Cargando…

Interlaboratory Study to Evaluate a Testing Protocol for the Safety of Food Packaging Coatings

According to European regulations, migration from food packaging must be safe. However, currently, there is no consensus on how to evaluate its safety, especially for non-intentionally added substances (NIAS). The intensive and laborious approach, involving identification and then quantification of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Marin-Kuan, Maricel, Pagnotti, Vincent, Patin, Amaury, Moulin, Julie, Latado, Helia, Varela, Jesús, Hammel, Yves-Alexis, Gude, Thomas, Moor, Heidi, Billinton, Nick, Tate, Matthew, Behnisch, Peter Alexander, Besselink, Harrie, Burleigh-Flayer, Heather, Koster, Sander, Szabo, David T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9962921/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36851031
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/toxics11020156
_version_ 1784896122409451520
author Marin-Kuan, Maricel
Pagnotti, Vincent
Patin, Amaury
Moulin, Julie
Latado, Helia
Varela, Jesús
Hammel, Yves-Alexis
Gude, Thomas
Moor, Heidi
Billinton, Nick
Tate, Matthew
Behnisch, Peter Alexander
Besselink, Harrie
Burleigh-Flayer, Heather
Koster, Sander
Szabo, David T.
author_facet Marin-Kuan, Maricel
Pagnotti, Vincent
Patin, Amaury
Moulin, Julie
Latado, Helia
Varela, Jesús
Hammel, Yves-Alexis
Gude, Thomas
Moor, Heidi
Billinton, Nick
Tate, Matthew
Behnisch, Peter Alexander
Besselink, Harrie
Burleigh-Flayer, Heather
Koster, Sander
Szabo, David T.
author_sort Marin-Kuan, Maricel
collection PubMed
description According to European regulations, migration from food packaging must be safe. However, currently, there is no consensus on how to evaluate its safety, especially for non-intentionally added substances (NIAS). The intensive and laborious approach, involving identification and then quantification of all migrating substances followed by a toxicological evaluation, is not practical or feasible. In alignment with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) and the European Union (EU) guidelines on packaging materials, efforts are focused on combining data from analytics, bioassays and in silico toxicology approaches for the risk assessment of packaging materials. Advancement of non-targeted screening approaches using both analytical methods and in vitro bioassays is key. A protocol was developed for the chemical and biological screening of migrants from coated metal packaging materials. This protocol includes guidance on sample preparation, migrant simulation, chemical analysis using liquid chromatography (LC-MS) and validated bioassays covering endocrine activity, genotoxicity and metabolism-related targets. An inter-laboratory study was set-up to evaluate the consistency in biological activity and analytical results generated between three independent laboratories applying the developed protocol and guidance. Coated packaging metal panels were used in this case study. In general, the inter-laboratory chemical analysis and bioassay results displayed acceptable consistency between laboratories, but technical differences led to different data interpretations (e.g., cytotoxicity, cell passages, chemical analysis). The study observations with the greatest impact on the quality of the data and ultimately resulting in discrepancies in the results are given and suggestions for improvement of the protocol are made (e.g., sample preparation, chemical analysis approaches). Finally, there was agreement on the need for an aligned protocol to be utilized by qualified laboratories for chemical and biological analyses, following best practices and guidance for packaging safety assessment of intentionally added substances (IAS) and NIAS to avoid inconsistency in data and the final interpretation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9962921
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99629212023-02-26 Interlaboratory Study to Evaluate a Testing Protocol for the Safety of Food Packaging Coatings Marin-Kuan, Maricel Pagnotti, Vincent Patin, Amaury Moulin, Julie Latado, Helia Varela, Jesús Hammel, Yves-Alexis Gude, Thomas Moor, Heidi Billinton, Nick Tate, Matthew Behnisch, Peter Alexander Besselink, Harrie Burleigh-Flayer, Heather Koster, Sander Szabo, David T. Toxics Article According to European regulations, migration from food packaging must be safe. However, currently, there is no consensus on how to evaluate its safety, especially for non-intentionally added substances (NIAS). The intensive and laborious approach, involving identification and then quantification of all migrating substances followed by a toxicological evaluation, is not practical or feasible. In alignment with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) and the European Union (EU) guidelines on packaging materials, efforts are focused on combining data from analytics, bioassays and in silico toxicology approaches for the risk assessment of packaging materials. Advancement of non-targeted screening approaches using both analytical methods and in vitro bioassays is key. A protocol was developed for the chemical and biological screening of migrants from coated metal packaging materials. This protocol includes guidance on sample preparation, migrant simulation, chemical analysis using liquid chromatography (LC-MS) and validated bioassays covering endocrine activity, genotoxicity and metabolism-related targets. An inter-laboratory study was set-up to evaluate the consistency in biological activity and analytical results generated between three independent laboratories applying the developed protocol and guidance. Coated packaging metal panels were used in this case study. In general, the inter-laboratory chemical analysis and bioassay results displayed acceptable consistency between laboratories, but technical differences led to different data interpretations (e.g., cytotoxicity, cell passages, chemical analysis). The study observations with the greatest impact on the quality of the data and ultimately resulting in discrepancies in the results are given and suggestions for improvement of the protocol are made (e.g., sample preparation, chemical analysis approaches). Finally, there was agreement on the need for an aligned protocol to be utilized by qualified laboratories for chemical and biological analyses, following best practices and guidance for packaging safety assessment of intentionally added substances (IAS) and NIAS to avoid inconsistency in data and the final interpretation. MDPI 2023-02-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9962921/ /pubmed/36851031 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/toxics11020156 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Marin-Kuan, Maricel
Pagnotti, Vincent
Patin, Amaury
Moulin, Julie
Latado, Helia
Varela, Jesús
Hammel, Yves-Alexis
Gude, Thomas
Moor, Heidi
Billinton, Nick
Tate, Matthew
Behnisch, Peter Alexander
Besselink, Harrie
Burleigh-Flayer, Heather
Koster, Sander
Szabo, David T.
Interlaboratory Study to Evaluate a Testing Protocol for the Safety of Food Packaging Coatings
title Interlaboratory Study to Evaluate a Testing Protocol for the Safety of Food Packaging Coatings
title_full Interlaboratory Study to Evaluate a Testing Protocol for the Safety of Food Packaging Coatings
title_fullStr Interlaboratory Study to Evaluate a Testing Protocol for the Safety of Food Packaging Coatings
title_full_unstemmed Interlaboratory Study to Evaluate a Testing Protocol for the Safety of Food Packaging Coatings
title_short Interlaboratory Study to Evaluate a Testing Protocol for the Safety of Food Packaging Coatings
title_sort interlaboratory study to evaluate a testing protocol for the safety of food packaging coatings
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9962921/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36851031
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/toxics11020156
work_keys_str_mv AT marinkuanmaricel interlaboratorystudytoevaluateatestingprotocolforthesafetyoffoodpackagingcoatings
AT pagnottivincent interlaboratorystudytoevaluateatestingprotocolforthesafetyoffoodpackagingcoatings
AT patinamaury interlaboratorystudytoevaluateatestingprotocolforthesafetyoffoodpackagingcoatings
AT moulinjulie interlaboratorystudytoevaluateatestingprotocolforthesafetyoffoodpackagingcoatings
AT latadohelia interlaboratorystudytoevaluateatestingprotocolforthesafetyoffoodpackagingcoatings
AT varelajesus interlaboratorystudytoevaluateatestingprotocolforthesafetyoffoodpackagingcoatings
AT hammelyvesalexis interlaboratorystudytoevaluateatestingprotocolforthesafetyoffoodpackagingcoatings
AT gudethomas interlaboratorystudytoevaluateatestingprotocolforthesafetyoffoodpackagingcoatings
AT moorheidi interlaboratorystudytoevaluateatestingprotocolforthesafetyoffoodpackagingcoatings
AT billintonnick interlaboratorystudytoevaluateatestingprotocolforthesafetyoffoodpackagingcoatings
AT tatematthew interlaboratorystudytoevaluateatestingprotocolforthesafetyoffoodpackagingcoatings
AT behnischpeteralexander interlaboratorystudytoevaluateatestingprotocolforthesafetyoffoodpackagingcoatings
AT besselinkharrie interlaboratorystudytoevaluateatestingprotocolforthesafetyoffoodpackagingcoatings
AT burleighflayerheather interlaboratorystudytoevaluateatestingprotocolforthesafetyoffoodpackagingcoatings
AT kostersander interlaboratorystudytoevaluateatestingprotocolforthesafetyoffoodpackagingcoatings
AT szabodavidt interlaboratorystudytoevaluateatestingprotocolforthesafetyoffoodpackagingcoatings