Next Article in Journal
Hydrometallurgical Recovery of Iron, Nickel, and Chromium from Stainless Steel Sludge with Emphasis on Solvent Extraction and Chemical Precipitation
Next Article in Special Issue
Comparison in Content of Total Polyphenol, Flavonoid, and Antioxidant Capacity from Different Organs and Extruded Condition of Moringa oleifera Lam
Previous Article in Journal
Topology Optimization Combined with a Parametric Algorithm for Industrial Synchronous Reluctance Motor Design
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 10
Issue 4
10.3390/pr10040747
processes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Innovative Food Packaging, Food Quality and Safety, and Consumer Perspectives

by
Mary R. Yan
1,2,*,
Sally Hsieh
3 and
Norberto Ricacho
1
1
School of Healthcare and Social Practice, Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland 1025, New Zealand
2
AUT Food Network, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
3
School of Environmental and Animal Sciences, Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland 1025, New Zealand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2022, 10(4), 747; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pr10040747
Submission received: 15 March 2022 / Revised: 4 April 2022 / Accepted: 5 April 2022 / Published: 12 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Food Processes Modeling)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Packaging is an integral part of the food industry associated with food quality and safety including food shelf life, and communications from the marketing perspective. Traditional food packaging provides the protection of food from damage and storage of food products until being consumed. Packaging also presents branding and nutritional information and promotes marketing. Over the past decades, plastic films were employed as a barrier to keep food stuffs safe from heat, moisture, microorganisms, dust, and dirt particles. Recent advancements have incorporated additional functionalities in barrier films to enhance the shelf life of food, such as active packaging and intelligent packaging. In addition, consumer perception has influences on packaging materials and designs. The current trend of consumers pursuing environmental-friendly packaging is increased. With the progress of applied technologies in the food sector, sustainable packaging has been emerging in response to consumer preferences and environmental obligations. This paper reviews the importance of food packaging in relation to food quality and safety; the development and applications of advanced smart, active, and intelligent packaging systems, and the properties of an oxygen barrier. The advantages and disadvantages of these packaging are discussed. Consumer perceptions regarding environmental-friendly packaging that could be applied in the food industry are also discussed.

1. Introduction

Food processing involves a combination of various processes including preparation, (re)formulation, production, and packaging, etc. Packaging is an integral part of the food industry associated with food quality and safety including food shelf life, and communications from the marketing perspective. After food production and before reaching consumers, an important part is food packaging. The functions of traditional packaging are (i) holds food in packages for storage, transportation, and distribution, (ii) provides protection from physical damage and chemical and biological deterioration, (iii) stores food products until consumption [1,2,3], and (iv) also presents branding and nutritional information and promotes marketing [3,4].
In recent years, bioactive films and smart techniques have been applied in the food sector for packaging [5,6,7]. Plastic films, owing to their low weight, processing ease, and low cost have emerged as the most prominent candidate for food packaging applications [4]. Over the past decades, plastic films were employed as a barrier to keep food stuffs safe from heat, moisture, microorganisms, dust, and dirt particles. Recent advancements have incorporated additional functionalities in barrier films to enhance the shelf life of food, such as smart packaging [8,9], active packaging [10,11], and intelligent packaging [8,11,12,13]. These packaging systems provide a virtuous solution for extending the shelf life of food with simplified production processes or food with minimized use of preservatives [14,15].
In addition, consumer perception has influences on packaging materials and designs [11,16]. The trend of consumers demanding environmental-friendly packaging is increasing [17,18,19]. Moreover, nutrition and verifiable health-related information on the front- and back-pack could help shoppers to make healthier choices [20]. With the progress of applied technologies in the food sector, sustainable packaging has been emerging in response to consumer preferences and environmental obligations [21]. There have been a number of publications reviewing new techniques in packaging [1,5,11,22,23], however, consumer perception regarding renewable and environmental-friendly food packaging has not been clearly elucidated [24].
This paper reviews literature published mainly in the last 10 years that concerns the importance of food packaging in relation to food quality and safety; the applications of polymers (petroleum-based and bio-based) packaging; the development and applications of advanced smart, active, and intelligent packaging systems, and moreover, the properties of an oxygen barrier. Consumer perceptions regarding renewable and environmental-friendly packaging that could be applied in the food industry are also discussed in this review.

2. Polymers for Food Packaging

Polymers are commonly used materials for food packaging because of the easy production, strong molecular networks or crosslinking (polymetric matrices, Figure 1), and excellent performance characteristics (e.g., strength, the barrier to oxygen and moisture, and resistance to food component attack) [25,26,27]. Polymers are either non-biodegradable or biodegradable. For polymers that are commonly used in active food packaging, polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polyethylene-co-vinyl acetate (EVA), polyvinyl chloride) (PVC), and polyethylene terephthalate) (PET) are non-biodegradable polymers [28]. Cellulose, chitosan, starch, agar, gelatin, soy protein, and whey protein are biodegradable natural-based polymers [26,28] that have advantages over petroleum-based polymers from consumer and environmental perspectives.
The biodegradable, sustainable, and abundantly available polymers are categorized into polysaccharide type and protein-based type polymers [4,29,30]. Among polysaccharide-type polymers, cellulose is a polysaccharide consisting of a linear chain of β-1, 4 linked D-glucose units. Chitosan is a linear polysaccharide constituted by random β-1, 4 linked D-glucosamine, and N-acetyl-D-glucosamine. Cellulose and chitosan are widely used for food packaging due to their good film and gel-forming ability, recyclability, and inherent antimicrobial properties [28,31]. Starch is composed of linear and branched D-glucose units coupled by α-1, 4 and α-1, 6 glycosidic linkages; it can be used for food packaging as an adhesive and additive [28]. The commercially available starch and starch blends include EcoframTM, SolanylTM, BiocoolTM, BioplastTM, and PanticTM [4]. Protein-type polymers, for example, soy protein, possess a wide range of functional properties to the protein-based films because of the intermolecular binding potential via covalent bonds [26]. Gelatin has strong film-forming abilities and is commonly used due to its abundance [4,32].
Polylactic acid blend (PLA) is a synthetic thermoplastic polyester. It is a commercially available environmental-friendly biodegradable polymer combined with antimicrobial agents to form PLA-based films used for the packaging of dry and perishable food products, usually short shelf-life products, such as fruits, vegetables, and meat [4,26,33].

3. Smart Food Packaging Systems

The fast-growing consumption of packaged food and beverages led to innovative packaging systems due to increased product complexity, food globalization, and consumer needs for environmental-friendly packaging [34,35]. As a result, smart packaging, active packaging, and intelligent packaging have emerged on the global market with their applications.
Smart packaging systems are widely used in food and beverages, healthcare products, personal care, and others, which can monitor physicochemical influences such as environmental conditions, and also prevent microbiological changes [12,23]. Active packaging and intelligent packaging that are discussed below in detail are types of smart packaging.

4. Active Food Packaging

An active packaging system is an advanced technology that embeds active components (e.g., antioxidants) into the polymeric packaging matrix (Figure 1) [36,37]. The polymeric matrix then releases or absorbs substances from or into the preserved food or the surrounding environment to sustain and prolong the shelf life of food. The system functions as a polymer matrix based on polymerization of polymers or biopolymers and bioactive agents releasing naturally to the food or the surrounding environment [15].
Active food packing presents an excellent potential in the maintenance of the quality and safety of food products, particularly oxidation-sensitive foods. Active agents for food packaging include antimicrobials, antioxidants, carbon dioxide emitters/absorbers, oxygen scavengers, and ethylene scavengers [23,38]. The commonly used agents and applications are presented in Table 1.

4.1. Antimicrobials

Antimicrobial packaging integrates antimicrobial agents into polymer film to suppress the targeted microbial activities [39]. Antimicrobial agents such as organic acids (e.g., benzoic acid), enzymes (e.g., lysozyme), bacteriocins, fungicides, and oxygen absorber (e.g., butylated hydroxytoluene) have been widely used in food packaging systems to prevent the growth of pathogenic microorganisms during the production, transportation, and storage of food products [39]. The advantage of the technique is controlled release as time-release or slow release of active substances over the postulated period. Antimicrobial packaging applies to preservative-free food products that are most likely to have pathogenic microorganism growth such as bread [40], cake, cheese, and meat [41,42].
Chemical additives are gradually replaced by natural compounds such as phytochemicals, bacteriocins, and enzymes, due to the increasing consumer demand for natural and safety assured food products. Natural antimicrobial agents contained in food stuffs have advanced applications in food packaging and are environmentally safer and effective, for example, essential oils extracted from clove, rosemary, oregano, lemongrass, basil, and fennel [22,43,44,45].
Table
Table 1. Active agents for food packaging.
Table 1. Active agents for food packaging.
TypeCommonly Used AgentsApplications
AntimicrobialChitosanFruits [46], bread [40], meat [41,42,44,47,48], fish [49,50]
Essential oils
Gallic acid
Lactoferrin
Lysozyme
Metals
Nisin
AntioxidantEssential oilsCereals, nuts, meat, meat products [41,44,51]
Lignin
Plant extracts
Phenolic compounds
α-Tocopherol
Carbon dioxide absorber/emitterCitric acidMeat, fruits, vegetables [52]
Ferrous carbonate
Sodium bicarbonate
Oxygen scavenger/absorberAscorbic acidMost baked products and nuts [53], meat [38,53], fish [53], fruits [54]
Gallic acid
Glucose oxidase
Iron
Laccase
Palladium
Pyrogallol
Ethylene scavengerActivated carbonFruits, e.g., kiwifruit, banana, vegetables [22]
Potassium permanganate
Metal oxides
Metal organic frameworks (MOFs)
Titanium dioxide

4.2. Antioxidants

Antioxidant agents inhibit unwanted microbiological changes and oxidative reactions to extend the shelf life of food. Using natural antioxidants in food packaging is a new trend in the food industry in response to increasing consumer demand for natural products [55].
Plant extracts from plant stems, roots, leaves, and fruit seeds have been effectively used as antioxidant components in food packaging [30,56]. Plant extracts contain considerable content of polyphenols, flavonoids, alkaloids, and terpene substances that have proven antioxidant properties. Plant extracts added to packing materials are applied in the form of films.
Essential oils from plants such as cumin, fennel, mint, thyme, rosemary, cinnamon, onion, and garlic have been recognized as antioxidant agents [30,43,44,45]. These compounds are incorporated into the biopolymer matrix, for example, gelatin and gelatin-montmorillonite films to improve the antioxidative properties [30].
Phenolic compounds such as polyphenol, flavonoids, and quinones from plant extracts can act as both antimicrobial and antioxidant agents [57].
Plant-derived antioxidants incorporated with active packaging inhibit food spoilage and deterioration without direct contact with foods and changes in sensory quality [58].

4.3. Oxygen Scavengers

Oxygen residual in food packages causes bacterial spoilage, off-flavor development, color change, nutrient loss, and toxic end-products forming [22,53]. Oxygen scavengers or oxygen absorbers are added to enclosed packaging to remove or reduce the level of oxygen in the packaging to inhibit the formation of aerobic pathogenic microorganisms and oxidation, and maintain the quality of high unsaturated fat-containing food [53]. Oxygen scavengers or oxygen absorbers are commonly used for packaged food products and pharmaceutical products [53,59] (Figure 2).

4.4. Carbon Dioxide Scavengers

The role of carbon dioxide (CO2) used in food packaging is in relation to the protection of foods from oxidation and its antimicrobial effects [52]. Carbon dioxide has the potential to inhibit microbial growth and is highly soluble in food matrices in modified atmosphere packaging. Modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) is a packaging technique that involves either actively or passively controlling or modifying the gas composition of the food storage environment to reduce food oxidation and the growth of aerobic spoilage organisms [60]. Passive MAP is achieved when the desired atmosphere is developed naturally through a food product’s respiration. Active MAP is achieved by replacing gases in the packaging with a desired mixture of gases [61]. The carbon dioxide scavenger technique is used in combination with food refrigeration for fresh and fermented food products. The commercial availability of active packaging is still limited due to the low achievement on an industrial scale and the low stability of the active agents [51].

4.5. Ethylene Scavengers

Ethylene scavengers are used for storing fruits and vegetables [22], as ethylene leads to undesirable color changes and off-flavor which shortens the shelf life of fruits and vegetables during postharvest and processes.

5. Intelligent Packaging

An intelligent packaging system indicates and monitors the physicochemical conditions of the product (e.g., the degree of freshness), and its environmental influences (e.g., temperature, pH level, gas) during transportation and storage [13,62,63]. The device designed for the packaging can sense any changes internally or externally, and can then inform the consumer regarding the status of the product by providing sound and visual information (Figure 3) [22,62,64]. The central part of intelligent packaging is integrating sensors or indicators, or radio frequency identification systems (RFID) (Table 2).

5.1. Sensors

An intelligent sensor (e.g., bio-sensor, gas sensor) is a device that comprises a receptor transforming chemical or physical information into a form of energy, and a transducer transforming the energy into a useful analytical signal. The device can locate, detect or quantify matter or energy, then send signals for the detection of a chemical or physical property to which the device responds [5,8]. Bio-sensors detect, transmit, and record information about biological reactions that include bioreceptor (specific to a target analyte such as microbes, hormones, enzymes, antigens) and transducer (to convert biological signals to an electrical response such as electrochemical, optical) [62]. Gas sensors respond to the presence of a gaseous analyte in the package quantitatively and reversibly, and then change the physical parameters of the sensor, and are monitored by an external device [23]. There are commercially available gas indicators: Ageless EyeTM, Shelf Life Guard, Tell-Tab, and Tufflex GS [5,63].

5.2. Indicators

Intelligent indicators are substances that give quality-related information on temperature, leakage, generation and concentration of carbon dioxide, microbiological status, freshness, and appearance or color [23,62].
Moreover, time-temperature indicators give information about temperature and show the variation and history in temperature change [38,70]. Oxygen indicators give information on leakage and quality deterioration of MAP foods [38,79]. Color indicators give information through tags attached as small adhesive labels to the outside of food packaging [80]. Pathogen indicators give information on microbiological status [38]. Breakage indicators give information on broken packaging. Freshness indicators detect the growth of pathogenic microorganisms, and provide information on the quality of the products related to spoilage and microbial growth [38,76,81]. Fresh Tag®, Sensor QTM, Food Sentinel System, and Toxin Guard® are commercially available freshness indicators [5,63].

5.3. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)

Radio frequency identification (RFID) is wireless communication based on tags and readers placed on containers and pallets to gather real-time information about temperature, relative humidity, shelf life, and nutritional information through the supply chain management [11,13,63]. The commercially available RFID include Easy2log®, Intelligent Box, and Temptrip [23].
The intelligent packaging system has the advantage to provide information, extend shelf life, improve the quality of food, and enhance safety. However, it adds additional cost onto the final cost of food products, in particular, RFID system [13], further with a risk of potential migration of the packaging particles into food products [11].

6. Oxygen Barrier Properties

Oxidative deterioration is one of the major concerns associated with the shelf life of food products. Adding antioxidants is an economical and effective physiochemical solution. The oxygen barrier techniques are the applications of polymers in food packaging [82,83]. The function of the polymer barrier is to stop oxygen permeation though the food packaging (Figure 4). The commercially used oxygen barriers include ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyketone (PK), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [82]. Oxygen barrier guards, for example, a PET-based oxygen BarrierGuard, are applied for oxidation-sensitive food products including nuts, oils, baby foods, coffee, and vegetables [84].
Polysaccharide-type polymers formed films and coating which are good oxygen barriers associated with the large number of hydrogen bonds that assist adjacent chains to bind tightly to each other [85]. Protein-based polymers are also good oxygen barriers and can carry active substances that could migrate to food surfaces [85,86].

7. Consumer Perceptions and Edible Films

The origin, production type, and packaging are the three most important indicators that evaluate the environmental impact of food from a consumer survey (n = 797) [35]. With the increase of awareness of eco-sustainable consumption, consumer demands for environmental-friendly packaging are becoming a new trend in the food sector [17,19,87]. The packaging materials and information displayed on packaging influence consumer expectations and willingness to purchase [20,88]. Consumers prefer food packaging using additives from natural sources and innovative materials that can be recycled and beyond the primary fundamental role of the protection and preservation of food products [89]. Edible films and coatings, e.g., starch-based and protein-based, are good examples [85,90,91,92].
The initiative of edible films and coatings is related to the natural antimicrobial agents and bioactive polymers contained in carbohydrates or protein in foods (Table 3) [45]. For instance, commonly used materials for edible films and coating include nisin [45,93,94], soy protein and gelatin [32,95], chitosan [31,57], starch [96,97], corn starch [98], rice starch [99], agar [92], and carrageenan [100]. They are environmental-friendly green polymers [19]. Agar-based edible films containing functional agents (e.g., green tea extract, cinnamon essential oil) inhibit the growth of food-borne pathogens, improve the quality and extend the shelf life of food. Starch-based films with the addition of essential oils is a concept of sustainable food packaging from renewable sources [101]. Chitosan films are used as edible films and coating [45]. Soy protein films coated with nisin and natural plant extracts (e.g., grape seed extract, green tea extract) can be used for ready-to-eat meat packaging [45].

8. Discussion and Future Prospects

The most recent advances in food packaging have been the development of active packaging and intelligent packaging, and the development of biodegradable polymers, edible films and coatings [110,111]. From economic considerations, innovative food packaging reduces food waste or loss of food quality by improving food shelf life. Additionally, utilizing of renewable biodegradable packaging materials minimizes environmental impacts. It also benefits consumer health [11,21].
An active packaging system incorporates active components into packaging to improve the quality and shelf life of foods, and an intelligent packaging system monitors the conditions and provides information related to the quality of packaged foods [10].
Active packaging has the following advantages: prevents oxidation, microbial growth, and color loss, removes off-flavor, and slows down metabolism of food. Disadvantages include increasing the cost of production, possible migration of complex packaging materials into food, lack of recyclability of disposable packaging, and cannot be allied in liquid food.
The advantage of intelligent packaging systems is that they can be integrated into packaging and checked by the naked eye [66], can monitor the external conditions continuously [22], provide information about the condition of food, warn about possible problems, reduce food loss, and detect calamities during transportation. The disadvantages include high cost and lack of recyclability [13].
Natural antimicrobial and antioxidant agents (e.g., plant extracts, essential oils) are a favorite consumer preference and good for the ecosystem, however, in vitro studies are needed to evaluate the safety and possible side effects when used in food [112]. In addition, compared to plastic packaging materials, bio-based films are biodegradable, but have low elasticity, low thermal stability, and high water sensitivity [92], thus, further study is needed in improving their functional properties.
For all these packaging systems discussed, they need to be inexpensive relative to the value of the product, reproducible, consumer acceptable, have no negative effects on health, and be environmental-friendly [92]. Various factors could influence the implementation of active and intelligent packaging, such as market-driven factors, the gap between science and industry [30], and the gap between industry and consumers [113]. The bioactive, biodegradable, and bio-nanocomposite (3-bios) combined strategy would be an innovative concept for the future trend of food science and nutrition [87].

9. Conclusions

In conclusion, innovative food packaging provides a virtuous solution for the food industry in the maintenance of food quality and safety. Further research would fill the gaps as mentioned above to fulfil large-scale commercial reality, minimize the impact on the environment, and meet consumer acceptance.

Author Contributions

M.R.Y. wrote the manuscript and approved the final draft to be published. S.H. and N.R. provided constructive feedback. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The APC is funded by Tuapapa Rangahau, Unitec Institute of Technology.

Conflicts of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Drago, E.; Campardelli, R.; Pettinato, M.; Perego, P. Innovations in Smart Packaging Concepts for Food: An Extensive Review. Foods 2020, 9, 1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Risch, S.J. Food Packaging History and Innovations. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 8089–8092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Claudio, L. Our Food: Packaging & Public Health. Environ. Health Perspect. 2012, 120, A232–A237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Shaikh, S.; Yaqoob, M.; Aggarwal, P. An overview of biodegradable packaging in food industry. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2021, 4, 503–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Sohail, M.; Sun, D.-W.; Zhu, Z. Recent developments in intelligent packaging for enhancing food quality and safety. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 58, 2650–2662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Karmaus, A.L.; Osborn, R.; Krishan, M. Scientific advances and challenges in safety evaluation of food packaging mate-rials: Workshop proceedings. Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 2018, 98, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nogueira, G.F.; Soares, C.T.; Cavasini, R.; Fakhouri, F.M.; de Oliveira, R.A. Bioactive films of arrowroot starch and blackberry pulp: Physical, mechanical and barrier properties and stability to pH and sterilization. Food Chem. 2018, 275, 417–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Otles, S.; Yalcin, B. Intelligent food packaging. LogForum 2008, 4, 3. [Google Scholar]
  9. Vanderroost, M.; Ragaert, P.; Devlieghere, F.; De Meulenaer, B. Intelligent food packaging: The next generation. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 39, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kerry, J.P.; O’Grady, M.N.; Hogan, S.A. Past, current and potential utilisation of active and intelligent packaging systems for meat and muscle-based products: A review. Meat Sci. 2006, 74, 113–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Han, J.-W.; Ruiz-Garcia, L.; Qian, J.-P.; Yang, X.-T. Food Packaging: A Comprehensive Review and Future Trends. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018, 17, 860–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Schaefer, D.; Cheung, W. Smart Packaging: Opportunities and Challenges. Proc. CIRP 2018, 72, 1022–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Müller, P.; Schmid, M. Intelligent Packaging in the Food Sector: A Brief Overview. Foods 2019, 8, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Janjarasskul, T.; Suppakul, P. Active and intelligent packaging: The indication of quality and safety. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 58, 808–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wicochea-Rodríguez, J.D.; Chalier, P.; Ruiz, T.; Gastaldi, E. Active Food Packaging Based on Biopolymers and Aroma Compounds: How to Design and Control the Release. Front. Chem. 2019, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yun, B.; Buche, P.; Bisquert, P.; Costa, S.; Croitoru, M.; Cufi, J.; Guillard, V.; Oudot, A.; Thomopoulos, R. Consumer perception data and scientific arguments about food packaging functionalities for fresh strawberries. Data Brief 2018, 20, 1924–1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Guillard, V.; Gaucel, S.; Fornaciari, C.; Angellier-Coussy, H.; Buche, P.; Gontard, N. The Next Generation of Sustainable Food Packaging to Preserve Our Environment in a Circular Economy Context. Front. Nutr. 2018, 5, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Ahmed, T.; Shahid, M.; Azeem, F.; Rasul, I.; Shah, A.A.; Noman, M.; Hameed, A.; Manzoor, N.; Manzoor, I.; Muhammad, S. Biodegradation of plastics: Current scenario and future prospects for environmental safety. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 7287–7298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Omerović, N.; Djisalov, M.; Živojević, K.; Mladenović, M.; Vunduk, J.; Milenković, I.; Knežević, N.; Gadjanski, I.; Vidić, J. Antimicrobial nanoparticles and biodegradable polymer composites for active food packaging applications. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 2428–2454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Koutsimanis, G.; Getter, K.; Behe, B.; Harte, J.; Almenar, E. Influences of packaging attributes on consumer purchase decisions for fresh produce. Appetite 2012, 59, 270–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ncube, L.K.; Ude, A.U.; Ogunmuyiuwa, E.N.; Zulkifly, R.; Beas, I.N. Environmental impact of food packaging materials: A review of contemporary development from conven-tional plastics to polylactic acid-based materials. Materials 2020, 13, 4994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Firouz, M.S.; Mohi-Alden, K.; Omid, M. A critical review on intelligent and active packaging in the food industry: Research and development. Food Res. Int. 2021, 141, 110113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Biji, K.B.; Ravishankar, C.N.; Mohan, C.O.; Gopal, T.K.S. Smart packaging systems for food applications: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 6125–6135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ketelsen, M.; Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ response to environmentally-friendly food packaging—A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Huang, T.; Qian, Y.; Wei, J.; Zhou, C. Polymeric Antimicrobial Food Packaging and Its Applications. Polymers 2019, 11, 560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Nilsen-Nygaard, J.; Fernández, E.N.; Radusin, T.; Rotabakk, B.T.; Sarfraz, J.; Sharmin, N.; Sivertsvik, M.; Sone, I.; Pettersen, M.K. Current status of biobased and biodegradable food packaging materials: Impact on food quality and effect of innovative processing technologies. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 1333–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Silvestre, C.; Duraccio, D.; Cimmino, S. Food packaging based on polymer nanomaterials. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2011, 36, 1766–1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Díez-Pascual, A.M. Antimicrobial Polymer-Based Materials for Food Packaging Applications. Polymers 2020, 12, 731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Asgher, M.; Qamar, S.A.; Bilal, M.; Iqbal, H.M. Bio-based active food packaging materials: Sustainable alternative to conventional petrochemical-based packaging materials. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Jamróz, E.; Kopel, P. Polysaccharide and Protein Films with Antimicrobial/Antioxidant Activity in the Food Industry: A Review. Polymers 2020, 12, 1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dutta, P.K.; Tripathi, S.; Mehrotra, G.K.; Dutta, J. Perspectives for chitosan based antimicrobial films in food applications. Food Chem. 2009, 114, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hanani, Z.N.; Roos, Y.; Kerry, J. Use and application of gelatin as potential biodegradable packaging materials for food products. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2014, 71, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Sarfraz, J.; Hansen, A.; Haugen, J.-E.; Le, T.-A.; Nilsen, J.; Skaret, J.; Huynh, T.; Pettersen, M. Biodegradable active packaging as an alternative to conventional packaging: A case study with chicken fillets. Foods 2021, 10, 1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Lavoine, N.; Guillard, V.; Desloges, I.; Gontard, N.; Bras, J. Active bio-based food-packaging: Diffusion and release of active substances through and from cellulose nanofiber coating toward food-packaging design. Carbohydr. Polym. 2016, 149, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Petrescu, D.C.; Vermeir, I.; Petrescu-Mag, R.M. Consumer Understanding of Food Quality, Healthiness, and Environmental Impact: A Cross-National Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 17, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Horita, C.N.; Baptista, R.C.; Caturla, M.Y.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Barba, F.J.; Sant’Ana, A.S. Combining reformulation, active packaging and non-thermal post-packaging decontamination technologies to increase the microbiological quality and safety of cooked ready-to-eat meat products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 72, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Munteanu, S.B.; Vasile, C. Vegetable Additives in Food Packaging Polymeric Materials. Polymers 2019, 12, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Fang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Warner, R.D.; Johnson, S.K. Active and intelligent packaging in meat industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 61, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Malhotra, B.; Keshwani, A.; Kharkwal, H. Antimicrobial food packaging: Potential and pitfalls. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Jideani, V.A.; Vogt, K. Antimicrobial Packaging for Extending the Shelf Life of Bread—A Review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2013, 56, 1313–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhao, Y.; Teixeira, J.; Saldaña, M.D.; Gänzle, M.G. Antimicrobial activity of bioactive starch packaging films against Listeria monocytogenes and reconstituted meat microbiota on ham. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 305, 108253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Rahman, P.M.; Mujeeb, V.A.; Muraleedharan, K. Flexible chitosan-nano ZnO antimicrobial pouches as a new material for extending the shelf life of raw meat. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 97, 382–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Sharma, S.; Barkauskaite, S.; Jaiswal, A.K.; Jaiswal, S. Essential oils as additives in active food packaging. Food Chem. 2021, 343, 128403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Sirocchi, V.; Devlieghere, F.; Peelman, N.; Sagratini, G.; Maggi, F.; Vittori, S.; Ragaert, P. Effect of Rosmarinus officinalis L. essential oil combined with different packaging conditions to extend the shelf life of refrigerated beef meat. Food Chem. 2017, 221, 1069–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Irkin, R.; Esmer, O.K. Novel food packaging systems with natural antimicrobial agents. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 6095–6111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bahrami, A.; Delshadi, R.; Assadpour, E.; Jafari, S.M.; Williams, L. Antimicrobial-loaded nanocarriers for food packaging applications. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2020, 278, 102140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Arslan, B.; Soyer, A. Effects of chitosan as a surface fungus inhibitor on microbiological, physicochemical, oxidative and sensory characteristics of dry fermented sausages. Meat Sci. 2018, 145, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Amor, G.; Sabbah, M.; Caputo, L.; Idbella, M.; De Feo, V.; Porta, R.; Fechtali, T.; Mauriello, G. Basil Essential Oil: Composition, antimicrobial properties, and microencapsulation to produce active chitosan films for food packaging. Foods 2021, 10, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Ye, M.; Neetoo, H.; Chen, H. Effectiveness of chitosan-coated plastic films incorporating antimicrobials in inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes on cold-smoked salmon. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 127, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Neetoo, H. Use of nisin-coated plastic films to control Listeria monocytogenes on vacuum-packaged cold-smoked salmon. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 122, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Domínguez, R.; Barba, F.J.; Gómez, B.; Putnik, P.; Kovačević, D.B.; Pateiro, M.; Santos, E.M.; Lorenzo, J.M. Active packaging films with natural antioxidants to be used in meat industry: A review. Food Res. Int. 2018, 113, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Lee, D.S. Carbon dioxide absorbers for food packaging applications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 57, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cichello, S.A. Oxygen absorbers in food preservation: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 52, 1889–1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Aday, M.S.; Caner, C.; Rahvalı, F. Effect of oxygen and carbon dioxide absorbers on strawberry quality. Postharv. Biol. Technol. 2011, 62, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sanches-Silva, A.; Costa, D.; Albuquerque, T.G.; Buonocore, G.G.; Ramos, F.; Castilho, M.C.; Machado, A.V.; Costa, H.S. Trends in the use of natural antioxidants in active food packaging: A review. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2014, 31, 374–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vasile, C.; Baican, M. Progresses in food packaging, food quality, and safety-controlled-release antioxidant and/or anti-microbial packaging. Molecules 2021, 26, 1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gyawali, R.; Ibrahim, S.A. Natural products as antimicrobial agents. Food Control 2014, 46, 412–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhang, Y.; Wang, B.; Lu, F.; Wang, L.; Ding, Y.; Kang, X. Plant-derived antioxidants incorporated into active packaging intended for vegetables and fatty animal products: A review. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2021, 38, 1237–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gaikwad, K.K.; Singh, S.; Lee, Y.S. Oxygen scavenging films in food packaging. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2018, 16, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Oliveira, M.; Abadias, M.; Usall, J.; Torres, R.; Teixidó, N.; Viñas, I. Application of modified atmosphere packaging as a safety approach to fresh-cut fruits and vegetables-A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 46, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wan-Mohtar, W.A.A.Q.I.; Klaus, A.; Cheng, A.; Salis, S.A.; Abdul, S. Total quality index of commercial oyster mushroom Pleurotus sapidus in modified atmosphere packaging. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 1871–1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rodrigues, C.; Souza, V.; Coelhoso, I.; Fernando, A. Bio-Based Sensors for Smart Food Packaging—Current Applications and Future Trends. Sensors 2021, 21, 2148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Ghaani, M.; Cozzolino, C.A.; Castelli, G.; Farris, S. An overview of the intelligent packaging technologies in the food sector. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 51, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Nešić, A.; Cabrera-Barjas, G.; Dimitrijević-Branković, S.; Davidović, S.; Radovanović, N.; Delattre, C. Prospect of polysaccharide-based materials as advanced food packaging. Molecules 2020, 25, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Rukchon, C.; Nopwinyuwong, A.; Trevanich, S.; Jinkarn, T.; Suppakul, P. Development of a food spoilage indicator for monitoring freshness of skinless chicken breast. Talanta 2014, 130, 547–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mohebi, E.; Marquez, L. Intelligent packaging in meat industry: An overview of existing solutions. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 52, 3947–3964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Alam, A.; Rathi, P.; Beshai, H.; Sarabha, G.; Deen, M. Fruit quality monitoring with smart packaging. Sensors 2021, 21, 1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Borchert, N.B.; Kerry, J.P.; Papkovsky, D.B. A CO2 sensor based on Pt-porphyrin dye and FRET scheme for food packaging applications. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2013, 176, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Eom, K.H.; Kim, M.C.; Lee, S.; Lee, C.W. The Vegetable Freshness Monitoring System Using RFID with Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Sensor. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2012, 8, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Rahimah, S.; Malinda, W.; Sukri, N.; Salma, J.K.; Tallei, T.E.; Idroes, R. Zaida Betacyanin as Bioindicator Using Time-Temperature Integrator for Smart Packaging of Fresh Goat Milk. Sci. World J. 2020, 2020, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Alqurshi, A. Household storage of pharmaceutical products in Saudi Arabia; A call for utilising smart packaging solutions. Saudi Pharm. J. 2020, 28, 1411–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Saliu, F.; Della Pergola, R. Carbon dioxide colorimetric indicators for food packaging application: Applicability of antho-cyanin and poly-lysine mixtures. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2018, 258, 1117–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Grebitus, C.; Jensen, H.H.; Roosen, J.; Sebranek, J.G. Fresh meat packaging: Consumer acceptance of modified atmosphere packaging including carbon monoxide. J. Food Prot. 2013, 76, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Zhai, X.; Shi, J.; Zou, X.; Wang, S.; Jiang, C.; Zhang, J.; Huang, X.; Zhang, W.; Holmes, M. Novel colorimetric films based on starch/polyvinyl alcohol incorporated with roselle anthocyanins for fish freshness monitoring. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 69, 308–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Li, Y.; Wu, K.; Wang, B.; Li, X. Colorimetric indicator based on purple tomato anthocyanins and chitosan for application in intelligent packaging. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 174, 370–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ibrahim, S.; Fahmy, H.; Salah, S. Application of Interactive and Intelligent Packaging for Fresh Fish Shelf-Life Monitoring. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 677884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wu, D.; Zhang, M.; Chen, H.; Bhandari, B. Freshness monitoring technology of fish products in intelligent packaging. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 61, 1279–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Papetti, P.; Costa, C.; Antonucci, F.; Figorilli, S.; Solaini, S.; Menesatti, P. A RFID web-based infotracing system for the artisanal Italian cheese quality traceability. Food Control 2012, 27, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Won, K.; Jang, N.Y.; Jeon, J. A Natural Component-Based Oxygen Indicator with In-Pack Activation for Intelligent Food Packaging. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 9675–9679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yang, Z.; Zhai, X.; Zou, X.; Shi, J.; Huang, X.; Li, Z.; Gong, Y.; Holmes, M.; Povey, M.; Xiao, J. Bilayer pH-sensitive colorimetric films with light-blocking ability and electrochemical writing property: Application in monitoring crucian spoilage in smart packaging. Food Chem. 2021, 336, 127634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sharma, C.; Dhiman, R.; Rokana, N.; Panwar, H. Nanotechnology: An untapped resource for food packaging. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Kim, J.; Oh, S.; Cho, S.M.; Jun, J.; Kwak, S. Oxygen barrier properties of polyketone/ EVOH blend films and their resistance to moisture. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2020, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Maes, C.; Luyten, W.; Herremans, G.; Peeters, R.; Carleer, R.; Buntinx, M. Recent updates on the barrier properties of ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH): A review. Polym. Rev. 2017, 58, 209–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Lingle, R. New PET Barrier Bottle Technology for Food Packaging From Ring Container Technologies Offers Superior Oxygen Ab-Sorbing Power Using Less Barrier Material for Maximum Efficiency. Efficient BarrierGuard Oxygen Absorber Technology for Plastic Packaging Debuts. 2019. Available online: https://www.plasticstoday.com/packaging/efficient-barrierguard-oxygen-absorber-technology-plastic-packaging-debuts (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  85. Sahraee, S.; Milani, J.M.; Regenstein, J.M.; Kafil, H.S. Protection of foods against oxidative deterioration using edible films and coatings: A review. Food Biosci. 2019, 32, 100451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chang, Y.; Joo, E.; Song, H.; Choi, I.; Yoon, C.S.; Choi, Y.J.; Han, J. Development of protein-based high-oxygen barrier films using an industrial manufacturing facility. J. Food Sci. 2019, 84, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Imran, M.; Revol-Junelles, A.-M.; Martyn, A.; Tehrany, E.A.; Jacquot, M.; Linder, M.; Desobry, S. Active Food Packaging Evolution: Transformation from Micro- to Nanotechnology. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2010, 50, 799–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rebollar, R.; Gil, I.; Lidón, I.; Martín, J.; Fernández, M.J.; Rivera, S. How material, visual and verbal cues on packaging influence consumer expectations and willingness to buy: The case of crisps (potato chips) in Spain. Food Res. Int. 2017, 99, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Efrati, R.; Natan, M.; Pelah, A.; Haberer, A.; Banin, E.; Dotan, A.; Ophir, A. The combined effect of additives and processing on the thermal stability and controlled release of essential oils in antimicrobial films. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Souza, E.; Gottschalk, L.; Freitas-Silva, O. Overview of Nanocellulose in Food Packaging. Recent Patents Food Nutr. Agric. 2020, 11, 154–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Umaraw, P.; Verma, A.K. Comprehensive review on application of edible film on meat and meat products: An eco-friendly approach. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 57, 1270–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Mostafavi, F.S.; Zaeim, D. Agar-based edible films for food packaging applications—A review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 159, 1165–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Natrajan, N.; Sheldon, B.W. Efficacy of nisin-coated polymer films to inactivate Salmonella Typhimurium on fresh broiler skin. J. Food Prot. 2000, 63, 1189–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Neetoo, H.; Ye, M.; Chen, H. Effectiveness and stability of plastic films coated with nisin for inhibition of Listeria mono-cytogenes. J. Food Prot. 2007, 70, 1267–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Uranga, J.; Leceta, I.; Etxabide, A.; Guerrero, P.; de la Caba, K. Cross-linking of fish gelatins to develop sustainable films with enhanced properties. Eur. Polym. J. 2016, 78, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Júnior, A.V.; Fronza, N.; Foralosso, F.B.; Dezen, D.; Huber, E.; dos Santos, J.H.Z.; Machado, R.; Quadri, M.G.N. Biodegradable Duo-functional Active Film: Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Actions for the Conservation of Beef. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2014, 8, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Yao, X.; Qin, Y.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, J.; Qian, C.; Liu, J. Development of active and smart packaging films based on starch, polyvinyl alcohol and betacyanins from different plant sources. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 183, 358–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Krishnan, K.R.; Babuskin, S.; Rakhavan, K.; Tharavin, R.; Babu, P.A.S.; Sivarajan, M.; Sukumar, M. Potential application of corn starch edible films with spice essential oils for the shelf life extension of red meat. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2015, 119, 1613–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Jeevahan, J.; Chandrasekaran, M. Influence of Nanocellulose Additive on the Film Properties of Native Rice Starch-based Edible Films for Food Packaging. Recent Patents Nanotechnol. 2020, 13, 222–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Tavassoli-Kafrani, E.; Shekarchizadeh, H.; Masoudpour-Behabadi, M. Development of edible films and coatings from alginates and carrageenans. Carbohydr. Polym. 2016, 137, 360–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Vianna, T.C.; Marinho, C.O.; Júnior, L.M.; Ibrahim, S.A.; Vieira, R.P. Essential oils as additives in active starch-based food packaging films: A review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 182, 1803–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Abdollahzadeh, E.; Hosseini, H.M.; Fooladi, A.A.I. Antibacterial activity of agar-based films containing nisin, cinnamon EO, and ZnO nanoparticles. J. Food Saf. 2018, 38, e12440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Costa, S.M.; Ferreira, D.P.; Teixeira, P.; Ballesteros, L.F.; Teixeira, J.A.; Fangueiro, R. Active natural-based films for food packaging applications: The combined effect of chitosan and nanocellulose. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 177, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Ye, M.; Neetoo, H.; Chen, H. Control of Listeria monocytogenes on ham steaks by antimicrobials incorporated into chitosan-coated plastic films. Food Microbiol. 2008, 25, 260–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Souza, V.G.L.; Pires, J.R.A.; Rodrigues, C.; Coelhoso, I.M.; Fernando, A.L. Chitosan Composites in Packaging Industry—Current Trends and Future Challenges. Polymers 2020, 12, 417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Kawhena, T.G.; Opara, U.L.; Fawole, O.A. Effect of Gum Arabic and Starch-Based Coating and Different Polyliners on Postharvest Quality Attributes of Whole Pomegranate Fruit. Processes 2022, 10, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ugalde, M.L.; de Cezaro, A.M.; Vedovatto, F.; Paroul, N.; Steffens, J.; Valduga, E.; Backes, G.T.; Franceschi, E.; Cansian, R.L. Active starch biopolymeric packaging film for sausages embedded with essential oil of Syzygium aromaticum. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 2171–2175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Sani, M.A.; Ehsani, A.; Hashemi, M. Whey protein isolate/cellulose nanofibre/TiO 2 nanoparticle/rosemary essential oil nanocomposite film: Its effect on microbial and sensory quality of lamb meat and growth of common foodborne pathogenic bacteria during refrigeration. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 251, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Yong, H.; Liu, J. Active packaging films and edible coatings based on polyphenol-rich propolis extract: A review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 2106–2145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Salgado, P.R.; Di Giorgio, L.; Musso, Y.S.; Mauri, A.N. Recent Developments in Smart Food Packaging Focused on Biobased and Biodegradable Polymers. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Sani, M.; Azizi-Lalabadi, M.; Tavassoli, M.; Mohammadi, K.; McClements, D. Recent advances in the development of smart and active biodegradable packaging materials. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Ribeiro-Santos, R.; Sanches-Silva, A.; Andrade, M.; de Melo, N.R. Use of essential oils in active food packaging: Recent advances and future trends. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 61, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Tiekstra, S.; Dopico-Parada, A.; Koivula, H.; Lahti, J.; Buntinx, M. Holistic approach to a successful market implementation of active and intelligent food packaging. Foods 2021, 10, 465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Processes 10 00747 g001 550
Figure 1. The system functions of a polymeric matrix, recreated from Munteanu and Vasile [37].
Figure 1. The system functions of a polymeric matrix, recreated from Munteanu and Vasile [37].
Processes 10 00747 g001
Processes 10 00747 g002 550
Figure 2. Examples of oxygen absorbers.
Figure 2. Examples of oxygen absorbers.
Processes 10 00747 g002
Processes 10 00747 g003 550
Figure 3. Applications of intelligent packaging systems, modified from Nešić et al. [64]. (a) Temperature indicator; (b) ripeSense indicator; (c) Freshness indicator [65]; (d) Freshness indicator.
Figure 3. Applications of intelligent packaging systems, modified from Nešić et al. [64]. (a) Temperature indicator; (b) ripeSense indicator; (c) Freshness indicator [65]; (d) Freshness indicator.
Processes 10 00747 g003
Processes 10 00747 g004 550
Figure 4. Efficient oxygen barrier guard, recreated from Lingle [84].
Figure 4. Efficient oxygen barrier guard, recreated from Lingle [84].
Processes 10 00747 g004
Table
Table 2. Different types of intelligent packaging.
Table 2. Different types of intelligent packaging.
TypeSystemsApplications
SensorBio-sensorMeat [66], fish, fruits [62,67], beverages, vegetables [68,69]
Gas sensor
Fluorescence-based oxygen sensor
IndicatorTime/temperature indicatorFood stored under chilled and frozen conditions (e.g., meat [38], milk [70]), pharmaceutical products [71]
Oxygen indicatorFood stored in MAP (e.g., meat [38])
Carbon dioxide indicatorFood stored in MAP or CAP [72,73]
Color indicatorFish [74], milk [75]
Pathogen indicatorMeat [73], fish [76,77]
Breakage indicatorCanned baby foods [8]
Leak indicatorPerishable foods [67]
Freshness indicatorFish [76,77], poultry [65], fruits [67]
Radio frequency identification tag (RFID) Cheese [78], meat [22], vegetables [69]
MAP: Modified atmosphere packaging; CAP: Controlled atmosphere packaging.
Table
Table 3. Natural materials for food packaging.
Table 3. Natural materials for food packaging.
FormSubstancesApplications
Active natural-based edible filmAgarFruits, vegetables [4], chicken, fish [92]
Agar-nisinFish [102]
Chitosan/celluloseChicken [103], ham [48,104], fruits [4,105]
Starch/corn starchFruits [106], beef [96,98], meat [107]
Soy protein and gelatinMeat [45], fish [80], fish oil [92]
Whey proteinLamb [108]
Propolis (bee glue/resin)Fruits, vegetables, meat, fish [109]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yan, M.R.; Hsieh, S.; Ricacho, N. Innovative Food Packaging, Food Quality and Safety, and Consumer Perspectives. Processes 2022, 10, 747. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pr10040747

AMA Style

Yan MR, Hsieh S, Ricacho N. Innovative Food Packaging, Food Quality and Safety, and Consumer Perspectives. Processes. 2022; 10(4):747. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pr10040747

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yan, Mary R., Sally Hsieh, and Norberto Ricacho. 2022. "Innovative Food Packaging, Food Quality and Safety, and Consumer Perspectives" Processes 10, no. 4: 747. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pr10040747

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop