Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
npj Science of Food volume 8, Article number: 82 (2024 ) Cite this article battery terminal dielectric grease
Paper- and paperboard-based materials are alternatives to petroleum-based plastics in food packaging but unsuitable for their poor moisture and oil resistance. In this sense, fluorinated compounds improve water and grease repellency, though their use is controversial. This Perspective discusses main techniques to combine fluorinated compounds with paper and paperboard, including water and oil contact angles and grease resistance values, and summarizes main legal aspects in Europe and the United States.
Global population has been steadily increasing over the years, projected to reach 9.7 billion by 20501. This demographic trend presents substantial challenges for the food industry, demanding solutions for food security, waste reduction, and food quality assurance. In this context, food packaging plays a pivotal role by preserving the quality and safety of food products, protecting them against physical damage, microbial contamination, and oxidative deterioration, extending the shelf life of foods, reducing food wastes, and maintaining nutritional value, flavor, and texture2.
Currently, food packaging encompasses a wide range of different materials such as petroleum-based plastics, paper- and paperboard-based materials, metals, and glasses. The selection of a specific packaging material depends on several factors such as the type of food, shelf life, environmental considerations, and regulatory requirements3. The most commonly used food packaging materials are petroleum-based plastics mainly because their exceptional physical properties, light weight, high chemical inertness, and low production costs. The massive and continuous consumption of these materials has led to a global pollution issue associated with the extraction of the raw materials for their production, fabrication, and management as wastes4.
Cellulose-based materials, mainly paper (thin sheets produced by processing natural cellulose fibers) and paperboard (heavyweight, thicker papers typically used as containers) can be used as primary (in direct contact with food) or secondary (not in direct contact with food) food packaging. They comprise the 31 wt.-% of the global packaging market segment3. Their main advantages are low cost, renewability, convenience during storage and consumption, possibility to include consumers information and marketing, safety for the environment, recyclability, and biodegradability after use5. Despite these advantages, the hydrophilic nature of cellulose and the fiber network porosity confer to paper and paperboard some important drawbacks such as low barrier properties and resistance to oil and greases, heat-sealability, and strength. For these reasons, paper and paperboard are usually combined with other materials in order to improve their functionality. In fact, of all primary food packaging, paper and paperboard account for a 20 wt.-%, and only a 3 wt.-% is used without further treatments6.
In this Perspective, the key strategies related to the use of fluorinated compounds in food packaging to improve properties of paper and paperboard have been described. Main fabrication techniques, human health and environmental issues derived from their extensive use, classification, and legal aspects have been also presented and discussed.
A wide range of materials can be combined with paper and paperboard to improve their functionality. Petroleum-based plastics and aluminum are the most used to enhance barrier properties even if their use results in a lack of biodegradability after use5. But with the target on biodegradability, bio-based plastics have emerged as a promising option. In this sense, different polysaccharides7, polyesters8, and proteins9 have been described in the literature to effectively enhance paper and paperboard’s properties. However, most of these solutions are expensive in comparison with petroleum-based plastics and none of them are extensively used in the market. Another strategy to make paper and paperboard suitable for food packaging applications is the use of fluorinated compounds. Such category comprises a very broad group of molecules and polymers containing at least one fluorine atom. The food packaging is a sector with a high demand of these substances, for example consuming ~33 wt.-% of the European production6. In general, fluorinated molecules present exceptional physical properties and, when used in combination with paper and paperboard, they confer interesting properties for food packaging applications such as water, oil, and stain resistance, non-flammability, high chemical and thermal stability, resistance to hydrolysis, photolysis and microbial degradation, as well as capacity to act as levelling agents (chemical substances added to increase the uniformity of a coating)6,10,11,12, Table 1. Notwithstanding these properties, the use of fluorinated compounds, especially those having fluorinated chains ≥C8 and those with all hydrogens substituted by fluorine atoms (perfluoro compounds), implies their dispersion and accumulation in the environment as a consequence of their high stability and persistence, and no possibility of assimilation by living organisms and high risk of accumulation10. For this reason, some of them are the so-called “forever chemicals”. To overcome this problem, academia and industry are focused on the development of less polluting alternatives such as those with shorter chains (≤C6) and on the attachment of fluorinated chains to the backbones of biodegradable molecules13. In this sense, polysaccharides represent a viable candidate due to their complete biodegradability and the possibility of functionalization through chemical reactions with their free hydroxyl groups, being the esterification and the etherification the most used14. With such methodology, fluorinated polysaccharide derivatives can be obtained by reaction with fluorinated compounds15, Fig. 1.
Scheme of two of the main reactions (i.e., esterification and etherification) for the chemical functionalization of cellulose with fluorinated molecules.
Since the 1950s, a wide variety of fluorinated substances have been synthesized, reaching over 4700 compounds on the global market, of which less than 6 wt.-% are of commercial interest. Some of them are illustrated in Fig. 2A. This number is much higher (∼ 8000) if following the definition of the European Chemicals Agency by which a fluorinated substance is any compound containing at least one -CF3 or -CF2- group11,16,17. In this scenario, a single, clear, and agreed classification of these synthetic compounds is needed for a better understanding for industrial and research sectors and to prevent the mismatch between different documents and reports18, Fig. 2B. Some authors propose a general classification distinguishing among polymers and non-polymers (mainly residues of fabrication, degradation products, or chemicals used as sizing agents in the production of water and oil repellent papers and paperboards) based on the special mobility of non-polymeric fluorinated substances and the enhanced possibility of migration if in contact with food19. Others suggest to focus in the length of the fluorinated chain, independently of the number of fluorine atoms or the chemical functionalization11. This is a controversial classification mostly due to the different definitions of “long-chain” and “short-chain” fluorinated molecules available in literature18,20. Other attempts to classify the different fluorinated molecules make the distinction in the number of fluorinated atoms and the chemical nature, resulting in three main categories: perfluoroalkyl compounds (all hydrogen atoms substituted with fluorine atoms), polyfluoroalkyl substances (at least one position is not substituted by fluorine atoms), and fluorinated polymers (chemical compounds consisting of many repeating units containing carbon-fluoride bonds)11. Finally, there are some authors stating that every single fluorinated substance is unique due to its physical properties, resulting in classifications with many categories and sub-categories and, hence, difficult to manage17.
A chemical structures of some fluorinated molecules (top) such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and 3H-perfluoro-3-[(3-methoxy-propoxy)propanoic acid] (ADONA), and fluoropolymers of commercial interest (bottom) such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyethylene chlorotrifluoroethylene (ECTFE), polyethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), fluorinated-ethylene-propylene (FEP), and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). B schematics of some of the different classifications of fluorinated compounds.
The most employed parameter to determine the hydrophobicity of food packaging materials is the static water contact angle. For this, a water drop is applied on their surface and the angle between the liquid and the solid surface at the contact point is measured. For hydrophilic materials, water contact angle values are <90° whereas hydrophobic materials are characterized by contact angles >90° . Moreover, this versatile technique allows the determination of the oleophobicity by using liquids with different polarities and viscosities such as animal and vegetable oils. In general, oils tend to spread more than water on a surface, thus, oil contact angles are usually lower than those obtained by using water. However, there is no a clear definition of the contact angle value above which a material is considered oleophobic21, with the general rule being that the higher the contact angle, the greater the oleophobicity. Independently of the liquid, the value of the contact angle is influenced by different factors such as the roughness, chemical nature, and heterogeneity of the solid surface, making difficult the direct comparison between literature data21. Typical water and oil contact angle values of different food packaging materials such as petroleum-based plastics, thermoplastic biopolymers, polysaccharide-based, protein-based, and fluorinated compounds are compiled in Tables 2 and 3. In general, for water contact angle, the lowest values are ascribed to polysaccharides mainly due to the high number of hydroxyl groups able to interact with water. In contrast, the fluorinated molecules show water contact angles >90° as a consequence of a lower interaction with the liquid drop, rendering the surface more hydrophobic and, thus, more resistant to water and moisture. For oil contact angles, there is an important lack of information in literature and no oil has been stated as a standard. In fact, by using diverse oils, variations of ~20° have been reported22. Even considering these differences, petroleum-based plastics show lower values than fluorinated compounds, being the higher values those ascribed to polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE), Table 2.
On the other hand, grease resistance, commonly known as the kit test, is usually determined by following the Tappi test method 559 cm-224. This is an inexpensive, standard method for the determination of repellency of paper and paperboard to grease, oil, and waxes consisting on the application of different solutions (mixtures of castor oil, toluene, and heptane numbered from 1 to 12) on the paper’ surface followed by visual inspection after a certain time. The highest numbered solution applied on the surface leaving no dark spot is reported as the kit test value. For food packaging applications, this value should be >5. In general, virgin papers do not offer grease resistance. Cardboards, typically used as secondary food packaging materials, show good resistance with kit test values ~8, guaranteeing their functionality during transport and storage. For coated papers, the best values are ascribed to the use of fluorinated compounds (reaching values of 10–11) even if good values can be obtained by applying several layers of biopolymers such as chitosan (kit test value of 8), though resulting in less competitive prices and higher time-consuming processes. Table 3 reports oil contact angle and kit test values for non-treated papers and cardboards as well as for coated papers.
Independently of the choice about the most convenient compound to combine with paper and paperboard, another important aspect to consider is the fabrication method. Food packaging paper industry has developed different techniques to improve paper and paperboard functionality, being coating, lamination, and internal and external sizing the most used, Fig. 3.
A–D, schematics of the different methodologies to improve paper and paperboard functionality: coating, lamination, and internal and external sizing, respectively.
Coating consists of the application of an external layer acting as a barrier for the paper matrix, Fig. 3A. These coatings, typically composed of pigments, binders, and additives, are applied on the paper and paperboard surface to achieve specific characteristics such as smoothness, printability, opacity, and ink adhesion. Furthermore, coatings can impart functionalities such as water and grease resistance and barrier properties, expanding the potential applications of paper and paperboard products by the addition of fluorinated molecules3. Lamination involves the application of several thin protective layers (often composed by different polymers) on the surface of the paper and paperboard, typically using adhesives, heat, and pressure, Fig. 3B. This strategy offers remarkable benefits such as moisture and tear resistance, light protection, and improved handling. Fluorinated compounds such as PTFE and ECTFE have been described to improve the water and vapor barrier of laminated packaging23. Moreover, lamination reinforces the structural integrity of paper and paperboard, rendering them suitable for the conservation of liquid food, otherwise impossible to package with cellulose derivatives. Finally, this process allows for the incorporation of specialized features like gloss or matte finishes contributing to product differentiation and brand recognition on retail shelves. The third main strategy to improve paper and paperboard properties is sizing. This is a fundamental process that significantly influences the properties and performance of the final product. It involves the application of specialty chemicals, known as sizing agents, to the paper fibers both to the paper slurry during manufacturing (internal sizing), Fig. 3C, or as an external layer, Fig. 3D. Fluorinated molecules such as fluorinated polyurethanes have been largely used by the food industry as sizing agents. These agents serve mainly to control the paper and paperboard’s absorption and to improve its resistance to water and oil penetration, ensuring that ink and other liquids applied to the paper and paperboard remain on the surface, and reducing the risk of warping caused by moisture absorption24. Apart of these techniques, the paper industry is continuously searching for more environmentally friendly, faster, cost-effective, and scalable techniques. In this sense, chromatogeny has been recently proposed as an innovative solvent free grafting process that confers hydrophobicity to papers and boards in short times and using minimal volumes of reagents25.
The extensive use of fluorinated substances for different applications has led to a global widespread of these substances in the environment, wildlife, and humans mainly because their extremely low reactivity20. One of the main issues of these substances is their bioaccumulation, thus persisting for extended periods without degrading26. Their accumulation in living organisms can be turned into a biomagnification through the food chain, risking the wildlife and humans, as high concentrations of these compounds have been pointed out as disruptors and potentially carcinogen27. Additionally, these compounds can breakdown resulting in smaller molecules such as perfluorooctanoic acid, which is highly persistent. It has been largely described in literature for its ubiquity in landfills and water bodies28 not only because its fragmentation but also due to its use as processing aids or during the synthesis of fluorinated compounds. Finally, the stability and low reactivity of fluorinated compounds make possible their long-range transport through air and water, leading to widespread distribution and potential contamination in regions far from their original sources29.
When used in contact with foods, not only food packaging but also food contact materials (all materials and articles intended to come into contact with food at any stage of the production, processing, storage, preparation or consuming) can contribute to indirect dietary exposure thorough migration10. Migration refers to the exchange of chemical compounds between the packaging and the food by contact. The migration of fluorinated compounds into the foods is influenced by many factors10,11,16. Among them, the chemical composition of the packaging material, the specific type of fluorinated substance, its chain length, and the initial quantity used during the packaging fabrication. Typically, short chain fluorinated compounds such as those used as sizing agents, present a higher risk of migration mainly due to its higher mobility and the lack of a strong linkage (covalent, hydrogen bonds, etc.) with the cellulose fibers’ network of papers and paperboards. Temperature, pH, and moisture of the environment and the protected food influence the migration process. Temperature is a parameter of particular interest in the case of fast food, usually wrapped as soon as prepared, and highly consumed in some western countries. Furthermore, the duration of the contact between the packaging and food as well as the type of food (e.g., fatty or aqueous) affect migration rates. For instance, fatty foods with a higher oil content, tend to interact more extensively with fluorinated compounds, leading to higher migration values10. Finally, mechanical stress and physical abrasion of the packaging associated with storage and transporting conditions may facilitate the release, resulting in a higher risk of food contamination.
Similarly to classification, legislation about the use of fluorinated compounds in food packaging is not clear. It is mainly focused on long-chain perfluorinated compounds and it is scarce on other fluorine-containing substances. There is not a global regulation yet but different regulations for every region. The only ongoing initiative for a global legislation of plastics (including the use of fluorinated substances) is the United Nations Global Plastics Treaty, currently under negotiation, whose binding agreement is expected to be ready by 202430.
In Europe, legislation regarding the use of fluorinated substances in food packaging is primarily governed by the Framework Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004, which establishes the general principles for ensuring the safety of materials and articles intended for food contact31. Additionally, the Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 specifically addresses plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food, including those containing fluorinated compounds and sets specific migration limits. The Commission Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006 also provides the rules on good manufacturing practices32,33. Furthermore, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) continuously conducts risk assessments and provides scientific advice on the safety of food contact materials, including those containing fluorinated substances. Another European initiative is the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) proposal, submitted in 2023 by the competent authorities of Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. This proposal calls for a near-total ban on all PFAS substances, including fluoropolymers, across all applications by 2025. In response, the Fluoropolymers Product Group (FPG) emphasized the significant differences between low molecular weight fluorinated molecules and fluorinated polymers, highlighting the current lack of viable alternatives34.
In the United States, the regulation of fluorinated substances in food packaging primarily falls under the jurisdiction of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Following FDA indications, some long-chain fluorinated compounds such as PFOA and PFOS were voluntary phased out by the industry between 2010 and 2015 and replaced by shorter fluorinated chain analogues. Moreover, the FDA reference document, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 21, outlines specific requirements for food contact materials, including those containing fluorinated compounds and pushes manufacturers to demonstrate that substances used in food packaging are safe and cause no adulteration of the food products35.
In this Perspective, the use of fluorinated compounds combined with paper and paperboard for food packaging has been described in terms of fabrication techniques, classification, problems related to their extensive use both for human and environment, and current regulations in Europe and U.S.
Considering the unique water and oil repellency that fluorinated compounds can provide to paper and paperboard, further research is needed to assess whether short-chain fluorinated compounds can keep such barrier capacities and become a safer and innocuous alternative to current banned long-chain perfluorochemicals. On the other hand, modification of cellulose fibers through chemical binding with fluorinated compounds should be considered as a strategy to reduce toxicity and migration levels as well as to improve post-use degradability of food packaging.
United Nations, World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100 | UN DESA | United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Un.Org. 8–12 (2017).
Guzman-Puyol, S., Benítez, J. J. & Heredia-Guerrero, J. A. Transparency of polymeric food packaging materials. Food Res. Int. 161, 111792 (2022).
Deshwal, G. K., Panjagari, N. R. & Alam, T. An overview of paper and paper based food packaging materials: health safety and environmental concerns. J. Food Sci. Technol. 56, 4391–4403 (2019).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Heredia-Guerrero, J. A. et al. Plasticized, greaseproof chitin bioplastics with high transparency and biodegradability. Food Hydrocoll. 109072. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODHYD.2023.109072 (2023).
Khwaldia, K., Arab-Tehrany, E. & Desobry S. Biopolymer coatings on paper packaging materials. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2009.00095.x (2010).
Trier, X., Granby, K. & Christensen, J. H. Polyfluorinated surfactants (PFS) in paper and board coatings for food packaging. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-010-0439-3 (2011).
Nechita, P. & Iana-Roman, M. R. Review on polysaccharides used in coatings for food packaging papers. Coatings. 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/COATINGS10060566 (2020).
Auras, R., Harte, B. & Selke, S. An overview of polylactides as packaging materials. Macromol. Biosci. 4. https://doi.org/10.1002/mabi.200400043 (2004).
Jeong, S. & Yoo, S. R. Whey protein concentrate-beeswax-sucrose suspension-coated paperboard with enhanced water vapor and oil-barrier efficiency. Food Package Shelf Life. 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2020.100530 (2020).
L. A. Schaider et al. Fluorinated Compounds in U.S. Fast Food Packaging. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 4. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00435 (2017).
Barhoumi, B., Sander, S. G. & Tolosa, I. A review on per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFASs) in microplastic and food-contact materials. Environ. Res. 206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112595 (2022).
Améduri, B. Fluoropolymers as unique and irreplaceable materials: challenges and future trends in these specific per or poly-fluoroalkyl substances *. Molecules. 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28227564 (2023).
Vorst, K. L., Saab, N., Silva, P., Curtzwiler, G. & Steketee, A. Risk assessment of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in food: Symposium proceedings. Trends Food Sci. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.05.038 (2021).
Pinkert, A., Marsh, K. N., Pang, S. & Staiger, M. P. Ionic liquids and their interaction with cellulose. Chem. Rev. 109. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr9001947 (2009).
Heinze, T., Liebert, Y. & Koschella, K. Esterification of polysaccharides (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006).
Schwartz-Narbonne, H. et al. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Canadian Fast Food Packaging. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 10. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00926 (2023).
Buck, R. C., Korzeniowski, S. H., Laganis, E. & Adamsky, F. Identification and classification of commercially relevant per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4450 (2021).
Henry, B. J. et al. A critical review of the application of polymer of low concern and regulatory criteria to fluoropolymers. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4035 (2018).
Bokkers, B. et al. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in food contact materials. RIVM Lett. Rep. 2018–0181 (2018).
Buck R. C. et al. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the environment: Terminology, classification, and origins. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 7. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.258 (2011).
Meiron, T. S. & Saguy, I. S. Wetting properties of food packaging. Food Res. Int. 40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2006.11.010 (2007).
Tavana, H., Jehnichen, D., Grundke, K., Hair, M. L. & Neumann, A. W. Contact angle hysteresis on fluoropolymer surfaces. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 134–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2007.04.008 (2007).
Cherpinsky, MJ, Ting, YPR & Moulton, JD Thin film lamination-delamination process for fluoropolymers, WO2004069533A1, (2003).
Hubbe, M. A. Paper’s resistance to wetting - A review of internal sizing chemicals and their effects. BioResources. 2. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.2.1.106-145 (2007).
Freville, E., Sergienko, J. P., Mujica, R., Rey, C. & Bras, J. Novel technologies for producing tridimensional cellulosic materials for packaging: a review. Carbohydr. Polym. 342, 122413 (2024).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Lesmeister, L. et al. Extending the knowledge about PFAS bioaccumulation factors for agricultural plants – A review. Sci. Total Environ. 766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142640 (2021).
Pierozan, P., Cattani, D. & Karlsson, O. Tumorigenic activity of alternative per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): mechanistic in vitro studies. Sci. Total Environ. 808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151945 (2022).
Guzman-Puyol, S. et al. Greaseproof, hydrophobic, and biodegradable food packaging bioplastics from C6-fluorinated cellulose esters. Food Hydrocoll. 128, 107562 (2022).
Kelly, B. C. et al. Perfluoroalkyl contaminants in an arctic marine food web: Trophic magnification and wildlife exposure. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43. https://doi.org/10.1021/es9003894 (2009).
UN Global Plastic Treaty, (n.d.). https://www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution.
European Commission, Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 “on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC,” Off J Eur Union L338/4 (2004).
E. Commission. Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 of 14 January 2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food. Off J Eur Union 12, 1–89 (2011).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006., Commission Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006 of 22 December 2006 on good manufacturing practice for materials and articles intended to come into contact with food, Off J Eur Union L384 (2006).
EU PFAS restriction - Plastics Europe, (n.d.). https://fluoropolymers.eu/eu-pfas-restriction/ (accessed August 30, 2024).
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), CFR Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 FOOD AND DRUGS, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm (2017).
Gu, H., Wu, J. & Doan, H. Hydrophilicity enhancement of high-density polyethylene film by ozonation. Chem. Eng. Technol. 32. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.200800433 (2009).
Extrand, C. W. Contact angles and hysteresis on surfaces with chemically heterogeneous islands. Langmuir 19. https://doi.org/10.1021/la0268350 (2003).
Kwon, O. J., Tang, S., Myung, S. W., Lu, N. & Choi, H. S. Surface characteristics of polypropylene film treated by an atmospheric pressure plasma. Surf. Coatings Technol. 192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2004.09.018 (2005).
Huang, L. et al. Properties of thermoplastic starch films reinforced with modified cellulose nanocrystals obtained from cassava residues. N. J. Chem. 43. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9nj02623a (2019).
Ilangovan, M., Gan, H., Kabe, T. & Iwata,T. Bio-based polymer blend with tunable properties developed from paramylon hexanoate and poly(butylene succinate). Polymer 270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2023.125791 (2023).
Raza, Z. A., Rehman, M. S. & Riaz, S. Zinc sulfide mediation of poly(hydroxybutyrate)/poly(lactic acid) nanocomposite film for potential UV protection applications. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.10.006 (2022).
Wang, L. F. & Rhim, J. W. Grapefruit seed extract incorporated antimicrobial LDPE and PLA films: Effect of type of polymer matrix. LWT 74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.07.066 (2016).
Liu, D., Duan, Y., Wang, S., Gong, M. & Dai, H. Improvement of oil and water barrier properties of food packaging paper by coating with microcrystalline wax emulsion. Polymers 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14091786 (2022).
Roy, S. & Rhim, J. W. Preparation of carrageenan-based functional nanocomposite films incorporated with melanin nanoparticles. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2019.01.023 (2019).
Wang, L. F., Shankar, S. & Rhim, J. W. Properties of alginate-based films reinforced with cellulose fibers and cellulose nanowhiskers isolated from mulberry pulp. Food Hydrocoll. 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2016.08.041 (2017).
Ren, W., Qiang, T. & Chen, L. Recyclable and biodegradable pectin-based film with high mechanical strength. Food Hydrocoll. 129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2022.107643 (2022).
Zarandona, I., Minh, N. C., Trung, T. S., de la Caba, K. & Guerrero, P. Evaluation of bioactive release kinetics from crosslinked chitosan films with Aloe vera. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.05.087 (2021).
Patil, S. et al. Effect of polymer blending on mechanical and barrier properties of starch-polyvinyl alcohol based biodegradable composite films. Food Biosci. 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2021.101352 (2021).
Ahammed, S., Liu, F., Khin, M. N., Yokoyama, W. H. & Zhong, F. Improvement of the water resistance and ductility of gelatin film by zein. Food Hydrocoll. 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.105804 (2020).
Xiao, Y., Liu, Y., Kang, S. & Xu, H. Insight into the formation mechanism of soy protein isolate films improved by cellulose nanocrystals. Food Chem. 359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.129971 (2021).
Andonegi, M. et al. Structure-properties relationship of chitosan/collagen films with potential for biomedical applications. Carbohydr. Polym. 237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116159 (2020).
Willberg-Keyriläinen, P., Ropponen, J., Alakomi, HL & Vartiainen, J. Cellulose fatty acid Ester coated papers for stand-up pouch applications. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 135. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.46936 (2018).
Tanpichai, S., Srimarut, Y., Woraprayote, W. & Malila, Y. Chitosan coating for the preparation of multilayer coated paper for food-contact packaging: Wettability, mechanical properties, and overall migration. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 213, 534–545 (2022).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Vaswani, S., Koskinen, J. & Hess, D. W. Surface modification of paper and cellulose by plasma-assisted deposition of fluorocarbon films. Surf. Coatings Technol. 195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2004.10.013 (2005).
Bongiovanni, R., Zeno, E., Pollicino, A., Serafini, PM & Tonelli, C. UV light-induced grafting of fluorinated monomer onto cellulose sheets. Cellulose. 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-010-9451-5 (2011).
Bongiovanni, R., Marchi, S., Zeno, S., Pollicino, A. & Thomas, R. R. Water resistance improvement of filter paper by a UV-grafting modification with a fluoromonomer. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2012.11.003 (2013).
Khanjani, P. et al. Superhydrophobic paper from nanostructured fluorinated cellulose esters. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 10, 11280–11288 (2018).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Saleem, J., Ning, C., Barford, J. & McKay, G. Combating oil spill problem using plastic waste. Waste Manag. 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.06.003 (2015).
Brown, P. S. & Bhushan, B. Mechanically durable liquid-impregnated honeycomb surfaces. Sci. Rep. 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06621-1 (2017).
Hu, K., Huyan, Z., Ding, S., Dong, Y. & Yu, X. Investigation on food packaging polymers: effects on vegetable oil oxidation. Food Chem. 315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.126299 (2020).
Liu, X., Choi, H. S., Park, B. R. & Lee, H. E. Amphiphobicity of polyvinylidene fluoride porous films after atmospheric pressure plasma intermittent etching. Appl. Surf. Sci. 257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2011.04.069 (2011).
Solvay, Halar ECTFE Design & Processing Guide, https://www.solvay.com/sites/g/files/srpend221/files/2018-07/halar-ectfe-design-and-processing-guide-en.pdf (2016).
Yuan, R. et al. Superamphiphobic and electroactive nanocomposite toward self-cleaning, antiwear, and anticorrosion coatings. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 8. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.6b03961 (2016).
Wang, Y. et al. Interfacial structures, surface tensions, and contact angles of diiodomethane on fluorinated polymers. J. Phys. Chem. C. 118. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp501683d (2014).
Xie, J. et al. Facile synthesis of fluorine-free cellulosic paper with excellent oil and grease resistance. Cellulose 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-020-03248-w (2020).
Bordenave, N., Grelier, S. & Coma, V. Hydrophobization and antimicrobial activity of chitosan and paper-based packaging material. Biomacromolecules 11. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm9009528 (2010).
Gatto, M., D. Ochi, C. M., Yoshida, P. & da Silva, C. F. Study of chitosan with different degrees of acetylation as cardboard paper coating. Carbohydr. Polym. 210, 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CARBPOL.2019.01.053 (2019).
U. C. Paul, J. A. Heredia-Guerrero, Paper and Cardboard Reinforcement by Impregnation with Environmentally Friendly High-Performance Polymers for Food Packaging Applications. Sustain. Food Package Technol. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527820078.ch10 (2021).
Ham-Pichavant, F., Sèbe, G., Pardon, P. & Coma, V. Fat resistance properties of chitosan-based paper packaging for food applications. Carbohydr. Polym. 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2005.01.020 (2005).
SG-P. thanks the “Department of Economic Transformation, Industry, Knowledge and Universities” from Junta de Andalucía for a postdoctoral contract (POSTDOC_21_00008).
Institute of Subtropical and Mediterranean Horticulture “La Mayora”, University of Málaga-Higher Council of Scientific Research, (IHSM, UMA-CSIC), Bulevar Louis Pasteur 49, 29010, Malaga, Spain
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
S. G-P.: funding acquisition, conceptualization, writing, editing.
The author declares no competing interests.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Guzman-Puyol, S. Fluorinated compounds in paper and paperboard based food packaging materials. npj Sci Food 8, 82 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-024-00326-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-024-00326-2
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
npj Science of Food (npj Sci Food) ISSN 2396-8370 (online)
rail grease Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.