Downloads

Food loss and waste have been identified as significant contributors to existing environmental challenges. Previous studies have extensively quantified losses and waste throughout the value chain. However, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the influence of packaging design on food residue quantities. This study analyses the technical emptiability of dairy product packaging, building upon previously described methods and proposing new methods for a standardized analysis. The results demonstrate significant variations in residue amounts depending on product type, fat content, viscosity, packaging type and design, as well as consumer handling. The findings indicate that residues of high-viscosity products, such as yoghurt drinks and buttermilk, can accumulate to a level exceeding 4% of the total filling weight in the packaging; meanwhile, the residues of low-viscosity products, such as milk, collectively represent less than 1% of the total filling weight. Consumer handling instructions on packaging significantly reduce residues, as shown by the instructionto shake before opening, which notably decreases the residues of high-viscosity products. Future legislation to minimize food waste and reduce the environmental impact of packaging will necessitate that the packaging industry produces easy-to-empty packaging. This will improve sorting, recycling, recyclate quality and environmental impact, consequently enhancing the sustainability of dairy packaging.

With the European Green Deal, the importance of recycled products and materials has increased. Specifically, for PET bottles, a high content of recycled material (rPET) is demanded by the industry and consumers. This study was carried out in a lab environment replicating real-life industrial processes, to investigate the possible impacts on rPET quality over eleven recycling loops, aiming to use high amounts of rPET repetitively. A cycle included extrusion, solid state polycondensation (SSP), a second extrusion to simulate bottle production, hot wash and a drying step. 75% rPET and 25% virgin PET were extruded in eleven cycles to simulate a recycling and production process. Samples underwent chemical, physical and biological analysis. The quality of the rPET material was not adversely affected. Parameters such as coloring, intrinsic viscosity, concentration of critical chemicals and presence of mutagenic contaminants could be positively assessed. The quality of the produced material was likely influenced by the input material’s high standard. A closed loop PET bottle recycling process using an rPET content of up to 75% was possible when following the proposed process, indicating that this level of recycled content can be maintained indefinitely without compromising quality.

Sustainability 2021, 13(13), 7370; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137370

Background: In risk assessment, genotoxicity is a key factor to determine the safety for the consumer. Most in vitro genotoxicity assays were developed for the assessment of pure substances. However, in recent years more attention has been given to complex mixtures, where usually low amounts of a substance are present. For high-throughput screening, a toxicologically sensitive assay should be used, covering a broad range of genotoxic substances and detecting them at low concentrations. HepG2 cells have been recommended as one of the prime candidates for genotoxicity testing, as they are p53 competent, less prone towards cytotoxic effects and tend to have some metabolic activity.

Methods: A HepG2 liver cell line was characterized for its suitability for genotoxicity assessment. For this, a luciferase based reporter gene assay revolving around the p53 pathway was validated for the analysis of pure substances and of complex mixtures. Further, the cell’s capability to detect genotoxins correctly with and without an exogenous metabolizing system, namely rat liver S9, was assessed.

Results: The assay proved to have a high toxicological sensitivity (87.5%) and specificity (94%). Further, the endogenous metabolizing system of the HepG2 cells was able to detect some genotoxins, which are known to depend on an enzymatic system. When complex mixtures were added this did not lead to any adverse effects concerning the assays performance and cytotoxicity was not an issue.

Discussion: The HepGentox proved to have a high toxicological sensitivity and specificity for the tested substances, with similar or even lower lowest effective concentration (LEC) values, compared to other regulatory mammalian assays. This combines some important aspects in one test system, while also being less time and material consuming and covering several genotoxicity endpoints. As the assay performs well with and without an exogenous metabolizing system, no animal liver fractions have to be used, which application is discussed controversially and is considered to be expensive and laborious in sample testing. Because of this, the HepGentox is suitable for a cost-efficient first screening approach to obtain important information with human cells for further approaches, with a relatively fast and easy method. Therefore, the HepGentox is a promising assay to detect genotoxic substances correctly in complex mixtures even at low concentrations, with the potential for a high throughput application. In a nutshell, as part of an in vitro bioassay test battery, this assay could provide valuable information for complex mixtures.

2021, PeerJ 9:e11883https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11883

The Ames assay is the standard assay for identifying DNA-reactive genotoxic substances. Multiple formats are available and the correct choice of an assay protocol is essential for achieving optimal performance, including fit for purpose detection limits and required screening capacity. In the present study, a comparison of those parameters between two commonly used formats, the standard pre-incubation Ames test and the liquid-based Ames MPF™, was performed. For that purpose, twenty-one substances with various modes of action were chosen and tested for their lowest effect concentrations (LEC) with both tests. In addition, two sources of rat liver homogenate S9 fraction, Aroclor 1254-induced and phenobarbital/β-naphthoflavone induced, were compared in the Ames MPF™. Overall, the standard pre-incubation Ames and the Ames MPF™ assay showed high concordance (>90%) for mutagenic vs. non-mutagenic compound classification. The LEC values of the Ames MPF™ format were lower for 17 of the 21 of the selected test substances. The S9 source had no impact on the test results. This leads to the conclusion that the liquid-based Ames MPF™ assay format provides screening advantages when low concentrations are relevant, such as in the testing of complex mixtures.

Toxics 2021, 9(7), 152; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics9070152

Background: Non-targeted screening of food contact materials (FCM) for non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) reveals a great number of unknown and unidentified substances present at low concentrations. In the absence of toxicological data, the application of the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) or of EU Regulation 10/2011 requires methods able to fulfill safety threshold criteria. In this review, mammalian in vitro genotoxicity assays are analyzed for their ability to detect DNA-damaging substances at limits of biological detection (LOBD) corresponding to the appropriate safety thresholds. Results: The ability of the assays to detect genotoxic effects varies greatly between substance classes. Especially for direct-acting mutagens, the assays lacked the ability to detect most DNA reactive substances below the threshold of 10 ppb, making them unsuitable to pick up potential genotoxicants present in FCM migrates. However, suitability for the detection of chromosomal damage or investigation of other modes of action makes them a complementary tool as part of a standard test battery aimed at giving additional information to ensure safety. Conclusion: improvements are necessary to comply with regulatory thresholds to consider mammalian genotoxicity in vitroassays to assess FCM safety.

Foods 2020 Feb; 9(2):237; doi: 10.3390/foods9020237