|
Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition Office of Premarket Approval June 1995 (Effective June 18, 2001, Office of Premarket Approval is now Office of Food Additive Safety. See updated contact information) |
The latest version of this guidance issued on April 10, 2002. Below is an earlier version.
A food oil is a worst-case fatty food. If contact with fatty foods is anticipated, conduct migration studies using a food oil as the food-simulating liquid. In addition to food oils such as corn and olive oil for which extensive migration data already exist, the use of HB307 (a mixture of synthetic triglycerides, primarily C10, C12, and C14) as a fatty-food simulant has previously been recommended. Recent studies in FDA laboratories have shown that Miglyol 812TM a fractionated coconut oil having a boiling range of 240-270°C and composed of saturated C8 (50-65%) and C10 (30-45%) triglycerides, is also an acceptable alternative. Since use of these oils for additive migration may not always be practicable, the use of aqueous-based solvents that simulate the action of these liquid fats is sometimes necessary. While it seems unlikely that one solvent will be found that simulates the action of a food oil for all food-contact polymers, the following list presents polymers for which adequate data exist to support the use of aqueous-based solvents as fatty-food simulants. The recommendation of these solvents is based upon studies done at FDA, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (formerly The National Bureau of Standards), and by Arthur D. Little, Inc. under contract to FDA (see the reference list at the end of this Appendix). For polymers other than those listed below, consult CRB (via the Office of Premarket Approval) before migration experiments are undertaken.
- Polyolefins complying with 177.1520 and ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers complying with 177.1350 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95% or absolute ethanol
- Rigid polyvinyl chloride. . . . . . . . . . . .50% ethanol
- Polystyrene and rubber-modified polystyrene . .50% ethanol
Absolute or 95% ethanol has been found to be an effective fatty-food simulant for polyolefins, however, it appears to exaggerate migration for other food-contact polymers.
Previous test protocols (prior to 1988) recommended the use of heptane as a fatty-food simulant. To account for the aggressive nature of heptane relative to a food oil, division of migration values by a factor of five was permitted. Studies have shown, however, that the exaggerative effect of heptane relative to a food oil varies over orders of magnitude depending on the polymer extracted. Thus, heptane is no longer recommended as a fatty-food simulant. In cases where very low migration is anticipated, such as for inorganic adjuvants or certain highly cross-linked polymers, heptane can be useful due to the ease of analytical workup. Therefore, although heptane migration data may continue to be accepted, migration values will not be divided by any factor unless there is adequate justification.
National Bureau of Standards, March 1982: Migration of Low Molecular Weight Additives in Polyolefins and Copolymers. Final Project Report, NBSIR 82-2472.
Goydan, R., Schwope, A., Reid, R., and Cramer, G., 1990, High Temperature Migration of Antioxidants from Polyolefins. Food Add. and Contam., 7 (3), 323-337, and references cited therein.
The following migration testing protocols are intended to simulate most anticipated end-use conditions of food-contact articles. These protocols are based on the premise that additive migration to aqueous- and fatty-based foods is typically diffusion-controlled within the polymer, strongly affected by the temperatures encountered during food contact, and further modified by the solubility of the additive within the foods. Therefore, CRB recommends migration testing with food-simulating solvents at the highest temperatures to be experienced by the package during food contact. In those instances where the expected use conditions are not adequately simulated by these protocols or testing with food-simulating solvents at the highest anticipated food-contact temperature is not practicable, alternative protocols to those presented below should be developed in consultation with CRB.
As noted in Appendix I, migration to fatty foods is evaluated using a fatty food, a pure liquid fat, or, alternatively, aqueous ethanol solutions when analytical limitations with a food or liquid fat preclude sensitive analyses. As noted in Section II.D.1.d, migration to aqueous, acidic, and low-alcoholic foods is evaluated using 10% ethanol and migration to high-alcohol foods is evaluated using 50% ethanol.
10% Ethanol(a) . . . . . . . .121°C (250°F) for two hours
50% Ethanol . . . . . . . . . 71°C (160°F) for two hours
Food Oil (e.g., corn oil)
or HB307 or Miglyol 812TM. . .121°C (250°F) for two hours
or
50% or 95% Ethanol(a,b) . . . .121°C (250°F) for two hours
a- Requires a pressure cell or autoclave,
see Appendix V.
Appropriate safety precautions should be exercised when using
equipment generating pressures above 1 atmosphere.
b- Depends on food-contact layer,
see Appendix I.
After two hours at elevated temperatures, continue the tests at 40°C (104°F) for 238 hours to a total of 240 hours (10 days). Analyze the test solutions at the end of the initial two hour period, and after 24, 96 and 240 hours.
B. Boiling water sterilized. The protocol remains the same as for Condition of Use A except that the highest test temperature is 100°C (212°F).
C. Hot filled or pasteurized above 66°C (150°F). Add solvents to the test samples at 100°C (212°F), hold for 30 minutes, and then allow to cool to 40°C (104°F). Maintain the test cells at 40°C (104°F) for ten days with samples taken for analysis after the intervals indicated for the previous protocols. (If the maximum hot fill temperature will be lower than 100°C (212°F), solvents may be added at this lower temperature, but the ensuing regulation will have a hot-fill temperature limitation.)
Alternatively, perform migration studies for 2 hours at 66°C (150°F) followed by 238 hours at 40°C (104°F). The longer time at the lower temperature (2 hours at 66°C vs 30 minutes at 100°C) compensates for the shorter time at 100°C.
D. Hot filled or pasteurized below 66°C (150°F). The protocol is analogous to that for C except that all solvents are added to the test samples at 66°C (150°F) and held for 30 minutes before cooling to 40°C (104°F).
E. Room temperature filled and stored (no thermal treatment in the container). Conduct migration studies for 240 hours at 40°C (104°F). Analyze the test solutions after 24, 48, 120 and 240 hours.
F. Refrigerated storage (no thermal treatment in the container). The protocol is identical to that for E except that the test temperature is 20°C (68°F).
G. Frozen storage (no thermal treatment in the container). The protocol is identical to F except that the test time is five (5) days.
H. Frozen or refrigerated storage; ready-prepared foods intended to be reheated in container at time of use:
10% Ethanol(a). . . . . . . . .100°C (212°F) for two hours
Food Oil (e.g., corn oil)
or HB307 or Miglyol 812TM . . .100°C (212°F) for two hours
or
50% or 95% Ethanol(a,b). . . . .100°C (212°F) for two hours
a- Requires a pressure cell or autoclave,
see Appendix V.
b- Depends on food-contact layer,
see Appendix I.
The migration testing protocols for applications involving the heating and cooking of food at temperatures exceeding 121°C (250°F) are discussed in Section 11 of this Appendix.
In general, under identical testing conditions, levels of migrants from low-density polyethylene (LDPE) are higher than from high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or polypropylene (PP). Migration studies done solely on LDPE (complying with 21 CFR 177.1520(a)(2)) at 100°C (approximately the highest temperature at which LDPE remains functional) are, therefore, sufficient to provide coverage for all polyolefins including PP, which may be used for retort applications. In such a case, the consumption factor for all polyolefins (CF = 0.33) will be used instead of the individual consumption factor for LDPE (see Appendix IV, Table I). However, it is usually to the petitioner's advantage when seeking coverage for all polyolefins to perform migration testing on HDPE and PP, complying with 21 CFR 177.1520, as well as LDPE. By doing this, actual migration values for these polyolefins, which will likely be lower that those obtained from LDPE, may be used to calculate the EDI.
The migration testing protocols for polymers other than polyolefins are the same as those in Section 1 of this Appendix. Consult Appendix I for the recommended fatty-food simulant.
If a regulation is sought without limitation to specific polymers, the petitioner may obtain this broad coverage by testing with an unoriented LDPE sample complying with 21 CFR 177.1520(a)(2). The specific protocol depends on the anticipated conditions of use (refer to Section 1 of this Appendix). If the most rigorous applications correspond to Condition of Use A (Section 1.A), the test temperature should be the highest temperature at which the polymer remains functional (ca. 100°C for LDPE). The consumption factor for all polymers (Appendix IV, Table 1, CF = 0.8) will be used with the migration data to calculate the concentration of the additive in the daily diet. In general, a lower calculated concentration in the daily diet will result if a series of representative polymers are separately tested and individual consumption factors are applied (refer to the examples in Appendix IV). Consult with CRB to determine which representative polymers should be tested.
Test the article with 10% and 50% ethanol and a food oil (e.g., corn oil) or other fat simulant (e.g., HB307 or Miglyol 812TM) for 240 hours at the highest intended temperature of use. Analyze the test solutions for additive migration after 8, 72, and 240 hours. Provide estimates of the weight of food contacting a known area of repeat-use article in a given time period as well as an estimate of the average lifetime of the article. Together with the migration data, this will allow calculation of migration to all the food processed over the service life of the article.
In the case of an adjuvant in a repeat-use article, CRB strongly recommends that the petitioner calculate a "worst case" level in food by assuming 100% migration of the adjuvant over the service life of the article and dividing that value by the quantity of food processed. It may be that this calculated concentration is sufficiently low that migration studies will be unnecessary.
The migration testing protocol is usually that outlined in Section 1.A of this appendix for high temperature, heat sterilized or retorted products. If broad coverage is sought for all types of coatings, consult with CRB to determine which coatings should be tested. For use conditions less severe than retort sterilization at 121°C, follow the migration test protocols outlined in Sections 1.B-G of this appendix which most closely approximate the most severe expected use conditions.
These papers are intended for contact with food at temperatures less than 40°C for short periods of time. The protocol is the following:
10% Ethanol . . . . . . . . . . .40°C (104°F) for 24 hours
50% Ethanol . . . . . . . . . . .40°C (104°F) for 24 hours
or
Food Oil (e.g., corn oil) or
HB307 or Miglyol 812TM. . . . . .40°C (104°F) for 24 hours
When total nonvolatile or chloroform-soluble extractives are determined for a paper coating, do not subtract the corresponding extractives from uncoated paper as a blank correction. In the event that the paper disintegrates in a particular solvent, the above protocol may be modified with CRB approval. For a new adjuvant in paper coatings, analyze the test solutions for the unregulated adjuvant. For a new polymer used in paper coatings, analyze the test solutions for constituent oligomers and monomers.
This class includes such types as fluoropolymer- and silicone-treated papers that have oil-resisting and heat-resisting properties. The specific protocol depends on the particular uses anticipated. It is recommended that the petitioner either devise a protocol and submit it for comment or request comment about appropriate test conditions.
For use at room temperature or below, no migration tests are necessary. High temperature applications are discussed in Section 9.
Components of multilayer structures used above room temperature are the subject of two regulations. One covers laminates used in the temperature range 120°F (49°C)-250°F (121°C) (21 CFR 177.1395) and the other covers laminate structures used at temperatures of 250°F (121°C) and above (21 CFR 177.1390). Layers not separated from food by barriers preventing migration during expected use must be listed in these regulations unless they are authorized elsewhere for the intended use conditions as specified in 21 CFR 177.1395(b)(2) and 21 CFR 177.1390(c)(1). Test protocols presented in Sections 1.A-H may be appropriate for evaluating the level of migration from non-food-contact layers of some laminate structures. End uses that differ considerably from those considered in these Recommendations, however, should be the subject of special protocol development in consultation with CRB.
The protocol is the same as that employed in Condition of Use C.
Advances in packaging technology have led to the development of food packaging materials that can withstand temperatures substantially exceeding 121°C (250°F) for short periods of time for the purposes of heating and cooking of ready-prepared food. Recently, CMB has developed protocols for migration testing of dual-ovenablecontainers and microwave heat susceptor materials. These protocols are outlined below.
a. DUAL-OVENABLE TRAYS
For high temperature oven use (conventional and microwave), perform migration testing at the maximum intended conventional oven cooking temperature for the longest intended cooking time. Use a food oil, or a simulant such as Miglyol 812TM, as the food-simulating liquid.
b. MICROWAVEABLE CONTAINERS
The temperature ultimately experienced by a food-contact material when cooking foods in a microwave oven is dependent on many factors. Some of these are food composition, heating time, mass and shape of the food, and shape of the container. For example, food with mass in excess of 5 g/in² container surface area and having a thick shape will require longer cooking times to achieve the desired degree of interior cooking than if it had a lower mass-to-surface area ratio and were thinner. Because the ultimate temperature of the container will depend on many factors and is, therefore, not readily predicted, it is recommended that petitioners consult with CRB on any planned testing protocol prior to initiating migration testing.
c. MICROWAVE HEAT-SUSCEPTOR PACKAGING
The high temperatures attained by packaging using susceptor technology may result in (a) the formation of significant numbers of volatile chemicals from the susceptor components and (b) loss of barrier properties of food-contact materials leading to rapid transfer of nonvolatile adjuvants to foods. Studies by CMB, with hot vegetable oil in contact with a susceptor, have shown that the susceptor materials liberate volatile chemicals that may be retained in the oil at parts-per-billion (ppb) levels. A protocol used by CMB for the identification and quantification of volatiles from susceptors may be requested from the Office of Premarket Approval.
To isolate and identify the total available nonvolatile extractives, perform Soxhlet extractions on finely shredded portions of laminated susceptor materials using polar and nonpolar solvents as outlined in Appendix X1 of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) method F1349-91. Migration protocols for UV-absorbing nonvolatiles are also outlined in ASTM method F1349-91 and in an article by Begley, T. H. and Hollifield, H. C. (1991, ACS Symposium Series 473, "Food Packaging Interactions," Ch. 5, pp. 53-66). The ASTM method relies on the determination of a time-temperature profile based on cooking a food product according to label directions, for the maximum cooking time. The temperature reached by a microwave heat susceptor, however, is dependent on the amount and characteristics of the food product. Testing methods should involve a standard set of conditions that represent the maximum anticipated use conditions. Therefore, we recommend that migration studies be conducted in a manner similar to that outlined in the article by Begley and Hollifield. The standard test conditions are as follows:
Exposure estimates may be based, in the absence of validated migration studies, on the assumption of 100% migration of the total nonvolatile extractives to food, as determined by Soxhlet extractions.
Validated migration protocols for the direct determination of aliphatic migrants are not available at this time. However, the amount of aliphatic migrants may be estimated by subtracting the UV-absorbing nonvolatiles and inert materials from the total nonvolatiles obtained by Soxhlet extraction (see Appendix X1 in ASTM method F1349-91). Exposure estimates for aliphatic migrants will be based on the assumption of 100% migration to food.
Some colorants, pigments in particular, may be quite insoluble in the food simulants 10%- and 95%-ethanol. In such cases, solubility information may provide a basis for an alternative to migration testing for evaluating worst-case exposure since migration levels would not be expected to exceed the limits of solubility of the colorant. If the colorant is to be used in all plastic packaging, for which a CF = 0.05 would be used, a solubility below ca. 100 ppb would lead to an exposure no greater than 5 ppb in the diet. A solubility less than 10 ppb would lead to an exposure below 0.5 ppb, i.e., below the proposed "Threshold of Regulation" (Section IV).
Although studies have shown migration of certain adjuvants into dry foods (e.g., low molecular weight adjuvants in contact with porous or powdered foods), at the present time no migration testing is required.
Polyethylene film containing a new antioxidant was subjected to migration testing with 10% ethanol. The test solutions were analyzed for antioxidant migration. Tests were carried out in separate cells each containing 100 in² of film. Four sets of test solutions (in triplicate) were analyzed at 2, 24, 96 and 240 hours. After each time interval, each solution from one set was evaporated to dryness, the residue dissolved in an appropriate organic solvent, and a known aliquot injected into a gas chromatograph.
Validation experiments are normally carried out with the set of test solutions exhibiting the highest level of additive migration, typically those contacting the food simulant for the longest time period (i.e., 240 hours). To validate the analytical methodology, an additional three sets (in triplicate) using 10% ethanol can be run for 240 hours. Each set of these test solutions can then be spiked with the additive at levels corresponding to one-half (1/2), one (1) and two (2) times, respectively, the average migration value determined for the regular (unspiked) 240 hour test solutions.
Instead, the petitioner decided to carry out one large test using enough film and solvent for twelve analyses (three at each time interval). After 240 hours, the test solution was divided into twelve (12) equal solutions (i.e., four sets of triplicate samples). One set (three solutions) was found to contain antioxidant at an average level of 0.00080 mg/in². This value corresponds to 0.080 ppm in food if it is assumed that 10 grams of food contacts 1 in² of film. Of the remaining nine solutions (three sets), three solutions were spiked at concentrations corresponding to 0.00040 mg/in², three were spiked at 0.00080 mg/in² and three were spiked at 0.00160 mg/in². Each solution was worked up and analyzed as described above. To illustrate the recovery calculations, the results for the set of three solutions spiked at one-half times the average migration (0.00040 mg/in²) are summarized in the following table:
| Measured Level in each Sample (mg/in²)(a) | Recovery (mg/in²)(b) | Percent Recovery (%)(c) |
|---|---|---|
| 0.00110 | 0.00030 | 75.0 |
| 0.00105 | 0.00025 | 62.5 |
| 0.00112 | 0.00032 | 85.0 |
| a- includes 0.00040 mg/in² spike. b- calculated by subtracting the average level (0.00080 mg/in²) from the measured levels in each sample. c- calculated by dividing the recovery by the spiking level 0.00040 mg/in²), and multiplying by 100 (see Section II.D.3.e). | ||
The average percent recovery is 74.2%, and the relative standard deviation is 15.2%. These are within the limits specified (see Section I.D.3.e) for a concentration in food of 0.080 ppm (percent recovery 60-110%, relative standard deviation not exceeding 20%). If the corresponding percentages for the other two spiking levels are also within these limits, the validation for the 10% ethanol migration studies would be acceptable. The actual validation procedure used will, of course, depend on the particular type of analysis.
This appendix summarizes data used for evaluating exposure to food packaging components. An example of how these data are used is also presented. A more complete discussion of the source of these data and their use in exposure calculations is presented in Section II.E.
| Package Category | CF(a) | Package Category | CF(a) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. General | |||
| Glass | 0.1 | Paper- Polymer coated | 0.2 |
| Metal- Polymer coated | 0.17 | Paper- Uncoated | 0.1 |
| Metal- Uncoated | 0.03 | Polymer | 0.4 |
| B. Polymer | |||
| Polyolefins(b) | 0.33 | PVC | 0.1 |
| Acrylics, phenolics, etc. | 0.15 | All Others(c) | 0.05 |
| Polystyrene | 0.1 | ||
|
a- Except for metal- polymer coated, polyolefins, acrylics, and
phenolics, these CFs have been rounded to one significant
figure from those reported in the 1988 Recommendations. b- The CF for polyolefins is currently subdivided as follows: LDPE 0.18; HDPE, 0.13; PP, 0.02. If polyolefin coverage only involves PP, a minimum CF of 0.05 is used. c- As discussed in the text, a minimum CF of 0.05 will be used initially for all exposure estimates. | |||
| Package Category | Food-Type Distribution (fT) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aqueous(a) | Acidic(a) | Alcoholic | Fatty | |
| A. General | ||||
| Glass | 0.08 | 0.36 | 0.47 | 0.09 |
| Metal- Polymer coated | 0.16 | 0.35 | 0.40 | 0.09 |
| Metal- Uncoated | 0.54 | 0.25 | .01b | 0.20 |
| Paper- Polymer coated | 0.55 | 0.04 | 0.01b | 0.40 |
| Paper- Uncoated | 0.57 | 0.01b | 0.01b | 0.41 |
| Polymer | 0.49 | 0.16 | 0.01b | 0.34 |
| B. Polymer | ||||
| Polyolefins, polystyrene | 0.67 | 0.01b | 0.01b | 0.31 |
| Acrylics, phenolics, etc. | 0.17 | 0.40 | 0.31 | 0.12 |
| PVC | 0.01b | 0.23 | 0.27 | 0.49 |
| Acrylonitrile, ionomers, PVDC | 0.01b | 0.01b | 0.01b | 0.97 |
| Polycarbonates | 0.97 | 0.01b | 0.01b | 0.01b |
| Polyesters | 0.01b | 0.97 | 0.01b | 0.01b |
| EVA | 0.30 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.14 |
| Wax | 0.47 | 0.01b | 0.01b | 0.51 |
| Cellophane | 0.05 | 0.01b | 0.01b | 0.93 |
|
a- For 10% ethanol as the food simulant for
aqueous and acidic foods, the food-type
distribution factors should be summed. b- 1% or less | ||||
The following hypothetical examples are intended to illustrate the calculation of the concentration of an indirect additive in the daily diet (CF x <M>, i.e., the fraction of food in the diet contacting the packaging material times the average concentration of the additive in the food contacted) and its estimated daily intake (EDI).
The petitioner is seeking coverage for use of a new antioxidant at a maximum level of 0.25% w/w in polyolefins contacting food at or below room temperature (Sections 1.E-G, Appendix II). Migration values from LDPE reported to FDA for the three food simulating solvents are given below:
| Solvent (i) | Mi (ppm) |
|---|---|
| 10% aqueous ethanol | 0.060 |
| 50% aqueous ethanol | 0.092 |
| Miglyol 812TM | 7.7 |
The petitioner used a solvent volume to exposed surface area ratio of 10 mL/in². Therefore, solution concentrations are essentially equivalent to food concentrations (under the assumption that 10 g food contacts 1 in² of surface area). The CF and food-type distribution values (fT) for polyolefins are given in Tables I and II, respectively. The <M> for the antioxidant would be calculated as follows:
<M> = (faqueous+facidic)(M10% Ethanol) +falcohol(M50% Ethanol)+ ffatty(MMiglyol 812TM)
= 0.68(0.060 ppm)+0.01(0.092 ppm)+0.31(7.7 ppm)
= 2.4 ppm
The concentration of the antioxidant in the daily diet resulting from the proposed use would be:
CF x <M> = 0.33 x 2.4 ppm
= 0.80 ppm or 0.80 mg/kg
If there were no other regulated or proposed uses, then the EDI would be calculated using the above value:
EDI = 3 kg food/person/day x 0.80 mg antioxidant/kg food
= 2.4 mg/person/day
In a subsequent petition, the company sought additional coverage for the same antioxidant in polycarbonate and polystyrene resins. Each polymer would contact food at or below room temperature (Sections 1.E-G, Appendix II). Migration levels are given below:
| Solvent | Polycarbonate | Polystyrene | Impact Polystyrene |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10% aq. Ethanol | 0.020 ppm | 0.020 ppm | 0.020 ppm |
| 50% aq. Ethanol | 0.025 ppm | 0.035 ppm | 0.22 ppm |
| Miglyol 812TM | 0.033 ppm | 0.15 ppm | 6.2 ppm |
The concentration of the antioxidant in the daily diet resulting from each of the proposed uses is calculated below. For polystyrene, the higher migration levels for impact polystyrene are used in the calculation.
CF x <M> = 0.05(0.98(0.020 ppm)+0.01(0.025 ppm)+0.01(0.033 ppm))
= 0.001 ppm or 0.001 mg/kg
CF x <M> = 0.1(0.68(0.020 ppm)+0.01(0.22 ppm)+0.31(6.2 ppm))
= 0.19 ppm or 0.19 mg/kg
The total concentration of the antioxidant in the daily diet resulting from the additional uses in polycarbonate and polystyrene given in this petition is approximately 0.19 mg/kg.
Their contribution to the EDI is:
EDI = 3 kg food/person/day x 0.19 mg antioxidant/kg g food
= 0.57 mg/person/day
The cumulative exposure from the previously regulated use (Example 1, 2.4 mg/person/day) and the additional proposed uses would be 3.0 mg/person/day.
The following is a list of references that contain descriptions, photos, or drawings of migration cells for conducting migration testing.
Conventional Applications
Figge, K. and Koch, J., 1973, Effect of Some Variables on the Migration of Additives from Plastics into Edible Fats. Food Cosmet. Toxicol., 11, 975-988. The cell used was a single-sided cell in contact with food oil at 80°C.
Till, D.E., Ehntholt, D. J., Reid, R. C., Schwartz, P. S., Sidman, K. R., Schwope, A. D., and Whelan, R. H., 1982, Migration of BHT Antioxidant from High Density Polyethylene to Foods and Food Simulants. IEC Product Research and Development, 21, 106-113. The cells used were glass, single-sided and double-sided (immersion) cells, with water, 3% acetic acid, 95% ethanol, and oil at 40°C.
Snyder, R.C. and Breder, C.V., 1985, New FDA Migration Cell used to Study Migration of Styrene from Polystyrene into Various Solvents. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., 68 (4), 770-775. The cell used was a double-sided (immersion) glass cell with water, 3% acetic acid, 95% ethanol, and oil at 40°C and 50% aqueous ethanol at 70°C.
Goydan, R., Schwope, A. D., Reid, R. C., and Cramer, G., 1990, High Temperature Migration of Antioxidants from Polyolefins. Food Add. and Contam., 7 (3), 323-337. The cell used was a double-sided (immersion), stainless steel cell, with water, 95% ethanol, and oil at 130°C.
Arthur D. Little, Inc., August 1990, High Temperature Migration of Indirect Food Additives to Foods. FDA Contract 223-89-2202. The cell used was a single-sided glass cell with water, food oil, and food at 135°C.
A single-sided migration cell, known as the Dow cell, has been used with food oil at 175°C. The cell is available from: Kayeness, Inc., 115 Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 101, P.O. Box 709, Morgantown, PA 19543.
Microwave Applications
Begley, T. and Hollifield, H., 1991, Application of a Polytetrafluoroethylene Single-Sided Migration Cell for Measuring Migration through Microwave Susceptor Films. ACS Symposium Series 473, Food Packaging Interactions II, Ch. 5. The cell was used with food oil at temperatures up to 240°C.
ASTM 1991 F1349-91, Standard Test Method for Nonvolatile Ultraviolet (UV) Absorbing Extractables from Microwave Susceptors. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Rijk, R. and De Kruijf, N., 1993, Migration Testing with Olive Oil in a Microwave Oven. Food Add. and Contam., 10 (6), 631-645.
June, 1995
Return to Recommendations for
Chemistry Data for Indirect Food Additive Petitions
Go to the footnotes for this document
The latest version of
this guidance issued on April 10, 2002.
This document was issued in June 1995.
For more recent information on Guidance and Reference Documents for
Petitions and Notifications
see
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/opa-guid.html
Hypertext updated by -->dms/hrw 2004-JAN-06