Abstract
Food industry must guarantee food safety and seek sustainable solutions for increasing shelf life and decreasing food waste. Bio-based smart packaging is a potential option, where sustainability and real-time monitoring of food quality are combined assuring health safety and providing economic and environmental benefits. In this context, bio-based refers not only to packaging materials that are from renewable sources and biodegradable, but also to the sensor elements. The scope of this review is to explore the state-of-the-art of bio-based polymers used as food contact materials and to highlight the potential of natural compounds for sensing chemical and physical changes of the environment to monitor the food quality. Finally, different sustainability aspects of the bio-based materials are discussed.
Introduction
Busy lifestyles and growing urban populations mean an increasing demand for food that is fresh, healthy, convenient, and fast. One of the key drivers of this growth is the world’s rising population which by the year 2050 will reach 9.7 billion people with increase of 26% (The United Nations, 2019). With the global population rising, wastage of food including 47% of all fruit and vegetables and 12% of meat and animal products, is one of the greatest challenges to achieve food security (). Although food is our basic necessity, its production, processing, transportation and storage are rather complex from many aspects and need to fulfill a number of criteria to ensure the health and environmental safety and economic feasibility.
Foods pose potential danger of diseases due to bacterial (Salmonella, Campylobacter, Listeria, and Cholera), viral (Norovirus, Hepatitis A), parasite (tapeworms, trematodes, Ascaris, Cryptosporidium, Entamoeba histolytica, and Giardia), fungal (Aspergillus, Candida, and Fusarium) and even prion infections as consequence of inappropriate handling and processing of the products causing foodborne diseases that affect ∼10% of global population with a death toll of 420,000 deaths each year. Chemical contaminants, which may even accumulate in various food chains, represent further risks. These include phytochemical residues, mycotoxins, marine toxins from algae, cyanogenic glycosides from plants, and different metabolites from products aging and decaying (ethanol, putrescine, cadaverine, histamine, ethylene etc.) but also environmental and industrial pollutants, e.g., dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls and heavy metals (Pb, Cd, and Hg) (World Health Organization, 2019). Another issue in the context of food safety is deliberate fraud to counterfeit the origin, content or quality (i.e., expiration dates) of products (). Just diluting a high-quality wine with cheaper one mainly hurts the wallet and pride but more severe cases may endanger health permanently or cost lives (). Furthermore, the flip side of food safety is food waste as 1/3 of all produced food is lost or goes into waste () meaning safe and edible food products are thrown away although the “best if used before” dates are only recommendations without information of the true status of the food. This is ethically and practically controversial as still today 820 billion people suffer from undernutrition and agricultural production would need to increase with 50% to feed the growing population by 2050 ().
As a partial solution to complex problems of food safety and decreasing unnecessary food waste is the selection and development of proper food packaging. The function of the food packages has been the same throughout history: to maintain hygiene, protect the food during transportations and storing, and ultimately to increase shelf life. However, modern technology and materials science have introduced new “smart” functions to food packages, which include advanced packaging materials with improved properties, and sensors that can monitor food quality (Yam et al., 2005; ). Over the years, several approaches toward smart packaging have been demonstrated including time-temperature indicators, modified atmosphere packaging sensors for CO2 and O2 monitoring, total volatile base nitrogen sensors to detect food decay, fruit ripeness indicators, pathogen sensors, and solutions for food tracking and authentication (RFID tags) (; ; ; ; ; ; Yousefi et al., 2019).
As of today, plastics (rigid and flexible) have the largest shares of the market in food packaging (37% market), followed by paper and board (34%), glass (11%), and metal (9%) (). If we consider the properties of the given food packaging materials, the high market share of paper and board can be explained by the renewable source and recyclability, it is printable, wet and dry food can be stored in paper and board after laminating/covering process and in general paper and board are very suitable for mass production lowering the costs (). Containers made of glass, on the other hand, are among the oldest materials man has used as it can be shaped to practically any form, has high chemical resistance, is impermeable to gasses, absorbs UV and even parts of visible spectrum (amber glass, green and glass partially), is hygienic and reusable, and the consumers associate it to high-quality products (). Metal is also an important food packaging material as it is durable withstanding packaging conditions in vacuum or under pressure and high temperature stabilization process for long shelf-life foods. Metal is reusable, UV-resistant and the food contact surface may be coated with different coatings in case the interaction between the product and the plain container would downgrade the shelf-life/quality of the product to an unacceptable level due to, e.g., metal surface corrosion or undesired food coloring as a consequence of combination of metal ions with the food components (). Typically metal containers or cans are made of steel (tin-coated or tin-free) or aluminum (; ; ).
The most frequently used plastics in food packages in Europe are PP (19.3%), LDPE and LLDPE (17.5%), and PET (7.4%); and in fact, 39.9% of all produced plastics (61.8 million tons in Europe in 2018) goes to packaging in general (). The success of plastic as packaging material can be explained by low cost, ease of modification from flexible films to rigid containers, strength, stability, light-weight, impermeability with gasses and many solvents, and enabled sterilization without affecting the food quality (). Despite of numerous benefits, plastics are also problematic: annual global production of plastics is around 350 million tons of which only 1% is bio-based () and the rest is fossil-derived with large carbon footprint [6% of all produced oil goes to plastics, having a carbon footprint equivalent to the aviation sector (World Economic Forum et al., 2016)]. In addition, plastic pollution is alarming, as polymers do not degrade but break down to smaller pieces ending up in the air, soil and water as microplastics, found even in deep-sea amphipods ().
As a response to challenges associated with food safety, storage and transportation, there is a huge market need for more sustainable bio-based plastics and sensors that could alleviate the environmental, public health and economic burden caused by traditional materials. The scope of this short review is to collect the contemporary literature on bio-based smart food packages covering not only bio-based food packaging materials but also bio-based sensors for monitoring various physical, chemical and biological conditions of foodstuff.
Bio-Based Plastic Packaging Materials
Production data for bio-based and biodegradable plastics are available to a limited extent only, although production capacity data are more readily accessible. Currently the production capacities of bio-based and biodegradable plastics are low (Figure 1), however, the market of some bio-based and/or biodegradable plastics are expected to grow significantly during the coming years (Bio-PET, PBS, and PLA) others are expected to consolidate (CA and Bio-PA) (van den Oever et al., 2017). Overall, it is expected that the global bioplastics production capacity is set to increase from around 2.11 million tons in 2019 to approximately 2.43 million tons in 2024 (Figure 2).
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
A number of different routes have been developed during the past decade to produce bio-based materials [i.e., either made of bio-based source or it is biodegradable or contains both of these features ()] with a large variety of properties and applications areas (Table 1). Among these, only a few families are made of renewable biomass and are biodegradable [e.g., cellulose and starch thermoplastics, PHAs, PLA, polyester amides ()], viz. bio-based polyethylene, PP, polyamide and polyethylene terephthalate are non-biodegradable, and PCLs and PVAs are from non-renewable resources (; ; van Crevel, 2016). The main production routes are as follows:
- 1.
Direct extraction of biopolymers such as starch and cellulose with subsequent thermopressing/molding to make thermoplastic starch polymers (TSPs) or using additional functionalization, e.g., acetylation, carboxymethylation and phosphorylation to produce CA, carboxymethyl cellulose and cellulose diphenyl-phosphate, respectively, which are then polymerized further () or used as additives in polymers (Weinmann and Cotton, 1958).
- 2.
Hydrolysis to sugars followed by bacterial synthesis of polyesters, e.g., PHAs including PHB.
- 3.
Conversion into sugars that are fermented to lactic acid followed by its direct polycondensation or by ring-opening condensation of lactide to PLA ().
- 4.
Chemical conversion into monomers followed by polymerization, e.g., amino acids obtained by hydrolysis and separation are polymerized with esters of lactonized unsaturated fatty acids in PEA synthesis.
TABLE 1
| Type | Source and Properties | Applications | References | |
| Bio-based - biodegradable | Starch-based polymers (polysaccharides) | Sourced from corn or potato Thermoplastic starch (TPS) alternative to PS Additive-free TPS has low water vapor barrier, poor mechanical and processing properties, brittle | Disposable tableware and cutlery, coffee machine capsules, bottles | ; ; |
| Cellulose-based polymers (polysaccharides) | Sourced from de-lignified wood pulp or cotton linters Cellophane, cellulose acetates/ethers Additive-free cellulose derivatives have a low water vapor barrier and poor mechanical properties, brittle, expensive | Coated cellulose films are used for bread, fruit, meat, and dried product packaging | ||
| PLA (polyester) | Sourced from corn or other carbohydrate rich plants followed by conversion to dextrose and fermentation to lactic acid High tensile strength, transparent A potential alternative to LDPE, HDPE, PS, and PET | Cups, bowls, bottles, bags, jars, and films | ; | |
| PHA (polyester) | Produced by micro-organisms (such as Cupriavidus necator, Methylobacterium rhodesianum, or Bacillus megaterium) from glucose or starch Brittle, stiff, and thermally unstable | As composite can be tuned into different applications | ; ; | |
| Bio-based – non-degradable | PP and PE (vinyl polymers) | Mainly based on sugar cane [sugar to ethanol (pentose fermentation), ethanol to propylene via metathesis of ethylene with 2-butene] Identical to fossil-based PP and PE | Similar to fossil-based PP and PE | ; ; |
| PET (aromatic polyester) | Partially bio-based, synthesized from MEG and terephthalic acid (MEG from a renewable source, TA from fossil-based source) | Bottles | ; | |
| PEF (aromatic polyester) | Synthetized from FDCA and MEG Precursor can be found in human urine Better barrier properties than PET | Bottles, fibers, and films (bio-based alternative to PET) | , ; ; | |
| PA | High-performance polymer Sourced from resin-rich wood or vegetable oils | Not common in food contact material | ||
| Fossil-based - biodegradable | PVOH (vinyl polymer) | CO2 barrier in PET | Coatings, a component of adhesives, paper and board | ; |
| PCL (polyester) | Usually blended with biopolymers, eg., starch | Medical applications, food contact material as blends | ; | |
| PBS, PES, and PBSA [aliphatic (co)polyesters] | Monomers are fossil-based aliphatic dicarboxylic acids and diols, bio-based monomers start emerging | Disposable cutlery | ; | |
| PBAT, PBST [aliphatic-aromatic (co)polymers] | Condensation of aliphatic diols and dicarboxylic acids and aromatic dicarboxylic esters/acids | Fast food disposable packaging, films |
Bio-based plastics in food packaging.
Based on the technical report published by Wageningen Food & Biobased Research in 2017 (van den Oever et al., 2017), it has been shown that the bio-based and biodegradable plastics are currently more expensive than fossil-based plastics on weight basis (Tables 2, 3). However, specific material properties can allow costs reductions in the use or end-of-life phase. Further, the price of fossil-based plastics is dependent on oil prices and fluctuating with it, while in general the price of bio-based plastics depends on biomass prices that are more stable. When the production scale, conversion into final products and logistics become more favorable, it is expected that the prices of bio-based plastics will come down.
TABLE 2
| Plastic | Price level (euro/kg) | Density (kg/m3) |
| CA | 5 | 1,200–1,300 |
| Bio-PA | +10–20% | 1,040–1,190 |
| Bio-PE | +20–40% | 910–970 |
| Bio-PET | No information | 1,370–1,390 |
| Bio-PP | +80–100% | 900–920 |
| PP (certified bio) | +40–50% | 900–920 |
| PBAT | 3.5 | 1,250 |
| Bio-PBS | 4 | 1,260 |
| PHA | 5 | 1,200–1,250 |
| PLA | 2 | 1,250 |
| PTT | 4 | 1,320 |
| Starch blends | 2–4 | 1,250–1,350 |
Price level for bio-based and/or biodegradable plastics.
TABLE 3
| Plastic | Price level (euro/1,000 kg) | Density (kg/m3) |
| LDPE | 1,250–1,450 | 910–940 |
| HDPE | 1,200–1,500 | 930–970 |
| HIPS | 1,350–1,525 | 1,080 |
| PET | 850–1,050 | 1,370–1,390 |
| PP | 1,000–1,200 | 900–920 |
| PS | 1,250–1,430 | 1,040 |
| PVC | 800–930 | 1,100–1,450 |
Price level for fossil-based plastics.
In addition, since most bio-based plastics have a higher density, this directly contributes to their higher price. But there are exceptions when prices are compared on a product level. By selecting specific material properties and redesigning can allow material savings. For example, a traditional HIPS-based cup of 0.89 mm wall thickness could be down-gauged using impact modified PLA to 0.66 mm thickness ().
Bio-Based Smart Food Packages
Many new concepts in food packaging, like the smart functionalities, have been introduced during the last years in response to the increasing demand of ready-to-eat and higher quality foods (Vanderroost et al., 2014).
Smart functionalities of food packages refer to active coatings and physical/chemical sensors combined with the packaging materials. The purpose of smart antimicrobial coatings is to mitigate the proliferation of various microbes thus prolonging the shelf-life of products, whereas sensors play role in monitoring physical and chemical conditions that influence or reflect the quality of the food products. These add-ons have inevitable positive health, environmental and socio-economic effects, which may be amplified even further by accomplishing the smart functions using renewable natural materials and robust technologies ().
Antimicrobial Films
As mentioned, active food packaging involves the use of polymeric films that act as a support for various active compounds such as natural extracts that can be incorporated during the manufacturing process of the packaging itself (; ). Antimicrobial incorporation may result in a material with antibacterial activity which can suppress the growth of bacteria on the material surface (according to the international norm ISO 22196:2011 – Measurement of antibacterial activity on plastics and other non-porous surfaces). In the food sector, a greater interest is toward materials enriched with antimicrobials so that the direct use of food additives in products is limited.
Antimicrobial materials act in two different ways. Antimicrobials can be incorporated into the film or coated either on the surface of the film or on the surface of the food (in the form of edible film). In both cases, the substance may migrate partially or completely through gradual diffusion into the food or headspace (which is typical for essential oils, for example) where it exerts its protective action, or it may not migrate, acting only when the food is in contact with the surface of the film and the target microorganism comes into direct contact with the film (Vermeiren et al., 2002; ) (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3
In both the cases, this kind of packaging is called active packaging [Regulation (EC) No 450/2009 — active and intelligent materials and articles intended to come into contact with food].
Antimicrobial agents used for the preservation of foods are either chemically synthesized or extracted from biomass of plants, animals and microorganisms. Conventional chemical preservatives, including ethanol and other alcohols, organic acids, and their salts (benzoates, propionates, and sorbates) are the predominant food preservatives thanks to their low price and facility to use. However, research has been focusing on replacing them with natural antimicrobial agents such as enzymes, bacteriocins, chitin and its derivative chitosan extracted from crustacean shells, natural extracts, and essential oils (; ; ; van den Broek et al., 2015; ). Indeed, natural extracts (e.g., plant extracts or essential oils from different spices, plants, and fruits) have been recognized as potential antioxidant and antimicrobial agents. Some of the most successful examples of the incorporation of natural substances into films have involved grapefruit seed and green tea extracts, which have shown to be active as antioxidants and against different pathogens (e.g., Escherichia coli and Listeria spp.) (Wang and Rhim, 2016; Wrona et al., 2017). Cinnamaldehyde, derived from cinnamon, was also studied for its bioactivity against E. coli and Salmonella spp. (). Moreover, cinnamon oil in the PVA matrix showed repellent effect toward Plodia interpunctella larvae () and in PP film inhibited the formation of molds (). However, clove and cinnamon in cassava starch films failed to show clear antimicrobial effect even though they reduced the water vapor transmission (). Another example was provided by who tested edible films made of whey protein isolate loaded with rosemary, oregano and garlic essential oils against E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella enteritidis, Listeria monocytogenes, and Lactobacillus plantarum. Oregano proved to be the most effective against bacteria, while rosemary showed no effect.
The most popular technique to include natural extracts into the final film formulation is the extrusion (). This technique involves the incorporation of the bioactive compounds before extrusion so that the high temperatures of extrusion (the exact values depend on the melting temperature of the processed polymer) allow their effective and homogeneous distribution in the film. However, this technique can often result in thermal degradation of the bioactive compounds and decrease in their activity. For instance, used high-temperature profile 160–190°C to extrude an antimicrobial LLDPE-based film resulting in high loss of grapefruit seed extract functionality up to complete loss of antimicrobial activity. For this reason, heat-sensitive bioactive agents (i.e., natural extracts) are preferably produced by non-heating method (e.g., electrospinning and surface coating). Among these methods, surface coating is a simple process based on low temperatures. However, this technique may suffer from poor adhesion to plastics and, if applied to make an active packaging, needs to be designed to be in direct contact with the food. Examples of antimicrobial-coated films include chitosan/essential oil-coated PP film (Torlak and Nizamlioğlu, 2011), cinnamaldehyde, garlic oil and rosemary oil-coated PP/LDPE film (), oregano essential oil and citral-coated PP/EVOH film (), chitosan-coated plastic film (Ye et al., 2008a, b), and thyme and oregano-coated LDPE. Interestingly, as reported by Valderrama Solano and de Rojas Gante (2012), antimicrobial films produced by elevated temperature processes showed better microbial inhibition compared to the ones obtained by the coating method. In particular, they found that antimicrobial films produced by extrusion method are more effective against E. coli, Salmonella typhimurium, and L. monocytogenes compared to ionizing-coated antimicrobial films with the identical amount of agent incorporated antimicrobial. The results suggest that the extrusion method allows a better incorporation of the active compounds on the polymer. Given the number of pros and cons highlighted by the literature for both the techniques, more studies comparing the efficacy of two methodologies will be needed in order to address future researches in this field. Indeed, there isn’t any large scale industrial production of active bio-based films yet. For this reason, an estimation of the cost of active films can be based on an average cost of commercial natural extract (about 100 €/kg even though it can greatly vary with extract type) and of PLA film (2 €/kg, see Table 2). Following the steps of the extrusion process, tested by , with the inclusion of natural extracts encapsulated with β-cyclodextrins (370 €/kg), an estimation of the final price of active films was done resulting in about 6.4 €/kg. It is useful to point out that this evaluation was made considering an addition of encapsulated extract equal to 2% wt as maximum () and that this estimation already includes the costs necessary to encapsulate the extract by spray-drying technique.
Bio-Based Sensors
Bio-based sensors have at least one component from bio-based source which may either be the substrate (i.e., the plastics listed in the previous section) or the sensing element. Most of the sensors related to bio-based materials in food packaging are based on colorimetric detection of analytes.
Many fruits, berries, vegetables and flowers with colors covering practically the entire visible spectrum are dyed by natural compounds such as anthocyanins and curcumin known as natural pH indicators (Yoshida et al., 2009; Silva-Pereira et al., 2015; ; ; ; ; Zhai et al., 2018; ). Upon protonation/deprotonation of these molecules, their delocalized electronic structure rearranges and the change of the total number of resonant electrons as well as their confinement result in a change of their color (Figure 4). For instance, demonstrated a pH sensor made of agar and potato starch with anthocyanin extracts from purple sweet potato that showed color variations at pH 2.0–10.0. Zhai et al. (2018) used a gelatin-gellan gum matrix with red radish anthocyanin having a slightly broader pH range from 2.0 to 12.0. In Table 4 more examples of bio-based sensors developed for food quality monitoring in recent years are listed.
FIGURE 4
TABLE 4
| Function | Matrix | Sensing material (source) | Response range/limit | References | |
| Starch matrix | Colorimetric sensing, antibacterial | Starch – PVA | Anthocyanin and limonene | pH 1 – 14 | |
| Colorimetric sensing | Corn starch – glycerol | Anthocyanin (blueberry powder) | pH 1–14 | ||
| Colorimetric sensing, antioxidant | Cassava starch – glycerol | Chlorophyll and carotenoids (green tea and basil) | pH 3 and pH 12 | ||
| Colorimetric sensing | Corn starch | Anthocyanin (black bean seed coat or red cabbage) | pH 1 – 10 | ||
| Colorimetric sensing, NH3 sensing | Starch – PVA | Anthocyanin (roselle) | pH 2 – 12 | Zhai et al., 2017 | |
| Colorimetric sensing | Starch – cellulose | Alizarin | pH 1 – 11 | ||
| Colorimetric sensing | Corn starch – glycerol | Anthocyanin (blueberry and jaboticaba powder) | pH 2 – 12 | ||
| Colorimetric sensing | Starch – gelatin | Anthocyanin (red radish) | pH 2 – 12 | ||
| Chitosan matrix | Colorimetric sensing | Chitosan | Anthocyanin (grapes) | pH 2 – 13 | Yoshida et al., 2014 |
| Colorimetric sensing | Chitosan – microcrystalline cellulose – plasticizer | Curcumin | pH 8 – 14 | ||
| Colorimetric sensing, antioxidant | Chitosan | Anthocyanin (blueberry and blackberry pomace) | pH 2,4,5,6,7,10,12 | ||
| Cellulose matrix | Resistive sensing of H2S | Cellulose (paper) | Copper acetate | 10 ppm of H2S | |
| Colorimetric sensing | Cellulose (filter paper) | Anthocyanin (rose and red cabbage) | N/A | ||
| Colorimetric sensing | Bacterial cellulose nanofibers | Anthocyanin (red cabbage) | pH 2 – 10 | ||
| Resistive sensing of NH3 at 25°C | Cellulose nanofibrils | Hydroxyapatite | 5 ppm (NH3) | ||
| Gum matrix | Colorimetric sensing, NH3 sensing | Tara gum – PVA | Curcumin | N/A | |
| Colorimetric sensing | Tara gum – cellulose | Anthocyanin (Vitis amurensis husk) | pH 1,2,4,6,8,10 | ||
| Colorimetric sensing, NH3 sensing | Artemisia sphaerocephala Krasch. gum – carboxymethyl cellulose sodium | Anthocyanin (red cabbage) | pH 3 – 10 | ||
| Colorimetric sensing, H2S sensing | Gellan gum | Ag nanoparticles | 0.81 μM (H2S) | Zhai et al., 2019 | |
| Carrageenan matrix | Colorimetric sensing | ι-Carrageenan | Anthocyanin (butterfly pea and red cabbage) | pH 1 – 11 | |
| Colorimetric sensing | κ-Carrageenan | Curcumin | pH 3 – 10 | ||
| Other matrices | Resistive sensing of methylamine | TiO2 thin film | Anthocyanin sensitizer (spinach, red radish, winter jasmine, black rise) | 2 ppm of methylamine | Yanxiao et al., 2015 |
| Colorimetric sensing | Hydrophobic nanoporous films | Anthocyanin (rosa chinensis, roselle, camellia japonica, rose, carnation, myosotis sylvatica, zhaoshui plum blossom, lve plum blossom, red plum blossom) | 10–30 ppm of biogenic amines | Xiaowei et al., 2015 | |
| Colorimetric sensing | Agarose – epichlorohydrin | Anthocyanin (red grapes) | pH 1 – 10 | ||
| CO2 sensing by dielectric permittivity and loss | Wheat gluten | Amino groups of wheat gluten | 40% CO2 | ||
| Colorimetric sensing | Tamarin seed polysaccharide | Litmus lichen | pH 4 – 10 | ||
| Colorimetric sensing | PVA – Chitosan nanoparticles | Anthocyanin (mulberry) | pH 1 – 13 | ||
| Colorimetric sensing | Polycaprolactone – polyethylene oxide fibers (electrospun) | Anthocyanin (acai) | pH 1 – 10 | ||
| Colorimetric sensing | PVA mat (electrospun) | Anthocyanin (red cabbage) | pH 2 – 12 | ||
| Colorimetric sensing, antioxidant | Gelatin | Anthocyanin (red cabbage) | pH < 4, pH > 11 |
Bio-based sensors developed for food monitoring.
Although colorimetric pH-sensitive sensors are typically not convenient for selective analysis, it is often sufficient to evaluate the food quality based on the change of the pH, as deteriorating proteins produce alkaline volatile nitrogen compounds (cadaverine, putrescine, histamine, and ammonia) (; ). Exploiting this indirect sensing mechanism, curcumin based indicator films, e.g., in gelatin () and bacterial cellulose membranes (), blueberry and red grape skin pomace in chitosan and carboxymethyl cellulose matrix (), chitosan-corn starch film with red cabbage extract (Silva-Pereira et al., 2015), alginate beads with red cabbage extract () as well as red cabbage extract in pectin films () have been shown as feasible indicators of meat, shrimp and fish spoilage by detecting amines and cyclic N-containing compounds. In a similar way, acidic CO2 evolves during the metabolism of pathogens in the food thus lowering pH, which may be detected, e.g., by anthocyanin/polylysine in cellulose matrix in a reversible manner as demonstrated by .
Other natural dyes such as chlorophyll and β-carotene might be also relevant for sensing since both structures are highly sensitive to oxidative species. showed that replacing the coordinated Mg2+ with Zn2+ in chlorophyll A, the fluorescence of the complex is faded when increasing the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the medium. The mechanism of luminescence suppression is suggested to be caused by an energy transfer to oxygen molecules that collide with the excited molecule. In the case of carotene, one may exploit several mechanisms for sensing. β-carotene is prone to oxidation and subsequent decomposition to shorter cleavage products leading to a gradual disappearance of the orange color ().
Synthetic dyes based on various azo-compounds and polydiacetylenes also hold promise for chemical sensing in food packages. Azo-anthraquinone based dyes immobilized on paper (cellulose) as pH sensors working either in acidic or alkaline conditions, depending on the selected pigment, were shown by Zhang et al. (2019). Selective amine sensing colorimetric indicators utilizing trifluoroacetyl azobenzene dyes developed by ; ), ; have been exploited in colorimetric and electrochemical detection of ammonia, ethylamine, cadaverine and putrescine (). The carbonyl carbon of the trifluoroacetyl group is highly electron-deficient thus readily reacts with electron donors such as amines or alcohols. In the presence of amines (primary, secondary, or tertiary) it forms a hemiaminal group, i.e., the number of delocalized electrons in the diazobenzene backbone is decreased (so as the confinement length of electrons) resulting in a blue shift of optical absorption. Sensors printed on paper could detect vapors of the analytes having a concentration of 1.0–0.1 vol.%. Furthermore, highly sensitive ammonia sensors that operate even at very low temperatures (down to −20°C) were demonstrated by using polydiacetylenes that were polymerized in self-assembled vesicles stabilized with cellulose nanocrystals in the chitosan matrix. The sensing mechanism is based on a conformal change of the polydiacetylene backbone (from planar to non-planar) upon external stimuli such as pH, mechanical stress or temperature. Films of the sensors could detect 100 ppm ammonia () (Figure 5).
FIGURE 5
Colorimetric sensors/indicators may be also accomplished by using enzymatic processes, in which the color change is typically a function of temperature and time. Capitalizing on these, Yan et al. (2008) developed a temperature indicator that combines the coloration of iodine-starch clathrates and the influence of temperature on the hydrolysis of starch in the presence of amylase enzyme. From the kinetic reaction rates of hydrolysis (and the corresponding coloration of the clathrates), one may assess the time-temperature history of cooled products. Another example of time-temperature indicator based on enzymatic oxidation of ABTS [2,20-azino bis-(3-ethyl benzthiazoline-6-sulphonic acid] substrate resulting in green color was demonstrated by . By applying a fuse-type melting medium between peroxide and the mixture of the enzyme and substrate, the reaction starts only when the medium is warm enough to melt the separator thus enabling the mixing of the reactants. A similar melting fuse type of color indicator was proposed by , in which erythrosine B food dye printed on PLA was applied in a microfluidic device in conjunction with a frozen solvent. As soon as the temperature exceeds the melting point, the transparent solvent flows and dissolves the dye producing red staining of the device.
Other potentially viable food packaging sensors include electrical or RFID/NFC based (; ) and electrochemical devices (). developed further their solvent melting point based colorimetric temperature sensor by using an electrically conductive film of carbon nanotubes being a part of an RFID tag. When the temperature reached the melting point of the solvent, it flowed through a capillary toward the nanotube film, soaked it and increased its resistance detected by the RFID reader. Very recently, an interesting and simple resistive chemical sensor for water-soluble gasses was proposed by on cellulose substrates. As water is always present on the surface of the hygroscopic cellulose, when it is exposed to water-soluble gas analytes, the surface conductivity increases depending on the chemistry and concentration of the interacting moiety, which can be monitored by electrical measurements using carbon electrodes printed on the surface. The devices were highly sensitive to ammonia (down to 200 ppb) among the gasses tested (TMA, H2S, CO2, and CO) and were feasible for monitoring the headspace of meat and fish food packages. The sensors could be integrated into RFID tags and read by an NFC enabled smartphone (Figure 6).
FIGURE 6
The price of the bio-based food packaging sensors is directly connected to the price of foodstuff as many of them originate from natural sources and are edible. For example, the price of curcumin is around1 380 €/kg (February 2020) or for the wild blueberries the purchase price is typically between 2.5 and 4 €/kg (in Finland) but may rise up to 6–8 €/kg if the availability is limited due to dry summer, for example like in Finland in 2019. However, as pointed out earlier, edible food should not be used as raw material, but rather side streams should be valorized. Luckily the anthocyanin content is reasonable high in pomaces and seeds, so in principle agro-food waste can be used as source for sensor material lowering the price. If we compare the prices of food to prices of typical gas sensor materials, such as titanium dioxide with bulk price around 2–3 €/kg (2016–2017, Industrial Minerals), the anthocyanin source are competitive, especially because colorimetric sensors do not require complex electronics for the output and the waste management can be expected to be cheaper.
Conclusion
Bio-based smart food packaging will be one answer to the global challenges related to the desperate quest for carbon neutrality, food saving and safety, as well as for renewable materials and technologies. In this review, we have collected the contemporary literature on three key components of bio-based smart materials including (i) the packaging materials themselves responsible for providing a safe envelope for the products, (ii) advanced coatings and additives to help preserving foodstuff as well as (iii) renewable sensor materials with enabling technologies that can detect the quality of foods and are potentially feasible for industrial scale-up. Although the corresponding fields of scientific research on bio-based and renewable materials with robust production technologies are becoming more and more relevant today, it is clear that careful life cycle, economic and even user perception analyses have to be made to assess the real environmental and socioeconomic impact of each potentially viable solution.
Statements
Author contributions
NH and KK contributed to the conception and design of the review. NH wrote the first draft of the manuscript. PP contributed with the literature search, illustrations, and writing of the manuscript. AB, CF, RN, and GS wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read and approved the submitted version.
Funding
The authors kindly acknowledge financial support from the EU Horizon 2020 – BBI JU under agreement no. 792261 NewPack, and EU Interreg Nord – Lapin liitto under agreement no. 20201468 Flexible transparent conductive films as electrodes.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
- Bio-PA
bio-polyamide
- Bio-PBS
bio-polybutylene succinate
- Bio-PE
bio-polyethylene
- Bio-PET
polyethylene terephthalate containing bio-based materials
- Bio-PP
bio-polypropylene
- CA
cellulose acetate
- FDCA
2,5-furandicarboxylic acid
- HDPE
high-density polyethylene
- HIPS
high impact polystyrene
- LDPE
low-density polyethylene
- LLDPE
linear low-density polyethylene
- MEG
mono-ethylene glycol
- NFC
near-field communication
- PA
polyamide
- PBAT
poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate)
- PBS
polybutylene succinate
- PBSA
polybutylene succinate adipate
- PBST
poly(butylene succinate-co-terephthalate)
- PCL
polycaprolactone
- PE
polyethylene
- PEA
polyesteramide
- PEF
polyethylene furanoate
- PES
polyethersulfone
- PET
polyethylene terephthalate
- PHA
polyhydroxyalkanoate
- PHB
polyhydroxybutyrate
- PHBV
poly(hydroxybutyrate-co-valerate)
- PLA
polylactic acid
- PP
polypropylene
- PS
polystyrene
- PTT
polytrimethylene terephthalate
- PVA
polyvinyl alcohol
- PVC
polyvinyl chloride
- PVdC
polyvinylidene chloride
- PVOH
polyvinyl alcohol
- RFID
radio frequency identification
- TA
terephthalic acid
- TPS
thermoplastic starch
- UV
ultra violet.
Footnotes
References
1
AbolghasemiM. M.SobhiM.PiryaeiM. (2016). Preparation of a novel green optical pH sensor based on immobilization of red grape extract on bioorganic agarose membrane.Sens. Actuat. B224391–395. 10.1016/j.snb.2015.10.038
2
AckermannJ.-U.MüllerS.LöscheA.BleyT.BabelW. (1995). Methylobacterium rhodesianum cells tend to double the DNA content under growth limitations and accumulate PHB.J. Biotechnol.399–20. 10.1016/0168-1656(94)00138-3
3
AhmadN. A.HengL. Y.SalamF.ZaidM. H. M.HanifahS. A. (2019). A colorimetric pH sensor based on Clitoria sp and Brassica sp for monitoring of food spoilage using chromametry.Sensors19 :4813. 10.3390/s19214813
4
AhmedI.LinH.ZouL.LiZ.BrodyA. L.QaziI. M.et al (2018). An overview of smart packaging technologies for monitoring safety and quality of meat and meat products.Packag. Technol. Sci.31449–471. 10.1002/pts.2380
5
AiderM. (2010). Chitosan application for active bio-based films production and potential in the food industry: review.LWT— Food Sci. Technol.43837–842. 10.1016/j.lwt.2010.01.021
6
ArroyoB. J.SantosA. P.de MeloE. D. A.CamposA.LinsL.Boyano-OrozcoL. C. (2019). “Chapter 8 – Bioactive compounds and their potential use as ingredients for food and its application in food packaging,” in Bioactive Compounds: Health Benefits and Potential Applications, ed.CamposM. R. S. (Sawston: Woodhead Publishing), 143–156. 10.1016/B978-0-12-814774-0.00008-6
7
AvérousL. (2008). “Chapter 21 – Polylactic acid: synthesis, properties and applications,” in Monomers, Polymers and Composites from Renewable Resources, edsBelgacemM. N.GandiniA. (Oxford: Elsevier), 433–450. 10.1016/B978-0-08-045316-3.00021-1
8
Badia-MelisR.Mc CarthyU.Ruiz-CarciaL.Carcia-HierroJ.Robla VillalbaJ. I. (2018). New trends in cold chain monitoring applications – a review.Food Control86170–182. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.11.022
9
BarandunG.SopraniM.NaficyS.GrellM.KasimatisM.ChiuK. L.et al (2019). Cellulose fibers enable near-zero-cost electrical sensing of water-soluble gases.ACS Sens.41662–1669. 10.1021/acssensors.9b00555
10
BassaniA.MontesS.JubeteE.PalenzuelaJ.SanjuanA. P.SpignoG. (2019). Incorporation of waste orange peels extracts into PLA films.Chem. Eng. Trans.741063–1068. 10.3303/CET1974178
11
BibiF.GuillaumeC.GontardN.SorliB. (2017). Wheat gluten, a bio-polymer to monitor carbon dioxide in food packaging: electric and dielectric characterization.Sens. Actuat. B25076–84. 10.1016/j.snb.2017.03.164
12
BraniganT. (2008). Chinese Figures Show Fivefold Rise in Babies Sick from Contaminated Milk, The Guardian, 8 December. Available online at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/02/china(accessed December 12, 2019)
13
BrockgreitensJ.AbbasA. (2016). Responsive food packaging: recent progress and technological prospects.Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Safe.153–15. 10.1111/1541-4337.12174
14
BulushiI. A.PooleS.DeethH. C.DykesG. A. (2009). Biogenic amines in fish: roles in intoxication, spoilage, and nitrosamine formation - – a review.Crit. Rev. Food Sci.49369–377. 10.1080/10408390802067514
15
ChayavanichK.ThiraphibundetP.ImyimA. (2020). Biocompatible film sensors containing red radish extract for meat spoilage observation.Spectrochim. Acta A.226117601. 10.1016/j.saa.2019.117601
16
ChenG. Q.PatelM. K. (2012). Plastics derived from biological sources: present and future: a technical and environmental review.Chem. Rev.1122082–2099. 10.1021/cr200162d
17
ChielliniE.CortiA.D’AntoneS.SolaroB. (2003). Biodegradation of poly (vinyl alcohol) based materials.Prog. Polym. Sci.28963–1014. 10.1016/S0079-6700(02)00149-1
18
ChoiI.LeeY. J.LacroixM.HanJ. (2017). Intelligent pH indicator film composed of agar/potato starch and anthocyanin extracts from purple sweet potato.Food Chem.218122–128. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.09.050
19
da SilvaC. K.da Silveira MastrantoniaD. J.CostaJ. A. V.de MoraisM. G. (2019). Innovative pH sensors developed from ultrafine fibers containing açaí (Euterpe oleracea) extract.Food Chem.294397–404. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.05.059
20
DudnykI.JaneèekE.-R.Vaucher-JosetJ.StellacciF. (2018). Edible sensors for meat and seafood freshness.Sens. Actuat. B2591108–1112. 10.1016/j.snb.2017.12.057
21
European Bioplastics e.V (2019). What are Bioplastics?. Available online at: https://www.european-bioplastics.org/bioplastics/(accessed December 13, 2019)
22
European Bioplastics e.V (2020). Bioplastics Market Data. Available online at: https://www.european-bioplastics.org/market/(accessed January 20, 2020)
23
Europol (2015). Operation Opson IV – Case Stories. Available online at: https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-documents/operation-opson-iv-case-stories(accessed December 12, 2019)
24
EzatiP.TajikH.MoradiM.MolaeiR. (2019). Intelligent pH-sensitive indicator based on starch-cellulose and alizarin dye to track freshness of rainbow trout fillet.Int. J. Biol. Macromol.132157–165. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.03.173
25
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2019a). Food Loss and Food Waste, The United Nations. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/en/(accessed December 12, 2019)
26
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2019b). Sustainable Development Goals, 2 Zero Hunger, The United Nations. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/sustainable-development-goals/goals/goal-2/en/(accessed December 12, 2019)
27
FuertesG.SotoI.CarrascoR.VargasM.SabattinJ.LagosC. (2016). Intelligent packaging systems: sensors and nanosensors to monitor food quality and safety.J. Sensors2016 :4046061. 10.1155/2016/4046061
28
GalstyanV.BhandariM. P.SberveglieriV.SberveglieriG.CominiE. (2018). Metal oxide nanostructures in food applications: quality control and packaging.Chemosensors6 :16. 10.3390/chemosensors6020016
29
GamageG. R.ParkH. J.KimK. M. (2009). Effectiveness of antimicrobial coated oriented polypropylene/polyethylene films in sprout packaging.Food Res. Int.42832–839. 10.1016/j.foodres.2009.03.012
30
GeuekeB. (2014). Dossier – Bioplastics as Food Contact Materials, Food Packaging Forum.10.5281/zenodo.33517 Available online at: https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/fpf-2016/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/FPF_Dossier06_Bioplastics.pdf(accessed December 13, 2019)
31
GhaaniM.CozzolinoC. A.CastelliG.FarrisS. (2016). An overview of the intelligent packaging technologies in the food sector.Trends Food Sci. Tech.511–11. 10.1016/j.tifs.2016.02.008
32
Gómez-EstacaJ.López-de-DicastilloC.Hernández-MuñozP.CataláR.GavaraR. (2014). Advances in antioxidant active food packaging.Trends Food Sci. Tech.3542–51. 10.1016/j.tifs.2013.10.008
33
GrayhurstP.GirlingP. J. (2011). “Packaging of food in glass containers,” in Food and Beverage Packaging Technology, 2nd Edn, edsColesR.KirwanM. (Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing Ltd), 137–156. 10.1002/9781444392180.ch6
34
HaJ. U.KimY. M.LeeD. S. (2001). Multilayered antimicrobial polyethylene films applied to the packaging of ground beef.Packag. Technol. Sci.1455–62. 10.1002/pts.537
35
HolleyR. A.PatelD. (2005). Improvement in shelf-life and safety of perishable foods by plant essential oils and smoke antimicrobials.Food Microbiol.22273–292. 10.1016/j.fm.2004.08.006
36
JamiesonA. J.BrooksL. S. R.ReidW. D. K.PiertneyS. B.NarayanaswamyB. E.LinleyT. D. (2019). Microplastics and synthetic particles ingested by deep-sea amphipods in six of the deepest marine ecosystems on Earth.Roy. Soc. Open Sci.6 :180667. 10.1098/rsos.180667
37
JoH.-J.ParkK.-M.NaJ. H.MinS. C.ParkK. H.ChangP.-S.et al (2015). Development of anti-insect food packaging film containing a polyvinyl alcohol and cinnamon oil emulsion at a pilot plant scale.J. Stored Prod. Res.61114–118. 10.1016/j.jspr.2015.01.005
38
KechichianV.DitchfieldC.Veiga-SantosP.TadiniC. C. (2010). Natural antimicrobial ingredients incorporated in biodegradable films based on cassava starch.LWT— Food Sci. Technol.431088–1094. 10.1016/j.lwt.2010.02.014
39
KirchnerN.ZedlerL.MayerhöferT. G.MohrG. J. (2006). Functional liquid crystal films selectively recognize amine vapours and simultaneously change their colour.Chem. Commun.141512–1514. 10.1039/B517768E
40
KirwanM. J. (2011). “Paper and paperboard packaging,” in Food and Beverage Packaging Technology, 2nd Edn, edsColesR.KirwanM. (Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing Ltd), 213–250. 10.1002/9781444392180.ch8
41
KongJ.-M.ChiaL.-S.GohN.-K.ChiaT.-F.BrouillardR. (2003). Analysis and biological activities of anthocyanins.Phytochemistry64923–933. 10.1016/S0031-9422(03)00438-2
42
KoopmanF.WierckxN.de WindeJ. H.RuijssenaarsH. J. (2010a). Efficient whole-cell biotransformation of 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural Into FDCA, 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid.Bioresour. Technol.1016291–6296. 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.03.050
43
KoopmanF.WierckxN.de WindeJ. H.RuijssenaarsH. J. (2010b). Identification and characterization of the furfural and 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural degradation pathways of Cupriavidus basilensis HMF14.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1074919–4924. 10.1073/pnas.0913039107
44
KrausF. J.TarulisG. J. (2009). in Cans, Steel, Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology, 3rd Edn, ed.YamK. L. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley), 205–216.
45
KuorwelK. K.CranM. J.OrbellJ. D.BuddhadasaS.BiggerS. W. (2015). Review of mechanical properties, migration, and potential applications in active food packaging systems containing nanoclays and nanosilver.Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Safe..14411–430. 10.1111/1541-4337.12139
46
KurekM.GarofuliæI. E.BakiæM. T.ŠèetarM.UzelacV. D.GaliæK. (2018). Development and evaluation of a novel antioxidant and pH indicator film based on chitosan and food waste sources of antioxidants.Food Hydrocolloid.84238–246. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.05.050
47
KurekM.HlupiæL.ŠèetarM.BosiljkovT.GaliæK. (2019). Comparison of two pH responsive color changing bio−based films containing wasted fruit pomace as a source of colorants.J. Food Sci.842490–2498. 10.1111/1750-3841.14716
48
KuswandiB.Jayus, LarasatiT. S.AbdullahA.HengL. Y. (2012). Real-time monitoring of shrimp spoilage using on-package sticker sensor based on natural dye of curcumin.Food Anal. Methods5881–889. 10.1007/s12161-011-9326-x
49
KuswandiB.WicaksonoY.Jayus, AbdullahA.HengL. Y.AhmadM. (2011). Smart packaging: sensors for monitoring of food quality and safety.Sens. & Instrum. rumen. Food Qual. Safe.5137–146. 10.1007/s11694-011-9120-x
50
LeiJ.YangL.ZhanY.WangY.YeT.LiY.et al (2014). Plasma treated polyethylene terephthalate/polypropylene films assembled with chitosan and various preservatives for antimicrobial food packaging.Colloids. Surf. B: Biointerfaces.11460–66. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2013.09.052
51
LiangT.SunG.CaoL.LiJ.WangL. (2019). A pH and NH3 sensing intelligent film based on Artemisia sphaerocephala Krasch. gum and red cabbage anthocyanins anchored by carboxymethyl cellulose sodium added as a host complex.Food Hydrocoll.loid87858–868. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.08.028
52
LiangT.WangL. (2018). A pH-sensing film from tamarind seed polysaccharide with litmus lichen extract as an indicator.Polymers10 :13. 10.3390/polym10010013
53
LinJ.-F.KukkolaJ.SipolaT.RautD.SamikannuA.MikkolaJ.-P.et al (2015). Trifluoroacetylazobenzene for optical and electrochemical detection of amines.J. Mater. Chem. A34687–4694. 10.1039/C4TA05358C
54
LiuB.XuH.ZhaoH.LiuW.ZhaoL.LiY. (2017). Preparation and characterization of intelligent starch/PVA films for simultaneous colorimetric indication and antimicrobial activity for food packaging applications.Carbohyd. Polym.157842–849. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.10.067
55
LiuJ.WangH.WangP.GuoM.JiangS.LiX.et al (2018). Films based on κ-carrageenan incorporated with curcumin for freshness monitoring.Food Hydrocoll.oid.83134–142. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.05.012
56
LoriteG. S.SelkäläT.SipolaT.PalenzuelaJ.JubeteE.ViñualesA.et al (2017). Novel, smart and RFID assisted critical temperature indicator for supply chain monitoring.J. Food Eng.19320–28. 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.06.016
57
LucheseC. L.PavoniJ. M. F.SpadaJ. C.TessaroI. C. (2019). Influence of blueberry and jaboticaba agroindustrial residue particle size on color change of corn starch based films submitted to different pH values solutions.J. Renew. Mater.7(3), 235–2432019. 10.32604/jrm.2019.00033
58
LucheseC. L.SperottoN.SpadaJ. C.TessaroI. C. (2017). Effect of blueberry agro-industrial waste addition to corn starch-based films for the production of a pH-indicator film.Int. J. Biol. Macromol.10411–18. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.05.149
59
MaQ.DuL.WangL. (2017a). Tara gum/polyvinyl alcohol-based colorimetric NH3 indicator films incorporating curcumin for intelligent packaging.Sens. Actuat. B244759–766. 10.1016/j.snb.2017.01.035
60
MaQ.LiangT.CaoL.WangL. (2018). Intelligent poly (vinyl alcohol)-chitosan nanoparticles-mulberry extracts films capable of monitoring pH variations.Int. J. Biol. Macromol.108576–584. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.12.049
61
MaQ.RenY.GuZ.WangL. (2017b). Developing an intelligent film containing Vitis amurensis husk extracts: the effects of pH value of the film-forming solution.J. Clean. Prod.166851–859. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.099
62
MaY.LiL.WangY. (2018). Development of PLA-PHB-based biodegradable active packaging and its application to salmon.Packag. Technol. Sci.31739–746. 10.1002/pts.2408
63
MachadoP. G.WalterA.CunhaM. (2016). Bio−based propylene production in a sugarcane biorefinery: a techno−economic evaluation for Brazilian conditions.Biofuel. Bioprod. Bior.10623–633. 10.1002/bbb.1674
64
MaftoonazadN.RamaswamyH. (2019). Design and testing of an electrospun nanofiber mat as a pH biosensor and monitor the pH associated quality in fresh date fruit (Rutab).Polym. Test.7576–84. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.01.011
65
MajdinasabM.HosseiniS. M. H.SepidnameM.NegahdarifarM.LiP. (2018). Development of a novel colorimetric sensor based on alginate beads for monitoring rainbow trout spoilage.J. Food Sci. Technol.551695–1704. 10.1007/s13197-018-3082-5
66
MansoS.BecerrilR.NerínC.Gómez-LusR. (2015). Influence of pH and temperature variations on vapor phase action of an antifungal food packaging against five mold strains.Food Contr.4720–26. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.06.014
67
Medina-JaramilloC.Ochoa-YepesO.BernalC.FamáL. (2017). Active and smart biodegradable packaging based on starch and natural extracts.Carbohyd. Polym.176187–194. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.08.079
68
MlalilaN.HilongaA.SwaiH.DevlieghereF.RagaertP. (2018). Antimicrobial packaging based on starch, poly (3-hydroxybutyrate) and poly (lactic-co-glycolide) materials and application challenges.Trends Food Sci. Tech.741–11. 10.1016/j.tifs.2018.01.015
69
MohrG. J. (2004a). Chromo- and fluororeactands: indicators for detection of neutral analytesby using reversible covalent-bond chemistry.Chem. Eur. J.101082–1090. 10.1002/chem.200305524
70
MohrG. J. (2004b). Tailoring the sensitivity and spectral properties of a chromoreactand for the detection of amines and alcohols.Anal. Chim. Acta508233–237. 10.1016/j.aca.2003.12.005
71
MunckeJ. (2012). Food Packaging Materials, Food Packaging Forum. Available online at: https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/food-packaging-health/food-packaging-materials(accessed December 13, 2019)
72
Muriel-GaletV.CerisueloJ. P.López-CarballoG.AucejoS.GavaraR.Hernández-MuñozP. (2013). Evaluation of EVOH-coated PP films with oregano essential oil and citral to improve the shelf-life of packaged salad.Food Control30137–143. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.06.032
73
MussoY. S.SalgadoP. R.MauriA. N. (2017). Smart edible films based on gelatin and curcumin.Food Hydrocoll.oids668–15. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2016.11.007
74
MussoY. S.SalgadoP. R.MauriA. N. (2019). Smart gelatin films prepared using red cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.) extracts as solvent.Food Hydrocoll.oid.89674–681. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.11.036
75
MustafaF.AndreescuS. (2018). Chemical and biological sensors for food-quality monitoring and smart packaging.Foods7 :168. 10.3390/foods7100168
76
NarwadeV. N.AnjumS. R.KokolV.KhairnarR. S. (2019). Ammonia-sensing ability of differently structured hydroxyapatite blended cellulose nanofibril composite films.Cellulose263325–3337. 10.1007/s10570-019-02299-y
77
NiaounakisM. (2013). Biopolymers: Reuse, Recycling and Disposal, 1st Edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1007/s10570-019-02299-y
78
NquyenL. H.NaficyS.McConchieR.DehghaniF.ChandrawatiR. (2019). Polydiacetylene-based sensors to detect food spoilage at low temperatures.J. Mater. Chem. C71919–1926. 10.1039/c8tc05534c
79
OldringP. K. T.NehringU. (2007). Packaging Materials; 7. Metal Packaging for Foodstuffs, The International Life Sciences Institute. Available online at: < https://www.pac.gr/bcm/uploads/7-metal-packaging-for-foodstuffs.pdf(accessed 13 December 13, 2019)
80
OliveiraT. M.Fátima BarrosoM.MoraisS.de Lima-NetoP.CorreiaA. N.OliveiraM. B.et al (2013). Biosensor based on multi-walled carbon nanotubes paste electrode modified with laccase for pirimicarb pesticide quantification.Talanta106137–143. 10.1016/j.talanta.2012.12.017
81
PeelmanN.RagaertP.De MeulenaerB.AdonsD.PeetersR.CardonL.et al (2013). Application of bioplastics for food packaging.Trends Food Sci. Tech.32128–141. 10.1016/j.tifs.2013.06.003
82
PénicaudC.AchirN.Dhuique-MayerC.DornierM.BohounP. (2011). Degradation of β-carotene during fruit and vegetable processing or storage: reaction mechanisms and kinetic aspects: a review.Fruits66417–440. 10.1051/fruits/2011058
83
PereiraP. F.AndradeC. T. (2017). Optimized pH-responsive film based on a eutectic mixture-plasticized chitosan.Carbohyd. Polym.165238–246. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.02.047
84
PlackettD. V.HolmV. K.JohansenP.NdoniS.NielsenP. V.Sipilainen-MalmT.et al (2006). Characterization of L-potylactide and L-polylactide-polycaprolactone co-polymer films for use in cheese-packaging applications.Packag. Technol. Sci.191–24. 10.1002/pts.704
85
PlasticsEurope. (2019a). Plastics – The Facts 2019. Available online at: https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/1115/7236/4388/FINAL_web_version_Plastics_the_facts2019_14102019.pdf(accessed December 13, 2019)
86
PlasticsEurope. (2019b). Plastics in Packaging. Available online at: https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/about-plastics/packaging(accessed December 13, 2019)
87
PourjahaverS.AlmasiH.MeshkiniS.PirsaS.ParandiE. (2017). Development of a colorimetric pH indicator based on bacterial cellulose nanofibers and red cabbage (Brassica oleraceae) extract.Carbohyd. Polym.156193–201. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.09.027
88
PresterL. (2011). Biogenic amines in fish, fish products and shellfish: a review.Food Addit. Contam. A281547–1560. 10.1080/19440049.2011.600728
89
PriettoL.MirapalheteT. C.PintoV. Z.HoffmannJ. F.VanierN. L.LimL.-T.et al (2017). pH-sensitive films containing anthocyanins extracted from black bean seed coat and red cabbage.LWT- Food Sci. Technol.80492–500. 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.03.006
90
RaniD. N.AbrahamT. E. (2006). Kinetic study of a purified anionic peroxidase isolated from Eupatorium odoratum and its novel application as time temperature indicator for food materials.J. Food Eng.77594–600. 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.07.018
91
ReinertS.MohrG. J. (2008). Chemosensor for the optical detection of aliphatic amines and diamines.Chem. Commun192272–2274. 10.1039/B717796H
92
ReingardtT.NiederN. F. (2009). in Cans, Aluminium, Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology, 3rd Edn, ed.YamK. L. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley), 193–195.
93
RobertsonG. L. (2012). Food Packaging: Principles and Practice, 3rd Edn. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
94
SaliuF.PergolaR. D. (2018). Carbon dioxide colorimetric indicators for food packaging applications: applicability of anthocyanin and poly-lysine mixtures.Sens. Actuat. B2581117–1124. 10.1016/j.snb.2017.12.007
95
SarfrazJ.MäättänenA.IhalainenP.KeppelerM.LindénM.PeltonenJ. (2012). Printed copper acetate based H2S sensor on paper substrate.Sens. Actuat. B173868–873. 10.1016/j.snb.2012.08.008
96
SchutJ. H. (2016). Pioneering Sustainability; biopolymer applications are expanding, in fitsand starts.Plast. ics Eng.ineering726–13. 10.1002/j.1941-9635.2016.tb01490.x
97
ŠešlijaS.NešiæA.ŠkoriæM. L.KrušiæM. K.SantagataG.MalinconicoM. (2018). Pectin/carboxymethylcellulose films as a potential food packaging material.Macromol. Symp.378 :1600163. 10.1002/masy.201600163
98
SeydimA. C.SarikusG. (2006). Antimicrobial activity of whey protein based edible films incorporated with oregano, rosemary and garlic essential oils.Food Res. Intl.39639–644. 10.1016/j.foodres.2006.01.013
99
ShuklaV.KandeepanG.VishnurajM. R.SoniA. (2016). Anthocyanins based indicator sensor for intelligent packaging application.Agric. Res5205–209. 10.1007/s40003-016-0211-0
100
SilvaE. B.FerreiraP. V.ChretienJ. B.MirancaJ. I. S.PinhoH. A.TimbóÁP.et al (2017). Green optical dissolved oxygen sensor based on a chlorophyll–zinc complex extracted from the plant Brassica oleracea L.Appl. Optics369951–9956. 10.1364/AO.56.009951
101
Silva-PereiraM. C.TeixeiraJ. A.Pereira-JúniorV. A.StefaniR. (2015). Chitosan/corn starch blend films with extract from Brassica oleraceae (red cabbage) as a visual indicator of fish deterioration.LWT— Food Sci. Technol.61258–262. 10.1016/j.lwt.2014.11.041
102
The United Nations. (2019). World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available online at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world-population-prospects-2019-highlights.html(accessed December 18, 2019)
103
TorlakE.NizamlioğluM. (2011). Antimicrobial effectiveness of chitosan-essential oil coated plastic films against foodborne pathogens.J. Plast. Film Sheet.27235–248. 10.1177/8756087911407391
104
Valderrama SolanoA. C.de Rojas GanteC. (2012). Two different processes to obtain antimicrobial packaging containing natural oils.Food Bioprocess. Tech.52522–2528. 10.1007/s11947-011-0626-3
105
van CrevelR. (2016). Bio-Based Food Packaging in Sustainable Development, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/45849-023667e93ce5f79f4df3c74688c2067cc.pdf(accessed 17 December 2019)
106
van den BroekL. A. M.KnoopR. J. I.KappenF. H. J.BoeriuC. G. (2015). Chitosan films and blends for packaging material.Carbohydr. Polym.116237–242. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.07.039
107
van den OeverM.MolenveldK.van der ZeeM.BosH. (2017). Bio-Based and Biodegradable Plastics : Facts and Figures : Focus on Food Packaging in the Netherlands, Wageningen Food & Biobased Research No. 1722. Wageningen: Food & & Biobased Research, 10.18174/408350
108
VanderroostM.RagaertP.DevlieghereF.De MeulenaerB. (2014). Intelligent food packaging: the next generation.Trends Food Sci. Tech.3947–62. 10.1016/j.tifs.2014.06.009
109
VermeirenL.DevlieghereF.DebevereJ. (2002). Effectiveness of some recent antimicrobial packaging concepts.Food Addit. Contam.19163–171. 10.1080/02652030110104852
110
WangL. F.RhimJ. W. (2016). Grapefruit seed extract incorporated antimicrobial LDPE and PLA films: effect of type of polymer matrix.LWT- Food Sci. Technol.74338–345. 10.1016/j.lwt.2016.07.066
111
WeinmannR. C.CottonR. A. (1958). United States Patent Office Patent Number 2,849,319. Available online at: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/da/c8/a2/5bacc8e97bef21/US2849319.pdf(accessed December 15, 2019).
112
World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey Company. (2016). The New Plastics Economy — Rethinking the Future of Plastics. Available online at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/the-new-plastics-economy-rethinking-the-future-of-plastics(accessed December 13, 2019)
113
World Health Organization. (2019). Food Safety, The United Nations. Available online at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/food-safety(accessed 12 December 12, 2019)
114
WronaM.NerínC.AlfonsoM. J.CaballeroM. Á (2017). Antioxidant packaging with encapsulated green tea for fresh minced meat, Innov.Food Sci. Emerg.41307–313. 10.1016/j.ifset.2017.04.001
115
XiaoweiH.XiaoboZ.JiewenZ.JiyongS.ZhihuaL.TingtingS. (2015). Monitoring the biogenic amines in Chinese traditional salted pork in jelly (Yao−meat) by colorimetric sensor array based on nine natural pigments.Int. J. Food Sci. Technol.50203–209. 10.1111/ijfs.12620
116
YamK. L.TakhistrovP. T.MiltzJ. (2005). Intelligent packaging: concepts and applications.J. Food. Sci.70R1–R10. 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2005.tb09052.x
117
YanS.HuaweiC.LiminZ.FazhengR.LudaZ.HengtaoZ. (2008). Development and characterization of a new amylase type time–temperature indicator.Food Control19315–319. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2007.04.012
118
YanxiaoL.Xiao-boZ.Xiao-weiH.Ji-yongS.Jie-wenZ.HolmesM.et al (2015). A new room temperature gas sensor based on pigment-sensitized TiO2 thin film for amines determination.Biosens. Bioelectron.6735–41. 10.1016/j.bios.2014.05.040
119
YeM.NeetooH.ChenH. (2008a). Control of Listeria monocytogenes on ham steaks by antimicrobials incorporated into chitosan-coated plastic films.Food Microbiol.25260–268. 10.1016/j.fm.2007.10.014
120
YeM.NeetooH.ChenH. (2008b). Effectiveness of chitosan-coated plastic films incorporating antimicrobials in inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes on cold-smoked salmon.Int. J. Food Microbiol.127235–240. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.07.012
121
YoshidaC. M. P.MacielV. B. V.MendonçaM. E. D.FrancoT. T. (2014). Chitosan biobased and intelligent films: monitoring pH variations.LWT- Food Sci. Technol.5583–89. 10.1016/j.lwt.2013.09.015
122
YoshidaK.MoriM.KondoT. (2009). Blue flower color development by anthocyanins: from chemical structure to cell physiology.Nat. Prod. Rep.26884–915. 10.1039/b800165k
123
YousefiH.SuH.-M.ImaniS. M.AlkhaldiK.FilipeC. D. M.DidarT. F. (2019). Intelligent food packaging: a review of smart sensing technologies for monitoring food quality.ACS Sens.4808–821. 10.1021/acssensors.9b00440
124
ZhaiX.LiZ.ShiJ.HuangX.SunZ.ZhangD.et al (2019). A colorimetric hydrogen sulfide sensor based on gellan gum-silver nanoparticles bionanocomposite for monitoring of meat spoilage in intelligent packaging.Food Chem.290135–143. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.03.138
125
ZhaiX.Li, ZhangJ.ShiJ.ZouX.HuangX.et al (2018). Natural biomaterial-based edible and pH-sensitive films combined with electrochemical writing for intelligent food packaging.J. Agric. Food Chem.662836–12846. 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b04932
126
ZhaiX.ShiJ.ZouX.WangS.JiangC.ZhangJ.et al (2017). Novel colorimetric films based on starch/polyvinyl alcohol incorporated with roselle anthocyanins for fish freshness monitoring.Food Hydrocolloid.69308–317. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.02.014
127
ZhangH.HouA.XieK.GaoA. (2019). Smart color-changing paper packaging sensors with pH sensitive chromophores based on azo-anthraquinone reactive dyes.Sens. Actuat. B286362–369. 10.1016/j.snb.2019.01.165
Summary
Keywords
bio-based, smart packaging, food packaging, food safety, bio-based sensor
Citation
Halonen N, Pálvölgyi PS, Bassani A, Fiorentini C, Nair R, Spigno G and Kordas K (2020) Bio-Based Smart Materials for Food Packaging and Sensors – A Review. Front. Mater. 7:82. doi: 10.3389/fmats.2020.00082
Received
20 December 2019
Accepted
20 March 2020
Published
15 April 2020
Volume
7 - 2020
Edited by
Zhengfei DAI, Xi’an Jiaotong University, China
Reviewed by
Ji-Wook Yoon, Chonbuk National University, South Korea; Ying Ying Wang, University of Namur, Belgium; Yun Zheng, Jianghan University, China
Updates
Copyright
© 2020 Halonen, Pálvölgyi, Bassani, Fiorentini, Nair, Spigno and Kordas.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Niina Halonen, niina.halonen@oulu.fi
This article was submitted to Translational Materials Science, a section of the journal Frontiers in Materials
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.