Applications of Nanotechnology in
the Food Industry
April 9, 2010
http://www.motherearthnews.com/uploadedImages/Blog
s/Relish!/Food-Safety.jpg
S3: James Kancewick, Michael Koetting, Bradford Lamb
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/out
ofthelaboratory.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/200
9/02/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_im
ages/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://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/11/1
6398859_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
_e04a66385d70c2dd6ecdf4ba1db6bc46.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/wpcontent/themes/foodpolitics/images/bk4.jp
g
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/wpcontent/uploads/2009/02/lycopene.jpg
Environmental
• Biodegreadable nanomaterial
– Clay nanoparticles
• Beer bottles , soft drinks, containers
http://cornbloat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/biodegradablecup.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/rej
ected.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/colonimage.jpg
Toxicology
• Few studies
• Mostly unknown
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http:///forensicfact.files.wordpr
ess.com/2008
Regulation
• Permit process
• Differentiation
– Particle size
• Risk assessment
• Development?
• Lagging indicator approach
http://blogs.ft.com/gapperblog/files/2008/03/bankregulation.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
Formation of collagen following deposition of SWCNTs in the
lungs of mice
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009-125/pdfs/2009-125.pdf
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=a79109093
2&fulltext=713240928
• http://lildbi.bireme.br/lildbi/docsonline/lilacs/20090700/514_curre
nt_18.pdf
• http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/ArticleLinking.cfm?Jo
urnalCode=CS&Year=2009&ManuscriptID=b801739p&Iss=4
• http://www.plunkettresearch.com/Industries/FoodBeverageToba
cco/FoodBeverageTobaccoStatistics/tabid/248/Default.aspx
S3 Rebuttal
Michael Koetting
Bradford 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.
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

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.
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
Review
Group S3 – second presentation
Review by group S4
Joshua Moreno
Danielle Miller
Scott Marwil
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
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.
Group S5
REVIEW of Food Industry
Group 5
Trevor Seidel
Laura Young
Pradip 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.
S6
CHEN 481
2nd Presentation by S3 Review
John Baumhardt
Daniel Arnold
Michael Trevathan
Michael 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 realworld 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.