Current Trends in the Utilization of Essential Oils for Polysaccharide- and Protein-Derived Food Packaging Materials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Essential oils (EOs) have received attention in the food industry for developing biopolymer-derived food packaging materials. EOs are an excellent choice to replace petroleum-derived additives in food packaging materials due to their abundance in nature, eco-friendliness, and superior antimicrobial and antioxidant attributes. Thus far, EOs have been used in cellulose-, starch-, chitosan-, and protein-based food packaging materials. Biopolymer-based materials have lower antioxidant and antibacterial properties in comparison with their counterparts, and are not suitable for food packaging applications. Various synthetic-based compounds are being used to improve the antimicrobial and antioxidant properties of biopolymers. However, natural essential oils are sustainable and non-harmful alternatives to synthetic antimicrobial and antioxidant agents for use in biopolymer-derived food packaging materials. The incorporation of EOs into the polymeric matrix affects their physicochemical properties, particularly improving their antimicrobial and antioxidant properties. EOs in the food packaging materials increase the shelf life of the packaged food, inhibit the growth of microorganisms, and provide protection against oxidation. Essential oils also influence other properties, such as tensile, barrier, and optical properties of the biopolymers. This review article gives a detailed overview of the use of EOs in biopolymer-derived food packaging materials. The innovative ways of incorporating of EOs into food packaging materials are also highlighted, and future perspectives are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it