(S) Lamberti2007

This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]
On: 18 August 2012, At: 07:25

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Food Reviews International

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lfri20
Aluminium Foil as a Food Packaging

Material in Comparison with Other
Materials
a a
Manuela Lamberti & Felix Escher
a
ETH Zurich, Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, Zurich,
Switzerland
Version of record first published: 21 Sep 2007
To cite this article: Manuela Lamberti & Felix Escher (2007): Aluminium Foil as a Food Packaging
Material in Comparison with Other Materials, Food Reviews International, 23:4, 407-433
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87559120701593830
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Food Reviews International, 23:407–433, 2007
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 8755-9129 print / 1525-6103 online
DOI: 10.1080/87559120701593830
Aluminium Foil as a Food Packaging Material

1525-6103
8755-9129
LFRI
Food Reviews International
International, Vol. 23, No. 4, August 2007: pp. 1–62
in Comparison with Other Materials
MANUELA LAMBERTI† AND FELIX ESCHER

Aluminiumand
Lamberti Foil
Escher
in Food Packaging
ETH Zurich, Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, Zurich, Switzerland
Aluminium foil is an important material in laminates and has wide application in food
packaging. Its barrier function against the migration of moisture, oxygen and other
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 07:25 18 August 2012
gases, and volatile aroma, as well as against the impact of light is generally higher
than any plastic laminate material. Therefore, aluminium foil is used in the laminates
when insufficient barrier properties are the limiting factor for shelf-life stability of
food. The barrier properties of aluminium-coated plastic laminates, which can offer an
alternative to aluminium foil laminates, are somewhat less efficient. The use of alumin-
ium foil in rigid, semirigid, and flexible package for in-pack thermal processing allows
the selection of package geometries that ensure rapid heating and minimum heat dam-
age during processing. On the tightness of packages, the mechanical stability and
quality of sealing is of particular importance. The chemical stability of aluminium foil
in contact with food depends on the composition of the food items. With present toxico-
logical knowledge, the use of aluminium in packaging material is considered to be
safe, and inner-coating of the foil is recommended in specific cases.
Keywords aluminium foil, barrier, food, nutritive quality, packaging, thermal process
Introduction
Consumers more and more request foods that are ready to eat or are storable for a few
days or up to several years. Moreover, modern products must be tasty, appealing, healthy,
and safe. Foods are instable systems that are subjected to continuous changes. Thus, to ful-
fill these requests, foods must be processed and packed in an optimal way. Optimal pro-
cessing includes treating food as mildly as possible to ensure the least possible changes in
nutritive quality, but at the same, fulfilling the conditions needed for extended shelf-life,
security, and hygiene. The same requirements hold true in food packaging. Indeed, the
main task of a package is the minimising of reactions that negatively influence the stabil-
ity of the packed food.(1) This can only be achieved with packaging materials that are safe
for health, exhibit neutral sensory properties, offer the required protection against any
negative impact from the environment, and prevent undesired loss of volatiles from
food.(2–4) In addition, packages contain all relevant information, ensure the authenticity of
the contained food, and permit a practical handling. All these reasons cause packaging to
have a high status in modern food manufacturing. Yet, processing and packaging are
strongly associated and, thus, in the food manufacturing, they must perfectly match to ful-
fill all required needs. One illustrating example is thermal processing of food, which is
often performed in the package to reduce processing steps and the number of potential
†
Present address: Manuela Lamberti, Kadi Ltd., CH-4901 Langenthal, Switzerland.
Address correspondence to Felix Escher, ETH Zurich, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland.
E-mail: escher@ilw.agrl.ethz.ch
407
408 Lamberti and Escher
recontaminations.(5) Finally, it must also be pointed out that all tasks of modern packaging
must be fulfilled as environmentally friendly as possible.
The high status of packages is further recognisable from the vast material range that
the packaging industry offers. Yet, no single packaging material exists that is suitable for
all needs. On the contrary, optimal packaging material must be selected according to the
type of food, the type of processing, the shelf-life, and to other needs such as size, ease of
opening and reclosing, or waste disposal aspects. Therefore, packaging is as individual as
the food itself in the package. To meet all these requirements, the packaging material
industry offers not only industrial one-component materials but composites in which dif-
ferent materials are combined. Composites add the properties of the single components
and exploit synergetic effects such as an increased barrier effect. Further, by combining
thin layers of various materials, a remarkably reduced material input can be achieved for a
given volume of foods to be packed. Therefore, composite packaging systems enable a
reduction of volume and weight of waste from packaging.(5,6)
Aluminium foil plays a prominent role in modern food packaging. The mechanical,
physical, and chemical properties of aluminium foil such as barrier effect, deadfold, and
food contact ability enable a wide range of applications in many different products and
sectors. The material is light but strong, can be formed and converted into complex
shapes, exhibits excellent corrosion and temperature resistance, shows a high thermal and
electrical conductivity, and can be recycled without a decrease in quality. Furthermore,
packages of aluminium foil are light and thus are energy efficient for transporting.(5,7–9)
Indeed, the request for modern packaging materials to combine functionality and environ-
mental friendliness is fulfilled by aluminium foil. Therefore, properties of aluminium foil
make it a valuable material for many different food packages, in particular for aseptic car-
tons, pouches (flat and self-standing), wrappings, bottle capsules, push-through blisters,
laminated tubes, lids, trays, and containers.
In food packaging, aluminium foil is applied as an uncoated metal and in combination
with other materials. Bare aluminium foil is mainly used as household foil, wrappings
(e.g., for chocolate), and trays. The vast majority of food packaging relies on aluminium
foils in the converted form, which means that the packed food is not in contact with the
aluminium foil itself, but rather with an intermediate layer of lacquer and plastic as coat-
ing. These coatings serve as protective layers against corrosion in very salted or acid
foods, and function as heat sealing layers, enabling a tight sealing of the packages. Layers
of aluminium foil may also be built into packages that consist of paper or cardboard.(6–8,10)
This article discusses the properties of aluminium foil, which ensure the basis for
achieving packaging of high-quality food. First, the properties and benefits of aluminium
foil are compared with those of other common food packaging materials, especially those
that are suitable for heat processing. Because the barrier properties are core qualities of
aluminium foil, the following section focuses on the performance of aluminium foil dur-
ing food storage compared to that of other packaging materials. Finally, the usefulness of
various retortable containers in respect to the achievement of an optimal food quality dur-
ing thermal processes is evaluated.
Aluminium Foil and Other Food Packaging Materials
Application in In-Pack Thermal Processing

Suitable package materials for in-pack thermal processing are tin-plated steel, steel, glass,
aluminium foil, and various plastics. Tin-plated steel cans present the conventional
Aluminium Foil in Food Packaging 409
packages for retorting. They display a high stability, even during sterilisation under
extreme conditions,(11) and exhibit a high impermeability to water vapour and gases as
well as to microorganisms and light.(12,13) Glass containers are popular because they allow
the consumer to visually evaluate the packed food. In addition, glass is nonreactive in food
and has a high mechanical resistance and a barrier effect against water vapour and gases.
Disadvantages of glass are its high weight, fragility, higher pressure sensitiveness during
sterilisation,(11,14) and lack of light protection.
Aluminium foil packaging for in-pack retorting is applied in pouches and trays. Alu-
minium foil laminate pouches are normally composed of a minimum of three layers: (1)
an external layer of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polyamide (PA), which imparts
strength for handling; (2) a central layer of aluminium foil, impermeable to light, water
vapour, gases, and microorganisms; and (3) an inside layer of polypropylene (PP), poly-
ethylene (PE), or co-polymers, which provides strength, is inert to foods, and is readily
heat sealed.(15) Aluminium foil laminate packages can be classified according to the thick-
ness of the aluminium layer into rigid (>180 μm), semirigid (50–180 μm) and flexible
packages (9–50 μm). Containers of aluminium foil show absolute barrier effects to water
vapour, gases, light, and microorganisms.
Plastics used in thermal processing must fulfill a high thermal resistance, including
form stability after heat application and good barrier properties in water vapour, gases,
and light. From a microbiological point of view, a plastic pouch is regarded as safe.
Because of the limited barrier effect of most plastics to oxygen and light, the packed food
is not chemically stable during extended storage periods. To fulfill the requirements of a
retortable all-plastic pouch, positive properties of various plastics can be combined in a
laminate.(16) This enables the optimisation of sealing properties and barrier effects.(17)
Retortable pouches are composed of three to six layers in which a barrier is integrated.
PP and PET are the plastics mostly used for packages for thermal processing. PP has
similar properties to PE, but shows a much higher heat resistance (∼140°C). PP is highly
impermeable to water vapour, is form stable under extremes temperatures, and pressures,
and is resistant to chemicals and solvents. On the other hand, the cold resistance (∼0°C) and
barrier effect to oxygen are poor.(3,13,18) Compared to PP, PET has a much higher imperme-
ability to gases but has a lower one to water vapour. For enhancement of the already favour-
able heat resistance, PET can be further converted into crystalline polyethylene terephthalate
(CPET).(17) CPET is suitable for thermal processing and for application in the microwave
and oven (∼220°C). This property is generally named “dual ovenability.”(3,18)
To improve the barrier effect to gases and water vapour and the sealability, PET can
be coextruded with polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC). PVDC has an extraordinary barrier
effect to gases and water vapour, but during burning of PVDC, hydrochloric acid is gener-
ated. Therefore, this material now is used as little as possible.(3) Ethylene vinyl alcohol
(EVOH) is often used as a barrier layer in laminates for thermal processing. It exhibits an
even higher impermeability to oxygen than PVDC.(17) The barrier effect of EVOH
strongly depends on storage temperature and water content of the material. A high oxygen
barrier effect is only given when EVOH is embedded within waterproof PP layers.(19) The
application of high temperatures during sterilisation decreases the impermeability of PP to
water vapour, leading to a water uptake of EVOH and, thus, increasing its permeability to
oxygen. Usually, the laminate returns to normal conditions only after two to three weeks
of storage when EVOH has lost its absorbed water.(18) However, if the sterilisation tem-
perature is too high, the barrier layer may experience an irreversible “retort shock.” It
should be noted that EVOH absorbs aroma only to a low extent, and, therefore, increas-
ingly replaces low-density polyethylene (LDPE) as citrus juice containers.(20)
Barrier plastics are not suitable for retortable containers for the tropics. One reason is
that containers for tropics are subjected to more intensive heat treatments since higher
sterilisation values are required. On the other hand, the barrier effect strongly decreases at
an environmentally high relative humidity and temperature.(16) Allison(19) determined that
the oxygen permeability of EVOH and PVDC increased by four when the temperature was
increased from 20 to 35°C at 90% relative humidity. Güntensberger(16) showed that the
influence of sterilisation on oxygen permeability is further strongly dependent on the packed
product. The oxygen permeability of plastic trays with an EVOH layer sterilised without a
filling recovered completely within a short storage time, whereas those filled with meat
and water never fully recovered. When compared to the oxygen permeability of the plastic
trays before sterilisation, after sterilisation and at a storage time of 51 days, it increased by
five times when water was the filling and by 26 times when meat and water were packed.
Other Applications
Beyond in-pack thermally processed food, aluminium foil and the packaging materials
discussed in the preceding section are used for a wide variety of other food products. To
the list of plastics already mentioned, polystyrene (PS) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) have
to be added. PS is mostly used for cups because it combines good processability with stiff-
ness and cold resistance. PVC, besides being stiff and tough, has a low permeability to
water vapour and oxygen.(13)
To improve impermeability to gases and water vapour, polymers can be coated with
metals (metallization: for food-only aluminium is relevant) or various oxides. Thin barrier
coating with some oxides enables the production of transparent plastic layers. PET and
oriented polypropylene (OPP) are especially suitable coating materials.(21,22) The barrier
properties of OPP and PET can be improved significantly by a thin film coating or metal-
lic aluminium (Al), aluminium oxide (AlOx), silicon oxide (SiOx), or magnesium oxide
(MgOx), as shown in Table 1. Disparity of the effect of the various coatings may be partly
explained by different tendencies to form stress cracks on mechanical load. AlOx is a hard
and brittle material and is susceptible to stress crack, which correlates well with the lower
barrier improvement effect.(22,23) Holes in the metal layer (e.g., resulting from dust parti-
cles that were on the plastic layer and become detached, or from damages) or holes in the
plastic layers may present other reasons for an increased porosity of the coated layer.(24)
When PET is web vacuum coated with aluminium in a metal layer of only 50 nm and
introduced in a laminate with LDPE, the barrier effects for oxygen (permeability: 1 cm3/
m2dbar) and water vapour (permeability: 1 g/m2d) are equal to those of a PET/aluminium
foil/LDPE laminate. Light transmission, although extremely low, is higher in the laminate
with metallised aluminium (1.5%) than in an aluminium foil of 0.015 mm thickness
(<0.0002%), resulting in a less effective light barrier.(25)
Generally, application of several layers in a laminate increases the barrier effects
because of the addition of the properties of each layer and because of the reduced stressing
effects.(21,22). For example, coated OPP or PET are often combined with PE or PP in a
laminate that, besides enabling sealing, greatly lowers the permeability of water
vapour.(22) Research is going on for production of high barrier laminates, which also show
good performance on mechanical load. Bichler et al.(26) developed a laminate that consists
of biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) web vacuum coated with Al or SiOx and of a
second BOPP layer, which was optimised for mechanical load bearing. Both the Al and
the SiOx-coated laminates possess an oxygen permeation lower than 2 cm3/m2dbar and a
moisture permeation of 0.01 g/m2.
Table 1
Effect of barrier layers on OPP and PET on oxygen and water vapour permeability
(several materials are only laboratory scale samples)(23)
Oxygen permeability Water vapour
at 23°C and 50% r.h. permeabilityat 23°C
[cm3 (STP)/m2dbar] and 85→0 % r.h. [g/m2d]
OPP, copolymer, 20 μm 1800 1.3
OPPcop/Al 20 0.11
OPPcop/SiOx 17 0.08
OPPcop/MgOx 546 0.4
OPPcop/AlOx 118 0.5
OPP, homopolymer, 20 μm 1650 –
OPPhom./Al 26 –
OPPhom./SiOx 14 –
OPPhom./AlOx 44 –
PET, 12 μm 110 15
PET/Al, PVD 0.6 0.17
PET/SiOx, PVD 0.8 0.15
PET/ AlOx, PVD 1.5 0.3
PET/MgOx 0.7 0.4
PET/Si-Mg-mixed oxide 1.0 0.16
r.h. = Relative humidity.
Tables 2 through 4 summarise barrier properties of various food packaging materials.

Table 5 shows the structure of layers, areas of application, and tightness, as well as advan-
tages and disadvantages of various typical laminates. For foods packed under controlled
atmosphere or gassed for oxygen displacement, it is important to note that the permeabil-
ity to other gases (e.g., N2, He, CO2) cannot be derived directly from permeabilities of
water vapour and oxygen.(22)
Performance of Aluminium Foil and Other Package Materials During Food

Storage
Factors that Impair Food Quality During Storage

During storage, a packed food can experience several changes that may lead to a decreased
food quality. First, migration of substances of the package material into the food can occur.
This is discussed because of the corrosion resistance of metal containers. In laminates or
coated materials, the migration of all layers must be evaluated. Second, components of the
packed food may be absorbed by the package material. Sorption leads to a loss of these com-
ponents and may decrease food quality. Aroma compounds are especially susceptible to
absorption by various plastic layers. Likewise, lipids have a strong affinity to lipophilic lay-
ers. Third, permeability of packaging material to water vapour, gases, and visible and UV
light results in many different physical and chemical changes that all influence food quality.
It is important that interactions between the packed food, the packaging material, and the
environment are evaluated for toxicological safety, nutritive value, and sensory aspects.(3,27)
Table 2
Barrier properties of typical food packaging material at various film thicknesses (97)
Water vapour permeability at 23°C and 85→0% relative
humidity [g/m2d] Other barrier effects1
Material and thickness [μm] 12 15 20 23 30 40 50 O2 Aroma Fat Light
3 3 3
HDPE 3.5 2.8 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.8 − − − −3
LDPE 8.0 7.0 5.0 4.5 3.5 2.5 2.0 −3 −3 −3 −3
LDPEEVOH nc2 nc2 nc2 nc2 nc2 4.0 2.9 + ++ + −3
OPPPVDC/Acryl nc2 nc2 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.5 nc2 0 + + −3
OPPmetallised <0.16 <0.16 <0.16 <0.16 <0.16 nc2 nc2 0 0 + +
412
OPPtransparent <2.0 <1.7 <1.5 <1.2 <1.0 <0.75 nc2 −3 −3 0 −3
PA 130 100 75 60 50 38 30 + 0 + −3
PET 16 13 9.5 7.5 6.0 4.8 3.9 0 −3 0 −3
PETmetallised <1.0 nc2 nc2 nc2 nc2 nc2 nc2 + + + +
2
PETSiOx <0.5 nc nc2 nc2 nc2 nc2 nc2 + + + −3
Aluminium foil <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ++ ++ ++ ++
PVC available from ∼90 μm: 5.0 −3 −3 + −3
1
+ + = very good; + = good; 0 = poor barrier property.
2
nc = not customary.
3
not analyzed.
Table 3
Water vapour permeability of typical plastic package materials of 10 μm thickness(95)
Water vapour permeability at 23°C
and 85→0% r.h. [g/m2d]
PVDC 0.4
OPP 2.5
PP 5
LDPE 10
PS 130
Table 4
Oxygen and water vapour permeability of various 100 μm thick
plastic for food packaging(96)
Oxygen permeability at 23°C and Water vapour permeability at
0% r.h. [cm3 (STP)/m2dbar] 40°C and 90→0 % r.h. [g/m2d]
EVOH 0.02–0.45 5.43–31.0
PVDC 0.31 0.23
PET 8.91 4.65
HDPE 581 1.48
BOPP 632 1.48
PS 1008 33.0
LDPE 2147 4.43
r.h. = relative humidity.
In practice, most of the deteriorating effects in stored foods are results of the influence of
moisture, oxygen, and light (visible and UV). While extensive information on the influence of
moisture increase and decrease during storage and on the impact of oxygen, it has been avail-
able for a long time and has been used successfully for packaging optimisation; the influence
of light on storage stability has been researched to a lesser extent and only more recently.
Light, similar to oxygen, deteriorates aroma, colour, and nutrients and forms off-flavours by
lipid oxidation. Vitamins A, B2, B6, B12, and folic acid are light sensitive.(28) The effectiveness
of light depends on its duration, intensity, and colour, as well as on the presence of oxygen.
Bekbölet(29) and Borle et al.(30) reviewed the deteriorating influences of light on dairy products
and other foods. Recommendations for a high food quality include the use of packaging mate-
rials with a high barrier to light and oxygen. As discussed by Rieblinger et al.,(31) during short
storage time and low light intensity, mainly sensibiliser-controlled oxidation occurs, which is
caused by visible light. With longer storage time and higher light intensity, the autoxidative
reactions predominate and, thus, short-wave light, especially UV-light, becomes the deteriorat-
ing factor. Therefore, UV-filters for transparent all-plastic laminates reduce lipid oxidation
and, thus, enhance food quality of products that are susceptible to autoxidation and still should
have an extended shelf-life (e.g., sunflower oil, crisps fried in refined oils, animal fats such as
chicken or pig, and dishes). It should be noted, however, that UV filters offer only partial pro-
tection against the influence of light since visible light impact is not excluded.
Table 5
Structure, area of application and barrier properties as well as advantages and disadvantages
of typical food packaging laminates (97)
Layer structure Area of application Permeability 1 Pro and contra
Paper 60 g/m2 - all-border sealing pouch water vapour: <0.1 g/m2 - wide spread
Al foil 8 μm - mostly for dry products O2: <0.1 cm3 - low cost
PE 40 μm - all-rounder aroma: high - maximum tightness
Paper 60 g/m2 - all-border sealing pouch water vapour: <0.5 g/m2 - free of aluminium
PETSiOx 12 μm - self-standing pouch O2: <2.0 cm3 - limited light barrier
PE 40 μm - ecological products aroma: medium - opening notch needed
PET 12 μm - tube-shaped pouch water vapour: <3.5 g/m2 - low cost
PE 75 μm - refilling pouch O2: <500 cm3 - transparent
- inside-liner aroma: poor - medium protection
414
PETSiOx 12 μm - tube-shaped pouch water vapour: <0.4 g/m2 - high barrier to gases
PE 75 μm - refilling pouch O2: <2.0 cm3 - high barrier to moisture
- hygroscopic products aroma: medium - no barrier to light
PET 12 μm - tube-shaped pouch water vapour: <2.0 g/m2 - high barrier to gases
PEEVOH 75 μm - refilling pouch O2: <2.0 cm3 - high barrier to aroma
- vacuum pouch aroma: high - sensitive to moisture
PET 12 μm - various pouches water vapour: <0.1 g/m2 - barrier to light
Al foil 8 μm - maximum tightness O2: <0.1 cm3 - low cost
PE 75 μm - high strength aroma: high - maximum tightness
OPPtransparent 20 μm - good presentation water vapour: <0.5 g/m2 - low cost
OPPmetallised 20 μm - low package weight O2: <100 cm3 - light barrier
- typical for snacks aroma: medium - sealing is difficult
1
Data at 25°C, quantity of water vapor at 85 → 0 % relative humidity, volume of oxygen at STP.
General Aspects of Barrier Effects on Shelf-Life

Generally, packages composed of metals exhibit the highest light barrier properties.
Metals, glass containers, and aluminium foil laminates present materials with the high-
est impermeability to water vapour and oxygen.(13) One of the virtues of aluminium foil
lies in its compatibility with many different materials such as paper, plastics, or paper-
board without losing its barrier effect.(5) On the other hand, there is no doubt that the
most important property of aluminium foil in the packaging of food is found in its bar-
rier function against the penetration of oxygen, water vapour, light, flavour compounds,
microorganisms, and grease.(7,8) Therefore, aluminium foil satisfies the packaging
requirements for all oxygen, light, and water vapour-sensitive foods.(28) Because of this
almost absolute barrier property, foods in retorted aluminium trays can be stored for
several years at room temperatures, even in tropical Climates.(15,32) Shelf-life of food
packaged in alufoil containing laminates is maintained, as a more recent study showed,
because of the absolute barrier properties of alufoil against organic molecules.(33) In per-
meation experiments that were carried out at 100°C on laminates with an aluminium foil
of 6-μm thickness migration of dodecane, benzophenone and di-(ethylhexyl)-adipate
did not exceed 10 ppb before 30 h.
Bloeck(34) found comparable stabilities of retorted greenbeans packed in aluminium
foil laminate pouches, aluminium trays, and tin-plated steel cans. Interestingly, these
products mainly experienced changes during processing, whereas the changes during stor-
age were of lesser importance.
The high barrier effect of aluminium foil is maintained even at very small layer thick-
ness.(6) Any permeability is caused by porosity of the metal. Thicknesses of 15 μm and
larger hardly contain pores and, thus, can be regarded as absolutely tight. On the other
hand, 12-μm thick layers show a water vapour permeability of ≤0.01 g/m2d, and those of
8–9 μm generally of 0.07–0.1 g/m2d.(28) These values are still far below those of most
plastic films used for food (Tables 2–4). Moreover, at layers below 15 μm, aluminium foil
is mainly used with polymers or lacquers. The permeability effect due to pores becomes
negligible.
As a drawback, thin layers of the aluminium foil within laminates are susceptible to
flex cracking at stress points that subsequently diminishe barrier properties. It should be
noted that despite stress cracking of sensitive layers and the development of pores, alu-
minium foil laminates continue to have acceptable barrier performance, probably as a
result of pore-sealing properties of the surrounding plastic materials.(22)
Food for frozen storage must be protected from the influence of oxygen and light as
well as from loss of flavour compounds and migration of off-flavours from the environ-
ment, even if some of the deteriorating effects are minimised at low temperatures. Unpro-
tected frozen food is exposed to severe weight losses because of freeze-drying. In
addition, freezer burn results in an unacceptable change of colour and—especially in meat
products—taste and consistency. Frozen foods of high fat content are susceptible to up-
take of off-flavours from the surrounding. Oxidation-sensitive foods may suffer serious
changes in the presence of oxygen because oxidation rates do not drop sufficiently at low-
temperature storage. Aluminium foil offers an efficient barrier to all these reactions. Fur-
thermore, aluminium foil packages keep their shape and, thus, protection ability even
when they are heated for industrial preparation of foods, subsequently frozen for storage,
and then heated again for final consumption. Therefore, aluminium foil represents the
ideal package material for ready-to-eat frozen meals. For ice creams, such as cornets, alu-
minium foil laminates are optimal for protection during storage.(35)
Effectiveness against the Influence of Light

Laminate pouches without a layer of aluminium foil mostly offer a less effective barrier to
light, which causes a rapid drop in food quality during storage.(36) Meat packed and steri-
lised in plastic trays is exposed to negative changes during storage due to light-induced
lipid oxidation.(16,37) This is not the case when the meat was filled in an aluminium tray.
One day of light exposure is sufficient for negative changes of meat in plastic trays, which
cannot even be prevented by flushing the package with nitrogen. Thus, for light-sensitive
foods packed in plastic trays, storage in the dark such as in a cardboard container is neces-
sary from the very beginning.
Ultra high temperature sterilized (UHT) milk is often sold in laminated paperboard
with a layer of aluminium foil. Therefore, the content is well protected against light and
the shelf-life in the dark at 6°C extends at least six months. UHT milk packed in nonalu-
minium paper-based barrier cardboard or a PE-coated cardboard (normally used in pas-
teurised milk) at 6°C in the dark had a shelf-life of four to five months, whereas under
light exposure a light-induced off-flavour developed already after two to eight

weeks.(38)
Cream is mostly packed in PS or PP cups with lids composed of PS, PP, or aluminium
foil. A study was conducted for sensory evaluation of the deteriorating effects of light on
cream (fat content: 30%) filled in the systems mentioned above, and stored at 8°C either in
the dark or exposed to light sources of 500, 950, and 1600 lux, respectively.(39) Results for
exposure of cream stored in PP/Al, PP/PP, PS/Al, and PS/PS systems (cup/lid) at 950 lux
are presented in Fig. 1. Products kept in the dark hardly changed for two weeks. Products
stored in a PS/PS system displayed strong off-flavours after a storage time of two weeks in
the dark because of oxygen-induced oxidation. Products exposed to light of 500 lux did
not deteriorate. However, products exposed to 950 lux showed negative changes in odour
and taste from the beginning on, and a deteriorated texture after one-week storage. When
these products were filled in cups covered by a plastic lid and exposed to 1600 lux, their
quality was lower than accepted for sale after two days. Products that were exposed to the
same storage conditions but were covered by a lid of aluminium foil after two days exhib-
ited only a slight off-taste. The off-taste was even smaller when a PP/Al system was used
Figure 1. Sensory evaluation of the taste of cream (fat content: 30%) stored in different systems
(cup/lid) exposed to light of 950 lux for three weeks. Evaluation scale: 1 = absolutely changed taste,
3.5 = limit for consumption, 4.5 = limit for selling, 9 = optimal taste (adapted with permission).(39)
from the beginning of the storage. In cups with a lid of aluminium foil, the changes are
probably caused by light entering from the side. After one week, all products stored at
1600 lux were not acceptable. These results are of practical relevance because dairy prod-
ucts in food stores are exposed to light of 700–2000 lux. By application of lids with alu-
minium, shelf-life can be extended at least to some extent.
Yoghurt is highly susceptible to the influence of light and oxygen. It is mostly
packed in small portions with a high surface-to-volume ratio and with packaging mate-
rial of a rather high oxygen and light permeability. Yet, marketing usually asks for an
extended shelf-life. Bosset and Flückiger(40) evaluated the effectiveness of various pack-
ages for natural yoghurt kept at 8°C in the dark or exposed to light of 2000 lux. They
concluded that in the first two weeks of storage a light barrier is more important than an
oxygen barrier. A low oxygen permeability of the packages is nevertheless needed since
the influence of light in combination with oxygen is more serious and the influence of
an insufficient oxygen barrier is noticed at more extended storage times. Interestingly,
light permeability spectrum of the packages was found to be relevant. For example, vita-
min B2, although it is known to be more light sensitive than vitamin A, was protected
fairly well by brown stained glass and brown stained PS, whereas the same materials
protected vitamin A insufficiently. The reason for this better protection is that the
adsorption spectrum of vitamin B2 lies at the minimum light permeability of these
brown stained containers. PS covered with a cardboard, on the other hand, offered an
efficient light barrier to both vitamins. It was further shown that a lid of aluminium foil
did not offer a real quality improvement when an unsuitable cup was used. Sensory
evaluation enabled the determination of the combined influences of light and oxygen of
the differently stored yoghurt samples. These results suggest that the package must offer
a good light and oxygen barrier and, in consequence, the yoghurt with the highest qual-
ity was the one stored in brown glass, followed by that in PS covered with cardboard.
Unstained PS was found to be the least acceptable package for yoghurt. Besides loss of
vitamins, colour changes and formation of volatiles that resulted in off-taste were the
main deteriorating reactions observed when yoghurt was insufficiently protected from
light and oxygen.
Emmons et al.(41) found that the light transmission intensity and spectrum of various
butter wrappers were important. They examined the suitability of five PE-based plastics,
two parchment papers, two metallised aluminium papers, and one aluminium foil paper
laminate. The results indicate that only the aluminium foil laminate protected butter com-
pletely from oxidation. Yellow plastic transmitted very little light below 500 nm and the
metallised paper less than 10% of overall light, but both wrappers did not prevent oxida-
tion. Evidently, an optimal butter wrapper must transmit no or only an extremely small
percentage of light and, in particular, exhibit a low light permeability at a wavelength
above 500 nm. Similar results were obtained by Luby et al.(42) who showed that choles-
terol in butter could be successfully protected from oxidation only by using a wrapper of
aluminium foil. Other materials such as margarine wrap, opaque parchment, wet strength
dry wax paper, and PE were not effective.
Annatto-coloured cheese stored in various plastic films showed a loss of yellow
colour, whereas red ones increased. Both reactions result from the influence of light and
are undesirable. Protective covers with a UV-blocking agent had no significant effect on
colour stability of the cheeses under cool white fluorescent light. Cheeses packed in films
with a high oxygen permeability further experienced off-flavour formation due to lipid
oxidation. The aluminium foil laminate also provided the greatest stability of cheese
colour during light exposed storage.(43)
Effectiveness against the Influence of Moisture

To protect a food from loss or uptake of water, materials with a water vapour permeability
of <10 g/m2dbar should be selected(2). For highly moisture sensitive foods and/or for
longer storage times, lower values of ∼1 g/m2dbar are needed, a value that is reached with
∼8 μm aluminium foil, 25 μm OPP film, or 100 μm LDPE film. Permeability of packaging
material is strongly dependent on layer thickness, as shown in Table 2, but also on temper-
ature. Generally, an increase of 10°C leads to a doubling of the permeability values for
gases. Furthermore, EVOH and PA are very moisture sensitive.(44)
Radtke(45) evaluated the shelf-life stability of potato crisps and found that package
permeability to water vapour was more crucial than that to oxygen. For keeping the crisps
crunchy during storage, an aluminium foil laminate with tight sealing seams was sug-
gested. On the other hand, a PVDC-coated PP-laminate was regarded as unsuitable
because after only 8–10 weeks the crisps were below the quality limit for selling.
Effectiveness against the Influence of Oxygen

Gomez et al.(46) determined the shelf-life of pasteurised mango slices stored at 2, 10, and
20°C. Mango slices packed in aluminium foil laminate pouches or glass jars stored for five
months had a better flavour, colour, and microbiological quality than those in transparent
pouches. Furthermore, mango slices in aluminium foil laminate pouches and glass jars
could be stored at 20°C for five months without problems, whereas those in transparent
pouches had a shorter shelf-life even when refrigerated. It was concluded that the oxygen
permeability of the transparent pouches was the shelf-life–limiting factor for pasteurised
mango slices.
Heidelbaugh and Karel(47) also showed that during storage the ascorbic acid content
of the sterilised food decreased more with increasing oxygen permeability of the used
pouch laminate. Furthermore, a stronger browning and a lower sensory quality was found
with increasing oxygen permeability of the packages.
In a more recent study, oxidative changes and other quality deteriorative reactions
were studied in short-term stored refrigerated fish that were wrapped in aluminium foil
and cling film, respectively.(48,49) It is common practice in retail, household, and catering
operations to wrap fresh fish before refrigeration. Although aluminium foil provided
acceptable protection against oxidation, changes caused by microbial growth were by far
more dominant and these was no observed real advantage of aluminium foil over cling
film.
Effectiveness against Loss or Uptake of Aroma

Aluminium foil is also an absolute barrier to aroma, meaning that it neither sorbs aroma
nor allows its loss by permeation.(50) Laminates with a web vacuum-coated aluminium
layer are not always efficient barrier layers for aroma, as was shown for PET/LDPE lami-
nates by Freitag et al.(25) Thus, the suitability of laminates with a web vacuum-coated alu-
minium layer must be evaluated from case to case. This also holds true for all-plastic
laminates, as was shown by Haack, Rüter, and Piringer,(51) who determined the uptake of
2,4,6-trichloranisol (TCA) into chocolate packed in various laminates and stored in a
closed container with a concentration of TCA of 23 ng/L air. Typical shelf-life of choco-
late extends to approximately one year. Yet, sensory evaluation indicated that at the stor-
age conditions investigated, none of the chocolate sample was acceptable after one year.
Chocolate packed in PP coated with a layer of polyacrylonitril (PAN) and in PVDC could
be stored for four months, while chocolate packed in OPP had a sensory threshold value of
1.5 μg TCA/kg, which was reached after two days. Because the sealing seam was tight in
all samples, the aroma uptake must have occurred by permeation through the laminates.
Much of the aroma of roasted coffee is lost during storage, which depends strongly on
the package material. Lindner-Steinert and Zou(52) evaluated the suitability of four materi-
als as a packaging medium for ground roast coffee, in particular in view of tightness to
CO2, aroma permeability, and flex cracking behaviour on mechanical load. Aluminium
foil laminate (12 μm PET/7 μm Al foil/70 μm PE) was found to be the most suitable pack-
aging material, whereas the other materials were either generally unsuitable (12 μm PET
coated with SiOx/100 μm PE) or only acceptable in one of the properties evaluated (12 μm
PET/80 μm PE/metallised 12 μm PET/80 μm multilayer PE/EVOH).
Aroma loss and up-take also presents an important issue for composite material that
contains aluminium foil. Aseptic carton packaging material is generally composed from
inside to outside of PE/PE ionomer/Al foil/PE ionomer/paperboard/PE. During storage of

fruit juice that is aseptically filled in cartons, aroma sorption by the package causes fla-
vour losses. It was found that the aluminium foil layer has little impact on flavour sorption
and that the controlling factor in sorption was the inner heat sealing layer (PE) in direct
contact with the food.(50) The sorption of aroma compounds into the packaging material
depends both on the chemical structure of the aroma compounds and on the type of poly-
mer used for the inner sealing layer.(53) Loss of aroma compounds, and as a result, sorption
into the packaging material is not always detectable by sensory means. Pieper et al.(54)
found that orange juice packed in a PE-laminated carton and stored at 4°C for 24 weeks
lost 50% of its D-limonene content from sorption. However, when this orange juice was
compared by sensory evaluations to that stored in a glass bottle at the same conditions, no
difference was observed. The plastic layer of laminates, which is in direct contact with the
packed food, can also absorb free fatty acids. Besides diminishing these substances in the
packed food, this sorption may also cause delamination between the plastic and alumin-
ium foil layer of a laminate. This interaction is strongly dependent on storage conditions
and often results in a decreased protection of the food by the package in respect to deterio-
rating reactions.(55,56) Clearly, improvements in material selection with regard to sorption
of food components are necessary by selecting inner sealing layers with minimal interac-
tion with the food.(50)
Additional Factors Influencing Storage Stability

Packaging material with a efficient barrier effect is useless if sealing seams, if corners
or edges are permeable to gases, or if layers in a laminate experience flex cracking dur-
ing mechanical load. Thus, the permeability values of a material are not sufficient for
selection of a suitable package, but rather, the full package in use must be evaluated. For
example, when a package was formed from an aluminium foil laminate with a water
vapour permeability of 0.004 g/m2dbar, the permeability measured for the entire pack-
age amounted to 5 g/m2dbar.(44) In sealing seams, Granzer(57) determined deteriorating
effects in fruit juices packed in an aluminium foil-cardboard laminate that were clearly
caused by oxygen entering the package from the sealing seam. Oxygen led to a greatly
reduced shelf-life (3–5 months) compared to fruit juices stored in glass bottles (6.5–9
months). This suggests that not only must a suitable package be selected but good pack-
ing technology must be used to get most of the used materials and to guarantee good
food quality.
On the other hand, for some food products such as fermented milk—a typical Swedish
product—an absolute barrier effect to gases is inappropriate since the CO2 formed cannot
escape and the product becomes too sparkling.(58) A similar problem was found with
Korean fermented pepper paste in which the formed CO2, because of the high barrier
effect of an aluminium foil laminate, could not escape and, thus, highly expanded the
package.(59) For these cases, a laminate must be chosen that optimally fulfills the required
barrier properties.
Performance of Aluminium Foil and Other Package Material in In-pack

Thermal Processing
Quality Aspects
Sterilisation and pasteurization conditions, production process, and type and geometry of
package are factors influencing the heat process and the final food quality.(60) When com-
paring the thermal performance of jars, bottles, cans, trays, and pouches, geometry clearly
presents the main determinant of processing. Because of their high surface area and thin
cross section, trays and pouches have superior heating characteristics than packages of
similar volume and cylindrical design (e.g., jars and cans), since the time to reach the
required core temperature for sterilization is reduced. The total sterilisation time for
pouches is shortened by one third to one half when compared to metal cans, as shown in
Fig. 2.(61) As a result, the food is exposed to smaller heat impact at the same total effect of
microorganism inactivation (Fo value), which leads to a higher food quality in respect to
colour, odour, flavour, texture, and nutrient retention, as well as surface overcook-
ing.(15,32,61–66) A reduction of sterilisation time by 35% was also found for aluminium foil
laminate trays (225 mL) compared to tin-plated steel can (206 mL) when applying the
same sterilisation conditions (Fo value) for processing of ready-to-eat meat dishes.(60) On
the other hand, Mulvaney and Rizvi(61) and Uribe-Saucedo and Ryley(64) showed that the
Figure 2. Heat penetration curves for equal volumes of sweet potato puree packaged in cans and retort
pouches and processed to the same sterilising value of Fo = 8.0 ± 0.3 min (Reference temperature =
121.1°C and z-value = 10°C) LR/min = lethal rate obtained per minute (adapted with permission).(61)
sterilisation time of potatoes processed in pouch was similar to that retorted in cans
(Fig. 3). This was attributed to the rapid heat transfer through the brine in cans. Thus, a
reduction in sterilisation time can be expected mainly for particulate foods of larger
dimensions such as whole meat pieces, or for foods in which only conductive heat transfer
occurs (mashed vegetables). Because of the improved heat transfer of trays and pouches,
rotation during sterilisation is not necessary,(67) although rotary processing further reduces
the sterilisation time by about 50%.(66)
For several products, a higher nutrient retention was determined when processed in
pouches or trays compared to those retorted in cans. Bielig et al.(60) found a higher thia-
mine (vitamin B1) content in the ready-to-eat meat dishes prepared in alufoil trays when
applying like sterilisation conditions as in tin-plated cans (Table 6). Greene(68) determined
a significantly higher retention of thiamine and riboflavin (vitamin B2) in sweet potato
puree processed in an aluminium foil pouch compared to that in tin-plated cans of equal
volume and sterilising value (Table 7). Table 7 also shows that in contrast to the strong
effect of variation of the container geometry, the sterilisation temperature hardly affected
the content of thiamine and riboflavin. Potter et al.(69) showed that peaches packed in
Figure 3. Heat penetration curves for equal volumes of cubed potatoes packaged in cans and retort
pouches and processed to the same sterilising value of Fo = 6.5 ± 0.5 min (Reference temperature =
121.1°C and z-value = 10°C). LR/min = lethal rate obtained per minute (adapted with permission).(61)
Table 6 Vitamin B1 contents and losses of three ready-to-eat meat dishes before and after
sterilisation in tin-plated steel cans or aluminium foil-laminate trays (mean of six trials)(60)
Dish 1 Dish 2 Dish 3
Vitamin B1 Tray Can Tray Can Tray Can
Raw [mg/kg] 2.14 2.28 0.99 0.98 0.40 0.41
Sterilised [mg/kg] 1.19 0.86 0.70 0.60 0.28 0.25
Loss during sterilisation [%] (raw = 100%) 45 62 30 39 30 39
Table 7
Effects of packaging and processing parameters on nutrient retention in equal volumes of
sweet potato puree processed at two different temperatures to Fo = 8.0 ± 0.3 min(68)
Retention [%]
115.6°C 121.1°C
Initial concentration
[μg/g dry matter] Pouch Can Pouch Can
Thiamine 3.19 70.6* 62.3 77.0* 60.4
Riboflavin 1.95 102.9* 92.9 102.8* 88.6
Significant difference at P < 0.05.
aluminium foil pouches had a higher storage stability and sensory quality in respect to
colour, texture, flavour, and overall acceptability than the fruits packed in tin-plated cans.
Abou-Fadel and Miller(70) found that greenbeans and cherries in aluminium foil pouches
were superior in the retention of thiamine and ascorbic acid (vitamin C), in a brighter
colour and a firmer texture compared to the products in tin-plated cans.
The oxygen content that remains in aluminium foil pouches after sealing has a large
influence on the ascorbic acid content of sterilised greenbeans. Thus, nutrient retention of
oxygen-sensitive substances depends mainly on factors such as headspace volume, oxy-
gen content of the filled food and brine, and oxygen removal during filling. The highest
nutrient loss occurs because of leaching of substances from the food into the brine, as was
reported for ascorbic acid and thiamine(34,64,71,72) and for amino acids.(73,74) Large amounts
of brine, which promote leaching, are necessary for the sterilisation of cans and glass
bottles or jars to reduce headspace volume to a minimum and to ensure that there is a suf-
ficient heat transfer within the container.(64,70) Aluminium foil pouches offer the advan-
tage that the amount of brine, syrup, or sauce as well as food can be varied because the
volume of pouches is adaptable by sealing in a vacuum.(15,75) Mulvaney and Rizvi(61)
showed that potatoes processed in aluminium foil pouches retained more than 90% of the
original potassium, calcium, and magnesium content compared to 54–63% for potatoes
processed in tin-plated cans. The ascorbic acid content was 75% higher in potatoes
retorted in aluminium foil pouches than those in tin-plated cans. In addition, little amounts
of brine increase the headspace volume and the sterilisation time; Bloeck(34) and Bloeck
et al.(72) recommended the application of an optimal food–brine ratio and the removal of
oxygen by evacuation during filling.
Güntensperger(16) aimed the determination of the influence of package material on the
heat transfer during sterilisation of a model meat dish. A plastic (24 μm PP + TiO2/192
μm PP/16 μm adhesive layer/20 μm EVOH/16 μm adhesive layer/460 μm PP/32 μm PP +
TiO2) and an aluminium tray (outside protective lacquer/100 μm Al foil/ concealing adhe-
sive/50 μm PP) were used. Fig. 4 shows the temperature development within the food
packed in plastic and aluminium trays for obtaining equal Fo values. Characteristics of
containers and sterilisation parameters of the trays are summarised in Table 8. Plastic trays
needed a longer time to reach retort temperature and, thus, required 25% more total pro-
cess time. The lower heat transfer of plastic compared to aluminium trays may be due to
several factors, for example, the low thermal conductivity of PP. PP has a thermal conduc-
tivity of 0.22 W/mK, which is 1000 times smaller than that of aluminium foil.(60) Yet, as
no difference in thermal conductivity was found between tin-plated steel cans and plastic
Figure 4. Temperature development during sterilisation at 131°C of raw filled meat in aluminium
and plastic trays. Aluminium and plastic trays were retorted separately. Thermocouples were placed
in two trays at the half tray height (adapted with permission).(37)
Table 8
Characteristics of containers and sterilisation parameters
of aluminium and plastic trays(37)
Aluminium Plastic
tray trays
Height [cm] 2.7 3.4
Surface [m2] 0.0400 0.0451
Volume [ml] 390 440
Specific surface [m2/m3] 105.2 102.5
Heating time [min] 21 31
Cooling time to 25°C [min] 20 24
Total process time [min] 41 55
Shortened heating time compared 32
to plastic trays [%]
Shortened process time compared 25
to plastic trays [%]
Reached Fo value [min]1 9.6 9.7
1
Reference temperature = 121.1°C, z-value = 10°C.
cans of the same dimension,(76) the critical factor in the above mentioned study was prob-
ably the different height of plastic and aluminium trays. Indeed, the half height largely
influences the thermal transfer of trays since it appears as a quadratic value in the equation
of temperature spreading.(16)
For evaluation of the thermal performance of different retortable pouches, Lebowitz
and Bhowmik(77) developed equation (1), in which h is the heat transfer coefficient, G is
the mass velocity, k is the thermal conductivity, Cp is the specific heat, D is the pipe diam-
eter, and h is the viscosity.
G 0.8 k 2 / 3C p1 / 3
h = 0.023 ⋅ (1)
D 0.2 h 0.47
By using equation (1), they concluded that the heat transfer coefficient of plastic-alu-
minium foil pouches (PET/Al foil/PP; h = 178 ± 27 W/m2K) and all-plastic pouches (PET/
PVDC/PP; h = 186 ± 54 W/m2K) were not significantly different (95% confidence),
implying that for thermal processing of retortable pouches, the heat transfer coefficient
can be assumed equal for the different materials.
Mechanical Stability of Packages during Processing and Postprocessing Handling

The major advantage of using metal cans for sterilisation is their superior resistance to
mechanical stress. Several studies aimed the evaluation of the suitability of trays and
pouches for thermal processing in mechanical stability. Ortiz et al.(66) determined the load
resistance, heat sealing properties, and retort performance, and concluded that aluminium
trays were suitable even in more intense heat treatment to eliminate thermoresistant
spores. The trays withstood the compression loading that occurred during processing and
showed the required sealing properties and seal resistance.
As a major disadvantage of pouches, difficulties in leakage controlling after process-
ing and in detecting recontamination have to be mentioned. Recontamination of pouches
may occur through seals that are imperfect from wrinkles, enclosure of food material in
the seal, or through punctures in the packaging materials due to rough handling. In gen-
eral, the percentage of pouch failure is comparable to that reported as normal for commer-
cial metal cans. Respective recommendations on pouch processing and postprocessing
handling have been established.(78)
Schricker et al.(79) evaluated the effect of mechanical stress on barrier properties of
metallised films and aluminium foil-plastic laminates. The metallised films showed a con-
siderable loss of vapour barrier after the filling and sealing process, whereas the alumin-
ium foil-plastic laminates were much more stable against mechanical stress. In contrast,
Freitag et al.(25) found that because of higher elasticity a PET/LDPE laminate with a web
vacuum–coated aluminium layer was more resistant to mechanical load than a laminate
with aluminium foil.
Stability of Aluminium Foil in Contact with Food

Aluminium is a relatively reactive metal, that in the presence of oxygen forms a dense
oxide layer on its surface. At temperatures around 300°C, this oxide layer becomes thicker
and changes from an amorphous to a crystalline structure. The oxide layer is impervious
and adheres strongly to the metal underneath, providing an excellent protection to the
metal. A high corrosion resistance of aluminium in the pH range of 4 to 8.5 is a conse-
quence of this oxide layer. The corrosion stability generally increases with thickness of the
oxide layer. However, aluminium oxide is corroded by strong acids and bases and halo-
genide ions, especially chloride ions.(7) The protecting oxide layer is further strongly influ-
enced by other metals incorporated into aluminium alloys. Generally, higher contents of
other metals in the alloy make the oxide layer more susceptible to corrosion. Magnesium,
which is incorporated to improve the mechanical strength of aluminium foil, decreases the
stability of the alloy against weak acids, but increases its stability against chloride ions and
bases. Table 9 shows the influence of various aluminium alloys on the corrosion velocity
of different foods and pH values.(7)
The pH value of many foods lies in the range of the corrosion stability of aluminium
foil, that is, 4–7 and, thus, do not significantly corrode its surfaces. Moreover, glucose,
protein, pectin, and fatty substances act as inhibitors in acid-containing products. Storage
of dry products such as starch, sugar, egg powder, coffee, chocolate, and tea in bare alu-
minium foil does not give any corrosion-related problems.(7) The storage of foods packed
in bare aluminium containers at room or lower temperatures presents less severe condi-
tions for the corrosion of aluminium foil.(6) Greger et al.(80) investigated the aluminium
content of raw foods, and after freezing, the refrigerating and heating of the same foods in
aluminium foil or trays (Table 10). The results suggest an irrelevant increase of the alu-
minium content of the analysed foods, which is even negligible when considering the nat-
ural aluminium content of these products.
To evaluate the migration of aluminium into acidic beverages from coated aluminium
cans, Dürr and Bloeck(81) analysed the aluminium content of a white wine (Riesling Sylv-
aner, pH = 3.66) after storage for 100 weeks at 20°C in a green glass bottle, a conventional
lacquered tin-plated steel can, and an aluminium can with a protective lacquer coating
inside and two different types of closures (ALUFIX and ring pull). The results in Table 11
indicate an irrelevant migration of aluminium from aluminium cans into white wine. A
similar study was completed by Bloeck, Kreis, and Stanek(82) with apple juice before and
after storage in different containers (330 mL two-piece lacquered tin-plated steel can,
160 mL three-piece lacquered and seam coated tin-plated steel can, 330 mL two-piece lac-
quered aluminium can, 150 mL two-piece lacquered aluminium can) for 22 months. The
long storage time was chosen to create extreme conditions that are normally not found in
the storage of apple juice. The results in Table 12 show that the aluminium content has
only increased slightly in aluminium cans, resulting from tiny spots of corrosion in the lid,
Table 9
Influence of the composition of aluminium alloys on the corrosion velocity
of different packed food in dependence of their pH value(7)
Aluminium corrosion velocity
[mg/100 cm2h]
Food and pH value Al 99.5 Al 98.3 AlMn AlMg2
Meat + water + herbs, pH 5.9 –1 0.10 0.10 0.05
Apple + raisins + nuts + sugar + water, pH 5.3 0.40 0.80 0.80 5.20
Rhubarb + sugar + lemon peel, pH 3.4 1.80 13.20 16.00 32.00
1
Not determined.
Table 10
Aluminium content of raw foods and foods after
freezing, refrigerating, and heating in aluminium
containers(80)
Aluminium content
[μg/g wet base]
Raw food Prepared food
Beef 0.30 0.33
Flounder 0.55 0.70
Turkey 0.32 0.38
Mashed potatoes 0.18 0.97
Table 11
Concentration of aluminium (Al), iron (Fe), and tin (Sn) in a white wine after
100 weeks storage in different containers(81)
Al [mg/L] Fe [mg/L] Sn [mg/L]
Glass bottle, 200 mL 1.9 3.9 1.5
Tin-plated steel can, 160 mL 1.5 317.0 3.1
Aluminium can / ALUFIX, 160 mL 2.1 4.0 1.5
Aluminium can / ring pull, 160 mL 2.6 4.0 1.5
Table 12
Concentration of aluminium (Al), iron (Fe), and tin (Sn) in apple juice before and after
22 months storage in different containers(82)
Al [mg/L] Fe [mg/L] Sn [mg/L]
Fresh Stored Fresh Stored Fresh Stored
Tin-plated steel can, 330 mL, 1.3 1.3 0.9 3.9 <1.0 4.0
2-piece lacquered
Tin-plated steel can, 160 mL, 1.3 1.3 0.9 26.0 <1.0 27.0
3-piece lacquered, seam coated
Aluminium can, 330 mL, 2-piece 1.3 9.4 0.9 0.9 <1.0 <1.0
lacquered
Aluminium can, 150 mL, 2-piece 1.3 5.2 0.9 0.9 <1.0 <1.0
lacquered
probably due to improper coating of the aluminium layer. In contrast, Table 11 and Table
12 suggest that the migration of iron and tin from tin-plated steel can present more sub-
stantial changes.
Beer is generally sold in coated aluminium cans. Nevertheless, Vela et al.(83) deter-
mined a significant increase of the aluminium content in the beverage during a storage
period of five months. This increase of the aluminium content is believed to be caused by
corrosion of the aluminium can from the low pH value of beer of 4.15. The authors also
found that beer stored at room temperature contained more migrated aluminium than the
refrigerated samples. Again, aluminium migration probably originates from insufficient
coating.
Seruga and Hasenay(84) quoted several studies that evaluated the migration of alumin-
ium from aluminium cans containing citrate- and cola-based soft drinks. The content of
migrated aluminium depended on storage time and temperature, as well as on the type and
total amount of acids. Yet, generally, the content of migrated aluminium into soft drinks
was small even if being significantly higher than the aluminium content of soft drinks
stored in glass bottles. Schmidt and Grunow(85) mentioned that soft drinks stored in lac-
quered aluminium cans even for long storage times do not show a higher content of
migrated aluminium than 2 mg/L.
As discussed above and found in other studies,(86,87) the amount of aluminium migrat-
ing from aluminium containers is small, reflecting the high corrosion stability of this
material. When put in perspective to other sources of aluminium in the human diet, the
extent of aluminium migrated from aluminium packages is even neglectable. The alumin-
ium content of native foods ranges between 0.1–10 mg/kg, whereas the maximum addi-
tion due to transfer from food containers is around 10 mg/kg. Aluminium is further used
extensively in many food additives (e.g., leavening agents, stabilisers). A high intake of
aluminium may come through medicines (e.g., antacid products, buffered analgesics) and
may amount to 5 g/day.(6) In conclusion, the risk of using bare aluminium foil as a packag-
ing material of neutral and not salted foods from a toxicological point of view is virtually
inexistent.(85) In a more recent investigation on aluminium levels of fish fillets baked and
grilled in aluminium foil, Ranau et al.(88) came to the same conclusion. The authors did
detect some aluminium transfer that is so small that it does not pose any risk to the con-
sumer. Therefore, the grilling and baking practice, which is beneficial in view of prevent-
ing excessive oil drip and charring, may be considered safe.
In salted and acid foods it is recommended to use coated aluminium foils for packag-
ing to prevent corrosion and potential changes of flavour or colour of the food.(8,89) It
should also be noted that when aggressive foods are frozen, aluminium foil corrodes to a
higher extent because of the concentration of the relevant substances as a result of ice for-
mation. Therefore, coated aluminium foils are also recommended for the packaging of fro-
zen, stored aggressive foods.(7) Kunze(7) mentioned that it is not appropriate to classify
aggressive foods by product groups or different dry matter contents (with the exception of
dry foods). The unsuitability to pack foods in bare aluminium foils is rather defined by pH
value, salt content, type and concentration of the organic anions, and type and concentra-
tion of inhibiting substances such as starch, lipids, and proteins.
During storage, migration of coatings into the packed food may also occur. Bovard
et al.(90) analysed the degradation of two different coatings of aluminium cans, which were
filled with eight different food products. The results suggest that even if both coatings
resisted degradation during short storage times, they degraded over time, the extent of
degradation being depended on the food product. Yet, migration of the coating is not a
unique feature of aluminium cans, but rather is a general problem of coated metal cans and
laminates containing plastics in direct contact with the packed food.(91–94) Suitable materi-
als for coatings must be selected to reduce migration into the food. Simal-Gandara(10)
summarised the common metal can coatings and their properties and virtues.
Conclusion
A package should be regarded as an integral system that must be optimised for filling, pro-
cessing (e.g., thermal processing), transport, storage, and handling by the consumer. Evi-
dently, the package must guarantee a good food quality for all these steps during the whole
declared shelf-life and, thus, prevent deteriorating reactions that may reduce food quality
below acceptance for selling or consuming. For selection of the best package system, it is
necessary to evaluate the production and filling conditions it must resist, as well as the
occurring deteriorating reactions that reduce the food quality during production and stor-
age, the quality limit acceptable for selling and consuming, and the required shelf-life.
Generally, since flexible pouches have a higher superficial area than semiflexible trays
and especially cans, pouches can be classified as the best package for sterilisation regard-
ing heat transfer and the resulting food quality.
Aluminium foil as a packaging material is important for all products that are sensitive
to light or oxygen and those their may lose or take up moisture or aroma compounds. Even
when reduced to its thinnest form, aluminium foil provides an almost absolute barrier
effect. To ensure this barrier effect, cracking of the aluminium foil during processing must
be avoided. For example, this can be realised by coating the aluminium foil with a plastic
layer, in which case a good sticking between the two layers is crucial. Glass, metals, and
PVDC are other materials with a high impermeability to water vapour and gases. How-
ever, protection of light is not guaranteed with the metal-free materials.
The use of laminates has enabled a large reduction of the amount of waste and, thus,
they are regarded as most valuable. Furthermore, these materials may be used in several
fields where flexible packaging is needed. Nevertheless, the most important function of a
package is to protect the food from deteriorating reactions during production and espe-
cially during storage. Aluminium foil proves an effective barrier material for many uses,
from aluminium cans to aluminium foil-plastic laminates, whereas plastic materials must
be selected carefully depending on the type of food to be packed and the required func-
tionality, as well as the production and storage conditions. In particular, while many plas-
tic packages present a suitable solution for short-term storage, aluminium still is the most
reliable material when long-term storage stability of food must be attained.
Glossary
Al Metallic aluminium
AlOx Aluminium oxide
BOPP Biaxially oriented polypropylene
CPET Crystalline polyethylene terephthalae
EVOH Ethylene vinyl alcohol
LDPE Low density polyethylene
MgOx Magnesium oxide
OPP Oriented polypropylene
PAN Polyacrylonitrile
PA Polyamide
PE Polyethylene
PET Polyethylene terephthalate
PP Polypropylene
PS Polystyrene
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
PVDC Polyvinylidene chloride
SiOx Silicon oxide
References
1. Gilbert, S.G. Food/Package Compatibility. Food Technology 1985, 39 (12), 54–56, 63.
2. Heiss, R. Verpackung von Lebensmitteln. Anwendung der wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen in der
Praxis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1980.
3. Piringer, O.G. Verpackungen für Lebensmittel. Eignung, Wechselwirkung, Sicherheit.
Weinheim: VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, 1993.
4. Robertson, G.L. Food Packaging. Principles and Practice. New York: Marcel Dekke 1993.
5. Wirtz, A. Aluminiumverpackungen — Ihre Bedeutung und Perspektiven. Metall 1992, 46 (9),

960–962.
6. Severus, H. The Use of aluminium — Especially as Packaging Material — in the Food Industry.
In R. Massey, D. Taylor (Eds.), Aluminium in Food and the Environment. Special publication
no. 73, Royal Society of Chemistry, London, 1989; 88–101.
7. Kunze, E. Korrosivität Verschiedener Lebensmittelgruppen Gegenüber Packmittel aus Alumin-
ium. Aluminium 1976, 52, (5), 296–301.
8. Stehle, G. Korrosionen bei Aluminium-Leichtbehältern. Lebensmitteltechnik, 1992, 11, 50–55.
9. Mahoney, R. Closing the Loop for Aluminium Packaging. Materials World 1999, 7 (3),
133–134.
10. Simal-Gandara, J. Selection of Can Coatings for Different Applications. Food Reviews Interna-
tional 1999, 15 (1), 121–137.
11. Chen, H.C.; Wang, C.Y.; Luh, B.S. Tin, Glass and Plastic Containers. In B.S. Luh and J.G.
Woodroof (Eds.), Commercial Vegetable Processing; Westport, CT: The AVI Publishing Com-
pany, 1975, 83–130.
12. Schaper, E.B. High Barrier Plastics Packaging and Ethylene Vinyl Alcohol Resins. In D.K.
Henyon (Ed.) Food Packaging Technology. Philadelphia: ASTM STP 113 1991; 31–36.
13. Schnabel, W. Stimmige Atmosphäre. Schutzbegasung verlängert die Haltbarkeit von verpackten
Lebensmitteln. PackReport 1995, 9, 21–25.
14. Nehring, P.; Krause, H. Konserventechnisches Handbuch der Obst-und Gemüseverwertungsin-
dustrie. Vol. 1. Braunschweig: Verlag Günter Hempel, 1969.
15. Heintz, D.A. Marketing Opportunities for the Retort Pouch. Food Technology 1980, 34, (9),
32–38, 102.
16. Güntensperger, B. Oxidationsstabilität von hitzesterilisierten Fleischprodukten in Flachschalen.
Doctoral dissertation No. 10934, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, 1994.
17. Jenkins, W.A.; Herrington, J.P. Packaging Foods with Plastics. Lancaster: Technomic Publish-
ing Company, 1991.
18. Profitt, P.J.G. Packaging of Heat Preserved Foods in Plastic Containers. In J.A.G. and Rees J.
Bettison (Eds.), Processing and Packaging of Heat Preserved Foods. Glasgow: Blackie and
Son, 1991; 165–186.
19. Allison, H.L. High-Barrier Packaging – What Are the Options? Packaging 1985, 30 (3), 25–29.
20. Harita, S.; Tanaka, Y. Flavor Barrier Properties and Applications of EVAL® Barrier Resins.
Proceedings of Europak ‘89, 4th Ryder European Conference on Plastics and Packaging for
Food and Beverages, Düsseldorf, 1989, 123–144.
21. Bichler, C.; Bischoff, M.; Langowski, H.-C.; Moosheimer, U. Transparente Aufdampfschichten
aus Oxiden von Si, Al und Mg für Barrierepackstoffe. Coating 1994, 27 (8), 274–280.
22. Bichler, C.; Bischoff, M.; Langowski, H.-C.; Moosheimer, U. Thin Film Barrier Coatings for
Flexible Packagings. Interpack 96 Special, Verpackungs-Rundschau 1996, 47, E36–E39.
23. Langowski, H.C. Transparent Barrier Coatings for Flexible Packagings: Industrial and Research
Activities in Germany. 39th Annual Technical Conference Proceedings, Society of Vacuum
Coaters: Albuquerque, NM, 1996, 398–412.
24. Utz, H. Barriereeigenschaften von Aluminiumbedampften Kunststoffolien. Teil 1: Aufgedampfte
Aluminiummenge, Oberflächenwiderstand, optische Dichte und Gasdurchlässigkeit. Verpackungs-
Rundschau, Technisch-Wissenschaftliche Beilage 1992, 43 (3), 17–24.
25. Freitag, R.; Kaiser, S.; Wille, G. Metallisierte Folie als Verpackungswerkstoff für Lebensmittel.
Ernährungsforschung 1988, 33 (3), 56–58.
26. Bichler, C.; Mayer, K.; Langowski, H.-C.; Moosheimer, U. Influence of Polymer Film Surfaces
on Adhesion and Permeation Properties of Vacuum Web Coated High Barrier Films and
Laminates: Results of a Cooperative Research Project. 41st Annual Technical Conference Pro-
ceedings, Society of Vacuum Coaters: Albuquerque, NM, 1998, 349–354.
27. Gallmann, P.U.; Bosset, J.-O.; Sieber, R. Lebensmittel, Verpackung und Stoffmigration.
Lebensmittel-Technologie 1997, 30 (9), 326–336.
28. Schricker, G. Bedeutung von Aluminiumverpackungen für Packgüter hoher Empfindlichkeit.
Aluminium 1982, 58 (7), 413–417.

29. Bekbölet, M. Light Effects on Food. Journal of Food Protection 1990, 53 (5), 430–440.
30. Borle, F.; Sieber, R.; Bosset, J.O. Photo-Oxidation and Photoprotection of Foods, with Particu-
lar Reference to Dairy Products. An Update of a Review Article (1993–2000). Sciences des Ali-
ments 2001, 21 (6), 571–590.
31. Rieblinger, K.; Ziegleder, G.; Krug, M. Lichtschutz für Lebensmittel. Partieller Schutz durch
UV-Filter in der Verpackung. Zeitschrift für die Lebensmittelwirtschaft 1998, 49 (6), 36–39.
32. Schüppstuhl, H.G. Lebensmittelverpackung in Aluminium-Leichtpackungen. Zeitschrift für
Lebensmittel Technologie und Verfahrenstechnik 1978, 29 (3), 88–91.
33. FABES Migration/Permeation Investigation on Barrier Properties of Aluminium Foils Against
Organic Molecules. Investigation report; Munich: FABES Forschungs-GmbH für Analytik und
Bewertung von Stoffübergängen, 2004.
34. Bloeck, M. Qualitätserhaltung von Hitzesterilisierten Konserven in halbstarren und flexiblen
Aluminiumbehältern am Beispiel Bohnen. Doctoral dissertation No. 7909, Swiss Federal Insti-
tute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, 1985.
35. Kümin, A. Aspekte der Verpackung von Tiefkühlkost und ähnlichen Erzeugnissen. Alimenta
1972, 11 (2), 71–76.
37. Güntensperger, B.; Escher, F. Oxidative Changes of Heat-Sterilized Meat in Trays. Journal of
Food Science 1994, 59, 689–692.
38. Rysstad, G.; Ebbesen, A.; & Eggestad, J. Sensory and Chemical Quality of UHT-Milk Stored in
Paperboard Cartons with Different Oxygen and Light Barriers. Food Additives and Contami-
nants 1998, 15 (1), 112–122.
39. Anonymous. Lichtschutzwirksamkeit durch Aluminium. Verpackungs-Rundschau 1997, 48 (3),
30.
40. Bosset, J.O.; Flückiger, E. Einfluss der Licht-und Gasdurchlässigkeit Verschiedener Packung-
sarten auf die Qualitätserhaltung von Naturjoghurt. Deutsche Milchwirtschaft 1986, 37 (29),
908, 910–914.
41. Emmons, D.B.; Froehlich, D.A.; Paquette, G.J.; Butler, G.; Beckett, D.C.; Modler, H.W.;
Brackenridge, P.; Daniels, G. Light Transmission Characteristics of Wrapping Materials
and Oxidation of Butter by Fluorescent Light. Journal of Dairy Science 1986, 69 (9),
2248–2267.
42. Luby, J.M.; Gray, J.I.; Harte, B.R. Effects of Packaging and Light Source on the Oxidative Sta-
bility of Cholesterol in Butter. Journal of Food Science 1986, 51 (4), 908–911.
43. Hong, C.M.; Wendorff, W.L.; Bradley, R.L. Effects of Packaging and Lighting on Pink Discol-
oration and Lipid Oxidation of Annatto-Colored Cheeses. Journal of Dairy Science 1995, 78 (9),
1896–1902.
44. Krainz, M.; Mandl, M.; Tacker, M.; Wepner, B. Wasserdurchlässigkeit. Auf die Verpackung
kommt es an. Neue Verpackung 1999, 52 (9), 56–60.
45. Radtke, R. Vergleichende Untersuchung von Kartoffelchips während der Lagerung in Alumin-
ium-Kunststoff-und Zellglas-Kunststoff-Verbundfolien. Verpackungs-Rundschau, Technisch-
Wissenschaftliche Beilage 1976, 27 (10), 79–82.
46. Gomez, J.B.; Bates, R.P.; Ahmed, E.M. Flexible Pouch Process Development and Evaluation of
Pasteurized-Refrigerated Mango Slices. Journal of Food Science 1980, 45 (6), 1592–1594.
47. Heidelbaugh, N.D.; Karel, M. Changes in Pouched Heat-Processed Foods. Modern Packaging
1970, 43 (11), 80–86, 88, 90.
48. Özogul, F.; Gökbulut, C.; Özyurt, G.; Özogul, Y.; Dural, M. Quality Assessment of Gutted Wild
Sea Bass (Dicentrachus Labrax) Stored in Ice, Cling Film and Aluminium Foil. European Food
Research and Technology 2005, 220, 292–298.
49. Kuley, E.; Özogul, F.; Özogul, Y. Effects of Aluminium Foil and Cling Film on Biogenic Amins
and Nucleotide Degradation Products in Gutted Sea Bream Stored at 2 ± 1°C. European Food
Research and Technology 2005, 221, 582–91.
50. Baner, A.L.; Kalyankar, V.; Shoun, L.H. Aroma Sorption Evaluation of Aseptic Packaging.
Journal of Food Science 1991, 56 (4), 1051–1054.
51. Haack, G.; Rüter, M.; Piringer, O. Qualitätsminderung von verpackten Lebensmitteln Durch
unerwünschte sensorische Störstoffe. Verpackungs-Rundschau, Technisch-Wissenschaftliche
Beilage 1997, 48 (5), 56–60.
52. Lindner-Steinert, A.; Zou, M. Aromaveränderung von Vakuumverpacktem Kaffee bei Unter-
schiedlichen Packstoffen. Verpackungs-Rundschau, Technisch-Wissenschaftliche Beilage
1996, 48 (1), 40–42.
53. Nielsen, T.J.; Jägerstad, I.M.; Öste, R.E.; Wesslén, B.O. Comparative Absorption of Low
Molecular Aroma Compounds into Commonly Used Food Packaging Polymer Films. Journal of
Food Science 1992, 57, 490–492.
54. Pieper, G.; Borgudd, L.; Ackermann, P.; Fellers, P. Absorption of Aroma Volatiles of Orange
Juice into Laminated Carton Packages did not Affect Sensory Quality. Journal of Food Science
1992, 57, 1408–1411.
55. Olafsson, G.; Hildingsson, I.; Bergenstahl, B. Transport of Oleic and Acetic Acids from Emul-
sions into Low Density Polyethylene; Effects on Adhesion with Aluminium Foil in Laminated
Packaging. Journal of Food Science 1995, 60 (2), 420–425.
56. Pieper, G.; Petersen, K. Free Fatty Acids from Orange Juice Absorption into Laminated Cartons
and Their Effects on Adhesion. Journal of Food Science 1995, 60 (5), 1088–1091.
57. Granzer, R. Veränderungen von Fruchtsäften in Verbraucherpackungen während langer
Lagerzeiten. Verpackungs-Rundschau, Technisch-Wissenschaftliche Beilage 1982, 33 (6), 35–40.
58. Jansson, S.E.A.; Edsman, C.J.; Gedde, U.W.; Hedenqvist, M.S. Packaging Materials for
Fermented Milk: Effects of Material Cristallinity and Polarity of Food Quality. Packaging Tech-
nology and Science 2001, 15, 119–127.
59. Lee, D.S.; Jang, J.D.; Hwang, I.H. The Effects of Using Packaging Films with Different Perme-
abilities on the Quality of Korean Fermented Red Pepper Paste. International Journal of Food
Science and Technology 2002, 37 (3), 255–261.
60. Bielig, H.J.; List, D.; Kruschel, A. Der Einfluss Neuartiger Verpackungsmaterialien und-
formen auf die Erhaltung thermolabiler Lebensmittelinhaltsstoffe bei der Hitzesterilisation.
I. Vitamin B1 in Fleischhaltigen Fertiggerichten. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und-Technologie
1978, 11 (4), 227–232.
61. Mulvaney, S.; Rizvi, S.S.H. Retort Pouch Processing Idea Yields Better Nutrient Value. Pack-
age Engineering 1982, 27 (10), 92–94.
62. Tung, M.A.; Garland, M.R.; Campbell, W.E. Quality Comparison of Cream Style Corn Pro-
cessed in Rigid and Flexible Containers. Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology
Journal 1975, 8 (4), 211–216.
63. Willenborg, L.W. Thermal Sterilization of Foods. In S. Thorne (Ed.), Developments in Food
Preservation, London: Applied Science Publishers, 1981, 239–265.
64. Uribe-Saucedo, S.M.; Ryley, J. A comparative Study of Ascorbic Acid and Thiamine Retention
in Pouch Sterilization and Canning. IFST Proceedings 1982, 5 (3), 120–128.
65. Anonymous. Hinweise zur Bestimmung der F-Werte bei der Autoklavensterilisation von flexi-
blen und halbstarren packungen aus heissiegelbar lackiertem Aluminium oder Aluminium-
Kunststoff-Verbundmaterialien. Verpackungs-Rundschau 1985, 36 (7), 47–48.
66. Ortiz, S.A.; Alves, R.M.V.; de Oliveira, L.M.; de Almeida Anjos, V.D.; Goncalves, J.R. Perfor-
mance of Aluminium Trays for Sterilized Products. Packaging Technology and Science 1995, 8
(2), 55–72.
67. Anonymous. Empfehlungen für Mindestanforderungen an Autoklaven zur Hitzekonservierung von
flexiblen und halbstarren Packungen aus heissiegelbar lackiertem Aluminium oder Aluminium-
Kunststoff-Verbundmaterialien. Verpackungs-Rundschau, Technisch-Wissenschaftliche
Beilage 1981, 32 (1), 1–3.
68. Greene, R. N. Vitamin Degradation of Thermal Processing and Storage of Sweet Potato Puree
Packaged in Rigid and Flexible Containers. Master of Science Thesis, Clemson University,
Clemson, S.C., 1979.
69. Potter, K.M.; Tung, M.A.; Kitson, J.A. Quality of Processed Peach Slices Stored in Flexible
Pouches. Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology Journal 1982, 15 (2), 96–100.
70. Abou-Fadel, O.S.; Miller, L.T. Vitamin Retention, Color and Texture in Thermally Processed
Green Beans and Royal Ann Cherries Packed in Pouches and Cans. Journal of Food Science
1983, 48, 920–923.
71. Lathrop, P.J.; Leung, H.K. Thermal Degradation and Leaching of Vitamin C from Green Peas
During Processing. Journal of Food Science 1980, 45, 995–998.
72. Bloeck, M.; Escher, F.; Solms, J. Qualitätserhaltung von Hitzesterilisierten Konserven in
halbstarren und flexiblen Aluminiumbehältern am Beispiel Bohnen. 1. Mitteilung: Qualitäts-
veränderungen durch Sterilisation und Kurzzeitlagerung in Abhängigkeit der Abfülltechnologie.
Verpackungs-Rundschau, Technisch-Wissenschaftliche Beilage 1988, 39 (3), 17–24.
73. Meredith, F.I.; Gaskin, M.H.; Dull, G.G. Amino Acid Losses in Turnip Greens During Handling
and Processing. Journal of Food Science 1974, 39, 689–691.
74. Meredith, F.; Dull, G. Amino Acid Levels in Canned Sweet Potatoes and Snap Beans. Food
Technology 1979, 33 (2), 55–57.
75. Copley, D.I. The Retort Pouch — The Way Ahead with Aluminium Foil. International Flavours
and Food Additives 1978, 9 (1), 28–29.
76. Berry, M.R.; Bush, R.C. Thermal Processing Retortable Plastic Containers with Metal Lids in
Steam and Water with Comparisons to Metal Cans. Journal of Food Science 1988, 53 (6), 1877–
1879, 1886.
77. Lebowitz, S.F.; Bhowmik, S.R. Effect on Retortable Pouch Heat Transfer Coefficients of Dif-
ferent Thermal Processing Stages and Pouch Material. Journal of Food Science 1990, 55 (5),
1421–1424, 1434.
78. Michaels, M.J.M.; Schram, B.L. Effect of Handling Procedures on the Post-Process Contamina-
tion of Retort Pouches. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 1979, 47, 105–111.
79. Schricker, G.; Teichmann, W.; Probst, C. Zum Einfluss mechanischer Belastung auf die
Dichtigkeit von metallisierten Kunststoffolien und Aluminiumfolienverbunden mit Kunststoffen.
Eine vergleichende Studie. Verpackungs-Rundschau, Technisch-Wissenschaftliche Beilage
1990, 41 (7), 45–48.
80. Greger, J.L.; Goetz, W.; Sullivan, D. Aluminium Levels in Foods Cooked and Stored in
Aluminium Pans, Trays and Foil. Journal of Food Protection 1985, 48 (9), 772–777.
81. Dürr, P.; Bloeck, S. Zum Verhalten von Weisswein in Kleinflaschen und Aluminiumdosen.
Deutsche Lebensmittel-Rundschau 1987, 83, 385–389.
82. Bloeck, S.; Kreis, A.; Stanek, O. Vergleichende Bestimmung von Aldehyden und Ketonen in
Apfelsaft nach 2jähriger Lagerung in innengeschützten Aluminium-und Weissblechdosen bei 4
und 20°C. Alimenta 1986, 25 (2), 23–28.
83. Vela, M.M.; Toma, R.B.; Reiboldt, W.; Pierri, A. Detection of Aluminium Residue in Fresh and
Stored Canned Beer. Food Chemistry 1998, 63 (2), 235–239.
84. Seruga, M.; Hasenay, D. Corrosion of Aluminium in Soft Drinks. Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel-
Untersuchung und-Forschung 1996, 202, 308–312.
85. Schmidt, E.H.F.; Grunow, W. Toxikologische Beurteilung von Bedarfsgegenständen aus

Aluminium. Bundesgesundheitsblatt 1991, 34 (12), 557–564.
86. Liukkonen-Lilja, H.; Piepponen, S. Leaching of Aluminium from Aluminium Dishes and Pack-
ages. Food Additives and Contaminants 1992, 9 (3), 213–223.
87. Müller, J.P.; Steinegger, A.; Schlatter, C. Contribution of Aluminium from Packaging Materials
and Cooking Utensils to the Daily Aluminium Intake. Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel-Untersu-
chung und-Forschung 1993, 197, 332–341.
88. Ranau, R.; Oehlenschläger, J.; Steinhart, H. Aluminium Levels of Fish Fillets Baked and Grilled
in Aluminium Foil. Food Chemistry 2001, 73 1–6.
89. Mesic, Z.; Galic, K.; Cikovic, N. Redox-Potential and Browning of Tomato Paste in Aluminium
Tubes During Storage at Different Temperatures. Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung
und-Forschung 1993, 197 (6), 525–530.
90. Bovard, F.S.; Burleigh, T.D.; Smith, A.T. Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy of Electro-
coated Aluminium Food Cans. Electrochimica Acta 1995, 40 (2), 201–207.
91. Page, B.D.; Lacroix, G.M. Studies into the Transfer and Migration of Phthalate Esters from
Aluminium Foil-Paper Laminates to Butter and Margarine. Food Additives and Contaminants
1992, 9 (3), 197–212.
92. Charbonneau, J.E. Recent Case Histories of Food Product-Metal Container Interactions Using
Scanning Electron Microscopy-X-ray Microanalysis. Scanning 1997, 19 (7), 512–518.
93. Brem, S.; Biedermann, M.; Grob, K.; Spinner, C.; Dudler, V. Migration from the Internal
Coatings of Food Cans and the Lids of Glass Jars: Campaign 2000 on the Swiss Market. Mittei-
lungen aus Lebensmitteluntersuchung und Hygiene 2000, 91, 567–580.
94. Roth, T.; Aebischer, J.-N.; Dudler, V.; Kuchen, A.; Zimmermann, H. Influence des Produits de
Dégradation des Matériaux d'emballage: Formation et Diffusion du p-méthylbenzaldéhyde Dans
le Polypropylène. Mitteilungen aus Lebensmitteluntersuchung und Hygiene 2000, 91, 131–145.
95. Tacker, M. Schutz vor Sauerstoff und Wasserdampf. Österreichische Milch-und Lebensmittel-
wirtschaft 1996, 4, 23–25.
96. Utz, H. Barriereeigenschaften aluminiumbedampfter Kunststoffolien. München: Dissertation
der Technischen Universität München, 1995.
97. Anonymous. Schutzeigenschaften der gängigen Verpackungsmaterialien. Lebensmittelindustrie
1997, 7 (11–12), 10.

(S) Lamberti2007

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

(S) Lamberti2007

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]

On: 18 August 2012, At: 07:25

Food Reviews International

Aluminium Foil as a Food Packaging

Version of record first published: 21 Sep 2007

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87559120701593830

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Aluminium Foil as a Food Packaging Material

in Comparison with Other Materials

MANUELA LAMBERTI† AND FELIX ESCHER

ETH Zurich, Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, Zurich, Switzerland

Aluminium Foil and Other Food Packaging Materials

Application in In-Pack Thermal Processing

Tables 2 through 4 summarise barrier properties of various food packaging materials.

Performance of Aluminium Foil and Other Package Materials During Food

Factors that Impair Food Quality During Storage

General Aspects of Barrier Effects on Shelf-Life

Effectiveness against the Influence of Light

light exposure a light-induced off-flavour developed already after two to eight

Effectiveness against the Influence of Moisture

Effectiveness against the Influence of Oxygen

Effectiveness against Loss or Uptake of Aroma

inside to outside of PE/PE ionomer/Al foil/PE ionomer/paperboard/PE. During storage of

Additional Factors Influencing Storage Stability

Performance of Aluminium Foil and Other Package Material in In-pack

Mechanical Stability of Packages during Processing and Postprocessing Handling

Stability of Aluminium Foil in Contact with Food

5. Wirtz, A. Aluminiumverpackungen — Ihre Bedeutung und Perspektiven. Metall 1992, 46 (9),

Aluminium 1982, 58 (7), 413–417.

85. Schmidt, E.H.F.; Grunow, W. Toxikologische Beurteilung von Bedarfsgegenständen aus

Вам также может понравиться