Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39055044›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in chemistry2024

A critical review of test methods and alternative scientific approaches to compliance and safety evaluation of paper and board for food contact.

Angela Störmer, Lisa Hetzel, Roland Franz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Functionality Enhancement of Pullulan-Based Composites for Food Packaging Applications.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Angela Störmer *Fraunhofer Institute Process Engineering and Packaging, Freising, Germany.
Lisa HetzelFraunhofer Institute Process Engineering and Packaging, Freising, Germany.
Roland Franz *Fraunhofer Institute Process Engineering and Packaging, Freising, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Paper and board are widely used as food contact materials. For such sensitive applications, consumer safety regarding the transfer of chemical components and contaminants to the food needs to be established. Such safety assessments are becoming increasingly challenging not only due to intentionally added substances but also non-intentionally added substances. In the European Union, compliance testing and safety evaluation of paper in food contact are largely based on national legislation and standards. The underlying tests are conventional methods, often overestimating and sometimes underestimating the migration into food. In this article, the relevant standard test methods are contrasted with currently available scientific knowledge. The scientific approaches to develop and identify suitable test methods are critically reviewed. Furthermore, theoretical predictions via mathematical modeling, with the aim to realistically simulate transfer to food, are presented and discussed in comparison with available migration studies with foods. Objectives are to (i) summarize the actual scientific knowledge in the field and draw conclusions regarding the potential and limitations of the existing test methods and (ii) identify research gaps toward a better qualitative and quantitative understanding of transport processes of volatile and non-volatile substances from paper and board into foods.

Indexed as

dry foodsfatty and wetting foodsfood contact materialsfood safetymigrationmigration modelingpaper and boardpaper extracts

Identifiers

PMID39055044
PMCPMC11269091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.