Anal Bioanal Chem (2007) 389:589–596
DOI 10.1007/s00216-007-1462-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
Migration of organic compounds from a multilayer
plastic–paper material intended for food packaging
Cristina Nerín & Esther Asensio
Received: 18 April 2007 / Revised: 12 June 2007 / Accepted: 21 June 2007 / Published online: 7 August 2007
# Springer-Verlag 2007
Abstract This paper deals with the study of the kinetic
migration of a series of organic compounds representative
of potential contaminants in packaging materials and used
as surrogates (o-xylene, acetophenone, dodecane, naphtha-
lene, 2,3,4-trichloroanisole, benzophenone, isomeric mix of
diisopropylnaphthalene, diisobutyl phthalate and methyl
stearate). Migration to one side of a solid simulant, Tenax®,
also referred to as MPPO (modified polyphenylene oxide),
was investigated in this study. One spiked sample of
multilayer material was used to optimise the extraction
procedures for the multilayer paper-based material and the
Tenax as well as to perform kinetic migration studies. Three
sequential extractions using ethanol were necessary for the
strips of the multilayer material but only one extraction was
necessary for the solid simulant to obtain >70% recovery of
the surrogates. These results enabled us to specify the
extraction requirements of the multilayer sample and the
solid simulant and as well as those of the migration tests at
high temperature using Tenax as solid simulant. The matrix
effect associated with the extraction of the contaminants
from the multilayer sample is also discussed.
Keywords Food packaging . Kinetic migration tests .
Multilayer . Tenax® . Surrogates . Paper . Polyethylene
C. Nerín (*) : E. Asensio
Analytical Chemistry Department, University of Zaragoza,
CPS- Edif. Torres Quevedo. C/ María de Luna 3,
Zaragoza 50018, Spain
e-mail: cnerin@unizar.es
Introduction
The use of paper and board (P&B) as food packaging
material is prevalent in the food industry. It is used as
primary packaging in direct contact with dried foodstuffs,
as a layer in several multilayer structures, and as secondary
packaging. The recycled and multilayer material in contact
with the food must be analysed before it is used in order to
investigate the potential migrants that could be transferred
from the material to the food [1, 2]. A recently approved
proposal by the Council of Europe requires the control and
analysis of a series of contaminants in recycled paper and
board such as heavy metals, plasticisers, aromatic amines,
Michler’s ketone, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, benzophe-
none, diisopropylnaphthalenes (DiPN’s), fluorescent whit-
ening agents (FWA), pentachlorophenol (PCP), and residual
solvents, among others [3].
The parameters that should be applied in migration tests,
including the experimental conditions of temperature and
time of contact between the material and the food, as well
as the food simulants to use, have been established for
plastic materials [4]. For paper and board, the liquid
simulants commonly used for plastics are not appropriate,
and several solid simulants have been proposed in order to
study the migration of compounds. As part of of the EU
Project CT 98-4318, Tenax has been used as solid food
simulant, and real food such as icing sugar [5], flour and
bakery products [6], pasta, milk powder [7–8] and dry soup
[9–10] has been placed in contact with several paper
samples in order to study migration [11–12].
However, multilayer materials behave differently. Mi-
gration tests in these cases depend on the layer in contact
with the food, which can be either paper or plastic material.
In this case, simulant selection can prove problematic, and
it is often difficult to assess the contribution of each
590
material in the multilayer structure. Several authors [13–15]
have studied the adsorption isotherms and the migrations of
several model compounds and contaminants from different
paper structures. However, no information about how the
contaminants present in the paper layer migrate through a
multilayer structure has been presented. It is well known
that the migration depends on the diffusion coefficients of
the migrants in the material and obviously also on the
different materials present and whether they are coated or
laminated, since in this case the migrants have to cross
additional interfaces [8].
One of the critical points in the analysis of migrants is
the extraction of the paper samples. Most of the studies that
have been published about the analysis of components in
paper and board have employed solvent extraction with
ethanol [4] or toluene, in either a direct immersion or an
accelerated solvent extraction procedure (ASE) [16]. In this
case, the extraction of migrants from paper samples was
carried out with ethanol [2].
Through kinetic studies, the diffusion coefficients of the
migrants and the influence of variables such as the multilayer
composition, the sample thickness and the presence of
different coating layers, have been obtained. The research
work presented here corresponds to a study carried out as
part of the EU project mentioned above [17]. A multilayer
sample containing a combination of polyethylene–alumin-
ium–polyethylene (PE/Al/PE) on one side of the paper and
just polyethylene (PE) on the other was used for the study.
A cocktail of several model migrant compounds considered
to be common contaminants in paper samples [18] was
used. The selected complex multilayer sample was first
immersed in the cocktail of compounds and then the
extraction and analytical features of this spiked multilayer
structure were optimised. We then performed a kinetic
study on migration from the spiked multilayer structure to
Tenax (used as food simulant). The results of the study are
shown and discussed.
Material and methods
Reagents and solutions
The same criteria as those used by the FDA [19] and in
previous EU projects [20] were applied here and the
following contaminants were selected as surrogates: aceto-
phenone, benzophenone, diisobutyl phthalate (DiBP), iso-
meric mix of DiPN, n-dodecane, methyl stearate,
naphthalene, 2,3,4-trichloroanisole and o-xylene. In this
way, different chemical families are represented, as well as
the likely contaminants from the misuse of paper and board,
which could not be eliminated with the recycling system.
Standard solutions of these surrogates in ethanol at the
Anal Bioanal Chem (2007) 389:589–596
appropriate concentrations were used for calibration and to
prepare the spiked sample.
Modified polyphenylene oxide (Tenax®, TA) was used
as the solid food simulant (80–100 mesh, Supelco, Madrid,
Spain).
Apparatus
A Hewlett-Packard HP 6890 gas chromatograph (HP,
Wilmington, DE, USA), coupled to a Hewlett-Packard HP
5973 mass-selective (MS) detector with an SGL-5 GC
capillary column (60 m×0.25 mm i.d. and 0.25 μm film
thickness) was used. He C-50 (Carburos Metálicos,
Barcelona, Spain) was used as carrier gas. The GC program
used was as follows: injector temperature 260 °C; oven:
initial temperature 60 °C for 3 min, and then 15 °C/min rate
to 170 °C and hold for 3 min, 10 °C/min to 270 °C and
hold for 8 min. Splitless injection mode was used with a
splitless time of 1 min. The analyses were carried out in
SIM mode. The following characteristic masses were
selected (SIM mode): m/z 91 (o-xylene), m/z 105 (aceto-
phenone and benzophenone), m/z 57 (dodecane), m/z 128
(naphthalene), m/z 210 (2,3,4-trichloroanisole), m/z 197
(diisopropylnaphthalene isomers), m/z 149 (diisobutyl
phthalate) and m/z 74 (methyl stearate). Only the most
abundant ion was selected for each compound. Figure 1
shows the chromatograms obtained in SCAN mode and
SIM mode for calibration. Further studies validated these
ions for quantitative purposes [7].
Sample
The sample selected for the kinetic study was a multilayer
coated paper with the following properties: type = liquid
board triplex, pulp = bleached Kraft paper, 0% recycled
pulp, surface treatment = PE (35 μm)/Al (17 μm)/PE
(26 μm) inside layer and PE (16 μm) outside layer,
grammage = 358 g/m2, thickness = 549 μm. Strips of size
7 cm×1 cm of this sample were totally immersed in an
ethanol solution containing 250 μg/g of each of the nine
model compounds selected, all of them representative of
several common surrogates likely to be present in paper
samples. After two hours the strips were taken out and dried
at room temperature for about 30 min. They were then
stored in 20 mL vials that were hermetically closed and
stored at 4 °C before use. Strips were analysed just before
the migration study, following the procedure described
below.
Optimisation of the extraction procedure of the simulant
Before it was used, Tenax was cleaned with methanol (at
60 °C for 8 h) and then with hexane (at 40 °C for 8 h) in a
Anal Bioanal Chem (2007) 389:589–596
Fig. 1 Chromatograms obtained Abundance
in SCAN mode and SIM mode
700000
for calibration: 1, o-xylene;
2, acetophenone; 3, dodecane;
650000
4, naphthalene; 5, 2,3, 600000
550000
4-trichloroanisole;
6, benzophenone; 7, 2, 500000
6-diisopropylnaphthalene; 450000
8, diisobutyl phthalate; 9, methyl 400000
stearate 350000 1 5
300000
250000
200000
150000
2
100000
50000
0
Time--> 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00
Soxhlet. To optimise the extraction procedure from the
solid simulant, 0.26 g of Tenax in an open 20-mL vial were
spiked with 50 μL of a standard solution of the cocktail of
surrogates used as model compounds (1000 μg of each
surrogate/g ethanol). Then the open vials were placed in an
oven at room temperature for 1 h to evaporate the ethanol.
Three different extraction procedures were studied as
follows; the experiments were carried out in triplicate.
Test 1 One extraction of spiked Tenax was performed
with 3 mL of ethanol (2.37 g) and gentle shaking.
The extract was directly analysed by GC/MS. The
extract of ethanol was under gravimetric control.
Test 2 Two sequential extractions of spiked Tenax were
carried out. The first extraction used 5 mL of
ethanol and the second extraction used another
8 mL of ethanol. The two sequential extracts
together were concentrated in a rotary evaporator
at 40 °C until a final weight of 1.58 g of extract
was achieved. The final ethanol extract was
directly analysed by GC/MS.
Test 3 Three sequential extractions of spiked Tenax were
applied. The volumes of extraction solvent used
were 5 mL + 8 mL + 8 mL of ethanol. The three
sequential extracts were concentrated together in a
rotary evaporator at 40 °C until a final weight of
1.58 g of extract was obtained. The final ethanol
extract, which was gravimetrically controlled, was
directly analysed by GC/MS.
Optimisation of the extraction procedure for the paper
The optimisation of the extraction procedure for the
surrogates trapped in the paper strips was performed as
follows.
591
TIC: PBR10-SCAN
TIC: PBR10-SIM
7
9
8
4 6
3
Experiment 1 The spiked paper strips were cut into small
pieces and placed into a 20-mL septum vial;
2 mL of ethanol (1.58 g) were then added
as the extraction solvent and the vial was
sealed. The extraction of the surrogates into
the ethanol was performed by gently shak-
ing the vial for 30 min at room temperature.
The ethanol extract was then analysed
directly by GC/MS [2] and the concentra-
tions of the contaminants were determined
from the respective calibration plots
obtained with the external standard method.
Experiment 2 Two sequential extractions of the paper
strips were carried out. The first extraction
was done with 2 mL of ethanol and the
second extraction with another 2 mL of
ethanol. The two sequential extracts were
concentrated together in a rotary evapora-
tor at 40 °C until a final weight of 1.58 g of
extract was obtained. The final ethanol
extract was analysed directly by GC/MS.
Experiment 3 Three sequential extractions from the paper
strips were carried out using volumes of
2 mL + 2 mL + 2 mL. The three sequential
extracts were concentrated together in a
rotary evaporator at 40 °C until a final
weight of 1.58 g of extract was obtained.
The final ethanol extract was analysed
directly by GC/MS. All of the extracts were
gravimetrically controlled.
As for the Tenax, three independent experiments were
carried out. The experiments were carried out in triplicate.
All analyses of the spiked paper sample were performed at
least 48 hours after preparing the spiked sample, so that the
surrogates were linked to the matrix.
592 Anal Bioanal Chem (2007) 389:589–596

Table 1 Extraction recoveries for Tenax at room temperature, and the statistical significances of the differences obtained versus the number of
extractions

Compounds % Recovery (Tenax) ANOVA

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 p F

o-Xylene 45.98±2.88 11.27±2.19 6.62±0.09 0.976421 0.023956

Acetophenone 94.71±8.25 75.60±1.80 65.28±2.32 0.790054 0.245157
Dodecane 93.59±7.42 69.48±3.34 50.08±1.60 0.978227 0.022095
Naphthalene 78.05±6.22 68.09±3.86 54.88±2.30 0.948596 0.053239
Trichloroanisole 48.20±7.04 41.51±2.22 39.06±2.05 0.448808 0.918331
Benzophenone 86.68±3.90 88.51±4.06 90.07±2.52 0.310177 1.431846
Diisopropyl naphthalene 73.26±4.07 63.16±3.00 61.48±1.69 0.488921 0.808099
Dibutyl phthalate 88.63±9.12 108.95±6.65 103.99±2.11 0.719882 0.347348
Methyl stearate 86.60±8.84 87.85±8.80 81.54±3.49 0.671345 0.426147

Kinetic migration studies
Migration studies were carried out with the spiked strips of the
P&B sample (7 cm×1 cm). Each paper strip was placed in a
20 mL vial and the PE layer was completely covered with
0.26 g of Tenax [4]. The vial was then hermetically closed
and placed in horizontal position in the oven at 25 °C and
50 °C for the following periods [21]:
a) 25 °C for 6 h, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 days
b) 50 °C for 15 min, 30 min, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 23, 31 and 48 h.
These values were selected in order to assess the kinetic
performance of the samples, as previously described [22],
assuming that equilibrium was reached in each case at each
temperature.
Results and discussion
Analysis of the Tenax and the paper sample
The first variable of choice in an extraction procedure is the
solvent. Contaminants in paper samples that are intended
for contact with food are usually extracted with methanol or
ethanol [4], as these solvents are polar enough to extract the
most relevant contaminants, such as benzophenone, phthal-
ates, chloroanisols and DiPNs. For this reason, ethanol was
selected as the extraction solvent in which all of the
compounds under study could be solubilized.
As the spiking solution was also ethanol-based too, the
spiked samples were stored at room temperature for a
period of at least 48 h before being analysed. This ensured
that the contaminants would be trapped in the matrix in a
similar way to that the natural process.
Following the procedure described in the “Experimental”
section, the recoveries obtained using different extraction
tests were measured. Table 1 shows the recovery results
obtained for the extraction of Tenax. As can be seen, the
recoveries did not improve significantlyupon applying
sequential extraction. In fact, the opposite was observed
for the most volatile compounds, because sequential steps
also involve increases in both evaporation and the time
needed to remove the higher volume of solvent, which
results in a higher risk of volatilisation. Thus, it was
decided that it would be best to apply only one extraction
step to Tenax.
Table 2 shows the values obtained during the process of
optimising the extraction of spiked samples, as calculated

Table 2 Results obtained when optimising the extraction of the spiked multilayer sample

Compounds Unspiked sample Factor = (Ci,exp/C3,exp)×100 Number of extractions ANOVA

C0,exp (μg/dm2) 1 extraction 2 extractions p F

Acetophenone - 52.33±0.79 71.15±3.90 0.00067237 193.942478

Dodecane - 78.67±5.59 85.75±0.81 0.00076154 178.370997
Naphthalene - 61.84±1.55 78.69±1.74 0.00013455 569.762695
Trichloroanisole - 63.69±2.61 90.25±11.55 0.10587558 5.20235462
Benzophenone - 50.40±2.76 72.03±7.09 0.03626363 12.1912711
DiPN - 64.42±4.49 94.61±21.92 0.2172924 2.65012879
DBP 1.37 39.81±2.45 64.59±12.32 0.01061134 29.5630774
Methyl stearate - 45.78±0.71 72.33±3.23 0.00040819 271.095909
Anal Bioanal Chem (2007) 389:589–596
by applying the following equation:
Ci; exp

100 ¼ % recovery ð1Þ
C3; exp
Here Ci, exp is the concentration of each compound in
each extraction step (one or two sequential extractions). C3,
exp is the concentration found after the three sequential
extractions. Table 2 also shows the ratio of the concentra-
tion value obtained for each extraction over the maximum
concentration after the three extractions.
To obtain the recovery values, it is important to account
for the initial concentration of each compound in the paper
sample at room temperature before the kinetic studies are
performed, as some compounds were originally present in
the paper sample. However, the concentrations of some of
the compounds in the raw sample were very low, and the
interactions of the surrogates with both the paper matrix
and the coating layers were also different to the interactions
of the compounds in the raw sample. For this reason, it was
difficult to calculate the real recovery values. One useful
approach is to consider that the three sequential extractions
with ethanol will provide 100% extraction, in which case a
comparison with the values obtained after one and two
extractions yields the extraction profile.
When a significance test, such as a one-factor ANOVA,
is applied to the extraction data shown in Table 2,
significant differences in the amounts extracted during each
extraction step are observed for the different compounds.
Acetophenone, dodecane, naphthalene, benzophenone,
dibutyl phthalate and methyl stearate provided high
extraction efficiency after three sequential extractions from
the multilayer material, while o-xylene (which was not
detected), trichloroanisole and the DiPNs did not present
significant differences because of their high relative
standard deviation values. Therefore, three sequential
extraction of the paper sample is required to obtain
Fig. 2 Chromatograms obtained Abundance
in the kinetic migration experi-
ments carried out at 25 °C and 95000
50 °C for 48 h. 1, o-Xylene; 2,
acetophenone; 3, dodecane; 4,
85000
naphthalene; 5, 2,3,4-trichloroa- 75000
nisole; 6, benzophenone; 7, 2,6-
diisopropylnaphthalene; 8, dii- 65000
sobutyl phthalate; 9, methyl 55000
stearate
45000
35000
25000 3 4
15000 1 5
5000 2
0
Time--> 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00
593
acceptable recoveries. Consequently, the new concentra-
tions of the surrogates in the multilayer sample were
obtained after three sequential extractions.
Kinetic migration studies
Once the surrogates released by the multilayer samples
were identified, we investigated their migration to Tenax,
which had been selected as the solid food simulant in line
with the proposal from the Council of Europe [4]. The final
migration values and results from kinetic studies performed
at different temperature values and for different contact
times between the samples and the Tenax were all recorded.
For the migration study, the 16-μm layer of PE, called the
outer plastic layer, was placed in contact with Tenax. In this
way, the influence of the PE coating on the migration of the
surrogates could be studied. Figure 2 shows the chromato-
grams obtained in the kinetic migration experiments carried
out at 25 °C and 50 °C for 48 h.
After each migration test, the solid simulant was
analysed according to the experimental procedure described
above. The amount of migration was calculated as the ratio
between the concentration of each compound in the Tenax
(CTenax) and the initial concentration in the spiked sample
(Cinitial, paper), as expressed in the following equation:


C Tenax μg dm2
% Migration ¼ 

100 ð2Þ
C initial;paper μg dm2
Here, all of the concentrations are expressed in μg of
compound per dm2 of paper sample. In this way, the
migrated mass is assumed to be that contained in the solid
simulant.
Figure 3a,b shows how the migration evolves over time
at 25 °C for all of the model compounds after correcting for
7
TIC: Sample25C-48h
TIC: Sample50C-48h
8
6
9
594 Anal Bioanal Chem (2007) 389:589–596

a Migration behaviour of surrogates at 25 C with Tenax as b Migration behaviour of surrogates at 25 C with Tenax as
simulant 100 simulant
100
90

% migration Ctenax/Cinitial,paper*100
90
% migration Ctenax/Cinitial,paper*100

80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20 20

10 10

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (hours) Time (hours)

o-xylene acetophenone dodecane naphthalene trichloroanisole benzophenone 2,6-DiPN Dibutyl phthalate methyl stearate
Fig. 3 Migration of (a) volatile and (b) nonvolatile surrogates into Tenax (the solid simulant) at 25 °C

the extraction recoveries of both the Tenax and the paper layers are probably different, after approximately 150 h the
sample. The low recoveries obtained could be attributed to concentrations of the volatile compounds released increase
the presence of the polyethylene layer, which efficiently again. This behaviour can be attributed to the contribution of
traps alkanes. the 26 g/m2 PE layer behind the paper. A concentration
Since all these tests were carried out in closed vials, gradient from this PE layer to the Tenax is established, which
equilibrium will be reached between the two solid phases, largely explains the migration. The profiles in Fig. 3a indicate
which includes the surrogates in the Tenax, the paper that the surrogates move through the different layers at
sample, and the vapour phase. slightly different rates, which confirms the different diffusion
As can be seen, at 25 °C the migration behaviour is coefficients in different materials measured by several authors,
nonlinear and the profile obtained is a consequence of the who established that the migration occurs more rapidly in the
different diffusion coefficients of these surrogates in the PE than in paper [23].
different layers. In fact, the surrogates are released from However, for the nonvolatile compounds such as
the external layer until the equilibrium is reached, which occurs benzophenone, 2,6-DiPN, DBP and methyl stearate, the
after about 75 h for volatile compounds. However, as the amount of compound that has migrated gradually increases
diffusion coefficients of the surrogates through the different over time and finally reaches equilibrium. In this case, the

Fig. 4 Migration of surrogates

into Tenax (solid simulant) at
Migration behaviour of surrogates at 50°C with Tenax as
50 °C simulant
100
90
% migration (Ctenax/Cinitial*100)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (hours)
acetophenone dodecane naphthalene trichloroanisole
2,6-DiPN dibutyl phthalate methyl stearate
Anal Bioanal Chem (2007) 389:589–596
final values are considerably lower that those obtained for
volatile compounds, even at room temperature.
Figure 4 shows the migration behaviour over time at 50 °C
for all model contaminants.
The migration behaviour at 50 °C was found to be
somewhat different to that at 25 °C; continuously increas-
ing time profiles were obtained for both the volatile and the
nonvolatile compounds (although a plateau was observed
after 30 h of contact time). This behaviour suggests that the
diffusion coefficients of these surrogates in both paper and
PE increase with temperature, and so equilibrium is reached
more quickly in the multilayer structure (PE-paper) at 50 °C
than at 25 °C. Consequently, the amount of surrogate that
has migrated increases with time, as expected.
When the extraction process is applied to the paper
sample before the migration test, all of the analytes are
distributed equally among the different layers of the
multilayer structure. The extraction process probably
removes the compounds from the closest layers to the
surface (Cinitial, paper). However, when the sample is heated,
the diffusion coefficients of the compounds increase and so
they migrate to the paper/PE interface and become
concentrated on the PE surface, from where they are
trapped in the Tenax (CTenax). This process requires both
time and increased temperature, and only happens with the
volatile compounds (acetophenone, dodecane and naphtha-
lene) because they are of lower molecular weight and also
more heavily influenced by the temperature. In this case the
equilibrium is reached after 8 h at 50 °C.
In general, the amount of nonvolatile surrogate (2,3,4-
trichloroanisole, 2,6-DiPN, DiBP and methyl stearate) that
has migrated also increases with both time and temperature
until equilibrium is reached. The amount of surrogate that
has migrated increases more slowly after 10 h of contact for
the volatile compounds, and up to 100% of these
compounds present in the material can migrate. This is an
important finding that allows us to gauge the behaviour of
this type of multilayer material.
The migration plot shown in Fig. 4 shows that it is
difficult to achieve complete migration for 2,3,4-trichlor-
oanisole, 2,6-DiPN, DiBP and methyl stearate. These
values can help us to predict the migrations of these
common contaminants of recycled paper during short-
contact applications, such as for the boxes used to carry
pizza and other takeaway foods.
Conclusions
Several interesting conclusions can be made based on the
results of the study described here. Tenax is a good
adsorbent and a useful solid paper or board simulant, even
595
when it is heated to 50 °C. Under these conditions, the
capacity of Tenax for thermal desorption during a sampling
step or a migration study is negligible, and the results
obtained for migration into it are valid.
The multilayer structure of the sample has a strong
influence on how the migration evolves over time and with
temperature. Based on the composition of the multilayer
sample, the kinetic behaviour of some compounds can be
predicted. The migration of 2,3,4-trichloroanisole, 2,6-
DiPN, DiBP and methyl stearate did not reach 100%,
which means that multilayer structures are safer than paper
monolayers if they are likely to be contaminated with these
compounds [22].
The presence of a PE layer in the structure strongly
influences the migration behaviour, trapping alkanes such
as dodecane nonreversibly.
Acknowledgements EU Project CT98-4318 and Project CAL01-
084 from the Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agroalimentaria
(INIA, Spain) financed this work.
References
1. Damant A, Castle L (1999) In: Proc Pira Int Symp on Paper in
Contact with Foodstuffs, 16 Dec 1999, Edinburgh, UK
2. Nerín C, Asensio E, Jiménez C (2002) Anal Chem 74:5831–5836
3. CoE (2002) Partial agreement in the social and public health
fields, technical socument no. 2. Council of Europe, Strasbourg
4. CEN (1998) European prestandard ENV 1186–13, pt 13.
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
5. Aurela B, Kulmala H, Söderhjelm L (1999) Food Addit Contam
12:571–577
6. Cooper I, Summerfield W (2001) Food Addit Contam 18:77–88
7. Nerín C, Asensio E (2002) Worldpack 2002. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, 2:1181–1190
8. Nerín C, Contín E, Asensio E (2007) Anal Bioanal Chem
387:2283–2288
9. Boccacci M, Chiacchierini E, Gesumundo C (1999) Food Addit
Contam 16:207–213
10. Parry SJ, Aston DS (2004) Food Addit Contam 5:506–511
11. Piringer O, Wolff E, Pfaff K (1993) Food Addit Contam 10:621–
629
12. Sarriá Vidal M, De la Montaña Domínguez J, Simal Gándara J
(1997) J Agric Food Chem 45:2701–2707
13. Simoneau C, Raffael B (2002) In: Final Project Workshop: EU-
Project FAIR-CT-98-4318 on “Recyclability”, 10–11 Feb 2002,
Varese, Italy
14. Franz R, Mauer A, Welle F (2004) Food Addit Contam 21:265–
286
15. Triantafyllou VI, Akrida-Demertzi K, Demertzis PG (2005) J
Chromatogr A 1077(1):74–79
16. Jiménez C (2000) Internal report. CPS University of Zaragoza,
Zaragoza
17. Franz R (2004) Food Addit Contam 19:S93–S110
18. Castle L, Offen CP, Baxter MJ (1997) Food Addit Contam 14:35–
44
596
19. FDA (1994) Code of Federal Regulations 21. Food and Drug
Administration, Washington, DC, pp 170–199
20. CoE (2002) Policy statement concerning paper and board
materials and articles intended to come into contact with
foodstuffs. http://www.coe.int/soc-sp. Cited 4 July 2007
21. Franz R, Project Partners (2003) Final report on the programme
on the recyclability of food packaging materials with respect to
food safety considerations—polyethylene terephthalate (PET),
Anal Bioanal Chem (2007) 389:589–596
paper and board and plastic covered by functional barriers (Project
FAIR CT-98-4318).
22. EU Project CT98-4318. Programme on the recyclability of food
packaging materials with respect to food safety considerations—
polyethylene terephthalate (PET), paper and board and plastic
covered by functional barriers.
23. Stoffers NH, Brandsch R, Bradley EL, Cooper I, Dekker M,
Störmer A, Franz R (2005) Food Addit Contam 22(2):173–184