Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
DOI 10.1007/s12393-009-9007-3
Applications of Plastic Films for Modified Atmosphere Packaging
of Fruits and Vegetables: A Review
S. Mangaraj Æ T. K. Goswami Æ P. V. Mahajan
Published online: 15 July 2009
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract Modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) of
fresh produce relies on the modification of atmosphere
inside the package achieved by the natural interplay
between two processes: the respiration rates of the com-
modity and the permeability of the packaging films. MAP
has been a proven technology to meet the consumer’s
demand for more natural and fresh foods, which is
increasing day by day. Because of its dynamic phenome-
non, respiration and permeation take place simultaneously,
and it is necessary to design the MAP system and select the
matching films to achieve desired atmosphere early and
maintain as long as possible. To meet the desired film
characteristics for MAP, the different plastic films are
either laminated or coextruded. In this modern world, the
packaging films of required gas transmission properties are
made available through advanced technology. Although the
MAP industry has an increasing choice of packaging films,
most packs are still constructed from four basic sustainable
polymers: polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene
S. Mangaraj
T. K. Goswami (&)
Department of Agricultural and Food Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal 721 302, India
e-mail: tkg@agfe.iitkgp.ernet.in
S. Mangaraj
e-mail: sukhdev1875@rediffmail.com
P. V. Mahajan
Department of Process and Chemical Engineering, Faculty of
Science, Engineering and Food Science, University College,
Cork, Ireland
e-mail: p.mahajan@ucc.ie
S. Mangaraj
Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Nabibagh, Berasia
Road, Bhopal, 462038 MP, India
terephthalate (PET), polyproylene (PP) and polyethylene
(PE) for packaging of fresh produce. Polystyrene has also
been used but polyvinylidene, polyester and nylon have
such low gas permeabilities that they would be suitable
only for commodities with very low respiration rates.
Keywords Modified atmosphere packaging

Polymeric films
Gas permeation
Film properties

Packaging films
Introduction
The principal roles of food packaging are to protect the
food products from outside influences and damage, to
contain the food and to provide consumers with ingredients
and nutritional information [39]. The goal of food pack-
aging is to contain food in a cost-effective way that satisfies
industry requirements and consumer desires, maintains
food safety and minimizes environmental safety [102].
Modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) of commodity
refers to the technique of sealing actively respiring produce
in polymeric film packages to modify the O2 and CO2
levels within the package atmosphere. It is often desirable
to generate an atmosphere low in O2 and/or high in CO2 to
influence the metabolism of the product being packaged
and the activity of decay-causing organisms to increase
storability and/or shelf life [16, 37, 63, 69, 81, 118]. In
addition to atmosphere modification, MAP vastly improves
moisture retention, which can have a greater influence on
preserving quality than O2 and CO2 levels. Furthermore,
packaging isolates the product from the external environ-
ment and helps to ensure conditions that, if not sterile, at
least reduce exposure to pathogens and contaminants [26,
50, 64, 79, 95, 132, 139, 143].
123
134
MAP is the replacement of air in a pack with a single
gas or mixture of gases, either naturally or artificially. The
proportion of each component is fixed when the mixture is
introduced to the package. No further control is exerted
over the initial composition, and the gas composition is
likely to change with time owing to the diffusion of gases
into and out of the product, the permeation of gases into
and out of the pack, and the effects of product and
microbial metabolism [36, 37, 81, 157].
MAP technology, which utilizes only the natural com-
ponents of air, has achieved public acceptance due to these
two trends. MAP has the advantages that synthetic chem-
icals are not used, no toxic residue is left, and there is little
environmental impact, particularly if the plastic films used
can be recycled. Recent advances in the design and man-
ufacture of polymeric films with a wide range of gas-dif-
fusion characteristics have also stimulated interest in MAP
of fresh produce. In addition, the increased availability of
various absorbers of O2, CO2 [81], water vapour [144] and
C2H4 [18, 62, 78, 139] provides possible additional tools
for manipulating the microenvironment of MAP.
Nearly all products are packaged at some point in their life
cycle. Plastic films are widely used in packaging, and con-
tinue to grow in use as more and more applications switch to
flexible packages such as modified atmosphere packaging
(MAP). In these packages, plastic films may be used alone or
in combinations to serve the basic packaging functions of
containment, protection, communication and utility in the
delivery of quality products to the consumer [67].
MAP is a dynamic process where respiration of the
product and permeation of gases thorough the packaging
film occurs simultaneously. The composition of the atmo-
sphere within a package results from the interaction of a
number of factors that include the permeability character-
istics of the package, the respiratory behaviour of the plant
material, and the environment [22, 45, 76, 81, 95, 149].
The films making up the package are selected to have
specific permeability characteristics, and changes in these
characteristics over time, temperature, and humidity follow
known physical laws [1, 49, 95]. The environment can be
controlled to provide specific conditions. In contrast to
these known and controllable factors are the often
unknown and uncontrollable responses of the plant mate-
rial. The plant specie, cultivar, cultural practices, stage of
development, manner of harvest, tissue type, and posthar-
vest handling all contribute and influence the response of
the material to the generated atmosphere. The scope of
plant responses can be further modified by initial gas flush
of the package before sealing and inclusion of chemical
treatments to slow unwanted processes or reduce decay.
Each of these components of the packaging process can be
examined separately to better understand how each con-
tributes to packaging strategies [70, 78, 119, 168].
123
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
The application of polymeric films for MAP are most
often found in flexible package structures; they may also be
used as component in rigid or semi-rigid package struc-
tures, for example, as a liner inside a carton or as lidding on
a cup or tray. The plastic film used in MAP is low-density
polyethylene (LDPE), linear low-density polyethylene
(LLDPE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropyl-
ene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyester, i.e. poly-
ethylene terephthalate (PET), polyvinylidene chloride
(PVDC), polyamide (Nylon) and other suitable films [1, 4,
23, 28, 41, 43, 46, 49, 67, 81, 82, 86, 92, 98, 102, 105, 120,
129, 135, 137]. Although an increasing choice of packag-
ing materials is available to the MAP industry, most packs
are still constructed from four basic polymers: polyvinyl
chloride (PVC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), poly-
proylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE), for packaging of
fruits and vegetables [4, 29, 49, 80, 81, 102, 129, 160].
Polystyrene has also been used but polyvinylidene, poly-
ester and nylon have such low gas permeabilities that they
would be suitable only for commodities with very low
respiration rates. However, perforating the films can
expand their use to many commodities. Recent advances in
the technology of manufacturing the polymeric films have
permitted tailoring films for gas permeabilities needed for
some fruits, vegetables and their products. MAP is most
commonly used for highly perishable, high-value com-
modities such as apple, cherry, strawberry, litchi, rasp-
berry, broccoli, asparagus, mushroom, capsicum, fig and
for freshly cut (minimally processed) fruits and vegetables
[37, 61, 80].
Required Characteristics of Plastic Films for MAP
The desirable characteristics of a polymeric film for MAP
depend on the respiration rate of the produce at the transit
and storage temperature to be used and on the known
optimum O2 and CO2 concentrations for the produce that
will result in optimum MA conditions with a definite time
period. For most produce, a suitable film must be much
more permeable to CO2 than to O2 [20, 26, 49, 81, 92, 94].
The major factors to be taken into account while selecting
the packaging materials are:
(1) The type of package (i.e. flexible pouch or rigid or
semi-rigid lidded tray)
(2) The barrier properties needed (i.e. permeabilities of
individual gases and gas ratios when more than one
gas is used)
(3) The physical properties of machinability, strength,
clarity and durability
(4) Integrity of closure (heat sealing), fogging of the
film as a result of product respiration
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
(5) Sealing reliability
(6) Water vapour transmission rate
(7) Resistance to chemical degradation
(8) Nontoxic and chemically inert
(9) Printability
(10) Commercial suitability with economic feasibility
Polymeric Film in Application for MAP
Flexible plastic packaging materials comprise nearly 90%
of the materials used in MAP with paper, paperboard,
aluminium foil, metal and glass containers accounting for
the remainder. This is largely due to the changing con-
sumer demand where convenience, quality, safety and
impact on the environment are of prime considerations.
These materials provide a range of permeability to gases
and water vapour together with the necessary package
integrity needed for MAP (Tables 1, 2). Sometimes the
films are used alone, and often they are used in combina-
tions that provide the benefits of multiple materials. The
most commonly used polymeric films for MAP are as
follows:
Polyolefin’s
Polyolefin is a collective term for polyethylene and poly-
propylene, the two most widely used plastics in food
packaging industries. Polyethylene and poly propylene
both possess a successful combination of properties,
including flexibility, strength, lightness, stability, moisture
and chemical resistance, and easy processibility, and are
well suited for recycling and reuse [1, 23, 82, 101, 102].
Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE)
The simplest and the most inexpensive plastics made by
addition polymerization of ethylene is polyethylene. Low-
density polyethylene is the most commonly used packaging
film. LDPE seals at lower and over a wider temperature
range, and has better hot tack, all of which result, to a great
extent, from its long-chain branching [1, 23, 114, 129].
LDPE is a good barrier to water vapour, but a poor barrier
to oxygen, carbon dioxide and many odour and flavour
compounds. Because LDPE is relatively transparent, it is
predominantly used in film applications and in applications
where heat sealing is necessary. Some properties and
characteristic of LDPE are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
LDPE is generally the cheapest plastic film, on a per-unit-
mass basis.
135
Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE)
Linear low-density polyethylene is also most commonly
used packaging films in packaging industry. The reduction
of density comes about through the use of comonomers that
put side groups on the main chain that act like branching in
decreasing crystallinity. LLDPE is also a soft, flexible
material, with a hazy appearance. At equal density and
thickness, LLDPE has higher impact strength, tensile
strength, puncture resistance and elongation than LDPE.
Like LDPE; LLDPE has good water vapour barrier prop-
erties, but is a poor barrier to oxygen, carbon dioxide and
many odour and flavour compounds [1, 23, 105]. Since
LLDPE often permits considerable down gauging, it can be
the lowest cost alternative on a per-use basis.
High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
High-density polyethylene is a linear addition polymer of
ethylene, produced at temperatures and pressures similar to
those used for LLDPE, and with only very slight branch-
ing. HDPE films are stiffer than LDPE films, though still
flexible, and have poorer transparency. Their water vapour
barrier is better, as is their gas barrier. However, perme-
ability to oxygen and carbon dioxide is still much too high
for HDPE to be suitable as a barrier for these permeants
[28, 101, 102]. Because of the distinctly cloudy appearance
of HDPE film, a small amount of white pigment is com-
monly added to provide an attractive opaque white film.
Typical HDPE properties are shown in Table 1.
Polypropylene (PP)
Polypropylene is a linear addition polymer of propylene;
resins used in packaging are predominantly isotactic. PP
has the lowest density of the commodity plastics, 0.89–
0.91 g/cm3. Harder and more transparent than polyethyl-
ene, PP has good resistance to chemicals and is effective at
baring water vapour. Its high melting point (Table 1)
makes it suitable for application where thermal resistance
is required. Barrier properties of PP are comparable to
those of HDPE [1, 43, 49, 98, 109]. In many applications,
biaxially oriented film (BOPP) is preferred. BOPP film is
explicitly used in MAP of food commodity.
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
Polyvinyl chloride films are formed by combining PVC
resin, produced by addition polymerization of vinyl chlo-
ride, with plasticizers and other additives to produce a
flexible film. In general, the films are quite soft and flexi-
ble, easy to heat seal, and have excellent self-cling,
toughness, medium strength, excellent resistance to
123
 Table 1 Major packaging films and their typical properties
136

Property Polyethylene films Polypropylene Polyvinyl Polyethylene Polyvinylidene Ethylene-vinyl Polyamide

chloride terephthalate (PET) chloride (PVDC) alcohol (EVOH)

123
(PVC)
LDPE LLDPE HDPE PP BOPP Unoriented Oriented General High 32 mol 44 mol % Nylon-6 Nylon-11
purpose barrier % ethylene
ethylene

Tg (°C) -120 -120 -120 -10 -10 75–105 73–80 73–80 -15 to -15 to 69 55 60 –
?2 ?2
Tm (°C) 105–115 122–124 128–138 160–175 160–175 212 245–265 245–265 160–172 160–172 181 164 210–220 180–190
Th (°C) 40–44 62–91 107–121 57–82 38–129 – – – – – – –
Density (g/cm3) 0.915– 0.915– 0.94–0.97 0.89–0.91 0.89–0.91 1.35–1.41 1.29–1.40 1.40 1.60–1.71 1.73 1.19 1.14 1.13–1.16 1.03–1.05
0.940 0935
Tensile modulus 0.2–0.5 0.6–1.1 1.1–1.5 1.7–2.4 To 4.1 2.8–4.1 – 0.3–0.7 0.9–1.1 2.6 2.1 0.69–1.7 1.3
(Gpa)
FT (Mpa) 8–31 20–45 17–45 31–43 120–240 10–55 48–72 220–270 48–100 83–148 77 59 41–165 55–65
Elongation (%) 100–965 350–850 10–1200 500–650 30–150 14–450 30–3,000 70–110 40–100 50–100 230 380 300 300–400
WVTR 375–500 125 100–300 100–125 750– 390–510 440 79 20 1535 724 3,900– 1,000–
15,700 4,300 2,000
PO2 6666–8750 2916–8333 1666– 2083–3916 1541– 154– 50–100 45 13–18 1.3 0.325 1.25 20–42.50 521
3041 2416 10000
PCO2 41662– 15105– 9979– 11706– 8368– 939– 255–510 221 62–86 4.95 10.10 37.50 84–179 2084
54687 43165 18215 22008 13119 61000
PCO2 /PO2 6.25 5.18 5.99 5.62 5.43 6.10 5.10 4.91 4.76 3.81 31.0 30.0 4.21 4.0
10 11 6 8 8 10 5 6 11 12 12 8
PO2 41 9 10 44 9 10 162 9 10 73 9 10 80 9 10 66 9 10 41 9 10 48 9 10 41 9 10 47 9 10 – 49 9 10 34 9 10 31 9 105
9 10 6 7 7 7 5 6 9 10 12 8
PCO2 60 9 10 70 9 10 89 9 10 88 9 10 94 9 10 34 9 10 93 9 10 97 9 10 57 9 10 64 9 10 – 62 9 10 44 9 10 39 9 105
EOP 2 35.1 37.4 43.1 39.5 38.3 40.5 56.80 60.4 66.50 73.2 – – 43.50 47.60
P
ECO 2
30.3 31.6 34.3 32.7 33.9 30.5 40.4 42.8 51.50 56.7 – – 40.50 42.40
PO
Q10 2 1.96 1.84 1.73 1.81 1.77 1.78 1.52 1.50 2.82 2.87 – – 1.97 –
PCO
Q10 2 1.71 1.65 1.60 1.62 1.58 1.54 1.50 1.47 2.23 2.26 – – 1.88 –
Tg: Glass transition temperature (°C)
Tm: Melting temperature (°C)
Th: Heat distortion temperature, at 455 kPa (°C)
FT: Tensile strength (Mpa)
WVTR: Water vapour transmission rate at 37.8°C and 90% RH (g lm/m2 day)
PO2 and PCO2 : permeability at 25°C for O2 and CO2, respectively (cm3 lm/m2-h-atm)
PPO2 and PPCO2 : Pre-exponential factor of film for O2 and CO2, respectively (cm3 lm/m2-h-atm)
P
EOP 2 and ECO 2
: Permeability activation energy of films for O2 and CO2, respectively (kJ/mole)
PO2 PCO
Q10 and Q10 2 : Permeability quotients for 10°C rise in temperature of films for O2 and CO2, respectively
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
 Table 2 Properties, environmental issue and other properties of plastic films for MAP
Type of films Product characteristics/food compatibility Consumer and marketing issues Environmental issues Cost
Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages

LDPE i. Soft, flexible and strong material – i. Light weight i. Slight haze or i. Recyclable i. Easily recycled in semi- Low cost
ii. Good moisture barrier translucency rigid form but
identification and
iii. Resistance to chemicals
separation more difficult
iv. Heat sealable and easy to seal for films
v. Relatively transparent and predominantly used in
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158

film application
vi. High ratio of CO2 to O2 permeability
vii. Can be laminated and coextruded
LLDPE i. Soft, flexible and strong material i. Not suitable for i. Light weight i. Slight hazy i. Recyclable i. Easily recycled in semi- Low cost
ii. Better impact strength, tear resistance and higher applications appearance rigid form but
tensile strength and elongation, better resistance to involving identification and
environmental stress cracking, and better puncture significant separation more difficult
resistance exposure to heat. for films
iii. Good moisture barrier
iv. Good grease resistance and inert.
v. Good low-temperature performance
HDPE i. Flexible, strong and tough i. Poor clarity i. Light weight i. Slight haze or i. Recyclable i. Easily recycled in semi- Low cost
ii. Higher softening point than LDPE and superior translucency rigid form but
barrier properties iii. Resistance to chemicals and identification and
moisture separation more difficult
for films
iv. Permeable to gases
v. Easy to process and easy to form
Polypropylene i. Stronger, denser and more transparent than – i. Light weight – i. Recyclable i. Easily recycled in semi- Low cost
(BOPP) polyethylene ii. High clarity, rigid form but
ii. Moderate gas barrier and good water vapour strength and identification and
barrier (high gas barrier and moisture vapour durability as separation more difficult
barrier than polyethylene) compared to for films
iii. Good resistance to chemicals LDPE
iv. Excellent grease resistance
v. Favourable response to heat sealing
Polyesters i. Excellent transparency and mechanical properties – i. Light weight – Recyclable i. Easily recycled in semi- Inexpensive
(PET/PEN) ii. Good/adequate barrier to gases and moisture and ii. High clarity/ rigid form but but higher
specially odours and flavours glass-like identification and cost among
transparency separation more difficult plastics
iii. Good resistance to chemical degradation, heat,
for films
mineral oil, solvents and acids. iii. Shatter
resistance
137

123
 Table 2 continued
138

Type of films Product characteristics/food compatibility Consumer and marketing issues Environmental issues Cost

123
Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages

Polyvinyl i. Strong and transparent – i. High clarity – Recyclable i. Contains Inexpensive

chloride ii. Good gas barrier and chlorine
(PVC) moderated barrier to ii. Requires
moisture vapour separating from
iii. Excellent resistance to other waste
chemicals, oils/fats and
grease etc.
iv. Largely used as packaging
films
Polyvinylidene i. High barrier to gases and i. High gas barrier i. Maintains product quality – Recyclable i. Contains Inexpensive but higher
chloride water vapour chlorine cost among plastics
(PVdC) ii. Heat sealable ii. Requires
iii. Also used in hot filling, separating from
retorting, low-temperature other waste
storage, etc.
Polystyrene i. High tensile strength and i. Poor barrier to i. Good clarity – Recyclable i. Requires Inexpensive
excellent transparency moisture vapour separating from
ii. Used for produce where a and gases other waste
‘breathable’ film is required
Polyamide i. Strong Poor water vapour – – Recyclable i. Requires Relatively costly but
(nylon-6) ii. Reasonably good oxygen barrier separating from inexpensive when used
barrier other waste as thin films
iii Excellent odour and flavour
barrier
iv. Good chemical resistance
iv. Mechanical and thermal
properties similar to PET
v. Excellent high-temp.
performance
Ethylene-vinyl i. Excellent barrier to gases, i. Low moisture i. Maintains product quality for – Recyclable i. Requires Inexpensive when used as
alcohol especially to oxygen, odour barrier/moisture- oxygen-sensitive products separating from thin films
(EVOH) and flavour sensitive other waste
ii. Often used as O2 barrier
material
Ethylene-Vinyl i. Excellent transparency i. Poor gas barrier i. Excellent clarity – Recyclable i. Requires Inexpensive
Acetate ii. Very good heat seal ii. Poor moisture ii. Mainly used as component of the separating from
(EVA) barrier sealant layer and adhesive in other waste
iii. Very good adhesive
properties multilayer films
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158 139

chemical, resilience and clarity. Permeability is relatively

high [4, 25, 49, 81, 105]. Both oriented and unoriented

Relatively expensive but cost-

films are available. Properties of PVC films are listed in

effective for purpose.

Tables 1 and 2.
Relatively expensive

Polyesters

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polycarbonate and

polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) are polyesters, which are
Cost

condensation polymers formed from ester monomers that

result from the reaction between carboxylic acid and
alcohol. The most commonly used polyester in food
i. Requires separating
from other waste

packaging is PET [1, 81, 101].

Layer separation is
Disadvantages

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)

required
Environmental issues

PET is commonly used in biaxially oriented form and has

excellent transparency and mechanical properties. PET
provides a good barrier to gases (O2 and CO2), moisture
Often allows
for source
reduction
Advantages

Recyclable

and especially to odours and flavours. The barrier proper-

ties can be enhanced by coating with PVDC. Coating or
coextrusion is often used to provide good heat seal prop-
erties. It can tolerate considerably higher temperatures for
Disadvantages

short periods, such as in dual ovenable packaging for fro-

zen foods. The main reasons for its popularity in food
packaging industry are its glass-like transparency, adequate
Consumer and marketing issues

gas barrier properties, light weight and shatter resistance

–

[1, 56, 84, 160]. Typical PET properties are listed in

Tables 1 and 2.
Flexible in design and
Suitable for MAP of

characteristics
fresh produce

Polyvinylidene Chloride (PVDC)

Disadvantages Advantages

Polyvinylidene chloride is an addition polymer of vinyli-

dene chloride. It is heat sealable and serves as an excellent
barrier to oxygen, water vapour, odours and flavours [66,
81, 101]. The PVDC copolymer can be heat sealed and has
excellent barrier to gases. However, the best barrier films
Product characteristics/food compatibility

generally do not provide the best heat seal capability, and

vice versa, so when both heat sealability and barrier are
–

i. Properties can be tailored for –

desired, sometimes two differently formulated PVDC

Biodegradable hydrolysable

copolymer coatings are applied. The major applications of

PVDC include packaging of poultry, cured meats, cheese,
snacks food, tea, coffee, confectionary and MAP of food
products.
product needs
Advantages

Ethylene-Vinyl Alcohol (EVOH)

Ethylene-vinyl alcohol is a copolymer of ethylene and

Table 2 continued

vinyl alcohol. The presence of –OH groups in the structure

Coextrusions
Type of films

results in strong intermolecular hydrogen bonding. EVOH

Polylactide

Laminates/

is an excellent barrier to gases (especially O2), odours and

(PLA)

flavours. However, the hydrogen bonds also make it a

moisture-sensitive material, and high humidity decreases

123
140
its barrier capability [101, 102]. EVOH is most often used
as an oxygen barrier. Typical EVOH properties are listed in
Table 1.
Polyamide (Nylon)
Nylon films are used for specialty applications in packag-
ing, where performance requirements justify their rela-
tively high cost. Nylons have mechanical (excellent
strength) and thermal properties (high-temperature perfor-
mance) similar to PET and have similar usefulness. Nylons
also provide excellent odour and flavour barrier, and rea-
sonably good oxygen barrier [43, 81]. They are very poor
water vapour barriers, and generally have a tendency to
lose some barrier performance when exposed to large
amounts of moisture. However, their performance is not as
water-sensitive as EVOH. Owing to their relatively high
cost, they are often coextruded with other plastics. Typical
properties of some nylon films are given in Table 1. Nylon-
6 tends to be the most used nylon packaging film in
industry.
Polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE)
These films are considered the best available transparent
moisture barriers for flexible packaging; however, they are
rather expensive. Aclar films can be laminated to paper,
polyethylene, aluminium foil or other substrates. The film
is heat sealable, and can be thermoformed. Aclar blister
packages are often used for unit packages for highly
moisture-sensitive pharmaceuticals [67].
Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVOH)
Polyvinyl alcohol polymers are produced by hydrolysis of
polyvinyl acetate. Because PVOH degrades at temperatures
well below melt, it cannot be processed by extrusion.
Therefore, casting from a water solution is used to make
the film. As produced, the film is amorphous, but orienta-
tion induces some crystallinity [113].
Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate (EVA)
Ethylene-vinyl acetate is produced by addition copolymer-
ization of ethylene and vinyl acetate. EVA has higher per-
meability to water vapour and gases (in comparison to
LDPE). These films have excellent transparency, and pro-
vide very good heat seal and adhesive properties, with
excellent toughness at low temperatures. In both lidding and
base films, they are mainly used as a component of the
sealant layer [141].
123
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
Ionomers
The heat seal performance of ionomers is outstanding.
Ionomer films have excellent clarity, flexibility, strength
and toughness which make them suitable for MAP of
commodities. They can be used to package sharp objects,
which break through many alternative materials when
subject to vibration during distribution. Ionomers have
relatively poor gas barrier and tend to absorb water readily.
They have also relatively high cost compared to films such
as ethylene-vinyl acetate [105].
Polycarbonate Films
Polycarbonate films have excellent transparency, toughness
and heat resistance, but high cost. They have some use in
skin packaging, food packaging where exposure to high
temperatures for in-bag preparation is required, and med-
ical packaging.
Polystyrene
Polystyrene is another thermoplastic film with excellent
transparency, with a high tensile strength but a poor barrier
to moisture vapour and gases [1, 19, 81, 116]. It is often
used in window envelopes and window cartons. Because of
its low gas barrier, it can be used for produce where a
‘breathable’ film is required. Polystyrene alone is brittle,
but it can be blended or generally biaxially oriented to get
required properties. In heavier gauges, polystyrene is
widely used for transparent thermoformed trays.
Cellulose-Based Plastics
Cellulose-based plastics such as cellulose acetate, cellulose
butyrate, cellulose propionate and copolymers are also used
to a relatively small extent, most often as sheet rather than
film. Their high price and water sensitivity limit their
usefulness [116].
Biodegradable Polymers
Biodegradable polymers are derived from replenishable
agricultural feedstocks, animal sources, marine food pro-
cessing industry wastes, or microbial sources. Biodegrad-
able polymers are made from cellulose and starches [107].
Cellophane is the most common cellulose-based biopoly-
mer. Starch-based polymers include amylose, hydroxyl-
propylated starch and dextrin. Other starch-based polymers
are polylactides (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA),
polyhydroxybuterate (PHB), and a copolymer PHB and
valeric acids (PHB/V). Made from lactic acid formed from
microbial fermentation of starch derivatives, polylactide
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
does not degrade when exposed to moisture [10, 102, 146]
(Table 2). In addition, biodegradable films can also be
formed from chitosan, which is derived from the chitin of
crustacean and insect exoskeletons. Chitin is a biopolymer
with a chemical structure similar to cellulose [155].
Edible films, thin layer of edible materials applied to
food as a coating or placed on or between food compo-
nents, are another form of biodegradable polymer. They
serve several purposes, including inhibiting the migration
of moisture, gases and aromas and improving the food’s
mechanical integrity or handling characteristics, aimed to
achieve MAP conditions [102]. At present, bioplastics are
more expensive than petroleum-based polymers, so sub-
stitution would likely result in increased packaging cost.
Commercialization of bioplastics is underway. Polylactide
are commercially produced from natural products (corn
sugar). After the original use, the polymer can be hydro-
lysed to recover lactic acid, thereby approaching the
cradle-to-cradle objective (that is, imposing zero impact on
future generation). In addition, Wal-Mart Inc uses bio-
polymers by employing polylactide to package fresh and
cut produce [15, 102].
Multilayer Plastic Films
In many cases, the best combination of packaging attributes
at the lowest cost is achieved by using a combination of
materials. Therefore, plastic packaging films are often
combined with one another or with other materials such as
paper or aluminium through processes such as coating,
lamination, coextrusion and metallization.
Coating
Coating is commonly used to add a thin layer of a plastic
on the surface of another plastic film or, more commonly,
on a non-plastic substrate such as paper, cellophane or foil.
The coating may be applied as a solution, a suspension or a
melt. Common reasons for using coating in flexible pack-
aging are: to impart heat sealability for plastics that are not
heat sealed easily; to provide moisture protection for paper
or cellophane; to improve barrier properties; and to provide
protection from direct contact of the base material with the
product [12, 13, 22, 149]. PVDC copolymer coatings are
often used to improve barrier and heat sealability.
Lamination
Lamination is the process of combining two webs of film
together [102, 129]. In flexible packaging applications,
lamination is often used to combine a plastic film with
another film, paper or foil. A variety of lamination methods
141
are used. When plastic films are involved, either as a
substrate or as an element in the finished structure, the
laminating adhesive is often a low-density polyethylene,
applied by extrusion, and the process is known as extrusion
laminating. When paper is contained in a flexible package,
it is most often being used for its excellent printability,
along with its ability to impart substance and strength.
Another significant use of lamination is to produce a web
with buried printing.
Coextrusion
Coextrusion results in the production of a multiplayer web
without requiring initial production of individual webs and
a separate combining step. The melted polymers are fed
together carefully to produce a layered melt, which is then
processed in conventional ways to produce a plastic film or
sheet. When only plastics are being used in a flexible
packaging structure, coextrusion is generally preferred to
lamination, unless buried printing is involved. A major
advantage of coextrusion over lamination is its ability to
incorporate very thin layers of a material, much thinner
than those that can be produced as a single web. This is
particularly important for expensive substrates, such as
those often used to impart barrier properties. The amount
of the expensive barrier resin used need only be enough to
provide the desired performance [1]. The thinness of the
layer is not limited by the need to produce an unsupported
film and handle it in a subsequent lamination step.
Metallization
Metallization is a way of applying a thin metal layer on a
plastic film. In commercial packaging practice, the metal
being deposited is almost always aluminium. Metallized
films have significantly enhanced barrier characteristics,
and are usually chosen for this reason. In addition to gas
barrier, metallized film provides an essentially total light
barrier [67].
Barriers and Permeation
The mechanism by which substances travel through an
intact plastic film is known as permeation. It involves
dissolution of the penetrating substance, the permeant, in
the plastic, followed by diffusion of the permeant through
the film, and finally by evaporation of the permeant on the
other side of the film, all driven by a partial pressure dif-
ferential for the permeant between the two sides of the film
[82, 87, 105, 115, 127, 129].
The barrier performance of the film is generally
expressed in terms of its permeability coefficient or
123
142 Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158

 
permeability. For one-dimensional steady-state mass oc
transfer, the permeability coefficient is related to the J ¼ D ð2Þ
ox
quantity of permeant, which is transferred through the film
as represented by the equation: The flux, J, is the volume of substance diffusing across
unit area in unit time, independent of the state of
Q:x
P¼ ð1Þ aggregation of the polymer. This first law is applicable to
A:t:Dp
diffusion in the steady state, that is, where concentration is
where P is the permeability coefficient, Q is the amount of not varying with time.
permeant passing through the material, x is the thickness of The change in concentration with the time at a distance x
the plastic film, A is the surface area available for mass into a thin film sheet, where the flux is in the x direction
transfer, t is the time, and Dp is the change in permeant alone, is given by
partial pressure across the film. oc oJX
Hence the permeability coefficient (P) is the propor- ¼ ð3Þ
ox ox
tionality constant between the flow of the penetrant gas
per unit film area per unit time and the driving force Substituting the values of Eq. 2 in Eq. 3 we have
 
(partial pressure difference) per unit film thickness. The oc o oc
¼ D ð4Þ
amount of gas penetrating through the film is expressed in ox ox ox
terms of either moles per unit time (flux) or weight or
volume of the gas at STP. Commonly, it is expressed in If D is independent of concentration then Eq. 4 can be
terms of volume. written as
 2 
It can be shown that the permeability coefficient (P), as oc o c
¼D ð5Þ
defined by Eq. 1, is equal to the product of the Fick’s law’s ox ox2
diffusion coefficient, D, and the Henry’s law’s solubility
coefficient, S (P = DS), in situations where these laws The permeability coefficient, P, concerns the steady-
adequately represent mass transfer (ideally dilute solutions, state flux, J, of gas passing through the polymer and the
diffusion independent of concentration): The permeability pressure difference across it, which gives the driving force:
p  p 
coefficient, under these circumstances, is a function of J¼P
1 2
ð6Þ
temperature, but is not a function of film thickness or x
permeant concentration. where p1 and p2 are the partial pressures on opposite sides
of a film of thickness x. P is expressed in cm3 of gas at STP
Concept and Theoretical Approach per cm2 of film, unit cm of film thickness per second for a
pressure difference of 1 atm.
Gases and vapours can permeate through materials by The solubility, S, is defined as the amount of dissolved
macroscopic or microscopic pores and pinholes or they gas in the polymer divided by the volume of the sample for
may diffuse by a molecular mechanism, known as activated 1 atm of gas on the sample surface
diffusion. In activated diffusion, the gas is considered to
ðc1  c2 Þ ¼ Sðp1  p2 Þ;
dissolve in the film at one surface, to diffuse through the
film by virtue of concentration gradient, and to reevaporate When p2 % 0, c2 % 0 then the above equation can be
at the other surface of the packaging film. The equilibrium written as
and kinetics considerations governing mass transfer are c1 ¼ Sp1 and when p1 ¼ 1 atm ð7Þ
applicable here as well.
c1
The gas transport properties through polymers can be S¼
described by three parameters, the diffusion coefficient, the p1
permeability coefficient, and the solubility. These terms are where c1 is the concentration in the sample when the
interrelated although the precise nature of the correlation is equilibrium is reached. Equation 6 obeys Henry’s law
dependant on the type of diffusion that occurs. Generally when S is independent of p, and hence Eqs. 2, 6 and 7 can
the Fickian diffusion process is considered for gas transport be combined and written as
in polymer.
P ¼ DS ð8Þ
The diffusion is the speed with which a gas molecule
penetrates through the polymer. The diffusion coefficient D The solubility S is expressed in cm3 of gas at STP per
is based on Fick’s first law of diffusion. It states that the cm3 of the solid at a pressure of 1 atm. (cm3 STP/cm3 atm).
flux J in the x direction is proportional to the concentration The diffusivity or diffusion coefficient D is expressed as
gradient ðoc=oxÞ: the diffusion of penetrants in cm2 across the film at STP per

123
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
sec (cm2/s). P is expressed in cm3 of gas at STP per cm2 of
film, unit cm of film thickness per second for a pressure
difference of 1 atm (cm3 STP-cm/cm2 s atm).
Gas Permeation or Gas Transmission
Conceptually, gas permeability coefficient is the same as
gas transmission rate. The GTR is defined as the volume of
gas that passes through a sample of unit area under unit
pressure differential, at a given temperature and film
thickness, with the rate being determined after the gradient
of the recorded volume–time curve becomes constant. The
gas transmission rate is usually expressed for total thick-
ness of the film while gas permeability is expressed on the
basis of per unit film thickness. For composite films, it is
more appropriate to use gas transmission rate values since
permeation in composite films does not vary linearly with
film thickness, usually. For some single material (polymer)
films also, the relationship is not linear either. In such cases
extrapolation may be erroneous [90, 115].
Measurement of Gas Permeability
There are many methods for measuring permeability of
gases and it is not possible to review them in detail here.
Two major types of methods used for the measurement of
gas transmission rates are as follows [11, 82, 129]:
Pressure-Increase Method/Differential Pressure Principle
The principle involved is that the test specimen is placed
between the upper and lower chambers and clamped
tightly. The lower pressure chamber (lower chamber) is
vacuumized first and then the whole system. When the
specified degree of vacuum is reached, the lower test
chamber is shut off and feeds test gas of certain pressure to
the upper test chamber (high-pressure chamber). It is
ensured that a constant differential pressure (adjusted) is
maintained across the specimen. Hence under the gradient
of differential pressure the test gas permeates from the
high-pressure side to the low-pressure side. By monitoring
and measuring the pressure in the low-pressure side, the
various barrier parameters (permeability coefficient) of the
tested specimen are calculated [89]
Karel et al. [82] reported that in pressure-increase
method a membrane is mounted between the high-pressure
and the low-pressure sides of a permeability cell. In this
method, both sides are evacuated and the membrane is
degassed. Then, at zero time a known constant pressure PH
of the test gas is introduced on the high side, and PL (low-
side pressure) is measured as a function of time. If the
measurement is continued only as long as PH (high-side
pressure) remains much larger than PL (low-side pressure),
143
the Dp remains essentially constant and the permeability
coefficient can be calculated as follows:
       
DpL VL 273 Dx
P ¼    ð9Þ
Dt 760 T A
where P is the permeability coefficient (cm3-mm/
cm2 s cm Hg), PH is the pressure introduced at the high
side, PL is low-side pressure, DpL/Dt is the steady gas
pressure increment in the low-side pressure and is obtained
from the slope of the increments of low-side pressure
versus time plot, VL is the calibrated volume of low-side
pressure of the cell, x is the thickness of the film and A is
the effective permeation area.
Banerjee et al. [11] measured the gas permeability of
films using a laboratory-made high-vacuum apparatus with
static permeation cell at 1 atm for different temperatures.
The polymer film was degassed for 24 h within the per-
meation cell prior to the experiment. To start the mea-
surement, desired gas pressure (Pi = 1 bar) was applied
instantaneously to the pressure side of the film. On the
downstream side, a reservoir of constant volume was
connected with a pressure transducer, so that the total
amount of gas that passed the polymer film could be
monitored. The time-lag method was employed for the gas
transport measurements. This technique allows the deter-
mination of the mean permeability coefficient P from the
steady-state gas pressure increment (dp/dt)s in the cali-
brated volume V of the product side of the cell. The per-
meability coefficient is reported in barrier and was
calculated from Eq. 10
   
dp V T0 x
P ¼    ð10Þ
dt S P0 Pi T A
where P is the permeability coefficient in barrier (cm3-cm/
cm2 s cm Hg), dp/dt is the steady-state gas pressure
increment in the calibrated volume V of the cell and is
obtained from the slope of the increments of downstream
pressure versus time plot, V is the calibrated volume of the
product side of the cell in cm3, T0 is the standard temper-
ature = 273.15 K, P0 is the standard pressure = 1.013
bars, Pi is the upstream side pressure (desired gas pressure
to be applied at the high-pressure side of the film, i.e.
1 bar), T is the temperature of measurement in K, x is the
thickness of the film in cm and A is the effective perme-
ation area in cm2.
Laffin et al. [90] measured gas permeability of LDPE/
LLDPE films under controlled conditions of pressure,
temperature and relative humidity. The test consisted of
placing the film sample between a partition test cell and an
evacuated manometer, with the pressure across the film at 1
atmosphere. As the gas passes through the film sample, the
mercury in the capillary of the manometer is depressed.
After a constant transmission rate was achieved, a plot of
123
144
mercury height against time gave a constant gradient. The
slope of the gradient was then used to calculate the gas
transmission rates. The quantity of gas passing through the
film is directly proportional to the difference in gas pres-
sure on either side of the film and inversely proportional to
the thickness of the film. In addition, it is directly pro-
portional to the time during which permeation has occurred
and to the exposed area of the sample [82, 127]. Hence,
Atðp1  p2 Þ
Qa ð11Þ
x transmitted mass is determined by measuring the decreas-
PAtðp1  p2 Þ
Q ¼ ð12Þ
x
where Q is the quantity of gas which passes through the
film, A is the surface area in contact with the gas, t is the
time, p1 - p2 is the partial pressure differential and x is the
thickness of film.
(2) Concentration-Increase Method/Equal Pressure
Principle
The test principle is that high oxygen flows on one side of
the film and high pure nitrogen flows on the other side of
the film. Oxygen molecule passes the film into the
nitrogen on the other side, and is taken to the sensor by
the flowing nitrogen. The transmission of oxygen is tested
by analysing the concentration of oxygen detected by
sensor. As for the packaging container, nitrogen flows in
the container, and air or high pure oxygen covers the
outside of the container.
In most cases, GTR has been measured employing
pressure gradient method (Dp = 1 atm.). Normally, in
MAP packages the pressure gradient of 1 atm. between the
internal atmosphere of the packages and the external
atmospheres is a rare possibility. Certain degree of flexi-
bility in package free volume and the presence of a pres-
sure balancing gas, viz. N2, help in maintaining low
pressure gradient without causing considerable variation in
concentration gradient. Hence the concentration-increase
or concentration gradient method facilitates close simula-
tion of the conditions under which gas transmission takes
place in MAP [129, 163].
Water Vapour Permeability
It is also important to calculate the water vapour trans-
mission rate of the packaging system. In this case, the
partial pressure difference for water vapour between the
inside and the outside of the package is almost never
constant. Simplifying Eq. 1 the rate of moisture gain or
loss in the product is given by the resulting differential
equation as follows [1]:
123
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
dQ 1
¼ Pwv Aðp2  p1 Þ ð13Þ
dt x
where Q is the mass of permeant (water vapour) passing
through the material in g, p1 and p2 are the partial pressures
of water vapour outside and inside the package, respec-
tively, in pa and p2 is a function of Q.
The principle involved is that saturated water vapour
transmits through the test specimen in a unit time under
specified conditions of temperature and humidity. The
ing weight of distilled water with time.
In a desiccant system of measurement, silica gel is used
as the desiccant and it is directly placed inside the film
pouch whose Pwv is measured under controlled conditions
of 38°C temperature and 90% relative humidity. Water
vapour permeability is computed from the measured values
of the change in weights of the packages with time,
employing the following equations [75]
   
Pwv dw 1
¼  ð14Þ
x dt A:p
where Pwv is the water vapour permeability of packaging
film (g-mm/m2 day pa), dw/dt is the weight gain by des-
iccant with time and is obtained from the slope of the
increments of weight versus time plot, t is the time in days,
w is the weight gain by desiccant in g, x is the thickness of
the film in mm, A is the area of the package in m2 and p is
the water vapour pressure at 38°C in Pa.
Effect of Temperature on Permeability
The permeability of O2 and CO2 in polymeric films is
temperature dependent and this dependence is commonly
described by an exponential equation (Arrhenius-type
equations) [49, 163]. The relationship of O2 permeability
and CO2 permeability with temperature can be depicted by
this model. The generalized form and the specific form
(permeability to O2 and CO2) of the Arrhenius equations
are as follows.
 P
Ea
P ¼ PP exp ð15Þ
RT
and EaP ¼ HS þ ED ; HS ¼ Hc þ Hm
where HS is the apparent heat of solution, ED is the acti-
vation energy for diffusion, HC is the heat of condensation,
Hm is the heat of mixing, P is the permeability of gas at
temperature T, PP is the permeability pre-exponential fac-
tor for gas, EPa is the activation energy of permeation for
gas, R is the universal gas constant and T is the absolute
temperature.
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
When permeability coefficients are not available at the
temperature of interest, an Arrhenius relationship can be
used to determine the required value, from the permeability
coefficient at a nearby temperature and the activation
energy. The following equation is used:
   
Ea 1 1
P2 ¼ P1 exp  ð16Þ
R T1 T2
where T1 is the temperature at which P1 is known, T2 is the
temperature at which P2 is to be calculated, Ea is the
activation energy and R is the gas constant.
The permeability coefficient, as indicated, is a product
of the diffusion coefficient and the Henry’s law solubility
constant. Since these vary in different ways with temper-
ature, Eqs. 15 and 16 are valid only over reasonably small
temperature ranges. A particular concern is that permeation
rates are much higher above the Tg than below this tem-
perature, and the rate of change with temperature differs.
Generally, the above equations would accurately charac-
terize a polymer’s gas diffusivity/temperature behaviour,
except where there are strong interactions between the
polymer and the gas molecules (e.g. water vapour and
hydrophilic polymers). In addition, the above equations
would only predict the effect of temperature above the gas
transition temperature (Tg), since most films show a dis-
continuity of diffusion at the transition. At or below Tg, the
polymer conformation is set and rotational movements
responsible for diffusional properties are blocked. There-
fore, Eq. 15 should never be used to calculate the perme-
ability coefficient across a temperature range that spans Tg
of the plastic.
Temperature Quotient for Permeability
The influence of temperature on permeability of polymeric
films was quantified with the QP10 value, which is the per-
meability increase for a 10°C rise in temperature and is
given by the following equation:
 10=ðT2 T1 Þ
P P2
Q10 ¼ ð17Þ
P1
where QP10 is the temperature quotient for permeability, and
P1 and P2 are the permeabilities at temperatures T1 and T2,
respectively.
Permeability Coefficient of Multiplayer Films
Permeability coefficients for multiplayer plastic film or
sheet, either laminations or coextrusions, can be calculated
from the thickness and permeability coefficients of the
individual layers as follows [1]:
145
x
Pt ¼ t  ð18Þ
Ri¼n xi=
i¼1 Pi
where the subscript t indicates the value for the total
structure, i indicates the value for an individual layer, and
there are n layers in the structure.
When two films are combined to form the film laminate,
Eq. 18 can be expressed as follows [82]:
1 x1 x2
¼ þ ð19Þ
Pla ð x P1 Þ ð x P2 Þ
where Pla is the permeability of film laminate (cm3/
m2 h atm), P1 and P2, are the permeabilities of individual
films, i.e. film1 and film2, respectively; x1 and x2 are the
thicknesses of individual films, and x is the thickness of the
film laminate.
Effect of Sub-zero Temperature on Permeability
Lambden et al. [91] investigated the effect of sub-zero
temperatures on OTR of packaging films. They inferred
that around 0°C, a small variation in temperature greatly
alters the permeabilities and thus their prediction is not
possible with Arrhenius relationship.
Influence of Polymer Structure and Morphology
on Permeability
Salame [137] correlated polymer structure and morphology
with gas permeability. Based on cohesive energy density
and fractional free volume of the polymer, he derived
numerical scale of ‘permachor’ values (p) to predict gas
permeability for non-interacting polymer-penetrant sys-
tems as given below:
P ¼ ðA=TO ÞeSp ð20Þ
where A and S are constants and T0 is the tartuosity (ori-
ented crystalline polymers)
Packaging System in MAP
The polymeric films used for MAP are of three types: (i)
polymeric films without perforations or microperforated;
(ii) macroperforated polymeric films and (iii) perforation-
mediated packaging systems.
Microperforated or non-perforated polymeric films yield
low O2 and low CO2 concentrations because the CO2
permeability of these materials is generally 3–6 times that
of O2 permeability [49, 162]. These materials are suitable
for less CO2 tolerant commodities such as mango, banana,
grapes and apples. The gas permeability in microperforated
polymeric films is temperature dependent and this
123
146
dependence is commonly described by Arrhenius-type
equations [49, 95] as follows:
 P 
Ea 1 1
P ¼ Pref exp  ð21Þ
R T Tref
where P is the permeability at temperature T, EPa is the
activation energy for permeation, R is the ideal gas con-
stant, T is the absolute temperature, Tref is the reference
temperature, and Pref is the permeability at the reference
temperature.
Perforated films have higher permeability rate but the
ratio of CO2 to O2 permeability is much lower, approach-
ing unity. Such films are, therefore, of great interest for
commodities tolerating simultaneously low O2 and high
CO2 levels such as fresh-cut products, strawberry and
mushroom, commodities having high respiration rate [53,
112, 130].
Macroscopic perforations in a polymeric film represent a
parallel route for gas transport. An apparent permeability
term is used for these films, which is a function of the film
permeability and of the number and size of holes. For holes
of equal size, the governing equation which describes the
effect of temperature on permeability of macroscopic films
is as follows [52, 95, 154]:
 
a pR2h 16:4  106
P ¼ Pþ Nh ð22Þ
ð x þ Rh Þ
where Pa is the apparent of the macroscopic perforated
film, Rh is the radius of the holes/macroperforation, Nh is
the number of holes, x is the film thickness and P is the
permeability of the non-perforated films.
In the perforation-mediated packaging, tubes are inser-
ted in an airtight package [53, 95]. This system is also
adequate for products requiring high CO2/low O2 concen-
trations and minimizes water accumulation inside the
package. The perforation-mediated packaging system is a
rigid one, which is suitable for bulk products and for
products sensitive to mechanical damage.
The gas exchange in perforation-mediated packages has
been found to be independent of temperature within the
biological range of temperature (0–25°C). However, the
permeability depends on dimensions, numbers and porosity
of the tubes. The permeability of the perforation-mediated
packages can be represented by PAp/x as described in the
following equation [53, 95]:
PAP D1:45
¼ 4:80  106 NP e 0:598 ð23Þ
x LP
where NP is the number of perforations (tubes), e is the
porosity (e = 1 when the tubes have no packing), AP is the
surface area of the package through which O2 and CO2
permeate, D is the diameter of perforation (tube) and LP is
123
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
the length of perforation (tube). All variables in the above
equation are in SI units.
Advanced Technology for Efficient MA Packaging
The goal of MAP of fresh commodity is to create an
equilibrium package atmosphere with % O2 low enough
and % CO2 high enough to be beneficial to the produce and
not injurious. This is accomplished through the proper
balance of several variables that affect package atmosphere
[48, 81, 95]. MAP has progressed in the past several years.
Appropriate packaging materials have been developed for
most of the commodities. Recent advances in the polymer
science and technology have made it possible to manu-
facture films with desired and well-designed gas trans-
mission rates especially for O2. There is consensus as to
which films are appropriate for standard size packages of
various food commodities. Knowledge of how to effec-
tively seal packages and reduce incidence of leakages has
developed and printing capabilities have provided even
more attractive packages. Technical challenges still exist in
produce packaging. Some of the technologies currently
available to meet those challenges are as follows:
Continuous Films
The movement of O2 and CO2 is usually directly propor-
tional to the differences in gas concentration across the
film. Steady-state (constant) O2 and CO2 levels are
achieved in the package when the O2 uptake and CO2
production by the product are equal to that permeating
through the film [48, 49, 81].
Tailoring of Film Laminates
Plastics films can be manufactured either as a single film or
as a combination of more than one plastic. There are two
ways of combining plastics: lamination and coextrusion.
The tailoring of the film laminates is done when the gas
permeability characteristics of any of the selected films do
not match the gas permeability requirements of the MAP
system satisfactorily. Thus various combinations of dif-
ferent films are taken and film laminates are prepared to
bring the gas permeability characteristics as close to the gas
permeability requirements of the MAP [28, 72, 129]. Based
on the gas permeability characteristics of the individual
films, two different films are combined to form the lami-
nates. Lamination involves bonding together two or more
plastics or bonding plastics to another material such as
paper or aluminium. Bonding is commonly achieved by use
of water-, solvent-, or solid-based adhesive. After the
adhesive is applied to one film, the two films are passed
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
between rollers to pressure bond them together. Lamination
using laser rather than adhesives has also been used for
thermoplastics [85]. Laminations enable reverse printing,
in which the printing is buried between layers and thus not
subjected to abrasion and can add or enhance heat seala-
bility. Curwood has introduced laminations of 35–50 lm
polyester and linear LDPE film, which has been microcut.
These microcuts permit better flow of oxygen and carbon
dioxide, and thus minimize the probability of respiratory
anacrobiosis.
Coextrusion
In coextrusion, two or more layers of molten plastics are
combined during the film manufacture. This process is
more rapid but requires materials that have thermal char-
acteristics that allow coextrusion. Because coextrusion and
lamination combines multiple materials, recycling is
complicated. However, combining materials results in the
additive advantage of properties from each individual
material and often reduces the total amount of packaging
material required. Therefore, coextrusion and lamination
can be sources of packaging reduction [102].
Tailored Oxygen Transmission Rate (OTR)
The flexible packaging industry has become increasingly
responsive to the specific gas requirements of fresh produce
and are now providing films specifically designed for given
produce items. Films for low, medium and high respiration
rate commodities are now available from many package
vendors and the process of matching OTR to product is
being constantly refined. This has also allowed fresh-cut
processors to begin to provide a much greater diversity of
products which now includes artichoke hearts, baby salad
greens, sliced strawberries and many others. Very high
respiration rate commodities such as litchi, straw berries,
broccoli, asparagus and mushrooms have always presented
a challenge to packagers. New technologies are now
allowing the manufacture of very high OTR ([15,000
cc/m2 day) films for these applications [165].
Metallocene Technology
Technology developed independently by Dow Chemical
Co. and Exxon Chemical Co. uses new single site catalysts
to produce desired polymer resins. These catalysts, when
applied to the manufacture of polyethylene and other
polymers, can provide a much narrower distribution of
polymer chain length, molecular weight and density. This
results in flexible plastic films with very high OTR, low
moisture vapour transmission rate, enhanced clarity, supe-
rior strength, low seal initiation temperature and very rapid
147
bonding of the seal. These stronger films with stronger seals
are finding wide application in produce packaging [166].
Perforated Films
The rate of gas movement through a perforated film is a
sum of gas diffusion through the perforation and gas per-
meation through the polymeric film. Generally, total gas
flow through the perforations is much greater than gas
movement through the film. Gas transmission through
microperforations has been modelled [52]. The rate of gas
exchange through perforations in a film is so much greater
than through continuous films that a 1-mm perforation in a
0.0025 mm (1 mil) thick LDPE film has nearly the same
gas flux as a half and a square metre area of the film. As
might be surmised, perforated packages are more suitable
for produce having a high O2 demand [54, 55].
Microperforated Films
The concept of a packaging material with CO2/O2 trans-
missions compatible with the needs of the contained pro-
duce has been advanced. Two basic types of film materials
have been proposed, tested and, to some extent, introduced
on a commercial scale: microperforated and mineral filled.
Alternative approaches to providing high OTRs, espe-
cially in applications where there is limited package sur-
face area for gas exchange, have included films with holes
or pores. P-Plus microperforated technology owned by
Print Pak and proprietary microperforation technologies
owned by Respire Films in America and Sidlaw in England
are finding applications in the rapidly emerging fresh,
lightly processed and cut fruit market (Cameron et al. [30].
The P-Plus film is manufactured by perforating a polyolefin
film with very tiny orifices using laser beams. The gas
permeabilities are designed to balance the respiration rate
of the produce being packed. P-Plus films represent a range
of base film substrates displaying permeabilities precisely
matching the demands of the produce [22].
Most cut fruit is packaged in rigid, gas impermeable
trays with a permeable film lidstock sealed to the tray.
Because the tray is impermeable to gases, there is reduced
surface area for gas exchange. All the gas exchange must
occur through the lidstock. Until recently, few films had
high enough OTRs to be useful in these applications. Those
films that had high OTRs often would not seal to the trays.
However, these microperforted films display the properties
required for MA packaging of highly respiring produce.
Microporous and microperforated films allow much more
rapid gas exchange than would normally be possible
through plastic films [8, 59].
Perforation retains many of the good results of sealing
such as reduction of water loss and alleviation of water
123
148
stress without the possible deleterious effects of anaerobi-
osis such as off-flavours, fermentation or CO2 damage.
Furthermore, perforation of polyolefin’s films enabled
attainment of some of the advantage of seal packaging
[22]. Microperforated packaging techniques have also
proven effective in retarding deterioration in several other
commodities. Additionally, perforation enables MAP for
highly respiring produce such as litchi, capsicum, mush-
rooms [28]. Perforation may also enable MAP for produce
that is sensitive to even small changes in concentrations of
O2, CO2 and C2H4. [22].
Microporous Films
Microporous films which are engineered to pass low
molecular weight gases such as O2, CO2, water vapour,
nitrogen, specifically for the purpose of adjusting the gas-
eous concentration within the package, generally fall into
two categories: those which are intentionally perforated
with very small orifices which pass gases at a very slow
rate relative to the total area and those which contain
intentional additives that interfere with the continuity of the
plastic materials and thus alter their gas transmission rates
[22, 27, 102, 154]. The two most popular microporous film
technology are those of van Leer (Belgium) and FreshHold,
owned by Albert Fisher, Plc. (USA), with the latter
receiving major attention. In this type of material, the
plastic polymer is admixed with an inert inorganic mineral
such as crushed calcium carbonate or talc. The mineral fill
is encapsulated in discrete particulates by the polymer and
imparts a variety of properties such as stiffness.
Those films exhibiting high gas permeability by virtue
of their nature or by reason of being polymeric blends
are technically not microporous. Among these are high
(10–20%) EVA content polyethylene films such as Shields
Bag or Cryovac, or polycyclic terepene film, Phillips
K-resin block copolymer styrene film and Dow chemical’s
Attane ultra low-density ethylene octane copolymer films
produced in the past by Bunzl in the U.K. These films are
being suggested as high gas permeability packaging
materials for MAP of respiring produce [1, 27].
Interactive Package
MAP application may require packaging materials capable
of passing controlled quantities of water, oxygen, carbon
dioxide and ethylene in order to control the concentrations
of these gases in the internal package environment and to
avoid anaerobiosis [104]. Thus was born the term ‘smart’
packaging, or packaging that could somehow sense the
changing internal packaging environment and admit O2
from the outer atmosphere or allow excess CO2 to escape,
or both. This terminology then translated into active
123
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
packaging, which encompasses a broad spectrum of
materials sensitive to the packaged produce requirements
and its surrounding environment. The latter group includes
families of package supplements such as in-package
sachets of chemicals to absorb O2, CO2 or C2H4 and even
to provide O2 and CO2 when the package environment has
been depleted of desired gases [4, 20, 38, 56, 128].
Tray/Lidstock Compatibility
The high OTR requirements for lidstocks sealed to
impermeable trays has often conflicted with poor sealing
properties. Advances in coextrusion technology, coupled
with single site catalyst-based plastic resins, have provided
better-breathing, better-sealing films just in time to meet
the needs of the fresh-cut fruit industry [167].
Customizable Packaging Materials
Because each produce item has differing, often unique,
packaging requirements, the ability to customize the
package to the product has been the aim of produce
package development efforts. Fresh hold labels can be
customized to provide almost any desired OTR, as is true
of microperforated films. Some film vendors provide an
array of OTRs by varying the thickness of a given film.
Thinner films have higher OTRs. Very thin films do not run
well on modern automated packaging machinery and so
this approach is limited.
Landec Corporation, Inc. of California, USA, has
developed side-chain polymer technology that allows the
film OTR to increase rapidly as temperature increases,
thereby avoiding anaerobic conditions subsequent to loss of
temperature control. In addition, these polymers can pro-
vide very high OTR’, an adjustable CO2/O2 permeability
ratio, and a range of moisture vapour transmission rates.
These polymers are available as attachable patches that can
go on bags or overwraps and represent the first truly cus-
tomizable packaging system [165, 166].
Antifog Properties
Potential buyers like to see fresh produce before they buy
it. Therefore, plastic packages need to be clear and the
product visible. Condensation of water inside the package
can often occlude the view of the product. Antifog com-
pounds have been developed that, when included in co-
extruded films, migrate to the inner surface of the film and
prevent large water drops from forming. This results in a
more attractive package and a better view of the product.
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
However, antifog coatings can interfere with seal integrity
and so newer technology relies on register coatings that
apply the antifog material only on selected areas of the film
away from the seal.
Package Management
There has emerged an increased appreciation that pack-
aging can only deliver its promised benefits to fresh pro-
duce within a specific temperature range. In addition, an
emphasis on shelf life extension has shifted to an emphasis
on quality preservation. As the marketplace for fresh and
cut products becomes more competitive, it is the quality
that sells, not shelf life. This has resulted in increased
attention to maintaining low temperatures and rapid dis-
tribution. Such changes in perspective have helped realize
the benefits that modern packaging films can provide.
Design of Modified Atmosphere Packaging
The basis of MAP is that a reduced O2 environment sup-
presses respiration by the commodity, thereby slowing vital
processes, and prolongs the maintenance of postharvest
quality. A secondary but potentially important factor is a
concomitant decrease in respiration in response to elevated
CO2. So this modified atmosphere can potentially reduce
respiration rate, ethylene biosynthesis and sensitivity to
ethylene, decay and physiological changes, namely, oxi-
dation [81, 95, 138]. The objective of MAP design is to
define conditions that will create the atmosphere best suited
for the extended storage of a given produce while mini-
mizing the time required for achieving this atmosphere.
This can be done by matching the film permeation rate for
O2 and CO2 with the respiration rate of the packaged
produce. As different products vary in their behaviour and
as MA packages will be exposed to a dynamic environ-
ment, each package has to be optimized for specific
demands [34, 74, 95].
MAP is a dynamic system during which respiration and
permeation occur simultaneously. Factors affecting both
respiration and permeation must be considered when
designing a package [31, 74, 100, 162]. Commodity mass
kept inside the package, storage temperature, oxygen,
carbon dioxide and ethylene partial pressures and stage of
maturity are known to influence respiration in a package
[22, 44, 81]. Type, thickness, unintended holes, and surface
area of the packaging film that is exposed to atmosphere
and across which permeation of O2 and CO2 takes place,
and volume of void space present inside the package, as
well as temperature, relative humidity, and gradient of
oxygen and carbon dioxide partial pressures across the film
are known determinants of permeation [9, 44, 79, 131].
149
In a MAP packaging system, fresh fruits are sealed in
perm selective polymeric film packages. Due to respiration
of the packaged fruits, O2 starts depleting, and CO2 starts
accumulating within the package because of the con-
sumption of O2 and the production of CO2 in the respira-
tion process. Consequently, respiration begins to decrease
while O2 and CO2 concentration gradients between pack-
age and ambient atmosphere begin to develop. The
development of concentration gradients induces ingress of
O2 and egress of CO2 through the packaging films [31, 34,
95, 106, 131]. In a properly designed MAP, after a period
of transient state an equilibrium state is established. At
equilibrium, the amount of O2 entering into the package
and that of CO2 permeating out of the package become
equal to the amount of O2 consumed and that of CO2
evolved by the packaged fruit, respectively [46, 74, 154].
The package atmosphere is then considered to be in
dynamic equilibrium with external atmosphere. An ideal
package system will equilibrate and maintain O2 and CO2
at the levels that are known to be optimal for storage,
transport and handling throughout the market chain for a
specific commodity [53, 73, 95, 121, 159].
Traditionally, a ‘trial and error’ approach is commonly
employed for choosing a suitable packaging material to
achieve optimal modified atmosphere inside the packages.
The result is that most commercial fresh produce packages
in major supermarkets often deviate from the optimal MAP
conditions, resulting in shorter shelf life and in some cases
anoxia [96]. How to select efficiently and effectively a
packaging for fresh produce? University College Cork,
Ireland, has developed the PACK-in-MAP technology
which is a web-based (www.packinmap.com) software tool
that helps in designing optimal modified atmosphere
packages for fresh and fresh-cut fruits and vegetables [95,
97]. The software determines the needs for packaging of
fruits and vegetables in order to maximize food quality and
shelf life. It contains several databases on information on
product respiration rate, optimum temperature, and opti-
mum range of O2 and CO2 concentrations as well as per-
meability of different packaging materials, including
microperforated films. The PACK-in-MAP software can be
accessed online, the user defines the type of product and
the system then selects the optimum temperature, the O2
and CO2 concentrations, and calculates the respiration rate
for that product. It identifies the best possible packaging
material and/or amount of product required to achieve
optimal packaging conditions.
Design Methodology
MAP design requires the determination of intrinsic prop-
erties of the produce, i.e. respiration rate, optimum O2 and
CO2 gas concentrations, and film permeability
123
150
characteristics [31, 152]. The ultimate aim of this design
process is to select suitable films for a given product, its
area and thickness, filling weight, equilibrium time, and the
equilibrium gas composition at isothermal and non-iso-
thermal conditions. The design involves the mathematical
modelling gaseous exchange in MAP, respiration rate of
commodity, permeability of the films and optimization of
package parameters [44, 49, 81, 95].
Mathematical Modelling of Gaseous Exchange in MAP
System
When the fresh fruits and vegetables are sealed in a
selected polymeric film packages, it constitutes a dynamic
system where respiration of the product and the gas per-
meation through the film take place simultaneously. In the
respiration process O2 is consumed and the produce
evolves CO2. The simplest concept is that the plastic film
serves as the regulator of O2 flow into the package and the
flow of CO2 out of the package. For a considerably small
length of transient period and at a given temperature, the
rates of O2 consumption and the rate of CO2 evolution of
the packaged commodity depend greatly on O2 concen-
tration and CO2 concentration. The differential mass bal-
ance equations that describe the O2 and CO2 concentration
changes in a package containing respiring product are
given in Eqs 24 and 25, respectively.
   
dYO2 Wp A p PO 2  a 
¼  RO2 þ YO2  YO2 ð24Þ
dt Vfp Vfp
   
dZCO2 Wp Ap PCO2  a
 of shrinkage [14, 20, 149]. Guava packed with PVC, LDPE
¼ RCO2  ZCO2  ZCO ð25Þ
dt Vfp Vfp 2
where Ap is the area of the package through which the O2
and CO2 permeates (m2), YOa 2 and ZOa 2 are the O2 and CO2
concentration in the atmospheric air (cm3 per cm3 of air),
respectively, YO2 and ZCO2 are the O2 and CO2 concentra-
tion inside the package (cm3 per cm3 of air), respectively,
PO2 and PCO2 are the O2 and CO2 permeability of pack-
aging material (cm3 m-2 h-1. [Conc. diff. of O2 in volume
fraction]-1), respectively, Wp is the weight of the fruit kept
inside the package (kg), RO2 and RCO2 are the respiration
rate for O2 consumption and CO2 evolution by the fruits,
(cm3 kg-1 h-1), respectively, Vfp is the free volume in the
package (cm ), t is the storage time (h) and dYO2 /dt and
dZCO2 /dt are the rate of change of O2 concentration ‘YO2 ’
and CO2 concentration ‘ZCO2 ’ within the package at time
‘t’ of storage (cm3 per cm3 of air h-1), respectively.
Equations 24 and 25 ,coupled to the model that
describes the dependence of respiration rate on gas com-
position and temperature (and eventually time) and models
that describe the dependence of packaging material on
temperature, constitute the basis of MAP design [34, 44,
123
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
46, 49, 74, 95]. The effect of gas composition on respira-
tion rate is often described by the Michaelies-Menten
equation with different types of inhibitions while the effect
of temperature is quantified by an Arrhenius-type equation
[93, 99, 123]. The permeability of O2 and CO2 in poly-
meric films is temperature dependent and this dependence
is commonly described by an exponential equation
(Arrhenius-type equation) [49, 95, 99].
Current Application of Polymeric Films
for MAP of Fruits and Vegetables
Many plastic films have been in use for modified atmo-
sphere packaging of varieties of produce (Table 3). The
packaging of apples using polyethylene, PVC, PET, etc.
films were found to be successful in increasing shelf life
and maintaining quality [6, 65, 79, 129, 149, 150]). Rocha
et al. [134] packed apple using polypropylene of 100 lm
for 6.5 months at 4°C and 85% R.H. and found that apples
packed in MA lost less weight, presented better colour, and
preserved better firmness than fruits stored in air. Prasad
[129] developed MA packages for apple, combining BOPP
and PVC films by tailoring of film laminates. The MA-
packed apples were reported to have retained orchard
freshness and increased shelf life considerably. The inci-
dence of bitter pit that developed during storage of apple
was progressively reduced from 50% to less than 5% using
LDPE packages [68].
Packaging citrus fruits in polyethylene films maintained
high RH inside the package and hence resulted in reduction
or PET and stored for 2 and 3 weeks at 5 and 8°C hindered
the development of peel colour and the loss of firmness [57,
110, 124]. Sunjka et al. [151] observed that guava stored
with silicon membrane had good overall quality after
storage and after ripening. Combrink et al. [40] reported
that non-perforated polyethylene bags maintained guava
fruit quality better than perforated bags. Most workers have
used polyethylene and PVC films [58, 136] to extend
tomato shelf life up to 21 days. Banana is greatly benefited
from MAP using LDPE films due to reduced C2H4 sensi-
tivity associated with high CO2 and low O2 [7, 13, 24].
Modified atmosphere packaging has been considered to
be beneficial to maintain high humidity, essential for pre-
vention of water loss and browning of litchi pericarp [78,
125, 148, 156]. Litchi treated with 1% HCl, packed with
polyethylene films [77] with or without SO2 treatment, and
sealed with polyethylene and PVC films [33, 122] pre-
vented dehydration and pericarp browning. Sivakumar and
Korsten [148] reported that MAP of litchi fruits using
BOPP film after postharvest treatment minimized the rate
of transpiration, preventing weight loss and deterioration of
fruit quality.
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158 151

Table 3 Summary of the type of product, type of plastic, atmosphere composition, temperature of storage during MAP
Type of product Type of plastic Atmospheric Temperature Storage period References
composition of storage (°C) under MAP
% O2 % CO2

Apple (cv. Bravo de Polypropylene 5 3 2 6.5 months [134]

Esmolfe)
Apple (cv. ‘Cox’s LDPE 3 3 4 5 weeks [68]
Orange Pippin’)
Apple (cv. Bramley’s Cardboard cases lined 7 5 15 4 week [59]
Seedling and Cox’s with LDPE
Orange Pippin
apples)
Apples (cv Fuji) Polypropylene, PVC 5 4 10 7 months [65]
Guava (cv. Kumagai) Multilayer coextruded 1.5 4.5 10 3 weeks [72]
polyethylene
Guava (cv. Kumagai) LDPEm 3 4.5 10 2 week [72]
Guava (cv. Kumagai) PET 4 5 5 24 days [124]
Banana LDPE 3 5 15 15 days [24]
Autumn seedless table Polypropylene 15 10 0 60 days [8]
Grape
Table grapes (cv. Oriented polypropylene 8 2.5 1 56 days [158]
Autumn Royal)
Litchi (cv. Mauritius) BOPP 17 6 2 34 days [148]
Litchi (cv Heiye) Polyethylene 15 4 3 42 days [156]
Litchi Laminated polyethylene 15 5 1.5 4 weeks [125]
Litchi (cv. McLean’s BOPP 16 6 2 18 days [147]
Red)
Sapota (cv.’Jantung) LDPE – – 5, 10, 15 4 weeks at 10°C and [111]
3 weeks at 15°C, at 5°C
experienced chilling
injury
Strawberries (cv. PVC, LDPE, PP 6 8 2°C (4 days), followed 8 days Simulated [140]
Camarosa) by 10°C (2 days) condition of MAP
and by 18°C (transport, distribution
(2 days) and retail sale)
Strawberries and LDPE, PVC 3 5 7 1 week [159]
raspberries
Sweet cherry (cv. LDPE 0.11, 0.18, 9.2, 11.5, 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 3 weeks [126]
Sams) 0.04, 12.4,
0.016, 15.2,
0.28, 20.3,
0.13 20.3
Sweet cherries LDPE 5 14 34°F 14 days [88]
Broccoli (cv. LDPE 1.5 6 15 2 weeks [35]
Marathon)
Broccoli heads Macroperforated, 3 5 1 28 days [142]
microperforated and
non-perforated PP
Broccoli OPP, PVC, LDPE 5 7 10 1 week [71]
Broccoli (cv. Acadi) Plastic containers (4-L) 3 8 3 30 days [153]
fitted with diffusion
windows for gas
exchange
Mushrooms (U3 Plastic containers (26-L) 5 10 4 12 days [153]
Sylvan 381) fitted with diffusion
windows

123
152
Table 3 continued
Type of product Type of plastic Atmospheric
composition
% O2
Tomatoes (cv. Trust) Plastic containers (26-L) 5 5
fitted with diffusion
windows
Tomato LDPE 2.3–10.2
Mushroom PVC, LDPE 6 6
Fresh-cut bell pepper Saran and PD-961EZ 3 5
(cv. Wonder)
Green peppers Polylactic acid (PLA) 11.6 ± 4%
(Capsicum annuum based biodegradable
L.) film, LDPE
Microperforated LDPE (30 lm) films provided effec-
tive, favourable atmospheres for Bramley apples during a
simulated 4-week marketing period under ambient condi-
tions and the shelf life benefit was observed [59]. Artes-
Hernandez et al. [8] studied the quality of superior seedless
table grapes under MAP using microperforated and ori-
ented polypropylene films and reported that SO2-free MAP
kept the overall quality of clusters close to that at harvest.
Packaging of straw berries using LDPE, PVC and poly-
propylene films with or without perforations showed a
considerable improvement in quality in terms of fruit
firmness, weight loss, desiccation and decay [2, 140, 159,
169].
A number of researchers have worked on MA packaging
of cherries and other similarly perishable fruits including
blueberries and raspberries [17, 32, 42, 114, 126, 160]
using PVC, polypropylene, LDPE and microperforated
films or films that are unperforated but have a selectively
permeability to oxygen and carbon dioxide. Valero et al.
[159] developed active packaging by adding eugenol or
thymol to table grapes stored for 56 days under MA con-
dition. The sensory, nutritional and functional property
losses were significantly reduced in packages with added
eugenol or thymol. In addition, lower microbial spoilage
counts were achieved with the active packaging.
Jacomino et al. [72] observed that multilayer coextruded
polyolephinic film with selective permeability (PSP) can
prolong storage of guava up to 3 weeks, while low -density
polyethylene film with incorporated minerals (LDPEm) is
suitable for guava storage at 10°C with 85–90% relative
humidity. The PSP film and LDPE film with mineral
incorporation provided an atmosphere that kept the fruit
with good sensorial characteristics for 28 days and
14 days, respectively.
MAP was proven to extend the shelf life of several
vegetables. Both high CO2 and low O2 concentrations
123
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
Temperature Storage period References
of storage (°C) under MAP
% CO2
13 35 days [153]
1.7–4.9 20 28 days [31]
12°C 1 week [83]
5, 10 3 weeks and 2 weeks [60]
5.6 ± 2% 10°C 1 week [145]
retard respiration and senescence of Broccoli heads [142].
Broccoli maintains its quality longer in both perforated and
sealed polyethylene, BOPP and PVC film packages [3, 51,
133]. Christie et al. [35] successfully developed MA
packages for broccoli using LDPE films impregnated with
inorganic particles. Jacobson et al. [71] observed that the
overall quality of broccoli packaged in LDPE that con-
tained an ethylene absorber was perceived to be the sample
most similar to fresh broccoli [103].
A biodegradable laminate of a chitosan-cellulose was
found suitable as a packaging material for MAP and stor-
age of broccolis [164]. Serrano et al. [142] stored broccolis
using macroperforated, microperforated and non-perfo-
rated polypropylene films and observed that all changes
related to loss of quality were significantly reduced and
delayed with time especially with perforated and non-per-
forated films. Packaging of pepper with plastic films extend
the shelf life but the major benefit appears to be mediated
by the maintenance of high relative humidity inside the
package which reduces the rates of transpiration [21, 70,
108, 161].
MAP is an economical and effective way of extending
shelf life of fresh mushrooms. Packaging of mushroom
using PVC wrap and polyolefin films increased the shelf
life of mushrooms by retarding cap opening, reducing
respiration, reducing internal browning and reducing
weight loss, consequently resulting in higher quality [83,
117]. In the perforated film packs, the quality of mushroom
varied according to the film’s permeability and number of
perforation holes [117]. Shoji and John [145] compared the
storage quality of green peppers using PLA-based biode-
gradable film packaging with LDPE and perforated LDPE
film packaging. It is suggested that the biodegradable film
with higher water vapour permeability can be used to
maintain the quality and sanitary conditions of freshly
harvested green peppers in MAP.
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
Almenar et al. [5] packed highbush blueberries in
polylactide (PLA) containers and stored at 10°C for
18 days and at 23°C for 9 days. Physicochemical and
microbiological studies were carried out in order to know
the efficacy of PLA packages. Results showed that the PLA
containers prolonged blueberry shelf life at different stor-
age temperatures. Del Nobile et al. [47] used four different
films: two polyester-based biodegradable films, a multi-
layer film made by laminating an aluminium foil with a
polyethylene film and an oriented polypropylene film to
study the ability of biodegradable films to prolong the shelf
life of minimally processed lettuce stored at 4°C. Results
suggest that the gas permeability of the investigated films
plays a major role in determining the quality of the packed
produce. Moreover, it was observed that biodegradable
films guarantee a shelf life longer than that of oriented
polypropylene film package.
Jacxsens et al. [74] designed equilibrium MA packages
for fresh-cut vegetables such as bell pepper, broccoli,
carrots, chicory, cucumber, French beans, iceberg lettuce,
mixed lettuce, mungbean sprouts subjected to change in
temperature which is similar to the condition of distribution
chain. Higher respiration rates and temperature dependence
of cut/shredded produce was observed compared to
unprocessed vegetables. Hence, they developed new non-
perforated packaging films with high O2 and CO2 perme-
ability. The EMA packages were designed by combining
mathematical models that describe the effect of tempera-
ture and O2 and CO2 levels on produce respiration. The
influence of temperature on respiration was described by an
Arrhenius-type of equation while the influence of O2 and
CO2 on respiration was modelled by a Michaelis-Menten
kinetics [46, 95]. Fresh-cut produce seemed to be more
temperature-sensitive than unprocessed fresh vegetables.
The proposed packaging systems with the new polymer
films of higher permeabilities provided a sufficient low
headspace O2 level in a temperature range of between 2
and 10°C.
Future Research Needs
The use of MAP for fresh produce is quite restricted for a
number of reasons. No single polymer offers all the prop-
erties required for MAP. In addition to barrier properties,
properties like machinability/sealability must also be taken
into account. One inherent requirement for all MAP packs
is the ability to retain the desired atmosphere as long as
possible. This is achieved first by choosing a film or films
to provide the required gas and moisture vapour perme-
ability characteristics and second by ensuring seal integrity
of the packs. To achieve the above film characteristics, the
different plastic films are either laminated or coextruded.
153
Despite many advantages of MA packaging, adoption of
this technique has been rather slow in countries dependent
on machinery to apply it, and the technique has not yet
reached its full potential. Possibly, non-availability of fast
and reasonably priced equipment and the cost of the film
are the main reasons limiting the commercial adoption of
MA packaging.
There is an unavailability of appropriate films that
provide safe modified atmosphere, especially under abu-
sive temperature condition that can occur in the handling
chain. Packages that provides safe atmosphere at one
temperature may result in anaerobic conditions at higher
temperature. The expenses of using MAP technology both
on film cost and on the packaging line system fall on the
producer/processor until and unless it is recovered. As of
today the application of MAP is limited to certain produce
and/or for specific purpose that provides reduced profit
margin. Some problems are associated with maintaining
package integrity during storage and transportation. The
plastic films used for MA packaging must be flexible and
easy to use, but strong enough to survive normal handling
operations. Based on above points, some of the future
research works that can be suggested are as follows:
Standardization of conditions for MA packaging of all
commodities be done based on appropriate design steps
which includes the matching permeability requirement of
films. This may lead to the commercial production of
polymeric films of desirable properties for MAP and its
availability in the market for sustainable growth and
developments.
1. Commercialization of MAP technology to all kinds of
food products may lead to enhanced profit margin.
2. The polymeric films of recommended gas transmission
rates and other characteristics (strong, flexible, trans-
parent, durable and food grade) required for MAP for
all commodities should be produced commercially
either as single polymer/coextruded/laminated for the
success and popularization of MAP technology.
3. Most of the data on film permeability are determined at
a single temperature and relative humidity. The film
permeability data at realistic temperature between 0
and 25°C and realistic relative humidity between 85
and 95% must be determined.
4. When selecting polymer films for particular packaging
applications, it is important that the film permeabilities
be measured under the envisaged storage conditions
and using a mixed gas technique to give realistic
predictions in MAP system.
5. New trends of research are needed in the development
of interactive or smart films. These new films may
somehow sense the changing internal packaging
123
154
atmosphere and admit O2 from the outer atmosphere or
allow excess CO2 to escape.
6. Package modelling can improve understanding of how
package, plant and environmental factors interact and
can be useful in package design.
7. The creation and maintenance of an optimal atmo-
sphere inside an MA package depends on the respi-
ration rate of the product and the permeability of the
films to O2 and CO2, both of which are affected by
temperature. However, an increase in temperature has
different effects on these two parameters: the increase
in the respiration rate as a function of temperature
described by QR10 is generally substantially greater than
the increase in the permeability of packaging material.
Hence, films should be produced to match the QR10 and
QP10 to counter the effects of temperature fluctuation
encountered during transport, storage and distribution
chain.
References
1. Abdel-Bary EM (2003) Hand book of plastic films. Rapra
Technology Ltd., Shawbury, Shrewbury, Shropshri, SY4 4NR,
UK
2. Aharoni Y, Barkai-Golan R (1987) Pre-harvest fungicide sprays
and polyvinyl wraps to control botrytis rot and prolong post
harvest storage life of strawberries. J Hortic Sci 62:175–180
3. Aharoni N, Philosoph-Hadas S, Barkai-Golnn R (1987) Modi-
fied atmosphere to delay senescence and decay of broccoli.
Proceedings of 4th national controlled atmospheres research
conference, July 1985, pp 169–177, North Carolina
4. Ahvenainen R (2003) Novel food packaging technology, Pub-
lished in CRC Press, Boca Raton Boston New York Washinton,
DC and Published by Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge
London
5. Almenar E, Samsudin H, Auras R, Harte B, Rubino M (2008)
Postharvest shelf life extension of blueberries using a biode-
gradable package. Food Chem 110:120–127
6. Anzueto CR, Rizvi SSH (1985) Individual packaging of apples
for shelf life extension. J Food Sci 50:891–899
7. Aradhya SM, Habbibunnisa B, Prasad A, Vasantha MS, Ramana
KVR, Ramachandra BS (1993) Extension of storage life of
Rasthale Banana under modified atmosphere at low temperature,
Paper No., FVP-39. Presented at the 3rd International Food
Convention held during September 7–12 at Mysore, India
8. Artes-Hernandez F, Tomas-Barberan FA, Artes F (2006) Mod-
ified atmosphere packaging preserves quality of SO2-free
‘superior seedless’ table grapes. Postharvest Biol Technol
39:146–154
9. Ashley RJ (1985) Permeability and plastics packaging. In:
Comyn J (ed) Polymer permeability. Elsevier, New York, pp
269–308
10. Auras R, Harte B, Selke S (2004) An overview of polyactides as
packaging materials to food. Macromol Biosci 4(9):835–864
11. Banerjee S, Maier G, Dannenberg C, Spinger J (2004) Gas
permeabilities of novel poly (arylene ether)s with terphenyl unit
in the main chain. J Memb Sci 229:63–71
123
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
12. Banks NH (1984) Some effects of TAL pro-long coating on
ripening bananas. J Exp Bot 35:127–137
13. Banks NH (1985) Responses of banana fruit to prolong coating
at different times relative to the initiation of ripening. Sci Hortic
26:146–151
14. Barmore CR, Purvis AC, Fellers PJ (1983) Polyethylene film
packaging of citrus fruit: containment of decaying fruit. J Food
Sci 48:1554–1559
15. Bastioli C (2005) Handbook of biodegradable polymers. Tor-
onto-Scarborough, Ontario, Chemical Technology Publishing,
Canada, p 533
16. Beaudry R (2000) Responses of horticultural commodities to
low O2: limits to the expanded use of modified atmosphere
packaging. HortTechnology 10:491–500
17. Beaudry R, Lakakul R (1992) Basic principles of modified
atmosphere packaging. Tree Fruit Postharvest J 6(1):7–13
18. Ben-Arie R, Sonego L (1985) Modified atmosphere storage of
kiwifruit (Aclinidia chinensis Planch) with ethylene removal.
Sci Hortic 27:263–273
19. Benning CJ (1983) Plastic films for packaging. Technomic publ.
Co., Lancaster, PA, 181 pp
20. Ben-Yehoshua S (1985) Individual seal-packaging of fruits and
vegetables in plastic film-new postharvest technique. Hort-
Science 20:32–37
21. Ben-Yehoshua S, Shapiro S, Even-Chen Z, Lurie S (1983) Mode
of action of plastic film in extending life of lemon and bell
pepper fruits by alleviation of water stress. Plant Physiol 73:87–
93
22. Ben-Yehoshua S, Fishman S, Fang D, Rodov V (1994) New
development in modified atmosphere packaging and surface
coatings for fruits, ICIAR proceedings-aphnet.org, http://www.
aphnet.org/workshop/postharvest
23. Berins ML (1991) Plastic engineering handbooks of the society
of the plastic industry, 5th edn. Chapman and Hall, London, UK
24. Bhande SD (2007) Modelling of respiration kinetics of banana
fruits for control atmosphere storage and modified atmosphere
storage. Unpublished M.Tech Thesis, Department of Agriculture
and Food Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Khar-
agpur, India
25. Billmeyer FW (1971) Text book of polymer science, 2nd edn.
Wiley-Interscience, New Work
26. Blakistone BA (1997) Principles and applications of modified
atmosphere packaging of foods. Laroisier Booksheller, Librai-
rie, France
27. Brody AL (1991) New developments in modified atmosphere
packaging in fruits and vegetables. In: Proceedings of fourth
chemical congress of North America. Abstract 75
28. Burton KS, Frost CE, Nichols R (1987) A combination of plastic
permeable film system for controlling post-harvest mushroom
quality. Biotechnol Lett 9:529–534
29. Calderon M, Barkai-Golan R (1990) Food preservation by
modified atmosphere. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
30. Cameron AC, Beaudry RM, Banks NH, Yelanich MV (1994)
Modified atmosphere packaging of blueberry fruit: modeling
respiration and package oxygen partial pressures as a function of
temperature. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 119:534–539
31. Cameron AC, Boylan-Pett W, Lee J (1989) Design of modified
atmosphere packaging systems: modeling oxygen concentra-
tions within sealed packages of tomato fruits. J Food Sci
54(6):1413–1421
32. Cameron AC, Talasila PC, Joles DW (1995) Predicting film
permeability needs for modified-atmosphere packaging of
lightly processed fruits and vegetables. HortScience 30(1):25–34
33. Chaiprasart P (2003) Effect of modified atmosphere packaging
by PE and PVC on quality changes of litchi fruits. ISHS Acta
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
Horticulturae 665: II international symposium on Lychee,
Longan, Rambutan and other Sapindaceae Plants
34. Chau KV, Talasila PC (1994) Design of modified atmosphere
packages for fresh fruits and vegetables. In: Singh RP, Oliveira
FAR (eds) Minimal processing of foods and process optimiza-
tion. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp 407–416
35. Christie GBY, Macdiarmid JI, Schliephake K, Tomkins RB
(1995) Determination of film requirements and respiratory
behaviour of fresh produce in modified atmosphere packaging,
Postharvest Biol Tec 6:41–54
36. Church N (1994) Development in modified-atmosphere pack-
aging and related technologies. Trends Food Sci Technol 5:345–
352
37. Church IJ, Parsons AL (1995) Modified atmosphere packaging
technology: a review. J Sci Food Agric 67:143–152
38. Clarke R, De Moor CP (1997) Intelligent polymers for pack-
aging fresh produce. Flex Pak ‘97. 4th worldwide flexible
packaging conference. March 18–19, Chicago
39. Coles R (2003) Plastic in food packaging. In: Coles R, Mcdo-
well D, Kirwan MI (eds) Food packaging technology. Blackwell
Publishing, CRC Press, London, UK, pp 1–31
40. Combrink JC, De-Kock SL, Van-Ecden CJ (2004) Effect of
postharvest treatment and packaging on the keeping quality of
fresh guava fruit. Acta Hortic 275:539–645
41. Couzens EG, Yearsely VE (1956) Plastic in service of man.
Penguin Books Ltd., Harmondsworth
42. Crisosto CH, Garner D, Doyle J, Day KR (1993) Relationship
between fruit respiration, bruising susceptibility, and tempera-
ture in sweet cherries. HortScience 28(2):132–135
43. Crosby NT (1981) Food packaging materials—aspect analysis
and migration of contaminates. Applied Science Publisher Ltd.,
London
44. Das H (2005) Food processing operations analysis. Asian Books
Private Limited, New Delhi, p 406
45. Davies AR (1995) In: Gould GW (ed) Advances in modified
atmosphere packaging, new method of food preservation.
Blackie, Glasgow, UK, pp 304–320
46. Del Nobile ME, Licciardello F, Scrocco C, Muratore G, Zappa
M (2007) Design of plastic packages for minimally processed
fruits. J Food Eng 79:217–224
47. Del Nobile MA, Conte A, Cannarsi M, Sinigaglia M (2008) Use
of biodegradable films for prolonging the shelf life of minimally
processed lettuce. J Food Eng 85(3):317–325
48. Del-Valle V, Pilar H-M, Ramon C, Rafael G (2009) Optimiza-
tion of an equilibrium modified atmosphere packaging (EMAP)
for minimally processed mandarin segments. J Food Eng
91:474–481
49. Exama A, Arul J, Lencki RW, Lee LZ, Toupin C (1993) Suit-
ability of plastic films for modified atmosphere packaging of
fruits and vegetables. J Food Sci 58(6):1365–1370
50. Faber JM (1991) Microbiological aspects of modified atmo-
sphere packaging technology—a review. J Food Protect 54:58–
70
51. Fernando G-L, Olmedilla-Alonso B, Herrero-Barbudo C, San-
chez-Moreno C, de Ancos B, Martinez JA, Perez-Sacristan B,
Blanco-Navarro I (2008) Modified-atmosphere packaging
(MAP) does not affect the bioavailability of tocopherols and
carotenoids from broccoli in humans: a cross-over study. Food
Chem 106:1070–1076
52. Fishman S, Rodov Ben-Yehoshua V (1996) Mathematical model
for perforation effect of oxygen and water vapor dynamics in
modified atmosphere packages. J Food Sci 61(5):956–961
53. Fonseca SC, Oliveira FAR, Lino IBM, Brecht JK, Chau KV
(2000) Modeling O2 and CO2 exchange for development of
perforation mediated modified atmosphere packaging. J Food
Eng 43(1):9–15
155
54. Fonseca SC, Oliveira FAR, Frias JM, Brecht JK, Chau KV
(2002) Modelling respiration rate of shredded Galega kale for
development of modified atmosphere packaging. J Food Eng
54(4):299–307
55. Fonseca SC, Oliveira FAR, Brecht JK (2002) Modelling respi-
ration rate of fresh fruits and vegetables for modified atmo-
sphere packages: a review. J Food Eng 52(2):99–119
56. Galdi MR, Nicolais V, Di M, Incarnato L (2008) Production of
active PET films: evaluation of scavenging activity. Packag
Technol Sci 21(5):257–268
57. Gaspar JW, Couto FAA, Salomao LCC (1997) Effect of low
temperature and plastic films on postharvest life of guava
(Psidium Guajava L.). Acta Hortic 452:107–114
58. Geesan JD, Browne KM, Maddison K, Sheperd J, Guaraldi F
(1985) Modified atmosphere packaging to extend the shelf life
of tomatoes. J Food Technol 20:336–341
59. Geeson JD, Genge PM, Sharpies RO (1994) The application of
polymeric film lining systems for modified atmosphere box
packaging of English apples. Postharvest Biol Technol 4:35–48
60. Gonzalez-Aguilar G, Ayala-Zavala JF, Ruiz-Cruz S, Acedo-
Felix E, Diaz-Cinco ME (2004) Effect of temperature and
modified atmosphere packaging on overall quality of fresh-cut
bell peppers. Lebensm Wiss Technol 37:817–826
61. Gorny J (1997) CA’ 97 proceeding, Vol. 5: Fresh-cut fruits and
vegetables and MAP. Univ. Calif. Post harvest Hort. Ser. 19
62. Gorris L, Tauscher B (1999) Quality and safety aspects of novel
minimal processing technology. In: Oliveira FAR, Oliveira JC
(eds) Processing of foods: quality optimization and process
assessment. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 325–339
63. Gorrish LGM, Peppelenbos LW (1992) Modified atmosphere
and vacuum packaging to extend the shelf-life of respiring food
products. HortTechnology 2:303–309
64. Goulas AE (2008) Combined effect of chill storage and modified
atmosphere packaging on mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis)
preservation. Packag Technol Sci 21(5):247–255
65. Guan Wen Q, Li C, Xi HL, Feng HY (2004) Effect of modified
atmosphere packaging on the quality of Fuji apple. Trans Chin
Soc Agric Eng 20(5):218–221
66. Heiss R (1970) Principle of food packaging—an international
guide. P. Keppler Verlag K., Heusenstamm, Germany
67. Hernandez RJ, Selke SEM, Culture JD (2000) Plastics packag-
ing: properties, processing, applications, and regulations. Han-
ser, Munich, Germany
68. Hewett EW (1984) Bitter pit reduction in Cox’s orange pippin
apple by controlled and modified atmosphere storage. Sci Hortic
23:59–66
69. Iqbal T, Rodrigues FAS, Mahajan PV, Kerry JP (2009) Math-
ematical modeling of the influence of temperature and gas
composition on the respiration rate of shredded carrots. J Food
Eng 91:325–332
70. Irtwange SV (2006) Application of modified atmosphere pack-
aging and related technology in postharvest handling of fresh
fruits and vegetables. Agric Eng Int: the CIGR Ejournal. Invited
Overview VIII(4):1–2
71. Jacobsson A, Tim N, Ingegerd S, Karin W (2004) Influence of
packaging material and storage condition on the sensory quality
of broccoli. Food Qual Prefer 15:301–310
72. Jacomino AP, Kluge RA, Sarantopoulos CIGL, Sigrist JMM
(2001) Evaluation of plastic packages for guava refrigerated
preservation. Packag Technol Sci 14:11–19
73. Jacxsens L, Devlieghhere F, Debevere J (1999) Validation of a
systematic approach to design equilibrium modified atmosphere
packages for fresh-cut produce. Lebensm Wiss Technol 32:425–
432
74. Jacxsens L, Devlieghere F, De Rudder T, Debevere J (2000)
Designing equilibrium modified atmosphere packages for fresh-
123
156
cut vegetables subjected to changes in temperature. Lebensm.-
Wiss. u.-Technol. 33:178–187
75. Jaya L (2005) Technology development for production of vac-
uum dried coconut milk powder. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,
Department of Agriculture and Food Engineering, Indian Insti-
tute of Technology, Kharagpur, India
76. Jayas DS, Jeyamkondan S (2002) Modified atmosphere storage
of grain meat fruit and vegetables. Biosyst Eng 82(3):235–251
77. Jiang Y, Yuebiao L, Jianrong L (2004) Browning control, shelf
life extension and quality maintenance of frozen litchi fruit by
hydrochloric acid. J Food Eng 63:147–151
78. Kader AA (1995) Regulation of fruits physiology by controlled
and modified atmosphere. Acta Hortic 398:59–70
79. Kader AA (1997) A summary of CA requirements and recom-
mendations for fruits other than apples and pears. In: Kader A
(ed) Fruits other than apples and pears. Postharvest Hort. Series
No. 17, Univ. Calif., Davis, CA, CA’97 Proc. vol 2, pp 1–36
80. Kader AA, Watkins CB (2001) Modified atmosphere packag-
ing—toward 2000 and beyond. HortTechnology 10(3):483–486
81. Kader AA, Zagory D, Kerbel EL (1989) Modified atmosphere
packaging of fruits and vegetables. CRC Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr
28:1–30
82. Karel M, Fennema OW, Lund DB (1975) Protective packaging
of foods. In: Fennema OW (ed) Principle of food science.
Marcel Dekker, Inc, USA, p 474
83. Kim KM, Ko JA, Lee JS, d Park HJ, Hanna MA (2006) Effect of
modified atmosphere packaging on the shelf-life of coated,
whole and sliced mushrooms. LWT 39:364–371
84. Kirklanda BS, Clarkeb R, Paula DR (2008) A versatile mem-
brane system for bulk storage and shipping of produce in a
modified atmosphere. J Memb Sci 324:119–127
85. Kirwan MJ, Strawbridge JW (2003) Plastics in food packaging. In:
Coles R, McDowells D, Kirwan MJ (eds) Food packaging tech-
nology. U.K. Blackwell Publishing, CRC Press, London, pp 4–8
86. Kong D (1997) Food packaging materials. In: Brody AL, Marsh
KS (eds) The Wiley encyclopedia of packaging technology.
Wiley, New York, p 407
87. Koros WJ (1989). Barriers polymers and structures. ACS sym-
posium series, 197th national meeting of American Chemical
Society, April 9–14, Dallas, TX, USA, pp 1–8
88. Kupferman E (1995) Cherry temperature management. Tree
Fruit Postharvest J 6(1):3–6
89. Labthink (2008) Labthink instruments Co., Ltd., China,
http://www.labthink.net/
90. Laffin C, Forristal PD, O’Kiely P (2009) Evolution of CO2
permeation properties of LDPE/LLDPE films upon uni-axial
stretching. Packag Technol Sci 22:9–29
91. Lambden AE, Chadwick D, Gill CO (1985) Oxygen perme-
ability at subzero temperature of plastic film used for vacuum
packaging of meat. J Food Sci Tech 20(6):781–783
92. Lange DL (2000) New film technologies for horticultural
commodities. HortTechnology 10(3):487–490
93. Lee DS, Hagger PE, Lee J, Yam KL (1991) Model for fresh
produce respiration in modified atmosphere based on principles
of enzyme kinetics. J Food Sci 56(6):1580–1585
94. Lee KE, Jin KH, Soon AD, Soon LE, Sun LD (2008) Effec-
tiveness of modified atmosphere packaging in preserving a
prepared ready-to-eat food. Packag Technol Sci 21(7):417–423
95. Mahajan PV, Oliveira FAR, Montanez JC, Frias J (2007)
Development of user-friendly software for design of modified
atmosphere packaging for fresh and fresh-cut produce. Innov
Food Science Emerg Technol 8:84–92
96. Mahajan PV, Oliveira FAR, Montanez JC, Iqbal T (2008)
Packaging design for fresh produce: an engineering approach.
New Food (1):35–36
123
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
97. Mahajan PV, Sousa-Gallagher MJ, Yuan B, Patel HA, Oliveira
JC (2009) Development of web-based software for MAP design.
An oral presentation delivered in 10th international controlled
and modified atmosphere research conference, Antalya, Turkey
98. Maier C (1998) Polypropylene the definite user’s guide and data
book. Plastic Design Library, Norwich, New York
99. Mangaraj S, Goswami TK (2008) Respiration rate modelling of
royal delicious apple at different temperature. Fresh Prod
2(2):72–80
100. Mannapperuma JD, Zagory D, Singh RP, Kader AA (1989)
Design of polymeric packages for modified atmosphere storage
of fresh produce. In: Fellman JK (ed) Proceedings of the 5th
international controlled atmosphere research conference.
Wenatchee, WA, USA, pp 1, 225–233
101. Mark HF (1985) Encyclopedia for polymer science and engi-
neering, vol 2, 2nd edn. John Willey and Sons, New York, pp
177–192
102. Marsh K, Bugusu B (2007) Food packaging—roles, materials,
and environmental issues. J Food Sci 72(3):R39–R54
103. Martinez-Romero D, Serrano M, Guillen F, Castillo S, Valero D
(2007) Tools to maintain postharvest fruit and vegetable quality
through the inhibition of ethylene action: a review. Crit Rev
Food Sci Nutr 47:543–560
104. Martinez-Romeroa D, Guillena F, Castillo S, Zapataa PJ, Ser-
ranob M, Valeroa D (2009) Development of a carbon-heat
hybrid ethylene scrubber for fresh horticultural produce storage
purposes. Postharvest Biol Technol 51:200–205
105. Massey LK (2003) Permeability properties of plastics and
elastomers. A guide to packaging and barrier materials. Pub-
lished in the United State of America by Plastic Design Labo-
ratory/William Andrew Publishing 13 Eaton Avenue Norwich,
New York
106. Merts I, Cleland DJ, Banks NH, Cleland AC (1993) Mathe-
matical model of a modified atmosphere packaging system for
horticultural produce. Sci Tech Froid 3:440–447
107. Miles DC, Bistons JH (1965) Polymer technology. Chemical
Publishing Co. Inc., New York
108. Miller WR, Spalding DH, Hale PW (1986) Film wrapping
mangoes at advancing stages of post harvest ripening. Tropic Sci
26:6–11
109. Mizutani Y (1989) Microporous polypropylene sheets. Ind Eng
Chem Res 32:221–227
110. Mohamed S, Ma Ma Kyi K, Yusof S (1994) Effects of various
surface treatments on the storage life of guava (Psidium Guaj-
ava L.) at 10°C. J Sci Food Agric 66:9–11
111. Mohamed S, Taufik B, Karim MNA (1996) Effects of modified
atmosphere packaging on the physicochemical characteristics of
ciku (Achras sapota L) at various storage temperatures. J Sci
Food Agric 70:231–240
112. Montero-Calderona M, Rojas-Graub MA, Olga M-B (2008)
Effect of packaging conditions on quality and shelf-life of fresh-
cut pineapple (Ananas comosus). Postharvest Biol Technol
50:82–189
113. Mount E, Wagner J (1997) Interaction between product and
package. In: Brody AL, Marsh KS (eds) The Wiley encyclo-
pedia of packaging technology. New York, NY, p 415
114. Moyls AL, McKenzie D-L, Hocking RP, Toivonen PMA, Del-
aquis P, Girard B, Mazza G (1998) Variability in O2, CO2, and
H2O transmission rates among commercial polyethylene films
for modified atmosphere packaging. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng
41(5):1441–1446
115. Nemphos SP, Salame M, Steingiser S (1976) Barrier polymers.
In: Mark HF, Bikales NM (eds) Encyl. polymer science tech-
nology, Supplement vol 1. Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp
65–95
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
116. Newton J (1997) Properties of packages and packaging material.
In: Brody AL, Marsh KS (eds) The Wiley encyclopedia of
packaging technology. New York, NY p 408
117. Nichols R, Hammond JBW (1975) The relationship between
respiration, atmosphere and quality in intact and perforated
mushroom prepacks. J Food Technol 10:424–429
118. Ooraikul B, Stiles ME (1991) Modified atmosphere packaging
of food. Ellis Horwood, UK
119. Pablo JF-T, Obando-Ulloaa JM, Martı́nezb JA, Morenoc E,
Garcia-Masc J, Monfortec AJ (2008) Climacteric and non-cli-
macteric behavior in melon fruit 2. Linking climacteric pattern
and main postharvest disorders and decay in a set of near-iso-
genic lines. Postharvest Biol Technol 50:125–134
120. Parry RT (1993) Packaging requirement of fruits and vegetables.
In: Parry RT (ed) Principles and application of modified atmo-
sphere packaging of food. Blacki, Glasgow, UK, pp 1–18
121. Paul DR, Clarke R (2002) Modeling of modified atmosphere
packaging based on designs with a membrane and perforations. J
Membrane Sci 208:269–283
122. Paull RE, Chen JN (1987) Effect of storage temperature and
wrapping on quality characteristics of litchi fruit. Sci Hortic
33:223–236
123. Peppelenbos HW, Leven J (1996) Evaluation of four types of
inhibition for modelling the influence of carbon dioxide on
oxygen consumption fruits and vegetables. Postharvest Biol
Technol 7:27–40
124. Pereira LM, Rodrigues ACC, Sarantopoulos CIGL, Junqueira
VCA, Cunha RL, Hubinger MD (2004) Influence of modified
atmosphere packaging and osmotic dehydration on the quality
maintenance of minimally processed guavas. J Food Sci
69(4):1107–1111
125. Pesis E, Orit D, Oleg F, Ben AR, Miriam A, Amnon L (2002)
Production of acetaldehyde and ethanol during maturation and
modified atmosphere storage of litchi fruit. Postharvest Biol
Technol 26:157–165
126. Peter DP, Dennis WJ, Arman S, Arthur CC (2002) Modified
atmosphere packaging of sweet cherry (Prunus avum L., ev.
‘Sams’) fruit: metabolic responses to oxygen, carbon dioxide,
and temperature. Postharvest Biol Technol 24:259–270
127. Pino M, Duckett RA, Ward IM (2005) Single and mixed gas
diffusion through polyethylene films. Polymer 46:4882–4890
128. Pires ACS, Soares NFF, Andrade NJ, Henrique L, Silva LHM,
Camilloto GP, Bernardes PC (2008) Development and evalua-
tion of active packaging for sliced mozzarella preservation.
Packag Technol Sci 21(7):375–383
129. Prasad M (1995) Development of modified atmosphere pack-
aging system with permselective films for storage of red deli-
cious apples. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of
Agriculture and Food Engineering, Indian Institute of Technol-
ogy, Kharagpur, India
130. Rediers H, Marijke C, Luc P, Willemsa KA (2009) Evaluation
of the cold chain of fresh-cut endive from farmer to plate.
Postharvest Biol Technol 51:257–262
131. Renault P, Souty M, Chambroy Y (1994) Gas exchange in
modified atmosphere packaging. 1: a new theoretical approach
for micro-perforated packs. Int J Food Sci Tech 29:365–378
132. Richardson DG, Kupferman E (1997) Controlled atmosphere
storage of pears. In: Mitcham EJ (ed) Apples and pears. Post-
harvest Hort. Series No. 16, Univ. Calif., Davis, CA, CA’97
Proc. vol 2, pp 31–35
133. Rij RE, Ross SR (1987) Quality retention of fresh broccoli
packaged in plastic films of defined CO2 transmission rates.
Packag Technol 22(May–June):14–18
134. Rocha AMCN, Barreiro MG, Morais AMMB (2004) Modified
atmosphere package for apple ‘Bravo de Esmolfe’. J Food
Control 15(1):61–64
157
135. Sacharow S, Griffin RC (1980) Principles of food packaging,
2nd edn. AVI Publishing, Westport, CT
136. Saguy I, Mannheirn CH (1975) The effect of selected plastic
films and chemical dips on the shelf life of marmande tomatoes.
J Food Technol 10:544–549
137. Salame M (1986) Prediction of gas barrier properties of high
polymers. Polym Eng Sci 26(22):1543–1546
138. Saltveit ME (1993) A summary of CA and MA requirements
and recommendations for the storage of harvested vegetables.
In: Blanpied GD, Barstch JA, Hicks JR (eds) Proceedings of the
sixth international controlled atmosphere research conference.
New York, USA, pp 2, 800–818
139. Saltveit ME (1997) A summary of CA and MA requirements
and recommendations for harvested vegetables. In Saltveit ME
(ed) In: Proceedings of the 7th international controlled atmo-
sphere research conference, vol 4, pp 98–117, Davis, CA, USA
140. Sanz C, Perez AG, Olias R, Olias JM (2000) Modified atmo-
sphere packaging of strawberry fruit: Effect of package perfo-
ration on oxygen and carbon dioxide. Food Sci Technol Int
6(1):33–38
141. Selke SEM (1997) Understanding plastics packaging technol-
ogy. Hanser, Munich, Germany
142. Serrano M, Martinez-Romero D, Guillen F, Castillo S, Valero D
(2006) Maintenance of broccoli quality and functional properties
during cold storage as affected by modified atmosphere pack-
aging. Postharvest Biol Technol 39:61–68
143. Shengmin L (2009) Effects of bactericides and modified atmo-
sphere packaging on shelf-life of Chinese shrimp (Fennerope-
naeus chinensis). LWT—Food Sci Technol 42:286–291
144. Shirazi A, Cameron AC (1992) Controlling relative humidity in
modified atmosphere packages of tomato fruit. HortScience
27:336–339
145. Shoji K, Shi J (2007) Microbial and quality evaluation of green
peppers stored in biodegradable film packaging. Food Control
18:1121–1125
146. Siracusa V, Rocculib P, Romanib S, Rosa MD (2008) Biode-
gradable polymers for food packaging: a review. Trends Food
Sci Technol 19:634–643
147. Sivakumar D, Arrebola E, Korsten L (2008) Postharvest decay
control and quality retention in litchi (cv. McLean’s red) by
combined application of modified atmosphere packaging and
antimicrobial agents. Crop Prot 27:1208–1214
148. Sivakumar D, Korsten L (2006) Influence of modified atmo-
sphere packaging and post harvest treatments on quality reten-
tion of litchi cv. Mauritius. Postharvest Biol Technol 41:135–
142
149. Smith S, Geeson J, Stow J (1987) Production of modified
atmosphere in deciduous fruits by the use of films and coatings.
Hortic Sci 22:772–776
150. Smith SM, Geeson JD, Genge PM (1988) Effects of harvest date
on the responses of discovery apples to modified atmosphere
retail packaging. Int J Food Sci Technol 23:78–86
151. Sunjka PS, Nieuwenhof F, Raghavan GSV (2003) Extension of
storage life of guava using silicon membrane system. Written for
presentation at the CSAE/SCGR 2003 meeting Montreal, Que-
bec July 6–9, 2003
152. Talasila PC, Cameron AC (1993) Prediction equations for gases
in flexible modified atmosphere packages of respiring produce
are different than those for rigid packages. J Food Sci 62:923–
934
153. Tano K, Mathias KO, Gilles D, Robert WL, Joseph A (2007)
Comparative evaluation of the effect of storage temperature
fluctuation on modified atmosphere packages of selected fruit
and vegetables. Postharvest Biol Tec 46:212–221
154. Techavises N, Hikida Y (2008) Development of a mathematical
model for simulating gas and water vapor exchanges in modified
123
158
atmosphere packaging with macroscopic perforations. J Food
Eng 85:94–104
155. Tharantharan RN (2003) Biodegradable films and composite
costing: past, present and future. Trends Food Sci Technol
14(3):71–78
156. Tian S-P, Li B-Q, Xu Y (2005) Effect of O2 and CO2 concen-
trations on physiology and quality of litchi fruits in storage.
Food Chem 91(2005):659–663
157. Tolle WE (1962) Variables affecting film permeability
requirements for modified-atmosphere storage of apple. USDA
Tech. Bull., pp 1418–1429
158. Valero D, Valverde JM, Martınez-Romero D, Guillen F, Castillo
S, Serrano M (2006) The combination of modified atmosphere
packaging with eugenol or thymol to maintain quality, safety
and functional properties of table grapes. Postharvest Biol
Technol 41:317–327
159. Van der Steen C, Jacxsens L, Devlieghere F, Debevere J (2001)
A combination of high oxygen atmosphere and equilibrium
modified atmosphere packaging to improve the keeping quality
of red fruits. Information Hyperlinked over protein (IHOP)
12:17–23
160. Van Willige RWG, Linssen JPH, Meinders MBJ, Van der Steger
HJ, Voragen AGI (2002) Indfluence of flavor absorption on
oxygen permeation through LDPE, pp, PC and PET plastic food
packaging. Food Addit Contam 19(3):303–313
123
Food Eng Rev (2009) 1:133–158
161. Watada AE, Kim SD, Kim KS, Haris TC (1987) Quality of
green beans, bell peppers and spinach stored in polyethylene
bags. J Food Sci 526:1369–1635
162. Yam KL, Lee DS (1995) Design of modified atmosphere pack-
aging for fresh produce. In: Rooney ML (ed) Active food pack-
aging. Blackie Academic and Professional, New Zealand, p 55
163. Yasuda H, Clark HG, Stannett V (1968) Permeability. Encyl
Polym Sci Technol 9:794–807
164. Yoshio M, Takashi H (1997) Modified atmosphere packaging of
fresh produce with a biodegradable laminate of chitosan-cellu-
lose and polycaprolactone. Postharvest Biol Technol 10:247–254
165. Zagory D (1998) An update on modified atmosphere packaging
of fresh produce. Packaging International, http://www.nsf.org/
business/nsf_davis_fresh/articles_map.pdf
166. Zagory D, Davis CA (1997) Advances in modified atmosphere
packaging (MAP) of fresh produce. Perishables Handling
Newsletter 90:2–4
167. Zagory D, Hurst WC (eds) (1996) Food safety guidelines for the
fresh-cut produce industry, 3rd edn. International Fresh-cut
Produce Association, 125 pp
168. Zagory D, Kader AA (1988) Modified atmosphere packaging of
fresh produce. Food Technol 42(9):70–77
169. Zheng Y, Zhenfeng Y, Xuehong C (2008) Effect of high oxygen
atmospheres on fruit decay and quality in Chinese bayberries,
strawberries and blueberries. Food Control 19:470–474