity indicates
the gradual degradation of the product during the cold chain (Robertson 2016).
This system can be applied as a label or printed directly onto the package. It
monitors product quality.
Figure 8.12. Chemical TTIs (OnVu™ indicators 2020)
Fresh-Check®: this is another chemical TTI based on a solid-state

polymerization reaction, and consists of a small circle of polymer surrounded by a
printed reference ring (Robertson 2016). The system is coated onto a

pressure-sensitive label and can be adhered to the packaging of perishable food,
such as meat and poultry. The indicator contains diacetylene monomers, which is
polymerized through a lattice-controlled solid-state reaction, resulting in a highly
colored polymer. The response of the TTI is the color change, evaluated as the
decrease in reflectance, which reflects the cumulative temperature exposure (Han et al.
2018). Consumers do not consume food if the polymer center is darker than the
surrounding reference ring (Kruijf et al. 2002).
Figure 8.13. Chemical TTIs: Fresh-Check® indicators (Temptimecorp 2020)
Physical TTIs
3MTM Monitor MarkTM: this is a physical TTI that provides a visual history of
time/temperature exposure. In this case, a TTI contains a fatty acid ester, with a
selected melting point, mixed with a blue dye (Realini and Marcos 2014). Initially,
the indicator track is white, but upon exposure to temperatures exceeding the
specified threshold, the substance melts and migrates from a reservoir along a
carrier. This causes blue coloring to appear at the left edge of the first viewing
window that gradually moves across to the right (Figure 8.14) to the end of the
track. The diffusion can be observed through a transparent window. The rate (or the
distance) of the blue color movement is dependent on the temperature. The melting
temperature of the colored fatty acid ester determines the range of temperatures
which the food is to be stored at. They serve as an effective check by giving workers
guidance on whether or not the cold chain has been maintained.
0 5 10 20 30 40 T°C
Figure 8.14. Physical TTIs from 3M Monitor Mark® (Infoagro, 2020)
Biochemical TTIs
Vitsab CheckPoint® is an enzymatic TTI that is dependent on color changes. It

is stimulated via a reduction in pH due to the release of acid after the hydrolysis of
lipid (triglycerides) substrates by enzymes (lipase) (Robertson 2016). This indicator
is made up of two different compartments with a lipid substrate and an aqueous
solution of lipolytic enzymes, in an aqueous medium (Kerry et al. 2006). The color
changes from dark green to bright yellow, and then to an orange-red color (Figure
8.15) as a result of a pH drop. A visual scale of the color changes allows an
assessment of freshness related to pH (Pereira de Abreu et al. 2012).
Figure 8.15. Vitsab CheckPoint® biochemical TTIs (VITSAB, 2020)
Biological TTIs
TopCryo™ is a biological TTI based on bacterial growth. Using lactic acid

bacteria, an indicator dye and a nutritive medium gel are incorporated into a
multilayer plastic sachet, glued onto the outer layer of the food package (Robertson
2016). Depending on the time–temperature profile, the bacteria grow and, as a
result, the pH of the medium decreases and the indicator turns from green to red
(Figure 8.16).
Figure 8.16. Biological TTIs (TopCryo™ indicators)
8.3.1.2. Quality and freshness indicators

Increasing consumer demand for healthy, fresh foods over the last two decades
has led companies and research labs to develop new freshness and quality indicators.
These are used to indicate if the quality of the product has become unacceptable
during storage, transport, retailing and in consumers’ homes (Ghaani et al. 2016).
Freshness indicators are devices used to provide direct information about quality or
the loss of freshness in packaged foods, resulting from physical or chemical
changes, or microbial proliferation.
Freshness indicators typically undergo a color change that remains permanent

and is easy to read and interpret by consumers. This color change is simply
monitored and correlated with food product freshness.
Most of these indicators detect volatile metabolites produced during the aging
process of foods such as CO2, diacetyl, amines, ammonia and H2S (Robertson 2016).
Others respond to organic acids or volatile biogenic amines formed by microbial
degradation of protein-containing foods, such as cadaverine from lysine and
histamine from histidine (Poyatos-Racionero et al. 2018).
Some of the more well-known, commercialized quality and freshness indicators

are presented below.
Ripeness indicator ripeSense®
This kind of indicator allows consumers to choose fruit that best appeals to their
tastes by detecting aroma compounds or gases involved in the ripening process (e.g.
ethylene) released by the fruit. In this case, the sensor changes color when it reacts
with aromatic compounds developed by the fruit and indicates the state of the
product to the consumer. The indicator is red in color for unripe (crisp) fruit,
changing through orange (firm) to yellow, when the fruit is very ripe (juicy)
(Robertson 2016). There is a good correlation between the level of aroma produced
(ethylene, for example) and the actual softening of fruits. The more ripe a fruit is,
the more aroma is produced (Figure 8.17).
Figure 8.17. ripeSense™ indicator (ripeSense, 2020)
SensorQ™ indicator
This indicator is a type of label designed to detect spoilage in uncooked meat and
poultry products, after packaging by the meat packer, distributor or grocer.
SensorQ™ is a pH-sensing technology based on anthocyanins, which is able to
inform on the formation of biogenic amines from microbiological origin in packed
meat and poultry (Poyatos-Racionero et al. 2018). A “Q” printed on the label acts
as a visual tool to determine freshness. When the inside of the Q is orange, the
product is fresh. As the meat or poultry spoils, naturally occurring bacteria becomes
too high and emits gaseous by products, including molecules called biogenic
amines. These molecules change the pH and cause the inside of the Q to turn from
orange to tan (Figure 8.18), indicating the product is not fresh, and then to dark
green, which denotes “beyond spoiled”.
Figure 8.18. SensorQ™ indicator (Packworld, 2020)

8.3.1.3. Integrity or gas concentration indicators

It is very difficult to maintain the quality of food materials within the packaging
system for many reasons, including respiration of fresh fruits and vegetables,
changing gas concentrations and gas leakage from inside or outside the packaging
materials, or due to gas produced by microbial growth within the package (Sohail et
al. 2018). In order to solve this problem, manufacturing and research labs
developed gas indicator systems. The most widely known gas indicators are used to
check oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations (Ghaani et al. 2016) within the
packaging material by changing color as a result of specific chemical or enzymatic
reactions. The gas composition in the package headspace often changes due to the
activity of the food product, the nature of the package or the environmental
conditions (Fan et al. 2017). For example, respiration of fresh products, gas
generation by spoilage microorganisms or gas transmission through the packaging
material or package leaks may cause a change in the gas composition inside the
package (Yam et al. 2005). Gas indicators in the form of a package label or printed
on packaging films can monitor changes in gas composition, thereby providing a
means of monitoring the quality and safety of food products (Yam et al. 2005).
Among the various types of gas indicators, oxygen indicators are most
commonly used for MAP packaging applications (Yam et al. 2005). These are based
on colorimetric redox dye, such as methylene blue, and a strong reducing agent,
such as glucose in an alkaline medium (Mills 2005). When the redox dye of the
indicator is oxidized by oxygen, a color change can be observed. The most known
commercial application of gas indicators is Ageless Eye® tablets (Mitsubishi Gas
Chemical, Japan), which is a reversible oxygen indicator used in combination with
AGELESS® O2 absorbers. The color of the tablets initially inserted inside the
packages changes from pink at a concentration of O2 ≤ 0.1%, to blue (Figure 8.18) at
a concentration ≥ 0.5% (Figure 8.19). The color change rate is temperature
dependent (Realini and Marcos 2014).
pink blue
Oxygen free packages Oxygen is present

O2=0.1% or less O2=0.5% or more
Figure 8.19. Ageless Eye® O2 absorbers

The CO2 indicator designed by Moonstone Co. consists of a label containing a

gas-sensitive dye that can be inserted into a package, producing different colors
according to gas concentrations. When carbon dioxide has leaked or diffused out of
the MAP, the dye changes from dark blue to a permanent yellow color (Han et al.
2005). The function of the dye is to indicate any leakage through the seal, as well as
any increase in the level of carbon dioxide, due to microbial growth.
8.3.2. Sensors
A sensor is defined as a device used to detect, locate or quantify energy or

matter, giving a signal for the detection or measurement of a physical or chemical
property to which the device responds (Müller and Schmid 2019). A biosensor is a
compact analytical device that detects, records and transmits information relating to
biochemical reactions. It consists of two primary components: a bioreceptor that
recognizes a target analyte, and a transducer that converts biochemical signals into a
quantifiable electrical response. The bioreceptor is an organic or biological material
(Fang et al. 2017). The transducer can take many forms: electrochemical, optical,
thermal, etc., depending on the parameters being measured. The two most
well-known sensors are gas sensors and biosensors.
8.3.2.1. Gas sensors

The extent of food spoilage can be determined by the concentration of certain
gases such as CO2 or H2S. The sensors quantitatively monitor the presence of a gas
by changing the physical parameters. One example is non-dispersive infrared
(NDIR) CO2 sensors, which are spectroscopic sensors that measure the CO2 content
by gas absorption at a certain wavelength (Müller and Schmid 2019).
8.3.2.2. Biosensors
Biosensors are another type of sensor that, unlike chemical sensors, have a
receptor made of biological material such as enzymes, antigens, hormones or nucleic
acids (Ghaani et al. 2016). Biosensors can monitor food freshness in a more
specific way than freshness indicators, as they can detect degradation in products
and can be tailored to the type of product being packaged (Kuswandi 2017). As taste
and quality of fruit is closely linked to the content of sugars, the quality of fruit and
vegetable beverages can be determined by a glucose oxidase- or lactate-based
biosensor (Pereira de Abreu et al. 2012). In the presence of glucose oxidase,
glucose is transferred to gluconolactone and H2O2, and the transducer then gives
information in relation to the concentration of H2O2. Several prototypes of
commercial biosensors for intelligent packaging are currently being developed.
Food Sentinel SystemTM (SIRA Technologies) is a biosensor developed to

detect food pathogens with a specific pathogen antibody attached to a membrane,
which forms part of a barcode. The presence of contaminating bacteria causes the
formation of a localized dark bar (Figure 8.20) and the barcode therefore becomes
unreadable upon scanning (Fang et al. 2017; Realini and Marcos 2014; Yam et al.
2005).
Presence of contaminated
bacteria
Safe food
Figure 8.20. Principle of the Food Sentinel SystemTM

biosensor (SIRA Technologies, 2020)
Toxin GuardTM technology (Toxin Alert) is another biosensor in which the

functional system is based on antibodies. It is integrated into plastic packaging and
makes it possible to detect pathogens such as Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria and
Campylobacter. A positive result is indicated by a visual signal (Fang et al. 2017).
8.3.3. Data carriers
Data carriers help to make information within the supply chain flow more
efficiently. More specifically, data carrier devices do not provide any kind of
information on the quality status of food but rather, are intended for automatization,
traceability, theft prevention or counterfeit protection (McFarlane and Sheffi 2003).
Data carriers are most often placed on tertiary packaging. The most frequently used
data carriers are barcode labels and radiofrequency identification (RFID) tags.
8.3.3.1. Barcodes
Barcodes are the least expensive and most popular form of data carrier; they have
been widely used to facilitate inventory control, stock reordering and checkout.
Barcodes have different storage capacities depending on type. One-dimensional (1D)
barcodes were developed first. These consist of a pattern of parallel spaces and bars
(Figure 8.21). The different arrangement of the bars and spaces results in the coding
of data (Ahmed et al. 2018). A barcode scanner and an associated system can
translate the coded information. Two-dimensional (2D) barcodes offer more memory
capacity (e.g. packaging date, batch number, packaging weight, nutritional
information or preparation instructions), compared to 1D barcodes, by combining
dots and spaces arranged in a matrix (Ghaani et al. 2016). The more recent 2D
barcodes are quick response (QR) codes that enable an even larger amount of data to
be stored using four different encoding modes: numeric, alphanumeric, byte/binary
and kanji; the latter referring to logographic Chinese characters (Ghaani et al. 2016).
Figure 8.21. Different examples of barcodes
8.3.3.2. Radiofrequency identification tags

Radiofrequency identification (RFID) tags are the most advanced example of a
data carrier device. They can notify consumers, in real time, about which foodstuffs
to consume as a priority, according to their freshness in the refrigerator, when
connected through a smartphone (Figure 8.22) (Ahmed et al. 2018).
Figure 8.22. RFID tag application

RFID tags are electronic information-based systems. They use radiofrequency

electromagnetic fields to transfer data from a tag attached to an object, in order to
trace and identify the object automatically. RFID is an improvement on the
previously mentioned barcodes (Mohebi and Marquez 2015). It offers further
advantages for the entire food supply chain. These include traceability, inventory
management and promotion of quality and safety, cold chain monitoring, livestock
management and shelf life prediction. An RFID system includes three main
elements: a tag formed by a microchip connected to a tiny antenna; a reader; and
middleware that bridges the RFID hardware and enterprise applications. In a typical
RFID system (Figure 8.23), a reader emits radio waves to capture data from an
RFID tag (1), an antenna receives the signal and transfers it to the microchip (2), and
the microchip returns the information to the antenna, which transfers it to the reader
(3). Finally, the data is passed onto a host computer (which may be connected to a
local network or to the Internet) for analysis and decision-making (Ghaani et al.
2016).
Figure 8.23. The working principle of a radiofrequency identification (RFID) tag
8.3.4. Providing more convenience
The packaging industry has always attempted to improve convenience for the
consumer because convenience is a value-added function that consumers are likely
to pay extra for, as lifestyles change. More convenience therefore becomes another
value added for packaging.
8.3.4.1. Microwave doneness

The first example of intelligent packaging that increases convenience is
microwave “doneness” indicators. These devices detect, and visually indicate, the
state of readiness of food heated in a microwave oven, informing the consumer
when the food is ready (Robertson 2016).
8.3.4.2. Thermochromic inks

The second and most well-known type of packaging that increases convenience
is thermochromic inks. Thermosensitive inks are printed onto the package (e.g.
shrink sleeves of beverage cans), which can be heated or cooled, before
consumption, to indicate the ideal drinking temperature for the product (Robertson
2016). The color of the ink changes according to the temperature. One example of
thermochromic inks is a smart lid on a coffee cup, infused with a color changing
additive that allows it to go from a dark brown to a bright red when exposed to
higher temperatures (Figure 8.24). If the red color is very intense, it indicates to
consumers that the coffee in the cup is not yet at a comfortable drinking
temperature.
Figure.8.24. Thermochromic smart lid inks
Another example comprises a cold-activated label in which thermal ink changes

according to the temperature. Figure 8.25 shows an example of a beer bottle with
mountains on the label that turn from white to blue when the beer is appropriately
chilled and ready for consumption.
Figure 8.25. Thermochromic smart label inks

Based on the temperature, the color pattern of these inks is either reversible or
irreversible. An irreversible ink remains constant on exposure to a certain
temperature and does not change once it becomes a specific color. Reversible ink
has the ability to change color once it has reached a certain temperature; as the
temperature falls below the threshold, the ink reverts to its original color (Sohail
et al. 2018).
8.3.5. Controlling theft, counterfeiting and tampering
Theft, counterfeiting and tampering is a worldwide concern both for the food
industry and consumers. To reduce incidences of theft and counterfeiting among
food and pharmaceutical products, special inks, dyes, laser labels, barcodes and
RFID systems are used. Special intelligent closures (see Chapter 9) are being
developed in order to identify food tampering. These plastic- and aluminum-based
closures are broken during any attempt of counterfeiting or opening before reaching
the end consumer (Sohail et al. 2018). However, this technology has not found
widespread commercial use in the food industry because of the comparatively low
unit value of packed food as well as the cost of this technology.
Intelligent tamper-evident technologies are being developed on the basis of

labels or seals that remain transparent, as long as the package is not opened or
tampered with. After opening or tampering, they change permanently to colored
labels or seals. Aluminum and plastic closures can help consumers to identify
whether or not the package has been opened. The tamper-proof band will split when
the package is opened, providing tamper evidence to the consumer. Alcoa CSI of
Germany has invented a special cap with “skirts” that curl under the bottom edge of
the closure. The segments of the tamper-evident ring (“skirt”) rupture when the
container is opened (Han et al. 2005) (see also Chapter 9). Recently, Alfian et al.
(2017) developed a food traceability system based on RFID technology, which was
used to track and trace food product location, and a wireless sensor network to
collect temperature and humidity during storage and transportation. The system was
used for a supply chain in Korea; it produced positive results for both industry and
consumer in detecting real-time location of the product and complete temperature
and humidity history. This traceability system helps to optimize food distribution
while also increasing customer satisfaction as it can monitor product freshness.
Electronic article surveillance (EAS) is a form of electronic tagging developed

and used as an efficient technology against theft, generally for high-priced goods
(Han et al. 2005). But theft and counterfeiting are usually not too common in the
food industry; they do pose a huge economic burden in other industries
(pharmaceutical, cosmetic, perfumes, clothes, etc.).
8.4. Consumer safety and related regulations
Current packaging legislation requires the migration level of substances from

food contact materials to be low. The adequacy of active and intelligent packaging
technology is related to the migration level and risk. General requirements stated in
the EU Regulation 1935/2004 (European Commission 2004) and Directive
89/107/EEC (European Commission 1989) for the safe use of active and intelligent
packaging have recently been integrated into the EU Regulation 450/2009
(European Commission 2009). The new regulation also establishes specific
requirements for the marketing of active and intelligent materials and items intended
to come into contact with food. Active packaging systems that intentionally release
substances into the package must comply with (direct) food additives legislation.
The released substance must be in the positive list of additives and the use of the
substance must fulfill a technological need. It follows that, substances deliberately
incorporated into active materials to be released into the food, or the environment
surrounding the food, do not need to be listed in the Community list of EU
Regulation 450/2009 (European Commission 2009). They shall be used in full
compliance with the relevant community and national provisions applicable to food,
and shall comply with the provisions of the EU Regulation 1935/2004 (European
Commission 2004) and its implementation measures (Heckman 2005).
Intelligent packaging systems can be divided into two groups: the first involves
external indicators fixed onto the outer surface of a package, such as
time–temperature indicators. The second group consists of internal indicators
intended to be positioned in the headspace of a package, such as gas concentration
indicators (Han et al. 2005). Migration does not occur in the first group of
indicators, since there is no direct contact between the indicator and the food
product. Indicators in the second group are not intended to come into direct contact
with the packaged foods (placed in the free headspace of a package or fixed to the
inner surface of the lid) and therefore also have no migration risk (Han et al. 2005).
As a result, the EU Directive 89/107/EEC (European Commission 1989) and the
EU Regulation 450/2009 (European Commission 2009) do not apply to such
systems (Restuccia et al. 2010). However, in the case of sachets that are in direct
contact with the food product – particularly with moist or fatty foods – migration
can occur as sachet materials are generally very porous. In the latter case, the EU
Directive 89/107/EEC (European Commission 1989) and the EU Regulation
450/2009 (European Commission 2009) must be applied.
8.5. References
Ahmed, I., Lin, H., Zou, L., Li, Z., Brody, A.L., Qazi, I.M., Lv, L., Pavase, T.R.,
Khan, M.U., Khan, S., and Sun, L. (2018). An overview of smart packaging
technologies for monitoring safety and quality of meat and meat products. Pack.
Technol. Sci., 31(7), 449–471.
Ahvenainen, R. (2003). Active and intelligent packaging: An introduction. In Novel
Food Packaging Techniques, Ahvenainen, R. (ed.). Woodhead Publishing Ltd.
Elsevier, Cambridge, UK.
Alfian, G., Rhee, J., Ahn, H., Lee, J., Farooq, U., Ijaz, M.F., and Syaekhoni, M.A.
(2017). Integration of RFID, wireless sensor networks, and data mining in an
e-pedigree food traceability system. J. Food Eng., 212, 65–75.
ALL4PACK (2016). L’emballage dans le monde. “Packag’in” Actualites-packaging
[Online]. Available: www.all4pack.fr [Accessed 7 February 2020].
Bazzano, M., Barolo, C., Buscaino, R., D’Agostino, G., Ferri, A., Sangermano, M.,
and Pisano, R. (2016). Controlled atmosphere in food packaging using
ethylene−α-cyclodextrin inclusion complexes dispersed in photocured acrylic
films. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 55(3), 579–585.
Benbettaïeb, N., Debeaufort, F., and Karbowiak, T. (2019). Bioactive edible films
for food applications: Mechanisms of antimicrobial and antioxidant activity.
Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nut., 59(21), 3431–3455.
Biji, K.B., Ravishankar, C.N., Mohan, C.O., and Srinivasa Gopal, T.K. (2015).
Smart packaging systems for food applications: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol.,
52(10), 6125–6135.
Bolumar, T., Andersen, M.L., and Orlien, V. (2011). Antioxidant active packaging
for chicken meat processed by high pressure treatment. Food Chem., 129(4),
1406–1412.
Chen, J. and Brody, A.L. (2013). Use of active packaging structures to control the
microbial quality of a ready-to-eat meat product. Food Control, 30(1), 306–310.
Dainelli, D., Gontard, N., Spyropoulos, D., Zondervan-van den Beuken, E., and
Tobback, P. (2008). Active and intelligent food packaging: Legal aspects and
safety concerns. Trends Food Sci. Technol., 19, S103–S112.
European Commission (1989). Food additives authorised for use in foodstuffs intended
for humain consumption. Commission Regulation 89/107/EEC [Online]. Available:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A31989L0107.
European Commission (2004). Materials and articles intended to come into contact with
food and repealing Directives 80/590/EC and 89/109/EC. Commission Regulation
1935/2004 [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/chemical_safety/
food_contact_materials/ legislation_en [Accessed 24 October 2017].
European Commission (2009). Active and intelligent materials and articles intended to
come into contact with food. Commission Regulation 450/2009 [Online]. Available:
Fang, Z., Zhao, Y., Warner, R.D., and Johnson, S.K. (2017). Active and intelligent
packaging in meat industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol., 61, 60–71.
Floros, J.D., Dock, L.L., and Han, J.H. (1997). Active packaging technologies and
applications. Food Cosmetics Drug Pack., 20, 10–17.
Ghaani, M., Cozzolino, C.A., Castelli, G., and Farris, S. (2016). An overview of the
intelligent packaging technologies in the food sector. Trends Food Sci. Technol.,
51, 1–11.
Gill, C. and Ahvenainen, R. (2003). Active packaging in practice: Meat. Novel Food
Pack. Tech., 365–383.
Han, J.H. (2014). A review of food packaging technologies and innovations. In
Innovations in Food Packaging, 2nd edition, Han, J.H. (ed.). Academic Press,
San Diego.
Han, J.H., Ho, C.H.L., and Rodrigues, E.T. (2005). 9 – Intelligent packaging. In
Innovations in Food Packaging, Han, J.H. (ed.). Academic Press, London.
Heckman, J.H. (2005). Food packaging regulation in the United States and the
European Union. Regulatory Toxicol. Pharmacol., 42(1), 96–122.
Hogan, S.A. and Kerry, J.P. (2008). Smart packaging of meat and poultry products.
In Smart Packaging Technologies for Fast Moving Consumer Goods, Kerry, J.P.
and Butler, P. (eds). John Wiley and Sons, London.
Infoagro (2020). TTIs monitors [Online]. Available: https://www.infoagro.com.
[Accessed 18 August 2020].
Janjarasskul, T. and Suppakul, P. (2018). Active and intelligent packaging: The
indication of quality and safety. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nut., 58(5), 808–831.
Jia-Wei, H., Ruiz-Garcia, L., Jian-Ping, Q., and Xin Ting, Y. (2018). Food
packaging: A comprehensive review and future trends. Compr. Rev. Food Sci.
Food Safety, 17(4), 860–877.
Kerry, J.P., O’Grady, M.N., and Hogan, S.A. (2006). Past, current and potential
utilisation of active and intelligent packaging systems for meat and muscle-based
products: A review. Meat Sci., 74(1), 113–130.
Kruijf, N.D., Beest, M.V., Rijk, R., Sipiläinen-Malm, T., Losada, P.P., and
Meulenaer, B.D. (2002). Active and intelligent packaging: Applications and
regulatory aspects. Food Additives & Contaminants, 19(S1), 144–162.
Kuswandi, B. (2017). Freshness sensors for food packaging. Ref. Module Food Sci.
Lee, D.S. (2016). Carbon dioxide absorbers for food packaging applications. Trends
Food Sc. Technol., 57, 146–155.
McFarlane, D. and Sheffi, Y. (2003). The impact of automatic identification on
supply chain operations. University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering.
International Journal of Logistics Management, 14(1), 1–17 [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090310806503.
Mills, A. (2005). Oxygen indicators and intelligent inks for packaging food. Chem.
Soc. Rev., 34(12), 1003–1011.
Mohebi, E. and Marquez, L. (2015). Intelligent packaging in meat industry: An
overview of existing solutions. J. Food Sci. Technol., 52(7), 3947–3964.
Müller, P. and Schmid, M. (2019). Intelligent packaging in the food sector: A brief
overview. Foods, 8(1), 16.
Multisorb Technologies Inc. (2020). Oxygen absorbers [Online]. Available:
https://www.multisorb.com/oxygen-absorbers/freshmax/ [Accessed 19 August
2020].
Nerín, C., Tovar, L., and Salafranca, J. (2008). Behaviour of a new antioxidant
active film versus oxidizable model compounds. J. Food Eng., 84(2), 313–320.
Onvu (2020). TTis indicator Onvu [Online]. Available: http://www.onvu.com
Packworld (2020). Packaging World [Online]. Available: http://www.PackWorld.com.
Patel, C. (2020). Global (United States, China, and European Union) Intelligent
Packaging Market Research Report 2020-2026 [Online]. Available:
www.bccourier.com/global-intelligent-packaging-market-top-growing-companies-
analysis-during-2020-2026-jones-packaging-3m-du-pont-basf-intelligent-packaging
[Accessed 17 February 2020].
Pereira de Abreu, D., Cruz, J.M., and Paseiro Losada, P. (2012). Active and
intelligent packaging for the food industry. Food Rev. Int., 28(2), 146–187.
Poyatos-Racionero, E., Ros-Lis, J.V., Vivancos, J.-L., and Martínez-Máñez, R.
(2018). Recent advances on intelligent packaging as tools to reduce food waste.
J. Cleaner Prod., 172, 3398–3409.
Quintavalla, S. and Vicini, L. (2002). Antimicrobial food packaging in meat
industry. Meat Sci., 62(3), 373–380.
Realini, C.E. and Marcos, B. (2014). Active and intelligent packaging systems for a
modern society. Meat Sci., 98(3), 404–419.
Restuccia, D., Spizzirri, U.G., Parisi, O.I., Cirillo, G., Curcio, M., Iemma, F., Puoci,
F., Vinci, G., and Picci, N. (2010). New EU regulation aspects and global market
of active and intelligent packaging for food industry applications. Food Control,
21(11), 1425–1435.
Ripense (2020). Ripesense indicator [Online]. Available: http://Ripensense.com.
Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton.
Sealed Air Corporation (2020). Sealed Air Corporation [Online]. Available:
http://www.sealedair.com/index.htm.
SIRA Technologies (2020). SIRA technologies food sentinel system thermal
barcode for packaging [Online]. Available: https://www.adazonusa.com/
blog/barcode-industry/sira-technologies-food-sentinel-system [Accessed 18
August 2020].
Sirane (2020). Sirane [Online]. Available: http://www.sirane.co.uk/.
Sohail, M., Sun, D.-W., and Zhu, Z. (2018). Recent developments in intelligent
packaging for enhancing food quality and safety. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nut.,
58(15), 2650–2662.
Süd-Chemie (2020). Humidipak [Online]. Available: http://www.sud-chemie.com/
scmcms/web/pagees-2991.htm [Accessed 18 August 2020].
Suppakul, P., Miltz, J., Sonneveld, K., and Bigger, S.W. (2003). Active packaging
technologies with an emphasis on antimicrobial packaging and its applications.
J. Food Sci., 68(2), 408–420.
Temptimecorp (2020). FreshCheck indicator [Online] Available:
http://www.temptimecorp.com [Accessed 18 August 2020].
Vermeiren, L., Devlieghere, F., van Beest, M., de Kruijf, N., and Debevere, J.
(1999). Developments in the active packaging of foods. Trends Food Sci.
Technol., 10(3), 77-86.
VITSAB (2020). Welcome to Vitsab International AB [Online]. Available:
http://Vitsab.com.
Wholesalegroup (2020). Absorber pads for meat [Online]. Available:
https://www.wholesalegroup.com.au/Meat-Soaker-Pads.html [Accessed 18
August 2020].
Yam, K.L., Takhistov, P.T., and Miltz, J. (2005). Intelligent packaging: Concepts
and applications. J. Food Sci., 70(1), R1–R10.
Yildirim, S., Röcker, B., Pettersen, M.K., Nilsen-Nygaard, J., Ayhan, Z., Rutkaite, R.,
Radusin, T., Suminska, P., Marcos, B., and Coma, V. (2018). Active packaging
applications for food. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Safety, 17(1), 165–199.
Zhao, C.-J., Han, J.-W., Yang, X.-T., Qian, J.-P., and Fan, B.-L. (2016). A review of
computational fluid dynamics for forced-air cooling process. Appl. Energy, 168,
314–331.
9
Packaging Caps and Closures

Kata Galić
Closures used with food containers can be defined as a method for closing a pack
so that the product is properly contained and protected. There is a huge variety of
closure types. Furthermore, material used for closures can range from metal to glass,
plastics, cork, rubber and others. Metal caps and closures are used for containers
made from glass and plastic, as well as from metal itself.
Closures are required to provide different functions (hermeticity, easy opening

and closing, and tamper evidence), without affecting, or being affected by, the
packaged content (Theobald 2006b; Emblem 2012; Robertson 2013).
At the beginning of this century, the global caps and closures market value was
approximately US$15 billion, with an expected increase in market size by about 4%
per annum. In 2005, the caps and closures market was split as follows: 5% for cork,
48% for metals and 47% for plastics (Theobald 2006a). With respect to light-metal
packaging in the food sector, approximately 45 billion beverage cans, 20 billion
food cans and 100 billion closures (20 billion closures for jars and 80 billion crowns
for bottles) are used in Europe per year. Of the 80 billion crowns used per year, beer
bottles account for 80% (64 billion), while the other 20% (16 billion) is used for
carbonated/still drinks, juices and water (Oldring et al. 2014).

The natural corks market represents 62% of the total value (367.2 million euros),
followed by champagne stoppers with 20% (117.1 million euros) and the remaining
18% accounts for other types of stoppers (APCOR 2015).
9.2. Closure types
In general, closures can be classified under four main headings: (1) closures to
retain internal pressure; (2) closures to contain and protect contents; (3) closures to
maintain a vacuum inside the container; and (4) closures to secure contents inside
the container (Robertson 2013). With regard to function, another group covers
specialized closures.
9.2.1. Closures to retain internal pressure
This type of closure is required to contain pressure from about 200 to over
800 kPa, as is typical for carbonated drinks and beer, for hot- or cold-filled,
pasteurized and pressurized products, and for sterilized vacuum products.
The crown cork is a type of pressure-retaining closure. These are made from
tinplate or tin-free steel (TFS), with adequate coatings on both sides. They have a
sealing pad inside the closure, which could be the cork (hence the name “crown
cork”) or a soft plastic material. The closure is preformed and then placed over the
neck of the bottle. Crown cork closures are widely used for beer bottles (Figure 9.1).
Figure 9.1. Crown cork closure
The roll-on (spin-on) tamper-evident closure is made of aluminum with a

partially perforated ring at its lower edge. It is placed on the filled container and the
threads are rolled into the outside surface of the metal closure, conforming to the
threads on the container. This type of closure is used with rigid containers such as
glass bottles (for wines and spirits). When the closure is open (unscrewed), the
perforated ring is detached, thus leaving evidence of opening (Figure 9.2).
Packaging Caps and Closures 225
Figure 9.2. Roll-on tamper-evident cup applied to the

finish of a glass container (Paine 2012)
9.2.2. Closures to contain and protect contents
This type of closure is designed to contain and protect the contents with no
internal pressure (e.g. a wine bottle). The most common closure for wine is a
traditional bark cork (obtained from the cork oak and often called a natural cork
stopper), which provides a friction-hold seal (Figure 9.3).
Some wines sealed with natural cork show signs of “cork taint”, an objectionable
characteristic caused by TCA (2,4,6-trichloroanisole) and other organohalogens,
which can result in undesirable musty aromas and flavors. In order to overcome the
problem of cork taint in wine, different solutions have been proposed, such as the
bleaching of corks, applying a polymeric-based membrane to each end of the cork,
and using a synthetic cork to regulate oxygen permeation through the cork and retain
cork moisture (Karbowiak et al. 2010; Poças et al. 2010).
Technical corks (Figure 9.3) are made using a combination of agglomerated

natural cork granules, a binding agent and other optional elements. These corks, due
to their efficiency in preserving sulfur dioxide concentrations within the bottle, are
usually used for wines that will be consumed within two to three years.
Synthetic closures (Figure 9.3) imitate the external appearance and function of
natural corks. As they are made of plastic (extruded or injection-molded), they do
not risk causing TCA contamination. Some of the problems associated with
synthetic closures are related to difficulty in removing them from the wine bottle
(or difficulties resealing it), as well as higher oxygen permeation compared to
natural cork, although the latter has been improved.
Figure 9.3. Wine closures
The specialty polymer cork, Nomacorc, is derived from sugarcane that helps in
the efforts to replace the production of synthetic closures with plant-based polymers.
Screw caps (Figure 9.3), also known as “Stelvin caps”, ROPP (roll-on
pilfer-proof) caps or ROTE (roll-on tamper-evident) caps, are sealed onto the neck
of a wine bottle. The Stelvin capsule is a long printable circle and a liner designed
for wine bottles. The liner consists of three or four components (Figure 9.4),
depending on the expected shelf life of the wine. For wines with a shelf life of up to
five years, the liner consists of expanded low-density polyethylene (LDPE) foam,
covered on both sides by a co-extruded LDPE-polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC)
copolymer (Saran)-LDPE film. For wines with a shelf life of more than five years,
expanded LDPE is laminated to white kraft paper that is close to a tin foil layer, to
provide a gas barrier, and a PVDC copolymer, which isolates the tin foil from the
wine and provides an additional O2 barrier (Robertson 2013).
Figure 9.4. Composition of liners in Stelvin® capsules for shelf life: (A) up to
five years and (B) greater than five years (Robertson 2013)
As the cost of tin has increased significantly, there is limited use of the premium
brands. Cheaper solutions are found in composite materials, such as polyethylene
(PE) capsules, which have three layers, with aluminum on the outsides and PE in the
middle. Other materials include heat-shrink plastic (polyvinyl chloride – PVC),
aluminum or wax (Figure 9.5).
Figure 9.5. PVC bottle capsule

9.2.3. Closures to maintain a vacuum inside the container
Figure 9.6. Examples of glass finishes for vacuum closure with (A) lug cap
(regular twist-off) closure, (B) press-twist closure and (C) pry-off crown
These closures are used for heat-processed food and are designed in a way that
keeps a vacuum inside a glass container. Three types (Figure 9.6) of vacuum closure
are used for processed food packaging in glass jars (Emblem 2012; Robertson
2013):
– Lug-type or twist-off cap: this can be removed without a special tool and
forms a good reseal for storage. The lug cap consists of a steel shell and has multiple
(three to six) metal lugs (threads), depending on its diameter, and a flowed-in
plastisol gasket (liner). Plastisol is a suspension of PVC or other polymer particles in
a liquid plasticizer. It flows as a liquid and can be poured into a heated mold. The
top of the glass finish makes contact with the gasket on the inside of the cap. The
caps are usually heated with steam to soften the compound and facilitate sealing.
– Press-twist (PT) cap: this cap has a steel shell and no lugs although the finish
is threaded. The gasket is molded plastisol and covers the outer edge of the panel
and the curl of the cap. It is mostly used on baby foods. Other possible applications
include all hot-fill, aseptic, cold-fill, pasteurized and sterilized food. The PT closure
is held on mainly by a vacuum with some assistance from the thread impressions in
the gasket wall.
– Pry-off (side seal) cap: this cap is mainly used on retorted products. It
consists of a cut rubber gasket held in place by being crimped under the curl. The
pry-off cap is held in place by a vacuum with slight assistance from the friction of
the rubber gasket against the side of the container finish.
9.2.4. Closures to secure contents inside a container
Some closures are designed to secure the product inside the container. They are
designed as screw caps with a minimum thread arrangement of three quarters of a
turn. These closures are made either from metal or plastic and can have either a
plastic-coated paperboard pad inside or may be of the linerless plastic style
(Robertson 2013).
9.3. Specialized type of closures
Specialized types of closures have different functions, which include:

(1) dispensing and metering closures; (2) tamper-evident closures; (3) child-
resistant closures; and (4) easy-open closures (Emblem 2012).
9.3.1. Dispensing and metering closures
Figure 9.7. Flip-top closure

Flip-top closures are used in applications to control the dispensing of the

product in the container. This type of closure is usually made of polypropylene (PP),
which ensures repeated use without breaking. These closures can be either screw-
threaded or push-on. The top of the inner part has an aperture of appropriate size for
the packaged product, over which a hinged lid is well fitted (Figure 9.7). A plug on
the second lid hermetically seals the aperture when the lid is closed. In the closed
position, the lid remains in place in the same manner as push-on lids. By flicking it
upwards, with one hand, it is in the open position.
9.3.2. Tamper-evident closures
Tamper-evident closures indicate to consumers whether the product has been

opened, but breaking the seal in order to access the product must still be convenient.
Some examples of tamper-evident closures are:

– roll-on pilfer-proof metal closures and screw-threaded plastic closures – when
opening this closure, a ring is broken (Figure 9.2);
– plastic closures with a tear-off component that is removed for opening;
– metal closures with pop-up buttons;
– shrink seals around the container/closure body (Figure 9.8);
– adhesive labels and tapes.
Figure 9.8. Shrink seals

9.3.3. Child-resistant closures
Packaging that is difficult for children to open (Figure 9.9) was introduced at the
beginning of the 1970s and is subject to international standards in order to meet
special requirements. Such packaging includes pharmaceuticals, household cleaning
products and any other product that could be harmful to young children (Theobald
2006c).
Figure 9.9. Child-resistant closure
9.3.4. Easy-open closures
Metal cans for beverages have an easy-open lid (EOL) consisting of a scored
portion in the end panel and a levering tab (formed separately) that is riveted into a
bubble-like structure, fabricated during pressing. EOL for drink cans are usually
made from aluminum, and the top is usually referred to as a stay-on-tab (SOT),
enabling the opening tab and pierce-open end section to be retained on the can
(Figure 9.10).
For food cans (Figure 9.11), the top may either be plain (requiring an opening
tool), full-aperture easy-open, or have a peelable membrane design (Theobald 2006a;
Emblem 2012; Robertson 2013).
Figure 9.10. Easy-open ends for drinks
Figure 9.11. Easy-open ends for food

Peelable (easy-open) sealing materials are used as the lid on some products such
as yogurt (Figure 9.12). Typical lidding materials include aluminum foil, paper,
metallized polyethylene terephthalate (PETmet) or PP, often combined. A polymer
layer on the inside is essential to enable the required heat seal. The seal must be
sufficiently strong to protect the product throughout its shelf life but not so strong in
order to still be easily opened by consumers. These lids are removed by peeling
them back.
Figure 9.12. Peelable seal lids
9.4. References
APCOR (2015). Cork Yearbook 2015. Portuguese Cork Association, Santa Maria de
Lamas, Portugal.
Emblem, A. (2012). Packaging closures. In Packaging Technology – Fundamentals,
Materials and Processes, Emblem, A. and Emblem, H. (eds). Woodhead
Publishing Limited, Cambridge.
Karbowiak, T., Gougeon, R.D., Alinc, J.-B., Brachais, L., Debeaufort, F., Voilley,
A., and Chassagne, D. (2010). Wine oxidation and the role of cork. Crit. Rev.
Food Sci. Nutr., 50, 20–52.
Oldring, P.K.T., Savrij Droste, F., Whitaker, R., Smith, D., O’Mahony, C., and
Castle, L. (2014). FACET: Light metal packaging methodology. Jct. Coatings
Tech., 30–40.
Paine, F.A. (2012). The Packaging User’s Handbook. Springer, Boston, MA.233.
Poças, M.F., Ferreira, B., Pereira, J., and Hogg, T. (2010). Measurement of oxygen
transmission rate through foamed materials for bottle closures. Packag. Technol.
Sci., 23, 27–33.
Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Theobald, N. (2006a). Introduction. In Packaging Closures and Sealing Systems,
Theobald, N. and Winder, B. (eds). Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Hoboken, NJ.
Theobald, N. (2006b). Closures for glass containers. In Packaging Closures and
Sealing Systems, Theobald, N. and Winder, B. (eds). Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
Hoboken, NJ.
Theobald, N. (2006c). Child resistance, tamper evidence and openability. In
Packaging Closures and Sealing Systems, Theobald, N. and Winder, B. (eds).
Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Hoboken, NJ.
10
Auxiliary Materials
Mia Kurek and Mario Ščetar
Auxiliary compounds enhance the properties of the initial material. The design
and processing of food packaging materials is becoming more and more challenging.
The choice of auxiliary ingredients or additives makes significant changes, as well
as the choice of the material. In food packaging, all auxiliary ingredients must have
received clearance by the appropriate food regulatory authority. Printing ink for food
contact materials, whose main characteristics are low migration potential and
unwanted transfer to food, is applicable in the labeling or branding of packaging
items. Great attention is paid to the regulative restrictions in food contact materials
and in boosting the demand for low impact/migration auxiliary materials. The types
and properties of barrier coatings, inks and adhesives used for food packaging will
be covered in this chapter. According to a report given by Sinha (2017) in Allied
Market Research, Europe is the main global packaging market on coatings. In this
report, it is stated that the coating market’s value is expected to reach US $3,865 million
by 2023. Coatings are mostly used in the food and beverage industry, in personal
care and health care as they are functional (protection) and have esthetic appeal.
Fortune Business Insights (Market Research Report 2020) reports that the food and
beverage coating industry is expecting growth for the can coating market.

10.2. Coatings
The coating process can be described as the application of a very thin layer (from
several nanometers to a few micrometers) of a specified functional material to a
substrate. It can be applied as a liquid or a powder and upon solidification it must
firmly adhere to the surface. Even though it is applied in a very thin layer, the
coating needs to contribute to packaging value and improve the properties as well as
all other layers. In flexible packaging materials, coatings may either be external or
sandwiched between two substrates. They are recognized as powerful tools to
improve many properties of packaging materials (Farris and Piergiovanni 2012).
From the food packaging aspect, as well as taking into consideration the safety of
consumers, the coating of packaging materials could improve the resistance of
materials to degradation, and could impact and increase the packed food’s shelf life
and resistance to an aggressive environment. Today, water-based coatings are used
as an environmental factor. Coatings may provide various benefits and, depending
on the substrate, they could be applied to metals, plastics and other materials as
described in the following subsections. The functional material may be metallic or
non-metallic; organic or inorganic; solid, liquid or gas.
10.2.1. Coatings on metals
Coatings applied on metal are principally aimed at separating metal from a

corrosive environment. On metal cans, they could be applied on the inner and
exterior parts of a can, depending on the packed item and the envisaged storage
conditions. As an exception, tin cans without internal coatings are used for light
colored, acidic juices and fruits (e.g. pineapple, pears, peaches, etc.). Under these
conditions, tin is more easily oxidized than the food, thus preventing the darkening
and flavor changes caused by the oxidation of the food. However, for the majority of
food, metal can coatings are applied on both sides of planar metal sheets or coils
before cans are formed, or, sometimes, on preformed objects. In the case of three-
piece cans, the side seam stripe (coating on the connective part) is applied after the
can is fabricated to protect the welded seam from corrosion. The majority of
coatings get their final properties after the application process (that is mainly wet)
followed by curing. Curing means that further chemical reactions are established. It
can be attained either by stoving or baking. In reality, resin(s) react with one or more
cross-linking agents (or resins), which join individual resin molecules together to
form a three-dimensional cross-linked network (Oldring and Nehring 2007).
Generally, food and beverages that are packed in cans are aimed to be stored for
several years, and during this period, the taste and nutritional value of packed items
should be preserved. As a consequence of this long time period, there is a high risk
Auxiliary Materials 237
of interaction between the can material and the food item. In order to protect
consumer’s safety and the nutritional value of the packed item, this interaction
should be minimized. One method of doing this is to apply different types of
coatings in order to form a physical barrier between these two systems. Ordinary
metal materials would normally react with food components, especially food rich in
corrosion enhancers (phenols, tannins, pro-oxidants, acids, etc.), resulting in a
corrosion process that both damages the material and contaminates the food. As
such, coatings do not only aim to minimize migration, but also costs, because if an
adequate coating is used, then a thinner layer of tin (considered to be an expensive
material) can be used. There are important features to look out for when identifying
the product needs and application trends to choose appropriate can coating that will
make durable packaging. In order to fulfill the technical and legal requirements, can
coatings should withstand the production and sterilization processes and severe
mechanical deformations. They should be applicable for various food types with
different pH and aggressiveness towards the corrosion process, and should prevent
chemical migration from coatings into food at a lower level than one that could pose
health risks. Key benefits of a good coating also include good adherence, even after
the potential deformation of material due to handling and transport; they should be
stable, even in contact with aggressive foodstuffs, over several years. They should
also offer a range of products from high gloss to matte appearance, preferably
solvent-free and with low volatile organic compounds (VOC). Thus, depending on
the material and the application, it is sometimes necessary to use several layers of
coatings (generally with thickness from 1 to 10 µm), for example, to overcome low
adhesion to the metal, secure high protection, etc. (Oldring and Nehring 2007). The
amount of applied coating is measured in weight per area (e.g. g/m2, normally used
for sheets for food packaging) or weight per can (e.g. mg/can used for preformed
objects such as beverage cans). For food and beverages, typically 5–15 g/m2 and
110–180 mg/330 ml cans are used, respectively.
The corrosiveness of food is maybe the most important factor to think about
when choosing the coating type. Food can be classified in order: strong detinners
(tin dissolving compounds from tinplate, for example, green beans, spinach,
asparagus, tomato products) non-corrosive (dehydrated soups, frozen foods, nuts,
etc.)  mildly corrosive (peas, corn, meat and fish)  moderately corrosive
(apricots, figs, grapefruits, apples, citrus fruit)  highly corrosive (apple and grape
juice, berries, cherries, prunes, pickles, etc.). Commercially, various coatings are
available, varying in their chemical compositions, production processes, costs and
technical properties. The major constituents in a can coating include resin(s),
cross-linking agents (almost always present), additives and, if needed, solvents
(Oldring and Nehring 2007). The types and characteristics of commonly used
coatings are given in Table 10.1.
Coating Composition/ Properties (advantages (A),

Application/products
type synthesis disadvantages (DA))
A: Excellent flexibility, Applied as second
Vinyl chloride and
stable in acidic and alkaline coating layer
vinyl acetate
Vinyl DA: Bad adhesion on metals, (“top coat”, for
Need plasticizers example, soft drinks)
not good for high
and stabilizers
temperatures Good for covers
A: Highly corrosion-
resistant, good sulfide
Composed of Drums and pails
staining protection
Phenolic phenols and where flexibility is
DA: Very poor flexibility,
aldehydes not crucial
bad adherence, may change
the odor and flavor of foods
A: Corrosion and sulfide Commonly used as
Synthesized from stain resistance, very good external coatings
ethylacrylate; flexibility, attractive clean Vegetables, soups,
Acrylic usually pigmented appearance in opened cans prepared foods
white
DA: Brittleness, may change containing sulfide
(with TiO2)
organoleptic food properties stainers
Mostly synthesized
from bisphenol A A: Universal applicability,
and epichlorohydrin high stability, good Meat, fish, vegetables,
Epoxy Subgroups: processability, low cost soups, beer and
epoxy-phenolic, DA: Toxicological concern, beverages (first coat)
epoxy-anhydride, poor sulfide resistance
epoxy-amino
Polyester resins A: Very good flexibility,
Currently used as
(IPA and TPA) easy to handle during
first-generation
Polyester May contain lower production, good adhesion
alternatives to epoxy
Mw epoxy resin DA: Not stable in low pH, coatings
poor corrosion resistance
PVC dispersed in Drawn cans
varnish, stabilized A: Very good Easy-open ends
Organosol with low Mw epoxy flexibility, very good Top coat for epoxy-
resin or novolac pack resistance phenolic basecoat
epoxy resin
Mixture of natural A: Flexible, easily applied Very limited use:
oils and resin DA: Bad adherence, not acid fruits
Oleoresins extracted from sulfide-resistant, long Topcoat over
plants with synthetic curing, may change epoxy-phenolic
modification organoleptic properties
A: Corrosion protection,
Based on dispersions
Polyolefins adhesion, flexibility, no Various foodstuffs
of polyolefin
impact on flavor
Table 10.1. Types, characteristics and application of different

can coatings (IPA – isophthalic acid, TPA – terephthalic acid,
Mw – molecular weight) (Oldring and Nehring 2007)
10.2.2. Coatings on plastics
According to the packaging optimization concept, the use of multifunctional thin

layers applied on plastic materials would minimize the amount of packaging materials
used. Novel coated multilayer is aimed at either keeping or, in most cases, even
improving the functional properties of the final package. For plastic packaging materials,
coatings are applied with different aims. They are principally used to improve gas, water
vapor, grease and flavor resistance or to reduce reflection in an optical application in
food storage. A method for applying plastic coating is extrusion. Coatings for improving
the properties of plastic containers and films are given in Table 10.2.
Coating type Properties Application

Glass clear, hard, heat-sealable OPP (coating thickness
Acrylic
and very glossy of about 1 g/m2)
Good heat-sealing polymer Plastic films (coating
PVDC
or a high-barrier polymer thickness of about 3 g/m2)
Receives printing inks BOPP, part of a laminate
PVOH with low absorption (coating thickness of
or retention of solvents about 1 g/m2 or higher)
LTSCs Seals at lower temperatures OPP
Metallizing with Higher barrier
PET, PA and OPP
aluminum properties
SiOx Excellent barrier properties PET film, plastic bottles
Improvements in
DLC PET bottles
barrier properties
Extrusion coating
Heat-seal PET and PA
with PE
PVDC – polyvinylidene chloride, PVOH – poly(vinyl alcohol), LTSCs – low-temperature
sealing coatings, DLC – diamond-like coating
Table 10.2. Types, characteristics and application of coatings

for plastic containers and films (Coles et al. 2003)
Since the recommendation in the European Union is to reduce food

packaging-associated waste and to ensure that all plastic packaging is reusable or
recyclable by 2030, there are numerous newly designed barrier coatings that can
contribute to making packaging more environmentally compatible. Of the latest
technology formulation improvements are lacquers, which have inorganically or
organically functionalized biopolymers, mainly from lignocellulosic biomass,
specially designed to be applicable to all kinds of plastic packaging materials, with
excellent barriers against water vapor, oxygen or flavors; they are applied
automatically, with improved end-of-life (recyclable) (HyperBioCoat, BBI Project).
10.2.3. Coatings on paper and glass
Paper-based materials offer plenty of good properties, such as physical and

mechanical strength, flexibility of processing, recyclability, biodegradability and
composability. However, their poor properties are characterized by bad barrier
performance because of the high porosity of their fiber network. To overcome this
hurdle, surface treatments are commonly used. Coatings on paper are aimed at
improving grease resistance and hydrophobicity, the barrier to oxygen, water vapor
and aroma compounds, plasticization, pigmentation and functional properties
(antioxidant, antimicrobial).
Resistance to grease is relevant to greasy and fatty food packaging, guaranteeing

the integrity of the structure of the material. It is also important to avoid the
penetration of oils and grease through paper-based products, because of the
lipophilic nature, fatty substances could damage the print, and generate the
separation of laminated materials. The most common method to fabricate oil-resistant
paper is beating and refining the pulp in a way that induces structural changes,
facilitates the formation of inter-fiber connections, increases pulp density and higher
mechanical resistance. The most common and industrially used method is coating
with compounds with low surface energies, such as perfluorocarbons (PFCs),
polysiloxanes or higher alkanes that have great water and fat repellence. This type of
coating is commonly used for butter. Paper can also be used in multilayered
packaging, known as lining, often in combination with plastic materials (LDPE,
EVOH, etc.) with a significantly higher barrier than paper substrate, which is
especially important for liquid food. This process can be achieved either by
extrusion or heat lamination. Food containers made from lined paperboard are often
used as kitchenware for single-use applications, for example, cups or take-away
food containers. Polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC) coatings are commonly used on
paper for fatty products, dairy products, cured meats, smoked fish and dried
products. These days, it is fashionable to coat paper with natural oil-repellent
bio-based coatings as a replacement for synthetic treatments, providing interesting

functionalities while maintaining the environmentally friendly characteristic of the final
material. A wide variety of biomass products, for example, polysaccharides, proteins
and lipids and bacterial cellulose are already scaled-up to an industrial level.
A barrier to oxygen, water vapor and aroma compounds is essential to extend

product shelf life. Paraffin wax or polyethylene waxes are commonly applied in
order to improve the water vapor barrier (Robertson 2013).
Paper and paperboard can be coated to enhance printability, visual properties

(brightness, opacity, gloss) or functionality (ink holdout, the ability of it to be glued)
of the paper sheet. Pigments improve the printing and optical properties of the sheet,
and make up 70–90% of dry matter in paper coatings (Robertson 2013). The type of
pigments used as coatings are similar to those used for paper, with kaolin clay and
calcium carbonate as the most significant ones. Binders adhere the pigment particles
to each other and to the sheet, and additives either assist in the coating process or
enhance sheet properties. There are also plastic pigments based on polystyrene (PS)
that can improve the gloss when used as coatings in combination with mineral
pigments (Robertson 2013).
Methods that are used for paper coating include surface sizing, solution coating,
compression molding and curtain coating. Chemical (layer-by-layer, grafting
approach) and physicochemical modification (plasma etching, laser, etc.) have
recently been proposed as novel techniques, but their large-scale production is
limited due to high costs, non-suitability for food contact and the use of
non-environmentally friendly solvents. The selection of the method depends on the
properties of the coating and the type of cellulosic material used for paper-making.
Even though glass is considered as a tough and all-purpose material, it is often

coated, in order to improve its durability and esthetic value. Coatings are used to
reduce breakage or scratching that can occur during filling and transportation. These
are known as cold-end coatings and they provide a shiny look and smooth touch. In
order to preserve the life span and appearance of returnable glass bottles for drinks,
there are coatings applied which help to delay the formation of scuff rings and to
mask those that have already been formed.
10.2.4. Surface treatments and coating application
In the packaging industry, adhesion and wettability play key roles in successful
coating applications. Typical surface treatments include alternating the wettability of
the substrate, improving its bendability or the elimination of accumulated static
charge. Achieving adequate adhesion is crucial, since the type and duration of
treatment will impact how well and for how long a bond will hold. In order to obtain
good coating adherence and thus efficacy, treatments on surfaces may involve
preparation (cleaning), pre-treatment (surface activation) and post-treatment
(application of adhesion promoters or primers to improve adhesion to the adhesive
and/or protect the surface). They may only use one of these steps, or all of them.
Lately, in addition to technological improvements in material production, coating

technology has been proposed as an additional strategy for the rational use of
materials. To date, new production and degradation pathways, new environmentally
friendly (biodegradable) raw materials and non-conventional deposition techniques
are being developed. Coatings may be deposited in gas phase, in liquid phase or in a
molten/semi-molten state (Table 10.3) (Holmberg and Matthews 2009).
Coating method Advantages (A) and disadvantages (DA)

Gaseous coating
Process involves the reaction of a volatile precursor which is
injected into a chamber (typically under vacuum)
A: Applied to various materials, precision surfaces
Chemical vapor
can be coated including seal areas, withstands
deposition (CVD)
low/high temperatures and high stress
DA: Difficult to mask surface, so coating either all or nothing,
size limited to reaction chamber capacity (O’Brien 2001)
Material goes from a condensed phase to
a vapor phase and then back to a thin film
Physical vapor condensed phase; sputtering and condensation
deposition (PVD) A: Improved hardness and wear resistance, reduced
friction, improved oxidation resistance
DA: High cost and slow production rate (Rane et al. 2018)
Combines sputtering or electron beam
evaporation with ion implantation
A: Final coating with a highly intermixed interface
Ion beam-assisted
and with a less built-in strain compared
deposition (IBAD)
to other PVD techniques
DA: High cost, plasma activation processes are
not operational for reactive deposition
Solution coating
Any technique where a chemical precursor
solution is used to create a film; precursor
chemicals are either dissolved or suspended
in a solvent that, when deposited and heated,
Chemical solution will result in the formation of the material
deposition of interest (Dorrey 2012)
A: Flexible and cost-effective, does not need
vacuum processing and is relatively easy
to scale up to meet the demands of industrial
production processes (Elshof 2015)
Takes place in an electrochemical cell where
coating layers are deposited on selected
Electrochemical conducting substrates
deposition A: Offers important advantages and unique
possibilities in the development of
nanomaterials and nanostructures
Material (substrate) is at first treated with a
coating solution, that after drying forms
Sol/gel a polymeric or cross-linked network on the surface
A: Low cost, applicable to all surfaces
and coating types
Molten or semi-molten (frequently combined with plasma treatments) coating
Laser overlay deposition process, coating material
as powder or wire is applied on the surface
of the base material through a melting process
Laser
A: Produces coatings with high density,
crack-free and non-porous microstructures
(Vuoristo et al. 2005)
Coating adhesion is usually based on
Thermal spraying mechanical interlocking
A: It can be applied on all surfaces
Welding Process used for metals, done with coated electrodes
Table 10.3. Surface coating methods
Food preservation requires highly efficient gas, water vapor and aroma barriers.
Up-to-date packaging coatings are based on petrochemical-derived waxes and
polymers. At an industrial scale, the significant coatings that are mostly applied are
polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC), aqueous or extrusion-coated ethylene vinyl
alcohol (EVOH), acrylic polymers, inorganic and organic sol–gels, and aqueous
poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVOH). However, with increasing petroleum costs and when
searching for alternative reliable and sustainable products, renewable functional
barriers are gaining market interest. This would also promote the recycling
characteristics of materials used for food packaging (currently, this is difficult, as
petroleum-based coatings commonly used for this purpose reduce the compostability
of paper and recyclability of multilayers).
Already applicable coatings like metallized (aluminum) coatings and silicon

oxides (SOx) are applied as thin layers on some films. Diamond-like coatings (DLC)
are carbon thin layer coatings used on PET bottles in order to prolong the shelf life
of drinks. The most well-known coating process is tin coating (tinning) for metal
packaging. Cans are usually further protected with one or more layers of organic
coatings (lacquers), inside and outside the body of the container (Piergiovanni and
Limbo 2016).
Another issue is that biodegradable materials have no sufficient barrier

properties, so they cannot guarantee the required minimum shelf life of many food
products. In particular, some of the most interesting are nanotechnological
strategies, yielding high-barrier food packaging (e.g. cellulose nanocrystals, barrier
lacquers on the basis of hybrid reactive polymers, etc.). Some examples of novel
deposition techniques to obtain conformal coatings are given in Table 10.4 (Vasile
and Sivertsvik 2019). Unfortunately, detailed descriptions are outside the scope of
this chapter.
Method Result
In situ polymerization: dispersion Monomers interact with the nanofiller surface forming
of fine nanofillers in monomers uniform suspension
Excellent permeation resistance, allows the integration
of different functions into packaging material,
Atomic layer deposition
improves humidity tolerance and the performance of
bio-based polymers
Used for active packaging materials, covalently
Layer-by-layer
bonded layers with opposite charges, cross-linking
Dispersion and chemical UV curing in the presence of a photoinitiator; cross-
reaction linked composites
Various morphologies and versatility in processing,
Electrospinning possibility of producing fiber/particle diameters within
the submicron and nanorange
Table 10.4. Novel methods in the production of coated materials

10.3. Adhesives
Adhesives are an unavoidable part of packaging structure. According to the

definition of DIN EN 923:2016-03 (DIN 2016), adhesives are non-metallic
substances capable of joining materials by surface bonding (adhesion), with a bond
possessing adequate internal strength (cohesion) (Figure 10.1). It follows that
adhesion is the process of bonding two surfaces together if the process does not
include lamination by coextrusion as an alternative. To be effective, the adhesive
must establish an intimate contact with the surface to join (adhere). This is known as
wetting. If the linkage is not well established, then the connection will break down
and surfaces will not be tightly joined together, resulting in packaging failure.
Figure 10.1. Multilayer structure bonded with an adhesive
According to the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) (Toenniessen 2018),

more than 80% of food packaging materials contain at least a very small quantity of
adhesives. Selecting the appropriate adhesive is an important task in order to meet
the packaging performance criteria. This will depend on the food product and its
packing conditions, storage, retail and use. Many types of adhesives are available for
any specific application. They are used to:
 manufacture rigid packs from cardboard (box closures);
 seal flexible packaging – including wrappers, pouches and lidding;
 attach labels;
 laminate (bind together) layers of food contact materials;
 prevent or detect tamper-evident seal removal and replacement (Farmer 2013).

Adhesives play an integral role in the production of flexible multilayer

packaging materials. They are generally applied in the last steps of the converting
process. They should meet rigorous requirements: bonds that exceed the strength of
the film, high application speeds, excellent heat, water, chemical and UV resistance,
excellent clarity, resistance to delamination, low odor and they must not contain any
potential migrants or toxic additives (Dunn 2003).
Depending on the chemical composition, they are classified as natural or

synthetic (Figure 10.2). Synthetic adhesives can be further grouped depending on
the curing method. The most relevant examples of natural and synthetic adhesives
(water-based, solvent and 100% solid-based) are given in Tables 10.5 and 10.6.
Natural Synthetic
Natural Water- Solvent- Pressure-

Starch Protein Cellulose Hotmelt
rubbers based based sensitive
Figure 10.2. Classification of adhesives depending on their source
Water-based adhesives are widely used and are low cost. They can withstand a
wide temperature range, but dry slowly, requiring a lot of heat energy; they do not
provide shear or peel strength and usually do not have good moisture resistance.
They are used to form, seal or label cartons, tubes, bags and bottles, and can be
formulated to adhere to paper, glass and most plastics and metals.
Hotmelt adhesives are 100% non-volatile and non-reactive thermoplastic

materials, where the setting takes place by temperature heating and without any
chemical change. The bond is formed when the adhesive re-solidifies to room
temperature. Their main advantage is an extremely rapid rate of bond formation
(used on a high-speed packing line). A typical hotmelt sealant is composed of three
primary components: polymers (30–40%); tackifying resin (30–40%); and
petroleum wax (20–30%) plus antioxidants, fillers, plasticizers and blowing agents to
enhance other properties. Hotmelts can be used for carton and case closing (e.g. cereals),
tray erection (e.g. fruits and vegetables), wrap around boxes (e.g. chocolate)
and labeling.
Solvent-based adhesives use organic solvents as the main carrier; thus, due to
environmental and health concerns, they are used less and less.
Pressure-sensitive adhesives are applied with pressure upon contact with the
substrate surface. Generally, no chemical reaction takes place between the substrate
and the adhesive and no water, solvent or curing is necessary.
Advantages (A)/
Source Type Application
disadvantages (DA)
Starch Corrugated board
Sealing of cartons A: Easy to handle, inexpensive
Modified starch Winding of spiral tubes DA: Slow rate of bond
Starch-
and dextrin Seaming and forming bags formation, poor water
based
Labeling metal cans resistance, limited adhesion to
coatings and plastics
Alkaline-treated
Labeling glass bottles
starch
Bonding paper in tissue and
Cellulose ether A: Easy to prepare, water
Cellulose towel applications
(methylcellulose) soluble at room temperature
Cigarillo leaf wrapping
Labeling glass beer bottles
A: High bond strengths, good
Casein Lamination of aluminum water resistance
Proteins foil to paper
A: High level of hot tack, long
Animal glue Rigid setup boxes
gummy tack range
A: Limited stability on
Natural Extract from Self-seal candy wraps high shear, high speed
rubber rubber tree Hevea Packing of heat-sensitive production lines
latex brasiliensis food (e.g.) chocolate DA: Allergy, odor and quality
variations
Table 10.5. Types, applications and characteristics of naturally sourced adhesives
Adhesives may join two surfaces either through mechanical or chemical

bonding. Mechanical adhesion is the joining of two surfaces together where the
adhesive enters into a porous mechanical structure of the substrate (e.g. in paper). Its
porosity will affect the degree of penetration – too little or too much results in a
weak bond. Chemical adhesion is established due to the formation of chemical
bonds between one surface and the adhesive.
Cold seals are adhesives that require no heating to result in good adhesion, while
heat seals combine heating and pressure. Natural rubbers, acrylic polymers and
additives (wetting agents, stabilizers, anti-blocking agents, etc.) belong to cold seals.
They can be applied on a wide range of different substrates (paper, polyolefins, etc.)
via printing processes or pressure reactivated systems that result in uniform and
elastic film. For heat seals, at least one of the substrates has to be heat-sealable
(either by an applied heat-sealable layer or by being heat-sealable itself).
Curing Advantages (A)/

Adhesive Application
method disadvantages (DA)
A: High flexibility and bonding
strength, resistance to elevated
temperatures. Can be waterborne
or solvent-based.
Flexible packaging
(laminates) DA: Produced by a reaction
Chemical
Polyurethane (PU) between isocyanates and organic
reaction Retortable pouches
compounds with reactive
Hot filling hydroxyl group  possibility of
migration of toxic 1°C aromatic
amines from residual aromatic
isocyanates
Synthetic rubbers Tapes A: Solid at room temperature,
(styrene–butadiene– Self-adhesive labels stickiness
styrene (SBS),
Bottle labeling DA: Rapid fall of strength at
styrene–isoprene–
Pallet stabilization elevated temperatures
styrene (SIS))
Adjustment of
Waxes A: Improve the adhesion of a
setting time,
(plant or animal hotmelt to a substrate, narrow
structure
origin – beeswax; melting range (from 40°C), very
stabilization, reduce
synthetic) low degradation tendency
melting viscosity
Cooling A: Infinite open time, stickiness
Oils (purified Tape/labeling
from melt at room temperature, paraffinic
naphthenic or (metal cans or glass
(hotmelt) purified white mineral oil for
paraffinic oils) bottles) food contact application
Copolymers of Carton sealing, A: Tack-free, flexible at room
ethylene vinyl labeling, frozen temperature, UV resistance, light
acetate (EVA) food, heat sealing stability
A: Good thermal stability, range
Adhering paper,
of melt viscosities, tackiness,
(olefin) plastic
long open times, low water vapor
Polyolefins films and metal
permeability, good chemical
foils to a variety of
resistance, bonds well to
substrates
nonpolar substrates
Acrylic Flexible packaging

Loss of DA: Environmental and health
laminates, boil-in-
solvent Vinylic concerns about VOC
bags, retort packs
Vinyl acetate
Carton side seam and A: Solvent-free
polymers (PVA),
closing DA: At least one substrate
ethylene/vinyl
Bag-making has to be porous
Loss of acetate (EVA)
water A: Low cost adhesives, low odor,
Acrylic (polyester Film lamination,
good heat and chemical resistance,
acrylates, epoxy Pressure-sensitive
excellent strength, improved
acrylates) coatings for labels
wettability
A: No solvent (low VOCs),
instantaneous cure,
Energy excellent heat, moisture and
curable: Wraps and shrinks chemical resistance, applicable
UV and Acrylic Flexible packs/ at room temperature
electron Multilayer materials DA: Irradiation through
beam substrates, potential migration
of remaining photo-initiator
fragments, high cost equipment
Table 10.6. Examples of curing method, adhesive type

and its application with main characteristics
Even though most of the adhesives are in indirect contact with food (except for
labels for fruits and vegetables), special testing for their appliance with food contact
regulation is required. It is very important to identify compounds present in the
adhesives due to their possible risk as potential migrants to the food when the
laminates are used as food packaging materials.
10.4. Printing inks
Various printing inks and varnishes are used for food packaging. Printing inks
are mixtures of a number of substances: colorants (5–30%), binders (15–60%),
solvents (20–70%) and additives, including plasticizers (1–10%) (Brede et al. 2003).
Together with other colored or uncolored overprint varnishes and coatings or
primers, they are applied on materials to form a graphic or decorative design. More
than 5,000 different chemicals are used in the production of printing inks (EuPIA
2009). These components generally have strong odors, so careful selection ensures
that odor or taint residues are kept at very low and acceptable levels.
Inks are prepared in four steps: 1) pre-wetting/mixing of pigments with grind

varnish/medium; 2) milling/dispersion; 3) concentrating pigment dispersion; 4) addition
of varnish or specific additives.
Coloring materials (colorant) are a mixture of pigments (insoluble in the medium

(the vehicle or the binder)) or dyes (soluble in the medium). The coloring effects
result from the presence of chromophore groups that absorb specific wavelength
areas of the visible light spectrum (EuPIA 2018).
Primers or size coats are continuous coatings applied to the base substrate to
provide good adhesion and printability of inks and coatings (EuPIA 2018).
Binders are polymeric resins and the film-forming component of inks, in which
the coloring material is finely dispersed or dissolved (EuPIA 2018).
The aim of the solvents is to keep the binders in a soluble state until the printing
ink formulation is applied onto the substrate. Inks can be water-based or solvent-based
(EuPIA 2018).
Varnishes are mixtures of binders and solvents. They are added in order to
enable printed designs to achieve specific functions such as ink adhesion, rub
resistance, gloss and slip/friction properties (EuPIA 2018).
After applying the ink formulation to the substrate, the drying of the solvent and
binder takes place. Depending on the field of application, printing inks have
different mechanisms of drying, such as evaporation, absorption into substrate,
oxidative drying or curing by the supply of irradiated energy, for example, in the UV
systems.
The choice of ink may vary depending on the printing method used. For food
packaging materials, four printing technologies and modifications are used: offset,
flexography, gravure printing and ink jet printing (Table 10.7).
Offset Flexography Gravure Inkjet
Schema
Paper,
Plastic, paper, Paper or
Material Paper, cardboard cardboard,
cardboard, metal plastic
plastic, metal
Non-volatile
Water-based
solvents Volatile
Volatile solvents Solvent-based
Solvents Mineral/vegetable solvents
Water-borne Energy-curing
oils (boiling points Water-borne
type
210–300°C)
Absorption of
Solvent
Drying/ solvents into Solvent
evaporation Energy-curing
curing substrate evaporation
UV-curing
UV-curing
Uses
Inked image is Uses flexible printing
transferred (or relief plate; high press, high
High quality,
“offset”) from a definition, low quality but
high speed,
Characteristics plate to a rubber cost, flexible more
easy to
blanket, then to printed expensive
integrate
the printing packaging, fast than flexible
surface ink-washout and offset
printing
Table 10.7. Comparison of different printing techniques used in food packaging
Printing inks are usually applied on the non-food contact side of a food contact
material (FCM), or between one of the outer layers of a multilayer material.
However, a migration of ink ingredients may happen though the food contact layer.
10.5. Interaction between packaging and contents
10.5.1. Permeation
Knowledge on the barrier and permeation properties of food packaging materials

is a vital feature for packaging performance and its efficiency in food preservation
and extended shelf life. All polymeric materials are permeable to a certain extent
and their barrier properties may impact suitability for a specific application.
Commonly used coatings serve as barriers to gases (oxygen, carbon dioxide,
nitrogen, etc.), water vapor and aroma compounds, in order to prevent the
penetration or loss of given gases, while others have specific functionalities against
light, VOC, irradiation (UV) and others. Permeation requirements may be divided
into two categories: those requiring a gas barrier and those requiring a specific
selective transport of gases (permselectivity) (Robertson 2013). In order to ensure
that films provide sufficient barriers for a specific application, it is quite common to
use thin barrier layers applied as coatings, rather than to increase the thickness of
barrier monolayers in multi-layered materials. Measurement methods for the
determination of permeation to gases and water vapors are given in various
international standards. Permeation can be affected by processing parameters during
production, or by ambient temperatures associated with its end-use.
10.5.2. Migration
An important function of food packaging is to protect packed products from any

external contamination (microorganisms, dust or chemical contaminants). Chemical
contaminants may already be contained in the packaging material itself. This risk
becomes significant for long-term storage conditions or especially in the case of
packed liquids.
Inks and adhesives might be applied to the packaging material on the external
surface of primary or secondary packaging, in the middle layer or in direct contact
with food items. Substances of low molecular weight used in the production of inks
and adhesives may be transferred by different mechanisms (Figure 10.3):
Figure 10.3. Example of adhesives and ink migration process

a) migration (substance passes through material and migrates to food that is in

direct contact with the packaging material);
b) set-off migration (during production, the outer side of the packaging, which is
initially not aimed to be in a direct food contact, is in close contact with the inner
packaging layer (because it is packed in rolls or in pilled sheets) where migration
occurs. Once packed, food is in contact with this “invisible” side where the transfer
occurred);
c) transfer via product gas space (volatile compounds negatively influencing

organoleptic food characteristics).
Migration can be defined as a global or a specific process. Global migration is

defined as the transfer of all substances of a low molecular weight, from packaging
to food, whereas in specific migration the amount of one specific chemical
compound is measured. Global migration is determined gravimetrically, while
sophisticated analytical methods (such as GC–MS) are required for specific
migrants.
Aznar et al. (2011) described a wide variety of compounds that were found in
adhesives. They concluded that their composition depends on the nature of the
adhesive. About 57% of all compounds detected in the materials, initially present
from material composition, migrated into the dry food simulant Tenax®. This study
confirms the necessity of controlling the composition of the adhesives used for food
contact materials.
Migration of inks is commonly avoided by using an overprint varnish or varying

the ink position in the multilayer structure. Following good manufacturing practice
(GMP), it is also favorable to select such raw materials where limits for evaluated
substances are not exceeded in the finished product. The major risk lies in solvents
that are used as dissolving agents in inks and adhesives and in active components
(like photo-initiators in UV curing systems). This process is called tainting. Even
though UV-cured inks are initially solventless, there are some residual acrylate
monomers, such as benzophenone, used as photo-initiators or reaction by-products
from the polymerization process, such as benzaldehyde and alkyl benzoates, that can
lead to trace odors that could migrate into the food product (Ridgway et al. 2009).
Proper drying of printing materials may completely eliminate solvent migration
from adhesives and inks (Katan 2012). The legal requirements are set up by
Regulatory bodies. Under the EU food-contact legislation, printing inks must legally
comply with Regulation 1935/2004, Commission Regulation 2023/2006), as well as
Commission Regulation 10/2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come
into contact with food, and Commission Directive 2007/42/EC on regenerated
cellulose films (European Commission 2004, 2006, 2011, 2007). There are also
guidelines on printing inks issued by EuPIA for industrial stakeholders
(EuPIA 2011).
10.6. Future trends and challenges
The main goal for successful packaging of food is recognizing the need for
packaging products and their main protection mechanisms. It relates to the nature of
the product when used and the possible disposal of packaging, providing the shelf
life, distribution, storage and sale to the final consumer. Selection should consider
the ecological issues of environmental protection and waste management, such as
the low energy consumption required to manufacture these materials. As is
described in this chapter, new environmentally friendly biodegradable raw materials,
coatings and inks have been developed in the last decade; however, there are great
concerns about their high cost and production price, as well as barrier/protection
performance and the safety of products.
10.7. References
Aznar, M., Vera, P., Canellas, E., Neriın, C., Mercea, P., and Stormer, A. (2011).
Composition of the adhesives used in food packaging multilayer materials and
migration studies from packaging to food. J. Mater. Chem., 21, 4358.
Brede, C., Skjevrak, I., and Fjeldal, P. (2003). Colour Substances in Food
Packaging Materials. SNT, Oslo.
Coles, R., McDowell, D., and Kirwan, M.J. (2003). Food Packaging Technology.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford.
DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung) (2016). Adhesives – Terms and definitions.
DIN EN 923:2016-03 [German version EN 923:2015].
Dorey, R. (2012). Ceramic Thick Films for MEMS and Microdevices, 1st edition.
William Andrew, Oxford.
Dunn, D.J. (2003). Adhesives and Sealants: Technology, Applications and Markets.
iSmithers Rapra Publishing, Shrewsbury.
Elshof, J.T. (2015). Chemical solution deposition techniques for epitaxial growth of
complex oxides. In Epitaxial Growth of Complex Metal Oxides, Koster, G.,
Huijben, M., and Rijnders, G. (eds). Woodhead Publishing, Oxford.
EuPIA (2009). Incomplete public inventory list – Version 3. Comprising of

packaging ink raw materials applied to the non-food contact surface of food
packaging [Online]. Available: www.eupia.com.
EuPIA (2011). Printing inks applied to the non-food contact surface of food
packaging materials and articles [Online]. Available: www.eupia.com.
EuPIA (2018). Standard glossary of food contact material inks and coatings terms
[Online]. Available: www.eupia.com.
European Commission (2006). Good manufacturing practice for materials and
articles intended to come into contact with food. Commission Regulation
2023/2006 [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
?uri=celex%3A32006R2023.
European Commission (2007). Materials and articles made of regenerated cellulose
film intended to come into contact with food. Commission Directive 2007/42/EC
[Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX
%3A32007L0042.
Farmer, N. (2013). Trends in Packaging of Food, Beverages and Other Fast-Moving
Consumer Goods. Woodhead Publishing, Oxford.
Farris, S. and Piergiovanni, L. (2012). Emerging coating technologies for food and
beverage packaging materials. In Emerging Food Packaging Technologies:
Principles and Practice, Yam, K.L. and Sun Lee, D. (eds). Woodhead Publishing,
Oxford.
Holmberg, K. and Matthews, A. (2009). Coatings Tribology: Properties,
Mechanisms, Techniques and Applications in Surface Engineering. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
HyperBioCoat Project (2020). BBI Project: Research & innovation action, value chain:
VC1 – Lignocellulose, 2016–2019 [Online]. Available: http://www.hyperbiocoat.eu.
Katan, L.L. (2012). Migration from Food Contact Materials. Springer Science &
Business Media, Berlin.
Market Research Report (2020). Can coatings market size, share & industry
analysis, by type (epoxy, acrylic and others), by application (food cans, beverage
cans, aerosol cans, and others) and regional forecast 2019–2026. Report
FBI102537. Fortune Business Insights.
O’Brien, P. (2001). Chemical vapor deposition. In Encyclopedia of Materials:
Science and Technology, Buschow, J., Cahnw, K.H., Flemings, R.W., Ilschner,
M.C., Kramer, B., Mahajan, E.J., and Veyssiere, S. (eds). Elsevier, New York.
Oldring, P.K. and Nehring, U. (2007). Packaging materials 7. Metal packaging for
foodstuffs. ILSI Report. ILSI Europe Packaging Materials Task Force.
Piergiovanni, L. and Limbo, S. (2016). Food Packaging Materials. Springer,
New York, NY.
Rane, A.V., Krishnan, K., Abitha, V.K., and Sabu, T. (2018). Methods for synthesis
of nanoparticles and fabrication of nanocomposites. In Synthesis of Inorganic
Nanomaterials. Bhagyaraj, S.M., Oluwafemi, O.S., Kalarikkal, N., and Sabu, T.
(eds). Woodhead Publishing, Oxford.
Ridgway, K., Lalljie, S.P.D., and Smith, R.M. (2009). Analysis of food taints and
off-flavours – A review. Food Add. Contam., 27(02), 146–168.
Robertson, G.L. (2013). Food Packaging Principles and Practice. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
Sinha, B. (2017). Packaging coatings market by type (epoxy thermoset, urethane,
UV-curable, BPA free, and soft touch UV-curable & urethane), substrate (metal,
rigid plastic, glass, liquid cartons, paper-based containers, flexible packaging,
and others), application (food cans, beverage cans, caps & closures, aerosols &
tubes, industrial packaging, promotional packaging, and specialty packaging),
and end user (food & beverages, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, consumer
electronics, and automotive components) – Global opportunity analysis and
industry forecast, 2017–2023. Report. Allied Market Research.
Toenniessen, M. (2018). Packaging materials 10: Adhesives for food packaging
applications. ILSI Report. ILSI Europe.
Vasile, C. and Sivertsvik, M. (2019). Food Packaging Materials and Technologies,
printed edition. MDPI Books, Basel.
Vuoristo, P., Tuominen, J., and Nurminen, J. (2005). Laser coating and thermal
spraying – Process basics and coating properties. In Thermal Spray 2005:
Thermal Spray Connects: Explore Its Surfacing Potential! ASM International/
DVS, Dusseldorf.
11
Food Packaging Methods

Kata Galić
11.1. Introduction
One of the key packaging functions is to protect the food. Depending on the food
product, this task can be very simple, like wrapping, or very demanding, like in-
package food processing. One way to select and define the packaging roles depends
on the temperature applied during food processing (Galić et al. 2011). Thus, the
packaging selection will depend on the food product (fresh or processed) and the
process applied, either as thermal (retorting, aseptic packaging, etc.) or non-thermal
(high-pressure, pulsed electric fields, etc.). Furthermore, the packaging method used
will dictate the material selection, such as those based on atmospheric characteristics
inside the package (vacuum, modified atmosphere, inert atmosphere, active
packaging). Other packaging methods are used to communicate with consumers
(such as intelligent packaging) and offer services such as gathering primary
packaging.
According to ALL4PACK (2016) estimations, the global packaging market

amounted to $812 billion in 2014, and was projected to grow at a compound annual
growth rate (CAGR) of 4.2% from 2010. Thus, the estimated value of $839 billion
in 2015 was predicted to reach $998 billion in 2020. The global packaging market
includes the following materials: paper and board, plastics, metal, glass and wood
(Table 11.1).

Share (%) of materials in value

Packaging material 2015 2020
Total: $839 billion Total: $998 billion
Other 2.78 2.35
Metal 12.26 12.64
Glass 7.20 6.81
Paper and board 31.11 31.06
Rigid plastic 21.61 22.28
Flexible 25.03 24.85
Table 11.1. Estimated values of packaging materials

on a global level (ALL4PACK 2016)
Among the processing technologies, the aseptic milk product market was
calculated to grow at 12.8% a year to reach $138 billion by 2019 (Transparency
Marketing Research 2014), while the high-pressure processed food market was
about $9.8 billion in 2015 and is expected to reach $54.77 billion by 2025
(Marangoni and Anjos 2019). The amount of irradiated foods in Asia and the USA
in 2010 was estimated at 285,200 and 103,000 tons, respectively. In 2015, the total
amount of US irradiated foods was 125,000 tons which included mainly spices,
fruits and vegetables, meat and poultry (Kume and Todoriki 2013; Eustice 2018). In
the EU, a total of 10,211 tons of products were treated with ionizing irradiation
during 2016 and 2017, and the two main commodities irradiated are frog legs (about
57%) and dried aromatic herbs, spices and vegetable seasonings (about 21%)
(Koutchma et al. 2018; European Commission 2019).
The modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) application, which started

commercially at the beginning of the 1970s, today covers a range of food products
on the market (meat, poultry, fish, bacon, bread, cakes, salad vegetables, crisps and
cheese) (Mullan and McDowell 2003; Galić et al. 2019). The MAP food sector
continues to grow and is anticipated to reach $6.4 billion by 2020. Active and
intelligent food packaging technologies, coupled with controlled and modified
atmosphere packaging, is expected to grow at a rate of 6.9% per year
(Arvanitoyannis and Kotsanopoulos 2012; Boz et al. 2018).
Food Packaging Methods 259
11.2. Packaging operations
The choice of packaging method depends on a number of factors such as:

available machines and their requirements, characteristics of both food and
packaging material, and general requirements. In terms of machine requirements, the
important factors are production rate, package size, product type and work
requirement of the machine. In food and packaging material characteristics, the main
variations are in product sensitivity and size, packaging material requirements (such
as barriers to oxygen and water vapor), in-package processing and post-packaging
handling of the products (Mahalik 2014; Regattieri and Santarelli 2015).
Different packaging operations such as wrapping, filling and forming, sealing,

bagging, canning, bottling, weighing, labeling, etc., are performed before the final
product is ready to be placed on the market. These operations can be performed in a
manual, semi-automatic or fully automatic way (Srivastava et al. 2018).
11.2.1. Food wrapping
Figure 11.1. Examples of plain (A) and stretch (B) wrappings
Simple wrapping is used to protect individual food products using various types
of paper (such as greaseproof paper) and flexible plastic film. Apart from being
flexible, plastic film is a light, cheap, transparent and tough material used for food
wrapping. These materials can have different types: plain (Figure 11.1(A)), stretch
(Figure 11.1(B)) or shrink (Figure 11.2). Apart from paper as a traditional type of
wrapping material, plastic materials are also used where the product is packed at the
selling location (e.g. butcher shops). The most common polymers used for food
wrapping are low-density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low-density polyethylene
(LLDPE) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) films (Kirwan et al. 2011).
In the stretch operation, the material is wrapped around the products (usually two
or more units) while shrink wrapping is enabled by setting the polymeric cover over
the product, which shrinks when heat is applied (Figure 11.2).
Stretch wrapping is a combination of two operations, wrapping and sealing.

Here, the same material is used to “seal” itself; thus, no special sealer is used. The
best example of stretch wrapping is in the case of pallet wrapping.
Figure 11.2. Principle of shrink packaging
Shrink wrapping is performed in three or four stages: (1) wrapping (sleeve or

over-wrapping), (2) sealing (only for over-wrapping), (3) shrinking (application of
hot air) and (4) cooling.
Shrink films are made of monofilms such as polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC),

LDPE, LLDPE, polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and PVC
material (thickness between 0.040 and 0.120 mm), and are used for individual food
products (e.g. cucumber packaging) or as a secondary package which contains more
units of the same product (e.g. water bottles). Laminates are composed of
polyolefins (PE, PP) and gas barrier layers made of PVDC or ethylene vinyl alcohol
(EVOH). Thus, combinations as PP/EVOH/PP, PE/EFOH/PE and ethylene vinyl
acetate (EVAC)/PVDC can be found on the market. In the case of shrink sleeves,
PVC, OPP, PET and oriented polystyrene are used.
11.2.2. Food bagging
Plastic bagging includes product filling and sealing. There are many
types of bags or pouches (open-mouth, valve-bags which have closed ends and
are filled through a valve) used these days. Pouch closing can be performed
by folding, twisting, heat-sealing, gluing, clipping or sewing (Figure 11.3(A)).
Sealed bags and pouches are also distinguished based on the seam position
(Figure 11.3(B)).
Figure 11.3. Examples of pouch closing (A) and some types of

sealed (dotted line) pouches (B)
11.2.3. Form-fill-seal packaging
Form-fill-seal (FFS) represents an operation which integrates three operations:

forming packaging material, filling the food into the formed package and sealing it on
a single machine. Depending on the packaging material flow, horizontal (Figure 11.4)
and vertical (Figure 11.5) pouch forming machines are used (Schmidt and Leiking
2005). These systems enable different kinds of food (solid, powder, liquid, viscous)
to be packaged.
Figure 11.4. Horizontal form-fill-seal operations
Figure 11.5. Variations (A and B) of the vertical form-fill-seal operation
11.2.4. Blister packaging
Blister packaging is a combination of preformed plastic packaging and covers,

used for small consumer commodities, foods and medicaments. The preformed
blister containing the product is covered with a heat-seal coated paperboard
(Figure 11.6), offering good visibility of the packaged product.
Figure 11.6. Principle of blister packaging
The form-fill-seal process is also used for blister packaging. The thermoformed
blister with the product is sealed on the top layer of the coated aluminum film,
instead of paperboard. Different materials are used for blister forms such as
polypropylene (PP), PET and PVC. Blister forms are used for food (chocolate,
sliced ham, sausages and sandwiches), pharmaceutical products (tablets, capsules)
and other product packaging (tools, toys). Press-through-pack versions are also used
for tablets and chewing gum, where the blister is sealed with the bottom layer of the
sealant-coated aluminum foil, enabling easy opening (Kirwan et al. 2011).
11.3. Packaging for thermally processed food
Thermal processing involves retorts and heat to produce hermetically sealed food
containers (e.g. cans, glass bottles and pouches). A “retort” is a pressure vessel
designed for the thermal processing of food packed in hermetically sealed
containers. This treatment requires heat conduction and convection (such as hot
water, steam, etc.) to transfer heat into the food in order to destroy pathogens and
increase food shelf life. The term “hermeticity” or “hermetically-sealed” indicates a
closed can (body, both ends and seams) or glass jar that is absolutely impervious to
air, microorganisms or content leakage during processing, distribution and storage.
11.3.1. Canning
Canning (or retorting) is the process which applies heat (>100ºC) to food that is
hermetically sealed in a can or jar, in order to destroy all microorganisms that can
cause food spoilage. The negative effect of such a treatment is the degradation of
nutritional and sensorial characteristics of the product, due to prolonged thermal
exposure during heating and cooling (Holdsworth and Simpson 2007; Park et al.
2014; Vergara-Balderas 2016; Dantas and Dantas 2017).
The simplest retorts are those that are discontinuous (batch) that use steam as the
heating medium. They are known as still retorts. The temperature in these retorts is
automatically controlled. The loading and unloading of the containers from these
retorts is performed by preloading containers into crates, cars, baskets or trays.
“Crateless” systems drop containers into the retort vessel, which is filled with water,
to ensure a cushion effect and to prevent container drainage. The water is removed
before processing. The orientation of the retort depends on the type of container
system used. Those that use crates or baskets and the crateless systems use vertical
vessels, whereas the car system requires a horizontal orientation (Hotchkiss 2009).
Metal cans are one of the examples of how to provide package hermeticity. The
quality of the double seam and side seam formed is of huge importance to ensure a
hermetically sealed can (AFDO 2011; Dantas and Dantas 2017). Metal cans, which
are able to prevent food recontamination, are made of tin-plated steel (tinplate),
tin-free steels (TFS, chrome-plated steel) or aluminum (see Chapter 4). Food cans
use both types, i.e., three-piece cans, consisting of one-bottom lid, two-body and
three-top lid, and two-piece cans, consisting of one-body connected to the bottom lid
and two-top lid (Figure 11.7).
Figure 11.7. Types of metal cans
With regard to the presence of a protective lacquer, both plain (with no lacquer)
and lacquered tinplate cans are used for food and beverage packaging. Plain cans are
used for specific (bright color) food types (e.g. pineapple, pear, mushrooms and
asparagus). The type of can lacquer is selected based on food characteristics
(aggressiveness).
Glass jars of different shapes and sizes (Figure 11.8) are also widely used for
food packaging of pickled vegetables, fruits in syrup, jams, etc. They have the
advantages of being inert, with regard to the contents, and transparent which enable
consumers to have a clear view of the product (see Chapter 3).
Figure 11.8. Glass jars with metal closures
However, glass is very fragile and requires careful processing and handling. An
important part of the jar is the closure. Various types of closures are available (both
venting and non-venting types) and are made from either tinplate or TFS (see
Chapter 9). In order to prevent closure distortion, the correct overpressure must be
maintained during retorting and the jars must be preheated prior to processing, in
order to prevent shock breakage (Holdsworth and Simpson 2007).
Rigid plastic containers. The main requirement for a plastic material is that it
must withstand processing conditions (heating and cooling). Here again, it is
important to control the overpressure in order to maintain a pressure balance
(pressure developed during processing and the pressure of the heating system). The
main plastic materials used for thermal-processed foods are both mono- and
multilayer (laminate) PP and PET (Figure 11.9). Biaxially oriented polypropylene
(BOPP) bottles and jars are also used to replace traditional glass containers. PP and
PET are usually manufactured with an oxygen barrier layer such as EVOH, PVDC
and polyamide (PA) to create multilayer flexible pouches, semi-rigid and rigid
containers (Holdsworth and Simpson 2007).
Figure 11.9. Rigid plastic containers

Flexible materials include wraps, pouches or bags, with a thickness equal to or

less than 0.127 mm, while semi-rigid materials are thicker than 0.127 mm. They are
usually formed as sheets. Rigid materials include trays, bottles, boxes or crates and
are composed of thick or rigid polymers. They are used for beverages, pasteurized
products, pickles, instant coffee, sauces, powdered milk and creams (Ebnesajjad
2013).
Glass, semi-rigid and flexible containers must be processed in still retorts

designed to ensure the stability of these containers at applied temperatures (121ºC)
and pressures (above 103 kPa) (Hotchkiss 2009).
11.3.2. Retortable pouches
Retortable flexible pouches are usually laminates that are thermally processed,
similar to cans. These materials are characterized by good seal integrity, toughness,
puncture resistance, and the ability to withstand thermal processing conditions and
provide superior barrier properties, for long shelf life products. Laminated flexible
pouches can easily replace traditional materials such as glass or metal cans, due to
their excellent properties.
An example of the retortable pouch is a three-ply laminate (Figure 11.10) made

from: (1) an outer layer of 0.012 mm polyester film for strength, high temperature
resistance, toughness and printability; (2) an adhesive laminated to a middle layer of
0.009–0.018 mm aluminum foil (which is an excellent barrier to moisture, light and
gas); which is laminated to (3) the inner layer of 0.076 mm PP film as the heat seal
and food-contact material (Abdul Ghani Al-Baali and Farid 2006; Holdsworth and
Simpson 2007). Other pouches that are mostly used are a four-ply laminate
consisting of polyester (outside layer), a polyamide (second layer), aluminum foil
(third layer) and a polypropylene as an inner layer (Majumdar et al. 2017).
Figure 11.10. Example of a three-ply retort pouch

An advantage of using pouches is that they take less time to reach sterilization
temperature than cans or jars, due to the thinner structure. Such a product is sterile,
does not require refrigeration and is shelf-stable at room temperature (Holdsworth
and Simpson 2007). Retort pouches are used for different products, such as juices,
soups, sauces and gravies.
Polymer
(number after each O2 permeability Water vapor permeability
polymer is the layer (cm3/m2 day atm) (g mm/m2 day)
thickness in m)
at 23oC, 50% RH at 23oC, 85% RH
PET 12/ Alu 9/PE 50 ~0 ~0
PET 12/ vacuum deposited 1-2 0.1-0.5
aluminum /PE 50
PET 12/ EVOH 5/PE 50 1 2-4
PET 12/ PVDC 4/PE 50 5 2
PET 12/ PVOH 3/PE 50 2 4-6
PET 12/ PE 50 15-20 4-6
o o
at 23 C, 50% RH at 23 C, 50% RH
PET 12/SiOx 0.5-5 0.2-5
PP 20/SiOx 1-20 0.1-1
PA 20/SiOx 1 0.5
PET 12 untreated 110 15
PP 20 untreated 1500-1800 1-1.5
Table 11.2. Barrier properties of laminates (Lange and Wyser 2003)
In order to replace aluminum foil and construct clear pouches, new laminates
with an inorganic layer (such as silicon, SiOx or aluminum oxide, AlOx) are
produced (Strullera et al. 2019). A transparent SiOx coating is applied on polymers
such as PET, PP, PA, polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) and polyvinyl alcohol
(PVOH) films, having excellent oxygen and water vapor properties (Table 11.2)
(Lange and Wyser 2003).
Sous-vide cooking (Figure 11.11) involves packaging (“sous-vide” means

“under vacuum” in French) food before the application of low temperatures
(65–95°C), heating and storing under refrigerated conditions (0–3°C). This process
is known as a low temperature, long cooking time process.
Figure 11.11. Sous-vide immersion cooker
This process is sometimes confused with regard to its name (vacuum), as a vacuum
is not actually applied. The packaging used in this case are Ziploc-bags or bags
intended for vacuum sealers (without sealing them), they can withstand temperatures
higher than 70ºC. Thus, laminates with different material (5, 7 or 11 layers)
compositions, such as PA/EVOH/PE and PA/PE, are used.
The application of sous-vide has been used widely in the processing of packaged
raw meat, poultry, fish and vegetable-based products to enhance sensorial and
organoleptic characteristics. This technology is especially attractive to the food
service industry. Some negative points are that, due to the use of mild temperatures,
sous-vide cooking does not inactivate bacterial spores, and vacuum packaging
conditions could support the potential survival of Clostridium botulinum spores
(Baldwin 2012; Park et al. 2014; Neetoo 2015), i.e., only pasteurization is allowed.
11.3.3. Aseptic packaging
In the aseptic filling process, ultra-high temperature (UHT) treatment of food is

followed by filling into sterilized packages (with a 35% solution of H2O2, in the
form of a fine spray or as peroxide vapor or a peracetic acid solution) within a sterile
environment (Figure 11.12(A)).
An example of a process used in aseptic packaging is the form-fill-seal process.

It is used for sachets, trays and pots, in which the packaging material is formed into
the package as part of the filling operation. The typical laminate used consists of
LLDPE, with a center layer of EVOH and black carbon for additional light
protection. Other solutions include a 40% calcium carbonate (chalk) filled PP layer
(for stiffness and integrity), EVOH (O2 protection), carbon black and LLDPE as a
sealing and food contact layer.
Figure 11.12. Schematic view of the aseptic process (A) and multilayer
packaging form for aseptic packaging (B)
Aseptic packaging is also available in the form of metal cans, plastic pots,
plastic bottles (HDPE, PP with or without pigments added for light protection),
flexible packaging and laminated (multilayer) materials (Figure 11.12(B)).
Multilayer materials are also used for bag-in-box systems containing metallized
polyethylene terephthalate (PETmet) as barrier layers (e.g. OPP/PETmet/EVOH/
PET/LLDPE).
The food (soups, fruit juices, milk and other liquid dairy products) is sterilized in
a continuous process by traveling through a heat exchanger before being filled into
the package cold.
Since air overpressure is not required in this process, the packaging does not
need to be as strong as for retort-processed foods. Aseptic filling is also applied in
the beverage industry using PET bottles and flexible pouches with caps (Tucker
2011; Götz et al. 2014; Robertson 2016).
11.3.4. Ohmic heating
Ohmic heating, performed by passing an electrical current through food (Figure

11.13) which is heated by molecular agitation from the motion of ions within the
material, enables uniformity of heating and improvements in nutritional or
organoleptic characteristics of food (Butz and Tauscher 2002; Park et al. 2014). This
technique is especially useful in leafy spices (Mudgal 2019).
Using this method, it is possible to sterilize foods within the package (in-package
sterilization). For this purpose, flexible packaging (laminates) can be used as an
alternative to a rigid container.
Figure 11.13. Schematic view of ohmic heating (Lee et al. 2016)

In order to yield uniform and rapid heating, an electrode configuration in a pouch

(Figure 11.14) was created by Jun and Sastry (2005, 2007).
Figure 11.14. A schematic view of a flexible package with

aluminum (ALU) foil electrodes (Jun and Sastry 2005)
A laminate is made of a thin metal (aluminum) film (0.018 cm) with a protective
polymer (polyester and polyamide) film (0.010 cm) on one side for external
resistance and a heat-sealable interior polyethylene (0.010 cm) film. The electrode
construction, made of aluminum foil (0.005 cm in thickness), is placed between a
folded laminate, with the electrodes extending out and heat-sealing the edges
(Jun and Sastry 2005, 2007).
Apart from ohmic pouches with electrodes, intensive research is being carried
out into conductive (Ag, Au, Cu, Zn, Ni, graphene and carbon nanotubes/
nanoparticles) packaging for the pasteurization and/or sterilization of foods, such as
milk and chunky mixed fruit juice (Kanogchaipramot et al. 2016; Liao et al. 2019).
11.3.5. Infrared treated pre-packaged food
Infrared (IR) radiation is part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is located

between the visible region and microwaves (from 0.5 to 100 mm). They are
classified as: near-IR (0.75–1.4 mm), mid-IR (1.4–3.0 mm) and far-IR (3.0–1000 mm)
(Krishnamurthy et al. 2008; Pan et al. 2016).
Infrared penetration causes a vibrating movement of water molecules at a

frequency of 60,000–150,000 MHz, which causes heating. IR technology is
characterized by high energy efficiency, low energy consumption, less water

consumption, homogeneity of heating with high heat transfer rate, low heating time,
improved product quality and food safety and environmental friendliness (Nowak
and Lewicki 2004; Aboud et al. 2019). The energy is directly concentrated on the
heating material and does not produce volatile organic compounds, carbon
monoxide or nitrogen oxides (Dagerskog and Österström 1979; Afzal and Abe 1999;
Neetoo 2015).
IR heating is used in various thermal food processing operations such as

dehydration (fruits and vegetables, fish, pasta and rice); heating (flour); frying
(meat); roasting (cereals, coffee and cocoa); baking (cookies and bread); blanching
and peeling (fruits and vegetables); and disinfection (corn and rice). Successful IR
applications exist for thawing and surface pasteurization of pre-packaged hotdogs
and ready-to-eat (RTE) meats, such as turkey bologna, roast beef, corned beef and
ham (Gande and Murina 2003; Huang and Sites 2008; Krishnamurthy et al. 2008;
Rastogi 2012; Pan et al. 2016).
Results show that the IR heat of pre-package and post-package surface

pasteurization, or a combination of the two processes, can reduce potential Listeria
contamination on RTE deli meat surfaces, with minimal effects on product quality
(Gande and Murina 2003).
An infrared heating system was developed (Aghajanzadeh et al. 2016) to study

the effect of IR radiation on the quality of juice products (Figure 11.15).
Figure 11.15. Schematic view of an infrared heater for fruit

juice processing (Aghajanzadeh et al. 2016)
It has also been shown that IR heating can cause less ascorbic acid degradation,
lower brown pigment formation and color variation in analyzed juice, compared
to conventional thermal treatment in a water bath (Aghajanzadeh et al. 2016).
11.3.6. Radiofrequency treated pre-packaged food
Radiofrequency (RF) heating is the heating of dielectric materials with

electromagnetic energy, at frequencies between 1 and 300 MHz. It is used to
inactivate heat-resistant spores to produce shelf-stable pre-packed foods such as
pasta, meats, processed eggs, nuts, broccoli powder, etc. (Zhu et al. 2012; Wang et al.
2012; Zhao et al. 2017; Altemimi et al. 2019).
For the RF heating application (pasteurization), the food is packaged in plastic or

other materials and is surrounded by a small air layer or a deionized water layer. A
schematic diagram of a generic RF dielectric heating system is shown in
Figure 11.16 (Zhao et al. 2000, 2017).
Figure 11.16. Radiofrequency (RF) dielectric heating systems (Zhao et al. 2000)
One of the early applications of RF heating was applied on packaged bread

(Cathcart et al. 1947). Loaves of wrapped, sliced white bread and wrapped brown
bread were treated in a 3 kW unit at a frequency of 14–17 MHz, to provide sterile
products with regard to mold. No mold developed on samples heated to 60ºC or
above after 10 days of storage. It was also found that bread needed to be wrapped in
moisture-proof packaging material to maintain moisture during heating and storage.
Wax and glassine paper were not suitable for this purpose as wax paper softened at
temperatures above 38ºC, while glassine papers became sticky at temperatures

ranging from 52 to 60ºC. Cellophane was found to be a satisfactory wrapping
material as it did not show any failure during processing (Cathcart et al. 1947).
Some other materials also showed satisfactory performance, such as
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polycarbonate (PC) and borosilicate glass when
using RF heating to pasteurize sausage emulsion (Houben et al. 1991).
RF drying applications are used for the sterilization of packaged flours as well as
for drying granular foods such as coffee and cocoa beans, corn, grains and nuts.
Although not all applications of RF dielectric heating in the food industry are
carefully examined, there is potential for its use in the blanching of vegetables,
thawing of frozen foods, post-baking snack foods, meat processing, pasteurizing and
the sterilization of liquid foods and pre-packed foods (Piyasena et al. 2003).
11.3.7. Microwavable packaging
Microwaves are a type of electromagnetic radiation characterized by the

wavelength and frequency of the waves used in food processing. A microwave oven
(Figure 11.17) consists of a cavity surrounded by metal walls with a door at the
front. The microwaves, generated by a magnetron, enter the cavity through the wave
guide and the stirrer distributes the microwaves while the turntable enables energy
distribution into the food (Hill 1998; Schiffmann 2017).
Figure 11.17. Basic structure of a microwave oven (Hill 1998)

Generally, microwave ovens for food applications operate at two frequencies.

The household microwave oven operates at 2,450 MHz, and industrial ones at
915 MHz. As microwave energy is not heat energy, in order to heat the food, the
energy must be converted to heat. Energy conversion can occur by (1) dipole
rotation of polar molecules (such as water) and (2) ionic polarization (of ions present
in solution).
When a microwave oven is used to heat packaged food, the package plays an
active part as it can transmit (paper, plastics and glass), reflect (aluminum
foil) or absorb (susceptors) microwaves, thus affecting the heating process
(Neetoo 2015).
Microwave transparent materials are materials which must be wholly or

partially transparent to microwaves. Such materials are paper and plastics.
Plastic-coated paperboard trays are also used for microwavable frozen meals.
For microwave applications, the following plastics are used: LDPE, high-density
polyethylene (HDPE), PP and PET. LDPE trays are suitable for light microwave
heating of frozen food because the trays tend to deform at temperatures as
low as 75°C, while PP trays have a deformation temperature of about
110°C. Crystallized PET trays, the most widely used for microwaveable frozen
meals, are functional at temperatures ranging from 40–220°C (Kirwan et al. 2011;
Schiffmann 2017).
Microwave reflective (shielding) materials include plain aluminum foil

(Alu) and laminates with an aluminum layer (such as Alu/plastic and
Alu/plastic/paperboard). Aluminum can intensify the microwave energy locally
in the package which otherwise would likely have little direct exposure to microwaves.
Some precautions are needed when using aluminum foil in microwave ovens
in order to prevent arcing between Alu-foil and the oven walls. Thus, the foil
should be moved far from the edge to avoid arcing with the oven walls (Kirwan
et al. 2011).
Microwave absorbent materials used for food packaging are known as

susceptors, which generate surface heating and enable browning and crisping of
food. A commercially available susceptor is the metallized PET film laminated to a
thin paperboard (Figure 11.18). The susceptors can reach surface temperatures of
over 200°C within seconds and they are used for products such as pizza, frozen hot
pies and popcorn (Yam 2009; Schiffmann 2017).
Figure 11.18. Susceptors consist of a metallized PET

film laminated to a thin paperboard (Hill 1998)
11.4. Packaging for non-thermally processed food
Non-thermal processes have many advantages, but they also have disadvantages
(Knorr and Watzke 2019). They have different mechanisms to preserve
food compared to thermal processes. Thus, packaging material for non-thermal
processing requires knowledge of the packaging material properties and interactions
between the packaging materials and food components during the non-thermal
processes. Packaging materials for non-thermal processes should have
proper resistance to the particular non-thermal processing conditions (Galić et al.
2011).
11.4.1. High hydrostatic pressure
During high hydrostatic pressure (HHP), pre-packaged foods are briefly

(for a few minutes) exposed to pressures of 200–600 MPa. Process temperatures
during treatment can vary from sub-zero temperatures to above 100°C (Caner
et al. 2004).
The packaging material must be able to withstand the HPP conditions

(Figure 11.19), have good sealing and barrier properties, and have the ability to
prevent quality deterioration during the application of pressure. In cases where pack
integrity (delamination, seal perforation, etc.) is lost, food spoilage can occur easily.
Figure 11.19. Schematic view of the high-pressure processing (Goyal et al. 2013)
In order to transmit pressure, at least one interface of the package must be

flexible enough. Thus, rigid metal, glass or plastic containers cannot be used.
Because gases are very compressible under high pressure, the headspace area must
be as small as possible to avoid package deformation (Rastogi et al. 2007; Guillard
et al. 2010; Fraldi et al. 2014; Marangoni and Anjos 2019).
The effect of HPP treatment on the packaging material can cause a significant
loss of heat sealability (as in the case of the following laminates: PA/PE,
PE/PA/EVOH/PE, PET/PE/EVOH/PE) or an increase of migration levels, as observed
in LDPE/EVAC/VDC laminate (Dobiaš et al. 2004; Rivas-Cańedo et al. 2009;
Bello et al. 2014). In some cases, delamination between PP and Alu, in PE/PA/Alu/PP
laminate, was observed in ready-to-eat meal pouches treated at 200 MPa
and 90°C for 10 minutes (Schauwecker et al. 2002), and PETmet/PE after
processing at 400 MPa and 60°C for 30 minutes (Galotto et al. 2008).
11.4.2. Pulsed electric fields
Pulsed electric fields (PEF) use very short pulses (in milliseconds, or in
microseconds) of a high voltage (from 1 to 80 kV/cm) to inactivate microorganisms
on foods placed between the two electrodes (Figure 11.20).
Figure 11.20. Schematic view of the pulsed electric field processing

system with basic components (Maged and Ayman 2012)
The selection of adequate packaging materials is important to keep the quality of

PEF-treated foods during storage. Packaging materials with very low O2
permeability values should be selected for oxygen-sensitive food products. For these
products, oxygen in the food and in the headspace of the package should also be
minimized.
The effects of different packaging materials (glass, PET, HDPE and LDPE) on
the stability of PEF processed (35 kV/cm, 59 µs) orange juice was investigated
(Ayman et al. 2001). The retention of flavor compounds tested, vitamin C and color
was significantly higher in glass and PET than in HDPE and LDPE packages. The
reasons for such behavior were explained by: (1) the absorption of flavor compounds
into the polymeric packaging materials tested; (2) the acceleration of degradation
reactions (ascorbic acid, color and flavor) due to initial oxygen concentration and
oxygen permeation through the package; and (3) increases in browning, absorption
and degradation of flavor compounds with increasing storage temperatures (from 4
to 22°C). PEF has been applied on different beverages, mainly on fruit juices, tea
and milk (Gabrić et al. 2017). The PEF-treated orange juice had a shelf life of over
16 weeks at 4°C in glass and PET bottles (Kumar and Han 2012).
11.4.3. Irradiation
Food irradiation is a process that involves the exposure of food to ionizing

radiation (Figure 11.21), such as gamma rays emitted from the radioisotopes
cobalt-60 (60Co) and cesium-137 (137Cs), accelerated electrons (at or below 10 MeV)
and X-rays (at or below 5 MeV).
Figure 11.21. The spectrum of electromagnetic waves
Ionizing radiation can be applied to decontaminate pre-packaged food, either by

pasteurization (1–5 kGy) or sterilization (10–74 kGy) using radiation-stable
packaging material (Kumar and Han 2012; Neetoo 2015).
Among the food products, spices and herbs are the most widely irradiated items,
while fruits, vegetables, fish and grains are also irradiated (Koutchma et al. 2018).
Packaging material may be irradiated before (dairy products, processed food,

beverages, pharmaceutical and medical device) or after filling.
Packaging materials for irradiation should have chemical and physical stability
under radiation without degradation (which can result in the migration of
compounds from the packaging into the food) or significant changes in mechanical
and barrier properties. Ionizing radiation can affect polymers in two ways: through
crosslinking (mainly under vacuum or an inert atmosphere) and chain scission
(degradation) in the presence of oxygen or air. Therefore, it is important to
determine the stability/integrity of irradiated packaging. Some monofilms (HDPE,

LDPE, PS, BOPP) were not significantly affected, while in the case of laminates,
barrier properties either decrease, as in the case for BOPP/CPP and PET/PVDC/PE,
or are not significantly affected, as in the case for PA/PVDC/EVAC,
PET/PE/EVAL/PE and PET/PET/PE-LLD, with applied radiation doses (Ozen and
Floros 2001; Haji-Saeid et al. 2007; Mizani et al. 2009; Kumar and Han 2012).
Irradiated products placed on the market must be marked with the “radura”
(radurization is a process of packaged and non-packaged food irradiation) symbol
(a plant in circle).
11.4.4. Pulsed light technology
Pulsed light (PL) technology is a method used for the sterilization of foods using
very high power and very short duration pulses of light emitted (Figure 11.22) by
inert gas-flash lamps (Gómez-López et al. 2007). The high-power pulses of
radiation can be in the spectra of ultraviolet (UV), visible (VL) and infrared (IR)
light.
PL has also been used for the surface decontamination of foods in plastic
packaging. The sterilization of foods is possible as long as the packaging material
and packaged contents are UV transparent. However, because of the opacity and
irregular shape of most foods, PL is mostly effective for surface decontamination.
Figure 11.22. Schematic view of pulsed UV-light

food treatment (Murugesan et al. 2012)
Microorganisms penetrating into deep surface irregularities of food are thus

protected from the PL action due to the “shadow effect” (Elmnasser et al. 2007;
Bhavya and Umesh Hebbar 2017). The application of PL is especially convenient

for cap, tray and cup decontamination, where conventional techniques are difficult
to use. UV light can reduce the contents of a range of microorganisms on packaging
materials (such as black PP, white PP trays and PVC) and on food contact surfaces
(such as stainless steel) and was most effective for reducing C. jejuni on the
packaging materials mentioned (Haughton et al. 2010).
Generally, UV light was least effective when applied to microorganisms

inoculated onto PET/PP films and onto blue PS. It was also demonstrated that UV
light can interact with the packaging materials, such as PET, yielding undesirable
products, or can cause the package constituents to undergo certain chemical
reactions (Ozen and Floros 2001). Among PE films, the surface of HDPE oxidizes
slightly faster than that of LDPE (Peeling and Clark 1983).
It is evident that the effects of novel food processing methods on packaged food
can cause different failures in the packaging material, thus affecting shelf life of the
packaged food. Hence, food–packaging interactions under specific processing
conditions should be carefully investigated in order to select the optimal packaging
material for specific novel treatment technologies (Guillard et al. 2010; Neetoo
2015).
11.5. Packaging with atmosphere modification
Figure 11.23. Food packaging methods with atmosphere modification

The main role of this method is to use reduced oxygen content inside the
packaging (Figure 11.23). Reduced oxygen packaging (ROP) is a process of
modifying the air (78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.03% carbon dioxide
and other trace gases) atmosphere (Figure 11.23(A)) inside the package with a
desired gas composition. By applying an appropriate gas composition inside the
package, increased food shelf life can be achieved due to reduced microbiological
growth and/or enzymatic spoilage.
ROP methods include: (1) vacuum packaging (Figure 11.23(B)); (2) gas
packaging, (a) inert packaging (Figure 11.23(C)), (b) modified atmosphere
packaging (Figure 11.23(D)) and (c) active packaging (Figure 11.23(E)).
11.5.1. Vacuum and vacuum skin packaging
Vacuum packaging (VP) refers to packaging containers (rigid or flexible) with

all air having been removed prior to final sealing of the container (Figure 11.23(B)).
Since it is not possible to evacuate all of the air (about 3% remains after sealing), the
gaseous atmosphere of the vacuum package is changed during storage (due to
microbial activity and gas permeation of the package) and therefore the atmosphere
becomes modified.
Vacuum skin packaging (VSP) methods involve wrapping/packing a product

with a polymeric film and applying a vacuum so that a skin is formed around the
food. This allows the vacuum packaging of irregularly-shaped products and also of
products that could puncture vacuum films, such as poultry and shrimp (Lagerstedt
et al. 2011; Li et al. 2012).
The most common polymeric materials used for VP and VSP include monofilms
(LDPE, PVC, ionomer (IO) and PP) and laminates such as PA/PE, PE/PA/PE,
PE/EVOH/PE/PA, PE/EVAC/IO/EVOH/IO/EVAC, PET/SiOx and SiOx/PE
(Gertzou et al. 2017; Van Rooyen et al. 2018; Mazzola et al. 2019).
VP products include fresh red meat, processed meat (ham, bacon, salami,
frankfurters, etc.) and cheeses.
Advantages of vacuum packaging are:
1. extends shelf life: controls oxidative reactions; prevents the growth of spoilage
bacteria; aerobic organisms (e.g. Pseudomonas) are prevented and lactic-acid
bacteria (LAB) are favored;
2. reduces moisture loss: prevents movement of water out of the product into the
headspace; prevents loss of moisture at the product surface and eliminates freezer
burns;
3. requires minimal storage space, as product is tightly wrapped and occupies
minimal space;
4. enables easy detection of leaks, as small punctures in a vacuum pack are easy
to detect as the product is deformed and loses its specific “vacuum shape”.
11.5.2. Inert atmosphere packaging
Inert atmosphere packaging (the gas-flushing process, Figure 11.23(C)) is usually

performed by an FFS machine. An inert gas (mostly nitrogen) is injected into the
package to replace the air. When most of the air has been replaced, the package is
sealed. The typical residual oxygen levels in gas-flushed packs are 2–5%. Thus, this
technique is not suitable for packaging very oxygen-sensitive foods. Flushing with
nitrogen is a common industry practice to extend the shelf life of beverages, juices,
some bakery products and snack foods (Wagner 2010; Jensen et al. 2011). Snack
foods (such as potato chips) are usually packaged in metallized films
(BOPP/BOPPmet, BOPP/LDPE/BOPPmet, EVAC/HDPE/BOPPmet), which
provide protection from oxygen, moisture and light. Salty snacks, with a high fat
content, are packaged in barrier films containing aluminum foil, a metallized
polymer film or a barrier polymer such as EVOH or PVDC, and are also gas-flushed
with nitrogen. Such barrier laminates are BOPP/LDPE/BOPP and
BOPP/LDPE/Alu/LDPE.
The advantages of gas packaging are: (a) extended shelf life – controls oxidation
reactions by replacing the oxygen with nitrogen; (b) prevents crushing of soft
products (such as potato chips); and (c) retains moisture – prevents the product from
drying out by containing the moisture in the package. However, water can move
from the center of the product to the surface, resulting in staling (as is the case for
bread).
Disadvantages of gas packaging include a) capital cost of gas packaging

equipment, b) cost of gases and packaging materials and c) increased pack volume
increases transport costs and retail display space.
11.5.3. Controlled atmosphere packaging
Controlled atmosphere packaging (CAP) and controlled atmosphere storage

(CAS) are characterized by the proportion of each gas used and are controlled at the
original level throughout the distribution chain. The conditions (temperature and
relative humidity) adopted for storage of fresh products (fruits and vegetables) have
a critical influence on the choice of gas composition and play an important role in
the preservation period. CAP and CAS techniques are primarily used for long-term
bulk storage and transportation of food (pears, sweet cherries, apples, cabbage, etc.)
of irregular shapes, or as master packs for retail-ready products (Yang and Wang
2014). This technique requires constant monitoring and control of the gas
composition (and/or other parameters such as relative humidity and temperature)
within the system (Figure 11.24).
Figure 11.24. Controlled atmosphere storage elements
11.5.4. Modified atmosphere packaging
The modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) method is the replacement of air

(N2 – 78%, O2 – 21%, CO2 – 0.05%, etc.) in a pack, with a single gas or mixture of
gases (Figure 11.25).
The proportion of each component is fixed when the mixture is introduced, and
no further control is applied. Thus, the gas composition changes with time due to the
diffusion of gases into and out of the product, the permeation of gases into and out
of the pack, and the effects of food and microbial metabolism.
Figure 11.25. Modified atmosphere packaging elements
Three gases are generally used: oxygen (O2), nitrogen (N2) and carbon dioxide
(CO2), where a proper combination needs to be used for a particular food product’s
packaging (Table 11.3). Each of these gases possesses specific functions which
should be taken into account.
Gas content (% v/v)

Food
CO2 N2 O2
Red meat 15–40 - 60–85
Poultry 75 25 -
Game 30 50 20
Cooked meats 30 70 -
Processed meats - 100 -
Apples 1–3 95–98 1–2
Lemons 0–10 80–95 5–10
Strawberries 15–20 70–80 5–10
Tomatoes 0 95–97 3–5
Cauliflower 2–5 90–96 2–5
Carrots 3–4 91–95 5
Sliced bread 100 - -
Rye bread 100 - -
Fresh pasta 50 50 -
Table 11.3. MAP gas mixture for some food items

(Smith and Ramaswamy 1996; Smiddy et al. 2002, 2004)
Oxygen exclusion is generally desirable due to the spoilage of oxygen-sensitive

food. However, oxygen presence is essential for packaging fresh fruit and
vegetables, as these continue to respire (i.e. consume O2 and produce CO2) post-
harvest, and in the absence of O2 anaerobic respiration occurs, the effect of which is
to accelerate spoilage reactions. Thus, fresh produce packages are designed with
perforations that enhance the removal rate of respiration heat from the packaged
products, either in plastic, corrugated board or package stacking on pallets (Hussein
et al. 2015; Wu et al. 2019; Mukama et al. 2020). O2 is also desirable in red meat
packaging as it maintains the coloring pigment myoglobin in the bright red,
oxygenated form (oxymyoglobin) that consumers prefer. It is thus important to
control O2 levels within the packages. By reducing the concentration of O2, the
growth of aerobic bacteria and molds is retarded. An oxygen level of less than 1% is
needed to inhibit the growth of molds in products with low water activity, such as
bread. Oxidation and enzymatic browning are also restricted with the exclusion of O2.
Carbon dioxide is responsible for the main bacteriostatic effects of the modified
atmosphere (MA), by extending the lag phase of bacterial growth and decreasing the
growth rate (DeWitt and Oliveira 2016). The effectiveness of CO2 depends on the
organisms present. A CO2 concentration of 10% is necessary to inhibit molds.
Gram-negative organisms are strongly influenced by higher CO2 concentrations,
while LAB growth is minimally influenced. The inhibitory effect of CO2 increases
linearly with concentrations up to 50–60%, above which there is little or no further
effect on the majority of microorganisms. An amount greater than that, which will
dissolve into the product, is required for optimum effect. Therefore, the package
volume and the permeability and surface area of the packaging material are
important parameters to be considered. The effect of CO2 increases as temperature
decreases, due to higher CO2 solubility at lower temperatures. When dissolved,
some of the gas is converted into carbonic acid (H2CO3), which can cause an
unpleasant acidic taste when high concentrations of CO2 are used. The absorption of
the gas by the product (especially high moisture foods such as meat and seafood)
causes some reduction in gas volume and consequent pack collapse. However,
packaging in high CO2 concentrations can cause fluid release in ham, a taint in fatty
fish, product separation in cream, increased drip in fresh meat and physiological
damage to fruit and vegetables.
Nitrogen is an inert, tasteless gas, which displays no antimicrobial activity. It is

used as a cushion, balance or filter gas in order to replace O2, either as an alternative
to vacuum packaging when the product is fragile, or to limit pack collapse caused by
the absorption of CO2. By displacing O2 in the pack, N2 can delay oxidative
rancidity and reduce the growth of aerobic microorganisms.
Carbon monoxide in concentrations as low as 1% can inhibit the growth of

many bacteria, yeasts and molds. It can also delay the oxidative browning of fruits
and vegetables when combined with low O2 concentrations (2–5%). By adding small
amounts of CO to red meat packaging, products such as minced beef can maintain
their natural appearance throughout their shelf life, since CO reacts with the meat
pigment myoglobin to create carboxymyoglobin, a bright red pigment that masks the
natural aging of meat. CO has limited commercial usage, due to its toxicity and
explosive nature at 12.5–74.2% in air; thus, it must be handled with special
precautions (Brandenburg 2009).
Other gases that have been considered for their potential use in MAP
applications include SO2, nitrous oxide (N2O), nitric oxide (NO), ozone (O3), He,
H2, Ne, Ar, propylene oxide, ethylene and Cl2. However, the use of these gases is
limited by safety concerns, legislation, cost and negative effects on the organoleptic
properties of packaged products.
For gases to be used as a food additive, for example as a packaging gas, they
must be approved under EU law and be known by their E Numbers (e.g. E941 for
nitrogen; E290 for CO2; E948 for O2, etc.). The EU also sets a minimum purity
criterion for gases, when they are used as a food additive (FSAI 2011).
Figure 11.26. Gas change in active and passive packaging with time
Equilibrium-modified atmosphere (EMA) packaging is mainly used in fresh fruit

and vegetable packaging. In this case, the pack is either flushed with the required
gas mix (active packaging), or the produce is packaged with no atmosphere
modification, which is known as passive packaging (Figure 11.26). Successive
product respiration and gas permeability of the package allow an EMA (passive
packaging) to be reached.
From all of the gasses mentioned above, it is obvious that the packaging material
selection needs to take into account different factors, in order to obtain the desired
shelf life of the product. These include general (Table 11.4) and different barrier
characteristics (Table 11.5).
Properties Materials Abbreviation

Aluminum foil Alu
Opacity Paper PAP
Pigmented plastic films
Regenerated cellulose RC
Transparency Poly(ethylene terephthalate) PET
Most plastic films
Aluminum foil Alu
Polyester
Heat stability
High-density polyethylene HDPE; PE-HD
Polypropylene PP
Aluminum foil Alu
Oriented polypropylene OPP
Low temperature
Low-density polyethylene LDPE; PE-LD
stability
Ethylene/vinyl acetate EVAC (EVA)
Polystyrene PS
Polyamide PA
Low-density polyethylene LDPE; PE-LD
Ionomer IO
Heat-sealability Poly(vinylidene chloride) PVDC
Polyamide PA
Polypropylene PP
PVDC-coated oriented polypropylene OPP/PVDC
Paper PAP
Regenerated cellulose RC
Printability
Polycarbonate PC
Ionomer IO
Table 11.4. General properties of packaging materials
Barrier
Packaging material Abbreviation
against
Ethylene/vinyl alcohol EVAL
Poly(vinylidene chloride) PVDC
Poly(acrylonitrile) PAN
Metallized aluminum Alu-met
O2
Laminates with silicon oxide coating SiOx
Some types of cellophane
Polyamide PA
Crystalline polyethylene terephthalate PET-C
Ethylene/vinyl alcohol EVAL
Crystalline polyethylene terephthalate PET-C
CO2
Polyamide PA
High-density polyethylene PE-HD; HDPE
Oriented polypropylene OPP
Poly(vinylidene chloride) PVDC
Water vapor
Polyamide PA
Metallized aluminum Alu-met
Ultraviolet Poly(ethylene terephthalate with nanoparticles PET+SiOx
light (silicon and titanium oxide), etc. PET+TiO2
Smoke Laminates with polyamide
Table 11.5. Barrier characteristics of food packaging materials

Despite many advantages, the high cost of MAP products (Table 11.6) limits
their application; thus, the incorporation of active packaging (see Chapter 8) seems
to be a promising solution to overcome these problems (Boz et al. 2018).
Modified atmosphere packaging

Advantages Disadvantages
– Added costs for gases, packaging
– Shelf life can be increased by 50–400% materials and machinery
– Reduced economic losses due to longer – Temperature control is necessary
shelf life – Different gas formulations for each
– Maintains high quality product product type are needed
– Centralized packaging and portion – Special equipment and training are
control
required
– Improved presentation – clear view of
product – Increased pack volume adversely affects
– Little or no need for chemical transport costs and retail display space
preservatives – Benefit loss once the pack is opened or
– Sealed packages are barriers against leaks
product recontamination – CO2 dissolving into the food could lead to
– Odorless and convenient packages
pack collapse, increased drip and could
increase food acidity
Table 11.6. Advantages and disadvantages of MAP
Abbreviations Description
Alu Aluminum Foil
BOPP Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene
BOPPmet Metallized Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene
CAP Controlled Atmosphere Packaging
CAS Controlled Atmosphere Storage
EMA Equilibrium-Modified Atmosphere
EU European Union
EVAC (EVA) Ethylene Vinyl Acetate
EVOH (EVAL) Ethylene Vinyl Alcohol
FFS Form-Fill-Seal
HDPE (PE-HD) High-Density Polyethylene
HPP High Hydrostatic Pressure

LAB Lactic Acid Bacteria
LDPE (PE-LD) Low-Density Polyethylene
LLDPE Linear Low-Density Polyethylene
MAP Modified Atmosphere Packaging
PC Polycarbonate
PEF Pulsed Electric Fields
PEN Polyethylene Naphthalate
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
PETmet Metallized Polyethylene Terephthalate
PP Polypropylene
PS Polystyrene
PTFE Polytetrafluoroethylene
PVOH (PVAL) Polyvinyl Alcohol
RF Radiofrequency
ROP Reduced Oxygen Packaging
TFS Tin-Free Steel
UHT Ultra-Heat Treatment
VDC Vinylidene Chloride
VP Vacuum Packaging
VSP Vacuum Skin Packaging
11.7. References
Abdul Ghani Al-Baali, A.G. and Farid, M.M. (2006). Sterilization of Food in Retort
Pouches. Springer Science+Business Media, Berlin.
Aboud, S.A., Altemimi, A.B., Al-HiIphy, A.R.S., Lee Y.-C., and Cacciola, F.
(2019). A comprehensive review on infrared heating applications in food
processing. Molecules, 24, 4125.
AFDO (2011). A guide to can defects and basic components of double seam containers.
Association of Food and Drug Officials [Online]. Available: http://www.afdo.org/
resources/Documents/Committee%20Reports%202016-2017/Guide%20to%20Can
%20Defects%20and%20Double%20Seam%20Containers_Nov2011%20(FINAL-
compressed).pdf [Accessed 28 April 2020].
Afzal, T.M. and Abe, T. (1999). Energy and quality aspects of combined FIR
convection drying of barley. J. Food Eng., 42, 177–182.
Aghajanzadeh, S., Kashaninejad, M., and Ziaiifar, A.M. (2016). Effect of infrared
heating on degradation kinetics of key lime juice physicochemical properties.
Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol., 38, 139–148.
marketplace for packaging-processing-printing-handling [Online]. Available:
https://docplayer.net/44626796-Packaging-market-and-challenges-in-2016.html
Altemimi, A., Aziz, S.N., Al-HiIphy, A.R.S., Lakhssassi, N., Watson, D.G., and
Ibrahim, S.A. (2019). Critical review of radio-frequency (RF) heating
applications in food processing. Food Qual. Safe., 3, 81–91.
Arvanitoyannis, I.S. and Kotsanopoulos, K. (2012). Safety and quality control of
modified atmosphere packaging products. In Modified Atmosphere and Active
Packaging Technologies, Arvanitoyannis, I.S. (ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Ayhan, Z., Yeom, H.W., Zhang, H., and Min, D.B. (2001). Flavor, color, vitamin C
retention of pulsed electric field processed orange juice in different packaging
materials. J. Agr. Food Chem., 49, 669–674.
Baldwin, D.E. (2012). Sous vide cooking: A review. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci., 1,
15–30.
Bello, E.F.T., González Martínez, G., Klotz Ceberio, B.F., Rodrigo, D., and
Martínez López, A. (2014). High pressure treatment in foods. Foods, 3, 476–490.
Bhavya, M.L. and Umesh Hebbar, H. (2017). Pulsed light processing of foods for
microbial safety. Food Qual. Safe., 1(3), 187–201.
Boz, Z., Welt, B.A., Brecht, J.K., Pelletier, W., McLamore, E., Kiker, G.A., and
Butler, J.E. (2018). Review of challenges and advances in modification of food
package headspace gases. J. Appl. Packag. Res., 10(1), 5.
Brandenburg, J. (2009). Modified atmosphere packaging. In The Wiley
Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology, Yam K.L. (ed.). John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Butz, P. and Tauscher, B. (2002). Emerging technologies: Chemical aspects. Food
Res. Int., 35, 279–284.
Caner, C., Hernandez, R.J., and Harte, B.R. (2004). High-pressure processing effects
on the mechanical, barrier and mass transfer properties of food packaging
flexible structures: A critical review. Packag. Technol. Sci., 17, 23–29.
Cathcart, W.H., Parker, J.J., and Beattie, H.G. (1947). The treatment of packaged
bread with high frequency heat. Food Technol., 1, 174–177.
Dagerskog, M. and Österström, L. (1979). Infrared radiation for food processing I:
A study of the fundamental properties of infrared radiation. LWT Food Sci.
Technol., 12, 237–242.
Dantas, F.B.H. and Dantas, S.T. (2017). Canned Food and Packaging Parameters.
Reference Module in Food Sciences [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-08-100596-5.03205-4.
DeWitt, C.A.M. and Oliveira, A.C.M. (2016). Modified atmosphere systems and
shelf life extension of fish and fishery products. Foods, 5, 48.
Dobiaš, J., Voldřich, M., Marek, M., and Chudáčková, K. (2004). Changes of
properties of polymer packaging films during high pressure treatment. J. Food
Eng., 61(4), 545–549.
Ebnesajjad, S. (2013). Plastic Films in Food Packaging: Materials, Technology, and
Applications. Elsevier, New York.
Elmnasser, N., Guillou, S., Leroi, F., Orange, N., Bakhrouf, A., and Federighi, M.
(2007). Pulsed–light system as a novel food decontamination technology: A
review. Can. J. Microbiol., 53, 813–821.
European Commission (2019). Report from the Commission to the European
Parliament and Council on food and food ingredients treated with ionizing
radiation for the years 2016–2017. COM/2019/454 final.
Eustice, R.F. (2018). Global status and commercial applications of food irradiation.
In Food Irradiation Technologies: Concepts, Applications and Outcomes,
Ferreira, I.C.F.R., Antonio, A.L., and Verde, S.C. (eds). The Royal Society of
Chemistry, London.
Fraldi, M., Cutolo, A., Esposito, L., Perrella, G., Pastore Carbone, M.G., Sansone, L.,
Scherillo, G., and Mensitieri, G. (2014). Delamination onset and design criteria
of multilayer flexible packaging under high pressure treatments. Innov. Food Sci.
Emerg. Technol., 23, 39–53.
FSAI (Food Safety Authority of Ireland) (2011). Guidance on food additives,
Revision 1 [Online]. Available: http://www.qsd.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013
/06/food-additives-2011-final1.pdf [Accessed 7 February 2020].
Gabrić, D., Barba, F., Roohinejad, S., Gharibzahedi, S.M.T., Radojčin, M., Putnik, P.,
and Bursać Kovačević, D. (2017). Pulsed electric fields as an alternative to
thermal processing for preservation of nutritive and physicochemical properties
of beverages: A review. J. Food Process. Eng., e12638, 1–14.
Galić, K., Ščetar, M., and Kurek, M. (2011). The benefits of processing and
packaging – Review. Trends Food Sci Tech., 22(2–3), 127–137.
Galić, K., Gabrić, D., and Ćurić, D. (2019). Packaging and the Shelf Life of Bread.
Reference Module in Food Science, 1–8 [Online]. Available: doi:http:// dx.doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.22655-3.
Galotto, M.J., Ulloa, P.A., Hernandez, D., Fernandez-Martin, F., Gavara, R., and
Guarda, A. (2008). Mechanical and thermal behaviour of flexible food packaging
polymeric films materials under high pressure/temperature treatments. Packag.
Technol. Sci., 21(5), 297–308.
Gande, N. and Murina, P. (2003). Prepackage surface pasteurization of ready-to-eat
meats with a radiant heat oven for reduction of Listeria monocytogenes. J. Food
Prot., 66, 1623–1630.
Gertzou, I.N., Karabagias, I.K., Drosos, P.E., and Riganakos, K.A. (2017). Effect of
combination of ozonation and vacuum packaging on shelf life extension of fresh
chicken legs during storage under refrigeration. J. Food Eng., 213, 18–26.
Gómez-López, V.M., Ragaert, P., Debevere, J., and Devlieghere, F. (2007). Pulsed
light for food decontamination: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol., 18, 464–473.
Götz, A., Wani, A.A., Langowski, H.-C., and Wunderlich, J. (2014). Aseptic
packaging. Encyclopedia of Food Safety, 3, 124–134.
Goyal, A., Sharma, V., Upadhyay, N., Sihag, M., and Kaushik, R. (2013). High
pressure processing and its impact on milk proteins: A review. RRJoDST., 2(1),
12–20.
Guillard, V., Mauricio-Iglesias, M., and Gontard, N. (2010). Effect of novel food
processing methods on packaging: Structure, composition, and migration
properties. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr., 50(10), 969–988.
Haji-Saeid, M., Sampa, M.H.O., and Chmielewski, A.G. (2007). Radiation treatment
for sterilization of packaging materials. Radiat. Phys. Chem., 76(8–9), 1535–1541.
Haughton, P.N., Lyng, J.G., Cronin, D.A., Morgan, D.J., Fanning, S., and Whyte, P.
(2010). Efficacy of UV light treatment for the microbiological decontamination
of chicken associated packaging, and contact surfaces. J. Food Prot., 74,
565–572.
Hill, A. (1998). Microwave Ovens. ILSI Europe, Belgium.
Holdsworth, D. and Simpson, R. (2007). Thermal Processing of Packaged Foods,

2nd edition. Springer Science+Business Media, Berlin.
Hotchkiss, J.H. (2009). Canning, food. In The Wiley Encyclopedia of Packaging
Technology, 3rd edition, Yam, K.L. (ed.). John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Houben, J., Schoenmakers, L., van Putten, E., van Roon, P., and Krol, B. (1991).
Radio-frequency pasteurization of sausage emulsions as a continuous process.
J. Microw. Power Electromagn. Energy, 26(4), 202–205.
Huang, L. and Sites, J. (2008). Elimination of Listeria monocytogenes on hotdogs by
infrared surface treatment. J Food Sci., 73(1), M27–M31.
Hussein, Z., Caleb, O.J., and Opara, U.L. (2015). Perforation-mediated modified
atmosphere packaging of fresh and minimally processed produce – A review.
Food Packag. Shelf Life, 6, 7–20.
Jensen, S., Oestdal, H., Clausen, M.R., Andersen, M.L., and Skibsted L.H. (2011).
Oxidative stability of whole wheat bread during storage. LWT Food Sci.
Technol., 44, 637–642.
Jun, S. and Sastry, S. (2005). Modeling and optimization of ohmic heating of foods
inside a flexible package. J. Food Process Eng., 28, 417–436.
Jun, S. and Sastry, S. (2007). Reusable pouch development for long term space
missions: A 3D ohmic model for verification of sterilization efficacy. J. Food
Eng., 80, 1199–1205.
Kanogchaipramot, K., Tongkhao, K., Sajjaanantakul, T., and Kamonpatana, P.
(2016). Ohmic heating of an electrically conductive food package. J. Food Sci.,
81(12), E2966–E2976.
Kirwan, M.J., Plant, S., and Strawbridge, J.W. (2011). Plastics in food packaging. In
Food and Beverage Packaging Technology, Coles, R. and Kirwan, M. (eds).
Knorr, D. and Watzke, H. (2019). Food processing at a crossroad – Review. Front.
Nutr., 6, 85.
Koutchma, T., Keener, L., and Kotilainen, H. (2018). Global Harmonization
Initiative (GHI) consensus document on food irradiation, pp. 1–18 [Online].
Available: https://www.globalharmonization.net/sites/default/files/pdf/GHI-Food-
Irradiation_October-2018.pdf [Accessed 15 January 2020].
Krishnamurthy, K., Khurana, H.K., Jun, S., Irudayaraj, J., and Demirci, A. (2008).
Infrared heating in food processing: An overview. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food
Saf., 7, 2–13.
Kumar, P. and Han, J.H. (2012). Packaging materials for non-thermal processing of
food and beverages. In Emerging Food Packaging Technologies, Principles and
Practice, Yam, K.L. and Dong Sun, L. (eds). Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge.
Kume, T. and Todoriki, S. (2013). Food irradiation in Asia, the European Union and
the United States: A status update. Radioisotopes, 62, 291–299.
Lagerstedt, Å., Ahnström, M.L., and Lundström K. (2011). Vacuum skin pack of
beef – A consumer friendly alternative. Meat Sci., 88, 391–396.
Lange, J. and Wyser, Y. (2003). Recent innovations in barrier technologies for
plastic packaging – A review. Packag. Technol. Sci., 16, 149–158.
Lee, S.H., Choi, W., and Jun, S. (2016). Conventional and emerging combination
technologies for food processing – Review. Food. Eng. Rev., 8, 414–434.
Li, X., Lindahl, G., Zamaratskaia, G., and Lundström, K. (2012). Influence of
vacuum skin packaging on color stability of beef longissimus lumborum
compared with vacuum and high-oxygen modified atmosphere packaging. Meat
Sci., 92, 604–609.
Liao, Y., Zhang, R., and Qian, J. (2019). Printed electronics based on inorganic
conductive nanomaterials and their applications in intelligent food packaging.
RSC Adv., 9, 29154–29172.
Maged, E.A.M. and Ayman, H.A.E. (2012). Pulsed electric fields for food processing
technology [Online]. Available: http://www.intechopen.com/download/get/type/
pdfs/id/38363 [Accessed 16 January 2020].
Mahalik, N.P. (2014). Advances in packaging methods, processes and systems.
Challenges, 5, 374–389.
Majumdar, R.K., Deepayan, R., and Apurba, S. (2017). Textural and sensory
characteristics of retort-processed freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium
rosenbergii) in curry medium. Int. J. Food Prop., 20(11), 2487–2498.
Marangoni Júnior, L. and Anjos C.A.R. (2019). Effect of high-pressure processing
on characteristics of flexible packaging for foods and beverages – Review. Food
Res. Int., 119, 920–930.
Mazzola, N. and Sarantopoulos, C.I.G.L. (2019). Packaging design alternatives for
meat products [Online]. Available: https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/
packaging-design-alternatives-for-meat-products [Accessed 3 March 2020].
Mizani, M., Sheikh, N., Ebrahimi, S.N., Gerami, A., and Tavakoli, F.A. (2009).
Effect of gamma irradiation on physico-mechanical properties of spice
packaging films. Radiat. Phys. Chem., 78(9), 806–809.
Mudgal, V.D. (2019). Ohmic heating: An alternative technology for spices

processing. Int. J. Seed Spices, 9(1), 44–47.
Mukama, M., Ambaw, A., and Opara, U.L. (2020). Advances in design and
performance evaluation of fresh fruit ventilated distribution packaging:
A review. Food Packag. Shelf Life, 24, 100472.
Mullan, M. and McDowell, D. (2003). Modified atmosphere packaging. In Food
Packaging Technology, Coles R., McDowell, D., and Kirwan, M.J. (eds).
Murugesan, R., Orsat, V., and Lefsrud, M. (2012). Effect of pulsed ultraviolet light
on the total phenol content of elderberry (Sambucus nigra) fruit. Food Nutr. Sci.,
3, 774–783.
Neetoo, H. (2015). Innovative processing for pre-packaged foods. Int. J. Inno. Sci.
Res., 16(1), 179–194.
Nowak, D. and Lewicki, P.P. (2004). Infrared drying of apple slices. Innov. Food
Sci. Emerg. Technol., 5, 353–360.
Ozen, B.F. and Floros, J.D. (2001). Effects of emerging food processing techniques
on the packaging materials. Trends Food Sci. Technol., 12, 60–67.
Pan, Z., Venkitasamy, C., and Li, X. (2016). Infrared processing of foods. Reference
module in food sciences [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
08-100596-5.03105-X.
Park, S.H., Lamsal, B.P., and Balasubramaniam, V.M. (2014). Principles of food
processing. In Food Processing: Principles and Applications, 2nd edition, Clark S.,
Jung S., and Lamsal, B. (eds) John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Peeling, J. and Clark, D.T. (1983). Surface ozonation and photooxidation of
polyethylene film. J. Polym. Sci. Polym. Chem. Ed., 21, 2047–2055.
Piyasena, P., Dussault, C., Koutchma, T., Ramaswamy, H.S., and Awuah, G.B.
(2003). Radio frequency heating of foods: Principles, applications and related
properties – A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr., 43(6), 587–606.
Rastogi, N.K. (2012). Recent trends and developments in infrared heating in food
processing. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr., 52(9), 737–760.
Rastogi, N.K., Raghavarao, K.S.M.S., Balasubramaniam, V.M., Niranjan, K., and
Knorr, D. (2007). Opportunities and challenges in high pressure processing of
foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr., 47(1), 69–112.
Regattieri, A. and Santarelli, G. (2015). The important role of packaging in operations

management [Online]. Available: https://www.intechopen.com/books/operations-
management/the-important-role-of-packaging-in-operations-management [Accessed
28 April 2020].
Rivas-Cańedo, A., Fernández-García, E., and Nuńez, M. (2009). Volatile
compounds in fresh meats subjected to high pressure processing: Effect of the
packaging material. Meat Sci., 81(2), 321–328.
Robertson, G.L. (2016). Ultrahigh temperature treatment (UHT): Aseptic packaging.
reference module in food sciences [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-08-100596-5.00810-6.
Ščetar, M. and Galić, K. (2018). A perspective on packaging of fruits and
vegetables. In Novel Postharvest Treatments of Fresh Produce, Pareek, S. (ed.).
CRC Press, London.
Schauwecker, A., Balasubramaniam, V.M., Sadler, G., Pascall, M.A., and Adhikari, C.
(2002). Influence of high-pressure processing on selected polymeric materials
and on the migration of a pressure-transmitting fluid. Packag. Technol. Sci.,
15(5), 255–262.
Schiffmann, R. (2017). Packaging for microwave foods. In The Microwave
Processing of Foods, Regjer, M., Knoerzer, K., and Schubert, H (eds).
Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge.
Schmidt, T. and Leiking, L. (2005). Reliability of evaluations for the choice of
system solutions at the example of automated order-picking systems for bagged
goods [Online]. Available: https://www.logistics-journal.de/archive/2005/723/
beutel_e.pdf [Accessed 24 April 2020].
Smiddy, M., Fitzgerald, M., Kerry, J.P., Papkovsky, D.B., O’Sullivan, C.K., and
Guilbault, G.G. (2002). Use of oxygen sensors to non-destructively measure the
oxygen content in modified atmosphere and vacuum packed beef: Impact of
oxygen content on lipid oxidation. Meat Sci., 61, 285–290.
Smith, J.P. and Ramaswamy H.S. (1996). Packaging of fruits and vegetables. In
Processing Fruits: Science and Technology, Somogyi, L., Ramaswamy, H.S.,
and Hui, Y.H. (eds). Technomic Publishing, Lancaster, PA.
Smith, J.P., Daifas, D.P., El-Khoury, W., and Koukoutsis, J. (2004). Shelf life and
safety concerns of bakery products – A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr., 44,
19–55.
Srivastava, A., Kumar, V., and Kumar Singh, A. (2018). Computerized and electronic
controls in food packaging [Online]. Available: https://scholarworks.rit.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1106&context=japr [Accessed 24 April 2020].
Struller, C.F., Kelly, P.J., and Copeland, N.J. (2019). Conversion of aluminium
oxide coated films for food packaging applications – From a single layer
material to a complete pouch. Food Packag. Shelf Life, 20, 100309.
Transparency Marketing Research (2014). UHT milk market – Global industry
analysis, size, share, growth, trends and forecast 2013–2019 [Online]. Available:
http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/uht-milk-market.html [Accessed
4 June 2019].
Tucker, G.S. (2011). Food biodeterioration and methods of preservation. In Food
and Beverage Packaging Technology, Coles, R. and Kirwan, M. (eds).
Van Rooyen, L.A., Allen, P., Kelly-Rees, C., and O’Connor, D.I. (2018). The effects
of varying gas concentrations and exposure times on colour stability and
shelf-life of vacuum packaged beef steaks subjected to carbon monoxide
pretreatment. Food Packag. Shelf Life, 18, 230–237.
Vergara-Balderas, F.T. (2016). Canning: Process of canning. Encyclopedia of food
and health [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384947-
2.00110-0.
Wagner, J.R. (2010). Multilayer Flexible Packaging. Technology and Appliccations
for the Food, Personal Care and Over-the-Counter Pharmaceutical Industries.
Elsevier, New York.
Wang, J., Luechapattanaporn, K., Wang, Y., and Tang, J. (2012). Radio-frequency
heating of heterogeneous food – Meat lasagna. J. Food Eng., 108, 183–193.
Wu, W., Cronjé, P., Verboven, P., and Defraeye, T. (2019). Unveiling how
ventilated packaging design and cold chain scenarios affect the cooling kinetics
and fruit quality for each single citrus fruit in an entire pallet. Food Packag.
Shelf Life, 21, 100369.
Yam, K.L. (2009). Microwaveable foods packaging. In The Wiley Encyclopedia of
Packaging Technology, 3rd edition, Yam, K.L. (ed.). John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Yang, X. and Wang, H. (2014). Controlled atmosphere. In Encyclopedia of Food
Microbiology, 2nd edition, Batt, C.A. and Tortorello, M.C. (eds). Academic
Press, London.
Zhao, Y., Flugstad, B., Kolbe, E., Park, J.W., and Wells, J.H. (2000). Using
capacitive (radio frequency) dielectric heating in food processing and
preservation – A review. J. Food Process Eng., 23(1), 25–55.
Zhao, Y., Zhao, W., Yang, R., Singh Sidhu, J., and Kong, F. (2017). Radio
frequency heating to inactivate microorganisms in broccoli powder. Food
Quality and Safety, 1, 93–100.
Zhu, X., Guo, W., and Wu, X. (2012). Frequency- and temperature-dependent
dielectric properties of fruit juices associated with pasteurization by dielectric
heating. J. Food Eng., 109, 258–266.
12
Packaging Marking
and Labeling
Mia Kurek
12.1. Introduction
Packaging is strongly integrated into our daily lives. Even though the main
purpose of packaging is to protect the goods inside, it is also a primary link between
producers and packers, on the one hand, and consumers, buyers and retailers on the
other hand. Packaging can be considered “a passive” and “an active” actor in the
food product lifecycle. The packaging industry does not only focus on developing an
effective and economic tool that unites processing, preservation and safety
instruments throughout the distribution chain, but also emphasizes the importance of
its esthetic value. Packaging design and labels are considered to be strong sales
tools, even ahead of concurrency. According to the latest Smithers market report, the
labeling market will be worth around $41 billion by 2024 (Smithers 2019). This is
why packaging has also been recognized as a silent seller and a significant
communication actor (Bacarella et al. 2015).
Food labeling is indispensable. In the development of new products, the use of

labels that are attractive in shape, color and appearance is an important contribution
to a commercial success. It must be understood that marking and labeling has a dual
role: to inform consumers and to ensure fair marketing. To put it simply, it is
essential that labels are easy to understand and that those responsible for food
package information do not take advantage of vulnerabilities.
For a color version of all figures in this book, see www.iste.co.uk/debeaufort/packaging.zip.

12.2. Labeling
Labels aim to communicate with all stakeholders in the food lifecycle in any
written, electronic or graphic communication (Figure 12.1).
a) b) c)
Figure 12.1. Types of information: a) written; b) electronic; c) graphic
Simply, a label is a tag, wrapper, seal or in-mold printed message linked to the
product. Wherever you shop, labels are in evidence. They often relate specific
products to consumer interests in health, the environment and culture. Labels are
produced in many shapes and sizes, often with focused and defined characteristics.
They should be truthful and accurate, clearly stated and easily understandable.
Sometimes this is difficult to achieve. Indeed, information is changing dramatically
in the 21st century because it is considered necessary or desirable for consumers to
protect their health. Labeling is developed not only to inform consumers but also to
help them distinguish between various similar products on offer, and to help people
select the right one depending on diet habits, allergies, personal taste or cost. It also
provides information to consumers on how to store, use or prepare packed food.
Labeling is now, more than ever before, a marketing tool to sell the item.
12.3. Standards
There are various types of information and symbols for package labeling that are
nationally and internationally standardized. Growing consumer and industry interest
in food labels presents challenges for government authorities who must ensure that
the information that appears on food packages is useful, credible and presented
clearly so that it does not mislead the consumer (Albert 2010). The first labeling
standard, the Codex Alimentarius (“the Codex”), was established by the World
Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (Codex Alimentarius Commission 2010). Within the same country or
organization, labeling policies can be both very restrictive and very permissive in
terms of the type of information that may be placed on a package. Every food label
must comply with food laws and standards. As food export and import is now a
Packaging Marking and Labeling 303
routine trade, authorities often give close attention to harmonize national laws with
international standards.
In order to prevent mislabeling and misleading descriptions, scientists and

control laboratories coordinate control screenings. If mislabeling is done
intentionally, it is treated legally as criminal fraud. In the EU, Regulation 1169/2011
(2011) provides information about fair practices. It states that “food information
shall not mislead the public, particularly as to the characteristics and to the nature of
the food, its shelf life and country of origin, as well as processing method”.
Nowadays, labels are intended not only to inform and promote health, but also
to protect the environment and promote sustainable food production and social
well-being, as well as to protect culture, in relation to new technologies.
12.3.1. Food labeling requirements
There are general labeling requirements applicable to all foods and a great deal
of specific measures are undertaken for specific foods. Regulation 1169/2011 (2011)
establishes the general principles, requirements and responsibilities governing food
information and, in particular, food labeling. For the labeling of pre-packed foods,
EU Regulation (2011) sets out a list of mandatory particulars that must be provided
to the end consumer:
1) Name of the food.

2) List of ingredients.
3) Potential allergens.
4) Quantity of certain ingredients or categories of ingredients.
5) Net quantity of the food.
6) Product dates.
7) Any special storage conditions and/or conditions of use.
8) Name or business name and address.
9) Country of origin or place of provenance.
10) Instructions for use.
11) For alcoholic foodstuffs, actual alcoholic strength by volume.
12) Nutrition declaration.
Reading food packaging labels can help buyers make good food choices. In the
following, explanations are given about the information, defined as mandatory, in
most countries worldwide.
Name of the food
There are three types of names (Figure 12.2) that can appear on a label: a) the
legal name; b) the brand name; and c) the descriptive or elaborate name that may be
used in addition to the name of the food.
Figure 12.2. Example of food name information on a label
List of ingredients
In most international standards, it is mandatory to list the ingredients. It must be

titled “Ingredients” which should be listed primarily in weight order at the time of
manufacture (Figure 12.3). Fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and single ingredient foods,
where the name of the food is identical to the ingredient name, are excluded from
this obligation.
Figure 12.3. Example of an ingredient list on a label
Potential allergens
Adverse reactions to products due to food allergies, including potentially fatal

anaphylactic shock, pose significant consumer health concerns. People need to have
clear information about the ingredients and potential food allergens, or their
derivatives, which are used in food recipes, in order to choose the items they can
safely eat. These ingredients must be emphasized (bolded or underlined) if they are
added even in small quantities (Figure 12.4). It is likely that more than 200
ingredients commonly found in food products are potential allergens, with eating
patterns differing according to country. Thus, it is not surprising that the obligatory
list will vary depending on the country/culture/religion. It is also possible that new
allergens could be added to regulatory lists in the future, but each time this occurs,
the whole process should have sufficient scientific justification.
Figure 12.4. Example of labeling of food allergens
Quantity of certain ingredients or categories of ingredients
Marketing allows one or several ingredients on the label to be emphasized in

order to categorize the food or to attract buyers’ attention. The quantities of these
ingredients should be given either next to the name of the food or in the ingredients
list to make sure that consumers are not misled. It is often called the Quantitative
Ingredient Declaration (QUID) (Figure 12.5). The QUID is mandatory if the
ingredient is in the name of the food, it is emphasized on the labeling or if it is
essential to describe the food in order to avoid confusing it with another product.
Figure 12.5. Example of a label emphasizing the quantity of certain ingredients

Net quantity of the food
This value gives the weight or volume of the product without packaging.
Depending on the unit system in effect, it might be provided in either metric
(kilograms and grams or liters, centiliters or milliliters) or imperial (pounds or
ounces, gallons and pints) units.
Product dates
Dates that are actually manufacturer recommendations and that must appear on
packaging labels can be classified into several categories: “use by” or “best before”
markings (Figure 12.6). “Use by” informs consumers about food safety, and this
date acts as a precautionary measure. Food can be eaten up until the end of this date
but not after even if it looks and smells fine. It is generally used for perishable food
(such as raw and cooked meat and fish, or fresh dairy products). “Best before”
informs consumers about the food quality and leaves them to make their own
judgments. In other words, food can be eaten after this date, but it may no longer be
at its best. It is important to raise awareness among consumers about the significance
of these markings as knowledge of them can diminish the risk of food poisoning, as
well as prevent consumable food from being thrown away. Date marking
requirements given by manufacturers vary depending on the degree of perishability,
as follows:
1) for highly perishable food: day and month of expiration;

2) for food with a shelf life between 3 and 18 months: month and year of
expiration;
3) for food with a shelf life longer than 18 months: year of expiration.
Figure 12.6. Different date markings used for food labeling

Any special storage conditions and/or conditions of use
In various circumstances, some products, particularly refrigerated, frozen or

UV-sensitive and light perishable food, should be kept in special conditions. Thus,
different instructions must be on the label (Figure 12.7). Consumers should follow
written instructions.
Figure 12.7. Examples of labeling for special storage conditions
Name or business name and address
If the consumer is not satisfied with the quality of the product or there is another
problem with the item of food, then consumers should contact the food producer,
whose name and address should be given on the label.
Country of origin or place of provenance
Country of origin or place of provenance on food labels states where the food is
produced. It must be clearly stated.
An example: a tuna is caught in the Adriatic Sea, processed/canned in Italy and

sold in Turkey. On the label there should be written: “Adriatic Sea tuna packed in
Italy” or “Imported tuna packed in Italy”. Labeling it as “Italian tuna” is not
acceptable in this case.
Instructions for use

Here is an example of the manufacturer’s instructions for preparing the food
(Figure 12.8).
Figure 12.8. Examples of labels with the manufacturer’s instructions for preparation
Labeling for alcoholic foodstuffs
Alcohol strength must be provided if the product contains more than 1.2%
alcohol.
Nutrition declaration
Rules on nutrition and health claims are established depending on the market
(EU, USA, Australia, etc.). If there is reason to make a nutrition or health claim
(Figure 12.9) in relation to the packed food, then all relevant information must be
provided. It is noteworthy that these claims can only be put on the label if sufficient
scientific evidence exists. Health claims are defined as any statement about a
relationship between food and health, while nutrition claims state, suggest or imply
that food has a particular beneficial nutritional property.
Examples of health claims include those related to:

1) body function (such as growth, development or other functions) (e.g. “helps
build and repair body tissues” or “vitamin C – dietary antioxidant”);
2) risk reduction (e.g. “a healthy diet containing dietary fiber may reduce the risk
of coronary heart disease”);
3) children’s development (e.g. “helps your child build immunity”).
Nutrition claims might be related to:

1) energy value (e.g. “low in saturated fat” or “provides energy”);
2) quantity of target nutrients (e.g. “source of iron – Nutri-Grain Iron Man
Food”).
Can help
lower
cholesterol
Figure 12.9. Examples of labeling with nutritional and health claims

Voluntary labeling
There is always some information that a manufacturer or a retailer wants to put

in evidence, highlighting the product on colorful store shelves. This might be the
brand name, a picture of the food, recipes for the food item, coupons, the history of
the company, the suitability of the food for vegetarians or vegans, etc. It is important
that this does not mislead or confuse the consumer about the packed content and
should be based on the relevant scientific data. As there is a large quantity of
mandatory information that must be put on labels with exactly the same font size,
putting additional information, that is not legally required, is quite a demanding
creative challenge.
How does mandatory information need to be presented?
It is important to present mandatory food information that is: a) easily visible;

b) clearly legible; and c) inedible.
Figure 12.10. Examples of incorrect (left) and correct (right) font size
used for mandatory information on food labels
Labels must be written using the font size that is regulated depending on the size
of the package (Figure 12.10). With respect to color, good and easily visible
contrasts should be used.
12.3.2. Food packaging symbols
Environmental and recycling symbols
Each package should have symbols explaining the type of packaging material
that has been used and its disposal procedure. Packaging materials should be labeled
with a triangle and number that signifies material type. On the top of the list is a
food contact symbol that indicates that the material used for packing the product is
considered safe for direct contact with food. There is also a long list of symbols,
generally recognizable around the globe, that can appear on a food label and that
describe various product characteristics such as gluten or dairy free, vegan, etc.
Due to environmental concerns related to plastic packaging disposal, great

emphasis is placed on the sustainability of food/package systems. Thus, for the food
to be sustainable, it is important that packaging has the lowest possible impact on
the environment and can either be reused or recycled. There are numerous symbols
that can be put on a package in this sense (e.g. the recycling symbol, the recycling
code, the green dot).
Table 12.1. lists some of the most common symbols used to describe either food
packaging material or specific properties of the food packed inside.
Food contact material: the product is suitable for food use; may or may
not have the word “food” below the wine glass and fork.
Mobius loop – recycling: used internationally to show that the product

can be recycled; the number inside the symbol indicates the percentage
of recycled material used to produce the packaging.
Material type/recycling indicator: the type of material used and its

recycling ability.
Tidyman: a reminder to consumers that they should dispose of their

waste appropriately.
Compostable: the registered trademark of European Bioplastics

indicates that packaging is certifiably compostable in line with EN
13432:2000, 14995:2006.
Forest Stewardship Council: used on wood-based packaging to

indicate the wood is from well-managed forests (certified according to
FSC rules).
Green dot: indicates that the producer has made contributions to a

qualified national packaging recovery organization, applies to all
products and does not necessarily indicate that the packaging is
recyclable.
CE mark: it indicates compliance with EN standards or EC directives.

Biodegradable symbols: indicates that packaging can decompose under

specific conditions in nature, without harmful effects.
Vegetarian: the packed product is suitable for vegetarians.
Ingredient free: the packed product does not contain the indicated
compound.
Suitable for freezing: the product is suitable for freezing without

repacking.
Organic (in EU): the product guarantees respect of EU rules on organic

production; for processed food, at least 95% of the ingredients of
agricultural origin are organic.
Food irradiation: packed food is treated with a safe source of

irradiation and is suitable for human consumption.
Table 12.1. Some of the most common food packaging symbols used in labeling
12.4. Material and label production
Depending on the processing, most labels can be classified as classic, in-mold or

sleeve. Sometimes it is not possible to put all of the information on a single label, for
example for products where a manufacturer wants to provide information in multiple
languages. In these instances, multipage labels are permissible. Digital labels (smart,
radiofrequency identification, digital codes, etc.) are the latest innovation within the
food packaging industry that can be used by manufacturers to improve traceability,
product information and food safety.
The label material for classic food labels is chosen depending on certain
technical characteristics of the product in question. These properties dictate further
conditions for application and process type. For example, if a label is intended for a
glass drink bottle, which will be stored in the refrigerator, then it must meet certain
criteria to prevent it from detaching from the bottle before or during use.
Consideration must be given to important aspects such as whether the material is
suited to damp glass surfaces, as well as its resistance to low temperatures and to
submersion in water and ice. Label specifications and adhesive types will depend on
the method of application. Labels can be cut, as well as being thermosensitive or
pressure-sensitive. They can be supplied as sheets or reels (Paine and Paine 1992).
Reel diameter, frequency of stoppages, label thickness, backing material, core
dimensions and unwinding direction should be pre-defined in order to allow
maximum compatibility with downstream operations.
Labels can be glue-applied or self-adhesive (pressure-sensitive). Due to faster

automatic labeling machines, over the past 20 years, self-adhesive labels have
overtaken market share from wet glue applications (White 2012).
12.4.1. Self-adhesive (pressure-sensitive) labels
Self-adhesive labels are produced on a roll-to-roll press (Figure 12.11).

Normally, they are supplied on reels so that the packer or retailer can employ fast,
user-friendly label application technology. Self-adhesive labels are available in
permanent and peelable options, as well as water removable ones for reusable
containers or recycling purposes.
Figure 12.11. Example of a roll of self-adhesive labels
Self-adhesive labels can be printed on paper or plastic. Even though paper is

more environmentally friendly, plastics are taking over the market as they offer
different benefits to paper. Printed plastics can offer better esthetic finishing (effects
such as high gloss or matte, transparent or opaque or metallized) and improve the
resistance of the final package.
Figure 12.12. Example of a full-wrap label
Full-wrap labels can be shaped around the product (Figure 12.12), offering
additional space for information on the reverse side of the label. Labels can be
shaped to fit perfectly, e.g. with curves and cut-outs for specific food and packages,
including vacuum skin packs, modified atmosphere packs, trays and clamshells.
12.4.2. In-mold labeling
In-mold labels have the information put inside the core material. In other words,
packaging and labeling are produced during the same process that, in the end, has
the shape of the mold. Traditional plastic transformation processes can be used for
their production: blow molding, injection molding and thermoforming. The main
advantages of in-mold labels are their resistance to humidity, lower post-labeling
costs and attractive shapes.
12.4.3. Sleeves
Shrink sleeve labeling involves an all-around label, applicable on any type of

packaging material (glass, plastic, wood and metal), and it forms on to unique
package shapes and allows for 360° design, maximizing branding opportunities.
Because it is not permanently attached to the bottle or container, a sleeve label can
be removed more easily for recycling purposes. Generally made from plastics, these
labels are waterproof, provide scuff resistance and can serve as tamper evidence
(Figure 12.13). In tamper-evident options, sleeves are extended over the closures.
They are perforated in line with the closure opening and so present proof that
packaging has not been opened before. Similarly, it also serves hygienic purposes.
Shrink bands can also be used to combine packs together in a multi-pack as one
selling unit.
Figure 12.13. Comparison of self-adhesive (left) and shrink sleeve (right) food labels
Sleeves are mainly made from polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG),

oriented polypropylene (OPP), polystyrene (PS), polylactic acid (PLA) and
polyvinyl chloride (PVC). They are printed and applied in several steps (Figure
12.14). PETG is used for many products due to its widespread availability,
transparency and superior shrinking capability (Durgashiam et al. 2019). As a result
of its temperature stability, it is pasteurizable and recyclable. However, it is not good
for light bottles made from PP or PE as its high shrink force can affect their shape.
PS and oriented polystyrene (OPS) are more cost-effective than PETG. They offer
excellent consistency and thus can be used for squeezable bottles. Its main
disadvantage is low temperature stability, and therefore PS labels require more
storage and transportation precautions. PLA films are novel materials used for
sleeve production. They are made from renewable resources and offer high clarity
and biodegradability in industrial conditions (Sin and Tuen 2019). Recently, due to
the environmental and health issues related to chlorine content, there are a lot of
concerns about the use of PVC as a label or food packaging material; its usage is
rapidly decreasing as a result.
Figure 12.14. Application steps of shrink sleeves
12.4.4. “Smart” and digital labeling
Digital labeling technology (bar codes, universal product codes, smart labels and
radiofrequency identification (RFID) labels) has grown considerably in the past few
years (Figure 12.15). Nowadays, it is sought to be implemented for the identification
of products and as part of automatic traceability in logistics and retailing in the
agri-food sector (Bibi et al. 2017).
“Smart labels” are intended to inform buyers about the food inside. They notify
consumers about product freshness or actively participate in changing the
atmosphere in the package headspace (e.g. via oxygen scavenging or releasing tags,
and similar). RFID tags are used in the food industry for tracking and security
reasons, supply chain management and temperature monitoring. They also serve as a
marketing tool and a source of additional information for the buyer. RFID
technology relies on the transformation of a one-dimensional barcode into a
data-rich source for suppliers, packagers, logistics workers and advertisers. RFID
also enables distance identification of an object (Kumar et al. 2009).
Quick response (QR) codes are a type of two-dimensional barcode, composed of

distinctive geometric patterns of black modules in a white square background
(Ramalho et al. 2018). In a relatively small space, a QR code can store a huge
quantity of information and can be easily and rapidly read by different electronic
devices, including mobile phones. They are used for item identification, product
tracking and as a simple physical tool for quick access to websites for advertising.
a) b) c)
Figure 12.15. Examples of digital labels: a) QR code; b) RFID code; c) bar code
12.5. References
Albert, J. (2010). Innovations in Food Labelling. The Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations and Woodhead Publishing Limited, Oxford.
Bacarella, S., Altamore, L., Valdesi, V., Chironi, S., and Ingrassia, M. (2015).
Importance of food labeling as a means of information and traceability according
to consumers. Adv. Hort. Sci., 29(2–3), 145–151.
Bibi, J.C.F., Guillaume, C., Gontard, N., and Sorli, B. (2017). A review: RFID
technology having sensing aptitudes for food industry and their contribution to
tracking and monitoring of food products. Trend. Food Sci. Technol., 62,
91–103.
Codex Alimentarius Commission (2010). General standard for the labelling of
prepackaged foods (CODEX STAN 1-1985). FAO, Rome.
Durgashyam, K., Indra, M., Balakrishna, R.A., and Satyanarayana, K. (2019).
Experimental investigation on mechanical properties of PETG material
processed by fused deposition modelling method. Mater. Today: Proc., 18(6),
2052–2059.
European Normalization (2000). Packaging: Requirements for packaging recoverable
through composting and biodegradation. CENELEC, EN 13432:2000.
European Normalization (2006). Plastics – Evaluation of compostability – Test

scheme and specifications. CENELEC, EN 14995:2006.
European Parliament, Council of the European Union (2011). Regulation
1169/2011/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October
2011, on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations
(EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of
the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council
Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive
2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission
Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC)
No 608/2004. Regulation, European Union.
Kumar, P., Reinitz, H.W., Simunovic, J., Sandeep, K.P., and Franzon, P.D. (2009).
Overview of RFID technology and its applications in the food industry. J. Food
Sci., 74(8), R101–R106.
Paine, F.A. and Paine, H.Y. (1992). A Handbook of Food Packaging. Springer,
Dordrecht.
Ramalho, J.F.C.B., António, L.C.F., Correia, S.F.H., Fu, L.S., Pinho, A.S., Brites,
C.D.S., Carlos, L.D., André, P.S., and Ferreira, R.A.S. (2018). Luminescent QR
codes for smart labelling and sensing. Optic. Laser Technol., 101, 304–311.
Sin, L.T. and Tueen, B.S. (2019). Polylactic Acid: A Practical Guide for the
Processing, Manufacturing, and Applications of PLA. Plastics Design Library,
William Andrew, Norwich, NY.
Smithers (2019). The Future of Label Printing to 2024. Brochure, Smithers, Akron,
OH.
White, A.R. (2012). Labels for packaging. In Packaging Technology –
Fundamentals, Materials and Processes, Emblem, A. and Emblem H. (eds).
Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge.
13
Food Packaging Selection

Kata Galić
13.1. Introduction
The global packaging market consumption in 2020 is split into five groups:
paper and board (31.06%), plastic (flexible 24.85% and rigid 22.28%), metal
(12.64%), glass (6.81%) and others (2.35%), with around 70% of all packaging used
in the food industry (WPO 2008; ALL4PACK 2016). In 2015, the value of the
global packaging industry was US$839 billion and was predicted to reach US$998
billion in 2020 (ALL4PACK 2016).
Glass containers are mainly used in the beverage sector (75% of the total tonnage
of glass) which includes spirits, beers and ciders, flavored alcoholic beverages, still
and sparkling wines, fortified wines, soft drinks, fruit juices and mineral water. The
food sector (dairy products, jams and spreads, sauces and dressings, oil, vinegar,
etc.) accounts for about 20% of the tonnage (mostly jars). Cosmetics,
pharmaceuticals and technical product containers (mostly small bottles) account for
the remaining 5% of glass container tonnage. There are many factors that can affect
the market for glass containers, and the main one is alternative packaging materials,
such as plastics, metals and composed materials (EC-JRC 2012).
The tendency to use lightweight and flexible packaging made plastic the most
widely used material for packaging (40%) in Europe in 2016. Consequently, large
amounts of plastic end up as waste (Iacovidou and Gerassimidou 2018; Plastics

Europe 2018). Furthermore, it is estimated that inappropriate processing and

packaging contributes from 25 to 50% of food waste (WPO 2008).
Taking only fresh products into account, meat processing was the largest
manufacturing sector in the US in 2011. Other food industries include dairy (13%),
beverages (12%), grains and oilseeds (12%), fruits and vegetables (8%) and other
food products (11%) (Park et al. 2014).
The European market for chilled foods was estimated at 9 billion euros and is
expected to grow to 15 billion euros in the coming years (Ohlsson 2002).
The consumption of frozen and packaged foods (such as meat, seafood, fruits
and vegetables, and ready meals) was predicted to grow at a compound annual
growth rate (CAGR) of 4.1% in the period 2015–2020 (Punathil and Basak 2016).
13.2. Food packaging material selection
All foods placed on the market are characterized with a shelf life, during which
they retain their quality and safety, under defined storage conditions. It is well
known that packaging materials and methods play a crucial role in obtaining the
desired shelf life of a product. With a huge variety of packaging materials available,
all possessing different properties, the selection of the best one for a specific product
is a very challenging task.
The first step is to take into account packaging materials which will minimize
reactions that affect the shelf life of the packaged food, depending on the product’s
sensitivity to different parameters (such as humidity, temperature, light and oxygen)
during storage and distribution. The rate of transport and the effects of the above
parameters are limiting factors in terms of the product’s shelf life (Ahvenainen
2003; Robertson 2013). Defining the shelf life of a food is not an easy task and is
often an area of intense research of a group of scientists, including experts in food
technology and microbiology as well as packaging experts.
Many different food preservation treatments (both thermal and non-thermal) are
applied to food (Gould 2001). Depending on the technology used, a unique
characteristic of the packaging material selected should be the ability to withstand
food processing conditions (Figure 13.1). Food packaging is also important in food
safety, due to the possible migration of compounds from food contact materials
(FCM) into packaged food.
Food Packaging Selection 319
Food (raw materials)
Food processing methods
Thermal processing Non-thermal processing
Food characteristics
Packaging material requirements:

 Containment
 Preservation/protection (barrier)
 Convenience
 Communication-sales
promotion
 Packaging integrity
 Food–package interaction
 Others…
Packaging method selection

(advantages/disadvantages):
Metals,  Vacuum Polymers –
Glass,  Inert gas/MAP laminates
Polymers  Aseptic (mainly)
 Active
 Intelligent
PRODUCT SHELF LIFE PROTOCOL

Storage conditions (t/ºC; %RH; O2…
Figure 13.1. Overview of factors for food packaging material selection
13.2.1. Fresh and chilled food packaging
Optimal storage conditions can considerably increase the shelf life of fresh fruit
and vegetables. As already mentioned, these conditions are the temperature, the
moisture and the gas make-up of the atmosphere (oxygen, carbon dioxide and
ethylene). The optimum storage conditions depend on the type of product and the
processing applied to a particular product (DTIPT 2008). Ascorbic acid (vitamin C),
a water-soluble vitamin, is mainly present in fresh fruits and vegetables, and it is the
most sensitive under storage conditions (Tables 13.1 and 13.2). Different packaging
characteristics should be taken into account (such as optical, mechanical, thermal
and barrier packaging) in order to preserve food. For example, cushioning the
packaging of fresh products can limit the damage caused by shocks during transport
(Kitazawa 2018; Ščetar and Galić 2018). Polymeric packaging films for fruit and
vegetables enable gases (O2, CO2, ethylene) to travel (permeate) through the film.
The rate of the permeation depends on the type and the thickness of plastic, the
temperature and the differences in pressure of the gases on both sides of the film.
Vitamin C content (mg/100 g) in capsicum (moisture

Time content: 94 g/100 g) during storage
(days) Storage temperature (°C)
20 5 -20 -40
0 68.0 68.0 41.5 41.5
2 39.3 44.3
4 41.4 41.4
6 35.0 40.0
8 38.4 34.5 41.4
10 62.0 37.2
13 88.6 30.5
15 58.8 23.5
16 29.9 20.8
17 41.9 19.6
18 11.4 25.7
21 19.5 11.8
22 10.0 15.0
25 6.8 14.0
Table 13.1. Vitamin C contents in capsicum during storage as a function

of moisture content and temperature (Rahman et al. 2015)
At chilled temperatures (between 0°C and +5°C), microorganism growth occurs

slowly, and food spoilage reactions are inhibited, so the safety and quality of the
food are preserved for an extended period of time (days or weeks). However, chilled
foods are perishable, and they deteriorate with time. Chilled food packs need to be
clean but not sterile. Exceptions are found where hurdle concepts are used, for
example, when using modified atmospheres or in-pack pasteurization. Chilled food

packaging materials must be able to protect and preserve a range of foods, from
fresh products (such as meat, fish and vegetables) to prepared meals (including those
that will be reheated in-pack using a microwave or a conventional oven) (Day 2000;
Tucker 2011).
Vitamin C loss (%) per day

Days to frozen value
(average over 7 days)
Product
Ambient Chill Ambient Chill
(20°C) (4°C) (20°C) (4°C)
Peas 8.9 2.1 <3 14
Broccoli 8.0 0 <2 18
Green beans 7.8 10.8 <1 1
Spinach 14.2 10.7 <1 <2
Carrots 3.8 1.4 <1 <1
Table 13.2. Vitamin C loss in vegetables at ambient and chill storage (Favell 1998)
One of the major problems with packaged fresh products is water condensation
inside the package, due to respiration or transpiration of the fresh product, as well as
the barrier characteristics (such as water vapor permeability) of the packaging
material (Bovi et al. 2016).
As most polymeric materials used in fresh product packaging have lower water
vapor permeability, taking into account the transpiration rates of fresh products,
water can remain within the package. Under such conditions, even minor
temperature fluctuations cause in-package condensation, leading to microbial
growth (Linke and Geyer 2013). Perforation of packaging is a solution to control the
atmosphere inside a package of fresh products that still respire after harvesting.
Thus, O2 can get into a package and, at the same time, CO2 can get out. The size and
number of holes (Tables 13.3 and 13.4) must be adapted to the particular product.
The shelf life of fruit and vegetables can be extended using modified atmosphere
packaging (MAP). The principle of MAP is the application of reduced O2 and/or
elevated CO2 concentrations within the package.
Gas
composition Temperature of Storage
Fruit Packaging film (%) storage (°C) time
O2 CO2
Pomegranate 8 10 2
Unperforated PP
fruit (cv. Mollar 12 weeks
(25 m) 6 12 5
de Elche)
Pomegranate Semi-permeable
1 30 4 10 days
arils (cv. Mollar) plastic bag
Pomegranate 12.5 8.5 8
arils (cv. Mollar OPP (40 m) 7 days
de Elche) 13.5 7.5 4
Pomegranate
arils (cv. PP 6.5 11.4 5 10 days
Primosole)
Table 13.3. Modified atmosphere packaging of pomegranate arils; different cultivars

and types of packaging film, during storage (Caleb et al. 2011)
Gas Storage
Type of PM-MAP Shelf life
composition temp.
Product
Perforated area (CO2/O2)
No. of holes (°C) (Days)
(A)/diameter (D) (kPa)
Strawberries 7 and 9 holes 0.09 mm D 15/5 4 >14
Citrus fruit 0.002% perf. A 2–3/17–18 6 35
2
Bananas 4 and 10 cm 50.29 cm diff. A 3.5/3 15 42
Mango 80–100 holes ~0.05–0.07 mm D 17/9 12 30
Peaches 100 holes 0.2 mm D 3.3±0.01 CO2 20 12
Fresh sliced
2 holes 0.33 mm D 11.5/3.6 10 3
mushroom
Cherry
5 holes 0.2 mm D 4.0±0.1 CO2 20 60
tomatoes
Table 13.4. Application of perforation-mediated modified atmosphere

packaging of fresh products (Hussein et al. 2015)
In order to extend the shelf life and maintain acceptable quality (visual and
sensorial) of fresh fruits and vegetables, an active packaging (AP) system – such as
oxygen (Table 13.5) and ethylene absorbers – can be used. Most of these active
systems are supplied as sachets or are integrated into films (Ahvenainen 2003; Artés
Calero and Gómez 2003; Ščetar and Galić 2018).
Storage time (weeks) at 4ºC

Packaging method
0 1 2 3 4
Color L* value
Control: air
34.83 30.98 29.96 28.97 28.68
(21 kPa O2 + 0.03 kPa CO2)
ATCO-100 34.83 33.63 33.23 32.75 32.09
ATCO-210 34.83 33.33 33.06 31.85 31.52
Overall 34.83 32.65 32.08 31.19 30.77
Color a* value
Control: air
36.07 32.31 28.83 26.02 25.68
(21 kPa O2 + 0.03 kPa CO2)
ATCO-100 36.07 34.85 31.83 28.52 27.23
ATCO-210 36.07 34.55 31.86 28.07 27.07
Overall 36.07 33.90 30.84 27.54 26.66
Table 13.5. Color (L*, a*) value changes of control and oxygen absorber (ATCO O2
absorption capacity of 100 mL and 210 mL) treated strawberries during storage in a
polylactic acid tray (Aday and Caner 2013)
Fresh meat also continues to consume oxygen and emit carbon dioxide, and the
result is that both the color and shelf life of the meat are affected. Because a cherry-red
color of fresh meat is critical for consumer acceptance, the visual appearance affects
buying decisions. Fresh meat also contains a certain number of unavoidable bacteria
that grow and affect its quality and safety. Thus, application of technology that will
reduce fresh meat spoilage is also important during storage and distribution. The
requirements for effective packaging are very different when considering fresh meat
as opposed to fruit and vegetables, for example (Fang et al. 2017; Dalla Rosa 2019).
Generally, fresh meat is packed in an air vacuum and modified atmosphere. If meats
are packed in an air atmosphere, plastic trays made of expanded polystyrene (EPS)
are used with the appropriate wrapping or polymeric films (Parisi 2013).
With optimal respiratory gas composition (O2 and CO2) maintained within
packaging, the best quality products can be obtained. MAP is used to preserve the
freshness of fresh food by controlling their biochemical metabolism and can

significantly extend the shelf life of packaged meat and meat products (Tables 13.6
and 13.7).
Storage
Food Packaging method Packaging materials
conditions
PE-LD/PA/PE-LD pouch (75 m):
Nisin and EDTA + MAP
Chicken (%): P(O2) =52.2 cm3/m2 d bar at 75% RH, at 4°C for 24
meat 25°C; WVP=2.4 g/m2 d at 100% RH, days
65 CO2/30 N2/5 O2
25°C
Pack1: PS tray + shrink film:
N2 atmosphere OTR=8000 mL/m2 day at 23°C 70%
RH
Beef and at 2°C for 1–3
pork cuts Pack2: plastic cafeteria tray +bi- weeks
AGELESS FX-100 O2-s metalized, plastic laminate bag:
+ absorbent pad OTR=0.55 mL/m2 day at 23°C 70%
RH
Air
Vacuum
MAPs (%):
40 CO2/30 N2/30 O2; PE bags: at 0, 5, 10 and
Fresh beef 100 CO ; P(O2) = 1.7 cm3/m2 day 15°C for 65
2
at 23°C 75% RH days
80 CO2/20 air
Active pack:
with/without oregano
essential oil
N2 atmosphere
Tray: PS, Wrap: film OTR = 8000
at 1°C for 8
Fresh beef O2-scavengers: mL/m2 day at 23°C 70% RH,
AGELESS FX-100, days
perforated
FRESHPAX R-2000
Table 13.6. Shelf life of combined modified atmosphere

and active packaged meat (Galić 2013)
In order to obtain an optimal gas transfer, different parameters (the type of

packing material, its thickness, its surface area, etc.) should be designed in the MAP
system, depending on the characteristics of the food product (Ščetar et al. 2010;
Galić 2013; Castellanos and Herrera 2017; Dalla Rosa 2019). With regard to this,
various mathematical models of modified atmosphere systems are proposed in order
to ensure the desired food shelf life and quality (Finnegan et al. 2013; Belaya et al.
2016).
Freshly baked products are free of mold spores, but they soon get contaminated
as a result of cross-contamination from mold spores from the air, bakery surfaces
and equipment, food handlers, etc. Mold problems are more pronounced in the
summer months, due to warmer and more humid storage conditions. Bread packaged
in low-density polyethylene or high-density polyethylene (LDPE/HDPE) or LDPE
and linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) bags have a shelf life of two to three
days. However, if a longer shelf life is required, multilayer materials (laminates) and
MAP conditions are used. Examples of laminates used include:
polyamide/polyethylene (PA/PE), or a combination of these with polyvinylidene
chloride (PA/PVDC/PE) or ethylene vinyl alcohol (PA/EVOH/PE). These
composite structures provide strength (PA), gas and moisture vapor impermeability
(EVOH or PVDC) and heat sealability through PE or ethylene vinyl acetate (EVAC)
or an ionomer (Surlyn). Protection from O2 and moisture vapor is very important as
molds can tolerate and grow in quite low concentrations of O2 and elevated levels of
CO2.
Meat Packaging materials/methods Shelf life

Air: PE 10–11 days at 4°C
Beef and pork
Vacuum: PA/PE 11 days at 4°C
EPS-tray + PE(80)/PA(20)
Beef steaks MAP 1: 70% O2/20% CO2/10% N2 22–28 days at 1°C
MAP 2: 60% O2/40% CO2
Top: PET/PE, Bottom: PA/PE
Top: PET/PE; Bottom: PA/PE, Vacuum 14 days at 4°C
Beef loin steaks MAP: 0.4% CO/60% CO2/40% N2 7 days at 8°C
10 days at 4°C
MAP: 70% O2/30% CO2
7 days at 8°C
Pork PA(20)/PE-E(70.5), vacuum 4 weeks at 4°C
Beef PA(20)/PE-E(70.5), vacuum 7 weeks at 4°C
Table 13.7. Shelf life of modified atmosphere packaged meat (Ščetar et al. 2010)
A combination of MAP and active packaging (AP) is also used for bakery
products. The most frequently used gas compositions are CO2/N2: 100/0, 80/20,
70/30, 60/40 and 0/100. The main objective of MAP+AP is the inhibition of the
growth of yeasts and molds. The most widely used AP in bread packaging is ageless
oxygen scavengers and ethanol emitters. Using an O2-ageless absorber for the
packaging of crusty rolls, a mold free shelf life of more than 60 days was obtained,
in comparison with 16–18 days for those packaged without an oxygen absorber. The
shelf life of white bread packaged in polypropylene (PP) film can be prolonged from
5 to 45 days at room temperature using an O2 absorbent sachet in the package. Pizza
crust, which molds in two to three days at 30°C, can also remain mold-free for more
than 14 days at this temperature when an appropriate O2 absorber is present
(Arvanitoyannis and Bosinas 2012; Del Nobile and Conte 2013).
Fresh fish and seafood are very perishable and have a shorter shelf life due to
bacteria action which causes off-odors in packaged fish. The high-quality shelf life
(HQL) of most seafood in chilled storage is only a few days. Packaging technologies
used to extend chilled foods’ shelf lives include: MAP, vacuum packaging (VP),
vacuum skin packaging (VSP) and active packaging (AP). MAP, in combination
with refrigeration (Tables 13.8 and 13.9), is a widely used method to extend the
shelf life of these products (Lambert et al. 1991; Sivertsvik et al. 2002).
The extended shelf life will depend on the species, fat content, initial microbial
content, gas mixture and the ratio between the volume of gas and volume of the food
product (G/P ratio), as well as the storage temperature (Sivertsvik et al. 2002).
Storage
MAP Shelf life
Fish and fishery products temperature
CO2:O2:N2 (days)
(°C)
Mediterranean swordfish 4 40:30:30 12
Pearlspot 2 60:40:0 10
Cod -0.9 50:5:45 21
Sea bass 4 60:10:30 13
Atlantic salmon 2 90:0:10 33
Mediterranean swordfish 4 50:5:45 13
Atlantic salmon 1.2 60:0:40 15
Sea bass 4 60:0:40 18
Table 13.8. Shelf life extension of fish and fishery products by

modified atmosphere packaging (Masniyom 2011)
Storage
Shelf life
Product temperature Packaging
(days)
(C)
Lightly preserved
Cold-smoked salmon 5 VP 20–56
0.5 air 24–26
Hot-smoked cod (lightly salted)
12 air 17–18
Hot-smoked mackerel (lightly 0 MAP 8

salted) 10 MAP 5–6
Brined roe (lump fish) 5 VP 75–90
0 MAP 230–>308
Cooked and brined shrimps
25 MAP 4–6
Table 13.9. Shelf life of seafood at different packaging

conditions and temperatures (Dalgaard 2000)
For products such as milk with a short shelf life in chilled distribution (0 to 4°C),
PE-coated paperboard is used on both sides. The main plastics used in pasteurized
milk packaging are high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polyethylene terephthalate
(PET), polycarbonate (PC) and LDPE. Pasteurized milk has a shelf life of more than
10 days under refrigeration at 4±2°C. In order to reduce the effect of light
transmission, HDPE with TiO2 or PET is pigmented with a UV-blocker
(Kontominas 2010).
MAP has also found an application in the packaging of milk and milk products
with the use of CO2, due to its antimicrobial characteristics, and because it can be
added to or removed from dairy products with no harmful effects (Kirwan 2011;
Singh et al. 2012).
For dairy-based desserts, including all yoghurt and pudding products, most of the
packages are composed of plastic cups made of high impact polystyrene (HIPS)
coupled with plastic or aluminum foil (Alu) closures. Other packaging materials
used include HDPE bottles sealed with either Alu-laminate heat-seal closures or
with LDPE snap or screw caps. Bottles made from PET are also used. The shelf life
of yogurt may only be two weeks for unprotected operations, and up to six weeks or
more for ultraclean operations (MacBean 2010).
Fresh cheeses (such as mascarpone, feta, cream cheese, ricotta, quark and cottage
cheese), as well as whey cheeses, are susceptible to microbial spoilage and have a
limited shelf life (Poças 2010). Typical packaging used for cheese includes HDPE,
polypropylene (PP) and polystyrene (PS) cups. For the MAP, with the correct CO2
level, high-barrier materials such as PA/LDPE laminates are used. Most cheeses in
brine and MAP are usually packed into rigid or semi-rigid boxes with plastic or
metal closures. Both portions of cheese and shredded cheese require an adequate
oxygen barrier to prevent mold growth and spoilage. Ethylene vinyl alcohol
(EVOH), polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC) or polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) is used to
provide the oxygen barrier. An acrylic, PVOH-coated, oriented polypropylene
(OPP) film is also used in cheese packaging (Poças 2010; Ebnesajjad 2013; Parisi
2013).
Storage conditions
Quality attributes
3°C (air) 3°C (MA) 3–13°C (MA)
Color and appearance
Lightness (L) 41.8 39.0 36.1
Greenness (negative a value) -7.7 -11.1 -4.8
Infection (%) 4.5 0 6.2
Chlorophyll (mg/kg) 0.21 0.33 0.12
Texture
Weight loss (%) 32.9 2.9 4.9
Anaerobiosis
Ethanol (mg/kg) 52.5 58.3 157.3
Acetaldehyde (mg/kg) 47.0 45.7 121.7
Water condensation index 0 2 3
Table 13.10. Quality attributes of broccoli stored at a constant temperature (3°C)

and under temperature-fluctuating conditions (3–13°C) in different atmospheres
after 30 days of storage (Tano et al. 2007)
Depending on the type of chilled food product, special requirements may be

needed for the packaging material, such as tolerance to high temperatures during hot
filling, in-pack pasteurization or reheating prior to consumption (Day 2000). For
vacuum packaging, high O2 barrier materials (less than 15 cm3/m2 day atm) as well
as packaging materials with low water vapor transmission rates must be used.
Typical VP multilayer materials are: oriented polypropylene/EVOH/PE
(OPP/EVOH/PE), PA/PE, PET/PE, OPP/PVDC/PE, OPP/PVDC/OPP and polyvinyl

chloride/EVOH/polyvinyl chloride (PVC/EVOH/PVC). A further application in
packaging is EPS, which provides fairly good compression strength, resistance to
moisture, and is a good insulator against both temperature changes and shocks
during transportation. EPS is mostly used for fast food trays, boxes for fresh fish,
and for the delivery of chilled and frozen foods (Emblem 2012). In cold chains,
temperature control is the most important aspect from a food safety point of view;
thus, temperature fluctuation (Table 13.10) should be avoided.
13.2.2. Shelf stable and frozen food packaging
Shelf stable and frozen products are safe over months or years (Table 13.11),
and changes in quality that occur in the product are based on the storage time
(Tables 13.12 and 13.13). Modes of failure are influenced by product composition,
product packaging and storage temperature. These usually include changes in color,
loss of desirable aromas and flavors, formation of undesirable aromas or flavors and
changes in texture.
The effects of time and temperature are evident on vitamin degradation during
storage. It was shown that 50% of vitamin C degradation in frozen green vegetables
occurs in 153 days at -20°C, and, for spinach, in only eight days when stored at -5°C
(Giannakourou and Taoukis 2003).
Practical storage life (months) at

Product different temperatures (°C)
-12 -18 -24
Beef carcass (not packaged) 8 15 24
Veal carcass (not packaged) 6 12 15
Lamb carcass (not packaged) 18 24 24
Pork carcass (not packaged) 6 10 15
Beef cuts, steaks 8 18 24
Beef minced (ground) 6 10 15
Veal cuts, steaks 6 12 15
Lamb steaks 12 18 24
Table 13.11. Shelf life of frozen meat at different temperatures (IIR 2006)
Storage (months)
Raw material
Parameter 0 12
before freezing
-20°C -30°C -20°C -30°C
Soluble solids (g/100 g) 4.88 4.93 4.94 4.98 4.97
Total sugars (g/100 g) 2.81 2.84 2.82 2.74 2.69
Pectin (g/100 g) 0.216 0.146 0.145 0.037 0.061
N-NO3 (mg/1000 g) 32 33 34 40 38
Vitamin C (mg/100 g) 23.6 22.9 22.7 6.8 12.9
Lycopene (mg/100 g) 3.28 2.99 2.99 1.69 2.42
Table 13.12. Changes in the levels of some physicochemical parameters in frozen

tomato cubes, in a plastic box, during storage (Lisiewska and Kmiecik 2000)
Ascorbic acid (AA) loss (% wet weight) during storage

Fresh Frozen Canned
Commodity
AA
Time AA loss Time AA loss Time
°C loss
(days) (%) (months) (%) (months)
(%)
Broccoli 21 13 50
Carrots 84 4 5 12 0
Green beans 16 90 45 12
Spinach 21 4 75 1
Green peas 7 20 60
Table 13.13. Losses of ascorbic acid due to storage of fresh, frozen and canned
vegetables (Rickman et al. 2007)
Once the critical parameters of deterioration are known, product changes can be
monitored and limits can be used to identify the end of the shelf life. In this case, it
is of great importance to use a product’s selected packaging for a shelf life study,
since the packaging influences how the food changes during time.
Frozen foods are quite sensitive to dehydration (freezer burn) caused by

sublimation due to temperature fluctuations during storage. Thus, moisture loss is
the biggest problem in frozen food storage.
Frozen products need the barrier characteristics of the package – including light,
aroma, oxygen and moisture permeability – to minimize sensory and nutritional
changes of the product. Rigid packaging materials with excellent mechanical
resistance to scratches in low temperature storage conditions (lower or equal
to -18°C) are used. Furthermore, packaging methods that minimize initial O2
headspace (vacuum, nitrogen flushing and oxygen-absorbing active packaging),
together with a barrier material to environmental oxygen, can extend shelf life
considerably for many foods. Composition changes aside, the shelf life of frozen
food can be affected by moisture loss, oxidation, physical changes due to
compression and vibration, which result in a loss of aroma. Furthermore,
temperature fluctuations, causing thawing and refreezing, result in a loss of texture
in food. Finally, packaging that provides protection from tampering can protect food
from contamination (Cooksey and Krochta 2012; Parisi 2013).
Many frozen foods are packaged in either monofilms (such as PE) or multilayer
materials, which are either clear or pigmented, depending on the packaged product.
The most commonly used materials include LLDPE, ultra low-density polyethylene
(ULDPE) and ethylene vinyl acetate (EVAC). Polyamides (PA) are mostly used for
frozen food packaging, due to their strength, toughness and good heat and low
temperature resistance. Due to PA sensitivity to moisture, the O2 barrier decreases as
the moisture level increases. Other high oxygen barrier materials applications
include PA6 (Nylon 6) laminate with LDPE or EVAC for heat sealability. For extra
high mechanical strength and heat resistance, PA6,6 (Nylon 6,6) is used (Emblem
2012).
Long shelf life products also include aseptically processed food without
preservatives and refrigeration. For such products, the packaging must possess high
barrier characteristics and have a tight seal in order to prevent any microorganisms
from entering the package. Thus, long shelf life foods require impermeable
packaging. Furthermore, aseptic packaging uses a combination of high-temperature
and short-duration thermal processing to produce a shelf stable beverage at ambient
temperature. Ultrapasteurized (UP) and ultra high-temperature (UHT) milk are
packaged in different materials, including plastic/Alu/paperboard laminates,
pigmented PET bottles, multilayer HDPE bottles, pouches composed
of polyethylene/polyvinylidene chloride (PE/PVDC) or ethylene vinyl
acetate/polyvinylidene chloride (EVAC/PVDC). Milk packaged in sterile
multi-layered materials has an expected shelf life of 90–150 days at ambient
temperature. Once opened, the food or drink must be consumed within three to five
days (Kontominas 2010; Götz et al. 2014; Wani et al. 2014).
13.2.3. Dried food packaging
Dried foods (such as dried herbs and spices) do not support microbial growth
when stored under appropriate (dry) conditions and reach an expected shelf life of
months or even years. The shelf life of dry crunchy food is limited by texture
changes due to moisture permeation through the packaging. Such a product will lose
its crispness and become soft; hence, it will not be acceptable by the consumers.
Thus, the selection of appropriate packaging materials is critical in extending the
shelf life of these products. Laminated materials such as paperboard/PE are common
for packaged dried foods (such as fruit and breakfast cereals). Hygroscopic foods
also require high protection from moisture uptake. In this case, HDPE polymers are
used to provide a moisture barrier. Sealant polymers, such as polyolefin, EVAC,
ionomer or combined materials, are used for low-temperature seals, easy-opening
seals and form-fill-seal (FFS) packaging. Food requiring packaging material with
aroma barrier properties contains either PA or EVOH polymers. New grades of PP
films possessing high stiffness, clarity and good elastomeric properties are widely
used, replacing both plastic and traditional packaging materials (glass, metal).
Moisture-scavenging AP systems are used for moisture-sensitive foods and
pharmaceuticals. In these systems, desiccant materials (such as silica gel and
activated clay) are included in the packaging in the form of a sachet.
Packaging material for milk powder must protect the product from exposure to
moisture, O2 and light, as well as environmental factors (temperature, relative
humidity and physical hazards) during storage. Dried milk is an oxygen-sensitive
food product. Therefore, reducing the O2 content in the package also reduces
oxidative rancidity. Milk powder is packed into either metal cans (epoxy-phenolic
coated tinplate cans) or multilayer pouches (Alu/plastic) and has a shelf life of five
years. For long-term storage, MAP, gas flushing and O2 absorbers are used (Arab
Tehrany and Sonneveld 2010; Tucker 2011; Singh et al. 2012).
Roasted coffee release volatiles and CO2 during roasting, which expands the
beans due to the internal increase of gas. However, as the beans become very brittle,
they lose their ability to retain CO2 and volatiles, which are partially released during
storage. For this reason, a degassing step is performed on ground coffee before
packaging. With this action, the swelling and possible bursting of the packages
during storage is avoided. Instant coffee has a very long shelf life (Table 13.14) if
proper packaging is applied. Traditional packaging for instant coffee consists of
hermetically closed glass jars or tinplate cans of various shapes and sizes. The most
commonly used flexible materials are LDPE, BOPP/BOPP, metalized PET/LDPE
and PET/Alu/LDPE. These packages can be equipped with a one-way valve that
opens at a preset pressure to release accumulated gases.
Package structure WVTR Shelf life (days)

(thickness, μm) (g/m2 day) 25 g product 50 g product
LDPE (30) 6.1 15 16
BOPP/BOPPP (20/40) 1.2 84 94
PETmet/LDPE (12/70) 0.9 108 112
Table 13.14. Shelf life of instant coffee in different

packaging materials (Alves and Bordin 1998)
Once packaged coffee is opened, degradation reactions during consumption

occur at higher rates than when unopened; thus, a secondary shelf life is calculated.
Secondary shelf life represents the length of time after opening the package during
which coffee maintains acceptable quality. The end of secondary shelf life is about
20 days, at water activity (aw) values lower than 0.36. At higher aw values, the
secondary shelf life greatly decreases, for example, to about 13 days at aw of 0.44
(Nicoli et al. 2010; Ebnesajjad 2013; Robertson 2013).
13.2.4. Beverages packaging
Beverage products (water, tea, coffee, juices, carbonated soft drinks, beer and
wine) require special packaging to preserve their quality. Bottled water is packaged
into glass and plastic bottles (PET, PP, PVC, HDPE or polycarbonate (PC)). The
major concern in packaged bottled water is to avoid microbial growth and the
formation of off-flavors. For carbonated soft drinks and fruit juices, packages with
a strong barrier for microorganisms, oxygen and light are used. For that purpose,
a wide variety of materials are available: plastics (both rigid and flexible),
cardboard-based laminates, rigid metals (aluminum, Alu-laminates, tinplate, tin free
steel (TFS)) and glass. These materials are produced in different packaging types
and shapes (bottles, cans, pouches and others) (Wani et al. 2014; Ramos et al.
2016).
For carbonated soft drinks, which often have added flavors, the barrier against
permeation of carbon dioxide and flavor substances is an important issue. Although
glass and metal containers are traditionally used for premium beverages, the gas
barrier properties of plastic packaging materials have improved considerably, with
the introduction of new multi-layer materials, including oxygen-absorbing layers
and new barrier-coating techniques. Among plastic containers, PET and
polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) are used, as are multilayer materials for all types of
beverages (Ramos et al. 2016). PET is also used for edible oils due to its
transparency, excellent mechanical properties, low price, low weight, good O2 and
flavor barrier properties. Multilayer plastic bottles require a certain level of rigidity
that allows the bottle to be squeezed, a good barrier to moisture and O2 to ensure
product quality, transparency to clearly show the contents and a reclosing system to
allow repeated uses by consumers. Plastic combination, such as a PET/EVOH
system, provides rigidity and flexibility with the required adequate barrier (PET),
while an inner layer of EVOH provides an oxygen barrier to prevent spoilage of the
product (for this purpose, AP systems can be used as oxygen scavengers).
Fruit juices are usually packed in glass bottles, metal cans (both tinplate and
aluminum), cardboard–aluminum–plastic laminates or plastic packaging materials.
Glass is mainly used for high-quality fruit and vegetable juices, beer and wine. The
greatest advantage of glass is that it is an absolute barrier and an inert material. The
weakest point of glass packaging is associated with the point of closure. Metal cans
give protection similar to glass containers and are also a good barrier to light.
Because metal cans are susceptible to corrosion, appropriate lacquer formulations
for the interior coating must be selected to avoid corrosion problems. Cardboard
laminates with plastic and aluminum foil are used for aseptic packaging of juices,
and the shelf life of these products is four to six months. The major consideration
of the use of plastic packaging materials for beverages is to achieve low oxygen
permeability, in order to prevent the oxidation of sensitive ingredients, like vitamin C
(Table 13.15), which avoids changes in color or the formation of off-flavors.
Ascorbic acid content (mg/100 mL)

Ascorbic acid
Types of package Storage time (weeks)
retention (%)
0 3 5 7 8
PE/cardboard/Alu 12.68 11.48 10.70 9.77 9.38 74
PE/cardboard/EVOH 12.68 10.77 9.53 8.18 7.61 60
PE 12.68 10.43 8.95 7.26 6.59 52
PET 12.68 9.78 7.81 7.86 4.94 39
Table 13.15. Vitamin C retention of aseptically packaged pomegranate juices in

different packaging during storage at 4˚C (Fathy 2014)
Nowadays, active antioxidant packaging materials are developed for the

manufacture of beverage packages by applying the recent advances in encapsulation
and new packaging technologies. Scavengers are introduced into an inner layer of a
multilayer system, dispersed in the polymer matrix or added in closure liners
(Busolo and Lagarón 2012). Oxygen scavengers, such as Ageless Omac®,
Oxyguard® and Shelfplus O2® are some examples of packaging materials for
beverage products found on the market (Yildirim et al. 2018).
Antimicrobial packaging is another form of AP technology, which can be

incorporated into or coated onto plastic packaging in order to control microbial
contamination. The principles of antimicrobial packaging action are based on (1)
controlling the release of biocide species either to the liquid phase and/or to the
headspace, (2) absorption of essential components for microbial growth and (3) by
direct contact (Lagarón et al. 2012).
Beer is sensitive to O2 ingress and loss of CO2. Loss of CO2 from beer in metal
cans (aluminum and tinplate) is successfully prevented by the construction of the
can. Beer packaged in glass or plastic bottles (PET) can experience some CO2 loss.
This can be prevented by using barrier coatings, layers and blends to prevent the
ingress of O2 and minimize the loss of CO2. The amount of O2 that beer is exposed
to increases due to a combination of the filling operation and ingress into the beer
package. An O2 content of 0.25–1.2 ppm is identified as the concentration leading to
the end of shelf life between 80 and 120 days (Robertson 2013). For an O2 ingress of
maximum 1 ppm, the resulting shelf life for the beer is 4–13 months. In order to
decrease O2 ingress, various O2 scavengers have been developed for bottle closures.
PET bottles can transmit O2 from the environment into the beer and CO2 from the
beer into the environment at rates that produce large changes in flavor and
carbonation loss, respectively, over a relatively short time. The shelf life of beer in a
standard monolayer PET bottle can only be three weeks before the ingress of 500
ppb O2, and four weeks before 10% loss of CO2 occurred at 21°C. Polyethylene
naphthalate (PEN), which has better barrier properties than PET, has also been
investigated for beer bottles, usually as a copolymer with PET, because of its
high cost. Other high-barrier interior layers in PET bottles investigated include
ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH) and MXD6 polyamide (Bamforth and
Krochta 2010).
Bottled wine contains O2 from the original bulk wine, with the headspace O2
remaining after the closure application. The O2, SO2 and CO2 permeation rates of the
package, including closures, will impact the shelf life of the wine. There are many
variables (closure type, flushing of empty bottles with inert gas, filler characteristics
and pre-closure headspace flushing) that affect the dissolved oxygen content in
bottled wine. Glass is preferred for bottling wine because of its high impermeability
to gases and vapors, transparency and inertness. Glass wine bottles have been closed
with traditional bark cork. Other non-cork closures include Stelvin®, Zork®,
Nomacorc® and the “Vino-Lok” glass closure, designed for use with table wine.
The shelf life of a table wine is directly related to the O2 content, as oxidation can
produce significant organoleptic modifications in the flavor and color of wine, the
loss of aromatic freshness, the degradation of anthocyanins, etc. Besides the
traditional glass bottle, wine is packaged in other containers, including bag-in-box
(BIB), PET bottles, multilayer laminates and aluminum cans. PET with an extra
high barrier Saran layer was shown to be as effective for wine stability as glass for
up to 10 months. There were similar findings with PET bottles containing oxygen
scavengers. Although not well accepted by consumers, aseptically packaged wine in
cardboard/Alu/LDPE laminates has also been on the market for many years
(Mentana et al. 2009; Reeves 2010).
13.2.5. Snack and confectionary food packaging
Snacks are a group of foods (such as potato and corn chips, crisps, saltines,
pretzels, popcorn, extruded puffed and baked or fried products, rice-based snacks,
etc.) and drinks (soft drinks, milk drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks, etc.) that are
eaten between meals. Dried snack foods being crushed during distribution is the
major cause that affects their quality, while texture loss due to moisture pick-up and
rancidity due to the oxidation of fats and oils affect their shelf life. Thus, the
packaging materials for these products have to meet requirements for oxygen and
moisture barrier properties. Among packaging methods, vacuum packaging and inert
gas (nitrogen) flushing are often used. Flexible packaging, such as sachets and
pouches, and composite cans are forms used to package snack foods. Traditional
packaging materials include multilayer compositions of cardboard/Alu/LDPE
flushed with nitrogen (for fried snacks) and recycled cellulose fibers (RFC) coated
with LDPE or PVDC with a glassine layer (for cookies). Nowadays, the most-used
materials are metalized films or laminates with a polymer barrier, such as EVOH or
PVDC, which provides an oxygen, moisture and light barrier. Other packaging films
that are used are based on biaxially oriented polymers, due to increased barrier
performance with material orientation. Such materials include oriented
polypropylene (OPP), oriented polyethylene terephthalate (OPET) and oriented
HDPE. Among the bio-based materials, polylactic acid (PLA) has recently been
used for snack product packaging (Reilly and Man 2000; Ebnesajjad 2013;
Chinnadurai and Sequeira 2016).
Polymer Oxygen permeability Water vapor permeability

(thickness/m) (cm3/m2 day atm) (g mm/m2 day)
at 23°C, 50% RH at 23°C, 85% RH
PET 12/Alu 9/PE 50 0 0
PET 12/EVOH 5/PE 50 1 2–4
PET 12/PVDC 4/PE 50 5 2
PET 12/PVOH 3/PE 50 2 4–6
PET 12/PE 50 15–20 4–6
at 23°C, 50% RH at 23°C, 50% RH
PET 12/SiOx 0.5–5 0.2–5
PP 20/SiOx 1–20 0.1–1
PA 20/SiOx 1 0.5
PET 12 untreated 110 15
PP 20 untreated 1500–1800 1–1.5
Table 13.16. Comparison of barrier properties of different

flexible packaging films (Lange and Wyser 2003)
Transparent packaging barrier coatings, such as aluminum oxide (AlOx) and

silicon oxide (SiOx), have also been used for the packaging of dry foods such as
snack foods, confectionary, cookies or cereal bars. When applied onto polymeric
films (such as PET or BOPP), these high barrier coatings (Table 13.16) not only
offer product visibility but can also be used in different conditions, such as
microwave ovens (Lange and Wyser 2003; Struller et al. 2014, 2019).
Confectionery products (candy) include chocolate-based or sugar-based snack

food. Apart from sweeteners, these products contain other compounds such as flour,
colorants and flavorings. Because of the high level of sugar present in these
products, they are less prone to microbiological spoilage and have a relatively long
shelf life (Table 13.17). Therefore, the deterioration of flavor, odor, texture or color
of these products is the main causes of spoilage (Martin 1994).
Typical shelf life at

Product Major deteriorative changes room conditions
(months)
Plain chocolate bar Fat bloom, sugar bloom, stale flavor 24
Milk chocolate bar Fat bloom, sugar bloom, stale flavor 16
White chocolate bar Fat bloom, sugar bloom, stale flavor 16
Milk chocolate-coated Fat bloom, peanut rancidity, sugar bloom,
12
peanuts stale chocolate
Chocolate bars with Fat bloom, stale chocolate flavor, raisins
12
raisins drying out
Wafer becoming stale, fat bloom, sugar
Chocolate-coated wafer 12
bloom, stale chocolate flavor
Chocolate-coated Fat bloom, sugar bloom, fondant drying
18
fondant out
Chocolate shells with Sugar bloom, change in caramel texture,
12
soft caramel center fat bloom caused by fat migration
Chocolate shells with Fat bloom caused by fat migration, shell
12
praline center softening, nut paste rancidity
Table 13.17. Deteriorative changes and typical shelf

lives for chocolate products (Martin 1994)
However, some confectionery products have a shorter shelf life due to the
presence of unstable ingredients (e.g. cream), making them susceptible to microbial
spoilage. The packaging of confectionery depends on the equilibrium relative
humidity of the product. Depending on how the product gains or loses moisture from
the surrounding atmosphere, this can adversely affect the product. In order to protect
them from the atmospheric moisture and from sticking, some products are wrapped
individually (such as caramels, chocolate, hard candies, toffees and gum).
Traditionally, wrapping materials for these products include waxed paper, waxed
glassine and waterproof plasticized RCF. Since these materials offer low water
vapor resistance, an additional (outer) package is used, such as metal containers,
glass jars and metallized laminates. In this case, biaxially oriented films are also
widely used (Subramaniam 2010; Ebnesajjad 2013; Robertson 2013). Among
polymeric films, PE, PP and PVC are mostly used for confectionery products,
either as transparent films, allowing visibility of the product, or with other
packaging materials (laminates), providing adequate strength, flexibility and
increased barrier protection. Polymer-coated papers or films are popular packaging

materials due to their light weight and biodegradability. Metal foils, such as tin or
aluminum, have been a traditional wrapping material for chocolate and other
confectionery products, due to their high barrier properties against water vapor,
gases and light, as well as fats. Biaxially oriented materials (such as OPP) are also
mostly used here nowadays.
If the integrity of the package is violated, resulting in pore formation, a moisture

transmission into the package is enabled. In order to prevent this, edible coatings or
films (lipid, protein or cellulose-based) are often used to protect the product against
moisture (Ergun et al. 2010; Blanco-Pascual and Gómez-Estaca 2016).
Abbreviations Description
Alu Aluminum Foil
AP Active Packaging
BOPA Biaxially Oriented Polyamide
BOPPP Biaxially Oriented Perlized Polypropylene
BOPP Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene
EPS Expanded Polystyrene
EVAC (EVA) Ethylene Vinyl Acetate
EVOH (EVAL) Ethylene Vinyl Alcohol
HDPE High-Density Polyethylene
HIPS High Impact Polystyrene
HQL High-Quality Shelf Life
LDPE Low-Density Polyethylene
LLDPE Linear Low-Density Polyethylene
MAP Modified Atmosphere Packaging
MXD6 Meta-Xylylene Diamine/Adipic Acid Polyamide
OPET Oriented Polyethylene Terephthalate
PA Polyamide (nylon)
PC Polycarbonate
PE Polyethylene
PEN Polyethylene Naphthalate

PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
PETmet Metallized Polyethylene Terephthalate
PLA Polylactic Acid
PP Polypropylene
PS Polystyrene
PVOH (PVAL) Polyvinyl Alcohol
RCF Recycled Cellulose Fiber
TFS Tin-Free Steel
UHT Ultra High Temperature
ULDPE Ultra Low-Density Polyethylene
UP Ultrapasteurized
VP Vacuum Packaging
VSP Vacuum Skin Packaging
13.4. References
Aday, M.S. and Caner, C. (2013). The shelf-life extension of fresh strawberries
using an oxygen absorber in the biobased package. LWT-Food Sci. Technol., 52,
102–109.
Ahvenainen, R. (2003). Active and intelligent packaging. In Novel Food Packaging
Techniques, Ahvenainen R. (ed.). CRC Press, Woodhead Publishing Limited,
Cambridge.
marketplace for packaging-processing-printing-handling. Report, ALL4PACK.
Alves, R.M.V. and Bordin, M.R. (1998). Estimativa da vida útil de café solúvel por
modelo matematico. Ciencia e Tecnologia de Alimentos, 18, 19–24.
Anonymous (2014). PM food and dairy consulting. In World Cheese Market
2000–2020, P. Mikkelsen (ed.). Denmark.
Arab Tehrany, A. and Sonneveld, K. (2010). Packaging and the shelf-life of milk
powders. In Food Packaging and Shelf Life – A Practical Guide, Robertson, G.L.
(ed.). Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Artés Calero, F. and Gómez, P.A. (2003). Active packaging and colour control: The
case of fruit and vegetables. In Novel Food Packaging Techniques, Ahvenainen
R. (ed.). CRC Press, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge.
Arvanitoyannis, I.S. and Bosinas, K. (2012). Bakery products. In Modified
Atmosphere and Active Packaging Technologies. Arvanitoyannis, I.S. (ed.). CRC
Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Ashurst, P.R. (2010). Packaging and the shelf-life of water and carbonated drinks. In
Food Packaging and Shelf Life – A Practical Guide, Robertson, G.L. (ed.).
Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Bamforth, C.W. and Krochta, J.M. (2010). Packaging and the shelf-life of beer. In
Food Packaging and Shelf Life – A Practical Guide, Robertson, G.L. (ed.).
Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Belaya, Z.A., Caleb, O.J, and Opara, U.L. (2016). Modelling approaches for
designing and evaluating the performance of modified atmosphere packaging
(MAP) systems for fresh produce: A review. Food Pack. Shelf Life, 10, 1–15.
Blanco-Pascual, N. and Gómez-Estaca, J. (2016). Production and processing of
edible packaging – Stability and applications. In Edible Food Packaging,
Materials and Processing Technologies, Cerqueira, M.Â.P.R., Pereira, R.N.C.,
da Silva Ramos, Ó.L., Teixeira, J.A.C., and Vicente, A.A. (eds). CRC Press,
Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Bovi, G.G., Caleb, O.J., Linke, M., Rauh, C., and Mahajan, P.V. (2016).
Transpiration and moisture evolution in packaged fresh horticultural produce and
the role of integrated mathematical models: A review. Biosyst. Eng., 150, 24–39.
Busolo, M.A. and Lagarón, J.M. (2015). Antioxidant polyethylene films based on a
resveratrol containing clay of interest in food packaging applications. Food
Packag. Shelf Life, 6, 30–41.
Caleb O.J., Opara U.L., and Witthuhn C.R. (2011). Modified atmosphere packaging
of pomegranate fruit and arils: A review. Food Bioprocess Technol.,
DOI:10.1007/s11947-011-0525-7.
Castellanos, D.A. and Herrera, A.O. (2017). Modified atmosphere packaging:
Design and optimization strategies for fresh produce. Postharvest Handling,
85–106 [Online]. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.68498.
Chinnadurai, K. and Sequeira, V. (2016). Packaging of cereals, snacks, and
confectionery. Reference Module in Food Sciences. Elsevier Inc. [Online].
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.03223-6.
Cooksey, K. and Krochta, J.M. (2012). Introduction to frozen food packaging. In

Handbook of Frozen Food Processing and Packaging, Da-Wen Sun (ed.). CRC
Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Dalgaard, P. (2000). Fresh and lightly preserved seafood. In Shelf-life Evaluation of
Foods, 2nd edition. Man, C.M.D. and Jones, A.A. (eds). Aspen Publishing Inc.
Gaithersburg, MD.
Dalla Rosa, M. (2019). Packaging sustainability in the meat industry. In Sustainable
Meat Production and Processing, Galanakis, C.M. (ed.). Academic Press, London.
Day, B.P.F. (2000). Chilled food packaging. In Chilled Foods – A Comprehensive
Guide, Stringer M. and Colin D. (eds). Woodhead Publishing Limited,
Cambridge.
Del Nobile, M.A. and Conte, A., (2013). Packaging for Food Preservation.
Springer, New York.
Dodd, M. and Bouwer, J. (2014). The supply value chain of fresh produce from field
to home: Refrigeration and other supporting technologies. In Postharvest
Handling: A Systems Approach, Florkowski, W., Prussia, S., Shewfelt, R., and
Brueckner, B. (eds). Academic Press, London.
DTIPT (2008). Packaging Fresh Fruit and Vegetables. Guide, Danish Technological
Institute Packaging and Transport.
Ebnesajjad, S. (2013). Plastic Films in Food Packaging – Materials, Technology,
and Applications. Elsevier Inc., Waltham.
EC-JRC (2012). Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the
Manufacture of Glass, European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
Bureau (EIPPCB) [Online]. Available: http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ [Accessed
2 May 2012].
Emblem, A. (2012). Plastics properties for packaging materials. In Packaging
Technology – Fundamentals, Materials and Processes, Emblem, A. and
Emblem, H. (eds). Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge.
Ergun, R., Lietha, R., and Hartel, R.W. (2010). Moisture and shelf-life in sugar
confections. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr., 50(2), 162–192.
Fang, Z., Zhao, Y., Warner, R.D., and Johnson, S.K. (2017). Active and intelligent
packaging in meat industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol., 61, 60–71.
Fathy, A.M. (2014). Quality and shelf-life of pomegranate juice aseptically packed
in different packaging materials. Middle East J. Appl. Sci., 4(2), 409–415.
Favell, D.J. (1998). A comparison of the vitamin C content of fresh and vegetables.
Food Chem., 62(1), 59–64.
Finnegan, E., Mahajan, P.V., O’Connell, M., Francis, G.A., and O’Beirne, D.
(2013). Modelling respiration in fresh-cut pineapple and prediction of gas
permeability needs for optimal modified atmosphere packaging. Postharvest
Biol. Technol., 79, 47–53.
Fuertes, G., Soto, I., Carrasco, R., Vargas, M., Sabattin, J., and Lagos, C. (2016).
Intelligent packaging systems: Sensors and nanosensors to monitor food quality
and safety. J. Sensors, 4046061.
Galić, K. (2013). Requirements for innovative food packaging. In Innovation in
Healthy and Functional Foods, Ghosh, D., Das, S., Bagchi, D., and Smarta, R.B.
(eds). CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Giannakourou, M.C. and Taoukis, P.S. (2003). Application of a TTI-based
distribution management system for quality optimization of frozen vegetables at
the consumer end. J. Food Sci., 68(1), 201–209.
Götz, A., Wani, A.A., Langowski, H.-C., and Wunderlich, J. (2014). Aseptic
packaging. In Encyclopedia of Food Safety, Motarjemi, Y., Moy, G., Todd, E.
(eds). Academic Press, Amsterdam. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-378612-8.00274-2.
Gould, G.W. (2001). New processing technologies: An overview. Proc. Nutr. Soc.,
60, 463–474.
Hussein, Z., Caleb, O.J., and Opara, U.L. (2015). Perforation-mediated modified
atmosphere packaging of fresh and minimally processed produce – A review.
Food Packag. Shelf Life, 6, 7–20.
Iacovidou, E. and Gerassimidou, S. (2018). Sustainable packaging and the circular
economy: An EU perspective. Reference Module in Food Sciences. Elsevier Inc.
[Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.22488-8.
IIR (2006). Recommendations for the Processing and Handling of Frozen Foods,
4th edition, Bogh-Sorensen, L. (ed.). International Institute of Refrigeration
(IIR), Paris.
Kirwan, M.J. (2011). Paper and paperboard packaging. In Food and Beverage
Packaging Technology, Coles, R. and Kirwan, M. (eds). Blackwell Publishing
Ltd, Chichester.
Kitazawa, H. (2018). Cushioning packaging for fresh produce. Reference Module
in Food Sciences. Elsevier Inc. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-08-100596-5.22483-9.
Kontominas, M.G. (2010). Packaging and the shelf-life of milk. In Food Packaging
and Shelf Life – A Practical Guide, Robertson, G.L. (ed.). Taylor and Francis
Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Lagarón, J.M., Ocio, M.J., and López-Rubio, A. (2012). Antimicrobial packaging

polymers. A general introduction. In Antimicrobial Polymers, Lagarón, J.M.,
Ocio, M.J., and López-Rubio, A. (eds). John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Lambert, A.D., Smith, J.P., and Dodds, K.L. (1991). Shelf-life extension and
microbiological safety of fresh meat – A review. Food Microbiol., 8(4), 267–297.
Lange, J. and Wyser, Y. (2003). Recent innovations in barrier technologies for
plastic packaging – A review. Packag. Technol. Sci., 16, 149–158.
Linke, M. and Geyer, M. (2013). Condensation dynamics in plastic film packaging
of fruit and vegetables. J. Food Eng., 116, 144–154.
Lisiewska, Z. and Kmiecik, W. (2000). Effect of storage period and temperature on
the chemical composition and organoleptic quality of frozen tomato cubes. Food
Chem., 70, 167–173.
MacBean, R.D. (2010). Packaging and the shelf-life of yogurt. In Food Packaging
and Shelf Life – A Practical Guide, Robertson, G.L. (ed.). Taylor and Francis
Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Martin, A.V. (1994). Chocolate confectionery. In Shelf-Life Evaluation of Foods,
Man, C.M.D. and Jones, A.A. (eds). Springer Science+Business Media,
Dordrecht.
Masniyom, P. (2011). Deterioration and shelf-life extension of fish and fishery
products by modified atmosphere packaging. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol.,
33(2), 181–192.
Mentana, A., Pati, S., La Notte, E., and del Nobile, M.A. (2009). Chemical changes
in Apulia table wines as affected by plastic packages. LWT – Food Sci. Technol.,
42, 1360–1366.
Nicoli, M.C., Manzocco, L., and Calligaris, S. (2010). Packaging and the shelf-life
of coffee. In Food Packaging and Shelf Life – A Practical Guide, Robertson,
G.L. (ed.). Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Ohlsson, T. (2002). Minimal processing of foods with thermal methods. In Minimal
Processing Technologies in the Food Industry, Ohlsson, T. and Bengtsson, N.
(eds). Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge.
Parisi, S. (2013). Food Industry and Packaging Materials: Performance-oriented
Guidelines for Users. Smithers Rapra Technology Ltd, Shrewsbury.
Park, S.H., Lamsal, B.P., and Balasubramaniam, V.M. (2014). Principles of food
processing. In Food Processing: Principles and Applications, Clark S., Jung, S.,
and Lamsal, B. (eds). John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Plastics Europe (2018). The benefits of plastic packaging plastics Europe [Online].
Available: https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/about-plastics/packaging [Accessed 4
June 2019].
Poças, M.F. and Pintado, M. (2010). Packaging and the shelf-life of cheese. In Food
Packaging and Shelf Life – A Practical Guide, Robertson, G.L. (ed.). Taylor and
Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Punathil, L. and Basak, T. (2016). Microwave Processing of Frozen and Packaged
Food Materials: Experimental. Reference Module in Food Sciences. Elsevier Inc.
[Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.21009-3.
Rahman, M.S., Al-Rizeiqi, M.H., Guizani, N., Al-Ruzaiqi, M.S., Al-Aamri, A.H.,
and Zainab, S. (2015). Stability of vitamin C in fresh and freeze-dried capsicum
stored at different temperatures. J. Food Sci. Technol., 52(3), 1691–1697.
Ramos, M., Valdés, A., and Garrigós, M.C. (2016). Packaging for drinks. Reference
Module in Food Sciences. Elsevier Inc. [Online]. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.03224-8.
Reeves, M.J. (2010). Packaging and the shelf-life of wine. In Food Packaging and
Shelf Life – A Practical Guide, Robertson, G.L. (ed.). Taylor and Francis Group,
Boca Raton, FL.
Reilly, A. and Man, C.M.D. (2000). Potato crisps and savoury snacks. In Shelf-Life
Evaluation of Foods, Man, C.M.D. and Jones, A. (eds). Aspen Publishers, Inc.,
USA.
Rickman, J.C., Barrett, D.M., and Bruhn, C.M. (2007). Nutritional comparison of
fresh, frozen and canned fruits and vegetables. Part 1. Vitamins C and B and
phenolic compounds. J. Sci. Food Agric., 87, 930–944.
Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Ščetar, M. and Galić, K. (2018). A perspective on packaging of fruits and
vegetables. In Novel Postharvest Treatments of Fresh Produce, Pareek, S. (ed).
CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, London.
Schaefer, D. and Cheung, W.M. (2018). Smart packaging: Opportunities and
challenges. 51st CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems, 72, 1022–1027.
Singh, P., Wani, A.A., Karim, A A., and Langowski, H.-C. (2012). The use of
carbon dioxide in the processing and packaging of milk and dairy products: A
review. Int. J. Dairy Technol., 65(2), 161–177.
Sivertsvik, M., Jeksrud, W.K., and Rosnes, J.T. (2002). A review of modified
atmosphere packaging of fish and fishery products – Significance of microbial
growth, activities and safety. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., 37(2), 107–127.
Struller, C.F., Kelly, P.J., and Copeland, N.J. (2014). Aluminum oxide barrier
coatings on polymer films for food packaging applications. Surf. Coat. Tech.,
241, 130–137.
Struller, C.F., Kelly, P.J., and Copeland, N.J. (2019). Conversion of aluminium
oxide coated films for food packaging applications – From a single layer
material to a complete pouch. Food Packag. Shelf Life, 20, 100309.
Subramaniam, P. (2000). Confectionery products. In The Stability and Shelf-Life of
Food, Kilcast, D. and Subramaniam, P. (eds). Woodhead Publishing Limited,
Cambridge.
Tano, K., Oulé, M.K., Doyon, G., Lencki, R.W., and Arul, J. (2007). Comparative
evaluation of the effect of storage temperature fluctuation on modified
atmosphere packages of selected fruit and vegetables. Postharvest Biol. Technol.,
46, 212–221.
Tucker, G.S. (2011). Food biodeterioration and methods of preservation. In Food
and Beverage Packaging Technology, Coles, R. and Kirwan, M. (eds). Blackwell
Publishing Ltd, Chichester.
Wani, A.A., Singh, P., and Langowski, H-C. (2014). Packaging. Encyclopedia of
Food Safety, 3, 211–218. Elsevier Inc. [Online]. Available: doi:10.1016/B978-0-
12-378612-8.00273-0.
WPO (2008). Market Statistics and Future Trends in Global Packaging. World
Packaging Organisation/PIRA International Ltd [Online]. Available:
www.worldpackaging.org [Accessed 6 April 2020].
Yildirim, S., Röcker, B., Pettersen, M.K., Nilsen-Nygaard, J., Ayhan, Z., Rutkaite,
R., and Coma, V. (2018). Active packaging applications for food. Compr. Rev.
Food Sci. Food Saf., 17, 165–199.
List of Authors
Nasreddine BENBETTAIEB Mia KUREK
Institute of Technology Faculty of Food Technology and
University of Burgundy Biotechnology
Dijon University of Zagreb
France Croatia
Frédéric DEBEAUFORT Mario ŠČETAR

Institute of Technology Faculty of Food Technology and
University of Burgundy Biotechnology
Dijon University of Zagreb
France Croatia
Kata GALIĆ
Faculty of Food Technology and
Biotechnology
University of Zagreb
Croatia

Index
A barrel, 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15,

16, 18
additive(s), 106, 107, 109, 117, 119,
barrier
121, 122, 129
properties, 112, 115, 118–121, 129,
adhesive(s), 132, 133, 140, 235, 242,
135, 136, 138, 139, 141, 332,
245–249, 252–254, 256
333, 335–337, 339
aerosol, 78, 86, 89–91, 100
to gas, 243, 252, 253
ageing, 5, 10, 12, 15
beverages, 317, 318, 331, 333, 334,
alginate, 153, 159
343, 346
alloys, 78, 81, 83–85, 100, 103
bio
aluminum (Al), 76–80, 84–86,
-based polyethylene (BioPE), 147,
89–91, 95, 96, 99, 100, 104, 132,
148, 164, 167, 168, 176
136, 141, 224, 227, 231, 233, 263,
degradable, 146–151, 168–170,
264, 266, 267, 271, 275, 283, 288,
172–176, 178–182
289, 291
degradation, 147, 149–151, 153,
amorphous, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56
174, 175, 177, 179, 180
ampoule, 50, 61
-fragmentation, 149
annealing, 57, 59, 62
plastics, 146, 147, 151, 176, 179
antimicrobial, 5, 14, 183, 186, 187,
-poly(ethylene terephthalate)
191, 196, 197, 200, 201, 218, 221
(BioPET), 147, 149, 164, 169,
antioxidant, 186, 198, 199, 218, 220
176
-polymers, 146, 148, 153, 154, 166,
B 172, 175, 179, 182
bagging, 259, 261 sensors, 203, 211
bags, 20, 21, 26, 31–33, 37, 261, 266, bleaching, 25, 26
268 blister pack(s), 114, 115, 117, 262,
bakery products, 325 263
barcode, 212–214, 216, 221 blow–blow process, 59, 60

board, 257, 258, 286 composting, 145, 149, 151, 170, 175,
bonding, 245, 247, 248 178, 179
dry, 132, 133 confectionary, 336, 337
wet, 132, 133 consumer safety, 217
boron, 51, 52, 54, 57 containers, 263–266, 277, 282, 317,
bottle(s), 49, 50, 53–56, 58, 60–66, 333, 334, 336, 338
68–70, 317, 327, 331, 333–335 contamination, 3, 5, 6, 252, 264, 272,
neck, 58 290
shoulder, 63 controlling theft, 203, 216
box, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13 convenience, 183, 201, 203, 214, 215
cork, 223–226, 233
C natural, 225
corrosion, 80–83, 85, 87, 89, 95, 97,
calendering, 28, 29, 107–109
99, 100, 103, 236–239
can(s), 76, 80, 81, 332–336
corrugating, 27, 40, 41
three-piece, 86, 87, 97
counterfeiting, 203, 216
two-piece, 78, 88, 90, 95
crate(s), 2, 6, 8, 9, 13
canning, 259, 263, 295, 300
crown cap, 223, 224, 228
carbon dioxide (CO2), 186, 188, 191,
cullet, 52, 69–72
193, 196, 197, 200, 208, 210, 211,
curing, 236, 238, 244, 246–251,
220, 282, 284–287, 289, 290
253
cardboard, 19–22, 25, 26, 32, 34–36,
40–43, 45–47
D
caseins, 155–157, 178, 182
cask, 1, 9–13, 15 dairy products, 317, 327, 331, 332,
cellulose, 3, 20–23, 25, 26, 28, 32, 336, 338, 340, 343, 345
43, 148, 152, 158–163, 166, 171, cheese, 328, 345
174, 176, 178, 182 data carrier, 203, 204, 212, 213
chitosan, 147, 153, 159, 162, design, 20, 32, 33, 37, 38, 40
178–180 dispensing closure, 229
chromium, 79, 82, 83, 86, 103 drawing, 80, 88, 89, 91, 99
closures, 75, 77, 88, 89, 91, 93 drums, 77, 79, 80, 83, 97
child-resistant, 229 dry foods, 337
coating, 28, 29, 31, 36, 43, 85, 87, 89, dunnage, 2, 5
91, 95–103, 132, 134, 135, 142,
143, 235–244, 247, 249, 250, 252, E
254–256
easy opening, 223, 229, 231–233
coextrusion, 132, 134, 135
edible
collagen, 156, 158
coatings, 152, 164
color, 301, 309, 317, 323, 328, 329,
films, 152, 156, 160, 163
334, 336, 337
ethylene, 186, 190, 192, 193, 195,
communication, 202, 203, 301, 302
198, 208, 218, 260, 287–289, 291
vinyl alcohol (EVOH), 106, 124
Index 351
European Commission, 5, 8, 16, 43, G

68, 69, 71, 81, 100–102, 125,
127–129, 184, 217, 253, 254, 258, gelatins, 155–158, 178–182
294, 303, 310, 316 glass, 257, 263, 265, 266, 274, 275,
extrusion, 106–109, 116, 132, 134, 277, 278
135, 140, 142, 143 chemical degradation, 51, 54, 55,
67
glassine, 31, 32, 37
F
glue, 241, 247
fibers, 20–28, 31, 32, 34, 36, 43, 148, gluten, 156
152, 158, 160, 162, 170 grinding, 23
filling, 259, 261, 268, 270, 279
films, 106–109, 111–115, 117, H
119–121, 123, 146, 151–153,
155–162, 164, 166, 167, 170–172, hardwood, 1, 2, 5, 6, 21, 22, 27
174, 178, 179, 181, 182, 320, 323, hotmelt, 246, 248
332, 336–339, 341, 346 humidity, 189, 193–195, 198, 216
fish, 318, 321, 326, 327, 329, 342, hydrostatic pressure treatment, 276,
344, 346 291
flanging, 88–91, 93 hygroscopicity, 3
flasks, 50, 53, 54, 58
flavors, 186, 188, 195, 198 I, J. K
flexography, 250, 251 indicators, 203–206, 208, 210, 214,
flute, 40 217, 220
foils, 78, 84, 85, 89, 92, 100, inert, 49, 56, 67
131–133, 141, 142, 144 information, 183, 185, 202, 204, 208,
folding, 21, 34–38, 41 211–214
food infrared treatment, 271, 272, 280,
contact materials (FCM), 126, 127, 292, 293, 295, 296, 298
191, 217, 235, 245, 251, 253, ingredients, 303–305, 311
255, 266, 310 injection, 109, 110, 116, 129
processing, 257, 272, 274, 281, inks, 235, 239, 241, 249–255
292, 293, 295, 296, 298, 300, iron, 79, 81–83, 85, 93, 95, 96
318, 344 irradiation, 258, 279, 280, 293–297
packaging interactions, 4, 13, 15, jars, 264–267
44, 49, 78, 87, 90, 96, 100, 121, kraft, 21, 24–27, 31–33, 36
139, 185, 237, 251
fresh products, 318, 320–322 L
freshness indicator, 183, 204, 208,
211 label(s), 235, 245–249, 301–304,
frozen foods, 329–331, 342 306, 307, 309, 311–316
fonts, 309
information, 301–304, 308, 309, orientation, 113, 116, 119

311–313, 315, 316 oxides, 50–54, 57
laminates, 266–268, 270, 275, 277, oxygen (O2), 186–191, 195–199, 210,
280, 282, 283, 325, 328, 331, 333, 220, 259, 265, 267, 269, 278, 279,
334, 336, 338 282–287, 289, 291, 297, 299
lamination, 132–135, 140, 143
lid, 230, 231, 233 P
lifecycle assessment (LCA), 145,
packaging
166, 169
aseptic, 257, 268–270, 295
light, 52–54, 56
controlled atmosphere (CAP), 284,
lignin, 3, 22–26
291
lime, 51, 57
flexible, 109, 111–115, 117,
119–121, 128, 129, 266, 317,
M
336, 337
macromolecules, 154 microwavable, 271, 274, 275, 295,
meat, 318, 321, 323–325, 329, 342, 299
344, 345 modified atmosphere (MAP), 258,
mechanical 282, 284, 285, 287, 290–293,
properties, 112, 116, 117, 123, 128 295, 297, 321–328, 332, 339,
protection, 20 341, 343, 344, 346
melting, 106, 107, 110 multilayer, 132, 134, 135, 137,
metal, 223, 224, 228–231, 233, 257, 140–144
264–266, 270, 271, 274, 277 operations, 259
metallization, 132, 136, 137, 141, primary, 75, 84
144 rigid, 106, 109, 116, 128, 129
microwave secondary, 19, 37, 77
doneness, 214 tertiary, 40
susceptors, 186, 201 vacuum skin (VSP), 282, 292, 297
migration, 96, 99, 121–123, 129, 135, packing, 282
140, 153, 163, 191, 217, 235, 237, pads, 186–189, 194–197, 200, 221
248, 249, 251–255, 277, 279, 295, pails, 77, 97
299 pallets, 2, 3, 6–8, 17, 18
mold, 56, 58–62, 64 paper, 132, 141, 142, 257–259, 268,
molding 271–273, 275, 279, 288, 289, 294,
blow, 109–111, 116 295, 300
compression, 109 board, 27, 28, 34–38, 40, 41, 45, 46
parison, 58–61
N, O pasteurization, 321, 328
pectin, 157, 159, 160, 171, 180
nitrogen (N2), 272, 282–287
permeability, 248, 267, 278, 286,
nutrition declaration, 303, 308
288, 332, 333, 335–337, 339
offset, 250, 251
permeation, 244, 251, 278, 282, 284
ohmic heating, 270, 296, 297
Index 353
plastics, 143, 223, 257, 275, 317, Q, R

327, 333, 342, 345
poly quality, 183, 185, 186, 188, 190, 191,
(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) 197–200, 203–205, 208, 210–212,
(PBAT), 146, 174, 177 214, 218, 219, 221
(ethylene terephthalate) (PET), radiofrequency identification (RFID),
106, 110, 113, 115, 116, 124, 212–214, 216, 218
127, 128 recyclable, 49, 56, 69, 70
(vinyl alcohol) (PVAL), 106 recycling, 22, 43, 125, 126, 128, 129,
(vinyl chloride) (PVC), 106, 108, 135, 139, 142, 143
110, 111, 115, 124, 128 regulation, 2, 5, 13, 14, 43, 58,
amide (PA), 106, 110, 113, 115, 100–102, 122, 123, 127–129, 131,
124, 128 184, 217, 219, 221, 249, 253–255,
butylene succinate (PBS), 146, 303, 304, 308, 309, 316
147, 150, 172, 173, 177 releasers, 187, 196–198
caprolactone (PCL), 147, 150, 163, retortable pouch, 266
172, 177 rubber, 223, 229
carbonate (PC), 106, 110, 128
ethylene (PE), 105, 106, 108, 112, S
115, 124, 128, 226, 227, 233 sachets, 186–190, 192–194, 196–198,
hydroxyalkanoate (PHA), 146, 147, 200, 217, 268
169, 170, 174, 177 scavengers, 187, 188, 190–195, 197,
lactic acid (PLA), 146–148, 150, 210, 220
158, 164–166, 171, 172, 174, screw cap, 226, 229
175, 177, 181 sealing, 259–261, 268, 269, 271, 276,
phenols, 3, 14, 15 282
propylene (PP), 106, 108, 110–113, seaming, 88, 91–94, 102
115, 124, 127, 128 self-opening, 32
styrene (PS), 106, 108, 111, 113, sensors, 203, 204, 211, 220
115, 124 shaping, 106, 107, 111
vinylidene chloride (PVDC), 106, shelf life, 183–187, 189, 191–193,
115, 124 195, 196, 198–200, 214, 318, 319,
pouch(es), 31, 261, 263, 265–267, 321–338
270, 271, 277, 292, 296, 299 sleeves, 313, 314
powders, 332 snacks, 336, 337, 341, 345
press-and-blow process, 59–61 soda, 50–52, 54, 57, 62, 63, 72
pressure, 224, 225 softwood, 1, 3, 5, 6, 21, 22, 25, 27, 32
protection, 183, 203, 212 solvent, 237, 239, 241, 243, 246–251,
proteins, 152, 155, 157, 178, 179 253
pulp, 20–28, 32, 34–36, 38, 45, 47 sous-vide cooking, 267, 268
pulsed electric field (PEF), 257, 277, soy protein, 156, 179
278, 291, 293, 294, 297 splinters, 3, 13, 56, 68
starch, 146–149, 152, 153, 159, 160, traceability, 203, 212, 214, 216, 218
163, 166, 172–174, 177, 180, 182 transparent, 50, 53, 54, 56, 64, 66, 70
steel, 75 transport, 19–21, 40, 43
tin-free, 77–79, 82–84, 86, 91, 100, tray(s), 2, 9, 14, 78, 89, 100, 148
103 tubes, 78, 84–86, 90, 100
sterilization, 267, 270, 271, 274, 279, twist-off closure, 228
280, 295, 296, 320, 331
sustainability, 19, 20, 33, 40, 49 V
vacuum, 257, 267, 268, 279, 282,
T
283, 286, 292, 295–297, 299, 300
tag(s), 213, 214, 314 vials, 49, 50, 61, 62
tamper-evident, 223–226, 229, 230, vitamins, 319–321, 329, 330, 334,
234 342, 345
tampering, 203, 216 vitrification, 51
thermal process, 263, 266, 276, 294,
296 W, Z
thermochromic inks, 203, 215
thermoforming, 109, 111, 112, 114, waste management, 142, 145, 151,
116, 129 176
thermoplastics, 106–109, 147, 154, welding, 79, 86–88, 92, 100
162, 163, 166, 168, 172, 177–180 wine, 1, 2, 9–15, 17, 18
thermosets, 106, 109 wrapping, 257, 259, 260, 274, 282
time–temperature indicators (TTIs), zein, 155, 156
204–208, 217, 219
tinplate, 75, 77–82, 84, 86–89, 91,
95, 100, 102

(Agronomy and Food Science - Packaging and Recycling) Kata Galic, Mia Kurek, Nasreddine Benbettaieb, Frederic Debeaufort, Mario Scetar - Packaging Materials and Processing For PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Agronomy and Food Science - Packaging and Recycling) Kata Galic, Mia Kurek, Nasreddine Benbettaieb, Frederic Debeaufort, Mario Scetar - Packaging Materials and Processing For PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Agronomy and Food Science - Packaging and Recycling) Kata Galic, Mia Kurek, Nasreddine Benbettaieb, Frederic Debeaufort, Mario Scetar - Packaging Materials and Processing For PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Packaging Materials and Processing for

Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics

Packaging Materials and

ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

© ISTE Ltd 2021

Library of Congress Control Number: 2020951536

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Introduction to Food Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

Chapter 1. Wood-based Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 2. Papers and Boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chapter 3. Glass Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Chapter 4. Metal Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Chapter 5. Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Chapter 6. Multilayer Packaging Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

6.2.3. Thermal lamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Chapter 7. Bio-based Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Chapter 8. Active and Intelligent Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

8.4. Consumer safety and related regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Chapter 9. Packaging Caps and Closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Chapter 10. Auxiliary Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Chapter 11. Food Packaging Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

11.2.3. Form-fill-seal packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

Chapter 12. Packaging Marking and Labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

Chapter 13. Food Packaging Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

List of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347

Packaging today has a significant impact on our society, as well as on our

A huge variety of packaging materials, commonly used in food, pharmaceuticals,

Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics,

Packaging Materials and Processing for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics,

For a color version of all figures in this book, see www.iste.co.uk/debeaufort/packaging.zip.

especially food, thanks to the development of large stores (retailing, supermarkets),

The definition of “packaging” in EU Directive 94/62/EC (European Commission

The International Packaging Institute (in the Glossary of Packaging Terms,

(i) Pack (noun): Bundle of items wrapped up, tied together or

Thus, packaging serves as a material-handling tool (containing the desired

I.3. Levels of packaging

Packaging can be distinguished in regard to its “levels” (Figure I.1). A primary

at delivering real-time distribution chain insights from any location (monitoring

Figure I.1. Levels of packaging

I.4. Functions of packaging

Packaging, as an essential element of the product–packaging pair, fulfills various

Four main functions of packaging are thus emphasized: containment, protection,

Figure I.2. Packaging functions

Product protection is the most important function of packaging. The package

Food safety and quality is ensured through tamper-proof packaging. Special

Convenience characteristics, which are much appreciated by consumers, include

I.5. Introduction to packaging materials

Considered as a protective barrier or for carriage purposes, packaging has been

Figure I.3. Packaging in nature

Year Package development

Table I.1. Some developments in packaging during the

I.6. Sociological, psychological and economical aspects of packaging

Packaging strongly influences the consumer’s perception of the packed products,

I.6.1. Packaging characteristics and consumer behavior

To succeed in a marketing sector, it is important to study the habits of the

Images easily convey a message. They do not need to be translated. Sparkling,

I.6.2. Packaging trends

– Sustainable packaging, or even reaching a zero-waste packaging concept, is in

– Sophistication, and therefore a visible (marketing) message, refined with bold