Introduction
On a worldwide basis, plastic production continues to expand (Amobonye et al., 2021; Hayat et al., 2024). Plastics continue to be popular because of their versatility and durability, with nonbiodegradable plastic polymers being predominant (Peng et al., 2022). While synthetic plastics derived from petroleum products make up the bulk of the plastics used in a wide range of applications, biological materials can be used to create biobased plastic polymers with the same properties as petroleum-based plastics; however, the end products are still not biodegradable (Tamoor et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2023). Regardless of their initial utilization, these polymers have 3 ultimate destinies: recycling, incineration, or discarded (Lear et al., 2021). Most of these plastic wastes are discarded and enter landfills or oceans, where they can persist and accumulate over extended periods (Lear et al., 2021; Peng et al., 2022). While recycling is certainly practiced, recovery can still be challenging in part due to the method of disposal, resulting in the difference between waste production and recycling remaining highly imbalanced (Leng et al., 2020; Tamoor et al., 2021; Samadhiya et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2023). However, because these plastics are commonly petroleum-derived products, they also contribute to rising carbon dioxide levels due to emissions during incineration of plastic or disposal in landfills (Song et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2022). Furthermore, upon exposure to environmental elements such as ultraviolet rays, temperature, photooxidation, biological activities, and general weathering, they can be degraded into particle sizes below 5 mm, becoming what is referred to as microplastics (Padervand et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2022).
Plastics used for food packaging account for over 36% of the packaging market because they are inexpensive, lightweight, transport easily, are considered strong, exhibit barrier properties, possess ease of manufacturing properties, and are adaptable to various package forms (Lear et al., 2021; Gasti et al., 2022; Gil and Rudy, 2023). The consumer discards synthetic plastic packaging materials, which are generally considered nondegradable and nonrenewable, leading to disposal problems with over 70% entering dumps and landfills (Marsh and Bugusu, 2007; Gil and Rudy, 2023; Kim et al., 2023; Nath et al., 2024). These materials break into microplastics, which fish can consume, leading to bioaccumulation and posing concerns for human health (Smith et al., 2018). Further human concerns are linked with reports of foodborne pathogens being associated with microplastic particles and forming biofilms as part of the plastisphere microbial consortia that, in turn, can be consumed by animals and found in food (Peng et al., 2022; Tavelli et al., 2022). Once ingested, microplastics may also alter the gastrointestinal ecology of animals and interact with foodborne pathogens under these conditions. For example, Chatman et al. (2024) demonstrated with an in vitro broiler cecal model that the cointroduction of microplastics and Salmonella typhimurium caused greater disruption in the cecal microbiome and metabolome than exposure to either treatment alone. Finally, direct contact of consumers with food products held in plastic packages can serve as an exposure route (Tavelli et al., 2022).
Due to these growing environmental concerns, packaging is under scrutiny because it is a source of large amounts of plastic waste, which has led to research into efforts to remove microplastics from the environment and for the development of renewable alternatives (Dikky and Stevia, 2019; Payne et al., 2019; Padervand et al., 2020). Consequently, developing plastics that can be reusable, biodegradable, and/or recyclable as packaging materials has become much more relevant (Gil and Rudy, 2023). Biopolymers derived from natural products have emerged as an alternative, including polysaccharide- and protein-based polymers (Pal et al., 2021). Some of these are derived from plants, animals, or marine sources, and other food-grade materials can be considered edible packaging materials (Kumar et al., 2022). The following sections describe some of these natural polymers that have been examined and implemented for meat product packaging. In addition, so-called innovative packaging, which increases the functional versatility of packaging materials for meat products, will be discussed.
Biological-Based Coatings and Films
Polylactic acid films
Polylactic acid (PLA) polymers are derived from lactic acid and can be created by various polymerization processes including direct condensation, azeotropic polycondensation, and lactide-based polymerization (Rajendran et al., 2024; Wongphan et al., 2024). The lactic acid precursor can be chemically generated or biologically produced as a common organic acid from a wide range of fermentations including food products, silage, gastrointestinal tracts of animals, and as a product of numerous probiotics and starter cultures (Caplice and Fitzgerald, 1999; Ricke et al., 2013; Dittoe et al., 2018; Muck et al., 2018; Rajendran et al., 2024). Given the diverse array of lactic acid producing organisms and renewable substrates for fermentation, there is no shortage of potential sources for lactic acid to generate the corresponding PLA polymer. However, large-scale commercial production can be handicapped by the generation of racemic mixtures of DL-lactate and obtaining pure L-lactate is preferred for PLA generation (Rajendran et al., 2024).
Polylactic polymers have been used as packaging materials for a wide range of both liquid and solid foods including meat products (McMillin, 2017; Panseri et al., 2018; Wongphan et al., 2024; Moldovan et al., 2025). They are considered optimal package film candidates for their high tensile strength and durability, along with transparency, clarity, and insolubility with air, ethanol, methanol, and aliphatic carbon (Halloran et al., 2002; Nasution et al., 2023). In addition, PLA as a biopolymer possesses environmental attributes such as biocompatibility and biodegradability and is compostable (Asadi and Mozafari, 2025; Rajendran et al., 2024). Films made with PLA are classified as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) by the US Food and Drug Administration and offer the potential for compliance with food safety regulations (Panseri et al., 2018; Asadi and Mozafari, 2025). However, PLA as a flexible packaging material can suffer from brittleness at room temperature, poor thermal stability, and low water vapor barrier properties depending on the application (Nasution et al., 2023; Wongphan et al., 2024).
Mechanical improvements can be achieved by incorporating chemical plasticizers, but these leach out and lead to environmental problems (Halloran et al., 2022). Biobased plasticizers such as glycerol have been used as substitutes and have been demonstrated to create PLA blends, exhibiting improved flexibility, minimal leaching, and no toxicity based on in vitro mammalian cell toxicity assays (Halloran et al., 2022). Functional improvements have been explored combining PLA with various additives such as plant-based extracts, antimicrobial compounds, and lignocellulose waste among others for food and meat products (Muñoz-Pabon et al., 2023; Asadi and Mozafari, 2025). Using an agar diffusion antimicrobial assay, Muñoz-Pabon et al. (2023) demonstrated that PLA composites containing nisin, oregano, cassava bran, and coffee husks inhibited Listeria monocytogenes. When they used the corresponding composites that gave the greatest antimicrobial activity to package pork meat, the pH, texture, moisture, and pH qualities were similar to those displayed by pork products held in commercial polystyrene packaging. Further research is continuing to expand the functionality of PLA natural extract composite blends to provide antioxidant properties as well as screening antimicrobial activities against not only other bacteria but fungi as well (Nasution et al., 2023; Asadi and Mozafari, 2025).
Edible films: cellulose and cellulose derivatives
Plant-based cellulose. Cellulose polymers consist of β 1–4 linked glucose monomers that, along with hydrogen linkages, possess a crystalline structure that serves as a highly structured matrix (Limayen and Ricke, 2012; Motaung, 2021). Cellulose, as a significant component of plant-cell walls, is one of the most abundant biopolymers present in nature and can be obtained from a variety of sources including wood, cotton, and food waste as well as agricultural and agronomic wastes (Erginkaya et al., 2014; Asgher et al., 2020; Mohamed et al., 2020; Gil and Rudy, 2023; Yang et al., 2024). Not surprisingly, the availability of cellulose, as well as being biodegradable, inexpensive, and edible, has made it attractive as a packaging material for food products (Gil and Rudy, 2023). In addition to cellulose polymers being biodegradable, tasteless, and odorless, they possess a high thermal tolerance and can serve as a barrier to ultraviolet rays, as well as being capable of carrying antioxidant and antimicrobial agents (Erginkaya et al., 2014; Asgher et al., 2020; Mohamed et al., 2020; Romão et al., 2022; Nath et al., 2024). Depending on the preparation procedure, cellulose microfibrils can take on many forms, including microcrystalline, nanocrystalline, and nanofibrillated versions of the polymer microstructures (Romão et al., 2022). Chemically altered versions of cellulose can be generated, involving a range of esters and ethers to create cellulose derivatives with methylcellulose (MC), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) being the most commonly used for edible films (von Schantz et al., 2014; Jiang and Ngai, 2022; Romão et al., 2022). The resulting modified cellulose films can provide strength and transparency (Agustin et al., 2014; Guzman-Puyol et al., 2019). While CMC films have been shown to restrict meat protein and lipid oxidation, antioxidant properties can be generated by introducing pomegranate seed extract to MC, CMC, and HPMC films, but such additions may limit the oxygen capability of these films (Nemazifard et al., 2017; Khezrian and Shahbazi, 2018). Immobilizing bioactive agents onto cellulose polymers has also exhibited antimicrobial properties (Irimia et al., 2024).
Bacterial-based cellulose. Despite the attractiveness of cellulose from plant sources, there are limitations due to the complexities associated with extraction and purification needed to retrieve a high-quality polymer that incur technical and economic scale-up hurdles for commercial applications (Nath et al., 2024). Cellulose polymers produced by several aerobic bacteria have received interest as a possible alternative for the food industry (Cazón and Vázque, 2021). Produced by cellulose synthase complexes, extracellular bacterial cellulose is an exopolysaccharide that, unlike plant cellulose, does not contain contaminants such as lignin, pectin, or hemicellulose (Cazón and Vázquez, 2021; Li et al., 2022). The resulting purity generates a product that does not require extraction or chemical purification, possesses a high degree of polymerization, and exhibits crystallinity among other properties (Cazón and Vázquez, 2021; Li et al., 2022). More optimization of bacterial cellulose production remains, including developing low-cost growth media, further identification of candidate bacterial strains, and other approaches to enhance yields and/or create new properties (dos Santos et al., 2024). Given the advancements made in molecular biology, genetically altered bacterial strains could produce a wide range of modified cellulose polymers with potentially more properties for multifunctional packaging materials beyond the chemical approaches currently used for modifying plant-based cellulose polymers.
Starch edible films
Another plant-derived carbohydrate polymer that is also biodegradable, as well as economical and renewable for utilization in edible films, is starch (Mose and Maranga, 2011; Pająk et al., 2017; Song et al., 2021; Gil and Rudy, 2023). Starch sources have typically included agronomic products such as corn, potatoes, rice, and wheat, but interest has grown toward deriving starches from more nonconventional sources such as certain beans and vegetable materials (García-Guzmán et al., 2022; Putri et al., 2023). While starch-based films have been extensively used in food and meat packaging due to their desirable gas barrier and organoleptic properties, they suffer from being brittle and hydrophilic and possess overall poor mechanical properties (Onyeaka et al., 2022; Gil and Rudy, 2023; Putri et al., 2023). Consequently, modifications of starch have been explored, employing either chemical or physical treatments (García-Guzmán et al., 2022). Physical treatments to starch polymers have involved administration of high hydrostatic pressure, ozonation, and ultrasound (García-Guzmán et al., 2022; Koshenaj and Ferrari, 2024). Chemical modifications to introduce functional groups into starch polymers have included reduction, substitution, or cross-linking (García-Guzmán et al., 2022). Likewise, combinations with other materials have been introduced to improve these negative characteristics (Gil and Rudy, 2023). For example, the incorporation of plant extracts and essential oils has been shown to improve oxygen barrier characteristics, enhance antioxidation qualities that can lead to improved shelf life, and provide antimicrobials to improve food safety (Radha Krishnan et al., 2015; Yıldırım-Yalçın et al. 2021; Song et al., 2021; Erna et al., 2022; García-Guzmán et al., 2022). In addition, merging biodegradable plastics with starch have been offered to reduce the cost of biodegradable polymers (Song et al., 2021). It is anticipated that newer technologies such as 3-dimensional (3D) printing, electrospinning, force spinning, and others will be further developed, and the opportunities to expand the functionality of starch-based edible films and packaging will become feasible (García-Guzmán et al., 2022).
Chitosan edible films
Chitosan is a natural high-molecular weight cationic polysaccharide comprised of (1,4)-2-amino-2-deoxy-glucose that is produced by the deacetylation of chitin a polymer that occurs primarily in shrimp, crabs, and insects as well as marine diatoms and some fungi (Raafat and Sahl, 2009; Liu et al., 2022). Chitosan and poly(ɛ-lysine) are natural polymers that have natural antimicrobial characteristics (Raafat and Sahl, 2009; Sayed and Jardine, 2015; Sivakanthan, et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2023). These polymers act on bacteria’s negatively charged cell membranes, causing intracellular leakage (Santos et al., 2016; Sofı et al., 2018). These bioactive polymers can be used in composites or coatings (Perinelli et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018; Vasile and Baican, 2021).
Chitosan films are generally made by casting, which involves dissolving and incorporating a plasticizer and an active compound and nanofiller of choice (Jiang et al., 2023). Chitosans are an attractive alternative packaging material due to their biodegradability, nontoxicity, and renewability (Jiang et al., 2023). Even when combined with metal oxides to form chitosan-metal oxide films, complete degradation in soil still occurs after several weeks (Wrońska et al., 2023). In addition to film and coating applications, chitosans have historically received interest in various uses, from vaccine, peptide, and gene delivery systems and pharmaceuticals for tissue engineering (Raafat and Sahl. 2009). Chitosan has been used in food applications for enzyme stabilization, dye binding, emulsification, antioxidant, and gelling agents (Agulló et al., 2003). Chitosan-based films possess the advantages of flexibility and strength and are resistant to fats, oil, and oxygen (Nayik et al., 2015; Mohamed et al., 2020; Song et al., 2021). In addition to its film-forming utility, chitosan possesses a wide range of antimicrobial activities against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, yeast, and filamentous fungi and has been demonstrated to extend shelf life in ready-to-cook meat products (Ferreira et al., 2009; Campos et al., 2011; Alemán et al., 2016; Mohamed et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2023; Aresta et al., 2024). Chitosan composited with essential oils or phenolic compounds have enhanced antimicrobial and antifungal activities (Jiang et al., 2023). Phenolics included as a composite with certain phenolic compounds have been employed to improve mechanical strength (Jiang et al., 2023).
Lipid edible films
Fat was used as an edible food coating in 16th-century England (Labuza and Contreras-Medellin, 1981). Waxes (e.g., carnauba wax, beeswax, paraffin wax) and oils (mineral oil, vegetable oil) have been commercially used as protective coatings for fresh fruits and vegetables since the beginning of the 1930s (Baldwin, 1994). Other lipid materials employed include lacs, fatty acids and alcohols, and acetylated glycerides (Ghosh et al., 2021). Compared to protein and carbohydrate-based films and coatings that are hydrophilic, lipid-based materials provide a hydrophobic barrier that decreases penetration of water vapor (Milani and Nemati, 2022). Milani and Nemati (2022) describe several lipid compounds and their sources. They range from natural oils and fats to natural resins and essential oils and can originate from either animal or plant sources.
Waxes are nonpolar lipids possessing long aliphatic chains that can be derived from bees and plant sources (Milani and Nemati, 2022). Over the years, certain waxes have been used to encase fruits and vegetables, allowing for extended shelf life and limiting degradation over time (Milani and Nemati, 2022). Likewise, since the 1950s, several meat processors in the United States have applied strippable coatings of petroleum-derived microcrystalline wax on frozen meats, such as beef, veal, lamb, hamburger patties, and luncheon meats (McGrath, 1955). Although wax coatings are substantially more resistant to moisture transport than most other lipid or nonlipid edible coatings (Schultz et al., 1949; Landmann et al., 1960), wax-, fat-, and oil-based coatings have application problems (i.e., thickness and homogeneity control, greasy surface, cracking) and organoleptic problems (i.e., waxy taste, rancidity)(Bolívar-Monsalve et al., 2019). Thus, pure lipids are combined with hydrocolloids such as protein, starch, cellulose, and their derivatives, providing a multicomponent system that can be applied as meat coatings (Cutter, 2006).
Additional beneficial functions beyond being edible may be possible with certain sources of lipid-based coatings. For example, one agronomic source of wax used for coatings is extracted from rice bran oil, either in a hard or soft form (Milani and Nemati, 2022). Rice bran results from milling, representing 5% to 6% of the rice kernel and comprising anywhere from 15% to 22% lipids (Luh, 1991; Henderson et al., 2012; Bodie et al., 2019). In addition, rice bran is known to exhibit prebiotic activities, and rice bran oil has been associated with health benefits such as tumor reduction (Ryan, 2011; Henderson et al., 2012; Bodie et al., 2019). Rice bran oil has received interest in several food applications due to its high nutritional quality, antioxidant activity, stabilization properties for storage, and different food colorant options based on the different pigmented rice varieties (Das et al., 2025). Some of these characteristics associated with rice bran oil waxes would potentially qualify them as more attractive alternative wax lipid-based edible coatings for multiple food products, including meats. However, this will likely depend on whether they can be retained during extraction. Further compositional research on these waxes from other sources may reveal additional beneficial characteristics that make them more biologically active beyond just serving as edible coatings.
Protein edible films
Protein films are attractive because of the potential unique combinations of a wide range of amino acids that can result in various polymer structural forms and intramolecular interactions (Hadidi et al., 2022; Khin et al., 2024). Protein films easily lend themselves to chemical and physical manipulation and form networks for elasticity (Hadidi et al., 2022). Sources for edible protein films can be generally categorized as originating from either plant or animal products (Khin et al., 2024). Collagen, keratin, milk, egg, and whey have served as animal sources, while proteins from corn, wheat, and soy have been used to generate protein-based films (Cazón et al., 2017; Mihalca et al., 2021). Plant edible protein candidates can be derived from many plant sources, including cereals, legumes, oil seeds, green leaves, and nuts (Hadidi et al., 2022). While soy proteins were used for edible protein films early on, agricultural byproduct sources such as wheat gluten, rice bran, and corn zein have received attention as potentially sustainable edible films (Purewal et al., 2024). In addition to the initial protein source, the types of proteins derived from these plant sources are generally categorized as either albumins, globulins, glutelins, or prolamins, which vary in their solubility (Hadidi et al., 2022). Consequently, these differences are reflected in how these protein sources are used in packaging.
For animal products, milk proteins have been a source of films for several decades and consist primarily of casein and a lesser amount of whey (Shendurse et al., 2018). Casein from milk was one of the early sources of edible protein films, particularly for packaging dairy products, and has the advantage of remaining stable over a wide range of temperatures, pH measurements, and salt conditions (Shendurse et al., 2018; Purewal et al., 2024). Whey proteins are generated as a waste byproduct after casein extraction for cheese processing. They are becoming more attractive as a protein film source because of their functional utility as a biodegradable barrier polymer and their ready availability as a surplus waste (Kandasamy et al., 2021). Whey protein contains several fractions, but levels depend on cheese type, manufacturing process, and animal milk source, among other factors (Kandasamy et al., 2021). Gelatins derived from the high-temperature partial acid or alkali hydrolysis of fibrous hydrophobic collagen proteins occurring in animal tissues also emerged as an attractive source for packaging due to their effectiveness as a barrier and biodegradability (Šuput et al., 2015; Loo and Sarbon, 2020; Maciel et al., 2020; Purewal et al., 2024). Collagens occur in various organs and tissues such as cartilage, skin, lungs, tendons, and basement tissues and can compositionally vary, being homogenous in one tissue and heterogenous in another (Bornstein and Sage, 1980). Interest has grown in the utilization of collagen due to its availability in several animal processing operations, for example, chicken skin (Loo and Sarbon, 2020; Ricke et al., 2025a). By repurposing these animal waste byproducts into useful applications such as protein films, there is an opportunity to decrease the environmental footprint of processing waste such as animal hide components that end up in landfills (Matinong et al., 2022; Suurs et al., 2023). However, retrieving products such as collagen from such sources will require developing large-scale economic processing methods.
Proteins have been investigated and used as sources of edible meat film for several years (Chen et al., 2019). Protein films generally have a sound gas barrier, mechanical properties, and poor water vapor permeability (Bourtoom, 2008; Bourtoom, 2009; Otoni et al., 2016). Protein-based edible films have been investigated for salami (Moreira et al., 2011), chicken breast (Fernández-Pan et al., 2014; Di Giorgio et al., 2019), beef (Emiroğlu et al., 2010; Cardoso et al., 2016), and pork (Kaewprachu et al., 2015). However, protein-based films have a low resistance to mechanical stress and water diffusion and may become fragile under dried conditions (Bolívar-Monsalve et al., 2019). Other drawbacks to protein-based films are their susceptibility to native enzymes present in meat. They may be susceptible to native enzymes and may cause adverse reactions in consumers allergic to certain protein fractions (Sánchez-Ortega et al., 2014; Galus and Kadzińska, 2015). In addition, protein films can suffer from low mechanical strength water barrier issues, and interactions among the protein chains may result in rigid structures and brittleness (Calva-Estrada et al., 2019; Tkaczewska, 2020; Purewal et al., 2024). However, these issues can be improved with various chemical and enzymatic modifications or by combining them with other polymers, such as plant protein blends or lipids that provide complementary characteristics to the film composite (Calva-Estrada et al., 2019; Purewal et al., 2024). More specifically, adding a low molecular mass, nonvolatile compound such as sugar, alcohol, as well as gelatin hydrolysates as plasticizers can improve the mechanical properties of protein films while decreasing hardness and stiffness (Calva-Estrada et al., 2019; Kandasamy et al., 2021; Hadidi et al., 2022). As more of the chemistry of polymer blends becomes understood, it is anticipated that more diverse functionality can be added to these types of protein-based films and coatings.
Active Packaging Strategies
Antimicrobial active packaging
One version of this type of packaging is to soak pads or fill a sachet with the respective antimicrobial to be placed inside the package (Otoni, et al., 2016). These sachets or pads may generate and release or carry and release antimicrobial ingredients of essential oils, allyl isothiocyanate, chlorine dioxide, or ethanol (Otoni et al., 2016). The pads may be absorbent to remove liquids or gases and may be impregnated with silver, copper, or copper oxide nanoparticles (Otoni, et al., 2016). Carbon dioxide emitters may also be placed in the packages. Carbon dioxide can act directly as an antimicrobial (Fang et al., 2017). These sachets and pads have a few drawbacks. They may decrease productivity due to the hand placement of the sachet or pad into the package (Contreras et al., 2018; Pereira de Abreu et al., 2012). There is also a concern that sachets may pose a risk to consumers via disintegration, contamination, or unintentional consumption (Contreras et al., 2018).
Antimicrobials can be incorporated into the packaging film by a method such as coextrusion of packaging films with the antimicrobials (Table 1). Soysal et al. (2015) investigated the effect of nisin, chitosan, potassium sorbate, or silver-substituted zeolite incorporated into low-density polyethylene (LDPE) on the physicochemical and microbiological quality of chicken drumsticks. The active packaging resulted in a lower level of total aerobic mesophilic bacteria, total coliform, mold, and yeast count on the product, with the chitosan-containing film being most successful in extending the shelf life and improving quality (Soysal et al., 2015). Other methods of including antimicrobials in packaging films without affecting bioactivity are solvent compounding, electrospinning, and casting (Sung et al., 2013). Plant extracts (e.g., rosemary extract), peptides, and nisin have been used as antimicrobial agents in active packaging systems (Arvanitoyannis and Stratakos, 2012). Ferrocinoa et al. (2016) used nisin in antimicrobial packaging to retard the growth of total viable bacteria and lactic acid bacteria in refrigerated beef burgers, thus increasing the shelf life of the meat. Nanoscale silver has also been applied to fresh pork loin, inhibiting total bacterial growth (Kuulialaa et al., 2015). Several manufacturers offer commercially available antimicrobial active packaging (Fang et al., 2017).
Summary of smart meat packaging technologies with respect to oxygen exposure, color stability, shelf-life extension, and associated microbial concerns.
| Packaging Type | Oxygen Exposure | Color Stability | Shelf-Life Extension | Key Microbial Concerns | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active packaging (Antiox) | Variable | Depends on film | Extended | Microbial growth inhibition | Enhanced quality with essential oils, chitosan, nisin, etc. |
| Edible films/coatings | Low to medium | Variable | Medium | Depends on film additives | Sustainable—can deliver bioactive compounds |
| Nanotechnology packaging | Variable | Variable | Extended | Antimicrobial (e.g., AgNP) | Enhanced barrier, mechanical properties; toxicology debated |
| Intelligent packaging | N/A | N/A | Indirect | Detection of spoilage/pathogens | Includes sensors, RFID, TTI, freshness/pathogen indicators |
AgNP, silver nanoparticles; Antiox, antioxidant; N/A, not applicable; RFID, radio-frequency identification; TTI, time-temperature indicators.
Packaging can also be coated with a carrier of antimicrobial agents so that the agents can be released onto the surface of food through evaporation into the headspace (volatile substances) or migration into food (nonvolatile substances) through diffusion (Coma, 2008). The cast film method is often used with antimicrobials that cannot tolerate polymer processing temperatures or heat-sensitive antimicrobials, such as volatile chemicals (Appendini and Hotchkiss, 2002; Emamifar, 2011; Sung et al., 2013; Sofı et al., 2018). Conventional coatings, including polyvinylidene chloride, polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH), and ethylene vinyl alcohol, are the most used in antimicrobial food-packaging films (Khaneghah et al., 2018).
Antioxidant active packaging
High oxygen levels in meat packaging can accelerate microbial growth, lipid oxidation, changes in color and odor, and contribute to nutritional loss (Gómez-Estaca et al., 2014). Antioxidant active packaging can control the level of oxygen the product is exposed to, thus improving shelf life. Antioxidants scavenge oxygen, oxidative radical compounds, or metal ions from the food or the package headspace (McMillin, 2017). Antioxidant active packaging systems can be classified into 2 groups: 1) independent antioxidant devices and 2) antioxidant packaging materials (Gómez-Estaca et al., 2014).
Independent devices can be sachets, pads, or labels added to conventional packaging. These devices contain oxygen scavengers, separated from meat. The most common oxygen scavengers are fine powders of iron and ferrous oxide, although ascorbic acid, sulfites, catechols, ligands, and enzymes such as glucose oxidase have also been used (Brody et al., 2008). There are extensive reviews on the uses and applications of oxygen-scavenging packaging (Brody et al., 2001; Brody et al., 2008; Rooney, 2005; Suppakul et al., 2003). Synthetic antioxidants such as butylated hydroxyanisole are successfully used in antioxidant packaging. However, consumers’ rejection of these synthetic compounds has resulted in a growing trend to use natural antioxidants (Barbosa-Pereira et al., 2014; Sanches-Silva et al., 2014; Fang et al., 2017).
Alternative or “clean-label” additives have received considerable attention for maintaining shelf life in natural and organic ready-to-eat meats and controlling specific foodborne pathogens such as L. monocytogenes (Bodie et al., 2023; Bodie et al., 2024). Given their potential as food additives, it is not surprising that these alternative compounds would be attractive as packaging materials. Numerous combinations of natural antioxidants and films have been investigated. Chitosan and gelatin films with green tea extract, mango, and acerola pulps in starch films; marigold extract and barley husks in LDPE; pimento and oregano essential oils in milk protein films; palm fruit and cocoa/coffee in cassava starch films; and mustard meal in xanthan gum films have all demonstrated antioxidant capabilities (de Souza et al., 2013). Green tea extract, oolong tea extract, and black tea extract incorporated into protein films all decreased lipid oxidation of pork wrapped in the films, with green tea extract films having the highest antioxidant activity (Yang et al., 2016). These plant extracts and essential oils have become emphasized as an alternative to food packaging (Granato et al., 2017; Lorenzo et al., 2017; Poojary et al., 2017; Vinceković et al., 2017). Essential oils often have a strong odor, so it is necessary to determine the least amount that can be used to achieve the desired effect without changing the organoleptic characteristics of the meat (Viuda-Martos et al., 2008; Shen and Kamdem, 2015).
Health benefits
Active packaging films and coatings offer numerous benefits in support of human health and food quality. As discussed in the previous sections, opportunities to include antimicrobial compounds that restrict the proliferation of pathogenic organisms provide a public health safety attribute to package meat products. Similar approaches can also limit the growth of spoilage organisms and, in turn, the onset of spoilage and, ultimately, food waste. Incorporating active packaging is both an economic benefit to large-scale production by the food processor and extends shelf life for the retailer and the nutritive profile for consumers (Umaraw et al., 2020; Petkoska et al., 2021). Natural ingredients incorporated into packaging, such as herbs and spices, provide antimicrobial and/or antioxidant properties and serve as flavorings to add to sensory appeal and extend shelf life (Umaraw et al., 2020). As more active packaging components are developed, many will likely exhibit multifunctional properties.
It is also possible more novel functions can be introduced through active packaging. Peptides and protein hydrolysates have been proposed as potential components of edible biodegradable active packaging that could extend shelf life and possess health benefits when consumed (Tkaczewska, 2020). Khin et al. (2024) have suggested that bioactive compounds such as probiotics, prebiotics, and phenolic compounds could be incorporated into protein-based films and offer the means to maintain gastrointestinal health, decrease inflammation, and improve immune response. Phenolic compounds include phenolic acids, tannins, and lignans, as well as others that have been used in coating and films to improve oxidative stability and color but may also impart several health benefits such as being anticancer, anti-inflammatory, and antiallergic (Khin et al., 2022). Prebiotics are nondigestible compounds that benefit the host by selecting beneficial gastrointestinal microorganisms such as Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium (Gibson and Roberfroid, 1995). Initially this included only a few β-linked oligosaccharide polymers, such as fructooligosaccharides. Still, as a better understanding of the gastrointestinal tract microbiota through employment of molecular tools such as microbiome 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing is being explored, it is now becoming clear that there is greater range of prebiotic candidates including noncarbohydrate compounds (Gibson et al., 2017; Swanson et al., 2025). Certain prebiotic polymers can be incorporated into different films. Khin et al. (2022) have proposed that including such bioactive compounds, if part of an edible film or coating, would help retain the viability of probiotic cultures in a particular food product. It is also possible that the presence of the prebiotic, these compounds could provide more direct benefits to the human gastrointestinal tract when the meat product is consumed.
Probiotics have been defined as viable organisms that, when consumed in sufficient quantities, provide health benefits to the host (Hill et al., 2014). Probiotics have a long history in human health and are additives for animals to modulate immune function and serve as competitive exclusion cultures against foodborne pathogen colonization (Swanson et al., 2025). Probiotics have been incorporated into certain films and coatings (Khin et al., 2022). Better stability can be achieved by including a prebiotic that serves as a substrate for the probiotic as part of the coating, resulting in what is defined as a synbiotic (Swanson et al., 2020; Khin et al., 2022). More recently, postbiotics have emerged as biological additives that consist of inanimate cells and/or their components that provide a health advantage to the host (Salminen et al., 2021). Whether such compounds could also be incorporated into packaging films and coatings remains to be determined. In general, further development of methods to retain the functionality of any of these biological agents will be needed to enhance their active components.
Nanomaterial Packaging
Nanotechnology is based on creating materials on a nanometer scale. This miniaturized scale offers the opportunity to efficiently deliver multiple functionalities to meet practical and economic commercial demands (Ricke et al., 2025b). Nanotechnology has been investigated to improve the functionality of food packaging (Mlalila et al., 2016). Nanomaterials and edible coatings with added nanoparticles provide better preservation and quality maintenance of food products by modifying the physical and mechanical properties of packaging to improve their strength, durability, flexibility, and barrier properties (Bumbudsanpharoke et al., 2015). Nanobased packaging material can be generally synthesized by incorporating the nanoparticles into traditional food-packaging materials or by fabricating nanocomposite multilayer packaging materials (Tsagkaris et al., 2018). Arfat et al. (2017) generated biocomposite films using fish skin gelatin and silver–copper nanoparticles. These films had good mechanical strength, thermal stability, and good ultraviolet barrier properties as well as having antibacterial activity against both L. monocytogenes and S. typhimurium. Rostamzad et al. (2016) developed a fish protein film with nanoclay and transglutaminase. The nanoclay improved the physical and mechanical properties of the film. A PLA-based film with nanoclay and nanocellulose reduced the oxygen and vapor transmission rates to 90% and 76%, respectively (Trifol et al., 2016). Polypropylene nanocomposites incorporated with nanoclay reduced the oxygen and water vapor permeability by 22% and 33%, respectively, compared to neat polypropylene. In contrast, adding iron nanoparticles improved the oxygen and water vapor permeability by 55% and 77%, respectively, compared to neat polypropylene (Khalaj et al., 2016). Nanoparticles can also increase the generation of reactive oxygen species that inhibit bacterial growth (Slavin et al., 2017). Fasihnia et al. (2018) prepared polyethylene nanocomposite films with added organoclay nanomaterials that exhibited significant activity against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. PVOH-based films with fennel seed oil and cellulose nanoparticles improved antimicrobial and antioxidant activity (Ramesh and Radhakrishnan, 2019).
Nanomaterials as packaging nanosensors
Nanosensors monitor the external and internal conditions of fresh and processed food products (Caon et al., 2017). Zhai et al. (2019) developed colorimetric hydrogen sulfide sensors made up of gellan gum-capped silver nanoparticles to indicate spoilage in chicken breast and silver carp. The sensor changes color from yellow to colorless when exposed to hydrogen sulfide. A starch-polyvinyl alcohol-based film containing zinc oxide nanoparticles is sensitive to pH and could be part of intelligent food packaging (Jayakumar et al., 2019). A soluble soybean polysaccharide film with curcumin and silicon dioxide displayed good antibacterial activity and distinctive color changes due to changes in pH during shrimp spoilage (Salarbashi et al., 2021).
Potential toxicological effects of nanoparticles
Unfortunately, some studies have indicated that nanoparticles may have toxicological effects on biological systems (Dimitrijevic et al., 2015). The toxicity of nanoparticles depends on their type, concentration, duration of exposure, and sensitivity of the individual (Dimitrijevic et al., 2015). Organic nanoparticles may increase bioavailability, which could lead to toxicity. Consequently, both in vivo and in vitro studies must be performed to ensure food safety (Ashfaq et al., 2022). Numerous studies have been conducted on silver nanoparticles, which can cause neurotoxicity and genotoxicity and can deposit in the liver, kidney, testicles, and brain; however, the migration of silver nanoparticles up to this level in food is very low (Ahmad et al., 2021). Some nanoclay has been shown to cause cytotoxicity on long-term exposure (Bandyopadhyay and Ray, 2019). More studies must be done on migration, toxicity, and permissible limit of nanoparticles in food packaging that come in direct contact with food. Nevertheless, nanotechnology appears to be the front runner in novel food-packaging research.
Intelligent Packaging
Intelligent packaging usually refers to sensors or indicators that signal or initiate a needed change in the package environment or package (Table 2). In Europe, the legal definition of “intelligent food contact materials and articles” is “materials and articles that monitor the condition of packaged food or the environment surrounding the food” (European Union, 2011). Yam et al. (2005) proposed a more general definition, which is “a packaging system that is capable of carrying out intelligent functions (such as detecting, sensing, recording, tracing, communicating, and applying scientific logic) to facilitate decision-making to extend shelf life, enhance safety, improve quality, provide information, and warn about possible problems.” The devices used in intelligent packaging include barcodes, radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags, time-temperature indicators (TTI), gas indicators, freshness or microbial growth indicators, and pathogen indicators (Fang et al., 2017).
Summary of intelligent packaging technologies used in meat packaging, highlighting their functions and applications for monitoring quality, safety, and freshness.
| Device Type | Function | Target | Examples/Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barcodes/QR codes | Information display | Product tracking and consumer info | 1D/2D codes; batch info, storage instructions |
| RFID tags | Real-time data collection | Traceability, inventory, cold chain | Low-frequency tags ideal for meat (high moisture) |
| TTI | Cold chain monitoring | Storage temperature history | Color change to show past temperature abuse |
| Gas indicators | Internal gas composition monitoring | O2, CO2, H2S | Color change; detects leaks, spoilage gases |
| Freshness indicators | Spoilage metabolite detection | Amines, acids, sulfides | pH-sensitive dyes; change with microbial metabolites |
| Pathogen indicators/biosensors | Pathogen detection | E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria | Color change, barcode disabling, antibody-based |
1D, 1-dimensional; 2D, 2-dimensional; CO2, carbon dioxide; H2S, hydrogen sulfide; O2, oxygen; QR, quick response; RFID, radio-frequency identification; TTI, time-temperature indicators.
Barcodes
A barcode is an optical machine-readable symbol relating to the object to which it is attached. They are cheap, easy to use, and widely used (Manthou and Vlachopoulou, 2001). The universal product code barcode consists of a pattern of bars and spaces, representing 12 digits of data that contain limited information such as manufacturer identification number and item number (Yam et al., 2005). Barcodes can be classified as 1-dimensional (1D) or 2-dimensional (2D). The 1D barcode is the familiar pattern of spaces and bars (Müller and Schmid, 2019). 2D bar codes contain more information including food packing date, batch/lot number, package weight, nutritional information, cooking instructions, and the website address of the food manufacturer and are readable by smartphones. These are the familiar quick response (i.e., QR) codes (Fang et al., 2017).
Radio-frequency identification tags
An RFID tag has a significantly larger data storage capacity, is noncontact, can gather real-time data out of the line of sight, and the data can penetrate nonmetallic materials (Mennecke and Townsend, 2005). However, RFID tags are costly compared to barcodes and require a more powerful electronic information network. Depending on the situation, RFID and barcode data carriers will likely continue to be used in the meat industry alone or in combination (Yam et al., 2005).
An RFID tag contains a tiny transponder and antenna with a unique number. The reader emits radio waves to capture data from the RFID tag, which are then passed to a computer for analysis and decision-making (Want, 2004). Low-frequency tags are cheaper, use less power, and are better able to penetrate nonmetallic objects, making these the best for use with meat products, primarily if the meat itself might hide the tags. They are also ideal for close-range scanning of objects with high water content (Kerry et al., 2006). The benefits of using RFID tags in the meat industry include traceability, inventory management, labor-saving costs, security, and promotion of quality and safety (Mousavi, et al. 2002).
Time-temperature indicators
A TTI is defined as “a simple, inexpensive device attached to shipping containers or individual consumer packages that can show measurable, time-temperature dependent changes that reflect the full or partial temperature history of a food product” (Taoukis and Labuza, 1989). The basic operation principles of TTI are to alert processors and consumers when temperature conditions reduce quality or may result in food safety concerns (Smolander et al., 2004; Kerry et al., 2006; Taoukis and Labuza, 2003). Commercially available TTI include critical temperature indicators (show exposure above [or below] a reference temperature), partial history indicators (indicate that a product has been exposed to a temperature sufficient to cause a change in product quality or safety), and full history indicators (a continuous temperature-dependent response throughout a product’s history) (Biji et al, 2015).
Gas indicators
After the meat is packaged, the gas composition within the package changes due to the activity of the food, the package nature, gas generation by spoilage microorganisms, or gas transmission through the packaging material or leaks (Yam et al., 2005). Gas indicators are small devices that can be part of the package label or printed on the packaging film. Usually the gas indicator changes color to reflect the gas composition changes (Fang et al., 2017). The most common gas indicators detect oxygen, since oxygen is the most deleterious to safety and quality because it induces oxidative rancidity, color change, and microbial spoilage. For instance, the Ageless Eye® oxygen indicator produced by Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company can be inserted inside the container. When the oxygen content exceeds 0.5%, the indicator changes color from pink to blue (Fang et al., 2017). Oxygen indicators have also been used to detect improper sealing and quality deterioration of modified atmospheric packaging in fresh beef (Ahvenainen et al., 1997; Smiddy et al., 2002). Carbon dioxide, water vapor, ethanol, hydrogen sulfide, and other gas indicators have also been reported (Fang et al., 2017).
Freshness indicators
Freshness indicators show the actual spoilage of products (Pereira de Abreu et al., 2012). These indicators are based on the knowledge of metabolites, specifically associated with spoilage bacteria, packaging type, and storage conditions of the meat product (Fang et al., 2017). The major quality-indicating metabolites produced by these bacteria include glucose, organic acids (e.g., lactic acid), ethanol, volatile nitrogen compounds, biogenic amines (e.g., tyramine, cadaverine, putrescine, histamine), carbon dioxide, adenosine triphosphate degradation products, and sulfuric compounds. The presence of these compounds in the package result in a color change in the indicator (Smolander, 2003).
Various freshness indicators have been developed (Han et al., 2005; Kerry et al., 2006; Smolander, 2003). One of the most common freshness indicators in meat packaging is bromothymol blue pH dye, which monitors the carbon dioxide produced by microbial growth (Smolander et al, 1997). Other pH dyes that serve the same purpose are xylenol blue, bromocresol purple, bromocresol green, cresol red, phenol red, methyl red, and alizarin (Horan, 2000). Other metabolites, including sulfur dioxide, ammonium, volatile amines, and organic acids, have been used as target monitoring molecules using pH-sensitive indicators (Smolander, 2003). Many spoilage bacteria produce hydrogen sulfide, which is known to bind to myoglobin to produce a green pigment (sulfomyoglobin). An indicator for this has been developed that explicitly detects hydrogen sulfide even in the presence of nitrogen and carbon dioxide (Smolander et al., 2002).
Pathogen indicators and biosensors
Indicators to detect pathogens directly have also been developed. These devices are biosensors that can detect, record, and transmit information on biochemical reactions specific to the pathogens (Yam et al., 2005). These devices have a bioreceptor, an organic or biological material such as an enzyme, antigen, microorganism, hormone, or nucleic acid, that recognizes a target analyte coupled with an electrochemical, optical, or calorimetric transducer (Yam et al., 2005). These pathogen indicators change color in the food package to warn consumers/retailers that the food must not be consumed (Yam et al., 2005).
Foodborne pathogen detection has been a targeted area for research and commercial development. SIRA Technologies (California, USA) has a commercially available pathogen indicator called Food Sentinel System™ (SIRA Technologies, 2019). Antibodies specific to the target pathogen (e.g., Salmonella spp., E. coli O157:H7, or L. monocytogenes) are attached to a membrane that is part of the barcode. If the pathogen is present a localized dark bar forms over the barcode, making it impossible to scan the barcode. Another pathogen indicator is Toxin Guard™ developed by Toxin Alert (Ontario, Canada), which has biochemical sensors incorporating antibodies in a polyethylene-based plastic packaging. The system can detect Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., E. coli, and Listeria spp. (Bodenhamer, 2000). Yousefı et al. (2018) developed a transparent sensing surface that generated a fluorescent signal when encountering a specific bacterium of interest, allowing real-time monitoring without disturbing the packaged project. They accomplished this by attaching an E. coli-specific RNA-cleaving fluorogenic DNA-enzyme probe microarrays to a transparent cyclo-olefin polymer film. While initially specific to E. coli, this technology could certainly be adapted to other foodborne pathogens and eventually to indicator organisms for the onset of spoilage.
Intelligent packaging is expensive and will only be used if the technology increases sales or reduces waste (Heising et al., 2014; Vanderroost, et al., 2014). Although customers say they want better quality and more product information, most will not pay more for them (Müller and Schmid, 2019). Promoting intelligent packaging to consumers to increase confidence in the safety of the systems and spelling out the benefits of intelligent packaging could increase their willingness to pay more for this packaging (Sohail et al., 2018). However, further advances in polymer extrusion technologies are needed to accommodate introduction of these types of packaging materials (Altıparmak et al., 2022; Prabha et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021). In addition, further technological developments with nanotechnology, 3D printing, and more advanced polymer composites may help decrease cost, but consumer acceptance may still be challenging.
Conclusions and Future Directions
Packaging technologies for meat products continue to evolve from the more traditional plastic types of films to retain qualities such as color and freshness, as it is being realized that these types of packaging material present environmental challenges. Edible films and coatings not only offer a more environmentally friendly approach for packaging materials but also have the potential to be considerably modified. For example, the bacterial production of extracellular cellulose can avoid some of the extraction and purification requirements of the more conventional plant-based sources of cellulose. As more is understood at the molecular level of cellulose generation by these organisms, the opportunity to introduce genetic modifications that alter cellulose fibrils is possible. These modifications could create very specific types of cellulose polymers that exhibit certain functions that further accentuate the active nature of the packaging material or film to meet more targeted applications. Chitosan, lipid, and protein-based films and coatings possess several contrasting properties that can serve different roles for packaging composites. Introducing biotics such as prebiotics and probiotics into protein coatings has intriguing possibilities for delivering health benefits and extending shelf life. Equally important is the idea that some protein and lipid materials represent waste byproducts generated during meat processing that can be repurposed without requiring environmentally unfriendly disposal destinations.
Smart packaging represents tremendous possibilities for creating more interactive packaging that will provide detailed real-time information to the consumer and the retailer. There is the eventual potential for the meat product to be traced back to the animal operation (Crandall et al., 2013). Key information could include a wide range of information such as freshness indicators, detection sensors for pathogens and spoilage organisms, early warning of chemical changes indicating the onset of spoilage, and changes in packaging conditions. Ideally, access to as much of this information as possible would be the goal. The challenge is developing noninvasive packaging systems with built-in sensors that can provide easily visualized outcomes that allow simultaneous and instant interpretation. This will require further development of packaging materials that can retain optimal packaging properties but have sufficient flexibility to be modified to become platforms for sophisticated sensor arrays. The cost of such intelligent packaging is likely still prohibitive, but, as further advancements are made in nanotechnology and composite packaging material, the economics for these packaging materials may become more favorable. However, packaging properties, such as barriers to oxygen and water vapor as well as thermal resistance, must be considered in development of packaging materials (Nasution et al., 2023; Wongphan et al., 2024). Likewise, improving the energy efficiency of polymer extrusion processing requires further research (Abeykoon et al., 2021). Ultimately, the goal would be to extend the shelf life of fresh meat beyond current practices and to be able to monitor those meat products closely during storage by collecting as much information in real time as possible.
Conflict of Interest
Authors have no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
EGO was supported by US Department of Agriculture Hatch grant under the project AAI9572.
Author Contribution
Conceptualization: DKD, JFL, and SCR; project administration: DKD, JFL, and SCR; software: EGO; supervision: DKD, JFL, and SCR; validation: DKD, CAO, JFL, EGO, and SCR; visualization: EGO; writing—original draft: DKD, CAO, JFL, EGO, and SCR; and writing—review and editing: DKD, CAO, JFL, EGO, and SCR.
Literature Cited
Abeykoon, C., A. McMillan, and B. K. Nguyen. 2021. Energy efficiency in extrusion-related polymer processing: a review of state of the art and potential efficiency improvements. Renew. Sustain. Energy Revs. 147:111219. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111219.
Agulló, E., M. S. Rodríguez, V. Ramos, and L. Albertengo. 2003. Present and future role of chitin and chitosan in food. Macromol. Biosci. 3:521–530. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/mabi.200300010.
Agustin, M. B., B. Ahmmad, S. M. M. Alonzo, and F. M. Patriana. 2014. Bioplastic based on starch and cellulose nanocrystals from rice straw. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 33:2205–2213. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0731684414558325.
Ahmad, S. S., O. Yousuf, R. U. Islam, and K. Younis. 2021. Silver nanoparticles as an active packaging ingredient and its toxicity. Packaging Technol. Sci. 34:653–663. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2603.
Ahvenainen, R., M. Eilamo, and E. Hurme. 1997. Detection of improper sealing and quality deterioration of modified-atmosphere-packed pizza by a colour indicator. Food Contr. 8:177–184. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-7135(97)00046-7.
Alemán, A. F. González, M. Arancibia, M. López-Caballero, P. Montero, and M. C. Gómez-Guillén. 2016. Comparative study between film and coating packaging based on shrimp concentrate obtained from marine industrial waste for fish sausage preservation. Food Contr. 70: 325–332. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.06.007.
Altıparmak, S. C., V. A. Yarley, Z. Shi, and J. Lin. 2022. Extrusion-based additive manufacturing technologies: state of the art and future perspectives. J. Manuf. Proc. 83:607–636. doi: https//doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2022.09.032.
Amobonye, A., P. Bhagwat, S. Raveendran, S. Singh, and S. Pillai. 2021. Environmental impacts of microplastics and nanoplastics: a current overview. Front. Microbiol. 12:768297. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.768297.
Appendini, P., and J. H. Hotchkiss. 2002. Review of antimicrobial food packaging. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 3:113–126. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1466-8564(02)00012-7.
Aresta, A. M., N. De Vietro, G. Mancini, and C. Zambonin. 2024. Effect of a chitosan-based packaging material on the domestic storage of “ready-to-cook” meat products: evaluation of biogenic amines production, phthalates migration, and in vitro antimicrobic activity’s impact on Aspergillus niger. Separations. 11:159. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/separations11060159.
Arfat, Y. A., J. Ahmed, N. Hiremath, R. Auras, and A. Joseph. 2017. Thermo-mechanical, rheological, structural and antimicrobial properties of bionanocomposite films based on fish skin gelatin and silver-copper nanoparticles. Food Hydrocoll. 62:191–202. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2016.08.009.
Arvanitoyannis, I. S., and A. C. Stratakos. 2012. Application of modified atmosphere packaging and active/smart technologies to red meat and poultry: a review. Food Bioproc. Technol. 5:1423–1446. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-012-0803-z.
Asadi, A. and M. R. Mozafari. 2025. The impact of additives on polylactic acid-based food packaging. Nano Micro Biosystems. 4:1–7.
Asgher, M., S. A. Qamar, M. Bilal, and H. M. N. Iqbal. 2020. Bio-based active food packaging materials: sustainable alternative to conventional petrochemical-based packaging materials. Food Res. Int. 137:109625. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109625.
Ashfaq, A., N. Khursheed, S. Fatima, Z. Anjum, and K. Younis. 2022. Application of nanotechnology in food packaging: pros and cons. J. Agric. Food Res. 7:100270. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100270.
Baldwin, E. A. Edible coatings for fresh fruits and vegetables: past, present, and future. 1994. In: Krochta, J. M., Baldwin, E. A. and Nisperos-Carriedo, M., editors, Edible coatings and films to improve food quality. Technomic Publishing Company, Inc., Lancaster, Pennsylvania. p. 25–64.
Bandyopadhyay, J., and S. S. Ray. 2019. Are nanoclay-containing polymer composites safe for food packaging applications?—An overview. J. Appl. Polymer Sci. 136:47214. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/app.47214.
Barbosa-Pereira, L., G. P. Aurrekoetxea, I. Angulo, P. Paseiro-Losada, and J. M. Cruz. 2014. Development of new active packaging films coated with natural phenolic compounds to improve the oxidative stability of beef. Meat Sci. 97:249–254. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.02.006.
Biji, K.B. C.N. Ravishankar, C.O. Mohan and T.K. Srinivasa 2015. Smart packaging systems for food applications: a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology 52(10):6125–6135 doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-015-1766-7.
Bodenhamer, W. T. 2000. Method and apparatus for selective biological material detection. US Patent 6,051,388. Toxin Alert, Inc., Canada.
Bodie, A. R., L. A. Wythe, D. K. Dittoe, M. J. Rothrock, Jr., C. A. O’Bryan, and S. C. Ricke. 2024. Alternative additives for organic and natural ready-to-eat meats to control spoilage and maintain shelf life: current perspectives in the United States. Foods. 13:464. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13030464.
Bodie, A. R. C. A. O’Bryan, E. G. Olson, and S. C. Ricke. 2023. Natural antimicrobials for Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meats: current challenges and future prospects. Microorganisms. 11:1301. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11051301.
Bodie, A. R., A. C. Micciche, G. G. Atungulu, M. J. Rothrock, Jr, and S. C. Ricke. 2019. Current trends of rice milling byproducts for agricultural applications and alternative food production systems. Front. Sustainable Food Systs. 3:47. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00047.
Bolívar-Monsalve, J., C. Ramírez-Toro, G. Bolívar, and C. Ceballos-González. 2019. Mechanisms of action of novel ingredients used in edible films to preserve microbial quality and oxidative stability in sausages—a review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 89:100–109. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.05.011.
Bornstein, P. and H. Sage. 1980. Structurally distinct collagen types. Ann. Revs. Biochem. 49:957–1003. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.bi.49.070180.004521.
Bourtoom, T. 2008. Factors affecting the properties of edible film prepared from mung bean proteins. Int. Food Res. J. 15:167–180.
Bourtoom, T. 2009. Edible protein films: properties enhancement. Int. Food Res. J. 16:1–9.
Brody, A. L., B. Bugusu, J. H. Han, C. K. Sand, and T. H. McHugh. 2008. Scientific status summary: innovative food packaging solutions. J. Food Sci. 73: R107–R116. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.00933.x.
Brody, A. L., E. P. Strupinsky, and L. R. Kline. 2001. Active packaging for food applications. Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Bumbudsanpharoke, N., J. Choi, and S. Ko. 2015. Applications of nanomaterials in food packaging. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 15:6357–6372. doi: https://doi.org/10.1166/jnn.2015.10847.
Calva-Estrada, S. J., M. Jiménez-Fernández, and E. Lugo-Cervantes. 2019. Protein-based films: advances in the development of biomaterials applicable to food packaging. Food Eng. Revs. 11:78–92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12393-019-09189-w.
Campos, C. A., L. N. Gerschenson, and S. K. Flores. 2011. Development of edible films and coatings with antimicrobial activity. Food Bioprocess Technol. 4:849–875. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-010-0434-1.
Caon, T., S. M. Martelli, and F. M. Fakhouri. 2017. Chapter 18: new trends in the food industry: application of nanosensors in food packaging. In: A. M. Grumezescu, editor, Nanobiosensors. Academic Press. p. 773–804. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804301-1.00018-7.
Caplice, E. and G. F. Fitzgerald. 1999. Food fermentations: role of microorganisms in food production and preservation. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 50:131–149. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1605(99)00082-3.
Cardoso, G. P., M. P. Dutra, P. R. Fontes, A. de Lemos Souza Ramos, L. A. de Miranda Gomide, and E. M. Ramos. 2016. Selection of a chitosan gelatin-based edible coating for color preservation of beef in retail display. Meat Sci. 114:85–94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.12.012.
Cazón, P. and M. Vázquez. 2021. Bacterial cellulose as a biodegradable food packaging material: a review. Food Hydrocoll. 113:106530. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.106530.
Cazón, P., G. Velazquez, J. A. Ramírez, and M. Vázquez. 2017. Polysaccharide-based films and coatings for food packaging: a review. Food Hydrocoll. 68:136–148. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2016.09.009.
Chatman, C. C., E. G. Olson, A. J. Freedman, D. K. Dittoe, S. C. Ricke, and E. L.-W. Majumder. 2024. Co-exposure to polyethylene fiber and Salmonella enterica Typhimurium alters microbiome and metabolome of in vitro chicken cecal mesocosms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 90:e00915–24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.00915-24.
Chen, H., J. Wang, Y. Cheng, C. Wang, H. Liu, H. Bian, Y. Pan, J. Sun, and W. Han. 2019. Application of protein-based films and coatings for food packaging: a review. Polymers. 11:2039. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym11122039.
Chen, Y., W. Miao, X. Li, Y. Xu, H. Gao, and B. Zheng. 2023. The structure, properties, synthesis method and antimicrobial mechanism of ɛ-polylysine with the preservative effects for aquatic products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 139:104131. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2023.104131.
Coma, V. 2008. Bioactive packaging technologies for extended shelf life of meat-based products. Meat Sci. 78:90–103. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.07.035.
Contreras, C. B., G. Charles, R. Toselli, and M. C. Strumia. 2018. Antimicrobial active packaging. In: M. A. Masuelli, editor, Biopackaging. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton, Florida. p. 36–58.
Crandall, P. G., C. A. O’Bryan, D. Babu, N. Jarvis, M. L. Davis, M. Buser, B. Adam, J. Marcy and S. C. Ricke. 2013. Whole-chain traceability, is it possible to trace your hamburger to a particular steer, a U. S. perspective. Meat Sci. 95:137–144. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.022.
Cutter, C. N. 2006. Opportunities for bio-based packaging technologies to improve the quality and safety of fresh and further processed muscle foods. Meat Sci. 74:131–142. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.023.
Das, P. P., M. Z. Gul, A. M. Weber, R. K. Srivastava, B. Marathi, E. P. Ryan, and I. A. Ghazi. 2025. Rice bran extraction and stabilization methods for nutrient and phytochemical biofortification, nutraceutical development, and dietary supplementation. Nutr. Revs. 83:692–712. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuae174.
de Souza, C. O., P. Veiga-Santos, and J. I. Druzian. 2013. Natural ingredients as additive for active antioxidant food packaging. In: G. Lima and F. Vianello, editors, Food quality, safety and technology. Springer, Vienna. p. 179–188. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1640-1_12.
Di Giorgio, L., P. R. Salgado, and A. N. Mauri. 2019. Flavored oven bags for cooking meat based on proteins. LWT. 101:374–381. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.11.002.
Dikky, I., and S. Stevia. 2019. Replacing plastic: an assessment of new material for food production package to re-engineer packaging industry based on multi-criteria analyses; Proceedings of the First ASEAN Business, Environment and Technology Symposium, Bogor, Indonesia. 2–3 December 2019. p. 20–22.
Dimitrijevic, M., N. Karabasil, M. Boskovic, V. Teodorovic, D. Vasilev, V. Djordjevic, N. Kilibarda, and N. Cobanovic. 2015. Safety aspects of nanotechnology applications in food packaging. Procedia Food Sci. 5:57–60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profoo.2015.09.015.
Dittoe, D. K., S. C. Ricke, and A. S. Kiess. 2018. Organic acids and potential for modifying the avian gastrointestinal tract and reducing pathogens and disease. Front. Vet. Sci. 5:216. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00216.
dos Santos, M. R., I. J. B. Durval, A. D. M. de Medeiros, C. J. G. da Silva Júnior, A. Converti, A. F. de Santana Costa, and L. A. Sarubbo. 2024. Biotechnology in food packaging using bacterial cellulose. Foods. 13:3327. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13203327.
Emamifar, A. 2011. Applications of antimicrobial polymer nanocomposites in food packaging. In: A. Hashi, editor, Advances in nanocomposite technology. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia. p. 299–318.
Emiroğlu, Z. K., G. P. Yemiş, B. K. Coşkun, and K. Candoğan. 2010. Antimicrobial activity of soy edible films incorporated with thyme and oregano essential oils on fresh ground beef patties. Meat Sci. 86:283–288. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04.016.
Erginkaya, Z., S. Kalkan, and Ünal. 2014. Use of antimicrobial edible films and coatings as packaging materials for food safety. In: Food processing: strategies for quality assessment. Springer, New York. p. 261–295.
Erna, K. H., W. X. L. Felicia, K. Rovina, J. M. Vonnie, and N. Huda. 2022. Development of curcumin/rice starch films for sensitive detection of hypoxanthine in chicken and fish meat. Carbohydrate Polymer Technol. Appl. 3:100189. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carpta.2022.100189.
European Union. 2011. EU guidance to the commission regulation No. 450/2009 of 29 May 2009 on active and intelligent materials and articles intended to come into contact with food, version 1.0. European Commission Health and Consumers Directorate-General. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/450/oj/eng. (Accessed 20 October 2025).https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/450/oj/eng
Fang, Z., Y. Zhao, R. D. Warner, and S. K. Johnson. 2017. Active and intelligent packaging in meat industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 61:60–71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.01.002.
Fasihnia, S. H., S. H. Peighambardoust, and S. J. Peighambardoust. 2018. Nanocomposite films containing organoclay nanoparticles as an antimicrobial (active) packaging for potential food application. J. Food Proc. and Pres. 42:e13488. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.13488.
Fernández-Pan, I., X. Carrión-Granda and J. I. Maté. 2014. Antimicrobial efficiency of edible coatings on the preservation of chicken breast fillets. Food Contr. 36:69–75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.07.032.
Ferreira, C. O., C. A. Nunes, I. Delgadillo, and J. A. Lopes-da-Silva. 2009. Characterization of chitosan–whey protein films at acid pH. Food Res. Int. 42:807–813. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2009.03.005.
Ferrocino, I., A. Greppi, A. La Storia, K. Rantsiou, D. Ercolini, and L. Cocolin. 2016. Impact of nisin-activated packaging on microbiota of beef burgers during storage. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 82:549–559. doi: https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03093-15.
Galus, S. and J. Kadzińska. 2015. Food applications of emulsion-based edible films and coatings. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 45: 273–283. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.07.011.
García-Guzmán, L., G. Cabrera-Barjas, C. G. Soria-Hernández, J. Castaño, A. Y. Guadarrama-Lezama, and S. R. Llamazares. 2022. Progress in starch-based materials for food packaging applications. Polysaccharides. 3:136–177. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/polysaccharides3010007.
Gasti, T., S. Dixit, V. D. Hiremani, R. B. Chougale, S. P. Masti, S. K. Vootla, and B. S. Mudigoudra. 2022. Chitosan/pullulan based films incorporated with clove essential oil loaded chitosan-ZnO hybrid nanoparticles for active food packaging. Carbohydr. Polym. 277:118866. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118866.
Ghosh, T., K. Mondal, and V. Katiyar. 2021. Lipid nanoparticles for edible food packaging. In: V. Katiyar and T. Ghosh, editors, Nanotechnology in edible food packaging. Materials horizons: from nature to nanomaterials. Springer, Singapore. p. 191–213. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6169-0_7.
Gibson, G. R., R. Hutkins, M. E. Sanders, S. L. Prescott, R. A. Reimer, S. J. Salminen, K. Scott, C. Stanton, K. S. Swanson, P. D. Cani, K. Verbeke, and G. Reid. 2017. Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 14:491–502. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2017.75.
Gibson, G. R. and M. B. Roberfroid. 1995. Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: introducing the concept of prebiotics. J. Nutr. 125:1401–1412. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/125.6.1401.
Gil, M., and M. Rudy. 2023. Innovations in the packaging of meat and meat products—a review. Coatings. 13:333. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings13020333.
Gómez-Estaca, J. C. López-de-Dicastillo, P. Hernández-Muñoz, R. Catalá, and R. Gavara. 2014. Advances in antioxidant active food packaging. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 35:42–51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2013.10.008.
Granato, D., D. S. Nunes, and F. J. Barba. 2017. An integrated strategy between food chemistry, biology, nutrition, pharmacology, and statistics in the development of functional foods: A proposal Trends Food Sci. Technol. 62: 13–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.12.010.
Guzman-Puyol, S., L. Ceseracciu, G. Tedeschi, S. Marras, A. Scarpellini, J. J. Benítez, A. Athanassiou, and J. A. Heredia-Guerrero. 2019. Transparent and robust all-cellulose nanocomposite packaging materials prepared in a mixture of trifluoroacetic acid and trifluoroacetic anhydride. Nanomaterials. 9:368. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/nano9030368.
Hadidi, M., S. Jafarzadeh, M. Forough, F. Garavand, S. Alizadeh, A. Salehabadi, A. M. Khaneghah, and S. M. Jafari. 2022. Plant protein-based food packaging films; recent advances in fabrication, characterization, and applications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 120:154–173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022.01.013.
Halloran, M. W., L. Danielczak, J. A. Nicell, R. L. Leask, and M. Marić. 2022. Highly flexible polylactide food packaging plasticized with nontoxic, biresourced glycerol plasticizers. ACS Appl. Poly. Mater. 4:3608–3617. doi: https://doi.org/acsapm.2c00172.
Han, J. H., C. H. Ho, and E. T. Rodrigues. 2005. Intelligent packaging. In J. H. Han, editor, Innovations in food packaging. Academic Press. p. 138–155. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012311632-1/50041-3.
Hayat, M., B. Khan, J. Iqbal, M. N. Ahmad, A. A. Khan, T.-u. Haq, T. Aziz, and T. H. Albekairi. 2024. Evidence of microplastic contamination in the food chain: An assessment of their presence in the gastrointestinal tract of native fish. Ital. J. Food Sci. 36:40–49. doi: https://doi.org/10.15586/ijfs.v36i3.2532.
Heising, J. K., M. Dekker, P. V. Bartels, and M. A. J. S. Van Boekel. 2014. Monitoring the quality of perishable foods: opportunities for intelligent packaging. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 54:645–654. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2011.600477.
Henderson, A. J., C. A. Ollila, A. Kumar, E. C. Borresen, K. Raina, R. Agarwal, and E. P. Ryan. 2012. Chemopreventive properties of dietary rice bran: current status and future prospects. Adv. Nutr. 3:643–653. doi: https://doi.org/10.3945/an.112.002303.
Hill, C., F. Guarner, G. Reid, G. R. Gibson, D. J. Merenstein, B. Pot, L. Morelli, R. B. Canani, H. J. Flint, S. Salminen, P. C. Calder and M. E. Sanders. 2014. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 11:506–514. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66.
Horan, T. J. 2000. Method for determining deleterious bacterial growth in packaged food utilizing hydrophilic polymers. US Patent 6149952.
Irimia, A., V. C. Grigoraş, and C.-M. Popescu. 2024. Active cellulose-based food packaging and its use on foodstuff. Polymers. 16:389. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16030389.
Jayakumar, A., K. V. Heera, T. S. Sumi, M. Joseph, S. Mathew, G. Praveen, G., I. C. Nair, and E. K. Radhakrishnan. 2019. Starch-PVA composite films with zinc-oxide nanoparticles and phytochemicals as intelligent pH sensing wraps for food packaging application. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 136:395–403. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.06.018.
Jiang, A., R. Patel, B. Padhan, S. Palimkar, P. Galgali, A. Adhikari, I. Varga, and M. Patel. 2023. Chitosan based biodegradable composite for antibacterial food packaging application. Polymers. 15:2235. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15102235.
Jiang, Z., and T. Ngai. 2022. Recent advances in chemically modified cellulose and its derivatives for food packaging applications: a review. Polymers. 14:1533. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14081533.
Kaewprachu, P., K. Osako, S. Benjakul, and S. Rawdkuen. 2015. Quality attributes of minced pork wrapped with catechin–lysozyme incorporated gelatin film. Food Packag. Shelf Life. 3:88–96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2014.11.002.
Kandasamy, S., J. Yoo, J. Yun, H.-B. Kang, K.-H. Seol, H.-W. Kim, and J.-S. Ham. 2021. Application of whey protein-based edible films and coatings in food industries: an updated overview. Coatings. 11:1056. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11091056.
Kerry, J. P., M. N. O’Grady, and S. A. Hogan. 2006. Past, current and potential utilisation of active and intelligent packaging systems for meat and muscle-based products: a review. Meat Sci. 74:113–130. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.024.
Khalaj, M.-J., H. Ahmadi, R. Lesankhosh, and G. Khalaj. 2016. Study of physical and mechanical properties of polypropylene nanocomposites for food packaging application: nano-clay modified with iron nanoparticles. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 51:41–48. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.03.007.
Khaneghah, A. M., S. M. B. Hashemi, and S. Limbo. 2018. Antimicrobial agents and packaging systems in antimicrobial active food packaging: an overview of approaches and interactions. Food Bioprod. Process. 111:1–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2018.05.001.
Khezrian, A., and Y. Shahbazi. 2018. Application of nanocomposite chitosan and carboxymethyl cellulose films containing natural preservative compounds in minced camel’s meat. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 106:1146–1158. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.08.117.
Khin, M. N., S. Ahammed, M. M. Kamal, M. N. Saqib, F. Liu, and F. Zhong. 2024. Investigating next-generation edible packaging: protein-based films and coatings for delivering active compounds. Food Hydrocolloids for Health. 6:100182. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fhfh.2024.100182.
Kim, M. S., H. Chang, L. Zheng, Q. Yan, B. F. Pfleger, J. Klier, K. Nelson, E. L.-W. Majumder, and G. W. Huber. 2023. A review of biodegradable plastics: chemistry, applications, properties, and future research needs. Chem. Rev. 123:9915−9939. doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00876.
Koshenaj, K., and G. A. Ferrari. 2024. Comprehensive review on starch-based hydrogels: from tradition to innovation, opportunities, and drawbacks. Polymers. 16:1991. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16141991.
Kumar, L., D. Ramakanth, K. Akhila, and K. K. Gaikwad. 2022. Edible films and coatings for food packaging applications: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 20:875–900 doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01339-z.
Kuuliala, L., T. Pippuri, J. Hultman, S.-M. Auvinen, K. Kolppo, T. Nieminen, M. Karp, J. Björkroth, J. Kuusipalo, and E. Jääskeläinen. 2015. Preparation and antimicrobial characterization of silver-containing packaging materials for meat. Food Packag. Shelf Life 6:53–60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2015.09.004.
Labuza, T. P., and R. Contreras-Medellin. 1981. Prediction of moisture protection requirements for foods. Cereal Foods World. 26: 335–343.
Landmann, W., N. V. Lovegren, and R. O. Feuge. 1960. Permeability of some fat products to moisture. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 37:1–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02630810.
Lear, G., J. M. Kingsbury, S. Franchini, V. Gambarini, S. D. M. Maday, J. A. Wallbank, L. Weaver, and O. Pantos. 2021. Plastics and the microbiome: impacts and solutions. Environ. Microbiome. 16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-020-00371-w.
Li, J., F. Zhang, Y. Zhong, Y. Zhao, P. Gao, F. Tian, X. Zhang, R. Zhou, and P. J. Cullen. 2022. Emerging food packaging applications of cellulose nanocomposites: a review. Polymers. 14:4025. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14194025.
Limayen, A., and S. C. Ricke. 2012. Lignocellulosic biomass for bioethanol production: current perspectives, potential issues and future prospects. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 38:449–467. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2012.03.002.
Liu, T., J. Li, Q. Tang, P. Qiu, D. Gou, and J. Zhao. 2022. Chitosan-based materials: an overview of potential applications in food packaging. Foods. 11:1490. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11101490.
Loo, C. P. Y. and N. M. Sarbon. 2020. Chicken skin gelatin films with tapioca starch. Food Biosci. 35:100589. doi: https://doi.org/10.106/j.fbio.2020.100589.
Lorenzo, J. M., R. Domínguez-Valencia, and J. Carballo. 2017. Control of lipid oxidation in muscle food by active packaging technology. In: R. Banerjee, A. K. Verma, and M. W. Siddiqui, editors, Natural antioxidants. Applications in foods of animal origin. Apple Academic Press, Palm Bay, Florida. p. 343–382.
Luh, B. S. 1991. Rice oil. In: S. B. Luh, editor, Rice Production, 2nd edition. Springer, New York., p. 714–730. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3754-4.
Maciel, V. B. V., L. R. F. Contini, C. M. P. Yoshida, and A. C. Venturini. 2020. Application of edible biopolymer coatings on meats, poultry, and seafood. In: M. A. de Moraes, C. F. da Silva, and R. S. Vieira, editors, Biopolymer membranes and films—health, food, environment, and energy applications. Elsevier Inc., Oxford, UK. p. 515–533. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818134-8.00021-3.
Manthou, V., and M. Vlachopoulou. 2001. Bar-code technology for inventory and marketing management systems: a model for its development and implementation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 71:157–164. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(00)00115-8.
Matinong, A. M. E., Y. Chisti, K. L. Pickering, and R. G. Haverkamp. 2022. Collagen extraction from animal skin. Biology. 11:905. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11060905.
Marsh, K., and B. Bugusu. 2007. Food packaging—roles, materials, and environmental issues. J. Food Sci. 72:R39–R55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00301.x.
McGrath, E. P. 1955. Packaging costs cut, quality protected by wax-coating frozen meats. J. Food Eng. 27:50–51, 77.
McMillin, K. W. 2017. Advances in meat packaging. Meat Sci. 132:153–162. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.04.015.
Mennecke, B., and A. Townsend. 2005. Radio frequency identification tagging as a mechanism of creating a viable producer’s brand in the cattle industry. Midwest Agribusiness research and Information Center Research Paper 05-MRP 8. Available at: https://card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/05mrp8.pdf. (Accessed 20 October 2025).https://card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/05mrp8.pdf
Mihalca, V., A. D. Kerezsi, A. Weber, C. Gruber-Traub, J. Schmucker, D. C. Vodnar, F. V. Dulf, S. A. Socaci, A. Fărcaş, C. I. Mureşan, R. Suharoschi, and O. L. Pop. 2021. Protein-based films and coatings for food industry applications. Polymers. 13:769. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13050769.
Milani, J. M., and A. Nemati. 2022. Lipid-based edible films and coatings: a review of recent advances and applications. J. Packag. Technol. Res. 6:11–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41783-021-00130-3.
Mlalila, N., D. M. Kadam, H. Swai, and A. Hilonga. 2016. Transformation of food packaging from passive to innovative via nanotechnology: concepts and critiques. J. Food Sci. Technol. 53:3395–3407. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-016-2325-6.
Mohamed, S. A. A., M. El-Sakhawy, and M. A.-M. El-Sakhawy. 2020. Polysaccharides, protein and lipid-based natural edible films in food packaging: a review. Carbohydr. Polym. 238:116178. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116178.
Moldovan, A., I. Sarosi, S. Cuc, D. Prodan, A. C. Taut, P. Ioan, D. Bombos, R. Doukeh, O. Nemes, and S. C. Man. 2025. Development and characterization of PLA food packaging composite. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 150:2469–2481. doi: https//doi.org/s10973-024-13841-x.
Moreira, M. d. R., M. Pereda, N. E. Marcovich, and S. I. Roura. 2011. Antimicrobial effectiveness of bioactive packaging materials from edible chitosan and casein polymers: assessment on carrot, cheese, and salami. J. Food Sci. 76:M54–M63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01910.x.
Mose, B. R., and S. M. Maranga. 2011. A review on starch based nanocomposites for bioplastic materials. Mater. Sci. Eng., B. 1:239–245.
Motaung, T. E. 2021. Recent applications and innovations of cellulose based materials: a critical review. Cellul. Chem. Technol. 55:1–12.
Mousavi, A., M. Sarhavi, A. Lenk, and S. Fawcett. 2002. Tracking and traceability in the meat processing industry: a solution. Br. Food J. 104:7–19. doi: http://doi.org/10.1108/00070700210418703.
Muck, R. E., E. M. G. Nadeau, T. A. McAllister, F. E. Contreras-Govea, M. C. Santos, and L. Kung, Jr. 2018. Silage review: recent advances and future uses of silage additives. J. Dairy Sci. 101:3980–4000. doi: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13839.
Müller, P., and M. Schmid, M. 2019. Intelligent packaging in the food sector: a brief overview. Foods. 8:16. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8010016.
Muñoz-Pabon, K. S., H. S. V. Castillo, J. L. H. Concha, A. A. Ayala Aponte, and J. F. S. Duque. 2023. Development of a composite based on polylactic acid and lignocellulose waste: new packaging for meat food storage. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7:1265091. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs2023.1265091.
Nasution, H., H. Harahap, E. Julianti, A. Safitri, and M. Jaafar. 2023. Smart packaging based on polylactic acid: the effects of antibacterial and antioxidant agents from natural extracts on physical-mechanical properties, colony reduction, perishable food shelf life, and future prospective. Polymers. 15:4103. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15204103.
Nath, P. C., R. Sharma, U. Mahapatra, Y. K. Mohanta, S. Rustagi, M. Sharma, S. Mahajan, P. K. Nayak, and K. Sridhar. 2024. Sustainable production of cellulosic biopolymers for enhanced smart food packaging: an up-to-date review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 273:133090. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.133090.
Nayik, G. A., I. Majid, and V. Kumar, V. 2015. Developments in edible films and coatings for the extension of shelf life of fresh fruits. Am. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 2:16–20.
Nemazifard, M., G. Kavoosi, Z. Marzban, and N. Ezedi. 2017. Physical, mechanical, water binding and antioxidant properties of cellulose dispersions and cellulose film incorporated with pomegranate seed extract. Int. J. Food Prop. 20:1501–1514. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2016.1219369.
Onyeaka, H., K. Obileke, G. Makaka, and N. Nwokolo. 2022. Current research and applications of starch-based biodegradable films for food packaging. Polymers. 14:1126. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14061126.
Otoni, C. G., P. J. P. Espitia, R. J. Avena-Bustillos, and T. H. McHugh. 2016. Trends in antimicrobial food packaging systems: emitting sachets and absorbent pads. Food Res. Int. 83:60–73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.02.018.
Padervand, M., E. Lichtfouse, D. Robert, and C. Wang. 2020. Removal of microplastics from the environment. A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 18:807–828. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-00983-1.
Pająk, P., R. Socha, P. Łakoma, and T. Fortuna. 2017. Antioxidant properties of apple slices stored in starch-based films. Int. J. Food Prop. 20:1117–1128. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2016.1203931.
Pal, K., P. Sarkar, A. Anis, K. Wiszumirska, and M. Jarzębski. 2021. Polysaccharide-based nanocomposites for food packaging applications. Materials. 14:5549. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14195549.
Panseri, S., P. A. Martino, P. Cagnardi, G. Celano, D. Tedesco, M. Castrica, C. Balzaretti, and L. M. Chiesa. 2018. Feasibility of biodegradable based packaging used for red meat storage during shelf-life: a pilot study. Food Chem. 249:22–29. doi: https//doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.12.067.
Payne, J., P. McKeown, and M. D. Jones. 2019. A circular economy approach to plastic waste. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 165:170–181. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2019.05.014.
Peng, C., J. Wang, X. Liu, and L. Wang. 2022. Differences in the plastispheres of biodegradable and non-biodegradable plastics: a mini review. Front. Microbiol. 13:849147. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.849147.
Pereira de Abreu, D. A., J. M. Cruz, and P. Paseiro Losada. 2012. Active and intelligent packaging for the food industry. Food Rev. Int. 28:146–187. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/87559129.2011.595022.
Perinelli, D. R., L. Fagioli, R. Campana, J. K. W. Lam, W. Baffone, G. F. Palmieri, L. Casettari, and G. Bonacucina. 2018. Chitosan-based nanosystems and their exploited antimicrobial activity. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 117:8–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2018.01.046.
Petkoska, A. T., D. Daniloski, N. M. D’Cunha, N. Naumovski, and A. T. Broach. 2021. Edible packaging: sustainable solutions and novel trends in food packaging. Food Res. Int. 140:109981. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109981.
Poojary, M. M., P. Putnik, D. Bursać Kovačević, F. J. Barba, J. M. Lorenzo, D. A. Dias, and A. Shpigelman. 2017. Stability and extraction of bioactive sulfur compounds from Allium genus processed by traditional and innovative technologies. J. Food Compos. Anal. 61:28–39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2017.04.007.
Prabha, K., P. Ghosh, S. Abdullah, R. M. Joseph, R. Krishnan, S. S. Rana, and R. C. Pradhan. 2021. Recent development, challenges, and prospects of extrusion technology. Future Foods. 3:100019. doi: https//doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100019.
Purewal, S. S., A. Kaur, S. P. Bangar, P. Singh, and H. Singh. 2024. Protein-based films and coatings: an innovative approach. Coatings. 14:32. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14010032.
Putri, T. R., A. Adhitasari, V. Paramita, M. E. Yulianto, and H. D. Ariyanto. 2023. Effect of different starch on the characteristics of edible film as functional packaging in fresh meat or meat products: a review. Mater. Today Proc. 87:192–199. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.02.396.
Raafat, D., and H.-G. Sahl. 2009. Chitosan and its potential—a critical literature survey. Microb. Biotechnol. 2:186–201. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-7915.2008.00080.x.
Radha Krishnan, K., S. Babuskin, K. R. Rakhavan, R. Tharavin, P. Azhagu Saravana Babu, M. Sivarajan, and M. Sukumar. 2015. Potential application of corn starch edible films with spice essential oils for the shelf life extension of red meat. J. Appl. Microbiol. 119:1613–1623. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.12932.
Rajendran, D. S., S. Venkataraman, S. K. Jha, D. Chakrabarty, and V. V. Kumar. 2024. A review on bio-based polymer polylactic acid potential on sustainable food packaging. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 33:1759–1788. doi: https//doi.org/10.1007/s10068-024-01543-x.
Ramesh, S., and P. Radhakrishnan. 2019. Cellulose nanoparticles from agro-industrial waste for the development of active packaging. Appl. Surf. Sci. 484:1274–1281. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.04.003.
Ricke, S. C., V. A. Leone, and A. A. Tarcin. 2025a. Valorising byproducts from broiler processing: biologics and sustainability. In: S. C. Ricke, editor, 2025. Achieving sustainable production of poultry meat. Volume 1: safety, quality and sustainability, 2nd edition. Burleigh Dodd Publishing, Cambridge, UK. p. 403–428. doi: https://doi.org/10.19103/AS.2024.0146.20.
Ricke, S. C., C. A. O’Bryan, and D. K. Dittoe. 2025b. Chapter 9—nanoparticle approaches for food safety applications: historical and current perspectives. In: R. Asmatulu, W. S. Kahn, and E. Asmatulu, editors, Nanotechnology safety, 2nd Edition. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. p.157–186. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-15904-6.00020-4.
Ricke, S. C., O. K. Koo, and J. T. Keeton. 2013. Fermented meat, poultry, and fish products. In: M. P. Doyle, and R. L. Buchanan, editors, Food microbiology: fundamentals and frontiers, 4th edition. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC. p. 857–880. doi: https://doi.org/10.1128/9781555818463.ch34.
Romão, S., A. Bettencourt, and I. A. C. Ribeiro. 2022. Novel features of cellulose-based films as sustainable alternatives for food packaging. Polymers. 14:4968. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14224968.
Rooney, M. L. 2005. Oxygen-scavenging packaging, In: J. H. Han, editor, Innovations in food packaging. Academic Press. p. 123–137. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012311632-1/50040-1.
Rostamzad, H., S. Y. Paighambari, B. Shabanpour, S. M. Ojagh, and S. M. Mousavi. 2016. Improvement of fish protein film with nanoclay and transglutaminase for food packaging. Food Packag. Shelf Life. 7:1–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2015.10.001.
Ryan, E. P. 2011. Bioactive food components and health properties of rice bran. J. Vet. Med. Assoc. 238: 593–600. doi: https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.238.5.593.
Salarbashi, D., M. Tafaghodi, B. S. F. Bazzaz, S. Mohammad Aboutorabzade, and M. Fathi. 2021. pH-sensitive soluble soybean polysaccharide/SiO2 incorporated with curcumin for intelligent packaging applications. Food Sci. Nutr. 9:2169–2179. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2187.
Salminen, S., M. C. Collado, A. Endo, C. Hill, S. Lebeer, E. M. M. Quigley, M. E. Sanders, R. Shamir, J. R. Swann, H. Szajewska, and G. Vinderola. 2021. The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of postbiotics. Nature Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 18:649–667. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-021-00440-6.
Samadhiya, K., R. Sangtani, R. Nogueira, and K. Bala. 2022. Insightful advancement and opportunities for microbial bioplastic production. Front. Microbiol. 12:674864. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.674864.
Sanches-Silva, A., D. Costa, T. G. Albuquerque, G. G. Buonocore, F. Ramos, F., M. C. Castilho, A. V. Machado, and H. S. Costa. 2014. Trends in the use of natural antioxidants in active food packaging: a review. Food Addit. Contam., Part A. 31:374–395. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2013.879215.
Sánchez-Ortega, I., B. E. García-Almendárez, E. M. Santos-López, A. Amaro-Reyes, J. E. Barboza-Corona, and C. Regalado. 2014. Antimicrobial edible films and coatings for meat and meat products preservation. Sci. World J. 2014:248935. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/248935.
Santos, M. R. E., A. C. Fonseca, P. V. Mendonça, R. Branco, A. C. Serra, P. V. Morais, and J. F. J. Coelho. 2016. Recent developments in antimicrobial polymers: a review. Materials. 9:599. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9070599.
Sayed, S., and M. A. Jardine. 2015. Antimicrobial biopolymers. In: Advanced functional materials. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. p. 493–533.
Schultz, T. H., J. C. Miers, H. S. Owens, and W. D. Maclay. 1949. Permeability of pectinate films to water vapor. J. Phys. Colloid. Chem. 53:1320–1330.
Shen, Z., and D. P. Kamdem. 2015. Development and characterization of biodegradable chitosan films containing two essential oils. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 74:289–296. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.11.046.
Shendurse, A. M., G. Gopikrishna, A. C. Patel, and A. J. Pandya. 2018. Milk protein based edible films and coatings—preparation, properties and food applications. Journal of Nutritional Health and Food Engineering. 8:219–226. doi: https://doi.org/10.15406/jnhfe.2018.08.00273.
Sivakanthan, S. S. Rajendran, A. Gamage, T. Madhujith, and S. Mani. 2020. Antioxidant and antimicrobial applications of biopolymers: a review. Food Res. Int. 136:109327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109327.
Slavin, Y. N., J. Asnis, U. O. Häfeli, and H. Bach. 2017. Metal nanoparticles: understanding the mechanisms behind antibacterial activity. J. Nanobiotechnol. 15:65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-017-0308-z.
Smiddy, M., D. Papkovsky, and J. Kerry. 2002. Evaluation of oxygen content in commercial modified atmosphere packs (MAP) of processed cooked meats. Food Res. Int. 35:571–575. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-9969(01)00159-4.
Smith, M., D. C. Love, C. M. Rochman, and R. A. Neff. 2018. Microplastics in seafood and the implications for human health. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 5:375–386. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-018-0206-z.
Smolander, M., E. Hurme, and R. Ahvenainen. 1997. Leak indicators for modified atmosphere packages. Trends in Food Science & Technology 8: 101–106.
Smolander, M. 2003. The use of freshness indicators in packaging. In: R. Ahvenainen, editor, Novel food packaging techniques. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK. p. 127–143. doi: https://doi.org/10.1533/9781855737020.1.127.
Smolander, M., H.-L. Alakomi, T. Ritvanen, J. Vainionpää, and R. Ahvenainen. 2004. Monitoring of the quality of modified atmosphere packaged broiler chicken cuts stored in different temperature conditions. A. Time–temperature indicators as quality-indicating tools. Food Control. 15:217–229. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-7135(03)00061-6.
Smolander, M., E. Hurme, K. Latva-Kala, T. Luoma, H.-L. Alakomi, and R. Ahvenainen. 2002. Myoglobin-based indicators for the evaluation of freshness of unmarinated broiler cuts. Innovative Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 3:279–288. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1466-8564(02)00043-7.
Sofı, S. A., J. Singh, S. Rafiq, U. Ashraf, B. N. Dar, and G. A. Nayik. 2018. A comprehensive review on antimicrobial packaging and its use in food packaging. Curr. Nutr. Food Sci. 14:305–312. doi: https://doi.org/10.2174/1573401313666170609095732.
Sohail, M., D.-W. Sun, and Z. Zhu. 2018. Recent developments in intelligent packaging for enhancing food quality and safety. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 58:2650–2662. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2018.1449731.
Song, D.-H., V. B. Hoa, H. W. Kim, S. M. Khang, S.-H. Cho, J.-S. Ham, and K.-H. Seol. 2021. Edible films on meat and meat products. Coatings. 11:1344. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11111344.
Soysal, Ç., H. Bozkurt, E. Dirican, M. Güçlü, E. D. Bozhüyük, A. E. Uslu, and S. Kaya. 2015. Effect of antimicrobial packaging on physicochemical and microbial quality of chicken drumsticks. Food Control. 54:294–299. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.02.009.
Sung, S.-Y., L. T. Sin, T.-T. Tee, S.-T. Bee, A. R. Rahmat, W. A. W. A. Rahman, A.-C. Tan, and M. Vikhraman. 2013. Antimicrobial agents for food packaging applications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 33:110–123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2013.08.001.
Šuput, D. Z., V. L. Lazić, S. Z. Popović, and N. M. Hromiš. 2015. Edible films and coatings: sources, properties and application. Food and Feed Research. 42:11–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.5937/FFR1501011S.
Suppakul, P., J. Miltz, K. Sonneveld, and S. W. Bigger. 2003. Active packaging technologies with an emphasis on antimicrobial packaging and its applications. J. Food Sci. 68:408–420. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2003.tb05687.x.
Suurs, P., H. van den Brand, R. ten Have, W. F. Daamen, and S. Barbut. 2023. Evaluation of cattle skin collagen for producing co-extrusion sausage casing. Food Hydrocolloids. 140:108595. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.108595.
Swanson, K. S., K. Allenspach, G. Amos, T. A. Auchtung, S. A. Bassett, C. R. Bjørnvad, N. Everaert, S. M. Martín-Orúe, S. C. Ricke, E. P. Ryan, and G. C. Fahey, Jr. 2025. Use of biotics in animals: impact on nutrition, health, and food production. J. Animal Sci. 103:ska061. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaf061.
Swanson, K. S., G. R. Gibson, R. Hutkins, R. A. Reimer, G. Reid, K. Verbeke, K. P. Scott, H. D. Holscher, M. B. Azad, N. M. Delzenne, and M. E. Sanders. 2020. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of synbiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 17:687–701. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-020-0344-2.
Tamoor, M., N. A. Samak, Y. Jia, M. U. Mushtaq, H. Sher, M. Bibi, and J. Xing. 2021. Potential use of microbial enzymes for the conversion of plastic waste into value-added products: a viable solution. Front. Microbiol. 12:777727. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.777727.
Taoukis, P. S., and T. P. Labuza. 2003. Time-temperature indicators (TTIs). In: R. Ahvenainen, editor, Novel food packaging techniques. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge UK. p. 103–126.
Taoukis, P. S., and T. P. Labuza. 1989. Applicability of time temperature indicators as shelf-life monitors of food products. J. Food Sci. 54:783–788. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1989.tb07882.x.
Tavelli, R., M. Callens, C. Grootaert, M. F. Abdallah, and A. Rajkovic. 2022. Foodborne pathogens in the plastisphere: can microplastics in the food chain threaten microbial food safety? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 129:1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022.08.021.
Tkaczewska, J. 2020. Peptides and protein hydrolysates as food preservatives and bioactive components of edible films and coatings—a review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 106:298–311. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.10.022.
Trifol, J., D. Plackett, C. Sillard, P. Szabo, J. Bras, and A. E. Daugaard. 2016. Hybrid poly(lactic acid)/nanocellulose/nanoclay composites with synergistically enhanced barrier properties and improved thermomechanical resistance. Polym. Int. 65:988–995. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pi.5154.
Tsagkaris, A. S., S. G. Tzegkas, and G. P. Danezis. 2018. Nanomaterials in food packaging: state of the art and analysis. J. Food Sci. Technol. 55:2862–2870. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-018-3266-z.
Umaraw, P., P. E. S. Munekata, A. K. Verma, F. J. Barba, V. P. Singh, P. Kumard, and J. M. Lorenzo. 2020. Edible films/coating with tailored properties for active packaging of meat, fish and derived products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 98:10–24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.01.032.
Vanderroost, M. P. Ragaert, F. Devlieghere, and B.De Meulenaer. 2014. Intelligent food packaging: the next generation. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 39:47–62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.06.009.
Vasile, C., and M. Baican. 2021. Progresses in food packaging, food quality, and safety—controlled-release antioxidant and/or antimicrobial packaging. Molecules. 26:1263. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26051263.
Vinceković, M., M. Viskić, S. Jurić, J. Giacometti, D. Bursać Kovačević, P. Putnik, F. Donsì, F. J. Barba, and A. Režek Jambrak. 2017. Innovative technologies for encapsulation of Mediterranean plants extracts. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 69, Part A:1–12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.08.001.
Viuda-Martos, M., Y. Ruiz-Navajas, J. Fernández-López, and J. Perez-Álvarez. 2008. Antibacterial activity of lemon (Citrus lemon L.), mandarin (Citrus reticulata L.), grapefruit (Citrus paradisi L.) and orange (Citrus sinensis L.) essential oils. J. Food Safety. 28:567–576. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4565.2008.00131.x.
von Schantz, L., H. Schagerlöf, E. N. Karlsson, and M. Ohlin. 2014. Characterization of the substitution pattern of cellulose derivatives using carbohydrate-binding modules. BMC Biotech. 14:113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12896-014-0113-9.
Wang, H., J. Qian, and F. Ding. 2018. Emerging chitosan-based films for food packaging applications. J. Agric. Food Chem. 66: 395–413. doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b04528.
Want, R. 2004. RFID: a key to automating everything. Sci. Am. 290:56–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0104-56.
Wongphan, P., K. Promhuad, A. Srisa, Y. Laorenza, C. Oushapjalaunchai, and N. Harnkarnsujarit. 2024. Unveiling the future of meat packaging: functional biodegradable packaging preserving meat quality and safety. Polymers 16:1232. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16091232.
Wrońska, N., N. Katir, M. Nowak-Lange, A. El Kadib, and K. Lisowska. 2023. Biodegradable chitosan-based films as an alternative to plastic packaging. Foods. 12:3519. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12183519.
Yam, K. L., P. T. Takhistov, and J. Miltz. 2005. Intelligent packaging: concepts and applications. J. Food Sci. 70:R1–R10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2005.tb09052.x.
Yang, L., Q.-Y. Yuan, C.-W. Lou, J.-H. Lin, and T.-T. Li. 2024. Recent advances of cellulose-based hydrogels combined with natural colorants in smart food packaging. Gels. 10:755. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/gels10120755.
Yang, H.-J., J.-H. Lee, M. Won, and K. B. Song. 2016. Antioxidant activities of distiller dried grains with solubles as protein films containing tea extracts and their application in the packaging of pork meat. Food Chem. 196:174–179. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.09.020.
Yıldırım-Yalçın, M., H. Sadıkoğlu, and M. Şeker. 2021. Characterization of edible film based on grape juice and cross-linked maize starch and its effects on the storage quality of chicken breast fillets. LWT. 142:111012. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.111012.
Yousefı, H., M. M. Ali, H.-M. Su, C. D. M. Filipe, and T. F. Didar. 2018. Sentinel wraps: real-time monitoring of food contamination by printing DNAzyme probes on food packaging. ACS Nano. 12:3287–3294. doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.7b08010.
Zhai, X., Z. Li, J. Shi, X. Huang, Z. Sun, D. Zhang, X. Zou, Y. Sun, J. Zhang, M. Holmes, Y. Gong, M. Povey, and S. Wang. 2019. A colorimetric hydrogen sulfide sensor based on gellan gum-silver nanoparticles bionanocomposite for monitoring of meat spoilage in intelligent packaging. Food Chem. 290:135–143. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.03.138.
Zhou, P., S. Li, I. A. Ashcroft, and A. I. Jones. 2021. Material extrusion additive manufacturing of continuous fibre reinforced polymer matrix composites: a review and outlook. Composites, Part B. 224:109143. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.109143.