a b s t r a c t
Packaging
represents a critical step in the food quality preservation and the ultimate
defence against insect pests. Cereal-based foods may be infested by insects
even during their packed life, i.e. during distribution, transportation and
storage in warehouses or in retail stores. Many studies in the last years have
concerned the development of active packaging with antioxidant and
antimicrobial action, but very few studies have addressed insect-repellent
packaging materials for foods. This work aimed at assessing the repellent efficacy
of novel functional packaging materials containing three essential oils:
citronella, oregano and rosemary. Re-pellent films
were chemically characterized by MHS-SPME-GC-MS. The results obtained from area
tests run in Petri dishes indicated that essential oils at concentrations
higher than 0.005 μL/cm2
showed potential in terms of repellent activities against the red flour
beetle, Tribolium castaneum. Assays performed with coated packages containing
wheat semolina showed repellency results ranging from 53 to 87% for citronella
and rosemary, respectively.
Industrial
Relevance: The paper deals with the study carried out of several Essential Oils
as repellent for in-sects in packaged food. Rejection of packaged food caused
by insect pests is a great problem that affects the industry worldwide. Without
any doubt the prevention of insect attack from the packaging material without
affecting the packaged product is an environmentally friendly and economical
advantage. The indus-try is demanding this type of solutions.
1. Introduction
Insect infestations are the main cause of loss of
packed foodstuffs both in terms of direct damages or cost to preserve and
package food ( Hanlon, Kelsey, & Forcinio, 1998). The issue of sustainment of the world
population is generally considered in terms of the need to increase food
productions. However measures such as the safeguard of stored foods from insect
contamination could represent a solution for increasing food products
availability.
Cereal-based dry foods such as pasta, flour,
cakes, rice and others may be subject to insect infestations. The attack to
packaged foods can occur during the production phases or in the following steps
of the distribution, such as transportation and storage in warehouses or in
retail stores. In any case, consumers frequently blame the man-ufacturers for
any occurring insect contamination, independently from their real involvement,
and the consequences on the image of the company can be severe ( Hou, Field,
& Taylor, 2004).
worldwide
distributed in various climatic conditions ( Robertson, 2006). The search for tools
to prevent infestations is crucial and current solutions
involve the spraying of insecticides such as pyrethins and py-rethroids (e.g.
resmethrin, sumithrin, tetramethrin, permethrin) in the environment where dry
food is processed and packaged, after removing all food and utensils for food
contact. Stored products safeguard has long relied on the employment of
synthetic insecticidal molecules such as methyl bromide (MB) and phosphine as
fumigants but whose use has been restricted lately due to adverse effects on
the environment (e.g. ozone depletion caused by MB) and to pest resistance
develop-ment of certain species with reiterated phosphine treatments ( Shaaya, Kostjukovsky,
Eilberg, & Sukprakarn, 1997).
The theme of the interaction between insect pests
and packaged foods has been handled by several authors, who pointed out on the
abil-ity of insects to penetrate into packages ( Essig, Hoskins,
Linsley, Michelbacher, & Smith, 1943;
Gerhardt & Lindgren, 1954; Gerhardt & Lindgren, 1955; Batth, 1970; Cline, 1978;
Langbridge, 1970) and on the resistance of various packaging materials to
insect attacks ( Dominichini & Forti, 1975; Licciardello, Cocuzza,
Russo, & Muratore, 2010;
Sreenathan, Iyengar, Narasimhan, & Majumder, 1960).
Being consolidated that packaging represents a
critical point in the food quality preservation and the ultimate defence
against insect
pests,
efforts should be paid not only towards the design of effective systems which
may retard the food quality decay, but also for the development of insect-proof
packages, able to resist to insects pene-tration and/or to repel their presence
from the food packages environment.
During the last 10 years, new technologies for food
packaging have emerged and among them “active
packaging”
is one of the most prom-ising innovation. It consists of incorporating into the
packaging material active compounds useful for the food protection in terms of
antioxidant and/or antimicrobial effect. Several papers have been published
dealing with different proposals of active packaging ( Goñi et al.,
2009; Gutiérrez, Escudero, Batlle, &
Nerín, 2009; Gutiérrez, Sánchez, Batlle, López, & Nerín, 2009; López, Sánchez,
Batlle, & Nerín, 2007a, 2007b; Rodríguez, Batlle, & Nerín, 2007, 2008) but only a few commercial solu-tions are
available. Few papers in literature have dealt with the develop-ment of
insect-repellent packaging systems. Highland & Merritt, 1973; Highland, Simonaitis, & Boatright, 1984;
Highland & Cline, 1986) pub-lished
the first
attempts to reduce insects infestations by the use of repellent-treated
packaging materials. More recently, Hou et al. ( Hou et al., 2004) proposed the use of DEET and Neem contained in paper, Wong et al. ( Wong, Signal,
Campion, & Motion, 2005)
addressed the use of citronella essential oil in a coating for carton packages,
whereas Germinara et al. ( Germinara, Conte, Lecce, Di Palma,
& Del Nobile, 2010) embedded propionic acid into corn zein and
policaprolactone. Apart from the mentioned
papers, an in-depth survey only gave back a chapter on a book dedicated to
active packaging ( Navarro, Zehavi,
Angel, & Finkelman, 2007) another chapter focused on essential oils in active packaging ( Nerín, 2012) and a few US patents concerning the
de-velopment of slow-release repellent systems ( Calton, Siemer,
& Wood, 2001; Domb,
1993; Tucci & Dry, 2000) while
two patents are known to describe the
incorporation of insect repellents into paper-based packaging ( Radwan &
Allin, 1997; Whalon & Malloy, 1998).
The use of natural plant extracts in this application could facilitate
acceptance by food regulators as well as the general public.
The
aim of the present work was to evaluate the repellent efficacy
of citronella, oregano and rosemary essential oils against one of the most
common stored food pests, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Cole-optera,
Tenebrionidae), and to assess the effectiveness of a novel functional active
plastic material with repellent action containing the three essential oils.
2. Materials and
methods
2.1. Essential
oils and repellent films
Citronella (Cymbopogon nardus), oregano (Origanum
vulgare) and rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis)
essential oils (EO) were purchased from Gutiérrez SAS Matières Premières
Essentielles (Grasse Cedex, France). Such oils are GRAS (Generally Recognized
as Safe) according to FDA (21CFR182.20).
In the following the gross composition of test-ed essential oils is reported:
|
Citronella
|
oil. FDA:
|
182.20. Citronellal
35 ÷ 40%;
|
geraniol
|
||
|
25 ÷ 30%;
|
citronellol
|
15 ÷ 20%, D-limonene
|
5
÷ 10%;
|
linalool
|
|
|
0
|
÷ 5%; farnesol 0 ÷ 5%
|
|
|
||
|
Origanum
|
oil. Carvacrol 75 ÷ 80%;
linalool
|
5
÷ 10%;
|
thymol
|
||
|
5
|
÷ 10%; D-limonene 0 ÷ 5%
|
|
|
||
Rosemary oil. Beta pinene 10 ÷ 15%;
camphor 10 ÷ 15%; camphene 5 ÷ 10%. D-Limonene
0 ÷ 5%; terpineol 0 ÷ 5%; linalool 0 ÷ 5%.
The formulations were suitably diluted for the
bioassays described hereafter.
Repellent films
were prepared by Artibal (Sabiñánigo, Spain) from corona-treated polypropylene
(30 μm thickness), following a patent-ed
procedure ( European Patent EP1657181). The coating included 4% (w/w) of the above-mentioned
essential oils. Each film was analysed
for
the volatile composition and tested for the repellent effectiveness in the
bioassays described in the following after one-month storage in
aluminium-polyethylene hermetically sealed bags.
2.2. Insects
The unsexed adults of T. castaneum used in the
experiments were 2–4 weeks post-eclosion
and were obtained from laboratory cultures maintained in incubators at 30 ± 1
°C and 70 ± 5% r.h. in the dark. The colonies had been cultured in laboratory
for over four years on wheat flour mixed with 5%
brewer's yeast.
2.3. Volatile
composition of repellent films
A quantitative Multiple Headspace (MHS) SPME
analysis was performed according to the method described by Ezquerro et al. ( Ezquerro, Pons, & Tena, 2003),
which is based on the multiple head-space extraction (MHE) method developed by Kolb (1982). This meth-od was previously applied for the
study of the diffusion of volatile compounds in plastic films
( Licciardello, Del Nobile, Spagna & Muratore, 2009; Licciardello, Muratore,
Mercea, Tosa & Nerín, 2013).
MHS-SPME
involves various SPME extractions of the same sample, and the total amount of
the analyte can be calculated from the sum of the areas of the chromatograms
relative to each extraction. The total area can be easily calculated from the
following equation:
|
N
|
A1
|
|
|
|
AT ¼Ai ¼
|
ð1Þ
|
|
|
|
1−β
|
|
||
|
i−1
|
|
|
|
where:
AT
is the total area relative to multiple extractions, Ai
is the area of the chromatographic peak relative to the i-th SPME extrac-tion),
A1
is the area relative to the first extraction, β is a constant, and N is the total number of
extractions. The latter value can be calcu-lated from the slope of the plot
resulting from the following equation:
lnAi ¼ ði −1Þ lnβ þ lnA1 ð2Þ
The fibre used was a
polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS, 100 μm,),
which gave the richest profiles for basil and
rosemary essential oils in a previous work ( López, Huerga,
Batlle, & Nerín, 2006). A
6.25 cm2 sample of each
functional film was incubated into 20-mL
|
headspace
vials at 80 °C for
|
30 min and extracted at 80 °C
for
|
|
30 min. Pre-incubation and
|
extraction temperature
and times
|
resulted
from preliminary experiments which considered incubation and extraction
temperatures ranging from 60 to 80 °C and extraction time ranging from 15 to 35
minutes. After extraction, the fibre was desorbed for 5
min into the GC injector set at 270 °C in splitless mode, the temperature of
the transfer line being set at 280 °C.
GC–MS analyses were
performed using an Agilent (Palo Alto, CA, USA) 6890 N GC equipped with a 5975B
mass detector, and a HP-5 MS (30 m × 0.25 mm, 0.25 μm film thickness) 5%
phenyl-methylsyloxane capillary column. The temperature program was as follows:
initial tem-perature 40 °C for 2 min, raised by 10 °C/min to 300 °C and 300 °C
for 2 min. The carrier gas was helium, 99.999% purity, supplied by Carburos
Metálicos (Barcelona, Spain). Samples were analyzed in a Combi-Pal autosampler
(CTC Analytics AG, Zwingen, Switzerland) coupled to the GC-MS, which allowed
analytical reproducibility and precision.
Quantification
of essential oil components was carried out by ex-ternal calibration, preparing
appropriate solutions of pure standards in the same organic coating used to
encapsulate the essential oils, and spiking virgin PP with suitable amounts
(microliters) of such so-lutions. The spiked films,
having the same size as the active film
sam-ples, were analyzed as above described.
2.4. Bioassays
for the repellency of essential oils
Preference area assays ( Nerio,
Olivero-Verbel, & Stashenko, 2010;
Ogendo et al., 2008) were run to evaluate the repellent effect of
citro-nella, oregano and rosemary essential oils against T. castaneum,
com-monly referred to as the red flour
beetle.
Filter paper disks (11 cm diameter) were cut in
halves, one half was treated with 0.5 mL of suitable dilutions of the essential
oils in acetone and the other half was impregnated with 0.5 mL of acetone alone
(con-trol). After solvent evaporation, disks were reconstituted in glass plates
(11 cm diameter) by coupling one half treated with the essential oils and one
half of control paper. Ten adults of T. castaneum were placed in the centre of
each plate. Two repellency tests were carried out at 25 °C and 70% RH with the
following essential oil concentrations:
Test#1: 0.001 and 0.01 μL/cm2
Test#2: 0.005, 0.01 and
0.02 μL/cm2
For each concentration and for each essential oil,
four replicates were performed. Insects were enumerated after 0.15, 0.30, 1 and
3 h and re-sults were expressed as percent repellency (R%), calculated as
follows:
R%
¼ ðC −TÞ=ðC þ TÞ _ 100
where:
C number of insects in the control area;
T number of insects in the treated area
2.5. Bioassays
for the effectiveness of repellent films
Sachets sized 52.5 × 74.25 mm were prepared with
repellent films, with the coated side as the outer
side of packages, and filled with
25 g durum wheat semolina.
For the preference tests, one sachet made with the
control film
and one made with the treated one were positioned at the sides of rigid
polyethylene white boxes (20 × 10 × 7 cm). Twenty adults of the red flour
beetle, unfeeded for 48 hours, were then released in the centre of the boxes,
and maintained in the dark until the end of the trial, carried out at 25 °C and
70% RH. A control trial was also performed, consisting of two semolina sachets
made with control film aimed at excluding
other factors than the essential oil on the in-sect behaviour. Each test was
carried out in triplicate.
Boxes were checked after 2, 24 and 48 h, and the
percentage of re-pellency (R%) was calculated as aforementioned, with:
C
= number of insects on the control package; T = number of in-sects on the
repellent package.
2.6. Statistical
analysis
All data were submitted to one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA), and post-hoc comparison of means was performed by the Tukey
test (p b
0.05) through the statistical package SPSS® Statistics 13.0 (Armonk, NY, USA).
3. Results and
discussion
3.1. Volatile
composition of coated repellent films
A typical chromatogram of the PP film
coated with citronella EO (film A) is shown in Fig. 1a. The MHS-SPME analysis was able to quantify 6
major compounds, as shown in Table 1:
citronellol, gerani-ol and their acetates, together with citronellal and
eugenol represent almost 50% of the total chromatographic area. Among the major
com-pounds, elemol and δ-cadinene
were not quantified as a commercial
standard
was not available, while myrcene and trans-β-ocimene
did not follow the linear relationship ln Ai versus i-1.
A
typical chromatogram of B-type film
B (PP coated with oregano EO) is shown in Fig. 1b.
The MHS-SPME analysis revealed the quanti-tative composition of linalool,
thymol, carvacrol and β-caryophyllene ( Table 1), which represent more than 60% of the total
chromato-graphic area, carvacrol being the major compound characterizing this
EO, as shows Table 1.
A
typical chromatogram of film C (PP coated with
rosemary EO) is shown in Fig. 1c.
The MHS-SPME analysis could quantify 5 major compounds ( Table 1), which represent almost 40% of the total
chro-matographic area. Among the major compounds, camphor could not be quantified
by the MHS-SPME technique, as it did not follow the lin-ear relationship ln Ai
vs i-1.
3.2. Repellency
of essential oils
Preliminary bioassays of the repellent effect of
diluted EOs by the area preference tests ( Fig. 2) were carried out as a screening for the
ef-fectiveness of natural substances to be incorporated in functional
repel-lent packaging and for comparative purposes: this method is the most
widely used for the assessment of the repellency of natural substances.
Test#1 ( Fig. 3a–c) performed with two
EO concentration (0.01 e 0.001 μL/cm2)
showed a dose–response effect, with special regards
for citronella. For this oil, the repellency value reached 90 and 100% after 30
min-1 h in the trial performed with the highest concentration, and values below
50% in the trials at 0.001 μL/cm2.
Citronella EO showed in the first hour of the test
significantly
higher repellency (p b 0.05) compared to the
other EOs. It has to be noted that the repellency values decreased after 3 h,
and this might be attributed to the loss of the essen-tial oils from the filter
paper by evaporation. Rosemary essential oil also showed a concentration effect
(p b
0.05), however at the lowest dilu-tion this oil seemed to exert an attractive
action, especially at the latest time intervals, as evidenced by the negative
R% values.
Test#2 ( Fig. 4a–c) was performed with
three EO concentration (0.005, 0.01 and 0.02 μL/cm2);
this test confirmed the effect of concen-tration on the
insect response. As for Test#1, repellency decreased after 3 h, possibly due to
the essential oil evaporation from filter
paper.
All of the tested essential oils at concentrations
0.005–0.02
μL/cm2
were effective at repelling T. castaneum in preference area tests, while a
lower concentration (0.001 μL/cm2)
was not satisfactorily effective or, in the case of rosemary, it showed an
attractive effect.
The evaporation of the EOs from the paper support
was expected due to the fact that such volatiles compounds are not bound but
only absorbed on paper. Also, this is one of the main reasons why a special
formula is needed to incorporate EOs in packaging material, either in plastic
or in paper and board. Thus, the resulting active ma-terials would act as
reservoir of EO and the controlled kinetics of re-lease is the key point for
proposing them as commercial active materials with repellent properties versus
insects.
3.3.
Effectiveness of the repellent films
against the red flour beetle
Two hours after the start of the trials, most of the
insects were found grouped close to the sachets made with the control film,
while only 2 to 5 insects out of 20 were found on the treated sachet. Fig. 5 shows the per-cent repellency after 2, 24 and
48 h of semolina packages made with films
containing the tested essential oils. Values did not change signifi-cantly
through the duration of the assays for oregano and citronella, while data
referred to rosemary essential oil are slightly higher after 24 and 48 h.
Repellency data for the control sachets were always signifi-cantly
different (p b 0.05) from those referring to the
coated sachets and, among test materials, no significant
difference (p b 0.05) was ob-served. Insects tended to
locate behind the sachets (this is a typical be-havioural aspect of the
Tenebrionidae family) and in correspondence with the seal, which are known to
be the most vulnerable points of
|
177
|
Table 1
Quantitative
composition, by MHS-SPME-GC-MS, of coated
PP films (film A = citronella
EO, 4% w/w; film B = oregano
EO, 4% w/w; film C = rosemary,
4% w/w).
|
|
μg/cm2
|
|
Film A
|
|
|
Citronellal
|
134.22
|
|
Citronellol
|
40.78
|
|
Geraniol
|
94.90
|
|
Citronellyl acetate
|
12.74
|
|
Eugenol
|
6.00
|
|
Geranyl acetate
|
15.44
|
|
Film B
|
|
|
Linalool
|
8.88
|
|
Thymol
|
10.65
|
|
Carvacrol
|
174.26
|
|
β-caryophyllene
|
95.58
|
|
Film C
|
|
|
1,8 cineole
|
211.04
|
|
Linalool
|
5.21
|
|
α-terpineol
|
32.29
|
|
Carvacrol
|
3.28
|
|
β-caryophyllene
|
318.92
|
|
|
|
packages.
Insects remained substantially in the same place chosen dur-ing the first
2 hours throughout the duration of the trials. No attempt to pierce packages
was observed during the tests, however it is possible that a longer starvation
of insects could determine an increased aggres-siveness towards packages.
Repellency data relative to the control trials were
close to zero, as insects placed themselves randomly and choose one or another
pack-age indifferently. The fact that the histograms for the control are
neg-ative should be taken as a merely casual result.
The observed repellency of essential oils in the
tests performed on filter paper and with
treated packages can be attributed to the essen-tial oils components. It has
been demonstrated that terpenoids pos-sess biological activity against several
post-harvest Coleoptera ( Weaver, Dunkel, Ntezurubaza, Jackson,
& Stock, 1991). In
particular, citronellol and trans-geraniol, which are key components of the
citro-nella EO, were found to have strong repellent effect on T. castaneum ( Zhang et al., 2011). Also,
linalool, which is present in all of the tested EOs, has been demonstrated to
effectively repel T. castaneum in repel-lency tests carried out in
olfactometers ( Ukeh & Umoetok, 2011). An-other study assessed the potential of 1,8
cineole, one of the most representative terpenoid in rosemary EO, against T.
castaneum ( Lee, Annis,
Tumaalii, & Choi, 2004). An interesting research by Bekele
and Hassanali (2001) demonstrated that single components of essen-tial oils do not
show comparable toxicity to the EO towards two stored food insects, but their
combinations do provide bioactivity: the mixtures allowed to select 1,8
cineole, limonene and camphor among the most powerful components.
Compared to the repellency data obtained in the
preliminary bio-assays conducted with essential oils on filter
paper, where the effica-cy decreased
drastically after 3 hours from the beginning of the experiments, coated films
showed a durable efficacy, ranging around
60% for citronella- and oregano-based repellent packaging, and 87% for the
rosemary-based coated film. The retention of
effectiveness is due to the bonding of essential oil to the packaging film
by the coating matrix which, while immobilizing the essential oil preventing
its loss by evaporation, it guarantees a controlled release able to effectively
repel insects. As previous studies demonstrated this coated polymers
Fig.
2. Detail
of a plate during the preference test for the evaluation of repellency. In this
case, all of the ten insects are found on the control half and as far a
possible from the essential oil.
are
stable for at more than 4 months and in some cases the activity remains even
for more than one year ( Nerín, 2012). Further studies should address the shelf life
of repellent packaging by the release ki-netics: indeed it is required that the
effectiveness of such systems is at least as long as the product shelf life.
Finally, some studies ( Huang, Lam,
& Ho, 2000; Huang, Tan, Kini, &
Ho, 1997; Rozman, Kalinovic, & Korunic,
2007) demonstrated that T. castaneum
is less sensitive to some essential oils compared to Sitophilus spp., another
frequent stored food pest. Therefore, our promising results obtained with T.
castaneum let hypothesize an even stronger efficacy
of the essential oils object of this research and of the repellent packaging films
on other pest species.
4. Conclusion
Repellency for coated films
ranging from 53 to 87% is to be considered a very promising result and
encourage the study and application of repel-lent packaging materials for the
safeguard of packaged foods and the reduction of packaged food losses due to
insect attacks. Data obtained from the bioessays on filter
paper supplied tentative information on T. castaneum response to citronella,
oregano and rosemary essential oils, which were completed by the results coming
from the tests run with coated films. The development of
insect-repellent packaging should take into account that high doses might be
required, with possible effects on the sensory quality of the produce, hence it
is necessary to orient the diffusion of active components towards the outside
of packages. This
Fig.
1. a–c.
Typical chromatograms relative to the MHS-SPME analysis of the coated PP film.
(a):
film
A (citronella EO). 1) Myrcene; 2) α-Pinene; 3) trans-β-Ocimene;
4) Linalool; 5) allo-Ocimene; 6) Citronellal; 7)
Isopulegol; 8) Citronellol; 9) Geraniol; 10) Geranial; 11) Thymol; 12)
Carvacrol; 13) Citronellyl acetate; 14) Nerol; 15) Eugenol; 16) Geranyl
acetate; 17) β-Elemene; 18) δ-Cadinene; 19) Elemol; 20) γ-Eudesmol; 21) t-Cadinol; 22) α-Eudesmol; 23) Germacrene; 24) trans-β-Farnesene; 25) α-Cubebene;
26) cis-α-Bisabolene; 27) β-Cubebene; 28) α-Amorphene;
29) β-Cadinene; 30) 1S,cis-Calamenene;
31) α-Cadinene. (b): film
B (oregano EO). 1) Limonene; 2) Camphor; 3) endo-Borneol; 4) α-Terpineol; 5) Thymol; 6) Carvacrol; 7) Camphene; 8)
Eugenol 9) β-Caryophyllene; 10) α-Humulene; 11) δ-Cadinene;
12) Caryophyllene oxide; 13) t-Cadinol. (c) film
C (rosemary EO). 1) 1,8-Cineole; 2) Linalool; 3) Camphor; 4) Endo-borneol; 5) α-Terpineol; 6) Bornyl acetate; 7) Thymol; 8)
Carvacrol; 9) α-Cubebene; 10) α-Ylangene; 11) α-Copaene;
12) Isocaryophyllene; 13) β-Caryophyllene;
14) Aromadendrene; 15) α-Humulene;
16) α-Amorphene; 17) δ-Cadinene; and 18) 1S,cis-Calamenene.
100
80
60
40
20
-20
-40
-60
-80
|
0.001
|
0.01
|
0.001
|
0.01
|
0.001
|
0.01
|
|
|
|
|
Fig.
3. Repellent
effect, as repellency %, of citronella (a), oregano (b) and rosemary (c)
essential oils,
Test#1.
|
Repellency %
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
15 min 30 min
60 min 180 min
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80
60
40
20
0
-20
|
0.005
|
0.01
|
0.02
|
0.005
|
0.01
|
0.02
|
0.005
|
0.01
|
0.021
|
|
|
Citronella
|
|
|
Oregano
|
|
|
Rosemary
|
|
µL/cm2
Fig. 4. Repellent effect,
as repellency %, of citronella (a), oregano (b) and rosemary (c) essential
oils, Test#2.
|
% repellency
|
|
F. Licciardello
et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 19 (2013) 173–180
|
179
|
Citronella
Oregano
Rosemary
Control
100.00
|
80.00
|
|
|
|
|
60.00
|
|
|
|
|
40.00
|
|
|
|
|
20.00
|
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
24
|
48
|
|
|
-20.00
|
|
|
|
|
-40.00
|
time
(h)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fig. 5. Repellency of semolina packages
made with coated PP films, compared with
packages realized with control PP, against Tribolium
castaneum, in a preference test carried out with
20 adult insects.
could
be attained by coupling active films, as outer layers,
with materials having barrier properties to volatiles, as inner layers.
Moreover, the breakdown of active components in the repellent films
might occur, re-ducing their effectiveness with time, and innovative techniques
of immobilisation (nanocomposite materials, microencapsulation, use of
beta-cyclodextrins) could extend effectiveness for several years. Finally, it
should be taken into consideration that repellent packages would re-duce the
incidence of exogenous infestations and can only be synergistic with hygienic
prevention measures, since they have no effect on insects already present in
the packaged produce at any life stage. The widespread of repellent packaging
is currently limited by the lack of scientific
studies, therefore this work should encourage further investigation considering
active substances, doses, modes of application and target insects. The adoption
of repellent packaging could reduce the recourse to thick pack-aging films,
which ensure a certain level of prevention against insects at-tacks to
packages, and help fight overpackaging (i.e.
the use of higher volumes of plastic than strictly necessary). The potential of
essential oils could be the answer to the current search for environmental and
health-friendly solutions for the safeguard of foods. If packaging is the last
frontier against insect pests, then repellent packaging might repre-sent the
ultimate weapon for producers and consumers against pests at-tacks to packages.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the company Artibal for
supplying the active polymers. Thanks are given to Gobierno de Aragon and Fondo
Social Europeo for the financial help through
the GUIA group T-10
References
Batth, S. S. (1970). Insect penetration of aluminium-foil packages. Journal of
Economic Entomology, 63, 653–655.
Bekele, A. J., &
Hassanali, A. (2001). Blend effects in the toxicity of the essential oil
con- stituents of
Ocimum kilmandscharicum and Ocimum kenyense (Labiateae) on two Post-harvest insect pests. Phytochemistry, 57,
385–391.
Calton, G. J., Siemer,
S. R., & Wood, L. L. (2001). Slow release insect repellents. U.S. Patent
6,180,127.
Cline, L. D. (1978). Penetration of seven common flexible packaging materials by larvae and adults of eleven species of stored product
insects. Journal of Economic Entomology, 71, 726–729.
Domb, A. J. (1993).
Sustained release formulations of insect repellent. U.S. Patent 5,221,535.
Dominichini, G., &
Forti, D. (1975). Research on packaging materials resistant to the at- tacks of
insects. Presented at 1st Symposium on Control of parasites in the food indus- try and food
protection. Piacenza, Italy, 1972.
Essig, E. O., Hoskins, W. M., Linsley, E. G.,
Michelbacher, A. E., & Smith, R. F. (1943). A
report on the penetration of packaging
materials by insects. Journal of Economic En- tomology, 36,
822–826.
European Patent EP1657181. Antimicrobial packaging
based on the use of natural ex-tracts and the process to obtain this packaging.
Ezquerro, O., Pons, B., & Tena, M. T. (2003). Multiple headspace solid-phase microextraction for the quantitative determination of volatile
organic compounds in multilayer packag- ings. Journal
of Chromatography. A, 999, 155–164.
FDA. U.S. Food and Drug
Administration. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Volume 3, Revised as of
April 1, 2012, Sec. 182.20.
Gerhardt, P. D., & Lindgren, D. L. (1954). Penetration of various packaging films by com- mon
stored-product insects. Journal of Economic Entomology, 47, 282–287.
Gerhardt, P. D., & Lindgren, D. L. (1955). Penetration of additional packaging films by common stored-product insects. Journal of
Economic Entomology, 48, 108–109.
Germinara, G. S., Conte, A., Lecce, L., Di Palma,
A., & Del Nobile, M. A. (2010). Propionic
acid in bio-based packaging to prevent
Sitophilus granarius (L.) (Coleoptera, Dryophthoridae) infestation in cereal
products. Innovative Food Science and Emerg- ing
Technologies, 11(3), 498–502.
Goñi, P., López, P., Sánchez, C., Gómez-Lus, R.,
Becerril, R., & Nerín, C. (2009). Antimicro- bial activity
in the vapour phase of a combination of cinnamon and clove essential
oils. Food Chemistry, 116, 983–987.
Gutiérrez, L., Escudero, A., Batlle, R., &
Nerín, C. (2009). The effect of mixed antimicro- bial agents and
flavours in active packaging films. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 57, 8564–8571.
Gutiérrez, L., Sánchez, C., Batlle, R., López, P.,
& Nerín, C. (2009). New antimicrobial
active package for bakery products. Trends in
Food Science and Technology, 20(2), 92–99.
Hanlon, J. F., Kelsey,
R. J., & Forcinio, H. E. (1998). Handbook of package engineering. EEUU: CRC Press.
Highland, H. A., & Cline, L. D. (1986). Resistance to insect penetration of food pouches made of untreated polyester or
permethrin-treated polypropylene film. Journal of
Economic Entomology, 79, 527–529.
Highland, H. A., & Merritt, P. H. (1973). Synthetic pyrethroids as package treatments to prevent insect penetration. Journal of
Economic Entomology, 66, 540–541.
Highland, H. A., Simonaitis, R. A., & Boatright,
R. (1984). Insecticide-treated film wrap to protect small packages from infestation.
Journal of Economic Entomology, 77, 1269–1274.
Hou, X., Field, P., & Taylor, W. (2004). The effect of repellents on penetration into pack- aging by
stored-product insects. Journal of Stored Products Research, 40, 47–54.
Huang, Y., Lam, S. L., & Ho, S. H. (2000). Bioactivities of essential oils from Elletaria cardamomum (L.) to Sitophilus zeamais
Motschulsky and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). Journal of Stored Products Research,
36, 107–117.
Huang, Y., Tan, J., Kini, R. M., & Ho, S. H.
(1997). Toxic and antifeedant action of nutmeg oil against Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) and
Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. Journal of Stored Products Research, 33, 289–298.
Kolb, B. (1982). Multiple headspace extraction — A procedure for eliminating the influ- ence of the
sample matrix in quantitative headspace gas chromatography.
Langbridge, D. M. (1970). Treatment of paper to protect packaged food from
insect at- tack. Appita
Journal, 24, 45–51.
Lee, B. H., Annis, P. C., Tumaalii, F., & Choi,
W. S. (2004). Fumigant toxicityof essential oils from the Myrtaceae family and 1,8-cineole
against 3 major stored-grain in- sects. Journal
of Stored Products Research, 40, 553–564.
Licciardello, F., Cocuzza, G. E., Russo, A., &
Muratore, G. (2010). Quality maintenance
performance and resistance to Tribolium
castaneum and Plodia interpunctella pene- tration of an
alternative packaging material for semolina. Italian Journal of Food Sci- ence, 22(4),
461–466.
Licciardello, F., Del Nobile, M. A., Spagna, G.,
& Muratore, G. (2009). Scalping of
ethyloctanoate and linalool from a model wine
into plastic films. LWT- Food Science and Technology, 42, 1065–1069.
Licciardello, F., Muratore, G., Mercea, P., Tosa,
V., & Nerín, C. (2013). Diffusional behaviour of essential oil components
in active packaging polypropylene films
by Multiple Head-Space-Solid Phase Microextraction-Gas Chromatography
(MHS-SPME-GC-MS). Packaging Technology and Science, 26, 173–185.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pts.1969.
López, P., Huerga, M. A., Batlle, R., & Nerín,
C. (2006). Use of solid phase microextraction in diffusive sampling of the atmosphere
generated by different essential oils.
López, P., Sánchez, C., Batlle, R., & Nerín, C.
(2007a). Development of flexible antimicro- bial films using essential oils as active agents. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 55(21), 8814–8824.
López, P., Sánchez, C., Batlle, R., & Nerín, C.
(2007b). Vapor-phase activities of cinna- mon, thyme and
oregano essential oils and key constituents against food-borne microorganisms. Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry, 55(11), 4348–4356.
Navarro, S., Zehavi, D., Angel, S., & Finkelman,
S. (2007). Natural nontoxic insect repel- lent packaging
materials. Taylor and Francis. In C. L. Wilson (Ed.), Intelligent and
Active Packaging for Fruits and Vegetables
(pp. 336). New York, USA: CRC Press.
Nerín, C. (2012). Essential Oils In Active Packaging. Chapter 17 in
the book “Essential Oils as Natural Food Additives: Composition,
Applications, Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Properties. In Luca Valgimigli (Ed.), : Nova
Science Inc9781621002413.
Nerio, L. S., Olivero-Verbel, J., & Stashenko,
E. E. (2010). Repellent activity of essential oils: A review. Bioresource Technology, 101,
372–378.
Ogendo, J. O., Kostyukovsky, M., Ravid, U.,
Matasyoh, J. C., Deng, A. L., Omolo, E. O., et al. (2008). Bioactivity of Ocimum gratissimum L. oil and two
constituents against five insect pests attacking stored food products. Journal
of Stored Products Research, 44, 328–334.
Radwan, M. N., & Allin, G. P. (1997).
Controlled-release insect repellent device. U.S. Pat-ent 5,688,509.
Robertson, G. L. (2006). Food packaging: Principles and practice. Taylor and
Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar