When you want to choose PET clear anti-fog film for food packaging,eg.PET clear film for Fruits, vegetables, seafood, sushi, salads etc food packing.
Check now
Then should consider the following several key factors.
1) you'll want to look for a PET clear film that has excellent anti-fog properties. Anti-fog transparent films are specially designed to prevent condensation build-up inside the packaging, ensuring that your food products remain visible and attractive to consumers. This is particularly important for Fruits, vegetables, seafood, sushi, salads that are stored in refrigerated or frozen conditions, where fogging can be a common issue.
2) it's also important to consider the clarity and transparency of the PET clear film. A clear and transparent film will not only showcase your products effectively but also provide a high-quality appearance that is attractive to consumers. Make sure to choose a PET clear film that offers excellent optical properties to enhance the visual appeal of your packaging.
3)Another important factor to consider is the thickness of the PETtransparent film. Thicker films are generally more durable and offer better protection for your food products. However, thinner PET films can be more cost-effective and environmentally friendly. Consider your specific packaging needs and budget constraints when selecting the appropriate thickness for your PET anti-fog film.
4) You also need consider additional features such as barrier properties and heat resistance. Barrier films PET/PE film can help protect your food products from external contaminants and extend the products shelf life. Heat-resistant films are ideal for products that require high-temperature processing or transportation.
Compliance with FCM legislation
Beverage companies that use PET bottles with recycled content for their products have to prove compliance with the European food contact material (FCM) legislations. These are the general requirements of the European “Framework Regulation” (EC) No / and the “Plastic Regulation” (EU) No 10/ as well as the demands of the “Recycled Plastic Regulation” (EC) No 282/. According to these regulations, several criteria must be met: no harm to human health, the Overall Migration Limit (OML) requirement of 10 mg/m2 of food contact area has to be met and (if applicable) the Specific Migration Limits (SMLs) as well as the safety requirements regarding Non-Intentionally Added Substances (NIAS) have to be fulfilled. Moreover, the process for the production of recycled PET needs to have received an EFSA opinion in favor of authorization[2].
Food-safety aspects of the bottle-to-bottle PET recycling process
It is essential to ensure that any substances migrating from the packaging material into the food do not harm the consumer. In the case of printed and deinked crystallizable PET shrink sleeve labels, which are recycled together with the PET bottles, an analytical screening after washing and the “super clean process” must be done to demonstrate the safety of the process. In this context, particular attention must be paid to the presence of any NIAS that still might be present in the recyclate and which could originate from the PET bottles as well as from other materials like printing inks. NIAS are chemical substances that, in contrast to IAS, are present in a packaging material but have not been added intentionally during the production process. NIAS can be by-products or impurities of starting substances as well as reaction or decomposition products. In the case of PET beverage bottles some NIAS are related to degradation or reaction side-products of additives or the polymer itself. Additionally, PET oligomers can be considered as NIAS either[1].
Samples and sample preparation
The main objective of this study was to confirm that there are no food safety risks regarding washable inks used on crystallizable PET shrink labels within a bottle-to-bottle recycling process. Against this background four PET recyclate samples, based on combined recycling of PET-bottles/printed cPET shrink sleeves, were analyzed in comparison to reference PET-bottles/unprinted cPET shrink sleeve samples, to determine the presence of NIAS after hot washing to remove the printing ink, and a “super clean process” to remove potential migrants.
Sample description
All samples (including the reference) had been hot-washed applying typical conditions used in the PET industry and after drying decontaminated via a “super-clean process”. In each case a ratio of 97/3 PET/cPET had been used as input material which represents a typical ratio of bottle to sleeve material.
Flow chart
Fraunhofer IVV results: Non-target screening of volatile compounds[5]
Each sample (in duplicate) was analyzed using headspace gas chromatography with flame ionization detection (FID).
All investigated samples were found to contain the typical PET degradation products acetaldehyde (CAS 75-07-0) and 2-methyl-1,3-dioxolane (CAS 497-26-7). In addition, traces of benzene (CAS 71-43-2) as well as the residual monomer ethylene glycol (CAS 107-21-1) were detected. It has to be pointed out, that benzene is most probably a degradation product from PVC impurities in the PET recycling stream and is present in trace amounts in all bottles with recycled content[2]. No substances resulting from the printing ink could be detected in the samples.
Table 1: Quantification of volatile substances in the investigated sample. Concentrations are given as mg/kg PET; *The results of these quantification are only single values, therefore no standard deviation can be given.
Fraunhofer IVV results: Non-target screening of semi-volatile compounds[5]
Each sample was extracted with dichloromethane by total immersion. These extraction solutions were analyzed by gas chromatography with flame ionization detection (GC-FID). The findings were that only PET typical oligomers, e.g. cyclic PET trimer (C30H24O12) up to cyclic PET hexamer (C60H48O24), were present whereas no substances resulting from the printing ink could be detected in the samples.
Fraunhofer IVV results: Targeted analysis of inorganic compounds, bisphenol A, phthalates and adipates[5]
Traces of these substances could be detected, but only in very low concentrations which are comparable to standard samples of recycled PET.
JFPolyFilm Product Page
Bisphenol A as well as phthalate and adipate esters might be from ubiquitous sources whereas DEHP, DINP and DIDP can be used as technical support agents.
Migration modeling[2,3,4]
Migration research has shown that migration from the packaging material to food obeys Fick’s laws of diffusion and is therefore predictable and can be calculated using suitable software and appropriate, scientifically-based modeling parameters.
Migration is dependent on the molecular weight (or rather the molecular volume) of the migrant. Figure 1-6 show a correlation between the bottle wall concentration, which corresponds to a migration of 10 µg/kg (10 ppb) food after storage for 365 days at 25 °C and the molecular volume of the migrant (green curve). These concentrations were calculated for a PET container with a surface-volume ratio of 6 dm2 per 1 kg food, the so called “EU-cube”. As an additional safety factor, a deviation of 20 % on the molecular volume was considered (red line). The red dots in the assorted diagrams represent the concentration of the substances in each sample, which were detected in the above described screening tests.
It can be seen, that all of the experimental dots, except acetaldehyde and ethylene glycol, are well below the 10 µg/l curve, which is the migration limit for non-evaluated substances (provided that they are not classified as ‘mutagenic’, ‘carcinogenic’ or ‘toxic to reproduction’). This means, that the migration of these substances will be below 10 ppb after a storage time of 1 year at 25 °C.
Fig. 1: Sample Ref_flake / Fig. 2: Sample LMUV_flake
Fig. 3: Sample Ref_pellet / Fig. 4: Sample LMUV_pellet
Fig. 5: Sample StdUV_pellet / Fig. 6: Sample SB_pellet
Figure 1-6[5]: Correlation between the bottle wall concentration which corresponds to a migration of 10 µg/kg food after storage for 365 days at 25 °C and the molecular volume of the migrant.
green line: predicted from molecular volume; red line: deviation of -20% on the molecular volume V (worst-case).
red dots: experimental data points of the different samples.
Acetaldehyde (FCM substance No 128) and ethylene glycol (FCM substance No 227) are listed in the Annex I of the Regulation 10/ with specific migration limits of 6 mg/kg and 30 mg/kg, respectively. Therefore, the above mentioned specific migration limits can be applied for these substances instead of 10 ppb.
Siegwerk analysis results
All six samples had also been analyzed by Siegwerk in a targeted analysis for printing ink components after an extraction in Ethanol for 3 days at ambient temperatures via GC/MS or LC/HRMS respectively. Additionally, as a comparison, a sample of a printed sleeve (which hadn´t been hot-washed, deinked and decontaminated) with the printing structure of LMUV_flake was analyzed. No printing ink ingredients could be detected in any of the samples that were originally printed either with one of the UV inks (LMUV_flakes, LMUV_pellet, StdUV_pellet) or the solvent-based ink (SB_pellets) by a detection limit of 1 ppm for most of the smaller molecules (MG < 240 g/mol) and 0.5 ppm for the others. On the other hand, all ink-related substances present in the printing structure printed with the LMUV-ink (LMUV_flakes) could be detected in the comparison sample of the printed sleeve. This clearly shows the efficiency of the washing and decontamination process.
In the extract analysis of the sample with the solvent-based printing ink structure (SB_flakes) only a few substances could be detected, namely Oleamide (CAS 301-02-0) and DOA (CAS 103-23-1)) but the concentration of these compounds was comparable to the unprinted sample (Ref_flakes). This indicates that these substances were present in the rPET substrate either. This assumption is further strengthened by the fact that no other printing ink specific substances such as paraffin waxes (CAS -74-2) or trimethylolpropane (CAS 77-99-6) could be found. As Oleamide and DOA are listed in the Annex I of the Regulation 10/ as well with high migration limits of 60 mg/kg (OML) and 18 mg/kg, respectively, these substances are of no toxicological concern, even if they had been detected.
[5]: Test report Fraunhofer IVV: Screening analysis of non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) in PET, January . Proprietary of Siegwerk, Klöckner Pentaplast and Multi-Color Corporation
Contact us to discuss your requirements of CPET Shrink Film. Our experienced sales team can help you identify the options that best suit your needs.
Comments
All Comments ( 0 )