Applications of Nanotechnology in the Food Industry

April 9, 2010

S3: James Kancewick, Michael Koetting, Bradford Lamb

http://www.motherearthnews.com/uploadedImages/Blogs/Relish!/Food-Safety.jpg

Food Industry• Currently $1.6 trillion

industry in U.S. sales alone

• Reasons for using nanotechnology:– Better quality– Improved/New tastes– Reduced cost– Prolonged shelf-life– Healthier food

• Leads to higher profit http://www.nano.org.uk/news/march2009/1820.jpg

Nanotechnology in Food Industry

• U.S. is current leader in nanofood technology– Expected to be

surpassed by China in near future

• Most new research is kept private by companies– Difficult to know exact

scale/state of research

• Estimate: $20 billion in nanofood use/research http://nano.foe.org.au/sites/default/files/

outofthelaboratory.jpeg

Nanotechnology in Food Industry• Topics:

– Food applications of nanotechnology– Potential safety concerns

http://www.logforum.net/vol4/issue3/no4/pliki/image3.jpg

Nanofood• Applications of

nanotechnology to food:– Altering texture of food

components– Encapsulating food

components or additives– Controlling release of

flavors– Enhancing properties of

nutrients (e.g. solubility)http://lamarguerite.files.wordpress.com/

2009/02/nanofood.jpg

Enhanced Nutrient Solubility• NovaSOL (by Aquanova Germany)

– Uses “product micelles” (~30 nm diameter) to encapsulate insoluble nutrients into amphiphilic structures

– Allows food additives to be delivered in clear solutions

– Micelle structure increases bioavailability• 4x better absorption in cells

http://www.marcohi-tech.com/materials/NovaSOL-Lipoic.pdf

Altered Texture• Unilever has developed a

low-fat ice cream using nano-scaled emulsion particles– Uses 90% less emulsion to

give the same highly consistent texture

– Therefore, as “creamy” as regular ice cream with a fat content decrease from ~16% to ~1%

• Similar technology being used in mayonnaise http://artbistro.monster.com/nfs/artbistro/

attachment_images/0021/9079/Ice_20CreamSundae.jpg

Encapsulation of Additives

• Tip Top UP bread– Introduces Omega-3 from fish oil into

bread– Oil is held in nano-capsules that prevent

oxidation, eliminating any fishy odor

http://www.internetchemie.info/news/2009/nov09/images/

nanocapsule.jpg

http://image.ogp.wa.gov.au/portals/1/39404/

CUA39404_1000329_227.gif

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/11/16398859_014d5c627e.jpg

Interactive Foods

• Use nano-capsule technology to change food based on user-preferences

• For example, one tasteless, colorless beverage contains nano-capsules of differently colored/flavored ingredients

• Different microwave frequencies select which color/flavor is released

http://mrlholistics.com/images/stockxpertcom_id9348472_jpg_e04a66385d70c2dd6ecdf4ba

1db6bc46.jpg

Safety & Environment

http://www.jumpthecurve.net/images/uploads/strawberry_485.jpg

Pros & Cons

• Pros– Processing foods– Safer based on health– Environmentally friendly packaging– Handling

• Cons– Possible food contamination– Bioaccumulation/ Bioconcentration– Toxicology (oxidative damage to cell)– Changed nutrient body profile– Profitability driven

http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/themes/foodpolitics/images/bk4.jpg

Processing Foods

• Why would we process foods?– Ensure microbiology safety

• Heat-treatment• fermentation• kilning• curing• etc.

– Even though profitability driven– Increase nutrition absorption http://blog.bioethics.net/image.jpg

Health Safety

• Encapsulation– Mask taste– Health benefits– Lycopene(synthetic)

• Prostrate cancer• cardiovascular health• Cervix health

http://theprostatebook.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/lycopene.jpg

Environmental

• Biodegreadable nanomaterial– Clay nanoparticles

• Beer bottles , soft drinks, containers

http://cornbloat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/biodegradable-cup.jpg

Handling

• Nanotechnology-based pesticides

http://www.commerceequitable.com/images/pesticides.jpg

Possible Food Contamination

• Effects through GI unknown• Free engineered nanoparticles• Protein accumulation in

nuclei– DNA impairment

• Indirect

http://www.msuextension.org/nutrition/documents/safeaid/rejected.jpg

What you are ingesting right now?

• Polyamides• Nylons• Polyolefins• Polystyrene• EVA• Epoxy resins• Polyurethane• Etc.

Bioaccumulation

• Healthy digestive system• Absorption through gut• Free engineered cells

– Oxyradicals– Cell damage

• Knowledge gaps• Consequences

– Health, blood

http://acaiberriesdiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/colon-image.jpg

Toxicology

• Few studies • Mostly unknown

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http:///forensicfact.files.wordpress.com/2008

Regulation

• Permit process• Differentiation

– Particle size• Risk assessment• Development? • Lagging indicator approach

http://blogs.ft.com/gapperblog/files/2008/03/bank-regulation.jpg

Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology

Managing the Health and Safety Concerns Associated with Engineered Nanomaterials

Produced by the Department of Health and Human Services

Potential Health Concerns

• Exposure Routes– Inhalation

• Effects Seen in Animal Studies– In rats at equivalent mass doses,

insoluble ultrafine particles are causing pulmonary inflammation, tissue damage, and lung tumors

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009-125/pdfs/2009-125.pdf

Formation of collagen following deposition of SWCNTs in the lungs of mice

Single Walled Carbon Nanotubes

• SWCNT were instilled into the lungs of rats– At 1 to 5 mg/ kg weight multi-focal

granulomas were observed.– Based on their findings in mice, Shvedova

et al. [2005] estimated that workers may be at risk of developing lung lesions if they were exposed to SWCNT over a period of 20 days at the current OSHA PEL for graphite (5 mg/m3)

Potential Safety Hazards

• Fire and Explosion Risk– nanoscale combustible material could present a

higher risk than a similar quantity of coarser material, given its unique properties

• Risk of Catalytic Reactions– Depending on their composition and structure,

some nanomaterials may initiate catalytic reactions that, based on their chemical composition, would not otherwise be anticipated [Pritchard 2004].

Guidelines For Working with Engineered Nanomaterials

• Risk Management Program– Engineering Controls– Dust collection efficiency filters– Work Practices– Personal protective clothing– Respirators– Cleanup and disposal of Nanomaterials

Research Needs

• Exposure Assessment– How people get exposed to nanoparticles

in the work place• Toxicity and Internal Dose

– Investigate and determine the physical and chemical properties that influence the potential toxicity of nanomaterials

Sources

• http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a791090932&fulltext=713240928

• http://lildbi.bireme.br/lildbi/docsonline/lilacs/20090700/514_current_18.pdf

• http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/ArticleLinking.cfm?JournalCode=CS&Year=2009&ManuscriptID=b801739p&Iss=4

• http://www.plunkettresearch.com/Industries/FoodBeverageTobacco/FoodBeverageTobaccoStatistics/tabid/248/Default.aspx

S3 Rebuttal

Michael KoettingBradford Lamb

James Kancewick

Rebuttal

• We appreciate all the positive comments regarding our presentation.

• The main complaint with our presentation seems to be that our applications were not in-depth enough. – We agree that this is the case; however, due to the private

nature of most of this research, there is simply not a vast amount of information available regarding the specifics of the nanotechnology’s use, as companies do not want their research being made public for other companies to see.

– Therefore, due to the lack of detailed information, we presented a variety of applications to make the presentation interesting despite a necessarily superficial treatment of each application.

Group 1 Evaluation of Group 3

Presentation:Nanotechnology in the Food Industry

By Group 3

Slides had good format◦ Large, easily readable, text◦ Lots of relevant graphics

The group gave a good overall presentation on how nanotechnology in the food industry not only effects food products, but how the industry can be changed on a global scale.

Presenters answered questions with further information than what was presented◦ Showed good preparation for presentation

But the presentation was information-light, so adding the info to the slides would have been helpful

Positive Notes

The team as a whole could have practiced more◦ Rushed pace◦ Looked at monitor often◦ While they seemed to at least be familiar with the

information they were presenting, it didn’t seem like anyone really had a solid understanding of the topic.

Seemed like the group could not find adequate information for presentation◦ Little detail in slides◦ Would have been better to focus on one or two food

topics and give more details and data rather than present so many different topics with fewer data.

Opportunities for Improvement

S2 review of 2nd S3 Applications of Nanotechnology in Food Industry

The Good

• References for all figures• Very relevant to everyday life• Lots of information included despite hurdles

with trade secrets

The Bad

• Didn’t focus on specific paper(s)• Not really an introduction• Boring, if effective background

ReviewGroup S3 – second presentationReview by group S4Joshua MorenoDanielle MillerScott Marwil

Things done wellGood text size and eye appealing slides that

were easy to look atA wide range of topics concerning the topic

were effectively covered and elaborated on to some degree

All group members during the presentation knew the material and presented it well

RecommendationsMany of the illustrations, while nice to look

at, provided no substance to the presentation as a whole

There was no conclusion or recommendations by the presenters located in the presentation. Presentation needed a closing section.

Group S5REVIEW of Food Industry

Group 5Trevor SeidelLaura YoungPradip Rijal

Jason Savatsky

Presentation Review

• The third speaker did not seem very knowledgeable on the topic.

• The third speaker also seemed to read from the slides.

• One of the graphics was stretched out on the presentation slide. It looked like they didn’t take time to put it together—rushed.

Presentation Review

• The first two speakers did a very good job. They spoke slowly and clearly and were easy to understand.

• The presentation content was very interesting and well developed.

• The areas discussed were relevant to the audience, which helped to keep interest.

S6CHEN 481

2nd Presentation by S3 Review

John BaumhardtDaniel Arnold

Michael TrevathanMichael Tran

Review• Slide layout was agreeable and pleasant to look at

most of the time, there are some slides with dead space that should have been utilized.

• The presentation was detailed and well thought out.• The presentation was very segmented between the

group members, which results in an absence of presentation flow among the members.

• The presentation overall was quite good, and the audience was acknowledged frequently (good eye contact).

Critique of Information• The research seemed very broad and encompassing, we

would like to have seen a more in depth analysis of the material. Example: instead of telling us that nanotechnology use leads to higher profit, show a side by side comparison of profit before and after nanotechnology applications.

• Even with the segments, the addition of a section with a real-world application slide was great. We like to see the actual use of this research.

• We would recommend more time and space be devoted to this real-world application. This is the most interesting part of any presentation for future engineers and we felt that it should have been the presentation focus.