This review analyzes ethylene scavengers for postharvest packaging, highlighting their role in reducing produce loss.
Ethylene (C 2 H 4 ) is a volatile plant hormone that accelerates ripening and senescence in ethylene-sensitive fruits and vegetables, posing challenges to fresh produce industries. Ethylene scavengers as an active food packaging system have emerged as a promising solution to maintain the quality of fresh produce. While numerous ethylene scavenging materials have been developed, their effective translation into commercial applications depends on incorporation methods, packaging format design, and real-time performance validation. This review critically examines incorporation methodologies of ethylene scavengers into functional packaging systems, emphasizing the mechanistic interplay between scavenger chemistry, carrier matrix properties, and packaging format architecture. We systematically evaluate natural adsorbents (activated carbon, zeolites, halloysite nanotubes, agricultural waste derivatives) and synthetic systems (permanganate oxidizers, photocatalytic metal oxides, palladium catalysts) in different packaging formats: sachets, active films, edible coatings, and absorbent pads. Critical gaps are identified in standardized performance metrics, real-world validation protocols, and material behavior under temperature fluctuations (2-25°C) and relative humidity variations (75-95% RH). The influence of packaging design parameters, including scavenger loading capacity, distribution homogeneity, mass transfer kinetics, and carrier-scavenger interfacial compatibility on ethylene removal efficiency is quantitatively analyzed. Regulatory frameworks governing food contact materials, migration limits, and sustainability metrics are comprehensively addressed. This review provides evidence-based guidelines for developing commercially viable, environmentally sustainable ethylene-scavenging packaging systems that address the substantial postharvest loss challenge. • Natural and synthetic ethylene scavengers systematically compared for postharvest use • Incorporation into sachets, films, edible coatings, and MAP integration analyzed • Commercial systems evaluated with validated shelf-life extension • Critical gaps in laboratory testing and real time application identified • Regulatory frameworks and sustainability metrics assessed for food contact use
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pawde et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: