Next Article in Journal
Thin-Film Luminescent Solar Concentrator Based on Intramolecular Charge Transfer Fluorophore and Effect of Polymer Matrix on Device Efficiency
Next Article in Special Issue
Bio-Nanocomposite Based on Edible Gelatin Film as Active Packaging from Clarias gariepinus Fish Skin with the Addition of Cellulose Nanocrystalline and Nanopropolis
Previous Article in Journal
Large-Area Fabrication of Structurally Colored and Humidity Sensitive Composite Nanofilm via Ultrasonic Spray-Coating
Previous Article in Special Issue
Properties and Application of Edible Modified Bacterial Cellulose Film Based Sago Liquid Waste as Food Packaging
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Polymers
Volume 13
Issue 21
10.3390/polym13213769
polymers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Identification of Potential Migrants in Polyethylene Terephthalate Samples of Ecuadorian Market

by
Karina Marín-Morocho
1,
Sandra Domenek
2 and
Rómulo Salazar
1,*
1
Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral, ESPOL, Facultad de Ingeniería en Mecánica y Ciencias de la Producción, Carrera de Ingeniería en Alimentos, Campus Gustavo Galindo, Km 30.5 Vía Perimetral, Guayaquil P.O. Box 09-01-5863, Ecuador
2
UMR Ingénierie Procédés Aliments, AgroParisTech, INRA, Université Paris-Saclay, F-91300 Massy, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2021, 13(21), 3769; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13213769
Submission received: 10 September 2021 / Revised: 22 October 2021 / Accepted: 28 October 2021 / Published: 31 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Polymers in Food Technology and Food Packaging)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is the plastic packaging material most widely used to produce bottles intended for contact with food and beverages. However, PET is not inert, and therefore, some chemical compounds present in PET could migrate to food or beverages in contact, leading to safety issues. To evaluate the safety of PET samples, the identification of potential migrants is required. In this work, eight PET samples obtained from the Ecuadorian market at different phases of processing were studied using a well-known methodology based on a solvent extraction followed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis and overall migration test. Several chemical compounds were identified and categorized as lubricants (carboxylic acids with chain length of C12 to C18), plasticizers (triethyl phosphate, diethyl phthalate), thermal degradation products (p-xylene, benzaldehyde, benzoic acid), antioxidant degradation products (from Irgafos 168 and Irganox), and recycling indicator compounds (limonene, benzophenone, alkanes, and aldehydes). Additionally, overall migration experiments were performed in PET bottles, resulting in values lower than the overall migration limit (10 mg/dm2); however, the presence of some compounds identified in the samples could be related to contamination during manufacturing or to the use of recycled PET-contaminated flakes. In this context, the results obtained in this study could be of great significance to the safety evaluation of PET samples in Ecuador and would allow analyzing the PET recycling processes and avoiding contamination by PET flakes from nonfood containers.

1. Introduction

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is a plastic packaging material commonly used to produce bottles for drinking water, mineral water, carbonated beverages, and edible oils [1]. This semicrystalline polyester is an excellent packaging material due mainly to its good gas barrier properties, good thermal and mechanical properties, light weight, transparency, strength, good processability, and good recyclability [2]. Moreover, PET can be considered as a high-inertness material and a low-additive packaging [3], which leads to a low mass transfer from PET packaging to foodstuff in contact and limited issues of quality and safety [4].
PET bottle production generally consists of two phases: injection and blow-molding. In the injection phase, PET pellets are used to obtain amorphous preforms. Then, in the blow-molding phase, preforms are stretched to obtain biaxially oriented bottles. Some substances can be added to PET to improve the performance during the processing of bottles and to enhance their functional properties. Therefore, these additives could migrate to food in contact. Additionally, the bottle manufacturing processes can lead to polymer and additive degradation, generating compounds that could be potential migrants from PET bottles into foodstuff in contact [5].
In the case of plastic packaging materials, migration tests for checking compliance are required in all articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs, according to EU regulations [6,7,8], where the use of simulants under specific conditions of temperature and storage time is regulated. The overall migration is related to the inertness of a plastic material. It is defined as the mass of material transferred to a food simulant, which is determined by a standardized test. The overall migration limit is the maximum permitted amount of nonvolatile substances that a plastic article can release into food simulants. However, migration tests are expensive and time-consuming, and they are usually complex due mainly to the low concentration of migrant compounds in food simulants [3], leading to identification and quantification issues. Consequently, comprehensive migration studies frequently start with analyzing the polymer or its extract in solvents to identify the potential migrants before contact with foodstuff [3,9,10,11,12].
The methodologies to identify the potential migrants in plastic packaging materials commonly use solvent extraction followed by chromatographic separations and mass spectrometric detections, approaches which are complex and require laborious sample preparation [4,13,14,15,16]. Confident identification of potential migrants can be carried out by gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry detection (GC-MS) using mass spectral matches with a database and Kovats retention index [11]. For a given GC stationary phase, the Kovats retention index of a compound is a characteristic value obtained by interpolation, relating the adjusted retention time of the molecule to the adjusted retention time of two alkanes eluted before and after the peak of the sample component.
The migration of chemical compounds from PET bottles to a medium in contact has been extensively reported in the literature [17,18,19,20]. Several types of additives have been identified in PET bottles intended for food contact. Thus, plasticizers such as di-2-ethylhexylphthalate (DEHP), dioctyl phthalate (DOP), and dibutyl phthalate (DBP) were reported in PET bottles intended for beverages and spring water [21,22]. Additionally, DEHP was identified in PET bottles intended for contact with yogurt [23]. Moreover, literature reported the presence of alkanes (tetradecane, eicosane), antioxidants (Irganox 1076 and phenol, 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-), and plasticizers (diisooctyl phthalate, (DIOP)) in soda and water PET bottles or juice packages [24]. The presence of carboxylic acids and related compounds have been reported in PET soda and water bottles, such as octadecanoic acid and octadecanoic acid, 2-hydroxy 1-(hydroxymethyl) ethyl ester [24]. Other kinds of contaminants in PET bottles are related to the use of PET flakes from postconsumer recycled PET (rPET), such as flavor compounds, degradation products from the polymer, and chemical products from misused PET bottles [2,3].
In 2013, Ecuador implemented a regulatory framework for plastic materials and articles intended for food contact, adopting the European regulation about overall and specific migration. In the case of PET, the recycling chain to produce rPET in this market is relatively recent compared with developed countries. Moreover, to our best knowledge, no literature has been reported about the chemical compounds present in PET bottles in Ecuador. Thus, the objective of this work was to identify the potential migrants in PET samples at different phases of processing, such as resins, preforms, and bottles obtained from various suppliers of the Ecuadorian market. Samples were analyzed by GC-MS, and the compounds identified were then categorized according to their use and application in plastic packaging. Additionally, the overall migration of PET bottles was determined with the aim of evaluating the compliance of bottles with the overall migration limit established by regulations.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

2.1.1. Chemicals and Reagents

Chloroform (99.5%), ethanol (99.9%), and a standard solution of a series of alkanes (C7-C40, 1000 μg/mL of each component in hexane) were obtained from Sigma Aldrich (Saint Louis, MO, USA).

2.1.2. PET Samples

Samples of virgin PET pellets, preforms, and bottles were supplied by Ecuadorian companies specialized in the manufacturing of PET preforms and bottles intended for contact with beverages, mineral water, and edible oil.
Two batches of samples were collected, each consisting of virgin pellets, preforms, and bottles. Additionally, 2 types of bottles were collected, resulting in the obtention of a total of 8 samples that were studied in this work. Batches were labeled P and T and bottles were labeled A and D, in reference to the name of the supplier company.
The preform samples were ground using a Retsch MM 400 universal laboratory mill (Haan, Germany) in presence of liquid nitrogen to prevent any degradation during grinding; grinding was performed in order to increase the surface area and thus to improve the extraction efficiency. In the case of bottles, samples were cut into small square pieces of around 5 mm per side.

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Extraction of Chemical Compounds from PET Samples

For all samples, 5 g of material was placed in a cellulose thimble (Whatman International, Maidstone, UK) and put in a Soxhlet apparatus with 200 mL of chloroform (16 h, 62 °C) in order to extract the chemical compounds from PET samples. The speed of Soxhlet extraction was equivalent to one cycle every 20–30 min. The extraction of each sample was carried out in triplicate.
Then, extracts were concentrated to approximately 5 mL using a rotary evaporator (ROVA-100, London, UK) at 40 °C. After, the extract was filtered using a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane with a pore size of 0.45 µm (General Electric Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) and was stored in a freezer at 4 °C before being analyzed.

2.2.2. Analysis of PET Samples by GC-MS

A volume of 2 μL of sample concentrated extract was injected in splitless mode into a gas chromatograph (GC) from Agilent Technologies, Model 7890A, coupled with a mass spectrometer 5975 INSERT. The GC was equipped with a capillary column DB5-MS (Agilent J&W Scientific, 30 m length × 250 µm inner diameter × 0.25 µm film thickness). The carrier gas was He at 0.9 mL/min. The oven temperature program began with an initial temperature of 40 °C for 1 min, and then the temperature was increased at a rate of 3 °C/min to 300 °C and then maintained for 25 min.
The mass spectrometer parameters used for identification of chemical compounds were as follows: electron impact ionization; electron energy, 15 eV; ion source, 230 °C; electron multiplier voltage, 3000 eV; transfer line, 305 °C; scanning, between 50 and 700 amu. The data were recorded by MSD ChemStation software (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, USA) and the identification of the constituents was achieved using mass spectral matches with Wiley7 NIST 05 mass spectra database. To confirm identification, Kovats indices were determined. For that, a standard mixture of alkanes C7 to C40 in hexane was analyzed under the same conditions as the samples.

2.2.3. Overall Migration Test

The overall migration (OM) was measured using a gravimetric method, in which the sample residue was weighed after the evaporation of a food simulant. The test conditions and simulant used for the OM assays were chosen according to the European Regulation 10/2011 [8]. In this work, the OM test was carried out at 40 °C for 10 days using the food simulant A (ethanol 10% v/v). PET bottle samples were cut into squares of 10 cm × 10 cm, and then they were cut into smaller pieces of 2.5 cm × 2.5 cm. PET squares were placed in a glass bottle with 100 mL of food simulant and sealed using a screw cap with silicon/PTFE septa. Then, the glass bottle was placed in an oven (Memmert, Schwabach, Germany) at 40 °C. Three replicates for each PET bottle sample were carried out. After 10 days of conditioning time, the bottles were removed from the oven, and the squares of PET samples were removed from the bottles. Then, the bottles containing the simulant were placed in an oven at 115 °C in order to evaporate the simulant. When the bottles were dried, they were put inside a glass desiccator to reach room temperature. Finally, the bottles were weighed by an analytical balance (Sartorious, Göttingen, Germany, 10−4 g) to verify that they reached constant weight. Finally, overall migration was determined by applying Equation (1):
M = m 2 − m 1 S × 1000
where M is the overall migration in mg/dm2, m1 is the weight glass vial before overall migration, m2 is the weight glass vial after overall migration, and S is the area of PET in contact with food simulant.

3. Results and Discussion

With the purpose of identifying the potential migrants in PET samples, a methodology based on solvent extraction followed by GC-MS analysis was used. The identification of chemical compounds was carried out using mass spectral matches with the Wiley7 NIST 05 mass spectra database and confirmed comparing their Kovats indices.
The results showed the presence of several chemical compounds in the PET samples studied, identifying a total of 22 compounds; among them, 6 were identified in pellets, 9 were identified in preforms, and 20 were identified in bottles. The compounds identified in pellets and preforms are listed in Table 1, whereas those in PET bottles are presented in Table 2. Figure 1 presents some common compounds identified in the PET samples.
After identification, the compounds were categorized according to their use and application in plastic packaging, such as lubricants, plasticizers, products of thermal degradation, degradation products of antioxidants, and recycling indicators. The chemical compounds identified are discussed below by category.

3.1. Lubricants

Lubricants are a group of additives used to reduce the friction between the equipment surfaces and the polymer, promoting the flow of plastic over and through the equipment and preventing the plastic from sticking to the surfaces. The main lubricants used in plastic packaging materials are carboxylic acids, their esters and amides, polyethylene waxes, paraffin, stearates, and silicones. Generally, lubricants can be added to the plastic resin or applied externally [25].
Lubricants identified in this study were carboxylic acids with chain lengths varying from C12 to C18, which are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. Hexadecanoic acid and octadecanoic acid were found in all analyzed samples, which could indicate their extensive use as main components of lubricants in samples studied. The presence of hexadecanoic acid and octadecanoic acid in PET bottles was reported by literature [26], as was the presence of tetradecanoic acid, 1-methylethyl ester in PET pellets, preforms, and bottles [27]; however, to the best of our knowledge, there are no studies reporting the presence of dodecanoic acid, tetradecanoic acid, pentadecanoic acid, or heptadecanoic acid in PET samples. The carboxylic acids are generally recognized as safe (GRAS), and they are authorized by EU regulation to be used as additives or polymer production aids.

3.2. Plasticizers

Plasticizers are used in plastic packaging materials to improve their flexibility, extensibility, and processability. In this work, two plasticizers were found: triethyl phosphate and diethyl phthalate. The first one, triethyl phosphate, was identified in bottles P and D. The organophosphorus compounds are frequently used as plasticizers and flame retardants in plastic packaging; however, they are also used as antifoaming agents and additives in products such as lubricants and hydraulic fluids [28,29]. This compound has been reported as a plasticizer intended for food-contact plastics [30].
The second compound, diethyl phthalate, was found in pellets and in all bottles studied as shown in Table 1 and Table 2. According to the literature, phthalate esters are not used as plasticizers or additives in the manufacture of PET or PET bottles, nor they are used as substrates or precursors in the production of PET [2,5]. Contrary to this, several studies have identified these compounds in PET materials and PET bottled water [31,32]. Until now, the presence of phthalate esters in PET has not been satisfactorily explained, but their presence in very low amounts could be due to contamination during manufacturing or transport [2].
Some phthalates plasticizers for PET have been reported, such as dipentyl phthalate (DPP), diethyl phthalate (DEP), diisobutyl phthalate, and dibutyl phthalate (DBP) [31]. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and di-octyladipate were identified by GC-MS in samples of PET bottles of juice and soft drink from the Australian market [22]. Moreover, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate were reported in PET samples from the Iranian market [23]. Additionally, the presence of diisobutyl phthalate and dibutyl phthalate was reported in PET bottles from the Lebanese market [27].
The PET bottle manufacturing process includes several steps where the polymer is heated to temperatures above its Tg, promoting the diffusion of contaminants within the polymer. The step of blowing is considered the most critical because the preforms are exposed to compressed air and high temperatures (>Tg) in order to ensure their biaxial orientation. So, one source of contamination of phthalates could be attributed to the compressed air that comes from pumps, filters, pipes, etc. [27]. On the other hand, the presence of phthalates in PET bottles could be explained by impurities in the starting materials due to the use of recycled PET-contaminated flakes [33].

3.3. Thermal Degradation Products

Additionally, Table 1 and Table 2 show the presence in PET samples of p-xylene, benzaldehyde, and benzoic acid, which are thermal degradation products of PET [34]. Regarding p-xylene, it was found in preforms T and bottles P and D. The presence of this compound is attributed to thermal degradation of PET that generally occurs during manufacturing at a temperature between 200 and 300 °C [21]. Benzaldehyde was identified in preforms T whereas benzoic acid was found in preforms T and bottles T. These chemical compounds are also products of PET thermal degradation [35].
In fact, during PET manufacturing, several degradation and decomposition reactions can occur. High temperatures and the presence of oxygen in the PET can promote thermo-mechanical and thermo-oxidative reactions generating numerous compounds in the polymer. In this context, several studies about the PET thermal degradation process have been reported in the literature [34,35,36]. The main compounds found in PET bottles produced by thermal degradation were aldehydes (acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and benzaldehyde), aliphatic hydrocarbons (C1–C4), aromatic hydrocarbons (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and styrene), and esters (vinyl benzoate, methyl acetate) [21,37].

3.4. Degradation Products of Antioxidants

In PET samples, three compounds were found that can be categorized as degradation products of antioxidants: 2,4-bis(1,1dimethyethyl) phenol in bottles P, T, and D; 2,6-di-tert-butyl-1,4-benzoquinone in bottles T and D; and 3,5-di-tert-butyl-4 hydroxybenzaldehyde in preforms P (Table 1 and Table 2). Literature has reported these products in PET samples [38,39]. The first two compounds are degradation products of polymer additives such as Irgafos 168 and Irganox 1010 used in plastic formulations [40,41], and the last compound is a degradation product of BHT (dibutylated hydroxytoluene) [21,27], which is commonly used as an antioxidant in plastic packaging materials and it is included in the positive list of additives to plastic materials intended for contact with foodstuff [8].
The presence of air during the melt processing of PET can lead to thermo-oxidative degradation. In order to prevent this degradation, antioxidants are added during polycondensation [42]. Between the additives, antioxidants are used to inhibit or retard the manifestations of aging or discoloration and the effects of oxidation on the chemical structure of the polymers [41].
Moreover, Table 2 shows in bottles A the compound identified as 7,9-di-tert-butyl-1-oxaspiro(4,5)deca-6,9-diene-2,8-dione, which is a degradation product of Irganox, according to the literature [43].

3.5. PET Recycling Indicators

The results show the presence of two compounds that can be related to postconsumer recycled PET: limonene and benzophenone. Limonene was identified in preforms T and bottles T and D, whereas benzophenone was found in bottles P, T, and D (Table 1 and Table 2). These two molecules have been already reported in the literature on recycled PET flakes [17,19]. Limonene is typically found in postconsumer PET flakes, and it is related to prior contents of the recycled PET bottles, such as flavoring components. Regarding limonene, the literature reported the difficulty of cleaning this compound from the PET bottles because limonene can be sorbed in the PET polymer matrix [44]. Benzophenone is a ketone that can be added to plastic packaging as a UV blocker to protect against photo-degradation, and its use as an additive in plastic materials intended for contact with food is authorized with a specific migration limit of 0.6 mg/kg [8]. In the case of benzophenone, it was detected in PE/PET films from the Spanish market, and its presence could be linked to the printing inks used in the external surface of packaging films [45].
The bottle-to-bottle recycling process of PET must successfully reduce the concentrations of chemical compounds sorbed previously by the bottles in their first use [20]; however, the process of conventional washing in water of PET bottles is not capable of removing all the impurities from soft drink bottles and edible oil bottles [46]. According to literature, the main chemical compounds linked to recycled PET are limonene; aliphatic aldehydes; benzaldehyde; carboxylic acids (C8–C15); p-xylene; isopropyltoluene; cyclohexyl toluene; alkanes; plasticizers such as dibutyl phthalate(DBP), di(2-ethylhexyl)-adipate (DEHA), dioctyl phthalate (DOP), and diisononylphthalate (DINP); benzophenone; and alcohol groups (C12–C18) [17,19].
Additionally, two alkanes were identified in PET samples. Hexadecane was found in bottles P, and heneicosane was identified in bottles P, T, and A. The presence of alkanes was reported in the recycled PET [17], and hexadecane was found in PET postconsumer recycled flakes from nonfood containers [47]. So, alkanes found in the samples studied in this work could be related to the use of PET recycled flakes from nonfood containers in the production of new PET bottles intended for food contact.
Finally, two aliphatic aldehydes were identified in samples. Nonanal was found in bottles P, A, and D, whereas decanal was identified in bottles D. These compounds are very common in flavored soft drinks containers (Nerin 2003). In this sense, the presence of these aldehydes in PET bottles could be related to the use of recycled PET for the manufacture of bottles.
Here, it should be noted that in 2018 the industrial sector of beverages of Ecuador announced the use of around 25% of recycled material in the production of PET bottles, showing this value on the labels of bottles. Additionally, in December 2020, a new national regulation on single-use plastics products was adopted in Ecuador, giving a term of 4 years to the industrial sector to use 30% of recycled PET in the production of bottles [48]. Consequently, the analytical identification of chemical compounds from PET and recycled PET bottles is an important tool for the safety of the Ecuadorian market.

3.6. Chemical Compounds Identified at Different Phases of the Processing

In order to identify the chemical compounds at different phases of the processing of PET bottles, we compared the results obtained in pellets, preforms, and bottles of suppliers P and T. The results showed 13 chemical compounds identified in samples P and 12 compounds in samples T, as shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The common compounds present in pellets, preforms, and bottles were lubricants: dodecanoic, tetradecanoic, hexadecenoic, and octadecanoic acids in samples P and tetradecanoic, hexadecenoic, and octadecanoic acids in samples T.
Additionally, compounds identified in preforms but not in pellets were 3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxybenzaldehyde in preforms P and p-xylene, benzaldehyde, dl-limonene, and benzoic acid in preforms T. As mentioned before, the presence of 3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxybenzaldehyde is related to the degradation of butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) [49], whereas benzaldehyde and dl-limonene are recycling indicators, and p-xylene and benzoic acid are products formed from thermal degradation of the polymer.
The compounds identified in preforms and bottles T were dl-limonene and benzoic acid, the first one being a recycling indicator and the second one being a product formed from thermal degradation of the polymer.
Regarding the compounds identified only in PET bottles, the results showed the presence of p-xylene, nonanal, triethyl phosphate, phenol, 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-, and hexadecane in bottles P and 2,6-di-tert-butyl-1,4-benzoquinone, phenol, 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-, heptadecanoic acid, and heneicosane in bottles T. The presence of p-xylene, nonanal, 2,6-di-tert-butyl-1,4-benzoquinone, and phenol, 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)- could be explained by thermal degradation of polymer or additives during the processing of bottles. Moreover, the compounds identified in PET bottles such as triethyl phosphate and heptadecanoic acid should show their use as plasticizers in PET. Finally, the results showed possible contamination of bottles P and T with hexadecane and heneicosane by using PET flakes from nonfood containers.
From a qualitative point of view, it can be mentioned that the chromatograms of the preform samples presented a higher number of peaks compared to the chromatograms of the bottle samples. The pellets presented the lowest number of peaks, as can be observed in Figure 2 (samples P and T). This could be attributed to the thermal processing of the samples, which increases the presence of volatile and semivolatile compounds from the degradation of PET and additives, as has been reported in the literature [21,35,40]. In P and T samples, a slight decrease in the numbers of peaks could be observed by shifting from preforms to bottles. This could be explained by the loss of these compounds by evaporation during the process and especially during the blowing [21].
Additionally, some peaks present in the chromatograms of PET samples could not be identified, due to the limits of the methodology used in this study; however, the main unknown peaks detected in the samples are presented as supplementary information.

3.7. Overall Migration Test

The overall migration tests of the PET bottles were carried out using food simulant “A” (aqueous foods), according to European regulation. The results of global migration were 1.2 ± 0.32 mg/dm2 in bottles P, 4.7 ± 1.44 mg/dm2 in bottles T, 3.00 ± 0.79 mg/dm2 in bottles A, and 3.40 ± 0.67 mg/dm2 in bottles D. These results were lower than the maximum limit established by regulations (10 mg/dm2) [8]; however, they are between 4 and 16 times higher than the values reported in the literature, where the overall migration of PET bottles into food simulant water was around 0.33 mg/dm2 [50].

4. Conclusions

Several potential migrants were identified in eight PET samples intended for contact with food: 6 compounds in resins, 9 compounds in preforms, and 20 compounds in PET bottles. The compounds identified were categorized as lubricants (C12–C18 carboxylic acids), plasticizers, products of thermal degradation, degradation products of antioxidants, and recycling indicators. Hexadecanoic acid and octadecanoic acid were found in all samples, which could be related to their use as lubricant components in the studied samples. Diethyl phthalate and alkanes found in the bottles studied in this work could be explained by contamination during processing or the use of PET recycled flakes from nonfood containers. Moreover, the values of overall migration found in PET bottle samples were lower than the limit established by regulations; consequently, they may be used for contact with water and soft drinks. The results obtained in this study could be of great significance to the safety evaluation of PET samples in Ecuador and would allow analyzing the PET recycling processes and avoiding contamination by PET flakes from nonfood applications.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/polym13213769/s1, Figure S1: Chromatograms of PET bottles A and D, Table S1: Unknown substances found in PET bottles P, Table S2: Unknown substances found in PET bottles T, Table S3: Unknown substances found in PET bottles A, Table S4: Unknown substances found in PET bottles D.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.S. and S.D.; methodology, K.M.-M., S.D. and R.S.; formal analysis, K.M.-M. and R.S.; investigation, K.M.-M. and R.S.; resources, R.S.; data curation, K.M.-M. and R.S.; writing—original draft preparation, K.M.-M. and R.S.; writing—review and editing, S.D. and R.S.; visualization, K.M.-M. and R.S.; supervision, R.S.; project administration, R.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the support from ESPOL, through “Decanato de Investigación” and FIMCP.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Welle, F. Twenty years of PET bottle to bottle recycling—An overview. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 865–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Welle, F. Food law compliance of Poly(ethylene Terephthalate) (PET) food packaging materials. In Food Additives and Packaging; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; pp. 167–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ubeda, S.; Aznar, M.; Nerín, C. Determination of oligomers in virgin and recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) samples by UPLC-MS-QTOF. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2018, 410, 2377–2384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Arvanitoyannis, I.S.; Bosnea, L. Migration of Substances from Food Packaging Materials to Foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2004, 44, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bach, C.; Dauchy, X.; Chagnon, M.-C.; Etienne, S. Chemical compounds and toxicological assessments of drinking water stored in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles: A source of controversy reviewed. Water Res. 2012, 46, 571–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). EN 1186-3: Materials and Articles in Contact with Foodstuffs. Plastics. Part 3: Test Methods for Overall Migration into Aqueous Food Simulants by Total Immersion; European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2002; p. 17. [Google Scholar]
  7. European Commitee for Standardization (CEN). EN 1186-1. Materials and Articles in Contact with Foodstuffs. Plastics. Part 1: Guide to the Selection of Conditions and Test Methods for Overall Migration; European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2003; p. 50. [Google Scholar]
  8. Commission Regulation (EU) No. 10/2011. Commission Regulation (EU) No. 10/2011 of 14 January 2011 on Plastic Materials and Articles Intended to Come into Contact with Food; Commission Regulation (EU): Brussels, Belgium, 2011; pp. 1–89. [Google Scholar]
  9. Feigenbaum, A.; Scholler, D.; Bouquant, J.; Brigot, G.; Ferrier, D.; Franz, R.; Lillemark, L.; Riquet, A.M.; Petersen, J.H.; Van Lierop, B.; et al. Safety and quality of food contact materials. Part 1: Evaluation of analytical strategies to introduce migration testing into good manufacturing practice. Food Addit. Contam. 2002, 19, 184–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Biedermann, M.; Grob, K. Advantages of comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography for comprehensive analysis of potential migrants from food contact materials. Anal. Chim. Acta 2019, 1057, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Salazar, R.; Domenek, S.; Plessis, C.; Ducruet, V. Quantitative determination of volatile organic compounds formed during Polylactide processing by MHS-SPME. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2017, 136, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Sendon Garcia, R.; Sanches Silva, A.; Cooper, I.; Franz, R.; Paseiro Losada, P. Revision of analytical strategies to evaluate different migrants from food packaging materials. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2006, 17, 354–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Coltro, L.; Pitta, J.B.; da Costa, P.A.; Fávaro Perez, M.Â.; de Araújo, V.A.; Rodrigues, R. Migration of conventional and new plasticizers from PVC films into food simulants: A comparative study. Food Control 2014, 44, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Silva, A.S.; García, R.S.; Cooper, I.; Franz, R.; Losada, P.P. Compilation of analytical methods and guidelines for the determination of selected model migrants from plastic packaging. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2006, 17, 535–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Paseiro-Cerrato, R.; De Quirós, A.R.-B.; Sendón, R.; Bustos, J.; Santillana, M.I.; Cruz, J.M.; Paseiro-Losada, P. Chromatographic Methods for the Determination of Polyfunctional Amines and Related Compounds Used as Monomers and Additives in Food Packaging Materials: A State-of-the-Art Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2010, 9, 676–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Lalanne, A.; Espino, E.; Salazar, R.; Domenek, S.; Ducruet, V. Identification of potential migrants in Poly(lactic acid) packagings. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2011, 23, 63–67. [Google Scholar]
  17. Nerin, C.; Albiñana, J.; Philo, M.R.; Castle, L.; Raffael, B.; Simoneau, C. Evaluation of some screening methods for the analysis of contaminants in recycled polyethylene terephthalate flakes. Food Addit. Contam. 2003, 20, 668–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Franz, R.; Welle, F. Recycled poly(ethylene terephthalate) for direct food contact applications: Challenge test of an inline recycling process. Food Addit. Contam. 2002, 19, 502–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Franz, R.; Mauer, A.; Welle, F. European survey on post-consumer poly (ethylene terephthalate)(PET) materials to determine contamination levels and maximum consumer exposure from food packages made from recycled PET. Food Addit. Contam. 2004, 21, 265–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Franz, R.; Welle, F. Migration measurement and modelling from poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) into soft drinks and fruit juices in comparison with food simulants. Food Addit. Contam.—Part A Chem. Anal. Control Expo. Risk Assess. 2008, 25, 1033–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Kassouf, A.; Maalouly, J.; Chebib, H.; Rutledge, D.N.; Ducruet, V. Chemometric tools to highlight non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) in polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Talanta 2013, 115, 928–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Balafas, D.; Shaw, K.J.; Whitfield, F.B. Phthalate and adipate esters in Australian packaging materials. Food Chem. 1999, 65, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Farhoodi, M.; Emam-Djomeh, Z.; Ehsani, M.R.; Oromiehie, A. Migration of model contaminants (ethylene glycol, DEHA and DEHP) from PET bottles into Iranian yogurt drink. e-Polymers 2008, 8, 3–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rani, M.; Shim, W.J.; Han, G.M.; Jang, M.; Al-Odaini, N.A.; Song, Y.K.; Hong, S.H. Qualitative Analysis of Additives in Plastic Marine Debris and Its New Products. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2015, 69, 352–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Selke, S.E.M.; Culter, J.D. Plastics Packaging: Properties, Processing, Applications, and Regulations; Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH Co. KG: Munich, Germany, 2016; ISBN 3446437193. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kim, H.; Gilbert, S.G.; Johnson, J.B. Determination of potential migrants from commercial amber polyethylene terephthalate bottle wall. Pharm. Res. 1990, 7, 176–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kassouf, A. Sécurité Sanitaire des Denrées au Contact de Matériau D’emballage: Proposition D’une Démarche Méthodologique; L’Université Libanaise: Beirut, Lebanon, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  28. Marklund, A.; Andersson, B.; Haglund, P. Organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in Swedish sewage treatment plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 7423–7429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Lee, S.; Jeong, W.; Kannan, K.; Moon, H.B. Occurrence and exposure assessment of organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) through the consumption of drinking water in Korea. Water Res. 2016, 103, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sheftel, V.O. Indirect Food Additives and Polymers; CRC Press: London, UK, 2000; ISBN 9780429076756. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hahladakis, J.N.; Velis, C.A.; Weber, R.; Iacovidou, E.; Purnell, P. An overview of chemical additives present in plastics: Migration, release, fate and environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 344, 179–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cincotta, F.; Verzera, A.; Tripodi, G.; Condurso, C. Non-intentionally added substances in PET bottled mineral water during the shelf-life. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2018, 244, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mihucz, V.G.; Záray, G. Occurrence of antimony and phthalate esters in polyethylene terephthalate bottled drinking water. Appl. Spectrosc. Rev. 2016, 51, 163–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dziȩcioł, M.; Trzeszczyński, J. Volatile products of poly(ethylene terephthalate) thermal degradation in nitrogen atmosphere. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2000, 77, 1894–1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Botelho, G.; Queirós, A.; Liberal, S.; Gijsman, P. Studies on thermal and thermo-oxidative degradation of poly(ethylene terephthalate) and poly(butylene terephthalate). Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2001, 74, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Badia, J.D.; Martinez-Felipe, A.; Santonja-Blasco, L.; Ribes-Greus, A. Thermal and thermo-oxidative stability of reprocessed poly(ethylene terephthalate). J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2013, 99, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Romão, W.; Franco, M.F.; Corilo, Y.E.; Eberlin, M.N.; Spinacé, M.A.S.; De Paoli, M.A. Poly (ethylene terephthalate) thermo-mechanical and thermo-oxidative degradation mechanisms. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2009, 94, 1849–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nerin, C.; Alfaro, P.; Aznar, M.; Domeño, C. The challenge of identifying non-intentionally added substances from food packaging materials: A review. Anal. Chim. Acta 2013, 775, 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Welle, F.; Mauer, A.; Franz, R. Migration and sensory changes of packaging materials caused by ionising radiation. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 2002, 63, 841–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bourges, F.; Bureau, G.; Pascat, B. Effects of electron beam irradiation on commercial polypropylene: Kinetic study of antioxidant degradation. Packag. Technol. Sci. 1992, 5, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dopico-García, M.S.; López-Vilariñó, J.M.; González-Rodríguez, M.V. Antioxidant content of and migration from commercial polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinyl chloride packages. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 3225–3231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Karayannidis, G.P.; Sideridou, I.D.; Zamboulis, D.X.; Stalidis, G.A.; Bikiaris, D.N.; Wilmes, A. Effect of some current antioxidants on the thermo-oxidative stability of poly(ethylene terephthalate). Polym. Degrad. Stab. 1994, 44, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Castillo, R.; Biedermann, M.; Riquet, A.-M.; Grob, K. Comprehensive on-line HPLC-GC for screening potential migrants from polypropylene into food: The effect of pulsed light decontamination as an example. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2013, 98, 1679–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dimitrov, N.; Krehula, L.K.; Siročić, A.P.; Hrnjak-Murgić, Z. Analysis of recycled PET bottles products by pyrolysis-gas chromatography. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2013, 98, 972–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. García Ibarra, V.; Rodríguez Bernaldo de Quirós, A.; Paseiro Losada, P.; Sendón, R. Identification of intentionally and non-intentionally added substances in plastic packaging materials and their migration into food products. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2018, 410, 3789–3803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mancini, S.D.; Nogueira, A.R.; Schwartzman, J.A.S.; Kagohara, D.A. Characterization of Post-Consumer PET after Removal of the Original Surface: Influence of Raw Material. Int. J. Polym. Mater. 2010, 59, 407–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bayer, F.L. Polyethylene terephthalate recycling for food-contact applications: Testing, safety and technologies: A global perspective. Food Addit. Contam. 2002, 19, 111–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ecuador Official Registry—No 354. Ley Orgánica Para la Racionalización, Reutilización y Reducción de Plásticos de un Solo Uso; Ecuador Official Registry: Quito, Ecuador, 2020; p. año II-No 354. [Google Scholar]
  49. Maddalena, R.; Schwarzman, M.; Carrick, T.; Kokai, A.; Russell, M.; Papagni, C.; Lee, W. Experimental Comparison of Chemical Migration from Petrochemical Plastic and Bioplastic Bottles into Drinking Water; Contractor’s Report DRRR-2013-1486; California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ashby, R. Migration from polyethylene terephthalate under all conditions of use. Food Addit. Contam. 1988, 5, 485–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Polymers 13 03769 g001 550
Figure 1. Structures of common compounds identified in PET samples.
Figure 1. Structures of common compounds identified in PET samples.
Polymers 13 03769 g001
Polymers 13 03769 g002 550
Figure 2. Chromatogram overlay of PET samples P (Top) and T (Bottom). R, PF, and B mean pellets, preforms, and bottles, respectively.
Figure 2. Chromatogram overlay of PET samples P (Top) and T (Bottom). R, PF, and B mean pellets, preforms, and bottles, respectively.
Polymers 13 03769 g002
Table
Table 1. GC-MS peak relative area a of compounds identified in PET pellets and preforms P and T.
Table 1. GC-MS peak relative area a of compounds identified in PET pellets and preforms P and T.
Tr (min)CompoundsFunction/OriginMwFormulaCASKIcal bKI Ref cPelletsPreforms
PTPT
5.64p-XyleneThermal degradation product106C8H10106-42-3902860---2.39 ± 0.22
7.40BenzaldehydePET recycled indicator106C7H6O100-52-7966970---0.36 ± 0.14
9.06dl-LimonenePET recycled indicator136C10H16138-86-310251032---7.86 ± 0.68
14.16Benzoic acidPET thermal degradation product150C9H10O293-89-011771160---4.75 ± 0.83
30.13Dodecanoic acidLubricant200C12H24O2143-07-7150015624.36 ± 0.33-6.19 ± 0.37-
30.74Diethyl phthalatePlasticizer222C12H14O484-66-21571154618.73 ± 5.147.32 ± 4.48--
36.773,5-Di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxybenzaldehydeBHT oxidation product234C15H22O21620-98-017011774--2.63 ± 1.50-
37.40Tetradecanoic acidLubricant228C14H28O2544-63-8175017616.87 ± 0.103.79 ± 0.505.64 ± 0.684.78 ± 1.50
40.84Pentadecanoic acidLubricant242C15H30O21002-84-2184218551.17 ± 0.87---
44.35Hexadecanoic acidLubricant256C16H32O257-10-31961195752.74 ± 2.2159.07 ± 7.7168.16 ± 0.7955.30 ± 3.70
50.36Octadecanoic acidLubricant284C18H36O257-11-42147217016.13 ± 4.4129.83 ± 3.3117.39 ± 1.9824.56 ± 1.30
a Values are the mean and standard deviation of three replicates. b Kovats index calculated in a DB5MS column. c From NIST (available online: http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/cas-ser.html, last accessed on 28 May 2021) for DB5 column; - means not present.
Table
Table 2. GC-MS peak relative areas a of compounds identified in PET bottle samples.
Table 2. GC-MS peak relative areas a of compounds identified in PET bottle samples.
Tr (min)CompoundsFunction/OriginMwFormulaCASKIcal bKI Ref cPTAD
5.64p-XyleneThermal degradation product106C8H10106-42-39038601.68 ± 0.69--1.69 ± 0.60
9.06dl-LimonenePET recycled indicator136C10H16138-86-310261020-1.94 ± 0.14-1.08 ± 0.05
11.53NonanalThermal degradation product from PE waxes (lubricants)142C9H18O124-19-6110410712.14 ± 1.25-1.03 ± 0.510.41 ± 0.30
12.13Triethyl phosphatePlasticizer182C6H15O4P78-40-01122112010.06 ± 5.24--0.92 ± 0.19
14.16Benzoic acidPET thermal degradation product122C7H6O265-85-011721170-1.72 ± 0.69--
15.41DecanalThermal degradation product from PE waxes (lubricants)156C10H20O112-31-212061214---0.26 ± 0.10
18.52Nonanoic acidLubricant158C9H18O2112-05-012701278---1.15 ± 0.21
25.762,6-Di-tert-butyl-1,4-benzoquinoneIrganox degradation product212C14H20O2719-22-214491458-0.50 ± 0.12-0.46 ± 0.19
27.75Phenol, 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-Degradation product from phosphite-based antioxidant–process stabilizer206C14H22O96-76-4149515021.45 ± 1.120.43 ± 0.12-0.97 ± 0.14
30.13Dodecanoic acidLubricant200C12H24O22305-05-7155415623.36 ± 1.651.69 ± 0.215.96 ± 0.942.40 ± 1.52
30.74Diethyl phthalatePlasticizer222C12H14O484-66-2157215462.65 ± 0.434.08 ± 0.9224.74 ± 10.741.16 ± 0.61
31.34HexadecaneFrom paraffine wax (lubricant)226C16H34544-76-3158816030.77 ± 0.12---
32.12BenzophenonePET recycled indicator182C13H10O119-61-9160816440.74 ± 0.150.54 ± 0.04-0.47 ± 0.16
37.40Tetradecanoic acidLubricant228C14H28O2544-63-8177317564.88 ± 0.442.74 ± 0.47-4.98 ± 1.46
40.84Pentadecanoic acidLubricant242C15H30O21002-84-218421855---4.70 ± 2.48
41.817,9-Di-tert-butyl-1-oxaspiro(4,5)deca-6,9-diene-2,8-dionePossible degradation product from Irgafox 168276C17H24O382304-66-318731916--2.97 ± 0.39-
44.35Hexadecanoic acidLubricant256C16H32O257-10-31981197244.54 ± 3.8856.67 ± 0.8746.59 ± 8.6345.80 ± 8.08
47.22Heptadecanoic acidLubricant270C17H34O2506-1 2-720432080-2.49 ± 0.35--
48.34HeneicosaneFrom paraffine wax (lubricant)296C21H44629-94-7208821002.96 ± 0.951.47 ± 0.727.52 ± 2.05-
50.36Octadecanoic acidLubricant284C18H36O257-11-42144215825.14 ± 2.1126.36 ± 3.4711.21 ± 6.2133.54 ± 7.27
a Values are the mean and standard deviation of three replicates. b Kovats index calculated in a DB5MS column. c From NIST (available online: http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/cas-ser.html, last accessed on 28 May 2021) for DB5 column; - means not present.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marín-Morocho, K.; Domenek, S.; Salazar, R. Identification of Potential Migrants in Polyethylene Terephthalate Samples of Ecuadorian Market. Polymers 2021, 13, 3769. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13213769

AMA Style

Marín-Morocho K, Domenek S, Salazar R. Identification of Potential Migrants in Polyethylene Terephthalate Samples of Ecuadorian Market. Polymers. 2021; 13(21):3769. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13213769

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marín-Morocho, Karina, Sandra Domenek, and Rómulo Salazar. 2021. "Identification of Potential Migrants in Polyethylene Terephthalate Samples of Ecuadorian Market" Polymers 13, no. 21: 3769. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13213769

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop