4.7 Article

Multi-faceted migration in food contact polyethylene-based nanocomposite packaging

期刊

APPLIED CLAY SCIENCE
卷 198, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clay.2020.105803

关键词

Clay polymer nanocomposite; Multi-dimensional migration; Food contact materials regulations

资金

  1. Investissements d'Avenir French Government program [ANR-11-LABX-0064]
  2. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-11-LABX-0064] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The flourishing market of nanocomposite food packaging has raised concerns about the safety of these materials. While several works on this issue have been published in recent years, they main focus in these studies was found to be on the possible migration of the nanoparticle its constituents. However, thorough safety evaluation of these materials would not be realistic until the nano-packaging system would be regarded as a whole with all of its components and the interactions of all these components. This matter is specifically crucial in terms of the interaction of nanoparticles with the non-nano additives which are added during the packaging processing. As the toxicity of these processing additives is no less than the nanoparticles, the possible impact of the nano particles on the transfer properties of these substances could play a decisive role on the risk assessments of the nanocomposite for food application. This study is an attempt through a thorough analysis of nanocomposite risks in terms of the interactions of components and the resulting effects on the release of nanocomposite substances. In this regard a model nanocomposite of LLDPE and nanoclay which is also comprised of intercalants and some selective additives were put in contact with various food simulants were considered and the global, specific and elemental exposure to the substances were extensively evaluated. The results are believed to provide more tenable judgements about the safety of polymer nanocomposites.

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