Advertisement

Effect of Materials and Assembly Methods on Gas Selectivity of Blow® Device

  • A. MateraEmail author
  • G. Altieri
  • F. Genovese
  • G. C. Di Renzo
Conference paper
  • 33 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 67)

Abstract

In the present paper, the effect on gas selectivity using different materials of the patented Blow® device is described. Blow® is an innovative device that allows the bidirectional gas exchange across a sealed package. The device results particularly useful for managing the atmosphere in the package headspace of fruit and vegetables packed in modified atmosphere, with a high level of carbon dioxide or low level of oxygen. The latest device version is produced by assembling two different parts; preliminary tests showed that the device’s material and the assembly procedure affects the gas selectivity of the device. To evaluate the effect of material and welding system on the breathable characteristics of the device, three plastic- (PP, LDPE, ABS) and bio- (Mater-Bi®) based materials and three different levels of welding pressure were used for comparative tests. For each material and test condition, the diffusion of oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) has been measured by the pressure discharging time measured in the range from 400 to 10 Pa of differential pressure from inside to outside of the package.

Keywords

MAP Bioplastic Food packaging 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The activity of this paper was carried out in the framework of the MyPack Project “Best markets for the exploitation of innovative sustainable food packaging solutions”. It is a four-year project started on November 1st 2017, and funded by European Union’s H2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 774265. The information contained in this document only reflects the author’s view.

References

  1. Altieri, G., Genovese, F., Matera, A., Tauriello, A., & Di Renzo, G. C. (2018). Characterization of an innovative device controlling gaseous exchange in packages for food products. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 138, 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Di Renzo, G. C., Altieri, G., & Genovese, F. (2015). Dispositivo per controllare scambi gassosi fra l’interno e l’esterno di un contenitore per prodotti alimentari solidi o liquidi. Patent: 102015000018707 (in italian).Google Scholar
  3. Di Renzo, G. C., Altieri, G., & Genovese, F. (2016). Device for controlling gaseous exchanges between the inside and outside of a container for solid or liquid food products. Patent: PCT/IB2016/0506600.Google Scholar
  4. Di Renzo, G. C., & Matera, A. (2019). Le nuove tecnologie per la gestione post raccolta dell’uva da tavola. Uva da tavola… Rutigliano oggi e domani, 24–27.Google Scholar
  5. Mari, M., & Neri, F. (2010). Nuove tecniche di confezionamento per la GDO. Metodi innovativi di gestione dei frutti nella fase post-raccolta, 89–91.Google Scholar
  6. Matera, A., Genovese, F., Altieri, G., Tauriello, A., & Di Renzo, G. C. (2017). An innovative smart device to control Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP) of fruit and vegetables. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 58, 193–198.Google Scholar
  7. Robertson, G. L. (2009). Food packaging and shelf life: A practical guide. ISBN 9781420078442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ščetar, M., Kurek, M., & Galić, K. (2010). Trends in fruit and vegetable packaging—A review. Croatian Journal of Food Technology, Biotechnology and Nutrition, 5(3–4), 69–86.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Matera
    • 1
    Email author
  • G. Altieri
    • 1
  • F. Genovese
    • 1
  • G. C. Di Renzo
    • 1
  1. 1.Scuola di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentari ed Ambientali (SAFE)Università degli Studi della Basilicata, via dell’Ateneo Lucano 10PotenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations