Yam, Kit L. (ed.). The Wiley encyclopedia of packaging technology

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

data generated by the packaging sensors, the IP system

can direct the distribution/transportation network on

proper operation sequence of product handling. In-time

correction actions, continuous monitoring of product en-

vironment/quality, and record keeping are the main func-

tionalities of the HACCP that can be realized within the

intelligent packaging conceptual framework. Established

critical limits can be stored in product labels. If progres-

sive scan of sensors’ data indicates the difference between

established critical limits and current food product proper-

ties, then corrective actions will be performed. Intelligent

packaging will be able to participate in these actions

providing timely and sufﬁcient information necessary for

decision making.

An advanced food safety management system based on

intelligent packaging will be able to correctly (a) identify

potential hazards; (b) identify hazards which must be

controlled; (c) conduct a biohazard analysis; (d) recom-

mend controls, critical limits, and procedures for monitor-

ing and veriﬁcation; and (e) recommend appropriate

corrective actions when a deviation occurs. This inte-

grated food safety system combines data from multiple

sensors (from different packages and/or products) and

relates information about food environment and process

conditions. Intelligent packaging is a unique entity that

creates a dynamic link among the food product, environ-

ment, safety management system, and business opera-

tions. Its universality is determined by integration of

information and data ﬂows in one system.

APPLICATIONS OF BIOSENSORS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND

FOOD PACKAGING

The need for fast, online, and accurate sensing, e.g., in situ

analysis of pollutants in crops and soils, detection and

identiﬁcation of infectious diseases in crops and livestock,

online measurements of important food processing para-

meters (90), monitoring animal fertility, and screening

therapeutic drugs in veterinary testing are well described

in another work (91).

Sensors for Pathogens Detection

The broad spectrum of foodborne infections keeps chan-

ging dramatically over time, as well-known pathogens

have been controlled or eliminated, and the new ones

have emerged. The burden of foodborne diseases remains

substantial: One in four Americans is estimated to have a

signiﬁcant foodborne illness each year. Most of these

illnesses are not caused by known pathogens, so more of

them remain to be discovered. Among the known food-

borne pathogens, the recently identiﬁed predominate,

suggesting that as more and more is learned about

pathogens, they would come under control. In addition

to the emergence or recognition of new pathogens, other

trends include global pandemics of some foodborne patho-

gens, the emergence of antimicrobial resistance, the

identiﬁcation of pathogens that are highly opportunistic

and affect only the most high-risk subpopulations, and

the increasing identiﬁcation of large and dispersed

outbreaks. New pathogens can emerge because of chan-

ging ecology or technology that connects potential patho-

gen with the food chain. They also can emerge by

transferring the mobile virulence factors, often through

bacteriophage (92).

Over the past decade, many improvements have been

observed in both conventional and modern methods of

pathogenic bacteria detection in foods (26). Modiﬁcation

and automation of conventional methods in food micro-

biology involve sample preparation, plating techniques,

counting, and identiﬁcation test kits. Adenosine tripho-

sphate (ATP) bioluminescence techniques are increasingly

used for measuring the efﬁcacy of surfaces and utensils

cleaning. Cell counting methods, including ﬂow cytometry,

and the direct epiﬂuorescent ﬁlter technique are suitable

for rapid detection of contaminating micro-organisms,

especially in ﬂuids. Automated systems based on impe-

dance spectroscopy can screen high numbers of samples

and make total bacterial counts within 1 day. Immunoas-

says in various formats make a rapid detection of as many

pathogens as possible. Recently, there have been impor-

tant developments in the nucleic acid-based assays and

their application for the detection and subtyping of food-

borne pathogens. The sensitivity of these methods has

been signiﬁcantly increased by employing the polymerase

chain reaction and other ampliﬁcation techniques.

Alternative and rapid methods must meet several require-

ments concerning accuracy, validation, speed, automation,

sample matrix, and so on. Both conventional and rapid

methods are used in the frame of biohazard analysis

critical control point programs. Additional improvements

especially in immunoassays and genetic methods can be

expected, including applications of biosensors and DNA

chip technology (93).

In recent work by Bokken et al. (94), a surface plasmon

resonance biosensor was used to detect Salmonella patho-

gen through antibodies reacting with Salmonella group A,

B, D, and E (Kauffmann-White typing). In the assay

designed, anti-Salmonella antibodies immobilized onto

the biosensor surface were allowed to bind injected bac-

teria, followed by a pulse with soluble anti- Salmonella

immunoglobulins to intensify the signal. No signiﬁcant

interference was found for mixtures of 30 non-Salmonella

serovars at 109 CFU mL

1

. A total of 53 Salmonella

serovars were successfully detected at 107 CFU mL

1

except those from groups C, G, L, and P, as expected.

Another sensor technology recently developed uses a

micro-electrophoretic system (mFFE) that separates and

concentrates the analyte in question by several electro-

phoretic methods: preparative zone, interval zone, isota-

chophoresis, or isoelectric focusing. The mFFE system can

be designed as a plain glass substrate 1.5 mm thick, and a

cross-linked polydimethyl-siloxane (PDMS) top layer with

micromachined sample channels. The central separation

chamber (12 4 0.15 mm) is connected to 34 inlet chan-

nels for sample injection, and 36 outlet channels for

sample collection. The detector unit can be based on

several principles. In the case of Listeria, the detector

unit may be a well-known ATP luminescence detector. For

other analytes, the SPR detection system may be used

with immobilized bio-speciﬁc layer, e.g., antibodies (95).

128 BIOSENSOR TECHNOLOGY FOR FOOD PACKAGING APPLICATIONS

New ion-channel biosensor based on supported bilayer

lipid membrane for direct and fast detection of Campylo-

bacter species has been reported (96). The sensing element

was composed of a stainless-steel working electrode, cov-

ered with an artiﬁcial bilayer lipid membrane (BLM).

Antibodies to bacteria embedded into the BLM are used

as channel-forming proteins. The biosensor has a strong

signal ampliﬁcation effect, which is deﬁned as the total

number of ions transported across the BLM. The biosensor

has demonstrated a good sensitivity and selectivity to

Campylobacter species.

A novel assay system for the detection of E. coli

O157:H7 has been recently developed. The detection is

based on the immunomagnetic separation of the target

pathogen from a sample and absorbance measurements of

p-nitrophenol at 400 nm from p-nitrophenyl phosphate

hydrolysis by alkaline phosphatase (EC 3.1.3.1) on the

‘‘sandwich’’ structure complexes (antibodies coated onto

micromagnetic beads – E. coli O157:H7-antibodies conju-

gated with the enzyme) formed on the microbead surface

(97). The selectivity of the system has been examined, and

no interference from other pathogens including Salmo-

nella typhimurium, Campylobacter jejuni, and Listeria

monocytogenes was observed. The sensor’s working range

is from 3.2 102 to 3.2 104 CFU/mL, with the relative

standard deviation of 2.5–9.9%. The total detection time is

less than 2 h.

An improved antibody-coated sensor system based on

quartz crystal microbalance analysis of Salmonella spp.

has been developed using thiolated antibody immobiliza-

tion onto the gold electrode of the piezoelectric quartz

crystal surface (98). The best results in sensitivity and

stability were obtained with the thin layer of a thiol-

cleavable, hetero-bifunctional cross-linker. The long

bridge of this reagent can function as a spacer, facilitating

antibody-Salmonella interaction on the gold electrode.

The sensor’s response was detected for the microbial

suspension concentrations that ranged from 10

1.8 10

cfu/mL.

A label-free immunosensor for the detection of patho-

genic bacteria using screen-printed gold electrodes

(SPGEs) and a potassium hexacyanoferrate (II) redox

probe has been reported by Susmel et al. (99). Gold

electrodes were produced using screen printing, and the

gold surfaces were modiﬁed by a thiol-based self-as-

sembled monolayer (SAM) to facilitate antibody immobi-

lization. In the presence of analyte, a change in the

apparent diffusion coefﬁcient of the redox probe was

observed, that can be attributed to impedance of the

diffusion of redox electrons to the electrode surface caused

by the formation of the antibody–bacteria immunocom-

plexes. No change in the diffusion coefﬁcient was observed

when a nonspeciﬁc antibody [mouse immunoglobuline

(IgG)] was immobilized and antigen added. The system

has been demonstrated to work with Listeria monocyto-

genes and Bacillus cereus.

Sensors to Monitor Food Packaging and Shelf Life

In recent work by Yano et al. (100), a cell-based biosensor

has been used to control meat freshness. Samples of fresh

meat stored at 51C were periodically removed from storage

and washed with water for periods of up to 2 weeks. The

water was then charged into a ﬂow-injection analysis

(FIA) system combined to the microbial sensor using yeast

(Trichosporon cutaneum) as a sensitive element. This

sensor has been speciﬁcally developed in this work for

monitoring the freshness of meat. Relationships among

the sensor signals obtained by the FIA system, the

amounts of polyamines and amino acids produced from

the meat, and the number of bacteria that had been

multiplying in the meat during the aging process were

investigated. The sensor response has been found to

correspond to the increase in amino acid levels and viable

counts in the meat during the ﬁrst stage of aging. This is

because amino acids produced initially by enzymes in the

meat serve as a nutrition source for septic bacteria, and as

a result, the amount of bacterial cells increases with

increasing level of amino acids.

Foreign Body Detection. The presence of foreign bodies

in processed food is of major concern to the producers.

Mechanical separation techniques based on size and

weight of different components have been used for many

years to help ﬁnding foreign bodies in powdered and

ﬂowing products. Optical inspection techniques were

able to extend the range of detectable foreign objects in

free-ﬂowing materials with regard to their shape and

color. Metal detectors enabled metallic particles inside

the product to be found. With recent achievements in

sensor technologies advanced foreign body detection sys-

tems are becoming available (101).

The working principle and design of an ultrasonic

transducer system with auto-alignment mechanism was

ﬁrst described by Zhao et al. (102). The proposed system

has been used for detecting foreign bodies in beverage

containers. Variations in reﬂection amplitude were ana-

lyzed as a function of the ultrasound beam incident angle

to the beverage container surface. It has been concluded

that a quadratic relationship exists between the strength

of the reﬂected signal and the incident angle. Further-

more, a calculation for effective angular increment for

searching the normal to a curved surface was introduced.

Experiments conducted using the sensor prototype have

demonstrated that foreign bodies are detectable in con-

tainers of various juices. This sensor design is also applic-

able to the non destructive inspection of canned food

products for the foreign bodies presence.

Biosensors for Food Quality/Additives Control

Existing food packaging and packaging equipment may

include microprocessors that are activated by electronic or

biological sensors. Recent advances in electronic vision

and computer technology have opened the research hor-

izons for greater accuracy in process control, product

sorting, and operation. The development of new sensors

and instruments in this area is focused on measuring/

evaluating the product internal and external quality and

ﬂavor (91).

The aim of food additives control and measurement is

to develop, extend, and enhance the instrumental

BIOSENSOR TECHNOLOGY FOR FOOD PACKAGING APPLICATIONS 129

methods to improve consumer-perceived macroscopic

quality factors. Several types of electronic sensors for

quality assessment, grading, and sorting of food products

have been investigated and described in literature.

A near infrared sensing technique can rapidly deter-

mine the sugar content of intact peaches. This technology

has been extended to many other commodities, including

testing avocados for oil content, and kiwifruits for starch

and sugar content. The NMR method, for example, can be

used for nondestructive detection and evaluation of inter-

nal product quality factors, such as the existence of

bruises, dry regions or worm damage, stage of maturity,

oil content, sugar content, tissue breakdown, and the

presence of voids, seeds, and pits.

The machine vision for postharvest product sorting and

grading is being investigated for several commodities.

Recent research has included the development of a high-

speed prune defect sorter, color and defect detector for

fresh-market stone fruits, raisin grading, and ﬂower grad-

ing machines. In this technology, electronic cameras are

used for monitoring the product in various packing-line

handling situations. Quality features are computed from

digitized images, and the control system allows for pro-

duct grading and sorting. The NIR/VIS region has been

used in several different sensors. Thus, Crochon (103)

has presented the design of a glove-shaped apparatus

equipped with various miniaturized sensors providing

information on fruit quality parameters, i.e., sugar con-

tent, maturity, mechanical properties (ﬁrmness and stiff-

ness), and internal color. The sugar content and internal

color were measured by a miniaturized spectrometer

(NIR/VIS) coupled with optical ﬁbers. A sound sensor

evaluated the mechanical properties, and the size was

measured by a potentiometer placed at the hand aperture.

These sensors were coupled to a microcomputer that

delivered processed information about the fruit overall

quality grade, based on previously established variety and

quality classes. The weight of the glove prototype was

400 g, and the electronic devices were held in a rucksack

weighing 1000 g. The glove may be used before harvest to

control the growth and to estimate the harvest date, at

harvest to select fruits with speciﬁc qualities, or after

harvest to control and measure the quality of the crop.

In Baendemaeker (104), chlorophyll ﬂuorescence and

reﬂectance in the NIR/VIS spectrum has been used for the

mechanical quality factors assessment of green beans,

broccoli, and carrots. Biosensors have been used for

evaluation the effects of pasteurization on the vegetables

quality by measuring the remaining enzymatic activity.

Using MIR spectroscopy, as well as Raman scattering for

online quality assessment in bakeries, breweries, dairies,

and fruit farms has been reported (105).

Another method working in the NIR/VIS range, called

time-resolved diffuse reﬂectance spectroscopy (TDRS) has

been used to measure the internal quality of fruits and

vegetables (106). The group has developed statistical

models for the analysis of relationships between the

TDRS signals and the ﬁrmness, sugar, and acid content

of kiwifruit, tomato, apple, peach, nectarine, and melon.

They have also developed the classiﬁcation models to sort

apples, peaches, kiwifruits and tomatoes into quality

classes. Using a pulsed laser diode (70–200 ps/pulse), the

single measurement time was about 100 ms. The absorp-

tion coefﬁcient was related to the tissue constituents,

whereas the scattering coefﬁcient was related to the

ﬁrmness and ﬁber content. A real-time sensors in the

NIR/VIS range can be also used to measure product

quality traits, such as maturity, ﬂavor, or internal diseases

and defects in potatoes, apples, and peaches (107).

Among the optical sensor systems developed and de-

monstrated in industrial environments are machine or

artiﬁcial vision sensors. The system for olives sorting,

using a traditional vision camera and three CCD color

sensors for the shape, size, and color evaluation has been

described (108). The new algorithm allowed the olives to

be sorted into four classes with the speed of 132 olives/sec,

and 6 images/sec.

The molecular imprinted polymers (MIP) technology is

the new technology used for the development of biosensor

substrates (109). The polymers are produced by imprint-

ing the recognition sites of predetermined speciﬁcity into

cross-linked synthetic polymers. The polymer is conse-

quently able to selectively rebind the imprinted molecule

(110). These sensor materials are called ‘‘artiﬁcial

antibodies’’ (111). The MIP technology has particular

strengths for small molecular analytes up to about 400

Dalton; it may be used to bind and detect many chemicals

polluting food products, e.g., pesticides and veterinary

drugs in meat and dairy products.

This technology has been successfully employed to

develop and optimize plug-in detection cartridge support-

ing the molecularly imprinted polymer assay (112) for

detection of different b-lactam antibiotics in milk. The

sensor consists of a microfabricated column accommodat-

ing an optical detection window. Molecular imprinted

polymers in the form of beads were used as packing

materials and recognition elements; analyte binding was

detected by the ﬂuorescence. The same MIP technology

has been used in several other studies, the overall objec-

tive of which was to develop novel and robust MIP-based

technology that can be used in sensors for real-time

measurements of food product contaminants (113–115).

The results of the study indicate that MIP can be used to

prepare both selective and general recognition matrices

for either individual analytes or groups of compounds ,

with very good detection reproducibility and stability

(115). SPR based sensor shows similar results for dairy

product quality applications (116). The MIP developed for

clenbuterol has been successfully applied in preparing a

novel sensor comprising MIP as the selective element and

amperometric detector as the transducer (109). The re-

sponses

from several sensors

were determined to have a

variability of 10%. The feasibility for an oxacillin MIP-

based sensor was also demonstrated.

At-line immunological sensors using amperometric de-

tection of the resulting antibody-antigen complexes were

described (117). The target quality factor assessed in this

project was the presence of toxic chlorophenolic fungicides

and their chloroanisole breakdown products in potable

water, wine, and fruit juices. The electrochemical immu-

nosensor uses monoclonal antibody preparations. The

investigations of the effects of liquid food matrices on

130 BIOSENSOR TECHNOLOGY FOR FOOD PACKAGING APPLICATIONS

electrochemical transduction processes indicated that

horseradish peroxidase is a suitable label for interrogation

of the analyte–antibody immune complex, using ampero-

metry and in-house fabricated screen-printed electrodes.

The detection of hormonal substances for growth promo-

tion, which is also based on immuno-sensors, has been

recently reported by Guilbault (118). The sensor has to be

used prior to slaughtering, and it can detect and measure

testosterone, methyltestosterone, 19-nortestosterone, sta-

nozolol, and trenbolone levels in biological ﬂuids (blood).

Analysis time achieved was about 30 min, compared with

24–36 h for tests used in laboratories today.

Biosensors for Sensory Evaluation of Food Products

‘‘Electronic noses’’ (119, 120) and ‘‘electronic tongues’’

(121) are the common names of devices responding to

the ﬂavor/odor (volatiles) or taste (solubles) of a product

using an array of simple and nonspeciﬁc sensors and the

pattern-recognition software system (122). Historically,

the sensors used were advanced mass spectrometers or

gas/liquid chromatographs that produce unique ﬁnger-

print of the analyte. Nowadays, these sensors have been

substituted by arrays of simple electric and/or frequency

sensors, or sensors measuring changes in voltage or

frequency as a response to the food contact.

Electronic noses and tongues are used in food produc-

tion and quality control of different products, typically for

laboratory tests or at-line control but may be further

developed for in-line operation in the future. Testing times

are often in the range of a few minutes, and the largest

drawback of these devices is the lack of sensor stability.

Examples of claimed successful applications include (123)

the following:

. Discrimination between single volatile compounds

. Tracking of aroma evolution of ice-stored ﬁsh or meat

. Tracking of the evolution of cheese aroma during

aging

. Classiﬁcation of wines

. Determination of boar odor (androsterone) in pork fat

. Classiﬁcation of peaches and other fruits

. Differentiation of spices by the area

. General raw materials control

. Testing of coffee, soft drinks, and whiskey

. Control of beer quality and faults

Essentially, each odor or taste leaves a characteristic

pattern or ﬁngerprint on the sensor array, and an artiﬁcial

neural network is trained to distinguish and recognize

these patterns (see Pattern recognition is gained by

building a library of ﬂavors from known ﬂavor mixtures

given to the network. Thus, e-noses and tongues are the

devices intended to simulate human sensory response to a

speciﬁc ﬂavor, sourness, sweetness, saltiness, bitterness,

and so on (123, 124).

The potentiometric chemical sensors such as ion selec-

tive sensors are most often used in the electronic noses.

Considerable interest exists in the development of cheap,

portable electronic noses to detect, online or at-line, the

odor quality of many foods. For instance, olive oil produ-

cers would tremendously beneﬁt from the possibility of

detecting oil quality and shelf-life, and classifying the oils

by their quality (e.g., extra virgin olive oil). This was the

objective of a project in course of which scientists from

olive producing countries have developed electronic noses

especially for the olive production plants and tested them

with great success (125).

In Dutta et al. (126), different tea samples were used to

evaluate the applicability of electronic noses for sensory

studies. A metal oxide sensor-based electronic nose has

been used to analyze tea samples with different qualities,

namely, drier month, drier month again overﬁred, well

fermented normal ﬁred in oven, well fermented overﬁred

in oven, and under fermented normal ﬁred in oven.

Electronic tongues are also widely used to assess the

taste quality of various products. An electronic tongue

based on voltammetry measurements, and a multichannel

lipid membrane taste sensor based on potentiometry

were compared using two aqueous solutions: detergent

and tea (127). The electronic tongue consists of four

electrodes made of different metals, a reference electrode,

and a counter electrode. The measurement principle is

based on pulse voltammetry technique in which an electric

current is measured during the amplitude change of the

applied potential. The taste sensor consists of eight differ-

ent lipid/polymer membranes. The voltage difference be-

tween the electrodes and an Ag/AgCl reference electrode is

measured when the current is close to zero. The multi-

channel electrochemical (potntiometric) sensors have de-

monstrated better sensitivity, faster dynamic response,

but lower reproducibility of the results.

In study performed by Legin et al. (128) the electronic

tongue based on a sensor array comprising 23 potentio-

metric cross-sensitive chemical detectors, and pattern

recognition and multivariate calibration data processing

tools has been applied to the analysis of Italian red wines.

Biosensors and Biosecurity

Food industry is one of the major potential targets for

bioterrorism. The most damage can be attained through

(a) ﬁnal product contamination using either chemical or

biological agents with an intent to kill or cause illness

among consumers; (b) disruption of food distribution

systems; and (c) damaging

the food producing cycle by

introducing devastating crop pathogens or exotic animal

diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease, which could

severely impact the food system.

Efforts to develop recognizing preparedness and re-

sponse strategies for protecting the nation’s food supply

pose substantial challenges for many reasons, including

the following (129–131):

. The food system encompasses many different

industries.

. A great variety of biological and chemical agents

could potentially contaminate the food supply, and

the possible scenarios for deliberate contamination

are essentially limitless.

BIOSENSOR TECHNOLOGY FOR FOOD PACKAGING APPLICATIONS 131

. The public health system is complex, and responsi-

bilities for foodborne diseases prevention and control

may overlap, or much worse, fall in the ‘‘gray area’’

between authorities of different agencies.

To achieve an adequate food supply chain and agricul-

tural security, the improvement is needed in the activities

on bioterrorism prevention, detection, and response. In

addition, appropriate areas for applied research must be

identiﬁed as follows:

. Recognition of a foodborne bioterrorism attack. This

may be delayed because of background levels of

foodborne diseases and potential wide distribution

of the contaminated product or ingredient.

. Rapid diagnostic methods for identifying food-con-

taminating agents. They are not yet consistently

available, and coordinated laboratory systems for

pathogens detection are not fully operational.

. Rapid trace-back procedures for potentially contami-

nated products.

Biosensors and HACCP

Timely detection of unsafe foods is the main issue that the

food-safety system should address, providing guidance for

the design and integration of such system into the existing

food safety management structures, i.e., HACCP. The

preventive detection of the biohazard can be accomplished

by direct measurements with the biosensors, or indirect

detection by the process/environment monitoring and

control. Such detection is based on the data from physical

and chemical sensors, which are reliable and allow scale-

down (meaning the possibility of easy integration into the

existing information carriers). The HACCP system for

food-safety management is designed to identify health

hazards and to establish strategies to prevent, eliminate,

or reduce their occurrence. An important purpose of

corrective actions is to prevent potentially hazardous

foods from reaching consumers. Where there is a deviation

from the established critical limits, corrective actions are

necessary. Therefore, corrective actions should include the

following elements: (a) determine the disposition of non-

compliant product, (b) determine and correct the cause of

noncompliance, and (c) record the corrective actions that

have been taken.

Currently, the use of HACCP is voluntary, but it is

widely used in the food processing industry as a successful

component of comprehensive food safety program. HACCP

is a food safety management system in which food safety is

addressed through the analysis and control of biological,

chemical, and physical hazards from raw material produc-

tion, procurement, and handling, to manufacturing, dis-

tribution, and consumption of the ﬁnal product. The terms

‘‘HACCP’’ and ‘‘food safety’’ are used interchangeably in

the food industry, implying that HACCP may be the only

approach to achieving food safety. HACCP is designed for

use in all segments of the food industry from growing,

harvesting, processing, distributing, and merchandising,

to preparing food for consumption (132).

However, there is a need for enhancement and integra-

tion of existing HACCP system into the total quality

management system and food safety/biosecurity manage-

ment on higher levels. This system currently includes the

mechanisms to decrease the potential for contamination of

or damage to the food supply from farm to table (i.e.,

prevention activities); systems to ensure early detection of

deliberate food contamination at any point along the

production pathway, including surveillance, rapid labora-

tory diagnostic and communication systems; and systems

to ensure a rapid and thorough response if a bacterial

contaminant is detected, including protection of workers

and consumers (i.e., emergency response, control, trace-

back, and mitigation activities).

The ultimate goal is the integration of sensors and

sensor networks into the food-safety management struc-

ture. Such integration will allow to perform online and

‘‘on-shelf’’ control of the internal and/or external food

product quality and package environment.

The integrated sensor information system combines

data from multiple sensors (from different packages and/

or products) and the information about environmental and

process conditions to achieve highly speciﬁc information

that cannot be obtained by using a single, independent

microbiological assay. The emergence of new information

carriers and advanced processing methods will make the

food-safety management system increasingly dependable.

A successful biohazard detection system should be able to

(a) identify potential hazards; (b) identify hazards, which

must be currently controlled; (c) conduct hazard analysis;

(d) recommend control factors, critical limits, and proce-

dures for hazard monitoring and veriﬁcation; and (e)

recommend appropriate corrective actions if a deviation

occurs.

Based on a comprehensive model for multisensor data

processing, developed by the U.S. Joint Directors of La-

boratories (JDL) Data Fusion Group on Department of

Defense (DoD) request (133), the integrated concept of

multiple sensors data processing has been developed for

the existing HACCP system of food safety monitoring and

bio-hazard prevention. This model is speciﬁcally adapted

to the HACCP workﬂow and uses the principle of informa-

tion

system cyclic interaction

with the environment. The

four major steps, including observation/ detection, hazard

recognition, decision making and corrective actions

strictly correspond to the seven HACCP principles. Inte-

gration of such system does not require the redesigning of

existing manufacturing and control processes.

The new integrated sensors can monitor the HACCP

control points with corresponding material packaging ﬂow

on a continuous basis or with predetermined monitoring

frequency. Statistically designed data collection or sam-

pling systems lend themselves to this purpose. Issues that

need to be addressed when considering implementation of

an integrated food safety monitoring system include

where the system would be established; how it would be

funded; how the data would be generated, analyzed,

summarized, and disseminated; and how ‘‘snap surveys’’

could be used as a part of the system.

Microbiological tests are rarely effective for food safety

monitoring because of their time-consuming properties

132 BIOSENSOR TECHNOLOGY FOR FOOD PACKAGING APPLICATIONS

and problems with assured detection of contaminants.

Physical and chemical measurements are preferred be-

cause they are rapid and usually more effective for the

control of microbiological hazards. For example, the safety

of pasteurized milk is based on the measurements of

heating time and temperature rather than on testing the

processed milk for the absence of surviving pathogens.

To address the issues of connectivity between biosensor

devices, the Connectivity Industry Consortium (CIC) has

been formed to set up the standardized communication

platform for all devices (134). The CIC has identiﬁed ﬁve

requirements: bidirectionality, connection commonality,

commercial software interoperability, security, and quality

control and regulatory compliance (135). Under these

standards, new devices should seamlessly link into the

existing data management system without additional

expenses.

Traditionally, food quality monitoring units consist of a

sensor for the particular analyte, an electronic unit to

convert the response into a digital signal, and a cable to

communicate with the base station. Advances in technol-

ogy now enable sensors to be integrated with the base

station through wireless communication that frees sen-

sors from being physically attached to it. An interest in

such freestanding monitoring units is growing rapidly,

because they offer the potential for developing integrated

networks of sensing devices that can detect, diagnose, and

monitor various food safety problems. The merging of

computing with wireless communication systems and

sensors has led to an increased accessibility to the real-

time information in digital form. Because of achievements

in communications and connectivity, data from these

sensors can even now be easily accessed via personal

digital assistants, personal computers, mobile phones,

and networks. However, the communications network

that has assembled over the past decade and continues

to attract huge investments will fuel demands for more

sources of health-related information and data.

New technologies do not come into existence easily. It is

not just the matter of making conventional laboratory

instruments smaller or putting a sensor into the human

body. The new sensor devices and networks must satisfy

food industry needs by delivering new beneﬁts to users,

offering new ways of monitoring food product properties/

contaminations, developing tests that are cheaper, or

creating devices that have signiﬁcant advantages over

those already available.

It has been predicted that the trend in biodetection

systems development lies in the autonomous sensing

technology with the next-generation handheld, portable

sensing devices, ‘‘smart’’ sensing, and inline biodetection.

The only limitation to the fast progress in this area is the

fact that the sensors — especially chemical and biological

ones — lag behind the electronics.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. M. H. Jansen-Vullers, C. A. van Dorp, and A. J. M. Beulens,

‘‘Managing Traceability Information In Manufacture,’’ In-

ternat. J. Informat. Managem. 23, 395–413 (2003).

2. T. Moe, ‘‘Perspectives on Traceability in Food Manufacture,’’

Trends Food Scie. Technol. 9, 211–214 (1998).

3. A. Fox, ‘‘Report of the ‘Bioterrorism Workshop’‘‘, Duke

University Thomas Center on April 2-4, 2002. J. Microbio-

logi. Methods 51, 247–254 (2002).

4. D. Jung, J. Cuttino, P. Pancrazio, T. Manos, R. Custer, L.

Sathanoori, M. Coulombe, M. Czarnaski, D. Borkholder, G.

Kovacs, P. Bey, D. Stenger, and J. Hickman, ‘‘Cell-Based

Sensor Microelectrode Array Characterized by Imaging

XPS, SEM, Impedance Spectroscopy, and Cellular Record-

ings,’’ J. Vac. Sci. Tech. A 16, 1183 (1998).

5. S. Myler, S. D. Collyer, K. A. Bridge, and S. P. J. Higson,

‘‘Ultra-Thin-Polysiloxane-Film-Composite Membranes for

the Optimisation of Amperometric Oxidase Enzyme Elec-

trodes,’’ Biosens. Bioelectro. 17, 35–43 (2002).

6. W. Gopel, and P. Heiduschka, ‘‘Interface Analysis in Bio-

sensor Design,’’ Biosensors Bioelectron. 10, 853–883 (1995).

7. K. C. Gulla, M. D. Gouda, M. S. Thakur, and N. G. Karanth,

‘‘Reactivation of Immobilized Acetyl Cholinesterase in an

Amperometric Biosensor for Organophosphorus Pesticide,’’

Biochim. Biophys. Acta—Protein Structure Molec. Enzymol.

1597, 133–139.

8. E. Cummings, P. Mailley, S. Linquette-Mailley, B. Eggins,

E. McAdams, and S. McFadden, ‘‘Amperometric Carbon

Paste Biosensor Based on Plant Tissue for the Determina-

tion of Total Flavanol Content in Beers,’’ Analyst 123, 1975–

1980 (1998).

9. M. Albareda-Sirvent, A. Merkoci, and S. Alegret, ‘‘Thick-

Film Biosensors for Pesticides Produced by Screen-Printing

of Graphite-Epoxy Composite and Biocomposite Pastes,’’

Sens. Actuat. B: Chem. 79, 48–57 (2001).

10. C. Padeste, S. Kossek, and L. Tiefenauer, ‘‘Modular Ampero-

metric Immunosensor Devices,’’ 8th International Conference

on Solid State Sensors and Actuators and Eurosensors IX,

Digest of Technical Papers 2, 2 (1995).

11. C. Grogan, R. Raiteri, G. M. O’Connor, T. J. Glynn, V.

Cunningham, M. Kane, M. Charlton, and D. Leech, ‘‘Char-

acterisation of an Antibody Coated Microcantilever as a

Potential Immuno-Based Biosensor,’’ Biosensors and Bioelec-

tronics 17, 201–207 (2002).

12. P. M. Mehl, Y.-R. Chen, M. S. Kim, and D. E. Chan, ‘‘Devel-

opment of Hyperspectral Imaging Technique for the Detec-

tion of Apple Surface Defects and Contaminations,’’ J. Food

Engineer. 61, 67–81 (2004).

13. D. M. Jenkins, and M. J. Delwiche, ‘‘Adaptation of a Mano-

metric Biosensor to Measure Glucose and Lactose,’’ Biosens.

Bioelectro. 18, 101–107 (2003).

14. A.-C. Hellgren, M. Wallin, P. K. Weissenborn, P. J. McDonald,

P. M. Glover, and J. L. Keddie, ‘‘New Techniques for Deter-

mining the Extent of Crosslinking in Coatings,’’ Progress

Organ. Coatings 43, 85–98 (2001).

15. B. Cunningham, B. Lin, J. Qiu, P. Li, J. Pepper, and B. Hugh,

‘‘A Plastic Colorimetric Resonant Optical Biosensor for Multi-

parallel Detection of Label-Free Biochemical Interactions,’’

Sens. Actuat. B: Chem. 85, 219–226 (2002).

16. H. Gulce, Y. S. Aktas, A. Gulce, and A. Yildiz, ‘‘Polyvinylfer-

rocenium Immobilized Enzyme Electrode For Choline Analy-

sis,’’ Enzyme Microbial Technol. 32, 895–899 (2003).

17. M. Z. Abdullah, L. C. Guan, K. C. Lim, and A. A. Karim, ‘‘The

Applications of Computer Vision System and Tomographic

Radar Imaging for Assessing Physical Properties of Food,’’ J.

Food Engineer. 61,

125–135 (2004).

BIOSENSOR TECHNOLOGY FOR FOOD PACKAGING APPLICATIONS 133

18. N. J. B. McFarlane, R. D. Speller, C. R. Bull, and R. D. Tillett,

‘‘Detection of Bone Fragments in Chicken Meat using X-ray

Backscatter,’’ Biosyst. Engineer. 85, 185–199 (2003).

19. T. Brosnan, and D.-W. Sun, ‘‘Improving Quality Inspection of

Food Products by Computer Vision--A Review,’’ J. Food En-

ginee, 61, 3–16 (2004).

20. S. Kawamura, M. Natsuga, K. Takekura, and K. Itoh, ‘‘Devel-

opment of an Automatic Rice-Quality Inspection System,’’

Comput. Electron. Agricult. 40, 115–126 (2003).

21. V. Bellon-Maurel, O. Orliac, and P. Christen, ‘‘Sensors and

Measurements in Solid State Fermentation: A Review,’’

Process Biochem. 38, 881–896 (2003).

22. A. Rand, J. Ye, C. Brown, and S. Letcher, ‘‘Optical Biosensors

For Food Pathogen Detection,’’ Food Technol. 56, 32–39

(2002).

23. Electrochemiluminescence. www.liv.ac.uk./Electrochemilu-

minescence/home1.htm.

24. K. Hellnaes, ‘‘FOODSENSE, The Use of Optical Biosensors

for the Detection of Veterinary Drug Residues in Foods—A

Demonstration Project,’’ National Food Administration,

Chemistry Division III, 1998.

25. P. Patel, ‘‘Microsensor, Construction of Miniaturised Free

Flow Electrophoresis (mFFE) Incorporating Dedicated Sen-

sors for Real-Time Analysis of Food Contaminants,’’ Leather-

head Food International, 1999.

26. D. Ivnitski, H. Abdel, P. Atanasov, and E. Wilkins, ‘‘Biosen-

sors for Detection of Pathogenic Bacteria,’’ Biosens. Bioelec-

tron. 14, 599–624 (1999).

27. R. S. Sethi, and C. R. Lowe, Presented at the IEEE Colloqium

on Microsensors, 1990.

28. A. M. Gallardo Soto, S. A. Jaffari, and S. Bone, ‘‘Character-

isation and Optimisation of AC Conductimetric Biosensors,’’

Biosensors Bioelectron. 16, 23–29 (2001).

29. J. Bockris, and A. Reddy, Modern Electrochemistry, vol. 1.

Plenum Press, New York, 1998.

30. L. Alfonta, A. Bardea, O. Khersonsky, E. Katz, and I. Willner,

‘‘Chronopotentiometry and Faradaic Impedance Spectroscopy

as Signal Transduction Methods for the Biocatalytic Precipi-

tation of an Insoluble Product on Electrode Supports: Routes

for Enzyme Sensors, Immunosensors and DNA Sensors,’’

Biosens. Bioelectron. 16, 675–687 (2001).

31. E. Hopirtean, F. Mihalcioiu, E. Forizs, and F. Kormos, ‘‘Im-

pedance Spectroscopy on Non-Conventional Conductivity

Cells,’’ Sensors Actuat. B: Chem. 19, 389–391 (1994).

32. D. Allsopp, K. Milner, A. Brown, and W. Betts, ‘‘Impedance

Technique for Measuring Dielectrophoretic Collection of Mi-

crobiological Particles,’’ J. Phys. D 32, 1066–1074 (1999).

33. W. Arnold, Presented at the Conference on Electrical Insula-

tion and Dielectric Phenomena, Piscataway, NJ, 2001.

34. C. M. Braun, A. Fujishima, and K. Honda, ‘‘Time Domain

Spectroscopy: An Application to Electrochemistry,’’ J. Phys. E

19, 374–377 (1986).

35. J. Gutierrez, L. Ares, M. C. Horillo, I. Sayago, J. Agapito, and

L. Lopez, ‘‘Use of Complex Impedance Spectroscopy in Che-

mical Sensor Characterization,’’ Sensors Actuat. B: Chemi. 4,

359–363 (1991).

36. E. J. Kim, Y. Yanagida, T. Haruyama, E. Kobatake, and M.

Aizawa, ‘‘Immunosensing System for [Alpha]-Fetoprotein

Coupled with a Disposable Amperometric Glucose Oxidase

Sensor,’’ Sensors Actuat B: Chemi. 79, 87–91 (2001).

37. I. Novotny, V. Breternitz, R. Ivanic, C. Knedlik, V. Tvarozek,

L. Spiess, and V. Rehacek, Presented at the 44rd

International Scientiﬁc Colloquium Technical University of

Ilmenau, September 20–23, 1999.

38. B. Prasad, and R. Lai, ‘‘A Capacitive Immunosensor Measure-

ment System with a Lock-In Ampliﬁer and Potentiostatic

Contro

l By Softw

are,’’ Measurement Sci. Technol. 10, 1097–

1104 (1999).

39. D. Satake, H. Ebi, N. Oku, K. Matsuda, H. Takao, M. Ashiki,

and M. Ishida, ‘‘A Sensor for Blood Cell Counter using MEMS

Technology,’’ Sensors Actuat. B: Chemi. 83, 77–81 (2002).

40. E. Souteyrand, J. R. Martin, and C. Martelet, ‘‘Direct Detec-

tion Of Biomolecules By Electrochemical Impedance Mea-

surements,’’ Sensors Actuat. B: Chem. 20, 63–69 (1994).

41. G. Nagy, E. Gyurcsanyi Robert, A. Cristalli, R. Neuman

Michael, and E. Lindner, ‘‘Screen-Printed Amperometric

Microcell for Proline Iminopeptidase Enzyme Activity Assay,’’

Biosens. Bioelectron. 15, 265–272 (2000).

42. J. Niu, and J. Y. Lee, ‘‘Bulk-Modiﬁed Amperometric Biosen-

sors for Hypoxanthine Based on Sol-Gel Technique,’’ Sensors

Actuat. B: Chemi. 62, 190–198 (2000).

43. K. Schugerl, ‘‘Progress in Monitoring, Modeling and Control

of Bioprocesses During the Last 20 Years,’’ J. Biotechnol. 85,

149–173 (2001).

44. A. R. Boyd, T. S. Gunasekera, P. V. Attﬁeld, K. Simic, S. F.

Vincent, and D. A. Veal, ‘‘A Flow-Cytometric Method for

Determination of Yeast Viability and Cell Number in a

Brewery,’’ FEMS Yeast Res. 3, 11–16 (2003).

45. L. Campanella, F. Cubadda, M. P. Sammartino, and A.

Saoncella, ‘‘An Algal Biosensor for the Monitoring of Water

Toxicity in Estuarine Environments,’’ Water Res. 35, 69–76

(2001).

46. S. Kroger, S. Piletsky, and A. P. F. Turner, ‘‘Biosensors For

Marine Pollution Research, Monitoring and Control,’’ Marine

Pollution Bull. 45, 24–34 (2002).

47. C. H. Zhai Junhui, and Y. Ruifu, ‘‘DNA Based Biosensors,’’

Biotechno. Adv. 15, 43–58 (1997).

48. A. Bard, and L. Faulkner, Electrochemical methods. John

Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980.

49. P. Leonard, S. Hearty, J. Brennan, L. Dunne, J. Quinn, T.

Chakraborty, and R. O’Kennedy, ‘‘Advances in Biosensors for

Detection of Pathogens in Food and Water,’’ Enzyme Microbial

Technol. 32, 3–13 (2003).

50. V. Rumenjak, I. Kruhak, and S. Milardovic, ‘‘A Simple and

Inexpensive Multichannel Potentiometric Blood Analyzer for

Single and Nonroutine Measurements of Electrolyte Concen-

trations,’’ Lab Robot. Automat. 10, 205–213.

51. M. Yuqing, G. Jianguo, and C. Jianrong, ‘‘Ion Sensitive Field

Effect Transducer-Based Biosensors,’’ Biotechno. Adva. 21,

527–534 (2001).

52. F. Abdelmalek, M. Shadaram, and H. Boushriha, ‘‘Ellipsome-

try Measurements and Impedance Spectroscopy on Lang-

muir-Blodgett Membranes on Si/SiO2 for Ion Sensitive

Sensor,’’ Sens. Actuat. B: Chem. 72, 208–213 (2001).

53. J. J. Pancrazio, J. P. Whelan, D. A. Borkholder, W. Ma, and D.

A. Stenger, ‘‘Development and Application of Cell-Based

Biosensors,’’ Annals Biomed. Engineer. 27, 697–711 (1999).

54. P. Connolly, G. Moores, W. Monaghan, J. Shen, S. Britland,

and P. Clark, ‘‘Microelectronic and Nanoelectronic Interfacing

echniques for Biologica

l Systems,’’ Sens. Actuat. B: Chem. 6,

113–121 (1992).

55. L. H. Hansen, and S. J. Sørensen, The Use of Whole-Cell

Biosensors to Detect and Quantify Compounds or Conditions

Affecting Biological Systems. Microbial Ecology, Springer-

Verlag New York, 2001.

134 BIOSENSOR TECHNOLOGY FOR FOOD PACKAGING APPLICATIONS

56. T. Haruyama, ‘‘Micro- and Nanobiotechnology for Biosensing

Cellular Responses,’’ Adv. Drug Del. Rev. 55, 393–401 (2003).

57. J. Suehiro, D. Noutomi, R. Hamada, and M. Hara, Presented

at the 36th IAS Annual Meeting, Piscataway, NJ, 2001.

58. Y. Huang, N. S. Sekhon, J. Borninski, N. Chen, and B.

Rubinsky, ‘‘Instantaneous, Quantitative Single-Cell Viability

Assessment by Electrical Evaluation of Cell Membrane In-

tegrity with Microfabricated Devices,’’ Sens. Actua. A: Physi.

105, 31–39 (2003).

59. W. M. Arnold, ‘‘Positioning, Levitation and Separation of

Biological Cells,’’ Electrostatics 63–68 (1999).

60. U. Evans, P. Colavita, M. Doescher, M. Schiza, and M. Myrick,

‘‘Construction and Characterization of a Nanowell Electrode

Array,’’ Nano Letters 2, 641–645 (2002).

61. D. J. Nagel, ‘‘Microsensor Clusters,’’ Microelectron. J. 33, 107–

119 (2002).

62. C. Keese, and I. Giaever, ‘‘A Biosensor that Monitors Cell

Morphology with Electric Fields,’’ IEEE Engineer. Medi. Biol.

435–445 (1994).

63. B. A. Cornell, V. L. B. Braach Maksvytis, L. G. King, P. D. J.

Osman, B. Raguse, L. Wieczorek, and R. J. Pace, ‘‘A Biosensor

that Uses Ion-Channel Switches,’’ Nature 387, 580–3 (1997).

64. B. H. Weigl, R. L. Bardell, and C. R. Cabrera, ‘‘Lab-on-a-Chip

for Drug Development,’’ Adv. Drug Del. Rev. 55, 349–377

(2003).

65. T. Footz, S. Wunsam, S. Kulak, H. J. Crabtree, D. M. Glerum,

and J. Backhouse Christopher, Sample puriﬁcation on a

microﬂuidic device. Electrophoresis 22, 3868–3875 (2001).

66. K. Handique, D. T. Burke, C. H. Mastrangelo, and M. A.

Burns, ‘‘Nanoliter-Volume Discrete Drop Injection and Pump-

ing in Microfabricated Chemical Analysis Systems,’’ Techni-

cal Digest. Solid State Sensor and Actuator Workshop.

Transducer Res. Found, Cleveland, OH, 1998, pp. 346–349.

67. B. H. Weigl, R. L. Bardell, N. Kesler, and C. J. Morris, ‘‘Lab-

on-a-Chip Sample Preparation using Laminar Fluid Diffusion

Interfaces-Computational Fluid Dynamics Model Results and

Fluidic Veriﬁcation Experiments,’’ Fresenius’ J. Analyt. Chem.

371, 97–105.

68. G. Bruin, ‘‘Recent Developments in Electrokinetically Driven

Analysis on Microfabricated Devices,’’ Electrophoresis 21,

3931–3951 (2000).

69. C. Jin Woo, and C. A. Ahn, ‘‘An Active Micro Mixer Using

Electrohydrodynamic (EHD) Convection [for Microﬂuidic-

Based Biochemical Analysis],’’ Technical Digest. Solid State

Sensor and Actuator Workshop 0001, 52–55 (2000).

70. J. Voldman, M. L. Gray, and M. A. Schmidt, ‘‘An Integrated

Liquid Mixer/Valve,’’ J. Microelectromech. Syst. 9, 295–302

(2000).

71. J. W. Grate, O. B. Egorov, and C. Bruckner Lea, ‘‘Sequential

Injection Separation and Sensing,’’ Proceedings of the SPIE

The International Society for Optical Engineering 3857, 70–

73 (1999).

72. J. Lichtenberg, N. F. de Rooij, and E. Verpoorte, ‘‘Sample

Pretreatment On Microfabricated Devices,’’ Talanta 56, 233–

266 (2002).

73. A. R. Minalla, and L. Bousse, ‘‘Characterization of Microchip

Separations,’’ Proceedings of the SPIE The International

Society for Optical Engineering 4177, 134–141 (2000).

74.

H.-C. Chang

, D. Leighton, A. Miller, A. Ostaﬁn, and P.

Takhistov, Presented at the AICHE, Los Angeles, CA, 2000.

75. H. Andersson, and A. van den Berg, ‘‘Microﬂuidic Devices for

Cellomics: A Review,’’ Sens. Actuato. B: Chemi. 92, 315–325

(2003).

76. O. Bakajin, R. Carlson, C. F. Chou, S. S. Chan, C. Gabel, J.

Knight, T. Cox, and R. H. Austin, Sizing, Fractionation and

Mixing of Biological Objects Via Microfabricated Devices,’’

Technical Digest. Solid State Sensor and Actuator Workshop,

Transducer Res. Found. Cleveland, OH, 1998 pp. 116-119.

77. D. Beysens, G. Forgacs, and J. A. Glazier, ‘‘Cell Sorting is

Analogous to Phase Ordering in Fluids,’’ Proc. Natl. Acad.

Sci. USA 9467–9471 (2000).

78. S. Fiedler, S.-G. Shirley, and T. Schnelle, ‘‘Dielectrophoretic

Sorting of Particles and Cells in a Microsystem,’’ Analyt.

Chem. 70, 1909–1915 (1998).

79. E. Zubritsky, ‘‘Sorting Cells,’’ Analyt. Chem. 71 (1999).

80. S. Gawad, M. Henschkel, Y. Leung Ki, R. Iuzzolino, L. Schild,

P. Lerch, and P. Renaud, ‘‘Fabrication Of A Microﬂuidic Cell

Analyzer In A Microchannel Using Impedance Spectroscopy,’’

1st Annual International IEEE EMBS Special Topic Confer-

ence on Microtechnologies in Medicine and Biology Proceed-

ings, 2000, pp. 297–301.

81. G. Nebe-von-Caron, P. Stephens, and A. Badley, ‘‘Bacterial

Detection and Differentiation by Cytometry and Fluorescent

Probes,’’ Proceedings RMS 34/1, 321–327 (1999).

82. C. Wouters Patrick, P. Bos Ad, and J. Ueckert, ‘‘Membrane

Permeabilization in Relation to Inactivation Kinetics of Lac-

tobacillus Species Due to Pulsed Electric Fields,’’ Applied

Environmen. Microbiol. 67, 3092–3101 (2001).

83. J. Cheng, L. Sheldon Edward, L. Wu, A. Uribe, O. Gerrue

Louis, J. Carrino, J. Heller Michael, and O. C. J. P, ‘‘Prepara-

tion and Hybridization Analysis of DNA/RNA from E. coli on

Microfabricated Bioelectronic Chips,’’ Nature Biotechnol. 16,

541–546 (1998).

84. M. Collasius, D. Hauffe, A. Dusterhoft, H. Hilbert, and R.

Himmelreich, ‘‘The Biorobot 96oo Automates Front-End Pro-

cedures of High-Throughput DNA Sequencing Projects,’’ La-

boratory Robot. Automa. 11, 316–319 (1999).

85. C. Aston, ‘‘Biological Warfare Canaries,’’ IEEE Spectrum (Oct

2001).

86. K. Peterson, Presented at the Electron devices meeting, 1996.

87. B. Meric, K. Kerman, D. Ozkan, P. Kara, S. Erensoy, U.S.

Akarca, M. Mascini, and M. Ozsoz, ‘‘Electrochemical DNA

Biosensor for the Detection of TT and Hepatitis B Virus from

PCR Ampliﬁed Real Samples by using Methylene Blue,’’

Talanta 56, 837–846 (2002).

88. S. S. Iqbal, M. W. Mayo, J. G. Bruno, B. V. Bronk, C. A. Batt,

and J. P. Chambers, ‘‘A Review of Molecular Recognition

Technologies for Detection of Biological Threat Agents,’’ Bio-

sens. Bioelectron. 15, 549–578 (2000).

89. Y. Takeuchi, ‘‘Magnetic Microparticles as Labeling or Con-

trast Medium for Medical Imaging, An In-Vitro Feasibility

Study,’’ 1807–1810 (1998).

90. T. A. Haley, and S. J. Mulvaney, ‘‘Advanced Process Control

Techniques for the Food Industry,’’ Trends Food Sci. Technolo.

6, 103–110 (1995).

91. M. N. Velasco-Garcia, and T. Mottram, ‘‘Biosensor Technology

Addressing Agricultural Problems,’’ Biosys. Engineer. 84,

1–12 (2003).

92. R. V. Tauxe, ‘‘Emerging Foodborne Pathogens,’’ Interna

t. J.

ood Microbiol. 78, 31–41 (2002).

93. E. de Boer, and R. R. Beumer, ‘‘Methodology for Detection and

Typing of Foodborne Microorganisms,’’ Internat. J. Food

Microbiol. 50, 119–130 (1999).

94. G. C. A. M. Bokken, R. J. Corbee, F. van Knapen, and A. A.

Bergwerff, ‘‘Immunochemical Detection of Salmonella Group

BIOSENSOR TECHNOLOGY FOR FOOD PACKAGING APPLICATIONS 135

B, D and E Using an Optical Surface Plasmon Resonance

Biosensor,’’ FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 222, 75–82 (2003).

95. P. Patel, ‘‘Biosensors for Measurement of Analytes Implicated

in Food Safety: A Review,’’ Trends Analyt. Chemi. 21, 96–116

(2000).

96. D. Ivnitski, E. Wilkins, H. T. Tien, and A. Ottova, ‘‘Electro-

chemical Biosensor Based on Supported Planar Lipid Bi-

layers for Fast Detection of Pathogenic Bacteria,’’

Electroche. Communicat. 2, 457–460 (2000).

97. Y. Liu, and Y. Li, ‘‘Detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7

Using Immunomagnetic Separation and Absorbance Mea-

surement,’’ J. Microbiol. Methods 51, 369–377 (2002).

98. I.-S. Park, and N. Kim, ‘‘Thiolated Salmonella Antibody

Immobilization onto the Gold Surface of Piezoelectric Quartz

Crystal,’’ Biosensors Bioelectron. 13, 1091–1097 (1998).

99. S. Susmel, G. G. Guilbault, and C. K. O’Sullivan, ‘‘Demon-

stration of Labeless Detection of Food Pathogens Using

Electrochemical Redox Probe and Screen Printed Gold Elec-

trodes,’’ Biosensors Bioelectro. 18, 881–889 (2003).

100. Y. Yano, M. Numata, H. Hachiya, S. Ito, T. Masadome, S.

Ohkubo, Y. Asano, and T. Imato, ‘‘Application of a Microbial

Sensor to the Quality Control of Meat Freshness,’’ Talanta

54, 255–262 (2001).

101. M. Graves, A. Smith, and B. Batchelor, ‘‘Approaches to

Foreign Body Detection in Foods,’’ Trends Food Sci. Technol.

9, 21–27 (1998).

102. B. Zhao, O. A. Basir, and G. S. Mittal, ‘‘A Self-Aligning

Ultrasound Sensor for Detecting Foreign Bodies in Glass

Containers,’’ Ultrasonics 41, 217–222 (2003).

103. M. Crochon, GLOVE, Development of an Instrumented Glove

to Assist the Quality Control and the Picker in Selecting

Fruits According to their Maturity. Cemagref-Itap, 1997.

104. J. Baerdemaeker, OPTIVEG, Online Optical Measurements

as a Basis for Control During Mild Heat Processing of

Vegetables, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department

Agrotechniek en Economie, 1998.

105. P. Grenier, ‘‘STAS, The Development of Spectroscopic Tech-

niques as Advanced Sensors for the Optimisation and Con-

trol of Food and Paper Processing,’’ Cemagref, 1996.

106. C. Zarotti, ‘‘DIFFRUIT, Diffuse Reﬂectance Spectroscopy for

the Evaluation of Fruit and Vegetable Internal Quality,’’

Vela Srl, 1996.

107. R. Chalucova, NIQAT, Non-Destructive NIR Technology for

Fruit and Vegetable Internal Quality Assessment, Eliminat-

ing the Skin Disturbing Effect, Institute for Horticulture

and Canned Foods, Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 2000.

108. R. Pujol, ‘‘Nipco, New Image Processing for Characterisation

of Olives and Other Fruits,’’ Instituto Tecnologico Agroali-

mentario, 1997.

109. A. Merkoci, and S. Alegret, ‘‘New Materials for Electroche-

mical Sensing IV,’’ Molecular Imprinted Polymers, Trends

Analyt. Chemi. 21, 717–725 (2002).

110. K. Mosbach, and O. Ramstrom, ‘‘The Emerging Technique of

Molecular Imprinting and Its Future Impact on Biotechnol-

ogy,’’ BioTechnology 14, 163–170 (1996).

111. F. W. Scheller, U. Wollenberger, A. Warsinke, and F. Lisdat,

‘‘Research and Development in Biosensors,’’ Curr. Opin.

Biotechnol. 12, 35–40 (2001).

112. M. Kempe, ‘‘CREAM, Cartridges with Molecularly Im-

printed Recognition Elements for Antibiotic Residue Mon-

itoring in Milk,’’ Lunds Universitet, Centre for Chemistry

and Chemical Engineering, 1999.

113. P. Patel, ‘‘Development of Novel and Robust Molecular

Imprint-Based Technology for the Real-Time Analysis of

Food Contaminants and Components,’’ Leatherhead Food

International, 1996.

14. P.

D. Patel, ‘‘(Bio)Sensors for Measurement of Analytes

Implicated in Food Safety: A Review, Trends in Analytical

Chem. 21, 96–115 (2002).

115. I. E. Tothill, ‘‘Biosensors Developments and Potential Appli-

cations in the Agricultural Diagnosis Sector,’’ Comput. Elec-

tron. Agricult. 30, 205–218 (2001).

116. V. Gaudin, J. Fontaine, and P. Maris, ‘‘Screening of Penicillin

Residues in Milk by a Surface Plasmon Resonance-Based

Biosensor Assay: Comparison of Chemical and Enzymatic

Sample Pre-Treatment,’’ Analyt. Chim. Acta 436, 191–198

(2001).

117. S. Setford, ‘‘FOODSAFE, Rapid Assessment of Food Safety Via

Novel At-Line Measurements,’’ Cranﬁeld University, 2000.

118. G. Guilbault, ‘‘RADAR, Development of Single and Muti-

Analyte Afﬁnity Sensors for Rapid Detection of Androgen

Residues in Live and Post-Mortem Animals,’’ University

College Cork, Treland, 2001.

119. M. V. Voinova, M. Jonson, and B. Kasemo, ‘‘Missing Mass’’

Effect in Biosensor’s QCM Applications,’’ Biosensors Bioelec-

tron. 17, 835–841 (2002).

120. T.-Z. Wu, ‘‘A Piezoelectric Biosensor as an Olfactory Receptor

for Odour Detection: Electronic Nose,’’ Biosensors Bioelec-

tron. 14, 9–18 (1999).

121. W. A. Collier, D. B. Baird, Z. A. Park-Ng, N. More, and A. L.

Hart, ‘‘Discrimination Among Milks and Cultured Dairy

Products Using Screen-Printed Electrochemical Arrays

and an Electronic Nose,’’ Sens. Actuat. B: Chem. 92, 232–

239 (2003).

122. G. Gholmieh, W. Soussou, S. Courellis, V. Marmarelis, T.

Berger, and M. Baudry, ‘‘A Biosensor For Detecting Changes

in Cognitive Processing Based on Nonlinear Systems Ana-

lysis,’’ Biosensors Bioelectron. 16, 491–501 (2001).

123. P. Barlett, J. Elliott, and J. Gardner, ‘‘Electronic Noses and

Their Application in the Food Industry,’’ Food Technol. 51,

44–48 (1997).

124. T. Tan, V. Schmitt, and S. Isz, ‘‘Electronic Tongue: A New

Dimension in Sensory Analysis,’’ Food Technol. 55, 44–50

(2001).

125. B. Chafer, ‘‘Assessment of Olfactory Characteristics of Olive

Oil by Electronic Sensing,’’ Oleicola El tejar Nuestra Senora

de Araceli Sci (1998).

126. R. Dutta, K. R. Kashwan, M. Bhuyan, E. L. Hines, and J. W.

Gardner, ‘‘Electronic Nose Based Tea Quality Standardiza-

tion,’’ Neural Networks 16, 847–853 (2003).

127. P. Ivarsson, Y. Kikkawa, F. Winquist, C. Krantz-Rulcker, N.-

E. Hojer, K. Hayashi, K. Toko, and I. Lundstrom, ‘‘Compar-

ison of a Voltammetric Electronic Tongue and a Lipid Mem-

brane Taste Sensor,’’ Analyt. Chim. Acta 449, 59–68 (2001).

128. A. Legin, A. Rudnitskaya, L. Lvova, Y. Vlasov, C. Di Natale,

and A. D’Amico, ‘‘Evaluation of Italian Wine by the Electro-

nic Tongue: Recognition, Quantitative Analysis and Correla-

tion with Human Sensory Perception,’’ Analy. Chim. Acta

484, 33–44 (2003).

129. D. A. Hennessy, J. Roosen, and H. H. Jensen, ‘‘Systemic

Failure in the Provision of Safe Food,’’ Food Policy 28, 77–96

(2003).

130. J. Sobal, L. Kettel Khan, and C. Bisogni, ‘‘A Conceptual

Model of the Food and Nutrition System,’’ Social Scie. Medi.

47,

853–863 (1998).

136 BIOSENSOR

TECHNOLOGY FOR FOOD PACKAGING APPLICATIONS

131. P. Willquist, and M. Torner, ‘‘Identifying and Analysing

Hazards in Manufacturing Industry--A Review of Selected

Methods and Development of a Framework for Method

Applicability,’’ Internat. J. Industr. Ergonom. 32, 165–180

(2003).

132. E. C. D. Todd, ‘‘Microbiological Safety Standards and Public

Health Goals to Reduce Foodborne Disease,’’ Meat Sci. 66,

33–43 (2004).

133. D. Hall, and J. Llinas, Handbook of Multisensor Data

Fusion. CRC Press, New York, 2001.

134. CIC 2000, posting date. Connectivity Industry Consortium.

http://www.poccic.org/index.shtml.

135. A. Reder, Regulating the Point of Care: The IVD Connectivity

Industry Consortium, Medical Device & Diagnostic Indus-

try, 2001.

General References

E. C. Alocilja, and S. M. Radke, Market Analysis of Biosensors for

Food Safety. Biosens. Bioelectron. 18, 841–846 (2003).

I. Brigger, C. Dubernet, and P. Couvreur, ‘‘Nanoparticles in

Cancer Therapy and Diagnosis,’’ Adv. Drug Deli. Rev. 54,

631–651 (2002).

O. Cohen-Haguenauer, ‘‘Safety and Regulation at the Leading

Edge of Biomedical Biotechnology,’’ Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 7,

265–272 (1996).

G. De Gasperis, Y. Jun, F. F. Becker, P. R. C. Gascoyne, and W.

Xiao Bo, ‘‘Microﬂuidic Cell Separation by 2-Dimensional Die-

lectrophoresis,’’ Biomed. Microdev. 2, 41–49 (1999).

D. Ellis, and R. Goodacre, ‘‘Rapid and Quantitative Detection of

the Microbial Spoilage of Muscle Foods: Current Status and

Future Trends,’’ Trends Food Sci. Technol. 12, 414–424 (2001).

R. Gomez, R. Bashir, and A. K. Bhunia, ‘‘Microscale Electronic

Detection of Bacterial Metabolism,’’ Sensors Actuat. B: Chem.

86, 198–208 (2002).

D. Grainger, ‘‘Biomedical Micro- and Nano-Technology,’’ Adva.

Drug Deli. Rev. 55, 311–313 (2003).

R. H. Hall, ‘‘Biosensor Technologies for Detecting Microbiological

Foodborne Hazards,’’ Microbes Infect. 4, 425–432 (2002).

W. Laureyn, D. Nelis, P. Van Gerwen, K. Baert, L. Hermans, R.

Magnee, J.-J. Pireaux, and G. Maes, ‘‘Nanoscaled Interdigi-

tated Titanium Electrodes for Impedimetric Biosensing,’’ Sen-

sors Actuat. B: Chem. 68, 360–370 (2000).

R. J. Lifset, ‘‘The Politics of Risk Assessment: Regulation of

Deliberate Release of Genetically Engineered Microorgan-

isms,’’ Technol. Society 8, 299–318 (1986).

G. Lillie, P. Payne, and P. Vadgama, ‘‘Electrochemical Impedance

Spectroscopy as a Platform for Reagentless Bioafﬁnity Sen-

sing,’’ Sensors Actuat B: (Chem.) B78, 249–256 (2001).

R. E. Mandrell, and M. R. Wachtel, ‘‘Novel Detection Techniques

for Human Pathogens that Contaminate Poultry,’’ Curr. Opin.

Biotechnol. 10, 273–278 (1999).

M. Mrksich, ‘‘What can Surface Chemistry do for Cell Biology?’’

Curr. Opin. Chemi. Biol. 6,

794-797 (2002).

Ponchel, and J.-M. Irache, ‘‘Speciﬁc and Non-Speciﬁc Bioadhe-

sive Particulate Systems for Oral Delivery to the Gastroin-

testinal Tract,’’ Adva. Drug Del. Revi. 34, 191–219 (1998).

M. E. Tess, and J. A. Cox, ‘‘Chemical and Biochemical Sensors

Based on Advances in Materials Chemistry,’’ J. Pharmaceuti.

Biomed. Anal. 19, 55–68 (1999).

T. Ujiie, A. Yamazaki, M. Watanabe, T. Okuda, T. Ichiki, and Y.

Horiike, ‘‘Microfabricated Separator And Manipulator Of

Blood Cells For Health Care Devices,’’ Digest Papers Micro-

process. Nanotechnol. 28–29 (2000).

C. D. W. Wilkinson, M. Riehle, M. Wood, J. Gallagher, and A. S. G.

Curtis, ‘‘The Use of Materials Patterned on a Nano- and Micro-

Metric Scale in Cellular Engineering,’’ Materials Sci. Engi-

neer: C 19, 263–269 (2002).

BLOW MOLDING

CHRISTOPHER IRWIN

Consultant, Michigan

Blow molding is a process for manufacturing containers,

jars, and bottles. It is also a process for manufacturing

other hollow objects such as double-walled tool cases,

parts for toys, automotive ductwork, fuel tanks, ﬂower-

pots, ﬂat cabinet panels, and so on.

Artisans have used the fundamental process for many

centuries to fashion glass bottles, jugs, and urns. Arche-

ologists discovered markings recording the glass blow-

molding process on the walls of Egyptian royal tombs

from 1800

B.C. (1). In the mid-20th century, with the

discovery of more suitable thermoplastic materials—in

particular, when low-density polyethylene became com-

mercially available following World War II and high-

density polyethylene became commercially available

about a decade later, (2)—bottle manufacturers began to

seriously consider thermoplastic materials as an alterna-

tive to glass. Bottles made of these materials have many

beneﬁts, including light weight, impact strength, and ease

of use convenience.

This article provides an introductory discussion of fun-

damental container-manufacturing processes currently in

use with thermoplastic materials. Primarily, the process

involves ﬁrst manufacturing a ‘‘pre-shape,’’ that is a par-

ison or preform, using either extrusion-molding or injec-

tion-molding methods. While synonymous terms, ‘‘parison’’

generally relates to extrusion-based methods and ‘‘pre-

form’’ relates to injection-based methods. Either of these

molding methods or approaches generally involves a plas-

ticizer that melts, pushes, and, with other tools, shapes the

material into the parison or preform. A female mold cavity,

having a shape of the container, captures (while still warm)

and then a ﬂow of pressurized air ‘‘re-shapes’’ the parison

or preform to conform to this cavity. Figure 1 is an array of

extrusion blow-molded bottles.

High-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyethylene

terephthalate (PET) are common thermoplastic materials

for containers. Other container materials include: poly-

propylene (PP), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), poly-

styrene (PS), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

HISTORY

An early commercial attempt to blow-mold hollow plastic

objects, a baby rattle, was in the later half of the 19th

BLOW MOLDING 137