Assessment of Total UV-Absorbing Contaminants in LDPE Food Packaging from Philippine Markets

Introduction

The use of Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) plastic food contact articles (FCAs) such as plastic labo bags has become a ubiquitous practice in the Philippines.¹ The average Filipino uses 163 plastic labo yearly,² particularly in the packaging of street food and locally-inspired dishes often sold in eateries called carinderia.³ These plastics are favored for their affordability, transparency, and versatility, enabling convenient storage and transport of a wide variety of products.^4–6

However, concerns have arisen regarding the use of plastic packaging due to the potential migration of chemical compounds such as unreacted monomers, plasticizers and lubricants from the packaging into the food.^7–11 This migration is influenced by several factors, including the chemical characteristics of the monomers, the type of plastic material, and environmental conditions such as temperature, pH, and the food’s composition.^12–14 Contamination of food through packaging can stem not only from intentionally added substances (IAS) but also from non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) such as by-products, impurities, and degradation product.^15–17

To safeguard public health, regulatory bodies like the Commission on Regulation (EU) and United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) have established guidelines to limit the migration of contaminants from packaging materials.^18,19 In the Philippines, FDA Circular No. 2022-0011 specified voluntary testing and compliance with migration limits for packaging materials used for consumable products, particularly for items prone to higher contamination risks such as fatty and oily foods. Meanwhile, previous studies have emphasized the migration of specific contaminants such as bisphenols, phthalates, and PFAS, while relatively few have explored broad-spectrum screening approaches such as the release of total UV-absorbing contaminants (TACs), which can serve as a preliminary rapid indicator of multiple potentially hazardous migrating substances.^20–27 Currently, based on existing studies and to the knowledge of the authors, there are no published studies that determines the total UV-absorbing contaminants in oligomer-based food packaging.

The research aims to address these gaps by profiling the migration of TACs from LDPE plastic bags used in Philippine food settings. By simulating contact with fatty and oily foods and applying a screening-based approach using UV-Vis spectrophotometry, the study offers a relevant and accessible method for assessing packaging-product compatibility. It also provides locally grounded data that contribute to the limited body of research on food contact article safety in the region.

The novelty of this work lies in its contextual relevance—targeting widely used but under-researched packaging materials in the Philippine market—and its application for TACs profiling to assess chemical migration. The findings not only support compliance with regulatory recommendations but also offer actionable insights for manufacturers, regulators, and food vendors seeking to improve food safety. Ultimately, this research contributes to strengthening local food safety standards and informs policy decisions regarding the use of plastic FCAs in the Philippines.

Materials and Methods

Sample Collection and Identification

Unused LDPE plastic bag samples were collected to represent a range of plastic labo packaging available in Metro Manila. Different commercial brands were targeted. The sampling was conducted across 16 cities and 1 municipality. Within each location, one public market was purposively selected based on criteria such as high consumer accessibility and volume of food packaging transactions. In each selected market, plastic bag samples were acquired by randomly approaching different vendors or stalls and purchasing the most frequently bought or vendor-recommended plastic bags. This represents the generally used samples. Following collection, all samples were stored in clean, dry containers conditioned at ambient laboratory conditions (25 ± 3°C, 50 ± 10% RH) to prevent environmental contamination or degradation. To verify the polymer type of the collected samples, each was subsequently analyzed using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy with Attenuated Total Reflectance (FTIR-ATR) (Shimadzu IR-Prestige-21).

Sample Extraction

Each unique brand was tested in duplicate (n = 2). The samples were cut into 5 cm x 10 cm films, wiped with lint-free paper, and placed in separate beakers using tweezers. Approximately 100 mL of n-Heptane was added to each beaker, ensuring total immersion of samples. The beakers were covered with petri dishes and left to stand for 30 minutes at 25 ± 3°C.  After extraction, the plastic films were removed using tweezers.

Preliminary Screening of Selected Samples

The extracting solutions were analyzed using Shimadzu UV-1800 UV/Vis Spectrophotometer across the range of 220–360 nm. From these results, samples exhibiting the lowest and highest absorbance values were identified. Additionally, a sample with an absorbance level closest to the maximum allowable limit (MAL) or 0.100 AU (absorbance units) set by FDA Philippines for chemical migrations to fatty and oily food products was selected for method validation.

Method Validation

Limit of Detection (LOD) and Limit of Quantification (LOQ)

To confirm that the method is sensitive enough to reliably detect trace levels of TACs, the method was validated for both the Limit of Detection (LOD) and Limit of Quantification (LOQ). At least ten (10) replicates of the method reagent blanks were analyzed, following the same procedure used for the actual test samples.²⁸ This was performed under conditions where the reagent blanks produced absorbance readings above 0.000 AU, representing the TACs that migrated from 50 cm² of packaging material. The LOD is determined by adding three times the corrected standard deviation to the average absorbance, while the LOQ adds ten times the corrected standard deviation to the average absorbance.²⁹

Repeatability and Intermediate Precision

To evaluate the precision of the method, both repeatability and intermediate precision were assessed. Three (3) representative LDPE samples exhibiting low, mid, and high TACs absorbance values from the survey were selected for this purpose. For repeatability testing, each sample was extracted and analyzed in at least eight (8) replicates by a single analyst under the same experimental conditions and on the same day. The percentage relative standard deviation (%RSD) for each concentration level was calculated to determine the method’s precision under repeated conditions.

Intermediate precision was assessed by having two independent analysts perform the same extraction and analysis procedures on the selected samples, using the same instruments and reagents. The absorbance values generated by both analysts were combined, and pooled averages and %RSDs were calculated for each concentration level. These values served as the benchmark for acceptable precision, as established during method validation.

Sample Profiling and Statistical Analysis

After validation, all LDPE samples collected across Metro Manila were tested using the validated method. Each sample was analyzed in triplicate (n = 3) to ensure the reliability and repeatability of results across multiple measurements. Statistical analysis was performed to assess variability and compliance of TACs levels among and within LDPE brands.

Descriptive statistics (mean, median, standard deviation, range, and coefficient of variation) were computed for all brands with more than three (3) samples. Normality of data distribution for each brand was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. For brands with normally distributed data (p > 0.05), a one-sample t-test was conducted to evaluate whether mean absorbance values differed significantly from the FDA’s maximum allowable limit (0.100 AU). For brands with non-normally distributed data (p < 0.05), a Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test was used to determine whether absorbance values varied significantly across sampling locations. These tests were selected to ensure appropriate evaluation of both intra-brand variability and compliance with regulatory thresholds, aligning with the study’s objective to assess safety and consistency of LDPE packaging.

Results

Sample Collection and Identification

A total of 46 unused LDPE plastic bags, representing 15 distinct commercial brands, were collected from public markets across the 16 different cities and one (1) municipality of Metro Manila. The locations (in alphabetical order) are Caloocan, Las Piñas, Makati, Malabon, Mandaluyong, Manila, Marikina, Muntinlupa, Navotas, Parañaque, Pasay, Pasig, Pateros (municipality), Quezon City, San Juan, Taguig, and Valenzuela. FTIR-ATR analysis revealed that 100% of the samples are primarily LDPE in composition.

Preliminary Screening

Approximately a third of the samples (15 out of the 46, and each a different brand) were randomly selected for preliminary screening. The locations, polymer classification and codes, and absorbance values of the initial survey are summarized in Table 1. The sample with the lowest absorbance value was LDPE-0009 from Valenzuela with 0.044 AU, and intended for low level repeatability and intermediate precision. In contrast, LDPE-0015 from Makati produced the highest absorbance value of 0.250 AU, and intended for high level precision measurements. LDPE-0011 from Muntinlupa gave an absorbance value closest to the MAL set by FDA Philippines and was chosen for mid-level repeatability and intermediate precision.

Table 1: Preliminary Screening of TACs from Randomly Selected LDPE Samples

Method Validation

Because the absorbance value of LDPE-0009 during the screening was already above 10% of the MAL set by FDA Philippines, method reagent blanks were used instead to compute the LOD of 0.009 AU. The value is lower than 0.010 AU (10% of 0.100 AU), implying analytical confidence at the regulation’s assigned minimum detection value. LOQ, on the other hand, was computed at 0.021 AU, suggesting the minimum absorbance level with acceptable performance.

Table 2 summarizes the calculated %RSDs at three different levels by two different analysts. For both analysts, %RSDs were observed to decrease with increasing absorbance values–a trend similar to the precision tables established by AOAC. The results also indicate that the difference in variation per level is minimal (i.e. 0.60%-3.04%), implying satisfactory repeatability within each analyst, and good precision between analysts across the absorbance range 0.040-0.305 AU.

Table 2: Repeatability of Absorbance Measurements Across Three Levels for Each Analyst

To further verify the method’s precision, pooled averages and standard deviations of the absorbance values per level were calculated (Table 3). As with single analyst measurements, data spread was observed to decrease with increasing absorbance levels i.e. 12.7% for 0.040 AU, 5.52% for 0.107 AU, and 3.94% for 0.294. Combining with the average absorbance (0.009 AU) and %RSD (49.4%) of the method reagent blanks used for LOD and LOQ, the acceptable criteria for repeatability of measurements for TACs from LDPE to high-fat low-moisture foods was established (Table 4).

Table 3: Intermediate Precision Across Three Levels for Two Analysts

Table 4: Acceptance Criteria for Repeatability of TACs Migrating from 50 cm² LDPE Films to n-Heptane as Fatty and Oily Food Simulant by Single Extraction (25 ± 3 °C for 30 minutes) and Qualitative Spectral Scanning (λ = 220-360 nm, 5 cm path length)

Sample Profiling and Statistical Analysis

The results of testing all 46 LDPE samples using the validated method are summarized in Table 5.  The absorbance values ranged from 0.044 AU to 0.229 AU, highlighting a broad distribution of contaminant migration levels among the samples. Meanwhile, the %RSDs ranged from 1.44-11.5% for samples with absorbance values within 0.040 ≤ AU < 0.107, and 0.676-5.09% for samples with absorbance values within 0.107 ≤ AU < 0.294, aligning with the established acceptable criteria for repeatability of measurements.

Table 5: Average Absorbance Values and %RSDs of TACs from 46 LDPE Samples to n-Heptane

 Discussion

Comparison with Regulatory Limit

Out of the 46 samples analyzed, 58.7% exceeded the 0.100 AU MAL set by FDA Philippines, indicating possible occurrence of chemical migration and non-compliance of the majority of the purchased LDPE with local regulation. The figure suggests the need for inter-agency collaboration to probe further into the evaluation and monitoring of plastic labo circulating within Metro Manila and used by local eateries and street stalls as food packaging.

Variation across Brands within a Single Location

To determine the spread of data within a single location, areas with more than three samples namely Valenzuela (7 brands). Taguig (5 brands), Navotas (4 brands) and Manila (4 brands) were evaluated. Majority of the brands purchased from Valenzuela (5 out of 7) and Taguig (4 out of 5) exceeded the MAL, implying potentially high risk of accessing plastic packaging that likely demonstrates chemical migration when in contact with high-fat low-moisture food products. In contrast, 100% of the brands purchased from Manila were below the 0.100 AU limit, suggesting potentially low risk of fatty and oily food contamination via migration. Many factors contribute to the variation of values in a single location. First, the manufacturers from which the supplies have originated differ hence, the large variability.^30–32 For follow through studies, it may be necessary to acquire samples directly from the producers to properly trace commodities demonstrating chemical migration. Second, while plastic packaging may yield low absorbance values post-production, distribution and storage conditions and practices may affect the products’ physico-chemical properties, resulting in modifications. The effects of temperature and time on the release of TACs to fatty and oily food simulants requires further investigation. In addition, follow through studies may need to probe further into actual consumption of brands to better gauge the population’s exposure to TACs.

Variation across Brands from Multiple Locations

Disregarding the limitations on the number of samples, n, per brand, the average absorbance values were determined and presented in Table 6. Of the 15 brands, 60% were found to be above the 0.100 AU limit set by FDA Philippines. This implies that manufacturers of said brands may need to look into its raw materials, processes, and other factors contributing to chemical migrations. In addition, regulatory agencies may start monitoring said brands for product improvement and consumer safety.

Table 6: Average Absorbance Values and %RSDs of TACs per LDPE Brand to n-Heptane

Four (4) of the 15 brands (LDPE-0006, LDPE-0008, LDPE-0010, and LDPE-0013) were included for further investigation (Table 7). Among these, the average absorbance values of LDPE-0008 (0.126 AU) and LDPE-0013 (0.106 AU) exceeded the FDA regulatory limit, raising concerns regarding their suitability for food contact applications. In contrast, LDPE-0006 (0.094 AU) and LDPE-0010 (0.093 AU) remained within regulatory compliance. Nevertheless, all exhibited %RSDs greater than the established criteria (Table 4), indicating varied migration of UV-absorbing contaminants across different sampling locations.

However, despite the spread of values and differences in the locations of purchase, LDPE-0008 is of great interest as all its representative samples were consistently above the MAL, narrowing down potential sources of contamination primarily to raw materials and manufacturing.^33–35 Separate investigation of ingredients and analysis of output per production process may be necessary to pinpoint actual cause of chemical migration. Research assistance may be provided to help the manufacturer improve the quality and safety of its plastic packaging, and comply with local regulation.

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics of Selected LDPE Brands

To evaluate the distribution and significance of absorbance variations across different LDPE brands, a Shapiro-Wilk test for normality was conducted (Table 8). The results indicate that LDPE-0008, LDPE-0010 and LDPE-0013 exhibited normal distributions (p > 0.05), while LDPE-0006 did not (p < 0.05), necessitating the use of a different statistical approach for further analysis.

Table 8: Result of Shapiro-Wilk Test for Normality (n ≥ 6)

For a non-normally distributed sample (LDPE-0006), a Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test was performed to determine whether absorbance values varied significantly across different locations (Table 9). The results for LDPE-0006 (χ² = 6, df = 6, p = 0.4232) indicate no significant difference, suggesting that absorbance levels remained relatively consistent across sampling sites for this brand.

Table 9: Result of Kruskal-Wallis Rank Sum Test for Samples Not Normally Distributed

For normally distributed samples (LDPE-0008, LDPE-0010 and LDPE-0013), a one-sample t-test was applied to assess whether their absorbance values significantly deviated from the FDA regulatory limit (0.100 AU) (Table 10. LDPE-0008 exhibited a significant difference (t = 3.2006, df = 5, p = 0.02398), indicating that its absorbance values were consistently above the FDA threshold, confirming non-compliance and previously mentioned possible contamination source. Conversely, LDPE-0010 (t = -0.81312, df = 9, p = 0.0710) and LDPE-0013 (t = 0.68376, df = 5, p = 0.52450) did not show a significant difference, suggesting that its absorbance values were not consistently above from the regulatory limit.

Table 10: Result of One Sample T-test for Normally Distributed Samples

In general, LDPE-008 demonstrated consistent absorbance values across multiple locations, indicating strong quality control and material consistency, while others such as LDPE-006, LDPE-0010 and LDPE-0013 showed wide fluctuations in TACs levels, raising concerns about inconsistent manufacturing, distribution and storage practices.

The variability in TAC levels in LDPE samples with the same brand but across different locations can be attributed to several factors, which align with findings from previous studies. One major factor is the inconsistency in raw material sourcing. The study of Hertz et al.³⁶ reported that dual sourcing of plastic feedstock may introduce significant batch-to-batch variation, while Eriksen et al.³⁷ noted that recycled plastics often contain impurities and residual metals that affect final product quality. The incorporation of recycled content into LDPE films could also be implicated. Franz and Welle ³⁸ showed that PET bottles reused in food packaging contain higher levels of non-intentionally added substances (NIAS), many of which are persistent and difficult to eliminate through standard processing. Núñez et al.³⁹ further identified polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals in recycled polyethylene, stressing the importance of monitoring contaminants not only in virgin but also in recycled inputs. Other relevant studies from Koynov and Muzzio⁴⁰ emphasized the need for raw material characterization in ensuring product consistency, and Doganaksoy and Hahn⁴¹ demonstrated how blending polymers from varying sources, without standardization, leads to heterogeneous material properties. These findings collectively underscore the critical role of material selection in influencing TACs migration.

Beyond sourcing, production and storage practices are pivotal. Poor control over extrusion temperatures or prolonged processing times may degrade the polymer backbone, forming low molecular weight compounds that leach into food, as shown in study by Andersson et al.⁴² while Narhi et al.⁴³ observed that physical stress during packaging transport and storage could also facilitate the formation of leachables. Moreover, Garcia et al.⁴⁴ demonstrated that even well-recycled polypropylene can retain volatile residues if not adequately cleaned. The current study observed high intra-brand variability in TACs, consistent with these findings, especially for LDPE-0010, where variability exceeded 30% across locations.

The use of additives also emerged as a possible contributor to elevated TACs. Additives like UV stabilizers, plasticizers, and colorants, while enhancing performance, have been found to migrate under thermal or fatty food exposure. Ye et al.⁴⁵ highlighted how environmental matrices influence additive release, and Thornley ⁴⁶ emphasized that pigments may be chemically unstable under UV exposure. This is particularly relevant to the Philippine setting, where packaging may be stored in open-air markets exposed to sunlight and high humidity, conditions known to accelerate degradation. Studies by Vulic et al.⁴⁷ and Akoueson et al.⁴⁸ affirmed that stabilizer migration is enhanced under such conditions.

Environmental conditions during storage significantly affect contaminant migration. High temperature, salinity, and UV exposure have been reported to exacerbate the leaching of phthalates and degradation by-products from LDPE, as shown by Dhavamani et al.⁴⁹ and Abboudi et al.⁵⁰ In the study of Danwittayakul et al.⁵¹ confirmed that even low-density polyethylene bags used in solar disinfection showed degradation signs after prolonged UV exposure. These findings support the elevated TACs seen in samples exposed to harsher retail environments.

Conclusion

The findings from this study revealed that 58.7% of the 46 LDPE samples tested for TACs exceeded the FDA limit of 0.100 AU, implying the occurrence of chemical migration and highlighting a significant level of non-compliance among the samples analyzed. This result underscores critical issues in the quality and safety of LDPE materials intended for food packaging, particularly high-fat low-moisture products. The observed variability in TACs levels, both within and across brands, indicates possible inconsistencies in raw material sourcing, production and storage practices, and possibly the use of additives or recycled content, which may have contributed to elevated contaminant levels in many samples. The findings suggest the need for improved quality control across the supply chain, and the establishment and stricter enforcement of specific guidelines for LDPE food packaging. Moreover, the validated UV-Vis spectrophotometric method used in this study proves to be a cost-effective and accessible tool that can support continued monitoring and regulatory interventions aligned with both international and local safety benchmarks.

Recommendation

To address the observed non-compliance of LDPE samples with FDA limits for TACs, the need for follow-up investigations should be conducted in collaboration with retailers to trace the supply chain and pinpoint high-risk sources of non-compliant products. This will help identify key points where contamination may be introduced and guide future interventions. Additionally, further research is needed to investigate the influence of additives, recycled content, and production processes on TAC levels. Understanding the specific contributions of these factors will provide data-driven insights that can inform improvements in production practices and support the development of stricter regulatory frameworks. To complement these efforts, specific migration testing should be implemented to identify and quantify the chemical composition of migrating contaminants. This detailed analysis will help determine the actual risks posed by non-compliant materials and provide critical information for refining manufacturing practices, enhancing regulatory oversight, and improving public health protection. Incorporating these measures into routine monitoring and regulatory programs will collectively strengthen the safety and quality of LDPE materials intended for food packaging, ensuring they meet the required safety standards and minimizing potential risks to consumers. Lastly, it should be noted that the extraction was conducted at room temperature for a short period of time. Hence, migrations from LDPE food contact articles to fatty and oily foods at lower and elevated temperatures, and extended time frames had not been accounted for and thus, require further investigation.

Acknowledgement

We extend our gratitude to the Department of Science and Technology, Industrial Technology Development Institute, and Philippine Council for Industry, Energy and Emerging Technology Research and Development (PCIEERD) for their invaluable support and the project team for making this project possible. 

Funding Sources

Funding: This work was supported by the Department of Science and Technology, Industrial Technology Development Institute, and Philippine Council for Industry, Energy and Emerging Technology Research and Development (PCIEERD). DOST Grant-in-Aid Project Number: RDA-PTD-2024-02 

Conflict of Interest

The authors do not have any conflict of interest.

Data Availability Statement

This statement does not apply to this article.

Ethics Statement

The research did not involve human participants, animal subjects, or any material that requires ethical approval. 

Informed Consent Statement

This study did not involve human participants, and therefore, informed consent was not required. 

Clinical Trial Registration

This research does not involve any clinical trials. 

Permission to Reproduce Material from Other Sources

This manuscript does not contain any previously published figures, tables, or text excerpts. Therefore, permission to reproduce materials from other sources is not applicable. 

Author Contributions

• Winnie Pagaduan Alejandro: Methodology, writing, analysis, data collection – Original draft, review and editing
• Elyson Keith Ponce Encarnacion: Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding Acquisition, Review and editing
• Anne Cardoza Alcantara: Project Administration, review and editing
• David Juacian Alcarde Jr.: Review and editing
• Harold Esplana Armario: Review and editing
• Agaseve Famanilay Del Rosario: Review and editing
• Rizel Marie San Miguel Ting: Analysis and data collection, review and editing 

References

1. Beneventi E, Tietz T, Merkel S. Risk Assessment of Food Contact Materials. EFSA Journal. 2020;18(S1). doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2020.e181109.
   CrossRef
2. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). Plastics Exposed: How Waste Assessments and Brand Audits Are Helping Philippine Cities Fight Plastic Pollution.; 2019. www.no-burn.org
3. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). Sachet Economy: Big Problems in Small Packets. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives.; 2020. www.no-burn.org
4. Hong N. Characterization of Low-Density Polyethylene and LDPE-Based/Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate with Medium Content of Vinyl Acetate. Polymers (Basel). 2021;13:2352. doi:10.3390/polym13142352
   CrossRef
5. Hahladakis JN, Velis CA, 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.10.014
   CrossRef
6. Andrady AL, Neal MA. Applications and societal benefits of plastics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2009;364(1526):1977-1984. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0304
   CrossRef
7. Adly H, Saati A, Obaid M, Saleh S. Chemical Migration of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Other Compounds from Plastic Food Packaging: Assessment of Food Safety Risks and Health Impacts. Foods. 2025;14:1013. doi:10.3390/foods14061013
   CrossRef
8. Gupta RK, Pipliya S, Karunanithi S, et al. Migration of Chemical Compounds from Packaging Materials into Packaged Foods: Interaction, Mechanism, Assessment, and Regulations. Foods. 2024;13(19). doi:10.3390/foods13193125
   CrossRef
9. Muzeza C, Ngole-Jeme V, Msagati TAM. The Mechanisms of Plastic Food-Packaging Monomers’ Migration into Food Matrix and the Implications on Human Health. Foods. 2023;12(18). doi:10.3390/foods12183364
   CrossRef
10. Chapke K, Gandhi K, Lata K, Sharma R, Mann B, Singh N. Migration study of chemical additives from low density polyethylene (LDPE) into dahi. J Food Sci Technol. 2022;59(8):3283-3295. doi:10.1007/s13197-022-05453-w
    CrossRef
11. Ong HT, Samsudin H, Soto-Valdez H. Migration of endocrine-disrupting chemicals into food from plastic packaging materials: an overview of chemical risk assessment, techniques to monitor migration, and international regulations. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2020;62:1-23. doi:10.1080/10408398.2020.1830747
    CrossRef
12. Kato LS, Conte-Junior CA. Safety of plastic food packaging: The challenges about non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) discovery, identification and risk assessment. Polymers (Basel). 2021;13(13). doi:10.3390/polym13132077
    CrossRef
13. Ardıç M, Kahve H, Duran A. CHEMICAL MIGRATION IN FOOD TECHNOLOGY. Academic Journal of Science,. 2015;ISSN2165-6282:2165-6282.
14. Arvanitoyannis IS, Bosnea L. Migration of Substances from Food Packaging Materials to Foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2004;44(2):63-76. doi:10.1080/10408690490424621
    CrossRef
15. Yolci Omeroğlu P, Özdal T, Bulut R. Eurasian Journal of FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Chemical Migration from Plastic Types of Food Contact Materials. Eurasian Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2017;2(2):22-32.
16. Manoli E, Voutsa D. Food Containers and Packaging Materials as Possible Source of Hazardous Chemicals to Food. In: Handbook of Environmental Chemistry. Vol 78. Springer Verlag; 2019:19-50. doi:10.1007/698_2016_121
    CrossRef
17. 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. doi:10.1016/j.aca.2013.02.028
    CrossRef
18. European Commission. Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food. Official Journal of the European Union. 2011;(L12).
19. FDA-Circular-No.-2022-011.
20. Agarwal A, Gandhi S, Tripathi AD, Gupta A, Iammarino M, Sidhu JK. Food contamination from packaging material with special focus on the Bisphenol-A. 2024;45(1):69-79.
    CrossRef
21. Palsania P, Singhal K, Dar MA, Kaushik G. Food grade plastics and Bisphenol A: Associated risks, toxicity, and bioremediation approaches. J Hazard Mater. 2024;466:133474. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024. 133474
    CrossRef
22. Manzoor MF, Tariq T, Fatima B, et al. An insight into bisphenol A, food exposure and its adverse effects on health: A review. Front Nutr. 2022;Volume 9-2022. doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.1047827
    CrossRef
23. Nugroho B, Pramudya Y, Widodo W. The Content Analysis of Bisphenol A (BPA) on Water in Plastic Glass with Varying Temperatures and Contact Times using UV-VIS Spectrophotometer. Indonesian Review of Physics. 2019;1:27. doi:10.12928/irip.v1i2.263
    CrossRef
24. Baranenko D, Boulkrane MS, Borisova I, Astafyeva B, Lu W, Abd El-Aty AM. Translocation of Phthalates From Food Packaging Materials Into Minced Beef. Front Nutr. 2022;Volume 8-2021. doi:10.3389/fnut.2021.813553
    CrossRef
25. Stroski KM, Sapozhnikova Y. Analysis of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in plastic food storage bags by different analytical approaches. Journal of Chromatography Open. 2023;4:100106. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jcoa.2023.100106
    CrossRef
26. Gebbink WA, Ullah S, Sandblom O, Berger U. Polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters and perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids in target food samples and packaging—method development and screening. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2013;20(11):7949-7958. doi:10.1007/s11356-013-1596-y
    CrossRef
27. Wente W, Topp S. The influence of UV absorbing substances released from plastic containers (leachables) on photometric analyses. In: ; 2011. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:96710678
28. AOAC INTERNATIONAL. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL. 2016;20th edition.
29. Magnusson B, Örnemark U, eds. The Fitness for Purpose of Analytical Methods : A Laboratory Guide to Method Validation and Related Topics. Second Edition. Eurachem; 2014.
30. Wang C, Liu Y, Chen WQ, Zhu B, Qu S, Xu M. Critical review of global plastics stock and flow data. J Ind Ecol. 2021;25(5):1300-1317. doi:10.1111/jiec.13125
    CrossRef
31. Kanu RC. A Study of Process Variability of the Injection Molding of Plastics Parts Us-Ing Statistical Process Control (SPC) A Study of Process Variability of the Injection Molding of Plastics Parts Using Statistical Process Control (SPC).; 2013.
32. Jones K, Koens F, Simpson T. Background survey of polyethylene in the Australian Capital Territory – A demonstration of variability in isotopic abundance values and their application to forensic casework. Science & Justice. 2018;58(4):276-281. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2018.03.001
    CrossRef
33. Titone V, Botta L, Mistretta MC, La Mantia FP. Influence of a biodegradable contaminant on the mechanical recycling of a low-density polyethylene sample. Polym Eng Sci. 2024;64(2):845-851. doi:10.1002/pen.26588
    CrossRef
34. Chen JYC, Wong LC, Huang MS. Quality monitoring and control for plasticization of acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene regrind polymer in injection molding. Polym Eng Sci. 2024;64(3):1057-1107.
    CrossRef
35. Golkaram M, Mehta R, Taveau M, et al. Quality model for recycled plastics (QMRP): An indicator for holistic and consistent quality assessment of recycled plastics using product functionality and material properties. J Clean Prod. 2022;362. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132311
    CrossRef
36. Hertz RA;, Therkelsen O;, Kristiansen S;, et al. Cycle-Based Control of Injection Moulding Process in Presence of Material Dual Sourcing Using Mass Feedback. Polymers (Basel). 2024;16:1808. doi:10.3390/polym
    CrossRef
37. Eriksen MK, Pivnenko K, Olsson ME, Astrup TF. Contamination in plastic recycling: Influence of metals on the quality of reprocessed plastic. Waste Management. 2018;79:595-606. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2018.08.007
    CrossRef
38. Franz R, Welle F. Contamination Levels in Recollected PET Bottles from Non-Food Applications and their Impact on the Safety of Recycled PET for Food Contact. Molecules. 2020;25(21). doi:10.3390/molecules25214998
    CrossRef
39. Núñez SS, Moltó J, Conesa JA, Fullana A. Heavy metals, PAHs and POPs in recycled polyethylene samples of agricultural, post-commercial, post-industrial and post-consumer origin. Waste Management. 2022;144:113-121. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2022.03.016
    CrossRef
40. Koynov S, Muzzio F. A Quantitative Approach to Understand Raw Material Variability. Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology. 2015;32:85-104.
    CrossRef
41. Doganaksoy N, Hahn G. Evaluating the Potential Impact of Blending on Product Consistency. Journal of Quality Technology. 2018;28(1):51-60.
    CrossRef
42. Andersson T, Stålbom B, Wesslén B. Degradation of polyethylene during extrusion. II. Degradation of low-density polyethylene, linear low-density polyethylene, and high-density polyethylene in film extrusion. J Appl Polym Sci. 2004;91(3):1525-1537.
    CrossRef
43. Narhi LO, Chou DK, Christian TR, et al. Stress Factors in Primary Packaging, Transportation and Handling of Protein Drug Products and Their Impact on Product Quality. J Pharm Sci. 2022;111(4):887-902. doi:10.1016/ j.xphs.2022.01.011
    CrossRef
44. Garcia PS, Cruz SA, Nerín C. Comparison of Different Extrusion Processes for Cleaning the Recycled Polypropylene Removing Volatile and Non-Volatile Contaminants. Progress in Rubber, Plastics and Recycling Technology. 2014;30(1):37-54.
    CrossRef
45. Ye T, Fang T, Wang Y, et al. The release inhibition of organic substances from microplastics in the presence of algal derived organic matters: Influence of the molecular weight-dependent inhibition heterogeneities. Environ Res. 2021;200. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111424
    CrossRef
46. Thornley DGC. Pigments, Plastics and Progress. Journal of the Society of Dyers and Colourists. 1970;86(1):13-19.
    CrossRef
47. Vulic I, Stretanski J, Sanders B. UV stabilization of polyolefin systems. Polymers and Polymer Composites. 2000;8:529-535.
    CrossRef
48. Akoueson F, Paul-Pont I, Tallec K, et al. Additives in polypropylene and polylactic acid food packaging: Chemical analysis and bioassays provide complementary tools for risk assessment. Science of the Total Environment. 2023;857. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159318
    CrossRef
49. Dhavamani J, Beck AJ, Gledhill M, et al. The effects of salinity, temperature, and UV irradiation on leaching and adsorption of phthalate esters from polyethylene in seawater. Science of the Total Environment. 2022;838. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155461
    CrossRef
50. Abboudi M, Odeh A, Aljoumaa K. Carbonyl compound leaching from polyethylene terephthalate into bottled water under sunlight exposure. Toxicol Environ Chem. 2015;98(2):167-178.
    CrossRef
51. Danwittayakul S, Songngam S, Fhulua T, Muangkasem P, Sittha Sukkasi. Safety and durability of low-density polyethylene bags in solar water disinfection applications. Environmental Technology . 2016;38(16):1987-1996.
    CrossRef

List of abbreviations used in this manuscript (alphabetical order)