Nanotechnology in Food Packaging Applications: Barrier Materials, Antimicrobial Agents, Sensors, and Safety Assessment

  • Mariana Pereda
  • Norma E. Marcovich
  • María R. AnsorenaEmail author
Reference work entry


Nanotechnology is one of the most promising scientific fields of research in decades; it has the potential to revolutionize the global food system. Demand for safe food products represents crucial challenges for the food-packaging industry with the idea to design and produce novel packaging solutions able to maintain the safety and quality of products. In this chapter, some of the most relevant applications and challenges of nanotechnology in the field of food packaging are discussed, including nanocomposites that enhance the barrier properties of the packaging film, nanoparticles as potent antimicrobial agents, nanosystems for controlled delivery, and nanosensors and nanomaterial-based assays for the detection of food relevant analytes (gasses, small organic molecules, and food-borne pathogens). Risk assessment and safety concerns with respect to food research have also been highlighted. Being nanotechnology still a relatively new technology, there are safety concerns, which are attracting attention to international regulations to make safer the acceptance of this tool by the industry and consumers.


  1. 1.
    Boccuni F, Rondinone B, Petyx C, Iavicoli S (2008) Potential occupational exposure to manufactured nanoparticles in Italy. J Clean Prod 16:949–995Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Foster S, Konrad M (2003) From self-organising polymers to nano- and biomaterials. J Mater Chem 13:2671–2688Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tharanathan RN (2003) Biodegradable films and composite coatings: past, present and future. Trends Food Sci Technol 14:71–78Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ludueña LN, Alvarez VA, Vasquez A (2007) Processing and microstructure of PCL/clay nanocomposites. Mater Sci Eng A 460–461:121–129Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alexandre M, Dubois P (2000) Polymer-layered silicate nanocomposites: preparation, properties and uses of a new class of materials. Mater Sci Eng 28:1–63Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Azizi Samir MAS, Alloin F, Dufresne A (2005) Review of recent research into cellulosic whiskers, their properties and their application in nanocomposite field. Biomacromolecules 6:612–626Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Qiao R, Brinson LC (2009) Simulation of interphase percolation and gradients in polymer nanocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 69:491–499Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duncan TV (2011) Applications of nanotechnology in food packaging and food safety: barrier materials, antimicrobials and sensors. J Colloid Interface Sci 363:1–24Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fathi M, Mozafari MR, Mohebbi M (2012) Nanocapsulation of food ingredients using lipid-based delivery systems. Trends Food Sci Technol 23:13–27Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chellaram C, Murugaboopathi G, John AA, Rivakumar R, Ganesan S, Krithika S, Priya G (2014) Significance of nanotechnology in food industry. APCBEE Procedia 8:109–113Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Takeuchi MT, Kojima M, Luetzow M (2014) State of the art on the initiatives and activities relevant to risk assessment and risk management of nanotechnologies in the food and agriculture sectors. Food Res Int 64:976–981Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chau CF, Wu SH, Yen GC (2007) The development of regulations for food nanotechnology. Trends Food Sci Technol 18:269–280Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cushen M, Kerry J, Morris M, Cruz-Romero M, Cummins E (2012) Nanotechnologies in the food industry – recent developments, risks and regulation. Trends Food Sci Technol 24:30–46Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Farhoodi M (2015) Nanocomposite materials for food packaging applications: characterization and safety evaluation. Food Eng Rev 8:35–51Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dalmas F, Cavaillé JY, Gauthier C, Chazeau L, Dendievel R (2007) Viscoelastic behavior and electrical properties of flexible nanofiber-filled polymer nanocomposites. Influence of processing conditions. Compos Sci Technol 67:829–839Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paiva LB, Morales AR, Diaz FRV (2008) Organoclays: properties preparation and applications. Appl Clay Sci 42:8–24Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Picard E, Gauthier H, Gerard JF, Espuche E (2007) Influence of the intercalated cations on the surface energy of montmorillonites: consequences for the morphology and gas barrier properties of polyethylene/montmorillonites nanocomposites. J Colloid Interface Sci 307:364–376Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morgan A, Priolo DG, Grunlan JC (2010) Transparent clay–polymer nano brick wall assemblies with tailorable oxygen barrier. Appl Mater Interfaces 2:312–320Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu CL, Zhang MQ, Rong MZ, Friedrick K (2002) Tensile performance improvement of low nanoparticles filled-polypropylene composites. Comput Sci Technol 62:1327–1340Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vladimiriov V, Betchev C, Vassiliou A, Papageorgiou G, Bikiaris D (2006) Dynamic mechanical and morphological studies of isotactic polypropylene/fumed silica nanocomposites with enhanced gas barrier properties. Comput Sci Technol 66:2935–2944Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xiong HG, Tang SW, Tang HL, Zou P (2008) The structure and properties of a starch-based biodegradable film. Carbohydr Polym 71:263–268Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim JY, Han S, Hong S (2008) Effect of modified carbon nanotube on the properties of aromatic polyester nanocomposites. Polymer 49:3335–3345Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bin Y, Mine M, Koganemaru A, Jiang X, Matsuo M (2006) Morphology and mechanical and electrical properties of oriented PVA–VGCF and PVA–MWNT composites. Polymer 47: 1308–1317Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prashantha K, Soulestin J, Lacrampe MF, Krawczak P, Dupin G (2009) Masterbatch-based multi-walled carbon nanotubefilled polypropylene nanocomposites: assessment of rheological and mechanical properties. Comput Sci Technol 69:1756–1763Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zeng H, Gao C, Wang Y, Watts PCP, Kong H, Cui X (2006) In situ polymerization approach to multiwalled carbon nanotubes-reinforced nylon 1010 composites: mechanical properties and crystallization behavior. Polymer 47:113–122Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Podsiadlo P, Choi SY, Shim B, Lee J, Cuddihy M, Kotov NA (2005) Molecularly engineered nanocomposites: layer-by-layer assembly of cellulose nanocrystals. Biomacromolecules 6:2914–2918Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wu Q, Henriksson M, Liu X, Berglund LA (2007) A high strength nanocomposite based on microcrystalline cellulose and polyurethane. Biomacromolecules 8:3687–3692Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bhatnagar A, Sain M (2005) Processing of cellulose nanofiber-reinforced composites. J Reinf Plast Compos 24:1259–1268Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ayala-Zavala JF, González-Aguilar GA, Ansorena MR, Alvarez-Párrilla E, de la Rosa L (2014) Nanotechnology tools to achieve food safety. In: Bhat R, Gomez-Lopez V (eds) Practical food safety: contemporary issues and future directions. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 341–353Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xiao-e L, Green ANM, Haque SA, Mills A, Durrant JR (2004) Light-driven oxygen scavenging by titania/polymer nanocomposite films. J Photochem Photobiol A 162:253–259Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li X, Xing Y, Jiang Y, Ding Y, Li W (2009) Antimicrobial activities of ZnO powder-coated PVC film to inactivate food pathogens. Int J Food Sci Technol 44:2161–2168Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Espitia PJP, Soares NDF, Coimbra JSD, de Andrade NJ, Cruz RS, Medeiros EAA (2012) Zinc oxide nanoparticles: synthesis, antimicrobial activity and food packaging applications. Food Bioprocess Technol 5:1447–1464Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ayala-Zavala JF, González-Aguilar GA (2010) Optimizing the use of garlic oil as antimicrobial agent on fresh-cut tomato through a controlled release system. J Food Sci 75:M398–M405Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Silvestre C, Duraccio D, Cimmino S (2011) Food packaging based on polymer nanomaterials. Prog Polym Sci 36:1766–1782Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Seil JT, Webster TJ (2012) Antimicrobial applications of nanotechnology: methods and literature. Int J Nanomedicine 7:2767–2781Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ho BT, Joyce DC, Bhandari BR (2011) Release kinetics of ethylene gas from ethylene-a-cyclodextrin inclusion complexes. Food Chem 129:259–266Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Augustin MA, Hemar Y (2008) Nano- and microstructured assemblies for encapsulation of food ingredients. Chem Soc Rev 38:902–912Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mastromatteo M, Mastromatteo M, Conte A, Del Nobile MA (2010) Advances in controlled release devices for food packaging applications. Trends Food Sci Technol 21:591–598Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ayala-Zavala JF, Del-Toro-Sanchez L, Alvarez-Parrilla E, Gonzalez-Aguilar GA (2008) High relative humidity in-package of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables: advantage or disadvantage considering microbiological problems and antimicrobial delivering systems? J Food Sci 73:R41–R47Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Li YG, Cu YTH, Luo D (2007) Complexation of allyl isothiocyanate by a- and b-cyclodextrin and its controlled release characteristics. Food Chem 103:461–466Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Appendini P, Hotchkiss JH (2002) Review of antimicrobial food packaging. Inn Food Sci Emerg Technol 3:113–126Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jin T, Sun D, Su J, Zhang H, Sue HJ (2008) Antimicrobial efficacy of zinc oxide quantum dots against Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella enteritidis, and Escherichia coli O157: H7. J Food Sci 74:M46–M52Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Liau SY, Read DC, Pugh WJ, Furr JR, Russell AD (1997) Interaction of silver nitrate with readily identifiable groups: relationship to the antibacterial action of silver ions. Lett Appl Microbiol 25:279–283Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Huang J, Li X, Zhou W (2015) Safety assessment of nanocomposite for food packaging application. Trends Food Sci Technol 45:187–199Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    An J, Zhang M, Wang S, Tang J (2008) Physical, chemical and microbiological changes in stored green asparagus spears as affected by coating of silver nanoparticles-PVP. LWT – Food Sci Technol 41:1100–1107Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Emamifar A, Kadivar M, Shahedi M, Soleimanian-Zad S (2010) Evaluation of nanocomposite packaging containing Ag and ZnO on shelf life of fresh orange juice. Inn Food Sci Emerg Technol 11:742–748Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Emamifar A, Kadivar M, Shahedi M, Soleimanian-Zad S (2011) Effect of nanocomposite packaging containing Ag and ZnO on inactivation of Lactobacillus plantarum in orange juice. Food Control 22:408–413Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fernández A, Picouet P, Lloret E (2010a) Cellulose-silver nanoparticle hybrid materials to control spoilage related microflora in absorbent pads located in trays of fresh-cut melon. Int J Food Microbiol 142:222–228Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fernández A, Picouet P, Lloret E (2010b) Reduction of the spoilage-related microflora in absorbent pads by silver nanotechnology during modified atmosphere packaging of beef meat. J Food Protection 73:2263–2269Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fernández A, Soriano E, López-Carballo G, Picouet P, Lloret E, Gavara R (2009) Preservation of aseptic conditions in absorbent pads by using silver nanotechnology. Food Research International 42:1105–1112Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jin T, Gurtler JB (2011) Inactivation of Salmonella in liquid egg albumen by antimicrobial bottle coatings infused with allyl isothiocyanate, nisin and zinc oxide nanoparticles. J App Microbiol 110:704–712Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Li H, Li F, Wang L, Sheng J, Xin Z, Zhao L (2009) Effect of nano-packing on preservation quality of Chinese jujube (Ziziphus jujuba Mill. var. Inermis (Bunge) Rehd). Food Chem 114:547–552Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Li XH, Li WL, Xing YG, Jiang YH, Ding YL, Zhang PP (2010) Effects of nano-ZnO power-coated PVC film on the physiological properties and microbiological changes of fresh-cut “Fuji” apple. Adv Mat Research 152:450–453Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Llorens A, Lloret E, Picouet PA, Trbojevich R, Fernandez A (2012) Metallicbased micro and nanocomposites in food contact materials and active food packaging. Trends Food Sci Technol 24:19–29Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lloret E, Picouet P, Fernández A (2012) Matrix effects on the antimicrobial capacity of silver based nanocomposite absorbing materials. LWT – Food Sci Technol 49:333–338Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nobile MA, Cannarsi M, Altieri C, Sinigaglia M, Favia P, Iacoviello G (2004) Effect of Ag-containing nanocomposite active packaging system on survival of Alicyclobacillus acidoterrestris. J Food Sci 69:E379–E383Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yang FM, Li HM, Li F, Xin ZH, Zhao LY, Zheng YH (2010) Effect of nano-packing on preservation quality of fresh strawberry (Fragaria ananassa Duch. Cv fengxiang) during storage at 4°C. J Food Sci 75:C236–C240Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhou L, He G, He Q, Shi BI (2011) Effect of PE/AG2O nano-packaging on the quality of apple slices. J Food Quality 34:171–176Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Damm C, Münstedt H, Rösch A (2007) Long-term antimicrobial polyamide 6/silver-nanocomposites. J Mater Sci 42:6067–6073Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Damm C, Münstedt H, Rösch A (2008) The antimicrobial efficacy of polyamide6/silver-nano- and microcomposites. Mater Chem Phys 108:61–66Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jiang Y, O’Neill AJ, Ding Y (2015) Zinc oxide nanoparticle-coated films: fabrication, characterization, and antibacterial properties. J Nanopart Res 17:180–187Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Azeredo HMCD (2009) Nanocomposites for food packaging applications. Food Res Int 42: 1240–1253Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Monteiro-Riviere NA, Nemanich RJ, Inman AO, Wang YY, Riviere JE (2005) Multi-walled carbon nanotube interactions with human epidermal keratinocytes. Toxicol Lett 155:377–384Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yam KL, Takhistov PT, Miltz J (2005) Intelligent packaging: concepts and applications. J Food Sci 70:R1–R10Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Liao F, Chen C, Subramanian V (2005) Organic TFTs as gas sensors for electronic nose applications. Sensors Actuators B Chem 107:849–855Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Robinson DKR, Morrison MJ (2010) Nanotechnologies for food packaging: reporting the science and technology research trends: report for the observatory NANO. Accessed 15 Sept 2013
  67. 67.
    Setkus A (2002) Heterogeneous reaction rate based description of the response kinetics in metal oxide gas sensors. Sensors Actuators B Chem 87:346–357Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ahuja T, Mir IA, Kumar D, Rajesh KD (2007) Biomolecular immobilization on conducting polymers for biosensing applications. Biomaterials 28:791–805Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Arshak K, Adley C, Moore E, Cunniffe C, Campion M, Harris J (2007) Characterisation of polymer nanocomposite sensors for quantification of bacterial cultures. Sensors Actuators B Chem 126:226–231Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lee SW, Mao C, Flynn CE, Belcher AM (2002) Ordering of quantum dots using genetically engineered viruses. Science 296:892–895Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mills A, Hazafy D (2009) Nanocrystalline SnO2-based, UVB-activated, colourimetric oxygen indicator. Sensors Actuators B Chem 136:344–349Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Merkoci A (2010) Nanoparticles-based strategies for DNA, protein and cell sensors. Biosens Bioelectron 26:1164–1177Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Joseph T, Morrison M (2006) Nanotechnology in agriculture and food. A Nanoforum report. Available from:
  74. 74.
    Sozer N, Kokini J (eds) (2012) The applications of nanotechnology, 1st edn. Elsvier, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Fernandez A, Cava D, Ocio MJ, Lagaron JM (2008) Perspectives for biocatalysts in food packaging. Trends Food Sci Technol 19:198–206Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Oberdorster G, Oberdorster E, Oberdorster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113:823–839zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bradley EL, Castle L, Chaudhry Q (2011) Applications of nanomaterials in food packaging with a consideration of opportunities for developing countries. Trends Food Sci Technol 22:604–610Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    EC (2011) Commission recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the definition of nanomaterial. Off J Eur Union 27:538–540Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    EFSA (2015) Annual report of the EFSA scientific network of risk assessment of nanotechnologies in food and feed for 2014. EFSA Support Publ 12:3712Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    FDA (2014) Considering whether an FDA-regulated product involves the application of nanotechnology-guidance for industry. FDA, Fishers Lane, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    FDA (2007) Nanotechnology task force report. Department of Health & Human Services 35Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Záyago-Lau E, Foladori G (2014) La nanotecnología en México: un desarrollo incierto. Revista Economía, Sociedad y Territorio 10(32):143Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Piscopo MR, Kniess CT, Biancolino CA, Teixeira CE (2015) O setor brasileiro de nanotecnologia: Oportunidades e desafios. Revista de Negócios 19:43–63Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Delgado-Ramos GC (2014) Nanotechnology in Mexico: global trends and national implications for policy and regulatory issues. Technol Soc 37:4–15Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Foladori G, Bejarano F, Invernizzi N (2013) Nanotecnología: gestión y reglamentación de riesgos para la salud y medio ambiente en América Latina y el Caribe. Trabalho, Educação e Saúde 11:145–167Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Nanocor® (2016). Film and sheet applications, technical bulletin, 1–7. Available from:

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariana Pereda
    • 3
  • Norma E. Marcovich
    • 2
    • 3
  • María R. Ansorena
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Chemical Engineering Department – Food Engineering Group – Engineering FacultyNational University of Mar del PlataMar del PlataArgentina
  2. 2.National Research Council (CONICET)Mar del PlataArgentina
  3. 3.Ecomaterials, Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencia y Tecnología de Materiales (INTEMA-CONICET)Mar del PlataArgentina

Personalised recommendations