Food contact of paper and plastic products containing SiO2, Cu-Phthalocyanine, Fe2O3, CaCO3: Ranking factors that control the similarity of form and rate of release

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

The paper industry is an important sector annually consuming kilotons of nanoforms and non-nanoforms of fillers and pigments. Fillers accelerate the rate of drying (less energy needed) and product cost (increasing the load of low-cost fillers). The plastic industry is another use sector, where coloristic pigments can be in nanoform, and many food containers are made of plastic. Use of paper to wrap both wet and dry food is consumer practice, but not always intended by producers. Here we compare the release behavior of different nano-enabled products (NEPs) by changing a) nanoform (NF) characteristics, b) NF load, c) the nano-enabled product (NEP) matrix, and d) food simulants. The ranking of these factors enables an assessment of food contact by concepts of analogy, specifically via the similarities of the rate and form of release in food during contact. Three types of matrices were used: Paper, plastic ((Polylactic Acid (PLA), Polyamide (PA6), and Polyurethane (PU)), and a paint formulation. Two nanoforms each of SiO2, Fe2O3, Cu-Phthalocyanine were incorporated, additionally to the conventional form of CaCO3 that is always contained in paper to reduce cellulose consumption. Tests were guided by the European Regulation EC 1935/2004 and EU 10/2011. No evidence of particle release was observed: the qualitative similarity (the form of release) was high regarding the food contact of all NEPs with embedded NFs. Quantitative similarity of releases depended primarily on the NEP matrix, as this controls the penetration of the simulant fluid into the NEP. The solubility of the NF and impurities in the simulant fluid was the second decisive factor, as dissolution of the NF inside the NEP is the main mechanism of release. This led to complete removal of CaCO3 in acidic medium, whereas Fe and Si signals remained in the paper, consistent with the low release rates in an ionic form. In our set of 16 NEPs, only one NEP showed a dependence on the REACH NF descriptors (substance, size, shape, surface treatment, crystallinity, impurities), specifically attributed to differences in soluble impurities, whereas for all others the substance of the nanoform was sufficient to predict a similarity of food contact release, without influences of size, shape, surface treatment and crystallinity.