Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Scientific Opinion on the criteria to be used for safety evaluation of a mechanical recycling process to produce recycled PET intended to be used for manufacture of materials and articles in contact with food

Open access
EFSA Panel on food contact materials, enzymes, flavourings and processing aids (CEF)·2011·EFSA Journal

Abstract

This scientific opinion of EFSA deals with the criteria to be used for safety evaluation of a recycling process to produce recycled PET intended to be used for manufacture of materials and articles in contact with food. The principle of the evaluation is to apply the cleaning efficiency of a recycling technology or process, obtained from a challenge test with surrogate contaminants, to a reference contamination level for post consumer PET, conservatively set a 3 mg/kg PET for a contaminant resulting from possible misuse. The resulting residual concentration of each contaminant in recycled PET (Cres) is then compared to a modelled concentration in PET (Cmod). This Cmod is calculated using generally recognized conservative migration models such that the related migration does not give rise to a dietary exposure exceeding 0.0025 μg/kg bw/day, the human exposure threshold value for chemicals with structural alerts raising concern for potential genotoxicity, below which the risk to human health would be negligible. The default scenario, when the recycled PET is intended for general use, is that of an infant weighing 5 kg and consuming every day 0.75 l of water coming from a water bottle manufactured from 100% recycled PET. According to this scenario, it can be derived that the highest concentration of a substance in water that would ensure that the dietary exposure of 0.0025 µg/kg bw/day is not exceeded, is 0.017 μg/kg food. Taking into account that generally agreed diffusion modelling overestimates migration by at least 5 times, a calculated migration less than 0.1 µg/kg in food would satisfy the above criterion for the default exposure scenario. In the case of the other exposure scenarios for adults and toddlers, the relevant migration criterion will accordingly be 0.75 and 0.15 µg/kg food. Therefore if a recycling process is able to reduce an input reference contamination of 3 mg/kg PET to a Cres not higher than a Cmod corresponding to the relevant migration criterion, the potential dietary exposure cannot be higher than 0.0025 µg/kg bw/day and recycled PET manufactured with such recycling process is not considered of safety concern. The Panel considered appropriate that the proportion of PET from non-food consumer applications should be no more than 5% in the input to be recycled.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2184

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
EFSA Panel on food contact materials, E.
Venue
EFSA Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-07
Volume
9
Issue
7
ISSN
1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2555304967
Cited by
334
References
0
FWCI
21.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Scientific Opinion on the criteria to be used for safety evaluation of a mechanical recycling process to produce recycled PET intended to be used for manufacture of materials and articles in contact with food. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2184
The paper
EFSA Panel on food contact materials, E. (2011). Scientific Opinion on the criteria to be used for safety evaluation of a mechanical recycling process to produce recycled PET intended to be used for manufacture of materials and articles in contact with food. EFSA Journal. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2184

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.