4.7 Article

Effect of high-pressure processing on the migration of ε-caprolactam from multilayer polyamide packaging in contact with food simulants

期刊

FOOD PACKAGING AND SHELF LIFE
卷 26, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fpsl.2020.100576

关键词

Flexible packaging; Food contact material; Food safety; Emerging technologies; Specific migration; Overall migration

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2018/05588-0]
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [140793/2017-8]
  3. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel Brazil (CAPES) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polyamide is a material widely used as food packaging. However, residual monomers can migrate from poly amide food packaging into food during the processing and storage conditions. Hence, it is necessary to evaluate the effect of processing carried out with emerging technologies, taking this issue into consideration. This research presents for the first time the effect of high-pressure processing on the e-caprolactam migration from multilayer polyamide packaging to different food simulants. Commercial LDPE/PA/LDPE and PET/LDPE/PA/EVOH/PA/ LDPE packaging materials were filled with 70 mL of food simulant (acid, aqueous, and fatty) and processed at 600 MPa/25 degrees C/10 min, 600 MPa/90 degrees C/10 min, and 0.1 MPa/90 degrees C/10 min. Samples were evaluated as for epsilon-caprolactam overall and specific migration after processing and after conditioning at 40 degrees/10 days. The migration of e-caprolactam to the distinct simulants after different processing was greater when processed under atmospheric pressure and high-temperature (0.1 MPa/90 degrees C/10 min) than when processed under high-pressure (600 MPa). All evaluated samples showed specific migration values of e-caprolactam lower than 15 mg kg(-1). Therefore, under the assessed conditions, the materials comply with the limits of the e-caprolactam specific migration for the current legislation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据