Composite Polymers Development and Application for Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Technologies-A Review.

Nafion membranes are still the dominating material used in the polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) technologies. They are widely used in several applications thanks to their excellent properties: high proton conductivity and high chemical stability in both oxidation and reduction environment. However, they have several technical challenges: reactants permeability, which results in reduced performance, dependence on water content to perform preventing the operation at higher temperatures or low humidity levels, and chemical degradation. This paper reviews novel composite membranes that have been developed for PEM applications, including direct methanol fuel cells (DMFCs), hydrogen PEM fuel cells (PEMFCs), and water electrolysers (PEMWEs), aiming at overcoming the drawbacks of the commercial Nafion membranes. It provides a broad overview of the Nafion-based membranes, with organic and inorganic fillers, and non-fluorinated membranes available in the literature for which various main properties (proton conductivity, crossover, maximum power density, and thermal stability) are reported. The studies on composite membranes demonstrate that they are suitable for PEM applications and can potentially compete with Nafion membranes in terms of performance and lifetime.

Flavouring group evaluation 419 (FGE.419): 2-methyl-1-(2-(5-(p-tolyl)-1H-imidazol-2-yl)piperidin-1-yl)butan-1-one.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of 2-methyl-1-(2-(5-(p-tolyl)-1H-imidazol-2-yl)piperidin-1-yl)butan-1-one [FL-no: 16.134] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The substance has not been reported to occur naturally and is chemically synthesised. In food, it is intended to be used as a flavouring substance only in chewing gum. The chronic dietary exposure to [FL-no: 16.134] was estimated to be 45 µg/person per day for a 60-kg adult and 28.4 µg/person per day for a 15-kg 3-year-old child. [FL-no: 16.134] did not show genotoxicity in a bacterial reverse mutation test and an in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus assay. Based on the submitted toxicokinetic and metabolism data, it can be predicted that the flavouring substance is metabolised to innocuous products only. The Panel derived a lower confidence limit of the benchmark dose (BMDL) of 0.71 mg/kg bw per day for a 20% increase in the relative thyroid (including parathyroid) weight observed in a 90-day toxicity study in rats. Based on this BMDL, adequate margins of exposure of 887 and 374 could be calculated for adults and children, respectively. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for [FL-no: 16.134], when used as a flavouring substance at the estimated level of dietary exposure, based on the intended use and use levels as specified in Appendix B. The Panel further concluded that the combined exposure to [FL-no: 16.134] from its use as a food flavouring substance and from its presence in toothpaste and mouthwash is also not of safety concern.

Flavouring Group Evaluation 413 (FGE.413): Naringenin.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of naringenin [FL-no: 16.132] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. No other substances with sufficient structural similarity have been identified in existing FGEs that could be used to support a read-across approach. The information provided on the manufacturing process, the composition and the stability of [FL-no: 16.132] was considered sufficient. From studies carried out with naringenin, the Panel concluded that there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. The use of naringenin as a flavouring substance at added portions exposure technique (APET) exposure levels is unlikely to pose a risk for drug interaction. For the toxicological evaluation of naringenin, the Panel requested an extended one-generation toxicity study on naringenin, in line with the requirements of the Procedure and to investigate the consequence of a possible endocrine-disrupting activity. The Panel considered that changes in thymus weight, litter size, post-implantation loss and a consistent reduced pup weight in the high-dose F2 generation could not be dismissed and selected therefore, the mid-dose of 1320 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for the parental males as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of the study. The exposure estimates for [FL-no: 16.132] (31,500 and 50,000 µg/person per day for children and adults, respectively) were above the threshold of toxicological of concern (TTC) for its structural class (III). Using the NOAEL of 1320 mg/kg bw per day at step A4 of the procedure, margins of exposure (MoE) of 1590 and 630 could be calculated for adults and children, respectively. Based on the calculated MoEs, the Panel concluded that the use of naringenin as a flavouring substance does not raise a safety concern.

Safety of soy leghemoglobin from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii as a food additive.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of soy leghemoglobin from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii as a food additive in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The proposed food additive, LegH Prep, is intended to be used as a colour in meat analogue products. The yeast Komagataella phaffii strain MXY0541 has been genetically modified to produce soy leghemoglobin; the safety of the genetic modification is under assessment by the EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA-GMO-NL-2019-162). The amount of haem iron provided by soy leghemoglobin from its proposed uses in meat analogue products is comparable to that provided by similar amounts of different types of meat. The exposure to iron from the proposed food additive, both at the mean and 95th percentile exposure, will be below the 'safe levels of intake' established by the NDA Panel for all population groups. Considering that the components of the proposed food additive will be digested to small peptide, amino acids and haem B; the recipient (non GM) strain qualifies for qualified presumption of safety status; no genotoxicity concern has been identified and no adverse effects have been identified at the highest dose tested in the available toxicological studies, the Panel concluded that there was no need to set a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) and that the food additive does not raise a safety concern at the proposed use in food category 12.9 and maximum use level. The Panel concluded that the use of soy leghemoglobin from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii MXY0541 as a new food additive does not raise a safety concern at the proposed use and use level. This safety evaluation of the proposed food additive remains provisional subject to the ongoing safety assessment of the genetic modification of the production strain by the GMO Panel (EFSA-GMO-NL-2019-162).

Flavouring Group Evaluation 80, Revision 2 (FGE.80Rev2): Consideration of alicyclic, alicyclic-fused and aromatic-fused ring lactones evaluated by the JECFA (61st and 82nd meetings) structurally related to an aromatic lactone evaluated in FGE.27.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 14 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 80 (FGE.80), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Thirteen substances have already been considered in FGE.80 and its revision and in FGE.96 [FL-no: 10.005, 10.024, 10.025, 10.050, 10.061, 10.069, 10.070, 10.072, 10.169, 13.009, 13.012, 13.161 and 16.055]. The remaining flavouring substance 3a,4,5,7a-tetrahydro-3,6-dimethylbenzofuran-2(3H)-one [FL-no: 10.057] has been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.217Rev3 and it is considered in this revision 2 of FGE.80. The substance [FL-no: 10.057] was evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that [FL-no: 10.057] does not give rise to safety concerns at its levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substance, the specifications for the material of commerce have also been considered and the information provided was complete for [FL-no: 10.057]. However, for the flavouring substance [FL-no: 10.057] in the present revision and for eight substances evaluated in previous revisions, the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes' (mTAMDIs) values are above the TTC for their structural class (III). For four substances previously evaluated in FGE.80Rev1 and in FGE.96, use levels are still needed to calculate the mTAMDI estimates. Therefore, in total for 13 flavouring substances, data on uses and use levels should be provided to finalise their safety evaluations. For [FL-no: 10.050, 10.069 and 13.161], information on the composition of stereoisomeric mixtures is needed.

Re-evaluation of shellac (E 904) as a food additive and a new application on the extension of use of shellac (E 904) in dietary foods for special medical purposes.

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of shellac (E 904) when used as a food additive and with the new application on the extension of use of shellac (E 904) in dietary foods for special medical purposes. The Panel derived an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for wax-free shellac (E 904) produced by physical decolouring, based on a NOAEL of 400 mg/kg bw per day and applying an uncertainty factor of 100. The Panel concluded that the ADI of 4 mg/kg bw per day should be considered temporary for wax-free shellac (E 904) produced by chemical bleaching, while new data are generated on the identity and levels of the organochlorine impurities in E 904. This ADI is not applicable for wax-containing shellac as a food additive. For several age groups, the ADI was exceeded at the 95th percentile in the non-brand-loyal exposure assessment scenario and maximum level exposure assessment scenario. Considering the low exceedance and the fact that both the exposure estimation and the toxicological evaluation of shellac were conservative, the panel concluded that the calculated exceedance of the ADI does not indicate a safety concern. The Panel recommended to the European Commission separating specifications for E 904 depending on the manufacturing process, chemical bleaching and physical decolouring, because they result in different impurities; revising the definition of the food additive to include a description of each manufacturing process; deleting information on wax-containing shellac from the EU specifications; revising the acid value for wax-free shellac produced by chemical bleaching; lowering the maximum limit for lead; to consider introducing limits for other toxic elements potentially present in shellac; including a maximum limit for chloroform and total inorganic chloride in the EU specification for shellac produced by chemical bleaching.

Effects of municipal waste compost on microbial biodiversity and energy production in terrestrial microbial fuel cells.

Microbial Fuel Cells (MFCs) transform organic matter into electricity through microbial electrochemical reactions catalysed on anodic and cathodic half-cells. Terrestrial MFCs (TMFCs) are a bioelectrochemical system for bioelectricity production as well as soil remediation. In TMFCs, the soil is the ion-exchange electrolyte, whereas a biofilm on the anode oxidises organic matter through electroactive bacteria. Little is known of the overall microbial community composition in a TMFC, which impedes complete exploitation of the potential to generate energy in different soil types. In this context, an experiment was performed to reveal the prokaryotic community structure in single chamber TMFCs with soil in the presence and absence of a municipal waste compost (3% w/v). The microbial community was assessed on the anode and cathode and in bulk soil at the end of the experiment (54 days). Moreover, TMFC electrical performance (voltage and power) was also evaluated over the experimental period, varying the external resistance to improve performance. Compost stimulated soil microbial activity, in line with a general increase in voltage and power. Significant differences were observed in the microbial communities between initial soil conditions and TMFCs, and between the anode, cathode and bulk soil in the presence of the compost. Several electroactive genera (Bacillus, Fulvivirga, Burkholdeira and Geobacter) were found at the anode in the presence of compost. Overall, the use of municipal waste compost significantly increased the performance of the MFCs in terms of electrical power and voltage generated, not least thanks to the selective pressure towards electroactive bacteria on the anode.