MEAT

SCIENCE
Meat Science 77 (2007) 238–245
www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

Kinetic migration studies from packaging films into meat products

A. Sanches Silva a, J.M. Cruz a, R. Sendón Garcı´a a, R. Franz b, P. Paseiro Losada a,*

a
Department of Analytical Chemistry, Nutrition and Bromatology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Santiago de Compostela,
15782-Santiago de Compostela, Spain
b
Fraunhofer Institute for Process Engineering and Packaging IVV, Giggenhauser Street 35, 85354 Freising, Germany

Received 18 May 2006; received in revised form 5 December 2006; accepted 9 March 2007

Abstract

One of the main concerns regarding safety of food packaging is the possible migration of chemical substances (monomers and other
starting substances, additives, residues) from food contact materials into foods.
To evaluate the effect of the fat content and of the temperature of storage on the migration from plastics packaging films into meat
products as an important class of foodstuffs, the kinetic mass transport of a model migrant (diphenylbutadiene) from low density poly-
ethylene (LDPE) film in contact with different meat products was investigated. From the data, the diffusion coefficients were calculated
for the applied test conditions, by use of a mathematical model.
The results showed that migration increased with fat content and storage temperature. Analysis of migration data corresponding to
minced pork meat containing different amounts of fat, stored for 10 days at 25 C, revealed an excellent relationship between migration
level and fat content. This behaviour was also found for other types of meat products (chicken and pork neck).
A simplifying mathematical model was applied to derive effective diffusion coefficients in the polymer which, however, do take kinetic
effects in the meat also into account. In the case of pork meat contact, the effective diffusion coefficients derived from mathematical mod-
elling were ten times higher for storage at 25 C (1.88 · 109 cm2 s1) than for storage at 5 C (1.2 · 1010 cm2 s1).
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Food safety; Packaging; LDPE; Meat products; Migration; Mathematical modelling

1. Introduction ents to foodstuffs in quantities that could endanger human

Consumers are no longer only interested in sensory
aspects of meat quality and nowadays tend to take a more
holistic view of the concept of the ‘‘quality’’ of meat prod-
ucts and food safety. Safety is now of paramount concern
in the food industry in general, and particularly in the meat
industry. One of the most important processes that occurs
as result of packaging food is migration, defined as the
mass transfer of substances from the packaging material
to the foodstuff.
The European Union (EU) regulations state that food
contact materials (FCM) must not transfer their constitu-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 981 598450; fax: +34 981 594912.
E-mail address: qnpaseir@usc.es (P. Paseiro Losada).
health or bring about an unacceptable change in the compo-
sition, or deterioration of the organoleptic characteristics
(Regulation, 1935/2004). Plastic materials are specifically
regulated by EU Commission Directive, 2002/72/EC, which
establishes a positive list that includes all monomers, other
starting substances and additives that can be used for man-
ufacturing FCM, as well as restrictions to migration levels
of those chemicals into foodstuffs. The use of substances
not included in the list is forbidden. Therefore, the possible
transfer of constituents that could endanger human health is
known (Piringer, 1994).
In order to guarantee food safety, the possibility of per-
forming migration tests under strictly controlled conditions
is taken into account in the prevailing legislation. The
results of these strict tests must demonstrate, on the basis

0309-1740/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.03.009
 A. Sanches Silva et al. / Meat Science 77 (2007) 238–245
of scientific evidence, that migration levels are equal to or
higher than those achieved under real storage conditions,
i.e., the tests represent a ‘‘worst case’’ scenario.
Time-consuming, expensive analyses must be carried out
to determine migration. In many cases, there are associated
analytical difficulties or analytical methods are not avail-
able (Begley et al., 2005). It is also difficult to analyse food
simulants (media that mimic the behaviour of foods) when
the migrant is present at a low concentration (Feigenbaum
et al., 2002). Nevertheless the most difficult matrices to
analyse are foodstuffs, because of the diversity of potential
interferences (Quinto Fernández, Pérez Lamela, & Simal
Gándara, 2003).
Several studies have revealed that migration from a plas-
tic to a liquid substance is a theoretically predictable phys-
ical process (Brandsch, Mercea, Tosa, & Piringer, 2002). In
the United States, the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) uses the estimation of potential migration levels
as an additional tool in support of regulatory decisions
(Begley, 1997b). Nowadays, migration estimation is also
accepted in the EU legislation (EU Commission Directive,
2002/72/EC), and valid models based on scientific evidence
can be applied to test for compliance with existing regula-
tions. This saves experimental testing, time and economic
resources for both the food industry and the legislating
organizations, and should allow greater confidence in the
safety of foodstuffs. Nevertheless when the mathematical
predictions indicate non-compliance with the legislation,
the migration values must be confirmed by laboratory
testing.
When the model predicts a certain level of migration
that is not consistent with the analytical evidence, this sug-
gests that something is wrong. The additive may be react-
ing in the polymer or with the food/food simulant to
produce ‘‘new’’ compounds that are not being detected
(Begley, 1997a). Therefore, mathematical models are highly
valuable tools and are nowadays used in several research
fields. In the specific case of migration, they are used in
support of regulations for FCM.
Nevertheless, in some cases, mathematical models may
not predict migration into foods as well as they should
because of the scarce amount of information available
regarding real food matrices (Brandsch et al., 2002; Euro-
pean Commission, 2003).
The aim of the present study was to generate reliable
migration data concerning meat products. The study was
carried out within the framework of the ‘‘FOODMIGRO-
SURE’’ project (2002), the overall objective of which is to
provide a novel and economic mathematical model for esti-
mation of migration from plastics food contact materials
into foodstuffs and thereby consumer exposure to packag-
ing related chemicals.
Diphenylbutadiene (DPBD) which has previously been
used as model migrant was selected also in this study as a
test substance because of its stability, polarity, purity,
molecular weight and above all its availability in a certified
reference material and in other well defined LDPE films
239
(Castle, Honeybone, Irvine, Read, & Boenke, 2000; Spe-
cific Migration EU project, 2000; Stoffers et al., 2004).
Migration levels of DPBD from LDPE into different
types of meat products (chicken, pork neck and pork loin
meat) were evaluated. Furthermore, in order to study the
effect of fat content on DPBD migration, different amounts
of pork fat were added to pork loin to provide meat sam-
ples with higher and more precisely defined fat contents.
Diffusion and partition coefficients were also calculated
according to a mathematical model based on Fick’s Second
Law, and the results are discussed in terms of the parame-
ters that may have the greatest effect on migration (fat con-
tent and storage temperature).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Polymeric film/Plastic
The film used was a candidate certified reference mate-
rial (CRM) for specific migration testing. It is an LDPE
film (thickness 444 lm; density 0.912 g/cm3) spiked with
1,4-diphenyl-1,3-butadiene (DPBD) (CAS no. 538-81-8,
MW = 206.29) and was produced by Fraunhofer IVV
(Freising, Germany) according to a defined and recogni-
sed protocol (Specific Migration EU project, 2000;
O’Brien, Cooper, & Tice, 1997; Stoffers et al., 2004).
The initial concentration of the migrant in the polymer
(Cp,0) was 121.4 mg kg1 ± 3.1% which corresponds to
an area related maximum migration value of 491.6
lg/dm2.
2.2. Sampling
Several types of meat were chosen for analysis: chicken
breast, pork neck meat and minced pork meat and mixed
with different amounts of raw pork fat, to provide meat
with 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% and 50% extra pork fat. All meats
were bought in a local supermarket and stored at two dif-
ferent temperatures: 5 C, (refrigeration temperature) and
25 C (room temperature). A total of 10 samples were pre-
pared for each kinetic curve for a given meat item and tem-
perature. For each kinetic time point two samples were
removed and analysed as described below.
2.3. Contact plastic/foods
Samples were accurately weighed (approximately 10 g)
to fill a glass washer of 0.0989 dm2 diameter (the ratio food
weight/contact plastic area was approximately 10 dm2/kg)
and 0.8 cm high, and were then placed in contact with
the plastic containing the DPBD (one side only). Sodium
azide (0.1% (w/w)) was added to prevent microbial spoilage
of the meat. Samples were then wrapped in aluminium foil
and placed inside a transparent plastic bag.
The samples were vacuum packed to achieve an intimate
contact between the meat and the test film, and were then
stored under the different conditions.
240 A. Sanches Silva et al. / Meat Science 77 (2007) 238–245
2.4. Chemicals and standard solutions
All reagents were analytical grade. Ethanol, acetonitrile
(ACN) and hexane were obtained from Merck (Darmstadt,
Germany). Ultrapure water was prepared using a Milli-Q
filter system (Millipore, Bedford, MA, USA). Diphenylbut-
adiene (DPBD) (purity 98%) was supplied by Aldrich.
A primary stock solution of DPBD was prepared in eth-
anol (1.0 mg/ml). Intermediate standard solutions of
DPBD were prepared in ACN and hexane (0.1–10.0
lg/ml). Solutions were stored in a refrigerator.
2.5. Sample preparation
Extraction of DPBD was performed as follows: 10 ±
0.01 g of sample was homogenised with an ultra-turrax
homogenizer and extracted with 20 ml of hexane by shak-
ing for 20 min. The organic phase was separated by centri-
fugation (1036g for 20 min). Extraction was repeated with
20 ml hexane and the supernatants were then pooled and
evaporated in a rotary evaporator. The fatty liquid residue
obtained was extracted with 2 · 20 ml ACN. Collected
phases were evaporated in the rotary evaporator and re-
dissolved with 10 ml of ACN (v/v). Finally, the solution
was filtered and a 50 ll aliquot injected into the HPLC.
2.6. Chromatographic conditions
The HPLC system (Hewlett-Packard, Waldbronn, Ger-
many) was fitted with a HP1100 quaternary pump, a deg-
assing device, an autosampler, a column thermostating
system and a diode array UV detector.
An HP ChemStation chromatographic software was
used for data acquisition. Chromatographic separation
was performed with a Kromasil 100 C18 column
(15 cm · 0.4 cm I.D., 5 lm particle size) (Teknokroma,
Barcelona, Spain) at 30 C.
A gradient elution method was used. Within the first
2 min the mobile phase was 65% ACN/35% water, after
which the proportion of ACN was increased to 100%
within 15 min. The total run time of each analysis was 30
min to ensure that the column was cleaned between sam-
ples. The flow-rate was 1.0 ml/min (Sendón, Sanches-Silva,
& Paseiro, 2004).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Migration levels
For comparison purposes in relation to the maximum
possible migration it should be noted that the area related
migration potential of DPBD in the test film was 491.6
lg/dm2.
The migration levels in different meat products (chicken,
pork neck and minced pork loin) were studied during sev-
eral days and were found to be strongly affected by fat con-
tent and storage temperature (Figs. 1 and 2). The fat and
water contents of the meat products under study (accord-
ing to the USDA database (SR17, 2001)) are shown in
Table 1.
Lean meat was selected because it is difficult to stan-
dardize the fat content of fresh meat. Different amounts
of raw pork fat (0%, 10%, 20%, 30% and 50%) were added
(Table 2) and samples were homogenised.
3.1.1. The effect of storage temperature
For minced pork meat the expected observation was
confirmed: the higher the storage temperature the higher
the migration levels (Fig. 1). For instance, for minced pork
meat with 50% plus of pork fat the migration after 10 days
of storage was approximately 90 lg/dm2 at 5 C and
approximately 160 lg/dm2 at 25 C.
This was also true for pork neck but for chicken, there
was no difference between migration achieved at 5 C and
25 C (Fig. 2). This was probably because of the migration
in chicken (<15 lg/dm2) was closer to the minimum quan-
tification level.
3.1.2. The effect of fat content
Comparison among minced pork meat, chicken and
pork neck showed the following order of migration levels
(after 10 days at 25 C): chicken < minced + 0% of added
pork fat < pork neck. At 25 C migration increased with
increasing fat content. At 5 C, the migration was also
higher in pork neck meat, which has the highest fat content
of the meats studied.
Comparison among minced pork meat with different
amounts of added fat (Fig. 1) clearly showed that the
migration increased with increasing fat content and that
in most cases the increase was linear. Only at 25 C, for
higher fat contents (higher than 17% fat) the migration
level did not appear to increase linearly in relation to fat
content.
There is little information available in the scientific lit-
erature as regards migration of DPBD from LDPE into
foodstuffs. Castle et al. (2000) evaluated migration in a
wide range of foodstuffs using a LDPE film of 149.7 lm
thickness and contaminated with 12.58 mg of DPBD per
kg (17.3lg/dm2) Migration levels for chicken portions
and pork steak were 1.5 and 1.4 lg/dm2 after 7 days stor-
age at 4 C. Nevertheless, these results cannot be com-
pared with those of the present study because a different
film (higher thickness and migration potential) and stor-
age conditions were tested. Moreover, diffusion parame-
ters, which could be compared with the present study,
cannot be calculated because migration kinetics were not
studied.
3.2. Mathematical models and determination of key
parameters
To assess migration of additives and contaminants from
food-packaging films, mathematical modelling based on
Fick’s second Law (Eq. (1)) was used. This differential
 A. Sanches Silva et al. / Meat Science 77 (2007) 238–245 241

a 140
D = 1.20x10
-10 2
cm /s
__ + 0% fat
120 RMSE = 1.85%
KP/F = 720.9

100 --- + 10% fat

DPBD (µg / dm2)

RMSE = 2.88%
KP/F = 128.7
80
--- + 20% fat
RMSE = 0.79%
60
KP/F = 94.9

40 ___x + 30% fat

RMSE = 1.89%
KP/F = 54.6
20
_._ + 50% fat
RMSE = 0.94%
0 KP/F = 34.7
0 5 10 15 20
Time (days)

b 200
-09 2
D = 1.88x10 cm /s
180
_ + 0% fat
160 RMSE = 1.81%
KP/F = 419.1
140
---
DPBD (µg / dm2)

+ 10% fat
120 RMSE = 3.93%
KP/F = 75.1
100
--- + 20% fat
80 RMSE = 3.15%
KP/F = 50.1
60
___x + 30% fat
40 RMSE = 1.91%
KP/F = 37.5
20
_._ + 50% fat
0 RMSE = 5.34%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 K P/F = 35.3

Time (days)

Fig. 1. Migration of DPBD in pork minced meat at 5 C (a) and at 25 C (b).

equation describes migration of an additive or contaminant with

from an amorphous polymeric packaging film:
1 VF
oC p o2 C p a¼
¼D 2 ð1Þ K P=F VP
ot ox
where, Cp (mg/kg) is the concentration of the migrant in where mF,t is the mass of migrant from P into F after time
the packaging film at time t (s) and position x and D is t (lg); A, the area of P in contact with F (cm2); CP,0, the
the diffusion coefficient (cm2/s). initial concentration of migrant in P (mg/kg); qP, the den-
Eq. (1) can be resolved to express the amount of migrant sity of P (g/cm3); t the migration time (s); dp, the thickness
released from the polymer (P) into food (F) at time t and of P (cm); VP, the volume of P (cm3); VF, the volume of
expressed as (Brandsch et al., 2002; Crank, 1975; Piringer, F (cm3); qn the positive roots of the equation tan qn =
1994): a Æ qn; DP, the diffusion coefficient of migrant in
  P (cm2/s); KP/F, the partition coefficient of the migrant be-
mF;t a tween P and F.
¼ cP;0 qP d P
A 1þa To allow working with this model also in the investi-
" !#
X 1
2að1 þ aÞ q2n gated polymer–meat contact cases instead of DP, an effec-
 1 exp Dp t 2 ð2Þ tive (for the whole polymer–meat system) diffusion
n¼1
1 þ a þ a2 q2n dP
coefficient D is introduced. In the following DP will be
242 A. Sanches Silva et al. / Meat Science 77 (2007) 238–245

20.0

18.0

16.0
5ºC
D = 1.30x10-12 cm 2/s
14.0 RMSE = 0.300%
DPBD (µg / dm2)

KP/F = 163.8
12.0

10.0 25ºC
D = 2.86x10-12 cm 2/s
RMSE = 0.896%
8.0
KP/F = 383.5

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (days)

80.0

70.0

60.0 5ºC
D = 6.41x10-12 cm 2/s
DPBD (µg / dm2)

RMSE = 0.227%
50.0 KP/F = 316.2

40.0 25ºC
D = 5.41x10-11 cm 2/s
RMSE = 0.719%
30.0
KP/F = 78.4

20.0

10.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (days)

Fig. 2. Migration of DPBD in chicken (a) and in pork neck (b).

replaced where appropriate by this effective D value. In this are. Nevertheless, because of the considerable amount of
way a simplified but pragmatic mathematical model can be work involved in the calculation, and in order to make the
applied. estimation feasible, 12 roots (1 6 n 6 12) were calculated
In order to predict theoretical migration, the first step was for 0.01 6 a 6 1000.
to calculate the positive roots of equation tan qn =  a qn. In the present study, when migration levels were lower
The greater the number of roots, the more reliable the results than 35 lg/dm2, Eq. (2) did not provide a good fit because
it requires a very large number of roots, and therefore Eq.
(3) was used (Crank, 1975; Han, Selke, Downes, & Harte,
Table 1
Fat and water contents of the meat products studied, according to the
2003).
" #
USDA database X 1
M F;t 2að1 þ aÞ Dq2n t
Foodstuff Fat Water ¼1 exp ð3Þ
content (%) content (%)
M F;1 n¼1
1 þ a þ a2 q2n L2p
Pork meat (fresh, loin, sirloin (chops or 4.22 73.55
roasts), boneless, separable lean only, raw) Table 2
Pork fat (Pork, fresh, separable fat, raw) 47.64 41.89 Total fat content of tested pork minced meat products used to study
Pork neck (fresh, loin, sirloin (chops or 6.31 71.93 migration
roasts), boneless, separable lean and fat, Pork minced meat
raw)
Added pork fat (%) 0 10 20 30 50
Chicken (broilers or fryers, breast, meat only, 1.24 74.76
raw) Total fat content (%) 4.2 8.6 12.9 17.2 25.9
 A. Sanches Silva et al. / Meat Science 77 (2007) 238–245 243

With MF,t, the migrant amount in food at time t; MF,1, the material, on the basis of specific migration limits for testing
migrant amount in food at equilibrium; a, the mass ratio of compliance.
migrant in food to that in packaging film at equilibrium; D, SML  V F  qP
the diffusion coefficient of the system packaging + food MIC ¼      
a
P
1
2að1þaÞ q2n
and Lp, the thickness of packaging film. A  qP d P 1þa
 1  1þaþa2 q2 exp Dp t d 2
n P
Eq. (3) can be simplified in order to obtain the follow n¼1

equation:
M F;t
¼ ð1 þ aÞ½1  ex erfcðx0:5 Þ ð4Þ
M F;1
With x ¼ aDt
2 L2
p Eq. (6) is therefore a useful tool for calculating MIC for
Experimental data were fitted to the proposed model
(Eqs. (2) or (3)) using commercial software (Solver of
Microsoft Excel 2003), by non-linear regression. From
the series of experimental data on migration level
(lg/dm2) versus time, the model parameters a and D were
calculated for each sample and storage temperature. D val-
ues for pork minced meat, pork neck and chicken at 5 and
25 C are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. For minced pork meat
mixed with different amounts of raw pork fat an average
of D values at 5 and 25 C was used.
In order to measure the fit between experimental and
estimated data, the % root of the mean-square error (%
RMSE) was calculated as (Helmroth, Dekker, & Han-
kemeier, 2002):
ð6Þ
where all the parameters apply as for Eq. (2) and
SML = specific migration limit, (mg/kg) and MIC = max-
imum initial concentration of migrant in P, (mg/kg).
any migrant with a SML, using the a and Dp values calcu-
lated by Eq. (2).
3.2.1. The effect of storage temperature on the diffusion
coefficient
The values of the effective diffusion coefficients increased
with storage temperature; for minced pork meat,
D5 C = 1.2 · 1010 cm2/s and D25 C = 1.88 · 109 cm2/s
and for pork neck, D5 C = 6.41 · 1012 cm2/s and
D25 C = 5.41 · 1011 cm2/s, i.e., D at 25 C was approxi-
mately ten times higher than D at 5 C.
For chicken there was only a slight difference between the
diffusion coefficients for the two storage temperatures
(D5 C = 1.3 · 1012 cm2/s and D25 C = 2.86 · 1012 cm2/s).

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
1 u X N
RMSEð%Þ ¼ t1 ððM F;t Þexperimental;i  ðM F;tÞ Þð predicted;iÞ  100
2
ð5Þ
C p;0 N i¼1

with N, the number of experimental points per migration 3.2.2. The effect of fat content
curve and i, the number of observations. In Section 3.1.2 we have already observed that migra-
A good correlation was found between experimentally tion increased with fat content and that the increase was
obtained migration values and those estimated by Eq. (2) linear. To evaluate the importance of this factor on the dif-
or (3) (RMSE lower than 5%, except for pork minced meat
with 50% added pork fat at 25 C). RMSE % data are given 0.05
in Figs. 1 and 2 legend.
0.045
The partition coefficient (KP/F) was calculated from the
(at 5ºC) y = 0.0018x - 0.004
a value and polymer and food volumes. The VP for all 0.04
(at 25ºC) R2 = 0.9829
assays was 0.439 cm3 and the VF was 7.912 cm3. The 0.035
KP/F values calculated for all foodstuffs studied are shown
in Figs. 1 and 2. 0.03

The parameters that determine the migration process are 1

0.025
KP/F
Dp, respectively D, and KP/F, where KP/F corresponds to
0.02
the relative solubility of the migrant at equilibrium between y = 0.0013x - 0.004
R2 = 0.9904
the plastic and the foodstuff (Begley et al., 2005). 0.015
According to Gandek et al. the dependence of the KP/F 0.01
on temperature appears to be much lower than the depen-
dence of Dp on temperature (Chung, Papadakis, & Yam, 0.005

2002). However, the temperature dependency of KP/F was 0

great enough to be included in the model in the present 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total fat content (%)
study.
Eq. (2) can be rearranged for estimating the maximum Fig. 3. Correlation between fat content and 1
K P=F
values for pork minced
initial concentration (MIC) of migrant in the food contact meat at 5 and 25 C.
244 A. Sanches Silva et al. / Meat Science 77 (2007) 238–245
fusion process, the fat content of pork minced meat (with
different amounts of added fat) was plotted against a values
(Fig. 3). The correlation was extremely high (r2 = 0.990 at
5 C and r2 = 0.983 at 25 C) considering that food matri-
ces are heterogeneous and complex, that during the analyt-
ical procedure there are many factors to be taken into
account and that duplicates are completely independent
assays. At 5 C the relationship was linear for the whole
range of fat contents assayed (4–26%), but at 25 C the
relationship was not linear for fat contents higher than
17%. For fat contents higher than 17% it appears that
the migration level does not increase in direct relation to
the fat content.
Although one of the pork meats studied was minced and
the other (pork neck) was not, there was a relationship
between the a value estimated for pork neck Eq. (2) and
that estimated for pork minced meat with a fat content
similar to the pork neck.
4. Conclusions
Reliable migration data concerning meat products and
effective diffusion parameters were estimated according to
an approximative mathematical model based on Fick’s
Second Law.
Fat content strongly affected the migration of DPBD
from the polymer into the meat products. Moreover, stor-
age temperature affected the migration of DPBD from the
polymer into the pork meat products just as strongly and
also had a strong effect on the diffusion coefficients. Parti-
tion coefficients were correlated with fat content.
Taking into account that there is very little data avail-
able in the scientific literature regarding food matrices,
the most important contribution of the present study is
the validation of the applied simplified migration model
using effective diffusion coefficients for plastics packaging-
meat product systems. This suggests the possibility of esti-
mating migration from the same polymer type (LDPE) into
other meat products or studying also the migration of other
plastics contaminants/additives into any meat products.
Once the key migration parameters have been established
it would allow calculation of the maximum initial concen-
tration of migrant contained in the polymer, taking into
account the specific migration limit for each migrant. This
is of special importance for the meat industry for cost-effi-
cient checking of compliance with the existing regulations,
which aim to assure food safety.
Acknowledgements
The study was financially supported by EU contract No.
QLK1-CT2002-2390, FOODMIGROSURE and the Xunta
de Galicia (Project No. PGIDIT05TAL20301PR). The
FOODMIGROSURE project is financially supported by
the European Commission, under the Thematic Pro-
gramme Quality of life and Management of Living
Resources, Key Action 1 on Food, Nutrition and Health.
The conclusions are the sole responsibility of the authors
and do not represent the opinion of the European Commis-
sion. Authors are grateful to the ‘‘Ramón y Cajal’’ Pro-
gram financed by the Ministry of Education of Spain.
The authors are grateful to Ms. Patricia Carro Blanco
and Mr. Gonzalo Hermelo Vidal for their excellent techni-
cal assistance.
References
Begley, Timothy H. (1997a). Methods and approaches used by FDA to
evaluate the safety of food packaging materials. Food Additives and
Contaminants, 14(6–7), 1–15http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/food/
resources/publications_en.htm.
Begley, Timothy H. (1997b). Methods and approaches used to evaluate
the safety of packaging. Food Additives and Contaminants, 14(6–7),
545–553.
Begley, T., Castle, L., Feigenbaum, A., Franz, R., Hinrichs, K., Lickly, T.,
et al. (2005). Evaluation of migration models that might be used in
support of regulations for food-contact plastics. Food Additives and
Contaminants, 22(1), 73–90.
Brandsch, J., Mercea, P., Tosa, V., & Piringer, O. (2002). Migration
modeling as a tool for quality assurance of food packaging. Food
Additives and Contaminants, 19(Supplement), 29–41.
Castle, L., Honeybone, C. A., Irvine, A., Read, W. A., & Boenke, A.
(2000). The certification of a polymer film for its mass fraction of a fat-
soluble additive related to migration into foodstuffs and for its film
thickness. Establishment of a migration test method for fatty contact.
European Project Final Report Contract No. MAT1-CT94-
0044Report BCR-CRM 593.
Chung, D., Papadakis, S. E., & Yam, K. L. (2002). Simple models for
assessing migration from food-packaging films. Food Additives and
Contaminants, 19, 611–617.
Crank, J. (1975). The mathematics of diffusion (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Clarendon, pp. 44–68.
EU Commission Directive 2002/72/EC relating to plastic materials and
articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs. Official Journal
of the European Union, L39/2.
European Commission, 2003, Food Contact Materials, A Practical Guide
for users of European Directives.
Feigenbaum, A., Scholler, D., Bouquant, J., Brigot, G., Ferrier, D., Franz,
R., et al. (2002). Safety and quality of food contact materials. Part 1:
Evaluation of analytical strategies to introduce migration testing into
good manufacturing practice. Food Additives and Contaminants, 19(2),
184–201.
FOODMIGROSURE (Modelling migration from plastics into foodstuffs
as a novel and cost efficient tool for estimation of consumer (plastic-
food) for estimation of exposure from food contact materials). Project
supported by European Commission (re. QLK1-CT2002-2390) http://
www.foodmigrosure.com.
Han, Jong Koo, Selke, Susan E., Downes, Theron W., & Harte, Bruce R.
(2003). Application of a computer model to evaluate the ability of
plastic to act as functional barries. Packaging Technology and Science,
16, 107–118.
Helmroth, I. E., Dekker, M., & Hankemeier, T. (2002). Influence of
solvent absorption on the migration of Irganox 1076 from LDPE.
Food Additives and Contaminants, 19(2), 176–183.
O’Brien, A. P., Cooper, I., & Tice, P. A. (1997). Correlation of specific
migration (Cf) of plastics additives with their initial concentration in
the polymer (Cp). Food Additives and Contaminants, 14(6–7), 705–719.
Piringer, O. G. (1994). Evaluation of plastics for food packaging. Food
Additives and Contaminants, 11(2), 221–230.
Quinto Fernández, E. J., Pérez Lamela, C., & Simal Gándara, J. (2003).
Analytical methods for food-contact material additives in olive oil
 A. Sanches Silva et al. / Meat Science 77 (2007) 238–245
simulant at sub-mg Kg-1 level. Food Additives and Contaminants,
20(7), 678–683.
Regulation (EC) No. 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the
Council on materials and articles intended to come into contact with
food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC. Official
Journal of the European Union, L 338/4.
Sendón, R., Sanches-Silva, A., & Paseiro, P. (2004). Determination of
diphenylbutadiene migration in foodstuffs from packaging materials.
Journal of Chromatography A, 1056, 99–103.
EU Project ‘‘SPECIFIC MIGRATION’’ Certified reference materials for
specific migration testing of plastics for food packaging needed by
245
industry and enforcement laboratories. Project supported by European
Commission under Contract No. (G6RD-CT-2000-00411).
US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 2001,
USDA National Nutrient Data Laboratory HomePage, SR17, http//
www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp.
Stoffers, N. H., Störmer, A., Brandley, E. L., Brandsch, R.,
Cooper, I., Linssen, J. P. H., et al. (2004). Feasibility study for
the development of certified reference materials for specific
migration testing. Part 1: Initial migrant concentration and
specific migration. Food Additives and Contaminants, 21(12),
1203–1216.