Full text of DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb09495.x

JFS: Food Chemistry and Toxicology
Influence of Storage Time and Temperature on
Absorption of Flavor Compounds from Solutions
by Plastic Packaging Materials
R.VAN WILLIGE, D. SCHOOLMEESTER, A. VAN OOIJ, J. LINSSEN, AND A. VORAGEN
ABSTRACT: Linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), oriented polypropylene (OPP), polycarbonate (PC), polyeth-
ylene terephthalate (PET film and PET bottle), and polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) were stored in a model solution
containing 10 flavor compounds at 4, 20, and 40 °C and flavor absorption by the plastic materials was followed in
time. The absorption rate and/or total amount absorbed increased considerably with temperature from 4 to 40 °C.
Depending on storage temperature, total flavor absorption by the polyolefins (LLDPE and OPP) was 3 to 2400 times
higher than by the polyesters (PC, PET, and PEN). Therefore, in the factor of flavor absorption, polyesters are
preferred over polyolefins as packaging material.
Keywords: flavor, absorption, plastic, storage, packaging
Introduction
ACKAGING MATERIALS ARE USED EXTEN-
pounds in a polymer (Nielsen and others spite PEN’s higher cost. A few years ago, a
1992; Leufvén and Hermansson 1994; Fay- reusable polycarbonate (PC) bottle was
oux and others 1997; Johansson and successfully introduced by the Dutch dairy
Leufvén 1997; Van Willige and others 2000a, industry. These bottles take advantage of
P
sively to protect and preserve food
products in storage and distribution envi-
ronments. Food products may undergo loss
of quality due to failure of the package and/
or product-package interactions. Product-
package interactions can be defined as an
interplay between product, package, and
the environment, which produces an effect
on the product and/or package (Hotchkiss
1997). Some decades ago, pioneering re-
search about interactions between flavor
compounds and polymer films was reported
(Salame and Steingiser 1977; DeLassus and
Hilker 1987; Salame 1989). As plastic pack-
aging is increasingly used in direct contact
with foods, absorption of flavor compounds
is becoming an important product-package
interaction aspect. Flavor absorption may
alter the aroma and taste of a product
(Kwapong and Hotchkiss 1987), or change
the mechanical properties of polymers, such
as tensile strength (Tawfik and others 1998)
and permeability (Hirose and others 1988).
Flavor absorption extent is influenced by
the properties of the polymer, the flavor
molecules, and also external conditions. The
chemical composition, chain stiffness, mor-
phology, polarity, and crystallinity of the
polymer influences flavor absorption, as
does chemical composition, concentration,
and polarity of the flavor compounds, as
well as the presence of other chemical com-
pounds. External factors such as storage
duration, relative humidity, temperature,
and the presence of other food components
can also affect solubility of aroma com-
b).
their toughness (breakage resistance) and
The most widely used polymers for food transparency (visibility of contents). The
packaging applications are the polyolefins, fact that PC is much lighter than glass pro-
such as polyethylene (PE) and polypropy- vides fuel savings in rolling and carrying, as
lene (PP). Polyolefins are used as an interi- well as productivity improvements, since
or lining in box-type containers for bever- several bottles can be handled at once.
ages because of their good heat sealability The disadvantages of PC are its high cost
and excellent moisture resistance. Howev- and poor gas barrier properties (Mihalich
er, low-molecular-weight compounds (es- and Baccaro 1997). Several investigations
pecially apolar compounds, as in most fla- have shown that PE and PP can absorb
vor substances) are readily absorbed considerable amounts of flavor com-
(Johansson 1996). The use of plastic bot- pounds. However, less information is avail-
tles, particularly polyethylene terephtha- able in the literature about the amount of
late (PET) bottles for carbonated beverag- flavor absorption by PET, PEN, and PC.
es, is increasing steadily. PET is a relatively Our objective therefore was to investigate
good barrier against permeation of gases the influence of temperature and storage
and flavor compounds, due to the biaxial time on the amount of flavor absorption by
orientation of the molecules (Van Lune and LLDPE, PP, PC, PET, and PEN.
others 1997). As a relatively new member of
the polyester family, polyethylene naph-
thalate (PEN) has excellent performance
characteristics due to its high glass-transi-
tion temperature (Tg). In comparison to
low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) Dowlex
PET, PEN provides approximately 5 times
the barrier for carbon dioxide, oxygen, or
The Netherlands); oriented polypropylene
water vapor transmission. PEN also pro-
Materials and Methods
Materials
Polymer packaging films used were linear
5056E from Dow Benelux NV, Terneuzen,
(OPP) Bicor® MB200 from Mobil Plastics
vides better performance at high tempera-
Europe, Kerkrade, The Netherlands; poly-
tures than PET, allowing hot-fill, rewash,
and reuse. However, the cost of PEN is
Electric Plastics, Bergen op Zoom, The Neth-
about 3 to 4 times that of PET (Newton
1997). PEN likely would be used for niche
Melinex® 800 from DuPont Teijin Films,
markets such as beer (Goodrich 1997),
where the superior barrier properties of
(PEN) Kaladex® 1000 from DuPont Polyes-
PEN may win out over other choices, de-
carbonate (PC) Lexan® 8B35 from General
erlands; polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
Luxembourg; polyethylene naphthalate
© 2002 Institute of Food Technologists
Vol. 67, Nr. 6, 2001—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE 2023

Absorption of flavor compounds in plastic packaging materials . . .
ter Films, Wilton, Middlesbrough, U.K.). Ori- pounds. Strips and model solutions were Chromatography (LVI-GC) and static head-
ented PET bottles, supplied by Schmal- analyzed using Large Volume Injection Gas space GC, respectively.
bach-Lubeca in Bierne, France, were also
studied. Characteristics of the polymers
used in this study are listed in Table 1.
Decanal, hexanal, 2-nonanone, octanol,
and (R)-carvone were purchased from Mer-
ck Co., in Darmstadt, Germany; the hexyl
acetate (HA) and myrcene from Aldrich
Chemical Co. in Milwaukee, Wis., U.S.A.; the
linalool and ethyl 2-methylbutyrate (E2MB)
from Acros Organics (Fisher Scientific UK
Ltd., Loughborough, U.K.), and (+)-li-
monene from Sigma Chemical Co. (St. Lou-
is, Mo., U.S.A.). The aroma compounds were
selected upon differences in functional
groups, polarity, and absorption affinity in
the different polymers. Characteristics of
the flavor compounds are listed in Table 2.
Log P represents the hydrophobicity of a fla-
vor compound; a higher Log P means a more
hydrophobic compound.
Preparation of model flavor
solutions
At t = 0, mixtures of the 10 flavor com-
pounds were freshly prepared by dissolving
the flavor compounds (each 100 µL/L) in 6
g/L aqueous Tween 80® (pH = 4.2 0.2)
from Merck. The Tween 80® was used as an
emulsifier to disperse the flavor compounds
in the aqueous phase. Sodium azide (Mer-
ck) was added at a concentration of 0.2 g/L to
prevent microbial growth. Flavor com-
pounds were added using a micropipette
which was equipped with a glass capillary
tube (Socorex, Lausanne, Switzerland). An
Ultra Turrax T25 (IKA-Labortechnik,
Staufen, Germany) was used for homogeni-
zation for 2 min at 9500 rpm.
Exposure conditions
Strips of LLDPE (1.5 x 2.0 cm), OPP (1.5 x
2.0 cm), PC (1.5 x 10.0 cm), PET (1.5 x 20.0
cm), PEN (1.5 x 20.0 cm), and PET bottle (1.0
x 10.0 cm, cut from the middle part of the
bottle) were individually placed into 15-mL
Teflon screw-cap vials (Supelco, Bellefonte,
Penn., U.S.A.), then fully immersed in the
model solution (15 mL). Due to the low ab-
sorption values of PC, PET, and PEN, it was
necessary to increase the strip size of these
polymers. Samples and model solution
without strips (control) were stored in the
dark at 4, 20, and 40 °C. LLDPE and OPP
strips were in contact with the model solu-
tion for 1, 3, 5, 7 h and 1, 7, and 14 d. Due to
their low absorption rate, PC, PEN, and PET
were exposed to the model solution for 7, 14,
21, and 28 d. In preliminary experiments no
significant edge absorption effect was
Figure 1—Absorption of flavor compounds by LLDPE (␮g/dm2) after different
storage times at (A) 4 °C, (B) 20 °C and (C) 40 °C
found for the investigated flavor com-
2024 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 67, Nr. 6, 2002

Absorption of flavor compounds in plastic packaging materials . . .
LVI-GC ‘in vial’ extraction of the
polymer strips
from the model solution, rinsed with etha- cess. The strips were cut in small pieces and
nol for 10 s, and thoroughly wiped with pa- immediately placed into 10-mL vials con-
per tissue to remove any model solution ex- taining 5 mL n-hexane (Enviroscan®; Lab-
scan, Dublin, Ireland), or 5 mL of a 2:1 mix-
ture of n-pentane: dichloromethane
(Labscan). The choice of extraction solvent
was based on extraction time and efficiency.
The vials were tightly closed with a Teflon®-
silicone seal and an aluminum crimp cap.
In-vial extraction was carried out for 60 min
in an ultrasonic bath (Ultrawave, Cardiff,
U.K.). Longer ultrasonic treatment did not
achieve better extraction. Recovery values
(polymer + solution) of all flavor compounds
were in the range of 95 to 102% after a day’s
exposure. GC analysis was performed using
a LVI-GC system (Ultra TraceTM from Inter-
science, Breda, The Netherlands), as de-
scribed in a previous paper (Van Willige
and others 2000a). The LVI-GC conditions
and extraction solvents that were used are
listed in Table 3. Helium was used as carrier
gas at a constant flow of 2.3 mL/min. Cali-
bration curves (r2 > 0.997) were established
for each component with the external stan-
dard method. A relative standard deviation
(RSD) of less than 10% was found between
triplicate determinations. To enable a direct
comparison of results between the polymer
samples having a difference in thickness
and exposed area, concentrations of flavor
compounds found in the extracts were con-
verted to surface-related values (mg/dm2 or
␮g/dm2), taking double-sided exposure of
the strips into account.
After exposure the strips were removed
Static headspace GC extraction of
the model solutions
Besides absorption of flavor compounds
by packaging materials, flavor changes in
the model solution can also be induced by
other factors as well (for example, degrada-
tion of flavor compounds due to storage or
higher temperatures). Because such reac-
tions can influence the absorption behavior,
it was necessary to determine the remaining
quantity of flavor compounds in the model
solutions. The concentration of flavor com-
pounds in 100 ␮L of model solution was cal-
culated from the partition coefficients
(headspace/model solution) of each flavor
compound. These were determined at t = 0
and after each exposure period, using static
headspace GC. The calculation method,
equipment, and GC conditions which were
used have been described in a previous
paper (Van Willige and others 2000a).
Results and Discussion
Flavor absorption by LLDPE and OPP
Figure 2—Absorption of flavor compounds by OPP (␮g/dm2) after different stor-
age times at (A) 4 °C, (B) 20 °C and (C) 40 °C
Summarized in Figure 1 and 2 are the
values of the 10 flavor compounds absorbed
Vol. 67, Nr. 6, 2002—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE 2025

Absorption of flavor compounds in plastic packaging materials . . .
by LLDPE and OPP film during 14 d of stor- day of storage. OPP stored at 4 °C absorbed ference between the storage temperature
age at 4, 20, and 40 °C. In general, more only 30% of the total amounts absorbed af- and the glass transition temperature of OPP
than 75% of the total amounts absorbed af- ter 14 d during the 1st day of storage. This (further discussed in the paragraph about
ter 14 d were in fact absorbed during the 1st exception was probably due to the small dif- storage temperature’s influence).
Flavor absorption by LLDPE and OPP
reached equilibrium on d 7 for most of the
flavor compounds. LLDPE and OPP easily
absorbed limonene (2.37 and 1.77 mg/dm2)
and myrcene (1.82 and 1.78 mg/dm2), fol-
lowed by decanal, hexyl acetate, and
nonanone. E2MB, carvone, linalool, octanol,
and hexanal were absorbed in the smallest
quantities. The absorption behavior of dif-
ferent classes of flavor compounds de-
pends to a great extent on their polarity. Dif-
ferent plastic materials have different
polarities; hence their affinities toward fla-
vor compounds may differ from each other
(Gremli 1996). In the present study, ob-
served differences in absorption by LLDPE
and OPP (both apolar) follow the inverse
order of the flavor compounds’ polarity (Ta-
ble 1), according to the rule that “like dis-
solves like”. A similar trend was reported for
OPP by Lebossé and others (1997). Excep-
tions to this rule were the 2 alcohols (linalool
and octanol), which were absorbed in small-
er quantities than the more polar flavor
compounds E2MB, HA, and carvone. This
was probably due to structural differences
or to the capability of alcohols to form hy-
drogen bonds in the aqueous phase. The
effect of polarity was also observed by com-
paring the absorption behavior of limonene
and carvone. These flavor molecules have
similar structures, but limonene is an apolar
terpene while carvone is an oxygenated po-
lar terpene. Due to this difference in polar-
ity, limonene was absorbed in larger quan-
tities than carvone.
Absorption of the aldehydes also was re-
lated to their structures (that is, the length
of the carbon chain). The shorter chain C-6
aldehyde hexanal was absorbed less than
the C-10 aldehyde decanal. With increasing
carbon chain length the polarity decreases
and consequently, the absorption increas-
es. Shimoda and others (1988) reported that
in a homologous series of saturated alde-
hydes (hexanal through dodecanal), the
partition coefficient (plastic/solution) in-
creased with the molecular weight, indicat-
ing an increase in absorption. The difference
in absorption behavior of the esters E2MB
and hexyl acetate also suggests an influ-
ence of the carbon chain length and thus,
polarity. Strandburg and others (1990)
showed that this was the case for absorption
of linear esters by different polymer films.
Flavor absorption by PC, PET, and
PEN
Figure 3—Absorption of flavor compounds by PC (␮g/dm2) after different stor-
age times at (A) 4 °C, (B) 20 °C and (C) 40 °C
Figure 3 through 6 show the absorption
2026 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 67, Nr. 6, 2002

Absorption of flavor compounds in plastic packaging materials . . .
values of the flavor compounds by PC, PET sorption behavior for the 10 flavor com- carvone. Due to structural differences and
(film and bottle), and PEN during 28 d of pounds, compared with LLDPE and OPP. the more polar character of PC, PET, and
storage at the 3 test temperatures. These 4 Hexyl acetate and nonanone were the most PEN, the apolar terpenes limonene and
polymer samples showed a different ab- readily absorbed, followed by decanal and myrcene were absorbed in smaller quanti-
ties than the aforementioned flavor com-
pounds. For most of the flavor compounds,
absorption continued during the entire peri-
od of storage. The thickness of the polymers
and/or the slow absorption rate might ex-
plain why a stable value was not reached as
rapidly as for LLDPE and OPP. Nielsen
(1994) showed that the absorption equilibri-
um of limonene and myrcene by PET was
not achieved even after 12 wk of storage at 25
°C. Major differences were also found be-
tween amounts of flavor compounds ab-
sorbed by the different polymers. Depend-
ing on storage temperature, total flavor
absorption by LLDPE and OPP was 3 to 2400
times higher than by the polymers PC, PET,
and PEN. This difference was considered
attributable to the difference in Tg between
the materials (Table 1). LLDPE and OPP were
in the rubbery state at the investigated tem-
peratures, consequently having high diffu-
sion coefficients for flavor compounds. The
time to reach steady-state is established
quickly in such structures. The glass transi-
tion temperatures of PC, PET, and PEN are
much higher than the test temperatures,
meaning that these polymers were in the
glassy state. These glassy polymers have
very low diffusion coefficients for flavor com-
pounds (Yamada and others 1992; DeLassus
1996; Giacin and Hernandez 1997). Yamada
and others (1992) concluded from this result
that absorption of flavor compounds could
be reduced if the glass transition tempera-
ture of the polymer is much higher than the
storage temperature. Difference in glass
transition temperature might also explain
the difference in absorbed flavor quantities
between PET and PEN.
Although the Tg of PC was much higher
than the Tg of PET and PEN, absorption of
flavor compounds by PC was much higher
than by PET and PEN. This was attributed
to the lack of crystalline regions in PC,
which is a totally amorphous polymer. Letin-
ski and Halek (1992) showed that amor-
phous regions in a polymer have a higher
affinity for flavor compounds than crystal-
line regions. Therefore, PC will exhibit more
flavor absorption than the semi-crystallines
PET and PEN. The difference in thickness
between the PET bottle and PET film sam-
ples was probably responsible for the larger
flavor absorption values found in the PET
bottle strips.
Influence of storage temperature
on flavor absorption
Figure 4—Absorption of flavor compounds by PET-film (␮g/dm2) after different
storage times at (A) 4 °C, (B) 20 °C and (C) 40 °C
All investigated polymers showed an in-
Vol. 67, Nr. 6, 2002—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE 2027

Absorption of flavor compounds in plastic packaging materials . . .
creased absorption rate at higher storage more rapid diffusion process at higher tem- sorption of flavor compounds by LDPE sig-
temperatures. LLDPE and OPP absorption peratures. Nielsen and others (1992) also nificantly. They too found a higher flavor
equilibriums were reached quicker due to a reported that temperature affected the ab- absorption level; approximately twice as
much was absorbed at 75 °C compared with
5 °C. They suggested that this increase was
from the greater mobility of the molecules,
or the swelling of the polymer at higher tem-
peratures, creating more space for solvation
of the flavor molecules. In the present
study, both higher flavor absorption levels
and rates associated with increasing storage
temperatures were only found for PC, PET,
and PEN. A combination of faster diffusion
process and higher equilibrium constant
(polymer/solution) at the higher storage
temperatures resulted in a higher amount
of flavor absorption. Van Lune and others
(1997) showed that absorption of toluene
and methanol by PET and PEN bottles in-
creased with rising temperatures, partly
due to an increase in the diffusion coeffi-
cient of the contaminants with increasing
temperature. They also suggested that the
crystallinity of PET decreased while the free
volume increased at higher temperatures,
resulting in molecules’ easier absorption. In
the study of Tawfik and others (1998), it was
reported that PET stored for 15 d at 37 °C in
a model solution containing 320 ppm li-
monene absorbed 7 times more limonene
than when stored at 5 °C, but only 4 times
more after 45 d. They concluded that the
diffusion process was temperature-depen-
dent, as could be expected from the slower
rate at a lower temperature.
With the exception of decanal absorp-
tion by PET film, absorbed quantities of
decanal and myrcene decreased during
prolonged storage, after reaching a max-
imum absorption level at 40 °C (Figure 1c
to 6c). Apparently, decanal and myrcene
desorbed from the polymers to the model
solution. Figure 7 shows the influence of
storage time and temperature on deca-
nal’s and myrcene’s concentrations in a
model solution without a polymer sam-
ple. At 40 °C the concentration of decanal
and myrcene in the model solution (de-
termined with static headspace analysis)
decreased by 64% and 71%, respectively,
due to degradation of decanal and
myrcene. This degradation process
caused a desorption of decanal and
myrcene from the polymer samples in
order to re-establish the equilibrium be-
tween polymer and solution. With in-
creasing storage time and temperature,
degradation of aldehydes (octanal, deca-
nal, and citral) was also observed in or-
ange juice by other researchers (Dürr and
others 1981; Moshonas and Shaw 1989).
Figure 5—Absorption of flavor compounds by PET-bottle (␮g/dm2) after differ-
ent storage times at (A) 4 °C, (B) 20 °C and (C) 40 °C
However, no explanation for this process
was given. All the other investigated fla-
2028 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 67, Nr. 6, 2002

Absorption of flavor compounds in plastic packaging materials . . .
vor compounds were quite stable in the
Table 4 shows the influence of storage ples after 14 or 28 d of storage. An increase in
model solution at all 3 storage tempera- temperature on the total amount of flavor temperature had no remarkable effect on
tures.
absorption by all investigated polymer sam- flavor absorption by LLDPE. At 40 C° a slight
decrease of the total flavor absorption by
OPP was measured, due to the degradation
of mainly decanal and myrcene. A more
pronounced effect of storage temperature
on flavor absorption was found for the
glassy polymers, PC, PET, and PEN. After 28
d of storage at 40 °C, total flavor absorption
by PET film and PET bottle increased by a
factor of 21.3 and 13.3, respectively (com-
pared to storage at 4 °C). Total flavor ab-
sorption by PC and PEN increased by a fac-
tor of 4.1 and 2.9, respectively, when
increasing the storage temperature from 4
to 40 °C. Temperature seemed to have a
more pronounced effect on flavor absorp-
tion by PET than that of PC and PEN. With
the increase of temperature, the difference
with the Tg of PET became smaller and
smaller, which probably caused a relaxation
(that is, an increased free volume) of the
polymer network. PC and PEN, having a
higher Tg than PET, were obviously less af-
fected.
Conclusions
LL PACKAGING MATERIALS SHOW A CER-
A
tain absorption capacity for flavor
compounds. Rate and quantity of flavor
absorption are related to differences in
polymer characteristics (such as polarity,
Tg, and crystallinity) as well as to the struc-
ture and polarity of the different flavor
compounds. Absorption of flavor com-
pounds by PC, PET, and PEN is much less
than by the polyolefins LLDPE and OPP.
Therefore, from the standpoint of flavor
absorption and loss of flavor compounds,
PC, PET, and PEN should be preferred
over LLDPE and OPP. On the other hand,
storage temperature does not seem to in-
fluence the total amount of flavor absorp-
tion by the rubbery polymers LLDPE and
OPP, although temperature rises do seem
to affect flavor absorption rate and quan-
tity in the glassy polymers PC, PET, and
PEN.
References
[ACD] Advanced Chemistry Development. 1999.
ACD/Labs Products. Toronto, Canada: Advanced
Chemistry Development, Inc. Available from:
<http://www.acdlabs.com>. Accessed Dec 15.
DeLassus PT, Hilker BL. 1987. Interaction of high
barrier plastics with food: permeation and sorp-
tion. In: Gray JI, Harte BR, Miltz J, editors. Food
product-package compatibility. Lancaster, Penn.:
Technomic. P 229-243.
DeLassus PT. 1996. Sorption and diffusion of fla-
vors in plastic packaging. In: McGorrin RJ, Leland
JV, editors. Flavor-food interactions. ACS Sympo-
sium Series 633. Washington, D.C.: American
Chemical Society. P 152-161.
Dürr P, Schobinger U, Waldvogel R. 1981. Aroma
quality of orange juice after filling and storage in
soft packages and glass bottles. Alimenta
Figure 6—Absorption of flavor compounds by PEN (␮g/dm2) after different stor-
age times at (A) 4 °C, (B) 20 °C and (C) 40 °C
Vol. 67, Nr. 6, 2002—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE 2029

Absorption of flavor compounds in plastic packaging materials . . .
Table 1—Characteristics of the polymers used in this studya
20(4):91-93.
Fayoux SC, Seuvre A-M, Voilley AJ. 1997. Aroma
transfers in and through plastic packagings: or-
ange juice and d-limonene: Overall sorption
mechanisms and parameters, a literature survey.
Packag Technol Sci 10(3):145-160.
Giacin JR, Hernandez RJ. 1997. Permeability of aro-
mas and solvents in polymeric packaging mate-
rials. In: Brody AL, Marsh KS, editors. The Wiley
encyclopedia of packaging technology. New York:
John Wiley and Sons. P 724-733.
Goodrich N. 1997. Is beer ready for plastic? Canadi-
an Packaging. Toronto, Canada: Rogers Media
Publishing Ltd. Available from: <http://
www.canadianpackaging.com>. Accessed 2001
May 15.
Tg b
(°C)
Crystallinity
(%)
Thickness
Density
(g/cm3)
Polymer
Polarity
(mm)
LLDPE film
OPP film
PC film
PET film
PET bottle
PEN film
Apolar
Apolar
Polar
Polar
Polar
-75
-5 to 0
+145
+78
+78
+120
45
80
0
50
30
75
50
300
75
0.921
0.916
1.20
1.40
1.37
1.36
45
22 to 25
45
Polar
a Specifications from manufacturers
b Glass transition temperature
Gremli H. 1996. Flavor changes in plastic contain-
ers: a literature review. Perfum Flav 21(Nov/
Dec):1-8.
Table 2—Characteristics of the flavor compounds used in the model solutions
Flavor
bp
(°C)
Solubilityc
(g/L)
Density
(g/mL)
MW
(g/mol)
Hirose K, Harte BR, Giacin JR, Miltz J, Stine C. 1988.
Sorption of d-limonene by sealant films and ef-
fect on mechanical properties. In: Hotchkiss JH,
editor. Food and packaging interactions. Washing-
ton, D.C.: American Chemical Society. P 28-41.
Hotchkiss JH. 1997. Food-packaging interactions in-
fluencing quality and safety. Food Addit Contam
14(6-7):601-607.
Johansson F. 1996. Food and packaging interactions
affecting food quality [DPhil thesis]. Göteborg,
Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology. 53
p.
Johansson F, Leufvén A. 1997. Concentration and
interactive effects on the sorption of aroma liq-
uids and vapors into polypropylene. J Food Sci
62(2):355-358.
Kwapong OY, Hotchkiss JH. 1987. Comparative sorp-
tion of aroma compounds by polyethylene and
compounda
Log Pb
Linalool
Octanol
Hexanal
Decanal
E2MB
195
177
130
208
133
168
230
192
178
167
3.28
3.00
1.78
4.09
2.12
2.83
2.23
3.30
4.58
4.58
0.11
0.21
2.89
0.012
2.47
0.37
2.11
0.21
0.0027
0.0026
0.87
0.82
0.81
0.83
0.87
0.88
0.96
0.82
0.84
0.80
154.3
130.2
100.2
156.3
130.1
144.2
150.2
142.1
136.1
136.1
HA
(R)-Carvone
2-Nonanone
(+)-Limonene
Myrcene
a
E2MB = ethyl 2-methylbutyrate; HA = hexyl acetate
b
c
Measure of hydrophobicity, calculated with ACD/Log P v3.6 (ACD 1999)
Solubility at 25 ºC in water, calculated with ACD/Aqueous Solubility v4.0 (ACD 1999)
ionomer food-contact plastics.
52(3):761-763, 785.
J Food Sci
Lebossé R, Ducruet V, Feigenbaum A. 1997. Interac-
tions between reactive aroma compounds from
model citrus juice with polypropylene packaging
film. J Agric Food Chem 45(8):2836-2842.
Tabel 3—Large-volume injection GC conditions
Extraction
solvent
Pentane:
Hexane
Dichloromethane (2:1)
Letinski J, Halek GW. 1992. Interactions of citrus
flavor compounds with polypropylene films of
varying crystallinities. J Food Sci 57(2):481-484.
Leufvén A, Hermansson C. 1994. The sorption of
aroma components from tomato juice by food-
contact polymers. J Sci Food Agric 64:101-105.
Mihalich JM, Baccaro LE. 1997. Polycarbonate. In:
Brody AL, Marsh KS, editors. The Wiley encyclo-
pedia of packaging technology. New York: John
Wiley and Sons. P 740-742.
Conditions
LLDPE, PP, PC
PEN
PET
Injection volume
Injection speed
Sec. cooling time
SVE delay time
SVE temperature
FID temperature
Oven program
30 ␮L
5 ␮L/s
10 s
10 s
200 °C
290 °C
50 °C (10’) => 5 °C/min
=>190 °C => 30 °C/min
=> 280 °C (5’)
200 ␮L
2 ␮L/s
30 s
30 s
200 °C
290 °C
200 ␮L
3 ␮L/s
5 s
5 s
200 °C
290 °C
40 °C (10’) => 5 °C/
min => 190 °C =>
30°C/min => 280 °C (5’)
Moshonas MG, Shaw PE. 1989. Flavor evaluation and
volatile flavor constituents of stored aseptically
packaged orange juice. J Food Sci 54(1):82-85.
Newton J. 1997. Film, oriented polyester. In: Brody
2030 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 67, Nr. 6, 2002

Absorption of flavor compounds in plastic packaging materials . . .
AL, Marsh KS, editors. The Wiley encyclopedia of
packaging technology. New York: John Wiley and
Sons. P 408-415.
Nielsen TJ. 1994. Limonene and myrcene sorption
into refillable polyethylene terephtalate bottles,
and washing effects on removal of sorbed compo-
nents. J Food Sci 59(1):227-230.
Nielsen TJ, Jägerstad IM, Öste RE. 1992. Study of fac-
tors affecting the absorption of aroma compounds
into low-density polyethylene. J Sci Food Agric
60:377-381.
Salame M. 1989. The use of barrier polymers in food
and beverage packaging. In: Finlayson KM, edi-
tor. Plastic film technology: High barrier plastic
films for packaging. Lancaster, Penn.: Technomic.
P 132-145.
Figure 7—Influence of storage time and temperature on the concentration of
decanal (A) and myrcene (B) in a Tween 80 model solution without polymer
sample
Salame M, Steingiser S. 1977. Barrier polymers.
Polym Plast Technol Eng 8(2):155-175.
Shimoda M, Ikegami T, Osajima Y. 1988. Sorption of
flavor compounds in aqueous solution into poly-
ethylene film. J Sci Food Agric 42(2):157-163.
Strandburg G, Delassus PT, Howell BA. 1990. Diffu-
sion of linear esters in selected polymer films. In:
Koros WJ, editor. Barrier polymers and structures.
ACS Symposium Series 423. Washington, D.C.:
American Chemical Society. P 333-350.
Tawfik MS, Devlieghere F, Huyghebaert A. 1998. In-
fluence of D-limonene absorption on the physi-
cal properties of refillable PET. Food Chem
61(1):157-162.
Table 4—Temperature effect on the total amount of flavor absorption by differ-
ent polymers after 14 or 28 d of storage at 4, 20, and 40 °C.
Total
absorption
Temp
(°C)
at day 14
Temperature effect
Polymer
(mg/dm2)
4-20 °C
20-40 °C
4-40 °C
LLDPE film
4
5.6
5.9
5.7
4.7
4.6
3.9
1.1
Van Lune FS, Nijssen LM, Linssen JPH. 1997. Ab-
sorption of methanol and toluene by polyester-
based bottles. Packag Technol Sci 10(4):221-227.
Van Willige RWG, Linssen JPH, Voragen AGJ. 2000a.
Influence of food matrix on absorption of flavor
compounds by linear low-density polyethylene:
Proteins and carbohydrates. J Sci Food Agric
80(12):1779-1789.
Van Willige RWG, Linssen JPH, Voragen AGJ. 2000b.
Influence of food matrix on absorption of flavor
compounds by linear low-density polyethylene:
Oil and real food products. J Sci Food Agric
80(12):1790-1797.
20
40
4
20
40
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
PP film
1.0
Total
absorption
at day 28
Temp
(°C)
Temperature effect
Polymer
(mg/dm2)
4-20 °C
20-40 °C
4-40 °C
Yamada K, Mita K, Yoshida K, Ishitani T. 1992. A study
of the absorption of fruit juice volatiles by the seal-
ant layer in flexible packaging containers: The
effect of package on quality of fruit juice. Packag
Technol Sci 5(1):41-47.
PC film
4
434.7
834.5
1765.4
7.8
26.3
167.2
29.6
87.6
394.8
2.3
1.9
20
40
4
20
40
4
20
40
4
20
40
2.1
6.3
4.5
1.5
4.1
21.3
13.3
2.9
PET film
PET bottle
PEN film
3.4
3.0
1.9
MS 20010135 Submitted 3/31/01, Accepted 7/2/01,
Received 1/23/02
Authors are with the Laboratory of Food Chemis-
try, Dept. of Agrotechnology and Food Sciences,
Wageningen Univ., P.O. Box 8129, 6700 EV
Wageningen, The Netherlands. Direct inquiries
to authorVoragen.
4.4
6.6
Vol. 67, Nr. 6, 2002—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE 2031