You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Molecules
  • Review
  • Open Access

31 August 2022

The Emergence of Edible and Food-Application Coatings for Food Packaging: A Review

,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Faculty of Food Science and Nutrition, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu 88400, Sabah, Malaysia
2
Rural Development Corporation, Level 2, Wisma Pertanian, Locked Bag 86, Kota Kinabalu 88998, Sabah, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Using Natural Products as Edible Films and Coatings for Food Applications

Abstract

Food packaging was not as important in the past as it is now, because the world has more people but fewer food resources. Food packaging will become more prevalent and go from being a nice-to-have to an essential feature of modern life. Food packaging has grown to be an important industry sector in today’s world of more people and more food. Food packaging innovation faces significant challenges in extending perishable food products’ shelf life and contributing to meeting daily nutrient requirements as people nowadays are searching for foods that offer additional health advantages. Modern food preservation techniques have two objectives: process viability and safe, environmentally friendly end products. Long-term storage techniques can include the use of edible coatings and films. This article gives a succinct overview of the supplies and procedures used to coat food products with conventional packaging films and coatings. The key findings summarizing the biodegradable packaging materials are emphasized for their ability to prolong the freshness and flavor of a wide range of food items; films and edible coatings are highlighted as viable alternatives to traditional packaging methods. We discuss the safety concerns and opportunities presented by applying edible films and coatings, allowing it to be used as quality indicators for time-sensitive foods.

1. Introduction

In recent years, edible food packaging has advanced significantly, which is great news for those seeking to improve their standard of living. People are becoming aware of the significance of food packaging for preserving quality. The primary functions of food packaging are to protect its contents from spoilage caused by microorganisms and other organisms, preserve its quality and safety, and extend the product’s shelf life. It also allows for the commercialization and distribution of the product and contains the required product information [,]. Historically, goods were packaged with various materials, including paper, cardboard, metal, glass, and plastic. Diverse external factors, such as the expansion of global food markets, government regulations, the accessibility of raw materials, and consumer preferences, have caused the asx food packaging industry to be constantly in flux [].
However, this traditional preservation method generates most of the municipal solid waste (MSW). The majority of municipal solid waste (MSW) is produced by this traditional preservation method. The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) estimates that the daily MSW production in Mexico is 102,895 tonnes, with paper, cardboard, glass, and metals such as aluminum constituting most of this waste. By 2025, it is anticipated that 2.2 billion tonnes of municipal solid waste will have been generated, up from 1.3 billion tonnes in 2012. Common knowledge holds that packaging non-renewable and non-biodegradable materials negatively affects the environment. There is widespread agreement among consumers and environmentalists that they contribute significantly to trash and pollution in the environment []. Businesses and academics have developed novel packaging strategies to address this issue, using the plethora of biodegradable packaging materials made from renewable crude []. According to Akelah et al. [], the rising interest in edible packaging is in part attributable to the trend toward improving food quality with edible barriers and the rising demand among consumers for highly processed, fresh-tasting, and long-lasting foods.
Food-safe films and coatings are thin, easily removed layers (0.3 mm) that can be eaten whole or used as a topping. Therefore, the formulation must use only ingredients that follow all local, state, and federal laws and regulations about food. The coatings or films applied to food products must not diminish their flavor or texture. Thin coatings on foods or continuous layers between sections or ingredients of different products are examples of edible packaging. Several obstacles can be encountered when attempting to market food that can be remedied with edible films and coatings. These functions include delaying the movement of water, gas, solvents, and oils, improving structural stability, trapping volatile flavor compounds, and transporting food additives. Aesthetically, they can do wonders by boosting shine, minimizing damage, and masking scars []. For instance, edible collagen casings for sausages and hot-melt paraffin wax were used to prevent citrus fruits from absorbing moisture. Apples were covered in wax to make them shiny and keep them from being damaged. The shared properties of coatings’ innovation-based natural polymers can be determined by analyzing the product’s unique characteristics and how they change during production, shipping, and depository. Despite a physical barricade, edible coatings on food products must be packaged in non-edible materials due to contamination concerns. By replacing non-edible materials with edible films and coatings, waste and the environmental impact associated with food packaging can be diminished [].
Edible coating and edible film can be considered synonyms depending on the context. Unlike edible coatings applied to food items, edible films can function independently as packaging materials. In contrast to edible coatings, edible films maintain their shape well enough to be used as independent packaging materials. To that end, using a variety of gelling agents allows for the production of edible films and coatings with a wide range of qualities []. Additionally, manufacturers require cutting-edge materials that facilitate innovative approaches to working with food and packaging. Coatings play an essential role in these circumstances by acting as barriers to prevent the ingress of contaminants and the deterioration of the underlying surface due to oxidation, corrosion, and mechanical stress. Nonetheless, finding coatings with good surface adhesion is essential to guarantee long-term performance. This paper examines the most recent data on edible coatings in the food industry to gain a deeper understanding of the topic. The definitions of the most significant terms contribute to a dynamic taxonomy of shifts in food packaging-related thought. Highlights will include discussions of mass transfer, coating strategies, research and innovation initiatives for coated food products, active components incorporated into compositions, and the boundary properties of coatings. Future developments are also considered to identify knowledge gaps and suggest new research directions. This commentary provides a concise overview of the fundamentals of the coating process, enabling researchers to develop novel edible films and coatings that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of food packaging.

3. Food Safety Issues in Food Packaging

Food and packaging can adversely affect the quality and safety of the food products. The food industry is one of the biggest industries that has been affected by the sustainability trend. Over the years, food packaging trends have evolved, but significant problems and obstacles remain. This consists of food waste, plastic pollution, and excessive resource consumption. Previously, Lee [] stated that food packaging is designed to protect and preserve the food products from possible physical, chemical, microbiological, or other hazards that ultimately can impact their safety and quality. In particular, the interaction between food and its packaging is crucial, as food comes into contact with the packaging. Despite food packaging’s main goal of protecting food from environmental factors, food–packaging interactions can compromise food quality and safety [].
Food contact materials are one of the most overlooked sources of chemical contamination in food as they may release contaminants and then transfer them into the food. Migration is influenced by physicochemical properties of the migrant, packaging material, and food composition such as fat content. In other cases, such as the use of polysaccharide coatings for agricultural produce will be regulated in precisely the same manner as other dietary components and considered as one of the important components for fruits and vegetables []. Polysaccharide-based coatings are mainly used in the production of edible packaging as it is classified as GRAS by the FDA and are commonly used in Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). However, the manufacturer of those biopolymer-based coatings may request GRAS status if the biopolymer component used is not GRAS-approved by demonstrating the safety of the final products. Furthermore, the manufacturer may file a GRAS Affirmation Petition to FDA and they might be able to commercialize the products with approval from the FDA.
Moreover, active and intelligent packaging might incorporate colors, antioxidants, antimicrobials, and additional nutrients to optimize the functionality of the films or coatings. According to EU regulations, food additives in films and coatings must be identified and labeled on packaging with their functional category as well as their name or E-number. Most countries consider antimicrobials as food additives as their primary purpose is to extend the shelf life of food. The application of edible coatings and their concentrations are governed by national regulations. In general, all substances listed on the label must be accurately described because edible films and coatings have become an inseparable part of fresh food [].
Other significant issues concerning allergenic components in edible films and coatings are addressed in regulatory statutes. Polysaccharide extracts frequently contain protein residues []. For example, guar gum extract may cause occupational asthma and allergies in some cases due to the presence of protein (<10%) [,]. Nonetheless, due to the small number of cases reported, guar gum is not a critical food allergy []. Aside from polysaccharides, edible films and coatings can be manufactured with allergen-rich proteins such as milk (casein, whey), wheat (gluten), soy, and peanut [].
Currently, packaging companies prioritize eco-friendly materials and packaging solutions. By preventing chemical residues and extending shelf life, food packaging provides customers with simple food product safety, convenient handling, and transport. Numerous materials, including plastics, glass, metals, and papers and their composites, have been utilized for food packaging. The significance of harmful substances leaching from packaging materials into food is, however, of more significant concern due to the increased health consciousness of consumers.

4. Future Perspectives

Recently, researchers have focused on the feasibility of using biopolymers to fabricate films and coatings for consumable food. The flavor and freshness of the product can be maintained over time by using edible films and coatings. The outcomes of drizzling edible solutions containing additives on freshly sliced fruits, vegetables, and meats have been promising. Adding new antimicrobial, antioxidative, and antibrowning agents could improve food safety and quality. It is possible to acquire a deeper understanding of the synergistic effects of edible coatings and active agents. Combining film-forming biopolymers to improve the structure’s properties is another promising strategy. There is also a dearth of research on developing novel synergistic gelling systems. So, it is feasible to carry out such a comparative study. Most studies on edible coating applications have been conducted in the laboratory, resulting in a dearth of real-world applications. Future applied research should concentrate on edible coatings because they can increase the shelf life of food. To eliminate these issues, coating application methods can be modified to include a recycling process that does not waste an excessive amount of coating solution, reduce the number of microorganisms in the solution during recycling, develop spraying techniques for uneven surfaces, create industrial-sized vacuum tanks, etc.
This facilitates the widespread use of edible films and coatings in novel ways. It is anticipated that the development of edible films and coatings containing two or more nanomaterials will be a future trend in edible packaging. These products are anticipated to have better gas barrier qualities, superior product stability, distinctive colors and flavors, and higher nutritional value. In order to maintain food stability, new approaches for regulating mechanical properties and gas transport must be investigated. Edible films and coatings need to assist food products in adapting to their environments by altering their properties in response to environmental factors such as relative humidity and temperature. A method for effectively regulating the flow of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor in a system requires careful consideration of the nanomaterials.

5. Conclusions

Nowadays, coatings are receiving considerable attention due to the potential applications of nanotechnology, such as the addition of conductive or antimicrobial properties. There are several advantages to using natural-based films and coatings instead of adding preservatives directly to food. Food preservatives such as antibacterial and antioxidant agents are only allowed to be used in the appropriate amount as the packaging material to minimize the interaction between the chemical compounds and food product. Additionally, antimicrobial/antimicrobial films or coatings allowed a controlled release of those food preservatives, reducing the risk of reaction with other food components. Ideal edible coatings or films would help to prevent water loss due to evaporation, as they operate as the sacrificial moisture agent, minimize the loss of desirable odor and flavor volatiles due to evaporation, retard the growth of microorganisms due to respiration, and reduce the exchange of gasses due to gas exchange. Furthermore, the availability of natural-based films or coatings is high, and are most cost effective in terms of its manufacturing cost as compared to current packaging that incorporates the applications of nanotechnology.
Alterations to the atmosphere caused by the barrier must not encourage anaerobic respiration or the production of harmful volatiles. Prolonging the shelf life of freshly cut fruits and vegetables, meat, poultry, seafood, and cheese, edible films, and coatings is a viable option for accomplishing these goals, as shown by a review of the current literature on the topic. Researchers can use this synopsis to create or improvise the current functional coatings, as some of the current edible films or coatings are well-known for being hard and brittle. Extending the shelf life of a product through bio-packaging has been shown to reduce costs associated with spoilage due to natural ripening. The biomaterials and types of biologically active compounds used to coat products determine whether or not those products’ sensorial, physicochemical, or nutritional qualities are enhanced. Despite their potential usefulness in producing food-safe films and coatings, research into several biopolymers and additives that have such properties has lagged. This review might give some good ideas about the current methods for keeping food safe and fresh.

Author Contributions

L.J.L.I. and K.R. drafted the manuscript and collected the data. K.R. developed the framework, finalized, and supervised the research. J.M.V., P.M., K.H.E., N.M.N.‘A., W.X.L.F. and A.A.F. conceived the study and participated in its design and coordination. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Universiti Malaysia Sabah, grant number PHD0024.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the researchers involved in this project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Raheem, D. Application of plastics and paper as food packaging materials—An overview. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2013, 25, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Marsh, K.; Bugusu, B. Food packaging—Roles, materials, and environmental issues. J. Food Sci. 2007, 72, R39–R55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Coles, R. Introduction. In Food Packaging Technology; Coles, R., McDowell, D., Kirwan, M.J., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing: London, UK, 2003; pp. 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ramos, Ó.L.; Reinas, I.; Silva, S.I.; Fernandes, J.C.; Cerqueira, M.A.; Pereira, R.N.; Vicente, A.A.; Poças, M.F.; Pintado, M.E.; Malcata, F.X. Effect of whey protein purity and glycerol content upon physical properties of edible films manufactured therefrom. Food Hydrocoll. 2013, 30, 110–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gontard, N.; Guilbert, S. Bio-packaging: Technology and properties of edible and/or biodegradable material of agricultural origin. In Food Packaging and Preservation; Mathlouthi, M., Ed.; Blackie Academic and Professional: Glasgow, UK, 1994; pp. 159–181. [Google Scholar]
  6. Akelah, A. Polymers in food packaging and protection. In Functionalized Polymeric Materials in Agriculture and the Food Industry; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2013; pp. 293–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Murmu, S.B.; Mishra, H.N. The effect of edible coating based on arabic gum, sodium caseinate and essential oil of cinnamon and lemon grass on guava. Food Chem. 2018, 245, 820–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dehghani, S.; Hosseini, S.V.; Regenstein, J.M. Edible films and coatings in seafood preservation: A review. Food Chem. 2018, 240, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Díaz-Montes, E.; Castro-Muñoz, R. Edible films and coatings as food-quality preservers: An overview. Foods 2021, 10, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ncube, L.K.; Ude, A.U.; Ogunmuyiwa, E.N.; Zulkifli, R.; Beas, I.N. Environmental Impact of Food Packaging Materials: A Review of Contemporary Development from Conventional Plastics to Polylactic Acid Based Materials. Materials 2020, 13, 4994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Abdelwahab, N.A.; Abd El-Ghaffar, M.A. Preparation, Characterization, and Evaluation of Poly(p-azidoaniline) as Thermal Stabilizer for Low Density Polyethylene Films. Polym. Plast. Technol. Eng. 2015, 55, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dong, Z.; Xu, F.; Ahmed, I.; Li, Z.; Lin, H. Characterization and preservation performance of active polyethylene films containing rosemary and cinnamon essential oils for Pacific white shrimp packaging. Food Control 2018, 92, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vidács, A.; Kerekes, E.; Rajkó, R.; Petkovits, T.; Alharbi, N.S.; Khaled, J.M.; Vágvölgyi, C.; Krisch, J. Optimization of essential oil-based natural disinfectants against Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli biofilms formed on polypropylene surfaces. J. Mol. Liq. 2018, 255, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Llana-Ruiz-Cabello, M.; Pichardo, S.; Bermudez, J.M.; Baños, A.; Ariza, J.J.; Guillamón, E.; Aucejo, S.; Cameán, A.M. Characterisation and antimicrobial activity of active polypropylene films containing oregano essential oil and Allium extract to be used in packaging for meat products. Food Addit. Contam. 2018, 35, 783–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Khalaj, M.J.; Ahmadi, H.; Lesankhosh, R.; Khalaj, G. Study of physical and mechanical properties of polypropylene nanocomposites for food packaging application: Nano-clay modified with iron nanoparticles. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 51, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kouloumpis, V.; Pell, R.; Correa-Cano, M.; Yan, X. Potential trade-offs between eliminating plastics and mitigating climate change: An LCA perspective on Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) bottles in Cornwall. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 727, 138681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Gisario, A.; Veniali, F.; Barletta, M.; Tagliaferri, V.; Vesco, S. Laser transmission welding of poly(ethylene terephthalate) and biodegradable poly(ethylene terephthalate)—Based blends. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2017, 90, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kik, K.; Bukowska, B.; Sicińska, P. Polystyrene nanoparticles: Sources, occurrence in the environment, distribution in tissues, accumulation and toxicity to various organisms. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 262, 114297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Abolghasemi, F.L.; Ghanbarzadeh, B.; Dehghannya, J.; Abbasi, F.; Ranjbar, H. Optimization of mechanical and color properties of polystyrene/nanoclay/nano ZnO based nanocomposite packaging sheet using response surface methodology. Food Packag. 2018, 17, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ho, B.T.; Roberts, T.K.; Lucas, S. An overview on biodegradation of polystyrene and modified polystyrene: The microbial approach. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2017, 38, 308–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yang, Y.; Yang, J.; Wu, W.M.; Zhao, J.; Song, Y.; Gao, L.; Yang, R.; Jiang, L. Biodegradation and Mineralization of Polystyrene by Plastic-Eating Mealworms: Part 2. Role of Gut Microorganisms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 12087–12093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. 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. 2019, 56, 4391–4403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Deshwal, G.K.; Panjagari, N.R. Review on metal packaging: Materials, forms, food applications, safety and recyclability. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 57, 2377–2392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ahmet, Y.; Sezgin, A. Food Packaging: Glass And Plastic. In Researches on Science and Art in 21st Century Turkey; Gece Kitapligi: Ankara, Turkey, 2017; pp. 735–740. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mangaraj, S.; Yadav, A.; Bal, L.M.; Dash, S.K.; Mahanti, N.K. Application of biodegradable polymers in food packaging industry: A comprehensive review. J. Packag. Technol. Res. 2019, 3, 77–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Schmid, M.; Müller, K. Whey protein-based packaging films and coatings. In Whey Proteins; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 407–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kaewprachu, P.; Osako, K.; Benjakul, S.; Tongdeesoontorn, W.; Rawdkuen, S. Biodegradable protein-based films and their properties: A comparative study. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016, 29, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, H.; Mittal, G. Biodegradable protein-based films from plant resources: A review. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2010, 29, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pérez, L.M.; Piccirilli, G.N.; Delorenzi, N.J.; Verdini, R.A. Effect of different combinations of glycerol and/or trehalose on physical and structural properties of whey protein concentrate-based edible films. Food Hydrocoll. 2016, 56, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zavareze, E.D.R.; Halal, S.L.M.E.; Marques e Silva, R.; Dias, A.R.G.; Prentice-Hernández, C. Mechanical, Barrier and Morphological Properties of Biodegradable Films Based on Muscle and Waste Proteins from the Whitemouth Croaker (Micropogonias furnieri). J. Food Process. Preserv. 2014, 38, 1973–1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shendurse, A.M.; Gopikrishna, G.; Patel, A.C.; Pandya, A.J. Milk protein based edible films and coatings–preparation, properties and food applications. J. Nutr. Health Food Eng. 2018, 8, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Qiu, Y.T.; Wang, B.J.; Weng, Y.M. Preparation and characterization of genipin cross-linked and lysozyme incorporated antimicrobial sodium caseinate edible films. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2020, 26, 100601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Azevedo, V.M.; de Oliveira, A.C.S.; Borges, S.V.; Raguzzoni, J.C.; Dias, M.V.; Costa, A.L.R. Pea protein isolate nanocomposite films for packaging applications: Effect of starch nanocrystals on the structural, morphological, thermal, mechanical and barrier properties. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2020, 32, 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Schmid, M.; Proels, S.; Kainz, D.M.; Hammann, F. Effect of thermally induced denaturation on molecular interaction-response relationships of whey protein isolate based films and coatings. Prog. Org. Coat. 2017, 104, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Akhtar, M.J.; Aïder, M. Study of the barrier and mechanical properties of packaging edible films fabricated with hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) combined with electro-activated whey. J. Packag. Technol. Res. 2018, 2, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chalermthai, B.; Chan, W.Y.; Bastidas-Oyanedel, J.R.; Taher, H.; Olsen, B.D.; Schmidt, J.E. Preparation and characterization of whey protein-based polymers produced from residual dairy streams. Polymers 2019, 11, 722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Brady, J.W. Introductory Food Chemistry; Comstock Publishing Associates: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  38. Rakhmanova, A.; Khan, Z.A.; Sharif, R.; Lv, X. Meeting the requirements of halal gelatin: A mini review. MOJ Food Proc. Technol. 2018, 6, 477–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Karim, A.A.; Bhat, R. Fish gelatin: Properties, challenges, and prospects as an alternative to mammalian gelatins. Food Hydrocoll. 2009, 23, 563–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gornall, J.L.; Terentjev, E.M. Helix–coil transition of gelatin: Helical morphology and stability. Soft Matter 2008, 4, 544–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Mohamed, S.A.; El-Sakhawy, M.; Nashy, E.S.H.; Othman, A.M. Novel natural composite films as packaging materials with enhanced properties. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 136, 774–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Reddy, N.; Yang, Y. Thermoplastic films from plant proteins. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2013, 130, 729–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Vahedikia, N.; Garavand, F.; Tajeddin, B.; Cacciotti, I.; Jafari, S.M.; Omidi, T.; Zahedi, Z. Biodegradable zein film composites reinforced with chitosan nanoparticles and cinnamon essential oil: Physical, mechanical, structural and antimicrobial attributes. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2019, 177, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ünalan, İ.U.; Korel, F.; Yemenicioğlu, A. Active packaging of ground beef patties by edible zein films incorporated with partially purified lysozyme and Na2EDTA. Int. J. Food Sci. 2011, 46, 1289–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Visakh, P.M. Biomonomers for Green Polymers: Introduction. In Bio Monomers for Green Polymeric Composite Materials; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. dos Santos Paglione, I.; Galindo, M.V.; de Souza, K.C.; Yamashita, F.; Grosso, C.R.F.; Sakanaka, L.S.; Shirai, M.A. Optimization of the conditions for producing soy protein isolate films. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2019, 31, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ortiz, C.M.; de Moraes, J.O.; Vicente, A.R.; Laurindo, J.B.; Mauri, A.N. Scale-up of the production of soy (Glycine max L.) protein films using tape casting: Formulation of film-forming suspension and drying conditions. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 66, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lodha, P.; Netravali, A.N. Thermal and mechanical properties of environment-friendly ‘green’plastics from stearic acid modified-soy protein isolate. Ind. Crops Prod. 2005, 21, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mohareb, E.; Mittal, G.S. Formulation and process conditions for biodegradable/edible soy-based packaging trays. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2007, 20, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. de Moraes Crizel, T.; de Oliveira Rios, A.; Alves, V.D.; Bandarra, N.; Moldão-Martins, M.; Hickmann Flôres, S. Biodegradable films based on gelatin and papaya peel microparticles with antioxidant properties. Food Bioproc. Tech. 2018, 11, 536–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Soradech, S.; Nunthanid, J.; Limmatvapirat, S.; Luangtana-anan, M. Utilization of shellac and gelatin composite film for coating to extend the shelf life of banana. Food Control. 2017, 73, 1310–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Oliveira, M.A.; Furtado, R.F.; Bastos, M.S.R.; Leitão, R.C.; Benevides, S.D.; Muniz, C.R.; Biswas, A. Performance evaluation of cashew gum and gelatin blend for food packaging. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2018, 17, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Huang, T.; Fang, Z.; Zhao, H.; Xu, D.; Yang, W.; Yu, W.; Zhang, J. Physical properties and release kinetics of electron beam irradiated fish gelatin films with antioxidants of bamboo leaves. Food Biosci. 2020, 36, 100597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhu, F. Polysaccharide based films and coatings for food packaging: Effect of added polyphenols. Food Chem. 2021, 359, 129871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gao, H.X.; He, Z.; Sun, Q.; He, Q.; Zeng, W.C. A functional polysaccharide film forming by pectin, chitosan, and tea polyphenols. Carbohydr. Polym. 2018, 215, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhu, F. Dietary fiber polysaccharides of amaranth, buckwheat and quinoa grains: A review of chemical structure, biological functions and food uses. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 248, 116819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mostafavi, F.S.; Zaeim, D. Agar-based edible films for food packaging applications-A review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 159, 1165–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Alizadeh-Sani, M.; Ehsani, A.; Moghaddas Kia, E.; Khezerlou, A. Microbial gums: Introducing a novel functional component of edible coatings and packaging. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 103, 6853–6866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Yu, X.; Chen, L.; Jin, Z.; Jiao, A. Research progress of starch-based biodegradable materials: A review. J. Mater. Sci. 2021, 56, 11187–11208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Shirazani, M.T.; Bakhshi, H.; Rashidi, A.; Taghizadeh, M. Starch-based activated carbon micro-spheres for adsorption of methane with superior performance in ANG technology. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 103910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ilyas, R.A.; Sapuan, S.M.; Ishak, M.R.; Zainudin, E.S. Sugar palm nanocrystalline cellulose reinforced sugar palm starch composite: Degradation and water-barrier properties. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 368, 012006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Palma-Rodríguez, H.M.; Aguirre-Álvarez, G.; Chavarría-Hernández, N.; Rodríguez-Hernández, A.I.; Bello-Pérez, L.A.; Vargas-Torres, A. Oxidized banana starch–polyvinyl alcohol film: Partial characterization. Starch-Stärke 2012, 64, 882–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Klemm, D.; Kramer, F.; Moritz, S.; Lindström, T.; Ankerfors, M.; Gray, D.; Dorris, A. Nanocelluloses: A new family of nature-based materials. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 5438–5466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Moghimi, R.; Aliahmadi, A.; Rafati, H. Antibacterial hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose edible films containing nanoemulsions of Thymus daenensis essential oil for food packaging. Carbohydr. Polym. 2017, 175, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tabari, M. Investigation of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) on mechanical properties of cold water fish gelatin biodegradable edible films. Foods 2017, 6, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Shanmugam, K.; Doosthosseini, H.; Varanasi, S.; Garnier, G.; Batchelor, W. Nanocellulose films as air and water vapour barriers: A recyclable and biodegradable alternative to polyolefin packaging. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2019, 22, e00115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. El Achaby, M.; El Miri, N.; Aboulkas, A.; Zahouily, M.; Bilal, E.; Barakat, A.; Solhy, A. Processing and properties of eco-friendly bio-nanocomposite films filled with cellulose nanocrystals from sugarcane bagasse. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 96, 340–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Venkatachalam, K.; Lekjing, S. A chitosan-based edible film with clove essential oil and nisin for improving the quality and shelf life of pork patties in cold storage. RSC Adv. 2017, 10, 17777–17786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Sani, M.A.; Tavassoli, M.; Hamishehkar, H.; McClements, D.J. Carbohydrate-based films containing pH-sensitive red barberry anthocyanins: Application as biodegradable smart food packaging materials. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 255, 117488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Francisco, C.B.; Pellá, M.G.; Silva, O.A.; Raimundo, K.F.; Caetano, J.; Linde, G.A.; Colauto, N.B.; Dragunski, D.C. Shelf-life of guavas coated with biodegradable starch and cellulose-based films. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 152, 272–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Ngo, T.M.P.; Nguyen, T.H.; Dang, T.M.Q.; Tran, T.X.; Rachtanapun, P. Characteristics and antimicrobial properties of active edible films based on pectin and nanochitosan. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rai, S.K.; Chaturvedi, K.; Yadav, S.K. Evaluation of structural integr.ty and functionality of commercial pectin based edible films incorporated with corn flour, beetroot, orange peel, muesli and rice flour. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 91, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bermúdez-Oria, A.; Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, G.; Vioque, B.; Rubio-Senent, F.; Fernández-Bolaños, J. Physical and functional properties of pectin-fish gelatin films containing the olive phenols hydroxytyrosol and 3, 4-dihydroxyphenylglycol. Carbohydr. Polym. 2017, 178, 368–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Stephen, A.M.; Phillips, G.O. Food Polysaccharides and Their Applications; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  75. Phillips, G.O.; Williams, P.A. Handbook of Hydrocolloids; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  76. Hassan, B.; Chatha, S.A.S.; Hussain, A.I.; Zia, K.M.; Akhtar, N. Recent advances on polysaccharides, lipids and protein based edible films and coatings: A review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 109, 1095–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Akoh, C.C. Food Lipids: Chemistry, Nutrition, and Biotechnology; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  78. Galus, S.; Arik Kibar, E.A.; Gniewosz, M.; Kraśniewska, K. Novel materials in the preparation of edible films and coatings—A review. Coatings 2020, 10, 674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Mohamed, S.A.; El-Sakhawy, M.; El-Sakhawy, M.A.M. Polysaccharides, protein and lipid-based natural edible films in food packaging: A review. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 238, 116178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Rodrigues, D.C.; Cunha, A.P.; Brito, E.S.; Azeredo, H.M.; Gallao, M.I. Mesquite seed gum and palm fruit oil emulsion edible films: Influence of oil content and sonication. Food Hydrocoll. 2016, 56, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Vargas, M.; Albors, A.; Chiralt, A. Application of chitosan-sunflower oil edible films to pork meat hamburgers. Procedia Food Sci. 2011, 1, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Randazzo, W.; Jiménez-Belenguer, A.; Settanni, L.; Perdones, A.; Moschetti, M.; Palazzolo, E.; Moschetti, G. Antilisterial effect of citrus essential oils and their performance in edible film formulations. Food Control. 2016, 59, 750–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Syafiq, R.; Sapuan, S.M.; Zuhri, M.Y.M.; Ilyas, R.A.; Nazrin, A.; Sherwani, S.F.K.; Khalina, A. Antimicrobial activities of starch-based biopolymers and biocomposites incorporated with plant essential oils: A review. Polymers 2020, 12, 2403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Haq, M.A.; Hasnain, A.; Jafri, F.A.; Akbar, M.F.; Khan, A. Characterization of edible gum cordia film: Effects of beeswax. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 68, 674–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Bizymis, A.P.; Tzia, C. Edible films and coatings: Properties for the selection of the components, evolution through composites and nanomaterials, and safety issues. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 8, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Tavassoli-Kafrani, E.; Shekarchizadeh, H.; Masoudpour-Behabadi, M. Development of edible films and coatings from alginates and carrageenans. Carbohydr. Polym. 2016, 137, 360–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Murrieta-Martínez, C.L.; Soto-Valdez, H.; Pacheco-Aguilar, R.; Torres-Arreola, W.; Rodríguez-Felix, F.; Márquez Ríos, E. Edible protein films: Sources and behavior. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2018, 31, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Imre, B.; García, L.; Puglia, D.; Vilaplana, F. Reactive compatibilization of plant polysaccharides and biobased polymers: Review on current strategies, expectations and reality. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 209, 20–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Cazón, P.; Velazquez, G.; Ramírez, J.A.; Vázquez, M. Polysaccharide-based films and coatings for food packaging: A review. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 68, 136–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kumar, A.; Hasan, M.; Mangaraj, S.; Pravitha, M.; Verma, D.K.; Srivastav, P.P. Trends in Edible Packaging Films and its Prospective Future in Food: A Review. Appl. Food Biotechnol. 2022, 2, 100118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Hon, D.N.S. Cellulose and its derivatives: Structures, reactions, and medical uses. In Polysaccharides in Medicinal Applications; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2017; pp. 87–105. [Google Scholar]
  92. Ngatirah, N.; Ruswanto, A.; Sunardi, S. Effect of Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose from oil palm empty fruit bunch on oil uptake and physical properties of French fries. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 42, e110421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Fagundes, C.; Palou, L.; Monteiro, A.R.; Pérez-Gago, M.B. Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose-beeswax edible coatings formulated with antifungal food additives to reduce alternaria black spot and maintain postharvest quality of cold-stored cherry tomatoes. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 193, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Askari, F.; Sadeghi, E.; Mohammadi, R.; Rouhi, M.; Taghizadeh, M.; Hosein Shirgardoun, M.; Kariminejad, M. The physicochemical and structural properties of psyllium gum/modified starch composite edible film. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2018, 42, e13715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ceballos, R.L.; Ochoa-Yepes, O.; Goyanes, S.; Bernal, C.; Famá, L. Effect of yerba mate extract on the performance of starch films obtained by extrusion and compression molding as active and smart packaging. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 244, 116495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Krishna, M.; Nindo, C.I.; Min, S.C. Development of fish gelatin edible films using extrusion and compression molding. J. Food Eng. 2012, 108, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Morales-Contreras, B.E.; Wicker, L.; Rosas-Flores, W.; Contreras-Esquivel, J.C.; Gallegos-Infante, J.A.; Reyes-Jaquez, D.; Morales-Castro, J. Apple pomace from variety “Blanca de Asturias” as sustainable source of pectin: Composition, rheological, and thermal properties. LWT 2020, 117, 108641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Espitia, P.J.; Batista, R.A.; Azeredo, H.M.; Otoni, C.G. Probiotics and their potential applications in active edible films and coatings. Int. Food Res. J. 2016, 90, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Chodijah, S.; Husaini, A.; Zaman, M. Extraction of pectin from banana peels (musa paradiasica fomatypica) for biodegradable plastic films. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1167, 012061, IOP Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gorrasi, G.; Bugatti, V. Edible bio-nano-hybrid coatings for food protection based on pectins and LDH-salicylate: Preparation and analysis of physical properties. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 69, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Madsen, M.; Westh, P.; Khan, S.; Ipsen, R.; Almdal, K.; Aachmann, F.L.; Svensson, B. Impact of Alginate Mannuronic-Guluronic Acid Contents and pH on Protein Binding Capacity and Complex Size. Biomacromolecules 2021, 22, 649–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Senturk, P.T.; Müller, K.; Schmid, M. Alginate-based edible films and coatings for food packaging applications. Foods 2018, 7, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Mahcene, Z.; Khelil, A.; Hasni, S.; Bozkurt, F.; Goudjil, M.B.; Tornuk, F. Home-made cheese preservation using sodium alginate based on edible film incorporating essential oils. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 58, 2406–2419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Coltelli, M.B.; Danti, S.; De Clerck, K.; Lazzeri, A.; Morganti, P. Pullulan for advanced sustainable body-and skin-contact applications. J. Funct. Biomater. 2020, 11, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Omar-Aziz, M.; Khodaiyan, F.; Yarmand, M.S.; Mousavi, M.; Gharaghani, M.; Kennedy, J.F.; Hosseini, S.S. Combined effects of octenylsuccination and beeswax on pullulan films: Water-resistant and mechanical properties. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 255, 117471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, A.; Dutta, J. Chitosan based nanocomposite films and coatings: Emerging antimicrobial food packaging alternatives. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 97, 196–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Li, Y.; Cao, C.; Pei, Y.; Liu, X.; Tang, K. Preparation and properties of microfibrillated chitin/gelatin composites. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 130, 715–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Ribeiro, A.M.; Estevinho, B.N.; Rocha, F. Preparation and incorporation of functional ingredients in edible films and coatings. Food Bioproc. Tech. 2021, 14, 209–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Nguyen, A.T.; Parker, L.; Brennan, L.; Lockrey, S. A consumer definition of eco-friendly packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Mellinas, C.; Ramos, M.; Jiménez, A.; Garrigós, M.C. Recent trends in the use of pectin from agro-waste residues as a natural-based biopolymer for food packaging applications. Materials 2020, 13, 673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Galus, S.; Kadzińska, J. Whey protein edible films modified with almond and walnut oils. Food Hydrocoll. 2016, 52, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Kumari, M.; Mahajan, H.; Joshi, R.; Gupta, M. Development and structural characterization of edible films for improving fruit quality. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2017, 12, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Zhang, S.; Zhao, H. Preparation and properties of zein–rutin composite nanoparticle/corn starch films. Carbohydr. Polym. 2017, 169, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Wittaya, T. Protein-based edible films: Characteristics and improvement of properties. Struct. Funct. Food Eng. 2012, 3, 44–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Bourtoom, T. Edible protein films: Properties enhancement. Int. Food Res. J. 2009, 16, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  116. Wagh, Y.R.; Pushpadass, H.A.; Emerald, F.; Nath, B.S. Preparation and characterization of milk protein films and their application for packaging of Cheddar cheese. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 51, 3767–3775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Çakmak, H.; Özselek, Y.; Turan, O.Y.; Fıratlıgil, E.; Karbancioğlu-Güler, F. Whey protein isolate edible films incorporated with essential oils: Antimicrobial activity and barrier properties. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2020, 179, 109285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Seydim, A.C.; Sarikus-Tutal, G.; Sogut, E. Effect of whey protein edible films containing plant essential oils on microbial inactivation of sliced Kasar cheese. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2020, 26, 100567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Fernandes, L.M.; Guimarães, J.T.; Pimentel, T.C.; Esmerino, E.A.; Freitas, M.Q.; Carvalho, C.W.P.; Silva, M.C. Edible whey protein films and coatings added with prebiotic ingredients. In Agri-Food Industry Strategies for Healthy Diets and Sustainability; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 177–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Zoghi, A.; Khosravi-Darani, K.; Mohammadi, R. Application of edible films containing probiotics in food products. J. Food Prot. 2020, 15, 307–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Yam, K.L.; Takhistov, P.T.; Miltz, J. Intelligent packaging: Concepts and applications. J. Food Sci. 2005, 70, R1–R10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Vanderroost, M.; Ragaert, P.; Devlieghere, F.; De Meulenaer, B. Intelligent food packaging: The next generation. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 39, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Siracusa, V.; Lotti, N. Intelligent packaging to improve shelf life. In Food Quality and Shelf Life; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 261–279. [Google Scholar]
  124. Ghaani, M.; Cozzolino, C.A.; Castelli, G.; Farris, S. An overview of the intelligent packaging technologies in the food sector. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 51, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Han, J.W.; Ruiz-Garcia, L.; Qian, J.P.; Yang, X.T. Food packaging: A comprehensive review and future trends. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018, 17, 860–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Drago, E.; Campardelli, R.; Pettinato, M.; Perego, P. Innovations in smart packaging concepts for food: An extensive review. Foods 2020, 9, 1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Yam, K.L. Intelligent packaging to enhance food safety and quality. In Emerging Food Packaging Technologies; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2012; pp. 137–152. [Google Scholar]
  128. Kalpana, S.; Priyadarshini, S.R.; Leena, M.M.; Moses, J.A.; Anandharamakrishnan, C. Intelligent packaging: Trends and applications in food systems. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 93, 145–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Poyatos-Racionero, E.; Ros-Lis, J.V.; Vivancos, J.L.; Martinez-Manez, R. Recent advances on intelligent packaging as tools to reduce food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3398–3409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Jiang, G.; Hou, X.; Zeng, X.; Zhang, C.; Wu, H.; Shen, G.; Li, S.; Luo, Q.; Li, M.; Liu, X.; et al. Preparation and characterization of indicator films from carboxymethyl-cellulose/starch and purple sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) lam) anthocyanins for monitoring fish freshness. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 143, 359–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Amogne, N.Y.; Ayele, D.W.; Tsigie, Y.A. Recent advances in anthocyanin dyes extracted from plants for dye sensitized solar cell. Mater. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2020, 9, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Park, K.J.; Lee, J.S.; Jo, H.J.; Kim, E.S.; Lee, H.G. Antimicrobial and indicator properties of edible film containing clove bud oil-loaded chitosan capsules and red cabbage for fish preservation. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022, 196, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Erna, K.H.; Felicia, W.X.L.; Vonnie, J.M.; Rovina, K.; Yin, K.W.; Nur’Aqilah, M.N. Synthesis and Physicochemical Characterization of Polymer Film-Based Anthocyanin and Starch. Biosensors 2022, 12, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Erna, K.H.; Felicia, W.X.L.; Rovina, K.; Vonnie, J.M.; Huda, N. Development of curcumin/rice starch films for sensitive detection of hypoxanthine in chicken and fish meat. Carbohydr. Polym. Techn. App. 2022, 3, 100189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. He, F.; Kong, Q.; Jin, Z.; Mou, H. Developing a unidirectionally permeable edible film based on ĸ-carrageenan and gelatin for visually detecting the freshness of grass carp fillets. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 241, 116336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Lu, P.; Yang, Y.; Liu, R.; Liu, X.; Ma, J.; Wu, M.; Wang, S. Preparation of sugarcane bagasse nanocellulose hydrogel as a colourimetric freshness indicator for intelligent food packaging. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 249, 116831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Ezati, P.; Priyadarshi, R.; Bang, Y.J.; Rhim, J.W. CMC and CNF-based intelligent pH-responsive color indicator films integrated with shikonin to monitor fish freshness. Food Cont. 2021, 126, 108046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Baek, S.; Maruthupandy, M.; Lee, K.; Kim, D.; Seo, J. Freshness indicator for monitoring changes in quality of packaged kimchi during storage. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2020, 25, 100528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Kuswandi, B.; Asih, N.P.; Pratoko, D.K.; Kristiningrum, N.; Moradi, M. Edible pH sensor based on immobilized red cabbage anthocyanins into bacterial cellulose membrane for intelligent food packaging. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2020, 33, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Taghinia, P.; Abdolshahi, A.; Sedaghati, S.; Shokrollahi, B. Smart edible films based on mucilage of lallemantia iberica seed incorporated with curcumin for freshness monitoring. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 9, 1222–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Lamba, A.; Garg, V. Recent innovations in food packaging: A review. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. Int. 2019, 4, 123–129. [Google Scholar]
  144. Roy, S.; Rhim, J.W. Anthocyanin food colorant and its application in pH-responsive color change indicator films. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 61, 2297–2325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Sohail, M.; Sun, D.W.; Zhu, Z. Recent developments in intelligent packaging for enhancing food quality and safety. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 58, 2650–2662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Won, K.; Jang, N.Y.; Jeon, J. A natural component-based oxygen indicator with in-pack activation for intelligent food packaging. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 9675–9679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Jang, N.Y.; Won, K. New pressure-activated compartmented oxygen indicator for intelligent food packaging. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 49, 650–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Chen, H.Z.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B.; Guo, Z. Applicability of a colorimetric indicator label for monitoring freshness of fresh-cut green bell pepper. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2018, 140, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Abu-Hani, A.F.; Greish, Y.E.; Mahmoud, S.T.; Awwad, F.; Ayesh, A.I. Low-temperature and fast response H2S gas sensor using semiconducting chitosan film. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2017, 253, 677–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Ko, G.J.; Han, S.D.; Kim, J.K.; Zhu, J.; Han, W.B.; Chung, J.; Yang, S.M.; Cheng, H.; Kim, D.H.; Kang, C.Y.; et al. Biodegradable, flexible silicon nanomembrane-based NOx gas sensor system with record-high performance for transient environmental monitors and medical implants. NPG Asia Mater. 2020, 12, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Zhai, X.; Shi, J.; Zou, X.; Wang, S.; Jiang, C.; Zhang, J.; Holmes, M. Novel colorimetric films based on starch/polyvinyl alcohol incorporated with roselle anthocyanins for fish freshness monitoring. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 69, 308–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Ma, Q.; Du, L.; Wang, L. Tara gum/polyvinyl alcohol-based colorimetric NH3 indicator films incorporating curcumin for intelligent packaging. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2017, 244, 759–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Alizadeh-Sani, M.; Mohammadian, E.; Rhim, J.W.; Jafari, S.M. pH-sensitive (halochromic) smart packaging films based on natural food colorants for the monitoring of food quality and safety. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 105, 93–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Yousefi, H.; Su, H.M.; Imani, S.M.; Alkhaldi, K.M.; Filipe, C.D.; Didar, T.F. Intelligent food packaging: A review of smart sensing technologies for monitoring food quality. ACS Sens. 2019, 4, 808–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Taoukis, P.; Labuza, T.P. Applicability of time-temperature indicators as shelf life monitors of food products. J. Food Sci. 1989, 54, 783–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Zhang, X.; Sun, G.; Xiao, X.; Liu, Y.; Zheng, X. Application of microbial TTIs as smart label for food quality: Response mechanism, application and research trends. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 51, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Göransson, M.; Nilsson, F. Jevinger Temperature performance and food shelf-life accuracy in cold food supply chains—Insights from multiple field studies. Food Cont. 2018, 86, 332–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Maciel, V.B.; Yoshida, C.M.; Franco, T.T. Development of a prototype of a colourimetric temperature indicator for monitoring food quality. J. Food Eng. 2012, 111, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Saenjaiban, A.; Singtisan, T.; Suppakul, P.; Jantanasakulwong, K.; Punyodom, W.; Rachtanapun, P. Novel color change film as a time–temperature indicator using polydiacetylene/silver nanoparticles embedded in carboxymethyl cellulose. Polymers 2020, 12, 2306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Priyadarshi, R.; Kumar, B.; Negi, Y.S. Chitosan film incorporated with citric acid and glycerol as an active packaging material for extension of green chilli shelf life. Carbohydr. Polym. 2018, 195, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. European Commission. EU Guidance to the Commission Regulation (EC) No 450/2009 of 29 May 2009 on Active and Intelligent Materials and Articles Intended to Come into the Contact with Food (Version 1.0). 2009. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/chemical_safety/food_contact_materials_en (accessed on 1 July 2022).
  162. Yildirim, S.; Röcker, B.; Pettersen, M.K.; Nilsen-Nygaard, J.; Ayhan, Z.; Rutkaite, R.; Coma, V. Active packaging applications for food. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018, 17, 165–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Qian, M.; Liu, D.; Zhang, X.; Yin, Z.; Ismail, B.B.; Ye, X.; Guo, M. A review of active packaging in bakery products: Applications and future trends. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 114, 459–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Gaikwad, K.K.; Singh, S.; Negi, Y.S. Ethylene scavengers for active packaging of fresh food produce. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2020, 18, 269–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Arfat, Y.A.; Ejaz, M.; Jacob, H.; Ahmed, J. Deciphering the potential of guar gum/Ag-Cu nanocomposite films as an active food packaging material. Carbohydr. Polym. 2017, 157, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Valdivieso-Ugarte, M.; Gomez-Llorente, C.; Plaza-Díaz, J.; Gil, Á. Antimicrobial, antioxidant, and immunomodulatory properties of essential oils: A systematic review. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Brockgreitens, J.; Abbas, A. Responsive food packaging: Recent progress and technological prospects. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2016, 15, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Alves, J.; Gaspar, P.D.; Lima, T.M.; Silva, P.D. What is the role of active packaging in the future of food sustainability? A systematic review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Gaikwad, K.K.; Singh, S.; Lee, Y.S. Oxygen scavenging films in food packaging. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2018, 16, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Juan-Polo, A.; Maestre Pérez, S.E.; Monedero Prieto, M.; Tone, A.M.; Sánchez Reig, C.; Beltrán Sanahuja, A. Double-function oxygen scavenger and aromatic food packaging films based on LDPE/polybutadiene and peanut aroma. Polymers 2021, 13, 1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Lee, D.S.; Wang, H.J.; Jaisan, C.; An, D.S. Active food packaging to control carbon dioxide. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2022, 35, 213–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Musa, A.A. Effect of different packaging methods on consumers eating quality of beef. J. Food Saf. 2019, 18, 235–245. [Google Scholar]
  173. Rovera, C.; Ghaani, M.; Farris, S. Nano-inspired oxygen barrier coatings for food packaging applications: An overview. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 97, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Hasani-Javanmardi, M.; Fallah, A.A.; Abbasvali, M. Effect of safflower oil nanoemulsion and cumin essential oil combined with oxygen absorber packaging on the quality and shelf-life of refrigerated lamb loins. LWT 2021, 147, 111557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Syamila, M.; Gedi, M.A.; Briars, R.; Ayed, C.; Gray, D.A. Effect of temperature, oxygen and light on the degradation of β-carotene, lutein and α-tocopherol in spray-dried spinach juice powder during storage. Food Chem. 2019, 284, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Foltynowicz, Z. Nanoiron-based composite oxygen scavengers for food packaging. Compos. Mater. Food Packag. 2018, 1, 209–234. [Google Scholar]
  177. Restuccia, D.; Spizzirri, U.G.; Parisi, O.I.; Cirillo, G.; Curcio, M.; Iemma, F.; Puoci, F.; Vinci, G.; Picci, N. New EU regulation aspects and global market of active and intelligent packaging for food industry applications. Food Cont. 2010, 21, 1425–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Alonso, Y.N.; Grafia, A.L.; Castillo, L.A.; Barbosa, S.E. Active packaging films based on polyolefins modified by organic and inorganic nanoparticles. React. Funct. Polym. 2021, 3, 5–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Lee, J.S.; Chang, Y.; Lee, E.S.; Song, H.G.; Chang, P.S.; Han, J. Ascorbic acid-based oxygen scavenger in active food packaging system for raw meatloaf. J. Food Sci. 2018, 83, 682–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  180. Ramakanth, D.; Akhila, K.; Gaikwad, K.K.; Maji, P.K. UV-activated oxygen scavenging system based on natural rubber latex from Hevea brasiliensis for active packaging applications. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 178, 114658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. He, Y.; Hu, X.; Xu, M.; Ng, A.M.C.; Djurišić, A.B. Mesoporous silica nanosphere-based oxygen scavengers. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2021, 327, 111426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Rashed, M.S.; Sobhy, M.; Pathania, S. Active Packaging of Foods. In Shelf Life and Food Safety; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; pp. 253–284. [Google Scholar]
  183. Hu, K.D.; Zhang, X.Y.; Yao, G.F.; Rong, Y.L.; Ding, C.; Tang, J.; Yang, F.; Huang, Z.Q.; Xu, Z.M.; Chen, X.Y.; et al. A nuclear-localized cysteine desulfhydrase plays a role in fruit ripening in tomato. Hortic. Res. 2020, 7, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Wang, C.; Ajji, A. Development of a novel ethylene scavenger made up of pumice and potassium permanganate and its effect on preservation quality of avocados. J. Food Eng. 2022, 330, 111101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Pirsa, S. Nanocomposite base on carboxymethylcellulose hydrogel: Simultaneous absorbent of ethylene and humidity to increase the shelf life of banana fruit. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 193, 300–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Jaimun, R.; Sangsuwan, J. Efficacy of chitosan-coated paper incorporated with vanillin and ethylene adsorbents on the control of anthracnose and the quality of Nam Dok Mai mango fruit. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2019, 32, 383–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Fontana, A.J., Jr.; Carter, B.P. Measurement of water activity, moisture sorption isotherm, and moisture content of foods. Water Act. Foods Fundam. Appl. 2020, 207–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Hidayati, S.; Sartika, D.; Fudholi, A. Predict the Shelf Life of Instant Chocolate in Vacuum Packing by Using Accelerated Shelf Life Test (ASLT). Math. Model. Eng. Probl. 2022, 9, 443–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Nguyen, T.T.; Dao, U.T.T.; Bui, Q.P.T.; Bach, G.L.; Thuc, C.H.; Thuc, H.H. Enhanced antimicrobial activities and physiochemical properties of edible film based on chitosan incorporated with Sonneratia caseolaris (L.) Engl. leaf extract. Prog. Org. Coat. 2020, 140, 105487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Garavito, J.; Mendoza, S.M.; Castellanos, D.A. Configuration of biodegradable equilibrium modified atmosphere packages, including a moisture absorber for fresh cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) fruits. J. Food Eng. 2022, 314, 110761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Hong, E.J.; Park, S.H.; & Kang, D.H. Sequential treatment of hydrogen peroxide, vacuum packaging, and dry heat for inactivating Salmonella Typhimurium on alfalfa seeds without detrimental effect on seeds viability. Food Microbiol. 2019, 77, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Roy, S.; Siddique, S.; Majumder, S.; Abdul, M.I.; Rahman, S.A.; Lateef, D.; Dan, S.; Bose, A. A systemic approach on understanding the role of moisture in pharmaceutical product degradation and its prevention: Challenges and perspectives. Biomed. Res. 2018, 29, 3336–3343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Chai, S.; Zhao, Y.; Ge, T.; Dai, Y. Experimental study on a fresh air heat pump desiccant dehumidification system using rejected heat. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2020, 179, 115742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Bhardwaj, A.; Alam, T.; Talwar, N. Recent advances in active packaging of agri-food products: A review. J. Postharvest Technol. 2019, 7, 33–62. [Google Scholar]
  195. Singh, A.K.; Ramakanth, D.; Kumar, A.; Lee, Y.S.; Gaikwad, K.K. Active packaging technologies for clean label food products: A review. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2021, 15, 4314–4324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Ščetar, M.; Kurek, M. Trends in meat and meat products packaging—A review. Croat. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 2, 32–48. [Google Scholar]
  197. Mohajer, A.; Sadighara, P.; Mohajer, M.; Farkhondeh, T.; Samarghandian, S. A comparison of antioxidant effects of some selected fruits with butylated hydroxytoluene on egg yolk. Curr. Res. Nutr. Food Sci. 2019, 15, 525–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Pateiro, M.; Domínguez, R.; Bermúdez, R.; Munekata, P.E.; Zhang, W.; Gagaoua, M.; Lorenzo, J.M. Antioxidant active packaging systems to extend the shelf life of sliced cooked ham. Curr. Res. Nutr. Food Sci. 2019, 1, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Wrona, M.; Silva, F.; Salafranca, J.; Nerín, C.; Alfonso, M.J.; Caballero, M.Á. Design of new natural antioxidant active packaging: Screening flowsheet from pure essential oils and vegetable oils to ex vivo testing in meat samples. Food Cont. 2021, 120, 10753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Arrieta, M.P.; Garrido, L.; Faba, S.; Guarda, A.; Galotto, M.J.; López de Dicastillo, C. Cucumis metuliferus fruit extract loaded acetate cellulose coatings for antioxidant active packaging. Polymers 2020, 12, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  201. Ward, C.P.; Armstrong, C.J.; Walsh, A.N.; Jackson, J.H.; Reddy, C.M. Sunlight converts polystyrene to carbon dioxide and dissolved organic carbon. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2019, 6, 669–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Firouz, M.S.; Mohi-Alden, K.; Omid, M. A critical review on intelligent and active packaging in the food industry: Research and development. Food Res. Int. 2021, 141, 110113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Baggio, A.; Marino, M.; Innocente, N.; Celotto, M.; & Maifreni, M. Antimicrobial effect of oxidative technologies in food processing: An overview. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2020, 246, 669–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Czerwiński, K.; Rydzkowski, T.; Wróblewska-Krepsztul, J.; Thakur, V.K. Towards impact of modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) on shelf-life of polymer-film-packed food products: Challenges and sustainable developments. Coatings 2021, 11, 1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Pettersen, M.K.; Nilsen-Nygaard, J.; Hansen, A.Å.; Carlehög, M.; Liland, K.H. Effect of Liquid Absorbent Pads and Packaging Parameters on Drip Loss and Quality of Chicken Breast Fillets. Foods 2021, 10, 1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Felicia, W.X.L.; Rovina, K.; Nur’Aqilah, M.N.; Vonnie, J.M.; Erna, K.H.; Misson, M.; Halid, N.F.A. Recent Advancements of Polysaccharides to Enhance Quality and Delay Ripening of Fresh Produce: A Review. Polymers 2022, 14, 1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Al-Moghazy, M.; Mahmoud, M.; Nada, A.A. Fabrication of cellulose-based adhesive composite as an active packaging material to extend the shelf life of cheese. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 160, 264–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Ashrafi, A.; Jokar, M.; Nafchi, A.M. Preparation and characterization of biocomposite film based on chitosan and kombucha tea as active food packaging. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 108, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  209. Takma, D.K.; Korel, F. Active packaging films as a carrier of black cumin essential oil: Development and effect on quality and shelf-life of chicken breast meat. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2019, 19, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Alizadeh-Sani, M.; Moghaddas Kia, E.; Ghasempour, Z.; Ehsani, A. Preparation of active nanocomposite film consisting of sodium caseinate, ZnO nanoparticles and rosemary essential oil for food packaging applications. J. Polym. Environ. 2021, 29, 588–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Kumar, S.; Boro, J.C.; Ray, D.; Mukherjee, A.; Dutta, J. Bionanocomposite films of agar incorporated with ZnO nanoparticles as an active packaging material for shelf life extension of green grape. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  212. Salama, H.E.; Aziz, M.S.A. Optimized carboxymethyl cellulose and guanidinylated chitosan enriched with titanium oxide nanoparticles of improved UV-barrier properties for the active packaging of green bell pepper. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 165, 1187–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  213. 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, 5461–5473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Hanif, J.; Khalid, N.; Khan, R.S.; Bhatti, M.F.; Hayat, M.Q.; Ismail, M.; Andleeb, S.; Mansoor, Q.; Khan, F.; Amin, F.; et al. Formulation of active packaging system using Artemisia scoparia for enhancing shelf life of fresh fruits. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2019, 100, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Lee, K.T. Quality and safety aspects of meat products as affected by various physical manipulations of packaging materials. Meat Sci. 2010, 86, 138–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Alamri, M.S.; Qasem, A.A.; Mohamed, A.A.; Hussain, S.; Ibraheem, M.A.; Shamlan, G.; Alqah, H.A.; Qasha, A.S. Food packaging’s materials: A food safety perspective. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 4490–4499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Zhao, Y.; Li, B.; Li, C.; Xu, Y.; Luo, Y.; Liang, D.; Huang, C. Comprehensive review of polysaccharide-based materials in edible packaging: A sustainable approach. Foods 2021, 10, 1845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Huang, G.; Chen, F.; Yang, W.; Huang, H. Preparation, deproteinization and comparison of bioactive polysaccharides. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 109, 564–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Pitkänen, L.; Heinonen, M.; Mikkonen, K.S. Safety considerations of plant polysaccharides for food use: A case study on phenolic-rich softwood galactoglucomannan extract. Food Func. 2018, 9, 1931–1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  220. Gultekin, F.; Doguc, D.K. Allergic and immunologic reactions to food additives. Clin. Rev. Allergy Immunol. 2013, 45, 6–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  221. Skypala, I.J. Food-induced anaphylaxis: Role of hidden allergens and cofactors. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10, 673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Milani, J.M.; Tirgarian, B. An overview of edible protein-based packaging: Main sources, advantages, drawbacks, recent progressions and food applications. J. Package Technol. Res. 2020, 4, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.