Phytochemicals and bioactive constituents in food packaging - A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designing and manufacturing functional bioactive ingredients and pharmaceuticals have grown worldwide. Consumers demand for safe ingredients and concerns over harmful synthetic additives have prompted food manufacturers to seek safer and sustainable alternative solutions. In recent years the preference by consumers to natural bioactive agents over synthetic compounds increased exponentially, and consequently, naturally derived phytochemicals and bioactive compounds, with antimicrobial and antioxidant properties, becoming essential in food packaging field. In response to societal needs, packaging needs to be developed based on sustainable manufacturing practices, marketing strategies, consumer behaviour, environmental concerns, and the emergence of new technologies, particularly bio- and nanotechnology. This critical systematic review assessed the role of antioxidant and antimicrobial compounds from natural resources in food packaging and consumer behaviour patterns in relation to phytochemical and biologically active substances used in the development of food packaging. The use of phytochemicals and bioactive compounds inside packaging materials used in food industry could generate unpleasant odours derived from the diffusion of the most volatile compounds from the packaging material to the food and food environment. These consumer concerns must be addressed to understand minimum concentrations that will not affect consumer sensory and aroma negative perceptions. The research articles were carefully chosen and selected by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".