Assessment of baby Bibs. GC-MS screening, migration into saliva and insight of toxicity with QSAR tools

Rajbux, Chandisree; Pereira, Joel; Selbourne, Maria do Céu; Costa-Pinto, Ana Rita; Poças, Maria de Fátima Tavares

doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106951

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Microwave‐assisted extraction, ultrasound‐assisted extraction, and accelerated solvent extraction are common field‐assisted extraction techniques. They have been adopted to analyze fluorescent whitening agents migrating from plastic beverage cups [63], screen migrating substances from baby Bibs [64], and analyze melamine in kitchen plastic ware [65].…”

Section: Sample Pretreatment Methods For Migrating Substances From Fomentioning

confidence: 99%

Research progress on sample pretreatment methods for migrating substances from food contact materials

Ouyang

et al. 2021

J of Separation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Excessive absorption of migrating substances from food contact materials can affect human health. Thus, it is essential to analyze the migration of contaminant from food contact materials. However, comprehensive analysis has been challenged by low concentration of migrating substances, manifold and complex matrix interference of food contact materials. Therefore, appropriate sample pretreatment methods should be applied before instrumental detection, which is essential to improve the analytical efficiency, sensitivity, and reliability. This paper systematically reviews the development of sample pretreatment methods for analysis of migrating substances from food contact materials in the past decade. To extract volatile and semi‐volatile substances, headspace extraction, headspace solid phase microextraction, and purge and trap technique are discussed. For non‐volatile substances, solid–liquid extraction and field‐assisted extraction are usually used to extract them from food contact materials, while liquid–liquid extraction, solid phase extraction, and their corresponding microextraction techniques play important roles on enrichment process. In addition, new progress in developments of sample pretreatment methods of food contact materials is summarized, covering new devices, specific adsorbents, and sample preparation methods for rapid detection. An outlook of future prospect of sample pretreatment, especially for non‐targeted analysis of non‐intentionally added substances is briefly discussed.

show abstract

Section: Sample Pretreatment Methods For Migrating Substances From Fomentioning

confidence: 99%

Research progress on sample pretreatment methods for migrating substances from food contact materials

Ouyang

et al. 2021

J of Separation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, direct measurements in foods are needed when the simulation is impossible or not reliable. This type of approach has recently been the most used in NIAS identification/migration studies by the scientific community in different plastics FCMs [ 6 , 80 , 81 , 116 ]. Food simulants such as Tenax [ 32 , 68 , 72 , 73 , 76 , 83 , 117 ], water or organic solvents [ 25 , 28 , 31 , 63 , 69 , 74 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 108 ] have been used to simulate the migration of NIAS from plastic food packaging.…”

Section: The Challenges Of the Nias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…GC-MS is the most frequently used technique for volatile, and semi-volatile knew organic compounds since the commercially available mass spectra library (e.g., NIST library) could help identify the compounds [ 32 , 78 , 80 , 123 ]. The libraries contain the MS spectra obtained by electronic impact and a quadrupole mass analyzer.…”

Section: The Challenges Of the Nias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety of Plastic Food Packaging: The Challenges about Non-Intentionally Added Substances (NIAS) Discovery, Identification and Risk Assessment

Kato

Conté-Júnior

2021

Polymers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several food contact materials (FCMs) contain non-intentionally added substances (NIAS), and most of the substances that migrate from plastic food packaging are unknown. This review aimed to situate the main challenges involving unknown NIAS in plastic food packaging in terms of identification, migration tests, prediction, sample preparation, determination methods and risk assessment trials. Most studies have identified NIAS in plastic materials as polyurethane adhesives (PU), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyester coatings, polypropylene materials (PP), multilayers materials, plastic films, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), recycled materials, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE). Degradation products are almost the primary source of NIAS in plastic FCMs, most from antioxidants as Irganox 1010 and Irgafos 168, following by oligomers and side reaction products. The NIAS assessment in plastics FCMs is usually made by migration tests under worst-case conditions using food simulants. For predicted NIAS, targeted analytical methods are applied using GC-MS based methods for volatile NIAS and GC-MS and LC-MS based methods for semi- and non-volatile NIAS; non-targeted methods to analyze unknown NIAS in plastic FCMs are applied using GC and LC techniques combined with QTOF mass spectrometry (HRMS). In terms of NIAS risk assessment and prioritization, the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) concept is the most applied tool for risk assessment. Bioassays with sensitive analytical techniques seem to be an efficient method to identify NIAS and their hazard to human exposure; the combination of genotoxicity testing with analytical chemistry could allow the Cramer class III TTC application to prioritize unknown NIAS. The scientific justification for implementing a molecular weight-based cut-off (<1000 Da) in the risk assessment of FCMs should be reevaluated. Although official guides and opinions are being issued on the subject, the whole chain’s alignment is needed, and more specific legislation on the steps to follow to get along with NIAS.

show abstract

“…During its use, the baby spilt food and saliva on the bib, which is then typically fed again into the baby mouth, by the caretaker. The migration of chemical substances directly into the food that the baby spilled on the bib before swallowing it or the migration into the saliva following ingestion mixed with the food is the main concern 2 . It is also common that babies chew the bib, thus providing a direct transfer of migrants into their month.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a previous study focusing in screening analysis of baby bibs samples collected around Europe, several PI were detected, 2 although a target analytical method was not used. Some of these PIs are authorised with very low SMLs (0.05 and 0.01 mg kg −1 ) and a few have not been evaluated or are not listed and are not authorised for food contact applications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Photoinitiators use in printed baby bibs and their migration into Tenax® by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Assessment of baby Bibs. GC-MS screening, migration into saliva and insight of toxicity with QSAR tools

Cited by 15 publications

References 20 publications

Research progress on sample pretreatment methods for migrating substances from food contact materials

Research progress on sample pretreatment methods for migrating substances from food contact materials

Safety of Plastic Food Packaging: The Challenges about Non-Intentionally Added Substances (NIAS) Discovery, Identification and Risk Assessment

Photoinitiators use in printed baby bibs and their migration into Tenax® by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About