4.7 Review

Recyclability and Redesign Challenges in Multilayer Flexible Food Packaging-A Review

Journal

FOODS
Volume 10, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods10112702

Keywords

multilayer packaging; flexible packaging; polyolefin; recyclability; redesign; mono-material; shelf-life of foods

Funding

  1. Vienna Business Agency [2658497]
  2. network project COST Action [19124]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multilayer flexible food packaging is facing pressure to redesign for recyclability, with a shift towards using polyolefins and a few recyclable barrier layers. Material choices may be restricted in the future, potentially increasing environmental burden through shortened food shelf-life and increased packaging weights.
Multilayer flexible food packaging is under pressure to redesign for recyclability. Most multilayer films are not sorted and recycled with the currently available infrastructure, which is based on mechanical recycling in most countries. Up to now, multilayer flexible food packaging was highly customizable. Diverse polymers and non-polymeric layers allowed a long product shelf-life and an optimized material efficiency. The need for more recyclable solutions asks for a reduction in the choice of material. Prospectively, there is a strong tendency that multilayer flexible barrier packaging should be based on polyolefins and a few recyclable barrier layers, such as aluminium oxide (AlOx) and silicon oxide (SiOx). The use of ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) and metallization could be more restricted in the future, as popular Design for Recycling Guidelines have recently reduced the maximum tolerable content of barrier materials in polyolefin packaging. The substitution of non-recyclable flexible barrier packaging is challenging because only a limited number of barriers are available. In the worst case, the restriction on material choice could result in a higher environmental burden through a shortened food shelf-life and increased packaging weights.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available