1. Introduction
Food packaging is an integral component of food manufacturing, with the materials used in this sector having an essential contribution in protecting food from biological and physicochemical damage, while also ensuring its safety and quality throughout its shelf life [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. The majority of materials used for food packaging are polymer-based (plastics) derived from fossil carbon sources, such as polyethylene (PE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyamide (PA), polypropylene (PP), polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polystyrene (PS), and polycaprolactone (PCL), as shown in Figure 1. These materials are favored for their exceptional performance, including aesthetic design, high physicochemical qualities, processability, versatility, as well as their ability to form both flexible structures (bags, films, pouches) and rigid structures (bottles, caps, lids), and for their economic efficiency [1,6,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20].
In 2019, approximately 143 million metric tons of plastics were used globally for packaging. By 2060, this usage is expected to nearly triple, reaching around 380 million metric tons. This increase is particularly significant considering that in developed countries, nearly all food and beverages are sold in packaged form [21,22]. The widespread use of polymer-based packaging, which continues to dominate the food packaging industry, poses a serious threat to global ecological sustainability. The fossil-based origin of plastic materials, along with their longevity, is a key contributor to the ongoing environmental crisis [1,2,6,13,16,17,19,20,23,24,25]. To mitigate the negative impact on the environment and consumer health, the transition to sustainable, green materials for food packaging is essential. This shift aligns with the European Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) restrictions on the use of plastics [6,8,17,26,27,28]. Due to their low environmental impact, such as renewability, biodegradability, recyclability, and low carbon footprint, bio-based polymers (biopolymers) present a sustainable alternative to fossil-based polymers and offer a viable solution to addressing the plastic crisis [29]. Biopolymers can be classified into two groups: those sourced naturally, such as polysaccharides and proteins, and those synthesized from biomass. The latter group includes both biodegradable biopolymers like polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) and polylactic acid (PLA) and non-biodegradable biopolymers like bio-polyethylene (bio-PE), bio-polyethylene terephthalate (bio-PET), and bio-polypropylene (bio-PP), which are highly resistant to microbial degradation [6,7] (Figure 2).
Although bio-based biodegradable polymers, while environmentally friendly, they may face limitations when used for food packaging applications. They tend to be more susceptible to water than fossil-based polymers and often have poor mechanical and barrier properties. Additionally, their thermal resistance can be inadequate, depending on the specific type of biopolymer [20,30,31]. Furthermore, globalization has made it possible to access a wide variety of foods from any part of the world, making it increasingly important to preserve the authentic sensory qualities of foods (appearance, flavor, smell, texture) [32,33]. In this context, innovative smart packaging (SP) presents a viable solution, by combining elements of intelligent packaging (IP) and active packaging (AP). It is primarily used to assist with the handling, transport, storage, and shipping of foods, as well as to maintain their intrinsic qualities [29,34,35]. IP monitors the quality of packaged foods or their surrounding environment, such as freshness, integrity, storage time, and temperature, and visually communicates this information through digital means. It also aids in tracking the food throughout the manufacturing line and supply chain, all without direct contact with the product itself [29,35,36]. AP goes beyond traditional passive packaging by not only providing a barrier against the external environment but also working to preserve the current state of the food, extend its shelf life, or achieve specific characteristics. This approach opens up new possibilities for enhancing food safety, offering improved protection and quality preservation throughout the food’s shelf life [4,11,24,32,35,37,38,39,40]. In the AP, there is a positive interaction between the package, package headspace, and food products. This is achieved by intentionally incorporating a variety of functional compounds, such as ions, enzymes, bacteriocins, organic acids, and natural extracts into the packaging. These compounds can be placed inside the package, embedded directly into the packaging material, or immobilized on the package’s surface. This approach not only extends the role of conventional packaging, typically designed to be as inert as possible, but also helps to reduce negative environmental impact [2,3,11,14,29,32,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. The market success of AP ultimately depends on consumer acceptance. Consumers weigh the benefits, such as fresher, safer food with a longer shelf life, against potential risks, including the higher cost of AP-treated food and safety concerns, before making a purchasing decision. In the coming years, investments in AP are expected to rise due to the growth of the food industry, shifts in consumer lifestyles, and digitization of the food supply chain (FSC) [50,51,52,53,54]. This article offers a thorough review of the viability, benefits, and challenges of implementing bio-based biodegradable polymers in active food packaging. It aims to address two key objectives: mitigating the environmental crisis caused by the widespread use of fossil-based packaging and extending the shelf life of food products.
2. Bio-Based Biodegradable Polymers
Bio-based biodegradable polymers (biopolymers) are classified into two categories: naturally sourced, such as proteins and polysaccharides, and synthesized from biomass like PHAs and PLA.
2.1. Naturally Sourced Polymers
Naturally sourced biopolymers are naturally derived materials, found in high amounts in nature, including animals, plants, algae, and microorganisms [6,55,56,57,58,59]. These biopolymers are an excellent choice for developing food packaging due to their environmental benefits, such as renewability, biodegradability, edibility, affordability, and their potential as sustainable alternatives to fossil-based polymers [15,20,55,57,59,60,61,62]. This sub-section focuses on various biopolymers, such as caseins and whey proteins, collagen and gelatin, chitin and chitosan, keratin, gluten, soy, starch and zein, cellulose, pectin, alginate, pullulan, and kefiran, which are suitable for use as bio-based biodegradable materials in the food and beverage packaging sector. The structures of these biopolymers are given in Table 1.
Animal-sourced biopolymers. Caseins, which make up 80% of milk proteins, possess several beneficial properties including biodegradability, chemical resistance, non-toxicity, the ability to bind small particles and form micelles, strong emulsification capacity, and film-forming ability. These characteristics make caseins ideal materials for developing biodegradable food packaging [23,83,84]. Whey proteins, which constitute 20% of milk proteins, are valuable by-products of cheese and casein production in the dairy industry. They are inexpensive, abundant, and biodegradable biopolymers, which can be used in the development of edible packaging materials. Whey protein-based films and coatings are flexible and transparent, offering superior mechanical quality and water/oxygen permeability compared to polysaccharides and other proteins [23,57,85,86]. Collagen is one of the most successful, cost-effective bio-based materials in the food packaging industry, particularly for meat products. Its mechanical properties, due to its unique protein structure, are stronger than those of polysaccharides [87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99]. This biopolymer, industrially produced from the extracellular matrix of connective tissues (bones, ligaments, cartilage, tendons, hides, skin, and other biological tissues from various animals), offers numerous benefits such as antioxidant and film-forming capacity, moisture and oxygen barriers, and structural integrity [57,97,98,100]. Gelatin is mostly found in the bones, hides, hooves, and skins of animals and is produced by the hydrolysis and heat denaturation of these tissues [95,98,99]. This biopolymer, which is thermally denatured collagen, is prevalently used in the food packaging sector, especially in sausage casings and edible films/coatings, owing to its eco-friendly nature (renewability; biodegradability); excellent filmogenic qualities; flexibility; excellent aroma, light, water, and oxygen barriers; and low cost [14,57,88,96,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106]. Chitin and chitosan are obtained from the exoskeleton of crustaceans, as well as from fungi, mushrooms, and other species such as yeast, insects, and fish, with glucosamine being the building block of chitin. Chitin is insoluble in some usual solvents; therefore, it is deacetylated to produce chitosan, which has better solubility than chitin and good film-forming ability. Chitosan-based films are flexible and transparent, offering strong oxygen barrier and mechanical properties. They also possess excellent antioxidant and antimicrobial properties, particularly effective against fungi and algae, with high bacteriostatic activity due to their polycationic nature [107,108,109,110,111,112,113]. Keratin is a fibrous natural protein that occurs in α-helix and β-fold arrangements in animal epithelia tissues such as fish scales, hair, hides, hooves, horns, wool, beaks, toenails, claws, and feathers. It has film-forming capacities and excellent adhesive potential [57,61,95,114,115,116,117,118,119]. As a fiber-reinforcing biopolymer, keratin features an amorphous matrix with crystalline intermediate filaments within its structure. This structural alignment significantly enhances the mechanical properties of keratin-based materials [119].
Gluten is an ideal biodegradable biopolymer for film manufacturing, thanks to its unique viscoelastic protein network. This network, which includes hydrogen, hydrophobic, and disulfide bonds, offers excellent gas-barrier properties, high tensile strength, and elongation at break [59,120,121,122]. Soy proteins, naturally, highly renewable, and biodegradable biopolymers offer several advantages due to their composition, which includes a significant level of reactive amino acids such as arginine, cystine, histidine, and lysine, along with a well-balanced amino acid profile. These advantages include flexibility, cost-effectiveness, film-forming ability, high gelling capacity, biodegradability, and oil resistance [15,56,57,123,124,125,126]. Starch, derived from traditional sources like cereal grains (corn, wheat, rice), potatoes, and tapioca; non-traditional crops (beans, peas, lentils); underutilized plants (amaranth, quinoa); and underutilized agricultural by-products, is one of the most versatile natural biopolymers for biothermoplastic food packaging. Its versatility is due to its availability, good film-forming ability, renewability, biodegradability, excellent barrier quality, safe, and economical attributes [58,108,127]. Zein, essentially a by-product of the starch industry, has great potential to use in sustainable food packaging due to its adhesive film-forming potential (the film being heat sealable), good barrier properties (against moisture and oxygen), high thermal resistance, biodegradability, glossy appearance, low permeability, antimicrobial and antioxidant activity, and cost-effectiveness [14,23,55,57,101,103,119,128,129]. Cellulose, the most abundant renewable biopolymer in nature, derived from sources such as plants, recycled paper, agribusiness by-products, wood waste, algae, bacteria, or created enzymatically, can be converted into innovative food packaging materials (films, coatings, hydrogels) due to its nanofibrillar three-dimensional structure, which provides superior chemical, mechanical, and thermal properties [108,130,131,132,133,134]. Pectin is a complex heteropolysaccharide and a green, environmentally friendly alternative due to its high abundance, water-solubility, edible film-forming ability, flexibility, and its effectiveness as a barrier to moisture, oxygen, and aroma. Additionally, it possesses some antioxidant properties [135,136,137].
Alginate is an anionic green biopolymer extracted from brown algae and nitrogen-fixing bacteria that has received much attention for its biodegradability, renewability, availability, edibility, and good film-forming capacity. Additionally, its low cost makes it an ideal choice for food packaging films and coatings [138,139,140,141,142].
Pullulan, a linear microbial exopolysaccharide, has remarkable film-forming properties such as oxygen barrier ability, edibility, and biodegradability, making it a sustainable solution to overcome the issues associated with fossil-based polymers [19,124,127,143,144,145,146]. Kefiran, another microbial exopolysaccharide secreted by Lactobacillus and various yeast species, is not as widely available as cellulose or chitosan but is an interesting biopolymer for food packaging due to its characteristics, including antioxidant, antimicrobial, and good gelling properties [42,147,148,149,150].
2.2. Biodegradable Polymers Synthesized from Biomass
These biopolymers are typically synthesized by microorganisms from renewable resources such as polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), or through fermentation or chemical processes from lactic acid or agricultural waste (e.g., corn, beet, rice, and potatoes), in the case of polylactic acid (PLA). They serve as sustainable alternatives to fossil-based materials, offering comparable performance. The chemical structure of these biodegradable biopolymers is presented in Table 2.
PHAs are a group of energy storage materials produced by various bacteria and extremophilic archaea, which store them as water-insoluble inclusions within their cells. The most notable PHAs include poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) [P(HB), the simplest PHA], poly(hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) [P(HBH)], and poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) [P(HBcoHV)]. P(HB) is a biodegradable, optically active biopolymer with properties similar to fossil-based plastics. Incorporating hydroxyvalerate into P(HB) creates P(HBcoHV), a flexible, UV-resistant, and fully biodegradable polyester with lower melting temperature and molecular weight. This makes it suitable for packaging, though it has a reduced water barrier property compared to P(HB) [7,8,17,153,154]. Compared to P(HB) and P(HBcoHV), P(HBH) has shown a wider processing window, better thermal stability, and more promising mechanical performance due to its tailorable composition of both highly crystalline (3HB) and elastomeric (3HH) units [155]. PHAs are highly biodegradable materials that can fully decompose into water (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), or biomass in natural environments and industrial composting facilities. They offer a sustainable alternative for food packaging, with desirable properties such as good chemical and mechanical strength, hydrophobicity, biodegradability, recyclability, compostability, and renewability, making them competitive with petroleum-based polymers [7,8,17].
PLA has gained attention in packaging due to its chemical resistance, excellent transparency, and effective flavor and odor barrier. It offers a relative moisture barrier, high mechanical strength comparable to PE and PET, UV-light resistance, flexibility, and thermoplasticity. PLA is biodegradable, recyclable, and has a lower carbon footprint, but it requires industrial composting for degradation. The importance of PLA packaging lies in its unique qualities for sustainable applications, such as films, food serviceware, containers, cold drink cups, trays, wrapping, bottles, foams, shopping bags, and coatings. Additionally, it is the most cost-effective bio-based material available [7,8,17,156,157,158].
3. Limitations of Biodegradable Biopolymers
Unfortunately, the use of bio-based biodegradable polymers is restricted by several disadvantages that limit their ability to compete with conventional fossil-based polymers (Table 3).
Blending with other biopolymers, adding plasticizers, and chemical modifications are viable solutions to improve food packaging design. Moreover, the incorporation of various antimicrobials and antioxidants can enhance the package’s functionality. These strategies support the adoption of biodegradable polymers derived from renewable biomass in the production of engineered active packaging.
4. Smart Packaging
Active packaging (AP) is a new concept specifically designed to either release or absorb compounds into or from the packaged food or beverage (Figure 3), as well as the surrounding packaging environment, with the primary aim of extending the product’s shelf life [29,184,185,186].
Figure 3 illustrates the dual function of an AP system, with both adsorber and releaser mechanisms working simultaneously. The packaging itself is active, meaning it interacts with the internal environment of the bottle to enhance the shelf life or quality of the beverage. The blue section labeled Adsorber depicts blue dots being adsorbed from the bottle’s environment. This represents a system that removes unwanted elements such as oxygen, moisture, or other gases from the headspace to prevent beverage degradation. Oxygen absorbers are commonly used to maintain the freshness of beverages. The yellow section labeled Releaser shows yellow dots being released into the beverage. This represents an active releaser system where beneficial substances, such as antioxidants, antimicrobials, or preservatives are released into the beverage to enhance preservation and prolong shelf life. Figure 3 shows the synergy between the adsorber and releaser functions within the packaging. While the adsorber removes detrimental elements, the releaser introduces protective agents, creating a controlled internal environment conducive to extending the beverage’s quality and safety.
4.1. AP Releaser/Absorber Systems
AP releaser system contains active compounds with biological properties, such as antimicrobials (CO2, nitrogen—N, ozone—O3, sulfur dioxide—SO2, EOs: eucalyptol, eugenol, cinnamaldehyde, citral, carvacrol, limonene, linalool, vanillin; plant extracts; copper—Cu, silver—Ag, ZnO; carbon dots; bacteriocins, enzymes, organic/mineral acids) or antioxidants (e.g., butylated hydroxytoluene—C15H24O, butylated hydroxyanisole—C11H16O2, tert-butylhydroquinone—C10H14O2, gallic acid esters, EOs, vegetable oils, vitamin C, vitamin E, carvacol, α-tocopherol, extracts of aromatic plants, carotenoids, nanoliposomes), that are safer and more effective, embedded within the biopolymer matrix [1,4,29,41,43,47,187]. The presence of oxygen (O2) in the package headspace initiates unwanted chemical reactions, such as oxidation of pigments, lipids, and proteins by reactive oxygen species (ROS), which negatively impact food quality. These effects include color changes, the development of off-flavors, nutrient losses, and the promotion of microbial growth, particularly aerobic bacteria and O2-favored molds, all of which significantly shorten the shelf life of foods [92,188]. One of the most effective methods for preserving the quality of food, especially fresh and highly perishable items, is the use of O2 absorbers. These include activated carbon, ferrous iron (FeO), unsaturated hydrocarbons, α-tocopherol, palladium acetate (Pd(CH₃COO)2), sodium borohydride (NaBH4), sodium chloride (NaCl), ascorbic acid, gallic acid, enzymes, microorganisms, and linseed oil encapsulated in silica NPs [44,188,189,190,191,192,193]. O2 scavengers are primarily used in various products, including meat products, dairy, bakery, coffee, nuts, snacks, fats, ready-to-eat (RTE) foods, and beverages [3,44,194]. Excessive CO2 levels, released during vegetable respiration, can negatively impact food quality and/or the package integrity. To control CO2 level, CO2 adsorbents can be used, including activated carbon, activated calcium bentonite clay, amino acid salt solutions, anhydrous sodium chloride, biopolymers, calcium hydroxide/oxide, iron powder, sodium carbonate, sodium glycinate, sodium silicate, and zeolite [100,191,195]. These CO2 absorbers are commonly used for packaging fresh produce, cheese, meat, poultry, and coffee [3,196]. To control gaseous ethylene (C2H4) in post-harvest storage and during the marketing of packed fresh fruits and vegetables, various systems can be used, including activated carbon-based systems, potassium permanganate-based systems, palladium-based systems, bentonite-based systems, sepiolite-based systems, and zeolite-based systems [49,100,197,198,199,200,201]. AP is designed to eliminate undesirable off-flavors and odors caused by the oxidation of proteins and lipids or anaerobic glycolysis, which can generate amines, aldehydes, and ketones during the breakdown of foods such as dairy, fish, fruits, and poultry. Various odor absorbers are used for this purpose, including activated carbon, acetylated paper, citric acid, cellulose triacetate, clays, ferrous salts, and sodium bicarbonate [196]. Excessive humidity inside food packaged, particularly fruits and vegetables, often promotes the microorganism’s growth, which reduces the shelf life of the products [41,100]. There are numerous commercial controllers of humidity to manage moisture levels in the food headspace. These include acetylated distarch phosphate, aluminum potassium sulfate dodecahydrate, bentonite, carboxymethylcellulose, modified starch, open-cell expanded PS, PLA silica gel, sodium salt cross-linked, and sodium carboxymethylcellulose, which are typically used for high water activity products like fish, meat, poultry, and produce [41,100,191,202,203,204,205,206,207].
In recent years, meat and meat products have gained increased importance due to their high nutritional value and their role as a significant source of animal protein for humans. However, these products also tend to create favorable conditions for microbial growth, which can lead to spoilage or foodborne illnesses, posing health risks if consumed under unfavorable conditions. Therefore, meat packaging is crucial to ensuring that the products remain in suitable condition along the FSC [208,209,210,211]. The safety and quality of meat are heavily influenced by the packaging materials and technologies used. In this context, smart films and coatings derived from natural sources have garnered significant attention [212]. They not only offer solutions to environmental challenges and provide safer meat products but also intuitively monitor changes in quality and safety, offering consumers dynamic real-time signals about the meat product’s traceability and its quality (freshness, headspace gas composition, pack integrity, etc.). Recent investigations have explored the utilization of smart packaging, particularly its antimicrobial and antioxidant potential, in the meat industry (Table 4).
Figure 4 visually complements the examples described in Table 4, and it would enhance the understanding of smart packaging systems.
Figure 4 reveals a smart packaging system with an integrated antimicrobial/antioxidant label, designed to protect the quality and extend the shelf life of meat products (on the left side). This label, positioned at the top of the packaging, releases active substances, such as antimicrobial or antioxidant agents, which interact with the contents of the package. By reducing microbial growth and oxidation, the label plays a significant role in maintaining the meat’s freshness and safety over an extended period; an incorporated moisture pad with a hygroscopic layer (in the middle part). This pad is placed at the bottom of the package and is designed to absorb excess moisture released by the meat during storage. The hygroscopic layer actively draws and retains water, preventing the accumulation of liquid in the package. Excess moisture can accelerate microbial growth and degrade the quality of the meat by affecting its texture and promoting spoilage. By controlling moisture levels, the pad helps to maintain the freshness and safety of the meat, prolonging its shelf life; an integrated freshness indicator into the package containing meat products (on the right side). The freshness indicator, located at the top of the packaging, provides real-time visual information about the condition of the meat inside. The indicator’s role is to monitor the quality of the meat by detecting changes in the environment within the packaging, such as variations in gas composition (e.g., O2, CO2, or volatile organic compounds), which occur as the product degrades. This allows consumers and retailers to assess the freshness of the product at a glance, reducing the risk of consuming spoiled food and enhancing food safety.
4.2. Intelligent Packaging
Intelligent packaging (IP), a revolutionary subset of smart packaging, has the potential to revolutionize the food supply chain by monitoring food quality indicators such as freshness, storage time, tightness, and temperature. It involves various components, including indicators and sensors that provide dynamic information (e.g., direct visual changes and detection of specific analytes) and data carriers, which, while not used to collect food quality information, track the movement of food throughout the supply chain [29,35,36,233,234,235].
Indicators visually inform consumers about various properties related to food quality, reflecting the actual conditions to which the food has been exposed and/or its current quality status. They can be thermochromic systems (based on colorimetric or fluorescent dyes), or chemical, enzymatic, microbiological, or mechanical systems, and are typically related to temperature and freshness [233]. Temperature indicators, as indirect indicators of food quality, provide information on whether a critical temperature threshold has been reached during storage and convey the full temperature history of the food throughout the supply chain, rather than directly reflecting changes in the food itself. This alerts the consumers or retailers if food has been exposed to high temperatures. Thermochromic systems indicate temperature through reversible changes, making them more suited for real-time temperature assessment in sensory applications (e.g., cold beverages) rather than for providing information on food stability throughout the supply chain. One of the most practical applications of smart packaging is providing real-time information about food freshness, which helps reduce food waste, improves consumer confidence, and ensures that food is consumed while it remains safe and of high quality. In contrast to temperature indicators, freshness is a direct indicator that offers qualitative or semi-quantitative information on food quality changes caused by physiological or microbiological activity, without compromising the integrity of the food packaging [233,235].
Sensors rapidly and continuously detect specific analytes by converting chemical information into a quantifiable signal (electrical, electrochemical, optical, or gravimetric), which is then processed by electronics and software. These sensors have been proposed for detecting gases produced by food spoilage (e.g., ammonia, hydrogen sulfide) and for monitoring toxic additives or monomers in packaging materials [233,236]. Freshness sensors provide real-time feedback on food freshness by monitoring spoilage markers such as ammonia, pH changes, or microbial activity. A specific type of chemical sensor is the biosensor, which incorporates biological materials (e.g., enzymes, antigens, antibodies, nucleic acids) to target specific analytes. Biosensors are particularly used for safety diagnostic, detecting harmful microorganisms in food (e.g., Escherichia coli, Salmonella), microbial metabolic byproducts (e.g., aflatoxins, biogenic amines—strong indicators of spoilage), allergens, and pesticides [233]. These sensors notify consumers or retailers of potential health risks.
Data carriers (barcodes, QR codes, and radiofrequency identification (RFID) tags) are designed to store and communicate data about a product’s storage history. While typically not used to monitor food quality, they are essential for automation, traceability, theft prevention, and counterfeit protection. These systems can provide real-time updates on expiration status by tracking temperature and other factors throughout the supply chain. Consumers can scan a code to access detailed information about the product’s freshness [233].
Intelligent (responsive) packages are capable of real-time monitoring of food quality by incorporating quality indicators and sensors within the packaging materials to detect changes in key food safety parameters such as pH, temperature, humidity, and the levels (presence, absence, concentration) of target gases like O2, CO2, nitrogen (N2), ethylene (C2H4), and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) [233,234] (Table 5).
4.3. Consumer Views on Active Packaging
Active packaging (AP) market is expected to grow, driven by the expanding food industry, shifting consumer lifestyles, and the digitization of FSC. The expanding food industry presents significant opportunities for the global AP market, with ongoing product innovation expected to drive growth. AP market, valued at $27.19 billion in 2023, is expected to reach $64.64 billion by 2032. However, rising raw material prices and production costs may pose challenges to market expansion [52,247]. The market success of AP ultimately depends on consumers. While they do not directly purchase packaging, their food choices are greatly influenced by both the product and its packaging [51,248]. The functionality and communication function of packaging, which is essential for both consumers and manufacturers, is one of the key factors that influence consumer purchasing decisions [32,54,100]. Food consumers’ purchasing behavior is complex, as they weigh benefits and risks before deciding. Barriers such as high costs, technology neophobia, and lack of information can hinder AP acceptance [50,53,54]. A significant barrier to AP adoption is its high cost compared to conventional packaging, which can significantly increase the final cost of foods, sometimes doubling it, whereas conventional packaging rarely exceeds 10% of the final cost [100]. Consumer preferences for AP technologies also vary, with scavenger technology being more favored over releaser technology. Safety is another concern, as AP materials, unlike conventional packaging, interact with food through migration, posing potential health risks. Additionally, accidental breakage of the sachet/bag and ingestion of AP components are potential hazards [3,49,54]. Europeans have been resistant to innovations in food packaging, having no affinity with AP, while people in Asia, Africa, and South America tend to favor traditional packaging methods, such as using vegetable leaves, due to their natural benefits. A lack of consumer knowledge is a significant barrier to AP adoption. Without understanding its benefits and how it works, consumers may be skeptical. Providing clear information on packaging could help boost acceptance [100].
5. Conclusions
Packaging has a crucial role in protecting foods from damage and external influences. Fossil-based polymers are widely used in the food industry as packaging materials due to their advantageous properties, such as clarity, aesthetic appeal, good barrier and mechanical characteristics, versatility, combinability, processability, and cost-effectiveness. However, the excessive use of polymer-based packages, still dominant in the food packaging sector, poses a serious threat to ecological sustainability around the globe. The nonrenewable nature, longevity of these materials, and the expected nearly tripling of global plastic consumption by 2060 are significant contributors to the exacerbation of environmental crises. In recent years, the packaging design has shifted its focus from conventional passive packaging to eco-friendly active packaging, which meets consumers’ demands for healthier and safer foods, rather than merely providing protection from the external environment as conventional passive packaging does. In this context, natural biodegradable biopolymers, due to their unique physicochemical properties, present a promising alternative to fossil-based polymers, offering a sustainable solution for eco-friendly active packaging. Unfortunately, these biopolymers have some drawbacks, such as extreme vulnerability to water and inferior mechanical, barrier, and thermal properties. Blending them with other materials is one approach to designing more effective food packaging. Additionally, the incorporation of antimicrobials and antioxidants can enhance the functionality of these films. These enhancements contribute to the successful implementation of biodegradable biopolymers in engineered food packaging and help mitigate the environmental crises associated with the widespread use of fossil-based packaging.
Methodology, C.I.B. and M.S.-C.; supervision, M.S., A.S.I. and C.I.B.; writing—original draft, M.S. and D.S.; writing—review and editing, C.I.B., C.-M.C., M.D., D.S., M.S.-C., A.S.I. and M.S.; investigation, C.-M.C., G.M.P., A.S.I., M.D. and D.S.; resources, M.D. and M.S.-C.; formal analysis, C.I.B., C.-M.C., M.D., A.S.I., G.M.P. and D.S.; software, D.S.; conceptualization, M.S.; visualization, M.S. and A.S.I.; project administration, M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Structure of naturally sourced polymers (biopolymers).
| Name | Structure | Refs. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caseins | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [ |
| α-casein | β-casein | ||
| Whey proteins | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [ |
| α-lactalbumin | β-lactoglobulin | ||
| Collagen and gelatin | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [ |
| collagen | denaturated gelatin | ||
| Chitin and chitosan | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [ | |
| Keratin | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [ | |
| Gluten | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [ | |
| Soy proteins | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [ | |
| Starch | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [ | |
| Zein | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [ | |
| Cellulose | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [ | |
| Pectin | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [ | |
| Alginate | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [ | |
| Pullulan | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [ | |
| Kefiran | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [ | |
Chemical structure of biodegradable biopolymers synthesized from biomass.
| Name | Structure | Refs. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| PHAs | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [ |
| PHA | P(HB) | ||
| [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | ||
| P(HBH) | P(HBcoHV) | ||
| PLA | [Image omitted. Please see PDF.] | [ | |
Biodegradable biopolymers—limitations and solutions.
| Biodegradable Biopolymers | Limitations | Solutions |
|---|---|---|
| Caseins | Extremely sensitive to moisture, which severely affects their mechanical characteristics [ | Cross-linking treatment with divalent cations, which leads to a more stable structure [ |
| Whey proteins | Poor tensile strength and moisture resistance due to high amounts of hydrophilic amino acids in the chain of milk proteins [ | Incorporation into the matrix: glycerol, unmodified Na+-montmorillonite, other biopolymers (zein, sodium caseinate, nanocelluloses), EOs, or various methods of cross-linking [ |
| Collagen | Poor wet mechanical properties due to its poor moisture resistance and low thermal stability [ | Use of plasticizers (glycerol), suitable cross-linking treatments, blending with other biopolymers (chitosan), and the addition of active compounds [ |
| Gelatin | Poor mechanical properties and strong sensitivity to moisture, tending to swell and dissolve when in contact with food with great humidity levels [ | Cross-linking or combining with other biopolymers (carboxymethyl cellulose, chitosan, soy protein isolate, starch) [ |
| Chitin | Insoluble in some common solvents and has poor biodegradability due to its high crystallinity and high content of acetamido groups [ | Deacetylation under alkali conditions to produce chitosan [ |
| Chitosan | Poor mechanical properties, barrier performance, and water resistance characteristics due to the presence of many hydrophilic groups in its structure [ | Blending with other biopolymers [ |
| Keratin | Hydrophobic compound, not suitable as a packaging material in its pure form [ | Proteolytic cleavage by enzymes [ |
| Gluten | Pronounced solubility in water, high water attraction, rigid structure, and opacity [ | Incorporation into the matrix: pectin, carboxymethyl cellulose, or other proteins [ |
| Soy proteins | High water-solubility, poor mechanical properties, low tensile strength, low thermal stability, reduced transparency, and low heat resistance [ | Combining with other biopolymers (chitosan, gelatin, nanocellulose, etc.), plasticizers (glycerin), lipids, and plant extracts [ |
| Starch | Inferior water resistance and mechanical qualities [ | Adding plasticizer (glycerol, sorbitol, sugars), blending with bioactive compounds and other biopolymers (gelatin, pectin, pullulan), and reinforcing with bacterial nanocellulose, metal-oxides, and nanoclay [ |
| Zein | Poor mechanical and thermal qualities, and low water resistance, making it unsuitable for use as food packaging films in its pure form [ | Blending with other biopolymers (chitosan, pullulan, gelatin, carrageenan, cellulose, alginate, PHAs, soy protein, whey protein), adding plasticizers (glycerol, polyethylene glycol, sorbitol), or incorporating NPs [ |
| Cellulose | Sensitive to water, with reduced mechanical strength and limited barrier characteristics [ | Incorporation of resins, wax, and reinforcing agents (clay, metal-based NPs, nanocellulose); coating with surfactants; blending with other biopolymers (gelatin, zein); and chemical modifications (acylation, esterification, grafting, and silylation) [ |
| Pectin | Brittle and more hydrophilic, with poor mechanical properties | Adding plasticizers (glycerol, sorbitol, sucrose, polyethylene glycol, mannitol), embedding pectin with other polysaccharides (agar, carrageenan, pullulan, chitosan), proteins (gelatin), or synthetic biopolymers (PLA) [ |
| Alginate | Strong hydrophilicity, limited antimicrobial and antioxidant characteristics and UV-light barrier, and instability under heat treatment [ | Blending with other biopolymers (chitin, chitosan, carboxymethyl cellulose, fish scale gelatin, pectin), embedding NPs embedding (nanosilver, montmorillonite, TiO2), incorporating plant extracts, yeasts, or bioactive compounds (carotenoids, vitamin C, phenolic substances), and chemical modifications (amidation, esterification, sulfation, oxidation, and reductive amination) [ |
| Pullulan | High hydrophilicity, poor mechanical properties, and limited antioxidant and antibacterial potential [ | Blending with other biopolymers (alginate, starch, chitosan, zein), embedding of organic/inorganic NPs (e.g., ZnO), or chemical modifications (esterification, oxidation, etherification, sulfation, and amination) [ |
| Kefiran | Poor mechanical characteristics [ | Combining with other biopolymers (carboxymethyl cellulose, starch, chitosan, whey proteins), adding plasticizers (glucose, sucrose, glycerol, lipids), or incorporating reinforcing agents (montmorillonite, nanocellulose, CuO, TiO2, ZnO) [ |
| PHAs | Inferior thermal and mechanical stability, poor moisture and gas barrier properties, higher aroma permeability, and high cost [ | Addition of NPs (nanocellulose, nanoclays, nanosilver, and metal-oxides in nanoforms) [ |
| PLA | Brittleness, low gas and vapor barrier properties, low flexibility, thermal instability, and a slow biodegradation rate that can take up to 3–5 years [ | Blending with other biopolymers: poly(butylene succinate), poly(butylene succinate-co-butylene adipate), poly(butylene adipate-co-butylene terephthalate), and PHAs [ |
TiO2—titanium dioxide (nanoform), ZnO—zinc oxide (nanoform), CuO—copper oxide (nanoform), NPs—nanoparticles, EOs—essential oils.
Illustrative examples of smart materials with antioxidant and antibacterial properties used in meat and poultry packaging.
| Engineered Films or Coatings | Applications | Refs. |
|---|---|---|
| PLA/chitosan | Ready-to-eat deli turkey meat | [ |
| Whey protein isolate/oregano/clove essential oil | Chicken breast fillets | [ |
| Zein/lysozyme/EDTA | Ground beef patties | [ |
| Chitosan/ZnO | Raw meat | [ |
| Tapioca starch/grape pomace | Ready-to-eat chicken deli meat | [ |
| Okra mucilage/ZnO | Chicken breast meat | [ |
| Starch/gallic acid/chitosan/carvacrol | Ham product | [ |
| Cellulose/ZnO/gelatin | Chicken fillets | [ |
| Cellulose/wheyprotein/TiO2/rosemary essential oil | Lamb meat | [ |
| Gelatin/chitosan/ZnO | Meat beef | [ |
| Pullulan/chitosan/ZnO | Pork belly | [ |
| Zein/tea tree essential oil/blueberry anthocyanin | Pork products | [ |
| Gelatin/alizarin/oregano essential oil | Beef freshness | [ |
| Collagen/delphinidin | Casings in the meat industry | [ |
| Collagen/chitosan/gallic acid | Pork | [ |
| Gelatin/alginate | Raw minced beef meat | [ |
| Gelatin/pullulan/cinnamon essential oil | Meat | [ |
| Chitosan/cinnamaldehyde | Handmade meat patties | [ |
| Gelatin/chilli seed oil | Fresh chicken breast cubes | [ |
| Chitosan/ZnO | Refrigerated poultry meat | [ |
| Cellulose/carbon dots | Minced pork | [ |
EDTA—disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid.
Food safety parameters. Intelligent detectors/controllers [
| Parameters | Brief Introduction | Detectors/Controllers |
|---|---|---|
| pH | During food storage, both aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms can proliferate, producing organic acids (lactic acid, acetic acid), which lower the pH of food. Additionally, CO2, a byproduct of microbial growth, can dissolve in food products, forming carbonic acid that further reduces the pH. | Synthetic pH-sensitive dyes (e.g., bromocresol green, methyl red) |
| O2 | O2 in the package headspace can initiate undesirable chemical reactions in numerous foods, especially fresh and highly perishable foods. | Smart technologies include O2 scavengers (to maintain low O2 levels inside the package), O2 luminescence-based indicators, and colorimetric redox sensors that display color changes to signal when O2 levels exceed safe limits. |
| CO2 | High levels of CO2, produced during the respiration of fresh produce or through modified atmosphere packaging, can adversely affect food quality and packaging integrity. | Luminescent dyes (e.g., 8-hydroxypyrene-1,3,5-trisulfonic acid in polymeric films) offer high sensitivity but they do not come in contact with the foods, being unsuitable for consumer use. |
| N2 | Animal-derived foods are highly susceptible to the growth of pathogenic microorganisms, which can lead to the formation of biogenic amines, posing a potential safety risk to human health. The total volatile basic nitrogen level (TVB-N) is commonly used as an indicator of spoilage and the production of harmful biogenic amines. | A rapid wireless sensor based on a hydrogel-coated pH-electrode, sensitive to volatile amine levels, provides a highly sensitive response to spoilage. |
| C2H4 | Ethylene, a volatile plant hormone, released by fruits and vegetables during ripening, can accelerate the ripening process in both climacteric and non-climacteric produce. This leads to reduced shelf life and affects post-harvest storage and marketing. | Smart technologies incorporate C2H4 scavengers (to maintain low C2H4 levels inside the package) and C2H4 nanotechnology sensors, which can alert consumers to the ripening stage of fruits and vegetables, facilitating timely consumption. |
| H2S | Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a volatile produced during enzymatic hydrolysis of sulfur-containing amino acids (e.g., cysteine, homocysteine, and methionine), is a reliable marker for assessing meat freshness. | Colorimetric sensors based on gellan gum-capped silver nanoparticles |
| Humidity | Excessive humidity in packaged foods can promote bacterial and fungal growth, degrading nutritional and sensory qualities. Conversely, low humidity levels may cause food dehydration and reduce shelf life. | Wireless humidity sensors, consisting of a planar inductor and capacitor on a paper substrate, can be easily integrated into packaging. However, substrate moisture absorption can alter capacitance. |
| Temperature | Temperature fluctuations can significantly affect food stability, particularly in refrigerated and frozen products. Temperature abuse can degrade food texture and promote the growth of psychrotrophic bacteria. | Devices in direct contact with food, such as thermochromic inks or sensors, alert consumers and supply chain stakeholders when products are exposed to unfavorable temperatures, helping prevent the sale or consumption of spoiled items. |
References
1. Cui, C.L.; Gao, L.; Dai, L.; Ji, N.; Qin, Y.; Shi, R.; Qiao, Y.; Xiong, L.; Sun, Q. Hydrophobic biopolymer-based films: Strategies, properties, and food applications. Food Eng. Rev.; 2023; 15, pp. 360-379. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12393-023-09342-6]
2. Duda-Chodak, A.; Tarko, T.; Petka-Poniatowska, K. Antimicrobial Compounds in Food Packaging. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2023; 24, 2457. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms24032457] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36768788]
3. Fadiji, T.; Rashvand, M.; Daramola, M.O.; Iwarere, S.A. A Review on Antimicrobial Packaging for Extending the Shelf Life of Food. Processes; 2023; 11, 590. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pr11020590]
4. Hong, S.J.; Riahi, Z.; Shin, G.H.; Kim, J.T. Pseudomonas aeruginosa-derived carbon dots doped with sulfur as active packaging materials for fresh food preservation. Food Biosci.; 2024; 57, 103506. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2023.103506]
5. Sarfraz, M.H.; Hayat, S.; Siddique, M.H.; Aslam, B.; Ashraf, A.; Saqalein, M.; Khurshid, M.; Sarfraz, M.F.; Afzal, M.; Muzammil, S. Chitosan based coatings and films: A perspective on antimicrobial, antioxidant, and intelligent food packaging. Prog. Org. Coat.; 2024; 188, 108235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.porgcoat.2024.108235]
6. Stoica, D.; Alexe, P.; Ivan, A.S.; Moraru, D.I.; Ungureanu, C.V.; Stanciu, S.; Stoica, M. Biopolymers: Global Carbon Footprint and Climate Change. Biopolymers: Recent Updates, Challenges and Opportunities; Nadda, A.K.; Sharma, S.; Bhat, R. Springer Series on Polymer and Composite Materials; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 35-54.
7. Stoica, D.; Alexe, P.; Ivan, A.S.; Stanciu, S.; Tatu, D.M.; Stoica, M. Bioplastics from Biomass. Biopolymers: Recent Updates, Challenges and Opportunities; Nadda, A.K.; Sharma, S.; Bhat, R. Springer Series on Polymer and Composite Materials; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 353-372.
8. Stoica, M. Biodegradable Nanomaterials for Drink Packaging. Nanotechnology in the Beverage Industry: Fundamentals and Applications; Abdeltif, A.; Ranjendran, S.; Nguyen, T.A.; Assadi, A.; MahdySharoba, A. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 609-632.
9. Yan, M.R.; Hsieh, S.; Ricacho, N. Innovative Food Packaging, Food Quality and Safety, and Consumer Perspectives. Processes; 2022; 10, 747. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pr10040747]
10. Vain, C. Sustainable Food Packaging. 2023; Available online: https://cpdonline.co.uk/knowledge-base/food-hygiene/sustainable-food-packaging/ (accessed on 10 August 2024).
11. Zhang, Y.; Min, T.; Zhao, Y.; Cheng, C.; Yin, H.; Yue, J. The developments and trends of electrospinning active food packaging: A review and bibliometrics analysis. Food Control; 2024; 160, 110291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2024.110291]
12. Bonnenfant, C.; Gontard, N.; Aouf, C. PHBV-based polymers as food packaging: Physical-chemical and structural stability under reuse conditions. Polymer; 2023; 270, 125784. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2023.125784]
13. Boone, L.; Préat, N.; Nhu, T.T.; Fiordelisi, F.; Guillard, V.; Blanckaert, M.; Dewulf, J. Environmental performance of plastic food packaging: Life cycle assessment extended with costs on marine ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ.; 2023; 894, 164781. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164781]
14. Golmakani, M.T.; Kiani, F.; Hajjari, M.M.; Sharif, N.; Fazaeli, M.; Hosseini, S.M.H. Electrospun zein incorporating phycocyanin and Spirulina extract: Fabrication, characterization, and potential application. LWT; 2023; 188, 115408. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2023.115408]
15. Majumder, S.; Huang, S.; Zhou, J.; Wang, Y.; George, S. Tannic acid-loaded halloysite clay grafted with silver nanoparticles enhanced the mechanical and antimicrobial properties of soy protein isolate films for food-packaging applications. Food Packag. Shelf Life; 2023; 39, 101142. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2023.101142]
16. Mehrabian, M.; Kargari, A. Bio-based nonporous membranes: Evolution and benchmarking review. J. Ind. Eng. Chem.; 2023; 124, pp. 17-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2023.04.018]
17. Stoica, M.; Antohi, V.M.; Sorici, M.; Stoica, D. The financial impact of replacing plastic packaging by biodegradable biopolymers—A smart solution for the food industry. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 277, 124013. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124013]
18. Stoica, M.; Dima, C.V.; Alexe, P. Eco-Friendly Nanocomposites from Bacterial Cellulose and Biopolyesters as a Sustainable Alternative for Food Plastic Packaging. Food Packaging and Preservation: Techniques, Applications and Technology; Galaz, A.D.; Bailey, D.S. Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 113-127.
19. Zhang, M.; Yang, B.; Yuan, Z.; Sheng, Q.; Jin, C.; Qi, J.; Yu, M.; Liu, Y.; Xiong, G. Preparation and performance testing of corn starch/pullulan/gallic acid multicomponent composite films for active food packaging. Food Chem.; 2023; 19, 100782. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2023.100782] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37780268]
20. Zhao, Q.; Fan, L.; Li, J.; Zhong, S. Pickering emulsions stabilized by biopolymer-based nanoparticles or hybrid particles for the development of food packaging films: A review. Food Hydrocoll.; 2024; 146, 109185. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.109185]
21. Cammarelle, A.; Viscecchia, R.; Bimbo, F. Intention to Purchase Active and Intelligent Packaging to Reduce Household Food Waste: Evidence from Italian Consumers. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 4486. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13084486]
22. Plastics Use for Packaging Worldwide in 2019 with Projections to 2060. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1342657/plastic-packaging-consumption-worldwide-outlook/ (accessed on 10 August 2024).
23. Bhaskar, R.; Zo, S.M.; Narayanan, K.B.; Purohit, S.D.; Gupta, M.K.; Han, S.S. Recent development of protein-based biopolymers in food packaging applications: A review. Polym. Test.; 2023; 124, 108097. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2023.108097]
24. Khan, A.; Riahi, Z.; Kim, J.T.; Rhim, J.-W. Chitosan/gelatin-based multifunctional films integrated with sulfur-functionalized chitin for active packaging applications. Food Hydrocoll.; 2024; 149, 109537. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.109537]
25. Jiao, H.; Ali, S.S.; Alsharbaty, M.H.M.; Elsamahy, T.; Abdelkarim, E.; Schagerl, M.; Al-Tohamy, R.; Sun, J. A critical review on plastic waste life cycle assessment and management: Challenges, research gaps, and future perspectives. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.; 2024; 271, 115942. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2024.115942]
26. ECHA. 2018; Available online: https://echa.europa.eu/ro/-/echa-to-consider-restrictions-on-the-use-of-oxo-plastics-and-microplasti-1 (accessed on 11 August 2024).
27. Hadimani, S.; Supriya, D.; Roopa, K.; Soujanya, S.K.; Rakshata, V.; Netravati, A.; Akshayakumar, V.; De Britto, S.; Jogaiah, S. Biodegradable hybrid biopolymer film based on carboxy methyl cellulose and selenium nanoparticles with antifungal properties to enhance grapes shelf life. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2023; 237, 124076. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.124076]
28. Zhang, W.; Roy, S.; Assadpour, E.; Cong, X.; Jafari, S.M. Cross-linked biopolymeric films by citric acid for food packaging and preservation. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.; 2023; 314, 102886. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2023.102886] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37002960]
29. Upadhyay, A.; Agbesi, P.; Arafat, K.M.Y.; Urdaneta, F.; Dey, M.; Basak, M.; Hong, S.; Umeileka, C.; Argyropoulos, D. Bio-based smart packaging: Fundamentals and functions in sustainable food systems. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2024; 145, 104369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2024.104369]
30. De Sousa, M.S.; Schlogl, A.E.; Estanislau, F.R.; Souza, V.G.L.; dos Reis Coimbra, J.S.; Santos, I.J.B. Nanotechnology in Packaging for Food Industry: Past, Present, and Future. Coatings; 2023; 13, 1411. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/coatings13081411]
31. Xue, W.H.; Zhu, J.X.; Sun, P.D.; Yang, F.M.; Wu, H.; Li, W.X. Permeability of biodegradable film comprising biopolymers derived from marine origin for food packaging application: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2023; 136, pp. 295-307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2023.05.001]
32. Kola, V.; Carvalho, I.S. Plant extracts as additives in biodegradable films and coatings in active food packaging. Food Biosci.; 2023; 54, 102860. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2023.102860]
33. Ray, S. Sensory Properties of Foods and Their Measurement Methods. Techniques to Measure Food Safety and Quality; Khan, M.S.; Shafiur Rahman, M. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 345-381.
34. Khandeparkar, A.S.; Paul, R.; Sridhar, A.; Lakshmaiah, V.V.; Nagella, P. Eco-friendly innovations in food packaging: A sustainable revolution. Sustain. Chem. Pharm.; 2024; 39, 101579. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2024.101579]
35. Matthes, J.; Schmid, M. Biogenic raw materials from food waste and by-products for smart packaging applications. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem.; 2024; 46, 100894. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2024.100894]
36. Smart Packaging: Challenges, Opportunities, Types, and Benefits in 2024. Available online: https://www.designnbuy.com/blog/smart-packaging-challenges-opportunities-types-benefits/ (accessed on 11 August 2024).
37. Dutta, D.; Sit, N. Comprehensive review on developments in starch-based films along with active ingredients for sustainable food packaging. Sustain. Chem. Pharm.; 2024; 39, 101534. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2024.101534]
38. Loučanová, E.; Parobek, J.; Nosáľová, M. The Perception of Intelligent Packaging Innovation: The Latest Process and Technological Progress. Food Processing and Packaging Technologies—Recent Advances; Tumuluru, J.S. IntechOpen: London, UK, 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107461]
39. Tregnago Cunha, K.C.; Mazieri, M.R. Intelligent packaging and value generating: Technological development opportunities based on Patent Analysis. World Pat. Inf.; 2024; 76, 102258. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2023.102258]
40. Venezia, V.; Prieto, C.; Verrillo, M.; Grumi, M.; Silvestri, B.; Vitiello, G.; Luciani, G.; Lagaron, J.M. Electrospun films incorporating humic substances of application interest in sustainable active food packaging. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2024; 263, 130210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.130210]
41. Aydın, A.; Yüceer, M.; Ulugergerli, E.U.; Caner, C. Improving food security as disaster relief using intermediate moisture foods and active packaging technologies. Appl. Food Res.; 2024; 4, 100378. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.afres.2023.100378]
42. De Oliveira Filho, J.G.; Romanelli Vicente Bertolo, M.; Santos Fernandes, S.; Lemes, A.I.; da Cruz Silva, G.; Bogusz Junior, S.; Monteiro Cordeiro de Azeredo, M.; Capparelli Mattoso, L.H.; Buranelo Egea, M. Intelligent and active biodegradable biopolymeric films containing carotenoids. Food Chem.; 2024; 434, 137454. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.137454]
43. Fu, X.; Chang, X.; Xu, S.; Xu, H.; Ge, S.; Xie, Y.; Wang, R.; Xu, Y.; Luo, Z.; Shan, Y. et al. Development of a chitosan/pectin-based multi-active food packaging with both UV and microbial defense functions for effectively preserving of strawberry. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2024; 254, 127968. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.127968] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37944717]
44. Gupta, P. Role of oxygen absorbers in food as packaging material, their characterization and applications. J. Food Sci. Technol.; 2024; 61, pp. 242-252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-023-05681-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36785798]
45. Jiang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Deng, Y. Latest Advances in Active Materials for Food Packaging and Their Application. Foods; 2023; 12, 4055. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods12224055] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38002113]
46. Lopez-Gomez, A.; Navarro-Martínez, A.; Martínez-Hernandez, G.B. Effects of essential oils released from active packaging on the antioxidant system and quality of lemons during cold storage and commercialization. Sci. Hortic.; 2023; 312, 111855. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2023.111855]
47. Nasution, H.; Harahap, H.; Julianti, E.; Safitri, A.; Jaafar, M. Properties of active packaging of PLA-PCL film integrated with chitosan as an antibacterial agent and syzygium cumini seed extract as an antioxidant agent. Heliyon; 2024; 10, e23952. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23952]
48. Vasile, C.; Baican, M. Progresses in Food Packaging, Food Quality, and Safety—Controlled-Release Antioxidant and/or Antimicrobial Packaging. Molecules; 2021; 26, 1263. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules26051263]
49. Wyrwa, J.; Barska, A. Innovations in the food packaging market: Active packaging. Eur. Food Res. Technol.; 2017; 243, pp. 1681-1692. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00217-017-2878-2]
50. Young, E.; Mirosa, M.; Bremer, P. A conceptual model for food industry views on the commercialisation of active and intelligent packaging. Packag. Technol. Sci.; 2023; 36, pp. 905-925. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pts.2766]
51. GLOPACK Granting Society with Low Environmental Impact Innovative Packaging. 2021; Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/773375/reporting (accessed on 11 August 2024).
52. Hirth, S.; Boons, F.; Doherty, B. Unpacking food to go: Packaging and food waste of on the go provisioning practices in the UK. Geoforum; 2021; 126, pp. 115-125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.07.022]
53. O’Callaghan, K.A.M.; Kerry, J.P. Consumer attitudes towards the application of smart packaging technologies to cheese products. Food Packag. Shelf Life; 2016; 9, pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2016.05.001]
54. Young, E.M.M. A Systematic Review of Consumer Perceptions of Smart Packaging Technologies for Food. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.; 2020; 4, pp. 1-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00063]
55. Chu, Y.; Popovich, C.; Wang, Y. Heat sealable regenerated cellulose films enabled by zein coating for sustainable food packaging. Compos. C Open Access; 2023; 12, 100390. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomc.2023.100390]
56. Mostafa, H.; Airouyuwaa, J.O.; Hamed, F.; Wang, Y.; Maqsood, S. Structural, mechanical, antioxidant and antibacterial properties of soy protein isolate (SPI)-based edible food packaging films as influenced by nanocellulose (NC) and green extracted phenolic compounds from date palm leaves. Food Packag. Shelf Life; 2023; 38, 101124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2023.101124]
57. Perera, K.Y.; Jaiswal, A.K.; Jaiswal, S. Biopolymer-Based Sustainable Food Packaging Materials: Challenges, Solutions, and Applications. Foods; 2023; 12, 2422. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods12122422]
58. Singh, A.K.; Lee, M.; Jang, D.; Lee, Y.S. Non-conventional starch nanoparticles: Novel avenues towards improving sustainability of the food packaging sector. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2024; 143, 104273. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2023.104273]
59. Zhang, H.; Jin, C.; Lv, S.; Ren, F.; Wang, J. Study on electrospinning of wheat gluten: A review. Food Res. Int.; 2023; 169, 112851. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2023.112851]
60. Babaremu, K.; Oladijo, O.P.; Akinlabi, E. Biopolymers: A suitable replacement for plastics in product packaging. Adv. Ind. Eng. Polym. Res.; 2023; 6, pp. 333-340. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2023.01.001]
61. Oluba, O.M.; Edeh, D.A.; Ojeaburu, S.I.; Bayo-Olorunmeke, O.A.; Josiah, S.J. Physicochemical and thermal characterization and antioxidant property of chicken feather keratin and ginger starch hybrid nanocomposite film. Carbohydr. Polym.; 2023; 6, 100368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carpta.2023.100368]
62. Wang, C.; Gong, C.; Qin, Y.; Hu, Y.; Jiao, A.; Jin, Z.; Qiu, C.; Wang, J. Bioactive and functional biodegradable packaging films reinforced with nanoparticles. J. Food Eng.; 2022; 312, 110752. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2021.110752]
63. Pan, F.; Li, J.; Zhao, L.; Tuersuntuoheti, T.; Mehmood, A.; Zhou, N.; Hao, S.; Wang, C.; Guo, Y.; Lin, W. A molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation study on the interaction between cyanidin-3-O-glucoside and major proteins in cow’s milk. J. Food Biochem.; 2021; 45, e13570. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfbc.13570] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33222207]
64. RCSB PDB 1F6S. Available online: https://www.rcsb.org/structure/1f6s (accessed on 6 September 2024).
65. RCSB PDB 1BEB. Available online: https://www.rcsb.org/structure/1beb (accessed on 6 September 2024).
66. RCSB PDB 1CAG. Available online: https://www.rcsb.org/structure/1CAG (accessed on 6 September 2024).
67. Shayegan, M.; Javanshir Rezaei, N.; Lam, N.H.; Forde, N. Probing multiscale mechanics of collagen with optical tweezers. Proceedings of the SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering; San Diego, CA, USA, 27 August 2013; Volume 8810, 88101P. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.2027258]
68. Enzymatic Modification of Native Chitin and Conversion to Specialty Chemical Products. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338947208 (accessed on 11 August 2024).
69. Tahoun, M.; Engeser, M.; Namasivayam, V.; Sander, P.M.; Müller, C.E. Chemistry and Analysis of Organic Compounds in Dinosaurs. Biology; 2022; 11, 670. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biology11050670] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35625398]
70. RCSB PDB 1GK4. Available online: https://www.rcsb.org/structure/1gk4 (accessed on 6 September 2024).
71. Harter, C. Gluten and Wheat. Gluten Sensitivity. Essentials; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-32657-9_2]
72. Bold, J. Gluten and its main food sources and other components of grains that impact on health. Gluten Related Disorders; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 33-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821846-4.00007-3]
73. Yan, M.R.; Hsieh, S.; Ricacho, N. Developing Protein-Based Plastics. ACS Symp. Ser.; 2014; 1178, pp. 357-370.
74. RCSB PDB 1FXZ. Available online: https://www.rcsb.org/structure/1fxz (accessed on 6 September 2024).
75. Available online: https://www.shutterstock.com/ro/search/starch-molecule (accessed on 6 September 2024).
76. Tivano, F.; Chiono, V. Zein as a Renewable Material for the Preparation of Green Nanoparticles for Drug Delivery. Front. Biomater. Sci.; 2023; 2, 1156403. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbiom.2023.1156403]
77. Microbial Degradation of Cellulose (Enzymes, Steps, Mechanisms). Available online: https://microbenotes.com/microbial-degradation-of-cellulose/ (accessed on 11 August 2024).
78. Wanchao, H.; Anne-Marie, C.; Dragos, C. Pectin in Metabolic Liver Disease. Nutrients; 2023; 15, 157.
79. Donati, I.; Christensen, B.E. Alginate-metal cation interactions: Macromolecular approach. Carbohydr. Polym.; 2023; 321, 121280. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2023.121280]
80. Łabowska, M.B.; Cierluk, K.; Jankowska, A.M.; Kulbacka, J.; Detyna, J.; Michalak, I. A Review on the Adaption of Alginate-Gelatin Hydrogels for 3D Cultures and Bioprinting. Materials; 2021; 14, 858. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma14040858]
81. Xu, P.; Zhang, S.Y.; Luo, Z.G.; Zong, M.H.; Li, X.X.; Lou, W.Y. Biotechnology and bioengineering of pullulanase: State of the art and perspectives. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.; 2021; 37, 43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11274-021-03010-9]
82. Jiménez-Pérez, C.; Roldán-Hernández, L.; Cruz-Guerrero, A.; Trant, J.F.; Alatorre-Santamaría, S. Insights on the Interaction between Kefiran and Whey Proteins Using Computational Analyses. Chem. Proc.; 2023; 14, 47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ecsoc-27-16128]
83. Garavand, F.; Cacciotti, I.; Vahedikia, N.; Rehman, A.; Tarhan, Ö.; Akbari-Alavijeh, S.; Shaddel, R.; Rashidinejad, A.; Nejatian, M.; Jafarzadeh, S. et al. A comprehensive review on the nanocomposites loaded with chitosan nanoparticles for food packaging. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2022; 62, pp. 1383-1416. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1843133] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33153290]
84. Wang, Y.; Wusigale,; Luo, Y. Colloidal nanoparticles prepared from zein and casein: Interactions, characterizations and emerging food applications. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness; 2023; 12, pp. 337-350. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fshw.2022.07.036]
85. Riseh, R.S.; Vazvani, M.G.; Hassanisaadi, M.; Thakur, V.K.; Kennedy, J.F. Use of whey protein as a natural polymer for the encapsulation of plant biocontrol bacteria: A review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2023; 234, 123708.
86. Assanvo, E.F.; Nagaraj, S.; Boa, D.; Thanikaivelan, P. Hybrid collagen–cellulose–Fe₃O₄@TiO₂ magnetic bio-sponges derived from animal skin waste and Kenaf fibers for wastewater remediation. Sci. Rep.; 2023; 13, 13365. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40520-y]
87. Irastorza, A.; Zarandona, I.; Andonegi, M.; Guerrero, P.; de la Caba, K. The versatility of collagen and chitosan: From food to biomedical applications. Food Hydrocoll.; 2021; 116, 106633. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.106633]
88. Liu, F.; Zhu, K.; Ma, Y.; Yu, Z.; Chiou, B.; Jia, M.; Chen, M.; Zhong, F. Collagen films with improved wet state mechanical properties by mineralization. Food Hydrocoll.; 2023; 139, 108579. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.108579]
89. Tian, X.; Zhao, K.X.; Teng, A.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y. A rethinking of collagen as tough biomaterials in meat packaging: Assembly from native to synthetic. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2022; 23, pp. 1-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2111401]
90. Zheng, T.; Tang, P.; Yang, C.; Ran, R.; Li, G. Development of active packaging films based on collagen/gallic acid-grafted chitosan incorporating with ε-polylysine for pork preservation. Food Hydrocoll.; 2023; 140, 108590. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.108590]
91. Blázquez-Carmona, P.; Sanz-Herrera, J.A.; Mora-Macías, J.; Morgaz, J.; Domínguez, J.; Reina-Romo, E. Time-Dependent Collagen Fibered Structure in the Early Distraction Callus: Imaging Characterization and Mathematical Modeling. Ann. Biomed. Eng.; 2022; 50, pp. 1798-1809. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10439-022-02992-3]
92. Chen, Q.; Pei, Y.; Tang, K.; Albu Kaya, M.G. Structure, extraction, processing, and applications of collagen as an ideal component for biomaterials—A review. Collagen Leather; 2023; 5, 20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42825-023-00127-5]
93. Jiang, Y.; Lan, W.T.; Sameen, D.E.; Ahmed, S.; Qin, W.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, H.; Dai, J.W.; He, L.; Liu, Y.W. Preparation and characterization of grass carp collagen-chitosan-lemon essential oil composite films for application as food packaging. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2020; 160, pp. 340-351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.05.202] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32470587]
94. Matinong, A.M.E.; Chisti, Y.; Pickering, K.L.; Haverkamp, R.G. Collagen Extraction from Animal Skin. Biology; 2022; 11, 905. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biology11060905] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35741426]
95. Rajabimashhadi, Z.; Gallo, N.; Salvatore, L.; Lionetto, F. Collagen Derived from Fish Industry Waste: Progresses and Challenges. Polymers; 2023; 15, 544. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym15030544] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36771844]
96. Sehgal, R.; Sharma, V.; Gupta, R. Biobased Materials in Food Packaging. Advanced Applications of Biobased Materials; Ahmed, S. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 147-172.
97. Tapia-Blacido, D.R.; Garcia, A.L.; Beitum, L.R.; Zitei-Baptista, L.F.; Aguilar, P.F. Use of Biobased Materials from Agro-Industrial Residues in Food Packaging. Advanced Applications of Biobased Materials; Ahmed, S. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 173-229.
98. Rather, A.; Akhter, N.; Ashraf, Q.S.; Mir, H.A.; Makroo, S.A.; Majid, D.; Barba, F.J.; Khaneghah, A.M.; Dar, B.N. A comprehensive review on gelatin: Understanding impact of the sources, extraction methods, and modifications on potential packaging applications. Food Packag. Shelf Life; 2022; 34, 100945. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2022.100945]
99. Ahmed, M.W.; Haque, M.A.; Mohibbullah, M.; Khan, M.S.I.; Islam, M.A.; Mondal, M.H.T.; Ahmmed, R. A review on active packaging for quality and safety of foods: Current trends, applications, prospects and challenges. Food Packag. Shelf Life; 2022; 33, 100913. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2022.100913]
100. Dede, S.; Sadak, O.; Didin, M.; Gunasekaran, S. Antimicrobial food packaging application of angelica root (Angelica sylvestris) oil-loaded electrospun biofibers. Food Packag. Shelf Life; 2023; 35, 101035. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2023.101035]
101. Gorrasi, G.; Bugatti, V.; Viscusi, G.; Vittoria, V. Physical and Barrier Properties of Chemically Modified Pectin with Polycaprolactone through an Environmentally Friendly Process. Colloid Polym. Sci.; 2021; 299, pp. 429-437. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00396-020-04699-0]
102. İnan-Çınkır, N.; Ağcam, E.; Altay, F.; Akyıldız, A. Emulsion electrospinning of zein or gelatin-pectin with carotenoid from watermelon. Food Chem. Adv.; 2023; 3, 100346. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.focha.2023.100346]
103. Lu, Y.; Luo, Q.; Chu, Y.; Tao, N.; Deng, S.; Wang, L.; Li, L. Application of Gelatin in Food Packaging: A Review. Polymers; 2022; 14, 436. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym14030436]
104. Nilsuwan, K.; Guerrero, P.; de la Caba, K.; Benjakul, S.; Prodpran, T. Fish gelatin films laminated with emulsified gelatin film or poly(lactic) acid film: Properties and their use as bags for storage of fried salmon skin. Food Hydrocoll.; 2021; 111, 106199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.106199]
105. Riahi, Z.; Priyadarshi, R.; Rhim, J.W.; Bagheri, R. Gelatin-based functional films integrated with grapefruit seed extract and TiO₂ for active food packaging applications. Food Hydrocoll.; 2021; 112, 106314. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.106314]
106. Alimi, B.A.; Pathania, S.; Wilson, J.; Duffy, B.; Frias, J.M.C. Extraction, quantification, characterization, and application in food packaging of chitin and chitosan from mushrooms: A review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2023; 237, 124195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.124195] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36972819]
107. Donkor, L.; Kontoh, G.; Yaya, A.; Bediako, J.K.; Apalangya, V. Bio-based and sustainable food packaging systems: Relevance, challenges, and prospects. Appl. Food Res.; 2023; 3, 100356. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.afres.2023.100356]
108. Hernández-Téllez, C.N.; Luque-Alcaraz, A.G.; Núñez-Mexía, S.A.; Cortez-Rocha, M.O.; Lizardi-Mendoza, J.; Rosas-Burgos, E.C.; Rosas-Durazo, A.D.J.; Parra-Vergara, N.V.; Plascencia-Jatomea, M. Relationship between the Antifungal Activity of Chitosan–Capsaicin Nanoparticles and the Oxidative Stress Response on Aspergillus parasiticus. Polymers; 2022; 14, 2774. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym14142774]
109. Hisham, F.; Akmal, M.H.M.; Ahmad, F.; Ahmad, K.; Samat, N.; Shams, A. Biopolymer Chitosan: Potential Sources, Extraction Methods, and Emerging Applications. Eng. J.; 2024; 15, 102424. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2023.102424]
110. Khatami, N.; Guerrero, P.; Martín, P.; Quintela, E.; Ramos, V.; Saa, L.; Cortajarena, A.L.; de la Caba, K.; Camarero-Espinosa, S.; Abarrategi, A. Valorization of Biological Waste from Insect-Based Food Industry: Assessment of Chitin and Chitosan Potential. Carbohydr. Polym.; 2024; 324, 121529. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2023.121529]
111. Liyanapathiranage, A.; Dassanayake, R.S.; Gamage, A.; Karri, R.R.; Manamperi, A.; Evon, P.; Jayakodi, Y.; Madhujith, T.; Merah, O. Recent Developments in Edible Films and Coatings for Fruits and Vegetables. Coatings; 2023; 13, 1177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/coatings13071177]
112. Piekarska, K.; Sikora, M.; Owczarek, M.; Józwik-Pruska, J.; Wiśniewska-Wrona, M. Chitin and Chitosan as Polymers of the Future—Obtaining, Modification, Life Cycle Assessment and Main Directions of Application. Polymers; 2023; 15, 793. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym15040793]
113. Caruso, M.R.; Cavallaro, G.; Milioto, S.; Lazzara, G. Halloysite Nanotubes/Keratin Composites for Wool Treatment. Appl. Clay Sci.; 2023; 238, 106930.
114. Mora-Maldonado, E.; Estrada-Monje, A.; Guzmán, R.Z.; Baldenegro-Pérez, L.; Rodríguez Sánchez, I.; Zaragoza-Contreras, E.A. Effect of a Keratin Coupling Agent on the Mechanical Properties of a Bovine Hair-Thermoplastic Starch Composite. Mater. Chem. Phys.; 2023; 308, 128266.
115. Polesca, C.; Ghatta, A.A.; Passos, H.; Coutinho, J.A.P.; Hallett, J.P.; Freire, M.G. Sustainable Keratin Recovery Process Using a Bio-Based Ionic Liquid Aqueous Solution and Its Techno-Economic Assessment. Green Chem.; 2023; 25, 3995. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D3GC00850A]
116. Senthilkumar, N.; Chowdhury, S.; Sanpui, P. Extraction of Keratin from Keratinous Wastes: Current Status and Future Directions. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.; 2023; 25, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-022-01492-9]
117. Shah, S.W.A.; Ma, K.; Ullah, R.; Ali, E.A.; Qayum, A.; Zahoor, U.; Uddin, N.; Zhu, D. Laccase and Dye-Decolorizing Peroxidase-Modified Lignin Incorporated with Keratin-Based Biodegradable Film: An Elucidation of Structural Characterization, Antibacterial, and Antioxidant Properties. Food Chem.; 2023; 20, 101035.
118. Wang, L.; Shang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Yuan, J.; Shen, J. Historical Perspective and Recent Advances in Keratin for Biomedical Applications. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.; 2023; 321, 103012. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2023.103012] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37837703]
119. Linares-Castañeda, A.; Franco-Hernández, M.O.; Gómez, Y.; Gómez, Y.L.M.; Corzo-Rios, L.J. Physical Properties of Zein-Alginate-Glycerol Edible Films and Their Application in the Preservation of Chili Peppers (Capsicum annuum L.). Food Sci. Biotechnol.; 2023; 33, pp. 889-902. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10068-023-01393-z]
120. Rezaei, M.; Pirsa, S.; Chavoshizadeh, S. Photocatalytic/Antimicrobial Active Film Based on Wheat Gluten/ZnO Nanoparticles. J. Inorg. Organomet. Polym.; 2020; 30, pp. 2654-2665. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10904-019-01407-6]
121. Sharma, T.; Kaur, G.; Singh, A.; Kaur, P.; Dar, B.N.; Kaur, A. An Emerging Sustainable Approach for Development and Characterization of Gluten-Based Nanocomposite Films Reinforced with Starch Nanocrystals in Conjunction with Chitosan. Sustain. Chem. Pharm.; 2023; 36, 101338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2023.101338]
122. Adilah, Z.A.M.; Jamilah, B.; Hanani, Z.A.N. Storage Stability of Mayonnaise Packaged in Soy Protein Isolate Films Incorporated with Mango Kernel Extract. Food Packag. Shelf Life; 2023; 40, 101216. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2023.101216]
123. Dong, Y.; Lan, T.; Wang, L.; Wang, X.; Xu, Z.; Jiang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Sui, X. Development of Composite Electrospun Films Utilizing Soy Protein Amyloid Fibrils and Pullulan for Food Packaging Applications. Food Chem.; 2023; 20, 100995. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2023.100995]
124. Maroufi, L.Y.; Shahabi, N.; Fallah, A.A.; Mahmoudi, E.; Al-Musawi, M.H.; Ghorbani, M. Soy Protein Isolate/Kappa-Carrageenan/Cellulose Nanofibrils Composite Film Incorporated with Zein Essential Oil-Loaded MOFs for Food Packaging. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2023; 250, 126176.
125. Shahabi, N.; Soleimani, S.; Ghorbani, M. Investigating Functional Properties of Halloysite Nanotubes and Propolis Used in Reinforced Composite Film Based on Soy Protein/Basil Seed Gum for Food Packaging Application. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2023; 231, 123350. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.123350] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36681220]
126. Zhang, L.; Wu, J.; Shen, Z.; Hongtao, Z.; Xiaobei, Z. Arginine-Carboxylated Pullulan, a Potential Antibacterial Material for Food Packaging. Biomater. Adv.; 2023; 154, 213584. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bioadv.2023.213584] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37639855]
127. Aghababaei, F.; McClements, D.J.; Martinez, M.M.; Hadidi, M. Electrospun Plant Protein-Based Nanofibers in Food Packaging. Food Chem.; 2024; 432, 137236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.137236] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37657333]
128. Yu, W.; Guo, J.; Liu, Y.; Xue, X.; Wang, X.; Wei, L.; Mao, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhuo, Y.; Li, S. et al. Fabrication of Novel Electrospun Zein/Polyethylene Oxide Film Incorporating Nisin for Antimicrobial Packaging. LWT; 2023; 185, 115176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2023.115176]
129. Amini, E.; Valls, C.; Roncero, M.B. Promising Nanocomposites for Food Packaging Based on Cellulose–PCL Films Reinforced by Using ZnO Nanoparticles in an Ionic Liquid. Ind. Crops Prod.; 2023; 193, 116246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116246]
130. Huang, K.; Maltais, A.; Wang, Y. Enhancing Water Resistance of Regenerated Cellulose Films with Organosilanes and Cellulose Nanocrystals for Food Packaging. Carbohydr. Polym.; 2023; 6, 100391. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carpta.2023.100391]
131. Jang, E.J.; Padhan, B.; Patel, M.; Pandey, J.K.; Xu, B.; Patel, K. Antibacterial and Biodegradable Food Packaging Film from Bacterial Cellulose. Food Control; 2023; 153, 109902. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.109902]
132. Mejía-Jaramillo, A.M.; Gomez-Hoyos, C.; Gutierrez, A.I.C.; Correa-Hincapie, N.; Gallego, R.Z.; Triana-Chavez, O. Tackling the Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Cellulose Nanofibers from the Banana Rachis: A New Food Packaging Alternative. Heliyon; 2023; 9, 21560. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21560]
133. Oliviero, M.; Lamberti, E.; Cafiero, L.; Pace, B.; Cefola, M.; Gorrasi, G.; Sambandam, A.; Sorrentino, A. Biodegradable Cellulose Acetate/Layered Double-Hydroxide Composite Film for Active Packaging of Fresh Food. Mater. Chem. Phys.; 2023; 310, 128469. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2023.128469]
134. Chandel, V.; Biswas, D.; Roy, S.; Vaidya, D.; Verma, A.; Gupta, A. Current Advancements in Pectin: Extraction, Properties and Multifunctional Applications. Foods; 2022; 11, 2683. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods11172683]
135. Kumar, S.; Reddy, A.R.L.; Basumatary, I.B.; Nayak, A.; Dutta, D.; Konwar, J.; Purkayastha, M.D.; Mukherjee, A. Recent Progress in Pectin Extraction and Their Applications in Developing Films and Coatings for Sustainable Food Packaging: A Review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2023; 239, 124281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.124281] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37001777]
136. Roy, S.; Priyadarshi, R.; Łopusiewicz, L.; Biswas, D.; Chandel, V.; Rhim, J.W. Recent Progress in Pectin Extraction, Characterization, and Pectin-Based Films for Active Food Packaging Applications: A Review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2023; 239, 124248. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.124248] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37003387]
137. Abka-Khajouei, R.; Tounsi, L.; Shahabi, N.; Patel, A.K.; Abdelkafi, S.; Michaud, P. Structures, Properties and Applications of Alginates. Mar. Drugs; 2022; 20, 364. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/md20060364] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35736167]
138. Mao, L.; Zuo, J.; Liu, Y.; Zheng, B.; Dai, X.; Bai, Z.; Liu, Y.; Yao, J. Alginate-Based Films Integrated with Nitrogen-Functionalized Carbon Dots and Layered Clay for Active Food Packaging Applications. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2023; 253, 126653. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.126653]
139. Nath, P.C.; Sharma, R.; Debnath, S.; Sharma, M.; Inbaraj, B.S.; Dikkala, P.K.; Nayak, P.K.; Sridhar, K. Recent Trends in Polysaccharide-Based Biodegradable Polymers for Smart Food Packaging Industry. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2023; 253, 127524. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.127524]
140. Ureña, M.; Carullo, D.; Thanh, T.; Phùng, T.; Fournier, P.; Farris, S.; Lagorce, A.; Karbowiak, T. Effect of Polymer Structure on the Functional Properties of Alginate for Film or Coating Applications. Food Hydrocoll.; 2024; 149, 109557. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.109557]
141. Yan, P.; Lan, W.; Xie, J. Modification on Sodium Alginate for Food Preservation: A Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2024; 143, 104217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2023.104217]
142. Ertan, K.; Celebioglu, A.; Chowdhury, R.; Sumnu, G.; Sahin, S.; Altier, C.; Uyar, T. Carvacrol/Cyclodextrin Inclusion Complex Loaded Gelatin/Pullulan Nanofibers for Active Food Packaging Applications. Food Hydrocoll.; 2023; 142, 108864. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.108864]
143. De Souza, C.K.; Ghosh, T.; Lukhmana, N.; Tahiliani, S.; Priyadarshi, R.; Purohit, S.D.; Han, S.S. Pullulan as a Sustainable Biopolymer for Versatile Applications: A Review. Mater. Today Commun.; 2023; 36, 106477. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2023.106477]
144. Mugnaini, G.; Bonini, M.; Gentile, L.; Panza, O.; Del Nobile, M.A.; Conte, A.; Esposito, R.; D’Errico, G.; Moccia, F.; Panzella, L. Effect of Design and Molecular Interactions on the Food Preserving Properties of Alginate/Pullulan Edible Films Loaded with Grape Pomace Extract. J. Food Eng.; 2024; 361, 111716. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2023.111716]
145. Mulla, M.Z.; Rostamabadi, H.; Habibi, N.; Falsafi, S.R. Pullulan Nanocomposites: Effect of Nanoparticles and Essential Oil Reinforcement on Its Performance and Food Packaging Applications. Food Humanit.; 2023; 1, pp. 887-894. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foohum.2023.08.006]
146. Dedhia, N.; Marathe, S.J.; Singhal, R.S. Food Polysaccharides: A Review on Emerging Microbial Sources, Bioactivities, Nanoformulations, and Safety Considerations. Carbohydr. Polym.; 2022; 287, 119355. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2022.119355] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35422305]
147. Gentry, B.; Cazón, P.; O’Brien, K. A Comprehensive Review of the Production, Beneficial Properties, and Applications of Kefiran, the Kefir Grain Exopolysaccharide. Int. Dairy J.; 2023; 144, 105691. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2023.105691]
148. Prasad, S.; Purohit, S.R. Microbial Exopolysaccharide: Sources, Stress Conditions, Properties and Application in Food and Environment: A Comprehensive Review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2023; 242, 124925. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.124925]
149. Touranlou, A.; Noori, S.M.A.; Salari, A.; Afshari, A.; Hashemi, M. Application of Kefir for Reduction of Contaminants in the Food Industry: A Systematic Review. Int. Dairy J.; 2023; 146, 105748. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2023.105748]
150. PHA: A Biopolymer Whose Time Has Finally Come. Available online: https://cen.acs.org/business/biobased-chemicals/PHA-biopolymer-whose-time-finally/97/i35 (accessed on 11 August 2024).
151. Imágenes Libres de Regalías de Polylactic Acid. Available online: https://www.shutterstock.com/es/search/polylactic-acid (accessed on 14 August 2024).
152. Zhou, W.; Bergsma, S.; Colpa, D.I.; Euverink, G.-J.W.; Krooneman, J. Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) Synthesis and Degradation by Microbes and Applications Towards a Circular Economy. J. Environ. Manag.; 2023; 341, 118033. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118033]
153. Yousefi, A.M.; Wnek, G.E. Poly(hydroxyalkanoates): Emerging Biopolymers in Biomedical Fields and Packaging Industries for a Circular Economy. Biomed. Mater. Devices; 2024; 2, pp. 1-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s44174-024-00166-4]
154. Eraslan, K.; Aversa, C.; Nofar, M.; Barletta, M.; Gisario, A.; Salehiyan, R.; Alkan Goksu, Y. Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) (PHBH): Synthesis, Properties, and Applications—A Review. Eur. Polym. J.; 2022; 167, 111044. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2022.111044]
155. Stoica, M.; Stoica, D. Nanofillers for Food Packaging: Antimicrobial Potential of Metal-Based Nanoparticles. Curr. Nanotoxic. Prev.; 2020; 1, pp. 1-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2174/2665980801999200709172848]
156. Tertyshnaya, Y.V.; Podzorova, M.V.; Varyan, I.A.; Tcherdyntsev, V.V.; Zadorozhnyy, M.Y.; Medvedeva, E.V. Promising Agromaterials Based on Biodegradable Polymers: Polylactide and Poly-3-Hydroxybutyrate. Polymers; 2023; 15, 1029. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym15041029]
157. Wu, Y.; Gao, X.; Wu, J.; Zhou, T.; Nguyen, T.T.; Wang, Y. Biodegradable Polylactic Acid and Its Composites: Characteristics, Processing, and Sustainable Applications in Sports. Polymers; 2023; 15, 3096. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym15143096] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37514485]
158. Andrade, M.A.; Barbosa, C.H.; Souza, V.G.L.; Coelhoso, I.M.; Reboleira, J.; Bernardino, S.; Ganhao, R.; Mendes, S.; Fernando, A.L.; Vilarinho, F. et al. Novel Active Food Packaging Films Based on Whey Protein Incorporated with Seaweed Extract: Development, Characterization, and Application in Fresh Poultry Meat. Coatings; 2021; 11, 229. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/coatings11020229]
159. Kandasamy, S.; Yoo, J.; Yun, J.; Kang, H.-B.; Seol, K.-H.; Kim, H.-W.; Ham, J.-S. Application of Whey Protein-Based Edible Films and Coatings in Food Industries: An Updated Overview. Coatings; 2021; 11, 1056. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/coatings11091056]
160. Rosseto, M.; Rigueto, C.V.T.; Alessandretti, I.; de Oliveira, R.; Wohlmuth, D.A.R.; Loss, R.A.; Dettmer, A.; Dos Santos Richards, N.S.P. Whey-Based Polymeric Films for Food Packaging Applications: A Review of Recent Trends. J. Sci. Food Agric.; 2022; 103, pp. 3217-3229. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.12310]
161. Ahmed, M.; Verma, A.K.; Patel, R. Physiochemical, Antioxidant, and Food Simulant Release Properties of Collagen-Carboxymethyl Cellulose Films Enriched with Berberis lyceum Root Extract. J. Food Process. Preserv.; 2022; 46, 16485. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.16485]
162. Da Costa, G.F.; Grisi, C.V.B.; de Albuquerque Meireles, B.R.L.; de Sousa, S.; de Magalhães Cordeiro, A.M.T. Collagen Films, Cassava Starch, and Their Blends: Physical–Chemical, Thermal, and Microstructure Properties. Packag. Technol. Sci.; 2022; 35, pp. 229-240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pts.2621]
163. Haghighi, H.; Licciardello, F.; Fava, P.; Siesler, H.W.; Pulvirenti, A. Recent Advances on Chitosan-Based Films for Sustainable Food Packaging Applications. Food Packag. Shelf Life.; 2020; 26, 100551. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2020.100551]
164. Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, A.; Dutta, J. Chitosan-Based Nanocomposite Films and Coatings: Emerging Antimicrobial Food Packaging Alternatives. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2020; 97, pp. 196-209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.01.002]
165. Song, T.; Qian, S.; Lan, T.; Wu, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhang, H. Recent Advances in Bio-Based Smart Active Packaging Materials. Foods; 2022; 11, 2228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods11152228]
166. Wang, H.; Ding, F.; Ma, L.; Zhang, Y. Edible Films from Chitosan-Gelatin: Physical Properties and Food Packaging Application. Food Biosci.; 2021; 40, 100871. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2020.100871]
167. 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, pp. 358-368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.04.152] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33930449]
168. Liu, Y.; Liu, R.; Shi, J.; Zhang, R.; Tang, H.; Xie, C.; Wang, F.; Han, J.; Jiang, L. Chitosan/Esterified Chitin Nanofibers Nanocomposite Films Incorporated with Rose Essential Oil: Structure, Physicochemical Characterization, Antioxidant and Antibacterial Properties. Food Chem.; 2023; 18, 100714. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2023.100714]
169. Dong, M.; Tian, L.; Li, J.; Jia, J.; Dong, Y.; Tu, Y.; Liu, X.; Tan, C.; Duan, X. Improving Physicochemical Properties of Edible Wheat Gluten Protein Films with Proteins, Polysaccharides, and Organic Acid. LWT; 2022; 154, 112868. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112868]
170. Yong, Y.; Wang, S.; Li, L.; Li, R.; Ahmad, H.N.; Munawar, N.; Zhu, J. A Curcumin-Crosslinked Bilayer Film of Soy Protein Isolate and Chitosan with Enhanced Antibacterial Property for Beef Preservation and Freshness Monitoring. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2023; 247, 125778. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.125778] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37437680]
171. Chetia, P.; Bharadwaj, C.; Purbey, R.; Bora, D.; Yadav, A.; Lal, M.; Rajulu, A.V.; Sadiku, E.R.; Selvam, S.P.; Jarugala, J. Influence of Silylated Nano Cellulose Reinforcement on the Mechanical, Water Resistance, Thermal, Morphological and Antibacterial Properties of Soy Protein Isolate (SPI)-Based Composite Films. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2023; 242, 124861. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.124861]
172. Shan, G.; Xu, Z.; Jiang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Sui, X. Fabrication and Characterization of Glycerin-Plasticized Soy Protein Amyloid Fibril Scaffolds by Unidirectional Freeze Casting Method. Food Hydrocoll.; 2024; 147, 109400. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.109400]
173. Zhao, W.; Li, C.; Ma, W.; He, R.; Rong, Y.; Sarker, S.; Liu, Q.; Tian, F. A Novel Active Packaging Film Containing Citronella Oil: Preparation, Characterization, Antimicrobial Activity and Application in Grape Preservation. Food Packag. Shelf Life; 2023; 40, 101168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2023.101168]
174. Sarak, S.; Pisitaro, W.; Rammak, T.; Kaewtatip, K. Characterization of Starch Film Incorporating Hom Nil Rice Extract for Food Packaging Purposes. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2024; 254, 127820. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.127820]
175. Almeida, T.; Karamysheva, A.; Valente, B.F.A.; Silva, J.M.; Braz, M.; Almeida, A.; Silvestre, A.J.D.; Vilela, C.; Freire, C.S.R. Biobased Ternary Films of Thermoplastic Starch, Bacterial Nanocellulose and Gallic Acid for Active Food Packaging. Food Hydrocoll.; 2023; 144, 108934. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.108934]
176. Shan, P.; Wang, K.; Sun, F.; Li, Y.; Sun, L.; Li, H.; Peng, L. Humidity-Adjustable Functional Gelatin Hydrogel/Ethyl Cellulose Bilayer Films for Active Food Packaging Application. Food Chem.; 2024; 439, 138202. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.138202]
177. De Oliveira Filho, J.G.; de Sousa, T.L.; Bertolo, M.R.V.; Junior, S.B.; Mattoso, L.H.C.; Pimentel, T.C.; Egea, M.B. Next-Generation Food Packaging: Edible Bioactive Films with Alginate, Mangaba Pulp (Hancornia speciosa), and Saccharomyces boulardii. Food Biosci.; 2023; 54, 102799. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2023.102799]
178. Tong, W.Y.; Rafiee, A.R.A.; Leong, C.R.; Tan, W.N.; Dailin, D.J.; Almarhoon, Z.M.; Shelkh, M.; Nawaz, A.; Chuah, L.F. Development of Sodium Alginate-Pectin Biodegradable Active Food Packaging Film Containing Cinnamic Acid. Chemosphere; 2023; 336, 139212. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139212] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37315854]
179. Cruz-Santos, M.M.; Antonio, F.; Antunes, F.; Arruda, G.L.; Shibukawa, V.P.; Prado, C.A.; Ortiz-Silos, N.; Castro-Alonso, M.J.; Marcelino, P.R.F.; Santos, J.C. Production and Applications of Pullulan from Lignocellulosic Biomass: Challenges and Perspectives. Bioresour. Technol.; 2023; 385, 129460. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2023.129460] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37423546]
180. Ruiyan, N.I.; Cheng, M.; Meng, J.; Hu, W.; Ke, Q.; Zhao, Y. Edible Pullulan Enhanced Water-Soluble Keratin with Improved Sizing Performance for Sustainable Textile Industry. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2023; 238, 124066.
181. Wei, Z.; Huang, L.; Feng, X.; Cui, F.; Wu, R.; Kong, Q.; Sun, K.; Gao, J.; Guo, J. Development of Functional, Sustainable Pullulan-Sodium Alginate-Based Films by Incorporating Essential Oil Microemulsion for Chilled Pork Preservation. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2023; 253, 127257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.127257]
182. De Luca, S.; Milanese, D.; Gallichi-Nottiani, D.; Cavazza, A.; Sciancalepore, C. Poly(lactic acid) and Its Blends for Packaging Application: A Review. Clean Technol.; 2023; 5, pp. 1304-1343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol5040066]
183. Li, K.; Li, Y.; Jin, H.; Feng, B.; Jiang, G. Konjac Glucomannan/Polyvinyl Alcohol/Citric Acid–Based Active Food-Packaging Films Containing Polygonatum sibiricum Polysaccharide. Food Chem. Adv.; 2024; 4, 100660. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.focha.2024.100660]
184. Ribeiro, I.S.; Maciel, G.M.; Gonçalves Bortolini, D.; de Andrade Arruda Fernandes, I.; Volpato Maroldi, V.; Pedro, A.C.; Thaís Vieira Rubio, F.; Windson Isidoro Haminiuk, C. Sustainable Innovations in Edible Films and Coatings: An Overview. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2024; 143, 104272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2023.104272]
185. Higuchi, M.T.; Aguiar, A.C.d.; Leles, N.R.; Ribeiro, L.T.M.; Bosso, B.E.C.; Yamashita, F.; Youssef, K.; Roberto, S.R. Active Packaging Systems to Extend the Shelf Life of ‘Italia’ Table Grapes. Horticulturae; 2024; 10, 214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10030214]
186. Stuparu-Cretu, M.; Braniste, G.; Necula, G.-A.; Stanciu, S.; Stoica, D.; Stoica, M. Metal Oxide Nanoparticles in Food Packaging and Their Influence on Human Health. Foods; 2023; 12, 1882. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods12091882]
187. Remya, S.; Mohan, C.O.; Ravishankar, C.N. Oxygen Scavenger Packaging for Seafood Preservation. Fish Technol.; 2020; 57, pp. 147-155.
188. EFSA. Scientific Opinion on the Safety Evaluation of the Active Substances, Sodium Borohydride and Palladium Acetate for Use in Active Food Contact Materials. EFSA J.; 2012; 10, 2642. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2642]
189. EFSA. Scientific Opinion on the Safety Evaluation of the Active Substance, Acrylic Acid, Sodium Salt, Co-Polymer with Acrylic Acid, Methyl Ester, Methacrylic Acid, 2-Hydroxypropyl Ester, and Acrylic Acid Cross-Linked for Use in Active Food Contact Materials. EFSA J.; 2013; 11, 3154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3154]
190. EFSA. Scientific Opinion on the Safety Assessment of the Active Substances Iron, Iron Oxides, Sodium Chloride, and Calcium Hydroxide for Use in Food Contact Materials. EFSA J.; 2013; 11, 3387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3387]
191. EFSA. Scientific Opinion on the Safety Evaluation of the Active Substances, Sodium Carbonate Peroxyhydrate Coated with Sodium Carbonate and Sodium Silicate, Bentonite, Sodium Chloride, Sodium Carbonate for Use in Active Food Contact Materials. EFSA J.; 2013; 11, 3153. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3153]
192. Rozo, D.F.; Alvarado, J.F.; Chaparro, L.M.; Medina, J.A.; Salcedo, F. Modeling Oxidation Kinetics of Linseed Oil in Oxygen Scavenger Nanocapsules to Be Potentially Used in Active Food Packaging. Food Packag. Shelf Life; 2024; 42, 101256. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2024.101256]
193. Rüegg, N.; Röcker, B.; Yildirim, S. Application of Palladium-Based Oxygen Scavenger to Extend the Mould Free Shelf Life of Bakery Products. Food Packag. Shelf Life; 2022; 31, 100771. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2021.100771]
194. Hu, X.; Lu, C.; Tang, H.; Pouri, H.; Joulin, E.; Zhang, J. Active Food Packaging Made of Biopolymer-Based Composites. Materials; 2023; 16, 279. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma16010279]
195. Active Packaging: What It Is and Why It’s Important. Available online: https://felixinstruments.com/blog/active-packaging-what-it-is-and-why-its-important/ (accessed on 11 August 2024).
196. Cheng, C.; Liang, X.; Wei, W.; Zhang, N.; Yao, G.; Yan, R. Enhanced Shelf Life Quality of Peaches (Prunus persica L.) Using Ethylene Manipulating Active Packaging in E-Commerce Logistics. Sci. Hortic.; 2024; 326, 112701. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2023.112701]
197. Kumar, P.; Tripathi, S.; Ramakanth, D.; Gaikwad, K.K. Novel Ethylene Scavenger Based on Sillimanite and Bentonite Clay for Packaging Applications: A Sustainable Alternative for Preservation of Fresh Produce. Sustain. Chem. Pharm.; 2024; 38, 101516. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2024.101516]
198. Lee, D.S.; Wang, H.J.; Jaisan, C.; An, D.S. Active Food Packaging to Control Carbon Dioxide. Packag. Tech. Sci.; 2022; 35, pp. 213-227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pts.2627]
199. Mariah, M.A.A.; Vonnie, J.M.; Erna, K.H.; Nur’Aqilah, N.M.; Huda, N.; Abdul Wahab, R.; Rovina, K. The Emergence and Impact of Ethylene Scavengers Techniques in Delaying the Ripening of Fruits and Vegetables. Membranes; 2022; 12, 117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes12020117] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35207039]
200. Sonawane, A.D.; Chaiwong, S.; Weltzien, C.; Mahajan, P.V. A Model Integrating Fruit Physiology, Perforation, and Scavenger for Prediction of Ethylene Accumulation in Fruit Package. Postharvest Biol. Technol.; 2024; 209, 112734. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2023.112734]
201. EFSA. Scientific Opinion on the Safety Evaluation of the Active Substance, Open-Cell Expanded Polystyrene Manufactured with Talc and Alkyl (C8-C22) Sulphonic Acid (Salts) for Use in Active Food Contact Materials. EFSA J.; 2012; 10, 2467. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2746]
202. EFSA. Scientific Opinion on the Safety Evaluation of the Active Substances Sodium Carboxy Methyl Cellulose, Bentonite, Aluminium Potassium Sulphate for Use in Active Food Contact Materials. EFSA J.; 2012; 10, 2904. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2904]
203. EFSA. Scientific Opinion on the Safety Evaluation of the Active Substances Citric Acid (E330) and Sodium Hydrogen Carbonate (E500ii), Used as Carbon Dioxide Generators, Together with Liquid Absorbers Cellulose and Polyacrylic Acid Sodium Salt Crosslinked, in AC. EFSA J.; 2013; 11, 3152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3152]
204. EFSA. Scientific Opinion on the Safety Evaluation of the Active Substances Iron, Sodium Chloride, Water, Silica Gel, Activated Carbon, Monosodium Glutamate, Potassium Acid Tartrate, Powdered Cellulose, Malic Acid, Chabazite, Hydroxypropyl Cellulose, Potassium C. EFSA J.; 2013; 11, 3155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3155]
205. EFSA. Safety Assessment of the Active Substances Carboxymethylcellulose, Acetylated Distarch Phosphate, Bentonite, Boric Acid, and Aluminium Sulfate, for Use in Active Food Contact Materials. EFSA J.; 2018; 16, 5121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5121]
206. EFSA. Safety Assessment of the Active Substance Polyacrylic Acid, Sodium Salt, Cross-Linked, for Use in Active Food Contact Materials. EFSA J.; 2018; 16, 5548. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5448]
207. Selvaraj Arokiyaraj, A.; Yuvaraj Dinakarkumar, B.; Shin, H. A Comprehensive Overview on the Preservation Techniques and Packaging of Processed Meat Products: Emphasis on Natural Derivatives. J. King Saud Univ. Sci.; 2024; 36, 103032. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2023.103032]
208. Stoica, M.; Stoean, S.; Alexe, P. Overview of Biological Hazards Associated with the Consumption of Meat Products. J. Agroaliment. Process. Technol.; 2014; 20, pp. 192-197.
209. Stoica, M. Overview of Sodium Nitrite—As a Multifunctional Meat-Curing Ingredient. Ann. Univ. Dunarea Jos Galati, Fascicle VI–Food Technol.; 2019; 43, pp. 155-167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.35219/foodtechnology.2019.1.12]
210. Stoica, M.; Antohi, V.M.; Alexe, P.; Ivan, A.S.; Stanciu, S.; Stoica, D.; Zlati, M.L.; Stuparu-Cretu, M. New Strategies for the Total/Partial Replacement of Conventional Sodium Nitrite in Meat Products: A Review. Food Bioprocess Technol.; 2022; 15, pp. 514-538. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11947-021-02744-6]
211. Smaoui, S.; Chérif, I.; Ben Hlima, H.; Khan, M.U.; Rebezov, M.; Thiruvengadam, M.; Sarkar, T.; Shariati, M.A.; Lorenzo, J.M. Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles in Meat Packaging: A Systematic Review of Recent Literature. Food Packag. Shelf Life; 2023; 36, 101045. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2023.101045]
212. Guo, M.; Jin, T.Z.; Wang, L.; Scullen, J.; Sommers, C.H. Antimicrobial Films and Coatings for Inactivation of Listeria innocua on Ready-to-Eat Deli Turkey Meat. Food Control; 2014; 40, pp. 64-70. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.11.018]
213. Pan, I.F.; Granda, X.C.; Mate, J.L. Antimicrobial Efficiency of Edible Coatings on the Preservation of Chicken Breast Fillets. Food Control; 2014; 36, pp. 69-75.
214. Sánchez-Ortega, I.; García-Almendárez, B.E.; Santos-López, E.M.; Amaro-Reyes, A.; Barboza-Corona, J.E.; Regalado, C. Antimicrobial Edible Films and Coatings for Meat and Meat Products Preservation. Sci. World J.; 2014; 2014, 248935. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/248935]
215. Rahman, M.P.; Mujeeb, V.M.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, pp. 382-391. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.01.052]
216. Xu, Y.; Rehmani, N.; Alsubaie, L.; Kim, C.; Sismour, E.; Scales, A. Tapioca Starch Active Nanocomposite Films and Their Antimicrobial Effectiveness on Ready-to-Eat Chicken Meat. Food Packag. Shelf Life; 2018; 16, pp. 86-91. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2018.02.006]
217. Mohammadi, H.; Kamkar, A.; Misaghi, A. Nanocomposite Films Based on CMC, Okra Mucilage and ZnO Nanoparticles: Physico-Mechanical and Antibacterial Properties. Carbohydr. Polym.; 2018; 181, pp. 351-357. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.10.045]
218. Zhao, Y.; Teixeira, J.S.; Saldaña, M.D.A.; 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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2019.108253] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31233962]
219. Ahmadi, A.; Ahmadi, P.; Ehsani, A. Development of an Active Packaging System Containing Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles for the Extension of Chicken Fillet Shelf Life. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2020; 8, pp. 5461-5473. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.1812] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33133549]
220. Alizadeh-Sani, M.; Mohammadian, E.; McClements, D.J. Eco-Friendly Active Packaging Consisting of Nanostructured Biopolymer Matrix Reinforced with TiO2 and Essential Oil: Application for Preservation of Refrigerated Meat. Food Chem.; 2020; 322, 126782. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.126782] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32305879]
221. Amjadi, S.; Nazari, M.; Alizadeh, S.A.; Hamishehkar, H. Multifunctional Betanin Nanoliposomes-Incorporated Gelatin/Chitosan Nanofiber/ZnO Nanoparticles Nanocomposite Film for Fresh Beef Preservation. Meat Sci.; 2020; 167, 108161. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108161]
222. Priyadarshi, R.; Kim, S.M.; Rhim, J.W. Carboxymethyl Cellulose-Based Multifunctional Film Combined with Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles and Grape Seed Extract for the Preservation of High-Fat Meat Products. Sustain. Mater. Technol.; 2021; 29, e00325. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2021.e00325]
223. Kong, J.; Ge, X.; Sun, Y.; Mao, M.; Yu, H.; Chu, R.; Wang, Y. Multi-Functional pH-Sensitive Active and Intelligent Packaging Based on Highly Cross-Linked Zein for the Monitoring of Pork Freshness. Food Chem.; 2023; 404, 134754. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.134754]
224. Li, R.; Zhuang, D.; Feng, H.; Wang, S.; Zhu, J. Novel “All-in-One” Multifunctional Gelatin-Based Film for Beef Freshness Maintaining and Monitoring. Food Chem.; 2023; 418, 136003. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.136003]
225. Yin, S.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Tao, K.; Li, G. High-Strength Collagen/Delphinidin Film Incorporated with Vaccinium oxycoccus Pigment for Active and Intelligent Food Packaging. Collagen Leather; 2023; 5, 11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42825-023-00118-6]
226. Elhadef, K.; Chaari, M.; Akermi, S.; Ennouri, K.; Ben Hlima, H.; Fourati, M.; Chakchouk Mtibaa, A.; Ennouri, M.; Sarkar, T.; Shariati, M.A. et al. Gelatin-Sodium Alginate Packaging Film with Date Pits Extract: An Eco-Friendly Packaging for Extending Raw Minced Beef Shelf Life. Meat Sci.; 2024; 207, 109371. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109371]
227. Hong, S.J.; Riahi, Z.; Shin, G.H.; Kim, J.T. Development of Innovative Active Packaging Films Using Gelatin/Pullulan-Based Composites Incorporated with Cinnamon Essential Oil-Loaded Metal-Organic Frameworks for Meat Preservation. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2024; 267, Pt 2, 131606. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.131606]
228. Mondejar-Lopez, M.; Castillo, R.; López Jiménez, A.J.; Gómez-Gómez, L.; Ahrazem, O.; Niza, E. Polysaccharide Film Containing Cinnamaldehyde-Chitosan Nanoparticles, a New Eco-Packaging Material Effective in Meat Preservation. Food Chem.; 2024; 437, 137710. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.137710] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37913706]
229. Rather, J.A.; Kaur, G.; Shah, I.A.; Majid, D.; Makroo, H.A.; Dar, B.N. Sustainable Gelatin-Based Packaging with Nanoemulsified Chilli Seed Oil for Enhancing Poultry Meat Preservation: An Eco-Friendly Approach. Food Chem. Adv.; 2024; 5, 100761. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.focha.2024.100761]
230. Sasidharan, S.; Tey, L.-H.; Djearamane, S.; Mahmud Ab Rashid, N.K.; Rajeshwari, P.A.; Rajendran, V.; Syed, A.; Wong, L.S.; Santhanakrishnan, V.K.; Asirvadam, V.S. et al. Innovative Use of Chitosan/ZnO NPs Bio-Nanocomposites for Sustainable Antimicrobial Food Packaging of Poultry Meat. Food Packag. Shelf Life; 2024; 43, 101298. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2024.101298]
231. Sul, Y.; Khan, A.; Rhim, J.-W. Effects of Coffee Bean Types on the Characteristics of Carbon Dots and Their Use for Manufacturing Cellulose Nanofibers-Based Films for Active Packaging of Meat. Food Packag. Shelf Life; 2024; 43, 101282. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2024.101282]
232. Active Packaging Market Size, Share, and Trends 2024 to 2034. Available online: https://www.precedenceresearch.com/active-packaging-market (accessed on 14 August 2024).
233. Azeredo, H.M.C.; Correa, D.S. Smart choices: Mechanisms of intelligent food packaging. Curr. Res. Food Sci.; 2021; 4, pp. 932-936. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2021.11.016]
234. Dodero, A.; Escher, A.; Bertucci, S.; Castellano, M.; Lova, P. Intelligent packaging for real-time monitoring of food quality: Current and future developments. Appl. Sci.; 2021; 11, 3532. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app11083532]
235. Jafarzadeh, S.; Yildiz, Z.; Yildiz, P.; Strachowski, P.; Forough, M.; Esmaeili, Y.; Naebe, M.; Abdollahi, M. Advanced technologies in biodegradable packaging using intelligent sensing to fight food waste. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2024; 261, 129647. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.129647]
236. Senapati, M.; Sahu, P.P. Meat quality assessment using Au patch electrode Ag-SnO2/SiO2/Si MIS capacitive gas sensor at room temperature. Food Chem.; 2020; 324, 126893. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.126893]
237. Bhatlawande, A.R.; Ghatge, P.U.; Shinde, G.U.; Anushree, R.K.; Patil, S.D. Unlocking the future of smart food packaging: Biosensors, IoT, and nanomaterials. Food Sci. Biotechnol.; 2024; 33, pp. 1075-1091. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10068-023-01486-9]
238. Dalapati, R.; Hunter, M.; Zang, L. A dual fluorometric and colorimetric sulfide sensor based on coordinating self-assembled nanorods: Applicable for monitoring meat spoilage. Chemosensors; 2022; 10, 500. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors10120500]
239. Ding, T.; Li, Y. Biogenic amines are important indices for characterizing the freshness and hygienic quality of aquatic products: A review. LWT; 2024; 194, 115793. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2024.115793]
240. Gaikwad, K.K.; Singh, S.; Negi, Y.S. Ethylene scavengers for active packaging of fresh food produce. Environ. Chem. Lett.; 2020; 18, pp. 269-284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10311-019-00938-1]
241. Jain, P.; Kumar, L.; Singh, S.; Gaikwad, K.K. Catechu (Senegalia catechu) based oxygen scavenger for active food packaging: A sustainable alternative. Sustain. Chem. Pharm.; 2024; 37, 101350. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2023.101350]
242. Li, H.; Geng, W.; Sun, X.; Wei, W.; Mu, X.; Ahmad, W.; Hassan, M.M.; Ouyang, Q.; Chen, Q. Fabricating a nano-bionic sensor for rapid detection of H2S during pork spoilage using Ru NPs modulated catalytic hydrogenation conversion. Meat Sci.; 2021; 177, 108507. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108507]
243. Mansourbahmani, S.; Ghareyazie, B.; Zarinnia, V.; Kalatejari, S.; Mohammadi, R.S. Study on the efficiency of ethylene scavengers on the maintenance of postharvest quality of tomato fruit. Food Meas.; 2018; 12, pp. 691-701. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11694-017-9682-3]
244. Taechutrakul, S.; Piroonpan, T.; Pasanphan, W. Active film strips to extend the shelf life of fruits: Multibranched PLA-gallic acid as an antioxidant/oxygen scavenger in a case study of bananas (Musa AAA group). J. Food Eng.; 2024; 364, 111794. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2023.111794]
245. Wu, D.; Zhang, M.; Chen, H.; Bhandari, B. Freshness monitoring technology of fish products in intelligent packaging. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2021; 61, pp. 1279-1292. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1757615]
246. Zhai, X.; Li, Z.; Shi, J.; Huang, X.; Sun, Z.; Zhang, D.; Zou, X.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, J.; Holmes, M. et al. A colorimetric hydrogen sulfide sensor based on gellan gum-silver nanoparticles bionanocomposite for monitoring of meat spoilage in intelligent packaging. Food Chem.; 2019; 290, pp. 135-143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.03.138]
247. Wilson, C.T.; Harte, J.; Almenar, E. Effects of Sachet Presence on Consumer Product Perception and Active Packaging Acceptability—A Study of Fresh-Cut Cantaloupe. LWT; 2018; 92, pp. 531-539. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.02.060]
248. Du, H.; Sun, X.; Chong, X.; Yang, M.; Zhu, Z.; Wen, Y. A Review on Smart Active Packaging Systems for Food Preservation: Applications and Future Trends. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2023; 141, 104200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2023.104200]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Dragomir, Maricela 3 ; Ivan, Angela Stela 1 ; Geanina Marcela Podaru 1 ; Stoica, Dimitrie 4 ; Stuparu-Crețu, Mariana 5
1 Cross-Border Faculty, “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, 111 Domneasca Street, 800201 Galati, Romania;
2 Faculty of Economic Sciences and Business Administration, “Danubius” University, 3 Galați, 800654 Galati, Romania;
3 Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, 63-65 Gării Street, 800003 Galati, Romania;
4 Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, 59-61 Balcescu Street, 800001 Galati, Romania
5 Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, 35 Alexandru Ioan Cuza Street, 800010 Galati, Romania;