Applications of Nanotechnology in the Food Industry

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. Nanotechnology in Food Industry • Topics: • Food applications of nanotechnology • Potential safety concerns http://www.logforum.net/vol4/issue3/no4/pliki/image3.jpg

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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://image.ogp.wa.gov.au/portals/1/39404/CUA39404_1000329_227.gif http://www.internetchemie.info/news/2009/nov09/images/nanocapsule.jpg http://farm1.static.flickr.com/11/16398859_014d5c627e.jpg

9. 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_e04a66385d70c2dd6ecdf4ba1db6bc46.jpg

10. Safety & Environment http://www.jumpthecurve.net/images/uploads/strawberry_485.jpg

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Environmental • Biodegreadablenanomaterial • Clay nanoparticles • Beer bottles , soft drinks, containers http://cornbloat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/biodegradable-cup.jpg

15. Handling • Nanotechnology-based pesticides http://www.commerceequitable.com/images/pesticides.jpg

16. 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

17. What you are ingesting right now? • Polyamides • Nylons • Polyolefins • Polystyrene • EVA • Epoxy resins • Polyurethane • Etc.

18. 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

19. Toxicology • Few studies • Mostly unknown http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http:///forensicfact.files.wordpress.com/2008

20. Regulation • Permit process • Differentiation • Particle size • Risk assessment • Development? • Lagging indicator approach http://blogs.ft.com/gapperblog/files/2008/03/bank-regulation.jpg

21. Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology Managing the Health and Safety Concerns Associated with Engineered Nanomaterials Produced by the Department of Health and Human Services

22. 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 Formation of collagen following deposition of SWCNTs in the lungs of mice http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009-125/pdfs/2009-125.pdf

23. 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)

24. 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].

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. S3 Rebuttal Michael Koetting Bradford Lamb James Kancewick

29. 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.

30. Group 1 Evaluation of Group 3 Presentation: Nanotechnology in the Food Industry By Group 3

31. Positive Notes • 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

32. Opportunities for Improvement • 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.

33. S2 review of 2ndS3 Applications of Nanotechnology in Food Industry

34. The Good • References for all figures • Very relevant to everyday life • Lots of information included despite hurdles with trade secrets

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

36. ReviewGroup S3 – second presentationReview by group S4Joshua MorenoDanielle MillerScott Marwil

37. Things done well • Good text size and eye appealing slides that were easy to look at • A 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

38. Recommendations • Many 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.

39. Group S5REVIEW of Food Industry Group 5 Trevor Seidel Laura Young PradipRijal Jason Savatsky

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. S6CHEN 4812nd Presentation by S3 Review John Baumhardt Daniel Arnold Michael Trevathan Michael Tran

43. 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).

44. 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.