No abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

A simple and accessible gas chromatography–mass spectrometry method was developed to determine photoinitiators (PIs) in plastics for food contact and their migration into Tenax®. The method showed analytical performance suitable for compliance assessment. The limit of detection values found were as follows: for benzophenone and 4‐(4‐morpholinyl)benzaldehyde ~3 μg kg−1 food (6 dm2 kg−1 food), for 4‐methylbenzophenone and ethyl‐4‐(dimethylamino)‐benzoate ~1.5 μg kg−1 food and for 2‐ethylhexyl 4‐(dimethylamino)benzoate ~43 μg kg−1 food. For all the other PIs studied, limits of detection lower than 1 μg kg−1 food were found. The method was applied to analyse samples of plastic baby bibs collected in European market. Results indicate that several unauthorised PIs are in use to print bibs. The most commonly detected PIs were benzophenone detected in nearly all samples and isopropylthioxanthone quantified in 12 out of 22 samples. Several non‐evaluated PIs were detected: triphenyl phosphate, 2‐ethylanthraquinone, 2,2‐dimethoxy‐2‐phenylacetophenone, 4‐(4‐methylphenyltio)benzophenone, 1‐hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone and 4,4′‐bis(diethylamino)‐benzophenone. These two latter PIs were found at the highest concentration (more than 100 μgg−1). Testing a selection of samples for migration into Tenax® gave results exceeding the applicable migration limit for 1‐hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone with 0.532 mg kg−1 (specific migration limit = 0.01 mg kg−1) and for methyl 2‐benzoylbenzoate with 0.182 mg kg−1 (specific migration limit = 0.05 mg kg−1). Although the results may be affected by a certain overestimation degree given the experimental conditions, they certainly flag an area of potential interest for surveillance and more detailed risk evaluation, particularly because bibs are often not seen by industry as food contact materials, and surveillance actions are not systematically acted.

A screening exercise targeting ortho‐phthalates in 22 plastic baby bibs collected in the European market was performed. A GC–MS method was used with a limit of detection ranging from 0.1 to 0.6 mg kg−1 bib. The most frequently detected phthalates were di‐n‐butyl phthalate (DBP) and diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP) in nearly all samples. DIBP was detected at concentrations suggesting its intended use. Overall, the highest levels were detected for benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), with six samples presenting concentration from 13 to 47 mg kg−1 and one sample with the highest value of 65 mg kg−1. Results indicate that several non‐authorised phthalates are intentionally used either in the plastic or in the printing inks. Worst case migration calculations indicate that diethyl phthalate (DEP), DAP and DIBP exceed the limit of 0.01 mg kg−1. Therefore, determination of experimental migration is needed to conclude on compliance of baby bibs with the European and Swiss legislation. Bibs are articles that fall in the scope of the definition of FCMs accordingly to European legislation. Therefore, they should comply with the applicable rules, restrictions and limits. These articles should be included in surveillance plans, focusing on monitoring bib composition, migration and the application of good manufacturing practices by industry.

This paper provides an overview of the fundamental aspects pertaining an effective circular packaging. The main challenges of food packaging systems to comply with the principles of circular economy are addressed. A perspective of the technical issues that drive packaging developments is given, and the main barriers and limiting factors for packaging waste reduction, reusing, and recycling are discussed, particularly as applied to plastic packaging. The state-of-art of recycling plastics for food contact is presented, as well as the gaps for safety assurance. The relevance of consumer and the impact on the whole chain is discussed under the framework of citizens motivation, ability, and opportunity to engage the different measures. Finally, the main measures under the scope of the packaging and waste regulation, and foreseen amendments, and of the plastics recycling directive are briefly presented.